Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CPA1996-00009
(5) Areas within one-half mile of public transportation; and (6) Areas which can be buffered from low density residential areas in order to ._maximize the privacy of established low density residential areas; B. The following factors will be determinants of density ranges allowed through zoning in the medium density planned area: (1) The density of development in areas historically zoned for medium density development; (2) The topography and natural features of the area and the degree of possible buffering from established low density residential areas; (3) The capacity of the services; (4) The distance to the public transit; (5) The distance to neighborhood or general commercial centers and office business centers; and (6) The distance from public open space. 3. Medium-High and High Density Residential A. The following factors will be the determinants of the areas designated for high density on the plan map: (1) Areas which are not committed to low density development; (2) Areas which can be buffered from low density residential areas in order to maximize the privacy of established low density residential areas; (3) Areas which have direct access from a major collector or arterial street; • (4) Areas which are not subject to development limitations; . (5) Areas where the existing facilities have the capacity for . additional development; (6) Areas within one-quarter mile of public transit; (7) Areas within one-quarter mile from neighborhood and general commercial shopping centers or business and office centers; and (8) Areas adjacent to either private or public permanent open space. B. The following factors will be determinants of the density ranges allowed in the medium-high and high density planned areas should the City adopt more than one high density zone: (1) The topography and natural features of the area and the degree of possible buffering from established low density residential areas; • II - 79 • S . (2) The capacity of the services; (3) The distance from public transit; and (4) ' The relationship of the site to existing neighborhood and general commercial centers and office and business centers. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The Community Development Code shall: a. Include a broad range of residential districts; b. Provide for schools, churches, parks and other quasi-public and public uses as conditional development in the residential districts; c. Require medium density, medium-high density and high density residential uses to be subject to the design review process, unless those developments have received detailed planned development or conditional development approvals; d. Require medium density and high density residential developments to provide a minimum of 20% of the gross area to be landscaped. The landscaping requirement may be reduced during the review process where it can be demonstrated that exceptional design will achieve: (1) An equally desirable development; and (2) An uncluttered appearance and openness intended by the landscaping requirement; e. Require the dedication of land or monetary contribution to the public for parks or recreation facilities. • 12.2 COMMERCIAL The Comprehensive Plan provides for four types of commercial development: neighborhood, general commercial areas, professional commercial and the central business district. It is the intent of the plan that: 1. Commercial areas be planned at a scale which relates its location, site and type of stores to the trade area to be served; 2. Surrounding residential areas be protected from any possible adverse effects in terms of loss of privacy, noise, lights and glare; • 3. Commercial centers and uses be aesthetically attractive and landscaped; II - 80 • 4. Ingress and egress points not create-traffic congestion or hazards; 5. Vehicle trips be reduced both in terms of the length of vehicle trip and total number of trips; and 6. The central business district is not included in the locational criteria because there is only one designated area. • • • • • • • rr II - 80-1 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. c. APPLY THE APPROPRIATE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE SCALE OF THE PROJECT. 1. Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood commercial centers are intended to provide convenience goods and services within a cluster of stores. Convenience goods are goods which are bought frequently, at least weekly, and for which people do not engage in comparison shopping. The uses permitted in the neighborhood center include convenience markets, beauty shops, barber shops and repair shops. The range of uses is limited to those uses which can be sustained by a limited trade area. A. Scale (1) Trade Area. Up to 5000 people. (2) Site Size. Two acre maximum. (3) Gross Leasable Area. Varies. • B. Locational Criteria (1) Spacing and Location (a) The service area radius for a neighborhood commercial center shall be at least one-half [of a] mile. (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. (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 the 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. (b) The site shall have direct access from one of the following: (i) An arterial; or (ii) A collector street which will not direct traffic through local neighborhood streets. II - 81 • • (3) Site Characteristics (a) The site shall be of a size which can accommodate [the) present and future uses, but shall not exceed two acres. (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. (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 Ill III (c) Public transportation shall be available to the site or general 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 (3) Site racteristics (a) The site shall be of a size which can accommodate present and projected needs. (b) The site shall have high visibility. (4) Impact Assessment (a) The site configuration and characteristics shall be such that the privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained. (b) It shall be possible to incorporate the unique site features into the site design and development plan. • (c) Associated lights, noise and activities shall. not interfere with adjoining non-residential uses. 4. Community Commercial The community commercial Plan designation is intended to provide locations for retail and service uses which have a primarily neighborhood orientation. • Such facilities should be located so that their frequency and distributional pattern reflect their primary neighborhood orientation. Such facilities should not be so large or so broad in scope and services as to attract substantial amounts of trade from outside of surrounding neighborhoods, and shall be large enough to provide a variety of goods and services at one location. It is further the intent of this designation to restrict the size of such facilities and that the community commercial plan designation should not be located in close proximity to other commercial areas so as to avoid the appearance and feeling of typical commercial strip development. A. Scale (1) Trade Area: Surrounding residential and neighborhoods generally within a 1 and 1/2 mile radius. Trade Area Density: The surrounding area potential residential density within one-half mile of a site to be designated for community commercial development shall average at least eight units per acre (as determined by the zoning of properties within • one-half mile of the community commercial site. The intention of this criterion is to locate community commercial sites within a relatively short distance of a significant number of potential frequent users of the establishments within the commercial center. This also will provide the residents of the surrounding area with an opportunity to provide for their commercial and service needs within a distance that is reasonable for walking or bicycling. Lesser residential densities may or may exist within the assumed trade area at further distances from the site. (2) Gross Floor Area. 30,000 to 100,000 square foot gross commercial • floor area. Food sales up to 40,000 square foot per establishment; General retail sales up to 10,000 square foot per establishment as permitted uses; Other commercial sales and services facilities shall be allowed up to 5,000 square foot in size per establishment. B. Locational Criteria (1) Spacing and Location (a) Commercial development shall be limited to one quadrant of a street intersection. II - 84 • • • (b) Community commercial districts shall be spaced at least one- half mile from other sites which area designated for commercial retail use. Special consideration may also be given to providing a similar separation from non-commercially designated sites that involve retail use as part of a mixed use development, or to provide less than the minimum separation for commercially designated sites which are developed with non-retail uses. (2) Access (a) The proposed community commercial district shall not be anticipated to create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on the capacity of adjacent streets, existing and projected traffic volumes, roadway geometry of adjacent streets, number of turning movements, and the traffic generating characteristics of the most intensive uses allowed in the zone. (b) The site shall be located along an arterial or a major collector street as designated on the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. Sites should either be located at or adjacent to an intersection of a major or minor collector street with an arterial or at the intersection of two major collector streets. (3) Site Characteristics (a) The site shall be a minimum of two acres in size and a maximum of eight acres in size. (4) Impact Assessment (a) The scale and intensity of the project shall be compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the provisions of this plan. Such compatibility and consistency shall be accomplished through the approval of a Site Development Review application contemporaneous with, and a part of, the approval of a zone change to the community commercial designation. The site plan approval may include conditions relating to site and building development through conditions of approval of a zone change for the site. Such considerations may include, but are not limited to, any of the site building and design guidelines deemed appropriate to become mandatory, access limitations, special setbacks, increased landscaping or buffering, limits on off-street parking spaces, coordinated building design, special design considerations for pedestrian and bicyclist access and safety and other building and site design standards imposed by the City in the plan amendment or rezoning process. Any major modification to the site plan, as determined by the Community Development Code, shall be processed as a zone change. Other modifications shall be processed in accordance with existing Code provisions. (b) It is generally preferable that a community commercial site be developed as one unit with coordinated access, circulation, building design, signage, and landscaping. Parcels within a community commercial site, however, may be developed independently although the City may require that developmental aspects of individual parcels be coordinated through the development review process. (c) Convenient pedestrian and bicyclist access to a development site from adjoining residential areas shall be provided where practical. Local street connections between community commercial sites and adjoining neighborhoods shall be considered on a case-by-case basis. II - 84-1 IIP e site configuration and character• istics and relationship to the street system shall be such that privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained. (d) Access' needs of individual parcels and uses shall be coordinated within a site so as to limit the number of access driveways to adjacent streets. (e) Unique features of the site should be incorporated into the site development plan. (f) Exterior lighting, noise, and activities associated with the : Community Commercial district shall be controlled or mitigated so that they do not adversely affect adjacent residential uses and comply with any applicable provisions of the Tigard Municipal Code regulating noise, light, and nuisances. Operating hour restrictions may be placed on uses within the district, either through restrictions within the zoning district regulations or through conditions of approval of a Plan map amendment for a particular site. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The Community Development Ordinance shall: a. Include a neighborhood commercial district, a general commercial district, a highway commercial district and a commercial professional district area. b. Require that: (1) The areas be subject to site design review; (2) A minimum of 15% landscaping be provided; and (3) Necessary street improvements be made prior to development. c. Prohibit single family residential uses in the neighborhood commercial and general commercial centers. d. Allow for residential uses above the first story of commercial uses '.only in the central businesses and commercial professional districts. 2. As a part of the corridor study proposed for Pacific Highway (99W) by the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Service District, the City shall: • a. Review the commercial development patterns that have occurred along • Pacific Highway and look at ways to reduce access points along Pacific Highway; and b. Develop ways to consolidate new commercial development into commercial centers rather than strip commercial areas. 12.3 INDUSTRIAL • The intent of the Industrial land use designation is to: 1. Provide for the designation of suitable lands for industrial use; 2. Provide for economic growth and development; II - 84-2 MAY - 10 - 96 F R I 9 : 15 0 P _ 0 Bill Gross 11035 S.U. 135th Tigard, OR 97223 524-6325 524-,9374 Fax CliC14 May 10, 1996 Ton Lancaster LANCRSTER ENGINEERING 800 N .U. Sixth, Ste. 206 Portland„ OR 97209 218-0313 248-9251 Fax UIR FAH RE: 135TH AND SCHOLLS FERRY RETAIL CENTER SUB: VORST-CASE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Dear Ton, Andy Back agrees with this possible worst-case scenario: One 12-puap gaa station, One 3,500 s.f . drive-through fast food restaurant, One 3,500 s .f . drive-through bank, and 31 ,000 s .f . of in-line shopping. r Ul'l r. Lee/0�am — ,s 5/u I will call you this norniing . ► y-y,a �/1`� S (� �rl�ovrnrdd�iv Suincerely, p rI' VP,Gicr- 0. Qd I ct Gam• `-a 4 pi eVr0 4s yard s W 4.aci e , FoJf Bill Gross \f S .�e. It 4O14Q enels. 6Ye.-- 5-4 I ia�, T I f va( c c: Andy Back Park Roberts 51-t A4 y I S `� '2Lt.wq/ ze Michael Robinson S-L c a J c i a SS [v. a avt e- P1A�'/Zoti Q 4.ipsp/1`c IA/ er,44 M A Y - 1 0 - 9 6 FR I 9 : 1 6 0 P _ 03 411 III . / LAND USE ITE GFA PK HR PK HR BKOY PH PK YKDY CODE S0 FT AM RUT P1% RUT RUT PASS BY PASS BY GENERAL 710 0 0 0 0 0 0 OFFICE-10K SHOPPING 820 0 0 0 0 0 0 CENTER-10K SHOPPING 820 31 ,000 67 262 2,841 <105) <1 ,136) CENTER-50K HI-TURNOUER 832 0 0 0 0 0 0 RESTAURANT SIT-DOWN 833 0 0 0 0 0 0 FAST F00D DRIUE-THRU 834 3.500 196 128 2.485 (60) (1 ,168) FAST F000 CONVENIENCE 851 0 0 0 0 0 0 HARKET C-HART MYTH 845 1 ,250 121 161 1 .953 <90) (1 ,091) 12 GAS PUMP . DRIUE-IN 912 3,500 39 153 920 (61 ) (371 ) BANK BANK WITH ITE 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z4-HR ATH JOURNAL TOTAL 39,250 422 703 8.208 <316) <3,770) PASS BY <316) (3,770) TOTAL 38? 4,438 PIULTI-USE RETAIL CENTER TRAFFIC MAY - 10 - 96 FR I 9 : 16 0 P . 04 LAND USE ITE UKOY PASS PK HR PK HR PARKING CODE RUT BY, RH RUT P14 RUT SPACES GENERAL 710 24.60 0.002 3 .20 3.40 2.86 OFFICE-10K SHOPPING 820 167.59 45.002 4 .19 15 .14 oar . CENTER-10K SHOPPING 820 91 .65 40 .002 2 .16 8 .44 war . CENTER-50K HI-TURNOVER 832 177 .87 10.002 14 .81 12 .92 10 .00 RESTAURANT SIT-DOYN 833 786.22 40 .002 37 .93 40 .09 10 .00 FAST FOOD ORIUE-THRU 834 710.08 17 .002 55 .87 36 .56 10 .00 FAST F00D COMMENCE 851 737.99 66 .002 65 .39 53 .73 2 .50 MARKET C-RRRT UITH 845 162 .78 56 .002 10 .06 13 .38 2 .50 12 GAS PUNP (punt') (punp) (punp) ORIUE-IN 912 265 .21 40 .002 11 .16 43 .63 2 .86 BANK BANK UITH ITE 758 .00 40 .002 27 .00 79 .00 2 .86 24-HR AIR JOURNAL TEMPLATE FOR MULTI-USE RETAIL CENTER TRAFFIC �� •~' 0o �'� 'r ;r;:M' - ! t • '`= �" 1.1 ,, , ■u n 1 saw PV1� I �� \\\\\\\\ \'.yli ‘V°', :•. - iI;tJ = ■ \\\\,,...,.\. \ \,,:• ,Ns. \• „\ \\ \\ • s' 11111 11 ' \` "\ \` \ e\\�\\N'si � .If cI--L_____r f. "'"' r°''' •S‘'- Ill a,)/ la ■f es,:c.;;;,,;...,,-,..-.- -. .... ...„,..,.\, .: ;,.... I- ,..-- , N N. ss,s :vs -1 a - L.1219.,_ _�; 111.�Tc '�r��:.�r _ _ w _ . i..: ��i..� _�� ���� ��� t TI [.1t71_ lip ■ \' ' \\• .,' ? s a °T em •.1 .�1��r;:.-7,'!-- /'� . ��♦� � ,V �W ���., 1116 ■ arm �±' �-. �� \\•i20 ,5 !� ' [• ��'`' • i ' . l 113111'4 .11 \\ .t, o ''�u►'' S• :. v ��- 111i� �■ :,� •'n►i� \\\\\\\\\\\\\. '� �• .• • ,�,,r. 444, 113 _/� ■■1► f� ■ S .e S -•r 1111 4"v• -,-- — <,,; 0,1111 ° .Ilfi 1 ni aQ ** 12 'Il INN Nal . i � 7C� ea • mai Ili::i . ■11<r 1/ -I i I I t I�1.1111 •- - • I\ y ,; C; ql /��1�y: ■1 _r_4i7i1 4/Pt - • '' id - - ow: - -AL.* Ar.:%., ,, 4.4.v.an , . .:41 Illmilialiiiortreet am /11 .111111 � � •�� 1' ., 1 \\\\\\\\\ „I...., rip ::.]p,,1 .-, C N� 111 "c4�s�11111g,•�A��i ��a:> /ri ■ nva il�l►�° • .r ` LH � �.....„A ♦�, as . �■ sae. t ■/� '� 1111 IIkf, -.-c ,•, a �1•►� I Si ����! ■t.1� (T ' lr• - ` .1i \� 1 = &i. 1" 111 il�r../,y.. fu Ins / AL% 1--_-_— } g ■ 1- �,/ !; "'4aG ti r ��R a ft ■r'vdI•Q 1� ...H3' X11, a gl��l ,\ .` 111 t_f_I LLCt 1sh;a s .:C_ I� ■ \\\ ���\ ct '_,�'{.1 t; �"- , v\ j;11x I '/ I I: l h r - '71-'- ! kEp;;:Ir i 1 Y is : l-.I 111/.4--1.1-•. �. V – -- - ,/-- 1l : ,-r�� _1[�,__I -i ! ! . t-- I 1 f :,n`1 '� �''�'� `� n-I , .-,,,,,,i, I _ •.:.- A I .) \\:.--:y. I (ac—a LL „1 4,- M N ( rI _I _ . li4 Z �1�� y yi� ! i • . i_' • • Hr 4 171 LAN 1 ASTER ENGINEERING Traffic Studies • Planning • Safety .. April 30, 1996 Mark Roberts Associate Planner 1 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mark: Thank you for your assistance with the plan amendment process for the pro- posed land development project on Scholls Ferry Road at SW 135th Avenue. My under- standing is that the City will accept the requirements of Washington County for a trans- portation analysis of the project for the plan amendment process, although not neces- sarily for the site approval process. The following tasks as required by the County would be included in the analysis: 1. A transportation analysis for the year 2005, using traffic projections as provided by Metro. 2. A traffic analysis of development under existing land-use regulations and under pro- posed regulations, using the development assumptions as agreed upon between the City and County staffs. 3. An analysis of the roadway links to the east, west, and southwest, with additional links to be examined if the increased ADT exceeds 10 percent. 4. If links are over capacity, individual intersections may be examined to confirm the level of service. 5. Construction of the Murray Extension and Davies Extension, and disconnection of New Scholls Ferry Road, will be assumed to occur after 2005. If any of this information is incorrect, please let me know. Otherwise, we will proceed with the transportation study in conformance with the requirements of Wash- ington County. Union Station,Suite 206 • 800 N.W.6th Avenue • Portland,OR 97209 • Phone(503)248-0313 • FAX(503)248-9251 .\= v • • LANCASTER ENGINEERING Mark Roberts April 30, 1996 Page 2 Thanks again for your assistance with this project. Yours truly, ' dcst 'E cc: Bill Gross Ma-28-95 TUE 11 :53 P. 01 • • Vz �r tz Facsimile Cover Sheet To: MARK ROBERTS Company: CITY OF TIGARD Phone: 639-4171 Fax: 684-7297 From: JENNIFER BRION Company: PLANNING DESIGN GROUP Phone: 503-236-6000 Fax: 503-232-2357 Date: 03/28/95 Pages including this cover page: 3 RE: REQUEST FOR PRE-APP FOR PROPOSED CHEVRON AT 135TH & SW SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD MARK: PLEASE SEE FOLLOWING PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR A PROPOSED CHEVRON AT THE ABOVE REFERENCED LOCATION. WE WILL NEED TO DISCUSS THE DESIGN ISSUES AND THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IN A PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE WITH THE CITY. PLEASE LE r ME KNOW AT YOUR EARLIEST CONVENIENCE, THE SCHEDULED DATE FOR A PRE-APP. THANK YOU. - * I 7 . /if „I'M . ..: 11:.1 )L__071.323 : - i., .... . 2T . _ LII hi. i 4 iiiitii,w:11 . . x ... 40 D., 00°0 ( 1 _ 0 7: 0 : .. -- . , r- .Q: if 0 q , 1 , : . i' --- 111%,1 :--r 110' ,. . , / , I ., _ • 173 5 / 7-- . . ' L:.)1C; ::: X. .44A ‘ ------ __ ----- __ __ "I ' '''■, ,.,,. .......:------ 0 A8 ___ _____,---- _--------L___ 11 _____ __„--------->„/go m _ . ,4 i JUL 7 \ \ 1. . - '0 ,,, Nr _____ __ ___yi-72nft 6 i . 1 . • R.R.S.818 197 67 185.9 R.R.S.818 197. 67 0 185.9 X . 817- 88 . MAR-28-95 TUE 11 :54 . P. 02 • .0 PROPERTY SPECIFICATIONS Location: SW Scholls Ferry Road at SW 135th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon Description: The property has approximately six acres of developable land and another two acres of "greenway." The site is next to the newly improved,five-lane arterial,SW Scholls Ferry Road. Two signalized • intersections allow arterial access to the site. Extensive apartment complexes and subdivisions surround it. The nearest retail centers to • the property are one-half mile to the east and west. Large "backup" trade areas extend to the north and south of the site. Zoning: The site is a new retail opportunity eligible for Tigard's newly adopted "Community Commercial" retail zone. Demographics: Avg. Household Radius Population Income 1 Mile 14,925 $56,233 . 3 Mile 89,579 $48,478 5 Mile 203,177 $49,775 Traffic Counts: 34,000 cars per day surrounding the site • Proposed Plan / (subject to change) - � L / / ii� `i"I I I L : ��� �. _ .__ S.W.HAWK'S uevD sr. / - � A. / /#(46, .. ...,i;..2.7,. ....PI 1 / ', -7-4-'.''.--'// ' H /' /. ./1 ( I - _- _ 1 ; 1 05/21/96 15:44 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD Ij 001 ***************************************** *** ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT REPORT TX *** ***************************************** ACTY# MODE CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID START TIME USAGE T. PAGES RESULT *4473 TX G3 503 620 2086 NICOLI ENG. ,Inc. 05/21 07:56 00'55 2 OK *4475 TX G3 503 693 4412 05/21 08:28 02'15 5 OK *4476 TX G3 2473 CITY ATTORNEY 05/21 08:32 01'58 5 OK *4478 TX 6593933 05/21 09:05 00'00 0 NG O STOP *4480 TX G3 503 655 3933 05/21 09:06 00'51 1 OK *4482 TX G3 503 359 3207 05/21 10:26 07'47 16 OK *4485 TX G3 05/21 10:40 01'27 3 OK *4489 TX G3 503 624 0157 05/21 10:53 02'23 4 OK *4491 TX G3 503 526 2550 05/21 11:05 03'49 9 OK *4497 TX G3 360 693 2644 05/21 11:20 02'28 3 OK *4495 TX 6355393 05/21 11:24 00'00 0 NG O STOP *4498 TX 13607359391 05/21 11:29 00'00 0 NG O STOP *4503 TX G3 6355395 05/21 11:36 03'00 6 OK *4506 TX G3 3606943741 05/21 12:45 01'09 2 OK *4508 TX G3 05/21 13:04 06'34 11 OK *4513 TX G3 503 590 0107 05/21 14:01 05'29 8 OK *4515 TX G3 503 227 5810 05/21 14:17 04'58 7 OK *4517 TX G3 503 639 1232 05/21 14:40 00'43 1 OK 4522 TX 2284592 05/21 15:04 00'00 0 NG 0 STOP 4524 TX G3 503 731 8376 _ - ---- 0-5/-2:1-- 5.26 A:0--4.6,_`1 OK 4527 TX G3 f�..2ti2:8�457A w�; ,,", QS/ -�5-:'-4-0----03-0.6' =i'S''"!q.111.-- ****************.************************* *** ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT REPORT RX *** ***************************************** ACTY# MODE CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID START TIME USAGE T. PAGES RESULT *4472 AUTO RX G3 5036255606 05/21 07:46 02'06 1 OK *4481 AUTO RX G3 5036422802 05/21 09:31 00'44 1 OK *4483 AUTO RX G3 503 452 8043 05/21 10:36 01'10 2 OK *4486 AUTO RX G3 05/21 10:47 01'24 1 NG 1 ##201 *4487 AUTO RX G3 05/21 10:49 00'46 1 OK *4492 AUTO RX G3 240 2256 05/21 11:12 01'06 2 OK *4493 AUTO RX G3 240 2256 05/21 11:14 01'07 2 OK *4500 AUTO RX G3 05/21 11:25 00'36 1 OK *4502 AUTO RX G3 503 228 1285 05/21 11:31 00'49 1 OK *4504 AUTO RX G3 05/21 11:56 01'23 2 OK *4505 AUTO RX G3 503 668 8714 05/21 11:59 01'10 2 OK *4507 AUTO RX G3 5032369679 C. SCHIEWE & ASS 05/21 12:58 01'00 2 OK *4510 AUTO RX G3 6816213 05/21 13:15 01'22 3 OK *4511 AUTO RX G3 503 625 6179 PRIDE DISPOSAL 05/21 13:20 01'46 2 OK *4512 AUTO RX G3 5036561601 05/21 13:28 01'50 2 OK *4516 AUTO RX G3 5032431934 DKS ASSOCIATES 05/21 14:15 00'58 1 OK *4518 AUTO RX G3 503 452 8043 05/21 14:43 02'04 4 OK 4521 AUTO RX G3 05/21 14:57 01'55 3 OK 4525 AUTO RX G3 503 639 4673 05/21 15:35 00'41 1 OK • • ,,.. -.• -. .. :,-44,, ,,,.,,,,,,,,,,:,..,L....;,:.;.--,,,.2- -.43,4,--,441•W';:i:Yi.,41.--Z-,11z.a.--,.;.....,.:—: :' --, - -;-''''' -'1' - - ''' *' J.': '''' 4-, --t''frl-- ; '17t4:-..n1-.*'*-244-..k'?,'I.f.!='!-9.11:It'tt--:.5- ". #-''.:..'''',7:- i7-:. ,. a""- , 1`.P-..-'4-;.;7----i.'t1:' -7‘;. .k-''. ,'71,.., 1.- -,,--,, - a4;--. --7 ,,=4:;.:,:::q. .,..r ',.. ."..-f- .: '..,-..4--"7.-/Av.;:k-,1,3'- `'4:---i,.:§0 in:--4,r7 'i-11,,,e,!:1,..,„ ••!TI.-77:--F,..,, ............_-, ,•I ,.,• ._<.,;,t;:t,:,,/'4-,',:t2e, $,'',':';',':'I"^.?•"4'.':,4'-',',31"..-,15;zi',1::firi-;;;Zg., "Ir.5=''.)i-I'''y'---t;;;:.1,:,-''''',-:,....'---'7::,--;,'.'`.,?='!:`,I.-',, ,h,'."!,;.,',::_1;,.`:- ,;,---.:,.:,-'' '',-,,,;7:-1;,-,,,,'F*: 4,/,..,,c..4%-:.. ; -.4.-'!NP":-•-----I- `i:,r,-.:.:'!.;>„:-, March 20,1906 crirroF TIGARD OREGON *- ' . . _ . , .. Bill Gross 11035 SW 135th Avenue . , , . Tigard, OR 97223 , - ., . . . _ • . - RE Affect of CPA 95-0005/ZON 95-0007 on your property at 135th and Scholls Ferry . . - . . Dear Bill: . . This letter is Written to explain how the recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment and - . . • Zone Change at Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota Street-would affect any future request for a Comprehensive Plan map and Zone Change to 'community commercial" at the southwest corner of 135th and Scholls Ferry, due to the proximity of the two sites to each other. More specifically, how the rezoning of parcels 1-and 3 of MLP 94-0013 , from Commercial-Professional to Commercial-Neighborhood under CPA 95-0005/ZON , .. 95-0007 would affect the potential to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map on tax lot 100 (map 1S1 33CA),to'community commercial°. - - . The Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Section 12.2.1.48 (1) (b) (on.page 11 - 84-1) states , that *community commercial districts shall be spaced at least one-half mile from other 1 sites that are designated for commercial retail use.". The.'Tigard Development Code, Section 18.62.010 (page, 124-1) states that, `community commercial centers are intended to be separated fn3m other commercially zoned properties which provide retail and service opportunities by at least one-half mile.' 1 _ The property you own at 135th and Scholls Ferry Road (map 1S1 33CA, tax lot 100) is • * just over,one-half mile from the commercial zoning at the southwest quadrant of 135th and North Dakota (tax lots 1', 2 and 3 of MLP 94-0013). This was indicated when the 1 original community commercial district provisions were adopted. Only two potential 1 sites existed that met the criteria, the property you own and one site further west on - 1 Scholls Ferry Road. *Therefore, the locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and 1 ' the Development Code for community commercial zoning is currently met for your i property, even with the recent Comprehensive. Plan Amendment and Zone change, 1 since the two sites are over one-half mile_apart. The recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change had no effect on the distance from your site. It was I already commercial. 1 . - ., . . , . 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) TDD (503) 684-2772 1/- t -o _.I..) _ .Y.,�, •')-s _ �. �re :y `` ' :'B,oJ°: - 'y'`" '- -:4S.'+-�- - .. .3'_ : :. "!•� y� [ t?,y+ tS' -. .ix '9ti'. e :.prr" . "• a y•- ,,,-,•,.:... S',. _ ':�,i^73:.,y':�.^'y' tom..,3, ,y=•y - c' K�, wf` ' `� in f splease, f ` r. .▪ W` � � �hope-this letter RansvversT ou 4iestos. ;Ifl,,c n`tie o :furtheras -stance,° re - f,.,$4> �-�} .z :• '�!`c„r:'�'• %y3�x•• i, :,r a''4^•-cu� s:r F:. - : '_ F:, •4 x z .,- ,;. :rwi;�: ;:� 'k .-):':, i- }�.5-ctv, ^i,- :}: . ,= .�:..:_.:._: . ^:A'^, t'. S` - •:'••••• ; ���:: + ,• X: e n ': S.,,•e:.- ,y 5.�,'�t1' . „ T ,,•2 .mw � , , _d- ` � 4 - '� =.i:-:- r-_ `.wii4. cc '.,v... :,rNl.k- '' = .._::,.�:p"-# , =µ --P-,,w frttc ,...-0 .-Y. av-_ - - n .:`h- - ,-- '` .. 1''%•tar ' . ti: _ ,4f2A - er -''F `. • a. f - fi 4 W : A * 5f d.. ul✓• ,fi I 1/I �' xz. 5". _ i, . : Hend .. -•. '„•••••:....,,•:,,-..,,,, '=• ' James'N.P: ryz . . •;;r Community Development Director - ' = -- _ . • _kkurpirilddbgroaa kt _ ,- •, c: Tim Ramis .-" Dan Boyden.. • :: ::�'. •'. Ed Murphy Peggy Hennessy - - - : - - . , = Fife: CPA 95-000520N.95-0007 :- 'rC • • • a:; _ ..y.. r'ti:,_,z.,:i.: '_[f v,.,•d-:C '::k% --.T.,..,-;.-.-„, . ".'�..,. t + ..�•:C`' a•,.-:,.�.- -' .J:..•;n•,-� at V_, ,t f+i- " ,fit_,•i�•�.•..1 :-„2 a s.f•.�,'..-•rsue's_ >�r?--F ,�.�t yR. - - , % i Y''`3: ' - ._ +s . r /.a- { - •1 �u.:c_ axs ., .. � :� J . • J r•i'T` �- _�{.-�- - NVH=Y-- �� L'"4-�:r, ��` Y� .L_�. - .�Tir✓t Al-i r. • ' i Y ? r "' :-}" � ' s •c ` .ctiz-i y a r -_.,}'"p., 1} - q ci a-�d 'rrt.:.y : � r-- s_, dLi:--. r 5. 'd ue .1.. e r .. t r h M = .= t. :i 6 a i r r yis . '' �}. ,4�" N r -`.17,..,;,,..'‘,1.--.. �" 3 ''r t- > k Tr:S .�'b ,',:-- 're-7....r i.i d !..- .. . L F :u. •A. , L. ee.� g"°6:C .^• e R!?! -"Y�`?;a4";:i?"l}E•4td G° ^' yFy• � _ _ _ ..•j';` z 3,,,, t"",':1,5.7-47.4:-1— ,t .'` 4_=r",:=-.':.".,';.-...... .. fir!, ,-'.:,• x•; ac 6r"Ak" 'd-‘t *-t '.sc"r +°>, astl -'�". -°_S • • • • ^.-` - ,--o,i*va.:'i'r,• ^ ,,_-.,.c"r ..::3::.�.::.r:::-:�:Y.�.zir.::, ,.P.. _ --—41 .t....+:.i vr.`S' .. .-� _ �.._..�._.__. x`�r. 1..� =CTION 33 T I S R I W W.M. . CIS 1 33CA • IGTON COUNTY OREGON i � _ SCALE I 100' oa � 1 ' ' O ' :CO �.,0 • O -• tTV, �''6� I ..- i CANCELLED TAX LOTS I 600,1401, 1300,Ii01, • • SEE MAP "i1 °cP• / 60 �/ `b �h0 I 0 0 W RQ • /.95 Ac. I `s` / :I z yc / l W a s 1� 1 > ; Q I 1 1 �59tPt�o� . `< .. I t I. °� 1900 <� I y362 /.77 AC. m I {[PEBQX, CENTER H I — • O TI N J $�• / W m ` j30 (� fu •�I/ �' r M� NO, 292.67 Z W S on I z "' 0 200 c °° > 1• /.32 AC. M; m° `• o j _ /iN m°¢ y i 1000 �n .' U W `. W 1 • ., O Z • 2.B3 Ac. N " .on ■ 1 "' v 0"-'i to q ` Z Q :: W d W - U A or 2sz.so »s • f I ; r b o ° n' 7� koco � 300 I ^ xi 11, I ,:eillv., o ro J �° m °j' !a �I `p 1,,; - O r !Y A M 3 i • I� I� 32 � m r 0¢ t r ¢¢ } i ( C.S. 14,388) (r) ( C.S. 14,751 ) N") i -�I 33 5 1 .. 8 5 SEE MAP ,.., • � 3� ^ 0 .•iC.S. 21,834) • • :• IS 133DB M lm soh° v 179 38 EAST 0�� • m 400 292.87 "•�3S' en •Q• it N .24 AC. " GREENWAY . t. N 65' o i I J: te.. . 120.90 84.34 h n t 1001 s,4 700 61.98 r- � t 1 Q 2.2 4 Ac. N 2./5 AC. 1 • 100 v • `, 160.92 1 /.36 AC. . . • 5 0 0 •. M in N / 0 160.92 I . to . ° t: . . . . n • • .292.88 %�� co C • 1 FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES 2`ppJos, ONLY. DO NOT RELY ON ;9) m ,e, FOR ANY OTHER USE. ' F 263.60. `o p N 89°56' 5"E N N — a r { 11 1 1200 g i•3.33 AC. 35' I 6.62 • 293.07 15'1 act R 297' 1 :;Ia_...ii.^1Ti _...._ ... n 1 rF?? . i';,{- t-., 5 a • 800 . A .. _ .__. _ . �� ,~-, ao �z ( C.S. 17,451) W t° NOV r ;' I ILI° .— 297' 0 900 = i a :._._.., W o /.35 AC. .. _ 1 z ° all I n _ s II N to-4 • u. O °1 x I I I ` 11 1 H , t :b I I I 02/17/97 15:52 12503 220 2480 STOEL RIVES 2 a002/002 CE STOEL RIVES LLP -N A T T O R N E Y S 1/4)- ` �� (�� STANDARD INSURANcE CENTER y �� 1 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE.SUITE 2300 1 /�/ _ s) PORTLAND.OREGON 97201.1268 \/ V C n_ , / Phone(5@3)224-3380 Fax(503)220.2480 • W •11 )) TDD(3031 2 2 1 4 045 ,L" ✓/ /� • ,� L 1 Intemek:www.stxl.com p ,� February 17, 1997 MICHAEL C.ROBINSON Direct Dial (503)294-9194 email m¢robinson@staeicom VIA FACSIMILE Mr. James N.P. Hendryx City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 • Re: Request for Notice of Amendments Dear Jim: Please provide me with written notice of any request by the City or any other person to amend Tigard Comprehensive Plan ("TCP") Policy 1.1.2 (the "mistake or change" section), or any of the locational requirements for the commercial land use designations in the TCP. After thinking about the City Council's discussion at its February 11, 1997 meeting, I hope that the City decides to initiate an amendment to the TCP to change or delete the "change or mistake" criteria. These criteria are cumbersome at best and, if the Shrader/Coe application is any indication, may be impossible to satisfy. My clients would support such an amendment to the TCP. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours, MLPe. L . Michael C. Robinson MCR:Ixh cc: Mr. Dale Shrader (via facsimile) Mr. E. William Gross (via facsimile) Mr. Gary Coe (via facsimile) Mr. William A. Monahan (via facsimile) Ms. Laurie Nicholson (via facsimile) Mr. Robert Lefevre (via facsimile) RDX1A-66528.1 X26409.0001 0� 02/17/97 16:57 2Y503 220 2480 STOEL RIVES 2 a002/002 • • STOEL RIVES I_l.P A T 'r o R P V S STANDARD INSURANCE CF,NTER 900 SW FIrrH AVENUE.SUITE 2300 PORTLAND,OREGON 97204.12$ Plume(503)224-3350 Fax 1503)2 20.2330 TDD(5031221-M5 Internet www,5loel.com February 17, 1997 • MICHAEL C.ROBINSON Direct Dial (503)294-9194 email mcrobinsonestoel.com VIA FACSIMILE Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 1175 Court Street, NE Salem, OR 97310-0590 Re: Request for Notice of Post-Acknowledgment Amendment Dear Ms./Sir: Would you please provide me with written notice of any post-acknowledgment amendments submitted by the City of Tigard to its comprehensive plan or land use regulations? If there is a charge for mailing this notice, please include an invoice with the notice and I will be happy to reimburse you. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours, e. C. Robinson MCR:Ixh cc: Mr. James N.P. Hendryx (via facsimile) Ms. Laurie Nicholson (via facsimile) Mr. Dale Shrader (via facsimile) Mr. E. William Gross (via facsimile) Mr. Gary Coe (via facsimile) MCA-66530.1 264030001 /4 Juur3-1) &)6 fiLL 9/1t , ./ZeiAA.t4cs-<1 vkx)' at,& o ---"bet- -0-5r( A . ikzo). ,,i.) 0_42.6JuL444.6 , Ae_t).0A.,tcs_ abtiLL) vim, ����. •�. � . J11 , -i• 'YQ■ti. Cam• 1AA--a: . • ►'t << 1 °-t -0,, 0 I I 1 ' : A A..._ 1 441/",i 1 r '1 ��•-o.�.�• 1, t ea r 111 I. 7PAA -• ,. _. . I A A. ♦ S. ' J 'l i i I ��,. Q.�; , J�.i i I ) V' ` ii..♦ % V'V■� I E,cil. -,(k Q A ( c0(2 )-- ' -t om 2AhLi 4. \-- LP. A t,4.: • i, - A- lgRZ -tab Cam. - " ,-Ksve lark, =II CAA,ty fv./..c._,Ea_ v.)..) \ct a...3 ?. . . 1,',' . . ._2&g,,,,,,Aw,r.i- i . i, 2-C?-_ Al ..0,11.. L.... .■ ! ..._ t . 16. fl 1 . ci (.45,db+ _`IIF l 1 gaTii a'._1` 1 -- .0. . I Qom. vU - .a 1I HI .j i W - • . .1 . ••i . - -,; ' - - • • . . . 1 • . . . i Vt.Lo-ft., . --tu-4,,. .9..a ciZZAA-J-Ak., 0)-2.c..-cxx)--4Q___t?rb 0.ef-4.1) 8-6 • ,, 4,_cx)," - 0"A_O 4- C:43,AAK45 . --- -Q-0-i-k-L, -k50-v.:,--ekt 1 f‘AZ--*- te,A-Niz.7,(JA. . _ c2erS, \AIKKL, . f\Akzt- 1A ,CzVA).A.z- (v,oa.-t- --tv3--B ... - ..A■ANLAxAst. , 0..A3a _, Uvv-,),--c_,. Pr AuNi_,P vaAL, 0-) A \ i\KO-* Aok.4,-,1-9, Pet I • tA, _.I :...-2_,... ........_._......, C' 4 . ■-.■■ f • ' / _CI.T14, ' 1 i . •4 . il i II 0...1... I, k • • b..A. 41.■.&._,..._.., - . I.r. 1 % 2 _ 4 l . - At I 0 tA ..... ._ .. -,. 4....,. ,8) D l ' • : , ... AO f • H — 47. ..,:axt! _ la 0 ! - a-— -■ I - ■ . I. . • - 44.......... : 7-- A1. !.. 'a, ',.._■. . e . S--- - = - 0_, rk I - 0 , -*9\_sL, , 0 ...ire__.■ i e-/tr; AL 46_, _. ....As. , . ■ h_.. -e. — Ai...a._,.... (31*19 '-Nrv-\U<3.3J'SLA, 11/4ZtAkZ• -PisAN"- - CAY‘AJLAN .JL■Ot 5eirkkkko IAQ tl‘ti ;-) Ji• 1VJJ■ ,A -V2,5: •— 1 br,C?S0 St) \. .5-6\ 1Z,QX4.1, -) • . 1°1a;1/4 ; -- _ . ,L_I_.‘. 11. it 1. 1• 2 — S....14,4_k_..■ ..4-1 i4; --- Mgt- 1:-■-■61 11\ - INPI . , I I . . • • f '-' ili- f\AJ ,Lot5"ejA-SLa .,WZt-COW."a•A-\Z oCVSLW . .. 5. - ••, 0 A.,( ,,.....( ) gAA_it,)--k.A tAk.."./.J,Q., . . . e. 4 — q.,\1.44.Adere A.A.)`-k-Q.L 9*0-,CKI■-A k...VIL/OyV.., -- ctm,A ,AfAaLtki-o Zey\A,JAZI ,9=Ad. ciLo,\K -- U.AP:tt.6-AK:Lii- , . , - P k -gy9 . 710,vu,A) , , la . • . 0 1 (IP 1 ■ -2-21-41:At'- - LL_____Ask„191_,-16 L,•n 9. AJ at 0-6 , ■ _ 'a. ♦ • k A ta.:C i 1 , • ..i.,,.'1 -. 1i t.A - if.2_, Nv`A) ab.p-o--(),J,.)--T t,'•--- . • �J - ' `.J!... - t • s . . .. / LO, dJ— Jw _ L 3.-?-- --, I9- 3 (?) - •bril_ ♦. ; °ç, , ' fa: — `...■ ��� _ 4 j , . i , . . \A _ - Azea i & a I I% 1 A , I. .` S► . 4a/L.C640.4.2...)--1 .,1445:_c_tv.4. -.. .----- a I I I .. • lb- 3/44'.'L- 1* W11)*Q., I;'-i- ' - — ;.1 X • • e -i1g3_ d42..b." ialtm_at abai‹ -stdat;."), _ C■etMKAAK • &Q.ALA_Ar 4 \qq t - - - ' - ciaikkAILeg- - tee - - — Qom.- - -c.. - - - - - - - - - .2?-43Ak- • 14,1342fve..Ea2,1 • -IgAtZk? 1/2/ 1LA • (4404.s-C - 0 --- V - • 41 • e • • ( A • 1■784- 114. 1t..47 i; 1:I i t I 1,1 • o o - 1 IsL, eat- - --199.„04 ,(4AkkAik_ka-vd- _ � ct ,� 0.0(0_3 Am, %„\k,, 35 ` - _ L9 ws, ul. c9A 4sfyioLL) 1 ) o - -- - U6SQA -'© - -- - )4 Q 4, -- - - - - � - ''| /| `., ■i ���� �������� ,t! ���� -`� : / {\ ii / / _______, . ..44_ _i.,&,,.....?r.....j_..),..,,„:.;___ \ cx-N e•,.vrc........,...0 -------(-:-.4_,____c_ _e L 2_ )___ ..,-a----.7-4-,----(..._ -!--- -1,- ) -K-. • i . .....- 7-41.f. 1/4_5'-r-, ,_5' V _ ,___ , /Aft 7\,- 7--1- 4 / l ?. E , / cef) . / _----_-----_-'-'_-__-''~' ---_m-m�---_-----~-^-------- ____- __ \" _ - |-' _ v�-�, _ / _ . . - T�- ^ / ' ~ '' ' ''1 - -- ---' / ' |)�\P` J' 11------_ ~_ ` ) 52-'aa) \1 G~ 3& ~ ' - \ � �n / � - '- 'Z. | ` 3 � 2.3 / 3'2 • � ! | �� ] -� �� . ^ � � ` "-` �` ' � \■ - _■■ ■ ___ ._- ■I --------- -�^-- ---- -- ' ----ait./41-~ - '- ' ---- ---- -- -- . to ___ - ----_- --__--. _ ' .____ . ��- . ���' � � ����� � �����- . -'__ _ _-_ _- ' '___ -' ___---_ -_ _ _-_--_ ~.. _ _ - _- --'-- __-__ ` -- ' � -'-- -- _ _ __-______ 60-t- 1;2/i 2/‘11- • . • et.C- - 3-tek Gj • %.,S■J ek„-TV -t5" Cr _ 5 f 65b., L-‘, ZJ 51tA, G tYro - - iz/1 C 50) cc - - c'4 L -' - -- L C PA 11> wLe,-.) GC. 'fj2"="1 frw c /1,-4,1- d.6 0-3 A.-g-y-vs-e A.:4w ,4470 3 r I c,k_A diaiLc's'j C-••'1-1A—e f 7t.g, t-+ ------ / i Lt-i C-- crk • • EXHIBIT 1 COMPARISON BETWEEN GENERAL COMMERCIAL - AND COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PLAN DESIGNATION GC CC Gross Leasable Area No limitation 30,000 - 100,000 sq. ft.; grocery store is limited to 40,000 sq. ft. Surrounding Residential May not be surrounded by No limitation Areas • residential districts on more than two sides Purpose of Designation Provides for "major retail Provides for "a primary goods and services" and neighborhood orientation"; ' "large space users"; serves not to be so large or broad the traveling'public in scope as to attract trade from outside of surrounding neighborhoods: avoids the appearance of typical commercial strip development Trade Area No limitation Within 1/2 mile of site to provide residents with opportunity to walk or bike to shopping Commercial Development at No limitation One quadrant of intersection the Intersection only Distance from Other No limitation 1/2 mile from other Commercially-Zoned Sites commercial retail uses, but may be less than 1/2 mile from commercial sites with non-retail uses Site Development Plan No Yes Required at Zoning 0 PDXIA 63802-1 26409-I III • Page 15 Haggen Food & Pharmacy Pa g City of Tigard, September 12, 1995 I V. EVIDENCE OF CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES, INCONSISTENCY I OR MISTAKE Chapter 18.22 of the Tigard Community Development Code sets forth the criteria for approval of zone I amendments. This chapter, in part, requires that there is "evidence of a change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application." IChange in Circumstances The City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1983, establishing the plan and zone designation for the area in which the subject property is located. Historically, commercial expansion along Scholls Ferry Road has been carefully controlled by both the cities of Tigard and Beaverton to provide residential land use compatibility and minimize traffic impacts. Since that time, circumstances have changed significantly with 1 regard to planning the area and the larger region. The Metro 2040.Growth Concept was established by Metro through the adoption of Resolution 94-2040C, i and the State of Oregon adopted the Transportation Planning Rule under Statewide Land Use Goal 12 in 1993. The Growth Concept is to be implemented over the near future through a Regional Framework Plan and the comprehensive plans of cities and counties. Among a host of other things, this adopted Growth I Concept recommends study of lands west of the Urban Growth Boundary, along Scholls Ferry Road, for residential expansion. The concept also calls for the establishment of a Town Center in the Scholls Ferry Road/Murray Boulevard/SW 135th Street vicinity (See Attachment C). Town Centers are to provide local shopping and employment opportunities, featuring compact development and transit service. They are designed to provide local retail and services, at a minimum, to serve the local I market area (Metro 2040 Growth Concept). Town Centers are connected to other centers by Corridors. SW Murray Boulevard and SW Scholls Ferry Road are both designated as Corridors. Corridors are not as dense as Town Centers, and according to the Growth Concept, they are intended to include a mix of office, retail and medium density residential uses along transit lines. A future iteration of the state-mandated Periodic Review of Tigard's comprehensive plan will likely result in . some new commercial-oriented zoning for this area to address the regional growth concept, mitigate traffic conditions and meet Transportation Planning Rule requirements. The requested rezone of the subject property to C-G and the proposed use as a grocery store and pharmacy is consistent with the Metro 2040 Growth Concept for this area, and reflects the changing circumstances of regional and local plans. In addition to the 6 acres on-site to remain in R-25 zoning, over 30 acres of land is available for medium-high density residential use in the immediate vicinity. Recently, the City approved development of 160 multiple family units on an adjacent 7.9 acre site to the south across Hawks Beard Street. IThe second change in circumstances is State adoption of the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The TPR requires that cities and counties amend their comprehensive plans to more efficiently manage local I transportation systems.The TPR mandates site design standards,evaluation of transportation system capacity and long-range plans to reduce the number of per-capita vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) on the local street system. Until Tigard prepares its comprehensive plan update to address TPR requirements, the City must S . . ! • • Haggen Food & Pharmacy Page 16 City of Tigard, September 12, 1995 review planning and zoning proposals based upon the applicable state law, OAR 660-12-060 (See analysis on pages 26 and 27). As shown by the Kittelson & Associates traffic analysis, the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change is in conformance with the TPR; the proposed grocery and pharmacy use of the subject property, as compared to development of 180 apartments, will result in a 65% reduction in VMT (Attachment D). No reclassification of affected streets is required. Another relevant change in circumstance,which makes the proposal timely,is the recent street improvements to Scholls Ferry Road, Old Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Street, including widening, realignment, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, signalization, noise attenuation and landscaping. These changes have significantly improved local circulation and levels-of-service in the area, and will promote pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections to this highly accessible site. Inconsistency/Mistake in City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan (1983) The City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1983. At that time the City designated what it �- believed was sufficient commercial land for a 20-year planning horizon. However, due to the significant population growth that has occurred in this portion of the metropolitan region, the Comprehensive Plan underestimates the need for vacant, developable sites within the subject trade area for locating new grocery stores. As the economic analysis submitted with this application indicates, the trade area is currently and projected to continue to be underserved by retail uses. The fact that there is such a significant shortage of retail land available to serve the community represents an inconsistency with the Tigard Comprehensive Plan's intent to provide sufficient land to serve both the current and future population base of the city. Currently, there are no commercially-designated sites of sufficient size to develop the proposed store within the local trade area (See Market Area Analysis, Attachment E). I I I 1 • I i 0 • ck y N �. r0 perrJ /VoT to Scdle Q _ tills s. 5 Sch S (ii 1 1 -..- - _ , _C reek 1 b 1 *► 1 ‘)Ct. (1._) t 6• ( �R' c1-6. 13ri ttany f � ir ■ {'a 1 `h 0 ■ \ Q ` i 1 ■ 2 . \X\f • • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 18.56. R-25:MULTIPLE-FAMILY 2. Duplex residential units; RESIDENTIAL (25 UNITS PER ACRE). 3. Single-family attached residential units; 18.56.010 Purpose. 4. Multiple-family dwellings; 18.56.020 Procedures and Approval Process. 5. Residential care facility; 18.56.030 Permitted Uses. 18.56.040 Conditional Uses (See Chapter 6. Mobile home parks and subdivisions; 18.130). 18.56.050 Dimensional Requirements. 7. Public support services; 18.56.060 Additional Requirements. 8. Residential treatment home; 18.56.010 Purpose. 9. Manufactured homes; A. The purpose of the R-25 zoning district is to provide for single-family attached and low and 10. Family day care; medium rise multiple-family residential units for medium-high density residential development. 11. Home occupation; (Ord.89-06;Ord.84-46;Ord.83-52) 12. Temporary use; 18.56.020 Procedures and Approval Process. 13. Fuel tank;or A. A permitted use, Section 18.56.030, is a use 14. Accessory structures. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. which is allowed outright, but is subject to all 89-06;Ord.85-15;Ord.84-46;Ord. 83-52) applicable provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a permitted use, it may be held to be a 18.56.040 Conditional Uses (See Chapter similar unlisted use under the provisions of 18.130). Chapter 18.43,Unlisted Use. A. Conditional uses in the R-25 district are as B. A conditional use, Section 18.56.040, is a use follows: the approval of which is discretionary with the Hearings Officer. The approval process and 1. Community recreation, including criteria for approval are set forth in Chapter structures; 18.130, Conditional Use. If a use is not listed as a conditional use, it may be held to be a similar 2. Religious assembly; unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43,Unlisted Use. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 3. Schools and related facilities; 84-46;Ord. 83-52) 4. Utilities; 18.56.030 Permitted Uses. 5. Group residential; A. Permitted uses in the R-25 district are as follows: 6. Parking facilities; 1. Single-family detached residential units; 7. Hospitals; 18-56-1 Rev.5/30/95 • • 11 F' TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE feet; however, the provisions of Chapter 18.102 8. Lodge, fraternal, and civic assembly; must be satisfied; and c. For multi-family dwellings the side 9. Children's day care. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. yard setback shall be a minimum of 10 feet. For 87-03;Ord. 84-46;Ord. 83-52) single-family dwellings the side yard setback shall be five feet except this shall not apply to attached 18.56.050 Dimensional Requirements. units on the lot line on which the units are attached; A. Dimensional requirements in the R-25 district are as follows: d. For multi-family dwellings the rear yard setback shall be a minimum of 20 feet. For 1. The minimum lot size shall be: single-family dwellings, the rear yard shall be a minimum of 15 feet; a. For a single family-detached unit, 3,050 square feet; e. Where the side yard or rear yard of attached or multiple-family or single-family b. For each attached single-family dwellings abut a more restrictive zoning district, unit, 1,480 square feet; such setbacks shall not be less than 30 feet;and c. For a duplex, 6,100 square feet, or f. The distance between the property 3,050 square feet for each unit; line and the front of the garage shall be a minimum of 20 feet; d. For a boarding, lodging or rooming house,6,100 square feet;and 4. Except as otherwise provided in Chapter 18.98, no building in an R-25 zoning e. For each multi-family unit, 1,480 district shall exceed 45 feet in height; square feet; 5. The maximum lot coverage shall be 80 2. There is no minimum lot width percent including all building and impervious requirement; surfaces;and 3. Except as otherwise provided in 6. The minimum landscape requirement Chapter 18.96 and Section 18.100.130, the shall be 20 percent. (Ord. 95-11; Ord. 89-06; Ord. minimum setback requirements are as follows: 85-32;Ord. 85-31; Ord. 85-07;Ord. 84-46;Ord. 84- 29;Ord.83-52) a. For multi-family dwellings the front yard setback shall be a minimum of 20 feet. 18.56.060 Additional Requirements. For single-family dwellings the front yard setback shall be a minimum of 15 feet; A. Additional requirements in the R-25 district are as follows: b. For multi-family dwelling units on corner and through lots the minimum setback for 1. Residential density transition, Section each side facing a street shall be 20 feet; however, 18.40.040; the provisions of Chapter 18.102 must be satisfied. For single-family dwelling units the minimum 2. Overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 setback for each side facing a street shall be 10 Planned Development, 18.82 Historic Overlay 18-56-2 Rev.5/30/95 • • ) TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE District, 18.84 Sensitive Lands, 18.86 Action Areas, and 18.88 Solar Access Requirements; 3. Supplemental Provisions, Chapters 18.90 Environmental Performance Standards, 18.92 Density Computations, 18.94 Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations, 18.96 Additional Yard Setback Requirements and Exceptions, 18.98 Building Height Limitations: Exceptions, 18.100 Landscaping and Screening, 18.102 Visual Clearance Areas, 18.104 Fuel Tank Installations, 18.106 Off-Street Parking and - Loading Requirements, 18.108 Access, Egress,and Circulation,and 18.114 Signs; 4. Site Development Review, Chapter 18.120; 5. Development and Administration, Chapters 18.130 Conditional Use, 18.132 Nonconforming Situations, 18.134 Variance, 18.140 Temporary Uses, 18.142 Home Occupations, 18.144 Accessory Structures, 18.146 Flexible Setback Standards, and 18.150 Tree Removal;and 6. Land Division and Development Standards, Chapters 18.160 Land Division: Subdivision, 18.162 Land Division: Land Partitioning - Lot Line Adjustment, and 18.164 Street and Utility Improvement Standards. (Ord. 91-02; Ord. 90-41;Ord. 89-06; Ord. 85-07;Ord. 84- 46;Ord.84-29;Ord.83-52)■ 18-56-3 Rev.5/30/95 • • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 18.61. C-C:COMMUNITY -The-community-commercial-development COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. [shall-be_compatible-with-surrounding_uses=as Cdetermined=through-the-review-and-approval-of-a 18.61.010 Purpose. [Site_Developmen`plan,—including conformance; 18.61.020 Procedures and Approval Lwith-the-site-and"_building-design-standards Process. Section, contemporaneous-with) 18.61.030 Permitted Uses. Eand-a_part of,-tlle approval-of-a-zonechange-to-thy 18.61.040 Conditional Uses (See Chapter o m-unity commercial-designation.)The site plan 18.130). approval may include conditions relating to site 18.61.045 Special Limitations on Uses. and building development through conditions of 18.61.050 Dimensional Requirements. approval of a zone change for the site or through 18.61.055 Site and Building Design the Site Development Review process. Such Guidelines/Standards. considerations may include,but are not limited to, 18.61.060 Additional Requirements. access limitations, special setbacks, increased landscaping or buffering, limits on off-street 18.61.010 Purpose. parking spaces, and special design considerations for pedestrian and bicyclist access. This Chapter A. The—purpos eof_ the C=C—(Community shall provide building and site design guidelines Commercial)zoning—district—is—to—prov-ides and mandatory site design standards intended to Clocations-for-convenience=shoping_facilities-than minimize site development impacts on L ovide_for_the_regular_needs-of--residents-of3 surrounding residential neighborhoods and to Cnearby-residential_neighborho&i It is intended promote pedestrian and bicyclist friendly that the community commercial center be ideally development. developed as a unit with adequate off-street parking for customers and employees, and with CIt`_is-preferable_that-a-community-commercial) appropriate landscaping and screening to insure Cite_be developed=as_one_unit with:_c`oodinated3 compatibility with the surrounding residential [access,=circulation,-_liuil"ding-design,-signage,-and- environment. Gr so floor_area_in-community Clandscapig) CP_arce s within—a—_community.% rcommercial centers ypically_range_from-30,000 to Lcommercial site maybe de—eloped_independ tlen y; x00;000-square-feet,-and-land-areairanges_between) lhowever,__the___City may _require-=than C2=to-8-aa Cdevelopmental_aspects of-individual parcels_be) �cooidinated thiougn the=developmen et view Community commercial centers are intended [process:--Access needs of individual parcels and to be separated from other commercially zoned uses shall be coordinated within a site so as to properties which provide retail and service limit the number of access driveways to adjacent opportunities by at least one half mile. (The) streets. Cdesignation-of-a site with-this-district should-note Lcreate_or__contribute to a Com nercia-stripy With respect for the district's primary Cdevelopment-patteThis district is intended to neighborhood orientation rather than to the be located adjacent to several residential travelling public,signage will be strictly limited in neighborhoods, ideally at the intersection of two size and height. or more major collector streets or at the intersection of an arterial and a collector street. 18.61.020 Procedures and Approval The district is to be applied in only one quadrant Process. of an intersection. The intended service area of the district is up to one and one half miles from a A. A permitted use, Section 18.61.030, is a use site. which is allowed outright,but which is subject to all applicable provisions of this title. If a use is not 18-61-1 Reformatted 1994 • • . TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE listed as a permitted use, it may be held to be a modification to the conditions of development similar unlisted use under the provisions of approval, shall be processed as a zone change. Chapter 18.43,Unlisted Use. Other modifications shall be processed as a Director's decision in accordance with B. A conditional use, Section 18.61.040, is a use Community Development Code Sections the approval of which is discretionary with the 18.120.080 and 18.130.060. Hearings Officer, or in the case of a Conditional Use proposed as part of the original rezoning or a 18.61.030 Permitted Uses. major change to an approved site plan, is discretionary with the Planning Commission or A. Permitted uses in the C-C district are as City Council. The approval process and criteria follows: for approval are set forth in Chapter 18.130, Conditional Use. It is also incumbent upon the 1. Civic use types: applicant for conditional use approval to demonstrate that the intended use is consistent a. Public agency administrative with the purposes of the Community Commercial services; zone and that the proposed use will not alter the character of the surrounding area in a manner b. Community recreation which substantially limits, impairs, or precludes the use of surrounding properties for the primary c. Cultural exhibits and library uses listed in the underlying district(s). If a use is services; not listed as a conditional use, it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of d. Public support facilities; Chapter 18.43,Unlisted Use. • e. Postal services;and C. FIris required-that-a-request-to rezone_a_parceh Cwith_the_C • • .1 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 4. Parking facilities, including transit h. General offices, such that where centers. these uses are combined in one structure, each separate establishment shall not exceed 5,000 5. Religious assembly; square feet in size. 6. Uses operating before 6:00 a.m. and/or (i) Medical and dental services; after 11:00 p.m., unless extended hours have been specifically permitted as an outright use through (ii) Financial, insurance and real the establishment of the zoning on the site; estate services; - 7. Drive up windows. (iii) Professional and administrative services; 18.61.045 Special Limitations on Uses. i. Participant sports and recreation: A. Special limitations in the C-C district are as follows: (i) Indoor; 1. The use shall be conducted wholly 3. Single or multi-family residential within an enclosed structure, except for outside dwellings, as a mixed use in conjunction with a play areas for children's day care facilities, and as commercial development, on or above the second allowed in Subsections 3 and 4 of this section; floor of the structure, at densities not to exceed 12 units per gross acre. 2. Unless specified otherwise, no use shall have a gross floor area greater than 5,000 square 4. Home occupations subject to provisions feet; . .. . of Chapter 18.142. . 3. Accessory open _ air sales/display/ 5. Temporary uses; storage,shall be permitted for•horticultural and food merchandising uses only and shall constitute 6. Fuel tanks;or no more than five percent of the gross building floor area of any individual establishment; 7. Accessory structures. 4. Accessory open air dining or drinking 18.61.040 Conditional Uses (See Chapter .areas shall be permitted for approved eating and 18.130). drinking establishments or retail food stores only. Outside dining areas are not permitted within 200 A. Conditional uses in the C-C district are as feet of any developed residential area. Public or follows: private sidewalk areas around dining areas may not be reduced to less than five feet of clear 1. Automotive and Equipment: walkway. (i) Cleaning; 18.61.050 Dimensional Requirements. 2. Vehicle fuel sales; A. Dimensional requirements in the C-C district are as follows: 3. Lodge,fraternal,and civic assembly; 1. The minimum lot size shall be 5,000 square feet; 18-61-3 Reformatted 1994 • • { TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 2. The minimum lot width shall be 50 feet; 1. Building Design Guidelines 3. Except as otherwise provided in a. The design of buildings within a Chapter 18.96 and Section 18.100.130, the community commercial development should minimum setback requirements are as follows: incorporate elements such as special architectural details, distinctive color schemes, special art and a. No front yard setback shall be other features, which are sensitive to and enhance required, except a 20 foot front yard setback shall the surrounding area and serve to distinguish the apply within 50 feet of a residential district; complex from other retail complexes in the city. b. No corner yard setback shall be b. All buildings within a multi- required; however, the provisions of Chapter building complex should achieve a unity of design 18.102(Vision Clearance) must be satisfied; through the use of similar architectural elements, such as roof form, exterior building materials, c. No side yard setback shall be colors,and window pattern. required except a 20 foot building setback shall be required from a residential zoning district;and c. Individual buildings should incorporate similar design elements, such as d. No rear yard setback shall be surface materials, color, roof treatment, windows required except a 20 foot setback shall be required and doors,on all sides of the building to achieve a from a residential zoning district;and unity of design. The sides of a building which face toward a public street should include public e. All building separations shall meet entrances to the building and windows to provide Uniform Building Code requirements; visual access to the activity within the building. s' The sides of a building which face toward an 4. No building in the C-C zoning district adjoining property,but not toward a public street, shall exceed 35 feet in height; should include elements such as windows, doors, color, texture, landscaping or wall treatment to 5. The maximum site coverage shall be 80 provide visual interest and prevent the percent including all buildings and impervious development of a long continuous blank wall. surfaces;and 2. General Site Design Guidelines 6. The minimum landscaped area requirement shall be 20 percent. a. Loading areas should not be located on the side of a building which faces 18.61.055 Site and Building Design toward a residential use. Loading areas,if located Guidelines/Standards. between the building and the street, should be oriented away from the street and should be A. Design Guidelines screened to minimize views of the loading area from the street and sidewalk. The following design guidelines are strongly encouraged for developments within the C-C B. Design Standards (community commercial) district. Conditions of approval of the development plan may include, The following mandatory design standards but are not limited to, any of the site and building apply within the community commercial district design guidelines deemed appropriate to be mandatory. 1. Internal Walkways. 18-61-4 Reformatted 1994 III III TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE form of the building or enclosed within a a. Walkways, eight feet minimum screening structure, the design of which is width,shall be provided from the public sidewalk consistent with the design of the building. or right-of-way to the building(s). At a minimum, walkways shall be located to connect focus points c. Mechanical equipment, not located of pedestrian activity such as transit stops and on the building, shall be screened from views street crossings to the major building entry points. from the public street, sidewalk, and properties outside the district with a durable, solid wall or b. Walkways, five feet minimum fence, or an evergreen hedge or a combination of width, shall be provided to connect with the above. walkways or potential walkway locations on adjoining properties to create an integrated d. All refuse and recycling containers internal walkway system along the desired lines _ within the district shall be contained within of pedestrian travel. The width of the walkway structures enclosed on all four sides and which should be commensurate with the anticipated are at least as high as the tallest container within level of pedestrian activity along the connecting the structure. walkway. e. Bicycle racks shall be provided on i. Walkways shall be provided site. Facilities for a minimum of ten bicycles shall along the full length of the building on any side be provided for developments having 100 or which provides building access to the public or fewer parking stalls, notwithstanding Code where public parking is available, to provide safe Section 18.106.020.P. For each 100 additional and comfortable pedestrian access to the building. stalls, facilities for five additional bicycles shall be provided. Bicycle parking areas shall not be ii. On the sides of the building located within parking aisles, landscape areas, or which provide public access into the building, the pedestrian ways. It is strongly encouraged that walkway should be wide enough to allow for bicycle parking areas be covered. sidewalk seating areas as well as pedestrian travel. Weather protection of the walkway should f. The site development plan shall be provided at a minimum at the entrance area incorporate a special features at the corner of-the . and,if appropriate,along the entire walkway. site. A special corner feature can be a landscape feature, seasonal color planting area, sculpture or c. Walkway surfaces for walkways water feature. The feature shall provide a visual crossing parking areas shall be designed to be landmark and some amount of seating area. visually distinguishable from driving surfaces through the use of durable, low maintenance g. Parking areas shall be designed to surface materials such as pavers, bricks, or scored minimize conflicts between pedestrian and concrete to enhance pedestrian safety and vehicular movements. Parking area landscaping comfort. shall be used to define and separate parking, access,and pedestrian areas within parking lots. 2. Other Site Development Standards h. The landscape design for the site a. All lighting fixtures shall shall include plantings which emphasize the incorporate cut-off shields to prevent the spillover major points of pedestrian and vehicular access to of light to adjoining properties. and within the site. b. Mechanical equipment, if located i. Site features such as fences, walls, on the building, shall be located within the roof refuse, and recycling facility enclosures, and light 18-61-5 Reformatted 1994 • • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE fixtures shall be designed to be consistent with the Installations, 18.106 Off-Street Parking and scale and architectural design of the primary Loading Requirements, 18.108 Access, Egress, and structure(s). Such site features shall be designed Circulation,and 18.114 Signs; and located to contribute to the pedestrian environment of the site development. 3. Site Development Review, Chapter 18.120; j. In multiple building complexes, buildings shall be located to facilitate safe and 4. Development and Administration, comfortable pedestrian movement between Chapters 18.130 Conditional Use, 18.132 buildings. On sites which are adjacent to other Nonconforming Situations, 18.134 Variance, properties within the .community commercial 18.140 Temporary Uses, 18.142 Home district, building location shall be chosen to Occupations, 18.144 Accessory Structures, 18.146 facilitate pedestrian and vehicular connections to Flexible Setback Standards, and 18.150 Tree buildings on those adjacent properties. Removal;and Consideration should be given to locating buildings closer to the public street with entrances 5. Land Division and Development to the buildings from the public sidewalk,with no Standards, Chapters 18.160 Land Division: intervening parking or driving area. Corner Subdivision, 18.162 Land Division: Land locations are particularly appropriate for this Partitioning - Lot Line Adjustment, and 18.164 treatment. Street and Utility Improvement Standards. (Ord. 92-34)• k. Opportunities shall be found for safe, convenient, and pleasant pedestrian connections to existing or proposed transit facilities. Where needed, shelters and layover areas for transit vehicles shall be incorporated into the site development. 3. Sign Design Standards • a.. All signage:shall be an integral part of the architectural design: 18.61.060 Additional Requirements. . A. Additional related requirements in the C-C district are as follows: 1. Overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned Development, 18.82 Historic Overlay District,and 18.84 Sensitive Lands; 2. Supplemental Provisions, Chapters 18.90 Environmental Performance Standards, 18.96 Additional Yard Setback Requirements and Exceptions, 18.98 Building Height Limitations: Exceptions, 18.100 Landscaping and Screening, 18.102 Visual Clearance Areas, 18.104 Fuel Tank 18-61-6 Reformatted 1994 • • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 18.62. C-G: GENERAL COMMERCIAL unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter DISTRICT. 18.43, Unlisted Use. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.62.010 Purpose. 18.62.020 Procedures and Approval 18.62.030 Permitted Uses. Process. 18.62.030 Permitted Uses. A. Permitted uses in the C-G district are as 18.62.040 Conditional Uses (See Chapter follows: 18.130). 18.62.050 Dimensional Requirements. 1. Civic use types: 18.62.060 Additional Requirements. a. Public agency administrative 18.62.010 Purpose. services; A. The purpose of the general commercial areas b. Cultural exhibits and library is to provide for major retail goods and services: services; 1. The uses classified as general c. Public support facilities; commercial may involve drive-in services, large space users, a combination of retail, service, d. Lodge, fraternal, and civic wholesale,and repair services, or provide services assembly; to the traveling public; e. Parking facilities; 2. The uses range from automobile repair and services, supply and equipment stores, f. Postal services;and vehicle sales, and drive-in restaurants to laundry establishments;and g. Public safety facilities; 3. It is intended that these uses be adjacent 2. Commercial use types: to an arterial or major collector street. (Ord.89-06; Ord.83-52) a. Agricultural sales; 18.62.020 Procedures and Approval b. Amusement enterprises; Process. c. Animal sales and services; A. A permitted use, Section 18.62.030, is a use which is allowed outright, but is subject to (i) Grooming;and applicable provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a permitted use, it may be held to be a (ii) Veterinary,small animals; similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43,-Unlisted Use. d. Automotive and equipment B. A conditional use, Section 18.62.040, is a use (i) Cleaning; the approval of which is discretionary with the Hearings Officer. The approval process and (ii) Repairs,light equipment;and criteria for approval are set forth in Chapter 18.130, Conditional Use. If a use is not listed as a (iii)Sales/rentals,light equipment conditional use, it may be held to be a similar 18-62-1 Reformatted 1994 • • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE - r e. Business support services; 4. A single-family unit provided that is located on the same site with a permitted use in f. Convenience sales and personal Section 18.62.030 or Section 18.62.040 and is services; occupied exclusively by a caretaker or superintendent of the permitted use and family; g. Children's day care; 5. Family day care; h. Eating and drinking establishments; 6. Temporary use; i. Financial, insurance, and real estate 7. Fuel tank;or services; 8. Accessory structures. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. j. Food and beverage retail sales; 89-06; Ord. 87-04; Ord. 86-08; Ord. 85-07; Ord. 84- 73;Ord.Ord.83-52) k. Funeral and internment services: 18.62.040 Conditional Uses (See Chapter (i) Cremating;and 18.130). (ii) Undertaking; A. Conditional uses in the C-G district are as follows: I. General retail sales; 1. Adult entertainment; m. Medical and dental services; 2. Automotive and equipment: n. Participation sports and recreation: a. Fleet storage; (i) Indoor;and b. Sales/rental,farm equipment; (ii) Outdoor; c. Sales/rental,heavy equipment,and o. Personal services,general; d. Storage, recreational vehicles, and p. Professional and administrative boats; services; 3. Wholesaling,storage,and distribution: q. Consumer repair services; a. Miniwarehouses; r. Religious assembly; 4. Utilities; s. Spectator sports and entertainment facilities;and 5. Heliports, in accordance with the Aeronautics Division(ODOT)and the FAA: t. Transient lodging; 6. Hospitals; 3. Home occupations subject to provisions of Chapter 18.142; 7. Spectator sport facilities;and 18-62-2 Reformatted 1994 • • TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 8. Vehicle fuel sales. (Ord. 39-06; Ord. 83- 18.62.060 Additional Requirements. 52) A. Additional requirements in the C-G district 18.62.050 Dimensional Requirements. are as follows: A. Dimensional requirements in the C-G district 1. Overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned are as follows: Development, 18.82 Historic Overlay District, and 18.84 Sensitive Lands; 1. There is no minimum lot area required; 2. Supplemental Provisions, Chapters 2. The average minimum lot width shall be 18.90 Environmental Performance Standards, 50 feet; 18.92 Density Computations, 18.94 Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations, 18.96 3. Except as otherwise provided in Additional Yard Setback Requirements and Chapter 18.96 and Section 18.100.130, the Exceptions, 18.98 Building Height Limitations: minimum setback requirements are as follows: Exceptions, 18.100 Landscaping and Screening, 18.102 Visual Clearance Areas, 18.104 Fuel Tank a. There shall be no minimum front Installations, 18.106 Off-Street Parking and yard setback requirement; however, conditions in Loading Requirements,18.108 Access, Egress, and Section 18.102.and Chapter 18.100 must be met; Circulation,and 18.114 Signs; b. On corner lots and through lots 3. Site Development Review, Chapter there shall be no minimum setback requirement; 18.120; however, the provisions of Chapter 18.102 must be satisfied; 4. Development and Administration, Chapters 18.130 Conditional Use, 18.132 c. No side yard setback shall be Nonconforming Situations, • 18.134 Variance, required, except 20 feet shall be required where 18.140 Temporary Uses, 18.142 Home the C-G zone abuts a residential zoning district; Occupations, 18.144 Accessory Structures, 18.146 and FIexible Setback Standards, and 18.150 Tree Removal;and d. No rear yard setback shall be required, except 20 feet shall be required where 5. Land Division and Development the C-G zone abuts a residential zoning district; Standards, Chapters 18.160 Land Division: Subdivision, 18.162 Land Division: Land 4. Except as otherwise provided in Partitioning - Lot Line Adjustment, and 18.164 Chapter 18.98, no building in a C-G zone shall Street and Utility Improvement Standards. (Ord. exceed 45 feet; 90-41;Ord.89-06;Ord.83-52)■ 5. The maximum site coverage shall be 85 percent including all buildings and impervious surfaces;and 6. The minimum landscaping requirement shall be 15 percent. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 85-32; Ord. 84-30;Ord.84-29;Ord. 83-52) 18-62-3 Reformatted 1994 III EXHIBIT A - DECEMBER 3, 1992 DRAFT `3 °acv'sw Z:X3 ''rc,+S^':k:£o"`>C�c°S:.e.ipsE- k::<{S 5. ,.f.�.t .�.mr • x E c 7t Vii` :?,� `3 %>" ,;.^p.age fz�" z; ,s? .. :, k,,..- :., :,.. ..., �,. r v r,:,vs 1"'�., ,'„S c3' {y. a t �.)r s, 3x Y d dn'{ > ,e ¢., ,..........• 3 `C S\ a < > r w ,.,-.w-+\ ..:.\aS.,aw \.. c,h..Z .. .\-.. .s l..t � .+,w c.� �.� t,�'' � -�.>>'C,,..x�o `oZ t.,!,�•.�t1' .s.. �Y.c 9.t- 2 • , f ; � proposed additions since November 24, 1992 are : ! §.. w and deletions are [bracketed]. . 4. Community Commercial The community commercial Plan designation is intended to provide locations for retail and service uses which have a primarily neighborhood orientation. Such facilities should be located so that their frequency and distributional pattern reflect their primary neighborhood orientation. Such facilities should not be so large or so broad in scope and services as to attract substantial amounts of trade from outside of surrounding neighborhoods, and shall be large enough to provide a variety of goods and services at one location. It is further the intent• of this designation to restrict the size of such facilities and that the community commercial Plan__designation should. not be located in close prox;m;,ty to ohe _ commercial.' areas so as-..;to :'avoid=,the appearance an feeling' of typical commercial strip development. a. Scale . (1) Trade Area: Surrounding residential_neighborhoods generally__within_a 1 _and 1/2 mile radius.,� '�'9•'C t1 /" i .� we ; 7 "� x• ^,5 c .-3F9 >,C Z '��.) •'7;> ', �f.` at y� ; '`:-.:4-----'6'-•\S '\" s'\ ,,r.•\ `\ / �/'+ \ \ f .,r•1,asG Lt�. \d '), ). ^s, \a f r,,-.5„,.„,---,,,,,,,„SC., �,o Y \ \:Y f /\c t t c'\r' '' 9 �' ?.. S L ,,„1%.-...7,7.,,\ aG,, ..\x;2,..'''>.:- .:',...-am•' '{,Zr� —. `i.p• ,'x.- 3C 9-;-,-. %;.: r •., ,...., o,-- , `5,.........„..';* ::y ,c: ,,4-,, >\ ,::: tiZ Y<-c.-1.' ,,<r Y;ti' ` Z ri & ' s o �° ' f t r%..rc L /i s s'a�1 \uf i') '-r o'' 96) f' >Y,. >' > ` >�K:. f,2', {)r : :11.-:t ac r ay'' t o f :y f \.: a` q^�s - iat ay z i r �?' 3a" ''' .s.,.?t fo , a a »�a� ' >tv N'''•�;∎;.3,.,Y'Y $L✓ .,11_,„ > t�aY A ,,', ,,,,Z J _Z) ;`�Y 1 Y > 1 'y Z1. F t t< > ,i /iC\'' ''<::.: m � 'Lr, r�4 '' \ rE . :Jp� x * • x }.fly•' ti h}C4{ �°'�t Yi k3C •�\ J 'S�9 A7.j(+�Z>• q„� .'.'7,,.>7.-' to C .tf�4)t ■���'l\ ��. v ; > at further distances from • ,:. ? a site . - 1 - • (3[2] )Gross Floor Area. 30,000 to 100,000 square foot gross commercial floor area. • Food sales up to 40 000 s. . ft. • -x. :.......... establishment .,r,,rr:<'�;.r,:.., .,....�fi.,. -w�.,� :• .,�..�:'s;;,�rj�' {:. ASS •«3`•:fair; :i"� �.�,. sY:: „�'s>'.��� .o• ,mss General retail sales up to 10,000 sq. ft. • -r establishment ' uses- ,.;."..`v as • - tt tted F grr ^� �` ,��' w.�:Jbi�,c�•.� Di.E E,.,.,2'O ��,^u'•.'.':.S:3tr,.�,�'�w a ay Mc ;w+�.•oro..x Yorxc+:•.xw�:va,rw.:o....,a.'•aw..:..;;...:.a.••i4.r..c.v:,»•,,.••••••J•- '�N^•• "Y»' _ . ..,.•:-,.a a .,. ,t„'YZ.ol..{`£a' rJ,,-..b hb.M 4 e, i 'oe'+,.r.•.... .w;., Other commercial sales and service facilities f AA • up to 5,000 sq. ft. in size per establishment. b.. ,Locational Criteria (1) Spacing and Location (a) Commercial development shall be limited to one quadrant of e street intersection. 5 q (b) . Community commercial districts .shall be spaced S- -• -> 1 at least one-half mile;,from:'other sites.:=which &An , 1 r are designated for commercial retail- use. Special consideration may also be given to providing a similar separation from non- commercially designated sites that involve retail_use as part of a mixed use development, �orcto provide less than the-min' imum-separation) for commercially designated_ sites which are- developed with non-retail uses. \ (2) Access (a) The proposed community commercial district shall not be anticipated to create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on the capacity of adjacent streets, existing and projected traffic volumes, roadway geometry of adjacent streets, number of turning movements, and the traffic generating characteristics of the most intensive uses allowed in the zone. (b) The site shall be located along an arterial or a major collector street as designated on the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. Sites should either be located at or adjacent to an intersection of a major or minor collector - 2 - . ,. 'i, • • v AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) City of Tigard ) I, co CiQ h.?AvLp_. LO , hereby certify: Please Print That I am a ‘2/3.41.42_2112_____ for the City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served notice of the Tigard City Council 11 Ct.Q Ord i - CPA qs-0003/2 Ni 4S-- ( 1.-i-et.A. (O - , .. -4 qG-/0 of which the attached is a copy (Marke• Exhibit A) upon each of the following named persons on the o3'1 day of ■ ' ' i 19 Q60 , by mailing to each of them at the address shown on the attached list (Marked Exhibit B), said notice is hereto attached, and deposited in the United States Mail on theay of . _ r 19 qe, , postage prepaid. .,_&-T r lt..,U0-k_t_ OD Va:CQ--1-,-- Prepared Notice U Subscribed and sworn to before me this last day of rrJ. 19 96 OFI=ICLSEAL m . � 4 �`' ;� M JO ANf�'I MOVES ^ : NOTARY PUBLIC-#GON Notary ublic of Oregon COMMISSION NO.t142148 My Commission Expires: Sr I fly 1AY'-MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY'M 1995 h:\login\catty\afofmail _.._=-3 �'1 OFFICIAL SEAL .a ' i M JO ANN HAYES �' 3ts=:w r+ NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON i •'OMMISSION NO.042148 I MY CCMMISSIC.1'EXPIRES MAY 05,1999 CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY CITY COUNCIL Concerning Case Number(s): CPA 95-0003/ZQN95-0005 FILE TITLE: BRIAR DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT: Briar Development Company OWNER: Burton E. Grabhorn PO Box 9704 11493 SE 82nd Ave. Bellingham, WA 98227 Portland, OR 97226 REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map from Medium-High Density Residential to General Commercial and change the zoning from R-25 to C-G on 9 acres of a 15.14-acre parcel. LOCATION: Southeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue (WCTM 1S1 33AC, lot 8000). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 4.1.1. 5.1, 5.4, 6.1.1. 8.1.1. 8.2.2 and 12.2.1(2); and Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32. ZONE: C-G (General Commercial) - allows for several commercial uses including convenience sales and services, eating and drinking establishments, food and beverage retail sales, general retail sales, and medical and dental-services. Action: ❑ Approval as requested ❑ Approval with conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: J The applicant and owner(s) V Owners of record within the required distance Ej The affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator Affected governmental agencies Final Decision: THE DECISION WAS SIGNED ON 1� 7 , 1996, AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON , 1996. The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures. QUESTIONS: If you have any questions. please call the Tigard City Recorder at (503) 639-4171. • • • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 96-I C� A RESOLUTION BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA 95-0003) AND ZONE CHANGE (ZON 95-0005) REQUESTED BY BRIAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. WHEREAS, the applicant requested a comprehensive plan map amendment from Medium-High Density Residential to General Commercial and zone change from R-25 to C-G on 9 acres of a 15.14 acre parcel located on the southeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue; WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Division evaluated the application and recommends denial; WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commission considered the application at its public hearing on December 4, 1995, and recommends approval; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council considered the application at its public hearings on January 23 and February 13, 1996. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The proposal is not consistent with all of the relevant criteria as noted in the attached final order (Exhibit A). Section 2: The City Council upholds the staff recommendation for denial of the comprehensive plan map amendment and zone map change as set forth in Exhibits A and B. Section 3: The City Council, therefore, orders that application request CPA 95-0003/ZON 95- 0005 be DENIED, and further orders that the City Recorder send a copy of the final order as a Notice of Final Decision to the parties in this cage. f-(rt PASSED: Thiso1 `day a luO.1-xf 996. i - •r- City of Tigard A • ST: s. City Recorder- City of Tigard 4 RESOLUTION NO. 96- � v Pace • • . 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: Comprehensive 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. Grabhom 11493 SE 82nd Avenue Portland, OR 97226 LOCATION: Southeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue (WCTM 1S1 33AC, lot 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 located along 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 single family residences. Properties to the east, south and west are in Tigard and 1 • • . zoned for residential. The property to the west is zoned R-25 (multi-family residential) and is vacant. Properties to the south of the site are zoned R-25 and R-12. The R-25 parcel, which is adjacent to approximately 80% of the site's southern border, is approved for development of 160 multi-family units. The R-12 land contains the Castles at Brittany subdivision. To the east of the affected site is the remainder of lot 8000 which is zoned R-25 and is vacant. Beyond lot 8000 to the east is a residential district that is zoned R-7(PD). 3. Background Information The site was annexed to the city in July of 1987 and zoned R-25 to comply with the county zoning of R-24. No development applications have been reviewed for this site. The Planning Commission held a hearing on CPA 95-0003/ZON 95-0005 on December 4, 1995, and voted 5-4 to recommend approval of the proposal (Exhibit B). Staff recommended denial to the commission. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The proposal includes a 9-acre portion of a 15.14-acre vacant parcel. The site slopes gently downward from north to south. The site has no remarkable features or trees. The applicant requests a comprehensive plan map amendment from Medium-High Density Residential to C-G (General Commercial) and a zone change from R-25 to C-G on the 9-acre site. A written narrative, transportation analysis and market analysis have been submitted by the applicant in support of the request. If the proposal is approved, the applicant wishes to develop a Haggen Food Store and Pharmacy on the site. 5. Agency Comments The Engineering Division reviewed the proposal and has no objection. Washington County staff reviewed the traffic study for the impact of developing the Haggen grocery store complex on Scholls Ferry Road. Their comments are contained in a letter dated December 4 (Exhibit C). The City of Beaverton did not comment upon the application. ODOT chose not to comment because the nearest state roadway is Hwy 217. 2 I B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 5.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1 (2); Community Development Code chapters 18.22, 18.32 and 18.62; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 12. 1. Policy 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2, requires that in order to approve quasi- judicial changes to the comprehensive plan map, the city council must find: a) The change is consistent with applicable plan policies; and b) A change of physical circumstances has occurred since the original designation, or c) A mistake was made in the original land use designation. The change is not consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies. As digcussed below, policies 1.1.2(2), 5.4 and 12.2.1(2X1 al are not satisfied. In addition, staff cannot make the findings that Policy 8.1.1 is satisfied nor make a finding of compliance with Oregon Administrative Rule 660- 12-060, if any use is developed at the site except a 60,127 square-foot grocery store/pharmacy complex. The applicant claims b) and c) of this criterion are satisfied in two ways: Circumstances have changed significantly with regard to planning the area and the larger region since 1983 when the comprehensive plan was adopted; and there is an inconsistency between the comprehensive plan's intent to provide sufficient vacant, developable retail land to serve the community and the significant shortage of this type of land. The applicant asserts that a change of circumstances has occurred with adoption of the Metro 2040 Growth Concept (1994) and the Transportation Planning Rule (1991.). The 2040 concept calls for the establishment of a Town Center in the area around the Scholls Ferry Road/Murray Boulevard intersection. This designation would provide local shopping and employment opportunities within a local market area. The growth concept also designates Scholls Ferry Road as a Corridor, which is intended to provide higher residential densities with a mix of office and retail buildings. The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires that cities and counties prepare, adopt and implement transportation system plans to establish land use controls and a network of facilities and services to meet overall transportation needs. The applicant states that these planning tools will be addressed by the city through a future revision of the comprehensive plan during periodic review, which will likely result in some new commercial-oriented zoning in the area. The proposed amendment and rezone, therefore, is consistent with Region 2040 and TPR. I. 1. 2 © 1 Q WSJ 3 - `I a 4 , 2. z 1 (2)(I a� nom- Q0., ) 2 • ! Further, until the city adopts a transportation system plan, the TPR requires the city to review planning and zoning proposals based on this rule. The proposal is in conformance to the TPR by achieving a 65% reduction in the vehicle miles traveled (VM7) as a result of the development of a grocery complex instead of 180 apartments on the site. /The applicant further states • that there is an inconsistency in ' / y the city's comprehensive plan due to the plan underestimating the need for vacant, developable sites within the subject trade area for locating new grocery stores. In lit support of this argument, the applicant submitted a market area analysis. The analysis concludes that due to the rapid population, household and income growth in the trade area and the serious lack of vacant land in Tigard and Beaverton which is zoned to allow grocery stores, the site at SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue is appropriate for redesignation to General Commercial. The foregoing arguments do not meet the requirement that a physical change of circumstances has occurred since the original designation, or that a mistake was made in the original designation of the subject property. The first part of the argument is speculative and is not necessarily consistent with the new regional _ planning goals. The second part is based on a market analysis that concludes the trade area could support another grocery store, but does not demonstrate that a physical change or mistake took place since original site designation. The 2040 Metro Concept has been adopted but not implemented. The Town Center and Corridor designations are not in place and have not affected the subject property in any way. It is speculative whether the city will change the comprehensive plan to assign new commercial-oriented zoning in the area to implement 2040. Even if the Murray/Scholls Ferry, Town Center concept is implemented, the boundary of this center as shown on Metro's Beaverton Quadrangle Analysis Map (6/14/95) extends slightly to the west of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and old Scholls Ferry Road. This location is approximately 600' to the west of the subject site.(Locating a retail use� tsidel Cthe TownCenter could-actuallywo�gainst-the_goals of reducingaut I aev d, achieving compact development�F_urfher,-_the Town-Genie—designation-is-entirely (With in=Beaverton=and-would=not=necessitate-th at Tigard=change-zoning-to, accommodate:it. LT_he_Comdor_designation-mostly- mey-phasizeshigher-densities hat would_average-25-per snos-per peracre—Development of-an-auto-orie`nted-reteta_i J Luse is_not, theyefore,-necessarily_conistent with_this-concept:The_location_of high do er ty-residential=distridt-along_SW Scholls-Ferr_y_Road=is-consistent with thel L Corridor-concep.t.3 • 4 1 I • • The Transportation Planning Rule's goal of reducing total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) will be implemented and achieved on a city-wide system basis. A reduction in VMT for the subject property may or may not work towards an overall reduction of the city's VMT. The market analysis submitted by the applicant is an analysis of the retail potential of the subject site. It may be the case that the trade area, as defined by the study, will support another retail grocery store. This argument does not, however, meet the criterion in Policy 1.1.2(2). The proposal to amend city policy to rezone 9 acres from multi-family residential to retail commercial must be considered in the light of all possible uses allowed under C-G, not only a grocery store. Also, the comprehensive plan does not contain policies or criteria for designating land uses based upon market needs. In this case, the need for a grocery store in the trade area is not sufficient reason for demonstrating that a physical change or mistake was made regarding the subject site. Based on the above analysis, staff concludes that the requirement of Policy 1.1.2(2) is not satisfied. 2. 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. The policy is satisfied because the surrounding property owners were given notice of public hearings related to the proposal and given the opportunity to comment on the proposal. The notice for the Planning Commission and City Council hearings were sent to surrounding property owners within 250 feet of the affected property, posted at Tigard City Hall and advertised in a local newspaper. In addition, the applicant provided notice of and conducted a neighborhood meeting on June 19, 1995, for property owners within a 250-foot radius of the affected property and other interested parties. 3. Policy 5.1 states that the city shall promote activities aimed at the diversification of the economic opportunities available to Tigard residents with particular emphasis placed on growth of the local job market. This policy is satisfied because development of the site as a retail commercial use may employ local residents. The applicant states that if the site is developed as a Haggen store, it will employ 40 to 50 full-time and 150 part-time workers; and due to the proximity of residential neighborhoods and availability of transit, Tigard residents will have an opportunity to worm at the store. 4. Policy 5.4 states that the city shall ensure that new commercial and industrial development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial or industrial uses. This policy is not satisfied because the site is surrounded by residential development and would be the only commercial development within a one half mile radius. The applicant states that 5 the site should not be considered a residential area the following reasons: It is adjacent to Scholls Ferry Road, an arterial, and SW 135th Avenue, a collector street; land use compatibility can be maintained through landscaping, building and driveway orientation; and a commercial use on the site would be consistent with the adopted Metro 2040 concept. ' Staff does not find that this argument satisfies the criterion. The location of arterial - and collector streets adjacent to a site is not a sufficient basis for changing multi- family residential land that is surrounded by other residential districts to commercial land. According to this argument, several properties throughout the city that are along these types of streets should be commercial. The location of multi-family residential land, however, is also required to have direct access from an arterial or major collector. While landscaping and site design can reduce the impact to residences from commercial uses, this site is surrounded by residential districts that are both established and continuing to develop. As discussed under B.1 above, this proposal is not necessarily consistent with Metro 2040. 5. Policy 6.1.1 states that the city shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This criterion is primarily implemented through the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07) which 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. Approval of this proposal would decrease the number of acres of buildable multi- family land, thus reducing the opportunity for the city to meet the 50% requirement and reducing the overall density. Though housing opportunity would be lost to the city, approval of the proposal would not reduce the city's housing opportunity index below the 50% or 10 units per acre requirements. If the proposal is approved, there would be 225 fewer units of potential multi-family housing available (9 acres x 25 units = 225). This would reduce the mix of all new units being attached single family or multi-family from 77% (3,856 of 5,014) to 76%.(3,63, of 4,789). It would also reduce the city's overall housing density fron00.46 units per acre to(.36 units per acre.* Under this proposal, then, compliance with the Metro Housing-Rule would be maintained. This policy is, therefore, satisfied. * The city calculates its housing opportunity index by multiplying the gross acres times the allowable units per acre, then dividing by the total number of developable residential acres. 6 • 6. 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. Washington County transportation staff reviewed the applicant's traffic study and concluded that the retail grocery use would not significantly affect SW Scholls Ferry Road and would be consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of the roadway. This conclusion is conditioned on the site having only one access from Scholls Ferry as stated in the December 4 letter from the county (Exhibit C). Based on the evaluation of the county and the approved access to the site, the city's Engineering Division concluded that the city transportation system would not be adversely affected by the proposal. Staff notes, however, that the county's finding of no significant affect to Scholls Ferry Road is for development of the site as a 60,127 square-foot grocery store. The county letter concludes as follows: We've previously stated that development of a 60,127 square-foot supermarket at this location would not significantly affect SW Scholls Ferry Road and would be consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of SW Scholls Ferry Road. However, this may not be true for all uses allowed in the General Commercial classification. Additionally, the design modification was limited to Haggen's proposal. If a different land use was proposed, the County Engineering Division would need to approve a new request for design modification in order to allow any new and/or different access to Scholls Ferry. Thus, to insure consistency with OAR 660-12-060, we believe the plan amendment should be conditioned to limit use of the property to a 60,127 square-foot or smaller supermarket. The current proposal is for a comprehensive plan map amendment and zone change to the site, and not for development of a grocery store. Though the county finds that the grocery store use is consistent with Transportation Planning Rule requirements, this finding does not apply to any other allowable uses in the C-G zone. Another use may affect the transportation system differently. For example, the applicant's traffic analysis shows that the number of PM peak hour trips generated by the proposed grocery store use would be 370. The number of trips for development of other allowable uses, e.g. a grocery store with another retail use and a fast-food restaurant, would be 525. Under the existing zoning for multi- family use, there would be 110 trips per day during the PM peak hour. Though this policy is satisfied regarding the development of the proposed site as a 60,127 square-foot grocery store complex, the additional vehicle trips within the immediate site vicinity generated by certain retail uses could significantly affect the transportation system. Because the proposed comprehensive plan 7 • • • 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. 8. 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 (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. See comments under 6 above. (b) 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 Scholls 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 • S (3) Site Characteristics (a) The site shall be of a size which can accommodate present and projected uses. This criterion is satisfied because the 9-acre site is large enough to accommodate retail commercial uses including the grocery store and pharmacy that the applicant wishes to develop. (b) The site shall have high visibility. This criterion is satisfied because the corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue is a highly visible area from both roadways. (4) Impact Assessment (a) The scale of the project shall be compatible with the surrounding uses. The physical and design compatibility of a specific project with the surrounding uses would be assessed at the time of development review. The amount and pattern of traffic, however, would be different for a retail development than a residential one, which could cause additional impacts to the surrounding uses. (b) The site configuration and characteristics shall be such that the privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained. The ability of the site design to ensure the privacy of adjacent uses would be evaluated during review of a specific development proposal. (c) It shall be possible to incorporate the unique site features into the site design and development plan. The proposed site has no unique natural or man-made features. (d) The associated lights. noise and activities shall not interfere with adjoining non-residential uses. The potential effects from the noise, lights and activities of a specific project would be evaluated and mitigated during the development review process. 9. Section 18.32 of the Community Development Code sets forth the procedural requirements for review of quasi-judicial plan amendments. The application has been processed in accordance with code sections 18.32.020, 18.32.050 and 18.32.060; a hearing has been conducted by the Planning Commission and City Council according to 18.32.090 (D) and (E); and the requirements for notification of the hearings have been met according to 18.32.130 and 18.32.140. 9 • 10. Section 18.22 of the Community Development Code sets forth standards and procedures for quasi-judicial amendments to the plan and zoning district map as follows: A. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 1. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designation: and the change will not adversely affect the healtli safety and welfare of the community. The applicable plan policies related to the proposal are reviewed above under section B (Findings and Conclusions). 2. The statewide planning goals adopted! under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197, until acknowledgement of the comprehensive plan and ordinances. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged, therefore specific review of each statewide planning goal is not applicable. Notice of filing this proposed amendment has been provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development for comment at least 45 days prior to the final decision date. 3. The applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance. Code section 18.62 (General Commercial District) contains the standards for the C-G zone. The subject site could meet the standards listed under "dimensional requirements" and "additional requirements" for a development. Specific future site development improvements would be reviewed through the site development review and/or subdivision process to ensure consistency with the standards in section 18.62. 4. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. See above under B.1. 11. Oregon Administrative Rule section 660-12-060 requires that plan amendments be consistent with identified function, capacity and level of service of affected transportation facilities. Scholls Ferry Road is under the jurisdiction of Washington County. County staff reviewed the proposal, and after granting the applicant's request for a modification to the county's design standards regarding access from Scholls Ferry Road, conclude that development of a 60,127 square-foot supermarket at the proposed site would not significantly affect SW Scholls Ferry 10 • Road and would be consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of SW Scholls Ferry Road. The determination of consistency with OAR 660-12-060, however, is limited to this particular grocery store use. In fact, the December 4 letter concludes as follows: However, this [conclusion] may not be true for all uses allowed in the General Commercial classification. Additionally, the design modification was limited to Haggen's proposal. If a different land use was proposed, the County Engineering Division would need to approve a new request for design modification in order to allow any new and/or different access to Scholls Ferry. Thus, to insure consistency with OAR 660-12-060, we believe the plan amendment should be conditioned to limit use of the property to a 60,127 square-foot or smaller supermarket. Because the current proposal is not for a 60,127 square-foot or smaller grocery. store use, the city planning staff cannot make a finding of compliance with this state rule. 12. Conclusion The current proposal is a request to amend the comprehensive plan and zoning maps to allow any use under the C-G (General Commercial) category. Approval or denial of this request is not contingent upon the impact of a particular commercial use, but whether any use allowed under C-G meets the relevant review criteria listed above. Staff finds that all applicable approval criteria to support a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change have not been satisfied. Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 5.4 and 12.2.1(2)(1a) are not satisfied by the applicant. Though policies 8.1.1, 12.1.1(2)(2a) and OAR 660-12-060 are satisfied for the development of a 60,127 square-foot grocery store use, these policies have not been satisfied for all allowable uses • under the General Commercial category and C-G zoning. C. DECISION The City Council DENIES the requested comprehensive plan amendment CPA 95- 0003 and zone change ZON 95-0005 based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions. 11 th 'Robert Bernstein, P . E . III Don Scott , esident • Consulting Transportation Retail Research Group, Inc . Engineer/Planner 9450 S .W. Commerce Circle, Suite 302 507 - 13th Avenue East Wilsonville , OR 97070 Seattle, WA 98112 Ralph Anzellotti Bobbie L. White Columbia Research Associates, Inc . 10465 S.W. 135th Avenue 13300 S . E. Webster Road, Suite 102 Beaverton, OR 97008 Milwaukie, OR 97267 George E . Schrader Danita McGrath 12420 S .W. Oregon Court 10490 S .W. 135th Avenue Beaverton OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Nicholas Koush Richard J. Garman 13617 S .W. Feiring Lane 10565 S .W. 135th Avenue Tigard OR 97223 Beaverton, OR 97008 James A. Badenoch Cleo A. McLeod 12920 S .W. Hawk' s Beard Street 11710 S .W. 134th Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 -1580 Gerald L. Garbadino Manjit Sohal 12950 S .W. Glacier Lily Circle 10395 S .W. 133rd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Beaverton OR 97008 • Scott and Kathy Gray Christopher Glenn Cook 13435 S .W. 133rd 13165 S .W. Shore Drive Beaverton, OR 997003 Tigard, OR 97223 Christine Todd/Jacqueline B . Coan A. Luella Paddack _132_ S .W. Morning Hill Drive 11025 S .W. Summerlake Drive -_gar^ OR 37223 _ �� Tigard, OR 97223 ==___ne William: Floyd E . Rice 12:00 S .W. Hawks Beard Street 10675 S .W. Z3��5� h Avenue �_ga CR - 7223 • Beaverton OR 97008 --a--=-=t A. Wilson Robert P . Simmons Jr. 12335 S .W. Wilton_ Avenue 11556 S .W. �l _ 133rd Place T-ca_ _, OR :7223 Tigard, OR 97223 John Darby Eric Johns 13152 SW Clearview 13370 SW Snowshoe Lane Tigard OR 97223 Beaverton, OR 97008 Ron Royse Mark Johnson 13870 SW Otter Rain 10695 SW 133rd Place Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton OR 97008 Ed Howden Scott Russell 11829 SW Morning Hill Drive 31291 Raymond Tigard OR 97223 Scappoose, OR 97056 • Mark Padgett Karen Kopplien 11270 SW 95th 12960 SW Hawks Beard Tigard OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Norma Friesch Helen and Garland Hinkle 13755 Old Scholls Ferry Road, #301 13755 Old Scholls Ferry Road, #9, Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 f : \recorder\haggen • • 'Elizabeth and Ronald La• James C. 10 ill T3495 S .W. Brittany Drive 12920 S .W. Glacier Lily Circle Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Kevin Gladysz Karin and Lars Nelson 11889 S .W. Wilton Avenue 11562 S .W. Sheffield Circle Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 Roy N. Boyd Phil Baker 11752 S .W. Swendon Loop 11812 S .W. Wilton Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 • Bill Gross Joel Gordon 11035 S .W. 135th Avenue Briar Development Company Tigard, OR 97223 P . 