The URL can be used to link to this page

CPA1996-00001 '4 CITY OF TIGARD b Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY CITY COUNCIL Concerning Case Number(s): CPA 96-0001 FILE NO: CPA 96-0001 FILE TITLE: Bledsoe APPLICANT: Bob Bledsoe OWNER: N/A 11800 SW Walnut Street Tigard, OR 97223 REQUEST: Amend the text of the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan by adding a new policy as follows: 10.1.4 An exception to Policy 10.1.3 is that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density residential established areas. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10 and 14; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1 and 6.1.1; Tigard Community Development Code chapter 18.30 and; and Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 12. ZONE: N/A Action: ❑ Approval as requested ❑ Approval with conditions g Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: a The applicant and owner(s) ❑Owners of record within the required distance ❑The affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator ❑Affected governmental agencies Final Decision: THcj DECISION WAS SIGNED ON 41-13. /3 , 1996, AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON-/--/L-L5 /3 , 1996. The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures. QUESTIONS: If you have any questions, please call the Tigard City Recorder at (503) 639-4171. • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON • RESOLUTION NO. 96-44tJ A RESOLUTION BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA 96-0001) REQUEST BY BOB BLEDSOE WHEREAS, the applicant requested a comprehensive plan amendment to amend the text of the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan by adding a new policy as follows: 10 . 1.4 An exception to Policy 10 . 1 . 3 is that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density residential established areas; WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 23, 1996 to consider the proposed amendments as set forth herein; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that : Section 1 The proposal is not consistent with all of the relevant criteria noted in the attached final order (Exhibit A) '. Section 2 : The City Council upholds the Planning Commission' s recommendation for denial of the comprehensive plan amendment as set forth in Exhibit A. Section 3 : The City Council, therefore, orders that CPA 96-0001 be DENIED, and further orders that the City Recorder send a copy of the final resolution as a Notice of Final Decision to the parties in this case . H1 PASSED: This 1 --) day of , 1996 . z Mayor - City of Tigard (1:TA.41,c4:16 .thint ATTEST: atii-ei&k ,,tuivgatz__ City Recorder - City of Tiga RESOLUTION NO. 96- 6 Page 1 • • ITT A CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO AN APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY BOB BLEDSOE. The Tigard City Council reviewed the application below at a public hearing on July 23, 1996. The City Council denies the request based on the facts, findings and conclusions noted below. A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0001 REQUEST: Amend the text of the Rubanization section of the Comprehensive Plan by adding a new policy as follows: 10.14 An exception to Policy 10.1.3 is that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density residential established areas . APPLICANT: Bob Bledsoe 11800 SW Walnut Street Tigard, OR 97223 OWNERS: Same LOCATION: Southwest corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW North Dakota Street (Parcel 3 of Minor Land Partition 94-0013) 2. Vicinity The proposed amendment would apply to the City's Urban Planning Area and not to any specific site. • 3. Background Information 1 • • • Historically, when properties have annexed to the City, they have been zoned to match the previous Washington County zone districts as closely as possible. This practice helped to carry out the intent of the Tigard Community Plan. The Urban Planning Area Agreement between Washington County and Tigard, signed in June of 1983, included a provision to require the City to convert annexed land from the City's Area of Interest (Bull Mountain and Metzger areas) to designations that most closely approximate the density, use provisions and standards of County designations. In April of 1984, the City Council, with the recommendation of staff and the Planning Commission, adopted Ordinance 84-21 to amend Section 10.1 of the Urbanization chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to include all annexed land to the City. The purpose of this policy was to accommodate existing development and preserve neighborhoods as they are annexed to the City. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description Mr. Bledsoe presented a proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan and waive the application fee to the Central and West CITs during August of 1995. The two groups supported his request. At the meeting of September 12, 1995, he requested that the City Council waive the Comprehensive Plan amendment application fee and formally ask Washington county to open the Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) in order to amend the policy on zoning of annexed land. The Council granted the fee waiver and agreed to include his concerns during the next review of the UPAA. The submittal period deadlines (75 to 45 days prior to the Planning Commission's first hearings in April and October) precluded Mr. Bledsoe from applying for a legislative Comprehensive Plan amendment last fall. He did submit his application during February of this year. The proposed amendment would be added to the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan and read as follows: "10.14 An exception to Policy 10.13 is that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density residential established areas." This amendment would apply, ostensibly, to the City's urban planning area that is designated as Low Density Residential and is already developed with residential units. As properties in these areas annex to the City, the Council would have the option to zone them to a designation that reflects the existing number of units at the time.. 5. Agency Comments Metro reviewed this proposal and offers the following comments: 2 • • "This amendment is not compatible with the direction of the 2040 Growth Concept. It would serve to substantially reduce the allowable residential densities for those newly incorporated areas. While Tigard may not need to increase its current densities would limit the City's flexibility in achieving these targets. In addition, Mr. Bledsoe's reference to what constitutes "buildable lands" in incorrect. The definition includes redevelopable lands as well as vacant lands." Washington County reviewed this proposal and has the following concerns: "In order to effect the change, it would appear that the Urban Planning Area Agreement must be amended. It is not clear if the proposal has an impact on the City or County ability to demonstrate compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule. It is not clear how the proposal operates in "low density residential established areas". Would this preclude infill development? It would seem the proposal may be contrary to the concepts included in the Regional Framework Plan, Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, regarding greater density of development and the ability of the City to accommodate its share of regional growth. While these requirements are not yet binding on the City, this change may have an impact on the City's future ability to demonstrate compliance." B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Goals 1, 2, 10 and 14; Oregon Administrative Rule 660-12; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1 and 6.1.1; Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. STATEWIDE GOALS Citizen Involvement: Goal 1 requires a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in the planning process. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 and Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18 provide for citizen participation and notice. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing and opportunity for response was advertised in the local newspaper and request for comments were sent to all CITs and the Department of Land Conservation and 3 • • • Development. In addition, the proposal was presented to the CITs and their comments are included with this report. This goal is satisfied. Land Use Planning: Goal 2 requires, in part, that adopted comprehensive plans be revised to take into account changing public policies and circumstances. The proposal would amend existing adopted and acknowledged comprehensive plan and intergovernmental agreement requirements relating to the zoning of annexed property to the City. If exercised, the policy would encourage the downzoning of residential land as it is annexed to the City. The public policies and circumstances are changing in the Metropolitan Portland area as well as in the City toward increase of residential density in order to meet regionwide goals within the Urban Growth Boundary. The proposed amendment would be counterproductive to this direction. This goal is not satisfied. Housing: Goal 10 requires that plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at various price ranges and rent levels and allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density. The applicant states that this goal does not apply to his proposal because the goal is limited to the development of vacant, buildable land only. The goal, however, defines 'buildable lands' as lands in urban and urbanizable areas that are suitable, available and necessary for residential use. It is not confined to vacant land only and includes redevelopable land. Implementation 4 of the housing goal states that ordinances and incentives should be used to increase population densities in urban areas taking into consideration (1) key facilities, (2) the economic, environmental, social and energy consequences of the proposed densities and (3) the optimal use of existing urban land particularly in sections containing significant amounts of unsound substandard structures. The effect of the proposed amendment would be to decrease zoning and therefore population densities. For, despite the wording of the proposal to assign zoning closest to existing development, the density could only be reduced and not increased because the highest zoning the City can currently assign is R-4.5, the closest match to the county's R-5, and still implement the Low Density Residential designation of the Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted, however, that assignment of City R-4.5 zoning (7,500 square foot minimum lot size) is actually a reduction in density from the County's R-5 zoning (7,000 square foot minimum lot size). Staff finds that the proposal is not consistent with Goal 10 and would have a negative impact on encouraging the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at various price ranges and rent levels and allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density. Staff finds, therefore, that this goal is not satisfied. Urbanization: Goal 14 provides for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. This goal is carried out by way of the establishment of an urban growth 4 • • boundary. The proposal addresses zoning for annexed lands within the urban growth boundary and therefore not subject to this goal's provisions. The City's annexation policies are included in the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan and the reader is referred to Policy 10.1.3 below. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTES OR GUIDELINES Oregon Administrative Rule: Section 660-12-060 states that plan amendments which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level of service of the facility. Zoning annexed land to existing densities would not generate additional traffic or significantly affect a transportation facility. This rule is not, therefore, applicable to the proposed plan amendment. COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES General Policies: Policy 1.1.1(a) requires that legislative changes are consistent with statewide planning goals and the regional development plan. The proposal is not consistent with statewide planning goals as addressed above under 'Statewide Goals'. There is no applicable adopted regional plan. This policy is not satisfied. Citizen Involvement: Policy 2.1.1 states that the City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. A request for comments was sent to all City CITs and the Planning Commission hearing was legally advertised. In addition, the proposal was presented at all CIT meetings during May. This policy is satisfied. Housing: Policy 6.1.1 requires the city shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This policy is primarily implemented through OAR 660-07, the Metropolitan Housing Rule. The rule requires that the city maintain sufficient residential buildable land to provide the opportunity for at least 50% of new units to be attached single family or multi-family housing and to provide for an overall density of ten units per acre. The proposed amendment could affect City compliance with the Housing Rule by lowering the potential number of units per acre if annexed land is zoned at lower densities. If, upon annexation, properties are downzoned from the County designation, then the City's housing opportunity index would have to be recalculated because the affected properties were originally calculated in the County for higher density. The Housing Rule states that a jurisdiction need not include plan and/or zone changes made by another jurisdiction before annexation to a city. However, Section 660-07-045(b) 5 • • states that a city shall include changes to annexed or incorporated land if the city changed type or density or the plan/zone designation after annexation or incorporation [emphasis added]. The City, therefore, would need to recalculate the housing index every time property(ies) were zoned, after annexation, at a different density than the previous zoning in the County. More importantly, downzoning of residential land would lower the index. The City could fall out of compliance with the rule's minimum requirement of 10 units per acre, especially considering that approximately 535 acres of low density established land could be eligible for rezoning. As the index approaches or falls below the 10 units per acre standard, the City would need to make up the difference for new housing opportunities in other parts of the City through rezoning of land. This proposed amendment by itself will not cause the City to drop out of compliance with the housing rule. The amendment would, however, greatly increase the probability for reducing residential density and result in the incremental loss of housing opportunities. For this reason, staff cannot make a finding that this policy is satisfied. COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Procedures for Decision Making: Legislative: Chapter 18.30 establishes procedures for consideration of legislative changes to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, implementing ordinances and maps. Section 18.30.120 lists the factors upon which the Planning Commission and City Council shall base their decisions. The factors and responses are as follows: 1. The statewide planning goals and guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197. These standards are addressed in Section IV under 'Statewide Goals' in this staff report. 2. Any federal or state statutes or guidelines found applicable. The state's Transportation Planning Rule is addressed in Section IV under 'Compliance with Federal and State Statutes or Guidelines'. 3. Applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District. There are no applicable plans or guidelines adopted by Metro. See Section VI (Agency Comments) for Metro staff response to the proposal. 4. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map. These standards are addressed in Section IV under 'Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policies'. 5. The applicable provisions of the implementing ordinances. The implementing ordinances are contained in the Tigard Community Development Code, which are addressed in this section of the staff report. 6 • • 6. Consideration may also be given to proof of a change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or implementing ordinance which is the subject of the application. The applicant does not address this factor. Annexations: Chapter 18.136 implements the policies of the Comprehensive Plan regarding annexation requests. If the proposed amendment is approved, Section 18.136.030, Approval Standards, provision B would have to be revised. Currently, this provision reads, "The plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property shall be the City's zoning district which most closely implements the City's or County's comprehensive plan map designation." The change would have to allow for the option to zone a property with a designation that matches the existing development in the area. C. DECISION The city councils denies the requested comprehensive plan amendment CPA 96- 0001 based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions. 7 • I NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL/DENIAL This form must be mailed to DLCD as required by OAR 660-18-040 Jurisdiction City of Tigard Local File# CPA 96-0001 Date Notice of Proposed Amendment was mailed to DLCD? May 15, 1996 X Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment _ Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Land Use Regulation Amendment _ Zoning Map Amendment New Land Use Regulation Summary of Proposed Action (Write a brief description of the proposed action.) The proposal is to amend the text of the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan Policy 10.1.3 so that the City may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density residential established areas. This Proposal Was: Withdrawn X Denied Local Contact: Laurie Nicholson, Associate Planner Phone: (503) 639-4171 Address: 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223 Send this form to: Department of Land Conservation and Development 1175 Court Street, N.E. Salem, OR 97310-0590 DLCD File# DLCD Field Representative i \` First-Class Mail ll UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Postage&Fees Paid LISPS i • Permit No.G-10 l • •Print your name, address, and ZIP Code in this box • I . 4,, City of Tigard Planning Division /4- rN= V/V/R/! ' *I'h 13125 SW Hall Boulevard I CITY OF TIGARD Tigard, Oregon 97223 t F I 4 i c t • CPA 91-01; CPA 92-07; ZOA 92-04; ZOA 93-01; i CPA 93-09;ZOA 93-07; CPA 94-02; CPA 94-04; E CPA 96-01; CPA 96-04; ZON 96-06; CPA 94-01; ZOA 97-03; ZOA 97-05 E f • • • •d SENDER: I I also wish to receive the • ■ L::1 •Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. • following services(for an a1 ■Complete items 3,4a,and-4b. ,,.• 0 •Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this extra fee): l card to you. d :i..) ■Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the back if space does not 1.❑ Addressee's Address a s permit. m t- 2.❑ Restricted Delive � . Requested'on Delivery The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date Consult postmaster for fee. p delivered. o 3.Article Addressed to: 4a.Article Number d z 2/ 3 025/ 392- < Ea DEPT OF LAND CONSERVATION&DEV 4b.Service Type E ❑ Registered ❑ Certified ¢ 8 1175 COURT STREET NE 0 Express Mail 0 Insured • -SALEM OR 97310-0590 • ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ COD. 4 7.Date of Delivery o .4-777!. 7.9r4/144. Good o 5.Received By: (Print Name) 8.Addressee's Address(Only if requested . ': and fee is paid) m i L 6.Sigma e:(Addr ssee or Agent) i— c 2 PS Form 3811,December 1994 , 102595-98-B-0229 Domestic Return Receipt : FLAMING DIVISION'. (//w.4 Z 463 251 392 US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail ';No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail(See reverse) • DEPT OF LAND CONSERVATION&DEV '- 1175 COURT STREET NE SALEM OR 97310-0590 Postage $ .5-0° ` Certified Fee ' 'A Special Delivery Fee T OV Restricted Delivery Fee S\1,23 Sr./ I rn Return Receipt Sho rat. 47-,. Whom&Date Deliv rem } a 7= Return Receipt Showing r; ,<<; • �� M U < Date,&Addressee's .� • • -. d1 0 TOTAL Postage&Fee (9/, Y K) O M Postmark or Date r-(V r) € a (1.3 U cP q( -o1 •ndaltemNo. 3® TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of c1�10►4 to MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Council President Paul Hunt > Council Present: Council President Paul Hunt; Councilors Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf (arrived at 6:37 p.m.) and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Gary Alfson, Consulting Engineer; Computer Services Network Manager Paul DeBruyn; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Finance Director Wayne Lowry; Legal Counsel Tim Ramis; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley. > Update: Council Computers Paul DeBruyn, Network Services Director, presented the staff report. He reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of the three types of computers available, noting that each had similar capabilities. The three types of computers presented were a desktop model, a laptop model with an active matrix screen, and a laptop model with a passive matrix screen. He mentioned that the desktop computer cost around $2,000 and the laptops around $2,200 with the active matrix screens running about $500 more. Staff budgeted $6000. He recommended the laptop with the passive matrix screen. The Council discussed the potential use of laptops during Council meetings to display the agenda packet, to access the Code, and to converse via e-mail. Councilor Scheckla noted a concern with conversing via e-mail during a public meeting. Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel, addressed a public records question and stated that with any notes created on a computer in the context of making a decision on a public matter, a reasonable argument existed that those notes were public record. He advised the Council to use e-mail and the computers with caution during a public meeting. Council President Hunt noted that the budget allowed the purchase of only two laptops at this time, and asked how staff intended to handle the matter. Bill Monahan, City Administrator, stated that they needed to make a decision on that. He suggested evaluating who needed a computer at this time (some Councilors had their own computers) or increasing the budget or waiting a year because prices were continually falling. Discussion followed. Councilor Scheckla suggested waiting until after the election. Councilor Rohlf stated that he intended to use his own computer but was interested in a high speed modem from the City. Councilor Moore said that he could wait on getting a laptop since he had a computer at home. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 1 • • Councilor Scheckla asked for clarification on using a City computer at home for non-City uses. Mr. Monahan said that staff expected a City computer at home to be used primarily for City business. Mr. Monahan suggested that Mr. DeBruyn use a questionnaire and follow-up conversations with the Councilors to determine needs and priorities. Staff would decide after the elections. Councilor Scheckla asked for an update on the computer problems experienced at City Hall several weeks ago. Mr. DeBruyn reviewed how the servers and back-up servers failed. The result was that Community Development and the Finance Departments were without computer equipment for several days. He report that not all problems are resolved: the manufacturer is replacing some of the equipment. > Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:05 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. > Executive Session adjourned at 7:10 p.m. > • Review: Proposed Changes to City Charter Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder, reviewed the five proposed changes to the City Charter. The Council discussed the first change which to amend the method of electing Councilors. Currently, Councilors file for candidacy by position number. The change would provide that candidates would file for the open positions (two positions would be available at the General Election -- every two years). The two candidates receiving the highest number of votes would be elected. Councilor Scheckla expressed concern that the change would open up the race to those with the money needed to campaign against the whole field whereas running for an individual Council position limited the number of contenders running against each other. He said that he could not support the change. Council President Hunt said that the change would reduce the chances of a group of citizens trying to oust a particular Councilor. He noted he initiated this proposed change. Councilor Rohlf said that he liked the idea of the top two vote getters getting the seats, pointing out that a candidate whom a number of people wanted to oust could still be elected in this method. He said that while he was ambivalent, he would support the change since he did not see anything wrong with it and he knew that it worked elsewhere. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 2 • • Councilor Moore stated that he could see advantages for but his preference leaned toward the existing method for election. • Councilor Rohif commented that it was easier to run a campaign with individual positions because a candidate knew who and what issues he/she had to address; otherwise a candidate had to address the whole field of candidates. Council President Hunt commented that with the Council positions, the least qualified candidate could be elected because he had no opposition whereas two strong candidates had to fight it out. The Council decided to wait to give staff direction until after the public hearing on August 27. Ms. Wheatley reviewed the second change of transferring the City Manager position to the Charter from Sections 10 and 20 of the Code. Council President Hunt objected to the statement in the ordinance that.the Mayor appointed the City Manager, noting that the process used to hire Mr. Monahan involved an evaluation of the candidates and the entire Council voted on the final decision. He asked that the phrase be changed to appointment by the City Council. Ms. Wheatley reviewed the other changes, including updating the language in the oath of office and making the Charter gender neutral. She reported that staff checked with the City Attorney's office in response to a suggestion during the previous discussion that the urban renewal clauses in the Charter be removed because they could not be used. As noted in the.Council packet material, Legal Counsel Paul Elsner advised that the urban renewal financing methods were still viable options available to the City. The Council discussed the current Charter section on urban renewal. Councilor Scheckla commented that feelings ran high in the City at the time of that vote. The Council decided to leave the urban renewal language in the Charter. > Agenda Review Mr. Monahan reported that staff opened the two bids received for Consent Agenda items 3.3a and 3.3b today. Gary Alfson, Consulting Engineer, reported that the City received two bids for the Main/Commercial Streets project and these bids were higher than estimated. He reviewed the funding sources and the scope of project for the Main/Commercial Streets project, noting that the bid overran the $560,000 • allocated in the budget by $27,000. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13 , 1996 - PAGE 3 • • Mr. Alfson reviewed the options available to the Council. He advised against readvertising the bids in the spring because the streets would further deteriorate during the winter and cost more to repair next year. He recommended maintaining the scope of project for the Main/Commercial Streets project and use $27,000 of contingency money from the gas tax fund. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Alfson explained that few contractors remained in the market for projects at this time of year; most other cities have already bid out their regular development projects. Councilor Rohlf asked why the City's bid was so late. Mr. Alfson stated that the main reason was the budget process was not finalized until July 1. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Alfson said that the liquidated damages in the contract were around $1,000 a day. Mr. Alfson reported that the bids received for the Major Maintenance Program were also high. He advised against readvertising in the spring for the same reasons as stated before. He recommended changing the scope of the project rather than funding the difference between the bid and budgeted amounts. Mr. Alfson said that the contractor has agreed to eliminate two streets to bring this project in at the budgeted amount. The completion date was also November 15, 1996. Councilor Rohlf asked why the engineer's estimates were low. Mr. Alfson said that the estimates were based on typical prices during a good bidding climate. Councilor Rohlf suggested approving projects for a fiscal year in advance to get a headstart on the bidding season. Councilor Scheckla raised the issue of waiting on the maintenance program until next year in order to get a lower bid. Mr. Alfson recommended proceeding now to avoid further deterioration of the roads which would result in increased costs next year. In addition, it would cost more for maintenance during the winter. Mr. Alfson stated that staff would eliminate the two projects which were the lowest ont he priority list: Cascade Avenue and 68th Street. > Non-Agenda Items Mr. Monahan reviewed the changes to Tigard's projected contribution to the joint project for the Cook Park gray water line, phase 2. Mr. Monahan reported that he has returned the agreement with USA because they sent a version with a term with which he did not agree. He said that the City Attorney's office was working with USA's attorney to resolve the situation. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 4 • • • Mr. Monahan noted a resolution honoring Randy Volk. Mr. Monahan reported that the Mayor wanted to host a meeting of Mayors and County Commissioners in September to discuss passenger rail service and other transportation issues. Staff estimated the cost for a catered event at $400. There was no objection. > Update: Ballot Measure 47, "Cut and Cap" This item was continued to next week. 1. BUSINESS MEETING • Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Council President Hunt called the business meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. • Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None • Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items Mr. Monahan asked to move Item #11 up to just after the Consent Agenda, and to insert Chief Ron Goodpaster's report on the Olympics as Item #5. He asked to add two non-agenda items: the Cook Park gray water line and a resolution honoring Randy Volk. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA > Curtis King, 12130 SW Parkmoor Drive, King City, King City Councilor, expressed concern regarding the paved pathway near Pacific Highway and Beef Bend Road. He said that even with a curb, the path looked like a road and cars were jumping the curb to use the road and it was dangerous for pedestrians. He said that the vehicle STOP sign at this location was confusing. Council President Hunt said that he brought this matter to staff's attention several weeks ago, and discovered that the County had jurisdiction. Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, reported that staff reviewed the situation and found out that the County closed off the road that accessed Beef Bend Road but neglected to remove the traffic sign. He referred the matter to the County but has not heard the resolution; he said he would check with the County to see where matters stood. Mr. King requested the City to ask the County to install posts to prohibit cars from using the path. He also requested a "No Exit" sign. > Betty Morgan, 10940 SW 79th, advised that she represented over 80 taxpayers whose homes were located on the intersecting streets on SW Pfaff le between Hall Blvd and 79th Street. She expressed concerns with traffic on Pfaff le, citing impending construction of 84 apartments (Carriage House Apartments) in the area. She said that the City has already granted Andrews Management Company a variance to the City access standards that would make the traffic situation worse. - COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 5 • • Ms. Morgan said that the neighbors understood that this permit was granted based on an outdated traffic study that preceded the construction of Cub Foods and Costco. She expressed concern with emergency vehicle access during the peak traffic hours. She said the neighbors were not consulted by the developer of the apartments. She presented a petition with over 80 signatures requesting a neighborhood forum to discuss the development prior to commencement of construction. The petition also requested an updated traffic study of the area and any necessary upgraded traffic controls. Council President Hunt asked staff for clarification on what the Council could affect on this decision at this point in time. Mr. Hendryx reviewed the specifics and history of this development, noting that the site development review (SDR), variance, and lot line adjustment were granted under staff administrative review following notice to the property owners within 250 feet of the site. He said that the Planning Commission heard the appeal of the SDR and variance last week; they were appealed on compatibility issues pertaining to construction of wall or fence on the adjacent property line. Mr. Hendryx said that following the final order, the Council could call up this matter under its review process, even though it has gone through the appeal process. Ms. Morgan presented her notice of the final order. Mr. Hendryx said that the Council had to call the matter up for review by August 22. Mr. Monahan suggested that the Council consider whether or not they wanted to call this up for review at their study session on August 20. Mr. Hendryx pointed out that the public could still appeal the decision even if Council chose not to call the matter up for review. Councilor Rohlf asked for clarification on the process. Mr. Hendryx explained that the application was appealed on a single issue and the Planning Commission restricted testimony to that single issue (the issue of fencing). Ms. Morgan commented that many more people were affected by this development than the property owners within 250 feet of the site. She asked for broader notification of the neighborhood. > Edward Metzler, 13267 SW Bull Mountain Road, presented a formal written complaint regarding the final authorized plans for the Foran subdivision. He stated that the compromises reached at the September 26, 1995 Council meeting were later modified by the developer and staff. He cited a new alignment in the proposed road that would affect his future development plans for his property because it cut off a section of a corner on his property. Mr. Metzler stated that Arthur Picullel committed to saving certain trees and that staff was directed by the Mayor to work toward saving those trees at the September meeting. He said that all those trees were removed; a permit was granted to Mr. Picullel to remove all the trees on the site. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13 , 1996 - PAGE 6 • • Mr. Metzler stated that he was not allowed to voice any of his concerns at the special Council meeting on July.29, 1996. He requested a formal hearing per Section 18.24.04 of the City Code. Mr. Ramis stated that Mr. Metzler was advised by staff on the proper procedure for reviewing these situations; Mr. Metzler submitted a letter to the Planning Director that would trigger the review process as stipulated in the ordinance. > Vlasta Barber, 11120 SW Sum nerlake Dr., on behalf of the Executive Board of the Tualatin Chapter of the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, thanked the Mayor for proclaiming February 22 as NAFRE Day. She noted that the proclamation was reported in the NAFRE magazine. She thanked the staff and Council for the work they did. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Monahan noted the updated figures on the bid awards for Items 3.3a and 3.3b. Councilor Scheckla requested that Item 3.4 be removed. Council President Hunt asked for clarification on the City taking jurisdiction over Durham Road from Hall Blvd to Boones Ferry Road in order to put a stoplight at 79th Street. Mr. Monahan said that that was correct; the intersection did not warrant a signal per state standards and if the City wanted a stoplight, the City must accept the transfer of jurisdiction. Council President Hunt noted that they needed the stoplight to protect the children crossing the street but that it meant an operations and maintenance cost of $18,000 per year. Mr. Monahan commented that the City also received control over the traffic signals at Hall and Durham and at Durham and Boones Ferry. Councilor Moore asked for clarification on the bid costs for Items 3.3a and 3.3b. Mr. Monahan explained that Item 3.3a was $578,523 (Main and Commercial Streets) , and Item 3.3b was $355,769 (major maintenance program). He said that they were eliminating Cascade Blvd and 68th Avenue from the maintenance program in order to remain within the budgeted amount. Motion by Councilor Schecida, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve the Consent Agenda, removing Item 3.4. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: July 9 and 16, 1996 3.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 7 • • • 3.3 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award Contract for Construction of the Main Street/Commercial Street Reconstruction Project b. Award Contract for Construction of the 1996 Major Maintenance Program 3.4 Approve Historic Application Fee Waiver Request from the Tigard Chamber of Commerce 3.5 Accept Transfer of Jurisdiction of a portion of Durham Road from the Oregon Department of Transportation • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion 3.4 Approve Historic Application Fee Waiver Request from the Tigard Chamber of Commerce Councilor Scheckla asked that a condition be imposed stipulating that the City would receive any revenue collected for parking on City property. Mr. Monahan reviewed the City's intent to build a parking lot on its portion of the Tigard Feed & Garden store lot once the building is removed. He said that the request tonight was solely for the fee waiver on the historic designation. He noted that Council has given direction that the City receive all the revenue generated by the City-owned property. Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve the Historic Application Fee Waiver Request from the Tigard Chamber of Commerce. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohif and Scheckla voted "Yes.") > The Council considered Agenda Item No 11 at this time. > Report on the Olympics Council President Hunt commented that Chief Goodpaster volunteered to use his vacation time to serve on the security force at the Olympics. Police Chief Ron Goodpaster reported on his month long participation in the Security Team Program at the Atlanta Olympics; this involved 1300 officers from 45 countries. He said that as a Security Section Leader, he was responsible for setting up and coordinating the security at the public access points, the athlete arrival point, inside the concourse and the arena for the basketball venue at Morehouse College. He explained the security procedures and equipment used. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13 , 1996 - PAGE 8 • • Chief Goodpastor said that after the bombing he also volunteered to work as a Section Leader at the Olympic Stadium. He mentioned the numerous people afflicted by heat stroke and related several anecdotes. He noted that that police forces around the world had significant differences in operating procedures and equipment. Council President Hunt thanked the Chief for representing the City of Tigard at the Olympics. 4. CONSIDER ORDINANCE - AMENDING CHAPTER 7.32 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER • Staff Report Chief Goodpaster presented the staff report. He stated that this ordinance would bring the City of Tigard Code into compliance with state law. He reviewed the changes in state law that regulated private security. He mentioned the addition of "bows and arrows and crossbows" to the list of unlawful weapons, citing problems they have had in the City. He said that the changes transferred much of the responsibility for the process to the state. • Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-28 The City Recorder read the number and title of Ordinance No. 96-28. ORDINANCE NO. 96-28, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7.32 OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER. Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-28. Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 5. CONSIDER ORDINANCE - AMENDING CHAPTER 5.10 - DETECTIVES AND MERCHANT POLICE • Staff Report Chief Goodpaster presented the staff report. He reviewed the need to add "or employee" to the ordinance to alleviate problems the police have had in the past in investigating security licenses. • Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-29 ORDINANCE NO. 96-29, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5.10 DETECTIVES AND MERCHANT POLICE - Motion by Councilor Rohif, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-29. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 9 • S. Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohif and Scheckla voted "yes.") 6. CONSIDER ORDINANCE - ADOPTING ANNEXED PROPERTY DESIGNATIONS • Staff Report Mr. Hendryx presented the staff report. He reviewed how certain lands within the City remained at the County designations due to the Boundary Commission annexation process. He said that the intent of these ordinances were to give those properties their proper City zoning designations. He said that this was in accordance with the Urban Planning Area Agreement between Tigard and Washington County. Staff explained that separate ordinances were needed to amend the Comprehensive Map and the Zoning Map. • Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-30 and Ordinance No. 96-31 The City Recorder read the number and title of Ordinance No. 96-30. ORDINANCE NO. 96-30, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS FOR PREVIOUSLY • ANNEXED PROPERTY. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-30. Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohif and Scheckla voted "yes.") The City Recorder read the number and title of Ordinance No. 96-31. ORDINANCE NO. 96-31, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING DESIGNATIONS FOR PREVIOUSLY ANNEXED PROPERTIES. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-31. Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 7. PUBLIC HEARING - (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - VACATION OF APPROXIMATELY 6,445 SQUARE FEET OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY LOCATED ON SW 135TH AVENUE The request was initiated by the City Council on June 11, 1996, Any interested person may appear and be heard for or against the proposed vacation of said public right of way. Any written objections or remonstrances shall be filed with the City Recorder by August 13, 1996, by 7:30 p.m. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13 , 1996 - PAGE 10 • • a. Council President Hunt opened the public hearing and read the hearing criteria. b. Declarations or Challenges: None c. Staff Report Mr. Hendryx presented the staff report. He stated that this request for vacation of public right of way was in conjunction with the construction of the Castle Hill No. 2 subdivision; SW 135th Avenue was realigned to provide a T- intersection at Walnut. He explained that the right of way would revert to the five adjacent property owners listed in the staff report. He recommended that the Council approve the vacation. d. Public Testimony Cindy Buckingham, 13428 SW Scottsbridge Drive, expressed concern about how utility companies would access the water and phone lines for repairs since they would have to go through her backyard. She asked if the fire hydrant behind her fence would be moved. Councilor Moore raised a question about the provision of utilities in the area and the access easements needed for maintenance and repairs. Mr. Hendryx said that he would have Engineering research the questions of whether or not the utilities would remain, and if they remained, how they would be accessed. He also noted that if the City had to create easements to access the utilities, it would be easier to do so before the City vacated the land. The Council directed that this item be set over to August 27, 1996. 8. PUBLIC HEARING - (LEGISLATIVE) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0002 AKA BUSINESS SERVICES (set over from the July 9, 1996 Council Meeting) REQUEST: Amend the text of policy 12.2.1(2)(1a) of the Comprehensive Plan to modify the spacing and locational criteria for General Commercial land uses. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: N/A. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 11 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1(a), 1.1.1(c), 2.1.