The URL can be used to link to this page

ZON2007-00018 c LAND USE PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION TIGARD 120 DAYS = 5/20/2008 FILE NO.: ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2007-00018 (Type IIIB Land Use Decision) FILE NAME: FRY ZONE CHANGE APPLICANT& Douglas Fry APPLICANT'S T.M.Rippey Consulting Engineers OWNER: c/o Commercial Tenant Advisors REP.: Attn: Lans Stout Attn:Brad Pihas 7650 SW Beveland Street,Suite 100 22151 SW 55th Avenue Tigard,OR 97223 Tualatin,OR 97062 REQUEST: The applicant requests a zone change from C-G (PD) to C-G for a 3.19-acre parcel located on the SE.corner of SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street. Removal of the Planned Development(PD) overlay eliminates the requirement for a public hearing process and to meet current PD standards. Any future development must still meet all other applicable development standards including the Tigard Triangle design criteria. LOCATION: South side of SW Dartmouth between SW 70th and 72nd Avenues. 12625 SW 70th Avenue; Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S101AB,Tax Lot 100. CURRENT ZONING: C-G: General Commercial District. The C-G zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area. Except where non-conforming, residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide range of uses,including but not limited to adult entertainment, automotive equipment repair and storage, mini-warehouses, utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment, and gasoline stations, are permitted conditionally. Planned Development (PD) Overlay. The purposes of the planned development overlay zone are to provide a means for property development that is consistent with Tigard's Comprehensive Plan through the application of flexible standards which consider and mitigate for the potential impacts to the City; and to provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the City, alternative building designs,walkable communities, preservation of significant natural resources,aesthetic appeal,and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of strict adherence to many of the rules of the Tigard Community Development Code;and to achieve unique neighborhoods (by varying the housing styles through architectural accents, use of open space, innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their character and city benefits, while respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size transitioning;and to preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities (trees, water resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a planning procedure (site design and analysis,presentation of alternatives,conceptual review,then detailed review) that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site; and to consider an amount of development of a site, within the limits of density requirements,which will balance the interests of the owner, developer,neighbors, and the City; and to provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment through sustainable and innovative building and public facility construction methods and materials. PROPOSED ZONING: C-G: General Commercial District. The C-G zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area. Except where non-conforming,residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide range of uses,including but not limited to adult entertainment, automotive equipment repair and storage, mini-warehouses, utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment,and gasoline stations,are permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.520; and Comprehensive Plan Policies 1,2,3,4,5,7, 8,9,and 12. DECISION MAKING BODY BELOW: ❑ TYPE I ❑ TYPE II TYPE III-B 0 TYPE IV 'COMMENTS WERE SENT: FEBRUARY 5,2008 COMMENTS ARE DUE: FEBRUARY 19,2008 HEARINGS OFFICER (MON.) DA 1'F OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION (MON.) DATE OF HEARING: 3/3/08(Tentative) TIME: 7:00 PM CITY COUNCIL (TUES.) DA'i'F OF HEARING: TIME: 7:30 PM STAFF DECISION (TENTATIVE) DA 1'1✓OF DECISION: COMPONENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION /1 VICINITY MAP U DRAINAGE PLAN IMPACT STUDY SI'Z'E PLAN IL STORM WA 1'ER ANALYSIS WETLANDS DELINEATION ►1 NARRATIVE TREE PLAN OTHER: MISCELLANEOUS STAFF CONTACT: Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner (503) 639-4171,Ext. 2434 Z� N 200-7- OOC1� CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes March 3, 2008 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Inman, Commissioners Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Muldoon,Walsh, and Vermilyea Commissioners Absent: Hasman Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff,Planning Manager; Ron Bunch,Assistant Community Development Director; Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner;Doreen Laughlin, Administrative Specialist II 3. COMMUNICATIONS None 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES There was a motion by Commissioner Doherty, seconded by Commissioner Vermilyea, to approve the February 19, 2008, special meeting minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Anderson, Doherty, Fishel, Inman, Muldoon, and Vermilyea NAYS: None ABS'1'ENTIONS: Commissioners Caffall&Walsh EXCUSED: Commissioner Hasman There was a motion by Commissioner Fishel, seconded by Commissioner Doherty, to approve the February 25, 2008, meeting minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Muldoon,Vermilyea, and Walsh NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: President Inman EXCUSED: Commissioner Hasman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 3,2008—Page 1 I:\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Minutes 2008Upc 3-3-08 Draft Minutes.00c • I 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2007-00018 - FRY ZONE CHANGE REQUEST: The applicant requests a zone change from C-G (PD) to C-G for a 3.19-acre parcel located on the SE corner of SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street. Removal of the Planned Development (PD) overlay eliminates the requirement for a public hearing process and to meet current PD standards. Any future development must still meet all other applicable development standards including the Tigard Triangle design criteria. LOCATION: South side of SW Dartmouth between SW 70th and 72nd Avenues. 12625 SW 70th Avenue; Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S101AB, Tax Lot 100. CURRENT ZONING: C-G: General Commercial District with Planned Development (PD) Overlay. PROPOSED ZONING: C-G: General Commercial District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.520; and Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 12. President Inman opened the public hearing. Commissioner Caffall reported a site visit. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner, Gary Pagenstecher, presented the staff report on behalf of the city. He drew attention to copies of submitted comments — one for, and one against the zone change. The comment against the change was from Susan Bielke (Exhibit A), and the comment for it was from a neighbor from the parcel to the south of the applicant's property (Exhibit B). There were some questions asked of staff by the Planning Commission. The recommendation by staff to the Planning Commission was to give 3 different alternatives from which to choose in the form of alternatives: Alternative #1: If the Planning Commission finds that Commission review and applicability of the revised PD standards are not necessary to this particular site, approve the change as requested by the applicant. Alternative #2: If the Planning Commission feels that Commission review is important but the application of additional open space was not intended for commercial/industrial development: A. Have the applicant prepare an amendment to the code eliminating the open space requirement for commercial or industrial land; or B. Wait for review of a staff proposal to clarify the applicability of the revised open space requirement to commercial and industrial land. Alternative #3: If the Planning Commission finds this particular site, because of its unique nature and the intent of the PD provisions, warrants Commission review and applicability of the PD standards, deny the applicant's request for removal of the PD overlay. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUThS—March 3,2008—Page 2 IALRPLMDoreenlPC\PC Minutes 2008upc 3-3-08 Draft Minutes.doc • APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION The applicant introduced himself as Lans Stout, a planning consultant in Tigard [the applicant's representative.] He noted this same type of zone change was discussed last August [at which time the overlay was removed]. The applicant itemized reasons why he wants the PD overlay removed in this case. He pointed out what he considered to be conflicts and inaccuracies in the staff report. He took exception to the comment on page one that stated, "Removal of the PD overlay eliminates requirements for a public hearing process to meet current standards." He said they are not trying to get around the public process. He noted the public hearing process is embodied in a Type II administrative staff review on the Tigard Triangle design standards. He said if a review body, an applicant, a neighbor, or an interested party feels the need to appeal it, it still will go to public hearing. He reiterated they are not trying to escape the public process but are trying to focus on the issues. He went through other pages of the staff report pointing out statements he considered inaccurate. The applicant showed a preliminary exhibit of another property as an example of how he could lay out a development. (Exhibit C). After a lengthy presentation, Mr. Stout said this is an important and complicated issue and suggested that the findings made last summer also apply to this site and the PD overlay be removed from this particular property. He encouraged the Planning Commission to look into a larger legislative fix so that this does not have to be done again on other properties that historically have had this PD applied to them that were not subject to the interactive process. There was a time for questions from the commissioners. Some of these questions & comments follow (answers by the applicant are in italics): • Did I hear you say that you were not able to locate any legislative history with respect to why or how the PD overlay came to be? This is true. I did not find it when I was doing this last summer for the other project. I didn't go back and reinvestigate it this time because staff informed me there was none. • Do we have a copy of what Clean Water Services [CWS] presented to you? I don't know what the standards are—whether they are high, low or medium. The does. [He went on to explain the process.] • Did you say CWS had permitted the wetlands for you already? Yes. Permits are in hand for the comdor, DSL, and Clean Water Services. • Are there any height restrictions on the site that would prevent going up rather than out if it were necessary to have the required open space? I don't believe there are height restrictions in the Tigard Triangle standards that would be a factor. Parking is what's going to be the issue. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 3,2008—Page 3 I t.RPLNtD0reen%PC'PC Minutes 20080pc 3-3-08 Draft Minutes.doc i • So assuming no change is made tonight, and you have to live with the PD overlay, you cannot lose any parking. Presumably, you are not going to build a structure, which means, somehow you have to come up with a way to deal with it within the footprint of the building itself, correct? I think that's a safe assumption. • You have not developed a contingency design if you have to apply the PD? That's true. • Do you have an intended use for these buildings? I'm a little bit out of my area here because I'm not the developer— I'm just the planning consultant- but I believe what they're talking about is some extra retail-probably some medical offices and some general puipose offices. • So your parking requirements are for retail—people coming and going often? The parking requirements are based on what the code requires for both retail and medical offices. President Inman gave a general reminder to the commissioners that this is a zone change and encouraged them to avoid getting too specific on the actual plan. There were no other questions for Mr. Stout. PUBLIC TESTIMONY President Inman opened up the meeting for testimony from the audience. There was no public testimony, either for, or against the zone change. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED President Inman closed the public hearing at 8:17pm and said this was the Commission's opportunity to deliberate and discuss where they are. Commissioner Walsh asked of the group "Does anyone care to go back and ask questions of staff at this time?" There were questions regarding setting a precedent should two approvals of removal of the PD overlay go through. Staff answered they don't think so. It was noted that, theoretically, an applicant could always come to them and say, "Look, you've done this twice before. Why can't you do it again?" There is no requirement to do it again. No precedent is set. After a few more questions of,staff, the commission deliberated at length. A portion of the deliberation follows: One of the commissioners encouraged the others to think about what they want the Triangle, ultimately, to look like. To think about how do they want to see development progress — the kinds of development they want to see... and is there a danger of getting too locked into this one parcel. He noted, "This is obviously what's before us tonight, but I think it may be the circumstances have changed from 1984, and even since 2006, in terms of what the original purpose was for the PD overlay. The fact remains it is a tool we have at our disposal to help try to guide the nature and character of the neighborhoods. I think that PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 3,2008—Page 4 \LRPLN\Doreen'PC\PC Minutes 2008Hpc 3-3-08 Draft Minutes.AOc • • is a good thing. I am uncomfortable with one of the options,which is to just do away with the overlay. I think that would be premature at this point. I'm leaning towards not removing the overlay from this property." Another commissioner said she was struggling with the fact that if we do not have the open space requirement in the PD code, she would see this application again as a PD and would not have the opportunity to participate in the process. After much deliberation, there was a motion by Commissioner Vermilyea: "I move that we deny the application to remove the PD overlay on this parcel with respect to zone change application ZON2007-00018 in light of the testimony and the deliberations we've had tonight and the staff comments and recommendations. I move that we deny it." The motion was seconded by Commissioner Doherty. Some discussion ensued regarding identifying findings more clearly. Commissioner Vermilyea withdrew the motion and Commissioner Doherty withdrew the second. After further discussion, Commissioner Vermilyea put forth a new motion: "I move that we deny the application of ZON2007-00018 based on the following findings: On the basis that the Commission finds that the PD review is valuable to address the relationship between natural resources and development on this particular site; that the natural resources on this site would be more protected using a PD review process than not; that, in spite of the apparent changed character over the last 24 years, the PD overlay provides a valuable tool to the Planning Commission for analyzing the proposed uses on this site; and because of the unique nature and intent of the PD provisions, Commission review is appropriate to address and apply the PD standards on this particular site. For that reason, I move that we deny the application." The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fishel and carried as follows: Ayes: President Inman; Commissioners Doherty, Fishel,Walsh, and Vermilyea Nays: Muldoon, Anderson, Caffall Abstained: None Excused: Commissioner Hasman 6. WORKSHOP WITH LAND USE POLICY INTEREST TEAM Ron Bunch, Assistant Community Development Director, suggested that, [due to the lateness of the hour], they postpone this workshop to a later date. The Commission agreed this was a good idea and they moved on to the next agenda item. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 3,2008—Page 5 I:\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Packets for 2008\PC Packet for 3-17-08 Workshop\tpc 3.3-08 Drafl Minutes.00c • 7. OTHER BUSINESS It was noted the next meeting would be held on March 17 and will be a workshop. 8. ADJOURNMENT President Inman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 pm. U Doreen Laughlin,Administrative Sp-. *st II ATTEST: President Jodie Inman PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—March 3,2008—Page 6 I:LLRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Minutes 2008Vpc 3-3-08 Draft Minutes.doc Exhibit A March 3, 2008 • Tigard Planning Commission Tigard, Oregon RE: Proposed Zone Change for Fry - 2007-00018 I am writing to comment on the proposed zone change from General Commercial (PD) to just General Commercial for the above Fry property located at 12625 SW 170th Avenue in Tigard, Oregon. My comments are as follows: I have lived in Tigard since 1990 and have been very active in helping to shape and plan our city's future by volunteering for numerous citizen groups. Several years ago I was one of the citizens who was an active member of the Planned Development Committee, a group charged with reviewing and rewriting the PD section of the Comprehensive Plan (CP). Our group spent many, many hours for two years working on this section of the Plan, with a great deal of discussion going into how the PD works and how it could be made better, including allowing more flexibility for land owners and developers than the old version. The final result of our efforts was eventually accepted and adopted by the City of Tigard for the Comprehensive Plan. The current PD section (18.350) of the CP provides ways in which development is consistent with the CP and has very flexible standards which do consider and mitigate for potential impacts to the City. One of the reasons Tigard has a PD section in the CP is to provide and protect the natural areas and opens spaces found here, while at the same time allowing for some development in these areas. When we rewrote the PD section, we made a special effort to make sure these natural areas would be protected since they are also required to be protected under the State of Oregon's Goal 5 and Title 3 processes. These natural areas provide significant benefit to improving water quality, wildlife habitat, and the aesthetic environment of Tigard. The Fry property currently is entirely an open space tract that has a portion of a perennial stream as well as adjoining scrub/shrub and forested habitat on it. For it's location, this habitat is very significant as it offers breeding and nesting sites to a host of wildlife including native songbirds, frogs, etc. in this area. The PD overlay for this and other sites is specifically there to help protect these important resources in Tigard while allowing for some development. It is very important and crucial that the Planned Development overlay on this site stay in place,as it allows for development while at the same time protecting the sites'significant natural resources. We therefore request that the applicant's request to remove the PD overlay be denied since it would negatively impact the site's significant resources and would not meet the requirements of the PD that help to create"unique neighborhoods". This area of Tigard in particular is in need of sites that retain their natural features while allowing some • I development in order to create a vibrant, walkable community that increases the livability for all of Tigard. We also request the applicant's request be denied because on the Public Hearing Notice that was mailed, under the Applicable Review Criteria, the section for the PD section of the code, 18.350, was NOT listed and should have been. This is a serious problem and we request the Notice be sent again and that the Hearing scheduled for tonight be delayed until all parties that received the original Notice have sufficient time to review ALL applicable criteria and comment if they so choose. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Susan Beilke Director, The Biodiversity Project of Tigard Board Member, Fans of Fanno Creek Vice-President, Friends of Summer Creek Exhibit B • • To: Gary Pagenstecher, Staff Planner From: John& Debora Scott George & JoAnn Nordling (Elmhurst Street Residents) File#: Zone Change 2007-00018 File Name: Fry Zone Change This letter is in response to our conversation of February 29, 2008 where I explained that due to other obligations we will be unable to attend the Public Hearing meeting scheduled for March 3, 2008. Our neighbors, George and JoAnn Nordling are currently out of the state and will be unable to attend this meeting as well. Both of our families have had discussions and have some concerns about the proposed development plans for the lots surrounding our properties. In our discussion of February 29, 2008,you indicated that we should voice are concerns in a letter to be presented to the committee that is overseeing the Hearing. This letter is to address the concerns of both families that will be affected with these zone changes and the development of this property. As with any project, we understand that site plans can change as they have with the Fry Project. We were initially told that the types of establishments on the property behind our homes were going to be single-level buildings, including but not limited to small commercial retail establishments. At the most recent neighborhood meeting, we were shown proposed plans for a two-level medical office building as well as a potential drive- thru banking facility. Our concern with having a multi-level building behind our homes is the visual access into our respective yards and the lack of privacy that this will cause. Some of our concerns include whether there will be any height restrictions placed on the type of building(s) that will be constructed on the development site. Is there potential for this multi-level building to be higher than two stories? If this building is a medical building, is there potential for a Heliport as indicated in the letter from the city? We also have questions regarding what types of buffers will be placed between our property lines and the newly developed property? Who makes the determination on the types of buffers that are placed? Is this buffer issue an agreement that must be made between the development company and our families? We also have concerns as the wording contained in the letter from the city indicated the potential of an "adult entertainment" business being allowed by this zoning. We have concerns with the possibility of this type of establishment being built due to the fact that there are small children in our households. We do not want our children put at risk, as historically drug and crime rates increase when there is an "adult entertainment" establishment opened. Will the city allow such facilities to be open in the Tigard Triangle? If the change in zoning is approved and development is to be started,a concern we have is the amount of noise that preparing the land and the subsequent construction will cause. Will there be "quiet hours" in which no construction or land preparation will be made? • ! ` Pg 2 Our final concern is that we feel that there is potential of losing home value if the proposed development occurs and feel that based on this fact, appropriate compensation would be needed for this loss of value. Both of our families agree and are not opposed to new development within the Tigard Triangle, including the land behind our residences. We would consider selling our properties to the development company assuming that the offer price is fair and equitable. By offering our homes we feel this will provide the company with more developed space to attract potential businesses. Thank you for allowing us to voice our concerns. We anticipate responses to the questions above, and request correspondence at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Debora and John Scott JoAnn and George Nordling • 120 DAYS =5/20/2008 ' IJATTh OF FILING: 3/10/2008 gi I DATE MAILED: 3/12/2008 C;-'i� CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION NO. 2008-01 PC Case Number: ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2007-00018 Case Name: FRY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE CHANGE Applicant's Name/Address: Douglas Fry c/o Commercial Tenant Advisors 22151 SW 55th Avenue Tualatin,Oregon 97062 Owner's Names/Addresses: Same as Applicant Address of Property. 12625 SW 70th Avenue Tigard,Oregon 97224 Tax Map/Lot Nos.: Washington Co.Tax Assessor's Map No.2S101AB,Tax Lot 100. A FINAL ORDER INCORPORATING THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE. THE QTY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICANTS PLANS, NARRATIVE, MATERIALS, AND COMMENTS OF REVIEWING AGENCIES, THE PLANNING DIVISION'S STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPLICATION DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 3, 2008 TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THIS APPLICATION. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS FINAL ORDER Request: The applicant requested a zone change from GG (PD) to GG for one parcel totaling approximately 3.19 acres located on the SE corner of SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street. Removal of the Planned Development (PD) overlay eliminates requirements for a public hearing process and to meet current PD standards. Any future development must still meet all other applicable development standards including the Tigard Triangle design criteria. At the March 3, 2008 public hearing, the Planning Commission denied this request primarily on the basis that the Commission finds that the PD review is valuable to address the relationship between natural resources and development on this particular site. Current Zoning: GG: General Commercial District with Planned Development (PD) Overlay. Applicable Review Criteria: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.520;and Comprehensive Plan Policies 1,2, 3, 4, 5,7, 8,9 and 12. Action: > El Approval as Requested El Approval with Conditions © Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper and mailed to: © Owners of Record within the Required Distance © Affected Government Agencies © Interested Parties © The Applicants and Owners Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON MARCH 12, 2008 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON MARCH 27, 2008 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: The decision of the Review Authority is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the notice of the decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON MARCH 26, 2008. Questions: If you have any questions,please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. • • NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2008-01 PC ili q BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD; OREGON TIGARD A FINAL ORDER DENYING A LAND USE APPLICATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE. THE COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THIS APPLICATION ON MARCH 3, 2008. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BASED THEIR DECISION ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL WITHIN THIS FINAL ORDER. 120 DAYS = 5/20/2008 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NO.: Zone Change (ZON) ZON2007-00018 FILE NAME: FRY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE CHANGE PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a zone change from GG (PD) to GG for one parcel totaling Dapproximately 3.19 acres located on the SE corner of SW 72nd Avenue and SW artmouth Street. Removal of the Planned Development (PD) overlay eliminates requirements for a public hearing process and to meet current PD standards. Any future development must still meet all other applicable development standards including the Tigard Triangle design criteria. APPLICANT & APPLICANT'S OWNER Douglas Fry REP: T M. Rippey Consulting Engrs. c/o Commercial Tenant Advisors Attn: Lans Stout Attn: Brad Pihas 7650 SW Beveland St.,Suite 100 22151 SW 55th Avenue Tigard,OR 97223 Tualatin, OR 97062 LOCATION: South of SW Dartmouth, between SW 70th and SW 72nd Avenues; 12625 SW 70th Avenue; WCTM 2S101AB,Tax Lot 100. CURRE NT ZONE: GG: General Commercial District (PD). The GG zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a Citywide and even regional trade area. Except where non-conforming, residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide range of uses,including but not limited to adult entertainment, automotive equipment repair and storage, mini-warehouses, utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment, and gasoline stations, are permitted conditionally. Planned Development (PD) Overlay. The purposes of the planned development overlay zone are to provide a means for property development that is consistent with Tigard's Comprehensive Plan through the application of flexible standards which consider and mitigate for the potential impacts to the City; and to provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the City, alternative building designs, walkable communities, preservation of significant natural resources, aesthetic appeal, and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of strict adherence to many of the rules of the Tigard Community Development Code; and to achieve unique neighborhoods (by varying the housing styles through architectural accents, use of open space, innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their character and city iDenefits, while respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size transitioning; and to reserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities trees, water resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a planning procedure (site esign and analysis, presentation of alternatives, conceptual review, then detailed ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMIMIISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 1 OF 14 . • �, review) that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site; and to consider an amount of development on a site, within the limits of density requirements,which will balance the interests of the owner,developer, neighbors,and the City; and to provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment through sustainable and innovative building and public facility construction methods and materials. PROPOSED ZONE: GG: General Commercial District. The GG zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area. Except where non-conforming, residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide range of uses,including but not limited to adult entertainment, automotive equipment repair and storage mini-warehouses, utilities, heliports medical centers, major event entertainment, and gasoline stations, are permitted-conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.520; and Comprehensive Plan Policies 1,2, 3,4, 5-, 7,8,9 and 12. SECTION II. PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION The Planning Commission finds that the PD review is valuable to address the relationship between natural resources and development on this particular site; that the natural resources on this site would be more protected using a PD review process than not;that in spite of the apparent changed character over the last 24 years, the PD overlay provides a valuable tool to the Planning Commission for analyzing the proposed uses on this site; and because of the unique nature of the site and intent of the PD provisions,Commission review is appropriate to address and apply the PD standards. Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Zone Change would adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City and DENIES the Zone Change. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History&Information Staff reviewed the zoning history of the site utilizing old zoning maps and searching City- records. The subject property is shown on a 1977 Existing Land Use Map designated as "agricultural' . The site was shown on a 1981 Zoning Map and on the 1982 Preliminary Compprehensive Plan Map as being in unincorporated Washington County. Ordinance 83-24 adopted the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Maps including the Development Standard Areas Map for "Developing Areas . This map showed the subject property and surrounding_properties extending to the west comprising roughly the same area that was shown designated GG (PD) in the subsequent 1984 Zoning Map for the City. A search of City records showed that no land use applications to develop the site have been made beyond the site development and planned development review applications associated with the current owner, which have been withdrawn. Tax lot 100 has had several Code Enforcement Actions for noxious vegetation and a junk car. Vicinity Information The site is located within the Tigard Triangle, which is subject to the Tigard Triangle Design Standards to create a high quality, mixed use employment area. Site and building design requirements for this area include building placement near the street, round floor window requirements and articulation along street frontages. Zoning in the area is a mix of CG, GG (PD), and MUE (Mixed Use Employment). Many of the sites within the Triangle are being re-developed and converted from residential to commercial uses. ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 2 OF 14 • • Properties to the south and east are zoned MUE and improved with single-family homes and office buildings. Property to the north across Dartmouth Street is zoned C-G (PD) where site development for a proposed office building is in progress. Also to the north at the intersection of SW 72nd Avenue and Dartmouth Street,the Planning Commission recently approved a zone change (ZON2007-00008) from C-G (PD) to C-G on an approximately one-acre site containing no sensitive lands. In addition to the subject arcel, the remaining undeveloped properties in the Tigard Triangle zoned GG (PD) include an adjacent 35-acre parcel and, to the west across SW 72nd Avenue, six contiguous parcels totaling approximately 24.72 acres. Site Information and Proposal Description The proposed zone change applies to one 3.19-acre parcel, Tax Lot 100. Sensitive lands including a draingeway and jurisdictional wetlands exist on the subject parcel. The subject parcel slopes moderately to the north and west and contains a number of emergent and some mature trees, and is otherwise covered with grasses and shrubs. The applicant is requesting to remove the planned development overlay zone, changing the zone from GG (PD) to GG to facilitate development of a new commercial retail/office project without the burden of the planned development standards and review. The applicant states that other options were considered to address the PD overlay, including development under the PD criteria, modifying the PD code to address the difficulty of developing a commercial site under the current standards, or changing the entire site to MUE through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Zone Change. The applicant concluded that "it may be argued that dealing with these issues can be addressed by the PD provisions themselves, [but] in the end the question remains whether the interest of the property owner and the City are well served by using these procedures to correct a historic problem rather than sunp_y correcting the problem and applying the appropriate Code standards to a development application." The applicant describes the problem for commercial development under the PD overlay zone, in summary, as follows: • The applicant contends that the planned development purposes in 'MC 18.350.010.A.2 through 4 relate to residential development and are therefore not applicable to sites zoned GG. • The applicant suggests that, notwithstanding the legislatively applied PD designation to the subject parcel tine applicant should still be allowed the choice of implementing the PD standards or rely on the underlying zone standards as intended in'lDC 18.350.020. • The applicant suggests that permits obtained for Corps/DSL and CWS should be adequate in-lieu of addressing the concept plan approval criteria in TDC 18.350.050A2 and 6 relating to the preservation of natural features and development that has significant advantages over a standarc development. • The applicant contends that 40% of the subject commercial site would be required in landscaping 20% (TDC 18.350.070.4.Ah) and shared open space 20% (1DC 18.350.070.4Am) representing a significant difficulty for a commercial site where 15% landscaping is the conventional standard. Staff addresses elth grthese points in the analysis sa ion grthis von on pa e 12. Summary of Issues The applicant has identified several PD standards, above, that they believe are problematic for commercial development. The Commission voiced concern at the August 6, 2007 Planning Commission meetingthat the shared open space standard (18.350.070.4A.m) may not be applicable to commercial development. The open space standards were adopted long after the original application of the PD overlay that made available or required in certain instances PD review for commercial and industrial development. Are the revised Planned Development standards (Ord. 06-16) otherwise generally suitable and intended for both residential and commercial developments. ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PLANNING 00MMISSIONFINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 3 OF 14 • • tj The Commission's prior decision (ZON 2007-00008) removing the PD overlay on property in the vicinity of the subject parcel and found that due to the subject parcel's small one-acre size, lack of natural resources and application of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards, removing the PD standards would have no significant effect. Are the circumstances of_this case substantially different to allow the Commission to deny the request? Given that the Tigard Triangle n Desi Standards and the Corp/DSL/CWS permit requirements would apply to the subject parcel without the PD overlay, is there a benefit to the City to continue to apply the Planned Development standards and Planning Commission review in this case, and on the other undeveloped PD overlay zoned parcels in the vicinity? Staff addizses these issues in the analysis satian(Phis report on page 13. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Statewide Planning Goals, Metro Urban Growth Management Plan, and Metro Regional Framework Plan Policies are not applicable to this land use decision. No changes are proposed to the Comprehensive Plan and the land use action requested is not legislative. TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.380: Section 18.380.030.A states that the Commission shall decide zone change applications which do not involve comprehensive plan map amendments. The proposed zone change application to remove the PD overlay, changing the zoning on the subject parcel from GG (PD) to GG does not involve a comprehensive plan map amendment. Therefore, the Planning Commission shall make a decision on the proposed zone change application. Section 18.380.030.B states that 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: Section 18.380.030.B.1 Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES 1. GENERAL POLICIES: lt1.a The city shall ensure that this comprehensive plan and all future legislative changes are consistent with the statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission, the Regional Plan adopted by the Metropolitan Service District; Implementation Strategies 1. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and the Official Zoning District map will reflect the plan policies and apply land use categories in the following manner. f. General Commercial - Refers to areas for auto-oriented and related commercial uses located along major traffic ways. The applicable zoning district is General Commercial(C-G). The proposed zone change from GG (PD) to C-G complies with the Comprehensive Map designation of "General Commercial" because the C-G zoning district implements the General Commercial Comprehensive Plan Designation. Removal of the PD overlay would not amend the comprehensive plan and is not a legislative change. Therefore, the General Policies do not apply. ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 4 OF 14 • • 2. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT: 2.1.1 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 applicant's representative sent out notices to surrounding property owners and neighborhood representatives, posted a sign on the property and held a neighborhood meeting on December 27, 2007 in accordance with the City of Tigard's neighborhood meeting notification process. According to the minutes of the neighborhood meeting, five neighbors were in attendance. Discussion related to the timing of traffic signalization on 72nd Avenue and street improvements on Elmhurst Street, the height of the proposed Building C, construction noise, and wetland fill. No objections were given to the proposed zone change. In addition, the City has mailed notice of the Planning Commission hearing to property owners within 500 feet of the subject site, interested citizens, and agencies,published notice of the hearing and posted the site pursuant to 'IDC 18.390.050 for Type III Procedures. With these public involvement provisions and the applicant's documented participation, the proposed zone change is consistent with applicable Citizen Involvement policies. 3. NATURAL FEATURES AND OPEN SPACE: 3.1.1 The city shall not allow development in areas having the following development limitations except where the developer demonstrates that generally accepted 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 floodplain and wetlands map.): A. Areas meeting the definition of wetlands under chapter 18.26 of the community development code; According to the applicant, the site does include jurisdictional wetlands and does not include any significant wetlands as identified on the City of Tigard's "Wetland and Streams Corridor Map". These wetlands are subject to Corps/DSL and Clean Water Services standards and will be addressed at the time of Development Review. 3.4.2 The city shall: A. Protect fish and wildlife habitat along stream corridors by managing the riparian habitat and controlling erosion, and by requiring that areas of standing trees and natural vegetation along natural drainage courses and waterways be maintained to the maximum extent possible; B. Require that development proposals in designated timbered or tree areas be reviewed through the planned development process to minimize the number of trees removed; and C. Require cluster type development in areas having important wildlife habitat value as delineated on the "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Map" on file at the city. As the applicant states, there is no floodplain or steep slopes on the subject parcel. Any geotechnical issues may be addressed during Site Development Review. There is a draingeway, a tributary to Red Rock Creek that traverses the property from east to west. The drainageway would be better characterized as a ditch, rather than a natural drainage course. The creek has been significantly altered by the construction of SW Dartmouth Street. The stream corridor across the property no longer includes areas of standing trees and the natural vegetation has been significantly degraded. The "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Map" has been replaced (Ord.06-20) by the "Significant Habitat Areas Map" which shows both lower and moderate value habitat areas on the site. CWS standards will apply to the moderate value vegetated corridor on the site. The Significant Habitat Areas Map is implemented ythrough non-regulatory measures such as cluster-type development usually associated with residntial development. ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CI-IANGE PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 5 OF 14 • • 4 The natural resource chapter includes implementation strategies that encourage, through the Planned Development Process, the retention of large, varied habitat areas on private and public lands including inventoried plant and animal communities;and, where there exist large or unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas within the planning area on undeveloped land, the City shall ensure that development proposals do not substantially alter the character of the vegetation areas through the Planned Development Process and the "Tree Cutting" section of the Community Development Code. The existing property, zoned C-G (PD), is bordered by a collector, an arterial, and intense commercial development. The approximately 3-acre property does not include large varied habitat areas of inventoried plant and animal communities or large or unique stands of trees. Therefore, the purpose for which a planned development overlay was originally established under these implementation strategies may not continue to exist. The PD designations in the Triangle preceded the environmental regulations and appear to have been placed to cause review partly because of the proximity of residential neighborhoods whose residential designations no longer exist in the Triangle. However, there remains a dramageway and jurisdictional wetlands on the subject property that will be protected at minimum under Corp/DSL/CWS permits. The proposed zone change does not involve development. The applicable Natural Features and Open Space Policies have been adequately addressed with respect to planned-development review. 4. AIR, WATER AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY: 4.2.1 All development within the Tigard urban planning area shall comply with applicable federal, state and regional water quality standards, including those contained in the Clean Water Services' Design and Construction Manual. (rev. Ord. 02-15) 4.3.1 The city shall: A. Require development proposals located in a noise congested area or a use which creates noise in excess of the applicable standards to incorporate the following into the site plan: 1. Building placement on the site in an area where the noise levels will have a minimal impact; or 2. Landscaping and other techniques to lessen noise impacts to levels compatible with the surrounding land uses. B. Coordinate with DEQ in its noise regulation program and apply the Vol. Ii, policy 4-4 DEQ land use compatibility program. C. 'Where applicable require a statement from the appropriate agency(prior to the approval of a land use proposal) that all applicable standards can be met. Removal of the PD overlay will not change the standards related to water quality or noise standards. All new developments within the City of Tigard are required to collect and treat storm water run-off for the site utilizing Clean Water Services design standards. Noise level allowances are regulated by the Tigard Municipal Code 7.40.130 through 7.40.210. During pre-application meetings held for future site development, the applicant has proposed retail and office uses. These are not uses which create excessive noise. They are also the same type of uses already existing on many surrounding properties as the neighborhood continues to change from residential to commercial. Buffering will be required where future commercial development occurs adjacent to a residential use. The roposed zone change does not involve development. The applicable Air,Water and Land Resources Quality Policies will be addressed at the time of Development Review. 5. ECONOMY: 5.1 The City shall promote activities aimed at the diversification of the economic opportunities available to Tigard residents with particular emphasis placed on the growth of the local job market. ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PLANNING OOMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 6 OF 14 [ • • Because the underlying zone remains General Commercial, all the allowed uses will be the same. The PD overlay does not provide more growth opportunities for the local job market. Due to the constraints outlined within the PD code,the applicant states that removal of the PD will allow the site to develop in a manner that will increase economic activity. The question is whether application of the PD process is seen as inhibiting economic opportunities. This must be weighed in relation to the benefits of the PD review. Other than the fact that most applicants prefer a Type II process in terms of speed and certainty of the standards, there have been no arguments made in this application that conclusively indicate that the economy is not served by use of the PD review process. 5.4 The City shall ensure that new commercial and industrial development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial or industrial uses. There are residential uses south of the site. The area is currently zoned for commercial development and many sites in the area have been re-developed with commercial uses. Any proposed commercial development on the site will not be encroaching into residential zones. Buffering and screening will be required next to these existing residences if the site is developed with a commercial use. This policy is typical of the existing Comprehensive Plan's emphasis on protecting existing single-family neighborhoods, which in this case no longer exist because of zone changes from residential to commercial and recent development activity. The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable Economic policies. 7. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: 7.1.2 The City shall require as a pre-condition to development approval that; a. Development coincide with the availability of adequate service capacity including: 1. Public water, 2. Public sewer shall be required for new development within the city unless the property involved in over 300 feet from a sewer line and Washington County Health Department approval for a private disposal system is obtained; and 3. Storm drainage. b. The facilities are: 1. Capable of adequately serving all intervening properties and the proposed development; and 2. Designed to city standards. c. All new development utilities to be placed underground. According to City maps, storm, sanitary sewer, and water are all available at the corner of 72nd and Dartmouth. The proposed use of the site will undergo development review to ensure that public facilities and services are adequate, capable of serving the properties, and designed to city standards. The.proposed zone change does not involve any development. City's applicable Public Facilities and Services Polices will be addressed at the time of actual development review. 8. TRANSPORTATION: Transportation System 8.1.1 Plan, design and construct transportation facilities in a manner which enhances the livability of Tigard by: a. Proper location and design of transportation facilities. b. Encouraging pedestrian accessibility by providing safe, secure and desirable pedestrian routes. c. Addressing issues of excessive speeding and through traffic on local residential streets through a neighborhood traffic program. The program should address corrective measures for existing problems and assure that development incorporates traffic calming. ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 7 OF 14 • • 8.1.2 Provide a balanced transportation system, incorporating all modes of transportation (including motor vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, transit and other modes) by: a. The development of and im lementation of public street standards that recognize the multi-purpose nature of the street right-of-way for utility, pedestrian, bicycle, transit, truck and auto use. b. Coordination with Tri-met, and/or any other transit providers serving Tigard, to improve transit service to Tigard. Fixed route transit will primarily use arterial and collector streets in Tigard. Development adjacent to transit routes will provide direct pedestrian accessibility. c. Construction of bicycle lanes on all arterials and collectors within Tigard consistent with the bicycle master. All schools, parks, public facilities and retail areas shall strive to have direct access to a bikeway. d. Construction of sidewalks on all streets within Tigard. All schools parks, public facilities and retail areas shall strive to have direct access to a sidewalk. e. Development of bicycle and pedestrian plans which link to recreational trails. f. Design local streets to encourage a reduction in trip length by providing connectivity and limiting out-of-direction travel and provide connectivity to activity centers and destinations with a priority for bicycle and pedestrian connections. g. Tigard will participate in vehicle tnp reduction strategies developed regionally targeted to achieve non-single occupant vehicle levels outlined in Table 1.3 of the Regional Transportation Plan. h. Tigard will support the development of a commuter rail system as part of the regional transit network. 8.1.4 Set and maintain transportation performance measures that: a. Set a minimum intersection level of service standard for the City of Tigard and requires all public facilities to be designed to meet this standard. b. Set parking ratios to provide adequate parking,while providing an incentive to limit the use of the single occupant vehicle. c. Encourage working with other transportation providers in Washington County, including Tri-Met, and ODOT to develop, operate and maintain intelligent transportation systems, including coordination o}trafific. 8.2 Trafficways 8.2.1 The city shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. 8.2.2 The city shall provide for efficient management of the transportation planning process within the city and the metropolitan area through cooperation with other federal, state, regional and local jurisdictions. 8.2.3 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 impacts; 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; G. Parking spaces be set aside and marked for cars operated by disabled persons and that the spaces be located as close as possible to the entrance designed for disabled persons; and H. Land be dedicated to implement the bicycle/pedestrian corridor in accordance with the adopted plan. ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 8 OF 14 • • The Transportation Goal olicies and implementation strategies are largely directed at the City and include objectives that create the framework for ensuring that the transportation system is adequate for all modes of travel at the time development occurs. These objectives are implemented by the Development Code standards that apply during development review. None of the minimum requirements for streets, access or parking would be different if the site were developed as a Planned Development. As stated in the applicant's narrative, the proposed subsequent development will require a traffic study. At a minimum this study must address site distance for access points, peak period vehicle trips and the development's affect on nearby entry/exit ramps for Interstate 5. At the time of Site Development or Planned Development Review, the City will require additional dedication of land and street improvements to meet current standards along Clinton Street, Dartmouth Street and 72nd Avenue. In addition funds will be collected that will contribute to the signali7,ation of the Dartmouth/68th intersection and Dartmouth/72nd intersection. The future commercial project is likely to generate increased transit ridership. Tri-Met bus route 78 serves the subject site with a bus sto_p located at the intersection of 68th Parkway and Dartmouth Street. Any future development must include pedestrian connections such as a sidewalk or plaza. Sidewalks are currently not constructed to connect this site with the bus line along 68th Parkway, but will happen with future development. All on-site parking and circulation for any proposed development will be done to City specifications as required by the Tigard Development Code. Maximum parking regulations will limit the amount of parking provided to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation. As shown in the foregoing analysis, the City's applicable Transportation Polices will be addressed at the time of Site Development or Planned Development Review. 9. ENERGY: 9.1.3 The City shall encourage land use development which emphasizes sound energy conservation, design and construction. Applicable implementation strategies to support this goal include: 3) The City shall locate higher densities and intensities of land use in proximity to existing and potential transit routes specifically with convenient access to federal and state highways, artenals and major collector streets, and 8) The City shall coordinate with and support public and private planning efforts that advocate alternative forms of transportation such as mass transit, carpooling, ride share, bicycling and walking for commuter purposes. The site is located at the corner of 72nd Avenue and Dartmouth Street which is within 1/4 mile of an I-5 interchange. State Highway 99 is less than i/2 mile to the north. Another collector (68th Parkway) is within two blocks of the site. The proposed removal of the PD overlay would not change the allowed uses on the site. Tigard Development Code standards such as maximum parking and required bicycle parking will encourage tie use of alternative forms of transportation. These criteria are reviewed during the Site Development or Planned Development Review process. The proposed zone change will have no effect on the efficient use of the transportation system to conserve energy and will remain consistent with the applicable Energy Policies. 12. LOCATIONAL CRITERIA: 12.2 COMMERCIAL 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. ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSIONFINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 9 OF 14 • • 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. ocational 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. (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) mpact 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. The proposed removal of the planned development overlay does not change the underlying General Commercial zone. Therefore, the Locational Policies do not apply. FINDING: Both GG (PD) and C-G zoning are treated as General Commercial under the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Designations. The removal of the overlay zone would not change the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation. The Comprehensive Plan Polices for Natural Features and Open Space (3.4.2), provided a basis for the use of the planned development process, and its use on the subject property and properties in the vicinity to protect the character of the vegetation areas where there exist large or unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas within the planning area on undeveloped land. Based on the analysis above, the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies have been adequately addressed. The proposed zone change to remove the PD overlay may not be consistent with Natural Features and Open Space policies (3.4.2) depending on whether changes to the area have resulted in substantial degradation of tie resource where the PD standards would no longer be applicable. ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO 2008-01 PC PAGE 10 OF 14 18.380.030.B.2 Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance; and- FINDING: The proposed zone change does not include a specific development proposal. However, during Site Development or Planned Development Review, any proposed development will be required to meet all of the current applicable Tigard Development Code standards. 18.380.030.B.3 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. Staff reviewed the zoning history of the site utilizing old zoning maps and searching City records. The subject property is shown on a 1977 Existing Land Use Map designated as "agricultural". The site was shown on a 1981 Zoning Map and on the 1982 Preliminary Comprehensive Plan Map as being in unincorporated Washington County. Ordinance 83-24 adopted the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Maps including the Development Standard Areas Map for "Developing Areas . This map showed the subject dproperty and surrounding properties extending o the west comprised roughly the same area that was es gnat d GG (PD) in the subsequent 1984 Zgoning Map for the City. The Comprehensive Plan policies for Natural Features and Open Space (3.4.2), provide a basis for the use of the planned development process, and explain its use in this case, to protect the character of the vegetation areas where there exist large or unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas within the planning area on undeveloped land. In 1999, the City adopted the Tigard Triangle Design Standards for the area lying between Highway 99 Interstate 5 and Highway 217. These standards adopted guiding principles to create a high-quality mixed use employment area, provide a convenient pedestnan and bikeway system, and utilize streetscapes for a quality image. In 2006, the Planning Commission adopted the revised PD standards to emphasize the balancing of flexible standards with environmental and community benefits (Ord. 06-16). The revisions included among others new open space requirements and affirmed a two-step review process for conceptual and detailed development proposals. There is some question whether consideration of the open space requirement was intended for use on commercial and industrial properties. The Natural Features and Open Space Comprehensive Plan policies provide some basis for the use of PD review. Prior to adoption of the Triangle standards and the revised PD standards, three commercial sites were approved through the PD process including WinCo, Costco and Toys-R Us. These were all large sites of at least 6 or more acres and included or were adjacent to sensitive lands. Over the years, the Tnangle area has been redeveloping into an area with larger retail uses along_with large and small scale office buildings, consistent with development allowed in the GG (PD) and MUE zones. FINDING: The foregoing suggests that development in the neighborhood, known as the Tigard Triangle, has occurred consistent with the underlying zones and the planned development overlay. There is no apparent evidence of a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map. However changes to the original zoning and the development code standards that apply to the neighborhood have precipitated the proposed zone change. SECTION V. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF AND OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS The City of Tigard's Long Range Planning Department was notified of the proposal and did not provide comment. No outside agencies were notified of the proposal because no development or other applicable action is proposed for their review. ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 11 OF 14 • • SECTION VI. STAFF ANALYSIS ANALYSIS: Based on the information above, the proposed zone change may or may not be consistent with Natural Features and Open Space policies (3.4.2) depending on whether changes to the area have resulted in substantial degradation of the resource where the PD standards would no longer be applicable; any new development will be required to meet all of the current Tigard Development Code standards during Site Development Review. Changes have occurred in the primary zone designations as well as development code standards applicable to Triangle properties. The applicant describes the problem for commercial development under the revised PD standards, in summary, as follows: 1) The applicant contends that the planned development purposes in'IDC 18.350.010A2 through 4 relate to residential development and are therefore not applicable to sites zoned G G. Staff Response: Of the PD Chapter's six purpose statements Nos. 3 and 4 relate to residential development, referring to "housing styles" and "density requirements" respectively. Purposes 1, 2, 4, and 6 relate generally to both commercial and residential development. The purpose statements have always applied as appropriate to either commercial or residential development. 2) The applicant suggests that, notwithstanding the legislatively applied PD designation to the subject parcel, the applicant should still be allowed the choice of implementing the PD standards and relies on the underlying zone standards as otherwise intended in TDC 18.350.020. Staff Response: The PD standards explicitly address applicability to commercial development: "The planned development designation is an overlay zone applicable to all zones. An applicant may elect to develop the project as a planned development, in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, or in the case of a commercial or industrial project, an approval authority may apply the provisions of this chapter as a condition of approving any application for the development" (18.350:020). In 1983 the City legislatively applied the PD overlay to specific properties in the Triangle including the subject parcel. Other than reformatting, the revised PD standards did not change the substance of 'IDC 18.350.020 or affect its previous application by the City to the Triangle. The code now and has always indicated that the PD process can apply to commercial and industrial development as well as residential. The question is whether there are substantial reasons to apply the PD to this property. 3) The applicant suggests that permits obtained for Corps/DSL and CWS should be adequate in-lieu of addressing the concept plan approval criteria in TDC 18.350.050.A.2 and 6 relating to the reservation of natural features" and development that has significant advantages over a standard development'. Staff Response: The applicant's preliminary plans demonstrated that Corps/DSL and CWS permits would result in preservation of wetlands to some extent. However, under the PD standards these approval criteria are the means by which the distinctive Talky of a development may be assured either by further protecting natural features, integrating them into the development,or by providing other amenities. 4) The applicant contends that a total of 40% of the subject commercial site would be affected, with 20% in required landscaping (MC 18.350.070.4.A.h) and 20% in shared open space (TDC 18.350.070.4Am), representing a significant difficulty for a commercial site where 15%landscaping is the conventional standard. Staff Response: Section 18.350.070.A.3.d of the revised PD standards require 20% of the net site area be landscaped (18.350.070.4.A.h refers explicitly to residential development); section 18.350.070.A.4.m recuires 20% of the gross site area be designated as a shared open space facility. The standards do not state that these provision must be additive, nor prohibits landscaped areas to be used for the shared open space requirement. However, the definitions adopted with the revised PD standards ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 12 OF 14 i (18.120.102) do imply some "passive use facilities" be reserved for medium-impact recreation and education uses related to the functions and values of the natural area. The PD standards further set maximum site coverage of 80% (18.350.060.C.2). By comparison, commercial development in the C BD and IP zones are subject to maximum site coverage's of 80% and 75%, respectively. The actual amount of open space required for any given development is dependant on a number of factors that makes the open space standard hard to quantify without a specific development proposal. Te resulting uncertainty is problematic for developers. In summary, the PD process requires at least 5% more landscaping than the Site Development Review process. ISSUES: A) The applicant has identified several PD standards, above, that they believe are problematic for commercial development. The Commission voiced concern at the August 6, 2007 Planning Commission meeting that the shared open space standard (18.350.070.4A.m may not be applicable to commercial development. The opens space standards were adopted long after the original application of the PD overlay that made available or required in certain instances PD review for commercial and industrial development. Are the revised Planned Development standards (Ord. 06- 16) otherwise generally suitable and intended for both residential and commercial developments? As reflected in staff's responses above, the applicant's broadly drawn statements on the applicability of the revised PD standards to commercial development are not completely conclusive nor supported by code. Staff believes that applying the requirement for shared open space acilities (18.350.070.A4.m) to commercial and industrial development may have been an oversight because the Planning Commission and Planned Development Committee focus was on residential developments open space requirements for commercial and industnal development were not discussed during he code revision. However,the above analysis suggests that the standard may not be as onerous as thought depending on the open space/landscape calculation for a specific development proposal. Because of the difficulty in determining the actual amount of opens space required, the Commission may want to qualify the applicability of the standard for residential development only, or otherwise clarify the standard to address the uncertainty that is problematic for developers. Alternatively, is there public benefit to retaining the standard in the likelihood that commercial development could better relate to natural resources on the site and improve the quality of the development? B) The Commission's prior decision (ZON 2007-00008) removing the PD overlay on property in the vicinity the subject parcel found that due to the subject parcel's small one-acre size,lack of natural resources, and application of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards, removing the PD standards would have no significant effect.Are the circumstances ofthis case substantially different to allow the Commission to deny the request? The subject site is different in three important respects to the property previously addressed in ZON2007- 00008 including: 1) the size of the subject property is 3.19 acres versus approximately 1 acre 2) the presence of jurisdictional wetlands and drainageways on the subject property versus the absence of'natural resources, and 3) the PD Concept Plan Approval standards (18.350.050.1, 2, and 6) that relate to the natural resources on the subject property are not otherwise covered under the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. These differences in the site and the applicable PD standards that pertain to natural resources allow the Commission to find that the facts of this case could support denial of the request to remove the Planned Development overlay. C) Given that the Tigard Triangle Design Standards and the Corp/DSL/CWS permit requirements would apply to the subject parcel without the PD overlay, is there a benefit to the City to continue to apply the Planned Development standards and Planning Commission review in this case, and on the other undeveloped PD overlay zoned parcels in the vicinity? ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 13 OF 14 • i � � Although the Tigard Triangle Design standards ensure high quality development, principally with regards to building placement and articulation, they do not relate to the relationship of the development to the natural resources on the site. Similarly, Corp/DSL/CWS permits address natural resources on site without concern for the relationship of the proposed development other than providing for exclusion and rehabilitation of resource values. The primary focus of the revised PD standards, as conveyed in the purpose statements and Concept Plan Approval Criteria, is the relationship of the development to the resource that results in development that has significant advantages over standard development. This is the promise of the PD overlay legislatively applied to the subject property and on the approximately 25 remaining undeveloped acres in the Triangle also zoned C-G (PD). SECTION VII. CONCLUSION The City of Tigard Planning Commission has DENIED Zone Change (ZON2007-00018) — FRY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE CHANGE, based on the following findings: that the PD review is valuable to address the relationship between natural resources and development on this particular site; that the natural resources on this site would be more protected using a PD review process than not; that in spite of the apparent changed character over the last 24 years, the PD overlay provides a valuable tool to the Planning Commission for analyzing the proposed uses on this site; and because of the unique nature of the site and intent of the PD provisions, Commission review is appropriate to address and apply the PD standards to this particular site. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE APPLICANT AND ALL PARTIES TO THESE PROCEEDINGS BE NOTIFIED OF THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER DENIED: THE 3`1 DAY OF MARCH, 2008 BY THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION. J6 Jodi Inman,Planning Commission President Dated this I 0 day of March, 2008. is\cuxpin\gary\ZON\Fry Zone Change(ZON2007-00018)\ZON2007-00018 PC FINAL ORDER ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 14 OF 14 riii=:_ti i ,_____:;:__ \7__? ___I 1\_ i I 1 I CITY of TIGARD 1 1 i i / ' ) \ i I r- ' i ? GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM ■ F. -11 I I 1 ( r------1 1 I I I H-- , , .______ ______ 1,_1 , i i , VICINITY MAP , w. 1 i I i i III ! II I L _ (, 1-- ---L1 1 i ---! L T ST __ J 1 ! ( ,- BAYLOR ______ I i ..../ ---C--,-------1 i -I I i ---1 I ._I______ I I-1-1, • 'w —I Zr t--— . r i 1 ] i 1 7 , kti _.... i_ 1 t.? ZON2007-00018 J I 1 i_t I i I a i I I I 1 ) FRY ZONE CHANGE 7-r I . ---1 } r-- CO L. / . 1 ----- --- ST— , .1 \ 1 I I ' i , MI , m 1--- ---; r..... f 1 ill 1 (.0 alli LEGEND: i Fr SUB JE C i' ,_ . .. , .,..„,,, • , ■ •... . :,,\y,,,p.,.,..„, A' w k13 n,, ,•ci,-,z-, , , > ' ) < 1 ' 1 ,c 11 a . .../ ELMHURST ST i 4(- . i' , 4-'' '''',if:701A in '„,.::::::1:1 / 01.1171141 ilD . I . 1111111111 I 1 1 1 )-1 Cr) 1 COH (.0 i- Tigard Area Map ,• ,tn-. - iliERMOso vv,A y cri-- tu > < - N ii am t/ L___ 1 . 100 200 300 400 500 Feet — 1 ".::■" T. :'■.& N ST 7 7177 • . BEVELAND ell I I ail (._ BEVELAND RD J . ,.._ •A., ,--:,,,4 LI„::•_,..0 • 1—, 1 EV,4411).-4.r,i •• I i 1 ' ____ _ — Information on this map is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. 0 1 1.11 _ 13125 SW Hall Blvd _ Z — ..