0. Box 9704 Bellingham, WA 98227 Jean Barry Dora Scheidecker 13775 S .W. Old Scholls Ferry Road, 13775 S .W. Old Scholls Ferry Road, #306 #314 Beaverton OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Violet Jackson Alice 'Brown 13775 S .W. Old Scholls Ferry Road, 13775 S .W. Old Scholls Ferry Road, #202 T300 Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008 Jane Barfoot Gaylon Baese 13775 S .W. Old Scholls Ferry Road, 12220 S .W. Old Scholls Ferry Road #101 Tigard, OR 97223 Beaverton, OR 97008 Cleo A. McLeod Craig Baese 7_0 S .W. 134th Terrace 8070 S .W. Violo acrd, CR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 `arol _ridces Georgia Lambert -3= S,d G71 Court , 0530 S .W. Beaverton, �� Johnson_ OR 97003 Tigard, CR 97223 Jim _R...saussen Patricia `?cGrar_n 95 _;v Katherine 10927 SW 121st Avenue __car`', CR 97223 Tigard, CR 97223 • TO J • TOM ONES BRIAR DEN,LLOPMENT CO. W&H PACIFIC PO BOX 9704 8405 SW NIMBUS BELLINGHAM, WA 98227 BEAVERTON, OR 97008 DON HAGGEN BURTON GRABHORN 2211 RIMLAND DR 11493 SE 82ND AVE BELLINGHAM, WA 98225 PORTLAND, OR 97226 SUSAN DONN VILLAGE AT FOREST GLEN 13775 SW OLD SCROLLS FERRY RD BEAVERTON, OR 97008 BERT POWELL 13775 SW OLD SCHOLLS FERRY RD BEAVERTON, OR 97008 MARCIA BROWN 13775 SW OLD SCHOLLS FERRY RD 412 BEAVERTON, OR 97008 LOY MARSHALL 13775 SW OLD SCHOLLS FERRY RD 4107 BEAVERTON, OR 97008 SIDNEY MARSHALL 13775 SW OLD SCROLLS FERRY RD 4107 BEAVERTON, OR 97008 DALE NEWTON 10935 SW SUNLLIERLAKE DR TIGARD, OR 97223 LINDA NEWTON 10935 SW SUMLMERLAKE DR TIGARD, OR 97223 PAM GARCLA. 14555 SW TEAL BLVD BRIAR DEV CPA95-0003 BEAVERTON, OR 97007 \• - 9 . , ;4. • 3RENT HREN® JEFFREY L. KL..iNMAN ATTORNEY MACKENZIE E GINEERING, INC. THE AMBASSADOR PO BOX 6903 1207 SW 6TH AVE PORTLAND, R 97201 PORTLAND, OR 97204■ JEAN HORii R 7310 SW BE, ELAND RD TIGARD, Op 97223 11/ BEULAH 1NAH GREN 7310 S BEVE ND RD TIGAR , OR 9 223 BILL RDLE 740 SW BEVELA D RD TIGARD, OR 97223 CI a b S UV i- ) �. -- (Z-e-s. ri Co . ID L.0 Ck-S CaSo 52n.- - Cakkut.i.n.k. (...oh.kccuiLia a/ acttq c.o /v!c,f-E — 3// /q6 — iT)Cc.i< ci d- Cgt-t �,) �, ( G,�c, v — 110 35 $v'J )3i3 ---i^,41/j._ J 1 01/27/97 13:22 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD 1j 001 1110 4110 ***************************************** *** ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT REPORT TX *** ***************************************** ACTY# MODE CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID START TIME USAGE T. PAGES RESULT *4145 TX G3 5036840337 01/24 16:08 00'47 1 OK *4146 TX G3 503 524 2576 01/24 16:09 03'21 5 OK *4148 TX G3 2066260675 01/24 16:43 00'51 2 OK *4158 TX G3 503 625 6179 PRIDE DISPOSAL 01/27 08:10 01'42 2 OK *4159 TX G3 503 452 8043 01/27 08:18 00'50 2 OK *4164 TX 2975830 01/27 09:21 00'00 0 NG 0 STOP *4166 TX G3 01/27 09:22 02'35 4 OK *4170 TX G3 01/27 09:39 09'20 14 OK *4169 TX G3 5036445105 01/27 09:49 01'14 2 OK *4171 TX G3 01/27 09:52 08'17 15 OK *4174 TX G3 503 643 0646 BAUGH CONSTRUCT. 01/27 10:12 00'40 1 OK *4176 TX G3 5032273590 01/27 10:33 00'41 1 OK *4177 TX G3 15036418173 01/27 10:35 00'31 1 OK *4179 TX G3 01/27 10:38 01'21 2 OK *4181 TX G3 9195 01/27 10:42 08'05 15 OK *4182 TX G3 9195 01/27 10:53 08'20 15 OK *4185 TX G3 5036255310 D Metzger Const. 01/27 11:14 01'10 2 NG 2 STOP *4189 TX G3 01/27 11:16 00'48 1 OK *4191 TX G3 5036255310 D Metzger Const. 01/27 11:20 00'54 1 OK *4193 TX G3 2215123 01/27 11:23 01'58 3 OK *4195 TX 6260675 01/27 11:28 00'27 0 NG 0 STOP *4197 TX G3 206626075 01/27 11:34 00'41 1 OK 4201 TX G3 �� 9195 :01% 2 7=T1-:-4-0=08=2 3—19=•-OK \. ***************************************** *** ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT REPORT RX *** ***************************************** ACTY# MODE CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID START TIME USAGE T. PAGES RESULT *4144 AUTO RX G3 5032244981 01/24 15:55 03'33 6 OK *4151 AUTO RX G3 5036816282 01/24 16:46 00'40 1 OK *4154 AUTO RX G3 503 620 5124 01/26 13:07 01'08 2 OK *4156 AUTO RX G3 503 273 9192 01/27 07:58 02'27 4 OK *4157 AUTO RX G3 503 273 9192 01/27 08:00 02'57 5 OK *4161 AUTO RX G3 503 591 0986 TVWD ENGINEERING 01/27 08:29 01'14 1 OK *4162 AUTO RX G3 +1 5036524433 01/27 09:00 00'43 1 OK *4163 AUTO RX G3 5032480385 01/27 09:04 03'14 4 OK *4168 AUTO RX G3 5035260775 01/27 09:28 02'48 7 OK *4184 AUTO RX G3 1 213 889 5333 LAW CRANDALL INC 01/27 11:03 01'24 2 OK *4187 AUTO RX G3 1 213 889 5333 LAW CRANDALL INC 01/27 11:07 06'36 4 OK *4198 AUTO RX G3 503 639 1656 TIGARD CHAMBER 01/27 11:29 00'44 1 OK *4199 AUTO RX G3 503 378 6536 01/27 11:30 01'12 2 OK 4202 AUTO RX G3 5034132661 01/27 12:31 01'13 2 OK 4203 AUTO RX G3 01/27 12:37 01'58 3 OK 4204 AUTO RX G3 503 378 5859 01/27 13:08 11'17 20 OK 4205 AUTO RX G3 503 693 4722 01/27 13:20 01'23 3 OK • Oregon November 21, 1996 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION City of Tigard Planning Department Region 1 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 FILE CODE: Att: Laurie Nicholson Re: CPA 96-0009 Scholls Ferry Retail Center PLA9-2A-TIG We have reviewed the traffic impact study for the proposed comprehensive plan amendment for the subject site on Scholls Ferry Road at SW 135th in Tigard. Currently, the only sections of Scholls Ferry Road that are under ODOT's jurisdiction are in the immediate vicinity of the OR 217 interchange, and from OR 219 to one mile east of Beef Bend Road. This latter section will be turned over to Washington County upon completion of the Scholls Ferry Road @ Beef Bend Road project, now under,construction: : .:. _. As a result, in the very near future, the subject parcel will be three miles from the closest roadway under ODOT's jurisdiction. Due to the development's size and distance from a State highway, the proposed comprehensive plan amendment/zone change is not expected to have a significant impact on our system. Therefore, we recommend that the City consider comments from Washington County, and the cities of Beaverton and Tigard regarding this proposal. Please contact me at 731-8282 if you have questions regarding the above. Thank you. 4 onya Kazen, Planner Development Review cc: ; Martin Jensvold,Sr. Traffic'Analyst, ODOT Region 1 • 123 NW Flanders Portland, OR 97209-4037 (503) 731-8200 Form 734-1850(11-94) FAX (503) 731-8259 • RECD *' 2 3 inn REQUEST FOR COMMENTS 411►. C{TY OF TIGARD OREGON TO: Tualatin Valley Water Dist. DATE: October 22. 1996 FROM: Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Laurie Nicholson Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297 RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0009 SHRADER REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from medium-high density residential to community commercial for an 8.5 acre parcel. LOCATION: West of SW 135th Avenue, south of Scholls Ferry Road, and east of Old Scholls Ferry Road. The comprehensive r. plan amendment involves four parcels. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2) comprehensive plan amendments; 2.1.1 citizen involvement; 5.1, 5.4 economic development; 6.1.1 housing; 8.1.1 transportation; 8.2.2 public transportation; 12.2.1(4) community commercial zone designation. Also, Community Development Code chapters 18.22 comprehensive plan amendments; 18.32 procedures for quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendments. ZONE: M-H Residential, R-25 Attached is the vicinity map 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: November 1, 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 Division, 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: St-t—e1/4167- 74�e" 1 5 EA-7-5 c i' TV s V/CF.. 4/ (Please provide the following informa on) Name of Person Commenting: Phone Number: .a6Z REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Ko TO: Paul, GTE DATE: October 22, 1996 FROM: Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Laurie Nicholson Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297 RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0009 SHRADER REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from medium-high density residential to community commercial for an 8.5 acre parcel. LOCATION: West of SW 135th Avenue, south of Scholls Ferry Road, and east of Old Scholls Ferry Road. The comprehensive plan amendment involves four parcels. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2) comprehensive plan amendments; 2.1.1 citizen involvement; 5.1, 5.4 economic development; 6.1.1 housing; 8.1.1 transportation; 8.2.2 public transportation; 12.2.1(4) community commercial zone designation. Also, Community Development Code chapters 18.22 comprehensive plan amendments; 18.32 procedures for quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendments. ZONE: M-H Residential, R-25 Attached is the vicinity map 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: November 1, 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 Division, 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: (Please provide the following informatio Name of Person Commenting: - Phone Number: vo� 613 i PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION �! CITY OF TIGARD OREGON FILE NO: CPA 96-0009 FILE TITLE: Shrader APPLICANT: Michael Robinson OWNER: Dale G. Shrader Stoel Rives LLP 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 REQUEST: Amend the Tigard Comprehensive Plan map from medium-high density residential to community commercial for four parcels. LOCATION: West of SW 135th Avenue, south of Scholls Ferry Road, and east of Old Scholls Ferry Road. The comprehensive plan amendment involves four parcels. APPLICABLE The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies, REVIEW CRITERIA: ZONE: M-H Residential, R-25 CIT: West CIT FACILITATOR: List Available Upon Request PHONE NUMBER: (503) DECISION MAKING BODY STAFF DECISION X PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF HEARING: 12/2/96 TIME: 7:30 HEARINGS OFFICER DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00 X CITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: 1/14/97 TIME: 7:30 RELATIVE COMPONENTS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION VICINITY MAP X LANDSCAPING PLAN NARRATIVE X ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SITE PLAN OTHER STAFF CONTACT: Laurie Nicholson (503) 639-4171 x336 I i I A ,, , 1-125 V _,V;J CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ' 71/>,64/� C.4r :, DIA IVE=PLAN • 4/ ND 1 ZO CHANGE ,,ZONE ORDIN• k C AO_ 0 4114 APso CITY OF TIGARD, 13125 SW Hall, PO Box 23397 _' Tigard, Oregon 97223/= (503) 639-4171 FOR STAFF USE ONLY I c ' CASE NO. CpAGh-0008 OTHER CASE NO'S: ligaitiYfil Ia - �as',-rar�-.-1e RECEIPT NO.9- ` v!.• APPLICATION ACCEPTED 14- IDATE: 0q--17-% 1. GENERAL INFORMATION App . cation elements submitted: II PROPERTY ADDRESS/LOCATION 1103 Std . _ '- . : - - " (A ..= . . - • . •rm II Tigard, OR I� (B) Owner' s signature/writ-in TAX MAP AND TAX LOT NO. 1S 1 33CA TL#s 100, 200 -uthorization II 300,& 10009-g3 I 1 V//(C) Applicant's statement SITE SIZE 8. 5 acres (pre-app check list) 1-PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER*Dale G. Shrader, Truste • \//(;) Filing fee ($?•f p( S) ADDRESS310 3rd Avenue, NE PHONE Additional information for Compre- ' CITY Issac;uah, WA ZIP 98027 sive lan Map Amendments/Zone Changes COAPPLICANT* Gar y Coe (E) Maps indicating property IIADDRESS 6255 SW Sheridan St . PHONE 233-3577 location (pre-app check list) CITY Portland, OR ZIP 97225 V (F) List of property owners and II *When the owner and the applicant are different '',^�ff addresses within 250 feet (1) people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record Y"1' (G) Assessors-Map-iii or a leasee in possession with written authorization ' • -(H) Title transfer instrument (1) Ifrom 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 il submit a written authorization with this application. DATE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE: 112. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property FINAL DECISION DEADLINE: I request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (if COMP. PLAN/ZONE DESIGNATION: applicable) from 14-41 to C-C - 14 / R-a5 and a Zone Change from to 0._.‘ , P. I -N.P.O. Nttmhex: Wes+ OR The applicant requests an amendment to the Planning Commission Approval Date: following sections of the Comprehensive Plan Ior Community Development Code City Council Approval Date: 110737P/23P R v'd: 5/a7 EXHIBIT 5 ` • I ! 3. List any variance, conditional uses, or other land use actions to be considered as part of this application: —NA- 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 24th day of September 19 96 SIGNATURES of each owner (eg. husband and wife) of the subject property. 1 lv a4C— 'M"n STIFF. X DALE G. ADER TRUSTEE . SIi� , GARY COE 1 1 1 (KSL:pm/0737P) 1 1 l STOEL RIVES LLP 0 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 October 10, 1996 MICHAEL C.ROBINSON Direct Dial (503) 294-9194 email mcrobinson @stoel.com VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Laurie Nicholson Associate Planner City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Application by Dale Shrader and Gary Coe Dear Laurie: Please find enclosed information documenting ownership of the parcel subject to the application by Dale G. Shrader, Trustee, and Gary Coe. Very truly yours, Vnid-i4V/e, d- Michael C. Robinson MCR:lxh enclosures cc(w/encls.): Mr. Gary Coe (via facsimile) (w/encls.) Mr. Bill Gross (via facsimile) PDX 1 A-50916.1 26409-0001 SEATTLE PORTLAND VANCOUVER,WA BOISE SALT LAKE CITY WASHINGTON,D.C. 10/09/96 10:48 $503 228 7821 TICOR PORTLAND (J014 • • WASHINGTON COUNTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Ref. Parcel. #:1S133CA 00300 Parcel No. :R0262511 TRSQ:01S-01W-33-SW NE Owner :COE GARY R CoOwner Site Address:11115 SW 135TH AVE PORTLAND 97 Mail Address:11115 SW 135TH AVE PORTLAND OR Telephone :503-524-9715 SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred: Loan Amount: Document # :82000361 Lender Sale Price : Loan Type : Deed Type : ASSESSMENT & TAX INFORMATION Land :$56,200 Exempt Amount: Structure:$183,240 Exempt Type Other • % Improved :77 Total :$239,440 Levy Code :05185 95-96 Taxes :$3, 091.33 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Map Grid:655 A2 Census :Tract 319.01 Block 1 NbrhdCd :MSSW MillRate:12 .9107 Sub/Plat:MILLARD & VANCHUYVER Land Use:1013 RES,IMPROVED Legal :MILLARD & VANCHUYVER TRACT, LO :32, ACRES 2 .31 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms :5 • Lot Acres :2.31 Year Built :1980 Bathrooms :3.00 Lot SgFt :100, 623 EffYearBlt :1980 Heat Method:FORCED BemFin SF :616 Floor Cover:CARPET Pool : BemUnfinSF: Foundation :CONCRETE F Appliance Bldg SgFt :2,452 Roof Shape :GABLE Dishwasher : Porch SgFt: Roof Matl :COMP SHING Hood Fan Attic SgFt: . InteriorMat:DRYWALL Deck :YES Deck SqFt :192 Paving Matl:ASPHALT Garage Type:UNIMPROV Ext Finish: Garage SF :1,400 Const Type:WD STUD\SRTG The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. 10/09/96 10:49 $503 228 7821 TICOR PORTLAND - 0 015 • . . . y1 r l r`�` z !M.ewpY Metter NM 1�•M..►w(M+wl._.._ RIa._ ...,.,rower.rem .. o r..r I ,, � mweel naaaawer asp 8 X 0 3 6 • '�( ,'•:..: _,4. KNOW ALL MIA'dY TH&tk riffSSNTS,Thu CVAJG R. ?M R and CHERYL PARR'Ef, t'�i§1.: •• !°, l husband and mite ,h.MtWlw tatted selar, ',1 f' ,,: Y4 ler the owmldat*Nose Iwdrtdter stated.doe.&yaw/ran:,Murf.inr 4Nl and twaral tarts CAM R. Cot _ '"7it,.9•F•i F .. .. .. ... • , . ... 1 �s. .� :'. . c: '' lendhdrer e"M N Pahl.%and unto ,Mme's peeper,,with Ma f .ti::•(r ,'1 bteswreb, heraditawtwtb and ��'mammon*and a.►fne cep d the!arfda reel ,,:'\ .• r•, aplwtNawnwe f etNrnto br1tn gin f or in anywise appafTaMNry/,Plwla in the Cbontr • , 4__>? :.,4,:"; olr Wpabisjten , .Stab d dnfm,,de.er+b.d p follone to-wit: �+�i• ••.-- ''.1 ----- Saw Attached Exhibit "A" 1r: P.- n '�'6: *';,,. :J % - ;err '%"`'� • 7. *Regutationa, including leatea I liens, aessaamante, rights of way and eaavment■ • 1' ; • t1 Of the Unified•Eewerege Agency; an easement recorded February 6, 1973 in Reel 908, • -r.„,.•'..i-,:, .',A. Page, 74 and re-recoiled September 26, 1973 its Book 946, Page 803. di P►WW1 I JtlL lmn,COH111M aIXmnaw di stoat Ball r+a',' :00'4*,., 7o Have and to Hold the soar unto the mid Rants and f►ant..•e twin,�trseon end erldne jbaewt, °f .1: ;.V,i,., And the grantor hereby cotenants to and with the said grant.. and grants'.heir., a sneer ass and swipe :,�a that wild teal property Ja Me bun enarm6rtmeas emoted OF o,t6n.d thereon be frenter end then Sri* .r wall wrye+ ' t,F-•f kai ' rant tend Mend the ea„r raid.'eer pay and paved thermal against the lawful dater awl daman� of all'Pews f '' _ $r,�'? j'', claiming hp,threndn,or.md r the fr#,Mara except* .e me *.,: TM bus and setae/Canada cation paid far this mender,!taint in term et dollar. is$22,300.00----. ":•.. :%.. ,. - • fmf/ewww;th•sere•&eeadderafee11'ctaatMeti-or vMae►►mMet-OreeterI Wrwehw.'/irwr-.r�eastm*wfdeetle E' ',x;' ;4• ew11 a� feettalMS a tsd,e.air...i me■ .a.r.p,it we t messes,ph,eht heitwtNl ad ems n Oo/ •'•�„' :�: „'r,^ w', ' in eanotner!r this deed and where tin contest ere require*,the u,yuur l nbd.e the Altura and ant paasssamert -+`i 4 : ;: F •-' chenps shall be ltttplled to make the proritocew fund apply equally to es�w�tiatta and to lndlrlihnds. ..•..',„V.--;'�;::^ N. r,•;,: In Witness Whsted,eye fternor he executed the tn.n,vnwnf We i9'••'dap d ,$*nu*q .... 7f A t .._ti„ ►a ti: n} r: N a corporate freafor,N Ma caused Ma,,setts b be elprad end,trey aiNa�d by Jq d/Jt �MheNaed MNeco by s:t" ! cedar d its beard d din men. +�,�St 11f[` ,iJCt,S/� ,may - .r, Craig R.n .rlrwr _..,.. _. _ ; „,..•- , ''may woo 0M/.me ``- (,yq,. ... -.A. .; :. ..,`�•,� WATS OP OIRIOON, ! •tars err Qre><flON.C+.rtr V..«.... ) 1 ' r„, :71'...k:, M T ij; &weer et MsletTIStan-.---- -; _. _.__ _____ _.._. . � �.1 s. _..._......... stew r .:.._..__..._��rr... — ;:- ti�, . _.aim►taffy ie.saw .' 4-7-?tt .Fro ,., Mrs, a odd Sit hAna,ai and at w Is►fan war,dry or ran de err/a No ;� ..ikvigia part_ar and ches 1 portal, ..r err ar serer sew ' a !life r'� 11Ya t>d_ Pd-_ asap if... .. .,-..._..,..., .. - »_.... - ,.r,'; -,:i t`.'?.f 3:,,: ,---.,.-- — sac N taewe. ,i is '•✓;V-!, -to-- `. nI•Nr11M±e,Fm t ...r....,,,,...rehrewr a�►td d's !4h woe hwle sent w dpiS= S.hell F j'"F< . earl W to stwea err lwww : 'S" ' y: �J, whnrrMfOrd sett la ere he 1sM11�!w�'aal S q f. t•�i. ahoy stare - s -. .. .. ..._. soar I i�; :J;_ --,• 1 r. n he stelae ,seat!Death h•Gower ..._.. ,. _ it •^„t El t mom. _1_:Z3_'F� i s.swarm ; ;FS, f -y ''' :i t ',a.m. r,piwwr ^'t {:• �iasf'Atrr r __._ _- . ,1*11:=.1 .I .1 . ij- _� .M1 2 ` t '� "•�' ,.• se.+tewa eras tae IMMi - _ ':' ''�',�: Jr .■ • ��-..:+tiawaiienewsse .._�_........ ,::._I:,{.∎4 1 trod,4 - tr.---1 c"1.-. ' ;L':' E` t Mist amonamilmaaa Me ,Y;.. -C 11_ .._..�_ t•, .eerr.rrw.w ewMO eeetti travlitte Rio -. �..... . - ' • MOW a1 Otwga If sari cae�1F. : '' ""- ' —11113.1.11..L17RLAamF -. _ . :f .. •' '.r• ..�,tl . ... ... llkhmw sew be id seat/ nand d ` : r..s..awwIt- Casey a twoli ;.p.•e r•' Madruelso moletm,ero owo.reor.moor we. 1- ': .. .tie). ..-..._.-......__ - - - WOO -O.t♦•__ :� . 1.:.•", -4•%�. • ';t tttla 4d►.•uses tree. ,. . Da.wr i 4 , x�,-, t. -. . •.isetLml►_Qllaynw V. . . .:.:. MR. a,. V• 1 ♦11 .�7,.:� err 10/09/96 10:50 $503 228 7821 TICOR PORTLAND f... a 016•, • . .kjy� """i%�,o* .:;47.7`',: _j..,15}%; Y. •l-.•,.rid ' ♦ k .. -.._ 'r'�f. •Yl:� .? :fey. ( : 'a�,"�i•!}.(••Y'r�,1�.,�.� , '�.- �'-,...,,r, • �.�: `i'\;. no•:• -,1:�'i dam,�g i�'� ra•,,�7-r,,;�1 1 �o:ST. T��f^ .1.. � ..o , U''F •1t! '4S; r• t.' �F!:: r� ..a. a' .:•n"' ,. ` -�-:. 'r: _•�u'�wIH '!!. � .. . T. !. EXHIBIT "A.. ? t A portion of Lot 32. MILLARD AND VAN SCHUYVER TRACTS. in the County . . •r - of Washington and State of Oregon, described as follows: i. tt' 'i. ; '.:;; BEGINNING at en iron pipe at the Southwest corner of Lot 32, MILLARD . r =3 AND VAN SCHUYVER TRACTS; thence North 0' 16' West along the West line i 1 of said Lot 32 a distance of 720 feet to the point of beginning of the . f. w++: ,,.r; ' ! tract herein described; thence continuing North 0. 16' West along said '-) ',�,,•_: West line 362.19 feet to a point; thence South 87° 33' 30" East • , F , • ;'.,_! •- sh, distance of 292.90 feet to the Weec line of County Road No- 934; thence , ; :S9ti w- -.e South 0° 19' East along the West line of said County Road 349.70 feet ; 1 :-.- ; ,--.4 t to a point; thence West parallel to the South line of said Lot 32 to • : ....;`rA the point of beginning. gin, -s -tea, g' l rrrr 1 F *.. ^'�Ab. .: ' • : •7A .mow' i Q:•r-y ,;;l_c• v . ...01 4, s� ....Ilya OwNJ _ jp,6,1W�► may' iL 0 1,�:_.h „....... welseb e..4./n'0 ' • i •i the*that fr _.. and .eie+e el W.d mr MAIL ; r y J.. : . • " : y a e . J. t w:`i 1I A5.∎r63MF 41 AN 1AVA1lOM `x ''; E13•offICC rMEF oEOUir mom,CUP( �e ::: tldt JA!'4 All ' , • - . . .:,�. '7. i V . ' 4i• , 1,;', ,,,•--,. 4= 'y,:!=1j'i , f. le . 4,i.- - --vi' .1,4.4: i.-;• � � : i' ` ` '�rx • �t � " ?: ': �' : '-?r. r..;��a r . .r4 :5.0 P �.:�.;d, r•, '..�y'.'urt•- t . )- `tt". - .A �� p . ,...,, ` - .h•• a�_ - � � . _ , r � � _ . ^!.• .; , ,;� � •L_,a1-:a a - .�;��' fit, -, � s:• 1,:� 10/09/96 10:40 $503 228 7821 TICOR PORTLAND W1002 • • - OWNERSHIP INFORMATIONWASHtNGTON COUNTY Ref. Parcel #:1S133CA 01000 Parcel No. :R1321135 TRSQ:01S-01W-33-sw NE Owner :SHRADER DALE G TRUSTEE CoOwner Site Address:374 BE RT TIGARD Mail Address:310 3RD AVE NE ISSAQUAH WA 980 Telephone SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred:01/23/92 Loan Amount: Document # :4673 - Lender Sale Price :$54,000 Loan Type : Deed Type :QUIT CLAIM ASSESSMENT & TAX INFORMATION Land :$43,430 Exempt Amount: Structure: Exempt Type : Other % Improved . Total :$43,430 Levy Code :052.85 95-96 Taxes :$560.71 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Map. Grid: Census :Tract Block NbrhdCd :X-3 MillRate:12 .9107 Sub/Plat:MILLARD & VANCIIOYVER Land Use:7003 RES,Mt7LTTPLE HOUSING LAND Legal :MILLARD & VANCHUYVER TRACT, LO :33, ACRES 2.83 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms Lot Acres :2.83 Year Built : Bathrooms Lot SqFt :123,274 EffYearBlt : Heat Method: BsmFin sF : Floor Cover: Pool BamUnfinSF: Foundation : Appliance : Bldg SqFt : Roof Shape : Dishwasher : Porch SqFt: Roof Matl : Hood Fan Attic SqFt: InteriorMat: Deck Deck SqFt : Paving Matl: Garage Type: Ext Finish: Garage SF Const Type: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. 10/09/96 10:43 $503 228 7821 TICOR PORTLAND 173. 006 • • WASHINGTON COUNTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Ref. Parcel #:1S133CA 00200 Parcel No :80262497 TRSQ:01S-01w-33-SW NE Owner :SHRADER DALE G TRUSTEE CoOwner Site Address:11035 SW 135TH AVE TIGARD 9722 Mail Address:310 3RD AVE NE ISSAQUAH WA 980 Telephone SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred:08/18/92 Loan Amount: Document # :57422 Lender Sale Price : Loan Type ; Deed Type . ASSESSMENT & TAX INFORMATION Land :$30, 000 Exempt Amount: Structure:$72,440 Exempt Type : Other % Improved :71 Total :$102,440 Levy Code :05185 95-96 Taxes :$1,322.56 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Map Grid:655 A2 Census :Tract 319.01 Block 1 Nbrhdcd :X-3 MillRate:12.9107 Sub/Plat:MILLARD & VANCHUYVER Land Uee:1013 RES,IMPROVED Legal :MILLARD & VANCHUYVER TRACT, LO :32, ACRES 1.32 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms :3 - Lot Acres :1.32 Year Built :1930 Bathrooms :2.00 Lot StFt :57,499 EffYearBlt :1973 Heat Method:ELECTRIC BsmFin SF : Floor Cover:CARPET Pool • BsmUnfingF: Foundation :CONCRETE F Appliance : Bldg SgFt :1,848 Roof Shape :GAMBREL Dishwasher : Porch StFt: Roof Matl :COMP SHING Hood Fan : Attic SgFt: _ InteriorMat:DRYwALL Deck : Deck SqFt : Paving Matl: Garage Type:UNIMPROV Ext Finish: Garage SF :600 Const Type:WD STUD\SHTG The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. 10/09/96 10:43 $503 228 7821 TICOR PORTLAND W1007 • • WASHINGTON COUNTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Ref. Parcel #:19133CA 00100 Parcel No. :R0262520 TRSQ:01S-01W-33-SW NE Owner :SHRADER DALES G TRUSTEE CoOwner • Site Address:*NO SITE ADDRESS* Mail Address:310 3RD AVE NE ISSAQUAH WA 980 Telephone SALES AND. LOAN INFORMATION Transferred:08/18/92 Loan Amount: Document # :57422 Lender .• Sale Price : Loan Type : Deed Type . ASSESSMENT & TAX INFORMATION Land :$153, 600 Exempt Amount: Structure: Exempt Type : Other % Improved : Total :$153, 600 Levy Code :05185 95-96 Taxes :$1,983 .09 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Map Grid: Census :Tract Block NbrhdCd :X-3 MillRate:12.9107 Sub/Plat:MILLARD & VANCHUYVER Land Use:7003 RES,MZ7LTIPLE HOUSING LAND Legal :MILLARD & VANCHUYVER TRACT, LO :32, ACRES 1.95 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms Lot Acres :1.95 Year Built : Bathrooms Lot SqFt :84,942 EffYearBlt : Heat Method: BsmPin SF : Floor Cover: Pool z BsmUnfinSF: Foundation : Appliance : Bldg BgFt : Roof Shape : Dishwasher : Porch SqFt: Roof Matl . Hood Pan Attic SgFt: InteriorMat: Deck Deck SqFt : Paving Matl: Garage Type: Ext Finish: Garage SF Conot Type: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. 10/09/96 10:44 $503 228 7821 T I COR PORTLAND . . 0 008 . ......., . . .. - . •...- . . - . .. . .. : . ,. , • • . . - , . ' . • . • . . • - ' • • . • . . ..• . • - • • . -:.,- - . . . . • . , . ,-, .• , , . .,.. --. - •---.••,:.L.••,...;•••....-:.:-..."1,,':......-1. ,;"....4:4!t';''4Nr4041.401..1&-,*;44 :*,.0.glr:AiMi:-..,-',..•.../-v1.114,..i...,.**;,,;.•40:,41•ui;...'1.t,::,...-..i.,.,...‘,,,,, ..,-,..,,,..., ,...,,.,.-,..--. . ,,:.:•;;.., ...--',. -.. ., -, . •., -- . .- • 1 ,•. ....,.i,...-• :7\ ....-5•: -,,.o.-••,,.,...-- - '. ,•,-,,..-..-....•;--•;.-..-r:f-T-......'..1.-'''<'• -. ' ''.'•'. ''- - • '' '- • ' ',1- - • ".''..; . . , ... ....... • . _ , .,. ..• ...•. • . ....... _ :.... .. ... :.-atiros.tau 01111W.WAMITOW 101• 10•11 ammo,- . •-• ••, --'•.- 7 • a we BARGAIN APO SALE 111110-11TATUTORY FORM 92057422 ■ •,.. . itiornoun Orattfal Vaahhesem . . .. .: a FIRe.-Arsg$MARRAP Grarder, 1---V C L 1 1 6.••S .....1 f l i a r y.t o Txntee O f i L M I,O S F K A I L T T R U S T u a d 8,4_6 41 •-.! . - „Ortnteo,die feffirring roa/property situated in iinurrorigat___-_ --------- cower,°mon,e•-wir: • SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS IN EXHIBITS A. B AND C ATTACHED EERETO .., AND BY REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. .. .. ..: _....... . • !.-.-:.....-.:1-' a • ......,•:„:••••.,: . . i'J:,.. .•:--,...*--. - •,., ,--„,4..:-.-c::-.:.1-- -•_.. ,,t-:,...,4 ,,:4.,:. so ...,.. —.--•-- . ).,:;;;:.„.::..7.•:-.,-,,z, . . • - ._, . A ...-„,....„4,......:• I ..............,„..... ig .:....-- - - .,'.•- :: 1 . 2.i-'.4.,4c- .•;`,?,4 '.: nu,WM ottutuarn.COMM COP:RUTION ON WINNE WWI • h,:;;;,..-. .• .. The trot eenitithratian far shit conpoyanc•it a-.P.4.0.0._..._(Here comply with the requirennata a ORS joymo) • ,,r,,',,, . , -- •..,,,,, - . Datad Mk-11111-.day of-.4M9131.1% ,g, 92 • ''6'14•, i .....12..h.ff..i.. . -.•?-1.1— •: ;?4;••• 0, , THIS INSTMMISNT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OP illi IIINWNIFT,ON. .............—. SCRIsso IN TM;INSTRUNtNT IN VW TICIN OVAIWLICAOLE LANG i USE LAWS AND ntoULATIOnt.UFO SIGNING ON ACCIPTING -I 01.,„14LEML..11R ............----........ ii . THIS INSTIRIMINT. Tat PERSOW AG. IIINO___M__TITLE_TO WIS .; pilopzim SHOULD.spitist_ly.trt_THE nammTE CITT 011 & 9.../[4.-1 .1.../ ..L'af• '•Ifr''' •• 1C:,:•:-';',, L -,a; COUNTY PLANNING vaPANT•L•I TO g APPRoTro usu. — •— OW. ....•*1101111 O. .5f.,,r. ,'.: f. ,., .• '..,,,,..; r STATE OF OREGO(,County at.. 2/1.0arantalibtreAL—.)16. Vir- ' • t 4. , ••..,.. 11 ...:•■: , ' tostrunt wee ttelatetwiedged Wary ate Pr t........, / ..,-. 19.1-?; / Iiirw- • ' .---Az.e.o.0.•_,..) . .' ,•.:-s. 1 ii "• ; 1)•::.N :, 1; .,,,•-•., C AL svAL .:•;;Irhif-"w : • ,•;.(4, .1 ;?•.''''- nraln°7ritrei LI AtIvEROO i _.41 ;- .,-:,:. 1 "v. ..); 14017ZYPUth.u.■-OPKG PON li •- COM!.ti-ISIC:IUT1211.401 MY COM'7 7.'0;4.:,(0•••.vAs :(..icr-p--- iffMWMWSTk:11M:M- 1-1-AV—e—i"-77.:1:71.- chirChr.114" ' '4' r ..,:44,,,,,.., ,--...,:.: 1,:......a2M. =, ,,, : ..•-rts:..,:-. . i; _, ,.....________________„....—_,.....---------- 11 . AAIRCIADo AND SALA snap . .-4::;.''.1.•...?1,,:;-.14.,...i•• : *?.:i14-■ !! ...Ej„„)11.1011L-SEOSS STATE OP 01111001‘. -..,•Ap-•ti-,, -- ' ....nsuRNIASS.EAMILT2RUST.......77"" County./. •••••111.11.1 dud Ow Witffill • " f,..,:'.i.:. :,....;! •I ---", --r—mca..inaesieJa------------ meat wee onteivett for record on the .-. ,nt .c.... • 2 Mee fespraill luvra III ••• f4,:c.•,:; r, II ' ....muss day of....=■...........6•11nr.,,m 19---4 DALE U. e...4 ,:,....4 ' 9, AMODER owe semema at--o'clock—M,died minded 1 0495 tra.5.th.-Areatte-g_is ran in bookbeel/volume No-_......-an A*.4:. I ---AggaIffloh....ila...211,231..--....-.- Ateemtera affE pap.—ar 5i f / ; • •-. ....,d .". atentIadcraliirajnarettiaa Ife--. .; .:-..`':-! 1 11.1 IIMMI•■1100.V./. •■•••........ Meg%101WW.161111 an, Ria:n4 of Mods of sold county. Wttnno asy hind ond •••I ogi 4t1,74 '• • • 11. IMO•*WV*•IIINNIONG,oN Net skAsseenes .,;.) .,,,•g,;•.: t; JU HMI be ow le Pee 1111.•■•••••• ••• County affixed. f•zA-ctr:••!. - .:. .:.,•,,, ,'• p 'f'.7-fr'''• .' ..; '..■:',-i! .",1 I. —11.40.5...,1A.Skh...h.vanu ••, roast Trftli '-`•A•P'•,.41.:!.-- , i.F, '; _Radrontlo_EL-911051. I •5 .v-t1' ....1 ... • Br Deputy •-..,i.w-. . -._______.r....zi.-.:ii. ....-t.-:• -.4 •• •?4-4:* - -'1.-i''' '.- ‘:.• ,I';',".:i.e;.(' • ..jeg... ...•....• . *;,•:•:•*..•."..:Z*....i••• •••:*,...:ii"W,..•,,A.'.-4-r.;&?;t:::..-""i"'.••" •* .• •*.•. "r• . .. ..* .. ,' .1,•..... .';.:it.**!.;"' •1* *".,.•!1■At.pi'IJA:%• %OA: "". - • ``‘•:p••■e1.4.• :. J:':..f. ,....■!",';',.'"•••,,,t7," .4%,.•/*.•ri.1..ik •11`itt*"......"•'*:'".***k** *•...,%.:'.":** 4'. • ) ..-:':.:,./-. .-•:•-• .... •1 ''-:.:,••.-' ..--•:..'-'''.:';:r. "4-- ':,';',-..47.-.1 -.)...j( ' ,_■,-;'"' 6';sf‘';S:'''' '-'•:••:,,,,, :...;;;Nert--4.4.r. ,1 • .•••• ow IL::r...1;••..,•.:.1:.,•.,, .-•:'••,.1.:..•--••••:•,- '•.••••• .. , • .•' •-• ••'••..."• ■• ••.... ••• tc, .;- • .Ci•.. 4...r.,4•^1.:1 'ike-'''14 !I•• " 4. . ,., „. ,.„.„„..i:.......„ ., . .. : •..., ii.,.....0. ..114...,,t.......„.. .. • . . .. . ., :,..,..f. ,.:.„.,,..„......,..i.,..:•.:2•.._•,. . . _ . .„4,77••::.!.,.,..:1••,:•=:,:::.;.A. V.:.:.::....'...,'1,i6fin.v I-;•::" ..7' '_•'.:•..••••:'"it•'''':•■•;:Pti 7,46k4441.41".A. 4t.I.'•?• r*f1.4.A.•. 4./4.... •..41§114.."/W5'n.. .,••-',.......1..••, .....,.!,....:,,- .•'..;,.•-•*.•••-• •:'!...,;'' ,''.=.•',.•-•*''....7"..4,--;:."...k"'..Y.--.zy.,....1;. - ;.- -;' ' ,,. . '' ;1,1,.Z. •?.?C'''•;,riet.-7.,.:. ,..„.r.' .-,,., ..lei''',1".1.'. .:;,2;,:tic..S. . . , , . I* .. •, • • ;.* 10/09/96 10:44 $503 228 7 821 TICOR PORTLAND fI 009 4...,, ,.,,, .tii I ' r ' . _; ` , --;'�: '�'.,. a .R,•"•.+,.!,'^'^$�i?' °.= . �' �� dr�t"+.i�. 'dZy51I'�r.h n °-11' -.' - !`,. FBI IIITT ft '' ' Page 1 at 1 -,- PARCEL I A tract of land in Section 33. Township 1 South, Range 1 West, ' '' Millla,etta Meridian, Ueshington County. Oregon. said tract being a portion of Let 32. PIILLRRD HMO UAMGMUYUER TRACTS. in the City of . r Tigard, said tract bung more particularly described es follows* �a Beginning at the intersection of the East line of said Lot 32 and the Southetly line of S.W. sctioile Parry Road. (Coenty Road W . 812) 1 thence South 0. 19' East along said East line 383.49 feet to ::-, � ' ' an iron pipe, which bears Worth 0. 19' West 251.89 feet; thence < .,. north 034 16' West 68.55 feet, hnd Worth 0' 19' West 950.94 feet :.i, ' :,E; from the Southeast corner of said Lot 32, thence North 87. 33' 30' tt t ; west 292.67 feet to an iron pipe on the West line of said Let 32, `:':' • ' which bears North 0. 16' West, 1283.84 feet from the Southwest ;,•, _� " corner of said Lot 32; thence 'North 0. 16' West along said West line s`'''° 113.54 feet to an iron pipe on the Southerly line of said Southwest -,' = ;',' 1 ,.pct Sebo11s Parry *toad, thence northeasterly along said Southerly line `s V ..` 393.04 feet to the true point of beginning. ,.' ' EKCEPTING THEREFROM that strip taken for right-of-way purposes by the F °` State of Oregon. Suit Mo. C9O10S4CU in the Washington County Circuit a Court. by Decree recorded Oeeenber 9. 1991 in fee number 9106799i_ f a R• `t, PARCEL II .,` ". `,,, A strip of land in Section 33, Township 1 South. Range 1 West. ,. 't uillenette Mersdien. !Jeshaneton County. Oregon, said strip being a ��' ,,� portion of Lot 32. 11ILLRRO HMO URACMUVUER TRACTS. in the City of . - : .' Tigard, acid troet being Wore particularly described ae fellows= ,' • Fi s'.. ` Beginning at a. point which bears South 61'3244- West, 42.19 feet r" 9 fags; the renter of said sacttion and bring the northerly most point :i, of that land dedicated for road right-of-way in parcel II o! fee : �;' ' #8833894 thence a line which is 20.00 feet westerly of, when " `_;,, , measured at a right eagle, to the original orator line of 5.11. :xK; � _ 135th Avenue (C.R. No. 934) as recorded on CS 23139, a duly G recorded survey with Washington County,. North 1.38.40' East, 321.0 4 feet to the southerly right-of-way of Scholia Ferry Road as r e tded' in Civil Court Case ! C90-10S4CV, Washington County; .TSB thence by the said southerly right-of-way and extension, South a,;mi:; = t.,, 67•04.,21• East 37.34 feet to a point on a curve which is 30.00 :.. :�! unumu rly of, when measured at a right angle, to the revised center ,4s • line of S.W. : -: ..` � 135th Avenue recorded on CS 23139; thence along a , .-''�%,, curve parallel and 30.00 westerly of the revised center line an arc •r:.: -,, distance of 241.89 feet with radius 570 feat through an included ,. 4:k :. �, angle of 24'18'32' (chord bearing and distance of South 6'04'46' 6,.. West, 240.08 feet) to a point of reverse curvature; thence - ` ! ''- continuing along a curve parallel and 30.00 feet 'westerly of said �`'- "' ;.g• revised center line an arc distance of 70.07 feet with radius 630 -�,,t' feet• through an included angle• of 6'22'22 (chord bearing and , ':.;: ".,; distance of South 13'03•01• West, 70.04 feet) to the point of a '''; F.. '• beginning ': " SAVE RNO ENCEPT that portion of the above which ties East of the ' ' • PIILLRR011M0 UHMCHUYUER TRACTS. i ;'t'.• =a� 0.,. 1- S,rr -.�7.1 '`•'' S`�.;•r`•''-t •..•: •j ...`� -, :y .' `/�•. w .,.:._. . ' -:.6 •'" , ,a,, r�'.h'.f.' .. '.L:• ::i••' "i '� 1 - `/'' ;' <J{1,r•.t"tip' ' \4"1.-1?' ..a'�_1jr,Lq4•.. ` _,. . .� ,��Ve: 1. •2... .�:r • �� / - I 1..� "� /`(..,";"t?: 1�i,��tiyy'. ,f�rJ�'% f6;�`i.l?I'• 10/09/96 10:45 $503 228 7821 TICOR PORTLAND 0010 • ✓1 • ti ',J_ E7aQd1T A Pia 1 of 2 t.i �.,. Ec- . .. .` A tract of land in Section 33, Twnship 1 South, Range 1 Peet. :; -.: .:, 'r Nillanetts Neridion. Washington County. Oregon, said tract being a ;• Portion of Lot 32, MILLARD RHO URNCHWVE* IRACTS, sn the City of Tigard, said tract being ware partseUlarrly described se fallowo■ •:i •Beginning at an iron.rod which bears South 0. 19' East a distance of .- - ` . 40.83 teat and North 87. 33' 30'•West a distance of 36.53 feet from • the iotzumented center of said Section 33t and running thence North ' 87. 33' 30' West along the south line of that certain tract of land conveyed to Eugene Z. Pulop and William E. Gross, dba Westland Company, by contract recorded in Book 914 on Page 762, Washington County Records, a distance of 182.90 feet to a point/ thence South :•-- '•-•,, •' 0 19' mast parallel to the east line of said Lot 32, a distance of � 90,52 feet to point/ thence South 87. 33' 30' East parallel to the • -_ .. ,- south line of.the said Pulop and Gross Tract a distance of feet to a point on the west line of S.W. 135th Avenue (County Road ,: '. •"T- •; • No. 934)/ thence North 0. 19' West along the west 'line of said S:W. r: , .., s 135th Avenue a distance of 90.82 feat to the point of beginning. F .r.. �ency :*--,=A h J •� •� PneCE. II Lz-f.-;;C�L',,tt r AI, EQQ 4. ! R tract of lend in Section 33, Township 1 South, Range 1 !lest. z. Willonattt Meridian. Ueehington County. Oregon, said tract being a ..:1,'�' portion of Lot 32, MILLARO RHO UANCHUYVER TRACTS, in the city of .; ..„ . - Tigard, said tract being were particularly described as follows: �A"+ - 4*. Beginning at an iron rod which bears South 0' 19' East 40.83 feet _ .. is ) and worth 87. 33' 30' West 36.53 feet from the monumentad center o! , F. ' `i'l, { Section 33, Township 1 South, Range 1 west, Willamette Meridian, , �: �� ; Washington County. Oregon/ and running thence North 87. 33• 30' West r:? ?•_.:- 'r along the south line of that certain tract of land conveyed to 14w 7"... • C. Eugene 2. Palo and William E. Gross, dba Westland may, by ' . ,!” ,1- contract recorded jr nook 914, Page 762, Washington County Deed -.',14.-,Op ' Records, a distance of 292.67 feet to the southwest corner thereof, -, F '' ;7;' thence South 0' 16' East along the west line of Lot 32, MILLARD AND :.'`;-`^, • �.T« 1 vANSC1�bYVER TRACTS, a duly recorded subdivision in said Section 33, '...-...:4,,,:';' .• _. i;'. .3 a distance of 201.65 feet to .an iron rod at the northwest corner of ,,�;.,:l. .., :.:i '['�c Q that certain tract of land conveyed to Craig E. and Cheryl Parker by r ,.'A rrti deed recorded in Book 946, Page 803, said Deed Records/ thence South •: 7�' ixn A. ' 3,- i 87. 33' 30' Rest along the north line of said Parker Tract 292.90 :�71'! ,.• .r. feet to an iron rod: thence North 0. 19' west along the west line of • 1•:=t'• ▪ ;, S.W. 135th Avenue (County point ` ,t�a : Road 110. 934) 201.65 feet to the int of ;w; ll .;,:,, I.,,.., - beginning. 1' .t EXCEPTING THEREFROM a tract of lend in Section 33, Taunship 1 yor/th. Range 1 ,loot. Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, said treat being a portion of Let 32, MILLRRP RHO VRHCHWVER TRRCtS, in " '-'• the City of Tigard said tract being nore particularly described an 'a 151 .1 .N 10/09/96 10:46 $503 228 7821 TICOR PORTLAND 0 011 . fitJ • • EitollitT .. • Pane 2 of 2 aeginning at as iron rod which bears South 0. 19' East a distance of 40.83 feet and North 87' 33. 30" West a distance of 36.53 feet from . _ the sonamented center of acid Section 331 and Tanning thence Worth 97' 33' 30' West along the south line of that certain tract of land i .. conveyed to Engens t. ?glop and William E. Cross, dba Westland Company, by contraet recorded in Book 914 on Page 762, Washington '. " County Records, a distance of 182.90 feet to a point, thence South 1 ei 0' 19' East parallel to the east lime of said Lot 32, a distance of �t a, 90.92 feet to a pointy thence South 87' 33' 30' East parallel to the south line of the said Fulop and Cross Tract a distance of 182.90 . ' feet to a point on the Mast line of B.M. 135th Avenue (County Road 110. 934) , thence !forth 0' 19' West along the west line of said S.W. 135th Avenue a distance of 90.82 feet to the point of beginning. SAVE AND EXCEPT that strip cone td ♦br right.af-way purposes to the City of Tiperd. by dedication recorded August 2. 1908 in fee number 8933990. tt • j: . :i ..t , ' .ate' :.�ri .'j." �:. -r. s• ..C,:4,.,,_. • ). 1l yt_,].. y. 'Z ,Y � .: ^�(., %,,, ,���t`'%.� '.i-� -,.I<T'� �r•.ey-4�•�:i��sn..:V,'ji•n., 1e^•!V -.-6;!s•�f.iii .�,e�ti. k� �.: ., '' lri a .a, . t1' ;r: ./•.tz ' -�3.. ►1• " ' .7" • fA`? `' r s.... v+y'"--.jtx r'-s, --,E 1 f ••.I+y ->,.,+r .. .4. •h� .' `•,!'+,t ? *Iv-. .2 v,r4 r 4 r R*9`k r c.� 1.�tbi ' �- .:110.4.p 6 • :...' : '•!.M..r...+,•:k ...,- T I aiF OR 4:..P R 0012 10/09/96 10/09/96 10:47 ''50 a 228 2 1; ? oaN77: yy , •�, "' y:rYa]hJu,o.: Sl �`:+ tin a'_a'., ‘rt, •• % -Mt.; ,„# { . •.. r •;=,7?:. - .. •�� i. t i 7t• - •;i :,.►-,. •iw`v..-irs�:fit _, ,r F•:-.. ` Pape 1 of 1 . A treat of lend in Section 33. termsMlO 1 South. Renee 1 limit. jI Yillanette deridisn. (leehiegten Ceunty. Oregon. aid treat being a : `':.•�� por=tion of Let 33. MILLAR° ReD UnN RNUER TRRCTS■ in the City of ,t Tigard. Said tract being were pertioulerly deeeribed es follows* CeaeenetP, at a S/t inch iron rod on the East line of said Let 33. said point bears North 0. 18' 00' West along said East line 396.00 feet gran a 3/4 inch iron pipe at the Southeast corner of said Lot ar 33; thence eoat)t 89• 51' 20" Wait along the South line of that :'� b-' certain tract of land conveyed to L ekhart Financial services, ' deed retarded December 2/, 1985 in fee number 85001324, Washington ., b : County Deed Records, a distance of 264.04 feet to a 5/8 inch iron '` es rod: thence continuing along the Southerly line of said Lockhart '4 A; Tract, North 45' 19' 47' Neat 93.64 lest to a S/8 inch iron rod on ':'.: the West line of said Lockhart Tract; thence North 0. 19' 47" west G. 1 ') - along said West line 253.79 feet to the true point of beginning of >..- +`_ ' AP V= - the herein described parcel; thence South 88' 34' 08' East 179.38 1-r, feet to a point; thence South 42' 14' 43" last 43.51 feet to a r .::` ' ' point; thence South 66' OS' 12' East 51.49 feet to a point; thence `' �� ' Worth St• 45 + ' 33' East 81.62 feet to a point ea the East line of °,%• said Lot 331 thence North 0' 18' ' k�,. _� .• 00 West along said East line, : :y 716.35 feet to a point on the Southeasterly right-of-way line of ' ~j r': s S.W. Scholia terry Road (County Road No. 812)1 thence along said Southeasterly right-of-way line, along the arc Of a 547.96 foot ,. •l: ' radius Carve to the left, through a central angle of 6. OS' 59' (the Y * $ chord of which hears South 27. 17' 41' Nett, 58.31 feet) an are :,4 . :.; distance of 58.34 feet to the point of tangency: thence South 34' -'.° 4 = ? . 14' 42" West, continuing along said Southeasterly right-of-way line, c f4;;Y . 11`''' 292.70 feet to the beginning of a 1170.92 foot radius eurvet thence +' _;'� '• -' ' continuing along said Southeaster) right-of-way line. "7-4113:• _ q 9 Y along the arc •' e! said curve to the right, through a central angle of 8. 14' 00' ,�; ,;: , • (the chord of which bears south 28' 21' 42' West, 168.11'feet) an ;a� '� arc distance of 168.26 feet to the point of tangency► thence South :. •`; �i 92 28' 42 Hest, continuing along said Southeasterly right-of-)Tay 4 .b: • • :` 1 line, 188.08 feet to the Aorthtosterly Corner of said Lockhart • ,.•,,. . =�': : Tract; thence south 0. 19' 47" East along the Went line of said 4._ ••�; : Lockhart Tract. 80.73 feet to the true point of beginning. `"c'- C :cL SIRE OF OREGON t , 001111hI.e1111��MOCeOA J ,:7,q. P. ; !`'a�' II.,,��ryyR �, dAse�e.rE k '.'t+ atdT�lfo .• -. dour_ 1 t►,.rWw . ' �.!. ' te ,y? t,r,�:r4;, 01 = p 7,1.4'r eye ;• �i 'er ' -' 1L-71 . "P COU- MA' 't -, 4i-. . = . Doe . 92057422 '" it'' "ir Rect: 83436 53.0o 00/19/1992 03 1 291 46PM 'rrS "� - J;• ;.: ', -te''''...2' •c.1' • .} .4.1.._i : - .• - .. _ti, `r+ ,j-�. t;• -� '.r r. �.�..��•i•� 1' 1 f ._- '�, '�.•• , `£fir.,. . - ,- ,...:, i.,,ic,- 3,-4,,k,4...t.yi:.-.: ..rr• •:' ..'. . ". ' t .* '', '. . ' is. ' ... • ,..., f. IV,. •„, ,:',w,:.,4,....,..r... ,.. ....... . . , ...... ._"..‘_ . Y ". . -- '...-NI'Z'C..'• '....•i'' ''' •It".- .. ..... ' •../ . ■ i • . C. •/ • ' %tie. f , ' ,..,••-.:412^,ar-g t:; I,....$0."..... • 0 0 c6- 1-‘,. .- .0q ■ S 1 i I a APPLICATION BY DALE G. SHRADER, TRUSTEE AND GARY COE i FOR APPROVAL OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT TO THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP FROM MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ("M-H") TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ("CC") ON 8.35 ACRES SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF SW SCHOLLS FERRY AND SW 135TH AVENUE 1 SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON SEPTEMBER 26, 1996 1 1 PDX1A-49058.1 99999-0001 I f I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION 1 II. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL 2 A. SITE DESCRIPTION. 2 B. APPLICATION PROCESS AND AUTHORITY TO INITIATE APPLICATION. 2 C. PROPOSAL 2 D. PRE-APPLICATION MEETING AND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING 2 E. APPLICABLE CRITERIA 2 III. FINDINGS FOR APPLICABLE CRITERIA 3 A. STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS 3 B. APPLICABLE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE ■� PLAN ("TCP") POLICIES 6 C. OAR CHAPTER 660, DIVISION 12 (TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE) 12 IV. CONCLUSION 13 EXHIBITS 14 t '1 I ii PDX1A-49058.1 99999-0001 .' 1 • • I. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION • OWNERS: Dale G. Shrader, Trustee 310 Third Avenue Issaquah, WA 98027 Gary Coe 6255 SW Sheridan Street Portland, OR 97225 •APPLICANTS' Mr. Michael C. Robinson REPRESENTATIVE: Stoel Rives LLP 900 SW Fifth Avenue,Suite 2300 Portland, OR 97204-1268 Telephone: (503) 294-9194 Facsimile: (503) 220-2480 • LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 1S 1 33CA, Tax Lots 100, 200, 300 and 1,000 • CURRENT TIGARD M-H Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: • CURRENT TIGARD R-25 ZONING ORDINANCE DESIGNATION: • PROPOSAL: Amend the Tigard Comprehensive Plan map from g P P medium-high residential to community r' commercial. • I I I 1 PDX1A-49058.1 99999-0001 1 • • II. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL A. SITE DESCRIPTION. This site contains 8.5 acres and consists of four tax lots under two separate ownerships. The site is bounded on the east by SW 135th Avenue, on the north by Scholls Ferry Road and on the west by Old Scholls Ferry Road. (See Exhibit 1). The southern portion of the property contains a greenway. To the north of Scholls Ferry Road is the city of Beaverton. The entire site is within the urban growth boundary. Scholls Ferry Road is under Washington County's jurisdiction and is classified as a "major arterial." The other streets are under city of Tigard jurisdiction. The site is currently vacant except for a residential structure. The land uses to the east include vacant and multiple-family development on property zoned R-25. Property to the north is developed as residential use and is within the city of Beaverton. The property to the west is partly developed and partly undeveloped and is outside the city of Tigard. B. PROCESS AND AUTHORITY TO INITIATE APPLICATION. Application may be made by a recorded owner of the property. Tigard Community Development Code ("TCDC") 18.320.020(a)4. C. PROPOSAL. The applicants request approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment. Once approved, the applicants will submit a later request for amendment in conformance with the �. Comprehensive Plan Map designation to the Community Commercial ("CC") zoning district under TCDC Chapter 18.61. D. PREAPPLICATION MEETING AND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. TCDC 18.32.040(A) requires a preapplication meeting prior to submittal of a quasi-judicial application. The preapplication meeting to this application was held on March 28, 1996. .1 The applicant sponsored a neighborhood meeting on May 7, 1996 at the Mary Woodward Elementary School at 12325 SW Katherine Street. The meeting began at 1 6:30 p.m. and lasted until 8:15 p.m. and was attended by 17 residents. (See Exhibit 2.) E. APPLICABLE CRITERIA. The applicable criteria for this quasi-judicial Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment are found in the Statewide Planning Goals ("Goals"), applicable policies in the TCP and Oregon Administrative Rule ("OAR") 660-12-060 (The Transportation Planning Rule). 2 PDX1A-49058.1 99999-0001 t ! • III. FINDINGS FOR APPLICABLE CRITERIA. This section responds to the criteria applicable to this Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment. A. STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS. The Goals are applicable whenever an acknowledged comprehensive plan is amended. The TCP is acknowledged. 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 through notice and an opportunity for attendance of public hearings. Additionally, the applicant met with neighborhood residents at a neighborhood meeting. This goal is satisfied. 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 satisfied because the acknowledged TCP and TCDC contain provisions implementing the planning process. Further, Goal 2 requires coordination with affected governmental agencies. The city of Tigard through its notification process will coordinate this application with, among other agencies, the Metropolitan Service District ("Metro"), Tri-Met, Washington County and the city of Beaverton. While there is no Oregon Department of Transportation ("ODOT") facility near the site, the applicant requested the city of Tigard notify ODOT of this application. 3. Goal 3, Agricultural Lands: "To preserve and maintain agricultural lands." RESPONSE: This goal is inapplicable because the site is not agriculture land as defined in the goals. 4. Goal 4, Forest Lands: RESPONSE: This goal is inapplicable because the site is not forest land as defined in the goals. 5. Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources: "To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources." 3 PDX1A-49058.1 99999-0001 i RESPONSE: This site is not designated by the TCP as containing open space, scenic and historic areas or natural resources protected through the TCP, with the exception of the greenway area on the south side of the site. 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 application will not degrade the quality of the air of the state. The likely commercial uses are not "point source" generators of air pollution. The water quality of the state will not be degraded as a result of this application. Storm water runoff will be retained on site to allow for gradual filtration into the storm water system after the water has been cleansed. The land resources of the state will not be degraded by this application. The site is not in farm or forest use and does not constitute an important resource for the state. This goal is satisfied. 7. Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: "To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards." !� RESPONSE: This site is not subject to natural events that could result in injury to persons or properties, such as stream flooding, ocean flooding, erosion, Ilandslides, earthquakes or hazardous soil conditions. This goal is satisfied. 8. Goal 8, Recreational Needs: "Satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities, including destination resorts." RESPONSE: This goal is inapplicable to the site because it is not necessary to satisfy the recreational needs of the state. t9. 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's citizens." RESPONSE: This goal is satisfied because this application provides for a location for convenient shopping facilities that is presently not met in the area. (See 111' TCDC 18.610.010 "Purpose" of community and commercial zoning district.) The nearest shopping area to this site is approximately one-half mile west at the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road and SW North Dakota. This large residential area adjacent to the site has no neighborhood shopping center for convenience shopping needs within walking or biking distance. This application satisfies the economic needs of surrounding residents. This goal is satisfied. I PDX1A-49058.1 99999-0001 I I S r 10. Goal 10, Housing: "To provide for housing needs of citizens of the state." RESPONSE: This goal is inapplicable because this application does not propose residential development. Further, this application does not prevent Goal 10 from being implemented within the city of Tigard nor does it prevent the implementation of OAR 660-07-035(3) which requires the city of Tigard to provide for an overall density of 10 or more dwelling units per net buildable acre. This goal is satisfied. 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." RESPONSE: The applicant will provide evidence demonstrating that adequate public services can be provided at the site, including police and fire protection services, sanitary sewer facilities, storm water facilities, public water supply and energy and communications facilities. This goal is satisfied. 12. Goal 12, Transportation: "To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system." RESPONSE: This application satisfies this goal because traffic from the site will not cause unsafe conditions on adjacent roads. (See Exhibit 3, Traffic Study by Tom Lancaster.) This goal is satisfied. 13. Goal 13, Energy Conservation: "To conserve energy." RESPONSE: This application satisfies this goal because it locates a commercial land use near residential uses, thereby encouraging reduced automobile trips and ' encouraging walking and bicycling to fulfill convenient shopping needs. 14. Goal 14, Urbanization, Goal 15, Willamette River Greenway, Goal 16, Estuarine Resources, Goal 17, Coastal Shorelands, Goal 18, Beaches and Dunes, and Goal 19, Ocean Resources. RESPONSE: These goals are inapplicable because none of the listed natural resources are adjacent to the site. Further, Goal 14 is inapplicable because the site is within the urban growth boundary. 15. Conclusion. This Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment conforms to the applicable statewide planning goals. I 5 PDX1A-49058.1 99999-0001 I I • B. APPLICABLE TCP POLICIES. I1. General Policy, Implementation Strategy 2: "The Community Development Code (C.D.C.) shall provide quasi-judicial changes to the Comprehensive Plan Map 11- which may be initiated by affected parties on a semi-annual basis and approved if the city council finds: "(a) The change is consistent with applicable plan policy; 0.)5.91)j "(b) A change of physical circumstance has occurred since the original designation; or "(c) A mistake was made in the original land use d esignation." RESPONSE: The remainder of this application will explain why the PP P Y application is consistent with applicable plan policies. A change of physical circumstances has occurred since the original plan map designation on this site in two ways. First, the area surrounding the site has developed many additional residential dwelling units with little or no opportunity for nearby shopping. Secondly, growth has occurred in the general area but o additional neighborhood I1 shopg-c-e-raters have been developed in this imm-I•. - . . The planning commission and city council can find that given e c anges over the last few years in this area that a need for a community commercial plan map designation exists at the site in order to serve the surrounding area. Finally, the city council can find that a mistake was made in the original land use designation. However, this implementation strategy does not require that all three strategies be satisfied. It simply requires that one of the three be satisfied. Nevertheless, the city council can make this determination based on evidence from past city officials. For example, in an April 26, 1991 memorandum, then city manager Randy Wooley stated that this site at Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue was a more appropriate site for commercial zoning than a nearby site at Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota Street. (See Exhibit 4.) For these reasons, the planning commission can find that this quasi-judicial t Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment should be approved. J�J 6 PDX1A-49050.1 99999-0001 I • • 2. Policy 3.1.1: "The city shall not allow development in areas having the following development limitations except where it can be shown that established and proven engineering techniques related to a specific site plan will make the area suitable for the proposed development. (Note: This policy does not apply to lands designated as significant wetlands on the flood plain and wetlands map.): "(a) Areas meeting the definition of wetlands under chapter 18.26 of the Community Development Code; "(b) Areas having a severe soil erosion potential; "(c) Areas subject to slumping, earth slides or movement; "(d) Areas having slopes in excess of 25 percent; or "(e) Areas having severe weak foundation swells." RESPONSE: The site has none of these physical characteristics with the possible exceptions of wetlands along the greenway. This policy does not prohibit the city council from allowing development of the site as a community commercial shopping district. The city council can find that this policy is satisfied. 3. TCP Policy 4.1.1: t "The city shall: "(a) Maintain and improve the quality of Tigard's air quality and coordinate with other jurisdictions and agencies to reduce air pollution within the Portland-Vancouver air quality maintenance area (AQMA). RESPONSE: The application supports this policy because it reduces the need to travel by car for convenient shopping. Finding 2 under TCP Section 4.1, "air quality" is "the major source of air pollution in Tigard is automobile emissions." Thus, an application such as this which has the potential to reduce travel by locating commercial needs closer to residential areas will reduce the single greatest source of air pollution. The city council can find that this policy is satisfied. 7 t PDX1A-49058.1 99999-0001 I • • 1 4. TCP Policy 5.4: "The city shall insure that new commercial and industrial development shall not encroach into residential areas that have 4fss) not been designated for commercial or industrial uses." g s• RESPONSE: This application does not provide for encroachment into residential areas. The site is separated from other residential areas by streets on three sides and a greenway on the south side. The city council can find that this policy is satisfied. 5. 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 1 growth and development." RESPONSE: Exhibit 3 contains the traffic study prepared for this application. The traffic study concludes that area intersections will operate at level of service "D" or better in the year 2005 with the traffic added by this site. The intersection of Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue will require additional turning lanes to maintain level of service "D". Level of service "D" is an acceptable level of service adopted by Washington County, the city of Tigard and ODOT. The study explains why the addition of traffic as a result of this application will not reduce in congested or unsafe streets. The city council can find that this policy is satisfied. 6. TCP Policy 8.1.3: "The city shall require as a precondition to development approval that: "(a) Development abut a publicly dedicated street or have adequate access approved by the appropriate approval authority; "(b) Street right-of-way be dedicated where the street is substandard in width; "(c) The developer commit to the construction of the streets, curbs and sidewalks to city standards within the development; "(d) Individual developers participate in the improvement of existing streets, curbs and sidewalks to the ' extent of the development's impact; 8 PDX1A-49058.1 99999-0001 I • • "(e) Street improvements be made and street signs or signals be provided when the development is found to create or intensify a traffic hazard; "(f) Transit stops, bus turnout lanes and shelters be provided when the proposed use of a type which generates transit ridership." RESPONSE: The site abuts a publicly dedicated street, and the applicant will agree to provide improvements and dedication of right-of-way where the existing street is substandard or where a need is created by this application. The city council can find that this policy is satisfied. 7. TCP Policy 12.2.1(4)b, Locational Criteria for Community Commercial Use. a. "Trade Area: Surrounding Residential and Neighborhoods Generally Within a One and One-Half Mile Radius." "Trade area density: the surrounding area of potential 1 residential density within one-half mile of the site to be designated for community and commercial development shall average at least eight units per acre (as determined by the zoning of properties within one-half mile of the community and commercial site. The intention of this criterion is to locate 1 community commercial sites within a relatively short distance of a significant number of potential frequent users of the establishments within the commercial center. This also will provide the residents of the surrounding area with an opportunity to provide for their commercial and service needs within a distance that is reasonable for walking or bicycling. Lesser residential densities may or may [not] exist within the tassumed trade area at further distances from the site." (1/RESPONSE: The area within one-half mile of the site is generally zoned for medium and medium-high residential density. The medium density residential designation and medium-high residential designation provide for development greater than eight dwelling units per acre. The city council can find that this criterion is satisfied. b. "Gross Floor Area. 30,000 to 100,000 square feet gross commercial floor area. Food sales up to 40,000 square foot per establishment; general retail sales up to 10,000 square feet per establishment as permitted uses; other commercial sales and 1 9 PDX1A-49058.1 99999-0001 I • • service facilities shall be allowed up to 5,000 square feet in size per establishment." RESPONSE: The applicant will propose a site development review application with specific uses following designation of the site for community and commercial. Nothing in either the TCP or TCDC requires that the Zoning Map Amendment be requested contemporaneously with the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment. The city council can find that this criterion is capable of being satisfied. c. "Commercial development shall be limited to one quadrant of a street intersection." RESPONSE: No other corner of this intersection is developed for commercial use. The city council can find that this criterion is satisfied. d. "Community commercial districts shall be spaced at least one- half mile from other sites which are designated for commercial retail use. Special consideration may also be given to providing a similar separation from non-commercially designated sites that involve retail use as part of a mixed use development, or to provide less than the minimum separation for commercially designated sites which are developed with non-retail uses." RESPONSE: The commercial designation at the southeast and southwest corners of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW North Dakota are one-half mile from the site. The city council can find that this criterion is satisfied. e. "The proposed community and commercial district shall not be anticipated to create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on the capacity of adjacent streets, existing and projected traffic volumes, roadway geometry of adjacent streets, number of turning movements, and the traffic generating characteristics of the most intensive uses allowed in the zone." RESPONSE: The traffic study contained in Exhibit 3 demonstrates that the proposed community and commercial district will not create traffic congestion or a safety traffic problem. The city council can find that this criterion is satisfied. f. "The site shall be located along an arterial or a major collector ' street as designated on the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. The site should either be located at or adjacent to an intersection of a major or minor collector street with an arterial ' or at the intersection of two major collector streets." 10 1 PDX 1A-49058.1 99999-0001 I • • RESPONSE: The Comprehensive Plan Transporation Map, figure 3, shows that SW Scholls Ferry Road is an arterial and SW 135th Avenue is a minor collector. ' The city council can find that this criterion is satisfied. g. "The site shall be a minimum of two acres in size and a maximum of eight acres in size." RESPONSE: The application meets this criterion with the deduction of the greenway space providing a net size of more than two acres but less than eight acres. The city council can find that this criterion is satisfied. h. "The scale and intensity of the project shall be compatible with surrounding use and consistent with the provisions of this plan. Such compatibility and 1 consistency shall be accomplished through the approval of a site development review application contemporaneous with, and a part of, the approval of a zone change to the community commercial designation. The site plan approval may include conditions relating to site and building development through conditions of approval of a zone change for the site. Such considerations may include, but are not limited to, any of the site, building and design guidelines deemed appropriate to become mandatory, access limitations, special setbacks, increased landscaping or buffering, limits on off-street parking spaces, coordinated building design, special design considerations for pedestrian and bicyclists access and safety and other building and site design standards imposed by the City in the plan amendment or rezoning process. Any major modification of the site plan, as determined by the Community Development Code shall be processed as a zone change. Other modifications shall be processed in accordance with existing Code provisions." RESPONSE: The city council can find that this criterion must be satisfied at the time of the request for zoning map amendment. It is clear that the ' comprehensive plan map and zone map designations need not be requested contemporaneously since the section itself refers to "the plan amendment or rezoning process." i. "It is generally preferable that community and commercial site be developed as one unit with a ' coordinated access, circulation, building design, signage, 11 PDX1A-49058.1 99999-0001 I • and landscaping. Parcels within a community and commercial site, however, may be developed 1 independently although the city may require that development aspects of individual parcels be coordinated through the development review process." RESPONSE: The city council can find that this policy is capable of being satisfied at that time a zoning map amendment is requested. j. "Convenient pedestrian and bicyclists access to a development site from adjoining residential areas shall be provided where practical. Local street connections between community and commercial sites and adjoining neighborhoods shall be considered on a case-by-case basis. Site configuration and characteristics and relationship to the street system shall be such that . privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained." RESPONSE: The site will maintain privacy of adjacent non- commercial uses because it is buffered on three sides by streets (two arterials and a minor • collector) and wide greenway on the south. The council can find that this criterion is satisfied. 11. The remaining three criterion all concern site design characteristics that g g the city council can find will be satisfied at the zoning map designation stage. CONCLUSION: The cit y council ci can find that the applicable TCP policies are satisfied by this application. C. OAR CHAPTER 660, DIVISION 12 (TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE) OAR 660-12-060(1) and (2) provide as follows: 1 "(1) Amendments to comprehensive plans, functional plans and land use regulations which significantly affect a ' transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses were consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of the facility. This shall be accomplished by either: "(a) Limiting the allowed land use to be consistent with the planned functions, capacity ' and level of service as a transportation facility; 12 PDX1A-49058.1 99999-0001 • "(b) Amending the TSP [Transportation System Plan] to provide transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed land use is consistent with the requirements of the division; "(c) Altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce demand for automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes. "(2) The land use regulation amendments significantly affects the transportation facility if it: "(a) Changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; "(b) Changes the standard implementing afunctional classification system; ' "(c) Allow types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access which were inconsistent with the functional classification of the transportation facility; or "(d) Would reduce the level of service of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP." RESPONSE: OAR 660-12-060(1) and (2) are applicable in this application because it requests an amendment to the acknowledged Tigard Comprehensive Plan. However, the application will not significantly affect any transportation facility. Under OAR 660-12-060(2), none of the four definitions of "significantly affect" are found. The transportation study findings demonstrate that the application will not allow types or I levels of land use which would result in levels of access or travel which are inconsistent with the functional classification of the transportation facility. Neither would the application result in level of service below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP which is in all cases level of service "B". For these reasons, the City Council can find that this criterion is satisfied. IV. CONCLUSION The council can find that this application satisfies the applicable approval criteria. I 13 PDX1A-49058.1 99999-0001 I ' • EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Area Map Exhibit 2 Neighborhood Meeting Information Exhibit 3 Traffic Study ' Exhibit 4 April 26, 1994 Memorandum from Randy Wooley, City Engineer Exhibit 5 Application 1 t 1 1 - 1 i 1 I 1 PDX1A-49058.1 99999-0001 14 • in•-• • 44C : kt ,r i..E. ,„,,,,,,,,,,,, LI 0.4 a.. » f \ , ., a.U • .ii .� A ,: :fi <•.: a t • ,' 'kAa •ia. �w.\ is..'1b.ei3.1 a� L .. . '^e. 14.. ,VA•"Ja. :."$. '4 dim'. E: ' ''>. •Se•'L..k's'Li •'s>. : ''..kkk':, kk ki.."4�. °A k: ,kk. °a. Y «.. K .. >r':.,:r<%•£.t' tie I;S'3 . I : ode ,ib -,:'a Q` zs' 0 ".>»" 9 #**`••.'-its 3 _V 6It;. E_..�„ 1 ...6. j C #s4 '' 7' o:7'1 ' ' , . vi . ,. t o4 p 4........- 4)11:..1 1 . ..„,. • 4 ♦X ...., • !„.... . . ,v ....„„ • ,.., ..• ,,,t „.. •• ,„, „.. ,. ,. .. ,, tt , .., : : ,„ : • <..., .„,. ,.., ,,., .t „.• ' J is\ i 8 k t. d i\ I ' i - t $d • it Ott ,B'4. \\•y,� ..._... ...... ...... ) • > e`. V, l t £ i 1 �.. >.6 $•'ill .i?. :�y'.£ 4 jj 8« •yok Lk:i ,..i.; .<S ..\.•. ^'�y j mow .V.i "....-1 1 \ 44 v.) �...r t f1' c Jf £. i tit t e \ �• t4I s , 44 \ . 1 i ,� i• i.i_i t \h. • • a`..1 4.2: 1 \ \ 4.4•V kV. ” : _4, ■•; •x:1. • i a. j . \ , l t Zt 6.3∎ 4h 4K • ( ( Q F � iz z 0 Po a) P Deo • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .- • • 111 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I STATE OF OREGON ) )ss. I City aft** Portland ) I 1, David M. Demers - . being duly sworn, depose land say that on April 22 , 1996 , I caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the attached list, a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at (or near) Ithe corner of SW Old Scholls Ferry Road & SW 135th Avenue a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. II further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to`said I persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office located at 900 SW 5th Avenue , Portland, OR 97204 with postage prepaid thereon. •1 1 Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public) I (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON,NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) I 23rd April 6 Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the day of p , 19 9 . I I OFFICIAL SEAL ;�.:`1:� NI K NIGHTINGALE / /�' - ;X � NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON J COMMISSION N0.049091 NOTARY PUBLI • ' OREGO■ Ar I MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV.20,1999 My Commission •Tres: 11/20/99 I (Applicant,please complete information below for proper placement with proposed project) rNAME OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED NAME:Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment-at 11035 SW 135th Ave t I1 TYPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:Comprehensiv Plan Map Amendmen I 1 t Name of Applicant/Owner.. Date Shracler, Trust PP I I Address or General Location of Subject Property: 11035 SW 135th Aveniie, Ti gard OR I p p map l/151 33CA Lots 100, 200, 300 & 1000- I 1 !Subject Property Tax Ma (s)and Lot#(s): 1 I EXHIBIT 2 I TO L RIVES LLP • S E A T T O R N E Y S STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER V00 SW FIFTH AVENUE.SUITE 2300 ' PORT IAND.OREGON 97204-12h$ Phone 1503)224 3380 Fax(5031220-2480 TDV(50.b221-1045 Internet www.stael.com ' April 22, 1996 MICHAEL C.ROBINSON Direct Dial (503)294-9194 mcrobinson @stoel.com I 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, 1 Me . 4 Michael C. Robinson DMD/MCR/mkn • PDX1A-28783.1 26709.0001 SEa111.E P:.kn.:lw V C01.%FR.WA &tlSF S1.1 I.Ak(:Cln l�'asn(�(.I(\.D.C. 1 1111 • 1 Abdullah Alkadl Bill Gross Kathie Kallio 11905 SW 125th Court 11035 SW 135th Avenue 12940 SW Glacier Lilly Dr. ITigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Ed Howden Bonne & Jim Roach Karl Swanson I 11829 SW Morning Hill 14447 SW Twekesbury Dr. 11410 SW Ironwood Loop Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223 I Clark G. Zeller Larry Westerman Christy Herr 13290 SW Shore Drive 13665 SW Fern Street 11386 SW Ironwood Loop Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 IBarbara Sattler June Sulffridge Beverly Froude 11245 SW Morgen Court 15949 SW 146th Avenue 12200 SW Bull Mm. Rd. ITigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Kathy Smith Linda Masters Scott Russell 11645 SW Cloud Court 15120 SW 141st Avenue 31291 Raymond Creek Rd. ITigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 Scappoose, OR 97056 Cal Woolery Blair M. Whitney Burton E. Grabhorn I 12356 SW 132nd Court Meredith J. Dailey 11493 SE 82nd Tigard, OR 97223 10800 SW 135th Portland, OR 97266 Beaverton, OR 97005 IVilla Del Rey-Roswell LTD State of Oregon Village at Forest Glen 816 NE 87th Avenue Dept of Transportation Condominiums ' Vancouver, WA 98664 417 Transportation Bldg Owners of All Units Salem, OR 97310 PO Box 1408 Tualatin, OR 97062 IInez E. Alt Helen O. Tozer First Interstate Bank of OR, 13775 SW Old Scholls 13775 SW Old Scholls By Vivian H. Powell I Ferry Road, Unit 18 Ferry Road, #19 13775 SW Scholls Beaverton, OR 97005 Beaverton, OR 97008 Ferry Road, #20 Beaverton, OR 97008 IMartha Rose Shirley Bertha V. Powell L. R. Debast 13775 SW Old Scholls 13775 SW Old Sholls 13775 SW Scholls I Ferry Road, #21 Ferry Road Ferry Road, #17 Beaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97005 Beaverton, OR 97008 Herbert Leo Dale G. Shrader, Trustee Gary R. Coe I 13775 SW Old Scholls 310 3rd Avenue NE 11115 SW 135th Avenue Ferry Road, #14 Issaquah, WA 98027 Portland, OR 97223 Beaverton, OR 97005 I . • • • Ci ty Tigard Gary of Ti and G R. Nelson Leonard W. Davis 1 13125 SW Hall Patsy A. Nelson Mildred M. Davis PO Box 23397 11295 SW 135th Avenue 17855 SW Bany Road Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Aloha, OR 97007 1 PH Sunflower Limited Inc. Frank H. Martenson, Dong H. Baik By Pacific Harbor Capital Co-Trustee Yong Im Baik 825 NE Mult. St., Ste 775 Dolores J. Martenson, 5675 Meridian Court 1 Portland, OR 97232 Co-Trustee Lake Oswego, OR 97035 13900 SW Old Scholls Ferry Road Beaverton, OR 97007 Scholls Ferry Road LLC By Bowen Finan. Serv. Co. 111 SW Fifth Avenue Attn: Walter C. Bowen ' Portland, OR 97204 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . . II • 1 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE WITHIN SEVEN(7)CALENDAR DAYS OF THE SIGN POSTING,RETURN THIS AFFIDAVIT TO: . � ivision : I n Planin D .......... .:.. 13125 SW Hai`Boulevard . .. Tigard,OR 97223 . II, David M. Demers , do affirm that I am (represent) the party initiating interest in a proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment affecting the land I located at (state the approximate location(s) if no address(s) and/or tax lot(s) currently registered) 11035 SW 135th Avenue , and did on the 23rd day of April I19 96 personally post notice indicating that the site may be proposed for.a Comprehensive , Plan Map Amendment application, and the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. The sign was posted at 11035 SW 135th Avenue I (state location you posted notice on property) I . Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public) I (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the c r &day of April , 19 9 6 I OFFICIAL SEAL ; cep♦. � � ter. M K NIGHTINGALE . NOTARY PUBLIC OREGON COMMISSION NO.049091 �� L. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV.20, 1999 NOTARY PUB I��F ORE c N My Commission pires: ///3e/r / 111 (Applicant, please complete information below for proper placement with proposed project) rNAME OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED NAME: Plan Map Amendment at 11035 SW 135th Ave I I TYPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Plan Map Amendment Name of Applicant/Owner: Da 1 P Sh r a d P r T r u s t e e I Address or General Location of Subject Property: '11035 SW 135th Aye, Tigard, OR I [Subject Proper,:Tax 1•lap(s)and Lot#(s): Map # 151 33CA Lots 100, 200, 300 & 1000 h:UoginlpattyVnatiterslafTposi.mst • • **MEETING NOTICE** 1 . ' DALE SHRADER IS PROPOSING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT I FROM MED UIM HIGH RESIDENTIAL (M-H) TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (C-C) FOR PROPERTY AT THIS LOCATION . i 1 . Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for necessary permits, the applicant would like to discuss the proposal in more detail ' with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a neighborhood meeting on: 1 ' TUESDAY, MAY 71996 6:30 P.M. AT MARY WOOD WARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ' 12325 SW CATHERINE ST. TIGARD, OR 1 PROJECT DEVELOPER CONTACT: MICHAEL C. ROBINSON PHONE NUMBER: (503) 294-9194 Please note: This is an informational meeting on the preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to the submittal of the application to the City PDX1A-28740.1 26409 0001 .>\ • vJ p c.) IL • (A) • • SCHOLLS FERRY RETAIL CENTER Traffic Impact Study TIGARD, OREGON 1 I I PREPARED BY LANCASTER ENGINEERING September, 1996 • I EXHIBIT 3 • • . ' • . 1 r .,,,,,:::1:: I f :3 STER ENGINEERING •pt :: tudles • Planning • Safety . I 01111.:11 G±$j:'""```: SCHOLLS FERRY RETAIL CENTER vt.q fir. yf,)}:;iii?ii :•: is c; o,^.F;:;:r:r ~r><' : Traffic IM pact Study I L h.::s:::.=r$ Tigard, Oregon immAil i3 I !!!!!!!!!: (Thtsto 1. „GORE:III �Q' Ois 4 1'22.A99 5a• LAVI I ,r::< `: Prepared By li Hyo svrS I <f< ` - <<; • TOM R. LANCASTER, P.E• it <<>> <"< September, 1996 I >;<>` • I 'i`W fort Station,Suite 206 • 800 N.W.6th Avenue • Portland,OR 97209 • Phone(503)248-0313 • FAX(503)248-9251 ": .CASTER ENGINEERING I TABLE OF CONTENTS I Introduction 3 Summary 4 Location Description 6 Trip Generation 10 Trip Distribution 13 Operational Analysis 18 ' Appendix 24 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 _2_ 1 • • STER ENGINEERING awm I iINTRODUCTION The Scholls Ferry Retail Center is a neighborhood retail development planned for the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road and 135th Avenue r in Tigard. It is likely to include uses such as a service station, small retail stores, shops, and small restaurants. The purpose of this study is to assess the traffic impact of the proposed amend- ment to the Comprehensive Plan Map from the existing Medium to High Density Resi- dential development to Community Commercial. The emphasis of the analysis is on the effect on projected 2005 traffic volumes, which is the traffic planning horizon year for Washington County. Detailed information on level of service definitions, traffic counts, trip genera- ' tion and distribution calculations, and level of service calculations is included in the ap- pendix to this report. I I I I I I I -3- I Ii::- • i STER ENGINEERING I I SUMMARY 1. T _ - re site for the for Comprehen- sive 5:5 c s to o t e Scholls Ferry Retail Center is proposed o a Co p ehen- sive Plan Map amendment from Medium to High Density Residential, which would permi 38 :partment units, to Community Commercial, which would permit small businessesoriented toward the adjacent neighborhoods. 2. Due to the size, nature, and location of the proposed retail center, about 60 percent of the trips generated by the development will be pass-by trips. These are trips that are I presently passing by the site on the adjacent streets that will stop at the center, then proceed in the original direction of travel. The remaining 40 percent of the trips will be either new trips added to the street system or existing trips that are diverted to the site Ifrom other streets. 3. Washington County and the City of Tigard require a minimum intersection level of Iservice D. An analysis of three adjacent intersections (Scholls Ferry/130th, Scholls Ferry/Old Scholls Ferry, Old Scholls Ferry/Murray) shows that they will operate at I level of service D or better in 2005 with the addition of traffic that will be generated by the retail site. A fourth intersection (Scholls Ferry/135`h) will require additional turning lanes to operate at level of service D or better with the addition of site-generated traffic to the projected 2005 volumes. All adjacent intersections will operate at level C or bet- ter with the proposed improvements. I 4. No roadway links on Scholls Ferry or Old Scholls Ferry will experience an increase in 2005 average daily traffic in excess of ten percent as a result of the Scholls Ferry Retail Center. 1 I 1 . I I . -4- 1 1 • • . o co L\t t s ^z I a HAR OT '\ A G y J w CT. i ,• I m i_ a DR. STLION w~ CO H °! , �p0� SCOUT Z CT.��p t P ivy °p cycle 0. \••••.., CAl C �,pN \ f LONGHORN LN._.. WAY (HARNESS LN. I C O w Q o DR. = CIR�. SARATOG ^::: IN �\PR M e4 y� DR.x C 0* i v =ill �- T -o ()n r o ' w ¢ CT(e ,'n�: r -.1-98 o N GINGHAM LN.RAWHIDE "� T. I -UC \SANTA - o� SPUR; WEIR RD. C a A UEO T ( x I• o o �� LW a o I ANITA\CTn DR. °o'- CT. ; cr G I a �,�PQ" �p o RD CONESTOGA y . • off. v_/ •P THATCHER e\/• Z �� Ja UT-J 'P O J � w... u. HIIEON DR.WEIRNIT �N aJ y > ° ° w rLw° a• ° CT l l ;�1 a w ~/ a PER HERON LN. v=�� HAYSTACK DR.I v COMBINE C______ -- ST, a GALLOWAY CT. COMB JE w I C �� SNOWSHOE CT. n LN.—a �Q — ENELnNO gAY L N _ COTTONTAIL LN.z� = JCL J NI �s o z �� �1� tARPAN FERRY O-� U ' O QJ. Ud F. N N U 1 w COUGAR ^^ ieE ati i 0'r Ct.D CT: !'ao CHIC N a 0 ° LS ^Sn Y ..0* SCNOL �C OR. o ,,,i' pq X00 —� PROJECT SITE agtio� �H HAWKS BEARS (y �, S Q• / ST. T�� � - II / J J °z ,a �a °tea co. /�_ Lir Creek C�ACIfR LILY CIR T� , N N / miner _.�— �°�• -� / Y LAKE MILLVIEw CT. ° a F Stork CT. �, Z / > .t••••• ',2,> FS / w W ° ° Reservoir �_ _4'1.- \ SUMMER 3 A /z9. J W tPZ �o a.oQ ,S QUAIL va 11/' ASHBURY to 1 -' 4\ LN• p z IFEIRING • _ Q �FP� Q I /, z ® LAURMrJ T .` 1 / z HT.IMONTI ` / / LP. I �P\SOryRISE KR' t _ _ / CR1St CT =� �^ lU r KATHERINE ' Si. I I KATHER[NE ST. cox CH(M f r ���--� NINDON CT. -- 3~ RrOcf N CHIMNEY RIDGE WILLS PL >CH j DR• id w = ANN T. a tfl BR/p r S ~Di? N f RG f ■ / x Z ST VE KAREN ST. COLA N ,� • A W ;. BR.OK 17 trt I' crl n ST. ^ u n m CT. BENISH N ST.' '' I I ` • Y�ii:i:6.%. I . ;: VICINITY MAP ASTER ENGINEERING -5- • • • .M1 ASTER ENGINEERING 1 LOCATION DESCRIPTION i The Scholls Ferry Retail site, which is approximately 5.5 acres in size, is lo- cated in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road and 135th Avenue in Tigard. There is frontage on 135th and on Scholls Ferry Road southwest of Old Scholls Ferry Road, and a short section of frontage on Scholls Ferry Road between II135th and Old Scholls Ferry Road. The specific land uses to be proposed are.not known at this time, but will be determined during the next stage of the permitting process. A worst-case situation was assumed for the purposes of this traffic report to include 31,000 sq ft of small stores, a 3500 sq ft fast food restaurant, a service station with a convenience market, and a 3500 sq ft drive-in bank. The present Comprehensive Plan Map designation of the site is for Medium to High Density Residential development. With the physical size limitations on the site it is estimated that a maximum of 138 apartment units could be constructed. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Map designation is Community Commercial. This designation is intended to provide locations for retail and service uses which have I, a primarily neighborhood orientation. Such facilities are not so large or so broad in scope and services as to attract substantial amounts of trade from outside of surrounding neighborhoods, but are large enough to provide a variety of goods and services at one location. The trade area is generally within a 1.5-mile radius. The permitted gross floor area for Community Commercial developments is ` 30,000 to 100,000 square feet. Food sales may be up to 40,000 sq ft, general retail sales may be up to 10,000 sq ft per use, and other commercial sales and service facili- ties may be up to 5,000 sq ft per use. Maps showing the existing land-use designations for the adjacent areas in both Tigard and Beaverton are included in the appendix to this report. With a Community Commercial designation, it is expected that access to the site will be provided from 135th Avenue and from Scholls Ferry Road southwest of Old Scholls Ferry Road, but not from Scholls Ferry Road between 135th and Old Scholls Ferry Road. . -6- I • • STER ENGINEERING -1 roadway Scholls Ferry Road east of Old Scholls Ferry Road is a five-lane with two through lanes in each direction and a.center left-turn lane. It is under the jurisdic- tion of Washington County. There are westbound right-turn lanes at 130th, 135th, and Murray. SW 130th Avenue is a two-lane two-way street under the jurisdiction of the City of Tigard south of Scholls Ferry and the City of Beaverton north of Scholls Ferry. The intersection of 130' and Scholls Ferry is controlled by a five-phase actuated traffic sig- nal with protected left turns on Scholls Ferry. SW 135th Avenue is also a two-lane two-way street under the jurisdiction of the City of Tigard south of Scholls Ferry and the City of Beaverton north of Scholls Ferry. The intersection of 135th and Scholls Ferry is controlled by a five-phase actuated traffic signal with protected left turns on Scholls Ferry. Scholls Ferry Road southwest of Old Scholls Ferry Road is a two-lane two-way roadway under the jurisdiction of Washington County. The T-shaped intersection of Scholls Ferry and Old Scholls Ferry is controlled by a three-phase traffic signal which is operated as part of the 135th Avenue traffic signal. There is a left-turn lane and a right-turn lane on the south leg of the intersection. Old Scholls Ferry Road between Scholls Ferry Road and Murray Boulevard is a five-lane roadway under the jurisdiction of Washington County. The intersection of Old Scholls Ferry and Murray is controlled by.a six-phase actuated traffic signal with pro- tected left turns on Old Scholls Ferry and split phasing on Murray. The south leg of the intersection is a dead end. The nearest roadway that is under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation is the Highway 217 freeway, located 2.1 miles to the east of the Retail Center site. The intersections of Scholls Ferry/130th and Scholls Ferry/135th are operated as semi-actuated signals with a 125-second background cycle during the evening peak hour. It is expected that ultimately the signal at Old Scholls Ferry/Murray will also be included in the signal system and will use the same cycle length. Manual turning movement traffic counts during the evening peak traffic hours were made at Scholls Ferry/130th, Scholls Ferry/135th, and Old Scholls Ferry/Murray in early 1996. Traffic volumes for Scholls Ferry/Old Scholls Ferry (1995 plus a growth factor) were obtained from the traffic impact study for Haggen Food and Pharmacy by I -7- m • • STER ENGINEERING Kittelson & Associates, printed in 1995. The peak hour was found to be from 5 to 6 PM. As expected, the traffic counts show that the westbound traffic flow on Scholls Ferry is substantially higher than the eastbound flow during the evening peak. There is 1 a high-volume westbound left-turn movement at 135th, a high-volume westbound left- turn movement at Scholls Ferry/Old Scholls Ferry, and a very-high-volume westbound right-turn movement at Murray. There are no heavy turning movements at 130t. Only the evening peak traffic hour was analyzed in this report for two reasons: (1) 2005 traffic projections for the morning peak hour are not available, and (2) the evening peak-hour traffic volumes are typically higher than the morning peak-hour traf- fic volumes and produce the worst-case situation for the traffic analysis. The traffic volumes for the evening peak hour for these four intersections are shown in the traffic flow diagram on the following page. The detailed count summaries are included in the appendix to this report. 1 I 1' 1 1' 1 -8- I - • 0 I I do %Iv i CI) `Z I - R 8 . (b o r--) (0 I. 00 Ho IH850 1 -,c Li") • In . 200 1-> <-1480 1 Zt i N■ 0 I Old SCh°115 Ferr Y 1 - _ 10 70 yr9ly 1090 1960 1 1020 1590 6 1 30 320 C T 1151- It-120 20 0 (e 1980 H <-11570 1 (i 1210. 1-4, 000 0) 8 cli_ II ' I • i . . I ----..••,. - EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES I • 1 ilia • 1996 PM Peak Hour MUSTER ENGINEERING • IIVCadcAgrossIVCD 8/111996 -9- . • MASTER ENGINEERING i TRIP GENERATION I To estimate the number of trips that would be generated by the permitted apart- ' ment development and the proposed neighborhood retail center, trip rates were obtained ' from TRIP GENERATION, Fifth Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The following ITE land-use codes, along with the basis for the trip genera- tion calculations, were used: • Code 221: Low-Rise Apartment (no. of units) • Code 820: Shopping Center (sq ft) • • Code 834: Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window (sq ft) • Code 845: Service Station with Convenience Market (fueling positions) • Code 912: Drive-in Bank (sq ft) tAlthough the site is served by regularly scheduled transit service, no reduction in the trip generation was made for transit usage. Because the Retail Center will be ori- ented toward the nearby residential neighborhoods, and because transit usage is typi- cally lower for shopping trips than for work commuter trips, the percentage of transit ridership to the site is likely to be low and no attempt was made to estimate it. Because retail development of the site under Community Commercial land use is required to be oriented toward serving the adjacent residential neighborhoods, it is likely that many of the trips generated by the proposed retail uses will be pass-by trips, particularly during the evening peak hour: These are trips that are presently passing by the site that will stop at the development, then proceed in the original direction of the itrip. For example, a driver traveling home from work in the evening passing by the site could stop at the site, then proceed home. These are trips that presently exist on the street system rather than new trips added to the streets. Based on (1) data in the TRIP GENERATION handbook, (2) the limited types and sizes of uses that are permitted un- der Community Commercial land use, and (3) the presence of an adjacent high-volume commuter road (Scholls Ferry), it is estimated that about 60 percent of the trips gener- ated by retail development of the site will be pass-by trips. The remaining 40 percent of the trips will be new trips added to the street system. The planned mixture of uses on the site will produce some multi-purpose trips. These are trips where _a customer uses more than one of the businesses or services -10- 1' • • ,...,ASTER ENGINEERING within the site. For example, a driver could stop at the service station for fueling, then stop at the fast-food restaurant for a meal. Because of the variety of uses that are antici- pated and that would be required by Community Commercial land use, it is conserva- tively estimated that about ten percent of the total number of trips that would be gener- ated by each individual use will be multi-purpose trips. The close proximity of the proposed retail uses to existing residences will en- courage walking and biking trips which will further reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by the site. But because the percentage of walking and biking trips is difficult to estimate accurately, no adjustment was made to the site trip generation for these trips. A summary trip of the tri generation calculations is shown in the table on page 12. The table also shows the net increase in new trips that would result from the proposed change in land use from residential to commercial. The detailed trip generation calcula- tions for each proposed land use are included in the appendix to this report. I I I t I I I I I -11- 1 1 " .... • 0 I �(�.E;�ASTER ENGINEERING fi4�i5R4 1 1 L ITRIP GENERATION SUMMARY IAM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR LAND USE SIZE Enter Exit Enter Exit i Existing Plan Designation IApartments 138 units 13 52 53 27 IProposed Plan Designation I Shopping Center 31,000 sq ft 51 30 156 156 Fast Food 3500 sq ft 100 96 67 61 Service Station 12 positions 61 61 80 80 I Drive-in Bank 3500 sq ft 22 17 73 79 Subtotals 234 204 376 376 Internal Trips -10% -23 -20 -38 -38 it Subtotals 211 184 338 338 Pass-By Trips -60% -126 -110 -203 -203 ITotals 84 73 135 135 Net Increase 71 21 82 108 I I I I I, -12- I 1 ' • • is n STER ENGINEERING • TRIP DISTRIBUTION I The directional distribution of the trips generated by the proposed retail devel- opment was estimated separately for the new trips and the pass-by trips. The direction- ally distributed traffic was then assigned to the street system based on the routes most likely to be used by drivers considering both distance and travel time. The traffic as- signment was made assuming access to both 135`' Avenue and Scholls Ferry Road. Because the proposed retail uses will be oriented toward adjacent residential tneighborhoods, the distribution of the new trips was based on the locations and densi- ties of nearby neighborhoods. There are existing retail developments to the east and the west of the site, as shown on the map on page 14. Due to the presence of these existing retail centers, the primary market for the Scholls Ferry Retail Center will be the resi- dential area to the south of Scholls Ferry Road rather than to the east and west, and most of the new trips were distributed in that direction. The pass-by trips were distributed in proportion to the existing volumes of traf- fic on the roadways near the site. For the evening peak hour, this means that the highest percentage of the pass-by trips will be from westbound traffic on Scholls Ferry Road. 1 The diagram on page 15 illustrates the trip distribution that was applied to the new trips. The diagram on page 16 illustrates the trip distribution that was applied to the pass-by trips. The traffic flow Pa on diagram page 17 illustrates the assignment to the street sys- tem of the net increase in trips during the evening peak hour. This assignment assumes that there will be access from the site to 135th and to Scholls Ferry southwest of Old Scholls Ferry. The assignment also accounts for the impact of the pass-by trips. I I -13- • L\t.v. • • 1 N .:.. _ Y Mj_DR. ST LIO „'- °r �pOP SCOUT• 1 cr a Z NAYI NARNESSCARR\P IN LPNt \ �f�O L iLOtJf,NORq LN,J I cc _ �l L OR, i cc CIR, SARAIOG CH rnLICO w ° ur ROAN LN. tP� Ct: -¢ Cl. u • ° 3 �l CT. �E4 e9gYt �R. al ' W _ J ° °-� 3 BUCKSKIN = OK. I i 'V e III. a 1, o I POLO CT S Up f, rIHG Ltr ) _� ¢ RAWHIDE it "' T. CT� DUC v\SANTA �8 F = Ycr SPUR 61 HEIR RD. C ¢ 2 s, I C'' J 4 {-ANITA\CTa �-' DR, �~ Et �p i.r....- R0. CONESTOGA / "-'" ,, Q 4 1) Y HATCHER a\ z r Z J�, 1-I e. WEIR 0-, ° aJ Cr._a I > U.HITEOo DR. �HI CT. al 1 a a x '^� = r a(,P�HERON LtJ. /I a II / HAYSTACK OR. 1 ji� ` w.v COMBWEw( GALLOWAY CT, ��__.__,__� COMB NE 5T. � _ SNOWSHOE C1� w,J Lg wl AY Th. ..r,-,. _ x Q o EvELAeJO RO - w COTTONTAIL LN.z� _ ^„Q� �_,, ± - /��_° ° tARPAN TERRY _ :GREENWAY w COUGAR ^ �eF►j o CH Cl TOWN I MURRAYHILL ' cT. ` ��P CENTER MARKETPLACE 5c °``S ��C Sn'ovc,, nA =� / PROJECT SITE a eOr?, ��� / HAWKS BEARS ! �'�p.• �/ ST. 44- Ci T 1 ao /�_ Su Creek G(4CJfR L CfR �_� N -!� - • / w LAKE IMILLVIEW cr. Y x Stork Ci,- -� I Z. / ° • J W ,'�V n w ¢° „ Reservoir .\\c\_SUmM_ER w / ASHBURY O a �� lN, B-R W P�1' \y� OP \ ` ^ v I 1 -� S� LN. . / m IFEIRING� _� EPP ¢ \� t /• p , LN. 1 LAURM�ti .0.• o / z l l C T. / / LP. MORNfN LSU �n/TRfSE Oa' / J /_' / % / (pc( CT =d 0 r KATHERINE _ I ST, _I I KATHERINE ST ma HINDON W'- R/O Hl�NEr CHIMNEY RIDGE WILLS// JjIN v W N �= BR/p OT T S a R/ v ~ 1OLA OR ? Sr.DG AVE W ~ KAREN ST. BROOK M 51. ” u n ti en CT. T N BENH ST,� I • EXISTING RETAIL DEVELOPMENTS ASTER ENGINEERING • I -14- I • • r I 1110 I e - o o to V I tr, rn 1054 N .<-110% 0 Old Ferr Sch o 0 0 0 0 1 ---"--. 0 I ° YYY 20% 20% 0 0 20°i 201 0 20% �` 0 0 40% 30% 0 0 0 O I C O 0 I I I . I II TRIP DISTRIBUTION :`LANCASTER ENGINEERING New Trips IVCaddlgrossB.VCD 7/31/1996 -15- • I • • \NI c 0 � e in m KA N. Old S�ho yy i __--- lls Fe EMI 0 YTR-.... 0 40% 0 0 0 0 ® 10%° �° H -H° \y ,45% ,, ,,45% , 0 0 0 O 0 i .. �� 1 loi I I 1 I IAN ., ..„,.., 'V TRIP DISTRIBUTION [IINICASTER ENGINEERING Pass-By Trips •VC: D 7/31/1996 -16- I • • • I i t I. I0 i YR (,) ‘z .. .„ in , 0 . r 9 N. L Old Soh°Ils Fe�� FY 1 / — 14 0 Y-1 0 igs. ' 0 0 10 18 6 10 • yr �0� 0 ® �� • 1-71. H <-1-91 1 co I �y 176 108 I Yi6 0 I . I I I I rtig . 1. .1.-::::E::.3: [g ill IIITRAFFIC VOLUME INCREASE :LA.. NCASTER ENGINEERING Net Increase from Site Development 1I VCaddlgross6.VCD 7/31/1996 -17-- 1 • • , STER ENGINEERING I OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS I Traffic Projections The analysis period specified for this project by Washington County is the 2005 evening peak hour. The year 2005 is the analysis year because this is the year on which the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan is based. Any proposed amend- ment to the Comprehensive Plan is required to analyze the impact on projected 2005 traffic and the roadway system planned for that year. However, there are no 2005 traf- fic projections available directly. To estimate 2005 peak-hour traffic, EMME/2 model projections were obtained from Washington County for 1994 and 2015. One-half of the difference between the 1994 and the 2015 projections was then added to actual 1996 traffic volumes. �. The 2015 model run was based on the roadway network which is expected to be in place in 2005. This includes modification of the west intersection of Scholls Ferry/Old Scholls Ferry, but does not include the Murray extension or the relocation of Scholls Ferry to Davies Road. The calculated 2005 volumes were then modified to reflect the planned comple- tion of the connection between 130th Avenue and Winter Lake Drive in Tigard. The volumes on 135th were decreased and the volumes on 130th increased in accordance with the report titled 130TH/WINTERLAKE CONNECTION TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, printed by Lancaster Engineering in July, 1994. The adjusted projected 2005 evening peak-hour volumes are shown in the dia- gram on page 19. The net increase in trips that would be generated by the proposed Scholls Ferry Retail Center were then added to the projected 2005 traffic volumes. This total volume of 2005 traffic plus site trips for the evening peak hour is shown in the diagram on page 20. I i -18- I • • • III I t I. e o i g z ao z e in n ® 1080 m ® 720 o L t • O Id SCho115 Ferr M O M 1 - _ 10 80 ° 0 1345 2540 10 50 1 __ 1900 <6 20 40 350 (CI' 1265 2065 I 300 400 u' 0 'r' Oy O ° frir I I I I I II II Pil i . r",,;i; ''"' 2005 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS :;LANCASTER ENGINEERING PM Peak Hour IVCadcAgrosstVCD 7/71/1996 -19- • I ' 0 • I I . I VW I r 0 1 g -Zs') ® 1087 i 384 En 1 T. F ear Old Sch°Ils Al[ I ........, YYY24 80 1360 2543 10 25 i ® 1918 6 20 40 347 �o 1194 974 376 508 r O o r^0 N _J CV lij Ul N N I I I I L``l'S 2005 PLUS SITE TRAFFIC ` ASTER ENGINEERING • PM Peak Hour I%VCaddgros35.VCD 7/31/1996 -20- • • • fog IPOSTER ASTER ENGINEERING I Capacity Analysis A capacity analysis of the nearby intersections shows that, with some roadway improvements, all can be made to operate at level of service D or better in 2005 with the Retail Center. As re q uired by Washin g ton County ty staf , a comparison of the projected 2005 traffic volumes plus site trips was made with the roadway capacity as assigned by the transportation model. A detailed capacity analysis was made of the four adjacent inter- sections: • Scholls Ferry and 130th • Scholls Ferry and 135th • Scholls Ferry/Old Scholls Ferry • Old Scholls Ferry/Murray The intersections were analyzed using the HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL, — Special Report 209, Third Edition, published by the Transportation Research Board. The level of service at each intersection is based on the average delay per vehicle. The existing cycle length of 125 seconds was used for the analysis. The four intersections were first analyzed using projected 2005 traffic volumes without the Scholls Ferry Retail Center. The intersections were then analyzed using projected 2005 volumes plus the retail center. The results of the capacity analysis show that the intersections of Schol slsl Ferry/130"', Scholls Ferry/Old Scholls Ferry, and Old Scholls Ferry/Murray will oper ate at level of service D or better in 2005 with or without the Scholls Ferry Retail Cent ter. ' \The intersection of Scholls Ferry%135th will require improvements to attain level �of service D or better with 2005 traffic plus site trips. The construction of an eastbound? right-turn lane on Scholls Ferry at 135th and a double westbound left-turn lane on Scholls Ferry at 135th will result in level of service C. This will require two southbound banes on 135th to accept traffic from the two westbound left-turn lanes. r I I -21- I .. • 0 4s IASTER ENGINEERING If the net new evening peak-hour trips added to the street system from the retail development are compared to the projected 2005 traffic volumes, the increase from the retail development is typically about one percent for each link of Scholls Ferry Road Iand Old Scholls Ferry Road. If the evening peak hour is approximately ten percent of the average daily traffic, it is clear that traffic volumes on none of the links on Scholls Ferry or Old Scholls Ferry will be increased by as much as ten percent as a result of the Iretail center. I The level of service at an intersection is based on the average delay per vehicle for all vehicles entering the intersection. The results of the capacity analysis, along with the levels of service and the average delays for each intersection, are shown in the fol- Ilowing table. I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I -22- 1 ra:. • • STER ENGINEERING CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY PM Peak Hour 1 LEVEL OF AVERAGE ISERVICE DELAY* Scholls Ferry/130th 2005 Traffic C 16 2005 Traffic plus Site Trips C 16 Scholls Ferry/135th 2005 Traffic D 26 2005 Traffic plus Site Trips F - 2005 plus Site with Improvements** C 24 i Scholls Ferry/Old Scholls Ferry 2005 Traffic B 6 2005 Traffic plus Site Trips B 6 Old Scholls Ferry/Murray 2005 Traffic C 17 2005 Traffic plus Site Trips C 17 *Average delay in seconds per vehicle for all vehicles entering each intersection. **Eastbound right-turn lane, westbound double left. 1 1 -23- i 1 1 1 I • 1 APPENDIX 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 • ' CASTER ENGINEERING I i., 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE I Level of service is used to describe the quality of traffic flow. Levels of service I A to C are considered good, and rural roads are usually designed for level of service C. Urban streets and signalized intersections are typically designed for level of service D. Level of service E is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. For unsignalized I intersections, level of service E is generally considered acceptable. Here is a more complete description of levels of service: ILevel of service A: Very low delay at intersections, with all traffic signal cycles clearing and no vehicles waiting through more than one signal cycle. On highways, low volume and high speeds, with speeds not restricted by other vehicles. I B: Operating speeds beginning to be affected by other traffic Level of service Op g p g g y traffic; I short traffic delays at intersections. Higher average intersection delay than for level of service A resulting from more vehicles stopping. I Level of service C: Operating speeds and maneuverability closely controlled by other traffic; higher delays at intersections than for level of service B due to a signifi- cant number of vehicles stopping. Not all signal cycles clear the waiting vehicles. This Iis the recommended design standard for rural highways. Level of service D: Tolerable operating speeds; long traffic delays occur at in- Itersections. The influence of congestion is noticeable. At traffic signals many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. The number of signal cycle failures, for which vehicles must wait through more than one signal cycle, are notice- "! able. This is typically the design level for urban signalized intersections. I Level of service E: Restricted speeds, very long traffic delays at traffic signals, and traffic volumes near capacity. Flow is unstable so that any interruption, no matter how minor, will cause queues to form and service to deteriorate to level of service F. I Traffic signal cycle failures are frequent occurrences. For unsignalized intersections, level of service E or better is generally considered acceptable. I Level of service F: Extreme delays, resulting in long queues which may interfere with other traffic movements. There may be stoppages of long duration, and speeds may drop to zero. There may be frequent signal cycle failures. Level of service F will I typically result when vehicle arrival rates are greater than capacity. It is considered un- acceptable by most drivers. I I • • STER ENGINEERING I LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA I FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS I LEVEL STOPPED DELAY IOF PER VEHICLE SERVICE (Seconds) IA <5 B 5-15 IC 15-25 D 25-40 IE 40-60 F >60 I I LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA I FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ILEVEL STOPPED DELAY OF PER VEHICLE ISERVICE (Seconds) A <5 B 5-10 C 10-20 D 20-30 E 30-45 I F >45 I I Ill t•-• i - 1 .