The URL can be used to link to this page

CPA1996-000027r 0 c,ofig.6-0. _ ill 111. _., _ _ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 96- 5. A RESOLUTION BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT (CPA 96-0002) REQUEST BY AKA BUSINESS SERVICES INC. ---- - - WHEREAS, the applicant requested a comprehensive plan amendment to' amend the text of Policy 12 .2 .2 (2) (1A) of the Locational Criteria section of the Comprehensive Plan by adding a new policy as follows : _ 12 .2 .2 (2) (1B) an addition to Policy 12 .2 .2 (1A) which would add locational criteria for the expansion of commercial areas into - areas zoned for residential uses if the area is not surrounded by single family residential. zoning on more than _two. sides. ... . . . . .. . ._ _. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on August 13, 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 96-0002 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. rItil PASSED: This / V - day of &1(7-46/1142Q/L , 1996 I / or - City of igard . ATTEST: == eC4A21 eA..1 A-*J? 4.)City Recorder - City of Tigar ORDINANCE No. 96- 5(.0 Page 1 CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO AN - - - - APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT REQUESTED - BY AKA BUSINESS SERVICES. The Tigard City Council reviewed the application below at a public hearing on August 13, 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 96-0002 • 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. APPLICANT: AKA Business Services 10626 SW Barbur Blvd. _�_. . :.� - w.d. Portland, OR 97223 OWNERS: Same LOCATION: .Citywide - 2. Vicinity The amendment would be applicable citywide. Staff has determined that, given - existing zoning, the proposal could apply to 50 parcels of land in the City. 3. Background Information The applicant owns 5.81 acres north of the intersection of Pacific Highway and SW �.- Pfaffle Street. The property has split Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations : - of General Commercial/C-G and Medium Density Residential/R-12. These plan - and zone designations were carried over from Washingotn county designations 1 • v . _ • when the property was annexed to the city in 1987 as part of the South Metzger annexation. The C-G portion of the applicant's property currently contains an older building. The applicant believes it will be difficult to redevelop this commercial portion of the property without rezoning the R-12 portion. The current spacing and _- :- location criteria of Policy 12.2.1(2) however restricts the siting of C-G land that is surrounded on more than two sides by residential districts.: - 4. Site Information and Proposal Description - The applicant proposes to modify Policy 12.2.1(2)(B1). Currently, this criterion = - reads: "(1) Spacing and Location (a) The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts o n more than two sides." The proposal, reads as follows: "(1) Spacing and Location -._ . . . :.: (a) A new commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on -- more than two sides. -~ - (b) An existing commercial area may expanded and is not subject to --'- (1)(a), above, if the City Council finds that: - (i). The expanded commercial area is not surrounded by R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5, or R-7 districts on more than two sides; (ii). The increased commercial area will not adversely affect the surrounding residential districts; • (iii). The size of the increased commercial area will allow an appropriate buffer to be provided between uses allowed in the commercial district and uses allowed in the surrounding residential district(s); and (iv). The increased commercial area is the minimum size necessary that is required to allow the appropriate redevelopment of the existing commercial area." 2 • • 5. Agency Comments ODOT reviewed this proposal and offers the following comments: Staff chooses not to - comment on this legislative text change regarding the City's locational criteria for • -- General Commercial areas. ODOT does evaluate and comment on parcel-specific__ quasi-judicial requests for comprehensive plan amendments for their compliance to 4 '�`� - - OAR 660-12, the Transportation Planning Rule. Metro reviewed this proposal and offers the following comments: "The proposed . amendment would appear to permit a greater mix of uses in Tigard by giving greater flexibility in locating commercial uses adjacent to residential uses. Metro supports the efforts underway in the local jurisdictions to expand the opportunities for increasing the mix of uses in a community." B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS . - - - - _. 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 and City Council hearings were advertised in the local newspaper and request for comments-viwere-' � =R= sent to all CITs, DLCD, and Metro. In addition, the proposal was presented to the CITs and their comments are included in Section VI of 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 fine-tune existing adopted and acknowledged comprehensive plan requirements relating to the siting of commercial land to serve the residents of the community. This goal is satisfied. Economic Development: Goal 9 requires that adequate opportunities for economic development be provided by the community. The amendment would increase commercial opportunities through expansion of existing General Commercial areas. This goal is 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 amendment would make it easier to expand existing General Commercial land use designations within multi-family 3 • • . . . residential areas. This may result in more land being rezoned from residential to commercial uses, thus reducing the amount of land available for a variety of housing types and densities. Though each quasi-judicial proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan and change the zoning on a particular parcel must be evaluated according to this ; . goal, the expansion of commercial areas into multi-family residential areas would reduce opportunities for the City to make available various types of housing units. For this = reason, staff cannot make a finding that this goal is satisfied. Public Facilities and Services: Goal 11 requires that development be guided and supported by types and levels of public facilities and services appropriate for the -- .. .- needs and requirements of the area to be served. The city has adequate facilities and -- services available to existing General Commercial land use districts. Any proposed expansion of these areas would be required to provide additional services, if needed, to maintain the existing levels. This goal is satisfied. Transportation; Goal 12 requires that the city provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The amendment would be less - - restrictive for allowing the expansion of General Commercial areas adjacent to residential areas. It does not affect the criteria that require adequate transportation facilities be available to serve these commercial land uses.- The amendment would not cause an :: unsafe and inconvenient transportation system. This goal is satisfied. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL OR 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. The proposed amendment would not result in generating any additional traffic. It would only modify the criterion for locating General Commercial areas to allow . for expansion of existing areas, if all other criteria are met as well. All requests for quasi-judicial Comprehensive Plan map and zone changes for specific property are analyzed and evaluated for compliance to transportation policies and rules, including this state rule. The city reviews all requested quasi-judicial changes for compliance to this rule and makes a determination based upon that review. Findings of compliance or noncompliance to this rule would be made following a traffic analysis of the specific proposal. This policy is satisfied. 4 • • • COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES General Policies: Policy 1.1.1(a) requires that legislative changes be consistent with statewide planning goals and the regional development plan. The findings above address statewide goals. There is no applicable adopted regional plan. Metro was - - - - sent a request for comments. This policy is satisfied. General Policies; Policy 1.1.1(c) requires that the Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code be kept current with the needs of the community. The applicant states that there is a current need to strengthen the city's economic base and maintain viable existing General Commercial areas. This proposal encourages redevelopment of existing General Commercial areas. Staff agrees that the proposal could result in more efficient development or redevelopment of existing General Commercial areas, assuming that adjacent residential areas are not adversely affected by - the expanded use. The applicant has not, however, submitted evidence that the City needs to strengthen its economic base and maintain existing commercial land, and therefore that the Comprehensive Plan policies protecting the encroachment of commercial uses into residential areas should be suspended. The City, in fact, has a relatively high assessed value per capita as compared to other area jurisdictions, which = = — reflects a healthy economic base. Staff cannot, therefore, make a finding that this policy-is- 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 f comments was sent to all City CIT individuals and the Planning Commission and City - Council hearings were legally advertised. In addition, the proposal was presented at all CIT meetings during May of 1996, and comments are included in Section VI of this report. This policy is satisfied. Economy: Policy 5.4 states that the city shall ensure that new commercial and industrial development not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial and industrial uses. The proposed amendment would be less restrictive in allowing the expansion of existing General Commercial land uses adjacent to residential districts. The current restriction to not allow new General Commercial areas in residential areas would remain in force. The expansion of existing commercial areas would be conditional on evaluation of impacts to the residential areas. The applicant interprets this policy as stating that land cannot be used for commercial - -=-= uses until it is designated on the Comprehensive Plan map for such uses; therefore, this policy is satisfied because the proposed amendment would not allow new commercial development from encroaching into residential areas before the land has been 5 • • designated for this use. A quasi-judicial plan map and zone change approval would still be needed to redesignate land for commercial use. While staff agrees that the text amendment by itself would not cause commercial development to encroach into residential areas, we interpret the intent of Policy 5.4 as restricting map redesignation of residential areas to new commercial and industrial uses. Because the proposed amendment would facilitate expansion of existing General Commercial areas into • residential areas, staff cannot make a finding that this policy is satisfied. Housing: Policy 6.1.1 requires that the city provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. It is - primarily implemented through OAR 660-07, the Metropolitan Housing Rule. The rule requires 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 amendment would make it easier to expand existing General Commercial land use designations into multi-family residential areas. This may result in more land being rezoned from residential to commercial uses, thus reducing the amount of land available to housing units. The restriction of locating new General Commercial land in areas surrounded by residential districts, however, remains unchanged. This proposal by itself will not cause the city to drop out of compliance with the housing rule; and the city must review all requested quasi-judicial comprehensive plan map - amendments and zone changes for compliance to the rule and make a determination - -- - based upon that review. The amendment would, however, provide greater opportunity for = ``"' .7 use of land currently designated for multi-family residential to be changed to General - Commercial. This could result in the incremental loss of the opportunity for diversity of - housing densities and types. For this reason, staff cannot make a finding that this policy is satisfied. Transportation: Policy 8.1.1 states that the City shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. The proposed amendment would not affect the City's ability to maintain a safe and efficient street and roadway system. It modifies one criteria of many for amending the Comprehensive Plan and zoning maps. An application for such map changes to a specific property must still meet this policy by demonstrating that expected trips will not cause an unsafe traffic situation or reduce the level of service of roadways below the minimum acceptable levels. This policy is satisfied. - • Locational Criteria: Policy 12.2.1(2)(B.1) sets out the spacing and location criteria for General Commercial land use areas. This is the section the proposed amendment seeks to modify (see Section III above). The intent of this section is to 6 • protect adjacent residential districts from the impact of retail commercial activity. The amendment would allow the expansion of existing General Commercial areas into residential areas only in the following circumstances: If the City Council finds that the commercial area is not surrounded on more that two sides by single-family districts; the increased commercial area will not adversely affect the residential areas; the increased - commercial area will allow an appropriate buffer between the commercial and surrounding residential area(s); and the commercial area is the minimum size necessary to allow for redevelopment. The proposed amendment, through its provisions under section (b), seeks to retain protection of adjacent single-family residential areas. The Comprehensive Plan in general and this policy in particular, however, attempt to protect all residential areas equally from encroachment by commercial areas. This amendment assumes that multi- family residential is not as deserving of the same protection as single-family residential. Staff believes both types should be treated equally if the City's intent is to maintain protection of residential areas. Staff cannot, therefore, 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 or 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. 4. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map. These standards are addressed in Section IV under 'Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policies'. 7 • • 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 states that the Comprehensive Plan contains a mistake by requiring that all General Commercial map designations be surrounded on no more than two sides by a residential district. No reason is given for the mistake argument. Although the applicant gives no reason or substantiating information for his contention that a mistake was made in the Comprehensive Plan, the applicant has satisfied this code section. It is satisfied because the first five standards have been adequately • addressed in this staff report and the sixth standard is optional only. C. DECISION The City Council denies the requested comprehensive plan amendment CPA 96- 0002 based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions. • 8 j_efurxe_e_;nietNfiz:.• Agenda . Meeting of I D 1g 1i Co TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli > . Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Legal Counsel Chuck Corrigan (for Executive Session only); Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Finance Director Wayne Lowry; Associate Planner Laurie Nicholson; Legal Counsel Tim Ramis; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley. > Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, introduced Laurie Nicholson who had been hired to take Ray Valone's position as an Associate Planner. • Bill Monahan, City Administrator, advised Gus Duenas was recently hired to fill Gary Alfson's position as Engineering Manager. He reported that they did • not fill the City Engineer's position from this round of applicants; they would readvertise in January. Meanwhile, Gus Duenas, Greg Berry, and Brian Rager would temporarily divide up the City Engineer's duties. > Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:42 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 7:35 p.m. > Agenda Review Mr. Monahan reported that the Planning Commission rejected the staff recommendation to remove the historic designation from the Tigard Feed & Seed store due to lack of information on the costs of renovation. This matter was scheduled to come to the City Council in two weeks. Mr. Monahan explained that there was a new property owner involved in the Sanders Annexation (Agenda Item #7) and requested that it be set over to September 24. He noted that the County just repaved two roads in that area. Mr. Monahan noted that the Cityscape was not published on time. He said that Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder, has spoken to Community Newspaper Publishing who has assured the City this would not happen again. Councilor Rohlf expressed concerns regarding the Solid Waste Task Force that was established at the last Council meeting. He pointed out there was not sufficient provision for citizen input on this issue of interest to the community. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 1 • • He stated that the review would not succeed as long as it only looked at the haulers' comments on efficiencies rather than also including the citizen's comments on service. Mr. Monahan said that he would have Loreen Mills contact Councilor Rohlf. > Discuss City Administrator Review Process Mr. Monahan presented three of the City Administrator evaluation forms he requested from eight neighboring jurisdictions as samples for Council to review in developing an evaluation form. He explained that the contract called for a Council evaluation by October 16. Mayor Nicoli suggested that the Council meet alone next week for 10-15 minutes to discuss the handouts and develop a direction for the review process. > Mayor Nicoli adjourned the study session at 7:40 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING • Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:46 p.m. • Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None • Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: > Mr. Monahan noted a non-agenda item to consider an intergovernmental agreement on the shared use of the public telecommunication network. > Mr. Monahan asked that Council set Item #7 over to September 24 at the request of the new property owner. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: None 3. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt the Consent Agenda: 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: July 29 and August 13, 1996 3.2 Receive and File: a. City Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 3.3 Approve Mark Cottle as the East County City Emergency Medical Service Policy Representative 3.4 Amend Water Meter Installation Charges - Resolution 96-55 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 2 • • 3.5 Local Contract Review Board: a. Reject Bid from Kerr Contractors, Inc., for Construction Contract for the Tigard Senior Center Improvements b. Award Bid to A.C.E. Janitorial for the Janitorial Services Contract c. Award Bid to Hanson, Dunahugh, Nicholson Architects PC for Architectural Services for the Expansion of City Hall at the Police Department Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 4. METRO FUNCTIONAL PLAN DISCUSSION/UPDATE Mr. Monahan reviewed the status of the Metro Functional Plan, presently under consideration by the Metro Council. He said that staff invited Jon Kvistad, Metro Councilor, to address the Council on how they could best participate in the remainder of the process. Jon Kvistad, Presiding Officer of the Metro Council, explained that the Functional Plan was part of a three step program to adopt rules and guidelines to manage regional growth. The program was comprised of the Urban Growth Report, the Functional Plan, and the discussion on the 28,000 acres in the Urban Reserve areas, including a decision on the expansion of the UGB; the Functional Plan was the early implementation of the 2040 plan to give the region a headstart on managing the growth that was already here. Councilor Kvistad noted the short timeline that the Metro Council had to review the Function Plan. He commented that he was not sure that either the local jurisdictions or Metro were prepared for the consequences of early implementation of 2040 if the Functional Plan went forward as scheduled. Councilor Kvistad stated that he was, familiar with Tigard's comments on the Functional Plan. Although he personally agreed with the majority of them, he said that he could not say that a majority of the Metro Council would support them. Mayor Nicoli referenced the Washington County Coordinating Committee (WCCC) letter that outlined six items of mutual concern to all the Washington County cities within the Metro region. He noted that all the mayors were signatory to the letter, and that the County Commissioners, while not signatory, did reference it in their letter to Metro. He emphasized that these were the issues that the WCCC, not just individual mayors. Mayor Nicoli commented on the process of the 2040 plan, noting that while they had been given opportunity to provide input, there was one issue (addressed in writing to Metro) which Metro staff refused to address: who would pay for the implementation of the 2040 plan? He cited the Plan expectations regarding street improvements and _ pointed out that transportation funding was disappearing. Mayor Nicoli said that they could not afford to implement the 2040 plan, every item of which had associated costs. He reiterated that Metro has refused to discuss the financial side of the 2040 Plan. He suggested that Metro halt the process until their staff could provide them with the implementation cost impacts for each jurisdiction, contending that CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 3 • • they should know what it would cost before implementing it. He said that Tigard did favor 2040 but expressed his concern that adopting the Plan without at least one discussion on its financing was improper. Councilor Kvistad concurred that the funding issue was one of the major issues that the Metro Council had to address; two Metro Councilors have spoken to that very point but remained a minority. He commented on the difference in perspective among regionally elected officials from different cities. He said that Washington County cities wanted to know what their money was buying and how much any project would cost before agreeing to it; therefore, they reasonably expected a regional government to provide the same information. Councilor Kvistad commented that there was a misconception regarding the Metro Executive Officer. Because he was also elected, many thought that he was a policymaker when in fact he managed the affairs of the agency; the functions and powers of Metro were all vested in the Metro Council. Councilor Kvistad said that there would be a full and complete discussion at the Council of every line item in the Functional Plan, despite the short timeline developed by the Growth Management Committee. He reported that based on the first public hearing on the Functional Plan, there were a lot of opinions in the region on this plan, and that the moving forward according to the schedule was debatable. Councilor Rohlf asked which of Tigard's positions did Councilor Kvistad find difficult to support. Councilor Kvistad said that Metro could not shoulder the burden of paying for this alone. He reviewed the structure of the Metro government according to the Charter, and noted that they had no tax base or source of general funds. They were a planning organization with deadlines by which to complete certain programs but they had no money to fund those programs. He said that he did not know where the line was between what they could reasonably ask the regional partners to do and what Metro could do. Councilor Kvistad said that he was concerned about the regulatory nature of the Functional Plan, stating that the citizens did not know what the Plan meant to them. He reported that Metro's current density numbers for 2017 meant doubling the existing density for every community outside of Portland, both inside city limits and in the unincorporated areas. Councilor Kvistad said that a second concern was housing affordability; right now in this community the cost of a single family house was in excess of$145,000- this eliminated the average citizen as a homebuyer. He stated that the regulations of the Functional Plan should not further degrade the ability of average citizens to buy homes. Councilor Rohlf asked if there was any discussion at Metro on how to generate the funds. Councilor Kvistad said that they discussed it daily in terms of Metro budgets but not in terms of how much specifically each jurisdiction would have to allocate to accommodate growth; they did not know what those requirements were. He said that a big concern of his was the fact that, though larger communities had the staff and dollars to implement the required code changes and implementation mechanisms, the smaller cities did not. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 4 • • Councilor Kvistad recommended that the City Council attend the Metro hearings to tell the Council what they thought, pointing out that few elected officials attended the meetings (though many special interest groups did). Mayor Nicoli expressed discomfort with Metro taking on the role of a day to day planning organization instead of remaining in an oversight capacity coordinating regional functions. He asked if the Metro Councilors understood that that was what was happening. He noted that many people didn't trust the cities to make the right decisions and would not trust Metro to do so either. Councilor Kvistad stated that ultimately all the decisions would be local. He said that prior to the passage of the Metro Charter in 1992, they had been working on 2040 but that the Charter and the Regional Framework Plan transformed what they were working on into regional growth planning. Mayor Nicoli concurred but reiterated that he agreed with the group that did not think Metro was supposed to be involved in day to day planning functions but rather was to make the region work in terms of interconnecting the cities in those areas which they all shared (i.e., transportation, garbage, etc). Mayor Nicoli said that he has been shocked at some of the statements made by Metro staff and questioned whether or not Metro staff understood the role that they have recommended for themselves. He said that that was why he thought it was fair for the Metro Council to ask its staff how much it would cost and what were the daily manpower requirements needed to make the Plan work. He said that he was not suggesting the end of 2040 but rather shifting completely away from daily planning functions at Metro and keeping Metro at a higher level. Councilor Kvistad commented that 2040 was intended to address how the region would grow and that most people thought that the general structure worked. He said that the difficulty lay in the regulatory part which was the regional Comprehensive Plan; Metro could not develop that without coordinating with local jurisdictions and their Comprehensive Plans but each local jurisdiction was unique with different needs and priorities. Yet the regional government, representing 1.5 million people, approximately half of Oregon's population, was trying to develop a plan that in theory should be able to address everyone's needs 20 years in the future. Councilor Kvistad said that either they would successfully develop a plan with a light enough hand and a natural progression of events that they would end up with a quality region or they could create a situation where they would not only not enhance the quality of life, they would destroy the basics of the individual communities. He said that they could not use a cookie cutter approach in a region with such a diversity of communities. Councilor Kvistad commented on the changes in Washington County that have occurred since he was born. He noted the need to deal with what was coming and that discussions and "headbutting" over decisions on dealing with transitional problems were only to be expected. He said that it was better to go through that process now to find a win-win solution than to wait 10 years while the roads and infrastructure collapsed and housing became so unaffordable to the average citizen that an "island of wealth" was created into which people commuted to serve a place in which they could not afford to CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 5 • • live. He noted that another major concern was "rural sprawl", the ancillary cities growing towards the Metro area. Councilor Kvistad commented that Tigard has stood up for what it believed in and was taking the heat for it. He said that he agreed with the City Council in terms of the philosophy behind their amendments and in terms of what Metro's role was. He said that he was concerned that more cities have not stood up to say that more attention needed to be paid to their areas of concern. He noted that the "drop dead" deadline for Metro Council was December 31, 1997 when they had to have the Regional Framework Plan completed per Charter mandate. Councilor Kvistad said that the slow, complex and detailed process was difficult for the Metro Councilors to understand, let alone the jurisdictions and the ordinary citizen. He reiterated that the average citizen did not understand what this plan meant. He said that when he explained to citizen groups what 2040 was they invariably said don't move the UGB and don't put density in my neighborhood. He noted over 70 people move into the State of Oregon every day with 45 - 50 of those people coming to the Portland Metro area. He emphasized the need to make hard choices by the mandated deadline to meet the growth that was coming. Councilor Kvistad said that while he did not know if the timelines were viable, they were the ones they had to work with. He emphasized that it would be very difficult to move off the current agenda without City Councilors coming to the hearings and telling the Metro Council what they thought. Councilor Hunt asked if the projects in the plan were so intertwined that they could not be separated out, should it prove not possible to fund everything. Have priorities been set on what could be eliminated to save dollars? Councilor Kvistad said that the Functional Plan had certain specifics and targets that each city would be required to meet. He explained that the Functional Plan was early implementation of the 2040 plan in order to reduce the need to expand the UGB and to minimize the amount of land needed in the future because of the changes made within in the current UGB. Councilor Kvistad commented that a discussion that could occur would be on whether it was possible to implement 2040 faster,or to stop or mitigate the expansion of the UGB. He said that he thought that if Metro worked closely enough with the Planning staff and Commissions of the larger jurisdictions, they could implement a solid portion of this by shifting and changing density and looking differently at the way they were currently growing. Councilor Kvistad said that he did not know if all communities would be able to live up to all the elements in the Functional Plan but that there was nothing in the Plan that could be opted out. He expressed concern that the Functional Plan also lacked a process for amending it and reconsidering elements that did not work. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 6 • • Councilor Kvistad commented that the money would ultimately come from the citizens, whether it went through Metro or the cities. He said that it was difficult to know what was reasonable to expect people to spend but that he hoped they could be flexible enough to keep the plan in place while allowing reconsideration of elements. Councilor Rohlf commented that it appeared that Tigard, despite its letters and staff time allocated to this issue, was not as effective in communicating their message to Metro as they could be. He asked Councilor Kvistad how they could be more effective. Councilor Kvistad stated that the political makeup and structure of the Metro Council and the detail of the Plan required local jurisdictions to come forward to talk to the Metro Council about their concerns. He said that the little cities needed to come forward because Metro mostly heard from those,communities who have had the majority of the problems with growth. Councilor Kvistad commented that the major voice Metro has heard has been MPAC which was supposedly representative of all the jurisdictions; it was not but was composed of a subset of the jurisdictions. He said that many of the recommendations and amendments to the Functional Plan came from what was represented to the Metro Council as being the local governments - namely that the local governments wanted the parking maximums, stream corridor setbacks, etc. Councilor Kvistad noted that the Council also heard from the special interest groups and the Metro Executive Officer. He mentioned the need to educate the seven Metro Councilors on the issues and pointed out that three of the Councilors have not had a role in the growth management aspects of Metro. He said that he understood the time conflicts of elected officials but reiterated the importance of elected officials coming in person to testify before the Metro Council. Councilor Rohlf suggested that the Metro Council initiate meetings with the City Councils and Mayors to get one-on-one feedback instead of trying to go through MPAC or written statements, if they truly wanted to engage the local jurisdictions as "partners." Councilor Kvistad said that he attended meetings of the cities in his district as did most of the other Councilors; however the Metro Council was also part time. He said that he would like to use the same process they used in presenting the 2040 plan to each city but that the time constraints were different at this time. Councilor Rohlf said that he thought the meeting between Mike Burton and the Washington County jurisdictions was productive. He suggested bringing the cities together at one place and time to meet with the Metro Council to give direct feedback without competition from the special interest groups. Councilor Kvistad reiterated that a major problem was the misconception that the Metro Executive could make policy decisions; that was the prerogative of the Metro Council. He said that he would take the suggestion under advisement but stated that it would be impossible to convince certain Councilors to implement it, even though the entire Council needed to hear the jurisdictions' comments. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 7 • • Councilor Kvistad cited the Metro Listening Posts concept to take hearings out into the community; they would use that with the urban reserve plan. He said that while he had advocated doing the same thing with the Functional Plan, certain Councilors strongly opposed doing so; only two public hearings testified to the unwillingness of the Metro Council to take the Functional Plan out to the community. He reiterated the importance of the Council hearing what the people had to say, noting that it was different from what he heard sitting on the Council. Councilor Hunt asked if the Council would receive a staff member presenting a City Council's opinions. Councilor Kvistad said that they would to the extent that the staff person represented the Council's views. However he pointed out that a staff member was not as powerful a presence as an elected official, noting that one Mayor has made a difference by attending nearly every session and speaking to the changes. Councilor Kvistad asked the Councilors to come to the hearings to support their position. Though he agreed with many of their comments, he was a minority vote on the Council. Councilor Scheckla expressed concern on several issues, asking how Metro would address those. These included the transportation problems on Highway 99 and the allocation of all transportation dollars to light rail, the increasing problems with displaced wildlife as more and more development occurred, and the dissolution of the Boundary Commission in a year. He asked if reducing the number of Metro Councilors from 13 to 7 was a better working arrangement. Councilor Kvistad said that a seven-member Council was better able to handle the functions of a deliberative body. He stated that he thought Metro had an opportunity to play a major positive role in the community far beyond anything he has seen so far, and to be a facilitator government for local jurisdictions. It could also become something that it was not intended to become unless checked and held on track. Councilor Kvistad said that they were moving into the next level of the Transportation Improvement Plan in which they had $80 million dollars to allocate among $400 million dollars worth of projects around the region. He pointed out that they would see traffic increase by one third to one half over the next two to three years because of the growth within the UGB even if it was not expanded; communities were not equipped to deal with it. He said that he did not think that the region was politically willing to take the heat it would take to deal with the transportation needs because it meant road construction and reconstruction. He said that he saw a move in the opposite direction, away from constructing roads, as though the quality of life could be preserved by making it impossible to live here. Councilor Kvistad said that, with regards to the wildlife issue, he thought that what they were experiencing has been experienced by every city on the East Coast at some point; it was part of what happened when a community grew. He pointed out that Oregon was a small rural state with a basically rural tax base; the Portland Metro area represented half the state's population and less than 5% of the state's land mass. He commented that contradictions occurred when trying to rapidly adapt this many people to that amount of area. Councilor Kvistad said that hopefully the Functional Plan would give them a framework CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 8 • - • • with which to move forward. He said that he was willing to work with Tigard on every aspect of it because they agreed on probably 90% of the Plan; the other 10% they could work out. Noting local attempts to clean up Fanno Creek and the Tualatin River, Councilor Scheckla asked what Metro would do regarding the dumping of sewage into the Willamette by Portland's storm sewer system. Councilor Kvistad stated that that was Portland's problem, and not one that Metro had to address. He noted that Portland would spend $3 billion to rebuild their sewer and storm water system without fixing the problem; the open sewer pipes would still overflow into the Willamette. He said that he thought it was still worth communities cleaning up rivers and maintaining water quality despite the frustration over the lower Willamette. Mayor Nicoli commented that currently there was a move to erase all the current transportation projects with allocated funding; new projects would be allowed into the mix and the funding reallocated. He noted the I-5/217 interchange and the Greenburg Road overpass in particular as Washington County projects whose funding could be pulled. He expressed his distress that Metro was doing this while at the same time Tri- Met was asking for the bulk of transportation dollars to buy new buses with. He asked Councilor Kvistad do everything he could to see that the state and Metro lived up to their commitments on the already funded projects. Mayor Nicoli noted that Washington County and some of its cities were funding a study on light rail on heavy rail lines. Councilor Kvistad said that he told Commissioner Rogers that he would fully participate and move at the Metro Council to participate in funding the project. Mayor Nicoli said that he was upset when he heard the commitment that Metro was going to make, noting that Sherwood could outfund Metro. Councilor-Kvistad concurred with Mayor Nicoli's comments. He said that he directed staff to do some funding of the project, and while they were not happy about it, he thought that they got the message. He reiterated his commitment to this issue. Councilor Kvistad stated that as a Metro Councilor he would fight anyone that would remove any of the Washington County projects from the list. The County has been a good regional player and it was now its turn to have its projects funded. He said that he would work for full funding of the I-5/217 interchange, including the overcrossing. Mr. Monahan said that he understood that Tigard would continue to give input and attend the Thursday hearing. He asked how much time a Councilor would be allowed to speak. Councilor Kvistad said that normally the Council allowed elected officials to finish their comments if they went beyond the three minute time limit. Mr. Monahan asked the Council for direction on whether or not to include Councilor Rohlf s suggestion in the testimony before the Metro Council. Mayor Nicoli said that he would try to attend the Thursday hearing; staff should attend regardless. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 9 • • • 5. PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION AND APPLICATION CRITERIA FOR NON-PROFIT, LOW-INCOME HOUSING Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, referenced the August 20 Council work session on this topic, and noted that consideration of affordable housing was a Council goal. He explained that the ordinance established a section of the Tigard Municipal Code under which non profit corporations could apply for property tax exemption for low income housing projects. He said that approval of this ordinance did not approve any tax exemptions; it simply put a process in place for non profits to apply for an exemption. He mentioned that the Council would approve or deny the requests on an annual basis. In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Lowry clarified that "governing body" referred to the Council. In response to a comment from Mayor Nicoli, Mr. Lowry reviewed how this ordinance followed state law. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to adopt Ordinance No. 96-34. The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 96-34, AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A SECTION OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TITLED "NON PROFIT CORPORATION LOW INCOME HOUSING" AND ESTABLISHING THE EXEMPTION CRITERIA. Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 6. FINAL ORDER - CPA 96-0002 (AKA BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.) - TO DENY A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST: Amend the text of policy 12.2.192)(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 Planing 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. Staff Report Mr. Hendryx presented the resolution that Council directed staff at the August 13 public hearing to prepare to deny this request. He recommended approval. b. Council Discussion c. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-56 Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Rohlf to adopt Resolution No. 96-56. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 10 • • The City Recorder read the number and title of the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 96-56, A RESOLUTION BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT SEEKING A 96-02 REQUEST BY AKA BUSINESS SERVICES, INC. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 7. PUBLIC HEARING - (QUASI JUDICIAL) - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 96-0005 SANDERS ANNEXATION REQUEST: The owner requests annexation of one parcel of 0.33 acres into the city and a change of the comprehensive plan and zoning from Washington County R-5 to City of Tigard Low Density Residential/R-4.5. LOCATION: At Southeast Corner of Johnson Street and 106th Drive. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.2.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements; and 18.138, land classification of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-5. Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Moore, to set this hearing over to September 24, 1996. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 8. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CHANGES TO THE CITY'S WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES (SDCs) AND TO THE METHODOLOGY PERTAINING TO THE CALCULATION OF THESE SDCs. Under the proposed schedule, the charge for the 410 service zone would increase from $845 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) to $986 and the charge for the Bull Mountain System would increase from $1,000 per EDU to $1,507. The charges for water SDCs have not been increased since 1990. a. Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. b. Staff Report Ed Wegner, Maintenance Director, referenced the CH,M Hill rate study adopted by the Intergovernmental Water Board in June which recommended increasing SDC charges for the first time since 1990. He said that staff reviewed the study and proposed increasing the City's SDC charges in the 410 and Bull Mountain zones. Mike Miller commented that the purpose of the SDCs were to generate revenue for the City and to insure fair and equitable financing of water system improvements necessitated by new development. He noted the fee increases: CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 11 • • S from $845 to $986 per EDU in the 410 service area and from $1000 to $1,507 per EDU in the Bull Mountain service area. He pointed out that even with the increase in the 410 SDC, Tigard's rate was the second lowest in the region; the increase in the Bull Mountain SDC put the rate near the middle of SDCs in the region. He reviewed the methodology CH2M Hill used to generate the figures. In response to a request from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Miller explained that the Bull Mountain SDCs were higher because the water had to be pumped up to that region from the 410 reservoir; also additional facilities were required to serve Bull Mountain. Mr. Wegner reported that the Homebuilders Association of Metro Portland submitted a letter supporting the recommended changes but requesting an effective date of January 1, 1997 instead of the November 1, 1996 date stated in the resolution; staff had no objection to the requested change. He said that they received no objections at the public meeting held by the City. Councilor Rohlf asked what the financial implications were of those additional months. Mr. Wegner said that there wouldn't be much construction activity during November/December. c. Public Testimony: None d. Staff Recommendation Mr. Miller recommended approval of the new SDCs. e. Council Questions Councilor Hunt requested more discussion on the new date. Mr. Monahan commented that many multifamily applications have been initiated and asked • about commercial applications. Mr. Hendryx said that last year the City issued 350 single family permits but that he did not have the data on the multifamily or commercial permits here. Mr. Monahan explained that staff proposed two additional months to give adequate notice. He said that they expected a rush of applications prior to the effective date, and felt that it would be a service to the community to push off that rush by a couple of months. Mr. Lowry said that, give 60 units in the 410 zone, the City would not get $8,000 - $9,000 by postponing the date. f. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. g. Council Consideration: Resolution 96-57 Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Resolution 96-57 with the effective date to December 1, 1996. The City Recorder read the number and title of the Resolution. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 12 • 1111 RESOLUTION NO. 96-57, A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF TIGARD WATER SERVICE AREA SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE AND THE METHODOLOGY USED TO ESTABLISH THE CHARGES. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS > Mr. Monahan requested a Council motion authorizing the Mayor to sign an IGA for the City to secure use of public communication network equipment with Hillsboro, Washington County, Lake Oswego, and Tualatin Valley Water District. He said that they have cooperatively purchased equipment over the past year with those cities; this agreement included access to the Internet for $2 a month for all City computers. He said that the money was in the 1996/97 budget. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to authorize the Mayor to sign the intergovernmental agreement. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") > Ms. Wheatley distributed information sent by Metro Executive Officer Mike Burton explaining his proposal on the urban reserve areas. 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: None 11. ADJOURNMENT: 9:13 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder or or, City of Tigard Date: /0/g /Q(./ CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 13 G 1. -o� • "Benda Item No. 3 r___ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of �l Ilea 10 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 Jini 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 Rohlf 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 Pfaffle, 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 5 411 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 Scheckla, 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 • 0 • 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, Rohlf 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 Schecida, 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 Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-29. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 9 • .. • Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf 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, Rohlf 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 ID • 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. Nels 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. _ L. 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 V 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 fmd 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 basis. 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 fmd 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 • 0 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 Rohlf, 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 Rohlf 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 Rohlf, '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, Rohlf 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 Rohif, to recommend approval of the bid. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohif 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. OR-191 ,i, Catherine Wheatley City Recorder Attest: ef'•yor, City of T:and Date: q//0/QC.P f:\recorder\ccm\ccm0813.96 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 19 Gr - • •Agenda Item No. 3. 1 Meeting of S 113 I Rto TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 9, 1996 • STUDY SESSION • Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli • Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. • Staff Present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Legal Counsel Jim Coleman; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Associate Planner Nels Michealson; Asst. to the City Administrator Liz Newton; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley. > Election Training City Recorder Cathy Wheatley reviewed a handout on election law pertaining to elected officials and public employees. She explained that while elected officials could support an issue or a candidate, neither staff nor appointed public officials (i.e., Boards and Commission members) could work on a campaign unless it was on their own time. She said that the state recommended that employees announce when working on a campaign that they were not representing the City and that they keep track of their time. Ms. Wheatley stated that staff has concluded that CIT facilitators did not qualify as public employees because they were elected from their membership, not appointed by the Council. She noted that staff could wear political campaign buttons. She explained that any written material prepared by staff had to be fair and impartial in representing all sides of an issue. She reviewed the criteria used to judge impartiality. • Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:47 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 and Study Session reconvened at 7:15 p.m. • Cook Park Task Force Community Development Director Jim Hendryx reported that staff intended the Task Force to do one final review of the scope of work, as it has been revised. > Agenda Review CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 9, 1996 - PAGE 1 • . • City Administrator Bill Monahan noted a request from the applicant to continue the public hearing listed in Agenda Item No. 5 due to scheduling conflicts. He recommended opening the public hearing in order to continue the matter and allowing any interested parties to testify at this time if they so wished. He suggested moving this item prior to the Consent Agenda. Councilor Hunt asked for clarification on the term "real market value" in Item No. 7 (LID). Legal Counsel Jim Coleman explained that real market value was being used in this instance. Ballot Measure 5 requires property tax assessments be based on real market value. Councilor Scheckla asked why this item was on the agenda. Mr. Monahan explained that this was intended to help staff reach a final assessment on the properties involved in the Dartmouth extension. Chuck Corrigan, who has handled the litigation on the Dartmouth extension, has recommended that the City allow a certain property owner to "Bancroft bond" in order to remove one of the impediments to this Local Improvement District (LID). 1. BUSINESS MEETING • Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at • 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, asked what was the status of the IGA contract with Lake Oswego. Mr. Monahan stated that they were awaiting language from Lake Oswego for an updated contract on purchasing water, but that it did not include Tigard becoming a partner through buying into the system at this time. Mr. Polans asked about the discussions involving several jurisdictions that began three months ago. Mr. Monahan stated that that discussion regarding an option to go to the Willamette River was still ongoing between Tualatin Valley, Wilsonville, Tualatin, Sherwood and Tigard. Mr. Polans asked if it would be better to partner with another city as opposed to purchasing water. Mr. Monahan replied that they would consider that question when they evaluated their options. Mayor Nicoli explained to Martha Bishop that she signed up to testify at a public hearing this evening and therefore Council could not listen to her comments outside CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 9, 1996 - PAGE 2 • • of that forum. Ms. Bishop stated that she would testify at the August 13 continuance of the hearing. The Council considered Item No. 5 at this time. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Hunt asked to remove 3.2b and 3.4. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf to adopt Consent Agenda items 3.1, 3.2.a, 3.3 and 3.5. 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 11, 1996 3.2 Receive and File: a. City Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 3.3 Approve City/County Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Civil Forfeiture Proceeds 3.4 Adopt Fiscal Year 1996-97 Salary Schedule for Management/Professional, Group Employees; Formalize Direction on the Oregon Supreme Court Ruling Regarding Measure 8 and Reduce the City's Contribution to the Management/Professional Group by 1% per Fiscal Year Over the Next Three Fiscal years - Resolution No. 96- 3.5 . Local Contract Review Board: Award Cityscape Printing Bid to Community Newspapers, Inc. for FY 1996-97. • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion 3.2b Tentative Agenda Councilor Hunt referred to page 4, the item on finalizing long-range space plans. He said that he did not think the Council was doing a good job in giving staff direction regarding long-term space planning for the City Hall building. He cited the expansion of the police department, commenting that he did not know if they were including more storage space and reserving areas for elevators or stairs should they decide to add a second floor. Councilor Hunt spoke for doing overall long-range planning for space through a master plan. Mayor Nicoli stated that they would put the item on the workshop agenda for next week. Councilor Hunt questioned scheduling finalized long-range plans for Cook Park on September 13. Mr. Monahan confirmed that that was an error and stated that it would be corrected. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 9, 1996 - PAGE 3 • • Councilor Hunt referred to the item on affordable housing. He stated that this was a particular interest of his and suggested having a Council liaison to the people involved with affordable housing. He noted that they had said that support from the City, more than money, was most helpful to them. Mayor Nicoli appointed Councilor Hunt as the Council Liaison and asked Mr. Monahan to contact the group. Mr. Monahan commented that he received regular updates on the affordable housing activities and that it was an ongoing agenda item. He noted that the affordable housing issue also involved a review of the feasibility of creating a community housing code; staff was considering scheduling the issue in August or September. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf to approve the tentative Council Agenda with the rescheduling of Cook Park. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohif and Scheckla voted "yes.") 3.4 Adopt Fiscal Year 1996-97 Salary Schedule for Management/ Professional Group Employees; Formalize Direction on the Oregon Supreme Court Ruling Regarding Measure 8 and Reduce the City's Contribution to the Management/Professional Group by 1% per Fiscal Year Over the Next Three Fiscal years - Resolution No. 96- Councilor Hunt stated that he would vote "no" on this item, not because he disagreed with the contract but because he disagreed with the communications that the Council had with the management group. He commented on the difficulty of explaining his exact reasons for voting "no" on an issue that could only be discussed in Executive Session. Motion by Councilor Rohif, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Consent Agenda Item 3.4. Motion was approved by 4-1 voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes"; Councilor Hunt voted "no.") 4. CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) -COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ABECO/Cox) - CPA 96- 0003/ZOA 96-0005 REQUEST: Amend the text of the Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan by amending existing policy as follows: 6.1.1, Implementation Strategy 3 - add language CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 9, 1996 - PAGE 4 • • to allow full transfer of density from sites with wetlands which are zoned R-12, R-25, and R-40 from the wetland area to the buildable portion of the site. The application also proposes an amendment to Tigard Community Development Code 18.92.020 to include wetlands in the list of sensitive lands from which density can be transferred, and 18.92.030 to allow 100 percent density transfer from wetland areas zoned R-12, R-25, and R-40. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12, Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1(a), 1.1.1(c), 2.1.1, 3.4.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1; Tigard Community Development Code chapters 18.30, 18.84, and 18.92. ZONE:N/A (Continued from June 11, 1996) a. Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges: None c. Staff Report Associate Planner Nels Michealson gave the staff report. He noted that at the last meeting staff read into the record a correction of the various sections but neglected to give a copy to the Recorder to revise the agenda. Mr. Michealson reviewed the request, noting that it would have city wide application. He reviewed Council's direction to staff at the June 11 meeting to implement the applicant's proposal and to investigate options for employing more generous density transfer on other physically constrained lands within all zoning classifications. Mr. Michealson reviewed the proposed ordinance that would implement the applicant's proposal with a minor modification to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. The change recommended by staff would allow more flexibility in the future than what was allowed in the applicant's original proposal through its deletion of the language in the Comprehensive Plan that restricted transfers to 25%. Mr. Michealson said that staff also recommended investigating ways to make modifications to the Code to allow density transfer from wetlands zoned single family as well as from multi family zoned wetlands, and to allow a more generous density transfer on other physically constrained lands including flood plains and steep slopes. He pointed out that the land use changes would allow the public an opportunity to comment and the staff time to research the effects of these options. d. Public Testimony Jack Polans, 16000 SW Queen Victoria Court, King City, asked for clarification on increasing the percentage for wetlands. Mayor Nicoli - explained that Council was considering two issues: whether or not to allow the density transfer and, if they allowed it, the percentage they wanted to CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 9, 1996 - PAGE 5 • • allow. Mr. Michealson stated that staff recommended transfer of the full number of potential housing units that could be built on the wetland portion of the site to the developable area of the site. He noted that the proposal was only for the multi family zoned area, not the single family zoned area. Mr. Polans asked if this situation was similar to the A-Boy problem. He asked what was the benefit to the citizens and the cost factors involved in the City Council managing wetlands, flood plains, drainage ways and steep slopes. Mayor Nicoli noted that the issue in the Dolan case involved the flood plain and access to Fanno Creek; that was not the issue under consideration tonight. William Cox, Attorney representing the applicant, ABECO, 0244 SW California Street, Portland, stated that they were in complete agreement with staffs presentation. Councilor Rohlf asked if the applicant's proposal was still only for multi family, as requested by the CITs. Mr. Cox stated that it was still only for multi family at this time but that staff reworded the language to give them more flexibility in their planning function and to follow Council direction to investigate other options. Councilor Rohlf noted the stated concern that this might become invasive in a single family area. Mr. Cox concurred that that was the common feeling among the people at the three CIT meetings he attended but pointed out that that was not a statistically sound sample from which he could necessarily draw the conclusion that the citizenry of Tigard did not want density transfer on single family; perhaps a compromise could be worked out. e. Staff Recommendation Mr. Michealson recommended that the Council approve the ordinance as proposed by staff and direct staff to prepare options changing standards on other physically constrained lands. f. Council Questions Councilor Rohlf asked for clarification on the flexibility staff would get with these changes. Mr. Michealson explained that if the 25% limitation was eliminated in the Comprehensive Plan, it meant that they could make code changes without a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He said that he thought that staff needed to look at how the Code was written for density transfer in conjunction with development criteria. g. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. h. Council Consideration CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 9, 1996 - PAGE 6 • • Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-24. The City Recorder read Ordinance No. 96-24 by number and title. ORDINANCE NO. 96-24, AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADOPTING THE REVISED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 6.1.1, IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 3, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 18.92.020 AND 18.92.030 TO ALLOW THE ONSITE TRANSFER OF DENSITY ON SITES WITH WETLANDS WHICH ARE ZONED R-12, R-25, AND R-40. Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 5. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0002 AKA BUSINESS SERVICES REQUEST: Amend the text of police 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. Open Public Hearing Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. He noted the applicant's request to continue the hearing. He asked for if there was any public testimony at this time. Martha Bishop requested that the date of the continuance be published. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to hold over this hearing until August 13, 1996. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoll, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 6. ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION - FOR A PERMIT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TIGARD AND TCI CABLEVISION OF OREGON, INC. - ORDINANCE NO. 96-25 Mr. Monahan presented the staff report. He explained that the agreement would allow TCI to pay the franchise fee to the City of Tigard for those properties that were outside the boundaries delineated in the current agreement between TCI and the City but which have since then been annexed into the City. This would allow the City to bring those areas formerly served through Washington County's CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 9, 1996 PAGE 7 • • agreement with TCI into compliance with the current City of Tigard-TCI agreement. The term limit on both contracts was through 1999. In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Monahan stated that the $20,000 mentioned in the agreement was the amount TCI recognized as due to Tigard, and not to the County, since the annexations; this agreement would free up that money. