Loading...
City Council Packet - 08/12/1997 i , _i 1 l CITY OF ■ IGARD OREGON C) TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING t 1 I t j i AUGUST 12, 1997 i COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED .I i:ladmUo%ccokt1.doe l j 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 i I i f CITY OF TIGARD j TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING AUGUST 12, 1997 6:30 P,M- TIGARD CITY HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 i PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. i Imes noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present `~:3y 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be I scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). 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 interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). j SEE ATTACHED AGENDA i J q ~ 4 COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 1 I AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 12, 1997 ~30 P.M. e STUDY SESSION i > Executive Session: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this - ! meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media I are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. > City Events: Policy Discussion on City Participation and Contributions i > National League of Cities Conference - Distribute Information 7:30 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call E 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance , 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports I 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items PRESENTATION: APPRECIATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR KATHY DAVIS LIBRARY 1 DIRECTOR AND CITY EMPLOYEE FOR OVER 21 YEARS 7:35 p.m. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) i 7:40 p.m. 4. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: ; . 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: June 17, 24 and July 8 and 15, 1997 I j 4.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 4.3 Amend the City of Tigard's ICMA Deferred Compensation Plan and Trust Agreement in Accordance with Internal Revenue Code Amendments - Resolution No. 97- 3 y 4.4 Approve Acquisition of Property Located within the Fanno Creek Right of Way (listed in the 1997-98 Capital Improvement Program) and Authorize the Mayor to Sign the Purchase and Sale Agreement 4.5 Approve Budget Adjustment for Business Tax Revenue - Resolution No. 97- 3 / 4.6 Approve Intergovernmental Aareement fnr Properly Acquisition - - y ~uvn at uw 111MIOCULIU11 _ of Walnut and Tiedeman Avenues and Authorize the Mayor to Sign the Agreement U 4.7 Adopt Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District Ordinance No. 96-01 - Resolution No. 1i 97 L t f ` COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 2 a i I 1 3 4.8 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award Bid to Ward-Henshaw Construction Company for the Menlor r Reservoir Project • Consent Agenda - items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be I considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 7:45 p.m. 5. PUBLIC COMMENT: GREENSPACES PROGRAM - PROPOSALS FOR CHANGES TO THE CITY'S OFFICIAL LIST OF GREENSPACE PROJECTS AND TO THE PROCESS USED TO IMPLEMENT THESE PROJECTS a. Staff Report: Community Development Department b. Public Comment e. Council Questions/Comments 1 f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Deliberation: Motion for Direction 8:45 p.m. 6. UPDATE: TREE PLANTING PROGRAM j Public Works Director j 9:00 P.M. - - - j 7. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 18) BY ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES BY ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER: TMC 18.152 i a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony (Opponents, Proponents) e. Council Questions r f. Close Public Hearing g. Staff Recommendation h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 97- 03 9:30 p.m. ` 8. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - VACATION - PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY (Approximately 4,172 Square Feet of Public Right of Way abutting SW Pacific Highway (99W), south of Park Street, and adjacent to Tigard Marketplace) a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony (Opponents, Proponents, Rebuttal) e. Council Questions ! f. Close Public Hearing - g. Staff Recommendation h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 97- 0`] j 9:45 p.m. COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 3 I E i I o•" 's 9: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF FRANCHISE AGREEMENT - METROPOLITAN FIBER SYSTEMS f OF OREGON, INC. (MFS) Finance Director - Council Discussion . Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 97-j(MFS) 9:55 P.M. 10. UPDATE: TIGARD TRIANGLE Community Development Director 10:15 p.m. j 11. COUNCIL REVIEW - REQUEST BY STAFF FOR CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENT TO CONNECT TO PUBLIC SEWER (TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS) Community Development Director 10:3 0 p.m. 12. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 10:40 p.m. 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions j d within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed j by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 71,1:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT iaadmlcathy1cca1470812•doc I i COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 4 Agenda Item No. i Meeting of C C1 i(( I TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 • STUDY SESSION i > Meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Legal Counsel Pam Beery; Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff; Associate Planner Will D'Andrea; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Finance Director Wayne Lowry; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; Building Official David Scott; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley. > Monopole decision - Mayor Nicoli spoke to the call up of the monopole decision. He asked that the planning and j legal staff look at the Council's concerns with respect to what the City Code said they could or could not do. Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, noted the public hearing later on this meeting's agenda regarding the wireless communication ordinance. Bill Monahan, City Manager, reviewed his understanding of the Mayor's proposal to call up the monopole decision on a future agenda, and to open the public hearing on the wireless communication ordinance, and continue it until after the public hearing on the monopole. If other issues were raised during the monopole hearing, they could be factored into the standards. Mayor Nicoli said that he had no problem with adopting the ordinance tonight if applications coming in under the old standards were a concern. Mr. Hendryx said that at the public hearing tonight staff would explain how the two recent controversial monopole decisions would have been handled under the proposed standards. E Mr. Hendryx reported that staff has looked into the issue of compliance with the Code and fk development standards raised by the citizens requesting Council call up. He said that staff could not ascertain that there was any violation. Pam Beery, Legal Counsel, referenced the petition distributed by Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder, requesting a Council call up of the decision. She advised the Council to reserve discussion of the merits of the application for the Hearings Officer. Mayor Nicoli asked if staff could communicate with the neighbors on what issues the Council saw in tiliS matter prior to the hearing. Ms. Beery said iilai Stai iaiking wlin dic imighbuls was not an ex parte contact. She advised that if the Council did call this up, that they not enter into dialogue with the public about it. However if citizens wanted to testify on the ordinance tonight, the Mayor should direct them to not make comments directed towards a particular TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 1 o s j j I site. They should make the meeting minutes part of the record of for the hearing so everyone would have the opportunity to rebut any comments. Councilor Scheckla expressed concern about the number of poles required and the spacing between them. Ms. Beery said that the new ordinance addressed the concern quite well. Staff recommended asking the franchise representatives those questions. Ms. Beery reviewed the collocation protocol mandated in the ordinance. She pointed out the additional incentive for the companies in that collocation was cheaper than a new pole. Mr. Hendryx noted the aesthetic concern with more facilities collocated on a pole more visual clutter would be created.. > Request to call up a minor land partition Mayor Nicoli raised the request to call up the minor land partition. Mr. Hendryx said that the neighbors could appeal that land use decision. He commented that with both the monopole and the minor land partition they had entire neighborhoods turning out in opposition to the decisions. He said that the neighborhood issue was tree removal which was not a reason for 1 staff to deny a minor land partition. # Mr. Hendryx explained that staff has determined that, based on the current code, the trees were i not protected. They have also researched the issue of an error in the original 1984 zoning of 1 that area and determined that the Code was applied correctly. While the property owners of a the area could submit a petition to the City requesting a rezoning of the area, it would not affect this application. y t Mayor Nicoli asked if staff knew in what direction the neighborhood was headed. Mr. Hendryx said that these neighbors were sophisticated and have done their homework. Mr. Monahan mentioned that the applicant would probably be at tonight's meeting. Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager, explained that Mr. Downing told her he would ask the Council not to call it up and to allow it to go through the approval process. In her conversations with neighbors in the area, she learned that their argument would be that - dividing the lot into three partitions meant less opportunity to save trees. Mr. Monahan mentioned that tonight was the Council's last chance to call this up. Ms. Beery reported that her firm has represented AT&T in the past, though not in Tigard or on this issue. She asked if the Council was comfortable with her representing the City on this - = matter. Mayor Nicoli said it was fine. Mr. Monahan mentioned that he had represented AT&T under their former name of Cellular One. > Erickson property Mr. Monahan mentioned CIT discussions on the Erickson property, a heavily wooded timber j lot proposed for harvesting. While there was no land-use application at this time, there was a f mobilization of neighborhood concerns about tree removal, erosion control, drainage, etc. Ms. Newton reported that between 70 to 80 people attended the CIT meeting on this issue. Mr. Hendryx said that staff was reviewing the apprenriatP rngndatinnc anrd rnntarting the Forest Service about removal of trees on a wood lot. He commented that the neighbors have been told that there would be no action on this matter until staff has thoroughly reviewed the standards. as this was a new issue in Tigard. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 2 I 1 Mr. Monahan asked if Council concurred with the staff work to create an environment of communication with those citizens who had concerns while not issuing a permit until they were sure of compliance with all regulations. fie said that staff was trying not to make promises that they could save something that they could not save. Councilor Scleckla asked several questions on mitigation in this situation. Mr. Hendryx said that the Code gave specific exemption to removal of trees in a forest tree deferral wood lot. Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager, explained that the Tree Ordinance Task Force had specifically excluded tax deferred woodlots because of testimony from people who had set them aside to harvest for funds to send their children to college. The owners of this lot 1 intended to harvest the timber before selling the lot to developers. A developer going through the subdivision process would have to mitigate for those trees. c 1 Mr. Monahan said that tonight staff expected neighbors at the meeting to report to the Council on the CIT discussion. He reported that neighbors have requested staff to make a commitment to do whatever they could to make sure that neighborhoods were protected from erosion. Staff wanted this situation to have the least impact possible but with the understanding that the trees 1 would be cut down. Councilor Hunt mentioned the erosion problems that resulted from the steep slope of the hill j of the Renaissance Summit development. Councilor Scheckla asked if they would have a problem with mudslides on Bull Mountain. Mr. Monahan said that they hoped to avoid that. i~ > City Events: Policy Discussion on City Participation and Contributions Mr. Monahan referenced the memo on the costs to the City for the Balloon Festival, broken down by department detailing costs that would have been incurred anyway and special costs. It also included the Fourth of July costs which were very limited. He pointed out that the Balloon Festival was growing so fast that it was a new event every year. Mr. Monahan suggested requiring special events and social agencies to give the City more f advance notice of what their proposals would be prior to the budget process and assigning a staff person as the contact person for the event or agency. This staff person would identify all the potential costs so that staff could include a real cost by department into the budget process. If Council wanted to, they could set an amount for the event, and staff would know that they had to limit expenses to that amount. With sufficient notice, the special event or agencies , could make decisions on their programs or try to find alternative funding. ! Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, reviewed the staff work at the Festival, agreeing that it did impact his department most of all. He pointed out the positive attitude of staff towards the Festival, despite the extensive -,.ertime required. He mentioned that the soccer fields were scheduled to be shut down after the Festival regardless. He said that staff worked Sunday and Monday to finish cleaning up. He noted the help provided by the carnival and food vendors in making it easy for them to pick up trash. Bruce Ellis, Event Coordinator, had arranged for the contractors to retrieve all the rented equipment. Councilor Scheckla asked if there were items that the City could have the Festival pay for, such as extra trash pickups. Mr. Monahan said that was an item for discussion. He explained that last year the Festival did not have any surplus revenue; however, this year it appears that TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 3 j - I . i 1 there was profit. He advised that Mr. Ellis had indicated willingness in the past to help finance any needed post-event field repair. Mr. Wegner commented that eventually the Festival would "top out" where the City would have to limit the number of balloons. Mayor Nicoli asked about using volunteers to assist City staff. Mr. Wegner said they would have more success asking volunteers (such as the Boy Scouts) to help with the set up than with the clean up. He pointed out that school was still in session during the week prior to the Festival. Councilor Rohlf asked if they would see an adjustment to the budget. Mr. Monahan said no, i because all the costs were within last year's budget. 1 1 Councilor Hunt expressed concern with the extra money being spent without the Council u knowing it was being expended. Mr. Monahan said that it had been a surprise to staff who had not realized the crowd the Festival would draw until they "saw the cars coming." He said that the year before had not reflected these dollar amounts but possibly staff was now doing a i better job of reporting the costs. Mr. Monahan said that the information this year would help staff in their discussions with the Balloon Festival organizers. He said that there was not an expectation on the Festival's part that the City would support the event to the point where the Festival retained all profits i without assisting the City with some of the expenses incurred. Councilor Hunt asked if there was a way to measure the economic value the Festival brought 110 to the business community of Tigard. Mayor Nicoli said that the nonprofits could tell the City how much money they made (which he thought was roughly around $30,000). He said that he was certain that with 10,000 to 15,000 people coming into the town for a three day event, there was money going into the business community. Councilor Hunt asked who authorized the nonprofits that operated at the Festival. Mr. Monahan said that the Festival did. He reported that Mr. Ellis told him that he tried to restrict it to Tigard based non-profits only. The City's only input has been questions about traffic, insurance and neighborhood impact. He said that if the Council felt it was important to know how much money the non-profits made, he thought that Mr. Ellis would be willing to share i} j that information with them. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that the non-profits reinvested the money into the community. The Festival fed the social service structure of the City in one way or another. Mr. Monahan reported that lie informed Mr. Ellis that the report in the Oregonian regarding the Council discussion on the Festival did not accurately reflect the tone of the Council. The j Council was simply curious, not critical. Councilor Moore asked that a discussion on a special events policy include what the intent of the City -was in sponsoring cvcnis. Was it to showcase the laity or to provide an opportunity for non-profits to raise money? Councilor Rohlf suggested a workshop on those issues. I J Councilor Moore asked for information on what other communities spent on their big events. i TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 4 I I i f ' He expressed concern that the Festival might move elsewhere due to lack of space at Cook I Park. The Council discussed when to schedule the discussion. They agreed on the October workshop. Staff would invite Mr. Ellis to the study session prior to the workshop. > National League of Cities Conference - Distribute Information > Agenda Review t • Mr. Hendryx reported that the County reached tentative agreement with Jerry Cache today to purchase the properties for the Greenspaces program. • Mr. Monahan explained that staff selected the second lowest bidder on the Menlor Reservoir project because the lowest bidder had difficulties with his subcontractors' bid. J. a . The second lowest bidder's offer was within the engineer's estimate. ~ 3 3 • Mr. Monahan noted an agenda change: the monopole discussion will occur before the business agenda. • Councilor Scheckla asked for an update on the Rite Center. 1. BUSINESS MEETING _ Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. • Council Communications/Liaison Reports I Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items II Mr. Monahan noted the Council discussion on whether or not to call up CUP 97-0004, the AT&T monopole tower, and the Rite Center update. 2. PRESENTATION: APPRECIATION ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR KATHY DAVIS, LIBRARY DIRECTOR AND CITY EMPLOYEE FOR OVER 21 YEARS On behalf of the Council, Mayor Nicoli thanked Kathy Davis for her excellent work as Library Director and presented her with an Award of Appreciation plaque. Ms. Davis presented the j Council with ajar of honey from her business, Mountain Home Apiary, which was moving to LaGrande. 2A. DISCUSSION: CALL-UP CONSIDERATION - AT&T CUP 97-0004 Mr. Monahan mentioned that the appeal deadline date for this land use application was August 18. Mr. Hendryx noted the receipt of a petition today requesting the Council to call up this application. Mayor Nicoli opened up the meeiing io public cu micut. • j Spencer Vail, AT&T Wireless Services, asked that the Council not call this up application. E' -t He argued that the appeal process already in place should be used, rather than the Council w•~ initiating appeals on behalf of the people, losing the appeal fee and establishing a precedent. t TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 5 1 9 t i I; t ~ c ~ i He commented that the Council should call up applications if they felt that the Hearings Officer had not interpreted the City's policy correctly or if there was some larger public policy matter needing discussion. He mentioned that regardless of the outcome of the wireless communication ordinance on the agenda tonight, this application would be based on the rules in force at the time of the application. He reiterated his request to allow the regular appeal process to run its natural course. Mayor Nicoli said that he did think that there were some policy issues that the Hearings Officer may not have considered. He has learned of some facts regarding the existing land use and possible non-compliance that he believed merited Council discussion. Mr. Vail said that the City tools to enforce non-compliance with zoning regulations were the conditions of 1 approval for that application. These should be handled independently of this application. Mayor Nicoli reiterated that he saw several issues which the Council should look at. Motion by Mayor Nicoli, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to call up CUP 97-0004. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, 1 Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") i Mr. Hendryx announced that staff would schedule a hearing with notice within the next few days. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA s > Tom Strong, East CIT, requested the Council to review the decision of the Director on MLP 97-0100, a subdivision of a vacant lot on SW 9f off Greenburg Road. He reviewed the = reasons for requesting the Council review. These included incorrect processing of the application, failure to prove that the partitioning conformed to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Development Code, an error in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the designated zoning for the Dogwood Ridge neighborhood, and an insufficient requirement for dedication of right of way for SW 92"d Avenue. Mr. Strong reviewed the specifics of their reasons for asking for review. They felt that the application met the definition of "subdivision" under both the City Code and the state statutes, as it would contain roads and streets. Therefore, it should be processed under the planned development process. He contended that the application did not conform with Section f 18.162.040 of the Comprehensive Plan, development commensurate with the physical characteristics of the land, protecting natural and other resources, and requiring a review of those resources that might have a detrimental impact on the community. i Mr. Strong said that the zoning of Dogwood Ridge should be R-3.5, not R-4.5. The right of way width for 92'd Avenue should be 50 feet; a narrower street would pose a safety hazard if additional homes were built. He noted the provision in the Plan to allow citizens to request Council review of the Director's decisions. He said that they thought that there were some j serious policy flaws in the Tigard City Code, noting a loophole that allowed approval of a minor land partition without review of the existing timber or requirement of mitigation. He cited the Plan policy that the City shall insure that the character of large or unique stands of timber would not be substantially altered. 1 ~ 1 9 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 6 t 1 i f i 1 ' ~ I i ^ > Miles Downing, applicant, spoke to allowing the process to flow naturally as recommended by staff. He mentioned the careful examination of all issues by the Planning staff. He asked that the Council not call this up for review. > Gordon Martin, 12265 SW 72"d, spoke to the tree planting program. He asked for discussion on creating mitigation sites in the City where lie could mitigate the non-inventoried trees on his property. He said that the 2-3 inches Christmas trees could be transplanted as part of the tree planting program. Mr. Martin entered into the record two letters that he received from Metro regarding the Triangle street standards. He noted in particular the July 28 letter from Mike Hoaglund concerning the definition of "point of local origin" recommended by Metro. Mr. Martin said that he inadvertently contacted one of the potential participants in a Dartmouth LID. The individual was upset and did not want to do anything about it. Mr. Martin commented that a study session with the participants might not accomplish anything. > Mayor Nicoli asked for discussion of the request to call up MLP 97-0010. Mr. Monahan III 4 noted the letter from the East CIT that laid out all the issues. Mayor Nicoli expressed concern E that if the Council did call this up, they might not be able to do anything anyway because of 1 the legal restrictions. Mr. Hendryx confirmed to the Mayor that there would be no further land 1 use process on this application, as the partitioning process was the land use process. Councilor Rohlf welcomed the citizens speaking to the Council but concurred with the Mayor's concerns that calling this up might be an exercise in frustration for the citizens if the - Council could not do anything about the situation. He said that there might be some policy issues in the Code to address in the future. Councilor Moore said that while he understood the neighbors' concerns for the tree grove, the Council had no control over the tree permit process which covered those concerns. He r commented that a change would have to occur prior to land use applications. He said that he 2,7 wasn't sure what they could do either. Councilor Scheckla noted the awkwardness of this situation. He mentioned the staff information that there was no error in the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested a compromise j from the developer to save some of the trees. Mayor Nicoli said that he did not have a problem with calling it up but reiterated his concern that the City Attorney might inform the Council that they could not respond to the neighbors as they might want to. He said that he did not want to mislead the neighborhood on what the Council could or could not do. Ms. Beery said that she was very hesitant to allow any detailed discussion of the issues if the Council intended to call it up. It was important to keep the Council as an impartial body. She said that if the Council was concerned that there were policy issues, they could call it up, and have a full discussion of the issues at the hearing. Mr. Hendrvx reviewed the st aff,_ork rn the yuesiiun ofan error in the Comprehensive Pian. ° s He said that he could not substantiate that such an error had occurred with the land use designation currently in place. t TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 7 r I i 1 j e f Mayor Nicoli asked what the ground rules for discussion would be at the hearing. Ms. Beery i said that the Council could not limit the discussion but they could identify their areas of concern so that the parties could address those specifically. i Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to call up MLP 97-0010. Motion was approved by a majority voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes"; Councilor Moore voted "no"; Councilor Hunt abstained) 4. CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Scheckla asked for more information on Item 4.5. Mr. Monahan explained that two months ago a local business owner raised the issue of whether or not all business owners paid their business license fee. The business owner pointed out that those who paid the fee were at a competitive disadvantage to those who did not pay the fee. He presented a proposal to the f Finance Director on identifying businesses not paying the tax. Staff asked to handle this issue i themselves, rather than hiring a consultant. The budget adjustment of $6000 was to fund temporary help to identify businesses not currently paying the business tax, validate the information against the records, and send out notices for payment. He said that this was an 3 education issue, not an enforcement issue. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt the Consent agenda. Mayor Nicoli asked exactly what "canopies" were covered under Item 4.7. David Scott, Building Official, explained that the Building Code divided the jurisdiction for membrane structures based on size. He said that he knew that Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue did not regulate the Farmers' Market canopies. He said that this was not a change in the Uniform Fire Code. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: June 17, 24, and July 8 and 15, 1997 4.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 4.3 Amend the City of Tigard's ICMA Deferred Compensation Plan and Trust Agreement in Accordance with Internal Revenue Code Amendments - Resolution No. 97-30 4.4 Approve Acquisition of Property Located within the Fanno Creek Right of Way (listed in the 1997-98 Capital Improvement Program) and Authorize the Mayor to Sign the Purchase and Sale Agreement 4.5 Approve Budget Adjustment for Business Tax Revenue - Resolution No. 97-31 i 4.6 Approve Intergovernmental Agreement for Property Acquisition at the I Intersection of Walnut and Tiedeman Avenues and Authorize the Mayor to Sign the Agreement 4.7 Adopt Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District Ordinance Nn, QA-n1 _ No. 97-32 J 4.8 Local Contract Review Board: i TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 8 i , a. Award Bid to Ward-Henshaw Construction Company for the Menlor Reservoir Project 5. PUBLIC COMMENT: GREENSPACES PROGRAM - PROPOSALS FOR CHANGES TO THE CITY'S OFFICIAL LIST OF GREENSPACE PROJECTS AND TO THE PROCESS USED TO IMPLEMENT THESE PROJECTS a. Staff Report j Duane Roberts, Associate Planner, reviewed the provisions of the May 1995 Metro Greenspaces bond. These included commitment to a willing seller approach and a local share j provision that passed through funds to the local jurisdictions. Tigard received $750,000. He j reviewed the City's mandated public involvement program that resulted in a list of potential ' greenspace acquisitions. He reported on the acquisitions completed and not completed in the last 14 months since adoption of that list. The City has purchased land on the northern slope of Bull Mountain but the other two properties under negotiation were abandoned when the owner wanted a higher price than the Council had budgeted for. In addition, a partnership deal with the County for forestland property fell through when the owner backed out and sold the property for development. Metro has purchased one property to the north of Woodward Park in cooperation with the City and was negotiating on three other properties. Another partnership opportunity with the County was purchase of the forested land adjacent to the water district property, a deal that j was reached this afternoon. - Mayor Nicoli asked how much money the City had left, and what could they spend it on. Mr. Roberts said that they had $663,000 left. It could be used for land acquisition and capital improvements, such as trailway construction, parking areas leading into natural areas, or interpretative centers. He mentioned that the CITs indicated strong interest in acquiring land in preference to building trails. LI Mr. Roberts said that they needed to identify replacement projects for the three projects dropped from the formal list. This required a public involvement process. The deadline for completing acquisitions was September 1998 with six month extensions possible. On the map he pointed out the properties recommended by staff: two Tualatin River properties (already negotiated on), greenway acquisitions, and a property adjacent to power lines. Mr. Roberts suggested hiring a contractor to assist staff with the negotiations with owners to i move the process forward as quickly as possible. Alternatives recommendations in the staff report included revisiting sites dropped from the list, one near Cook Park and the Bond and 82nd Avenue parcel. He noted the letter from the City of Tualatin suggesting that Tigard allocate $50,000 of greenspace funds for the design of the Tualatin River pedestrian bridge. He said that trailway construction was the staff's lowest priority recommendation. b. Public Comment > Sterling Marsh. South rIT f-_090 S,V Cvir., prcacnicu iuc CiT's request to ' revisit the Gage property (F-5), the property north of Cook Park (P-2), and the Hall/Fanno Creek greenway east of Hall Blvd. (17-1). There was also discussion of the Bull Mountain parcel (F-3). He said that the CIT did emphasize purchase of land over trail construction. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 9 3 3 I g Lam:- - ~ I They asked that one parcel not consume the majority of the available Metro Greenspaces money. Mayor Nicoli mentioned that the owner of the properties on Hall was not interested in selling which stopped the City from further action. > Beverly Froude, West/Central CIT, reported the CIT proposal to delay the decision on the Greenspaces proposal in order to coordinate the purchases with the parks master plan. The concern was for placement of greenspaces and parks in all areas of Tigard. They supported hiring someone to coordinate the preparation of the parks master plan as soon as possible. Though overall the CIT supported purchasing land, there was a group that felt that i Washington County should share in the cost of parcels outside the city limits, while another group felt that such parcels should be purchased by Tigard when they became available, on the 1 grounds that those areas would come into the City in the future anyhow. C > Rick Wcejo, 8110 SW Bond Street, requested purchase of the Gage property with the funds j provided by the Metro Greenspaces bond measure. He pointed out that the land was now worth $500,000 but the Gage family was willing to sell it for $200,000 less than its fair market i value because of their commitment to keeping the property as greenspace. He said that the neighborhood has grown impatient and discouraged with all the delays. He recommended ! acting now to acquire the property. i ' > Tom Murphy, 8152 SW Ashford Street, asked for purchase of the Gage property for E preservation as open space. He pointed out the quality of the forested greenspace and its i availability, one of the few forested parcels left available within the city limits. He { r, commented that the other properties under consideration were unknowns. He disagreed with the staff recommendation to spend Greenspaces money to hire someone to help purchase land. Mr. Murphy mentioned the $28,000 raised by the neighborhood to assist in the purchase of the property with $3000 spent for an option that has now expired. He reported that the Wetlands Conservancy (who held the remaining $25,000 in trust) recently sent a letter to the contributors, indicating its belief that the Gage property would not be purchased and asking what they wanted done with the money. He contended that timing was critical in retaining this money for purchase of the Gage property. He reiterated that the Gage sisters were offering the property at 60% of fair market value. He pointed out the extensive citizen support for the purchase of the Gage property. > Brian Pautz said that he had two properties outside the city limits available for sale which he was more interested in seeing remain as open space than in selling for a lot of money. He noted the existing trail running through his Bull Mountain property which was used on a daily basis by bikers and hikers. He mentioned the development plans to build high density duplexes right in front of his property. He said that he thought this area would annex into Tigard soon. He mentioned the benefit Tigard received from the County's purchase of the Cache property and other properties. He spoke to maintaining greenspace in the area in light of the high density going in, and a greenspace's potential to alleviate the social problems associated with high density. He said that areas on the site were well spited for i^.t=• Ctat:vc centers. I i > Jim Soiier, 14890 SW Sunrise Lane, spoke in support of purchase of the large Bull Mountain property as an opportunity to acquire a piece of property almost the size of Cook TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 10 4 i C i Park. He spoke to acquiring it prior to annexation before development occurred close to it. He i pointed out the year round stream, wildlife habitat, and second growth forest. He commented f that with the increasing population base along Scholls Ferry Road and the lack of greenspaces, there was no place for the children to play. The children have found this property and used it daily. He noted the existing trail system and an area ideal for an interpretive center. Mr. Solier said that if something was not done, this area would look like Telegraph Hill in Saz Francisco. He referenced a 1995 consultant report that documented that 59% of the forested area that the consultants had studied on Bull Mountain disappeared within two years. He commented that a lot of the owners of this land lived on the street right up from it, and would almost be willing to donate the land if they knew it would be maintained as greenspace. He spoke in support of a negotiator. He stated that lie canvassed the neighborhood and found { momentum to get this property. Mr. Pautz mentioned that two years ago Washington County placed this property as 45 on their list but ran out of money. The interest was still there to purchase this land. > Beverly Fronde, speaking as a private citizen, supported Mr. Solier's and Mr. Pautz's comments. She said that it would be a wise move to purchase this land now. I > Diane Jelderks, 10045 SW Garrett, South CIT member, concurred that CITs wanted land first and trails second, as connectivity was very important to them. She spoke to making a connection between the residential neighborhood and the pathway currently under construction between Ash and Main Streets. She said that this section was originally in the CIP but was removed when they went through the Metro process. It has fallen through the cracks but was an important connection for the city. She said that the neighborhood strongly supported this connection. She asked that it be added to the scope of the project on Ash Avenue. > Eric Johanes, 8102 SW Ashford Street, spoke for his and his neighbor's support of purchase of the Gage property. He said that many in their neighborhood also supported it. > Evelyn Beach, ?530 SW 72"d, read a letter from Dayle Beach nominating a strip along both sides of Red Rock Creek from SW 68`x' to SW 72nd Streets for the Greenspaces program. She said that Red Rock Creek went through a steep ravine at this point on property owned by the Oregon Education Association. It was a beautiful greenspace and unsuitable for development. She mentioned that there were no greenspace plans for the Triangle. Mr. Roberts said that he knew what area Ms. Beach was referring to but did not remember why it had not been considered. He said that it had not come up during the public process. He said that while he believed that the property was for sale, it was not currently on the market. > Nancy Younger, Sunrise Lane, spoke in support of developing a park or greenspace on the Bull Mountain land, especially in light of the high density development allowed by the County without accompanying parks. She said that her children grew up playing nn that !and, and that people used to ride horses through there. She noted the native wildlife and flora on the land. She encouraged the Council to take advantage of this opportunity before the land was developed. She said that the Renaissance Homes developer has said that he would not build i J down to that greenspace; the City could probably expect donation of some land for greenspace. 