=. :- _. r. T 1-1 1_I 1 kJ T P i=i F.F I I. S II I T H •�• P . �1' 2 [ INTE NTE ION•TURN'.MQVE NT COUNT ;SU1�.Y•REPORT ?:'.' •:...:. I∎IiA t Y. .BOULE.'V1 RD A'1 OLD .- FERRY ROAD',. . ,.... � �••IA T= 1.6 o P=' 892 : -. : :,: i- '' • N 11067 +.. DATE. OF COUNT: :.:02/28/9 '; O + 103a: DAY' OF .WEEK Wed • ., R 368 5 694 TIME'•:STARTED.: 16;00 .. T TIME ENDED: :18:00. . • H 4-849 �3 1 L0- 4-1325 A ;I. 189 J X846 T. 3 .4% T. 1%: . 1 204 -► `-x'79 : P=. 881 P=.907 ::' 2 ` 0 TEV TOTAL ENTRY ':VOLUME i :. •.'. `� T=o TRUCKS• BY APPROACH 1� f• P=PHF BY APPROACH•' II 395 - ► 901, -► .. 2 - 4 - 3 Peak Hour -------, 1 7 s 16 ;,55-17 55 Traffic' Smithy . - - _ - T- 0% P= 45 i.9 TEV=2796 Traffic SurveXSery c 1 EAST BOUND SOU`IH B3OUND ` NORTH BOUND 'WEST:'BO .. r : • ': • TIME PERIOD • . A.. FROM - TO 1 -► J 4J 'I: L . 41 r► �- 1• - ---- - __ _ .1 *....,...• 16 :00-16 :05 0 27' 8 28 1 • 38' 0 0 1; 0 30 . '" 54..:1 :18.7: .... 16 :05-16 :10 0 18 ' 12 : 23 • 1 . 54 . 0 1 . 1: 1. ::25' 48 :! 184; :: 16 : 10-16 :15 0 24 19 .. 25 0 •38 • 0 0 0. 0 :43. • 47 :; 1.96: .': ..:. 16: 15-16 :20 0 12 21 ' 21' - 0 43 : 0 2 . 0. . . 0 33': .. 46. i x.7$ 16 : 20-1.6 :25 ,0 20 23 37 0 84 0 0 • 0. . : 0 23 : 57H.244 :. . 16 :25-16 :30 0 23 22 25 0 57 0• 0 0' • 0 29 . . .38 ; 194, • 16 :30-3.6 :35 0 20 13 34 • 0 47 , 0 0 0 0 • 28:: :.-•46 !_ 188; ; I 16 :35-16 :40 0 29 12 32 0 49 • 0 0 0 0 36: 56 ;1•214'. 7 ;1.1::' 16 :40-16 :45 0 16 16 31 0 • 43 " 0 0 . 2 3 : 39:• .70-J.220••' •••:220:•`:•: '.. 16 :45-1.6 : 50 .0 16 •27 22 • 0 43 . 0 0 0 0 34 ' 65''!:20.7•--•-. : 16 :50-16 : 55 0 13 1.6 35 0 56 . 0 0 0 0 39 . 63 ''' 222. ;.:..!,; I 16 :55-17:00 0 . 19 18 27 • 0 45 HO 0 0 • 0 40. - 71 1220 ':!• .,:• 17 :00-17 :05 0 18 21 30 1. 43 0 0 1 0 33, 56 '; 203 !` 17 :05-17 :10 0 18 18 25 0 69 0 0 0:: 0 3]. 60: ; 221 ; 17 : 10-17 :15 0 21 10 35 ' . 0 74 ': 0 0 1 ; • 0 51 87• !.279 17 :15-17 :20 0 17 16 26 0 '55 0 0 '0 0 :47 . .61... :222• '." .-:.r. II 17 :20-17 :25 1 14 13 ,: 24 0 ' 59 0 1 0 0 43 76 : `.`x231: 17 :25-17:30 0 14 15 :. 39 . 0 63 • 0 0 0'. 0 . 43�. : 68:`;'.242.::; 17 :30-17 :35 0 9 21 24 1 45 • 1 0 0 ; 0 ....42:: .. . 79 ;222 17 :35-17 :40 0 18 9 47 0: 71 .0 : ' 0 0 • 0 •36. 72".:.1253 :•: I 17 :40-17:45 0 20 14 21 0;' 47 0 0 0 0' 35:. 71 . :1208 17 :45-17: 50 1 14 13 45 2: 66 , 0 1 1.• 0 . 36 • 77, `i256 17:50-17 :55 0 22 21 25 :1' 57 . 1 2 '0 0 • • 42: . 68 H239'.. . 17: 55-1.8 :00 0 15 25 29 1. • 41 ..0 0 1 : 0 36'. . •:60, • 208 I i. I _ 'Total Survey 2 437 403 :71.0 . 8; 1287 2 • 7 '8 •4:. 874 '3:496`.••• 52.8.8 '- -• I PHF . 5 .89 •.•83 81 •.42: . 88 . :5 33 .38 • . 0 : .85 94' :;954 .•'::; Trucks 0 3 4 .2 .4 0: 1 .2 0 . 0 0 • 0 °.3 '. 1.3' .`H1.':6 .1 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 : 0 0: 0 0 0 . 0 0 : 0 0 Peds 0 7 0 0 1: 0 •.0 . 4 0 0 .4 0: Hourly' Totals --__- ,-- .. ;i:. .: :: ... 16 :00-17 :00 0 237 20'7 :340 2: 597 '0 - 3 4 • 4 .399. . 6.61: .2454 :::: 16 :15-17 :15 0 225 217 •354 1. • 653 0 • 2 4 3 ':416.i::' °:715:;- 2590 16 :3.0-17 :30 1 215 195 ::360. • 1; •646 . 0 1 4: : 3 . :46.4 ° ;779:;2669 ::. •. I 16 :45-17 :45 1 197 198 ;355 2 ! 670 • • 1 1 • . 2 0.. 474•': :829,:.'2730. .:,.i: ' 17 :00-18:00 2 200 196 ;370 6 690 • 2 4 4 0;• ."475.::::-.835'.2784 ;' I --- -----------. ------- -- --- - - _ __ - - ___ _ i . INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY REPORT is / 1 STS FERRY ROAD AT 130TH A� / /L '`'� 1 ♦ T= o P=.738 N 62 A DATE OF COUNT: 06/11/96 1 181 DAY OF WEEK: Tue Ia R 27 1 34 TIME STARTED: 16:00 T TIME ENDED: 18:00 H *-1986 43 1 L► 4-2029 II 11 -I L7 0 T= 2 .7% T= 1.4% 1088—► 4-1957 P=. 912 P=.941 • , II 0 41 t r• 2 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME r T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH • P=PHF BY APPROACH 1099—* 1123—■ 2 0 1 Peak Hour II _ 13 . 17:00-18 :00 Traffic Smithy T= 0% P=.75 I3 TEV=3193 Traffic Survey Service EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND II TIME PERIOD A A A. FROM - TO 1 —► J 4J I . ' ► 41 I [4' r .4_._• • ALL ALL A 16:00-16:05 0 76 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 12 219 II 16 :05-16 :10 0 105 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 128 7 244 16 :10-16 :15 0 83 2 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 105 3 200 16 :15-16 :20 0 88 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 132 4 231 16:20-16 :25 0 84 0 1 0 6 1 0 0 0 105 1 198 II 16:25-16 :30 0 96 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 138 11 247 16:30-16 :35 0 106 1 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 114 10 238 16 :35-16:40 0 97 2 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 145 3 253 16 :40-16 :45 0 84 1 5 0 . . 3. 0 0 0 0 147 2 242 II 16:45-16 :50 0 101 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 116 1 222 16:50-16 :55 0 86 1 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 139 4 235 16 :55-17 :00 0 101 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 1 141 11 260 17:00-17 :05 0 109 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 121 3 237 17:05-17:10 0 87 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 179 7 278 II 17:10-17:15 0 87 1 5 0. 3 0 0 0 0 156 6 258 17:15-17:20 0 70 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 171 9 255 17:20-17:25 0 85 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 178 8 276 17:25-17:30 0 88 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 139 2 234 I 17:30-17:35 0 98 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 205 7 316 17:35-17:40 0 112 2 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 137 3 260 17:40-17:45 0 79 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 161 4 250 17:45-17:50 0 95 1 3 . 1 1 0 0 0 0 180 9 290 17:50-17:55 0 97 1 4 0 5 1 0 0 1 135 7 251 II17:55-18:00 0 81 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 195 5 288 I II I Total Survey PHF 0 2195 23 52 1 70 3 0 2 4 3493 139 5982 0 . 91 .69 .75 .25 .77 .5 0 .25 .5 .94 .76 . 962 % Trucks 0 2 .7 0 1. 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 0 1.8 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I Peds 0 16 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 8 0 Hourly Totals 16:00-17:00 0 1107 12 25 0 36 1 0 1 2 1536 69 2789 16:15-17:15 0 1126 10 24 �0 40 1 0 0 2 1633 63 2899 I 16:30-17:30 0 1101 10 26 0 37 1 0 1103 10 23 0 33 0 0 1 1746 66 2988 16:45-17:45 1 0 1 2 1843 65 3081 17:00-18 :00 0 1088 11 27 . 1 34 2 0 1 2 1957 70 3193 II 1 INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY REPORT , illiLLS FERRY ROAD AT 135TH Al // / a.`7 ♦ T= 1. P=.734 N 147 ♦ DATE OF COUNT: 06/12/96 O �36 • DAY OF WEEK: Wed '. T 14 32 1 TIME STARTED: 16:00 TIME ENDED: 18 :00 H -1790 4-I 1 14. 4-1894 •II T. 3.2% 14 J L17 T= 1.6% 980 —► *-1572 . P=.913 P=.923 . , II 212 305 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME ♦ T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH �l ( �► P=PHF BY APPROACH 1206—► 1164—► 204 5 183 Peak Hour 1,549 ♦ 1700-18:00 Traffic Smithy T= 2 . 8% P=.875 392 TEV=3539 Traffic Survey Service EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND II TIME PERIOD FROM - TO - —► -' 4J 1 L► 41 t r• j L ALL 16:00-16 :05 23 •72 0 0, 2 0 3 1 14 16 87 1 219 I 16:05-16 :10 13 58 1 0 2 1 16 2 19 25 83 1. 221 16 :10-16 :15 15 76 0 1 1 0 7 0 21 22 129 2 274 16:15-16 :20 9 85 0 1 3 0 17 0 11 19 89 0 234 16:20-16 :25 9 78 1 0 1 1 14 1 11 24 135 2 277 II 16:25-16 :30 15 73 0 0 .1 1 19 0 17 9 93 0 228 16:30-16:35 25 65 2 0 . 0 4 13 0 8 23 108 1 249 16:35-16:40 20 94 2 0 0 2 10 0 8 17 113 0 266 16 :40-16 :45 12 81 0 0 4 1 17 2 12 10 108 2 249 16 :45-16 :50 20 98 0 0 1 1 6 0 14 27 127 3 297 II 16:50-16 :55 20 83 . 2 2 4 0 10 0 16 15 102 1 255 16:55-17:00 11 80 0 1 0 0 15 0 8 23 123 4 265 17:00-17:05 22 87 0 1 3 0 17 0 14 16 107 0 267 17:05-17:10 13 73 1 0 3 0 23 1 16 28 117 0 275 17:10-17:15 14 74 1 1 1 0 14 1 14 24 123 1 268 II 17:15-17:20 23 83 1 2 2 0 11 1 14 24 166 1 328 17:20-17:25 13 58 1 3 6 0 15 0 11 22 151 0 280 17:25-17:30 22 112 1 1 1 0 24 0 12 22 120 4 319 17:30-17:35 18 61 1 0 3 0 23 1 16 19 113 1 256 II 17:35-17:40 14 86 0 2 1 0 16 0 15 35 141 1 311 17:40-17:45 15 89 1 3 2 . 1 10 0 27 20 159 2 329 17:45-17:50 12 58 0 1 6 0 25 0 19 38 117 0 276 17:50-17:55 24 126 5 0 1 0 7 0 12 22 127 5 329 17:55-18 :00 22 73 2 0 3 0 19 1 13 35 131 2 301 I 1 II Total Survey 404 1923 22 19 51 12 351 11 342 535 2869 34 6573 PHF . 91 . 9 .5 .58 .8 .25 .81 .42 .75 .8 .89 .61 . 947 % Trucks 2 3 .4 0 0 2 0 2 18.2 3 .2 . 9 1.7 0 2 .3 Stopped Buses 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 . 0 II Peds 0 6 0 0 9 0 0 7 0 0 11 0 Hourly Totals 16:00-17:00 192 943 8 5 19 11 147 6 159 230 1297 17 3034 16:15-17:15 190 971 9 6 21 10 175 5 149 . 235 1345 14 3130 I 16 :30-17:30 215 988 11 11 25 8 175 5 147 251 1465 17 3318 16:45-17 :45 205 984 9 16 27 2 184 4 177 275 1549 18 3450 17:00-18 :00 212 980 14 14 32 1 204 5 183 305 1572 17 3539 1 • ASTER ENGINEERING VR"" 1 TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Land Use: Low-Rise Apartment Land Use Code: 221 ' Variable: Occupied Dwelling Units Variable Value: 138 1 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Trip Rate: 0.47 Trip Rate: 0.58 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional Directional IDistribution 0.2 0.8 Distribution 0.66 . 0.34 Trip Ends 13`:::::;::::: ::52:::::::: :::::65:: .: Trip Ends ::::':53::'::: ::::::::.....::..:......................... 1 WEEKDAY SUNDAY 111 Trip Rate: 6.59 Trip Rate: 6.07 1 Enter . Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional Directional Distribution 0.5 0.5 Distribution 0.5 0.5 .::..::::::.::.....:.. ....:::...:......:......................:::... ::. Trip Ends Trip Ends 1 Source:TRIP GENERATION,Fifth Edition 1 1 -.,- 0 0 'IASTER ENGINEERING I TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS ILand Use: Shopping in Center Land Use Code: 820 IVariable: 1000 Sq Ft Gross Leasable Area Variable Value: 31.0 I . AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR 1 Trip Rate: Ln(T)=0.589Ln(X) + 2.378 Trip Rate:Ln(T)=0.637Ln(X) + 3.553 IEnter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional Directional I Distribution 0.63 0.37 Distribution 0.5 0.5 { Trip Ends ;;;:;;;::5;1:; :;:; ;: :::3.0 '::;;";"':$2a';:: Trip Ends ? >:15:6`s»`> :.:::..56.::... ... :3.. . . I IWEEKDAY SUNDAY Trip Rate:Ln(T)=0.625Ln(X) + 5.985 Trip Rate: Ln(T)=0.498Ln(X) + 6.212 I . Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional Directional Distribution 0.5 0.5 Distribution 0.5 0.5 Trip Ends : Trip 7 :::> ::: 758 : : 7:700:::::::k7OQ ::::;;:.;3399;::.::: Trip Ends ;13:79:::::::: 13...:9......... ... ..:::: ISource:TRIP GENERATION,Fifth Edition I I • 1 kirANOtSTER ENGINEERING TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Land oddcUs ee.• Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window Land u Variable: 1000 Sq Ft Gross Floor Area Variable Value: 3.50 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Trip Rate: 55.9 Trip Rate: 36.6 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional Directional 1 Distribution 0.51 0.49 Distribution 0.52 0.48 Trip Ends : Trip Ends . . . WEEKDAY SUNDAY Trip Rate: 710 Trip Rate: 543 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional Directional IDistribution 0.5 0.5 Distribution 0.5 0.5 Trip Ends Trip Ends Source:TRIP GENERATION,Fifth Edition i if II i III 1 itasofsTER ENGINEERING . I TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS 1 Land Use: Service Station with Convenience Market I • Land Use Code: 845 Variable: Vehicle Fueling Positions Variable Quantity: 12 1 I AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR ITrip Rate: 10.1 Trip Rate: 13.4 1 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional Directional IDistribution 0.5 0.5 Distribution 0.5 0.5 Trip nds 61: 6:1: >::::::121:::: Trip Ends 80: : 80: :i : :::;•.:16::::::::. 1 P P I . WEEKDAY SUNDAY I Trip Rate: 163 Trip Rate: 0 IEnter Exit Total Enter Exit Total 1 Directional Directional Distribution 0.5 0.5 Distribution 0.5 0.5 ITrip Ends ::::::978::::::: ::9.78:::::::::::::::::1956::::: Trip Ends >::;0::::: 0: ::0:::>::::: Source:TRIP GENERATION,Fifth Edition(1995 Update) I INN • i{ r .4 `I, ASTER ENGINEERING 1 1 TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Land Use: Drive-in Bank 1 Land Use Code: 912 Variable: 1000 Sq Ft Gross Floor Area Variable Value: 3.5 1 1 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR ' Trip Rate: 11.2 Trip Rate: 43.6 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional Directional IDistribution 0.56 0.44 Distribution 0.48 0.52 Trip Ends Trip Ends 1 ' WEEKDAY SUNDAY Trip Rate: 265 Trip Rate: 18.9 Ente r Exi t Total l Enter Exit Total Directional Directional ' Distribution 0.5 0.5 Distribution 0.5 0.5 1 Trip Ends 464:;ss x:::;;464;:::: > :928s;:>: Trip Ends Source: TRIP GENERATION, Fifth Edition 1 1 1 It • • TER ENGINEERING I (EAS I TRIP DISTRIBUTION I Existing Zoning I AM PEAK PM PEAK DAILY IPercent New Pass-By Total Percent New Pass-By Total Percent New Pass-By Total- ENTERING IFrom: NW 25% 3 0 3 25% 13 0 13 25% 114 0 114 S 10% 1 0 1 10% 5 0 5 10% 46 0 46 IE 45% 6 0 6 45% 24 0 24 45% 205 0 205 W 10% 1 0 1 10% 5 0 5 10% 46 0 46 ISW 10% 1 0 1 10% 5 0 5 10% 46 0 46 ' TOTAL 100% 13 0 13 100% 53 0 53 100% 455 0 455 I , EXITING ITo: NW 25% 13 0 13 25% 7 0 7 25% 114 0 114 IS 10% 5 0 5 10% 3 0 3 10% 46 0 46 E 45% 23 0 23 45% 12 0 12 45% 205 0 205 W 10% 5 0 5 10% 3 0 3 10% 46 0 46 I SW 10% 5 0 5 10% 3 0 3 10% 46 0 46 ITOTAL 100% 52 0 52 100% 27 0 27 100% 455 0 455 I Pass-By Percentage: 0% I I I ri • • >Aa Il'f CASTER ENGINEERING r wrviM�r'I. I TRIP DISTRIBUTION Proposed Zoning Pass-By Trips I I AM PEAK PM PEAK DAILY Percent New Pass-By Total Percent New Pass-By Total Percent New Pass-By Total I ENTER From: NW 25% - 32 53 25% - 51 85 25% 0 0 0 IS 10% - 13 21 10% - 20 34 10% 0 0 0 E 45% - 57 95 45% - 91 152 45% 0 0 0 IW 10% - 13 21 10% - 20 34 10% 0 0 0 SW 10% - 13 21 10% - 20 34 10% 0 0 0 I TOTAL 100% 84 127 211 100% 135 203 338 100% 0 0 0 I I EXIT To: NW 25% - 28 46 25% - 51 85 25% 0 0 0 IS 15% - 17 28 15% - 30 51 15% 0 0 0 E 30% - 33 55 30% - 61 101 30% 0 0 0 IW 20% - 22 37 20% - 41 68 20% 0 0 0 SW 10% - 11 18 10% - 20 34 10% 0 0 0 I TOTAL 100% 74 110 184 100% 135 203 338 100% 0 0 0 I - - - - IPass-By Percentage: 60% I I t; it STER ENGINEERING I TRIP DISTRIBUTION Proposed Zoning U New Trips I IAM PEAK PM PEAK DAILY Percent New Pass-By Total Percent New Pass-By Total Percent New Pass-By Total ENTER From: NW 10% 8 - 21 10% 14 - 34 10% 0 0 0 IS 30% 25 - 63 30% 41 - 101 30% 0 0 0 E 30% 25 - 63 30% 41 - 101 30% 0 0 0 IW 10% 8 - 21 10% 14 - 34 10% 0 0 0 SW 20% 17 - 42 20% 27 - 68 20% 0 0 0 I TOTAL 100% 84 127 211 100% 135 203 338 100% 0 0 0 I I EXIT To: NW 10% 7 - 18 10% 14 - 34 10% 0 0 0 IS 30% 22 - 55 30% 41 - 101 30% 0 0 0 E 30% 22 - 55 30% 41 - 101 30% 0 0 0 IW 10% 7 - 18 10% 14 - 34 10% 0 0 0 SW 20% 15 - 37 20% 27 - 68 20% 0 0 0 • I TOTAL 100% 74 110 184 100% 135 203 338 100% 0 0 0 I IPass-By Percentage: 60% I I HCM: SIGNALIZED INTEIRCTION SUMMARY Version 07-26-1996 Center Microcomputers In Transp tation I Streets : (E-W) Scholls Ferry Rd (N-S) 130th Ave Analyst : TRL File Name : GROSS6 .HC9 Area Type : Other 7-18-96 PM Peak I Comment : 2005 without site Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R 1 No. Lanes 1 2 < 1 2 1 > 1 < > 1 < Volumes 10 1345 10 50 2540 80 15 10 15 35 10 35 Lane Width 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 .0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 I RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0 Lost Time 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 I Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left * Thru * Thru * I Right * Peds Peds WB Left * SB Left * I Thru Right * Thru * * Right * Peds Peds NB Right EB Right I SB Right WB Right Green 4 . OA 90 . OA Green 19 . OA Yellow/AR. 4 . 0 4 . 0 Yellow/AR 4 .0 ICycle Length: 125 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: IMvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 71 1770 0 . 155 0 . 040 37 . 5 D 5 .2 B I TR 2793 3837 0 . 536 0 . 728 5 . 0 A WB L 71 1770 0 . 749 0 . 040 51 . 3 E 21 . 0 C T 2798 3843 1 . 004 0 . 728 21 . 0 C R 1152 1583 0 . 073 0 . 728 3 .2 A I NB LTR 227 1418 0 . 190 0 . 160 29 .4 D 29 .4 D SB LTR 228 1422 0 . 374 0 . 160 30 . 8 D 30 . 8 D Intersection Delay = 16 . 1 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C ILost Time/Cycle, L = 9 . 0 sec Critical v/c (x) = 0 . 884 I I I I I HCM: SIGNALIZED INTCTION SUMMARY Version 07-26-1996 " Center Microcomputers In Transtation I Streets : (E-W) Scholls Ferry Rd (N-S) 130th Ave Analyst : TRL File Name : GROSS1 .HC9 Area Type : Other 7-18-96 PM, Peak I Comment : 2005 with site Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L .T R L T R L T R IINo. Lanes 1 . 2 < 1 2 1 > 1 < > 1 < Volumes ' 24 1360 10 ' 50 2543 80 15 10 15 35 10 49 Lane Width 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 II RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0 Lost Time 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00, 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 IPhase Combination 1 2 Signal Operations 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left ' * NB Left * Thru * Thru * I Right * Right Peds Peds WB Left * SB Left * II Thru Right * Thru * * Right * Peds Peds NB Right EB Right I SB Right WB Right Green 4 . OA 90 . OA Green 19 . OA Yellow/AR 4 . 0 4 . 0 Yellow/AR 4 .0 ICycle Length: 125 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 71 1770 0 . 353 0 . 040 38 .4 D 5 . 6 B I TR WB L 2793 3837 0 . 542 0 . 728 5 .0 A 71 1770 . 0 . 749 0 . 040 51 .3 E 21 . 2 C T 2798 3843 1 . 005 0 . 728 21 .2 C R 1152 1583 0 . 073 0 . 728 3 .2 A I NB LTR 224 1403 0 . 192 0 . 160 29 .4 D 29 .4 D SB LTR 228 1423 0 .439 0 . 160 31 .5 D 31 . 5 D Intersection Delay = 16 . 3 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C ILost Time/Cycle, L = 9 . 0 sec Critical v/c (x) = 0 . 896 I I II I IHCM: SIGNALIZED INTECTION SUMMARY Version 07-26-1996 Center Microcomputers In Trans tation I Streets : (E-W) Scholls Ferry (N-S) 135th Analyst : TRL File Name : GROSS7 .HC9 Area Type : Other 7-18-96 PM Peak I Comment : 2005 without site, no improvements Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R 1 No. Lanes 1 2 < 1 2 1 > 1 1 > 1 < Volumes 20 1265 300 400 2065 25 175 20 175 10 30 10 Lane Width 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 I RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0 Lost Time 3 . 003 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 Signal Operations ' Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left * Thru * Thru * I Right * Right Peds Peds WB Left * * SB Left * ' Thru * * Thru * Right * * Right * Peds Peds NB Right * * EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 3 . OA 27 . OA 55 . OA Green 24 . OA Yellow/AR 4 . 0 4 . 0 4 . 0 Yellow/AR 4 .0 ICycle Length: 125 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #3 #5 Intersection Performance Summary Lane. Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: IMvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 57 1770 0 . 371 0 . 032 39 .2 D 43 . 0 E I '11.! 1673 3734 -1 . 034 0 .448 43 . 1 E WB L 496 1770 0 . 849 0 .280 32 .5 D 13 . 6 B T 2675 3843 0 . 854 0 . 696 10 .3 B R 1102 1583 0 . 024 0 . 696 3 .8 A I NB LT 244 1222 0 . 839 0.200 46 .0 E 30 . 1 D R 760 1583 0 . 242 0 .480 12 .4 B SB LTR 292 1459 0 . 185 0 .200 26 .9 D 26 . 9 D I Intersection Delay = 25 . 5 sec/veh Intersection LOS = D Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9 . 0 sec Critical v/c (x) = 0 . 936 I I I I HCM: SIGNALIZED INT CTION SUMMARY Version 07-26-1996 Center Microcomputers In Trans tation • I Streets : (E-W) Scholls Ferry (N-S) 135th Analyst : TRL File Name : GROSS2 .HC9 Area Type : Other 7-18-96 PM Peak Comment : 2005 with site, no improvements IEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T. R L T R L T R INo. Lanes 1 2 < 1 2 1 > 1 1 > 1 < Volumes 20 1194 376 508 1974 25 264 20 265 10 30 10 Lane Width_ 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 I RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0 Lost Time 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00. 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 I Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left * Thru * Thru * I Right * Right Peds Peds WB Left * * SB Left * Thru * * Thru * Right * * Right * Peds Peds NB Right * * EB Right I SB Right WB Right Green 3 . OA 27 . OA 51 . OA Green 28 .OA Yellow/AR 4 . 0 4 . 0 4 . 0 Yellow/AR 4 .0 ICycle Length: 125 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #3 #5 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: IMvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 57 1770 0 . 371 0 . 032 39 . 2 D * * I TR 1541 3705 1 . 126 0 .416 WB L 496 1770 1 . 079 0 . 280 * * * T 2552 3843 0 . 855 0 . 664 11 .7 B R 1051 1583 0 . 025 0 . 664 4 .6 A I NB LT 290 1249 1 . 032 0 . 232 81 .2 F 47 . 7 E R 810 1583 0 .344 0 . 512 11 .8 B SB LTR 309 1330 0 . 175 0 .232 24 .9 C 24 . 9 C I Intersection Delay = * (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = * (g/C) * (V/c) is greater than one. Calculation of D1 is infeasable . II I I I I II HCM: SIGNALIZED INTCTION SUMMARY Version 07-26-1996 Center Microcomputers In Trans tation I Streets : (E-W) Scholls Ferry (N-S) 135th. Analyst : TRL File Name : GROSS3 .HC9 Area Type : Other ,I 7-18-96 PM Peak Comment : 2005 with site .;v :1 ��.,e e�eyc-�� IEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T . R L T R II No. Lanes : 1 2 1 2 2 1 ---->-1-- 1 1 ---->-1--<----1 < Volumes 20 1194 376 508 1974 25 264 20 265 10 30 10 Lane Width 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 .II RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0 Lost Time 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 I Operations Signal O p erati Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left * Thru * Thru * I Right * Right Peds Peds WB Left * * SB Left * I Thru * * Thru * Right * * Right * Peds Peds NB Right * * EB Right I SB Right WB Right Green 4 . OA 23 . OA 45 . OA Green 37 . OA Yellow/AR 4 . 0 4 . 0 4 . 0 Yellow/AR 4 . 0 ICycle Length: 125 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #3 #5 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: IMvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 71 1770 0 . 297 0 . 040 38 . 0 D 28 . 2 D 1 T 1414 3843 0 . 933 0 . 368 29 .4 D R 583 1583 0 . 680 0 . 368 23 . 7 C WB L 906 3539 0 . 608 0 . 256 26 . 9 D 23 . 1 C T 2244 3843 0 . 972 0 . 584 22 .3 C I R 924 1583 0 . 028 0 . 584 7 .1 B NB LT 397 1306 0 . 753 0 . 304 30 .8 D 20 . 5 C R 886 1583 0 . 315 0 . 560 9 .6 B SB LTR 422 1388 0 . 128 0 . 304 20 .4 C 20 .4 C I Intersection Delay. = 24 . 5 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9 . 0 sec Critical v/c (x) = 0 . 871 I I I I IHCM: SIGNALIZED INTEOCTION SUMMARY Version 07-26-1996 Center Microcomputers In Transp tation I Streets : (E-W) Old Scholls Ferry (N-S) New Scholls Ferry Analyst : TRL File Name : GROSS4 .HC9 Area Type : Other 7-18-96 PM Peak I Comment : 2005 with site Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes 2 < 1 2 1 1 Volumes 1325 40 347 1918 20 265 Lane Width 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 I RTOR Vols 0 0 0 Lost Time 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 .' Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left NB Left * Thru * Thru I Right * Right Peds Peds WB Left * SB Left - I Thru * * Thru Right Right Peds Peds NB Right * EB Right I SB Right WB Right Green 35 . OA 62 . OA Green 20 . OP Yellow/AR 4 . 0 4 . 0 Yellow/AR 0 . 0 ICycle Length: 125. secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: IMvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB TR 1928 3826 0 . 783 0 . 504 7 . 0 B 7 . 0 B I WB L 510 1770 0 . 716 0 . 288 23 . 8 C 3 . 7 A T 3136 3843 0 . 676 0 . 816 0 .2 A NB L 241 1770 0 . 087 0 . 136 35 . 9 D 19 . 0 C R 709 1583 0 .393 0 .448 17 . 8 C I Intersection Delay = 5 . 9 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9 . 0 sec Critical v/c (x) = 0 . 660 I I I I 1 HCM: SIGNALIZED INT CTION SUMMARY Version 09-19-1996 Center Microcomputers In Trans tation I Streets : (E-W) Old Scholls Ferry Analyst : TRL (N-S) New Scholls Ferry File Name : GROSS9 .HC9 Area Type : Other ut 7-18-96 PM Peak Comment : 2005 withlsite ' Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R . L T R L T R L T R INo. Lanes 2 < 1 2 1 . 1 Volumes 1315 40 350 1900 20 270 Lane Width 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 I RTOR Vols 0 0 0 Lost Time 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 I . g Phase Combination 1 2 Si nal Operations 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left NB Left * Thru * Thru I Right * Right Peds Peds WB Left * SB Left II Thru Right * * Thru Right Peds Peds NB Right * EB Right I SB Right WB Right Green 35 . OA 62 . OA Green 20 .OP Yellow/AR 4 . 0 4 . 0 Yellow/AR 0 . 0 ICycle Length: 125 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: IMvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB TR 1928 3826 0 . 776 0 . 504 6 . 9 B 6 . 9 B WB L 510 1770 0 . 722 0 . 288 24 . 0 C 3 . 7. A IT 3136 3843 0 . 670 0 . 816 0 .2 A NB L 241 1770 0 . 087 0 . 136 35 . 9 D 19 . 1 C R 709 1583 0 .400 0 .448 17 . 8 C I Intersection Delay = 6 . 0 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9 . 0 sec Critical v/c (x) = 0 . 658 I I I I I IHCM: SIGNALIZED INT CTION SUMMARY Version 08-01-1996 Center lit Microcomputers In Trans tation I Streets : (E-W) Old Scholls Ferry (N-S) Murray Analyst : TRL File Name : GROSS10 .HC9 Area Type : Other 7-31-96 PM Peak I Comment : 2005 without Site Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R IINo. Lanes 1 2 < 1 2 1 1 2 < 1 > 2 1 Volumes . 375 384 2 1 720 1080 2 4 3 810 5 435 Lane Width 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 11 RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0 Lost Time 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 I ' Phase Combination 1 2 Signal Operations 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * * NB Left * Thru * * Thru * I Right * * Right Peds Peds WB Left * SB Left * Thru * Thru * Right * * * Right * Peds Peds NB Right EB Right I SB Right * * WB Right Green 4 . OA 24 . OA 41 . OA Green 33 . OA 3 . OA Yellow/AR 4 . 0 4 . 0 4 . 0 Yellow/AR 4 . 0 4 . 0 ICycle Length: 125 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #3 #5 #6 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: IMvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 467 1770 0 . 845 0 . 264 37 .5 D 22 . 6 C I TR 2152 3843 0 . 198 0 . 560 8 .8 B WB L 71 1770 0 . 014 0 . 040 37 .2 D 10 . 5 B T 1291 3843 0 . 616 0 . 336 22 .8 C R 1456 1583 0 . 781 0 . 920 1 .9 A I NB L TR 57 1770 0 . 035 0 . 032 37 .9 D 37 . 9 D 112 3485 0 . 063 0 . 032 37 .9 D SB L 481 1770 0 . 602 0 . 272 27 .1 D 22 . 0 C I LT 966 3550 0 . 617 0 . 272 26 .6 D R 848 1583 0 . 540 0 . 536 12 .8 B Intersection Delay = 16 . 7 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c (x) = 0 . 757 I I 1 II I HCM: SIGNALIZED INT CTION SUMMARY Version 08-01-1996 Center r Microcomputers In Trans tation Streets : (E-W) Old Scholls Ferry (N-S) Murray I Analyst : TRL - File Name : GROSS5 .HC9 Area Type : Other 7-31-96 PM Peak Comment : 2005 with Site IEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R IINo. Lanes 1 2 < 1 2 1 1 2 < 1 > 2 1 Volumes 375 384 2 1 731 1087 2 4 3 811 5 435 Lane Width 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 I RTOR Vols 0 0 0 0 Lost Time 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 3 . 00 I . Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * * NB Left * Thru * * Thru * I Right * * Right Peds Peds WB Left * SB Left * II Thru * Thru * Right * * * Right Peds Peds NB Right EB Right I SB Right * * 4 . WB Right Green OA 24 . OA 41 . OA Green 33 . OA 3 . OA Yellow/AR 4 . 0 4 . 0 4 . 0 Yellow/AR 4 . 0 4 . 0 ICycle Length: 125 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #3 #5 #6 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: IMvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 467 1770 0 . 845 0 . 264 37 .5 D 22 . 6 C TR 2152 3843 0 . 19.8 0 . 560 8 .8 B I WB L 71 1770 0 . 014 0 . 040 37 .2 D 10 . 6 B T 1291 3843 0 . 625 0 . 336 22 .9 C R 1456 1583 0 . 786 0 . 920 2 .0 A I NB L TR 57 112 1770 3485 0 . 035 0 . 032 0 . 063 0 . 032 37 .9 37 . 9 D D 37 . 9 D • SB L 481 1770 0 . 602 0 . 272 . 27 .1 D 22 . 0 C LT 966 3550 0 . 618 0 . 272 26 .6 D I R 848 1583 0 . 540 0 . 536 12 .8 B Intersection Delay = 16 . 8 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c (x) = 0 . 761 I I I I tZ . W • ' A Z I--- g .- z cf)— 0 ck) • us �t (-1-- v _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Planning Division April 26, 1991 FROM: Randy Wooley, City Enginee .j SUBJECT: Proposed commercial zoning on Scholls Ferry Rd. Two requests for commercial zoning along Scholls Ferry Road are currently under consideration -- a request for C-G zoning at 135th Avenue and a request for C-N zoning at North Dakota Street. In reviewing the Engineering Department comments on the two requests, it occurs to me that our responses may appear inconsistent. Although the two requests are similar, we took a neutral stance on ' the one but recommended denial for the other. This memo is intended to explain why we see the two sites differently. ' In both locations, the only significant engineering .issue related to the zone change request appears to be the issue of increased traffic. Regarding traffic issues, we find the two locations to be different in the following respects : 1. In both locations, the primary vehicular access will be from the minor collector street -- 135th Avenue or North Dakota Street. ' SW 135th Avenue is better designed to accommodate some increase in traffic . Few homes face directly onto 135th.. Parking is ' prohibited along 135th and sight distance is good. We receive few complaints about 135th. North Dakota Street, on the other hand, has been the subject of ' many complaints about traffic volumes and speeds . Additional traffic islands are being installed to discourage through traffic on North Dakota. In addition to being a minor collector, it serves ' as a neighborhood street, with many homes fronting directly on North Dakota. Until a better long-term traffic solution is found for North Dakota, we feel that any potential traffic increases should be discouraged. ' 2 . On 135th, there is no existing commercial zoning in the immediate neighborhood. The traffic impacts of commercial ' development on 135th could be offset, in part, by a reduction in shopping trips outside the neighborhood. ' In the North Dakota Street area, there is already a substantial supply of commercial zoning. Additional commercial development in this location is not as likely to alter the shopping trips of the adjoining neighborhood. If residents of the North Dakota area are ' inclined to walk or bike to do their shopping, they already have that opportunity. EXHIBIT 4 e * ) 3. In the future, completion of the Murray/Walnut extension is expected to reduce the volume of through traffic on 135th. Under current planning, there are no new streets in the future to provide relieve to the existing collector streets in the North Dakota area. Conclusion For these reasons, we believe that the two sites are different. If the decision is made to grant a zone change, we feel that the 135th location is a more suitable location from the standpoint of traffic. rw/cpa 1 • i 1 "hIZ \--C) (20 * J GL • • COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal TT 8 710 P.Q.BOX 370 _ PHONE(503)684-0360 Notice BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 � Legal Notice Advertising •Cit of Tigard • y g ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. •Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit ?• • :The fol . . M R, ' ; u Accounts Payable 28, 1 S.W. 1 v limo I < ......:......... . :::� : «;.:/'►1..:. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION accor.i BDY�S BASKETB and rtl � STATE OF OREGON, ) persor UE ss quest i 4 METRO LEAD COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) . decisii st°ndln9s } f League SeaSC I, Kathy Snyder the hes 1 ___------77-72-1 v,, L w L being first duly sworn, depose and say,that I.am the Advertising i Appeal eak) Beaverton 2 0 Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard-Tualatin Times Aloha 2 1 9 2 a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 97223,I Glencoe 2 1 8 6 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the Jesuit . 2 1 7 aforesaid county and state; that the PUBLIC 1lgomi 1 2 7 CPA Public Meeting —1 `' sunset 0 3 2 11 Z � Hillsboro c'3 7 ! C O M P 4 results: a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the !SHRAI We 1ewFddM. ^'' entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and . 1 -medium i Tigotd 81, b ve 4b consecutive in the followin issues: parcel. L� Sunset 51,1oh following ,Road, an 8eaVe o+59Gcoe 51 a m e n d rri .ORCruz 20, Harold January 16, 1997 i H!�,saNWoodward6,sh CRITER� oy 2,GpIngofastad 2. Plan polio t%TiGARD lliott 17, r 7,I volvement� Menefee 4,H 3.ThompsOn 7, son 6,iu�rver 4,Home 3,Thompson; tation; 8.21 damr�r• KetXtel 40( °ord j11r Pe I prehensl �GLENCOE��(51)—Beall 17,John; Subscribed and sworn to efore me this16th day of Januar .€; : , o 'i;�,.IAL SEAL i; ROB:i s A. BURGESS[nom ,c, r ; `°_7 NOTARY ctLlC-OREGON Nota ublic for Oregon 1-. COMM' .,.. `N NO, 024552 ; Y COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16,199 ate.,, '.�:, ,� rS,. My Commission Expires: , AFFIDAVIT ,__ _ , �_ I • 0 _ ________ __ • COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal TT 8 710 P.O. BOX 370 _ PHONE(503)684-0360 . Notice BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising •City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice II 13125 SW Hall Blvd. •Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit • • The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on January Accounts Payable 28, 1997, at 7:30 P.M., at the Tigard CivicCenter—Town Hall, 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard,Tigard, Oregon. Both public,oral and written tes- . timony 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, AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION and rules and procedures of the City Council. Failure to raise an issue in STATE OF OREGON, person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the re- COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss . quest or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decisionmaker an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to the close of 1, Kathy Snyder the hearing on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of being first duly sworn, depose and say,that I.am the Advertising Appeals based on that issue. Further information may be obtained from Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard—Tualatin Times the Planning Division at 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard,Tigard, Oregon a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 97223,or by calling 639-4171. and 193.020; published at Tigard in the PUBLIC HEARINGS: aforesaid county and state; that the CPA Public Meeting COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0009 a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the SHRADER REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from • entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and medium-high density residential to community commercial for an 8.5 acre consecutive in the following issues: i parcel. LOCATION: West of S.W. 135th Avenue,south of Scholls Ferry j Road, and east of Old Scholls Ferry Road. The comprehensive plan January 16,1997 amendment involves four parcels. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2)comprehensive plan amendments; 2.1.1 citizen in- volvement;5.1,5.4 economic development;6.1.1 housing;8.1.1 transpor- tation;8.2.2 public transportation; 12.2.1(4)community commercial zone r designation. Also, Community Development Code chapters 18.22 corn- 41141_ a. prehensive plan amendments; 18.32 procedures for quasi-judicial corn- ' I ' —prehensive plan amendments.ZONE: M-F{Residential,R-25. Subscribed and sworn to afore me thisl6th day of Januar I. __ _ _ _ i 1 __ 1, �l ma i `rmit/1 urg orfiralinniis Nota ublic for Oregon fs • r-- My Commission Expires: 1 �?�ri��' ':1,f �th` r AFFIDAVIT_ I h ►N 1 H k 4 a . - n III ice I _. u. I .II4 40170As LL,AR- Os tuns .?a∎ ,lift �� r. .vim OII y.+r ai ■1►�11r .-g s '` 4UULI Li Ill- wn�tmtUike.r/ r ' TT8710—Publish January 16, 1997. . • - FAX TRANSMITTAL- PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARDOGO LEGAL NOTICE SECTION OF TIGARD TIMES DATE:January 9. 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 January 28. 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) 96-0009 SHRADER REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from medium-high density residential to community commercial for an 8.5 acre parcel. LOCATION: West of SW 135th Avenue, south of Scholls Ferry Road, and east of Old Scholls Ferry Road. The comprehensive plan amendment involves four parcels. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2) comprehensive plan amendments; 2.1.1 citizen involvement; 5.1, 5.4 economic development; 6.1.1 housing; 8.1.1 transportation; 8.2.2 public transportation; 12.2.1(4) community commercial zone designation. Also, Community Development Code chapters 18.22 comprehensive plan amendments; 18.32 procedures for quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendments. ZONE: M-H Residential, R-25 i7----,7--H I ITO E1-1-(Ubbil WB ligirpLiaillini pi: F 4-. _ L...L._:46.. . 'N-Nito 4k'II P ,1,3-. di iff..- _ak I c • :.•ir,v444:40-‘40• -, a a s i �= _ , o _1 ilEll ---1" 1' ' » "N€ice 1 ��N Z � r /// 111.. _!/ice I.. ,,, ,.. . , ,_,,,,,,„..„ , , i F.: 1 ♦ _ 4—,.... TT PUBLISH January 16 1997 Ail- W,, ���� �/��� isni ..i. : . .. III 1.! s■* - m V 0 •, . AAP 0 1 ^ r MM UM SP g. ON■ • • A (CITY OF OREGON TIGARD AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, Jerree L. Gaynor, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: That I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for The City of Tigard, Oregon. X That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planning Director Tigard Planning Commission Tigard Hearings Officer X Tigard City Council A copy of the NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING of which is attached, marked Exhibit "A", was mailed to each named persons) at th addres (s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit "B", on the /4 ° day of .eCG,p-0 t•e f / , 1996; said NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING as hereto attached, was posted on an appropriate.l ulletin board on th n/a day of n/a , and deposited in the United States Mail on the /1 `/-day of ve_c_i>,„,_t‘eA_IA.996, postage prepaid. C -- 4...c.,...-/C '''.' Ai . Prep ed Notice v Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the 13 day of Mad, 117 C' OFFICIAL SEAL I , /h/di ∎AL 1 .` DIANE M JELDERKS N•TARY PUBS OF OREG N :.� � NOTARY PUBLIREGON„� COMMISSION NO 046142 My Commissi•, xpires: 9 7 �I j' MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07,1999 • PUBLIC HEARING. E'XHIBITj NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL, AT A MEETING ON TUESDAY, January 28, 1997, AT 7:30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0009 SHRADER REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from medium-high density residential to community commercial for an 8.5 acre parcel. LOCATION: West of SW 135th Avenue, south of Scholls Ferry Road, and east of Old Scholls Ferry Road. The comprehensive plan amendment involves four parcels. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2) comprehensive plan amendments; 2.1.1 citizen involvement; 5.1, 5.4 economic development; 6.1.1 housing; 8.1.1 transportation; 8.2.2 public transportatin; 12.2.1(4) community commercial zone designation. Also, Community Development Code chapters 18.22 comprehensive plan amendments; 18.32 procedures for quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendments. ZONE: M-H Residential, R-25 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 December 16. 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 (7) DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. A REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN CAN BE MADE ONLY AT THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY HEARING [ORS 197.763(6)]. 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 CRITAIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT AIIMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST TAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPOOKBLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO AFFORD THE DECISIONMAKER AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST, PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER, Laurie Nicholson. AT (503) 639- 4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON. : , :.�..1 - — _, ar :- mom i•ii•il %IMI "' 'wn ' -•n ■ -111/1 �� _1l uuu ■ ■. IN ■ :filijwuTIj�.is _ � . 1 . w . . 1.__ E5 1 4*** • 4/ I. 110- ow- ir ' 11- ? � % iwr- as _ _ 4 ; oligi A In ,. : :�. 1 ice 'n. 02° '= 44 ,e, • CO I__,.��� . F 1 A • �m1111n•� ", S•* /l : . .ate 7713 V ._, A.0) '�C • Ili %la 2 As. an. 4 "-... .ramm ..,:4; . 4, zAnnitst .1I-t ..1u1/uW Vicinity Ma, A , CPA 96-0009 • LA Stuader Cone.Plan Amend. -- - N . • EXHIBIT 1S1338D90181 - 1S1338D-91011 ALT,INEZ E ALT,INEZ E 13775 SW OLD SCHOLLS FRY RD 13775 SW OLD SCHOLLS FERRY UNIT 18 ROAD BEAVERTON,OR 97005 UNIT 18 BEAVERTON,OR 97005 1S133CA-01900 1S133CA-00300 BAIL DONG H AND YONG IM COE,GARY R 5675 MERIDIAN CT 11115 SW 135TH AVENUE •LAKE OSWEGO.OR 97035 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S133CA-01100 • 1S133130-91021 DAVIS,LEONARD W DEBAST,L R - MILDRED M 13775 SW OLD SCROLLS FRY 017 17855 SW BANY RD BEAVERTON,OR 97008 ALOHA,OR 97007 1S13380.90201 1S133AC-08000 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF OREGO GRABHORN,BURTON E BY POWELL,VNIAN H 11493 SE 82ND 13775 SW SCHOLLS FERRY RD#20 PORTLAND,OR 97266 BEAVERTON,OR 97008 . 1S13380-91051 1S133CA-01800 .LEO,HERBERT MARTENSON,FRANK H CO-1R ism swan SCHOLLS FY RD 914 • MARTBr90N.ODLARES J CO-TR.. .; .... BEAVERTON,OR 97005 •- 13900 SW OLD SCROLLS FRY RD ' BEAVERTON.OR 97007 • 1S133CA.00500 1S133CA-00700 NELSON.GARY R PATSY A NELSON.GARY R PATSY A 11295 SW 135Th AVE 11295 SW 135TH TIGARD.OR 97223 TIGARD.OR 97225 1S133CA.C1001 1S13380-00301 NELSON.GARY ROBERT&PATSY AR OREGON.STATE OF 11295 SW 135TH AVE DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION TIGARD.OR 97223 417 TRANSPORTATION BLDG SALEM.OR 97310 1S133CA-01200 1S133BD-91001 PH SUNFLOWER UNITED INC POWELL,BERTHA V ATTN:AFFORDABLE HOUSE GRP 13775 SW OLD SCHOLLS FRY RD 825 NE MULTNOMAH ST.STE 775 BEAVERTON,OR 97005 PORTLAND.OR 97232 1513306.04300 1S13380.90211 SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD LLC SHIRLEY.MARTHA ROSE BY BOWER FINANCIAL SERVICES CO 13775 SW OLD SCHOLLS FY RD 921 111 SW RFTH AVE BEAVERTON.OR 97008 ATM WALTER C BOWEN PORTLAND,OR 97204 1S133CA-00200 1S133CA-01000 SHRADER.DALE G TRUSTEE SHRADER,DALE G TRUSTEE 310 3RD AVE NE - 310 3RD AVE NE ISSAOUAH,WA 98027 ISSAQUAH,WA 98027 -- 1S133CA.00100 1S133CA-00400 SHRADER.DALE G TRUSTEE TIGARD.CITY OF 310 3RD AVE NE 13125 SW HALL ISSAOUAH.WA 98027 PO BOX 23397 TIGARD.OR 97223. 1S1330B-00101 1S13380.90191 TIGARD.CITY OF TOZER.HELEN 0 13125 SW HALL 13775 SW OLD SCHOLLS FRY RD PO BOX 23397 #19 TIGARD.OR 97223 BEAVERTON.OR 97008 1S133BD-91041 1S133BD-00300 TOZER.HELEN 0 VIUA DEL REY-ROSWELL LTD 13775 SW OLD SCHOLLS RY RD#19 816 NE 87T11 AVE BEAVERTON.OR 97008 VANCOUVERWA 98664 151338091031 1S133130-90000 VIVA DEL REY-ROSWELL LTD VILLAGE AT FOREST GLEN CONDOM! 816 NE 87TH AVE OWNERS OF ALL UNITS VANCOUVER,WA 98664 PO BOX 1408 TUALATIN,OR 97062 1S133AC•07900 WHITNEY.BLAIRMAND =Ia.:MEREDIDI J _a. 10800 SW 135TH BEAVERTON.OR 97005 GARY COE 6255 SW SHERIDAN ST . PORTLAND, ..OR .. 97225 - FAX TRANSMITTAL-• PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD 0GO LEGAL NOTICE SECTION OF TIGARD TIMES DATE: November 15. 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 December 2. 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) 96-0009 SHRADER REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from medium-high density residential to community commercial for an 8.5 acre parcel. LOCATION: West of SW 135th Avenue, south of Scholls Ferry Road, and east of Old Scholls Ferry Road. The comprehensive plan amendment involves four parcels. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2) comprehensive plan amendments; 2.1.1 citizen involvement; 5.1, 5.4 economic development; 6.1.1 housing; 8.1.1 transportation; 8.2.2 public transportation; 12.2.1(4) community commercial zone designation. Also, Community Development Code chapters 18.22 comprehensive plan amendments; 18.32 procedures for quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendments. ZONE: M-H Residential, R-25 - m i ,I , / I Min V�1111--Qd�� y.I�11u1'r f I 1 - C ..,___ __ i___._ ,1 i W..INI4li -1 . 41 rkaAiii" 1 5E , . . ao ,,e 44" ;Ai' - ) .. L1:._:., 9„ ..,,.., 4 I . ,a - BEJAD 1� C-if itz.,..„%.• -or=s c a •E,,,Ati 56- 1 ft -,..,tkk - �Y. E kit MI CD 41,.4010 a 72 Mir E Ayr . 41 I mown sm. ..1/4 v-- riaLl un >kri..- ���aim L ` TT PUBLISH_November 21, 1996 ' 4 n� ►����� L_ 0 0 ' • • �� R0 , -��_.� ___tea. _ ° �2 NOV w ' NOVI- 96 � j X9 9 0 r=: �, OREG. s<<s34 r.U.555 34t______.___. a • 1S133CA-00300 COE,GARY R • 11115 SW 135TH AVENUE PORTLAND,OR 97223 _ LUt-11 'x ` za&:aO0b 1`•`-/ i1/14/'db FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND r t,1' COE 6255 SW SHERIDAN ST , PORTLAND OR 97225-5106 RETURN TO SENDER , 'S—Var. -/ VSI"-'2.: 11111111 II,,IIioIIII11ieediIliii 11111111111111mI • • • . 110 Si I A �J I!J 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 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 l2 , day of :kft1 ,2, 1996; said PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE as hereto attached, was posted on an appropriate bulletin board on the n/a day of n/a and deposited in the United States Mail on the L day of c ./�. / , 1996, postage prepaid. 1 / i/ ' ' ���i. ,/ - Prep. -d Notice 4. iliA- Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the / .1 d. of - . - , 9 , . 0".:17>.::)*,. OFFICIAL SEAL ■∎-" ,,, itatfidi.;. A !,, l- s Ir. . DIANE M JELDERKS NO ' RY PUBLIC 'a F o REG�� 0 r NOTARY PUBLIC•OREGON •®,;;� coMMISSI0NNO046142 My Commission E pi -s: if MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07,1999 eipUBLIC HEARING EXHIBIT (4- • NOTICE -4W NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY, December 2. 1996, AT 7:30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT(CPA) 96-0009 SHRADER REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from medium-high density residential to community commercial for an 8.5 acre parcel. LOCATION: West of SW 135th Avenue, south of Scholls Ferry Road, and east of Old Scholls Ferry Road. The comprehensive plan amendment involves four parcels. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2) comprehensive plan amendments; 2.1.1 citizen involvement; 5.1, 5.4 economic development; 6.1.1 housing; 8.1.1 transportation; 8.2.2 public transportatin; 12.2.1(4) community commercial zone designation. Also, Community Development Code chapters 18.22 comprehensive plan amendments; 18.32 procedures for quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendments. ZONE: M-H Residential, R-25 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 November 12. 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 CRITONLY. AT THE HEARING IT MIXORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST IN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPL CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO AFFORD THE DECISIONMAKER AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST, PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER, Laurie Nicholson. AT (503) 639- 4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON. � I '0 � a •r .IIII$IH 111 0 - !�=_ A; r.. iUVIItu ,V111111111u111- u ■� MI ■ -1.u■ _ EL ■"II ' : :11111Mciiiif:: �-• miwiTi- suip,,.. 4.. ■ ■ t imme. III — l-' ;111t Ai.I ACIO iw rom*- - .. I#40.70..s co , ,.. - - -. sot■ 0 ill L..'JW!' ! co C; � Z i • 111.wit∎# �I - O ■ • ifillinnIn ME Ilk Arial,t1),E1 U --11111 Erimi Azii ow 1 ''', :11-IIIII 71. mum ato o - , 2 ■ .` ur�� ALT nummuk`/ � • • • Vicinity Map A , CPA 96-0009: - — l.J . Shrader Comp.Plan Amend. -- N _ i EXHIBIT gip 4110 1S133BD-90181 1S133BD-91011 ALT,INEZ E ALT,INEZ E 13775 SW OLD SCHOLLS FRY RD 13775 SW OLD SCHOLLS FERRY UNIT 18 ROAD BEAVERTON,OR 97005 UNIT 18 BEAVERTON,OR 97005 1S133CA-01900 1S133CA-00300 BAIK,DONG H AND YONG IM COE,GARY R 5675 MERIDIAN CT 11115 SW 135TH AVENUE LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1 S133CA-01100 1S133BD-91021 DAVIS,LEONARD W DEBAST,L R MILDRED M 13775 SW OLD SCHOLLS FRY#17 17855 SW BANY RD BEAVERTON,OR 97008 ALOHA,OR 97007 1S133BD-90201 1S133AC-08000 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF OREGO GRABHORN,BURTON E BY POWELL,VMAN H 11493 SE 82ND 13775 SW SCHOLLS FERRY RD#20 PORTLAND,OR 97266 BEAVERTON,OR 97008 1S133BD-91051 1S133CA-01800 LEO,HERBERT MARTENSON,FRANK H CO-TR 13775 SW OLD SCHOLLS FY RD#14 MARTENSON,DOLORES J CO-TR BEAVERTON,OR 97005 13900 SW OLD SCHOLLS FRY RD BEAVERTON,OR 97007 1S133CA-00500 1S133CA-00700 NELSON,GARY R PATSY A NELSON,GARY R PATSY A 11295 SW 135Th AVE 11295 SW 135TH TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S133CA-01001 1 S133BD-00301 NELSON,GARY ROBERT&PATSY AR OREGON,STATE OF 11295 SW 135TH AVE DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION TIGARD,OR 97223 417 TRANSPORTATION BLDG SALEM,OR 97310 1S133CA-01200 1S133BD-91001 PFI SUNFLOWER LIMITED INC - POWELL,BERTHA V ATTN:AFFORDABLE HOUSE GRP 13775 SW OLD SCHOLLS FRY RD 825 NE MULTNOMAH ST,STE 775 BEAVERTON,OR 97005 PORTLAND,OR 97232 IS133DB-04300 1S133BD-90211 SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD LLC SHIRLEY,MARTHA ROSE BY BOWEN FINANCIAL SERVICES CO 13775 SW OW SCHOLLS FY RD#21 111 SW FIFTH AVE BEAVERTON,OR 97008 ATTN:WALTER C BOWEN PORTLAND,OR 97204 1S133CA-00200 1S133CA-01000 SHRADER,DALE G TRUSTEE SHRADER,DALE G TRUSTEE 310 3RD AVE NE 310 3RD AVE NE ISSAQUAH,WA 98027 ISSAQUAH,WA 98027 1S133CA-00100 1S133CA-00400 SHRADER,DALE G TRUSTEE TIGARD,CITY OF 310 3RD AVE NE 13125 SW HALL ISSAQUAH,WA 98027 PO BOX 23397 T1GARD,OR 97223 1S133DB-00101 1S133BD-90191 TIGARD,CITY OF TOZER,HELEN 0 13125 SW HALL 13775 SW OLD SCHOLLS FRY RD PO BOX 23397 #19 TIGARD,OR 97223 BEAVERTON,OR 97008 1S133BD-91041 1S133BD-00300 TOZER,HELEN 0 VILLA DEL REY-ROSWELL LTD 13775 SW OLD SCHOLLS RY RD#19 816 NE 87TH AVE BEAVERTON,OR 97008 VANCOUVER,WA 98664 1S133BD.91031 1S133BD-90000 VILLA DEL REY-ROSWELL LTD VILLAGE AT FOREST GLEN CONDOMI 816 NE 87TH AVE OWNERS OF ALL UNITS VANCOUVER,WA 98664 PO BOX 1408 TUALATIN,OR 97062 1S133AC-07900 WHITNEY,BLAIR M AND DAILEY,MEREDITH J 10800 SW 135TH BEAVERTON,OR 97005 GARY COE 6255 SW SHERIDAN ST PORTLAND, OR 97225 • 1110 CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: DLCD FROM: Laurie Nicholson DATE: December 17, 1996 SUBJECT: Change in Final Hearing Date This is to notify you that the final hearing for attached proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment has changed from January 7, 1997, to January 28, 1997. The original proposal was mailed to you on November 25, 1996. NOTICIOOF PROPOSED AMONDMENT This form must be received by DLCD at least 45 days prior to the final hearing ORS 197.610 and OAR Chapter 660,Division 18 See reverse side for submittal requirements Jurisdiction City of Tigard Date of Final Hearing January 7. 1996 Local File# CPA 96-0009 Has this proposal been previously submitted to DLCD?___Yes XNo Date Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment X 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." The applicant wants to amend the Comprehensive Plan map from Medium-High density residential to Community Commercial. Plan Map Change From R-25 to CC Zone Map Change From to Location: Scholls Ferry Rd & SW 135th Acres Involved: 8.3 Specified change in Density: Current Density 25 u/a Proposed Density 0-Residential Applicable Goals: 12. 1. 9. 10 Is an Exception proposed?__ Yes X No Affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: Washington County. Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue. City of Tigard Water District Local Contact: Laurie Nicholson Phone: 639-4171 Address: City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.. Tigard. OR 97223 DLCD File# _ Date Rec'd _ #Days Notice _ • • SUBMITTAL REQUIREMEN, ORS 197.610 and OAR Chapter 660,Division 18 1. Send this Form and Three(3) Copies of the Proposed Amendment to: Department of Land Conservation and Development 1175 Court Street,N.E. Salem,Oregon 97310-0590 2. Unless exempt by ORS 197.610 (2),proposed amendments must be received at the Salem DLCD office at least 45 days before thefinal hearing on the proposal. 3. Submittal of proposed amendments shall include the text of the amendment and any other information the local government believes is necessary to advise DLCD of the proposal. "Text" means the specific language being added to or deleted from the acknowledged plan or land use regulations. A general description of the proposal is not adequate. 4. Submittal of proposed "map" amendments must include a map of the affected area showing existing and proposed plan and zone designations. The map should be on 8 1/2 by 11 inch paper. A legal description,tax account number, address or general description is not adequate. 5. Submittal of proposed amendments which involve a goal exception must include the proposed language of the exception. If you need more copies of this form, copy it on green paper or call the DLCD office at 503-373- 0050. a _•mr• •4 ri, HAYSTAq( pR,y1! ,j�i�� s JC it „.a ► mo■■■■■■■ in. - . --ma alp Ur ilk tAIIPA��w■■■■■■Q= '.f FOX ,A Libill ■■■■1,■�\- -,.■ ;rill;� BN ST immiEr I. am IN -.40 - 4117-daTi: ./ ■ IP*a iff e ,. i/�uiii■sr ■i c IL I • SW DFFR LN ••.♦, i '• r411 ,,, ■■IN wow pro r , 4 *. /2 *TO • ii Q � an an an av . . ' ,.,, -: m5 v 1 " e a v ..•••0:0 0 ... L HAWKS 4 '' � , B L > si C1 • r / ,. C A 1.__ iiimi.,,,„„ ... CL 1 1 0: P. II, PPM Ir 119 CZ . „; imp - ilimi. A, _ ..- , 1 ir lig $411' 1-- S 8RJ1Tp 1St lit�,�� 1 /111x= •iii ♦ ♦ -- • BUR V. ___L_N_ Na wr ��ji: A311111 a N —.0— a.. , sk; ,�� .i. , .r_ III : i — �111 �� ��� ��. ■ 1 il : zI� �� V,l > -v)"• 1 , , Vicinity Map A CPA 96-0009 Shrader Comp. Plan Amend. Note:Mtp hrdto=a* C • OTTER ,.r ■ - I♦r1■,,,[01r •i . GI.. 1 ■ .. „, TAIL 4 4 LN Ilk .,�41*. ��.:. E 'iii mpg $ ,*_J A.1, sr AI ill Itjk • . , „ a, , , ik ' g9 7 so , ._ , ,....." , 1 0 .4 _ , �w �•. �ti: 87 SW HAWK'S R 121 1 O BEARD _a ' ' ', 11 m. - ' ccial -,,, , , ,_ ... , , ,,, , , ,,, , 1 _ ci -- -, - , :, ' , , , - ,- . ,, - ., ,,, -- , . . it r - -:,: -: -, -___! -0 `p cirr - q. • ' ' L., cli3 r II '2,, • j i 4—, %a --wi A TT Ilia'Bill il r VIVA 0 ss' - ,„,,,.. mon, nit 01111 HBUR 111111111 �.. �X1 ■■ , ,-MI � ��■ � *., mi. ,. 1,• 7t• 111111 pit, " ■I 11 0-1_, I .1.1. .. FEIRIN Row . . .a Ma/ all T Vicinity Map CPA 96-0009 • Note: Map is not to scale Shrader N = 1 •NI4IpI k #4 inj , kiii in of As ma m a is a 1 .k- 411 a it M a -:AN•r"-- \--/ ,.. 10." ... vs. ...N_.,7_______---_—..p........ 48/.01 -■ . => Z IN) - Co _ I ' 1 • Jr' * co n .144 11) ^9 is. -' X C rrl ‘%.• N — 10-- „, 4 o - al "se o W u) ca IN) ui A as 4. ...— • to _CI --J 4.0.1.;!. rn = - •., til (11 0 C tet 7-4/ 44:I • " v. A. . . 0 '-< -4.•_ . til 0 .-'.ta-s%Is'e 1' .1? .- ;Po ,a m Uri fu 5. .. ,..ii ..... ...,. .., ..... (N. ci 0 z - my", • ni 0 • 1 ze ._.__._._._._.____________ert Tics! 1,94 _A Pc' set.is 201.65 • ft CAW, .1.:111 afre sk.'„ " —II _ _ __ ..it. , \•-,fk. "1"41 01 . N C l'° ■ 0 . .1 • l• !,. . ,.., v , • . ........_ IA • • . e. \ oi 0, to 0 \ hi 47• W 1; • to N 44 0 • . k.,.. 14'ia lo NA . a I' N — (I 04 • A . et\ 10...' • • f! \t:411 • . 0 1 • • \ • 1 \ i ' 1 k fi3 : A ; . if • • • 94.16 . •• --- fti•i$770 M.'''.:,•0 191.49 0 P 5-!.? -___ I. a 135 lb L ft. _.....'As I iti11 Slibaish9ON I.!a_.-7 I ut VIMATE 0 91-55449 ...-.0 ‘A.%lb.It./.NYbk•■■■ob.."..N....'46•;.■•,4311:■1.4'k 17:1112"110...N.". 744.7-s'0".",—. 'N..:.■ ... .1%, ir•%1 IN • X. .1" ...11k.,... 111.- ... '' "` '1, ■ / c=. .4.. C,.•1.TI:'--7+2:e l'.17 i r -- I ".--:--z ---.1 0.69 1 • AVENUE : \ • C.TI ......r, I. 0 11 • f• 4 ' • . ;-.1 i------------ ,...„......... JAN-28-97 TUE 02: 18 PM P, 05/05• _pc -r — i T .- o4 THU 18 : 2T g i SITE PLAN P . 0 135TFf AND SOHO t.LS F tRY Rp. RETAIL / • SHAADI AND COE PROPERTIES . �o - ; SeSpeowasti (... ' i 5f ' . SC tAC . 5`Ni� .i 1 ' s / . / DIMS issewor WI••■••••I * 1 4J1 ,--- /I sw yawns eF.a A'::: I hiemut4 - HIGH /,. .. a Ta a a 1 • ! 0 534 Acg 1 1 r i ef r--——---—ii—---,■D.........................1 i I:, oloosirrirs I :r:n.w r I I i 2 i • � •mow-- �i 1 - _ I I r....,,,,, I . ,,,, , ;L 1 I • • , , J apEN SPAS �' 3 I .02 ACf I -•.�_ s N �� 11/22/96 15:00 $503 220 2480 STOEL RIVFS 5 Q002/005 • STOEL RIVES L.P �C�3I$TT A T T O R N E Y S STANDARD tNSURANCR CENTER AV SW FI►1'M AVENUE.SUITE za)0 I VRTLtND.OREGON 9734.12611 Mune(303)2244380 Fax 5113 1 2 2 0-2 4 40 TDD r303123I.104s Internee wwwstacl.com November 22, 1996 MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial (503)294-9194 email mcrobinsontstoel.com VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Laurie Nicholson Associate Planner • City of Tigard Community Development Dept. 13125 SW Hall Boulevard - Tigard, OR 97223 Re: CPA 96-0008 Dear Laurie: I am writing to confirm the acreage for this property. The gross acreage on this site (open space and the R-25 designation) is 8.56 acres. The open space contains 3.02 acres. The net acreage that should be the subject of this request is 5.54 acres. • Also find enclosed a March 20, 1996 letter from Jim Hendryx to Bill Gross explaining that this site is just over one-half mile from the commercial zoning district at the southwest corner of 135th Avenue and North Dakota. Jim's letter also states: "Only two potential sites existed that met the criteria (for community commercial designation], the property you own and • one site further west on Scholls Ferry Road. Therefore, the locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code for community commercial zoning is currently met for your property ****° MIA-56157.1 26109.1 Ce.me D.....•.... t...r,......e. u.• e..... e_.-r.-.rte... .✓.ev....--.... ni 11/22/96 15:01 2T503 220 2480 STOEL RIVFS 5 0]003/005 • STOEL RIVES 1.I.a Ms. Laurie Nicholson November 22, 1996 Page 2 Please call me if you need any additional information. Very truly yours, Michael C. Robinson MCR:lxh enclosure cc(w/encl.): Mr. Eric William Gross (via facsimile) (w/encl.) Mr. Gary Coe (via facsimile) (w/encl.) Mr. Dale Shrader (via facsimile) PDX 1 A-56157.1 26409-1 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 October 8, 1996 MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial (503) 294-9194 email mcrobinson @stoel.com VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Laurie Nicholson Associate Planner City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Application by Dale Shrader and Gary Coe Dear Laurie: Thank you for your October 3, 1996 letter. I hope to have this information available to you at our meeting on Monday, October 15. If not, I will submit it shortly thereafter. Thanks for taking the time to review the application. Very truly yours, Lid, - Michael C. Robinson MCR:Ixh - cc(w/encl.): Mr. Bill Gross (via facsimile) (w/encl.) Mr. Gary Coe (via facsimile) • PDX I A-50547.1 26409-0001 SEATTLE PORTLAND VANCOUVER,WA BOISE SALT LAKE CITY WASHINGTON,D.C. • • i":411k October 3, 1996 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Michael Robinson Stoel, Rives LLP 900 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, OR 97204 Dear Mr. Robinson: I have reviewed the application for the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and will need additional information to deem the application complete. The information I will need is as follows: • I need a Title Transfer instrument to ensure that Mr. Coe and Mr. Shrader can sign as owners. • After reviewing the narrative, I found that the following Comprehensive Plan { Policies must be addressed: 5.1, 6.1.1, and 8.2.2. Thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to our tentatively scheduled meeting on October 15 at 4:00 PM. • Sincerely, A� Laurie Nicholson, Associate Planner c: Nadine Smith, Planning Supervisor 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 • 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 October 1, 1996 MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial (503) 294-9194 • email mcrobinson@stoel.com VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Laurie Nicholson City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: '=Application by Dale Shrader and Gary Coe Dear Laurier . :< : ` .•,s ,. I am writing to confirm our meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October 15 at 4:00 p.m. at your office. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the comprehensive plan map amendment application after you have had several weeks to review it. I look forward to seeing you on October 15. If you need to reschedule the meeting, please call me. Very truly yours, Y12, &% 4L • . Michael C. Robinson MCR:lxh • - • • cc: Mr. Bill Gross (via facsimile) 'Mr. Gary Coe (via facsimile) Mr. Dick Bewersdorff (via facsimile) Dale:Shrader • . PDX 1 A-49575.1 26409-0001 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 September 30, 1996 MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial (503) 294-9194 email mcrobinson @stoel.com VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Dick Bewersdorff Senior Planner City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Application by. Dale_Shrader and Gary Coe Dear Dick: I am writing to confirm our telephone conversation on Monday, September 30. You agreed that a zoning map amendment does not need to accompany the comprehensive plan map amendment requested by Mr. Shrader and Mr. Coe. I also spoke with Jean and confirmed that there are no additional fees for the comprehensive plan map amendment. I also confirmed that Laurie Nicholson will be reviewing this applicaiton for the city of Tigard Community Development Department staff. I plan on calling Laurie to set up a meeting in advance, so that we can discuss her review of the application. If you have any further comments or questions, please feel free to call me. Very truly yours, Michael C. Robinson• (6°) MCR:lxh cc: Mr. Bill Gross (via facsimile) • Mr. Gary Coe (via facsimile) Mr. Dale Shrader • PDX 1 A-49570.1 26409-0001 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 April 12, 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: Central and West Citizen Involvement Teams Meeting • Dear Ray: I am writing to confirm that I will schedule a neighborhood meeting for the quasi- judicial application for the Gross site at Southwest 135th & Scholls Ferry for May 7 at 6:30 p.m. at the Mary Woodward School. This meeting will precede the Central and West Citizen Involvement Teams combined meeting for that day. • Very truly yours, MSC Michael C. Robinson MCR:ipc cc: Mr. William Eric Gross Mr. Nels Michaelson Mr. Will D'Andrea • • PDX IA-27909.1 23452-0002 SEATTLE PORTLAND VANCOUVER,WA BOISE SALT LAKE CITY WASHINGTON,D.C. 41/ 4] /I, 6 From: FINANCE/MARK R Gvhv Subject: Bill Gross Site GRA. To: RAY X-To: Ray Date: 31 Mar 95 11:50:18 I've been reviewing the 91 file on this and I'm quite sure Beaverton would still oppose this change. I think if the traffic study could show that a more intense development could be supported here given the recent street improvements in the area, the plan to do a mixed use development would be supported by other agencies. Given the plans to realign New Scholls Ferry it seems appropriate to suggest a mixed use development. Residential uses on the southerly 3 acres could be buffered from road noise on two sides by the design of the proposed commercial structures and landscaping/sound walls and landscaping. I think the concept of 6 acres of uses like Arco, Chevron, 7-11 (ie visualize a mini truck stop have tended to give this idea a more negative image. If the uses included a gas station and smaller shops or market uses this change maybe seen as a more positive idea. C,.PLA r � G • ( a 4 0 . . . 6psS sc" i i2')`' -- ---7--›* C6I _ �-Tp (mac- he..:"zr-s'(T,2ar.,--1 c s- u. e, .L.s pc t.gG` 4,6_n t—t'(,j c i"u Sr-Atw l CtF,a-1-4. e c u Ai.1-,e1-.6 �a vU c i 2 1, c& ( ASS av u s3 � A:V1S'g f Gam,'✓L it, CC a 065 ..i er.�i�,i t � LA, ,i-ice ° ` S �G �r �;,�y,'S0, a c nC vy A - GLC/�t ,S� ._. ` A From: FINANCE/MARKR Subject: Bill Gross Preapp To: RAY X-To: Dick,Ray Date: 29 Mar 95 13:59:09 First off this one's been scheduled for April ,6t at 11:00am. I've looked through the criteria for CC, R-25 and R-40 and the Housing Rule. I think there is an argument to be made for rezoning half of this 6 acre development R-40 and the other half CC. Previous studies for other zone change requests in the area indicate a shortfall of commercial retail space of about 20 acres. The net loss in density would be about 5 units. The R-40 area could adjoin the wetlands area away from Scholls Ferry. I think DLCD would support this type of change. Because the CC requires a concurrent SDR review along with the zone change we need to determine the review responsibilies for this one. The unwritten agreement between Tigard and Beaverton not to create another Pacific Highway along Scholls Ferry is a significant issue with this area, especially given the commercial potential of the large parcel to east of this site. { (( ..: . , a. r v wj"�' as +"'......z: r"i ` 1" Y°:.�^i i.'JY£ r v" -.••s .i.-:. •ve Mv"` .'A._K 4 xry .LRi v.- i. ;:•,,a?r..w^::*F .le. +t:ar+t a'rt FTS+'a :."Y?.+NC. a xre.+= -'rs..."v '4iFy�ed'i •f'raar .'art'iax'Sic!. i�"-.-,rig+c $`b.-•9;y§irc'i-;.xeji+ i . ..ius:- ,j# fz.'a'. ? 'h4- -5{,0. '40P" LT-'•s.+.. t ^d•' `ur'h r..ryFui"4,*i z•- fire i'N..b- F y 2A}..t3'*�tg s°'.YA E.3• %k Yt+d�k * 'J- ,,.r, S'J A F��.�,.nC ..x w' `h:.+r ...s.-4 4..*xt+!`r"e. ' ' ../f' ,t "k�'''��-1-Et,y a:c ' �1''-'sS!"4'"";_.,'t. s -;`.*'?k"f•.fia 8'''+'t?25 :°+_..' .t.•-S`.i-,..�"#t..2.`.,-.r.i'°'4 'S�`.f2.'.r:it iS-f S+ 4--:ice'.-+t.^.L C vnim+:.;4�,.a�y;..u.....ti��-?t•- L �`.',,�WJl ^ ,ry* �• (;\ .,..f,. March 20 199s . • CITY OF TIGARD•: - _ : • - _ . � � : . OREGON- . .. :. Bill Gross 11035 SW 135th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 95-0007 on your roe at 135th and Schalls Ferry RE Affect of CPA 95-0005/ZON 95-0 y property rly _ Dear Bill:. This letter is written to explain how the.recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change at.Scholia Ferry Road and North.Dakota Street would affect,any future request for a Comprehensive Plan map and Zone Change to 'community commercial" at the southwest corner of 135th and Scholls Ferry, due to the proximity of the two sites to each other. More specifically, how the rezoning of parcels 1 and 3`of MLP 94-0013 ' from Commercial-Professional to Commercial-Neighborhood under CPA 95-0005/ZON .95-0007 would affect the potential to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map on tax lot 100 (map 1S1 33CA), to"community commercial". - The Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Section-'12.2.1.4B.(1) (b) (on page'11 - 84-1) states that "community commercial districts shall be spaced at least one-half mile from other. sites that are designated for commercial retail use.". The Tigard Development Code, Section 18.62.010- (page 124-1) .states that, `community commercial centers- are intended to be separated from other commercially zoned properties.which provide retail and service opportunities by at least one-half mile.' The property you own at 135th and Scholls Ferry-Road (map 1S1 33CA, tax lot 100) is just over one-half mile from the commercial zoning at the southwest quadrant of 135th and North Dakota (tax lots 1, 2 and 3 of MLP 94-0013): _ This was indicated when the original community commercial district provisions were.adopted. : Only two potential sites existed that met the criteria, the property you own and one site further west on Scholls Ferry Road. Therefore, the locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code for community commercial zoning is currently met for your property, even with the recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone change, ' since the two sites are over one-half mile apart. The recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change had no effect on the distance from your site. It was already commercial. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 • / ' . •.. • 3 _ ,i hope this letter-:answers your',questions:"°If.`I:can;be-of further assistance ., lea me know. :4 - .r�} ;: .•:; :. ;;:;..: .z �..P S-. let, _ sere .A-�••. r. • lY '> • James N.P: He ' - : ' •' .. - .... , • Community ndryx . nity Development`Director - - • I:�CNtpIzAdl�(1 $.je.�" ti.' Dan Bo yden , Ed Murphy' - :.:•.;•,- . . • , =Peggy Henn F•• . .. . -. • , ...•essY . ,.. :.L,. . File: CPA 95-0005/ZON 95-0007--;: . ' - , • r r' • .. - • +.t•�."5- .f ,V•. . _ i!_ • F:f • • t • uk• '+ta , � � Hf.p� `'` �'. p :'� a:` J,,,: ^ ''' - "� - -. ,C v x"; `rT<•!:•�','•€:P. :�.r:t. : :r•zr�a:..:'�X� . °-`i._Vs•.• ' .�, ��1 :i�: " `••z l .s -y^�c'_'•s + . L 4._sr l• r V�t ;... .z a r k �-, �au r V 7 a x Y� .q.� v iJ 'c'r�,.s°s-a .�5 "#� .r - 't. "t• "q£� a1 s 7Y �" s - 17--, .y ,' 1 ,t45,d , .�. ? fc J..7 r N a .- ` a .,`. F7Y' ,,,r .'�zi a4..- •. !'eaf.!YS !T3-.ia h•MK?tlk'ia�s J3. 'viyy. '�•'.•••:+'� v w,.•ti �" ,....u ..:cy-c'- a.,c- _w..t4.Yx ..=?:; --� - - _. - . . 4 .1-,—t.;---..-'-..---.-----• ' n. v,�.!. a :,.:.:ir , ..•w ,,s- i—un - - i. ;. . w: •' .�: `r -i'' ',2.1.17,i,-4,75‘1":4 ? f . .. . - � d r..+4✓�•?-'F:'`��:i: 5c�, "t �.f. ..-.�,�G`'s �• �- MAR-2815 TUE 11 :55 a P. 03 4 , - .... . ,.., . fc( EXISTING EASEMENT UNE I .- • . . 1.4 S C -°1..1) .........--...... >V " - ....:".. ..---**-- ...../...-........... ' ...-''... LANDSCAPING CO FEATUKE RNER i . ____.. .%,...i ....- / [,......,.... ,...., r l '40 if 15 4401)00, ‘ • . . 0' • 441110 t t tKguo arz..— C-STORE 2,500 iliF. ._.__ . ■„„ 1.5 t.....J oZS1 s...4. ''T —.---- _-_—..- - .6* 47•4 - tiD -7-7:: ------'■....,--s-..- ________-___. °D ) Cri *PRELIMINARY SITE SKETCH A SCAI E:1.=50-CI- .. .. ....._ .-- pvtv6A:r: SITE SKETCH — BODE CHEVRON illearording/Degn REVISION: A TIGARD, OREGON L_ _. Group Div.cli DPK.Inc- __ 01/06/95 _ 122 S.E 27th cm:AM [ ....... _ C G BEATTY ni-E"ME' 7111SK1 ..,_PORTLAND, OREGON 97214 7111 phone: (503) 236-6000 Fax: (503) 232-2357 _. . , . / . 1 J.,_ •. ? _ t_ ,11,_ - 4,., , , ' !:i j 0 .1_,.. 7 tr 8 1 0 10 _i_ 11 4 12 j 13 1 -f--i , t t 15 j le I 17 1 10 !,-''''"-t:a .i-- --, -'-'''''''''"... "'-', .`s.,''''''''''7",'''' ''''''':-- ''''''",'''''''`,.`, '--,,,,- - , , ,.1 , , , , _ , , ._, 17,,,:-.-,.*-1.-,°,,-=, -`,..,,-7,7,,c227.- .r:.'...1.1". . =,t.,-.E,=-tZtl=-7 ,-- 'r-Plr'',-''''"r-1'M-,-I-I_''''-" ''==1-,' ..-M,--'-'''"'"r,, ,-L-,=,,,'-',„-,7 - r ', r.---.r'. --.,-.J.0..-, -.,rry,',--_,r,...2r. ,-,--,-..-..-1,==--. rr7,..r..,, ,..:,, -.-=7,,,,,r.t.rw_ '-': .,-..0' 810N AREA CALCULAI 10 3 ,,,,, >-- 11 (E) LANDSCAPE TO REMA:N _. ________ ,..---1, - DIV/SRATLS/SCHEOSAIGNARI* iti lii > tii ' < M i REMOVE (E) VENT RISERS - , 9111:LL '...* ., . : 4 c , ./1•!:.- , TOTAL TOTAL cv 0 0\1C.' STATUF,, c,..-n • .1.yI-- AREA AREA r•-• 0 , (N) S FORAGE BUILDING 0 o ,,x1>•‘ WRAP (E) HALLMARK FASCIA • , SIGN TYPE OF SIGN : : ';ON EXEMPT OTY, EXISTING PROPOSED __I ..- (-1.9' WITH (N) 42" ACM ADDITION ______ .,; vi ... 3 FASCIA PANELS — -- , I Oa , FREESTANDING r mil' - (E) '-1::4,.• • :NT N 1 320.0 320.0 . - (N) CYCLONE FENCE TRASH 0 1.D, SIGN: C-200 -••)- I : ENCLOSURE WITH GRAY VINYL -A - • 1t, '. 41 C.) PLASTIC SCREENING SLATS FREESTANDING ckOlx • T .'r ° PRICE SIGN: C-44 (R) 4 1 17.0 - 0 . _ cC'57 4 ,• FREESTANDING S , . , .„ (R) 14.t. NT N 1 14.5 -I_ • , . I.D. SIGN: C-44 DURHAM 0(*C- _ r,_,-_:t3-tyf.-.,_,--._z_.,•=z7_-i_ _ ___, , ..., ‘,.., ' N4 ) c!) .V..//i L. j- I - ..,-.--.11• g2,--a-,11 .--4..,M r."`",I. ....:.-..M ..-.. r°,°,11 ,.-,-.. r.....cs "s". =,---1 REMOVE/RELOCATE (E) PINE TREES 0 FREESTANDING NO cASk (N) 35.4 NT N 1 - 35.4 PRICE SIGN: C-60 ,c,_ ,._,-';-,',.;', ,rrItZ,-4W,'-.:.-,9.,--- P-s , t S. I A A.P.C. PANEL: C-60 (N) 3.0 NI N L 1 - 3.0 I ' 1 i I .\ ,S.P - , ''' '. \ FREESTANDING CONVERT (E) AUTO SERVICE 1! 1 . ..., il ' <Z- . BUILDING TO 24FIR, CONVENIENCE 9. u, I ;I I . 1,0. SIGN: C-60 (N) 22.0 •iNT N 1 - 22.0 • 1 , STORE () —i------ - /f.; „ .., :i N-- 2 i 0 (R) 13.7 N 2 27.4 - 14, "Chevron” _,1 I . -._ .. , , n.:. , ., 6,fr,..0, ON CANOPY . c) , 1-1 li ,.. • _ 3E1 o- • . ' . aft) "Chevron" (N) 17.1 INT N 2 - 34 2 . (Nd.N1 ,... , 1.. K , t . I - ,, , r_`AA' — - REMOVE (E) HEAT FUEL TANK ir-T i ON CANOPY 24" _ - -2. -r.,.. 11 .. .-• , , \ r 1! • NORTH ---.- ----,.. t .-- -- >,t-=;.- I AND INS ALL (N) NATURAL GAS , (5) LOGO ON i n IN,T N 1 - 43 ( _ •...:' SERVICE CANOPY: C-25 REMOVE (E) USED OIL 0 _ • \. . \ 1 - TANK AND PIPING if)) 8 ® [ "Food tvfort" i ,H , 16.2 INT N 2 32,4 VICINITY MAP , - ON SALES BLDG. 19' (N) \ \- 0 -- --„ _ _ ...._ : \ , q (N) VENT RISERS ( , "Auto Service" REPLACEFACES • ---- -44.--- ,..-- -------.11,. ---...-- ----,1,-;---, , .-7-44,- ,.----- . 44.----- ' --". - " `4%..."-- -' ' - (c. \• \--- i ON SALES BLDG. 19" (N) _ c .c. --- ---------------------7 ----- . ___ _______________ • _ 7 R ( ) 15.3 N 1 15.3 ON FREEWAY SIGN O ____. . \ vi-, 0 r . • ON SALES BLDG. _ . . \l />. (1,T.N.7i,j; ( • 1 \ ,,.e., '' 7:.1'')'Cli. - (N) 'VAN ACCESSIBLE' PARKING (3) Q.3) ---- 7,6 N 1 - 7.6 DivisR/PROJSUM _ '''''li :1 .. . . r" WI TH CONCRETE WHEEL S TOP _...., .., ' i • . ,01, I - PROJECT STATUS: k.i , ....--irk4 - (D9 LOGO ON - (R) N 2 6.4' 141 PROJECT PHASE II - (1 N — - REMOVE (E) PUBLIC TELEPHONE 0 UGHTED BOX . rio ,..__ . . 0 :, . ,.-: .. 3,2 INT . . • • 1E1 I - , . _. — — . _, V 0-00 . _ -------„, 72:41-_--_-_-:-.4:11 ::21 I . , . . 0 .... -- 5.2 c,r '.' .:: ,: 0,7. LOGO ON PLANNING DRAWINGS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL i ,_ %.) SPANNER oe .... .. 4\ . ,1) (N) 1.3 INT N 4 C\ 10 - ; . r '''''' -,, • -, '.." - , \ \ (E) CATCH BASIN TO REMAIN TRASH VALET I • (TYR OF 2) • • (---•,2 ,,,... — R EM 0 VE (E) GUARD POSTS 0,------. DIRECTIONAL SIGN _.,1 ____-, . ., \ _ I I - . . • • ...._ 8 AND FLAG POLE (R) 9.0 Y ... 1 _ - - 1 ..„,‘ (ON GUARD POST) . REMOVE (E) AIR/ WATER ISLAND (N) ET • Ai :,,m,.,--- 044 . -- (N) 9'x20' PARKING SPACES (TYP. OF 2) \ DIRECTIONAL SIGN 9,605 SQ. Ft. (N) .75 IN T y 4 PROPERTY AREA: - . v.,••7,,, (ON SPANNER) POST (TYP.17) 1,3 : .'?"147: 1---,__ -Tr-----i.t-'--V i .,,.:70.4, . 'Ver- ' 1/4,,,i 1 Li _ I V - . FRAME (N) _9.0 - N 2 18.0 HIGH CHAINLINK • • (ic") . • • \ (E) WOODEN FENCE TO REMAIN. .y• 264K GPM /•. /( 1 • . • . • , , . . . INSPECT AND REPAIR AS REQUIRED. (1) PROJECTED GALLONAGE: '.-.V1 H FENCE W/ GRAY PLASTIC SLATS _, . . REGULAR UNLEADEC1 SUPREME PAINT DARK GRAY :/. . C...(-- NT,) DISPENSERS I , 9 . 11. i I.. . 0 PUMP TOPPERS (R) 1.44 _ N 6 8.64 - APPROXIMATE COST: -- 12/ (TYP OF 6) \ N.. I - REMOVE (E) AREA LIGHT / C.3 -] • . • • . • . •, • ON FREEWAY SIGN — rt 4:i • ..-: • - • 1 A1. I • • , ,,,,;_ ___ REMOVE (E) PROPANE TANK• / • ' . , , 0. • :s. . AND GUARD POSTS TOTAL SIGN SQUARE FOOTAGE: 409.24 482.1 PROJECT TYPE/SCOPE : 141/NEW CANOPY, HM-21, ._ INSTALL (N) AIR/WATER ..,("43/ -c (N) INTERNALLY . (•••. • : . , • . • I • . . 1 • , . \ , c.' ILLUMINATED - • , :_._ - . _ - - ,.® -- ISLAND WI TH FRAME, AREA LIGHT id I • . ift:,- fifil2: .1 ;(11,- ( N1:4, . . RES TROOM ADA, ELECTRICAL UPGRADE, NEW DISPENSERS, 4 SPANNER. (TYP. OF '2) . I • . . AND GUARD POSTS t. • • • • :CAI_. LATI N LEOEND: yr-- 0 " • . y..) • C q- ,. -.. - ) ) . . . . ) . . . . 1 ,...„, . Q., . / I -. , :t.;• , , _ 7.-.....„.. _..........--1, -,,.'-..--.....--- ,.,.. .- ,-7.----.1---` ruF...: \ - 1 - , • 444's• , \ •.0" . . L (E) EXISTING TO REMAIN NEW A/W ISLAND, NEW PIPING, NEW YARD AND TANK SLAB, (R) REMOVE EXISTING SIGN / . 3 r . . ..,_,.. ,,.. • : (N) NEW SIGN G * x. .RFMOVAL OF USED OIL, HEAT FUEL, AND PROPANE TANKS c , A . ._ I INF INTERNALLY ILLUMINA1ED 1 .,,...,..,j (N) CONCRETE YARD SURFACE / ; 3 _1- 414--_,,..,4_- 4 _4; ...___ _ J 4 -(1-..i 9 . .., , (TYP. OF ENTIRE YARD) / _ ('). • • . • .4G....,..-„•'.., - ` , IJ '4 • r: , . rt - • - . • . . . . , . ,... a - .. . ' ''-\ SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS: - _____ _ - 9 10 I 9 1\ . • - • . . • 1.-\\_. —:_-__ _ (1) FREESTANDING SIGN ALLOWED 20' MAX. H F. 7--(;-S,F. MAX. PER FACE:: / • • i ' • 0 . VARIANCE REQUIRED FOR POLE SIGN FIT.__AND S.-Q. FOOTAGE•- - ., j. . - , WALL SIGNS S.F. LIMITED TO 15% OF TOTAL WALL/FASCIA FACE. ,--... , ,.a ,...*.-.L..., t.....7-.-r..- - - ' ' -----'-'1 ----. ' --'-' "- ----"'- - -'.. --- '-'*--'. --'-'.---''-------'---''''' c'''' ----'5. 's 08 -:i-"61----40* '''---. --- - 130'.00- -1 ' -.-- ' ''''' ''''----- '‘-i:-------3 ._, (N) 38'x47' HALLMARK CANOPY - -----,--: - (E) CATCH BASIN TO REMAIN DE2KIN fil.-V313 APPFIOVAL. --- REMOVE (E) HIGH LEVEL AREA LIGHT 0 0 r .,,. f ,,z.,0,,,.,..t„,,, ..-- ,....-„:-.p.2.1,.41A: . SIGNATURE: DATE ' .,,,,.:,--1 (E) 10,000 GALLON SINGLE I k,, kr.i.40-4,*4°.4t1T4-;:g".4-,f' :,--v-xwm.,,,,•.,t,-T*7.-,•,i--,.7 -- F REMOVE (E) CONCRETE DRIVE SLAB, WALL F.R.P. FUEL STORAGE TANKS TANK HOLD DOWN SLAB, PUMP ISLANDS, , 2A1 TO REMAIN. INSTALL (N) CONTAINMENT : REGION- -MG-R. r . FUEL DISPENSERS, CANOPY AND 3 AND MONITOR SYSTEMS. RE-USE (E) , RETAIL MGR. SUPPORT COLUMNS, GUARD POST, F.E. PETRO TURBINE PUMPS. .. __a_ AIR WATER REELS, ETC. (TYP.) INSTALL (N) F.R.P. FUEL, VAPOR AND VENT / PROPERTY MGR. PIPING (TYP.) i __ _ _._ _• ENGINEERING SUP. - V V. PAVFI) -F10- AD AY NORTH PROPERTY DEV. SPECIALIST INITIALS: i--- DATE: VS • .,-- TERRITORY MGR. *-- or--•' . --------- ZONE ENGR. - - _ 4s,,,..„ 1/ : DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER TERMINAL MGR. _ 0 5 10 20 30 40 , ii./n) : T7 rrir,27,;:f.:zt;fg..,,.;:-., W717.7-'-'W -!:,•--.,y.'47 .--''iiiV.,1,;'•'-''' .-,,,,,0 tif•,„.7.,-1-,-:.,., k.„ ' ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER ___________ z ,...._....p, . _ ;,...i ,. , .....4 . „;•--.7-1--°"°, 7, •.15.4=7 :-III-44=1'..7;;7- :,-;7, ' MAINTENANCE REP. L 2 :c.: / --- LETTERS - BLACK . 0 - -:.- _ . __. - -0--- --..--------,_,-- -_.) . SCALE: 1"---10'-0" -1--,,-:-h- PERIMETER BACKGROUND NOTE: ,..• CUA_YAJT_TA , - DK. GREY . , ...I: :, -- i7-77.----,..„,_ ._-_--1 C.) (0 k,--:-:.;:.7 -,, .=„:'''':;-':•-?.. `z4 - TRANSLUCENT S TRIPE - BLUE . 1 O.) , , .. , 1 e ..'... '' 1,-,:',:"::':';:,:i,': -_'1 .,-,-. 4.,..-......... . ''.-■ --.............,:.. ......--...- —a.....—Z-42,....,.....A.. ..s.....2-...........s.--...-......,...,.. '.--,1,' 1; P' ' ' ' '.''-''' -:1 TRANSLUCLN T STRIPF - RED V R3 (N/ ; t`N '"■. i`- ;-1::77: ;',-.:= :'-' 1 .„_, ., , _ 0 ' LEGEND i . o , _ (i) ....... , ,.._ - - HALLMARK BACKGROUND p c,-,:r IT,F,,,,.....▪ 1, [ AN . ... „.„, . _ __V . I ' - WH1 TE Pt G:JOIV/SRIOTLSAEGENDSAEGEN01 Q:1 -----fe,„/ (ill_,,,,,,.„1--: - ADDITIONAL PROFIT CENTER z (6 C . 1*---: - ir viva tgArl * ' SIGN BACKGROUND, TYP 9-1411 C ,:., t - (N). . . . . .NEW -z D -'r"-- —_ — DK. GREY 15670 t3M. UPPEil BOONlc-3 rtifinY rioAD in t 0..) . - 0 .i--- TRANSLUCEN T GRAPHICS 01 , (E). . . . . .EXISTING 2 eitIrdi etinti V 3 1,f TYP - WHITE LAKE 03WEGO, On , (6- (TYP.) . • .TYPICAL L-3 -4- ,Aul - DO7i' „,,,..„..,.. . ,_ LIGHTED PRICE SIGN, I .... - --.--------h----------e--,21 TRANSLUCEN T BACKGROUND ,. . Cd R . . . . . .RADIUS ,..--<- i.o _iait4 ,,i TYP - BLUE < ty,. D Dim .. _ ,, ,,,„ .. it,, , , , „ i, -, 2 ' ii . . . . . .CENTER LINE . 2 a --—-—------ ------ TRANSLUCENT RULE LINE t',3,::._•--;',.-:, f--,- [r II - '-,L- s-- t-., il c.) - RED i,:..; :,,,-- -...,„.:: :- - i ! A 0 13 all -, ks ' P.,LA . . . . . .WATER METER 0 1 4 M W , 0,1 - ----' 'it•V VVVV Nor tnwest [legion E-3 MONITORING WELL aa • - - SIGN CABINET - DK. GR.EY , i, ' [Ill. . . . . .CATCH BASIN , ..._ x COLUMN AND COVERING • . r , . . . . .EXIS TING TO REMAIN (..) - OK. GREY . • ,VV VVVV V,VV VV 1 L.,1r 5-,,,,, --41 . . . . .NEW _ - - FINISH GRADE At t i - - . . . .EXISTING TO BE REMOVED , - I ------ - - --- - - 1'PRRrtiii-l-MIRY - - 111'4'9--e1.-ALe;,:::-D1E: --1614AR9 I , 'fit- Tr.1-2-111- 1T+filit ret - ,7:-- .'k alatifTillyTin-wv:.:, 17:ri a -•,:.4 • STEEL DO ko . _ (X) AF'PR.: j Fr2--- ,..„. A SLOG PERMIT A 7 . GENERAL BID — RHL I 8663.10 ' e ,., . PERMIT REVS C-60 WO !"---''‘ #-' 4f,:31(..TIN CONS1RUC nom SHEET 1 00 not us 4 &owing ..1 - - . I - for construction fX , , i,,,, . , I kra 1'-0* DtV/SR/CITLS/SIGt4./,v ':C unless Initialed 0 '''''-'11-11-‘1°'-1":1'''''''' ''''''' '''' '"11='''''''''T--'7°7-11-11-'1'1-1 - 'ik'------ -4-'4 °1°1 ;4'4 - ' - - -' - -— --' ------'-- ''-'1---" T'''' g 1V°° ' ' ''''4 k' -1' ' - ' 4------'"-'40'14-7 :"-''''---- ---- r--"-"----- --'- --- '----------- --4-, -.'- -,-4,-•-'---- -----,,,,--WV:f7,1M-L,=1',4- .:,.1-'1,1,47-...--,ZW.-',.:,..L-,- r _ .-____..,-,_.„- -''-- . ''',-,.."", -' '' -.7'-,,_:.''.-"I r,.`--::-L,,,Z,:,:l.L1'''-'''.''.:,-''...,1=-:,:4.,..I 1,....=:-.1,71 .,,--11,17_.t..=-,-,..1=,..7...2:17,;.%1-2=-71%;17.L7. "i, L-.=.7.=-1,-7 ZrA.-t'.:.. ......,--'-''-,'f...,,......-.....:;- ---'-' -..:"- **V,.-1-....,.' ' : ' .- '.4''--r- ..-....-...."24.--f;',.,-''''-•,...,,,,Z- -'"- --' '-'- '- - ,---.. .i.- :.7.4,.al.Z.=,=,----. . _---,, .., ."',''`. .- .„,X4 I 1 2 3 4 5 0 7 8 ,,,) to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 -- _ Ilk March'11.11-;1997 _. � .)L;L. 1b ;.�J� Gene Macadams - _-- 13420 SW Brittany Drive — CITY OF TIGARD Tigard, OR 97223-1530 ;OREGON Subject: Application of spacing standards ' r As per your letter(3-8-97), I have researched the issue of 1/2 mile spacing between co i development. This standard applies just to the Community Commercial zone. The only other time this standard was applied(besides the Shrader application)was for the Albertson's application on SW Walnut. The applicant met those standards and the application was approved. The 1/2 mile spacing standard was applied over the streets,not as the crow flies. In addition,the study adopting the Community Commercial zone identified the Albertson's site --- . as meeting all the applicable criteria for this zone. s; Because attorneys opposing the Shrader application raised questions regarding the commercial spacing standard,I forwarded a memorandum to City Council outlining why I believed the, Shrader application met this spacing standard. This memorandum presented the same arguments that I had both written and explained to you,regarding the spacing of commercial ;_ -0` :�'. _:> zoning;therefore,it seemed unecessary to send another letter or call again:'` If have further questions,please call me at 639-4171 x336. _ Sincerely, Laurie Nicholson City of Tigard Associate Planner cc: Bill Monahan, City Administrator Jim Hendyrx, Community Development Director 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503)639-4171 TDD (503)684-2772 . • L.00-)./ v • MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON -__� TO: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director FROM: Bill Monahan, City Manager DATE: March 10, 1997 SUBJECT: Shrader(G.E. McAdams Letter of 3/8/97) Attached is a letter from Gene McAdams following up on his request for information regarding the Shrader Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. Mr. McAdams would like to receive information concerning our procedure of measuring distance between properties which are the subject of land use applications and other commercial sites. Mr. McAdams has asked for whatever information you have gathered concerning this subject and identification of other applications where this practice has been employed. He has asked for specific names of developments. Would you please provide Mr. McAdams with a written response within one week? Please provide me with a copy of your response so that I may provide it to Council as Council received a copy of Mr. McAdams' letter. is \adm\bill\shrader2.doc mir MAR C !a 13420 S.W. Brittany Drive I 0 1Q97 �f' •_ Tigard, Oregon 97223-1530 March 8, 1997 U �� Mr. William Monohan, City Manager City of Tigard, Oregon 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Bill: Last week, I called Jim Hendrix to verify my assumption that the Schrader comprehen- sive plan change application could be resurrected at any time. He explained the "withdrawal" by the applicant prior to formal Council action did provide such an opportunity. I must therefore assume the matter will come up once more for consideration in the near future. (Particularly, since I understood the mayor to say he "intended to coordinate planning issues in that area with the mayor of Beaverton".) You will recall our (pre-hearing and confidential) conversation wherein we studied the subject of a reasonable interpretation and methodology for practical application of the 1/2 mile rule as contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Please also remember my disjointed presentation to Council as part of the public hearing. At the time, I explained I could not find another local government in three states (with a population exceeding 1500) that measured distances (from the center of relevant properties), in the manner employed by the City of Tigard. I also explained that I had not heard from Mr. Hendrix as to this one facet of our"confidential" con- versation. Moreover, we recognized that any "measurement procedure" as utilized in past compre- hensive plan and zoning applications could be used to validate this current practice. At that time Jim said he would look into the matter and identify "how it was done in the past" and let me know the result. When I mentioned this to him he seemed surprised that "Laurie had not gotten back to me". I believe a standard procedure should be identified and adopted to ensure uniform appli- cation of this policy for each and every development considered by the city. Would you kindly forward the information already gathered concerning this subject and advise me in writing of the past practice and name specific developments to which said meas- urement policy applies? Sincerely ours, G. E. McAdams cc: Mayor Nicoll • • a NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL/DENIAL This form must be mailed to DLCD as required by OAR 660-18-040 Jurisdiction City of Tigard Local File# CPA 96-0009 Date Notice of Proposed Amendment was mailed to DLCD? November 25, 1996 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment X 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.) Applicant wanted to amend the Comprehensive Plan map from Medium-High density residential to Community Commercial. This Proposal Was: XX Withdrawn Denied Local Contact: Laurie Nicholson Phone: 639-4171 Address: City of Tigard. 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 • ci* 'W Agenda Item No. 3. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of le /47 MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 25, 1997 • 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 Manager Bill Monahan; Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff; Police Chief Ron Goodpaster; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Assistant to the City • Manager Liz Newton; Associate Planner Duane Roberts; Building Official David Scott; Senior Planner Nadine Smith; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley. > Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:30 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 7:28 p.m. > Agenda Review )3ill Monahan. City Manager, said that Ron Goodpaster, Police Chief, was present to discuss staffing issues with Council. Urban Services Staffing- Mr. Monahan reported that staff determined that they needed seven positions filled by May 1 in order to staff the urban services transfer. In addition to sending ads out, they would post the positions internally. Staff would return on March 11 with a funding request for these positions. He said that Assistant to the City Manager Liz Newton would hold a press conference to provide the press with an explanation for why the City was filling those positions at this time. Mayor Nicoli reported that he spoke with two County Commissioners and John Rosenberger about. He said that Mr. Rosenberger said that they might be able to loan the City a building inspector for three or four months until the City had sufficient staff on board. 1. BUSINESS MEETING • Call to Order- City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. • Council Communications/Liaison Reports Councilor Rohlf reported that the Solid Waste Task Force has found a business community representative; the Task Force membership is complete CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 25, 1997 - PAGE 1 4 • • • Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items Mr. Monahan asked to discuss the Cook Park land acquisition suggestion. Mayor Nicoli announced that they would discuss issues pertaining to the police department immediately following the Consent Agenda. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA Jack Polans. 16000 SW Queen Victoria Place. King City, asked what the status was on an intergovernmental agreement between the Cities of Tigard and Lake Oswego regarding water. Mr. Monahan said that the discussion was limited to staff discussion at this time. The issues on the table dealt with rates, the formulation of rates, and the amount of water Tigard would purchase from Lake Oswego. The matter of purchasing a portion of the Lake Oswego system was not under discussion at this time. Mr. Polans referenced a 1994 consultant report that indicated that Lake Oswego was running short of water due to increased growth. Mr. Monahan commented that that report spoke to Lake Oswego potentially expanding its plant but reiterated that the topic was not under discussion at this time. He concurred that Lake Oswego would have less water to sell to Tigard as Lake Oswego grew. He stated that that was why Tigard has acquired rights to a • water supply from other sources. .. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Councilor Hunt,seconded by Councilor Rohlf,to approve the Consent Agenda. 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: January 21, 1997 3.2 .. Approve Resolution Amending the 1996/97 Adopted Budget for Municipal Court - Software-Resolution No. 97-06 3.3 Approve Resolution Amending the 1996/97 Adopted Budget for the Building& Electrical Funds-Resolution No. 97-07 • > Police Department Staffing Issues Ron Goodpaster. Chief of Police,reported that last year reported crime increased over 12%, accidents over 37%, and police responses to calls for help over 13%(over 45,000 responses). He stated that the work load increased dramatically at a time when the department was down six people. He explained that three of those positions were never filled(having only been authorized as of July 1, 1996). The other three sworn positions were recently vacated due to resignation, retirement or other action. Chief Goodpaster reviewed the actions taken by the department to deal with the workload issue. These included reassigning the School Resource Officer(currently assigned to the DARE program)to patrol duties, and looking at the other three positions outside the core services (operations, investigations, and records) to bring them back into core service support. He reported that two other sworn officers would be on extended medical leave until the end of the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 25, 1997-PAGE 2 • year at the earliest. In addition,two officers have advised of their plans to retire: one on July 1, 1997 and one around January 1998. Chief Goodpaster reported that he,the City Manager and the Finance Director have discussed this matter extensive. Discussion has been also taking place within the police department. In addition to the vacancies,the Department will soon be in"vacation season"which will further complicate providing adequate core service coverage. He asked for authorization to replace the three positions currently vacant but not the three tax-base positions that were never filled. He commented that the two positions coming up for retirement gave them some flexibility to respond to Measure 47. - Mr. Monahan recommended that the City fill those three positions now. He reported that three other currently vacant general fund positions(non police)would remain vacant until the budget • cycle was completed. He said that he has begun talks with the school district about contributing to the funding of the school resource officer program. Councilor Moore asked for verification that the number of positions the department would be short next year was 10. Mr. Monahan mentioned that they would not recruit to fill the two retirement positions until later on in the spring. ,. Mayor Nicoli suggested that, since the department would lose another person on July 1 anyway, . . . the Council should authorize the hiring of four people at this time. Councilor Hunt concurred. Councilor Scheckla asked how the department would handle the extended medical leave vacancies. Chief Goodpaster said the department would be short two people in patrol for the length of the leaves. . ._ Councilor Scheckla asked about the officer at Washington Square. Chief Goodpaster explained that the Washington Square position was originally funded through a federal COPS grant;the funding was about to run out. He said that they were considering expanding the scope of that officer's responsibilities beyond the footprint of Washington Square in order to allow him to respond to calls in the immediate area. He commented that Washington Square accounted for 25%of Tigard crime; an officer would be at Washington Square or in the vicinity in any case. Councilor Rohlf commented that reasons for having an officer stationed at Washington Square included efficiency and response time. Chief Goodpaster concurred. He mentioned statistics the department kept to evaluate the effectiveness of the position at the end of the three-year commitment. He explained that expanding the duties would not affect the statistical reporting because Washington Square by itself was one reporting grid, and anything that occurred outside Washington Square would be reported in a different reporting grid. Mayor Nicoli asked if the City paid the salaries of the two officers on medical leave. Staff explained that the City paid for one-third of the salary of the officer on leave due to a work - related injury while Worker's Comp paid the rest. The Extended Disability Insurance Program covered the salary of the officer on leave due to a non-work related injury. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 25, 1997 -PAGE 3 • • Mayor Nicoli supported authorizing the hiring of five additional people, since the City did not pay the salaries of those on extended medical leave. Chief Goodpaster said that he wanted to check those numbers to be sure. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, the Chief advised that they did not need additional autos. Wayne Lowry.Finance Director, spoke to staffs attempt to save money in order to have as large an ending fund balance as possible, given the uncertainties of Measure 47. He said that they were waiting on the budgeted position vacancies until some of the Measure 47 issues were resolved. He said that he was uncomfortable with filling more than the three vacancies caused by attrition. He pointed out that during the budget cycle for next year,which would begin shortly,the City would determine how many police positions to add for 1997-98. He said that because of the nature of the police recruitment process, Chief Goodpaster would have sufficient names on his list to fill additional vacancies three months in the future. • Mayor Nicoli expressed concern about not letting the police staffing levels drop. Mr. Monahan - pointed out that the staff recommendation was to hire three officers now with future consideration of additional positions. He reviewed possible staff actions to alleviate the situation, including shifting youth programs and public information to the Community Service Officer and code enforcement back to the Community Development Department. He said that staff would like the flexibility to work out the details and then recruit as necessary. Councilor Moore asked what the learning curve was for a new officer. Chief Goodpaster explained that it took seven to nine months to get an officer on the street from the time of advertisement. The Council discussed the number of positions to authorize. Councilor Rohif spoke for three, . Councilor Hunt for four, Councilor Moore for four to five,and Councilor Scheckla for three. Councilor Scheckla asked for more information on shifting code enforcement to Community • Development. Jim Hendryx. Community Development Director, stated that staff still needed to discuss this option. He reviewed how the transfer of urban services from the County impacted V - code enforcement. He said that they have just begun the discussions on the amount the County would pay to the City for code enforcement. He said that he would have to analyze Councilor Scheckla's concern about defining the number of hours spent within the city limits versus outside them. Councilor Scheckla asked what the ratio was of officers to 1000 population. Chief Goodpaster said that currently the ratio was 1.3 but would be 1.5 if they were fully staffed. The Council continued to discuss the issue. Councilor Rohlf said that he was concerned about giving the department more people than they asked for because of the potential impact on other departments. He spoke for analyzing the additional positions. Councilor Moore expressed concern about reduced coverage during the training period. Mayor Nicoli expressed concern about the length of the training period also,noting the length was unique to the police department. Councilor Scheckla asked how the police reserves were utilized. Chief Goodpaster said that they currently had 10 police reserves and would like 15. He reviewed their training program which did not differ significantly from the sworn officer training program. He said that CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 25, 1997-PAGE 4 • • currently the reserves transferred prisoners,assisted in patrol, backed up officers, and conducted tours and talks. He pointed out that most reserve officers were only available evenings or weekends. He commented that they used them quite a bit and found them tremendously useful. With three of the five Council members in favor, the Council authorized four positions for the - police department. 4. CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS TO MARCH 11, 1997- (HEARING WAS OPENED ON DECEMBER 17, 1997) Mr. Hendryx reported that the Task Force met with staff and the consultants and arrived at a consensus on some recommendations. However, a Task Force member representing some property owners in the Triangle submitted a letter listing several concerns. The Task Force would meet next Monday to address those issues. Staff requested the hearing be continued to March 11, 1997. --Motion by Councilor Rohlf,seconded by Councilor Hunt,to continue the hearing to March 11, 1997. • Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 5. STAFF UPDATE ON THE FINAL ORDER FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0009 SHRADER(REFERENCE PUBLIC HEARING HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1997)-APPLICANT HAS WITHDRAWN APPLICATION Mr. Hendryx reported that the applicant withdrew his application, and therefore this matter was no longer before the Council. He said that the applicant indicated that he intended to return with -" a more complete application addressing design. . Mr. Monahan reported that the Mayor spoke with the Mayor of Beaverton regarding this area. - Beaverton was doing a study of this area at this time and would share the information with Tigard staff. He noted the receipt of a letter from a citizen recommending further review of the Comprehensive Plan amendment language. He said that there might be more information on the planning for that area and a different set of criteria by the time the issue came back to the Council. Councilor Rohlf commented that his decision was based on that land remaining available for housing. He suggested that staff try to get the owners of the Haggen and Shrader properties together to discuss the possibilities of including both affordable housing and commercial uses. Mayor Nicoli said that Beaverton was studying the other side of Scholls Ferry. Mr. Hendryx confirmed that Beaverton was putting together a grant proposal to the State for a specific area plan for the area between the two Scholls Ferry Roads. Mayor Nicoli spoke to Beaverton and Tigard cooperating on a master plan. Councilor Scheckla noted the importance of considering mass transit in that area. Mr. Monahan said they would add that area to their list for discussions with Tri-Met at the staff level. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 25, 1997 -PAGE 5 •. • 6. TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW-VISIONING PROJECT UPDATE Liz Newton.Assistant to the City Manager, reported that the Task Force was ready to get to work, having met two times already. Staff was providing them with background data on the issues within the-different target areas. She noted other areas of focus as the two public open houses and staff returning with the survey results to the community groups they addressed last fall. She mentioned that the intent of the open houses was to provide a final opportunity for the community to provide input on their concerns and issues. She said that they were still on schedule. 7. METRO 2040 UPDATE Mr. Hendryx reported that the Metro Council passed an amendment to the urban reserve language that has caused some concern among the local jurisdictions. Nadine Smith. Senior Planner,explained that the concern was that the language exempted Metro from going through the established procedures to craft agreements between communities regarding the means by which urban reserve land was brought into the urban growth boundary. It also raised questions about the process local jurisdictions would go through for annexation, comprehensive planning and zoning. Mr. Hendryx mentioned that Tigard's situation was complicated because Tigard did not abut any urban reserves,having unincorporated Washington County in between. Ms. Smith noted the letters from Tualatin and Beaverton addressing this concern, and asked for Council direction - - to submit a letter objecting to the language change, and to make it available to MPAC at their - - meeting tomorrow night. Motion by Councilor Hunt,seconded by Councilor Moore,to direct staff to send out the letter as presented by staff. - Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors ;•• Hunt,Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") The Council discussed the reaction of the region to this action by the Metro Council. Mr. Hendryx commented that the language was very difficult to understand but that he and Ms. Smith concluded that it put Metro in a position of requiring that areas be brought in without local or city involvement; it invalidated the city`veto"-the ability of a city to veto a request if it could not serve the affected area. Mayor Nicoli commented that this issue was of greater concern to Clackamas County cities than to Washington County cities. Mayor Nicoli asked when the appeal clock would start ticking on the legal challenges to the urban reserves. Mr. Hendryx said that staff would report back on that. The Council asked what other avenues were available for cities to pursue, if Metro decided to move forward with the language change. Pam Beery. Legal Counsel, said that testifying before MPAC tomorrow night was a good opportunity. She mentioned that an initiative on the Metro Charter has been discussed at other jurisdictions. She stated that they could look at other opportunities at Council's direction. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 25, 1997 -PAGE 6 • • 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ANNEXATION POLICY, MEASURE 47, EXTENSION OF SEWER SERVICES Mr. Hendryx reviewed that Measure 47 called into question a city's ability to levy city taxes on newly annexed properties. The situation was further complicated by the language that required a vote but did not define who voted. He said that they were currently holding the two annexations in process until the matter was resolved. He reported a third annexation inquiry for a 50-acre property in the Walnut Island. He asked for reaffirmation of Council direction on this matter. Mr. Hendryx reviewed the issue of the requirement of annexation for services. He noted the interpretation that Walnut Island had to annex to the City in order to receive sewer. He advised the Council of the three options available to them: to continue to delay the process of annexations until the legislature resolved the issue,to request that staff proceed with annexation despite of Measure 47 and the taxation implications,or to allow sewer extension to Walnut Island without annexation but require a non-remonstrance agreement. Councilor Hunt asked for a definition of non-remonstrance. Ms. Beery explained that it meant that the property owners agreed that they would not object to annexation at a date in the future. She recommended annexing the property within 10 years,as that was an enforceable limit. She commented that it behooved the property owner to agree to a non-remonstrance because the City was providing a benefit to the property. Mayor Nicoli asked if the non-remonstrance agreement changed with development of the property. Ms. Beery said that the agreement ran with the land and that any future property owners would be on notice through the title report that the property was subject to a non- = remonstrance. Councilor Scheckla noted the taxation issue. Ms. Beery said that staff was here tonight to get direction from the Council on that issue. She noted the current belief that annexed properties could not be taxed by the cities under Measure 47. Mr. Monahan commented that a non- remonstrance agreement would allow the City to bring in the property at the time when it was most beneficial to the City to do so. Mr. Lowry reported that the House Revenue Committee started to talk about the annexation issue last week and quickly realized how complicated it was. He said that staff did not know- any more today then they had at the previous Council briefing, although it was encouraging that the Committee was looking at the annexation issue. Mr. Lowry reviewed several recommendations from the Local Government Committee of the League of Oregon Cities regarding how the procedure for annexation should work. This included a recommendation that if the property to be annexed had no registered voters living on it, then the property owners could consent to taxation by signing a petition. Mr. Lowry stated that he thought the city was still at risk of annexing properties that might not be obligated to pay taxes. He noted another question of the taxation of vacant land annexed today that increased significantly in value when developed. He said that he would raise that concern at the House Revenue Committee, as it has not yet been discussed. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 25, 1997 -PAGE 7 • • Mayor Nicoli asked if a property owner could agree independently to pay the City the equivalent of city taxes. Mr. Lowry said he did not know but noted problems with what happened if the land subdivided to different owners. Ms. Beery expressed concerns about enforcing such an agreement and equal taxation. - Mr. Hendryx said that the Council could delay the effective date of an annexation until Measure 47 sorted out but that it still left the question unresolved regarding the City's ability to tax newly annexed properties. Bill McMonagle. Harris McMonagle Engineering, representing Randy Sebastian of Renaissance Development and 4 D Construction, owner of the two annexation requests currently on hold, said that he saw nothing wrong with a non-remonstrance. He asked why a delayed annexation request would not work the same way as a non-remonstrance in running with the land and binding future property owners to it. Mr. McMonagle said that if the Mayor and the Council changed their consensus arrived at during the last meeting that these properties could get sewer service,they needed to know that. He asked if the City was as confident as the County that the urban transfer of services would occur on May 1. Mr. Monahan said that Council gave direction last week for staff to aim for a May 1 date for planning and building functions,with other functions taking longer as necessary. He said that Ms. Beery needed to work out the details of the IGA with the County Counsel but they hoped it was achievable by May 1 or shortly thereafter. He said that if Mr. McMonagle filed an application after May 1, it would be processed by the City. Mayor Nicoli commented that based -= on his conversations with County Commissioners,the County has already moved towards adopting the necessary ordinances to implement this transfer. Mr. McMonagle said that staff has indicated that even if they paid the fee prior to May 1, staff would be willing to review the plan but hold approval until after May 1. Mr. Monahan expressed concern that they have an adequate staffing level to handle requests prior to May 1. Mr. McMonagle said that he thought their application would come in around May 1 anyway because of the neighborhood meeting process. Mayor Nicoli asked staff to report back on whether or not they had sufficient staff to cover Mr. McMonagle's request. Mr. Hendryx confirmed that he did discuss this idea with Mr. McMonagle. While he has not analyzed the impact on staff,he did think that they could absorb one development but not more. He concurred with the prudence of running the numbers first. Mayor Nicoli commented that Washington County very much wanted to get out of the business of providing urban services, and approached the three largest cities in the County first in order to transfer service from as many people as possible as soon as possible. He commented that Beaverton was now looking at the agreement between Tigard and the County,realizing the benefits to the transfer that they had not considered when they refused the opportunity previously. Mr. McMonagle pointed out that the 1995 Legislature reaffirmed the direction given years ago that counties should get out of the urban business. He commented that the problems with CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 25, 1997 -PAGE 8 1111 • annexation now were a result of Measure 47. There has been no change in Tigard's Comprehensive Plan. Councilor Scheckla asked what would happen if Mr. McMonagle applied to Washington County. Mr. McMonagle said that the County would let them develop but pointed out that the development was within Tigard's sphere of interest and needed to work within Tigard's Comprehensive Plan. He said that if Measure 47 was not resolved within two years, delayed annexation was still a possibility for them. Mr. Lowry confirmed to Councilor Hunt that the tax implications of delayed annexation was an issue the House Committee was considering. Mr. McMonagle commented that he thought that if the Legislature did nothing about Measure 47, their inaction would render all Comprehensive Plans unenforceable. He agreed with Councilor Hunt that a non-remonstrance would achieve the desired result without getting involved with the taxation issue. Mayor Nicoli proposed that staff return in two weeks with the estimates on the staff time needed to process Mr. McMonagle's application. 9. OVERVIEW OF COMMUNITY_DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Mr. Hendryx introduced the section managers: Jill Aldrich, Development Services Team (DST) Supervisor; David Scott, Building Official; Dick Bewersdorff, Current Planning; and Nadine Smith,Long Range Planning. Mr. Hendryx reviewed the formation of a Development Services Team in January 1995 to provide coordinated planning, engineering, and building support at the front counter as well as reception for City Hall. He noted that Community Development had a total of 27 employees. He mentioned the additional personnel hired over the last couple of years, and the Council approval tonight on the Consent Agenda of a Building clerical position and funding for plan review contract services if needed during the remainder of the year. Mr. Hendryx said that they now had five Development Service Technicians and a full time - receptionist at the front counter, and an additional Plans Examiner. This staffing level has improved service, as well as the change in counter hours from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. to 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. He said they have initiated the over-the-counter permit process slowly but it was working. He said that the dedicated building department fund set up last year was funding the building department. He reported that they would be reevaluating the new fees they adopted last year. He commented that Community Services performed a wide variety of services. ,Till Aldrich.Development Services Team Supervisor, commented that the only City department - with which Community Development did not interface was the Library. She reported that they fielded between 7000 to 8000 phone calls a year, and that the service standards for counter and telephone service were met. Ms. Aldrich reviewed the accomplishments of the Team in the past two years. The Team was cross trained as generalists in order to assist a wide variety of people. In addition this freed up the specialist planners to concentrate on their areas of expertise. She noted the self-help desk with the possibility of modem access. She said that by cleaning up the system, staff reduced the cost of transferring data from DOS to Windows from $80,000 to $49,000. She reported that of CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 25, 1997-PAGE 9 • • the first 35 building permits processed this year, 18 went through the over-the-counter permit • process (in and out within 45 minutes). She noted how the staff, because of cross training, had reduced the length of the regular permit process. Mayor Nicoli asked if the database information could be made available through the City's webpage. Ms. Aldrich said that was a possibility but expressed concern for security of the data. She said that she was attending a conference session soon on that topic. David Scott. Building Official,noted their primary functions of reviewing building project plans,performing inspections, and certifying the occupancy of buildings. He said that last spring and summer they had difficulty meeting their service standards due to the unusually heavy activity and their difficulty in finding another qualified plans examiner. However they contracted out to a Salem firm for plan review service,and then were able to meet the standards. Mr. Scott said that,while they were expecting the same level of activity this year,they thought they could meet the service standards.with the additional plans examiner. However,the money authorized tonight by Council would cover contract plan review services if that did not prove to be the case. The additional clerical position would help free up inspectors from data entry which would help the understaffing situation. The transfer of urban services from the County would also help with that situation. Mr. Scott said that they would like to change the standard for the Inspection telephone line to 6 p.m. in order to facilitate the process for getting building inspectors to a job site. He reviewed how it would work and said he thought that the contractors would fmd it a good change. Dick Bewersdorff. Senior Planner,noted that Current Planning was the development review arm - of the department to implement the development code. He pointed out that while they lost one planner to the DST function,because the DST handled routine questions,they accomplished the ' - same amount of work with three planners as they had with four. -� Mr. Bewersdorff commented that the regulations were getting more complex due to the difficult - topography of the remaining lands,the possible move in the State towards more discretionary decisions,the impact of the Metro 2040 plan,the Goal 5 Water Resources Requirements and the Tigard Triangle design review requirements. Nadine Smith. Long Range Planning,reviewed the primary responsibilities of their four planners, including Comprehensive Plan zoning map amendment requests, annexations, technical studies,transportation,urban design, maintaining the GIS system, staffing CIT meetings, the Downtown Merchants Association, and the Community Development Block Grant Board as needed, and representing the City at regional meetings on growth management issues. Ms. Smith commented that the challenge next year was to analyze the necessary revisions to the Comprehensive Plan in order to implement the Functional Plan and to analyze the impacts of Measure 47 on annexations. She said that they were trying to get approval of applications for TGI grants. She mentioned their intent to provide more information on the City's webpage. Mr. Hendryx commented that as he did not hear any objections to changing the inspector line, they would move forward with public notice to make that change. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 25, 1997 -PAGE 10 • • • Mayor Nicoli complimented the Community Development staff on the changes they made. He stated that he no longer receives phone calls complaining about the process. Councilor Moore said in his position at PGE he has talked with builders who have told him that Tigard was the best city to deal with in the Metro area. 10. DISCUSSION ON METRO GREENSPACES Councilor Hunt reported that the greenspaces would be reviewed at a meeting next Wednesday. 11. DISCUSSION ON PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Duane Roberts.Associate Planner, noted that the current parks plan was 10 years old and did not contain the action element required to comply fully with the state SDC statutes. He said that staff was developing a process for updating the park master plan to be managed by the Planning Commission and including a lot of public involvement. He asked for feedback from the Council on the process. Councilor Hunt asked if March was a realistic date for staff to report back to Council, given their intent to present to the CITs. Mr. Hendryx said that May or June was more realistic. Councilor Scheckla commented that the 1987 plan was only 10 years old and asked if staff intended to utilize portions of it in the new plan. Mr. Roberts stated that they would review the • old plan and use any portions of it that they could,especially the historical information. He noted that the old plan contained a list of community priorities for park improvements and a list • _ of lands identified for parks acquisition which staff would revisit. He stated that they would hire a consultant to do the master plan, having included the necessary$40,000 in the SDC recalculation. He said that the process would take at least six months. - Mr. Roberts explained that the old plan did not include the inventory of potential park lands that was now required. He confirmed the Mayor's comment about potential joint usage of sites, stating that the school district had three sites they would like the City to consider for '- partnership opportunities. • Mayor Nicoli expressed concern that the recommended membership of the Task Force appeared to primarily consist of special interest groups. He suggested this matter be analyzed just prior to forming the Task Force. Mr. Hendryx said that he saw this as an opportunity to get the Planning Commission back into working with community development(they have indicated an interest in doing so). He said that he thought the Planning Commission could manage the project with input from other interest groups to reach a recommendation for Council. He commented that the process would be an open process. Mayor Nicoli concurred with the Planning Commission taking on this project and working with the special interest groups but reiterated his concern that the public other than special interest groups also have input into the process. Mr. Roberts commented that other jurisdictions undergoing similar processes recommended using a formal committee with representatives from all interest groups. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 25, 1997-PAGE 11. • • Councilor Scheckla asked if it would be appropriate to bring back the Parks Board. Mr. Monahan said that he did not think that would be appropriate at this time. He noted that they consolidated their boards because of the staff time involved in staffing them. He spoke to continuing with the Planning Commission as currently set up. 12. NON AGENDA ITEMS > Cook Park Land Acquisition Councilor Hunt presented a report on the history and work of the Cook Park Task Force in investigating the purchase of the Gray property for park expansion, referencing a map of the study area. The Task Force included the Mayor, Councilor Hunt,and representatives from youth team sports. He noted the eventual inclusion of representatives of environmental interests on the Task Force, the involvement of Metro, and the involvement of the Department of State Lands through Bill Parks. He reviewed the extent of the wetlands, and said that they have backed off on a second road through the park that would have crossed over the wetlands because of the intense concern from various groups. Councilor Hunt reviewed the possibilities for filling in a ditch, wetland mitigation, building two covered picnic areas,building a viewing gazebo for the wetlands,and creating a new man- made lake to buffer the athletic fields from the wetlands. He said that the State was not receptive to putting organized fields in the area under discussion. Councilor Hunt said that the Task Force recommended to the Council to purchase the Gray property only. Councilor Hunt confirmed to Councilor Scheckla that they were recommending only one road into and out of the park. Councilor Rohlf expressed concern at only one access, contending that it was a serious design flaw considering the athletic fields going in there. The fields would - generate considerable traffic. Mayor Nicoli explained that at the most they would get four new playing fields out of the 12 they had hoped for. This was due to Fisher Environmental's conclusion that the dairy property would have to be converted back to its original wetlands state. Councilor Rohlf asked if they could swap non-wetlands areas with wetlands areas to create space for athletic fields. Mayor Nicoli said that Mr. Parks of the DSL would not tolerate that • suggestion. He noted that it was the environmentalists on the Task Force who made the same suggestion, not the team sports people. 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 10:20 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. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 25, 1997 -PAGE 12 0 • 14. ADJOURNMENT: 11:05 p.m. sA. / 0 Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder i - �i// _ �i op•" qty of Tigard te: Le..�,�kt? CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 25, 1997 -PAGE 13 w, • • AGENDA ITEM # . FOR AGENDA OF February 25. 1997 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Shrader Comprehensive PlanAmendment Findings PREPARED BY: (Laurie_N.- 2 DEPT HEAD OK . CITY ADMIN OK L,A44-1"--. ISSUE BEFORE THE C UNCIL The City Council denied the request for a comprehensive plan amendment for Shrader Trust at the Feb. 11 hearing. The applicant has since withdrawn his application and no further action is necessary by Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No action necessary. INFORMATION SUMMARY The applicant has submitted a letter withdrawing his application. No further action is neccessary by Council. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not applicable to this City Council item. FISCAL NOTES Not applicable to this City Council item. i:k cywiaesum. %-002 • FEB,13 '9T 16:19 FROM:STOEL RIVES 5032202480 T-028 P.02/02 F-041 STOEL RIVES l.LN A T T O R N E Y S STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER WO SW FIFTH AvENUE.SUITE 2300 PORTLAND.OREGON!J7:0,.I 26R Mune 00131224-3380 Fax(5031220.24110 TDD(5031222•104.5 Internet:www.stoel.com February 13, 1997 MICHAEL C.ROBINSON Direct Dial (503)294-9194 email mcrobinsonestoel.com VIA FACSIMILE Mr. James N.P. Hendryx, Director City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: CPA 96-0009, Shrader/Coe Dear Mr. Hendryx: This law firm represents the applicants. The applicants have instructed me to withdraw this application prior to the City Council's adoption of a final written order. Please call me if you have any questions about this letter. Very truly yours, yficir.le&e":4)-) Michael C. Robinsot{l-,r•J MCR:Ixh cc: Mr. Dale Shrader (via facsimile) Mr. E. William Gross (via facsimile) Mr. Gary Coe (via facsimile) Mr. Robert Lefevre (via facsimile) Mr. Timothy V. Ramis (via facsimile) Ms. Laurie Nicholson (via facsimile) Mr. Stephen T. Janik (via facsimile) PDX 1A-66103.1 999913=6 02-18-1997 02:45PM FROM SPEED'S ENTERPRISES TO 9664729? P.01 40 )01 238-6211 Portland ' !;" Nationwide Salem '' / EL O ' 1-800-338-6211 *are er .�'. Gladstone ; Accounting Gresham �` (i} .a'<, ' g I — 503-233-3571 •Vancouver Beaverton FAX 503-238-3388 • Lake Oswego - j_U.{ C& (_ 120 S. E. Clay -et u Portland, OR 97214 February 18, 1997 L-1L_ City of Tigard City Council Mayor Jim Nicoli, President Paul Hunt, Councilmen Brian Moore, Bob Rohif, Ken Scheckla Fax: 684-7297 Greetings: I would like to suggest a legislative amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. Policy 1.1.2 that incorporates the word "mistake or change" should be deleted or modified in a way that makes changes of land use designations possible. The current City Council should have the flexibility to change land use designations, instead of being bound by past City Council decisions. • I was a resident of Tigard since annexation in about 1983 until September 1995. I still own a home at 11115 S.W. 135th near Scholls Ferry Rd., and was part of the Shrader application for a Plan Amendment to Community Commercial. The huge volumes of traffic and related noise on three sides make the land of little desire for a residence or for multifamily. The site is best suited for commercial use. Even with Tigard Planning Staff's recommendation and the Planning Commission's recommendation, City Council's hands were tied, since it is nearly impossible to prove a "mistake or change." I respectfully request that the City Council members review Policy 1.1 .2 and revise it to a more flexible and useful tool. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, t_ • ,G Coe President GC:sm • Agenda Item No. ) TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of i� !�{i. MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli > Council Present: Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Legal Counsel Robert Franz(Executive Session only); Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Finance Director Wayne Lowry; Sr. Management Analyst Loreen Mills; Asst.to the City Administrator Liz Newton; Legal Counsel Tim Ramis; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley. > Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:31 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 was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. > Measure 47 and the Five-Year Plan Wayne Lowry. Finance Director, referenced his memo dated February 1 which explained how the Engineering Department was funded. He reviewed the reduction in FTE positions for 1997/98 due to Measure 47: 1.5 from Police, 1 from Engineering, and 1 from the Library for a total of 3.5 positions lost. He said that under his revised plan, the City could meet the five year plan. He explained that by the year 2001, the City would be down 21 FTEs if they never added another position to the plan. > Agenda Review 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 Councilor Hunt reported that the Water Consortium Board held its first meeting last week for the 25 participants. He noted the excellent job the Technical Committee was doing. He said that the Board Chair was from the Tualatin Valley Water District. Councilor Hunt reported that the Peer Court held its first meeting last night with great enthusiasm from the people. He explained that Peer Court did not try the offenders; it assigned punishment to those who already admitted they were guilty. Councilor Hunt reported that he was very impressed with the Community Partners for Affordable Housing's current project to remodel 84. - CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 1 S . • • • Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None Mayor Nicoli announced that the Council would discuss the hiring of a new City Engineer during a study session at the end of the agenda. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA Jack Pol. s, 16000 SW Queen Victoria Place. King City, encouraged citizens to become involved on the Public Involvement Committee of the Regional Water Consortium Board. He asked what the status was on the request for annexation from the 10 homeowners on Marion and James Streets. He asked for an explanation of the five-year plan. With regard to the annexation question Mayor Nicoli advised Mr. Polans that he has contacted Mr. Gaffi at United Sewage Agency. City and Agency staffs would work on finding a viable solution, if there was one. Mr. Monahan responded the question on the five-year plan: The City used a five year planning window as method of doing business. The City is currently on the third five-year plan. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Councilor Hunt,seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt the Consent Agenda. 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: January 14, 1997 3.2 Receive and File: a. City Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 3.3 Approve Appointment of Gene Famstrom and Max Williams to the Budget Committee - Resolution No. 97-04 3.4 Local Contract Review Board: a. Approve Purchase of Three Vehicles for Public Works and Engineering Departments from Murray Chevrolet through the State Bid Process b. Approve Contract with Murray Smith and Associates for a Hydraulic Capacity Analysis of the Washington County Water Supply Line 3.5 Relinquish City's Interest In Property Owner by J.A. Atwood- Resolution No. 97-05 4. TRANSIT CHOICES FOR LIVABILITY Steve Clark. 14290 SW 134th Drive.publisher of Community Newspapers, explained that Transit Choices for Livability was a committee composed of community, business, and government leaders from throughout the region working with Tri-Met to improve transit service to the suburbs. He presented the first phase report. He noted the need for improved transit in the region as part of a solution to the increasing transportation problems created by growth. He spoke for creating partnerships to work toward viable solutions that would address the individual needs of the suburban communities and establish "community transit." CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 2 • • Mr. Clark said that the concept of community transit was similar to the concept of community policing. He stated that the committee began with the four regional centers (Oregon City, Gresham, Beaverton, and Hillsboro) to identify community goals and how transit could be improved to address those goals. He explained that the report was a business plan, not a service plan for improved transit. They were looking for partnerships in funding; Tri-Met could not bear the burden alone. Jurisdictions, communities, and businesses needed to work together to improve inter-suburb transit for everyone's benefit. Mr. Clark presented the recommendations of the Committee. These included launching Phase 2 (incorporation of the suburban communities, expanding the scope of the study area, and developing community transit options), funding pilot programs through the Tri-Met budget to create measurable projects to demonstrate that they could improve suburban transit in a cost effective way, the cultivation of partnerships and community leadership,and public education. Mr. Clark asked the Council for their participation in Phase 2. He said that they intended to use a similar approach as used in Phase 1 to incorporate the other communities and that it would take about 18 months. He stated that their goal was to improve transit over the next 10 years while continuing to work on other projects (i.e., I-5/217 and 99W) for a total package that made sense. - Mr. Monahan said that staff was looking at the recommendations from the first four communities. They would develop their own recommendations to be ready in the spring when the process came to this area. 5. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM UPDATES: -None 6. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: US WEST DIRECT FRANCHISE - Wayne Lowly. Fin. ce Director, reported that staff concluded its negotiations with US West (begun in 1993) for a telecommunications franchise to provide coverage to the northeast corner of Tigard. He noted several specifics of the agreement, including a 180 day notice of renegotiation and a 10 year contract term (as opposed to a 20-year term). He recommended approval. Councilor Scheckla expressed concern about how cable TV would be incorporated into the _ agreement in the future. Mr. Lowry referenced the provision excluding cable TV from the agreement (Exhibit A, page 1). He said that cable TV required a separate franchise which would be negotiated under the rate set by MACC. Councilor Scheckla asked if annexed territory had to pay. Tim Ramis. Legal Counsel, explained that the current agreement applied only to the city limits. Annexed territories would have to pay. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance No. 97-01. The City Recorder read Ordinance No. 97-01 by number and title. ORDINANCE NO. 97-01, AN ORDINANCE RENEWING THE FRANCHISE OF US COMMUNICATION, ITS SUCCESSORS, AND ASSIGN, GRANTING THE RIGHT TO PLACE, ERECT, AND MAINTAIN POLES, WIRES, AND OTHER APPLIANCES AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 3 • • • CONDUCTORS AND TO LAY UNDERGROUND WIRES FOR TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICITY FOR TELECOMMUNICATION PURPOSES IN, UPON, UNDER, AND OVER THE STREETS, ALLEYS, AVENUES, THOROUGHFARES,AND PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, AND TO CONDUCT A TELECOMMUNICATION BUSINESS WITHIN THE CITY OF TIGARD, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO SUCH AN AGREEMENT AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Mr. Lowry confirmed to Councilor Scheckla that the agreement was retroactive to 1993. Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 7. PUBLIC HEARING - (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA)96-0009 SHRADER(HEARING CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 28, 1997, COUNCIL MEETING) REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from medium-high density residential to community commercial for an 8.5 acre parcel. - LOCATION: West of SW 135th Avenue, south of Scholls Ferry Road,and east of Old Scholls Ferry Road. The Comprehensive plan amendment involves four parcels. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2) comprehensive plan amendments; 2.1.1 citizen involvement; 5.1, 5.4 economic development; 6.1.1 housing; 8.1.1 transportation; 8.2.2 public transportation; 12.2.1 (4) community commercial zone designation. Also, Community Development code chapters 18.22 comprehensive plan amendments; 18.32 procedures for quasi- judicial comprehensive plan amendments. ZONE: M-H Residential, R-25. a. Open the public hearing Mayor Nicoli explained that this public hearing was opened at the January 28, 1997 meeting and continued. b. Declarations or Challenges Councilors Scheckla and Hunt each stated that he had made a site visit. All Councilors indicated that they were familiar with the application. There were no challenges from the audience. c. Staff Report Jim Hendrvx. Community Development Director, submitted the letter and maps received from Craig Petrie, noting that the applicant has seen only the letter. He stated that staff did contact the interested parties to inform them of the testimony time limits but noted that one individual might ask to exceed the limits. Laurie Nicholson. Associate Planner, reviewed the specifics of the application, including site location at the corner of SW 135 and Old Scholls Ferry Road. The existing plan designation was medium high density residential. The applicant was asking for a CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 4 • • Comprehensive Plan Amendment(CPA) to change the designation to Community Commercial (C-C) for 5.54 acres of an 8.56 acre parcel, leaving the remaining 3.02 acres of wetlands under the Greenway designation. Ms. Nicholson noted the letter received from Steve Janik, representing Haggen's, which questioned the staff recommendation for approval of this application when the Haggen application for a CPA was denied a year ago. She said that the Haggen application had been to change the designation to General Commercial (G-C) which had a different approval criteria. Ms. Nicholson noted that the study for adopting the C-C zone identified the Shrader site as suitable for C-C but not the Haggen site. She mentioned Mr. Janik's reference to the Council's discussion at the Haggen hearing about the potential loss of housing if they granted the request. She stated that the Council findings did not include loss of housing as a finding for denying the Haggen request. She said that one finding for denying the Haggen site had been that it would be surrounded on more than two sides by residential, which was a G-C approval criteria. Ms. Nicholson referenced her February 3 memo citing the other reasons why the Haggen request was denied. She mentioned the letter received today from Craig Petrie recommending denial of the Shrader application because the applicant did not include a zone change request at the same time. She stated that neither the Tigard Comprehensive Plan nor Code required an applicant to submit a zone change request at the same time as a CPA request for C-C. Ms. Nicholson recommended approval of the CPA application, noting the Planning Commission February 2 recommendation for approval. • d. Public Testimony Mayor Nicoli reviewed the public hearing procedures. He asked if there were any objections to the time limits of 20 minutes for the applicant, 20 minutes for the opponent, and 5 - minutes for citizens. Mr. McAdams stated that he would have difficulty with the five- minute time limit. Mayor Nicoli informed the participants that, if necessary, he would remind them to keep their testimony relevant to the issues at hand. Mr. Ramis advised the Council that participants could ask the Councilors about their site • visits and how it might affect their decision. APPLICANT Michael Robinson. 900 SW Fifth Avenue. Suite 2300. Portland. representing the applicant, asked Councilor Scheckla about his site visit. Councilor Scheckla explained that he had checked out the distance from other commercial sites. Mr. Robinson reviewed the reasons he thought it was appropriate to change the plan designation to C-C from medium high residential. These included that it met the criteria for the C-C plan map designation, its identification in 1992 as one of only two sites in Tigard suitable for the C-C designation, it was the right size (between 2 - 8 acres), it was surrounded by the appropriate density (8 dwelling units per acre), there was no other commercial zones in Tigard within in easy walking CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 5 • • distance, it maintained a level of service"D"at the intersection with intersection improvements, there has been a physical change in circumstances and/or a mistake in the original plan designation, and the demonstrable growth in the area over the past 10 years. Mr. Robinson noted the criteria of.5 mile distance from other commercial designations. He contended that the most appropriate way to measure that was by driving distance, as opposed to a straight line. He presented evidence that the site was .5 miles (or close to it) from other commercial sites. He argued that even if the site wasn't exactly .5 miles distant, the stated intent in the Plan was to apply locational criteria in a flexible manner for projects in the public interest and capable of harmonious integration into the community (TCP 2.7) Mr. Robinson cited the August 26, 1992 memo from former City Planning Director Ed Murphy stating that the site met the C-C criteria. He mentioned that the Beaverton commercial sites were not included in the .5 mile criteria. He said that neither the North Dakota nor the Beaverton side provided adequate retail shopping for the area. Noting the Lancaster Associates traffic study coordinated with the City and the County, he stated that the applicant agreed to all the Washington County conditions regarding traffic listed in the November 12, 1996 letter. Mr. Robinson contended that there has been a physical change in circumstances (TCP 1.1.2), citing the adoption of the C-C designation in 1992 as the physical change. He argued that the lack of analysis done on the appropriate zoning for the parcel at the time of its annexation to the City constituted a"mistake." He mentioned the City policy of automatically zoning annexed property at the closest designation to the County zoning. He reviewed the evidence on the growth in the area in a one mile radius, noting the population, housing unit, and number of household statistics from 1980-1990. Mr. Robinson commented that he did not think the Council had to interpret the Code as narrowly as suggested by Mr. Janik. The Council was free to interpret a"physical change"or a"mistake" however it chose to do so. He reiterated that the adoption of the C-C plan map designation constituted a physical change, and that the lack of analysis on zoning at the time of annexation was a mistake. Mr. Robinson said that the City would still meet the Metro housing rule, even if they changed this site designation. He referenced the letter from the City of Beaverton in which they asked that the application not be approved because the property near this site would be designated as a town center under the Metro Functional Plan. He argued that the Functional Plan was neither effective yet nor was the town center designation implemented, and therefore neither was not applicable to this application. He said that a town center did not necessarily provide for the needs of Tigard residents as the C-C district was intended to. Mr. Robinson referenced Mr. Petrie's letter in opposition in which Mr. Petrie questioned the measurement of distance and the loss of housing. He stated that in July 1992 Mr. Petrie supported the Albertson's request for a C-C designation on the grounds that"people have to shop somewhere." Mr. Robinson referenced Mr. Janik's letter of January 24 and his January 28 memo in response to Mr. Janik's memo. He noted the attachment to his memo which gave a comparison between the C- C and G-C designations. He mentioned the differences in intensity of use, approval criteria, and limitations. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 6 1111 . • Mr. Robinson pointed out that when they came in with a zoning map application for C-C, they had to come in with a site development review application at the same time. He said that the Council should not compare this application to a prior one, and asked to be judged strictly on the approval criteria. He asked for approval of the application. PROPONENTS Bob LeFeber. 50 SW Pine Street. #400. Portland, said that he had no comments at this time. OPPONENTS > Mike Van, 6860 SW Boeckman Road. Wilsonville. on behalf of Burton Grabhorn. owner of 15 acres directly to the east of the subject application, disagreed with Mr. Robinson's contention that the applicant has demonstrated a physical change in circumstances. He noted the discussion of the Council at the Briar Development application on reduction and supply of buildable land. He said that he never received a copy of Exhibit H. He questioned the relevance of a City Engineer's comments on the site as suitable for commercial, since the City Engineer was not a land use planner nor authorized by the Council to make those sorts of decisions. Mr. Van cited TCP 8.1.1, commenting that the Grabhorn/Briar applicant did a traffic study equal to this applicant's study which was found inadequate. He contended that the same criteria should apply to both applications. He stated that they intended to put apartments on the property across the street, and pointed out that they would be only 60-70 feet from a commercial development on the subject site. He asked the Council to either deny the application or consider a refinement plan that specified the type of commercial zoning needed in the area. > Steve Janik. 101 SW Main. Suite 1100. Portland_attorney representing Briar Development, stated that the Council had turned down their virtually identical request a year ago because of the Council's desire to maintain high density residential at that intersection. He asked if that policy has changed. If so, they would like to reapply. If not, he contended that the Council had to deny this application. Mr. Janik said that what was before the Council tonight was not a zone change application; it was a Comprehensive Plan change request. Therefore the zoning designations and zone change standards did not apply. He said that the question was did the applicant meet the standards for a Comprehensive Plan change. None of those standards considered what zoning might be requested in the future. Mr. Janik reviewed the Briar Development application in which they informed the Council of exactly what their intentions were for the property and asked that the Comprehensive Plan change and the zoning change each be judged by the appropriate standards. He questioned the applicant's methodology of getting the Comprehensive Plan designation changed first and then coming back with the zoning change request and site development review application. Mr. Janik disagreed that the site has been"preselected" for C-C zoning. He cited a map from the application which showed 11 potential sites in the area, not 2. The map was adopted by the Council in Ordinance 91-13. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 7 • • • Mr. Janik reiterated that the Council denied their application because they wanted to maintain high density residential at that intersection. He read from the February 13, 1996 minutes to substantiate his point. He pointed out that the findings were simply the staff report and did not reflect the Council discussion at the hearing. He contended that if the policy has not changed, then the Council needed to turn down this application. Mr. Janik contended that the application did not comply with TCP 1.1.2,the requirement to demonstrate either a physical change in circumstance or a mistake. He pointed out that the Council rejected Briar Development's argument that growth in the area constituted a physical change. He characterized as"astounding"the argument that adoption of a new zoning code classification constituted a physical change in circumstance. He argued that the words"physical change"could not be logically interpreted to include a zoning code change. He held that LUBA would reverse such an interpretation. Mr. Janik said that the basis for Mr. Robinson's contention that a mistake was made in 1983 was a memo from the City Engineer that said 135th might be able to accommodate commercial. He said that the Council at that time rejected that information and voted in high density residential at this intersection. He noted Councilor Scheckla's remarks at the February 1996 hearing in which he stated that he had been part of the 1983 Comprehensive Plan process and that he did not think a mistake had been made. Mr. Janik noted the argument that the properties were somehow different because of their shape and traffic patterns on the surrounding streets. He indicated the two properties on a map and asked the Council to decide which was inherently suitable for high density residential and which for-Community Commercial. He said that the subject property had 40%more traffic than the Briar Development property. Mr. Janik stated that the applicant has not met the burden of proof for a change in the Comprehensive Plan. He held that their arguments were insufficient to overcome the policy of preserving high density residential housing. He asked that the Council deny the application or step back and study the situation themselves, if they wanted commercial at that intersection. Mr. Janik submitted several documents into the record. > Genie McAdams. 13420 SW Brittany Drive, expressed concerns about traffic congestion on 135 and Scholls Ferry that would lead to cut through traffic in the neighborhoods. He distributed materials to the Council. He stated that he walked daily to Howard's from his home on Brittany Drive, indicating the location of his home on the map. He stated that this proposal would violate the Tigard, Beaverton, and Washington County Transportation plans. He pointed out the maps showing intent to block off the new Scholls Ferry Road and reroute traffic to Davies Road, which he contended would affect this application. Mr. McAdams said that if he were granted approval of access to his business from Scholls Ferry Road (like this application), and then later found out that the City would close off his access, he would feel damaged and probably sue. However if the area was residential, the blocked off access was not an issue. Mr. McAdams contended that the statements asserting that this site was best suited for commercial purposes were unfounded and inaccurate, due to the traffic impacts. (Staff report, page 6). He stated that any change to the transportation plan should be considered separately CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 8 • and in cooperation with the other affected agencies. He said that the overall traffic impacts of this proposal have not been fully evaluated. He concurred with Mr. Janik that the City Engineer's letter did not endorse this site as commercial. The City Engineer simply indicated that it was preferable to a commercial site at Scholls Ferry and North Dakota. Mr. McAdams contended that this site was less than .5 mile from other commercial sites, referencing Attachment E. He said that Tigard was the only jurisdiction in the Northwest that measured distances from the center of the property. He did not think that the methodology was appropriate. Mr. McAdams noted the staff discussion on the "mistake"(page 6). He quoted from the Planning Commission minutes in which Mr. Robinson argued that a new zoning classification constituted a physical change. He asked how development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Plan qualified as a mistake. Citing the new Scholls Ferry Road ending in a cul-de-sac and traffic routed to Davies Road, he asked what the specific difference was between this residential zone and any other neighborhood along Scholls Ferry Road. He asked when was a development identified as a mistake, and held that a mistake should be easily identifiable. He asked when the Council intended to amend the transportation plan. > Blair Whitney. 10800 SW 135th, Beaverton, said that he and his family lived"catty corner" from the subject site. He stated that he was opposed to the application. He said that Tony Cargill, a friend in real estate, researched this issue for him. > Tony Cargill. 13150 SE Winston. Road.Boring, said that it had already been demonstrated that the application did not satisfy any of the applicable plan policies (TCP 1.1.2). He commented that he understood a physical change to mean a concrete visible change in the circumstances. He said that he did not see any physical change on the subject site nor did he see a planning mistake. He contended that a change in a landowner's desire was not a planning mistake; mistakes were factual and could be proven but he has not yet heard any proof. Mr. Cargill noted the staff report statement that the site was less suitable for multi-family development because of noise from traffic. He held that with soundproofing and buffering, the site would remain suitable for multi-family development. _Mr. Cargill said that the staff report contained a serious error in concluding that the area surrounding the site lacked nearby shopping, noting Beaverton's October 24, 1996 memo notifying Tigard staff that the property west of the subject site would be designated a town - center in conformance with Metro's 2040 plan. Mr. Cargill said that citizen involvement included the citizens from Beaverton (TCP 2.1.1) He argued that approving a commercial use that would dramatically alter the character of the neighborhood without consideration of the adjoining jurisdiction was "irresponsible and wrong." Other issues he mentioned were approving an automobile intensive use over a residential use, ignoring the Metro need for high density housing (especially at a site with ideal mass transit connections), and using a minimum housing ratio has a guideline. Mr. Cargill addressed TCP 5.1, diversification of economic opportunities available to Tigard residents. He said that the staff report did not explain what these opportunities were nor did it consider the negative impacts on the existing economic environment by depleting the anticipated residential base and diluting the existing economic environment. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 9 • • Mr. Cargill offered a definition of"diversification" within a land use context as "increasing the base of job opportunities in the community by increasing the varieties of job descriptions and job environments." He held that a new gas station would simply repeat existing uses, not offer diversification, while residential units would add jobs to the local area through increased demand for residential services, and.would increase the number of consumers to support the existing commercial and retail opportunities in the area. Mr. Cargill addressed TCP 5.4, encroachment. He said that the applicant's opinion on encroachment was erroneous, as it would occur through noise and lighting pollution as well as aesthetic degradation. He said that it was difficult to make a gas station aesthetically compatible with residential uses. Mr. Cargill said that the status of potential designation should carry no weight nor guarantee any special consideration for zoning or comprehensive Plan changes. He mentioned the Metro 2040 plan for a city center at Murray and Scholls Ferry, Beaverton's intention to rezone the property, to the west, and the difficulty of keeping petroleum spills from polluting the greenway and storm system. - Mr. Cargill addressed TCP 6.1.1. He said that medium density zoning filled a viable market need for R-25 sites with immediate proximity to mass transit. He asked when this inventory would be replaced if lost to commercial. He said that Tigard needed hundreds of new housing units each year just to serve the established population. Mr. Cargill addressed TCP 8.1.1. He said that a desire for infrastructure improvements was a poor trade off for a land use designation change. These road improvements would happen whether the site was commercial or residential. He stated that the road system in the area often operated at 100%capacity now, and that a commercial use at this location would create higher daily loadings. In addition, it would emphasize vehicular dependence and discourage non- motorized transportation. He cited a April 19, 1992 staff report regarding the benefits of a residential use versus the detriments of a commercial use. He commented that, despite Mr. Robinson's claims that"traffic infiltration into neighborhoods"was not a criteria, cut through traffic did matter to the neighbors. Mr. Cargill contended that the applicant failed to satisfy TCP 8.2.2 because mass transit was wasted on gas stations and convenience stores. Mr. Cargill contended that the 8.56 acre site failed to meet the guidelines o 2.228 acre size requirement. The requirement made no provision for split zoning and this request would leave a small parcel of R-25 zoning. He said that the staff report statement that the locational criteria of impact assessment was moot because the application was not a zone change was a political technicality because the Comprehensive Plan would prevail in the case of a conflict with the zoning map. - Mr. Cargill recommended denial of the application because the negative impacts of the proposed change outweighed the questionable benefits. Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a break at 9:45 p.m. Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 9:56 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 10 . • - --- > Craig Petrie. 12397 SW Canvas Back Way, stated that he came to the meeting after hearing on the cable cast Mr. Robinson quote something out of context. He contended that no mistake was made in changing the site designation for the Albertson's store, citing his familiarity with the C- C designation. He referenced the County plan map, arguing that the site was within .5 miles of other commercial sites. He said that in the absence of any specific proposal, the City should force an applicant to prove that every allowable use in that zone was compatible; ignoring the impact assessment was not in the best interests of the citizens of Tigard. Mr. Petrie suggested turning down the application until the applicant submitted a comprehensive plan and zone change at the same time because then the applicant would have to submit a site development plan also. That way the City would know exactly what they planned to do with the site. He asked that this application be held to the same high standards as the Albertson's application was subject to, noting that the opposition to Albertson's did not come from the neighbors. Mr. Petrie presented a map demonstrating the number of commercial sites within a 1.5 mile radius serving this site. He said that the intent of the C-C zone was to let the City know exactly what the use would be when it committed to that zoning. He suggested rejecting the application outright or rejecting it and telling them to consider a simultaneous comprehensive plan amendment and zone change applications. Councilor Hunt asked about the 1.5 mile radius Mr. Petrie mentioned. Ms. Nicholson said that the Code said .5 miles. > Jack Polans. 16800 Queen Victoria Place. King City, said that he did not like to see residential areas changing to commercial. He asked if Tigard had a list of currently available commercial lands and the percentage of future commercial areas to be allowed. Mr. Ramis clarified staffs answer to Mr. Petrie's exhibit on the 1.5 mile. He explained that the .5 mile standard referred to the spacing and location of commercial centers while the 1.5 mile referred to the intended service area. The 1.5 mile standard could be considered relevant if the Council chose. REBUTTAL Mr. Robinson said that he raised the point about Mr. Petrie's comments on the Albertson's application because in 1992 Mr. Petrie supported providing more places to shop while today he opposed doing the same thing. He mentioned the discussion comparing this site to the Haggen site. He said that each application should be judged according to the facts and the law in effect on the date the application was made. How the Haggen application was treated by the City was not relevant to this application; the question was whether or not they met the approval criteria. Mr. Robinson said that they were not proposing a use at this time. He reiterated that they were not required to submit a Comprehensive Plan map, Zoning map, and Site Development Review application at the same time. However if the Council approved the request, they had to come back with the zone change and site development review applications at the same time, neither of which the Council was obliged to approve. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 11 • • Mr. Robinson said that he included Mr. Wooley's April 26 1991 memo in the record because he did say he preferred the 135th and Scholls Ferry site to the 135`1' and North Dakota site. It was evidence that the City did look at these two sites intensively as possibilities for the C-C zone. Mr. Robinson concurred that the Council denied the Briar Development application because of a concern for housing. He noted that five Comprehensive Plan policies were cited in the findings as reasons to deny the Haggen application. He reiterated that what was relevant was what was in the final order. Mr. Robinson said that he did not think they had created any confusion regarding the zone change. They were not applying for one. They have used the Tigard Plan map designation as it appeared in the plan. Mr. Robinson cited the August 26, 1992 memo to City Council from Ed Murphy which referred to a map (Exhibit C) as showing the only two sites within the city limits and with the city's future growth area that met the standards for the C-C zone. On the original map two sites were highlighted in yellow: the subject site and the Albertson's site on Scholls Ferry and Walnut. Mr. Robinson reiterated his argument that a new zoning district and plan map designation constituted a physical change. He held that if it was not reasonable to show a mistake or physical change, then the C-C map designation would never be implemented because there was no way to meet the approval criteria. He said that he disagreed that the term was so narrow that it meant only a change on the ground. - Mr. Robinson addressed Mr. McAdam's testimony. He said that Lancaster Engineering consulted with the County and the City staff on how to do the traffic study. He cited a April 30, 1996 letter from Mark Roberts of Tigard listing the County conditions for traffic. He pointed out that the Murray and Davis extensions and Scholls Ferry disconnection were slated for after 2005, and that their planning horizon for the traffic study ended at 2005. That was why they did not mention them. The traffic study showed that the intersection would function at a level of service "D", which was acceptable to both the County and the City. Mr. Robinson said that Council did not need to rely on zoning designations from Beaverton because they had no control over them. They could only control Tigard designations. He contended that it made no sense to evaluate the .5 mile standard against designations they could not control. e. Staff Recommendation Ms. Nicholson recommended approval. f. Council Questions: None g. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. - Councilor Hunt asked if staff had any comments on the traffic study for the Haggen proposal. Mr. Ramis advised Council to reopen the hearing if staff responded to questions. Mayor Nicoli reopened the hearing. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 12 • • Ms. Nicholson said that the Haggen application could not meet the approval criteria for transportation unless the request were limited to the grocery store. Councilor Hunt asked why the Council discussion on retaining high density housing at this intersection was not reflected in the findings. He asked how to make sure that Council discussion was included in findings in the future. Mr. Monahan said that Council probably adopted the findings at the close of the hearing that night. Mr. Ramis said that it was good practice for Council to direct staff to return with findings at a later date (provided they were not up against the 120-day rule) so that Council discussion could be incorporated into the findings. Councilor Scheckla stated that he supported retaining high density residential at this location during the Haggen proposal because of the proximity of a park, a school, and mass transit to multi-family housing. He said that commercial was still not allowable even if called"community." He said that he would not change how he has voted in the past on similar issues. He commented that the point was to get people out of their cars. He noted the need for more housing in the Metro area. Councilor Moore asked what the differences were between general commercial and community commercial. Ms.Nicholson said that general commercial contained no limitations on the site and could attract a regional market. Councilor Moore asked what the advantages were to requesting a Comprehensive Plan change first and then returning for a zoning change. Mr. Ramis said that the Code did not require applications to be submitted at the same time, except for Community Commercial which had to be accompanied by a site plan. He said that nothing mandated the Council to approve or disapprove the requests. Councilor Moore asked if gas stations were a permitted use in Community Commercial. Ms. Nicholson said that they were a conditional use. In response to a request from Mayor Nicoli, Ms. Nicholson read the uses permitted in the C-C zone. Councilor Moore said that he seemed to remember a prior application on the same corner coming in for neighborhood commercial and being denied by the Planning Commission. Ms. Nicholson said that the Shrader site did originally apply for neighborhood commercial but withdrew their application upon discussion of the community commercial zone. Mr. Janik reiterated that all that was before the Council was a Comprehensive Plan change; they were not dealing with zoning. He noted that Briar Development voluntarily agreed to a condition on their Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Zone Change request to limit the use specifically to a Haggen store of the size and configuration shown on the site plan. He said that they had not raised the specter of unlimited use in a G-C zone if Council granted them the zone-change_Ms. Nicholson confirmed to the Mayor that Briar Development did agree to that condition because Washington County required a limited use to support the traffic findings. However the Council did not consider that request. Mr. Robinson reiterated that Metro's plans were not relevant to this application. He reviewed the 1991 application which the applicant withdrew prior to it coming to the Council because of the community commercial discussion. He pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan allowed for conditions of approval to be placed on a community commercial site, whereas nothing was mentioned for general commercial. He said that they did not come in with a zone change request at this time because of the difficulty of assembling a full scale plan when they did not know whether the plan map would be there (ORS 227.178(3). Another reason was that when applying for a plan CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 13 I1 map designation change and a zone change at the same time,Oregon land use law required that a zone change be evaluated against the designation in effect on the property at the date of application, not against the designation being requested. It was difficult to meet the approval criteria. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. h. Council Consideration Councilor Hunt stated that he was opposed to the application because he could not see any real difference in the traffic findings for this application and the findings for the Haggen application. They would generate the same traffic and create the same type of problems. He noted the mass transit in the area intended to serve residents, and expressed discomfort with removing a medium density location currently served by mass transit. Councilor Hunt spoke for consistency in Council action. He mentioned that when they allowed the high density parcel on 99W to be changed to commercial and transferred the density to Bull Mountain, they ended up with an eyesore and erosion where before there had been a forested hill. He reiterated-the need to protect medium and high density areas when well served by transportation and other stores. Mr. Monahan noted for the record that the staff and Planning Commission had recommended denial of the Briar Development application. Mayor Nicoli said that he was leaning towards approval. He stated that he saw a major difference between this application and the Haggen application. Haggen requested G-C zoning, and potentially could have drawn a market from around the city. While he would like to have approved that request, it did not fit the site. He said that he could not compare that to the land uses that would be permitted on this site. He said that he would like to see a smaller neighborhood commercial in the area. He commented that traffic and future roads were not issues for him. Mayor Nicoli spoke on the testimony received from the neighboring property owners, commenting that the adversarial testimony discredited both sides. He said that while he would like the site to be smaller, it did have the advantage of unexpandable boundaries with two streets and a greenway on its three sides. Councilor Rohlf concurred with the Mayor that the Haggen request was not appropriate, though he too would like to see Haggen's in the community. He expressed discomfort with Haggen's approach to this application- if we didn't get it, neither should they - an argument he did not find persuasive. He said that there was a significant difference between the two applications, and that his opinion on the appropriateness of the Haggen application has not changed. Councilor Rohlf said that he was bothered by-calling a change in the code a"physical change," contending that it set a bad precedent. He stated that he did not think it was a mistake to zone land ideally suited for multi-family as multi-family. Therefore, the application did not meet the requirements for a Comprehensive Plan change. He expressed discomfort with piecemeal planning, as demonstrated by this application . He noted that the Albertson's request was developed with heavy involvement from the neighborhood. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 14 • • Councilor Rohlf concurred that the applicant had no legal requirement to come in with a whole plan. He spoke for addressing that issue (as an identified weakness of the Code) noting it would be better if the Council and a neighborhood could know what the whole picture was prior to making a decision. He said that he would vote against the proposal: Councilor Moore said that on the Planning Commission he voted against the Briar Development application and subsequently removed himself from the Council deliberation when it came before them. He said that he thought Briar Development did not fit that location. He said that he did think this was a better fit and was leaning towards approval. He invited discussion on the subject of a change in the Code as a"physical change." Councilor Rohlf said that not knowing what that meant exactly concerned him because down the road anyone could come in and ask for a Comprehensive Plan change because the Code changed. Councilor Moore asked for a legal interpretation on when a change in the Code was a mistake. Mr. Ramis advised Council of their role in making such interpretations;he said Council would need to interpret the word"physical" as a point of decision on this case. Mayor Nicoli said that he thought the error was built into the system of automatically assigning the closest matching City zoning to the County zoning on annexed lands, pointing out that usually it worked to the City's benefit. He suggested examining this policy at some time, and discussing allowing testimony on zoning of annexed lands. He said that he did not disagree with Councilor Rohlf that the multi-family land on the Tigard side had developed more slowly the multi-family land on the Beaverton side. It was the process he thought should be discussed. Councilor Rohlf concurred. Mayor Nicoli said that he was more comfortable with this application because he thought it was a better fit than the Haggen application. Councilor Rohlf mentioned the opposition in the neighborhood to gas stations along Scholls Ferry Road. Mayor Nicoli commented that at this hearing there was not a great deal of testimony from the neighborhood,especially in comparison to the neighborhood groups testifying at the Haggen hearing. Councilor Scheckla reiterated the need for residential housing,asking why they made improvements to Summerlake Park if they did not intend for more people to use it. He asked if they would have to rezone for higher density somewhere else if this went through. Mr. Hendryx said that they would not have to replace these units to meet the Metro housing rule. Councilor Scheckla argued for using this land for residential when it was so ideally suited for it with a park, a school and mass transit close by. He said that he would vote against this application as he had against the Haggen application because commercial on either side of the road was the same problem. Motion by Councilor Rohlf to deny the application, seconded by Councilor Hunt. Mr. Ramis suggested asking staff to work with the prevailing party and to bring back findings to a date certain. Councilor Rohlf withdrew his motion. Motion by Councilor Rohlf,seconded by Councilor Hunt, to direct staff to come back with final findings and ordinance for denial. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 15 • • Motion passed by majority roll call vote of the Council present. (Councilors Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes"; Mayor Nicoli and Councilor Moore voted "no".) Mr. Monahan set February 25th as the date to return the findings to Council. 8. FOLLOW-UP REPORT- MEASURE 47 AND ANNEXATION ISSUES This item was postponed. 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS 10. 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. Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a break at 11:00 p.m. Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 11:03 p.m. 11. STUDY SESSION > City Engineer position Mr. Monahan reported that the City Engineer position has been advertised. Council-discussion followed. Councilor Hunt expressed discomfort at funding this position while cutting the police department. Councilor Moore expressed his support for filling the position, citing the negative effects of understaffing. He said that the police department was a separate issue that needed separate discussion. Councilor Scheckla contended that cutting back police simply meant more problems down the road, especially with increased population. Councilor Rohlf expressed support for the position, noting that capital projects went uncompleted this year due to understaffing. While noting the need to maintain the police programs, he concurred with Councilor Moore that understaffing could have serious repercussions on the current Engineering staff. He commented that while the public might vote more money to pay for a police officer, they were not likely to do so for an engineer. He said that he thought they would have to go out to the voters for the funding for police. If the public said no on the police, then that was their choice. Councilor Hunt asked for clarification on Measure 47 requirements regarding levying taxes to replace lost revenue. Mr. Monahan explained that cities could not levy fees to replace lost property tax revenue. He said that the latest information out of Salem was that the Legislature would allow the local option. Mayor Nicoli said that he was in favor of hiring a City Engineer. > Transfer of urban services. Mr. Monahan reported that next week staff hoped to have more information for Council from their discussions with Washington County on the transfer. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 16 • • . Noting the current shortage of office space for staff, Councilor Hunt asked where these new staff members would be housed. Mr. Monahan reviewed the options available, including the Water Building, and the building currently used by Interfaith Outreach (who would vacate as of January 1). Councilor Hunt expressed concern about current City. Councilor Rohif concurred. Mr. Monahan explained that the Interfaith Outreach building was suitable for offices and had adequate parking. Interfaith found it met their needs admirably. He said that his task was to pull together all relevant information and present it to Council in a package for their review and decision. Councilor Moore asked about buying an auxiliary building for space. Mr. Monahan said that he did not think that they would get enough money from the County for that, although they might find money in the building fund if it generated sufficient surplus over time. >. Elected officials workshop Mr. Monahan asked the Council to let staff know if any were interested in the League of Oregon Cities Elected Officials workshop. - > Goal Setting Mr. Monahan reviewed the format for the goal setting session. He said that he would give his report on the transfer of urban services and present recommendations from the Executive staff retreat. - Councilor Hunt requested a recording secretary at Budget Committee meetings to allow Mr. Lowry to concentrate on his presentation. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:29 p.m. CatigetirtR 110 0 Atte . Catherine Wheatley, City Recordki ayor, City of Tigar• Date: 3/1//47 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1997 - PAGE 17 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON -M TO: Mayor Nicoli and Members of City Council FROM: Laurie Nicholson,Planning Division DATE: February 11, 1997 SUBJECT: Summary of Materials Received Regarding the Shrader Application Staff has received additional information in reference to the Shrader application for a comprehensive plan amendment. Stephen Janik, representing Dan Boyden and Briar Development (Haggen's), faxed a letter on January 24, 1997, to staff. According to Mr. Janik, the application for the plan amendment for Briar development was treated unequally from the Shrader application. His letter outlines how, in his opinion,Briar was treated unequally from Shrader. The Haggen's application was a request for a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial. The Shrader application is a request for a comprehensive plan amendment from Medium Density Residential to Community Commercial. The applicant will have to request a zone change before this property can be developed. The two zones, General Commercial and Community Commercial serve different purposes and consequently have different comprehensive plan approval criteria. General Commercial has no limit on the size of commercial development; it can serve a broad range of uses and can serve a broad population. Community Commercial places a limit on the size and variety of commercial development and is meant to serve the immediate, surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Janik's first point is, that in City Council minutes, members of City Council commented that there would be a loss of housing potential with the Briar plan amendment. Members of City Council did comment on loss of housing, however,this was not the reason that City Council denied Briar's request for a plan amendment and zone change. The reasons for denying Briar's proposed plan amendment are as follows: 1. Comprehensive plan policy 1.1.2(2) was not met because the applicant had not shown that a mistake or physical change had taken place. 2. Comprehensive plan policy 5.4 was not met because the site of the proposed plan amendment would allow the encroachment of new commercial development into established and developing residential areas. 1111 • 3. Comprehensive plan policy 8.1.1 and Transportation Planning Rule 660-12-060 were not met because the road system does not have the capacity for a change to General Commercial, without limiting the plan amendment to a specific land use. 4. Comprehensive plan policy 12.2.1(2)was not satisfied because the applicant could not meet the locational criterion that commercial cannot be surrounded on more than two sides by residential. Although both sites are bordered on two sides by major roads, the two sites do not have the same configuration and site constraints. Because of the site size, wetlands limitations, and the site's shape, buffering residential land uses from traffic would be more difficult to accomplish on the Shrader site than on the Haggen's site. The Shrader application involves 5.56 acres. The entire site is 8.3 acres,but 2.74 acres of the site are dedicated greenway or identified as significant wetlands in the City's wetland inventory. According to the City's wetlands inventory,the Haggen's site has no significant wetlands or greenway located on it. The Shrader site is triangularly shaped with three roads bordering each side of the site. The Haggen's site is more rectangular in shape than the Shrader site, and large enough to buffer residential land uses from traffic and noise. Mr. Janik raises concern with the City's ability to make favorable findings regarding traffic for the Shrader site, compared to the unfavorable traffic findings for Haggen's. With regards to the Shrader plan amendment, Washington County said that it could support the proposed plan amendment if improvements were made to the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th. Washington County indicated in their letter, dated November 12, 1996, that the intersection of SW 135 and SW Scholls Ferry Road will fail without the recommended improvements outlined in the applicant's traffic study. The Shrader Trust is currently requesting only a comprehensive plan map amendment. They will need to receive approval on a zone change before they can develop their property. Staff determined that it would be appropriate to condition Shrader's zone change application to include these road improvements. As per City Council's direction, Community Commercial zone changes require that a site plan be submitted simultaneously with the zone change application, unlike General Commercial zone changes. Haggen's rezone would have required a condition that would limit the land use. It is more difficult to enforce and track a condition limiting the land use than it is for a condition on road improvements. The final relevant point relates to comprehensive plan policy 1.1.2(2), requiring that a mistake or physical change has taken place. The City's adoption of the Community Commercial zone represents a physical change. The study for the Community Commercial zone identified only two sites as meeting all the planning criteria for this zone; one of these sites identified was the Shrader site. Haggen's site was not identified in any study as suitable for commercial use. The applicants for Haggen's could have applied for a change to Community Commercial, however, they could not have constructed a 63,000 square foot store under the Community Commercial zone. Even if they applied for Community Commercial,they may not have met its plan criteria. S • Staff received a letter from Shrader's representative, Michael Robinson. His letter is responding to the issues raised in Mr. Janik's letter. He also includes in his letter a matrix outlining the differences between the two applications, in addition to rebuttal of Mr. Janik's letter. Mr. Robinson points out that, although the applicants for Briar development are unhappy with the results of their plan amendment and rezone application,they chose not to appeal the decision. Staff recently received a letter from Gene McAdams stating his opposition to the proposed plan amendment. He states that his opposition is primarily due to vagueness in how spacing of commercial areas is measured under the Community Commercial zone. He is correct that the Tigard Comprehensive plan does not provide a precise methodology for spacing under Policy 12.2.1 (4)(B)(1b). It is the City's discretion to interpret whether or not this locational standard is satisfied. The policy also states that less than the minimum spacing is allowed between commercial uses, if those land uses are primarily non-retail uses. • • BALL JANIK LLP A T T O R N E Y S ONE MAIN PLACE 101 SourHwEsT MAIN STREET, SUITE 1 100 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3219 STEPHEN T.JANIK TELEPHONE 503-228-2525 sjanik @bjllp.com FACSIMILE 503-295-1058 February 11, 1997 VIA FACSIMILE (684-7297) Mayor Nicoli and Members of the Tigard City Council Tigard City Hall 1312 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Shrader Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (CPA-96-0009) Dear Mayor Nicoli and Members of the City Council: As you are aware, we represent Briar Development, which previously had applied to the City for a comprehensive plan map amendment to change the designation of a portion of its property from R25 to commercial so as to construct a Hagen's food store. That request was approved by the Planning Commission and denied by the City Council. I had previously written to you on January 24, 1997, raising concerns about the apparently different treatment the Shrader comprehensive plan amendment was receiving from the City. Laurie Nicholson has sent you a staff memo dated February 3, 1997 which is intended to respond to my letter. Unfortunately, there are a number of significant errors in Ms. Nicholson's letter that require a further reply. 1. Ms. Nicholson contends that because our use would require General Commercial zoning and the Shrader use will require Community Commercial zoning, the comprehensive plan changes for these two cases "have different comprehensive plan approval criteria." That is not correct. Our case involved a comprehensive plan change. The Shrader case involves a comprehensive plan change. The City's approval criteria for a comprehensive plan change are the same in each of these cases and are the same, regardless of what subsequent zone change may or may not be applied for. Both of these cases involve comprehensive plan map amendments from R-25 to commercial. The approval criteria (as noted in Ms. Nicholson's February 3, 1997 report) are the same for both cases. There may be different approval criteria for requesting one commercial zone as compared to another, but none of that is before you in this case and none of that is relevant to this case. 0125154.02 PoRTLAND.OREGON WASHINGTON,D.C. SALEM,OREGON `BALL JANIK LLP • • Mayor Nicoli and Members of the Tigard City Council February 11, 1997 Page 2 2. Ms. Nicholson contends that the loss of housing "was not the reason that City Council denied Briar's request for a plan amendment...." That is not a correct statement. Ms. Nicholson was not involved in any respect with the Briar Development case. The accurate reflection of the reasons for the City Council's decision in that case are set forth at pages 20-22 of the City Council Meeting Minutes of the meeting of February 13, 1996. The following is a complete summary of the only reasons given by council members for their vote to deny the plan change: • Councilor Hunt "said that the only way he could support this application was if a location was found for the high density [residential] before the application was approved." Councilor Hunt "asked why they should rezone high density now when they would have to find more if Metro insisted on more high density." • Councilor Scheckla "concurred with Councilor Hunt's comments that the density had to be addressed; if it wasn't located at this site, then it had to be located somewhere else, which probably meant another rezone. This site was already approved for high density, met the Metro 2040 plan, and was close to schools." • Councilor Rohlf "concurred with the other councilor's comments." He also stated that "he was not convinced that a mistake was made in zoning that land multi family." • Mayor Nicoli "said that his concerns were similar to those of the other councilors." The above represents the only reasons given by council members, and all of these comments focus on a concern over the loss of high density planned residential land. Ms. Nicholson is, therefore, incorrect when she states that the City Council found violations of four comprehensive plan policies, and that these were the reasons that the City Council denied the Briar Development comprehensive plan change. In fact, Ms. Nicholson is referring to the staff report in the Briar Development case, which was written months before the City Council hearing, but which ended up becoming the findings which were ultimately adopted by the City Council. However, the genuine reason for the council's action is set forth in the quotations above from the Minutes. 0125154.02 BALL JANIK LLP • • Mayor Nicoli and Members of the Tigard City Council February 11, 1997 Page 3 3. Ms. Nicholson contends that "the study for the community commercial zone identifies only two sites as meeting all of the planning criteria for this zone; one of the sites identified was the Shrader site." This statement is not correct. The applicant's materials include, as Exhibit H, a copy of a map adopted by the City through Ordinance No. ORD 91-13. That map shows possible Community Commercial sites as determined by the City Council, not as determined by the planning staff. There are 11 sites identified on that map, not 2 sites as stated in Ms. Nicholson's memorandum. 4. Ms. Nicholson contends that the applicant in this case has demonstrated that Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.2(2) has been satisfied. That policy requires, as a precondition for a comprehensive plan map amendment, a demonstration that either there was a mistake in the original comprehensive plan map designation or that a subsequent physical change has taken plan. Ms. Nicholson now contends, as a basis for satisfying Policy 1.1.2(2), that the "physical change" that has taken place is the "City's adoption of the community commercial zone." Her conclusion is wrong for two reasons. a. The adoption of a new zoning map category is simply not a "physical change." The Council cannot "interpret" the words, "physical change"to achieve Ms. Nicholson's conclusion. Such an "interpretation" is clearly wrong, in that it is logically inconsistent with the words being interpreted and, accordingly, would be reversed by LUBA. b. The applicant has never tried to justify its comprehensive plan map amendment based upon the "physical change" offered by Ms. Nicholson. Ms. Nicholson is, in effect, trying to make the case for the applicant and to make a case that not even the applicant has • attempted to make. - - The applicant, at page 6 of its application, makes two arguments of physical change. First, the applicant argues that the "areas surrounding the site has developed many additional residential units with little or no opportunity for nearby shopping," and second, the applicant argues that a physical change has occurred because "growth has occurred in the general area." These arguments are essentially the same. The argument that growth is a physical change justifying a comprehensive plan amendment was rejected by the staff in Briar Development's case, was rejected by the staff in this case in its Staff Report dated November 14, 1996, and was rejected by the Planning Commission in this case. If this position is now incorrect, the Briar Development case warrants reconsideration to apply this new reasoning. 0125154.02 BALL JANIK LLP • Mayor Nicoli and Members of the Tigard City Council February 11, 1997 Page 4 6. The applicant has attempted to use the same justification that Briar Development used for its comprehensive plan amendment, which was that substantial residential growth was a physical change justifying a comprehensive plan change. That argument has been rejected by City Council and cannot be the basis for justifying the applicant's requested comprehensive plan change, if it was rejected in the Briar Development case. 7. Ms. Nicholson states that "buffering residential land uses from traffic would be more difficult to accomplish on the Shrader site than on the Hagen's site." The two sites have virtually the same configuration and are surrounded on two sides by a major road. In fact, the volume of traffic on the Hagen's site is 40% greater than the volume of traffic on the Shrader site. Buffering 40% more traffic is of greater benefit for nearby residential uses. In addition, the Hagen's application involved leaving a substantial portion of the site in high density residential use, as further buffer to existing residences. In conclusion, we request that City Council either reconsider the Briar Development,denial or deny the requested comprehensive plan map amendment. This is the only result that would be consistent with the analysis and decision rendered by the City Council in Briar Development's comprehensive plan map amendment case. Any other result would consist of the inconsistent application by the City Council of the policies in its comprehensive plan. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Stephen T. Janik STJ/chf 0125154.02 • • MEMORANDUM 1/ti 11gHr��lUlHd�������\ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ........ -__.� TO: Mayor Nicoli and Members of City Council FROM: Laurie Nicholson, Planning Division DATE: February 3, 1997 SUBJECT: Summary of Materials Received Regarding the Shrader Application Staff has received additional information in reference to the Shrader application for a comprehensive plan amendment. Stephen Janik, representing Dan Boyden and Briar Development (Haggen's), faxed a letter on January 24, 1997, to staff. According to Mr. Janik, the application for the plan amendment for Briar development was treated unequally from the Shrader application. His letter outlines how, in his opinion,Briar was treated unequally from Shrader. The Haggen's application was a request for a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial. The Shrader application is a request for a comprehensive plan amendment from Medium Density Residential to Community Commercial. The applicant will have to request a zone change before this property can be developed. The two zones, General Commercial and Community Commercial serve different purposes and consequently have different comprehensive plan approval criteria. General Commercial has no limit on the size of commercial development; it can serve a broad range of uses and can serve a broad population. Community Commercial places a limit on the size and variety of commercial development and is meant to serve the immediate, surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Janik's first point is, that in City Council minutes, members of City Council commented that there would be a loss of housing potential with the Briar plan amendment. Members of City Council did comment on loss of housing, however,this was not the reason that City Council denied Briar's request for a plan amendment and zone change. The reasons for denying Briar's proposed plan amendment are as follows: 1. Comprehensive plan policy 1.1.2(2) was not met because the applicant had not shown that a mistake or physical change had taken place. 2. Comprehensive plan policy 5.4 was not met because the site of the proposed plan amendment would allow the encroachment of new commercial development into established and developing residential areas. • 111 • 3. Comprehensive plan policy 8.1.1 and Transportation Planning Rule 660-12-060 were not met because the road system does not have the capacity for a change to General Commercial, without limiting the plan amendment to a specific land use. 4. Comprehensive plan policy 12.2.1(2) was not satisfied because the applicant could not meet the locational criterion that commercial cannot be surrounded on more than two sides by residential. Although both sites are bordered on two sides by major roads, the two sites do not have the same configuration and site constraints. Because of the site size, wetlands limitations, and the site's shape, buffering residential land uses from traffic would be more difficult to accomplish on the Shrader site than on the Haggen's site. The Shrader application involves 5.56 acres. The entire site is 8.3 acres,but 2.74 acres of the site are dedicated greenway or identified as significant wetlands in the City's wetland inventory. According to the City's wetlands inventory,the Haggen's site has no significant wetlands or greenway located on it. The Shrader site is triangularly shaped with three roads bordering each side of the site. The Haggen's site is more rectangular in shape than the Shrader site, and large enough to buffer residential land uses from traffic and noise. Mr. Janik raises concern with the City's ability to make favorable findings regarding traffic for the Shrader site, compared to the unfavorable traffic findings for Haggen's. With regards to the Shrader plan amendment, Washington County said that it could support the proposed plan amendment if improvements were made to the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th. Washington County indicated in their letter, dated November 12, 1996, that the intersection of SW 135 and SW Scholls Ferry Road will fail without the recommended improvements outlined in the applicant's traffic study. The Shrader Trust is currently requesting only a comprehensive plan map amendment. They will need to receive approval on a zone change before they can develop their property. Staff determined that it would be appropriate to condition Shrader's zone change application to include these road improvements. As per City Council's direction, Community Commercial zone changes require that a site plan be submitted simultaneously with the zone change application, unlike General Commercial zone changes. Haggen's rezone would have required a condition that would limit the land use. It is more difficult to enforce and track a condition limiting the land use than it is for a condition on road improvements. The final relevant point relates to comprehensive plan policy 1.1.2(2), requiring that a mistake or physical change has taken place. The City's adoption of the Community Commercial zone represents a physical change. The study for the Community Commercial zone identified only two sites as meeting all the planning criteria for this zone; one of these sites identified was the Shrader site. Haggen's site was not identified in any study as suitable for commercial use. The applicants for Haggen's could have applied for a change to Community Commercial, however, they could not have constructed a 63,000 square foot store under the Community Commercial zone. Even if they applied for Community Commercial,they may not have met its plan criteria. . , i • Staff received a letter from Shrader's representative, Michael Robinson. His letter is responding to the issues raised in Mr. Janik's letter. He also includes in his letter a matrix outlining the differences between the two applications, in addition to rebuttal of Mr. Janik's letter. Mr. Robinson points out that, although the applicants for Briar development are unhappy with the results of their plan amendment and rezone application,they chose not to appeal the decision. Staff recently received a letter from Gene McAdams stating his opposition to the proposed plan amendment. He states that his opposition is primarily due to vagueness in how spacing of commercial areas is measured under the Community Commercial zone. He is correct that the Tigard Comprehensive plan does not provide a precise methodology for spacing under Policy 12.2.1 (4)(B)(1b). It is the City's discretion to interpret whether or not this locational standard is satisfied. The policy also states that less than the minimum spacing is allowed between commercial uses, if those land uses are primarily non-retail uses. • (A (0- 0hOt • Agenda Item No. 33 Meeting of ail' /4?? r TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JANUARY 28, 1997 • • EXECUTIVE SESSION > Executive Session was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore,Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Legal Counsel Steve Crew; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Finance Director Wayne Lowry; Administrative Risk Analyst Loreen Mills; Mike Mills, Water Department(Executive Session Only);-Asst. to the City Administrator Liz Newton; Public Works Director Ed Wegner(Executive Session Only); and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley. > Executive Session recessed at 7:10 p.m. to Tour Self-Checkout System in the Library. > Tour at the Library: Self-Checkout System > Executive Session reconvened at 7:20 p.m. > Executive Session recessed at 7:38 p.m. • 1. BUSINESS MEETING • Call to Order- City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. He announced that the hearing for CPA 96-0009 Shrader would be continued to a date certain of February 11 at the request of the applicant. • Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None • Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: None CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 28, 1997 - PAGE 1 • • " 3. CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Hunt requested to pull Item 3.3. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve the Consent Agenda, pulling Item 3.3. 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: December 17 and 30, 1996 3.2 Approve Resolution Amending Resolution No. 96-69 to Revise the Legal Description for Surplus Right-of-Way and Authorize the City Manager to Sign a Quitclaim Deed - Resolution No. 97-01 3.3 (This item was discussed separately; see discussion below.) 3.4 Approve Budget Adjustment for a Library Internet Access Grant and a U.S. Department of Justice Grant for Police Equipment- Resolution No. 97-03 • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion _ 3.3 Approve Budget Adjustment for Rite Center Capital Contribution-Resolution No. 97- Councilor Hunt said that the language in the packet material appeared to indicate that the City was waiving $10,000 in development fees instead of only $5000. Bill Monahan. City Manager, explained that the intent was for the City to provide$5000 of the $10,000 waiver in cash to Interfaith Outreach, leaving the remaining $5000 available for waiver of development fees. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution No. 97-02. The City Recorder read the number and title of Resolution No. 97-02. RESOLUTION NO. 97-02 - A RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING CONTINGENCY IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE RITE CENTER. Motion was approved by majority voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Moore and Rohlf voted "yes"; Councilors Hunt and Scheckla abstained.) CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -.JANUARY 28, 1997 - PAGE 2 • • 4. PUBLIC HEARING - (QUASI-JUDICIAL) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0009 SHRADER REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from medium-high density residential to community commercial for an 8.5 acre parcel.- 'LOCATION: West of SW 135th Avenue, south of Scholls Ferry Road, and east of Old Scholls Ferry Road. The comprehensive plan amendment involves four parcels. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2)comprehensive plan amendments; 2.1.1 citizen involvement; 5.1, 5.4 economic development; 6.1.1 housing; 8.1.1 transportation; 8.2.2 public transportation; 12.2.1(4) community commercial zone designation. Also, Community Development Code chapters 18.22 comprehensive plan amendments; 18.32 procedures for quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendments. ZONE: M-H Residential, R-25 a. Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title/information and opened the public hearing. Motion by Councilor Rohlf,seconded by Councilor Moore, to continue the hearing to February 11, 1997. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") Mr. Monahan said that staff would provide a summarization of all of the information provided to Council by Friday. 5. REVIEW OF VISIONING SURVEY RESULTS Loreen Mills. Administrative Risk Analyst, reported that the survey results showed six areas of major concern to citizens: public safety, municipal services, schools and education, growth and growth management,transportation and traffic, and community character or quality of life. She noted the similar responses from those who thought the community was either better or worse. Those who thought that the community was better cited reasons of closer proximity to shopping and road improvements improving the traffic flow. Those who thought it was worse cited reasons of traffic congestion, no road improvements, and too much population growth. Ms. Mills reviewed the answers to Question 9 (page 16) in which the respondents were asked to select between different policy options. One choice was between maintaining services at their current level and increasing taxes or maintaining taxes at their current level and decreasing services. 60% chose maintaining services and 40% chose maintaining the tax level. Another choice was to maintain current lot sizes for single family homes or to decrease lot sizes to accommodate Tigard's share of regional growth. 80%wanted to maintain the lot sizes with only 17% wanting to accommodate Tigard's share of the growth. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES--JANUARY 28, 1997 - PAGE 3 • • She commented that this indicated that Tigard citizens did not appear to support the. proposals of Metro 2040. Ms. Mills stated that staff would work with the Visioning Task Force to address these issues. She announced the two community open houses on Thursday, February 27, and Saturday, March 1. Staff intended to present the survey results and hoped to get additional community feedback. Ms. Mills presented a brief comparison of the demographics of the random phone survey of 400 people and the 900 responses received from surveys published in the Cityscape, the Chamber newsletter, and the Regal Courier. She mentioned that while the demographics were very different, the responses were quite similar. Staff was confident that the survey responses represented the broader community concerns of both new and long-time residents. She commented that the average length of residence for the phone survey respondents was 4.5 years while those who mailed back their responses averaged a length of residence of 12 years with 25%more than 20 years. The long-time residents showed a higher level of concern for issues that have changed over the years, such as crime, traffic, and loss of open space. Liz Newton. Assistant to the City Manager, stated that she contacted 34 people who were interested in serving on the Visioning Task Force. They represented a broad base of community interest. She announced the two introductory meetings on February 10 and February 13. She said that the purpose of the Task Force was to help staff further refine the target areas and come up with issues and suggested action measures to address those concerns. Ms. Newton said that staff was still partnering with the school district on the visioning process. She mentioned that only 32% of the survey respondents had children in school at this time, and only 40%had ever had children in the local schools. Ms. Newton reported that staff was putting together short informational papers on the six target areas identified in the survey. The intent was to brief the Task Force on the facts and realities of working in those six areas of concern. Councilor Rohlf expressed concern about presenting the Task Force with too much information at the beginning. Ms. Newton explained that as the target areas are discussed, information would be present to the Task Force. Councilor Rohlf noted the short term residence of those responding to the phone survey. He asked if Tigard had that kind of turnover on a regular basis. Mr. Monahan said no. He commented that they had a lot of moving between subdivisions within the City, and that the 0-5 years percentage was not reflective of the community as a whole. Ms. Newton reviewed the phone survey breakdown of respondents by length of residence. She pointed out that those who mailed back their survey responses chose to do so. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 28, 1997 - PAGE 4 • • Councilor Scheckla asked if staff was still accepting names for the Task Force. Ms. Newton said that they wanted to limit the Task Force to 35 members; there was space for only one or two more. She reviewed the process staff designed to involve more people along the way, noting in particular the Action Committees that would draft goals to address the specific issues. Those Committees would include one or two Task Force members with more people from the community invited to participate. Ms. Mills noted the open houses and community workshops designed to provide additional opportunities for community input into the process. Also staff spoke to any community group who would listen. Councilor Rohlf asked how the schedule was going. Ms. Mills said that they were doing very well. They were probably only two weeks behind in this 18-month process. 6. MEASURE 47 UPDATE Wayne Lowry. Finance Director, reported that it appeared that the Governor's Policy Advisory Committee would send, in February, draft legislation dealing with the Measure 47 issues to the House and Senate Revenue Committees. He reviewed the composition,work, and staff support - of the Committee and its subcommittees. The Committee was charged with looking at Measure 47 in terms of policy decisions that needed to be made by the legislature. Mr. Lowry reviewed the major issues of Measure 47. These included a definition of the limit, annexation, voter approval of increased taxes, and allocation of loss between jurisdictions. He explained that the main question on the definition of the limit lay in whether or not it included ad valorem taxes levied for debt service; if it did,the loss would be less. The annexation questions were whether or not cities lost the increased tax revenues from annexations that have occurred since the limit year, how did the voter requirement work for vacant property, and taxation increases due to improvements on vacant land. Mr. Lowry said that the question on voter approval was whether or not cities could go to the voters for property taxes outside of Measure 47; the latest draft bills indicated that they could do so. The allocation of losses between jurisdictions was an difficult issue because of the prioritization of public safety and education; although the schools were taken care of, it was not clear how to allocate among jurisdictions. Mr. Lowry reviewed staff's plans to deal with the estimated loss of$2 million a year in property tax revenues. This included eliminating 3.5 positions, reducing materials and services by 10% across the board, and reducing general capital projects. He mentioned the five-year plan, stating that under this scenario they could maintain the commitment through the year 2001. He reviewed implications to the five-year plan and the budget process. In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Lowry said that $2 million was a 20% reduction in the general fund operating budget. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JANUARY 28, 1997 - PAGE 5 • . • Mr. Lowry explained that the inclusion of the incremental debt service in the limit of Measure • 47 would cut Tigard's losses by more than half. They levied between$1.4 and $1.5 million a year in debt service from the 1989 road and civic center bonds still out. He encouraged the Council to read the updates from the League of Oregon Cities. He noted the opportunity available to Tigard with Rep. Tom Brian of Tigard as Chair of the House Revenue Committee. Mr. Lowry said that staff would follow the progress of Measure 47 through the legislature. He said that they were trying to confirm a date to talk with Rep. Brian in Salem. He said that he would attend meetings in Salem once the committees got into the Measure 47 issues. Mr. Monahan mentioned that the League of Oregon Cities suggested to the communities with representatives on the finance committees that they play a key role in this situation. Councilor Hunt asked when the legal challenges would go to court. Mr. Lowry said that no date has yet been set. He commented that based on the review of the challenges by attorneys on both sides, he did not think that the challenges would prevail. He stated that they were going to operate in a Measure 47 environment;the question was how severe it would be. Bill McMonagle. 12555 SW Hall Boulevard, suggested using delayed annexation as the means to annex his clients' properties at this time. He reviewed the delayed annexation process as he understood it. He said that this process would offer the ability for business to continue within the sphere of influence of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan and allow time for the Measure 47 questions to be dealt with. He argued that the City had an obligation to assist the development community in implementing the Comprehensive Plan as approved. He mentioned the Tigard- Washington County Intergovernmental Agreement which was proposed for implementation in May 1997. This IGA was developed in response to the 1995 state legislation telling counties to give up their urban responsibilities and the cities to take on those responsibilities. Jim Hendtvx. Community Development Director, asked to come back to Council on February 11 with a recommendation on Mr. McMonagle's suggestion. He said whether or not Mr. McMonagle's clients' applications went through the City or the County depended on whether or not they submitted them before or after the May 1 target date for the transition of urban services to Tigard from Washington County. Councilor Scheckla asked how the City could tax the properties if they followed Mr. McMonagle's suggestion. Mr. Monahan said that he did not think that delayed annexation worked the way vir. McMonagle understood it, explaining how it worked in West Linn. Delayed annexation simply put off the processing and collection of taxes of an already decided. He noted that West Linn now had a problem because those delayed annexations were coming due They were providing services but might not be able to collect taxes because there was no vote of the people. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 28, 1997 - PAGE 6 • • Mr. Monahan said that the downside to Mr. McMonagle's suggestion was that Tigard could possibly lose the value of the taxes generated from the vacant land and from any improvements. He said that while he was not sure that that was the solution, he did think it should be evaluated. Mr. McMonagle cited the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which found that a signature on a petition to annex was in fact a vote. Mr. Monahan offered that Measure 47 has changed the rules of the game. He noted that the issue here was with the definition of a vote. He pointed out that the Measure mentioned an election, and suggested waiting until the legislature gave some direction on the issue. Mr. McMonagle pointed out that the Oregon Attorney General had made an opinion that relative to annexation, only the people being annexed needed to vote. Mr. Monahan pointed out that there was now a new Attorney General looking at the same law in response to a series of questions. He reiterated that the City took a risk in this situation of losing tax revenue. They needed to wait on the legislature. Mr. McMonagle asked if the City would allow a sewer connection for his clients' properties. Mr. Hendryx reiterated the city policy regarding providing sewer in the Walnut Island only upon annexation. He noted that the other property in question was on Bull Mountain in the City's area of interest; this area could get sewer without annexation if a waiver of remonstrance was signed. He said that he told Mr. McMonagle that he needed to process the Bull Mountain property through the County, and that he recommended that Mr. McMonagle wait on his Walnut Island property until Measure 47 and the annexation issues were sorted out. Mr. McMonagle said that business considerations and the construction season drove the projects forward. While they would prefer to move forward with the City of Tigard, they would process their applications through the County. He said that his clients were willing to process applications simultaneously through the City and the County in the hopes that the IGA would happen and they could drop the County application. Mayor Nicoli asked to put the Walnut Island property on the next agenda to see what could be worked out. Mr. Monahan suggested looking at the policy because simply requiring a nonremonstrance would no longer work under Measure 47. 7. WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION UPDATE Mayor Nicoli commented that the article in the Tigard Times implied that the City was pursuing annexation of the entire Walnut Island. He said that that was not true; several people in the Walnut Island approached the City some months ago regarding annexing to the City in order to receive sewer service but that was only a portion of the Island. Councilor Hunt commented that the agenda title implied that Council would discuss annexation but all the Council materials for this agenda item dealt with sewers. Mr. Monahan said that they CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 28, 1997 - PAGE 7 • • would be discussing the sewer; annexation was one option for residents to obtain a sewer connection. Mr. Hendryx reviewed the Council direction to staff to investigate the level of interest in the Walnut Island in annexing to the City in order to receive sewer. He reported that staff found out (from the community meeting at the Woodard School) that only 10 people out of the three to four dozen residents in attendance were interested in annexing for sewers. He mentioned the Council policy that the City would only provide sewer service to the Island if they annexed to the City. He noted the preliminary cost estimates for providing the sewer infrastructure were approximately $10,000. Mr. Hendryx said that since that meeting staff has looked at the situation in more detail and determined that serving the cluster of 10 houses interested in obtaining sewer would cost approximately $20,000 per household. He explained that staff discovered that they could not use the west sewer line along the creek; they would have to come in from 121g. He said that it was now up to the property owners to decide how they wanted to proceed. He mentioned that Measure 47 affected the annexation question. Mayor Nicoli asked if staff has spoken to USA about funding the cost of the trunk line. Oleg Berry.Acting City Engineer,said that he had not contacted USA and did not think that they would be interested in funding the cost of extending service. Mayor Nicoli suggested talking to USA and said that he would talk to County Commissioner Roy Rogers also. Councilor Hunt expressed his discomfort with_spending City staff time on this situation since they did not yet know whether or not the City could levy property taxes on annexed property. Therefore they did not know if they would bring the area into the City. Mr. Monahan explained that staff began this process prior to the passage of Measure 47 when the annexation implications were not well known. He said that while they thought an election by the people in the area to be annexed indicating their willingness to pay taxes was valid, they did not know yet how that vote could take place. He commented that staff pursued this matter because of the health concerns. - Councilor Rohlf commented that he did not know why the City of Tigard would pick up the burden for these people when they haven't been able to convince the people in their area to join together to make extending the sewer cost effective. Mayor Nicoli concurred that the City did not have the money in its budget to assist with sewers _ in this area. He noted that many of the septic fields in the Walnut Island were near the end of their life cycle. Councilor Hunt commented that the Walnut Island residents told the City three or four years ago that they did not want to be part of the City. He said that even if they were willing to pay CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES_- JANUARY 28, 1997 - PAGE 8 • $20,000 per household to get sewer, he would not support annexing the area until the questions on Measure 47 were resolved. Mayor Nicoli noted another option of the reimbursement district ordinance which allowed people to recoup some of their investment as others hooked into the main line. Councilor Rohlf commented that the City still had an immediate cash outlay with those districts. He spoke against handling this situation in a piecemeal approach as it did not gain the citizens of Tigard anything. He said that while he empathized with their situation, he did not understand why the City was working on it. Mr. Monahan explained that the reimbursement district ordinance only applied within the City of Tigard and would not work in this situation. He said that a local improvement district was the option most advantageous to the residents. Karen Thorne. Century 21 Realtor,commented that the Walnut Island did affect the residents of Tigard because their children attended the same schools and would pass on any diseases picked up as a result of these conditions. She said that she discovered through her research at the County that the 8-inch sewer line put in by Matrix and the City was installed over County land without permits and without notice to their neighborhood. She commented that it has now been taken over by USA but Mrs. Tibbetts found out that it could not service their area. She contended that the sewer line lay along the natural drainage for their subdivision. Wes Fitzpatrick asked why there was a different policy for Walnut Island regarding annexation and sewer connection then there was for anyone else. He asked why the 8-inch trunk line was not designed to accommodate their area when everyone knew that it would have to at some point in time. NIr. Berry explained that Matrix installed the sewer line along the west side of the creek to service their new subdivision which was also on the west side of the creek. He said that another line was needed on the other side of the creek to service the existing subdivision. He said that it was not feasible for one line to service both sides of the creek. John France. SW Gaarde Street, stated that he lived on the edge of Walnut Island and worked in the construction division of USA. He explained a method to provide sewer using a pressure line and pumping, although one pump would service only four to five houses. He spoke for the City and USA developing a comprehensive plan to provide sewer to the entire area. He asked what the options were for those who did not have enough land to put in a new drain field. Mayor Nicoli said that that was dictated by the County. Mr. France said that he was neither for nor against annexation at this time but he could see that the area would be developed in the near future. He reiterated the need for a system to handle all the future needs of the Island residents. He concurred with Councilor Rohlf that Tigard would not want to spend money until they decide whether or not it wanted to annex Walnut Island as a whole. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 28,_1997 - PAGE 9 • • • Councilor Hunt supported Mr. France's suggestion for the City and USA to draw up a long- range plan on servicing the Island. Mayor Nicoli asked if USA did not•already have a master plan for that area. Mr. Berry said that the USA master plan only looked at lines in excess of 24 inches. _ Mrs. Tibbetts reviewed the health hazard concerns, stating that this area received all the runoff in the area. She contended that more runoff was created by the City allowing development around them. She asked what the alternatives were for the people who had sewer water coming up under the houses. She asked what the City intended to do about it. She stated that the County sent her to the City and now the City said they could not do anything because they weren't in the City. She reiterated that they had a health hazard. Mayor Nicoli asked for clarification on the notice mentioned earlier by Ms. Thorne. Mrs. Tibbetts said that that notice to put in the 8-inch line by Matrix was not sent to the residents in her area. Mayor Nicoli said that he would talk with Commissioner Roy Rogers on this issue to see if something could be done to reduce the cost of extending sewer to that area. Mayor Nicoli said that he disagreed that the drainage from the new subdivisions went through the Tibbetts' property. He cited his knowledge of the land from having grown up in that neighborhood and his confidence that staff would not allow subdivisions to contribute to the problem. He concurred with the seriousness of the problem. He commented that Mrs. Tibbetts' neighbors did not understand the seriousness of the situation and that the City did not have the money to extend the sewers. He asked for more time to work out a solution with the County. Mr. Fitzpatrick reiterated his earlier question on why there was a separate standard for Walnut Island. Mayor Nicoli said that one reason was that the state, Metro, and Washington County wanted Walnut Island in the City. Councilor Rohlf asked what the City would get back if they came up with some way for the residents to pay for the sewer. Mr. France said that USA was willing to work with cities and counties to get the system functioning the way it should. He cited the expense already incurred by USA in responding to complaints from USA customers about the smell from septic tanks about which they could do nothing. He reiterated his suggestion to create a master plan for a trunk line large enough to handle the entire area. 8. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JANUARY 28, 1997 - PAGE 10 • S 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 9:34 • 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 10:40 p.m. 10. STUDY SESSION > Mr. Monahan reported that after discussing the issue with staff, he has concluded that the City should fill the City Engineer position. He said that he would advertise the position at the same wage as before but would change the title to Director of Engineering to clarify the job responsibilities. He said that he wanted to advertise soon in order to fill the position by June. In response to Councilor Moore's question on why they did fill the position previously, Mr. Monahan reviewed the circumstances and responses of the two prior advertisements. Councilor Hunt asked why they were hiring a City Engineer but putting a hiring freeze on police. Mr. Monahan said that engineering was an area that generated fees, and that they needed a sufficient work force in order to get those fees. Police were funded totally by the • general fund. Mr. Lowry reviewed the funding sources for the Engineering department. These included fees and general fund moneys; however the Engineering Department is not 100% self-supporting. Councilor Moore expressed his concern that by not hiring a fourth engineer they could overwork their three excellent engineers and lose them. Mr. Monahan confirmed that the engineers needed help with the administrative work and the staff presence on regional committees. Mayor Nicoli asked for a report showing the breakdown of Engineering department funding by source. He commented that they would have to take a hard look at doing what they could to free up funding for police and library. - Councilor Scheckla asked how much revenue the police generated through writing tickets. Mr. Monahan explained that the philosophy on traffic fines was that they served as a deterrent for safe streets, not as a revenue generator. Mr. Lowry explained that the traffic fines basically paid for the cost of running the municipal court and processing the tickets. Councilor Hunt spoke for waiting to advertise the City Engineer position until after the Budget process. Mr. Monahan pointed out that they would then miss the construction season before getting an engineer on board. Mayor Nicoli said that Councilor Hunt raised a valid point and suggested taking a hard look at the funding. Councilor Moore commented that if they went to the public, they could probably get funding for police but not for an engineer. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JANUARY 28, 1997 - PAGE 11 • • • Mr. Lowry commented that he assumed in the five-year plan that they would fill the City Engineer position and the retirement vacancies in the police department. He said that he recommended waiting to fill the police vacancies until after Measure 47 was sorted out. The Council discussed whether or not to move forward with advertising the City Engineer position. Mr. Monahan said that he thought it was worth spending the $500 before the next meeting because they could meet four deadlines that way. Mayor Nicoli said that he was unclear on the impacts of Measure 47 on staff positions..He asked for a report on how full- time employee positions would be handled under the $2 million loss scenario. Councilor Hunt asked for a comparison of FTEs by department in this year's budget and projected for next year. Mr. Monahan asked the Council if they wanted the staff overview presentation of Measure 47 and the departments at a Council meeting or at an orientation meeting with the citizen members of the Budget Committee. - Mayor Nicoli restated his request for a staff report explaining in clear and understandable terms what the$2 million scenario meant to the City. He mentioned the money the City got from the voters to hire 18 new police officers over the next five years. He said that he assumed that meant that if they did nothing, they would have enough money to keep everyone currently hired. Mr. Lowry said that was"mostly true." He explained that they have not laid off people because they were in the first year of the five-year plan, and staff had planned on building a surplus during the first couple of years and increasing the staff in the last couple of years. He said that they had one year of the surplus coming in because they just levied their new tax base. Mr. Monahan pointed out that staff did not have all the information yet. He mentioned the need to hire more staff in Building and Planning if they moved forward with the transfer of urban services from Washington County. He commented that they might have a public perception problem if they added staff in those areas but not in police. He noted that they needed to advertise those positions soon also. Mayor Nicoli commented that he did not want to keep positions frozen going into a new construction cycle. It placed too much stress on the existing staff. Mr. Lowry said that he could prepare a two-page report showing the Council in terms of positions what staff had planned to do prior to Measure 47 and what they now planned to do. The Council returned to the discussion on whether or not to advertise now for the City Engineer position. Councilors Moore and Rohlf and Mayor Nicoli favored advertising now while Councilor Hunt was against it and Councilor Scheckla was hesitant. Upon receiving majority consensus to advertise, Mr. Monahan said that staff would proceed. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 28, 1997 - PAGE 12 •. • The Council discussed the scheduling of the Budget Committee introductory meeting. They decided that staff would present the information on the FTEs and Engineering funding sources at the February 11 meeting. > Discussion on the transfer of urban services (Intergovernmental Agreement) from Washington County: Councilor Hunt asked if it was too late to back out of the IGA with the County. Mr. Monahan said that it was not too late but they should let the County know as soon as possible. He reviewed the staff work on determining how many employees they would have to hire and the staff conversations with Washington County. Councilor Hunt commented that it would be difficult to sell to the public the hiring of more people in those departments, even if the money was coming from the County. Mayor Nicoli commented that this IGA was exactly the type of government coordination and efficiency the public has said they wanted governments to do. He cited a similar arrangement between Multnomah County and the City of Portland. > Councilor Scheckla said that he could not attend a meeting on the first Tuesday of the month. He asked for more information on the letter from Judy Fessler regarding the Water Department shutting off water to people. He noted that two people have contacted him in the last two days about this situation. Mr. Monahan said that they would schedule the topic for discussion, as staff did have some recommendations for changing the process. Mr. Lowry said that the issue was not so much shutting off the water but shutting it off with only the $13 minimum charge due. He said that they bent over backwards on working with the public in this area. > Mayor Nicoli agreed to give the greeting at the Visioning Task Force meeting February 10. > Mr. Monahan reported receipt of a letter from Mayor Ralph Brown of Cornelius asking for Scott Rice as the alternate for the Washington County Cities Metro JPACT. Mayor Nicoli spoke to letting these positions rotate between cities, commenting that Rob Drake and John Godsey made a good team. The Council discussed representation on Metro committees. 15. ADJOURNMENT: 11:28 p.m. Lo4_-uotie Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder Attest: ./ for, City of Tigard Date: //i/c7 \adm\cathy\ccm\970128.doc CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JANUARY 28, 1997 -PAGE 13 • • - FINAL ORDER JANUARY 28, 1997 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TIGARD TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0009 REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan map from Medium-High Density Residential to C-C (Community Commercial) for 5.54 acres of an 8.56 acre parcel (3.02 acres are already dedicated wetlands and/or greenway). APPLICANT: Mr. Michael C. Robinson Stoel Rives LLP 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, OR 97204 OWNERS: Dale G. Shrader, Trustee 310 Third Avenue Issaquah, WA 98027 Gary Coe 6255 SW Sheridan Street Portland, OR 97225 LOCATION: Southwest corner of SW Old Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue (WCTM Map # 151 33CA Lots 100, 200, 300, & 1000). 2. Vicinity 1 1 1 • • • The site is bounded on the east by SW 135th Avenue, on the north by Scholls Ferry Road and on the west by Old Scholls Ferry Road. The southern portion of the property contains a greenway. 3. Background Information The site was annexed to the city in June of 1983 and zoned R-25 to comply with the county zoning of R-24. These properties were originally involved in a request for a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change in 1991 (case number CPA 91-0001). The applicant chose to withdraw the application. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The proposal includes four parcels, with a 3.02 acre greenway area running along the southern part of the properties. The applicant does not want the greenway area to be redesignated as Community Commercial. The parcels in consideration are bounded on the north by Old Scholls Ferry Road, the west by Scholls Ferry Road, and the east by SW 135th Avenue. Land uses to the east include vacant and multiple-family development on property zoned R-25. Property to the north is developed as residential use and is within the city of Beaverton. The property to the west is partly developed and partly undeveloped and is outside the city of Tigard. The property to the south is partly developed and undeveloped as residential. The applicant requests a comprehensive plan map amendment from Medium-High Density Residential to C-C (Community Commercial) on 5.56 acres of the 8.56 acre site. A written narrative, and transportation analysis have been submitted by the applicant in support of the request. According to information included with the pre-application conference notes, the applicant indicated that ultimately the site may be developed as a gas station. 5. Agency Comments ODOT did not provide substantive comments because the nearest roadway is Highway 217. Washington County provided comments regarding this proposed plan amendment (please refer to Exhibit A). The letter indicates that the intersection of SW 135th and SW Scholls Ferry Road will fail without th ollowing improvements: a. an eastbound right-turn lane orO cholls Ferry at 135th with adequate storage. To provide adequate storage, signal, and geometric 2 • • • modifications may be necessary at the SW Scholls Ferry and "new" Scholls Ferry intersection to the west of the site. b. a double westbound left-turn lane on SW Scholls Ferry at 135th. c. two southbound lanes on 135th to accept traffic from the two westbound left-turn lanes. A condition of approval for the zone change should be that the above improvements are constructed prior to the City issuing a building permit. City Engineering submitted comments, concurring with Washington County on the recommended improvements (please refer to Exhibit B). According to the comments from City Engineering, conditions should be placed on future development proposals. Planning staff recommends that the traffic improvement conditions be placed on the subsequent zone change application because the zone change application for the Community Commercial zone requires that a site plan be submitted simultaneously. City of Beaverton submitted comments (please refer to Exhibit C), stating their concern with the proposed plan amendment. Larry Conrad, representing the City of Beaverton, says that the plan amendment may interfere with Metro's Functional Plan for a Town Center, north of SW Scholls Ferry Road. As acknowledged in the letter, the Town Center is designated for north of SW Scholls Ferry Road and, therefore, the affected site is not part of the Town Center. Metro currently does not require local jurisdictions to bring comprehensive plans into compliance with regional policies and implementation measures. The other point raised in the Beaverton letter is that the proposed plan amendment will conflict with Metro's Transit Corridor designation for SW Scholls Ferry Road because development under the Community Commercial designation could be auto oriented. Again, the (pity is currently not required to comply with Metro's Functional Plan. Daniel Boyden of Pacific Crest Partners submitted comments (please refer to Exhibit D) stating opposition to the proposed plan amendment ecause it does not meet the city's planning criteria. Mr. Boyden's letter states that the plan a -ndment may ffect vehicular capacity on SW Scholls Ferry Road. Wash'• • • , County sta s that the proposed plan amendment is acceptable if th- a• •lic-tion . onstructs improvements. His second � "� traffic concern is with traffic infiltration into residential neighborhoods. SW 135th is (91° designated as a minor collector on the City's Transportation Plan map and, herefore, its purpose is to carry more than neighborhood traffic. His third traffic concern is with inadequate parking that may create a traffic safety hazard. This concern will be addressed when the applicant submits the zone change application which requires that a site plan be submitted simultaneously with the application for 3 • • • a zone change. The applicant will have to meet site design requirements relating to parking to eventually develop the site. Mr. Boyden's letter states that this proposed plan amendment will not be consistent with City Council's record regarding plan amendments from residential to commercial. He cites the Haagen proposal as an example. The affected site was identified by the Planning Division as a potential area for the Community Commercial zone. The Haagen's site involved a plan amendment to General Commercial, which involves a different set of planning criteria than the Community Commercial zone. The letter from Daniel Boyden of Pacific Crest Partners further states that the affected site is within a 1/2 mile of four sites. One of these four sites identified in the letter is located on the corner of SW Walnut and SW Scholls Ferry Road. This site is now zoned as multi-family. The other site is located at Murrayhill and is a 1/2 mile from the site. Mr. Boyden says it is .409 miles from the affected site to the Murrayhill site. .1/4-) Two sites located on SW Sc olls Ferry Road and SW North Dakota are respectively zoned Neighborho d Commercial and Commercial Professional. These properties were involved.a "zone swap" which has been completed. The "zone swap" was appealed to LUBA and it affirmed the "zone swap." The case is currently before the Court of Appeals. The site closest to the affected property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial and was zoned Commercial Professional before the "zone swap". When staff was considering the affected site as ideal for the new Community Commercial zone, this zone swap had not occurred and the site ra)closest to the affected property was zoned Commercial Professional, which fit the riterion of allowing non-retail commercial uses within 'A mile of the Community �''� Commercial zone. The primary uses at the sites where the "zone swap" occurred ,-- are not retail commercial. 6\31_<e JA The letter further states that if this pro owed, coordination between the City and the developer is required. This concern is not applicable to the planning criteria, however, coordination will occur as required by the development code as plans are developed for the subject site. Finally, Mr. Boyden refers to a lawsuit filed by one of the applicants. That lawsuit does involve the "zone swap", however, the court case is not relevant to this process. 4 • S Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue submitted comments (please refer to Exhibit E) stating that as the property develops, access to fire and water supply shall be developed and installed that will comply with the fire code. City of Tigard Water District submitted a copy of a letter (please refer to Exhibit F) that was sent to the applicant, stating that the city can provide water service to the site. Michael Robinson, the applicant's representative, faxed a letter, (please refer to Exhibit G) responding to Dan Boyden's and Larry Conrad's letter and also submitting additional information that staff requested. Staff received a second letter from Dan Boyden on December 27, 1996 (Exhibit H). His first point is that the applicant should not be allowed to split the comprehensive plan amendment application from the zone change application. The comprehensive plan and the code does not prohibit the application for comprehensive plan amendment from being filed separately from the zone change. Mr. Boyden says in his letter that the City Council has consistently rejected changes from residential to commercial, because the City needs residentially zoned land and cites the Haagen's comprehensive plan amendment application as an example. Each land use application should be judged on whether or not it complies with applicable state and local land use criteria, not other land use applications. The Haagen's request involved a proposed plan amendment from residential to general commercial, which involves different approval criteria than community commercial. Mr. Boyd says that the 1/2 mile separation from other commercially zoned properties is not met. Comprehensive plan locational criteria for Community Commercial states that: "Community commercial districts shall be spaced at least one-half mile from other sites which are designated for commercial retail use. Special consideration may also be given to providing a similar separation from non-commercially designated sites that involve retail use as part of a mixed use development, or to provide less than the minimum separation for commercially designated sites which are developed with non-retail uses." The land uses on North Dakota are predominantly non-retail type uses. Mr. Boyden refers to Mr. Conrad's letter regarding the Town Center area in the City of Beaverton, saying that a convenience area does not need to be located across the street from the Town Center. The purpose, as stated in the City's comprehensive plan, of the Community Commercial district is to: "...provide locations for retail and service uses which have a primarily neighborhood orientation." As previously stated, the site in consideration will not be part of the area designated for a Town Center. 5 • • Mr. Boyden's final point is that no mistake or significant change has taken place. The Community Commercial zone was made part of the City's comprehensive plan and code after the affected site was annexed to the City. Staff believes that this change is significant and therefore complies with comprehensive plan policy 1.1.2(2). B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 5.1, 5.4, • 6.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1 (4); Community Development Code chapters 18.22, 18.32 and 18.62; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 12. 1. Policy 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2, requires that in order to approve quasi- judicial changes to the comprehensive plan map, the city council must find: a) The change is consistent with applicable plan policies; and b) A change of physical circumstances has occurred since the original designation, or c) A mistake was made in the original land use designation. The change is consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies. As • stated below, findings can be made that demonstrate the proposed comprehensive plan amendment meets planning criteria. The applicant states that Policy 1.1.2(2). has been met because a change in physical circumstance has occurred since the original plan map designation in two ways: first, the area surrounding the site has developed many additional housing units with little or no opportunity for nearby shopping; secondly, growth has occurred in the general area but no additional neighborhood shopping centers have been developed in this immediate area. When the Community Commercial designation was adopted, however, this site was identified as a potential site for the Community Commercial zone by staff for presentation to City Council (August 26, 1992) to adopt the Community Commercial zone (please refer to Exhibit H). Staff at this time found that when the Community Commercial criteria was applied to sites in the City, the affected site was identified as one of the sites that met the planning criteria for Community Commercial zone. The applicant refers to a memorandum from the former city engineer, saying that this site is more suitable for commercial development than residential. Although the city engineer stated in the beginning that he was neutral on this site becoming 6 • • commercial, he does say in the memorandum that 135th is suitable,to carry commercial traffic. This area can meet criteria (c) of the policy. Because the site is surrounded on one side by an arterial (SW Scholls Ferry Road) and a minor collector (SW 135th) on the other side, this site is less suited for multi-family development because the purpose of both roads is to carry high volumes of vehicular traffic . In addition, the shape and size of the site would make it difficult to buffer multi-family development from the roads. Because the site appears less suitable for multi-family development, a mistake was made in the original land use designation and, therefore, the applicant complies with Policy 1.2.2(2). Amendment to staff report Testimony was presented at the Planning Commission hearing on December 2, 1996, that provides additional information for findings related to Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2. There was discussion at Planning Commission that the adoption of the Community Commercial zone represents a change in physical circumstances. The zone was adopted after the site in question was annexed to the City. Based on the public testimony presented at the December 2, 1996 Planning Commission meeting, staff finds that the adoption of the Community Commercial zone represents a physical -change and, therefore, this application meets the physical change criterion of Comprehensive Plan Policy, 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2. 2. 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. This comprehensive plan policy satisfies Statewide Planning Goal 1: Citizen Involvement. The policy is satisfied because the surrounding property owners were given notice of public hearings related to the proposal (please refer to the affidavit of mailing in the appendix of the applicant's packet) and given the opportunity to comment on the proposal. The notice for the Planning Commission and City Council hearings were sent to surrounding property owners within 250 feet of the affected property, posted at Tigard City Hall and advertised in the local newspaper. In addition, the applicant provided notice of and conducted a neighborhood meeting on September 24, 1996 for property owners within a 250-foot radius of the affected property and other interested parties. 7 • • 3. Policy 5.1 states that the city shall promote activities aimed at the diversification of the economic opportunities available to Tigard residents with particular emphasis placed on growth of the local job market. The applicant states that the proposed plan amendment satisfies Policy 5.1 for two reasons. First, it provides an additional Commercial plan map designation in an area unserved by commercial development. This accomplishes diversification of economic opportunities available to Tigard residents. Secondly, the requested application will provide additional opportunities for Tigard residents. This policy is satisfied because development of the site as a retail commercial use may employ local residents. 4. Policy 5.4 states that the city shall ensure that new commercial and industrial development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial or industrial uses. The applicant states that this proposed plan amendment does not encroach into residential areas because the site is separated from other residential areas by streets on three sides and a greenway on the south side. Staff does not find that this argument alone satisfies the criterion. The location of arterial and collector streets adjacent to a site is not a sufficient basis for changing multi-family residential land that is surrounded by other residential districts to commercial land. According to this argument, several properties throughout the city that are along these types of streets should be commercial. However, the affected site's configuration would appear to make it difficult to buffer residential uses from the noise and high volume traffic on both of these streets. The intent of the Community Commercial district is to provide locations for retail and service uses which primarily have a neighborhood orientation. Such facilities should be located so that their frequency and distributional pattern reflect their primary neighborhood orientation. As part of the City Council hearing for the Community Commercial district on August 26, 1992, staff included in the packet a map showing potential sites where the Community Commercial zone could be applied (please refer to Exhibit H). When staff applied the Community Commercial zone criteria to sites in Tigard, the affected site was identified on the map as a site for a potential Community Commercial land use designation. Because the Community Commercial district requires a residential orientation, staff believes that the site has met this criterion. 8 • • 5. Policy 6.1.1 states that the city shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This criterion is primarily implemented through the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07) which 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 Metropolitan Housing Rule also implements the Statewide Planning Goal 10 :Housing. The applicant states that the proposed plan amendment satisfies this criterion two ways. First, even if the plan map designation on this property is changed to CC, the City continues to satisfy applicable density requirements imposed by the Metropolitan Housing Rule. Consequently, a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels remain available. Though housing opportunity would be lost to the city, approval of the proposal would not reduce the city's housing opportunity index below the 50% or 10 units per acre requirements. If the proposal is approved, there would be 225 fewer units of potential multi-family housing available (5.56 acres x 25 units = 139). This would reduce the mix of all new units being attached single family or multi-family from 77% (3,856 of 5,014) to 76% (3,717 of 4,875). It would also reduce the city's overall housing density from 10.46 units per acre to 10.39 units per acre.* Under this proposal, then, compliance with the Metro Housing Rule would be maintained. This policy is, therefore, satisfied. * The city calculates its housing opportunity index by multiplying the gross acres times the allowable units per acre, then dividing by the total number of developable residential acres. 6. 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. Washington County transportation staff reviewed the applicant's traffic study and concluded that the Community Commercial use would significantly affect SW Scholls Ferry Road and would not be consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level of service of the facility. The Washington County letter does indicate that SW Scholls Ferry Road will operate at an acceptable level,of service if improvements are made, as previously indicated. The applicant's traffic study indicates that the improvements will be needed with or without the comprehensive plan amendment by the year 2005. Washington County will support the comprehensive plan amendment, if the outlined improvements (please refer to Exhibit A) are made before the City issues a 9 • • building permit. Staff recommends that the improvements be made during the zone change and site design review applications. According to the City of Tigard Community Development Code (18.61.020), a site development review application must accompany an application for a rezone to Community Commercial. Because of this requirement, placing conditions on the zone change and site design review is more ideal than on the comprehensive plan amendment. The zone change and site design review applications will address site specific issues. 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. The applicant states that the City can find that this policy is satisfied because Scholls Feny Road is served with two transit lines. While this application does not necessarily request a "land-intensive use"it will be in close proximity to an arterial street served by transit. 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. 8. Policy 12.2.1(4) provides the locational criteria for designating land as community 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: A. Scale (1) Trade Area: Surrounding residential and neighborhoods generally within a 1 and 1/2 mile radius. This criterion is satisfied because this site is located within a 1 and 1/2 mile radius of residential and neighborhoods. Moreover, staff found this site to meet this criterion when the Community Commercial plan designation was adopted. Trade Area Density: The surrounding area potential residential density within one- half mile of a site to designated for community commercial development shall average at least eight units per acre. as determined by the zoning of properties within one-half mile of the community commercial site. The trade area density criterion is satisfied because the potential residential density within one-half mile of the site is twelve units per acre. 10 • (2) Gross Floor Area. 30.000 to 100.000 square foot gross commercial floor area. This criterion does not apply because this application is a request for a plan amendment and, therefore, does not include site design criteria. B. Locational Criteria (1) Spacing and Location (a) Commercial development shall be limited to one quadrant of a street intersection. This criterion is satisfied because the site would be the only commercial development on one quadrant of the street intersection. (b) Community commercial districts shall be spaced at least one half mile from other sites which are designated for commercial retail use. Special consideration from non-commercially designated sites that involve retail use as part of a mixed use development, or to provide less than the minimum separation for commercially designated sites which are developed with non-retail uses. This criterion is met because this site is spaced one half mile from other sites designated for commercial retail uses. The letter from Daniel Boyden of Pacific Crest Partners says that the affected site is within 1/2 mile of four sites. One of these four sites identified in the letter is located on the corner of SW Walnut and SW Scholls Ferry Road. This site is now zoned multi-family. The other site is located at Murrayhill is a 1/2 mile from the site. Mr. Boyden says it is .409 miles from the affected site to the Murrayhill site. The primary uses at the two sites identified on SW North Dakota are non-retail commercial uses. (2) Access (a) The proposed community commercial district shall not be anticipated to create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on the capacity of adjacent streets. existing and projected traffic volumes. roadway geometry of adjacent streets. number of turning movements, and the traffic generating characteristics of the most intensive uses allowed in the zone. See comments under 6 above. (b) The site shall be located along an arterial or a major collector street as designated on the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. Sites should 11 • • either be located at or adjacent to an intersection of a major or minor collector street with an arterial or at the intersection of two major collector streets. This criterion is satisfied because the site is located at the intersection of an arterial and a minor collector, respectively, SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th. (3) Site Characteristics (a) The site shall be a minimum of two acres in size and a maximum of eight acres in size. The part of the site that the applicant requests a change in comprehensive plan designation is 5.54 acres. The remaining 3.02 acres is already dedicated wetlands and/or greenway which the applicant does not want the comprehensive plan designation changed or plans to develop. Therefore, the applicant meets this criterion because the comprehensive plan change will affect 5.54 acres. (4) Impact Assessment (a) The scale and intensity of the project shall be compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the provisions of this plan. Such compatibility and consistency shall be accomplished through the approval of a site development review application contemporaneous with. and part of. the approval of a zone change to the community commercial designation... This criterion does not apply because the application does not involve a zone change. (b) It is generally preferable that a community commercial site be developed as one unit with coordinated access. circulation. building design. signage. and landscaping. Parcels within a community commercial site, however. may be developed independently although the City may require that developmental aspects of individual parcels be coordinated through the development review process. This criterion does not apply to this application because a zone change is not involved. (c) Convenient pedestrian and bicyclist access to a development site from adjoining residential areas shall be provided where practical. Local street connections between community commercial sites and adjoining neighborhoods shall be considered on a case-by-case basis. The site configuration and characteristics and relationship to the street system shall be such that privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained. This criterion does not apply to this application because a zone change is not involved. 12 • (d) Access needs of individual parcels and uses shall be coordinated within a site so as to limit the number of access driveways to adjacent streets. This criterion does not apply to this application because a zone change is not • involved. (e) Unique features of the site should be incorporated into the site development plan. This site does include a greenway which should be given special consideration when the site plan is developed for the zone change application. (f) Exterior lighting. noise. and activities associated with the Community Commercial district shall be controlled or mitigated so that they do not adversely affect adjacent residential uses and comply with any applicable provisions of the Tigard Municipal Code regulating noise. light. and nuisances. Operating hour restrictions may be placed on uses within the district. either through restrictions within the zoning district regulations or through conditions of approval of a Plan map amendment for a particular site. This criterion does not apply to this application because a zone change is not involved. 9. Section 18.32 of the Community Development Code sets forth the procedural requirements for review of quasi-judicial plan amendments. The application has been processed in accordance with code sections 18.32.020, 18.32.050 and 18.32.060; a hearing will be conducted by the Planning Commission and City Council according to 18.32.090 (D) and (E); and the requirements for notification of the hearings have been met according to 18.32.130 and 18.32.140. 10. Section 18.22 of the Community Development Code sets forth standards and procedures for quasi-judicial amendments to the plan and zoning district map as follows: A. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 1. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designation: and the change will not adversely affect the health. safety and welfare of the 13 • • community. The applicable plan policies related to the proposal are reviewed above under section B (Findings and Conclusions). 2. The statewide planning goals adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197. until acknowledgment of the comprehensive plan and ordinances. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged, therefore specific review of each statewide planning goal is not applicable. Notice of filing this proposed amendment has been provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development for comment at least 45 days prior to the final decision date. 3. The applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance. Code section 18.61 (Community Commercial District) contains the standards for the C-C zone. The subject site could meet the standards listed under "dimensional requirements" and "additional requirements" for a development. Specific future site development improvements would . be reviewed through the zone change/site development review and/or subdivision process to ensure consistency with the standards in section 18.61. 4. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. See above under B.1. 11. Oregon Administrative Rule section 660-12-060 requires that plan amendments be consistent with identified function, capacity and level of service of affected transportation facilities. Scholls Ferry Road is under the jurisdiction of Washington County. Please refer to Washington County's recommendation under section 6 of this staff report. 12. Conclusion The current proposal is a request to amend the comprehensive plan and zoning maps to allow any use under the C-C (Community Commercial) category. Approval or denial of this request is not contingent upon the impact of a particular commercial use, but whether any use allowed under C-C meets the relevant review criteria listed above. Staff finds that all applicable approval criteria to support a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change have been satisfied. C. RECOMMENDATION 14 . • • Based on staffs report and all the written and oral testimony presented at Planning Commission on December 2, 1996, Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation of APPROVAL to City Council. Based on staffs findings, in addition to all written and oral presented at Planning Commission, staff recommends that City Council APPROVE the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. 15 . . • • ytl January 28, 1997 TO: Tigard City Council RE: CPA 96009---Scrader Comp Plan Amendment Dear City Council, I oppose this application. It is asking you to make a major change in the comprehensive plan from residential--multi-family to Commercial zoning. It is asking you to do so without any site specific plan. They are asking you to commit the land to commercial use without you knowing what is going to be placed on site. In the event you are going to consider the parcel for commercial use then you should turn this application down and direct the applicant to apply for both a comp plan change as well as a zone change at the same time. If you do so they will be required to detail their site plan for you and you will know what you are voting for. Obviously the applicant can apply just for the comp plan amendment at this time but you are under no obligation to approve it just because they applied for it. With the limited amount of expansion of the urban growth boundary that will take place from here on out it is critical that each parcel of land left to be developed be carefully planned. Make this applicant detail a site plan they will be held to by requiring both the comp plan and zone change at the same time. If the applicant has a proposal which is beneficial to the community that will be made very clear during hearings which detail the site plan and use and this would occur by having both comp plan and zone change application at the same time. I am opposed to the loss of residential housing zoning which would occur in the event the comp plan change was approved. As we get more densely packed the land which is already zoned residential and located on current/existing public transportation routes are a valuable resource. The subject property does not comply with the CC distance requirements in that it is within 1/2 mile of retail commercial zoning and uses located at Murrayhill shopping center and at the SW corner of Scholls Ferry and North Dakota. The staff report for the planning commission indicates that the primary uses at the North Dakota site are not retail commercial----this is incorrect. If you ask anyone in the commercial real estate retail business if the uses at that location (Starbucks, Boston Market,Key Bank(who considers it a retail location) cleaners, hair cutting) are retail uses the answer would be yes. The real estate broker for the site, Grubb & Ellis, is marketing the last 2145 Sq. Ft. space for retail use, and the site is zoned for retail. The staff is incorrect on this point. The site does not physically meet the criteria. There has not been a change in circumstance of the site comp plan policy 1.1.2(2) There is an abundance of opportunity to shop in the immediate area; At least four sites---there are two zoned sites within 1/2/ mile(Murrayhill and the North Dakota)site , the new planned Albertsons Shopping center within 6/10s of a mile to the south and Greenway shopping center approx. 6/10s of a mile to the east. In addition there are at least 15 other sites 1. • • Page Two of Two which serve the area the applicant proposes based on trade area defined in the CC Zoning code. Clearly this area is not void of shopping opportunities. As to suitability of the site for apartments, one of the desirable criteria for an apartment location is close or immediately next to major transportation or streets and roadways. The sill is ideal for apartments it is flat, adjacent to transportation and has a wetlands on site---a wonderful added benefit for a apartment development. One only has to look to where other apartments have been successfully developed to see that this is an ideal apartment site. (E)v,,,,fk go7X l-� 5� ,9,,,,0/N� c°�,.e.Q,.s o{' old S f s %21�My /3/d. This violates Policy 5.4 of the comp plan since the site is zoned residential it is obvious that this proposal would encroach into residential areas. On page eight of the planning commission report staff states that Washington County will support the Comp Plan change with conditions. This is incorrect. What Washington County said was that if the change was made they would want certain conditions attached. OIXAVOrr Staff states in the planning commissioit report on page 11 that IMPACT ASSESSMENT does not apply in considering this application because this application does not involve a zone change. You have to ask yourself why would you want to designate a property for commercial use if you don't have the answers as to the impact of a commercial development. Since there is no site specific proposal then the applicant should have to prove that EVERY use allowed in the CC zone is compatible with the surrounding area and uses. In my opinion the staff really missed the mark in taking this position. In closing you are under no obligation to grant approval, I don't feel the site should be developed for commercial uses but instead high density residential uses, and finally if you are going to consider the site for commercial uses the require the applicant to bring forth an application for both a comp plan and a zone change at the same time so you know what you are voting on. Do r fiff ro ve, T/ps. Sincerely yours, g 0 � A. � you. ;,,z) /e ca de, ,(/ / ned Craig ‘10•trie q� 12397 Canvasback Way Nct ce' 7 t e,v/,‘, 6 , 0� ",' / 0.-T- Beaverton Oregon 97007 /MS 41 0-4 74.„t g1 ,' ph,iv .7s y"AO- p comp/zoove aoyy TAS �Rc� ,y� IS a- 7-4 C_ C z / / a� Gt' 7 Tie iyTtiT �ja�s To /Avoid L/li9T you A9Re 4 e 7Y7 4/h41 J ja aC,voT f 1 JAN-28-97 TUE 02: 16 PM P. 02/05 • STOEL RIVES LLN A T T O R N E Y S• • STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 400 SW FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 2300 PORTLAND,OREGON 972044268 Phone(503}2244330 Fax(5031220-248n TDD(503)221-I035 . interne:www.stoei.com January 28, 1997 MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial (503)294-9194 email mcrobinson@stoel.com VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Laurie Nicholson, Associate Planner City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: CPA 96-0008 • Dear Laurie: I am writing to provide additional information to the City Council for its consideration of this application. First, I want to confirm the area that is requested for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment from Medium-High Density Residential to Community Commercial. Exhibits 1 and 2 are, respectively, tax maps showing the parcels requested for the change in the September 26, 1996 application and a tax map showing the area to remain an open space and to be excluded from this application submitted with my January 21, 1997 letter. In the event that the Open Space designation does not go to the southern boundary of these parcels, it is the applicants' intention that this area retain its current Comprehensive Plan map designation. The total area requested for the Comprehensive Plan map amendment is shown in Exhibit 2 and contains 5.54 acres. Secondly, I want to address the issue of the distance between this site and the Neighborhood Commercial ("C-N") designation at the northeast corner of Scholls Ferry and Walnut and the C-N designation at the southwest corner of Scholls Ferry and N. Dakota. The mileage between this site, according to my odometer in a trip that I made this morning, is slightly more than .5 miles from the northwest corner of the C-N site on Walnut Street to the southwest corner of this site and well more than .5 miles to the northwest corner of the C-N site at N. Dakota. • • The method of measurement is not specified in the Plan. However, the measurement should be along streets since the purpose of the 1/2 mile separation standard is related to the PDX I A-63937.1 9999911006 JAN-28-97 TUE 02 16 PM P. 03/05 • • • STOEL RIVES LCP Ms. Laurie Nicholson January 28, 1997 Page 2 needs of the public. How the public travels to a commercial site is relevant to how this distance is measured. Finally, as you know, the City Council recognized this site.as one of two potential sites for the Community Commercial Plan map designation when it adopted the Community Commercial Plan map designation and zoning district in 1992. At that time, the southwest corner of Scholls Ferry and N. Dakota was designated Commercial Professional ("C-P"). Given that the staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council all accepted the staffs. determination that this site would be eligible for the Community Commercial Plan map designation, it is clear that the City believed that this site was either not within 1/2 mile of another commercially designated site or that site was not commercially designated. The City Council can find that the C-P designation is a commercial designation for three reasons. First, it is listed under the commercial land use section of the Plan. Secondly, the C-P designation is intended to provide "for a diverse range of office* uses and supportive uses and to promote user convenience throughout the City." (Emphasis added.) Finally, the C-P district allows for several retail commercial uses. Among the commercial uses listed are animal sales and services, business equipment sales and services, convenience sales, and general retail sales. Tigard Community Development Code 18.64.030(A)(2)(a),(c) and (m)(i) and (iii). It is clear that the C-P district is a commercial designation and that even before the southwest corner of Scholls Ferry and N. Dakota was changed from C-P to C-N, this site was commercially'designated. The City Council can find that, as long ago as 1992, the City has determined that this site was more than 1/2 mile from another commercially designated site.' Very truly yours, itheLQ c. Michael C. Robinson MCR:Ixh enclosures cc(w/encls.): Mr. Dale Shrader (via facsimile) (w/encls.) Mr. Bill Gross (via facsimile) • (w/encls.) Mr. Gary Coe (via facsimile) (w/encls.) Mr. Robert Lefevre (via facsimile) • • 1 - According to the Tigard Building Department, building permits for the shopping center on the southwest corner of Scholls Ferry Road and N. Dakota were issued in March and April, 1995, prior to the site's change to C-N in February, 1996. JAN-27-97 NON 04:42 Ph P. 06/06 • • EXHIBIT • COMPARISON BETWEEN GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND • COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PLAN DESIGNATION GC CC Gross Leasable Area No limitation 30,000 - 100,000 sq_ ft.; ' grocery store is limited to • • 40.000 sq. ft. Surrounding Residential May not be surrounded by No limitation Areas residential districts on more than two sides Purpose of Designation Provides for "major retail Provides for "a primary goods and services" and neighborhood orientation"; !large space users"; serves not to be so large or broad the traveling public in scope as to attract trade from outside of surrounding • neighborhoods; avoids the • appearance of typical commercial strip • development Trade Area No limitation . Within 1/2 mile of site to provide residents with opportunity to walk or bike to shopping Commercial Development at No limitation One quadrant of intersection the Intersection only y . . Distance from Other No limitation 1/2 mile from other Commercially-Zoned Sites commercial retail uses, but • may be less than 1/2 mile from commercial sites with • non-retail uses Site Development Plan No Yes , Required at Zoning PDXIA 63802-1 269-I JAN-27-97 ETON 04:39 Hi i P. 02/08 STOEL RIVES LLP A T T o R N 5 Y s STAND4 AD INSC' &J.jcl CENT 90o sw FIFTH AvENITS,SUITE°too ro[iTLAND,oRE,r,O,4'7204-1240 Plet(03)2244390 Fat(Sa3)2I4248b ?LID(S031721-MS lst t ar:wwv.met.mm January 27, 1997 MICHAEL C.Ro a4soX Direa Dial (503)294-9194 email mcrobinson@swet.cdm VIA FACSIMILE • Mayor James Nicoll Members of the City Council City of Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: CPA 96-0009. Dear Mayor Nicoll and City Council Members: This office represents the applicants, the Gross Faultily Trust and Gary Coe. On Monday, January 27, 1997, at approximately 10:30 a_m., I received a copy of Mr. Stephen Janik's January 24, 1997 letter concerning this application. The purpose of my letter is to address Mr. Janik's comments, By this letter, I am not waiving my right to request rebuttal of new information that might be presented at the January 23, 1997 hearing or to request that the record remain open in order to address new information.. Mr. Janik stares that his client. Briar Development, recently became aware of this application. Briar Development must not own the property at the southeast corner of Scholls \Ferry Road and SW 135th because the applicant provided notice to the property owner, -Burton Grabhorn, on April 22, 1996 for a neighborhood meeting prior to submitting this 'comprehensive plan map amendment'appl cation. Briar Development did not participate in the Planning Commission hearing. Briar Development takes the position that the City Council's denial of its application was "discriminatory treatment". In other words, Briar Development feels that it was treated unfairly when the City Council applied existing law to the facts of its application. The City Council can reject Mr. Janik's arguments for several reasons. Tint of-all, despite Briar Development's unhappiness with the City Council's decision, it did not appeal P1 X1Aa3791.1 2640 001 JAN-27-97 NON 04;40 PM P. 03/06 • . l . STOEL RIVES LLP • Mayor James Nicoll Members of the City Council January 27, 1997 Page 2 the City Council's decision to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. Further. Mr. Janik's letter does not indicate whether Briar Development will take advantage of the provision of Tigard Community Development Code ("TCDC') Section 18,32.280(A) by resubmitting its application after the twelve-month period from the denial is up next month. Briar Development's main point seems to be that if the City approves this application, it must also "reconsider' it denial of Briar Development's application. Briar Development's letter fails to recognize the tremendous differences between its application and this application. First, and most importantly, this site has been identified by the City as appropriate for . the Community Commercial Plan Map designation. In fact, this site is one of only two such sites so identified. The Briar Development site, on the other hand, has never been identified as appropriate for any kind of commercial development, let alone the very intensive General Commercial Plan Map designation requested by Briar Development. Secondly, Mr. Janik correctly points out that this.application will remove 110 dwelling units from Tigard's housing inventory and that, nevertheless, it will continue to ;meet the Metropolitan Housing Rule. In contrast, Briar Development's application would have removed nine (9) acres of land zoned for 25 dwelling units per acre, or 225 dwelling units, more than twice the number of dwelling units affected by this application. ,,Further, contrary to Mr. Janik's letter, the City expressly found that Briar Development satisfied Tigard Comprehensive Plan MCP.) Policy 6.1.1 (Housing). While the City Council's discussion addressed housing, its written decision did not deny the application for this reason. Third, the Community Commercial Plan Map designation and zoning district are- intended to fulfill neighborhood level shopping needs, whereas the General Commercial Plan. Map designation and zoning district are intended to serve a much larger commercial need. 'In fact, whereas the Community Commercial Plan Map designation and zoning district place limits on the total amount of square footage and the maximum amount of stores within the center, no such limits are found in the General Commercial Plan Map designation and zoning district. A comparison of the Community Commercial with the General Commercial designations shows the stark differences between the purpose and limitations of the two districts. (See Exhibit 1.) . Briar Development also argues that the Planning Commission's determination of a "physical change" as required by TC? Policy 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2, that a change of"physical circumstances".have occurred-or that a mistake was made in the original land use designation, is incorrect. Both the Planning Commission and the staff agree that the PDX1A-53791.1 264794C01 JAN-27-97 MON 04:40 Pli P. 04106 • • STOEL RIVES LLP Mayor James Nicoll Members of the City Council January 27, 1997 Page 3 adoption of the Community Commercial Plan Map designation and zoning district is a physical change satisfying this implementation strategy. As City Attorney Tim Ramis told the City Council at its February 13, 1996 hearing on the application by Briar Development, the issue of mistake is one of interpretation by the City. In this case, Planning Commissioner Padgett said that he believed the intent of the new Community Commercial zone was to identify this site as an appropriate location for that zone and that this met the change in physical circumstances requirement. Commissioner Padgett, on the other hand, actively opposed the Briar Development application. In addition to Briar Development's representatives' testimony in support of the ' appIication,.fifteen (15) other individuals testified as proponents, thirteen (13) of whom were from Beaverton. In contrast, the majority of opponents to Briar Development's application ' were from Tigard. Finally, Mr. Janik's letter does not fully explain the reasons why the City Council ' denied Briar Development's application. As I said above, the City Council expressly found that TCP Policy 6.1.1. (Housing) was satisfied. The City Council denied Briar Development's application for the following reasons: j1. TCP Policy 11.2(2) was not satisfied because Briar Development failed to show a physical change or mistake. 2. TCP Policy 5.4 was not satisfied because Briar Development's application would cause the encroachment of new commercial development into residential areas. 3: TCP Policy 8.1.1 was not satisfied because the application would not result in a safe and efficient street and roadway system since there was no guarantee that the site's development would be limited to Briar Development's 60,000 square foot food store and pharmacy. 4. TCP Policy 12.2.1(2) was not satisfied because the City Council found that various locationale criteria were not met by the application, such as the site would be surrounded by more than two residential districts. For these reasons, the City Council should follow the recommendations of its staff and the Planning Commission and approve this application. There is nothing similar between • PDX1A-63791.1 26 1 br'� JAN-27-97 MON 04:41 PM Ask P. 05/06 STOEL RIVES 1.U.r Mayor James Nicoll Members of the City Council January 27, 1997 Page 4 this application and Briar Development's application and the City Council is not required'to treat them similarly. Very truly yours, C Pot(q Michael C. Robinson MCR:Ixh enclosure cc(w/encl.): Mr. Dale Shrader (via facsimile) (w/encl.) Mr. Bill Gross (via facsimile) (w/ers:l.) Mr. Gary Coe (via facsimile) (w/encl.) Mr. Robert Lefever (via facsimile) (w/encl.) Mr. Stephen T. Janik (via facsimile) DX1A6379[.[ 264094001 • • CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes December 2, 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, Neff, Padgett, and Scolar Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Laurie Nicholson, Associate Planner; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS None 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Holland moved and Commissioner Griffith seconded a motion to approve the November 18, 1996, meeting minutes as written. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Commissioners DeFrang and Wilson abstained. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0009 SHRADER REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from medium-high density residential to community commercial for an 8.5 acre parcel. LOCATION: West of SW 135th Avenue, south of Scholls Ferry Road, and east of Old Scholls Ferry Road. The comprehensive plan amendment involves four parcels. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2) comprehensive plan amendments; 2.1.1 citizen involvement; 5.1, 5.4 economic development; 6.1.1 housing; 8.1.1 transportation; 8.2.2 public transportation; 12.2.1(4) community commercial zone designation. Also, Community Development Code chapters 18.22 comprehensive plan amendments; 18.32 procedures for quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendments. ZONE: M-H Residential, R-25 STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Laurie Nicholson presented the staff report on behalf of the city. She reviewed the applicable review criteria for the case. She said the property was located at the corner of SW Old Scholls Ferry Road and 135th and the applicant was requesting to amend the comp plan from medium high density residential to community commercial. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- December 2, 1996- Page 1 • • Nicholson said she received comments from various agencies and citizens. She summarized a letter from Craig Petrie (Exhibit A) that was presented to the Commissioners at the meeting. She said he was in opposition because he believes the plan amendment and zone change application should be done at the same time. Nicholson advised that the development code does not require that the two applications be done at the same time. Nicholson said Petrie was also opposed to the application because of potential loss of residential housing. She said that, with the plan amendment, the city will still meet the Metropolitan Housing Rule. Regarding Petrie's comment about a "piece meal approval process", Nicholson said that when the study was done adopting the Community Commercial designation, only 2 sites were identified within the city to meet the applicable plan criteria. She advised that this site was one of those sites identified and that the other one has already gone through the development process. Nicholson said staff was recommending approval of the project. She said a mistake was made, because the configuration and size of the site and the inability to buffer it from traffic noise, makes it less suitable for residential use. She also advised that a change has occurred - since this site was annexed, the city has adopted the Community Commercial designation, which staff believes is a more appropriate use for this site. Commissioner Padgett asked if wasn't policy, at the time of annexation, for the site to be zoned as close to what it had been zoned previously in the county. Nicholson answered yes, but the mistake refers to the fact that uses are designated by the Comp Plan and the Community Commercial designation did not exist when the Comp Plan was adopted. She said that until this time, there has not been an opportunity to do changes. President Wilson asked if SW 135th was a new or improved road. Commissioner Holland answered that it was 2 lanes until a bond issue was passed a few years ago. He said the city kicked in half to do full street improvements and the improvements have been there for about 8 years. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Michael Robinson, 900 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 2300, Portland, OR 97204, spoke on behalf of the applicants. He restated the request, saying the total site is about 8 1/2 acres, but that they are not requesting to change the 3 acres designated as open space. He said the nearest commercially designated sites are more than 1/2 mile in either direction. He remarked that Murray Hill may be closer, but it is in the City of Beaverton. Robinson referred to the application and responded to letters in the staff report. He addressed issues brought up in these letters. He disagreed with statements that the site is within 1/2 mile of other commercial sites. He referred to a letter from Jim Hendryx, the Community Development Director, who confirms that the site is more than 1/2 mile of the C-P site at North Dakota and Scholls Ferry. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- December 2, 1996- Page 2 • • • Robinson also referred to a memorandum, dated August 26, 1992, that addresses what Council was considering when they established the Community Commercial designation. He said the memo concluded that there were only 2 sites within the city that met all of the locational criteria for CC. He noted that this is one of those sites. Robinson referred to another memorandum, dated April 26, 1991, from Randy Wooley, the City Engineer at that time. The memo explained that this site was best suited to accommodate some traffic increase and is more appropriate for a commercial designation because there was no other nearby commercial zoning. Robinson pointed out that there is no nearby commercial opportunity within walking or biking distance. He noted that a benefit of this site is that it enables people to walk there without crossing Scholls Ferry. In response to a question about ownership of the property, Robinson advised that Gary Coe owns one of the four tax lots and that the Gross Family trust owns the remainder of the lots, with Gary Shrader as the trustee. Robinson went over the traffic study and levels of service. He noted that, with the recommended improvements the applicant agrees to make, Washington County is in support of the application. He referred to a letter from ODOT which recommends that the City follow the recommendations from Washington County and its own Engineering Department. He also referred to a letter from the City of Tigard Engineering Department which states that the traffic analysis is correct with improvements recommended by the applicant. Robinson went over what policy requires the applicant to show in order to have the Planning Commission recommend approval of the application. He advised that they have to show that the change is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. He said they also had to show either that a change in physical circumstances has occurred since the original designation or that a mistake was made in the original land use designation. He said they believe that both have occurred. Robinson reasoned that there has been a change in physical circumstances due to the amount of growth in the vicinity. He also noted that a mistake was made in the original designation. He said that the 1983 zoning designation didn't have an analysis attached to it. In addition, when the city went through a study in 1992, it adopted the Community Commercial plan map and zoning map which identified this as one of two sites that fits this designation. He said, at that point, the city could have determined that they made a mistake. Robinson talked briefly about housing. He noted that, even with the site being changed from R-25 to Community Commercial, the city still meets the Metropolitan housing rule which requires an overall density of 10 or more dwelling units per net buildable acre. He PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- December 2, 1996- Page 3 • referred to a memorandum from city staff dated March 29, 1995, which reports that the city was at 10.37. Robinson talked about the comments from the City of Beaverton regarding compliance with Metro's Functional Plan. He said the plan is not effective for 90 days, which would be mid to late February. He said the city doesn't have to be in compliance with it since it is not in effect yet. He also noted that this site is not in the Town Center designation. He said Community Commercial designations were neighborhood oriented and requires convenient pedestrian and bicycle access. Robinson addressed comments that the proposal should be required to submit a plan map amendment, a zoning map, and a site development review application at the same time. He said there nothing in the code requiring this. Commissioner Padgett said the only argument he has seen regarding a mistake being made, is that, in hindsight, if we knew then what we now, we may have thought differently. • He did not agree that there was a mistake made at the time of the original land use designation. Regarding the change in physical circumstances argument, Padgett asked if there had been a lot of zone changes in the area since the time of the original designation. He remarked that, if development occurs in a zone the way it was anticipated, he did not consider this to be a change in circumstances. However, he said that the new community commercial zoning with only 2 potential sites, was a good argument for a change in physical circumstances. He remarked that he didn't see this argument in the application or in the staff report. Michael Robinson advised that the oral comments given are a part of.the application. He noted that the city wants the Community Commercial designation established and that plan maps need allowances for changes that have occurred. Commissioner Padgett clarified with Robinson that, through his testimony, he is saying there has been a change in physical circumstances, because city has adopted a new zoning designation and that this site is one of two sites that fit the criteria. Robinson answered yes. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR No one signed up to speak in favor of the application. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION Dan Boyden, 911 Oak Street, Hood River, OR advised that he owns the Scholls Center, located at Scholls and North Dakota. He argued against changing the site from residential to commercial. He said the Community Commercial zone was created as an accommodation to provide shopping for nearby residents. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- December 2, 1996- Page 4 • • Boyden referred to the letter from the City of Beaverton, opposing the change. He noted that there is a giant Town Center across the street with mass transit and bike accessibility. He said we don't need another commercial site in the area, that this site would be better as high density residential. Boyden said a mistake was not made when it was originally zoned. He also said he does not believe there has been a change in circumstances - that's how Tigard planned' the area. He disagreed with the argument about distance between commercial sites. He said this site is within 1/2 mile of Scholls Center, as well as being close to Murray Hill and. across the street from the Town Center in Beaverton. Boyden expressed concern about the traffic this proposal will add and said it will disrupt the Metro plan for a traffic corridor. President Wilson asked Boyden if the city didn't recently do a zone swap for his own site. Boyden answered yes, that before the swap he was zoned commercial. Wilson said the code allows for an exception if an area is zoned commercial, but there are no retail uses in that zone. Wilson noted that there are still no retail uses within 1/2 mile of this site. Commissioner Padgett asked Boyden why he didn't agree that this was a change in circumstances. Boyden answered that there is not a physical change. APPLICANTS REBUTTAL Michael Robinson said that the commercial needs in Tigard should not be solved by what Beaverton does. He noted that you don't have to look beyond city boundaries to see if the retail site is beyond the 1/2 mile requirement. He also said that the Town Center designation is not relevant because the functional plan by Metro not an applicable approval criteria. Regarding traffic congestion; Robinson said the level of service at these intersections is better than the minimum standards required by ODOT, Washington County, and the City of Tigard. He said that, even after the zone change, the standards will still be at level D or better. He said the applicant is willing to improve the road and make it a condition of approval for development. Robinson concluded his testimony by saying the applicant meets the approval criteria and asked for a recommendation of approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Holland said he believes the applicant has met the criteria, that traffic will be addressed with the site development review. He said we don't plan our city with what Beaverton and Metro want. He said he believes the intent of the Community Commercial designation meets the 2040 plan for proper mix of commercial and residential on major collectors and thoroughfares. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- December 2, 1996- Page 5 • S, Commissioner Padgett said he can't support the argument that a mistake was made. He also said he doesn't believe it is a change of circumstances if an area is developed as planned within the zoning that is there. He did, however, like the argument about the new zoning. He said he believed the intent of the new zone was to identify this site as proper for that use. He said the applicant, based on his testimony, successfully argued that this is a change in physical circumstances. He said the applicant also meets the rest of the criteria. President Wilson said he agrees with the applicant that comp plans need to be flexible, that they need to provide some measure of certainty as to what will happen. He noted that, when making a comprehensive plan, it's impossible to know the right mix of different land uses. He said he did not believe that this site was best suited for high density residential. Commissioner Padgett moved to recommend to City Council approval of CPA 96-0009, based on the staff report and testimony heard this night. Commissioner Col[son seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 6. OTHER BUSINESS Dick Bewersdorff gave a status report on the Development Code rewrite project. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. • Jerre aynor, PI Wing Secretary o. ATTEST: President Nick Wilson PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- December 2, 1996- Page 6 . • • • STAFF REPORT November 14, 1996 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TIGARD TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0009 REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan map from Medium-High Density Residential to C-C (Community Commercial) for 5.54 acres of an 8.56 acre parcel (3.02 acres are already dedicated wetlands and/or greenway). APPLICANT: Mr. Michael C. Robinson Stoel Rives LLP 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, OR 97204 OWNERS: Dale G. Shrader, Trustee 310 Third Avenue Issaquah, WA 98027 Gary Coe 6255 SW Sheridan Street Portland, OR 97225 LOCATION: Southwest corner of SW Old Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue (WCTM Map # 151 33CA Lots 100, 200, 300, & 1000). 2. Vicinity 1 • • The site is bounded on the east by SW 135th Avenue, on the north by Scholls Ferry Road and on the west by Old Scholls Ferry Road. The southern portion of the property contains a greenway. 3. Background Information The site was annexed to the city in June of 1983 and zoned R-25 to comply with the county zoning of R-24. These properties were originally involved in a request for a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change in 1991 (case number CPA 91-0001). The applicant chose to withdraw the application. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The proposal includes four parcels, with a 3.02 acre greenway area running along the southern part of the properties. The applicant does not want the greenway area to be redesignated as Community Commercial. The parcels in consideration are bounded on the north by Old Scholls Ferry Road, the west by Scholls Ferry Road, and the east by SW 135th Avenue. Land uses to the east include vacant and multiple-family development on property zoned R-25. Property to the north is developed as residential use and is within the city of Beaverton. The property to the west is partly developed and partly undeveloped and is outside the city of Tigard. The property to the south is partly developed and undeveloped as residential. The applicant requests a comprehensive plan map amendment from Medium-High Density Residential to C-C (Community Commercial) on 5.56 acres of the 8.56 acre site. A written narrative, and transportation analysis have been submitted by the applicant in support of the request. According to information included with the pre-application conference notes, the applicant indicated that ultimately the site may be developed as a gas station. 5. Agency Comments ODOT chose not to comment because the nearest state roadway is Hwy 217. Washington County provided comments regarding this proposed plan amendment (please refer to Exhibit A). The letter indicates that the intersection of SW 135th and SW Scholls Ferry Road will fail without the following improvements: a. an eastbound right-turn lane on Scholls Ferry at 135th with adequate storage. To provide adequate storage, signal, and geometric 2 • modifications may be necessary at the SW Scholls Ferry and "new" Scholls Ferry intersection to the west of the site. b. a double westbound left-turn lane on SW Scholls Ferry at 135th. c. two southbound lanes on 135th to accept traffic from the two westbound left-turn lanes. A condition of approval for the zone change should be that the above improvements are constructed prior to the City issuing a building permit. City Engineering submitted comments, concurring with Washington County on the recommended improvements (please refer to Exhibit B). According to the comments from City Engineering, conditions should be placed on future development proposals. Planning staff recommends that the traffic improvement conditions be placed on the subsequent zone change application because the zone change application for the Community Commercial zone requires that a site plan be submitted simultaneously. City of Beaverton submitted comments (please refer to Exhibit C), stating their concern with the proposed plan amendment. Larry Conrad, representing the City of Beaverton, says that the plan amendment may interfere with Metro's Functional Plan for a Town Center, north of SW Scholls Ferry Road. As acknowledged in the letter, the Town Center is designated for north of SW Scholls Ferry Road and, therefore, the affected site is not part of the Town Center. Metro currently does not require local jurisdictions to bring comprehensive plans into compliance with regional policies and implementation measures. The other point raised in the Beaverton letter is that the proposed plan amendment will conflict with Metro's Transit Corridor designation for SW Scholls Ferry Road because development under the Community Commercial designation could be auto oriented. Again, the city is currently not required to comply with Metro's Functional Plan. Daniel Boyden of Pacific Crest Partners submitted comments (please refer to Exhibit D) stating opposition to the proposed plan amendment because it does not meet the city's planning criteria. Mr. Boyden's letter states that the plan amendment may affect vehicular capacity on SW Scholls Ferry Road. Washington County states that the proposed plan amendment is acceptable if the application constructs improvements. His second traffic concern is with traffic infiltration into residential neighborhoods. SW 135th is designated as a minor collector on the City's Transportation Plan map and, therefore, its purpose is to carry more than neighborhood traffic. His third traffic concern is with inadequate parking that may create a traffic safety hazard. This concern will be addressed when the applicant submits the zone change application which requires that a site plan be submitted simultaneously with the application for 3 • • a zone change. The applicant will have to meet site design requirements relating to parking to eventually develop the site. Mr. Boyden's letter states that this proposed plan amendment will not be consistent with City Council's record regarding plan amendments from residential to commercial. He cites the Haagen proposal as an example. The affected site was identified by the Planning Division as a potential area for the Community Commercial zone. The Haagen's site involved a plan amendment to General Commercial, which involves a different set of planning criteria than the Community Commercial zone. The letter from Daniel Boyden of Pacific Crest Partners further states that the affected site is within a 1/2 mile of four sites. One of these four sites identified in the letter is located on the corner of SW Walnut and SW Scholls Ferry Road. This site is now zoned as multi-family. The other site is located at Murrayhill and is a 1/2 mile from the site. Mr. Boyden says it is .409 miles from the affected site to the Murrayhill site. Two sites located on SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW North Dakota are respectively zoned Neighborhood Commercial and Commercial Professional. These properties were involved a "zone swap" which has been completed. The "zone swap" was appealed to LUBA and it affirmed the "zone swap." The case is currently before the Court of Appeals. The site closest to the affect property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial and was zoned Commercial Professional before the "zone swap". When staff was considering the affected site as ideal for the new Community Commercial zone, this zone swap had not occurred and the site closest to the affected property was zoned Commercial Professional, which fit the criterion of allowing non-retail commercial uses within % mile of the Community Commercial zone. The primary uses at the sites where the "zone swap" occurred are not retail commercial. The letter further states that if this proposal is approved, coordination between the City and the developer is required. This concern is not applicable to the planning criteria, however, coordination will occur as required by the development code as plans are developed for the subject site. Finally, Mr. Boyden refers to a lawsuit filed by one of the applicants. That lawsuit does involve the "zone swap", however, the court case is not relevant to this process. 4 • • Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue submitted comments (please refer to Exhibit E) stating that as the property develops, access to fire and water supply shall be developed and installed that will comply with the fire code. City of Tigard Water District submitted a copy of a letter (please refer to Exhibit F) that was sent to the applicant, stating that the city can provide water service to the site. Michael Robonsin, the applicant's representative, faxed a letter, (please refer to Exhibit G) responding to Dan Boyden's and Larry Conrad's letter and also submitting additional information that staff requested. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 5.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1 (4); Community Development Code chapters 18.22, 18.32 and 18.62; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 12. 1. Policy 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2, requires that in order to approve quasi- judicial changes to the comprehensive plan map, the city council must find: a) The change is consistent with applicable plan policies; and b) A change of physical circumstances has occurred since the original designation, or c) A mistake was made in the original land use designation. The change is consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies. As stated below, findings can be made that demonstrate the proposed comprehensive plan amendment meets planning criteria. The applicant states that Policy 1.1.2(2). has been met because a change in physical circumstance has occurred since the original plan map designation in two ways: first, the area surrounding the site has developed many additional housing units with little or no opportunity for nearby shopping; secondly, growth has occurred in the general area but no additional neighborhood shopping centers have been developed in this immediate area. When the Community Commercial designation was adopted, however, this site was identified as a potential site for the Community Commercial zone by staff for presentation to City Council (August 26, 1992) to adopt the Community Commercial zone (please refer to Exhibit H). Staff at this time found that when the Community Commercial criteria was applied to sites in the City, the affected site 5 • • was identified as one of the sites that met the planning criteria for Community Commercial zone. The applicant refers to a memorandum from the former city engineer, saying that this site is more suitable for commercial development than residential. Although the city engineer stated in the beginning that he was neutral on this site becoming commercial, he does say in the memorandum that 135th is suitable to carry commercial traffic. This area can meet criteria (c) of the policy. Because the site is surrounded on one side by an arterial (SW Scholls Ferry Road) and a minor collector (SW 135th) on the other side, this site is less suited for multi-family development because the purpose of both roads is to carry high volumes of vehicular traffic . In addition, the shape and size of the site would make it difficult to buffer multi-family development from the roads. Because the site appears less suitable for multi-family development, a mistake was made in the original land use designation and, therefore, the applicant complies with Policy 1.2.2(2). 2. 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. This comprehensive plan policy satisfies Statewide Planning Goal 1: Citizen Involvement. The policy is satisfied because the surrounding property owners were given notice of public hearings related to the proposal (please refer to the affidavit of mailing in the appendix of the applicant's packet) and given the opportunity to comment on the proposal. The notice for the Planning Commission and City Council hearings were sent to surrounding property owners within 250 feet of the affected property, posted at Tigard City Hall and advertised in the local newspaper. In addition, the applicant provided notice of and conducted a neighborhood meeting on September 24, 1996 for property owners within a 250-foot radius of the affected property and other interested parties. 3. Policy 5.1 states that the city shall promote activities aimed at the diversification of the economic opportunities available to Tigard residents with particular emphasis placed on growth of the local job market. The applicant states that the proposed plan amendment satisfies Policy 5.1 for two reasons. First, it provides an additional Commercial plan map designation in an area unserved by commercial development. This accomplishes diversification of 6 • • economic opportunities available to Tigard residents. Secondly, the requested application will provide additional opportunities for Tigard residents. This policy is satisfied because development of the site as a retail commercial use may employ local residents. 4. Policy 5.4 states that the city shall ensure that new commercial and industrial development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial or industrial uses. The applicant states that this proposed plan amendment does not encroach into residential areas because the site is separated from other residential areas by streets on three sides and a greenway on the south side. Staff does not find that this argument alone satisfies the criterion. The location of arterial and collector streets adjacent to a site is not a sufficient basis for changing multi-family residential land that is surrounded by other residential districts to commercial land. According to this argument, several properties throughout the city that are along these types of streets should be commercial. However, the affected site's configuration would appear to make it difficult to buffer residential uses from the noise and high volume traffic on both of these streets. The intent of the Community Commercial district is to provide locations for retail and service uses which primarily have a neighborhood orientation. Such facilities should be located so that their frequency and distributional pattern reflect their primary neighborhood orientation. As part of the City Council hearing for the Community Commercial district on August 26, 1992, staff included in the packet a map showing potential sites where the Community Commercial zone could be applied (please refer to Exhibit H). When staff applied the Community Commercial zone criteria to sites in Tigard, the affected site was identified on the map as a site for a potential Community Commercial land use designation. Because the Community Commercial district requires a residential orientation, staff believes that the site has met this criterion. 5. Policy 6.1.1 states that the city shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This criterion is primarily implemented through the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07) which 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 7 • S Metropolitan Housing Rule also implements the Statewide Planning Goal 10 :Housing. The applicant states that the proposed plan amendment satisfies this criterion two ways. First, even if the plan map designation on this property is changed to CC, the City continues to satisfy applicable density requirements imposed by the Metropolitan Housing Rule. Consequently, a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels remain available. Though housing opportunity would be lost to the city, approval of the proposal would not reduce the city's housing opportunity index below the 50% or 10 units per acre requirements. If the proposal is approved, there would be 225 fewer units of potential multi-family housing available (5.56 acres x 25 units = 139). This would reduce the mix of all new units being attached single family or multi-family from 77% (3,856 of 5,014) to 76% (3,717 of 4,875). It would also reduce the city's overall housing density from 10.46 units per acre to 10.39 units per acre.* Under this proposal, then, compliance with the Metro Housing Rule would be maintained. This policy is, therefore, satisfied. * The city calculates its housing opportunity index by multiplying the gross acres times the allowable units per acre, then dividing by the total number of developable residential acres. 6. 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. Washington County transportation staff reviewed the applicant's traffic study and concluded that the Community Commercial use would significantly affect SW Scholls Ferry Road and would not be consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level of service of the facility. The Washington County letter does indicate that SW Scholls Ferry Road will operate at an acceptable level of service if improvements are made, as previously indicated. The applicant's traffic study indicates that the improvements will be needed with or without the comprehensive plan amendment by the year 2005. Since Washington County will support the comprehensive plan amendment if the outlined improvements (please refer to Exhibit A) are made before the City issues a building permit, staff recommends that the improvements be made during the zone change and site design review applications. Placing conditions on the zone change and site design review is more ideal than on the comprehensive plan amendment. The zone change and site design review applications will address site specific issues. 8 • • 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. The applicant states that the City can find that this policy is satisfied because Scholls Ferry Road is served with two transit lines. While this application does not necessarily request a "land-intensive use"it will be in close proximity to an arterial street served by transit. 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. 8. Policy 12.2.1(4) provides the locational criteria for designating land as community 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: A. Scale (1) Trade Area: Surrounding residential and neighborhoods generally within a 1 and 1/2 mile radius. This criterion is satisfied because it this site is located within a 1 and 1/2 mile radius of residential and neighborhoods. Moreover, staff found this site to meet this criterion when the Community Commercial designation was adopted. Trade Area Density: The surrounding area potential residential density within one- half mile of a site to designated for community commercial development shall average at least eight units per acre. as determined by the zoning of properties within one-half mile of the community commercial site. The trade area density criterion is satisfied because the potential residential density within one-half mile of the site is twelve units per acre. (2) Gross Floor Area. 30.000 to 100.000 square foot gross commercial floor area. This criterion does not apply because this application is a plan amendment and, therefore, does not include site design criteria. B. Locational Criteria (1) Spacing and Location 9 • • (a) Commercial development shall be limited to one quadrant of a street intersection. This criterion is satisfied because the site would be the only commercial development on one quadrant of the street intersection. (b) Community commercial districts shall be spaced at least one half mile from other sites which area designated for commercial retail use. Special consideration from non-commercially designated sites that involve retail use as part of a mixed use development. or to provide less than the minimum separation for commercially designated sites which are developed with non-retail uses. This criterion is met because this site is spaced one half mile from other sites designated for commercial retail uses. The letter from Daniel Boyden of Pacific Crest Partners says that the affected site is within 1/2 mile of four sites. One of these four sites identified in the letter is located on the corner of SW Walnut and SW Scholls Ferry Road. This site is now zoned multi-family. The other site is located at Murrayhill is a 1/2 mile from the site. Mr. Boyden says it is .409 miles from the affected site to the Murrayhill site. The primary uses at the two sites identified on SW North Dakota are non-retail commercial uses. (2) Access (a) The proposed community commercial district shall not be anticipated to create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on the capacity of adjacent streets. existing and projected traffic volumes. roadway geometry of adjacent streets. number of turning movements. and the traffic generating characteristics of the most intensive uses allowed in the zone. See comments under 6 above. (b) The site shall be located along an arterial or a major collector street as designated on the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. Sites should either be located at or adjacent to an intersection of a major or minor collector street with an arterial or at the intersection of two major collector streets. This criterion is satisfied because the site is located at the intersection of an arterial and a minor collector, respectively, SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th. (3) Site Characteristics 10 • • (a) The site shall be a minimum of two acres in size and a maximum of eight acres in size. The part of the site that the applicant requests a change in comprehensive plan designation is 5.54 acres. The remaining 3.02 acres is already dedicated wetlands and/or greenway which the applicant does not want the comprehensive plan designation changed or plans to develop. Therefore, the applicant meets this criterion because the comprehensive plan change will affect 5.54 acres. (4) Impact Assessment (a) The scale and intensity of the project shall be compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the provisions of this plan. Such compatibility and consistency shall be accomplished through the approval of a site development review application contemporaneous with. and part of, the approval of a zone change to the community commercial designation... This criterion does not apply because the application does not involve a zone change. (b) It is generally preferable that a community commercial site be developed as one unit with coordinated access. circulation. building design. signage. and landscaping. Parcels within a community commercial site. however. may be developed independently although the City may require that developmental aspects of individual parcels be coordinated through the development review process. This criterion does not apply to this application because a zone change is not involved. (c) Convenient pedestrian and bicyclist access to a development site from adjoining residential areas shall be provided where practical. Local street connections between community commercial sites and adjoining neighborhoods shall be considered on a case-by-case basis. The site configuration and characteristics and relationship to the street system shall be such that privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained. This criterion does not apply to this application because a zone change is not involved. (d) .Access needs of individual parcels and uses shall be coordinated within a site so as to limit the number of access driveways to adjacent streets. This criterion does not apply to this application because a zone change is not involved. (e) Unique features of the site should be incorporated into the site development plan. This site does include a greenway which should be given special 11 • consideration when the site plan is developed for the zone change application. (f) Exterior lighting. noise. and activities associated with the Community Commercial district shall be controlled or mitigated so that they do not adversely affect adjacent residential uses and comply with any applicable provisions of the Tigard Municipal Code regulating noise. light. and nuisances. Operating hour restrictions may be placed on uses within the district. either through restrictions within the zoning district regulations or through conditions of approval of a Plan map amendment for a particular site.,This criterion does not apply to this application because a zone change is not involved. 