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-25. The City Recorder read Ordinance No. 96-25 by number and title. ORDINANCE NO. 96-25, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, GRANTING TCI CABLEVISION OF OREGON, INC. THE PERMIT AND RIGHT OF WAY AGREEMENT IN ORDER TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ITS CABLE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM. Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 7. 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. He stated under the current ordinance there was a provision that stated that applicants under the LID process could not "Bancroft bond" their assessments if the unpaid balance on any previous assessment they had against the same property equaled or exceeded twice the assessed valuation of the property. He explained that this became a problem when the property inside an LID boundary was in a tax deferred status. This meant that the assessed valuation was extremely low and therefore the provision forbidding "Bancroft bonds" could be easily met. Mr. Monahan stated that at least one property in the Dartmouth LID had a tax deferred status; however once it was developed, its assessed value would be extremely ; therefore, staff proposed amending the ordinance. Mr. Monahan reviewed the proposed ordinance that directed the Finance Director to accept written applications for Bancroft bonding (to pay in installments as opposed to paying the entire amount at the time of assessment) as long as the unpaid balance in the assessment against the property and the new assessment would not exceed the real market value. He explained that this meant the City could accept Bancroft bonding because they could recover the full value of the assessment by taking the property if for some reason the property owner defaulted. In response to a series of questions.from Councilor Scheckla, Mr Monahan said that the length of time allowed for repayment of the assessment depended on the individual LIDs and would be set at the time the LID was formed by the Council. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 9, 1996 - PAGE 8 • • • Mr. Coleman stated that the normal length of a Bancroft bond was 10 to 20 years. Mr. Monahan said that there was a prepayment opportunity available, and that if the property changed hands, the City could require full payment at the time of the transfer Mr. Coleman explained that purchasers commonly required that the land be free of all liens or encumbrances. Mr. Monahan stated that the Council's decision tonight only modified the ordinance; it did not bind the Council to any particular term for a Bancroft bond. Councilor Hunt expressed concern at making an ordinance for one specific person. He noted that this ordinance change would not effect the farm deferral status on the property in question. He asked what assurance they had that another roadblock would not arise in this LID. • Mr. Monahan said that there were no assurances that another roadblock would not arise for the Dartmouth LID; in fact, he expected issues to be raised over the assessment method. Councilor Hunt commented that he had been told that Metro would approve a farm deferral for the Sattler property. He asked if Metro had the authority to do that. Mr. Monahan said that Metro had no authority on assessments; that was a County function. Councilor Rohlf expressed concern over the contentiousness of this LID, and spoke for fairness to all parties involved, not just to this particular property owner. He stated that while he was in general agreement with the ordinance language, he thought it was premature to give away this "bargaining chip" without asking for something in return in terms of concession. Mr. Monahan confirmed Mayor Nicoli's comment that negotiations have broken off between all parties. He stated that he believed that this ordinance would help staff clear up the right-of-way acquisition issue and settle an issue with one property owner. Mr. Coleman pointed out that other LIDs in the City that involved properties in a tax deferral program would also be subject to this limitation, even though the ordinance was driven by a particular circumstance. Councilor Rohlf concurred but reiterated his concern that they were acting prematurely. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-26. The City Recorder read Ordinance No. 96-26 by number and title. ORDINANCE NO. 96-26, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 13.04 REGARDING PAYMENT OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT IN INSTALLMENTS AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 9, 1996 - PAGE 9 • • ` Motion failed by a 3-2 roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilor Moore voted "yes"; Councilors Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "no.") 8. COUNCIL DISCUSSION - REVIEW COUNCIL GOALS Mr. Monahan referenced the Council Goals (see attached). He reviewed the format devised by the City Recorder. He pointed out that some goals required further direction from the Council. He asked for Council feedback. Councilor Hunt said that this was the best format he has seen since he's been on the Council. Councilor Rohlf stated that he also liked the format. He expressed concern regarding developing Tigard's approach to working with Metro (page 5). He stated that he thought that they were still reacting to Metro and had not developed a definitive method. He said that this was an important enough goal to keep discussing until they found a method that "rang true." Mr. Monahan clarified that the term "comprehensive plan" in the long-term computer system goal (page 2) referred to a city wide computer plan, not to land use. Councilor Rohlf asked if 30 was too many goals. Mr. Monahan noted that it was an aggressive list of goals. He said that staff wouldn't have time to complete some of the goals but that it was important to "keep the goals on the screen" to allow staff and Council to work together to define even more clearly what Council's intentions were in setting the goals. 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS 10. ADJOURNMENT: 8:46 p.m. iltme-tertp 1.,U Catherine Wheatley, City Rec der Attest--- - Ma Ci of Tigar• Date: c.C',t4 1lLP S-i- /3 ' ,/ CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 9, 1996 - PAGE 10 , CPR g5-Ub0Z • • CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes June 19, 1995 1. CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Holland, Acting Chairman, 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 Commissioners Present: Commissioners Collson, DeFrang, Griffith, Holland, Saxton, and Scolar Commissioners Absent: President Fyre, Commissioners Moore and Wilson Staff Present: Carol Landsman, Senior Planner; Ray Valone, Associate Planner; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Collson moved and Commissioner Griffith seconded a motion to approve the May 22, 1995, meeting minutes as submitted. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed. Commissioner Saxton abstained. Commissioner Saxton moved and Commissioner Griffith seconded a motion to approve the June 5, 1995, meeting minutes as submitted. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed. Commissioner Collson abstained. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS None 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 95-0002/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 95-0003. A request to amend the Comprehensive Plan map from Commercial Professional to General Commercial and change the zoning from C-P to G-C. LOCATION: Southwest corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW North Dakota Street (Parcel 3 of MLP 94-0013). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2, 2.1.1, 5.4,8.1.1 and 12.2.1 (2); and Community Development Code chapters 18.22, 18.32, and 18.62. Zone: G-C (General Commercial) - allows for several uses including convenience sales and services, eating and drinking establishments, general retail sales, and medical and dental services. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 19, 1995 -Page 1 • • STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Ray Valone presented the staff report,explaining that this was a proposal to amend the comprehensive map and rezone .39 acres from professional commercial to general commercial. He said that the original 1.24 acre parcel was annexed into the city in 1979 and was zoned C-P. Valone stated that the applicant received approval for a minor land partition and site development review. The minor land partition divided the original parcel into 3 parcels. Valone stated that the current application is for parcel 3 only; parcels 1 and 2 will remain C-P. Ray Valone reported that Tualatin Valley Fire District did not have any objections to the proposal, but that the Engineering Department was concerned about possible traffic problems for the neighborhood and had recommended denial. He then said that Washington County reviewed the proposal, due to its jurisdiction over Scholls Ferry Road, and did not believe that there would be a significant effect on the transportation system. Valone said that staff finds that this proposal does not meet all applicable comprehensive plan and development code criteria. He noted that a quasi-judicial change to the comp plan map requires the city to find that a change of physical circumstances has occurred or that a mistake was made in the original land use designation. He stated that the applicant's argument is based upon the current availability and the market for commercial office space along the Scholls Ferry corridor. Valone explained that the comprehensive plan does not contain policies or criteria for designating land use based on market forces. In conclusion; Valone said that staff recommends that the planning commission forward a recommendation of denial to the city council. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION • Richard Allan from Ball, Janik, and Novack, 101 SW Main., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97204, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that this site is relatively small and the development options are limited. He noted that under the current CP zoning, a development can have up to 20% of the square footage developed for certain types of retail uses, which in this case would be about 3100 square feet. He referred to a 1986 application for property immediately east on SW North Dakota that was rezoned from C-P to C-G, C-P, and neighborhood commercial. He stated that the rational at that time was that the city had a severe shortage of general commercial zoning. Allan went on to say that a lot of land originally zoned for planned industrial was eventually developed as office space, which is a permitted use under PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 19, 1995 -Page 2 • • industrial zoning. He said that the city's comprehensive plan inventory shows that buildable general commercial land decreased from 140.1 acres in 1981 to 58.6 acres in 1989. During the same time, the C-P zoned land decreased from 108 acres to 86 acres. He quoted the report as saying that the lack or diminishing supply of land available for general commercial and industrial development is one of the core problems facing city economic development. Allan said that the city's buildable lands inventory counted all I-P zoned land as industrial; it did not count any of it in the commercial category. He stated that what has happened is that, in some areas, I-P zoned land has developed as offices and commercial. It developed contrary to the way the city planned in the comprehensive plan. Allan said that his could be considered a physical change in circumstances or a mistake. Allan asserted that this particular site is too small and too far away from the freeway to develop as offices. He went on to say that the site is ideal for commercial use due to its orientation to Scholls Ferry Road; it has good transit access and is at a signalized intersection. He said that a video store would be compatible to the existing development on the site and to the residential neighborhood. • Dan Boyden, Pacific Crest Partners, 911 Oak Street, Hood River, OR 97031, the property owner, explained that the original site was reduced in size due to widening of Scholls Ferry Road and 20' buffering requirements along the west and south. He said that he had letters of intent for retail use but none for office use. He went on to say that Hollywood Video would take the whole space if the zone was changed. He reported that this would be a more neighborhood appropriate use than a fast food restaurant and a printing business. He stated the neighbors were in favor of the video store. • Steve Neville, 621 SW Morrison, #448, Portland, OR 97205, a retail broker, spoke about the retail market. He reported that there is a strong demand for retail space in the Portland Metropolitan area. He stated that the vacancy rate for retail space along this corridor is 5.3 per cent. Neville maintained that retail traffic needs to be near traffic lights, not in neighborhood streets. He said that since there is a traffic light already at the intersection of Scholls Ferry Rd. and North Dakota St., this would be a good location for retail customers. • Mark Edlen, 3860 SW 75th, Portland, OR 97225, from Cushman and Wakefield, stated that he thinks there has.been a significant change in the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 19, 1995 -Page 3 • • community, especially in population and what office development has done to the area, in terms of traffic. He said that office tenants want to be near freeway exchanges. He went on to report that, as major users have moved to the suburbs and taken the best locations, the smaller office spaces have become less tenable. He stated that there is an abundance of small office space available; space with less than 5,000 square feet. He provided the commissioners with a list of office space availabilities in the area, Exhibit 'A'. He concluded by saying that the chance of leasing this particular parcel for office space is low. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR • Ed and Pam Halberg, 12630 SW Glacier Lily Circle, Tigard, OR 97223, co- presidents of the Summerlake Home Owner's Association, reported that they polled the homeowners in the area about their preference of tenants for this location. The results of the poll indicated that all were in favor of a video store. They believe that a video store would enhance the neighborhood feeling. • Ron Holbrook, 9880 SW 90th, Tigard, OR 97223, stated that he was in favor of a Hollywood Video close to his home as opposed to fast food restaurants. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION • Jeff Bennett, 1600 SW Cedar hills Blvd., #100, Portland, OR 97225, spoke on behalf of Killian Pacific, the owners of the Nimbus Center located on Nimbus and Scholls Ferry Road. He stated that population growth should not be viewed as a change in circumstances, that this would have been considered in the comprehensive plan. He also noted that a goal of the comp plan is to avoid spot zoning. He also emphasized that if the zone change was approved, other retail use in addition to video stores would be allowed on this parcel. • Dan Spriggel, 180 W. 1st, Dundee, OR 97115,stated that he was against the proposal. He provided the commissioners with information that illustrated how much traffic a video store would generate, Exhibit 'B'. APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL • Richard Allan addressed some of the issues raised by the opponents. He stated that the applicant is only rezoning a portion of the site and the majority of the site would remain professional commercial, with deed restrictions. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 19, 1995 -Page 4 • • • • Brent Ahrend from McKenzie Engineering,0690 SW Bancroft Street, Portland, OR 97201, explained how trip rates were calculated in the traffic report. He stated that traffic counts are based on square footage of the store and that if this video store is a 'Million Dollar', the traffic counts would be about twice the numbers projected by Mr. Spriggel. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED In response to a question from Commissioner DeFrang, Carol Landsman stated that when the neighborhood commercial area was developed,the planning commission decided not to designate specific locations, but to allow them. To insure that they did not happen in too many places and that they could service neighborhoods, there was a distance requirement that they be spaced half a mile apart. After further discussion,Commissioner Saxton moved to recommend denial of CPA 95-0002/ZON 95-0003. Commissioner Collson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by a vote of 3 to 2. Commissioners Saxton, Collson, and Scolar voted for the motion; Commissioners DeFrang and Griffith voted against the motion; Commissioner Holland abstained. Carol Landsman suggested that the commissioners may want to direct staff to look at ways to combine commercial next to residential, to look at ways to insure that neighborhoods would not be hurt, and what the best kinds of development might be. Commissioner Holland said that he did not think that a commercial professional user should be allowed in a neighborhood commercial zone. He stated that when that happened, the zone should be changed to C-P,so that someone else within a half mile could have the option of using the neighborhood commercial zone. Holland then stated that he would like to have the planning commission look at the neighborhood commercial zoning and possibly make changes in the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Saxton said that when this goes to city council, he would like the message to be that the planning commission is discomforted about opening up this parcel to all types of uses, that there is a problem with the limitation of the neighborhood commercial zone, and that there is a concern with the outright uses allowed under the existing zone next to a neighborhood. He thought that in a commercial professional zone, any other use should be conditional. 6. OTHER BUSINESS Carol Landsman reported that she received one comment on the 2040 letter. The commissioners directed her to forward the letter on to city council. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 19, 1995 -Page 5 • • Commissioner Scolar volunteered to be on the Historic Sites and Districts Committee. Commissioner DeFrang stated that she went to the city council meeting and gave them the history on Terrace Trails. She reported that the council added $5,000 for development of access strips to the trail. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m. %/. _ = _ Jerreeaynor, P .nning ommission Secretary / .0 ,mot / ATTE T: C. =y�nwr� . _ - _ - . - - - President Milton Fire PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -June 19. 1995.-Page 6 y, a' eg- qsrovvZ 411 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes June 5, 1995 1. CALL TO ORDER President Fyre 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 Commissioners Present: President Fyre; Commissioners DeFrang, Griffith, Holland, Moore, Saxton, and Scolar. Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Collson and Wilson. Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Seriior Planner, Mark Roberts, Assistant Planner; Ray Valone, Associate Planner, Randy Wooley, City Engineer; Michael Anderson, Development Services Manager; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS None 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT(CPA)95-0002/ZONE CHANGE(ZON) 95-0003. A request to amend the Comprehensive Plan map from Commercial Professional to General Commercial and change the zoning from C-P to G-C. LOCATION: Southwest corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW North Dakota Street (Parcel 3 of MLP 94-0013). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 5.4, 8.1.1 and 12.2.1 (2); and Community Development Code chapters 18.22, and 18.32. ZONE: G-C (General Commercial) - allows for several uses including convenience sales and services, eating and drinking establishments, general retail sales, and medical and dental services. The commission granted a continuance for this agenda item until the June 19, 1995, meeting. 5.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 95-0005/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 95-0002 TIGARD PROMENADE A request for Planned Development and Site Development Review Request to develop a retail shopping center with seven pads. The applicant proposes to develop a total of 109,916 square feet. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -June 5, 1995 - Page 1 S LOCATION: 15430, 15470, 15580 and 15630 SW Pacific Highway (WCTM 2S 1 10DC, tax lots 100 and 200; 2S1 10DB, tax lots 600, 700 and 702). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.62, 18.80, 18.84, 18.90, 18.92, 18.94, 18.96, 18.98, 18.100,18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.144, 18.150 and 18.164. Transportation Planning Rule Subsections 660-12-045 (4) and (5). ZONE: General Commercial (C-G). The General Commercial zone permits the provision of a wide range of major commercial goods and services such as grocery stores and automotive repair stores. STAFF REPORT Mark Roberts presented the staff report for the City. He listed the following recommended modifications to the staff report: • extending the sound wall by the Safeway loading area to a minimum of 75' in length • developing the 20' buffer adjoining The Fountains with evergreen trees • adding a sentence to condition of approval#4 to allow a"right-out" exit to Pacific Hwy. • Michael Anderson reported that condition #5 should have included the addition of a driveway onto SW 109th Avenue at the easterly end of Building G. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Jeff Rasak, Sterling Development Corporation, 3252 Holiday Ct., Suite 225, LaJolla Corporate Center, LaJolla, CA, 92037,described aspects of the project to the commission. He stated that, while they generally agreed with the staff report, there were a few issues that needed to talk about. Tom Jones,W& H Pacific, 8405 SW Nimbus Ave., Beaverton, OR, 97008, presented the conditions of approval that the applicant wanted clarification on. He stated that they were asking for site plan approval for all of the buildings except D and F. The architectural elevations for these 2 buildings will be submitted later. Mr. Jones stated that the applicant met with the Board of Directors for The Fountains and has addressed their concerns. He said that the applicant agrees to abide by the recommendations of the sound study. He also said that the residents of The Fountains requested that shore pines be incorporated in the buffered area, that no deciduous trees be provided, and that there not be a gate in the fence. The applicant has modified their plans to accommodate these requests. Mr. Jones asked for clarification & consideration on the following conditions of approval: • Conditions #1 & #2 -- applicant would like to have text added to indicate that the costs of the roadway construction would be shared by the applicant and the city. • • Condition #3 -- applicant would like to change the width requirement of 109th to 65' where there are 4 lanes and 60' where there are 3 lanes. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -June 5. 1995 - Page 2 • • • Condition #4 -- applicant agrees with staff for providing a right-in/right-out lane on Pacific Hwy., if ODOT approves • Condition #5 -- applicant does not agree with Michael Anderson that condition#5 be changed to include the addition of a driveway onto SW 109th Avenue at the easterly end of Building G. • Condition #16 (q & r) -- applicant disagrees with the size requirement of trees. They propose (q) 2" caliper street trees and (r) 1 3/4" caliper in the parking lot. • Applicant requested clarification regarding the comment about meeting conditions before being issued a building permit on page 25 of the staff report. They would like to be able to get a site grading permit. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR Tom Rogers, 15518 SW 114th Ct., #60, Tigard, OR 97224, Chairman of the Board for the Fountains Condominiums, stated that the residents were comfortable with the proposal. Gary Slabaugh, Real Estate Manager for the Safeway stores, 16300 SE Evelyn St., Clackamas, OR, concurred with staff recommendation for the right-in/right-out entrance on Pacific Hwy. Michael Oxman, Real Estate Manager for Les Schwab, 1015 Madras Hwy, Prineville, OR 97754, spoke on behalf of the project. He expounded on the noise study completed by Daly-Standlee & Associates and stated that the Les Schwab store will follow the recommendations in the study. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION Jack Polans, 16000 SW Queen Victoria Place, King City, OR 97224, spoke against the project. He listed the following concerns: people using SW 116th in King City as a short cut; pedestrians having a difficult time crossing Pacific Hwy.; 109th being narrowed from 4 lanes to 3 lanes; and plume pollutants from slow moving vehicles. Beverly Froude, 12200 SW Bull Mountain Rd., Tigard, OR 97224,expressed her concern 'about an increase in traffic if there was a large shopping center at this end of Tigard. George Willoughby, 15371 SW 114th Ct., Tigard, OR 97224, said he would like 109th to be kept as a minor collector, not a major collector. He also remarked that the berm would only deaden the noise in a certain area, but there are 2 clusters of condos that do not have any protection from the noise. APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL Tom Jones clarified several points. He stated that Mayor Cole's concerns had been addressed in regards to pedestrian crossings, street improvements, and safety issues. He PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -June 5, 1995 -Page 3 • .• • stated that the traffic engineering report for the Triad property does not warrant 4 lanes on the remaining portion of 109th. He reported that there are permits required that would address sound and pollutant problems. He also said that the use of Naeve Road should be downplayed since full access would be restricted to right-in/right-out. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED After discussion, Commissioner Moore moved to accept the staff report on SDR 95- 0005/PDR 95-002, with the exceptions: • Trees be 2 inches versus 3 inches • Right-in/right-out be approved on Pacific Hwy. • No gate on the Fountains fence • No additional driveway at Schwab's on the east side • Additional text be added in condition #2 to reflect cost sharing mentioned earlier in the report Commissioner Griffith seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 6. OTHER BUSINESS Dick Bewersdorff introduced Jim Hendryx, the new Community Development Director, to the commissioners. The commissioners were each given a copy of planning commission comments regarding 2040, drafted by Carol Landsman. They were asked to forward any comments to her. The commissioners were also invited to attend a "Town Hall" meeting to discuss the Triangle traffic study. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:02 p.m. k./.,_ )0.4.4....0..." .....- ,---/Ge...,--,..-9,f,---- Jerree Gaynor, P arming C'mmission Secretary / ,e , / -/ / ;., . -,!-011ii,"" ' ATTE jam' Commissioner Ronald Holland, Acting Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -June 5, 1995 - Page 4 • • AGENDA ITEM# FOR AGENDA OF September 10. 1996 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE CPA 96-0002 (AKA Business Services Inc.) PREPARED BY: Nels Mickaelson DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Council adopt the final resolution to deny a comprehensive plan text amendment proposed by AKA Business Services Inc.? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the final resolution for denial be approved by Council INFORMATION SUMMARY On August 13, 1996 the City Council directed staff to prepare a resolution to deny a request for a comprehensive plan text amendment to add a new policy which modifies the locational criteria for the expansion of General Commercial Areas. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Approval of the request. FISCAL NOTES Not applicable. is\citywide\sum.dot • • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT (CPA 96-0002) REQUEST BY AKA BUSINESS SERVICES INC. WHEREAS, the applicant requested a comprehensive plan amendment to amend the text of Policy 12 . 2 .2 (2) (1A) of the Locational Criteria section of the Comprehensive Plan by adding a new policy as follows : 12 .2 . 2 (2) (1B) an addition to Policy 12 . 2 . 2 (1A) which would add locational criteria for the expansion of commercial areas into areas zoned for residential uses if the area is not surrounded by single family residential zoning on more than two sides. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on August 13, 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 96-0002 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 day of , 1996 Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard ORDINANCE No. 96- • Page 1 • • • CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO AN APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY AKA BUSINESS SERVICES. The Tigard City Council reviewed the application below at a public hearing on August 13, 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 96-0002 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. APPLICANT: AKA Business Services 10626 SW Barbur Blvd. Portland, OR 97223 OWNERS: Same LOCATION: Citywide 2. Vicinity The amendment would be applicable citywide. Staff has determined that, given existing zoning, the proposal could apply to 50 parcels of land in the City. 3. Background Information The applicant owns 5.81 acres north of the intersection of Pacific Highway and SW Pfaff le Street. The property has split Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations of General Commercial/C-G and Medium Density ResidentialR-12. These plan and zone designations were carried over from Washingotn county designations 1 • ' • when the property was annexed to the city in 1987 as part of the South Metzger annexation. The C-G portion of the applicant's property currently contains an older building. The applicant believes it will be difficult to redevelop this commercial portion of the property without rezoning the R-12 portion. The current spacing and location criteria of Policy 12.2.1(2) however restricts the siting of C-G land that is surrounded on more than two sides by residential districts. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The applicant proposes to modify Policy 12.2.1(2)(B1). Currently, this criterion reads: "(1) Spacing and Location (a) The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides." The proposal, reads as follows: "(1) Spacing and Location (a) A new commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. (b) An existing commercial area may be expanded and is not subject to (1)(a), above, if the City Council finds that: • (i). The expanded commercial area is not surrounded by R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5, or R-7 districts on more than two sides; (ii). The increased commercial area will not adversely affect the surrounding residential districts; (iii). The size of the increased commercial area will allow an appropriate buffer to be provided between uses allowed in the commercial district and uses allowed in the surrounding residential district(s); and (iv). The increased commercial area is the minimum size necessary that is required to allow the appropriate redevelopment of the existing commercial area." 2 • • 5. Agency Comments ODOT reviewed this proposal and offers the following comments: Staff chooses not to comment on this legislative text change regarding the City's locational criteria for General Commercial areas. ODOT does evaluate and comment on parcel-specific quasi-judicial requests for comprehensive plan amendments for their compliance to OAR 660-12, the Transportation Planning Rule. Metro reviewed this proposal and offers the following comments: "The proposed amendment would appear to permit a greater mix of uses in Tigard by giving greater flexibility in locating commercial uses adjacent to residential uses. Metro supports the efforts underway in the local jurisdictions to expand the opportunities for increasing the mix of uses in a community." B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 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 and City Council hearings were advertised in the local newspaper and request for comments were sent to all CITs, DLCD, and Metro. In addition, the proposal was presented to the CITs and their comments are included in Section VI of 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 fine-tune existing adopted and acknowledged comprehensive plan requirements relating to the siting of commercial land to serve the residents of the community. This goal is satisfied. Economic Development: Goal 9 requires that adequate opportunities for economic development be provided by the community. The amendment would increase commercial opportunities through expansion of existing General Commercial areas. This goal is 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 amendment would make it easier to expand existing General Commercial land use designations within multi-family 3 • • residential areas. This may result in more land being rezoned from residential to commercial uses, thus reducing the amount of land available for a variety of housing types and densities. Though each quasi-judicial proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan and change the zoning on a particular parcel must be evaluated according to this goal, the expansion of commercial areas into multi-family residential areas would reduce opportunities for the City to make available various types of housing units. For this reason, staff cannot make a finding that this goal is satisfied. Public Facilities and Services: Goal 11 requires that development be guided and supported by types and levels of public facilities and services appropriate for the needs and requirements of the area to be served. The city has adequate facilities and services available to existing General Commercial land use districts. Any proposed expansion of these areas would be required to provide additional services, if needed, to maintain the existing levels. This goal is satisfied. Transportation: Goal 12 requires that the city provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The amendment would be less restrictive for allowing the expansion of General Commercial areas adjacent to residential areas. It does not affect the criteria that require adequate transportation facilities be available to serve these commercial land uses. The amendment would not cause an unsafe and inconvenient transportation system. This goal is satisfied. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL OR 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. The proposed amendment would not result in generating any additional traffic. It would only modify the criterion for locating General Commercial areas to allow for expansion of existing areas, if all other criteria are met as well. All requests for quasi-judicial Comprehensive Plan map and zone changes for specific property are analyzed and evaluated for compliance to transportation policies and rules, including this state rule. The city reviews all requested quasi-judicial changes for compliance to this rule and makes a determination based upon that review. Findings of compliance or noncompliance to this rule would be made following a traffic analysis of the specific proposal. This policy is satisfied. 4 • • • COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES General Policies: Policy 1.1.1(a) requires that legislative changes be consistent with statewide planning goals and the regional development plan. The findings above address statewide goals. There is no applicable adopted regional plan. Metro was sent a request for comments. This policy is satisfied. General Policies: Policy 1.1.1(c) requires that the Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code be kept current with the needs of the community. The applicant states that there is a current need to strengthen the city's economic base and maintain viable existing General Commercial areas. This proposal encourages redevelopment of existing General Commercial areas. Staff agrees that the proposal could result in more efficient development or redevelopment of existing General Commercial areas, assuming that adjacent residential areas are not adversely affected by the expanded use. The applicant has not, however, submitted evidence that the City needs to strengthen its economic base and maintain existing commercial land, and therefore that the Comprehensive Plan policies protecting the encroachment of commercial uses into residential areas should be suspended. The City, in fact, has a relatively high assessed value per capita as compared to other area jurisdictions, which reflects a healthy economic base. Staff cannot, therefore, make a finding that this policy is 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 CIT individuals and the Planning Commission and City Council hearings were legally advertised. In addition, the proposal was presented at all CIT meetings during May of 1996, and comments are included in Section VI of this report. This policy is satisfied. Economy: Policy 5.4 states that the city shall ensure that new commercial and industrial development not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial and industrial uses. The proposed amendment would be less restrictive in allowing the expansion of existing General Commercial land uses adjacent to residential districts. The current restriction to not allow new General Commercial areas in residential areas would remain in force. The expansion of existing commercial areas would be conditional on evaluation of impacts to the residential areas. The applicant interprets this policy as stating that land cannot be used for commercial uses until it is designated on the Comprehensive Plan map for such uses; therefore, this policy is satisfied because the proposed amendment would not allow new commercial development from encroaching into residential areas before the land has been 5 • • designated for this use. A quasi-judicial plan map and zone change approval would still be needed to redesignate land for commercial use. While staff agrees that the text amendment by itself would not cause commercial development to encroach into residential areas, we interpret the intent of Policy 5.4 as restricting map redesignation of residential areas to new commercial and industrial uses. Because the proposed amendment would facilitate expansion of existing General Commercial areas into residential areas, staff cannot make a finding that this policy is satisfied. Housing; Policy 6.1.1 requires that the city provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. It is primarily implemented through OAR 660-07, the Metropolitan Housing Rule. The rule requires 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 amendment would make it easier to expand existing General Commercial land use designations into multi-family residential areas. This may result in more land being rezoned from residential to commercial uses, thus reducing the amount of land available to housing units. The restriction of locating new General Commercial land in areas surrounded by residential districts, however, remains unchanged. This proposal by itself will not cause the city to drop out of compliance with the housing rule; and the city must review all requested quasi-judicial comprehensive plan map amendments and zone changes for compliance to the rule and make a determination based upon that review. The amendment would, however, provide greater opportunity for use of land currently designated for multi-family residential to be changed to General Commercial. This could result in the incremental loss of the opportunity for diversity of housing densities and types. For this reason, staff cannot make a finding that this policy is satisfied. Transportation: Policy 8.1.1 states that the City shall plan fora safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. The proposed amendment would not affect the City's ability to maintain a safe and efficient street and roadway system. It modifies one criteria of many for amending the Comprehensive Plan and zoning maps. An application for such map changes to a specific property must still meet this policy by demonstrating that expected trips will not cause an unsafe traffic situation or reduce the level of service of roadways below the minimum acceptable levels. This policy is satisfied. Locational Criteria: Policy 12.2.1(2)(B.1) sets out the spacing and location criteria for General Commercial land use areas. This is the section the proposed amendment seeks to modify (see Section III above). The intent of this section is to 6 • protect adjacent residential districts from the impact of retail commercial activity. The amendment would allow the expansion of existing General Commercial areas into residential areas only in the following circumstances: If the City Council finds that the commercial area is not surrounded on more that two sides by single-family districts; the increased commercial area will not adversely affect the residential areas; the increased commercial area will allow an appropriate buffer between the commercial and surrounding residential area(s); and the commercial area is the minimum size necessary to allow for redevelopment. The proposed amendment, through its provisions under section (b), seeks to retain protection of adjacent single-family residential areas. The Comprehensive Plan in general and this policy in particular, however, attempt to protect all residential areas equally from encroachment by commercial areas. This amendment assumes that multi- family residential is not as deserving of the same protection as single-family residential. Staff believes both types should be treated equally if the City's intent is to maintain protection of residential areas. Staff cannot, therefore, 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 or 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. 4. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map. These standards are addressed in Section IV under 'Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policies'. 7 • • 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 states that the Comprehensive Plan contains a mistake by requiring that all General Commercial map designations be surrounded on no more than two sides by a residential district. No reason is given for the mistake argument. Although the applicant gives no reason or substantiating information for his contention that a mistake was made in the Comprehensive Plan, the applicant has satisfied this code section. It is satisfied because the first five standards have been adequately addressed in this staff report and the sixth standard is optional only. C. DECISION The City Council denies the requested comprehensive plan amendment CPA 96- 0002 based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions. 8 • 0 AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of August 13. 1996 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Comprehensive Plan At CPA 96-0002 -AKA Business Services PREPARED BY: Ray Valone DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve a Comprehensive Plan text amendment to modify Policy 12.2.1(2)(B1)? STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended denial of this proposal at its hearing of May 20, 1996. Planning staff recommends that the City Council deny CPA 95-0006 because all relevant comprehensive plan criteria are not satisfied and staff does not believe the proposal is beneficial to the City as a whole. INFORMATION SUMMARY This proposal was originally scheduled for the July 9, 1996, City Council meeting. At that time, the applicant's representative requested that the public hearing be set over until the August 13, 1996, meeting. The proposed text amendment would modify one criterion used to evaluate proposed comprehensive plan map amendments and zone changes concerning General Commercial land. Currently, the locational criteria restricts General Commercial areas from being surrounded on more than two sides by residential districts. The proposal would maintain this restriction for new General Commercial areas but allow the expansion of existing ones if the City Council finds that four conditions are met. The staff report and applicant's submittal are attached. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the proposal and direct staff to return on August 27 with the ordinance and final order for adoption by the Council. 2. Deny the proposal and direct staff to return on August 27 with the resolution and final order for adoption by the Council. FISCAL NOTES No direct fiscal impact to the city. iren ` r MEMORANDUM Agenda Item No. n CITY OF TIGARD Meeting of 7 lT ire TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council FROM: • Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder DATE: July 2, 1996 SUBJECT: Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0002 (AKA Business Services) Attached is a copy of a letter from the applicant's representative requesting that the public hearing on CPA 96-0002 be set over until August 13, 1996. is\adm\cathy\corresp\a ka ph.doc U • U1. 96 iON 15: 33 FA.1 5U3 :20 2430 Stoel Ryes 1 Zj002 • STOEL RIVES up A T T O R N E Y S• • STANCI :: fNjCRANCF,:EN TFR FloS:v'r(i hAVtNUE.:cal:3W rOaTt.'.ND.OREGON 9^04.1:54 r'..h.um(5031 :1-.33.30 Aar Sal:2:11-24.0 Tnc Intt•TCt WWW.ctc,ci.coQ1 July 1, 1996 MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial (503)294-9194 email mcrobinson@stoel.com VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Ray Valone Associate Planner City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Boulevard PO Box 23397 Tigard OR 97223 Re: Application by AKA Enterprises Dear Ray: I am writing to confirm our telephone conversation of July 1. I would like the City Council to open the public hearing on this application on July 9 but continue it to a date certain of August 13. I am requesting that this matter be continued until that date due to a scheduling conflict that I have on July 9. Thank you very much for your courtesy and assistance. Very Truly Yours, N '1.l Michael C. Robinson MCR:Ixh cc: Mr. Walt Aman (via facsimile) • PDX 1 A-385+5.I 999941 • • AGENDA ITEM # 5 For Agenda of July 9. 1996 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0002 - AKA Business Services PREPARED BY: Ray Valone DEPT HEAD OK /• CITY ADMIN OK Llif ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL. Should the City Council approve a Comprehensive Plan text amendment to modify Policy 12.2.1(2)(B1)? STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended denial of this proposal at its hearing of May 20, 1996. Planning staff recommends that the City Council deny CPA 95-0006 because all relevant comprehensive plan criteria are not satisfied and staff does not believe the proposal is beneficial to the City as a whole. INFORMATION SUMMARY The proposed text amendment would modify one criterion used to evaluate proposed comprehensive plan map amendments and zone changes concerning General Commercial land. Currently, the locational criteria restricts General Commercial areas from being surrounded on more than two sides by residential districts. The proposal would maintain this restriction for new General Commercial areas but allow the expansion of existing ones if the City Council finds that four conditions are met. The staff report and applicant's submittal are attached. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the proposal and direct staff to return on July 23 with the ordinance and final order for adoption by the Council. 2. Deny the proposal and direct staff to return on July 23 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 9. 1996 7:30 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON OF e►RD SECTION I: APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: FILE NAME: AKA Business Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0002 PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested a Comprehensive Plan text amendment to modify the spacing and location criteria for General Commercial land uses. APPLICANT: AKA Business Services OWNER: Same 10626 SW Barbur Blvd. Portland, OR 97280 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: N/A ZONING DESIGNATION: N/A LOCATION: Citywide APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 11 and 12; Oregon Administrative Rule 660-12; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1(a), 1.1.1(c), 2.1.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.1.1 and 12.2.1(2); Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. SECTION II: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission heard this proposal on May 20 and recommends by a vote of 5- 2 that the City Council deny CPA 96-0002. The majority of Commissioners do not favor making a legislative text change to a review criterion that would apply citywide when there is a quasi-judicial process available to the applicant for changing the zoning on his property. The minutes from the hearing are included as Attachment A. STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0002 Page 1 • • Planning staff recommends that the City Council find that the proposed amendment does not satisfy all relevant review criteria and will adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the community, and that it DENY CPA 96-0002. In addition to not being able to make findings that Goal 10 and Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1(c), 5.4 and 6.1.1 are satisfied, staff is not convinced that this amendment is needed or would be beneficial to the City as a whole. If the City Council chooses to approve CPA 96-0002, staff recommends that the following provision be added to section (b) of the proposal: (v). The increased commercial area is contiguous with the existing commercial area and is not separated by a roadway or road right-of-way. This provision would help restrict expansion of General Commercial uses into adjacent residential areas across roadways, which often serve as buffers between commercial and residential uses. SECTION III: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: The applicant owns 5.81 acres of land north of the intersection of Pacific Highway and SW Pfaff le Street. Although this application is for a legislative text amendment which would apply citywide, the applicant's property would be subject to the modified locational policy. The property has split Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations of General Commercial/C-G and Medium Density Residential/R-12. These plan and zone designations were carried over from the Washington County designations when the property was annexed to the City in 1987 as part of the South Metzger annexation. The C-G portion of the applicant's property currently contains an older building. The applicant believes it will be difficult to redevelop this commercial portion of the property without also rezoning the R-12 portion. The current spacing and location criteria of Policy 12.2.1(2), however, restricts the siting of C-G land that is surrounded on more than two sides by residential districts. Vicinity Information: The amendment would be applicable citywide. Staff has determined that, given existing zoning, the proposal could apply to 50 parcels of land in the City (Attachment B). Many of these parcels are fully developed and/or committed to their existing use, e.g. the Charles F. Tigard School. If zone changes are made to these parcels as a result of this amendment, additional parcels could be eligible for rezoning depending on their location. Site Information and Proposal Description: The applicant proposes to modify Policy 12.2.1(2)(B1). Currently, this criterion reads: STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0002 Page 2 • • "(1) Spacing and Location (a) The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides." The applicant modified his original proposal which is contained in the application submittal dated February 23, 1996. The modified proposal, contained in the letter dated April 22, 1996, reads as follows: "(1) Spacing and Location (a) A new commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. (b) An existing commercial area may be expanded and is not subject to (1)(a), above, if the City Council finds that: (I). The expanded commercial area is not surrounded by R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5, or R-7 districts on more than two sides; (ii). The increased commercial area will not adversely affect the surrounding residential districts; (iii). The size of the increased commercial area will allow an appropriate buffer to be provided between uses allowed in the commercial district and uses allowed in the surrounding residential district(s); and (iv). The increased commercial area is the minimum size necessary that is required to allow the appropriate redevelopment of the existing commercial area." 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 and City Council hearings were advertised in the local newspaper and request for comments were sent to all CITs, DLCD, and Metro. In addition, the proposal was presented to the CITs and their comments are included in Section VI of 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 fine-tune existing adopted and acknowledged comprehensive plan requirements STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0002 Page 3 • • relating to the siting of commercial land to serve the residents of the community. This goal is satisfied. Economic Development: Goal 9 requires that adequate opportunities for economic development be provided by the community. The amendment would . increase commercial opportunities through expansion of existing General Commercial areas. This goal is 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 amendment would make it easier to expand existing General Commercial land use designations within multi-family residential areas. This may result in more land being rezoned from residential to commercial uses, thus reducing the amount of land available for a variety of housing types and densities. Though each quasi-judicial proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan and change the zoning on a particular parcel must be evaluated according to this goal, the expansion of commercial areas into multi-family residential areas would reduce opportunities for the City to make available various types of housing units. For this reason, staff cannot make a finding that this goal is satisfied. Public Facilities and Services: Goal 11 requires that development be guided and supported by types and levels of public facilities and services appropriate for the needs and requirements of the area to be served. The city has adequate facilities and services available to existing General Commercial land use districts. Any proposed expansion of these areas would be required to provide additional services, if needed, to maintain the existing levels. This goal is satisfied. Transportation: Goal 12 requires that the city provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The amendment would be less restrictive for allowing the expansion of General Commercial areas adjacent to residential areas. It does not affect the criteria that require adequate transportation facilities be available to serve these commercial land uses. The amendment would not cause an unsafe and inconvenient transportation system. This goal is satisfied. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL OR 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. The proposed amendment would not result in generating any additional traffic. It would only modify the criterion for locating General Commercial areas to allow for expansion of existing areas, if all other criteria are met as well. All requests for quasi- judicial Comprehensive Plan map and zone changes for specific property are analyzed and evaluated for compliance to transportation policies and rules, including this state rule. The city reviews all requested quasi-judicial changes for compliance to this rule and makes a determination based upon that review. Findings of compliance or noncompliance to this STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0002 Page 4 • rule would-be made following a traffic analysis of the specific proposal. This policy is satisfied. COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES General Policies: Policy 1.1.1(a) requires that legislative changes be consistent with statewide planning goals and the regional development plan. The findings above address statewide goals. There is no applicable adopted regional plan. Metro was sent a request for comments. This policy is satisfied. General Policies: Policy 1.1.1(c) requires that the Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code be kept current with the needs of the community. The applicant states that there is a current need to strengthen the city's economic base and maintain viable existing General Commercial areas. This proposal encourages redevelopment of existing General Commercial areas. Staff agrees that the proposal could result in more efficient development or redevelopment of existing General Commercial areas, assuming that adjacent residential areas are not adversely affected by the expanded use. The applicant has not, however, submitted evidence that the City needs to strengthen its economic base and maintain existing commercial land, and therefore that the Comprehensive Plan policies protecting the encroachment of commercial uses into residential areas should be suspended. The City, in fact, has a relatively high assessed value per capita as compared to other area jurisdictions, which reflects a healthy economic base. Staff cannot, therefore, make a finding that this policy is 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 CIT individuals and the Planning Commission and City Council hearings were legally advertised. In addition, the proposal was presented at all CIT meetings during May of 1996, and comments are included in Section VI of this report. This policy is satisfied. Economy: Policy 5.4 states that the city shall ensure that new commercial and industrial development not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial and industrial uses. The proposed amendment would be less restrictive in allowing the expansion of existing General Commercial land uses adjacent to residential districts. The current restriction to not allow new General Commercial areas in residential areas would remain in force. The expansion of existing commercial areas would be conditional on evaluation of impacts to the residential areas. The applicant interprets this policy as stating that land cannot be used for commercial uses until it is designated on the Comprehensive Plan map for such uses; therefore, this policy is satisfied,because the proposed amendment would not allow new commercial development from encroaching into residential areas before the land has been designated for this use. A quasi-judicial plan map and zone change approval would still be needed to redesignate land for commercial use. While staff agrees that the text amendment by itself would not cause commercial development to encroach into residential areas, we interpret the intent of Policy STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0002 Page 5 11, • 5.4 as restricting map redesignation of residential areas to new commercial and industrial uses. Because the proposed amendment would facilitate expansion of existing General Commercial areas into residential areas, staff cannot make a finding that this policy is satisfied. Housing: Policy 6.1.1 requires that the city provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. It is primarily implemented through OAR 660-07, the Metropolitan Housing Rule. The rule requires 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 amendment would make it easier to expand existing General Commercial land use designations into multi-family residential areas. This may result in more land being rezoned from residential to commercial uses, thus reducing the amount of land available to housing units. The restriction of locating new General Commercial land in areas surrounded by residential districts, however, remains unchanged. This proposal by itself will not cause the city to drop out of compliance with the housing rule; and the city must review all requested quasi-judicial comprehensive plan map amendments and zone changes for compliance to the rule and make a determination based upon that review. The amendment would, however, provide greater opportunity for use of land currently designated for multi-family residential to be changed to General Commercial. This could result in the incremental loss of the opportunity for diversity of housing densities and types. For this reason, staff cannot make a finding that this policy is satisfied. Transportation: Policy 8.1.1 states that the City shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. The proposed amendment would not affect the City's ability to maintain a safe and efficient street and roadway system. It modifies one criteria of many for amending the Comprehensive Plan and zoning maps. An application for such map changes to a specific property must still meet this policy by demonstrating that expected trips will not cause an unsafe traffic situation or reduce the level of service of roadways below the minimum acceptable levels. This policy is satisfied. Locational Criteria: Policy 12.2.1(2)(B.1) sets out the spacing and location criteria for General Commercial land use areas. This is the section the proposed amendment seeks to modify (see Section III above). The intent of this section is to protect adjacent residential districts from the impact of retail commercial activity. The amendment would allow the expansion of existing General Commercial areas into residential areas only in the following circumstances: If the City Council finds that the commercial area is not surrounded on more that two sides by single-family districts; the increased commercial area will not adversely affect the residential areas; the increased commercial area will allow an appropriate buffer between the commercial and surrounding residential area(s); and the commercial area is the minimum size necessary to allow for redevelopment. The proposed amendment, through its provisions under section (b), seeks to retain protection of adjacent single-family residential areas. The Comprehensive Plan in general and this policy in particular, however, attempt to protect all residential areas equally from encroachment by commercial areas. This amendment assumes that multi-family STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0002 Page 6 • • residential is not as deserving of the same protection as single-family residential. Staff believes both types should be treated equally if the City's intent is to maintain protection of residential areas. Staff cannot, therefore, 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 or 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. 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 states that the Comprehensive Plan contains a mistake by requiring that all General Commercial map designations be surrounded on no more than two sides by a residential district. No reason is given for the mistake argument. Although the applicant gives no reason or substantiating information for his contention that a mistake was made in the Comprehensive Plan, the applicant has satisfied this code section. It is satisfied because the first five standards have been adequately addressed in this staff report and the sixth standard is optional only. SECTION V: AGENCY COMMENTS ODOT reviewed this proposal and offers the following comments: Staff chooses not to comment on this legislative text change regarding the City's locational criteria for General Commercial areas. ODOT does evaluate and comment on parcel-specific quasi-judicial STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0002 Page 7 • • requests for comprehensive plan amendments for their compliance to OAR 660-12, the Transportation Planning Rule. Metro reviewed this proposal and offers the following comments: "The proposed amendment would appear to permit a greater mix of uses in Tigard by giving greater flexibility in locating commercial uses adjacent to residential uses. Metro supports the efforts underway in the local jurisdictions to expand the opportunities for increasing the mix of uses in a community." SECTION VI: OTHER COMMENTS The CITs have reviewed this proposal and offer the following comments: The South CIT heard the proposal at the meeting of May 1 and have not commented on it. The Central and West CITs heard the proposal on May 7. The members expressed concern about changing the text for allowing the expansion of General Commercial areas. They would prefer the City retain the existing criterion and suggested the applicant first exhaust the existing avenue, i.e. a quasi-judicial plan amendment, to change the zoning on his land. The East CIT heard the proposal on May 8 and have no comments on it. c. �-n �� p June 24. 1996 PREPARED BY: Ray'Valone DATE Associate Planner June 26. 1996 APPROVED BY: Nadine Smith DATE Planning Manager I:UrpIn ray1CPA96-02.cc • STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0002 Page 8 ATTACHMENT A • CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes May 20, 1996 1. CALL TO ORDER President Wilson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hail Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Wilson; Commissioners Collson, Griffith, Holland, Padgett, and Scolar Commissioner DeFrang arrived late. Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Anderson Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Ray Valone, Associate Planner, Nels Mickaelson, Associate Planner, Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Holland moved and Commissioner Padgett seconded a motion to approve the May 6, 1996, meeting minutes as submitted. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS None 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0002 AKA BUSINESS SERVICES 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. STAFF REPORT Ray Valone presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He explained that this was a proposal to amend Policy 12.2.1(2)(1a) of the locational criteria sections of • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 20, 1996-Page 1 • • the Comprehensive Plan. He advised that this policy is one criterion used to analyze and evaluate Comprehensive Plan amendments - the proposed redesignation and rezoning of land to allow for general commercial uses only. He said it would apply to all such amendments, and therefore, is a citywide application. Valone said that the existing provision now reads, "the commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides'. He summarized the proposed policy wording as stating that the existing restriction will still apply to new commercial areas, but an existing area may expand if the City Council finds the following: 1. the expanded commercial area is not surrounded by R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R4.5, R-7 districts on more than 2 sides 2. the increased commercial area will not adversely affect the surrounding residential districts 3. the size of the increased commercial area will allow an appropriate buffer to be provided between uses allowed 4. the increased commercial area is the minimum size necessary that is required to allow the appropriate redevelopment of the existing commercial area Valone said the applicant owned a parcel along Pacific Hwy. which is a split zoning of C-G in the front and R-12 in the back, but the proposal is not about the site in particular. Valone provided history of the parcel and explained how the existing policy language could prevent the owner from expanding the C-G portion of the site into the multi-family portion of the area. Valone said that staff finds the current proposal does not meet the relative criteria, including State Goal 10 (the housing goal), because the expansion of general commercial into multi-family residential areas would reduce the opportunity for the city to make available housing units at various price ranges/rent levels and allow for flexibility of location, type, and density of houses. He said our Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.4, which states that new commercial and industrial development will not encroach into residential areas, is not satisfied because this proposal would help to facilitate expansion of commercial areas into residential districts. Valone said that staff could also not make a finding that Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.1.1 is satisfied. He said that although the amendment itself would not cause the city to drop off compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule, which requires 10 units an acre and over 50% multi-family housing, the expansion of general commercial areas into multi-family areas would result in incremental loss of housing opportunities for the city. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 20, 1996-Page 2 • i In regards to policy 12.2.1(2), the locational criteria, Valone stated that under the proposal, multi-family and single family residential areas are held to a different standard. He said staff believes both should be treated equally, if the city's intent is to maintain protection of all residential areas. Valone advised that requests for comments were sent to ODOT and Metro, and that all CIT mailing list members were notified. The proposal was also presented to all of the CITs during their May meetings. He stated that ODOT chose not to comment on the text because the agency evaluates each parcel specifically. He said that Metro responded that they supported the proposal because it would appear to permit a greater mix of uses. Valone said the South and East CITs had no comments on the proposal. He said the Central and West CITs expressed concern about changing the text for locating general commercial areas. Valone advised that staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposal, because the applicant has not met all principal criteria and has not made a convincing argument that this amendment is beneficial to the city. He said the applicant could apply for a quasi-judicial comp plan amendment to change the zoning on the property and make a case for construing policy 12.2.1 in a flexible manner as allowed in the comprehensive plan. • In response to a question from President Wilson, Valone answered that this proposal only applied to general commercial areas. Valone then used an overhead to demonstrate both the existing policy and the proposed policy. He showed that, under the proposal, the criteria would be met if there were single family residential areas on up to two sides and multi-family on the third side. President Wilson asked if expansion would follow the tax lot lines, or if the applicant could re-draw the property line to avoid more than 2 sides. Valone answered that it was possible. Commissioner DeFrang asked about streets that divide areas and if the streets make a definite division between lots and zones. Valone answered that the applicant agreed to include a provision that there couldn't be a street or right-of- way between the existing general commercial area and the proposed expansion area. Valone explained that Goal 10 (offering housing at various prices and rent levels) could be affected by this proposal. Commissioner Padgett said that, instead of looking at "yet available" development, the Commission should look at the development potential from the original build- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 20, 1996-Page 3 • • out. He believes the city's obligation is to provide economic opportunity, including what is already here (not just from this point on). APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Michael Robinson, 900 SW 5th, Suite 2300, Portland, OR 97204-1268, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He explained that the proposal would clarify when an existing general commercial plan map designation could be expanded. He said the current language was difficult to interpret and it would be better to have more certain criteria. He said the proposed change would give some guidance for an existing C-G map designation to be surrounded on more than 2 sides by higher density residential designations. He advised that the proposal doesn't apply to new commercial areas - it applies only to existing C-G areas. Robinson noted that the applicant would like to change the existing R-12 designation of his property to C-G. He said the parcel is a flag lot with a split zone and the only access is through an existing driveway. He said the applicant has an approved site development review on the C-G portion, but it is a constrained site - the building and parking are squeezed on to a smaller site than is necessary. Robinson stated that people who don't want to buy other property to make this change, or don't want to change their existing property designation, aren't going to be affected by this proposal. Robinson said, at one time, he thought an appropriate limitation on this criteria might be in those situations of split zoning, but he decided it was too narrow a • provision to put in the comp plan. He believes the city shouldn't adopt plan map amendments to deal solely with a single site - the plan map amendment should be generally acceptable for the rest of the community. He said the applicant's proposal will strike a balance. Robinson reminded the Commission that, even if this text amendment is approved, all other applicable criteria would still apply to the quasi-judicial plan map applications. Robinson disagreed with the staff report that this proposal would make it easier to rezone commercial property. He also disagreed that this amendment treats multi- family areas differently from single family areas. Robinson said he suggested modified language to reduce the scope of impact of the amendment. Robinson also does not believe this application does anything to reduce protection of multi-family areas. He remarked that the comp plan already distinguishes between low density designations and medium, medium-high, and high density designations. He noted that the code still provides for buffering to maximize the privacy of low density residential areas. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 20, 1996-Page 4 • • Robinson referred to State Planning Goal #10 and said he does not believe the application.does anything to prevent this goal from being met. He said a future applicant coming in for a quasi-judicial map application would still have to prove this planning goal is met: He then cited a number of existing criteria in the Comprehensive Plan that protect residential areas from the impacts of C-G designations. Robinson said he agrees with the conditions of approval listed on page 2 of the staff report. He also noted that the Planning Commission could recommend approval to the City Council with modifications. Commissioner DeFrang remarked that she thought it was safer and more conservative to make decisions on a case by case basis, rather than to run the risk of "stepping on residential toes". Robinson said the problem is that there is no assurance about what it takes to construe things in a flexible manner and it is easy to step on residential toes with the language as it exists today. President Wilson said he was concerned about approving a zone change before seeing any site development review plans. Robinson said it was difficult to write completely objective criteria, but this proposal would give an applicant a better idea about what has to be satisfied. President Wilson asked staff if there was a zone change under this proposed language, would there be more stringent site development review criteria because it projects into a residential area. Ray Valone answered that staff would defer to the code. Dick* Bewersdorff said that applicants are required to meet with the neighborhood prior to making an application. He said that the applicant normally addresses the neighborhood's concerns, which tends to result in less objections to the project. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR Gene Mayberry, 13490 SW Watkins, Tigard, OR 97223, asked about possible zone changes in his neighborhood. President Wilson informed him that the application was not a change to any particular property and suggested he contact city staff to talk about his property. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION Debbie Hart, 12615 SW Watkins Ave., Tigard, OR 97223, expressed concern about the affect on livability for lots on Watkins Ave. Martha Bishop, 10590 SW Cook Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, read a letter to the Commission. She requested that the Planning Commission revise the comprehensive text amendment as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 20, 1996-Page 5 • S "The three side rule shall apply to multi-family uses only. A parcel with two sides or more, with single family zoning, and shall not be permitted to be rezoned to commercial. While the primary access for the commercial use be a major collector or arterial, as stated in the City of Tigard code, if any portion of the proposed property is abutting or accessing upon a minor collector or local road, then the property cannot be rezoned." Duane Meyer, 13210 SW Watkins, Tigard, OR 97223, compared the proposal to "dynamiting the lake to get one fish." He is against the amendment changes being citywide. . David Rutan, 13570 SW Watkins'Ave., Tigard, OR 97223, signed up to speak, but chose not to do so. Several people in the audience had questions about their specific piece of property. The Planning Commission took a 10 minute break to allow these people an opportunity to talk to staff. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Griffith asked staff if the City of Tigard have a zero housing loss regulation, as far as zone changes are concerned. Ray Valone answered that there is not a requirement to replace housing units on a ratio basis. He stated that the Metro Housing Rule currently requires at least 10 units per acre of housing opportunity and the City is at 10.45. Commissioner Collson remarked that this application seemed to be replacing one piece of ambiguous criteria for another not quite as ambiguous. He was not in favor of change something for the sake of change. He said he had a problem changing code for the whole city, based on a need in one particular area. Commissioner Padgett said he liked a lot of the new language, but he did not like a change in the rule of three, allowing one of the three sides to be multi-family. He said the code allowed for two types of changes, quasi-judicial and legislative. He believes that to effect a legislative change, there needs to be a crying need citywide with a particular part of the code. President Wilson said this application was a good attempt to clarify the code. He said he would tend to support it if it was an improvement, but he would look for further improvement. Commissioner Holland said the application made a lot of sense. He said he likes the idea of the fifth condition in the staff report, that the increased area has to be contiguous, not separated by a roadway or right-of-way. He thinks the changes are much more understandable. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 20, 1996-Page 6 • • • Commissioner DeFrang said she was opposed to the change. She said it would be hard to foresee what could happen. She is in favor of taking a more conservative approach and looking at each application on a case by case basis. Commissioner Scolar agreed with Commissioner DeFrang. He prefers handing things on a case by case basis. He does want to change the status for the whole city. Commissioner Griffith said he appreciated the language. He said he does not like crisis intervention. He thinks there is some ambiguity in the current language, but it has worked for a long time. Commissioner Griffith moved to recommend denial of CPA 96-0002. Commissioner Padgett seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by a vote of five to two. Commissioners Padgett, Collson, DeFrang, Scolar, and Griffith voted for the motion. Commissioners Wilson and Holland voted against the motion. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 20, 1996-Page 7 • • • ATTACHMENT A Pares Potentially Affect! = ote: affected Aby CPA96-0002 See Staff report of criteria.Areas Zoned OF Index Map " " General Commercial _,.--. , ' I L4---r , Oa CITY OF TIGARD T rr- - it 1 FT- ( 1 C- D LEM riPlivit v ' imlib 1 i i 1 of illit .:,',, ,I A ' illnlilli I -I I I ..... , a I T\ III_ 1 .,_-, - is • erne :‘ ' ww. rte= ' } illi --- i - LI was..... i 3 L.„:. ...,,L_ .. -I kh , 4 .:7,N,k-1- All LdWi al Rh Oil / idmolyiNwk, ... .1 . :,„ i„,,,,„ 4-4 .., tik\v,410E___LIS 1 Ana .. 111 W Milk ,;71411:71-Irli 10,t.4 ..) 0.1Iro 1 kir / .k-11,r,1 -- -1,Vii;;N.-71.-. .--,11_,- . __I- ir:ci „ -14.*• -. ......: C.!.-...n.i \--Iti r:its--,:: i ' lop, NI 4. r + v , �. 111 ' • I - A •r-rqj r-t-z Dmor91----1 ,-.1 011.1ffei Pr 01 1 ti.: 1.,2_ ""i i)13U r.w.;- * 'A 1 0 . - :11 f amwm... II irji 111111 p ' It 17 7 P P N pi I I Wil sal I a■ mit ,g4i.,4 2 7 4 , sa:_amitoulpiApid „„„ji.... Id gligiMi i y . A 1 MI it( . TN lio ,.---- • ' „,, . L _, i= - 6 if: \ - M e , (dill ri I J •\_Tr c i 06/26/96 Parce potentially al l Affect Parcels potentially affected Y by proposal. Note: See Staff report for • A b CPA96-0002 J by Areas Zoned • r""�0" n 1 R General Commercial CITY OF TIGARD map ap f c. \ I #°*# it-„,„,:::,,,,F„::,,,,,...„. .4,,, 4„., ..:, Iiiiii,-„,, -, .`, t .:% ///gal NI I S.W.NEAVE STREET At us la,p117).;:i. ■,- $1. ,a �1 ,---- ,,-,,,,..:, ,,,, „.,,,,,,,:::.::,:,,,,::,.,,,„„„,,,,„:„:„,,:,:„,,, ♦ a '%'�/.rA%,I%�- �..e. mum II iit# '♦ : / dpii' � Cit hlike DR kr It 4 it ::::,..::::...,.:„.,..„...„.„.....,::_, ., , _„:::: ,,., . Y Y 3 3 4-Sai`'.3} � '';fin 4, /t '' ,„.„„,„:„._,:,„.„,„.,,,„„,„,:.:::....„..,,,,:...:,,,,, e t,,„,,,,i„:„., .,_ ..„,:,,„:,,::::„,,,,:,,„,,- , 3 I U,3°� d {E 3 3 ED 3 -”9 rya . //AI V $ s; rte. ■ , fri, / .. _b. „1,___N , ......:,..:,..„.„,. ...„ ,,:„.,,,,, ,, F II 4 S SW17TfYV, 1 ' ' !�N ST 06/26/96 Par Potentially Affect Parcels potentially affect ed bev staff re,-rtctfor by CPA96-0002 explanation of critena. j Areas Zoned I■ w w _ 2 4, �'_ General Corrmieraal-”Y O ..iiAk.... p CITY OF TIGARD ' y -k tii1;:i''.:;t1,,; "•gi,V, ,,/ 7( C \ 1 VEN ,IIITVIE,14140141':':4F-441!��i � y ---F— U4RHA Il ' 4 = VIEWMOUP(T r- GA�p PARK PL I :w T � � II' r ` HILL ii '7 VIEVVMOUNf LN—i ijt! i`% A Q W 8 El £ %///. --ArtirAarglPr I" _ / � s - I 4 Q i - I EA 1 ELI V m e,, E , , uin.<t st wag '► c i/lum .11 . F,.' 8 N. 1 IN NI dill CIE AA-RDQCX___s :n _ o MI I / `lt'll t�I4jp N m .�; •ii ! p- Parce6 Potential ly Affect � by CPA96-0002 '� AVIV GreetTICLeraal Map 3 4 ,f• ickui IL' ‘''''. . 4**‘*4 • • # so fri,.„,. / , .. - _ ,. I ' W 13 Vs C)LU 69 ' 1t 7 ■ ;14 4•4 4‘, - i ' 4P,' 'N 4* ■.: Astio, ile - 6 It. C FrcS6 4 4 •Ao:NOt Itp ' ., #. W AIL 1 ANN31 'N*Ad 1r ' . 4#_ ,, , , ve I t.. 114 * ‘ R= 40 1, / Alki, ,■ ,. . # IIII "-i-7 * 41474* ... ‘ 0# . 11911 -' 410 *V i .v ' 1-0 , , ** 4, III P'" sT 1 '-*# # > C II irro 114(' • A • Iv 4 A■ s / e # to I . ir q it* ot-#* 001: ic\ 1 Illpr .40*07 * s . ., 444 - • 2: o Nto . ii, As 1 410, . ..,)'-) ** ■ ‘`,* L _ _ _ ___ _,,,,_ L _ _ / Parceli Potentially Affect /// See sa o foraffected *ii.91' � CPA96-0002 explanation of criteria. Y -- Areas Zoned A /4., 4 General Commercial CITY OF TIGARD Map " - -• •-' -Y? LOCUST J f + , --1-,-",;-., • ,.., 41S.D7,00N, „__. „ „VIII" : ,..„ ,.. , ,, ,__,.::__,__.___ .. Ill..........., . SHAY LN: 11. I :::„, .„.„,:,„ :::: ...,, ,,,„:„,:,t,,,,, 440 rff"-- ,, i -,-, 11116, r _ 111111111116 \y---7 . ( \ K , cli DRl h DAKOTA ST N I lii DAKOTA 1111111Trip N.1---1.0.11" ii IF/ ikik) I II i MEI illx A • __ !dig i 06/26/96 �e/iRG s potentially affected Parce6Potentially Affectecor Parcel Parcel osal. Note: See Staff report for b CPA96-0002 planation of criteria. �, ,n y Areas Zoned _T i I V ap General Corroriercial CITY OF TIGARD v ST j _j �� ~ LOCUST r MAPLELEAF ST Q J. -, MAPLELEAF ST ‘44.F — — . MI:.'66 . ST OAK ST 2 V' MIEN li. Al PINE ST % -INE ST _ I r SPRUCE ST , SRRUCE ST Liji I i 1_1---___ . ____________3_4___L L \ THORN ST - .. / = mill STELE ST �j ) . 11111111111 Ihilk el ms•1141116)6::',.„,;i;!;"-: ,.II. 1------- aFFLE _, 1—n- - MEI 141-111111111\ IS mi N ,,,,,,,, '..ri,,,,,, .„,,,,„ 4,.,.,.:::„ 1--- w il:24 06/26/96 tent-a . i ily affected Is Pe Note. I paroe report for bY Staff r--vT(;fiteria. See „ion o „„,„12,1a,.'" __I-- i A.CCe‘Ct zoned da' „ Areas Zoned cannier I I. II— tA u ntiallY _ ,..... General,-,f -;'," , ,,,,-A,,1-,,,,,:g% .':.11,.-:k''-,,,,-v,,,,' „nil&4-3 i„,'•'- i . pote 6_0002 I--u-w-L-I _I "i . :. ParceblPy CPmaA9p-6 II { ,4 it...14111 A ST .. , ---, 1 /-- OF TIGARD CITY OAKI . , -I - &X S' III,,, N, .L _ pN).E NI_ -_-_—_ II-I --- .!:,,,.,i,.,;:1.,,-,4,,,,o-„',-,,,.'—..„,.*.',s0„..to,','.:„,:',,.'1•,,:,..:'..';4':"o,`.'_,,':.',.i,.4_,:,'`c,-.,* -.s.:,0f s,.t„„T 1 1 . - - I SP RUCE 1 6 7 1,1 ow!10 , ,.i.„o,O.r,:t-.,;o,4-.."l'-;,`,,-:,:r.„11,.,-6w,..'k-'p1 o..'..-,:.,`_„,:o„-.].4,4d,-:.W:w4_-'4;:x‘:%---:•--.,-:.t'1 4W:o..:4-:14*i,%:ON:---.:'-!-k.,--:,-,'..,o";,,.1,..::-„:1-:o,'',,-.:,',,",-N0'r.„.i'4„„l--7-:1.„-.o.1'i-,..-.,-'„:.„A,!J',.:-,,,',;,o.lti.,„.o.14.S:%:'iI,-.„4„o..NpR1 kmlo.,1E,,„:o,.;A or,4:,,„ri,Pi:s:f,i,.o,, .-----,-',-,:11-,1%,----.t,---• -,- -,,„ - --- - A--:*?::::t.,k,:,-%,-dy:',1, ;g.4-03,4,Ack,,:i: I II 1:04,111414,111' -''4i.4,4P:107 .1:11:'.latlfkl,trrigq..PI44.V: ,..4*:441P-','5N,T''''.1*• •:li::.:::'' la',' -EA'i, ,:;-:.tZ.,i-,:-',-,f::::::::4:,:::i1:_nl'i.'rlil: ZI'',1]:4411,4 sT ■ Øød ,--Oo;.:,,,:.:,NER-,..'"'-O,' -,,,-. '--...!:.!",,N4,4,,,,,''?§ ',Nr,"'-.1„..,"'4::,,,II,'„%t;?,!:1441K ,S ,*f.:-:„„illytip;,,-.1,:„:..,;,,,,:qi itq,104:1;.k,•,J..,0041),ii.1:..1614,14. 1.i"i".„41i•tit -,-,.--i;-,;,,,,,, Y- - , ' , ' - d,t1,--:•.-:.--goL.:''''.:451- '4:010f-'''''..,'":4;.,:1-4---'r,,i igt....:1.-,..,,, *1-4 P54: - A. ..„:„..••,4-0 14,:„:.1:::, INP-1..p.k,:f:iai,ot, ,wi.':',* a...14,, 6,„. .,,,,,,,„:,-&,.... „.. 4:;*,-,.;• -4-, -,.,„ ,,_i;l';„-::-..4.• -,,-,›,--,"”-' ' • , - - - ' - A , ;r .. .,,,.,...:i::,,,.;, , ,,,,,.:: ,,.f.i.i.-:-..t,,!9,".,?!.,,,,,t,,,::...„-:-4,-:.1.4,:i ie-,-- -'- -, .,,,;*,,,,,,lit,tt,_,lt,:%prii"":.„,v,s'':";"'''''- - , , ,, _ , -” ..".,,',, , „..,,„.. „ r .. . "..../..,/, ..::::,:, .. . ,.., „„3.,,, .'--'-- / , 4t) ' '/ "4 -e'' -''• -„—: ---- -- ,,,,,,,,*L,:le 1 . - -„' , —4,•,.:.-2,4?„;••••,,,-,..• .,-,:,..,, ,N r#;•;•••,-.;.:-'-l• „.. ,.:-.‘44,T,,,,,,2,erw,- Ak..,,:::1„:4o:.,,,,,..A!'; • ,,,..,,,,, , ,'-' ,;,,,....w-; , •■ A_ ''.-:,:,,'..."g!;'. ' .;',:t. , -4,,,,„1,.111. 141:.',''-,,:',1 „i".,•,.'„,,,,,,,'•; .,kgi, ,. ';, \ IIIII / ST .,,,„0.-,,::',1 sT &,,..o.,-,,,,47::,- Irfo' m oR w-T-T1 .5--- I o- 'r, ,,,s.g,,,,,,,,;atT'-..;;,4-.!''•.•,1 ;.', 4/45k:''t!,' V -3,',.,-, .:?:i''-,A. -.::. BA-- ,,,• -',;.::- ;4,14',oini, ,,., ° -' ,,,,,..,.., ,,4,:- ',,--,..f.2 -`,” . - „ofik . < .,-- 4 ;,:.,, 4'''''•'4''': '.4...1 41116k' ' -' '-''''4''''' ' - -'''''''4'0 .. , ,. .' ' , ' ,,,,,, ''' ' ■, , ,,,,' ' 1- 1,---- ir:A :.-: i.„.4:'-'' •-;gie 4,,,',: --..,, ' ,...,...- ,,,,;•• .., - ,,,,,:h4,' - • , ' :„.„.„... - .,- ,- ',_ ,, ' 1.- '''', .-.-,,, 'Ai' 1.... Ir '': '_ ,„- ' , r/' ■-',:{' 'A''' ''f-" 4' ,,, ''' ,■ ,Nk.,.'','''''''le,' ':, i 1,,„ - .... 1!-L------ 06/26/96 • STOEL RIVES LLP A T T O R N E Y S STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 2300 PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-1268 Phone(503)224-3380 Fax(503)220-2480 TDD(503)221-1045 Internet:www.stoel.com July 1, 1996 MICHAEL C.ROBINSON Direct Dial (503) 294-9194 email mcrobinson @stoel.com VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Ray Valone Associate Planner City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Boulevard PO Box 23397 Tigard OR.-97Z ,.. tif,i�A 4f 13 Re: Application by AKA Enterprises , Dear Ray: I am writing to confirm our telephone conversation of July 1. I would like the City Council to open the public hearing on this application on July 9 but continue it to a date certain of August 13. I am requesting that this matter be continued until that date due to a scheduling conflict that I have on July 9. Thank you very much for your courtesy and assistance. Very Truly Yours, - . wLQe. • . . • . . . y .Michael C.. Robinson MCR:lxh :Mr.'-Walt.Aman (via facsimile) • PDX 1 A-38545.1 99999-0001 SEATTLE PORTLAND VANCOUVER,WA BOISE SALT LAKE CITY WASHINGTON,D.C. • • - FAX TRANSMITTAL- • PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LOGO LEGAL NOTICE SECTION OF TIGARD TIMES DATE: June 21, 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 9. 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) 96-0002 AKA BUSINESS SERVICES 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. TT PUBLISH June 27. 1996 • S - FAX TRANSMITTAL- PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LOGO LEGAL NOTICE SECTION OF TIGARD TIMES DATE: July 25, 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 August 13. 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) 96-0002 AKA BUSINESS SERVICES 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. TT PUBLISH August 1. 1996 ' Y • • CPA 96-0002 (AKA Business Service) CC - 8/13/96 [PROJECT] This is a proposal to amend the text of Policy 12.2.1(2)(1a) of the Locational Criteria section of the Comprehensive Plan. This policy is one criterion used to analyze and evaluate Comp Plan map amendments that propose the redesignation and rezoning of land to allow for General Commercial/C-G uses. It would apply to all such proposed amendments and therefore has citywide application. As a note, the introductory paragraphs of the Locational Criteria section of the plan contain a statement that these criteria be construed in a flexible manner in order to accommodate proposals which are found to be in the public interest. The existing provision reads "The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides". The proposed policy wording is in your staff reports and I will summarize it now. The existing restriction would still apply to new commercial areas. An existing area may expand, however, if the CC finds all of the following: 1. The expanded comm. area is not surrounded by R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R4.5 and R- 7 districts on more than 2 sides; 2. The increased comm. area will not adversely affect the surrounding residential districts; 3. The size of the increased comm. area will allow an appropriate buffer to be provided between uses allowed in the comm. district and uses allowed in the surrounding residential districts; and 4. The increased comm. area is the min. size necessary that is required to allow the appropriate redevelopment of the existing comm. area. The proposed amendment is depicted graphically on the presentation boards. [ BACKGROUND] The applicant, AKA Business Services, Inc., owns a parcel along Pacific Hwy which has a split zoning of C-G in the front and R-12 in the back. The owner has applied for this legislative text amendment in order to modify the policy which could, he believes, • • • prevent him from expanding the C-G portion of the site into the multi-family zoned area. This site was annexed to the city in 1987 as part of the South Metzger annexation, and zoned to match the county's zoning at the time. The county zoning was Gen. Comm and Residential 15. [CRITERIA] Staff finds that the proposal does not meet all relevant criteria. This includes State Goal 10, Housing, because the expansion of Gen Comm into multi-family resid. areas, in particular, would reduce the opportunities for the city to make available housing units at various price ranges and rent levels and allow for flexibility of location, type and density of housing. Comp. Plan policy 5.4, which states that new commercial and industrial development will not encroach into residential areas, is not satisfied because the proposal would facilitate expansion of commercial areas into residential districts. Staff also cannot find that Comp Plan policy 6.1.1 is satisfied. Though the amendment itself would not cause the city to drop out of compliance with the Metro Hsg Rule, the expansion of general commercial areas into multi-family areas, in particular, would result in the incremental loss of housing opportunity for the city's provision of a diversity of housing densities and types. Regarding policy 12.2.1(2)(B.1), which is the spacing and locational criterion itself: under the proposal, multi-family and single-family residential areas are held to a different standard, but staff believes both should be treated equally if the city's the intent is to maintain protection of all residential areas. [AGENCY/OTHER COMMENTS] Req for Comment notices were sent to ODOT & Metro and all CIT mailing list members were notified. The proposal was also presented to all CITs during the May meetings. ODOT chose not to comment on the text amendment because the agency only evaluates parcel-specific amendment requests for compliance to the TPR. Metro responded that it would appear to permit a greater mix of uses in Tigard and they support efforts by the cities to do this; however, at this time Metro has no plans or guidelines to satisfy when reviewing CPAs. • • The South and East CITs had no comments on the proposal. The Central and West CIT, who hold joint meetings, expressed concern about changing the text for locating Gen. Comm areas, and instead believe the applicant should first pursue his desired rezone via the quasi-judicial route. [RECOMMENDATION] The Planning Commission, at its hearing of June 17, recommended denial of the proposal by a vote of 5-2. Planning staff recommends denial of CPA 96-0002 because the applicant has not met all applicable criteria and has not made a convincing argument that this amendment is beneficial to the city. Further, the applicant could apply for a quasi-judicial CPA/ZON to change the designations on his property and make a case for construing the existing policy 12.2.1.(2) in a flexible manner as currently allowed. Parcels potentially affected Affected by proposal. Note: Parcels Pot entiall Y See Staff report for by CPA96 0002 explanation of criteria. AAreas Zoned . • CITY OF TIGARD Map 2 General Commercial • ` V IOeOS "` +2553 12550 i�• 12600 10250 12675 17550 , 1062 p 1759. �< 12135 +0270 10135 10,15 12650:: b0,0 .660 10095*V. 10500 ,7755 ��////5 13550 2750 / 10600 ur +0305 ,0520 11,00 735 ` ., 12005 sT * // � ..� V 12760 / .::;: • 12615 10016 17020 P / 17875 :;:;:;: 12610 12820 :::: Q 12655 / ;:;.,'•:;. ; 12505 12905 ®17830 .... ;;iQSO:,: :'; +7500 /,_ 1.4'. J ,6a,s Q' 1ldei;:;:;i ,2000 j :••.. 11573 ,0605 j 13565 1� /j ,2996 IIVVA /j ; TKjN� �j .............. ........ 17005 12970 /j iii j 12915 f. /NM .:: ::':'::::H':ildiSi:�:`::i:::'::::::::'::::1:".:i :ii:i '1iiiisi:::::::: 13050 10795 : :::43990.:::• 10725 10695 10665 10675 13075 i;i i i i i i i i ' •'•'•' • •';,TS;'..:';;iii`:::E:i:E:i:i:!:';iip:;::'iiiufk;, GRAN • T 13090 , ......%.4:::,:•:::::::::::::::.::::::".•... DELL C CT p :.. 10390 :::::::::.: :::: . / 13115 10750 ,3,20 17,50 1071S/:. \„ ;:,10730 10700 10670 10610 10610 �^ , ''' '..... ..Q0 faoeQ :: '1]113 13,60 ,3160 13,10 .::::::::::.:...:.:::::::•..;:::'I UM'A 13115 a,eo 10775 10685 10055 10025 13205 13210 ,0175 ::: : ;.','� • ' i ;::?::?:iii`'' •/ PARK ST• - . - fi 662 s 5696 ,6500 1 5 oa o 1 0550 1 0500 1 s/ 0 0 %4' Q 0010 �r 10010 I ' VO6 10695-- 111111111.11:1111101111111111111111111:01111111111ii: •••••••••• N.-•••••••• .: 0 t :./ 0653 10635 10605 13303 `r0002 two 0 13425 5 COOK L N :ti /, 31 0590 '•�''•::::::::::::: :::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::•:'::: 10676 13155 t• 10534 10620 13434 $111/1*\‘...‘ kl‘ 1 13495 N 31 1 00 I!BS 13472 3 1 110 $1N60 0585 10545 003 13525 III ::t it 13505 T I50 .L. , ,o to 1 1;110 1 3555 13450 0 r •••••••••• •••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••-••••••••••••••• •••• 'A li v ST ,75 6 ..„,„::::::::::::,:::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::„,„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„:„„„:„„„„„„„::::: 13500 0 "7. 1J 575 less 0730 19696 .41 j. 1 605 , Teo. 7 17595 i • .:;:. :::r Q.,Q:•'•'•'•;•'.•.:•:•:•:•:.%•:•:•:•:•:•: N 13620 +14Pi, 15 9 1 Jeos 1 a 4013600 toe !ao eo : I,7 o:s 1 13530 i`i•e' 70 5 •J • • G� 7 t 17 05 10740 ::::3355.. 10770 0 0 7695 ,Jess 13715 O 13730 "725 17035 13645 13755 1 es T3 i i s 1 0 ( ,0T 1�t Oi S ,s i r'1 • CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes May 20, 1996 1. CALL TO ORDER President Wilson 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 Commissioners Present: President Wilson; Commissioners Collson, Griffith, Holland, Padgett, and Scolar Commissioner DeFrang arrived late. Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Anderson Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Ray Valone, Associate Planner; Nels Mickaelson, Associate Planner; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Holland moved and Commissioner Padgett seconded a motion to approve the May 6, 1996, meeting minutes as submitted. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS None 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0002 AKA BUSINESS SERVICES 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. STAFF REPORT Ray Valone presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He explained that this was a proposal to amend Policy 12.2.1(2)(1a) of the locational criteria sections of PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 20, 1996-Page 1 • S the Comprehensive Plan. He advised that this policy is one criterion used to analyze and evaluate Comprehensive Plan amendments - the proposed redesignation and rezoning of land to allow for general commercial uses only. He said it would apply to all such amendments, and therefore, is a citywide application. Valone said that the existing provision now reads, "the commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides". He summarized the proposed policy wording as stating that the existing restriction will still apply to new commercial areas, but an existing area may expand if the City Council finds the following: 1. the expanded commercial area is not surrounded by R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R4.5, R-7 districts on more than 2 sides 2. the increased commercial area will not adversely affect the surrounding residential districts 3. the size of the increased commercial area will allow an appropriate buffer to be provided between uses allowed 4. the increased commercial area is the minimum size necessary that is required to allow the appropriate redevelopment of the existing commercial area Valone said the applicant owned a parcel along Pacific Hwy. which is a split zoning of C-G in the front and R-12 in the back, but the proposal is not about the site in particular. Valone provided history of the parcel and explained how the existing policy language could prevent the owner from expanding the C-G portion of the site into the multi-family portion of the area. Valone said that staff finds the current proposal does not meet the relative criteria, including State Goal 10 (the housing goal), because the expansion of general • commercial into multi-family residential areas would reduce the opportunity for the city to make available housing units at various price ranges/rent levels and allow for flexibility of location, type, and density of houses. He said our Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.4, which states that new commercial and industrial development will not encroach into residential areas, is not satisfied because this proposal would help to facilitate expansion of commercial areas into residential districts. Valone said that staff could also not make a finding that Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.1.1 is satisfied. He said that although the amendment itself would not cause the city to drop off compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule, which requires 10 units an acre and over 50% multi-family housing, the expansion of general commercial areas into multi-family areas would result in incremental loss of housing opportunities for the city. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 20, 1996-Page 2 • S • In regards to policy 12.2.1(2), the locational criteria, Valone stated that under the proposal, multi-family and single family residential areas are held to a different standard. He said staff believes both should be treated equally, if the city's intent is to maintain protection of all residential areas. Valone advised that requests for comments were sent to ODOT and Metro, and that all CIT mailing list members were notified. The proposal was also presented to all of the CITs during their May meetings. He stated that ODOT chose not to comment on the text because the agency evaluates each parcel specifically. He said that Metro responded that they supported the proposal because it would appear to permit a greater mix of uses. Valone said the South and East CITs had no comments on the proposal. He said the Central and West CITs expressed concern about changing the text for locating general commercial areas. Valone advised that staff recommended the. Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposal, because the applicant has not met all principal criteria and has not made a convincing argument that this amendment is beneficial to the city. He said the applicant could apply for a quasi-judicial comp plan amendment to change the zoning on the property and make a case for construing policy 12.2.1 in a flexible manner as allowed in the comprehensive plan. In response to a question from President Wilson, Valone answered that this proposal only applied to general commercial areas. Valone then used an overhead to demonstrate both the existing policy and the proposed policy. He showed that, under the proposal, the criteria would be met if there were single family residential areas on up to two sides and multi-family on the third side. President Wilson asked if expansion would follow .the tax lot lines, or if the applicant could re-draw the property line to avoid more than 2 sides. Valone answered that it was possible. Commissioner DeFrang asked about streets that divide areas and if the streets make a definite division between lots and zones. Valone answered that the applicant agreed to include a provision that there couldn't be a street or right-of- way between the existing general commercial area and the proposed expansion area. Valone explained that Goal 10 (offering housing at various prices and rent levels) could be affected by this proposal. Commissioner Padgett said that, instead of looking at "yet available" development, the Commission should look at the development potential from the original build- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 20, 1996-Page 3 • • out. He believes the city's obligation is to provide economic opportunity, including what is already here (not just from this point on). APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Michael Robinson, 900 SW 5th, Suite 2300, Portland, OR 97204-1268, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He explained that the proposal would clarify when an existing general commercial plan map designation could be expanded. He said the current language was difficult to interpret and it would be better to have more certain criteria. He said the proposed change would give some guidance for an existing C-G map designation to be surrounded on more than 2 sides by higher density residential designations. He advised that the proposal doesn't apply to new commercial areas - it applies only to existing C-G areas. Robinson noted that the applicant would like to change the existing R-12 designation of his property to C-G. He said the parcel is a flag lot with a split zone and the only access is through an existing driveway. He said the applicant has an approved site development review on the C-G portion, but it is a constrained site - the building and parking are squeezed on to a smaller site than is necessary. Robinson stated that people who don't want to buy other property to make this change, or don't want to change their existing property designation, aren't going to `. be affected by this proposal. Robinson said, at one time, he thought an appropriate limitation on this criteria might be in those situations of split zoning, but he decided it was too narrow a provision to put in the comp plan. He believes the city shouldn't adopt plan map amendments to deal solely with a single site - the plan map amendment should be generally acceptable for the rest of the community. He said the applicant's proposal will strike a balance. Robinson reminded the Commission that, even if this text amendment is approved, all other applicable criteria would still apply to the quasi-judicial plan map applications. Robinson disagreed with the staff report that this proposal would make it easier to rezone commercial property. He also disagreed that this amendment treats multi- family areas differently from single family areas. Robinson said he suggested modified language to reduce the scope of impact of the amendment. Robinson also does not believe this application does anything to reduce protection of multi-family areas. He remarked that the comp plan already distinguishes between low density designations and medium, medium-high, and high density designations. He noted that the code still provides for buffering to maximize the privacy of low density residential areas. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 20, 1996-Page 4 • • Robinson referred to State Planning Goal #10 and said he does not believe the application.does anything to prevent this goal from being met. He said a future applicant coming in for a quasi-judicial map application would still have to prove this planning goal is met. He then cited a number of existing criteria in the Comprehensive Plan that protect residential areas from the impacts of C-G designations. Robinson said he agrees with the conditions of approval listed on page 2 of the staff report. He also noted that the Planning Commission could recommend approval to the City Council with modifications. Commissioner DeFrang remarked that she thought it was safer and more conservative to make decisions on a case by case basis, rather than to run the risk of "stepping on residential toes". Robinson said the problem is that there is no assurance about what it takes to construe things in a flexible manner and it is easy to step on residential toes with the language as it exists today. President Wilson said he was concemed about approving a zone change before seeing any site development review plans. Robinson said it was difficult to write completely objective criteria, but this proposal would give an applicant a better idea about what has to be satisfied. President Wilson asked staff if there was a zone change under this proposed language, would there be more stringent site development review criteria because it projects into a residential area. Ray Valone answered that staff would defer to the code. Dick' Bewersdorff said that applicants are required to meet with the neighborhood prior to making an application. He said that the applicant normally addresses the neighborhood's concerns, which tends to result in less objections to the project. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR Gene Mayberry, 13490 SW Watkins, Tigard, OR 97223, asked about possible zone changes in his neighborhood. President Wilson informed him that the application was not a change to any particular property and suggested he contact city staff to talk about his property. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION Debbie Hart, 12615 SW Watkins Ave., Tigard, OR 97223,-expressed concern about the affect on livability for lots on Watkins Ave. Martha Bishop, 10590 SW Cook Lane, Tigard, OR 97223, read a letter to the Commission. She requested that the Planning . Commission revise the comprehensive text amendment as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 20, 1996-Page 5 • • "The three side rule shall apply to multi-family uses only. A parcel with two sides or more, with single family zoning, and shall not be permitted to be rezoned to commercial. While the primary access for the commercial use be a major collector or arterial, as stated in the City of Tigard code, if any portion of the proposed property is abutting or accessing upon a minor collector or local road, then the property cannot be rezoned." Duane Meyer, 13210 SW Watkins, Tigard, OR 97223, compared the proposal to "dynamiting the lake to get one fish." He is against the amendment changes being citywide. David Rutan, 13570 SW Watkins Ave., Tigard, OR 97223, signed up to speak, but chose not to do so. Several people in the audience had questions about their specific piece of property. The Planning Commission took a 10 minute break to allow these people an opportunity to talk to staff. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Griffith asked staff if the City of Tigard have a zero housing loss regulation, as far as zone changes are concerned. Ray Valone answered that there is not a requirement to replace housing units on a ratio basis. He stated that the Metro Housing Rule currently requires at least 10 units per acre of housing opportunity and the City is at 10.45. Commissioner Collson remarked that this application seemed to be replacing one piece of ambiguous criteria for another not quite as ambiguous. He was not in favor of change something for the sake of change. He said he had a problem changing code for the whole city, based on a need in one particular area. Commissioner Padgett said he liked a lot of the new language, but he did not like a change in the rule of three, allowing one of the three sides to be multi-family. He said the code allowed for two types of changes, quasi-judicial and legislative. He believes that to effect a legislative change, there needs to be a crying need citywide with a particular part of the code. President Wilson said this application was a good attempt to clarify the code. He said he would tend to support it if it was an improvement, but he would look for further improvement. Commissioner Holland said the application made a lot of sense. He said he likes the idea of the fifth condition in the staff report, that the increased area has to be contiguous, not separated by a roadway or right-of-way. He thinks the changes are much more understandable. • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 20, 1996-Page 6 • Commissioner DeFrang said she was opposed to the change. She said it would be hard to foresee what could happen. She is in favor of taking a more conservative approach and looking at each application on a case by case basis. Commissioner Scolar agreed with Commissioner DeFrang. He prefers handing things on a case by case basis. He does want to change the status for the whole city. Commissioner Griffith said he appreciated the language. He said he does not like crisis intervention. He thinks there is some ambiguity in the current language, but it has worked for a long time. Commissioner Griffith moved to recommend denial of CPA 96-0002. Commissioner Padgett seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by a vote of five to two. Commissioners Padgett, Collson, DeFrang, Scolar, and Griffith voted for the motion. Commissioners Wilson and Holland voted against the motion. 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 STAFF REPORT Nels Mickaelson presented the staff report on behalf of the city. He advised that this is a proposal to amend the text of the housing section of the Comprehensive Plan policy 6.1.1, Implementation Strategy 3 and Tigard Community Development Code 18.92.020 and 18.92.030, in order to allow 100% density transfer from wetland areas zoned R-12, R-25, and R-40. Mickaelson advised that the Tigard Community Development Code currently allows 25% onsite residential density transfer from areas within the 100 year PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 20, 1996-Page 7 • • floodplain, steep slopes, and drainage ways. He said that currently there is no density transfer allowed to wetland areas. Mickaelson stated that the applicant has an interest in 4.73 acres of property adjacent to Longstaff Street along Highway 217. The property is zoned R-12, with 3.1 acres of wetland. Mickaelson said the applicant has applied for this legislative text amendment to allow transfer 100% of residential units from the wetland to the buildable portion of the site. Mickaelson said staff finds that the proposal meets all state wide planning goals, however, staff does not feel it satisfies Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.1(c), which requires the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code be kept current with the needs of the community. He said staff also has concerns about the impact this proposal could have on wetlands. Mickaelson advised that requests for comments were sent to Metro and the Division of State Lands and notified all CIT mailing list members. He said that Metro and DSL did not comment and the South CIT had concerns about the effect on existing neighborhoods. Mickaelson said that, following meeting with the CIT, the applicant modified his proposal to only include lands zoned for multi-family. Mickaelson reported that the West and Central CITs questioned revisions which would allow more density transfer from wetlands than other physically restrained lands. He said the East CIT supported the concept, but felt application should be evaluated on a case by case basis and there should be no guarantee of 100% transfer. Mickaelson said staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial as proposed because the applicant has not met all applicable criteria and has not made a convincing argument that this amendment is beneficial or necessary to the City. He said that Planning staff does recommend that changes be made to the Comprehensive Plan to allow 25% residential density transfer from wetlands on residential land. Commissioner Griffith asked if there could be a possibility to allow density transfer up to the maximum allowable by zone. Mickaelson said that Metro is pushing for generous onsite density transfer, but they haven't specified a percentage or given direction how to do that. Mickaelson clarified the density transfer concept by going over different examples. • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 20, 1996-Page 8 • �► APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION William Cox, 0244 SW California St., Portland, OR 97219, spoke on behalf of ABECO. He clarified that there was 1 acre of wetland on their 4 acres of land, and that under this proposal, they could get a total of 12 more units on the site. Cox said he appreciated the discussion of allowing density transfer up to the maximum of density allowed by zone. He said that, in reality, it may not be possible to get 100% density transfer, because of parking and set back requirements. Cox advised that most other jurisdictions allow density transfer from wetland areas. He said that Hillsboro won't any transfer from flood plain, but allows full transfer from wetlands. Cox said he disagrees with the staff report, because he feels they have been put in a position to justify allowing 100% transfer from wetland areas, but not from other areas. He cited a case from North Plains that would expand their Urban Growth Boundary. He said it was successfully appealed to LUBA by DLCD, saying the city needed to take into effect all artificial barriers to urban infill before expanding the UGB. In conclusion, Mr. Cox said that they were asking to get whatever density off of the wetlands that would have been allowed on the wetlands. He suggested dropping the words 100 per cent from the proposal and said he would entertain some type of cap, as suggested by Commissioner Griffith. Commissioner Padgett asked the applicant if he thought more people living close to a wetland area would make it better for the wetland. Mr. Cox answered that there would be more of an opportunity to protect the wetland and the developer would be less tempted to encroach on the wetland. Cox also said that he does not believe that higher density next to a wetland necessarily causes destruction of the wetland. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Nobody signed up to speak on this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Griffith said he supported density transfer and would like to see consistency in our plan. He said is favored a "not to exceed" amount, as allowed by zone, instead of a percentage. Commissioner Scolar does not agree with the transfer concept. He said he is concerned about protecting the wetlands. He agreed with staff in denying the application for 100% transfer, but would agree to 25%. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 20, 1996-Page 9 0 . y: • . Commissioner DeFrang is in favor of protecting the wetlands and believes that increasing the density would have a negative impact. She agrees with the staff • report. Commissioner Holland said he agreed with staff, but would like to be able to evaluate applications on a case by case basis. President Wilson said he supported density transfers and believes the wetlands are protected. He thinks a property owner should be able to make use of his property. He supports staff recommendation to allow 25% density transfer. Commissioner Padgett agreed with President Wilson. He said he isn't a fan of increasing density around wetlands, but does not believe 25% is excessive. Commissioner Collson also agreed with the 25% figure. He could not support 100%. He said he is intrigued by the max build out requirement, but is not sure how it could be implemented. Commissioner Holland moved to approve the proposal as modified by staff, with 25% wetland transfer instead of 100% wetland transfer. Commissioner DeFrang seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 6. OTHER BUSINESS Dick Bewersdorff briefed the Commissioners on upcoming meetings. 7. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. \—. L L ,Z--1/c: !- =�.' 2 v / L Jerre,Gaynor, Planning'ommission-Secretary ATTEST: President Nic Wilson • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- May 20, 1996-Page 10 Ogg y o z • • • CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes April 8, 1996 1. CALL TO ORDER President Wilson 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 Commissioners Present: President Wilson; Commissioners Anderson, Collson, DeFrang, Griffith, Holland, and Padgett Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Scolar Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Will D'Andrea, Assistant Planner; Ray Valone, Associate Planner; Jim Coleman, City Attorney's Office; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Collson moved and Commissioner Padgett seconded a motion to approve the March 4, 1996, workshop minutes as submitted. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by majority vote. Commissioners Holland and DeFrang abstained. Commissioner DeFrang moved and Commissioner Holland seconded a motion to approve the March 18, 1996, meeting minutes as submitted. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by majority vote. Commissioner Collson abstained 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS The Planning Commission Secretary passed out registration forms for land use workshops being conducted by the League of Oregon Cities. She advised that the City would pay registration fees if the commissioners would like to attend. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0002 AKA BUSINESS SERVICES 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; PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- April 8, 1996-Page 1 • • Tigard Community Development Code chapter 18.30; and Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 12. Associate Planner Ray Valone informed the commissioners that staff and the applicant are requesting a continuance to May 20, 1996. He explained that they want to take this item through the CIT process and the CITs didn't have time on their schedules to hear the item until May. In response to a question from Commissioner Padgett, Valone said that a legislative text amendment has to be opened and heard by the Planning Commission within 30 days of submittal. Although there was no staff report and no public testimony was taken at this meeting, Valone summarized the proposal and answered questions from the audience. He advised that the applicant has requested to change the text of the comprehensive plan, under the locational criteria for general commercial only. He said the applicant is requesting one of two alternatives: 1. General commercial cannot be surrounded on more than two sides by R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5, R-7 zoning districts. 2. Zoning of any new commercial area cannot be surrounded by any residential districts on more than 2 sides. Existing commercial areas can expand into residential areas, if City Council finds that the increase does not adversely affect the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff noted that this proposal is not a zone change for any particular piece of property, it just establishes rules for which zone changes would be made. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Holland moved and Commissioner Anderson seconded a motion to postpone the hearing until May 20, 1996. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 5.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0003/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 96-0001 DURHAM 99 ASSOCIATES, LTD. PARTNERSHIP REQUEST: A request for the following development applications: 1.) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 5,775 square foot commercial building, with additional modifications to the existing parking within the center; 2.) Planned Development Review. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial (C-G). ZONING DESIGNATION: General Commercial, Planned Development - C-G (PD). LOCATION: North of SW Durham Road and west of SW Summerfield Drive. (WCTM 2S1 10DC, tax lots 400 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- April 8, 1996-Page 2 • • and 500). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.62, 18.80, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.116, 18.120, 18150 and 18.164. STAFF REPORT Assistant Planner Will D'Andrea stated that the applicant had not presented any additional material until this night (Exhibit "A). The Commissioners took time to review the new material. Commissioner Holland moved and Commissioner Padgett seconded a motion to reopen the public hearing for this item. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Will D'Andrea highlighted the proposal and explained that the applicant would be providing evidence to show that some of the parking in the shopping center should be considered as off-peak use. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Gene Mildren, 11830 SW Kerr, #325, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He referred to section 18.106.020(1) of the Development Code, saying this defines the parking requirements as the sum of the requirements of the several uses computed separately, unless the peak hours of use do not overlap. Mildren reported that the existing tenant mix of the center includes 4 off-peak hour tenants. He said the maximum parking demand (at the heaviest point of the day) is 137 spaces and the off-peak demand is 103 spaces. He said the center currently has 176 spaces, which is 39 more than peak requirements and 73 more than the off-peak demand. He advised that the new building proposed would require 17 additional spaces. The applicant is proposing to add 47 spaces which would bring the total parking spaces of the center to 223. Brent Ahrend, Mackenzie Engineering, PO Box 69039, Portland, OR 97201, was introduced to demonstrate the peak/off-peak definition, the existing parking demands, and how the needs will be met for the new building. He said the key is that not all businesses have peak hours at the same time. He reported that the median parking demand is approximately 97 spaces. Ahrend highlighted the parking requirements for the following off-peak tenants: the Grandstand, the Horizon Community Church, Pacific Alcohol and Drug Counseling, and NW Tan and Nails. He referred to a chart which showed their required parking and the estimated peak hour demand for the off peak uses. Based on their off peak use, the following parking spaces were subtracted from the total required spaces for the center: the Grandstand (62 spaces); Horizon PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- April 8, 1996-Page 3 • • Community Church (28 spaces); Pacific Alcohol & Drug Counseling (2 spaces); NW Tan & Nails (1 space). Ahrend then referred to page 5 of his report which summarized the parking requirements, including the reductions. He showed that, with the reductions and the net additional spaces, there will be 7 more than required by code. Ahrend summarized the rest of the report, talking about mixed use sites, alternative reductions, and alternate travel modes. He also noted that Metro is currently encouraging all jurisdictions to reduce the minimum parking requirements by 35%. Cliff Hockley, 909 SW Lucille, Portland, OR 97219, answered a question from Commissioner Griffith. He advised that the new building will be used for retail/office use. Commissioner Anderson asked if all of the tenants were surveyed for the report. The applicant responded that just those tenants considered to be off peak users were surveyed. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Nobody signed up to speak in favor or opposition of this proposal. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Griffith said he didn't have any problems with the proposal. President Wilson agreed with Commissioner Griffith, but had difficulty with the vaguely written code. He suggested the code be rewritten. Commissioner Holland said we should look at our code and bring it in line with other jurisdictions. He said he was for the development. Commissioner DeFrang thought the applicant showed there was adequate parking. Commissioner Anderson said the applicant provided detailed information showing that the parking will work. Commissioner Holland moved to accept the proposal, SDR 96-0003/PDR 96- 0001, subject to conditions of approval, including the findings that 223 parking spaces are adequate and will be provided. Commissioner Griffith seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by majority vote. Commissioner Collson abstained. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- April 8, 1996-Page 4 • • 5.3 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0003 DEDICATION, RESERVATION AND IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS The City of Tigard proposes amendments to the Community Development Code Sections 18.32.050 B.5, 18.32.250 E.2, 18.96.010 A. and 18.96.100 A. and B. to require impact study, reservation and dedication requirements for public facilities and services. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: N/A. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 11 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a. and c., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3, 7 and 8; Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. STAFF REPORT Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He advised that the Supreme Court, in the case of Dolan vs. the City of Tigard, developed a test by which cities would be judged relative to dedication and takings of properties. He said that when cities want to obtain a transfer of real property interest as a condition of development approval, they must determine that the interest seeks some legitimate public policy and the impact of the transfer on the developer must be roughly proportional to the impact the development will have on the public. Bewersdorff said this analytical process is required each time the city requires transfer of real property and that the City Attorney's office has drafted some language to deal with this issue. He said the city is proposing an impact study that requires adoption of findings, relative to real property transfers. He advised that the city is putting the burden back on the applicant, to provide information as to whether or not the impacts are basically roughly proportional. Some Commissioners expressed concern over this, stating that they believed the intent of the Dolan decision was to put the burden of proof on the City, not the applicant. Bewersdorff said there is additional language to permit reservation of park land, utility, greenway, and storm management properties with extra setbacks. He said applications would not be accepted without the impact statement, unless the applicant accepts the public improvement requirements for dedication. Once the city has the rough proportionality analysis, the applicant will also be required to sign a waiver that they agree to the improvements in the dedications. In.response to a question from President Wilson, Bewersdorff advised that site development reviews, minor land partitions, subdivisions, planned developments, and conditional use permits could require a dedication. Commissioner Griffith asked about building in the flood plains. Staff answered that industrial areas in flood plains can be filled, subject to mitigation. Paths require a sensitive land review. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- April 8,1996-Page 5 • • • President Wilson asked about safeguards for property owners under section 18.96.010 of the code, "...and to permit the reservation of land planned for acquisition for park, utility, greenway, and/or storm drainage management purposes." Some Commissioners were concerned that this language might give the City "carte blanche" in taking property. Jim Coleman, from the City Attorney's Office, advised that the City would have a plan in place, identifying bike paths, greenway, utility areas, etc. He said that if an application came in which affected one of these areas, the special setback language would allow the property to develop outside of the setback areas. These areas would be reserved from development, so the second step can be taken -- the rough proportionality analysis can be done if the City chooses to require dedication or the property is reserved for purchase in the future. Coleman stated that adoption of the special setback is a policy choice that is not dictated by the Dolan case. He went on to say that the requirement for the impact study and the requirement that the city adopt findings to justify the rough proportionality should be adopted because they, in effect, implement the Dolan decision. Coleman explained that an impact study means the developer would tell the city what impacts the development would have on public facilities and systems. As the city applies its standards, some dedications may be required for public facilities. The city can then do comparisons of dollar amounts between the impact cost of the development and the cost of what the city is requiring for dedications. Coleman advised that the cities have to do an individualized determination to see that these comparisons are roughly proportional. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Nobody signed up to speak on this issue. PUBIC HEARING CLOSED After further discussion, Commissioner Holland moved and Commissioner Anderson seconded a motion to send a recommendation to City Council for approval of Zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) 96-0003. Commissioner Padgett commented that he thought the impact study was a good tool, but he does not support the language of sections 18.96.010 and 18.96.100. Because of this, he could not support a motion to recommend the entire package. A voice vote was taken and the motion failed by a vote of 4-3. Commissioners Anderson, DeFrang, and Holland voted for the motion. Commissioners Padgett, Wilson, Collson, and Griffith voted against the motion. Commissioner Padgett then moved and Commissioner Collson seconded a motion to recommend to City Council that they adopt an ordinance which would be inclusive of the language in 18.32.050 and 18.32.250, but not the language in 18.96.010 and 18.96.100. .The motion was amended to allow Council the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- April 8, 1996-Page 6 • opportunity to review the entire package as originally written and directing staff to explain the concerns of the Planning Commission. After further discussion, a voice vote was taken and the motion passed by a vote of 4-3. Commissioners Padgett, Wilson, Collson, and Griffith voted for the motion. Commissioners Anderson, DeFrang, and Holland voted against the motion. 6. OTHER BUSINESS None 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary ATTEST: President Nick Wilson PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- April 8, 1996-Page 7 07/01/96 MON 15:38 FAX 503 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 Z001 • • STOEL RIVES LLP ATTORNEYS STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 2300 PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-1268 Telephone(503)294-9508 or(S03)294-9401 Fax(503)220-2480 Name: Fax No. CompanylFirm: Office No. TO: Ray Valone__ .