1 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 11 i Ms. Younger spoke to revisiting City development policy and requiring apartment or housing developments to include a neighborhood park for x number of many houses. She said that without neighborhood parks, the children would have no place to play. > Chris Counts, 9600 Rivenvood Lane, South CIT member, spoke to the planning process for parks as a fragmented process that did not build public confidence. He suggested creating an overlay map that clearly showed the location of existing parks and where greenspaces could fit into that distribution. He spoke to parks as "green infrastructure" and noted the values citizens mentioned tonight associated with parks: places to play, wildlife habitat, watershed values. i He contended that the fragmentation in planning led to a lack of using professional tools to move forward in a scientific manner in planning greenspaces, parks and ballfields. He spoke to using professional tools to restore public confidence. These tools might include objective ranking criteria. i Mr. Counts said that he favored the F-2 site, next to Cook Park, even though he understood that the owner did not want to sell. He supported the recommendations Mr. Marsh presented from the South CIT. He urged the Council to use the scientific tools available for parks and greenspace planning. He mentioned the issue of whether or not to wait for the parks master plan. He held that all they got out of the 1987 parks master plan was the controversial Cook Park expansion. He said that if they were going to wait for the master plan, then the City move forward in a positive and constructive manner once that information was received. If they were not going to wait for the master plan, then the City should apply these tools now. - > Susan Vossler, 9500 SW Rivenvood Lane, supported reconsideration of opening negotiations with the property owner of the land next to Cook Park. It was a natural extension of Cook Park with wetlands, trees and access for high school student biology field studies. > Tom Strong, 10465 SW 92"d, pointed out that many greenspaces currently available for parks had no access for a lot of people. He cited the Fanno Creek parkway that ran from SW North Dakota across Scholls Ferry to the Greenway Park in Beaverton. He said that he lived half a i " mile from that pathway but neither he nor his children could not get to it. There were no sidewalks, North Dakota was too dangerous to ride bikes on, and there was no adjacent parking. He spoke for consideration that access to the greenspaces was important. At some point, the City would have to spend money for capital improvements. Mr. Hendryx summarized a letter received today from Oscar & Dolores Clark requesting consideration of the forest site on Fonner Street currently under development review. } -J _ c. Council Questions/Comments Mayor Nicoli said that he did not think that Council would put together a formal list tonight. He asked staff to return with a report showing the estimated cost for the properties and a map showing the exact location of each property. Councilor Hunt asked that only properties actually for sale be noted on the map. Mayor Nicoli asked what the status was of the parks master plan. Mr. Hendryx said that staff sent out RFPs with a submission deadline at the end of August. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 12 i ~ ~ `t i 4 r, S r Mayor Nicoli suggested that the parks master plan consultant make some early t recommendations on appropriate park locations. Mr. Roberts explained that staff j recommended target areas rather than specific properties. Identification of specific properties meant that they had to amend the greenspaces agreement, and often led to more difficulty in purchasing said property. Councilor Scheckla asked how the Tualatin pedestrian bridge fit into the Greenspaces program. Mr. Roberts said that it was an eligible project recommended by the City of Tualatin who has requested matching funds from Tigard towards design of the bridge. This would provide a connection within the Tualatin River trail system. Councilor Rohlf spoke to the importance of moving quickly. The longer the City waited, the more these properties increased in value, and the less the City could purchase for its dollars. Mr. Monahan asked if valuation was of concern to the Council. He mentioned that in the past { prices have changed once the City indicated interest. He noted that Mr. Pautz' letter did not indicate prices. Mr. Roberts said that staff did have a letter from Mr. Pautz with prices but it was not part of the public record. Mr. Pautz stated that he was willing to negotiate his stated price. Ms. Jelderks asked about the path she had mentioned. Mayor Nicoli said that staff would include everything mentioned tonight on the list for Council consideration in more depth. Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 9:11 p.m. for a break Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 9:22 p.m. 6. UPDATE: TREE PLANTING PROGRAM Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, presented a proposal to meet the Council goal of planting 2000 trees in Tigard by the year 2000. It was a three phase project. The first phase was planting trees in parks, greenways, and wetlands between now and November, including using volunteers on October 25, "Make a Difference Day." Staff would hire a landscape architect to help design and layout where trees were needed, and to work with the parks master plan to coordinate with the tree planting program. Mr. Wegner reviewed the second phase to begin in September or October. Staff would meet with public agencies, such as schools, to develop a tree planting program in conjunction with Arbor Day and Earth Day festivities in April. The third phase was developing a complete street tree program, looking at standards and maintenance responsibilities. He mentioned that while the current ordinance placed the maintenance responsibility for street trees on the homeowner, it was not necessarily economically feasible for the homeowner to do so. He cited a recent case of a homeowner who hired an arborist to look at a street tree with a $500+ r bill to take care of the tree. Mr. Wegner noted Mr. Martin's suggestion to create a mitigation site. He said that staff was willing to do that within this process. He said that they had money in the tree mitigation fund for use. In addition the Cook Park CIP projects included trees and landscaping. He reported i that staff discovered a need for wetlands mitigation on the Menlor site which would be done at TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 13 f! 1 E i I J Mood z Cook Park. He mentioned the offer of a businessman to possibly donate trees. He said that the goal was to plant the last tree on December 31, 1999. The Council agreed by consensus to go with the staff recommendation on this proposal. 7. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 18) BY ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES BY ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER: TMC 18.152 a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing b. Declarations or Challenges: None c. Staff Report: Community Development Department Will D'Andrea, Associate Planner, explained that the selling of new communication licenses } by the FCC as a result of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 led to an increase in the 39 number of requests for cellular towers and to increased concern by local communities about the need to regulate the proliferation of these towers. He said that wireless communication facilities were considered utilities under the existing Code standards. However the Code currently had no specific language directed towards wireless communication facilities. He t said that the attached proposed ordinance was modeled on the Oregon City ordinance with input from wireless providers. C Mr. D'Andrea reported that the proposed ordinance included minor revisions requested by the Planning Commission who recommende(t approval of the ordinance on July 21. He mentioned the notice given to the CITs of the Planning Commission and Council hearings on the ordinance. Mr. D'Andrea reviewed the purposes of the regulations, including ensuring that wireless communication facilities were regulated in a manner that minimized the visual impact and encouraged collocation. Using overhead graphics, he reviewed the provisions of the proposed ordinance and the constraints of the Telecommunications Act. Mr. D'Andrea said that while the Act preserved the local government's authority to regulate these facilities, it prohibited regulations that would effectively prohibit provision of service or discriminate among providers. The environmental effects of emissions were regulated through the FCC, not the local jurisdictions. Approvals had to be granted in a timely fashion and in r writing. Mr. D'Andrea reviewed the three tiers of the proposed system. The first tier dealt with uses permitted outright, including collocation in commercial, industrial, and residential zones within certain height criteria. The second tier was the director's decision or staff level review with notice, allowing new towers in commercial and industrial zones and in public open space, - i :uiu cuilucaiwu uuuvc ii,c iicibui Cri iCrid. a,a, iiviCu uwoc sot back ..p.._...b - - - i requirements. j 4 Mr. D'Andrea said that the third tier was the conditional use process requiring a public hearing for towers in residential zones (except for public open spaces). He mentioned the intent to TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 14 I j i { 14 ~ ~ f protect points of visual interest or views, and the requirement to demonstrate that no other { alternative was available. He reviewed the setback and spacing requirements for conditional use, and mentioned the requirement to submit three to five photos of the proposed facility and affected residential properties. Mr. D'Andrea reviewed the coefficient protocol that required applicants to make a good faith effort to find a collocation site before proposing a new tower. He listed the criteria and documentation for collocation. Mr. D'Andrea recommended approval of the ordinance. I 1 I d. Public Testimony > Kevin Martin, Sprint PCS, Land Use Coordinator, said that he had only two issues with this ordinance following the Planning Commission hearing. The ordinance structure was j similar to that used by other communities in the region. He asked if the noise standards were more restrictive for this use than for other uses. If so, he disagreed, contending that they should be the same. He expressed concern at the extreme difficulty of meeting the variance criteria for a hardship in dealing with setbacks and tower spacing (Section 18.02.24). He advocated using adjustment standards rather than variances to allow greater flexibility in the placement of the towers. He cited the example of siting a tower within a grove of trees inside I the setback area as opposed to placing it out in the open in accordance with the setback standards. Mayor Nicoli asked what noise was generated by these facilities. Mr. Martin said that the noise level of the PCS facilities (the size of a traffic control box) was very low because they did not use air conditioners. The larger structures did use air conditioning but the noise level was no different than cooling equipment on top of a building. > Spencer Vail, AT&T Wireless, concurred with Mr. Martin's comments. He said that his primary concern was the variance section of the Code and the need to prove hardship. He 1 cited an example of an application before the Hearings Officer in which the applicant, the neighbors, and the staff all agreed that the facility should be located in the corner of the property but the setback standards did not allow it and he could not prove hardship. He contended that the public would be better served with greater flexibility for innovative design j and placement. He suggested developing criteria similar to the criteria developed for the 1 protection of visual points. He supported the ordinance as written with this one change. He concurred that the air conditioning of his facilities were no louder than residential air conditioning. Councilor Scheckla asked what Mr. Vail considered a visual impact. Mr. Vail said that he did not know. He spoke to putting specific language in the Code to govern how that was decided. > Tony Cargill spoke to the issue of the aesthetic impact of the machinery. He said that these towers had the aesthetic appeal of a crowbar and asked that the City encourage the providers in makz a ..^fF.:: to 8as Sonic uCSuI'w -''a. - _,.uu u (L1JklUd1 tV a=": 112C11llIGJ. e. Council Questions i TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 15 3 i ~ M l t f r t l Councilor Moore asked if landscaping was required for these facilities. Mr. D'Andrea said there were requirements for landscape screening of the accessory structures. Councilor Scheckla commented that a pole suddenly appearing in a neighborhood certainly did have a visual impact. He asked how that was addressed and who determined the visual impact. Mr. D'Andrea reviewed the criteria for minimizing the visual impact (page 4), including trying to find other locations on the property to minimize the impact. He said that the Hearings Officer reviewed the question of visual impact. Councilor Scheckla asked if unacceptable visual impact was discovered after the fact, would the providers have to take the tower down. Mr. D'Andrea said no. He commented on the ! difficulty of protecting visual points of interest and in determining where those were. He j reiterated the FCC requirement that local jurisdictions could not create regulations that effectively prohibited provision of service. The balance lay between protecting visual impact and complying with FCC regulations. { Councilor Moore commented that, as he understood it, the viewshed was what the view would ! - be with the pole in it. He noted the requirement for three to five photo simulations of the proposed facility for affected residential properties and public rights of way. Councilor Scheckla asked who decided how many facilities were needed and the spacing between the towers. Mr. D'Andrea reviewed the spacing requirements in the ordinance. He f said that the industry determined the number of poles needed based on their provision of service. Councilor Scheckla asked if there was a provision for removal of the towers in the event of more advanced technology that no longer required the towers. Mr. D'Andrea reviewed the abandonment provision that required a provider to take down a tower not used for six months. Councilor Scheckla asked if the local governments had any control at all. Mr. D'Andrea said that it was limited but they could regulate some things. Ms. Beery commented that, based on her experience in this field, she found this that ordinance did achieve the regulation allowed to local governments while still complying with the FCC requirements. I Councilor Rohlf asked if the ordinance took a conservative or aggressive approach to protecting neighborhoods from the impacts of these facilities. Ms. Beery said that while it was I not really conservative, neither was it as aggressive as it could be. She cited the collocation protocol as a factor in reducing the number of facilities. She described the ordinance as a series of concomitant elements which, as a total, were intended to result in locating these i facilities where they would have the least impact. Councilor Hunt suggested approving this ordinance tonight and directing staff to return with recommendations on the concerns raised regarding adjustment standards versus. variances. Ms. Beery said doing so would place the City in a good position. She pointed out that the variance criteria was a more aggressive protection for the City by placing more of the burden on the industry. She commented that use of a cei!apcihle rlrcian tower could mean lower ` setback requirements, although it was not included in the ordinance. Mayor Nicoli expressed his concern that the variance criteria might prevent a better placement of a tower on a property if that better placement was within the setback. He spoke for TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 16 I I i ! flexibility in placement of the towers, especially if they could be hidden in tree groves. He s expressed concern also about the 2000 foot spacing in commercial zones and 500 foot spacing !t in residential zones. He spoke to encouraging placement of more than one tower in the ugly i industrial sections of town in a cluster as opposed to a "picket fence line." Councilor Moore suggested directing staff to identify certain locations where the Council would accept spacing I less than the required amounts. f. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing g. Staff Recommendation Mr. D'Andrea recommended adoption of the ordinance. h. Council Deliberation: Ordinance No. 97-08 1 ~ Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Ordinance No. 97-08. The City Recorder read the ordinance by number and title. ORDINANCE NO. 97-08, AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 18) BY ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES, (ZOA 97-0002), BY ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 152 (18.152), AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Councilor Rohlf commented that there were so many loopholes in these regulations that the providers could put their facilities where ever they wanted to. He said that it was distressing to him that they could not regulate this utility as they could any other utility. He said that he would support the motion because it was the best they could do. Mr. Monahan noted that the ordinance did not inc!ude an emergency clause, therefore it would be effective in 30 days. Amendment to the motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to include an emergency clause. Mr. Monahan said that the reason for the emergency clause was the Council's concern that - 1 other applications would come in under the old regulations with a potential negative impact on the neighborhoods. - s Motion was approved by majority roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, and Rohlf voted "yes." Councilor Scheckla voted "no.") Councilor Hunt asked that staff return in a reasonable period of time to discuss the concerns raised this evening. Councilor Rohlf asked to add a comment referencing protection of neighborhood livability and impacts to the neighborhoods (Section 18.152.010). 8. PUBLIC HEARING -;QUASI-JUDICIAL) - VACATION - PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY (Approximately 4,172 Square Feet of rubiic Righi of vVay auutiiug S;V, Puciuc Highway (99W), south of Park Street, and adjacent to Tigard Marketplace) TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 17 R 1 J L~ IF i t i a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing and read the hearing title. b. Declarations or Challenges: None c. Staff Report: Community Development Department Mr. Hendryx reviewed the location of the right of way requested for vacation. He said that staff did discuss this with ODOT and the ordinance reflected ODOT's concern about retaining adequate right of way for a future widening of 99W. Councilor Rohlf asked what the advantage was to vacating this right of way now if in the ! future they might need it back. Mr. Hendryx said that the advantage was that the property 1 owner would maintain it. It would add a minimal amount to the tax base. i 1 Mr. D'Andrea explained that this public street with a wide landscape strip looked like a F private driveway. The City owned half of the landscape strip, and the owner of the other half has requested vacation of the landscape strip, but not of the public street. He said that a condition of the vacation was the property owner's agreement to rededicate the right of way if necessary. The street could only be closed if the someone went through the vacation procedure to request vacation of the public right of way of the street. j Mr. D'Andrea explained that this portion of the right of way was the remnant of an old ODOT i frontage road which was vacated on development of the Tigard Marketplace. d. Public Testimony Mayor Nicoli reviewed the hearing standards and criteria. > Grace Bean said that her question of whether or not the road would be closed has been _ answered. > Michael Magus, attorney for the property owner, a Michigan corporation, reviewed the history of this right of way. He said that this little piece was overlooked when the rest of the right of way was transferred to the owner of the property at the time of the Tigard Marketplace development. He said that they were also asking ODOT to sell their piece to them but ODOT's process took longer than a street vacation. He explained that they maintained the t entire island, it had an irrigation system in it and easements into the shopping center. Mr. Magus said that they discovered during some research that they did not own the entire island, as they thought they did, and that they were simply trying to rectify the problem. Mr. Magus said that they would enter into a similar agreement with ODOT to rededicate the right of way, should 99W be widened. He asked that the ordinance specifically state that the property will inure to Tax Lot 100 so it would appear that way on the tax rolls. He commented that neither ODOT nor the City Public Works Department wanted to maintain the i island. > Tony Cargill asked why $50,000 to $60,000 worth of property was being given away as opposed to selling it at public auction. Ms. Beery explained that a property dedicated for _ ® - " public right of way did not mean the City owned the land. Kather they held it with limitations u j , TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 18 1 i I It i of use as right of way. She said that the only legal way to undo a dedication was through a vacation which meant that the land automatically reverted to the abutting property owner. e. Council Questions L Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. g. Staff Recommendation Mr. Hendryx recommended approval of the ordinance. g. Council Deliberation: Ordinance No. 97-09 Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance No. 97-09. The City Recorder read the ordinance by number and title. I ORDINANCE 97-09, AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE VACATION OF APPROXIMATELY 4,172 SQUARE FEET OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ABUTTING SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY (99W), SOUTH OF SW PARK STREET AND ADJACENT TO TIGARD MARKETPLACE. Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") j 9. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF FRANCHISE AGREEMENT - METROPOLITAN FIBER SYSTEMS OF OREGON, INC. (MFS) Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, explained that MFS, a subsidiary of WorldCom, was a competitive access provider in telecommunications, running the same type of service as Electric Lightwaves has provided in the Port Iand/Vancouver area for three to four years. He _ said that the City entered into a franchise agreement with Electric Lightwaves in 1993 for which they charged 5% of the gross revenue generated within the city. He said that this franchise agreement was virtually identical to the Electric Lightwaves' agreement. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve Ordinance 97- 10. The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 97-10, AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO METROPOLITAN FIBER SYSTEMS OF OREGON, INC., THE RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE TO CONDUCT A TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUSINESS WITHIN THE CITY OF TIGARD AND TO PLACE, ERECT, LAY, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE IN, UPON, OVER, AND UNDER THE STREETS, ALLEYS, ROADS, AND PUBLIC PLACES POLES, WIRES, AND OTHER APPLIANCES FOR COMMUNICATION PURPOSES WITHIN THE CITY OF TIGARD. i ® a Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, - Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 19 t 1 - - I E 1 1 10. UPDATE: TIGARD TRIANGLE I Mr. Hendryx reported on the July 22 workshop conducted by staff to test large scale development against the adopted street plan and design standards for the Tigard Triangle. He said that participants included big box retail developers and Triangle property owners. He stated that the five hour workshop generated valuable discussion. Staff would circulate the draft report summary of the information gained at the workshop amongst the participants prior to bringing it to Council. He mentioned that citizens attended the workshop as observers but only those specifically invited participated in the discussions. He said that the draft report summary would include a list of issues and standards that could be changed to allow big box retail development within the Triangle, if Council wanted to allow that type of development. Councilor Moore requested staff to verify that the workshop participants have in fact received the summary report. 11. COUNCIL REVIEW - REQUEST BY STAFF FOR CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENT TO CONNECT TO PUBLIC SEWER (TIGARD TRIANGLE ~ DESIGN STANDARDS) r Mr. Hendry•x mentioned the intense discussion in the community regarding exactly what the ~ d design standards for the Tigard Triangle meant. He cited the provision in the standards that t required all new development, including major renovations or remodeling projects that - resulted in conversion to a non-single family use, to dedicate and approve public streets, to connect to public facilities such as sewer, water and storm drainage, and to participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Triangle. 3 He said the intent was to prevent haphazard conversion of houses so that the converted houses I} would be an asset to the community, not a liability. ~ Mr. Hendryx reviewed the current situation in which a property owner wanted to sell a house 1 for conversion to a business use but was more than 1500 feet away from a sewer line. He said that he interpreted the standards to mean that they had to connect to the sewer with no recourse. Mr. Hendryx noted the Tigard programs for providing sewer facilities, including creation of an LID, the neighborhood sewer extension program (applicable only in residential areas), and reimbursement districts. He reviewed the Council's options, including the status quo, getting involved in construction of sewer facilities, changing the standards to allow the neighborhood - sewer program to include mixed use or commercial areas, or requiring the property owner to pay estimated engineering costs into a fund for future installment of sewer into the area (a sewer improvement fund). Mr. Monahan said that they could develop a program that allowed single properties converting to business use to remain on septic systems (if certified as functional by the County) for a limited amount of time until the sewer was extended to allow a connection. Mr. Hendryx pointed out that this was a requirement unique to the Triangle and did not exist in other areas j ® y' of uhe Jiy. i Mayor Nicoli noted that the Craigs had been in the middle of selling their home when this 9 situation arose. Mr. Monahan explained that, while there was still confusion on all the facts TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 20 l 1 p i i I. ~ a leading up to this situation, staff met with the buyer's representatives and the property owner I j to discuss the options available. Mayor Nicoli commented that this situation was not atypical of what would happen in the Triangle where single family homes would convert to business uses house by house. In this f case, the people were more than 1500 feet away from a sewer line, and did not have the money to install that amount of sewer line. The City wanted to encourage development in the Triangle, but this requirement would prevent the people with homes on septic systems from selling their homes. Mayor Nicoli spoke to the City being more proactive and allowing use of sewer fund moneys in this zone, as had been done with the project on Tippitt. He commented that the City would have to put in more infrastructure in the Triangle to encourage the kind of development they wanted to see. He said that he did not want to penalize the current small property owners in the Triangle. Mrs. Craig said that there was interest from the other property owners on the street to connect j to city sewer. Mayor Nicoli said that another option to go along with Mr. Monahan's suggestion of certified functional septic systems was to ask for a non-remonstrance for when the sewer came in. Mr. Monahan explained that the Craigs could install a sewer pump to connect to a closer line. The City did not promote pumping but would honor that type of connection if the Craigs _ chose to go in that direction. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that if the Craigs went with the pump, they in effect penalized their neighbors when the sewer line was put in because they would not i want to participate in that line. { Councilor Hunt asked why storm water was not included in this discussion also. Mr. Hendryx explained that the storm water sewer was easier to connect to in this situation. Mayor Nicoli asked if the Craigs would have to put in curbs, sidewalks, or street lights under the standards. Mr. Hendryx said that they would have to do a half street improvement for their property to convert to commercial. Mayor Nicoli suggested allowing several homes on a street to convert to commercial and then doing the entire street rather than having piecemeal half street improvements. He said that he saw the half street requirement as more applicable to other areas of Tigard that had large existing commercial properties. Mr. Hendryx said that was an option. f Mr. Hendryx pointed out that if an LID process was used, subsequent buyers might not realize that they had this obligation. In addition, waivers of remonstrance were typically only good for 10 years. If the City did not move forward with the improvement, the agreement could lapse, leaving the City with no way to get the improvement built. He reviewed the political process needed to assess the properties for the improvements, questioning how did they handle a converted house versus a house still in residential use. He commented that they could get a cash sum for the property owners, based on the engineering estimates, and hold it in an account for the future street improvements. He rccoi-~.-,-' .,,ucuued that action over an LID. Councilor Rolilf asked what the cost was for 1500 foot of sewer line. Mrs. Craig said it was $35,000 to $40,000. ` TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 21 I Y ' 4 t 1 1 n Councilor Ruhlf commented that they have worked hard to develop standards for the "friang e, and that he was not willing to trash them. He spoke to the City providing infrastructure as a way to help development move in the direction that they wanted to see it move. Mr. Monahan said that they could use the sewer account funds. Staff could also look into a variety of funds to contribute to building infrastructure to stimulate development, as suggested by Councilor Rohlf. i Councilor Hunt said that he would like to resolve the sewer question tonight but discuss the other issues more fully, including the financial side, before making a decision on other infrastructure elements. Councilor Rohlf asked if people from other areas in the Triangle might come and ask for the ® same thing. Mayor Nicoli said that that was possible. Mr. Monahan commented that they would want to create a program to allow funding of infrastructure- Possibilities included developing a duplicate reimbursement program for commercial areas or a program to provide j the sewer line without request by property owners. Councilor Scheckla asked what the time frame was for the Craigs' situation. Mr. Craig said ` that they v. ere supposed to close on Friday. He said that he would hate to waste the money on a pump if a sewer line would be installed shortly. 3$ Mr. Monahan commented that the Craigs did have a County certificate for a sewer system that would function for a commercial property. Perhaps the Council could make an interpretation Yr allowing the use of the septic tank for a short period of time while staff put the sewer program in place. Mayor Nicoli concurred with that suggestion to help the Craigs with their immediate j situation. He said that he also favored moving ahead with a program on street infrastructure. ~ f Mr. Hendryx said that, based on Council direction, he would interpret the provision to mean that, if sewer was not readily available, an applicant could provide funds that would equal r I their proportionate share of the cost of installing the sewer line. { Tony Cargill asked if this would apply to other transactions coming up in the next few weeks. Mayor Nicoli said yes, if they were converting their use. Mr. Cargill said that most people f _ east of 72"d Avenue were interested in converting houses into individual businesses as I opposed to selling to a developer accumulating properties for a large development. He expressed concern that a sewer line of adequate size to serve future development be installed. He asked if a variance was a possibility for the Craigs but supported the Council action. Mayor Nicoli said that he thought that the Craigs would not qualify for a variance. Ms. Beery concurred. 12. NON AGENDA ITEMS > Rite Center Update I Mr. Monahan reported on his conversation with Kim Brown of Interfaith Outreach Services regarding the Rite Center. They have received their land use approval and expected to break t ground in early September, once two small buildings on the property were demolished. They TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 22 .i ` J L~ intended to operate a shelter this year out of the Methodist church until the Rite Center was completed. The Methodist church postponed remodeling the portion of their building used for t the shelter until Interfaith could move into the Rite Center. Interfaith would not operate a severe weather shelter this year. > Councilor Hunt reported that staff informed him that the landscaping approved for the Senior Center should be completed next week. 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Cancelled. 14. ADJOURNMENT: 10:58 p.m. f Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder or, City of Tigard Date:. l ; t~ t TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 23 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Lego, i - P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 6&4.0360 Notice TT 8898 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 - Legal Notice Advertising RECEIVE D • City of Tigard ❑ Tearsheet Notice AUG 11 1997 13125 Si-7 Hall Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit t'%FTIGARD • Accounts Payal-3le • - - i AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION j STATE OF OREGON, ) ` 1 COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. ` i being first duly sworn, depose and say that f am the Advertising j Director, or his principal clerk, of the_TLgard-Tua 1 at ' n mimes { a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti aarA in the aforesaid county and state; that the i ~;ty r'n,inr•i1 Riici'.8S3-p70Q_td-nGj - i a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for GNF successive and consecutive in the following issues: i.,. August 7,1997 1y v Subscribed and sworn to tore me this 7t day o AiiaiLct, 1997 OFFICIAL SEAL F Note ublic for Oregon RGBM A. BURGESS / NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON My Commission Expires: COMMISSION NO. 062071 AFFIDAVIT MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001 The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full i { agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall f 1 Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. 1 ' CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING August 12,1997 - 6:30 P.M. I TIGARD CITY HALL-TOWN HALL 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON I4 Study Meeting (Red Rock Creek Room) (6:30 P.M.) > Policy Discussion - Citv Particimtinn -MA Cc b ;i s ;c; , - - a:uu > Executive Session Business Meeting (Town Hall Room) (7:30 P.M.) ; > Public Comment - Proposals for Greenspaces Site Acquisition > Public Hearing - Wireless Communication Facilities (Zone Ordinance Amendment) .J > Public Hearing -Public Right of Way -South of Park Street > Consider Approval of Franchise Agreement - MSS Communications > Tigard Triangle: j • Update • Review of Design Standard: Requirement to Connect to Public Sewer TT8898 - Publish August 7, 1997. % I [ COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 8894 _ BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising • City of Tigard • ❑ Toarsheet Notice 13125 SPI Hall Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit ° Accounts Payable • j f AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION i , STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. _r I, T{ath_y~nvllar being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising ( Director, or his principal clerk, of the^= Wars]-meal in m mes I a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid county and state; that the H-?ar ~ng_1ize~$s COmm.Fac. a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for_O1~ E_successive and consecutive in the following issues: f I -July 31,1997 I: Subscribed and sworn t e e me this 'I I u '19 7 y r OFFICIAL SEAL . ROBIN A. BUROESB i 5 Nota ublic for Oregon NOTARY PUBUC•OREGON My Commission Expires: COMMISSION NO. 062071 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001 ` AFFIDAVIT - c. I i I... i I ~ d 4 The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on August 12, 1997, at 7:30 P.M., at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall Room, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code and any rules and procedures adopted by the Tigard City Council, or i rules of procedure set forth in Chapter 18.30. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the request accompanied by statements or evidence # sufficient to allow the Hearings Authority and all the parties to respond on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue, and failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further information is available at City Hall and may be obtained from the Community Develop- ment Director or City Recorder at the same location, or by calling (503) „ 639-4171. PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 97-0002 > WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (18.152) < The City of Tigard is proposing to amend the Community Development Code (Title 19) by establishing standards for wireless communication _ facilities by creating a new Chapter 152 (18.152). The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that wireless communication facilities are regu- lated in a manner which minimizes visual impacts, promotes universal service to all customers, encourages collocation of facilities to minimize the number of new facilities, ensures structural safety, and ensures all ( providers are fairly treated. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: 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 Com- munity Development Code Chapter 18.30. M994 - Publish July 31, 1997. f f f i i k I 1 J j I COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.0.BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 8892 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising e City of Tigard e ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 St>7 Hall Blvd, t e Tigard,Oregon 97223 e ❑ Duplicate Affidavit e Accounts Payable e I AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION' , STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. b L_____JSdthTSn der 9 being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the_T151ard-m ,alai ; n mimes k a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at TIGARD in the aforesaid county and state; that the - r1ark pl ace Right of Shy Hearing a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the I. e entire issue of said newspaper for T110 successive and consecutive in the following issues: July 24,31,1997 1 Subscribed and sworn t effoore me this y of July, 1997 _ OFFICIAL SEAL I c ROBIN A. BURGESS Notaryblic for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 062071 MY Commission Expires: MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY P' MAY 16, 2001 ® ] AFFiuE►viT % i w I The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on August 12, 1997, at 7:30 P.M., at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 S.W. Ifall Boulevard. Tigard, Oregon 97223. Both public, oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and any rules and procedures adopted by the Tigard City Council, or rules of procedure set forth in Chapter 18.30. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the request accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to allow the Hearings Authority and all the parties to respond on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue, and failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further information is available at City Hall and may be obtained from the Community Develop- ment Director or City Recorder at the same location, or by calling (503) 639-4171. PUBLIC HEARING: > TIGARD MARKETPLACE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT VACATION < A request to vacate approximately 4,172 square feet of public right-of- way of a remaining portion of the frontage road along Highway 99W (County Road #477) adjacent to the access road leading into the Tigard Marketplace center. LOCATION: Adjacent to SW Pacific Highway, South of SW Park Street, and adjacent to the Tigard Marketplace. ZONE: N/A. ` 1 j Wa I cr i I 57 fOUECiA1E ' TO BE I i T78892- Publish July 24, 31, 1997. I - 1 ~I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed I STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) i ® I, begin rust duly sworn, on oath, depose an y: That I osted in the foll~ g public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number (s) 1 - n R - \ O which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated s l lc,~ q Q'1 I of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the, a a day of~a~ , 19x11 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Tigard Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 3. Tigard Water Department, 8777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon Subscribed and sworn to before me this tk day of , 19 9-7 t i _ • ~AL SEAL i A? .w : IAN HAYES Notary PubVc for Oregon G.OAEGON I • •'+O 042148 ~ . MY COMM•SS - , Y 05.1999 My Commission Expires: E / q i i 91 L•Udmljola[fpacd« j j 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON a ORDINANCE NO. 97- OS AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 18) BY ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (ZOA 97- 0002) BY ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 152 (18.152), AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. i WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Community Development Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation of the Code; and WHEREAS, concern has been expressed by citizens and Council persons regarding the need to regulate the proliferation of wireless communication facilities since the passage of the Federal Telecommunications Act _ , - - - - _ , in 1996; and i - WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds that the proposed standards regulate wireless communication facilities in a manner that minimizes visual impacts, promotes universal service to all customers, encourages collocation of facilities to minimize the number of new facilities, ensures structural safety, and ensures all ii providers are treated fairly; and i WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance at a public hearing k on June 16, 1997 and July 21, 1997; and 4 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council to approve the proposed draft of the new Chapter 18.152 as shown in Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on August 12, 1997 to co i-,"dcr the ordinance; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria as noted below: The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 11; City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies I.l.l.a, 2.1.1, 2.1.3 and 7.7.1; and Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. i r' The proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals based on the following findings: - 1. Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement), is met as the City has followed its adopted citizen involvement program which involved the opportunity for review by its Citizen Involvement Team structure and public hearings as listed above. The City's Citizen Involvement Policies in the Comprehensive Plan have been acknowledged to be in i compliance with Goal 1. Notice for all hearings was also provided in the 1 igard 1 Times Newspaper (a paper of general circulation) that summarized and outlined the { i i ORDINANCE No. 97-PS- i :~citywid6ordlzoa97-02.ord Page I of 3 Will D. 29-Jul-97 4:38 PM 1 a 1 Now . ~ 1 c proposed amendments to the Community Development Code and was done so for each public hearing. Copies of the ordinance drafts have been available at least seven days prior to the public hearings, in compliance with the Tigard Community i Development Code Procedure; i 2. Goal 2 Land Use Planning), is met as the City applied all relevant Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies, and Community Development Code requirements throughout the review of this proposal; and { 3. Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services), is met as the proposed measures assist in implementing the provision of services in a more timely, orderly, and efficient manner by promoting universal service to all customers, ensuring all providers are treated fairly, and by providing a level or review and protection for the community within the guidelines of the Federal Telecommunications Act. I The proposal is consistent with the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: i 1. Policy 1.1. La. is satisfied as the proposed code changes are consistent with Statewide Planning Goals as indicated above and the changes assist in keeping the development code current with local needs and Federal law; 2. Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 are satisfied as the proposal has been reviewed at public hearings and through the City's Public Involvement process; i 3. The Council finds that the proposed changes are consistent with the provisions of Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.7.1 (Public Facilities and Services), which states that "community land use planning shall be coordinated with private utility agencies to ensure the availability of services when needed." This proposed ordinance complies with this policy as the regulations promote universal service to all customers and ensures all providers are treated fairly; and I I 4. Community Development Code Section 18.30 which establishes procedures for legislative code changes has been satisfied according to the findings above. I ' SECTION 2: Community Development Code (Title 18) shall be amended as shown in Exhibit "A". SECTION 3: An emergency is declared to exist by the Tigard Council because of concern that applications may be submitted that would impact City of Tigard neighborhoods; therefore, this ordinance is effective immediately. j I PASSED: By m D i vote of all ouncil members present after being read by number and title only, this l day of 1997. Catherine Wheatley, City ecorder ORDINANCE No. 97- is\citywide\ord\zoa97-02.ord Page 2 of 3 Will D. 29-Jul-97 4:38 PNI i 1 APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of '1997. i G s Nicoli, Mayor Approved as to form: (os~~d> 2 % ~ cfcwX i ` City Attorney gl is /9 Date L r s" ' I i i i ORDINANCF No. 97- is\ci tywide\ord\zoa97-02. ord Page 3 of 3 Will D. 29-Jul-97 4:38 PM , t j .7JI a v 1E+l/7rrnTm A L _ ` "ORDINANCE RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION" Chapter 18.152. WIRELESS COMMUNICATION 5. "Provider" means a person or company in FACILITIES. business of designing, installing, marketing and servicing wireless communication services including 18.152.010 Purpose. cellular telephone, personal communications services 18.152.020 Definitions. (PCS), enhanced/specialized mobile telephones and 18.152.030 Exclusions. commercial paging services. 18.152.040 Uses Permitted Outright. 18.152.050 Uses Subject to Director's Decision. 6. "Wireless communication facility" means an 18.152.060 Uses Permitted Subject to unmanned facility for the transmission of radio Conditional Use. frequency (RF) signals, usually consisting of an 18.152.070 Submission Requirements. equipment shelter, cabinet or other enclosed structure 13.152.080 Collocation Protocol. containing electronic equipment, a support structure, 18.152.090 Abandoned Facilities. antennas or other transmission and reception devices. 18.152.010 Purpose. 7. "Wireless communication facility, attached" means a wireicss cumutuuication facility uiat is a u:ed A. The purpose of these regulations are to ensure that to an existing structure, e.g., an existing building wall or wireless communication facilities are regulated in a roof, mechanical equipment, tower or pole, water tank, manner which: utility or light pole, which does not include additional wireless communication support structure. 1. Minimizes visual impacts; f 8. "Wireless communication transmissions f 2. Promotes universal service to all customers; towers" means a new structure, tower, pole or mast erected to support wireless communication antennas and 3. Encourages collocation of facilities to minimize connecting appurtenances. For the purposes of these the number of new facilities required; regulations, such a "tower" includes: 4. Ensures structural safety; and a. "Guyed tower" means a tower which is supported by the use of cables (guy wires) which are ' 5. Ensures all providers are fairly treated. permanently anchored. 18.152.020 Definitions. b. "Lattice tower" means a tower characterized by an open framework of lateral cross A. Definitions. The following definitions apply to members which stabilize the tower. i facilities regulated by this chapter: i c. "Monopole" means a single upright pole, C 1. "Antenna" means a device commonly in the engineered to be self-supporting and not requiring guy form of a metal rod, wire panel or dish, for transmitting wires or lateral cross-supports. or receiving electro-magnetic radiation. An antenna is i, typically mounted on a supporting tower, pole, mast or 18.152.030 Exemptions. building. A. Exemptions. The following uses and activities shall 2. "Collocation" means the placement of two or be exempt from these regulations: more antenna systems or platforms by separate FCC license holders ("providers") on a structure such as a 1. Existing towers and antennas and any repair, _ _ i . rP .nnctnirtinn or m 'm_~ n f rt;.~_ F cait eS %vhich tower- huilriino v,ora.t.,L or nta:w p...,lc!eo j do not create a significant change in visual impact, 3. "FAA" means the Federal Aviation j Administration. 2. Ham radio towers, citizen band transmitters and antennas. i v 4. "FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission. 3. Microwave dishes. Wireless Communication Facilities-City of 77gard (Draft: 7130197) Page 1 of 6 ~ r t i "ORDINANCE RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION" ....o...._.._...~.. 4. Antennas and equipment and other apparatus 2. The equipment shelter and related equipment completely located within an existing structure whose shall comply with the development standards, such as purpose is to enhance or facilitate communication setbacks, height limitations and lot coverage, of the base function of other structures on the site. zone. i 18.152.040 Uses Permitted Outright. 3. No previously-approved landscaping shall be removed to locate the accessory equipment building and A. Collocation of antenna(s) on existing towers in related equipment. If any such landscaping is removed, commercial and industrial zones. Installing an the applicant shall be required to replace it with the antenna(s) on an existing communication tower of any equivalent quantity and type of landscaping on si!e, in a height is permitted outright, so long as the additional manner to achieve the original intent, or to achieve antenna(s) is no more than 20 feet higher than the sufficient screening of any proposed new shelter and/or existing tower, no more than three providers are equipment if the original intent would no longer be collocating on the towers, and the color of the applicable. If any removed landscaping cannot be antenna(s) blends with the existing structure or replaced on the site, then the application shall be Surroundings. rovicwcd per Seciion 18. 152.050 below. B. Collocation of antenna(s) on existing non-tower E. Towers in the I-L and I-H zones. Locating a tower structures in commercial and industrial zones. Installing of any height, including antennas, other supporting an antenna(s) on an existing structure other than a tower, equipment and accessory equipment shelters, is such as a building, water tank, sign, light fixture or permitted by right in the I-L and I-H zones, provided utility pole, is permitted outright so long as the that such a tower shall be set back from any existing off- additional antenna(s) is no more than 20 feet higher than site residence by a distance equal to the height of the j the existing structure, no more than three providers are tower. Any equipment shelter shall comply with the collocating on the structure, and the color of the development standards of the base zone. f - antenna(s) blends with the existing structure or I surroundings. 18.152.050 Uses Permitted Subject to Director's Decision. C. Collocation of antenna(s) on existing non-tower structures in residential zones. Installing an antenna(s) A. Uses permitted. The Director shall review the uses on an existing structure other than a tower, such as a subject to the applicable Sections of 18.32 and Section building, water tank, sign, light fixture or utility pole, so 18.120, using approval criteria contained in Section long as the additional antenna(s) is no more than 10 feet 18.152.05013 below. The following uses are subject to higher than the existing structure, no more than three approval under this section: providers are collocating on the structure, and the color of the antenna(s) blends in with the existing structure 1. Towers in commercial zones and the I-P zone. and surroundings. A tower, including antennas, other support equipment and/or accessory equipment buildings, in any D. Installation of accessory equipment shelters. Any commercial or I-P district, provided that such a tower provider who is authorized to collocate on an existing shall be set back from any existing off-site residence by tower or non-tower structure as provided in Section a distance equal to the height of the tower. 18.152.040 A-C above, shall be allowed to install any necessary accessory equipment shelters and related 2. Public open space. A tower, including equipment at or near the base of the tower or structure, antennas, other support equipment and/or accessory or within the structure, so long as: equipment buildings, provided that such a tower shall be j act back from any existing oti-site residence by a } 1. The accessory equipment shelter and related distance equal to the height of the tower. equipment is either located completely within the existing structure, or is located within the fenced area previously approved. i i i f Wireless Communication Facilities-City of Tigard (Draft: 7130197) Page 1 of 6 i. i 1. I f1f I~ L -unuiNii U liti;Ol9lIYIUM BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION"r 3. Collocation in commercial and the 1-P zone. 2. Setbacks: Towers shall be set back in f Collocation of an antenna(s) that extends more than 20 accordance with the setbacks contained in the base zone, feet above an existing tower or non-tower sur;,;ture, or except where adjacent to any existing off-site residence, l when collocating more than three providers in in which case the tower shall be set back by a distance commercial and industrial zones. equal to the height of the tower. 4. Collocation in residential zones. Collocation of 3. Tower spacing: No new tower shall be allowed an antenna(s) that extends more than 10 feet above a within 500 feet of an existing tower. If, having non-tower structure or an existing tower. completed the collocation protocol outlined in Section 18.152.080 without success, the provider finds it 5. Accessory equipment shelter. Installation of necessary to build a tower less than the distance additional accessory equipment shelters or related specified above, the provider may make application for equipment if required existing landscaping is removed a variance. The variance criteria shall be as regulated and cannot be replaced on the site to achieve the original by Section 18.134. intent, or to sufficiently screen any proposed new shelter and/or equipment if the original intent is no longer 4. Tower height: No tower shall exceed Inn feet applicable. for a single user or 125 for multiple users. 6. Towers and antennas in public riohte-of-way. 5. Lighting: No lighting shall be permitted on a Installation of any tower or antenna within any public tower except as required by the FAA. 1 right-of-way, provided that such tower or antenna shall j be set back from any off-site residence by a distance 6. Fencing and security: For security purposes, equal to the height of the tower. towers and ancillary facilities shalt be enclosed by a minimum six-foot fence. B. Review criteria. Any use subject to a Director's y _ Decision per Section 18.152.050A above, shall be 7. Landscaping and screening: Landscaping shall evaluated using the following standards: be placed outside the fence and shall consist of evergreen shrubs which reach six-feet in height and i 1. Aesthetic: 95% opacity within three years of planting. a. New towers shall have a non-reflective 8. Noise: Noise-generating equipment shall be surface and a neutral color or, if required by the FAA, sound-buffered by means of baffling, barriers or other be painted pursuant to the FAA's requirements. suitable means to reduce the sound level measured at the property line to 50 dBA (day)/40 dBA (night) when b. If collocation on an existing tower is adjacent to a noise sensitive land use and 75 dBA f requested, the design of any antenna(s), accessory (day)/60 dBA (night) when adjacent to other uses. structures or equipment shall, to the extent possible, use materials, colors and textures that will match the C. Other requirements. At the time a provider requests existing tower to which the equipment of the collocating a building permit, it must demonstrate compliance to all ! ; . provider is being attached. applicable state and federal regulations, including, but not limited to, the Oregon Uniform Structural, Building c. If collocation on an existing non-tower Codes, and FAA. structure is requested, the antenna(s) and supporting electrical and mechanical equipment shall be a neutral 18.152.060 Uses Permitted Subject to color that is the same as the color as the supporting Conditional Use Review. structure so as to make the antenna(s) and related equipment as visually unobtrusive as possible. A. Uses permitted. The Hearings Officer shall review the uses subject to the applicable Sections of 18.32 and Section 18.130, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.152.060B below. The following uses are subject to approval under this section: 3 i f Wreless Communication Facilities-City of Tigard (Draft. 7130197) Page 3 of 6 l r i - "ORDINANCE RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION"..._...a.._..~... u i 1. Towers in residential zones. A tower, including (4) Minimize visual impacts by varying the antennas, other support equipment and/or accessory setbacks or landscaping standards that would otherwise equipment buildings, in any residential zone, except be applicable, so long as the overall impact of the towers located in public open space. proposed development is as good or better than that 1 which would otherwise be required without said i 2. Towers within areas with historic overlay variations. j designation. A tower, including antennas, other support equipment and/or accessory equipment buildings, in 2. Color: Towers shall have a non-reflective areas with historic overlay designation. surface and a neutral color or, if required by the FAA, be painted pursuant to the FAA's requirements. ' 3. Towers in excess of 100 feet for a single user and 125 for multiple users except those located in the 3. Setbacks: Towers shall be set back from the I-L and I-H zones, which are allowed outright per property line by a distance equal to the height of the Section 18.152.040E. tower. B. Review criteria. Any use subject to Hearings 4. Tower spacing: No new tower .n n residential Officer review per Section 18.152.060A above, shall be zone shall be allowed within 2,000 feet of an existing evaluated using the following standards: tower, in a residential zone. No new tower in non- residential zones shall be allowed within 500 feet of an 1. Protection of points of visual interest: existing tower. If, having completed the collocation protocol outlined in Section 18.152.080 without success, a. Views from residential structures located the provider finds it necessary to build a tower less than within 250 feet of the proposed wireless communication the distances specified above, the provider may make j facility to the following points of visual interest shall be application for a variance. The variance criteria shall be protected to the greatest practical extent: as regulated by Section 18.134. I' (1) Mountains; 5. Lighting: No lighting shall be permitted on a tower except as required by the FAA. (2) Significant public open spaces; 6. Fencing and security: For security purposes, (3) Historic structures. towers and ancillary facilities shall be enclosed by a minimum six-foot fence. j { b. The following standards, and only the following standards, shall be used to protect the above 7. Landscaping and screening: Landscaping shall identified points of visual interest to the greatest be placed outside the fence and shall consist of practical extent if views from a residential structure evergreen shrubs which reach six-feet in height and located within 250 feet from a proposed wireless 95% opacity within three years of planting. communication facility to a point of visual interest specifically identified above is significantly affected: 8. Noise: Noise-generating equipment shall be sound-buffered by means of baffling, barriers or other (1) Investigate other locations within the suitable means to reduce the sound level measured at the same lot where such visual impacts can be minimized property line to 50 dBA (day)/40 dBA (night) when overall. adjacent to a noise sensitive land use and 75 dBA (day)/60 dBA (night) when adjacent to other uses. (2) Investigate alternative tower designs that can be used to minimize the interruption of views C. Other requirements. At the time a provider requests f om the res;dc_.nce to the _ the r,,..,,.,fv1;Ual ,uicresi. a building permit, it must demonstrate compliance to all 1 applicable state and federal regulations, including, but (3) Minimize visual impacts to the point of not limited to, the Oregon Uniform Structural and visual interest referred to above, by demonstrating that Building Codes and FAA. { 'J collocation or the use of other structures within the applicant's service area is not feasible at this time. Wlrelexs Communication Facilities-City of Tigard (Draft: 7130197) Page 4 of 6 f 111 S r- "ORDINANCE RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION" 18.152.070 Submission Requirements. This collocation protocol is designed to increase the likelihood that all reasonable opportunities for A. Submission requirements. When submitting an collocation have been investigated and the appropriate application for a Director's Decision or Conditional Use information has been shared among providers. pursuant to Sections 18.152.050 and 18.152.060 above, the following information must be submitted: The City recognizes that collocation is preferable, where technologically feasible and visually desirable, as 1. To-scale site plan which includes: a matter of public policy, but that collocation of antennas by providers is not always feasible for a. The location of structures on the property technical or business reasons. However, if all licensed and the adjoining properties; providers are made aware of any pending tower or antenna permit requests, such disclosure will allow b. The location of the proposed facility providers to have the maximum amount of time to including existing/new tower or non-tower structure consider possible collocation opportunities, and will upon which the antennas are to be attached, equipment also assure the City that all reasonable accommodations shelter and associated equipment and fenced enclosure, for collocation have been investigated. The code creates if any strong incentives for collocation because proposals for collocation qualify for a less rigorous approval process. c. The location and dimension of all landscaping, including the type and size of plant B. Applicability. Requirements for the collocation material to be used, as well as any other landscape protocol apply only to new towers subject to Director's material incorporated into the overall site. Decision or Conditional Use review. j d. On-site circulation and access. C. Pre-application requirement. A pre-application I conference is required for all proposed free-standing i 2. To-scale elevations of proposed facility and towers except those in the I-L and I-H zones, which are ancillary equipment. permitted outright. 3. A diagram or map showing the viewshed of the D. Collocation request letter requirement. At the time proposed facility. a pre-application conference is scheduled, the applicant shall demonstrate that the following notice was mailed 4. Three to Five photo simulations of the proposed to all other wireless communication providers licensed f! facility from affected residential properties and public to provide service within the City's boundaries: rights-of-way at varying distances. i "Pursuant to the requirements of 18.152.080, [name 5. If facility is to be located in an area of a point of of wireless provider] is hereby providing you with - visual interest, per Section 18.152.060 B.l.a., written notice of our intent to meet with representatives of the documentation of considerations taken to locate the City of Tigard in a pre-application conference to discuss facility in a manner which minimizes visual impacts. the location a new free-standing wireless communication facility that would be located at 6. Written documentation fulfilling requirements [location]. In general, we plan to construct a [type of of collocation protocol described in Section 18.152.080 tower] of [number] feet in height for the purpose of below. providing [cellular, PCS] service. 18.152.080 Collocation Protocol. Please infirm us whether your company has any existing or pending wireless facilities located within one mile of the proposed facility, that may be available for A. Purpose. The purpose of this requirement is to possible collocation opportunities. Please provide us create a process that will allow providers to equitably with this information within 10 business davs after the share publicly-available, non-proprietary information date of this letter. Your cooperation is appreciated. among themselves, with interested persons and agencies, and with the City, at the time the provider Sincerely [Name of pre-application applicant]." schedules a pre-application conference with the City. Wireless Communrcalion Facilities-CiV of Tigard (Draft: 7130197) Page 5 of 6 i ' J Aft- - . ORDINANCE RECOMMENDED BY THE PUNNING COMMISSION E. Applicant's obligation to analyze feasibility of C. Extension. Upon written application, prior to the collocation. If a response to a collocation request letter expiration of the six-month period, the Director shall, in I is received by an applicant indicating an opportunity for writing, grant a six-month extension for reuse of the collocation on an existing tower of another provider, the facility. Additional extensions beyond the first six- applicant shall make a good faith effort to analyze the month extension may be granted by the Director subject i . feasibility of collocation. This analysis shall be to any conditions required to bring the project or facility } submitted with an application for a freestanding tower. into compliance with current regulation(s) and make it I A good faith effort to investigate the feasibility of compatible with surrounding development. collocation on an existing facility shall be deemed to have occurred if the applicant submits all of the following information: 1. A statement from a qualified engineer 1 indicating whether the necessary service can or cannot ' be provided by collocation at the potential collocation site. 2. Evidence that lessor of the potential collocation site either agrees or disagrees to collocation on his/her property. i . 3. Evidence that adequate site area exists or does not exist at the potential collocation site to accommodate ancillary equipment for the second II 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 collocation site. r i F, Result of collocation feasibility analysis. If the applicant has provided information addressing each of t the criteria in 18.152.080D above, the collocation protocol shall be deemed complete. The applicant's tower shall then be permitted subject to the applicable standards and restrictions contained in this chapter. tI 18.152.090 Abandoned Facilities. ti 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. n. paerytrnumrsts.isz i 30-mi-97 8:54 AM t i Wreless Communication Facilities-City of Tigard (Draft: 7130197) Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT B Agenda Item: 5.1 I Hearing Date: -,June 16. 1997 7:30 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF TIGARD FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON t;--ity oeaetap-t - ShapingA Better Community SECTION I: APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: RLC NAME: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 97-0002 APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: Same 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 I LOCATION: Citywide REQUEST: 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 collocation of facilities to minimize the number of new facilities, ensures structural safety, and ensures all providers are fairly treated. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: 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. I SECTION II: BACKGROUND INFORMATION General Information: The passage of the Federal Telecommunications Act and the selling of new wireless licenses by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has significantly increased the J number of requests for cellular and personal communication services, communication I J 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. STAFF REPORT TO THE P.C. WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES - ZOA 97-0002 PAGE 1 OF 3 i ' s ' ~ ICI I Federal Telecommunications Act: The Federal Telecommunications Act was passed in 1996. This Act deregulated the i nation's communication industry. This deregulation has created a marketplace filled with 1 new, more efficient technologies. Tho 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 3. cities may not regulate personal wireless services "on the basis of the environmental h 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 j specifically at these facilities. Summary of Proposed Ordinance: 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 "CRAFT" ORDINANCE INCLUDES: j > collocation is encouraged in that use of existing towers is permitted outright; I > new towers are also allowed outright in the I-L Light and Heavy Industrial zones; t STAFF REPORT TO THE P.C. WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES - ZOA 97.0002 PAGE 2 OF 3 - I fi Y. E M 2 1 > new towers in Commercial and the Industrial Park zones require a Director's decision; > new towers in residential zones, historic overlay, and in excess of 100 feet for a single I user and 125 feet for multiple users (except in the I-H and I-L zones) require a conditional use; > a collocation 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 > 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 i desert southwest. While design companies claim that they can make towers look like j 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. f j I i SECTION III: STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the proposed Ordinance will not ` adversely affect the health, 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. i i- June 4. 1997 1 PREPARED BY: William D'Andrea DATE Associate Planner, AICP June 4. 1997 APPROVED BY: Richard bewersdorff DATE Planning Manager { i:Xcurp lnlzc a97-02. rpt 4-Jun-97 i STAFF REPORT TO THE P.C. WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES - ZOA 97-00172 PAGE 3 OF 3 - 7 i c -CITY OF TIURD - "FINAL DRAFT"_ Chapter 18.152. WIRELESS COMMUNICATION 5. "Provider" means a person or company in FACILITIES. business of designing, installing, marketing and servicing wireless communication services including i 18.152.010 Purpose. cellular telephone, personal communications services 1 18.152.020 Definitions. (PCS), enhancedtspecialized mobile telephones and 18.152.030 Exclusions. commercial paging services. 1 1&152.040 Uses Permitted Outright. 18.152.050 Uses Subject to Director's Decision. 6. "Wireless communication facility" means an 18.152.060 Uses Permitted Subject to unmanned facility for the transmission of radio Conditional Use. frequency (RF) signals, usually consisting of an 18.152.070 Submission Requirements. equipment shelter, cabinet or other enclosed structure 18.152.080 Collocation Protocol. containing electronic equipment, a support structure, 18.152.090 Abandoned Facilities. antennas or other transmission and reception devices. 18.152.010 Purpose. 7. "Wireless communication facility, attached" xed ' - w - meanq a whelp. rnm mynirat;o!: f ~rrr tr:.".t rr ve ff. A. The purpose of these regulations are to ensure that to an existing structure, e.g., an existing building wall or wireless communication facilities are regulated in a roof, mechanical equipment, tower or pole, water tank, manner which: utility or light pole, which does not include additional - wireless communication support structure. 1. Minimizes visual impacts; 8. "Wireless communication transmissions 2. Promotes universal service to all customers; towers" means a new structure, tower, pole or mast erected to support wireless communication antennas and 3. Encourages collocation of facilities to minimize connecting appurtenances. For the purposes of these the number of new facilities required; regulations, such a "tower" includes: I 4. Ensures structural safety; and a. "Guyed tower" means a tower which is supported by the use of cables (guy wires) which are 5. Ensures all providers are fairly treated. permanently anchored. f ' 18.152.020 Definitions b, "Lattice tower" means a tower characterized by an open famework of lateral cross A. Definitions. The following definitions apply to members which stabilize the tower. facilities regulated by this chapter c. "Monopole" means a single uptight pole, 1. "Antenna" means a device commonly in the engineered to be self-supporting and requiring guy wires 1 form of a metal rod, wire panel or dish, for transmitting or lateral cross-supports. or receiving electro-magnetic radiation. An antenna is typically mounted on a supporting tower, pole, mast or 18.152.030 Exemptions building. A. Exemptions- The following uses and activities shall 2. "Collocation" means the placement of two or be exempt from these regulations: more antenna systems or platforms by separate FCC license holders ("providers") on a structure such as a 1. Existing towers and antennas and any repair, tower, building, water tank or utility pole. reconstruction or maintenance of these facilities which do not create a significant change in visual impact. 3. "FAA" means the Federal Aviation ,u,;,i;,;;;,a,;~„• 2. Ham radio towers, citizen band transmitters and i antennas. 4. "FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission- 3. Microwave dishes. 1 • s Wireless Communicaton Facilities (Draft: &2/97) Page 1 of 6 1 - y -_%iii Gi ii" ill - "FINAL ORAR% 4. Antennas and equipment and other apparatus setbacks, height limitations and lot coverage. of the base completely located within an existing structure whose zone; purpose is to enhance or facilitate communication '-"unction of other structures on the site. 3. No previously-approved landscaping shall be removed to locate the accessory equipment building and 18.152.040 Uses Permitted Outright related equipment. If any such landscaping is removed, the applicant shall be required to replace it with the A. Collocation of antenna(s) on existing towers in equivalent quantity and type of landscaping on site, in a commercial and industrial zones. Installing an manner to achieve the original intent, or to achieve antenna(s) on an existing communication tower of any sufficient screening of any proposed new shelter and/or height is permitted outright, so long as the additional equipment if the original intent would no longer be antenna(s) is no more than 20 feet higher than the applicable. If any removed landscaping cannot be existing tower, no more than three providers are replace on site, then the applicant shall be reviewed per colocating on the towers, and the color of the antenna(s) Section 18.152.050 below. blends with the existing structure or surroundings. E. Towers in the M. and I-H zo.