9. Section 18.32 of the Community Development Code sets forth the procedural requirements for review of quasi-judicial plan amendments. The application has been processed in accordance with code sections 18.32.020, 18.32.050 and 18.32.060; a hearing will be conducted by the Planning Commission and City Council according to 18.32.090 (D) and (E); and the requirements for notification of the hearings have been met according to 18.32.130 and 18.32.140. 10. Section 18.22 of the Community Development Code sets forth standards and procedures for quasi-judicial amendments to the plan and zoning district map as follows: A. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 1. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designation; and the change will not adversely affect the health. safety and welfare of the community. The applicable plan policies related to the proposal are reviewed above under section B (Findings and Conclusions). 2. The statewide planning goals adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197. until acknowledgment of the comprehensive plan and ordinances. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged, therefore specific review of each statewide planning goal is not applicable. Notice of filing this proposed amendment has been provided to the 12 I Department of Land Conservation and Development for comment at least 45 days prior to the final decision date. 3. The applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance. Code section 18.61 (Community Commercial District) contains the standards for the C-C zone. The subject site could meet the standards listed under "dimensional requirements" and "additional requirements" for a development. Specific future site development improvements would be reviewed through the zone change/site development review and/or subdivision process to ensure consistency with the standards in section 18.61. 4. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. See above under B.1. 11. Oregon Administrative Rule section 660-12-060 requires that plan amendments be consistent with identified function, capacity and level of service of affected transportation facilities. Scholls Ferry Road is under the jurisdiction of Washington County. Please refer to Washington County's recommendation under section 6 of this staff report. 12. Conclusion The current proposal is a request to amend the comprehensive plan and zoning maps to allow any use under the C-C (Community Commercial) category. Approval or denial of this request is not contingent upon the impact of a particular commercial use, but whether any use allowed under C-C meets the relevant review criteria listed above. Staff finds that all applicable approval criteria to support a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change have been satisfied. C. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends that Planning Commission forwards a recommendation of APPROVAL to City Council. 13 , 1 f __, , ..,1 s N , , ,. h a k i, - . . ,I.1 i ■ .. 1_,..„....... . _i , II/ VI asi , v.- am thira'N:_E__L/ 1 1 1 sum ,.�• ..._ '"DANES i , IItN /Air 11.1111111111111r I MI111114 4 B-0, . � � V ■■ ■I I, ffIII all , .. , ��•UIIIIIIIq■ / ? � •%' �� - 1o . •• allifa%nu ow Jv,.,i, %.,,, cgtt itl,• 4. 410 I NW 1 51! p z> 1!!! '� :. - fir; �. *714 a*AINI i •��Mi # :,.::. Iii : .::. ... .. 0I . stow ■ -II1111 1.►/ -\■ ������ ��a.....t/111111 ... ...00, . 1 '• aw • ittIIITIi( . vim: N: �► AN LL P- , - A/mmnia, 4 alt• q1111112 130Th ' I 1 C'�P�1 l I 1 ( t 111��1 1.. II J. City of Tigard Planning Department • i Duerr 4011011 WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON November 12, 1996 Laurie Nicholson City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Laurie: This letter is written based on a review of the Traffic Impact Study for the Scholls Ferry Retail Center dated September 1996 (for CPA 96-0009 Sharader Request). The analysis indicates that westbound volumes on Scholls Ferry will exceed the planned link level of service in the year 2005. The report further indicates that'the intersection of Scholls Ferry and 135th fails with the plan amendment without improvements. However, with improvements, the intersection will operate at an acceptable level of service in year 2005. Currently, there are no plans to make the improvements recommended in the report. As such, we believe they are a necessary condition in order for the County to determine the plan amendment is consistent with OAR 660-12-060. Given this, we request the City of Tigard require the attached condition. Please give me a call if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely Andy Ba k Senior Planner c: Tom Lancaster Doug Norval Tom Harry Department of Land Use &Transportation • Planning Division 155 N First Avenue. Suite 350-14. Hillsboro. OR 97124-3072 phone: (503) 640-3519 • fax: (503) 693-4412 7 A • WASHINGTON COUNTY RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Prior to final approval and issuance of a building permit by the City of Tigard: A. Submit to Washington County Land Development Services (Public Assurance Staff, Tracy Stone/Carolyn Cook, 681-3843): 1. Completed "Design Option" form 2. $750.00 Administration Deposit 3. A copy of the City's final Notice of Decision, signed and dated. Note: Any portion of the Administration Deposit not used by Washington County for plan approval, field inspections, and contract administration will be returned to the applicant. If at any time during the project, the County's costs are higher than the amount deposited, Washington County will bill the applicant the amount needed to cover its costs. 4. Two (2) sets of complete engineering plans for the construction of the following public improvements: a. an eastbound right-turn lane on Scholls Ferry at 135th with adequate storage. To provide adequate storage, signal and geometric modifications may be necessary at the SW Scholls Ferry and "new" SW Scholls Ferry intersection to the west of the site. b. a double westbound left-turn lane on Scholls Ferry at 135th c. two southbound lanes on 135th to accept traffic from the two westbound left-turn lanes. ,Y r • • MEMORANDUM . CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DATE: November 21, 1996 TO: Laurie Nicholson, Planning Division FROM: Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer ' RE: CPA 96-0009, SHRADER REQUEST Description: This application is to allow a change in the Comprehensive Plan from medium- high density residential to community commercial for a 8.5 acre parcel. The site is located at the southwest corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue. The site lies south of and adjacent to SW Scholls Ferry Road, east of and adjacent to SW Old Scholls Ferry Road and west of and adjacent to SW 135th Avenue (WCTM 1S1 33CA, Tax Lots 100, 200, 300 and 1000). Findings: 1. Streets: This site lies adjacent to SW Old Scholls Ferry Road, SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue. Both Old Scholls Ferry Road and Scholls Ferry Road are classified as arterial streets. SW 135th Avenue is classified as a minor collector street. A. Traffic Study Findings: A traffic study by Lancaster Engineering, dated September 1996, was submitted as part of the application package. The study assumed a worst case scenario of a retail center under the proposed zoning and analyzed levels of service (LOS) for the following intersections, based on projected year 2005 traffic volumes: Scholls Ferry Road/SW 130th Avenue Scholls Ferry Road/SW 135th Avenue Scholls Ferry Road/Old Scholls Ferry Road Old Scholls Ferry Road/Murray Road. The study indicates that with the additional traffic generated from the development of this site, all intersections, with the exception of ENGINEERING COMMENTS CPA 96-0002 Schrader PAGE 1 • • Scholls Ferry/135th Avenue, will operate at LOS D or better, which is acceptable. However, the Scholls Ferry/135th Avenue intersection will drop to LOS F, unless additional improvements are constructed. The study suggests that with the construction of an eastbound right-turn lane on Scholls Ferry at 135th Avenue and a double westbound left-turn lane on Scholls Ferry at 135th Avenue will result in LOS C. This will also require the addition of two southbound lanes on 135th Avenue to accommodate the traffic • from the two westbound left-turn lanes. The City received comments from Washington County staff with regard to this application. The County is concerned about the impact to the Scholls Ferry/135th Avenue intersection, specifically with respect to when the intersection will drop to LOS F. The applicant's report does not provide a recommendation as to when the intersection improvements should be completed. The County recommends that this application be conditioned to require the applicant to obtain the necessary permits to complete the intersection improvements prior to issuance of a building on the site. City staff concurs with this recommendation and place specific conditions on future development proposals. Most of the intersection improvements would be permitted through the County, as the signal and Scholls Ferry Road are under their jurisdiction. However, the improvements in 135th Avenue will be permitted through the City, as that roadway is a City facility. B. SW Scholls Ferry Road As stated above, this roadway is an arterial street and is under Washington County jurisdiction. Based on the findings of the traffic study mentioned previously, the applicant will be required to make certain improvements to this facility. Specifically, they will be required to install a new eastbound right turn lane and two westbound left-turn lanes at SW 135th Avenue. There will also be some traffic signal modifications that will need to be completed as a part of this work. All work in Scholls Ferry Road, including the signal, will be permitted through the County. The applicant will also be required to submit a copy of the plans to the City for information. Scholls Ferry Road, adjacent to the eastern boundary of this site, is not fully improved. The Washington County and City transportation plans indicate a future realignment of this roadway to create a fourth leg at the Scholls Ferry/SW Davies Road intersection. At this time, Washington County does not have a proposed schedule of when this improvement should take place. County staff indicated that when a specific development proposal is submitted ENGINEERING COMMENTS CPA 96-0002 Schrader PAGE 2 • • for this site, they will need to determine if the connection should be made as a part of the development, or if some interim improvements to Scholls Ferry Road, in its current alignment, should be constructed. C. SW 135th Avenue SW 135th Avenue is classified as a minor collector street and is under City of Tigard jurisdiction. The street is presently fully improved with sidewalks on both sides. However, the roadway is only a three-lane street at present, and based on the findings of the applicant's traffic study, further widening will be necessary in order to support the two left-turn lanes to be added to Scholls Ferry Road. This widening will require a permit from the City's Engineering Department. The applicant shall coordinate with both the City and Washington County with regard to permits. The applicant shall obtain a permit for the improvements in SW 135th Avenue prior to issuance of a building permit on the site. - 2. Water: There is an existing 16-inch public water line in SW 135th Avenue that can adequately serve this site. 3. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 27-inch public sanitary sewer line within a public easement across the southern edge of this site. This sewer line is under the control of Unified Sewerage Agency (USA). Any proposed connections to this line will require a permit from USA. 4. Storm Drainage: This site slopes primarily to the south toward the existing creek that crosses the site in an easterly direction. Upon development of this site, the applicant will be required to submit a complete basin study, downstream analysis and storm plan for review and approval by the City. 5. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 91-47, as amended by R&O 91-75) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. Upon ENGINEERING COMMENTS CPA 96-0002 Schrader PAGE 3 w t • • • development, the applicant will be required to provide on-site water quality facilities to meet R&O 91-47 requirements. Recommendation: Engineering recommends approval of CPA 96-0009. Once the applicant proposes a specific development for the site, they will be required to construct the necessary improvements in SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue, as described in the applicant's traffic analysis. APPROVED: Eve-- Greg Berry, Acting City Engineer I:\ENG\BRIANRICOMMENTS\CPA96-09.8DR ENGINEERING COMMENTS CPA 96-0002 Schrader PAGE 4 • III ,„o o RF� 'EXHIBIT ( �4,„0,4,, r�'` 0 ti CITY of BEAVERTON f; -.0 ' ` 4755 B.W.Griffith Drive.P.O.Box 4755.Beaverton.OR 97078 General Information(503)528-2222 V/TDD CENTENN%r ■ 24 October 1996 Laurie Nicholson Planning Division City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard Oregon 97223 RE: CPA 96-0009 Shrader Dear Ms. Nicholson: I have reviewed this proposed comprehensive plan amendment and have the following general concerns: 1. The Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, which is expected to be adopted today, designates the area north of Scholls Ferry Road as a Town Center. The City expects to begin work shortly on legislative plan amendments to designate the "football" area (between Scholls Ferry Road and Old Scholls Ferry Road) as a mixed used town center. The City is concerned that the location of a traditional auto oriented commercial center at the corner of 135th Avenue and Scholls Ferry Road will conflict with the mixed use transit oriented development envisioned for the Town Center. 2. The site of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment is a designated as a Transit Corridor in the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. It appears to the City that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment would be in conflict with the intent of the Functional Plan. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 526-2429. ( rely,• ii f Lawrence M Conrad, AICP Senior Policy Planner rl • EXHIBIT P ACIFIC CREST LA PARTNERS November 12, 1996 - Ms. Laurie Nicholson City of Tigard, Community Development 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Scholls and 135th Comprehensive plan amendment from Residential to C-C. Dear Ms. Nicholson: We own the property at Scholls Ferry and North Dakota known as Scholls Center. We are opposed to this Comprehensive plan amendment for the following reasons: Traffic: Policy 8.1.1 requires a safe and efficient transportation system. We have serious concerns pertaining to traffic which would be generated by a C-C designation including: 1. Lack of capacity at both Scholls Ferry intersections; 2. Traffic infiltration into the residential neighborhoods;and 3. Inadequate parking and creation of a traffic safety hazard. Consistency: The City Council has consistently rejected changes from residential to commercial noting that the City needs residential. Most recently,an excellent proposal from Hagen's(Briar Development)was rejected across the street from this property because the Council wished to protect its residential land inventory. The Council must be consistent. In addition,there are several new commercial developments in close proximity to this site. (Albertson's,MurryHill, Scholls Center)There is no need for additional commercial. Separation: The C-C zone requires at least 'h mile separation. This site is within '/ mile of not one but four different commercial sites. This site does not qualify for C-C. Please see the attached sketch. Partnership: The C-C zone is unique in that it essentially creates a partnership between the City and the developer. The City will review site,building,parking, signage and landscape design. There will be mandatory site design standards. If approved this project will require intense coordination between the City and the developer. Mr. Gross is currently appealing a recent Council action(CPA 95-0005/ZON 97-0007) because the City allegedly sent out the wrong notice. He has not only taken this action to LUBA(and lost),but is now appealing the LUBA decision to the Court of Appeals. This type of litigious and contentious style will make the C-C process difficult,time consuming and unworkable. The City's has very limited staff time and will most likely have to deal with additional budget cuts because of Measure 47. The inordinate amount of time this project 911 Oak Street., Hood River,OR 97031 (503)386-6333 fax: (503)386-9375 • • November 12, 1996 • would require will take away from more pressing issues. The complexity of this zone designation will surely result in numerous appeals. For these reasons we are strongly opposed to.the proposed Comprehensive plan change. The applicant must prove significant change or mistake. Staff should find that this application does not meet any of the criteria. Sincerely, • Daniel J. Boy en • . • LI ... • ::t. 1 otZ -I-A Z- --, I/ 1 ;,C-■--1 I i— t f 0• i __—----- ... ---- -- i - CZ+....• . _ / Z I(.7C. • • 4c-:,9 iii., 6.-. z•=)s.e-, 4- z...3z/ ...re:. ,.,*.. / ,..4 b. tft. k•-kcPrt.t14. 1:411.4E , u-er 4 . . .0-73 -s2 XHIBrr REQUEST FOR COMMENTS �► CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TO: Gene Birchell. TVFR DATE: October 22. 1996 FROM: Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Laurie Nicholson Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297 RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0009 SHRADER REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from medium-high density residential to community commercial for an 8.5 acre parcel. LOCATION: West of SW 135th Avenue, south of Scholls Ferry Road, and east of Old Scholls Ferry Road. The comprehensive plan amendment involves four parcels. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2) comprehensive plan amendments; 2.1.1 citizen involvement; 5.1, 5.4 economic development; 6.1.1 housing; 8.1.1 transportation; 8.2.2 public transportation; 12.2.1(4) community commercial zone designation. Also, Community Development Code chapters 18.22 comprehensive plan amendments; 18.32 procedures for quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendments. ZONE: M-H Residential, R-25 Attached is the vicinity map 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: November 1. 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 Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: i� 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: < A5 ,5 c_ !� - - J _ .• ,�,� z �J r 17-14-1 W.= p ot.x' (Please provide the following information) /p/2 3A Name of Person Commenting: Phone Number: S 2-. 4. - • EXHIIBTT= REQUEST FOR COMMENTS �► CITY OF TIGARD ' OREGON TO: Michael Miller. Water Dept. DATE: October 22. 1996 FROM: Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Laurie Nicholson Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297 RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0009 SHRADER REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from medium-high density residential to community commercial for an 8.5 acre parcel. LOCATION: West of SW 135th Avenue, south of Scholls Ferry Road, and east of Old Scholls Ferry Road. The comprehensive plan amendment involves four parcels. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2) comprehensive plan amendments; 2.1.1 citizen involvement; 5.1, 5.4 economic development; 6.1.1 housing; 8.1.1 transportation; 8.2.2 public transportation; 12.2.1(4) community commercial zone designation. Also, Community Development Code chapters 18.22 comprehensive plan amendments; 18.32 procedures for quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendments. ZONE: M-H Residential, R-25 Attached is the vicinity map 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: November 1. 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 Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: X We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. X Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: Aert-, u-E-A 3rwrEMarc' or L.1a-rEA - Av4ti -beur-f rthar w4 Sir To S ro c_ kLU_ES r LP 'P-i RE_PV.rt�' (Please provide the following information) Name of Person Commenting: Miles GUrctet.--- Phone Number: k 3%--- • . . CITY OF TIGARD October 17, 1996 OREGON Mr. David Demers Stoel Rives LLP 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, Oregon 97204-1268 Re: Water Availability Dear Mr. Demers: This letter is to confirm that the City of Tigard Water Department can provide the minimum State of Oregon water service requirements for tax lots 100, 200, 300 and 1000 1S1 33CA, located west of SW 135th Avenue, between SW Scholls Ferry Road and Summer Creek. Water is available in quantity and quality for domestic use as determined by the Oregon Health Division, Department of Human Resources. Presently there is a 16-inch water main located within SW 135th Avenue and a 12-inch - water located within SW Scholls Ferry Road. Service for these properties will be supplied from the existing 12-inch water main, located at the northeast corner of tax lot 100, and will be extended to the west along SW Scholls Ferry Road by the developer. Without going into great detail, it is the policy of the City of Tigard Water Department to serve water to any property within the Department's service area boundary. However, the property owner(s) are to pay for the pipeline, fire hydrant, construction, water meter costs and fees necessary for the project. Again, water service is available for the proposed project. Preliminary plans will need to be submitted to this department for engineering review of the water system to ensure that all requirements and conditions from the City of Tigard Water Department are complied with. Should you need any additional information, please give me a call. Sincerely, CITY OF TIGARD WATER DEPARTMENT Michael Miller Operations Manager CC: Ed Wegner Brian Rager 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 11/21/96 17:51 12503. 112480 Stoel Rives 4 Z001/015 STOEL RIVES LLP ATTORN IY3 STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 2300 PORTLAND.OREGON 972044268 Telephone (303)224-3380 Far(3W)120-1480 ._ Name: Fax No. _._..._. Company/Firm: Office No. ffi TO: Laurie Nicholson, 684-7297 • City of Tigard Community 639-4171 Associate Planner Development Dept. Bill Gross (503) 524-9374 (503) 524-6325 Gary Coe 238-3388 Speed's Towing Name: Sender's Direct Dial: FROM: Michael C. Robinson (503) 294-9194 Client: 26409 Matter: 1 DATE: November 21, 1996 - No. Of Pages (including this cover):(� Originals Not Forwarded Unless Checked: © First Class Mail Li Overnight Delivery fl Hand Delivery In case of error call the fax operator 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: See attached. PDX 1 A-50995.1 26409-0001 11/21,/96 17:51 $503 1102480 Stoel Rives 4 • (4002/016 STOEL RIVES L L P 'Wog N E Y S STANDARD 1NSURANC6 CtNTiU sea 4W FIFTH AVGNUCr.SUMS:300 I'ORTIAND.ORfCON VTI1.12M Phone(SQl)2. 33lf Fax am)220.2400 TDO 1301)111.1043 Internet wwwAtteel.corn November 21, 1996 MICHAEL C.ROBINSON Direct Dial (503)294-9194 email mcrobinsonascoel_com VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Laurie Nicholson Associate Planner City of Tigard Community Development Dept. 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223. Re: CPA 96-0008, Requested Community Commercial ("CC") Plan Map Designation Dear Laurie: This office represents the applicants. The purpose of this letter is to provide additional evidence and argument demonstrating compliance with the applicable approval criteria. This letter also responds to letters received by the City of Tigard from Daniel J. Boyden of Pacific Crest Partners, Lawrence M. Conrad, Senior Policy Planner of the City of Beaverton, and Andy Back, Senior Planner of Washington County. If you require any additional information, please call me and I will be happy to provide it to you. 1. Response to October 24, 1996 letter from Lawrence Conrad. Mr. Conrad's letter recommends that the City of Tigard not adopt the Community Commercial ("CC"), Tigard Comprehensive Plan ("Plan") map designation at this location. Mr. Conrad finds two specific reasons for doing so based on Metro's Functional Plan. The Metro Council did not adopt the Functional Plan until November 21, 1996. Title 8, §1 of the Functional Plan provides that the City of Tigard is not required to amend its comprehensive plan and land use regulations to be consistent with the Functional Plan until twenty-four (24) months after the Functional Plan's effective date. The effective date is 90 days after adoption, or no sooner than February 21, 1997. Further, Title 8, §3 provides that after the effective date of the Functional Plan, any comprehensive plan amendment shall be PDX I A-56026.1 260.040001 °c•m �+ ■.re V.ueixtv,, WA sere SALT LAKE CITY WASHINGTON.D_C. 11/21/98 17:52 1'50 " 0 2480 Steel Rives 4 • (1003/018 STOEL RIVES Ms. Laurie Nicholson November 21, 1996 Page 2 consistent with it. Because the effective date is not until February 21, 1997, this application will not be required to comply with the Functional Plan. Even if this application were required to comply with the Functional Plan, the City can find that it is consistent with the Functional Plan areas discussed by Mr. Conrad. Mr. Conrad suggests that the CC plan map designation would be inconsistent with the Town Center designation north of Scholls Ferry Road. Title 1, §3, "Design Type Boundaries Requirement", provides that for the various 2040 Growth Concept design types, the City must amend its comprehensive plan to be consistent with the general location for that design type shown on the 2040 Growth Concept Map. A Town Center design type provides that local retail and services will be provided in town centers with compact development and transit service". Title I, §3 does not prohibit the City of Tigard from adopting the CC plan map designation because this site is not within the Town Center designation north of Scholls Ferry Road. • Moreover, the CC map designation is not a "traditional auto-oriented commercial center" as Mr. Conrad suggests. Plan Policy 12.2.1(4) describes the CC plan map designation as intended to have a "primarily neighborhood orientation". It is to be located so as not "to attract substantial amounts of trade from outside of surrounding neighborhoods, and shall be large enough to provide a variety of goods and services at one location". Further, the design of the CC plan map designation is to "avoid the appearance and feeling of typical commercial strip development". The impact assessment for the CC map designation requires "convenient pedestrian and bicyclists access to a development site from adjoining residential areas shall be provided were practicable". Further, the April 14, 1992 staff report to the Tigard City Council concerning the new CC plan designation stated: "By baying commercial opportunities close to neighborhoods, residents may be able to do their shopping or avail themselves of commonly used services with a minimum of travel and a reduced need to enter crowded major collector or arterial streets with their autos. It is also hoped that some vehicle trips might even be eliminated due to the proximity of commercial services to neighborhoods thereby making walking or bicycling to these services practicable." (See Staff Report at 2.) This site was one of the original sites identified in the staff report as a potential site for the CC plan site designation. ( Exhibit 1.) PDX1A461=6.1 U409-0 W1 11/21/96 17:53 sow iik2480 Stoel Rives 4 • Q004/016 STOEL RIVES 1.0 Ms. Laurie Nicholson November 21, 1996 Page 3 As the enclosed map shows, there is no other commercial zoning district located within the City of Tigard within 1/2 mile of this site. (See Exhibit 2.) There are, however, over 2,000 dwelling units located within 1/2 mile of this site within the cities of Beaverton and Tigard. As for those residents living in the City of Tigard, they will be able to reach this site by using collector and local streets and will not have to cross Scholls Ferry Road. Mr. Conrad also suggests that the CC plan map designation is inconsistent with this site's designation within a "corridor" in the Functional Plan. Because the Functional Plan is not yet effective, it is not an applicable approval criterion and is not, therefore, required to be considered an approval. However, this site is one of the few sites within the City of Tigard that meets the requirements for the Community Commercial plan map designation. The corridor designation is applied to "good quality transit lines". There is no definition of "good quality transit line" in the Functional Plan. Tri-Met lines 62 and 92x serve this site. Line 62 provides 30-minute service during non-peak hours that increases to 20 - 25 headways during the p.m. peak hour. Tri-Met line 92x increases the headway in morning and evening peak hours. (See Exhibit 3.) The City can find that this level of service hardly qualifies as a "good quality transit line" because of the infrequency of service. In fact, on Saturdays and Sundays, headways on line 62 are reduced to once an hour and line 92x does not run at all. 2. Response to November 12. 1996 letter from Daniel J. Boyden. Mr. Boyden raises several reasons why he believes the City should reject this application. First, he argues that the CC plan map designation would create traffic problems. The City can rely upon the traffic study prepared by Tom Lancaster to determine that the CC plan map designation will be consistent with approval criteria with respect to street capacity. The site will be required to provide parking consistent with the requirements of the Tigard Community Development Code ("TCDC"). The applicant has also agreed to the conditions recommended by Andy Back in his November 12, 1996 letter. Finally, "traffic infiltration" into residential neighborhoods is not an applicable approval criteria for this application. Mr. Boyden also suggests that approval of this plan map designation request is inconsistent with other City decisions, notably the decision by the City Council to deny the application for a General Commercial ("CG") zoning designation to the east of this site. Each quasi-judicial application such as this is reviewed according to the facts and the applicable approval criteria as they exist when the application is submitted. Nothing in past actions requires the City Council to deny this application. In any event, this is a request for a CC plan map designation whereas the previously denied application requested a CG PDX 1 A-56026.1 26404-0001 11/21/96 17:53 V503 ja 2480 Stoel Rives 4 Z005/018 STOEL RIVES LLP -Ms. Laurie Nicholson November 21. 1996 Page 4 designation. These two plan map designations are radically different in their character and intent and there is no relation between the two actions. Mr. Boyden also argues that this site is within 1/2 mile of another site designated for commercial retail use. No other site within 1/2 mile in the City of Tigard is designated "Commercial". The City Council can interpret the Plan as applying only to sites within the City of Tigard since it has no control over sites outside the City of Tigard. Furthermore, even were the City to find that the N-S site in the City of Beaverton was applicable, the introduction statement to the locational criteria for land uses in the Plan states: "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." In other words, even if the City should determine that there is another commercially- designated site within 1/2 mile of this site, that locational criteria may be "flexibly" construed so as to approve this application if all other criteria are met. In addition, the City Planning staff has previously determined that neither the C-P zoning district at the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota or the C-N zoning district on Scholls Ferry Road is within 1/2 mile of this site. 3. The City can find that services are adeauate for this site. The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District, the City of Tigard Water Department, the City of Tigard Police Department and the City of Tigard Development Review Engineer have commented that their respective services are available in adequate quantities for this site. (See Exhibit 4.) 4. Response to applicable approval criteria identified in your letter of October 1 1996. A. Plan Policy 5.1. Plan Policy 5.1 provides as follows: "The City shall promote activities aimed at the diversification of the economic opportunities available to Tigard residents with PDX U-56026.1 26404-0001 11/21/96 17:54 $`5030 2480 Steel Rives 4 ! j006/016 f � STOEL RIVES Ms. Laurie Nicholson November 21, 1996 Page 5 particular emphasis placed on the growth of the local job market" This application satisfies Policy 5.1 for two reasons. First, it provides an additional Commercial plan map designation in an area unserved by commercial development. This accomplishes diversification of economic opportunities available to Tigard residents. Secondly, the requested application will provide additional job opportunities for Tigard residents. The City can find that this criterion is satisfied. B. Plan Policy 6.1.1: Plan Policy 6.1.1 provides as follows: "The City shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels." This application satisfies this policy for two reasons. First, even if the plan map designation on this property is changed to CC, the City continues to satisfy applicable density requirements imposed by the Metropolitan Housing Rule. Consequently, a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels remains available. Secondly, TCDC 18.61.030(A)(3) provides as a permitted use residential development in the CC zoning district. Therefore, this plan map designation continues to provide for an opportunity for housing. The City can find that this criterion is satisfied. C. Plan Policy 8.2.2. Plan Policy 8.2.2 provides: "The City shall encourage the expansion and use of public transit by: a. Locating land-intensive uses in close proximity to transit ways; =IA-mama 2640940n ,- 11/21/96 17:54 $503 2480 Steel Rives .1 • _ Q007/016 STOEL RIVES LIP Ms. Laurie Nicholson November 21, 1996 Page 6 b. Incorporating provisions into the Community Development Code which require development proposals to provide transit facilities; and c. Supporting efforts by Tri-Met and other groups to provide for the needs of the transportation disadvantaged. Policies 8.2.2(b) and (c) are not applicable to a quasi-judicial plan map amendment such as this. Policy 8.2.2(a) is applicable. The City can find that this policy is satisfied because Scholls Ferry Road is served with two transit lines. While this application does not necessarily request a "land-intensive use", it will be in close proximity to an arterial street served by transit. - • 5. The application should not include the open space portion of the site. The application indicates that the site contains 8.5 acres. The area designated "open space" on the plan should be deleted from this request. The applicants do not intend to redesignate the open space portion to Community Commercial. Very truly yours, Nia Ltj C rat44-- Michael C. Robinson MCR:lxh enclosures cc(w/encls.): Mr. Bill Gross (via facsimile) (w/encls.) Mr. Gary Coe (via facsimile) PDX 1 A-56026.1 26409-0001 1 11/21/98 17:55 Tf50 20 2480 Stoel Rives 4 AI 41 008/018 • • LEGEND - ('CMMUNtTY COMMERCIAL MAP Potential ' • Community Commercial sites, i.e, intersections satisfy proposed Transportation Plan Map - functional street classification criterion and also are at least one half mile from other commercially zoned properties (or already have another commercial zone FED oIt Gu-D applied at the intersection) . d4/� Surrounding area potential residential density within one half mile of intersection (expressed in dwelling units per acre) . It is proposed that Community Commercial sites must have a potential residential density of eight dwelling units or more per acre within one half mile of the site (as measured by maximum residential density permitted by zoning) . Possible Community Commercial sites. These sites meet functional intersection criterion, distance from other commercial zones *criterion, and surrounding area potential residential density criterion. • EXHIBIT 1 11/21/96 17:55 V503 6 2480 Stoel Rives 4 R1009/016 ` - --- _ _ • • :: -, i I t � See NOTES on . . back of page . . \et SEE NOTE ` � � 1 / e r f Yom � c ‘......4 • t r �� Cf'. oit Ls+E GA 4 f Tsc.a■ ' mtv `". SEE NOTE 'S . �.j-. M ,l. tk cR 1 j 7 �--.� 4 V • 1 club,c. r _ _u�.r:,r_ ' �.tiu� Scty/.r 4 iII 3 Fi!•1• 1 EE � ,NOTE `� : :-: ,i„ • .._. :i:r•iii , —— —— -1.5,k/a c Qv' • • au. ---r41rf CAgr ilKr tr— SEE •dvac 4 , _ __.. _ �1 _N0TE I �Km ,tel, ' •' a --- . iii i .'—' SEE NOT 4lF , `41f•*i4 10. s' 1- _z-�- -----11hrf 4.11315 c; Ord i na ce~ N oRa st - 1 :1 • _ -- F 4, 1 1'4' ' Ordinance . f - SE Map adopp t ed JUNE it , 19!! 1 . ;' NO .1 i S C e rI t: K lot ► r. vIsioti sc1itJaie . 8 11/21/96 17:SS 12503a 2480 • Stoel Rives 4 eQ010/018 - — SHRADER/COE MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION .,.-- ZONING DISTRICTS WITHIN 1/2 MILE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY . ... ...... ... 1....:zrr; .: :-,--- .1 ...,-- • _... .a.r..61-z , • ....- .--- r--- - .. ....."-' • • .r. - - . I UN ii).2-• I UN;7.-- vim WI Pt . .• "'." .. ' ViP. — • 1.4 .--: ": .. •••• .. i tift..., • A..... ..,• f. 7.r••••••' ''' • • . ........... ............$ ,__..., .-..,., _ :____•_i ! i --7:',...-1 • 2.,i . • as, . • . • -' _...,, I•■• : ,,• .. 1:,,, • • . • 41.4/....Ie.1 , " • . .;re 7 ..■........ .........../.. :71,,,... ... •, '....... ... -..L-....-- ---•-■ f-----r. . —.... --0 - - , 1 -• . • _ =-...... --....i...,..-. .-.N1WX. • ...z..... -- • • 1111.111 - .• --.=.I.--.. -‘• 7----1""*" - .,, , 4 — =T.5. . • -31" r.4 _ A p■Pt 1111-.5/1111 '----,-;, ..... ..... . ______#__ ....„...: , , , ,--.. ,.„ _.--,--4...-• # - a " .....--1-....:.. ---- , , • ,-. ,...._......4 ,., • __-______, . -.4.p.„.. . ......:,..23- ...."77 Fre; !`""4. G:7•■•••... ••■••• .1.. In !r . .......1 _ ... • •.....• VII './:\,.....‘-:...?11/4e " ,Zo•-r"-.. '''''' '''..* C-IT :. ....ri 1."•---t: 1 . le, ...,1 n....7 , -.L3/,-. •i eire..•. /--- 8 , / 1 4.s- *Ms. -,,,■ Nif, • `1104XS BEAM ::: • - . - .---,. __ '---..,-- I „r,r- .. r..7_-, . IMMO IT•4W . ; -..,. ; R.5 i ;11 . 1 , ,_._i ,., r-^ ..• .1111.0._,... •4 ..1C•.-- =Is 44b,,r, 1 .41 . ..._, =irvfautiow4 an„,trap 4at% 111140 .--, :•_.. ._-:::_"-: .' :.-5, '-'•'''- iiiii.iispr7.741.-Ausugusiumg 0.47 ,r- --; ii4 . 0101 ; 1 I 4.-z.----'' ; • . • . 1 I • - -s:-- --; re( --■ t 1 .■ • I ; , wt ,11... , .-- 11 •—...1 ,. R..2 4„1. t , 1 '-----2-4 ......,=.; ; I I a. • 14;•ts , - - -- .=:- . / 4...._- . . t --g ...0 11 - . ''' • e' , . ,,.. 'A, AO •"ii •-•-• "N . A:n „4...... ..,., . 1 .... . A.,,,... .. • , as _ - --N•st- • -41/g - =1-• -7--• ••••• • I 14"..;f,,I, j E.0 ----■ (-...- . ...-^.. NI 11: i '°' 1..,..i •iss' lun!I -...."."''m •'' 0_,Asik%6 -u• u3-3.-,. • rcYjAbili . : ....c.:;r:a. --- • LI ..:,,.....: 4.-:=.1 lip 4, .1■•■• „mina ...it ti1111.1•41 ail •■.-- g■ alb 4. NIIM 'm in MM.. " f•S rill11• 11 .1/11 :l. 111.■1 11112101 •• .=nib 18 %II/ Z1211 1.5.1r ;n:a ---*--h - 11: . vinikil ...!.;:zw. - • 1,;•,L.3 31..... a . 0.,2' ....„ r,,,, =F . "simmu" ■<, —2------------...N.-- -----.. e-,, 'ft...7 ."...: .49 . R2, M.o.. UN rr1 ints t ? , I , 117.--v 1, Ilejtant:Anang t I . • • Oh, I I la!1r.:1.M• 4#4, la 1111111111 111111111111 EU .. c-•::\ i ....R • , _I , . , 1.... _ _....,_ ...:Aiawail ay.... a zzciin —vr . i PD) c ow - _...-4 MVO Nub- Mt lissai I , s i ..1 ' Iwo• / milbligial b•AIN .11V ge .....4 kifr. ,• -,.;..7_,,,-...„...._...... •••• ■•1 - • ze as— .. \.% ii.ti; ; i I i A ,;. 4,321. ise i0.511PAs en ff _vtissiMs■ N ..... ..1 am. in a It'1, ift Ilt-A .11-4 Mr-...2 - 'al . . 1.1 imr-a vs, _ . t )13 e. osiP it..- 12 1 .4i;;,-,10'- 41"-E1"0401 -„f., v5; I 't••■ go VA __ --....- •—•--• . . „,... ,... 1 • F2: .... i -" SA 41 . 1 a . .. %.3—.. . •• 10% . . / I laDrEZI.6..e., • .. : "6 • 4w..... • . --6-'-'4 t `' !=r1-1• ".......--,--esj, ,111 ..-"1=4-.-1 C-Rilia. ti isa as .t.i..,,i • a m „• i I p zurilrfj_jEi .; • - . ..4... i .011 i NI I 41. I . 0: • -"-"' .--.. . i - 1 ii:3 ).- I / ..'- tr'e:"4:7111,* { i 11111 . " EXTUBIT 2 ?[9195 StCl acs�l:s� m � `� u:039„ 1"" 55555 955$9 59 i el 0 n iopiwi ae�lulgt II IC j1 >Yp CO Ide1tmut= X555 R55B5 55 I VI m J 0m1u ca IC 5V$1 95505 55 4 91 2 INN .-..l Qp Q g 9g§� e9a�� t ' �l B"'"3..V'�� 555R l 95555 35 11 `� lli ! Z'I r ,! ,I. a 1 t .3II:S t pg fit QI Q 57.5 ill 541 52.§,93 5 f,E i9 5 1 rrpMO1 Diet.-^ .-�7i :n S uelMOe,A> � n7; � A F 1i g i ��� lIg;°'�1bbbb Si: & weirs 5x& &:;1&r.r.: !Ill e 1:, mL sollip 95555 !HJ m rellgwij s5 "7.1A &27 u .} [1) eee„vsn', �i m1111555IF q saga �:1R 555951 i w o /11 . § _ i _ - a u s ►n li III -4 „„,,m 55555 lime pflpti Iona 55955 51155 ra 55585558M5 55"15 15959 55955 53W:11111 m •17/ ; 155555/155515551555555115] bb515i • i g El nig=>$ 6wuw p p pc S 15t51 C i I Ti a 0 1 Q� /� +� _ �j �{ co N `'"erl+' 1 db5b555ii55'1d13555 95555 55535 55579 5" i III cal • R / �p y e� c Q a ■ uej°�uur' 15EfXL$&«e&^$4g!IL/it5i1115iBWEY.IS! - is A �" 55n55 5555! $?l 5!P5a5 55955 59555 595 5 l 9a g3 �•$ a r.�ID qCI n 1�8t tC pA pp x y� p.. S 1 1 m �`On1 vM'elgte iiIPP O5IDs t3I §r5�!55+5595x&95559 BBB B 9 QQ a , , . I e h h Q` � 11 a ;x JISLg. ;i;8 ais 74'.41w � egg !rem _- cr4 N 6Z T� -4 _, -- _.... , . 11/21/98 17:58 '®'503 2480 Stoel Rives 4 . Q014/018 CITY OF TIGARD October 17, 1996 OREGON Mr. David Demers Stoel Rives LLP 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, Oregon 97204-1268 Re: Water Availability • Dear Mr. Demers: • This letter is to confirm that the City of Tigard Water Department can provide the minimum State of Oregon water service requirements for tax lots 100. 200, 300 and 1000 1S1 33CA, located west of SW 135th Avenue, between SW Scholls Ferry Road • and Summer Creek. Water is available in quantity and quality for domestic use as determined by the Oregon Health Division, Department of Human Resources. Presently there is a 16-inch water main located within SW 135th Avenue and a 12-inch water located within SW Scholls Ferry Road. Service for these properties will be supplied from the existing 12-inch water main, located at the northeast corner of tax lot 100, and will be extended to the west along SW Scholls Ferry Road by the developer. • Without going into great detail, it is the policy of the City of Tigard Water Department to serve water to any property within the Departments service area boundary. However, the property owner(s) are to pay for the pipeline, fire hydrant, construction, water meter costs and fees necessary for the project. Again, water service is available for the proposed project Preliminary plans will need to be submitted to this department for engineering review of the water system to ensure that all requirements and conditions from the City of Tigard Water Department are complied with. Should you need any additional information, please give me a call. Sincerely, CITY OF TIGARD WATER DEPARTMENT • Michael Miller Operations Manager CC: Ed Wegner Brian Gager 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TOD (503) 684-2772 • t - r N ■ m r N P"111111/1 1q f rt iid�li Haig 61161"11.6 g flit!P i l$b glgis alan w r' 5 '91 pli n;ai in" Fr lle • it% gill Kw Pus viva mtti" Er: lit JP IIC ..5 a mom 12 gill Hili igini inn Era." as° eviil um a:4i;gagi;211FisZt i vs G. M 0 f of / y r. r Mr?rie �1 a mill wr.r. . Q fir. E .i/a" 3 o Li If si$ ago aniiIiiaaE $wwu... N rl 0 m r .4 0 aM� i w gV�C ill $ P sr. * 4� - ,4 &v -< w�� o I en a is; � DmO * Y i#► n = a 0 z D r1 ""i 4 31 Z w 2 O MIS ] o m G1 r- C 70 P 41 r3 n. P. C C m ;p . a I 1 -� D R1 C7 ifiz i9 ' , e 5 1. i .— C) Z rrl E r so ^ m a •r G• Q 8 33 19 0 P-• 0 r o. . w 11/21/98 17:57 '85020 2480 Stoel Rives 4 013/016• 0-1 rn TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE $ ,4 , r� FIRE PREVENTION • u� � 4755 S.W.Griffith Drive . P.O.Box • Bea�etton.OR 97076. (503)526-2469 . FAX 526.2538 4 • October 11, 1 996 David M.Demers Stoel Rives Attorneys Standard Insurance Center 400 S.W.Fifth Avenue,Suite 2300 Portland,Oregon 97201-1268 Re: Availability of Public Services 1035 S.W. 135th Avenue Tigard,Oregon Dear Mr.Demers: Service Availability: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has manpower and equipment in the area that can respond to an emergency incident and implement such actions as may be necessary. Prior to approval of this project for planning purposes,plans drawn to scale showing access roadways,water supplies,and other features need to be submitted to Tigard Building Department for routing to this office for review and approval. If you are in need of the fire district's requirements,please feel free to contact me at 526- 2469. Sincerely, Assistant F hal RHJ:kw • "Werkble"Steaks Detectors Sava Live, EXHIBIT 4 r � • . Exi iBrr.H LEGEND - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL MAP A, i Potential Community Commercial sites, i.e, intersections satisfy proposed Transportation Plan Map functional street classification criterion and also are at least one half mile from other commercially zoned properties (or already have another commercial zone yell c..., applied at the intersection) . 11;11.1, 5A+ Surrounding area potential residential density within one du/0. half mile of intersection (expressed in dwelling units per acre) . It is proposed that Community Commercial sites must have a potential residential density of eight dwelling units or more per acre within one half mile of the site (as measured by maximum residential density permitted by zoning) . Possible Community Commercial sites. These sites meet likrfunctional intersection criterion, distance from other commercial zones criterion, and surrounding area potential residential density criterion. , ��� - The Ci° �, y � o � See NOTES on \ \\,,.- �,,� � T I G A R D back o f page . •�0, a) I P g �;; : a . �� �, III Comprehens i• vie g SEE NOTE o \�\1:- 1 ... .. . S �_ P l a n �p • \r� 71ST—PINE Transportation AVE. i . , _ 4 / ., oI 1 .:- ::: DR _ _ Q IGARD ;\ \ e., ` `.``•,� : r% • Figure 3• .- \ \ Li ght Rai 1 �;; 1 S �a . 4 �vy''.`f; `:<°' \� \.(t.-%,,-,,>-.:sii:%-/i. ., C o r r i d o r, . . Al PVT \ f . ,\ �• K A4-�� —.�T :`,,� �:� : \.` .x..!..0.• .:�j , \ Study Area :Nur s C • 4 5" d(4.: er 1 FCC �•.•:.;:Y:•::• ..' " = i St. udy Are a V. SEE Eu /� ,y .�:�•:,:�, /j Q 7 ::.� 16..E:::::.•� '.dI: ��A r �, • << ; , .�,, Arterial.. z o SEE N �� �.�.. �. 3 , ti p., r o r u t r, —r- Sr —x tii •.;,�.: . r� r M a j o r/ 7 4' COY :••' ∎ iiiiii . * -E E'- PA P 1. }• •�_ , NOTE 9 711 4I 1 k,\ d� I11ctor . '. - 1 �� Freeway / N \ ® r � Interchange A , / . SEE NOTE: �/ O r Digital Iota d map reprosee— . . `� '�,` � tallion compiled by the City '.�_� _._ ,. ,.�,-' � ? of Tigard atilicing Ceogre- P a 1 �, 7s� `; pAic leformotiea Systew •�„/ du/ 1\, Z S dv/q, ) < ` .I la , \ CIS) sof lore. Isf or- / it 'i• + / : , 1 „ motiea pertreyed here RJR ;: .. / .'."2 l;.;: may b e i e t e e d e d t o b e o r � �'� '' esed pith edditioeol dinance No . on 91 - 13 1 . .• _ , n' fE S E /� H�/ teebeicol and/or '' c�' N o R T II i ieterpretatiee dote Map adopted JUNE 11 , 1991 NOTE ►� es determined- by�� r ' '•� ,. %�::• 11e City o1 fig•r1. See back [ or revision schedule /� 8 ' I �� � ::•......::� (YPINNS) `i s,� • "l �� ' ` I O :••a::1• 3 6 0 0 (0 3/19/91) 11/22/96 15:00 $503 2 2480 STOEL RIVFS 5 la 002/005 IIIP STOEL RIVES LLPI$TT A T T O R N E Y S STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER AR/SW FIF1tI AY GNUE.SUITE?X0 PORTLAND.OREGON 97.04.1261 Mufti(303)1244380 Far I$031220.2440 TOD r5031221•t04 Intereut www.utDDCI.COM November 22, 1996 MICHAEL C.ROBINSON Direct Dial (503)294-9194 email mccobinson @stoel.com VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Laurie Nicholson Associate Planner • City of Tigard Community Development Dept. 13125_SW Hall Boulevard - Tigard, OR 97223 Re: CPA 96-0008 - Dear Laurie: I am writing to confirm the acreage for this property. The gross acreage on this site (open space and the R-25 designation) is 8.56 acres. The open space contains 3.02 acres. The net acreage that should be the subject of this request is 5.54 acres. • Also find enclosed a March 20, 1996 letter from Jim Hendryx to Bill Gross explaining that this site is just over one-half mile from the commercial zoning district at the southwest corner of 135th Avenue and North Dakota. Jim's letter also states: "Only two potential sites existed that met the criteria [for community commercial designation], the property you own and • one site further west on Scholls Ferry Road. Therefore, the locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code for community commercial zoning is currently met for your property ****° PDX1A-56137.1 26409 4 A 11/22/98 15:01 V503 220 2480 STOEL RIVFS 5 Q003/005 • • • STOEL RIVES Ms. Laurie Nicholson November 22, 1996 Page 2 Please call me if you need any additional information. Very truly yours, /4.11i-Sa c. Michael C. Robinson MCR:lxh enclosure cc(w/encl.): Mr. Eric William Gross (via facsimile) (w/encl.) Mr. Gary Coe (via facsimile) (w/encI.) Mr. Dale Shrader (via facsimile) • 13DX1A-56157.1 26409-1 ti 11/22/98 15:01 12503 2 0 2480 STOEL RIVFS S 004/005 G L - 24 - 75 T H V E2 0 P - OX March 20, 1996 - J'`-'� CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Bill Gross 11035 SW 135th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Affect of CPA 95-0005/ZON 95-0007 on your property at 135th and Scholls Ferry Dear Bill: , This letter is written to explain how the recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change at Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota Street would affect any future request for a Comprehensive Plan map and Zone Change to "community commercial' at the southwest corner of 135th and Scholls Ferry, due to the proximity of the two sites to each other. More specifically, how the rezoning of parcels 1 and 3 of MLP 94-0013 . from Commercial-Professional to Commercial-Neighborhood under CPA 95=0005/ZON ' 95-0007 would affect the potential to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map on tax lot 100 (map 1S1 33CA), to"community commercial'. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Section 12.2.1.4841) (b) (on page 11 - 84-1) states that 'community commercial districts shall be spaced at least one-half mile from other sites that are designated for commercial retail use." The Tigard Development Code, Section 18.62.010 (page 124-1) states that, "community commercial centers are intended to be separated from other commercially zoned properties which provide retail and service opportunities by at least one-half mile." The property you own at 135th and Scholls Ferry Road (map 1S1 33CA, tax lot 100) Is just over one-half mile from the commercial zoning at the southwest quadrant of 135th and North Dakota (tax lots 1, 2 and 3 of MLP 94-0013). This was indicated when the original community commercial district provisions were adopted. Only two potential sites existed that met the criteria, the property you own and one site further west on Scholls Ferry Road. Therefore, the locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code for community commercial zoning is currently met for your property, even with the recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone change, since the two sites are over one-half mile apart. The recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change had no effect on the distance from your site. It was already commercial. 13125 SW Hall Blvd.. Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TOO (503) 684-2772 11/22/96 15:01 12503 '' 0 2480 STOEL RIVFS 5 1aJ005/005 �+ t� T - it - st3 TMU : Z2 0 - @4 i hope this letter answers your questions. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, 4.12,3.Lu u- <gr� James N.P. Hendryx Community Development Director t:lturpki dtck∎bgro.s.t.t c: Tim Ramis Dan Boyden Ed Murphy Peggy Hennessy File: CPA 95-000520N 95-0007 f F`"OM .` Pana scn i c FAX SYSTEM Alk PHONE NO. Mar. 15 1C96 06:54AM P3 December 2, 1996 TO: Planning Commission—City of Tigard RE: CPA 960009—Scrader Comp Plan Amendment Dear Planning Commission, I would like to go on record as opposed to this proposal and am requesting that you turn this proposal down. I was involved in the first site to be granted the CC zone and am very familiar with the CC Zoning District. In my opinion this proposal is an attempt to circumvent the intent of the CC Zone. This proposal would have you change the comp. plan designation now without any site specific plan as required in the CC zone and then later you would receive an application to apply the CC Zone to the site and one of the reasons put forth would be that they would be bringing the property into compliance with the comp plan. In my opinion you are being hoodwinked by this proposaL As with the first site (which was the Albertson site) this site should apply for a comp plan amendment and the CC zone at the same time so you will know what you are ultimately voting for. Obviously the applicant can apply just for the comp plan amendment at this time but you are under no obligation to approve it just because they applied for it. I am opposed to the loss of residential housing zoning which would occur in the event the comp plan was approved and then the CC Zone was applied to the site. It appears that there will be either little or no expansion of the urban growth boundary and it is critical to maintain at least the existing zoned residential property especially that which is already zoned residential and located on current public transportation routes such as this property. If the applicant has a proposal which is beneficial to the community then turn this down and instruct them to apply for both the comp plan amendment and the Zone at the same time so that you will be able to see what is planned. Don't get sucked into a piece meal approval process. Last I would suggest that you ask anyone testifying in favor to identify themselves if they or any of their family members have a vested interested in this property or would be a beneficiary from a trust or a company that may control the property or have a interest in the property. Sincerely yours, Craig. etrie 12397 SW Canvasback Way Beaverton Oregon 97007 •;-11/'21/96 17:59 $503 2480 Stoel Rives 4 FI016/016 lU• :1• yti slur: 4 04 ;�j; 1.Irl Ut lat..N(L .{y VU. UU: October 21, 1996 ,.•:., , ,t. CITY OF TIGARD Mr. David M.Demers OREGON Stoel Rives LLP 900 SW Filth Avenue. Suite 2300 Portland,OR 97204-1268 VIA FAX: 220-240 RE: AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES AT 11035 SW 135TH AVENUE Dear Mr.Demers: In response to your letter,dated October 10, 1996,I am writing to inform you that there is a 27- inch public sanitary sewer line that crosses the subject site near the southern boundary. The City is under agreement with Unified Sewerage Agency(USA)whereby USA maintains any sanitary sewer lines 24 inches and larger in diameter. Any connections to this line would require approval and a permit from USA. Although the City is of the opinion that the line has capacity to serve the subject site you will wanbto check with USA for a verification. With respect to storm drainage,there is an existing natural drainage that crosses the site from • northwest to southeast. Any storm drainage plan produced to serve the proposed development would need to accommodate the existing drainage channel and tie into it. We are not aware of any capacity problems in the existing drainage area If you should have further questions,please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, . 'OAF-- Brian D.Rrger,PE Development Review Engineer te1G,6R oUttt@+OBMEITR 13125 SW Hall Blvd..Tigard. OR 77223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 /1/21196 17:58 V503 21E2480 Stoel Rives 4 Ia 015/016 October 28, 1996 •� �, � Er.SS . LP David M. Demers - CITY OF TIGARD Stool Rives OREGON 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, OR 97204-1268 Dear Mr. Demers: Per our conversation regarding the availability of Police Services at 11035 SW 135th Avenue should there be an approved comprehensive plan amendment for this property. The Police Department can give sufficient police services should this be rezoned to C-C (community commercial). In either case the Police Department is involved in site development review from the C.P.T.E.D. prospective as this project advances through development. Sincerel Officer Ke r( D. i" Crime • ' ;• , lic Informatica nit Tigard Police Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 639-6168 or FAX 684-5654 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDO (503) 684-2772 • . • • • "P4. • ..!iii:•:•••• • , ....• '4411tikh„.. •• •• • •••i, ****,• •::!tpv •••••'• S • ••,..14. • .-'444••••••g•ir .••••••:Kiv •,•••1 • .11,•••••.-F S ••• .4C1'1••••.,". * 0 S S .... 1.....: k. ., 1 1, issetea teresith 1 i Tritritesellesecin Stuctsyt itliseactet iihri stiessies T.T...restirstete re ressits Thasterters. has i • •-- i" .- •• : . . • • re 4 itteen remerrimeergieig be teitirSe tog. •• - •• - -- • 4 ii ., . .. ii •• •.: • TT: - s. •:;„ „met: !ail, TT. Aggesettinstitittet alignments are shteern lot titre etessissions of 12i2nci Averse:TT: seem ii iti ()I etericeiview Terrace, 13:hth Aviersiset. ....S.0`.:P.....arl OT `tiValfli..g. Streq....:1: and ETTessietitivestisi ii 1 iiiircaertiii viest cri tiseCT•ritg tigveirucr. i teitsin settees sett its net clesigiseci as IFIU),CA' i 4 Ii. T.:Tete:1y itirs...Thi Tr) cessiternine Mitt iticielmirctersir" Tel -:-.1 nists riceritithistri iscessase 1 iii: 4 sitiutreesisrei Igteseleseistigits,,Triciy igiiisii tgteisii isticisstit Ell 0 '......) .:...;t1..)Cly :::11::::.?-i.....1 isti thrtitessiterie the ceigreseirs ::-TS si mires: reallestur stritteg cianniecting 11 1 tirititis Fgartheregyi resar illiTTri rethreitit tegs..Ters grith the hissiernimith le:greet (....,Y.I .SiOTI; ang T. 4 111: with triareigtha Straist re, eestic:i Ageless, eggs tes.., eititinsitth tiStrriett- ittrettatitioil gethin ' II ii get vtissititittricy Ittortsect se thist Tetraid I nangie. it 11 cr issicegy grog to iisi„ggiitterigirris iigs ishiggisscite re Terserestems istissitei.TT.Tri ihrersitelsyl 21 2. R R. Itstuttt..t. tittIRR:ty.. 1...f.R anti thi....t.: ligara I histicerti: ti it: IT Terrestictions Isesterresin I ithrgeste thights. "Se rtireirrethe hi treigliers. tiTerestit ii 1... .!, I I i li ii I 1 0 !., I ......-,!...M.: .17'1V6-?!.11.11...? :.;!:1:1:: insersithe retereet ter les. .."." h irese: Tershissehrester 2.5") feet se ••heircir c BALL JAN1K LLP C- G 1A--1 Ift .� T T O R NE YS CL) ONE MAIN 101 Sxm+wFSr MAIN sTrnR EE r. SLrrE 1 100 V �l tY V T cL u _teL_-. PORTLAND. OREGON 97204-3219 G� CL(;vt r� r Jr��tt�y�.St3� StEr1�x T. J.LVne TELE Hor�E 503-228.2525 r �Yl k'j X P.ICSUW1t 503-295-1058 sjanik(a�bjllp.COm January 24, 1997 By Messenger Mayor James'Nicoli and Members of City Council City of Tigard City Hall - 13125 S. W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: CPA 96-0009 (Applicant: Michael Robinson) Property at S.W. Corner of Old Scholls Ferry Road/S.W. 135th • Dear Mayor Nicoli and Councilmembers: On January 28, 1997, the City Council will hear the above item, which seeks a Comprehensive Plan amendment redesignating 5.54 acres at 135th Avenue-Scholls Ferry Road from Medium/H-igh Residential ("R-25") to C-C. Approval of the amendment will change the entire site (other than the dedicated wetlands) from its present medium/high density residential designation to a commercial designation which allows by right the following uses: grocery store (40,000 square feet maximum floor space), eating and drinking establishments, office uses and a variety of retail or personal service uses. A year ago, Briar Development submitted a Comprehensive Plan amendment for a - nine-acre portion of the R-25 site at the S.E. corner of 135th and Scholls Ferry Road, seeking conditional redesignation of that nine acres to G-C to allow construction of a Haggen Store and Pharmacy. Although recommended for approval by the City Planning Commission, the Council voted to deny the amendment, focusing during Council discussions almost exclusively on the loss of multi-family residential land, if the CPA was approved. As Councilors Hunt and Scheckla stated during Council deliberations, if the CPA was approved, the City would be forced to find new multi-family residential sites in other areas of the City. As documented in the staff report and Planning Commission recommendation on the Briar Development application, a redesignation of a portion of the 135th-Scholls Ferry site would not have jeopardized the City's compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule. If the Councilmembers will recall, no testimony focused on loss of Pam_na. 0123028.01 OREGON vinsumvcroN. D.C. 5.. �.OREGON BALL JA NI LLP • Mayor James Nicoli and City Councilmembers January 24, 1997 Page 2 multi-family residential land at the two City Council hearings. Rather, the Council heard a variety of unsubstantiated arguments from competitor grocery stores,predicting loss of jobs and store closures if a Haggen's Store were allowed to locate at 135th-Scholls Ferry. Briar Development recently became aware of the above application. In reviewing the staff report and Planning Commission recommendation on CPA 96-0009, Briar Development was disturbed to see the following City positions, which are significant variants to the manner in which Briar Development's application was handled: 1. There is no mention in the staff report of the extensive Council discussion in the Briar Development case of the City's concern in converting any existing R-25 land to commercial use. Instead, there is a simple analysis that the loss of the site for multi-family residential purposes does not jeopardize City compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule. This is in dramatic contrast to the focal point of the Council's deliberations in the Briar Development matter. In CPA 96-0009, 110 units of multi-family housing will be eliminated. A lc,)�,' ��\ copy of the minutes of the Council discussion on the Briar Development case is attached. �' . ' k 2. The City staff now concludes that the R-25 designation on the 135th-Old (�',)11✓��►, Scholls Ferry site is inappropriate because that site is bounded on two sides by major roads (an 9 ).)' arterial and minor collector), making the site more appropriate for commercial use . The oolv /�� proposed Haggen Store site had the same configuration(bordered on two sides by major roads). ll >S�In the Briar Development case, a mitigation and access plan approved by Washington County was r0 „aJ F \, done prior to any hearing before the City. In contrast, CPA 96-0009 provides no similar m� �,,� ,z, . indication that commercial traffic can be accommodated on Scholls Ferry Road to the County's �1�' I t\ ` satisfaction. In fact, communication from Was - on County stated that there will be operational , '-' of ' problems without additional_improvements. ity staff now suggests conditional rezoning c d 1� .�,� <b a device to as ch-improvement In nar Development case,ttu.'ap could ' hav� Se�rr sed but received no staff endorse t. In short, the City has handled the issues under t I Policy 8.1.1 much differently in these two cases. c,..�4. s& 9 ' &0, I s au sf r 1 y c., , a NN-,�,�r -I c c--, ) 3. An issue with any Comprehensive Plan amendment in Tigard is satisfying Br v the City's change in circumstances/mistake criteria under Plan Policy 1.1.2. In CPA 96-0009, the rationale used to justify satisfaction of this criteria is that the 135th-Scholls parcel was "more suitable for commercial development” than for R-25 use based on a memorandum by a former City Engineer. The mistake, if one exists, must be documented based upon Planning CommissioniCity Council actions, not those of some prior City employee,whose job did not entail land use analysis or allocation. In short, the decision to designate the 135th-Old Scholls Ferry site as R-25 was that of the Planning Commission/City Council not the City Engineer.C--0 W$ ; 1-1--X--' 17 6j O CJ a _D-,c)--,--.-. it 1 A C r 6" iC_� 3 .l1,.. , • • III BALL •J.-\NIK L.LP Mayor James Nicoli _ and City Councilmembers January 24, 1997 Page 3 Because the Planning Commission and City Council in the Briar Development case spent a great deal of time discussing the change in circumstances/mistake criteria, Briar Development is bewildered as to how such a specious justification can be used to eliminate 110 multi-family units d and R-25 property which the Council was so intent on saving in the Briar Development case. qS ,,�� i IIIBALL J.-\NIK LLP • Mayor James Nicoli and City Councilmembers January 24, 1997 Page 4 Thus far, the City's actions on CPA 96-0009 couldn't be further from the action taken on the Briar Development case. The City owes Briar Development and Haggen an explanation for this discriminatory treatment. Very trul ours, tephen T. Jani Enclosure cc: Donald E. Haggen, Haggen Inc. Dale C. Henley, Haggen, Inc. _ Joel M. Gordon, Esq. Mike Van, Van Investment Real Estate award. Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 8:49 p.m. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA Gene McAdams, 13420 S.W. Brittany Drive, Tigard, spoke on the 130th and Winterlake bridge and street improvement projects scheduled for construction this summer. He said that former City Engineer Wooley had told him that he thought that work on the projects would start in March. He asked if the City has set dates for public review of the bridge plans. Mayor Nicoli stated that they had not set any dates for public review. He said that the Council had authorized staff to go forward on the timeline without a final review of the project by Council, as was the normal procedure. In this instance, Council also promised a neighborhood meeting to allow residents to see the final documents. Mr. McAdams asked when the Task Force and public would be notified regarding the street improvements and associated amenities plans. He said that that project would require coordination with the public; the public and the Task Force should look at those plans before their final approval. He said that he was anxious to get started on this because he knew that early advertisement on bridge projects helped to get the best deal for building one. 4. CONSENT AGENDA 4.1 Approve City Council Minutes: January 9, 16, 1996 4.2 Receive and File: a. Tentative Agendas b. Council Calendar 4.3 Approve Implementation of Classification/Compensation Study Results and Recommendations for the Management and Professional Staff - Resolution No. 96-06 MOTION by Councilor Hunt, SECONDED by Councilor Scheckla, to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Rohif and Scheckla voted "yes.") 5. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE CPA 95-0003/ZON 95-0005 BRIAR DEVELOPMENT A request to amend the Comprehensive Plan map from Medium-High Density Residential to General Commercial and change the zoning from R-25 to C-G on 9 acres of a 15.14 acre parcel. Location: Southeast corner of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. 135th Avenue (WCTM 151 33AC, Lot 8000). Applicable Review Criteria: Comprehensive Plan policies 1 .1.2(2), 2.1.1, CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 9 • • 4.1.1, 5.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1 (2); and Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32. Zone: C-G (General Commercial) -- allows for several commercial uses including convenience sales and services, eating and drinking establishments, food and beverage retail sales, general retail sales, and medical and dental services. a. Continue Public Hearing from the January 23, 1996 Council Meeting Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title, reviewed the hearing procedures and opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges Councilor Moore removed himself from this hearing because he had been a member of the Planning Commission which heard this application and because he had not attended the first Council hearing. The Coundlors reported no ex parte contact. They indicated that they had familiarized themselves with the record. There were no challenges. b. Public Testimony Mayor Nicoli explained that this meeting had been continued to allow the applicant to rebut. He asked for a brief report from staff to update the additional information received by Council in the interim. Ray Valone, Associate Planner, reviewed Council's direction at the January 23 meeting to staff to provide copies of CPA 91-0003/ZON 91-0006, the Albertson's application for a zone change. He stated that copies of the August 1991 transportation analysis and its October 1991 addendum, and a set of tax assessors maps used for notification of area residents that were part of the 1991 case were not provided to Council because staff deemed them irrelevant to the purposes for which Council had requested the file. He said that they could be made part of the record if Council chose to do so. Mr. Valone said that because the Albertson's file did not include any information about the outcome of the hearing, staff researched the Planning Commission minutes of November 4, 1991 and December 16, 1991 when the case was heard. He stated that the relevant portion of those minutes have been provided both to the applicant and to the opponents' attorney, and were available to Council from the City Recorder. Mr. Valone reviewed the outcome, noting that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to direct staff to work with the applicant, all others in the Scholls Ferry area that had previously applied for a rezone and been denied, the NPOs, and those parties interested in the development of a new plan in zoning designations. He said that though the Commission voted to continue the hearing to a later date, no further hearings were held on the matter. He stated that CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 10 • • the minutes excerpts could be made part of the record as Council's discretion. Rebuttal Joel Gordon, Briar Development Company Director of Development, reviewed the applicant's efforts in working with staff and other agencies for more than a year. He said that they held three community meetings to garner community input, and had been told that there wasn't sufficient interest in the CIT to warrant addressing that group. He stated that they received no negative feedback from the neighborhood at the Planning Commission, and that the opposition at the first Council hearing had been coordinated by economic competitors seeking to protect their territory. Mark A. Vandehey, IGtdeson 8t Assodates, 610 SW Alder, Portland, stated that he was a professional traffic engineer. He referenced his written response to the issues raised by the opponents at the January 23 hearing. He said that he disagreed with virtually all of the issues raised by Mr. Bernstein, contending that there were technical errors with respect to his trip generation estimates that invalidated his basic premise. Mr. Vandehey pointed out that Mr. Bernstein became involved with this project for only one week prior to the January 23 hearing, and that he collected no field data, did not talk to them about their analysis, or present any technical analysis demonstrating that the surrounding street system was inadequate to support the proposed zone change. He stated that they have been working on this project for almost a year and have collected operational field data at the study intersection. In addition, they have met with both Washington County and City of Tigard staff who agreed that the assumptions used in their analysis of both the proposed development and a worst case scenario were in fact conservative. Mr. Vandehey stated that they discussed with staff assumptions regarding trip distribution and trip assignment as well as the traffic operations in the existing conditions and in the 2005 scenario. He said that they developed an access scheme which both the County and the developer felt met the access needs of the development and protected the capacity of Scholls Ferry Road. He said that the Washington County engineers and planners concluded that the proposed development would have similar or less severe impacts on the critical intersections on Scholls Ferry than the apartment complex allowed for under the current zone designation. Mr. Vandehey addressed the issue of neighborhood traffic impacts. He said that they thought that this site was ideally located because it was accessible to the surrounding neighborhood by pedestrians and autos yet did not promote an increase in non-local traffic within the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 PAGE 11 • • neighborhood. He stated that they thought so for two reasons: the access scheme was designed to facilitate movements to and from Scholls Ferry and 135th, and the City was part of the 130th construction project which had proposed traffic controls designed to restrict movements in the Summerlake neighborhood. David Leland, Managing Director of the Leland Consulting Group, reviewed the qualifications and experience of the firm in serving both public and private dients. He said that they were asked to examine the trade area zone graphics, analyze the public need and look at the availability of vacant commercial land that might accommodate this grocery store. Mr. Leland reviewed the specifics of their September 1995 submittal that used three methods to analyze the trade area to determine public need. He reviewed objections raised by the opponents regarding the model they used and the size of the trade area. He said that they did cut back on the size of the trade area, and conducted additional analysis. He explained that the Riley gravity model referred to by the opponents did not measure public need; therefore, they used the shared space model that did. Mr. Leland noted the fast growing population in the area and its effect on retail patronage. He stated that they used a very conservative. approach in all of their analyses. Mr. Leland reviewed the "four C's" of successful retail: convenience, cost, cleanliness and courtesy. He said that the reason why Portland had small stores that remained profitable was because Portland was running out of land, and therefore competitors couldn't come in and destroy the numbers. Mr. Leland pointed out that the interest of several major grocery chains in this area indicated a public need. He referenced a comparison of the square footage of stores to population as studied within a two mile radius in Tigard, and in the Cities of Eugene and Beaverton. Mr. Leland reviewed the different analyses they did on the trade area. Their conclusion was that this area would need another two stores by 1997 and a third by 1999 to serve this rapidly growing area adequately. Mr. Leland addressed the issue of the availability of space. He said that the Comprehensive Plan stated that Tigard had a shortage of commercial land. He pointed out the location of the remaining commercial zones in both Tigard and Beaverton, and contended that none of them were large enough to accommodate a full service grocery store by today's standards. Mr. Leland restated the points he made during his presentation, CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 12 • •- particularly emphasizing the need for more grocery stores in the area. He stated that one could not necessarily conclude that there was no public need simply because the two current stores were underperforming. Mr. Gordon stated that their proposal was consistent with the - applicable criteria for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, with past decisions of the Council, with good land use planning, and with the City's goals. Mr. Gordon reviewed the evidence presented on the criteria of a changed circumstances in the neighborhood or community. He contended that the dramatic population growth that was in excess of what had been anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan was evidence of change in the neighborhood. He argued that the significant road improvements made to Scholls Ferry and 135th since 1983 were further evidence of changed circumstances. Mr. Gordon reiterated that the traffic issues were carefully evaluated by both the City and County staff who were both convinced that this project would not adversely impact the road system. He said that it was the changes to the road system that led them to select this site for the store. Mr. Gordon said that the third changed circumstance was the worsening of the shortage of commercial land in Tigard. Mr. Gordon reviewed the arguments for the second criteria that the proposal have no adverse impact on health, safety and welfare. He stated that there have been no impact based concerns raised by staff or other commenting agencies. He said that a member of their consulting firm confirmed that with the Beaverton Mayor's office that the City of Beaverton was not in fact opposing the rezone. Mr. Gordon stated that the other issues raised by the opponents were based on fear and speculation. Mr. Gordon addressed the concern raised at the hearing that this approval would turn Scholls Ferry into another strip commercial like 99W or that it would open the floodgates to other commercial rezones. He stated that Scholls Ferry within the City was almost completely developed and thus it couldn't be turned into a strip commercial. He said that the locational criteria that commercial be located at the intersection of a major arterial precluded other locations on Scholls Ferry. Mr. Gordon said that the floodgates to commercial rezoning wouldn't be opened either because the inventory of the City's available land demonstrated that the land wasn't there to be rezoned. Also the locational criteria for commercial land wouldn't allow development in CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 13 • • an area that was already overly congested; that precluded 99W. Mr. Gordon stated that another criteria for commercial zoning was being dose to a transit route, which this site was. He said that neither staff nor the opponents presented examples of land that was likely to be rezoned commercial. Mr. Gordon addressed another issue raised by the opponents: whether or not there was sufficient market to support another grocery store. He cited Mr. Leland's testimony on the issue and his conclusion that there was sufficient demand for additional grocery stores in this area. He stated that the opponents' assertion that the underperformance of their stores indicated too many stores in the area was suggesting an inappropriate use of the zoning process for economic protection. Mr. Gordon submitted a letter from the local chapter of the United Food & Commercial Workers in support of the proposal. Mr. Gordon addressed the locational criteria for commercial rezones as the next major issue. He stated that they complied with nine out of the ten locational criteria. The only one with which they did not comply was the criteria that said that general commercial should not be surrounded by residential on more than two sides. Mr. Gordon said that they derived their argument that the site is surrounded by roads, not residential neighborhoods, by looking at a Tigard zoning map. Examples he cited included Howard's, the intersection of Hwy 99W and Durham Road, the intersection of Hwy 99W and Bull Mountain, and the intersection of Hall Blvd and Locust. Mr. Gordon pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan specifically said that the locational criteria were to be construed in a flexible manner in conformance and vary with the degree of change and impact on the community. He said that he thought they had demonstrated that this was a site that would have minimal or no impact on the adjacent community. Mr. Gordon addressed the concern raised regarding community commercial designation as opposed to general commercial. He stated that their site met the criteria for general commercial in ways that the Albertson's site had not. Their site was on a five lane section of Scholls Ferry, it was on a transit route, and the site was well separated from the surrounding neighborhoods. He said that Albertson's pursued the community commercial designation on the recommendation of the Planning Commission; however the Commission had specifically recommended general commercial for the proposed Haggen store. Mr. Gordon reviewed how much more a Haggen store could provide to the community under a general commercial zoning designation than under a community commercial. They could integrate all their uses into CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 14 • • one building rather then separating them out into little shops because more square footage was allowed. Mr. Gordon addressed the concern that while the Haggen development proposal might satisfy the rezone criteria and plan requirements, the other potential uses in a general commercial zone might not. He said that they were willing to accept a condition restricting the site to the uses and/or site plan configuration that they have demonstrated met the applicable criteria and was supported by the available public facilities. He said that while the Planning Commission had not attached any conditions to their recommendation, Washington County did attach conditions on this specific configuration to their access approval. Mr. Gordon asked that the Council not put them in a "catch 22" position by saying that they would approve it if they could be assured that the Haggen project would go through but not allow them to provide the City with that assurance. Mr. Gordon stated that the City has recognized that growth was here and that they had to address it. However, the planning process did not always project correctly what growth might happen or where it might happen. He contended that the plan amendment process was intended to give the Council the flexibility to make changes as needed. He said that things have changed significantly in this community and that it was appropriate to make this small change to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gordon argued that if the changes they have demonstrated occurring in this area were not sufficient to justify a plan amendment, then the Council has set a standard that would be impossible to meet. Mr. Gordon reiterated the conditions of the site that made it a good location for this use. He asked the Councilors to consider where they would put this store if not in this location. He said that he thought that the Council would be proud to have Haggen be part of the community and asked the Council to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr. Monahan noted another item for the record: a letter from Ball Janick & Novack addressing the criteria on behalf of the applicant. Jeff Kleinman, Attorney representing the Friends 8t Neighbors of Scholls Ferry, asked for the opportunity to respond to the new evidence presented by the applicant. Mayor Nicoli asked for a ruling from the City Attorney on the request, expressing concern that everyone get a fair opportunity to rebut any new information. Mr. Ramis concurred that as long as they limited their remarks to rebuttal of the new evidence and did not introduce additional new evidence, it was allowable. He said that the applicant should have an opportunity to respond to the opponents' remarks. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 15 • . Robert Bernstein, 507 18th Ave, Seattle, stated that he has not seen Mr. Vandehey's rebuttal to his comments at the last hearing, and therefore would not attempt to rebut the rebuttal. He stated that he was standing by the accuracy of his report. He argued that the assumptions made in the Leland report were anything but conservative and that it had taken him 15 minutes to figure that out. Mr. Bernstein said that no analysis of the proposed access scheme for a right-in, right-out on Scholls Ferry was present in the record; there was only the letter from Washington County saying that it was approved. He commented that the County's responsibility was to see to it that the major arterials functioned properly. He said that even with a new access onto Scholls Ferry, it was conceivable that the arterial might continue to operate properly yet the local streets experience significant changes in traffic. He said that they had no way of reviewing how accurate the analysis was or determining what the impacts actually were. Ralph Anzelatti, Columbia Research Associates, stated that his company did nothing but retail site surveys for grocery stores in the northwest and western states. He said that they had a very high accuracy rate. He mentioned that the report submitted by Don Scott in-answer to the Leland study did not include Costco because the Leland survey had not done so and Mr. Scott had wanted to keep his analysis consistent and comparable with the original Leland study. He said that the Leland study did not include all the other competitor retail stores or convenience stores in their analysis. Mr. Anzelatti said that he had not seen the study done on the reduced trade area and could not do a comparable. He said that he could offer some predictions based on his 15 years experience: if Haggen opened here, another store in that general core area would close. He said he thought there was room for three stores but not four. Mr. Kleinman addressed the Comprehensive Plan issue. He said that in order to justify an amendment to the plan map, an applicant had to prove either a change in physical circumstances since the original designation or prove that the designation was a mistake made under the original land use design. Mr. Kleinman said that the applicant hasn't come close to satisfying either criteria; rather they were changing the meanings of the terms. He contended that a change in physical circumstances meant a change in the uses near the proposed use, not growth or more traffic or market needs. The uses have not changed. Mr. Kleinman said that "mistake" meant a clerical error or a misunderstanding of what was actually being done at the time of the original plan development and adoption. The designation as multi- family was not a mistake; the City of Tigard knew what it was doing. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 16 • • Mr. Kleinman said that even if they satisfied those two criteria, the proposal still had to meet all the applicable plan polices: this did not. He argued that compliance with the Comprehensive Plan was not achievable because the applicant has failed to take into account the maximum development of the site as general commercial, and merely looked at applying the criteria to the Haggen store proposal. He cited Policy 5.4 as an absolute rule prohibiting the encroachment of commercial or industrial development into residential areas that were not already designated commercial or industrial. Mr. Kleinman said that Policy 12.2.1(2) was the locational criteria stating that commercial or industrial development could not be inserted in any area where it was surrounded on more than two sides by residential. He said that this location was surrounded on four sides by residential. He contended that the areas cited as having a similar use pattern reflected preexisting uses, not the insertion of commercial into residential. Mr. Kleinman mentioned the argument that the Comprehensive Plan itself said that there was significant growth and not enough land. He contended that the Plan's designation of specific areas as commercial was the method used to meet that need for more commercial properties. Mr. Kleinman pointed out that the responses cited from Beaverton were only hearsay, as Beaverton submitted no documentation supporting this proposal. Mr. Kleinman said that there was no evidence that the same trade areas were used in the traffic analysis as were used in the market analysis. Mr. Kleinman mentioned the argument of future change. He said that the applicant was saying that they should be taken care of today because of changes anticipated in the future, such as the Scholls Ferry Town Center in the Metro 2040 plan. He said that the town center in that plan was located 600 feet away from this site in Beaverton. He contended that the application was in conflict with Metro's plan because it created a new shopping center designation only 600 feet away from the one Metro wanted to create. Mr. Kleinman summarized the applicant's arguments as "we have a neat store, Tigard has grown and there's a lot of traffic, so please amend your Comprehensive Plan and approve the zone change." He said that anyone who lived on a street that was widened could make similar arguments for amending the plan; the precedent set would be disastrous. He said that the periodic review process was the proper place to deal with the issue of whether or not the original Plan contained enough commercial sites; it could be looked at within the context of the whole City, not in a piecemeal fashion. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 17 110 • Mr. Gordon stated that the opponents did not rebut the new evidence but merely reiterated their arguments made at the last hearing. Mr. Vandehey cited their letter as documenting the conservatism of their analysis. He said that both the County and the City required them to do an analysis of both the right-in, right-out access scheme and the initial access scheme that proposed full access to Scholls Ferry. He said that they ended up with a compromise of a right-out and left-in that was based on the County's review, not the right-in, right-out Mr. Bernstein cited. Mr. Gordon said that Mr. Anzelatti did not raise any new facts. He said that the Leland study allowed for the convenience stores and other stores like Costco by using conservative numbers on grocery spending (75% of what was actually spent on groceries). Mr. Gordon contended that Mr. Kleinman cited no authority supporting his interpretation of a change in physical circumstances or a mistake in the Plan. He said that under Mr. Kleinman's interpretation, the criteria could never be met. He asked if the periodic review process was the only place to look at Comprehensive Plan amendments, then why did they allow quasi judicial Comprehensive Plan changes requests. He reiterated that they have met the criteria set out in the Code. c. Staff Recommendation Mr. Valone recommended denial of CP 95-0003 and ZC 95-0005 based on the findings and conclusions in the staff report. d. Council Questions Mayor Nicoli asked for clarification on the locations of the proposed Albertson's and Fred Meyer's stores in relation to the proposed Haggen store. Mr. Valone indicated the locations on the aerial map. Mr. Hendryx stated that the Beaverton staff told him that the Fred Meyer request for the PGE site was withdrawn for consideration for a plan amendment in Beaverton. Councilor Hunt asked if the factor of market competition was something that the Council had the legal authority to consider in its deliberations. Mr. Ramis said no. Though it was an interesting controversy, it was not directly relevant to the criteria. Councilor Rohlf asked the applicant to address the issue of the loss of ' multi family housing needed in a fast growing City if this proposed use went in. Mr. Gordon said that there was no doubt that multi family housing would be lost due to this proposal, but stated that the loss of this amount of acreage would not affect Tigard's ability to meet the 10 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 1±3, 1996 - PAGE 18 • • units per acre housing rule set by Metro. Mr. Valone toncurred that they would lose the housing opportunity but that they would still be above 10 units per acre. Councilor Scheckla commented that in 1983, the thought had been to put apartments in that area because of the close proximity to an elementary school. He said that putting in a commercial development would displace those people; they would have to drive farther to the schools. He asked where else would they move the density in the City of Tigard. Mr. Monahan commented that the property was in the Beaverton School District, not the Tigard District. Mr. Hendryx said that he couldn't really answer where the units might be displaced to. He noted that this project would not affect their housing mix. Councilor Scheckla commented that the City was prepared to accept the zoning the way it was. He asked why they would want to jeopardize meeting their housing goal by displacing these apartments. He asked Mr. Ramis to explain the "mistake" issue. Mr. Ramis said that the issue of mistake was one of interpretation under the Code. He said that it was ultimately up to the Council how they applied the standard, and that courts granted deference to jurisdictions in interpreting their own codes. Councilor Scheckla stated that in 1983 he had been part of the Comprehensive Plan process and that he did not think that a mistake had been made. Mr. Valone pointed out that the Plan said "a mistake was made in the original land use designation." Since this site annexed into the City in 1987 and zoned R-25, the mistake would have had to occur in 1987, not 1983. Mayor Nicoli asked Mr. Hendryx if he remembered any discussions between Beaverton and Tigard on how much commercial development should be allowed on Scholls Ferry, citing Mr. Hendryx's tenure with the City of Beaverton. Mr. Hendryx said that Beaverton had a clear policy about limiting commercial development along major arterials. He said that the two Planning Commissions had met in the late 1980s to discuss a mutual concern about limiting strip development along Scholls Ferry. He said that Tigard did not have a similar criteria other than the locational standards in the Code. Mayor Nicoll asked if both the cities followed the general direction set out during those discussions or gone off in completely different CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 19 • directions. He asked if Tigard did not provide for as much commercial property as had been originally intended. Mr. Hendryx said that he did not believe a decision not to allow as much commercial development as the market would bear was ever discussed. There was never an agreement on how much development should occur or where it should occur. The general concern had been to avoid turning Scholls Ferry into another strip commercial road like TV Highway or 99W. Councilor Scheckla presented a February 8 newspaper article. Mayor Nicoli asked Mr. Ramis if Councilor Scheckla could introduce evidence into the record. Mr. Ramis said that Councilors introducing evidence into the record was very unusual; typically only the parties introduced evidence which the Council made judgments on. He said that it could be done but that both the applicant and the opponent would have to be allowed an opportunity to respond to the new evidence. Councilor Scheckla withdrew the article. He commented that the Albertson's in Sherwood opened last September and that last weekend the Food Pavilion went out of business. He said that he had heard the argument made here that there wasn't enough market to go around; somebody would not survive. He commented that the population all over Washington County was increasing by 20% or more. e. CIose Public Hearing Mayor Nicoll dosed the public hearing. Mayor Nicoll recessed the meeting at 9:25 p.m. for a 5 minute break. Mayor Nicoll reconvened the meeting at 9:37 p.m. f. Council consideration: Councilor Hunt commented that much of the material brought up to the Council by people went unread because they couldn't both read it and listen to the presentation at the same time. He stated that he thought that much of the testimony presented had been irrelevant to the decision on a zone change. Councilor Hunt agreed that the Council has allowed commercial development in an area with residential on three sides of the store, citing the 99W and Durham Road intersection. He said that the market economics of who survived and who didn't were not for the Council to decide. He said that he was not convinced whether apartments or stores would generate the most traffic, having seen too many instances when opposing sides used the same numbers to reach opposite CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 20 • • conclusions. Coundlor Hunt said that one thing that bothered him about this zone change was the inability to control the potential development in the future, should Haggen's go out of business. They had to zone it commercial; they couldn't zone it for a grocery store. Councilor Hunt said that the second thing that bothered him about this was a previous incident in which high density residential was moved to Bull Mountain from the intersection on 99W and Durham (Albertson's store); this has resulted in nothing but trouble on Bull Mountain. He said that the only way he could support this application was if a location was found for the high density before the application was approved. Councilor Hunt stated that they knew from the Metro 2040 plan that they were going to have to increase their density. He asked why they should rezone high density now when they would have to find more if Metro insisted on more high density. Councilor Hunt said that he was extremely impressed with the Haggen store and hoped that they could find another area in town to locate it. However he could not take away the City's current high density, knowing that they would probably have to find more high density in the near future. Councilor Scheckla concurred with Coundlor Hunt's comments that the density had to be addressed; if it wasn't located at this site, then it had to be located somewhere else which probably meant another rezone. This site was already approved for high density, met the Metro 2040 plan, and was close to schools. He agreed that Haggen's was a good store. Councilor Rohlf concurred with the other Councilors' comments. He said that he would like to see a Haggen's in town and suggested the Tigard Triangle area. He said that if this was a decision between letting Haggen's in and fostering Howard's, it would be a tough decision. But it was a land use decision and he was not convinced that a mistake was made in zoning that land multi family. Mayor Nicoli said that his concerns were similar to those of the other Councilors. He complimented Mr. Haggen on his application and support personnel. He stated that he had a hard time accepting growth as justification of a zone change. He said that he did not think that the Council was here to justify who stayed in business or went out of business; they had too many other good criteria to consider. He said that he was impressed with the Haggen store and hoped that they could find another location within Tigard or an adjacent jurisdiction. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 21 • • MOTION by Councilor Hunt, SECONDED by Councilor Scheckla, to deny the application. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoll and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 6. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE CPA 95-0005/ZON 95-0007 - PACIFIC CREST/PROVIDENCE A request to amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Parcels 1 and 3 of MLP 94-0013, located on the southwest corner of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota, from Commercial Professional to Neighborhood Commercial and change the zoning from C-P to C-N; and to amend the Comprehensive Plan map on the property located on the southeast corner of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota from Neighborhood Commercial to Commercial Professional and change the zoning from C-N to C-P. Location: Southwest and southeast corners of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota. Applicable Review Criteria: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2) 2.1.1, 5.4, 8.1.1, 12.2.1(1) and 12.2.1(3); Community Development Code Chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12. Zone: C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) allows for several uses including convenience sales and personal services, food and beverage sales, medical and dental services and professional and administrative services. C-P (Professional/ Administrative Office) allows for business support services, communication services, medical and dental services, personal services, convenience sales and services and limited eating and drinking establishments. Mayor Nicoll read the hearing title. He noted that the Council has already taken previous action on this and that tonight was only to review the findings to finalize the Council action. a. Staff Update: Community Development Department Mr. Valone stated that on January 23, the Council did approve the land zone designation swap proposed by Pacific Crest and Providence Health Systems. He said that the ordinance and final order prepared at Council direction were in the council packet. He recommended adoption of those documents. b. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-4 MOTION by Councilor Hunt, SECONDED by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-04. Ord No. 96-04. an ordinance adopting findings and conclusions to approve a Tigard Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change requested by Pacific Crest Partners and Providence Health Systems, CPA 95-0005/ZON 95-0007. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 22 tl 1 ,) V ti IJ (n rd 0•.1 ti ,-; t. 11 .a ': 1 t)1 U L O tit 1J nl dl r. 0 U 1.1 ,' 41 rd 1: 1 0 .1 1 S, Rl .-1 Fi >.0 r.� U i i t► f: RI l: 1, „ dl 01 •i 1,r c 'Ti p.U '1) Ir. • 1 LI .1 0 u 0 d, 11 'A (1i,11 01 nl 0 41 t 0.id U 'Ti N In 1d r: N •LJ al 00 N •.1 0 V) (1 41 > • t) (l►1: tl 4 I F;.1. 1 II 11 11 th .1 ►' ►; 0 'U.14 'Ti r' 4) 1))u • •.1 4) to 'U 4, .-1 o U,o r: 01 a 41 a .i 1d (1 m 11 • C 1J o•.1 J u Q > Id t1•tf..1 1/ u •.id: a 11 1I 11 >. 0 >.0 rd a N 0 0 .71 dl rn O o- >. y.p 0 0 s, > 41;,: 0 11 >.-1 I, 0'(1.I o O nI p.0 'U 4) 0 W 1t U LI • 0 U > .i > s 0) nl V 11 0.( UI G 01 L lr 0 41 0 .0 u Art o,a 1) ,4 tl•.1 u 111 t i 1.) L t ro•.1 n) 0 D 3 E•(1 b►.c; I► n) [ a► al ro (T �0 1 ►,o--•r1.-1 q G ti u H U u � ►, w>. 'ti `al o a) ,J nl nl ------ ----- U 0 ro 0 'u 01 i .0tx Nor4 111 O Id $r •.1 , 4) u d1 �m u C C•.1 .-1 o.-1 F. • {► p. M n, u •.1•.1 U I1 C. $1 sl b o u Al -1 .Y, ` a, u /4 v .I o N 1, J •C1 - 1 •,1 0 1'i 1 11 G' E y b •r1 E Nur1 E Ol 'tl 111 . Ii) dl•.1 A •.-1 0•.1 0) U•.1 111 0 :1: 0 U O • E 0 01 U ,r; .1 r:r 1 1 ftl (/) 111 11 0 N t ll•.1 Id 4 1 I1 0.0 u N 01 - 1 u 111 41 U U 4) 1 {t U..1 r1 O N C 0.-1 0 II (: :-11) 10.(, U ., 11 I1 ro tiro (iv1 to 0 T. ►, 11 Id E .0 C 0.0 . 0 Ir1•.1 • ,►'(1 := 0 U ro 1:.1: ro m ) Iti U1 L1 0-1; u ►' ►, U > u N 1 " �� y(J -'., r) 0 r:1 r: 1 1I .: 0 In 0► `J.;I: 0, u n 111.-4 to n ul F t1 •1 'd O 0 0;,: 'n �. m :1.'11 U1 ti)U 111 m N • 1 •tJ•.l U .-4 (: Id (1 14 01 a'U U 0, - 41 ro:,; :1 O.s!.r: C ti .1 U N 'tl r: b�'•1 C7r 1 N 01 F' u 1, q n tf tf•.► t: 1J 0 u M. 1 • v V u u 0 .-1'tl O'•.I I) u ro I U u tl .1 a 4, 0 1) I'' {l u ro t)t ►1 • t: 41 t1 IH is dl a --11J >, y c' Ott ro I Z G'Al r/•r) u r'. C: , c: (a ro u r: f1.rt1 Ih;r: 1 • 1: 1 ►tr+ U .- .1 bG O Uro ta( •p, v ,Jn► ►1r) h►(:F� •l .1tl ()t') nl .1 .1 p.OU IW Ou r1 •• •.1dltl O•.( U E tl �•� o^ E I% 111 p, I to ►► 411, ., 1•I.c: 111 /I•.I .OU t),4, .1 • d) V U U .-1 u 0. 0 0 in OK') •• In.0 IQ el ro ,1 ill 'Ti 044 I.)(J In •.1 01.-1 • ro W ud) Cr. 0 Li Ito alr • pf' �7 ►1dlu)ra 01d) to U L1 10 I1_V. ro ro .r: IIO,11 r) m101 11) o0 t7 C to ►1:4 '+ 111 U 5; b.1 0 U.-1 rd M5; ro 0)'t, 1) a .;,,; to >: !I .1 11.0 1) I1;0.0 U 'Ti•-/ ro ' '°� °� � t" E u. nl Id•.1 „ m • 1 m u u ,I R1; "► tP i'Ti dl tT 0 UC o1 Cl 11 (: t.i 0, r..l pi r1 ( 11 (; II n) lo L' 1:.1) 41 41_- a t1 I ,(:10 41 n. d) C: 4) .U),� 7 >0,4 10 II^ N P. d) G'U O. • -411..1• U) O /I ni-.1 In•U?:.,;1) •d nI 01 ('1.t; 1: .1 1 7 �7 0 E U)0:z r1 ITS a•U t3 0.t: RI 11.0.-1 -.4 '1 1 0 - A r/ 1) 0 0 (l 61 '•.• 1:.-1 4: 1 10r U 11 r,..1: )141 • ,► ► • >.0.1�. nl 1, 'aI Ur1 1"> rl •• 1 in 11) -.1 1I 11 ,,•n,1),1: .11101 .1 11 -11/ :t 11: I) b dl E „1 111 .-1 b 41 E-.1 u ('�q3 t: Al 1d u > (1 U d) (: N 41•.1 'U 1J O ,I•.1 n).I) 11-.1 .-1 4 1 ,t t: I) l(1 'tl 0 E ..-4,4 0 (11 41.0 ro 0)•r1'U r) {, 11 () () 01 t: 11 pr(pu 01 dl 0) a Lt 11•.1 1: U > Q: •-• U U :J (0 ' V Li IZ 0i 41 t7 11 1 I ,1 11.1I U r1'414, '7 r b dl .0 111 0 >. 't.1 0.-4 to a n, 0 1: r, ro In r: r' .r1 rd t4 l. 1.111•.1 '1' In •0.00 ►' O 14. 1• 11 1: al tai N C • 1 U 1 :-41 11•.1 L1 (: rl 3 >....1 U t: ro O ll Ih> -► 4i tn.I M 0.1 41 1.1 ,1 .1 (1 .l 0 10 1141 (; an •tl.-1 d1 nl rl 1 .a ro 0 b U � 0 0 0 t� �1 Cj r`.['rl O.� u > .-1 nl r; IA tll'IJ:1: 01•.1 I.1 4 I•.1 11 1' f 1 id 0 .0 O tl V : -.4 0 L. 1 0 (: 1' U r. U vg rd , ni ••U u r. - •.1 )1.-1 01 •.1 0,•.1 41 t 1• I4•.1 nl :� rn 1 V y i.I N ro 7 ro 14,1 {l 1) t' • 1111 1 41 0) • , . U •1 .4 uu-.1't] d/ .0 ►►'t1A In 0 vv I atn.-1.•I.r: p, • nd.-111N .0 0101x01. 1 ,I (, 4.1 t; 11.1; itt: ,I (v >. b •1.-1 u 1 Lt 41 0)U >.tr••1 Cl) C: ro 01 1) ,) E C) dl al 1 1:1: 'I • I I >, 4, 0) M U U ro 111 ,1 t: d) m 0 C: 0. CI O 1'. .V E to rd v 11 0) 0 E (-) {1 II N •I1 4)0 I I':1 111.11 :I r) '1•.1 111 .� U tr o a, .0 ro b at•.1 u)n 0 r( {t ro P. w (.1 a, l,,i� 1 1 4r�, ,, ;1 a 4I.-1 r: v 1 n' • , u 0 6-1 In.O (1 ttriU •r1 0)'tl m to .1: >. n) F: 1:: • .:'U11 ro u In 1, ro•.,.1: b1b''. r►, U C: 1) 1 v 01 •• a Id 01 't1•.1 OJ rr,0 d) L1 (0 r 1 r1 • > ' 'U) 1. r; O O ,S.41•.1 In Q.