— Tigard,OR 97223 \ •, 0.1 r-- I ! < — — http:(503)639-4171 //www.ci.tigard.or.us Plot date:Feb 5,2008;C:tmagic\MAGIC03APR Community Development • • VI March 3, 2008 Tigard Planning Commission Tigard, Oregon RE: Proposed Zone Change for Fry - 2007-00018 I am writing to comment on the proposed zone change from General Commercial (PD)to just General Commercial for the above Fry property located at 12625 SW 170`h Avenue in Tigard, Oregon. My comments are as follows: I have lived in Tigard since 1990 and have been very active in helping to shape and plan our city's future by volunteering for numerous citizen groups. Several years ago I was one of the citizens who was an active member of the Planned Development Committee, a group charged with reviewing and rewriting the PD section of the Comprehensive Plan (CP). Our group spent many, many hours for two years working on this section of the Plan, with a great deal of discussion going into how the PD works and how it could be made better, including allowing more flexibility for land owners and developers than the old version. The final result of our efforts was eventually accepted and adopted by the City of Tigard for the Comprehensive Plan. The current PD section(18.350) of the CP provides ways in which development is consistent with the CP and has very flexible standards which do consider and mitigate for potential impacts to the City. One of the reasons Tigard has a PD section in the CP is to provide and protect the natural areas and opens spaces found here, while at the same time allowing for some development in these areas. When we rewrote the PD section, we made a special effort to make sure these natural areas would be protected since they are also required to be protected under the State of Oregon's Goal 5 and Title 3 processes. These natural areas provide significant benefit to improving water quality, wildlife habitat, and the aesthetic environment of Tigard. The Fry property currently is entirely an open space tract that has a portion of a perennial stream as well as adjoining scrub/shrub and forested habitat on it. For it's location, this habitat is very significant as it offers breeding and nesting sites to a host of wildlife including native songbirds, frogs, etc. in this area. The PD overlay for this and other sites is specifically there to help protect these important resources in Tigard while allowing for some development. It is very important and crucial that the Planned Development overlay on this site stay in place.,as it allows for development while at the same time protecting the sites'significant natural resources. We therefore request that the applicant's request to remove the PD overlay be denied since it would negatively impact the site's significant resources and would not meet the requirements of the PD that help to create"unique neighborhoods". This area of Tigard in particular is in need of sites that retain their natural features while allowing some • • development in order to create a vibrant, walkable community that increases the livability for all of Tigard. We also request the applicant's request be denied because on the Public Hearing Notice that was mailed, under the Applicable Review Criteria,the section for the PD section of the code, 18.350, was NOT listed and should have been. This is a serious problem and we request the Notice be sent again and that the Hearing scheduled for tonight be delayed until all parties that received the original Notice have sufficient time to review ALL applicable criteria and comment if they so choose. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Susan Beilke Director, The Biodiversity Project of Tigard Board Member, Fans of Fanno Creek Vice-President, Friends of Summer Creek • • To: Gary Pagenstecher, Staff Planner From: John& Debora Scott George &JoAnn Nordling (Elmhurst Street Residents) File#: Zone Change 2007-00018 File Name: Fry Zone Change This letter is in response to our conversation of February 29, 2008 where I explained that due to other obligations we will be unable to attend the Public Hearing meeting scheduled for March 3, 2008. Our neighbors, George and JoAnn Nordling are currently out of the state and will be unable to attend this meeting as well. Both of our families have had discussions and have some concerns about the proposed development plans for the lots surrounding our properties. In our discussion of February 29, 2008,you indicated that we should voice are concerns in a letter to be presented to the committee that is overseeing the Hearing. This letter is to address the concerns of both families that will be affected with these zone changes and the development of this property. As with any project, we understand that site plans can change as they have with the Fry Project. We were initially told that the types of establishments on the property behind our homes were going to be single-level buildings, including but not limited to small commercial retail establishments. At the most recent neighborhood meeting, we were shown proposed plans for a two-level medical office building as well as a potential drive- thru banking facility. Our concern with having a multi-level building behind our homes is the visual access into our respective yards and the lack of privacy that this will cause. Some of our concerns include whether there will be any height restrictions placed on the type of building(s) that will be constructed on the development site. Is there potential for this multi-level building to be higher than two stories? If this building is a medical building, is there potential for a Heliport as indicated in the letter from the city? We also have questions regarding what types of buffers will be placed between our property lines and the newly developed property? Who makes the determination on the types of buffers that are placed? Is this buffer issue an agreement that must be made between the development company and our families? We also have concerns as the wording contained in the letter from the city indicated the potential of an"adult entertainment" business being allowed by this zoning. We have concerns with the possibility of this type of establishment being built due to the fact that there are small children in our households. We do not want our children put at risk, as historically drug and crime rates increase when there is an "adult entertainment" establishment opened. Will the city allow such facilities to be open in the Tigard Triangle? If the change in zoning is approved and development is to be started,a concern we have is the amount of noise that preparing the land and the subsequent construction will cause. Will there be "quiet hours" in which no construction or land preparation will be made? • • Pg 2 Our final concern is that we feel that there is potential of losing home value if the proposed development occurs and feel that based on this fact, appropriate compensation would be needed for this loss of value. Both of our families agree and are not opposed to new development within the Tigard Triangle, including the land behind our residences. We would consider selling our properties to the development company assuming that the offer price is fair and equitable. By offering our homes we feel this will provide the company with more developed space to attract potential businesses. Thank you for allowing us to voice our concerns. We anticipate responses to the questions above, and request correspondence at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Debora and John Scott JoAnn and George Nordling • s •�, 111.::."{c,..„ Tigard Planning Commission Agenda Item # S, I Page ■ of 1 Date of Hearing 3 .. 3 ld Q Case Number(s) — _ N 2 Or)-1 O Oct Case Name Fr 2.01,1e Chi Location 12l�"Z S� ,S (,� Iv e If you would like to speak on this item, please PRINT your name, address, and zip code below: Proponent (for the proposal): Opponent (against the proposal): Name: lj S Name: Address: 2 Cv 3'v Sw e \--IMO Address: City, State, Zip: •r-t t.e,e04l '1 t 1`3 City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: 4111 • 7,4 City of Tigard . . ,... Planning Commission — Agenda TIGARD U MEETING DATE: March 3, 2008, 7:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard —Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m. 3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m. 4. APPROVE MINUTES 7:10 p.m. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 7:15 p.m. 5.1 ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2007-00018 - FRY ZONE CHANGE REQUEST: The applicant requests a zone change from C-G (PD) to C-G for a 3.19-acre parcel located on the SE corner of SW 72"d Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street. Removal of the Planned Development (PD) overlay eliminates the requirement for a public hearing process and to meet current PD standards. Any future development must still meet all other applicable development standards including the Tigard Triangle design criteria. LOCATION: South side of SW Dartmouth between SW 70th and 72nd Avenues. 12625 SW 70th Avenue; Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S101AB, Tax Lot 100. CURRENT ZONING: C-G: General Commercial District with Planned Development (PD) Overlay. PROPOSED ZONING: C-G: General Commercial District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.520;and Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 12. 6. WORKSHOP 8:30 p.m. Continuation from 2/25/08 Policy Interest Team meeting on the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan update. Staff will present draft policies based on results of the Building Blocks • exercise. Staff will also brainstorm ideas that will be used to create Recommended Action Measures. 7. OTHER BUSINESS 9:30 p.m. 8. ADJOURNMENT 9:35 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA- MARCH 3, 2008 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 1 y' • • Agenda Item: 5.1 Hearing Date:March 3,2008 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE 14 1111 PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD 120 DAYS = 5/20/2008 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NO.: Zone Change (ZON) ZON2007-00018 FILE NAME: FRY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE CHANGE PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a zone change from GG (PD) to GG for one parcel totaling approximately 3.19 acres located on the SE corner of SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street. Removal of the Planned Development (PD) overlay eliminates requirements for a public hearing process and to meet current I'D standards. Any future development must still meet all other applicable development standards including the Tigard Triangle design criteria. APPLICANT & APPLICANT'S OWNER Douglas Fry REP: T M.Rippey Consulting Engrs. c/o Commercial Tenant Advisors Attn: Lans Stout Attn: Brad Pihas 7650 SW Beveland St.,Suite 100 22151 SW 55th Avenue Tigard,OR 97223 Tualatin, OR 97062 LOCATION: South of SW Dartmouth, between SW 70th and SW 72nd Avenues; 12625 SW 70th Avenue;WCTM 2S101AB, Tax Lot 100. CURRENT ZONE: GG: General Commercial District (PD). The GG zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area. Except where non-conforming, residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide range of uses,including but not limited to adult entertainment,automotive equipment repair and storage, mini-warehouses, utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment, and gasoline stations, are permitted conditionally. Planned Development (PD) Overlay. The purposes of the planned development overlay one are to provide a means for property development that is consistent with Tigard's Comprehensive Plan through the application of flexible standards which consider and mitigate for the potential impacts to the City; and to provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the City, alternative building designs, walkable communities, preservation of significant natural resources, aesthetic appeal, and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of strict adherence to many of the rules of the Tigard Community Development Code; and to achieve unique neighborhoods (by varying the housing styles through architectural accents, use of open space, innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their character and city benefits, while res ectmg the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffeering and lot size transitioning; and to reserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities trees, water resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a planning procedure (site esign and analysis, presentation of alternatives, conceptual review, then detailed review) that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site; and STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 1 OF 14 ID �. to consider an amount of development on a site, within the limits of density requirements,which will balance the interests of the owner,developer,neighbors,and the City, and to provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment through sustainable and innovative building and public facility construction methods and materials. PROPOSED ZONE: GG: General Commercial District. The GG zoning.district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area. Except where non-conforming, residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide range of uses,including.but not limited to adult entertainment, automotive equipment repair and storage m m-warehouses, utilities, heliports medical centers, major event entertainment, and gasoline stations, are permitted-conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.520; and Comprehensive Plan Policies 1,2,3,4,5p 7,8,9 and 12. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider three alternatives in addressing the requested Zone Change to remove the Planned Development overlay on the subject parcel. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History&Information Staff reviewed the zoning history of the site utilizing old zoning maps and searching City records. The subject property is shown on a 1977 Existing Land Use Map designated as "agricultural' . The site was shown on a 1981 Zoning Map and on the 1982 Preliminary Comprehensive Plan Map as being in unincorporated Washington County. Ordinance 83-24 adopted the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Maps including the Development Standard Areas Map for "Developing Areas . This map showed the subject property and surrounding roperties extending to the west comprising roughly the same area that was shown designated C-G (PD) in the subsequent 1984 Zoning Map for the City. A search of City records showed that no land use applications to develop the site have been made beyond the site development and planned development review applications associated with the current owner, which have been withdrawn. Tax lot 100 has had several Code Enforcement Actions for noxious vegetation and a junk car. Vicinity Information The site is located within the Tigard Triangle, which is subject to the Tigard Triangle Design Standards to create a high quality, mixed use employment area. Site and building design requirements for this area include building placement near the street, ground floor window requirements and articulation along street frontages. Zoning in the area is a mix of C-G, GG (PD), and MUE (Mixed Use Employment). Many of the sites within the Triangle are being re-developed and converted from residential to commercial uses. Properties to the south and east are zoned MUE and improved with single-family homes and office buildings. Property to the north across Dartmouth Street is zoned GG (PD) where site development for a proposed office building is in progress. Also to the north at the intersection of SW 72nd Avenue and Dartmouth Street,the Planning Commission recently approved a zone change (ZON2007-00008) from GG (PD) to GG on an approximately one-acre site containing no sensitive lands. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 2 OF 14 • • In addition to the subject parcel, the remaining undeveloped properties in the Tigard Triangle zoned GG (PD) include an adjacent 55-acre parcel and, to the west across SW 72nd Avenue, six contiguous parcels totaling approximately 24.72 acres. Site Information and Proposal Description The proposed zone change applies to one 3.19-acre parcel, Tax Lot 100. Sensitive lands including a draingeway and jurisdictional wetlands exist on the subject parcel. The subject parcel slopes moderately to the north and west and contains a number of emergent and some mature trees, and is otherwise covered with grasses and shrubs. The applicant is requesting to remove the planned development overlay zone, changing the zone from GG (PD) to GG to facilitate development of a new commercial retail/office project without the burden of the planned development standards and review. The applicant states that other options were considered to address the PD overlay, including development under the PD criteria, modifying the PD code to address the difficulty of developing a commercial site under the current standards, or changing the entire site to MUE through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Zone Change. The applicant concluded that "it may be argued that dealing with these issues can be addressed by the PD provisions themselves, [but] in the end the question remains whether the interest of the property owner and the City are well served by using these procedures to correct a historic problem rather than simply correcting the problem and applying the appropriate Code standards to a development application." The applicant describes the problem for commercial development under the PD overlay zone, in summary, as follows: • The applicant contends that the planned development purposes in TDC 18.350.010.2 through 4 relate to residential development and are therefore not applicable to sites zoned GG. • The applicant suggests that, notwithstanding the legislatively applied PD designation to the subject parcel the applicant should still be allowed the choice of implementing the PD standards or rely on the underlying zone standards as intended in TDC 18.350.020. • The applicant suggests that permits obtained for Corps/DSL and CWS should be adequate in-lieu of addressing the concept plan approval criteria in TDC 18.350.050A2 and 6 relating to the preservation of natural features and development that has significant advantages over a standard development. • The applicant contends that 40% of the subject commercial site would be required in landscaping 20% (1L)C 18.350.070.4.A.h) and shared open space 20% (1DC 18.350.070.4A.m) representing a significant difficulty for a commercial site where 15% landscaping is the conventional standard. Staff addruss8 each q these points in the analysis sation cf this report on je 12. Summary of Issues The applicant has identified several PD standards, above, that they believe are problematic for commercial development. The Commission voiced concern at the August 6, 2007 Planning Commission meeting that the shared open space standard (18.350.070.4A.m) may not be applicable to commercial development. The open space standards were adopted long after the original application of the PD overlay that made available or required in certain instances PD review for commercial and industrial development. Are the revised Planned Development standards (Ord. 06-16) otherwise generally suitable and intended for both residential and commercial developments. The Commission's prior decision (ZON 2007-00008) removing the PD overlay on property in the vicinity of the subject parcel and found that due to the subject parcel's small one-acre size,lack of natural resources and application of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards, removing the PD standards would have no significant effect. Are the circumstances of this case substantially different to allow the Commission to deny the request? STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 3 OF 14 • • Given that the Tigard Triangle n Desi Standards and the Corp/DSL/CWS permit requirements would apply to the subject parcel without the PD overlay, is there a benefit to the City to continue to apply the Planned Development standards and Planning Commission review in this case, and on the other undeveloped PD overlay zoned parcels in the vicinity? Staff addresses these issues in the analysis section I this report on page 13. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Statewide Planning Goals, Metro Urban Growth Management Plan, and Metro Regional Framework Plan Policies are not applicable to this land use decision. No changes are proposed to the Comprehensive Plan and the land use action requested is not legislative. TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.380: Section 18.380.030.A states that the Commission shall decide zone change applications which do not involve comprehensive plan map amendments. The proposed zone change application to remove the PD overlay, changing the zoning on the subject parcel from GG (PD) to GG does not involve a comprehensive plan map amendment. Therefore, the Planning Commission shall make a decision on the proposed zone change application. Section 18.380.030.B states that 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: Section 18.380.030.B.1 Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES 1. GENERAL POLICIES: 1.1.1,a The city shall ensure that this comprehensive plan and all future legislative changes are consistent with the statewide planning oals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission, the Regional Plan adopted by the Metropolitan Service District; Implementation Strategies 1. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and the Official Zoning District map will reflect the plan policies and apply land use categories in the following manner. f. General Commercial - Refers to areas for auto-oriented and related commercial uses located along major traffic ways. The applicable zoning district is General Commercial (C-G). The proposed zone change from GG (PD) to GG complies with the Comprehensive Map designation of "General Commercial" because the GG zoning district implements the General Commercial Comprehensive Plan Designation. Removal of the PD overlay would not amend the comprehensive plan and is not a legislative change. Therefore,the General Policies do not apply. 2. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT: 2.1.1 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. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 4 OF 14 • • The applicant's representative sent out notices to surrounding property owners and neighborhood representatives,posted a sign on the property, and held a neighborhood meeting on December 27, 2007 in accordance with the City of Tigard's neig lborhood meeting notification process. According to the minutes of the neighborhood meeting,five neighbors were in attendance. Discussion related to the timing of traffic signalization on 72nd Avenue and street improvements on Elmhurst Street, the height of the proposed Building C, construction noise, and wetland fill. No objections were given to the proposed zone change. In addition,the City has mailed notice of the Planning Commission hearing to property owners within 500 feet of the subject site, interested citizens, and agencies,published notice of the hearing and posted the site pursuant to'11)C 18.390.050 for Type III Procedures. With these public involvement provisions and the applicant's documented participation, the proposed zone change is consistent with applicable Citizen Involvement policies. 3. NATURAL FEATURES AND OPEN SPACE: 3.1.1 The city shall not allow development in areas having the following development limitations except where the developer demonstrates that generally accepted 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 floodplain and wetlands map.): A. Areas meeting the definition of wetlands under chapter 18.26 of the community development code; According to the applicant, the site does include jurisdictional wetlands and does not include any significant wetlands as identified on the City of Tigard's "Wetland and Streams Corridor Map". These wetlands are subject to Corps/DSL and Clean Water Services standards and will be addressed at the time of Development Review. 3.4.2 The city shall: A. Protect fish and wildlife habitat along stream corridors by managing the riparian habitat and controlling erosion, and by requiring that areas of standing trees and natural vegetation along natural drainage courses and waterways be maintained to the maximum extent possible; B. Require that development proposals in designated timbered or tree areas be reviewed through the planned development process to minimize the number of trees removed; and C. Require cluster type development in areas having important wildlife habitat value as delineated on the "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Map" on file at the city. As the applicant states, there is no floodplain or steep slopes on the subject parcel. Any geotechnical issues may be addressed during Site Development Review. Tere is a draingeway, a tributary to Red Rock Creek that traverses the property from east to west. The drainageway would be better characterized as a ditch, rather than a natural drainage course. The creek has been significantly altered by the construction of SW Dartmouth Street. The stream corridor across the property no longer includes areas of standing trees and the natural vegetation has been significantly degraded. The "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Map" has been replaced (Ord.06-20) by the "Significant Habitat Areas Map" which shows both lower and moderate value habitat areas on the site. CWS standards will apply to the moderate value vegetated corridor on the site. The Significant Habitat Areas Map is implemented ythrough non-regulatory measures such as cluster-type development usually associated with residntial development. The natural resource chapter includes implementation strategies that encourage, through the Planned Development Process, the retention of large, varied habitat areas on pnvate and public lands including inventoried plant and animal communities; and, where there exist large or unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas within the planning area on undeveloped land, the City shall ensure that development proposals do not substantially alter the character of the vegetation areas through the Planned Development Process and the "Tree Cutting" section of the Community Development Code. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 5 OF 14 • • The existing property, zoned C-G (PD), is bordered by a collector, an arterial, and intense commercial development. The approximately 3-acre property does not include large varied habitat areas of inventoried plant and animal communities or large or unique stands of trees. Therefore, the purpose for which a planned development overlay was originally established under these implementation strategies may not continue to exist. The PD designations in the Triangle preceded the environmental regulations and appear to have been placed to cause review partly because of the proximity of residential neighborhoods whose residential designations no longer exist in the Triangle. However, there remains a dramageway and jurisdictional wetlands on the subject property that willbe protected at minimum under Corp/DSL/CWS permits. The proposed zone change does not involve development. The applicable Natural Features and Open Space Policies have been adequately addressed with respect to planned-development review. 4. AIR, WATER AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY: 4.2.1 All development within the Tigard urban planning area shall comply with applicable federal, state and regional water quality standards, including those contained in the Clean Water Services' Design and Construction Manual. (rev. CO2-15) 4.3.1 The city shall: A. Require development proposals located in a noise congested area or a use which creates noise in excess of the applicable standards to incorporate the following into the site plan: 1. Building placement on the site in an area where the noise levels will have a minimal impact; or 2. Landscaping and other techniques to lessen noise impacts to levels compatible with the surrounding land uses. B. Coordinate with DEQ in its noise regulation program and apply the Vol. Ii, policy 4-4 DEQ land use compatibility program. C. Where applicable require a statement from the appropriate agency(prior to the approval of a land use proposal) that all applicable standards can be met. Removal of the PD overlay will not change the standards related to water quality or noise standards. All new developments within the City of Tigard are required to collect and treat storm water run-off for the site utilizing Clean Water Services design standards. Noise level allowances are regulated by the Tigard Municipal Code 7.40.130 through 7.40. 210. During pre-application meetings held for future site development, the applicant has proposed retail and office uses. These are not uses which create excessive noise. They are also the same type of uses already existing on many surrounding properties as the neighborhood continues to change from residential to commercial. Buffering will be required where future commercial development occurs adjacent to a residential use. The proposed zone change does not involve development. The applicable Air,Water and Land Resources Quality Policies will be addressed at the time of Development Review. 5. ECONOMY: 5.1 The City shall promote activities aimed at the diversification of the economic opportunities available to Tigard residents with particular emphasis placed on the growth of the local job market. Because the underlying zone remains General Commercial, all the allowed uses will be the same. The PD overlay does not provide more growth opportunities for the local job market. Due to the constraints outlined within the PD code, the applicant states that removal of the ID will allow the site to develop in a manner that will increase economic activity. The question is whether application of the PD process is seen as inhibiting economic opportunities. This must be weighed in relation to the benefits of the PD review. Other than the fact that most applicants prefer a Type II process in terms of speed and certainty of the standards,. there have been no arguments made in this application that conclusively indicate that the economy is not served by use of the PD review process. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING OOMMISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 6 OF 14 • • 5.4 The City shall ensure that new commercial and industrial development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial or industrial uses. There are residential uses south of the site. The area is currently zoned for commercial development and many sites in the area have been re-developed with commercial uses. Any proposed commercial development on the site will not be encroaching into residential zones. Buffering and screening will be required next to these existing residences if the site is developed with a commercial use. This policy is typical of the existing Comprehensive Plan's emphasis on protecting existing single-family neighborhoods, which in this case no longer exist because of zone changes from residential to commercial and recent development activity. The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable Economic policies. 7. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: 7.1.2 The City shall require as a pre-condition to development approval that; a. Development coincide with the availability of adequate service capacity including: 1. Public water, 2. Public sewer shall be required for new development within the city unless the property involved in over 300 feet from a sewer line and Washington County Health Department approval for a private disposal system is obtained; and 3. Storm drainage. b. The facilities are: 1. Capable of adequately serving all intervening properties and the proposed development; and 2. Designed to city standards. c. All new development utilities to be placed underground. According to City maps, storm, sanitary sewer, and water are all available at the corner of 72nd and Dartmouth. The proposed use of the site will undergo development review to ensure that public facilities and services are adequate, capable of serving the properties, and designed to city standards. The.proposed zone change does not involve any development. City's applicable Public Facilities and Services Polices will be addressed at the time of actual development review. 8. TRANSPORTATION: Transportation System 8.1.1 Plan, design and construct transportation facilities in a manner which enhances the livability of Tigard by: a. Proper location and design of transportation facilities. b. Encouraging pedestrian accessibility by providing safe, secure and desirable pedestrian routes. c. Addressing issues of excessive speeding and through traffic on local residential streets through a neighborhood traffic program. The program should address corrective measures for existing problems and assure that development incorporates traffic calming. 8.1.2 Provide a balanced transportation system, incorporating all modes of transportation (including motor vehicle,bicycle, pedestrian, transit and other modes) by: a. The development of and implementation of public street standards that recognize the multi-purpose nature of- street right-of-way for utility, pedestrian, bicycle, transit,truck and auto use. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 7 OF 14 • • ■ b. Coordination with Tri-met, and/or any other transit providers serving Tigard, to improve transit service to Tigard. Fixed route transit will primarily use artenal and collector streets in Tigard. Development adjacent to transit routes will provide direct pedestrian accessibility. c. Construction of bicycle lanes on all arterials and collectors within Tigard consistent with the bicycle master. All schools, parks, public facilities and retail areas shall strive to have direct access to a bikeway. d. Construction of sidewalks on all streets within Tigard. All schools parks, public facilities and retail areas shall strive to have direct access to a sidewalk. e. Development of bicycle and pedestrian plans which link to recreational trails. f. Design local streets to encourage a reduction in trip length by providing connectivity and limiting out-of-direction travel and provide connectivity to activity centers and destinations with a priority for bicycle and pedestrian connections. g. Tigard will participate in vehicle tnp reduction strategies developed regionally targeted to achieve non-single occupant vehicle levels outlined in Table 1.3 of the Regional Transportation Plan. h. Tigard will support the development of a commuter rail system as part of the regional transit network. 8.1.4 Set and maintain transportation performance measures that: a. Set a minimum intersection level of service standard for the City of Tigard and requires all public facilities to be designed to meet this standard. b. Set parking ratios to provide adequate parking,while providing an incentive to limit the use of the single occupant vehicle. c. Encourage working with other transportation providers in Washington County, including Tri-Met,Metro and ODOT to develop, operate and maintain intelligent transportation systems, including coordination of traffic. 8.2 Trafficways 8.2.1 The city shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. 8.2.2 The city shall provide for efficient management of the transportation planning process within the city and the metropolitan area through cooperation with other federal, state, regional and local jurisdictions. 8.2.3 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 developments impacts; 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; G. Parking spaces be set aside and marked for cars operated by disabled persons and that the spaces be located as close as possible to the entrance designed for disabled persons; and H. Land be dedicated to implement the bicycle/pedestrian corridor in accordance with the adopted plan. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 8 OF 14 • • The Transportation Goal policies and implementation strategies are largely directed at the City and include objectives that create the framework for ensuring that the transportation system is adequate tor all modes of travel at the time development occurs. These objectives are implemented by the Development Code standards that apply during development review. None of the minimum requirements for streets, access or parking wouldbe different if the site were developed as a Planned Development. As stated in the applicant's narrative,the proposed subsequent development will require a traffic study. At a minimum this study must address site distance for access points, peak period vehicle trips and the development's affect on nearby entry/exit ramps for Interstate 5. At the time of Site Development or Planned Development Review, the City will require additional dedication of land and street improvements to meet current standards along Clinton Street, Dartmouth Street and 72nd Avenue. In addition funds will be collected that will contribute to the signali7ation of the Dartmouth/68th intersection and Dartmouth/72nd intersection. The future commercial project is likely to generate increased transit ridership. Tri-Met bus route 78 serves the subject site with a bus stop located at the intersection of 68th Parkway and Dartmouth Street. Any future development must inclpude pedestrian connections such as a sidewalk or plaza. Sidewalks are currently not constructed to connect this site with the bus line along 68th Parkway, but will happen with future development. All on-site parking and circulation for any pproposed development will be done to City specifications as required by the Tigard Development Code. Maximum parking regulations will limit the amount of parking provided to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation. As shown in the foregoing analysis, the City's applicable Transportation Polices will be addressed at the time of Site Development or Planned Development Review. 