^.es. Lo=...^.g a owec B. Coiiocauon of antenna(s) on existing non-tower of any height, including antennas, other supporting structures in commercial and industrial zones. Installing equipment and accessory equipment shelters, is an antenna(s) on an existing structure other than a tower, permitted by right in the I-L and I-H zones, providing such as a building, water tank, sign, light fixture or that such a tower shall be set back from any existing off- `---C. Collocation of antenna(s) on existing non-tower A. Uses permitted. The Director shall review the uses utility pole, is permitted outright so long as the site residence by a distance equal to the height of the additional antenna(s) is no more than 20 feet higher than tower. Any equipment shelter shall comply with the i the existing structure, no more than three providers are development standards of the base zone. colocating on the structure, and the color of the antenna(s) blends with the existing structure or 18.152.050 Uses Permitted Subject to surroundings. Director's Decision structures in residential zones. Installing an antenna(s) subject to the applicable Sections of 18.32 and Section on an existing structure other than a tower, such as a 18.120, using approval criteria contained in Section building, water tank, sign, light fixture or utility pole, so 18.152.0508 below. The following uses are subject to long as the additional antenna(s) is no more than 10 feet approval under this section: higher than the existing structure, no more than three providers are colocating on the structure, and the color 1. Towers in commercial zones and the I-P zone. of the antenna(s) blends in with the existing structure A tower, including antennas, other support equipment ;I and surroundings. and/or accessory equipment buildings, in any l commercial or I-P district, provided that such a tower I D. Installation of accessory equipment shelters. Any shall be set back from any existing off-site residence by 1 provider who is authorized to collocate on an existing a distance equal to the height of the tower, tower or non-tower structure as provided in Section 18.152.040 A-C above, shall be allowed to install any 2. Public open space. A tower, including necessary accessory equipment shelters and related antennas, other support equipment and/or accessory equipment at or near the base of the tower or structure, equipment buildings, provided that such a tower shall be or within the structure, so long as: set back from any existing off-site residence by a distance equal to the height of the tower. I 1. The accessory equipment shelter and related equipment is either located completely within the 3. Collocation in commercial and the I-P zone. existing structure. or is located within the feaccd area Collocation of an antenna(s) that extends more than 20 previously approved; feet above an existing tower or non-tower structure, or when colocating more than three providers in 2. The equipment shelter and related equipment commercial and industrial zones. shalt comply with the development standards, such as Wireless Communication Facilitks (Draft. S/Z97) Page 2 of 6 wool" .-CITY OF TIG,ARD - "FINAL DRAFT"_ a 4. Collocation in residential zones. Collocation of b. Towers not designed to collapse within i an antenna(s) that extends more than 10 feet above a themselves shall be set back from the property line by a non-tower structure or an existing tower. distance equal to the height of the tower. 5. Accessory equipment shelter. Installation of 3. Tower spacing: No new tower shall be allowed additional accessory equipment shelters or related within 500 feet of an existing tower. If, having equipment if required existing landscaping is removed completed the collocation protocol outlined in Section i and cannot be replaced on the site to achieve the original 18.152.080 without success, the provider will be intent, or to sufficiently screen any proposed new shelter required to build a tower less than 500 feet from an and/or equipment if the original intent is no longer existing tower, it will be required to obtain a variance, applicable. as regulated by Section 18.134. 6. Towers and antennas in public rights-of-way. 4. Tower height: No tower shall exceed 100 feet Installation of any tower or antenna within any public for a single user or 125 for multiple users. { right-of-way, provided that such tower or antenna shall ba sci U ack irual ariy uil-siic resiricncd by it distance I. %.ityiiiriK: 'Nu iigitiing sitaii oc pcrmiiicd on a equal to the height of the tower. tower except as required by the FAA. B. Review criteria. Any use subject to a Director's C. Other requirements. At the time a provider requests Decision per Section 18.152.050A above, shall be a building permit, it must demonstrate compliance to all j evaluated using the following standards: applicable state and federal regulations, including, but not limited to, the Oregon Uniform Structural, Building 1. Aesthetic: Codes, and FAA. j a. New towers shall maintain a non-reflective 18.152.060 Uses Permitted Subject to ! - gray finish or, if required by the FAA, be painted Conditional Use Review 1 --?ursuant to the FAA's requirements. f A. Uses permitted. The Hearings Officer shall review j b. If collocation on an existing tower is the uses subject to the applicable Sections of 1832 and I requested, the design of any antenna(s), accessory Section 18.130, using approval criteria contained in r structures or equipment shall, to the extent possible, use Section 18.152.060B below. Tire following uses are materials, colors and textures that will match the subject to approval under this section: ~ - existing tower to which the equipment of the colocating provider is being attached. 1. Towers in residential zones. A tower, including antennas, other support equipment and/or accessory c. If collocation on an existing non-tower equipment buildings, in any residential zone, except j i structure is requested, the antenna(s) and supporting towers located in public open space. t electrical and mechanical equipment shall be a neutral color that is the same as the color as the supporting 2. Towers within areas with historic overlay f structure so as to make the antenna(s) and related designation. A tower, including antennas, other support j equipment as visually unobtrusive as possible. equipment and/or accessory equipment buildings, in areas with historic overlay designation. 2. Setbacks: 3. Towers in excess of 100 feet for a single user a. Towers designed to collapse within and 125 for multiple users except those located in the themselves shall be set back in accordance with the I-L and I-H zones, which are allowed outright per setbacks cort--fined in true by_ zc ;c, cxccpt -L--- Scc"on I.°,.1.42.V,` 0 adjacent to any existing off-site residence, in which case B. Review criteria. Any use subject to Hearings the tower shall be set back by a distance equal to the Officer review per Section 18.152.060A above, shall be `',eight of the tower. evaluated using the following standards: 1. Protection of points of visual interest: j i i s; riekss Communication Facilities (Draft: 517197) Page 3 of 6 1 i j - - J J new n~+~w.ww -W I T ur menu - "r1"M unwir_ a. Views from residential structures located required to build a tower less than the distances within 250 feet of th-. proposed wireless communication specified above, it will be required to obtain a variance, facility to the following points of visual interest shall be as regulated by Section 18.134. /--protected to the greatest practical extent: 5. Lighting: No lighting shall be permitted on a (1) Mountains; tower except as required by the FAA. (2) Significant public open spaces; 6. Fencing and security: For security purposes, towers and ancillary facilities shall be enclosed by a (3) Historic structures. six-foot fence. b. The following standards, and only the 7. Landscaping and screening. Landscaping shall following standards, shall be used to protect the above be placed outside the fence and shall consist of identified points of visual interest to the greatest evergreen shrubs which reach sic-feet in height and practical extent if views from a residential structure 95% opacity within three years of planting. located within 250 feet from a proposed wireless communication facility to a point of visual interest 8. Noise: Noise-generating equipment shall be specifically identified above is significantly affected: sound-buffered by means of baffling, barriers or other suitable means to reduce the sound level measured at the _ (1) Investigate other locations within the property line to 45 dBA when adjacent to residential same lot where such visual impacts can be minimized uses and 55 dBA when adjacent to other uses. overall. 1 C. Other requirements. At the time a provider requests (2) Investigate alternative tower designs a building permit, it must demonstrate compliance to all j that can be used to minimize the interruption of views applicable state and federal regulations, including, but from the residence to the point of visual interest. not limited to, the Oregon Uniform Structural and _ Building Codes and FAA. z (3) Minimize visual impacts to the point of visual interest referred to above, by demonstrating that 18.152.070 Submission Requirements collocation or the use of other structures within the applicant's service area is not feasible at this time. A. Submission requirements. When submitting an application for a Director's Decision or Conditional Use (4) Minimize visual impacts by varying the pursuant to Sections 18.152.050 and 18.152.060 above, setbacks or landscaping standards that would otherwise the following information must be submitted: be applicable, so long as the overall impact of the proposed development is as good or better than that 1. To-scale site plan which includes: which would otherwise be required without said variations. a. The location of structures on the property and the adjoining properties; 2. Color. Towers shall have a non-reflective i surface and a neutral color or, if required by the FAA, b. The location of the proposed facility be painted pursuant to the FAA's requirements. including existing/new tower or non-tower structure upon which the antennas are to be attached, equipment 3. Setbacks: Towers shall be set back from the shelter and associated equipment and fenced enclosure, property line by a distance equal to the height of the if any. tower. 4. Tower spacing: No new tower in a residential c. The location and dimension of all zone shall he allowed within 2,000 "'et ui an existing landscaping, including the type and size of plant ® tower. No new tower in non-residential zones shall be material to be uses, as well as any other landscape IIlowed within 500 feet of an existing tower. If, having material incorporated into the overall site. '...-completed the collocation protocol outlined in Section 18.152.080 without success, the provider will be d. On-site circulation and access. { i i ! Wireless Communication Facilities (Draft: 51-11" Page 4 of 6 • f G 1 • nr*vnrTrntrna■ - - - ._vn r yr rrcvrnu'~IIUiLU1tHr1"._ ' I~ 2. To-scale elevations of proposed facility and C. Pre-application requirement. A pre-application ancillary equipment. conference is required for all proposed free-standing towers except those in the i-L and I-H zones, which are 3. A diagram or map showing the viewshed of the permitted outright. proposed facility. D. Collocation request letter requirement. At the time 4. Three to Five photo simulations of the proposed a pre-application conference is scheduled, the applicant facility from affected residential properties and public shall demonstrate that the following notice was mailed rights-of-way at varying distances. to all other wireless communication providers licensed to provide service within the City's boundaries: 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 "Pursuant to the requirements of 18.152.080, [name documentation of considerations taken to locate the of wireless provider] is hereby providing you with facility in a manner which minimizes visual impacts. notice of our intent to meet with representatives of the City of Tigard in a pre-application conference to discuss 6. Written documentation fulfilling requirements the location a new free-standing wireless of collocation protocol described in Section 18.152.080 commtmicatinn s kili - that would ; a lucaicd ai below. [location]. In general, we plan to construct a (type of tower] of [number] feet in height for the purpose of 18.152.080 Collocation Protocol providing [cellular, PCS] service. Please inform us whether your company has any A. Purpose. The purpose of this requirement is to create a process that will allow providers to equitably existing or pending wireless facilities located within one share non- mile of the proposed facility, that may be available for publicly-available, proprietary information among themselves, with interested persons and possible collocation opportunities. Please provide us with this information within 10 business days after the ~agencies, and with the City, at the time the provider date of this letter. Your cooperation is appreciated. ^Fhedules a pre-application conference with the City. -•=Chis collocation protocol is designed to increase the likelihood that all reasonable opportunities for Sincerely [Name of pre-application applicant]." collocation have been investigated and the appropriate E. Applicants obligation to analyze feasibility of information has been shared among providers. collocation. If a response to a collocation request letter ! The City recognizes that collocation is preferable, is received by an applicant indicating an opportunity for li where technologically feasible and visually desirable, as collocation on an existing tower of another provider, the a matter of public policy, but that collocation of applicant shall make a good faith effort to analyze the ! antennas by providers is not always feasible for feasibility of collocation. This analysis shall be e technical or business reasons. However, if all licensed submitted with an application for a freestanding tower. providers are made aware of any good faith effort to investigate the feasibility of p y pending tower or collocation on an existing facility shall be deemed to antenna permit requests, such disclosure will allow have occurred if the applicant submits all of the providers to have the maximum amount of time to i consider possible collocation opportunities, and will following information: also assure the City that all reasonable accommodations 1. A statement from a qualified engineer i for collocation have been investigated. The code creates indicating whether the necessary service can or cannot strong incentives for collocation because proposals for be provided by collocation at the potential collocation collocation qualify for a less rigorous approval process. site: B. Applicability. Requirements for the collocation i I. Evidence that lessor of the potential collocation protocol apply only to new towers subject to Director's site either agrees or disagrees to collocation on his/her ® t Decision or Conditional Use review. I property; f i i Wireless Comma»ication FaciMer (Draft. 5297) Page S of 6 i ' I ~J ~~uAnu-°rINAIUMT"_ a ' 3. Evidence that adequate site area exists or does f - not exist at the potential collocation site to accommodate ancillary equipment for the second S ~rovider and still meet all of the development standards 1 -required in the base zone; L j 4. Evidence that adequate access does or does not exist at the possible collocation site. F. Result of collocation feasibility analysis. If the applicant has provided information addressing each of the criteria in 18.152.080D above, the collocation protocol shall be deemed complete. The applicant's tower shall then be permitted subject to the applicable standards and restrictions contained in this chapter. i 1 18.152.090 Abandnned Farititi" A. Abandonment defined. A wireless communication facility which has been discontinued for a period of six consecutive months or longer is hereby declared abandoned. j 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 to of abandonment. Failure to remove an abandoned .'acility 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 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- f { h?paaytrnasutz\ 18.152 21-May-97 11:44 Mr Wirekss Conenunication FacOws (Draft: SIW7) Page 6 of 6 I LLJ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ~ j ORDINANCE NO.97- dG 1 AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE VACATION OF APPROXIMATELY 4,172 SQUARE I FEET OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ABUTTING SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY (99W), SOUTH OF i SW PARK STREET, AND ADJACENT TO TIGARD MARKETPLACE. WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council initiated this vacation request pursuant to Section 15.08.040 of the ! Tigard Municipal Code at a public hearing held on July 8, 1997; and WHEREAS, the right-of-way was previously dedicated to the public; and i Iiigi~Hay WHEREAS. in 1986. Ordinance No. 8.5-19 vacated a pOr!i4n ofa fre.^.t ge roved alo , SW Pacific (99W) to facilitate a con-unercial development planned for the area; and WHEREAS, in 1987, a Site Development Review (SDR 87-15) was approved to allow the construction of a i. 153,180 square foot retail center, commonly known as Tigard Marketplace; and WHEREAS, the 1986 street vacation vacated only a portion of the frontage road right-of-way; and ! WHEREAS, the remaining portion of the right-of-way contains a 8,617 square foot landscaped area that is f.~ adjacent to the access road that leads into the Tigard Marketplace Center; and I WHEREAS, approximately 4,172 square feet of public right-of-way (roughly half of the landscape island) 1 1 may no longer be necessary; and t WHEREAS, the vacation was initiated by the City Council and approval has been recommended by the j Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, all affected service providers, including utility companies and emergency service providers, have had the opportunity to review the vacation proposal and have no objections; and i WHEREAS, the Western Bypass Study, Project 4406, Tigard Triangle Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA 96-0008) and the Portland to Lincoln City Corridor, Interim Corridor Strategy (March 1997) discuss the possibility of the future widening of SW Pacific Highway to six (6) lanes (or an estimated right-of-way width of 56 feet from centerline); and JJJj WHEREAS, a small portion of the proposed area to be vacated is within the 56-foot right-or-way; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to prevent the future purchase of property which is currently within 1 the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed to re-dedicate to the public, any land within the requested vacation 1 area that may be necessary in the future for widening SW Pacific Highway; and I ORDINANCE NO. 97- is\citywide\ord\vactgmk2.ord j Page I of 3 Will D. 29-Jul-97 4:17 PM i WHEREAS, a condition is necessary that requires the applicant to enter into an agreement to grant the re-dedication, to occur at the time the right-of-way is deemed to be necessary; and y i WHEREAS, GTE Telephone Operations has 2 existing 4-inch conduits with cable in them paralleling the 1 north side of the access road which will require the granting of a utility easement; and i i WHEREAS, Northwest Natural Gas has facilities within the proposed vacation area which will require the granting of a utility easement for right of access, repair, and/or replacement, and requiring that no structure be built or erected within a distance of ten feet from the centerline of said facilities; and 1 WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Water Department has a 12-inch water main located within the proposed i vacation area that will require the granting of a 15-foot utility easement; and WHEREAS, notice has been mailed to all property owners abutting said vacation area and all owners in the - i affected area, as required by ORS 271.080; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Tigard Municipal Code 15.08.120, the City Recorder posted notice in the area to be vacated and published notice of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the property owners of the majority of the area affected have not objected in writing; and WHEREAS, the City Council having considered the request on August 12, 1997, finds that it is in the public interest to approve the request to vacate said public right-of--way as the public interest will not be prejudiced by this vacation, as provided be ORS 271.120 and TMC Section 15.08.130; and { WHEREAS, the Council finds that the following conditions are necessary to vacate said land: 1. A utility easement shall be provided within the vacation area. i~ 2. The property owner shall enter into an agreement to re-dedicate to the public, any land within the i requested vacation area that may be deemed necessary in the future for the widening of SW Pacific Highway (99W). i NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: 9 SECTION I- The Tigard City Council hereby orders the vacation of said approximately 4,172 square j feet of public right-of-way as shown and described on the attached Exhibits A and B (map and legal description of area to be vacated), and by this reference, made part f thereof. j SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council further orders that the vacation be subject to the following conditions: ORDINANCE NO. 97- is\citywide\ord\vactgrrtk2.ord Page 2 of 3 W ill D. 29-Jul-97 4:17 PM j i 4 Mood . I. Y j 1 1. A utility easement shall be provided within the area to be vacated. 1 2. The property owner shall enter into an agreement to re-dedicate to the public, any land within the requested vacation area that may be deemed necessary in the future for the widening of SW Pacific I Highway (99W). SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. j PASSED: By UYIQL? (1'nt77.L,L~ vote of all Council m tubers present after being read by number j ' and title only, this /-)"V day of , 1997. ; - Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder Q APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of u ~ , 1997. J e icoli, Mayor i - Approved as to form: City Attorney 2 Date 1 j 1 ~ j j ORDINANCE NO.97- r; J j is\citywide\ord\vactgrok2.ord Page 3 of 3 Will D. 29-Jul-97 4:171-M C i J O 9y~J ~ iko Cif 20 S d' lyfJb ~b~ w pr o a y , P.r-.,rTT.-. ► P~or'~s~)oN=.'= IBIT B Ilk X405 S.W. uimhus Avcnuc Bmverton, OR 97008-' 120 GREG JULY 30.1 78 ORAN D. ABBOTT i 99W, TIGARD - CITY OF TIGARD PARCEL MAY 22, 1997 FILE: 4-1422-0501 i A parcel of land lying in the George Richardson D.L.C. No. 38, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, and being a portion of Taylors Bridge Road (County Road No. 477) lying southeasterly of a line 48 feet southeasterly and parallel from the following described center line of the relocated Pacific Highway West: Beginning at Engineer's center line Station 116+98.50, said station being North 00°13'41" West 2,340.83 feet and North 89°46'19" East 1,055.97 feet from the southwest corner of Section 2, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian; thence 251.30 feet along the arc of a 2,865 foot radius curve to the left through a central angle of 5°01'32" (the long chord bears South 38°22'35" West 251.22 feet) to a point of compound curvature at Engineer's Station 119+49.8; thence 206.40 feet along the arc of a 5,521.80 foot radius curve to the left through a central angle of 2°08'30" (the long chord bears South 34°47'34" West 206.39 feet) to a point of j tangency at Engineer's Station 121+56.20; thence South 33°43'19" West 1,243.80 feet to Engineer's Station 134+00. Commencing at a point which is 48 feet southeasterly and opposite ,k center line Station 121+56.20 P.T.; thence South 33°43'19" West, I parallel to said center line, 202.79 feet to the most northerly corner of that tract of land conveyed to .Tigard East Associates, recorded in Fee No. 87-31809, Washington County Deed Records; I thence South 51°02'00" East, along the northeasterly line of said i Tigard East Associates tract 19.91 feet to a point on the northeasterly right-of-way line of said Taylors Bridge Road and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, along said right-of-way line, North 39°04'00" East 101.61 feet; thence North 21°30'51" East 132.41 feet to a point of cusp; thence 52.44 feet along the arc of a 24.20 foot radius cuuve to the right through a central angle of i 124°08'28" (the long chord bears South 22°58'36" East 42.77 feet); thence South 33°25'28" West 202.22 feet to a point of curvature; thence 8.11 feet along the arc of a 14.02 foot radius curve to the right through a central angle of 33°08'03" (the long chord bears South 45°52'52" West 8.00 feet); thence North 51°02'00" West 16.64 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. _ Contains 4,172 square feet more or less. i i File:i:\project\11220501\vpCat:n\cot]8.:eq ~cK(e(s A' 4 ! - PAGE OF _ / ! (503) 626.0•t55 Fax (503) 526-0775 Planning • Engineering- SurvevinS • Landscape ® C, Architecture • Environmental Services i i ( ~J l~ • J CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 3 ORDINANCE NO.97-! P AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO METROPOLITAN FIBER SYSTEMS OF OREGON, INC., THE RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE TO CONDUCT A COMPETITIVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUSINESS WITHIN THE CITY OF TIGARD, AND TO PLACE, ERECT, LAY, MAINTAIN, AND OPERATE IN, UPON, OVER, AND UNDER THE STREETS, ALLEYS, ROADS, AND PUBLIC PLACES, POLES, WIRES, AND OTHER APPLIANCES FOR i COMMUNICATION PURPOSES WITHIN THE CITY OF TIGARD." . WHEREAS, the City Council has expressed the desire to enter into a franchise agreement with Metropolitan Fiber Systems of Oregon, Inc. to provide competetive telecommunications services within the City, and 1 j WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of such franchise agreement are set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, and by this reference made a part hereof. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The terms and conditions of the attached franchise agreement. Exhibit "A", are hereby approved and a adopted as part of this ordinance as if specifically set forth. SECTION 2. The Mayor is authorized and directed to sign the attached agreement on behalf of the Council. SECTION 3. The City Council determines that the fee imposed by this franchise is not a tax subject to the property tax limitations of Article XI, Section 11 (b) of the Oregon Constitution. J PASSED: By I )Q 111A1U!(~ote of all Co ncil members present after being read by number and title only, this 1. th day of----Zt-e c1,u ~2f 1997. Get' PJt.c.' therine heatley, City Recorder { APPROVED: This day of 1697: i Mayor - City of Tigard Approved as to form: . City Attorney Date ORDINANCE No. 97-_10 Page 1 - t c 4 EXHIBIT "A" i A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TIGARD AND METROPOLITAN FIBER SYSTEMS OF OREGON, INC. (MFS) (GRANTEE). SECTION 1. The City of Tigard (City), grants to Metropolitan Fiber Systems of Oregon, Inc. (MFS) (Grantee) a franchise to operate as a competitive telecommunications provider as defined by ORS 759.005 within the City of Tigard. Grantee has the right to place and maintain wires, and other equipment for telecommunications purposes within City streets and public ways. Such wires and other equipment must be laid or located underground unless the City specifically permits wires to be strung upon poles or other fixtures above ground. SECTION 2. After receiving applicable City permits, Grantee may make needed excavations in any street - 1 or public way iii iiic City piiNvSc of Placing and, foaiiliaiiiiity wiuduns far wires and - equipment, or repairing or replacing the same. All work must be done in compliance with City ordinances and regulations. SECTION 3. The Grantee shall file with the City Engineer or designee maps and materials showing all proposed underground construction work to include the installation of additional facilities or relocation or extension of existing facilities within any street, alley, road, or other public way or place within the corporate limits of the City. The City will review the materials submitted and notify the Grantee of any City requirements. For repair work or other work not I considered underground construction as stated above, the Grantee shall, if possible, notify the City of the location and general description of the work before beginning work. 1 All work shall be done in a reasonably safe manner taking into account City-standard traffic „J control procedures and in accordance with requirements of applicable federal laws, state laws, or City ordinances. In emergencies, such filings shall be submitted within thirty (30) days of completion of emergency construction work. When any excavation shall be made pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance, the Grantee shall restore the portion of the street, alley, road, or public way or place to the same condition to which it was prior to the excavation. All such work shall be done in strict compliance with the rules, regulations and ordinances which may be adopted from time to time during the continuance of this franchise by the City Council or City Engineer or as may be otherwise provided by law. The City shall have the right to fix a reasonable time within which such repairs and restoration shall be completed and upon failure of such repairs and j restoration being made by grantee, City shall cause such repairs to be made at the expense of grantee. I 1 SECTION 4. This license does not prevent City from repairing, altering or improving any street or public way within the City, whether or not they contain poles, wires, underground conduit or other equipment of Grantee. If possible, all such City work or improvements will be done so as not to obstruct or prevent the free use of such equipment by Grantee. If City work or public improvements require the relocation of Grantee's equipment, Grantee must relocate the equipment at its own expense. SECTION 5. Whenever it becomes necessary to temporarily rearrange, remove, lower or raise the wires, cables or other plant of grantee for the passage of buildings, machinery or other objects, ® Ordinance No. 97 i 0 Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 5 1 ~ i j ; 1 grantee shall temporarily rearrange, remove, lower or raise, its wires, cables or other plant as the necessities of the case require; provided, however, that the person or persons desiring to move any such buildings, machinery or other objects, shall pay the entire actual cost to grantee of changing, altering, moving, removing or replacing its wires, cables or other plan so as to permit such passage, and shall deposit in advance with grantee a sum equal to such cost as estimated by grantee and shall pay all damages and claims of any kind whatsoever, direct or consequential, caused directly or indirectly by changing, altering, moving, removing or replacing of said wires, cables or other plant, except as may be occasioned through the sole negligence of grantee, grantee shall be given not less than ninety-six (96) hours written notice by the party desiring to move such building or other objects. Said notice shall detail the route of movement of such building or other objects over and along the streets, alleys, avenues, thoroughfares and public highways and shall bear the approval of the City. Such moving shall be with as much haste as possible and shall not be necessarily delayed or cause grantee unnecessary expense or waste of time. SECTION 5. The franchise granted is subject to the following conditions: a. If the City requests telecommunications services from Grantee. Grantee may deduct the charges for such services from license fee payments upon prior written approval of the City. Grantee shall charge the City at Grantee's most favorable rate charged for a similar service within two years of providing services to the City. Other terms and conditions of such services may be determined by separate agreement. b. Grantee shall pay to the City $3,000 as an application fee to cover City costs of preparing and issuing this franchise. Beginning with the effective date of this franchise until its expiration, Grantee shall pay City a franchise fee of five per cent of ` the gross revenues earned on telecommunications services in the City. Payments i _ shall be made quarterly on or before 45 days after the preceding quarter commencing with the quarter ending September 30, 1997, and continuing for each I quarter for the term of this franchise. Payments shall be accompanied by a statement of how the total due amount was calculated, including an explanation of gross revenue for services to each customer for whom one end-point of service was located outside of the City. Payments not received by the 45th day of each quarter will be assessed interest at the rate of one per cent over the existing prime rate, compounded daily. C. Gross revenues earned on telecommunications services means all revenues earned on services provided by Grantee including and limited to: (1) connections between interexchange carriers or competitive carriers and any entity other than another interexchange carrier, competitive carrier or a telephone company providing local exchange services; (2) connections between entities other than interexchange carriers, competitive carriers or telephone companies providing local exchange services; (3) design, engineering, construction and maintenance of fiber optic cable links that are not otherwise connected to Grantee's telecommunications system; (4) gross revenues derived from exchange access services, as defined in ORS I Ordinance No. 97- v Exhibit "A" ® - Page 2 of 5 ! i i i -d I I i j 401.710 within the City limits. d. For subsections c (1) & (2) above, gross revenues will be calculated when: (1) both end-points are located within the City; (2) one end-point is located within the City and another is located outside the City calculated as follows: G(io) = R(io) x (C I T), where io = service between an address inside the City and an address outside the City, or within the City if through another exchange, R = total revenues earned by Grantee for that service, C = linear feet of cable within City carrvinq that service. and r T = total linear feet of cable carrying that service; and e. City has the right to expand the subsection (c) definition of gross revenues earned on telecommunications services after 90 days written notice to Grantee if any of the following occur: 1 (1) the City collects franchise fees or privilege taxes from any other provider of telecommunications services on revenues from services substantially 1 similar to those offered by Grantee, but are not within the current subsection (c) definition of gross revenues; 1 (2) state law changes concerning the telecommunications services included in I the revenue base for franchise fees or privilege taxes on telecommunications utilities; (3) state law changes concerning the definition of competitive and non- competitive telecommunications services. i r f. The City shall have the right to change the percentage of gross revenues set forth above at any time during the life of this agreement provided it has made such notice in writing at least 180 days prior to the effective date of any change. g. The City shall have the right to conduct or cause to be conducted, an audit of gross revenues as defined herein. Any difference of payment due either the City or Grantee through error or otherwise as agreed upon by both the City and Grantee, shall be payable within thirty (30) days after discovery of such error. 1 SECTION 7. This franchise takes effect thirty (30) days after the date of signature provided Grantee files a written acceptance of this ordinance with the City by that date. Such acceptance must accept all terms, conditions and restrictions cuntained in this ordinance. The failures of MFS i to file this acceptance within 30 days prevents this ordinance from granting a franchise or ordinance No. 97-!U Exhibit W Page 3 of 5 1 I I 1 Ii n any other rights. i SECTION B. This franchise granted will be in force for ten (10) years from the date of its passage, unless 1 City or Grantee terminates, and shall be subject to any and all City, State, and Federal legislative enactments. SECTION 9. The Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City, its officers, agents and employees from any claim or injury, damage, loss, liability, cost or expense, including litigation expenses and attorneys fees, arising from any act or omission under this franchise by Grantee, its agents or employees. Grantee shall consult and cooperate with the City while taking any action in defense of the City. SECTION 10. During the period of this franchise, the Grantee must maintain public liability and property damage insurance that names the Grantee and the City, its officers, agents and employees from all claims referred to in Section 9. The coverage must be at least $300,000 for injury to each person, $500,000 personal injury for each occurrence, and $500,000 for each occurrence involving property damages plus costs of defense, or a single limit policy of not less than $500,000 for all claims per occurrence, plus costs of defense. SECTION 11. This franchise shall not be sold, leased, assigned or otherwise transferred without the prior written consent of the City. Grantee may pledge or encumber this franchise as part of a corporate reorganization, financing or refinancing activity. Grantee must notify the City not later than 10 business days prior to any intended transfer, and City will not unreasonably withhold any consent required, however, Grantee may assign this franchise in whole or in part to a parent, subsidiary or affiliated corporation without such consent. SECTION 12. The City reserves the right to terminate this franchise and all of Grantee's rights herein, if. a. Grantee violates any material term of the franchise, or I i i b. Grantee fails to complete construction of an initial telecommunications system within 36 months of the effective date of this franchise, or C. Grantee fails to pay the franchise fee to City, or d. Grantee is found guilty of any fraud, or deceit, or e. Grantee fails to obtain or maintain any permit required by federal or state law. f. The City adopts an ordinance regulating use of the public right of way for telecommunications services and adopts a schedule of franchise fees for the use of the public right of way, Should this occur, Grantee shall be entitled to issuance of a I franchise under the provisions of the new ordinance without payment of an f . additional application fee provided the Grantee is in good standing with respect to subsections a through a above. i Ordinance No. 97aK - - I Exhibit "A" i Page 4 of 5 1 i ~ . 