•` 1) t. O b 'U:1: .1 C. dl C: 1 11 0 ({ I f; ro 41.-.4 U)> 1j C ,), �� 01'1.1 Ho p 11 d) n. •o) N ro.1 1, 01 nl .1 -I U'tl In (; u u II 41 In .1 Li In ti.-1 r: ill > 0•0 U 0 0,E 111., o rl r) N t),4d 11 rl 11. 1: -1 1 •.: 4) u ro t l • 41 r: 41 In i� m C 41 01 0 0 n u o H 1 :3: , l0 41. 1 to 1,.,, 1 1..l .t; 41 0 r• • r; dl � 'U -.1 N La - 14,4 R: ()rn 0 O S, •• ,m to L1 r' ,1 U In r1 0 r► t•.) ,J Fp' Ul 0 I: (1 .1 [ .r: Id 1111 :) I1 (►41 ,I (► r1V) :- N U oOrt p,7. o1VUU1nl, {, n•.IAIr: N J: Ih.1 " 11 11 111 /1 0,10)11 1 nil'tm41011: .` 1 U E U 0 y: id N )1 (,l Id ri rl rd 0) •01 W ,1 0(-.1 C: U ill 11 O 1, nl t: '11 ;Z l l its •t1 r 141 01 dl ►1 Id r 1� C ro 0 to 1 0) 01 Li 0 1 x (10-4 '1] a.-1 U rd It d) 11 01 U 01'(1 1:n, nl •0 1, n►.O ro UM rd ul t: 0 re u d) Li 0 v .-4 I/ U It >. 0.-1 H O.r: 111-r .1 • 0,10 N.-1 ro 0. 1, -el t' I: 1) r: r: tn'tJ U u rtl U ro U n 1. I11 • u • U•u Flo u 01 i) -U x U 'Ti 10 it O >..1 to t1 U 11.� IIf {►r1 M 3 td 41 0 0 to.•1 • r) dl(') () „ O ►, ro u In (,,t: :1 I, Id I p,b b Ip u dl • U •t: O -II;C 11•r1 N nJ L- t: dl n► 41 ,1•.1 n o O U 1 O N•r♦t:•.1 N U .1 to 0 011 :t5 1 prt't] C;In'tl ID u.-1 tn N r♦ N n ( N 11 rl re O ro t/UI ;1:,t; In.-I'(J r: .1,(1't1 $I C.1. .1 n r1 u 1, 0) rt , C U N Coo y r♦ ro -4 1) r. 0 .- 0 .-1 ro Ul i► 0. 1J r;•.1 •t 1) p,t: 0 ,1 ro 01-41 i i 7) 0 se'44 U u 1 .-4 0 n n.A C - O -c, dl U 0 41 -01 Id 0 to .1 0 O •.14 1 t: 0 1) 4r-.► 0 41 1),Id U L, n) 5; 'ri -1 U In r: 'U (7 .0 U U >. iv U U o E ro n;-.1-r'U • 1 01.-1 U '.1 u II p, ar ,) 4l 11 ,I In •11., 1. ro •U n1 a its.1: 1 C: • 1 .1•.1•t] Url 1 tJ U ,, 0 u r: In 0 0 nt N U p,,, 1) y t. v {I fl rl n. n n u. 1 • t, I M p > • o I .0 r1 II c"t]• 1 nl u u >, 7 .-1 U X to u W a)1n U 1 11 • ;1 r!. 11 11.-I (✓ rd ›..10 0.0 1 I nl .-1 4l•.1 1) 11.1) 4) j o ►t t1 3 i :1 0 U OJ L1 .1 0.,, 1 o C:a Hal O 0 h 11: n) 1n o. L► O.t: ro 1 t: to 71 1, 11.01 s 111.1: L, I: t; 11.1: 1 1 I 0 .1 r: .1 U 0 U V 0 U 0'.J u E d) • 0.-1 0 -U.-. (n 01 Lt 111 U r: 41 u Id -41 d1 (1 41 :> 1) 01 41 4) 01 I1,111 (I O '1 0.'I V U L. to N 4 M In 4) 4)r1 (;r1 1 C: 0 rl >.0 11 0 1.1(1'Cl 10'1 f I),r': 1 II (n 11 Lr :1 N a 14 0) 41 d1 N U•.1 'UI...-► • dl id'CI Id 41 >, U nl 41 ti In F:1 1 (J 1111 /) 41 r •. 1•.1 01 Sr ,) rn it pi C J: Ms: O 41 U n, 0 .-4 rot 0 O U U ,,1L. >-, U In a 1 A In E.,' 0} In p, rd ill .0.1 1 () I) I n O 1 n..1 O 11 U)41 ►1.•-1 S 1 11 •I IJ nl.1: e, 3 1 1 5; 1 1 U I. 1) 10 V U 5: U 5: I n rd F. n.= 01 (1 0 1 4 n1 1.),U Id 0 j, CI (' 1) r; I/) r);(1 r1:IN 111.0 0,41 I I ;, ro O f1,0 in c 11 U pi p01 ro. 1 U -U It rl ,:I 14 0 •U . 1-.1 4-1 r-1 4/ 1.4.0 I I ,-17' 41•.1 m 0.1 • dl 4I In rn L. w .,: 0..-1 > E•-•31 U ,. p vr: up. • Nnroni (i 4, M rt.n: O'n ft..r II U v, 11 41 .1) 0 () U • f. -r F. '-I 1 1 1.) '0 • 0 • n, 0) . ell N • N V 0 a) 0.) 0) () n, 11 U nl .0 .0 nl Il 11 in 1: U 1: 040 •.1 11 UI •.1 11 .r: II (/) U U 11 '1) t: 0 N 0 • U U N 1J•.1 •U O 1; N -.1 .-) U > U) 0:1: N U 0. N 210 O U) O M • U ..1 .t: In Id.•1 in • O O to •.11 44 U) O v N r: 41 O r U-rl 14 N m It In r' U art! 0 0) n) 1,•t1 N 0 U u V a) 14 r.1 L u O u•.4 •.l v t)1 U) 5:2J 0'0 >e0 •.1••1 r: '0 1.1 0.01 0 ••1 0-in • 11 7) .-1 -.-4 0) M N M U N U 2f 0 t)►0 ' 14 14 r•I'U N V tll U 01.1:•.1 •.I 0,T) 0 m 3 11 0.'U ro >•-1 O 21 41,4-.1 U to it••I M N '0'u U, a•.I >.r., 1 10 4) •r, O -.114 E U > In M 0 M • •.1 H b o 14 0 to .I v •.l v 3 0121 00.4m4 E 5d 0 O • O v v rd Cl, U U.1, 14 v p...10 7) N RI 04.X v ►) 3 0 1: N r41'C) 14 4, N ,I. 0 M r U 0 U 10 •.I 0 N o t.r: .r:.-I 41 >.11 14 O t .t: 11 (1) o E 1' T. .-I o ►. > .1 0 U .-I U) N-. M U 0 U 0 U) Cl a ..-4 Id U U n. (: N ► 0 >.0 .- 3 0. .r: 41E0 P. .-I0•.+ 04 0 041 vu.0•.4 Ilu N ouv 02) 11 321 0.r: 41 0. .0.q No 41 u 0'1. E • >: m3 m N U,••4 0 0 0. •.1 N -.4 1.-1 0 0 N Q t' M 01 1; >.N 11'1, 0. 3.r. .r: U ;• r o 'tfu Om V > 00. u 0 oUln0.vu MN m•.1 0o r. i > t)l,r:..{ ,r, > t: 41 :1 In U tOm0MU, 0) 1) 1 M >. V O V E W O M O 0 M M r M 1, 14 V O U N u 0 1: .r: 3•.I n, 1) to M M-.1 'U V.-) M0 U 1,•.I 44 It Q U 1. O'0 U u b P.00 0 to M U o ' 0 `� • 1, N .0 >..0 U, a) M 1: N Ul N (14 11 11•.1 o 14 • 'V >. U•.I N 0 M um U 0.0 N :••I TJ N ---Ur.r 'tl t11..) 1. t:.1) •In • 0 r: r: U) •-( r: M'U >"1 0) 0, N 0 W U► >. .-1-r10) .0 U) • 01 0.-. 0) to td 0 rn rd.0 U U y a .-4.W.71 n 0 '•.r' U `` U ,o rd M o m 1' tl U 0 N 0 0 o u 0 U Uo M •.1 M 0 0 •l 1:R: U 3 U N r U N 0u 1 ) '.1.c; ) 11 i r, 3 rd N •) n) o 11 :•., on 0 • O r7 .l E U v O U1, U > .1 to V 0 N N U ro ,-4 I.0 E •.{u N 14 0 .1 11 NOE EN0.1, 0,1 4,4 0.0 N Wu0UN >. N Il •.{ 111 r N u U r u pU >. ON 0 • 'U.!! 10 U ' 0.-1.0U .10A0 >.N U- 7) N.r U •r1 u m .--4 M 0 U U0J0 00 u, u•rlU .lE nO,Ul 0 n n1 U..1.-1 N O nl l.: 41 11 1•.1 t: 0 A NU In II I: (' MUI 111 on 1. 1n.1l, ll ft [: U p, •1 N•.1 O r N tn f. 41•00) 0E21I ,0toN lit: Y-•I 1; N-0410 1) U, U (1)4-4 N U N U1 0 41.4 N'i•rI O N m M U O :J U 3 001 MME N O 0 _ a .r 1 .1 n L.0 ( O m .•1 1 0 1r. M U u m M U U U 4. N • u 0 1r 11 > E.--1 1, 4.. 0 r. lb-4•.I t: it a r:U.r: c, N 11 U 0 14 0 01 1, g1: 1) 0 111. 0 41 0 rM r. NONO0,00to TJ•.I1, ONv .r.•.10..1 4111 1 U, 4.1N 00 0 110.1 rnUl 1.1 `" L U m 21'l• u -.I•.1 N21 N U tr) N 11 I. 11 0n: r: Cl MU.-AO U u M u U.0 M I41M nl U N 1. In O40 04; 0 .'2 1y 0 U > a) -.4 Q N N 0 UI N 1: 0 U) 0 U p.-) -.1 M n) 0.r: .0.0 r•-1 r: • O) U O. I f 11 N .t: 0 al 1' -.5 14 U E 1.: M rl. 4.4-0 4 4..4 > 0 .-{ r > ro a, r:a 44 M 41 M 0 M p,0 to•-1 0 0 4 1•.-♦ 3 •� N•.I 1 1 n► N n1 14 N.0 u u 41 1: III u'U 0 0 0 41 :t no ..I E to -.1 m >.U-.l 1.-.l 01: 1. M M > t:.1 N al-.1 Nr co N 0 0 1. 0 r 41 •T) 0.': 11 0 11,r: mm 411) O't1•U tyro r. m0. 1 Cl 0E0.111 U 0.r: 0 v•.)..1A 1: U00mM • 10 p,l1 ►1 In4II) 'Ivo a .-1N ..1 rd I r, fl u m U 0 0. ro21 40 0 I•.4 N I N O 01 5 3 11, 4, 0r > • It n► OP I.) I, in t) U II •l t: If 014. U, (1 -.1 0.t: tU 0.0) )/. 0 0. MO 0)-.)1:-.l 40 t. 0 I1 0. w71.10 11 0, t: U M 1 1 0 I I 0 0.1 !h r'.): 0 nl t, '0 ✓ 7, C 01 140 0 p 3 N 41 u 11.21 U II > 7 u U.c: 11 '0 01 u u 411 rrOQ rd 0 0 0 t: 44 rd 41 nl t••.1 Id 0 .',.01 'I I rd 0 rd ,II I, 11 m (d:/: N 41 U 0 N r: 71 N 0 ro l 40.1 11 M O to.0 U)•.1 U II.11 M II a) 11 III 11.0'11 01 0 •.I 1,, .•1 II .•1 Us '1 to W U) a) U..) ' ' • 'tl I, .t: U1N'U :,...I(.1. 01't) .4:4I U U N 11 N U, 01 41 0) tl 0) 11"011 o N a, 0 •• Ur I: t' 0I M .11 •"' •7 E ro•) to > >•t o E u•.1 0 0 > 0 U 14 3rd U 11 U, -U, 0) N r: N al N foil •.1 .I mill 1:.0 U 1' 1: 1: 1: 0I•.1 0.0..1 n. •11 0 1: 0 0m.-411A40 (40 rd M >.•.I ro O r m 0 .0 •.1 N m y U 0•.I N tll 1 1 n141 ..-1,1711) 01•.1 a 4 4 1 4 1 1..1-1 . 1 1) 1111 - I) U N 1 0140M000„4 .-I 41)....44(100 0 >. ...1 Ul 1 1 U) VW >.-1-1 11.11-1 'n I1'0 on 0.-) I, .c1 n) 1; 0) I.) N u u 44.0 11 m 0 U o u 0 1: M 0 u•.1 N N •.1 O U 3. 0 N 0.0..-10..1 r )"U MOM N U r 1 t) N n. M M n 0 M 11 1 14 .r 0 0 V W ro • 0 - U M 04 41 0 u 0 J O U ro u r N U•.I 0 U r: u N 01.1•.1.I 1m M In >.In nl u •.1.0 14 U .-1 1: r) 1, O 1. (.1.r: r0•n N to 01 N M 14 C O u .11 'tj• 1 U 1' M ,1 1 r'4 1 N Id M U N N N I: 0, 0) .0 1 1 1 1 0 1. :1 Ql n l-.1 I n 0141 nt 1.1 U U U 14 r t: 0 a.11.1: U 0 v u 0 U b 0 11 1) :.j 10 0.-1 N 0 0 0 I 01: n►.13 on N .t A) in 1' al'U 411. 1 II 11' 11-r .1 in O 1 •I 01 U )-.1 11 0. 0 ro N Tf V II U'Ti 0 I4 U In .t: 0 N m A 3 0 1) .r; 1):•:•0 '• a) ..o 11 0 - so M •.0) r. I I 0 U N 11 0 V 0 a1 N O E 0...4 r: to >.r: 0 if O M t: U to 0.-4.4 U U 411.0 M (1 4 I) 401) 1: 4) 111 1: 'n U•.I n1,11 1 11,1: U I?0 0,U U N .0 nl >-.I u 0 U •.l 0 M N U N U M 01.-4 ‘.)..0 M 1 A M M al U•1:1 .11 -.1 I I In M U ►I ,r N 1: r: 1: E'n1 .1 , , • . U U 0. ro I I U a 0.1 ro -4 N.r{ U U r•.1 -3 .1 t: M U U.-1 N •.1',. >.11 N o f' • I U N •-.1 ) 1) N 0)•.1t) 'I I•.) Ill In ,I MN r .41 Cl 0.rUOE UU J tJ - •1U) 0 .r: NNU, U• 1 Ap2r• 1: (11041 n1rNInU1 a n.0 Cl U 'UUr: •7 -U In T u N ) Cl.U n ► B ' m N 01 >. in.0 M U N U.t: 0 M 0 0, 3 i) N t I: 11 r 1: rn •0 m 0 Id 0 M m•.1 ) N O 1 N 14 41 •.1 0 : 2.1•0 u N N 0 in N II 0.0 14 0 3 N N b 01 U O 1C U N •,1 N O ..1 .4 N In 11 r 4) M Cl I 1) M.r M •2f u 0 1 10 WE,-)U01) N 0 r 1: 0 10:1:I+ M u () 11 U r N ►1 0 :1 U) M tl 1, > 1 41r1 0 N 3 M 0,14 U 01 : n) n 1, U.r N >. N U •.1 m t E•.1 44 U 11 N U 1 •.l { apt, 41 it 0-.1 N N N >.• I M 3 :J M ro 41 :) 14 U.I: 41.0 1,1 0 0 M Um 1: n) If) • 00 a).A>.mv.t1 1 OU O1U ro: U o C 0 0. n N 1u-u.1 U 0 Li U r o:..4:A>. co-v U N U) r I) -U U) 0 1,-. 0,E 11 3 N.-) U 0 0 1 m u•.4 u • N 1 I Cl) 0 •.) 0 01 .0 n )1 N n U'11•.1 U f •.I'(1 U 1U, 11 U 41 V 41 41,4.l 41.0; > 0 N 0 4 N M U 14 F.-.I •.) U :J.>1.rt1, .In 1 NM 1: ,U, 0.) 1, 0 1 1 U U a 1 t) I(: 01 a) 41 .3 ►1.{ 1 10 U •.1 ..-I Is to C to O 0••l U -.4 U O r N.r 0'3 1, l '( 0.0 M 0 U '0 0.M o In N ' 1, 1 41 1 1 41•-) : U 0.r M t, t,.r . M 11•.{ ?! U ■•1 00 1'U r. E 0 .I M U'Ti U N 0 M-.1 U.t; N .I 1: '41 to a:?J l l .t: 41 41 .r .11 M O1 N•.1 U1 1)•.I•,1 u I-) N U) U U .>•to m 0 to 0••1 -.1 rd 0 0 0 0 U m u u Ul U u v 2f -.5 1) - U -.1 Cl 0 :• 111110 r: U 0•.I•I-. -• •.1 1 $: 0 0 V••I 1l 1: N um T) u >,r N.I N r up O N'U N 21••r O m 0 >.M O b1 i) a to t: 1. 4 1 . (1 1 1..1 0 0 O 1 In 0 1, 41'tJ O.I I a) 0 p.l)'Ti T)..1 H -•1 )I N a U r:1:n.r 1. -.4 v.1) N 0 N n) •.1 It II O Ti 0 0 '' v► tl ) N 0 In It 'U'U r: 1'•.I 0 't)'tt i)1 I 1 N.r: 1: to to.r: 0 .I0 a 0u y0 00•.4 41 0 u0 Ztn 14 000U >•>. a) N0.1•.lM1) :J n1f0rIt. .1 M 11NmI: ton1c1 lIn) .1rr• nom r•'•.IfIu,1' V. '7 1..-I-rte N U) 0 T) t7 1 A C�.1 N .0 0 0.1 0111 M•./ N WI I N 11 U M )1 0140 11 -.111 (41 O - U M 'n 11•.1 r) - 1, 141 > 0.17-.1 M w -.1 )4 0) m 0 n.i1' u.4 1.•.l 0-4140) 0141„4m..) Il-.I•.I U1 11 U ;f•.1 u fl u 01 N 0011) 0,1m0 14 QI 0 r' .1'411 .-1 0 u .•l $4 CO U 0 01 0 11 M M 11 UI 41 U, U U 1.4•0 .-1 N 1,.-1 I n1 I' (1)al •.1 1: 'n r'"1•.) •.1 I'1 • N 1: M • V' .C1 - >•0 m O.E 11)...Y .0 -1 >.41 • U M O O N • t. a N.-{9) n, U 0,011. J 010 ••-I N11 1::• 11n •• ) 01 41 0.01) :1 11 01 Mm 0 0 O1: U) U N N M W N N N r: N 1, 0 11 0. M 0 0r :1 ►1 .: .I p..g n, 0.M M 1411) E004/ 0 1s N.0 , is U-Ti tr �. 11 O. 5. 0. h II U U M M 1, 0 x 11 7.T)a:-.4:I: U tJ 0)on >: u U In'1. 0 F' 014 4111 U:I: 1: .•:.11 10 'n O :• 0. :•:.1 I I, I I . •.1 1 () .0 . ()) . U • II (.) • • creating an intersection of a major arterial with a major collector. making this an appropriate site for commercial use: The traffic studies indicated that the level of service on these roads would remain acceptable with either a grocery score or apartments; Placing a grocery store close to where people lived would help to reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT) as required by the Transportation Planning Rule (citing a 65% reduction in VMT) . Mr. Gordon reviewed the evidence that the land use was consistent - with residential locational criteria, citing the Planning Commission' s findings that the application was consistent with nine out of ten of the locational criteria. He argued that the site was not inconsistent with the criteria that a commercial tone not be surrounded by a residential district on more than two sides because the site was surrounded on two sides by major roadways : Scholls Ferry and 135th. The only residential development was kitty corner to the loc. Mr. Gordon cited evidence in their application of four other locations in Tigard that showed the same pattern of development, commercial uses surrounded by roadways with residential development cn the other side of the street. He noted the statement in the Comprehensive Plan that the locational criteria should be construed in a flexible manner. He stated that this site was not within an established residential area that was "tone mapped. " Mr. Gordon reiterated that no community impact was identified before the Planning Commission and that Washington County has approved the access plan. He contended that this was the best site in town to • locate a grocery store to serve the nearby residents, stating that there was no other commercial site available in Tigard where a major arterial intersected with a major collector in close proximity to another major arterial (Murray Blvd) . - Mr. Garden said that if they did not_find the changes in these circumstances to be substantial, they would never find any chances substantial. He contended that if they did not out a store her_, the residents would have to drive further to already congested areas to do business. He stated that they have met all the applicable c-� -aria and urced the Council to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval. Mr. Hacaen stated that they anticipated building six stores in the western Portland Metro area, and that this was their best site and would have the larcest volume store. • :_^ley Marshall, 13775 SW Old Scholls Ferry Road #107, Beaverton - waivinc time • by Marshall, 13775 SW Old Scholls Ferry Road #107, Beaverton - waiving time • =bra Scheidecker, 13775 SW Old Sc oils Ferry Road #33' Beaverton_ -- waiving time • ,.7an,.7 Berry, 13775 SW Old Sc clls ?err.. Rcad #306, Beaverton -- • waivinc time • ': le: Jackson, 3775 SW Old Sc oils Ferry Road #207, Beaverton -- waivinc time • :,_ioe Brow) :3775 SW Old Scholis Ferry Road #300, Beaverton -- waivinc time • 7'ormha <-.. r, 13775 SW Cid S c.^..._-s Ferry Road, Beaverton -- waivinc time ---- :..7.1CII MZNt=_a - JANUARY ARY , 1556 - PAGE 13 • O 1 • (1 I) f' II L' • • • • • • (i 1'1 . 3 l 'II, I' (IE0 :r14:10 '. tn'(1rf( 0l'E0 W:S:4 ►-••3p'Wa :1W0 00 •r( X 0E00003'Ef EQ )4 :n a: nnhn £ fW + c1 0 O :r:I :r('•:1'W It 0 O In O 11 :rn :r l'•1u'r1 W I1 In W n W ID ;Y n O 11 O N 31.93 k W N OP-:r W O W W W a s a N W o o :r H•o a :r 0 ' a is ID 14 0 I 1 a 11.0•fl =1 • '1.0 I' 0 N %1'U1'('< I'•• '<: r II 0 (t 11 1'•1 F•• ('(s • N N II ( 3 (A N t1 1••11 3. ►• 1-••►1 a ft .`J N t0 0 S '•: O I: I'•n (D (Ii 1 O'a '1 11 N 11 0 IL n am q11-0M1 ( '0 N W n H 9 0 0 4r 4M < . Er/ 0 £ 0 0 £ N 1.1 W 1 1`10 113 UI :1 (1.11) 131 1-•0 O.(D W =l 0 11 (n W 11 N•DI I'•'rl < :-)(A n pp N o'►1 W p'a t•I n I-' N n 41 I-' r-W 1••p N-0 W '< a N <0 a Y 0.0 .,10.:0 ,100. 110 I-W 41'(1 'U(:'O mil W a N 1'• N 1-'• tT O N N-►1 tT 0 3 o W 0 N p' p p .I p F-n 1-.0.1,- r w • CI 0 1D W i, 0-0 1...,1 0 ,.. In a UI '(1 (U 0 ft '4 W I'-:4 p'rt 11 n 0 In I-• 0'O N N 1'• 0 N 3 a n W N W W ta. W x: W n1 h:r O 7C P.ti < a 11 1: 10 11 O N N'(1'< :r 1'-n. 1-rt 1'•11 n :1'I-I'• 1).1•• n 0 N I'•r/, •0 n I-';] 0 (L tt O n'd ►1 N n n I-• 31 (1. o n ►-'0 ►•.h 1'1 1111.1'-(I O. .0- W tut() I'• 0 0 Cl I•• a 1) WW n 0.a N It trim nW 41'0 a II 0'(1.1"1••1'• 0 :1: Cl p n W a 11 ►1 n p'a p p r4 In lD o :1 I s l n 1-•m :1 E 11 .: t b n r r o a (D 0 lit a H•0 41 n'0 • '(I ID N 10 0 (D 0 a (1. 1•.I'• I'- l' N•N n N p 0 ►•W W 41 0 0,O.:l'r) 1••41 (1O UI (t 0 lD 0 41 I'•0 m 1•' N•W 1•' 0 a :ram 1••0 W 3 0 n .r 1 n p W a (I al- am ►1 N . W N p O ' 1: 11 :i n 1••=l 41 0 r. • 1.'1-'n ;1 I'• 0. I'- ►1 W rl in n N n n ,1 N E o h m m p' mm N !' mm (D n O £ ►1 • n n I n a ID 1 1 1: I t O 0 Ut 1-' 0 n C a: rt N O O (t ;J' 0.1'•N•U1 It n N :P E a t-.(.m 1-' - 0' (4 a r-t,a ►.-• c.I 1: 0 :1 1.1 4 it I'•W n.0 W O. (A UI a:ID N W r1 W a 0 0 3 O 4 N m 1,0 0 0 ID N p'n p I'•- N - W N rb In 1a n r El i.L 1 (1.131111 ,1 ' r I' :I:(13 (I 1-9 N U l r(I) U n 1 1 W N 7'0 11 n D 1.• 1 < :1 0 l(1 n O. W % N 1/00 :1 %C W : r ID 11 is f I :ra 0 r N a W • rt n P. 4 n W W n I' P. It 0-0 .(- N r- 0 N 1••',)10 w C. 0 -','UI n a 0 O :r It lD '0(n :r (3 N It ••(II m ID U) 711 N Cl D n 1D r n n l r( (D N U 1-• -) w w 3 ►-'0 ''+ -1 11' 41 O I• r l n 1U 14 W 1 I I t ID W 11 (D E n 0 It :1 1). I1 tr a n N W 0 W lD • r(1 O'4 ,7 N W a .M w uI J (n n N 1•-11 /b •I ,U 11 A'O I t .1 (t 0' t'.'O UI O W W 'r 1-•< in 0 • U 11'.: rib 51 (D I•- N 'Olt 4 <'0 o -.1 u ul n ►1 n X n N ul Iti () E N 0 0 0* Cl W 'o ?", -•'< P' ul t; II 0 E • n n a rt n II I-• ID 10 a ,F UI uI p'a :r'0'< (A (n ._,.(D I-' 140*( D )'( n WWI' • r O 1 1-':' N O •1;U N Cl np: r D 0 W W rt '1 '1 W u1 p • rba ►-- ft y (n Ii lD r ID 'U ID rN n 000.80 :r a a 4 N n U)N 0 N•p'X :r 0.a s W W 0 0 rt ft n u) 1-' 0 rn a O' a IA n 0.1--1 1041 31 to O :1' I'••r (11 0 rr tl'ID 11 :r 0' Cl I-'0 N a M n • N N• O 0 X 0 Cl. ►•- r•in r•0 0 -' - 110.tl W n W (;);l n.ib O' 0 1-' 11 1'•:I:n 1-' 0 IL ID W N P. I-00 a n W a 0 ►n p p n N (L n I•-p 1••I-.O • tJ I'•:r(D :1 o.1..t'I'(1 N ID 9 I-•1 4•.: to ID :1.1-':4 ft IT LI n 10 Ul m n a- t1 U :r G1 a in n N 1.1 N (D 1-• 1,• () W W I'•1't 1-'∎: n 'DI' 0 41 W (t E ft N r4W I'-p' 11W00. a n I-'E E W 0 n (n r(D an 0 n O- W 0 11 1 4 ID'11 11/ 14 0 UI 11 Ul Ul 0 1; W 1-' ID I'•p" 0.W0 000 :r I'• 0 p ;r n 1--a p"N•M In p" A (-'• :Y 4) In 111:rr 11 -I-'a a n :r0 n a I•,11 11.0 (li 11 I-'-tr(-I 'U) £ N 0.((+ n n W 0 0 U, I••1I 1-' 0 0 p" W a n a '1 (1) ul • 1-(D ID 1.•?: (1 U O k I'• lD t: 1••W 1D lL IT I••CL N :1'a• ft(A (D (t E n :r 1- 0 :r p p'W (D Y rl {u 11 :1 a 10 (h'() ID 41 .1 ID I-'n. 11 11 0 IT 4 N N• W •;' n 0 p' a W p"O n O I- I-• Cl(1 W (n 4 :r 1 •1'11 win U) lD 'a 11 In 1-'n.n W I). 111 11 I'• I--.0 0 1'•rr a •: to p'►1 0 I••I1 rt ri r+,0 3-' IA I-' n r-1'•lD 0 UI ID 't W N 11 n • ID 13'n rt 1104 O. O. 'I p'11 W 1'•x 41 N•a 1D W 1110100.11 *: R h• 111 a 1-' n a• t- 'U 0 O.(t W r 1 :1 I•-:r it O :1';l :1'1 1 in r: a W a m ►1 N N a p fI W p' N• .0M001011 W 311 n o n N ►- :I' 1...0 (D :r/:••: I •0 a 0 r (D a 1 1 W(D Won, rt W N ►'•. W n - (D W V n W U) :r n N "1 n p•£ p W -. 41 :1 1•' Iu 't • u' 1 1-• W in 0 111 r l'., o ul n p'W E a 0 W (D Ul p'ID. E W N - '+1 ►1 N r W N O n • 1'1 ID ID 't 11 0 1-• n ,1'n :1 a YID 11 W U) IY• p W N ►/ 0'n a ET 11 n I'-I-•0 ID 11 11 wn 0 (4 p 011 1-' I-''(1 (3 UI p E (A O rr 'r p1 •7 (1.'4 0 a'•. W p'0 ►t p ID N 'YI'• 0 0.In l'•r(nW II '< ► tnN 11 r- 4 1D ►-' 1'•:r 0 1-•r: UI ID 0 ID (D 11 ,1 0 • lD 1-• (D n 0.1-• 1-' N a n o m a p 0 0 • II '< n a(D a m '1 .1- (11 lu'rl a ,i ','r (n n W '(0 rr 1l t: 0 n 1-' I 'll)0 p (n c a U) ''< rt p''O o W (A n W ` xl p" n W 11 It • :I'O.ID :1 (l.ID III n I-•In rt p' 0 n rr W n 1 4 0 it a :Y ri W it r I-'0 0 1••'O 3 N n 4 0 ,33 r•►. 0.a rt I I p.• ID 11 :r t1 pI a t; 0'0':l: :r Cl 11 r N N 0 E 0 1'•O O p ,- E Ul p"m ;t) a 0 E 0 11 lD I••0 ' 1' ().W ID 0 W t)'n I••N ID (D tD i '+1 O n W W rr W '1 Orrin a I••W O ►•.n £ h O a a p" m a n :u O O tI, 0 n•►-':I I-- I' fr O.11 n 0 lu 1-•:r a < o W :r ID 0100 O p rb n M0 a - a I'•W 3 n - 0 1 4 '1 1/1trI'- 1-011 Nr00'0. 0 :1 0 111-'(D N aiuW np"1-•0' r0 a.rtlAo n. - 0 N (D0n L rr 0 :r'< Cl.:4 uI rl (D IT 1.9-.9 0 I-. 11 (n '0 r W ►-•n W E N it N a r• n n 0 n p - is p'a 0 p-W a z o i t ID (D a 1--I.'•u:n a N n I1 '(1 ►1 ►-'n (1. 1,-0 CL < 400 :r0 - to sc < n < WO :1' =l rr•< E 0 n. I-•UI 0 )'•It ID '13 1- O N x a n n rt N a O :T n Z 44 w n N N n O ii PI I.'1 I W PI :r ID I Wtl'< 0 E 010 W p U' N ID a LT a O n (D I-• n p":r IT n N (D 'r l W 4) 0 p'11 0 L) x' '- n Ill:r n`1.111 ►t W W I'•14 W 0 N N 0 11 D I-• n WI( n a o (D a 11) p.113 :r N N 1-•n W r N ft 0 1-•n (D 0 I0 13' 0r1 (D1-' 0 11) 110 W n a '1 :1 (D00'0 'Y ►••n ,1 t-'tf a W W W N 00N :rW I• 11'4 rt 11 W Ll n W W (•1 O.1-'W o :r 1u 0.'•, 1'• 9'000011) w- O'll it I--W p E a W p'n W a - W 0 a 0 N•r1 - :I.1D U•1D W n (D ►1 0 - rl '1 a ,1 • '1 II a (t 3 N W (1 n m W :r 3 ►••tT N N 4 W N • 0 n N ID 111 111 0.1A ;1'O 0-:Y113 0 Li 41 I .0 I••It •Ui0 I4 fr(A W 1'• '0 rt IT 0 '< p I••0 N (1 0 a a N N p W W It W '•4 11 W n N It(l) ID N 11 N D+ 11'0 () 0 0 0'1-•IA a W 1t N W p N t1 4 31 a I•• lit N W N • Ul (1 (1 11 N 'r 11 I-• W 11 1u Cl W In 11 0 N'< 0'0 0 (D r• a (n W W I,-• p"n N n 4 0 WE 0 0 0 W • ' : '(un •• '4 rl in in 3U' 0.11 11(: (D (t ' OW :r4 0 N W 0 'T '1 0 N ►1 .7lDr1r-0 .. :1 W W ID :r0 0 1: (3 E W ID • 0 :r p'0 art a N 0.0 (l in 0 41 11 0 11 W N 11 0 (D 1010 0 1 1 (1 0'11 1 1 1 t W W 1,11 1. N 11 W t".•' El W '1 1 In a n (3 ft ID n 11 ►n I I is O Ul r: ID 0'In :1 W 1•'II) 'U 11 10 N• 1•-W N W ID 0 N IT 0 I 0 0 41 .Y 41 0 Cl (A'< 0 :r :4 lD a 4 . p IT r• .0 W N (A 0 W a N '1 0 fl 0.N I W W (D N (1 W 4 IT , N I•- 3 0 _ p W 0. a N (D 1 as • 11 v v �. 7) 41 U) a1 t1 U1 01 b u 01 r: 11 r1 J". U v r 11:•.4 'U ? N b. •(I 4: .4 r; U1 t )i 11 a, v) a: s 01 •I ro 0 E u t: N O It e1 .1: ''1 t4 •1•�I • t: r, .:,J t, a) to d m al 0.1 u u.0 10 01 a a)"r' 'v 0 a1 „I I I, • .-1,4 0 Q ,u 0 nl U ,1 )1 0 [) U n. O U.r: 11 nl a1.0 1, to •.I )) m U u;1; ;z N ro ar.r, fl a) nl t:l 7) 01.-I 1.4. u U 0 ro 0A U >. U. (1 U 0 ,•1 : t1 01.G.I: U 11 ;1 0 ro rn 1 u.-, ro 01•.1 0 N roll (: I u„ (y1 N r.1 U'01 : 11 '1 () 0101 a) u 11 •r4 r: 11 U t 0 c II 1 rd 1) u • 1 01 -•1 01 x > 111 0, .•1 0) 0 I) L►� r l 1 01 0 al N U I u ro .I RI U r Aro : Ix /4 Os � v•.1 .,, • roo•.+ u „ t), pv n,UUroua�" •i/i •rlaitor, ur. .r:.1) .�; r 01 O U n.ro , 1:.t, U) 01'0,1 v 0 al v) • 01 E 01 01 71 ro r 3 01 I U U u O 41 (n I1 01 v ro L' r 41 (: 1n ► t:,(: U al 01 In U U ro t) a vro.u•r,mE u • In•.1rn VII; at uE40 U•.1 In t).0 u) utoE ,1'U4U 'f1I, ato.Y. Uro0) ro ',, ro r, > v0 royro E alron, t: N•,1 ?t01.r, U :� oEb �2v'. 2ro: gbl, a).° oum > bq ro r v fill •.4u.lotnv iro.r, a1 ro-'1 ' -1 0 E U u u • t a, al O 3 v J 4$4-4 o r .044 11 44,..1 : 0,01 ll I.0 ,1 ,1 ro v► ;I ,1 al r: 0 Ox.: 01.r: u u 1,71 r) 01•.1 U 1 $ 1, t, p,t. I) -E ro U ro U 14 •3 U • .1 ,1 .-1 1, 1 01 14 a) -.1 to E U 01.4 U N 14 .C. 01 E M 0 to•1 t: 11 0,,p U r U.-1 U I to:1 I0 ,;1 II 4) .o 14 I)1 to r •.1 UUt: O U)v > :J :1V010In (1 U (I) IlN n) L) 0. RI 010)'.4 01 1t: .s U0: •1•o;t:•,Inl11tn.-4: U ) ,► r� ro 4.) .N.•1 lJ 1.4.-f 012.•u V 44..r:-.4 U to N U U U r 0101•.1 t, U ro'U•rI lb C: O,U ,r:.1: ro r' t),It ro Z 0 )1 a.Jx 01 O1 O I t: t11(pt1 .1 n) 01 21 01 1► O r) I,11 ..1 It h 11/ Ids roc 0101 (00).-40451 U) >. a 0 01 s.[ 7) r0 U ro.t: Ill l a in :I: 01 0 001 01 11 N t l..•1 • N,r:,0> (: s UEuO40 to U•u ) Uot1e, )1to U ro r: o.n71 0 t: vo In•./m 00k )ru't1 r 0114 'tl4U1 uLJI .In) • ;r, a, rorn•.I u t'' roa, f, u_ uu � r1 rq t7 1: ,d (II U 01 o ro ,l • I rtl rd u. al tl N 01.c:•.1 n.0r [: 01 •> O U U tll.l 0 0 to 1, 11 U h:.-1• 11•r1 O 01 01 ,1...1 ((,,' ' t''t1.t: n 0.I: u 21 u�I r (;1 u u >:IN 01 l r 0 .I U M • 0 ./.v 1: u r'ti t: 0 0.ro 11! _ 41. >.•.I I $4.4 1 r: 1, ,r to 11 1l ii (I 01 01 Z frl z U uu ci yw 0 m o .lu .4 44 E 11 y a1 ro 0 n. 01 .4 N U•U :10111 4) n u >..t:•(f 4, U O > 0 01 U N 1, 41 •i Ui u U N tl E N 1) to U�tN1 U : . �r U c U N II >,'11 •c: U a) (11.1 :1 I: t: nl•c1 ill 0 u, 0 0 Y -.4 4/.11.0 NCI t,'L, M U) r M•.4 u f '(Jr), ,) (,,-1,-I ro•,1 '. 01 t: 01'1' Z Si 14 N U _:1:.-1 to al CI O O) U'U N I% C: rd 11 •t: .l' •-. 4! 0) .1 U :I n1 .t' rtl.:l r: 11••1 11,4),•1 n 0.10 0 01 0-./ 0 01 O 0,N 01 'RI •1 1.1.-1 U o E 0 11 ' l 1: r,( vo >. ro Wu .- ro > Oroo, m0, U) t7 r. :1•tt i.,1 •1 .1041Un,(' n,I) I, (1 17 E a1 al to ro al 001 1J .I .1'0 ,1 0) 0•.1 0 (; ro ro•.i .1 . r, .r •-■ 01 01 0 rl m 01 1:•.1 • U � 01 O N ro [7.-1 1 ,r:,r�. , n [y .1Cto0ItL, ro Oro 1: f1 O) . ) a-0 )114 I: II t1 u 0 U ro u 'n O. b 7 'C1 L U U V) U 01 Id•.1 u m N 1) ra L : O U al U 1, N ti 1' .l C; O 4) .1 Al 0..1 1 C1. C: v •.1•.1 > V N o 4 1:U to 41 1 u t1 II/ 0 11 t'•.1 ro u U .1'I1 to I: t. ,f) 0 C (0 r N , OE roV -401 a) u1vu r01'r 01-4111 1, 'fit' .4 ro 012: u01 lm ' 11U012.1u rn01111t: to •„ ur to U Vt U 2 > N „ 01 N •1 O O o U u U I 41 0)••1 .I , •.1 0 11 0 ■U1(�. ,1•rU� ,l O t), r) (: 0 CI ro ro ro (:'1� (: •.I 1: 0* V to ,1 •.1 0•.4 0101 ro 0,u O 0 In•U 2: a 0 14 o 4 11 F 01 U t: tf U 0.4 r) II h1.0 •.1 t U rrl I1.r nl I), q 4 1:f $1 ro . N 11 ) N U.1 ,J n O.4ro'U-.4 C7 p � ro � �► u 1:1: U U•.1 Y.G. to•[) 0) N [: 1,.t: 1 1, (' .1 a Ll 4 t1,,1 11 11 U 1 t 11 .11 (: g x 0. 41) tn'.4 U U v 0) U) •.I 1.0 ) •r1 c. U u U u ro r: 11 nit r C: O (' 1 111 1 1 el•.1 ,1 1 01 7 0) E ILO r'll V) O •1 0) 0 V) 0101 IV Ol aJ Il RI u1 N 0/ ro 4) .. at 0 0 • -1 iIt r: ro E t1 t:'I, :I a1 41 t: co •1 I) u r 11 L1.0 U)1 a;••1 x -.1 14 N v A a,U E 0, r r .r: ro r1.-1 '11.y ro 41(, 0.r:t+ .r: rtl.r: nl .t: •.1 to )in't.i•r1 (i.�: o i, 1 U (10 U N '� u U >. '..' M 1: b N to N 0 '�•.1--417j LI t: 01 r1..r; .1 11 .0 a)•.1 ,J 41 11 11 0) 1: r I upt1 I0, V) U it ro $IU Ouuro u) uU) 0) jJ rot:r, 1 {141 ,) 01,)l , 4 U Id U rl 4J•.1 [..-1,1 (1 > nl I: • ,, tn •1.t: al 11 11 .-, 101 t 1 E a1 1 01 U p . ,y E In L 4 0 RI r 0 U 0 N u, to U O •V 0 t o :41..1 r: v1 Id n:•.1 rn u 1/ n) 11 ;•• 11 1 u ) n In U U > n 3 t:1. 7I el a) 0 41) rn 4) v O 1: In 1 If r W•.1 t: 4/ 0 (' t VI t 1 u Id •.1 U Ll U O U r1 U•.I ro 14•.l U.-4 al N r Ti v 4 l N (1)41 01 U 0) ,4 U ll 01 0 O Oit 0 , 01 Ot I) t.' 01 nt a) r: ro 4/71 0:.-t n) g:) ' n' RI U 0 2: O, 04 r 4.)..-4 r1:1: P. 0)UI 1) >V I, A� U Z r 1, (1 O .0 o E 01 v .-4 I. U ro el U) >.ro U) 01 01 0•.1 N i,r: O u '1,t, nl 11 0.0 f � 41:•: m',j j 11 n1 ,� r1 12: m u 01 0.0 0 0 ou, 0 T 0 .-4 01 010 0.-I 0. 01 0 U mAl.0 VI 11 11 N 0 U rouU at AI 1 r.1 V1 C 01 a)J: '-1 ro a) O) ro O (0•.4 1, • U 0)141 I u • al 0,14 t), VI-.1 :t • ro U Ill r.: ti . 1' ,1.-1,n (1(h 1 1� 11 (1412. U u.r: Uroro0.71 • 41 00 Z0 11 0 1. 1-, ,1,04)4.11 nl • :. (1 1) U r U) 14 t. 01 In 14 4)U x >.' " ) 0) •.1 r: E•U R)'V j U,1' n, ro r 1 11 a) o n,111 a I, ;: .1 ,•. -.: :" vl •01: uNU 0001.1-1010011, U0 ON 0101 >, ,. 1010'(141„r: v ...t: (' 03.1: 41•0 1.•: „•,1 t: .1 • . N u u O 0•.I r1 N • 1 U 0)-4 U U E 4,-4 U . ill tn•/� • 0 E U 444,� O f l y•.I u u n,0 u U rl1 t) „ Ul i r: rt,41,4:41 U ,,'c1 tP U O U 0.1: It 2: .0 (: 0 x w rA t:U (' : 11.1: ..1 11 1/) N I,) • 1I v t1) U 2r1 U1 m 1 0 '1 to 0)•.I ul m y ro u 0,.1 ro .� (: >, r) t. a, 0 n r:U II v t,v in to al r: t'•.i t: u1 b,,) (: 1 (p1.71.-,•., > 11 >. r O U m 401 • 0 -1 •.1 01'01.•1 II r1 •.1 U 1 O 01 0 E •.1 01 n) 0•.I t: (1P,1-.1•t1 Y •.1 al t) 11 t: Inalur 7 )1.0m V 0V • 111, x'dtIn0101 : I; '•IO 110 7 mr: rrot1 01roUro UUUr) nr 71.I) 41O) >,r) ro t 0) O1,t: N 9 r r 0 0..4 01 t ,l U E .•i .1 O In ro .-1 4' .1 N 000 u4t U .1 U 41,41,11 $1:t: 4) 1: 1 4{ 1 At D IT) „ V ro 1. 01 'U 4 O 01 N U 01 ro 01•.1•.1 to r U ('*.01•.1 1-J :!. ' `1 1 1 u 01•[1 1: 0 (n u 0. f 1, V •4f A.-I.-I I U 0 III rtl ,4-r,LJ r 0,'0 ';w U U U) '- V 4).-1 0) :/, 01•.I•.1 ;t 011(11 a) n) ,Y, 11 N i 1 - rd 1 n../ O .•I•.1 v) r1 01 0 14 11 V O 0 01.-1 01 U p 0 0,ro.0 0,n, N r,.1 1 11 01 u IJ Z U (: (: nI 0.1, n,.rt N 0,1' E 01 r1 0)-.1 I.0 5: N ro 01 1: f, -.I • ro v 1, t)1 U • 1 J U n, ,1 1 > • 71 O N 01 rd )I ro al a: 5. 5: b 1i••4 to 1 o r2: u U U ro E >,U 01 01 .1.1-: 0. m r 01 N nl .d 11.-1 4 ), -4 v) I, t' U tl N ' 1)•.1,,1 N f. N t, 1-1 •1 :t,I: )1.I: al 4) 11 O (1 to a.c,m w 3 u U h ro r., 0,u r ;.n,,r. 0,.-1 to 5: .d= MO u; u � u•U ;. t3 a (1-. ,:: „ � r,.r, u � $:u ,l y, 1.I 1, I,1 • • • • Iii II I) ■ 1 4) 1) I , 1 O • • Mr. Kleinman addressed their arguments regarding the location cr' `�-"a, stating that saying a site was surrounded by roadways rather than'by residential developments was one of the most novel arguments he had ever heard. He held that there were residential developments on four sides of this site. Mr. Kleinman reviewed the others who would testify on behalf of the Friends and Neighbors of Scholls Ferry. Councilor Hunt asked which commercial organizations Mr. Kleinman was representing. Mr. Kleinman explained that he was representing a group of Individuals and business owners called "Friends and Neighbors of Scholls Ferry. " He said that Mr. Baese, owner of Howard's, was a member but that the group was still in the process of forming and that he did not know who the other members were. • Gaylon Haase, 12320 SW Scholls Perry Road, owner of Howard's, related his past experience in the grocery business since 1952. He stated that he purchased the store from previous owner of Howard's in 1991 after the owner filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy because the Murray Hill store did not flourish. He reviewed the negative effect on the Scholls Ferry Howard' s when that Murray Hill store opened in 1987. Mr. Haese mentioned the new Albertson's store that would be coming in. noting that it would affect his business. He said that the market analysis done for Haggen did not take into account all the other stores that sold groceries (convenience stores, Payless, 3imarts, Trader Joe's, etc. ) . Mr. 3aese pointed out that Howard's was a family owned business with only this one store; they did not have the deep pockets of a corporation. He stated that while he welcomed growth and competition, he did not think that this area could support a Hagcen store in addition to the grocery stores already located in the area. He said that he wanted to continue his business n this area but that someone would go out of business if th_sHaccen store came in. • Cleo McLeod, 11710 SW 134th Terrace, concurred that Haggen was a good, well run store but asked the Council to give consideration to some issues. She noted the traffic congestion at the intersection of 135th and Scholls, arguing that the traffic Generated by a new store could triple the length_ of time it took to make a��left hand turn. She said that the improvements to ___t^ had been paid for through an LID in which she participated; she had not understood that she was payinc for a road for truck traffic. She said that she `heuahc the two lane 135th avenue was zoo narrow to accommodate additional traffic. Ms. McLeod that thouch: that�stated _n3_ S:°_ =L'^'_ there were encuch stores available presently x_---_n a :al= mile of he proposal. . She noted that _ were well�established stores surrounded by other shops used by tu1e community. • Ms. Mchecd expressed k ern about housing, tate:c that hcus_- should be the yforemost consideration because of the need for it. She said that she thought :his area should _.. remained zoned for hich density housinc. Ms. Mc*ecd expressed her confidence that the city staff has ^� C a-a !^ d Cv^j°C- and were e u^ _3S°^ in :heir_ _ opinions. She concurred with their recommendation against the sae. • • :•i==_=NG M=NUTEs - J `U.P.y 23, 199 - PAGE v 11 1 r, 7 .0 .-, v r t) v 10 1 .1.-I ri U t r U . 1 a► O • .r: 00 u >•0.0 v a ro m Id •-1 .-1 U 41 r .1 .0n1 A► 131 I) 0) A) b v 'UM 14 14 (1v 01 .l.0 0 •.1 .4 • I) m.-I N .t: .1: l U u Ulu U m '0 A) trro E (1 0 ->. ►1 0 n1 WO 4) 3 0 I.) 3 )I U (1 01A) a ►1 m E ►• a 0 1: '1 410 II (.11 U .-1 U N a) 11 r: 0) N d) 0) 0 '1 01 F dl ro 11 n, • 3 •.1r-1 a 1 1 d 14.14 1 m t: 4) Al 0 N 1, 11 .r to•.1 a) 0) fl 0) U 0,414'0144) >. •1-rl (J4.: 14 11 ro ro 0.-100 E •.■ IJ.t: 0 1) 0 >,'. r:a 't1 I) U it: ►1 1:'u u N (1 W3.-1 N b .k.1 y 4 P M m to N m r 0) V•-) t. 1: m 0) U U 4).0-0 4-1.-I m 1:•.I 0101 al m a) u 3 U (1 0-14) 140 b U 0(1) U 0 0-I:4 o al • •.1 11 1a rt1 1, 4 n,:11•.a 0)0.r: • .--13 .r, (1 (61-1114) 1: 1l 0) .-I ►1 T1 41W V 4-) X M4-I4 0)-.1 3 00 bA U • U V 1E' 111 V E y -.4E N U 113 U 0 m'10 (121 004) 0,1 (11 t: y - 4 u O V) >.14'.r0)' (1y 'u (1a) 4'u N O N 3••1 >•`,1't1 .-1.0 01.C: O >.0 41 • (1-.1•.1 (1) 11 N 16 IJ,C) U S: 3 In 3 .1 N • a)'j wro 01 -.-13111) W U RI.--I U)1)'u r 1: > ro t:'1 !1 4 0 N 4-1 (4 ro u •.1 M al 3.0 u a) >. •'t1 -14 0'1 0) (n y •.l ro N.0 V E 11 .r:'t0) o V 11 1-40004011 O W 1•rl 0 U 0,1 Liu ro y its .C11 u Ea) 'Oro .4.-1 >.rU0 0) 11 .c: is v41 000 U1'UNy OW 11 • 10 (1) Ulf ►1•.1 •.141T10td Uf).14 Al U -0 to W.11 •U•-I ro N U tu (1 1 • L) 40,1 u N U (11 .-1.11 >. U S: 0 V) O. N u m >.1)45 (1•.1 N 14 U O.V, IJ t 01 O > O NJ4 toy 0 (10 .1 II • Tiro a) I4iIyy1/ 113 444 U3: 44In,T10 0) O:I:.-I c1 0t u) I >..1: 1d •.I0 -.0 0) u o.0 0.C'u o. >.•4 Y. y m DI:1t:'t111.1: O U to 3 N 0-1 0 to .t: u I In :.1 .-1 I»O'0'ti.(1 U r= (1 m u n: (1 tT rt U u IDOL 0) 3 ,J 0.1•0 (1 001-14/ 0 $‘0 '41 N b 4 U1.0 ro 0) 0 1: u t: u E••1 to (1•0 U,1d t: •.I A) VI .-I m N 4 0 U U•.1 T J 14 4) 0 11 -0 44,4444 /0 ,0 O 11 11 C: 01 '11:U (1 V ,J O N • 11.1.: t: (10.1:•.I't1'11't1 (1 '0 01 .1'1 4••1 'U•-1 4t1 RI RI ►1 n 00 t) ..4 11 113•1 'tl.-I't1'tl N n. 131.3•.-1•.1 T1 N u to .: rt .-4 In T).-1'11 '0 0 1, y•.1.-I :-. rd 11 • -•4 0) p, 0 0 0 E CI.-1 u) 0 01 $4 .-4U •.1•.1 4 0) v e: 01 y > O U h: V > y .1: 1 1: 11 'tf I: U m O,to O m 0. 1 1? AS > 3 0 S: 11 u u 1J,U--I 0) E 1: O 0 0) V > 0440 ro U ►1 [,' ro y 14 O b N 1: (1u 0) 3 0) (1'1 0) nl ro (: 1. •I U O n1 f E 14 N. 1 U 0 U-.1 >•nI 11.e 0) Mu R. U U O O .1 ro 1411 f•.1 N 0) U y 14 4 '� u m 14 .1 U ro 3 OI 30).0 n1 1400 (V .1 Q•.1 RI • V N (1-1 S: m -1 11 41 -.1 m N U u y N u [n y N E -+ p.n,of 0 Si TJ tl m 11 p..4 al ►, AI 1: 4 V) )4.c: 1q .t: 11 I- CI > (1b E 011) 0 '1)1:.-IUN 'z.'1 010,111/14 I •.I (11: m 4I On. '44 001: .014. 0 .10 Nu0Of 111.1 1n ,•1 .-1 01 0 9) u -y U •.I 4 O U.-I (0 V *I V 0 0) ►1 4.1 0) U.-1 S:-.1 ro u) •.1 u nl r: /l al '- 41 .r 1: 4 1 3 u) -.1 t) m m -.1 14 0,011) 1) (1r, 111 01 0) 144.-1 11 TJ r: 0 y 1: 0) 11 u U r y m -.1 u m 0.4410 U 113'41 (111 41 a III :t 0 ,..).X 01••1 U 14 (1 C y r 01 E U 141 0 1 .4-.1•-1 0: to 0 > a) 0 IJ*'-0 411 0 >411.0 (1 0 no.t: 1 1•,I I) 0 1 1 4 1 4 1..1 -4 I t: t: Cl O 1( •1 U N N 0 0 0.r)-.1.r: In r: >••-1 U r: 0 • U 11 I- 3 n, t3l'1 14 lJ ►I 'l) U >, .1: 0 m at In 't1•.1 N 11 t► 113 11'11 a) 0 .{ •.4 n.E b 4 >4004 u 'u•.1 11 U N 01 0) -.1 4) -.1 (44 Ul n1 4 1 414/ 0.--o 1) .1: (1 m 1: 4).-1 (1U al U (1 ►, nI r;••1 DI O.3 .q O. 0.-400014W N S,0J to 3: 4 b U U •T J N u 0 U N y 4 nl al 3 114.-1 )140,1 >.a .1:1: m .t: rho o.1: n1 014 1414 0 0) O ro ro O > a) >.1 0•.1 •.1 m C-•1 0 11 n-.I eel 1: ro t: 0 :1: /1 0 0•.1 S: 41 ILO nl 0 n,U (),U 0) 11,1) O of • O 11.0 (1.-1 '4J 4) .-4 ro N n m N 11 E m m (1m 111 44..4'0 3-.1 .-1:r: 14 u 4,..• ••1 .t; 0 '1 ro 1e ro 1) t::(: A) U 1• 11yU • 1 OIUU.-l'tl1: i > 010 0U al..-4 .-1toUU 11 m .-1TJ 111b mu 1, 1) 113'1 ,) 01 • II a 0,/4 0 1401 a) to 01: d) U 1 0 113 IV U 11 0 a ►1 11 113 41 O RI 0.0001 0) -.1 'u 4 4 1 0(4 0 m al 0.0'1 11 11 N (: 0.11 .0 01 1: OI U'1):1: 0 4, 44.4-4c •.4'1••I m 1 6 0) 411: • y 0 14 41: 5 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 14 r. 1111 11 :4 r: n1 4-1 I: N •.1 1) .t: m 441 4 /40 1 u 0) ►1 S:'1. 141 E y 1: N 14 pAN 4) U • 0 O C: N-r4 y U.. 11 4 'r: '-.1 A) 11 IJ a) l.) y Id f '1,I II III .-4 U ro 0 0.340.1100 0 .0140 0140 •.1 Y, 14011/ 0 041 0 p. ro 4 t: 11 r: V)-.1 w 1l'1 0.1 41 .11 0.0: I i m c: 11014' •U N o••I••I U O b 4 tJ 0 11 0 1 m N O U•.I T J•r' y o U U 4 O (1•.1 01•.I 'I I rl -.I• •.I U al V) t>r.l I I . b (114-. Oro1!133 (11: 01V•.IvU 13.s1 • u0,4TJ01..r) '1n1:J: NN 0Ny 44111 UItaV) ►1ti) U ••',, 44 0V) )1 0)•.1 .'1 1010 (1v 3 EO. v114 4) 3x Id U 11 (101410) 113 1111 001 1) 11UUF. y !) 001113 Um (1r-1'11'411) 1: 0) 00) I.I4t t1 m 14 p,0 J: U Q.>.>.rd •.114 r: N 0 al .-1- .Y. 41 >. 413 3 al b F 1+ 't1 II O-I O al p,1 4 10 (11-.1410. 1, .0 16 (1 0 0 14 0 o 1',I m 0,N U N 4011'1 0) N > III U y U F 0 >.1a E v ,v 01 0 •• 11.-I 0 0) W u .^3 14 n art: U 4 IJ•.1 l 1 TJ T 3 0 1 3 0 0 r r: 11 11 >1 tZ--1 0 >• '1.,1 11 1 1 11 0) 0) (1 y 011 00 ? 4 0 :1 II Al •-1 'C nl 1110 041 (1 0) 0) (1.t: to•.1 0 U t: n1 1 1 0 0.-I '1 al a) 1(! 11 n' (1N.-1r, yr,-.IUUro11 ►, ro11o+ u Error 4o yuuu0J > N0tn N ro 01.(: 01 (1) 44,1(1 ..1 't1m 1: 001 (41-) ►1 1- 0 r1 r-10 ro•r1 1: 0 ( 4n O S. 111 U 1: 00. - p, 1 l.) N N••1 01 Ur.1 (1 • 0,X01-40.11,10 I' (1.0 (1 I u A) 0) 0.1: 41 I: ' .4000 ••4 (1 y U 01 or m mu 0 ••1 E 4)1J (1 n ,J >I (1 t 1J 111.0 r1 A) (4 1) 0,14 • 41 n1.1: E.t: 1, C: a141 :i4) 41 .4 .4.-( 4) M 4 WV 0113 NS:'a 4)•-e U N U 0 p..l• 111.10' a) ►1 310.-I U 0'c1 4 1 0) I • I :J 't, (1 r: 1► ChIn 41.t:41 in,e: rt. 0 i .-I .-1-.13 4S: 11 1) 1:1: Y, 00 0001,1J11r. -.10.04 3 n. • ,.t: I1Iu 11 mom :: 1(111 0 41mU-.1 I1 )) I1) 001 0 .1 p1], ro U I!U r0 0 /40 00 :44 O (1 't U n)•.-I >, 0 •.1 !1 a) n, 0 U y 00 IQ 0) O 4-) 041) 0 0 0 1.0-4 0 1.0 '0 ' 1: 1Z > 4 0)'u Y, 0,13.-I U 10 0 E O 1:•-1 .-I N O.-1 .0 U VI'u -.1440 U N O.r:1. 01 m-.1 '1 1, , 00 1.1:•.1 N 4.(: '+ '11 ..t0 1 , n om 01 0 O N 4 ..0 U 0) 1+'1) m moo .-1••1 /1 ro V y 0) 0 0 0 0 111 1 0 0 0 3 LIMN 1q1 a In nl O••I al m u > n1 0 01.0�I) N mm - 1,'0 N 4 040-4m3 'u O S: N 0 01,110 cn,i S: m 4-4,4 o IJ(n ►I .-44J.0 0 11W ►I nl (1•.I 1 1 U /1 1) '1 m .- 0m IJ.e: (n • 11 n, ro O u •1 U 1; 4 'uTJ U 4b et 41't1 u m r1 m m O nl U rl U >.tn'1 131 o 01 11-.I,-11114 N It)41'011 N 113v M (1 (1 1) 1') U IT-� 0001 0)b u l O 0) y U 0)b '1 m 4 al '.I 01 N IJ411: 131 > 01 4 10.-1 41 >,-1 m $1 -.1 () m r 1: U m.-I.0 m t) II 1: �' O v .1 O F1: v 0)••11:'1 0 O 0.4 01 •C V 410 041 r: it 0 eel 11,140 t•1 0 r/ 3 M 0 ro U 0 U E'1••I.r: ti ,1 (1E (1n1 0)-O 14 1('t1 u S: (1U 3 QV U'1 4 3 U iJ v 0 U (1•.I N 3 al u Cl 0,-4 ro 1' 11 IJ 0) IJ Cj-.44)0 ra I) r),-.1 tel b 4 1 1) a) 3 0) :J V1-.1 >.(14 1'1 41,1 7, t o a >,0) v u) 011 0-1410 q 01 0) RI ro 44/4-1-.4 '1 /t ro(1) 11 0 0 ,1 1) y 44'1 u 3 u 14 (41044.0..1 m al 1, E m 11 U n1•.1 11 In 111 I-1 .-I U-r1 413 ►1 L./o-4 S:-.4 v U 4 r-.'t 1 11.-40. 31)-.1'1 E S: 1)'1 r .-I ro t: 4 I •-1 :4••1.-1 (1 O.(: W 1'44 .-I 0 •,I m•.1 l l (1) r 11 1: u1 In 5 13 V ro 0 > •.-I••1 r4 U u . ,) ro M O v p.E .-1 > V.01104 (1) V •.-1 y ro W .100 /1 0 .-I 1)t ,Q 14 Id V)'1 II 11 • :- 11 '0 l.) ;J'1 to • O 11 4 0 y 1, v.41: r..4 0 1 01:.-1 11 (1 r Y, 0 4 1 v l) •.1 1: N O 1 4 0.r. �a4.0 m !I T J V r O m 4)-.I 0 1 1 1 1 Id 1' i r: 1 1 to ,: (1 T) nl o TJ-., v p4) C) O 3 14111 11 X•-.1 1 J 0 •-1 3 I, ro 0 n,n,u 1-4 0 U N t/ m N 300.0 3;'U U N F .0 3. 11.13[1 3:C.0 1: rz t)1 4 Z ni f)'.1 S: 11•.4 (% 411 r:U 441 (1.(, ::::1: 7. 1 (-' III VI • • • .-1 41 1) .fl (1 I , II O I 1 v 'd to U '11 '11 41 'U 1, 41 '0 0 c: d. N u 'l1 a N 4 fI H t1 c:'ti c: 50 Of In •) U► U) (11 ii > 1; >. 4) 0 1.-+ 14 1 0 7 0 r' II E'd fps, - '(f u u 1: .5 50 'U 0 4•-4 In (1.0.1: It c; .r: C 1, 0 0 14 >.0 ()-.1 r: M'(1 41 M•.1 >.O•11'(1':1 1: .-1FNO, 111c: ro .••.1: 53 (: 41 11 M f iO, IJ 3 • 41 53145 111114 ••I.-11111 .r;'0O.-t1► 11M Nb u 7 E O. 115014 1., I, to in , .1 7 50 Uto .r:.,: In In50 r: roI1 an10.c1 M.': 1: s: 0 U 011 Id 50 4) 010••+ al s 10•-I ,T$ N .010 >.41•.t 7 to 50 v a I) •1 1' • 2 . U1, 3 U 1, f, ro .1 N t ., 11 3.n 41 3 A U) to,,(L]1 N U) I1 4 O f, 50'11 11'11 41 N U c: t) 41 11 I') (1) 0 11 'U U O.0••I 0 M.11 v. 50 f1 n •., .1.0 1.1 at 41 50 ro 1: >.ro N 1J t o 4 0 4-1 U t0 1' 0 1) 1 1 41 .c: .t::1: O, 41 (I 0.1::1 1 4 1 1/ U'.1:'II'0 N >.753 Inv) U) .4: to041 41;1: N U I3 a ra050u ro in Nrd0 roro3r:(na) r0 J ii 4/ )1Ul v 4 to M 11.•1 11) 50 4 >. 53-. 4 r 1, O N(I) u 0•.I .r: p./1 m 11,0 N • .t:. Al 1: •.l '0 0 0 53 cn M.11 ro 0.11 a >.UI ., .1 14 0 •.1 1,ro 1) ft r.-) 50 u u., 1 0 c:x u ()..-) 1.1• l (: >. „ (1 U) 1 1 1/ 1 1 41 Il 11 a U) ft M U (: 531: 53 NE 50.1 7 Idv'Le CO v • fncL 50rd50 '0 044) 7••1u 501, O11 • E 1) M '1to m 45.11441.1:.-,•0 .r u ••4 E 7 to Ul 4.r: O N'l7 .4 to 1: 0 0 (n 4 13 r: v O U)•.t ' U '11'11 1: 41 >, 11 .0 41 V1.-1.0 11 01 11 U y 50 0 N i n U -.4 r: 4 1) 41.,•.) 1: >•4 ,l 1, (1 ,J 41 v N 4 iJ 11 3 7 U 'k Ord 41-.1 .-1 11 v N 1) -.1 • • ro 7 1:-•1 s:1: 41 •1 41•.1 4I 11 U)10 al 0 u•.) to 41 7-.4 U 1d al 0 11 O u P. 11 rd't1.•)•.1 > ),1d >.•-1 'Ti(1).4 0 (:'0 Al'I1 .1l a E 1:'0 u tt, 7 0 0 t 1 M > 140411004/ 044-4 >. 11 3 4 5 4 N '11 E co to-•1 41 (' ro F'.t:.-1••I 11 1- 0 3-.1 a) I 0• u.-, II'11 C u Ii 0 u I. N ,d .c: 0 U 3 u.1, 4) 11 a 4•.1 0.-I.14 to.( a if 0 0.14 41 1J 41 E rd m II c: 45'1, el I/ u O 7 tn.-1 0 ro tnX u e, O u u In 4.•l U)•ti o tn-., Id u 0 (n v Y. ty ►1 of en. 0 to toO.(: 0 1, 4 ro•, 'u 0 4110 ••, u U U) Q,50 0 41 N 50 /1 4 50 1: •., 4 u N I•., U .1:•t1 4' f: O 14 4► al 4., • 1 n.• I:•,1 1, 1) Mr41 0311 u7, 41uE'U u '01, tn.0U103.0 7 rou.•1•.1r11Nc: 745••1 •(n1 (1.1: MN ; 144/ '1) .111 •v • 1J > 171 E1 7 50r U •, v ro C 10 U 50 u 7 [: O U 7'11 'Ti b M 41 U U) N >, U O fl 11 I: 53 M 50•I 4 1 u >.to 11 A a ro O N 10 u 50 10 ro (J.M v v 1 4 >.N'U M u n, o'll (, 11 a to 14 - r; a td, 1 50 U N rnh1010 450143 , 1..,u >.o rol: o50 11r, o 141453 v .I ., u ol: ro ro • n 041 >. 0U 14 0•.1 3 :1E: 11► m 7•1 50 r ft 10 10 E n1 Id 0 u u o 0,4 5.0,J U to 3 E ro 1, v 1, U Si 11 to Et 11 1.►1:.-1 >, 0,-1'0 1. Q UI 1, o Et O.v •, 1: 14 4 E E u 4 u 0 . 1 n 4.-4 4 0 00 1 in .1: 4 re u -.1.4•.1 U N rd ar u •••1- a) U) „•,1. I 0.-1 c: 41:1: 41 41 to r: ••1 Id r 7 O. 0 •0 I n ro 41 ft 50 N b N 41 1 I 1 41'14 4 1 E+ to U) 10 CJ.O. .-I 14 I-4 11 3 E•.1 UI O 7 41 v U).1: 11.1: to..1 141 5: E o •- -1 1.4 m41C.. 41'uo 41010 (n f, 4.01 • • IUC. 1: E •., OW Is N'1. MC niu0.0 > - 1) 'n II I') W 0 •, .-l10 U •- 'U v r W 3 b N.0.r, it 7 50 u a of •:):•.4-.4 >.rd 4)•.I U F.r: ro >..1: wit n) .t 3 a .t'(f to 1 1114111 41aroy .g50utn 10.1: IIO.0011/XrO 14 531 v-, > Id E1: r' u 035311► '11 N 11 r:.1. t: 4) 0 n. .4 0-1 ro >.4 3•.1 O, x 10 t: t o RI 0.to > E+ 1: O•,, 4 04, ri 3 41 u N o 1, O 0.14 1 1 al 45.4 a 1: a 41•,1 11 11 •.1: 1 1 •I /d E 50--4 U) , :) it v 0 M •, 1310.0 E 10 4 0'11 •.I .l ro.t, 14'0 al 0 011 0:4: 1) o 4 I -11 .r.: in 41 O tn 4 :t V► a 41 ' a 10 50 E-• al 45 4 0.4 0 N ••1 0 50 0 (4 0 N a N't 1 f, 1l ►1 C,44*. c.'' (4(: M M >,4) UI 41 .-1 O 0•l) a) 41 t: 11 M 1) 1. > x.0 1) • u r C C H C N •x 1 0 7 531•.4 u 53 1150 11 111 Id .1:1,.1 53).1: 0,41•l1 • II 0. rf:1:. I N 1: 41.1) O 'n '4 11:t O O 1d.- u't1 to u 0 0 w v in In 4 O 11 0 co v 4 :) > oil O 0 11 11 c; .r: a 1J•.1 .1 • 1'11 of >.1; •• u. 1: v '11 C 1, .-4 41 ro 50 4 u O••4 41 .c: ro .1:. .--1 ro u.ro 45.41: 41 1:10 $1 41 >• ') al 40'11 n) to c: In.0 53rd c: 0 o M 111 •t 0 c: u u 4 • r r. u-41 le-9 US: 0 3 to 53 10.•, • .-1 ro 04.0 u U ro a 41 a m.1:'11 50 1 1 •) v to :t .d 4) .-I 41 .4 50 •10 u ro 0 >• u u rd 71:.4 11 a .•1 U) 0 It 0 >.U► M r4 a I. >.10 4 ,1 :t 41 3 N.c: E: u 0 E 4)•11 • cn .c: 11 t: /11:`•:' 11 0 41 4 1 ro 41.r: O u F 41 53 0111 O w ro-•1 O ro.0 u 41 U 4 10 7•, 1: c'' ►1 ' I n 41 11 0 1 50 .(: rl,.r: I, In 41 0 1: 41 ti 1' no 0 1., v) r N u•.1 14 u to•4 ,, U1-C .1- 3E0343 .4 41 O :t 0'45-.1 44 Q1 it n) 04) :3 >.0 c: ) O •1 o I I Id• t-. 4t••1 O Ul 41•.1 • r•l n.0 0 ,.).-1 DI 1/ al 0I) UrTJ v c: to 5..11 0 0m U >.•-1 II) 0 ro 0, 'ii.r: E co o O v v 1 c' . 1 .c:11 1V ;•.1 0 to s' ,1 n) 4.1 u•.1 a • •.-1'11 N O. .0•0 U) •.t 0 0 7 1, UI U'U x 14 0 C in 0 7.-1 v u E 41 r'►.-1 (n F. 41 n) 11 N '' I1 01 () Id 11 :1 n,11 If l l UI El 3 1 0 E. 41 11 O ,J 0 N 0 ro U 0 t t Id - It 4 O..-,u sn 0 N v tn..I > 11 0 14 In f1. ri 5.I. III ;:• l rd ro c9. 1 41 4 1:1: 41 1 1 41 (1 >1 -E• 41 0 41 1: 11 ro 11••, U) al N t o 3.11 (n u'U O M 111: 01•.1 M 50 > ro ro 50 010 ro O rI 0 0 0 0 al ,(: 41 0 3 .1 0,1 1.4 .0 E../. 0/ I)' I, 50 U.4 a N••, ro 0. '0 u 41114 tu: 0 11 N r: 14 U E 50 'M 0 7:L no 504,.1: ,� r: .1 41 II U 4) 11,V. 1I'(1•U 50 0 51 411n'II II t) u1 .1� ro 501' el r1•, 14 -.1 U)10'II v C I.LI 0:1: Id N 41 0 M 50'11 r`I ro M .1: 01•.1 41'11 :• sn•.I (1:,: . 41,1' •.I O (1 (4 1.3 E r u E O 0U-40U rd •4 14 5: 0-.1 h 3 c: u ►,'u 4 .-400 E u n - ►, a.r, N -n)'(1 N . 1 •1) Il 11 M 1. 1.1 .1: N LT .'4 0 U1•.1 n.o-•' N 11 0 1r) • C5'1-1 O-•r E 41 0 O In 41 Nn) • 0 1J 1' Id•.1 u u u 1 1 1,.r: w It •.1•.1 411.0 53 1: • (n N 41 a,I: .t! v 0 u u .4 y, 4-1 a 1) u 44 0 41 ado:r: to O to 3 u n, mil f 1 a ' (1 to 1. co n;In ro H M E: :1 0,41 al rd.() 0 U).1:.,: 1 1 I, 0.c: •r E) C 41 4/11..4 4 u >. • 4 41•0 in -.1 ro 4.1 ro to /, c: c: v a1 3.1: 3 U) 41 In l)•,-. fI () 01/3) 11 1, 4) 0 4, 1) 4) -.4 > 50 U ••1 50.,11-,10 41 1, u ro W 3 n U of 41) x'11 0.-1 53 0 .1: 41 N -.1 u, 9 ro 41 r: '(I U) Ch c:-4-4 al I: Intl 1 U) :• N 14 N 411,4 v v to a O 0 E U u v al 41 0 v l: O (1 O c: U) 41 0 ►, Null U1 on 4 1: 01.1 1.1 •'l1 .='11 11 0 11 (' 41 U 41 ••1•11'1, 41 41 ) •n 4 41 u N x.� 1, u 11 4 0 0, 7 f, to 41.4 to:r:u•.I•., u-,I 5n.0 N .-1 () 4 N O >•U 1445311 (' N (1 c' (1 U 41 n1 v >: N '••Ul Ul I' O Id UI to • ro to•1 0 3 11 r O.(n U) 0 M 50.0 0 >.U U m >• u u.0 0 4.4),-+T.1 0.10 53 0 0.0 u U a td. a► ro M Ul 41 45.v >, .(I•t1 11 '1 45 111 M Jul v•.+ C a 0. r: u u 4 11.-I.0 4 ,1 0'11-•I 'U u tJ11 is El 0 v o 4) In•-1 E u-.1 .0 f, > .1 41 y II (0 (1 M M M.fI 11 .1: 1-1 0 M 4 U V , • 41 1, 0-4 O O 41 OA 01•0 41 • O 50 41 q ro f, u 50 1, O••1.I >. b 0 le -.1 41 5- 1. 140.-1 '.1 11) 41 11 4.1 11 • t► �J n v ro M 4 N v b N••,4,10 11 > vl••, Q.3'L, >. ►1 0 10 1: td n,UI n,1/ N N ro U1-.1 v •.I :1 3 u 1) >, ,d 0 f: N 0. U nl IJ >0 1 4.-f ,d )1 $1 r' '14 N r N O m to N o 10 -.I 1, N N V1'0 to E N 0 co 50 LJ 3-.,u rs '0 N 7 1:.1: M 0.g ro tn.t: 11-.4 0 .-1 1I f: E • 1.': 01 U v 0.5: 'f 1-1 0 U of f) 4 �1) u 0 4 4 1)1'1 50'.1 •.1 50•.) 0 c, (1)u > O v 40 to3 U U U 0.41 v f/ 50 11 ' 0.-1 N 50•,I 45 I1 11 U) r1, 5 3 (n 14 c: • ro 0 • (n to 1)-.1 u 41 7 Id >o p 1, 0 4 0 r.:..1 4 n1 4 • 0 > 1, 0 1 1 > of I I M 1, • 3 r).In if 4 1 1 •1 1 111 (n (, O •' v 41 In 14 r 1, 0 ,1 11.1•.-, 11 45'1, O 14 O N to al o I u 0 u f,'u •.1 3 O ), 0'1, 11 N Is-.I.1 N 41 n1 a 50.0 E (4 1 0 :1 :3 5• M.1: 41 0 :) N rd 0 n1 17 .-.111 E or, 5: 0 ro u-., 5: r o U1.0 C, O nl u 3 Uw 11m E1 U to (NO h O u U10 U 0•.1 7 10.1 41 t'J11.t: en to 1) 41 .:.-1 tn.0.0 n. 'n.(:4, 0,11 3'11.1: II 1' I.1 i • • • • . I 1 P 1) r) 11 O II 11 I.. O I) i) (1 1•1 I, .` • • • • tit 1't ,) '11111 1 '1 t :,'w'(1 :< Inn :J :•r. ;1 n'c1 m W '1 ?11 3 N n m m It X O W (n o.x W O W O rt 11 'X. ,i :1 'u:S fL a £ w S a n O tT£ W n C tr ii rn n:1; ,; C1 a N a w :)•1••1 '1 1 a 1 1 O IL I( I'•:r'1 W :1 ID o t••< :rn,Q ID ►1 ,P :l n a n :1 1 U (D 11 M01-01 N a a a ►1 n 0 0 0 a n V O C O O O M O O t).►1 I t (Dm 1 '0 11 ON N • (fl N () 1•- a m 0' m ID N U 0 • (Coln • OM t4 n 11 • O a • n N m tL• W n n m • N G ►-•►1 It ti • ID 11'ID '(1 w 3'(J O. :J' '(1 0. I'• 11 :1 11 11 Co 0 1-' 0 ID O 11M 0.0 0 E I-'P. 11,it P.1. n I-'H lb(A u) m X-0 1-1 m a ID 0"11 N 1•• :41 (110 o r1 (1..A W ID N II 0 C1 ('a(1 l-•L1.C4 1'•O N O CI a n a C-1 a IA yC1 It0.1-uN it N 0.11 N g a N --'------- ' 1110 W :l U 0 ►i CI O W h.0 • O UI rt :J'm 0 X rt m ID N-0 to 0'H 0 N :J n n IA N 0 4 1'-1-'•O It n P N 0 l I••n :r C1 It, • n n'd N.O.U C .._._. ►i tD I t'd r: P.(10 W 1••U'C m a :r a :1'< (L :r.r :1 p n a U l b O • (D 0 N •• N rt :] W x►ltp .r n, n N N O lnH :J'n'd C, a �� ,' n N :l'ti ;;77 1 ':.J rim n m 1--,a (1 n W O a 0 0.10 0 0':1•' N 0 0 11 (D If) p 0 rtU) n a n o r'1 NOW O. ,• (L I• a 1••O W 11 • 14 w E :1'.: N (t p 1•.n N W N• rt (D m 4 0 (A'd 0 N 111 n (n N '< 0 N•m P.N N N•n O 11 N p u n n �'7 n A x O •J ►l n r t tr to :1 a P. U) t)'to 1 1,u) a r. O'E :r •• a in m O n O (A P.11 N O • H I i n O a 0 J O 0 s LL O 0.F I'•n b • pa N A n 0• •<m wort 1-'0 0 0 o n m 1'•n 1•-m i o. 1': :1 n r 0 0 :l N O w D W O n N O O m •0 I' 00 0 .1 0 n a ,:- 1 :ro :7 tr It 0 oi : 10 0 I••)•'t: ( a N o H• I-• 1-111 0. m r N E )••►1'd n0•m 0 n O '• S 0 o n m :r0 0•0 0 t 0 t ( II L).• : IL It 1 :i 1'•I • n ul H •i n :Jul An in :1 l N 0 U 0 ;1:a'0 o ID a In O ►i m in In ►•• m (D • 11.0 a O :rt'• E H 1.1 t: •► • 1 I O ID 1'•W 0 !l l 4 CI O.E () W 1••1'• In ti r1 10 1 1 0 11 O OIt O a N O pmt-to ID Qn a NI-,0 O N•N (• In x a La IJ 0 I .0' 0'0 1 1 I-' W 1 1 n SD '< W O W co :110 tr 0'0 a 'r N• n U N N(n I'• 'd 0 l'• N g ►•• rI.'O n H n X•CL N 0 li H I'' '<:'ti ID ill ID o • I).N ,1 W U) U) tr-1 a N E n n n rt(D 1 H N F MOP 11,O 3 IL Cl ( o t) P. I-.O' n W Wm f: rt,E IL to C?- 1•• :1: :)'0.1T 11 11 rt 1'- E o o (1 1 1 ID 14•(o 0 (D U tO• 0. .1 E E N 0 rt 0 0 N :3'1 4 0 II 0.< 000w m Io n I'•li W a -11 J,1 I I 0 W ID r n to 0 t b'., Do 1 :TO W a c: :, IL 0 rt 1''d P (1 n O a 0 n N n W :1 0 a N n :r'd :J -J :r 0 '/ () 1 n to 0 •1 0. n fu 11 1•'m (t to N :r'� N W ti n 1 n 1. O m 0 N 0 'r :1 0.1a 0 :r n W N m a o n W 01-a UI I< a; Ou) N f).r: :1' 3 c) m 1'•0 1 .1 1 a: 0.11) t'• Ii n N W 0'W0' 1-..p• m W rt- - P' W ►-•0 n W :r0 n t'. 0 ►••n u)O I-' - (A O w '1 X ID'd N to 'd ;J n n on ID n w n a :J m rt :,' a Ito N to a IL 3 n 0 0 0' rt N 0.0 n m tr r•0 ti IA n N '< m 4'. I.) r: Cu Old 1 1 2: 1-' 0 :.r lb is W O'.0 O N 0 (1'< a < l A to n O a U C I' ll ' • l i N b'm'< 2: g n ILO • :1 O 1,1 1'1'() 11 1A U) m w n 11 a If ID n•:l I'ct 3 'r a 0 n (D P•W MO Mil W n a :r m ►'• 0 0 0' IJ P.m 0 r n :r n t1 0'n l' ILO ID ID ii O I••f' I•-IL I I 'tJ t.. "'•: (1 o 0t ' to p► 11 rt 11 n n'd a: N O N N n m :J 0 m 0 (D N N 0 (r hn N 0'P.rt O a (D ID :114mW II 1.4 41 It- 110 W lbrlN 11110 tID0 :r n n ►-'a O. nn '0'< 1-' nI' N- n NA a I'•amI-£ xm Lu 1. 1.- ID ■•• 0 0 A'n a 1 0'n 0.1 1 1 N O m ID a N m (t hn N-0• II ID t 1L 0 m (D a:N n n 0 rt n m o m ►' . to :) 1 ' NI).W • II 0.11n :1' l)'mID :0N :)';Lm1- G) 0rlm00- P•0'0O0a 0ILa ►'• ILN(f) a 30' 0•£ '< E :r mtp.. 'n II I 'In 0.I'•If IL ID :I.O I-' 100 ID :0 N :7 It)ID Ou) • 4: N 1'•1a• N 0'►i O n 'd P.ti U) N IA E OF I'.w n N tD E a Al in 0 wI'- ut 11'•: 11 41 ' w :1 a r: lb E u'II 0.0 a 0 1•• m a IL 0 0 0 11 N 0 0.0 I- 11 N it 0 0• O' ISO m b'tr a s -,m ID OO1O 'I:'u t)'m (Iif) 3n W0 11,1'• Ito loo 03'(7 (tE 00IA OIDIinon m Nn P.tIma ►1ID < aNO lb'< 00rb• E ' w I 1 'i I) to H 0 • 0' • r: I I 0'W 11 1'•0 1'•N 0 • 0 it - (D 0 11.:3- WO I1.t) 3-<.(1 • O 0 O m ►'•-• a n 0.►--'W - u) :I-ID :1 rl ;I: P' t: E I-•IL I-'U'a • •' O.r1 H n 0 n m 0 0 P. lb 1-0 0 (D I: o .r- F' t 0 n 0 m 0 'u no 1I • 0 :I'm to n 11 a 11 0. N 0 N :r N 1..hn o 1-•N 0 o CL E UY DI • O n < a I1 I•-O < a•n tV al a n. P.n 0.IL►i 1J I► ID fu a N O IA :1' I'-s,3 I: i1 W P.N a W :I.1'-< 0 (D a a < 0•(D O N If O m x N N :ry a E a 0' p- r.) I••a' 1t 11 U) 1'•• rt 1•• IU iJ 1 I 00-m 'u ID ti H n n N O m n (n m IA m W n N•a n N m N Ih n (1) 0. E p N n 3 0'n a 0'E W II II,:1 :I::1 (I I). 0.0.0 a • f11 •-•a I--'.'O a 1.►••O lb n O ►'••d r-0 n P•n a ■'•a I' a • :rN • 1n 0 1-.•a•` n P.fit DI lb to 4' W ID P.if a ,A ,1 n ID < W ID O'P''< I-'3 0 0.N g (La-0 (7 a I•• ID a (r0.N r'- Mm a m • n 3 rn-• 3 m n 1' fu I.- W'1$ I► 1 t N I I C)'t1 IL 0.0 m 0 1-•'< ►'• I'•'d o ,J N n 0 m Ii 0 it n 0 N 0 0 11,a 0-n W 3'< 0' 0. to ,1 W 0 W ID :r a rt w t)''l :1: n 11111 • n on I: 1-•rt N rt 1,-1--,0 n N n • P'0 a 0-1-.• L 0 n n P.x W b•N X'47 N f► 0 - • no I-' I I 0.1D < 11 :l a 1-, 0.N i1 Ii it 'c1 1••m O a I-• ID :1 l'.'< 0' 0 0 . n Cu 11 0.1D 0 W m I-•n n 1-,N 0 0 II :)'m 0 I t O N W m b'I'• ID :r n o 0 N O • n t-' 0. 3 a :1:1-- 0 0' < 0 0 0.1r• tr ID 0 N Do ►'•n O 0 0 r1 £ m • 01-0 :r;111 11 1 I • 1-.1) I-•ID W 0'3 p 0'w 1-.11/'1'• It I'•in 1-.9. :1 7:hn ID MO a s N•N V n 0 n a < m P.3 0'0 :r 3 n n W ID no :r'1'It I h .< W 1-..; (t II - - ►- 1'• 0 it:3-0 0C 1-.14(0 N 11 11 :r E li i-'0 n O 0.O < 0 0'09 r 0 a a w ID U) :1 W (D O I'-I'• 0 <'( 0 0 :):(rl Diu) r ID m tr In ti m tT N• ►-• j'� W :1 11 11 p 0000 N 11 :1'I: 0'm •1 0 1 0' N 3 'V N O n m awn (D la.t, ((D 0 0 CD (D /1 t n.~b its 1.0 D IL(I, .... W 1,0 1/1 n - • n o I D I D I O ID O it 0 1-• n'd'CI :401- 0 0 0 0 < E 1-.111 :r N N 0'N • 0.0 it 0 • m I-• ► x (t. n II MI'. :ro I'll rt I••m :r a 11 It m 0 m a O rt n - 0 N a a < W 0 x N U O t' n n 0 n WI) m 0, u) a: ID :1 m I: W ID m rI '0 rt n (t 0 n OF N(n n ID m l 0 t-'(n 0 < n a N n N a I'•0 - n'< 0 a 11 rI I t ID 0 n n 0.O 1•' m (L :)'rt I i (D E P a 11,(D 1-• .100m 0 ( (D O MOW Nt-• n < N 3 O n m 11 •r O0':r (: '3't. W 1'•0 0.01100. a3 (t 01-• NNn (L n ILO 0'la t4 ►1 (to t-'On :r mr-,N '4 m 031-1 :r000 It'C0t01-'0 11rI :1N (D 1-' 0 Do 1C1 m (ANrl(tn '100 N-Nn O.9 010 O'dxI•• ANP•Ya E00 (D Nm 3n ID (1m4)•0.IS (D (A P. a0tolt,Orl 00.EI'• N Na Po tnWNNti 00W £ a1'•DI '0n n)-- o0OW'< am :1 (1) 0. 0 0 0 0'I I m :)' It W O a 0 1(J l() 1-.1-,O 0.O (D I•-O N r•N m 'd n W P' F 1--O P.O :r a: I I ILto t)'0. rI 1 1 1 W ID O n 1••m a :t0 0 ►-'(lt '(1 11 N 1-' 11 n n A < W 0 0 '0 O ID O 0 I-'n tt O ,< n N ID 1'•'1 0 0 it :)' tr 0 o P,rt ID n '.r ID 11 o ID 0 N (L it r ID'O .. (A it :U n n n'< 0'n 0.0•'4 :t II) W r. a: :r O rt 0 a ID co • 11 lD P► Pa a)0. 0'0 rt n In ID 0'D1 ID tin; In ' O it a 0' a n 1-0-0' - 1 1 0'0 1'-U) 1'-W DI 0'r I I It •r in 0' ID U) n'-L co WO U it m rt a ID m 0 11 W • till N N 0 a Ii n it W 1, N W It ID 0 :1'(1 II N ID 0 01, 1••1•• - 0- Ih 1-m ID m U rt n -4 (1 , I'• P. (10' m :I.II I la II 00 lb a n 1' 1.. .4 I-.•0 In �0 n H-n (L ID P.0. :1 :1 0 0' (1 fu ID N o Il 3 1-' ►'.'U PI N Cl Il.0 4:l-'a rt 0 0' 0 0''< 0• 0 • • () 0 F'• 0' I I 0 1/1 0 r: ft E m (U rt £ C) n. N n ► :r N N 'A • • Mr. Johnson said that his view would be right into the front door of the score. He said that his main concern was the effect that the amount of auto traffic generated by Haggen' s would have on pedestrian traffic and children. He noted that there have already been some traffic accidents there involving children. • Ed Howden, 11829 SW Morning Hill Drive, Tigard, stated that he was not in favor of this proposal. He commented that he had- not paid into the LID to improve 135th for this kind of project. He .said that he did not want the additional traffic and associated noise. • Scott Russell, 31291 Raymond, Scappooae, stated that his family owned the land on Walnut and Scholls Ferry that was turned down originally as a site for the Albertson's score because it was zoned General Commercial, not Neighborhood Commercial. He said that several years lacer the Neighborhood Commercial zoning was approved but that the store was still turned down because of its size which was similar to Haggen' s proposal. Mr. Russell said that though he would like to see this proposal approved because it would make it easier to get his own proposal approved, he was not in favor of it because of the neighborhood opposition. He said that he understood from his conversations with Liz Newton that this proposal did not go before the CITs. Mr. Russell noted that there had been tremendous objection to his original -proposal because of an effort not to turn Scholls into another 99W. He cited that as a reason to keep with the original Comorehen_sive Plan and not rezone. He pointed out that he had Suilt the Walnut Street extension from Murray without an LID. Mayor Nicoli asked for specifics regarding the denial of the zone change to General Commercial for Mr. Russell's property. Mr. Russeii said chat it had been denied in 1991 because it did not :feet the c-4 - -4a of residential on only two sides. He said that he thought the biggest objection to turning Scholls into a strip mall was the traftic problems on 99W. He said that others objected to a grocery store because there • weren' t enough people to support it. • Mark Padgett, 11270 SW 95th, Tigard, stated that he was a member of the Ticard Plarsinc Commission and did not work or shoo at Howard's. He commented on. the excellence ence c f the report and that it was overwhelming against approval Cf staff Como Plan amendment. Mr. Padgett said =hat a - -- ' . 3:a'S argument that if C he CJL^Cil could no g accept these . - ^ia as evidence of chance, then they wouldn' t find any evidence in Tigard was an argument that showed that the Co. :Plan was working. He disagreed that wider streets and increased population were valid arguments for chance because that has happened everywhere in Tigard. Padget- said that :here was a need for more general . - . commercial land in -_car; then the way to deal with it was • th • rouch a Como Plan review, t_�ough piecemeal ' ^ � rezoninc. He said that he did not thine the application met the c-4 -,z-_a for a rezone either. Mr. ?adcet- stated t.at the ap t-ova? at the Pla _:c Commission_ss_ happened one of the members who had not e a" :°_ evi once chose to vote_, otherwise it would ^ave been a tie vote and the _ ., would have been denied. CITY CCt iC_L METING MINUTES - JANUARY 23, 1555 - PAGE 20 r • • Mr. Padgett pointed out that in their training for the Planning Commission they were told that an applicant had to have a preponderance of evidence on their side. He said that this application did not do so. • Karen Kopplien, 12960 SW Hawksbeard, stated that she was opposed to this project because of the traffic impact on the neighborhood. Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 11:21 p.m. for a break. Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 11:35 p.m. Mayor Nicoli asked if Council had an option on keeping the record open, noting the letter they had received. Ms. Beery suggested asking the applicant for their preference since she had heard a lot of new evidence from the opponents. Mr. Gordon stated that he thought this procedure was fundamentally unfair to the applicant since they have had their reports on file with the City since September and much of the testimony received tonight had not come up at the Planning Commission. He said that they could not address the specific technical points without copies of the reports and time to review them. He asked that the hearing be continued for the purposes of accepting rebuttal testimony only.. Mayor Nicoli concurred with the recuest, stating that he would also like time to review the new information. Mr. Monahan suggested continuing the hearing to February 13 . Councilor Scheckla suggested putting the hearing near the front of the agenda. Mayor Nicoli asked Ms. Beery if it was fair for Council to review th previous land use action concerning the denial of Mr. Russell' s application. Ms. Beery said that it was and that she would also provide to the applicant the documents they didn't have copies of yet. MCT:CN by Councilor runt, SECONDED by Councilor Roy:_= to continue this hearing to February 13 . The motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Rohl= and Scheckla voted "yes. ") 15. NCN-AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Monahan er_3:ned that the City has received a cif- from the tine A. -- a <ris_: __-c -rust, administered cv 'S Sank. The resolution was necessary t,. allow t ne C' ty to acre t:e g_-_. QV=D by Councilor Sc hoc la, SECONDED by C.^.L^..: ?chi'_ to acorov_ R:5C:.. _C NC. 95-35, A RSSCLZ _CN CF THE C_.. CF ._G RD AC_EPT:NG A G-- UN::.,_.. THE TERMS CF THE , .-_-_NE A. =LONG TRUST. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor ��. .., and Ccunc__ors Hun:, Rohlf and Scheckla voted ":'es. ") -- Rohlf asked to bring S-'.. 93-:0_ back for review to lock a: ow t e Tilt..-sal t '-to the overlay _on- -_ of the --card Tr'anc'e. The agreed to do sC by consensus. C--- ...2:.7`:.7 MEE :NG MIN1 :7,=S - CA.CAR' 23, 1955 - : GEE • i ' f • • MEMORANDUM A,/„H�%, �,���►4�y 11 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ........ `:� TO: JimHendryx FROM: Laurie Nicholson DATE: January 22, 1997 SUBJECT: Jean Macadam's concerns regarding the Shrader application During our meeting with Mr. Macadam on January 16, 1997, Mr. Macadam raised three primary concerns regarding the proposed comprehensive plan amendment for the Shrader property. These concerns are as follows: how is the comprehensive plan's (12.2.1 (4) B.1.(b)) 1/2 mile spacing standard measured, how can the Shrader application meet the standard of commercial allowed on one quadrant of the intersection (plan policy 12.2.1 (4) B.1.(a)), and how is the predominant land use determined for the comprehensive plan policy (12.2.1 (4)B.1.(b)). With regard to the 1/2 mile spacing standard,the code states that: "Community commercial districts shall be spaced at least one-half mile from other sites which are designated for commercial retail use." The comprehensive plan policy is unclear on exactly how the spacing shall be measured, for example, "as the crow flies" or by distance over streets. The City interprets to determine whether or not an individual proposal meets this standard. When City staff was studying the Community Commercial zone, they applied its criteria to sites in the City of Tigard. They found that the Shrader site on SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th met the criteria, including the 1/2 mile spacing standard. In fact, this particular site and the Albertson's site further west on SW Scholls Ferry Road were the only two sites eligible for the Community Commercial zone after this zone designation was included in the City's Comprehensive Plan. When staff was drafting the staff report for the Shrader application, the interpretation of previous staff was accepted with regards to the 1/2 mile spacing standard. The other part of Comprehensive Plan policy 12.2.1 (4) B.1.(b) says that: "...special consideration may also be given to...provide less than the minimum separation for commercially designated sites which are developed with non-retail uses." The language is not specific with regards to what exactly is meant by "..developed with non-retail uses" and, therefore, it is left to interpretation. Staff reviewed the information and determined that the uses at SW Scholls and SW North Dakota are non-retail commercial uses. The uses at SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW North Dakota include: a veterinary clinic, a fast-food restaurant, a hair salon, a coffee/espresso shop, and a bank. None of these uses are retail commercial. • • The comprehensive plan says that for Community Commercial developments: "Commercial development shall be limited to one quadrant of a street intersection." This standard would apply to the intersections bordering the Shrader site: SW Old Scholls Ferry Road, SW Scholls Ferry Road, and SW 135th Avenue. If Shrader were approved, for example, commercial retail development would not be allowed across SW 135th Avenue from the Shrader site. In addition to the limit on one quadrant of intersection criteria, an applicant would have to meet all other planning criteria to be approved. f , , • 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 January 21, 1997 MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial (503) 294-9194 email mcrobinson @stoel.com VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Laurie Nicholson Associate Planner City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: CPA 96-0008, Requested Community Commercial ("CC") Comprehensive Plan Map Designation Dear Laurie: This office represents the applicants. The purpose of this letter is to provide additional information to the City Council about this application. Would you please see that this letter and the exhibits are distributed to the City Council prior to the public hearing on January 28, 1997? If the Community Development Department requires any additional information, please call me and I will be happy to provide it to you. This application requests a comprehensive plan map amendment on 5.5 acres from the "Medium-High Density Residential" designation to the "Community Commercial" ("CC") designation. The request does not include the 3.0 acres on the site designated "Open Space" to the south of the 5.5 acres. (See Exhibit 1.) The staff report recommended approval of this application. The minor amendment to page 7 of the staff report that I received on January 17, 1997 does not change the recommendation but adds to the finding of how the application satisfies Plan Policy 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2 (the requirement that the application demonstrate a "physical change"). The Planning Commission voted unanimously on December 2, 1996 to recommend approval of this application. PDX1A-62901.1 99999-0006 SEATTLE PORTLAND VANCOUVER,WA BOISE SALT LAKE CITY WASHINGTON,D.C. • STOEL RIVES LLP Ms. Laurie Nicholson January 21, 1997 Page 2 1. The primary justification for this comprehensive plan map amendment is that this site is one of two identified by the City in 1992 that satisfies all of the community commercial locational criteria. The City adopted the CC Plan map designation in 1992 after extensive work by the community, the Community Development Department staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council. Part of the evidence that the City Council reviewed in adopting the new Plan designation was information from then Community Development Director Ed Murphy. An August 26, 1992 memorandum from Mr. Murphy said that this site was one of two sites meeting all of the CC locational requirements, including that it not be within one-half (1/2) mile of other commercially designated sites. (See Exhibit 2.) Additionally, an April 26, 1991 memorandum from then City Engineer Randy Wooley stated that this site is best situated to accommodate some traffic increase and that there is no near-by surrounding commercial zoning. (See Exhibit 3.) In an April 14, 1992 memorandum from Ed Murphy to Pat Riley, then City Administrator, Mr. Murphy wrote: "*** even under a more stringent proposed standard, * * * only the 135th/Scholls and the western-most Scholls/New Scholls intersections [are] realistic possibilities for community commercial designation." (See Exhibit 4.) The western part of the City has experienced extraordinary growth. Information obtained from the Metropolitan Service District ("Metro") shows that from 1980 to 1994, the number of residents increased from 8,513 to 17,341 within one mile of the site. During that same period, households increased from 3,052 to 6,753 and dwelling units increased from 3,418 to 6,392. However, growth alone is not the main justification for approval of this application. The City Council determined in 1992 that there should be an intermediate commercial designation between the "Neighborhood Commercial" and the "General Commercial" designations. The City adopted the CC designation to fulfill this purpose. This application requests establishment of that designation on one of only two sites identified by the City as appropriate for the designation. Mr. Daniel J. Boyden, a competing commercial property owner, argues that this site is within one-half (1/2) mile of three different commercial sites. Mr. Boyden is wrong for several reasons. First, the information before both the staff and the City Council shows that PDX 1 A-62901.1 99999-0006 • STOEL RIVES LLP • Ms. Laurie Nicholson January 21, 1997 Page 3 this site is not within one-half (1/2) mile of any other commercial site in the City.' All three commercial sites that Mr. Boyden refers to (the C-P designation at the southwest corner of Scholls Ferry and North Dakota; the C-N designation at the southeast corner of Scholls Ferry and North Dakota; and the C-N designation at the southwest corner of Scholls Ferry and Walnut Street) existed in 1992. Yet the Community Development staff identified this site as not being within one-half (1/2) mile of those sites. Secondly, Mr. Hendryx, the Community Development Department Director, in a March 20, 1996 letter confirmed that this site is not within one-half (1/2) mile of either the C-P or C-N designations at the intersection of Scholls Ferry and North Dakota. (See Exhibit 5.) Finally, even if this site were within one-half mile of another commercial site, the Plan's introductory statement to the locational criteria for land uses states: "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." In other words, this locational criteria is intended to be "flexibly" interpreted so as to approve applications where the public interest is served and the proposal is capable of harmonious integration into the community. Both criteria for flexible interpretation are met by this application. The public interest is served by providing a neighborhood-scale shopping center that is compatible with the surrounding area. This site is within walking and bicycling distance of a large residential area unserved by any other commercial sites within a one-half (1/2) mile radius. Plan Policy 12.2.1(4) describes the CC designation as intended to have a "primary neighborhood orientation." It is to be located so as not "to attract substantial amounts of trade from outside of surrounding neighborhoods, and shall be large enough to provide a variety of goods and services at one location." CC designated sites are to be designed to "avoid the appearance and feeling of typical commercial strip development." The impact assessment for the CC designation requires "convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to a development site The City Council need not consider commercial sites within the City of Beaverton. The problem with considering commercial sites outside of the City is that the City has no control over those sites and so its own policies could be frustrated by the actions of other cities. PDX 1 A-62901.1 99999-0006 • STOEL RIVES LLP • Ms. Laurie Nicholson January 21, 1997 Page 4 from adjoining residential areas shall be provided where practicable." Further, the April 14, 1992 staff report to the City Council concerning the new CC designation stated: "By having commercial opportunities close to neighborhoods, residents may be able to do their shopping or avail themselves of commonly used services with a minimum of travel and a reduced need to enter crowded major collector or arterial streets with their autos. It is hoped that some vehicle trips might even be eliminated due to the proximity of commercial services to neighborhoods thereby making walking or bicycling to these services practicable." (See April 14, 1992 Staff Report at 2.) 2. The City's residential needs will continue to be met after this application is approved. Mr. Boyden, the owner of a competing shopping center, states that the City Council has consistently rejected changes from residential to commercial designations, citing the application by Haggen's Foods across the street from this site. This argument does not support a denial of this application for several reasons. First, Mr. Boyden has testified that this area requires more neighborhood commercial establishments. He told the City Council on January 23, 1996 that "there was a need for more neighborhood commercial." (See Exhibit 6.) While his application did not involve amending a residential plan map designation, it clearly shows that this part of Tigard requires some commercial designation. Secondly, the City Council did not deny the application by Haggen's Foods because of its impact on the City's residential density. In fact, the City expressly found that it would continue to meet the requirements of the Metropolitan Housing Rule in OAR Chapter 660, Division 7, even if the 9 acre site were designated "General Commercial". The City staff report found "under this proposal [by Haggen's Foods], then, compliance with the Metro Housing Rule would be maintained. This policy is, therefore, satisfied." (See Exhibit 7, Staff Report at 6.) Mr. Boyden also misses the point that each application for a Plan map amendment must be reviewed individually. Facts vary tremendously from one application to the next, such as the difference between the Haggen's Foods application and this application. Haggen's Foods requested the much more intensive "General Commercial" designation on a nine (9) acre site. This application requests approval of the neighborhood-scale "CC" designation on a five and one-half (5.5) acre site. Additionally, a grocery store in the Community Commercial zoning designation is limited to a maximum of 40,000 square feet. PDX 1 A-62901.1 99999-0006 • STOEL RIVES LLP • Ms. Laurie Nicholson January 21, 1997 Page 5 The General Commercial designation contains no such limitation and Haggen's Foods proposed a 63,000 square foot store. Finally, the Community Development Department staff recommended denial of the Haggen's Foods' application and the Planning Commission narrowly voted five (5) to four (4) to recommend its approval. In contrast, each level of City review has recommended approval of this application. There is nothing inconsistent about the City Council approving this application because the facts and the law are so different than the Haggen's Foods application. 3. The application does not have to include a zoning map amendment at this time. Mr. Boyden simply misreads the Plan and the Tigard Community Development Code ("TCDC") by suggesting that a concurrent plan map and zoning map amendment is required. A concurrent plan map and zoning map amendment application would be self-defeating. ORS 227.178(3) applies approval criteria for a zoning map amendment in effect at the time , an application is made. Assuming that this application had included a zoning map amendment application, the City would legally have to review the zoning map amendment for compliance with the existing comprehensive plan map designation--"Medium-High Density Residential". Therefore, it makes sense to precede a zoning map amendment with a Plan map amendment. Secondly, approval of this application does not "tie the neighborhood's hands when the zone change comes in" as alleged by Mr. Boyden. The zoning map amendment must still be accompanied by a site review application in which the applicant must demonstrate compliance with stringent locational criteria. Unlike the Haggen's Foods application for the "General Commercial" designation, even if this application is approved, the community will still have a public hearing opportunity to review the site plan. The City is not bound to approve the site plan if it does not meet the requirements of the Community Commercial zoning district. 4. The application meets Plan Policy 8.1.1 requiring a safe and efficient transportation system. • Mr. Boyden argues that the application will result in lack of capacity at the Scholls Ferry intersections, will cause traffic infiltration into residential neighborhoods and would conflict with a "transit corridor" designation in Metro's Functional Plan. Both City and Washington County staff have reviewed the traffic study prepared by Lancaster Associates and submitted with this application. Those reviews concluded that, P D X 1 A-62901.1 99999-0006 • STOEL-RIVES LLP • Ms. Laurie Nicholson January 21, 1997 Page 6 with appropriate improvements to the intersection to be made by the applicant, the Scholls Ferry Road intersection will continue to function at appropriate levels of service. Mr. Andy Back, Washington County Senior Planner, stated in his November 12, 1996 letter: "However, with improvements, the [Scholls Ferry and SW 135th] intersection will operate at an acceptable level of service in year 2005. Currently, there are no plans to make the improvements recommended in the report. As such, we believe they are a necessary condition in order for the county to determine the plan amendment is consistent with OAR 660-12-060 [the Transportation Planning Rule]. Given this, we request the city of Tigard require the attached condition." (See Exhibit 8.) The applicants have stated that they accept the conditions recommended by Washington County. Traffic infiltration into residential neighborhoods is not an approval criteria. However, even if it were, this application will not impact local streets. This site is bounded by Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue. Residents of the neighborhoods can easily reach the site by using these streets. There is no reason for non-neighborhood traffic to use local streets when collector streets are so accessible. Further, Mr. Lancaster's traffic study showed that sixty (60) percent of the trips to the site are already on the road and that this kind of commercial development will only add forty (40) percent new trips. Finally, Metro's Functional Plan is not applicable to this application. The Functional Plan does not become applicable to comprehensive plan map amendments until its effective date, which is February 19, 1997. However, even if it were applicable now, there is nothing inconsistent with the transit corridor designation about establishing a use which will encourage additional transit ridership. 5. This application satisfies Plan Policy 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2, by demonstrating a change since the site was designated medium-high density residential. The Planning Commission correctly found that since the City's adoption of the CC designation in 1992 and the City's identification of the site as one of two appropriate sites, that a physical change has occurred. The record also contains substantial evidence showing other reasons why the City can find a physical change. The original designation for this property occurred at annexation and was based only on the City's desire to establish a PDX 1 A-62901.1 99999-0006 • STOEL RIVES LLP • Ms. Laurie Nicholson January 21, 1997 Page 7 corresponding designation with that of Washington County. No other evidence or analysis accompanied that designation of the site. Also, the tremendous growth in this area since this site was first designated in 1983 shows that additional commercial opportunities are necessary. The City has previously followed this analysis in CPA 96-0004/ZON 96-0003 in approving a Plan map amendment request from "Low Density Residential" to "Medium Density Residential" at Hall and Sattler. 6. Mr. Petrie's argument about lost housing potential is contrary to his earlier testimony. Mr. Craig Petrie submitted a letter to the Planning Commission on December 2, 1996. The applicant had an opportunity to review it only shortly before that public hearing. Mr. Petrie raised a number of issues which the applicant reviewed with the Planning Commission. Chief among Mr. Petrie's arguments is that this site is needed for development of housing. This is contrary to the position that he took before the City Council when he commented on the Albertson's application for a CC designation. Mr. Petrie told the City Council in a July 2, 1992 letter about the limited shopping opportunities in west Tigard: "These people have to shop somewhere--they will either shop near to where they live or get on our collector streets and arterials and just further contribute to the current traffic problem." (See Exhibit 9.) 7. Response to issues raised by Mr. McAdams. Staff met with Mr. Gene McAdams on January 17, 1997 to discuss several issues raised by Mr. McAdams. The first had to do with whether this site is located one-half (1/2) mile from other commercial designations. This issue has been addressed above. The second issue had to do with whether the site meets the Plan's locational criteria requiring that only one quadrant of an intersection may be designated commercial. I discussed this matter with the Community Development Director Hendryx on January 17, 1997 and he concurred with the previous staff position that this criterion is met because there is no other commercial designation at this intersection. PDX 1 A-62901.1 99999-0006 • STOEL RIVES LLP • Ms. Laurie Nicholson January 21, 1997 Page 8 For these reasons, the City Council should follow the recommendation of the Community Development Department and the Planning Commission and approve this application. • Very truly yours, KA49-11/ Michael C. Robinson MCR:ipc Enclosures cc(w/encls.): Mr. William Eric Gross (w/encls.) Mr. Gary Coe (w/encls.) Mr. Dale Shrader PDX 1 A-62901.1 99999-0006 • • EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Site map Exhibit 2 August 26, 1992 memorandum from Ed Murphy Exhibit 3 April 26, 1991 memorandum from Randy Wooley Exhibit 4 April 14, 1992 memorandum from Ed Murphy Exhibit 5 March 20, 1996 letter from James N.P. Hendryx Exhibit 6 January 23, 1996 City Council minutes Exhibit 7 Haggen's Foods staff report, page 6 Exhibit 8 November 12, 1996 letter from Andy Back Exhibit 9 July 2, 1992 letter from Craig Petrie PDX 1 A-62901.1 99999-0006 OCT - 17 - 96 T H U 1 8 : 2 7 0 P _ 0 4 "-Er SITE PLAN • ' 411 ,. ------ p.,:u.cr 13571-I AND SCHOLLS FERRY RD. RETAIL i- OWNER.SHRAD-A AND COE PROPERTIES O P��/ ' r • Ok eliONALIZED r„,,- ' _. , v. �-' i 1 . / ! I �i i 1 .... . �. Odirms weeper LA4—/ it d / , i j c........_ , f. 1 SW. HAWKS BEARD /i :: i �p i 4”; MEDIUM • HIGH - RESIDENTIAL - I I� / TO 1 ap COMMUNR7 COMMERCIAL U 5.54 ACRES i1 ? tt I•�, , -- !— -- ___ w 1 l_- .. „Zj i Ia I I t WI WWI FA.000 I/ N PLABE=raw I • N. I ........D, 0) 1 i \ _,. Ilima or owe Y + 1 �\ r I 1 I I OPEN SPACE - ; 1 3.02 ACRES 1 \,.......,....,/,,.V . o• r 0 SITE PLAN 1..bir-o. ■ ■. , _ , _ _ _ EXHIBIT 1 ' Al • • i COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA ,OF: Se tember 8 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: August 26 , 1992 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE:Comp Plan Amendmen PREVIOUS ACTION: Continued from CPA 91-0005/Zone Ordinance Amendment ' June 23 , 1992 r}J ZOA 91-0006 (Cb unity Commercial) / PREPARED BY: Jerry/ Offer, Planner DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK / REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy, CDD ISSUE BEFORE HE COUNCIL Should the C ty amend the Comprehensive Plan to create a commercial designation intended to provide limited scale development opportunities for neighborhood/community serving retail and service uses? Should the' City amend the Community Development Code to create a new mid-range commercial zoning district to implement this Plan designation? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached ordinance amending the Plan and Development Code. INFORMATION SUMMARY In response to suggestions that the City should provide for a commercial zoning district that would provide a middle ground between the small-scale, limited use C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district and the broad scope of permitted uses and large scale of the C-G (General Commercial) zone, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft a new mid-range commercial zone. The Planning Division has drafted the attached proposed amendments to Volume Two of the Comprehensive Plan to create a new Community Commercial Plan designation and amendments to the Community Development Code to create a C-C (Community Commercial) zoning district. In addition, related Code revisions are proposed to include the C-C zoning district as needed in indexes, listings of zoning districts, individual conditional use listings, and to apply screening and buffering standards and signage requirements for C-C uses similar to what is required for C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) uses. The Council previously held a hearing on this proposal on June 23, 1992 . Substantial community testimony was received with the primary issues appear.i,ng to be the allowable sizes of grocery stores, the need for site design guidelines and/or standards to minimize the impacts of future developments in community commercial districts upon surrounding residential uses, and concerns about particular locations that were identified in a staff prepared map. that illustrated locales that met some of the proposed locational criteria for this Plan designation. The Council directed staff to further research these issues, revise the proposal as necessary, and bring the proposal back to the Council at the September 8th meeting. Staff has made several modifications to the proposal previously before the Council. The most notable changes include: 1) requiring that community commercial sites be located only where there is an average potential dwelling unit density of eight units per acre (as determined by present zoning) within one half mile; 2) specifically noting in the Plan and Community Development Code that the City may limit the size of a community commercial site or place • EXHIBIT 2 111 111 • conditions of approval on a Plan Map amendment related to needed site improvements or business operating hours in order to minimize effects on surrounding residential uses; and 3) including special site design and building design guidelines and standards intended to guarantee a high quality, community friendly development. These revisions are highlighted on the attached pages . The surrounding area dwelling unit density standard should serve to significantly limit the number. of potential community commercial sites and should provide a substantial nearby population base to support businesses within the development. (Exhibit C shows that only two sites within the city limits and two sites within the city's future urban growth area meet both the surrounding area dwelling unit density standard and the previously proposed intersection locational standard) . It is hoped that the nearby residents will be able to walk or bicycle to the commercial center to do some of their shopping, thereby reducing dependence on their automobiles and a resultant reduction in traffic. The site and building design guidelines and standards as well as the ability to limit site size or place conditions upon future development of a site will allow the City additional leverage in seeking to avoid negative effects upon residential uses surrounding a community commercial center. These provisions also will promote pedestrian and bicyclist,accessibility and safety to and within the development. Staff has not been convinced by the proponents of either increasing or decreasing the allowed size of grocery stores in this zone to change the proposed maximum grocery store size of 40,000 square feet. Staff also did not receive any direction on this issue from the Council at the June 23rd meeting. Therefore, this issue remains for the Council to decide as a matter of community choice. Staff continues to recommend 40,000 square feet as a maximum grocery store size that should be large enough to provide for a wide selection of groceries and related services for surrounding neighborhoods, yet this size should be small enough to discourage the development of large grocery stores that may tend to attract shoppers from outside surrounding neighborhoods . The revised proposal has not been sent back to the Planning Commission or neighborhood organizations for comment. For this reason, and because of the grocery store size issue, the Council may want to further continue the review of this proposal for additional public comment. However, if this is done, staff strongly urges the Council to provide additional guidance on the grocery, store size issue and any other aspects of the current proposal at this meeting. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the attached ordinance amending the Plan and Development Code. 2 . Direct staff to prepare ordinances for the October 20, 1992 meeting adopting the amendments to the Plan and Code with revisions related to scale of Community Commercial sites and/or maximum floor area for particular uses. 3. Deny the proposal. - FISCAL NOTES None applicable. 111 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON4Il ORDINANCE NO. 92- AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND VOLUME II OF THE CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CREATE A COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND TO AMEND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO CREATE A NEW C-C (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) ZONING DISTRICT AND TO AMEND OTHER.RELATED SECTIONS OF THE CODE (CPA 91- 0005/ZOA 91-0.006) . WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code periodically to improve the guidance of land usage and development in the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission has initiated the proposed amendments and has held public hearings on the proposed amendments on March 2, 1992 and April 6, 1992 and has recommended approval of the amendments to the Council, and J WHEREAS, the City Council held hearings on June 23, 1992 and September 8, 1992 to consider the proposed amendments. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Plan Policy 12.2. 1., at #4 of Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan shall be amended as shown in attached Exhibit A (new section shown in its entirety) ; SECTION 2: The Community Development Code shall be amended as shown in attached Exhibit B (new Chapter 18.61 shown in its entirety; amendments to existing sections of the Code shown with additions underlined and deletions bracketed [ ] ) ; SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage - by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of , 1992 . Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: This day of , 1992. Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date Jo/Ord-CC . ORDINANCE No. 92- _ ) . •.. • 111 ) Illi 7- MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD III TO: Planning Division April• 26, 1991 • FROM: Randy Wooley, City Enginee J SUBJECT: Proposed commercial zoning on Scholls Ferry Rd. illi Two requests for commercial zoning along Scholls Ferry Road are currently under consideration -- a request for C-G zoning at 135th Avenue and a request for C-N zoning at North Dakota Street. In reviewing the Engineering Department comments on the two requests, it occurs to me that our responses may appear inconsistent. 4 Although the two requests are similar, we took a neutral stance on the one but recommended denial for the other. This memo is intended to explain why we see the two sites differently. In both locations, the only significant engineering .issue related to the zone change request appears to be the issue of increased - traffic. Regarding traffic issues, we find the two locations to be different in the following respects: 1. In both locations, the primary vehicular access will be from the m' r collector' s -T- 135*h Avenue or North Dakota Street. SW 135th Avenue is better designed to accommodate some increase in traffic. Few homes face directly onto 135th. Parking is prohibited along 135th and sight distance is good. We receive few complaints about 135th. North Dakota Street, on the other hand, . has been the subject of many complaints about traffic volumes and speeds . Additional traffic islands are being installed to discourage through traffic on North Dakota. In addition to being a minor collector, it serves as a neighborhood street, with many homes fronting directly on North Dakota. Until a better long-term traffic solution is found for North Dakota, we feel that any potential traffic increases should be discouraged. 2. On 135th, there is no existing commercial zoning in the immediate neighborhood. The traffic impacts of commercial development on 135th could be offset, in part, by a reduction in shopping trips outside the neighborhood. In the North Dakota Street area, there is already a substantial supply of commercial zoning. Additional commercial development in this location is not as likely to alter the shopping trips of the -4 adjoining neighborhood. If residents of the North Dakota area are inclined to walk or bike to do their shopping, they already have that opportunity. I IEXHIBIT 3 I • 3 . In the future, completion of the Murray/Walnut extension is expected to reduce the volume of through traffic on 135th. Under current planning, there are no new streets in the future to provide relieve to the existing collector streets in the North Dakota area. Conclusion For these reasons, we believe that the two sites are different. If the decision is made to grant a zone change, we feel that the 135th location is a more suitable location from the standpoint of traffic. rw/cpa A �M1 I I • MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator FROM: Ed Murphy, Community Development Directo . i DATE: April 14 , 1992 SUBJECT: Proposed New Community Commercial Plan Designation and Zoning District BACKGROUND In response to suggestions that the City of Tigard should provide for a commercial zoning district that would provide a middle ground between the existing small-scale, limited use C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district and the broad scope of permitted uses and large scale of 'the C-G (General Commercial) zone, the Planning Commission on December 16, 1991, directed staff to research and draft a new mid-range commercial zone. In response., the Planning Division has drafted proposed amendments to Volume Two of the Comprehensive Plan to create a Community Commercial Plan designation and to the Community Development Code to create a C-C (Community Commercial) zoning district. The following pages summarize the proposed new Plan designation and zoning district. In addition, other Community Development Code revisions are proposed to include the C-C zoning district as needed in indexes, other listings of zoning districts, individual conditional use listings, and to apply screening and buffering standards and signage requirements for C-C uses similar to what is required for C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) uses . The proposed Community Commercial Plan designation locational criteria and the text for the proposed C-C zoning district have been presented to all of the NPOs as well as CPO 4B and CPO 4M. The cities of Beaverton, Durham, King City, and Tualatin; Washington County; and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development have also been provided with the draft amendments for review and comment. In addition, a substantial amount of comments have been received from individuals and businesses which have an interest in the proposed changes. Written ' comments received are included in this packet. After two public hearings which included a substantial amount of community testimony, the Planning Commission voted 4-3 to forward the attached package of amendments to the Council with a recommendation for. approval. Dissenting Planning Commissioners were not opposed to the concept of the Community Commercial Plan designation and C-C zoning district, but instead had urged changes in the proposal . Planning Commission comments are available in the attached Planning Commission minutes of March 2 and April 6 , 1992 . EXHIBIT 4 /'. '//// ' SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL a. Intent ' The primary intent of the Community Commercial Plan designation and the C-C zoning district is to provide opportunities for the development of relatively small shopping centers or shopping districts that would be located within a primarily residential area. By having commercial opportunities close to neighborhoods, residents may be able to do their shopping or avail themselves of commonly used services with a minimum of travel and a reduced need to enter crowded major collector or arterial streets with their autos. It is also hoped that some vehicle trips might even be eliminated due to the proximity of commercial services to neighborhoods thereby making walking or bicycling to these services practical. b. Scale The proposed C-C zoning district provides for sizes of individual businesses to be limited to what the community feels is necessary to provide for the needs of the intended trade area. Grocery stores would be limited to a maximum size of 40,000 square feet. General retail stores would be limited to 10, 000 square feet. Other uses would be limited to 5,000 square feet. The limit on sizes of establishments is also intended as to discourage uses that would bring substantial traffic into the community. In addition, operating hours would be limited in order to reduce the potential for negative impacts upon the neighborhood, although longer operating hours may be permitted for a particular establishment through the conditional use process . The size of the individual Community Commercial districts is proposed to be limited to-between two and eight acres in order to limit the physical scale of commercial development surrounded by residential development. c . Locational Criteria Individual Community Commercial districts are proposed to be separated from other commercial districts or commercial developments by at least one half mile so as to avoid strip commercial development. Community Commercial districts are proposed to be located at or close to either the intersection of two major collector streets or at the intersection of an arterial and either a major or minor collector street. Community Commercial districts would be limited to one quadrant of an intersection or one side of a street. It was not the Commission's or staff's intention that the City designate any properties with the Community Commercial Plan designation or C-C., zoning district at this time. • . Nevertheless, staff has applied the basic intersection locational criteria on the attached map in order to show which locations within the city and the city's urban, growth area could possibly qualify for the Community Commercial designation. The display of this basic intersection criteria on this map, however, does not include assessment of either existing development at these locations or the proposed Community Commercial site size criteria. These criteria could disqualify any of the circled areas from consideration from redesignation. The areas shown as potential Community Commercial sites may also be unacceptable for redesignation for many other reasons including (but not limited to) traffic problems, existing development on sites, incompatibility with adjacent developed residential areas, topography, and/or a lack of desire by the property owners or the City to change the existing Plan designation and zoning. It is very important to remember that this map only indicates potential Community Commercial sites . Actual redesignation of sites to Community Commercial designations would need to occur separate from the current proposal. The current proposal would only provide changes to the texts of the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code to enable potential Community Commercial redesignation of sites in the future. Some of the comments received from the NPOs and others requesting changes in the proposed Plan and Code language may be generated by site-specific concerns with some of the circled intersections on this map. The integrity and usability of the proposed Plan designation and zoning district should not be undermined by too fine tinkering with the proposed text amendments to exclude certain circled sites from potential Community Commercial designation. Exclusion of ' unwarranted sites should be done through the Plan Map amendment process, if and when requests for redesignation of these sites are made. In order for actual designations of sites to occur, a property owner would need to file an application for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Change for the particular site for which redesignation is requested. The applicant would need to demonstrate not only that the site was consistent with the locational criteria for the Community Commercial designation, but that the proposal also was consistent with all applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and Statewide Planning Goals, and that there had been a mistake in the original Plan and zoning designations for the site or that physical changes of circumstances had occurred in the area of the subject properties that was supportive of reasons for the requested change in designation. The Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Change process that would apply to individual redesignations would be a public review process with hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council and notification of neighbors prior to the hearings. 3 • COMMENTS/MAJOR ISSUES a. Scale Staff readily admits that the proposed two acre minimum and eight acre maximum site size, 40, 000 sq. ft. grocery size, and 10,000 sq. ft. retail store maximum size limits were not determined as a result of lengthy analysis of the community's needs or desires . These size limits are proposed based on staff walk-throughs of several grocery stores and shopping centers in the surrounding area, review of the sizes of these centers, as well as the recommendations of The Zoning Report of October 21, 1988. This report is attached. The last sentence of page 4 of this report recommends a maximum grocery store size of 30,000 to 50,000 sq. ft. and a maximum size for other uses of 10,000 to 15,000 sq. ft. in a neighborhood serving commercial zone. In addition, page 7 of that report quotes the text of the Beaumont, Texas Neighborhood Shopping Center zoning district with regard to total shopping center gross floor area and site size limits . Proposed store and site size limits are within the recommended ranges provided in that report and seem reasonable with regard to other developments in the southwest suburban Portland area (see Appendix One - area supermarkets and their respective sizes) . We have received comments from Albertsons and their representatives (Messrs . Shonkwiler, Russell, and Petrie) supporting larger store size limits as well as comments from NPO 7 and Mr. Marcott of Murrayhill Thriftway recommending a smaller maximum size for grocery stores . While both sides' arguments have merit, the Commission was not convinced that the proposed size limits need to be modified one way or the other from the size limits originally proposed by staff. In addition, redesignation of sites with the Community Commercial designations will be accomplished through the Plan map and zoning map amendment processes. If the city wants to limit the size of the redesignation at a particular location to anything between two and eight acres, it can effectively occur at that point through limiting the size of the area to be designated Community Commercial. Not every site to be redesignated as Community Commercial in the future need be eight acres in size. Tailoring the size of the area to be redesignated to the needs and desires of the surrounding neighborhoods can have the effect of placing de facto limits on the maximum store sizes for that particular site. • b. Locational Criteria The principal issues with the proposed locational criteria appear to be distance from other commercial sites and whether Community Commercial developments should be limited to arterial intersections rather than major collector/major collector intersections as well. III * • First, staff believes it is essential that Community Commercial designations not be limited to arterial street intersections as_ was proposed by others early on in the development of these proposals . From a suburban development philosophical standpoint, limiting commercial sites to arterials would do nothing to discourage local short trip traffic on arterial streets that are primarily intended and designed for carrying through traffic . In addition, limiting future commercial opportunities to arterials would be counter- productive to efforts to limit strip development and likely would not result in much of a "community" feeling to these developments that would be any different than development within a General Commercial district. If anything, we may be stretching away from the purposes of the proposed Plan designation to include potential sites along arterials. From a practical standpoint, limiting potential Community Commercial designations to arterial intersections would result in only the 135th/Scholls and the western-most Scholls/New Scholls intersections as realistic possibilities for Community Commercial designation. This is due to limitations of the other sites along arterials illustrated on the potential sites map. If any changes are made to the locational criteria intersections standard, we would suggest dropping the possibility of Community Commercial sites along arterial streets . Second, others have proposed a minimum spacing for Community Commercial sites from other commercial sites of one mile. This spacing requirement proposal combined with the currently proposed intersection criteria would result in only one site in the City's urban growth area, at 150th and Bull Mountain Road, meeting these two locational criteria. If the suggested one mile spacing standard would be applied along with the other proposed limitation to arterial street intersections only, no sites in the urban growth area would meet these two basic criteria. • Washington County's Department of Land Use and Transportation has recommended that the locational criteria require that the site meet all applicable access spacing/access management standards . City staff feels that this is implicit in the Plan map amendment approval criteria which requires consistency with all applicable Plan policies . Plan policy 8 . 1. 1 requires that a map redesignation proposal provide for a " . . . safe and efficient street and roadway system. " This should cover the County's concern. • c. Impact Assessment Generally stated, comments received have urged the following: 1) not allow uses to operate between 11 PM and 6 AM; 2) require adequate screening and buffering; 3) reduce the minimum landscape area standard; 4 ) require noise abatement in development design; and 5 ) require pedestrian connections S • • between residential developments and Community Commercial developments . While not every future Community Commercial site may be appropriate for late hour operations, late hour operations also serve the needs of a substantial number of city residents . Because late hour operations may or may not be a detriment to surrounding neighborhoods, individual requests for approval of particular late hour business operations should be considered on a case by case basis. The current package of proposed amendments does include relatively strict buffering and screening standards that were not included in the package reviewed by the NPOs resulting in some of their comments . Staff believes that the 20 percent minimum landscaped area standard is necessary to visually blend the commercial development into surrounding residential areas that typically have 50 percent or greater site landscaping. Additionally, the 20 percent landscaping standard helps distinguish Community Commercial areas from General Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial areas that have a minimum 15 percent landscape area standard. The buffering standard, along with requirements for street trees and parking lot island landscaping, are such that future Community Commercial developments will probably have no trouble meeting the 20 percent site landscaping standard without really trying. Noise abatement is certainly a concern in establishing commercial areas that by definition will be surrounded by residential development. Subsequent to the Tigard Marketplace/Food Connection noise problems, the City has established stronger noise control standards and the site plan and building plan reviewers have learned a lot about design measures to reduce noise impacts. In addition, the proposal to limit late hour operations to situations approved as conditional uses should'help reduce the potential for adverse noise impacts upon neighbors . Noise certainly should be an issue in considering individual Plan map and zoning map amendment requests for Community Commercial redesignations as well as in site development and conditional use applications; 'however, staff does not find that there is a need to further amend the proposed text amendments to deal with noise issues . The suggestion that the proposed Plan and zoning designations promote pedestrian connections between residential areas and commercial development can be implemented, where warranted, through existing authority in the approval standards for development review applications . NOV- 21 - 96 THU`1 7 : 1 1 0 • P - 1 1 March 20, 1998 art OF T1GARD � Bill Gross 11035 SW 135th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Affect of CPA 95-0005/ZON 95-0007 on your property at 135th and Scholls Ferry Dear Bill: This letter is written to explain how the recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change at Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota Street would affect any future request for a Comprehensive Plan map and Zone Change to "community commercial" at the southwest corner of 135th and Scholls Ferry, due to the proximity of the two sites to each other. More specifically, how the rezoning of parcels 1 and 3 of MLP 94-0013 from Commercial-Professional to Commercial-Neighborhood under CPA 95-0005/ZON 95-0007 would affect the potential to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map on tax lot 100 (map 1S1 33CA), to "community commercial". The Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Section 12.2.1.4B.(1) (b) (on page 11 - 84-1) states that "community commercial districts shall be spaced at least one-half mile from other sites that are designated for commercial retail use." The Tigard Development Code, • Section 18.62.010 (page 124-1) states that,. "community commercial centers are intended to be separated from other commercially zoned properties which provide retail and service opportunities by at least one-half mile: The property you own at 135th and Scholls Ferry Road (map 161 33CA, tax lot 100) Is just over one-half mile from the commercial zoning at the southwest quadrant of 135th and North Dakota (tax lots 1, 2 and 3 of MLP 94-0013). This was indicated when the original community commercial district provisions were adopted. Only two potential sites existed that met the criteria, the property you own and one site further west on Scholls Ferry Road. Therefore, the locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code for community commercial zoning Is currently met for your property, even with the recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone change, since the two sites are over one-half mile apart. The recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change had no effect on the distance from your site. It was already commercial. • 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 EXHIBIT 5 NOV - 2 1 -96 T H U 17 : 12 0 - P . 