-- 684-7297 City of Tigard 639-4171 Walt Aman 452-5267 Aman Enterprises 452-1094 FROM: Michael C. Robinson Client No.: 26322 Client Name: DP# Matter No.: 1 Matter Name: DATE: July 1, 1996 No. of Pages (including this cover): Originals Not Forwarded Unless Checked: x First Class Mail [ ] Overnight Delivery ri Hand Delivery In case of error call at (503) 294-9508. This facsimile may contain confidential information that is protected by the attorney-client or work product privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an employee responsible for delivering the facsimile, please do not distribute this facsimile, notify us immediately by telephone, and return this facsimile by mail. Thank you. COMMENTS: Please see attached. PDX 1 A-27541.1 23452.0001 07/01/96 MON 15:38 FAX 503 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 Z002 • • • STOEL RIVES LLP A T T O R N E Y S • STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE.SUITE 2300 PORTLAND,OREGON 97204./26R Plume 15031221-3380 Fax(5(13)220.2380 TOD(503)221.1045 lntrmct:www.stocl•con1 July 1, 1996 MICHAEL C.ROBINSON Direct Dial (503)294-9194 email mcrobinson @stoel.com VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Ray Valone Associate Planner City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Boulevard PO Box 23397 Tigard OR 97223 • Re: Application by AKA Enterprises Dear Ray: I am writing to confirm our telephone conversation of July 1. I would like the City Council to open the public hearing on this application on July 9 but continue it to a date certain of August 13. I am requesting that this matter be continued until that date due to a scheduling conflict that I have on July 9. • Thank you very much for your courtesy and assistance. • • Very Truly Yours, itje Michael C. Robinson MCR:Ixh • cc: Mr. Wait Aman (via facsimile) PDX I A-38535.I 999994001 05/20/98 15:31 $503 220 2480 STOEL RIVES 5 0002/008 • • STOEL RIVES I.LP :\ T T rl R N I: V .i t'.1NL AI:U(N1U KA.MA(:FNr, �I n alp'FIFTI I Al'17NLI LIT!f=?In, - i'1 t RTL.a N U.OK WON'x104.1'^K !7n.rrr1 t3):_4.3.3:In ll1,r?il.li:3f1-:.01 Tpp,:;11;,.2 f.t n:7 I.ttetth•C wat.•fb>•;I i.alt May 20, 1996 MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial (503)294-9194 • VIA FACSIMILE • Mr. Ray Valone, Planner City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Case File No. CPA 96-0002 Dear Ray: I am writing to respond to the staff report to the Planning Commission. Please • distribute this letter to the Planning Commission. 1. The location of the applicant's property is not relevant to this legislative text amendment. Even if the City Council ultimately approves this legislative text amendment, the property owner must still submit a quasi-judicial application that is subject to other applicable approval criteria, including notice to adjacent property owners. 2. The proposed text amendment does not apply to establishment of new commercial areas, establishes objective criteria for locational standards for Commercial General Tigard Comprehensive Plan ("TCP") map designations where none currently exist and does not change any TCP map designations. 3. The proposed text amendment will not make it easier to change TCP map designations from multi-family residential to commercial. An applicant must still submit a quasi-judicial application that is subject to all of the relevant TCP approval criteria. 4. The staff has previously taken the position that the locational standards in TCP 12.2.1(2)(B) may be interpreted so as not to apply. Staff takes this position based on the language in the introduction to the locational criteria section which provides as follows: P D X I A-3 3492.1 26322-0031 05/20/96 15:31 $503 220 2480 STOEL RIVES 5 Z003/008 • • STOEL RIVES LL? Mr. Ray Valone May 20, 1996 Page 2 "It is intended that these locational criteria be construed in a flexible manner, in the interest of accommodating proposals which, though not strictly in conformance with the applicable criteria, are found to be in the public interest and capable of harmonious integration into the community." For example, this position was adopted by the City Council in Case File No. CPA 95- 0005/ZON 95-0007. On page 9 of the City Council's decision, the findings state "The locational criteria can be construed in a flexible manner in the interest of accommodating proposals which are found to be in the public interest and capable of integration into the community." The City Council adopted the same position in its decision on Case File No. CPA 95-0003/ZON 95-0005. See enclosures. The flaw with the current TCP language is that it provides no objective guidance to the community, the applicant, planning staff or the decision-maker on how to make such an interpretation. While Tigard citizens believe that the TCP criteria requiring that a commercial area be not surrounded on more than two sides by residential districts is an absolute criteria in each case, the city's clear position is that that is not the case_ Since locational criteria can be "flexibly" interpreted to avoid the criteria, this proposal actually provides more certainty and protection than does the current TCP text. 5. This application has no impact on the city's ability to meet TCP Goal 10, TCP Policy 1.1.1(c), TCP Policy 5.4, or TCP Policy 6.1.1. The ability of the city to provide adequate housing'opportunities is not affected by this application because any future application to amend a TCP map designation requires compliance with this goal and these policies. 6. The staff report takes the position that it is inappropriate for the proposed text amendment to distinguish between single family and multi-family areas. In fact, the TCP already distinguishes between such districts. Virtually the entire length of the TCP commercial map designations adjacent to State Highway 99E is separated from Iow density residential districts by multi-family residential districts. Moreover, the locational criteria for medium density residential and medium-high and high density residential districts provide: "The following factors will be determinants of the areas designated for [multi-family densities] on the plan map: . . . areas which can be buffered from low density residential areas in order to ma.ximize the privacy of established low ?DX 1.a-33492.1 263220001 05/20/96 15:32 12503 220 2480 STOEL RIVES 5 a004/008 • STOEL RIVES UP Mr. Ray Valone May 20, 1996 Page 3 density residential areas." TCP I2.1.1(2)(A)(6) and TCP 12.1.1(3)(A)(2). Thus, the city already recognizes a distinction between low density and high density areas. The medium-high and high density residential areas are intended to be within one- quarter mile of neighborhood and general commercial shopping centers. TCP 12.1.1(3)(A)(7). No such specific criterion applies to low density residential districts. Finally, the proposed legislative text amendment simply reflects the status quo. Most, if not all, of the areas shown in the attachment to the staff report as potentially affected by this application are multi-family land use designations. The reason they are affected is because the city has used multi-family designations to buffer commercial areas from low density residential designations. The applicant would amend the proposed text amendment by deleting the distinction if the Planning Commission finds that this distinction is irrelevant. The applicant would agree with the recommended condition of approval on page 2 of the staff report. - Very truly yours, c. Michael C. Robinson • MCR:lxh enclosures cc: (w/encls.) Mr. Walt Aman (via facsimile) FDX1A-3 492.1 25322-0001 05/20/96 15:32 $503 220 2480 STOEL RIVES S IJ005/008 • • 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 BRIAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. The TIcard City Council reviewed the acclicaticn beicw at public hearincs on January 23 ana February 13. 1 996. The City Council denies the r e_uesi based cn the facts, rndings • and conciusicns noted below. A. FACTS Gen-,.ai infcrrna :c^ ...�.`�: • C:,mo. rensive r!an Arrie:irt:%CI'L ne Chance =ON ,rr eric :he Comprehensive Flair iGt] frl.'l 1 I I'lIGJlum-I--:icn Density Residential to C-G (General Ccrlrnerciai) and chance n. n 1. '_:l ,N ! . �rfar r'e'1 :c:r"ent Ocrn:=nv ==iiii lci:ar�r. V.,2A 9822 cl:enc. R C LOCATION.: .S.cutneasi ccr ier :i S'A Schoiis Fern.f Road and SW 125th ver`e (l:�IC M S1 3A.C. .c: • sit= 's a Ecre cc-ion ci a :arce that contains-4 acres. it .....v Cc the . eet=. :cr..:- of the :ar:e :IBC Ste. tills Perm/ Road c,':'11 .a.venue ;see map. �:%IPit A..). .:C properties to :nn across S.chciis F_r'r -cac are in .'e aty of `=aa':er:ch and w, c. O-5 for c.-c ._miI`i east. ECU was: are ■r' 7Card _.'l.: 05/20/96 15:33 11503 220 2480 . STOEL RIVES 5 006/008 • • • amenCmenthcne chance has not been evaluated for a worst case scenario. which is a scenario where the site is deveicped with uses that are allowed under C-G :cr..ina but generate mcre 'vehicle trips and/cr cause greater traffic impact, the cianninc division cannot make a Iirdirc that Policy 8.1.; has been satisfied. Policy 8.2.2 states that the city small encourage the use of public transit by locating and intensive uses in dose proximity to transit ways. This pciicy is satisfied because iccating a retail commercial use at the site would support public transit aieng SW Sc:oils Ferry Road. Currently, Tri-met offers bus service aloha this ccrndcr. 3. °^•iicv 12.2.1(2) provides the iocational criteria for d esignatinc ianc as general ccrnmerc:al on the plan map. The iocaticnal criteria can be construed in a flexible manner in the interest of acccmmcdatina proposals which are found to be in the public interest and capable cf integration into the community. The burden cf prcvir,C conformance with the criteria varies with the decree of chance. ^,d impact on t'.= community./. Tie applicable Iccatianal criteria with rincincs are as tcilcws: • l S^Gc:r, The commercial area is not surround ed by residential districts cn mcre than 'vc sid_s. This crite ncn is not satisfied because the site is surrounded by residential districts cr fcur sides. The';e' residential district to the north is in the City cf 5eaver•cn and zoned R-5, sincie family. The districts tc the d site in, i - :cried / �.�si. :.:utr, cis ,._. ,.. � �a:v �f;.. _'�i ivr ,TAU{ti-family �.s;de tial. • a 77-:= :rccosec area ?X fans:cr or an exict:nc Brea sha'I hot create =-ia cr _ '.r_ <aft^/ crohlem. Such c _`re;,:iraticn cr street cacacity. ex:siirc and o _ ec:ed .ra-:c vciumes. the soeed I L ^umber tunirc movements and the it G. c ce ncrC 4iiC characteristics of of various ^Joe= cf acs. See comments under O above. Y . snail have .. r e... :ii i s aicf 4,oikeczcr or _ rte�ianll sir eet. This cr tericn is satisfied because the site has direct access to S'J'! ^chciis Ferri i cat, an ar.erial. • 's=s re ae:c. _ re ava::a le c ^_r 're ai aare. is offers • • 05/20;96 15:33 22503 220 2480 STOEL RIVES 5 Z007/003 • • 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 PACIFIC CREST PARTNERS AND PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEMS. The Tigard City Council reviewed the application below at a public hearinc on January 23. 1996. The City Council approves the request based on the facts, findings and conclusions noted below. A. FACTS 1. Generallnformatiort CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 95-0005 Zone Change ZON 95-0007 REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Parcels 1 and 3 of NMLP 94-0013 from Commercial Professional to Neighborhood Commercial and change the zoning from C-P to C-N; and amend the Comprehensive Plan map on property at the southeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW North • • Dakota Street from'Neighborhood Commercial to Commercial Professional and change the zoning from C-N to C-P. APPLICANTS: Pacific Crest Partners Providence Health Systems 911 Oak Street 4805 NE Giisan Street Hood River, OR 97031 Portland, OR 97213 OWNERS: Same LOCATION: Southwest and southeast corners of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW North Dakota Street. 2. Vicinity The proposal is a joint application between Pacific Crest Partners and Providence Health Systems. Two sites are involved in the plan amendment'zcne change. i 05/20/96 15:34 12503 330 2480 STOEL RIVES 5 Z008/008 • • • • either by a new zoning district or by land added to the cid districts. F cr the above reasons, Policy 8.1.1 is satisfied. 5. Policy 12.2.1 (1) provides the locational criteria for designating land as neighborhood commercial (C-N). These criteria- apply to Site A. The locational criteria can be construed in a flexible manner in the interest of accommodating proposals which are found to be in the public interest and capable of integration into the community. The burden of provinc conformance with the criteria varies with the degree of chance and impact on the community. The applicable locational criteria with findings are as follows: (1) Spacing and Location • a. The service area radius for a neighborhood commercial center shall_b= at least one-half of a mile. The service area depends on the type of tenants who locate at the site, but it is expected to be at least one-half mile. If approved, this C-N district would be the only one within one mile. There are C-G and C-P districts within one half mile that serve a larger trade area. b. Commercial development shall be limited to one Quadrant of a street in - -.i•n r wh-r eh r- i n• r--t int-r ection • •n- is- of the street. If this proposal is approved and Site B is designated as C-P, then Site A would be the only quadrant of the intersection designated as C-N. The northeast quadrant in Beaverton is designated as 0-C (Office Commercial); the northwest quadrant in Beaverton is R-7 (Single-Family Residential); and the southeast quadrant would be C-P (Commercial Professional). This criterion, therefore, is satisfied. • (2) Access • a. The r000sed center or expansion of an existing enter shall not create r_ffi c•n•- ai n •r - ." •r••lem, h _ .- ormin- i• - I •- based on street capacity, existing and protected traffic volumes the speed limit, number of tumina movements and the traffic generating characteristics pf_the most intensive use allowed in the zone. As discussed above under 8.1.1, staff agrees that the traffic analysis completed for the previous comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment (CPA 95-0002/ZON 95- 0003) suffices for the current proposal. Based on this analysis and for the reasons cited in 8.1.1, staff concludes that redesignating Parcels 1 and 3 of Site A to C-N will not create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. This criterion, therefore, is satisfied. a MAY 20 '96 17:49 503 228 4529 P. 1 • • JEFFREY L. KLEINMAN Attorney at Low The Ambassador 1207 S.W. Sixth Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone (503) 248-0808 Fax (503) 228-4529 Am aR 4100.• FACSIMILE MESSAGE RA y TO: CAtAraiirlfeXiiignismnimmomm/Aloade FAX NUMBER: 6 297 DATE: 52of6 TIME: s ai FROM: JEFFREY L. KLEINMAN PAGES: ONLY ' (Including Cover) ***************************************************************** Re: Akiq Oar. ferv,'cer Description: e A 9,1=9 0 • Comments: eforiourrApil Alearinj. rthstAik You • If you do not receive all the pages clearly, please call (503) 248-0808. Thank you. UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS INFORMATION PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND/OR ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. IT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL NAMED ABOVE, AND THE PRIVILEGES ARE NOT WAIVED BY VIRTUE OF THIS HAVING BEEN SENT BY FACSIMILE. IF THE READER OF THIS FACSIMILE, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE NAMED RECIPIENT, IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING' OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY ME BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO ME AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. YOU WILL BE PROMPTLY REIMBURSED FOR THE TELEPHONE AND POSTAGE EXPENSE. THANK YOU. MAY 20 '96 17:50 503 228 4529 P.2 • • JEFFEEY L. KLEINMAN ATTORNEY AT Law THE AMBASSADOR 1207 S.W. SIXTH AVENUE PoNrtAN A. OREGON 97204 TELEPHONE (503) 248-0808 FAX (503) 2284529 • May 20, 1996 Via} Fax--684-7297 Planning Commission City of Tigard Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: CPA 96-0002 LAI BusinessServices1 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: I represent Murrayhill Thriftway, Inc. We previously set forth our concerns about this application in a letter dated March 18, 1996. A copy is attached for. your reference. I am writing to express my client's agreement with many of the matters set out in the Staff Report dated May 9, 1996, which recommends denial of the above requests for comprehensive plan map and zoning amendments, and with the serious concerns raised by the Central and West CITs. Even with the supplemental materials submitted by the applicant, we believe that several of the approval criteria identified by staff and/or in our previous letter have not been satisfied and are not being capable of being satisfied in this proceeding. As staff points out, this seemingly "minor" change could directly apply to as many as 50 other parcels in the city, and a great number of other parcels would become eligible for rezoning if the proposed comprehensive plan amendment were adopted. The impact upon the city's housing policies and its inventory of residential lands would be incalculable. We urge you to consider the severe impacts of this proposal carefully, and to deny it at this time. Thank you again for your consideration of these important issues. Very ly4-ur. f i A • ,7- ! . Kleinman JLK:ay cc: Murrayhill Thriftway, Inc. (without enclosure) Michael C. Robinson, Esq. (via fax;. without enclosure) -MAY 20 '96 17:50 503 226 4529 P.3 _ •.. . JEFFREY L. KLE/NmAN ATTORNEY AT LAW THE AMBASSADOR 1207 S.W. SIXTH AVENUE • PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 TELEPHONE (503) 248-0808 FAX (5031 228-4529 March 18, 1996 Via Fax -- 684-7297, Ray valone City of Tigard Planning Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: AKA Business Services Application for Amendment to Comprehensive Plan Dear Ray: I represent Northwest Retail Services, MC ("Northwest") . Northwest has asked me to review the above application, which was circulated to the city's Citizen Involvement Team members. We have several concerns pertaining to this application. First, we are concerned about the obvious, broad applicability of the proposed amendment throughout the city. We feel there should be an analysis of the impact upon other properties which might be affected by the proposal. In addition, the first proposed alternative suggests a distinction between single-family and multi-family housing which we do not believe the comprehensive plan intended. We also have concerns about whether the requisite showing has been made of compliance with Statewide Planning Goals 10, 11 and 12. The discussions of TCP Policy 1.1.1(c) and TCDC 18.30. 120(B) (1) fail to take into account the community's need for multi-family housing. The "mistake" set out in the discussion of the latter provision is not the type of mistake recognized in the law as justifying a comprehensive plan amendment. Finally, we are concerned that the issues raised under the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule are not fully addressed in the application. Thank you for the opportunity to comment in this matter. . My client would like to continue to participate in this process. We are hopeful that we could make some suggestions for narrowing the scope of the proposed amendment, while satisfying the needs of 'MAY 20 '96 17:51 503 228 4529 P.4 41") .J Ray Valone March 18, 1996 page 2 the applicant. In any event, kindly put me on your notice list in this proceeding. Thank you for your courtesies. ve truly -u , 2 J-A = - L. an JLK:ay Original mailed cc: Northwest Retail Services, LLc Michael C. Robinson, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP • A T T O R N E Y S STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 2300 PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-1268 Phone(503)224-3380 Fax(503)220-2480 TDD(503)221-1045 Internet:www.stoeLcom May 20, 1996 MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial (503)294-9194 VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Ray Valone, Planner City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Case File No. CPA 96-0002 Dear Ray: I am writing to respond to the staff report to the Planning Commission. Please distribute this letter to the Planning Commission. 1. The location of the applicant's property is not relevant to this legislative text amendment. Even if the City Council ultimately approves this legislative text amendment, the property owner must still submit a quasi-judicial application that is subject to other applicable approval criteria, including notice to adjacent property owners. 2. The proposed text amendment does not apply to establishment of new commercial areas, establishes objective criteria for locational standards for Commercial General Tigard Comprehensive Plan ("TCP") map designations where none currently exist and does not change any TCP map designations. 3. The proposed text amendment will not make it easier to change TCP map designations from multi-family residential to commercial. An applicant must still submit a quasi-judicial application that is subject to all of the relevant TCP approval criteria. 4. The staff has previously taken the position that the locational standards in TCP 12.2.1(2)(B) may be interpreted so as not to apply. Staff takes this position based on the language in the introduction to the locational criteria section which provides as follows: PDX 1 A-33492.1 26322-0001 SEATTLE PORTLAND VANCOUVER,WA BOISE SALT LAKE CITY WASHINGTON,D.C. S STOEL RIVES LLP Mr. Ray Valone May 20, 1996 Page 2 "It is intended that these locational criteria be construed in a flexible manner, in the interest of accommodating proposals which, though not strictly in conformance with the applicable criteria, are found to be in the public interest and capable of harmonious integration into the community." For example, this position was adopted by the City Council in Case File No. CPA 95- 0005/ZON 95-0007. On page 9 of the City Council's decision, the findings state "The locational criteria can be construed in a flexible manner in the interest of accommodating proposals which are found to be in the public interest and capable of integration into the community." The City.Council adopted the same position in its decision on Case File No. CPA 95-0003/ZON 95-0005. See enclosures. The flaw with the current TCP language is that it provides no objective guidance to the community, the applicant, planning staff or the decision-maker on how to make such an interpretation. While Tigard citizens believe that the TCP criteria requiring that a commercial area be not surrounded on more than two sides by residential districts is an absolute criteria in each case, the city's clear position is that that is not the case. Since locational criteria can be "flexibly" interpreted to avoid the criteria, this proposal actually provides more certainty and protection than does the current TCP text. 5. This application has no impact on the city's ability to meet TCP Goal 10, TCP Policy 1.1.1(c), TCP Policy 5.4, or TCP Policy 6.1.1. The ability of the city to provide adequate housing opportunities is not affected by this application because any future application to amend a TCP map designation requires compliance with this goal and these policies. 6. The staff report takes the position that it is inappropriate for the proposed text amendment to distinguish between single family and multi-family areas. In fact, the TCP already distinguishes between such districts. Virtually the entire length of the TCP commercial map designations adjacent to State Highway 99E is separated from low density residential districts by multi-family residential districts. Moreover, the locational criteria for medium density residential and medium-high and high density residential districts provide: "The following factors will be determinants of the areas designated for [multi-family densities] on the plan map: . . . areas which can be buffered from low density residential areas in order to maximize the privacy of established low PDX 1 A-33492.1 26322-0001 • STOEL RIVES LLP • Mr. Ray Valone May 20, 1996 Page 3 density residential areas." TCP 12.1.1(2)(A)(6) and TCP 12.1.1(3)(A)(2). Thus, the city already recognizes a distinction between low density and high density areas. The medium-high and high density residential areas are intended to be within one- quarter mile of neighborhood and general commercial shopping centers. TCP 12.1.1(3)(A)(7). No such specific criterion applies to low density residential districts. Finally, the proposed legislative text amendment simply reflects the status quo. Most, if not all, of the areas shown in the attachment to the staff report as potentially affected by this application are multi-family land use designations. The reason they are affected is because the city has used multi-family designations to buffer commercial areas from low density residential designations. The applicant would amend the proposed text amendment by deleting the distinction if the Planning Commission finds that this distinction is irrelevant. The applicant would agree with the recommended condition of approval on page 2 of the staff report. Very truly yours, lAidtat.9 C 404/4-- Michael C. Robinson MCR:lxh enclosures cc: (w/encls.) Mr. Walt Aman (via facsimile) PDX 1 A-33492.1 26322-0001 • ' y.f • 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 BRIAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. The Tigard City Council reviewed the application below at public hearings on January 23 and February 13, 1996. The City Council denies the request based on the facts, findings and conclusions noted below. • A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Ccmprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 95-0003 Zone Change ZON 95-0005 • REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan map from Medium-High Density Residential to C-G (General Commercial) and change the zoning from R-25 to C-G. APPLICANT: Briar Development Company P.O. Box 9704 Bellingham, WA 98227 OWNERS: Burton E. Grabhorn 11 • 493 SE 82nd Avenue Port land, OR 97226 • • LOCATION: Southeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue (WCTM 1 S1 33AC. Ict 8000). • 2. Vicinity The affected site is a 9-acre portion of a parcel that contains 15.14 acres. It includes the western portion of the parcel that is lccated alcing Scholls Ferry Road at the intersection of SW 135th Avenue (see map, Exhibit A). The properties to the north across Scholls Ferry Road are in the City of Beaverton and zoned R-5 for s;ncie family residences. Properties to the east, south and west are in Tiaard and 1 • • • amendment/zone change has not been evaluated for a worst case scenario, which is a scenario where the site is developed with uses that are allowed under C-G zoning but generate more vehicle trips and/or cause greater traffic impact, the planning division cannot make a finding that Policy 8.1.1 has been satisfied. 7. . Policy 8.2.2 states that the city shall encourage the use of public transit by locating land intensive uses in close proximity to transit ways. This policy is satisfied because locating a retail commercial use at the site would support public transit along SW Scholls Ferry Road. Currently, Tri-met offers bus service along this corridor. . S. Policy 12.2.1(2) provides- the locational criteria for designating land as general commercial on the plan map. The locational criteria can be construed in a flexible manner in the interest of accommodating proposals which are found to be in the public interest and capable of integration into the community. The burden of proving conformance with the criteria varies with the degree of change and impact • on the community. The applicable locational criteria with findings are as follows: (1) Spacing and Location (a) The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than • two sides. This criterion is not satisfied because the site is surrounded by residential districts on four sides. The residential district to the north is in the City of Beaverton and zoned R-5, single family. The districts to the east, south and west of the site are in Tigard and zoned for multi-family residential. (2) Access • • (3) The proposed area cr expansion of an existina area shall not create traffic concestion cr a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on street capacity. existing and projected traffic volumes. the speed limit. number of turnina movements and the traffic ceneratina characteristics of the various tvces of uses. See comments under 6 above. (t) The site shall have direct.access from a major collector or arterial Street. This criterion is satisfied because the site has direct access to SW :3chclls Ferry Road, an arterial. • (C) Public transportation shall be available to the site or general area. This criterion is satisfied because Tri-met offers bus service along SW Scholls • Ferry Road. 8 . • • • 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 PACIFIC CREST PARTNERS AND PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEMS. The Tigard City Council reviewed the application below at a public hearing on January 23, 1996. The City Council approves the request based on the facts, findings and conclusions noted below. A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 95-0005 Zone Change ZON 95-0007 REQUEST: Amend the 'Comprehensive Plan map on Parcels 1 and 3 of MLP 94-0013 from Commercial Professional to Neighborhood Commercial and change the zoning from C-P to C-N; and amend the Comprehensive. Plan map on property at the southeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW North Dakota Street from Neighborhood Commercial to Commercial Professional and change the zoning from C-N to C-P. APPLICANTS: Pacific Crest Partners Providence Health Systems 911 Oak Street 4805 NE Glisan Street Hood River, OR 97031 Portland, OR 97213 OWNERS: Same LOCATION: . Southwest and southeast corners of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW North Dakota Street. 2. Vicinity The proposal is a joint application between Pacific Crest Partners and Providence Health Systems. Two sites are involved in the plan amendment/zone change. • 1 • either by a new zoning district or by land added to the old districts. For the above reasons, Policy 8.1.1 is satisfied. 5. Policy 12.2.1 (1) provides the locational criteria for designating land as neighborhood commercial (C-N). These criteria apply to Site A. The locational criteria can be construed in a flexible manner in the interest of accommodating proposals which are found to be in the public interest and capable of integration into the community. The burden of proving conformance with the criteria varies with the degree of change and impact on the community. The applicable locational criteria with findings are as follows: (1) Spacing and Location a. The service area radius for a neighborhood commercial center shall be at least one-half of a mile. The service area depends on the type of tenants who locate at the site, but it' is expected to be at least one-half mile. If approved, this C-N district would be the only one within one mile. There are C-G and C-P districts within one half mile that serve a larger trade area. b. Commercial development shall be limited to one quadrant of a street intersection or where there is no street intersection. to one side of the street. If this proposal is approved and Site B is designated as C-P, then Site A would be the only quadrant of the intersection designated as C-N. The' northeast quadrant in Beaverton is designated as O-C (Office Commercial); the northwest quadrant in Beaverton is R-7 (Single-Family Residential); and the southeast quadrant would be C-P (Commercial Professional). This criterion, therefore, is satisfied. (2) Access a. The proposed center or expansion of an existing center shall not create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on street capacity, existing and projected traffic volumes, the speed limit, number of turning movements and the traffic generating characteristics of the most intensive use allowed in the zone. As discussed above under 8.1.1, staff agrees that the traffic analysis completed for the previous comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment (CPA 95-00022ON 95- 0003) suffices for the current proposal. Based on this analysis and for the reasons cited in 8.1.1, staff concludes that redesignating Parcels 1 and 3 of Site A to C-N will not create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. This criterion, therefore, is satisfied. • 9 y • - A • CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: March 8. 1996 TO: Citizen Involvement Team Members FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Ray Valone (x336) Phone:(503)639-4171 Fax:(503)684-7297 RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT(CPA)96-0002 > AKA BUSINESS SERVICES Q 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. Attached is the Proposed Legislative Amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future.. If you wish to comment on this application,WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: Monday -March 18, 1996. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Department, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. . I PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: • We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. V Please contact of our office. _ Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below. I(beauprovidettifaffowingarftnnation) Name of Person(s) Commenting: I IPhone Number(s): l • ` • • Abdullah Alkadi Beverly Froude 11905 SW 125th Court 12200 SW Bull Mountain Road Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97224 Bill Gross Kathy Smith 11035 SW 135th Avenue 11645 SW Cloud Court Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97224 Kathie Kallio Linda Masters 12940 SW Glacier Lily Drive 15120 SW 141st Avenue Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97224 Ed Howden Scott Russell 11829 SW Morning Hill 31291 Raymond Creek Road Tigard OR 97223 Scappoose OR 97056 Bonnie & Jim Roach Cal Woolery 14447 SW Twekesbury Drive 12356 SW 132nd Court Tigard OR 97224 Tigard OR 97223 Clark G. Zeller Mary Swintek 13290 SW Shore Drive 9915 SW Frewing, #23 Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 Larry Westerman Craig Hopkins 113665 SW Fern Street 7430 SW Varns Street Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 Christy Herr Mark F. Mahon 11386 SW Ironwood Loop 11310 SW 91st Court Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 Barbara Sattler Joel Stevens 11245 SW Morgen Court 9660 SW Ventura Court Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 June Sulffridge Pat Wyden 15949 SW 146th Avenue 8122 SW Spruce Street Tigard OR 97224 Tigard OR 97223 f • • • Jack Biethan 15525 SW 109th Avenue Tigard OR 97224 John Benneth 15550 SW 109th Avenue Tigard OR 97224 Brian Martin 10965 SW Pathfinder Way Tigard OR 97223-3930 Karl Swanson 11410 SW Ironwood Loop Tigard OR 97223 *All CIT's mailing labels as of 2/14/96 h:\login\patty\docs\allcits.lbs • • MAR 0 61996 CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: March 5. 1996 TO: Mary Weber. Metro - Growth Management FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Ray Valone (x336) Phone: (503)639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297 RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0002 > AKA BUSINESS SERVICES < 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. Attached is the Proposed Legislative Amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: Friday - March 15; 1996. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Department, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: 6Please pravie tfie fottowing information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: Phone Number(s): - 9 7_ 3 yka.„d 5 600 NOR ST GRAND AVENUE PORTLAND. OREGON 12 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 11II�1� METRO March 13, 1996 Mr. Ray Valone City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Valone: Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment 96-0002 -AKA Business Services I have reviewed Comprehensive Plan Amendment 96-0002. The proposed amendment would appear to permit a greater mix of uses in Tigard by giving greater flexibility in locating commercial uses adjacent to residential uses. Metro supports the efforts underway in the local jurisdictions to expand the opportunities for increasing the mix of uses in a community. At this time, there are no Metro plans or guidelines to satisfy when undertaking comprehensive plan amendments. However, 2040 Implementation Measures are currently under discussion by the Metro Policy Advisory Committee and the Metro Council. These Measures are the first phase of the Regional Framework Plan and adoption of this phase is scheduled for June 1996. The 2040 Growth Concept states that regional policies only become directly applicable to comprehensive plans upon adoption of Framework Plan provisions. Tigard will be responsible for the compliance of their adopted plans and zoning with applicable Framework Plan provisions within 18 months of the Framework Plan's adoption. Thank you for forwarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment 96-0002 for our review. Sincerely, Brenda Bernards Senior Regional Planner Growth Management Services Department BB/erb I:\GM\BERNARDS\TIGARD.WPD Recycled Paper ATTACHMENT A • , t..,. Parcels potentially affected , Parcels Potentially Affected = taaofsfa, Niottr A by CPA96-0002 explanation of criteria Areas Zoned AkTV CITY OF TIGARD Index Map General Commercial t ' .... arAMI 1 4 . I Fr maliker II ift, , m•i•-nt I mil : A \ PI ial in ii 17.j: z' ItilKss: : NP--- -Th---. • , 1 . , Irak " ! NEN I 11111■ 166, 11111 iy FO" cog } / no die um " k WI, 714 A laig piri 011 410416 .1%111111 NNW 4"4.4 t i i, i,tottc - A tie WI= mor- A am r NM 4 4 "itlq111--PETO 1 . Tili irl r,.. I .1 A k---. ; --,W4/4tr.ih:o.,11&*p !Sewai...41 • Thrri112\ 41 1 1 .4-_- ,- Ir.cl • Ap i . I I: L---J .N .■■•.1 C---JIA ,--s n--- (/ _)\ __ IN sir i• ... II i c9H--- ii I • v4. .71 / I ANN'4,1" ._1',A -DE „67,14 • A 1 "1 [ .irciTt r -ii p44w2. A III ri---I =3 ---- OA lb• : 1 ,...., ___Jr.," I ,...... w 4m i itli i — :Ill 126U w I d 7 if aildi LI- IN L Iii___- /_. ..., ..11, . Ian , .7 IL • I A/ , Ai a/li— 1611N" L. •. I D t A hot IIPI 4'LAP 41 Iffil i pil •Mil II 8••■•• L III PI Ir 1-1-1 2 2 --- ----s% qi L___:, / 1.1 .., , i ---- .- ,- . t- ,...J Ls E ., FL MN 0 \ P I' Lb Kg as 6 ... - ... i r, iv 1 06/26/96 • LioParcels Po 6_0002 Potentially Affected b oposaL�Notfo affected r A ste See• by CPA96-0002 I :_ Areas Zoned „� I [ i _ l) General Commercial CITY OF TIGARD , , - ,..**_#♦ �� ,,,oiIlr;,,,!.:::,::.:i.;io,ior4.R:,::r:,:::,:,,,,-vc), to •7 f'itiAlli,:;A:Iiitiiki;.: .z!is ~ �, ,• willtil L *or 4-'''.' '-:..",tr.-:'.4:-.,1 atf 4-• /'�//i 7611119PS plil resS %�� S.W. NEAVE STREET 00Aggill:.;,!, :,!,a,-ifir sitil iii,4,:aisio .- v . 4% I DR • • //9 e ; % it. ,.,,Z,ligillrigt‘19, :kat ( ,7, 4� w �� ( ' 124 u` 10,;. 3 I1 x 1 i.4- 4,,Lift-', •=1.k:,": LievYmititbi,:',:-,,:ir!-- 4 as1�l r i""4 c frpWmTAN�—��q Q .`',' '---.,,i,e,.-4 ''' f:c ,,,,,--4 1 ' . ' r_ IP / /\ \ I 1 06/26/96 Parcels Potentially Affected bSee Sta fo affected A by CPA96-0002 explanation of criteria. �i�J w w _ 2 `.F General Commercial CITY OF TIGARD ii // \ j / I 4 VEN x � �� i• NM VIEWMOUNT r / '11 PPRK PL *r IllIa 1 1 I 1_,..,4 ima 4=::=,•,4,,,:-=.:.;e ' HILL IIIIIIIII MIN y j `_ III PO,■ ,7.b � , I �� t MI ':.4'I :''''''1:1P' ,14.!,,,::::::7::::;--,',.,.:6::.!-45--:,,.!' r' 1. 3:, ,:.,„„i ,+ ... , , ,_ y /NI 411;';;d'il$1::=P06' � �' � NFU TH �`- .. t �.f�TERM� I :" am III all nm ®■■ ii•. _ , cri / il`—ivzix7 $ MB — 8- F sII4' I�,"!!, % 1 PB ■ m ._ ► •dl I- �IINi�i1i �� (III I m m ii II Tti � 1./2/96 Parcels Potentially Affected � Parcels potentially Note:� 1. by CA9r0A L mill 1 1 1,,,,,N / * .. ' iP i 4 *i / : ',: .■ e''il °** b I / l O ' S 4 -,f. ,:i-,..t:. :' , 411V '''-'' P ** ** 4 .. . -:: . , 1 + ' • *e' d'eb, ' 4 4*(4447. ■ ,, .;c4hL* • % • .:''Ai' llilit ':' V '‘.:'ifr:::'_:. Or 4111 ' lilli 41* 4k4i::' ■•-:4 A , or" -, 44* .4,- -, :,,„ , ilk T40, -s. ■ _ c, ..tc, -- ,ii .„.. ., • '3* * .... :,44, mon ,, '-, :, ,:. .,, _,,::,,, ,,„.-"PAI''''S'ATI: . ,, * . -to- 4 4 _ ■ I , - III in 1 ' . 1.7":.,,,‘, i,,:,- , I 11100iiiitw H.,::,,, .., , w *■ +\ , im ::::,:'.-1.:-:':''''', ' gr:*-'-'' '*4"/ • 0•■• 1 4 . 4::,,,, , ,.. 4.,,, . : ...:,.., - e ■ wir‘ ■ ...':''','.::-''':::.,„, ,,,,,; ,' 4)-: P• a **** ' .,4 ■..n.)i T L'r.: ',„ ,,L:.1:,.. _______ _ ,93 Parcels Potentially Affected /// bsireforaffected by CPA96-0002 explanation of aiteria.. Areas Zoned '�' ��' General Canrr�eraal _414" --- Map 4 : Aik CITY OF TIGARD IIIP �� a ,�, LOCUST L 1 9 4- m r 1 �`� ■ 1C'3> 1111118'3 • Q ■ �� e �� "�. � ��"-^A 0Si �X11 � '.i � 3.�k �' : „� SHADY ri",` ° 'i ' ,<� ' ,, am" $"�n4�biH �y 'a Z k 'r � 2 .k m Rill PI 3 . r IiiOR - I A N NO- DAKOTA !Ill ♦, 1 1'11•• ' „.... lir n t *Aill 1111 11111111 0 V B(iiiG n 06/26/96 Parcels Potentially Affected = Parcels Prososal.N t potentially affected See Staff report for A by CPA96-0002 explanation of criteria. °; art Areas Zoned 5 E ,,, � , General Commercial .CITY OF TIGARD Map ST , I I I F \ b LOCUST MAPLELEAF ST Q 3 ¢ ? J • ii J ' MAPFFAill. r ,_ ST � 1111 • L,c0 . i . . --- ST OAK ST '2 ,r,,,,,,, R I 1 1 PINE ST % _PINE ST _ I Ili _____ ____ \--1--- _ . _ SPRUCE ST . l SRRUCE ST iiii . \ ----Li ri-= \ l f THORN ST -y Q 1l, I §7E‘,0E 1 j — 111 ti . )I c-17, Orilla 16. � ' o A. ( -x PFFI E ' MIN ( ! ■h �► 194111 El Oa Ili I I 06/26/96 Parcels Pctle.. ' • Parcels Po Potentially Affected / bSYee� fo affected 1 by CPA96-0002 explanation of criteria. to I Areas Zoned ='��! map- 6 General Carrie raal CITY OF TIGARD 1-_—_] . ;► 1 Sr PINE ST II] . ' SPRUCES L.,r 2 T ��" = �1 ; ■ , ,t! ,�a a � 1 x�,// a f 13 ." � I E � mo' : �� v 7 1 �� r rill � eo / b FynF\G Q ••-•.:::::...,4.g.-4---, ',„'F'I C,-..,-- .,:,..e..4..4..,„..4 ::--'..-, -,,,io'' 4 � } e_ t, . 0 o ST" a W4 IIII < 1 1 . ::::,<L,, J.: L ba I 4 1,,,---..s,„,-,#'r ,.....,....,,, , .....,„.„„:„..„,„:,, .....„_. , ,. , .. ,-,... ,,,,,,,„;1:, •...,.., .,-. „ ._,. ..,,,, , , , , ,,.., „ ,„, „. . .....„. _ ,-„,,,,,,,,,.„,,, ,, .,,,,,„..„,„:„,„ . ,,.... .,„.„,,,,,, . , :.,.,.,, .,....,,,,,..„„itli ..,,,,...„,, . „,..„. ._ 06/26/96 ATTACHMENT A X* • Parcels Potentially Affected = Parcels potentially affected by proposal Note See Staff report for A . by CPA96-0002 explanaton of criteria 211/11. -, , Areas Zoned 4110 CITY OF TIGARD . Index Map - 71 , General Commercial „lima tea W ,7 •'[ I glir rhivie witigt f 111 5 ao\ , 1. ( "nAl ( i 17-1140, - '- '-\ Itt, i ., ...."' —„„„ ... , III .,.■'''' ) 61111 lig k Imul rn‘.W41.111NOth J-- r_illier Cr ili It_ rii. I l'■/, f j .110 ) eir .N IV I / 410111 WO Ilm - . LLA • '24 aviiiin■TALAII:, 41.614 AANIII ,. A 'll - /. ftpiff ,h... wil • ri , in , rIvirrix ,, __a _ i 4 I% 1 '--/T.ri-un" La ... t "%'■ )ri. ekoOk 0 4'0.167 I , 0 11 1 • '4.J,v4 s 1 „milli . , s s . • s is s , , si i ...-4 ......111 ,-. 1t.-.: $4•3'■ 6_, 111 i aV 1 ..... „,),3,, • ,-,„,,,,,: , -I do i A , , WI WilAiii\lo r ' (--"- ' / I la _1' 11"A■W rim- 4 i _Aar' DE, 17,7"4",siir A -1, f I: -,- . ,• . ____ a= : r 1-, : r- -. ) r-{-_-; c=i "."1 P -1 111104 '1 III -,) s 1 s . l'j 1 11 r--4 -401-1 I I -,t.• 4'4 — I , i :ri, c..7k j a 11'_' iro, Imimis i'l J ill 7 BA .1117...111111 i 1 1' 1 mia 1 1 ----) IN 11111Liwpinari M I < P . ...AO Alkirr_ 7, im,0 Ik L° ■• • d ria, 0 ,-,.,-,T • air . ...,. 4 A ... .,, . , ,,_,6 ,,, 1 4. , ....3 „ • / IMM III WWI H ---.., . .... I % 1 f ....J it r it • \ M I Lb 1 , ; Hrf . . . • ,.. . , . , . , - ( 1, , , 7, 1 ! )--) „ ) T c-') ,---- ----i' / 1 1 I / . 1 06/26/96 Parcels Potential lyAffected //� opOS�lre for affected See by CPA96-0002 explanation of criteria. �4 �i� � s 7,,,c,,*7 Areas zoned J General Commercial CITY OF TIGARD 8 IF A.### ° x r / ,,U.. OP AO III .11111 0* 4vf;W#e. //� S.W.NEAVE STREET PO **II MI INI is milli ■ alit :r ...4e;,, k oar pil mmv 'tit III 7 #,,4 .tea■�� DR IIIPP ,:17:1-!:,'''u.','.i,.:U:1:-';;;:i.,1:' 1:'k !3 ,.3.h333 '�M'''''''' '3Y ,.,i3L,»i�N. � ... -�� / 4, • �?.,3 A3 3� a�' 4 a„,,,,,,„„,„,.,:„.,,,„„,.,"::,::::::::;:::::,„:„.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:::„,,,,„,,,,,,,,„,„:„„,:,„„:„:„., 3 fps . ,$ (Mr„.„.„„,,,,,,, .,,,,,,:,„,„,,..„,„,„„,„,„„ ;,,,,,,„,:,r 33 DURHAM RD URI�BM_RD Nryo� 1 uV / Or 11111 4 A 4111111e 1 Oali I..,,,t,„.,.,„:„.„,.,..s , lirea„, -, ' �' SM7TAN, ,- I ASO . . ■i! / �I I�WST 1 N Q�/26/96 Parcels Potentially Affected Parcels Staff report foraffected * A by proposal.Note: by CPA96-0002 explanation of criteria. Are Zoned 4, " f Geneas ral Commercial CITY F D p 1 _ „,..,„::::::„,,„:.,,,,;,.„.„ ,,,,,,„,„,,,,....,.;;,.,,,,„:„„,, I / \ I 7( ; \ ,•„„,":„.,, ,..., ,,,,,,,,..„,4,,,,,„:„.:::::„:„,;,,,„,..4.,,,,. 1 ) - .,.(„.,:.•„,,,,,,,,,,,,_., _..,:„,„:,„,:,,,,,„:„,,,,,,, ,,,, _ .._VEN .... , -, , ,,,M F.r tE 1 4k4;',.'-'-' l YY-✓ V ICV A OLiNiI G?3p PARK PL � �I I , /INIIIV "'' HILL mom 1111116,MOM , r A „-.„,,,. vi.:,j-,,,,.,,.•gov',., ' tRft.40-iii;.,:,41,fi rd ::0:410,rGAARDE-Pir— '11T:7:IIII"KFI..,:'A,,Fx,iI6:firgi-1,f allir 4:4'":::: .: 4� 1- af - Alt S# k / r „.„,„,„,:„:,:::,..,... _ f -rte ,stio , ,,„.„,,.,,..,„:„.„,„,,,„,,,,,,„,,,,,p1, ,,,,..,„„,,„::::::,::::,..,,:::.„,,,,,,„.„....., . :,„, ,::,„"voita'"ice-4:,:a2r, A ID , 6_#z R. .„ .... :,,„,„; ., ,,,. ,. -„ -,,,,,,„,„„,„:„., . .„,,,,,./ lir l'— - 9 , Y + C6116; I NONNI Rll'. II III gi per$A C YIN min t ill ,,,_4;, :,',1,1t-,:::-.,;- MI I um MN INE MIMI VD MA [C _ ' BDOCK , ,p - gill ' • / I 18 • Q ran li NO I I o rri k• • !• Parcels Potentially Affected � r;r �«�^f" ,�j,, by CPA96-0002 CITY OF TIGARD Map 3 0 ' ii.1„) ■ .? , i., . .iss 1 1 . *. . 4 t9/ / • 9ft 4::i . ,ff■ / ' ■ s . ,,,,4# __ ., t I . A■■ 4,I ,,t,,,,7 e• '4 ii 4 ,J.. : , 4,...::,:',,,,„;,,,,:>,- 74e, * • 4111 0,, AA* * ' . 4 • v- I'' :44So. ## 6' ' fr,*: .L'2,*/‘ :*7 # •7::: ;C:i';iS • 4 . 4 44 -4* ,-::, 0 '' 44■• 40,,...;; ._ .,„:, -"'.." . ■■** , 4 ,_ .„7,-.,- , :A ---4- „, — vw4v* \4P- ''"''4*:'"''''-' - ., — mei ,.. , cf-- MIK gr 1411r -4**4.:/ A ,, 0,-- 4, * t. .11111/4 ‘,#,‘ .*: ,,:.-,S , _ :_.:-. :,,!::,,:;,. _,::., .t. * 4-0 Idyl -i 4::: 11 mahlulk,‘,7- --.: :-. ' 4 4 * Clfir*4‘ P';. ST-:;':: -- ;- (< / ll440t �. illir Ih' ': :::: "'1 . .:.'. / *1.% i 4V _ _ , _ 4 :, ,,, . ' .j '\/\\ T c„ \ _____r___\/ r ) ...ntiaily affected reelS P°rN0-te: , •. ....,..0.4.. A.ri l - Pitaikr.,kcife.fiR1F is 41 po"---: t.n„:1"::,,e4rT.7,ini t' slali Ii.;" A,.r8:-4rsi,i 5,0e; c!f'1H41:?tt_„F-:, e,,::: d besY xe o'e Pl rasntaa ff- cw—oreport ) rfia to.,e'. r by CPA96-0002 Are as Zoned CITY OF ieARD map 4 IGenera' T: ttlo * LOCU ST , 4 a. :(- ;:,:::1:411•%:itil;:7•71,irii.42,0 17,#0;:i1:1:':'ji,11.:111-1.t4fliA44.:„•1 7--E!: ::011101.11:::iatLiiiii!'**ii,411,-j-41.! ../-44. %vt:-_.:],'--4.u7:„,„,,,. ,,,,,go:-.,,,,,,,,,ibm 9pytig.:4Ft':11,,, ,,,,.:,:tat;o:111%;;,-.:9„,, witlt--, 7 4igki-:--- .: :. 4.,-.)t-.40- ''*":',:. i-"”,--•': Z.,45'2'''-','.,,t,•:k:-5,4,1:.:' 5 P., ' :,,,,,„,,,,,„ .4::,„ .11111 111 [if•otlttlitld 'It III1C cmD7 4 83 ,.,.,....., . ,..:.,,,„,,,,,i, „.::,,,„ 771111140111,:,..Z. 1,,.,.:,, ,:,•,,,i :1:141):;•,'.11: ' 4,3-...i:'-i--i'f'.:',;::-.-41.1!H-:,,.::4.•,,.,,T!rfr -- ■ i it,'', 15 ::',ATii.11;',,,. ••,,,,,,.,70-#A,4-:,•. ,,,,,,...4:4,-;,:A::::i;•il',:-.4.,;- •;iiii;...ilciii,:p;1;1 te•-o-K , ,D,t,-;,„m".4,:,,,',ii.::',,,i',,,,, ,,',,11:NFiAlittoiiiitot,:::::::•::;:ifr II/ ,,,!•11:; 71 IL , ,, / LOAM. z' ,- ,,.. -.. 1 1 1-11111m-m*I1 dm 1,1 saw 6--- A ii, „......, NE 1111111111 DAKOTA 011e. Ill , II ....L ) NOR , {- 111 a . _ .'''• OR to, , alla r- i ' 1114111 Grft&tiii,G 1.63 1116A I [ 06/26/96 Parcels Potentially Affected //// aleNotfoaffected A by CPA96-0002 explanation of criteria. Areas Zoned ,T i Map 5 ,..;; General Commercial 40 CITY OF TIGARD ST / r 1 al I- \V LOCUST MAREL.EAF ST Q { 5 9 z J� MAPLFLFAF _`_�___rte ; ST 4..4. i ST •, ST 7 - 11111111 [ / re" - ,, • PINE ST �, ■ III _PINE ST J I ■ r O SPRUCE ST I SPRUCE ST\ - , , 1 1( , I i .. mor____I_____sR ____N I__ ___ - I ■ / STE\,E ST Illii ti� ST in 0—. 1 c)IL r , .. 1) !______r CI - H , d 1 ,A,- ' •FAFFLE - . 11111411111111 • -----n- \ Q N i w _i 06/26/96 Parcels Potentially Affected / // L Note.; Aby CPA96-0002 explanation of criteria. A „ , Areas Zoned �' i "R General Commercial T map 6 n •CITY OF TIGARD ( — _ ic,n_Nr LL7SF C J I— f 1 � 1 r — ., OAK Sr --, — I PINE 1 ST I ' — T SPRUCE 1 t H r- .1 .!':.'"''''''''''''''''''''''"ri gi: lit'144 1-403.4„-'Ittclifi!:,,--•,i 4-,,•;,---'-'1',:';641111 r __--- iiiiilll . i to � jEll da_H— IIII 11111.] El � , a . _'' E'er . V.4440:0-,:-.1::!'? MEM IIIII V- a3 j3 a r 5 x. Ilk ��55""qq � � x'i2 ' ® • 3 'Viso� f 3 f q ,_ 5 ST r . y $ G[fir`` �% ,i �" :''' a I L:i { r ter_ _ - _' .• IIII ST� .�, F BAYLOR I ffff -��, F Lij. ,,„, „ ..,..„.„.,:., t _:.4, ,o,E,::::,. _ _ �.._ 06/26/96 ATTACHMENT A Parcels potentially affected ''. . Parcels Potentially Affected = lyerposal. Note: Staff report for .-; A by CPA96-0002 explanation of criteria. General Commercial • CITY OF TIGARD Index Map I l mr 1 b '- ■ 0111111 1 s. v, I FT ildallia , . .1- IIIMIrlir L• - t< ir j .,------J.--1-1 ml : w.. ' Ill ( •mil .--: ,__ .ff ii, ,,, limmi : , Il : -ININ Iresill... ---.. :-. • : am! lid AB - s-Nlig 6 MEM 1 MI TAir m. r ■, 5101 ill iii / 1 41111 MEI • ribe 1 A da . 1 1 4 AI 0*PM'k dl if:, r N.m.,, , 7 Pio . maim -..,,, . ..tiir:: 1. MIA4 41 m'lleil-aili 41111-11111111 MITI li MIN MI ,__, .. . . A,t,,;.,0- sk 7 -u-r-74'.:. a 0 • - II RI 1111 MCI- " N ;-- , .-,'42•.4 r A i 44,1 r,___Es " - • t) 1 c9 . -4.* MI , , 1 :, 1''--1.1--..,L; --1-1 ..1 e__J-Li „du ft.:-.1, • 40.,/, 11 so , , ..,.•'-■ am ,--1>L, co• 111 4 , v a - IN iiirA 40 ... I . , ... _ . . ■ . t___ 1(----7 / li_ii awe-AVM , ..A5.-; -Er ' 1 1 - 1:1 Biji_ Fel"' MOM= KI 1 J l : d ---- , _ 1 Ilh. LE ■ i 1 il , ifiriab.s mirilAW21111pi lan g /11 P i ri ■oMrrIM P ti th.,4 i 1/' faef "nag ri yi iiiiArl wpm i hoi gr. , . ..... .. I . L71 -- , , /I • \ 1 I Lb ----r-----1-11 ) 1---1 --, . ....-- , , 06/26/96 Parcels Potentially Affected bS pcer oal rtfoaffeded by CPA96-0002 �lanation of critria. •11111 X ��;_ Areas Zoned rcial w A _ Genera)Corrnrie .CITY OF TIGARD tp ,„,,,p5x,„:"..5/>,....,..v/1 'v� i * 6' ''''''''''''4':'' 4040. /fit so. o„,.4 0 111111 AO /iv'',.:1r._.!:!"]::::,_ P 7,1 ,,,,..-,,-,,:,....,,,,,,,.,,,,,,„„:.:1:,„„,;:1,,,,,,41:::„;_z::::t...:„.,:.,.........v....,,,,,r I� i //; ....lis sei • vt. • Pa. AO �' `'�_ ! � �� S.W.NEAVE STREET 6 . C3F-C(45?1 at DR li#ea# • i-,!Iiiiiiiiirl7111EVX .,� 4■ // AB w Iiiiit-1141;:;;A:;;;_ ;,,,,__,,iiii,ii,iL,E::::;,,:,,:::::,1:::::.i..:: :: trl:Eli:;-,- i 1* : 4 --', or,02400, ' -.,,k, „. ::,,,,,,-=:-..„;,4,, ,..311,,,A::- / ■ ,- Fc'' :I, FAsibi.„6 P:.,___ SWl1TPN, I ri / *-. -1 IAN•I - - -ST 06/26/96 Parcels Potentially Affected /// Parcels potentiall rtfoaffeded A. by CPA96-0002 explanation of criteria. y Areas Zoned l i map ^ General Commercial •CITY OF TIGARD 1 / \ 1 ( 7( L i - ,,,,,,ivigo,,,ii„ly!r!at,",7,11 Nem ,SS ( ,,,1..., imalit _;:::;;:,4-:,.11F4:g--.-iiiitis ERNI viEwouNT )__ / •I e: PARK PL 111111111 ' I �� II �I HILL ,, ',.;f6::".::::::-:-'4.:4;,/ Alee.:4-- "':,:::::f-,.. - .;- II/ MIMI ill ir I'i,:".:iiii,:---!!:';',1 tc 1!fr,,a,'''4,4'1 je'';11'1:1 I 7:4'''''':!,'ii ii Ili.'';,..,:yy o/// Q it� iO r a - 1 1_,,---, Ii....—.....i �T rl s 'k :t"'k- xK 3 7 • - ', ' „s�, d I3 -t 3 -': ? '..: �' tt ;gyp IIIII S i,at y �I / 11 Hi 1 l'':://:, #7,::: !i:',.". Ilt,S7 m j _ , ' ir - C�IIFR l l YLN� IN II El \ - At.. .„ i Q °�[.. • nil IRE .. . LW Nil IA ZOO. i'� .n --/ INE / 881 � J I I I I I I � '=7 0 81 F / wirupil 1‘ limp __, . ,1,______i 0 ‘ Cli CD ED 111111 L /2 /96 Parcels Potentially Affected � Parcels potentially'"°° . A by CPA96-0002 Staff report for K ': �p3 •Cm OF TIGARD . I I.J. J ..i.* *7 ,.., 4 i 1 1 . ‘ 1 # 4 4 , i • * 91* 4. -,'' 141'114 / °.* il * *, , . ''',,- I 1 • ;,N, es' •- , S 4 - - , - \ .'''''''1' 'ix' At, ip.,%- / 4‘ • 44 . ' ''' , • A41 *e'' - 14-- '' • 4::*4t74:4 dr, " # ' - 10,77, ..4 4.1„ , , , ,.„„ , - aii , ,y,1„. ' ■ GT-. ritc,- ...,* ' 7i' ,.'-' 4,14V _ .-' / , # . Illr —3#A4 446W. , \*# ''i- # , s • • 1 ' II c , - ■ , :....,-:.'" '-!•. ' ''*:-''.7' 4"i‘' ` Ilt i 47 ';-':',:. -#:,i'iri.:-." k$,• $1 ‘.. . to - '-:,'L,- . ::::' ,. ."' ,,: .-.1P* 0*-01, • c\ • • s 0-\ 0 !. -A - iir'' - ::::,'-7 ': :---,-,- : ' 0[ 0 A "' * i „ i,:;;;; ;;,,- . „. ., ,,,,i,:,,. -.::,.;-1v4-‘,7". t --' a *I; .1', ,,,,,,,, ,' 7. +7_ -1 :: -,. 4, 64.: 7)* V, T L..,.. ::' ,::,,: ,:.,._:,.:_LL„:-L.LL:. „.,,1,, : ,. 2 • pote Parcels Potentially Affected /// SeeStreefoaffeded by CPA90-0002 �anation of criteria. �' (;enerdlonCorrmrencial ittai �� p 4 CITY OF TIGARD LOCUST 1r �� ^, �� itoopkit �r J • fi GN" �7 ■ s • altIvitak5=1:)', "AY/ yfi +fir DRTH DAKt��A NO' DAKOTA 41111131u—1m411 .„ 1"1- 1111., - • V 1 • I 1 06/26/96 • Parcels Potentially Affected /// bPyarprceoposals ao by CPA96-0002 explanation ff r of criteria. �� P z Areas Zoned:alp ■ General Commeraal Map �� . OF TIGARD h •CITY N - ST ',.,�, la. . 1 1 1 r 11 w M LOCUST MAPLELEAF ST ( Q _ IIIZ J -Jt . MAPLELEAF ST • 4%4. co , - - — ST OAK ST / j — — ji r- i PINE ST • PINE ST MIEN e r i 1 SPRUCE ST = SPRUCE ST {Q ' Y1\ \-L THORN ST r , P 11111 STEVE ST '1 Ili tiny n iiiii ______, Qi . ,(3 , , cl iiiAI / ( _______ H y I .-` a - 7 AFFLE • I ( , ■ „Qe/26/96 Parcels Potentially Affected /// Parcels by proposal.Note: See Staff report for • b CPA96-0002 elanation of cntena. �,�,I n r Areas Zoned a_ _•� i map General Comrrieraal CITY OF TIGARD ' Hit I r T ] 1 . OAK ST ii ( 1 • PINE ST SPRUCE ST r Y e m. , , ,,,„„.,,,,.„..:,:,:„.,,,....,.,::,:„,,„„,,,,,,,,:„:„,„:,„,,,,,,„,,,,4„:„," „4„:;,:•,, ,,,,,,Nil:',14.-# p • EN �` 3 & P �� h N' 3 'fF Y : MI r, ,....,.. -.7,,,..I..f,111:11,!,:ilt,0„!illia.:.,;,7,-:4:-.1k,,),„--,, ,i-...-„ii,,,-,;-i.,:iii,-:-4.-i,.,ysiii-icy4.:,:litimitti .... .:,:::::„:2:1„,, .:::,..,:z ... :.:„:„....c,„4,,,,:;,..,....,..,;.,:,,,,,,,„„,,,,,4., „,,„„,ki];!-t.:.:.:%-4-v-Tgli.iiiiiN,:rx.:,,,,,,,,T,,,,If -, :. 2® _. li �. O 1 g I I ■ A&: ` - v s � 1 al. ; y' '''' .-- - ,, - g' E �, ST'ur 11115."'"1111111:14 . BA�OR l Q 9 1 L � .,,,..,, . ... .. ! „ _ _ i 06/26/96 ATTACHMENT A + Parcels potentially affected Parcels Potentially Affected = 8eetfor �A by CPA96-0002 See Staff report of criteria. l Y Areas Zoned • CITY OF TIGARD Index Map General Commercial -) gni L 4 r. ,,_.' I L 11— c J 1- migni NIL i EA ,. , ;.q- .�i iii K ow , 44, -:, .... .,-,--: . ( 111.11‘ It :,'.(!: AL / r___ =EH,. , as a alp 11 ....-.7/1/1,. 1 r .....[____0 lid . ■••=iisit irNiLm- rigaim milFite Ill col / NIL FI"74 111-.7 diWW s slwa WM Iii ■ A A re.,,,A. AY A [PO gill ,: r il .1 sia 1/11111 sr II IIM 4 \ e Ilmq ■ mAtilkUill MEI r4 err `n � -- - I I. , „,, • : _; �two s pi*00. :ems 1 ,1 1 , 10444 ,:_,- A 16, 4.0 , - w ' N41 T -�`�7--(\ s \I r ' -1 r__ , _,. I ill . ii. . idz- 4 A I, 10111111.1.11 1 MI : d "7-. . I Wil a ._. i i , ... mbilmmin .6_ 1 i ' P i p41,,,,..sorg.,i,p „urn, - , \ le lr'' - Illjzip,# 411L1 N:: il pu � , i f� U -i % J ili --, I rJ 1 • \ HLb 7r T 7 ! I' L-T11--77-A \ I 06/26/96 Parcels Potentially Affected foaffeded tW,,t.,•. t* 101 eg t1 i dltI i■!i b CPA96-0002 explanation of criteria. Areas Zoned i �il General Commeraal •Cm 0 i6ARD Map 3 ' ♦ � le , 0 r S.W. NEAVE ..,._S-. . T REET cO, :111;.,,, ,;11 .,;t$11.1,::::;;:::": 14elii"i:,:;* it3-'' ,;--,,,,„:,,,,*4,, : ,4 JiIi; 4'� �� 4 • ,„,.:,..:,.„1,4,,,,, �p 0,1 03 Pd ■ u 4/ • ,,,iti--**::1-- :: :'-:4- .. ,,. .r. ..,::,:,T-,'$:r .y:.,,-.,,,„ '°i.6:,:.,,,ii,p, ..•I k 4 n ,,,F;r4 i,' /Y l . /N uNi It* wTIT AN 1 4 ill 1 0 \ 4-1---il' 41:14*,,y:, 41, T�SF�Ni 1:. a I ms q I N _ 06/26/96 Parcels Potentially Affected /// SeParcels e° $Yra ffected Aby CPA96-0002 explanation of criteria.Areas-,-..j i�A-- „' µ General:al°araal CITY OF TIGARD Map 2 /( 0 / � Igi'2 ' � b iiiiii MEM W f y� - 'fr- ` 'I ,-- / Q':ID PARK PL .1 III.. , ,,, HILL iini►� I L� II is c f S .. LN Iml iglik *A ya %/// Q .„1,, ,,":-,,,ek„-„'-'4: -A. --.' *�-/ ore W — k 'LHI y ti r .11:'V . lr#/#/,'-:::'ii:::rt''',:igr -::-'-''7 ":',-it'1,;:if Ng ... ABU•„., im EN =I I, MN IN ex al L- 1111 511 EN Q] La-Mil MURST 1 _ 51 1 II Q /;i 7 b-13-- o 6B B. . '41/0 0 I t f4-7-"( I col 8(_, H 1: ■ 6. i EDI' flqii .`• % Iilnl ©I i IIIIII 1./2 /96 • Parcels Potentially Affected Parcels �� by CPA96-0002 explanation of criteria. General Commercial 7 1 lc j j .,,,* ,),b4a., 4 ill r " ,* . wilkr* * * 4,„ ..11 W.,,, , 1 5 °* ii '::\ i 1 4, .'7' 1-': ; i 1 C;).4.6 ••.k.- ._ 0 lat 4 •;,:.::':..--,:: .:; ' Aill 4 _ 111P4 /-a . 4 c '' '-- , IP • • AI *e f ' 404-. . -4-1111t:'4, * 4 444 , -.:TH 1: # lib,' ' ,t* Ak.:.:::,,,;,ibr, 4ori, --, A‘ „„. ".., , „.„ ' II,•• • - of4 * 414" '. - Eli . - \ -- --AV ' /4.. Ct----' II CT til / ■Al , - 744 -.. 0. Ilt ----* 4 4+41M• . * • . l'°0 AN lama -:::/-: % / 7,4 - • ■ * ..4‘ , P':. ._. ST• _ '='5 ...i ,.:- .* i. ' ..:- -,' ,,: '*- . • • :, .;:;-.,:'-- -*;'',*'-:1- .1 ::::::: '"1-:.14_14/ ' W W 1 4 40Pr ,_: i:. :-1*.,!: NO.::'. - ,- - - - -0 * 01/0 # t** ?.' : '. --Ar ''''Q-. '-::,'''..- :-- ' - ec # ., * . c\ ,-;,,:_ ,: : :,: :, ., ,, ---',-...,::-:„.11.,,,::, sw 0 ac (P-‘ 0 t ■ --\ 11Pr";'''''-iH.;-:---.,::::', :::::: ? ' 0.0; -‘. v % . S# Or* IP , /A_,i;:.-...:;'1 1: :q,,,. V6,*TkOs._ t ' . r ' '' 74 . .: ' '''''11 .; V 9 V T ": 4, „.::„ ' ,. , 4, .:,4,-;,:„.,,,,,, :,, . ,_? ti , V TTT • Parcels Potentially Affected of ffe�ed see sta by CPA96-0002 explanation of criteria. Areas Zoned �' �° ��1 ,_ �,' General Comrrierdal .CITY OF TIGARD Map 4 LOCUST I. wpalgoor 1 ` � • �7 r I ■ 114 :51 ■ IIII ., , .,. ,,,, �®�,...,.„....„,„:,.„'V III s r �� i .1 ■ gade Ii !"! \. ma , owl .. / OR►A DAKOTA illipi„ ■III Ijr—: vci milli, 11:11J117 1� :r 17.71Fr 11111 - 1111 mom ' I AHI 'LIMN”. ...a ' "1 Ii.,„141 . I It/ • V cl) E 06/26/96 va�R� Parcels Potentially Affected /// oaf affected Aby CPA96-0002 See Staff report of criteria. iir 5 a eas z ned ,_,-1.0.91- _I I! n /�w G g' r, General Gornrr�ercial *CITY OF TIGARD Map J �n�. ST la - 1- i LOCUSIT MAPLEIFAF ST Q i T J /___,rrl r_ 1 MAPLELEAF ST III1 co '2' 1 SOAK- ST U ,--1-,,, y� 2 / :II. ,,_,_,::: ,:, 1 Z 11 i PINE ST ., • . 1 PINE IIIIIII MI• ^ I , gh SPRUCE ST SPRUCE ST ( -----[ s 1 THORN 1 . „It \ STELE ST I iiiyill ) ) 1 �, ■ ■ \ ,, I_ ST i . L ILL %%. , /1 ( 1 br / • \I — L■_ ,llik■ 41 \ n OEM MI. MI mi 1 w X/26/96 71'..: 18 •-7,F67---.,,:,,,:- n�'� 7771; �`, t_ '^ :1 ' I I J\VL_LI ILL {y( 3333 W Q 3'3 3.16 _ — ��1J �u7 3 3 "y` ■ (a 'C . 9 a #�f 3 - •X13333 V/ T p - 3�7,; '3' v ?' ;id _ � 3 'uu y~� :� W a a a!;! ;, a, xxj ks 1 ,q 1 3 � U � '`.R+� ( 3 lob. � - g 4; 2- l ' \ �w n ) L �1 '4 wa. W 3333 16 1____---: 'n^ �`~AA�� } ��0�y�y3 ..P4-:'..: .uwx V J „,......,....r._44,,,,' �1t 3 ; � �, ,`'3'�,+f m„y3 � � 3i `�` �°' R � � ern �� 1 �'� min; 3 y*».�4 7% P a f � 1,:.P..,”; ;- '' 3 � M j3 ,� � t •,;.,,-,,,,,;:.;.,:.,::;:.'.,..],,,v': y � .fig cr , t � 1 o-r3 � 13 , � .,� 1 �,.� mow„ t� � ce �, -^�t , �yw3a' ONO' ,ytf�.- w uAAA t ,- 3i .,,,,s- rk,' `3L; >a �d ,,, _0 7_ , . 16 U ,� ®®® ,,,I.,, , ,,,,,, ,,, 4,,,,,,:.,,,, ..:9,:,..;„. I, -8 11. T HL9L_ ' 3 •__,..„---,---__ 6 ■ • Hill 8 _r___ ---i ..-- , ''t.:. ,« t 1 1_, (0 0.. ,_ 0 ix .4 It B '� �L N. -----; ___T-iiii---7--- _7_7___,___i_i______ , 1 1 rif- • ATTACHMENT A ; . , Parcels Potentially Affected = Parcels potentially affected by proposal Note A by CPA96-0002 See Staff report for explanation of criteria. ..:6,44-1.81L , Areas Zoned • CITY OF TIGARD Index Map C*neral Commercial 1111__Iigusisi tea -4.1tral L *t&I FT iiimuTA : P4=-414, ...m.... -,----TH iffilft ( sm . \ i on reisill i iir 4. : . ...,, . ...,__, D 111 ti 7,ri 1 -- --( IIII 1111 - ,... ,,. r . r....2. 0,, „ ' i MN • r — . 111 IL I.I I 1 061k 1111hh11.1... rALE, MEI i A• • ,- ,....z_ -------- Rii`i MI ' ' ..',7,t il i ..._ *sr win...r.smosi LE , A ii4fh.,411'V'r`.. .....d•d „ pi_5 , 7 t ' INr■ 1 -diakik‘i ill____‘ Ali ITI`al _17..„.,11 , ' 4,0111:& '11411-11 -wpill I 1 ivi-i . rik\; r" /5, _mit • vikir 1:-- -I I__ 4.1r::•:-tslk • - .-wfis . till = 4101 lin 1-I 4/41v ,at /I HEMgiriA .711 II .. / a -,! am V er- I 4 I ::•- ... ( • , , • k PI144,■ I k rc-f r-4---1 c I --= .----! I1 r-- -}. J gli . _ : ., . or . Tali NI M plilliellPillinatillilliPi la• I 4/1 .., DU nab& ethigimi W 1141 ' -■ . B.,.. fithiplim angss.,,, .:* i -I. . 01... . i , L • . , ....- .71 i 1 1 ..■'"'. r•J um. k 1 ,--- -- 1 „ N 1 I .■••J L 1/ L 1 IF • \ I I I I e it , ei I __--,--,---- 1 1 - 06/26/96 Parcels Potentially Affected br5'{aff alrep t fo affected bCPA96-0002 e�lanatine of criteria. 1 ..il . l Areas zoned „�� map 1 � General CorrnTerdal CITY OF TIGARD ..�� N 6.\5\--- y ci ; I.,:.,..,„..„„„, „ , ...,,, „,„,,,..,.„.,..,,,,, *4. C' *# 0*# 4.,,,::::,,,,,,,,,7 ''----- ._I:,7 ,..1:,if , / � _ h �� S.W. NEAVE STREET ali .va# 4F---:;14:110i11,:17' ''''T;i Jir.,,, T:* :14S ,fie-ay/ 0 '4* 7 �3 jag MN DR II • 4:1;:*":10:440 461:4-- ...),..:::. - r / v. RHP_I111-.f3D 3 ./.. Ade vJ co ,x -' 1111 # -,ham= ;Yy._,_ '•,,, �J _ 1\ - i l./ SWTJTfW • ir \ i 1 _si- ; , KEN � fI I O&2&96 Parcels Potential lyAffected SeParcels proposal.rPoorrttT.0 .affected �► by CPA96-0002 explanation re a Zone of criteria. Areas Zoned �� I^ General Commercial OF Map2 CITY OF TIGARD I / \ 1 / ` / 1111 �� Q L : :.•VEN iiMUM H 11111111111111111111 Ii4;1441II',41,:kmi VIEWNIOtSM 1---- G_.. PARK PL 11 , �- _ n 11:3tiipiii ';'"'"''''ki-r- � ��',� HILL 1111110 /11411011 fh., ,2,4,,,,,,,,,,,-„,-„,,,-.,,,„„,„,,,„„„.,,,,, , , i , , GAABL ST a ilia.. _ • Y itg i. , ioutilillw:!:!!•:.-iii::::::gr„,d0.1,tr..-,016"'!iiit!!5:17:4-,1E,41,'''It-- A :,,,,I,„,,,,,*::,„,,„-i,,,-„,,,,,_,_:,:„„,-,„„,,.,,,,,:,i,,,,-:„,s,•i,:,,,,,,,,,,,7:;.:.:::-,--_.::„.„,,,,,,,,„14,40,• —• ,,:„,,,,,,,thqtr.::::;1:::.:.,,,, 4:1,„„,,..,..,,,,,,,,,, „,,,„,„„:„..::,:„„:„,„„:„.::::,:„.,,,„.„„..... ,,,—:,,,, ,,__ Ili \ , :„,,,,orgimillt,,,,027::::-.',-,-:',,Poir, ,,,,,,„„,„„,„,..,,t,,,„t,,,,,,,..::,,„„,„,„,,„,,,.,,,„,,,,,,:„i„,„,„...:„,,,,,,,,:,,.,ir,,,,:„ 1 . „,....„:„,,,„:„..„,,„.r.,,:::,„,,,:_:,:::::_:::„,,,,,,„,,,,e„, ••.„,,I.:,:„:„:::„.,,,,,,,::,,,,,,••:, , , :::::. ..,,,,„,,::,..,,,„„::::.:„„:„.,,,:i,„_::::„:„ , , ..,,,,,,,„,„.:.,::,,„,,,,„,,,,,, ,:,,,„„r„,„„„,_ .,..„..,,,„, II 1 NMI illillir 4 Nii. .... ..„......„,„„.. „,:,11, . ...- _► I ::■_. : ..„,„,,, _. .. ., .:„..w 3',6,,,,„ ;� ■■_ ----:. r� m ''II ■■ m riu■■ LL 1•.... 1 .. Q ilir EEO Elliial u Vie - _/ % 1 gB — 1 0 wi�nnli o �_-� • i D- r 1.• • -• Parcels Potentially Affected , f s�� by CPA96-0002. &^ ° -, : - General Commercial Map 3 OcITY°F TIGARD L—j t?ftibt 4 i 1 # -* . 4 ,i9V4 • 0 41. .,41 INJIN I 1 4 , : T ,'';''''', 2 0)tptii 41111 4 44.° - 1 7 A i .** ,■.. ; . ,, k '.'. ,-' I * ' • , A‘t '' 14.4 , , : •'. . .. 4$4,40,,,- 7 4 .40:4,,,,: • 00 0 * " # , , 4.00, .1.4 *t• ■ A\ ,,A_ ,..., ., , .9. 47,4'17 , Imi ,.. ■,„ CT illiCT -.,,w 4 . -. v.., . ii It Elit . ft' -#41t#40 .4*,:-:*** * i al ::,,,, , ,: :,/ '; • $4441' 1 . -:: '. , ,,,- *,.::: ::: : 's,' , = PI" & ' # Atfr . 11,,..:::::;:: ;"*44,A,‘- #,• i .. -ilitH: - -4. , k.,otv J 111:' ---,-:;„-., I\ 0 10 4 _I Ilrr4r- i : _ ,,-- :, :y.,, , ' ."011 0 i _ 41101 , - II ''' ' _ AP47" 1 ' S 0 .° ' 4P 5 '''' • 1‘\' '. * ■ _ . 1 _ H i: 4 ,i:,: . t, ;°' 0 1 ,_________ Is Parcels Potentially Affected Seefoaffeded by CPA96-0002 planation of criteria. ;° Areas zoned ,.�� General Comrneraal ,I i CITY OF TIGARD p - ,,,,,7.374.401- "" LOCUST ':-:04:-.:**,--fg:,.2.:,:;::::::,,,,,.,,,,- ,i-,:,:-:-- ----,1:4„, 4.400L.,:;4;;;;:-4:::,:s4. ' ',-- 1,',,,A,k,- ,,--iii,-01,4„,:i4ii,,,,,,-.,...*,,,,:-:,,,. :,:,triiiik H1-.:::::4714-''''5,11',1:t'-'11:,",-",4-4',4: a � ��+ -.,,,,..„,,,„,,,,,,. ,,,,,,,„i ,,,,,,„,,,,,kt::,,,toke.",,,,,„:1,.:,,,,,,- „,,,,„:,„;,,,,,- ,.,_,,,,,„,:WITII:011 ,1",'...:,'7,4"; ,.:.1::::-:e';....'::'tl: r Milli Q Q7> 111 r,1. :E.I111,,,,,„,,,,,-„:::,,o 4 L,,:,..tuti,,- o, v „ 'f T e1 S 7 LNG� ��'�` ,a - �3t / _ Q 11111' ■ ■■■■I IMI• mill IIIM DR 1FI DEV(OTA NO' DAKOTA III IIIII ILI Ill al . J . 1111 9 II I 4 a 1111 1 06/26/96 C"ec . Parcels Potentially Affected /// See Staff Ifoaffected by CPA96-0002 See ation of criteria. Areas zoned F T�� Map 5 . General Commercial OCITY OF TIGARD I- _ . k LOCUST Ai MAPLELEAF ST w ( w all- - MAPLELEAF ST 4.‘\* 1111 . . / i L , _ ST OAK ST AK /J AI 1 I i i I r f 1 PINE ST PINE , gT ' III • ------ \ I r , I l L , SPRUCE ST _ SRRUCE ST \ l 1 THORNS n / F r 67,, \ ..1 I STESE $T 116:‘,4: ) I Tli� I 1111111 < I ST 0 a cg___i lk. • FL E. jLrp 1 MR 1 I- w mil 06/ E% Parcels Potentially Affected Parcels potentially affected Y ,,, bSeproposal Staff report for A by CPA96-0002 explanation of report criteria. 4.w I Areas Zoned .411‘ 1J.I I A_ 6 General Commercial TIGARD OF IGARD Ma T--] L _ _ _, ..... LL--„,--cP 111_,=<_LI El / OAK , M �� , _ _ PINE ST _ 1 MOM nu. Li---------- --- r L ' SPRUCE ---;—j a _._--.- , • // , , e.,/, A% A! __ ; ; \ , i MI r i I 0 �:: I ST i i li I I F, AI 1 A_ MIN BAYLOR ST 0 1 /-- 9_______ 7_ , < i , , , , , 1 , (4 I r 06/2,6/96 ATTACHMENT A ,.. Parcels potentially affected i,i■ Parcels Potentially Affected = by proposal Note See Staff report for 411110k by CPA96-0002 explanation of criteria. Areas Zoned " ' General Cornmercial == . CITY OF TIGARD Index Map . ■ 1 I-- orarAi 1 -0, . , I FTIF-E I 1 NMI= C'- '1..----"cil 44141egallig Alt Millitaratik All ,,,: 1 arli am. ! I \/, 1 --,1 I Li 11111160., IMai....41111111111.---. MI ‘ ‘ 1111811 ( MI I . rr- - -%--i a . , , . , is iii „ 411■NIMil 'mei 11V11 i___L_ I / A 0 I mitt paw% 414 WM IN N k 10 VA1'- : MEW. 1 ri. m . .4.1 N .,iiil . i4 / rj.. Wiral <9 i la11lle1T=riv 1pw l. II164 .W45p11a'..-ipk■ J t'A r 1i7 1 ig m‘r -''''ewEMuilrn I .. ...Er P • bik ■410"1 ,.■ ir . 4p kir , valfaiii • k-ilitmili 1 i -- 1 .,1$ , -4.‘v* ..■ . . . 1. . .. . —.1 CL....n.i 0J Cll.-S-11 *04 IN / e*,'■ , 41 a -.0 . . . . . Y' .7 I 1 MIMI I 1 fieljtrAIIIIIIIIM .„, r v , r c=ft...I A T piffilui Im ay i i 11] ri ._ 1 I ' , Btj a r.;?' MINIEMEN I J 1 7 1 Ort In . ; .. .....1 d11111 i 111 1 1 fil. )- simalr-" E„, pi IL 1 A \ di g/li Web, CUE i IIII , .._. 111111.7. __„--• 1 / , I__. .. . pili . irs r-- • ( ... .1.,„„. : ,.- ,, •,- , mAlli II 1..----- . . L., ,- I f E LI I If\ • \ .......- 06/26/96 is Parcels Potenti al I y Affected // r b �{°a°ff repoR foraffected by CPA96-0002 e�lanation of cntena. Areas Zoned �qi� �l� A't , General Comrneraal • CITY OF TIGARD 4' . N Lai; j� I le A # »py� F3 e� ��i�„„,4,.*:,:.:-:.0” pPliair **# 0'41::a,.'•::„,:,,,,vokala 4-- ,rfaraa /4.,:: :,:i.,:p„:„,,,:,,,.,:,:t st7.154,12‘.1,„iv.4 0 ,._:::;„ :: :i 0,19 1..,,,„ 4,:::„.,, �� S.W.NEAVE SIRE ET iL .... ,0.t,iiik--- ..- *— 1... no.(1,10 .0 iiii • 4.16,44ALv,i70410,int::::Zi -10r2er Ai ami, J. a.r� £ �3 XN''"' i £ '� g :. fit .s%�,� �Irf/ice.. Mil„,:. lk ilk 4 Ct yd ag DR ,•s j - •• • a ” if aana 1tl - �jam' J,� ♦I4 ;3' rE b � // DllRki�M_RD ::7::•'-',:'.71: 3. 7;;;;; 4 - ;4 jaa 'N3•IIIIIIIIII. i by ' 4/c;: � „y fi\--9 ... �°3�i i/�S 'L4aFr' 7��'�4'�vi :,�4 silk 1 ..z. ,,,,..tv:11z..1.„-ILK' -';'4,, .':•:';','„*.::],,,,,,,014-411:14,,,'7J, .' 