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.1.1 and 12.2.2; Tigard Community Development Code chapter 18.30; and Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 12. a. Council President Hunt read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges: None c. Staff Report Mr. Hendryx distributed written submittals. Nets Mickealson, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He said that the policy under consideration was one of the criteria used to analyze and evaluate the Comprehensive Plan map amendments that proposed the COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 11 . • redesignation and rezoning of land to allow for General Commercial (CG) uses. He pointed out that it had citywide application. Mr. Mickealson reviewed the existing plan policy that stated the criteria was "to be construed in a flexible manner in order to accommodate proposals that were found to be in the public interest," and which stated that a commercial area could not be "surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides." Mr. Mickealson reviewed the proposed change to the policy, summarizing it as "the existing restriction would still apply to new commercial areas but existing commercial areas could expand if the Council found all of four criteria." These criteria were 1) the expanded commercial area was not surrounded by R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 or R-7 districts on more than two sides; 2) the increased commercial area would not adversely affect the surrounding residential districts; 3) the size of the increased commercial area would allow an appropriate buffer to be provided between the uses allowed in the commercial district and the uses allowed in the surrounding residential district; and, 4) the increased commercial area was the minimum size necessary required to allow the appropriate redevelopment of the existing commercial area. Mr. Mickealson explained that the applicant, AKA Business Services, Inc., owned a parcel with split zoning of CG in the front and R-12 in the back. He said that the property owner believed that the current policy could prevent him from expanding the CG portion of his site into the multifamily portion; therefore, he has applied for this legislative text amendment change. Mr. Mickealson stated that the proposal did not meet all the relevant criteria, including State Goal 10 Housing. Because this proposal would allow the expansion of CG into multifamily residential areas, it reduced the City's opportunities to make available housing units at various price ranges and rent levels, and to allow for flexibility of location, type, and density of housing. • Mr. Mickealson said that Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.4 was not satisfied because this proposal would facilitate the expansion of commercial areas into residential districts (which was prohibited by the policy). He said that Policy 6.1.1 was not satisfied noting that although the amendment itself would not cause the City to drop out of compliance with the Metro housing rule, it would result in the incremental loss of housing opportunities for the City to provide a diversity of housing densities and types. Mr. Mickealson said that regarding Policy 12.2.1(2)(1a), the spacing and location criteria, the proposal would hold single family and multifamily residential areas to a different standard. He stated that staff believed that these areas should be treated equally if the City's intent was to protect all residential areas. Mr. Mickealson reviewed the notice sent and responses received. He said that ODOT chose not to comment because they evaluated only parcel-specific COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13 , 1996 - PAGE 12 • • amendment requests for compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule. Metro saw the proposal as permitting a greater mix of uses in Tigard and supported such efforts; however, Metro had no guidelines for reviewing cities' Comprehensive Plan amendments. Mr. Mickealson said that only the Central-West CIT expressed concern about the proposal; they suggested that the applicant pursue a rezone via the quasi- judicial route first. The Planning Commission recommended denial by a vote of 5-2 at the June 17, 1996 hearing. He said that the planning staff recommended denial because the applicant has not met all the applicable review criteria nor has he made a convincing argument that the amendment was beneficial to the City. He pointed out that the applicant could apply for a rezone on the property and argue for interpretation of the policy in a flexible manner. Mr. Mickealson reviewed three examples of how the proposed amendment would affect different areas in the City. d. Public Testimony PROPONENT Mike Robinson, 900 SW Fifth Street, Suite 2300, Portland, represented the applicant. He stated that he disagreed with Mr. Mickealson's assessment that the examples he showed would not be allowed under the current locational criteria. He argued what the "construing in a flexible manner" clause might allow them. He said that adopting this change would not mean that any given parcel could be rezoned more easily because the Council had to fmd that the four criteria have been met. He contended that this change would make it easier for all parties to make the judgment call in those instances when a commercial site was surrounded on more than two sides by residential. Mr. Robinson pointed out that this was a legislative text amendment and did not apply to a particular parcel. He said that it was not unusual for a text amendment to apply citywide. He reiterated that the proposed language did not apply to new commercial areas, but only to existing commercial areas. Mr. Robinson stated that the Tigard Code already distinguished between single family and multifamily districts, citing the lack of a criterion requiring buffering from adjacent commercial areas for high density residential areas while such a criterion existed for low density residential areas. Mr. Robinson reviewed three reasons why the Council should approve the text amendment request. He said that the proposal was an improvement of the current policy giving the Council clear criteria to use in making judgment calls on residential surrounding commercial on more than two sides. Mr. Robinson said that the proposal did not really change the current policy because the Plan already allowed the Council to construe the policy in a flexible manner; he COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 13 • • contended that the current policy lacked clear criteria, that certain terms in the policy were ambiguous and that the language placing a greater burden of proof on a development with a greater impact was difficult and impractical. Mr. Robinson stated that this proposal would not make it easier to change the Comprehensive Plan map designation of a residential property to commercial but would make it easier to identify those instances when it would be in the public interest to have commercial surrounded on more than two sides by residential. Mr. Robinson stated that while the current language applied citywide and allowed any new commercial areas to use the "flexible manner" interpretation, this proposal left an airtight standard for the new commercial areas and provided strict criteria for the expansion of existing commercial areas. He asked that the Council approve the request. OPPONENTS Martha Bishop read her testimony opposing the text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. She said that the applicant could achieve his plans through the quasi-judicial process without changing the current requirements for single family zoning citywide. She noted the existing conditions near Watkins and Grant Streets at 110th, and spoke against the encroachment of commercial on established neighborhood residential areas on minor collectors. She said that safety for homeowners and the children should be the top priority. She noted the exact location of the commercial area on Hwy 99W near Watkins. She mentioned that CG and commercial could not be placed on a minor roadway. Duane Myer, 13210 SW Watkins, read his testimony opposing this proposal. He mentioned that the Planning Commission has already studied the many factors involved in this application and recommended denial. He asked that the Council deny the proposed change and suggested that the property owner settle his request without affecting the whole City of Tigard. Tammy Gustin, 10670 SW Dairy Dell Court, representing herself and her husband, stated that approving this amendment without knowing the impact of it on each residential neighborhood in the City was unjust. She spoke for the Planning Commission evaluating the affected properties on an individual basis in order to analyze fairly the impact on each neighborhood. She noted the detrimental effects on safety in her area caused by the increased commercial traffic using Hollywood Video; people have discovered that Watkins was a cut-through to Hwy 99W. She said that residents could no longer safely walk on their street nor allow their children to use the bike paths; motorists drove on the pathway to avoid the speed hump. Mrs. Gustin said that residents were not happy that this proposal could potentially . affect so many properties. She reiterated the dangerous traffic situation caused by cut through traffic. She suggested that AKA Business Services pursue his concern on an individual basis and leave the rest of the City out of it. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13 , 1996 - PAGE 14 • • Mr. Hendryx distributed a letter submitted by Mr. Kleinman. Jeff Kleinman, 1207 SW Sixth Ave, Portland, an attorney representing Northwest Retail Services, said that this letter was a revision of his fax earlier today, in which some material was deleted. • Mr. Kleinman spoke in support of the staff and Planning Commission's recommendations to deny this proposal. He said that while Mr. Robinson has attempted to address the problems, he concurred with previous testimony that the application did have a citywide impact and that it was a matter of grave concern to make the change without analyzing each of the other sites that might be affected. He agreed that the AKA Business Services property did have a problem but argued that a citywide amendment was not the way to deal with it. Mr. Kleinman said that the proposed amendment had an inherent impact in addressing the statewide and city planning goals by making it easier to site commercial where multifamily currently existed. He said that the impact on the City's inventory of residential properties was a grave concern. He stated that the Code did not say that multifamily residential was entitled to less protection than single family from intrusion by commercial. Mr. Kleinman said that the impact of the proposed amendment included some potential domino effects. He pointed out that while the amendment did distinguish between new and existing commercial areas, it did not take into account that once a commercial area received its designation, it became existing commercial and the proposed amendment would apply. He noted that once one site in the City qualified under the four criteria, precedent was set and people would use the argument of precedence to get the same benefit for their property. Mr. Kleinman stated that they did not find that the four criteria listed provided adequate protection at the next level of quasi judicial amendments. He contended that . the criteria were vague and unclear and called for subjective judgments. He said that it would be challenging to apply the criteria in a consistent manner on a case by case He stated that the proposal only resolved a problem for this applicant on this one site while it created a possible multiplicity of future problems. Mr. Kleinman said that they did not find that the proposal resolved any problem with the locational criteria as presently written because nothing in the proposal removed the "flexible manner" provision. Mr. Kleinman categorized the applicant's arguments as "the proposed amendment is harmless because..." He concurred with staff that there has been no demonstration that the proposed amendment was either needed by the City or beneficial to the City as a whole. He said that they did not oppose a later site specific application but held that this was legislative change did not have a sound basis. e. Public hearing was closed. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 15 • • f. Council Consideration: Councilor Rohlf said that he liked the idea of tight standard to justify Code decisions, commenting that it was difficult to justify some of the decisions based on the ambiguous charts in the Code. He said that while clarity for the developer from the City would be an improvement, he did not see any reason to change the status quo. He said that he agreed with some of Mr. Kleinman's comments that the applicant's arguments were that the proposal did no harm because the Code already allowed flexibility. He said that, considering the opposition from citizens, he leaned toward the position that there was no need for change. Councilor Moore said that he saw this proposal as leaving things too open. He agreed that the criteria was vague and open to subjective judgments. He said that he upheld the staff recommendation. Councilor Scheckla concurred with Councilor Moore. He cited the work of the Planning Commission and the lack of a benefit to the City as a whole. Councilor Rohlf commented that he supported the staff report to the extent that the staff focused on protecting the livability of multifamily areas. He spoke to creating quality multifamily residential areas for those who couldn't afford houses. Council President Hunt said that he had no additional comments to make. He stated that he did not favor changing the policy. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to deny the proposal and direct staff to return with final order for adoption by Council. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") Councilor Rohlf referred to the cut-through problem on Watkins and asked that staff do traffic studies on Watkins or research current studies to determine if action could be taken to retain the livability of the residential neighborhood. Mr. Monahan said that staff would look into the situation. > Council President Hunt recessed the meeting at 9:50 for a break. > Council President Hunt reconvened the meeting at 10:02. 9. CONSIDER FINAL ORDER - (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0004/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96-0003/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) 96-0002 - SATTLER SITE a. Staff Report Mr. Hendryx stated that staff has returned with the final order per Council direction at the July 23 meeting to approve the zone change. He recommended that the Council approve the ordinance. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13 , 1996 - PAGE 16 1 • • Councilor Scheckla said that he would abstain from voting as he was related to the property owners. b. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-32 The City Recorder read the number and title of Ordinance No. 96-32. ORDINANCE NO. 96-32, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY MATRIX DEVELOPMENT COMPANY CPA 96-0004/ZON 96-0003/PD 96-0002. Motion by Councilor Rohif, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-32. Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, and Rohif voted "yes"; Councilor Scheckla abstained.) 10. CONSIDER FINAL ORDER - (LEGISLATIVE) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0001 BLEDSOE a. Staff Report Mr. Hendryx stated that staff has returned with the final order per Council direction at the July 23 meeting to deny the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to add a new policy addressing assignment of zoning in low residential areas. He recommended that Council approve the resolution.. b. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-46 The City Recorder read the number and title of Resolution No. 96-46. RESOLUTION NO. 96-46, A RESOLUTION BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 96- 0001, REQUESTED BY BOB BLEDSOE. Motion by Councilor Rohif, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Resolution No. 96-46. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohif and Scheckla voted "yes.") 11. CONSIDER RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE FUTURE EXPENDITURE OF THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY AT 12420 SW MAIN STREET, TIGARD, OREGON a. Staff Report COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 17 • • Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, presented the staff report. He explained that the Council moved the $92,000 received from the sale of the old City Hall building in December 1994 from the General Fund to the Facilities Fund. He said that though it was stipulated through the budget process that those funds would be used to partially fund the police expansion, the 1994 Council had wanted a future Council to have the opportunity to make a formal decision regarding the use of these proceeds. He stated that the resolution was in accordance with the Budget Committee's direction to use the proceeds for the police expansion. b. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-46 Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Resolution No. 96-46. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 12. NON AGENDA ITEMS > Local Contract Review Board: Cook Park gray water line bid Mr. Monahan reviewed the bid for the Cook Park gray water line, Phase 2, a project in conjunction with USA to use recycled waste water to irrigate Cook Park. He pointed out that the Tualatin Country Club has approved their portion of the project. He explained that due to an error in the calculations by the contractor, Tigard's contribution was reduced from $88,971 to between $70,000 to $75,000. He stated that although the City of Tualatin has decided not to participate, it would not affect Tigard's contribution amount. He confirmed for Councilor Scheckla that the Tualatin Golf Club was another participant who would share in the costs. Councilor Rohlf asked if there were•any estimates on the annual savings the City would'net. Mr. Monahan said that, although at budget time they had had an estimate of$7,000 a year in savings, the revised master plan for Cook Park increased the usage and the estimate was no longer accurate. Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to recommend approval of the bid. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") > A Resolution honoring Randy Volk Mr. Monahan mentioned Randy Volk's long time service as an employee of the Tigard Water District and the City of Tigard. He said that the resolution was to acknowledge his valuable service and his willingness to go the extra mile. The City Recorder read the number and title of Resolution No. 96-48. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 18 • • RESOLUTION NO. 96-48, A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL HONORING RANDY VOLK FOR HIS YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF TIGARD. Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Resolution No. 96-48. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 14. ADJOURNMENT: 10:10 p.m. CetkilL.L w Catherine Wheatley City Recorder Attest: 05'•yor, City of T.:and Date: q1/0/46 f:\recorder\ccm\ccm0813.96 • COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 19 CPfi- • J enda Item No. Meeting of e fri(v TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 23, 1996 • Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli • Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt and Brian Moore. • Staff Present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Legal Counsel Pam Beery; Legal Counsel Garry Bullard (Executive Session only); Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff; Legal Counsel Robert Franz; Asst. to the City Administrator Liz Newton; Associate Planner Ray Valone; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Human Resources Director Sandy Zodrow. • Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:32 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. > Executive Session adjourned at 7:36 p.m. • Agenda Review 1. BUSINESS MEETING • Call to Order- City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. • Council Present: Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohif and Ken Scheckla. • Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None • Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA Jack Polans, 16000 SW Queen Victoria Place, King City, cited an Oregonian article (July 22, 1996) which reported on Tigard's efforts to find water partners. He asked if the future possible intergovernmental water agreement between Tigard and Tualatin Valley Water District would usurp the present agreement between the City of Tigard, the City of Durham, the City of King City, and the unincorporated areas. He also asked if the future water director would be voted upon if the possible agreement with the Tualatin Valley Water District went through. Mayor Nicoli said that any contracts which the City of Tigard has already signed with any other water providers were a matter of public record. However no one in the City could comment on any contracts currently under negotiation. He said that he did not think any of the negotiations would be detrimental to the partnership between Tigard, King City, Durham and the Tigard Water District. He said that the TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 23, 1996 - PAGE 1 • City was not closing the door to any water source at this time, including Lake Oswego. City Administrator Monahan stated that Tigard has kept the Intergovernmental Water Board apprised of its efforts and/or potential contracts to secure water from any of the providers in the region. He said that they were still waiting for the contract on the new rates from Lake Oswego. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Monahan asked to pull Item 3.4 for future consideration because of questions on the calculation of the cost. • Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt the Consent Agenda, pulling Item 3.4. • Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: June 18 and 25, 1996 3.2 Approve Municipal Court Judge's Contract- Resolution No. 96-44 3.3 Approve Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City of Tigard and the Tigard/Tualatin School District- Resolution No. 96-45 3.4 Accept Transfer of Jurisdiction a Portion of Durham Road from the Oregon Department of Transportation 3.5 Approve Acquisition of Property on Walnut Street at Tiedeman 3.6 Local Contract Review Board: Award Contract for Architectural Services for the City Hall Expansion to Hanson, Dunahugh, Nicolson Architects PC, Portland, Oregon • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion. 4. CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.164 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE AUTHORIZING EXCEPTIONS TO UNDERGROUNDING UTILITY REQUIREMENTS Mr. Monahan presented the staff report. He reviewed the Council direction to staff to bring back an ordinance that allowed the funds set aside by developers for undergrounding utilities to be placed into a single account. He explained that currently the monies were held in separate accounts with the intent of spending the money in the areas in which the funds were collected; however that process has not worked well because they could not get enough funds in any one account to pay for undergrounding utilities in a given area. Mr. Monahan stated that the ordinance provided for the Council to review on an annual basis the funds available and proposed projects in order to determine where the money could be allocated for the benefit of the community. In response to a question by Councilor Rohlf, Legal Counsel Pam Beery stated that the Council was free to combine the funds. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JULY 23, 1996 - PAGE 2 • • Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-27. The City Recorder read the number and title of the Ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 96-27, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.164 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE AUTHORIZING EXCEPTIONS TO UNDERGROUNDING UTILITY REQUIREMENT Motion was approved by roll call vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Rohif and Scheckla voted "yes"; Councilor Moore abstained.) 5. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0004/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96-003/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) 96-0002 SATTLER SITE REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan map and zoning map on 27.5 acres located on three parcels west of SW Hall Boulevard and south of SW Sattler Street. The application seeks to change the eastern 8.5 acres, along Hall Blvd., from Medium Density Residential/R-12 to Medium Density Residential/R-7; and to change the western 19 acres from Low Density Residential/R-4.5 to Medium Density ResidentiaUR-7. LOCATION: West of Hall Boulevard and south of Sattler Street. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 6.1.6, 6.3.3, 8.1.1 and 12.2.1(2); Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12. ZONE: R- 4.5 (Single-Family Residential) allows single-family detached units, manufactured homes, farming, family day care and conditional uses such as single-family attached units, duplex units, religious assembly and schools. R-12 (Multiple-Family Residential) allows single-family detached and attached units, duplex units, multiple-family units, support and family day care services and conditional uses such as community recreation, religious assembly, schools, hospitals and residential care facilities. a. Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges Councilor Scheckla declared that he would remove himself from this hearing because he was related to the property owners. He stepped down from the bench. There were no other declarations or challenges. c. Staff Report Ray Valone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that the 27.5 acre site was annexed to the City in 1982 and designated as urban low density. He reviewed the two different zoning classifications on the site. He said that there were no objections from City departments or the Oregon TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 23, 1996 - PAGE 3 • • Department of Transportation. He did note, however, receipt of a letter from the Summerfield Civic Association expressing concerns over increased density and two-story houses; the Association intended to work with the developer to address their concerns. He mentioned a letter in support of the project received from Mallard Lake Homeowners Association and a letter from the Hamlet Street residents requesting that the western perimeter remain at R-4.5 with an easement to buffer their properties. Mr. Valone stated that staff found that the proposal met all the applicable Comprehensive Plan and Development Code review criteria. The applicant has made a case for a physical change in circumstances concerning the transportation system that served the site (pages 3-4 in the staff report). He said that staff believed a "mistake" was made in rezoning the land from R-5 to R-12. Mr. Valone said that the proposal also met the rest of the review criteria. ODOT found that this proposal would not significantly impact Hall Blvd, and the City Engineering Department found that it would not significantly impact the local road system either. He noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval. In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Valone concurred that the net effect of this proposal on the site density was neatly zero. Under the two current zones, the density was 190 houses; by changing the density to the same zone for the entire site, the density would be 191 houses. Councilor Hunt asked Ms. Beery if he had a conflict of interest because he was part of the Summerfield Civic Association. Ms. Beery said that she thought that it was up to the Councilor's discretion. In response to a comment from Mayor Nicoli, Mr. Monahan explained that the "mistake" in changing the zone from R-5 to R-12 was not so much a "mistake" as it was a result of the legislative zoning changes done as part of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning maps developed in 1982/83. d. Public Testimony Mayor Nicoli explained the public testimony procedures. PROPONENTS Larry York, Matrix Development, stated that their intent was to build single-family detached homes on this site. He cited Matrix's experience in building communities throughout the Portland Metro area, noting in particular their care to be sensitive to the existing community. He said that Matrix had no interest in an R-12 zone. Chris Eaton, W & H Pacific, 8405 SW Nimbus Ave, Beaverton, the applicant's consultant, stated that they concurred with the recommendations of staff and the Planning Commission. She reviewed the proposal to even out the zoning across the entire site to R-7, pointing out that there was no net increase in the density. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JULY 23, 1996 - PAGE 4 . • • She stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request for a planned development overlay. Ms. Eaton responded to the letter from the Hamlet Street residents. She explained the Tigard Code requirement of a "density transition zone" between R-7 development adjacent to R-4.5 development which included a 100 foot buffer strip. She noted the Mallard Lake Homeowners Association's support of the proposal. OPPONENTS Jack Polans, 16000 SW Queen Victoria Place, King City, stated that he was neither for nor against the proposal. He asked a series of questions: • Would the City go along with the plan as staff has shown it to him; Has the City done a report on its local job market opportunities concerning the site (page 9); • What was the lowest price of housing to buy or rent (page 9, Figures A & B). Mr. Polans said that he has perceived a trend in Tigard in the last several years to attract affluent people rather than non-affluent people. He asked if there was a report that broke down the City's population by economic class. Grace Hamlin, 15360 SW Alderbrook Circle, expressed concern about the traffic that would be coming through Summerfield because of the new development. Martha Hemmelright, 8855 SW Hamlet, asked for clarification on the practical application of the "density transfer zone" and for an explanation of what was allowed in the R-7 zone. REBUTTAL Chris Eaton, W & H Pacific, stated that the buffer zone meant that the lot sizes along the areas adjacent to the R-4.5 zone within 100 feet would be slightly larger and that the housing size and height would remain the same in that zone as in the: R-4.5 zone. Ms. Eaton noted that any development would increase traffic but pointed out that this development had clear access from Sattler down Hall and shouldn't move through Summerfield. She stated that traffic studies and counts would be done and that any traffic impact would be mitigated through the development process. She pointed out that the site plans and street layout have not been completed and mentioned that the direction from the City involved connecting some streets through the development because of the Transportation Goal requirements for connectivity. Ms. Eaton said that the exact costs of the units has not yet been determined but that the developer planned on moderate-cost, detached single-family homes. Ms. Eaton concurred with the City Administrator that the dates of the annexation proposal and the City rezoning were very close and might explain what happened, although there was no evidence in the record to explain why the decision was made. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 23, 1996 - PAGE 5 • _ Mr. Valone reviewed the description of the R-7 zone: a single-family residential zone of 7 units per acre or 5,000 square foot minimum lot size. Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager, commented that one difference between the R-7 and R-4.5 zones was that attached units and duplex units were outright uses in R-7 but • conditional uses in R-4.5. Mr. Monahan reviewed the circumstances in 1981-1983 that might have lead to a zone change without any evidence in the record. He pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan analysis of the entire city was a legislative look at the community. He also noted that the effort at that time to identify properties to meet the Metro Housing Rule of 10 units per acre wasn't concluded until close to the end of the process. Mr. Monahan corrected a statement on Figure C (page 21) that none of the upzoned properties were developed, citing the Timberline Apartments developed in 1989 as a result of upzoned property. In response to a request from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Bewersdorff reviewed the City planning and development review process. He said that the applicant would meet with the neighborhood prior to submitting an application to the City, and that the Planning Commission would hold a hearing to consider the site plan, layout, traffic impacts, etc. - Mr. Polans contended that none of his questions have been answered. He stated that he opposed the proposal and suggested a continuance. e. Staff Recommendation Mr. Valone recommended approval of the proposal based on the criteria. f. Council Questions: None g. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. h. Council Consideration Mr. Monahan reviewed the Council's alternatives: to direct staff to bring back an ordinance and final order approving the change or to direct staff to bring back a resolution denying the change. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohif, to direct staff to return with an ordinance and final order for adoption by the Council. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, and Rohlf voted "yes.") Councilor Hunt noted that Mr. Valone was leaving the City to work at Metro. He expressed appreciation for Mr. Valone's work and thanked him. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JULY 23, 1996 - PAGE 6 • • Councilor Scheckla returned to the bench. 6. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0001 BLEDSOE REQUEST: Amend the text of the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan by adding a new policy as follows: 10.1.4 An exception to Policy 10.1.3 is that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density residential established areas. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planing Goals 1, 2, 10 and 14; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1 and 6.1.1; Tigard Community Development Code chapter 18.30; and Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 12. ZONE: N/A a. Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges: None c. Staff Report Mr. Valone presented the staff report. He stated that the amendment request would apply to properties within the urban planning area being annexed to the City. He said that the current City policy was to assign zoning to newly annexed properties that most closely matched the County zoning; it was part of the urban planning agreement with Washington County. Mr. Valone reviewed the background of Mr. Bledsoe's request, noting that the West and Central CITs presented the request to Council on September 12, 1995. He said that Council agreed to waive the Comprehensive Plan amendment fee and include concerns about zoning in the next IGA review. He stated that Mr. Bledsoe submitted this amendment in a timely fashion, and provided a rebuttal to the staff report. Mr. Valone stated that all appropriate departments or entities were notified. He said that Metro responded that the proposal was not consistent with the direction of 2040 and would substantially reduce residential areas within the incorporated areas. Washington County staff expressed concerns on its impact on the Metro Housing Rule (page 6), its effect on infill development, its possible contradiction to regional planning and increased densities, and its effect on Tigard's ability to accommodate its share of growth. He said that the Central and West CITs supported the proposal, the South CIT supported lower densities in general, and the East CIT had no comment. Mr. Valone stated that staff found that this proposal did not meet all the relevant criteria, including Goal 2, Goal 10 and Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.1. He said that staff could not make a finding that Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.1.1 was satisfied; although the amendment would not cause the City to drop out of compliance with the Metro Housing Rule, it would increase the • possibility of reducing residential density with resulting loss of incremental housing opportunities. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 23, 1996 - PAGE 7 • • Mr. Valone noted other staff concerns regarding how the proposal would be implemented (pages 7, 8), the fairness to property owners and the effect of the proposal on current region-wide planning efforts. He said that the Planning Commission recommended denial (8-0). d. Public Testimony PROPONENTS Bob Bledsoe, 11800 SW Walnut, applicant, presented signatures of people in the Walnut Island who supported the measure. He reviewed the Metro map of redevelopable lands, pointing out that there were few redevelopable lands in the areas that the City would be annexing in the future. Mr. Bledsoe stated that one of the tools that local government used to maintain high quality neighborhoods was zoning that closely matched the density of the neighborhoods. He contended that his proposal would not hurt the City in any way. Mr. Bledsoe noted the current City policy regarding the zoning of newly annexed land. He said that prior to policy 10.1.3, (12 years ago) the City did not assign zoning until a month or two after annexation, and that the zoning was assigned per the request of the property owner. He cited City Council minutes from 1969 and 1979 in support of his claim. Mr. Bledsoe said that zoning for buildable land was different from zoning for established neighborhoods. Closely matching the zoning of annexed lands to the zoning of the adjacent neighborhood helped preserve the quality of the neighborhoods; residents expected that the quality would be maintained. Mr. Bledsoe noted definitions in the Comprehensive Plan for"established area" and "developing area." He said that the great majority of buildable land in Tigard was in the developing areas with very little in the established areas. Mr. Bledsoe reviewed on a map the locations of buildable and not buildable land in Tigard and their proximity or distance from established neighborhoods. He said that his proposal only affected established neighborhoods. It would have no effect on Tigard's compliance with the Metro housing rule because the housing rule was calculated on buildable land only. He said that the Council could adopt a criteria limiting such zoning to requests for an occasional lot classified as buildable. Mr. Bledsoe argued that Council should adopt his proposal because it would give greater flexibility to Council to preserve the diversity of housing in Tigard and maintain the high quality of established neighborhoods. He said that this amendment would enable the Council to better serve the future citizens of Tigard with little or no cost to the rest of the city. Councilor Moore asked if Mr. Bledsoe was asking that the property owner who annexed into the city be allowed to set the zoning for his property. Mr. Bledsoe said that he meant property owners should have the option to request the same TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 23, 1996 - PAGE 8 • • Q zoning that already existed on their street. He reiterated that the City would not face any loss of housing because the houses were already built; staffs concerns applied only to buildable lands and his proposal was only for established neighborhoods. Mayor Nicoli cited an example on James Road where large lots currently exist. Mr. Bledsoe commented that the neighborhood itself in that area was R-3.5 and that that was the zone that should apply. Mayor Nicoli said that while he agreed with what Mr. Bledsoe was trying to do in maintaining established neighborhoods, he saw a difference in the way Mr. Bledsoe was understanding the process and the way he understood the process. He said that he saw any piece of land that could support another housing unit as open to this process, regardless of whether or not it was developable land. He commented that all over Tigard new homes were going up in established neighborhoods on the larger lots. He said that he understood Mr. Bledsoe to be asking them to stop that process which appeared to be opposite to the direction of Metro's regional planning effort. Mr. Bledsoe contended that there was a difference in philosophy between the actual documents and what staff expressed in meetings. He said that the documents stated that the Metro Housing Rule applied only to buildable land and that the computations were based solely on buildable land. Mayor Nicoli stated that the issue Mr. Bledsoe has raised has already been brought up in the 2040 process and was a policy question Council was going through now: what to do with the established neighborhoods in terms of meeting Metro's housing goals? Mayor Nicoli asked Mr. Bledsoe why he thought it was important to do this. The Mayor said he perceived a fear that the Council was going to change the zoning and allow the deterioration of an existing neighborhood through additional housing units. He added that he could not think of one example where Council, even though the Comprehensive Plan would allow it, had done this. He said that he thought the Council would face stiff opposition from the residents if they tried to do so. Mr. Bledsoe said that his proposal would give better protection for the neighborhoods by zoning them closer to what they actually were. He noted the push in Metro was for more houses while the expectation of residents was that their neighborhoods would stay the same. He said that matching the zoning would preserve that expectation. Councilor Rohlf asked if it was fair to prevent a property owner from redeveloping his property as he wished. Mr. Bledsoe noted that it was an issue of the rights of the individual land owner versus the rights of the local community or neighborhood. He said that in some areas redevelopment would work but that in other areas, it would be destructive. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 23, 1996 - PAGE 9 • • In response to a comment from Mayor Nicoli, Mr. Bledsoe said that the concern was not that the Council would destabilize a neighborhood intentionally but that the Comprehensive Plan allowed for it. He contended that the City might not be able to prohibit a request that was detrimental to a neighborhood because the criteria allowed the request. e. Staff Recommendation Mr. Valone recommended that the Council deny the proposal based on the staff finding that it did not meet the criteria and that it was not beneficial to the city as a whole. f. Council Questions Councilor Scheckla asked if there was a way to use any part of what Mr. Bledsoe proposed. Mr. Valone said that he has spoken frequently to Mr. Bledsoe about this proposal. He stated that he stood by his comments in the staff report. He said that he thought this proposal would be a nightmare to implement because it was arbitrary and did not address many questions. He also questioned what purpose the proposal would serve as property owners had the right to develop their land as they chose and request a downzone. He stated that he was not sure this proposal would fix anything and that it would be a complex law. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Ms. Beery said that she concurred with staffs analysis. She said that the only legal constraint right now was the agreement with Washington County which would require amendment should this be adopted. g. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. h. Council Consideration Councilor Rohlf commented that he saw a concern from the residents in Walnut Island whose land would soon be annexed and who wanted to protect their neighborhoods from the kind of development that they observed in Tigard. He said that he thought the amendment was relatively innocuous because it gave the Council an option in making the decision; however, it seemed fatally flawed for enforcement and interpretation. He said that he would send it back for reworking with respect to the definitions so that it would be enforceable, if they chose to move forward with it. Councilor Moore stated that he concurred with staff. He said that he saw this as setting up zoning for one group of people. Councilor Hunt said that he also supported staff. He said that after reading the staff report, he thought that any annexation could become controversial based on the zoning. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 23, 1996 - PAGE 10 • • Councilor Scheckla said that while he thought Mr. Bledsoe had brought up a good point, he feared it might trigger a domino effect if used throughout the whole city. He said that he could go either way but would probably vote to deny the amendment. Mayor Nicoll said that while he agreed with what Mr. Bledsoe was trying to do, he perceived a problem with how Mr. Bledsoe was trying to do it. He reiterated that he was not aware of any developed area in which the City has destroyed its integrity as a neighborhood. He said that if he saw such an indication, he would probably vote differently but that he did not and. therefore, he could not support the amendment. He said that he supported Mr. Bledsoe's concern to protect the neighborhoods and that he thought it was shared by the Council and the Planning Commission. Councilor Rohlf commented that developing areas like Walnut Island in a piece meal fashion led to an unattractive hodgepodge that led to further problems, especially with the transportation network (which was best viewed on a global scale). Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore, to direct staff to come back with a resolution denying the application. Motion was approved by majority voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, and Scheckla voted "yes"; Councilor Rohif abstained.) Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a 10 minute break. Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting. 7. NON AGENDA ITEMS > ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION AMENDING THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PAYMENT OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT IN INSTALLMENTS - ORDINANCE NO. 96-26 Mr. Monahan presented the staff report. Mayor Nicoli stated that if the underlying verbal understanding that the City had with the participants in the Dartmouth LID negotiations was not followed through, he would recall the ordinance and vote to reverse it. He said that right now he thought that this was the best chance to resolve the problems in the Triangle. Councilor Hunt explained that he opposed the ordinance for reasons of consistency. He pointed out that they denied the previous agenda item because it was treating one group of people differently than the rest; this ordinance was written specifically for Mr. Martin and was treating him differently than anyone else. He commented that Mr. Martin has used the farm deferral for his personal benefit to TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JULY 23, 1996 - PAGE 11 • • lower his taxes and that he could not support letting him go the other way because it was now to his advantage to do so. Councilor Rohlf said that he did not have a problem with Mr. Martin using a farm deferral or asking Council to make this change because he had a legal right to do so. He said that his concern was the amount of litigation on this Dartmouth LID at the behest of a couple of the participants to the detriment of everyone, and the possibility of the City giving up a bargaining chip. He said that he would change his vote on the issue because of the oral commitments made by the City representatives on the Council's behalf. He stated that whether or not those comments were misguided, they were made and the City had to live up to its word. Councilor Moore asked if this proposal would benefit any properties in the future. Mr. Monahan said that it would be possible and referred to the Sather property which is in farm deferral and, potentially, could also benefit if an LID were formed in that area. The Council discussed the length of time needed by staff to resolve the issues prior to this ordinance taking effect. Ms. Beery pointed out that the ordinance as currently drafted included an emergency clause that could be deleted as part of the Council's action. Mayor Nicoli suggested that an effective date should be placed in the ordinance. Ms. Beery concurred, stating that that would be more workable from an administrative standpoint. Councilor Moore asked if Section 3 helped to speed up the process. Ms. Beery said that that was the intent and that it provided the Finance Director with the authority to accept an application sooner. Mr. Monahan commented that Section 3 wasn't necessary at this point because staff couldn't do a new assessment prior to the expiration of the 30 days anyway; he recommended deleting Section 3. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Mayor Nicoli, to approve Ordinance 96-26 with the deletion of Section 3. The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 96-26, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 13.04 REGARDING PAYMENT OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT IN INSTALLMENTS Motion was approved by a majority roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Moore and Rohlf voted "yes"; Councilors Hunt and Scheckla voted "no.") Mayor Nicoli moved the meeting into a study session format at 9:55 p.m. 8. STUDY SESSION > City Space Needs Mr. Monahan presented an update on the Amber Foods property. He said that the purchaser understood that the City was not ready at this time to be a tenant; also TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 23, 1996 - PAGE 12 • • • the purchaser no longer believed that he could get a buyout clause favorable to the City. He stated that the City still had the option to purchase the building. Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Administrator, presented the staff report. She noted the parking problem that would occur if the library stayed on site; Tigard Christian Church across the street was willing to allow City employees to park in their lot during the day. Ms. Newton reviewed the square footage of the existing facilities by department. She noted what building portions were not included in the square footage calculations. She pointed out on a map the location of different facilities, noting which properties the city owned or didn't own. Ms. Newton reviewed the 20 year space needs by department. In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Monahan noted that the Canterbury site was not included because, according to Ms. Newton's calculations, they did not need it; however it could be used for limited office space. Ms. Newton explained the situation with the Precision Graphics building. Since the fire, the owner, Mrs. Schramm, has expressed interest in talking with the City about purchasing the building, either as is or after she renovated it. Ms. Newton presented a proposal she developed to address the long term 20 year space needs, the interim space needs, and the immediate space needs. The proposal included: Purchase of the Precision Graphics building for Community Development and Engineering; Move the Engineering modular unit to Public Works for use as storage; Redo that location for parking for the police fleet; Move library staff into the part of City Hall vacated by Community Development; The library would use the freed up space in the library for children's' programs; Purchase the house on Ash Street with the WCCLS bond money (should it pass); Build a new library on the Public Works site and remove the TCYS building; Move the Finance Department from the Water Building to City Hall where the library staff had been; Move Public Works into the Water Building; Renovate the library for office space for Administration, in cluding some community meeting rooms; Move the people from the Niche and City Hall into the new office space; Expand police into the vacated portion of City Hall; Make the Niche a community center or parking lot. Mr. Monahan commented that right now the City could only get the Amber Foods property by buying it outright and they didn't have the money to do that right now; however they did have the money to buy the Precision Graphics building. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 23, 1996 - PAGE 13 • Ms. Newton stated that staff felt that the Precision Graphic building property could accommodate the needed parking. She noted that the building could be renovated to two stories. Councilor Hunt suggested moving one or more of the Public Works buildings to the Canterbury site. Mr. Monahan noted that the Canterbury site was zoned residential. He said that he thought that the neighbors would oppose any use other than limited office. Ms. Newton commented that if the City purchased the house on Ash and used the Interfaith Outreach Services site to build the library, they would meet the landscaping requirements and provide 179 parking spaces for the library. She said that Ms. Davis (Library Director) thought that the site had potential for a new library. Councilor Hunt commented that the City could vacate much of Ash Street, since it existed only on paper, and get more land there. Ms. Newton commented that the parking at the proposed library site could also be used by users of Fanno Creek, if the City fixed that area up according to the Fanno Creek Park plan. Ms. Newton reported Mr. Wegner's comments regarding using the Water Building for Public Works: he would like to continue to use the Canterbury site for storage of gravel and other heavy items because it was more centrally located, and they would probably not be able to park all employees cars behind the wall and would need some of the front 64 parking spaces for employees. In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Ms. Newton stated that the calculations did include storage space. Mayor Nicoli stated that he was more concerned about the additional square footage needed then in how the buildings would be used. He noted that the Precision Graphics building could be easily converted into office space. He asked if they could purchase the building over time. Mr. Monahan said that staff was looking for answers to similar questions. He commented that a payment over time might be beneficial to Mrs. Schramm as it would be similar to the monthly rent she has been receiving. He spoke for the proposal, pointing out how it addressed immediate and long term needs, even without knowing if or when the library levy would happen.. He said that while he liked the Amber Food property, he didn't like the idea of children walking across the street from the parking lot. Councilor Hunt commented that he had opposed expanding the library because the parking problems would simply increase in that event. He said that this proposal alleviated one of his greatest concerns. Councilor Moore asked how comfortable staff was with the 20 year projections. Mr. Monahan said that he was not comfortable with the Public Works projections TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 23, 1996 - PAGE 14 • • because they didn't consider do Public Works in the analysis. Ms. Newton added that she also would need to analyze the police projections again. Mr. Monahan reviewed the financing situation. The Finance Director will need time to review. More information will needed from Mrs. Schramm; that is, does she want to proceed with a sale of the property? In addition Mr. Monahan indicated concerns about the WCCLS levy because it was now estimated at $37 million. An additional concern is the "cut and cap" measure on the November 5, 1996, ballot. In response to a comment from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Monahan clarified the issue with the $100,000 from the sale of the building on Main. He said that the record showed that they included it as part of the $300,000 for the police department expansion. Council needed either to allocate the funds to the police department expansion or the City must designate those funds from somewhere else. Mayor Nicoli suggested using the contingency fund for purchase of.the Precision Graphics Building. He asked staff to talk with Mrs. Schramm about terms and obtain an evaluation of the building's worth. The Council discussed purchasing the Precision Graphics building. Councilor Hunt supported purchasing it prior to renovation. Mr. Monahan said that they would look at the Ash property also. He stated that he wanted the Executive staff to review Liz' proposal to make sure that there weren't any loose ends. He noted that it would have to go to the Water Board as well with this proposal. In response to a comment from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Monahan said that it would be good to get the Budget Committee involved as well. 9. ADJOURNMENT: 10:38 p.m. • Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder M- • • , City of Tigard te: e' t a 7 1 eilLo i:'.adm'ccm.960723.doc TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JULY 23, 1996 - PAGE 15 CPf+ -o • CITY OF.TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes June 17, 1996 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting began at 7:00 with the first agenda item. President Wilson called the public hearing to order at 7:40 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Wilson; Commissioners Anderson, Collson, Griffith, Holland, Padgett, and Scolar Commissioner DeFrang arrived after ethics training. Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Neff Staff Present: Bill Monahan, City Administrator Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager Ray Valone, Associate Planner, Jim Hendryx, Director of Community Development; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. ETHICS TRAINING City Administrator Bill Monahan gave a presentation on City ethics. He provided the Commissioners with copies of the "Oregon Government Standards and Practices Laws Training for All City of Tigard Employees" (Exhibit "A"), "Chapter 244, 1995 Edition, Government Standards and Practices" (Exhibit "B"), and "Examples" (Exhibit"C"). At the end of the presentation, each Commissioner signed a document stating they had participated in the training and understand their responsibilities. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Dick Bewersdorff advised the Commissioners of the next meeting date. The Planning Commission Secretary gave the Commissioners copies of the updated roster and copies of the revised Tigard Community Development Code. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 96-0009/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96-0004 GRECO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- June 17,19%-Page 1 • • A request for the following development applications: 1.) Minor Land Partition approval to divide one (1) parcel of approximately 1.27 acres into two (2) parcels of approximately 18,900 and 33,600 square feet; and 2.) Zone Change approval to designate the property with R-4.5 zoning. LOCATION: 11435 SW Fonner Street (WCTM 2S1 3AC, Tax Lot 1000). East of SW 115th Avenue and west of SW 111th Place. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.50.050, 18.162.040, 18.162.050 and 18.164. ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre). The R-4.5 zone allows single-family residential units, public support facilities, residential treatment home, farming, manufactured home, family day care, home occupation, temporary use, residential fuel tank, and accessory structures. STAFF REPORT Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He advised that the property was newly annexed to the City. He said it was not assigned a zone at the time, because the annexation was handled directly by the Boundary Commission. Bewersdorff said that since the property is now requesting a land partition, it needs to be zoned. Bewersdorff advised that the zone has to be closest to what it was previously zoned in the County, which is an R-4.5. Bewersdorff said that the partition was to divide the property into 2 lots: 18,900 and 33,600 square feet. He said staff is recommending approval, subject to conditions in the staff report. APPLICANTS PRESENTATION The applicant did not give a presentation. Commissioner Holland asked the applicant if he agreed to the conditions of approval in the staff report. The applicant answered yes. PUBLIC TESTIMONY No one signed up to speak on this proposal. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Holland moved to approve the zone change and the minor land partition, in accordance with the staffs conditions of approval. Commissioner Griffith seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0004/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96- 0003/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) 96-0002 SATTLER SITE REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan map and zoning map on 27.5 acres located on three parcels west of SW Hall Boulevard and south of SW Sather Street. The application seeks to change the eastern 8.5 acres, along Hall Blvd., PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- June 17, 1996-Page 2 • • from Medium Density ResidentiaVR-12 to Medium Density ResidentiaVR-7; and to change the western 19 acres from Low Density Residential/R-4.5 to Medium Density ResidentiaVR-7. LOCATION: West of Hall Boulevard and south of Sattler Street. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 6.3.3, 8.1.1 and 12.2.1(2); Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12. ZONE: R-4.5 (Single-Family Residential) allows single-family detached units, manufactured homes, farming family day care and conditional uses such as single-family attached units, duplex units, religious assembly and schools. R-12 (Multiple-Family Residential) allows single-family detached and attached units, duplex units, multiple-family units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivisions, public support and family day care services and conditional uses such as community recreation, religious assembly, schools, hospitals and residential care facilities. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Ray Valone presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He said that, if this proposal is approved, the applicant intends to develop it in single family housing. He said the property consists of 27.52 acres and was annexed in 1982. He said it is designated urban low density. Valone stated that the eastern 9 acres were zoned R-5 at the time of annexation, which is comparable to our current R-7. He said the western portion was zoned R- 7 at the time of annexation, which is comparable to our current R-4.5. Valone said he has received no objections to the proposal from outside agencies. He referred to a letter from the Summerfield Association, which expresses their concerns for increased density on the western portion of the site and the possibility of 2-story houses. Valone said that staff finds that the proposal meets all applicable comprehensive plan and development code criteria. He said that a physical change in circumstances has occurred regarding transportation systems that serve the site. He said that a mistake was made by the City in changing the eastern portion of the site from R-5 to R-12. He said staff could find no record of the zone change. Valone stated that ODOT determined that his proposal would have no significant effect on Hall Blvd. He also said that the City's Engineering Department determined that it would not significantly affect the local road system. Valone said staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- June 17,1996-Page 3 111 • In response to a question from Commissioner Holland, Valone said that the adjacent Summerfield property was zoned R-7. Valone and Bewersdorff then elaborated on granting of PD overlays. Commissioner Griffith commented that, under this proposal, there is a potential for 191 dwellings, as opposed to 190 that is currently allowed. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Frank Angelo, W&H Pacific, 8405 SW Nimbus Ave., Beaverton, OR 97008, briefed the Commission on the applicant's proposal. He said the applicant agrees with the staff recommendation. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR Clayton Wilson, 9045 SW Westfund Ct., Tigard, OR 97224, expressed his concern about increased traffic in his neighborhood. He said he would like to see any road connections to SW Sather Street be moved further east, so as not to align directly with SW 91st President Wilson advised him that this was just a zone change application but the Planning Commission would have another opportunity to look at the development phase at a later date. Steve Smith, 14802 SW 91st, Tigard, OR 97224, asked staff if apartments or mum-family development was allowed in an R-7 zone. Staff responded that duplexes would be allowed, but not multi-family. Smith then said that the Mallard Lakes Homeowner's Association supports the application. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION John Arrigoni, 8935 SW Hamlet, Tigard, OR 97224, said he was not necessarily in opposition to the proposal, but did not want to see 2-story houses next to his home. He said he would like to see the zone changed to be the same as the zoning on SW Hamlet. APPLICANTS REBUTTAL Frank Angelo addressed the concerns of those who spoke. He said the development would have a required density transition zone on the south side of the property and along Sattler, between the property and Mallard Lakes Subdivision. He said that building height and road extension issues could be dealt with at site development review stage. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Griffith asked staff if there would be a buffer area in addition to a density transition zone. Bewersdorff answered that there would only be the density transition zone, but that minimum setbacks would also apply. Commissioner Padgett said he agreed that a mistake was made on the eastern portion of the property. He also agreed that there has been a change in PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- June 17, 1996-Page 4 c • • circumstances, saying that if that land was unzoned today, the most logical zone to put on it would be R-7. Commissioner Holland said it makes sense, that if there is R-7 on either side, the property should also be R-7 also. Commissioner Griffith said he has some problems with the traffic, but they could be discussed during the site development review. Commissioner Collson agreed with Commissioner Griffith. Commissioner Holland moved to approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment 96- 0004/Zone Change 96-0003/Planned Development 96-0002. Commissioner Padgett seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 5.3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT(CPA) 96-0001 BLEDSOE REQUEST: Amend the text of the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan by adding a new policy as follows: 10.1.4 An exception to Policy 10.1.3 is _ that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density residential established areas. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10 and 14; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1 and 6.1.1; Tigard Community Development Code chapter 18.30 and; and Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 12. ZONE: N/A STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Ray Valone presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He advised that this was a text amendment to the Urbanization section of the Comp Plan by adding a new policy that states: °10.1.4 An exception to Policy 10.1.3 is that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density residential established areas". Valone said that the amendment would apply to properties in the Urban Planning Area. He said the City's current policy is to assign newly annexed property a zone that most closely matches the previous Washington County zone. He stated that this policy is included in the Comprehensive Plan, the Development Code, and the Urban Planning Area Agreement between the County and the City. Valone provided background on the proposal, saying that it was presented to the West and Central CITs in August, 1995. He said that both groups supported the applicant's request. He said that, in September, 1995, Bledsoe requested the City Council to formally ask the County to open the Urban Planning Area Agreement in order to amend the policy on zoning of annexed land. Valone PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- June 17, 1996-Page 5 • • stated that the Council granted a fee waiver and agreed to include Bledsoe's concerns during the next review of the UPAA. Valone said that requests for comments were sent to Washington County and Metro, that CIT mailing list members were notified, and that the proposal was presented to all CITs during their May meetings. He advised that Metro responded that the proposal is not consistent with the direction of 2040. He said Washington County was concerned about the impact on the Metropolitan Housing Rule and infill development. He said the Central and West CITs support the proposal, the South CIT supports lower density in general, and the East CIT had no comment. Valone said staff finds that the proposal does not meet all relevant criteria and referred to other concerns listed on page 7 of the staff report. He said staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of denial to City Council. Commissioner DeFrang asked how the County bases its zoning. Dick Bewersdorff answered that the County has a different set of zones for different lot sizes and densities. He said when annexing property, the City is required to pick a zone that is the most comparable. APPLICANTS PRESENTATION Bob Bledsoe, 11800 SW Walnut, Tigard, OR 97223, presented his proposal to the Commission. He said he did not believe the staff report was consistent with the adopted documents. Bledsoe said he sees Goal 2 as being aimed at the orderliness of Planning, that the State periodically reviews our plan to make sure the City keeps up with official changes. He said that Goal 2 was never intended to be used the way staff uses it. Bledsoe addressed Goal 10, saying that he focused on vacant lands, but allowed for the consideration of redevelopable lands. He said he wanted to protect established areas and the quality of neighborhoods. He showed the Commission a Metro map of redevelopable lands. Bledsoe said Tigard should protect its established areas, including areas not yet annexed. He believes that zoning changes should apply to whole neighborhoods, not just individual properties. He advised that main aspect his plan puts a hindrance on is infill development Bledsoe stated that the City's requirement for 10 units per acre applies to buildable lands, not industrial, commercial, or existing residential areas. President Wilson asked Bledsoe how he would response to staffs concerns about defining the existing density of a neighborhood. Bledsoe answered that the City PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- June 17, 1996-Page 6 • • can draw the boundaries. He said his argument is to give the City flexibility to preserve established areas. PUBLIC TESTIMONY No one signed up to speak in support or in opposition of this proposal. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Griffith asked if Tigard's area of interest was within the Urban Growth Boundary. Ray Valone answered that it was within the UGB. Griffith asked if there was a farm or forest zone in this area. Valone answered no. President Wilson said he sees County zones as really meaningless unless it's annexed. He believes the real motivation behind this comprehensive plan amendment is "no development in my backyard". Commissioner Holland said he thought the proposal was too confusing, that he liked the Comprehensive Plan as it is now, with individual zone changes. President Wilson asked about annexation procedures. Ray Valone answered that there is a method for City-initiated annexations (the island method), but it has to be approved by the Boundary Commission. Commissioner Colison commented that this way of annexing is not being used by the City at the present time. Commissioner Anderson said she agreed with the staff report, that this amendment is not necessary. Commissioner Padgett moved to recommend denial of CPA 96-0001, based on findings in the staff report and testimony. Commissioner Holland seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 6. OTHER BUSINESS Community Development Director Jim Hendryx talked to the Commissioners about roles of the CITs and the Planning Commission. He provided them with a copy of a memo dated May 14, 1996, that went to the City Council (Exhibit "D"). He said the purpose of the memo was to help outline what the rules and responsibilities could be for both groups. He summarized the memo and said Council wanted both Planning Commission and CIT comments. Hendryx said the purpose of the memo was to provide some recognition of the CITs for planning related items. Commissioner Griffith commented that the memo lists everything the CITs would do and asked what the CITs perceive the Planning Commission to be. He also noted that the CITs are always on the Council agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- June 17, 1996-Page 7 • • Commissioner DeFrang asked what the Planning Commission roles would be for the items listed on the memo. Hendryx answered that the CITs shall provide input on park planning issues that involve Comprehensive Plan policies or changes to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning maps. He said the Planning Commission would include CIT comments in their deliberations and the recommendation would then go to the City Council. Commissioner Holland said he hoped the CITs don't get confused about the process by going directly to City Council instead of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Padgett noted that the CITs are the designated primary recommending entities to the City Council for some issues and the Planning Commission is the primary recommending entity on others. He said that on those issues where the Planning Commission is the primary recommending body, the CITs should go through the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission would go to the City Council. He said a CIT member could then go to the City Council as an individual and plead their case, but not as a representative of a CIT. President Wilson said that the role of the Planning Commission needs to be better defined. Commissioner DeFrang commented on poor attendance at CIT meetings. Commissioner Padgett said that every City newsletter should have map that shows CIT boundaries. Jim Hendryx asked the Commissioners how they wanted him to proceed. The Commissioners said they would like a couple of weeks to respond to the memo. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. J Jerr- : aynor, lannin• ommission Secretary A V ST: President Nick Wilson PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- June 17, 1996-Page 8 1. • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON fiDiCPI.r .�- .. RESOLUTION NO. 96-44 La A RESOLUTION BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA 96-0001) REQUEST BY BOB BLEDSOE WHEREAS, the applicant requested a comprehensive plan amendment to amend the text of the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan by adding a new policy as follows : 10 . 1.4 An exception to Policy 10 . 1 . 3 is that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density residential established areas; WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 23, 1996 to consider the proposed amendments as set forth herein; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that : Section 1 The proposal is not consistent with all of the relevant criteria noted in the attached final order (Exhibit A) . Section 2 : The City Council upholds the Planning Commission' s' recommendation for denial of the comprehensive plan amendment as set forth in Exhibit A. Section 3 : The City Council, therefore, orders that CPA 96-0001 be DENIED, and further orders that the City Recorder send a copy of the final resolution as a Notice of Final ' Decision to the parties in this case. PASSED: This 1 --) day of , 1996 . Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: atite'Li&J2._ City Recorder - City of Tiga RESOLUTION NO. 9 6-41 Page 1 • • EXHIBIT A CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO AN APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY BOB BLEDSOE. The Tigard City Council reviewed the application below at a public hearing on July 23, 1996. The City Council denies the request based on the facts, findings and conclusions noted below. A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0001 REQUEST: Amend the text of the Rubanization section of the Comprehensive Plan by adding a new policy as follows: 10.14 An exception to Policy 10.1.3 is that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density residential established areas . APPLICANT: Bob Bledsoe 11800 SW Walnut Street Tigard, OR 97223 OWNERS: Same LOCATION: Southwest corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW North Dakota Street (Parcel 3 of Minor Land Partition 94-0013) 2. Vicinity The proposed amendment would apply to the City's Urban Planning Area and not to any specific site. 3. Background Information 1 • • Historically, when properties have annexed to the City, they have been zoned to match the previous Washington County zone districts as closely as possible. This practice helped to carry out the intent of the Tigard Community Plan. The Urban Planning Area Agreement between Washington County and Tigard, signed in June of 1983, included a provision to require the City to convert annexed land from the City's Area of Interest (Bull Mountain and Metzger areas) to designations that most closely approximate the density, use provisions and standards of County designations. In April of 1984, the City Council, with the recommendation of staff and the Planning Commission, adopted Ordinance 84-21 to amend Section 10.1 of the Urbanization chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to include all annexed land to the City. The purpose of this policy was to accommodate existing development and preserve neighborhoods as they are annexed to the City. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description Mr. Bledsoe presented a proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan and waive the application fee to the Central and West CITs during August of 1995. The two groups supported his request. At the meeting of September 12, 1995, he requested that the City Council waive the Comprehensive Plan amendment application fee and formally ask Washington county to open the Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) in order to amend the policy on zoning of annexed land. The Council granted the fee waiver and agreed to include his concerns during the next review of the UPAA. The submittal period deadlines (75 to 45 days prior to the Planning Commission's first hearings in April and October) precluded Mr. Bledsoe from applying for a legislative Comprehensive Plan amendment last fall. He did submit his application during February of this year. The proposed amendment would be added to the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan and read as follows: "10.14 An exception to Policy 10.13 is that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density residential established areas." This amendment would apply, ostensibly, to the City's urban planning area that is designated as Low Density Residential and is already developed with residential units. As properties in these areas annex to the City, the Council would have the option to zone them to a designation that reflects the existing number of units at the time.. 5. Agency Comments Metro reviewed this proposal and offers the following comments: 2 • • "This amendment is not compatible with the direction of the 2040 Growth Concept. It would serve to substantially reduce the allowable residential densities for those newly incorporated areas. While Tigard, may not need to increase its current densities would limit the City's flexibility in achieving these targets. In addition, Mr. Bledsoe's reference to what constitutes "buildable lands" in incorrect. The definition includes redevelopable lands as well as vacant lands." Washington County reviewed this proposal and has the following concerns: "In order to effect the change, it would appear that the Urban Planning Area Agreement must be amended. It is not clear if the proposal has an impact on the City or County ability to demonstrate compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule. It is not clear how the proposal operates in "low density residential established areas". Would this preclude infill development? It would seem the proposal may be contrary to the concepts included in the Regional Framework Plan, Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, regarding greater density of development and the ability of the City to accommodate its share of regional growth. While these requirements are not yet binding on the City, this change may have an impact on the City's future ability to demonstrate compliance." B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Goals 1, 2, 10 and 14; Oregon Administrative Rule 660-12; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1 and 6.1.1; Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. STATEWIDE GOALS Citizen Involvement: Goal 1 requires a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in the planning process. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 and Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18 provide for citizen participation and notice. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing and opportunity for response was advertised in the local newspaper and request for comments were sent to all CITs and the Department of Land Conservation and 3 • • • • Development. In addition, the proposal was presented to the CITs and their comments are included with this report. This goal is satisfied. Land Use Planning: Goal 2 requires, in part, that adopted comprehensive plans be revised to take into account changing public policies and circumstances. The proposal would amend existing adopted and acknowledged comprehensive plan and intergovernmental agreement requirements relating to the zoning of annexed property to the City. If exercised, the policy would encourage the downzoning of residential land as it is annexed to the City. The public policies and circumstances are changing in the Metropolitan Portland area as well as in the City toward increase of residential density in order to meet regionwide goals within the Urban Growth Boundary. The proposed amendment would be counterproductive to this direction. This goal is not satisfied. Housing: Goal 10 requires that plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at various price ranges and rent levels and allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density. The applicant states that this goal does not apply to his proposal because the goal is limited to the development of vacant, buildable land only. The goal, however, defines 'buildable lands' as lands in urban and urbanizable areas that are suitable, available and necessary for residential use. It is not confined to vacant land only and includes redevelopable land. Implementation 4 of the housing goal states that ordinances and incentives should be used to increase population densities in urban areas taking into consideration (1) key • facilities, (2) the economic, environmental, social and energy consequences of the proposed densities and (3) the optimal use of existing urban land particularly in sections containing significant amounts of unsound substandard structures. The effect of the proposed amendment would be to decrease zoning and therefore population densities. For, despite the wording of the proposal to assign zoning closest to existing development, the density could only be reduced and not increased because the highest zoning the City can currently assign is R-4.5, the closest match to the county's R-5, and still implement the Low Density Residential designation of the Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted', however, that assignment of City R-4.5 zoning (7,500 square foot minimum lot size) is actually a reduction in density from the County's R-5 zoning (7,000 square foot minimum lot size). Staff finds that the proposal is not consistent with Goal 10 and would have a negative impact on encouraging the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at various price ranges and rent levels and allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density. Staff finds, therefore, that this goal is not satisfied. Urbanization: Goal 14 provides for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. This goal is carried out by way of the establishment of an urban growth 4 • • boundary. The proposal addresses zoning for annexed lands within the urban growth boundary and therefore not subject to this goal's provisions. The City's annexation policies are included in the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan and the reader is referred to Policy 10.1.3 below. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTES OR GUIDELINES Oregon Administrative Rule: Section 660-12-060 states that plan amendments which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level of service of the facility. Zoning annexed land to existing densities would not generate additional traffic or significantly affect a transportation facility. This rule is not, therefore, applicable to the proposed plan amendment. COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES General Policies: Policy 1.1.1(a) requires that legislative changes are consistent with statewide planning goals and the regional development plan. The proposal is not consistent with statewide planning goals as addressed above under 'Statewide Goals'. There is no applicable adopted regional plan. This policy is not satisfied. Citizen Involvement: Policy 2.1.1 states that the City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. A request for comments was sent to all City CITs and the Planning Commission hearing was legally advertised. In addition, the proposal was presented at all CIT meetings during May. This policy is satisfied. Housing: Policy 6.1.1 requires the city shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This policy is primarily implemented through OAR 660-07, the Metropolitan Housing Rule. The rule requires that the city maintain sufficient residential buildable land to provide the opportunity for at least 50% of new units to be attached single family or multi-family housing and to provide for an overall density of ten units per acre. The proposed amendment could affect City compliance with the Housing Rule by lowering the potential number of units per acre if annexed land is zoned at lower densities. If, upon annexation, properties are downzoned from the County designation, then the City's housing opportunity index would have to be recalculated because the affected properties were originally calculated in the County for higher density. • The Housing Rule states that a jurisdiction need not include plan and/or zone changes made by another jurisdiction before annexation to a city. However, Section 660-07-045(b) 5 • • states that a city shall include changes to annexed or incorporated land if the city changed type or density or the plan/zone designation after annexation or incorporation [emphasis added]. The City, therefore, would need to recalculate the housing index every time property(ies) were zoned, after annexation, at a different density than the previous zoning in the County. More importantly, downzoning of residential land would lower the index. The City could fall out of compliance with the rule's minimum requirement of 10 units per acre, especially considering that approximately 535 acres of low density established land could be eligible for rezoning. As the index approaches or falls below the 10 units per acre standard, the City would need to make up the difference for new housing opportunities in other parts of the City through rezoning of land. This proposed amendment by itself will not cause the City to drop out of compliance with the housing rule. The amendment would, however, greatly increase the probability for reducing residential density and result in the incremental loss of housing opportunities. For this reason, staff cannot make a finding that this policy is satisfied. COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Procedures for Decision Making: Legislative: Chapter 18.30 establishes procedures for consideration of legislative changes to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, implementing ordinances and maps. Section 18.30.120 lists the factors upon which the Planning Commission and City Council shall base their decisions. The factors and responses are as follows: 1. The statewide planning goals and guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197. These standards are addressed in Section IV under 'Statewide Goals' in this staff report. 2. Any federal or state statutes or guidelines found applicable. The state's Transportation Planning Rule is addressed in Section IV under 'Compliance with Federal and State Statutes or Guidelines'. 3. Applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District. There are no applicable plans or guidelines adopted by Metro. See Section VI (Agency Comments) for Metro staff response to the proposal. 4. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map. These standards are addressed in Section IV under 'Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policies'. 5. The applicable provisions of the implementing ordinances. The implementing ordinances are contained in the Tigard Community Development Code, which are addressed in this section of the staff report. 6 • 6. Consideration may also be given to proof of a change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or implementing ordinance which is the subject of the application. The applicant does not address this factor. Annexations: Chapter 18.136 implements the policies of the Comprehensive Plan regarding annexation requests. If the proposed amendment is approved, Section 18.136.030, Approval Standards, provision B would have to be revised. Currently, this provision reads, "The plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property shall be the City's zoning district which most closely implements the City's or County's comprehensive plan map designation." The change would have to allow for the option to zone a property with a designation that matches the existing development in the area. C. DECISION The city councils denies the requested comprehensive plan amendment CPA 96- 0001 based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions. 7 is 2 171111111 ,A, `\ \\`♦♦♦\� �: • , . �`. �� ,•�. \:r \�`\� ��`';`; CITY OF TIGARD ..t.:ss.,,,,, .,,, ,\\,..,,,.... ..... v.....\r,,,,,„:,\,,,,,k;v„.....:,...a,-...,.. 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 Administrator. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 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 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). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 23, 1996 - PAGE 1 9 S CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 23, 1996 AGENDA 6:30 p.m. • STUDY SESSION > The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), 8z (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. All discussions within this session are confidential; therefore, nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. > Agenda Review 7:30 p.m. 1 . BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 8t Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. 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: 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: June 18 and 25, 1996 3.2 Approve Municipal Court Judge's Contract - Resolution No. 96- 3.3 Approve Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City of Tigard and the Tigard/Tualatin School District - Resolution No. 96- 3.4 Accept Transfer of Jurisdiction a Portion of Durham Road from the Oregon Department of Transportation 3.5 Approve Acquisition of Property on Walnut Street at Tiedeman 3.6 Local Contract Review Board: Award Contract for Architectural Services for the City Hall Expansion to Hanson, Dunahugh, Nicholson Architects PC, Portland, Oregon • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 23, 1996 - PAGE 2 • • 4. CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.164 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE AUTHORIZING EXCEPTIONS TO UNDERGROUNDING UTILITY REQUIREMENTS • City Administrator 5. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0004/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96- 0003/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) 96-0002 SATTLER SITE REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan map and zoning map on 27.5 acres located on three parcels west of SW Hall Boulevard and south of SW Sattler Street. The application seeks to change the eastern 8.5 acres, along Hall Blvd., from Medium Density Residential/R-12 to Medium Density Residential/R-7; and to change the western 19 acres from Low Density Residential/R-4.5 to Medium Density Residential/R-7. LOCATION: West of Hall Boulevard and south of Sattler Street. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 6.3.3, 8.1.1 and 12.2.1(2); Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12. ZONE: R-4.5 (Single-Family Residential) allows single- family detached units, manufactured homes, farming family day care and conditional uses such as single-family attached units, duplex units, religious assembly and schools. R-12 (Multiple-Family Residential) allows single- family detached and attached units, duplex units, multiple-family units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivisions, public support and family day care services and conditional uses such as community recreation, religious assembly, schools, hospitals and residential care facilities. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges c. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents, Rebuttal) e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Motion giving direction to City staff. COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 23, 1996 - PAGE 3 • r 6. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0001 BLEDSOE REQUEST: Amend the text of the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan by adding a new policy as follows: 10.1.4 An exception to Policy 10.1 .3 is that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density residential established areas. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10 and 14; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1 and 6.1.1; Tigard Community Development Code chapter 18.30 and; and Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 12. ZONE: N/A a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges c. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents, Rebuttal) e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Motion giving direction to City staff. 7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), at (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 9. ADJOURNMENT is\adm\cathy\ccagenda\960723 p.doc COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 23, 1996 - PAGE 4 • AGENDA ITEM# For Agenda of July 23. 1996 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0001 - Bledsoe PREPARED BY: Ray Valone DEPT HEAD OK Lh>.0 CITY ADMIN OK_i4" ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve a legislative comprehensive plan amendment to add Policy 10.1.4 to the Urbanization section? STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended denial of this proposal at its hearing of June 17, 1996. Staff finds that the proposal does not satisfy all relevant comprehensive plan criteria and recommends that the City Council deny CPA 96-0001. INFORMATION SUMMARY The proposal seeks to add a new policy to the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan that would give the City the option to zone annexed properties from low density residential established areas to a designation that reflects the number of units existing at the time of annexation. Currently, the Comprehensive Plan, Community Development Code and Urban Planning Area Agreement require the City to zone annexed properties to the designation that most closely matches the County zoning. The applicant's submittal, City staff report and minutes from the Planning Commission's hearing on the proposal are attached. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the proposal and direct staff to return on August 13 with the ordinance and final order for adoption by the Council. 2. Deny the proposal and direct staff to return on August 13 with the resolution and final order for adoption by the Council. FISCAL NOTES No direct fiscal impact to the city. • • • • Agenda Item: Hearing Date: July 23. 