7- { SECTION 13. The City will give Grantee at least 30 days written notice of intent to I terminate this franchise stating the reasons for such action. If Grantee either cures the stated reason within the 30 day period or initiates efforts satisfactory to the City to remedy the stated reason, the City will not terminate this franchise. If Grantee fails to cure the stated reason within such 30 day period or makes efforts to remedy the stated reason satisfactory I to City, City may declare this franchise terminated and extinguish all rights of Grantee under the franchise. SECTION 14. The franchise hereby granted shall not be exclusive and shall not be construed as any limitation on the City to grant rights, privileges and authority to other persons or corporations similar to or different from those herein set forth. DATED this day of 1997. I METROPOLITAN FIBER SYSTEMS CITY OF ARD OREGON, a 9 OF OREGON, INC. Municip orporation By: By: t (Signature) ayor James icoli l i I (Printed Name) ATTEST: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder . (Position) By: (Signature) (Printed Name) (Position) i t . Bdty+viddJmmh.doc t t ~ Ordinance No. 97_ v Exhibit "A" Page 5 of 5 f f , nl I ACCEPTANCE OF FRANCHISE f I r ! f ! ! WHEREAS, the CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, under date of passed ORDINANCE NO. , entitled as follows, to wit: i I AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO METROPOLITAN FIBER SYSTEMS OF OREGON, INC. THE RIGHT j AND PRIVILEGE TO CONDUCT A COMPETITIVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUSINESS WITHIN THE I CITY OF TIGARD, AND TO PLACE, ERECT, LAY, MAINTAIN, AND OPERATE IN, UPON, OVER, AND l , UNDER THE STREETS, ALLEYS, ROADS, AND PUBLIC PLACES, POLES, WIRES, AND OTHER APPLICANES FOR COMMUNICATION PURPOSES WITHIN THE CITY OF TIGARD. t NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, Metropolitan Fiber Systems of Oregon, Inc., the grantee named in said Ordinance, does for itself and its successors and assigns accept the terms, conditions and provisions of Ordinance No. _ and agrees to be bound thereby and comply therewith. I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Metropolitan Fiber Systems of Oregon, Inc. has caused this instrument to be executed by its officers as below subscribed this day of 1997. % METROPOLITAN FIBER SYSTEMS OF OREGON, INC. By. Received by the City of Tigard this day of 1997. IACITYWIDETRANCKDOC I I I f' 1 1 i rF AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 -VISITOR'S AGENDA UAiE: Augusi'~L. ia~i ; i 3 1 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) a 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. I STAFF NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC ONTACTED ~iir~/ v¢CQ J ' St. l Z N~ f(~ c ~c24 - ~o ti`- YL\L~ c(7 - OCR to i"n T~IANNtC ~1j 141, Pk~ Flu tt (`te1JO (e4le~ ~N 0 r U. L UP Z`~ 3 /tv°~ v 3 e i> 1 4 ~ _ i - a - I i i f a 3 i kladml owls W htdm J .Qcpcnding on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of ne each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA I'T'EM NO. 6 DATE: August 12, 1997 z PUBLIC COMMENT: GREENSPACES PROGRAM - PROPOSALS FOR CHANGES TO THE CITY'S j OFFICIAL LIST OF GREENSPACE PROJECTS AND TO THE PROCESS USED TO IMPLEMENT THESE PROJECTS k' PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS i I GG E Aft- AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 P , .AC . PRINT j Propanent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name, Address and Phone - Name, Address and Phone No. `f 50~ [T 1z~'~r~ ►1/~ S {~r Li n c ~ Name, Address and Phone Name, Address and Phone No. I I I Name, Address and h ne No. ame, Address and Phone No. Name, Address'and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. C& w' M efl}~~ LsSe~o t \5 7- N ame, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. - Rabc In 4, ~ 11 l 0y Name, M dress and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address d Phone No. 1 7C Name, Address and Phone No. Ti' arcl C? ay Name, A dress and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. i Yan Address and Phone No. r Name, Address and Phone No. I~ . - of I oponent (Speaking in Favor) Opponent (Speaking Against) ame, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Sc~.,NNCS T54- , ~R ~?zzq Name, Address and hone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. ` C Name, Address and Phone No. Me r Addy and Phone No. S.q 2 `L Name, Address and Phone No. Name, 3 I ~,c rcS' C) c 7ZZ3 (T tf Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. 3 f i Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I i Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. f I~ Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. 1 i Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. !NftiKadmVo\tesfify.doc I Depending on the „umber of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of j . _ me each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may ~further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITEM NO. S DATE: August 12, 1997 1 l PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - VACATION - PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY (Approximately 4,172 Square Feet of Public Right of Way abutting SW Pacific Highway (99W), south of Park Street, and adjacent to Tigard Marketplace ti k PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS KA 1 I 1 I a1. I r AGENDA ITEM NO. PLF,ASF. PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name, Address and Phone No. C11- r Name, Address and Phone No. C` "o Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. ~1r~4, ~e l ~a ~S IC-'1-ooSW.}y.-1{;I!S1<<~i~Vr' f t~Jeao+.; n~ i~ a, ~1 Jt~1 :Sa?) ; t- G`? t Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. ( Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. i 1 i a s MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD ' TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council s FROM: William A. Monahan, City Man. ger DATE: August 6, 1997 SUBJECT: Special Event Costs i During the Study Session preceding the Council meeting of July 8, 1997, Council briefly j discussed my July 2 memo which presented Festival of Balloon costs for 1997. Council t directed that a general discussion be held at a future meeting. Time has set aside at the August 1 12 Study Session for the discussion. After that discussion takes place, Council suggested that d it would be appropriate to have a discussion of Festival costs with Bruce Ellis, the event organizer. i" Festival of Balloon Costs: t 3 The July 2, 1997 memo presented a breakdown of expenses for City departments involved in the event. Some departments incurred special expenses and/or overtime costs. Council asked that staff review the costs and separate those costs incurred only for special events from costs which would have been incurred anyway. (That is, regular shifts, seasonal repairs to the parks, etc.) The costs shown in the July 2 memo and the breakout of special and regular costs is as follows: July 2 Memo Regular Special Engineering 696.03 696.03 0 j Public Works 28,604.42 9,666.64 18,937.78 Police 11,995.83 5,245.36 6,750.47 - - Administration 265.14 265.14 4 ws Total 41,561.42 15,873.17 25,688.25 1 { Memo to Council r~ August 6, 1997 Page Two 1 Therefore, the total estimated cost to the City was $41,561.42. Of this total, $15,873.17 was labor and materials which would have been expended, even if the event was not held. The remaining $25,688.25 was spent only because the Festival of Balloons was held. Public Works expenditures on the Festival included: Public Works expenditures on the Festival included: $15,066.73 for 569.75 hours of labor $2,727.70 of material costs $1,143.35 of outside contractor cost (electrician) Of the 569.75 hours, the major expenses were related to: Hours Field surveying (flagging for wetlands buffer and parking lot set-up) 83 Stage set-up and take-down 123 Sign making, set-up, take-down 51.75 Cone/barricade set-up and pick-up 24 Festival clean-up 236 Material costs for Public Works were: Sign material for 65 signs* $1,922.80 Steel for sign stands 187.90 Rock roadway 617.00 Total $2,727.70 *The signs can be used in future years for the event. i An electrician was hired to address a need that developed during the event. Electrical power i was needed by the food vendors and other Festival staff. Police costs directly related to the event were somewhat offset by 708 hours of volunteer help provided by our Police Reserves, State Troopers, and Reserves from Beaverton, King City, Sherwood, Tualatin, and `Jest Linn. The Pacific Northwest Search and Rescue Squad also i - contributed time to the event. y~ s i n_ Memo to Council 7 August 6, 1997 Page Three 4th of July Costs: In contrast to the Festival of Balloons, the 4th of July celebration has maintained a consistent series of activities over the past ten years. The event continues to require the same services from the City that it has for years, such as: 1. Police assistance and traffic control 2. Public Works assistance in digging a trench for fireworks canisters 3. Insurance riders to cover the pyrotechnic operator Costs associated with this year's event were: Police - $1,093 (18 regular hours and 14.5 overtime hours) 4 Public Works - $388.50 for overtime (above the holiday pay which those employees 3 who worked were already entitled to). Other assistance was provided during regular business hours as the City arranged for event insurance and obtained 36 hours of volunteer assistance by the Police Reserves. Issues Council expressed some concerns about the amount of the City contribution to the Festival of Balloons. In the past, special events have been granted City financing through the budgeting process. During the most recent budget cycle, staff provided the Council and citizen members of the Budget Committee with estimates of the additional contributions made by the City to events and social service agencies in the prior year. J I As events grow, in number, size of crowds, and in need for City involvement, the cost to the 1 City could grow unless some controls are put in place. The fine line between an event being "City sponsored" and "City run" at times becomes difficult to determine. During the course of an event, a City official may be put in the position of making a judgment call that either incurs cost for the City or deflects cost to event organizers. It would be very helpful to U establish some policies for application at future events. l ~ 1 i rF_ Memo to Council August , 1997 Page Four Staff has identified several policy issues for discussion by Council. Once preliminary ! direction is given, staff can prepare a set of policies for use in guiding City involvement in future events, while controlling the level of contribution. i Policy Questions 1. What is the level of City contribution to a "City-sponsored event?" 2. When and how should the City level of involvement be set? ` 3. Should the City set a "budget" of funds to be earmarked for the event with i' Department Heads authorized to expend up to that amount? That is, if Police i have within their budget an amount of $6,000 set aside for the Festival of Balloons above and beyond the contribution of regularly-paid staff time, can the department expend up to that amount for any reasonable means of supporting the event (overtime, cost to replace supplies used, etc.?) i. i 4. Should City contributions to events be requested by event organizers during the J budget process? For example, should an organizer submit a request which details a proposal which is all inclusive for: 1 Y A. Financial contributions (i.e., cash to be used by the organizers). B. City staff commitments, both assignment of employees and overtime to help set up, police, or clean up after an event. C. Expected expenses such as physical improvements to facilities to accommodate the event, (i.e., running electrical service to a location for stage events) materials to be purchased for the event (i.e., gravel to create a new access way or parking lot). 5. Should events be expected to always require a City contribution or is there a point that events are expected to be self sufficient; i.e., operate on their own without City contribution and/or reimburse the City for costs incurred to support the event? 6. If an event has the means to generate revenue, (such as for parking on City land) should the City have the opportunity to recover some or all of the revenue to offset City costs? i - - - Memo to City Council August 6, 1997 Page Five i 7. Should the City capitalize on special events and devise fund raising methods to recover some or all of City contributions? Staff will be prepared to discuss fees, policy questions and others at the Study Session portion of the August 12 Council meeting. WAM\jh f: i:\adm\bdIkOW 97-I.doc ! f r. i G i To: City of Tigard (and to whom it may concern) l Date: 8-6-1997 (Hand delivered at the meeting below) I Subject: The Proposed Hams-McMonagle subdivision (near the new Royalty Parkway road, primarily above Summemeld) review meeting of 8-7-97. 1 Tigard City should be commended for unbottling traffic between Naeve/109th and the (parallel) roads to the east. There is already very good east-west access from Naeve to the Grade, Jr. High, I and High Schools due to recent developments. Naeve of course connects to Royalty Parkway up and over the hill to Canterbury, then thru connecting roads to the Jr High and Grade Schools. Similarly, Naeve to 109th to Highland drive to Surnmerfield Drive to 100th to Durham Road, then to the High School, is simply a major asset. Either route connects well to 100th, 99th, Sattler, Durham etc. However, the weakest of these two routes is the one over the hill causing additional traffic on Canterbury. Naeve (intersecting with Royalty Parkway) proceeds straight to 109th, thence to Highland Drive/Greenway, and to Surnmerfield Drive. This is the most desirable route for heavy east/west traffic because of existing Summemeld conditions. These roads have low internal (retirement base) traffic, which is particularly low at school and work commuting times in the mornings). t Surnmerfield Drive is an especially good route for handling the bulk of this east-west traffic because of the absolute safety this well planned road affords. It is 36 feet wide, with green belts t between sidewalks on each side of the road. It has nice open, wide and clear vision because of the level terrain and very adequate set-back of houses, all augmented by the low density j ! population. However, the most important traffic flow safety factor (by far) comes from the "no j parking"signs posted every few yards over the entire length of Summemeld Drive. Tigard City I should try to cause 50% or more of the area's east-west traffic to use this safe j Summerfield corridor, by not opening significantly more dangerous and un-necessary i east-west corridors. E The excellent planned route (involving Naeve to Royaltly Parkway (40 ft wide with outstanding f open visibility across sidewalks on each side), would add a new road through the proposed sub- division connecting with Lady Marion. This is a reasonably high priority safety need, to take { pressure off Canturbury and provide east-west traffic convenience. This route would open onto { 100th street, yielding a nice decision at 100th to either go up the hill to Murdock or McDonald l I and the grade/jr. high schools, or down to Sattler or lower Kahle (lower Kable is wide and has I sidewalks on both sides), then to Durham Road and the high school. Lady Marion is a nice, (34 ft. wide) road with sidewalks on both sides, high driver safety visibility , and a nice curve to control speed. The new (Royalty Parkway) apartment traffic would likely choose this route to go to the gmde/jr. high schools, (but again would probably choose the Surnmerfield corridor to the { high school). Tigard City should make every effort to join Royalty Parkway to Lady Marion now, by utilizing the proposed new subdivision land to accomplish this feat. I i ~i Page 1/2 i i i i a Options involving the new (proposed) through-roads of Kahle and Hoodview to 109th/ Royal Parkway: i Both Hoodview and upper Kable have narrow roads at present, while all previously mentioned corridor roads are at least 34 ft.). Kable/Hoodview have no sidewalks, very poor visibility, and inadequate set-backs of houses with respect to the road, while all previously mentioned corridor roads have sidewalks and excellent side-road vision area and set-backs for safety. Kable and Hoodview roads were planned using county criteria in the mid 1960's. The criteria used then was nowhere near the excellent land-use criteria now required by the city of Tigard, which again has been met or exceeded on all previously mentioned corridors. Both Kable/Hoodyiew roads have extremelv blind and dangerous driveways with very steep up-hill side slopes that empty right onto the two roads. A short drive on these two roads readily convinces one of this fact. The dirt cuts alone hide pedestrians from approaching traffic (particularly children living in the area, or worse still, visiting children). Shrubs and other plants obscure driver/pedestrian vision even more. Widening these two roads or adding sidewalks on the Kable/Hoodview uphill bank side would be very costly, and would in essence prove impossible since cars entering their driveways at present scrape their bumpers on the road because of the abrupt driveway slopes. Restricting parking on these two streets would not sufficiently offset the danger of the high-bank drivewaycuts, would impose parking unfairness on the residents, and lower property values significantly. Tigard City should not endanger Kable and Hoodview residents by adding east-west, high use, thru- traffic onto these two roads. { Furthermore: Lady Marion empties onto 100th less than 100 yards from Kable Street. Lady Marion, Hoodview, and Kable are very close together. It is too costly for the city, too j dangerous to the residents, unfair to tax payers, and simply unnecessary to build the two additional Kable/Hoodview corridors f Finally, in addition: f i I believe adding the Kable and Hoodview extension roads through this sub-division III would cause difficulty in effective sub-division planning, because the three roads would be so close to one another, and would be unfair to the developer of the proposed sub-division. t Having worked in a surveying/city engineering capacity for a number of years, and having lived in my current home for 28 years convinces me that the analysis above regarding this neighborhood development is sound. Sincerely, R .Terry . ith 1 10470 SW Kable St. Tigard 97224 i Page 2/2 ~J i i MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: William A. Monahan, City Manager DATE: August 8, 1997 SUBJECT: Erickson Property - Little Bull Mountain Over the last few days there has been a flurry of activity related to the Erickson woodlot, east of the Arbor Heights development, north of Renaissance Summit and Summerfield. The property is heavily treed and has been discussed as a future subdivision. Randy Sebastian of Renaissance Homes has indicated an interest in acquiring the land. In fact, he held a community meeting on July 31, 1997 to discuss his plans. The property owner has inquired about permission to remove the trees immediately. Several neighborhoods are concerned about the potential impacts from tree loss, erosion, drainage, street connections, density, etc. Staff will be prepared to bring Council up to speed on this issue at the Study Session portion of Tuesday evening's Council meeting. A map showing locations of the property is attached. Staff is researching: 1. Woodlot regulation - what can be required of a woodlot owner when trees are removed? 2. What level of erosion and/or drainage plans can be required when a woodlot is cleared'? 3. Can other studies be required of the property owner before tree clearing when development below may be threatened with increased runoff? WAM\jh attachment i s \Adm\bil I\080897-'_do L` ( J - - - - - (PD) , - 1 2 YEW TERR.: GG SST . ~ CANTERBURY pwam < - (HD) I Lo i i N; R92 I L MURDOCKST MRPOCK y-T- , (PD) ' a < - i -40. i' . DELAfONTE R ~ I I - R-3.5 5 oR : I R-25, 42 yrf -L J i i I L 1 11 (PD) #3 -j K~RLE I L_ -3:5 i'T . - , - - i+lcNw+o oa (PQj i GG W,LlDO , p \ ` f \ \ \ i \ i O0. 1l I v A\ i \ \\G~t ~ ~ ` QQ l- / gyp. a w< R-2 1 _ (PD) CDR _ CENTURY D \ ; - - - , . CENTU91 - UJRFIUA'~ ` ? c\ f-4.5 - 1 WAY I L I I e SW ICMS DT { U w #1) 2SIWIODA-00200 #2) 2SIW10DA-00100 #3) 2SIW10ADM500 ' /yam J C SJM l le ~/C7/rJ. CFFY OF TIOAAD - s I August 8, 1997 Albert H. and Verlene F. Erickson, Trustees 15200 SW 109th Ave. Tigard, OR 97224 Re: Tax Lots 2S11ODA-00100, 00200, 00500 It has come to the City's attention that you are considering logging the trees on the above noted property. Please be aware that all necessary permits must be obtained and all regulations must be followed. I recognize that you intend to comply with all applicable standards and procedures, however, it is critical that no tree removal occur on the property until permits are obtained. Failure to obtain permits and to comply to applicable standards is a civil infraction and subject to penalty. If you have any questions, please contact me at 639-4171. Sincerely, James N.P. Hendryx Director of Community Development c: Darrin Marr, Woodland Management Keith Jenke, AKS Engineering ! TDADMV ERREEU M1EMCKSON LTR (I) 1 Y+ f1 1 I JP~ j MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD Community /Development CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ShapingA Better Community i TO: Bill Monahan i FROM: Dick Bewersdorff DATE: August 7, 1997 i SUBJECT: Approved Land Use Decisions through August 7, 1997 ffataldeelsiensthftmemo: 31 Baal Order lssaed: 0/ 6/97 N, final Appeal Date: 8/10197 U CONDMONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 97-0004 ➢ AT&T MONOPOLE TOWER Q The Tigard Hearing's Officer at the July 7, 1997 Public Hearing, HELD OPEN THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR A TOTAL OF THREE WEEKS (until 7/28/97) TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY j FOR THE OPPONENTS OF THE PROPOSAL TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE. In recognition of the findings and conclusions in the Hearing's Officers Final Order, i and incorporating the Staff Report and other reports of affected public agencies and testimony and ,xhibits received in this matter, the Hearing's Officer APPROVED, (subject to conditions, ttached), a request for Conditional Use approval to develop a 50-foot tall cellular communications monopole tower and related equipment structures. j LOCATION: 13707 SW Pacific Highway; WCTM 2S103DD, Tax Lot 00400 [PfatPlan/Map attached) i i - (VICRUTY MAP ATLUMED~ i j { j ZONE General Commercial; C-G. The General Commercial zoning district provides sites for the ] provision of major retail goods and services. The provision of utilities are also allowed in the General Commercial zoning district. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial; C-G. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.62, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108 and 18.130. h:\patty%docs\8-7.97.m2 (Memo Cover Page 1/3) i - 1 { s PARK ST ST i Sr c~ - PRE Y PARK I ! FULL MBN r o ;o: i Mav CUP97-0004 A AT & T MONOPOLE TOWER i f I i~ D pLpG C (YK1JR( 1 t ' 11 i ~ - i~~llll!i ~ • ~l I V 11MII I 11 y AJAX Q IME)ME AND 5UFPORf x >Jn - smcrUFM a lL:o toaESe otxr3( ar ~ L I I Q i 0 0 r- EaWHENT SWUM L r. DESrr~ FQi TOMER AND raiert ro Eau TIEW s(4M7Eae f r anus .e i UST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION U - - I CASE NO. s A.T. & T Monopole i E' H I B I T MAP f SW Pacific Highway Site CUP 97- 0004 _ r 1 [CONOR[ONAEOSEPERM (CUP]97-0088-> ATOMONOPO[ETON[EB -4-CONORIONSOMP60YAU IPeQe1tlD 1 s i CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: (Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact shall be Mark Roberts, Planning Division (503) 639-4171.) 1. Before the City issues a building permit for the proposed tower, the applicant shall submit a site plan to the planning director for review and approval. The site plan shall identify where one (1) off-street parking space will be provided for the communications facility. That space may be situated in the existing parking lot if the applicant shows that the number of parking spaces on the site exceeds the minimum number required by the CDC by at least one space. i I 2. The site plan shall show a sight-obscuring fence on at least the west, south and east elevations r j of the ground-mounted equipment on the communications facility site. The applicant shall maintain the approved screening in good condition as long as the applicant uses the site for communications facility. i 3. If lighting is proposed for security or safety purposes, the site plan shall show all such lighting, subject to condition of approval 5. l i t 4. The applicant shall show there is at least 25 feet between the facility and the closest point of the parking spaces that abut the north side of the southernmost building on the site. 5. The tower shall not incorporate any advertising, signage, or lighting except as required by the Federal Communications Commission or other applicable agency with jurisdiction; provided, the planning director may approve lighting deemed necessary for security and safety purposes; provided further, permitted lighting shall be designed, situated and/or operated to minimize its r off-site impacts. 6. The applicant shall allow antennas for other telecommunications service providers to be situated ! on the proposed tower, provided it does not increase the height of the tower or substantially i increase adverse visual impacts, and shall allow associated transmission equipment to be I situated in the proposed accessory building on the site if the tower and/or building can accommodate such additional antennas and equipment or can be modified to do so; provided, the applicant may require such shared user to pay all costs associated with such shared use as a condition of such shared use; provided further , such modification to the conditional use should be subject to applicable review by the City. The applicant shall respond promptly and in good faith to any inquiry regarding shared use of the tower site. 7. The applicant shall remove the tower within 90 days after the communications facility is j abandoned or its use is otherwise terminated. The facility is presumed to be abandoned if all of the antennas are removed from the tower or are not operated for at least six consecutive months. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. i 1 r- n P a ; Au.y_ 11, 1997 ; S i ; j ;The undersigned would like the Tigard City Council members to ;call up the decision regarding the "Conditional Use Permit i ; (CUP) 97-0004 AT&1 Monopole Tower" at 13707 5W Pacific Hwy. ; i . j ;Tigard, Oregon. We have concerns with the conditions placed on the approval of this pole, as well as it's current use not being 1 in conformance with the original land use requirements. ; } C . j ;NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE ~ :a - VU1lQj U12 _5 -at VGA 63~t fs? I \ k 0-7 Ob Gam?? i cac !J (~n3 i- - 93/2 - k o`o, ' 1 c^`v 273 F a n lCJ7Zs Sid!!+/['t!~"✓~' (o2UZV ' t oG S,h/, Fqlv, t - - a~ i Ah- 1 s coo nuxsxewss exwno wtnut ;ox,swno. uxteon v!x„ !!,e r~ l` . !t t SOl 19! /00 w• f 01 !9 / I!9! (},~F CIJ~ ',II U I l0 I~ ~ i i METRO June 23, 1997 Gordon S. Martin, Jr. 12265 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 f( y Subject: Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Issues; Tigard Triangle Dear Gordon: This letter summarizes and elaborates on the Metro staff comments made at our meeting of June 2 regarding issues associated with implementation of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP) in the Tigard Triangle area. In the meeting and in this letter, we are attempting to assist the parties in implementing the UGMFP. Our comments explain our approach to administering the UGMFP provisions. Resolutions of any disputes or application of specific provisions must be addressed by MPAC and the J" Metro Council. General Continents qz. 4, As noted at the meeting, the authority for land use and transportation implementation j actions within this area resides with the City of Tigard and with the Oregon Department i of Transportation (ODOT). The City has ultimate land use approval authority and both the City and ODOT have responsibility for the area's street and highway system. We will be contacting them both to update them on our conclusions and clarifications, identify any additional issues, and determine if additional action is necessary. We also noted at the meeting that the UGMFP was intended as a set of interim measures to help begin implementing the Region 2040 Growiil Concept. The U1-'-FP implementz the regional adoption of the 2040 Growth Concept by requiring local adoption of specific revisions to Comprehensive Plans and zoning and development codes. Further, local elected officials, through MPAC, requested that Metro adopt the UGMFP requirements. To that extent, the UGMFP is not strictly a Metro document. It was i developed through consensus of all jurisdictions and the public. The UGMFP represents a set of measures that are minimum standards. However, Metro staff would generally support instances where local jurisdictions exceed the minimums where a public process has determined it appropriate. Finally, we also recognize that many of these requirements are new and do not have a 1 history of implementation techniques. We therefore expect a certain amount of flexibility in meeting the letter of these requirements, while also expecting that the intent of these requirements will be maintained. D Gordon Martin, Jr. i June 23, 1997 Page 2 i Specific Continents Following are our responses to specific comnunts and questions raised at the meeting. 1. Continent: The group asked for clarification as to the general intent, purpose, and benefits of the Design Stmndanls fin Street Connectivity as required in Title 6, Section 3 of the UGMFP. I Response: The UGMFP notes that the effectiveness of the regional { transportation system is impacted when local travel is restricted by a lack of I 1 connecting routes. Local traffic is then forced onto the regional network. In addition, the preliminary results of Metro's Street Design Study (currently underway) show that street connectivity reduces vehicle miles of travel by providing direct routes to the collector and arterial system; and that additional connections are conducive to increased use of alternative modes (more direct access to transit, walking and biking is less circuitous, etc.). f 2. Comment: Public street rf8its-of-7vaJ and other development requirements i (landscaping, sidewalks) will render the properties in the area undevelopable. Response: Metro staff noted at the meeting that we have supported the ! concept of "skinny" streets in the past as one way to help maximize densities within developments and to avoid over-building streets where traditional rights-of- way seem excessive. For example, the City of Portland allows rights-of-way as j narrow as 46 feet in some areas. This is significantly less than normal minimum !i right-of-way requirements of 60 feet for local streets. We would support exploring the option of skinny streets with the City of Tigard for streets internal to commercial and/or mixed use developments within the Triangle. 9 We also noted that pedestrian connections (primarily sidewalks) are required from j streets to building entryways under the Transportation Planning Rule. Those connections should already be included in the developable land calculations. ,j Similarly, landscape requirements are generally the rule, not the exception within J most local codes, and have been for a number of years. Landscape requirements should also already be included in any developable land calculations and should not be a surprise to most developers. { 3. Comment: Can "T" intersections be included as part of the 8 to 20 street connections per mile calculation (street connections at intervals no less than even) 660 feet)? r 1 Response: We noted that the UGMFP does not specifically address this J question. However, our preference is for full intersections in order to maximize traffic operations and safety. We also understand that circumstances may result J in a few partial connections in certain areas. Whether the intersections are full or partial, we would expect the 8 to 20 standard to be met on both sides of a street where conditions allow. Title 6, Section 3.A.l.h. and Section 3.13. describe the situations where closed street systems may be necessary. These situations may result due to topography, pre-existing development, barriers such as railroads or d 7 freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams or rivers. f Gordon Martin, Jr. s ' June 23, 1997 Page 3 4. Comment: Can private streets be included as part of the 8 to 20 street connections i per rule calculation? Response: Public streets are the preference. However, private streets may be allowed but should generally have the appearance of a public right of way and be adequately constructed to accommodate the size and weight of vehicles common to the street function and underlying zoning. By the term "appearance," the street should include curb and sidewalk, appropriate lane markings, and should connect with other private or public streets. To be counted, private streets must allow free public access and circulation. 5. Comment: What was intended by the teen "local origin" under the Performance { t Option of Title 6, Section 3.B.2? Response: As a set of minimum standards, Section 3.B.2 was written for residential areas or mixed use areas that include residential. It was understood that in those areas, buildings are set either at the street or at a short, insignificant I distance back from the property line consistent with State Transportation Planning d Rule requirements. There was no need to differentiate whether local origin was the 3 property line or the front door. When drafted, this section was not written for large commercial only land uses. As I stated at the meeting, if Metro staff were asked to re-draft the language for large commercial developments, we would likely recommend that the front door be the point of local origin. With the front door being the point of local origin, it would ensure a shortest path for pedestrians to a designated collector or arterial street. Any re-draft of the UGMFP would require r MPAC and Metro Council action. I hope this letter helps you and the meeting participants better understand our Functional Plan and will help facilitate the process for development in the Tigard 3 Triangle. As we agreed, I would appreciate you circulating this letter to the other non- staff meeting participants. If you have questions or if I may be of further help, please call me at 797-1743. Sincerely, Michael Hoglund Transportation Planning Manager I cc Tom Kloster Mary Weber Larry Shaw i Leo Huff, ODOT Jim Hendryx, City of Tigard y i J i - i 1 1 l I I (5 r soa wow rnrwsr c..no wvrnor I rwX rs o'no oXr ,c91n s,:u n, rs ~TcJ Ll1 i(l SOl )91 i,00 /9, C1 C~ L) r G R I~ CL ti CL v~ M ETRO July 28, 1997 11 Gordon S. Martin, Jr. (Cqf 61F 12265 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 `r Subject: Point of 0,igin for Motor Vehicles s j Dear Gordon: As a follow-up to my June 23 letter regarding Tigard Triangle Planning issues, this letter is intended to respond to an additional question you had regarding Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP). As noted in our previous letter, we stated that these letters attempt to assist the parties in implementing the UGMFP. Our comments explain our approach to administering the UGMFP provisions. Resolutions of any disputes or application of specific provisions must be addressed by MPAC and the Metro Council. We also noted, and we repeat here, that the authority for land use and transportation implementation actions within this area resides with the City of Tigard and with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The City has ultimate land use approval authority and both the City and ODOT have responsibility for the area's street and highway system. Again, we will update them on our following clarification. Finally, we again note that the UGMFP represents a set of measures that are minimum standards. However, Metro staff would generally support instances where local jurisdictions exceed the minimums where a public process has determined it appropriate. In your most recent request, you ask how the term "local origin," as stated in Title 6, Section 3.13.2. of the UGMFP, applies to a local origin for a vehicle trip. As noted in our June 23 letter, the term "local origin" was oriented towards residential or mixed-use areas. There was no need to differentiate whether local origin was the property line or the front door. As noted earlier, if Metro staff were to re-draft the language, the point of local origin for pedestrians would likely be the front door. The objective would be to make the trip as short and convenient as possible for pedestrians. If asked to re-draft the point of origin language for motor vehicles, we likely would begin measuring from the public street right-of-way. This is because the "point of origin" measure is intended to ensure that public streets provide a direct street route between private properties and collector and arterial streets. Site design tools can better address front door orientation on private property to public streets. The State Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-12-045) provides guidance to local jurisdictions regarding on- i " ~ Xe. IrJ I , . P !i ! ! Gordon Martin, Jr. July 2s, 1997 Page 2 site private streets and vehicle circulation. The UGMFP was not intended to augment those requirements. I hope this response addresses your latest concerns. Sincerely, a Michael Hoglund Transportation Planning Manager cc Tom Kloster ti Mary Weber Larry Shaw f Jim Hendryx, City of Tigard E i. i i i'. . - i i , J , - Council Agenda Item 4D G_ I For Agenda of MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Monahan, City Administrator DATE: August 5, 1997 SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, August through October, 1997 I'I f Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars. August f * 12 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) G I Study Session Business Meeting *19 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) 23 Sat. Country Daze *26 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) k Study Session Business Meeting Sg embe 11 r Mon Labor Day -City Offices Closed * 9 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) i Study Session Business Meeting *16 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) *23 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting 30 Tues Special Goal Setting Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) October * 14 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session . Business Meeting f . *21 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) *28 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting j~ iAadm\c9thylcound1\ccca1.doc t Agenda Item No. Tigard Council Tentative Agenda Meeting of - i a - n`1 8/19/97-Workshop 8/26/1997-Businesss 9/9/1997-Businesss 9/16/1997-Workshop 9/23/1997-Businesss Study Session Study Session Study Session Presentations Presentations Presentations t t Consent Visioning Update Consul :Park Master Plan Award Tree Planting Cntrct Workshop Topics Business Meeting Business Meeting Workshop Topics Business Meeting Adopt Annexation policy Visioning Update Report: 4-way stop on Update-CD Code Rewrite Upate: Summerlake Willam. River Water Report Hearing - Triangle Stds. Burnham/Main Tree Planting Contract USA Agreemt- Restudy Review Muni. Judge Cntrct Public Transit Improve. Fanno Creek Floodplain SW N. Dakota Update Report from Tri-Met Volunteer Program Update Hearing - Annex. - Former St Consul :Park Master Plan Council Goal Council Goal Council Coal Council Goal Council Goal Volunteer Program Update Visioning Update Consul: Park Master Plan Update-CD Code Rewrite Award Tree Planting Cntrct SW N. Dakota Update Public Transit Improve. Tree Planting Contract Report from Tri-Met ( 1 ~ I AGENDA ITEM # / J ! FOR AGENDA OF August 12, 1997 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A resolution amending the City of Tigard's AETNA Deferred Compensation Plan and Trust in accordance with Internal Revenue Code Amendments i PREPARED BY: Sherrie Burbank DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL a F Should the Council act to amend the current AETNA. deferred compensation plan and trust agreement in accordance with Internal Revenue Code amendments. I STAFF RECOMMENDATION Amend the City of Tigard's ICMA Deferred Compensation plan and trust documents in accordance with Internal Revenue Code amendments. 