4 r#,-,:;i: . ----- .c, � W 1SW11T (%L AW /I I( KEN`ST ., 4,,„:,m,,,,,,,,,-- A-04, ,ii,=:, , 1\ 0 / I f 06/26/96 Parcels Potentially Affected / / by ff fo affected by CPA96-0002 explanation of criteria. A, L''''. Areas Zoned �I�i map_ p ^ ' , .' General Corrnnercial CITY OF TIGARD `V� 2 ' .i. iff?6:::::-,v :,;t4 i,::-4:1 0,4,;:1:,',1::,ii: ..4:::,;::!:} I / \ l I( i „„.„-„,„„„,..„•:::„,„ •,„„,,„:„,,, , „.,. ,,::::::, ....._..„., „,,,,...,„4„+„„•:„..::::„.,,...,„.. 1/4T-----___._ ,„:„,„..,,..,,„„:„.„,„..,,,„, .. : ,, ::,. .,, „....:,„:::„_,. ,,,, - ,. -.„EN ,..„,,,,„.„,,,,,,,,„,,,„:„..„ .,, , ,,,::, ,_,„:,,:,4,,,,,,, .... Ems Q , _ ii,,,,,,07-4,1,,,-,-1,4,,,„,„1,4,,,:,„,„,„,„,,,„„ Ilmmi 1 , I I ' ''-% ' - - ----!---1,- kac.414,10,, ,,,,„:„,,, •-•„„,,,,,„,,s.,,,,„„,•„„,.,,,,,,,„:,„,„„•,,,,,,„:„.„„•_, ...,.•„,,,,,.••,, • MEM VIEWMOUM GA K) PARK PL �F maik ; . : :_.v• HILL M Mall ,_ ii f,p.____ .________ -- ----—-il ----t,,,,,,,,,-,---k,r '4_ 1 vi " ..„,,,, ...„,,, , .,,„ ,,...,„. „„„..,,,„,,:„.„.,:„:„ „ ,,: .. , ., ........., , . .__...... , i .._______________, lA� EDE—$T - «r,• .._i_i , -1® 6,E • A y . 1 [Li i 4Fie't.''It''',.',:7-..,;,;._;(i;.:A&V,i'qtait''',Yie'S-:f:'t.,:t'''-' 1 - r 4,194.. .11,3a,:,;77,:.,:..,„ .,1.) . „::„.,,,iirlv. ' --.,-. ‘=„424.--4,,, — , dtriiidds4410:.-iiiiehipisi::,:pii::::;::74ti,:lba.., , ___________-11 .3„:",„;,,,.„-_,-,,,,13,,,,,...at ,,,,,,i,(..'''.7.. ,-:',13"1„1„: „41..,401„1:5:t 74::::*„:„011NlitiAtai A Ili - 40 , ,-.,0,,- iiimAgto,,,..,1:„„,;,,,,,7,-In .-.,„ -%:,...:Tir :::::, ,,:::::_::::.„:„..:::::„,„.,,„:„:„. ..,:,„,„,,,„.„,:::::::::,,„,,,,,,,„.., .,,,,,, r :. .gt ':,:01 , ;:ig -m;:1,P., q'-rigt,' * -,--:::411-40,-' A A , ,..s.,:::,,:„:„„:„, — — ,--,::::" --- , .„,. r ' i:'jr.,,,,,r- i ,/ mim ;11:-./.../ /ditAi;;;;!*,":' --', ' • ,'-i-, ':,1:,,,?7'' 'I,'..,,',Ali -'' /IF 11101' ,,_ , ,,.:::::, . . ,„ _.:„..,,,,:::,:::,:,.,,,,,..:4„„:„„ ,,„,,,,,,,,,,,_ :,::: :„,„.., „,:,,,,y,,. ::, „„.: „.,„„. E Mini NM II I. \ -',,,,,.',',2),:c,,;::,-Y..0 M I.. *LIERBUC Y1.____Ij_______I al os 1111 L 1 IA Z. I Q I iiiii ■I / IW craci. '-° Ma B" ,, • / Rim i age r ■ Q•mi ii, 1 .- Ie 6,--_-_-,-,------1 , /29/96 . A Parcels Potentially Affected •//// Fexplainaitiol7lofgreriaff.ee by CPA9Er0002 •Cmo.TK4e Map 3 w �� ..,� � y e • °•4,•• , , ,;0,. . . , 7 ,,A,, ,.,4 • 4■., 411IP4 • 1 . • W A., • ■ #.. NA11.4 4.:'''' '''' > , 40 - c'e *mow, , ,..r4,■,, _ , : . 4 .„,,,„ : . .., 4,7, - " ittr, t-71PAk ' '' '' •::41P" it. IS* * ,./4111 , : ,,. : -., .V - '''' , - . Illi ., , 4-'"'* ' CT Illit CT 47 / 'I*: e /•sr. IPA e* 4 4 :'444141140 *' 444• 11111 71 0 *V 1,, • III , 4* 414<; ' 1::: :::::: ,„;„,,' :;: H'.',1'...11:!. .-'-.1. 10 1 4 ', - .'1, -, ' ''''' ' -& A ■1111 . Awi „.:.:: ::::; :.„. :411166 ,, ' ' '' .:t**.A.#0 . r, F„,,,''' '''',: i ,,i,,T„::,....H',:.., - ,- ':10,,s.-77.6.' .. 1 A S'1 74:----i T 4 -,----,: %---: , ,:,,,,- i';': ' A v*TPAO i ' # V ' *& ' ' '' t ''?s- " # '-r-..:.:,.,, .?:.;.:, .: ,, , :- ,J,-, ,-,i- ,--: ..' L_-_ :-,:_.,1„___-__L_„_1'. ..:___iLi _ ,fy). 9 -c\ Parcels Potentially Affected / b s rlepNorottforaffect ed b CPA96-0002 explanation of criteria. �� Areas Zoned P �. dm 3 E . ;.,,i � General Commercial •CITYOF TIGARD v , A 4 �� it LOCUST g KVA- t Y� 11:01•� 33 x: 1'" --r _________\ al A Q?> milli • • ,,,,:„.1, ,,,,,„„ , ,.,,,k, , r,,,, fey, i.,, 4.,._ , 4..p, _,,sHAD ,ff.. , /, 4„...„,„„,,,,.. t4pr ., be ,,,,':' '''''" ff.' '. 00 with, / 11111 011::7:":''' 4.7. FAE- t ■ ,. ■ ORTFT-D7�KOT• N allir NTS NO-11111 jjjAç ,,JIHI IIMENEll ■ ,....ijii il 11 Ilire III ill:i [ / I co • V 6/96RG 06/2 Parcels Potentially Affected /// See affected lepoortforaffected b CPA96-0002 explanation of criteria. � I�Iy i Areas Zoned J M _p 5 General Commercial CITY OF TIGARD IV� ST al [ 1- f I LOCUST 1 ± T MAPLELEAF ST „ , ( II Q �, I MAPLELEAF ST 1 11 i 4. 4. r / ST OAK ST OAK L L PINE ST gal . PINE ST 1 ■ • I I F s SPRUCE ST ' } ; �_ _1 I SPRUCE ST Li -----nc____ THORN ST __ - .________4 _____ r 1:1'''( . , [ STE\,E _ ST I illh7,4.: j ) ( .c-3, ■ ■ \ , ti 1 "IL I I II 0 CD is -I \c/).- W a .}'Nig / \ -/ ( .7 1 Mill I, n, ■ �.No — im ;,,,,,„1 N-I W . 06/26/96 Parcels Potentially Affected byproposal�pN°odtfo affected • by CPA96-0002 explanation of criteria. g Areas zoned `, i `_� General Commeraal CITY OF TIGARD -F-1 H . _Th J ST OAK f I-1 1 PINE _ ST SPRUCE T°,' U I 0 F ST V� �� VI ' 3; _ ; 1> a- 4_11 MI , r r ,..,:,,,,,,,,i,r• 41,-""::":1,-,ii"'-::::- Alt:-..HR43,:g50; -;:a-';:::tR-t.1:'. 4 ,,,,,.„,„...,,..,„,kov.i.gffigoim IIIII / kid ' _ 1: s,'c . -.'43W1::' ' „ ..+' '. 8 Mil • 3 FI k �p 4 • + `' R lye '.." t �� d .. zr jic 3 Y yy , 4a 46' d"C '71:V5 y(n�h'it�. ...• .�,EKE ym. y3' •I -1 — BAYLOR ST • it f •4�- 1 06/26/96 ATTACHMENT A -- Parcels Potentially Affected � �� aaof affected Ab CPA96-0002 explanation of criteria. ' w1i�i Y Areas Zoned •� Index Mapes Commercial CITY OF TIGARD ••, Ain" 1 4 I 0 Jraip Pailliami . ""'"ni. 1 ■e:� •• ::.J■; ; .11.---m6-7115,. j1L, . IN IN r i r- im A &Jag • "am, NET , ,,;.; ■,----onfigi 4■ — -., 4.4 Wen .ra... III Mr.11111110ASM *74\_ 1 I g4 (: / mi tb _a 11111111 , > ____I tit ... .wimi,rAlli". 171 111 17-1 iptlippli.... 0 I I' J‘ : 1 110.7A;411k It- , LI +. :,,.a .14.2 1 -J ; B E _ t4# imb' III ,--:Z.:. ..14. I MIMI '..17L5\\). I MI ithili . 1-- - ► • l ,4 :.. rili'D" , riricwam i --1 L , mil r ; _Aar, e 17/ 4—'4 4 ; r-1 _� • I ,W % it J ■A • "1- 1 u ;I 1, � irEw will 1 : .4, II ? P, 1 Piet_41 OSP P & 1 A „, ......aph 41 ,4,1 / ymkawc- t A d klai il ' ° •'° a'1 NW .+ / . 1--- = �1 I _ , et.• \ \ • , I , i ._ . rA-Tdu I { 1 06/26/96 Pparcels Potential) Afifected ' ona.Parcels potentially affected Y b I. for staff by CPA96-0002 8 Areas Zoned �s l� �., ._�_ General Commercial O TI Map 1 •CITY OF TIGARD A). C.# / 0 0 � � i��' i /� S.W.NEAVE STREET Ili 1111111111 p r MI op° ' --6'''':!....Vi''91 V 4:: i, ,wr • Ar...t. IA it1,-, • lita iiitilitliti.iiiiiiihrIliii.:.,'..!,1111 ,ir ,)14 j'll If>°'P ilyiii.,), -4.3-,. ' c.■14 pck 0 4.1.1,:1,',,!,'.111=,:li--,,!ti-.:-I:liiiiii;',;-.11.;:pir''' ,... .,1:!,:!!!!!!':'!::::::::!:-!-.'i:;:•:::::::,:r.i..,1...- g - , *#,Vt Ar *t 4 DR, j �` ..' Do a=3 (fl II ...,„,. ....„....„,„„., ::::::::::,... :::,„, ....„.„...,...... :,. * ...,...„_ :,,,, ,.,„. „,,,:„:„._..„:„„,,,,,,,,,„:„:,,,,,..„:„,,„,- .: , „....::::,:„...„.„#:„.,,,,.:.,..:-:_„:::.,:....,„:,., . .11 ;1 :„—/r . RHAM Rn „Amp,i i,,",„,,,,,,-„,:,:41,04% , kftai,,,,%,,,,- ,.,,,,,,, '„„:„:;;:, r y 4) .ate + i f : * � ., �d� S— I1 TAN IIIP / 1 �� KEN_ST 1\ - 1 u) 06/26/96 Parcels Potentially Affected Parcels potentially affected Potentially �� bSee Staff report for A� by CPA96-0002 explanation of criteria. �l�i �Ko w General Commercial CITY OF TIGARD Map 2 .,. , :„:„.„),,,,,,viv.r„:„.„:„:„T„,,,,, 1 / \ ' (( ; ,. i-- < VEN .II ::,:„..fri/p.,,,,„,„:,,,,:„.„,,,,.,4,-,,,-.,-,,,,,. '',?.i.tiio ENE 111111111 EUNT H GABDEN PARK PL rp _ 111111.11F , INS 1 1 „Ilekkitiritqll } HILL j('(�'�J� 3 J, 1110101•, Tx. 4' 4 -..,. ,,,,,.,,,,:,",,,,,,,,4:, ,,,4 ,t, " 42'. .,..--, MGM —±1[LI '4:4;'::;:t fa'.4 !4,1 ..,, „,,,:'-,,j! -i -,:4,,,.-,-;:/- AN 1r"4.41111:srAlifliiAki "tir y i "ems e-' '°' t g F` ��I "��11 ipl fti� g„ I &s A „„r..,,,,,,,?:,,... ,,,t.a. s"„iiitt,,,sultr,,ii.,. _:,,,..,, -Nkt.,:e , ;:. ,,,,,,,,.,:,:,,„„,„,.„,,,, ., ,tte,, '\ ■ ,,,. Mil 1/EWTERR I//71/'''' '''''. r V '„i 7 ,,''',,. .402iitillrH? I A mum � �,---- �ANTERRLI .11 �i Parcels Potentially Affected //// by CPA960002 criteria. • w ��.Map 3 •-• I., .:. .. _ •., , 4 . . 4 ■ , ** 0: Plo 0,e4 A. lir OA *I / re ..0_ ,,,, , , _ 4 At , .- • .... -41p4 , ,,,, , .4 4i. , • 41 ..,- .,,,,/ ,4t. ,... ,frilo, 4 .4 4, _ ,., , • fik 0 . s 40t* ''74PIF ..' ' 1W411 — 11111GRAN, , . ,4 4 k■ 4 CT alkCTAI , / '‘P .4 ## 1 II, o� ili(< ' ' II(' • A.011 if* — - t 1 STW‘r. Y * * 1 ''': ' ' - ' '' W OS..* S 1111% 1p . r „A_ : , lair* , ,:,, ,,, ., . 4,_•,• 1■_ , , t", , . , , . ,..: ; ,,,,,,,..... , _ .,,,. 4 # , -4* ,,, ' ,,i, -- . 4 " ,?,Cs-- ) N ,, ,,,. . .. .,„ , , , , *s,N . \ ,,,,; ,, ,,,, .,., ,%. ,,, , , 4,, , . ffected Is Dotentially a parceooma- • 1.Nnt7- See of arrterria s.„explanation explan Zoned 1 Affected zon raa Areas l corms • Affe ,,,,,,,,,e3.0 General 1 , ..11.iiQPitt Potentially ls Po 96_0002 :„..,...,,i,..-, . . , Parcels CPmaAp by 4 LOCUST • 41140, (.7..,1->: - 4 \ "rill?' t,i,,E,,i-,; 0,11 (4, -----o. TIGARD ,-. ,.,:'S'="7.: 41, Ask CITY -F Ploilk-, ,d 1141161-4AN?„, r,,l-',,,A-,..ja laNgtihtt OltA CAVAIL Itigiksighk'' . .0 140 WILA■k 1'4%1 14111t Mill "'il. 4 stAD yr'V;:::il\I-5':'''''': ,Z9/r Ilb■ milikki woliis140.11„ oi; / ,,, 3, „,,...,:ot,,,..:',.:4- ,, ,,„ . „..,,„ _ ''' 1ft:. 1:'''''' 11 . .. , ,..... ,,,,,,,.....- , , ....,:',Dt. '... --,:-: C.,:,.:V,?-i,!'40,r,±%,44# Mil 111 _, -,,,,„,„. • . ,. •••.1• , •„4„..-- ,,,,,,., ,,,,,,,., , .:1,.,,,,,,„.„-- --,-- 110\ IL_ ;.1 '•,.?•m,,, ,.,.7. ,,,,,,, ,, •,--i7 , : --' ''':-: /--:, i 6 MI IIII 4-,:•-•:-.÷±.a-''' / Rai NI ..._ ;:am• Eon 1 OTA ' DAK NMI ,:mill =II • ill 4 , IIIII A SI N 1.....1 II'!! IIII iii Immo 01!_iv,? NO" 11 11 Illjur INII.L , 1--- I<r DR 111 - \111R1111.---1-11,11r11111 III 1111.115, , 1 1 — Ng%evati,,,,, --1 • V 13 116AI 111 06/26/96 Parcels Potentially Affected /// S proposal.osal.Note: affected by CPA96-0002 explanation of criteria. i Areas Zoned F •� I map 5 till 4 General Commercial .CITY OF TIGARD map ST �.�� --1 �Q 1 al N - mot- 1 . LOCUST M u_ MAPLELEAF ST Q e ill II MAPLELEAF v- -_, J oo 4,4. i r , ST OAK ST 2 / , i L ji [--- 1 PINE ST •INE ST J • 11 SPRUCE ST SPRUCE ST____r______TH air I i I ------7;:- ! ( THORN ST [ II STEM ST iii ,Vii„. O _____ Milk l _.,j ( co wyk, Will Eft. Q • H ' 1 1 - INI \-,i,'!!: 1 1 !-u I I N . A 06/26/96 Parcels Potentially Affected /// by i for affected See Staff report bCPA96-0002 explanation of criteria. 4ill TIGARD Areas Zoned { Map-p 6 General Commercial T--] 1 , - -1 I . , . CITY OF IGARD IV� OAK ST PINE ST SPRUCE — SL-- 1 -- ST au illr1111 ■ __.,-.z:::;;;- ''''' 1‘ MOM. I . . . y . ! 1 I - .. /// i_' i 1'''is 1 ■ — __/ el --' , ST E � 1 I ■ '1 r { ' I _■ A_ , 1111 BAYLOR ST illi I --j a— MIFil ,J 11 71 I : 1- 06/26/96 4(2/ii(' (''AC fkSG --f P - Fauns -� t bA & AN CO, a,VI 213 -�-�c (i�'t-'=tee .�,.-�� 2 cry �� l�.� ,e. • AL) ►1.0'L..�G�.P/; 4�V`�"Ui....,y I `CL Q..1.� ;a.,ti.�,-� ,L•-..�._ ,,•--t ee{ - r E! 4JU �- - B /-f" G'-a'ce ? (AILL c✓/ GAD u7 — / cQ , ,..:-/l../t'` c,,, -,<.-ee ' _ G CC)S-1. f/ts s S /I/NO c — CA-et�7ti J Post-It'routing request pad 7664 ROUTING - REQUEST Please READ To f-\k--)iV HANDLE N C4)% ❑ APPROVE LJ fl ✓ and FORWARD ✓ ❑ RETURN Ain ❑ KEEP OR DISCARD 0(L {� 1 I REVIEW WITH ME Date 121 13 19 S From Vi1L.,o • CITY OF TIGARD PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES RESIDENTIAL CITY OF TIGAR OREGON DATE: 121-7 I`1-c STAFF: "4 APPLICANT: T\ Ak_CA,J. Cc . AGENT: Phone: ( ) 5 ^c E ' Phone: ( ) PROPERTY LOCATION ADDRESS: 770 ( Sw Pte" Sr A i1Co(.:7; (! 6, TAX MAPITAX LOT: I 1 3( CA egupie NECESSARY APPLICATION(S): A i. �s /t-4 A""t-----,`16".-^- A-/c PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A . r -t-P. /..�ti " n1,6 Za P GL,^-\ M e 0 .-k r ,s;�--f �=s�.� [L-i Z "i /1,(1,0t u - 14-1 Ca- (").;Ns.-T--I 1e s: 3. f !Z-ZS d IJ 41;fie 17,,t_b COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: / -tit .OL .25; 4 L. ZONING DESIGNATION: ,.-' (`Z- CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT FACILITATOR: TEAM AREA: G Sf PHONE: (503) • ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS -_ - Minimum lot size: sq. ft. Average lot width: Maximum building height: ft. Setbacks: front ft. side ft. rear ,tt'garage ft. corner ft. from street. Maximum site coverage: % Minimum Ian sca t�ed or natural vegetation area: as ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot frontage: 25 feet unless I' 's created through the minor land partition process. Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of . tage or have a minimum 15 foot wide access easement. The depth of all lot all not exceed 2Y2 times the average width, unless the parcel'is less than 1 th times the minimum lot size of the applicable . ing district. (Refer to Code Section 18.164.060 Lots) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conterence Notes Page 1 of 7 Residential App iicanontPlanning Depxtmnm Semen aireets: teet tram the centerline of , • Established areas: feet from • Lower intensity zones: feet, along the site's boundary. • Flag lot: 10 foot side yard setback. • Zero lot line lots: minimum 10 foot separation between buildings. • Multi-family residential building separation: (Refer to Code Section 18.96.030) Accessory structures up to 528 square feet in size may be permitted on lots less than,.2.5 acres in size - 5 foot minimum setba from side and rear lot lines. Accessory structure up to 1000 square feet on parcels of at least 2.5 acres in-size (See applicable zoning district setbacks for primary structures.) BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS • Maximum height of 30 feet in R-1, R-2, R•3.5 and R-4.5 zones. • Maximum height of 35 feet in R-7 and R-12 zones. • Maximum height of 45 feet in the R-25 zone. • Maximum height of 60 feet in the R-40 zone. ; . FLAG LOT BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS Maximum height of 1 t/: stories or 25 feet, whichever is less in most zones; 2111 stories, or 35 feet in R-7, R-12, R-25 or R-40 zone provided that the standards of Code Section 18.9p'J30(B) are met. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATION The Net Residential Units allowed on a part)tular site may be calculated by dividing the net area of the developable land by th minimum number of square feet required per dwelling unit as specified by the applicable zoning designation. Net development arei is calculated by subtracting the following/land area(s) from the gross site area: i 1. All sensitive lands areas including: a. Land within the 1X00 year floodplain. b. Slopes exceedidg 25%. c. Drainagewa . 2. Land dedicated f r park purposes. 3. Public right-of- ay dedication. 4. All land to provided for private streets (includes accessways through parking areas). (Refer to ode Section 18.92) BLOCKS When block I ngths greater than 600 feet are permitted, pedestrianlbikeways shall be provided through the block. (Refer to de Section 18.164.040) RESIDENTIAL NSITY TRANSFER The sty of Tigard allows a Residential Density Transfer of up to 25% of the units that could otherwise have been developed on se itive lands areas listed in (1.) above which may be applied to the developable portion of the site. ( efer to Code Section 18.92.030). It is the responsibility of the applicant for a residential development application to provide a detailed calculation for both the permitted residential density and the requested density transfer. CITY OF TIGARO Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 7 Residential ApiicationiPlanninq Department Section / negaraiess or the allowed housing density in a zoning district, any property within 100 feet of a designated established are not be developed at a density greater than 125 percent of the maximum Comprehensive Plan designation (not zoning) of the adja parcel. Transition area applies to any property which is a designated established area. The subject property is designated as area. The subject property is adjoined by established/developing/areas to the north south, east and w FUTUR i • . 1 ' XTENSION OF STREETS 1. A future street plan shall: a. Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or partition. The plan shall show pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division and shall incl boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include other parcels within 200 feet surrounding and adjac to the proposed land division. b. Identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilil on or within 500 feet of the site. 2. Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to i boundary lines of the tract to be developed. (Refer to Code Section 18.164.030) RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SOLAR ACCESS REQUIREMENTS All subdivisions and minor partitions are subject to solar access requirements. These requirements state that a minimum of 80% all lots created must be oriented for solar accessibility. The basic standard, which determines solar accessibility, requires that 80% of total number of proposed lots: / 1. Demonstrate a north-south dimension of at least 90 feet. 2. Demonstrate a front lot line orientation within 30 degrees of a e east-west axis. The total or partial exemption of a site from the solar access req ' ement may be approved for the following reasons: 1. East, west or north slopes steeper than 20%. 2. Off-site shade sources (structures, vegetation, topography). 3. On-site shade sources (vegetation). Adjustments allowing a reduction of the 80% s r lot design requirement may be made for the following reasons: 1. Reduced density or an increased ost of at least five percent due to either: a. East. west or north pe greater than 10%. b. Significant natura eature. c. Existing road o otting pattern. d. Public ease 1.-nt or right-of-way. 2. Reduction in it .ortant development amenities. 3. Pre-existin' hade (vegetation). PLEASE.NOTE: aos and text are required which are sufficient to show that the development complies with the solar desion standards, . ..: ..:............ .... or that specific lots should be exempted or adjusted out. The following items shall be included in the analysis: • CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 7 Residential AopiicationiPlanoing Depa+smem Section 2. Protected solar building lines and relevant building site restrictions, if applicable. • 3. For the purpose of identifying trees related to exemption requests, a map showing existing trees which are at least 30 tall and over 6 inches diameter at a point 4 feet above grade shall be submitted. This map shall include the followini a. Height. ,% b. Diameter. c. Species. d. A statement declaring that they are to be retained. 4. Copies of all private restrictions relating to solar access. The design characteristics of a developed solar-oriented lot are high levels of wintertime sun striking the south walls and roofs the house, house orientation maximizing south window area, and a south-sloping roof area. To achieve this, one may utilize t following: 1. Protected Solar Building Line • The solar building line must: - a. Be oriented to within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis. b. Provide a minimum distance of 70 feet from the middle of the'lot to the south property line. c. Provide a minimum distance of 45 feet from the northernmost buildable boundary of the subject lot to the nor property line. j / 2. Performance Options - There are two performance option 'which may be utilized as follows: a. The house to be oriented within 30 degrees of an ast-west axis and have at least 80% of the ground floor's soul wall protected from shade. b. At least 32% of the glass and 500 square et of the roof area face south and be protected from shade. Please contact the Building Division for further nformation regarding the Protected Solar Building Line and Performance Options relating to building height/and construction. PARKING AND ACCESS All parking areas and driveways must be aved. - • Single family: Requires 2 off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit. • Multiple famil : Requires 1.5 parking spaces per unit for 1 bedroom. Requires 2 parking spaces per unit for 1+ bedrooms. Multi-family dwelling unit with more than 10 required spaces shall provide parking for the use of guests and shall consist of 15% of the total required p acing. (Refer to Code Section 18.106.030) No more than 40°' of required spaces may be designated andlor dimensioned as compact spaces. Parking stalls shall be dimensioned as follows: Standard parking space dimensions: 8 ft. 8 inches X 18 ft. • Compact parking space dimensions: 8 ft. X 15 ft. • Handicapped parking: All parking areas shall provide appropriately located and dimensioned disabled person arking spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to be provided, as well as the parking stall dimensions, are mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A handout is available upon request. A handicapped parking space symboi shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be posted. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 7 Residential ApplirauoniPlamdng Oeoartmem Section olLyt:le rdLK$ are required for multi-family, commercial and industrial developments. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas prote from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided on the basis of one space for e 15 required vehicular parking spaces. Minimum number of accesses: Minimum access width: Maximum access width: Minimum pavement width: REQUIRED WALKWAY LOCATION ' Within all attached housing (except two-family dwellings) and multi-family developments, each residential dwelling shall be connec by walkway to the vehicular parking area, common open space and recreation facilities. CLEAR VISION AREA The City requires that clear vision areas be maintained between three and eight feet in height at roadldriveway, roadlrailroad, road/road intersections. The size of the required clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification. (Refer to Code Section 18.102) BUFFERING AND SCREENING ' In order to increase privacy and to either reduce or eliminate adverse noise or visual impacts between adjacent developmen especially between different land uses, the City requires landscaped buffer areas along certain site perimeters. Required buffer are are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be ,occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees a shrubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also required; these are often advisable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may only be occupied by vegetatio fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Communi' Development Code. (Refer to Code Chapter 18.100) / The required buffer widths which are applicable to you/proposal area are as follows: ft. along north boundary' ft. along east boundary. ft. along south boundaryy. ft. along west boundary. In addition, sight obscuring screening is required along STREET TREES Street trees are required for all developments fronting on a public or private street as well as driveways which are more than 10C feet in length. Street trees must b./placed either within the public right-of-way or on private property within six feet of the right-of-way boundary. Street trees must have a minimum caliper of at least two inches when measured four feet above grade. Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on the branching width of the proposed tree species at maturity. Further information on reguullatlons affecting street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. A minimum of one tree fof every seven parking spaces must be planted in and around all parking areas in order to provide a P 9 p vegetative canopy effect. Land aped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These desig eatures may include the use of landscaped berms, decorative walls, and raised planters. For detailed information on design require ents for parking areas and accesses. (Refer to Code Chapters 18.100, 18.106 and 18.108) SIGNS Sign permits must be obtained prior to installation of any sign in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is availabl upon request. Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part a development review application. Alternatively, a Sign Code Exception application may be filed for review before the Hearings Of ' er. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 7 Residential an ticatro®Plammg Oecartmem Section SENSITIVE LANDS __ r" The Code provides regulations for lands which are potentially unsuitable for development due-teas within the 100-year floodplaii natural drainageways, wetland areas, on slopes in excess of 25 percent, or on unstable ground. Staff will attempt to preliminari identify sensitive lands areas at the pre-application conference based-on available information. HOWEVER, the responsibility precisely identify sensitive lands areas, and their boundaries:--r(the responsibility of the applicant. Areas meeting the definitions sensitive lands must be clearly indicated on plans-stibmitted with the development a_oolication. (Refer to Code Chapter 18.84) Chapter 18.84 also provides_re ations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. Residential development i prohibited within floattillirreis. In most cases, dedication of 100-year floodplain areas to the City for park and open space areas i require a condition of the approval of a development application. NARRATIVE --N.., 1 The applicant shall submit a narrative which provides findings for all icable approval stands )I allure to provide a narrative a adequately address criteria would be reason to consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. Applicant shoull review code for applicable criteria. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING The applicant shall notify all property owners within 250 feet and the appropriate CIT Facilitator of their proposal. A minimum o 2 weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. RECYCLING 18.116 ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: V A PP i.;.rA i ! s i Ca u-c...S A AD,P S A a A PP t.:(A 6 LC. 6.----0. PA":) .4.,-,,C). D t-l/E1 i..s..c. .4 C.4/3 c CR..ti�E&A y s A I7 f2-t 1,-,. • i+-q. A n i• S : S ,,A..D•z..-n.5 71 r:7 t��4 1.-'d:..,(; CE-i TZ:2:,A S%c,..ity /A-5— i_.,.cS (3 r ' ,' s 5 IN * C4-,.4 R. i--a‘ ; I • i.1 (z 2-i- 1 ) S,7 1 t„, ./. ( (T,.,c x.,4.3.,--G H cria-c, C1 SG. !t-ti. \) (o. 3 . 3 . Z -7 .i i g . 1 . ) / x-. 2 .'2_ ,LINO tz.1. 1 n r:m:0,u.K -,6 0.* 1 :5: •7 .3 v ').641L3' l4'-tA . DEN/. C.:,O t' / 22 .°4o 4 G Z. C.60 -i 2 -c4,0 (n..,...s , PLs,NN."i.; 2,�k=∎ iS , r AX:--r:..t-5 RAn.SP. cxczLc`1.€S o. f ti ;'.".2-c.c 4.c�..q c qC1 w h PROCEDURE Administrative staff review. Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. Public hearing before the Planning Commission. Sc Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission making a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. An additional public hearing shall be held by the City Council. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 7 Residential.',00iicatnnaPlannng Department Section APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS AU applications must be accepted by a Planning Division staff member of the Community Development Department at Tigard City H offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications submitted by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planning Division acceptan may be returned.. Applications submitted after 4:30 P.M. on Thursday will be batched for processing with the following week applications. Applications will NOT be accepted after 3:00 P.M. on Fridays or 4:30 on other days. Maps submitted with an application shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 8.5 by 11 inches. One 8.5 inch by 11 inch map a proposed project should be submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision. Application wit unfolded maps shall not be accepted. The Planning Division and Engineering Division will perform a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or addition, copies of the submitted materials are required. The administrative decision or public hearing will typically occur approximately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as bein complete by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions ma take additional time to review. Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public hearing A 10, to 20 day public appeal period follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard . A basic flow chart which illustrates the review process is available from the Planning Division upon reques' This pre-application conference and the notes of the conference are intended to inform the prospective applicant of the primar Community Development Code requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City staf and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. PLEASEN> TE The conference and notes cannot cover all Code requirements and aspects of good site planning that should apply to the development of your site plan. Failure of the staff to provide information required by the Code shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements. It is recommended that a prospective applicant either obtain and read the Community Development Code or ask any questions of City staff relative to Code requirements prior to submitting an application. Additional pre-application conference(s) islare required if an application(s) islare to be submitted more than six months following this pre-application conference, unless the additional conference(s) is deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division. PREPARED BY: RA--? �✓nLJ.,� CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION PHONE: (503) 639-4171 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 7 of 7 Residential a ocicationtPlammg Department Section CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPLICATION CHECKLIST CITY OF TIGARD The items on the checklist below are required for the succesful completion of your application submission requirements. This checklist identifies what is required to be submitted with your application. This sheet MUST be returned and submitted with all other applicable materials at the time you submit your land use application. See your application for further explanation of these items or call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. Staff: ; VA t.,Q Date: 12-11( I APPLICATION & RELATED DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE ,/ MARKED ITEMS I A) Application form (1 copy) ❑ B) Owner's signature/written authorization ❑ C) Title transfer instrument/or grant deed ❑ D) Applicant's statement No. of Copies 2S- E) Filing Fee $ 72.1,co z cktz.,s, (7737 10 A 'SITE-SPECIFIC MAP(S)/PLAN(S) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE ,/MARKED ITEMS I A) Site Information showing: No. of Copies 1. Vicinity map 2. Site size & dimension(T`/6":); 6A L tGS"Z`pa4'� Cf ��1 PoP -o.�S oG p.�,c�ci5 3. Contour lines (2 ft at 0-10°/0 or 5 ft for grades > 10%) ❑ 4. Drainage patterns, courses, and ponds ❑ 5. Locations of natural hazard areas including: ❑ (a) Floodplain areas ❑ (b) Slopes in excess of 25°'° ❑ (c) Unstable ground ❑ (d) Areas with high seasonal water table ❑ (e) Areas with severe soil erosion potential ❑ (f) Areas having severely weak foundation soils ❑ 6. Location of resource areas as shown on the Comprehensive Map Inventory including: ❑ (a) Wildlife habitats ❑ (b) Wetlands t3 7. Other site features: (a) Rock outcroppings ❑ (b) Trees with 6" + caliper measured 4 feet from ground level 8. Location of existing structures and their uses 9. Location and type of on and off-site noise sources ❑ 10. Location of existing utilities and easements ❑ 11 . Location of existing dedicated right-of-ways Nry LANG USE APPUCATICN J UST PACE 1 OF 5 B) Site Development Plan Indicating: No. of Copies / 1. The proposed site and surrounding properties ❑ 2. Contour line intervals ❑ 3. The location, dimensions and names of all: (a) Existing & platted streets & other public ways and easements on the site and on adjoining properties ❑ (b) Proposed streets or other public ways & easemen on the site ❑ (c) Alternative routes of dead end or proposed streets that require future extension / ❑ 4. The location and dimension of: (a) Entrances and exits on the site / ❑ (b) Parking and circulation areas ❑ (c) Loading and services area ❑ (d) Pedestrian and bicycle circ ation ❑ (e) Outdoor common areas ❑ (f) Above ground utilitie ❑ 5. The location, dimension setback distances of all: (a) Existing perman- t structures, improvements, utilities, and easements w 'ch are located on the site and on adjacent property w' in 25 feet of the site ❑ (b) Propos-• structures, improvements, utilities and easements on t ' site ❑ 6. Storm • .inage facilities and analysis of downstream conditions ❑ 7. Sani -ry sewer facilities ❑ 8. T - location areas to be landscaped ❑ 9. he location and type of outdoor lighting considering crime prevention techniques ❑ 0. The location of mailboxes 0 11. The location of all structures and their orientation ❑ 12. Existing or proposed sewer reimbursement agreements a C) Grading Plan Indicating: No. of-Copies The site development plan shall include a grading plan at thejarbe scale as the site analysis drawings.and shall contain the following-information: 1 . The location and extent to which grading w i- ke place indicating: (a) General contour lines o (b) Slope ratios ❑ (c) Soil stabilization proposal(s)! 0 (d) Approximate time of yeas for the proposed site development o 2. A statement from a registed engineer supported by data factual substantiating: (a) Subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering report 0 (b) The validity of sanitary sewer and storm drainage service proposals ❑ (c) Tall problems will be mitigated and how they will be mitigated ❑ LAND 11SE APPLICVTlON/LIST PACE 2 OF 5 D) Architectural Drawings Indicating: • No.-of Copies - The site development plan proposal shall include: 1. Floor plans indicating the s• . - ootage of all structures proposed for use • • e 2. Typical - - • . ion drawings of each structure E) Landscape Plan Indicating: No. copies The landscape plan shall be drawn at the same scale of th • e analysis plan or a larger scale if necessary and shall indicate: 1. Description of the irrigation systerp-vii erh a applicable ❑ 2. Location and height of fens;fiuffers and screenings ❑ 3. Location of terraces 1cs, shelters, play areas, and common open spaces ❑ 4. Location, type ' e and species of existing and proposed plant materials ❑ 5. Landsca narrative which also addresses: Soil conditions ❑ (b) Erosion control measures that will used ❑ F) Sign Drawings: ❑ Sign drawings shall be s fitted in accordance with Chapter 18.114 of the Code as pa the Site Development Review or prior to obtaining a Building P it to construct a sign. G) Traffic Generation Estimate: C Sc '-t. Q^c� ❑ H) Preliminary Partition/Lot Line Adjustment Map Indicating: No. of Copies 1. The owner of the subject parcel / ❑ 2. The owner's authorized agent ❑ 3. The map scale (20,50,100 or 200 feet-1) inch north arrov✓and date ❑ 4. Description of parcel location and boundaries ..y ❑ 5. Location, width and names of streets, easements and other public ways within and adjacent to the parcel ; - ❑ 6. Location of all permanent buildings on a¢d'within 25 feet of all property lines ❑ 7. Location and width of all water courses ❑ 8. Location of any trees within,6-""or greater caliper at 4 feet above ground level /% 0 9. All slopes greater than 25°0 ❑ 10. Location of existing utilities and utility easements ❑ 11. For majorJ,arid partition which creates a public street: (a) ' e proposed right-of-way location and width ❑ ( A scaled cross-section of the proposed.street plus any reserve strip ❑ 1 -, Any applicable deed restrictions ❑ 3. Evidence that land partition will not preclude efficient future land division where applicable ❑ LAND USE APPLICATION I UST PACE 3 OF 3 I) Subdivision Preliminary Plat Map and Data Indicating: No. of Copies 1. Scale equaling 30,50,100 or 200 feet to the inch and limited to one phase per sheet ❑ ;' 2. The proposed name of the subdivision c( 3. Vicinity map showing property's relationship to arterial and collector streets ❑ 4. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of the owner, developer,/ engineer, surveyer and designer (as applicable) ❑ 5. Date of application ❑ 6. Boundary lines of tract to be subdivided ❑ 7. Names of adjacent subdivision or names of recorded owners of adjoining parcels of un-subdivided land j ❑ 8. Contour lines related to a City-established benchmark/at 2-foot intervals for 0-10% grades greater than 10% f ❑ 9. The purpose, location, type and size of all the following (within and adjacent to the proposed subdivision): / (a) Public and private right-of-ways and easements o (b) Public and private sanitary and storm sewer lines ❑ (c) Domestic water mains including fire:l•iydrants o (d) Major power telephone transmissi n lines (50,000 volts or greater) a (e) Watercourses / o (f) Deed reservations for parks, open spaces, pathways and other • land encumbrances parks, ❑ 10. Approximate plan and profiles p proposed sanitary and storm sewers with grades and pipe sizes indicated on the plans o 11. Plan of the proposed waterdistribution system, showing pipe sizes and the location of valves and"fire hydrants ❑ 12. Approximate centerline/profiles showing the finished grade of all streets including street exter.ions for a reasonable distance beyond the limits of the proposed subdivision a 13. Scaled cross sections of proposed street right-of-way(s) a 14. The location of/all areas subject to inundation or storm water overflow a 15. Location, width & direction of flow of all water courses & drainage-ways ❑ 16. The proposed lot configurations, approximate lot dimensions and lot numbers. Where lots are to be used for purposes other than residential, it shall be indicated upon such lots. a 17. The,-location of all trees with a diameter 6 inches or greater measured at -,feet above ground level, and the location of proposed tree plantings a 18. ,The existing uses of the property, including the location of all structures and the present uses of the structures, and a statement of which structures are to remain after platting a 9. Supplemental information including: (a) Proposed deed restrictions (if any) o (b) Proof of property ownership a (c) A proposed plan for provision of subdivision improvements o 20. Existing natural features including rock outcroppings, wetlands & marsh areas 0 21 . If any of the foregoing information cannot practicably be shown on the preliminary plat, it shall be incorporated into a narrative and submitted with the application 0 LAND USE APPLICATION J UST PACE 4 OF 3 J) Solar Acces f u ations: K) Other Information No. of Copies . c SC`A./A4 ) of C k 4 A ,J 0 Ci ,✓r,2*'��p{ ✓J 2i? 0i 5 2:•3...: r.2-o Po sE O i RA'1-fi`C AllS (47 . A c 5' .//4—trt 1-<c.no . L- 1 ..�� h:loginloanyAmasters J<1dist.mst Niay 23, 1995 LANO LSE APPLICATION/LIST PACE 5 OF 5 • ,:`,„ 7,77.7.. <5 77:: 7t:?.....7.; A• 1.17 , • 7...k..7 . .- d .... . . . • d . ,. ........ . • .3;7. •".: 39 I3„4:•31 '•':J ., - :• ; ,. „ , • 9 9 • . ... ‘... \ • 33.'„Z (..:•.*:: • • z 22 ..,, ti ........ CI) \ .... 1 AV • 30 . . - 1.9.% ..I.i) .... ..!.•:.•3 9; 9 9.. ;9 .1.• :ID ., ., A 6 N. •3.61. I•3 0. 0 r 6:0,60 4 CC 39 9. ,9 9i 9 9 1 • (...) C.:•3) "....° \ . , 1...... . 1„,..„: .... 1.............., / ''''). C.) i fr it''I,. ............41 ...) 6 a — 33,„„,„3,0„33' :4 ir?.39.'9. 9 9:• ,i a 9.00 9 . 3 4.3° 9 3 ._.._ . I •#..: - .. I 1 .,„ t I i.i i • ..' ,...,1 r.) <Di.- .. ), )1/4.. 4, \ V. V... '•'.I..) v.. ,,V 0 •::..: V) N\ ■;31' 0 —. 9 ..k,„ 9) 3.: rs333 -3 s' ••••• N.:\ s ' iNN. 0 .51: •••••••••• 41 I ,.., .i.•.I.. i, . 4) 3 \ 1 3233, .0 t .., 10. .. tr• 1, •. V' I 1696E03Z 1 , 0. 0.3.• III••••••°'• ,2,.....• 0 CD 0 `-- .54. •fr'ct.s......,..,` c ,---,,, n1I NINN°V....33........... a ‘ * 63 t., fii .....,N • '4"'Id„.4., s'...C• 9 „ (,),9 93 i • 9 ° ' g..3,0 ... 0, - • ,....0g .0 d 4, • --99III t 1 cr. I .0. gdf-......,„ •••••1•01•0: I:d ' (.....0) i'd i „ Ii0 00•1„ iik0didig i •••---•••••••••. '3 9 ..i„, L, I • , N . • 9 a .,) •tst 9 ' 33 V-1d " 1 0 0.0•••00 0 0 d: ., . ..• 0, d • 0 kii d d •..., .• it _ gd: d -• ig i 91. *99 S 3 .1.3..)3.3(..3;"'i.•3'./.. !...):Ai..10...0ii 0 •.. ,.. 04 . t 9 r „994 i rcro . 9 19; r,9 9 • _.....0.0 ..„,„„ 0 6 r i 33.r•-• Iv . 6.6 0 I Nr; 1 t 2 :f), , l• C.:). .1 i .....;I C.) (4) It) i 0 ,4,,,, I -- ..i■ ....tz ,,,, • 1,r ',.....0 ..1....1 l'fr a t .4;', ,,,,,,I (....'.'fr. , ,-•, '9 14■ S. ••Z'...-.).C.:i 1 I ; .t,i<•:It '• •• I ILI 0 .i... .,.t .A. 6 I 62 20 i 66 1 r I, IV : . : •. • I ta II''': t Nvr 0 3z 2• 6 . i I 63 2 6 i 633 0 31 0 • r•••• i• 6 j v 6136 r r.0 t3 .••• .......) 4,-,D 1. ...Y(.;t6. v. . .• i •,ii...i. :0 ....0 -i ..... , . i. . 0,, •d d. -... IiI, I LL I •.. : •i idg (j) i 9 L../ t,i) '',..,. V• 99 ;1 .... ...... , . • 06 . 1 i'r fi) 3366,306 •6 11 1/5.26 6 6 3' 161....i I 0 V r 6: t • 0 2 i . •6 63 0, /3333 .I ....0 / •.• 2 201 e„, .• : :• . ,..,..■ , I e.i".. i tr i g‘g ,,, .•• ' VI I i r'"I 1 •.' ,. 3 13 32 r ,,:rt 2 .1. C3.1 Ik'30,3*.re i° 0 AA L ;:'• .,. c) ,A) 'AAA 9 , i..) 1,-) . . • / •••!). •,, ! • ,at (0 • ! . ' i in • k!....: ,• • 1 , t .4! 1 I ,))....!!!„...):.?---.)— s..<„!9‹t', !!!!!i ‘)•„„),•••! :3 '3 3 I 1 ..4.. ..:1°I-4:41 .4, ' 14 - - fr." fr;°° --'fr-fr'''''frfri 'fr°7--• ''.4#4•42 fr'rt frfrr"fr'''. -01,•"----." .......fr."'"1,-- L G. 1 ri.Z1: i . • . . . : . 0,„ c„, .• . ..:•• ,....) •••••• .... • ,, ! . 1 ' -4m '•••••.• •k.,• I ! ... ..% (•-••,) " • I I . . • . i „,ii 4.0 1 rx.f. ....-.' • "1:2.. ,l,„ f. 1.!,ii •,,,,,,,,,,,/ , • , •0 • I. ! 1,,,0 , !!••••••••• 1 1•••••• I • !,„„ ) , 1 . kti . Ke .• ' Li • i 4•' 1 1,...i i K .,.....: : .,.,:: .. .• : . . k 6 i 1• t i ,.... 90 I 6 2, s 0 I i 61 Lfr 339 49 * 034 7,4 ..7•I' c.......),,,,..4z•• 1 7, : . . ., l it2 62 I r rz, V• ..... • ...... 4:0 •. ..., '.-e. '.I.: -....• 4„,Li .4.,,, .... 4 t -I',. C.,D - • I 4, _ (......0 c;,,,„ t•fr,,,I. ‘,..„( ...4 ....; ,C...) i *,:,,I. kr, CI 3 („9 1 (-9 I (-„„) . ;NJ '`‘ „N t•••, • , - 1 '-'• AI ' 4 i • '0 ••■•■'.. i•.:•• 99 99 9, ' 9.) il 99, ':":" i 0 '"' cr 9 1 91 9 o a I -9, 99 • 91 co . ' i „ :'0 -.„ : 9 1 '—'9 • 9 9 I — ••" ......1—"•:"! oa 1— ''''•• •••!.:"......0.1, ... „ , • .,• •„..., „,„ ,...,k...': I .....;i3 4, (Kit 0 I .1 ()":1 ,•1•• Q i 41(1) 1 14.) c.I i r- I 4......) 1 •,,fr. .1. (4) r- 4'.' Is r -...-.4.0 .."•"••7 9 I3 „„,,,,,......., L,K K c•e AV H i 9 L MS .....,-,.. J 4 r... .. T .. • 9)1 0 9 P , ,.4. 3 i i •'' '3 1 : • • : .. ; .. 1 I 13••'•:: i • • • -k•3 I '3.9 1 /3 • .•••• • i t. 1.A.-. II 1'.. ,.., ,,,,,,,, 4..e. ' ,•i t .4. i t „... 1 ; i, • 11 / . sIl' t• r !v ..... i • ! i V.:', "..,..".... .,,,,,i•,. V •: ,:i .1, , 1 • V. rtV.. 1••••lv I i ‘,..)i ) ,..r. ...,,, ..••• , : 00 g 0. :d.: ;i.:i • ;.,.....4 , •..; „.• :„ ,• • :•• . • . • . . '04 I (........) '..., ... .,„„ • 0 4...i, 1 i..7) •<•4., '.'...1 0 V v i L •-). ,!)!tr., ),,,,,, (2) 'e•••(:).........• i rrir ....; ••i • ' ,....; . t C.:1 •:..... .: t....4 0 tj 9 r... - 0 0 •9 I 9.9 Z".., r c;') 9 9– ' '' 0'.•'$ V) - 1 (-)•••••• • 1 •• i..... E.; (9, •9 i 0 i zDzz i 0.z.z 1 '4". (‘'' • • 1,.., 4 0 :::- 4:4 1• 1 0 (4. 1,0 ,..v.:) 1 2. 0 i.40 II.......4. I 4-...., A (...1.-, i ,),.., , 91 9 9 i -.9 91 :9 ", 99 9 r 4,I"cr. r 26 60 1 tret 10. 6 11: 2 r iv k 2 er-e.._,AD le/07- 7 l� wow,November 28, 1995 Jim Duckett City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Jim, Per our conversation of today,I am submitting a formal request for a pre-application meeting to discuss a possible zoning change. The subject property includes Lot 1600(5.81 acres) and Lot 1700 (1.34 acres)as indicated on the attached site maps. It is my understanding that these lots are currently zoned R-12. The property is currently being used for unsightly storage for the commercial businesses located on the southern portions of each lot. I am proposing a zoning change to R-25 in order to build approximately 50 units of affordable housing on the northern portion of the property. The Arcand Company, a national Low Income Housing Tax Credit(LIHTC)developer and syndicater,has partnered with Tualatin Valley Housing Partners, a Washington County non- profit organization,to purchase and rehabilitate the adjacent property, Hawthorne Villa. Upon rehabilitation completion, Hawthone Villa's 119 units will be converted to and provide much needed affordable housing under the LIHTC program. By adding the adjoining property(Lots 1600 and 1700)to Hawthorne Villa, an additional 50 units of affordable housing can be added to Washington County's limited stock. This endeavor is only feasible if the current zoning can be increased. I can be contacted at(503) 598-9800 if you have any questions. I look forward to hearing from you shortly and am anxious to discuss our ideas in person at our pre-application conference. S'• -r: , Chad I, ' - • er Acquisitions 16101 S.W.72ND AVENUE,SUITE 200 PORTLAND, OREGON 97224-7764 (503)59829800 FAX(503)598-9450 ••• 4 4,40 *„4-•...■.4.;*.tV 4* 1 , T?.. 4NaP''&4. 'ff 0'4'1' .T.„,,,,„,,.., .1„ t, ,,.. .„„, 4 ,„„,,„0. .1Y •-•'- V6 6 1 :M4'e si 414-FT, .,, , 44. •- r't to 9 -7..* k*-7.4 99!-ill ' 4.9... 9.€9.. Tr".. — .€€.9' • • '? _SW.I. i •w. .4 I.:• „.„.,„, , „.„,„1 ' 4 4 204 t ,,*". • 4.404....4 .. ... . 4 . 0 0,•4., . ii°7'1 fi th49446 ' tit 4 4,4 A•A.***.1...:**„.ts ASA'...0.*•*....a.,*.A.X?r„..;*4,,,*.t.°744.444444/ttizt,t4.4 €fla ..140D SO r:1 '. 4'41 ettr I APO.,a 41i s i ..44, t a CAI 14 ,.: 7 4; /44444444 ..".„,: It $4 41 I. >. I I ..a...,:r4•40‘44- : 1 -itt Vag, rt /4 19 k.rouo .3,;Okrilgo k ; 7 r1;. —0,1 4 .....„ . p ...fa Akalli 1*0(1 •a...at.... i • 1 Fltr.P. s 5 twv ft, * ' 74 ..ttsci€ --....• )1V.04.* — +MOO ti tkuo-Ill–- kg;g:s*4 . 1€ 4 .44 1;0 1 4 :4 444:4 4 44). 44!'444444: I 23—8 1 , s ..a 4444 di 44 444 ,- / Z, ,47.44444444.4,4R44,444 I 12 e.1 AttEttitatil 444-44143 41.(Fit 41 w iii..'4,4.1‘. ' M f r - s • 0 ' 444 MIT#4444 Dm.41.4.1...Y trrot kkg tg; ku: ug 1"; D• 1 1'00'; I . 55 5! • 1; 5'55 .i I og Igo, gi "kg' kr; kkr" k kg ;;); 1 1' ; root k yoog ik /41 444: 4.1. 1 k i S C 1 , 88 i - ,4 0'I...;' 1 k kV; * t. Igi.o 44411 444. a p 0 g. kikiktik;—; 1e.4.. TU.0 in A kl; 4 4 424 .55553.54,04*P . I 44144 444 4 , .... • .......41...$4;;;;%''or .- .oti-nr. t -- 9,1. 49 . I i prArrir STREET I c TIF;ARD .r.. I c44:54 :. I 1 C''' ( IZU 1444 44 04- t 1 S 4 36C .: -. ..... ,- ....- pa • ..4 4• 444 • 44.4 4.4 4.4 i2003 34./ ',m• • 4 46164'64' W e ,..) N 1 r. ........... .0.0..-ff .. ...9r4r.x......AL........e. .4%04,4 . : .... ........,/ . 204.6 296.6 i f 160 0 170 ....• • • .., • 5 0144 I J44' t500 1 9 —...... . :, ......... 4.46 A4, : 4 0 0 3(• itt .• t., rr 2 ... • 1 • 4- A i 500 5.- 45- A, I 0 t 0 . ty 1't .. .. • .... 5 5 III II 9 1 3 7,TO 1 6 0 ', 74. itf 't • • ° ... • .... . . .... . ..--, -:., ..... ..,.... .-:.: - ._ 74 .. . _ ........) 1 .... , . , .. ., .., .....A. .....„0,4 * .::: --; 7 02 t ••!:-. • • 0 ) 160600 • . 0..19.c. 4 5 6 20 00 61 of • v (7.1.6r .......sa70 _ _ .. ., — — — — I 1: ..,... „, 23 81 8- .88 --1-,,. ....• ...8 ;,,,, .-.8 .8, 8 8,88 8,88, ..i, 8 t , 8 . .. . ;-;• .. ,•;; 8, ••8.....,8;t:„. ..:, , • k ' " i e' o o I-. ' • •. : ....•-• . A *" . ' "...AAA"AA 1 I _ ......_- ..— 70 wme.,6mw 17 tr 2 3- 3 • • 4.66 • • m „••• : t . mi 1•000 .4944 555 j • : • 5 .. , - .. :1 9 • I.: ad _... _ .....__ ,;,......-1 _ A ...."... .......•• • -•.••• A.9„ 4 1 1 1 1 tf •:, i 16. 1 .45 AL% - 1 , f c --..- .....: f August 28, 1998 4/116 4 �\ Kay Van Sickel m I ' Region 1 Manager CITY OF TIGARD 123 NW Flanders Portland, Oregon 97209-4037 OREGON RE: AUGUST 19, 1998 CORRESPONDENCE • Kay: Thank you for your letter on the I-5/217/Kruse Way project. Your letter raises the question of whether Tigard still supports the project. It is important to state that Tigard remains committed to the full completion of the project. This has been demonstrated by our involvement in the development of the current plan for this key regional intersection. Furthermore, we have shown support in correspondence with our elected officials in Washington D.C. Tigard also amended its Comprehensive Plan to include the "tool box" strategies. However, this commitment must be tempered by the fact that we are limited by the law on what we can condition upon developers. At the conclusion of our meeting in May, I provided you with a letter that reviewed the facts surrounding Tigard's ability to condition dedication for the 72nd Ave./Hwy. interchange. That letter was clear on the fact that such a requirement could not be sustained. I continue to stress that we need to work together to complete the analysis envisioned in our Comprehensive Plan. The City can not simply go out and require dedication without a detailed alignment being determined through a public process. This has not occurred. I also mentioned the need to move up the 217 Corridor analysis. This has been on the books for sometime, however, I am not aware of its status. These studies, along with the Dartmouth alignment study, must also be completed before further opportunities are foreclosed. With regards to the Dartmouth alignment, Tigard hired DKS Consulting to assist in this effort. The study will look for the best alignment for this future road between SW Dartmouth (east of Highway 217) and Hall Blvd. As you are aware, it will cross Highway 217 and connect to SW Hall Blvd., both State facilities. ODOT's involvement will be included in this work. • What is the status of the Eagle Hardware application? To date, the application has not been determined to be complete. They made application on June 8, 1998. Staff is awaiting additional materials before determining that the 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503)639-4171 TDD(503)684-2772 • application is complete. Once that has occurred, ODOT, along with other agencies, will be asked for comments. As usual, any comments received will be considered in our evaluation of this application. The City remains committed to the agreed upon solutions and continues to be hopeful that ODOT will soon undertake the work necessary to specifically identify the proposed alignment. The City will be placed in a difficult legal predicament, however, if ODOT insists upon land acquisition through exercise of local ..}s government exaction authority rather than acquisition through ODOT's various methods. We have no study or other evidence establishing the proportionality - link between the impacts of the Eagle Hardware development project and the mandatory dedication which you have suggested in your letter. This leaves the City without constitutional authority to require the exaction. In conclusion, Tigard remains committed to the completion of the I-5/217/Kruse Way project . If you have questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at 639-4171, ext. 405. Sincerely, / door James N. P. Hendryx Director of Community Development C: Bill Monahan, City Manager Tim Ramis,City Attorney Michael Robinson Russ Joki 69 1L(9(19, C ° ) 1:\CDADMUERREEUIM\ODOT3.DOC k • w �iiiiiiNlll��lu September 16, 1997 d �lll,�� i CITY OF TIGARD Fred Eberle • Oregon Department of Transportation OREGON 123 NW Flanders Portland, OR 97209 RE: ACQUISITION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY - SW 72nd AND HWY. 217 (FILE 6108-501) Fred: I recently was provided a copy of a letter that Tom Anderson, R/W Project Manager, sent to Reece Bly, Tigard-Tualatin School District's Attorney. The letter stated that ODOT has withdrawn its offer and will no longer pursue the acquisition of the 1.52 acre parcel. This decision came as a surprise to me. I understood that ODOT recognized the need for the property and was taking all steps necessary to obtain it. As you know, Tigard recently adopted amendments to the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. A majority of the amendments dealt with "tool-box" items identified with the Hwy. 217/1-5 project. The Hunziker overpass and realignment was one of those "Tool-box" items included with these amendments. ODOT's action to withdraw its offer to acquire the property raises a question of how serious the State is in seeing the "Tool-box" items implemented. Does ODOT still have an interest in seeing this improvement? • As you may know, Eagle Hardware has been evaluating the potential of placing a retail outlet on the property. ODOT's interest in this improvement is critical to our eventual review of any application. This facility and others are identified in our Comprehensive Plan. Any application must be evaluated in light of the Comprehensive Plan and • Development Code. It must also be understood that the City can only require public improvements that are reasonably related to development. The City is well versed in this area given-the outcome of the ola Dn •decision.;. ■ It is important that both ODOT and the'tije'city;havea'clear understanding of what can and L.-cannot .be asked. of any development.;:; fFurthermore,:,:<we do-not want to. require ,r. • • 'dedication for future right-of-ways.if itiwas not=,needed by the state:;. .'"'Please'advise me of what ',ODOT's:,interest`"is with .regard to':the future 'tight-of-way " needs for the "tool-box" improvements::`The City'does not want to be in the situation of • 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503)639-4171::TDD(503)684-2772 ' 2. requiring dedication when the State is not planning future improvements. If that was the case, the City would initiate amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. - If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 639-4171, ext. 405. Sincerely, 7)/e_ac#v /,,i4,0A/te James N.P. Hendryx Director of Community Development c: Laurie Nicholson Dick Bewersdorff • Bill Monahan Mayor Nicoli City Council • • • PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION CITY OF TIGARD OREGON FILE NO: CPA 96-0002 FILE TITLE: AKA Business Services APPLICANT: AKA Business Services, Inc. OWNER: Same I 10626 SW Barbur Blvd. Portland, OR 97280 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. 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. ZONE: N/A CIT: All CIT FACILITATOR: List Available Upon Request PHONE NUMBER: (503) DECISION MAKING BODY STAFF DECISION PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF HEARING: 4/8/96 TIME: 7:30 HEARINGS OFFICER DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00 CITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: 5/14/96 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 1�` to- tY, 4 ...c •- : . _ . . : . f-. . Agenda Item: ----= • . • Hearing Date: May 20.1996 7:30_PM • .. ........... ..... ................. ................ NI...................................................................... .. . E CI>"::'.<<O:> .:>::: <: _ < < 11 < ;m:mai ><: ' :: > <:FO.R..TH TYOF TIG .: ::. ::. : ARD :.:.GREG.ON.»: • SECTION I: APPLICATION-SUMMARY CASES: FILE NAME: AKA Business Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0002 • PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested a Comprehensive Plan text amendment to modify the spacing and location criteria for General Commercial land uses. • APPLICANT: AKA Business Services OWNER: Same 10626 SW Barbur Blvd. Portland, OR 97280 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: N/A . - ZONING DESIGNATION: N/A LOCATION: Citywide APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 11 and 12; Oregon Administrative Rule 660-12; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1(a), 1.1.1(c), 2.1.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.1.1 and 12.2.1(2); Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. SECTION II: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the proposed amendment does not satisfy all relevant review criteria and will adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the community, and that it forward a recommendation to the City Council for DENIAL of CPA 96-0002. In addition to not being .able to make findings that Goal 10 and STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0002 Page 1 _ ar - • " , 11,` ";;N,",:•:2 , '•' ^fir" =1 1 r v7� Coriiprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1(c);-5.4 and 6.1.1 are-satisfied, staff is not convinced that this amendment is needed or would be beneficial to the City as a whole. : If the Planning Commission chooses to`-recommend approval of CPA 96-0002, staff recommends that the following provision be added to section (b) of the proposal: (v). The increased commercial area is contiguous with the existing commercial - area and is not separated by a roadway or road right-of-way. • This provision would help restrict expansion of General Commercial uses into adjacent residential areas across roadways, which often serve as buffers. SECTION III: BACKGROUND INFORMATION • - Site History:- The applicant owns'5.81 acres of land north of the intersection of Pacific Highway and SW Pfaffie Street. Although this application is for a legislative text amendment which would apply citywide, the applicant's property would be subject to the modified locational policy. The property has split Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations of General CommerciaVC-G and Medium Density Residential/R-12. These plan and zone designations were carried over from the Washington County designations when the property was annexed to the City in 1987 as part of the South Metzger annexation. The C-G portion of the applicant's property currently contains an older building. The applicant believes it will be difficult to redevelop this commercial portion of the property without also rezoning the R-12 portion. The current spacing and location criteria of Policy 12.2.1(2), however, restricts the siting of C-G land that is surrounded on more than two sides by residential districts. ' Vicinity Information: The amendment would be applicable citywide. Staff has determined that, given. existing zoning, the proposal could apply to 50 parcels of land in the City (Exhibit A). Many of these parcels are fully developed and/or committed to their existing use, e.g. the Charles F. Tigard School. If zone changes are made to these parcels as a result of this amendment, additional parcels" could be eligible for rezoning depending on their location. Site Information and Proposal Description: The applicant proposes to modify Policy 12.2.1(2)(B1). Currently, this criterion reads: "(1) Spacing and Location (a) The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides." The applicant modified his original proposal which is contained in the application submittal dated February 23, 1996. The modified proposal, contained in the letter dated April 22, 1996, reads as follows: STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0002 Page 2 • "(1) Spacing and Location . -. (a) A new commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. (b) An existing commercial area may be expanded and is not subject to (1)(a), above, if the City Council finds that: (I). The expanded commercial area is not surrounded by R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5, or R-7 districts on more than two sides; (ii). The increased commercial area will not adverse ly affect the surrounding • residential districts; (iii). The size of the increased commercial area will allow an appropriate • • buffer to be provided between uses allowed in the commercial district and uses allowed in the surrounding residential district(s); and - • (iv). The increased commercial area is the minimum size necessary that is required to allow the appropriate redevelopment of the existing commercial area." 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 CITs, DLCD, and Metro. In addition, the proposal was presented to the CITs and their comments are included in Section VI of 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 fine-tune existing adopted and acknowledged comprehensive plan requirements relating to the siting of commercial land to serve the residents of the community. This goal is satisfied. Economic Development: Goal 9 requires that adequate opportunities for economic development be provided by the community. The amendment would increase commercial opportunities through expansion of existing General Commercial areas. This goal is satisfied. STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0002 Page 3 f. V�p d e.. .•t .t:r _ q�n • • r.. " Housing: •k Goal 10 requires that '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 amendment would make it • easier to expand existing .General Commercial land use designations within multi-family residential areas: This may result in more land being rezoned from residential to commercial uses, thus reducing the amount of land available for a variety of housing types and densities. Though each quasi-judicial proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan and change the zoning on a particular parcel must be evaluated according to this goal, the expansion of commercial areas into multi-family residential areas would reduce opportunities for the City to make available various types of housing units. For this reason, staff cannot make a finding that this goal is satisfied. • Public Facilities and Services: • Goal 11 requires that development be guided and supported by types and levels of public facilities and services appropriate for the needs and requirements of the area to be served. The city has adequate facilities and • - services available to existing General Commercial land use districts. Any proposed expansion of these areas would be required to provide additional services, if needed, to maintain the existing levels. This goal is satisfied. - Transportation: Goal 12 requires that the city provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic -transportation 'system. -The amendment.' mendment would be less- - restrictive for allowing the expansion of General Commercial areas adjacent to residential areas. • It does not affect the criteria that require adequate transportation•facilities be available to serve these commercial land uses. The amendment would not cause an unsafe and inconvenient transportation system. This goal is satisfied. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL OR 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. The proposed amendment would not result in generating any additional traffic. It would only modify the criterion for locating General Commercial areas to allow for expansion of existing areas, if all other criteria are met as well. All requests for quasi- judicial Comprehensive Plan map and zone changes for specific property are analyzed . and evaluated for compliance to transportation policies and rules, including this state rule. The city reviews all requested quasi-judicial changes for compliance to this rule and makes a determination based upon that review. Findings of compliance or noncompliance to this rule would be made following a traffic analysis of the specific proposal. This policy is satisfied. COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES General Policies: Policy 1.1.1(a) requires that legislative changes be consistent with statewide planning goals and the regional development plan. The findings above • STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0002 Page 4 n,c t - 3 . +...r,G •-{s. yard` _ address 'statewide goals..r There.is no applicable adopted-regional plan:'Metro was sent'a' request for comments. This policy is satisfied. General Policies: Policy 1.1.1(c) requires that the Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code be kept current with the needs of the community. The applicant states that there is a current need to strengthen the city's economic base and maintain viable existing General Commercial . areas. This proposal encourages - redevelopment of existing General Commercial areas: Staff agrees that the proposal could result in more efficient development or redevelopment of existing General Commercial areas, assuming that adjacent residential areas are not adversely affected by the expanded use. The applicant has not,. however, submitted compelling evidence that the need for additional commercial land is so great that the Comprehensive Plan policies protecting the encroachment of commercial uses into residential areas should be suspended. Staff cannot, therefore, make a finding that this policy is satisfied. • Citizen Involvement: Policy 2.1.1 'states'Ahat 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 CIT individuals and the Planning Commission hearing was legally advertised. In addition, the proposal was presented at all CIT meetings during May of - 1996, and comments are included in Section VI of this report. This policy is satisfied. . • Economy: Policy 5.4 states that the city shall ensure that new commercial and industrial development not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial and industrial uses. The proposed amendment would be less restrictive in allowing the expansion of existing General Commercial land uses•adjacent to residential districts. The current restriction to not allow new General Commercial areas'in = residential areas would remain in force. The expansion of existing commercial areas would be conditional on evaluation of impacts to the residential areas. The applicant interprets this policy as stating that land cannot be used for commercial uses until it is designated on the Comprehensive Plan map for such uses; therefore, this policy is satisfied because the proposed amendment would not allow new commercial development from encroaching into residential areas before the land has been designated for this use. A quasi-judicial plan map and zone change approval would still be needed to redesignate land for commercial use. While staff agrees that the text amendment by itself would not cause commercial development to encroach into residential areas, we interpret the intent of Policy 5.4 as restricting map redesignation of residential areas to new commercial and industrial uses. Because the proposed amendment would facilitate expansion of existing General Commercial areas into residential areas, staff cannot make a finding that this policy is satisfied. Housing: Policy 6.1.1 requires that the city provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. It is primarily implemented through OAR 660-07, the Metropolitan Housing Rule. The rule requires 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 amendment would make it easier to expand existing STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0002 Page 5 T: ; ;a: • General Commercial land Aise designations-into 'multi-family residential areas. This result in more land being rezoned from residential to commercial uses, thus reducing the amount of land available to housing units. The restriction of locating new General Commercial land in areas surrounded by residential districts, however, remains unchanged. This proposal by itself will not cause the city to drop out of compliance with the housing rule; and the city must review all requested quasi-judicial comprehensive plan map amendments and zone changes for compliance to the rule and make a determination based upon that -- review. The amendment would, however, provide greater opportunity for use of land currently designated for multi-family residential to be changed to General Commercial. This could result in the incremental loss of the opportunity for diversity of housing densities and types. For this reason, staff cannot make a finding that this policy is satisfied. Transportation; Policy.8.1.1 states that the City shall plan for a safe and efficient - street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth -and development. The proposed amendment would not affect the City's ability to - maintain a safe and efficient street and roadway system. It modifies one criteria of many for amending the Comprehensive Plan and zoning maps. An application for such map • changes to a specific property must still meet this policy by demonstrating that expected trips will not cause an unsafe traffic situation or reduce the level of service of roadways below the minimum acceptable levels.