9. ENERGY: 9.1.3 The City shall encourage land use development which emphasizes sound energy conservation, design and construction. Applicable implementation strategies to support this goal include: 3) The City shall locate higher densities and intensities of land use in proximity to existing and potential transit routes specifically with convenient access to federal and state highways, artenals and major collector streets, and 8) The City shall coordinate with and support public and private planning efforts that advocate alternative forms of transportation such as mass transit, carpooling, ride share, bicycling and walking for commuter purposes. The site is located at the corner of 72nd Avenue and Dartmouth Street which is within '/ mile of an I-5 interchange. State Highway 99 is less than 1 mile to the north. Another collector (68th Parkwa)) is within two blocks of the site. The proposed removal of the PD overlay would not change the allowed uses on the site. Tigard Development Code standards such as maximum parking and required bicycle parking will encourage the use of alternative forms of transportation. These criteria are reviewed during the Site Development or Planned Development Review process. The proposed zone change will have no effect on the efficient use of the transportation system to conserve energy and will remain consistent with the applicable Energy Policies. 12. LOCATIONAL CRITERIA: 12.2 COMMERCIAL 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. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 9 OF 14 • • 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. ocational 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. (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) mpact 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. . The proposed removal of the planned development overlay does not change the underlying General Commercial zone. Therefore,the Locational Policies do not apply. FINDING: Both GG (PD) and C-G zoning are treated as General Commercial under the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Designations. The removal of the overlay zone would not change the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation. The Comprehensive Plan Polices for l\atural Features and Open Space (3.4.2), provided a basis for the use of the planned development process, and its use on the subject property and properties in the vicinity to protect the character of the vegetation areas where there exist large or unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas within the planning area on undeveloped land. Based on the analysis above, the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies have been adequately addressed. The proposed zone change to remove the PD overlay may not be consistent with Natural Features and Open Space policies (3.4.2) depending on whether changes to the area have resulted in substantial degradation of tie resource where the PD standards would no longer be applicable. 18.380.030.B.2 Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance; and STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 10 OF 14 • • FINDING: The proposed zone change does not include a specific development proposal. However, during Site Development or Planned Development Review, any proposed develo ment will be required to meet all of the current applicable Tigard Development Code standards. 18.380.030.B.3 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. Staff reviewed the zoning history of the site utilizing old zoning maps and searching City records. The subject property is shown on a 1977 Existing Land Use Map designated as "agricultural". The site was shown on a 1981' Zoning Map and on the 1982 Preliminary Comprehensive Plan Map as being in unincorporated Washington County. Ordinance 83-24 adopted the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Maps including the Development Standard Areas Map for "Developing Areas . This map showed the subject dproperty and surrounding properties extending to the west comprised roughly the same area that was es gna ed C-G (PD) in the subsequent 1984 Zoning Map for the City. The Comprehensive Plan policies for Natural Features and Open Space (3.4.2), provide a basis for the use of the planned development process, and explain its use in this case, to protect the character of the vegetation areas where there exist large or unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas within the planning area on undeveloped land. In 1999, the City adopted the Tigard Triangle Design Standards for the area lying between HIghway 99 Interstate 5 and Highway 217. These standards adopted guiding principles to create a high-quality mixed use employment area, provide a convenient pedestnan and bikeway system, and utilize streetscapes for a quality image. In 2006, the Planning Commission adopted the revised PD standards to emphasize the balancing of flexible standards with environmental and community benefits (Ord. 06-16). The revisions included among others new open space requirements and affirmed a two-step review process for conceptual and detailed development proposals. There is some question whether consideration of the open space requirement was intended for use on commercial and industrial properties. The Natural Features and Open Space Comprehensive Plan policies provide some basis for the use of PD review. Prior to adoption of the Triangle standards and the revised PD standards, three commercial sites were approved through the PD process including WinCo, Costco and Toys-R Us. These were all large sites of at least 6 or more acres and included or were adjacent to sensitive lands. Over the years,the Triangle area has been redeveloping into an area with larger retail uses among with large and small scale office buildings, consistent with development allowed in the GG (PD) and MUE zones. FINDING: The foregoing suggests that development in the neighborhood, known as the Tigard Triangle, has occurred consistent with the underlying zones and the planned development overlay. There is no apparent evidence of a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map. However changes to the original zoning and the development code standards that appry to the neighborhood have precipitated the proposed zone change. SECTION V. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF AND OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS The City of Tigard's Long Range Planning Department was notified of the proposal and did not provide comment. No outside agencies were notified of the proposal because no development or other applicable action is proposed for their review. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 11 OF 14 r. • • SECTION VI. STAFF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION ANALYSIS: Based on the information above, the proposed zone change may or may not be consistent with Natural Features and Open Space policies (3.4.2), depending on whether changes to the area have resulted in substantial degradation of the resource where the PD standards would no longer be applicable; any new development will be required to meet all of the current Tigard Development Code standards during Site Development Review. Changes have occurred in the primary zone designations as well as development code standards applicable to Triangle properties. The applicant describes the problem for commercial development under the revised PD standards, in summary, as follows: 1) The applicant contends that the planned development purposes in TDC 18.350.010.A.2 through 4 relate to residentiaf development and are therefore not applicable to sites zoned GG. Staff Response: Of the PD Chapter's six purpose statements Nos. 3 and 4 relate to residential development, referring to "housing styles" and'"density requirements" respectively. Purposes 1, 2, 4, and 6 relate generally to both commercial and residential development. The purpose statements have always applied as appropriate to either commercial or residential development. 2) The applicant suggests that, notwithstanding the legislatively applied PD designation to the subject parcel, the applicant should still be allowed the choice of implementing the PD standards and relies on the underlying zone standards as otherwise intended in TDC 18.350.020. Staff Response: The PD standards explicitly address applicability to commercial development: "The planned development designation is an overlay zone applicable to all zones. An applicant may elect to develop the project as a planned development, in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, or in the case of a commercial or industrial project, an approval authority may apply the provisions of this chapter as a condition of approving any application for the development" (18.350D20). In 1983 the City legislatively applied the PD overlay to specific properties in the Triangle including the subject parcel. Other than reformatting, the revised PD standards did not change the substance of TDC 18.350.020 or affect its previous application by the City to the Triangle. The code now and has always indicated that the PD process can apply to commercial and industrial development as well as residential. The question is whether there are substantial reasons to apply the PD to this property. 3) The applicant suggests that permits obtained for Corps/DSL and CWS should be adequate in-lieu of addressing the concept plan approval criteria in TDC 18.350.050.A.2 and 6 relating to the reservation of natural features" and development that has significant advantages over a standard development'. Staff Response: The applicant's preliminary plans demonstrated that Corps/DSL and CWS permits would result in preservation of wetlands to some extent. However, under the PD standards these approval criteria are the means by which the distinctive vality of a development may be assured either by further protecting natural features, integrating them into the development,or by providing other amenines. 4) The applicant contends that a total of 40% of the subject commercial site would be affected, with 20% in required landscaping (TDC 18.350.070.4.A.h) and 20% in shared open space (11)C 18.350.070.4A.m), representing a significant difficulty for a commercial site where 15% landscaping is the conventional standard. Staff Response: Section 18.350.070.A.3.d of the revised PD standards require 20% of the net site area be landscaped (18.350.070.4.A.h refers explicitly to residential development); section 18.350.070.A.4.m requires 20% of the gross site area be designated as a shared open space facility The standards do not state that these provision must be additive, nor prohibits landscaped areas to be used for the shared open space requirement. However, the definitions adopted with the revised PD standards STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 12 OF 14 • • • (18.120.102) do imply some "passive use facilities" be reserved for medium-impact recreation and education uses related to the functions and values of the natural area. The PD standards further set maximum site coverage of 80% (18.350.060.C.2). By comparison, commercial development in the CBD and IP zones are subject to maximum site coverage's of 80% and 75%, respectively. The actual amount of open space required for any given development is dependant on a number of factors that makes the open space standard hard to,quantify without a specific development proposal. The resulting uncertainty is problematic for developers. In summary, the PD process requires at least 5% more landscaping than the Site Development Review process. ISSUES: A) The applicant has identified several PD standards, above, that they believe are problematic for commercial development. The Commission voiced concern at the August 6, 2007 Planning Commission meeting that the shared open space standard (18.350.070.4A.m may not be applicable to commercial development. The opens space standards were adopted long after the original application of the PD overlay that made available or required in certain instances PD review for commercial and industrial development. Are the revised Planned Development standards (Ord. 06- 16) otherwise generally suitable and intended for both residential and commercial developments? As reflected in staff's responses above, the applicant's broadly drawn statements on the applicability of the revised PD standards to commercial development are not completely conclusive nor supported by code. Staff believes that applying the requirement for shared open space facilities (18.350.070.A.4.m) to commercial and industrial development may have been an oversight because the Planning. Commission and Planned Development Committee focus was on residential development; open space requirements for commercial and industnal development were not discussed during he code revision. However,the above analysis suggests that the standard may not be as onerous as thought depending on the open space/landscape calculation for a specific development proposal. Because of the difficulty in determining the actual amount of opens space required, the Commission may want to qualify the applicability of the standard for residential development only, or otherwise clarify the standard to address the uncertainty that is problematic for developers. Alternatively, is there public benefit to retaining the standard in the likelihood that commercial development could better relate to natural resources on the site and improve the quality of the development? B,) The Commission's prior decision (ZON 2007-00008) removing the PD overlay on property in the vicinity the subject parcel found that due to the subject parcel's small one-acre size,lack of natural resources, and application of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards, removing the PD standards would have no significant effect. Are the circumstances of this case substantially different to allow the Commission to deny the request? The subject site is different in three important respects to the property previously addressed in ZON2007- 00008 including: 1) the size of the subject property is 3.19- acres versus approximately 1 acre 2) the presence of jurisdictional wetlands and drainageways on the subject property versus the absence of natural resources, and 3) the PD Concept Plan Approval standards (18.350.050.A.1, 2, and 6) that relate to the natural resources on the subject property are not otherwise covered under the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. These differences in the site and the applicable PD standards that pertain to natural resources allow the Commission to find that the facts of this case could support denial of the request to remove the Planned Development overlay. C) Given that the Tigard Triangle Design Standards and the Corp/DSL/CWS permit requirements would apply to the subject parcel without the PD overlay, is there a benefit to the City to continue to apply the Planned Development standards and Planning Commission review in this case, and on the other undeveloped PD overlay zoned parcels in the vicinity? STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 13 OF 14 • • Although the Tigard Triangle Design standards ensure high quality development, principally with regards to building placement and articulation, they do not relate to the relationship of the development to the natural resources on the site. Similarly, Corp/DSL/CWS permits address natural resources on site without concern for the relationship of the proposed development other than providing for exclusion and rehabilitation of resource values. The primary focus of the revised PD standards, as conveyed in the purpose statements and Concept Plan Approval Criteria, is the relationship of the development to the resource that results in development that has significant advantages over standard development. This is the promise of the PD overlay legislatively applied to the subject property and on the approximately 25 remaining undeveloped acres in the Triangle also zoned GG (PD). CONCLUSION: There is a question whether the PD review was intended to have commercial and industrial properties include the new open space provisions. There is a question whether PD review is valuable to address the relationship between natural resources and development? There is a question whether natural resources would be more protected given the applicable standards. There is a question regarding the need for and purpose of the original PD overlay. Therefore with respect to the foregoing analysis, staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the following recommendation in addressing the requested zone change to remove the Planned Development overlay on the subject parcel. RE COMMENDATION: In a departure from the standard approach of a single recommendation, staff provides three alternatives for Planning Commission consideration due to the vagueness of the application, the intent of the Commission in recommending open space requirements, and the analysis provided in the staff report: Alternative # 1: If the Planning Commission finds that Commission review and applicability of the revised PD standards are not necessary to this particular site, approve the change as requested by the applicant. Alternative #2: If the Planning Commission finds that Commission review is important but the application of additional open space was not intended for commercial/industrial development: A. have the applicant prepare an amendment to the code eliminating the open space requirement for commercial or industrial land; or B. wait for review of a staff proposal to clarify the applicability of the revised open space requirement to commercial and industrial land. Alternative #3: If the Planning Commission finds this particular site, because of its unique nature and the intent of the PD provisions, warrants Commission review and applicability of the PD standards, deny the applicant's request for removal of the PD overlay. P7- February 25.2008 PREPARED Gary Pagenstecher DATE errzAssocatePlanne If �I� � '�'` February 25, 2008 APPROVED B : Dick Bewer.d.rff DATE Planning . ager is\curpin\gary\ZON\Douglas Fry Zone Change(ZON2007-00018)\ZON2007-00018 staff report STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3,2008 PUBLIC HEARING ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PAGE 14 OF 14 _....—___......._ F-------\, . \ I \F.,.......i • i I i CITY of TIGARD GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM i 1'/ 1 i I I C------------21 . i ---F------, I I 1 : f 1---1 L____t-i 1 i 1 \ 1 L..__._,. _ ,_.: , , , i !Lu t 1 1 VICINITY MAP \ 1 , 1 1 1 T.-i r-----; ! 1 I>i ! , , I L___ _ ) __,____...; _____.1. ! ! _] 1 <ci , . . , ■ -- ---,----ST-- --------- ; ! , 2 1 7---c 1 . , i ;WI j i I ii- 1 i [ 1 , , , i , ,I 1 i -> I Li--------------i<[--- , , 1 I ZON2007-00018 ■ / ) I l i i 1 i >A 1 1 1 I------1 i --; i 1 ; ....-• 1 ____—___ r--- - • ---i __4_1 1 al ',----] ' I FRY ZONE II .... ; i — l 1 --"1 1 1 111 ____.1 . . li. I I I m i 1 .? i il I\ i i 1 -1 I 1- • 1 CHANGE 1 ST I I\ , I i c N I '— . i a) co, , , ,,.1 H , LE GE ND: Fz I . r SUB JE CT DARTM• . . . . oe . , SITE . ! - /- 11.111. ;AO .•' 40 lass I , . u, ELMHURST ST 1 .-:‘,.. .. ..., ,. 1 ..,; ,•:, . •'. ,I.,,,,-..`4 .r.j. . ll...,-;; . ''' 1 I .. •.? . ,,, ;,r:;;,. ;) 1 I • I I ..„...2;g,kribI,;:- • /. mu.,c,.,. P,O. •" 1 I i CO x Pill HERFnallif cn - Tigard Area Map U ' OS0 wAy NNW/ allftirr BEVELAND RD IIIII l____1,1 > k. N ST w - • • N O24005 00 Feet — P "Z;■;i ''.", t''' .1';'"<t`;l.l'■,... . - I 1 BEVELAND RD I.__ — CD 1 • —- Information on this map is for general location only and shOuld be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Z I —I '‹Lij - — Tigard,OR 97223 r-- __ I i (503)639,4171 I httpirwww.Ci.bgatd.or.us I •,.. ‘ .‘ L.- I — I Plot date:Feb 5,2008; C:\magic\MAGIC03.APR Commnity Development • NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE,LIENHOLDER,VENDOR OR SELLER THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER TIGARD PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSIO_N, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2008 AT 7:00 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD,TIGARD,OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO.: ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2007-00018 (Type IIIB Land Use Decision) FILE NAME: FRY ZONE CHANGE APPLICANT & Douglas Fry APPLICANT'S T.M.Rippey Consulting Engineers OWNER: c/o Commercial Tenant Advisors REP.: Attn: Lans Stout Attn:Brad Pihas 7650 SW Beveland Street,Suite 100 22151 SW 55th Avenue Tigard,OR 97223 Tualatin,OR 97062 REQUEST: The applicant requests a zone change from GG (PD) to GG for a 3.19-acre parcel located on the SE corner of SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street. Removal of the Planned Development (PD) overlay eliminates the requirement for a public hearing, process and to meet current PD standards. Any future development must still meet all other applicable development standards including the Tigard Triangle design criteria. LOCATION: South side of SW Dartmouth between SW 70th and 72nd Avenues. 12625 SW 70th Avenue; Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S101AB,Tax Lot 100. CURRENT ZONING: GG: General Commercial District. The GG zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area. Except where non-conforming, residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to adult entertainment, automotive equipment repair and storage, mini-warehouses, utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment, and gasoline stations, are permitted conditionally. Planned Development (PD) Overlay. The purposes of the planned development overlay zone are to provide a means for property development that is consistent with Tigard's Comprehensive Plan through the application of flexible standards which consider and mitigate for the potential impacts to the City, and to provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the City, alternative building designs, walkable communities, preservation of significant natural resources,aesthetic appeal,and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of strict adherence to many of the rules of the Tigard Community Development Code;and to achieve unique neig lborhoods (by varying the housing styles through architectural accents, use of open space, innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their character and city benefits, while respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size transitioning;and to preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities (trees, water resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a planning procedure (site design and analysis,presentation of alternatives,conceptual review,then detailed review) that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site; and to consider an amount of development of a site, within the limits of density requirements,which will balance the interests of the owner, developer,neighbors, and the City; and to provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment through sustainable and innovative building and public facility construction methods and materials. PROPOSED ZONING: GG: General Commercial District. The GG zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail,office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area. Except where non-conforming, residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to adult entertainment, automotive equipment repair and storage mini-warehouses, utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment,and gasoline stations,are permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.520; and Comprehensive Plan Policies 1,2,3,4, 5,7,8,9, and 12. II S THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MA1'1ER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.390 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. 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. 2438 (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 ACI1ON 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 WRIT 1EN 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 OR DOCUMENTS LESS THAN 7 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE,THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY MAY ALLOW A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING, SUBJECT TO ORS 215.428 OR 227.178. 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 197763(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 PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE BASED UPON THE CRITERIA LISTED OR OTHER CRITERIA IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH THE PERSON BELIEVES TO APPLY TO THE DECISION. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LE'T TER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST,ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY AND ALL PARTIES TO RESPOND PRECLUDES AN APPEAL, AND FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE CRITERION FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT WHICH A COMMENT IS DIRECTED 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 (25C)PER PAGE,OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) 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 (25 )PER PAGE,OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER GARY PAGENSTECHER AT 503-639-4171,AT TIGARD CITY HALL AT 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD,TIGARD,OREGON 97223,OR BY EMAIL TO garyp(a tigard-or.gov. _`- I I I , 116G] VICINIT1 MAP FFI ZUNE IRIIJI7 [ ( ANGE ` =1„':k i ■-lit'-' L EGEND: mrs �11> sT h1,1 ■II�� F '-,.� /H` I, Be \ 111111 1111 MN 1 F • COMM EAJTS vir • To: Gary Pagenstecher, Staff Planner From: John& Debora Scott George & JoAnn Nordling (Elmhurst Street Residents) File#: Zone Change 2007-00018 File Name: Fry Zone Change This letter is in response to our conversation of February 29, 2008 where I explained that due to other obligations we will be unable to attend the Public Hearing meeting scheduled for March 3, 2008. Our neighbors, George and JoAnn Nordling are currently out of the state and will be unable to attend this meeting as well. Both of our families have had discussions and have some concerns about the proposed development plans for the lots surrounding our properties. In our discussion of February 29, 2008,you indicated that we should voice are concerns in a letter to be presented to the committee that is overseeing the Hearing. This letter is to address the concerns of both families that will be affected with these zone changes and the development of this property. As with'any project, we understand that site plans can change as they have with the Fry Project. We were initially told that the types of establishments on the property behind our homes were going to be single-level buildings, including but not limited to small commercial retail establishments. At the most recent neighborhood meeting, we were shown proposed plans for a two-level medical office building as well as a potential drive- thru banking facility. Our concern with having a multi-level building behind our homes is the visual access into our respective yards and the lack of privacy that this will cause. Some of our concerns include whether there will be any height restrictions placed on the type of building(s) that will be constructed on the development site. Is there potential for this multi-level building to be higher than two stories? If this building is a medical building, is there potential for a Heliport as indicated in the letter from the city? We also have questions regarding what types of buffers will be placed between our property lines and the newly developed property? Who makes the determination on the types of buffers that are placed? Is this buffer issue an agreement that must be made between the development company and our families? We also have concerns as the wording contained in the letter from the city indicated the potential of an"adult entertainment" business being allowed by this zoning. We have concerns with the possibility of this type of establishment being built due to the fact that there are small children in our households. We do not want our children put at risk, as historically drug and crime rates increase when there is an"adult entertainment" establishment opened. Will the city allow such facilities to be open in the Tigard Triangle? If the change in zoning is approved and development is to be started,a concern we have is the amount of noise that preparing the land and the subsequent construction will cause. Will there be "quiet hours" in which no construction or land preparation will be made? , • • Pg 2 Our final concern is that we feel that there is potential of losing home value if the proposed development occurs and feel that based on this fact, appropriate compensation would be needed for this loss of value. Both of our families agree and are not opposed to new development within the Tigard Triangle, including the land behind our residences. We would consider selling our properties to the development company assuming that the offer price is fair and equitable. By offering our homes we feel this will provide the company with more developed space to attract potential businesses. Thank you for allowing us to voice our concerns. We anticipate responses to the questions above, and request correspondence at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Debora and John Scott JoAnn and George Nordling • • March 3, 2008 Tigard Planning Commission Tigard, Oregon RE: Proposed Zone Change for Fry - 2007-00018 I am writing to comment on the proposed zone change from General Commercial (PD)to just General Commercial for the above Fry property located at 12625 SW 170th Avenue in Tigard, Oregon. My comments are as follows: I have lived in Tigard since 1990 and have been very active in helping to shape and plan our city's future by volunteering for numerous citizen groups. Several years ago I was one of the citizens who was an active member of the Planned Development Committee, a group charged with reviewing and rewriting the PD section of the Comprehensive Plan (CP). Our group spent many, many hours for two years working on this section of the Plan, with a great deal of discussion going into how the PD works and how it could be made better, including allowing more flexibility for land owners and developers than the old version. The final result of our efforts was eventually accepted and adopted by the City of Tigard for the Comprehensive Plan. The current PD section(18.350) of the CP provides ways in which development is consistent with the CP and has very flexible standards which do consider and mitigate for potential impacts to the City. One of the reasons Tigard has a PD section in the CP is to provide and protect the natural areas and opens spaces found here, while at the same time allowing for some development in these areas. When we rewrote the PD section, we made a special effort to make sure these natural areas would be protected since they are also required to be protected under the State of Oregon's Goal 5 and Title 3 processes. These natural areas provide significant benefit to improving water quality, wildlife habitat, and the aesthetic environment of Tigard. The Fry property currently is entirely an open space tract that has a portion of a perennial stream as well as adjoining scrub/shrub and forested habitat on it. For it's location, this habitat is very significant as it offers breeding and nesting sites to a host of wildlife including native songbirds, frogs, etc. in this area. The PD overlay for this and other sites is specifically there to help protect these important resources in Tigard while allowing for some development. It is very important and crucial that the Planned Development overlay on this site stay in place,as it allows for development while at the same time protecting the sites'significant natural resources. We therefore request that the applicant's request to remove the PD overlay be denied since it would negatively impact the site's significant resources and would not meet the requirements of the PD that help to create "unique neighborhoods". This area of Tigard in particular is in need of sites that retain their natural features while allowing some • 0 development in order to create a vibrant, walkable community that increases the livability for all of Tigard. We also request the applicant's request be denied because on the Public Hearing Notice that was mailed, under the Applicable Review Criteria, the section for the PD section of the code, 18.350, was NOT listed and should have been. This is a serious problem and we request the Notice be sent again and that the Hearing scheduled for tonight be delayed until all parties that received the original Notice have sufficient time to review ALL applicable criteria and comment if they so choose. U tr/"'kg ' Thank you for the opportunity to comment. AlD J G )A ,iten Sincerely, �` y y ,....s.i .,/e6P - : if Susan Beilke ,, ''_ V Director, The Biodiversity Project of Tigard �� Board Member, Fans of Fanno Creek ''�I �'� 'A Vice-President, Friends of Summer Creek Pn ,�,� .,N,,,,,. ti, ,,,,,i„., s 114 v' • • v T I GARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DA'Z'E: February 5,2008 TO: PER ATTACHED FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Gary Pa enstecher,Associate Planner(x2434) Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 718-2748 Email:garyp( tigard-or.gov ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2007-00018 - FRY ZONE CHANGE - REQUEST: The applicant requests a zone change from C-G(PD)to C-G for a 3.19-acre parcel located on the SE corner of SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street. Removal of the Planned Development (PD) overlay eliminates the requirement for a public hearing process and to meet current PD standards. Any future development must still meet all other applicable development standards including the Tigard Triangle design criteria. LOCATION: South side of SW Dartmouth between SW 70th and 72nd Avenues. 12625 SW 70th Avenue; Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S101AB, Tax Lot 100. CURRENT ZONING: C-G: General Commercial District. The C-G zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area. Except where non-conforming,residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide range of uses,including but not limited to adult entertainment,automotive equipment repair and storage,mini-warehouses,utilities,heliports,medical centers,major event entertainment,and gasoline stations,are permitted conditionally. Planned Development(PD) Overlay. The purposes of the planned development overlay zone are to provide a means for property development that is consistent with Tigard's Comprehensive Plan through the application of flexible standards which consider and mitigate for the potential impacts to the City;and to provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the City, alternative building designs, walkable communities, preservation of significant natural resources, aesthetic appeal, and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of strict adherence to many of the rules of the Tigard Community Development Code; and to achieve unique neighborhoods(by varying the housing styles through architectural accents,use of open space,innovative transportation facilities)which will retain their character and city benefits, while respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size transitioning; and to preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities (trees, water resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a planning procedure(site design and analysis,presentation of alternatives,conceptual review,then detailed review)that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site; and to consider an amount of development of a site, within the limits of density requirements,which will balance the interests of the owner, developer, neighbors, and the City; and to provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment through sustainable and innovative building and public facility construction methods and materials. PROPOSED ZONING: C-G: General Commercial District. The C-G zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area. Except where non-conforming,residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide range of uses,including but not limited to adult entertainment,automotive equipment repair and storage, mini-warehouses, utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment, and gasoline stations, are permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.520;and Comprehensive Plan Policies 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,and 12. Attached are the Vicinity Map and Applicant's Materials 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: FEBRUARY 19,2008. 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 or email. Written comments provided below: Name&Number of Person Commenting - '' Y OF TIGARD REQUEST FORMMENTS NOTIFICA LIST FOR LAND USE & COMMUNITY DE PMENT APPLICATIONS FILE NOS.: �L i ' l' s _ FILE NAME: .2_021/ ,_. i.a -O 7 'O / CITY OFFICES LONG RANGE PLANNING/Ron Bunch,Planning Mgr. _CURRENT PLANNING/Todd Prager/Arborist-Planner _POLICE DEPTJJim Wolf,Crime Prevention Officer _BUILDING DIVISION/Mark Vandomelen,Plans Ex.Supervisor _ENGINEERING DEPTJKim McMillan,Dvlpmnt.Review Engineer HEARINGS OFFICER(+2 sets) _ _CITY ADMINISTRATION/Cathy Wheatley,City Recorder _PUBLIC WORKS/Rob Murchison,Project Engineer PLANNING COMMISSION/GRETCHEN(+12 sets) _COMMUNITY DVLPMNT.DEPT./Planning-Engineering Techs._PUBLIC WORKS/Steve Martin,Parks Supervisor �St*FILE/REFERENCE(+2 sets) _CODE ENFORCEMENT/Christine Damell,Code Compliance Specialist(DCA) 7^ SPECIAL DISTRICTS _ TUAL.HILLS PARK&REC.DIST.