1996 7:30 PM , , . . A :..;..;.:::. . :::.:..:::::......:..:.:.::..:.:....: TAFF REP C�rY OF T10ARD: ::. :;> CITY<COUN.CIL >>: ::> ::< :>: H O. :TE: CITY F ,.. ,... ...., ...:.. SECTION I: APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: FILE NAME: Bledsoe . Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0001 PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested a text amendment to the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan by adding a new policy as follows: 10.1.4 An exception to Policy 10.1.3 is that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density residential established areas. APPLICANT: Bob Bledsoe OWNER: Same 11800 SW Walnut Street • • Tigard, OR 97223 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: N/A ZONING • DESIGNATION: N/A LOCATION: City's Urban Planning Area APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Goals 1, 2, 10 and 14; Oregon Administrative Rule 660-12; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1 and 6.1.1; Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. SECTION II: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission heard this proposal on June 17 and recommends by a vote of 7-0 that the City Council deny CPA 96-0001. The minutes from the hearing are included as Attachment A. Staff recommends that the City Council find that the proposed amendment does not satisfy all relevant criteria and is not beneficial to the City, and that the Council DENY CPA 96-0001. STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0001 Page 1 - • • • SECTION III: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: Historically, when properties have annexed to the City, they have been zoned to match the previous Washington County zone districts as closely as possible. This practice helped to carry out the intent of the Tigard Community Plan. The Urban Planning Area Agreement between Washington County and Tigard, signed in June of 1983, included a provision to require the City to convert annexed land from the City's Area of Interest (Bull Mountain and Metzger areas) to designations that most closely approximate the density, use provisions and standards of County designations. In April of 1984, the City Council, with the recommendation of staff and the Planning Commission, adopted Ordinance 84-21 to amend Section 10.1 of the Urbanization chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to include all annexed land to the City. The purpose of this policy was to accommodate existing development and preserve neighborhoods as they are annexed to the City. Vicinity Information: The proposed amendment would apply to the City's Urban Planning Area and not to any specific site. Site Information and Proposal Description: Mr. Bledsoe presented a proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan and waive the application fee to the Central and West CITs during August of 1995. The two groups supported his request. At the meeting of September 12, 1995, he requested that the City Council waive the Comprehensive Plan amendment application fee and formally ask Washington County to open the Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) in order to amend the policy on zoning of annexed land. The Council granted the fee waiver and agreed to include his concerns during the next review of the UPAA. The submittal period deadlines (75 to 45 days prior to the Planning Commission's first hearings in April and October) precluded Mr. Bledsoe from applying for a legislative Comprehensive Plan amendment last fall. He did submit his application during February of this year. The proposed amendment would be added to the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive,Plan and read as follows: "10.1.4 An exception to Policy 10.1.3 is that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density residential established areas." This amendment would apply, ostensibly, to the City's urban planning area that is designated as Low Density Residential and is already developed with residential units. As properties in these areas annex to the City, the Council would have the option to zone them to a designation that reflects the existing number of units at the time. SECTION IV: APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS STATEWIDE GOALS Citizen Involvement: Goal 1 requires a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in the planning process. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 and Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18 provide for citizen participation and notice. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing and opportunity for response was advertised in the local newspaper and request for comments were sent to all STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0001 Page 2 • CITs and the Department of Land Conservation and Development. In addition, the proposal was presented to the CITs and their comments are included with this report. This goal is satisfied. Land Use Planning: Goal 2 requires, in part, that adopted comprehensive plans be revised to take into account changing public policies and circumstances. The proposal would amend existing adopted and acknowledged comprehensive plan and intergovernmental agreement requirements relating to the zoning of annexed property to the City. If exercised, the policy would encourage the downzoning of residential land as it is annexed to the City. The public policies and circumstances are changing in the Metropolitan Portland area as well as in the City toward increase of residential density in order to meet regionwide goals within the Urban Growth Boundary. The proposed amendment would be counterproductive to this direction. This goal is not satisfied. Housing: Goal 10 requires that plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at various price ranges and rent levels and allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density. The applicant states that this goal does not apply to his proposal because the goal is limited to the development of vacant, buildable land only. The goal, however, defines 'buildable lands' as lands in urban and urbanizable areas that are suitable, available and necessary for residential use. It is not confined to vacant land only and includes redevelopable land. Implementation 4 of the housing goal states that ordinances and incentives should be used to increase population densities in urban areas taking into consideration (1) key facilities, (2) the economic, environmental, social and energy consequences of the proposed densities and (3) the optimal use of existing urban land particularly in sections containing significant amounts of unsound substandard structures. The effect of the proposed amendment would be to decrease zoning and therefore population densities. For, despite the wording of the proposal to assign zoning closest to existing development, the density could only be reduced and not increased because the highest zoning the City can currently assign is R-4.5, the closest match to the county's R-5, and still implement the Low Density Residential designation of the Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted, however, that assignment of City R-4.5 zoning (7,500 square foot minimum lot size) is actually a reduction in density from the County's R-5 zoning (7,000 square foot minimum lot size). Staff finds that the proposal is not consistent with Goal 10 and would have a negative impact on encouraging the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at various price ranges and rent levels and allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density. Staff finds, therefore, that this goal is not satisfied. Urbanization: Goal 14 provides for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. This goal is carried out by way of the establishment of an urban growth boundary. The proposal addresses zoning for annexed lands within the urban growth boundary and therefore not subject to this goal's provisions. The City's annexation policies are included in the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan and the reader is referred to Policy 10.1.3 below. STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0001 Page 3 • • COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTES OR GUIDELINES Oregon Administrative Rule: Section 660-12-060 states that plan amendments which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level of service of the facility. Zoning annexed land to existing densities would not generate additional traffic or significantly affect a transportation facility. This rule is not, therefore, applicable to the proposed plan amendment. COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES General Policies: Policy 1.1.1(a) requires that legislative changes are consistent with statewide planning goals and the regional development plan. The proposal is not consistent with statewide planning goals as addressed above under 'Statewide Goals'. There is no applicable adopted regional plan. This policy is not satisfied. Citizen Involvement: Policy 2.1.1 states that the City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. A request for comments was sent to all City CITs and the Planning Commission and City Council hearings were legally advertised. In addition, the proposal was presented at all CIT meetings during May. This policy is satisfied. Housing: Policy 6.1.1 requires the city shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This policy is primarily implemented through OAR 660-07, the Metropolitan Housing Rule. The rule requires that the city maintain sufficient residential buildable land to provide the opportunity for at least 50% of new units to be attached single family or multi-family housing and to provide for an overall density of ten units per acre. The proposed amendment could affect City compliance with the Housing Rule by lowering the potential number of units per acre if annexed land is zoned at lower densities. If, upon annexation, properties are downzoned from the County designation, then the City's housing opportunity index would have to be recalculated because the affected properties were originally calculated in the County for higher density. The Housing Rule states that a jurisdiction need not include plan and/or zone changes made by another jurisdiction before annexation to a city. However, Section 660-07-045(b) states that a city shall include changes to annexed or incorporated land if the city changed type or density or the plan/zone designation after annexation or incorporation [emphasis added]. The City, therefore, would need to recalculate the housing index every time property(ies) were zoned, after annexation, at a different density than the previous zoning in the County. More importantly, downzoning of residential land would lower the index. The City could fall out of compliance with the rule's minimum requirement of 10 units per acre, especially considering that approximately 535 acres of low density established land could be eligible for rezoning. As the index approaches or falls below the 10 units per acre standard, the City would need to make up the difference for new housing opportunities in other parts of the City through rezoning of land. STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0001 Page 4 • This proposed amendment by itself will not cause the City to drop out of compliance with the housing rule. The amendment would, however, greatly increase the probability for reducing residential density and result in the incremental loss of housing opportunities. For this reason, staff cannot make a finding that this policy is satisfied. COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Procedures for Decision Making: Legislative: Chapter 18.30 establishes procedures for consideration of legislative changes to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, implementing ordinances and maps. Section 18.30.120 lists the factors upon which the Planning Commission and City Council shall base their decisions. The factors and responses are as follows: 1. The statewide planning goals and guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197. These standards are addressed in Section IV under 'Statewide Goals' in this staff report. 2. Any federal or state statutes or guidelines found applicable. The state's Transportation Planning Rule is addressed in Section IV under 'Compliance with Federal and State Statutes or Guidelines'. 3. Applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District. There are no applicable plans or guidelines adopted by Metro. See Section VI (Agency Comments) for Metro staff response to the proposal. 4. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map. These standards are addressed in Section IV under 'Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policies'. 5. The applicable provisions of the implementing ordinances. The implementing ordinances are contained in the Tigard Community Development Code, which are addressed in this section of the staff report. 6. Consideration may also be given to proof of a change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or implementing ordinance which is the subject of the application. The applicant does not address this factor. Although Section 6 is not addressed, the applicant has satisfied this code section. It is satisfied because the first five factors have been addressed in this staff report and the sixth factor is optional only. Annexations: Chapter 18.136 implements the policies of the Comprehensive Plan regarding annexation requests. If the proposed amendment is approved, Section 18.136.030, Approval Standards, provision B would have to be revised. Currently, this provision reads, "The plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property shall be the City's zoning district which most closely implements the City's or County's comprehensive plan map designation." The change would have to allow for the option to zone a property with a designation that matches the existing development in the area. STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0001 Page 5 • • SECTIONLV: AGENCY COMMENTS Metro reviewed this proposal and offers the following comments: The amendment is not compatible with the direction of the 2040 Growth Concept. It would serve to substantially reduce the allowable residential densities for those newly incorporated areas. While Tigard may not need to increase its current densities in the inner neighborhoods to achieve its 2017 allocation targets, reducing densities would limit the City's flexibility in achieving these targets. In addition, Mr. Bledsoe's reference to what constitutes "buildable lands" is incorrect. The definition includes redevelopable lands as well as vacant lands. Washington County reviewed this proposal and has the following concerns: • In order to effect the change, it would appear that the Urban Planning Area Agreement must be amended. • It is not clear if the proposal has an impact on the City or County ability to demonstrate compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule. • It is not clear how the proposal operates in "low density residential established areas". Would this preclude all infill development? • It would seem the proposal may be contrary to the concepts included in the Regional Framework Plan, Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, regarding greater density of development and the ability of the City to accommodate its share of regional growth. While these requirements are not yet binding on the City, this change may have an impact on the City's future ability to demonstrate compliance. SECTION VI: OTHER COMMENTS The South CIT heard the proposal at the meeting of May 1, 1996, and support lower density development in general. The Central and West CITs heard the proposal on May 7 and. the members agreed with the concept. The East CIT had no comment on the proposal at the May 8. meeting. SECTION VII: STAFF COMMENTS The Planning Department staff has several concerns about the proposed amendment. There are many issues and problems associated with the proposal that would need to be evaluated and clarified before its implementation. Among these issues are the following: • What urban planning areas would be affected by this amendment (Attachment B)? It reads, "...to existing development in low density residential established areas". Does this apply to all of the Active Planning Area and Area of Interest where existing development is considered as low density and established? This area encompasses STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0001 Page 6 • . approximately 535 acres of land. Does it apply to the Active Planning Area only which includes the Walnut Island? This area encompasses approximately 237 acres of land. If the latter only, would the amendment apply to areas of land the City has designated on the Comprehensive Plan map as Low Density or where there is any residential development that qualifies as low density? Decisions by the City Council based on interpretation of the amendment's applicability would likely invite challenges. • What area(s) would be used to calculate the existing development density - immediately adjacent parcels, property within one block, property within 1/4 mile radius, etc.? Would properties in the City be counted in the calculation? Would vacant land acreage be counted in the calculation (vacant parcels are included within established areas)? In other words, what does the Council use as a measuring stick to determine the zoning? This problem raises the issue of consistent and objective criteria used in decision-making, and thus invites challenges to the City's interpretation. • Who would initiate the request for applying the new policy - City Council, property owner(s), neighbors, or a combination of these? If anyone other than the property owner(s) initiate and obtain different zoning or if an owner's property is included within a rezoned area, would this impose a new restriction on properties and limit the ability of owners to develop their property to former zoning densities in the County? If the property owners themselves initiate zone changes, how would this affect adjacent owners, i.e. how would this action affect development potential, property values and tax assessments of adjacent properties if zoning densities of neighboring property.are either not consistently zoned at present or subject to change after annexation in the future? • How would this amendment affect urban service planning and regional planning efforts? The City plans and budgets for the provision of urban services to support land uses. If several hundred properties in the urban planning area may be zoned from R-1 to.R-4.5, this task becomes much more difficult and probably more expensive because of the range of densities that could possibly be served. Regional planning and goals include using the urban and urbanizable land within the UGB in a more efficient manner. This effort will likely result in increasing the residential densities using several , options including infill development, increased zoning densities and minimum density standards. The proposed amendment seems to be counter productive for achieving these goals. • Downzoning urban planning area properties that come into the City would shift the burden of increased zoning to other parts of the City. Maintaining conformity to the Metropolitan Housing Rule and accommodating the City's share of regional growth would be affected if properties in these areas are allowed to be zoned at lower densities than previously planned. The loss of potential housing would have to be made up in other parts of the City. The question of fairness and equitable sharing could become an issue. • Zoning properties at lower densities than previous County designations could result in existing lots becoming nonconforming. For example, Mr. Bledsoe's own property is 0.43 acres or 18,731 square feet. His property could be zoned R-2 depending upon STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0001 Page 7 • • what area is selected for calculating existing density. The minimum lot size for the R-2 zone district is 20,000; therefore, his lot would be nonconforming. Furthermore, as far as staff can determine, City policy has always been to assign zoning to annexed land that most closely matches the County's zoning at the time. The applicant states that owners of property should have the same right to zone their property upon annexation as did previous annexed owners. Staff has not found, as the applicant claims, that previous annexations of neighborhoods allowed the residents to petition and receive zoning that matched the existing development. Staff has researched past annexations for areas mentioned by the applicant and has found no evidence of this process. When older areas such as Derry Dell, Ames Orchard and Shadow Hills annexed to the City, the County had different zoning designations at the time. These designations were as low as one unit per acre (RS-1), two units per.acre (RS-2) and 30,000 square foot minimum lot sizes (R-30). The City's files and Boundary Commission resolutions for these areas reflect the policy of assigning City zoning which most closely matched the County zoning existing at the time of annexation. In conclusion, staff believes that the proposed amendment would be difficult to interpret and implement, as well as problematic for future land use planning and urban service provision. More importantly, staff does not think it is needed or beneficial to the City as a whole. It is not clear what purpose it would serve and for whom. As pointed out above, it could affect the City's compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule and the City's ability to meet regional goals. On an individual property owner level, the amendment does not impart any additional rights or advantages. Under existing policies and law, an owner has • the choice to develop his land up to the maximum allowable under the zoning code; or to not develop the land at all. The effect of the amendment would seem to only limit neighboring or future property owners from developing their land to what was previously allowed under County zoning. July 9. 1996 PREPARED BY: Ray Valone DATE Associate Planner July 11. 1996 APPROVED BY: Nadine Smith DATE Planning Manager I:ILRPLMRAY\CPA96-01.CC • STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0001 Page 8 ATTACHMENT A • • CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes June 17, 1996 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting began at 7:00 with the first agenda item. President Wilson called the public hearing to order at 7:40 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Wilson; Commissioners Anderson, Collson, Griffith, Holland, Padgett, and Scolar Commissioner DeFrang arrived after ethics training. Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Neff Staff Present: Bill Monahan, City Administrator; Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Ray Valone, Associate Planner; Jim Hendryx, Director of Community Development; Jerree Gaynor,: Planning Commission Secretary • 3. ETHICS TRAINING City Administrator Bill Monahan gave a presentation on City ethics. He provided the Commissioners with copies of the "Oregon Government Standards and Practices Laws Training for All City of Tigard Employees" (Exhibit "A"), "Chapter 244, 1995 Edition, Government Standards and Practices" (Exhibit "B"), and "Examples" (Exhibit"C"). At the end of the presentation, each Commissioner signed a document stating they had participated in the training and understand their responsibilities. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Dick Bewersdorff advised the Commissioners of the next meeting date. The Planning Commission Secretary gave the Commissioners copies of the updated roster and copies of the revised Tigard Community Development Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- June 17, 1996-Page I • • A request for the following development applications: 1.) Minor Land Partition approval to divide one (1) parcel of approximately 1.27 acres into two (2) parcels of approximately 18,900 and 33,600 square feet; and 2.) Zone Change approval to designate the property with R-4.5 zoning. LOCATION: 11435 SW Fonner Street (WCTM 2S1 3AC, Tax Lot 1000). East of SW 115th Avenue and west of SW 111th Place. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.50.050, 18.162.040, 18.162.050 and 18.164. ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre). The R-4.5 zone allows single-family residential units, public support facilities, residential treatment home, farming, manufactured home, family day care, home occupation, temporary use, residential fuel tank, and accessory structures. STAFF REPORT Planning. Manager Dick Bewersdorff presented. the staff report on behalf of the City. He advised that the property was newly annexed to the City. He said it was not assigned a zone at the time, because the annexation was handled directly by the Boundary Commission. Bewersdorff said that since the property is now requesting a land partition, it needs to be zoned. Bewersdorff advised that the zone has to be closest to what it was previously zoned in the County, which is an R-4.5. Bewersdorff said that the partition was to divide the property into 2 lots: 18,900 and 33,600 square feet. He said staff is recommending approval, subject to conditions in the staff report. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION The applicant did not give a presentation. Commissioner Holland asked the applicant if he agreed to the conditions of approval in the staff report. The applicant answered yes. PUBLIC TESTIMONY No one signed up to speak on this proposal. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Holland moved to approve the zone change and the minor land partition, in accordance with the staffs conditions of approval. Commissioner Griffith seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0004/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96- 0003/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) 96-0002 SATTLER SITE REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan map and zoning map on 27.5 acres located on three parcels west of SW Hall Boulevard and south of SW Sather Street. The application seeks to change the eastern 8.5 acres, along Hall Blvd., PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- June 17, 1996-Page 2 • from Medium Density Residential/R-12 to Medium Density Residential/R-7; and to change the western 19 acres from Low Density Residential/R-4.5 to Medium Density Residential/R-7. LOCATION: West of Hall Boulevard and south of Sather Street. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 6.3.3, 8.1.1 and 12.2.1(2); Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12. ZONE: R-4.5 (Single-Family Residential) allows single-family detached units, manufactured homes, farming family day care and conditional uses such as single-family attached units, duplex units, religious assembly and schools. R-12 (Multiple-Family Residential) allows single-family detached and attached units, duplex units, multiple-family units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivisions, public support and family day care services and conditional uses such as community recreation, religious assembly, schools, hospitals and residential care facilities. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Ray Valone presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He said that, if this proposal is approved, the applicant intends to develop it in single family housing. He said the property consists of 27.52 acres and was annexed in 1982. He said it is designated urban low density. Valone stated that the eastern 9 acres were zoned R-5 at the time of annexation, which is comparable to our current R-7. He said the western portion was zoned R- 7 at the time of annexation, which is comparable to our current R-4.5. Valone said he has received no objections to the proposal from outside agencies. He referred to a letter from the Summerfield Association, which expresses their concerns for increased density on the western portion of the site and the possibility of 2-story houses. Valone said that staff finds that the proposal meets all applicable comprehensive plan and development code criteria. He said that a physical change in circumstances has occurred regarding transportation systems that serve the site. He said that a mistake was made by the City in changing the eastern portion of the site from R-5 to R-12. He said staff could find no record of the zone change. Valone stated that ODOT determined that his proposal would have no significant effect on Hall Blvd. He also said that the City's Engineering Department determined that it would not significantly affect the local road system. Valone said staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- June 17, 1996-Page 3 • • In response to a question from Commissioner Holland, Valone said that the adjacent Summerfield property was zoned R-7. Valone and Bewersdorff then elaborated on granting of PD overlays. Commissioner Griffith commented that, under this proposal, there is a potential for 191 dwellings, as opposed to 190 that is currently allowed. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Frank Angelo, W&H Pacific, 8405 SW Nimbus Ave., Beaverton, OR 97008, briefed the Commission on the applicant's proposal. He said the applicant agrees with the staff recommendation. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR Clayton Wilson, 9045 SW Westlund Ct., Tigard, OR 97224, expressed his concern about increased traffic in his neighborhood. He said he would like to see any road connections to SW Sattler Street be moved further east, so as not to align directly with SW 91st. President Wilson advised him that this was just a zone change application but the Planning Commission would have another opportunity to look at the development phase at a later date. Steve Smith, 14802 SW 91st, Tigard, OR 97224, asked staff if apartments or multi-family development was allowed in an R-7 zone. Staff responded that duplexes would be allowed, but not multi-family.. Smith then said that the Mallard Lakes Homeowner's Association supports the application. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION John Arrigoni, 8935 SW Hamlet, Tigard, OR 97224, said he was not necessarily in opposition to the proposal, but did not want to see 2-story houses next to his home. He said he would like to see the zone changed to be the same as the zoning on SW Hamlet. APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL Frank Angelo addressed the concerns of those who spoke. He said the development would have a required density transition zone on the south side of the property and along Sattler, between the property and Mallard Lakes Subdivision. He said that building height and road extension issues could be dealt with at site development review stage. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Griffith asked staff if there would be a buffer area in addition to a density transition zone. Bewersdorff answered that there would only be the density transition zone, but that minimum setbacks would also apply. Commissioner Padgett said he agreed that a mistake was made on the eastern portion of the property. He also agreed that there has been a change in PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- June 17, 1996-Page 4 • • circumstances, saying that if that land was unzoned today, the most logical zone to put on it would be R-7. Commissioner Holland said it makes sense, that if there is R-7 on either side, the property should also be R-7 also. Commissioner Griffith said he has some problems with the traffic, but they could be discussed during the site development review. Commissioner Collson agreed with Commissioner Griffith. Commissioner Holland moved to approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment 96- 0004/Zone Change 96-0003/Planned Development 96-0002. Commissioner Padgett seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 5.3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0001 BLEDSOE REQUEST: Amend the text of the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan by adding a new policy as follows: 10.1.4 An exception to Policy 10.1.3 is that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density residential established areas. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10 and 14; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1 and 6.1.1; Tigard Community Development Code chapter 18.30 and; and Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 12. ZONE: N/A STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Ray Valone presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He advised that this was a text amendment to the Urbanization section of the Comp Plan by adding a new policy that states: "10.1.4 An exception to Policy 10.1.3 is that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density residential established areas". Valone said that the amendment would apply to properties in the Urban Planning Area. He said the City's current policy is to assign newly annexed property a zone that most closely matches the previous Washington County zone. He stated that this policy is included in the Comprehensive Plan, the Development Code, and the Urban Planning Area Agreement between the County and the City. Valone provided background on the proposal, saying that it was presented to the West and Central CITs in August, 1995. He said that both groups supported the applicant's request. He said that, in September, 1995, Bledsoe requested the City Council to formally ask the County to open the Urban Planning Area Agreement in order to amend the policy on zoning of annexed land. Valone PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- June 17, 1996-Page 5 • • stated that the Council granted a fee waiver and agreed to include Bledsoe's concerns during the next review of the UPAA. Valone said that requests for comments were sent to Washington County and Metro, that CIT mailing list members were notified, and that the proposal was presented to all CITs during their May meetings. He advised that Metro responded that the proposal is not consistent with the direction of 2040. He said Washington County was concerned about the impact on the Metropolitan Housing Rule and infill development. He said the Central and West CITs support the proposal, the South CIT supports lower density in general, and the East CIT had no comment. Valone said staff finds that the proposal does not meet all relevant criteria and referred to other concerns listed on page 7 of the staff report. He said staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of denial to City Council. Commissioner DeFrang asked how the County bases its zoning. Dick Bewersdorff answered that the County has a different set of zones for different lot sizes and densities. He said when annexing property, the City is required to pick a zone that is the most comparable. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Bob Bledsoe, 11800 SW Walnut, Tigard, OR 97223, presented his proposal to the Commission. He said he did not believe the staff report was consistent with the adopted documents. Bledsoe said he sees Goal 2 as being aimed at the orderliness of Planning, that the State periodically reviews our plan to make sure the City keeps up with official changes. He said that Goal 2 was never intended to be used the way staff uses it. Bledsoe addressed Goal 10, saying that he focused on vacant lands, but allowed for the consideration of redevelopable lands. He said he wanted to protect established areas and the quality of neighborhoods. He showed the Commission a Metro map of redevelopable lands. Bledsoe said Tigard should protect its established areas, including areas not yet annexed. He believes that zoning changes should apply to whole neighborhoods, not just individual properties. He advised that main aspect his plan puts a hindrance on is infill development. Bledsoe stated that the City's requirement for 10 units per acre applies to buildable lands, not industrial, commercial, or existing residential areas. President Wilson asked Bledsoe how he would response to staffs concerns about defining the existing density of a neighborhood. Bledsoe answered that the City PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- June 17, 1996-Page 6 can draw the boundaries. He said his argument is to give the City flexibility to preserve established areas. PUBLIC TESTIMONY No one signed up to speak in support or in opposition of this proposal. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Griffith asked if Tigard's area of interest was within the Urban Growth Boundary. Ray Valone answered that it was within the UGB. Griffith asked if there was a farm or forest zone in this area. Valone answered no. President Wilson said he sees County zones as really meaningless unless it's annexed. He believes the real motivation behind this comprehensive plan amendment is "no development in my backyard". Commissioner Holland said he thought the proposal was too confusing; that he liked the Comprehensive Plan as it is now, with individual zone changes. President Wilson asked about annexation procedures. Ray Valone answered that there is a method for City-initiated annexations (the island method), but it has to be approved by the Boundary Commission. Commissioner Collson commented that this way of annexing is not being used by the City at the present time. Commissioner Anderson said she agreed with the staff report, that this amendment is not necessary. Commissioner Padgett moved to recommend denial of CPA 96-0001, based on findings in the staff report and testimony. Commissioner Holland seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 6. OTHER BUSINESS Community Development Director Jim Hendryx talked to the Commissioners about roles of the CITs and the Planning Commission. He provided them with a copy of a memo dated May 14, 1996, that went to the City Council (Exhibit "D"). He said the purpose of the memo was to help outline what the rules and responsibilities could be for both groups. He summarized the memo and said Council wanted both Planning Commission and CIT comments. Hendryx said the purpose of the memo was to provide some recognition of the CITs for planning related items. Commissioner Griffith commented that the memo lists everything the CITs would do and asked what the CITs perceive the Planning Commission to be. He also noted that the CITs are always on the Council agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- June 17, 1996-Page 7 ; r • • Commissioner DeFrang asked what the Planning Commission roles would be for the items listed on the memo. Hendryx answered that the CITs shall provide input on park planning issues that involve Comprehensive Plan policies or changes to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning maps. He said the Planning Commission would include CIT comments in their deliberations and the recommendation would then go to the City Council. Commissioner Holland said he hoped the CITs don't get confused about the process by going directly to City Council instead of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Padgett noted that the CITs are the designated primary recommending entities to the City Council for some issues and the Planning Commission is the primary recommending entity on others. He said that on those issues where the Planning Commission is the primary recommending body, the CITs should go through the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission would go to the City Council. He said a CIT member could then go to the City Council as an individual and plead their case, but not as a representative of a CIT. President Wilson said that the role of the Planning Commission needs to be better defined. Commissioner DeFrang commented on poor attendance at CIT meetings. Commissioner Padgett said that every City newsletter should have map that shows CIT boundaries. Jim Hendryx asked the Commissioners how they wanted him to proceed. The Commissioners said they would like a couple of weeks to respond to the memo. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary ATTEST: President Nick Wilson PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- June 17, 1996-Page 8 ATTACHMENT B • • • A • �_r - :-= - 1 -; _�-�- {- :f, � , ��_ --- I�' I� o - 1 City of Tigard■ ‘‹i „.„ 1 IL (;" I /_ I _-r 1 ` . i C _ _C- , Active Planning Area ,� - _ - - = >r Y; � and Area of Interest Li_ -4.11/,r 041! a //Ord F , /-4 ,0,,,,,,,„:::, ,,,,,,,,,,f, -1 ) 1-----,-1---) '` --1 ‘ ,-- 11, ri-7 ,,, .,. \ rilir 1913,\ _ , _ ) -�- , 4 tti,Ifigf.';':1-44-7A # 0,i,#-� - { _._ ! I ,_�_ E ' �� tq' i t rIt� /�/`,' ., ii• f �� Area of Interest t1 HLi;i l ! � v , . 3 hI` �_ { I�r ` �_f_ 11A,( I-�_{-� �-/�'�- I- I __, � _�� _ �.:� /��\ �1�}�} c�:�y� k3�}� � \..,;ty� T..'�..' � �<.- s".tf�L;FF �Y,"i.. f � ��/ �[��-If..,� 9sr`._�� YYIt��n AV�we ._�\ ,-/��\ � - - I-----� •i �_� �_, -_ ___ ( . 7 ,, s,`''V; v,%. 1f'if \,� 44 t3, .'r -;c 7r rt. �+` Ji:, 4 A ,/ /�i: r: _I -_ i , i I {` I ,. rp , ¢ z b f, r-� .:ore f{ rti .N Plannin :ri ea�`t f -1_. -_J -- -- -) ( J - I 'J- .Stsy`,'.-Ifg„y'4; G1 �446.,`�.*i a rH fY . f, F ff 1 s;.-r,:i �' A, „� � � k_ �.I "\i = �_ 1, ---- - - •.1 I `, e ''Y l?z 3t6 ,r',� _ ;x + ,• i`.� i�,. � 7 't•"'rtL c ✓��, /' : a t g tt r _ �, ,s,R .u^ ,.'{,H' {r �y.�:eiv 5 F+t « 4 t r' # -r r s�f/�/i�� es p b� J s / --`,_. I �'_.._ f t '"!� _ sf 'sII! ��_: t ."y'kff-.s � `7 ^ ^4 ` F i n r �, ,I/I ► ,r ♦�[.,y�'`� '• Sz"r=d a i , �?� 1xr , t �, t , , Y. �r„ � Active Plnning __J'--•-� __ - ,++Y-- f'# '` . hi i fv-} '47# c"4`s:: �n . .1 yY - :4: r {1 t,.,,, .a7� ��i, '4":�.a.t , : rj 3 LC�! c ,A Ly7.5,757-7:,,f.:;/;1....:-.:;•,';J is'I'1'z'".../,;.. � alr` t �s t G I �• ,r 0 ?� t�l , r 1zzyT�4t aayi€ i .. f wi�kf ' s. .4 I' ': �$ .`�.$.; je3'x;�'�� x«, 7 :�3 :t� r � r 5°* :ra,.�4�n'^�,,.,.,•3,� �i � 6 , *�Jq .. f�'+,.1'F'u'x' 'y ..__ ,. . ' 1T UtTent 0 . , .f,��yq l ,.-„t:r,.2F '• -',4,, • to ,.: .e{ r' e fr. < ,'11,:�,e,1 i,�. '.t q' pj'�.,44! -.1, li s.(ifq- 4', "2 ' 1 ' , Area O�` de C /� 1 1 .--1-,. , F4 1F 1. 3 p .W. ..F,1 (.`,.,4, l'=: .^ ;'t 1. ',•: tfr 1_ ( I.".. $1= ,' ,. _,4t ri ' '� `'� ',t Lw a},#d ': ; thy;;" r TtR t x ,t, ,✓�' •;',�l ?4.. •'�} .:r». � rr. "r tt EF F 'L1 t .e xs ,,,t r ..J.�► a �,.'*,' !� I.?r j "k.* t e -u �{{,, <k, ?.fit - �-- - � s . . « ; j . „, ., ,.. _ y, ,_ I \ /1 i'j7'rgg3q ?rt{ ( J, r .�.•LY '`�aR'-Y��}' `�N 1� �f6`k4 r� JjT' '{ Y` fj'?-„�'}4W. '.� f7:',T.,"F1• /' 2 • e +' #. .;7 ' - J Y ).� .r i%I i W}x 3# '{[,,.'''y,-r'Q It ,*7-.' ,i Y c,�"" 3f'-'7'1lJr-'°.•c`i,..-Ja v. {-3h t,n, ,:". .t..+3 k,.' ,. j.�'., S. 3<µq„ t .�.- , ,, S ; �,,),;. ,.s-" -_------' y I .tK4rR`•:' 1f`�i14►4�2, ;`k'<i. ti;�}i : y .� "a+w�1s'`=7'+ m-k4,"� 1� ti l.wl�' ;Y r7'3,, �y 1 f �`t3c .,. rs,i i'� i"/ Ff, s s�a.(,i1... _ ,,,i�3s t., i.4'.w `:1 ;x..u7J ? 1 yE fi f ',,'} �.? "r r,t 11,- . i jc.a ,,:i. 4 fir, ' z# '4, '1`3z j;-^3,4,:1"'%.1-7v7"',..\ r 1 r L________ • t os �»L,. --.. .. `;:' �'",3:FM z,...' ' x: rL 3, 4'.:.-4, ..4' d r. IC r d" 4,=. «t t ' - '' F __ l a E - 3«'"T, .,,.'�. . i4 $jf` siCS (' s " - ' ti L�, 1�,�t.• 4 r, . { lkati o 7fLlG•.f 1, fir- p �^xr✓ j!,. s� o %•8 ter» ,fd St n .•,15-.,..„,L.-,t,.,;;.:••.-:, t.,-.1,-,..r 7f"3 r'.,.s; y ,..F� . \.__� .,JiRY ivtt t ?i: i- `S r r„ r£1 y,. f v, .`. ' s ..Y, :..Ir�±7 " 1 L ;k\N '' tY,ri '' :.4 . I 1:2 441 f 3 : r•- t � ? •r � tr,_<;.,1(,11'r 4 #; sr � � �ti�:. �" ry f " ' 5 /iiiPFPFOrY.-:4;t4,411AZF' .;:! ;41;Me`2' , Y' 4, ,r ti,� 1' E ::: -„ _ `fit : � r 't.�. . y e ; � ,-r�ik '3.Y ^x } a t� j ! < � d "�f 4 6t� t � �,. � :I..�!`�!�% � 7^»�,gr j,Sr��sp t:j 4 ca � �, , *t "!� ��, f .;2` ?. 4 ,� „} i �s x i z' ..,,{:per �4. �1!4 �� t t , ✓" I f +93. f ,:i_,411A..> ; t` - _ f j:sie ,, ..-1, ° . ,. k.1"s,,,y./3 1 @,1.4 �� E ''''41,-' 11‘_. �« etN t .r s ' J \\„,,,s i-3i'.4' `41,6.4': .'y rr,i,atj t j(°S;(} [T 'y�i,,;ii% 1E<rf «»FS E } �'''',..1C-ii:,,`+.1? � ^'I,',', : 7J,,.,i z. ,; l,, t�• •;' .1 �. � `ems o r1„� ;1°i", �. fy� 4t7 •., <�Y,��..i„�7. fi��t`�f,r�q-,1'r k {'.y;-,,,!,-,' li'r"z.,y�.��i'lr#4'•v� #� .b 3c -1'1 1 {��1' �•Z 4f %'"..r �'1. a. '� i.': _,. � �i _ ,d.,, --,,,.'' t,' t s�; t f.'TC t {f a.r-..;,?.Wr,f-17.:.:4-2 f•:3 fi,!kit2 , 'r #- .i: t YJ 1 •!:.;-' Ff. '1 4 l-�- ."t, .s et {<s-e/ T--r7�f i 4 T �. /s 4',, .o'°."/, ►c Y6tiir'. :' " ' e.,�,. ';2 s - �tL�'' ' ti ii: c.. ,»�ww t t,.r efr3% :a •eE elyo.._.Lll •�. a yr."J .✓ f 1� h �� 41 L_, :,}i..��'.l�l 5a t,C'a� f 7i{r� .CF;�m'T hr. :'t4,%r ��. •O O♦• O♦. F" ,, , {� § .A � . 5 '' 1:„!--- a; ti. - h > R�t r 1 r , xt._Jdt^` 1/ • • :4;,. 'o-o••o o•►vt 'sift Y.� ', '�- °. t a ' I • 1 v H`!'F' •-" i ►e°ee i 1 i 4� °o°o°o°�.:::o o'o°o° r F,1 -r 4(..„4,4,„,,::yc �: f s� r fir, ,-.. "?'-',4,j 1,4 r4, t I ,r .�eo• • r r►•e r o :fitt__ li' �r' r 1t� �`"'}.� $� F'•F �� ♦♦O♦1� �''-� O O 0�0�0♦•e O O O >� � LJ� .,'� t/-.. •, r ♦ .v-x-�,, �x'� � ..00•e•♦ • s'.. .oe �000 > ��z YY � ��l,, wr 1 .. � -, ,r. r'� "s' I B • :r�_ ♦ " 4...",......=:,,,,.:� #r eaaou► reeoo A f i`k r k r { r l a?' a �,.o� ,t.4 oe°.•Oe ems° "i'oeee e..yo-•-. : •:,,,jr 1` ,/ ,c 4; r } _ �� O �N:;17 �,�1i ��OO ee♦ .•e0400000 e,♦� 01{«.?'r �`��y� l �y,!:F,"r afl.�f�� ,S r.._ ,� s '�Y'�a,7•. 5 , - -- - r z�,„ I ♦ , K«su71 ••e••oe••eo•o••o ►• f�' ��>#� z �n ars I ,y f t y r � Ff: _ _ _ : '' of y„) Z;a; k : •O r -•°•°•••••°e°000•0e°°O4•"�..iO.•'►�f.e ♦l?..!,`. c i £'�� , 1kt 7-,.f 1 , 7.1 a- (' ,x'71 - I ,x,f �tk i`lrt�� ,? ►oo•••o•o•••wee•o••oo• �. „-,'` .4,"�� ,t� +� e �.f° �'{u yt � t'� r x _ .�. 'i .- ' � � xl f � F '* 000/0.00e0♦ w♦.►0e 000♦ #..A,'?2"Ny i.. t� � o � �# Ja ll� -, 4• rx� ,1 h I - � � s�7{�ray� ;�,:�kf. ,< t M' ••oe•o•••►•a'••ee•oo►• ti. 't�' .�sraw,zrra�,�x��z,: �}c �,..,• r a J� i a..: ,��.� \ - - - r.t .,c �F; a♦•• •o••••ae••o•e,., . !;f;`� �,',rnry`� a�� su,�,• .:•s .�.. ,,� � to d , �.a �'4 ,r.�, s,'�`^.�I c-�`.i f, j:o•e•••e o e•♦•e♦•o e o♦ �' b ?Y,e. .3s ,;xrt>.�fi� t {�rr�1.✓'�.,,:f`^ C. >.;, t< ,,� ;,jt,a `'� � ' {{ !, 1:' r °°e°a°oe°e e i o°e°i=•e::,►.o°eo ? ; < sf� s J zq c�,i n } i g. y� £a. r d 3- >r , .#.w'{.,4•e•e•o•••••o♦••eoi• ,' ,..$,i �n^w .e 0 , t'$$ fF ':1rN` f ,k _ ^, a a: e x;. •f��: ;, •, ♦o o••♦♦•a•e••e o o f .�L t'x,t! �,. t,�., r ,.fix i - ,.,a: ;'r „t ",f 3, , „ r'; "•�; :a°i°.�e�o�e�e•••i•ei°ic�e��i°/ z�% .�,y;')� :�:,,, -u� -s ,{ y�. s s.�•.r1" ;, r '"t i _ , ��{�� n¢�'1�j«hl" x5 J5�,Z,. .ur�'� � 1� t sr! nt Y�.f � 4��'. C` [i - \ '€ '*r;'aFX v,-f#;*z ��'s,", s�(Lti" ` '��ic f.t# 1�,.,M1 s�O 0 0• ^�, �r r,it •,.3,saa�. �k�,k•w'Lfe �.�`J(;fi,,#a°t� ;,Y'_1[,cr�t'F� �.SN! .i:f.""". ✓ F.t.r r �. �`,�k.. • � ;_�.: '� -i� I 1:,t: , �• ♦ r " ri' t,f, ist;. ►°•e oeo ii f.:f r 'i •f'If+tY-'sn ;;ttt t&okw, �` f ?3? !r r U'�f � ,b yly?r r,'1 •,r •♦O♦4 O O t. �d.r,:, rt.'L3;'r' a3 s�,!'y .r{t,,. x t; ;Jj• 'ri.�Q" .x t g?i, J rl�. f r - - �� "i,�i'► .� �f��,�r�,.' �z3 �: ,. ,�_.ky �� *��.:;:�`�zr "I ��L ,� �i� {J � t z �..` R �'".. 1,44;3-4.,,y r� ,i � S�n^`•w y"�"S• ,.� _o, �� r'L�} 'z F ! ,,,,r7,... ,� + �.� .rly (,d�.,2`.�^� �°0'�. v ar .is e-, I a r w�r a11:11.;:111)11P,,,,i:4Fii,g_759,YSd`3 '' Z � f!!" y ° o•e°O:+�pr�: .i. ov y z „r ,a ` ► t�yg „sP': -';,d .•.°• t► E.°i , , r a,.,. k i - 6 :I -s .,Bh fir. II. . )..,:�' ,c ..N,. ror,^,,I,4�! k-,,u z'7 p, '1 r Xr. , a-/ r"(• .,1 p .'. x .jf "'tz*.•[ `•t*'•"$3 t ;F�rYCf zi : r f4 , 'P:a ,,r,1 't� �. ii . fi.,.y�r� fi i r{�j. �E s�„:tl.!��,.z�..,� , a ,tc iSi id r2 � �L I,.Y � .-� � �x sf�•� z t'i.�t fi* #fit c: Ert�1`� a ��tfi '� u-'^-t gym. -r�, •, .^ I �,�'f � i� � r � � � �:: ;t!�y" r 1 q t.1'! i a I �*1/.. 7 : zi1 au�.* ..0 a:%rsa «� it t1Y..3 '7.Rr,.'3e'. f� ( I - l - 149 �1..,�F>.+�"-i� ,r�„�17 ro- r h�-R., e,,.� d'r_ r S', -..��.