-:.This policy is satisfied. . • Locational Criteria: Policy 12.2.1(2)(B.1) sets out the spacing and location criteria for General Commercial land use areas. This is the section the proposed amendment seeks to modify (see Section Ill above). The intent of this section is to protect adjacent residential districts from the impact of retail commercial activity. The amendment would allow the expansion of existing General Commercial areas into residential areas only in the following circumstances: If the City Council finds that the commercial area is not surrounded on more that two sides by single-family districts; the increased commercial area will not adversely affect the residential areas; the increased commercial area will allow an appropriate buffer between the commercial and surrounding residential area(s); and the commercial area is the minimum size necessary to allow for redevelopment. The proposed amendment, through its provisions under section (b), seeks to retain protection of adjacent single-family residential areas. The Comprehensive Plan in general and this policy in particular, however, attempt to protect all residential areas equally from encroachment by commercial areas. This amendment assumes that multi-family residential is not as deserving of the same protection as single-family residential. Staff believes both types should be treated equally if the City's intent is to maintain protection of residential areas. 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 STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0002 Page 6 ..-. - I- .; ,ira^ r,ci `.rt•:�'ijc:. rr_ ±fig- ��t:�" ;�i 'r' °,ii;, - - '=ice-`-"»I'' u'` -,.'+,�^-.5'+'z.6=ice::�• .. _ cr%- -z the factors upon which the:Plann'in Comi�ii "? p g ssion and`Citji Council shall bas® 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 or 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. 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 states that the Comprehensive Plan contains a mistake by requiring that all General Commercial map designations be surrounded on no more than two sides by a residential district. No reason is given for the mistake argument. _ Although the applicant gives no reason or substantiating information for his contention that a mistake was made in the Comprehensive Plan, the applicant has satisfied this code section. It is satisfied because the first five standards have been adequately addressed in this staff report and the sixth standard is optional only. SECTION V: AGENCY COMMENTS ODOT reviewed this proposal and offers the following comments: Staff chooses not to comment on this legislative text change regarding the City's locational criteria for General Commercial areas. ODOT does evaluate and comment on parcel-specific quasi-judicial requests for comprehensive plan amendments for their compliance to OAR 660-12, the Transportation Planning Rule. Metro reviewed this proposal and offers the following comments: "The proposed amendment would appear to permit a greater mix of uses in Tigard by giving greater flexibility in locating commercial uses adjacent to residential uses. Metro supports the efforts underway in the local jurisdictions to expand the opportunities for increasing the mix of uses in a community." STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0002 Page 7 ..y. - - - _ _ Lys.. �_-' _ ,� _ `, v n` -:�' :fir•-- _ - .- ... ate` ._ ..... `t' � .r'FS•.x ",•-=;.x',.:- - as-- SECTION VI: OTHER COMMENTS The CITs have reviewed this proposal and offer the following comments: The South CIT heard the proposal at the meeting of May 1, 1996, and- have not . - commented on the it. The Central and West CITs heard the proposal on May 7, 1996. V The members expressed concern about changing the text for allowing the expansion of General Commercial areas. They would prefer the City retain the existing criterion and - suggested the applicant first exhaust the existing avenue, i.e. a quasi-judicial plan amendment, to change the zoning on his land. The East CIT heard the proposal on May 8, 1996, and have no comments on it. • \ _Ae May 9. 1996 PREPARED Y: Ray Valone DATE Associate Planner • nulAAJ May 9. 1996 V • APPROVED BY: Nadine Smith DATE V Planning Manager - 1:11rpin4ay1CPA96-0Zstl • STAFF REPORT CPA 96-0002 Page 8 EX-HIB-ITz-A - A Par effected Parc. Potentially Affected • V. • .s.,,Fblesuft,eponcniona.for by CPA96-0002 ,:ir."111 Areas Zoned . :i:::::: :::::::: General Commercial CRY OF TIGARD Index Map ___Lt um iir1111111111iliminirii - L-L i i 1 1 1 m 1 1,- IV ■ ti Iiiiiiii!ii mum , . 1 . 1..... ''I=I M I 1 ( ' IMMO ‘Iir aPhN1 1 i k ic:S.,...•...,...mi -.1 III 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 Ilj / --1 I I 100.71 I ..- --7 :Au ilfi Will sillielblir 04 11111111 nailit,---- allirlarri*I NW 14 MEI 4 MTh Plc .- 1 11;2 111111111111W4A0 - 1--s b 411 0\ li L. '• ONSII 11111 UMW X011 if Alt i-t141,4)•;- .4k \:11111111111111111;111111118211411 NW* \111:..dar • ' ipl hp elt%‘.4911 1 4 tiP • # / i „A, 41\41 IS 4 . mom r° mit e, . A , ' A 1 i-i "-- MP/ a arde St M. , -1 ' f r. , , ----,„ ,.. ,,. , , ,_ B '71.1fr - -r--1 —} i 1 M )--J, 7: I --' 1 ; 1 I --Rbaid / i iTh._ . I 1 AP 11 1 1 1--, H - ' /--C– -, [ . --1 L.___; i --, -- 1_ — 1 . 1 1 ir_ _ _.... ,,,, c, • 1:;:Yii:,- , . ; 7,■--j-t- . : I I( i r '' ! n ;)----Ty) --,../ `---;;-7 , ' / 0::iiiiP . i %; L ,„:::: .. \ ,--c.,-.---*_____, il -)\r_,I ,...___,D\._:_,-, ,_ Hd j i 1 )di ,.. - , ,., / „::::::::::: :; , ; )- ,Durtiamft.,....., , , - ___,_:, n , „ , _ .., . ,.:. ,,, 1 /< 1' # 4- i 1 ,, i i !I 1 , , 1 --__-:;_t---;___ 1 1 ' . i ,1.14;:f1 z-N-I i i lh l 1 ____,----,-.--=.. .,_._ , ( ,n-____, ,,1 : ."7 ) — " / - 4/7 1 ;,_ , , ,-\ ,, 7 1 _ w C UJ CU__.)tai :--li .d �/ � 1 - - Rig .MIII :ht �' iligiam �] �.-ip.e.....„...........7..t.::::::::,:„.0 ::::::::::::::: ....:.::.:.:::.:.:::..:::::.:::::: _______ ,i„..,, liril ik g 12.1.4 ilivi iti mili • is ...,,,,4 0 ble......;. ::::::::::::::::::::::,.i.::::::::::44 .`:.�■ to It lea • ■1 �� ° 0 c. - par it 1 1--::: _ + r 0 \ .� _ ` - iiiii,.to.A n! iii ie� ■ 11 ■ i`, _ - - �'d pl. 1 1 1 0 ofr" .r. - - - ----- .1- I. . ek a) :.:::::: •::::40:, - Illikta 5 ::::::::::::::::::::::,:,.. . f:1) 1:. ] --- - E — MN LI III ::::::::::,:. ii:4ip, / IL a) - 2. E 1 "Vs.fW rif isommH IL v me., mew I! 1r 41,•:%s i i IIIINLIrol: -' S- . --- — f ft Lit. -I MI : 114 iii a lik ." '.',K.:::,. \_; lOren co Ii� Iloilo"� � �� 1111111 �� - :.�--...�---, •'u"_ J--- ■"1 ■1 ,1+.:'nrolj:: ••••:4i}:;;_;{ iir :.•:... ::1:::::::::::: : •:?21 ::ri. r;rr:r .crrrrr. — :IT— _ -fl ■■I■ -I i 0 III ,� ;� '' . . .:. :: : I ;::;;..::::::::::::::.,,,,_, ___,, E). ,,,9_,1, v _ ti ii - • _, .„,!) ::::::::::::,::::::::::::::: \ co , .4#4,- mi.. iv,. •.5 ..,,,,-------'.1,44,, grit, e,„ MN .: te.s gra ittik Is 21/41,44 toss ts , ale JIB? . Wri-ma .11104 iri:11,0 n..1 Pt" I ,v �Cf1 rf Ili.„ }� 3„,, r 4. 1 ”; - - . r lop,_, �FT4` v �� Parcels �affected Parc Potentially Affected see re for ' A y CPA96-0002 explanation �`eria j j; •� Areas Zoned CITY OF TIGARD Map 2 General Commercial 1-1$ Iiii I 1 1 lilt__ ....... .. .. _____.._____u..i..._L_„y, „..„ , „ i !. „ , Tun—.7 ---- ' ' , OF .i.,.._, PI; t � w,o' i! 1 ► , ,-I rAtik.11%91 ps.MI 1141 - II° mitt 4111111111111111r1P _ '71-11111 • ,___11.,..ir,,, LI ;r_r_i_i ______ Ills="1-1H-L1-," L ; totrataz 1171"A Yr"LIR IL iht .. , ry.,„,. ......—a MOW all 1 UMW _0'1'.01: y •■ NM m MI ��wir..4 A.,. 1 wain riersilli ;LI mit:A re] 11111 11....°1*. .:'::::: OAIIIIIIIk ...i.111""i ...7.11"2111.12 21114, ma"; WW1 . "Minn milw■-,*....... R\A illi : , 4staila t 44 ...-. ::� ' .idart .imiafillitt.._ '''''.4„. • 495 161. AllitWalant N4...t.. 4#4*,efft„A . 4100. o___ :::::::::::,i: lettliww t h, --...4,-%.,. 44,.-, -._ „1,---- a 51::::,:,.,,,!:t Aim 'A& � `,,, 9.6. .� ♦�♦ ..1%),"7, . T, v„1 ■�� _:'►III ;� �•• ,��' \�` %/ ' .�. , eiorIO , A ,,i., . 0. -7,.'Ti:LH 1 1 1:7, . .r, -,tn 0-N, ..,,. ,,, \ .N. ,,,,, ,,, \\ ".\\,.....\" i, . 11,5i,11-1-7 ' . / '"s,,,•':. ,: t--.1 . ,. .. \,- ' . , ,,, is':i-,:•••:"- / :;\ A\\,,,,,,),(\ „<<, 4plip c �� \�\, , , \ ,.\/ . /y� / -- \\,\-- /\..:„_. vIii :Lr." '._..,_i.h.L;! dbiro . 'AN.::::::: :: 'Ire—' . 7'2' %/7,\/ // r ii . , 1 1 1 t :I ! 1. .17 .77\ ,- , ifi i s N ^,...____,.J f \\i -77._=( i i 1 1 )! ' •-•,--'s:••••:::::!:::::!:'.::: -110 !--..' • 11 \ — i� f ,N. l r----- 1 : . `4 \- `-�i \� '� �.Y"--'—�! I I , . r r r —'`� r Parc Potentially Affected 0 A by proposal Note: " See Staff report for explanation of criteria. •k.z..f;- - by CPA96-0002 • ■ 1 ..� Areas Zoned CITY OF TIGARD _ Map 3 General Commercial ni y n 1 1 1 •,/U, n ?mui! 1 1 ► I 1 `� ∎,I _■/l0 MIME I r m 1 ratan ... L :iii U r I . w • ` 7 , r i1 I :fur r� I L-7-1 h I I. h 1 , 111 I " .. ■ , . i YV1F�N. <I i glai e 1;11',: 111 1 H rim 1 ' '. b, , irm -I rii 1.116r r-7-11 1-1 rI ..j .71 I - II I I ..111:. Hu�1 :1I1 �l - ,�, .1.■ -r I I --h . ' h '.111G" 11 1111911111 '1-- p =�i�!. . MI !!11 _ its .1n�- 1. .. ■•• maim _.,. ..""' .....,TA,.........." •� u■■ - 'n. //n. � ?!a ` ' 't■i = _ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::gir, : .■ an maim= , w = _ ::::::::::::::::::::::::: ' •, : nor. ■■ mollinsi illaN m � • •ter_ :;::::::: ... :*..:.:::: I MN SE uiii. III:IM., li VINE: ::::::��::. !:;:;:::::; ::aiw tttt. t.M !• ai/ . _: fir_` �� .�riltIP#:,:!!::1111iii .o.. • /il l tt.■ /ot. ■a •�%. 1 , 1 I M''''"'t .,...,.:..,..:....-....• Mk. Nli ..::„il ".:: ...-.......'.'.. inimmoth.,. "ilk i vrij# I .,,:zi,„, 2 1./5/4 ..i:i:iiiii::::: ,::::. ,.„. ;:::: 1:::::iii:i:iiiiiy: . . - 71144 .. .... .• Oril": :.:::iiii:::::::1.:.:.iiiiii i:::::::iiniiii 7 � , ( I 1 1t " . 44,444-. '-r:i".. .1111:cli111111111;:fill1111111111111101111Dil i*" li:eiaiii :.141iiii:ii:iLlr2Mi; " i* II I _ 1 'i • • 5-N . J 5 6L; , >`\ _/ / / i/ jV I I0 I 1 i , . 1 f 7.°u::_ ,,r 1 / , ._, -/ , •7'7 , I I II I 1I ' I I X, 1 \' \ \'./ • i . ..•,:..... \\\'( '\/.4.‹. N '' I . ': ni::W:11::: .il.:::n1 .:ij 1 In.HH I thri L • AS al, . AGENDA TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION "'P -he '1I1k APRIL 8, 1996 — 7:30 P.M. ■ 4` TIGARD CIVIC CENTER — TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS 4. APPROVE MINUTES 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0002 AKA BUSINESS SERVICES 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. 5.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0003/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 96-0001 DURHAM 99 ASSOCIATES, LTD. PARTNERSHIP REQUEST: A request for the following development applications: 1.) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 5,775 square foot commercial building, with additional modifications to the existing parking within the center; 2.) Planned Development Review. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial (C-G). ZONING DESIGNATION: General Commercial, Planned Development - C-G (PD). LOCATION: North of SW Durham Road and west of SW Summerfield Drive. (WCTM 2S1 10DC, tax lots 400 and 500). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.62, • 18.80, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.116, 18.120, 18150 and 18.164. 5.3 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0003 DEDICATION, RESERVATION AND IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS The City of Tigard proposes -amendments to the Community Development Code Sections 18.32.050 B.5, 18.32.250 E.2, 18.96.010 A. and 18.96.100 A. and B. to require impact study, reservation and dedication requirements for public facilities and services. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: N/A. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 11 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a. and c., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3, 7 and 8; Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. 6. OTHER BUSINESS 7. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA ITEM 5. 1 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 27, 1996 TO: Tigard Planning Commission FROM: Ray Valone, Associate Planner c- RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 96-0002 CC: Jim Hendryx, Director Community Development Mike Robinson, representative for AKA Business Services Staff and the applicant are requesting a continuance of the hearing on the above comprehensive plan amendment, currently scheduled for April 8, 1996. We will be reviewing the application with the CITs at their May meetings. We request that the Commission hear this proposed amendment • at its meeting of May 20, 1996. 4\8 C,g("1 P2'/�S/l L A-uS w e /1.c.. Q ■•4-�_5�`z -,1fg. � ..�L�warS 5 JZ°J�6 • L _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 N0. /4 OTHER CASE N '//S: RECEIPT NO.7(p-27 7623 APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY< DATE: (C 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Application elements submitted: PROPERTY ADDRESS/LOCATION Not Applicable /(A) Application form (1) ‘/(a) Owner's signature/written TAX MAP AND TAX LOT NO. Not Applicable authorization j ` v/1-C) Applicant's statement SITE SIZE Not Applicable (pre-app check list) PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER* Not Applicable �) Filing fee ( G7 ) ADDRESS PHONE Additional information for Compre- CITY ZIP sive Plan Map Amendments/Zone Changes APPLICANT* AKA Business Services, Inc. • /3/A (E) Maps indicating property ADDRESS 10626 SW Barbur Blvd. PHONE 452-1094 location (pre-app check list) CITY Portland ZIP 97280-0089 ,✓/0, (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 ,j/n, (G) Assessor's Map (1) or a leasee in possession with written authorization 4,, (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 DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE: 2 (231% ,2N/ 2. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property FINAL DECISION DEADLINE: request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (if COMP. PLAN/ZONE DESIGNATION: applicable) from to and a Zone Change 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 locational criteria for establishment of general City Council Approval Date: commercial district 0737P/23P Rev'd: 5/37 • 0 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. S. 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 23rd day of February 1996 SIGNATURES of each owner (eg. husband and wife) of he subject property. (KSL:pm/0737P) • • APPLICATION BY AKA BUSINESS SERVICES FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LOCATIONAL CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT • ON FEBRUARY 23, 1996 • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION 1 II. PROPOSAL 2 A. Proposed TCP Text Amendment 2 C. 4 Procedure for Legislative Amendments to the TCDC 4 III. APPLICABLE CRITERIA 4 A. Statewide Planning Goals 5 B. Applicable Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 9 C. TCDC 18.30.120, "The Standards for the Decision" 10 D. OAR Chapter 660, Division 12, The Transportation Planning Rule 14 IV. CONCLUSION 16 LIST OF EXHIBITS 17 PDX1A-71408.1 99999 0006 1 • • • SUMMARY OF APPLICATION APPLICANT: AKA Business Services, Inc. Contact: Mr. Walt Aman, Jr. 10626 SW Barbur Boulevard PO Box 19089 Portland, OR 97280-0089 Telephone: 452-1094 APPLICANTS Michael C. Robinson REPRESENTATIVE: Stoel Rives LLP 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, OR 97204-1268 Telephone: 294-9194 Facsimile: 220-2480 PROPOSAL: To approve a legislative amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan ("TCP"), Policy 12.2.1(2)(B)(1)(a), Spacing and Location criteria for establishment of the General Commercial Plan Map designation. The spacing and location criteria for the General Commercial Plan Map designation now requires as follows: "The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides." This application requests approval of either of two suggested amendments to the spacing and location criteria: 1. Amend the locational criteria to apply only to commercial areas surrounded on more than two sides by R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 and R-7 zoning districts, or 2. Amend the locational criteria as it exists to apply only to new commercial areas and existing commercial areas to be extended if the city council finds that three criteria are satisfied. PDX1A-22408.1 99999 0006 1 • • II. PROPOSAL A. Proposed TCP Text Amendment This application requests that the Tigard City Council amend TCP Policy 12.2.1(2)(B)(1)(a), The Spacing and Location criteria for the establishment of the General Commercial TCP map designation. The application contains two alternative amendments. Alternative Amendment #1 "(1) Spacing and Location ................... (a) The < e commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than new two sides. (b) An existing commercial area may be increased and is not subject to (1)(a), above, if the City Council finds that: (i) the increased commercial area will not adversely affect the surrounding residential districts, (ii) the size of the increased commercial area will allow an appropriate buffer to be provided between uses allowed in the commercial area and the surrounding residential districts, and (iii) the increased commercial area is the minimum size necessary that is required to allow the appropriate redevelopment of the existing commercial area." Alternative Amendment #2 "(a) The commercial area is not surrounded by 1,RagRA5« t? $ and R'7 residential districts on more ............................................................................... than two sides." PDX1A-22108.1 99999 0036 2 • • B. Need for the Amendment The application is submitted on behalf of AKA Business Services. AKA Business Services owns 5.81 acres of land with a split General Commercial and R-12 designation. The site is located on Pacific Highway with a very small frontage on Pacific Highway. The General Commercial portion of the site contains an older commercial building. Because of the site configuration and the surrounding residential districts, the owner believes it will be difficult to redevelop the General Commercial portion of the district without also rezoning the R-12 portion of the property. However, the current spacing and location criteria for the General Commercial district prohibits such a map amendment in this location. The proposed amendment addresses this situation and allow the City to chose one of two alternatives. Neither alternative would result in a significant change from existing city policy. Alternative amendment #1 would continue to apply the "no more than two sides" policy to new commercial areas but would exempt expansion of existing commercial areas if three criteria are satisfied. Alternative amendment #2 would prohibit expansion only if a commercial area would be surrounded on more than two sides by single-family residential districts. The amendment, besides directly assisting the redevelopment of an existing general commercial designation along Pacific Highway, will maintain the current city policy while allowing selected existing commercial areas to expand or new commercial areas to be established adjacent to multiple-family designations. PDX1A-22A08.1 99999 0006 3 • • C. Procedure for Legislative Amendments to the TCDC A legislative amendment to the TCP text may be initiated by any person. TCDC 18.30.020(A)(4). A preapplication conference is required. TCDC 18.30.020(B). The applicant's representative met with city staff in a preapplication meeting on August 22, 1995. The TCDC provides for a limited "window" in which to submit legislative amendments. An application must be submitted no more than 75 days and no less than 45 days before the first Planning Commission meeting in April. TCDC 18.30.030(A). The first Planning Commission Meeting in April 1996 is on April 8. This application was submitted on February 23, 1996, 45 days before the first Planning Commission meeting in April. The submitted application must be complete, including an application with an application form, the required fee and 18 copies of a narrative addressing the standards contained in TCDC 18.30.120. TCDC 18.30.030(E)(1)-(4). The Director is not permitted to accept an incomplete application. TCDC 18.30.030(G). No meeting with a Citizen Involvement Team or a neighborhood group is required prior to submittal of this application. III. APPLICABLE CRITERIA The applicable criteria for this amendment includes the Statewide Planning Goals ("Goals"), applicable policies in the TCP [(see TCDC 18.10:010(A)], TCDC 18.30.120 and OAR 660-12-055(3) and 660-12-060 (The Transportation Planning Rule). TCDC 18.30.120(A) and (B). PDX1A-22408.1 99999 0006 4 • • A. Statewide Planning Goals 1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement: "To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." Response: This Goal is satisfied through provisions in the acknowledged TCP and TCDC which provide for citizen participation in this decision. 2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning: 'To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for decisions and actions." Response: This Goal is met because the acknowledged TCP and TCDC contain provisions implementing the planning process. The City will coordinate this application with affected governmental agencies (Oregon Department of Transportation, Metro, Washington County, Tri-Met, the Tualatin Valley Parks and Recreation District and the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District) by providing notice and an opportunity to comment to the agencies. 3. Goal 3, Agricultural Lands: 'To preserve and maintain agricultural lands." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed amendment will not affect the preservation of agricultural land. 4. Goal 4, Forest Lands: 'To conserve forest land by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of PDX1A-22408.1 99999 0006 5 • • • forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed amendment will not affect the conservation of forest lands or the protection of the State's forest economy. 5. Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources: "To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed amendment will not affect the conservation of open space or the protection of natural resources. 6. Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: 'To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed amendment will not affect air, water or land resources quality. 7. Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: 'To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed amendment will not have an affect on the protection of life and property from natural disasters. 8. Goal 8, Recreational Needs: "Satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors, where appropriate, to provide for PDX1A-22408.1 99999 0006 6 • the siting of necessary recreational facilities, including destination resorts." Response: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed amendment will not affect the State's recreational needs. 9. Goal 9, Economic Development: 'To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon citizens." Response: This Goal is satisfied because the proposed amendments will increase opportunities for economic development in Tigard. Alternative amendment #1 will permit expansion of existing General Commercial areas where needed while protecting residential districts. Alternative amendment #2 will allow commercial areas to be expanded adjacent to multi-family residential areas, where the greatest concentration of residents will be located close to commercial areas. 10. Goal 10, Housing: "To provide for housing needs of citizens of the state." Response: The proposed amendment does not affect this Goal because it encourages two of its central purposes: maintaining existing housing areas and the efficient use of buildable land within the urban growth boundary ("UGB"). See OAR 660-08-000(1). 11. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services: 'To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development." PDXIA-22408.1 99999 0006 7 ! I Response: This Goal is not applicable because the amendment will not affect the current levels of police and fire services, sanitary facilities, water facilities, storm drainage facilities, or energy and communications services. 12. Goal 12, Transportation: "To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system." Response: This Goal is satisfied because the proposed amendment will not cause congestion on nearby streets. The amendment will not allow expanded commercial areas that are not otherwise served by adequate transportation facilities. See TCP Policy 1.1.1(a) and Implementation Strategies 2(a)-(c). 13.. Goal 13, Energy Conservation: "To conserve energy." Response: The proposed amendment will further this Goal because existing and new commercial areas can be expanded where appropriate, thus encouraging redevelopment of underdeveloped or "remnant" areas. 14. Goal 14, Urbanization: 'To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use." Response: This Goal is inapplicable because the proposed amendment will not affect urban land use outside of the urban growth boundary. 15. Goal 15, Willamette River Greenway; Goal 16, Estuarine Resources, Goal 17 Coastal Shore lands; Goal 18, Beaches and Dunes; and Goal 19, Ocean Resources. Response: These Goals are inapplicable because none of the listed natural resources are affected by the amendment. PDX1A-71408.1 99999 0006 8 • • CONCLUSION: The proposed amendment to the TCP conforms to the applicable Statewide Planning Goals. B. Applicable Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies TCDC 18.10.010(A) requires that any procedure initiated pursuant to the TCDC "shall be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan of the City of Tigard as implemented by this title. ***" TCDC 18.30.120(A)(4) makes legislative amendments such as this subject to "the applicable comprehensive plan policies and map. ***h' Finally, amendments to an acknowledged comprehensive plan, such as the TCP, requires a showing of compliance with the acknowledged comprehensive plan. ORS 197.175(2)(d). This section explains why the proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable TCP goals and policies. 1. TCP Policy 1.1.1(a), "General Policies": 'This comprehensive plan and all future legislative changes are consistent with the statewide planning goals adopted by the land conservation and development commission, the regional plan adopted by the Metropolitan Service District" Response: The applicant hereby incorporates the narrative in Parts III(A) and (C) of this application in response to this policy. 2. TCP Policy 1.1.1(c), "General Policies": 'The Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code are kept current with the needs of the community ***". Response: Older commercial areas or underdeveloped commercial areas will be encouraged to be redeveloped through adoption of either of these amendments. The current need of the community is to strengthen its economic PDX1A-22408.1 99999 0006 9 • • base and maintain existing commercial areas. Suburban communities may experience a decline in older commercial areas because of their inability to be satisfactorily redeveloped. Furthermore, as land is "passed over," the city loses the benefits associated with appropriate development (i.e. maximization of utility usage and property tax revenues). Either of these alternative amendments encourage appropriate redevelopment of existing General Commercial Plan Map designations or development of new general commercial areas not previously allowed. 3. TCP Policy 2.1.1, "Citizen Involvement": '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. Response: Notice of the public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council will be provided as required by the TCDC. The proposed amendments meet the applicable TCP goals and policies. C. TCDC 18.30.120, 'The Standards for the Decision" An application for a legislative amendment to the TCP is required to demonstrate compliance with the standards in TCDC 18.30.120. TCDC 18.30.030(E)(4). These standards are shown below with responses following. 1. TCDC 18.30.120(A)(1): 'The recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: *** the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adapted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197;" PDX1A-72408.1 99999 0006 10 . • Response: The application satisfies the applicable Statewide Planning Goals. See Part III(A), above. 2. TCDC 18.30.120(A)(2): "Any federal or state statutes or guidelines found applicable;" Response: The applicant has determined that there are no additional applicable federal or state statutes or guidelines. 3. TCDC 18.30.120(A)(3): "Applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District; Response: The applicant has determined that there are no applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District ("Metro"). 4. TCDC 18.30.120(A)(4): 'The applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies and Maps; Response: The applicant has addressed the applicable TCP Goals and Policies. See Part III(B), above. 5. TCDC 18.30.120(A)(5): 'The applicable provisions of the implementing ordinances." Response: The implementing ordinances are contained in the TCDC. The only applicable TCDC provisions are found in TCDC Chapter 18.30. TCDC Chapter 18.30 is addressed in Part II(C), above. 6. TCDC 18.30.120(B)(1): "Consideration may also be given to PDX1A-2208.1 99999 0006 11 • • (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" Response: The TCP contains a mistake by requiring that all General Commercial Area Plan map designations be surrounded on no more than two sides by a residential district. The Planning Commission and City Council have two alternative amendments to chose from to correct this mistake. Alternative amendment #1 would continue the current policy for establishment of new commercial areas. Existing commercial areas could be increased if the Planning Commission and City Council ultimately find that three criteria are met. First, the Planning Commission and City Council would have to find that the increased commercial area would not adversely affect the surrounding residential district. The language is purposely broad to allow the Planning Commission and City Council latitude in making this finding. Secondly, the Planning Commission and City Council would have to find that the expanded, existing commercial area was of a size that would allow an appropriate buffer to be provided between the commercial area and the surrounding residential districts. This will ensure mitigation of any adverse affects that might be created by the commercial area on the surrounding residential districts. Finally, the Planning Commission and the City Council must find that expansion of the existing commercial area is the minimum size necessary to allow appropriate development of the existing commercial area. The Planning PDX1A-22108.1 99999 0006 12 Commission and City Council would be able to control the size of the expansion while taking into account the need to redevelop existing commercial properties in certain instances. The Planning Commission and City Council would also maintain other approval criteria, including the following: • No creation of traffic congestion or safety problem. • Direct access from a major sector or arterial street. • Public transportation availability. • Site size which can accommodate present and projected uses. • A compatible scale with the surrounding uses. • Maintenance of privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses. • Incorporation of unique site features. • Associated life, noise and activities shall not interfere with adjoining non-residential uses. Alternative amendment #2 would continue the existing spacing and location criteria but apply only to the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 and R-7 districts. These districts are denominated as single family residential districts. The amendment would allow General Commercial areas to be surrounded on more than two sides by the R-12, R-25 and R-40 districts. These residential districts are denominated as multiple-family residential districts. The amendment recognizes that commercial areas ought to be closest to the greatest number of residents. This furthers the goal of the Transportation PDX1A-22108.1 99999 0006 13 • Planning Rule by encouraging walking and bicycling rather than auto trips. The amendment also recognizes that multiple-family developments are often able to be more effectively shielded from adverse effects than are single family homes. This is due to their design, the distance which they are often located from adjacent properties and the ability to incorporate buffer treatment such as landscaping and fencing. Single-family homes, on the other hand, are often unable to be effectively buffered by commercial development. The proposed amendment satisfies TCDC 18.30.120. D. OAR Chapter 660, Division 12, The Transportation Planning Rule 1. OAR 660-12-060 This state administrative rule applies to amendments to comprehensive plans, functional plans and land use regulations. OAR 660-12-060(1). The rule is applicable to this application because it requests an amendment to the City's land use regulations. OAR 660-12-060(1) and (2) provide as follows: "(1) Amendments to comprehensive plans, functional plans and land use regulations 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. This shall be accomplished by either: (a) limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the plan functions, capacity and level of service of the transportation facility; (b) amending the TSP [Transportation System Plan] to provide transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division; PDXIA-22408.1 99999 0006 14 • • (c) altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce demand for automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes. "(2) A land use regulation amendment significantly affects the transportation facility if it: (a) changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (b) changes a standard implementing a functional classification system; (c) allows types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility; or (d) would reduce the level of service of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in TSP." Response: The proposed amendment will not significantly affect a transportation facility because it will not generate additional traffic absent compliance with other TCP policies. See TCP Policy 8.1.1, 8.1.2 and 12.2.1(2)(B)(2). Therefore, OAR 660-12-060 is inapplicable to these amendments. 2. OAR 660-12-055(3) • This section of the Transportation Planning Rule requires the City to have amended its land use and subdivision ordinances to implement OAR 660-12-045(3), (4)(a)-(e) and (5)(d) by May 8, 1994. The City has not met this deadline except for OAR 660-12-045(3). ORS 197.646(3) and OAR 660-12-055(3) provide that the sections above are directly applicable to land use decisions.when the May 8, 1994 deadline has not been met. OAR 660-12-045(4)(a)-(e) and (5)(d) are, therefore, directly applicable to this application. PDX1A-22408.1 99999 0006 15 • a. OAR 660-12-045(4)ja)-(e). This section of the Rule applies to transit-supportive measures for new retail, office and institutional developments. This amendment supports this section because it encourages commercial redevelopment. b. OAR 660-12-045(d). This section requires local governments to adopt land use regulation measures encouraging reduced reliance on the automobile for all major industrial, institutional, retail and office developments. This amendment furthers this purpose by encouraging commercial redevelopment near multiple-family developments. IV. CONCLUSION This application satisfies the applicable criteria for an amendment to the TCP. PDX1A-2740&I 99999 0006 16 • • LIST OF EXHIBITS EX 1 TCP Policy 12.2.1(2), GENERAL COMMERCIAL EX 2 TCDC Chapter 18.30 EX 3 City of Tigard Application Form PDX1A-22408.1 99999 0006 17 • (3) Site •acteristicS • (a) The site shall be of a size which can accommodate [the] present and future uses, but shall not exceed two acres. i (4) Impact Assessment (a) The scale of the project shall be compatible with the surrounding uses. (b) Site configuration and characteristics, and relationship to the street system, shall be such that privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained. (c) It shall be possible to incorporate the unique features into - the site design and development plan. (d) Associated lights, noise and activities shall not interfere with adjoining non-residential uses. 2. General Commercial General Commercial areas are intended to provide for major retail goods and services. The uses classified as general commercial may involve drive-in services, large space users, a combination of retail, service, wholesale and repair services or provide services to the traveling public. The uses range from automobile repair and services, supply and equipment stores, vehicle sales, drive-in restaurants to laundry establishments. It is intended that these uses be adjacent to an arterial or major collector street. - A. Scale (1) Trade Area. Varies. (2) Site Size. Depends on development. 1 (3) Gross Leasable Area. Varies. B. Locational Criteria (1) Spacing and Location (a) The commercial area is not surrounded by. residential districts on more than two sides. (2) Access (a) The proposed area or expansion of an existing area shall not create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on street capacity, existing and projected traffic volumes, the speed limit, number of turning movements and the traffic generating characteristics of the various types of uses. (b) The site shall have direct access from a major collector or arterial street. II - 82 EXHrIT (c) is transportation shall be a able to the site or g eral area. (3) Site Characteristics (a) The site shall be of a size which can accommodate present and projected uses. (b) The site shall have high visibility. (4) Impact Assessment (a) The scale of the project shall be compatible with the surrounding uses. (b) The site configuration and characteristics shall be such that the privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained. (c) It shall be possible to incorporate the unique site features into the site design and development plan. (d) The associated lights, noise and activities shall not interfere with adjoining non-residential uses. 3. Commercial Professional Commercial Professional areas are intended for a diverse range of office uses and supportive uses and to promote user convenience throughout the City. A. Scale (1) Trade area. Varies (2) Site size. Varies (3) Gross leasable area. Varies B. Locational Criteria (1) Spacing and Location (a) The Comprehensive Plan map fixes exact boundaries of the commercial professional area. (b) The commercial professional area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. (2) Access (a) The proposed use or expansion of an existing area shall not create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on [the) street capacity, existing and projected traffic volumes, the speed limit, number of turning movements and the traffic generating characteristics of the various types of uses. (( II - 83 • • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 18.26.030 95-11; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-32; Ord. 87-20; Ord. 85-15; Ord. 84-71; Ord. 84-69; Ord. 84-61; Ord. 84-47; Ord. 84-29; Ord. 84-26; Ord. 83-52)M • EXHIBIT 18-26 - 13 Rev. 05/30/95 • • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 1830.010 Chapter 18.30. PROCEDURES FOR 3. The Director; DECISION MAKING: LEGISLATIVE 4. Any persons or the person's agent authorized in writing to make the application. 1830.010 Purpose 18.30.020 The Application Process B. The applicant shall be required to meet with 1830.030 Time Periods: Submission/Hearings the Director for a preapplication conference. 1830.040 Additional Information Required, Waiver of Requirements and Report C. At the preapplication conference, the • Required Director shall: 18.30.050 Duties of the Director 18.30.060 Recommendation and Alternative 1. Cite the applicable comprehensive plan Recommendation by the Director policies and map designation; 18.30.070 Consolidation of Proceedings 1830.080 Public Hearing: Notice 2. Cite the applicable substantive and Requirements procedural ordinance provisions; 1830.090 Mechanics of Giving Notice and Failure to Give Notice 3. Provide technical data and assistance 1830.100 Hearings Procedure which will aid the applicant; 18.30.110 Continuation of the Public Hearing 1830.120 The Standards for the Decision 4. Identify other policies and regulations 1830.130 Approval Process and Authority that relate to the application; and 1830.140 Vote Required for a Legislative Change 5. Identify other opportunities or 18.30.150 The Final Decision constraints that relate to the application. 1830.160 The Record of the Public Hearing 18.30.170 Reapplication D. Due to possible changes in state statutes, or regional or local policy, information given by 18.30.010 Purpose staff to the applicant during the preapplication conference is valid for not more than six months. A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures applicable to the community 1. Another preapplication conference is development code for consideration of legislative required if an application is submitted six changes to the provisions of the comprehensive months after the preapplication conference. plan, implementing ordinances and maps. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 2. Failure of the Director to provide any of the information required by this chapter shall 18.30.020 The Application Process not constitute a waiver of the standards,criteria, or requirements of the applications. (Ord.93-19; A. A request for a legislative change may be 89-06; Ord. 83-52) initiated by: 18.30.030 Time Periods: 1. Order of the Council; Submission/Hearings 2. Resolution of a majority of the A. The Director shall receive proposed Commission; legislative changes twice yearly, the completed application shall be submitted not more than 75 18-30- 1 Reformatted 1994 • • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 18.30.030 days and not less than 45 days before the first 18.30.040 Additional Information Required, Commission meetings in April and October. Waiver of Requirements and Report Required B. The Commission shall hear the matter within 30 days after the first meeting in April or A. The Director may require information in October depending on which date the item has addition to that required by a specific code been scheduled, unless the applicant has provision provided: submitted a waiver. 1. The information is needed to properly C. The Council shall receive the Commission's evaluate the proposed development proposal; recommendations and schedule a public hearing and within 30 days of the Commission's recommendation. 2. The need can be justified on the basis of a special or unforeseen circumstance. D. The application shall be made on forms provided by the Director. B. The Director may waive a specific requirement for information or a requirement to E. The application shall be complete and shall: address a certain approval standard subject to the provisions of Subsection C below provided: 1. Contain the information requested on the form; 1. The Director finds that specific information is not necessary to properly evaluate 2. Address the appropriate criteria in the application; or sufficient detail for review and action; 2. The Director finds that a specific 3. Be accompanied by the required fee approval standard is not applicable to the except as allowed under Section 18.32.345; and application. 4. Be accompanied by 18 copies of a C. Where a requirement is waived,the Director narrative addressing the standards in Section shall: 18.30.120. 1. Prepare a memorandum to the record F. An application shall be deemed"incomplete" and to the applicant citing the grant of authority, unless it addresses each element required by the the specific requirements waived and the form and each element required by this title and reasons; is accompanied by the required fee. 2. Advise the applicant in writing that the G. The Director shall not accept an incomplete waiver may be challenged at the hearing on the application. matter and may be denied by the approval authority; and H. The Director shall have the authority to waive a requirement of this title in the manner 3. Cite in the staff report for the application provided by Subsection 18.30.040.B. (Ord.89-06; the specific requirements waived,the reasons for Ord. 85-45;Ord. 84-29; Ord. 83-52) the waiver and the specific grant of authority. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18-30- 2 Reformatted 1994 • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 1830.050 18.30.050 Duties of the Director 3. Make the staff report and all case file materials available five days prior to the A. The Director shall: scheduled date of the public hearing under Section 18.30.080 in writing;and 1. Give notice of the Commission hearing as provided by Subsections 18.30.080.0 and D 4. Cause the public hearing to be held and Section 18.30.090; pursuant to Section 18.30.080 unless the applicant has requested or consented to a delay. 2. Prepare a staff report which includes: B. The Director shall administer the hearings a. The facts found relevant to the process. proposal and found by the Director to be true; C. The Director shall transmit the record to the b. The statewide planning goals and Council for a hearing as set forth in Subsection guidelines adopted by ORS Chapter 197 found to 18.30.030.C,and: be applicable and the reasons why any other goal(s)and guideline(s)are not applicable to the 1. Give notice of the Council hearing as proposal except goals 15-19, .which are not provided by Sections 18.30.080 and 18.30.090; applicable to the City of Tigard,and need not be addressed; 2. Prepare a report which shall include at a minimum, the following: c. Any federal or state statutes or rules the Director found applicable; a. A copy of the staff report submitted to the Commission; d. The Metropolitan Service District plans and rules the Director found to be b. A copy of the Commission applicable; recommendation; and e. Those portions of the comprehensive c. A copy of the minutes of the plan found to be applicable,and if any portion(s) Commission public hearing; of the plan appears to be reasonably related to the proposal and is not applied, the Director 3. Make a report to the Council; and shall explain the reasons why such portion(s) of the plan is not applicable; 4. Administer the hearings process. f. Those portions of the implementing D. The Director shall maintain a register of all ordinances relevant to the proposal; and if the applications which have been filed for a decision. provisions are not considered, the Director shall The register shall at all times identify at what explain the reasons why such portion(s) of the stage the application is in the process. ordinances were not considered; and E. The Director shall maintain and preserve the g. An analysis relating the facts found file for each application. The file shall include, to be true by the Director to the applicable as applicable, a list of persons required to be criteria and a statement of the alternatives, a given notice and a copy of the notice pursuant to recommendation for approval, approval with Section 18.30.080 and the accompanying modification or denial, and at the option of affidavits, the application and all supporting Director, an alternative recommendation; information, the staff report, the final adopted 18-30 - 3 Reformatted 1994 • • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 18.30.060 document, all correspondence, the minutes of 1. The decision on the proposed plan any meetings at which the application was change shall precede the decision on the considered and any other exhibits, information proposed change to the implementation or documentation which was considered with ordinance; respect to the application. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 2. Separate actions shall be taken on each application; and 18.30.060 Recommendation and Alternative Recommendation by the Director 3. The change to the implementing ordinance shall implement the change to the A. The Director shall make a recommendation plan. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A (part), to the Commission on the application,however, 1983.) in addition, the-Director may recommend an alternative(s). 18.30.080 Public Hearing: Notice Requirements B. Where the alternative recommendation involves a different plan designation or a A. The Commission shall hold at least one different zoning district designation than is the public hearing on each application request. subject of the application, such alternative recommendation shall be considered only if: B. The Council shall hold at least one public hearing on each application request. 1. Notice of such an alternative is given as a part of the public hearing notice in addition to C. Notice of the public hearings on the the matters contained in Section 18.30.080;and proposed change and alternatives, if any, shall be given by the Director in the following 2. The staff report prepared as provided by manner: Subsection 18.30.050.A.2 supports the alternative recommendation. 1. At least 10 days prior to the scheduled hearing date, notice shall be sent to: C. As a result of the public hearing on the proposed change, the Commission may on its a. The applicant; own motion recommend to the Council an alternative recommendation, however, in b. Any affected governmental agency; addition, the Commission must take action on the specific application before it. (Ord. 89-06; c. The individual recognized by the Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A (part), 1983.) affected CIT as the official contact person; and 18.30.070 Consolidation of Proceedings d. Any person who requests notice in writing and pays a fee established by Council A. In the event there is an application for a resolution; and legislative change to the plan text or map, and an application for a legislative change to an 2. At least 10 days prior to the scheduled implementing ordinance text or map, both of public hearing date, notice shall be given in a which involve either the same geographic area or newspaper of general circulation in the City. the same subject matter, the hearings may be consolidated, however: D. The Director shall: 18-30-4 Reformatted 1994 • IP TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 1830.080 1. For each mailing of notice, cause an C. The failure of a person entitled to notice affidavit of mailing to be filed and made a part under Subsection 18.30.080.C.1 to receive notice of the record as provided by Section 18.30.160; shall not invalidate the action provided a good and faith attempt was made to notify all persons entitled to notice. 2. For each published notice, cause an affidavit of publication to be filed and made part D. Personal notice is deemed given where the of the record as provided by Section 18.30.160. notice is deposited with the United States Postal (Ord. 93-19; 89-06; Ord. 83-52) Service. 18.30.090 Mechanics of Giving Notice and E. Published notice is deemed given on the Failure to Give Notice date it is published. A. Where either the Commission or Council or F. In computing the length of time that notice both intend to hold more than one public is given, the first date notice is given shall be hearing on the same application, notice of excluded and the day of the hearing or the date several public hearings before both approval on which the appeal period or review period authorities may be given in one notice in the expires shall be included unless the last day falls same manner provided under Subsection on any legal holiday or on Saturday, in which 18.30.080.C. case, the last day shall be the next business day. (Ord. 89-06;Ord. 83-52) B. The notice given to persons entitled to mailed or published notice pursuant to this 18.30.100 Hearings Procedure section shall include the following information: A. Unless otherwise provided in the rules of 1. The number and title of the file procedure adopted by the City Council: containing the application and the address and phone number of the Director's office where 1. The presiding officer of the Commission additional information can be obtained; and of the Council shall have the authority to: 2. A description of the location of the a. Regulate the course, sequence and proposal reasonably calculated to give notice as decorum of the hearing; to the location of the affected geographic area; b. Dispose of procedural requirements 3. A description of the substance of the or similar matters; and proposal in sufficient detail for people to determine that a change is contemplated and the c. Impose reasonable time limits for place where all relevant materials and oral presentations; information may be obtained or reviewed; and 2. No person shall address the Commission 4. The time(s), place(s) and date(s) of the or the Council without: public hearing(s);a statement that public oral or written testimony is invited;and a statement that a. Receiving recognition from the the hearing will be held under this title and rules presiding officer; and of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure b. Stating their full name and residence set forth in Section 18.30.100. address;and 18-30 - 5 Reformatted 1994 • • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 18.30.100 3. Disruptive conduct such as audience 18.30.120 The Standards for the Decision demonstrations in the form of applause, cheering, display of signs shall be cause for A. The recommendation by the Commission expulsion of a person or persons from the and the decision by the Council shall be based hearing, termination or continuation of the on consideration of the following factors: hearing,or other appropriate action determined by the presiding officer. 1. The statewide planning goals and guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised B. Unless otherwise provided in the rules of Statutes Chapter 197; procedures adopted by the Council, the presiding officer of the Commission and of the 2. Any federal or state statutes or Council, shall conduct the hearing as follows: guidelines found applicable; 1. The hearing shall be opened by a 3. Applicable plans and guidelines adopted statement from the presiding officer setting forth by the Metropolitan Service District; the nature of the matter before the body, a general summary of the procedures set forth in 4. The applicable comprehensive plan this section, a summary of the standards set policies and map;and forth in Section 18.30.120, and whether the decision which will be made is a 5. The applicable provisions of the recommendation to the City Council or whether implementing ordinances. it will be the final decision of the Council; B. Consideration may also be given to: • 2. A presentation of the Director's report and other applicable staff reports shall be given; 1. Proof of a change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the 3. The public shall be invited to testify; comprehensive plan or implementing ordinance which is the subject of the application. (Ord. 4. The public hearing may be continued to 89-06; Ord. 83-52) allow additional testimony or it may be closed; and 18.30.130 Approval Process and Authority 5. The body's deliberation may include A. The Commission shall: questions to the staff,comments from the staff or inquiries directed to any person present. (Ord. 1. After notice and a public hearing, 89-06; Ord. 83-52) formulate a recommendation to the Council to approve, to approve with modifications or to 18.30.110 Continuation of the Public Hearing deny the proposed change, or to adopt an alternative; and A. The Commission or the Council may continue any hearing and no additional notice 2. Within 10 days of determining a shall be required if the matter is continued to a recommendation, cause the written place, date and time certain. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. recommendation to be signed by the presiding 83-52) officer of the Commission and to be filed with the Director. 18-30- 6 Reformatted 1994 • • • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 1830.130 B. Any member of the Commission who voted for approval, approval with modifications, or in opposition to the recommendation by the denial. Commission on a proposed change may file a written statement of opposition with the Director B. An affirmative vote by a majority of the prior to any Council public hearing on the qualified members of the Council present shall proposed change. The Director shall transmit a be required to decide any motion made with copy to each member of the Council and place a respect to the proposed change. (Ord. 89-06; copy in the record. Ord. 83-52) C. If the Commission fails to recommend 18.30.150 The Final Decision approval, approval with modification or denial of the proposed legislative change within 60 A. The approved legislative change shall take days of its first public hearing on the proposed effect after adoption as specified in the enacting change, the Director shall: ordinance. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 1. Report the failure together with the 18.30.160 The Record of the Public Hearing proposed change to the Council; and A. A verbatim record of the proceeding shall be 2. Cause notice to be given, the matter to made by stenographic or mechanical means. It be placed on the Council's agenda, a public shall not be necessary to transcribe testimony. hearing to be held and a decision to be made by The minutes and other evidence presented as a the Council. No further action shall be taken by part of the hearing shall be part of the record. the Commission. B. All exhibits received and displayed shall be D. The Council shall: marked so as to provide identification and shall be part of the record. 1. Have the responsibility to approve, approve with modifications or deny an C. The official record shall include: application for the legislative change or to remand to the Commission for rehearing and 1. All materials considered by the hearings reconsideration on all or part of an application body; transmitted to it under this title; 2. All materials submitted by the Director 2. Consider the recommendation of the to the hearings body with respect to the Commission, however, it is not bound by the application; Commission's recommendation; and 3. The verbatim record made by the 3. Act by ordinance which shall be signed stenographic or mechanical means, the minutes by the Mayor after the Council's adoption of the of the hearing and other documents considered; ordinance. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 4. The final ordinance; 18.30.140 Vote Required for a Legislative Change 5. All correspondence; and A. An affirmative vote by a majority of the 6. A copy of the notice which was given as qualified voting members of the Commission provided by Section 18.30.080, accompanying present shall be required for a recommendation 18-30- 7 Reformatted 1994 • 1 . • • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 18.30.160 affidavits and list of persons who were sent mailed notice. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.30.170 Reapplication A. If an application has been made and denied in accordance with the provisions set forth in this title or by action by the Land Use Board of Appeals, the Land Conservation and Development Commission,or the courts,no new application for the same or substantially similar change shall be accepted within one year from the date of the final action denying the application;except the Council may reinitiate an application upon a finding that there has been a substantial change in the facts surrounding the application or a change in policy which would support the reapplication. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52)■ 18-30- 8 Reformatted 1994 • • � � TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 18.32.010 Chapter 18.32. PROCEDURES FOR 1832.280 Denial of the Application: DECISION MAKING: Resubmittal QUASI-JUDICIAL 13.32.290 Standing to Appeal or for a Petition for Review 1832.010 Purpose 1832.300 Computation of Appeal Period and 1832.020 The Application Process Effective Date of the Decision 18.32.030 Time Period for Decision Making 1832.310 Determination of Appropriate 1832.040 Preapplication Conference Required Reviewing Body 1832.050 Application Submittal 1832.320 Type of Appeal or Review Hearing: Requirements: Refusal of an Application Limitations of Review 1832.055 Applicant's Evidence 1832330 Transcripts 1832.060 Duties of the Director 1832.340 Notice of Appeal or Petition for 1832.070 Alternative Recommendation by Review Director 1832.345 Fee Waiver for Appeals 1832.080 Additional Information Required, 1832.350 Persons Entitled to Notice on Waiver of Requirements and Report Appeal or Review: Type of Notice Required 18.32.360 Contents of Notice on Appeal or 1832.090 Approval Authority Responsibilities Review 1832.100 Consolidation of Proceedings 18.32.370 Action on Appeal or Review: Time 1832.110 A Decision by the Director. No Limit and Authority to Change the Decision Hearing Required 1832380 Final Action of the Approval 1832.120 Notice of Decision by the Director Authority; Effective Date 1832.130 Notice of Hearings Officer, 1832390 Revocation of Approvals Commission, and City Council Proceedings 1832.140 Contents of the Notice for Public 18.32.010 Purpose Hearings 1832.150 Failure to Receive Notice: A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish Computations procedures under this title for the consideration 1832.160 Hearings Procedure of development applications, for the 1832.165 Record May Remain Open; consideration of quasi-judicial comprehensive Admission of New Evidence plan amendments and for appeal or review of 1832.170 Ex Parte Communications with decisions. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) Approval Authority 1832.180 Continuation of the Hearing 18.32.020 The Application Process 1832.190 Subpoena or Deposition of Witnesses A. Applications for approval required under 1832.200 Evidence this chapter may be initiated by: 1832.210 Judicial Notice 1832.220 Participation in the Decision: Voting 1. Order of Council; 1832.230 Record of Proceeding for Public Hearings 2. Resolution of a majority of the 1832.250 The Decision Process of the Commission; Approval Authority 1832.260 The Form of the Final Decision 3. The Director; 1832.270 Notice of Final Decision 1832.275 Amended Decision Process 4. Application of a recorded owner of property or contract purchasers. 18-32 - 1 Reformatted 1994 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. OTHER CASE NO'S: RECEIPT NO. APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: DATE: 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Application elements submitted: PROPERTY ADDRESS/LOCATION Not Applicable (A) Application form (1) I (B) Owner' s signature/written TAX MAP AND TAX LOT NO. Not Applicable authorization II (C) Applicant's statement SITE SIZE Not Applicable (pre-app check list) PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER* Not Applicable (D) Filing fee (t_ ADDRESS PHONE Additional information for Compre- CITY ZIP sive Plan Map Amendments/Zone Changes APPLICANT* AKA Business Services, Inc. (E) Maps indicating property ADDRESS 10626 SW Barbur Blvd. PHONE 452-1094 location (pre-app check list) CITY Portland ZIP 97280-0089 (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 DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE: 2. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property FINAL DECISION DEADLINE: request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (if COMP. PLAN/ZONE DESIGNATION: applicable) from to and a Zone Change 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 locational criteria for establishment of general City Council Approval Date: cgmmercial district EXHIBIT =3 0737P/23P Revd: 5/37 • • 3. List any variance, conditional uses, or ocher 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 :his 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 23rd day of February 1996 SIGNATURES of each owner (eg. husband and wife) of he subject property. 7 (KSL:pm/0737P) I . ' NOTIC ? OF WITHDRAWAL ENIAL This form must be mailed to DLCD as required by OAR 660-18-040 Jurisdiction City of Tigard Local File# CPA96-0002 Date Notice of Proposed Amendment was mailed to DLCD? March 5.1996 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.) Ammend Locational Criteria for expansion of General Commercial Areas. This Proposal Was: Withdrawn x Denied Local Contact: Nadine Smith Phone: 503-639-4171 Address: 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 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 • • m SENDER: j - 'o •Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. I also wish to receive the i ■Complete items 3,4a,and 4b. following services(for an d •Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this extra fee): d card to you. ■Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the back if space does not 1. ❑ Addressee's Address Z . permit. w •Write'Retum Receipt Requested'on the mailpiece below the article number. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery a r ■The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date �, c delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. .4 m 3.Article Addressed to: 4a.Article Number m DEPT. OF LAND CONS. & DEV. P 474 569 758 °C Ec 1175 COURT ST. NE 4b.Service Type 0 SALEM, OR 97310-0590 - ❑ Registered XCertified rn N ❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured • W p ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ COD C) a 7.Date of Delivery .° z SEP. G3 3 'o m 5.Received By:(Print Name) 8.Addressee's Address(Only if requested' c and fee is paid) t g 6.Sig (Addrr1esse ,or Agen �/��! i- o >. ' ICS'.C 1. ,US`t\ k\Q _ o \ PS Form 3811, December 1994 Domestic Return Receipt P 474 569 758 US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail(See reverse) SpT OF LAND CONSERV & DEV Stmt wed0RT ST. NE P r star ZlP 310-0590 Postage $ t 32 Certified Fee t I l7 Special Delivery Fee W Restricted Delivery Fee I'D _in Return Receipt Showing to ' �� *- Whom&Date Delivered I Return Receipt Showing to .n < Date,&Addressee's ,, ,,- 1X T ■ O TOTAL Postage k • V ;'$p 2 .• r. Postmark or Dat _3 )ii `Q U 11 0 1� �3 1` co °� G'S es „,.. NOTICE iiF PROPOSED AMIONDMENT • - • - Thislcirin muitbareceived by DLCD'atleast'45 days- -prior to-theTutalhearine-:::,7-,,,`,.; -fORSI97.610 and OAR Chaiter 660,"DiViSiOd18t-'!"777'': See reverse side for submittal requirements - • Jurisdiction City of Tigard Date of Final Hearing 5/14/96 • Local File# CPA 96-0002 Has this proposal been previously submitted to DLCD? Yes x No N/A Date - ji 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.