2 INFORMATION SUMMARY WDue to recent changes in the Internal Revenue Code, the City needs to amend its ICMA deferred compensation plan to assure that all plan assets are for the exclusive benefit of the Plan participants and their beneficiaries, to assure that these assets are not diverted for any other purpose, and to stipulate that the City of Tigard agrees to j serve as Trustee under the Plan. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED No other alternatives were considered. I - FISCAL NOTES There are no fiscal imracts. Since the City of Tigard currently allows employee participation in the ICMA Deferred Compensation plan there will be no additional cost to the City. Ir r i 1 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 8/12/97 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY i ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Property Acquisition j PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK ITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City purchase certain property located within the Fanno Creek greenway? I ~ ! STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Mayor to sign the purchase and sale agreement negotiated by staff. INFORMATION SUMMARY The North Dakota trail project is identified in the 1997-98 city CIP. The project will complete a missing link in the existing trail system. It will tie together the discontinuous Scholls/North Dakota and Windmill Apartments - - nail segments. The property owner is willing to sell the approximately two acres of floodplain located on his and. He is unwilling to sell a smaller portion of the land. A map of the property is attached. } I OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED L Withdraw the city's offer and do not complete a trail. FISCAL NOTES 1 The acquisition of right-of-way and completion of the trail is identified in the current parks CIP. The overall C budget set for the project is $50,000. The $30,000 purchase price is consistent with the appraised value of the ! . property. A copy of the transmittal page of the appraisal report referencing this figure is attached. I The use of Park SDC rather than Greenspace dollars is proposed. This is because the acquisition of the site has been identified as a CIP project for a number of years, and Greenspace rules prohibit using Greenspaces finds to replace other funds on projects. t 0: .tywi&V.mkZm:ND , k ~ Y ~ i EE J 1 -as Br 1 • .w ,r ' Cam. It 1. tj t %C 1~• °~ct ~ ~ ~&T ' It . ' 1 :i TA1~rr. t0 t . t 70 ~ • ~ ._i t ~ rucr n~,p r - 1 • ,e•,r ley (t" ~ Tpl.Gt _i la ti : ~~G; t• ~ 1 1 LOT 2 Y ~.-ter„-• t t i / i It s too-ms- ` / v n Mau ,,.•~rt• S.ubdivisio preliminary Inc. Palmer, { PALMER GROTH & 1 PIETKA INC j April 21, 1997 i `I - Mr. Duane Roberts Parks Department City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard i Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: TRACTS M AND N, DAKOTA MEADOWS SUBDIVISION SW N. Dakota Street at Fanno Creek Tigard, Oregon 1 Dear Mr. Roberts: At your request, we have appraised the captioned property using generally accepted appraisal principles and practices. This analysis is the result of a complete appraisal process and is presented in a summary format. The appraisal is intended to comply with the report require- meets set forth under Standard Rule 2-2(b) of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) and the Uniform Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions. This report will be used by the client for property acquisition purposes only. The site is described in this report. Based upon our investigation and analysis of available information, the market value of the subject property, in unencumbered fee simple title, as of April 16, 1997, is: THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS i $30.000 - - DOliAIDRPA[t1]L MAI 11110 HAM F.Q yFPI.."W DAVID W. GROTHL MAI PIMP L STEFFEY• MAI MARK \L LANT\TLL MAI BRIAN L JELLED MAI f . DAVID 8 PI6I7CA MAI CHRSPOPHOM K. MONCML MAI TIMOTHY B.:~RMGF[T, SW TODD S. L®OW MAI {ty FF PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND .JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS 4 THIS PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS ("Agreement") is entered into as of July 1997 (the "Effective Date"), between BEACON { HOMES, INC., an Oregon corporation ("Seller") and the CITY OF TIGARD, an Oregon • municipal corporation ("Purchaser"). i i RECITALS A. Seller is the owner of the property located in the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon that is described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property"). B. Purchaser desires to purchase from Seller, and Seller desires to sell to Purchaser, the Property. C. It is the intention of the parties to set forth in this Agreement the terms and conditions of the sale and purchase of the Property. j D. These recitals are contractual in nature and shall be construed to give full effect to i i the provisions of this Agreement. A , FE MNT In consideration of the mutual promises set forth in this Agreement, the parties agree as j~ follows: 1 • 1. Purchase Price. The purchase price (the "Purchase Price") to be paid by Purchaser to Seller for the Property is Thirty Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($30,000). The Purchase Price shall be payable in cash or other readily available funds through escrow at the Closing (as defined f below). 1 2. Escrow and Earnest Money Payment. 2.1 Escrow Agent. Upon execution of this Agreement, the parties shall deliver a copy of this fully executed Agreement to Stewart Title of Oregon, 9020 SW Washington Square Road, Suite 220, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (the "Escrow Agent"). Seller and Purchaser hereby authorize Escrow Agent to take necessary steps for the closing of this transaction pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. Further, Seller and Purchaser hereby authorize their respective attorneys to execute and deliver into escrow any additional instructions consistent with this ~i Page 1 - PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS eiovio au.~cd~nsm~tsu ' a t Agreement as may be necessary or convenient to implement the terns of this Agreement and to close this transaction. 2.2 Cancellation Fee and Expenses. In the event this escrow terminates because of the non-satisfaction of any condition set forth in Section 3 any cancellation charges requited to be paid to Escrow Agent shall be borne equally by Seller and Purchaser. In the event this escrow terminates because of Purchaser's default, the cancellation charges required to be paid to Escrow Agent shall be borne by Purchaser. In the event this escrow terminates because of Seller's default, the cancellation charges required to be paid to Escrow Agent shall be borne by Seller. 3. Conditions Precedent to Purchaser's Obligation to Close. Purchaser's obligation to close the transaction described in this Agreement is expressly contingent on satisfaction or waiver by Purchaser of all of the following conditions precedent: 3.1 Purchaser's In%=tion Period. Concurrently with execution of this Agreement, Seller has furnished to Purchaser copies of all environmental audit reports, engineering documents, surveys, exhibits, permits and all other documents concerning the Property that are in Seller's possession or reasonably accessible to Seller. Purchaser shall have until June 15, 1997, to conduct a review and investigation of any and all matters pertaining to this 1 77 Agreement and the condition of the Property (the "Inspection Period"). Purchaser and its agents _ shall have the right to enter the Property at reasonable times during the Inspection Period to perform such environmental, geological and other site tests, inspections, studies and other investigations ("Inspections") of the Property as Purchaser deems necessary, at Purchaser's risk. Purchaser shall indemnify and hold Seller harmless from any loss, damage or claim arising out I . of Purchaser's or Purchaser's agents entry on the Property for the purpose of making such Inspections, which obligation to indemnify shall survive any termination of this Agreement. Purchaser may terminate this Agreement for any reason by notifying Seller of such termination in writing within ten (10) days from the last day of the Inspection Period. In the event the transaction does not close, and the failure to close the transaction was not a result of a default of Seller, Purchaser shall convey all of its right, title and interest in and to any appraisal or i environmental assessments with respect to this Property, or any other studies with respect to the j Property that it has obtained, to Seller. 3.2 Creation of Legal Parcel. The Property must be a confirmed or established as a legal parcel not later than ten (10) days prior to the date set forth the Closing of this transaction in Section 5.1 hereof. j 3.3 Approval of Title by Purchaser. 3.3.1 Preliminary Title Report. Within five (5) days of the a effective date of this Agreement, Seller, at Seller's expense, shall furnish to Purchaser a Preliminary Title Report issued by the Escrow Agent, describing the Property, listing the Purchaser or the Purchaser's designee as the prospective named insured, and showing as the policy t i 9 i Page 2 - PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW f INSTRUCTIONS r i i 5. Closing. i 5.1 C-losing Date. The closing (the "Closing") of the sale of the Property by Seller to Purchaser shall occur in escrow in the offices of the Escrow Agent on or before July 15, 1997 (the date of the Closing being the "Closing Date"). The transaction contemplated in this Agreement is "closed" when the Deed (as defined below) to be delivered by Seller is recorded, all other documents required by this Agreement are executed and delivered, and the Purchase Price is paid through escrow to Seller as provided in this Agreement. j 5.2 Deliveries to Escrow Agent. In connection with the Closing, the following shall occur, and the performance or tender of performance of all matters set forth in this Section 5.2 shall be mutually concurrent conditions: 5.2.1 Seller's Deliveries. On or before the Closing Date, Seller, at its sole cost and expense, shall deliver the following into escrow: (i) Statutory Warranty Deed ("Deed"), fully executed and acknowledged by Seller, conveying to Purchaser the Property free and clear of all encumbrances other than the Permitted Exceptions; j (ii) At Closing, and at the expense of Seller, Seller shall cause to be j issued to Purchaser an ALTA standard coverage owner's title policy in the amount of the total 1 Purchase Price that shall insure fee simple, indefeasible title to the Property in Purchaser, subject only to the Permitted Exceptions; provided that Purchaser shall have the right to order an ALTA extended coverage owner's policy. Purchaser shall be responsible for and pay the difference i between the premium for the standard ALTA owner's policy and the ALTA extended coverage f owner's policy, together with all related expenses. (iii) Certificate executed and sworn to by Seller (a) confirming Seller's United States taxpayer identification number and (b) stating that Seller is not a "foreign person" within the meaning of Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code of the United States of America of 1986 and otherwise in compliance with §1.1445-2T of the regulations promulgated thereunder. I 5.2.2 Purchaser's Deliveries. On or before the Closing Date, Purchaser shall deliver the Purchase Price into escrow, receiving full credit for the Earnest Money. f 5.3 -losing Costs- Proration Seller and Purchaser shall each pay one-half (1/2) of all escrow fees. Seller shall pay the cost of recording the Deed and the cost of an ALTA standard coverage owner's policy of title insurance. Purchaser shall pay the additional premium necessary for an ALTA extended coverage owner's policy of title insurance, if Purchaser shall desire such extended coverage, together with all other attendant costs for such extended coverage. Ad valorem and similar taxes and assessments relating to the Property shall be prorated between 3 Page 5 - PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS j Y Seller and Purchaser as of the Closing Date, Seller being charged and credited for the same up to ? such date and Purchaser being charged and credited for the same on and after such date. If the actual amounts to be prorated are not known at the Closing Date, the proration shall be computed on the basis of the evidence then available; when actual figures are available a cash settlement shall be made between Seller and Purchaser. The provisions of this Section 5.3 shall survive the Closing. 5.4 Authority Documents. Purchaser and Seller shall, if requested by the other party or the Escrow Agent, furnish satisfactory evidence of their authority to consummate i the sale and purchase contemplated by this Agreement. i 5.5 Possession. Seller shall deliver to Purchaser possession of the Property on the first full day after completion of the Closing with all manufactured homes and debris removed from the Property and in a condition suitable for immediate occupation by Purchaser. j 6. Remedies. i 6.1 Seller's Remedies. If Purchaser fails or refuses to perform any of its obligations under this Agreement for any reason other than failure of a condition precedent to occur or termination of this Agreement pursuant to Sections 3.1, 3.2, or 3.3, then Seller may terminate this Agreement by notifying Purchaser thereof, in which event neither party shall have any further rights or obligations hereunder and Seller may retain the Earnest Money as liquidated f damages and as Seller's exclusive remedy. 6.2 Purchaser's Remedies. If Seller fails or refuses to perform any of its obligations under this Agreement for any reason other than termination of this Agreement by Purchaser, then Purchaser may either. (i) terminate this Agreement by notifying Seller thereof and i thereafter neither party hereto shall have any further rights or obligations hereunder; or (ii) Purchaser may seek any other rights, n=urses or remedies (including, without limitation, specific performance) available to Purchaser, such rights, remedies and recourses hereunder to be cumulative, and not in exclusion of any other. 7. General Provisions. ' 7.1~. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE of this Agreement. I 7.2 Full A hori tY. Each of the signatories to this Agreement represents and warrants that he/she has the full right, power, legal capacity and authority to enter into and perform his obligations hereunder and no approval or consents of any other person are necessary i in connection herewith. 7.3 Negation of Agency and Partnership. Any agreement by either party to i cooperate with the other in connection with any provision of this Agreement shall not be construed j as making either party an agent or partner of the other party. f ' Page 6 - PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS avuwa~.W~nnnwa j . l i J i I I 1 7.4 Apphohle Law. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Oregon. 7.5 Statutory Disc aimer. THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT MAY NOT BE WITHIN A FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT PROTECTING STRUCTURES. THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS, WHICH, IN FARM OR FOREST ZONES, MAY NOT AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OR SITING OF A RESIDENCE AND WHICH IRMTS LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930 IN ALL ZONES. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TTTLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND EXISTENCE OF FIRE PROTECTION FOR STRUCTURES. 7.6 Sev rability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held to be void or invalid, the same shall not affect the remainder hereof which shall be effective as though the void or invalid provision had not been contained herein. 7.7 Modification or Amendments. No amendment, change or modification of this Agreement shall be valid, unless in writing and signed by all the parties hereto. i 7.8 Waiver. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, failure of either party at any time to require performance of any provision of this Agreement shall not limit 1 i the party's right to enforce the provision, nor shall any waiver of any breach of any provision be a waiver of any succeeding breach of the provision or a waiver of the provision itself or any other provision. i 7.9 A ssi m .n . Seller shall not delegate its duties under this Agreement to any party without the written consent of Purchaser which may be granted or withheld in the sole and unfettered discretion of Purchaser. Seller acknowledges and agrees that the continuing 1 obligation of Seller regarding remediation of hazardous materials which may be located on the Property and for indemnification as provided in this Agreement constitute a material portion of the consideration for entry into the Agreement by Purchaser. Purchaser shall not assign its right, i title and interest under this Agreement without the prior written consent of Seller, which consent , shall not be unreasonably withheld by Seller, provided, however that no such consent shall release Purchaser from its obligations hereunder. 7.10 Successors and Assigns. Subject to the provisions of Section 8.9, this i Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and shall be binding upon, the parties hereto and their i respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns. 1 7.11 Not. All notices required or provided under this Agreement shall be in writing. If mailed, notice shall be deemed effective forty-eight (48) hours after mailing as certified mail, postage prepaid, directed to the other party at the address set forth below or such other address as the party may indicate by written notice to the other as provided herein; notice 1 Page 7 - PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW a INSTRUCTIONS ago a am.,nsn~o.» i ! I 1 given in any other manner shall be effective upon receipt by the addressee. For purposes of notice, the addresses of the parties shall be as follows: If to Seller, to: Beacon Homes, Inc. I 1865 NW 169' Place I Suite 200 Beaverton, OR 97006 If to Purchaser, 1 i to: City of Tigard I Attn: Duane Roberts 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 With a Copy to: Pamela J. Beery O'Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 7.12 CounreT~laiiS. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which shall constitute but one and the same agreement. 7.13 Captions and Headings. The captions and headings of this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be construed or referred to in resolving questions of interpretation or construction. i 7.14 Calculation of Time. All periods of time referred to herein shall include i Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays in the State of Oregon, except that if the last day of any period falls on any Saturday, Sunday or such holiday, the period shall be extended to include the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or such holiday. I 7.15 Commissions. Each party warrants that it has not utilized the services of an agent, broker or fmder with regard to the transaction contemplated by this Agreement. Seller hereby agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Purchaser, and Purchaser hereby ! agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Seller, from and against any claim by any third parties not named herein for brokerage, commission, fin der's or other fees relative to this Agreement or the sale of the Property, and any court costs, attorney's fees or other costs or expenses arising therefrom, and alleged to be due by authorization of the indemnifying party. 7.16 Attorney Fees. If a suit, action, or other proceeding of any nature whatsoever (including any proceeding under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code) is instituted in connection with any controversy arising out of this Agreement or to interpret or enforce any rights hereunder, Page 8 - PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS 4omo,av.m.~smrnw~ the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its attomeys', paralegals', accountants', and other r experts' fees and all other fees, costs, and expenses actually incurred and reasonably necessary in connection therewith, as determined by the court at trial or on any appeal or review, in addition to all other amounts provided by law. 1 7.17 Entire Ag=ment. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between and among the parties, integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or , l incidental hereto, and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the parties or 111 their predecessors in interest with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. _ j EXECUTED as of the Effective Date. - SELLER: PURCHASER: z- b Beacon Homes, c., an Ore on corporation City of Tigard, an Oregon municipal By: Print Na ~ Title: Duly Authorized Representative e: 07AM E5. !\l i co U Duly n /itle:- Authorized Representative ACCEPTANCE BY TITLE COMPANY crowon Stewart Title of Oregon, by its duly authorized signature below, agrees to accept this foregoing the terms and conditions of, and to comply with the instructions contained m, the Agreement. STEWART TITLE OF OREGON By: s Its: • Page 9 PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS aawy +u.m~rnf silcslf i 91 ;I EXHIBIT_li- j JUNE 26, 1997 i i LEGAL DESCRIPTION DAKOTA MEADOWS/CITY OF TIGARD JOB NO. 141-018 TRACTS "L" AND "M", "DAKOTA MEADOWS" A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 34 AND THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP I SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: I( BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE JOHN L. HICKLIN D.L.C. NO. 54, i THENCE SOUTH 89°51'28"EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID D.L.C., 2571.36 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THAT TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO BEACON j HOMES, INC. IN DOCUMENT NO, 96-099760 IN WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS; THENCE SOUTH 89°51'28" EAST. ALONG SAID NORTH D.L.C. LINE, 237.61 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 00°08'32" EAST, 30.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 05°42'47" EAST, 224.98 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE 91.93 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 71.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 74-11-14" ( THE LONG CHORD BEARS SOUTH 31 °22'50" WEST, 85.64 FEET) TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE SOUTH 68°28'28" 1 ti / WEST, 17.89 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE 50.82 FEET ALONG THE ARC j OF A 104.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27°59'51 "(THE LONG CHORD BEARS SOUTH 54°28'32" WEST, 50.32 FEET) TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE; THENCE 125.68 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A 175.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 41°08'58" (THE LONG CHORD BEARS SOUTH 19°54'08" WEST, 123.00 FEET) TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; = THENCE SOUTH 00°40'22" EAST, 19.52 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID BEACON HOMES, INC. TRACT; THENCE SOUTH 89°51'28" EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 293.27 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID BEACON HOMES, INC. TRACT; THENCE NORTH 00°22'26" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID BEACON HOMES . INC. TRACT, 468.27 FEET TO A POINT WHICH IS 30.00 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID HICKLIN D.L.C.; THENCE NORTH 89°51'28" WEST, PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTH j LINE, 168.78 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 2.14 ACRES MORE OR LESS. BASIS OF BEARINGS- S.N.23,887 REGISTERED PROFESS IONAL LAND SURVE1fOR 1 OREGO JANUARY f5. 1907 JON T. FEIGION 02252 4 DKE,:12 31-47 j Plaza Wept • Suite 230.9600 S1X- Oak • Portland. Oregon 97^_^_3 O(firr.103-45_^-8003 • Far i03 452-80-13 s EEXHIBIT UTAP LOCATED IN THE S.E. 1/4 OF SEC. 34 AND THE S.W. 1/4 OF SEC. 35, T.1S., R.I.W., W.M. CITY OF TIGARD WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON i j JUNE 30. 1997 I i I ~ SCALE: 1"=100' N.W. COR. JOHN HICKLIN D.L.C. r S.W. NORTH DAKOTA ST.(CENTERL(NE) 89'89'51'28" E, 2571.36' 237.61' 30.00' TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING i I ogg'160 i 96~ i - NO OG J~~NS - 0 1, DESCRIBED AREA i i I j I . y1 s PREPARED BY: ALPHA ENG., INC. 9600 S.W. OAK. STE.230 PORTLAND, ORE. 97223 (503) 452-8003 { FILE NO. 141-014 t I Y i 1 r AGENDA ITEM # ^ For Agenda of August 12. 1997 • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Budget Adjustment for business tax review PREPARED BY: -Wayne-- DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City Council authorize a budget adjustment in the amount of $6,000 j to fund temporary help to identify businesses located in Tigard but not currently paying business tax? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the budget adjustment. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City collects an estimated $200,000 per year in the general fund from the business tax. Our current data base includes 2,800 businesses currently paying the tax. The City has not done a review of businesses in Tigard in many years and therefore the completeness of our business tax data base has questionable. I - f ;,rte estimate that over 4,000 businesses are located in Tigard. Given that 1! our database only includes 2,800 businesses, it would appear that many are { currently here but not paying the tax. Due to the inequity of some paying and some not paying, we feel this is an important step to take. 1 We are proposing to hire a temporary employee to actually go into the field 4 with our data base and identify any businesses not on our list. We will enter them into our data base and send them a bill for the tax for 1997. We hope to finish this step cf updating our data base this fall so that all businesses will be included in our renewal process for 1998 coming up in December. We have estimated the cost of this process at $6,000 which was not included in the adopted budget. We estimate that if we are able to locate 600 businesses not currently paying the tax, we will cover our costs and add revenue to the general fund in the amount of $27,000. The attached resolution makes the necessary budget adjustment to allow us to proceed with this process. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not approve adjustment and continue current effort. - - j FISCAL NOTES "pproval is estimated to enhance business tax collection by net of $27,000. J i a i 1 AGENDA ITEM FOR AGENDA OF August 12, 1997 i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY t ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Intergovemmental Agreement for Pro er y Acquisition at the Intersection of Walnut Street and Tiedem Avenue. PREPARED BY: .P i 1 DEPT HEAD OK a-P~ CITY MGR OK _ ISSUE BEFORE. THE COUNCIL l ~ • Shall the City Council approve the Intergovernmental Agreement for purchase of the property at the southwest comer of the Walnut Street/Tiedeman Avenue Intersection for future realignment of Walnut Street at that area? i ~ . 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve, by motion, the Intergovernmental Agreement for Property Acquisition at the Intersection of Walnut Street and Tiedeman Avenue, and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement on behalf of the City. j ~ II INFORMATION SUMMARY i ashington County and the City of Tigard have agreed to jointly purchase an 0.89 acre parcel of property at the southwest comer of the intersection of Walnut Street and Tiedeman Avenue to accommodate future realignment of Walnut Street to correct an existing dog-leg configuration. Washington County has agreed to share half the a costs of purchasing the property and demolishing and clearing existing structures from the property. One of the ' structures was a small house that had been severely damaged by fire. The participation of the County in sharing the cost was approved by the County Board of Commissioners on August 6, 1996. Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) 1 funds were authorized for the acquisition and demolition work. The acquisition of the property was approved by l City Council during the July 23, 1996 business meeting. The entire project was authorized and funded in the 1 q City of Tigard's 1996-97 CIP Budget. The intent of both parties is that the City would take the lead in the property acquisition and demolition work, pay for all costs, and request reimbursement for half the costs from the County at the conclusion of the work. 3 The City of Tigard proceeded with the purchase of the property and contracted for the demolition of the existing j house and appurtenant structures, paying all costs involved with the intention of billing the County for half the s total costs. The property was acquired in August 1996, and the demolition work was completed December 1996. The total costs incurred is $152,247.93. An invoice for half of the total costs in the amount of $76,123.97 was j sent to Washington County in January 1997. After numerous followup actions on the invoice for reimbursement, the County finally informed the City that execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) would be required before the County could reimburse the City for half the costs incurred. A draft IGA was transmitted to the City on July 24, 1997. The attached draft IGA has been reviewed and is determined to be in conformance with the original understanding between the City and the County prior to commencement of the -oject. The original copies of the IGA are now being transmitted by the County and will be provided to City I ! `.council prior to the August 12 meeting date. 1 i i i ~^lpproval of the Intergovernmental Agreement by the City of Tigard and the County Board of Commissioners ould allow the County to reimburse the City for half the costs incurred for purchase and clearance of the structures on the property. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSI FRED Reject the proposed IGA. This would further delay the reimbursement of half the costs incurred by the City. FISCAL NOTES .3 TIF funding in the amount of $75,000, which represents approximately half the estimated costs of the entire j project, was set aside in the 1996-97 Capital Improvement Program Budget. 5 t .j I:%CITYWIDEWWWTIGA.DOC ` I 1 i I i I i jI 5 Q INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WASHINGTON COUNTY AND THE CITY OF TIGARD FOR PROPERTY ACQUISITION AT INTERSECTION OF WALNUT STREET AND TIEDEMAN AVENUE This agreement is made and entered into by and between Washington County, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, acting by and through its elected officials, hereinafter referred to as County, and the City of Tigard, a municipal corporation of the i State of Oregon, acting by and through its elected officials, hereinafter referred to as City. i W I T N E S S E T H i I ARTICLE 1 - RECITALS WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 authorizes agencies to enter into intergovernmental agreements for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a party to the Agreement has the authority to perform; and, I WHEREAS, County has road capital funds and may enter into cooperative agreements with various cities situated within the boundaries of said County to accomplish certain _ i types of road construction projects with the allocation of costs and terms and conditions j mutually agreed to by the parties; and, F WHEREAS, County has classified Walnut Street and Tiedeman Avenue as Major . Collectors and recognizes that with increasing traffic volumes the intersection of Walnut Street and Tiedeman Avenue will need improvements; and, WHEREAS, City has authorized acquisition of an 0.89 acre parcel of property for right i of way at the southwest corner of the intersection of Walnut Street and Tiedeman Avenue for such future intersection improvements, as shown on the attached vicinity map; and. WHEREAS, County has authorized the paymerit of one-half of the cost for acquisition i { of this property, including demolition of structures thereon; and, 11 y f I WHEREAS, under the cited authority, it is the mutual desire of the County and the City to enter into an agreement to cooperate in the acquisition of the property as described I j above. y ' NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the covenants and agreements to be kept and performed by the parties hereto, it is agreed as follows. F:%SHARED\CPIAWPSHARE\RoIGA\TUALATIMTIGARD\TIGARD2.DOC July 24.1997 t I i - 1 I ARTICLE II - COUNTY OBLIGATIONS 1. County shall enter into and execute this Agreement during a duly authorized T session of its Board of County Commissioners. 2. County shall, upon execution of this Agreement, assign a liaison person to be responsible for coordination of the project with City. 3. County shall pay City for costs associated with the property acquisition as set forth in Article IV - Compensation. 4. Upon completion of any road project using the subject property, determination by j County that any portion of the property is surplus, and upon sale, County shall pay ` City within thirty days of said sale one-half the net proceeds. i ARTICLE III - CITY OBLIGATIONS 1. City shall enter into and execute this Agreement during a duly authorized session of its City Council I 2. City shall, upon execution of this Agreement, assign a liaison person to be 1 responsible for coordination of the project with County. 3. City shall provide all appraisals, negotiations, title reports, and closing costs required to acquire the property and to demolish the structures thereon. 4. City shall be responsible for acquisition of the property and demolition of the j structures. i 5. City shall submit an invoice to County for costs associated with the property I acquisition as set forth in Article IV - Compensation. 6. City shall turn over title of property to County within 30 days of receipt of County's . I payment that is set forth in Article IV - Compensation. f I 7. City shall expend County funds provided under this Agreement for acquisition of the c above described property, for the purpose of a future road improvement project. i g ! j F1SHARED%CPREWPSHARE%RDK3A%TUALATIMTIGARD%TIGARD2.DOC July 21,1997 I 3 L I l i ARTICLE IV - COMPENSATION I j 1. City shall, within 30 days after the execution of this Agreement or within 45 days after acquisition of the property is completed, whichever is later, submit a detailed invoice to County for costs associated with the acquisition of this property. 2. County shall, within 30 days after the execution of this agreement and receipt of an invoice from City, pay City the sum of $76,123.97, which represents one-half of the i actual cost associated with the acquisition of this property, including demolition of structures thereon, the total cost being $152,247.93. 1 • ARTICLE V - GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Laws of Oregon The parties agree to abide by all applicable laws and regulations regarding the handling and expenditure of public funds. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Oregon. All provisions required by ORS Chapter 279 to be included in public contracts are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. 2. Default I Either party shall be deemed to be in default if it fails to comply with any provision of this Agreement. City and County agree time is of the essence in the performance of any of the obligations within this Agreement. Complaining party shall provide the other j party with written notice of default and allow thirty (30) days within which to cure the " defect. City shall be liable for all costs and damages arising from default by City. 3. Indemnification j This Agreement is for the benefit of the Parties only. Each party agrees to indemnify and hold the other harmless, to include their respective officers, employees, agents and representatives, from and against all claims, demands and causes of actions and suits i of any kind or nature for personal injury, death or damage to property on account of or rising out of services performed, the omission of services or in any way resulting from the acts or omissions of the parties so indemnifying and/or its officers, employees, I agents, or representatives. Indemnification is subject to and shall not exceed the limits of liability of the Oregon Tort Claims Act (ORS 30.260 through 30.300). In addition, each party shall be responsible for any contract claims, delay damages or similar items 1 caused by the action or inaction of the party. F:ISHARED\CPMWPSHARMDIGA\TVALATIMTIGARD\TIGARD2.DOC July 24, 1997 J j 3 i i a 1 i 1 l 4. Documents are Public Property - All records, reports, data, documents, systems, and concepts, whether in the form of writings, figures, graphs, or models which are prepared or developed in connection with I this project shall become public property. 5. Modification of Agreement No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this contract shall bind either party unless in writing, signed by both parties. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, shall be effective only in specific instances and for the specific r purpose given. I i 6. Dispute Resolution The parties agree to use their best efforts to resolve any dispute arising out of this Agreement by mediation. If mediation is not successful, the dispute shall be settled by binding arbitration in Washington County, Oregon, in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. The arbitration shall be before a single arbitrator. The cost of arbitration shall be shared I equally; provided, however, that the arbitrator may award costs and fees to the li prevailing party. The arbitration shall be held within 60 days of selection of the arbitrator unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. _ 7. Severability i 1 ' If any terms or provisions of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, to any extent, be determined by a court to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement and the application of those terms and provisions shall not be affected thereby and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest 1 extent permitted by law. j I 8. Nondiscrimination i No person shall be denied or subjected to discrimination in receipt of the benefits of any services or activities made possible by or resulting from this Agreement on the grounds of race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, age or marital status. Any violation of this provision shall be considered a material i defect and shall be grounds for cancellation, termination or suspension in whole or in part by County. l ~J F:\SHARED%CPMWPSHARE\RDIGA\TUALATIMTIGARD\TIGARD2.DOC July 21, 1997 I 4 14t i 4 + i t _J 3 9. Integration This Agreement includes the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes any prior 3 discussions or agreements regarding the same subject. There are not understandings, 1 agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this contract. i. , j ARTICLE VI - TERM OF AGREEMENT 1. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of execution for one year or until completion of all obligations, whichever is later. l j 2. This Agreement may be amended or extended for periods of up to one year by I I - consent of the parties, subject to provisions of this Agreement. Except for breach, l k. this Agreement may be canceled only with written notice and upon mutual consent. Should the project be canceled or terminated for any reason, the parties shall in good faith agree to such reasonable provisions for finalizing the project and paying proportionate shares of the actual costs incurred prior to the time of project cancellation or termination. i ( - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and affixed their seals as of the day and year hereinafter written. DONE AND DATED this day of 1997. - ,i CITY O TIGARD, OREGON` WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON I / Bi By Chairman, Board of Commissioners + Date Date ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: I ' City Recorder Loretta S. Skurdahl Senior Assistant County Counsel FASHARED%CPPtWPSHARMDIGA%TUALATIMTICaARD%nGARD2.DOC July 24, 1997 5 . I I P W 247. f 501 a °o 500 23AC. a x _ ~ ~SC` J9Ac ~ ` 1 u1 z 164' 1 . P" 'ode2600 ~J~j,~V~ y ° o zl e 0 23p0P yts• } W 22p W B piotiYs so " 0p0 W2100 W+L40V y } ` ` f`~ ~'r F*. f A 'Y 4o.4s 24,6t 56.39 r ` ' *o2rjpt asza 6, r a= i 6 s ~ _ ~ a Ts-oa a~-RC 4o H to ros.~ a3~~° e6 ~ s440o <x X00 rz.s9 w. jt T7 g 24 a`m olo IS w ~ v~~"~~", o ° ,m9 UJ h o ~ d ?ado t a ` 4 i' n+' °o ° 9 59 w 01'-°}e 3900 ,-j'~( 4300 cn ° V x555 19 V G F ti 42400 x 4100 o N1a 380 o ` Lr POP GNM~~~ Z1 20q~w _ r` £ y° V,Oe A f'~" Fl m o so A x69°2,'e 1907 r ~ 10 ~ 1906 0 z tfis.Ta m 1908 0 r- ^ 1905 i o w sj, '4' w R L Ibs.Ta - 8 m 1909 9 1 1904 i~ oat 4 ,9o N 12 _ ~f Q 1702 /.69k N 95.6b I4At• 144.69 1901 M i 2 Is AC. 190 ; W ~ 1 4C. 190 d i M A N O = O _ o 0 Q N 3, 6 kas°os 5° C0° p f4 „ 4 N o o.~r so E 585 ,689 ~ Ea %Boo A \ 1 SO AC. Z=- r SOS 101.15 co To . 9 •9. 18 y £ 3 SAC 99 1703 \ J L 17o4 .300. Ci i ISAC. IsN M N69°5E N N ; ~Ne ,t . 3 AGENDA ITEM # 1 FOR AGENDA OF August 12. 1997 { CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON i COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY i ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE RESOLUTION TO ADOPT TUAL ATIN VALLEY FIRE AND RESCUE DISTRICT ORDINANCE NO. 96-01 PREPARED BY: David Scott DEPT HEAD OK t ' CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL i Should the Council adopt Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District Ordinance No. 96-01 STAFF RECOMMENDATION i Adopt Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Ordinance No. 96-01 INFORMATION SUMMARY i Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (TVFR) provides fire prevention services within Tigard. Part of this service includes adopting a fire prevention code. Effective October 21, 1996, TVFR updated its' ordinance by passing Ordinance ` No. 96-01, adopting the 1994 Uniform Fire Code and Standards, with some amendments. The previous TVFR ordinance eted the 1991 Uniform Fire Code and Standards, which Tigard adopted by Resolution 93-02. ORS 478.924 requires i tha[ Tigard adopt the TVFR ordinance by resolution for it to be effective in Tigard. If Tigard does not adopt the TVFR ordinance, TVFR would enforce the provisions of the State Fire Code, which also adopts the 1994 Uniform Fire Code and I Standards. It is in the best interest of Tigard's citizens to enjoy the fire prevention code and standards adopted by the local service provider, TVFR. An Analysis of Revisions prepared by TVFR is attached with key items starred by staff l; Currently, there are differences between the road and street standards in the TVFR ordinance and those in Tigard's Community Development Code. This has resulted in some ambiguity with respect to which standards supersede. 1 ,I Legislation passed this session with anticipated Governor approval, which clarifies this issue. Under the new legislation, county or city road and street standards supersede and prevail over similar standards set forth in local fire district ordinances. The legislation requires the local municipality to consult with the local fire district. Currently, TVFR and j Tigard are jointly responsible for ensuring that roads and streets meet TVFR requirements. The impact of this legislation is that Tigard will be unilaterally responsible for ensuring that roads and streets provide adequate fire district access. To this end, Tigard will work cooperatively with TVFR to ensure that TVFR's needs are accommodated. Attached is a staff memo explaining how our review will be accomplished OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not adopting the TVFR ordinance. Staff believes it is not in Tigard's best interest to defer to the state fire code and not give TVFR authority to enforce their fire code within Tigard. FISCAL NOTES - I 1~ ne. umtidaa~nr~xoi..~ ~ ~ I i I L~ i rowFF a i 1 11 ~ MEMORANDUM - City of Tigard communltr DNt oprent CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Sh"'I`q A B`""`°"'°"""' i TO: Jim Hendryx i FROM: Dick Bewersdorff DATE: July 30, 1997 SUBJECT: Plan Review Related to Adoption of Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (TVF&R) District Ordinance The City of Tigard street standards vary from those of the TVF&R District in some respects. These include provisions for narrower streets, smaller cul-de-sac radii, and steeper street grades in the city standards. Our standards were based on work that the City of Portland and other cities underwent with their fire bureaus, recognizing the need for more flexibility and cost reduction. ~ The impact of the City of Tigard being unilaterally responsible for ensuring adequate fire access means increased coordination and effort related to development design where projects vary from TVF&R standards. The TVF&R District will no longer provide written comments. They will, however, have a Fire Marshall at the City (normally Wednesday mornings) to review plans as time permits. They have indicated they will also meet with staff to review the TVF&R District standards. Those standards have normally been added to the conditions of approval for developments with TVF&R sign-off in some cases. The TVF&R District standards will continue to be reviewed by City engineering, building, and I planning staff as they relate to development proposals. Where there are substantial reasons to vary from TVF&R standards, special conditions will have to be crafted. An example is the City taking responsibility for assuring that narrower streets are posted (and enforced) with "NO , PARKING" signs to allow for fire access. Another option might be the provision of fire sprinklers for all buildings served by narrower streets. Some of the conditions may mean additional development costs. The overall consequence of the City being responsible for ensuring fire access and protection is the need for careful coordination of staff and fire district review. In some cases, the City may choose not to proceed with the minimum city standards if there are unavoidable fire access hazards or unsatisfactory alternatives. It might mean that developers incur increased costs for providing fire sprinklers in order to gain the design benefits of minimum street standards. r I iAcurpln\dick\tvr&r.mem e t'; ' ORDINANCE 96-01 ANALYSIS OF REVISIONS Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue is an Exempt Jurisdiction. Exempt status indicates that a governmental subdivision, such as TVF&R, has enacted adequate regulations generally conforming to state and national standards concerning fire prevention, fire safety measures and building construction requirements for safety, and also provides reasonable enforcement of its regulations. Because TVF&R meets these requirements, the State Fire Marshal has exempted the - area subject to such regulations from the statutes, rules and regulations administered by the State Fire Marshal. This analysis is created in order to explain the provisions included in the adoption of the District's Fire Prevention Ordinance which is required element of an Exempt jurisdiction. SECTION I -ADOPTION OF UNIFORM CODES Part A - Adopts the 1994 edition (most current) of the Uniform Fire Code (UFC). The UFC is revised and reprinted on a three year cycle by the International Fire Code Institute. The i Appendices are adopted because the UFC states that the provisions of any Appendix chapter do not apply unless specifically adopted. 4 Part B -Adopts the 1994 edition of the Uniform Fire Code Standards. The Standards are a companion document to the UFC and are therefor necessary to carry out the provisions of the Code. An example is UFC Standard 10-1 which states when fire extinguishers are 3 required and also specifies type, size and location. SECTION fl - DEFINITIONS j This entire section is comprised of definitions some of which are necessary to correspond with Ordinance amendments and the needs of the District. These definitions are adopted here _ ibecause they are not found in the UFC. SECTION III. IV. & V - ESTABLISHMENT OF LIMITS These three sections are necessary to establish limits for the storage of flammable or combustible liquids, explosives and blasting agents and liquefied petroleum gas as set forth by the District. 1 The limits are a reflection of the UFC with an Exception added to each that allows the installation of above ground storage tanks in certain areas that fall into a low hazard category. SECTION VI -AMENDMENTS TQ THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE 4 Item 1 - Replaces the term "Administrator" with "Board of Directors" in order to correspond with TVF&R's Rural Fire Protection District (RFPD) status. Item 2 - The UFC calls out certain statutes and regulations that a fire department or district is authorized to enforce. RFPD's such as TVF&R are formed by authority of Oregon I j Revised Statute, Chapter 478. The amendment to this section adds additional items that an RFPD may regulate as authorized by ORS 478.920. i Item 3 - Left as is, this section would require the District to inspect all buildings and premises. Ii Therefor, word "shall" is changed to "may", because budgetary constraints do not allow for this to happen. This amendment allows for a more flexible approach to inspections based on the degree of hazard for each occupancy. Some low hazard occupancies do not need to be inspected every year and some high hazard occupancies need inspected two times a year. Item 4,- The word "misdemeanor" is replaced with the phrase "Violation of Code". ORS 478.930 uses this term when referring to an RFPD. This amendment is necessary in order to comply with statutory language regarding RFPDs. j l ! s 1 Item 5 - The District does not adopt the procedures specified in the Uniform Code for the i Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. The District does not have the authority to require repairs or order destruction of a building, therefor this portiori is removed. i /^!tem 6 - The UFC has an extensive list of items or processes that require a permit. This section is ' amended to reflect the items or processes for which the District requires a permit. The entire section is deleted and reformatted as per District requirements, including Item #7, a newly developed Table 105, Permit amounts for Hazardous Materials. The permit amounts in Table 105 are not intended for revenue or notification reasons, rather they are designed to reveal the exact amount of hazardous materials contained within a building in order to determine the appropriate occupancy classification. Item 8 - Model code language does not specify design or layout requirements for No Parking signs i or curb and surface markings. This section specifies the District's requirements. Item 9 - The addition of this section gives the Chief the authority to have vehicles towed in the event they are an obstruction to fire suppression efforts. This amendment is necessary because the UFC does not address the authority to have vehicles towed. Item 10 - UFC fire flow requirements are nonspecific in order to accommodate a broad range of fire departments and fire districts. This amendment expands on model code language by designating fire flow requirements of the District. These requirements are based on 1 calculated fire flows necessary to suppress a fire in any given structure. The District Board determined the level of fire protection the taxpayers could provide and any requirements beyond that level must be provided by the developer. i Item 11 - The UFC requires the installation of fire hydrants, but is very general. This section details the District requirements for distribution and placement of fire hydrants and fire department connections for both commercial and non-commercial structures and meets i Insurance Services Office (ISO) requirements for distance to hydrants. (ISO evaluates individual fire districts, and assigns a classification between one and ten that is used by { the insurance industry in setting fire insurance rates.) i Item 12 - Article 30 addresses the storage, manufacturing, processing and sale of wood products i and has been completely rewritten by the Oregon Fire Code Committee. This amendment is necessary in order to comply with the requirement for a manual fire alarm system as stated in Article 30. The requirement is found in Article 10, Fire Protection Systems and Equipment. Item 13 - This section is amended to correspond with the State Fire Marshal's amendment which establishes limits and standards for portable electric heaters. Item 14 - This section is adopted in order to address the growing concerns surrounding the j handling of recyclable materials. The language contained in this amendment reflects the cooperative efforts of the Oregon fire service and the recycling industry. Most of the original draft of this section for the 1991 UFC was developed by TVF&R for the State Fire Marshal. Item 15 - The phrase "When required by the Chief" is added because new model code language requires emergency plans and drills for all R-1 (apartment) Occupancies. This requirement is far from realistic and therefor discretionary language was needed in order i to alleviate the District of this responsibility. The District does not want to be charged with the responsibility of developing emergency plans for all apartment buildings. Item 16 - Article 30 is a complete rewrite by the Oregon Fire Code Committee. This new language is adopted by the State of Oregon and will become model UFC language in 1997. The F 2 revised article reflects the efforts of the Oregon fire services and the wood products industry to create performance based codes that allow for the evolution of industry processes, but maintain a reasonable degree of fire and life safety. (-')Item 17 - Article 53 is an Oregon Amendment to the UFC that addresses the application of Thermosetting Plastics (fiberglass). This article was created for the 1991 UFC and is carried forward to the 1994 UFC. It exists because the provisions of Article 45, Application of Flammable Finishes, are too restrictive to apply to the application of thermosetting plastics. Item 18 - Section 6323 is deleted because it requires prior notification and approval by the Chief in order to interchange from one refrigerant to another, which includes commercial y! refrigerators and other similar units. This subject is better addressed in the Mechanical Code. Item 19 - Certificates to purchase explosives are regulated by the State Fire Marshal. This I amendment reflects the State Fire Marshal's amendment to Article 77. The use of I explosives is regulated by the local authority (TVF&R). Item 20 - Pyrotechnics and Fireworks are regulated by the State Fire Marshal. This amendment is necessary in order to stay in line with state regulations, it reflects State Fire Marshal . requirements. Item 21 - Model code language requires plans to be submitted to store more than 5,000 gallons of - a flammable or combustible liquid in an above ground tank. This is a very liberal amount and is therefor modified downward by the District to a quantity of "more than 1,000 . gallons". The decrease in the threshold limit is necessary due to the population density -1 of the District. Item 22 - Liquefied petroleum gas is closely regulated by the State Fire Marshal. This section is amended to cite the Oregon Revised Statutes that regulate who is licensed to work on or install LP-Gas tanks or vehicles powered by LP-Gas. The District is bound by these statutes and must therefor recognize them here. Item 23 - This section is amended to reflect the District's requirements for the submittal of fees and plans for installation of LP-Gas containers. An exempt jurisdiction is allowed to l require permits for items or processes that the UFC does not address. i Item 24 - Utility Plants for LP-Gas are not addressed in model code language. They are, however, 3 present within the boundaries of the District and require a permit to operate. Item 25 - This section refers to the State Fire Marshal requirement stating that a person must ? obtain a gas installation license to install, alter, extend or repair LP-Gas equipment or appliances. j Item 26 - The amendment to this Footnote is required due to conflicting distance requirements between the UFC and the UFC Standard. This is an oversight by the publishers of the I UFC and is also amended by the State Fire Marshal. Item 27 - This standard is added to correspond with Article 30, Wood Products. (see Item 12) Item 28 - These two Appendices are State Fire Marshal amendments to the UFC. They are adopted by the District because they address Haunted Houses and SR Occupancies which both present unique fire and life safety issues. Appendices must be specifically adopted in order for them to be enforceable. r E r, 3 s ■ j OEM Itqm 29"- Appendix III-A is a companion Appendix to Article 9. This Appendix is used to calculate required fire flows and water supplies for fire suppression. It is modified by the District in order to reflect Standard Operating Guidelines and the specific needs of the District. (See item No. 10 of this document for additional explanation) _ SECTION VII - PENALTIES This section describes the penalties for failure to comply with the provisions of the Ordinance, as authorized by Oregon Revised Statue. SECTION VIII - PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL OF PLAN FOR FIRE CODE APPROVAL This section specifies the parameters for submittal of plans for approval by the District. ~F SECTION IX - REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES This section repeals all former Ordinances, or parts thereof, which are conflicting or inconsistent with the provisions of Ordinance 96-01 or of the code or standards adopted. ATTACHMENTS The six attachments to the Ordinance are reprints of State Fire Marshal amendments to the 1994 UFC which are adopted by reference within the body of the Ordinance. r F t I _ i i 4 r / M AGENDA ITE M# FOR AGENDA OF 8-12-97 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Award Bid - Menlor Reservoir Project ~ PREPARED BY: E. Wegner DEPT HEAD OK ~ CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL _ Shall the Council approve the bid of Ward-Henshaw Construction Company, Salem, Oregon, in the amount of $3,371,149.85? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Award bid to Ward-Henshaw Construction Company. j _ r'. INFORMATION SUMMARY i j Bids were received and opened on July 11. Summary of bids received are listed on the attached letter from r mores L. Helton, PE (dated August 4, 1997). This letter also summarizes the problem with regard to the apparent low bidder and the error they made when preparing their bid. The Intergovernmental Water Board has agreed to abide by staff and city attorney's recommendation. ' OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1 tJ I. Rebid project. 2. Litigate the low bidder for his error. FISCAL NOTES The bid amount is within the Engineer's estimate; project will be funded by Water SDC's. j is\citywidc\svm\mensum.doc 1 41 - ~ llurraSSmilh&.'Laocisla,lnc. EOoPPIS~)MII2IJ 121 S.A. Salmon. Sui e 1020 Po!odl, Orr au 9'211 - PHONE 503-!2i- vl0 El\ 503.225.9022 96-0341.202 - August 4, 1997 Mr. Edward Wegner Director of Public Works City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: 3.5 MG Menlor Reservoir Project - Recommendation of Award Dear Ed: Bids were received and opened at 2:00 PM on July 11, 1997, at the Tigard Water Department, for construction of the above referenced project. Three bids were received, along with the required bid bonds, preliminary tank design calculations and preliminary shop drawings. All three of the bidders proposed to use DYK Incorporated as their tank designer and tank prestressor. The total bid amounts, which we have verified, are as follows: fs; Marion Construction Co., Salem, OR $ 2,831,400.00 Ward-Henshaw Construction Co., Inc., Canby, OR $ 3,371,149.85 Ska-ir Construction Inc., Auburn, WA $ 3,896,625.30 Engineer's Estimate $ 3,200,000 to $ 3,600,000 4 i On July 14, 1997, we received a letter from Marion Construction Co., indicating that an error +'s L { was made in preparing their bid. One of their subcontractors made a mathematical error, ' i providing a quote that was $284,500.00 too low. Marion Construction Co. has provided spreadsheets of the subcontractor's and their own bid preparation showing that the error was k;} incorporated in the total bid amount. Copies of the letter and documentation are enclosed. Due to this error, and on the advice of the City Attorney, we recommend that Marion f~ Construction Co.'s bid be rejected. I We reviewed the next lowest bid, submitted by Ward-Henshaw Construction Co., Inc., along with their prequalification statement, preliminary tank design calculations and preliminary Enclosures MSA shop drawings. Their bid is complete and responsive. Therefore, we recommend award of the contract to Ward-Henshaw Construction Co., Inc., in the amount of $3,371,149.85. With the City's approval, we will provide Ward-Henshaw a Notice of Award and agreements. i Sincerely, MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. < James L. Helton, P.E. i r AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 8/12/97 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA TI'EM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Tigard Greensnace Program n 1 I' /YYY` /y/, , PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK / I1 v `CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL What changes are needed to the city's official list of Greenspace projects and to the process used to implement i these projects? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the action plan described in the attached staff report. This includes shifting more funds to the acquisition 3 of land within two previously approved Fanno Creek riparian areas. It also includes the identification of two I Tualatin River riparian properties and a large Bull Mountain forest area. This identification of a target area rather than specific parcels will eliminate the need to come back and amend the IGA whenever a specific transaction goes awry. j INFORMATION SUMMARY In April 1996, Council adopted a list of projects for the use of the city's share of Metro Greenspaces bond measure funds. The list included the acquisition of four specific forested parcels and unspecified riparian properties within two stretches of Fanno Creek. To date, the city has completed the purchase of one forest property. Changes in the real estate market, uncooperative owners, and inter-governmental cooperation difficulties have contributed to delays in the implementation of the city's program.' The local share agreements with Metro expire on September 1, 1998. j OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Alternative actions are discussed in the staff report. They include reconsidering two previously identified land acquisitions, greenway trail construction, and assisting the funding of Tualatin River pedestrian bridge design work. FISCAL NOTES The city is eligible to receive $758,000 in Greenspaces funds. So far, the city has spent $125,000, leaving 8633,000 in unspent funds. 01 1 t- • , J } i j Greenspaces Progress Report j I This report discusses the city's fourteen month-old Greenspaces program. It details work efforts, describes difficulties, and recommends changes to the city's official list of project priorities and current implementation process. The report also provides information on the IGA (inter-governmental agreement) with Metro for the receipt of Greenspaces local share funds. i The report's recommendations include adding funds to the previously approved Fanno i Creek Corridor project. They also include the identification of two substitute projects: . the acquisition of two specific Tualatin River properties and forest acreage within a Bull Mountain target area. Another recommendation is using a portion of the Greenspaces funds to hire a contract firm to negotiate with landowners. Background In May 1995, citizens of the Portland metro area approved the Greenspaces bond measure. This measure provides funds to acquire natural areas, trail corridors and greenways for the protection of their natural qualities and associated recreational i S opportunities. f ~ 4r c/ The bond measure specified that $26 million of the bond measure funds would be distributed to local park providers for capital improvements or land acquisitions for neighborhood and community parks, open spaces, and trails. Early last year, after extensive public participation, the city put together a list of potentially suitable projects for the expenditure of its Greenspaces bond measure entitlement. The list included the acquisition of four forest sites as well as creekside land within two Fanno Creek greenway trail corridors. To date, approximately 16 percent of Tigard's $758,000 in local share funds have been spent. The city has been unable to complete three of the four site acquisitions. Progress on the acquisition of greenway corridor property has been delayed. This rate of progress 1 is on par with other park providers. Region-wide, approximately 20 percent of the local j share funds have been spent. I I Information on individual city target properties is as follows: i Forest Area along Fern Street: This three-acre property, which connects with a larger city greenway to the south, was purchased with local Greenspace funds in May 1996 for $125,000. y y Page 2 Forest at Bull Mountain Road and 129th: In October 1996, the owners agreed to terms on the sale of this 12-acre property. Approval to proceed with the acquisition was provided by the Tigard City Council and the Washington County Commissioners, the city's partner on the site. The owners subsequently backed out of their deal with the city and sold to a developer for an undisclosed but "significantly higher" figure. Forest area at Bond and 82nd Avenue: 1 The asking price of this 4-acre site was revised upward from $150,000 to $300,000 after a " } formal appraisal conducted by the city placed the value at $490,000. Council in February decided to withdraw its offer to purchase the property and to pursue the acquisition of other eligible properties. A recent letter from the owners restating their interest in selling for Greenspace use at the revised asking price is attached to the end of this report. Forest area north of Cook Park: j After a period of negotiations, during which the city's offer to buy at the appraised value i " was rejected by the owner, council decided to abandon this project. New correspondence € from the owner is attached. The current asking price is higher and includes less land than was true before negotiations were ended early this year. Fanno Creek Trail Corridor between Tiedeman and Main and between Hall and Durham: Metro identified the acquisition of land along these stream segments as a regional Greenspaces project. The city identified this same creekside areas as a City-Metro fund I sharing partnership. A preliminary implementation strategy discussed with Metro called 1 for their real estate staff to take the lead in conducting appraisals, environmental assessments, and owner negotiations on the city's and Metro's behalf. For its part, city staff sent letters to the owners of land along Fanno Creek to describe the Greenspaces program and to help identify the landowners most receptive to selling. Unfortunately, progress on this project has been delayed due to a shortage of Metro staff time available to devote to acquisition activities. On the positive side, Metro's recent work effort on the corridor has resulted in the purchase of a 7-acre creek front site adjacent to Woodard Park, which Metro has agreed to re-sell to the city for park expansion. Additionally, Metro has a large downstream site, with good Greenspace characteristics, under active consideration for acquisition. Recently, a new cooperative arrangement, involving the city going after the little fish and Metro the big fish, has been discussed. I I { I" LJ 1 _ 1 6 ' f Page 3 j 1. Washington County Greenspaces Site The county is in the process of using a portion of its Greenspaces funds to purchase a 7.8- acre site located on Bull Mountain adjacent to the water district property. It is described as a good representation of the forested qualities of the Bull Mountain area, with a mixture of coniferous and deciduous trees. It has a pre-existing trail network running through it. Because it does not wish to expand its role as park service provider, the county offered to donate the land to the city. Council considered and accepted this offer. As of mid-July, the county was close to closing on the purchase transaction. Greenspaces Local Share IGAs I ~ Under the IGAs for the pass through of bond funds, eligible activities include natural area and trail related projects. Active recreation projects, such as sports fields, play structures, and community centers, are not eligible. Public participation in the selection of projects and a willing seller approach to land acquisition are key features of the IGAs. 1 The agreements allow for project changes and the reallocation of funds to a different a project. The process for changing the agreements consists of holding a public meeting to j receive citizen comments, the adoption of a resolution finding that one or more projects is cost prohibitive or otherwise unfeasible, and the determination of a substitute project. 1 The substitute project is subject to approval of Metro's Regional Parks and Greenspaces Department Director. Metro Council approval is not required. No additional funds are s»' available. 4 The IGAs terminate on September 1, 1998. Local park providers may apply to Metro for a six month extension to March 1, 1999. Subsequent extensions may be granted, if f necessary, to complete projects. Local park providers must obtain the approval of the extension from the Greenspaces director. { Substitute Proiects Because the city has been unable to complete the purchase of three of its approved Greenspace sites, there is a need to revise the list of sites and to complete the IGA amendment process. I To facilitate this and the city's parkland acquisition process, during the period March- May, a Council-staff work group met to look at new sites potentially available for park and Greenspaces acquisition. Several vacant properties located within the city were considered. With regard to Greenspace sites, the group identified three small properties located along the Tualatin River between Cook Park and the railroad tracks. The owner of two of the properties was contacted and is receptive to selling. The owners of a third property are willing to donate their property for Greenspaces purposes. No other feasible Greenspace candidate sites were identified. The two riverside properties available for 1 sale are listed below as recommended substitute sites. Together, the value of these I l Page 4 i properties is $25,000. Should Council decide to use Greenspace funds to acquire these sites, $613,000 in unspent local share funds would remain. Recommendations 1 In response to the need to identify new projects, staff recommends the following: (1) Tualatin River Properties: Identify the two above river tracts as target sites. As indicated, the purchase price is $25,000. (2) Fanno Creek Stream Corridor: j As seen in the attached documents, the previous project list allocated $176,000 toward the acquisition of land within the Fanno Creek greenway corridor. Staff recommends that } this amount be increased to $316,500. These funds would be used to go after small i properties along the creek. Metro, using regional funds, would continue to pursue the large-acre properties. One such large-acre negotiation is in progress. (3) Bull Mountain Area: As noted, a Council-staff work group looking inside the city identified only three small properties, covering three acres in all, as feasible acquisition opportunities. In contrast, many acquisition opportunities exist in the city's urban services area. The rationale for targeting this area is that it is designated for future annexation into the city and includes large blocks of relatively pristine forest areas. The area as a whole also contains the headwaters of waterways that feed Summer and Fanno Creeks and the Tualatin River. i As its third recommendation, staff recommends the allocation of $316,500 toward the j acquisition of property in an area situated between the Bonneville Power lines and Sunrise Lane. This 47-acre area includes extensive forest cover. A ravine with a year round stream runs in a northerly direction through the middle of the area. The area was identified by the county as a top candidate during its Greenspaces site selection process. It is made up of multiple owners, most of whom expressed supported for the county's potential intentions. The county Greenspaces briefing paper described this site as of particular interest because it has a pre-existing trail system that follows a small creek from the top of Bull Mountain down to Menlor Road and, previous to recent developments, on to Scholls Ferry Road. In the future, this trail may act as part of a trail network connecting to other surrounding parks and neighborhoods. According to residents, people have been using this existing trail for many years. This has aided in the acceptance by local residents of its preservation as an official Greenspaces site. The county identified a broad range of land values within the area, ranging from $15,000 i to $90,000 per acre. The specific area city staff recommends for purchase includes property along the trailway and adjacent hillsides. This property has less development i I L- Page 5 1 potential, and accordingly, could be expected to cost less. Depending on land costs and the success of landowner negotiations, the focus could be on acquiring the trail corridor or on acquiring the two trailheads. Recent correspondence from a trailhead landowner is attached. As with the Fanno Creek target areas, staff recommends that a broad area, rather than specific parcels, be identified. This will eliminate the need to come back and amend the Greenspaces IGA whenever a specific transaction goes awry. This is an allowed strategy under the terms of the agreement. (4) Negotiation Services: To keep things moving forward, staff recommends Council authorize staff to hire a contract firm to assist in conducting negotiations with the owners of property within approved target areas. This would allow the city to engage in a very focused acquisition effort. Use of a portion of the Greenspace funds for this purpose is an allowed expense. i Assuming Council authorizes the use of a contract firm, preference in the hiring of a consultant would be given to firms with experience in negotiating open space contracts. Depending on cost, multi-discipline firms with in-house site assessment, appraisal, and negotiation expertise could be given special consideration. Alternative Protects Other potential options Council may wish to consider include: `f (1) Old Sites: Reconsider the two sites previously abandoned as cost prohibitive. They include the ` forest parcel located above the Cook Park soccer fields and the Bond and 82nd Avenue parcel. As indicated in the attached landowner correspondence, both continue to be available. Many members of the South CIT are supportive of this approach. (2) Tualatin Pedestrian Bridge: In partnership with the City of Tualatin, consider allocating $50,000 or a different amount toward moving the proposed Tualatin River pedestrian bridge project from the concept plan to the design development phase. This work is a Greenspaces eligible activity. A letter from the City of Tualatin is attached. (3) Trail Construction: Consider allocating funds for trail construction and/or other Greenspace-related capital improvements. Although trail installation is an eligible activity, during the previous Greenspace site selection process, the CITs and Planning Commission expressed strong support for focusing on land acquisition. For this reason, staff recommends this as an option of last resort. 1 Page 6 j ^ Public Input At Council's regular August 12th meeting, citizens will be given an opportunity to make comments and to nominate new projects of interest to them. To facilitate this public input, more than four hundred meeting notices (copy attached) were sent to citizens who participated in the city's previous Greenspaces project selection process. In addition, all CTTs are scheduled to discuss Greenspaces at their August meetings. These are scheduled i to take place the week of August 3rd. These citizen and CTT comments, opinions, and ideas should play a key role in Council's reconsideration of the city Greenspaces program. i/Irpn/duane/grn.not 1 I 1 i Ii 1 7 74/96 City of Tigard GREENSPACE PROJECT LIST AND BUDGET in thousands) Tax Assessed Tigard Tigard Washington Metro Private +20% Greenspace Park SDC' County Greenspace Contributions Local Share Local Share Trail Funds`* ($758) F-4 parcel along $125 $125 Fern St. (actual price) F-2 parcel N. of $46 $46 Cook Park F-5 parcel at $150 $118 $32 Bond & 82nd (option price) F-3 parcel at $586 $293 $293 129th & Bull Mt. Rd. Fanno Creek trail $300 $76 $100 $176-352 from Hall to or more or more Durham (land) Fanno Creek trail $1.750 $100 $300 $400-800 from Main to or more or more Tiedeman (land) f i I ~Fw Recommended Greens ace Sites I; j J v BEAVERTON, \ ! i ~F ! r - r I I r % I BEE - 'rrittTT F DURWVN RD y i .y ZpP~ - 1 ~v.~ii/~ _ ! i I !I ~ ; I j ! 