• f -rn t ( I L !_ _�_ - / :'k.it ski .4 i ,4.- r �1 -�` ,,..qL �f'' j e .r ---._� ••°O°0°O•' �i '� r''^n$'� t 3' i k J �k"f�? PY 1 ,r j 3, L � - , 9'" , r i j - (; .-° m•►oo o. ;4'Ff.1'�w�W,r` x r f s i r ...1'1.-.:-.;;.;,. t f 7 0°e°O°0•O•°'VV.• tt - L ,t. 1 ,<, pis t ; ' r• £ ., ' _ ; J"/� ♦0040000•♦ '" !`N4 r`•� X�dre .{ r frf/ _ _ I(-'�'[', 0••.•00000 uE 1 s 3 i I f C1 •eoie�000 9 ' i I ;f I ' ,44,11,0,4:4 Oi°o°o°o• k �r ,-i, m t ?t#'' A ,r1 1 f r ,4►,• ' s 3 { i° ' I -..1.:_!:'r �_-_ ►•0.00�•CO♦:OOOOOe000�F+✓� �� t1- ;L`"} ►0 (� r'S� f3 I • ••e•0Y . OOO 2 ;•• •■♦••• / I i H s. - 06/05/96 _:,,,,,.,. w hv . .... ,.',.,:::, ATTACHMENT B , . . -....../ I I5 i [1i I -.9 '- J -,cr'iLiC , ----- •i -- / ---- and \-: -11 _:_ ' 11,--17.1 __\ (, --'--(.\ , : ) ) I r-1 -1 1 _ r---- --E- _ - I1' i• .., t 1 I L\ ' - - _i , • ..r- , )77-_, -,„.„-, 1 1 1 _, ._ ,) A \ , /---/-1-L- - 1-3-4,--..-- t ; ii,c 1 . pul., AL.1.4i,3 _rt;,■ *.,9"" 07.1 _ tovs RD Are-Fr;allagonafnrdli r- ' -, .---;--- - 1 _i__-:.1----//„.,„:./.'„ ,)/ -[ witivittA6tz 1 1 ..--- I ' -,i -,1 I I--I ,/!-------- 7 _ i 1 >-, -_ 1. r I Active Ci ty of __,.__ K 1 , , _,.... - __,_______ _,_ i___„__f_____y ,- 1 >'',. % ( (-1-7 \ r•-•-:killt;i1141-41?,1 '' of Al ' ' - ' s- - t ,----------- ------11-- I (-I - i .. I I--.1..--x'-\---: i i ' 1 \ - . \ \ ;__I I I -.1k•f•ssi...'i r • ' '`'-' I i i-' '-;;'''''1'-'1 rl''sql111.-"%i /4 01/I f/,),/, 7, Area of es Interest \ \ _ /\ __ / K1 .x __ , , , ) ,-, - I. ,,,„.„.w..4,,,,,, 7 -..__ _1 -- -- i .\,\ ._ ---------- I -', ' ,_,__ __ i __.i i_. I n , I-1 IA.____ - _,-/-\) r ,I. tit-111-•-tir..,.'7,),,,_'',.,i'l.;11 e-40 ,, 11 - • 1 --(- ''',\ dtA.A.\1".,. '..;',.. ...',1-,-,1.`;,i,....14:,;-1 /r4;01. 4/ 4 L.,,,,,,L,L..,--.,-...., ,..-,...,_.. 1-'--1-1---i --- - , \I-- ";' - I- / --1--1- ' --1----------i ! T-- __v-' ' II 1-- '---:c - ..1''' \ ,t,is,5""7-T0-- \',.,! HI'r •-•!:-tit.f.l.r. q)-4..,;1" / .1.or. VirEit ;' ,----1-- ---17.__ ,._, 1 1 _ 1_4 ,_____ \,--i L_ \ ., _. -..•. .4K-„gtt,......-, -0.... ,,,,,. N \ - ; .14-41%, -.,., ,;,, ,:l , , iir ____ I --r-J-1--., _ ;____ r_i • L --- t , ,1 • i.-T-- 1 .!;.t.,),e1 ' V T ' 1----- / '-(- \1 \ t‘A---1- 1- _ . --.! i _Li_ : --_- I--' --.e..-'''11;14,;:kt ' ''-a,";ilail' ..,;'-.N 1 - _,. .„,,,,,,,.--ryi.,-,,v,q,.,,,,,i,,i,.,. .„,,-;10.1,- -v.i.i ',.)-,,kKk'';tr-f..."1*-:'• ---.-.7-::1!,16, rAreAra,i '. _„:,,._, - ,,,i ___ ----I ,---., , • ,,,,_,,s,..-141,,,, tr,,,:qr,v,,w.,_:1----,---,,,,r.v,: ,lc, .,1',,,,,,,, ,..1.i',i.. ‘„,..,•,. . ,, .1 .. ..„?..,`,Er r ,, ir Avai. , 4,,,,, ,:--:.;-, - \-__ -\,\<, \c„--:I I,,1 ____ - \:.,Y --)117,- -•P'';0,1-4., :',:i,' '10*i:‘,::IL%r,i'!'. 1.. - 1,:,•,\:-,f,-,,L''4'-',.-1,1,' "•1:1 ',f'1....r._ -,- ' 4-','.,,'-,==''T7144 d .4I—F---,,,---,--z--,, •-•'it ,,,,,,,,,--'" ,. -, - ' __J (------(-•-' -- - 1''-i r- i '- /--__------: ,:s4 13;11hAscr--1_,-4, '.','";;;41;-:1,14.41.;„flkt,,,i'ir ,c.....,":.;`..`",e.114, -;;;.'•,'",:lis:s•M;"1-,t'''.-,1,N;s:.',;:, i'. .--.„).-.1.7';';'•V't,t,--;'-r 17.:*:7-;;' ..: --: _ss .:V , , - ,t,;.,-",It- .14%*rf;',14-,e1r,P;1-=',., ,,A.ois;-Mit 'it?"*-,-t•-;-,:,;-;r::1.1fr'Nr,tu-;7;;,•f•tv;.t.....-yst -.4 ,N<‘•,-;;;,, „, - .4-, ., ;- ..., -,:tr„, .,,, „ -1 0,4'',-,.,...,,-ii',t1(r•S‘t:.r.v.,...).,,,,,fr,'w,"'`r 4.,-,t>,',`I''.:.-1-4,-' '1-:`,.,u‘`<'ir:-‘,..,, .'r'.,Ir''%At'..r,,-- .,...N , ..*,-:` ''' '' :::'-li ,:: PArcliatyeannuol rimutg:ssi ___T-, ) ,d,...,L-...14,,4,41,,itit.i,i1,....416,,,,,2,.,,,,,,,,,-:!,:,,;:141,r,;-•..i.iss,a,,, _ii,,•11.1..,i,-arz_,,41L.,,_..., ,,,,,,,,,,,L,.,N.:,„, , i• , - i , ' ,, ,tr. _', -e;;;;,,,, _I.. .,../1 en APCtlani:neing _________,s\ 7-1-T7 rl..-1 ct'D it4 4?1..4:4 :,, .4;.,,l'f,..4.. n.,it-f'■!-.4t_X.:,,,..7.4-„ALTM-My:.4.5irr 3 47-,,,,--,=irrilt,"7,7;F;'^-: rIIVI Itri,71,'*-1.`" I NI: f...7",■.,, iii;-,64,,vif14.F: ,,' , ,./..-1?t,,,,j• ; , ,, 11 r2/- \17'i ji \<--•-j', g'`.1,;,.''',r 2,"''6fil;;07;'jjEll'4-.Atitr.rilEki'1,11-1.4.'■,,4,tt,'>5 :,,,I., n ;Ay: i-,;:-,1,1:- e.4. .1, . :\:;,iN -- - v.-„,-. ,„ / k de:Current -- __1-7 , /-',....,>,, \ ,4%':"Iiii;'4':',.t.:;+iii.1;:ft:Aili:':1;.5":4.'';Z,+:77;"=1-47-1,1ier5r1:1-11'11:4:i;:iii.'!::: ,L'ii'''.:1:4113.'i‘l le:^‘"''';'5' 1‘ 7)''' ''i`X\``,„ ' ''''''''<'''.: :* ' '''' - :'' ' ' :I I , — \ ---1 LI (-1---,) N\') .4 ,il,,,-414 l'sr7:1-,)11.;.:!,,,.;11.1',',..4,-..;•;.„-', :',;s..•;,:, ,s,,,,..;..,-,',,r,• ;L,ti;-.. .t.;;;,..;_s:_„,„--t-„_,....-,.;,..,--;,r, .., , ,,,;,'-t").„4,4,.).41.--...,1 -,, 5, ,;,....,,.,..-'el .- , , ' - ,'- -1._:=-__I \ Vo-ck L.,t,!,,z i ,.1 4,”','`I.-"Al:1,4^,41,\e‘li';',:f-'iTr'.1,r0 ;1;,..,^';<17,171■'1-'1.1"''.., ' t .1,,,,,te,,,-...,,, ,„,,..'.:',41,,,,, Y.Ii."',H,,e,,,i ,:, ,''. r ',,, "V\S>„....-.)‘ ',■ ,i , , • j,, 4,1%, i.t.rSirjr,"pd:;,;;,:/".;r:1171P1>ki."..:.,."4_ -';;;,:i, 4-3";',411fEj;1,0 ,,‘11.,frt`^',7i:.,1"4,',g'tfg7 V','''1 r;'I ..;.;... ______--._ - I / ,, 1r,tili7LEiti-,f i2e,,,, ;_,-,:;1'1;;:121'1.11r-if.-Tr'''''''=; '411 Is:Ilv:".;-",')1'.,-,!4"t,7;,,i, ',AS?:0),.,;:z'c-1: tir,fr, -,.,. -',e,:i'1 3S=-1 l'',--1"1 ' ..'":4 '',I•:'4!:.-- 'r,:i4 '..-11 41411',",'f IPP,1.--,,tt.a -' '01`1:',Fr : .* ' `. ,t Az:,) ,1,_<6.?.. ..,;:4,•,1},-, :,/..,,`-;-Ae,...,-,--1' : 4.i.- iis,:it; •'.., ,,.-.2.:F.:, '.-- _..r..,-`''41 x ‘;(,,1 I; '• ,, ,. ,...",' a ---,-*. ■ '4'4,14 ; ''''f.i--40','", ''''''"INjf:',...14' ' ''''i,;."13;7,--'Tt. ' '1":1-..,,''',,*. 4,k4,-,•^'^'S''',,,";:;t1"ir7.1..;,:r ,411,4.t ,.71:, t, ,,•■■•-/.7^ 't,1 ' '' \,,4‘ .1 .--;'r• 4" ':' ___,, 5 ;)-4,.1;i.,4,-7-...,,,,y;t,<ir,,-a.-i.--1 Ir.,--',;,41.,, / ..,, i,j,„,4<';t..z-v t-,',i,, • ;:i f.Y.,w,:.;,,,,,, t 44,,'f',''S I:4 '{'-,,,,Y-;,,,,:,--;-,.14:, e-,7-' It.,-,:' *;,1 ,,;,,, - , ,,,.., ' :, ,,i '.,;',',•friz.;,.•---...e, . ..„, 1%, . \.‘,,- ., ;,, ,- ,:-.; ,i,',IaEl.-, 1,1—, ,.:,111,..;,,,... ,, ,,,,.;:,...;,,,,,,,,,,, ,, , .,..., .\,. - , y 41. 's. lb."*.I...44p,`*';•;206:`'..-1,.--,r.-.7;4,;r--,1,,•f;,r.i..,1.,,,r ;,.1. ,,, ,,,,,,,,_.,f ,-, ,,,„ .,„ .,„ i-1-/ •:"f ,1,„,1;1f51, :- 1,1%.„3,,,,:i{:v441,..,,,,,,,,ii,xt',1,..f. '„, . J,p;,,'...1._;14.`,.:.•-•:::,-.111.:frx.;:::.:.;.:.).:04:ks.,„,-;,; .,..1,:;,.;:„-,,-:,/if'.,,,.,:. ,,, , . ,,?.., ,,,,,,..4„,,tri.,.,. vss„ b' '-;',U2fitgill'.--4-;(tki'li',,-..--•Y. 13 ilt,-,,:.;'-',4,-1-:;;;X;ii: v. 'i3::::::::,:,,::,..x",,,z,,,;4:,-- ,,,, `,,i,r; /,,,-. ..,. ,, ;;,, .,, ,;4. , ;,, .N,N, -1_ 1 11;;;,--:=4., :IL:',,..:,4 1,!,,,,ti, , , ..: .:,...;;17.1,:tx.:,,,,:4 jj,),:',J,,,,,:4,:4W:0:4.:■:4::,4:tr,•`;, ''''':-,,4''''.''.'1.."A.2' .. -i 09 a....-. ;'...;:+,v1...-ItrVt**;1:);-1..1'.; ;.j:4'.;71-1..-1.W., $0q11.7"ii,:::::::;:,,:4:1!:V,IVI:P; lilt„,;74,11r::.: ;4','; \ ..' ' ',f'..--. . .li'k ‘,;■..1,i '",,, '' ',',;1 A 4'04 r'''' '''■[ "Ve...+:..ok •V*******0.•:•?:I%4■.4. . ..,ill>';`/Ci='j .';:-;"7/T4'; l',''.."- ''' '' ' ' ' ' r :''' ' ..F- -flk,„-4.•,,,,4:',..:,; ‘i. ;..,14:iiiiiii":::: ::::::; iiii,II:151t:Si' t--;',:ii-L.,: :;-;)f.',',' f ,,,,„, „,,, ...........:.:.:+,..x.+:,.:::,..:7,4--.,%:,,,,?-- ..,.,..,-.,,4.-,,, ,,,,,‘1, -.,c,,,-,,r,o;.;,,,,,,-..,:. ,,, ;7:, ., .-4i , - . • ;•11,....-..: '-'•=2,' -. '. ‘i•s-- ) ( - , '_''' :', ' is,,,l, ,__0. ; ,, 4...v4N,„,#4.4.3,.t.14,t4,,,,..4.e 4.,,,,,': •„`t , ,' f' ,',': : / , '..-,it,,1: I ..,,t. ,i, j '' ' 1,;'1 '• ,•*.\Y, ' . q - .1/4,,,\ tic 1'-'.,"'sr'-p;.--.' ',;'Is ts.°<•••••••••0 is_.„.„,;.,....„..„.„,„4,,,,,,, .,1,N,..:u.I,1,. .s•i, , 4,' ,41,,,',/4.,..'4..; ;-ill'i 4 11 " ,,.!„'. tc-:''',.'_;.1, .1, 1 ' ,r,. . ' 'i,,',1 ,,-}',.1.,,,,,,, .,r;,t, '..-;-,,,i'...444-.****644;"•;?..•,,;....',A4's.b•.;'.',;4..2;1.1 .1;,--.,`,11..,-.to,U 417 `," ,r-",.<,-.1,,:,t; 'I, - ' ,'",; 1 . '.47t.•.. \------: — - 4 r;fri;14:i.,,V,r11:t' '':'/41i'14;1:114 ....t1,7),-',-TT'?':Fr:1::::::::•:.6%-ze2.,'•)=-.:7.,J5 ,11-'; rii.,:....:itc-r''5,'4,,,;(:-.1-,,,, ;:74,,,,,*‘11;•-pli'.14,i'i,:,..;,ji.:•.:.•...:.i,,,!.....,,:, . l,:i_ i ,tft ` •:"",flifl,).,41,'::',7.,1f;(11.!.;:.;1;cili._.:°:::,..;::::;:i.;::,;'),;:::„.f.:-,i;?,,,,t;,jiii-li:i•e,,..;,,--:j.'.,.,:;/11,,,,,:ra,,,,4,i;,3,-ea:::;,-14„-,-.,•,,,i;,_,:.;.-.,,,;; •i- 1,..,,c,: ' '-,, :'",:,, ., ,, ' -' ,.• v• lig.„.i..?4,1r.'g.;,!:,?1,,iiir ,g-;:tr,:;:',:.,.;:J.:,-...ir.t:;;;;,..4-1:1,1:1'.4..,-;:ikiir-'-;:,;,.,:.,:tile,p,e-Ti:7-',7::,,,-1-1;m1-.11-..--,:;-7, ni.,-_.:::-:i -:1;''',''4 • .' '‘-'i••: ''- ", '' ' i -- - j,",-/,'"-* fol.t;;,,,..it:tiil ,riz,,,,,if,,.;'6;,,:9,0F.t.f3:,1n...NOY.,_;o1.1.i;ft:q,,,, ,•=';'-= ,,,;',.,,,,,,,',, lit(,i.,`,;.z.1 n'-v, .‘1,,r '-. ,, , ,, :,..,•,% ,,,,;„:.,.. -; • - -,,,; :. *. : ; I 1111"114f25::e.,4); A t°'1-$:::ELi,:7,7-`,7 '?`444.77z...1.:1!;:rj,1:4;,1 ,,!L,'4:11:li:',:;''''5,!..-";:,.. *Njr ,1;;;,,i;i;11 '','-_:',If,4,-.-: i;.1..,',.---,----,i-,„“ '--,';'-,,,'._,:,,-',.--,• ';,:",,, . ,. ,,I41,` 1 • _ 7 / .'77. .' /r161'12144 int'i•"!,11:1,Viiilld.'21i..!;:iiq.:4.;?!-It.::11i.A.Ii:4,:;:4`;'-ii.f;i,r1;;1;;;7":4"-iiiiii--P1:;''':;:r:45.;i":11;,;1:,.-,1..,":;ilit-''''':::14.--,4,-4,' m / - / , '4 '42'.1L'''i -'' 1 111111:t;'''I'Zt,14-g.:;'.1::: LI.111':1 t!'7::::::i1:1;';',!(1..::;*-1;i#::;;;;;":;iii:1,17-71-111-t,;,11::-:Iiiiii;".11,":-;:::;;,1:r;ritriii",::::•:".;.:!;1.11:::11-i::::::;':1;"1":11:1:1-: :1': i''',;::-;',.;',I.C.;:;"•"';1'f:1.1,H*:,c''';',,1::::-'1::::::": - , , \ itil.P.'4',..,,,,i'Vr,4"-''''''.1tft.,,,,4.14-1iT:::i711.4,111-ilitt.f?e7,!f:.1j,!,'•5*(4 ItIli-fi` ='-r...-,,,- I,'',,,d,:.7- •, ,,'.71:','.;' ''::' I ,,,;');;',•,,j; "'rt''''. ‘11-4.11'1''If''11'3%-:'15A''''51'd,,:LI,l''tc,..'',1.4;1.-;,/';i;';;.,•-41 4'. "-,-I '‘;-4-' .=r7e;::.!,<.:11 s-,1 '- ' %.- -7' ,r;,-,,,1'4;,•1,--'"1"---i-?"51';14'1,;-'• . tr,,^4;4frr IA I , 1 ,.4•41. ii 1 ,.•,;.1.4.21.70Ettillti ...,..4,t, .., ,440.2 ':,;,,k41.- \._1 )! 2_ ; ) _----- /-,'re:P . ,p - - '4, .-(-,4-,1•.,)4,1 V' 1, (., 1;1',";:i'-`,1' :', .1 ; . .-',4 4...',.•,,,, ,; . ;;; -,4 .. . s, 7, - •._,__I . ,;.,-- /f.„:!-:".,..4,, - , ';-4 •,-• '4') =Ai * t <4, 1 --,r,„i ,i, 11 <, .-. , - '..,<<, -\ p„ _ , •0•+`•%-`.; '4 " -' !Ii.';''''''''.itth',./1,3 =:Z."4■;.tit.,,.:.,,,.' r, : .li .,_ ... ,,, 1 r 1 , - I 1 ___ , -'. _ 1 i s, 1 - i. ' -1_ ------ :.:,......:,.....:.:.:........ , ,...,........ t241..4.,' "tt ,' 1■••4 ,".il t e 0 0 0:0:0:0 i i I 1 7f.,.::/Il -.,1__—--- I _, \ -_ \ L____, 4m,.. Frf _I 1 - .:_' ,I::.::t.:::.•..:,::"!si'S> _ 1 , , I i 1 --- , J _..)_ _1 \ .. , ,•••e.e.• •.:•1'......4 _ \ -1 ;r.; , '44444-:.: .:P, __j _ ,_ ..--......fli_ .4.:•:,:,.:4 - -i-i go"- - -----1 c _ 1 , ____,.. . , 1 11,11 - i? , 1 ) _ 1 ( , ii , _ } _, _ :._ 1 /, i i_____ 06,0511 N j 1 I Ilk ' \. / 0 ,. -,. c:\arcvienAupaa.apr • ...,_ __v ;-, inqt Island LiildOp -- t17 ).-- i_.:-_-1_11__ _____. .. r R u... _ I 0 \ i__. __I I_LL . _i__.1 ..., . _ __ ..3. _. _ _ _ r-ispli .......q -41., HI:\ ---\_.1 - il i-ra"1"E •-..„ , I" -- I- I 111/1---- - - --""--: ---- 4." r_i;,_::\ i 1— -- 1 li li fif iiii_'/----- ----- • _ .2... .. _ _ _, ILT_ _ Timm__ II ,. 4 (_- . -7N1 .---_ - 1 -7.• - _ _ _ _. _.......... ,...„... _ __:=:--,___ -•... .# \ ' •41-13:C '' Cr1/ - . - - ' ...-- • --- 11 :I II / 1 r• r id 1 -- e4#4 ,, .,../ f. , 1 __,r-- , .,,,„ Al■ 0 • \ ,,U? _ ,1 ,.. •-- .,iv 4,Qz--7:- 1 '---"---- --ri - .-ii att\t.)---1\-1--i-i- - --i - 7 ----Q --'7 - ., i. • ' -,-.1:,I.-1 ----se---7.- 7_1 ..._. .1. TUE. .-al . gillf,:-.-1.-.,_ LT- -7_ Z jf. .1 A Al: I 4e## ii41 / N■ ---.: _ :-,,i-itiiiiir.. ---- 111_1.1.1/, rolill[17/ rAg !IA., -H,1,--7 ; ,,--f...-_, . ..„..1,,T.,-\\_,:\9,- .2---1-----.., 1.-2,--.. ///..-- •,-,-> ., ..,_„, __ , , „ 7.•_/„.„,... , , v, , „:_:„.__ , Jr . ... ,, - , . ,___ i __ •64.44, i N ylks.,, 4 x___, 71_ jili.L...L,11- .--../ zid/ A, i 1.,,,. -4.- 1\-i ..1:11...r1.-11 •--- (./.0 i'' , < . ,.,-,..__ L 111/ , -- - , 0.. 11 -41 /., ,, ,.„.. )- , { . \. 1-, LLI , ,..\ . .T. T !,(7, -• - / r - -.1-- - _-_:, 1 ., .....: -4* :-.:.:1 -, \,.:, . -4):„; fri.::\_ ,. .. ...._•, .._ „_,".._ - , , I _I_ ...-- :III] :-.--9■-.. #.\1-\'' "( :1':-.'IN 1-1- 1:.±.-------g.---1--.H---r.frics-L----' ill- ' - " il -- - s` • # '--- \ N.-.;1 . -\ : 'tiriiitE-_-_ .7_ T --1-- 1-:[-f- -------zr--- T..[A--f--,, , „ , __ _. , , A, .**1....# ---- 6*-; --.-- ---4-'1'-'-'.1 i-• 1-4 --:•17:1•1-17--•-•-c-71"1-1-1 --.-.1' a '• • ."1117 -- - i s',Ii‘,•■• ".-1 • 't,/ A Ailiiiallaw- - -77-- -1. ! -.' " ---- ----.1 -tilii_1 LI - - '•- •.. • .v - - ji :.-_-___.. i-Tik -T.::_-__::___;----; :::-.H‘,:. :FA66-.4___,_-\ •____,,, ■ra - - 4-• 0511 - ----" 7 / ) ---- 4- --.E.--T-' -----Elr.4-1---"--/-"E i 1-14\1111Tilithl-'":--:2:-:- - • ---- . ' ■ - ________ _cr _ :. ,.___. -_-_:F1:1 ., .. • ---- . • -- ii. • 1-- 1 r IT r " I , - , 1 ! -...------ :7° -- .------ --iy-- -- ri--- - Ti I. .. . ...L. .....1.11 I - ,/ / ,a k • I- . - aEiliEtli= .1 . A 1 ..//17.-1.-ii . - AMINL .: ,_1_::::: -......... .._.. ......„, ---- -------- ----,+-icy-.-.LIT- 'IT. _DI \,:j._-_ -E- 17-: . ; ,:?_. _...]___________--- 1:- 11 -fly - -1 •1 1:4-----_-);:lwriAr-r-T-7..-, ,.. \\ ., . r_.. --1 2 „ -,1 _ - 24'3. is- I i VA CAN'T (),-4.■%•13. AC., z.- . 12- ) • 2:2- 1 • • • p• +t JUL 17 1996 fr' I Bob Bledsoe Ii - 11800 SW Walnut Street u ►--j =- =J Tigard, OR 97223 - --- July 17 , 1996 • TO: Tigard City Council RE: CPA 96-0001 Rebuttal of staff report (June 5 and June 8) As expected, the Planning Commission recommended denial of CPA 96-0001 . I have never heard of the Planning Commission going against a staff report in recent years . The staff report is consistent with the philosophy of both Tigard ' s and Metro' s staff . It is NOT consistent with the adopted documents. My argument in support , submitted earlier , was based on the adopted documents and it is still valid . Please read my earlier paper. This paper will only provide rebuttal of the staff report and their negative evaluation of my reasons in support of CPA 96-0001 . Page 3 "Land Use Planning: Goal 2" Staff ' s statements in this paragraph are arbitrary and extremely arrogant . Goal 2 is mostly about orderliness and comprehensiveness of planning . The provision they cite is a very small part of Goal 2, and it is a provision that is aimed' at insuring that cities and counties make periodic review of their plans . Staff says , "public policies and circumstances are changing" , when what they are referring to is the proposed ideas of the Metro and Tigard staff . Goal 2 was never intended to require that all comp plan changes should be measured by the proposed ideas of staff . This is the height of bureaucratic tyranny. Findings could easily be made that Goal 2 is satisfied . Page 3 "Housing: Goal 10" The statements of staff in these three paragraphs are so erroneous and sleazy that several paragraphs will be needed in rebuttal : First off they misrepresented my statements. In my arguments concerning Goal 10 , I acknowledged that redevelopable land may be included by the City as part of its buildable land. Then I noted that in Chapters 6 . 3 and 6 . 4 the City of Tigard had chosen to protect and conserve its established residential neighborhoods , (Staff did not refute this argument , they just ignored it and instead misquoted my claims . ) Since Tigard has chosen to protect and conserve its established residential neighborhoods , it cannot at the same time classify them as redevelopable and include them as buildable land in the required computations . Such would be totally inconsistent . (Note that the requirements for 50o attached and the 10 unit per acre both apply to buildable land only. ) Thus though redevelopable land may be included as buildable , for Tigard the vast majority of established neighborhoods are not in this category of redevelopable buildable land . Therefore , as I said originally, Goal 10 does not really apply to the neighborhoods provided for in this exception . In the second paragraph staff states that "Implementation 4 of the housing goal states that ordinances and incentives should be • • w used to increase population densities . . . " Please notice the sleaziness here . Just because the City should use ordinances and incentives does NOT mean that EVERY ordinance or incentive must be aimed at this particular objective . Indeed the use of the words "various" , "flexibility" and "diversity" in Goal 10 should clearly indicate that some ordinances and incentives will pursue other goals than just cramming in as many residents as possible . Second paragraph " (3) the optimal use of existing urban land particularly in sections containing significant amounts of unsound substandard structures . " There are a few such structures in Tigard ( including its active planning areas and areas of interest ) , but not many. Because most things deteriorate , likely there will be more in the future . The City needs to develop policies or guidelines to identify such areas , and to provide for the orderly redevelopment of these areas . Such consideration could be used in deciding whether to grant a lower density zoning, pursuant to the adoption of CPA 96-0001 . But it should not be a cause of rejecting this proposal . Second paragraph: "The effect of the proposed amendment would be to decrease zoning and therefore population densities . " I readily concede that the effect would be decreased zoning . (As an aside : it seemed to me much more appropriate to apply to the City to fix this injustice than to go to the County to ask them for low density zones to fix a problem local to Tigard. ) The effect would be for decreased zoning in those neighborhoods which the City Council approved it as appropriate . But these neighborhoods are already built , so there would be no decrease in population densities . You have the same houses and the same people before and after assigning City zoning . The first part of staff ' s statement is true; the second part is false . To conclude this section concerning Goal 10 , even if there resulted a small reduction in population densities when this measure was applied , it would be worth it to provide for and . maintain the diversity of housing . And allowing the Council to take measures to preserve the character and quality of established neighborhoods definitely provides more flexibility. Page 4 "General Policies : Policy 1 . 1 . 1 (a) " This is a corollary of Goal 10 immediately above . Page 4 "Housing : Policy 6 . 1 . 1" Staff misrepresents the Metropolitan Housing Rule by omitting that it applies to dwelling units per net buildable acre . As I explained above concerning Goal 10 , CPA 96-0001 would NOT apply to buildable lands . To the extent that there may be a few vacant lots in an established neighborhood , criteria could be developed to guide Council ' s decision . The last paragraph of page 4 is an elaborate explanation why a bureaucratic hurdle should set public policy . Surely this is myopic narrow- minded thinking. But actually it is ridiculous . The lands concerned should not be included in their calculations either before or after annexation . They are not part of the buildable lands ; therefore they do not enter into these calculations at all . What I have just repeated above is what the documents sa_v. If staff (both Tigard ' s and Metro ' s) claim that the existing, sound • • • J J J • • neighborhoods are part of their solution for more density, then I was wrong earlier in crediting them with not intending to ;sack the existing neighborhoods in their zeal . - Page 5 "The amendment would, however, greatly increase the probability for reducing residential density and result in incremental loss of housing opportunities . " A quick reading of this sentence might lead one to think that they are talking about a great loss of housing opportunities (bv using "greatly" ) . But the- extra houses that might be crammed into existing neighborhoods is a small amount . And though small in number , the damage to the character and quality would be considerable . It ' s not worth it . Page 5 "For this reason, staff cannot make a finding that this policy is, satisfied . " Note that they did not say that the policy was not satisfied . They straddled this time . Page 5 "COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS : Procedures for Decision Making : Legislative : 6 . Consideration may be given to . . . inconsistency in comprehensive plan -or implementing ordinance" The staff report has revealed an inconsistency in the comprehensive plan and/or the way the staff is interpreting it and the legislated requirements for Tigard. Chapters 6 . 3 and 6 . 4 would clearly indicate that Tigard is not regarding its established neighborhoods to be redevelopable in the near future (by 2040) , at least not very many of them. Yet it seems from the bottom of Page 4 and the bottom of Page 7 , that Tigard staff is so considering them in calculating its requirement of 10 units per acre of buildable land . As a policy it is not worth jeopardizing all of our established neighborhoods just to gain a few points on a calculated average . But is this the policy? Or has staff misunderstood Council ' s instructions in this matter . I will try to find out before the July 23 hearing. Page 7 "What urban planning areas would be affected by this amendment?" These are questions Council could decide in the course of adopting the amendment , and/or they could be dealt with under decision criteria . Page 7 "What area (s) would be used to calculate the existing development density . . ?" Most important here is that the Council would have the choice in what boundaries to approve for each zoning district . Logically they would approve it only if the area was cohesive . I ' m sure staff has enough intelligence to solve these kind of problems . Page 7 -"Who would initiate the request . . . ? I would suggest the property owners , but Council may wish to reserve the option for itself also. Again the problems listed are within the capability of staff and council . 411 • Page 7 "How would this amendment affect urban service planning . . . ? " This is more bureaucratic double talk. Planning before or after zoning should be just about the same . Especially since the houses are already built in these areas . More importantly, it is the staff function to plan according to council policy; it should not be that council policy must conform to staff planning. Page 7 "Downzoning urban planning area properties that come into the City would shift the burden of increased zoning to other parts of the City. " This could not be true unless Tigard staff has been playing a shell game . See my discussion under Goal 10 and the Metro Housing Rule and Section 6 of Procedures for Decision Making: Legislative . Page 8 "Zoning properties at lower densities than previous County designations could result in existing lots becoming nonconforming . " Being "nonconforming" sounds serious , but in zoning it is not very significant . Such lots are commonly created in planned developments every year . The only practical result the Planning Director could see was that you couldn ' t subdivide . But if Your lot is near the minimum size you couldn ' t either . So what? (It was inappropriate for staff to cite my individual property -- this is a legislative proposal . ) Page 8 "The effect of the amendment would seem to only limit neighboring or future property owners from developing their land to what was previdusly allowed under County zoning . " In Walnut Island the County zoning is meaningless, since the owner can ' t do much without first annexing to the City (this was recognized by one member of the Planning Commission) . But more importantly, it was the zoning of neighborhoods to preserve the expectations of continuity that first started the whole planning process . If we can ' t keep our neighborhoods , then why keep the rest of the planning? Are we lemmings that just love to be controlled? In conclusion, this proposal is an effort to restore justice in Tigard. Low density neighborhoods that annexed earlier had the option of receiving zoning that matched their neighborhoods . Since then, the County eliminated its lower zones . Because this is a problem local to Tigard, its logical to fix it at Tigard . • • | / i | / . LLL--- -- ---- --- ------� ---_ ___--- �| /-~- ---// --- �! --- --------------_-_-_------ -'- '_--- _____ Frot 1;66-'--- / ' �-~ -=�� =z_-� = ^, - ' `--7�' //� � ^~�' - �~^ ' ------ ------- - �� _-_-_- rirm/-�-� �, _`__' T%I _- �^ �~ �-- ^y �^ ' ---�r� �� ------' ' ^ -- T -----. �� . y��. / '~� � / �/. � � ��__-_ � -�, ____/�,/ ' ^=�- ~- ' (57(0__ -_�-~�/ �� _- __-- _ -_ | -- -- 40 /A ±: ':iitf: `-_-~°.-------- ------'----------------------------�--- --'--'� ----� --�rr "^ �� ~__ � / °- JUL 1 7 t -' " -- .�^- - w°� ----- -- v '_--_-_-�_-- -_--�- - --� ~ /'-_- /47 , 747 - '. ::IiihIii : :---- __- lr--�� /^+� i- ��1 �-��V � �~ ~ ' 0� ' - ' '- V - .� ��L � h�� Y�� wm' /^^ �� ~r r^'------/-�-�<4�'�~��--- ~~~ -��-- ' ^ -� - ' -- - - --' __ _ 0111- 446 Are-lr- E4,1// a?Vet-t, _ � / � � N 110 - FAX TRANSMITTAL - PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LO LEGAL NOTICE SECTION OF TIGARD TIMES DATE: July 5, 1996 TO: Mary White, Legals (fax) 620-3433 FROM: Jerree Gaynor, City of Tigard (Ph.) 639-4171 The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on July 23. 1996 at 7:30 PM at the Tigard Civic Center- Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the City Council. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the request or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decisionmaker an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to the close of the hearing on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. PUBLIC HEARINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0001 BLEDSOE REQUEST: Amend the text of the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan by adding a new policy as follows: 10.1.4 An exception to Policy 10.1.3 is that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density residential established areas. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10 and 14; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1 and 6.1.1; Tigard Community Development Code chapter 18.30 and; and Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 12. ZONE: N/A TT PUBLISH_July 11, 1996_ i,i• • 'r • . , VP Agenda Item: . 3_ Hearing Date: June 17. 1996 7:30 PM Ao :::::: . . ..:. .:. .....:: r :.. ::::.:.:> :.:;>::PLANNING:COMMIS I `:::> ?;:>:. : .: : : :: : :::::; :: . SON. : `:'FORTHE'CI: TY OF:TtGA RDO SECTION I: APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: FILE NAME: Bledsoe Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0001 PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested a text amendment to the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan by adding a new policy as follows: 10.1.4 An exception to Policy 10.1.3 is that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density residential established areas. APPLICANT: Bob Bledsoe OWNER: Same . 11800 SW Walnut Street Tigard, OR 97223 COMPREHENSIVE • PLAN DESIGNATION: N/A ZONING ' DESIGNATION: N/A LOCATION: City's Urban Planning Area APPLICABLE REVIEW . CRITERIA: Statewide Goals 1, 2, 10 and 14; Oregon Administrative Rule 660-12; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1 and 6.1.1; Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. SECTION II: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission finds that the proposed amendment does: not satisfy all relevant criteria and that it forward a.recommendation to the City Council,for DENIAL of CPA 96-0001. STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0001 Page 1 • • SECTION III: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: Historically, when properties have annexed to the City, they have been zoned to match the previous Washington County zone districts as closely as possible. This practice helped to carry out the intent of the Tigard Community Plan. The Urban Planning Area Agreement between Washington County and Tigard, signed in June of 1983, included a provision to require the City to convert annexed land from the City's Area of Interest (Bull Mountain and Metzger areas) to designations that most closely approximate the density, use provisions and standards of County designations. In April of 1984, the City Council, with the recommendation of staff and the Planning Commission, adopted Ordinance 84-21 to amend Section 10.1 of the Urbanization chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to include all annexed land to the City. The purpose of this policy was to accommodate existing development and preserve neighborhoods as they are annexed to the City. Vicinity Information: The proposed amendment would apply to the City's Urban Planning Area and not to any specific site. Site Information and Proposal Description: Mr. Bledsoe presented a proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan and waive the application fee to the Central. and West CITs during August of 1995. The two groups supported his request. At the meeting of September 12, 1995, he requested that the City Council waive the Comprehensive Plan amendment application fee and formally ask Washington County to open the Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) in order to amend the policy on zoning of annexed land. The Council granted the fee waiver and agreed to include his concerns during the next review of the UPAA. The submittal period deadlines (75 to 45 days prior to the Planning Commission's first hearings in April and October) precluded Mr. Bledsoe from applying for a legislative Comprehensive Plan amendment last fall. He did submit his application during February of this year. The proposed amendment would be added to the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan and read as follows: "10.1.4 An exception to Policy 10.1.3 is that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density residential established areas." This amendment would apply, ostensibly, to the City's urban planning area that is designated as Low Density Residential and is already developed with residential units. As properties in these areas annex to the City, the Council would have the option to zone them to a designation that reflects the existing number of units at the time. SECTION IV: APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS STATEWIDE GOALS Citizen Involvement: Goal 1 requires a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in the planning process. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 and Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18 provide for citizen participation and notice. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing and opportunity for STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0001 Page 2 • • response was advertised in the local newspaper and request for comments were sent to all CITs and the Department of Land Conservation and Development. In addition, the proposal was presented to the CITs and their comments are included with this report. This goal is satisfied. Land Use Planning: Goal 2 requires, in part, that adopted comprehensive plans be revised to take into account changing public policies and circumstances. The proposal would amend existing adopted and acknowledged comprehensive plan and intergovernmental agreement requirements relating to the zoning of annexed property to the City. If exercised, the policy would encourage the downzoning of residential land as it is annexed to the City. The public policies and circumstances are changing in the Metropolitan Portland area as well as in the City toward increase of residential density in order to meet regionwide goals within the Urban Growth Boundary.. The proposed amendment would be counterproductive to this direction. This goal is not satisfied. Housing: Goal 10 requires that plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at various price ranges and rent levels and all: w for flexibility of housing location, type and density. The applicant states that this goal does not apply to his proposal because the goal is limited to the development of vacant, buildable land only. The goal, however, defines `buildable lands' as lands in urban and • urbanizable areas that are suitable, available and necessary for residential use. It is not confined to vacant land only and includes redevelopable land. Implementation 4 of the housing goal states that ordinances and incentives should be used to increase population densities in urban areas taking into consideration (1) key facilities, (2) the economic, environmental, social and energy consequences of the proposed densities and (3) the optimal use of existing urban land particularly in sections containing significant amounts of unsound substandard structures. The effect of the proposed amendment would be to decrease zoning and therefore population densities. For, despite the wording of the proposal to assign zoning closest to existing development, the density could only be reduced and not increased because the highest zoning the City can currently assign is R-4.5, the closest match to the county's R-5, and still implement the Low Density Residential designation of the Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted, however, that assignment of City R-4.5 zoning (7,500 square foot minimum lot size) is actually a reduction in density from the County's R-5 zoning (7,000 square foot minimum lot size). Staff finds that the proposal is not consistent with Goal 10 and would have a negative impact on encouraging the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at various price ranges and rent levels and allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density. Staff finds, therefore, that this goal is not satisfied. Urbanization: Goal 14 provides for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. This goal is carried out by way of the establishment of an urban growth boundary. The proposal addresses zoning for annexed lands within the urban growth boundary and therefore not subject to this goal's provisions. The City's annexation policies are included in the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan and the reader is referred to Policy 10.1.3 below. STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0001 Page 3 • • COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTES OR GUIDELINES Oregon Administrative Rule: Section 660-12-060 states that plan amendments which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level of service of the facility. Zoning annexed land to existing densities would not generate additional traffic or significantly affect a transportation facility. This rule is not, therefore, applicable to the proposed plan amendment. COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES General Policies: Policy 1.1.1(a) requires that legislative changes are consistent with statewide planning goals and the regional development plan. The proposal is not consistent with statewide planning goals as addressed above under 'Statewide Goals'. There is no applicable adopted regional plan. This policy is not satisfied. Citizen Involvement: Policy 2.1.1 states that the City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. A request for comments was sent to all City CITs and the Planning Commission hearing was legally advertised. In addition, the proposal was presented at all CIT meetings during May. This policy is satisfied. Housing: Policy 6.1.1 requires the city shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This policy is primarily implemented through OAR 660-07, the Metropolitan Housing Rule. The rule requires that the city maintain sufficient residential buildable land to provide the opportunity for at least 50% of new units to be attached single family or multi-family housing and to provide for an overall density of ten units per acre. The proposed amendment could affect City compliance with the Housing Rule by lowering the potential number of units per acre if annexed land is zoned at lower densities. If, upon annexation, properties are downzoned from the County designation, then the City's housing opportunity index would have to be recalculated because the affected properties were originally calculated in the County for higher density. The Housing Rule states that a jurisdiction need not include plan and/or zone changes made by another jurisdiction before annexation to a city. However, Section 660-07-045(b) states that a city shall include changes to annexed or incorporated land if the city changed type or density or the plan/zone designation after annexation or incorporation [emphasis added]. The City, therefore, would need to recalculate the housing index every time property(ies) were zoned, after annexation, at a different density than the previous zoning in the County. More importantly, downzoning of residential land would lower the index. The City could fall out of compliance with the rule's minimum requirement of 10 units per acre, especially considering that approximately 535 acres of low density established land could be eligible for rezoning. As the index approaches or falls below the 10 units per acre standard, the City would need to make up the difference for new housing opportunities in other parts of the City through rezoning of land. STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0001 Page 4 • • This proposed amendment by itself will not cause the City to drop out of compliance with the housing rule. The amendment would, however, greatly increase the probability for reducing residential density and result in the incremental loss of housing opportunities. For this reason, staff cannot make a finding that this policy is satisfied. COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Procedures for Decision Making: Legislative: Chapter 18.30 establishes procedures for consideration of legislative changes to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, implementing ordinances and maps. Section 18.30.120 lists the factors upon which the Planning Commission and City Council shall base their decisions. The factors and responses are as follows: 1. The statewide planning goals and guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197. These standards are addressed in Section IV under 'Statewide Goals' in this staff report. 2. Any federal or state statutes or guidelines found applicable. The state's Transportation Planning Rule is addressed in Section IV under 'Compliance with Federal and State Statutes or Guidelines'. 3. Applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District. • There are no applicable plans or guidelines adopted by Metro. See Section VI (Agency Comments) for Metro staff response to the proposal. 4. The applicable comprehensive plan,policies and map. These standards are addressed in Section IV under 'Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policies'. 5. The applicable provisions of the implementing ordinances. The implementing ordinances are contained in the Tigard Community Development Code, which are addressed in this section of the staff report. 6. Consideration may also be given to proof of a change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or implementing ordinance which is the subject of the application. The applicant does not address this factor. Although Section 6 is not addressed, the applicant has satisfied this code section. It is satisfied because the first five factors have been addressed in'this staff report and the sixth factor is optional only. Annexations: Chapter 18.136 implements the policies of the Comprehensive Plan regarding annexation requests. If the proposed amendment is approved, Section 18.136.030, Approval Standards, provision B would have to be revised. Currently, this provision reads, "The plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property shall be the City's zoning district which most closely implements the City's or County's comprehensive plan map designation." The change would have to allow for the option to zone a property with a designation that matches the existing development in the area. STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0001 Page 5 • • SECTION V: AGENCY COMMENTS Metro reviewed this proposal and offers the following comments: The amendment is not compatible with the direction of the 2040 Growth Concept. It would serve to substantially reduce the allowable residential densities for those newly incorporated areas. While Tigard may not need to increase its current densities in the inner neighborhoods to achieve its 2017 allocation targets, reducing densities would limit the City's flexibility in achieving these targets. In addition, Mr. Bledsoe's reference to what constitutes "buildable lands" is incorrect. The definition includes redevelopable lands as well as vacant lands. Washington County reviewed this proposal and has the following concerns: • In order to effect the change, it would appear that the Urban Planning Area Agreement must be amended. • It is not clear if the proposal has an impact on the City or County ability to demonstrate compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule. • It is not clear how the proposal operates in "low density residential established areas". Would this preclude all infill development? • It would seem the proposal may be contrary to the concepts included in the Regional Framework Plan, Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, regarding greater density of development and the ability of the City to accommodate its share of regional growth. While these requirements are not yet binding on the City, this change may have an impact on the City's future ability to demonstrate compliance. SECTION VI: OTHER COMMENTS The South CIT heard the proposal at the meeting of May 1, 1996, and support lower density development in general. The Central and West CITs heard the proposal on May 7 and the members agreed with the concept. The East CIT had no comment on the proposal at the May 8 meeting. SECTION VII: STAFF COMMENTS The Planning Department staff has several concerns about the proposed amendment. There are many issues and problems associated with the proposal that would need to be evaluated and clarified before its implementation. Among these issues are the following: STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0001 Page 6 • • • What urban planning areas would be affected by this amendment (Attachment A)? It reads, "...to existing development in low density residential established areas". Does this apply to all of the Active Planning Area and Area of Interest where existing development is considered as low density and established? This area encompasses approximately 535 acres of land. Does it apply to the Active Planning Area only which includes the Walnut Island? This area encompasses approximately 237 acres of land. If the latter only, would the amendment apply to areas of land the City has designated on the Comprehensive Plan map as Low Density or where there is any residential development that qualifies as low density? Decisions by the City Council based on interpretation of the amendment's applicability would likely invite challenges. • What area(s) would be used to calculate the existing development density - immediately adjacent parcels, property within one block, property within 1/4 mile radius, etc? Would properties in the City be counted in the calculation? Would vacant land acreage be counted in the calculation (vacant parcels are included within established areas)? In other words, what does the Council use as a measuring stick to determine the zoning? This problem raises the issue of consistent and objective criteria used in decision-making, and thus invites challenges to the City's interpretation. • Who would initiate the request for applying the new policy - City Council, property owner(s), neighbors, or a combination of these? If anyone other than the property owner(s) initiate and obtain different zoning or if an owner's property is included within a rezoned area, would this impose a new restriction on properties and limit the ability of owners to develop their property to former zoning densities in the County? If the property owners themselves initiate zone changes, how would this affect adjacent owners, i.e. how would this action affect development potential, property values and tax assessments of adjacent properties if zoning densities of neighboring property are either not consistently zoned at present or subject to change after annexation in the future? • How would this amendment affect urban service planning and regional . planning efforts? The City plans and budgets for the provision of urban services to support land uses. If several hundred properties in the urban planning area may be zoned from R-1 to R-4.5, this task becomes much more difficult and probably more expensive because of the range of densities that could possibly be served. Regional planning and goals include using the urban and urbanizable land within the UGB in a more efficient manner. This effort will likely result in increasing the residential densities using several options including infill development, increased zoning densities and minimum density standards. The proposed amendment seems to be counter productive for achieving these goals. • Downzoning urban planning area properties that come into the City would shift the burden of increased zoning to other parts of the City. Maintaining conformity to the Metropolitan Housing Rule and accommodating the City's share of regional growth would be affected if properties in these areas are allowed to be zoned . at lower densities than previously planned. The loss of potential housing would have to be made up in other parts of the City. The question of fairness and equitable sharing could become an issue. STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0001 Page 7 • --b • • • Zoning properties at lower densities than previous County designations could result in existing lots becoming nonconforming. For example, Mr. Bledsoe's own property is 0.43 acres or 18,731 square feet. His property could be zoned R-2 depending upon what area is selected for calculating existing density. The minimum lot size for the R-2 zone district is 20,000; therefore, his lot would be nonconforming. Furthermore, as far as staff can determine, City policy has always been to assign zoning to annexed land that most closely matches the County's zoning at the time. The applicant states that owners of property should have the same right to zone their property upon annexation as did previous annexed owners. Staff has not found, as the applicant claims, that previous annexations of neighborhoods allowed the residents to petition and receive zoning that matched the existing development. Staff has researched past annexations for areas mentioned by the applicant and has found no evidence of this process. When older areas such as Derry Dell, Ames Orchard and Shadow Hills annexed to the City, the County had different zoning designations at the time. These designations were as low as one unit per acre (RS-1), two units per acre (RS-2) and 30,000 square foot minimum lot sizes (R-30). The City's files and Boundary Commission resolutions for these areas reflect the policy of assigning City zoning which most closely matched the County zoning existing at the time of annexation. In conclusion, staff believes that the proposed amendment would be difficult to interpret and implement, as well as problematic for future land use planning and urban service provision. More importantly, staff does not think it is needed or beneficial to the City as a whole. It is not clear what purpose it would serve and for whom. As pointed out above, it could affect the City's compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule and the City's ability to meet regional goals. On an individual property owner level, the amendment does not impart any additional rights or advantages. Under existing policies and law, an owner has the choice to develop his land up to the maximum allowable under the zoning code; or to not develop the land at all. The effect of the amendment would seem to only limit neighboring or future property owners from developing their land to what was previously allowed under County zoning. Y - June 5, 1996 PREPARED BY: Ray Valone DATE Associate Planner June 8, 1996 APPROVED BY: Nadine Smith DATE Planning Manager I:\LRPLN\RAY\CPA96-01 STF STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0001 Page 8 • J L a ca cd a N c E 83 1 8 ti U �� izu L •- c m NE carp ,E -4 � � o cE o � � E— � � @ � . . Q CO .,.. ,lye � :... • \ m �A `� p ., �"' . � /#7, ,,,,•‘,...