° Applicant proposess to amend the Tigard Comprehensive Plan to modify the spacing and locational criteria for General Commercial (C-G) 'land uses._ The modification would ease the restrictive requirement that General Commercial plan designations not be located 'where residential districts are adjacent on more than two (2) sides. Plan Map Change From N/A to N/A Zone Map Change From N/A to N/A Location: City Wide Acres Involved: N/A Specified change in Density: Current Density N/A Proposed Density Applicable Goals:l, 2, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Is an Exception proposed? Yes X No Affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: Metro and DLCD. Local Contact: Ray Valone Phone: (503) 639-4171- Address: 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 DLCD File# Date Rec'd #Days Notice • 431 238 675 a) N , Receipt for o aVi Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided .q:, 0 Do• ot use for International Mail O (See Reverse) Kt S.1 Sent to o w OREGON DLCD • svelt2iD COURT STREET, N.E. • P.O.,State and ZIP Code • ' w SALEM OR 97310-0590 cd . Postage a) r71 Certified Fee - ' ( f 0 '� G4 Special Delivery Fee a1 O• Restricted Delivery Fee al F Return Receipt Showing I l r� • o to Whom&Date Delivered (\r\J >y to Return Receipt Showing to Whom, - - al7 Date,and Addressee's Address •• ) TOTAL Postage 0 &Fees ch p. a 0 Postmark or Date �� [t, ` W E , 0 t7Yr "OO�� 4, b I i 'd; SENDER: a7"- s'r —�°a=� o ■Complete items 1 and/or 2 for a dd ional,seimces a ��:_^ _I a_I �,,WISh4O reG21Ye t l@ ,�y ■Complete items 3,4a,and 4b. _ , follOWing�services.(fQr�an y •Print your name and address tirafie re erMt of tti orm so that we:can retu_m this extra e)F,,,:,, ,, card to you. t.t a� Y =�• ai j •Attach this form to the front of he mailpiece,or o back if space es-not m„,_i ' 1. o' dd�esse s°Ped9ress d permit. 4• '' 6iAR,.v • i` d ■Write'Retum Receipt Request 1'bn the mailpiec�below the anicl�umber� 2. eStrictecLD.elSvery co r •The Return Receipt will show to vbtt~om fFDiGe'Was delivered and4he date - . (, c delivered. _ss Consult postmaster for fee. .. c 0 0 3.Article Addressed to: 4a.Article Number d d OREGON DLCD P 431 238 675 E a 1175 COURT STREET, N.E. 4b.Service Type d d o SALEM OR 97310-0590 ❑ Registered ® Certified c . cn ❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured E ¢ ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ COD = I, C3 7.Date of Delivery K - 69 I. n5.Received By: (Print Name) 8.Addressee's Address(Only if requested 1 l ,ui and fee is paid) ) t l I CC 6.Signature: (Addressee or Agent) ��-✓ ~ , 1 (0>. x Q 6-3.4.t.i. (A) 6,--(7_,e___- I, 1 PS Form 3811, December 1994 Domestic Return Receipt -- 05/20/96 15:31 $503 220 2480 STOEL RIVES 5 0 Q002/008 r • • STOEL RIVES us A T T tl R N 1: V i A N I:1.1 rNSUItAN(F CI N'1'►;r: wut iw Fl FT!I At Li.SLIT(2•tni I'tJRTLANU.OKLGON,17:04.1_Nt !'!u.,,t+t13):_4-.33tu1 14.t t?0.:1221)-_;Sn rovt$I a221,iu1S Intetttt:t:"St''I .I C.'nt May 20, 1996 MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial (503)294-9194 VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Ray Valone, Planner City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Case File No. CPA 96-0002 Dear Ray: I am writing to respond to the staff report to the Planning Commission. Please distribute this letter to the Planning Commission. 1. The location of the applicant's property is not relevant to this legislative text amendment. Even if the City Council ultimately approves this legislative text amendment, the property owner must still submit a quasi-judicial application that is subject to other applicable approval criteria, including notice to adjacent property owners. 2. The proposed text amendment does not apply to establishment of new commercial areas, establishes objective criteria for locational standards for Commercial General Tigard Comprehensive Plan ("TCP") map designations where none currently exist and does not change any TCP map designations. 3. The proposed text amendment will not make it easier to change TCP map designations from multi-family residential to commercial. An applicant must still submit a quasi-judicial application that is subject to all of the relevant TCP approval criteria. 4. The staff has previously taken the position that the locational standards in TCP 12.2.1(2)(B) may be interpreted so as not to apply. Staff takes this position based on the language in the introduction to the locational criteria section which provides as follows: PDX1A-33392.1 26322-0001 05/20:96 15:31 12503 220 2480 STOEL RIVES 5 Q003/008 ` • • STOEL RIVES LLY Mr. Ray Valone May 20, 1996 Page 2 "It is intended that these locational criteria be construed in a flexible manner, in the interest of accommodating proposals which, though not strictly in conformance with the applicable criteria, are found to be in the public interest and capable of harmonious integration into the community." For example, this position was adopted by the City Council in Case File No. CPA 95- 0005/ZON 95-0007. On page 9 of the City Council's decision, the findings state "The locational criteria can be construed in a flexible manner in the interest of accommodating proposals which are found to be in the public interest and capable of integration into the community." The City Council adopted the same position in its decision on Case File No. CPA 95-0003/ZON 95-0005. See enclosures. The flaw with the current TCP language is that it provides no objective guidance to the community, the applicant, planning staff or the decision-maker on how to make such an interpretation. While Tigard citizens believe that the TCP criteria requiring that a commercial area be not surrounded on more than two sides by residential districts is an absolute criteria in each case, the city's clear position is that that is not the case. Since locational criteria can be "flexibly" interpreted to avoid the criteria, this proposal actually provides more certainty and protection than does the current TCP text. 5. This application has no impact on the city's ability to meet TCP Goal 10, TCP Policy 1.1.1(c), TCP Policy 5.4, or TCP Policy 6.1.1. The ability of the city to provide adequate housing'opportunities is not affected by this application because any future application to amend a TCP map designation requires compliance with this goal and these • policies. 6. The staff report takes the position that it is inappropriate for the proposed text amendment to distinguish between single family and multi-family areas. In fact, the TCP already distinguishes between such districts. Virtually the entire length of the TCP commercial map designations adjacent to State Highway 99E is separated from low density residential districts by multi-family residential districts. Moreover, the locational criteria for medium density residential and medium-high and high density residential districts provide: "The following factors will be determinants of the areas designated for [multi-family densities) on the plan map: . . . areas which can be buffered from low density residential areas in order to maximize the privacy of established low PDX I A-33492.1 26322-0001 05/20/96 15:32 V503 220 2480 STOEL RIBS 5 0004/008 • • STOEL RIVES I_L' Mr. Ray Valone May 20, 1996 Page 3 density residential areas." TCP 12.1.1(2)(A)(6) and TCP 12.1.1(3)(A)(2). Thus, the city already recognizes a distinction between low density and high density areas. The medium-high and high density residential areas are intended to be within one- quarter mile of neighborhood and general commercial shopping centers. TCP 12.1.1(3)(A)(7). No such specific criterion applies to low density residential districts. Finally, the proposed legislative text amendment simply reflects the status quo. Most, if not all, of the areas shown in the attachment to the staff report as potentially affected by this application are multi-family land use designations. The reason they are affected is because the city has used multi-family designations to buffer commercial areas from low density residential designations. The applicant would amend the proposed text amendment by deleting the distinction if the Planning Commission finds that this distinction is irrelevant. The applicant would agree with the recommended condition of approval on page 2 of the staff report. Very truly yours, MOO e. Michael C. Robinson MCR:lxh enclosures cc: (w/encls.) Mr. Walt Aman (via facsimile) PD X1 A-33492.1 26322-0001 05/20/96 15:32 $503 220 2480 STOEL RIVES 5 Q005/008 008 • • 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 BRIAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. The Tigard City Council reviewed the application below at public hearincs on January ?3 and February 13, 1996. The City Ccur.c:I denies the recuest based on the facts, findings and conclusions noted below. • A. FACTS • ereral Infcrrnat`•cr.. Coli.crenenspie Plan .'``rnencment CPA. C.-75-0C.103 0.103 �'cne Chance SON U.=7: ,Amenc, the Comprehensive Flan map rrcm Medium-H.tcn • Cer.sity F.esicentiai to 1.-G (General Commercial) and chance the ,- r lieu from lZ-_c to 1.-v. .`.i :CANT:: •r.ar r`:'.c.:�',..rent C�,h1 b..=r P.O. .-ox 97C4 C4 Peilinchar . 'u A 98227 �c• B;.°-`gin i crt ar.d. SCR G7225 Southeast corner of SW Schc'UIs F.rr,f Road and SW 115th Avers r1NC i M 151 32A.C. !ct S000) 2. The _-ec. t`. sit= = acre ccr:icn of a :arc:.: that contains 15.1= acres. It .. .r.5 the ;':ester :c ...., of the :-arch that :s iccetec G.cnc Schclls Ferry Rcac at the intErae;:acn of SW 125th Avenue ;see map. Exhibit Al. The properties to zh=. north cc:c'Es,Sc.:oils -°rr'1 Picad are in the City c, EC-.hoot:ctn and v::c... R-:) for ci!lcie family Procertes to the east. south and West are in i °�:.ar:.:� and 1 05/20/96 15:33 $503 220 2480 STOEL RIVES 5 81006/008 • • • • amendment/zone chance has not been evaivated fcr a wcrst case scenario. which is a scenario where the site is developed with uses that are allowed under C-G =cning but cenerate �.mcre vehicle trips and/or cause greater traffic impact, the pianninc division cannot make a rindinc that Policy 8.i.i has been satisfied. 7. Policy 8.2.2 states that the city snail encourage the use of public transit by locating and intensive uses in cicse proximity to transit ways. This policy is satisfied because locating a retail commercial use at the site would support public transit alcng SW Scholls Ferry Road. Currently, i ri-met offers bus service alone this condor. • Policy i 2.2.i(2) provides me iccaticnal criteria for c esignatinc land as general .commercial on the plan map. The !ecaticnal criteria can be construed in a flexible manner in the interest of accommodating proposals which are found to be in the public interest and cacac!e or intecraticn into the community. The burden or prcv:nc c:nrcrmar.ice with :he criteria varies with the decree cf cn ange and impact on the community. The applicable lccatioral criteria with illicit acs are as follows: ) S^acinc and Location (a) The commercial area s not surrounded by residential districts cn more than an th r.vc sides. This criterici i is not satisfied✓ because the site is surrounded by residential districts on Tour sides. The e reside ntial district to the north is in the City cf yea ve cn and zoned R-5. single family. The districts tc the east. south -=n r' ..C5. of the site are in Tigard zoned for multi-family c:v �fi., zoned t .Thcce5s • :rcdcsed =r== or =xcans'cn of an exis inc area =!'tall r-ci create tragic -sz c cr = tr=t is sareni `nobler-. Sucn a dete.mina?ion shall be based c�i stre=, cacaciti. e`istinc and br= ec:ed traffic `clu es. the speed.' iimi t. number of ttuminc movements ovemeents ands the traffic ceneraiirc characteristics of the various tyces cf uses. See comments under O above. Th= sit= s -ll have direct _ ace from ; =ior c^iiector or arterial street;. This criterio n is satisfied because the site has direct access to SW "'chci!s Ferry Road. =n at.= tali ‘ � Hc t .-ns:cr-a.;cn snail to available to the site cr cenerci area. This ....tern l ,: = :s e= = se i n-met offer= bus service alcho SW Cchciis Fern/ -'•cap. .. • • • 05/20/96 15:33 12503 220 2480 STOEL RIVES 5 a007/008 • ti • • 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 PACIFIC CREST PARTNERS AND PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEMS. The Tigard City Council reviewed the application below at a public hearing on January 23. 1996. The City Council approves the request based on the facts, findings and conclusions noted below. • A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 95-0005 Zone Change ZON 95-0007 REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Parcels 1 and 3 of MLP 94-0013 from Commercial Professional to Neighborhood Commercial and change the zoning from C-P to C-N; and amend the Comprehensive Plan map on property at the southeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW North Dakota Street from Neighborhood Commercial to Commercial Professional and change the zoning from C-N to C-P. APPLICANTS: Pacific Crest Partners Providence Health Systems 911 Oak Street 4805 NE Glisan Street Hood River, OR 97031 Portland, OR 97213 OWNERS: Same LOCATION: . Southwest and southeast corners of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW North Dakota Street 2. Vicinity The proposal is a joint application between Pacific Crest Partners and Providence Health Systems. Two sites are involved in the plan amendment'zone change. 1 05/20/96 15:33 $503 220 2.80 STOEL RIVES 5 0008%008 • • • either by a new zoning district or by land added to the cid districts. For the above reasons, Policy 8.1.1 is satisfied. 5. Policy 12.2.1 (1) provides the locational criteria for designating land as neighborhood commercial (C-N). These criteria apply to Site A. The locational criteria can be construed in a flexible manner in the interest of accommodating proposals which are found to be in the public interest and capable of integration into the community. The burden of proving conformance with the criteria varies with the degree of chanae and impact on the community. The applicable locational criteria with findings are as follows: (1) Spacing and Location a. The service area radius fcr a neighborhood commercial center stall beat least one-half of a mile. The service area depends on the type of tenants who locate at the site. but it is expected to be at least one-half mile. If approved, this C-N district would be the only one within one mile. There are C-G and C-P districts within one half mile that serve a larger trade area. b. Commercial development shall be limited to one quadrant of a street intersection or where there is no street intersection, to one side of the street. if this proposal is approved and Site B is designated as C-P, then Site A would be the only quadrant of the intersection designated as C-N. The northeast quadrant in Beaverton is desiccated as 0-C (Office Commercial); the northwest quadrant in Beaverton is R-7 (Singie-Family Residential); and the southeast quadrant would be C-P (Commercial Professional). This criterion, therefore, is satisfied. (2) . Access a. The proposed center or expansion of an existing center shalt not create. traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on streetcapacit)r. existing and projected traffic volumes, the speed limit number of tuming_movements and the traffic generating characteristics. of/he most intensive use allowed in the zone. As discussed above under 8.1.1, staff agrees that the traffic analysis completed for the previous comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment (CPA 95-0002JZON 95- 0003) suffices for the current proposal. Based on this analysis and for the reasons cited in 8.1.1, staff concludes that redesignating Parcels 1 and 3 of Site A to C-N will not create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. This criterion, therefore, is satisfied. 9 05/08/96 WED 13:03 FAX 503 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 E 002 • • STOEL RIVES LLP � .T T O R N I: y 5 • STANDARD INSURANCE CF-NTER • `)(HI SW FIFTH AVENUE.SUITE raw PORTI.AND.ORF,(:ON vi_Oi•I_CN Dhrrnt r54312'4-3a0 Fax tSW/220,24dt) !'UU(50.312:I-to45 InAmct:wwt,:;to..cum May 8, 1996 MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial (503)294-9194 VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Ray Valone, Planner City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Application to Amend Comprehensive Plan Text by AKA Services • Dear Ray: As promised, this letter analyzes the,potential impacts of the text amendments. As you know, I modified the text amendment proposal in my April 22, 1996 letter to you. Based on that modification, I examined the current city of Tigard zoning district map. I looked for areas currently zoned CG adjacent to residential zoning districts more intense than the R-7 classification. I excluded some areas that are developed and provide no opportunity for obvious commercial redevelopment (such as the CG district surrounding the R-40 district at Washington Square Mall). I found 11 areas located as follows: 1. On Scholls Ferry Road west of 112th Street and north of Springwood Drive. 2. On Greenburg Road at Shady Lane. • 3. A small CG area at Oak Street and 87th Avenue. 4. On Pacific Highway east of 79th Avenue. 5. At Hall Boulevard and.Pfaffel Street. 6. North of Pacific Highway and west of 217 to Greenburg Road. 7. North of Pacific Highway at Johnson Street. PDX IA-31942.1 26322-0001 SEATTLE ...••■•• •■• r. - 05/08/96 WED 13:04 FAX 503 220 2480 Stoel Rives 1 0 003 `1 • • STOEL RIVES LLP Mr. Ray Valone May 8, 1996 Page 2 • 8. South of Pacific Highway between McKenzie to north of Hill View Street. 9. On either side of Pacific Highway south of McDonald Street. 10. North of the intersection of Durham Road and Pacific Highway (although this area is largely developed). • 11. South of the intersection of Pacific Highway and Durham Road (although this area is also largely developed). Based on this analysis, it looks like fewer than half of the CG zones now existing, especially along Pacific Highway, would be affected by this application, as modified, since the proposal does not apply to new CG areas and applies only to an expansion of existing CG areas not surrounded on more than two sides by other than R-7 or less intense zoning districts. I also want to make two other points about this application. First, the text amendment could be modified to provide that it is not subject to flexible interpretation. This issue came up.during my meeting with the south CIT. Secondly, the text amendment actually reduces the potential impacts since the "flexible interpretation" language would allow any CG district, including those adjacent on more than two sides to single family districts, to expand. This application clarifies when a CG area could expand. Please call me if you have any questions concerning this matter. Very truly yours, • Michael C. Robinson ( ' ') MCR:lxh enclosures cc: (w/encls.) Mr. Walt Aman • P DX I A-3 I 942.1 26322-0001 I .,.�.. a•A _ , i I, ------ _,__ 71�,.+ . s r c Ill• o i.. • ..1‘).0- 1:;• ••;'_ i! ;I - I I'r` I' I. I I ='4 •�T IL: •I'/ i� !!' I •. .._1 . _•. 1• r. j" i�r` I- 0 �..I . ',_ _ •.,,y.,.i -;.i j r 1 i _, I( . .I I f._-1 _ Ll-r !-_1 '�� " ,' f� [ i.i._LlL_I�J L_i. -1 I::CIs.�_�_ II__I_ I_!_•II r' 11,+ era:-'�',.•i• , ' _ , I ' - •I -�-. I--� - 1 1'- - -r-r I- T -1'- ,! ',-, •;:'Jrr'T� r �"''1•- I .1 ' 1 1 1 (I _.S �� ?� I �F1 - r- - r- -ir�l .! ,(: F �-�'!!tr1 1 • i I ! ,• _. , v!J'S111rTON I] 1 (--; i IR- 3' l 1J'I��' ,r- _ l_.(--i'!IJ1'_=.1.1.1:�_IP! :1 r��5:: ,-1-.;, , c I •sov -� _ '.:I l �.i J�;� � -J, �z � _ rr .I,::_Y: ,�:�' , _ -�hri_•l.. - i _ ;j. 1AA33 1 _ i , _ I-1 i 1�-- '7:i1 11�'��:1._I:�:LI IJ1 r;+ , '.!'.�-1 !.' l 11 , ', �� :. �. ��I�v_ �_'I- ._.-:.. J r�' !_I - 1 _ 1.•" .___ lr.� .l !��'l=' '.F+ jI.�LLl.1�j.J! II+.: _ __i - ., '1\T1 ` a�� y �.� I - �% _ I� I( I -_! �I ` : I _ l .;�[�'J`1.;r1. \:d( I j+4. 1 GRESCENTGROV�� j �� -1, ls'1.I-13 LI I. 1- 1..�_ - J 1, =I: _ ,:- !i!Ir ►'. :+' ' I CEMETCRY�' [ r ' ,^!`�� r]; ;: � t,,��-I �1`'(-✓r-r?�" "!j 1 .F._ 1 {'.,-',,.J l•' (1 '� I t' - ' L_ -i.-(,.- � I_..r ri�- -!,'/__-_. - IAUIGCR P H(J j'-r- j�`" `T--)) - �' r9. _ i R-4.5 i J��:�.IJ.I�-. T�_I_!,.}�,-•• ,- ,-; T 1,�, " -'-_- �----. I*'.'''`�' �1' �. - -._.s�4, t ! [�-i Lr� / �' I I! �r ;�' X1.1 1_i 3 1"1. '-Ji •'� ' 1 l 1, FULWE •• •1 1-! 7��-,_ ,�..!J 1_r' r�_! 4 l Y1 d (i;' : tt.11�o ;:: L i I. . _ i 1 :.t;� _ f11-Li_+l!,{,lr:fl'1!=_:-�-I_��'1:!tt�1 Itr� N I I��e riI' C-a l: y l L r �T=' ttJ _ - 1- 6-lib] T -I I- I - ^1-• .,.,,• \ f4 ` T A r -(�11 Q I �lfI'T i_ � � t�I_{l ` 1 !• 1 sae .pp_�i I .,!..:'• �l.t° Ir !e;.....\t. __ - Ipp J`, •C r 1 E`t, �Jti l(TL�_�_I�_HJ_LCI L:!1 Ll f. LI: a�!L. ! ••1<•_r l _Ti y 1 11t (-, ,..� -[7`st i� ____,,..1, ` 1-_n j �! r �7;;1. 6.:.i. !77J.lifr l-i.i. O. ,•., \ .� I- i� • t l 1�- '�' -1- I ! ! ( l 1 1 L ��'1!�( '� .c •, ,, . ••Tr '1 T''S• '\ • 11 1 I! ,1 f -II y;!_J'):'I.(_i _I!_1111 -_ :11_•J._ I ' 1__�!• 7 0-G1' I .��! I -ri:``• \' ii I [ 6-,1. ` ,:,,y b:� 'IN 1-IL.1..11i 1 . 1 111-•--11_t_t1 �; •t - • LEI- •I.. . I • _L 1' i: 1�..j-r:� _n rt7j ., I, C�.•.o-• 1 �> ra � '�� 1U I1i _' fo '�'�� L4 1 ' '•... L�• ��,SAIx;"i:. -.9.. :i��„It. °'aI. r .... ... 1' i _ •1'1'-_- _ _ ep.r,;"••••••.∎r' `'''\~ - _I T ai�i 1_ 1 -7 ..i qq 1_L' rf R-25 FI :if-,1:., 11"' l'. , 7` '3a:�1 �k `'\'•.•n` � tF':l =1 r L-fl.n�a;_ i .� Ire_ l 1 .I o } _1,-;,,..f-=•+ .:1.„' :: F•s.f._-...-:. I• -l(-#1.---W- 11;_t••.Y •e -k \ ' ;':• �1 I , - •LII:1:^'1'►».t Lam(;-:_�: _i� • `' _--. • L'i 'j•.. _I,'Z=rr r•.1- i ; • ®® '\� • I. _ 1 • - � '_ ' t-�.i � , �J n �s. � •'3r,.. , 1`.._ 11-1 _!7 1.,_ - - -il_ .11"I.!■i L .-; _ - t';=f 44:4n;:t..:'I .-i I I ..f.?- - r-!-E L..j_• ,4, 1 ' °-r , r�w'i e- -i "°E°:r , '-1 -i-� �� K_t/�=I • ,.. r:.I r .-_ ,LT., I I ►_ y!_ ' ��. +_ ,:,i -11 .. . 17 ?� �- IL .Ll;l__ Z- a 4}- =1 r ' `./'. -nt� ..iaf• !!If jjh•1 1 �J•'l--'A c. 11: . - . :._s7,.- ,'{ ..R 1�1 ti 11_.! - -1 --1 ^i = I tRii-� I. - `° ._. pc:-.1--r 11 . �; • it 11.4 I I 1. _ill; 1_I k_ _I -- , _�-_11�:. - . .,� .. _,..; p.. :! _ t - .'..1I 1: I '•.5 • '�� \,7 1 -r --I LT= �° :I♦�I- y +_�J �l �-- -1•-l.l_I I_'11 J-1''_ _ .1•.', t]I •1 -� T-.=;Y.i' Y}."}• 1 Ik' • 12. .J'' I ' i _� 7.. l I ,(1, �, - J._ .J,I-�f _ - I -11-7- �L� Ji_-J�- ....�-_J. R 15 C_P - I_? - ., .. •. ...•ri � : -1 L .F .r..-. all A I III ,- ., • ` T-.: 1 !..4- II--- I . ': - , A. • _ _. . , -z:• r",-l_f ;;�;I rr,Cap R� _•o ,[ ;n�<�; _i_:...-.'• ' 4•r_.s..y.:,.� ' 1 I h:� ^' �: jr1':, r-."r" 1 J! _ (: - I'I 'R 121 .� Cl crl }j! .';, �.�. a 1��y:,� '_�'. '.1._ :1_:' l_,r,, ti 1.1.: `' .._�1, .1:7.'. _. il- -i;�a �f,f_' • lil-4 V1' • ,i i (� 1 1111. .nfi„ry 1 i, ,if'}T'y1 - �(:_.,'S7�-;f . ,�+- ,- --- b _ �', L\"�� , •I.. I, (r. 1 .. f4 0 MARY .>>N,.• , '+`••'i: .A.•"•:fibIrk-. '.X►•L:1 ;4fr-I i "7 I , '`1 ': .._ . . I"PI . "y 1 J� . \ ' - +pOpli• ;::ji I..--0 ! I 1(; �yti -�_ .T ,�,%',J,iZ7 a }Sim J ' -j I -1i +-.'. `.r.; rt.. /� 4 /I +••vl1 c"i ' 1'r t 1�t �. 3s *� ! '! 135P..! 11.111 L. ��} _77 i L ^' • "j, _'p fi , r .; --6j `•ti. .+' hOF. 'ij.'i' 1 - �%/JJj FO'NICP� 1 I•J .I_"� '. 12• i^ �}� ` r • +-! - .. ..�. I( •�.� 1 I,_ ( .1 �'Si 1''rl1f1G ~'1'.r .r`..• •,; •',•• '' ;•�/. . '1 � lF... • ' .. {11.11 / •'� •! �7... I-• ' ••6V '1 '- ( / r •W CO CO 05 - AREAS 1 - 6 • o - tn 0 • • �--. _ , '.• _n I • I • ' �I•,u IJ' 1-`I , ..! I .11. ' I' ii:-. I '' . \\ \r . \ c3�..\, •a�;:`i' I I ip_I o�'.,-�Z`1 = III] i:k1ii'-- =I t _ (.-�I, — it I I �. I I f I� Fr1 � f0 1_ 1 r Z v �1< 1 Q>t'� ' :(� I • � f IN �� ) 1 ._. _I I.II�.':; �.I ( � I .`j I .•- .1 I f - .I - -. I •i 1 .� -a �' T- t . I n is •I..{ ., 1—.r J.I`l 1 wi-I L /1 ,. �u� r I I'1 r;iv,. . 1 �'• ■■ \'� { •'f ..s a '.:► 1--1 _ {-.cry �'' ' i1t1'•' _-f' '- i'= Ti_ltil,,11111P1•:''' ''' ll ' i.j/ '� • --- — '' `1-'' L•r i r I c I ��,,, 1 ,.. - .1.. .. ` • T ( 1^ y/ .. 'I. I.FI�I i' - -13 r77J1`I1':: ' 7 'ii ,�:pb, .•' r .'` \. ::m` �''� 1:1~i+", ..if-T 1 1 - t► r.4 �• . r rrc 11 II,uI+M1Irlulll;./',''�,•,'fl7i•.• �' •'` .I �• { _ _SS,' :�: -- M1 �:�.rp iY 11 • "�I)_l: '1 I rl J K tit !?/,• t l,'' 1 ,i ,5 .l I k►',;a- _ 1) u X -1•�n' �. rrc ° 1.�!�I '•i1i" ,�j, .11 1• 11//t-I / lr"' ,., O oc 1.4 I' , 0C r ,t !1,1i_�i1_I _..1 --„!J�� :r1.1- 4 f.'I”)` qq U Q Y.' I".•• t' r '. .�h'- 71; 1'1 i- --'- )c•/ 111. J a ZuIY y,'W`'O !11I!.':;. iii 1,1 HI 11Tll•: ',° I r l - �' _:il - ''„:1,7:I 1 pl.� .1 I u .•. �Ii:'i� •,)t• ` '•R i t ..1. I- -- '•I Ill ?�� ??T<� ' I .;tt••.:� _.� •�+ is- 1'' )_ 1 „ 4 ::: I ' ' I .I;i�—; ! I I: ( , l_!i1L1 • 1 -:!: I ' ” .T `I_)i' f �, I t.11_I ' I ..1 y c• ; �- cda): �'-��.�', ,. 13i.. ,rY r)� I 1 �'r 0, I fi P ri li..1\.It�''111111r I 1 —, ,'r 7-01:-.1 'lif`•V ).•� �' ''�• e'' - .. • , [11-.Pli.111 ► I I�.I tip.1 i I. . - �' I I - I!: id D- 'I 1 li•-iF_'j`'-•'��''--,__ Ike 1 �1I �rs'_ .� t• , ! ::ofd'•' +� ' I.r — s I 1 - �l.l r�' _ ,1 {.:,. .. ; II – r ':1 if t I -, ' - `,' 1=i� I – ------211-111C1--N 1Y- .•''.. 4,, �r, t, - I l _ .1 .�.11_.__ 1 ` t - ,cr W,1 11...1.y 1•ar.1 _� —ii,.I,.I, •,. . >. rr .,r .�. '.��':.1.•'i•�: . �.. �� .JJ •'I 1i4_I � \_ (1�:. f'��.t .r. r„� •-lf!'t f,.�.-I1.I,—, , �.; �e/•T ' � I • - I— . �I_•�• tr(• •.,•,, w UJ:M,'•r'..(Y I_;•1�. I I 1 Ii � ,,r.�. 1' t – ---,•d� � �JQW I I' � ! lyii! _I • % > j .yf:q�d:. C: ; II-.-�LS-.I` I r ,�; .i11 :! 1 �I� � r:I rte rII: – jL1 I�. :, Is_::ZI = 0;a, 1 �— �� 1 1• N � (— NM i. �� s�� ri ( 1 Ittlt._ V.-11L---.•.41.1.1' r �i� t ,, a.Q t.;�:: r 1t11,1_I_I_I .:11.._.,. / � I . ';i' t;ii ' FI ,' 't4 a �_ c., , Niv1 1 I f•' 1 , I -I 1 Ii'' 1 s� N �llll! liil`i�' I!< - I('ITl 1 '� •J 711 `� _ • 1=i.��'3 ..J� "I •+ I •1 ,� r� !_�� >i� ' III,rI II 'I i I �� _ e D 1 ;�--�— ':�. 1.. �1� _ • •�4lE'., 15n2 1,.. .'•-. ta11'1 1 ,"'..t ;1 f ' / ''i,//,r.�. I a 1:1- t. :. {•� C1 � •/ri?7 1 I . -!•�il•I• ? 'y �I /' ..'"�. '� (� ,. �[[i+ - — -L1:I .y co'"c•'-''''',' �^ f-..-c:4 n (c/ -I�;a•••••••• • Q � 1,1 n..l ��3� ��➢ �\ �3.��rt -._ !II•N.a�;.d. # , ``.. -�I:t . I I 1 I . I r.i�.,_ \ to �� tf 1 �t"�y t,. ,,,, L -..-- �T�.� C .� r t�I-I :.,' t_ 1 1 g ji i �() _ N Mu il''''''-fi s; i a bra rw,♦k.: - - -_) C!tl.c.'C�\� � 4 . .i ,t•1 ;, .�: '``\1"•. „ , , I ,. , �y� .`` N.p;• — i\ •_ \�,:; = t,Ic`,��v '?2 e. �� g� .: �♦�� 1...�i I!IP�.�1}.:' r' i �� n 1U1� 1 ! I (L• I~ ° t v.�{fit r4(f Y♦'.i\�a 'r ., 'Co.`' a� �s•1 yY ' r , ,r ',J� s 1• �y.' _ �'i.\ y i,.. \ �Sy,.x\a`�s ,I C c;..ca g ° , t � !`�.�-I �. _ �... ' LL _ I 1 li•••i �r a 9 a R I �Z-� II 1:1 I (,••`, y _ „.• .,..a g,� .\�\v'k a�5.,, o�',.'Il,•t.' ;wM �� (•�1 '• .�'' I:!.HIIJ.ff��J lAS� 'Ft I m Pl>•Ir ' '- (.9- (::r\Y��`f .says +:�h '??"Cka _ - -,[.I'' 1 i'?.�.2Atii1 Y,.e , .� 1�,,1.. / �s. Tt �' > �k F._ `r>� uu f l ..r.. \ ••, i .y> ay'S"-`:2 ” tt.Q�Xp a `�r •♦•G4 �•� v ` j� ?• ;s �� J 1 1 1.!1. I _ I• I go! . .I I ., A.¢�', - _ •I --_ - j I 1�' . '''`w ` XY��xa ytS.r\�2\��. r•t I� < 1 , �r. k. I J7 1 • ' ' ti�s`.f• 1 r tJ • R`�t.z..—- '2 \X iT�ce�',`g\l `3 7 ai\• tX e i<4 /. K Ir".Y•, n/c $,•':1 I I I I-' M• r • I I.I / ,� , ",�"7.40''•t\� r \��tst \ Y, _ - - .1, ,:" sq ".r .1,,;...<!,X....,',.::-.,''' •,v �'1��, ,,‘'..:1., ,;l). .:+�>62x�+ti# r/ I I / J.�J.'�)f. •,q!� , I... I I ,�: > a ` ``�gc, Gt e+�`�v'. sc.7' °!L.•.? 4'4 a ''+• 'x6' \'" ',r A: r • I I ¢-- • I r•1 I r 1; gip ..- I #. _ '.' '�, �$ ;CaSa� �:�. -- CO AREAS 7 — 11 • C ; y C 4. r^ - • STOEL RIVES LLP 1111 A T T O R N E Y S STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE.SUITE 2300 PORTLAND,OREGON 97204.1263 Phone(503)224-3380 Fax(503)220-2480 TDO(503)221-1045 Internet:www.stoel.com April 22, 1996 MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial (503)294-9194 VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Ray Valone, Planner City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Application by AKA Enterprises, Inc. for Amendnient to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Case File CPA 96-0002 Dear Ray: Pursuant to our earlier discussions, this letter responds to questions raised by staff and others. If you find after reviewing this letter that you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. As you know, this matter is scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission at its May 20, 1996 meeting. 1. Response to Tigard Comprehensive Plan ("TCP") Policies. A. TCP Policy 5.4: • "The City shall ensure that new commercial and industrial development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial and industrial uses." RESPONSE: Alternative Amendment No. 1 differentiates between new commercial areas and expansion of existing commercial areas. Alternative Amendment No. 2 applies to all commercial areas. TCP Policy 5.4 prohibits "new commercial and industrial development" from encroaching into residential areas "that have not been designated for commercial or industrial use". The policy simply states the obvious requirement that until land is PDX 1A-29524.1 263M-0001 'SEATTLE PORTLAND VANCOUVER,WA 3CISE SALT LAKE C:TY WASHINGTON,D.C. •• STOEL RIVES LLP • Mr. Ray Valone April 22, 1996 Page 2 designated on the TCP map for commercial or industrial use, it may not be converted to those uses if it encroaches into a residential area. The proposed TCP text amendment satisfies this policy because it would not allow new commercial or industrial development from encroaching into a residential area before that land has been designated for a commercial or industrial use. The proposed TCP text amendment does not change the requirement that a quasi-judicial TCP map and zoning map amendment, with notice to adjacent property owners, must be approved before any land is changed to a commercial or industrial use designation. This policy is satisfied. B. TCP Policy 6.1.1: "The City shall provide an opportunity for diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and. writ levels." RESPONSE: The proposed TCP text amendment does not violate this policy. The policy is legislative direction requiring implementation through various residential districts. The policy is satisfied by the various residential districts in the Tigard Community Development Code which provide for different types of housing. This policy is satisfied. C. TCP Policy 8.1.1: "The City shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development." RESPONSE: The proposed TCP text amendment does not affect traffic levels on the City's street and roadway system. The proposed TCP text amendment changes one criteria of many that are applicable to any TCP map amendment request. An applicant for a TCP map amendment request to change.a specific property to commercial use must still meet this policy by demonstrating that expected trips will not reduce levels of service below minimum acceptable levels. This policy is satisfied. PDX 1 A-29523.1 26322-0001 • • STOEL RIVES LLP Mr. Ray Valone • April 22, 1996 Page 3 D. TCP Policy 12.1.1.: "The City shall provide for housing densities in accordance with: a) applicable plan policies; b) applicable location criteria; and c) applicable community development code provisions." RESPONSE: The proposed TCP text amendment does not impair the City's ability to provide for appropriate housing densities. TCP Policy 12.1.1 is legislative direction for implementation through the various zoning districts in the Tigard Community • Development Code to provide for appropriate housing densities consistent with the TCP. This policy is satisfied. E. TCP Policy 12.2.1: "The City shall: a) provide for commercial development based on the type of use, its size and required trade area; b) apply all applicable plan policies; and c) apply the appropriate locational criteria applicable to the scale of the project." RESPONSE: The proposed text amendment satisfies this approval criteria in two ways. First, it amends the locational criteria so that an otherwise primarily land-locked ownership in split zoning (i.e. commercial and residential) can be developed consistent with protection to adjacent residential areas. Secondly, it does not affect the requirement that a quasi-judicial TCP map amendment must still comply with all other applicable TCP plan policies. This policy is satisfied. PDX 1A-29524.1 26322-0001 • STOEL RIVES LLP • Mr. Ray Valone April 22, 1996 Page 4 2. Questions raised at the April 8, 1996 Tigard Planning Commission Meeting. A. The proposed amendment is a legislative amendment to the text of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. The amendment does not change the land use designation or zoning for any piece of property in Tigard. Even if this proposed text amendment is approved, all of the other applicable approval criteria in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Tigard Community Development Codes will continue to apply to any request to change the land use designation for a particular piece of property. A separate application is required to initiate such as change. B. Proposed text amendment alternative No. 1 maintains the requirement that new commercial areas not be surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. The amendment would allow an existing commercial area to be increased in size and not be subject to the no more than two side requirement if the three proposed criteria are satisfied. C. The proposed text amendment provides protection against inappropriate commercial zone changes because the proponent of such a change must meet the three criteria found in alternative amendment No. 1. The proposed text amendment establishes specific criteria for such a change whereas the current language contains no criteria. TCP Policy Area 12, "Locational Criteria Introduction" provides: "It is intended that these locational criteria be construed in a flexible manner, in the interest of accommodating proposals which, though not strictly in conformance with the applicable criteria, are found to be in the public interest and capable of harmonious integration into the community." TCP II-77 The Tigard Community Development staff has taken the position that the current language would allow an expansion of an existing commercial area or establishment of a new commercial area, assuming other approval criteria are satisfied, without meeting the "two side" requirement. The proposed text amendment simply imposes specific approval criteria that an application for a comprehensive plan map amendment must meet instead of simply stating, as the TCP now does, that the criteria may be interpreted in a "flexible" manner, without any guidance as to that interpretation. PDX I A-29524.1 26322-0001 re STOEL RIVES LLP • Mr. Ray Valone April 22, 1996 Page 3. Impact of the Amendment. I have reviewed the land use district map of the City of Tigard. I looked at ownerships (based on property lines shown on the map) with "split zoning" (part of the property in a commercial designation and part in a residential designation). Based on that criteria, it appears that the only property that might be affected by this application is the property owned by my client. A broader review shows that there are several residentially- zoned properties along State Highway 99-W that could be affected by this application. However, the same application could be made without this text.amendment. Based on this analysis, I propose that Alternative Amendment No. 1 be revised to read as follows: "1. Spacing and Location. (a). A new commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. (b). An existing commercial area may be expanded and is not subject to (1)(a), above, if the City Council finds that: (i). The expanded commercial area is not surrounded by R-1, R-2, R- 3.5, R-4.5, or R-7 districts on more than two sides; (ii). The increased commercial area will not adversely affect the surrounding residential districts; (iii). The size of the increased commercial area will allow an appropriate buffer to be provided between uses allowed in the commercial district and uses allowed in the surrounding residential district(s); and • (iv). The increased commercial area is the minimum size necessary PDX 1 A-29524.1 26322-0001 • STOEL RIVES LLP Mr. Ray Valone April 22, 1996 Page 6 that is required to allow the appropriate redevelopment of the existing commercial area." Please let me know if you require further information. I have provided a copy of this letter to the Citizen Involvement Team facilitators listed on the attached sheet and to Jeffrey L. Kleinman. Very truly yours, 1`.111iLtk e. • Michael C. Robinson MCR:idh enclosure cc: Mr. Walt Aman (w/o encl.) Ms. Liz Newton (via facsimile) (w/o encl.) CIT Facilitators (w/o encl.) Mr. Jeffrey L. Kleinman (w/o encl.) PDX1A-29524.1 26:,22-0001 • DEAR CITY COUNCIL: • I AM OPPSED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 96-0002 PROPOSED BY AKA BUSINESS SERVICES ON FEBRUARY 23, 1996. NAME xel 6De„ ADDRESS 130 75 c5, W Wakik5 A-va . . 1 ,6picce . . • CONCERNS: r�,(� C h 1Ld d 7 ez 7 6 *i5 Corn m r rA.c Ay X14 RAI e-vuJJ '% 70 my Ala.v 40i/i;e5 pure ra-t RI CWclte/L `l rye ra it ed3 -o 5 /o burn vn tL a kS 41c, AD+ J n.c reaSe, h-ca ioev nvi, p/e fa`YI i( y asirt • • • August 8, 1996 Dear Neighbors; Application has been made before the City Council to allow existing General Commercial land to expand from it's original plan of 2 sides commercial and 2 sides residential. To change this to 3 sides commercial if the last side was to become "multi-family housing(apartments)". This Application does not only apply to the Watkins area along Pacific Hwy. But the Applicant is proposing this "City Wide". In other words to all of Tigards commercial property that is multi-zoned would fall under this new amendment. Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission Recommended denial of the proposal at its hearing of May 20, 1996. Planning staff recommends that the City Council deny CPA 95-0002 because all relevant comprehensive plan criteria are not satisfied and staff does not believe the proposal is beneficial to the city as a whole. This Application goes before City Council , Tuesday, August 13, 1996 at 7:30 pm. Please voice your concerns in person or by letter. If you have any questions I'll do my best to answer them. Your neighbor, Tammy Dustin 10670 SW Deny Dell Ct Tigard, Or 97223 639-2027 i IVO fil intionty Leas4 r dav DEAR CITY COUNCIL: V1• •I AM OPPSED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 96-0002 PROPOSED BY AKA BUSINESS.SERVICES ON FEBRUARY 23, 1996. NAME JJa hn e s cJ 4cfie � , R C.:Ear ADDRESS 1©(9(9© U-) ; P k 5+ • "ria4ko 912z • CONCERNS: VO kCL+ t vt .E1 Q. t.2.96 in S \.a..v‘vx ■vn e,ofri"nn, tc;11 ? A--fe_ , 'ro CD w► vvt e ( a. lI D Zi at I O`R'ALLY ? !�l L 1-s 1:1- � 5 L6 f eed vto �o✓icee vt e1/4 +tie res ae.vt ce s 8))x14(0 • • August 8, 1996 Dear Neighbors; Application has been made before the City Council to allow existing General Commercial land to expand from it's original plan of 2 sides commercial and 2 sides residential. To change this to 3 sides commercial if the last side was to become "multi-family housing(apartments)". This Application does not only apply to the Watkins area along Pacific Hwy. But the Applicant is proposing this "City Wide". In other words to all of Tigards commercial property that is multi-zoned would fall under this new amendment. Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission Recommended denial of the proposal at its hearing of May 20, 1996. Planning staff recommends that the City Council deny CPA 95-0002 because all relevant comprehensive plan criteria are not satisfied and staff does not believe the proposal is beneficial to the city as a whole. This Application goes before City Council , Tuesday, August 13, 1996 at 7:30 pm. Please voice your concerns in person or by letter. If you have any questions I'll do my best to answer them. Your neighbor, Tammy Gustin 10670 SW Deny Dell Ct Tigard, Or 97223 639-2027 • • August 8, 1996 s. Dear Neighbors; Application has been made before the City Council to allow existing General Commercial land to expand from it's original plan of 2 sides commercial and 2 sides residential. To change this to 3 sides commercial if the last side was to become "multi-family housing(apartments)". This Application does not only apply to the Watkins area along Pacific Hwy. But the Applicant is proposing this "City Wide". In other words to all of Tigards commercial property that is multi-zoned would fall under this new amendment. Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission Recommended denial of the proposal at its hearing of May 20, 1996. Planning staff recommends that the City Council deny CPA 95-0002 because all relevant comprehensive plan criteria are not satisfied and staff does not believe the proposal is beneficial to the city as a whole. This Application goes before City Council, Tuesday, August 13, 1996 at 7:30 pm. Please voice your concerns in person or by letter. If you have any questions I'll do my best to answer them. Your neighbor, Tammy Gustin 10670 SW Derry Dell Ct Tigard, Or 97223 639-2027 1110 • DEAR CITY COUNCIL: • • I AM OPPSED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 96-0002 PROPOSED BY AKA BUSINESS SERVICES ON FEBRUARY 23, 1996. NAME J 2rd A--s" ✓/�i�. GJ . rte aC - ADDRESS 1'3 / CONCERNS: CJe afr--e ,sue -at"- j /J 7-4> ,s'J't J ,. 05,7 f Jte Lv„:T�%N� � �� - < edu //0/(.:',:r/" Ccs �; s ,:7` /Sig v l. (�. /-'t _r 1-41'�/ �.Yl c- 7.7 i rx • • DEAR CITY COUNCIL: I AM OPPSED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 96-0002 PROPOSED BY AKA BUSINESS SERVICES ON FEBRUARY 23, 1996. NAME SD 2-AAVUE 4 LED 4076- 6- ADDRESS /(9,(0 5 5 S• a) • .L)0J /ia5 4-0 CONCERNS: T © 11 0 c4 FE L-ED '7 4)(1 U D//J TfE DJ-Ft l lT .! ao&F") a w EY nit t U UA-L i?ppL1G477e 5 THAT �T /l4S [56 J pug- 6vu r t i 6.166 OF 7W )iu772E- C/ /hi 4 /2L/ 34-70 al()) 66u 1D vsc, 1 �Ei/ELD p l� �u/L.p±2 '-k5 J 141,10 t PIS fl-ePLl CIT76/0 )U L tic 77-1'&72 Cp to o c-CE 5 co /774 Ra/Uf % K(Eiu5 out <>960 • • August 8, 1996 Dear Neighbors; Application has been made before the City Council to allow existing General Commercial land to expand from it's original plan of 2 sides commercial and 2 sides residential. To change this to 3 sides commercial if the last side was to become "multi-family housing(apartments)". • This Application does not only apply to the Watkins area along Pacific Hwy. But the Applicant is proposing this "City Wide". In other words to all of Tigards commercial property that is multi-zoned would fall under this new amendment. Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission Recommended denial of the proposal at its hearing of May 20, 1996. Planning staff recommends that the City Council deny CPA 95-0002 because all relevant comprehensive plan criteria are not satisfied and staff does not believe the proposal is beneficial to the city as a whole. This Application goes before City Council , Tuesday, August.13, 1996 at 7:30 pm. Please voice your concerns in person or by letter. If you have any questions I'll do my best to answer them. Your neighbor, - Tammy Gustin 10670 SW Deny Dell Ct Tigard, Or 97223 639-2027 • • �. Cer q -- . ; August 8, 1996 ; AUG 2 0 1996 Dear Neighbors; - ---.-� Application has been made before the City Council to allow existing General Commercial land to expand from it's original plan of 2 sides commercial and 2 sides residential. To change this to 3 sides commercial if the last side was to become "multi-family housing(apartments)". This Application does not only apply to the Watkins area along Pacific Hwy. But the Applicant is proposing this "City Wide". In other words to all of Tigards commercial property that is multi-zoned would fall under this new amendment. Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission Recommended denial of the proposal at its hearing of May 20, 1996. Planning staff recommends that the City Council deny CPA 95-0002 because all relevant comprehensive plan criteria are not satisfied and staff does not believe the proposal is beneficial to the city as a whole. This Application goes before City Council , Tuesday, August 13, 1996 at 7:30 pm. Please voice your concerns in person or by letter. If you have any questions I'll do my best to answer them. Your neighbor, Tammy Gustin 10670 SW Derry Dell Ct Tigard, Or 97223 639-2027 • • DEAR CITY COUNCIL: I AM OPPSED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 96-0002 PROPOSED BY AKA BUSINESS SERVICES ON FEBRUARY 23, 1996. NAME c. 06/V 4-1 J ISO 1AU(17 - ADDRESS I Ott 7 V`� C( I a I� Cc�i(Its°-r f g GI rd CONCERNS: A40rp Cdkrotritrrctr al ctewlopvipr1" /fVi qta of lift I11 O ( rtpi ibarkood, • 13)- ' #4 ni ! " rn August 8, 1996 AUG 2 Cl 1996 , ; Dear Neighbors; ----------''- Application has been made before the City Council to allow existing General Commercial land to expand from it's original plan of 2 sides commercial and 2 sides residential. To change this to 3 sides commercial if the last side was to become "multi-family housing(apartments)". • This Application does not only apply to the Watkins area along Pacific Hwy. But the Applicant is proposing this "City Wide". In other words to all of Tigards,commercial property that is multi-zoned would fall under this new amendment. • Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission Recommended denial of the proposal at its hearing of May 20, 1996. Planning staff recommends that the City.Council deny CPA 95-0002 because all relevant comprehensive plan criteria are not satisfied and staff does not believe the proposal is beneficial to the city as a whole. This Application goes before City.Council , Tuesday, August 13, 1996 at 7:30 pm. Please voice your concerns in person or by letter. If you have any questions I'll do my best to answer them. • Your neighbor, • . _ Tammy Gustin • 10670 SW Derry Dell Ct . Tigard, Or 97223 639-2027 • • DEAR CITY COUNCIL: I AM OPPSED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 96-0002 PROPOSED BY AKA BUSINESS SERVICES ON FEBRUARY 23, 1996. NAME A fan . Yow 74 ADDRESS /0 7�j S j v G-Y el • CONCERNS: 774/3 YYtQ ;(7-1 tgtier fleiy/L/01,/10-016_ r I-e-C;1. ?Gr.) . 04 f'l.12.) k .l 6/ /;l/6„,214 '''S / Dates to remember: Ci of • ' •= Board Ma. 20, • m. Ci Hall also Ci • Hall City of Tigard Council , 2 •.m. final a. . oval. May 12, 1996 3 ( Dear Neighborhood': Issue: Citvwide, Comp. Plan Change from "2" sides to �" sides. As you have been alerted the City of Tigard is considering a change to their zoning plan that will make it easier to convert residential property into commercial. This city—wide change can have a direct impact on our neighborhood due to the fact that _7 many homes abut currently zoned commercial property along Pacific Highway. With this proposed change instead of having homes along both sides Park and Watkins it may be possible for commercial uses. to be permitted on those streets. Further forcing commercial uses into our residential neighborhood. The City code currently limits the amount of residential land that can be abutting a property for commercial use to two sides, the proposed change will permit commercial projects to be created even if there are residential uses on three sides. If the change were to occur it would mean that residential properties along Grant, Park, and Watkins which currently are abutting commercial uses can be more easily converted to a commercial use. While the City may tell you that this is not the case since any proposed commercial use needs to also abut a major collector or arterial street, which Grant, Park and Watkins ..—_1 not, the fact of the matter is that any of the residential properties could gain access to an arterial or major collector via the existing commercial property .� and thereby qualify for a zone change. In other words as long as their access is not ;�� from:Park, Watkins or Grant they mould still meet the criteria for commercial zoning eveniif they ablIt these streets. To make sure this proposed change does not threaten our neighborhood it is important ›- that. the proposed change be amended to make it so. . 1. Commercial zoning can. not be applied if the abating residential zoning is a low or ...:721.1.___ medium density residential zone i.e. single family. In other words if two or more sides are low or medium residential then a commercial designation would not be permitted. But if 3 sides are higher density apartments then a commercial designation could be granted. 2. That commercial zoning can not be granted if the proposed property is accessed via a primary or secondary)or abating a collector or local street. Charles F. Tigard school is within our residential siting. Walkers to school are mandated by 23J School Dist. 23J if living within 1 mile of Chas. F. Tigard Grade School without bus service. The pilot program by the City of Tigard for speed bumps on Watkins has been helpful and also the walking-bike lane for safety in our immediate neighborhood. Many elderly, some former Council persons, use this area for their physical walking . requirements. Watkins residents see the encroaching general commercial affecting the livability of their homes and roadways along Park and Watkins area. Many have planned additions and improvements to their homes and need assurance that this area will retain the neighborhood residential zoning on the existing ordinances of the City of Tigard. "2" sides is the current zoning and should be retained, not "3" sides. Yon may widh write Council or Planning Boards or speak at the meetings under 2 minute agenda. Hope all of you living within our area are present for the above City of Tigard meetings as we need your support to protect the integrity of this established family neighborhood, and our real estate valueeg CIT attendance (Central) has been faulty showing poor attendance even tho staff—speakers—are present to inform you on ongoing city planning. The CIT program reports 327,025 for one year the majority of the costs is attributed to staff time totaling $23,750. Staff has strived to address local issues at these meetings so hope you show more interest in this program. CIT Ordinance 93-19 created by the Ci of Ti IS State of Oregon Goal 1) Citizen Participation Organization—mandate. NOTE COPY OF THORDINANCE ON BACK SIDE FOR YOUR -1 ORMATION. Readv city of tiga_ro. dITYSCAPE FOR UPDATES, ii-le'e--'-- J a• /''-' ,ci-7Ce -: . i39. revs i • Copy from current City of Tigard Ordinance: CIT's 93-19 establishing CIT Program. L.C.D.C. Goal #1 Requirement General Commercial General Commercial areas are intended to provide for major retail goods and services. The uses classified as general commercial may involve drive—in services, large space users, a combination of retail, service?,wholesale and repair services or provide services to the traveling public. The uses range from automobile repair and services, supply and equipment stores, vehicle sales, drive—in restaurants to laundry establishments. It is intended that these uses be adjacent to an arterial or major collector street. (note Park St. is a minor collector?) A. Scale (1) Trade Area =varies. (2) Site Size. Depends on development. (3) Gross Leasable Area, varies. B. Locational Criteria (1) Spacing and location (a) The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more tb -n two sides. (2) Access (a) The proposed area or expansion of an existing area shall not create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination hall be based on street capacity, existing and projected traffic volumes, the speed limit, number of turning movements and the traffic generating characteristics of the various types of uses. (b) The site shall have direct access from a major collector or arterial street. Traffic impact should be part of this process—also design review Our local roads that will be impacted are Park, Watkins, DerryDell, 110th, 107th, Cook Lane, Fairhaven Way, Grant, np thru Gaarde and down to Walnut now a major collector. Our area has 99W traffic cutting thru from Watkins a minor collector, Walnut now a major collector. Safety of pedestrians and school students should be a major factor when the City of Tigard reaches traffic proportions to major collectors. STOEL RIVES LLP • A T T O R N E Y S STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 2300 PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-1268 Phone(503)224-3380 Fax(503)220-2480 TDD(503)221-1045 Internet:www.stoel.com May 8, 1996 MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial (503)294-9194 VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Ray Valone, Planner City of Tigard Community Development Department • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. . ' Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Application to Amend Comprehensive Plan Text•by AKA Services Dear Ray: As promised, this letter analyzes the potential impacts of the text amendments. As you know, I modified the text amendment proposal in my April 22, 1996 letter to you. Based on that modification, I examined the current city of Tigard zoning district map. I looked for areas currently zoned CG adjacent to residential zoning districts more intense than the R-7 classification. I excluded some areas that are developed and provide no opportunity for obvious commercial redevelopment (such as the CG district surrounding the R-40 district at Washington Square Mall). I found 11 areas located as follows: 1. On Scholls Ferry Road west of 112th Street and north of Springwood Drive. 2. On Greenburg Road at Shady Lane. 3. A small CG area at Oak Street and 87th Avenue. 4. On Pacific Highway east of 79th Avenue . ,. • . • 5. At Hall Boulevard and Pfaffel Street. 6. North of Pacific Highway and west of 217 to-Greenburg Road.' 7. North of Pacific Highway at Johnson Street. PDX 1 A-31942.1 26322-0001 SEATTLE PORTLAND VANCOUVER,WA BOISE SALT LAKE CITY WASHINGTON,D.C. STOEL RIVES LLP • Mr. Ray Valone May 8, 1996 Page 2 8. South of Pacific Highway between McKenzie to north of Hill View Street. 9. On either side of Pacific Highway south of McDonald Street. 10. North of the intersection of Durham Road and Pacific Highway (although this area is largely developed). 11. South of the intersection of Pacific Highway and Durham Road (although this area is also largely developed). Based on this analysis, it looks like fewer than half of the CG zones now existing, especially along Pacific Highway, would be affected by this application, as modified, since the proposal does not apply to new CG areas and applies only to an expansion of existing CG areas not surrounded on more than two sides by other than R-7 or less intense zoning districts. I also want to make two other points about this application. First, the text amendment could be modified to provide that it is not subject to flexible interpretation. This issue came up during my meeting with the south CIT. Secondly, the text amendment actually reduces the potential impacts since the "flexible interpretation" language would allow any CG district, including those adjacent on more than two sides to single family districts, to expand. This application clarifies when a CG area could expand. Please call me if you have any questions concerning this matter. Very truly yours, />G�-*,mil `-. ��x�•a�� Michael C. Robinson (U-0 MCR:lxh enclosures cc: (w/encls.) Mr. Walt Aman PDX 1 A-31942.1 26322-0001 . . . .• , • •1—'1.1 4 . \ . 4 "15525 • . i••.• A.,,,i, .• • 1 Li • - i...- • • I •iis I . • • . '• • 4. ••ii /3;1. .. 1...i„,. . ,• .4, r • . . : - . .. •.• . . . ., • • .• . ._. ., I••••••:*:,:' — . . , • ' "ir.\: 7.-- — •• • . . r - - • . • . . , • \ '••• • i , , .....-: , . , ...." • ..1..,.... .., .... . 1 P...-4 c-I••, i i.....,, c.... ............_. pp-- -,‘..-.•• :::`... .. .. • • --\ \ i„ i .. _. • •• 0 . • . .. . . t ---- .. r!„.., \,... ,,, I....•-•,..... . . • R.---12 • , ..\,.._ .• „..„.. -, ' -.. • i , • • • , ..----.2 27' 1-'••‘ • • • ..-:4„,-;. •.•••-P 1,—..- P I--- ....r.7......„...._ . 7 • ...txt. - . . . .. _ .... ...„ ...........41---I I '•-. .-- i - - 54,. .1.:•• :it,: . -" • —k.„....x. ---,•:.• .....- •,,•.• . •.4-,.• . tj_____ •• •• rtAL::„..:::`:?..,==.=:4= . :1 ,....,,,,.. .;'•'. ..... .. I.L.:.::.j.......t..........:..:.............. ...___I . . ........ ..„7.......,-: . - 1 . , . ••••••••1 1 .,• • R.24. 5 a-: i 5.....,,,,:.:,•,,,, 1 . .. . •• ',, ... , ,,,,,.,..:, T. s '`•—•.— ..., ...c.-t. i . . . • ........,::-........:: , :.•!...,,,,,,, -.....„_;,,...., ,„„:,.,.4.ii..,..;_ -.... . 1 . . . Ei E...p1 • _..A. • 1 r ,..‘ 4,'•-!...5 ...,„ . _ 'Lk. '• R A CI' 1.vIT?_1') "..........1 • 1-, •,.°1 t•I...... ,...... i • . <:,.., ..• i '\.1. r<••----•1/ '...1.) ' ,.... t.•-----...4 '-) ......... ...._ .. ..,. .. „.. .. • .... . •.,,,, . . ..,,,.. • . ._. 1 . , • r*---'1 •• :::i 1.: •,.• : , 4 • . . . i : _ . . . 1 .. . i • • I ' .'1 ..: : .• . ''....„,... ,, . ....„. .•• :::- •.• — • .. .. N.°•"==' •.. ... v••••ft•.s . tti.,)• t. Kt.....) .• 1 -• • \ ' '• V 4 •,, I.,.'4' . .. 2•••'•:1 2 Z.*••'•;••• < •..: • i•'. .'• • . ... . . . . ..............■.........* . ' \ • < \ ... .• *i7.4•.:...•1\......, .. 1• ' : 2 rm....- ' t•',..'!••.......-1 kk:krer Y.v....-v.............1.:.....,1 . ::''• .....- •' • \ \ • ......_1-.—f":"7. 7 i .:(/ 9. L._........---- .. --. 41. *... 4.? . ..,,,, . :••• ..... ..• . . , • ,...AA 4•A .".* - •' '... A • . , . \ ,••••:A,....,: ••-....., ) _. ••::, •....".,,,,,;) „..„„---4_, i .p llsll.P1, '1„. L•••••511-15225 -2 • . • .2.......3 „. ,.. •-•1/42••••••.: - ..2, -- ,-- -•••••. .1 J.-.5.„---,•.2 -, ........r•-• .„ . a..52... ... , • 1.222H 1....„.p /2•-• 5555— , • --. • a .212_2 ': 2•.. i 2. :. ..-., a \,,,,,.:• ..„. .,. . • • • •,, ... .,,- • , .1 ...'''''...•-..-7---:‘.‘a... ..-.... 1 ....:..i ....'.•:. I 1; - . (It. i......t._- ;•.•• i, . 1 „. • , , ._...... .. .1.1.:r: , 1 ••• 1i „. rt, 1 •••:., (::',..i i . . ,.."' 0 . • .• -. ..•:::i!...:;,:.3: i • . . (-) i • i Y. r.",....• ;••i-s, \ ......–...................... • i , ;......1 • 'V . i ., ...e?'.•..,.: . — V" . . . .• : . . • . . : :•.• V1V-.• ,•:••.,••••••?:•.,,,,-.,.1.,. ...1 • , v,,..!•:••• . .......,,...4..1:',A.c,,,,/ i ''':" € . . . . . . : :•••• .. ...t4i,c, ?IV,c,„,,.. ,,,... to, y . Et". •• . • • . . ....:.-•••••• . - • .. . -„.„ ,• • . . ................ ei 6C**)} e'" • .• . : . 't.:• •'•• • r'''' ... .... • • "i i r\/ •+ / ' . „ 'a n•-•-•• ---.7.- .. . . (ri„.11 i •••••:‘,..4 ....,,--.../...:\1 s„....,1 ',.. J.... \,. ..:.-,,k :( : . • . i .. . (A.:: : 0....0......./ 4.. 4:,...; .... . .....«. ,-•\ .11 • • . N L..„ . •••• v• . r-.......-- • . : , / 0. • i . 1 • i.,1...s.), : . \ •,, 1 ..,,• • • . ..\ •C...../.,...:,. .. r 1:::,•*.r., -\ 4, • : • . I'd- ' • •• I • •• • \ . 1 I € I.: ,......., .1/4 „....•:.1:I\Z‘dy.!' •I' . 1 • • . „.."'"' •• UV •, i (..1'.... V, '••4„,••• N „,•-:„ .:,• 1-4--.. ....,.. • i \'''.... • '\;/' .',. \. - ' I .\ 1--. - ``''', , • I \ i • . / . /,' • I ' • 1'W-I\ € j... i t-...... -0:404 i" ' '''''-'• ' >• . . .. ..r.111 ... t--i: 1! ::!......•:). ;....;.:A,-.:?■-1 .. ......, , . r_....................1.--L . - „... , . . . • i—11V— 1.• , • .4. Vi i • vv." I ...1: .. • •• r.,...... ••••• ...: , cr.:. i ix. -- t L k ■1/ 1 'N N • ( • il-..1 --4. I , . — I'.•,, cs.,4 rr),...... .1C'.:, ,.. \--;:pi:-.7: Li) t..., , ..... , . Cr „, . 1 — ., - ... , 1 r.1/41 4,••;:.,:, :,...! 1''''-'"' \ 1. .. ..5 . , ,,... /..,......' -....._ ' i ..............., 1 t.1'.... •p...,, ,•••••,...2,::. - : . ,., • • •••::`I' 1 Cl•-• 1- I Cr— I(:::::::4••7-ICINCY I , •- i ,, I"-IN,......--i '..1 •• . • . ' I 'I': Is N•II / *II'IN,,,, ill I €ics. 7 ., s‘.. . .k :kJ "..... ... i. . . • tf..) • • -,•, ‘.. ............7.41_ c.„ i----d ‘... ,-., '''''''.>.-,, rii-'1:' f,',...!). . . [ • I. I • , - ... (if---...:d. -,....) i -- : .....: i .„••••••1 i .• .„.„--- ..„.„4„.• -..., I . . ... . • . . , ,,,,,,,,,,, • ..„.„ . ." \ . `. ' . • • C'`‘.1 ....... '-',.,,,, •‘‘`,...,/ '`''''''`„, ". .k".'...r..,•,... '. 1!.".. ... ...: !,../.. •-•' ' i \ . . .. . ,,„(1 „...i . . . . . .' 1 ' . : ev''' ' • 1 -71... 1 . t....1 , • STOEL RIVES LLP • A T T O R N E Y S STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 2300 PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-1268 Phone(503)224-3380 Fax(503)220-2480 TDD(503)221-1045 Internet:www.stoel.com May 2, 1996 MICHAEL C.ROBINSON Direct Dial (503)294-9194 me rob inson @stoe l.com Mr. Dan Gott 13230 SW Hill Court Tigard, OR 97223 Re: CIT Meeting Dear Mr. Gott: I want to thank you and the other members of the CIT for allowing me an opportunity to answer questions about my application. I appreciate your courtesy in allowing me to be heard out of order on your agenda. If I can be of further assistance in any way, please feel free to call me at 294-9194. Very truly yours, NUOS e- Michael C. Robinson MCR:wed cc: Ms. Diane Roberts Mr. Jim Hendryx Mr. Ray Valone PDX 1 A-31164.1 99999-0006 SEATTLE PORTLAND VANCOUVER,WA BOISE SALT LAKE CITY WASHINGTON,D.C. • • • M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 30, 1996 TO: West and Central CITs FROM: Ray Valone, Associate Planner RE: CPA 96-0001 (Bledsoe) and CPA 96-0002 (AKA Business) CC: Liz Newton, Nels Mickaelson Staff has received two applications to amend the text of the Comprehensive Plan and wishes to have the CITs hear the proposals. CPA 96-0001 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. Bob Bledsoe will present the proposal at the May meeting. Please direct your written comments about the proposed amendment to me by June 1 . This amendment will be heard by the Planning Commission on June 17 and the City Council on July 23. CPA 96-0002 would modify Chapter 12, Locational Criteria, of the Comprehensive Plan under the spacing,and location section for general commercial land. The current policy states, "The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides." The proposed modification has been changed by the applicant since his original submittal to read: "1 . Spacing and Location. (a). A new commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. (b). An existing commercial area may be expanded and is not subject to (1)(a), above, if the City Council finds that: (I). The expanded commercial area is not surrounded by R-1 , R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 or R-7 districts on more than two sides; 1 - • • (ii). The increased commercial area will not adversely affect the surrounding residential districts; (iii). The size of the increased commercial area will allow an appropriate buffer to be provided between uses allowed in the commercial district and uses allowed in the surrounding residential district(s); and (iv). The increased commercial area is the minimum size necessary that is required to allow the appropriate redevelopment of the existing commercial area." Mike Robinson, representing the applicant, will present the proposal at the May meeting. Please direct your written comments about the proposed amendment to me by May 8. This amendment will be heard by the Planning Commission on May 20 and the City Council on June 25. i\Irpin\ray\CPAlegis.CIT 2 • STOEL RIVES LLP A T T O R N E Y S STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 2300 PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-1268 Phone(503)224-3380 Fax(503)220-2480 TDD(503)221-1045 Internet:www.stoeLcom April 29, 1996 MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial (503)294-9194 Mr. Ray Valone, Planner City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Application to Amend Comprehensive Plan Text by AKA Services Dear Ray: I am writing to confirm our earlier discussion clarifying my April 22 letter. There no longer is a text amendment alternative no. 2. Instead, I have included the provisions of that alternative in alternative no. 1, which is the single proposal before the Planning Commission. Please call me if you have any questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, t e. Michael C. Robinson • • MCR:Ixh cc: Mr. Walt Aman PDX 1 A-30335.1 99999-0006 SEATTLE PORTLAND VANCOUVER,WA BOISE SALT LAKE CITY WASHINGTON,D.C. r M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 23, 1996 TO: South CIT FROM: Ray Valone, Associate Planner W RE: CPA 96-0001 (Bledsoe) and CPA 96-0002 (AKA Business) CC: Liz Newton, Duane Roberts Staff has received two applications to amend the text of the Comprehensive Plan and wishes to have the CITs hear the proposals. CPA 96-0001 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. Bob Bledsoe will present the proposal at the May meeting. Please direct your written comments about the proposed amendment to me by June 1 . This amendment will be heard by the Planning Commission on June 17 and the City Council on July 23. CPA 96-0002 would modify Chapter 12, Locational Criteria, of the Comprehensive Plan under the spacing and location section for general commercial land. The current policy states, "The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides." The proposed modification has been changed by the applicant since his original submittal to read: "1 . Spacing and Location. (a). A new commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. (b). An existing commercial area may be expanded and is not subject to (1)(a), above, if the City Council finds that: (I). The expanded commercial area is not surrounded by R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5.or R-7 districts on more than two sides; 1 • • . (ii). The increased commercial area will not adversely affect the surrounding residential districts; (iii). The size of the increased commercial area will allow an appropriate buffer to be provided between uses allowed in the commercial district and uses allowed in the surrounding residential district(s); and (iv). The increased commercial area is the minimum size necessary that is required to allow the appropriate redevelopment of the existing commercial area." Mike Robinson, representing the applicant, will present the proposal at the May meeting. Please direct your written comments about the proposed amendment to me by May 8. This amendment will be heard by the Planning Commission on May 20 and the City Council on June 25. 2 I STOEL RIVES LLP A T T O R N E Y S STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 2300 PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-1268 - Phone(503)224-3380 Fax(503)220-2480 TDD(503)221-1045 Internet:www.stoel.com April 22, 1996 • MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial (503)294-9194 VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Ray Valone, Planner City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Application by AKA Enterprises, Inc. for Amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Case File CPA 96-0002 Dear Ray: Pursuant to our earlier discussions, this letter responds to questions raised by staff and others. If you find after reviewing this letter that you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. As you know, this matter is scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission at its May 20, 1996 meeting. 