4\1\97 gs\prcjeas4eq,esrs1aa`avaa ! a 5 I FROM Interlink Press PHONE NO. 503 643 0160 Jun. 26 1997 09:44RM P1 Dumc Roberts Planning Department - City of Tigard We would like to express our interest in having the planning department of the city of Tigard consider the acquisition of 5.57 acres located off of Old Scholls Perry on the north side of Bull Mountain for green space or a park. 3 This parcel has long been recognized for its natural value as we have allowed the public to con- tinues to use the established trail for walking, biking, and horse back riding. This rain forest like wilderness trail extends close to a mile, beginning at the top of Bullmountain traversing a lush ravine and then passing through our property beside the creek. It is a wonderful area full of old growth cedars, broad leaf maples, large sword ferns, triliurns etc. Notably due to sur- rounding development pressures our land seems to be becoming a local refuge for wildlife such f as deer, pileated woodpeckers, owls, rabbits, chipmunks, gray squirrels, frogs, salamanders, f1 a variety of deep woods butterflies and so on. 4 - A Two developers recently made offers but both became undecided when larger parcels planned for development remained unavailable or were purchased by another developer. If we can obtain reasonable market value, our first choice is for maintaining the area's nanlral rain forest beauty by converting it to green space or possibly a park setting. a f_ We submit this letter as a request for your consideration of purchasing our land as green space. Thank you. Brian and Karen Pautz 643-o16o 1 J aa- RECD J U L 15 1997 8000 $W 5401 Avenue j Portland, Oregon 91219 Mr. Jim Hendryx, Director Community Development Services City of Tigard Tigard, Oregon 97224 a July 5, 1997 Re: Proposed Sale of Gage Property, Bounded by SW Bond Street on the South ;y l Dear Mr. Hendryx, On behalf of the Gage family, I am offering to sell the 3.9 acre parcel (above referenced property),` for $300,000.00 to the City of Tigard under the guidelines of the Metro Greenspaces bond measure. As you know, real estate values have gone through the roof, escalating as much as fourfold, and are continuing to do so at the rate of ten percent annually. Last September, 1996 the City of Tigard conducted an appraisal of this lovely forested acreage, which has been in family ownership for the last forty years. The property was evaluated at $490,000.00 in the September appraisal. Our asking price of $300,000.00 is 39 % less than last year's appraised value of the land. Clearly, an acquisition by Tigard of this acreage would be of significant benefit to the citizens of the City. C-D The neighborhoods are staunchly in support of the preservation of this parcel. The South C.I.T. will be revisiting support of this potential land acquisition at its August, 1997 meeting. Please be advised that our goal is to preserve this parcel as a natural area. Many overtures have been made to clearcut and construct on this parcel. With the Sattler "green space" now relegated for development, it behooves the City ofTlgard to invest in and preserve open spaces to provide safe havens for future generations as well as to retain areas where waters can be absorbed into such natural wetlands as exist on our property. Your consideration of this investment opportunity of the livability of Tigard is encouraged. j This offer is valid until December 1, 1997, at which time the offer will be cancelled and withdrawn. a Submitted by t - Dorothy D. Gage, Family Representative cc: Jim Desmond, Metro Greenspaces E Jack Broome, Wetlands Conservancy Rick Weijo, Friends of Tigard Greenspaces South C.I.T. Committee - F7 1 _ From. John Hick,, To- Duane Roberts D.I.: 7117197 Time 10:17:06 Pap l of i In k X6',1.,. 17(, S: l!lr.r., lea (616) 766.726:1 Julv 17. 1997 Mr. Duane Roberts City of Tigard Tigard. Oregon i , f! Dear Duane. In response to Four phone call yesterda}' regarding nn' property adjacent to Cook Park. I will 1 consider the follow'ine: i For the acreage on the same side of 92nd as the Cook Park soccer field. I will consider an otter of 5177.500 (15".. above last pear's price). The City of Tigard would have to bear all costs to section oil' this piece from the rcmainine small piece I own across the street. which I would retain. I would need to identity another piece of property to purchase so as to do a non-taxable _ like-land-exchange and would thus need some time to do this. Those details call be worked out should the city decide to purchase the land. Take care. Sinccrch. I John R. Hickox ;.i P02 ;e j 'a CITY OF TUALA'T°IN PO BOX 369 TUALATIN, OREGON 97062.0369 (503) 692-2000 j TDD 692-0579 July 31, 1997 Mr. Jim Hendryx . . 1 Community Development Director City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 - Subject: Pedestrian Bridge over the Tualatin River Dear Jim: f - Our communities have long planned for a pedestrian bridge over the Tualatin River that would connect Tualatin Community Park with Durham City Park and Tigard's Cook Park, enabling residents of all the communities to conveniently travel between the parks, schools, and other areas on foot or bicycle. The City of Tualatin feels that this is an opportune time to pursue funding and construction of the pedestrian bridge over the Tualatin River, given the current focus of the three cities on their major parks and trail systems. The City of Tualatin is currently constructing trails in greenways at various locations throughout the city, the City of { Tigard is expanding Cook Park, and the City of Durham is constructing improvements to I the trail system in Durham City Park. j ' To spur interest and to begin the process of making the bridge a reality, the City of Tualatin has budgeted 550,000 In the FY 1997-98 Annual Budget for design work on 3 the bridge. The City of Tualatin is using funds from a special six-year serial levy for park and greenway development for this work. i ~ - 1 From my recent conversation with Duane Roberts, I understand the City of Tigard is in tt1 the process of reconsidering its Metro Greenspaces Local Share projects. The City of t Tualatin would like the City of Tigard to consider allocating an amount similar to that s budgeted by the City of Tualatin (or, given Tigard's proportionately larger population, a i greater amountl) toward design costs on the bridge project. Indications are that Metro would be supportive of using Greenspaces Local Share funds for this project. ! At this point, our best cost estimates for this work come from a preliminary cost estimate based on a conceptual layout of the bridge that was done by Kampe Associates, Inc., In September 1996. Any remaining funds after the design work is completed could be put toward the cost of construction. { P03 l Mr. Jim Hendryx City of Tigard July 31, 1997 Page two By allocating these funds, the cities are expressing an interest in jointly pursuing the bridge project by identifying opportunities, construction alternatives, and costs, and working through the many issues that will emerge. We are currently briefly holding on the initiation of this project while it is determined if the Burlington Northern Railroad Company will be abandoning its tracks over the ; - Tualatin River. If this were to be the case, it may be possible to obtain the right-of-way and retrofit the bridge rather than to construct a separate bridge, which would save some costs. We expect to begin work on this project this fall or early winter. ~I Jim, thank you for considering this request. Please call me at 692-2000, extension 931, or email me at phparksateleport.com if you have any questions. I would be happy to meet with you or others regarding this proposal. I Sincerely, Paul Hennon Parks and Recreation Director ~ I i 3 i a i , N :i MEETING NOTICE Greenspaces Program Discussion j Tigard City Council f 7:30 PM, August 12, 1997 ` This is to notify you that the Tigard City Council at its August 12th meeting will consider ; . making changes to its list of local share Greenspaces projects. "Local Share" is the portion of the regional Open Spaces, Parks and Streams Bond Measure bond to be passed a through to local park providers for neighborhood and community scale greenspaces 3 projects. These funds may be spent only on greenspaces and trails related projects. Funding for active recreational projects, such as sports fields, play structures, and j community centers, are not eligible. Last year, after extensive public participation, the city put together a list of potentially j suitable projects for the expenditure of its greenspaces entitlement. The list included the acquisition of four forest sites and creekside land within two greenway trail corridors. To date, approximately 16 percent of Tigard's $758,000 in local share funds have been 7 spent. The city has been unable to complete three of the site acquisitions. Progress on the acquisition of greenway corridor property has been delayed. f The local share agreements expire on September 1, 1998. Local park providers may apply to Metro for a six month extension to March 1, 1999. To keep things moving forward, Council is developing a work plan and budget of local share projects for the t coming fiscal year. At its regular August 12th meeting, Council will review the status of the City Weenspaces program, consider nominations for new sites, and put together an action plan. As someone who participated in last year's process of identifying appropriate sites for Greenspaces acquisition, Council values your ideas and opinions and wishes to notify you of the meeting. This is your opportunity to receive an update on the city greenspaces program, to contribute your ideas, and to nominate any new projects of interest to you. - If you have any questions or need more information, please call Duane Roberts or Liz Newton at 639-4171 iArpn/dr/gn.not ' i 1 . i / j,94 GG n J 1 Vc ve~ ()ate 2 r QJ l 2~' + U CVYI O-CJ A-e n s c s PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BEFORE THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL, ON TUESDAY, August 26. 1997. AT 7.30 PM. THE HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED IN THE TOWN HALL AT TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, LOCATED AT 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON. THE HEARING IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC ON THE FOLLOWING: ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 97-0001 FONNER STREET REQUEST: The applicants, DAAL Homes/Eaton Properties, are requesting annexation of Tax Lot 4400 (2Si 36D) into the City of Tigard. The subject site is 3.69 acres and adjacent to the Hunter's Glen Subdivision. SW Fonner Street borders the property on the south and west sides. The existing City boundary runs along the north boundary line of the site. Current Washington County designation is the R-5 District (Residential 5 Units Per Acre) which is in conformance with the City's Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation. The site is within the Urban Growth Boundary. LOCATION: A 3.69 acre parcel that is bordered by SW Fonner on its south and west sides. APPLICABLE RENEW CRITERIA: Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements; and 18.138 land classification of annexed territory. ZONE: Currently Washington County R-5; proposed City of Tigard R-4.5. i i rHE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF i CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED E BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. i . ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 323 (VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. i ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE A STAFF I REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC { HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER August 4 ,1997, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. A REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN CAN BE MADE ON Y AT THE I -~ST EVIDENTIARY HEARING (ORS 197.763(6)). i ~ i INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 1 . 7 1 APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE BASED UPON,THEF.E CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF,". THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIEN'..._- TO AFFORD THE DECISIONMAKER AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST, PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER, Laurie Nicholson. AT (503) 633- 4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON. N L. i Q BJE C (a 0- I H _~7- cy) F- V s i Yicin"tt>i dap - l N ICA 97-0001 A Fanner Annexation 11530 SW 72nd Ave. Tigard, OR 97223 kv'sJ a August 12, 1997 ~ GREEN SPACE NOMINATION for CITY OF TIGARD We, Dayle and Evelyn Beach, wish to place the following area in nomination for a green space: A strip of land on both sides of Red Rock Creek from SW 68th Ave. to SW 72nd Ave. in the Tigard Triangle. This is a totally undeveloped area presently covered with trees, shrubbery and undergrowth. Thank you for giving this your consideration. , Sincerely, lbu~ va c,A vN u~ E'er j~ I:= ff 1 ~ `J W,t"'y ~`j a v ~ ~n 2 v e V' y t,1 c of ~ i 3~ t one , l vl l Gt AyA a ~C~n e 5 - i t August 10, 1997 Tigard City Council 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard: OR 97224 i RE: Greenspaces j 3 Ladies and Gentlemen: I am not moved to writing letters to the editor of newspapers or other print organizations. But when I read about the discussion on greenspaces in Tigard, I had to express my concern and opinion about our community. I believe it is extremely important and urgent that we provide "livability" in the form of greenspaces in Tigard. Any available suitable space should be snatched and developed for the community. i We have a wonderful, undeveloped site downtown from Main 1 Street behind A-Boy that follows a bike path through undeveloped I acres and neighborhoods. It is a wonderful area that should be i placed at a higher level of completion. 1 I live on the path that leads to Cooks Park. It is amazing the number of people that use this path everyday. We need these greenspaces. I consider greenspaces a top priority for the community. Sincerely, C97 Gay~i-I L. Allen 50 verwood Lane . Ti rd, OR 97224 3) 620-2023 _J i 7 ~ O u n C4, L YYl I- I y bra IG~7 n Phone Message, 8/11/97 Sonia Lyris, 14675 Sunrise Lane, 452-6792. Called to say she is unable to attend tomorrow's Council meeting. Asked staff to mention to Council she supports targeting the Bull Mountain area for Greenspace acquisition. Duane Roberts i F I i E _ ,I - I { I I i `i '11 3 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 8-12-97 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Update; Tree Planting Program PREPARED BY: Ed Wegner DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK _ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Discussion of initial plans for the Council goal to plant 2000 trees by the year 2000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION After presentation, make comments or suggestions as to the direction of the program. INFORMATION SUMMARY I - Staff proposes three phases: 1. parks, greenways and wetlands 2. work with schools and other public entities in tree plantings 3. develop a street tree maintenance program for right of way and private property. Staff would like to start Phase I this fall. Staff will work with an arborist or landscape architect to determine the needs for trees and other landscape plantings in parks, greenways and wetlands. It is anticipated that a planting project will be held in October or November of this year. The initial cost would be approximately $60,000 (value of trees/plantings or irrigation if needed). November through April, staff proposes to work with schools and other public agencies to develop a tree planting program with plantings to occur around Arbor Day in April. f For the third phase, the street tree program, staff will plan an effort among Public Works, Engineering and ` - Community Development Departments to develop a comprehensive street-tree program. This effort will include an ordinance to amend the Community Dvelopment Code (relating to tree maintenance and to develop standards for plantings in various sizes of planter strips.) Also staff will create an informational packet which will be made available to property owners to use when selecting trees. The packet will include instructions on proper planting methods. Staff also will develop a "visual effect" to track how many trees are planted and how close we are getting to achieving this goal. , j OTHER ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED 1. Alter or make recommendations to change the staff proposal on the three-phase goal implementation plan. FISCAL. NOTES In the FY 97/98 budget, $246,000 was appropriated from the tree mitigation fund. As of 5/1/97 we had $94,000 in the fund. The remaining $152,000 is anticipated to be coming in from tree mitigation fees over the course of the next year. i s r t is\cirywide\sum\trces.dcx i I I I r %1 I 1 i l I 1 1 1 a j AGENDA ITEM # " I For Agenda of t. I G' CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY j j ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Consideration of a proposal to amend the Community Development Code (Title IS) b establishing standards for less cnmmnnication facilities by adopting a new Chapter 152 (1$ 152) PREPARED BY: William 'DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL i h. Should the Tigard City Council amend the Community Development Code to establish standards for wireless communication facilities? STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council approve the proposed amendments by adopting the attached ordinance. INFORMATION SUMMARY i r oncem has been expressed by citizens and Council persons regarding the need to regulate the proliferation of I wireless communication facilities since the passage of the Federal Telecommmiications Act of 1996. The purpose } of the proposed regulations are to ensure that wireless communication facilities are regulated in a manner that minimizes visual impacts, promotes universal service to all customers, encourages collocation of facilities to minimize the number of new facilities, ensures structural safety, and to ensure all providers are treated fairly. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 16, 1997. The Planning Commission closed the public 11 hearing, directed staff to make minor changes to the proposed ordinance, and continued the hearing to July 21, 1997 in order to review the proposed revisions. At the July 21, 1997 public hearing, the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the revised ordinance. Attachments: Exhibit A - (Chapter 18.152) Exhibit B - (Staff Report to Planning Commission) f OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED I I 1. Approve the proposed amendments. 2. Modify the proposed amendments. 3. Take no action at this time. i FISCAL NOTES Not Applicable. J Zone Ordinance Amendment i1citywid6sumVoa97-02.sum Page I of I Will D. 29-Jul-97 4:35 PHI 1 l i > L~ 1.~ a i r~ j 1996 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT Section 704 Of The Telecommunications Act Preserves The Authority Of Local Governments Over Decisions Regarding The Placement, Construction, And Modification Of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, As Long As The Local Government: ' Does not "unreasonably discriminate" among providers of "functionally equivalent services." Does not adopt requirements that "prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting" the provision of personal wireless services. a~ Does not regulate personal wireless services facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio emissions, to the extent that such facilities j comply with regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) concerning such emissions. Acts on a request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless facilities within a "reasonable period of time." Adopts written decisions denying a request to place, construct, or modify C personal wireless services facilities. These decisions are supported by substantial evidence contained in the written record. i - i , i PAGE1 I h TIER # 1: USES PERM177ED OUTRIGHT 4 Collocation Of Antenna(S) On Existing Towers In Commercial And Industrial Zones (Less than 20 feet above the existing structure) Collocation Of Antenna(S) On Existing Non-Tower Structures In Commercial i And Industrial Zones (Less than 20 feet above the existing structure) Collocation Of Antenna(S) On Existing Non-Tower Structures In Residential Zones (Less than 10 feet above the existing structure) !j Installation Of Accessory Equipment Shelters li b Towers In The I-L. And I-H Zones t i~ I s I i j i - I { i s I PA6E 2 0 i 1 d 7 TIER # 2: DIRECTORS DECISION 4 Towers In Commercial Zones And The I-P Zone Towers In Public Open Space ' Collocation In Commercial And The I-P Zone (More than 20 feet above the existing structure) 4 Collocation In Residential Zones (More than 10 feet above the existing structure) 4 Accessory Equipment Shelter . 4 Towers And Antennas In Public Rights-Of-Way i ii~iElr~'~~i1~ERrA' ~[GAdiI~NTS T Setbacks: 4 Tower - Base Zone Setbacks • Tower Adjacent to any Existing - Distance Equal to the off-site Residence Height of the Tower i I Tower Spacing: 500 Feet i (Variance procedure if collocation protocol followed without success) Tower Height: 100 Feet for a Single User 125 for Multiple Users i i i - _t i 1 TIER # 3: CONDITIONAL USE 4 Towers In Residential Zones (Except Public Open Space) 4 Towers Within Areas With Historic Overlay Designation Towers In Excess Of 100 Feet For A Single User And 125 For Multiple Users Except Those Located In The I-L And I-H Zones, Which Are Allowed Outright Per Section 18.152.040E a REVIEW CRITERIA HIGHLIGM Protection Of Points Of Visual Interest ` Views of Mountains, Significant public open spaces, and Historic structures from residential structures within 250 feet shall be protected to the greatest practical extent: i . The Following Standards Shall Be Used To Protect Points Of Visual Interest: I - 4 Investigate other locations within the same lot where such visual impacts ' can be minimized overall 4 Investigate altemative tower designs that can be used to minimize the E interruption of views from the residence to the point of visual interest c> Demonstrate that collocation or the use of other structures within the applicant's service area is not feasible at this time Vary the 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 r variations r I f i U I PAGE 4 ~ TIER # 3: CONDITIONA! USE (Continued) Setbacks: Towers shall be set back from the property line by a distance equal to the l height of the tower. x' Tower S acina: ! (Variance procedure if collocation protocol followed without success) b Residential Zone - 2,000 Feet b Non-Residential Zones - 500 Feet I~ 4 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS 4 Three to Five photo simulations of the proposed facility from affected residential properties and public rights-of-way at varying distances + i 4 If facility is to be located in an area of a point of visual interest, per Section 18.152.060 B.1.a., written documentation of considerations taken to locate f the facility in a manner which minimizes visual impacts i, I 4 A diagram or map showing the viewshed of the proposed facility I b Written documentation fulfilling requirements of collocation protocol i j I 7 l . U E PAGE5 F r i NEW TOWER COLLOCATION PROTOCOL Applicable To New Towers Subject To Director's Decision Or Conditional Use Review Collocation Request Letter Required At The Time A Pre-Application 3 i Conference Is Scheduled Obligation To Make A Good Faith Effort To Analyze The Feasibility Of Collocation. A Good Faith Effort To Investigate The Feasibility Of Collocation On An Existing Facility Shall Be Deemed To Have Occurred If The Applicant Submits All Of The Following Information: " ♦ A statement from a qualified engineer indicating whether the necessary service can, or cannot, be provided by collocation at the potential collocation site; ♦ Evidence that lessor of the potential collocation site either agrees, or disagrees, to collocation on his/her property; ♦ Evidence that adequate site area exists, or does not exist, at the potential collocation site to accommodate ancillary equipment for the second provider and still meet all of the development standards required in the base zone; and e Evidence that adequate access does exist, or does not exist, at the possible collocation site. a~ If Process Is Deemed Complete, The Tower Shall Be Permitted Subject To The Applicable Standards And Restrictions Contained In The Proposed Chapter i , U d , a I PAGE 6 ~l ~y AGENDA ITEM Y i:i I C f 3 For Agenda of. 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Vacation of approximately 4.172 square feet of public right-of-way abutting SW j Pacific Highway (99W) south of SW Park Street and adjacent to Tigard Marketplace I PREPARED BY: William DA/4yr/~Qa DEPT HEAD OK / CITY ADMIN OK i ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL F. Should the Tigard City Council vacate approximately 4,172 square feet of public right-of-way abutting SW Pacific Highway (99W), south of SW Park Street, and adjacent to Tigard Marketplace? STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Council approve the vacation as requested. INFORMATION SUMMARY ouncil initiated this vacation at a public hearing held on July 8, 1997 (see Exhibit D, Res. No. 97-28). _l 4 Michael Magnus, the representative for Pacific Corp. is requesting that the Tigard City Council vacate approximately 4,172 square feet of public right-of-way abutting SW Pacific Highway (99W), south of SW Park Street, and adjacent to Tigard Marketplace. In 1986, Ordinance No. 86-19 vacated a portion of a frontage road I along SW Pacific Highway y (99W) to facilitate a commercial development planned for the area. In 1987, a Site Development Review (SDR 87-15) was approved to allow the construction of a 153,180 square foot retail center, commonly known as Tigard Marketplace. Since the 1986 street vacation vacated only a portion of the frontage road right-of-way, a portion of that right-of-way still remains. Within that right-of-way is an approximately 8,617 square foot landscaped area that is adjacent to the access road leading into the Tigard Marketplace Center. Approximately 4,172 square feet of the right-of-way is owned by the City of Tigard and approximately 4,445 square feet is owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The landscaped area supplements the landscaping of the center, and is also maintained by the center. The petitioner is requesting that the City of Tigard vacate the 4,172 square foot portion of the remaining frontage road right-of-way containing the landscaped island. At this point in time, it is unclear whether ODOT will work out a sale agreement with the applicant. The City's decision of the vacation request does not require resolution of the ODOT property. ODOT has stated that it does i not oppose the request to vacate the City's right-of-way, provided there is a condition that the applicant agree to rededicate any land area needed for future widening of SW Pacific Highway. In the future, there's the possibility that SW Pacific Highway (99W) will be widened to six (6) lanes. The full right-of-way width for the possible widening project is not known at this time but could extend 56 feet from - enterline. A small portion of the proposed right-of-way to be vacated is within the 56 feet from centerline right-of- --Nay width. The applicant has agreed to re-dedicate to the public any land within the requested vacation area that Tigard Marketplace Public R.O.W. Street Vacation i:kitywidclsum\vactgmktsm2 Page I of 2 Will D. 29-Jul-97 4:23 PM . i z I L~ ,Might be necessary in the future widening of SW Pacific Highway (99W). Such re-dedication will occur in the lure at which time the right-of-way is deemed as necessary. The City of Tigard Water Department, Northwest Natural Gas, and General Telephone Electric Company have had the opportunity to review the proposal and have indicated that there are existing buried facilities within the right- of-way to be vacated. A condition will be imposed that will require the provision of a utility easement over the area to be vacated. Attachments: Exhibit A - (Site plan) Exhibit C - (Vicinity map) i Exhibit B - (Legal description) Exhibit D - (Resolution No. 97-28) QTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the vacation request. 2. Deny the vacation request. 3. Take no action at this time. i ~f j ~ - I Tigard Marketplace Public R.O.W. Street Vacation is\citywiJc~sum\vactgmktsm2 ¢ Page _ of 2 - 1 MID. 29-Jul-97 423 F'At • ' - g a o ofi A4cI~;col O~ \ 44. `y h u u u o° N3 ``ham +S?► Co r W ~ ~ 04, ~r A• r N +4 j8IS0"~' 3343 j9" h`~ '0 V • w, 3`528",~ ~ `~`h o Qj 222, S 2p2? ~h`` Z? C- 1> 8 `h "Y ~ U It u VV VV h NtnO N~1*30-51 N w car, m U% ' Q 2. L ` ? 2 oe~8 Sz 44D• " r D u u t+ rNtJ A _ i AC 'IC RESao" L PC30F°-S_lON.-... S.W. Nimbas Avrnue L LAND SURVEYOR erton. OR 97009-7120 r~u ? t l EXHIBIT "A" OREG N 3 ORAN .ABBOTT 99W, TIGARD - CITY OF TIGARD PARCEL RENEWAL: 1058 9T MAY 22, 1997 FILE: 4-1422-0501 A parcel of land lying in the George Richardson D.L.C. No. 38, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington { ! County, Oregon, and being a portion of Taylors Bridge Road (County i Road No. 477) lying southeasterly of a line 48 feet southeasterly j and parallel from the following described center line of the relocated Pacific Highway West: Beginning at Engineer's center line Station 116+98.50, said station being North 00°13'41" West 2,340.83 feet and North 89°46'19" East 1,055.97 feet from the southwest corner of Section 2, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian; thence 251.30 feet along the arc of a 2,865 foot radius curve to the left through a central angle of 5°01'32" (the long chord bears South 38°22'35" West 251.22 feet) to a point of compound curvature at Engineer's Station y j 119+49.8; thence 206.40 feet along the arc of a 5,521.80 foot { - radius curve to the left through a central angle of 2°08'30" (the 1 4 long chord bears South 34°47'34" West 206.39 feet) to a point of ` ~.s tangency at Engineer's Station 121+56.20; thence South 33°43'19" f I West 1,243.80 feet to Engineer's Station 134+00. 1111 Commencing at a point which is 48 feet southeasterly and opposite center line Station 121+56.20 P.T.; thence South 33°43'19" West, parallel to said center line, 202.79 feet to the most northerly corner of that tract of land conveyed to Tigard East Associates, recorded in Fee No. 87-31609, Washington County Deed Records; thence South 51°02'00" East, along the northeasterly line of said Tigard East Associates tract 19.91 feet to a point on the 1 northeasterly right-of-way line of said Taylors Bridge Road and the ` TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, along said right-of-way line, North 39°04'00" East 101.61 feet; thence North 21°30'51" East 132.41 feet to a point of cusp; thence 52.44 feet along the arc of a 24.20 foot radius cuuve to the right through a central angle of 124°08'28" (the long chord bears South 22°58'36" East 42.77 feet); thence South 33°25'28" West 202.22 feet to a point of curvature; thence 8.11 feet along the arc of a 14.02 foot radius curve to the right through a central angle of 33°08'03" (the long chord bears South 45°52'52" West 8.00 feet); thence North 51°02'00" West 16.64 I feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains 4,172 square feet more or less. File: i:\ptoj eet\14220501\+.pdata\cot38.leg BIT A EN PAGE OF (503) 626.0455 Fax (503) 526-0775 Planning • Engineering Surveying Landscape I • • .4rchi[ecture • Environmental Services 1 L I J EXHIBIT Wq CU CT 1 • e j I ARK I ST SUBJECT AB TO BE VA T 1..1.. s i - o - ST i >1 C U Vicinity Map " T11GARU MIDPLAvE PURUC F Note: Map is not to scale A R.O.W. EASEMENT VACATION EXHIBIT D CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 97-0 j RESOLUTION INITIATING THE VACATION OF APPROXMtATELY 4,172 SQUARE FEET OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY, SOUTH OF SW PARK STREET AND ADJACENT TO TIGARD MARKETPLACE. 1 WHEREAS, the right-of-way had been dedicated to the public; and, i t WHEREAS, in 1986, a street vacation (Ordinance 86-19) was approved to vacate a portion of a frontage road C along SW Pacific Highway, to facilitate a commercial development planned for the area; and, f WHEREAS, in 1987, a Site Development Review (SDR 87-15) was approved to allow the construction of a 153,180 square foot retail center, commonly known as Tigard Marketplace; and, WHEREAS, since the 1986 street vacation only vacated a portion of the frontage road right-of-way, a portion of the right-of-way remained, and within that right-of-way is a landscaped area that is adjacent to the access road leading into the Tigard Marketplace center, and, WHEREAS, the petitioner is requesting that the City of Tigard initiate vacation proceedings to vacate a portion of the remaining frontage road right-of-way that contains the landscape island; and, WHEREAS, the approximately 4,172 square feet of public right-of-way may no longer be necessary; and, -dEREAS, the Tigard City Council finds it appropriate to initiate proceedings for the requested vacation. i ~ . j NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: j section 1: The Tigard City Council initiates a request for the vacation of approximately 4,172 square feet of public right-of-way adjacent to SW Pacific Highway, south of SW Park Street and adjacent to Tigard Marketplace, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A". Section 2: A public hearing is hereby called to be held by the City Council on Tuesday, August 12, 1997, at 7:30 p.m. at Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, within the City of Tigard, at which time and place the Council will hear any objections thereto, and any interested person may appear and be heard for or against the proposed vacating of said public right-of-way. Section 3: The City Recorder is hereby authorized and directed to cause to have published in the Tigard Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Tigard, a notice of said hearing, the first publication to be on July 24, 1997 and the final publication to be on July 31, 1997. The Recorder is further directed to cause to have posted within five (5) days after the date of first publication, a copy of said notice at, or near, each end of the area proposed l to be vacated. RESOLurtON NO.97--;-2 Page I of 2 , i:kitywidel+esWaetpnktint 08/08196 12:04 PM a _ Section 4: The particular public right-of-way to be vacated is shown on the attached Exhibit "A" and by reference, made a part hereof. PASSED: This day of 997. i 1 Mayor- C' of igard A ST: City Recorder - City of Tigard " I F A i ~ ' i i MOLTMON NO. 97- i:%cirywiddiatvae[gnkcint Page 2 of 2 0&0&96 12:04 P\t - f AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of August 12. 1997 3 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 1 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY i ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Approve Franchise Agreement with metroLolitan Fiber Systems of Oregon Inc (MFS) PREPARED BY: Wayne DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK~ 4 ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City Council approve a franchise with MFS for use of the Public Right of Way for the provision of telecommunications services to the Citizens of Tigard? STAFF RECOMMENDA'T'ION Staff recommends approval of the franchise. INFORMATION SUMMARY Metropolitan Fiber Systems provides competitive access services to usinesses which provides them with fiber optic facilities for connection to Long Distance carriers for voice and data transmission. MFS facilities will be placed in the City right of way along with other public utilities. The City requires all users of the right of way to obtain a franchise from the t' j City. The franchise for this activity in the right of way is 5% of gross revenues derived from facilities within the City. This rate is currently being charged to all telecommunications providers using City right of way. This agreement is substantially the same as that entered into with Electric Light Wave in 1993 which also provides competitive access services. O'T'HER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Revise franchise agreement, then approve. FTSCA , NOT I MFS will pay an application fee of $3,000 upon signing of the agreement. Ongoing franchise fees are expected to be less than $3,000 per year. { I i - G 7 I I 1 t 4 a Agenda Item No. CITY OF TIGARD Meeting of _ _C Community Development ShapingA Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD j TO: Mayor Nicoli and City Council FROM: Jim Hendryx DATE: August 5, 1997 1 - I SUBJECT: Sanitary Sewer Requirements within the Tigard Triangle I The Tigard Triangle Design Standards were adopted by the City Council in March of 1997. The design standards, among other requirements, state: 1 "Ali new developments, including remodeling and renovation projects resulting in non F 9 single family residential uses, are expected to contribute to the character and quality of the area. In addition to meeting the design standards described below and other development standards required by the Development and Building Codes, developments will be required 4 j to dedicate and improve public streets, connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage, and participate in funding future transportation and public ; improvement projects necessary within the Tigard Triangle. f The primary reasoning behind these standards was to ensure that development, especially the conversion of single family dwellings to non residential uses (e.g., commercial, office, etc.) contribute and be compatible to the area and not degrade surrounding properties. It was recognized that the timing and availability of sanitary sewer facilities would further this purpose. Several properties within the Triangle are not immediately served by sanitary sewer. Situations exist where some residential properties are under review for conversion to non residential uses which are located in excess of 1500 feet from sanitary sewer facilities. The requirement that properties connect to public sewer facilities has resulted in frustration and confusion for property owners facing this situation. Tigard has a few programs for providing sewer facilities to unsewered areas within the City. The Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program can be used in non commercial areas. Property owners can also request formation of LIDs to provide financing and construction of sewer and other public facilities. There is also a reimbursement program where the developing property owner pays the entire cost up front and is reimbursed by other property owners as they connect. I f As the code is written, properties must connect to sanitary sewer and other public facilities with conversion and/or development. Staff does not see any leeway to this requirement. The issue before Council is whether they are satisfied with this interpretation or are there alternative methods that property owners could propose to guarantee eventual connection to such facilities (e.g., bonding, cash assurance, LID waiver, etc.) The City could also change the Neighborhood Sewer -Program to allow it in commercial areas. Staff is looking for direction on the matter of connection to sanitary sewer facilities and whether alternative methods are acceptable. Mr. Craig, who is interested in conversion, and other interested persons, may be at the August 12th meeting. i l' t i } v d ~