� F. U� fit P a ""_,.""",,,., ''‘Itt.-,,4 '1\ • • -''', a .> ati v Y va w: �uoct, �. � %' m'Ca� w\ LL A' • \\\\\�\\`\ � � � � u- � y�� `y\e PAY\\\y� � \`\�� \ ��e`\\ "�� '� \� S� 6 8-..• 3Ab \ \• • m \r .r ��JJJ 3'4 \\\\\\`\\\\ � sue-/ ��x, , • to\'�!\`\\\\►►\\\\\I vy \ Cam• i \ ' \�\n. `*\� \C\\a i \ v\`\\\`\ \��. ° � "41n* 1Od \�\\ • \\\�\\1 a t "" Kgwmua s3\� a a \•Q � `,, ,, `! Q. / yv amy ✓,, 'a R\,e \ an d\y 1 z�' \ v.. . �\►" ,►�`��a x �� i[[all�F �i\� \ " ��a. �,.�an R �� a1�.emu ��\\2� �..: � �`� (� o♦e#♦r♦e♦#eE il — �``�`\\\ .. t c ` ►♦o owe*o♦eoo♦e©o♦♦rei '/(� �\ �af\\�� aoo �„ � �� a \ �\\ a � \�a�S�` �� o♦o°o©oo♦°♦t \a p ,;,. Q',Mk;liklitti".' Z" \` `\\m'.""'o\gym\411 III ft y .r� 0 y .. ,' , g �\� ?tic2a rs.: ": x*- �u� \,?1 ''\tea m•' � Y \ .\'\.�. ,,,,,4,-,. � .. ,„,_ • u .. war �a ' a{ I„,,Ittr2.:,:0177. 7 .,4-2,:;,?..4..s,t..t i,,.,V:,,,,.H:'-****:\11%46‘*:‘, •.,47_ u c !#OP O�O♦°O°°eP0 A°r :a\ 0 :m\ y �o .°O°O°O°O°O°P�►°00• . ♦ ♦♦w s p.0,y► �\ x�� m a3�\a\ \ e °�L°O°O°O°P°400°O°t ►♦ ►♦♦♦ m' ._ 3♦#♦re♦♦o►e♦poor♦♦♦J°fir ,:. ,ii it,L ,kizi—N s\s. It °♦°E#^► .�.!OO°!pe°.•ca\\ ' �:` .\)ppp°�!p♦p°p°prp°p'.!E M 4 e�\ ., \r �.,,:. ♦0.►0♦°r+ a Vii.,ac.— - a ate\\\ ♦♦O♦♦♦O♦#O♦♦♦ N il ,r_____ 6--17-1 . ,i '\ —ktnLit*rseft;::;:,'''""l.' j.z-L �.... ,vti`.` - 4 41 I ,,,,,,,,,,Villida• ollisimpairrijit d' \ate� `.� ��” � ;' 1_�� \,s- II ; �` I / , I. y \ \0 d IL lit 0 §tt■ 4 \i'' ii, 4 .. ■k '‘e N • all • Ai -1* 1,,,,,,,,,„ ,_ evf • vit • 11 — ob .,,,,, ■ _„ , C . . • . . - FAX TRANSMITTAL-• PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD 00 LEGAL NOTICE SECTION OF TIGARD TIMES DATE: May 31. 1996 TO: Mary White, Legals (fax) 620-3433 FROM: Jerree Gaynor, City of Tigard (Ph.) 639-4171 The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on June 17. 1996 at 7:30 PM at the Tigard Civic Center-Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the Planning Commission. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the request or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decisionmaker an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to the close of the hearing on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. PUBLIC HEARINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0001 BLEDSOE REQUEST: Amend the text of the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan by adding a new policy as follows: 10.1.4 An exception to Policy 10.1.3 is that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density residential established areas. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10 and 14; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1 and 6.1.1; Tigard Community Development Code chapter 18.30 and; and Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 12. ZONE: N/A TT PUBLISH June 6, 1996 CAH-- 1c vU l • CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes May 6, 1996 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice-President Collson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commission Present: President Wilson; Commissioners, Collson, Griffith, Holland, Padgett, and Scolar Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Anderson and DeFrang Staff Present: Ray Valone, Associate Planner; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Griffith moved and Commissioner Padgett seconded a motion to approve the April 8, 1996, meeting minutes as submitted. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by majority vote. Commissioner Scolar abstained. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Ray Valone advised the Commissioners that the City Administrator would like to offer special ethics training to the Planning Commission. The Commissioners decided to have the training session before their regularly scheduled meeting on June 3, 1996, from 7:00 - 7:30 p.m. The Planning Commission Secretary updated the Commissioners on the selection process for a new Commissioner to fill Brian Moore's vacancy. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0001 BLEDSOE REQUEST: Amend the text of the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan by adding a new policy as follows: 10.1.4 An exception to Policy 10.1.3 is that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density residential established areas. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10 and 14; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1 and 6.1.1; Tigard Community Development Code chapter 18.30 and; and Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 12. ZONE: N/A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 6, 1996 -Page 1 • Note: This hearing will only serve to open the record for this proposed amendment and no testimony or review will occur. The reason for this delay is to ensure adequate time for the CITs to review and make comments and to comply with time requirements for legislative plan amendments. Ray Valone advised the Commissioners that on Legislative Plan Amendments, there is a requirement in the code that the Planning Commission shall hear the proposal within 30 days of their first meeting in April. He said that these particular applications are being taken through the CIT process, but the CITs could not hear them in time to meet the 30 day requirement. Valone also informed the Commission that, in the future, staff is considering having the applicants take their proposal to the CITs for a neighborhood meeting, as a part of the application process. Commissioner Padgett moved to continue the public hearing for CPA 96-0001 until the June 17th meeting. Commissioner Colison seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0003/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0004 ABECO/COX REQUEST: Amend the text of the Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan by amending existing policy as follows: 6.1.1, Implementation Strategy 3 -modify policy to include wetlands in the list of sensitive lands from which residential density can be transferred, and to remove the language which allows no more than 25% residential density transfer from all sensitive land areas. The application also proposes an amendment to Tigard Community Development Code 18.92.030 to allow 100 percent density transfer from all sensitive land areas. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1(a), 1.1.1(c), 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.2.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 6.1.1, 6.2.1, 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 9.1.2, ; Tigard Community Development Code chapters 18.3, 18.84, and 18.90. ZONE: N/A Note: This hearing will only serve to open the record for this proposed amendment, no testimony or review will occur. The reason for this delay is to ensure adequate time for citizens to make comments and comply with time requirements for Legislative amendments. Commissioner Padgett moved to continue the public hearing for CPA 96-0003 until the May 20th meeting. Commissioner Griffith seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 6, 1996 -Page 2 • • • 6. OTHER BUSINESS None 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:42 p.m. Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary ATTEST: President Nick Wilson PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 6, 1996 -Page 3 M E M O R A N D U M 41, • DATE: April 23, 1996 TO: Tigard Planning Commission Ri FROM: Ray Valone, Associate Planner RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 96-0001 CC: Jim Hendryx, Director Community Development Bob Bledsoe, Applicant Staff is requesting a continuance of the hearing on the above comprehensive plan amendment, currently scheduled for May 6, 1996. We will be reviewing the application with the CITs at their May and June meetings. We request that the Commission hear this proposed amendment at its meeting of June 17, 1996. The scheduled hearing of May 6 will only serve to open the record for this proposed amendment and no testimony or staff report will occur. The reason for this continuance is to comply with time requirements for legislative amendments and ensure adequate time for the CITs to review the proposal. 600 NOF\5T GRAND AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 2 2736 T E L 5 0 3 7 9 7 1 7 0 0 I F A X 5 0 3 7 9 7 1 7 9 7 Iqi . / METRO June 4, 1996 Mr. Ray Valone City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Via Fax: 684-7297 Dear Mr. Valone: Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 96-0001 Bledsoe Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Comprehensive Plan Amendment 96-0001 Bledsoe. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment is not compatible with the direction of the 2040 Growth Concept. The amendment would serve to substantially reduce the allowable residential densities for those newly incorporated areas. Much of the unincorporated lands in close proximity to the City of Tigard has been identified as "inner neighborhood" in the 2040 Growth Concept. Inner neighborhoods are primarily residential areas, but are accessible to employment. They tend to have smaller lot sizes averaging 5,700 sq.ft. The smaller lots are a trade-off for better access to jobs and shopping. While Tigard may not need to increase its current densities in the inner neighborhoods to achieve its 2017 allocation targets, reducing densities, as proposed in this amendment would limit the City's flexibility in achieving these targets. In addition to recommending that the proposed amendment not be enacted, I would like to point out that Mr. Bledsoe's reference to what constitutes "buildable !ands" is incorrect. The definition of Buildable Lands includes redevelopable lands as well as vacant lands. If you require further information regarding the above, please call Brenda Bernards at 797-1736. Sincerely, ,*/ Mary A. Weber Senior Program Supervisor Growth Management Services Department . MAW/BB/srb I:\G M\BERNARDS\COMPAMEN.WPD cc: Brenda Bernards Larry Shaw Recycled Paper METRO-GROWTH MAN 503 797 1911 Jun 4 , 96 8 : 10 No . 001 P . 01 • G 0 0 N O R I U C A S T GRAND A Y!N U S f p R l L g N U, U A C G O N 9 7 2 3 2 219b TEL 9 0 7 7 9 7 7700 I F A X ,1 7 9 7 1 7 9 7 ;f;;V) % " METRO June 4, 1996 Mr. Ray Valone City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Via Fax: 684-7297 Dear Mr. Valone: Re: Comprehensive Olen Amendment (CPA) 96-0001 Bledsoe Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Comprehensive Plan Amendment 96-0001 Bledsoe. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment is not compatible with the direction of the 2040 Growth Concept. The amendment would serve to substantially reduce the allowable residential densities for those newly incorporated areas. Much of the unincorporated lands in close proximity to the City of Tigard has been identified as "inner neighborhood" in the 2040 Growth Concept. Inner neighborhoods are primarily residential areas, but are accessible to employment. They tend to have smaller lot sizes averaging 5,700 sq.ft. The smaller lots are a trade-off for better access to jobs and shopping. While Tigard may not need to increase its current densities in the inner neighborhoods to achieve its 2017 allocation targets, reducing densities, as proposed in this amendment would limit the City's flexibility in achieving these targets. In addition to recommending that the proposed amendment not be enacted, I would like to point out that Mr. Bledsoe's reference to what constitutes "buildable lands" is incorrect. The definition of Buildable Lands includes redevelopable lands as well as vacant lands. If you require further information regarding the above, please call Brenda Bernards at 797-1736. Sincerely, j,/ Mary A. Weber Senior Program Supervisor Growth Management Services Department MAW/BS?erb I:1GM\HLRNa RDS\COMpAMEN.WpD cc: Brenda Bernards Larry Shaw WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON May 13, 1996 To: Ray Valone, Tigard Planning Division From: Brent Curtis, Planning Manager Land Use and Transportation Subj.: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0001 BLEDSOE We have reviewed the above mentioned plan amendment regarding urbanization and housing density and have the following concerns: o In order to effect this change, it would appear that the Urban Planning Area Agreement with the County must also be amended. o It is not clear if the proposal has an impact on the City or County ability to demonstrate compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-035). o It is not clear how the proposal operates in "low density residential established areas." Would this preclude all infill development? o Finally it would seem that the proposal may be contrary to the concepts included in the Regional Framework Plan, Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, regarding greater density of development and the ability of the City to accommodate its share of regional growth. While these requirements are not yet binding on the City, this change may have an impact on the City's future ability to demonstrate compliance. If you have any questions about our comments, you may reach me at 640-3519, or Mark Brown at 681-3877. G:\USERS\MARKB\WPDATA\11 GCPA.96 • Department of Land Use&Transportation • Planning Division 155 N First Avenue, Suite 350-14, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 phone: (503) 640-3519 • fax: (503)693-4412 f . • P 474 569 738 US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail(See revers L SenB PT OF LAND CONE' '3V Street&Number -.\—J 1175 COURT ST NE Post Office,State,&ZIP Code SALEM, OR 97310-0590 - Postage $ 1' Certified Fee ) Special Delivery Fee , W Restricted Delivery Fee '`Lil 0 rn Whom&R eDcaetip PS• '.goo( \1, /t• 1-3 Return Receipt •'.�:to Whom Yfi '.� � Y } Date,&Addr:,•Q. ` .':.1 >1 0 TOTAL P. :=ge. Fg o�'� $ /la .5 Z 4 M Postmark or D �;u $ f 1 ai ] SENDER: t and/or 2 for C`*al services. I also wish t�--give the f ai ■Complete items 3,4a,and 4b.� ) following Si (for an i H ■Print your name and address or,-..,_.averse of this form so that we can return this extra fee): "--1 .4 card to you. ai > .Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the back if space does not 1. ❑ Addressee's Address u i 2 permit. t m ■Write'Retum Receipt Requested'on the mailpiece below the article number. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery t» !J « •The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date ■' a o delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. .o o . -0 3.Article Addressed to: 4a.Article Number a° " � P 474 569 738 CC c DEPT. OF LAND CONS. & DEV. 4b.Serviike,Type ' t o 117 5 COURT ST. NE ❑ Registered Certified °C co y ❑ Express Mail CI Insured 'n I. w SALEM, OR 97310-0590 A CC ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ COD .. 0 7.Date of Delivery ° ( < of z MAY 1 6 1996 0 • 5.Received By:(Print Name) 8.Addressee's Address(Only if requested c a W and fee is paid) t 4 g : '.�IV re.(Adde o A n ~ � � D- arm 3811; December 1994 Domestic Return Receipt i NOTICE .%PROPOSED AM DMENT..�: • r'=F This form must be received by DLCD at least 45 days prior to a final hearing.-- 'ORS 197.610 and OAR Chapter 660, Division 18 See reverse side for submittal requirements ; Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD Date of Final Hearing 7/23/96 .. `' _. Local File# ;CPA 96-0001 Has this proposal been previously submitted to DLCD? Yes X ' No Date - • X Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment _ _ Land Use Regulation Amendment _ Zoning Map Amendment _ New Land Use Regulation • Briefly summarize the proposaL Do not use technical terms.- Do not write"See Attached." Arne- mend the Urbanization Sectionof:,the-Comprehensive Plan by adding.the following policy: •"10.1.4.` An exception•-to 10.1.3 is that .theCity may' assign zoning closest to existing >''`dPv 1opment in'low'density residential established areas". This change•would allow the City Council-,to:-Zone.-newly annexed land',to match-.what is already developed in the • area. The current:.policy, which is contained in the Comp Plan, Development Code, and UPAA with Washington County, requires the City match the existing County zoning as much as possible. ' ._ Plan Map Change From n/a = to _; . Zone Ma p Change e From n/a - o_ . . .:. ._. t Location:. Urban Planning Area of Low Density Residential Aci'es Involved: Approx.'535 washington County Cit , Specified change in Density: Current Density 5 units/acribroposed Density 4:5 or less/acre Applicable Goals: 1, 2, 10, and 14 Is an Exception proposed? _ Yes X No Affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: DLCD, METRO, WASHINGTON COUNTY Local Contact:. RAY VALONE Phone: 639-4171 Address: CITY OF TIGARD, 13125 SW HALL BLVD. , TIGARD, OR 97223 DLCD File# Date Rec'd #Days Notice )11 • 1- A PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION `CITY OF TIGARD OREGON FILE NO: CPA 96-0001 FILE TITLE: Bledsoe APPLICANT: Bob Bledsoe OWNER: N/A 11800 SW Walnut Street Tigard, OR 97223 REQUEST: Amend the text of the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan by adding a new policy as follows: 10.1.4 An exception to Policy 10.1 .3 is that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density residential established areas. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10 and 14; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1 and 6.1.1; Tigard Community Development Code chapter 18.30 and; and Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 12. ZONE: N/A CIT: All CIT FACILITATOR: List Available Upon Request PHONE NUMBER: (503) DECISION MAKING BODY STAFF DECISION • X PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF HEARING: 5/6/96 TIME: 7:30 HEARINGS OFFICER DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00 X CITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: 6/25/96 TIME: 7:30 RELATIVE COMPONENTS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION VICINITY MAP LANDSCAPING PLAN NARRATIVE X ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SITE PLAN OTHER STAFF CONTACT: Ray Valone (503) 639-4171 x336 I 411 . . �� _ i'i�► CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT APPLICATION CITY OF TIGARD, 13125 SW Hall, PO Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 - (503) 639-4171 FOR STAFF USE ONLY CASE NO. q c,-0 Do OTHER CASE NO'S: RECEIPT NO. APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: J.v DATE: Z1 $J1L 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Application elements submitted: PROPERTY ADDRESS/LOCATION r P S/ dot► X;a( ,,(A) Application form (1) pOl'ice c/ -/ ) Owner' s signature/written TAX MAP AND TAX LOT NO. authorization 1 1 /C) Applicant's statement SITE SIZE ( re-app check list) PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER* W c � L(D) cling fee ($_ - ) ADDRESS PHONE Additional information for Compre- CITY ZIP sive Plan Map Amendments/Zone Changes fn� APPLICANT* Gob l'l /eds o e F i r C P,,f ra J c k t y t C T. a) Maps indicating property ADDRESS // TOO W Lt/a/4✓1 PHONE y -254'0 location (pre-app check list) CITY d d✓-a oA ZIP 9 729- ?7 (F) List of property owners and *When the owner and the applicant are different addresses within 250 feet (1) people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record (G) Assessor's Map (1) or a leasee in possession with written authorization (H) Title transfer instrument (1) from the owner or an agent of the owner with written authorization. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on page two or submit a written authorization with this application. DATE DE ERMO BE COMPLETE: 1 INED T 1219 6 g=-7V/ 2. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject . y FINAL DECISION DEADLINE: request a Comprehensive P1- . •.. -n.ment (if COMP. PLAN/ZONE DESIGNATION: applicable) from to and a Zon- r r .ge from to N.P.O. Number: OR The applicant requests an amendment to the Planning Commission Approval Date: following sections of the Comprehensive Plan or Community Development Code 10a f. 11 4-o he dd.ed -- a 1/8c6 €o/ / City Council Approval Date: 0737P/23P Rev'd: 5/37 • 3. List any variance, conditional uses, or other land use actions to be considered as part of this application: 4. Applicants: To have a complete application you will need to submit attachments described in the attached information sheet at the time you submit this application. 5. THE APPLICANT(S)• SHALL CERTIFY THAT: A. The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property. B. If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. C. All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants - so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. D. The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. DATED this p roar 0''clay of F7-4.7 eud 19 199 SIGNATURES of each owner (eg. husband and wife) of the subject property. (AA (KSL:pm/0737P) • y '- . . Bob Bledsoe 11800 S.W. Walnut Tigard City Council Tigard, OR 97223 August 22 , 1995 Dear councilors , Basically, the request I am making is an exercise in the people' s right to petition their government. We feel that an aspect of the law needs to be more fair and reasonable. This part of the law is in the City' s Comprehensive Plan, and thus an application is required to start the process to review this law. The application must be accompanied by payment of a fee of $675, unless the Council waives the fee or starts the process itself . Some of us are not in the City yet, but live in neighborhoods built before the City grew out to and around us . Our neighborhoods are developed already to a quality that we want to preserve . One way to help preserve the quality of our established neighborhoods is to zone them at the density they are built . The proposed change in law we would like to be considered would allow the City to indeed assign zoning that matches individual neighborhoods upon annexing . The present law , in Policy 10 . 1 . 3 , requires the City to assign the zoning that most closely matches County zoning. The County zones for residential areas are more dense than the City' s , so as a result the City must assign R4 . 5 , its most dense zone . We should have the option of asking you to assign one of the City' s other zones , especially R2 and R3 . 5 , for neighborhoods already built at these densities . The request will affect Walnut Island, Metzger , and Bull Mountain. In order to have this proposal considered, we request waiver of the $675 application fee and any incidental fees . Should the request be eventually denied by you, there will be no appeal to the courts . Also the Urban Area Planning Agreement (UPAA) with the County needs to be changed to allow the City to assign matching zoning to already built residential neighborhoods . Please schedule a time on your agenda , or that of the Planning Commission to consider UPAA changes . Attached are copies of the proposals . Sincerely, 64A/1/-X Bob Bledsoe RECEIVED AUG 2 2 1995 ek(i ;aJQ91?JEUaanrifaT . I S efry-, w .. • • . . ..„ At the next time period when legislative amendments may be made to the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan, the Central Tigard Citizen Involvement Team proposes the following amendment, and requests a waiver of the application fee. AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF TIGARD: A new policy 10.1.4 is to be added, as follows: 10.1.4 AN EXCEPTION TO POLICY 10.1.3 IS THAT THE CITY MAY ASSIGN ZONING CLOSEST TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IN LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ESTABLISHED AREAS. Approved by majority vote on this date: O 3 /J 772.e. In k---- , 7 sziofixligi Fd by the Facilitator of the C.I.T.. v i rP , — -a_ il,- ygp-6 tvL Se''' Pr,sekt, • • • At the next time period when legislative amendments may be made to the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan, the West Tigard Community Citizen Involvement Team proposes the following amendment, and requests a waiver of the application fee. AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF TIGARD: A new policy 10.1.4 is to be added, as follows: 10.1.4 AN EXCEPTION TO POLICY 10.1.3 IS THAT THE CITY MAY ASSIGN ZONING CLOSEST TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IN LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ESTABLISHED AREAS. Approved by majority vote on this date: ? L C't-c /l.) /o Signed by the Fa9ilitator of the C.I.T.: • • PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE WASHINGTON COUNTY -- TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT A new subsection 8 to be added to section III A on Page 6: III Comprehensive Planning and Development Policies A. Active Planning Area 8. The CITY may assign its Established Area-- Developing Area overlay to all parcels in the Active Planning Area,whether incorporated or not. The CITY may assign zoning closest to existing development in low-density residential established areas. A new subsection e to be added to section III B 4 on page 7: III Comprehensive Planning and Development Policies B. Area of Interest 4. The CITY may consider requests for annexations in the Area of Interest subject to the following: e. An exception to the preceding section d is that the CITY may assign zoning closest to existing development in low-density residential established areas. 7R32_ cc) bcd, C. w c,L-{ 411 ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT of CPA 96-0001 Bob Bledsoe, representing citizens of West C. I .T. and Central C . I .T. Restatement of the amendment : to add the following: 10. 1 . 4 An exception to Policy 10 . 1 . 3 is that the City may assign zoning closest to existing development in low-density residential established areas . I . The need for this proposed amendment : In 1984 the Tigard planning staff recommended and obtained an addition to the comprehensive plan -- Policy 10 . 1 . 3 There was only a very minimum of explanation and virtually no consideration of impact or compatibility with planning criteria , such as I am being required to provide herein. This was done in CPA 2-84 in March of 1984 . And it sounded so reasonable that no challenge was made at the time . When an area is annexed into the city, it is then that city council assigns the zoning. It is impossible to obtain zoning, or even a commitment to zoning, in advance -- we have tried . Historically, citizens petitioned council for zoning they desired, usually zoning that matched their neighborhoods . Indeed they often requested appropriate zoning even when they opposed the annexation itself . When previous neighborhoods were annexed (often forcibly) into the city, they petitioned and received zoning to match their neighborhoods . We who are or will be annexed later should have the same right. That is a basic aspect of justice -- equal protection of the law. It is for justice, and to secure our rights , that this amendment is proposed. It might seem that the effort to preserve low density zoning is contrary to official policies of LCDC and Metro, but I will show later that those policies are directed at vacant , buildable land, NOT at established neighborhoods . CPA 2-84 was not really intended to have the consequence of forcing us into high density zoning. Staff proposed it, "in order to accommodate existing development and neighborhoods as they are annexed to the City. " (Memorandum of March 1, 1984 , attached) Commissioner Roy Rogers said it was to prevent developers from vastly increasing the planned density or vastly changing the type of planned use and the consequent impact to existing development . It was supposed to be a safeguard, but now it is a noose. The reason is that the county does not have zoning districts as low as Tigard ' s. The result that has ' occurred is an oversight. It was not intended (ostensibly) by staff who proposed CPA 2-84 , and certainly not by those who approved it and the concurrent agreement with Washington County (the UPAA) . , • II . APPLICABLE CRITERIA A. Comprehensive Plan Policies 1 . 1 . 1 See discussion of Statewide Goals . 2 .1 . 1 and 2 . 1 . 2 Citizen Involvement This proposal was presented in August 1995 to two Citizen Involvement Teams (C . I .T. ) and was approved by the West C. I .T. and the Central C. I .T. to be considered by City Council at the next available opportunity for comp plan amendments, and a waiver of fees was requested, which the council granted on September 12 , 1995. The City of Tigard has established the C . I .T. ' s to accommodate citizen involvement, and that is the avenue that this proposal has followed. 3 . 1 through 3 . 4 The proposal will have little or no bearing on these sections concerning natural features and natural resources , since the proposal applies only to residential areas already developed . The proposal might have a positive impact toward the feeling of open space -- such space being the privately owned yards of citizens . 3 . 5 and 3 . 6 The proposal has no bearing on parks or recreational facilities. 3 .7 Historical Resources The proposal could help the goal of historical preservation. Historical residences would have a greater chance of being preserved if the quality of established neighborhoods is retained by zoning at existing levels of development . 4 . 1 .1 Air Quality The proposal would help in air quality since established neighborhoods tend to have more vegetation than new areas , and the trees are older (especially since developers still clear-cut when they develop -- example is 106 year old -tree destroyed at the edge of Hunter' s Glenn along with all the other trees on that 20-acre site) . 4.2 . 1 and 4 .2. 2 Water Quality The proposal will have a positive impact on surface water runoff , for the reasons immediately above, and because the impervious area is considerably less in established neighborhoods . 4 . 3. 1 and 4.4 .1 and 4 . 4 . 2 The proposal had no impact on noise , land resources , or solid waste management. 5.1 through 5 .6 The proposal has no impact on economic issues . • • • 6 . 1 . 1 Housing: "The City shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels . " This proposal is a direct application of this policy. The proposal provides the OPPORTUNITY for City Council to continue to provide for a diversity of housing densities and residential types . Diversity means variety, not all maximum density. A valuable part of the diversity is preservation of the old , established neighborhoods. This is the reason why Section 6. 3 is included in the comprehensive plan. 6 . 2 . 1 The proposal had no direct impact on development regulations and standards , since the applicable neighborhoods are already developed. The only exception is 6 . 3 . 2 discussed below . 6. 3 . 1 Established Residential Areas The proposal is based on this policy. The definition of "established areas" is derived from this policy. And the proposal further implements this policy, by retaining established neighborhoods . 6 . 3 . 2 This is the section that provides the most specific protection to established residential areas . It should apply for the old established neighborhoods that are being annexed later, just as it is applying to those neighborhoods annexed earlier. 6 . 3 . 3 The proposal is a needed corollary of this policy. One of the essential tools in protecting established residential neighborhoods is zoning that matches the established development . (Indeed it is for this reason that the citizens accepted zoning in the first place. ) This policy states that preservation of the quality of residential established neighborhoods shall be primary. This policy of the comp plan is one of the major reasons that the City Council should approve the proposal . 6 . 4 .1 The proposal has no impact, since it applies only to established areas . 6 . 5. 1 and 6 . 6 .1 No change resulting from this proposal . 7 . 1 through 7 . 12 • Public Facilities & Services . The proposal has no direct impact on public facilities and services . 8 . 1 through 8 . 5 and 9 . 1 The proposal has no direct impact on transportation or energy. Chapter 11 (out of order to save space) The proposal does not impact special areas of concern. Chapter 12 Location Criteria Our houses are already located. This chapter should not apply to neighborhoods covered in this proposal . • Chapter 10 Urbanization This chapter focuses on urbanization, but also it is where the comp plan provides for annexation. The neighborhoods applicable to the proposal would not be urbanizing: they would be suburban before and after annexation. 10 . 1 . 1 The proposal would not change this policy. The neighborhoods already have a full range of services . The question is who provides those services : the City of Tigard or Washington County and special districts . The exception is when annexation is to obtain sewer service. The proposal could affect the calculated future load on the City' s sewer system, but the effect , if any, would be usually toward allowing the City to limit its exposure . Usually the zoning of existing neighborhoods would have no impact . 10 . 1 . 2 Conditions allowing for annexation would not be affected by the proposal . 10 . 1 . 3 "Upon annexation of land into the City which carries a Washington County zoning designation, the City of Tigard shall assign the City of Tigard zoning district which most closely conforms to the County zoning designation. " THIS is the policy which the proposal amends . My contention is that this policy, when proposed and adopted, contained an oversight . This policy basically provides for continuity during the annexation process. In the only supporting document for this policy addition (CPA 2-84) , the (Tigard) Planning Staff states that they and the Washington County Planning Staff agreed to this policy "in order to accommodate existing development and neighborhoods as they are annexed to the City, " . Commissioner Roy Rogers said the policy was to prevent developers from using annexation to the City to be able to drastically change the planned use of nearby open land. He said their purpose was not to force us into high-density zoning. In other words , the policy was added to limit possible wheeling and dealing by developers . The agreed method to stop developers from going around the planning process was Policy 10 . 1 . 3 , in which they agreed to most closely match county zoning. However, Washington County does not have any residential zones as low as Tigard has: R1 , R2 , and R3 . 5 So the effect has been to force us int annexation at R4 . 5 even though our neighborhoods often are built to the lower densities . This consequence was not intended by those who proposed and those who adopted this Policy 10 . 1 . 3. The City of Tigard has provided for the diversity of a full range of housing densities from R1 to R40 (and occasionally even higher) . We who are annexed later should have the same access to low-density zones as those annexed earlier, such as Derry Dell , Shadow Hills and Ames Orchard, to name a few. • • This proposal is basically one of justice: the equal protection of the law -- the basic idea of Amendment 14 of the U. S . Constitution. The newly annexed citizens should receive the same protection as existing citizens . 10 . 2 The proposal has no impact on extension of services outside the City limits . 10 . 3 The proposal does not impact special areas of concern. II APPLICABLE CRITERIA (continued) B. Statewide Planning Goals Goal 1 —Citizen Involvement This proposal is a direct application of citizen involvement . It is supported by both West C . I .T. and Central C . I .T. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning Covered above in criteria concerning Tigard ' s Comprehensive Plan . Goals 3 , 4 Agriculture , Forest Not applicable. Goal 5 - Open Space, Historic See discussion of Policies 3 . 1 - 3 . 4 and 3 .7 above. Goal 6 - Air & Water Quality See discussion of Policies 4 . 1 . 1 and 4 . 2 .1 and 4 . 2 . 2 above . Goals 7 , 8 , 9 Not applicable . Goal 10 Housing See next page. Goals 11 , 12, 13 The proposal has no direct impact . Goal 14 See discussion on Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 10 . Goals 15 -19 Not applicable . Transportation Planning Rule: No additional impacts to traffic will result from zoning our neighborhoods to the densities at which they are built. • Goal 10 : Housing and the Metropolitan Housing Rule Goal 10 begins : "To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state. Buildable lands for residential use shall be inventoried and plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units . . . " "Buildable lands -- refers to lands in urban and urbanizable areas that are suitable, available and necessary for residential use . " The Metropolitan Housing rule defines : "Buildable Land" means residentially designated vacant and at the option of the local jurisdiction, redevelopable land within the Metro urban growth boundary . . . " Then after all the definitions it states : "New Construction Mix Jurisdictions other than small developed cities must either designate sufficient buildable land to provide the opportunity for at least 50 percent of new residential units to be attached single family housing or multiple family housing or justify an alternative . . . . " . . . . "Tigard must provide for an overall density of ten or more dwelling units per net buildable acre. " As you can see , Goal 10 and the Metro Housing rule are aimed at planning the development of the vacant, buildable land. These rules are not intended to ruin and destroy existing neighborhoods by cramming in extra houses on every square foot of land. The entire discussion in these rules is concerning buildable lands . The option is given to include redevelopable land as buildable . But in Chapters 6 . 3 and 6 . 4 , Tigard has chosen to protect its established residential areas , and to clearly designate developing areas . Considering Tigard ' s choice, these rules do not apply to this proposal , since this proposal covers only established residential neighborhoods . Again: LCDC and Metro are not out to sack the existing neighborhoods. Their area of discussion is the vacant, buildable lands (and redevelopable land if so designated) . Your planning staff is wrong to use Goal 10 and the Metro Housing rule as reasons to disapprove this proposal . And again: the issue is justice -- equal protection of the law. • • Agenda Item 5.6 CPA 2-84 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON March 1, 1984 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff �VV SUBJECT: Zoning Designations on Newly Annexed Parcels of Land During discussions with the Washington County Planning Staff regarding the City's Comprehensive Plan, the County staff raised the issue of zoning properties newly annexed to the City. The County has adopted zoning designations for areas within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. The City and the County Planning staffs agreed that, in order to accommodate existing development and neighborhoods as they are annexed to the City, the City should place the City zoning designation on the property which most closely conforms to the County zoning designation. Therefore, staff is proposing that a new policy be added to the annexation section of the Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies document. Staff proposes the new policy as follows: 10. 1.3 Upon annexation of land into the City which carries a Washington County zoning designation, the City of Tigard shall assign the City of Tigard zoning district designation which most closely conforms to the County zoning designation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a recommendation forwarding staff's proposed policy 10.1.3 to the City Council for adoption. (EAN:pm/0334P) • • - rev ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT of CPA 96-0001 Bob Bledsoe, representing citizens of West C .I .T. and Central C . I.T. Restatement of the amendment : to add the following: 10. 1 . 4 An exception to Policy 10. 1 . 3 is that the City may assign zoning closest to existing development in low-density residential established areas . I . The need for this proposed amendment : In 1984 the Tigard planning staff recommended and obtained an addition to the comprehensive plan -- Policy 10. 1 . 3 There was only a very minimum of explanation and virtually no consideration of impact or compatibility with planning criteria , such as I am being required to provide herein. This was done in CPA 2-84 in March of 1984 . And it sounded so reasonable that no challenge was made at the time . When an area is annexed into the city, it is then that city council assigns the zoning. It is impossible to obtain zoning, or even a commitment to zoning, in advance -- we have tried. Historically, citizens petitioned council for zoning they desired, usually zoning that matched their neighborhoods . Indeed they often requested appropriate zoning even when they opposed the annexation itself . When previous neighborhoods were annexed (often forcibly) into the city, they petitioned and received zoning to match their neighborhoods . We who are or will be annexed later should have the same right. That is a basic aspect of justice -- equal protection of the law. It is for justice, and to secure OUT rights , that this amendment is proposed. It might seem that the effort to preserve low density zoning / is contrary to official policies of LCDC and Metro, but I will show later that those policies are directed at vacant , buildable land, NOT at established neighborhoods . CPA 2-84 was not really intended to have the consequence of forcing us into high density zoning. Staff proposed it, "in order to accommodate existing development and neighborhoods as they are annexed to the City. " (Memorandum of March 1, 1984 , attached) Commissioner Roy Rogers said it was to prevent developers from vastly increasing the planned density or vastly changing the type of planned use and the consequent impact to existing development . It was supposed to be a safeguard, but now it is a noose. The reason is that the county does not have zoning districts as low as Tigard ' s . The result that has `.occurred is an oversight . It was not intended (ostensibly) by staff who proposed CPA 2-84 , and certainly not by those who approved it and the concurrent agreement with Washington County (the UPAA) . • • II . APPLICABLE CRITERIA A. Comprehensive Plan Policies 1 . 1 . 1 See discussion of Statewide Goals . 2 .1 . 1 and 2 . 1 . 2 Citizen Involvement This proposal was presented in August 1995 to two Citizen Involvement Teams (C . I .T. ) and was approved by the West C . I .T. and the Central C. I .T. to be considered by City Council at the next available opportunity for comp plan amendments , and a waiver of fees was requested, which the council granted on September 12 , 1995. The City of Tigard has established the C . I .T. ' s to accommodate citizen involvement, and that is the avenue that this proposal has followed. 3 . 1 through 3 . 4 The proposal will have little or no bearing on these sections concerning natural features and natural resources , since the proposal applies only to residential areas already developed. The proposal might have a positive impact toward the feeling of open space -- such space being the privately owned yards of citizens . 3 . 5 and 3. 6 The proposal has no bearing on parks or recreational facilities . 3. 7 Historical Resources The proposal could help the goal of historical preservation. Historical residences would have a greater chance of being preserved if the quality of established neighborhoods is retained by zoning at existing levels of development. 4 . 1 . 1 Air Quality The proposal would help in air quality since established neighborhoods tend to have more vegetation than new areas , and the trees are older (especially since developers still clear-cut when they develop -- example is 106 year old -tree destroyed at the edge of Hunter' s Glenn along with all the other trees on that 20-acre site) . 4 . 2. 1 and 4 . 2 . 2 Water Quality The proposal will have a positive impact on surface water runoff , for the reasons immediately above , and because the impervious area is considerably less in established neighborhoods . 4 .3 .1 and 4 .4 . 1 and 4 . 4 . 2 The proposal had no impact on noise , land resources, or solid waste management . 5.1 through 5.6 The proposal has no impact on economic issues . • • 6 . 1 . 1 Housing: "The City shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels . " This proposal is a direct application of this policy. The proposal provides the OPPORTUNITY for City Council to continue to provide for a diversity of housing densities and residential types . Diversity means variety, not all maximum density. A valuable part of the diversity is preservation of the old, established neighborhoods . This is the reason why Section 6. 3 is included in the comprehensive plan. 6 . 2 . 1 The proposal had no direct impact on development regulations and standards , since the applicable neighborhoods are already developed. The only exception is 6 . 3 . 2 discussed below. 6 . 3 . 1 Established Residential Areas The proposal is based on this policy. The definition of "established areas" is derived from this policy. And the proposal further implements this policy, by retaining established neighborhoods . 6 . 3 . 2 This is the section that provides the most specific protection to established residential areas . It should apply for the old established neighborhoods that are being annexed later, just as it is applying to those neighborhoods annexed earlier. 6.3 . 3 The proposal is a needed corollary of this policy. One of the essential tools in protecting established residential neighborhoods is zoning that matches the established development . (Indeed it is for this reason that the citizens accepted zoning in the first place. ) This policy states that preservation of the quality of residential established neighborhoods shall be primary. This policy of the comp plan is one of the major reasons that the City Council should approve the proposal . 6 . 4 . 1 The proposal has no impact, since it applies only to established areas . 6 . 5. 1 and 6. 6 .1 No change resulting from this proposal . 7 . 1 through 7 .12 • Public Facilities & Services . The proposal has no direct impact on public facilities and services. 8 . 1 through 8 . 5 and 9 . 1 The proposal has no direct impact on transportation or energy. Chapter 11 (out of order to save space) The proposal does not impact special areas of concern. Chapter 12 Location Criteria Our houses are already located. This chapter should not apply to neighborhoods covered in this proposal . • • Chapter 10 Urbanization This chapter focuses on urbanization, but also it is where the comp plan provides for annexation. The neighborhoods applicable to the proposal would not be urbanizing: they would be suburban before and after annexation. 10 . 1 .1 The proposal would not change this policy. The neighborhoods already have a full range of services . The question is who provides those services : the City of Tigard or Washington County and special districts . The exception is when annexation is to obtain sewer service . The proposal could affect the calculated future load on the City' s sewer system, but the effect , if any, would be usually toward allowing the City to limit its exposure. Usually the zoning of existing neighborhoods would have no impact. 10 . 1 . 2 Conditions allowing for annexation would not be affected by the proposal . 10 . 1 . 