*_ TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE&RESCUE* _ TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT* _ CLEAN WATER SERVICES* Planning Manager North Division Administrative Office Marvin Spiering/SWM Program 15707 SW Walker Road John K.Dalby,Deputy Fire Marshall PO Box 745 155 N.First Avenue Beaverton,OR 97006 14480 SW Jenkins Road Beaverton,OR 97075 Hillsboro,OR 97124 Beaverton,OR 97005-1152 LOCAL AND STATE JURISDICTIONS CITY OF BEAVERTON* _ CITY OF TUALATIN* _OR.DEPT.OF FISH&WILDLIFE OR.DIV.OF STATE LANDS _ Planning Manager Planning Manager Devin Simmons,Habitat Biologist Melinda Wood(WLUN Form Required) _ Steven Sparks,Dev.Svcs Manager 18880 SW Martinazzi Avenue North Willamette Watershed District 775 Summer Street NE,Suite 100 PO Box 4755 Tualatin,OR 97062 18330 NW Sauvie Island Road Salem,OR 97301-1279 Beaverton,OR 97076 Portland,OR 97231 _ OR.PUB.UTILITIES COMM. METRO-LAND USE&PLANNING* _OR.DEPT.OF GEO.&MINERAL IND. 550 Capitol Street NE _ CITY OF DURHAM * 600 NE Grand Avenue 800 NE Oregon Street,Suite 5 Salem,OR 97310-1380 City Manager Portland,OR 97232-2736 Portland,OR 97232 17160 SW Upper Boones Fry.Rd. _ Joanna Mensher,Data Resource Center(ZCA) _US ARMY CORPS.OF ENG. Durham,OR 97224 _ Paulette Allen,Growth Management Coordinator _OR.DEPT.OF LAND CONSERV.&DVLP. Kathryn Harris(Maps&CWS Letter Only) _ Mel Huie,Greenspaces Coordinator(CPA2OA) Mara Ulloa(comp.Ran Amendments&Measure 37) Routing CENWP-OP-G _CITY OF KING CITY* _ Jennifer Budhabhatti,Regional Planner IWehands) 635 Capitol Street NE,Suite 150 PO Box 2946 City Manager _ C.D.Manager,Growth Management Services Salem,OR 97301-2540 Portland,OR 97208-2946 15300 SW 116th Avenue King City,OR 97224 WASHINGTON COUNTY _ OR.DEPT.OF ENERGY(PowedinesinArea) _OR.DEPT OF AVIATION(Monopole Towers) Dept.of Land Use&Transp. Bonneville Power Administration Tom Highland,Planning 155 N.First Avenue _CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO* Routing TTRC—Attn: Renae Ferrera 3040 25th Street,SE Suite 350,MS 13 Planning Director PO Box 3621 Salem,OR 97310 Hillsboro,OR 97124 PO Box 369 Portland,OR 97208-3621 _Naomi Vogel-Beattie(General Apps Lake Oswego,OR 97034 _Planning Division(ZCA)Ms 14 _ OR.DEPT.OF ENVIRON.QUALITY(DEQ) ODOT,REGION 1 * _Brent Curtis(CPA) _CITY OF PORTLAND (Notify for Wetlands and Potential Environmental Impacts) _Development Review Coordinator _Doria Mateja(ZCA)Ms 14 Planning Bureau Director Regional Administrator _Carl Torland, Right-of-Way Section(vacations) _Sr.Cartographer(GAazcA)MS14 1900 SW 4th Avenue,Suite 4100 2020 SW Fourth Avenue,Suite 400 123 NW Flanders _Jim Nims,Surveyor(zcso MS 15 Portland,OR 97201 Portland,OR 97201-4987 Portland,OR 97209-4037 _OR.PARKS&REC.DEPT. _WA.CO.CONSOL.COMM.AGNCY _ODOT,REGION 1 -DISTRICT 2A* _ODOT,RAIL DIVISION STATE HISTORIC Dave Austin(wcccA)"911"(MempoleTowers) Sam Hunaidi,Assistant District Manager (Notify if ODOT R/R-Hwy.Crossing is Only Access to Land) PRESERVATION OFFICE PO Box 6375 6000 SW Raab Road Dave Lanning,Sr.Crossing Safety Specialist (Notify if Property Has HD Overlay) Beaverton,OR 97007-0375 Portland,OR 97221 555-13`"Street,NE,Suite 3 725 Sumner Street NE,Suite C Salem,OR 97301-4179 Salem,OR 97301 UTILITY PROVIDERS AND SPECIAL AGENCIES _PORTLAND WESTERN R/R,BURLINGTON NORTHERN/SANTA FE R/R,OREGON ELECTRIC R/R(Burlington Northem/Santa Fe R/R Predecessor) Bruce Carswell,President&General Manager 1200 Howard Drive SE Albany,OR 97322-3336 _SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS.CO.R/R _METRO AREA COMMUNICATIONS _COMCAST CABLE CORP. _TRI-MET TRANSIT DVLPMT. Clifford C.Cabe,Construction Engineer Debra Palmer(Annexations Only) Gerald Backhaus(See map Areaconmcp (If Project is Within V.Mile of a Transit Route) 5424 SE McLoughlin Boulevard Twin Oaks Technology Center 14200 SW Brigadoon Court Ben Baldwin,Project Planner Portland,OR 97232 1815 NW 169th Place,S-6020 Beaverton,OR 97005 710 NE Holladay Street Beaverton,OR 97006-4886 Portland,OR 97232 _PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC _NW NATURAL GAS COMPANY _VERIZON _QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Mike Hieb Svc.Design Consultant Scott Palmer,Engineering Coord. John Cousineau,OSP Network Lynn Smith,Eng.ROW Mgr. 9480 SW Boeckman Road 220 NW Second Avenue 4155 SW Cedar Hills Blvd. 8021 SW Capitol Hill Rd,Rm 110 Wilsonville,OR 97070 Portland,OR 97209-3991 Beaverton,OR 97005 Portland,OR 97219 _TIGARD/TUALATIN SCHOOL DIST.#23J _BEAVERTON SCHOOL DIST.#48 _COMCAST CABLE CORP. _COMCAST CABLE COMMUNIC. Teri Brady,Administrative Offices Jennifer Garland,Demographics Alex Silantiev (see Map for Area Contact) Brian Every(Apps E.ut HaWN.e/99W) 6960 SW Sandburg Street 16550 SW Merlo Road 9605 SW Nimbus Avenue,Bldg.12 10831 SW Cascade Avenue Tigard,OR 97223-8039 Beaverton,OR 97006-5152 Beaverton,OR 97008 Tigard,OR 97223-4203 * INDICATES AUTOMATIC NOTIFICATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT IF WITHIN 500'OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR ANY/ALL CITY PROJECTS(Project Planner Is Responsible For Indicating Parties To Notify). h:\patty\masters\Request For Comments Notification List.doc (UPDATED: 18-Dec-07) (Also update:is\curpin\setup'Jabels\annexations\annexation_utilities and franchises.doc,mailing labels&auto text when updating this documel VLANNIN (r 6EcKETA /• /tAATh'RIAL5 • . • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING t'ilC ARD I,Patricia L. Lunsford,being first duly sworn/affirm,on oath depose and say that I am an Administrative Assistant for the City of Tigard,Washington County,Oregon and that I served the following: Check Appopnve Bex()Bekw} © NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER FOR Z ON2007-00018/FRY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE CHANGE (File No./Name Reference) ❑ AMENDED NOTICE HEARING BODY: HEARING DATE: ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer ® Tigard Planning Commission (3/3/2008) ❑ Tigard Qty Council A copy of the said notice being hereto attached,marked Exhibit"A",and by reference made a part hereof,was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s),marked Exhibit "B", and by reference made a part hereof,on March 12,2008,and deposit-. I the United States Mail on March 12,2008,postage prepaid. • (Person that re... -d Notice) STATE OF OREGON County of Washington ss. City of Tigard Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the c t day of M 1 ,2008. ( OFFICIAL SEAL : ^•: := SHIRLEY L TREAT J ( NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON Q` d �l coMEXPI REN No.x/6777 NOTARY P LIC OF OREGON MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 2S,2011 ' �,- � L My Commission Expires: `-1/2.S/l 120 DAYS =5/20/2008 DATE OF FILING: 3/10/2008 a óXHIBIT Ay DATE MAILED: 3/12/2008 CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION NO. 2008-01 PC Case Number: ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2007-00018 Case Name: FRY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE CHANGE Applicant's Name/Address: Douglas Fry c/o Commercial Tenant Advisors 22151 SW 55th Avenue Tualatin,Oregon 97062 Owner's Names/Addresses: Same as Applicant Address of Property: 12625 SW 70th Avenue Tigard,Oregon 97224 Tax Map/Lot Nos.: Washington Co.Tax Assessor's Map No.2S101AB,Tax Lot 100. A FINAL ORDER INCORPORATING THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE. THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICANT'S PLANS, NARRATIVE, MATERIALS, AND COMMENTS OF REVIEWING AGENCIES, THE PLANNING DIVISION'S STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPLICATION DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 3, 2008 TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THIS APPLICATION. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS FINAL ORDER Request: The applicant requested a zone change from GG (PD) to GG for one parcel totaling approximately 3.19 acres located on the SE corner of SW 72'Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street. Removal of the Planned Development (PD) overlay eliminates requirements for a public hearing process and to meet current PD standards. Any future development must still meet all other applicable development standards including the Tigard Triangle design criteria. At the March 3, 2008 public hearing, the Planning Commission denied this request primarily on the basis that the Commission finds that the PD review is valuable to address the relationship between natural resources and development on this particular site. Current Zoning: GG: General Commercial District with Planned Development (PD) Overlay. Applicable Review Criteria: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.520;and Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,7,8,9 and 12. Action: > ❑ Approval as Requested ❑ Approval with Conditions © Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper and mailed to: © Owners of Record within the Required Distance © Affected Government Agencies © Interested Parties © The Applicants and Owners Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON MARCH 12, 2008 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON MARCH 27, 2008 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: The decision of the Review Authority is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the notice of the decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard, Oregon 97223. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON MARCH 26, 2008. Questions: If you have any questions,please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. • • NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 2008-01 PC 1111 II BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD A FINAL ORDER DENYING A LAND USE APPLICATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE. THE COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THIS APPLICATION ON MARCH 3, 2008. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BASED THEIR DECISION ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL WITHIN THIS FINAL ORDER. 120 DAYS = 5/20/2008 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NO.: Zone Change (ZON) ZON2007-00018 FILE NAME: FRY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE CHANGE PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a zone change from GG (PD) to GG for one parcel totaling approximately 3.19 acres located on the SE corner of SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street. Removal of the Planned Development (PD) overlay eliminates requirements for a public hearing process and to meet current PD standards. Any future development must still meet all other applicable development standards including the Tigard Triangle design criteria. APPLICANT & APPLICANT'S OWNER: Douglas Fry REP: T M.Rippey Consulting Engrs. c/o Commercial Tenant Advisors Attn:- Lans Stout Attn: Brad Pihas 7650 SW Beveland St.,Suite 100 22151 SW 55th Avenue Tigard,OR 97223 Tualatin, OR 97062 LOCATION: South of SW Dartmouth, between SW 70th and SW 72nd Avenues; 12625 SW 70th Avenue;WCTM 2S101AB,Tax Lot 100. CURRE NT ZONE: GG: General Commercial District (PD). The GG zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area. Except where non-conforming, residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide range of uses,including but not limited to adult entertainment, automotive equipment repair and storage, mini-warehouses, utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment, and gasoline stations, are permitted conditionally. Planned Development (PD) Overlay. The purposes of the planned development overly zone are to provide a means for property development that is consistent with Tigard's Comprehensive Plan through the appscation of flexible standards which consider and mitigate for the potential impacts to the City, and to provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the City, alternative building designs, walkable communities, preservation of significant natural resources, aesthetic appeal, and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of strict adherence to many of the rules of the Tigard Community Development Code; and to achieve unique neighborhoods (by varying the housing styles through architectural accents, use of open space, innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their character and city benefits, while respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size transitioning; and to reserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities trees, water resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a planning procedure (site esign and analysis, presentation of alternatives, conceptual review, then detailed ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 1 OF 14 • • review) that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site; and to consider an amount of-development on a site, within the limits of density requirements,which will balance the interests of the owner,developer,neighbors,and the City; and to provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment through sustainable and innovative building and public facility construction methods and materials. PROPOSED ZONE: GG: General Commercial District. The GG zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a Citywide and even regional trade area. Except where non-conforming, residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide range of uses,including but not limited to adult entertainment,automotive equipment repair and storage mini-warehouses, utilities, heliports medical centers, major event entertainment,and gasoline stations, are permitted-conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.520; and Comprehensive Plan Policies 1,2,3,4, 5,7, 8,9 and 12. SEC'T'ION II. PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION The Planning Commission finds that the PD review is valuable to address the relationship between natural resources and development on this particular site; that the natural resources on this site would be more protected using a PD review process than not;that in spite of the apparent changed character over the last 24 years, the PD overlay provides a valuable tool to the Planning Commission for analyzing the proposed uses on this site; and because of the unique nature of the site and intent of the PD provisions,Commission review is appropriate to address and apply the PD standards. Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Zone Change would adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City and DENIES the Zone Change. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History& Information Staff reviewed the zoning history of the site utilizing old zoning maps and searching City records. The subject property is shown on a 1977 Existing Land Use Map designated as "agricultural' . The site was shown on a 1981 Zoning Map and on the 1982 Preliminary Comprehensive Plan Map as being in unincorporated Washington County. Ordinance 83-24 adopted the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Maps including the Development Standard Areas Map for "Developing Areas . This map showed the subject property and surrounding properties extending to the west comprising roughly the same area that was shown designated GG (PD) in the subsequent 1984 Zoning Map for the City. A search of City records showed that no land use applications to develop the site have been made beyond the site development and planned development review applications associated with the current owner, which have been withdrawn. Tax lot 100 has had several Code Enforcement Actions for noxious vegetation and a junk car. Vicinity Information The site is located within the Tigard Triangle, which is subject to the Tigard Triangle Design Standards to create a high quality, mixed use employment area. Site and building design requirements for this area include building placement near the street,ground floor window requirements and articulation along street frontages. Zoning in the area is a mix of GG, GG (PD), and MUE (Mixed Use Employment). Many of the sites within the Triangle are being re-developed and converted from residential to commercial uses. ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 2 OF 14 • • Properties to the south and east are zoned MUE and improved with single-family homes and office buildings. Property to the north across Dartmouth Street is zoned C-G (PD) where site development for a proposed office building is in progress. Also to the north at the intersection of SW 72nd Avenue and Dartmouth Street,the Planning Commission recently approved a zone change (ZON2007-00008) from GG (PD) to GG on an approximately one-acre site containing no sensitive lands. In addition to the subject parcel, the remaining undeveloped properties in the Tigard Triangle zoned C-G (PD). include an adjacent 55-acre parcel and, to the west across SW 72nd Avenue, six contiguous parcels totaling approximately 24.72 acres. Site Information and Proposal Description The proposed zone change applies to one 3.19-acre parcel, Tax Lot 100. Sensitive lands including a draingeway and jurisdictional wetlands exist on the subject parcel. The subject parcel slopes moderately to the north and west and contains a number of emergent and some mature trees, and is otherwise covered with grasses and shrubs. The applicant is requesting to remove the planned development overlay zone, changing the zone from GG (PD) to GG to facilitate development of a new commercial retail/office project without the burden of the planned development standards and review. The applicant states that other options were considered to address the PD overlay, including development under the PD criteria, modifying the PD code to address the difficulty of developing a commercial site under the current standards, or changing the entire site to MUE through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Zone Change. The applicant concluded that "it may be argued that dealing with these issues can be addressed by the PD provisions themselves, [but] in the end the question remains whether the interest of the property owner and the City are well served by using these procedures to correct a historic problem rather than simp_y correcting the problem and applying the appropriate Code standards to a development application." The applicant describes the problem for commercial development under the PD overlay zone, in summary, as follows: • The applicant contends that the planned development purposes in TDC 18.350.010A2 through 4 relate to residential development and are therefore not applicable to sites zoned GG. • The applicant suggests that, notwithstanding the legislatively applied PD designation to the subject parcel the applicant should still be allowed the choice of implementing the PD standards or rely on the underlying zone standards as intended in TDC 18.350.020. • The applicant suggests that permits obtained for Corps/DSL and CWS should be adequate in-lieu of addressing the concept plan approval criteria in TDC 18.350.050A2 and 6 relating to the preservation of natural features and development that has significant advantages over a standard development. • The applicant contends that 40% of the subject commercial site would be required in landscaping 20% (IDC 18.350.070.4.A.h) and shared open space 20% (1DC 18.350.070.4A.m) representing a significant difficulty for a commercial site where 15% landscaping is the conventional standard. Staff addresses each 4-these points in the analysis section 4-this wort on p zze 12. Summary of Issues The applicant has identified several PD standards, above, that they believe are problematic for commercial development. The Commission voiced concern at the August 6, 2007 Planning Commission meeting_that the shared open space standard (18.350.070.4A.m) may not be applicable to commercial development. The open space standards were adopted long after the original application of the PD overlay that made available or required in certain instances PD review for commercial and industrial development. Are the revised Planned Development standards (Ord. 06-16) otherwise generally suitable and intended for both residential and commercial developments. ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE • PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 3 OF 14 The Commission's prior decision (ZON 2007-00008) removing the PD overlay on property in the vicinity of the subject parcel and found that due to the subject parcel's small one-acre size, lack of natural resources and application of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards, removing the PD standards would have no significant effect. Are the circumstances of this case substantially different to allow the Commission to deny the request? Given that the Tigard Triangle Design Standards and the Corp/DSL/CWS permit requirements would apply to the subject parcel without the PD overlay, is there a benefit to the City to continue to apply the Planned Development standards and Planning Commission review in this case, and on the other undeveloped PD overlay zoned parcels in the vicinity? Staff addmsses these issues in the anal1sis se Lion of this report on page 13. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Statewide Planning Goals, Metro Urban Growth Management Plan, and Metro Regional Framework Plan Policies are not applicable to this land use decision. No changes are proposed to the Comprehensive Plan and the land use action requested is not legislative. TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.380: Section 18.380.030.A states that the Commission shall decide zone change applications which do not involve comprehensive plan map amendments. The proposed zone change application to remove the PD overlay, changing the zoning on the subject parcel from GG (PD) to GG does not involve a comprehensive plan map amendment. Therefore, the Planning Commission shall make a decision on the proposed zone change application. Section 18.380.030.B states that 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: Section 18.380.030.B.1 Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES 1. GENERAL POLICIES: lil.a The city shall ensure that this comprehensive plan and all future legislative changes are consistent with the statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission, the Regional Plan adopted by the Metropolitan Service District; Implementation Strategies 1. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and the Official Zoning District map will reflect the plan policies and apply land use categories in the following manner. f. General Commercial - Refers to areas for auto-oriented and related commercial uses located along major traffic ways. The applicable zoning district is General Commercial(C-G). The proposed zone change from GG (PD) to GG complies with the Comprehensive Map designation of "General Commercial" because the GG zoning district implements the General Commercial Comprehensive Plan Designation. Removal of the PD overlay would not amend the comprehensive plan and is not a legislative change. Therefore, the General Policies do not apply. ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 4 OF 14 • • 2. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT: 2.1.1 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 applicant's representative sent out notices to surrounding property owners and neighborhood representatives, posted a sign on the property, and held a neighborhood meeting on December 27, 2007 in accordance with the City of Tigard's neig aborhood meeting notification process. According to the minutes of the neighborhood meeting, five neighbors were in attendance. Discussion related to the timing of traffic signalization on 72nd Avenue and street improvements on Elmhurst Street, the height of the proposed Building C, construction noise, and wetland fill. No objections were given to the proposed zone change. In addition, the City has mailed notice of the Planning Commission hearing to property owners within 500 feet of the subject site, interested citizens, and agencies,published notice of the hearing and posted the site pursuant to 'IDC 18.390.050 for Type III Procedures. With these public involvement provisions and the applicant's documented participation, the proposed zone change is consistent with applicable Citizen Involvement policies. 3. NATURAL FEATURES AND OPEN SPACE: 3.1.1 The city shall not allow development in areas having the following development limitations except where the developer demonstrates that generally accepted 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 floodplain and wetlands map.): A. Areas meeting the definition of wetlands under chapter 18.26 of the community development code; According to the applicant, the site does include jurisdictional wetlands and does not include any significant wetlands as identified on the City of Tigard's "Wetland and Streams Corridor Map". These wetlands are subject to Corps/DSL and Clean Water Services standards and will be addressed at the time of Development Review. 3.4.2 The city shall: A. Protect fish and wildlife habitat along stream corridors by managing the riparian habitat and controlling erosion, and by requiring that areas of standing trees and natural vegetation along natural drainage courses and waterways be maintained to the maximum extent possible; B. Require that development proposals in designated timbered or tree areas be reviewed through the planned development process to minimize the number of trees removed; and C. Require cluster type development in areas having important wildlife habitat value as delineated on the "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Map" on file at the city. As the applicant states, there is no floodplain or steep slopes on the subject parcel. Any geotechnical issues may be addressed during Site Development Review. There is a draingeway, a tributary to Red Rock Creek that traverses the property from east to west. The drainageway would be better characterized as a ditch, rather than a natural drainage course. The creek has been significantly altered by the construction of SW Dartmouth Street. The stream corridor across the property no longer includes areas of standing trees and the natural vegetation has been significantly degraded. The "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Map" has been replaced (Ord.06-20) by the "Significant Habitat Areas Map" which shows both lower and moderate value habitat areas on the site. CWS standards will apply to the moderate value vegetated corridor on the site. The Significant Habitat Areas Map is implemented ythrough non-regulatory measures such as cluster-type development usunlly associated with resiential development. ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 5 OF 14 • • The natural resource chapter includes implementation strategies that encourage, through the Planned Development Process, the retention of large, varied habitat areas on private and public lands including inventoried plant and animal communities; and, where there exist large or unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas within the planning area on undeveloped land, the City shall ensure that development proposals do not substantially alter the character of the vegetation areas through the Planned Development Process and the "Tree Cutting" section of the Community Development Code. The existing property, zoned GG (PD), is bordered by a collector, an arterial, and intense commercial development. The approximately 3-acre property does not include large_ varied habitat areas of inventoried plant and animal communities or large or unique stands of trees. Therefore, the purpose for which a planned development overlay was originally established under these implementation strategies may not continue to exist. The PD designations in the Triangle preceded the environmental regulations and appear to have been placed to cause review partly because of the proximity of residential neighborhoods whose residential designations no longer exist in the Triangle. However, there remains a drainageway and jurisdictional wetlands on the subject property that willbe protected at minimum under Corp/DSL/CWS permits. The proposed zone change does not involve development. The applicable Natural Features and Open Space Policies have been adequately addressed with respect to planned-development review. 4. AIR, WATER AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY: 4.2.1 All development within the Tigard urban planning area shall comply with applicable federal, state and regional water quality standards, including those contained in the Clean Water Services' Design and Construction Manual. (rev. Ord. 02-15) 4.3.1 The city shall: A. Require development proposals located in a noise congested area or a use which creates noise in excess of the applicable standards to incorporate the following into the site plan: 1. Building placement on the site in an area where the noise levels will have a minimal impact; or 2. Landscaping and other techniques to lessen noise impacts to levels compatible with the surrounding land uses. B. Coordinate with DEQ in its noise regulation program and apply the Vol. Ii,policy 4-4 DEQ land use compatibility program. C. Where applicable require a statement from the appropriate agency(prior to the approval of a land use proposal) that all applicable standards can be met. Removal of the PD overlay will not change the standards related to water quality or noise standards. All new developments within the City of Tigard are required to collect and treat storm water run-off for the site utilizing Clean Water Services design standards. Noise level allowances are regulated by the Tigard Municipal Code 7.40.130 through 7.40.210. During pre-application meetings held for future site development, the applicant has proposed retail and office uses. These are not uses which create excessive noise. They are also the same type of uses already existing on many surrounding properties as the neighborhood continues to change from residential to commercial. Buffering will be required where future commercial development occurs adjacent to a residential use. The roposed zone change does not involve development. The applicable Air,Water and Land Resources Qualpty Policies will be addressed at the time of Development Review. 5. ECONOMY: 5.1 The City shall promote activities aimed at the diversification of the economic opportunities available to Tigard residents with particular emphasis placed on the growth of the local job market. ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 6 OF 14 • • Because the underlying zone remains General Commercial, all the allowed uses will be the same. The PD overlay does not provide more growth opportunities for the local job market. Due to the constraints outlined within the PD code, the applicant states that removal of the PD will allow the site to develop in a manner that will increase economic activity. The question is whether application of the PD process is seen as inhibiting economic opportunities. This must be weighed in relation to the benefits of the PD review. Other than the fact that most applicants prefer a Type II process in terms of speed and certainty of the standards, there have been no arguments made in this application that conclusively indicate that the economy is not served by use of the PD review process. 5.4 The City shall ensure that new commercial and industrial development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial or industrial uses. There are residential uses south of the site. The area is currently zoned for commercial development and many sites in the area have been re-developed with commercial uses. Any proposed commercial development on the site will not be encroaching into residential zones. Buffenng and screening will be required next to these existing residences if the site is developed with a commercial use. This policy is typical of the existing Comprehensive Plan's emphasis on protecting existing single-family neighborhoods, which in this case no longer exist because of zone changes from residential to commercial and recent development activity. The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable Economic policies. 7. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: 7.1.2 The City shall require as a pre-condition to development approval that; a. Development coincide with the availability of adequate service capacity including: 1. Public water; 2. Public sewer shall be required for new development within the city unless the property involved in over 300 feet from a sewer line and Washington County Health Department approval for a private disposal system is obtained; and 3. Storm drainage. b. The facilities are: 1. Capable of adequately serving all intervening properties and the proposed development; and 2. Designed to city standards. c. All new development utilities to be placed underground. According to City maps, storm, sanitary sewer, and water are all available at the corner of 72nd and Dartmouth. The proposed use of the site will undergo development review to ensure that public facilities and services are adequate, capable of serving the properties, and designed to city standards. The.proposed zone change does not involve any development. City's applicable Public Facilities and Services Polices will be addressed at the time of actual development review. 8. TRANSPORTATION: Transportation System 8.1.1 Plan, design and construct transportation facilities in a manner which enhances the livability of Tigard by: a. Proper location and design of transportation facilities. b. Encouraging pedestrian accessibility by providing safe, secure and desirable pedestrian routes. c. Addressing issues of excessive speeding and through traffic on local residential streets through a neighborhood traffic program. The program should address corrective measures for existing problems and assure that development incorporates traffic calming. ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 7 OF 14 • • 8.1.2 Provide a balanced transportation system, incorporating all modes of transportation (including motor vehicle,bicycle, pedestrian, transit and other modes) by: a. The development of and implementation of public street standards that recognize the multi-purpose nature ofpthe street right-of-way for utility, pedestrian, bicycle, transit, truck and auto use. b. Coordination with Tri-met, and/or any other transit providers serving Tigard, to improve transit service to Tigard. Fixed route transit will primarily use arterial and collector streets in Tigard. Development adjacent to transit routes will provide direct pedestrian accessibility. c. Construction of bicycle lanes on all arterials and collectors within Tigard consistent with the bicycle master. All schools, parks, public facilities and retail areas shall strive to have direct access to a bikeway. d. Construction of sidewalks on all streets within Tigard. All schools, parks, public facilities and retail areas shall strive to have direct access to a sidewalk. e. Development of bicycle and pedestrian plans which link to recreational trails. f. Design local streets to encourage a reduction in trip length by providing connectivity and limiting out-of-direction travel and provide connectivity to activity centers and destinations with a priority for bicycle and pedestrian connections. g. Tigard will participate in vehicle trip reduction strategies developed regionally targeted to achieve non-single occupant vehicle levels outlined in Table 1.3 of the Regional Transportation Plan. h. Tigard will support the development of a commuter rail system as part of the regional transit network. 8.1.4 Set and maintain transportation performance measures that: a. Set a minimum intersection level of service standard for the City of Tigard and requires all public facilities to be designed to meet this standard. b. Set parking ratios to provide adequate parking,while providing an incentive to limit the use of the single occupant vehicle. c. Encourage working with other transportation providers in Washington County, including Tri-Met,-Metro and ODOT to develop, operate and maintain intelligent transportation systems, including coordination of traffic. 8.2 Trafficways 8.2.1 The city shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. 8.2.2 The city shall provide for efficient management of the transportation planning process within the city and the metropolitan area through cooperation with other federal, state, regional and local jurisdictions. 8.2.3 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 impacts; 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 whicli generates transit ridership; G. Parking spaces be set aside and marked for cars operated by disabled persons and that the spaces be located as close as possible to operated entrance designed for disabled persons; and H. Land be dedicated to implement the bicycle/pedestrian corridor in accordance with the adopted plan. ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 8 OF 14 S • The Transportation Goal policies and implementation strategies are largely directed at the City and include objectives that create the framework for ensuring that the transportation system is adequate for all modes of travel at the time development occurs. These objectives are implemented by the Development Code standards that apply during development review. None of the minimum requirements for streets, access or parking wouldbe different if the site were developed as a Planned Development. As stated in the applicant's narrative,the proposed subsequent development will require a traffic study. At a minimum this study must address site distance for access points, peak period vehicle trips and the development's affect on nearby entry/exit ramps for Interstate 5. At the time of Site Development or Planned Development Review, the City will require additional dedication of land and street improvements to meet current standards along Clinton Street, Dartmouth Street and 72nd Avenue. In addition funds will be collected that will contribute to the signalization of the Dartmouth/68th intersection and Dartmouth/72nd intersection. The future commercial project is likely to generate increased transit ridership. Tri-Met bus route 78 serves the subject site with a bus stopp located at the intersection of 68th Parkway and Dartmouth Street. Any future development must include pedestrian connections such as a sidewalk or plaza. Sidewalks are currently not constructed to connect this site with the bus line along 68th Parkway, but will happen with future development. All on-site parking and circulation for any proposed development will be done to City specifications as required by the Tigard Development Code. Maximum parking regulations will limit the amount of parking provided to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation. As shown in the foregoing analysis, the City's applicable Transportation Polices will be addressed at the time of Site Development or Planned Development Review. 9. ENERGY: 9.1.3 The City shall encourage land use development which emphasizes sound energy conservation, design and construction. Applicable implementation strategies to support this goal include: 3) The City shall locate higher densities and intensities of land use in proximity to existing and potential transit routes specifically with convenient access to federal and state highways, artenals and major collector streets, and 8) The City shall coordinate with and support public and private planning efforts that advocate alternative forms of transportation such as mass transit, carpooling, ride share, bicycling and walking for commuter purposes. The site is located at the corner of 72nd Avenue and Dartmouth Street which is within 1/4 mile of an I-5 interchange. State Highway 99 is less than 1/2 mile to the north. Another collector (68th Parkway) is within two blocks of the site. The proposed removal of the PD overlay would not change the allowed uses on the site. Tigard Development Code standards such as maximum parking and required bicycle parking will encourage the use of alternative forms of transportation. These criteria are reviewed during the Site Development or Planned Development Review process. The proposed zone change will have no effect on the efficient use of the transportation system to conserve energy and will remain consistent with the applicable Energy Policies. 12. LOCATIONAL CRITERIA: 12.2 COMMERCIAL 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. ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 9 OF 14 • 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. ocational 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. (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) mpact 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. The proposed removal of the planned development overlay does not change the underlying General Commercial zone. Therefore,the Locational Policies do not apply. FINDING: Both GG (PD) and GG zoning are treated as General Commercial under the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Designations. The removal of the overlay zone would not change the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation. The Comprehensive Plan Polices for I\atural Features and Open Space (3.4.2), provided a basis for the use of the planned development process, and its use on the subject property and properties in the vicinity to protect the character of the vegetation areas where there exist large or unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas within the planning area on undeveloped land. Based on the analysis above, the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies have been adequately addressed. The proposed zone change to remove the PD overlay may not be consistent with Natural Features and Open Space policies (3.4.2) depending on whether changes to the area have resulted in substantial degradation of tie resource where the PD standards would no longer be applicable. ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE Q-IANGE PLANNING OOMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 10 OF 14 • 18.380.030.B.2 Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance; and- FINDING: The proposed zone change does not include a specific development proposal. However, during Site Development or Planned Development Review, any proposed development will be required to meet all of the current applicable Tigard Development Code standards. 18.380.030.B.3 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. Staff reviewed the zoning history of the site utilizing old zoning maps and searching City records. The subject property is shown on a 1977 Existing Land Use Map designated as "agricultural". The site was shown on a 1981 Zoning Map and on the 1982 Preliminary Gompprehensive Plan Map as being in unincorporated Washington County. Ordinance 83-24 adopted the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Maps including the Development Standard Areas Map for "Developing Areas . This map showed the subject dproperty and surrounding properties extending to the west comprised roughly the same area that was es gnated GG (PD) in thepsubsequent 1984 Zoning Map for the City. The Comprehensive Plan policies for Natural Features and Open Space (3.4.2), provide a basis for the use of the planned development process, and explain its use in this case, to protect the character of the vegetation areas where there exist large or unique stands of trees or major vegetation areas within the planning area on undeveloped land. In 1999, the City adopted the Tigard Triangle Design Standards for the area lying between Highway 99 Interstate 5 and Highway 217. These standards adopted guiding principles to create a high-qulity mixed use employment area, provide a convenient pedestnan and bikeway system, and utilize streetscapes for a quality image. In 2006, the Planning Commission adopted the revised PD standards to emphasize the balancing of flexible standards with environmental and community benefits (Ord. 06-16). The revisions included among others new open space requirements and affirmed a two-step review process for conceptual and detailed development proposals. There is some question whether consideration of the open space requirement was intended for use on commercial and industrial properties. The Natural Features and Open Space Comprehensive Plan policies provide some basis for the use of PD review. Prior to adoption of the Triangle standards and the revised PD standards, three commercial sites were approved through the PD process including WinCo, Costco and Toys-R Us. These were all large sites of at least 6 or more acres and included or were adjacent to sensitive lands. Over the years, the Triangle area has been redeveloping into an area with larger retail uses alon with large and small scale office buildings, consistent with development allowed in the GG (PD) and MUE zones. FINDING: The foregoing suggests that development in the neighborhood, known as the Tigard Triangle, has occurred consistent with the underlying zones and the planned development overlay. There is no apparent evidence of a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map. However changes to the original zoning and the development code standards that apply to the neighborhood have precipitated the proposed zone change. SECTION V. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF AND OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS The City of Tigard's Long Range Planning Department was notified of the proposal and did not provide comment. No outside agencies were notified of the proposal because no development or other applicable action is proposed for their review. ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 11 OF 14 • • SECTION VI. STAFF ANALYSIS ANALYSIS: Based on the information above, the proposed zone change may or may not be consistent with Natural Features and Open Space policies (3.4.2) depending on whether changes to the area have resulted in substantial degradation of the resource where the PD standards would no longer be applicable; any new development will be required to meet all of the current Tigard Development Code standards during Site Development Review. -Changes have occurred in the primary zone designations as well as development code standards applicable to Triangle properties. The applicant describes the problem for commercial development under the revised PD standards, in summary, as follows: 1) The applicant contends that the planned development purposes in TDC 18.350.010.A.2 through 4 relate to residential development and are therefore not applicable to sites zoned GG. Staff Response: Of the PD Chapter's six purpose statements Nos. 3 and 4 relate to residential development, referring to "housing styles" and "density requirements" respectively. Purposes 1, 2, 4, and 6 relate generally to both commercial and residential development. The purpose statements have always applied as appropriate to either commercial or residential development. 2) The applicant suggests that, notwithstanding the legislatively applied PD designation to the subject parcel, the applicant should still be allowed the choice of implementing the PD standards and relies on the underlying zone standards as otherwise intended in TDC 18.350.020. Staff Response: The PD standards explicitly address applicability to commercial development: "The planned development designation is an overlay zone applicable to all zones. An applicant may elect to develop the project as a planned development, in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, or in the case of a commercial or industrial project, an approval authority may apply the provisions of this chapter as a condition of approving any application for the development" (18.35020). In 1983 the City-legislatively applied the PD overlay to specific properties in the Triangle including the subject parcel. Other than reformatting, the revised PD standards did not change the substance of TDC 18.350.020 or affect its previous application by the City to the Triangle. The code now and has always indicated that the PD process can apply to commercial and industrial development as well as residential. The question is whether there are substantial reasons to apply the PD to this property. 3) The applicant suggests that permits obtained for Corps/DSL and CWS should be adequate in-lieu of addressing the concept plan approval criteria in TDC 18.350.050.A.2 and 6 relating to the "reservation of natural features" and development that has significant advantages over a standard development . Staff Response: The applicant's preliminary plans demonstrated that Corps/DSL and CWS permits would result in preservation of wetlands to some extent. However, under the PD standards these approval criteria are the means by which the distinctive quality of a development may be assured either by further protecting natural features, integrating them into the development,or by providing other amenities. 4) The applicant contends that a total of 40% of the subject commercial site would be affected, with 20% in required Landscaping (TDC 18.350.070.4.A.h) and 20% in shared open space (TDC 18.350.070.4A.m), representing a significant difficulty for a commercial site where 15% landscaping is the conventional standard. Staff Response: Section 18.350.070.A.3.d of the revised PD standards require 20% of the net site area be landscaped (18.350.070.4.A.h refers explicitly to residential development); section 18.350.070.A.4.m requires 20% of the gross site area be designated as a shared open space facility. The standards do not state that these provision must be additive, nor prohibits landscaped areas to be used for the shared open space requirement. However, the definitions adopted with the revised PD standards ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 12 OF 14 • • • (18.120.102) do imply some "passive use facilities" be reserved for medium-impact recreation and education uses related to the functions and values of the natural area. The PD standards further set maximum site coverage of 80% (18.350.060.C.2). By comparison, commercial development in the GBD and IP zones are subject to maximum site coverage's of 80% and 75%, respectively. The actual amount of open space required for any given development is dependant on a number of factors that makes the open space standard hard to quantify without a specific development proposal. The resulting uncertainty is problematic for developers. In summary, the PD process requires at least 5% more landscaping than the Site Development Review process. ISSUES: A) The applicant has identified several PD standards, above, that they believe are problematic for commercial development. The Commission voiced concern at the August 6, 2007 Planning Commission meeting that the shared open space standard(18.350.070.4A.m may not be applicable to commercial development. The opens space standards were adopted long after the original application of the PD overlay that made available or required in certain instances PD review for commercial and industrial development. Are the revised Planned Development standards (Ord. 06- 16) otherwise generally suitable and intended for both residential and commercial developments? As reflected in staff's responses above, the applicant's broadly drawn statements on the applicability of the revised PD standards to commercial development are not completely conclusive nor supported by code. Staff believes that applying the requirement for shared open space facilities (18.350.070.A.4.m) to commercial and industrial development may have been an oversight because the Planning Commission and Planned Development Committee focus was on residential development; open space requirements for commercial and industrial development were not discussed during the code revision. However,the above analysis suggests that the standard may not be as onerous as thought depending on the open space/landscape calculation for a specific development proposal. Because of tie difficulty in determining the actual amount of opens space required, the Commission may want to qualify the applicability of the standard for residential development only, or otherwise clarify the standard to address the uncertainty that is problematic for developers. Alternatively, is there public benefit to retaining the standard in the likelihood that commercial development could better relate to natural resources on the site and improve the quality of the development? B.) The Commission's prior decision (ZON 2007-00008) removing the PD overlay on property in the vicinity the subject parcel found that due to the subject parcel's small one-acre size,lack of-natural resources, and application of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards, removing the PD standards would have no significant effect. Are the circumstances of this case substantially different to allow the Commission to deny the request? The subject site is different in three important respects to the property previously addressed in ZON2007- 00008 including: 1) the size of the subject property is 3.19- acres versus approximately 1 acre 2) the presence of jurisdictional wetlands and drainageways on the subject ropperty versus the absence of natural resources, and 3) the PD Concept Plan Approval standards (18.350.050.A.1, 2, and 6) that relate to the natural resources on the subject property are not otherwise covered under the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. These differences in the site and the applicable PD standards that pertain to natural resources allow the Commission to find that the facts of this case could support denial of the request to remove the Planned Development overlay. C) Given that the Tigard Triangle Design Standards and the Corp/DSL/CWS permit requirements would apply to the subject parcel without the PD overlay, is there a benefit to the City to continue to apply the Planned Development standards and Planning Commission review in this case, and on the other undeveloped PD overlay zoned parcels in the vicinity? ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 13 OF 14 • • Although the Tigard Triangle Design standards ensure high quality development, principally with regards to building placement and articulation, they do not relate to the relationship of the development to the natural resources on the site. Similarly, Corp/DSL/CWS permits address natural resources on site without concern for the relationship of the proposed development other than providing for exclusion and rehabilitation of resource values. The primary focus of the revised PD standards, as conveyed in the purpose statements and Concept Plan Approval Criteria, is the relationship of the development to the resource that results in development that has significant advantages over standard development. This is the promise of the PD overlay legislatively applied to the subject property and on the approximately 25 remaining undeveloped acres in the Triangle also zoned GG (PD). SECTION VII. CONCLUSION The City of Tigard Planning Commission has DENIED Zone Change (ZON2007-00018) - FRY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE CHANGE, based on the following findings: that the PD review is valuable to address the relationship between natural resources and development on this particular site; that the natural resources on this site would be more protected using a PD review process than not; that in spite of the apparent changed character over the last 24 years, the PD overlay provides a valuable tool to the Planning Commission for analyzing the proposed uses on this site; and because of the unique nature of the site and intent of the PD provisions, Commission review is appropriate to address and apply the PD standards to this particular site. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE APPLICANT AND ALL PARTIES TO THESE PROCEEDINGS BE NOTIFIED OF THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER. DENIED: THE YI DAY OF MARCH, 2008 BY THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION. cam.._ Jodi Inman,Planning Commission President Dated this (D' day of March, 2008. is\cuipin\gary\ZON\Fry Zone Change(ZON2007-00018)\ZON2007-00018 PC FINAL ORDER ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.2008-01 PC PAGE 14 OF 14 V I I Kf_tanIV_ /A . _ CITY of TIGARD An GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM r-------------- - w VICINITY MAP 1114 .z , BAYLOR ST - W 1 ZON2007-00018 W i I ill N FRY ZONE O CHANGE rn J ST ' CLINTON_ - H - cCOo rn I- LEGEND: 0 MIIIIII. / SUBJECT DART • J SITE ji,,z11--,2,,R5FE.T R0 Adi,?%' Cl (011 .. -i r - — ELMHURST ST L. Rp- P% gONITA�o •• PI IAN III gEEF 5EN0 RO� DGRHAM• RD I - _ I V CD H Tigard Area Map HER W MOS O ¢ = N • IIIIW 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet RA_KLIN ST t"=390 feet BEVELAND RD - _ o�a BEVELAND RD Ima Information on this map is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. I 0 W — 13125 SW Hall Blvd Z _ > Tigard,OR 97223 F- Q (503)639-4171 \ f` _ http://www.ci.tigard.or.us Community Development Plot date:Feb 5,2008;C:\magic\MAGICO3.APR Douglas Fry • • EXHIBIT(f3 do Commercial Tenant Advisors ZON2007-00018 Attn: Brad Pihas FRY ZONE CHANGE 22151 SW 55th Avenue Tualatin,OR 97062 Douglas Fry 23077 SW Newland Road Wilsonville,OR 97070 T.M.Rippey Consulting Engineers Attn: Lans Stout 7650 SW Beveland Street,Suite 100 Tigard, OR 97223 John&Debora Scott 7085 SW Elmhurst Tigard, OR 97223 George &JoAnn Nordling 6695 SW Hyland Way Beaverton, OR 97008 Susan Beilke 11755 SW 114th Place Tigard,OR 97223 • • III AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING `rileARD I, Patricia L. Lunsford being. fast duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a Planning Administrative Assistant for the City of Tigard,Washington County,Oregon and that I served the following: (Chmk APPW..Bo Bj © NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR ZON2007-00018/FRY ZONE CHANGE (File NoJName Reference) El AMENDED NOTICE HEARING BODY: HEARING DATE: ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ Tigard Heanngs Officer • Tigard Planning Commission (3/3/2008) ❑ Tigard Qty Council A copy of the said notice being hereto attached,marked Exhibit"A",and by reference made a part hereof,was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s),marked Exhibit"B", and by reference made a part hereof, on February 11,2008,and deposited in the United States Mail on February 11,2008,postage prepaid. . / (Person that P :.ared o Ice) r STATE OF OREGON County of Washington ss. City of Tigard Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the day of11' ai ,2008. j .� OFFlCIALSEAL 1 SHIRLEY L TREAT � f NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON ,, 9 ' r COMMISSION NO.416777 f p� ekfix^ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 25,2011 f NOTARY P LIC OF OREGON My Commission Expires: 4/9 //I • • EXHIBIT-. NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE,LIENHOLDER,VENDOR OR SELLER THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT OODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, 1111 IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER TIGARD PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION,AT A MEETING ON MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2008 AT 7:00 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD,TIGARD,OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO.: ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2007-00018 (Type IIIB Land Use Decision) FILE NAME: FRY ZONE CHANGE APPLICANT& Douglas Fry APPLICANT'S T.M.Rippey Consulting Engineers OWNER: c/o Commercial Tenant Advisors REP.: Attn: Lans Stout Attn:Brad Pihas 7650 SW Beveland Street,Suite 100 22151 SW 55th Avenue Tigard,OR 97223 Tualatin, OR 97062 REQUEST: The applicant requests a zone change from GG (PD) to GG for a 3.19-acre parcel located on the SE corner of SW 72" Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street. Removal of the Planned Development (PD) overlay eliminates the requirement for a public hearing process and to meet current PD standards. Any future development must still meet all other applicable development standard including the Tigard Triangle design criteria. LOCATION: South side of SW Dartmouth between SW 70th and 72nd Avenues. 12625 SW 70th Avenue; Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S101AB,Tax Lot 100. CURRENT ZONING: GG: General Commercial District. The GG zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail,office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area. Except where non-conforming, residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to adult entertainment, automotive equipment repair and storage, mini-warehouses, utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment, and gasoline stations, are permitted conditionally. Planned Development (PD) Overlay. The purposes of the planned development overlay zone are to provide a means for property development that is consistent with Tigard's Comprehensive Plan through the application of flexible standards which consider and mitigate for the potential impacts to the City, and to provide such adder benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the City, alternative building des' ns,walkable communities, preservation of significant natural resources,aesthetic appeal,and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of strict adherence to many of the rules of the Tigard Community Development Code;and to achieve unique neighborhoods s (by varying the housing styles through architectural accents, use of open space, innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their character and city benefits, while respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size transitioning;and to preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities (trees, water resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a planning procedure (site design and analysis,presentation of alternatives,conceptual review,then detailed review) that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site; and to consider an amount of development of a site, within the limits of density requirements,which will balance the interests of the owner,developer, neighbors, and the City; and to provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment through sustainable and innovative building and public facility construction methods and materials. PROPOSED ZONING: GG: General Commercial District. The GG zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a non-conforming,and even regional trade area. Except where non-confo �ng, residential uses are limited to single-family residences which are located on the same site as a permitted use. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to adult entertainment, automotive equipment repair and storage mini-warehouses, utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment,and gasoline stations,are permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.520; and Comprehensive Plan Policies 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,and 12. • • THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.390 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. 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. 2438 (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 ACI1ON 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 WRIT1EN TESTIMONY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACIION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTS LESS THAN 7 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE, THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY MAY ALLOW A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING, SUBJECT TO ORS 215.428 OR 227178. 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 PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE BASED UPON THE CRITERIA LISTED OR OTHER CRITERIA IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH THE PERSON BELIEVES TO APPLY TO THE DECISION. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST,ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY AND ALL PARTIES TO RESPOND PRECLUDES AN APPEAL, AND FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE CRITERION FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT WHICH A COMMENT IS DIRECTED 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 (25 ) PER PAGE,OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN(7) 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 (250 PER PAGE,OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER GARY PAGENSTECHER AT 503-639-4171,AT TIGARD CITY HALL AT 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD,TIGARD,OREGON 97223, OR BY EMAIL TO garypOtigard-or.gov. ri mil-fiEje VI CINITI'h1AP 4 ulimilmn - ,.... c,I-I"9NC;E ■ LEGEND: lift U r [: 4 inisen ..IIIII i 1 H--',/-,:x Isar Al k Mai i tap ii Minn 11=.7:::: -FT-= vi m1.= •i. N MaxNU Yh rDouglas Fry do EXH I B IT04 o Commercial Tenant Advisors Attn:Brad Pihas ZON2007-00018 22151 SW 55th Avenue FRY ZONE CHANGE Tualatin, OR 97062 Douglas Fry 23077 SW Newland Road Wilsonville, OR 97070 T.M.Rippey Consulting Engineers Attn: Lans Stout 7650 SW Beveland Street,Suite 100 Tigard,OR 97223 4 4. 1S136DC-02504 2S101AB-00601 41111 AMERICAN INDUSTRIES INC FALL FUN PROPERTIES LLC 1750 NW FRONT AVE STE#106 7130 SW ELMHURST ST PORTLAND, OR 97209 TIGARD, OR 97223 2S101AB-01100 1 S136DC-03900 BAUER DANIEL E& FARZA JAVAD BAUER BARBARA G 7110 SW CLINTON ST 12335 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136DC-04600 2S101AB-00300 COMMERCIAL NET LEASE REALTY INC FRY DOUGLAS 450 S ORANGE AVE STE 900 23077 SW NEWLAND RD ORLANDO,FL 32801 WILSONVILLE, OR 97070 2S101AA-01800 2S101AB-001 CORLISS JAMES L&CORA K FR LAS PO BOX 23970 230 NEWLAND RD TIGARD, OR 97281 ILSONVILL OR 97070 2S101AA-04900 2S101AB-00600 CORLISS-1 LLC GUILLEUX FEMY PO BOX 23970 18200 DAVIS ST TIGARD,OR 97281 SANDY,OR 97055 1S136DC-04400 2S101AB-00801 DARTMOUTH SQUARE LLC HAMPTON PARK APARTMENTS LLC BY ZIMMLER DEVELOPMENT BY COOPER CHASE LLC 7165 SW FIR LP#10 17952 SW PARRISH LN TIGARD,OR 97223 SHERWOOD,OR 97140 1S136DD-07500 2 01AB-00800 DARTMOUTH TOWNHOMES LLC HAMt•TON P' ' APARTMENTS LLC 2508 NE 24TH AVE BY Cs• ' CHASE LLC PORTLAND,OR 97212 17•- S PARRISH LN HERW00.• OR 97140 1 36DD-07600 2S101AB-00900 DA MO TOWNHOMES LLC HA TON PA APARTMENTS LLC 2508 4TH AVE BY C P CHASE LLC RTLAND, R 97212 1795 ARRISH LN S RWOOD,OR 97140 2S101AB-00400 2S101AB-01000 DITTER MARK W HA TON P K APARTMENTS LLC PRISCILLA A BY C R CHASE LLC 7070 SW ELMHURST ST 179 S ARRISH LN TIGARD,OR 97223 ERWOOD,OR 97140 1S1360C-04000 2S101AB-00700 ESLINGER CASEY HERAS MIGUEL RAMON 7140 SW CLINTON ST ELAINE C TIGARD,OR 97223 12280 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 C. 2S101AB-00303 1S136DC-03600 HUNT CLAYTON R& MYERS FAMILY LLC GORANSON NELS R 12670 SW 68TH PKWY 7040 SW ELMHURST ST STE#200 TIGARD, OR 97223 PORTLAND, OR 97223 1S136DC-03800 1S136DC-03700 IMPERIAL INVESTMENT PROPERTIES L - MYERS FAMILY LLC 5285 SW MEADOWS RD#369 FIVE CENTERPOINTE DR#280 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 2S101AA-02000 2S101AB-00302 LANDMARK FORD INC NORDLING GEORGE DALE& • ATTN:JIM CORLISS JOANNE TRUSTEES PO BOX 23970 6695 SW HYLAND WAY TIGARD,OR 97281 BEAVERTON,OR 97008 2S101AA-05200 2S101AA-02301 LANDMARK FORD INC OPDAL ELLA J PO BOX 23970 12170 SW 6911-1 AVE TIGARD, OR 97281 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S101AB-00500 2S10113A-00101 LAU JOSHUA L& PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES MARCHWICK SARAH B ATTN: N PIVEN 7100 SW ELMHURST ST 15350 SW SEQUOIA PKWY#300 TIGARD, OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97224 2S101AB-00101 1S136DD-06900 MARTIN GORDON R ROTH J T JR&THERESA A 8565 SW BARBUR BLVD 12600 SW 72ND AVE STE 200 PORTLAND, OR 97219 TIGARD,OR 97223 2 S 101 AB-00200 1 S 136 D D-07001 MARTIN GORDON R ROTH JACOB T JR&THERESA A BY ADAMS&STEWART 12600 SW 72ND AVE#200 8565 SW BARBUR BLVD TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND, OR 97219 2S101BA-00400 1S136D0-07601 MARTIN GORDON S SALARIE MARZIE 12265 SW 72ND AVE 19432 WILDERNESS DR TIGARD,OR 97223 WEST LINN,OR 97068 2 •1BA-0040 2S101AB-00301 MAR . e•RDON S SCOTT JOHN D/DEBORA K 122•' S ND AVE 7085 SW ELMHURST GARD,OR •7223 TIGARD, OR 97223 26 101 AA-02300 1S1 36D D-07300 MATHANY A JAMES SORENSEN JOHN A& PO BOX 1769 EVANGELINE P LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 250 STAMPHER RD LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 1S136DD-06300 • 1S 6DC-0420 • SPECHT DEVELOPMENT INC TLB C 15400 SW MILLIKAN WAY PO 5716 BEAVERTON, OR 97006 RTLAND, OR 97298 1 136DD-06200 1S136DC-0430. SP HT DE OPMENT INC TLB • C 15400 MILLIKAN WAY PO Bc .25716 B - ERTO` OR 97006 P'-TLA OR 97298 is 60D-06100- • 2S101BA-00401 SPE T VELOPMENT INC TRI-COUNTY CENTER TRUST 154 MILLIKAN WAY BY ADAMS&STEWART AVERTO OR 97006 8565 SW BARBUR BLVD PORTLAND, OR 97219 1S136DD-06600 2S101BA-00100 SPE■ T D- VELOPMENT INC TRI-COUNTY CENTER TRUST 15401 : ' •i ILLIKAN WAY MARTIN GORDON R TR • •VERTON, A R 97006 BY ADAMS&STEWART 8565 SW BARBUR BLVD PORTLAND, OR 97219 2S101AA-02900 1S136DC-04500 TIGARD CORPORATE CENTER WINCO FOOD LLC LTD PARTNERSHIP ATTN: SUSAN BUSCHE ATTN:GREG SPECHT PO BOX 5756 15400 MILLIKAN WAY BOISE, ID 83705 BEAVERTON, OR 97006 2S101AA-09100 TI••RD CORPO'• E CENTER LTD •' •TN 7 IP ATTN:G'••G SPECHT 1541! ILLI •• WAY AVERTON, 0.' 97006 2S101AA-03800 T . •RD CORPO•.•TE CENTER LTD ••RTN ' HIP • ATTN:G'-G SPECHT • 15401 ILLI • • WAY :7AVERTON, OR 97006 2S101BA-00300 TIGARD TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT LLC 12265 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 • 1 S136DC-04100 TLB LLC PO BOX 25716 PORTLAND,OR 97298 1 •DC-04402 TLB LL• PO :• 2 16 a'TLAND, •R 97298 vj • • Nathan and Ann Murdock Mildren Design Group PO Box 231265 Attn: Gene Mildren Tigard, OR 97281 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, OR 97223 Sue Rorman Susan Beilke 11250 SW 82nd Avenue 11755 SW 114th Place Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Naomi Gallucci Dayle D. & Evelyn 0. Beach 11285 SW 78th Avenue 11530 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Diane Baldwin 3706 Kinsale Lane SE Olympia, WA 98501 Brad Spring 7555 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Alexander Craghead 12205 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-6210 Gretchen Buehner 13249 SW 136th Place Tigard, OR 97224 John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, OR 97223 CPO 4B 16200 SW Pacific Highway, Suite H242 Tigard, OR 97224 CPO 4M Pat Whiting 8122 SW Spruce Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD - EAST INTERESTED PARTIES (i:\curpin\setup\labels\CIT East.doc) UPDATED: 6-Aug-07 II : • • .: : PUBI1EARING ITEM:, The following--.will.beWnsidered by the Tigard Planning S COMIAUNITY Commission on Monday March 3,2008 at'7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic Center='Town Hall,:13125 SW'Hall'Blvd.;Tigard;=Oregon. STET S Both public.oral and'written testimony is invited. 1' j` .The.publiclhearirig on this matter wilFbe'conducted'iii'`accordance 6605 SE Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222• PO with the Tigard Municipal Code and the rules of procedure adopted •Box 370• Beaverton, OR 97075 by the Planning Commission and City Council and available at Phone:503-684-0360 Fax 503-620-3433 City-Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Chapter 18.390. Testimony may be submitted-in writing prior to or at the public Email: hearing or verbally at the public hearing only. Failure to raise an legaladvertising @commnewspapers.com issue'in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing accompanied by statements-or evidence sufficient to afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to,the issue pre- , F F I DAV I T OF PUBLICATION eludes appeal to the.Land Use Board,of Appeal based on that State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS Failure-to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, eludes an appeal based on that criterion. de ose and say that I am the Accounts A copy of the:applicationand all documents and evidence submit- depose Y g ted by or,on behalf of the_applicant and.the_applicable criteria,are Manager of The Times(serving Tigard, available for inspection atno cost. If'you want,to inspect the file, Tualatin &Sherwood), a newspaper of please call_and make an appointment with either the project plan- general circulation, published at Beaverton, in ner orthe planning-technician's. Acopy.of.the staff report will be the aforesaid county and state, as defined by made available".for inspection at no cost at least seven (7).days ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that prior to;thehearing, and copies.for all items can:also-be provided 4 at a reasonable cost. . - of Tigard Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division City g (staff contact: •Gary Pagenstecher;.Associate Planner)at 13125 Notice of Public Hearing SW,Hall"Blvd:, Tigard, Oregon 97223;by calling 503-639-4171, TT11087 or by email to HYPERLINK .."mailto:garyp @tigard-or.gov" GARYP @TIGARD-OR.GOV :: •` A copy of which is hereto annexed, was - ZONE CHANGE(ZON )2007,00018," published in the entire issue of said , REQUEST:- The applicant•requests,.a;zone'.change from.0-G newspaper for (PD) to C-G for a 3.19-acre parcel located on the SE,corner of SW 1 72nd Avenue'and SW Dartmouth Street. Removal of the Planned Development(PD)"overlay eliminates the requirement.for a public Successive and consecutive weeks in the -hearing`process and to meet,current PD standards. Any future following issues development must still meet all other.applicable development star- ' February 14, 2008 dards'including'the Tigard Triangle,design criteria. LOCATION: South side Of SW Dartmouth between SW 70th and 72nd Avenues. 12625 SW 70th =Avenue; Washington 'County Tax Assessor's C �� Map 2S101AB, Tax Lot 100., CURRENT'ZONING: • C-G: il �) �t General":Commercial District with Planned Development'(PD) Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Manger) . Overlay:.' "PROPOSED.ZONING: " C-G: 'General Commercial District. .'APPLICABLE:REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code'Chapters 18.380, 18:390. 'and "18.520; and Subscribed and sworn to before me this Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 7, 8,9, and 12. Publish 2/14/2008.TT11087. ' ' February 2008 .L. AziS': - . - �.. i VICINITY MAP l i.! � :. _t�._J . I NOTARY PUBLIC FOR ORE I A-------- F .1— `7 My commission expires /: � 7 -� 1 N ; ""``"o o oie I f I 1 ,,I" .a . 1 ' -y L u L.__, 1.-1 ', FRY A ZONE Acct#10093001 -=� `- '' i i n € Patty Lunsford — .._..3 (( ° tt6-- J `:E. Y l_:t._.._:.S -1 „f r 5J!CF City of Tigard -- %�i � , r-- � " 13125 SW Hall Blvd r' l , 1j� i j ;, -- I �L _.. �L• Tigard, OR 97223 — _y !1 `t i 'y i {" - -` , . ��1 __5-----� r' irE r-a'1 I T: 1 .1 --�El II 1 if 141 _ :> ;:%s' Size2x10 r-' ,Ij t ' ' ti i -tt r.— Amount Due $167.00 `-;i , t !'"'1` I { ( ,i I 1 f 4 'remit to address above ' �--.:.. - .` -. _. L--- ._.1 r !i li 111 I . i� "�� k By - ' _- - S∎'5 3OMMlSS?ON NO.390`0' --- ___. -- • • AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE I+i'i•.O•i•i i00'i'i.O•i•Oi•.f a Oa4.04.'.'r r0 a f t R•+f+�tDii:i:tifilyiRi�ai♦+a ;'t'�♦'.-... ....of.'a.'+i•.•♦•a•OOr a••pa•♦•.•+` t•a+its♦•R+♦•da•i.•.•..-+.i i•R+i iii i i•i•i•i i i+i i•i•t a r:•:t:':•:+:•.:+:+:e•:❖:❖:❖:•a:❖:❖• e❖:e•3:a:•s:•:ei:i:••❖:❖:'s:*:•.:•3C� of•Tc g ard.:'t❖.:•:*:•;•:.co:e•:❖:❖:e❖:�::e•:i:•:':•:e•:•:�:a❖:♦:s❖s:❖:ee❖:•:e •}♦i•.�!•♦♦♦♦.�.�♦♦R♦♦♦♦�.•♦♦+•♦•l�� ♦+R♦.�ti��♦�+;a!•t.R�.��/�R+!•a•�i��.•R•�f�♦•f•f❖♦!1.��a..t•�.�t..t.t+•t❖.•�•if•1•a•f�♦ a�.�.�.fit♦+f�a•♦�♦•♦��a�f•R•f•♦•a•♦�.•R•t•!•i.