12 I hope this letter answers your questions. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, - 41 cifRetu 61-4, egr James N.P. Hendryx Community Development Director l curpinldIcklbprossiet c: Tim Ramis Dan Boyden • Ed Murphy Peggy Hennessy File: CPA 95-00052QN 95-0007 • • • • Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. • b. Declarations or Challenges The Councilors reported no ex parte contact. They indicated that they had familiarized themselves with the record. There were no challenges. c. Staff Report : Community Development Department • Mr. Hendryx presented the staff report on file in the Council Agenda packet. He explained that excess right of way on SW Cascade Blvd now existed as a result of the shifting of the road to the north during the construction of the Place To Shoot project. He said that the City initiated this right of way vacation to return it to the owner; the ordinance did preserve the utility easements within the vacated right of way. d. Public Testimony • No one signed up to testify. e. Staff Recommendation Mr. Hendryx stated that staff recommended approval. f. Council Questions - None g. Close Public Hearing Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. h. Cour_ '_l Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-03 Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve Ordinance 96-03 incorporating the revisions as noted above. The motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes. ") • ORDINANCE NO. 96-03 - AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE VACATION OF APPROXIMATELY 2, 308 SQUARE FEET OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ON SW CASCADE BOULEVARD IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON. Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 8:49 p.m. for a break. Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 8 :58 p.m. 13 . PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JDDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE • CHANGE CPA 95-0005/ZON 95-000 - PACIFIC CREST/PROVIDENCE A request to amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Parcels 1 and 3 of MLP 94-0013, located on the southwest corner of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota, from Commercial Professional to Neighborhood Commercial and change the zoning from C-P to C-N; and to amend the Comprehensive Plan map on the property located on the southeast corner of Scholls Ferry Road and North akota from Neighborhood Commercial to Commercial Professional and change the zoning from C-N to C-P. Location: Southwest and southeast corners of Scholls =rr Roa• - _- -ta. Applicable Review Criteria: • • - ensive -_an policies 1.1.2 (2) 2 .1.1, 5.4, 8 .1.1, 12 .2.1 (1) and .12.1.1(3) ; Community Development Code Chapters 18.22 and 18 .32; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12 . Zone: C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) allows for several uses including convenience sales and personal services, food and beverage sales, medical and dental services and professional and administrative services. C-P (:rofessional/Administrative Office) allows for business support services, communication services, medical and dental services, personal services, convenience sales and services and limited eating and drinking • establishments. a. Open Public Hearing Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 23, 1996 - PAGE 9 • EXHIBIT 6 • b. Declarations or Challenges The Councilors reported no ex parte contact. They indicated that they had familiarized themselves with the record. There were no challenges. Councilor Rohlf stated• that he had a potential conflict of interest as he lived on North Dakota; therefore he would not participate in the hearing. c. Staff Report: Community Development Department Associate Planner Valone reviewed the staff report and map using • overhead projector images. He gave the background information on the sites and reviewed the notice area. He stated that Dan Spriggle had sent a letter withdrawing his objections (See council packet) . Mr. Valone said that the Planning Commission had recommended approval by a vote of 5 to 1 and that staff recommended approval because the application met all of the approval criteria. Mayor Nicoli asked if any new information has been given to Council this evening that had not been presented before the Planning Commission. Mr. Boyden said that they didn' t talk about the tenant mix at the Planning Commission. Mr. Hendryx stated that prior to the hearing the City had received a letter from Mr. Bill Gross requesting that the record be held open for seven days. Ms. •Beery advised that the Council was not obligated to leave the hearing open unless new evidence was offered. d. Public Testimony Applicant Dan Boyden, 111 Oak Street, Hood River, testified that there was a _need for more neighborhood commercial. He said that he intended to make t iT s a neighborhoo commercial center with small neighborhood types of businesses. He said that there would not be a Hollywood Video on site and that St. Vincent's Hospital has agreed to swap the zone because they thought that this was an appropriate solution. Ed Murphy, Ed Murphy & Associates, 9875 SW Murdock, stated that this proposal was substantially different than the proposal in July; it had a lower density and a mix of complimentary commercial uses. Councilor Scheckla asked how parking was allotted to each business. Mr. Boyden said that the parking was shared in common;• he had made an effort to bring in a complimentary tenant mix• that would even out the parking. No proponents or opponents signed up to testify. e. Staff Recommendation Mr. Valone said that both the Planning Commission and the staff recommended approval. Mayor Nicoli asked Ms. Beery if Council should leave the record open because the applicants had indicated that they did give some new information this evening. Ms. Beery said that that was a discretionary decision by the Council, based on whether or not they believed there was anyone who would want to respond to that new information. Mayor Nicoli asked Mr. Boyden if leaving the record open for seven days with Council deliberation and decision on February 13 posed any hardship for him. Mr. Boyden said that it did and that he would rather the Council made its decision tonight because of construction schedules and lease negotiations. Councilor Scheckla pointed out that if Council waited another two weeks to decide on this, they would have a new Councilor on board • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 23, 1996 - PAGE 10 • • • • who would not necessarily know the issues. He suggested deciding • this tonight. Mayor Nicoli commented that by leaving the record open they reduced their risk of a challenge to LZ3BA based on lack of time to respond to new information. He said that he did not think the information received this evening would change his decision. Ms. Beery • concurred that the evidence was small and did not relate to the approval criteria. f. 'Council Questions • g. Close Public Hearing Mayor Nicoli closed the. public hearing. h. Council Consideration: Direct staff to prepare ordinance and Final Order for Council consideration at the February 13, 1996 Council meeting. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to direct staff to prepare ordinance and Final Order for Council consideration at the February 13,'1996 Council meeting. The motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli• and Councilors Hunt and Scheckla voted "yes. " Councilor Rohlf did not vote. ) 14. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE CPA 95-0003/ZON 95-0005 BRIAR DEVELOPMENT A request to amend the Comprehensive Plan map from Medium-High Density Residential to General Commercial and change the zoning from R-25 to C-G on 9 acres of a 15.14 acre parcel. Location: Southeast corner of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. 135th Avenue (WCTM 1S1 33AC, Lot 8000) . Applicable Review Criteria: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2 (2) , 2.1.1, 4.1.1, 5.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8 . 1.1, 8.2.2 and 12 .2.1(2) ; and Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18 .32. Zone: C-G (General Commercial) -- allows for several commercial uses including convenience sales and services, eating and drinking establishments, food and beverage retail sales, general retail sales, - and medical and dental services. a. Open Public Hearing ' Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Declar_.:ions or Challenges The Councilors reported no ex parte contacts. They indicated that they had familiarized themselves with the application. There were no challenges. c. Staff Report: Community Development Department Associate Planner Valone reviewed the request from Briar Development Company to amend the Comprehensive Plan to rezone nine acres of an R-25 site to General Commercial .GC) in order to develop a Haggen Food Store and Pharmacy. He gave the background information on the site, noting the residential districts in Tigard and Beaverton bordering it on four sides. He stated that notice was provided to property owners within 250 feet, the West CIT and other public agencies. He directed attention to the Washington County staff review of the traffic study (Exhibit C) . Mr. Valone stated that staff found that this proposal did not meet all the applicable Comprehensive Plan criteria. He reviewed the criteria and staff's evaluation of the applicant's non-compliance as . presented on pages 3-5 in the staff report. He emphasized that the current action before the Council was not about a Haggen grocery • store but about rezoning land from R-25 to CG. He said that staff was prepared to. answer questions on the Haggen supermarket proposal though their analysis of it was not in the final staff report. • • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 23, 1996 - PAGE 11 • i • MOTION by Councilor Hunt, SECONDED by Councilor Scheckla, to deny the application. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 6. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE CPA 95-0005/ZON 95-0007 - PACIFIC CREST/PROVIDENCE A request to amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Parcels 1 and 3 of MLP 94-0013, located on the southwest corner of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota, from Commercial Professional to Neighborhood Commercial and change the zoning from C-P to C-N; and to amend the Comprehensive Plan map on the property Iocated on the southeast corner of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota from Neighborhood Commercial to Commercial Professional and change the zoning from C-N to C-P. Location: Southwest and southeast corners of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota. Applicable Review Criteria: Comprehensive Plan policies 1 .1.2(2) 2.1 .1, 5.4, 8.1 .1, 12.2.1 (1 ) and 12.2.1 (3);Community Development Code Chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12. Zone: C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) allows for several uses including convenience sales and personal services, food and beverage sales, medical and dental services and professional and administrative services. C-P (Professional/ Administrative Office) allows for business support services, communication services, medical and dental services, personal services, convenience sales and services and limited eating and drinking establishments. Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title. He noted that the Council has already taken previous action on this and that tonight was only to review the findings to finalize the Council action. a. Staff Update: Community Development Department Mr. Valone stated that on January 23, the Council did approve the land zone designation swap proposed by Pacific Crest and Providence Health Systems. He said that the ordinance and final order prepared at Council direction were in the council packet. He recommended adoption of those documents. b. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-4 MOTION by Councilor Hunt, SECONDED by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt.Ordinance No. 96-04. Ord No. 96-04. an ordinance adopting findings and conclusions to approve a Tigard Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change requested by Pacific Crest Partners and Providence Health Systems, CPA 95-0005/ZON 95-0007. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 22 • • Mayor Nicoli noted that at the last meeting Councilor Rohlf had withdrawn from participating in this action, and that Councilor Moore did not participate either. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the three Councilors taking part. (Mayor Nicoll and Councilors Hunt and Scheckla voted "yes.") 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 95-0008 CLARICE A request to annex two parcels of 2.14 acres into the City and change the zoning from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard R-7. Location: South of S. W. Fern Street just west of S.W. 135th Avenue. The two parcels are separated by two other properties. Applicable Review Criteria: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1 - Citizen Involvement; 10.1 .1 - Service Delivery Capacity; 10.1.2 - Boundary Criteria; and 101 .3 - Zoning Designation. Also Community Development Code Chapters 18.136 - Annexation Requirements; and 18.138 - Land Classification of Annexed Territory. Zone: Presently Washington County R- 6. a. Open Public Hearing Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges No Councilors reported any ex parte contact or site visits. They all indicated that they had familiarized themselves with the application. There were no challenges. c. Staff Report: Community Development Department L Mr. Valone presented the staff report. He reviewed on the map the location of the two parcels under consideration for annexation. He said that the west parcel had a single family residence occupied by the owners while the east parcel was a vacant lot. The owners were requesting annexation by a double majority method to connect to the sanitary sewer service. Mr. Valone stated that the annexation request did comply with all applicable City policies and Boundary Commission requirements. The parcel would be designated Tigard R-7 with the same density per lot as its current designation of Washington County R-6. He said that there were adequate facilities available to service the lot and that all appropriate parties were noticed. He recommended that the Council adopt the resolution and forward the request to the Boundary Commission. . CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY.13, 1996 - PAGE 23 NOV- 21 - 96 THU 11" = 0T \0 p - 0M • • the site should not be considered a residential area for the following reasons: It is adjacent to Scholls Ferry Road, aft arterial, and SW 135th Avenue, a collector street; land use compatibility can be maintained through landscaping, building and driveway orientation; and a commercial use on the site would be consistent with the adopted Metro 2040 concept • Staff does not find that this argument satisfies the criterion. The location of arterial and collector streets adjacent to a site is not a sufficient basis for changing multi- family residential land that is surrounded by other residential districts to . - commercial land. According to this argument, several properties throughout the city that are along these types of streets should be commercial. The location of multi-family residential land, however, is also required to have direct access from an arterial or major collector. While landscaping and site design can reduce the impact to residences from commercial uses, this site is surrounded by residential districts that are both established and continuing to develop. As discussed under 8.1 above, this proposal is not necessarily consistent with Metro 2040. 5. Policy 6.1.1 states that the city shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of 011110ph ousing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This criterion is primarily implemented through the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07) which 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. Approval of this proposal would decrease the number of acres of buildable multi- family lend, thus reducing the opportunity for the city to meet the 50% requirement and reducing the overall density. . . . Though housing opportunity would be lest to the city, approval of the proposal would not reduce the city's housing opportunity index below the 50% or 10 units per acre requirements. If the proposal is approved, there would be•225 fewer units ' ' of potential multi family housing available (9 acres x 25 units = 225), This would reduce the mix of all new units being attached single family or multi-family from 77% (3,856 of 5,014) to 76% (3.631 of 4,789). it would also reduce the city's overall housing density from 10.46 units per acre to 10.36 units per acre.' Under this proposal, then, compliance with the Metro Housing Rule would be maintained. This policy is, therefore, satisfied. ' Tne city calculates its housing opportunity index by multiplying the gross acres times the allowable units per acre, then dividing by the total number of developable residential acres. . 6 . • - EXHIBIT 7 11/18/96 13:51 _ $5 3 684 7297 CITY OF TIGAill, 0003/004 • WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON November 12, 1996 Laurie Nicholson_ City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Laurie: This letter is written based on a review of the Traffic Impact Study for the Scholls Ferry Retail Center dated September 1996 (for CPA 96-0009 Sharader Request). The analysis indicates that westbound volumes on Scholls Ferry will exceed the planned link level of service in the year 2005. The report further indicates that the intersection of Scholls Ferry and 135th fails with the plan amendment without improvements. However, with improvements, the intersection will operate at an acceptable level of service in year 2005. Currently, there are no plans to make the improvements recommended in the report As such, we believe they are a necessary condition in order for the County to determine the plan amendment is consistent with OAR 660-12-060. Given this, we request the City of Tigard require the attached condition. Please give me a call if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely Andy Ba k Senior Planner c: Tom Lancaster Doug Norval Tom Harry Department of La — -----al— • planning Diviston 155 N First Avi EXHIBIT 8 OR 97124-3072 phone:. i93-4412 11/18/96 13:31 $6684 7297 CITY OF TIGA Z004/004 • • WASHINGTON COUNTY RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Prior to final approval and issuance of a building permit by the City of Tigard: A. Submit to Washington County Land Development Services (Public Assurance Staff, Tracy Stone/Carolyn Cook, 681-3843); 1. Completed 'Design Option' form . 2. $750.00 Administration'Deposit 3. A copy of the City's final Notice of Decision,rsigned and dated. Note: Any portion of the Administration Deposit not used by Washington County for plan approval, field inspections, and contract administration will be returned to the applicant. If at any time during the project, the County's costs are higher than the amount deposited, Washington County will bill the applicant the amount needed to cover its costs. 4. Two (2) sets of complete engineering plans for the construction of the following public improvements: a. an eastbound right-turn lane on Scholls Ferry at 135th with adequate storage. To provide adequate storage, signal and geometric modifications may be necessary at the SW Scholls Ferry and 'new" SW Scholls Ferry intersection to the west of the site. b.. a double westbound left-turn lane on Scholls Ferry at 135th c. two southbound lanes on 135th to accept traffic from the two westbound left turn lanes. • • RECEIVED ' = PETRIE COMPA r • <--/.� JUL 0 21992 CO MMERCIAL REAL ESTATE (503) 246 7977 z �_` <., - 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ,f cc'cc;1: July 2, 1992 //� G • cJ `-/76' - .ic•_i,.yyl.c r TO: The Tigard City Council / a FROM: Craig A . Petrie RE: Proposed Community Commercial Zone &O Please include this' in the record from your hearing on June 23, 1992. The timeframe for this letter is within the ten days the record is left open on matters which have been continued . Dear Tigard City Council , I appreciate the Council taking the time to consider the Community Commercial zone. As the urban growth boundary fills • up during the next few years traffic, shopping, parks, planning , and overall general livability are really going to come to the surface as 'we all learn how to live with less space and with more people. During the next twenty years over 1/2 a million people will move to the Portland metropolitian area . 'How do we plan and provide for everyones recreation, transportation, shopping and livability? The answer lies in the hard decisions which must be made by our leaders now and during the next few years. The attitude of do nothing , stop everything, will only provide us the same mess that the greater Seattle area now has; for Seattle it is too late, ' for us it is not. But the answer lies in the leadership decisions made now and during the next few critical years. ' None of the decisions you will make will satisfy all the people and there will always be a vocal minority claiming some decision is horrible and will ruin everything. The legacy (and livability) we all pass on to our children depends on tough decisions being made now. The Community Commercial zone is one of those tough decisions. Western Tigard and the land not in the City of Tigard but which naturally utilizes the Scholls Ferry Roads is beginning to explode in residential growth and in my opinion will fill up very rapidly. From the map I submitted on ' June 23 1992 the population based on existing, serviced, and zoned property could reach over 21 ,000 west of 135th. These people have to shop somewhere----they will either shop near to where they live or get on our collector streets and arterials and just further contribute to the current traffic problem . 9600 SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY • PORTLAND, OR 97219 FAX: (503) 244-0123 EXHIBIT 9 � l 410 410 . Page Two A full size neighborhood/community grocery store in western Tigard will not cause traffic----the traffic will already be there by residents who live in the area. As you consider the Community Commercial zone please think about these things and plan to incorporate and provide for the growth which is upon us and the remaining growth which we know is coming soon. ` Sincerely yours, /' ' a/?2Z Craig 411 Petrie • , • 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 December 11, 1996 MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial (503) 294-9194 email mcrobinson @stoel.com VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Laurie Nicholson Associate Planner City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard OR 97223 • Re: Shrader/Coe Application Dear Laurie: • I am writing to confirm that the City Council hearing on this application has been rescheduled for January 28, 1997. Please let me know if this date changes. You will also want to renotify the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development of this new date. • Very truly yours, kalutd e. Michael C. Robinson MCR:ipc cc: Mr. E. William Gross (via facsimile) Mr. Dale Shrader (via facsimile) Mr. Gary Coe (via facsimile) Mr. Robert L. LeFeber (via facsimile) • PDX 1 A-58228.1 99999-0006 SEATTLE PORTLAND VANCOUVER,WA BOISE SALT LAKE CITY WASHINGTON,D.C. 12/11/96 08:49 $5032431934 DRS ASSOCIATES al 001/003 • . DKS Associates 921 SW Washington Street, Suite 612 Portland, OR 97205 Phone: (503) 243-3500 FAX: (503) 243-1934 December 11, 1996 FAX TRANSMITTAL Number of Pages = 3 TO: cLaurie-Nicholson, City of Tigard FAX# = 684-7297 FROM: R. S. McCourt Charge# = P96126 We were able to get the more recent count list from Traffic Smithy for the last few months and incorporated them on to the map and list. Please review against the map of updated count sites we sent out earlier. These counts can be acquired from Traffic Smithy for$12 per count rather than the new count cost of$70. Let me know which sites you plan to count so we can review the list. Again, I would recommend we do a few counts now during Christmas season for sensitivity analysis (particularly in the Washington Square area and maybe at Dartmouth/ORE 99W). This provides a quantitative basis for understanding the peak of the peak loadings these facilitates are experiencing, particularly if we are going to recommend major improvements in the area. The bulk of counts should probably be performed after the first of January 1997 (given we are only two weeks from Christmas). Call me if you have questions. ,e)(4,4, (�U ,L,94A. Ulf .( 4-1 O l o4- .a 11 • • 5. .,. PEA k hook vaLwi C COV N'rS r DKS Associates pm N r co �� ' a rArtar RM RD. City of Tigard En® T ..�T ,� Systems Study ,�SCALE EOESiOW = y , :INPj S T. II I t O ji 5, __.., • R` ■ Legend t Ca to m PINTER TARE x y + �rT .P e EP " f ,`� RpRgRp R, rm.— g. - - - t,,a - •„dog „A,,,.... 400. 14,,Ilk ihk..141 N Mit T - T l7 -i...., 1 44k\IN. 4 g t‘ . =AlekraAfie, Pi • \- 4.1 4 -.4•0 e e. En .Y -� Tux •*al DR g No#ea CA ill MpIMTAW Rp �E LIE'::•r �rA • / MUA1T11M Lk + vncpRmR sr. SArnER sT. , . NA„ ` Figure 00 , . BUR 7 di .. .. . ( R0. ` to SO C643.AARSI. PISCIR:R '� xy�/ O 0 •1 , ► . 12/11/96 08:50 $'5032431934 DRS ASSOCIATES a003/003 • LIST OF INTERSECT TONS VOLUMES COUNTED BETWEEN 12/95 AND PRESENT NIS STREET EEW STREET DATE TIME 130Th AVE. SCHOLLS FERRY RD. 6/11/96 AM 135TH AVE. SCHOLLS FERRY RD. 8/12/96 PM 125TH AVE. SCHOLLS FERRY RD./DAKOTA ST. 5/29/96 PM I NIMBUS AVE. SCHOLLS FERRY RD. 11/14/96 PM 121ST AVE. GAARDE ST. 12/19/95 AM 121ST AVE. GAARDE ST. 12/19/95 PM 126Th AVE. BULL MOUNTAIN RD. 2/14/96 AM 126Th AVE. BULL MOUNTAIN RD. 2/14/96 PM PACIFIC HWY. BULL MOUNTAIN RD. 2/13/96 AM PACIFIC HWY. BULL MOUNTAIN RD.. 2/13/96 PM PACIFIC HWY. DURHAM RD. 6/5/96 AM PACIFIC HWY. DURHAM RD. 6/13/96 PM PACIFIC HWY. DURHAM RD. 6120/96 PM j , FRONTAGE RD. DURHAM RD. 6/25/96 AM FRONTAGE RD. DURHAM RD. 6/25/96 PM. 217 HWY.NB SCHOLLS FERRY RD. 8/14/96 PM 217 HWY.NB SCHOLLS FERRY RD. 9/24/96 PM HALL BLVD. OAK ST. 7/25/96 AM HALL BLVD. OAK ST. 7/25/96 PM HALL BLVD. PACIFIC HWY. 4/9/96 AM 68TH PARKWAY OFFICE BUILDING ACCESS 3/28/96 AM 68TH PARKWAY OFFICE BUILDING ACCESS . 3128/96 PM 68TH PARKWAY PACIFIC HWY. 7/30/96 AM 68TH PARKWAY . PACIFIC HWY. 7/30/96 PM 68TH PARKWAY HAMPTON ST. 5/29/96 PM 72ND AVE. HAMPTON ST. 5/29/96 PM BANGY RD. PHOENIX INN ACCESS 12/14/95 PM BRIDGEPORT RD. UPPER BOONES FERRY RD. 2/6/96 AM BRIDGEPORT RD. UPPER BOONES FERRY RD. 2/6/96 PM AFTON LN. UPPER BOONES FERRY RD. 11/26/96 PM AFTON LN. UPPER BOONES FERRY RD. 11/26/96 AM ELLMAN LN. UPPER BOONES FERRY RD. 2/6/96 AM ELLMAN LN. UPPER BOONES FERRY RD. 2/6/96 PM 72ND AVE. BRIDGEPORT RD. 6/18/96 AM 72ND AVE. BRIDGEPORT RD. 6/18/96 PM 1-5 NB LOWER BOONES FERRY RD. 6/18/96 AM I.5 NB LOWER BOONES FERRY RD. 6/18/96 PM 1-5 SB LOWER BOONES FERRY RD. 6/18/96 AM 1-5 SB LOWER BOONES FERRY RD. 6/18/96 PM 65TH AVE. LOWER BOONES FERRY RD. 6/18/96 AM 65TH AVE. LOWER BOONES FERRY RD. 6/19/96 PM 63RD AVE. LOWER BOONES FERRY RD. 6/19/96 AM 63RD AVE. LOWER BOONES FERRY RD. - 6/19/96 PM PILKINGTON RD. JEAN RD. 7/23/96 PM PILKINGTON RD. BOONES FERRY RD. 7/24/96 PM 12/11/96 jhb:lusers1p94126tcounts 12/04/96 16:01 $503 220 2480 STOEL RIVES 2 2002/002 • • • STOEL RIVES LLP A T T O R N E Y S STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE.SUITE 2300 PORTLAND.OREGON 97204-I26l Phone(503)224-338v Fax(903)22U-2480 MD 0031221-10 45 Intemel:www-ituel.cwm December 4, 1996 • MICHAEL C.ROBINSON Direct Dial (503)294-9194 email mcrobinsonrWstoel.com VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Laurie Nicholson Associate Planner City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard OR 97223 . • Re: CPA 96-0008-Shrader/Coe Application Dear Laurie: I am writing to ask that you send me a copy of the letter from Sonja Kazen, a copy of the notice of the City Council public hearing and the notice to DLCD. Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, 1+4116LJ LQC2L4. Peif Michael C. Robinson MCR:sak cc: Mr. Eric William Gross (via facsimile) Mr. Dale Shrader (via facsimile) Mr. Gary Coe (via facsimile) PDX1A-57197.1 99999-0001 • FOM :, Panasonic FAX SYSTEM PHONE NO. : Mar. 15 1996 06:54AM P2 • December 2, 1996 TO: Planning Commission--City of Tigard RE: CPA 960009—Scrader Comp Plan Amendment Dear Planning Commission, I would like to go on record as opposed to this proposal and am requesting that you turn this proposal down. I was involved in the first site to be granted the CC zone and am C2.__Ikn very familiar with the CC Zoning District. In my opinion this proposal is an attempt to , circumvent the intent of the CC Zone. This proposal would have you change the comp. ' plan designation now without any site specific plan as required in the CC zone and then e'- ' ' later you would receive an application to apply the CC Zone to the site and one of the k ill• reasons put forth would be that they would be bringing the property into compliance with ,�, , - the comp plan. In my opinion you are being hoodwinked by this proposal. As with the ' '� first site (which was the Albertsons site) this site should apply for a comp plan amendment and the CC zone at the same time so you will know what you are ultimately voting for. Obviously the applicant can apply ust for the comp lan amendment at this time but you are under no obligation to approve it just because they applied for it. Iam opposed to the loss of residential housing zoning which would occur in the event the g g 0comp plan was approved and then the CC Zone was applied to the site. It appears that i'�` , there will be either little or no expansion of the urban growth boundary and it is critical to Vit''' maintain at least the existing zoned residential property especially that which is already zoned residential and located on current public transportation routes such as this property. If the applicant has a proposal which is beneficial to the community then turn this down and instruct them to apply for both the comp plan amendment and the Zone at the same time so that you will be able to see what is planned. Don't get sucked into a piece meal approval process. Last I would suggest that you ask anyone testifying in favor to identify themselves if they or any of their family members have a vested interested in this property or would be a beneficiary from a trust or a company that may control the property or have a interest in the property. Sincerely yours, ', c� ,cam Craig etrie 12397 SW Canvasback Way Beaverton Oregon 97007 ft • 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 November 22, 1996 MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial (503) 294-9194 • email mcrobinson @stoel.com VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Laurie Nicholson Associate Planner City of Tigard Community Development Dept. 13125 SW Hall Boulevard • Tigard, OR 97223 Re: CPA 96-0008 Dear Laurie: I am writing to confirm the acreage for this property. The gross acreage on this site (open space and the R-25 designation) is 8.56 acres. The open space contains 3.02 acres. The net acreage that should be the subject of this request is 5.54 acres. Also find enclosed a March 20, 1996 letter from Jim Hendryx to Bill Gross explaining that this site is just over one-half mile from the commercial zoning district at the southwest corner of 135th Avenue and North Dakota. Jim's letter also states: "Only two potential sites existed that met the criteria [for community commercial designation], the property you own and one site further west on Scholls Ferry Road. Therefore, the locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and the , - • Development Code for community commercial zoning is currently met for your property ****" PDX 1 A-56157.1 26409-1 SEATTLE PORTLAND VANCOUVER,WA BOISE SALT LAKE CITY WASHINGTON,D.C. • STOEL RIVES LLP Ms. Laurie Nicholson November 22, 1996 Page 2 Please call me if you need any additional information. Very truly yours, VtiU Michael C. Robinson MCR:Ixh enclosure cc(w/encl.): Mr. Eric William Gross (via facsimile) (w/encl.) Mr. Gary Coe (via facsimile) (w/encl.) Mr. Dale Shrader (via facsimile) PDX 1 A-56157.1 26409-1 OCT - 24 - '96 T H U 21 : 3 2 0 P - 03 • S March 20, 1996 cm/ OF TIGARD OREGON Bill Gross 11035 SW 135th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Affect of CPA 95-0005/ZON 95-0007 on your property at 135th and Scholls Ferry Dear Bill: This letter is written to explain how the recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change at Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota Street would affect any future request for a Comprehensive Plan map and Zone Change to "community commercial" at the southwest corner of 135th and Scholls Ferry, due to the proximity of the two sites to each other. More specifically, how the rezoning of parcels 1 and 3 of MLP 94-0013 from Commercial-Professional to Commercial-Neighborhood under CPA 95-0005/ZON 95-0007 would affect the potential to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map on tax lot 100 (map 1S1 33CA), to "community commercial The Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Section 12.2.1.4B.(1) (b) (on page 11 - 84-1) states that "community commercial districts shall be spaced at least one-half mile from other sites that are designated for commercial retail use," The Tigard Development Code, Section 18.62.010 (page 124-1) states that, "community commercial centers are intended to be separated from other commercially zoned properties which provide retail and service opportunities by at least one-half mile." The property you own at 135th and Scholls Ferry Road (map 1S1 33CA, tax lot 100) is just over one-half mile from the commercial zoning at the southwest quadrant of 135th and North Dakota (tax lots 1, 2 and 3 of MLP 94-0013). This was indicated when the original community commercial district provisions were adopted. Only two potential sites existed that met the criteria, the property you own and one site further west on Scholls Ferry Road. Therefore, the locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code for community commercial zoning is currently met for your property, even with the recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone change, since the two sites are over one-half mile apart. The recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change had no effect on the distance from your site. It was already commercial. 0 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 0C -1" -r- 2 4 - 9 6 T H U 21 C 3 2 0 P . 04. I. fry i. • I hope this letter answers your questions. If I can be of further assistance, please let. me know. Sincerely, ,,,S(023.0„)C.2.." cgrY" James N.P. Hendryx Community Development Director I:kurpinldidc\bgross.Iet c: Tim Ramis Dan Boyden Ed Murphy Peggy Hennessy • File: CPA 95-0005/ZON 95-0007 Q� Gory/ C, G-C- 6-161A1-715- +3i\ f • 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 November 21, 1996 MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial (503) 294-9194 email mcrobinson @stoel.com VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Laurie Nicholson Associate Planner City of Tigard Community Development Dept. 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: CPA 96-0008, Requested Community Commercial ("CC") Plan Map Designation Dear Laurie: This office represents the applicants. The purpose of this letter is to provide additional evidence and argument demonstrating compliance with the applicable approval criteria. This letter also responds to letters received by the City of Tigard from Daniel J. Boyden of Pacific Crest Partners, Lawrence M. Conrad, Senior Policy Planner of the City of Beaverton, and Andy Back, Senior Planner of Washington County. If you require any additional information, please call me and I will be happy to provide it to you. 1. Response to October 24, 1996 letter from Lawrence Conrad. Mr. Conrad's letter recommends that the City of Tigard not adopt the Community Commercial ("CC"), Tigard Comprehensive Plan ("Plan") map designation at this location. Mr. Conrad finds two specific reasons for doing so based on Metro's Functional Plan. The Metro Council did not adopt the Functional Plan until November 21, 1996. Title 8, §1 of the Functional Plan provides that the City of Tigard is not required to amend its comprehensive plan and land use regulations to be consistent with the Functional Plan until twenty-four (24) months after the Functional Plan's effective date. The effective date is 90 days after adoption, or no sooner than February 21, 1997. Further, Title 8, §3 provides that after the effective date of the Functional Plan, any comprehensive plan amendment shall be PDX 1 A-56026.1 26409-0001 SEATTLE PORTLAND VANCOUVER,WA BOISE SALT LAKE CITY WASHINGTON,D.C. • • STOEL RIVES LLP • Ms. Laurie Nicholson November 21, 1996 Page 2 consistent with it. Because the effective date is not until February 21, 1997, this application will not be required to comply with the Functional Plan. Even if this application were required to comply with the Functional Plan, the City can find that it is consistent with the Functional Plan areas discussed by Mr. Conrad. Mr. Conrad suggests that the CC plan map designation would be inconsistent with the Town Center designation north of Scholls Ferry Road. Title 1, §3, "Design Type Boundaries Requirement", provides that for the various 2040 Growth Concept design types, the City must amend its comprehensive plan to be consistent with the general location for that design type shown on the 2040 Growth Concept Map. A Town Center design type provides that "local retail and services will be provided in town centers with compact development and transit service". Title 1, §3 does not prohibit the City of Tigard from adopting the CC plan map designation because this site is not within the Town Center designation north of Scholls Ferry Road. Moreover, the CC map designation is not a "traditional auto-oriented commercial center" as Mr. Conrad suggests. Plan Policy 12.2.1(4) describes the CC plan map designation as intended to have a "primarily neighborhood orientation". It is to be located so as not "to attract substantial amounts of trade from outside of surrounding neighborhoods, and shall be large enough to provide a variety of goods and services at one location". Further, the design of the CC plan map designation is to "avoid the appearance and feeling of typical commercial strip development". The impact assessment for the CC map designation requires "convenient pedestrian and bicyclists access to a development site from adjoining residential areas shall be provided were practicable". Further, the April 14, 1992 staff report to the Tigard City Council concerning the new CC plan designation stated: "By having commercial opportunities close to neighborhoods, residents may be able to do their shopping or avail themselves of commonly used services with a minimum of travel and a reduced need to enter crowded major collector or arterial streets with their autos. It is also hoped that some vehicle trips might even be eliminated due to the proximity of commercial services to neighborhoods thereby making walking or bicycling to these services practicable." (See Staff Report at 2.) This site was one of the original sites identified in the staff report as a potential site for the CC plan site designation. (See Exhibit 1.) PDX 1 A-56026.1 26409-0001 • STOEL RIVES LLP • Ms. Laurie Nicholson November 21, 1996 Page 3 As the enclosed map shows, there is no other commercial zoning district located within the City of Tigard within 1/2 mile of this site. (See Exhibit 2.) There are, however, over 2,000 dwelling units located within 1/2 mile of this site within the cities of Beaverton and Tigard. As for those residents living in the City of Tigard, they will be able to reach this site by using collector and local streets and will not have to cross Scholls Ferry Road. Mr. Conrad also suggests that the CC plan map designation is inconsistent with this site's designation within a "corridor" in the Functional Plan. Because the Functional Plan is not yet effective, it is not an applicable approval criterion and is not, therefore, required to be considered an approval. However, this site is one of the few sites within the City of Tigard that meets the requirements for the Community Commercial plan map designation. The corridor designation is applied to "good quality transit lines". There is no definition of "good quality transit line" in the Functional Plan. Tri-Met lines 62 and 92x serve this site. Line 62 provides 30-minute service during non-peak hours that increases to 20 - 25 headways during the p.m. peak hour. Tri-Met line 92x increases the headway in morning and evening peak hours. (See Exhibit 3.) The City can find that this level of service hardly qualifies as a "good quality transit line" because of the infrequency of service. In fact, on Saturdays and Sundays, headways on line 62 are reduced to once an hour and line 92x does not run at all. 2. Response to November 12, 1996 letter from Daniel J. Boyden. Mr. Boyden raises several reasons why he believes the City should reject this application. First, he argues that the CC plan map designation would create traffic problems. The City can rely upon the traffic study prepared by Tom Lancaster to determine that the CC plan map designation will be consistent with approval criteria with respect to street capacity. The site will be required to provide parking consistent with the requirements of the Tigard Community Development Code ("TCDC"). The applicant has also agreed to the conditions recommended by Andy Back in his November 12, 1996 letter. Finally, "traffic infiltration" into residential neighborhoods is not an applicable approval criteria for this application. Mr. Boyden also suggests that approval of this plan map designation request is inconsistent with other City decisions, notably the decision by the City Council to deny the application for a General Commercial ("CG") zoning designation to the east of this site. Each quasi-judicial application such as this is reviewed according to the facts and the applicable approval criteria as they exist when the application is submitted. Nothing in past actions requires the City Council to deny this application. In any event, this is a request for a CC plan map designation whereas the previously denied application requested a CG PDX 1 A-56026.1 26409-0001 • STOEL RIVES LLP • Ms. Laurie Nicholson November 21, 1996 Page 4 designation. These two plan map designations are radically different in their character and intent and there is no relation between the two actions. Mr. Boyden also argues that this site is within 1/2 mile of another site designated for commercial retail use. No other site within 1/2 mile in the City of Tigard is designated "Commercial". The City Council can interpret the Plan as applying only to sites within the City of Tigard since it has no control over sites outside the City of Tigard. Furthermore, even were the City to find that the N-S site in the City of Beaverton was applicable, the introduction statement to the locational criteria for land uses in the Plan states: "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." In other words, even if the City should determine that there is another commercially- designated site within 1/2 mile of this site, that locational criteria may be "flexibly" construed so as to approve this application if all other criteria are met. In addition, the City Planning staff has previously determined that neither the C-P, zoning district at the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota or the C-N zoning district on Scholls Ferry Road is within 1/2 mile of this site. 3. The City can find that services are adequate for this site. The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District, the City of Tigard Water Department, • the City of Tigard Police Department and the City of Tigard Development Review Engineer have commented that their respective services are available in adequate quantities for this site. (See Exhibit 4.) 4. Response to applicable approval criteria identified in your letter of October 3, 1996. A. Plan Policy 5.1. Plan Policy 5.1 provides as follows: "The City shall promote activities aimed at the diversification of the economic opportunities available to Tigard residents with PDX 1A-56026.1 26409-0001 • STOEL RIVES LLP • Ms. Laurie Nicholson November 21, 1996 Page 5 particular emphasis placed on the growth of the local job market." This application satisfies Policy 5.1 for two reasons. First, it provides an additional Commercial plan map designation in an area unnerved by commercial development. This accomplishes diversification of economic opportunities available to Tigard residents. Secondly, the requested application will provide additional job opportunities for Tigard residents. The City can find that this criterion is satisfied. B. Plan Policy 6.1.1: Plan Policy 6.1.1 provides as follows: "The City shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels." This application satisfies this policy for two reasons. First, even if the plan map designation on this property is changed to CC, the City continues to satisfy applicable density requirements imposed by the Metropolitan Housing Rule. Consequently, a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels remains available. Secondly, TCDC 18.61.030(A)(3) provides as a permitted use residential development in the CC zoning district. Therefore, this plan map designation continues to provide for an opportunity for housing. The City can find that this criterion is satisfied. C. Plan Policy 8.2.2. Plan Policy 8.2.2 provides: "The City shall encourage the expansion and use of public transit by: a. Locating land-intensive uses in close proximity to transit ways; PDX 1 A-56026.1 26409-0001 • STOEL RIVES LLP • Ms. Laurie Nicholson November 21, 1996 Page 6 b. Incorporating provisions into the Community Development Code which require development proposals to provide transit facilities; and c. Supporting efforts by Tri-Met and other groups to provide for the needs of the transportation disadvantaged. Policies 8.2.2(b) and (c) are not applicable to a quasi-judicial plan map amendment such as this. Policy 8.2.2(a) is applicable. The City can find that this policy is satisfied because Scholls Ferry Road is served with two transit lines. While this application does not necessarily request a "land-intensive use", it will be in close proximity to an arterial street served by transit. 5. The application should not include the open space portion of the site. The application indicates that the site contains 8.5 acres. The area designated "open space" on the plan should be deleted from this request. The applicants do not intend to redesignate the open space portion to Community Commercial. Very truly yours, M,44,4 e Michael C. Robinson MCR:lxh enclosures cc(w/encls.): Mr. Bill Gross (via facsimile) (w/encls.) Mr. Gary Coe (via facsimile) PDX 1 A-56026.1 26409-0001 411 • LEGEND - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL MAP • • Potential . - Community Commercial sites , i.e, intersections satisfy proposed Transportation Plan Map functional street classification criterion and also are at least one half mile from other commercially zoned properties (or already have another commercial zone AEU oc Gc4_rP applied at the intersection) . Surrounding area potential residential density within one du Vck. half mile of intersection (expressed in dwelling units per acre) . It is proposed that Community Commercial sites must have a potential residential density of eight dwelling' units or more per acre within one half mile of the site (as measured by maximum residential density permitted by zoning') . Possible Community Commercial sites . These sites meet functional intersection criterion, distance from other commercial zones criterion, and surrounding area potential residential density criterion. • EXHIBIT 1 .• . . ,, ,_ . See NUTS on . back of page . :\ SEE NOTE -1�'` >� �� . �.. 1 Pi ■ • IA am I.AY I)TA •• �'v` • • LAKE DR ~Jff ti!.�IGtfdi iiii 11- )f HIG Fa . SEE N 0 T E ,1� f . 4;LOLLS_ .. f:y..-- •2' '...:, �(! �K � �'' �j: 4 : : �Fait.k .�-■ , . i %�.,/ `.: ug^:v r{; .s_1'-,-ter:--• ...7.--pl.:.:,....‘•• phi 5T SEE �z�•. %":N;A T;4 , • • .� NOTE ` , - l• n,. �1- 5c1� ac U� �jti ='- E E.r :.y, N 0 T- (,:. ' RA w - SEE NOTE • (..) ___-----44f— <s Cit.- I • Ordinance No . ono s1 - la • ` �:. SE r .5, Map • adUP1e (1 JUNE i1 , 1991 � 4..-. ,•' � N0 See unc: l; fur revision schedule l ; - ._ 8 . •• . • e .!!r3.•! SHRADER/COE MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION : , , , ZONING DISTRICTS WITHIN 1/2 MILE ! ` ' 1 OF SUBJECT PROPERTY . T 1—' f rC CT�: :J I ' _ -r TO- _ �M IIa =4 �7 le. ' i . am- r '• .j L 1 ; I _ l T _T— 3l I r �� �. ;_ i _ • - . d`� 4 1._-'s N t.7TE IC T?....:._._.. _.. ._,A ,,,,h, IF-5311111 . .---,-,'-'sz. - ' - ,1,1, 40 ,, . ,..._z n ,c, . ._ • •_,-_.i----.--:J-1--/ ' K,.O 5'--...„' -.'Th.'''i,,l•- �f, 'I 1 , ■ ,r='-(7,,1_---a-:'. ,17'. -. r..i' '•ate`\ 1 -"}.- S . / � , 0‘ i/ /�' J HAWKS BARD ,.'i ..0 a►----:1. ,-'-' • R.5 II i , , ' illippr6;;;P-,"i ••-•47".*:;•,-:''-:• ;:: ::...':t•!"'", ''' '• -•,.--_482111001111Umw 14- . L I . . L____,, „____i \___, .,......., , I Q.-:, 1 .., . L, ,. , .. ,_.,:,....._.._,, .,„( , _____,, , , .__, __., < . . " . ,,J._ , 1,,,_1___, L,., i . ..„ .. -.4i R..2 -o i 1 _ V'�c^, till* ■ I '* /1st ti .., . • 7, 4 404461. idllu: � _ y _ ..1■ os 411.11,/ 1w! ok.-,, ali r1 II. 1 V ..■ •�li : y Pun . i V y�1'" wog Gnu3� :l.vb;�/�� ,/1 111 = I wl(�.' L ; Pair +gh ,dir D �� I-...,,,,,, 2 CRANE ►!� ■.='�►� ,� ,..` ,.iYa ��% �Ca id 1.- . u ma MI iii 6. , ;. �m �:. e-v.. :7 gp '4 Rz ��' ►�� ■. �; _ ! , •• •• • j �Q<;. �` M �=i n' ?r,w---„�,� M M�� Ii12- ; MUM•+,STIVI N NW t�ay,�.• •.�►�,� c�„�Y.9'� v asa►� Jai! , • . f ` 1 1 I ,,,,'7'...... . • 40 ,..4;.. .r .i ! . MI i,,,■Iri H VIII IA,...:. ■ 114/0".-- i II ; 1/ wl<sEZ)'S- •-- ••, ! a.Ve>L■lrfalr,• , ; ,......_.i * la*v. a ,: .,,./-4 � NI., u 711P4 EXHIBIT 2 i..%:., • • • • • • • • • ZS:II SV:II • • -_.. __.. __.. ZS:0l 'SV:00 ZS:6 9V:6! 1 l 1•ZS:9 9V:9 (62) (62) • (62) (62) . ZS:L 90:L. J Z. 949 ., Murray Blvd Murray Blvd Murray Blvd Murray Blvd mNmg m, Weekdays to BeavertonTC Weekdays to Washington Square Saturday to BeavertonTC Sunday to Beaverton TC • N , . gt „t = � t wo >� __� e 0�m .e ea avn i<,bi m g ca,c 0.au. .s clvco �v °°�ycv g g . � ., - y. yatv Ez EEC Acvt� goE� cm 'c,n r ....- mm .x m ..x E tx cv s - 3Nbvallg gx,s1 agG ixa 3NHV as 4ia gal m4g-E, 33�0 m3 ia.v, aig Rg 5:57 6:05 6:12 6:18 5:27 5:33 5:40 5:48 8:32• 8:39. 8:46 8:52 8:32 8:39 8:46 8:52 • 6:25 6:33 6:41 6:48 557 6:03 6:10 6:18 9:29 9:37 9:45 9:52 9:30 9:38 9:45 9:52 6:42 6:51• 7:01 7:08 — 6:18 6:25 6:33 10:29 10:37 10:45 10:52 10:30 10:38 . 10:45 ' 10:52 716' 7:15 7:25- 732 6:30 . 6:36. 6:43 6:51 . 1129 11:37 11:45 1112 11:30 ' 1128 11:45 11:52 725 7:34- 7:44 7;52 7:00 7:06 7:15 725 • 1229 12:37 12:45 12:52 1210 12:38 12:45 12:52 7:53 8:02 8:12 820 7:35 7:41 7:50 810 1:28 1:38 1:45 1:53 127 1:38 1:44 1:52 • 8:26 8:35 .8:43 8:50 8:03 8:09 8:18 8:28 - 2:26 2:36 2:45 2:53 2:27 2:36 2:44 2:52 8:59 9:08 9:16 9:23 8:31 8:37 8:45 8:53 3:26 3:36 3:45 3:53 3:27 3:36 3:44 3:52 . . I 9:29 9:38 9:46 9:53 9:01 9:07 9:15 9:23 4:27 4:37 4:46 4:54 4:28 4:37 4:45 4:53 ollsnipoollo 9:59 10:08 10:16 10:23 9:31 9:37 9:45 9:53 — 5:27 5:37 5:46 5:54 5:28 5:37 5:45 5:53 seAg33LLON 10:29 10:38 10:46 10:53 10:01 10:07 10:15 10:23 6:29 6:38 6:46 6:52 6:30 6:38 6:46 6:52 10:59 11:08 11:16 11:23 10:31 10:37 10:45 10:53 7:29 7:37 7:44 7:50 7:30 7:37 .7:44 7:50 11:29 11:38 11:46 11:53 11:01, 11:07 11:15 11:23 Light figures are A.M.Oafkfigures are P.M. Light figures are A.M.Dark figures are P.M. VS:11 61/:8 11:59 12:08 12:16 12:23 11:31 11:37 11:45 11:53 Scheduled times MAYBECHANGEDWITHOUT Scheduled times MAY BE CHANGED £S:L a:2 12:29 12:38 12:46 12:53 12:01 12:07 12:15 12:23 WITHOUT NOTICE by as much as three :9 Ltr• 12:59 118 1:16 1:23 12:31 12:38 12:46 12:55 • NOTICE by as much as three minutes to relieve minutes to relieve overcrowding ortoadjust £z overcrowding or to adjust to traffic conditions. £Z:9 Lt:g 1:28 1:38 1:46 1:53 1:01 1:08 1:16 1:25 to traffic conditions. ES:g 94.9 1:58 2:08 2:16 2:23 , 1:31 1:38 1:46 1:55 6 All trips are lift-equipped. & All trips are lift equipped. EVE 91:9 2:23 2:33 2:42 2:50 2:01 2:08 2:16 2:25 • £s:1 9Y:1 2:53 3:03 3:12 3:20 2:31 2:38 2:47 2:57 Murra Blvd EZ:1 91:0 3:23 3:33 3:42 3:50 3:01 3:08 3:17 3:27 y £S:C 9V:8 3:53 4:03 4:12 4:20 3:31 3:38 3:47 3:57 Saturday to Washington Square Murray Blvd 1 eZ :C 91:8 4:23 4:33 4:42 4:50 4:111 4:10 4:20 4:30 Sunday to Washington Square ES:Z 91:2 4:49 5:01 5:10 5:19 4:31. 4:40 4:50 5:00 •£Z:Z 91:2 5:10 5:22 5:31 5:39 5:01 5:10 5:20 5:30 I 09:l 99:I: 5:33 5:45 5:54' 6:02 5:31 5:41 5:50 5:59 b m i en. 91•I 5:59 6:09 6:17 6:24 5.51 611 6:10 6:19 c°mom °o _° mr° m� b m £S:2. 94:2' • 6:28 6:38 6:46 6:53 c�`r,...-,.c° m" _c°e p,r c'Er— .oc m° 02:71 91'2. 7:02 6:21 6:29 6:37 m aN� m >,_ L m a . 6:55 7:04 7:12 7:18 7:02 7:09 7:16 7:24 A v+r-�E� �r A�cc z�� .es m« �_� £S•11 9V:t 7:25 7.34 7:42 7:48 m�c°�malfili atl 3ViJH0 >Nnc. a` a ,n EZ:II 91:1 Light figures are A.M.Dark figures are P.M. .E.,—= t°_= .ca 8:14 8:22 8:30 8.36 ES:OI 9tr:0• 9:27 9:35 9:42 — Scheduled times MAY BE CHANGED WITHOUT — 8:15 8:22 8:30 EXa ii,n fn 33°4,4 9:01 9:07 9:14 9:22 • £Z:01 91:0 10:27 10:35 10:42 —. NOTICE by as much as three minutes to relieve — 8:15 8:22 8:30 ES:6 91r:6 overcrowding or to adjust to traffic conditions. 10:01 10:10 10:17 10:26 9:01 9:07 9:14 9:22 Light figures are A.M.Dark figures are P.M. 11:01 11:10 11:17 11:26 £7:6 91:8 b All trips are lift-equipped. 12:01 12:10 -12:17 12:26 10:01 10:08 10:16 10:26 ES:8 LV:B Scheduled times MAYBE CHANGED WITHOUT 11:01 11:06 11:16 11:26 I £Z:8 LI:A NOTICE by as much as three minutes to relieve 1:01 1:10 1:17 1:26 12:01 12:08 12:16 12:25 £S:L L8:L avercrowdingorto adjust totraihccanditions. 2:01 2:10 2:17 2:26 1:01 1:08 116 1:26 • 95:9 19:9 b All trips are lift•equipped. 3:01 3:10 3:17 3:26 2:01 2:08 2:16 2:26• • 97:9 1.78 4:00 4:10 4:18 4:27 311 318 316 3:26• 99:S IS:S 5:00 5:10 5:18 5:27 4:01 4:09 4:17 4:27 6:02 6:10 6:18,°fuog m o= 7:02 7:08 7:15 7:23 5:01 5:09 5:17 5:27 mNw a, 6:02 6:09 6:18 6:27 �� a m Light figures are A.M.Dark figures are P.M. 7:02 7:08 7:15 7:23 • ma"° Scheduled times MAY BE CHANGED WITHOUT �3° NOTICE by as much as three minutestoreiieve Lightfiguresare AM.Darkfipuresare P.M. cn� overcrowdngorto adjust totrafficconditions. b AlltripsarelfftequrD 'e. All trips are lift-equipped. •r EXIlIBIT 3 • . • ' • • • (92X) South Beaverton Express HOW TO RIDE . Weekdays to Portland BROCHURE C E AVAILABLE IN . F 4 1:r, ••0p e -. �...-.. ._ $ v m� �' `tt '�' YOUR LANGUAGE, _ :42 _- a- m 30 "� "a°"4 PICK ONE UPS 5:30 5:32 5:35 5:41 5:46 6:08 5:53 5:55 5:58 6:06 6:13 6:38 • 6:08 6:10 6:13 6:21 629 6:56 620 622 6:25 6:33 6:41 7:08 630 6:32 6:35 6:43 6:51 7:18 . - • '. 6:40 6:42 6:45 6:54 7:02 729 - • 630 6:52 6:55 7:04 7:12 729 7:02 7:04 7:07 7:16 7:24 7:51 iRecoja su folleto de Como Abordar, • 7:15 7:17 7:20 7:29 7:37 8:04 7:30 7:32 7:35 7:44 7:54 8:20 disponible en su idioma! 7:53 7:55 7:58 8:05 8:11 8:35 8:23 8:25 8:28 8:35 8:41 9:05 8:53 8:55 8:58 9:05 9.11 9:35 bpowtopa «flpaauna nonb3oeaHHA Note:Buses traveling to downtown Portland serve all local aBTO6yCaMH H nOe3naMH» BbinyweHa Ha stops between Murrayhill and the Progress Park&Ride at . Hwy 217&Scholls Ferry,then travel express to downtown BaweM pOAHOM A3bIKe. f1po4THTe ee! , stopping at SW Front&Harnson,on Clay at 1st 6 5th,along 6th at Jefferson,Main.Morrison and Oak. South Beaverton Express Hay lay mdt an ban"Cacti Dung He Tilting . ;,) p Chuyen Chv Cdng COng"bang ngdn ngd cua Weekdays to Murrayhill Quy vi ! - ti� be iiitttact .' ). '**)iita)it'7 t r F 1r l b .f b m� . �x - M`gr, °ea tzt "A0foi411:'• d•HIt f L2, A:MMiiii �. i„1*itit—ft 0 i _op vi wino ¢ Sm. Evan . 3:35 3:44 4:06 4:20 4:25 VI of y h a °l �i 2l qji s1 ,�at`t of °! LI mot. 4:05 4:13 4:40 4:54 4:59 420 4:28 4:55 5:10 5:15 VS-"t'� "10*I V2 71 M't,'`t"l . 4:35 4:44 5:10 5:24 5:29 4:50 4:59 5:26 5:40 5:45 • 5:00 5:09 5:38 5:54 6:00 5:10 5:19 5:48 6:04 6:10 525 5:34 6:03 6:19 625 - 5:45 5:53 6:17 6:32 6:37 . 6:05 6:12 6:34 6:48 6:53 . 6:35 6:42 7:03 7:16 7:20 • - Note:Buses traveling to Beaverton stop only at . Orange Deer shelters along SW 5th at Stark.Yamhill , . and Madison.on Market at 4th&2nd.Front& - Harnsonthen travel express to Progress Park&Ride at Hwy 217&Scholls Ferry and serve all local stops to Murrayhill. . 6 Buses on this line are not lift equipped.Lift users' wn0 want weekday alternative accessible service along . Nis route,can Senior&Disabled Information at 238- 4952.TTY 238-5811,FAX 239-3092 weekdays 7:30am-5:30om or ask the bus driver. . • 0 ,�";431.4/ ,, T UALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE e. FIRE PREVENTION , 0 /'" ,.4.0' -, :;‘7.- 4755 S.W.Griffith Drive . P.O. Box 4755 . Beaverton,OR 97076 . (503)526-2469 . FAX 526-2538 RE ' October 11, 1996 David M. Demers Stoel Rives Attorneys Standard Insurance Center 400 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, Oregon 97201-1268 Re: Availability of Public Services 1035 S.W. 135th Avenue Tigard, Oregon Dear Mr. Demers: Service Availability: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has manpower and equipment in the area that can respond to an emergency incident and implement such actions as may be necessary. Prior to approval of this project for planning purposes, plans drawn to scale showing access roadways, water supplies, and other features need to be submitted to Tigard Building Department for routing to this office for review and approval. If you are in need of the fire district's requirements, please feel free to contact me at 526- 2469. Sincerely, `i ji' S R`.z . - ■ rir'1 Assistant F. e shal RHJ:kw "Working"Smoke Detectors Save Lives EXHIBIT 4 • • /,.,, CITY OF TIGARD October 17, 1996 OREGON Mr. David Demers • Stoel Rives LLP 900.SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, Oregon 97204-1268 Re: Water Availability Dear Mr. Demers: This letter is to confirm that the City of Tigard Water Department can provide the minimum State of Oregon water service requirements for tax lots 100, 200, 300 and 1000 1S1 33CA, located west of SW 135th Avenue, between SW Scholls Ferry Road and Summer Creek. Water is available in quantity and quality for domestic use as determined by the Oregon Health Division, Department of Human Resources. Presently there is a 16-inch water main located within SW 135th Avenue and a 12-inch water located within SW Scholls Ferry Road. Service for these properties will be supplied from the existing 12-inch water main, located at the northeast corner of tax.lot ;100, and will be extended to the west along SW Scholls Ferry Road by the developer. Without going into great detail, it is the policy of the City of Tigard Water Department to serve water to any property within the Department's service area boundary. However, the property owner(s) are to pay for the pipeline, fire hydrant, construction, water meter costs and fees necessary for the project. Again, water service is available for the proposed project. Preliminary plans will need to be submitted to this department for engineering review of the water system to ensure that all requirements and conditions from the City of Tigard Water Department are complied with. Should you need any additional information, please give me a call. Sincerely, CITY OF TIGARD WATER DEPARTMENT Michael Miller Operations Manager CC: Ed Wegner Brian Rager 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 • • • • October 28, 1996 ,_ Lr_P David M. Demers - CITY OF TIGARD % Stoel Rives OREGON 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, OR 97204-1268 Dear Mr. Demers: Per our conversation regarding the availability of Police Services at 11035 SW 135th Avenue should there be an approved comprehensive plan amendment for this , property. The Police Department can give sufficient police services should this be rezoned to C-C (community commercial). In either case the Police Department is involved in site development review from the C.P.T.E.D. prospective as this project advances through development. Sincerel Officer Ke;/44111 - Crime Pre' ' 'o •lic Information nit :_ Tigard Police Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 639-6168 or FAX 684-5654 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 10/21/96 16:52 ' '503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD fa 002/002 • October 21. 1996 CITY OF TIGARD Mr. David M. Demers OREGON Stoel Rives LLP 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, OR 97204-1268 VIA FAX: 220-2480 RE: AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES AT 11035 SW 135TH AVENUE Dear Mr. Demers: In response to your letter, dated October 10, 1996,I am writing to inform you that there is a 27- inch public sanitary sewer line that crosses the subject site near the southern boundary. The City is under agreement with Unified Sewerage Agency(USA)whereby USA maintains any sanitary sewer lines 24.inches and larger in diameter. Any connections to this line would require approval and a permit from USA. Although the City is of the opinion that the line has c apacity to serve the subject site,you will want to check with USA for a verification. With respect to storm drainage,there is an existing natural drainage that crosses the site from northwest to southeast. Any storm drainage plan produced to serve the proposed development would need to accommodate the existing drainage channel and tie into it. We are not aware of any capacity problems in the existing drainage area. If you should have further questions,please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, • •--- Can— Brian D.Rager,PE • Development Review Engineer • I;1ENG18RIANR11 O21 DEM E.ITR 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 I - . •WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON October 22, 1996 Tom Lancaster Lancaster Engineering Union Station, Suite 206 800 NW 6th Ave Portland, OR 97209 Dear Tom: This letter is written based on a preliminary review of your Traffic Impact Study for the Scholls Ferry Retail Center dated September 1996. Please note the intent-of this letter is not to officially comment to the City of Tigard on the plan amendment, but instead to resolve technical issues regarding the analysis prior to commenting. Additionally,this letter focuses on the plan amendment and not a potential future land development action. Attached is a memo from Doug Norval to me discussing some technical issues. Please modify your request accordingly to address Doug's concerns. Assuming the relatively minor technical issues Doug raises don't impact the general conclusions in the report, your analysis indicates that westbound volumes on Scholls Ferry will exceed the planned link level of service in the year 2005. Your report further indicates that the intersection of Scholls Ferry and 135th fails with the plan amendment - without improvements. However, with improvements, the intersection will operate at an acceptable level of service in year 2005. Currently, there are no plans to make the improvements recommended in your report. As such, we believe they are°likely a necessary condition in order for the County to determine the plan amendment is consistent with OAR 660-12-060. While the Scholls Ferry and 135th intersection will fail without the stated improvements in year 2005, it's not clear when prior to that date it will fail (1998?, 2001?, 2003?, etc.). Determining the year of failure is important in determining the year the intersection needs to be improved. We request that you undertake additional analysis to determine more precisely the year the intersection is predicted to fail. In similar circumstances, we have required improvements to be completed based on the date of "anticipated failure" as opposed to occupancy of the site. Thus, more analysis is necessary to determine the actual date of failure. Please note, such an analysis may not be necessary if the applicant agrees to construct the stated improvements as part of initially developing the site. Department of Land Use &Transportation • Planning Division 155 N First Avenue, Suite 350-14, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 phone: (503) 640-3519 • fax: (503) 693-4412 • • - Lancaster letter Page 2 Also, it will be important to have some discussions with the City of Tigard regarding how they view conditioning plan amendments/ Please give me a call so we can discuss the issues raised in the letter. Sincerely Andy Back Senior Planner c: Laurie Nicholson Doug Norval • LUTI.WASHINGTON COUNTY • • - Date: " 16-Oct-96 15:22 : 33 From: DOUGN @LUTII To: ANDYB @LUTI Subject: Scholls/135th Message-id: B9FD6432012E2376 Andy, The following is per your request today for my comments on the worksheet "Highway Capacity Manual: Signalized Intersection Summary Version 2 .4 Scholls Ferry/135th GROSS3 .HC9 PM Peak 2005 with site with improvements" , extracted from the report "Scholls Ferry Retail Center Traffic Impact Study" , Lancaster Engineering, September, 1996: The volume/capacity ratio for the westbound through movement is .972, which exceeds the maximum of .95 for a peak 15 minute period. The program appears to be Release 2 .4; however-, the latest we are using is Release 2 .4c; there were some bugs in the first program releases. The worksheet is the short format print report which does not indicate whether the analysis is for the peak 15 minute period or the peak 60 period, the percent trucks, and some other items that would be shown in the detailed or long format (preferred) print report. The yellow/all red time assumed for the east-west through movements (4 seconds) may be low for a high speed facility such as this. The analysis may assume full lane capacity out of the double left turn lanes westbound; depending on what happens to the curb lane downstream, this may be overly optimistic. The minimum green time is usually 5 seconds. 4 seconds was assumed for the eastbound left turn phase. Doug • 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 October 15, 1996 • MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial (503)294-9194 • email mcrobinson @stoel.com VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Laurie Nicholson Associate Planner City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Application by Shrader/Coe Dear Laurie: I am writing to.confirm the tentative dates for the Planning Commission and City Council hearings on this application. The Planning Commission hearing is tentatively scheduled for December 2 and the City Council hearing is tentatively scheduled for January 17. Please let me know if this schedule changes. Very truly yours, M Michael C. Robinson MCR:lxh cc: Mr. Dale Shrader (via facsimile) Mr. Gary Coe (via facsimile). • Mr._ Eric William Gross (via facsimile) Mr:-Tom Lancaster (via facsimile) PDX1A-51367.1 -26409-1 SEATTLE PORTLAND VANCOUVER,WA BOISE SALT LAKE CITY WASHINGTON,D.C. 10/18/96 16:54 $503 220 2480, STOEL RIVES 5 Z002/002 . - STOEL RIVES ArrottNeYS STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW IrrHAVL E.SUTTE 2300 PORTLAND.OREGON 97204-1268 Tetipitanc(503)224-3380 Fax(503)220-2480 TDD(503)221 4045 October 18, 1996 • MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Died • (503)294-9194 email mcrebinsoii@itoel.com VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Laurie Nicholson Associate Planner. City of'Tigard Community Development Dept. 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment by Shrader/Coe Dear Laurie: I apologize for having to cancel our meeting scheduled for Tuesday afternoon. I am writing to confirm that we have rescheduled our meeting to Monday, October 21, 1996 at 4:00 p.m. at City Hall. Very truly yours, e• Michael C. Robinson MCR:Lich cc: Mr. Dale Shrader (via facsimile) Mr. Eric William Gross (via facsimile) Mr. Gary Coe (via facsimile) P=1/%41612.1 264094031 SEMIS Pnirrr•gurt j r• r • 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 September 26, 1996 MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial (503) 294-9194 mcrobinson @stoel.com VIA MESSENGER Mr. James N.P. Hendryx, Director City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Application for Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment at SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue Dear Mr. Hendryx: This office represents the applicant in this matter. Please find enclosed a check for the applicable application fee for a comprehensive plan map amendment in the amount of $4,015, an original and 20 copies of an application addressing the applicable approval criteria for a comprehensive plan map amendment, and a completed and signed City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment application form. Please provide me with notices of the public hearings, copies of the staff report, notices to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development and copies of any notices to affect the government entities such as Metro, Tri-Met, ODOT, Washington County and the City of Beaverton. ¢ fix PDX IA-49060.I 26409 SEATTLE PORTLAND VANCOUVER,WA BOISE SALT LAKE CITY WASHINGTON,D.C. ` . ' • STOEL RIVES LLP • Mr. Jim Hendryx September 26, 1996 Page 2 My clients and I look forward to working with you on this matter. Very truly yours, 177))4\1d° kukh) Michael C. Robinson MCR:ipc Enclosures cc (w/encls.): Mr. Dale Shrader (w/encls.) Mr. William Gross (w/encls.) Mr. Gary Coe PDX 1 A-49060.1 26409 11/22/96 15:01 $503 220 2480 STOEL RIVFS 5 Q004/005 o:U — a — b T N U .-- a : m2 0 P _ e 3 _ _ • A, March 20, 1996 art OF TIGARD oRsGoN Bill Gross 11035 SW 135th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Affect of CPA 95-0005/ZON 95-0007 on your property at 135th and Scholls Ferry Dear Bill: This letter is written to explain how the recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change at Scholis Ferry Road and North Dakota Street would affect any future request for a Comprehensive Plan map and Zone Change to "community commercial" at the southwest corner of 135th and Scholls Ferry, due to the proximity of the two sites to each other. More specifically, how the rezoning of parcels 1 and 3 of MLP 94-0013 from Commercial-Professional to Commercial-Neighborhood under CPA 95-0005/ZON ' 95-0007 would affect the potential to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map on tax lot 100 (map 1S1 33CA), to"community commercial". The Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Section 12.2.1.4B.(1) (b) (on page 11 - 84-1) states that "community commercial districts shall be spaced at least one-half mile from other sites that are designated for commercial retail use." The Tigard Development Code, Section 18.62.010 (page 124-1) states that 'community commercial centers are intended to be separated from other commercially zoned properties which provide retail and service opportunities by at least one-half mile." The property you own at 135th and Scholls Ferry Road (map 1S1 33CA, tax lot 100) Is just over one-half mile from the commercial zoning at the southwest quadrant of 135th and North Dakota (tax lots 1, 2 and 3 of MLP 94-0013). This was indicated when the original community commercial district provisions were adopted. Only two potential sites existed that met the criteria, the property you own and one site further west on Scholls Ferry Road. Therefore, the locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code for community commercial zoning is currently met for your property, even with the recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone change, since the two sites are over one-half mile apart. The recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change had no effect on the distance from your site. It was already commercial. 13125 SW Hall Blvd.. Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 100 (503) 684-2772 11.22,�6 15:01 $503 220 2480 STOEL RI`'FS 5 1aj 005/005 ut: r sr — st3 TMU L S2 0 P - 0.4 I hope this letter answers your questions. if I can be of further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, co-. SA4- egrie James N.P. Hendryx Community Development Director Murp►nMiciftgross.lst C: Tim Ramis Dan Boyden Ed Murphy Peggy Hennessy File: CPA 95-000520N 95-0007 • • • ' III III CITY OF TIGARD' PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES NON-RESIDENTIAL DATE: ` 2—//5 APPLICANT: . -X -' �L AGENT: PIQUi!/!!!/1 Derti �/�D �1Zev_t%ovr- _ �J V Phone: . _ Phone: 6- /6 0 O PROPERTY LOCATION ,5-W 5G4 /l S_ 1 y,,y 49aq/67y4-.5-1.<) /39A Ale. ADDRESS: TAX MAP & TAX LOT: --25-135- / NECESSARY PPLICATION(S) : .Q(__"l o ,e4 - ..' v elm g. D I i �L i laGtlteGl S�Te IU�VQI vL[Qc�'Dcu�iJi¢.C.(��, 2 �aK'S l�/ P�iJ .2 v°'( ,!/ !/a�P1 . 9.evelO Kel PROPOSAL DESC IPTION: ° ' X7111-? a *.IL4 4 ' . Lv2S 00` 6E 25" pvo i/ 4a tw ela/. 2T2 A � ��4.1"� Li.,, �� •J(QF• 1!'C per s;,Ve fp..et�.r r1_ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: / Pti i i /0645-i 147-4 / 2.5 ZONING DESIGNATION: Ie -J 5 10; ZONING DISTRICT DI r, SIONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot si•e: sq. ft. S. -e-. 1---/aJot ati— fA - Minimum lot wid • : ft. Q- Z6/0- GLVId Cc --76u. Setbacks: front- ft. side- ft. , rear-_ ft. garage- ft. corner-_ ft. from both streets. Maximum site coverage: o Minimum landscaped or natu -1 vegetation area: o Maximum building height: _ .t. ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT Minimum lot frontage: 25 feet unless lot is created through the minor land partition process. Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum 15 foot wide access -easement. Maximum lot depth to width ratio of 2 .5 to 1. SPECIAL SE - //f �° /a,, 14) Streets: 5� ft. om centerline of # Ii f `"� ��s �^ Established areas: ft. from yo tr: Lower intensity zones : ri ft. , along t e site's boundary Page 1 • • SPECIAL BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS Building Height Exceptions (Code Section 18.98.020) : Buildings located in a non-residential zone may be built to a height of 75 feet provided: 1. A maximum FAR (building floor area to site area ratio) of 1.5 to 1 will exist; 2. All actual building setbacks will be at least 1/2 the . building's height; and 3. The structure will not abut a residential zone district. -evte •ARKING AND ACCESS Ppa4 s / Required parking for this type of use: / o n e�,41 /0. /42.4.-ea. "Cast/ pe;---.eQclA`JZ -e;,.?,6M Secondary use required parking: D lE,id l - /S €1 - 4c1 40% of required spaces may be designated compact-only spalce2vy'Z2�(d Standard parking space dimensions: 8 ft. 81 X left. Compact parking space dimensions: 8 ft. X ft. Disabled person parking: All parking areas providing in excess of five required automobile parking spaces shall provide appropriately located and • designated disabled person parking spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to be provided and parking space size are mandated by the Oregon Revised Statutes and Americans with Disabilities Act (see handout) . A handicapped parking space symbol shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be provided. Bicycle racks are required for civic uses, non-residential uses, commercial uses, and industrial uses providing 15 or more automobile parking spaces. Bicycle parking must be provided at a ratio of one bicycle rack space per 15 auto parking spaces. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic. The Planning Division can provide specifications for approved bicycle rack types. All driveways and parking areas, except for some fleet storge parkin areas, must be paved. / 02145 Go4^- Drive-in use queuing areas: 2( ce.,Et- �-C ' Minimum number of accesses: (CO"11-2- 4- Per •- 30 0,44 ) aw4 Minimum access width: 24 ft. � s S Maximum access width: 40 ft. • Pedestrian access must be provided between building entrances and parking areas, outdoor common areas, and public sidewalks and streets. Parking area landscaping and screening: Required. See.-Landscaping section below. - • • For detailed information on design requirements for parking areas and - accesses, see Community Development Code Chapters 18.106 and 18.108. • Page 2 6 . • CLEAR VISION AREA The City requires that clear vision be maintained between three and eight feet above grade at road/driveway, road/railroad, and road/road intersections in specified clear vision areas. The size of the required clear vision area depends ' upon the abutting street's functional classification. No buildings, signs, trees •or other visual obstructions are allowed between 3 and 8 feet above grade in these areas. • •SCAPING • Street trees are required for all developments fronting on a public or private street or a driveway more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must be 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 two inches at four feet above grade. Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on mature tree size. Further information on regulations affecting street trees and a list of recommended street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. A minimum of one tree per seven parking spaces must be planted in and around parking areas in order to provide a canopy effect. Landscaped screening of parking areas from views from public rights-of-way must be provided. BUFFERING AND SCREENING In order to increase privacy and to reduce or eliminate adverse noise or visual impacts between adjacent developments, especially between different land uses, the City requires landscaped buffer areas along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and • evergreen trees and shrubs. Site obscuring screens or fences are ..also required in some cases, and often are advisable even if not required. Required buffer areas may only be occupied by. vegetation, ., fences, utilities, and sidewalks. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in Code Chapter 18.100. - Re fired buffer widths applicable to y ur proposal•area-:. •< _ :. ._. • ft. along north boundary ft. along east boundary q ft. along south boundary ft. along west boundary l In addition, sig O obscuring screening s re fired alp g EIT.Ii, Ae6 4242 4.290,)cti c54.9k1.1.01.46m/e4ed amd pia15-46,„ • • SIGNS Permits must be ob 'ned before erecting any sign in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Si Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or he' ht beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewe as part of a development application. SENSITIVE LANDS ��l Jkie v4' -f a- l ‘1 cad- — (N 5 4.dJ�/ 1a0 �2vr elee rv�vi ) / uh Other Agency Permits: 7/,,,,./20414r u/dirAis-- i/d DSe • • ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR-COMMENTS ^ / u 5 a reed !tit 1�ir�P1J KJ V vl f S Gut kV cK�S '/ Iw, G�Q�P it 5 WatasI Aus ot ✓oi wl ey l V o g �(� �e/ �J€ )'< 16 r- GZ eIr-2. -1,1e6/0..we_ REV • •n; Staff- review. Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer9��../ ublic hearsn��before the Planning Commis ion. -cJ�Y"1 l/ e0t ..ki4Z+'/cm 41 o I�ie e Cow�J� Applications must be accepted by a Plahnin Division staff member at the PP P Y g Community Development Department counter at City Hall. Applications submitted by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planning Division acceptance may be returned. Applications submitted after 4 PM on Thursday will be batched for processing with the following week's applications for processing. No applications will be accepted after 4:30 PM. • One 8.5 inch by 11 inch map of a proposed project should be ?�? ��' ' Y P proposed project..................... ...................... submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision. The Planning Division and Engineering Division will do a preliminary • - review of the app kcation and will determine whether an application is -complete within-.r00days of submittal. Staff will- notify an applicant if. . additional information or copies of the submitted materials are needed. The n public hearing typically will occur approximately 'O days after an application is accepted as complete by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult issues or • requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to Page 4 • 0 review. Written decisions are issued within 10 days of public hearings. A 10 day appeal period follows all decisions. An appeal .,n this matter would be heard by the 14 t e 40., r,ii1 A basic flow diagram illustrating the review process is available from the Planning Division. .....- ;ii'''''''..---.".-.: -.....:-:''.....: .ie::< :: . a-. on::»>ecinfe..r.. ...ce:::....... ::.::.......: .....ot s... .. :Gh: . :ox a ce.:::.awe ::»:: :>:<:::ks� orm::>:: 7ea>:::: .rv$: evt:a ue::::::a. . ca :t:> i :::< ..:..,::,.....:.... >. »»:........... .:::y : a::::::<l i ealb €€to[€ :::>:,:::;::elop::::ent:::o,>:>'::lii::::::.,.:.:..:::::::.>;:.::::<;"r ".'elo ent:::: octe»r '".`' r7 iei ts :.m : ........ ....:..e::..:..::.d zr la ....eft:.. f'.::: :::. ....rt�:wiwO ��:e>:;�ri�:::l�v:::>€:a�:.I.v...:.:.�ha....s..aff. ..nd.. .......... :..:...:�.v...: .:a . 1.kca.�:�..:.�a.....�scv�a.s::>::> tra'ints :a €ec i a' >< de e o ::> :: ::'` > ::": : i: :>:: _ ::: e a�:: ;:.;rtiits �des: arid<>cvr�s.....................:............................ ................... .. ....�e...�:::Et �he.:::���e:,:.:::.:::The �cngex�ez�ee::::a�zc1:::�so ��::»ceuzx►a�<>�ov��;;::a�...:::: �e? z�� d �.s ec.�s cx <:::::4:ply to tY e>deme 1opmext:Rii: o r::s i ::e >" a <u;re" by:th:>:::YR;;:::<::::<:::<..> : :a:x l ure::::. ::::: ize:::>: a : :_<t ?:: x c ::d. :::::: z:::::»a zr:faz : e sz::>:: :. . z .. d_.b ...:::r:.. ,:::A shat e. >a"' ;1caki'esta�c3ards >c�>re>>< rezant. . .....:.�t rna ::canst Cu a a ..a :.:... ::.......;M:::......:a:' 5 ..:::. .:.:-.::..._.::::: ::::.:..::::. ::::: ::::.:.::.:::: .::::::.:�:7:7,:::.: :..:.:_:. 'es o s`.'> :`>cit:::.:staff::;>relatx,...e..ta Code::::::x-...:. :::�:genie t :::::> x der:;:to:::;<;s ?m t: :znq::::an::app eat.on>;;:>:::: Another pre-application conference is required if an application is to be submitted more than six months after this pre-application conference, unless is deemed unnecessary by the Planning Division. PREPARED BY: ���% , � /.� 1 ' PLANNING DI ISIO� / _�=�Y / • ` e S'.1-k- - s - ,w�I 'T � ; �o� t«� , 1 � �s ail a a ep r6-- 1 77/.2etv_5- Lc od )ve&Ue. W, � , v e �u f.— �,(x) se,4c, its v .l4aq 0..e_.s- w J a �6e�/ G� 49F- 0� 14 -5 � I ti e u e:fri:._ S h�� d-( Q • Y�U,{,1 (:=. 3 "re- --z-afric-, f- ta , l Zr Navti. -Z S- ° --- a4 9 ds . . . a ct Id °/-1 et, G e___ ---2‘;14 e a' Ve...v7't 4, a 'cia / , 1 s o°aid a-11°4)v �vt4 �e 1/c' G o . 'ttses (LA.) 4-G ( )1-1-le di/- 446, s(4-i . a — r.,..2-sae4 de i4 i`tqe__S- it, 1 '7-- 1 a4 ' -__ - _ ... - . • . .Page/5 • •• PUBLIC FACILITIES CITY OF TIGARD The purpose of the pre-application conference is to: OREGON (1.) Identify applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions. (2.) To provide City staff an opportunity to comment on specific concerns. (3.) To review the Land Use Application review process with the applicant and to identify who the final decision making authority shall be for the application. The extent of necessary public improvements and dedications which shall be required of the applicant will be recommended by City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will be no final recommendation to the decision making authority on behalf of the City staff until all concerned commenting agencies, City staff and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment on the application. The following comments are a projection of public improvement related requirements that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project. Right-of-wav dedication: The City of Tigard requires that land area be dedicated to the public: (1.) To increase abutting public rights-of-way to the ultimate functional street classification right-of-way width as specified by the Community Development Code; or (2.) For the creation of new streets. 5x/s7714A 0o oik/ /3 5''4; �D ' 5 1't /06 Approval of a development application for this site will require right-of-way dedication for: J (1.) to feet from centerline. (2.) to feet from centerline. (3.) to feet from centerline. Street improvements: (1.) !!Z street improvements will be necessary along 35'f/-� (2.) //0, street improvements will be necessary along AtZ "-)1 . / 05- (3.) Street improvements shall include '�0� eet of pavement from center the stallation of curb and gutters, storm sewers, underground placement of utility wires (a fee may be collected if determined appropriate by the Engineering Department), a five-foot wide sidewalk (sidewalks may be required to be wider on arterials or major collector streets, or in the Central Business District), necessary street signs, streetlights, and a two year streetlighting fee. �y //- 00 O P O% ur /A lee,(fall/4 frr16 4412 4e. 49A J CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 3 Residential Application!Engineering Department Section / In some eases, where street ingovements or other necessary public improoents are not currently practical, the street improvements may be deferred. uch cases, a condition of development appr may be specified which requires the property owner(s) to execute a non-remonstrance agreement which waives the property owner's right to remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement district formed to improve: (1.) (2.) Pedestrianwayslbikeways: Sanitary Sewers: T e nearest sanitary s er line to this property is a(n) 6 inch line which is located in 44- . The proposed development must be connected to a sanitary sewer. It is the developer's res nsibility to extend the sewer along the proposed development site's hitoFos "PA-cam/go poi)T" Water Supply: The Try Water District - Phone:(5O3) provides public water service in the area of this site. The District should be contacted for information regarding water supply for your proposed development. /Fire Protection: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (Contact: Gene Birchill, (503) 526-2502) provides fire protection. services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted for information regarding the adequacy of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants, or other questions related to fire protection. Other Agency Permits: Storm sewer improvements: Pl7S.S'/6Gt�i` ,UI104 0/1-frmi ote 7 STORMWATER QUALITY FEES The Unified Sewerage Agency has established, and the City has agreed to enforce, Resolution No. 90-43 Surface Water Management Regulations which requires the construction of on-site water quality facilities. At the discretion of the City, the applicant may be offered an opportunity to pay a fee in lieu of the construction of such a facility. The resolution requires the construction of a water quality facility andlor the payment of a fee. The fee shall be based upon the amount of impervious surface; for every 2,640 square feet, or portion thereof, the fee shall be $285.00. The City of Tigard shall determine if a fee may be paid or a facility shall be constructed. b/l• • SL 7tT elfilirveL epuhrA CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 3 Residential ApplicationlEngineering Department Section • • TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES In 1990, Washington County adopted a county-wide Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) ordinance. The Traffic Impact Fee program collects fees from new development based on the development's projected impact upon the City's transportation system. The applicant shall be required to pay a fee based upon the number of trips which are projected to result from the proposed development. The calculation of the TIF is based on the proposed use of the land, the size of the project, and a general use based fee category. The TIF shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance. In limited circumstances, payment of the TIF may be allowed to be deferred until the issuance of an occupancy permit. Deferral of the payment until occupancy is permissible • only when the TIF is greater than $5,000.00. ip`y -Arr6r STREET OPENING PERMIT No work shall be preformed within a public right-of-way, or shall commence, until the applicant has obtained a street opening permit from the Engineering Department. FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS All projects that require a grading plan also require that the applicant shall submit a typical floor plan for each lot. This floor plan shall indicate the elevations of the four corners of that plan along with elevations at the corner of each lot. PREPARED ENGINEERING DIVISION PHONE: (503) 639-4171 h:lloginlpattylpre app.nut (eng.section preapp.eng) January 11, 1995 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 3 Residential ApplicationlEngineering Department Section 410 411 Staff �L Date r�/ // CITY OF TIGARO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OEPARTHENT APPLICATION CHECXLIST The items on the checklist below are required for the successful completion of your application submission requirements. This checklist identifies what is . required to be submitted with your application. This sheet MUST be brought and submitted with all other materials at the time you submit your application. See your application for further explanation of these items or call Planning at 639-4171. . ITEMS TO BE BASIC MATERIALS INCLUDED: A) Application form (1 copy) Cie- 8) Owner's signature/written authorization ,. /Q� [1 � C) Title transfer instrument pie Zo7 O qv a C 0) Assessor's map / v ,//40; - E) Plot or site plan ` � r/ �Q� CL)� 5' F) Applicant's statement /L4 ls�c �� C2}� pe5 v-o✓ C1 (H) Filing fee (S_"-=---- ) // , Cy SPECIFIC MATERIALS ��" Fee_ 5�t e A) Site Information showing (No. of copies 3 ,;): CL]/ 1) Vicinity Map _ iTE :::--2) Site size S dimensions 3) Contour lines (2 ft at O-1O= or 5 ft for grades > 102) QL1- 4) Drainage patterns, courses, and ponds 5) Locations of natural hazard areas including: / a) Floodplain areas (�]/ b) Slopes in excess of 252 Cv� c) Unstable ground CL d) Areas with high seasonal water table CI-3 ------ e) Areas with severe scil erosion potential (L] f) Areas having severely weak foundation soils �� 6) Location of resource areas as shown on the Comprehensive • Map inventory including: Er="'a) Wildlife habitat b) Wetlands 7) Other site features: a) Rock outcroppings b) Trees with 6' + caliper measured 4 feet frost ground level ( 8) Location of existing structures and their uses q],--- 9) Location and type of on and off-site noise sources Q]� 10) Location of existing. utilities and easements C/3 --- 11) Location of existing. dedicated right-of-gays C,[a----'- 8) Site Development Plan showtnq. (No. of copies 3 ): CL- � 1) The proposed:.site and:surrounding properties Ci] -- 2) Contour line inteivals ELT -- 3) The location, dimensions and names of all: a) ExistingA platted streets & other public ways and easements on the site and on adjoining Cl�' properties APPLICATION CHEC<LIST - Page 1 b)•Proposed streets or other publways C easements 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 [W------ b) Parting and circulation areas C 1J�_ c) Loading and services areas [�]� d) Pedestrian and bicycle circulation e) Outdoor common areas, [ f) Above ground utilities [ 5) The location, dimensions C setback distances of all: a) Existing permanent structures, improvements, utilities and easements which are Located on the site and on adjacent property within 25 feet of the site b) Proposed structures, improvements, [ utilities and easements on the site 6) Storm drainage facilities and analysis of downstream conditions EVEEt 7) Sanitary sewer facilities 8) The location of areas to be landscaped [ 9) The location and type of outdoor lighting considering crime prevention techniques [ 10) The location of mailboxes 11) The location of all structures and their orientation ( • 12) Existing or proposed sewer reimbursement agreements C) Grading Plan (No. of copies 77 ) [�]� The site development plan shall include a grading plan at the same scale as the site analysis drawings and shall contain the following information: 1) The location and extent to which grading will take place indicating general contour lines, slope ratios and soil stabilization proposals, and time of year it is proposed to be done. [ 2) A statement from a registered engineer supported by data factual substantiating: a) Subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering report b) The validity of sanitary sewer and storm drainage service proposals c) That all problems will be mitigated and how they will be mitigated [ i 1?-uE., 0) Architectural Drawrogss (Mo. sf copies 35 ): S�� The site development 'plan proposal shall:include: P44 �" 1) Floor plans indicating the square footage-of all 1 structures proposed use on-site; and Ge:,p) h4 2) - Typical elevation drawings.of-each structure. V E) Landscape Plan (No. -of copies -35): The landscape plan-shall be.drawn-at the_same scale of the. ' site analysis plan or a 1,arger scale if necessary and -shall- indicate: 1) Description of the irrigation system where applicable 2) Location and height offences, buffers and screenings [ APPLICATION CHECKLIST — Page 2 • 3) lion of terraces, decks. shelte. play areas and common open spaces CV/ 4) Location. type, size and species of existing and . proposed plant materials. rL� The landscape plan shall include a narrative which addresses: 1) Soil conditions. 2) Erosion control measures that will be used. 0 C E}� F), Sign inns Sign d s shall be submitted in accordance with Chapter 18.114 of Code as part of Site Development Review or prior to obtain aikuildinp Permit to construct the sign. C ] G) Traffic C H) Preliminary partition or lot line adjustment map showing (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 (-- arrow and date [rt� 4) Description of parcel location and boundaries [vj� 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 and within 25 feet of all property lines 7) Location and width of all water courses 8) Location of any trees with-6" or greater caliper at 4 feet above ground level C 9) All slopes greater than 257. 10) Location of existing utilities and utility easements ii.) For major land partition which creates a public street: a) The proposed right-of-way location and width C4 b) A scaled cross-section of the proposed street plus any reserve strip C 12) Any applicable deed restrictions 13) Evidence that land partition will not preclude efficient future land division where applicable I) Subdivis - Prelimi - Plat - • and data showi -(No. of Copies 1) Scale - • ing 3i.•>50,100 or 200 feet to the inch and limi - - to one\oEase per sheet C 1 2) The proposed ••• - .of vthe subdivision ( 1 3) Vicinity map • . - property's relationship to arterial and col . . streets C ] 4) Aames,' addresses . telephone numbers of the owner developer, engineer,- - • eyer,•designer, as applicable( ] 5) Date of application' ( 1 6) Boundary lines of.-tract • 'be subdivided C 7) Names of adjacent:subdivisi- .or•nabes of recorded owners of adjoining parcels f =subdivided land ( ] 8) Contour lines related to:a Ci -stablished bench- mark at 2-foot. intervals for 4 , grades greater than 10% C ] APPLICATION CHECKLIST - Page 3 9) -"Loose. recation, type and size* all of the allowing (within and adjacent to the proposed bdivision): C ] a) Public and ivate right-of-ways and easements C ] b) Public and private sanitary and storm sewer lines C ] c) Domestic water mains including fire hydrants C d) - jot- power telephone transmission lines . (50,000 volts or greater) C 3 e) - tercourses f) 0• - reservations for parks, open space, pathways - other land 'encumbrances C ] 10) Approxi- to plan and profiles of proposed sanitary and storm s- -rs with grades and pipe sizes indicated C 3 11) Plan of proposed water distribution system, showing - 'pe sizes and the location of valves and fire hyd ts. C 12) Approximate centerline profiles showing the finished grade of a streets including street extensions for a reasonable . 'stance beyor4 the limits of the proposed subdivision. C ] 13) Scaled cross s ctions of proposed street right-of-way; C ] 14) The location o all areas subject to inundation or storm water ove low C 3 I5) Location, width - direction of flow of all water courses and drai ge ways C 3 16) The proposed lot •nfigurations, approximate lot dimensions and lot numbers. Where loores are to be used for purposes o- -r than residential, it shall be indicated upon such ots C 3 17) The location of all - -s with a diameter 6 inches or greater measured at 4 , eet above ground level, and the location of propos tree plantings, if any C ] 18) The existing uses-of the •roperty, including the location of all structu and the present uses of the structures, and a sta - - t of which structures are to remain after platti •• C ] 19) Supplemental information including: a) Proposed deed restricti- • (if any) C b) Proof of property ownership C 3 c) A proposed plan for provisi- of subdivision improvements C 1 20) Existing natural features including - out- croppings, wetlands and marsh areas. C 21) If any of the foregoing information - -t practicably be shown on the preliminary plat, its •- I be incorporated into a narrative and sobai - - with the application. C 3 J) Other Informtion C ] Solar kvle37:C4i APPLICATION CrlECKLIST - Page 4 • • CITY OF TIGARD - !, LAND USE APPLICATION FEES CITY OF TIGARD OREGON APPEALS Director's Decision to Planning Commission $ 235.00 Planning Commission/Hearings Officer to City Council 315.00 (+transcription costs) BLASTING PERMITS 125.00 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESSING (Text Ma' or Both .1 i • `AL USE PROCESSING (Conditional Use Review) , i i FLEXIBLE SETBACK STANDARDS 80.00 HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT 80.00 HOME OCCUPATION TYPE I (One) 10.00 (No renewal) TYPE II (Two) 50.00 (No renewal) INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE(S) (by C. D. Dept.) 55.00 LAND PA' i • • >• • `on- esi I en to 235.11 LOT-LINE • . I Toler 50.11 ' • "ED DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING (Conceptual & Detailed - an 'evtew i 1.11 Flood Plain 520.00 Wetlands/Steep Slopes/Drainageways 235.00 SIGN CODE EXCEPTIONS 230.00 SIGN PERMIT 0 - 24 Square Feet 10.00 24 - 100 Square Feet 25.00 100 + Square Feet 35.00 Tem.orary Signs 10.00 (Per sign) SITE I • I • ` ' Under - $ 10,000 80.00 $ 10,000 - $ 99,999 155.00 $ 100,000 - $ 499,999 315.00 $ 500,000 - $ 999,999 415.00 $1,000,000 + 520.00 (+$1 per$10,000) SUBDI • ' • • NARY PLAT 10 +$5 . lot Subdivision Variance (if necessary) 105.00 TEMPORARY USE Director's Decision 50.00 Special Exemption/Non-Profit -0- TREE REMOVAL PERMIT G � $ .addtn'l. lot(s) VACATIONS (Streets & Public Access) 300.00 (Dep. +actual costs charged) VARIANCE Administrative 80.00 Sign Code 230.00 Zbl CHANGE ANNEXATIONS Less than 10 Acres 520.00 10 Acres + 625.00 ZONE CHANGE !NG Less than 10 Acres 520.00 10 Acres + 625.00 ZONE ORDINANCE AM ENDMENT 310.00 JOINT APPLICATION PLANNING FEE 1 I 'o (of actual costs) (Highest Fee + 10% Per ea. 'subsequent Request.) {Approved by City Council Effective 2/1/91) h:Uogin\pa t\devlpmt.fees 4 • CPA 1 ( - ti-� C aft-->SS) - c;''—"' A-LT\--'7:�-t J ( 3 5 - lScte�� - d V--ezc.4. F states that this is an intense market for commercial uses and that these uses will serve the needs of the area's residents. It is the applicant's contention S�' however, that the City's Comprehensive Plan Map does not provide enough g appropriately zoned land to meet these needs of the neighborhood and community. From the applicant's viewpoint, a mistake may exist. A large market demand may exist that cannot easily be satisfied by the current inventory of properly zoned developable land. Since the applicant states that the amount of commercially zoned land within the Bull Mountain Community Plan is disproportionate in relation to the amount of commercially zoned land in other community plans and that additional commercially zoned land is necessary within the Bull Mountain Community, they conclude that an additional amount of land must be rezoned for commercial use. Staff contends that if additional land were -to be rezoned for commercial use, this land should be located-in'a centralized location within the interior of the Community Plan, so as to serve to majority of the community's residents, rather than at the northern extremity of the community, as is the case of the subject site. Additionally, from a land use planning viewpoint, other reasons exist for not trying to satisfy every economic market demand. The City of Tigard has paid close attention to the amount of developable commercially designated land along the Scholls Ferry corridor, as has the City of Beaverton. The cities have chosen to limit the amount of general commercial properties in order to reduce traffic congestion along the highway in order to reduce the appearance of strip development and in order to minimize traffic, noise, and lighting impacts upon surrounding neighborhoods. The limitation upon general commercial designations was not a mistake, but instead was a conscious decision to limit the amount of developable commercial properties along Scholls Ferry Road. The City of Tigard has looked at several other proposals for re-designation of properties to General Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial Plan designations along the Scholls Ferry corridor and the City has consistently denied those requests. On the property located on the southeast quadrant at the intersection of SW North Dakota Street and SW Scholls Ferry Road, the City Council denied a requestxo change the zoning of the entire property from Commercial Professional (C-P) to General Commercial (C-G) in 1985 (CPA 3-85/ZC 3-85). The Council's - - decision was appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. The decision to deny this application was upheld. The City found that there was no evidence of a mistake and the land zone designations for this area; there was no overwhelming need for additional commercially designated lands in this area; and the Council expressed concern with traffic along both North Dakota Street and Scholls Ferry Road. A later Plan/Zone Change request for the .same property resulted in a mixture of Professional Commercial, General Commercial, and Neighborhood Commercial designations being approved (CPA 10-86/ZC 18-86). Additionally, the City Council in November 1989 denied a request for the redeaignation of an approximately 1.9 acre portion of the subject site from Medium Nigh Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial (CPA 89-08/ZC 89-08). This decision was largely based upon traffic concerns with regard to the intersection of Scholls Ferry and SW 135th as well as traffic along SW 135th to the south. In review of this application, the City Council was unable to find that a mistake had been made in the original designation of the property or that substantial changes had occurred in the neighborhood which supported a change to a commercial designation. Staff concludes that the same holds true for the current application. In summary, Staff does not find that a change in circumstances has occurred.in - the neighborhood to the extent, or of the nature, so as-to warrant the approval of this current application. In addition, staff does not find evidence of a mistake in the original plan designation. Conversely, staff finds that the original Medium High Density Residential designation was carefully conceived and was intended to minimize the possible impacts upon adjoining land uses and to minimize traffic impacts at this congested intersection. The existing Medium STAFF REPORT - CPA 91-0001/ZON 91-0001 - GROSS PAGE 13 MAR-28-95 TUE 11 :53 P. 01 Facsimile Cover Sheet To: MARK ROBERTS Company: CITY OF TIGARD Phone: 639-4171 Fax: 684-7297 From: JENNIFER BRION Company: PLANNING DESIGN GROUP Phone: 503-236-6000 Fax: 503-232-2357 Date: 03/28/95 Pages including this cover page: 3 RE: REQUEST FOR PRE-APP FOR PROPOSED CHEVRON AT 135TH & SW SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD MARK: PLEASE SEE FOLLOWING PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR A PROPOSED CHEVRON AT THE ABOVE REFERENCED LOCATION. WE WILL NEED TO DISCUSS THE DESIGN ISSUES AND THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IN A PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE WITH THE CITY. PLEASE LET ME KNOW AT YOUR EARLIEST CONVENIENCE, THE SCHEDULED DATE FOR A PRE-APP. THANK YOU. .-MAR-28-95 TUE 1154 • P. 02• PROPERTY SPECIFICATIONS Location: SW Scholls Ferry Road at SW 135th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon Description: The property has approximately six acres of developable land and another two acres of "greenway." The site is next to the newly improved,five-lane arterial,SW Scholls Ferry Road. Two signalized intersections allow arterial access to the site. Extensive apartment complexes and subdivisions surround it. The nearest retail centers to the property are one-half mile to the east and west. Large "backup" trade areas extend to the north and south of the site. Zoning: The site is a new retail opportunity eligible for Tigard's newly adopted "Community Commercial" retail zone. Demographics: Avg. Household . Radius Population Income • 1 Mile 14,925 $56,233 3 Mile 89,579 $48,478 5 Mile 203,177 $49,775 Traffic Counts: 34,000 cars per day surrounding the site Proposed Plan / . (subject to change) ___<, ece.r„.. • i 1I 1 '� '' / / /1,t; . I+ IL=M. ;11 I . / / ' `$ -�''nllfl i L.._ /:) - L` -. -_ 3.W.HAWK'S ETEARD ST. _ 7.t! • 0 ///c/* •/7 72---:--:". ..:::71 i / a o & '' / .=. I 12 . ( ' tom -. / I.—. -_ _ 1 ,i , ; 1-_-1: ri r1 ��, r _ m , / J i /i C / --A uxr4on Q 11i -' �- - I I L MR-28-95 TUE 11 :55 13, 03 II • 0 ....------ DUSTING EASEMENT UNE I.--------------------.. • SCICIL . ....„-- CO AE LANDSCAPING RNER FE • . It riiiiUD (Ppm, . y I 1 lir ° ----- IIIII freiltii 0. 4 I 1....._ -_-.. / 041 ..<5 4. . 4, -`::;'e 42 vv. - a ... C-STORE 2500 SF. ---- ,!. 144000 • t ..______ ..... c`) ..... . '. .PRELIMI,NARY SITE SKEITCH A * / • ..._ .. PEO,W..Gr: TOLE: BODE CHEVRON [p LD ci P an n TI ng/DeSi girl REVNak A DME: 01/06/95 -HOARD, OREGON -. -, -__-_----'---1 1 Grounp SC411" 1 ,---50 —0 _ 122 SE. 27th _ -FACILITY "IP" BY: c 6 BEATTY POR1LAND, OREGON 97214 7111 ------------- FILE N194E" 71 11 SK1 Phone: (503) 236-6000 Fax: (503) 232-2357 -•••-- • • - -- -