3 "Upon annexation of land into the City which carries a Washington County zoning designation , the City of Tigard shall assign the City of Tigard zoning district which most closely conforms to the County zoning designation. " THIS is the policy which the proposal amends . My contention is that this policy, when proposed and adopted, contained an oversight . This policy basically provides for continuity during the annexation process . In the only supporting document for this policy addition (CPA 2-84) , the (Tigard) Planning Staff states that they and the Washington County Planning Staff agreed to this policy "in order to accommodate existing development and neighborhoods as they are annexed to the City, " . Commissioner Roy Rogers said the policy was to prevent developers from using annexation to the City to be able to drastically change the planned use of nearby open land. He said their purpose was not to force us into high-density zoning. In other words , the policy was added to limit possible wheeling and dealing by developers . The agreed method to stop developers from going around the planning process was Policy 10 . 1 . 3 , in which they agreed to most closely match county zoning. However, Washington County does not have any residential zones as low as Tigard has: R1 , R2 , and R3. 5 So the effect has been to force us int annexation at R4 . 5 even though our neighborhoods often are built to the lower densities . This consequence was not intended by those who proposed and those who adopted this Policy 10 . 1 . 3 . The City of Tigard has provided for the diversity of a full range of housing densities from R1 to R40 (and occasionally even higher) . We who are annexed later should have the same access to low-density zones as those annexed earlier, such as Derry Dell , Shadow Hills and Ames Orchard, to name a few. • This proposal is basically one of justice: the equal protection of the law -- the basic idea of Amendment 14 of the U. S . Constitution. The newly annexed citizens should receive the same protection as existing citizens . 10. 2 The proposal has no impact on extension of services outside the City limits . 10 . 3 The proposal does not impact special areas of concern. II APPLICABLE CRITERIA (continued) B. Statewide Planning Goals Goal 1 —Citizen Involvement This proposal is a direct application of citizen involvement . It is supported by both West C . I .T. and Central C . I .T. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning Covered above in criteria concerning Tigard ' s Comprehensive Plan . Goals 3 , 4 Agriculture , Forest Not applicable. Goal 5 - Open Space, Historic See discussion of Policies 3 . 1 - 3 . 4 and 3 .7 above . Goal 6 - Air & Water Quality See discussion of Policies 4 .1 ..1 and 4 . 2 . 1 and 4 . 2. 2 above . Goals 7 , 8 , 9 Not applicable. Goal 10 Housing See next page. Goals 11 , 12, 13 The proposal has no direct impact. Goal 14 See discussion on Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 10 . Goals 15 -19 Not applicable. Transportation Planning Rule: No additional impacts to traffic will result from zoning our neighborhoods to the densities at which they are built . • • Goal 10 : Housing and the Metropolitan Housing Rule Goal 10 begins: "To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state. Buildable lands for residential use shall be inventoried and plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units . . . " "Buildable lands -- refers to lands in urban and urbanizable areas that are suitable, available and necessary for residential use. " The Metropolitan Housing rule defines: "Buildable Land" means residentially designated vacant and at the option of the local jurisdiction, redevelopable land within the Metro urban growth boundary . . . " Then after all the definitions it states : "New Construction Mix Jurisdictions other than small developed cities must either designate sufficient buildable land to provide the opportunity for at least 50 percent of new residential units to be attached single family housing or multiple family housing or justify an alternative . . . . " . . . . "Tigard must provide for an overall density of ten or more dwelling units per net buildable acre . " As you can see , Goal 10 and the Metro Housing rule are aimed at planning the development of the vacant, buildable land. These rules are not intended to ruin and destroy existing neighborhoods by cramming in extra houses on every square foot of land. The entire discussion in these rules is concerning buildable lands . The option is given to include redevelopable land as buildable . But in Chapters 6 . 3 and 6 . 4 , Tigard has chosen to protect its established residential areas , and to clearly designate developing areas . Considering Tigard ' s choice , these rules do not apply to this proposal , since this proposal covers only established residential neighborhoods . Again: LCDC and Metro are not out to sack the existing neighborhoods . Their area of discussion is the vacant , buildable lands (and redevelopable land if so designated) . Your planning staff is wrong to use Goal 10 and the Metro Housing rule as reasons to disapprove this proposal . And again: the issue is justice -- equal protection of the law. • Agenda Item 5.6 CPA 2-84 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON March 1, 1984 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff l(i SUBJECT: Zoning Designations on Newly Annexed Parcels of Land During discussions with the Washington County Planning Staff regarding the City's Comprehensive Plan, the County staff raised the issue of zoning properties newly annexed to the City. The County has adopted zoning designations for areas within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. The City and the County Planning staffs agreed that, in order to accommodate existing development and neighborhoods as they are annexed to the City, the City should place the City zoning designation on the property which most closely conforms to the County zoning designation. Therefore, staff is proposing that a new policy be added to the annexation section of the Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies document. Staff proposes the new policy as follows: 10.1.3 Upon annexation of land into the City which carries a Washington County zoning designation, the City of Tigard shall assign the City of Tigard zoning district designation which most closely conforms to the County zoning designation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a recommendation forwarding staff's proposed policy 10.1.3 to the City Council for adoption. (EAN:pm/0334P) Memorandum DATE: March 29, 1996 . TO: Duane Roberts, Nels Michaelson, Mark Roberts, Will D'Andrea FROM: Ray Valone RE: _ Announcement of CPAs at CIT Meetings CC: Nadine Smith . The city has received two applications for legislative comprehensive.plan amendments that may be of interest citywide. Please give a brief report about these proposals at the April meetings and inquire whether the group wishes to take them up in more detail at the May meetings. It would be helpful to include them during the new announcement period at the the beginning of the meeting and as a reminder when they discuss the May agenda. The first proposal is CPA 96-0001 (Bledsoe), initiated by Bob Bledsoe in conjunction with the Central and West CITs(see attachments). It would add Policy 10.1.4 to the Urbanization chapter of the plan. This would give the City Council the option to assign zoning closest to existing development[on the ground]for properties in low density residential established areas that are annexed to the city. The second proposal is CPA 96-0002 (AKA Business)which would modify the Spacing and Location section of the Locational Criteria chapter of the comprehensive plan. The purpose of the proposal is to make siting of new and expansion of existing retail commercial zoning somewhat easier. At this point, the applicant has put forth two alternative amendments to accomplish this purpose. One would retain the existing restriction of siting any new retail commercial area where there are residential districts on more than two sides. An existing commercial area surrounded by residential may be increased, however, if the city council finds that it will not adversely affect those residential areas. The second option would restrict the siting of any general commercial areas where there are R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 and R-7 [that is, only single-family] residential districts on more than two sides. If the CIT is interested in hearing about either of these two proposals, the applicant and/or staff will come to the May meeting and discuss it. Thank you for your effort and participation in the citizen involvement process. f3,s 62cs0 sJ� • • \i". February 23, 1996 MEETING NOTES FOR CPA 96-0001 (Bledsoe) I. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process A. Preapplication Conference - held on 9/5/95 and 2/23/96 B. Application Submittal - received 2/8/96 1. Deemed incomplete and letter sent to applicant on 2/16/96; need appropriate criteria to be addressed pursuant to city code. C. Planning Commission (PC) to hear matter within 30 days after first meeting in April, 1996. D. City Council (CC) to receive PC's recommendation and schedule a public hearing within 30 days of the PC's recommendation. II. Review Standards of Decision / Discuss Criteria to be Addressed A. Code section 18.30.120 B. Resource documents for addressing criteria 1. Statewide goals - copy 2. Transportation Planning Rule - copy of relevant section 3. Metropolitan Housing Rule - copy 4. Tigard Comprehensive Plan - see example applications, plus address section 10 (Urbanization policies) and section 12.1 (Locational Criteria, Residential) 5. Tigard City Development Code - section 18.30.120(A) and (B) C. Examples of past applications III. Next Steps A. City receives additional application submittal and reviews for completeness. B. Staff report prepared for PC hearing. C. PC hearing D. Staff report and PC recommendation forwarded to CC. E. CC hearing • • ---A - ///iiulll=r; CITY OF TIGARD February 16, 1996 OREGON Bob Bledsoe 11800 SW Walnut Street Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Bledsoe: This letter is in response to the application materials submitted for the legislative amendment to the urbanization section of the comprehensive plan. Staff has found the application to be incomplete according to Tigard Community Development Code 18.30.030 and 18.30.120 (see attachment). Item E of section 030 requires the applicant to address the appropriate criteria in sufficient detail for review and action. Section 120 lists the standards upon which the planning commission shall base its recommendation and upon which the city council shall base its final decision. Your application does not address the appropriate criteria which include the statewide planning goals, federal or state statutes or guidelines, applicable plans and guidelines adopted by Metro, applicable comprehensive plan policies and map, and applicable provisions of the implementing ordinances. We recognize that the initial application was submitted to the city within the time limits set by our code for legislative plan amendments. You will have the time, therefore, to submit the additional information needed to complete the application. If you have any questions about this letter or the criteria that need to be addressed, please call me at 639-4171. Sincerely, . • Ray Valone Associate Planner Attachments 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 ` • • • - . 'Chapter 18.30 ' . > PROCEDURES FOR DECISION MAKING: LEGISLATIVE ' • Sections: . . - . 18.30.010 Purpose . 18.30.020 The Application Process 18.30.030 Time Periods: Submission/Hearings - .18.30.040 . Additional Information Required, Waiver of Requirements and Report . . Required . 18.30.050 Duties of the Director . . 18.30.060 Recommendation and Alternative Recommendation by the Director 18.30.070 Consolidation of Proceedings • 18.30.080 . Public Hearing: Notice Requirements . . ' 18.30.090 Mechanics of Giving Notice and Failure to Give Notice 18.30.100 Hearings Procedure 18.30.110 Continuation of the Public Hearing . . 18.30.120 ' The Standards for the Decision 18.30.130 Approval Process and Authority - .18.30.140 Vote Required for a Legislative Change • 18.30.150 The Final Decision . . . . . i 18.30.160 The Record of the Public Hearing 18.30.170 Reapplication . 18.30.010 Purpose . . . • • • A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures applicable to the community development code for consideration of legislative changes to the provisions of the comprehensive plan, . implementing ordinances and maps. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) . 18.30.020 The .Application Process A. A request for a legislative change may be initiated by: . 1. Order of the Council; . 2. Resolution of a Majority of the Commission; • 3. The Director; . 4. Any persons or the person's agent authorized in writing to make the • application. B. The applicant shall be required to meet with- 'the Director for a . preapplication conference. . . • A . j Revised 07/27/93 Page 35 .t , • • . . -. C. At the preapplication conference, the- Director shall: ; - 1. Cite the applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designation; 2. - Cite the applicable substantive and procedural ordinance provisions; . 3. 'Provide technical data and assistance which will aid the applicant; . 4. Identify other policies and regulations that relate to the application; ' - and 5. YIdentify other opportunities or constraints that relate to the _ application. D. . Due to possible changes in state statutes, or regional or local policy, information given by staff to the applicant during the preapplication conference is valid for not more than six months. . 1. Another preapplication conference is required if an application is submitted six months after the preapplication conference. 2. 'Failure of the Director to provide any of the information required by this chapter shall not constitute.a waiver of the standards, criteria, -or requirements of the applications. (Ord. 93-19; 89-06; Ord. 83-52) f 18.30.030 Time Periods: Submission/Hearinoa A. The :Director shall receive proposed legislative changes twice yearly, the completed application shall be submitted not more than 75 days and not less . than 45 days before the first Commission meetings in April and October. B. The Commission shall hear the matter within 30 days. after the first meeting ' in April or October depending on -which date the item has been scheduled, unless the applicant has submitted a waiver. C. The Council shall receive the Commission's recommendations and schedule a public hearing within 30 days of the Commission's recommendation. D. The application shall be made on' forms provided by the Director. . E.' The application shall be complete and shall: • 1. Contain the information requested on the form; ' 2. Address the appropriate criteria in sufficient detail for review and • action; .1 • 1 1-I . Revised '07/27/93 Page 36 • .5. The body's deliberation may-- include questions to the.. staff, comments . • from the staff or inquiries directed to any person present. (Ord. 89-. . 06; Ord. 83-52) 18.30.110 Continuation nsof the Public Hearing • ' A.. The •Commission or the Council may continue any hearing and no additional notice shall be required if the matter is continued to a place, date and . time certain. (Ord. 89-06; Ord.. 83-52) . %18.30.120 The Standards for the Decision ` A. The recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration, of the following factors: 1. The statewide planning_ goals and guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; . • 2. .-Any federal or state statutes or guidelines found applicable; 3. Applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District; 4. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map; and • 5. The applicable provisions of the implementing ordinances. B. Consideration may, also be given to: 1. Proof of a change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or ' inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or implementing ordinance which • is the subject of the application. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) • 18.30.130 Approval Process and Authority A. The Commission shall: 1. After notice and a public hearing, formulate a recommendation to the Council to approve, to approve with modifications or to deny the proposed change, or to adopt an alternative; and 2. Within 10 days of determining a recommendation, cause the written recommendation- to be signed by the presiding officer of the Commission - and to be filed with the Director. . B. Any member of the Commission who voted in opposition to the recommendation by the Commission on a proposed change may file a written statement of opposition with the Director prior to any Council; public hearing on the proposed change. The Director shall transmit a copy to each member of the Council and place a copy in the record. • i Revised 07/27/93 Page 43 CD RKESPONPE NICE_ AND 5) D 1Ty4LS PREwous Ta CP A A ? ? L CAT1QA/ SufMt rrrA Discussion on Item 4.2(b) - Tentative Agendas: Councilor Hunt asked for status on the following items not listed in the tentative agendas: • Revisions to Development Code • Summerlake - 130th/Winterlake Connection • Water Supply • Bikepaths/Greenspaces City Administrator reported on the above issues as follows: • Revisions to Development Code - These revisions include buffering in residential areas. This project has been placed on the "back burner," as staff is awaiting results of the 2040 planning process. Staff is also working on reprioritizing the Triangle issues, as well as transportation issues. • Summerlake - 130th/Winterlake Connection - Neighborhood meetings are being scheduled; this item will be assigned an agenda date after these meetings. • Water Supply - This issue will be discussed at the September 26 Council meeting. • Bikepaths/Greenspaces - Bikepaths/Greenspaces will be assigned a timeline for Council review. City Administrator Monahan agreed with Councilor Hunt that the tentative agendas should show the items listed above; the Tentative Agendas will be revised and resubmitted to Council on September 26. He clarified that the Tentative Agendas are used as a tool to track agenda items and to determine how to schedule future items by forecasting how full the agendas are becoming. 5. DISCUSS FEE WAIVERS Community Development Director Hendryx reviewed the staff report, noting the issue before Council was: • Should Council submit a formal request to Washington County for amending the Urban Planning Area Agreement? • Should Council waive the application fees for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 - PAGE 5 411 41 Mr. Bledsoe initiated discussions with staff earlier this year about changing the policy in the Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) with Washington County regarding the zoning of land upon annexation to the City. Mr. Bledsoe also sent a letter to Council dated April 5, 1995. Staff wrote a letter to Mr. Bledsoe on April 6, informing him that this policy was contained not only in the UPAA, but also in the City's Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code. Mr. Bledsoe expressed interest in amending the Comprehensive Plan and was advised of the time period limitations for initiating this process. Mr. Bledsoe presented his proposal to amend the plan and requested a fee waiver to the West and Central CITs and received their approval on August 1 and August 3 respectively. Mr. Bledsoe then sent a letter to Council requesting the fee waiver on August 22. Contained in the staff report in the Council packet is a memorandum to City Council from James Hendryx regarding the request or the UPAA amendment and fee waiver for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mr. Bledsoe was also present and testified in support of his quest. He submitted to Council members a memorandum in rebuttal to the memorandum on the matter from Community Development Director Hendryx. Council discussed this issue. Assistant to the City Administrator Newton advised that the Central and West CITs agree it was appropriate to proceed to discuss Mr. Bledsoe's proposal. After discussion with staff members, City Council agreed to waive the Comprehensive Plan Amendment processing fee; this amendment will be submitted during the regular review process cycle next Spring. Council also agreed to include Mr. Bledsoe's issue on a review of the Urban Planning Area Agreement with he County, but not to expedite the timing of the review, given the current workload of the Planning staff. Staff will analyze the Urban Planning Area Agreement and determine which issues they would like to reopen with the County, with Mr. Bledsoe's issues incorporated at the time staff is prepared to request a total review with the County. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to waive the Comprehensive Plan Amendment fee required to initiate review by the Planning Commission. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 - PAGE 6 • • AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of. September 12 , 1995 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Fee Waiver Request PREPARED BY: Jim Hendryx DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the council submit a formal request to Washington County for amending the Urban Planning Area Agreement? Should the council waive the application fees for a comprehensive plan amendment? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the council not submit a formal request for amendment of the UPAA at this time, and that the council decide whether to grant the fee waiver request . INFORMATION SUMMARY Early this year, Mr. Bledsoe initiated discussions with staff about changing the policy in the Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) with Washington County regarding the zoning of land upon annexation to the city. He followed up with a letter to the council, dated April 5, 1995 . In response, staff wrote a letter on April 6 to Mr. Bledsoe informing him that this policy was contained not only in the UPAA, but also in the city' s comprehensive plan and community development code. In follow-up discussions, he expressed interest in amending the comprehensive plan and was informed of the time period limitations for initiating this process . Mr. Bledsoe presented his proposal to amend the plan and request a fee waiver to the West and Central CITs, and received their approval on August 1 and August 3 , respectively. He sent a letter to the council requesting the fee waiver on August 22 . Please see the attached memo for staff evaluation of the UPAA amendment request and fee waiver request . OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1 . Initiate a formal request to Washington County for amending the UPAA. 2 . Approve or deny the fee waiver request . FISCAL NOTES No direct fiscal impact to the city if both requests are denied. • , , • MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: City Council FROM: Jim Hendryx DATE : September 12, 1995 SUBJECT: Request for UPAA Amendment and Fee Waiver for Comprehensive Plan Amendment . Bob Bledsoe has expressed interest in initiating the process to change the policy, contained in the Urban Planning Area Agreement and city comprehensive plan, that requires the city to assign zoning to annexed land which most closely approximates the county zoning designation. He requests this be accomplished in three ways : The City Council submit a formal request to Washington County for amending the Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) ; a comprehensive plan amendment be initiated to add Policy 10 . 1 .4 ; and the council waive the application fees for a comprehensive plan amendment . Staff recommends that the council not request the county to open up the UPAA for amendment at this time . Staff also recommends that the council should decide on whether to approve the fee waiver request, given the information provided below. REQUEST TO AMEND UPAA Mr. Bledsoe requests that the council schedule a meeting to consider changes to the UPAA between the city and Washington County. Section III .A of this agreement requires that the city assign plan designations to newly-annexed territory which most closely approximates the density, use provisions and standards of county designations . The council may request the Washington County Commission to commence discussion and hearings on amending the UPAA. The procedures and timing of the amendment process, however, are the responsibility of the county commission. Staff recommends that the council not request the county to amend the agreement at this time . Since the last update in 1988, several issues concerning the city' s urban planning area have commanded attention. For this reason, staff recommends that a formal request to modify the UPAA occur only after the city has discussed other issues, besides that of Mr. Bledsoe, that might need to be amended. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST AND PROCEDURES The proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan, if approved, , would give the city the option, at the request of the property owner, to assign a zone designation to annexed territory that most 1 J., . • closely matches the existing development in low density residential established areas . Currently, Tigard' s comprehensive plan and development code require the city to assign a zoning district to annexed territory that most closely conforms to the county designation. Mr. Bledsoe requests, through the Central and West Citizen Involvement Teams, that the city council waive the application fee for this action. A waiver of fees is allowed under the provisions of Community Development Code sections 18 . 30 . 030 and 18 . 32 . 345 . There are no criteria listed in the code which guide the council' s decision in this matter other than the words "when appropriate" . For this reason, the particular amendment request, application procedures and preliminary staff analysis must be addressed to assess whether a fee waiver is appropriate. STAFF ASSESSMENT OF AMENDMENT REQUEST Based on available information and past talks with Mr. Bledsoe, staff offers the following preliminary assessment of the amendment request . The amendment would allow the owners of property to request that the city assign a less dense zone to their property upon annexation. The purpose of this provision is to help preserve the existing density in established residential areas . There are several issues that were considered during this assessment . Staff concerns about this policy change can be broken down to three categories : The amendment' s effect on zoning as a consistent, non- arbitrary tool for regulating the use of land; the effect on implementation of the city comprehensive plan, city policies and regional planning goals; and the logistics of applying such a . policy. A major purpose of a zoning code is to ensure that development regulations on use of land, bulk and intensity are applied in a uniform manner within zoning districts . This feature benefits both the owner of land and the presiding jurisdiction. Upon purchase of land, a citizen has reasonable certainty of what can and can not be built upon the land. It is their choice to develop the land up to the maximum allowable under the zoning code; or to not develop the land at all . The choice to preserve the existing established neighborhood by not increasing density, therefore, is made by the property owner. The proposed amendment is not needed to achieve this goal . What the amendment would change, however, is the right of any future owners to develop the property to the density originally allowed on the land, and likely still allowed in the surrounding neighborhood. The city relies on uniform zoning districts for planning and providing services and facilities in an efficient, cost-effective manner. Planning and budgeting for sewer lines, roads and parks, for example, would be much more difficult if individual parcels within a single district could be zoned as R- 1, R-2, R-3 . 5 or R-4 . 5 . A likely outcome would be the over-sizing - of service capacity. 2 • • The second concern relates to the implementation of land use policies as expressed in the city comprehensive plan, as well as in regional planning efforts . The city plan contains the framework that provides for an orderly and efficient land use pattern and urban services which must be available at the time of development . This framework also provides for the orderly and efficient transition of annexed land within the city' s urban planning areas. Planning and budgeting to accomplish this goal depends to a great extent upon consistent zoning districts . The amendment request could possibly affect thousands of parcels both in the city' s active planning area and area of interest . The amendment would have a negative effect on regional planning and growth management efforts. The city must comply with OAR 660-07- 000, the Metropolitan Housing Rule, which implements state goal 10 (Housing) . The purpose of the rule is to assure opportunity for the provision of adequate numbers of needed housing units and the efficient use of land within the urban growth boundary. It requires the city to provide the opportunity for at least 50 percent of new residential units to be attached single family housing or multiple family housing and to provide an overall density of ten units per net residential acre. Currently, the city' s housing opportunity index is 10 .46 units per acre . The proposed amendment could result in several acres of residential land being rezoned at a lower density, thus decreasing the opportunities for multiple family housing as well as the housing index. When Metro implements Region 2040 regional planning goals and objectives through the Regional Framework Plan, the city will probably need to amend its comprehensive plan and zoning code . Given the emphasis on higher densities within the urban growth boundary, these changes will likely consist of establishing policies to increase housing density. Mr. Bledsoe' s amendment would work against this goal . Staff' s third concern about the proposed amendment is how it would be implemented. The method for assigning a zoning district to a property under this proposal is to match the subject property to "existing development in low-density residential established areas" . The proposal does not define the geographic extent of low- density established areas . Is it the immediately adjacent parcels to the site? Is it one quarter of a mile from the site? Does it encompass only low density zone districts even though a higher zoning district is across the street from the site? These questions would have to be answered and a methodology created to implement the amendment . Moreover, it is unclear from the wording of the proposal whether the amendment would apply to only land that is currently zoned in the county as R-5, which is comparable to the city' s R-4 . 5 (low density) , or whether it would apply to land zoned in the county that is comparable to city medium density. Most of the land in the city' s urban planning areas to which this proposal would apply is 3 zoned Washington County R-6, which under current policy would be annexed as city R-7, medium density. Could an owner of land with a county R-6 zoning request a lower zoning under the proposal? If so, would the zoning be determined by surrounding existing development that is comparable to city medium density, or would low density areas be used? These issues should be addressed in the proposed amendment language . If not, then city staff and decision- makers would need to interpret the new policy before recommending or issuing approval or denial of applications . FUTURE OPTIONS Mr. Bledsoe may, of course, apply for a comprehensive plan amendment . Staff would review the application and make a recommendation to the planning commission and city council based strictly upon the relevant criteria in the comprehensive plan. The next available time period for application for a legislative action is between January 24, 1996 and February 23 , 1996 . If the council does not allow the fee waiver now, Mr. Bledsoe or the CITs may request another waiver of fees during for the next application time period. Staff will evaluate the request, at that time, based on any additional information or clarification of the proposed amendment and provide the council with a recommendation. H:\ray\bledsfee.cc 4 P/2 A ,.,-,n=,c c occ- s c 411 — LEGISLATIVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS - SUMMARY - Legislative Action Requirements A. Time periods for submission of application: Legislative proposals accepted only twice per year - no earlier than 75 days before nor later than 45 days before first Planning Commission (PC) meetings in April and October of each year. B. Preapplication conference is required - staff will schedule it on Tuesday or Thursdays @ 9, 10 or 11 am. (1) We need a simple written request of your proposal before the meeting. You can either mail it or drop it off at our offices . C. Application submittal (we will discuss this and give you the forms at the Preapplication Conference) : (1) "Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Zone Change/Zone Ordinance Amendment Application" form. ' (2) Submit 18 copies of a narrative addressing standards in the Community Dev. Code (18. 30 . 120) . (3) Submit fee of $675 . City Council may waive fee (CDC 18 . 32 . 345, Fee Waiver for Appeals) . D. Application Review - Staff will review the application basically the same as a quasi-judicial action review. However, the 120-day period for the City to take final action on the proposal, including all appeals, is not applicable for a legislative action. E. Hearings : (1) The PC shall hear the proposal within 30 days after their first meeting in April (unless waiver of application submission time period is granted) . (2) The CC shall hear the proposal within 30 days of PC recommendation. login\ray\cpaproc . leg FROM: Bob Bledsoe I(rw.pu..c- AT TO: Tigard City Council Ji I5.5 CC SUBJECT: PDonse to Memorandum from • Hendrvx . C,.e-b11%46 SECOND PARAGRAPH -- "REQUEST TO AMEND UPAA" Two issues are deceptively lumped together in this paragraph: the request by the City to the County to modify the UPAA, and the consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council of possible issues to bring to the County. Indeed it is more orderly to negotiate all issues with the County once the City has determined what changes it would like to make in the UPAA. However, the Commission and Council can easily consider the issues distinctly; this is the way the Comp Plan was totally revised in the early eighties . My request remains to place this topic (zoning established low-density neighborhoods upon annexation) on your agenda or on the agenda of the Planning Commission. It could be considered by the Planning Commission, and if approved, then be considered by you in a study session. Then the City could wait a reasonable time until all issues were discussed, and then approach the County. PARAGRAPHS 5-10 -- "STAFF ASSESSMENT OF AMENDMENT REQUEST" Really this is not the time or place to consider the specific merits of our request to amend the Comprehensive Plan; that is the purpose of the hearings . The question is whether you will allow us reasonable access to appeal the law governing us . But since staff has raised some objections , I will briefly address them. PARAGRAPHS 6 "consistent , non-arbitrary zoning" Policy 6 . 3 . 3 provides explicitly for preservation of established residential neighborhoods . In applying the zoning districts envisioned in this request , the Council would most likely be responding to near unanimous requests of home-owners in local neighborhoods . I can think of nothing more consistent and non-arbitrary than to zone an area at the density to which the property is actually divided and built . In several cases , we are talking about neighborhoods built before Tigard was even incorporated. Just because the planners got together and spun a net does not mean it is cast in concrete. PARAGRAPHS 7-8 "regional planning goals" Here you see that the planners are not working for you but for METRO. Obviously our desires are not the same as METRO' s and the planners ' . But in a democracy the citizens are not required to conform as zombies just because the bureaucrats have made their policy. METRO wants 10 to the acre; our homes are in neighborhoods of 2 or 3 to the acre. We were here first. We have rights . The number of extra homes that can be squeezed into existing neighborhoods is small , unless a complete redevolpment is done. But the effect on the neighborhood can be substantial . METRO is projecting 18% or 19%, but I think it will be 1% or less , not counting complete redevolpment projects . The gain is not worth the pain. q__ _J QSxi .tic sr:_bnw_it__.Mouid..._he.. i mn l em e n t ed" Staff should give the Council some credit for intelligence. In any decision wholly at the discretion of Council , the Council gets to set the boundaries . It would consider citizen petitions , the development in place, and staff recommendations . The question of County R-6 to City R-7 should be considered in the hearings process (Staff did not mention the underlying comp plan designations of Low Density versus Medium Density, although that is more important) . Personally I favor giving access to all citizens concerning the zoning of their own neighborhoods . Staff prefers obstacles . 411 • ® C__C./0" MEMORANDUM 11P1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Jim Hendryx FROM: Ray Valone DATE: August 23, 1995 SUBJECT: BLEDSOE REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT I am providing you with some background information about this request for our preapplication meeting with Mr. Bledsoe on August 29. The attached material includes the following: • Relevant sections of the comprehensive plan, development code and UPAA addressing city policy on assigning zone designations to annexed territory. • Letter to the council from Mr. Bledsoe in April of this year suggesting changes to the UPAA and including a postscript where he claims city planners have misrepresented the agreement provision on assignment of zone designations. • My response to Mr. Bledsoe's postscript. ' (7 : i..�.^' .j' p L.�`/� Y�ccz, ,.� t o ` t vL ,. ;Z A TV • • b. THE ANNEXATION WILL NOT CREATE AN IRREGULAR BOUNDARY THAT MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR THE POLICE IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PARCEL IS WITHIN OR OUTSIDE THE CITY; IL) c. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS COMMENTED UPON THE ANNEXATION; d. THE LAND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AND IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY BOUNDARY; e. THE ANNEXATION CAN BE ACCOMMODATED BY THE SERVICES LISTED IN 10.1.1(a) . 10.1.3 UPON ANNEXATION OF LAND INTO THE CITY WHICH CARRIES A WASHINGTON COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATION, THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL ASSIGN THE CITY OF TIGARD ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION WHICH MOST CLOSELY CONFORMS TO THE COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATION. Rev. Ord. 84-21 10.2 EXTENSION OF SERVICES OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS POLICIES 10.2.1 THE CITY SHALL NOT APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF CITY OR UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY (USA) LINES EXCEPT: a. WHERE APPLICATIONS FOR ANNEXATION FOR THOSE PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY; OR b. WHERE A NONREMONSTRANCE AGREEMENT TO ANNEX THOSE PROPERTIES HAS BEEN SIGNED AND RECORDED WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY AND SUBMITTED TO THE CITY; OR c. WHERE THE APPLICABLE STATE OR COUNTY HEALTH AGENCY HAS DECLARED THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL OR IMMINENT HEALTH HAZARD. 10.2.2 IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF POLICY 10.2.1, THE EXTENSION OF SEWER LINES OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS SHALL NOT REDUCE THE CAPACITY BELOW THE REQUIRED LEVEL FOR AREAS WITHIN THE CITY. 10.2_3 AS A PRECONDITION TO THE APPROVAL OF THE EXTENSION OF SERVICES OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT OF REVIEW FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS OUTSIDE THE TIGARD CITY LIMITS BUT WITHIN THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA (REFERENCE TIGARD'S URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENTS WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY). THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE THAT DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT: a. PRECLUDE THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTIES TO URBAN DENSITIES AND STANDARDS; OR b. PRECLUDE THE SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. THIS REVIEW SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING FACTORS AS SET FORTH IN THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND APPROPRIATE IMPLEMENTATING ORDINANCES: a. LAND USE; • II - 67 a t Co . . Co o Gtr p 1 2- la - ( 3(, A $cam. • • D. Within 45 days after the closing of the application submittal period, the Council shall hold a public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.32 and shall make a recommendation to the Portland Area Boundary Commission for approval, approval with modifications, or denial of the annexation based on the standards in Section 18.36.030. At the same hearing, the Council shall assign the development or established area classification as provided by Chapter 18.138, the zoning designation as provided in Chapter 18.32 and, if necessary, the Council shall assign the comprehensive plan designation. E. Any zoning designation approved by the City through this process shall not become effective until the effective date of the boundary Commission's final action on the proposed annexation. F. City notices, regarding the annexation, and given pursuant to Section 18.32.130, shall contain a declaration of the City's intent to consider placing the property proposed for annexation or any part thereof in a City plan and zoning classification including whether it will be annexed as an established area as provided by Subsection 18.138.020.A or developing area as provided by Subsection 18.138.020.8. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 85-32; Ord. 84-61; Ord. 83-52) 18.136.030 Approval Standards . A. The decision to approve, approve with modification, or deny an application to annex property to the City shall be based on the following criteria: 1. All services and facilities are available to the area and have sufficient capacity to provide service for the proposed annexation area; and 2. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing C � ordinance provisions have been satisfied. B. The plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property shall be the City's zoning district which most closely implements the City's or County's comprehensive plan map designation. C. The determination of whether the property is an established area or a -=---developing area will be based on the standards contained in Chapter 18.138. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.136.040 Application Submission Requirements A. All applications shall be made on forms provided by the Director and shall be accompanied by: • Revised 03/17/93 Page 352 So 0-e- A t 9 See-no•,-) - PL", ,,.�, -C /JeVc Lo s ' S�S c,'� (fF 2e & s r) ?age 7 . • b. Annexations by the CITY within the Area of Interest shall not create islands unless the CITY declares its intent to complete the island annexation. c. The CITY agrees in principle to a plebiscite or other representative means for annexation in the • Metzger/Progress Community Planning Area, which includes Washington Square, within the CITY Area of Interest. Not contrary to the foregoing, the CITY reserves all of its rights to annex and acknowledges the rights of individual property . owners to annex to the CITY pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes. r . d. Upon annexation of land within the Area of Interest to the CITY, the CITY agrees to convert • COUNTY plan designations to CITY plan designations which most closely approximate the density, use provisions and standards of COUNTY designations. Furthermore, the CITY agrees to maintain this designation for one year after the effective date of annexation unless both the CITY and the COUNTY Planning. Directors agree at the time of annexation that the COUNTY designation is outdated and an amendment may be initiated before the one year period is over. 5. The City of Beaverton and the City of Tigard have . . reached an agreement on a South Beaverton-North Tigard boundary establishing future annexation areas of interest. This boundary coincides with the northern Urban Planning Area boundary shown on Exhibit "A". Washington County recognizes that the future annexation area of interest boundary line may change in the future upon mutual agreement of both cities. C. Special Policies 1. The CITY and the COUNTY shall provide information of comprehensive planning and development actions to the Community Planning Organizations (CPO) through the notice procedures outlined in Section III of this Agreement. 2. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to (1) amend the COUNTY comprehensive plan, (2) adopt a new plan, or (3) amend the text of the COUNTY development code shall be mailed to the CITY within five (5) days after its introduction. 3. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to rezone land within one (1) mile of the i1 corporate limits of the CITY shall be mailed to the CITY within five (5) days after its introduction. Co-k-11 Bob Bledsoe 11800 SW Walnut St Tigard, OR 97223 April 5, 1995 Washington County Commission Tigard City Council Dear commissioners and councilors, Attached are two proposed changes to the Urban Planning Area Agreement between the County and City. Our neighborhood is the subject of your agreement. The proposed changes would harm neither County, nor City; but they would help us preserve the quality of our established neighborhoods. Every time we talk about zoning, the City planners say we have to be zoned R- 4.5 because of the UPAA. Our neighborhoods are already built. We should be allowed the zoning that matches what is built: R1, R2, or R3.5, if those are closer than R4.5. Also, we deserve the protections accorded to established neighborhoods. Sincerely, ,76 Bob Bledsoe /Sig r • PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE WASHINGTON COUNTY—TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT A new subsection 8 to be added to section III A on Page 6: III Comprehensive Planning and Development Policies A. Active Planning Area 8. The CITY may assign its Established Area-- Developing Area overlay to all parcels in the Active Planning Area,whether incorporated or not. The CITY may assign zoning closest to existing development in low-density residential established areas. A new subsection e to be added to section III B 4 on page 7: III Comprehensive Planning and Development Policies B. Area of Interest 4. The CITY may consider requests for annexations in the Area of Interest subject to the following: e. An exception to the preceding section d is that the CITY may assign zoning closest to existing development in low-density residential established areas. , . „ . { f7 • POSTSCRIPT Upon reviewing the UPAA for these suggested amendments, I have discovered that City of Tigard planners have misrepresented the requirements of this UPAA to both citizens and the Council. What they have told you and us is simply not true. At Council meetings and at C.I.T. meetings, the planners have told you and us that our properties would have to be zoned R4.5,because the UPAA requires that zoning most closely match county zoning of R-6. However this requirement is found on Page 7, and it applies to the "Primary Area of Interest” (Metzger and Bull Mountain). No such requirement is found on Pages 5 & 6 concerning the "Active Planning Area," of which Walnut Island is a part. Thus your planners have furnished you with false statements of the requirements. Are these false statements due to deceit, or just incompetence? Since three sets of planners have made the same misrepresentation, it seems that at least a philosophical bias is at work here. 4li) c10 -2340 1"-----A !: CITY OF TIGARD OREGON April 6, 1995 Bob Bledsoe 11800 SW Walnut Street Tigard, OR 97223 - Dear Mr. Bledsoe: This letter is in response to the iiote I received from you on April 5, 1995. In the note, you point out that section III.A (Active Planning Area) of the Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) between Washington County and the City of Tigard contains no requirement to zone properties that annex to the city and are in the active planning area to a designation that most closely matches that of the county. This is a correct statement. The zone designation requirement referred to above is contained only under section III.B (Area of Interest) of the UPAA. This situation may have caused confusion for both citizens and some city staff in the past. Tigard's policy regarding zone designation of territory in the - active planning area that is annexed to the city is contained in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code. The plan, which is the planning policy document for the city, addresses annexation in the Urbanization section. Policy 10.1.3 states: Upon annexation of land: into the city which carries a Washington County zoning designation, the City of Tigard shall assign the City of Tigard zoning district designation which - most closely conforms to the county zoning designation. The Community Development Code, which implements the comprehensive plan, addresses annexation in Chapter 18.136 = (Annexations) . Section 18.136.030 states, in part: B. The plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the-property shall be the City's zoning district which most closely implements the City's or County's comprehensive plan map designation. Therefore, newly annexed territory in both the active planning area and area of interest must receive designations which most closely conforms to the county designations. . 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 A62 I hope this clarifies the _city•s policy on zone designation of annexed territory. If you have any questions, please call me at 639-4171. Sincerely, Ray Valone Associate Planner se: Bil1•Monahan, City Administrator o o ■ • MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Monahan, City Administrator IA kyi 00) DATE: August 22, 1995 SUBJECT: Fee Waiver Request - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Attached is a letter from Mr. Bob Bledsoe requesting a waiver of the $675 application fee and any incidental fees for a proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. Mr. Bledsoe plans on attending the Council meeting on August 29 to introduce this matter to the Council during the Visitor's Agenda. The advance letter is to give you and staff more information about the request. c: Bill Monahan Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director Ray Valone, Associate Planner cwc0822.95 ,�• III • Bob Bledsoe 11800 S.W. Walnut 7 22 3 " Tigard, OR Tigard City Council August 22 , 1985 Dear councilors , people' s r request I am making is an exercise in the p eo P Basically , the r government. We feel that an aspect of the riggicatoyht to petition n q their g This part of the law is and thus an application is in needs to City ' s Comprehensive e rPlan,able• saw. The application fair and in the t rocess to review this must bed .c spartethe yppayment of a fee of $675 , unless the Council must be accompani waives the fee or starts the process itself . Some yet , but live in neighborhoods built the City y Our neighborhoods b are before e the are not in reserve . One way before ede Crey grew out to and around want to p ed already to a quality neighborhoods is to developed quality of our established proposed change in to help preserve the q they are built . to indeed zone we would like density neighborhoods upon tonexdee e would like to be considered would allow the City n the law W that matches individual to assign The present 10 .1 . 3 , requires the City zones in Policy The County Ton present law , matches County zoning. City' s , so as a zoning that most closely We should assign R4 . 5 , its most dense zone . , s other for residential areas are more dense than the the City have the City must asking you to assign one of built at hone the option of for neighborhoods already Mutlger ! theee, especially Th and Re. 5 , these densities . The request will affect Walnut Island, and Bull Mountain. we request waiver of the In proposal considered, Should the request $675 order to have this a incidental fees appeal to the oe $e75 eventually application fee and any there will be no apps the County courts . Al o theUrba denied a noun zoning is reement��tUPAA) matching Also the Urban Area allow the gCity to assign to be changed already built residential neighborhoods . Please schedule a time on that of the Planning Commission to consider UPAA of the proposals . changes .es . Attached ac changes • Attached are copies o Sincerely , 6;ob Bob Bledsoe C C ex Vt - P �� , ,� i . f ig / , s AUG 2 2 1995 II T u L: `-. :::fi um) y • • At the next time period when legislative amendments may be made to the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan, the Central Tigard Citizen Involvement Team proposes the following amendment, and requests a waiver of the application fee. AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF TIGARD: A new policy 10.1.4 is to be added, as follows: 10.1.4 AN EXCEPTION TO POLICY 10.1.3 IS THAT THE CITY MAY ASSIGN ZONING CLOSEST TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IN LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ESTABLISHED AREAS. Approved by majority vote on this date: 1 s 74k szreeiyabili : •d by the Facilitator of the C.I.T.. 0 cearre ,4- 17-6474L ficen41-e/vS prrsektl--- • • At the next time period when legislative amendments may be made to the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan, the West Tigard Community Citizen Involvement Team proposes the following amendment, and requests a waiver of the application fee. AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF TIGARD: A new policy 10.1.4 is to be added, as follows: 10.1.4 AN EXCEPTION TO POLICY 10.1.3 IS THAT THE CITY MAY ASSIGN ZONING CLOSEST TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IN LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ESTABLISHED AREAS. Approved by majority vote on this date: / / Signed by the Fa ilitator of the C.I.T.: C • • PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE WASHINGTON COUNTY-- TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT A new subsection 8 to be added to section III A on Page 6: HI Comprehensive Planning and Development Policies A. Active Planning Area 8. The CITY may assign its Established Area-- Developing Area overlay to all parcels in the Active Planning Area,whether incorporated or not. The CITY may assign zoning closest to existing development in low-density residential established areas. A new subsection e to be added to section III B 4 on page 7: III Comprehensive Planning and Development Policies B. Area of Interest 4. The CITY may consider requests for annexations in the Area of Interest subject to the following: e. An exception to the preceding section d is that the CITY may assign zoning closest to existing development in low-density residential established areas. cc,(' C. w h_e.c,--F &; \,k, rJ O BBB BLCJISo 11�i S Pft-A P • • LEGISLATIVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS - SUMMARY - Legislative Action Requirements A. Time periods for submission of application: Legislative proposals accepted only twice per year - no earlier than 75 days before nor later than 45 days before first Planning Commission (PC) meetings in April and October of each year. B. Preapplication conference is required - staff will schedule it on Tuesday or Thursdays @ 9, 10 or 11 am. (1) We need a simple written request of your proposal before the meeting. You can either mail it or drop it off at our offices . C. Application submittal (we will discuss this and give you the forms at the Preapplication Conference) : (1) "Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Zone Change/Zone Ordinance Amendment Application" form. (2) Submit 18 copies of a narrative addressing standards in the Community Dev. Code (18 . 30 . 120) . (3) Submit fee of $675 . City Council may waive fee (CDC 18 . 32 . 345, Fee Waiver for Appeals) . D. Application Review - Staff will review the application basically the same as a quasi-judicial action review. However, the 120-day period for the City to take final action on the proposal, including all appeals, is not applicable for a legislative action. E. Hearings : (1) The PC shall hear the proposal within 30 days after their first meeting in April (unless waiver of application submission time period is granted) . (2) The CC shall hear the proposal within 30 days of PC recommendation. login\ray\cpaproc . leg • .p • • C. At the preapplication conference, the Director shall: 1. Cite the applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designation; 2. Cite the applicable substantive and procedural ordinance provisions; 3.. Provide technical data and assistance which will aid the applicant; 4. Identify other policies and regulations that relate to the application; ' and 5. Identify other opportunities or constraints that relate to the application. D. Due to possible changes in state statutes, or regional or local policy, information given by staff to the applicant during the preapplication conference is valid for not more than six months. 1. Another preapplication conference is required if an application is submitted six months after the preapplication conference. 2. Failure of the Director to provide any of the information required by this chapter shall not constitute a waiver of the standards, criteria, or requirements of the applications. (Ord. 93-19; 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.30.030 Time Periods: Submission/Hearinas A. The Director shall receive proposed legislative changes twice yearly, the completed application shall be submitted not more than 75 days and not less than 45 days before the first Commission meetings in April and October. B: The Commission shall hear the matter within 30 days after the first meeting in April or October depending on which date the item has been scheduled, unless the applicant has submitted a waiver. \C. The Council shall receive' the Commission's recommendations and schedule a public hearing within 30 days of the Commission's recommendation. D. The application shall be made on forms provided by the Director. E. The application shall be complete and shall: 1. Contain the information requested on the form; 2. Address the appropriate criteria in sufficient detail for review and action; Revised 07/27/93 Page 36 • • 3 . Be accompanied by the required fee except as allowed under Section 18.32.345; and 4. Be accompanied by 18 copies of a narrative addressing the standards in Section 18.30.120. F. An application shall be deemed 'incomplete" unless it addresses each element required by the form and. each element required by this title and is accompanied by the required fee. G. The Director shall not accept an incomplete application. H. The Director shall have the authority to waive a requirement of this title in the manner provided by Subsection 18.30.040.B. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 85-45; Ord. 84-29; Ord. 83-52) 18.30.040 Additional Information Required, Waiver of Requirements and Report Required A. The Director may require information in addition to that required by a specific code provision provided: 1. The information is needed to properly evaluate the proposed development proposal; and 2. The need can be justified on the basis of a special or unforeseen circumstance. B. The Director may waive a specific requirement for information or a requirement to address a certain approval standard subject to the provisions of Subsection C below provided: 1. The Director finds that specific information is not necessary to properly evaluate the application; or 2. The Director finds that a specific approval standard is not applicable to the application. C. Where a requirement is waived, the Director shall: 1. Prepare a memorandum to the record and to the applicant citing the grant of authority, the specific requirements waived and the reasons; 2. Advise the applicant in writing that the waiver may be challenged at the hearing on the matter and may be denied by the approval authority; and 3 . Cite in the staff report for the application the specific requirements waived, the reasons for the waiver and the specific grant of authority. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) Revised 07/27/93 Page 37 v •• J • 5. The body's deliberation may include questions to the staff, comments from the staff or inquiries directed to any person present. (Ord. 89- 06; Ord. 83-52) 18.30.110 Continuation of the Public Hearing A. The Commission or the Council may continue any hearing and no additional notice shall be required if the matter is continued to a place, date and time certain. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.30.120 The Standards for the Decision A. The recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: 1. The statewide planning goals and guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; 2. Any federal or state statutes or guidelines found applicable; 3 . Applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District; 4. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map; and 5. The applicable provisions of the implementing ordinances. B. Consideration may also be given to: 1. Proof of a change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or implementing ordinance which is the subject of the application. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.30.130 Approval Process and Authority A. The Commission shall: 1. After notice and a public hearing, formulate a recommendation to the Council to approve, to approve with modifications or to deny the proposed change, or to adopt an alternative; and 2. Within 10 days of determining a recommendation, cause the written recommendation to be signed by the presiding officer of the Commission and to be filed with the Director. B. Any member of the Commission who voted in opposition to the recommendation by the Commission on a proposed change may file a written statement of opposition with the Director prior to any Council public hearing on the proposed change. The Director shall transmit a copy to each member of the Council and place a copy in the record. Revised 07/27/93 Page 43 cct 0 -2/3 4,-t_l_Alp iii CITY OF TIGARD OREGON April 6, 1995 Bob Bledsoe ` • 11800 SW Walnut Street • Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Bledsoe: This letter is in response to the note I received from you on April 5, 1995. In the note, you point out that section III.A (Active Planning Area) of the Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) between Washington County and the City of Tigard contains no requirement to zone properties that annex to the city and are in the active planning area to a designation that most closely matches that of the county. This is a correct statement. The zone designation requirement referred to above is contained only under section III.B (Area of Interest) of the UPAA. This situation may have caused confusion for both citizens and some city staff in the past. Tigard's policy regarding zone designation of territory in the active planning area that is annexed to the city is contained in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code. The plan, which is the planning policy document for the city, addresses annexation in the Urbanization section. Policy 10.1.3 . states: Upon annexation of land: into the city which carries a Washington County zoning designation, the City of Tigard shall assign the City of Tigard zoning district designation which - most closely conforms to the county zoning designation. The Community Development Code, which implements the comprehensive plan, addresses annexation in Chapter 18.136 - (Annexations) . Section 18.136.030 states, in part: B. The -plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property shall be the City's zoning district which most closely implements the City's or County's comprehensive plan map designation. Therefore, newly annexed territory in both the active planning area and area of interest must receive designations which most closely conforms to the county designations. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 I hope this clarifies the city's policy on zone designation of annexed territory. If you have any questions, please call me at 639-4171. Sincerely, Ray Valone - Associate Planner =c: Bill Monahan, City Administrator POSTSCRIPT Upon reviewing the UPAA for these suggested amendments, I have discovered that City of Tigard planners have misrepresented the requirements of this UPAA to both citizens and the Council. What they have told you and us is simply not true. At Council meetings and at C.I.T. meetings, the planners have told you and us that our properties would have to be zoned R4.5, because the UPAA requires that zoning most closely match county zoning of R-6. However this requirement is found on Page 7, and it applies to the "Primary Area of Interest" (Metzger and Bull Mountain). No such requirement is found on Pages 5 & 6 concerning the "Active Planning Area," of which Walnut Island is a part. Thus your planners have furnished you with false statements of the requirements. Are these false statements due to deceit, or just incompetence? Since three sets of planners have made the same misrepresentation, it seems that at least a philosophical bias is at work here. �]l -� / F - - - -- --- -- --- '-'- | | -- � � '.. L _-- J " - s. --- -----�'------- ----^-- -- ---- '--^- '- -- -------~�-�- - .. , • : - '-- - ---'--------- ---- -- ]' - ----' --- ----'-------- -------- ---- -------- ------' ---- |: --- '--- ---'-------- -'� - ---- ----- --- '--------- ---- ------ • / --- ----'--r----' �' - '-------- --'- - -------- ---' --' --' ------- ---- ---------' ------------1h-�---' --�-- --------- '-'--- - — ----- -- ---' - ------ -----'------ -- • _` --- - --7� --------- '- --- - - ------ - -- --' -- --- ---'-- - -- -- --' --- --- --__-_ | `__ . ! � S • POSTSCRIPT Upon reviewing the UPAA for these suggested amendments, I have discovered that City of Tigard planners have misrepresented the requirements of this UPAA to both citizens and the Council. What they have told you and us is simply not true. At Council meetings and at C.I.T. meetings, the planners have told you and us that our properties would have to be zoned R4.5, because the UPAA requires that zoning most closely match county zoning of R-6. However this requirement is found on Page 7, and it applies to the "Primary Area of Interest" (Metzger and Bull Mountain). No such requirement is found on Pages 5 & 6 concerning the "Active Planning Area," of which Walnut Island is a part. Thus your planners have furnished you with false statements of the requirements. Are these false statements due to deceit, or just incompetence? Since three sets of planners have made the same misrepresentation, it seems that at least a philosophical bias is at work here. - . '31 - L axon AIL° tcrtan . Bob Bledsoe 11800 SW Walnut St Tigard, OR 97223 April 5, 1995 Washington County Commission Tigard City Council Dear commissioners and councilors, Attached are two proposed changes to the Urban Planning Area Agreement between the County and City. Our neighborhood is the subject of your agreement. The proposed changes would harm neither County, nor City; but they would help us preserve the quality of our established neighborhoods. . Every time we talk about zoning, the City planners say we have to be zoned R- 4.5 because of the UPAA. Our neighborhoods are already built. We should be allowed the zoning that matches what is built: R1, R2, or R3.5, if those are closer than R4.5. Also, we deserve the protections accorded to established neighborhoods. Sincerely, Bob Bledsoe /Sig • PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE WASHINGTON COUNTY -- TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT A new subsection 8 to be added to section III A on Page 6: III Comprehensive Planning and Development Policies A. Active Planning Area 8. The CITY may assign its Established Area— Developing Area overlay to all parcels in the Active Planning Area,whether incorporated or not. The CITY may assign zoning closest to existing development in low-density residential established areas. A new subsection e to be added to section III B 4 on page 7: III Comprehensive Planning and Development Policies B. Area of Interest 4. The CITY may consider requests for annexations in the Area of Interest subject to the following: e. An exception to the preceding section d is that the CITY may assign zoning closest to existing development in low-density residential established areas. • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) City of Tigard ) COA,efLorie c..vuct.�t , hereby certify: Please Print That I am a C �y VC-Q cc- for the City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served notice of the Tigard City Council , G-CC U •-/ Uri - GP bbot - (�ls ve (RESO LUk-i. 01 1--Ct(0) (V) of which the attached is a copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following named C).• persons on the 1� day of �J u....(�, , 19 qIi) , by mailing to each of them at the address shown on the attached list (Marked Exhibit B), said notice is hereto attached, and deposited in the United States Mail on the / ) day of./��--c , 1941LP , postage prepaid. r . Off-1M":1Z-e Prepared Notice Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16 day of . , 19 46 . OF SEAL �M M JO ANN FICIAL HAYES at,_ 441 ‘417,j NOTARY PUBLIC NO.-OREGON 042148 Notary Pu I' of Oregon COMMISSION MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 05,1999 My Commission Expires: W%..&1 S 1 14'11 h:\login\cathy\afofmail • ..,. ` a/ • 4 I A• 1 a 'IJ I CITY OF TIGARD AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I OREGON STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, Jerree L. Gaynor, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: That I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for The City of Tigard, Oregon. X That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planning Director - Tigard Planning Commission Tigard Hearings Officer X Tigard City Council A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE of which is attached, marked Exhibit "A", was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit "B", on the ___Z:5- t day of . J , 1996; said PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE as hereto attached, was poeted obi an appropriate bulletin board on the n/a day of n/a and deposited in the United States Mail on the is''" day of . .,../1,7_ , 1996, postage prepaid. Prep: •ed Notice Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the d da y of , 19 4� • / `•�►, OFFICIAL SEAL �L_ 1 I./At . DIANE M JELDERKS NOTARY PUBLIC TORE O . !�"a` NOTARY PUBLIC•OREGON My Commission E •Tres: 9' �/� `":';�� COMMISSION NO.046142 y MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07,1999 ' .PuBLIc HEARING • EXHIBIT fi • NOTICE W NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL, AT A MEETING ON TUESDAY, July 23, 1996, AT 7:30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0001 BLEDSOE REQUEST: Amend the text of the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan by adding a new policy as follows: 10.1.4 An exception to Policy 10.1.3 is that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density residential established areas. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10 and 14; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1 and 6.1.1; Tigard Community Development Code chapter 18.30 and; and Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 12. ZONE: N/A THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. 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. 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 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 July 1, 1996, 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 DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. 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. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE BASED UPON THESE 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'ERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME4ItINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT 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, Ray Valone. AT (503) 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON. . . EXHIBIT - BOB 'BLEDSOE - .• I. 4. `•' :BOB _BLE S • 11800 SW WALNUT ST ~, 11800 SW WALNUT ST - TIGARD,: OR. : 97:223 • _ - . • ' ; , :TIGARD,h OR • 97223 - -• i . BOB BLEDSOE - 11800 SW WALNUT ST • • TIGARD, OR 97223 • • • . • . . - . . V. . - • •r,`'xY: 't, .. .. ; _ ' : . • •• ••---•••.•:,- - - II ;:-;''-: ._ . . - .. t -• t • • • 1 . 1,CITY OF OREGON TIGARD AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. . City of Tigard ) I, Jerree L. Gaynor, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: That I am a Department Secretary for The City of Tigard, Oregon. X That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planning Director X Tigard Planning Commission Tigard Hearings Officer Tigard City Council A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE of which is attached, marked Exhibit "A", was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit "B", on the 28th day of May , 1996; said PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE as hereto attached, was posted on an appropriate bulletin board on the 28th day of May and deposited in the United States Mail on the 28th day of May, 1996, postage prepaid. 4/411-6(--,,-/- A2/49--L J Pre/ red Notice Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the a of L._ , 197-6. 6 . 0 ,./ 4 1 +.� OFFICIAL SEAL Did- flk j 411 �� '' DIANE M JELDERKS NOTARY PUBLIC O, REG @,? NOTARY PUBLIC•OREGON -- COMMISSION NO 046142 t999 My Commission Expires: 1� y MY COMMI ION gXPI SOTGMer N 07, HEARING EXHIBIT /�" .PuBLIc • NOTICE h„Ak NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY, June 17, 1996, AT 7:30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0001 BLEDSOE REQUEST: Amend the text of the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan by adding a new policy as follows: 10.1.4 An exception to Policy 10.1.3 is that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density residential established areas. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10 and 14; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1 and 6.1.1; Tigard Community Development Code chapter 18.30 and; and Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 12. ZONE: N/A THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. 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. 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 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 May 28, 1996, 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 DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. 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. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE BASED UPON THESE 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 •ERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME•INT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT 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, Ray Valone,AT (503) 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON. • rAr1IDL1 I-5 , • =r � r:BOB;<<BLEDSOE. -- . :..=�.,. - +� -� . ., . . WALNUT •'�� . .BOB"":BLEDSOE'", . .•11800 SW WALNUT ST 11800 SW WALNUT ST ..4.:,.. TIGARD, ..OR''•:-9.7223"' . • ' TIGARD i..OR 97223 - " " BOB BLEDSOE 11800 SW WALNUT ST 1 TIGARD, OR 97223 • f i • • • • • • • • . - FAX TRANSMITTAL- LACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LO� L GAL NOTICE SECTION OF TIGARD TI ES DATE:April 19. 1996 TO: Mary White, Legals (fax) 620-3433 FROM: Jerree Gaynor, City of Tigard (Ph.) 639-4171 The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on May 6. 1996 at 7:30 PM at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the Planning Commission. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the request or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decisionmaker an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to the close of the hearing on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. • PUBLIC HEARINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0001 BLEDSOE REQUEST: Amend the text of the Urbanization section of the,Comprehensive Plan by adding a new policy as follows: 10.1.4 An exception to Policy 10.1.3 is that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density residential established areas. , LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10 and 14; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1 and 6.1.1; Tigard Community Development Code chapter 18.30 and; and Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 12. ZONE: N/A NOTE: This hearing will only serve to open the record for this proposed amendment and no testimony or review will occur. The reason for this delay is to ensure adequate time for the CITs to review and make comments and to comply with time requirements for legislative plan amendments. TT PUBLISH April 25. 1996 0 • 1 A .. A (CITY OF OREGON TIGARD AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, Jerree L. Gaynor, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: That I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for The City of Tigard, Oregon. X That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planning Director X Tigard Planning Commission Tigard Hearings Officer Tigard City Council A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE of which is attached, marked Exhibit "A", was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit "B", on the _L51___1=--h day of C ' i , 1996; said PUBLIC HEARING NOTI E as hereto attached, was posted an appropriate bulletin board on the/51 ay of G� . 1996 and deposited in the United States Mail on the /Y" day of , 1996, postage prepaid. --....,L.72/1-e_c_.----c/14-(-3--„,„-,_.- Pr ared Notice Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the ?() day of #d, 1986 k tV / i//I NOTARY PUB C ■F ORE O I:',:). OFFICIAL SEAL My Commissio xpires: 7 l = ' }_ DIANE M JELDERKS NOTARY PUBLIC.OREGON ®�+1 COMMISSION NO.046142 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07,1999 ' UBLIC HEARING • EXHIBITA NOTICE A„t NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY, May 6. 1996. AT 7:30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0001 BLEDSOE REQUEST: Amend the text of the Urbanization section of the Comprehensive Plan by adding a new policy as follows: 10.1.4 An exception to Policy 10.1.3 is that the city may assign zoning closest to existing development in low density residential established areas. NOTE: This hearing will only serve to open the record for this proposed amendment and no testimony or review will occur. The reason for this delay is to ensure adequate time for the CITs to review and make comments and to comply with time requirements for legislative plan amendments. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10 and 14; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1 and 6.1.1; Tigard Community Development Code chapter 18.30 and; and Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 12. ZONE: N/A THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. 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. 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 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 April 15. 1996, 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 DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. 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. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL •' THE REQUEST BY THE CITY COUNitWILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITEI ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS PORTANT 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 SUFFICIENT 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, Ray Valone. AT (503) 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON. • ` . EXHIBIT B '`:`BOB- BLEDSOE :.:.... . ..... :' .... - •''-' . ; __.;. :;--:_.:j',. :-;*,_=f BOB-BLEDSOE ..,---• - • ' . . =-. ' . ' 11800 SW WALNUT ST ' 11800 SW' WALNUT_ ST - ' - TIGARD, OR '97:223 'TIGARD,' OR • 97223 • - :. ' , . • BOB BLEDSOE . . 11800 SW WALNUT ST TIGARD, OR 97223 _• i • ;. .. �,' • . . , • } - - • • • � �� -' -_ � - � -__-_-_- ---- ___ W #.■il nut ___ „, ' I. , ' 11 -' n th -b • tinci. i L J V4 li Island/ 7 /- --- 111--,:1--]6-- - ' 117.1:5-._ -7' .--- - ....1-1)- :_1::_:: ::_ .----1 -1:1, r\r"-- - -',, - c-[) .--:.__---r.171:-.7-2.i=:_i '-1-1-1--'1e1271,7i: � � � . 1 N -- -ILIE.1=-1 :: ::1. Ili 7/171.-.r: Yz( ------' - _ 17 -I -1- 61-1-1 - ----- -- - -t__''rA'' — -- . awl 'if . ,_A 3 )--: 1- •:: <Y. --V". :3/4 g hi, / ";.(aci* --- 1----- 1 -- I., \ '',: - _ _ _.' — Tiff 7 , ` - _ -- .. ,p .s.',17_17 ,i---_-11 ( - -._7.-.. .i.\ \ II ,-\:.k.67.. , _ ._t\ q-- : _____. _iti4,7,r_______n_ _ __ .. ,ys , . ._ 1,,,_ _ __:___ -.d. .,;,-., • _ ..__,-_-..-iii,.A.) ,..: - __ ,f ..„..., _ . - > .•-/- 41-11WC-. ._ ____:31 -r I 7---Al• I--1' iiiiff--.7-j ----.1. -1.. - ' • / r Fli--%1--: - ''-. • '-•'■ ■ 1/4.k„.L.,,..3-1-1-i-(s -i‘. - II ---inEE .;--i-r, , , _ ,i - .. - -) .;..,..L, -_,,.-_-_ : a 1._,"IL__ T.:: 4.,,, .-- . ,,- i . 4 -,,. .,.4-&- -. - " - 'III ---'7'7--- 1- irfolill9i., r •L-:- 11 ..r.i..J5-:: 'r [ if 1 i , ' /� � 7/m- 7 F---isiwtrl-- -1: r 1-_ ( ffi /A - I A. ' ' ' 7 A..1, Li -im-.1-ei_ - .7-----i--17---..- - an .10,[ 1----,1 ---\_Li___.17P-1.7:: 11:- . _ 4, - --- vi • /- A 171--—- . —.11-1— ... \, , ,—E'Flurf— r _Ft_ _... ,v - . #-/0. -.-_. _di 1-- r . - i-:---'1.1--fil 77-111"—. _.17-. 4 - iii ---,.-: _\'' ----f. 11 1- .., _ ----',,I.,f-EX- . ` "II „ I. 1 _____ v44, „A - _v_. _ _ 1 - / . 4,6� ` i .. . , - , /__ ._,,,,Ii.,),,- FT' ilt"/-- ' '' .-\* il - -- ---- ---i - itlf-e--- __-_-il—rm [ i ..r ii . w xm— _| / ` �\ _l m - -' ` _ �' ---:' -±3--- � m ' ] � �`'�''|~1 � r�'" -- [-- _ __ 11[ il _i �� | 1 _ �- - - __ _ - °°u -�_ __ | ' '` �� -|.. [ / / -7=:- ? . � /' |■`^' r | r---1 | - 7 ] IF ~22/'| -T| T- ```v 1 / Walnut Island CITY C% TIGAD. (I) LCJ •-•(- '\\ 5) • WALNU w 232 . 41 61 . 34 Acres Acres GAARDE ST ,. .. , . , . , .. • .. ., e , . ... 0 „ , ,. .... .\,../.. .• .. .. , , , .. • , ' ., ...., „.... '. .. , • , , , , , , , , . . ' , , .. , ..,,,..........•••••"'''..,. • \ , ,.....•••••••• , , , , ......,...........,...v.. , , , ........,. , .........„... „ , , \. • , ........•••**••...'....•..• • • ...........•••''' , , , / \ , ,.., .. • I . ' . , „ , , ' / • i• .. • , •. .: , . .. i , •. .. .„ .... ../.. ,..:.„, , , . , .\-..... I 1 \ ..„ .\......,. I I ...... . :1 / v.:, V, . .• ,..\ . '. , ... \\.. . , ,,.......* •., ,,,,...„.. .........v.v........vv.,.,:: , ,.. / , .v .................v. ....., ,. •. ... ... \ .. --/\.... \\, .. , ,. ...,) 7 *•. .. —r ...7•M ; ,„ ..... i „.....„ .. ,.„.. i / ,/ \.., n,,,,„ ., . . ....... ,.../ -- : / ..„ .. ..„ „..„.......* / „... ... „...,,,,,,,,....., ....„.„ ... .„ . ....,,. .... . „s .. / .... %. . . 1 . / .. .„...•• / .., , .. .,. 1 , •i,I 3 i ...• .• , 1 m M M / f I l,/ 1 I d I i :1 i; :k \ \M M ..,..,j! .: \ i ... :.•..0 ..,\ i i' : ! \,\ • .. .. _—"..........................:,..,,,.,,,,,==.,..,.....1,,,,...,—...,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.....m,...............1.......t..::.......: .: —'a..."1 ***1 : : : ! ! ! : : I „.......................................3 : : I. /areas Zora!d R•••5 \tartan Area etilatereat r • • ,r• ..., • • er,-,-t. TTY.-.-ri-1..:'-‘7J-1-1-1--,--1.-,•4•••4.-• .).::: +44„...)....., :• . !„„;;;'),)44:,'4,; \ ''),,,,-,,,",)--4 I ; :"I '-', i'••••Li::- ' 4 ' rzr•r••• • r;e:rrara. •:_;••••ar. ev•rri. .4 i 1. • A T 1 \ 271„A 4 i .„, • I - \ XA.,'••11.T,14•A••'\<)••'y'' i 1 i """•TA•Ar"""1 i A i...1\A-rxf7,../r .7,--x-14 4' • AAA 1•X AT',AA r • • • • • • • • I t "•i r :; ,; _•--arae• ;••••,,••: r„, .., : r_r_ • r; . •; , - ; ; ei' .1 i t--, : )?•••'' ..-r---ii 1--1 _,'. : i I i 1 ji I-11 ,1 E17-1.......117 1 VIII ri-••--A;•••••ar•••••••; a i r,4). • ,.•-•:" ....),: --). i I : "••••r 4:44"--) • 4- -..........)---C-1 I, `744.."4.-r:14.1 1-....- .1 ---) I- "1")))••+-4,4----k) .4.)..1 1:: i . If rr\a-a. ere r--,Ar a r I - • • - er 44-4." 4 r I r- , I , : „. ---i I I i• , ' ,- . r\••• .‘isi i .: :-..44 4 r ' i • I 4-44-14),--4-447.----)-.41-14-114.14-....).1 -1.... i I 1 i L. - . , I i .•• .••• • . ••,„ ....„-• .--: I i f,„„) 11--„,„: 71 ...iv.,,,,:,„ • . :: ,-,„ / ,-- •, • • ••-...,, , - •, •• .4„. aft • ID la • t -1--. • +I , • 4r:) 1; - -44-'44; - ' il •:•• ii . ) ,-•„;),!--„, 1 .--••••,7,...T.T....1 riTi-../„.....i.J.14: .,., -i •• .„s: ../- 1 1- 1- : b. ,•••••14-1•-• --i ...I ; 1 :•------1 i'......7.1. .1.-11-.1/4; '..-2..,,1 ..• . '..."......-i ! "....-:"'-, 'I ....›,r-4,-1 1 - ,V441-----ir ' ' r w . ; . I ' 4. I I I j• ro- f i i „I r............. L-..‘....)--'''-- "1 I. i i ,„! ,,;);), L.),i;;;;;;;) , ;;),„;;;,„1,..........„.....! ; : ,;;;;44.;;;;_);;;;J:, »..„ .4_4_, ) ...).„..4....1......_„) .......) ....).....i...)...41.... Lii„..1 1,...)„..... ' ) ft••••••44•••••••,/-4-44')-41..)7.......1 : ..• . !!), )44 r i :.....4„••• :. 1„1„--11••• --t- • ••••,,r"T 1 4• 1 ..), I "444-4.....-44, r 4 < -414 ) Ir.-,r 41 .i • • • •EA • . • . •• • : 1 1,_. 711 : t 1: : r T : : ,r , i, . ,, . .- „ . . . ........._ . .. .4_4 - • 4)44'h. I -4 • r__.: ..: ; rii.,...r...i .4 w... ).1 ).„:„.....), [_..i....±...ii....3.) 1,....),...)„.....r.r.L) ri...;1.),..t. ! ,;)4,:. );;41,441 14r;;)41): 4.14 r•••,)- •)•••),! 1). :1 l' ..4-4-,:-.44!' i 14 ,.1 --)4••••-. -----) 1 t!'''' .1444-4 r4- 4.4.--1 "•-••44 1 i , : --r...-1 1---tr "4-7 , I I 1 I i i i '' • ' r ...144--•1 -1"...). • ." " 4') ' -" ' • •-4.4.-4 31•••••4---•-•••411 4-44) i-hrh-r--1-4-444-1 ).44.4„...4 , 11 1 -:) , , iii ; 4 ,-- , ) , ,,,_,.........4,-- - ) : ; ; )..),, )44?),) )4!:r-1 LAI I-x-44 r; F.....L.......:...,„..... ,...,_...„.......L.L.,Li i .......i.„..Lii ...„1,...t....L.L....; [...4 •-••------.1 1.---!..---.1 r••77-refire;• :`? fr.. •••••••••••r ;••••••••••••••er: : i i 1---1; •-r. i ; et• a flarr•TI 1 f Trairee r-r-11-77--r....-1-1--,1_r"4,,,„ i''',--14 1 I 1•4 •-f i----t-••••i••••••!--4.-, ;5. .••• • J .• ,..... I , 1•••••;2-1 I ;• 1 „.• .-,,-, -,,i• f i '' i 1....A. I 1 1.-Alli '' r"..-1 t j I I,..LiAV•..:1-••i....,---J i•-••••,••••4...1c,...1....L..1...1...-t / A ..-.A.- 1 ;;Yr Tell•ii•-1 riarr..1 !-••••••••••••1•Ala-re'rTharrar-a' 'La i••••/..-aar, itr.iral riatair.a. 'A_I ....riAiraTiee Lralal I. 1:learrri•••••_•••erreel••••Ar.?\;;\,‘Aere-h-....r..1-7•••••••-fatil t;fr'_e;.........::!;rf•;Ir'•;4.-;;-JATrfr'rrkA:•l1,1'1,1;;•'e • .••• .1 i \............. .....1 i. ..L.L.J....;Li._2. ! 1 .1 i. i i i f"..7.7-1"...r-r....., r--r-T-r-1'7 T T'T IT"••••••••AA 7•-• X L I 1 ' ' • X IrT r 11 T4-1 . ' r I 4-- : • 4• ----4-44,/^244) .••• . , 4 ...-'1 ? 1 i .1 1-"---1 1-.....,...-4 I II I I i i .141 .\ \ "1 - -• 1,414.--4-• 11 -1t. 11 : HI 11 1 / HA .••• i • I I ATTA4-•-'1 - •• Ar r r-- •-•;71 " r•i•••tr-r-T-•••i r--...........f-',,, XI' • Xot ; .-- - f , I , : . t---41.4)).-Z r•••E---r-1--1--1-•-i,i_..4-1,,,,. . 1............... I--••• .•• • 1 :: 11 : . .• :: i• \,,,.11 ., .. .. :il • .•z.::::1 LIT.. .1._ _Li, Li i . ': P-1 f• i : r: :: : : „,„. •-.--,...L...i 1......$ i..........1„...., ..1„, 1....... $1 i .1.....TT: 4-2>^',0'.--4 1 ..• • • . : ..• • ;Hr .! 4- i'-) i•••••4,„!--1---L-14----4111 " " 114/ /71 1 i 1 r..)4 r r_,,,,i .......)., _)„,1).......,,„..""")„,,,„ ") i .•• I '- 4.1,- ' _L.-1 • • ) T: ;1...."...1_,\:::..i i • . . F•••••1+.44 r•-•-• 4••••-• F-• ' 4- 1).-44-••••••4 1..............).....44..4.....).....4_44.4.4_4 4 r i I rr j I 4-44.•••••-, -, r---,-•••;": Ix ---1)4_4 1, . ,...„.........._.)i ..• I.1.-_,......-1 [.....1i,),T1,„,„.1.1.4.)! f-....1...-4-' ..)+,...--1 4---K; !i4-1-1 :-- --;"4-I-.• 44`.1...'.'1:....T.I• .f..._•••••• . ,. ..• . ,ThilIF•••7••-iiihr-1 --...4i; ; " i 44))," / .4 ; - ' ' . • • . : 1 I ,....1 I I .1 till 1...i...1).;1.....................) 4............)!).„A.) )11).-••••••, C;)••-) ! 1- 1- 4 I t,----1 1 .-4, I I I- 4,): - • ' i i-J-)41--)„.4 , ': ' ;--- • t` / . • • • .......1 i. -.....----4-_, 7 I •• •• 1 er-r-••••1 -••• ;•••• • • , , ;•••••• . FIT T: r. . , r 1 ._i .: . . : • • • • • ' . ' .. ••:.'' • 7 . ?1.'...1 i 1 i i''''''''''rl I''''''‘A 1 i 1 1,'"'")::"...4 i'. ' I i i i• ......... ......./ +.1 1-7- _):1 1 i I i ; i 1 , ..-!---t.......4)")) , iii• ; : . ( 111,11 /J • i , : :: : l -4 Ti . 1 :H t : w-t•i ,.......,... 1 , • ..::: . :f/ I r••-••"••••••• '/ 411-17114.1 .1 I I f 7 I FT TT.T1...........") 4..)-1...)ITT...)..1 r-r-r-r i '; i 4•• T I 1: ---4 4, nri-T-ur - r.----,--1----, ,----i I i • '...1 ,_,.....p, - ......,,,;/;-&.:14,;„...44,,,,„'...4.4 I .1 ; I 1-.-1 Hi I f••• •• 1 r•••-+: f•-•---,•••-i 1 , . , „...4 [....,_.; , , i i i . 1 . IA 1,....1 i I,.1...j i--+-;l• 1 i I is.-3,..1- ......".,1 1 I 4....4))+1 I---- i !, 4-14,71 , ,A-Ari Aim [... --A.--A.A _-_, AA.A.....i.........A.AH1 r....r.a.• i_ i. 1 i 1. t....4..1, i . i 7.7-4 ..1 r\:/,,..":"1/ Irk i I r .......-4 :„.') I, ....1I-J...' Li I ' I ' ' i 'T-1 i , -El • 1...).4 4.-rr I t....1 r 4-.4 : : : 1 1 1......_-4•4444.71H- 7---•7 •1•••• ----HAI ALA__jA,1XXXX,.1 Li_ 1. .1...1 ,41./A-77„,.... r......t" T.-,.. 1''.-...', ,„'..'.........' '-. -.:.......''''''..-*-- '''. - 'A -----' '---.1--.' 1.,----, >..--,-...1...-1.--..-..L....: ....- ...1-1...L.) r f :, I .,I..T.T.--r-rT.- ..T.)"....7....--4--......r.--T )-"•••)••-•••- i ! 1-••••••••••+-4-1) 11.1.4 41)11.I iTi I I-1.-.I.i, i c....--r-miTT--FT-T-I-T -lc.I r r r.1.. i i -r.....-11.-Fi i FL-i .,1 1 1 . 44". ' `... i ' ' ' 4 I r : __II • 1 r - ' ' I :.- -. .-..) • i -.L.- : I • "1--) 1 r r•••-•4•••4 ".. 4 r 44.444-4.4_, i/44)41-44-1-.3 .44 I I ri---1 Ir---,-: i---1 1 I I, -4••• i lirel 1-7.1--T r ..: - 7.7T-7-1-••••1--r I---t-t:• r•-i i i -1:- ---I 1.......,••••:1 ,:. •,•: „ : : AAA 1 • • • . , . . 44,:- „.........._, .....„.., ......... - ... r.....1 tit-T17:11/ 1-171 '• '• ' X • ti AT : 11 1 IAA\ . : : r I •Tt I. . 1. 1 , 1 •••-, , ,........,-, . .••• •I•."'""A-1 % t , 1 < &.-„,14 : : 4 • i,,,,,A.--1 i i 1.-.3......1 LA , i I-AAA L....1 ...1_ 1 OH 14-1 4 Li i 1 ..• • • ......1 I • •• • • \ T• • • . . \i A••••17414 7 7771.7.71 t terri ": f•--•••; r r i r 1...) I I i 1 I , i . -.4 . $•• • .„ -:„:„...•:\ •-„, ,••• ,, : $ $ . , , : T1 : 1 I ..,• ''.-14 1..--7"4`■ 's-, .••• i 1-••••••"L-4-4,U • !---.1 ' r.--.7 r... .: :. : , ,,i : .4 i•'I T-r-. ...11 L..-ra-1-''''""""L'"'""tr-L-4 1"-1.4.-114 ' „. 1„....„ i i ; r••••• -1 :,_ : I I t_-_,,s ;••••••,\4.„y i, -"„)..i...)..u),):4--1-4-1 -1! ;',- -4 i 4 •• • • , . • t I.,,,,,,,,i • -•,,, A, .1 4- • 1 4 •' t 7- 1744:4•••••7 1 XxX777.?"••1 1 pin-% • 1,, Al.7 1 A(.1 I"X-\„•••,....7-4 AA:IAA, '''''''-'17 • •AA'X..' 17777 7 As. „,, ,11.4,\ ...TA i 4 1 1 ' . .i..L. .,•-•.:.:::1-L.....1„i.L.L.1. "...f.±:.....i......1_ .1 -IX- X " ..........Ax ..i.................. :, • • • • UESX,FOILCO • : • •••... . _ ILMU.54A ••-• '. - • • "" • . - . . . . Area:64Zirij • Placed for review in library CIT Book fa • *-• • • -• • -. .•- _ , • • .5 • -BLDG.DEPT./David Scott,tamisnooeidoi POLICE DEPT./Kelley Jennings.cd.Poovenfon o OPERATTONS/John Acker:t.tithe:.sp CITY.ADAA114./Calhy Wheatley.cootemati. ENG.DEPT./Brian Roger.Development Review Engineer COM.DEV.DEPT./D.S.T.'S • ADV.PLNG./Nadine Smith, ritmtaltt91,..4. • WATER DEPT/Michael Miller.OpegaIons A47./OpecolorsMall Box FIRE MARSHALL • • _UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY . TUATAIN VALLEY WATER DIST. • Gene Bkchell SWM Program/Lee Walker• ' PO Box 745 • • Wa.County Fre District • . . 155 N.First Street . • • . •• ..I . Beaverton.OR 97075• • (pick-up box) • Hillsboro.OR 97124 - • • . , . • . . . . WA.CO DEPT.OF LAND USE S.TRATISP.• . METRO AREA BOUNDARY COMMISSION je#:TIRO-GREENSPACES. - • . . • - • 150 N..First Avenue, • . " • • 800 NE Oregon St#16,Suite 540 ' • Huie (CPA's/ZOA's) •' • Hillsboro.OR 97124 Portland.OR 97232-2109 • • • 600 NE Grand Avenue •• • • . Portland,OR 97232-2736 , „ Brent Curtis(CPA's) ..- ••-•. _..• • ,STATE HIGHWAY DIVISION , -• • • •. ,• ,:• , s • • • Jim Tice(IGA1) : . • - -• - Sam Hunaidi• . - • • . '• ODOT/REGION 1 • . • . - ' Mike Borreson(Engineer) • PO Box 25412 ' • - Laurie Kicholson/Trans.Planning• 1--- ott King(CPA's) .• Portland,OR 97225-0412 • - • • 123 N.W.Flanders • • Tom Harry(Current Planning Apps) .." • .vs: . Portland.OR 97209-4037 . ••• _Lynn BatleylCunent.Planning App's)„,.. •AOREGON DLCD(CPA's/ZOKs) •• ., • • • • • • 5 ' : •• • ••• .-• '" ••••• • ' 1175 Court street.N.E. •• • • •• ODOT/REGION 1,DISTRICT 2-A , •• . • '•- CITY OF BEAVERTON • •- - : Salem,OR 97310-0590 • ; • • -•rf •'•• Bob Schmidt/Engineering Coord. • . Larry Conrad,Senior Planner .• ' • • : • • ' • 2131 SW Scholls/PO Box 25412 s• ;•• •.-• ; •• •• PO Box 4755 , • • CITY OF PORTLAND •.. Portland OR 97225 - • • • Beaverton.OR 97076 *. , : Planning Director " • '• • 1120SW 5th • . CITY OF MICE OSWEGO . • . •••s• -• CITY OF BEAVERTON. • ;. Portland.OR 97204 • •• . , s• City Manager Mike Matteucci.Neighborhood Coordinatcr. • -• ". •. ; . .• PO Box 369.. PO Box 4755 • - CITY OF DURHAM "•. • Lake Oswego,OR 97034 . Beaverton,OR 97076 .• . • . City Manager • . •" , . •-• _CITY OF KING CITY• . . CITY OF TUALATIN ; • • , ; ,• . • Tigard,OR 97281-3483 • ... -•. • - City Manager • • • •• s, . "- PO Box 369 ' . " • 15300 SW 116th - ' • • Tualatin.OR 97062 • _OTHER • • King City.OR 97224 • • ...................................................... ....................................... . .....,.. .. .. . : • . „-, • • —GENERAL TELEPHONE ELECTRIC • PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC _COLUMBIA CABLE CO. • Elaine Self,Engineering Brian Moore. Craig Eyestone PO Box 23416 . 14655-SW Old Scholls Ferry Rd. • 14200 SW Brigadoon Court . . Tigard.OR 97281-3416 • • .• Beaverton,OR 97007 Beaverton,OR 97005 • •• • _NW NATURAL GAS CO. entancoomni-see METRO AREA COMMUNICATIONS - TRI-MET TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT • • • . • Scott Palmer - .• fai posmissea - Jason Hewitt - , ran Knox.Project Planner • • • 220 NW Second Avenue . , • Twin Oaks Technology Center • . 710 NE Holladay Street Portland,OR 97209-3991 • ' • . 1815 NW 169th Place S-6020 • Portland,OR 97232 Beaverton,OR 97006-4886 TCI CABLEVISION OF OREGON • —US WEST COMMUNICATIONS • SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS.CO. Linda Peterson . • , . Pete Nelson - . Duane M.Forney.P1.5-Project Eng. _ 3500 SW Bond Street.• „ . 421 SW Oak Skeet • • . • 800 NW 6th Ave.,Room 324 . Portland,OR 97201 , • • •• Portland,OR 97204 • - S •• Union Station Portland,OR 97209 • ....... ••• • • _AERONAUTICS DIVISION(ODOT) • DIVISION OF STATE LANDS - - _US POSTAL SERVICE• "*. • • _COMMERCE DEPT.-M.H.PARK —FISH&WILDLIFE -.Randy Hammock.Growth Cord. PVC DOGAMI - • " Cedar Mill Station• •• • • • _DEPT.OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY . • Portland,OR 97229-9998 • - • •• • "• " U.Sl'ARMY CORPS.OF ENGINEERS