��♦+R•a•♦i•♦•♦•R•R•f•. �:❖:':4•i:•:'e:�:❖:•i:ti+i i':t:�i:•:+:•:•:ii:+t•:Q4':•:t:•:❖:i❖:i:•:'i:•:t:•:' •♦t �♦��• �•�•��•:•:':�:':':�i❖O:•:•:':O'i�:•�':4�:�:•:�:�:�i:•:i•:•: :�i:�:ti':•+•:•:O•i:❖:❖:•:4• '�0•i•i0•�O•♦9+*♦•�*f•��*♦O•O�+d•4•♦•.h•�*.00'.tiOt.•O.r'�4•�O�tOeO'OOda*Pl nning Division.'O.•00.•a•t•.•♦O•tO0'♦*♦*�i+O.•♦O*a0•♦•f•!*l+r+♦+.•.O•♦•.'.00+a4•f•♦O•tO•R+♦O•♦• 'iiggli.�a�•��,•+:t••O'a �4�••+a,'.�r��+•�R+♦�a��+,+d�Jr�.,•�a6•S�a�a�•♦O�.�r�+�++000 i.♦ . tai♦ b ••+•♦4♦'O'4•r+:':':•t•:+:':❖i:':•:iiii•R:•i:':t:'!+:❖:•iiiiir ORi:0♦♦:❖i i O:•i:❖:•:•: ':t:•:tit:':+:':::i::':t:•:4�:•:+♦':a:-:'A:y:4i i*•:4':•::'::::':*I :::❖: R •f•:':�:t:':�:•:• :f:iy':•:O1: if:+•ii:•:•.O��:Q+:�:<:�:•:•:•:':+:+i':❖:•0:+:':+ ...R......♦...<t..4....R.�....o...... .♦..,.��SW Hall Boulevard....a..tl.............l...f................. t♦.!♦.♦♦...i♦♦r}f�♦♦♦�♦f •.♦a..♦..ra•♦.!f♦♦♦ff ♦ ♦a..i.♦ ra ♦..r.t.a tal a�..♦♦!♦...aa♦.♦i♦aRRf♦ i.Nr�.N.a..J♦♦♦ft♦�a♦•.!•♦.ia♦ai..♦ a�a i�l�♦♦N�.aRf♦♦•♦+.f♦R♦!N♦♦ .♦....♦}-♦♦ �♦♦♦.R�.♦f.i♦•iait♦afN♦..♦a..+♦ifa.N....♦♦.!.♦fa�t i�i�.•ti�000•♦i�0.�i4�♦�••+t♦�Oa�.i�a•+R♦t.�0iiir.�i4t:i♦Oi.�.t♦Oa•OOi•a60�.� ♦♦r} ii t0 fti-000.'itOOa•OiOi'♦•i•00000�•OOL•OaS•rOti OO�OtiO'a'�0+0�0•0�•.•�06 �t♦Oft.t�.♦..♦♦♦♦..♦.♦+aRf♦.a..�41..♦�f+�«ROt...tfrr♦ n: fa♦..♦r....Rfa.l...f.t♦.tt.♦....♦....♦t.♦+.a♦♦♦R• ++.♦af....♦ii..♦.....+.!♦a.♦♦♦E♦.♦..t ♦♦.♦rr.r♦ ? ,.rd ®R+97223♦♦aaaR ♦♦♦iPr•.a♦H.r♦♦r♦..i.♦a.r♦a♦.R.......al.♦♦ a:<!.♦:r�t.+:+:5•:r:.i:..+0.+:.:Qt!P.�ara:.ii:+.L+:i:.:+2.0.?t.+mot.+•.�:+S�r.•:i�r0:... —.... �..... 0 . :t:R:r:R:R:R�i4:tt:+4�abr�.�iS3..Q�.:♦pia..�r,',.;+4:i:+y+S:t�•:+�•�+.•�+.+�+�+�R:Re:.:a� In the Matter of the Proposed Annexation of: Land Use File No.: ZON2007-00018 Land Use File Name: FRY ZONE CHANGE I, Gary Pagenstecher, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a/an Associate Planner for the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon and that I personally posted notice of Public Hearing on the proposed Annexation by means of weatherproof posting in the general vicinity of the affected territory, a copy of said notice being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof,on the g3 day of reg/ , 2008. b _1 ' _ _ i .... ,... - Signatur. Pe..on • o Performed Posting (In 4 e presence of the Notary) STATE OF OREGON County of Washington i ss. City of Tigard 1-1-'Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the r-1 --day of r.....6r 4a r 1 , 20SL8L. OFFICIAL SEAL��„�� tv, K RISTIE J PEERMAN �j NOTAgY PUBLIC-OREGON 1 �u� COMMISSION N0.419242 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 28 2011 NOTARY PUBLIAF OREGON My Commission Expires: 8, .2 O// I:\curpin\patty\annex\affidavit of posting annexation site.doc NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on Monday March 3, 2008 at 7:00 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 Chapter 18.390 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and the rules of procedures adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council and available at City Hall. Testimony may be submitted in writing prior to or at the public hearing or verbally at the public hearing only. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeal based on tl• issue and failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division (staff contact: Gary Pagenstecher) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 503-639-4171. A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. A copy of the staff report will be made available for inspection at no cost at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing, and copies for all items can also be provided at a reasonable cost. ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2007-00018 - FRY ZONE CHANGE - REQUEST: The applicant requests a zone change from C-G (PD) to C-G for a 3.19-acre parcel located the SE corner of SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street. Removal of the Planned Development (PD overlay eliminates the requirement for a public hearing process and to meet current PD standards. Any future development must still meet all other applicable development standards including the Tigard Triangle design criteria. LOCATION: South side of SW Dartmouth between SW 70th and 72nd Avenues. 12625 SW 70th Avenue; Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S101AB, Tax Lot 100. CURRENT ZONING: C-G: General Commercial District with Planned Development (PD) Overlay. PROPOSED ZONING: C-G: General Commercial District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.520; and Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 12. CiTY of TIGARD BA:=11:(NR AREA 540TIFIED (500') SITE "). tonere FP-3ft •hrt . Rppt. ct...INJ rsiahnenv4:4: . . 1•;•.'E: AB:: 1.i.:.:•i(:)./:.Y5(.)(s) ••• • i.:1, tottoot Property cepher ittfoortation earth fro. toontlto forel the. date. to etteti on ties Pooh •;: S Al*Alk$O(10 I I 1.mi :St u:rap AAAAA: ••••• •••• : . 4,1 R A ::•• :• . Nu.) :: • :::• . . . : . •. . . . NN• •;),• : •INN 1S136DC-02504 • 2S101AB-00601 410 AMERICAN INDUSTRIES INC FALL FUN PROPERTIES LLC 1750 NW FRONT AVE STE#106 7130 SW ELMHURST ST PORTLAND,OR 97209 TIGARD, OR 97223 2S101AB-01100 1S136DC-03900 BAUER DANIEL E& FARZA JAVAD BAUER BARBARA G 7110 SW CLINTON ST 12335 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136DC-04600 2S101AB-00300 COMMERCIAL NET LEASE REALTY INC FRY DOUGLAS 450 S ORANGE AVE STE 900 23077 SW NEWLAND RD ORLANDO, FL 32801 WILSONVILLE,OR 97070 2S101AA-01800 2S101AB-001 CORLISS JAMES L&CORA K FR LAS PO BOX 23970 230 NEWLAND RD TIGARD,OR 97281 ILSONVILL OR 97070 2S101AA-04900 2S101AB-00600 CORLISS-1 LLC GUILLEUX FEMY PO BOX 23970 18200 DAVIS ST TIGARD,OR 97281 SANDY, OR 97055 1S136DC-04400 2S101AB-00801 DARTMOUTH SQUARE LLC HAMPTON PARK APARTMENTS LLC BY ZIMMLER DEVELOPMENT BY COOPER CHASE LLC 7165 SW FIR LP#10 17952 SW PARRISH LN TIGARD,OR 97223 SHERWOOD,OR 97140 1S1360D-07500 2 01AB-00800 DARTMOUTH TOWNHOMES LLC HA •TON P • APARTMENTS LLC 2508 NE 24TH AVE BY C•••• - CHASE LLC PORTLAND, OR 97212 17•. S PARRISH LN IIERWOO., OR 97140 1 36DD-07600 2S101AB-00900 DA MO TOWNHOMES LLC HA 1PTON PA APARTMENTS LLC 2508 4TH AVE BY Cel'OP CHASE LLC TLAND, R 97212 1795 ARRISH LN S RWOOD,OR 97140 2S101AB-00400 2S101AB-01000 DITTER MARK W HA TON P K APARTMENTS LLC PRISCILLA A BY C R CHASE LLC 7070 SW ELMHURST ST 179 S ARRISH LN TIGARD,OR 97223 ERWOOD,OR 97140 1S136DC-04000 2S101AB-00700 ESLINGER CASEY HERAS MIGUEL RAMON 7140 SW CLINTON ST ELAINE C TIGARD,OR 97223 12280 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 2S101AB-00303 ` 1S1360C-03600 • HUNT CLAYTON R& MYERS FAMILY LLC GORANSON NELS R 12670 SW 68TH PKWY 7040 SW ELMHURST ST STE#200 TIGARD, OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1 S 136 DC-03800 1 S 136 DC-03700 IMPERIAL INVESTMENT PROPERTIES L MYERS FAMILY LLC 5285 SW MEADOWS RD#369 FIVE CENTERPOINTE DR#280 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 2S101AA-02000 2S101AB-00302 LANDMARK FORD INC NORDLING GEORGE DALE& ATTN:JIM CORLISS JOANNE TRUSTEES PO BOX 23970 6695 SW HYLAND WAY TIGARD, OR 97281 BEAVERTON, OR 97008 2S101AA-05200 2S101AA-02301 LANDMARK FORD INC OPDAL ELLA J PO BOX 23970 12170 SW 69TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97281 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S101AB-00500 2S101BA-00101 LAU JOSHUA L& PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES MARCHWICK SARAH B ATTN: N PIVEN 7100 SW ELMHURST ST 15350 SW SEQUOIA PKWY#300 TIGARD, OR 97223 PORTLAND, OR 97224 • 2S101AB-00101 1S1360D-06900 MARTIN GORDON R ROTH J T JR&THERESA A 8565 SW BARBUR BLVD 12600 SW 72ND AVE STE 200 PORTLAND, OR 97219 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S101AB-00200 1 S136DD-07001 MARTIN GORDON R ROTH JACOB T JR&THERESA A BY ADAMS&STEWART 12600 SW 72ND AVE#200 8565 SW BARBUR BLVD TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND, OR 97219 2S101BA-00400 1S136D0-07601 MARTIN GORDON S SALARIE MARZIE 12265 SW 72ND AVE 19432 WILDERNESS DR TIGARD, OR 97223 WEST LINN, OR 97068 2 -S1BA-0040 2S101AB-00301 MAR ■ e•RDON S SCOTT JOHN D/DEBORA K 122• S ND AVE 7085 SW ELMHURST GARD,OR •7223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 101 AA-02300 1S1 360 D-07300 MATHANY A JAMES SORENSEN JOHN A& PO BOX 1769 EVANGELINE P LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 250 STAMPHER RD LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 • 15136DD-06300 • 1S 6DC-0420 • SPECHT DEVELOPMENT INC TLB C 15400 SW MILLIKAN WAY PO 5716 BEAVERTON,OR 97006 RTLAND,OR 97298 1 136DD-06200 1S136DC-04301 SP' HT DE • OPMENT INC TLB • C 15400 • MILLIKAN WAY PO Bc ,25716 B • ERTO• OR 97006 •TLA ' OR 97298 15 6DD-06100- 2S101BA-00401 SPE' T ► VELOPMENT INC TRI-COUNTY CENTER TRUST 15410 MILLIKAN WAY BY ADAMS&STEWART AVERTO ,OR 97006 8565 SW BARBUR BLVD PORTLAND,OR 97219 1S136DD-06600 2S101BA-00100 SPEb T D- oELOPMENT INC TRI-COUNTY CENTER TRUST 1540. :"• i ILLIKAN WAY MARTIN GORDON R TR •VERTON, 'i R 97006 BY ADAMS&STEWART 8565 SW BARBUR BLVD PORTLAND,OR 97219 2S 101 AA-02900 1 S 136 DC-04500 TIGARD CORPORATE CENTER WINCO FOOD LLC LTD PARTNERSHIP ATTN: SUSAN BUSCHE ATTN:GREG SPECHT PO BOX 5756 15400 MILLIKAN WAY BOISE, ID 83705 BEAVERTON,OR 97006 2S101AA-09100 Tit•RD CORPO• E CENTER LTD • "TN r IP ATTN:G''•G SPECHT 1544! ILLI $- WAY :-AVERTON,0- 97006 2S101AA-03800 T . •RD CORPO-.•TE CENTER LTD ••RTN • HIP ATTN:G`•G SPECHT 15400 ILLI • • WAY :•AVERTON,OR 97006 2S101BA-00300 TIGARD TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT LLC 12265 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136DC-04100 TLB LLC PO BOX 25716 PORTLAND,OR 97298 1 '.DC-0440 TLB LL. PO :. 2 16 a TLAND, •R 97298 • Mildren Design Nathan and Ann Murdock oup PO Box 231265 Attn: Gene Mildren Tigard, OR 97281 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, OR 97223 Sue Rorman Susan Beilke 11250 SW 82nd Avenue 11755 SW 114th Place Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Naomi Gallucci Dayle D. & Evelyn 0. Beach 11285 SW 78th Avenue 11530 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Diane Baldwin 3706 Kinsale Lane SE Olympia, WA 98501 Brad Spring 7555 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Alexander Craghead 12205 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-6210 Gretchen Buehner 13249 SW 136th Place Tigard, OR 97224 • John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, OR 97223 CPO 4B 16200 SW Pacific Highway, Suite H242 Tigard, OR 97224 CPO 4M Pat Whiting 8122 SW Spruce Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD - EAST INTERESTED PARTIES (i:\curpin\setup\labels\CIT East.doc) UPDATED: 6-Aug-07 • CITY OF TIGA►RD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION . . i`q 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD ' TIGARD, OREGON 97223 "• PHONE: 503-639-4171 FAX 503-624-3681 (Attn: Patty/Planning) EMAIL patty{a)tigard-or.gov j:j' .'J• �,j REQUEST FOR 500-FOOT PROPERTY OWNER MAILING LIST Property owner information is valid for 3 months from the date of your request INDICATE ALL PROJECT MAP &TAX LOT NUMBERS (i.e. 1S134AB,Tax Lot 00100) OR THE ADDRESSES FOR ALL PROJECT PARCELS BELOW: SlOi/-S/ ioo/3) PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ONLY 1 SET OF LABELS WILL BE PROVIDED AT THIS TIME FOR HOLDING YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. After submitting your land use application to the City, and the project planner has reviewed your application for completeness, you will be notified by means of an incompleteness letter to obtain your 2 final sets of labels. IF YOU HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED BY PLANNING TO OBTAIN YOUR LABELS, PLEASE INDICATE BELOW THAT YOU NEED 2 SETS OF LABELS. ❑ Completeness Letter Received Indicating 2 Sets of Envelopes w/Address Labels Required The 2 final sets of labels need to be placed on envelopes (no self-adhesive envelopes please) with first class letter- rate postage on the envelopes in the form of postage stamps (no metered envelopes and no return address) and resubmitted to the City for the purpose of providing notice to property owners of the proposed land use application and the decision. The 2 sets of envelopes must be kept separate. The person listed below will be called to pick up and pay for the labels when they are ready. NAME OF CONTACT'PERSON: [ lc, -7"at-Ti PHONE: (° )-4.1-13 - 3(16/ NAME OF COMPANY: NI Th ri FAX: ( )- - ! " J EMAIL: This request may be emailed, mailed, faxed, or hand delivered to the City of Tigard. Please allow a 2-day minimum for processing requests. Upon completion of your request, the contact person listed will be called to pick up their request that will be placed in "Will Call" by the company name (or by the contact person's last name if no compan)) at the Planning/Engineering Counter at the Permit Center. The cost of processing your request must be paid at the time of pick up, as exact cost can not be pre-determined. PLEASE NOTE: FOR REASONS OF ACCURACY, ONLY ORIGINAL MAILING LABELS PROVIDED BY THE CITY VS. RE-TYPED MAILING LABELS WILL BE ACCEPTED. Cost Description: $11 to generate the mailing list,plus $2 per sheet for printing the list onto labels (20 addresses per sheet). Then, multiply the cost tc print one set of labels by the number of sets requested. - EXAMPLE - - COST FOR THIS REQUEST - 4 sheets of labels x$2/sheet =$8.00 x 2 sets = $16.00 .2 sheet(s)of labels x$2/sheet =$Cp x a sets = 1 sheets of labels x$2/sheet for interested parties x 2 sets= $ 4.00 �(_sheet(s)of labels x$2/sheet for interested parties = x sets = GENERATE LIST = $11.00 U :: 1 TOTAL = $31.00 TOTAL frnfij 2S101AB-00100 • FRY DOUGLAS WILS NV LLE,NEWLAND 9 07 O S10 g , . \i WILSONVILLE,OR 97070 l/ lJ w .JV CDrA ECEI' ID • 7650 SW Beveland Street Suite 100 1:\-- T RIPP F J JAN 3 1 2008 Tigard,Oregon 97223 CONSULTING ENGINEERS C TYOF flGARD Fa x: (503)443-3700 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date: Thursday, January 31, 2008 Project Number: 7418 To: City of Tigard Attention: Gary Pagenstecher Project: Fry Zone Change Enclosed: ❑Plans ❑Shop Drawings ❑Calculations ❑Specifications ❑Details ❑Copy of Letter ❑Other: Number of Copies: Descriptions 1 Set envelopes with labels and postage 1 Copy of Mailing List ❑For Your Use ❑For Your Review ❑For Your Approval❑As Requested Remarks: Copy to: Signed: Lans Stout ❑Mailed Delivered ❑To Be Picked Up • • CITY OF TKRD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD ahl TIGARD, OREGON 97223 — _ PHONE: 503-639-4171 FAX: 503-624-3681 (Attn: Patty/Planning) EMAIL: pattyfa)tigard-or.gov 77 C A°Z ED REQUEST FOR 500-FOOT PROPERTY OWNER MAILING LIST Property owner information is valid for 3 months from the date of your request INDICATE ALL PROJECT MAP &TAX LOT NUMBERS (i.e. 1S134AB,Tax Lot 00100) OR THE ADDRESSES FOR ALL PROJECT PARCELS BELOW: SI OJ,4 j ioo/3 O PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ONLY 1 SET OF LABELS WILL BE PROVIDED AT THIS TIME FOR HOLDING YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. After submitting your land use application to the City, and the project planner has reviewed your application for completeness, you will be notified by means of an incompleteness letter to obtain your 2 final sets of labels. IF YOU HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED BY PLANNING TO OBTAIN YOUR LABELS, PLEASE INDICATE BELOW THAT YOU NEED 2 SETS OF LABELS. ❑ Completeness Letter Received Indicating 2 Sets of Envelopes w/Address Labels Required The 2 final sets of labels need to be placed on envelopes (no self-adhesive envelopes please) with first class letter- rate postage on the envelopes in the form of postage stamps (no metered envelopes and no return address) and resubmitted to the City for the purpose of providing notice to property owners of the proposed land use application and the decision. The 2 sets of envelopes must be icept separate. The person listed below will be called to pick up and pay for the labels when they are ready. L NAME OF CONTACT PERSON: id,11S 901,11 PHONE: (° )-418 - 3 966 NAME OF )- COMP ( yr a�r)� FAX: ( - • I""V J EMAIL: This request may be emailed, mailed, faxed, or hand delivered to the City of Tigard. Please allow a 2-day minimum for processing requests. Upon completion of your request, the contact person listed will be called to pick up their request that will be placed in "Will Call" by the company name (or by the contact person's last name if no company) at the Planning/Engineering Counter at the Permit Center. The cost of processing your request must be paid at the time of pick up, as exact cost can not be pre-determined. PLEASE NOTE: FOR REASONS OF ACCURACY, ONLY ORIGINAL MAILING LABELS PROVIDED BY THE CITY VS. RE-TYPED MAILING LABELS WILL BE ACCEPTED. Cost Description: $11 to generate the mailing list,plus $2 per sheet for printing the list onto labels (20 addresses per sheet). Then,multiply the cost t( print one set of labels by the number of sets requested. - EXAMPLE - - COST FOR THIS REQUEST - 4 sheets of labels x$2/sheet =$8.00 x 2 sets = $16.00 sheet(s)of labels x$2/sheet =$(p x ( sets = 1 sheets of labels x$2/sheet for interested parties x 2 sets= $ 4.00 sheet(s)of labels x$2/sheet for interested parties =$o x sets = 4 o GENERATE LIST = $11.00 ■i c c u = ,ei TOTAL = $31.00 TOTAL 4, sop• CITY of TIGARD JTGEGGR APNC I NFGNMATIGN SYSTEM AREA NOTIFIED..- 1 i (5O0') ) \ Raul rR I w .11 Q . Q 101300007504 r FOR: Lans Stout --15135°�°°° _ Rippey Engineering ST CLINTON_ ---� 9 uuacamc m,°°°�,� >r,.0e..,� = RE: 2S101AB; 1001300 CO 11'140003100 15n000g:n • _ I1n00001m0 11f10000im0 n1700CW400 anion m1100atm �aueo07m c0 -114055130 111150555010 1517511504100 CO atuoeaeu ua4ocowm •o uui0000cu Property owner information luuono is valid for 3 months from au55rnwm / the date printed on this map. DARTM• • . 1 , :mom l� motuonm 301505101 �\` \\��1 131010000300 ` \�\- 353A01000 mouuomos° w 231011300101 ------- ■ ouo13n Q 1$10141100705 IMAM',\ Q OW0o1 m PI 131011A00400 211410.417011 13101°,,,,,, Z ELMHURST ST® 2310a500000 a0000000 005 ° HIIIIIINew., m5u5550 55moa50o55 ow007 MOM o mmuaum A RMOSp wAY mo1u00301 mou500100 • 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet ■ _ 1"=343 feet 131 0000 II a Nan -..), mouwwu II:illi ST h Z��t. BEV Al 55411.409100 T.1GARll Ilifo ELAND Information on this map is for general location only and BEVELAND RD should be verified with the Development Services Division. I 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard,OR 97223 (503)639.4171 http:IMww.ci.ligard.or.us Plot date:Jan 30,2008;C:\magic\MAGIC03.APR Community Development • 3 1 1S1360C-02504 • 2S101AB-00601 AMERICAN INDUSTRIES INC FALL FUN PROPERT LLC 1750 NW FRONT AVE STE#106 7130 SW ELMHURST ST PORTLAND, OR 97209 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S101AB-01100 1S136DC-03900 BAUER DANIEL E& FARZA JAVAD BAUER BARBARA G 7110 SW CLINTON ST 12335 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136DC-04600 2S101AB-00300 COMMERCIAL NET LEASE REALTY INC FRY DOUGLAS 450 S ORANGE AVE STE 900 23077 SW NEWLAND RD ORLANDO, FL 32801 WILSONVILLE,OR 97070 2S101AA-01800 2S101AB-0010' CORLISS JAMES L&CORA K FR i•. LAS PO BOX 23970 230 EWLAND RD TIGARD,OR 97281 ILSONVILL• OR 97070 2S101AA-04900 2S101AB-00600 CORLISS-1 LLC GUILLEUX FEMY PO BOX 23970 18200 DAVIS ST TIGARD,OR 97281 SANDY,OR 97055 1S136DC-04400 2S101AB-00801 DARTMOUTH SQUARE LLC HAMPTON PARK APARTMENTS LLC BY ZIMMLER DEVELOPMENT BY COOPER CHASE LLC 7165 SW FIR LP#10 17952 SW PARRISH LN TIGARD,OR 97223 SHERWOOD,OR 97140 1S136DD-07500 2 01AB-00800 DARTMOUTH TOWNHOMES LLC HA •TON P' - APARTMENTS LLC 2508 NE 24TH AVE BY Cs t' - CHASE LLC PORTLAND,OR 97212 17•. S PARRISH LN HERWO. OR 97140 1 36D0-07600 2S101AB-00900 DA MO TOWNHOMES LLC HAIAAPTON PA APARTMENTS LLC 2508 4TH AVE BY.0 P CHASE LLC TLAND, R 97212 1795 ARRISH LN S RWOOD,OR 97140 2S101AB-00400 2S101AB-01000 DITTER MARK W HA TON P K APARTMENTS LLC PRISCILLA A BY C R CHASE LLC 7070 SW ELMHURST ST 179 S ARRISH LN TIGARD,OR 97223 ERWOOD,OR 97140 1 S 136 DC-04000 2S 101 AB-00700 ESLINGER CASEY HERAS MIGUEL RAMON 7140 SW CLINTON ST ELAINE C TIGARD,OR 97223 12280 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 2S101AB-00303 1S136DC-03600 • HUNT CLAYTON R& MYERS FAMILY LLC GORANSON NELS R 12670 SW 68TH PKWY 7040 SW ELMHURST ST STE#200 TIGARD, OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1 S136DC-03800 1 S136DC-03700 IMPERIAL INVESTMENT PROPERTIES L MYERS FAMILY LLC 5285 SW MEADOWS RD#369 FIVE CENTERPOINTE DR#280 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 2S101AA-02000 2S101AB-00302 LANDMARK FORD INC NORDLING GEORGE DALE& ATTN:JIM CORLISS JOANNE TRUSTEES PO BOX 23970 6695 SW HYLAND WAY TIGARD, OR 97281 BEAVERTON,OR 97008 2S101AA-05200 2S101AA-02301 LANDMARK FORD INC OPDAL ELLA J PO BOX 23970 12170 SW 69TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97281 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S101AB-00500 2S101BA-00101 LAU JOSHUA L& PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES MARCHWICK SARAH B ATTN:N PIVEN 7100 SW ELMHURST ST 15350 SW SEQUOIA PKWY#300 TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97224 2S101AB-00101 1S136DD-06900 MARTIN GORDON R ROTH J T JR&THERESA A 8565 SW BARBUR BLVD 12600 SW 72ND AVE STE 200 PORTLAND,OR 97219 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S101A8-00200 1S136DD-07001 MARTIN GORDON R ROTH JACOB T JR&THERESA A BY ADAMS&STEWART 12600 SW 72ND AVE#200 8565 SW BARBUR BLVD TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97219 25101BA-00400 1S136DD-07601 MARTIN GORDON S SALARIE MARZIE 12265 SW 72ND AVE 19432 WILDERNESS DR TIGARD,OR 97223 WEST LINN,OR 97068 2 1BA-0040 2S101AB-00301 MAR RDON S SCOTT JOHN D/DEBORA K 122 S ND AVE 7085 SW ELMHURST GARD,OR 7223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 101 AA-02300 1 S136D0-07300 MATHANY A JAMES SORENSEN JOHN A& PO BOX 1769 EVANGELINE P LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 250 STAMPHER RD LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 " • • 1S136D0-06300 1S 6DC-0420 SPECHT DEVELOPMENT INC TLB C 15400 SW MILLIKAN WAY PO 5716 BEAVERTON,OR 97006 RTLAND,OR 97298 1 13600-06200 1S136DC-0430. SP HT DE • OPMENT INC TLB . C 15400 • MILLIKAN WAY PO Bc .25716 B • ERTO\ OR 97006 Pc-TLA OR 97298 is 6DD-06100- 2S101BA-00401 SPEb T e VELOPMENT INC TRI-COUNTY CENTER TRUST 154.! MILLIKAN WAY BY ADAMS&STEWART AVERTO N,OR 97006 8565 SW BARBUR BLVD PORTLAND,OR 97219 1S136DD-06600 25101BA-00100 SPE► T D- 0ELOPMENT INC TRI-COUNTY CENTER TRUST 15401 :0, i ILLIKAN WAY MARTIN GORDON R TR •VERTON, R 97006 BY ADAMS&STEWART 8565 SW BARBUR BLVD PORTLAND,OR 97219 2S101AA-02900 1S136 DC-04500 TIGARD CORPORATE CENTER WINCO FOOD LLC LTD PARTNERSHIP ATTN:SUSAN BUSCHE ATTN:GREG SPECHT PO BOX 5756 15400 MILLIKAN WAY BOISE, ID 83705 BEAVERTON,OR 97006 2S101AA-09100 TI t•RD CORPO• E CENTER LTD • "TN r IP ATTN:G G SPECHT 1541t ILLI s• WAY •VERTON,O 97006 2S101AA-03800 T . RD CORPO:.•TE CENTER LTD •• 'TN • HIP ATTN:G'.G SPECHT 15400 ILLI • • WAY :'AVERTON,OR 97006 2S101BA-00300 TIGARD TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT LLC 12265 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136 DC-04100 TLB LLC PO BOX 25716 PORTLAND,OR 97298 1 DC-0440 TLB LL PO 2 16 RTLAND, R 97298 • Mildren Desig�roup Nathan and Ann Murdock Attn: Gene Mildren PO Box 231265 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, OR 97281 Tigard, OR 97223 Sue Rorman Susan Beilke 11250 SW 82nd Avenue 11755 SW 114th Place Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Naomi Gallucci Dayle D. & Evelyn 0. Beach 11285 SW 78th Avenue 11530 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Diane Baldwin 3706 Kinsale Lane SE Olympia, WA 98501 Brad Spring 7555 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Alexander Craghead 12205 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-6210 Gretchen Buehner 13249 SW 136th Place Tigard, OR 97224 John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, OR 97223 CPO 4B 16200 SW Pacific Highway, Suite H242 Tigard, OR 97224 CPO 4M Pat Whiting 8122 SW Spruce Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD - EAST INTERESTED PARTIES (i:\curpin\setup\labels\CIT East.doc) UPDATED: 6-Aug-07 City of Tigard, Oregon • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tiga7R 97223 111 • no • k :T5I£GA-R January 29, 2008 Fry c/o Commercial Tenant Advisors Attn: Brad Pihas 22151 SW 55th Avenue Tualatin, OR 97062 RE: Completeness Review, Douglas Fry Zone Change, Case File No. ZON2007- 00018 Dear Mr. Pihas: On January 21, 2008, the City received your supplemental application materials for a Zone Change to remove the Planned Development overlay from property located at the SE corner of 72°d Avenue and Dartmouth Street (WCTM 2S101AB Tax Lot 100). Staff has completed a preliminary review of the submittal materials and has determined that the application can now be deemed complete. A hearing with the Planning Commission has been scheduled for March 3, 2008. It should be noted that staff has not reviewed the application submittal for compliance with the relevant code criteria, and that additional items may arise during the application review which may require further clarification. Should you have any questions with regard to these items, please contact me at 503-639- 4171 x 2434. Sincerely, Gary Page techer Associate Planner c: SDR2007-00018 Land Use File Lans Stout,T.M. Rippey Consulting Engineers Phone: 503.639.4171 • Fax: 503.684.7297 • www.tigard-or.gov • TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 L A City of Tigard, Oregon S 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • TigarofIR 97223 I1 T4I;GARD January 17, 2008 ,,.,' t:..` :` ,, -- Douglas Fry c/o Commercial Tenant Advisors Attn: Brad Pihas 22151 SW 55th Avenue Tualatin, OR 97062 RE: Completeness Review, Douglas Fry Zone Change, Case File No. ZON2007- 00018 Dear Mr. Pihas: On December 28, 2007, the City received your application for a Zone Change to remove the Planned Development overlay from property located at the SE corner of 72nd Avenue and Dartmouth Street (WCTM 2S101AB Tax Lot 100). Staff has completed a preliminary review of the submittal materials and has determined that the following additional information is necessary before the application can be deemed complete: ♦ Submit 14 copies of complete application packets. This includes plans and all application materials that have been submitted to the City. Should you have any questions with regard to these items, please contact me at 503-639- 4171 x 2434. Sincerely, -, / C.,,,.. ti /q-e/-4.4.....--/ -✓ Gary Pag gAstechir Associate Planner c: SDR2007-00018 Land Use File Lans Stout,T.M. Rippey Consulting Engineers // / Phone: 503.639.4171 • Fax: 503.684.7297 • www.tigard-or.gov • TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 l • • • PRE-APP HELD BY CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISI k 01:l LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION- • a, City of Ti aid Permit Center 13125 SW Hall Blzd, Tiiz,4 OR 7 23 Phone. 503.639.4171 Fax: 503.598.1960 piAN b®r TIGARD File# 2.0,0 e).007-0-6-0/ Other Case# Date ,ra..fgIb i I By 5' Receipt# . 171)75-I'lf Fee 3 ad-0•0.1) Date Complete TYPE OF PERMIT YOU ARE APPLYING FOR ❑ Adjustment/Variance(I or II) ❑Minor Land Partition(II) y] Zone Change(III) [I Co mp rehe ns ive Plan Amendment(IV) 1=1 Planned Development(III) /❑ Zone Change Annexation(IV) El Conditional Use(III) ❑Sensitive Lands Review(I,II or III) ❑ Zone Ordinance Amendment(IV) ❑ Historic Overlay(II or III) ❑Site Development Review(II) ❑ Home Occupation(II) ❑Subdivision(II or III) LOCATION WHERE PROPOSED ACTIVITY WILL OCCUR(Address if available) 5o &T cT'/O8 o� s1.v p ,�Mvc- Tt2 `7v� n 7 21WY T MAPS&TAX LOT NOS. Thkg. coT /00 TOTAL SITE SIZE ZONING CLASSIFICATION t 3.11 AG • Cy - ,c APPLICANT' t 11 4'4-5 ,lzy Cd atfre iii-c- AA-(7- V/S Of MAILING ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP 2.2/ S/ 51:4.) 53 %26(R-.A-r)nl' 622 q 7cD G' Z PHONE NO. FAX NO. /&323 . 2 4I4- SD 3/6&'s -O43 3 PRIMARY CONTACT PERSON PHONE NO. 9 as Aftis ' b3/a30 65bo PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER(Attach list if more than one) Q9416,4-4-5 rgy MAILING ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP 224 S7 <SW SS' /fit' 7264-C-4-71/./ c;" PHONE NO. FAX NO. "When the owner and the applicant are different people,the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owners must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. PROPOSAL SUMMARY(Please be specific) 2�r1 E c ,'v .c c'-yd17 7D G 6 (2c"7'-dvf pp vvt ( 1 APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT ALL OF THE REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS AS DESCRIBED IN THE "BASIC SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS"INFORMATION SHEET. is\curpin\masters\land use applications\land use permit app.doc • S . 4 THE APPLICANT SHALL CERTIFY THAT: ♦ If the application is granted,the applicant shall exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. ♦ All 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, map be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. ♦ 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(s). SIGNATURES OF EACH OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE REQUIRED. 2 , 3701 er's Signa e re Date Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Applicant/Agent/Representative's Signature Date Applicant/Agent/Representative's Signature Date ErCITY OF TIGARD 12/28/2007 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 1:00:45PM Tigard,OR 97223 503.639.4171 TIGARD Receipt #: 27200700000000005585 Date: 12/28/2007 Line Items: Case No 'Tan Code Description Revenue Account No Amount Paid ZON2007-00018 [LANDUS] Zone Change Annex 100-0000-438000 2,789.00 ZON2007-00018 [LRPF] LR Planning Surcharge 100-0000-438050 411.00 Line Item Total: $3,200.01) • ents: Method Payer User ID Acct./Check No. Approval No. I-low Received Amount Paid Check DOUGLAS A FRY ST 2326 In Person 3,200.00 Payment Total: $3,200.00 • ckeccipi.rpt Page I or I rCITY OF TIGARD • 12/28/2007 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2:58:52PM Tigard,OR 97223 503.639.4171 TIGARD Receipt #: 27200700000000005589 Date: 12/28/2007 Line Items: Case No Tran Code Description Revenue Account No Amount Paid ZON2007-00018 [LANDUS] Amend CDC(Map) 100-0000-438000 2,789.00 Line Item Total: $2,789.00 Payments: • Method Payer User ID Acct./Check No. Approval No. How Received Amount Paid Check DOUGLAS A FRY ST 2326 In Person 2,789.00 Payment Total: $2,789.00 • cReceipl.rpl Page I of 1 CITY OF TIGARD 12/28/2007 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,OR 97223 503.639.4171 TIGARD: • Refund Receipt #: 27200700000000005588 Date: 12/28/2007 Line Items: Case No Trail Code Description Revenue Account No Amount Paid ZON2007-00018 Refund - [LANDUS] Zone Change 100-0000-438000 (2,789.00) Line Item Total: ($2,789.00) R 'und: Method Payer User ID Acct./Check No. Approval No. How Received Amount Paid Check Refund DOUGLAS A FRY 2326 In Person (2,789.00) Refund Total: ($2,789.00) Page I age I of I S •• 35 _ _-- Washington county,Oregon 2006-025727 0310312006 03:42:15 PM D M Crd 01 0trta7 K ORUNEWALD $35.00$0.00$11.00•Total o$52.00 < N k THIS SPACE RESERVE LIflhlllIIlllIfliUflflL III IIIIII II I I ll 00818227 0700 • I,Jerry Hanson,Director ofAsssssm ent and Taxation Y ,. -=',•7•••;!,- and Ex-ORkle County Clerk for Washington County. Oregon,do hereby certify that the within Instrument of > _ writing wu received and recorded to the book Of , : records of said county. �y,�tau %,Orve ., •� tarry R.Hanson,Director _ i mint and Tuatlon, ":•r;-c... Ex-0nlcio County Clerk • After recording return to: Providence St.Vincent Medical Foundation 9205 SW Barnes Road Portland, OR 97225 \T-- File No.: 7034-672910(GJM) Date: February 21, 2006 Map/Tax Lot # 2S11AB-00100 Tax Account#R0456946 C. TRUST DEED • (Assignment Restricted) THIS DEED OF TRUST, made this Twenty-first day of February, 2006, between Douglas Fry, as GRANTOR, and First American Title Insurance , as TRUSTEE, and Providence St. Vincent Medical Foundation , as BENEFICIARY. 0 WITNESSETH: Grantor irrevocably conveys to Trustee in trust, with power of sale,certain real property in Washington County,Oregon , described as: • 0 See Legal Description attached hereto as Exhibit A and by this reference incorporated herein. Together with all tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances, including easements,and all other rights 1L thereunto belonging or in any way now or hereafter appertaining, and the rents, issues, and profits thereof, together with all fixtures now or hereafter attached to or used in connection with said real estate. 5 E0 Z Note: The Trust Deed Act provides that the Trustee hereunder must be either an attorney who is an active member of the Q E Oregon State Bar,a bank,trust company or savings and loan association authorized to do business under the laws of Oregon or the United States,a title insurance company authorized to insure title to real property of the state,its g I subsidiaries,affiliates,agents or branches,the United States or any agency thereof,or an escrow agent licensed under ORS 896.505 to 896.585. *WARNING: 12 USC 1701/-S regulates and may prohibit exercise of this option. o E Page 1 Sul- created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffaclory.com - •- - - • • APN:R0456946 Trust Deed-continued File No.:7034-672910(GWM) Date:02/21/2006 FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING PERFORMANCE of each agreement of Grantor herein contained and payment of the sum of One Million Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand dollars($1,750,000.00), with interest thereon according to the terms of a promissory note of even date herewith, payable to Beneficiary or order, and made by Grantor, the final payment of principal and interest hereof, if not sooner paid, to be due and payable September 03, 2007. In the event the within described property, or any part thereof, or any interest therein is sold, agreed to be sold, conveyed, assigned or alienated by the Grantor without first having obtained the written consent _ or approval-of the Beneficiary, then, at-the Beneficiary's option, all obligations secured by this instrument, irrespective of the maturity dates expressed therein, or herein, shall become immediately due and payable. Grantor agrees: 1. To protect, preserve and maintain the property in good condition and repair; not to remove or demolish any building or improvement therein; not to commit or permit any waste of said property. 2. To complete or restore promptly and in good and workmanlike manner any building or improvement, which may be constructed, damaged or destroyed thereon, and pay when due all costs incurred therefore. • 3. To provide and continuously maintain insurance on the buildings now or hereafter erected on the said property against loss or damage by fire and other hazards as the Beneficiary may require, in an amount not less than $1,750,000.00, written by companies acceptable to the Beneficiary, with loss payable to Beneficiary; proof of insurance shall be delivered to the Beneficiary as soon as issued. 4. To comply with all laws, ordinances, regulations, covenants, conditions and restrictions affecting said property. 5. To keep said premises free from construction liens and to pay all taxes, assessments and other charges that may be levied or assessed upon or against said property before any part of such taxes, assessments and other charges become past due or delinquent and promptly deliver receipt of payment to Beneficiary. 6. Should the Grantor fail to make payment of any taxes, assessments, insurance premiums, liens or other charges payable by Grantor, either by direct payment or by providing Beneficiary with funds with which to make such payment, Beneficiary may, at its option, make payment thereof, and the amount so paid, with interest at the rate set forth in the note secured hereby, together with the obligations of Grantor, described in paragraphs 7 and 8 of this Trust Deed section, shall be added to and become a part of the debt secured by this Trust Deed, without waiver of any rights arising from breach of any of the covenants hereof and for such payments, with interest as aforesaid, the property herein before described,as well as the Grantor, shall be bound to the same extent that they are bound for the payment of the obligation herein described and all such payments shall be immediately due and payable without notice, and the nonpayment thereof shall, at the option of the Beneficiary, render all sums secured by this Trust Deed immediately due and payable and constitute a breach of this Trust Deed. 7. To pay all costs, fees and expenses of this trust including the cost of title search, as well as the other costs and expenses of the Trustee incurred in connection with or in enforcing this obligation • together with trustees'and attorneys'fees actually incurred. 8. To appear in and defend any action or proceeding purporting to affect the security rights or • powers of Beneficiary or Trustee; and in any suit, action or proceeding in which the Beneficiary or Trustee may appear, including evidence of title and the Beneficiary's or Trustee's attorneys' fees. The amount of attorneys'fees mentioned in this paragraph 7 above in all cases shall be fixed by the trial court and in the event of an appeal from any judgment or decree of the trial court, Grantor further agrees to pay such sum as the appellate court shall adjudge reasonable as the Beneficiary's or Trustee's attorneys' fees on such appeal. Page 2 • Put- creaf a wan pail-actory Fro trial version www.pdffactory.com • • APN:R0456946 Trust Deed-continued File No.:7034-672910(GM) Date:02/21/2006 The parties mutually agree: 1. In the event that any portion of the property is taken under the right of eminent domain or condemnation, Beneficiary shall have the right, if it so elects, to require that all or any portion of the monies payable as compensation for such taking, which are in excess of the amount required to pay all reasonable costs, expenses and attorneys' fees, both in the trial and appellate courts, necessarily paid or incurred by Beneficiary in such proceedings, be applied upon the indebtedness secured hereby; and Grantor agrees, at its own expense, to take such actions and execute such instruments as shall be necessary in obtaining such-compensation-promptly upon Beneficiary's request. 