1. Response to Tigard Comprehensive Plan ("TCP") Policies. A. TCP Policy 5.4: "The City shall ensure that new commercial and industrial development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial and industrial uses." RESPONSE: Alternative Amendment No. 1 differentiates between new commercial areas and expansion of existing commercial areas. Alternative Amendment No. 2 applies to all commercial areas. TCP Policy 5.4 prohibits "new commercial and industrial development" from encroaching into residential areas "that have not been designated for commercial or industrial use". The policy simply states the obvious requirement that until land is PDX 1 A-29524.1 26322-0001 SEATTLE PORTLAND VANCOUVER,WA BOISE SALT LAKE CITY WASHINGTON,D.C. STOEL RIVES LLP • Mr. Ray Valone April 22, 1996 Page 2 designated on the TCP map for commercial or industrial use, it may not be converted to those uses if it encroaches into a residential area. The proposed TCP text amendment satisfies this policy because it would not allow new commercial or industrial development from encroaching into a residential area before that land has been designated for a commercial or industrial use. The proposed ' TCP text amendment does not change the requirement that a quasi-judicial TCP map and zoning map amendment, with notice to adjacent property owners, must be approved before any land is changed to a conunercial or industrial use designation. This policy is satisfied. B. TCP Policy 6.1.1: "The City shall provide an opportunity for diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and writ levels." RESPONSE: The proposed TCP text amendment does not violate this policy. The policy is legislative direction requiring implementation through various residential districts. The policy is satisfied by the various residential districts in the Tigard Community Development Code which provide for different types of housing. This policy is satisfied. C. TCP Policy 8.1.1: "The City shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development." RESPONSE: The proposed TCP text amendment does not affect traffic levels on the City's street and roadway system. The proposed TCP text amendment changes one criteria of many that are applicable to any TCP map amendment request. An applicant for a TCP map amendment request to change a specific property to commercial use must still meet this policy by demonstrating that expected trips will not reduce levels of service below minimum acceptable levels. This policy is satisfied. PDX 1 A-29524.1 26322-0001 • STOEL RIVES LLP • Mr. Ray Valone April 22, 1996 Page 3 D. TCP Policy 12.1.1.: "The City shall provide for housing densities in accordance with: a) applicable plan policies; b) applicable location criteria; and c) applicable community development code provisions." RESPONSE: The proposed TCP text amendment does not impair the City's ability to provide for appropriate housing densities. TCP Policy 12.1.1 is legislative direction for implementation through the various zoning districts in the Tigard Community Development Code to provide for appropriate housing densities consistent with the TCP. This policy is satisfied. E. TCP Policy 12.2.1: "The City shall: a) provide for commercial development based on the type of use, its size and required trade area; b) apply all applicable plan policies; and c) apply the appropriate locational criteria applicable to the scale of,the project." RESPONSE: The proposed text amendment satisfies this approval criteria in two ways. First, it amends the locational criteria so that an otherwise primarily land-locked ownership in split zoning (i.e. commercial and residential) can be developed consistent with protection to adjacent residential areas. Secondly, it does not affect the requirement that a quasi-judicial TCP map amendment must still comply with all other applicable TCP plan policies. This policy is satisfied. PDX 1 A-29524.1 26322-0001 • STOEL RIVES LLP • Mr. Ray Valone April 22, 1996 Page 4 2. Questions raised at the April 8, 1996 Tigard Planning Commission Meeting. A. The proposed amendment is a legislative amendment to the text of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. The amendment does not change the land use designation or zoning for any piece of property in Tigard. Even if this proposed text amendment is approved, all of the other applicable approval criteria in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Tigard Community Development Codes will continue to apply to any request to change the land use designation for a particular piece of property. A separate application is required to initiate such as change. B. Proposed text amendment alternative No. 1 maintains the requirement that new commercial areas not be surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. The amendment would allow an existing commercial area to be increased in size and not be subject to the no more than two side requirement if the three proposed criteria are satisfied. C. The proposed text amendment provides protection against inappropriate commercial zone changes because the proponent of such a change must meet the three criteria found in alternative amendment No. 1. The proposed text amendment establishes specific criteria for such a change whereas the current language contains no criteria. TCP Policy Area 12, "Locational Criteria Introduction" provides: "It is intended that these locational criteria be construed in a-flexible manner, in the interest of accommodating proposals which, though not strictly in conformance with the applicable criteria, are found to be in the public interest and capable of harmonious integration into the community." TCP II-77 The Tigard Community Development staff has taken the position that the current language would allow an expansion of an existing commercial area or establishment of a new commercial area, assuming other approval criteria are satisfied, without meeting the "two side" requirement. The proposed text amendment simply imposes specific approval criteria that an application for a comprehensive plan map amendment must meet instead of simply stating, as the TCP now does, that the criteria may be interpreted in a "flexible" manner, without any guidance as to that interpretation. PDX 1 A-29524.1 26322-0001 STOEL RIVES LLP Mr. Ray Valone April 22, 1996 Page 5 3. Impact of the Amendment. I have reviewed the land use district map of the City of Tigard. I looked at ownerships (based on property lines shown on the map) with "split zoning" (part of the property in a commercial designation and part in a residential designation)._. Based on that criteria, it appears that the only property that might be affected by this application is the property owned by my client. A broader review shows that there are several residentially- zoned properties along State Highway 99-W that could be affected by this application. However, the same application could be made without this text amendment. Based on this analysis, I propose that Alternative Amendment No. 1 be revised to read as follows: "1. Spacing and Location. (a). A new commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. (b). An existing commercial area may be expanded and is not subject to (1)(a), above, if the City Council finds that: (i). The expanded commercial area is not surrounded by R-1, R-2, R- 3.5, R-4.5, or R-7 districts on more than two sides; (ii). The increased commercial area will not adversely affect the surrounding residential districts; (iii). The size of the increased commercial area will allow an appropriate buffer to be provided between uses allowed in the commercial district and uses allowed in the surrounding residential district(s); and (iv). The increased commercial area is the minimum size necessary PDX 1 A-29524.1 26322-0001 T • S OEL RIVES LLP Mr. Ray Valone April 22, 1996 Page 6 that is required to allow the appropriate redevelopment of the existing commercial area." Please let me know if you require further information. I have provided a copy of this letter to the Citizen Involvement Team facilitators listed on the'attached sheet and to Jeffrey L. Kleinman. Very truly yours, 1JQe4 ' P144,_ Michael C. Robinson MCR:ldh enclosure cc: Mr. Walt Aman (w/o encl.) Ms. Liz Newton (via facsimile) (w/o end.) CIT Facilitators (w/o encl.) Mr. Jeffrey L. Kleinman (w/o end.) PDX 1 A-29524.1 26322-0001 03/21/96 07:29 12503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 002/002 • • CIT FACILITATORS CENTRAL SOITI� Sue Carver • Bob Bledsoe 10155 SW Hoodview Drive • 11800 SW Walnut Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223 639-8507 (H) 590-2340 (H) Dan Gott Craig Dirksen 13230 SW Hill Court 9131 SW Hill Street Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 639-3065 (H) 620-4829 (H) 625-2560 (W) 243-2020, Ext. 7966 FAX: (Jackie) - 692-1799 Sterling Marsh 14090 SW 80th Court Nancy S. Smith Tigard, OR 97224 12630 SW Walnut Street 639-7739 (H) Tigard, OR 9723 280-6300 (W) 590-3141 (R) WlitTr EAST Jim Correll Jerry Koberlein 13521 SW Michelle Court 16104 SW 72nd Ave. Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224 524-9870 (1I) 598-8634 (W) 288-8174, Ext. 292 (W) 598-8686 (FAX) Ranaye Hoffman Mark Mahon 12300 SW Duchilly Court 11310 SW 91st Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223 639-9574 (H) 684-6102 (H) 639-7000 (W) 351-0817 (C) FAX: 968-1395 • 299-3975 (P) Diane Jones Joel Stevens 12274 SW Landsdowne Lane 9660 SW Ventura Court Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 590-1863 (II) 293-1254 (H) 639-7000 293-6896 (W) Revised 2/96 j&h:\docs\bd&comrs APR 22 '96 16:53 -TO-56847297 FROM-STOEL RIVES T-622 P.01/08 F-591 STOEL RIVES LLB' • ATTORNEYS STANDARD INSURANCR CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 2300 PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-4268 Telephone(S03)294-9508 or(503)294-9401 Far(S03)220-2480 Name; Fax No. Comoany/Firm: Office No. TO: A +r =Bavia o=, 684-7297 City of Tigard Community Planner Development Dept. FROM: Michael C. Robinson Client No.: 26322 Client Name: DP# 336 Matter No.: 1 Matter Name: AKA Enterprises DATE: April 22, 1996 No. Of Pages (including this cover):43 5 Originals Not Forwarded Unless Checked: 1 x First Class Mail [ Overnight Delivery Hand Delivery In case of error call At (503) 294-9508, This facsimile may contain confidential information that is protected by the attorney-client or work product privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an employee responsible for delivering the facsimile, please do not distribute this facsimile. notify us immediately by telephone, and return this facsimile by mail. Thank you. COMMENTS: Please place this letter in the CIT's packets. PDX l A-29648.l 999940006 APR 22 '96 16:53 T0-56847297 FROM-STOEL RIVES T-622 P.02/08 F-591 • STOEL RIVES L.LN • • A T l (1 R N L Y S • • STANDAR()INSURANCE CENTER ,fun$v FIFTH,Vi NUI:,SUITE.11110 PORTLAND,OR1 CON'72W-1:68 Plwim 1503)224.330 Fax(ill))'.?(}-2l (J TUD 1503)221-1045 Intern t:www.siotl.c.om April 22, 1996 MICHAEL C. ROBINSON • • Direct Dial (503)294.9194 VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Ray Valone, Planner City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Application by AKA Enterprises, Inc. for Amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Case File CPA 96-0002 Dear Ray: Pursuant to our earlier discussions, this letter responds to questions raised by staff and others. If you find after reviewing this letter that you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. As you know, this matter is scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission at its May 20, 1996 meeting. 1, Response to Tigard Comprehensive Plan ("TCP") Policies. A. TCP Policy 5.4: "The City shall ensure that new commercial and industrial development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial and industrial uses." RESPONSE: Alternative Amendment No. 1 differentiates between new commercial areas and expansion of existing commercial areas. Alternative Amendment No. 2 applies to all commercial areas. TCP Policy 5.4 prohibits "new commercial and industrial development" from encroaching into residential areas "that have not been designated for commercial or industrial use", The policy simply states the obvious requirement that until land is PDX 1 A-29524-1 26322-0001 • 3EAI ILL' NiecTLANV V"scOCVc,,WA Bosco gals Laec CIr. WASHINGTON.D.C. APR 22 '96 16:54 T0-56847297 FROM-STOEL RIVES T-622 P.03/08 F-591 • STOEL RIVES LL' • Mr. Ray Valone April 22, 1996 Page 2 designated on the TCP map for commercial or industrial use, it may not be converted to those uses if it encroaches into a residential area. The proposed TCP text amendment satisfies this policy because it would not allow new commercial or industrial development from encroaching into a residential area before that land has been designated fora commercial or industrial use. The proposed TCP text amendment does not change the requirement that a quasi-judicial TCP map and zoning map amendment, with notice to adjacent property owners, must be approved before any land is changed to a commercial or industrial use designation. This policy is satisfied, B, TCP Policy 63.1: "The City shall provide an opportunity for diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and writ levels." RESPONSE: The proposed TCP text amendment does not violate this policy. The policy is legislative direction requiring implementation through various residential districts. The policy is satisfied by the various residential districts in the Tigard Community Development Code which provide for different types of housing. This policy is satisfied, C. TCJ Policy 8.1.1: "The City shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development." RESPONSE: The proposed TCP text amendment does not affect traffic levels on the City's street and roadway system. The proposed TCP text amendment changes one criteria of many that are applicable to any TCP map amendment request. An applicant for a TCP map amendment request to change a specific property to commercial use must still meet this policy by demonstrating that expected trips will not reduce levels of service below minimum acceptable levels. This policy is satisfied. MIA-29524.1 26321.0001 APR 22 '96 16:54 To-56847297 FROM-STOEL RIVES T-622 P.04/08 F-591 STOEL RIVES LI-P • Mr. Ray Valone April 22, 1996 Page 3 D. TCP Policy 12,1.1.: "The City shall provide for housing densities in accordance with: a) applicable plan policies; b) applicable location criteria; and c) applicable community development code provisions." RESPONSE: The proposed TCP text amendment does not impair the City's ability to provide for appropriate housing densities. TCP Policy 12.1.1 is legislative direction for implementation through the various zoning districts in the Tigard Community Development Code to provide for appropriate housing densities consistent with the TCP. This policy is satisfied. E. TCP Policy 12.2.1: "The City shall: a) provide for commercial development based on the type of use, its size and required trade area; b) apply all applicable plan policies; and c) apply the appropriate locational criteria applicable to the scale of the project." RESPONSE: The proposed text amendment satisfies this approval criteria in two ways. First, it amends the locational criteria so that an otherwise primarily land-locked ownership in split zoning (i.e. commercial and residential) can be developed consistent with protection to adjacent residential areas. Secondly, it does not affect the requirement that a quasi-judicial TCP map amendment must still comply with all other applicable TCP plan policies. This policy is satisfied. PDX 1A•24524.1 263224001 APR 22 '96 16:55 T0-56847297 FROM-STOEL RIVES T-622 P.05/08 F-591 • STOEL RIVES 1.12 • Mr. Ray Valone April 22. 1996 • Page 4 2. Questions raised at the April $, 1996 Tigard Planning Commission Meeting. A. The proposed amendment is a legislative amendment to the text of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. The amendment does not change the land use designation or zoning for any piece of property in Tigard. Even if this proposed text amendment is approved, all of the other applicable approval criteria in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Tigard Community Development Codes will continue to apply to any request to change the land use designation for a particular piece of property. A separate application is required to initiate such as change. B. Proposed text amendment alternative No. 1 maintains the requirement that tEly commercial areas not be surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. The amendment would allow an existing commercial area to be increased in size and not be subject to the no more than two side requirement if the three proposed criteria are satisfied. C. The proposed text amendment provides protection against inappropriate commercial zone changes because the proponent of such a.change must meet the three criteria found in alternative amendment No. 1. The proposed text amendment establishes specific criteria for such a change whereas the current language contains two criteria. TCP Policy Area.12, "Locational Criteria Introduction' provides: "It is intended that these locational criteria be construed in a flexible_ manner, in the interest of accommodating proposals which, though not strictly in conformance with the applicable criteria, are found to be In the public interest and capable of harmonious integration into the community." TCP 11-77 The Tigard Community Development staff has taken the position that the current language would allow an expansion of an existing commercial area or establishment of a new commercial area, assuming other approval criteria are satisfied, without meeting the "two side" requirement. The proposed text amendment simply imposes specific approval criteria that an application for a comprehensive plan map amendment must meet instead of simply stating, as the TCP now does, that the criteria may be interpreted in a "flexible" manner, without any guidance as to that interpretation. PDX 1 A-29524.I 26322!X101 • APR 22 '96 16:55 TO-56847297 FROM STOEL RIVES T-622 P.06/08 F-591 • STOEL RIVES LLN • Mr. Ray Valone April 22, 1996 Page 5 3. Impact of the Amendment. I have reviewed the land use district map of the City of Tigard. I looked at ownerships (based on property lines shown on the map) with "split zoning" (part of the property in a commercial designation and part in a residential designation). Based on that criteria, it appears that the only property that might be affected by this application is the property owned by my client. A broader review shows that there are several residentially- zoned properties along State Highway 99-W that could be affected by this application. However, the same application could be made without this text amendment. Based on this analysis, I propose that Alternative Amendment No. 1 be revised to read as follows: "1. Spacing and Location. (a). A new commercial area Is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. (b). An existing commercial area may be expanded and is not subject to (1)(a), above, if the City Council finds that: (i). The expanded commercial area is not surrounded by R-1, R-2, R- 3.5, R-4.S, or R-7 districts on. more than two sides; ( (ii). The increased commercial area will not adversely affect the surrounding residential districts; (iii). The size of the increased commercial area will allow an appropriate buffer to be provided between uses allowed in the commercial district and uses allowed in the surrounding residential district(s); and (iv). The"increased commercial area is the minimum size necessary PAX 1A-29524.1 26322-0001 APR 22 '96 16:56 TO-56847297 FROM-STOEL RIVES T-622 P.07/08 F-591 STOEL RIVES 1.1.11 • Mr. Ray Valone April 22, 1996 Page 6 that is required to allow the appropriate redevelopment of the existing commercial area." Please let me know if you require further information. I have provided a copy of this letter to the Citizen Involvement Team facilitators listed on the attached sheet and to Jeffrey L. Kleinman. Very truly yours, 1^ , Michael C. Robinson MCR:ldh enclosure cc: Mr. Walt Aman (w/o encl.) Ms. Liz Newton (via facsimile) (w/o encl.) CIT Facilitators (w/o encl.) Mr. Jeffrey L. Kleinman (w/o encl.) PDX 1A-29524.1 26322.0001 APR 22 '96 16:56 T0-56847297 FROM-STOEL RIVES T-622 P.08/08 F-591 • • • CIT FACILITATORS CENTRAL SOME Sue Carver Bob Bledsoe 10155 SW Hoodview Drive • 11800 SW Walnut Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223 639.8507(B) 590-2340 (H) Dan Gorr Craig Dirk en 13230 SW TEll Court 9131 SW Hill Street Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 639.3065 (H) 620-4829 (H) 625-2560 (W) 2434020, E=t. 7966 ' FAX: (Jackie) - 692-1799 Sterling Match 14090 SW 80th Court Nancy S. Smith Tigard, OR 97224 12630 SW Walnut Street 639-7739 (H) Tigard, OR 9723 280-6300 (W) S90-3141 at EAST Jim Correll Jerry Koberlein 13521 SW Michelle Court 16104 SW 72nd Ave. Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224 524-9870 (H) 598-8634 (W) 288-8174, Ext. 292 (W) 598-8686 (FAX) Ranaye Hoffman Mark Mahon 12300 SW Duchilly Court 11310 SW 91st Tigard. OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223 639-9574 (11) 684-6102 (H) 639-7000 (W) 351-0817 (C) FAX: 968-1395 299-3975 (P) Diane Jones Joel Stevens 12274 SW Landsdowne Lane 9660 SW Ventura Court Tigard, OR 97223 Turd, OR 97223 390-1863 (H) 293-1254 at 639-7000 293-6896 (W) Revised 2/96 jolb:Idocs\bd&tors STOEL RIVES LLP I A T T O R N E Y S RECEIVED PLANNING STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER APR 24 1998 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 2300 PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-1268 Phone(503)224-3380 Fax(503)220-2480 TDD(503)221-1045 Internet:www.stoel.com April 22, 1996 MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial (503)294-9194 mcrobinson@stoel.com Residents Within 250' of Subject Property Re: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment for Property Located at 11035 SW 135th Avenue Dear Residents: I represent the owners of property located at 11035 SW 135th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon. The.owners of the subject property are proposing a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from M-H (Medium to High Density Residential) to C-C (Community Commercial). Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary permits, my clients would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a meeting on: Tuesday, May 7, 1996; 6:30 p.m. Mary Woodward Elementary School 12325 SW Katherine Street, Tigard, OR Please note that this will be an informational meeting only. The application may be altered prior to its submittal to the City. My clients look forward to meeting with you. • Sincerely, • Michael C. Robinson • PDX1A-28783.1 26409-0001 . SEATTLE PORTLAND VANCOUVER,WA BOISE SALT LAKE CITY WASHINGTON,D.C. y;, April 17, 1996 i;boa..�ii, 'ti,'� CITY OF TIGARD Martha Bishop OREGON 10590 SW Cook Lane • Tigard, OR 97223 . Dear Ms.'Bishop: . This letter is in response to your letter to Mark Roberts regarding the CPA 96-0002 (AKA Business) application. I am the project planner for this application. The following information includes the facts of the case to date. City staff received an application from AKA Business Services on February 22, 1996. The application is for a legislative Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the text only for one policy in the Locational Criteria section. Staff reviewed the application and sent out requests for comments to 25 members of the CITs as well as other agencies. At the request of Beverly Froude and yourself, staff decided to have the applicant present the proposal to any CIT that wanted to hear it. The agendas for the April meetings of the CITs were already full. Staff asked the CITs at the April meetings whether they wanted to schedule it for May. It will be heard by all CITs in May. To meet a Tigard Code requirement on legislative plan amendments, a hearing before the Planning Commission had to be scheduled within 30 days of the first hearing in April. Staff scheduled the April 8 hearing to meet this requirement. After we found out the CITs could not review the application until their May meetings, staff continued the Commission hearing until May 20 in order to give time for the CITs to respond. Our intent was to make sure the citizens had time to comment on the application before it • , went before the Commission. The applicant's representative will present the proposed amendment to all CITs in May and staff will incorporate their comments into the staff report to the Commission. . The proposal seeks to amend Policy 12.2.1(2) section (B)(1), which addresses the criteria for locating general commercial land. This is one of many criteria that any application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change has to meet. Currently, the criterion states, "The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides". That is to say, a general commercial land use can be surrounded on two sides by any residential districts. The applicant proposes to modify this criterion and has offered two alternatives at this time. The first would maintain the current restriction for all new general commercial areas, but allow for an exception for existing general commercial areas. The exception could be granted if the City Council finds that: (I) the increased commercial area will not adversely affect the surrounding residential districts; (ii) the size of the increased commercial area will allow an 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 r— .., x "�:..,rp�%,•n.v�+.a�'�a.:. ru��,- .•ir r,.C`.-?",'� �.�= '•: x-�"` :e:r.., - '-r->`�- - • - of-.--.. T>•._ _ ."z' _... .• .—� ...:F- -�'�.3,_...c-�:-. .-..,ati�'.a,. __ _ _ � _ .'.;`- appropriate buffer to be provided between uses allowed in the commercial area and the surrounding residential districts; and (iii) the increased commercial area is the minimum size necessary that is required to allow the appropriate redevelopment of the existing commercial area. The second alternative states; "The commercial area is not surrounded by R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 and R-7 residential districts on more than two - sides". The applicant has been asked to provide staff with more information about the potential effect of this proposed amendment. If approved, the text amendment would apply citywide to all applicants who propose to expand existing general commercial land in the case of Alternative 1, or to site new general:commercial land in the case of Alternative 2. This current proposal would not rezone any property. The applicant would have to apply for a quasi-judicial Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change for his property on Pacific Highway in order to expand his existing general commercial area. • ' I hope this is helpful and that it dears up any misunderstandings about the content of CPA 96=0002 and the procedures followed by staff to date. If you have any questions, please call me at 639-4171. Sincerely,. Ray Valone . Associate Planner . -4 . . . • em-f-x-i, (.,,, . y---.-17- -9' near Mar / • On application - April 8. 1996 Tigard Planning Commission 5.1 Comprehensive Plan Amendment-96-0002; _Applicant AKA Business Services request came up and was pulled . . off the 4enda. Now it's back again in May having been postponed until the CIT's have reviewed this application knowing we may only recommend the proposal. I checked the nev, file at City Hall and below remn1UUMnanDWered. . Would you mind as soon as possible giving to me the following: Address of .this location: . zoning - . Current zoning and what/changes shall take place prior to Council approval: Impact study? O• • Is the property now under discussion 5.81 acres - does the developer need *-"Ai • t uire px.:01'eacent to sa,3d properties?aea, Akk. • . C1 arty state what constitutes "citywide - 2 sides now asking for 3 sides"asp the main issue before the Planning Commission currently and also for our CIT. I'd appreciate an answer as soon as possible so that our interested citizens . who plan to attend the Planning Commission meeting in May will come with this knowledge beforehand. I understood by staff a residential home, borders this 1 general commercial,property and is desired by the applicant for apartments. " " What zoning changes is the applicant asking for - and if the home seller is not willing to sell how will this affect him and his current zoningt? �,�. Planning Commission was astounded that a t the CIT's were bypas iiet..b icl in and review guaranteed by Bill 100 for citizen's participati s ohe process? . happen as government bodies should depend upon accurate legal entities which I'm sure is the City of Tigard's intention to process applicants accordingly? • Now that April decision was put off and May is soon coming up our CIT's should be updated as to this hearing, via the Cityscape-and any other means so that our rights ' are addressed as citizens. Any info. giving the current zoning - change if Citywide and how it affects homeowner's should be forthcoming? Which if two properties are within this pro sal - zoning ordinance now 4in place and any changes this application will require? a4+1---- re t C f�/ 1 7 / f I plan to distribute this info. prior to the May meeting once again so that our neighborhood is well informed and it will be based on the ,acc • f, ish mmee .no l�.t, tt i 10 dla�s m.nnow. Our neighborho has been active and wishes to know of any and all commercial - residental changes that might take place? CIT's are just not 'getting' it and as a result I find myself trying to do what the City of Tigard has tried but it's not working. I'll run my flyer past you once I get the material: together - misconceptions are unnecessary - facts are what I deal with best - Fact this application is Citywide - is cause for concern as far as existing neighborhoods near 99W. Find aayself 'the "lone ranger" at Central CIT and one other regular -male who are hard of hearing -mean well but do not contribute nor share the info. with the neighborhood. Intact live in the county - Trails were mitchoice on j. �9_� lt ,•...!. th�3..--. e-.�o e i t i^..=.'_•r_-Ji.Lt'°4.h37.,.o-s,i_e.'?^.'±•.�O`y-- attending ;..s mtee e.:=3,Gstn�.�.i n g s ,r csiL:•C t-%i staffs low altho voted up or I o s , , '_ . / . L b...=,� - 'W: :�vAaa A i €Y <:d agxM� k � ��-:-"s l �� y' �S�.�^��ibt? �4 :�s zp4 _ ti a- F . :' i�-1 wr 7�t�`' y_M�g° • 7 _ X44'. * N.W4 : rS: 4^*A- i:_t r i _•e - : Y >. kms yLm 7w- �: - : :? a>".? - `. yx ' `.ti ?14 - =V i_ ��i�;.m __ ?..s.?ti. �-;PE� -r,,si.:�5i 4 -_-‘= •4 1_ s , . _ i . .. 1 , . . - '.Y _ .`:.:'Y•:,v.•t.ff- -./;,.?,•y«s -.N '}'--r• 7 .Jn yc• ...tom• e ^ � � _� ,.c.� Y� e>.. `� t � ��. '�` a _ _ 'J'� ' _ _ _ .yxa'-.'•;� �x rx?� > P-n-�.,�:��- S s,..: t.v..a:: .,. '' >e.-.0 _ -.�.:ie STOEL RIVES LLP A T T O R N E Y S• STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 2300 PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-1268 Phone(503)224-3380 Fax(503)220-2480 TDD(503)221-1045 Internet:www.stoel.com April 8, 1996 • MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial (503)294-9194 VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Ray Valone, Planner City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Tigard Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment by AKA Enterprises Dear Ray: I am writing to confirm my client's request that this matter be continued from the first planning commission hearing in April until the first planning commission hearing in May. Very truly yours, VIAL Ce2QA,t71, _ Michael C. Robinson MCR:ipc cc: Mr. Walt Aman (via facsimile) PDX 1 A-27748.1 23452-0002 SEATTLE PORTLAND VANCOUVER,WA BOISE SALT LAKE CITY WASHINGTON,D.C. sika%copies to Council and4rnining Commission TiCittAnly 11. } .6pri `� Martha Bishop 10590 SW.-Cook Lane Tigard, Or. :97223 Council: Planning Commission:. Statewide Bill 100 When the City of Tigard adopted. the City's Master/Comprehensive Plan.and it's attending ordinances, it did so with citizen involvement. Any Text Admendments to the 8ity!.s Plan should also be reviewed with involvement of the city's citisenry. 'Therefore it is appropriate and right for the ... Planning.Cammission/Council to refer:this Text Admendment to the CIT's for their review and recommendations prior to taking any:official actions. .cc: Steve Ti Clark, Bard Times Publisher Air C),77 c. •- . /0-7 : • -,, • rmu:r> t _ . _ I .l • A.i. Y a :. fig,• ,)ea. Nei hbor. .,. , _ - - . '� : , The below legal will legitimize tart. the Planning Commission changing our curer t co4's " ' from residential to general commercial from 2 sides to 3 sides. This will affect Park,'`»° - Watkins, Cook Lane, Gran;, and Fairhaven roadways allowing general commercial usage of _ our current residential homes areas. Please show up and speak on this issue. Trucks;' unloading off Park, Watkins is a 24 hours noise, lights,. sounds 24 hours around the clack. 1/ We need your presence and input at this April 8, 199E 7:30 p.m. Tigard Civic Center Town Hall meeting. Also put on your calendar the City of Tigard Council meeting whereby they- too will decide the issue above.. If your presence is not noted nor your letters received- -, by these appointed and elected officials assure you our neighborhood representation will . 4:::: be noted and reviewed properly. If you fail individually to, show interest a few neighbors' 't=" will not be able to present a neighborhood representation which this issue requires. ' -- nor even were aware of this action until ��r�-� ._. . CIT's never reviewed this Comprehensive change - - : :: now Do support your neighborhood issues for maintaining residential zoning safety measure: _ o . �_,� ,R;-. Make sure you have a family representative to sign up and speak at the Planning Commission ;•k n meeting and also the following Council Meeting at Town Hall off Hall Blvd.-adjacent to : the City of Tigard Library. We have to depend upon residential homeowner's to individually g.: , - - participate-in this Comprehensive Master Plan change from residential zoning to general °., .commercial. Sincerely, Martha Bishop, 10590 SW Cook Lane, Tigard, Or. 97224 639-1052 �CIT . s .µ Central member. • ,� L d _:_'41.® _MY OF 11GA tD -- '.A :. • :,,,!,1011, OREGON `i) iA The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on April 8. 1996.at 7:30'P.M,at the Tigard Civic Center—Town Hall, . 13125 S.W.Hall Boulevard,Tigard,Oregon.Both public oral and written testimony is invited.The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code,and rules and procedures of the 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 ' . f, ;, sufficient to afford the decisionmaker an opportunity to respond to the =:a• . issue prior to the close of the hearing on the request,precludes an appeal • to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue.Further information ''.:' .. may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 S.W.Hall Blvd., t.,,;., I Tigard,Oregon 97223,or by calling 639-4171.. ' `' - pUBLIC HEARINGS 5tAS U`e, s ei. / _NP ,_, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT(CPA)96-0002 AKA BUSINESS SERVICES •. 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:Citywide.ZONE: N/A.APPLICABLE REVIEW ': CRITERIA: Statewide Planning.Goals 1,2,9, 10, 11 and 12;Tigard '.s"-1.: nr: - Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1(a), 1.1.1(c),2.1.1,5.4,6.1.1;8.1.1 and ,:rte:.,�-_, ; , 1222;Tigard Community Development Code chapter 18.30;and Oregon _. '-`'' " . .. Administrative Rule Chapter 660,Division 12. b z-: _ . - ` S i_.,1, -/ `/ ? r . • - - t ; ',.._';',-..1,2•_° :-Tt3435—Publish March 28,1996 E �ti '•4 -d 4,..74-' .0 -Y'' -with ti A 4•F //�%- r -_/ may... ...- • • ..- „ • Memorandum DATE: March 29, 1996 TO: Duane Roberts, Nels Michaelson, Mark Roberts, Will D'Andrea FROM: Ray Valone W 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 existi ng development[on n 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. • • • • JEFFREY L. KLEINMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW. THE.AMBASSADOR i.. .• ...-<. ... .• • '.... . 1207•S:W. SIXTH:AVENUE ; ' .. .. r _.,. • ...- -PORTLAND, OREGON'97204 TELEPHONE-(503) 248-0808.._... AX (503 228 4529 March 18, 1996 Via Fax -- 684-7297 Ray Valone City of Tigard Planning Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: AKA Business Services Application for Amendment to Comprehensive Plan Dear Ray: I represent Northwest Retail Services, LLC ("Northwest") . Northwest has asked me to review the above application, which was . circulated to the city's Citizen Involvement Team members. We have several concerns pertaining to this application. First, we are concerned about the obvious, broad applicability of the proposed amendment throughout the city. We feel there should be an analysis of the impact upon other properties which might be affected by the proposal. In addition, the first proposed alternative suggests a distinction between single-family and multi-family housing which we do not believe the comprehensive plan intended. We also have concerns about whether the requisite showing has been made of compliance with Statewide Planning Goals 10, 11 and 12 . The discussions of TCP Policy 1. 1. 1(c) and TCDC 18. 30. 120 (B) (1) fail to take into account the community's need for multi-family housing. The "mistake" set out in the discussion of the latter provision is not the type of mistake recognized in the law as justifying a comprehensive plan amendment. Finally, we are concerned that the issues raised under the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule are not fully addressed in the application. Thank you for the opportunity to comment in this matter. My client would like to continue to participate in this process. We , are hopeful that we could make some suggestions for narrowing the scope of the proposed amendment, while satisfying the needs of - • . Ray Valone March 18, 1996 page 2 the applicant. In any event, kindly put me on your notice list in this proceeding. Thank you for your courtesies. Ver, truly •u , /- - L. dman JLK:ay Original mailed cc: Northwest Retail Services, LLC Michael C. Robinson, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP •A T T O R N E Y S • STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 2300 PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-1268 Phone(503)224-3380 Fax(503)220-2480 TDD(503)221-1045 Internet:www.stoel.com February 29, 1996 MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial (503)294-9194 Mr. Ray Valone City of Tigard Planning Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Dear Ray: I am writing to confirm our meeting scheduled at your office at 8:30 a.m. on March 12th to discuss the comprehensive plan text amendment. I look forward to seeing you 'then. Very truly yours, p P1,44,4%• Michael C. Robinson MCR:mlb cc: Mr. Walt Aman • • • PDX 1 A-23260.1 99999 0006 SEATTLE PORTLAND VANCOUVER,WA BOISE SALT LAKE CITY WASHINGTON,D.C. • STOEL RIVES LLP A T T O R N E Y S STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 2300 PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-1268 Phone(503)224-3380 Fax(503)220-2480 TDD(503)221-1045 Internet:www.stoel.com • February 26, 1996 MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial • (503)294-9194 Mr. Ray Valone City of Tigard Planning Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Application by AKA Business Services Dear Ray: I am writing to confirm your telephone message to me on February 23 indicating that the comprehensive plan text amendment was complete. I will be calling you shortly to discuss the substance of this matter. Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, M C• Michael C. Robinson MCR:wed cc: Mr. Walt Aman • • PDX1A-22653.1 99999 0006 SEATTLE PORTLAND VANCOUVER,WA BOISE SALT LAKE CITY WASHINGTON,D.C. • STOEL RIVES LLP 11/ A T T O R N E Y S `,. STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 2300 PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-1268 • Phone(503)224-3380 Fax(503)220-2480 ra oEaiv TDD(503)221-1045 CC Internet:www.stoel.com February 23, 1996 P�B 2 1995' COMMuNW DEVELOPMENT VIA MESSENGER MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Mr. Dick Bewersdorff Direct Dial Senior Planner (503)z9�9194 City of Tigard Community Development Dept. 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Proposed Legislative Amendment To The Tigard Comprehensive Plan Dear Dick: As we have discussed, please find a completed City of Tigard application form for a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment, a check in the amount of $675 for the applicable fee, and 18 copies of the narrative addressing the standards in Tigard Community Development Code 18.30.120. This constitutes a complete application pursuant to Tigard Community Development Code 18.30.030(E). If for any reason you believe the application is incomplete, please call me at once at 294-9194 and I will see that it is made complete before the end of the day. Please provide me with a copy of the notice required to be mailed to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 45 days prior to the final hearing on adoption. Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, M Qc. Michael C. Robinson MCR:ipc Enclosures cc: Mr. Walt Aman, Jr. (w/encl.) Mr. Steven L. Pfeiffer (w/encl.) PDX1A-22113.1 99999 0006 SEATTLE PORTLAND VANCOUVER,WA BOISE SALT LAKE CITY WASHINGTON,D.C. .02/22/96 10:22 $503 220 2480 STOEL RIVES 5 a001/002 • STOEL RIVES BOLEY JONES & GREY Attorneys at Law Standard Insurance Building 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, Oregon 97204-1268 Telephone (503)294-9194 Telecopier (503)220-2480 TO Richard_Bewersdorff--) City of Tigard - - Fax #: (503) 684-7297 Office #: (503) 639-4171 FROM: Michael C. Robinson Client No.: 17516 Client Name: Matter No.: 1 Matter Name; Land Use DATE: February 22, 1996 TIME: 9:47 am No. of pages (including this cover) : 2 In casenof error ncall latatorktomatic)a (503)294-9508 or 294-9401 This facsimile may contain confidential information that is protected by the attorney-client or work product privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an employee responsible for delivering the facsimile, please do not distribute this facsimile, notify us immediately by telephone, and return this facsimile by mail. Thank you. COMMENTS: Please see attached. • • • • .02/22/96 10:22 12503 220 2480 STOEL RIVES 5 11002/002 i • STOEL RIVES LLP MEMORANDUM February 22, 1996 VIA FACSIMILE TO: DICK BEWERSDORFF FROM: MICHAEL C. ROBINSON RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, GENERAL COMMERCIAL LOCATIONAL CRITERIA As promised, please find two alternative amendments to the locational criteria for the general commercial zone. If I do not hear from you on Thursday, I will submit an application this Friday that proposes alternative amendments to the general commercial locational criteria. Thanks for your help. i B. Locational Criteria (i).cal Spacing Location C,9(eYj. A new commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. L6 An existing commercial area may be increased and is not subject to a above, if the City Council finds that: l.( ) } ty (i) the increased commercial area will not adversely ,affect the surrounding residential districts, (ii) the increased commercial area is of a size that will allow an appropriate buffer to be provided between uses allowed in the commercial area and the surrounding residential districts, an (iii) the increased commercial area is the minimum size necessary that is required to to a appropriate development of the existing commercial area." ii. B. Locational Criteria c) Spacing Location (I) The commercial area is not surrounded by single-family residential districts on more than two sides. • 4 Jack Biethan 15525 SW 109th Ave. Tigard OR 97224-3554 February 14, 1996 City of Tigard Planning Dept . 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan by AKA Business Services . Zoning ordinances should not be changed to satisfy the desires of a specific property. If it is deemed desirable to allow a variance to an ordinance to allow for a more practical use, then there should be mechanisms available to the planning commission and City council to circumvent said ordinance on a case by case basis. The aforementioned procedure should require approval by the affected adjacent property owners . Safeguards to prevent interference by political activity should be included in any ordinance or rule that governs variances to existing ordinances . // ' - Jr /Jack Biethan r • • A 1 CITY OF TIGARD AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING 1 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 /76 day of � �2---i • , 1996; said PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE as hereto attached, was p /ted on an appropriate bulletin board on the n/a day of n/a and deposited in the United States Mail on the /7 day of 9- 1996, postage prepaid. • Prepaid• Notice Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the D�ay of .d...., , 19�(? • • Ii / /e ,. OFFICIAL SEAL � � .�I� �•I `�, *= DIANE M JELDERKS -=;�: NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON NOTARY PUB •F OREG N . COMMISSION NO.048142 My Commissio expires: 7 7 7 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07,1999 / • PUBLIC HEARING. EXHIBIT IA' NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL, AT A MEETING ON TUESDAY, July 9. 1996. AT 7:30 PM, ; IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, z•I�� 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 CITY OF TIGARD WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0002 AKA BUSINESS SERVICES 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. 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 CITY COUNCIL WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND INVITE BOTH ORAL r` AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE CITY COUNCIL 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 June 17.1996, 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 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 THCISIONMAKER AN OPPORTUNIja TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THMEARING ON THE REQUEST, PREEDES 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. III -EXHIBIT • AKA BUSINESS -SERVICES, INC MICHAEL ROBINSON 10626 SW BARBUR BLVD STOEL RIVES • PORTLAND, OR 97280 STANDARD INSURANCE 'BUILDING _ 900 SW FIFTH AVE. , SUITE 2300 PORTLAND, OR 97204-1268 AKA BUSINESS SERVICES, INC MICHAEL ROBINSON . 10626 SW BARBUR BLVD • STOEL RIVES PORTLAND, OR 97280 STANDARD INSURANCE BUILDING - 900 SW FIFTH AVE. , SUITE 2300 PORTLAND, OR 97204-1268 -. PAM GARCIA 14555- SW TEAL. BLVD . BEAVERTON, OR 97007. . PAM 'GARCIA • 14555 SW TEAL BLVD • BEAVERTON, OR 97007 - • • • • • • . . , . _ • . • - • . . . .. .. . . . . . . • . . • .. . . .• . . . , . . . . . . .. . .. . ... . .. . . . .. . . . . . . ,.:.. , . ..• . , . . . .. . . . . . . . . ..... . . .. „. ., .L., .. . . . . . . . ,. . ., ...... . . . _ . .... .. . ... • :• . . . . . . . . . . . . , .. . . .. . ._„.,,...v.,....,,,.„.,,,,...4....;,,,,,.*,..1,-,.., :.-:;:,-....--4.,--4:-.. i... ...,:-.i.4--- -,..,...;ii..;,,,,,..-.--,...-,.. 4-1.Tr'-'7•44;.;as';....".7,-.*.=:'•dif,-Fr. A.,,Ziki.--"r.;.-...f...i....-..7-.4" -4;2=,.......A,...„..,4,.- '''''....;iii,...,-....-.--"•....4.....r..7...W"..----7,- .-----•,....' "''''="I'''--......14—' ''-',..-A.c;I:a"--S7-4'74--7'''';'-: tr.,,,,,...-.---;-77::T.?.-5.-..7.;::-.4t;t-i7.7.ec-7.T,-.-r....it'.":7,-:.--:,-*,,,:-`=•",-.:77.-'.-...,.:1-:.-4...77,-...:v:-',7-1:7t...7',1!.."4"".::.4.417-7,7-:77:-;:.-•-•,..7,'7,7-...,--,.,;7:-....7,-,.„....y.;.15,f.r.:7,5,41t.r...,*-..,...-.scns;..,.,-.: ..c,...-7-',;„-,-,,,,-=....-,-:,:..=.5,T....7'.7...-,“-..,-.7..-,7.7.,..,J,7.,--',,,..- :„...::,;:-.',..,,7(.'--.:-.L::,.,2:- IVI..;s1■y.:,°N-=',.-...i,-----,"=.■',',-.•.i...*:4„-i.,‘,'.,, ,;:k.*.;4=.,.;-,t,;....tli,W;;_,,,..-`4.4,..;,i,.;..4,1,;;:.:#.: =-"-A .T".V...*E-14.4--;14.4S.Fe..‹i'eb..", :4-#-"L.naSi.Wr;...,-',tits1.,;. itlr.,*.-''.'40.1i7d.,..1.--7-.1. .,,,..',...,.,2"W:11.4-"1-47-...Ere..-,iz7,4,:,t-.--`-eatA:0- •:- .tr,,,,,t'':--7..e,,,:;^,.:.:,..,,.5?*.l. .p--,-..."--=''',.'t7Pf5h,---*•.1:4t.'=---,'AV7'1,,,17-7',74,.=:".7,..7,"*.*:-?Nis4,v73"-;,.*14`,-4--,1-",,,t`P,.. 4-1tr,',,W-:=; ,,--,..P.'..,.at-OP'.-7"-"k4,0,ti.A*A",,,,i, .-lig''',.`'.':17,:g,'";.:-.-8-':-4.-...^,v,";.:',A.-il..-,--dA=.4-3 'X'",---,,-; . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • . . . . .. . . . • - . , . . . ...., .. •. -. . " • . . ' . . JEFFREY KLEINMAN • • . . • . THE AMBASSADOR • . . . . 3.207 SW SIXTH -AVE • PORTLAND, OR 97204 - . . . . . . . • • . . JEFFREY KLEINMAN - • - • - • • THE AMBASSADOR . • 1207 SW SIXTH AVE • • . . . PORTLAND, OR 97204 . . • • • • . . . . • - - • . . '. . • JEFFREY KLEINMAN ' • , THE AMBASSADOR • • . • . . 1207 SW SIXTH AVE . . . . PORTLAND, OR 97204 • • * • • . • • . . . • . . . . . • . • • .. . • • . . • . •• . . - . . -, • 'JACK BIETHAN .- • . . . . . . . •. • . • • • 15525 SW 109TH AVE • . TIGARD, OR 97224-3554 . . . . • . . . • - . . ■ . - • , . • - : • • , • . . . .. , JACK BIETHAN 15525 SW 109TH AVE • . . TIGARD, OR 97224-3554 . . . . . . . • • . • . . . . . . . . . . - • • . . . . . -. • JACK BIETHAN • 15525 SW 109TH AVE .• . TIGARD, OR 97224.-3554 • . . , • • . . • , • • . . . - • 1N- • • .1.— . • . • . . a . • . . • 1.N• . I• . . • • • • . .t' '..Abdulah Apcadi '. Beverly Fcoude 11905 SW 125th Court:.,: 12200.SW Bull Mountain Road:`= Tigard OR 97223- Tigard OR 97224 Bill Gross Kathy Smith 11035 SW 135th Avenue 11645 SW Cloud Court Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97224 Kathie Kaflio Linda Masters 12940 SW Glacier Lily Drive 15120 SW 141st Avenue Tigard OR 97223 . Tigard OR 97224 Ed Howden Scott Russell 11829 SW Morning Hill 31291 Raymond Creek Road Tigard OR 97223 . Scappoose OR 97056 Bonnie&Jim Roach Cal Woolen,' 14447 SW Twekesbury. Drive 12356 SW 132nd Court Tigard OR 97224 Tigard OR 97223 4 Clark G. Zeller Mary Swintek 13290 SW Shore Drive - 9915 SW Frewing,#23 Tigard OR-97223 Tigard OR 97223 Lany Westerman Craig Hopkins 113665 SW Fern Street 7430 SW Vams Street Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 Christy Herr •.. Mark F. Mahon 11386 SW Ironwood Loop 11310 SW 91st Court - Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 Barbara Sattfer - Joel Stevens 11245 SW Morgen Court 9660 SW Ventura Court Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 June Sulffridge . Pat Wyden 15949 SW 146th Avenue 8122 SW Spruce Street Tigard OR 97224 Tigard OR 97223 • 1` y k • ....a. ..f....r.. 'la . .. � . .a. --a. 3 K. ^Y _ _Y: '.7•:?.:' - adc°-Biethan.- _ �i. r g. fir:;_. .,_ 's : >. -.. -. ;ter ` Avenue• _ .. - - - ,'::C "- _ '-�.- :o-4: - 5111/ 1 09th - 25 - 155 ';. • Tigard OR 97224: : . ' .John Benneth --- • - 15550 SW 109th Avenue , Tigard OR 97224 • • • • Brian Martin 10965 SW Pathfinder'Way-. . Tigard OR 972233930 ' . • Karl Swanson.<= 11410 SW Ironwood:,Loop. , •, . Tigard OR 97223 • • *All CITs mailing labels as of 2/14/96 hAlogin\pattyldocs1a1Icits.Ibs • • • • • .. • - FAX TRANSMITTAL- *� PLACE UNDER-CITY OF TIGARD LOGO LEGAL NOTICE SECTION OF TIGARD TIMES DATE: May 3. 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 20. 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) 96-0002 AKA BUSINESS SERVICES 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. TT PUBLISH May 9. 1996 r �• • • ICITYO 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 c-246 day of a Le. , 1996; said PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE as hereto attached, was potted on an appropriatelletin board on the n/a day of n/a and deposited in the United States Mail on the 2'I flay of Cz , 1996, postage prepaid. A4,,,-- c.- Aa—er,-2.47--L___J __ Pr- •-red Notice Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the 3 day of r4.L4 ,19c`1-0 �•�., OFFICIAL SEAL _ /.I,�r� Wi �/ ,a DIANE M JELDERKS NOTARY PUBLI f OREG• r �?""- ° NOTARY PUSLIC•OREGON ` � COMMISSION NO.040142 My Commission pares: ' /� MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07 1990 •UBLIC HEARING • EXHIBIT A NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY, May 20, 1996, AT 7:30 PM, i�nnm IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 CITY OF TIGARD WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0002 AKA BUSINESS SERVICES 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. 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 29. 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 IIWERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOMINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE RE ST OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SWEMENTS 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 •Abdullah Alkadi Beverly Froude 11905 SW 125th Court 12200 SW Bull Mountain Road Tigard OR 97223. Tigard OR 97224 Bill Gross Kathy Smith 11035 SW 135th Avenue 11645 SW Cloud Court Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97224 Kathie Kallio Linda Masters 12940 SW Glacier Lily Drive 15120 SW 141st Avenue Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97224 Ed Howden Scott Russell 11829 SW Morning Hill 31291 Raymond Creek Road Tigard OR 97223 Scappoose OR 97056 • Bonnie &Jim Roach Cal Woolery 14447 SW Twekesbury Drive 12356 SW 132nd Court Tigard OR 97224 Tigard OR 97223 Clark G. Zeller Mary Swintek 13290 SW Shore Drive 9915 SW Frewing,#23 Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 Larry Westerman Craig Hopkins 113665 SW Fern Street 7430 SW Vams Street Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 Christy Herr Mark F. Mahon 11386 SW Ironwood Loop 11310 SW 91st Court Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 Barbara Sattler Joel Stevens 11245 SW Morgen Court 9660 SW Ventura Court . Tigard OR .97223 Tigard OR 97223 June Sulffridge Pat Wyden 15949 SW 146th Avenue 8122 SW Spruce Street Tigard OR 97224 Tigard OR 97223 •-' - - .- - •br.,., J sack Biethan 15525 SW 109th Avenue :- r.: Tigard OR 97224 John Benneth 15550 SW 109th Avenue Tigard OR 97224 Brian Martin 10965 SW Pathfinder Way Tigard OR 97223-3930 Karl Swanson 11410 SW Ironwood Loop Tigard OR 97223 *All Ctrs mailing labels as of 2114/96 h:\login\pattyydocs\altcits.lbs III • • AKA BUSINESS SERVICES, INC - MICHAEL ROBINSON 10626 SW BARBUR BLVD STOEL RIVES PORTLAND, OR 97280 STANDARD INSURANCE BUILDING 900 SW FIFTH AVE. , SUITE 2300 PORTLAND, OR 97204-1268 AKA BUSINESS SERVICES, INC MICHAEL ROBINSON 10626 SW BARBUR BLVD STOEL RIVES PORTLAND, OR 97280 STANDARD INSURANCE BUILDING 900 SW FIFTH AVE. , SUITE 2300 PORTLAND, OR 97204-1268 PAM GARCIA 14555 SW TEAL BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97007 PAM GARCIA 14555 SW TEAL BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97007 . , • JEFFREY KLEINMAN THE AMBASSADOR 1207 SW SIXTH AVE PORTLAND, OR 97204 JEFFREY KLEINMAN THE AMBASSADOR 1207 SW SIXTH AVE PORTLAND, OR 97204 JEFFREY KLEINMAN THE AMBASSADOR 1207 SW SIXTH AVE PORTLAND, OR 97204 JACK BIETHAN 15525 SW 109TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224-3554 JACK BIETHAN 15525 SW 109TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224-3554 JACK BIETHAN 15525 SW 109TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224-3554 '1N 1N' I' • • . - FAX TRANSMITTAL - PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LOGO LEGAL NOTICE SECTION OF TIGARD TIMES DATE: March 22. 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 April 8. 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) 96-0002 AKA BUSINESS SERVICES 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. TT PUBLISH March 28. 1996 • • r • IICITYOROEFGOTINGARD I 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 /� day of 7'2?GtitaL) , 1996; said PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE as hereto attached, was posted on an appropriate bulletin board on the/ *lay of ac---) . 1996 and deposited in the United States Mail on the/?`k- day of ;7---Ytlic-aLl , 1996, postage prepaid. C-Th 47-44-e-c---- ei/._____4,77,tn-- Prepared Notice Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the ,_7L'day of , 19 la/AO—C-4 l:e/gt-L +, OFFICIAL SEAL ^ .=f.'a DIANE M JELDERKS NOTARY PUBLIC O' •REG'J N `2".� .. NOTARY PUBLIGOREGON My Commission Exp -s: - / \,;;� COMMISSION NO 046142 • MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07,1999 IUBLIC HEARINGS EXHIBIT Pi NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY, April 8, 1996, AT 7:30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 CITY OF TIGARD WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0002 AKA BUSINESS SERVICES 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. 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 March 18. 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 INEERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOM OINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE RECWST OR FAILURE TO PROVIDES EMENTS 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. • AKA BUSINESS SERVICES, INC • EXHIBITS , 10626 SW BARBUR BLVD PAM GARCIA PORTLAND, OR 97280 14555 SW TEAL BLVD Yt; BEAVERTON, OR 97007 AKA BUSINESS SERVICES, INC 0 10626 SW BARBUR BLVD _ ? PORTLAND, OR 97280 • AKA BUSINESS SERVICES, INC 10626 SW BARBUR BLVD It' PORTLAND, OR 97280 ;£. PAM GARCIA 14555 SW TEAL BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97007 6 Y.. PAM GARCIA 14555 SW TEAL BLVD BEAVERTON, OR 97007 C • • A�I'I CITY OF TIGARD • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: March 5. 1996 TO: Per Attached FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Ray Valone (x336) Phone: (503)639-4171 Fax: (503)684-7297 RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0002 > AKA BUSINESS SERVICES < 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. Attached is the.Proposed Legislative Amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: Friday - March 15, 1996. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Department, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: 1(Treaseprovi&thefofowing infonnation) Name of Person(s) Commenting: IPhone Number(s): I 1 VEST FOR COMME . Q , : NOTIFICATION LIST FOR LAND USE&DEVELOPMENT APPUCATIONS . ,$i::-grilIZEN INYb 'iIMLNi.':iE ...:::::::::::.:; _' i: ;;::::::::i::'::::::::.::::>:'::: ";::::;:::;: :::':": '::::::.:::::::;?::'i::'::>::_:;. y _CIT Area�'t '` C ® Placed for review in Library CIT Book ::-QTT DEPAR TENTS::;: ::; : ': i:_:<:<; ;:<> <> : : >< ::> >:::> ::i:> :.>: <: ARTME . BLDG.DEPT./David Scott,!guiding Official POUCE DEPT./Kelley Jennings,Cane Prevention oft& _OPERATIONS/John Acker. ,,.so.,.. ^CITY ADMIN./Cathy Wheatley,cnyRxaaa ENG.DEPT./Brian Roger,Develoornent R ,E, _COM.DEV.DEPT./D.S.T.'S :ADV.PLNG./Nadine Smith, Manning Supervisor WATER DEPT./Michael Miller,op«arbnsmcw.ior,..bns MOi8., :::: SPECIA1 DIST. RICT$'';::::::>:: ::::: ':::» :> : >> :: : :>::.>:.>::>';: >:<>' > ' ?": <:;;'::...: _FIRE MARSHALL _UNIFlED SEWERAGE AGENCY _TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DIST. Gene BircheU SWM Program/Lee Walker PO Box 745 Wa.County Fre Di strict 155 N.First Street Beaverton,OR 97075 (pick-up box) Hillsboro,OR 97124 S :: `< < > >...:. .:: ...... .... .:.<::::<>:::<>I : : . . ::. : .. < ::': :A('IECT<E:D BI< DICOt'.ii'.if S).;::GSk.:.ii ii.:i. > s-. 2 ii_ji< 5::ii :::z:.�<'::< ` ;> :.:.:.::.:>::r>:i:`:-. : ' > • WA.CO.DEPT.OF LAND USE&TRANSP. _METRO AREA BOUNDARY COMMISSION X METRO-GREENSPACES 150 N.First Avenue 800 NE Oregon St.#16,Suite 540 Mel 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 _Jim Tice(IGA'S) Sam Hunaidi _ODOT/REGION 1 _Mike Borreson(Engineer) PO Box 25412 Laurie Nicholson/Trans.Planning _Scott King(CPA's) Portland.OR 97225-0412 123 N.W.Flanders _Tom Harry(Current Planning App's) • Portland,OR 97209-4037 _Lynn Bailey(Current Planning App's) OREGON DLCD(CPA's/ZOA's) 1175 Court Street,N.E. _ODOT/REGION 1,DISTRICT 2-A _CITY OF BEAVERTON Salem.OR 97310-0590 Bob Schmidt/Engineering Coord. Larry Conrad,Senior Planner 2131 SW Scholls/PO Box 25412 PO Box 4755 _CITY OF PORTLAND Portland,OR 97225 Beaverton,OR 97076 Planning Director ' 1120 SW 5th _OTHER _CITY OF KING CRY Portland,OR 97204 City Manager . _CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO. 15300 SW 116th _CITY OF DURHAM City Manager King City,OR 97224 City Manager PO Box 369 PO Box 23483 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 _CITY OF TUALATIN Tigard,OR 97281-3483 PO Box 369 ' Tualatin.OR 97062 ::; :;:>;.>: :>:i >:::.::> :::::' :<:: : : ,>:::: >::::::::: <:: ..SPECIAL:AGENCIES:::::::: :. ::....::::: : ::>:::: --.-.'..-..•:.-:. :::: —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. ph.csoorn-aw+ _METRO AREA COMMUNICATIONS _TRI-MET TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT Scott Palmer fax rn-xat Jason Hewitt Kim Knox,Project Planner 220 NW Second Avenue Twin Oaks Technology Center 710 NE Holladay Street Portland.OR 97209-3991 1815 NW 169th Place 5-6020 Portland,OR 97232 • Beaverton,OR 97006-4886 —TCI CABLEVISION OF OREGON - _US WEST COMMUNICATIONS _SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS.CO. • Linda Peterson Pete Nelson Duane M.Fomey,PLS-Project Eng. 3500 SW Bond Street 421 SW Oak Street 800 NW 6th Ave.,Room 324 Portland,OR 97201 • Portland,OR 97204 Union Station Portland,OR 97209 >:::>PEDEGAL:AGENCIES : :::<>::::::>>:<:>b7AT1e A rr�NCIES<::::::;::>::>:::>:<:::»::::>::>:::::: :_::::>:::::»>::«:: ::=:;=:::i>::<:::<:::::>::><:<:>`<:::::<:>::::::::>:: ::.<:;:::=:::»::;>::::>:::::i:;:::::':::::;�::::::::........ . ,. .. _AERONAUTICS DIVISION(ODOT) _DIVISION OF STATE LANDS _US POSTAL SERVICE _COMMERCE DEPT.-M.H.PARK _FISH&WILDLIFE Randy Hammock,Growth Cord. _PUC _DOGAMI Cedar Mill Station _DEPT.OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Portland,OR 97229-9998 _OTHER _U.S.ARMY CORPS.OF ENGINEERS hAbginlparMmmreaWmoMCma CPA 96-0002 (AKA Business Service) PC - 5/20/96 [PROJECT] This is a proposal to amen - Policy 12.2.1(2)(1a) of the Locational Criteria section of the Comprehensive Plan. This policy is one criterion used to analyze and evaluate Comp Plan map amendments that propose the redesignation and rezoning of land to allow for General Commercial/C-G uses. It would apply to all such proposed amendments and therefore has citywide application. As a note, the introductory paragraphs of the Locational Criteria section of the plan contain a statement that these criteria be construed in a flexible manner in order to accommodate proposals which are found to be in the public interest. The existing provision reads "The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides". Theiproposed policy wording is in your staff reports JL cL. , d I will summarize*now. The existing restriction would still apply to new commercial areas. An existing area may expand, however, if the CC finds all of the following: 1..The expanded comm. area is not surrounded by R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R4.5 and R- 7 districts on more than 2 sides; 2. The increased comm. area will not adversely affect the surrounding residential districts; 3. The size of the increased comm. area will allow an appropriate buffer to be provided between uses allowed in the comm. district and uses allowed in the surrounding residential districts; and 4. The increased comm. area is the min. size necessary that is required to allow the appropriate redevelopment of the existing comm. area. [ BACKGROUND] The applicant, AKA Business Services, Inc., owns a parcel along Pacific Hwy which has a split zoning of C-G in the front and R-12 in the back. The owner has applied for this legislative text amendment in order to modify the policy which could prevent him from expanding the C-G portion of the site into the multi-family zoned area. This site was :1 annexed to the city in 1987 as part of the South Metzger annexation, and zoned to match the county's zoning at the time. The county zoning was Gen. Comm and Residential 15. [CRITERIA] Staff finds that the proposal does not meet all relevant criteria. This includes State Goal 10, Housing, because the expansion of Gen Comm into multi-family resid. areas, in particular, would reduce the opportunities for the city to make available housing units at various price ranges and rent levels and allow for flexibility of location, type and density of housing. Comp. Plan policy 5.4, which states that new commercial and industrial development will not encroach into residential areas, is not satisfied because the proposal would facilitate expansion of commercial areas into residential districts. Staff also cannot find that Comp Plan policy 6.1.1 is satisfied. Though the amendment itself would not cause the city to drop out of compliance with the Metro Hsg Rule, the expansion of general commercial areas into multi-family areas, in particular, would result in the incremental loss of housing opportunity for the city's'pr iz r, a diversity of housing densities and types. Regarding policy 12.2.1(2)(B.1), which is the spacing and locational criterion itself: under the proposal, multi-family and single-family residential areas are held to a different standard, but staff believes both should be treated equally if the city's the intent is to maintain protection of all residential areas. [AGENCY/OTHER COMMENTS] We sent agency Req for Comment notices to ODOT & Metro and notified all CIT mailing list members, as well as presenting the proposal during the May meetings to all CITs. ODOT chose not to comment on the text amendment because it evaluates each parcel-specific amendment request for compliance to the TPR. Metro responded that it would appear to permit a greater mix of uses in Tigard and they support efforts by the cities to do this; however, at this time Metro has no plans or guidelines to satisfy when reviewing CPAs. _ Gam . ci 6' ,�= r%- The South and East CITs had no comments on the proposal. The Central and West CIT, who hold joint meetings, expressed concern about changing the text for locating Gen. Comm areas, and instead believe the applicant should first pursue his desired rezone via the quasi-judicial route. [RECOMMENDATION] Planning staff recommends that the PC recommend denial of CPA 96-0002 because the applicant has not met all applicable criteria and has not made a convincing argument that this amendment is beneficial to the city. The applicant could apply for a quasi-judicial CPA to change the zoning on his property and make a case for construing policy 12.2.1.(2) in a flexible manner as allowed under the Comp Plan. t zt vet IIJJJJJ i� eitier - G -e16e-e=t- "i• itJA- (3) -17(/' A-a-e6t • .0-ca-r-La C 0 (1j);4' ('CasAk '`1') g1 3 - G Lc_ 6046 0,\ t c ,y,sic cL v1L "--z-t- - _ - — A "--J yrj 44 - -r 4 fei=ltt- k.) .1)2 C,7 — 4,1e-pka-t ?%6POSEZ Aii ‘taD HE ? T • Tins SCe4At;O bairS ItG er' C. Itvr i i o •%1 . ' • i c ?,' ib%, (§7' (R.. 0 it°Zt 9 2),2 sr - . . 6,.... ),Lge., ar , __ . , FA, ,..,c: 114 CZT A .T°, 4.-7 \ ., . , ''' . • gi '7 , PRoPo3e :� • ge'A e W 1 PD,,oute d, ft( ., eFas 8°dv y , '----------'--------------) ' - : - -----7---7 , ., i . . 1 ' . ,„........::,00=......,ri,e C....e., Cr 1 . S T It 6 . Tw . 0 .• • -E %I5T,t14 6- Pc•Li-G y _ . ,. . . c . . . . . . , rms sciw ,,,. 40.65 goer 1".teter CA: TE 4 ) . 4 ,. _ __,,. ,.______.•______... . __ __ • _ ._.. ...•. ) : . k A Ni'f' RAO la _ • . . . . . . . „.........„...„. 76,4 ;14 6 •".- ., ________..-_,. .-",,,,a, •-•- V‘ST Itil Cra7 1 . . • . . . - -. ----------- .1 es AI 0 . . - AM,a de alb ' ' : . PtbP°54evb .18 AAJ`i I r e•f5 1 t . _ 0 - . 6111441■••■ . .I e . -......, • eiC ps1.5 i 0 k..) 1 . . I e . I ii -/ •-4.--,.,, . . 1 ) . i i . , . . . t C cm, Gr, . . . , . : . ,- . . ‘ . ,■E.■,....,.,„....... •l' ST Rae ara .... ..... .... ..... Maw 111■1111■•• 6' =Or MM. OM lamp . new am' sm.