2 . Upon any default by Grantor hereunder, Beneficiary may, at any time without notice, either in person, by agent,or by a receiver to be appointed by a court, and without regard to the adequacy of any security for the indebtedness hereby secured, enter upon and take possession of the property or any part thereof, in its own name, sue or otherwise collect the rents, issues and profits, including those past due and unpaid, and apply the same, less costs and expenses of operation and collection, including reasonable attorneys' fees upon any indebtedness secured hereby, in such order as Beneficiary may determine. 3. The entering upon and taking possession of the property, the collection of such rents, issues and profits, or the proceeds of fire and other insurance policies or compensation or awards for any taking or damage of the property, and the application or release thereof as aforesaid, shall not cure or waive any default or notice of default hereunder, or invalidate any act done pursuant to such notice. 4. Upon default by Grantor in payment of any indebtedness secured hereby or in Grantor's performance of any agreement contained hereunder, time being of the essence with respect to such payment and/or performance, the Beneficiary may declare all sums secured hereby immediately due and payable. In such event Beneficiary, at its election, may proceed to foreclose this trust deed by advertisement and sale, or may direct the Trustee to pursue any other right or remedy, either at law or in equity, which the Beneficiary may have. In the event the Beneficiary elects to foreclose by advertisement and sale, the Beneficiary or the Trustee shall execute and cause to be recorded a written notice of default and election to sell the said described real property to satisfy the obligation secured hereby whereupon the Trustee shall fix the time and place of sale, give notice thereof as then required by law and proceed to foreclose this trust deed in the manner provided in ORS 86.735 to 86.795. 5. The Grantor and those persons authorized by ORS 86.753 may cure any default(s) 5 days before the date the Trustee has designated for sale. Any cure of default(s) shall require payment of or tendering performance and the payment of all costs and expenses actually incurred in enforcing the obligations of this Trust Deed, including, but not limited to, trustees' and attorneys' fees as authorized by law. In the absence of any such cure, the Trustee will enforce the obligations of this Trust Deed in accordance with paragraph 4 herein and as authorized and required by applicable law. 6. When Trustee sells pursuant to the powers provided herein, Trustee shall apply the proceeds of sale to payment of(1) the expenses of sale, including the compensation of the Trustee and a reasonable charge by Trustee's attorney, (2)the obligation secured by the trust deed, (3) to all persons having recorded liens subsequent to the interest of the Trustee in the trust deed as their interest may appear in the order of their priority and (4)the surplus, if any,to the Grantor or to his successor in interest entitled to such surplus. 7. Beneficiary may from time to time appoint a successor or successors to any Trustee named herein or to any successor trustee appointed hereunder. Upon such an appointment, and without conveyance to the successor trustee, the latter shall be vested with all title, powers and duties conferred upon any Trustee herein named or appointed hereunder. Each such appointment and substitution shall be made by written instrument executed by Beneficiary, which, when recorded in the mortgage records of the Page 3 • cur createa wan patractory Fro trial version www.paffactorv.com APN:R0456946 ' Trust Deed-continued File No.:7034-672910(G3M) Date:02/21/2006 county or counties in which the property is situated, shall be conclusive proof of proper appointment of the successor trustee. The Grantor covenants to and agrees with the Beneficiary and the Beneficiary's successors in interest that the Grantor is lawfully seized in fee simple of the real property and has a valid, unencumbered title thereto, except as may be set forth in any addendum or exhibit attached hereto, and that the Grantor will warrant and forever defend the same against all persons whomsoever. This deed applies to inures to the benefit-of,-and binds all-parties hereto, their heirs;-legatees,devisees, administrators, executors, personal representatives, successors and assigns. The term Beneficiary shall mean the holder and owner, including pledgee, of the contract secured hereby, whether or not named as a Beneficiary herein. In construing this deed and whenever the context so requires the singular number includes the plural. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand the day and year first above written. glas F ,., •.✓ OFFICIAL SEAL GLORIA MILLER STATE OF Oregon ) '' NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON )ss. '^� COMMISSION N0.355038 MYCOMMI8$lON EXPIRES APR.18,2008 County of Washington ) •�-��'•' This instrument was acknowledged befo me on this 2'/ day of , 20 by Douglas Fry. Notary Public for Oregon`� ' My commission expires: T � � Page 4 crea e• wi pe ac ory -ro na version MT".+• 0 . 0 ...._ • APN:R0456946 Trust Deed-continued File No.:7034-672910(G]M) Date:02/21/2006 REQUEST FOR FULL RECONVEYANCE(To be used only when obligations have been paid.) TO: Trustee The undersigned is the legal owner and holder of all indebtedness secured by the foregoing trust deed. All sums secured by the trust deed have been fully paid and satisfied. You hereby are directed,on payment to you of any sums owing to you under the terms of the trust deed or pursuant to statute,t cancel all evidences of Indebtedness secured by the trust deed(which are delivered to you herewith together with the trust deed)and to reconvey,without warranty,to the parties designated by the terms of the trust deed,the estate now held by you under the same. --- Mail Rconveyance to:- - - -- Dated: By • By By Beneficiary Do not lose or destroy this Deed of Trust OR THE NOTE which it secures. Both must be delivered to the Trustee before cancellation before reconveyance Is made. • • • • • Page 5 • I crea es WI pi ac ory -ro na version TT-T+YT.:: `.c • . o" • • • • APN:90456946 Trust Deed-continued File No.:7034-672910(GM) Date:02/21/2006 • EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel I: - - - - -A portion of-that-certain tract as described-in Book 262,Page 471,—Washington County Deed Records and State of Oregon,as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of the George Richardson Donation Land Claim No. 38 in Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian;thence North 3°10'West 236 feet to a point; thence North 88°34' East 359.5 feet to the true point of beginning of the tract herein to be conveyed; thence North 0°20' East 215 feet to a point; thence South 88°34'West 107.4 feet to a point; thence North 0°20'East 210.65 feet to a point;thence North 88°34'East 307.4 feet to a point; thence South 0°20'West 425.65 feet to a point; thence South 88°34'West 200 feet to the point of true beginning of this description. Excepting therefrom the following: Beginning at a point which bears North 88°34 East 75 feet from the Southeast corner of Parcel II of that tract deeded to CJ. and D.A. Fleming recorded in Book 266, Page 23, Deed Records,Washington County, Oregon; said point being North 3°10'West 451 feet and North 88°34' East 330.23 feet from the Southeast corner of the Geo. Richardson Donation Land Claim No. 38; thence running from the true point of beginning North 0°20' East 210.65 feet to a point; thence North 88°34' East 75 feet to a point; thence South 0°20'West 210.65 feet to a point; thence South 88°34'West 75 feet to the place of beginning. Further excepting therefrom the following: Beginning at the Southeast corner of Parcel II of that tract deeded to C.J.and D.A. Fleming recorded in Book 266, Page 23, Deed Records,Washington County, Oregon, said point being North 3°10'West 451 feet and North 88°34' East 255.23 feet from the Southeast corner of the Geo. Richardson Donation Land Claim No. 38; thence running from the true point of beginning North 0°20'East 210.65 feet to a point; thence North 88°34' East 75 feet to a point; thence South 0°20'West 210.65 feet to a point; thence South 88°34'West 75 feet to the true place of beginning. Further excepting therefrom the following: A portion of that tract conveyed to Emil Nordling,et ux, by Deed recorded October 29, 1954 in Book 362, Page 67, Deed Records of Washington County, Oregon: Page 6 -ur createa witn patractory rro trial version www.pattactory.com • • ' APN:R0456946 Trust Deed-continued File No.:7034-672910(GM) • Date:02/21/2006 Beginning at the Southeast corner of the George Richardson Donation Land Claim No. 38 in Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 West,of the Willamette Meridian, in the County of Washington and State of Oregon; thence North 3°10'West 236 feet to a point;thence North 88°34' East 459.5 feet to the true point of beginning of the tract to be herein described; thence North 0°20' East 185 feet; thence North 88°34' East 100 feet to the East line of aforementioned Nordling Tract; thence South 0°20'West along said East line 185 feet to the Southeast corner thereof; thence South 88°34'West 100 feet to the true point of beginning. Further excepting_therefrom the following: - - - Beginning at the Southeast corner of the George Richardson Donation Land Claim No. 38, in Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian, in the County of Washington and State of Oregon; thence North 3°10'West 236 feet to a point; thence North 88°34' East 359.5 feet to the true point of beginning of the tract herein described; thence North 0°20' East 185 feet; thence North 88°34' East 100 feet; thence South 0°20'West 185 feet; thence South 88°34'West 100 feet to the true point of beginning. Together with an easement for road and street purposes described as follows: Beginning at a point North 3°10'West 421 feet from the Southeast corner of the George Richardson Donation Land Claim No. 38, in Section 1,Township 2 South, Range 1 West,of the Willamette Meridian; thence North 88°34' East 370.8 feet to a point;thence North 0°20' East 30 feet to a point; thence South 88°34'West 362.63 feet to a point; thence South 3°10 East 30 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel II: • Commencing at the Northwest corner of Lot 1, in Section 1,Township 2 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon,and running thence Southerly along the West line of said Lot, 368 feet to a point; thence North 88°94' East 575 feet, more or less, to the East line of said Lot 1; thence Northerly following the East line of said Lot 1, 368 feet to the Northeast corner thereof; thence Westerly along the North line thereof 608 feet to the place of beginning. Except therefrom the following: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 1, Section 1,Township 2 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian, in the County of Washington and State of Oregon; running thence Southerly along the West line of said lot, 368 feet to the true point of beginning of the tract to be herein described; thence North 88°94' East 238 feet to a point; thence Northerly parallel to the West line of said lot a distance of 125 feet; thence South 88°94'West 238 feet to a point on the West line of said Lot 1; thence Southerly 125 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. Also excepting that portion for right of way described in Deed recorded October 8, 1999 as Fee No. 99114855. Page 7 crea e• wl p• ac ory -ro na version MT.•. a •--T.co- I • • • t w M E p, First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon Ps c� 222 SW Columbia Street,Suite 400 Portland,OR 97201 First American Phn-(503)222-3651 (800)929-3651 Fax-(503)790-7858 Order No.: 7073-1127191 October 22, 2007 FOR QUESTIONS REGARDING YOUR CLOSING, PLEASE CONTACT: LINDA HILLIARD, Escrow Officer/Closer Phone: (503)635-3665 - Fax: (866)734-1398- Email:lhilliard @firstam.com First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon 15480 SW Boones Ferry Road, Lake Oswego,OR 97035 FOR ALL QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS PRELIMINARY REPORT, PLEASE CONTACT: James Welch,Title Officer Toll Free: (800)929-3651 - Direct: (503)795-7669 - Email: jwelch @firstam.com Preliminary Title Report ALTA Owners Standard Coverage Liability $ Premium $ ALTA Owners Extended Coverage Liability $ Premium $ ALTA Lenders Standard Coverage Liability $ Premium $ ALTA Lenders Extended Coverage Liability $ Premium $ Endorsement 9,22&8.1 Premium $ 100.00 City Lien Search Cost $ 25.00 Other Cost $ We are prepared to issue Title Insurance Policy or Policies in the form and amount shown above, insuring title to the following described land: The land referred to in this report is described in Exhibit A attached hereto. and as of October 09, 2007 at 8:00 a.m., title vested in: Douglas Fry Subject to the exceptions, exclusions, and stipulations which are ordinarily part of such Policy form and the following: This report is for the exclusive use of the parties herein shown and is preliminary to the issuance of a title insurance policy and shall become void unless a policy is issued,and the full premium paid. • • Preliminary Report Order No.:7073-1127191 Page 2 of 10 1. Taxes for the year 2007-2008 Tax Amount $ 1,300.35 Unpaid Balance: $ 1,300.35, plus interest and penalties, if any Code No.: 023.81 Map&Tax Lot No.: 2S11AB-00300 Property ID No.: R456973 (Affects Parcel I) 2. Taxes for the year 2007-2008 Tax Amount $ 4,960.44 Unpaid Balance: $ 4,960.44, plus interest and penalties, if any Code No.: 023.81 Map&Tax Lot No.: 2S11AB-00100 Property ID No.: R456946 (Affects Parcel III) 3. City liens, if any, of the City of Tigard. Note: There are no liens as of October 16, 2007. All outstanding utility and user fees are not liens and therefore are excluded from coverage. 4. These premises are within the boundaries of the Tualatin Valley Water District and are subject to the levies and assessments thereof. 5. Statutory powers and assessments of Clean Water Services. 6. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: October 25, 1954 in Book 361, Page 0674 In Favor of: Metzger Water District, a Municipal Corporation For: Water pipeline Affects: The South 15 feet of Parcel I 7. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: July 21, 1959 in Book 420, Page 0241 In Favor of: Property owners to the West For: Road and street purposes Affects: The South 30 feet of Parcel I 8. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: July 21, 1959 in Book 420, Page 0243 In Favor of: Property owners to the West For: Road and street purposes Affects: Parcel I First American Title • • Preliminary Report Order No.:7073-1127191 Page 3 of 10 9. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: March 25, 1960 in Book 428, Page 0652 In Favor of: Northwest Natural Gas Company, a Corporation For: One-inch (1")gas pipeline and appurtenances Affects: Parcel I 10. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: October 30, 1961 in Book 452, Page 0120 In Favor of: Northwest Natural Gas Company, a Corporation For: Gas pipeline and appurtenances Affects: Parcel I 11. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: July 17, 1964 in Book 515, Page 0415 In Favor of: Property owners to the South For: Road purposes Affects: Parcel I 12. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: January 29, 1965 in Book 539, Page 0213 In Favor of: Property owners to the South For: Road purposes Affects: Parcel I 13. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: as disclosed by a Deed recorded, July 09, 1971 in Book 825, Page 0744 For: a Drain Field Over Lots 31, 32 and 33 for the benefit of Lots 34, 35 and 36, which is to remain in effect until sewer is made available to Lots 24, 35 and 36 14. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: December 20, 1994, Circuit Court No. C930071CV In Favor of: City of Tigard, Oregon, a Municipal Corporation For: Slope Affects: Parcel I 15. FAR Easement Agreement and the terms and conditions thereof: Between: Donald E. Pollock And: Tigard Corporate Center Limited Partnership Recording Information: April 30, 1999 as Fee No. 99053621 (Affects Parcel I) First American Title r ' • • Preliminary Report Order No.:7073-1127191 Page 4 of 10 16. Deed of Trust and the terms and conditions thereof. Grantor/Trustor: Douglas Fry Grantee/Beneficiary: Providence St. Vincent Medical Foundation Trustee: First American Title Insurance Amount: $1,750,000.00 Recorded: March 03, 2006 Recording Information: Fee No. 2006-025727 Modification and/or amendment by instrument: Recording Information: October 01, 2007 as Fee No. 2007-105164 17. Unrecorded leases or periodic tenancies, if any. 18. The following pertain to Lender's Extended Coverage only: a. Parties in possession, or claiming to be in possession, other than the vestees shown herein. b. Statutory liens for labor and/or materials, including liens for contributions due to the State of Oregon for employment compensation and for workman's compensation, or any rights thereto, where no notice of such liens or rights appears of record. - END OF EXCEPTIONS- First-American Tit le • Preliminary Report Order No.:7073-1127191 Page 5 of 10 NOTE: This Report does not include a search for Financing Statements filed in the Office of the Secretary of State, or in a county other than the county wherein the premises are situated, and no liability is assumed if a Financing Statement is filed in the Office of the County Clerk covering Fixtures on the premises wherein the lands are described other than by metes and bounds or under the rectangular survey system or by recorded lot and block. NOTE: Washington County Ordinance No. 267, filed August 5, 1982 in Washington County, Oregon, imposes a tax of $1.00 per $1,000.00 or fraction thereof on the transfer of real property located within Washington County. Certain conveyances may be exempt from said ordinance, in which case, Washington County will require a correct and timely filing of an Affidavit of Exemption. For all deeds/conveyance documents which are recorded (including situations to meet lender requirements) either the transfer tax must be paid or affidavit acceptable to the County must be filed. NOTE: According to the public record, the following deed(s) affecting the property herein described have been recorded within 24 months of the effective date of this report: Statutory Warranty Deed, recorded: March 03, 2006 as Fee No. 2006-025726 Situs Address as disclosed on Washington County Tax Roll: 12625 SW 70th Avenue,Tigard, OR First American Title • • Preliminary Report Order No.:7073-1127191 Page 6 of 10 THANK YOU FOR CHOOSING FIRST AMERICAN TITLE! WE KNOW YOU HAVE A CHOICE! RECORDING INFORMATION Filing Address: Washington County 155 North 1st Avenue Hillsboro, OR 97124-3087 Recording Fees: $ 5.00 per page $ 5.00 per document (Public Land Corner Preservation Fund) $11.00 per document(OLIS assessment&Taxation Fee) $ 5.00 for each additional document title $20.00 non-standard fee Fist American Title . • Preliminary Report Order No.:7073-1127191 Page 7 of 10 t A.f�q�n i •M1 First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE ALTA LOAN POLICY(06/17/06) The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy,and the Company will not pay loss or damage,costs,attorneys'fees,or expenses that arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit,or governmental regulation (induding those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to (i) the occupancy,use,or enjoyment of the Land; (ii) the character,dimensions,or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land;or (iv) environmental protection; or the effect of any violation of these laws,ordinances,or governmental regulations.This Exclusion 1(a)does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5. --(b) -Any governmental police power.This Exdusion 1(b)does not modify or limit the coverage provided under-Covered Risk 6. ____ _ _ 2. Rights of eminent domain.This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8. 3. Defects,hens,encumbrances,adverse claims,or other matters (a) created,suffered,assumed,or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company,not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy,but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured aaimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy(however,this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11,13,or 14); or (e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage. 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply with applicable doing-business laws of the state where the Land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability in whole or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured Mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth-in-lending law. 6. Any daim,by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy,state insolvency,or similar creditors'rights laws,that the transaction creating the lien of the Insured Mortgage,is (a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer,or (b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 13(b)of this policy. 7. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the Insured Mortgage in the Public Records.This Exdusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11(b). ALTA OWNER'S POLICY(06/17/06) The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy,and the Company will not pay loss or damage,costs,attorneys'fees,or expenses that arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law,ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to (i) the occupancy,use,or enjoyment of the Land; (ii)the character,dimensions,or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land;or (iv) environmental protection; or the effect of any violation of these laws,ordinances,or governmental regulations.This Exclusion 1(a)does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5. (b) Any governmental police power.This Exdusion 1(b)does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6. 2. Rights of eminent domain.This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8. 3. Defects,liens,encumbrances,adverse claims,or other matters (a) created,suffered,assumed,or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company,not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy,but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured aaimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy(however,this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risks 9 and 10);or (e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Title. 4. Any daim,by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy,state insolvency,or similar creditors'rights laws,that the transaction vesting the Title as shown in Schedule A,is (a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer;or (b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 9 of this policy. 5. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the deed or other instrument of transfer in the Public Records that vests Title as shown in Schedule A. SCHEDULE OF STANDARD EXCEPTIONS 1. The Lien of Real Estate Taxes or Assessments imposed on the title by a governmental authority that are not shown as existing liens in the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or in the public records. 2. Any Facts, Rights,Interests,or Claims that are not shown in the public records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or by making inquiry of persons in possession of the land. 3. Easements,Claims of Easements or Encumbrances that are not shown in the public records. 4. Any Encroachment, Encumbrance, Violation, Variation, or Adverse Circumstance affecting the title induding discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines,shortage in area,or any other facts that would be discosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the land,and that are not shown in the public records. 5. Unpatented Mining Claims; Reservations or Exceptions in Patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof; Water Rights,Claims or Title to Water. 6. Any Lien,or Right to a lien,for Services,Labor or Material theretofore or hereafter furnished,imposed by law and not shown in the public records. NOTE: A SPECIMEN COPY OF THE POLICY FORM(OR FORMS)WILL BE FURNISHED UPON REQUEST TI 149 Rev.6-17-06 First American Title • • • Preliminary Report Order No.:7073-1127191 Page 8 of 10 Exhibit"A" Real property in the City of Tigard, County of Washington, State of Oregon, described as follows: PARCEL I: A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN TRACT AS DESCRIBED IN BOOK 262, PAGE 471,WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS AND STATE OF OREGON, AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE GEORGE RICHARDSON DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 38 IN SECTION 1,TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN; THENCE NORTH 3°10' WEST 236 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 88°34' EAST 359.5 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT HEREIN TO BE CONVEYED; THENCE NORTH 0°20' EAST 215 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 88°34'WEST 107.4 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 0°20' EAST 210.65 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 88°34' EAST 307.4 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 0°20' WEST 425.65 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 88°34'WEST 200 FEET TO THE POINT OF TRUE BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING: BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 88°34' EAST 75 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PARCEL II OF THAT TRACT DEEDED TO C.J. AND D.A. FLEMING RECORDED IN BOOK 266, PAGE 23, DEED RECORDS, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON; SAID POINT BEING NORTH 3°10'WEST 451 FEET AND NORTH 88°34' EAST 330.23 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE GEO. RICHARDSON DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 38; THENCE RUNNING FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING NORTH 0°20' EAST 210.65 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 88°34' EAST 75 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 0°20'WEST 210.65 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 88°34'WEST 75 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. FURTHER EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PARCEL II OF THAT TRACT DEEDED TO C.J. AND D.A. FLEMING RECORDED IN BOOK 266, PAGE 23, DEED RECORDS,WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON, SAID POINT BEING NORTH 3°10' WEST 451 FEET AND NORTH 88°34' EAST 255.23 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE GEO. RICHARDSON DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 38; THENCE RUNNING FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING NORTH 0°20' EAST 210.65 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 88°34' EAST 75 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 0°20' WEST 210.65 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 88°34'WEST 75 FEET TO THE TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING. FURTHER EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING: A PORTION OF THAT TRACT CONVEYED TO EMIL NORDLING, ET UX, BY DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 29, 1954 IN BOOK 362, PAGE 67, DEED RECORDS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON: First American Title • Preliminary Report Order No.:7073-1127191 Page 9 of 10 BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE GEORGE RICHARDSON DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 38 IN SECTION 1,TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON AND STATE OF OREGON; THENCE NORTH 3°10' WEST 236 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 88°34' EAST 459.5 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT TO BE HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE NORTH 0°20' EAST 185 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88°34' EAST 100 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF AFOREMENTIONED NORDLING TRACT; THENCE SOUTH 0°20' WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 185 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 88°34'WEST 100 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. FURTHER EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE GEORGE RICHARDSON DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 38, IN SECTION 1,TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON AND STATE OF OREGON; THENCE NORTH 3°10' WEST 236 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 88°34' EAST 359.5 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE NORTH 0°20' EAST 185 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88°34' EAST 100 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0°20' WEST 185 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°34'WEST 100 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND STREET PURPOSES DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT NORTH 3°10'WEST 421 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE GEORGE RICHARDSON DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 38, IN SECTION 1,TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN; THENCE NORTH 88°34' EAST 370.8 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 0°20' EAST 30 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 88°34'WEST 362.63 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 3°10' EAST 30 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL II: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, IN SECTION 1,TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON AND STATE OF OREGON, AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT, 368 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 88°94' EAST 575 FEET, MORE OR LESS,TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTHERLY FOLLOWING THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, 368 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF 608 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, SECTION 1,TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON AND STATE OF OREGON; RUNNING THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT, 368 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT TO BE HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE NORTH 88°94' EAST 238 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTHERLY PARALLEL TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT A DISTANCE OF 125 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°94'WEST 238 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 1; FiistAmerican Title • Preliminary Report Order No.:7073-1127191 Page 10 of 10 THENCE SOUTHERLY 125 FEET, MORE OR LESS,TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO EXCEPTING THAT PORTION FOR RIGHT OF WAY DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 8, 1999 AS FEE NO. 99114855. Tax Parcel Number: R456973 and R456946 First American Title EVELOP EM T CODE NARRAT1 vE Zone Change Written Staent December 19, 2007 Page 1 ZONE CHANGE WRITTEN STATEMENT December 19, 2007 Applicant: Douglas Fry c/o Commercial Tenant Advisors Att: Brad Pihas 22151 SW 55th Ave Tualatin OR 97062 Planning Consultant: T.M.Rippey Consulting Engineers Att: Lans Stout 7650 SW Beveland St. Suite 100 Tigard OR 97223 503/443-3900 503/443-3700 fax Site Location: Tax lot 100, WCTM 2S1-1AB Southeast corner of SW 72nd Ave and SW Dartmouth St. Proposal: Amend the Tigard Zoning Map to change the zoning on the subject property from CG-PD (General Commercial with Planned Development Overlay) to CG (General Commercial). Zone Change Written Stait ent December 19, 2007 Page 2 Description of the Request: This is a zone change application which will remove the Planned Development Overlay from the subject site. This property has been in the preliminary design phase since early 2007, and plans have been discussed with the City staff and neighbors. When this project was first discussed with City staff, the PD Overlay was not recognized as an issue, even though the PD standards are very difficult for a commercial site to meet, and given that this site contains both CG-PD and MUE zoning. Consequently, a PD application was made in May 2007, but it was not deemed complete. Subsequently, as a result of additional discussions related to the ramifications of the PD issues, it was determined that the best approach would be to remove the PD overlay and apply the Tigard Triangle Design Standards through a Site Design Review application. The PD designation on this site was applied legislatively in 1984. However, since there has never been a development plan proposed for this site, there have never been any plans considered under the PD overlay. Further, the recent changes to the PD section would make application of the PD standards impossible to meet on this commercial site. A number of approaches were considered to address the application of the PD section to this property, including development under the new PD criteria, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change to bring the entire site into the MU-E zone, and a Development Code text amendment to address the difficulty of commercial development under the revised PD section. However, simply removing the PD overlay and allowing the site to redevelop under the CG zone and Tigard Triangle Design Standards is the best solution to facilitate implementation of the City's development standards for this area while allowing a responsible commercial development of the site. The issues with respect to this site and the resulting application are much the same as those considered by the Planning Commission in City File ZON2007-00008. The only difference is that this site does contain some sensitive lands, which have been addressed through Corps/DSL permits for fill and CWS approval of vegetated corridor mitigation. Notwithstanding this, the basic difficulties with respect to commercial development under the PD standards remain, and are addressed as follows. Commercial Development Issues Under the PD Overlay Zone: The 2006 revisions to the PD section of the Code provide processes and criteria suited for residential development on difficult sites. The flexibility provided allows the City to adapt the otherwise required standards based on creative approaches to development of residential neighborhoods while still protecting resources. These standards and processes are not readily applicable to commercial development on sites without unusual development constraints, or where development constraints can be effectively addressed by using Code standards otherwise required. The specific sections to consider include: 18.350.010A.2 through 4 state that the purposes of the PD section is to increase preservation of natural areas and to facilitate the development of"walkable" Zone Change Written Staent • December 19, 2007 Page 3 communities. While this is an appropriate direction for the development of new residential neighborhoods, it is not applicable to a site zoned General Commercial that can be developed within the parameters of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. 18.350.030.B provides that the PD overlay designation shall be applied at the time of approval of the Detailed Development Plan. While sites that already have the PD Overlay applied from an earlier legislative action can still use the PD process, the intent of the Code is to encourage owners to use the PD provisions, and to provide that as a option rather than a requirement. 18.350.050.A provides Concept Development Plan approval criteria which stress the development of a plan that addresses preservation of natural features, neighborhood context, and "significant advantages over a standard development". While the subject site does contain some wetland, the approval of permits related to this work shows that the site can be developed using the primary Code standards, so a positive finding with respect to this criteria could not be made. 18.350.070.4.A.h. requires 20% of the site to be landscaped, including "landscaping on individual lots". This is clearly intended to apply to residential development. Further, in combination with the required 20% "open space" in a PD, requiring 40% of a commercial site to be designated open space and landscaping would be a significant difficulty for a commercial site where 15% landscaping is the conventional standard. 18.350.070.4.A.m requires shared open space facilities. As noted above, this also is clearly intended for application to residential development, and is not appropriate for commercial projects. While it may be argued that dealing with these issues can be addressed by the PD provisions themselves, in the end the question remains whether the interests of the property owner and the City are well served by using these procedures to correct a historic problem rather than simply correcting the problem and applying appropriate Code standards to a development application. By removing the PD overlay from this site, the standards of the PD section are not compromised, the owner is returned to a position the same as the owners of other property zoned CG, and the other standards of the Code maintain the City's interests. i Zone Change Written Sta ent • December 19, 2007 Page 4 Code Criteria for a Zoning Map Amendment: Section 18.380.030B of the Development Code provides standards for quasi- judicial decisions. Each is addressed as follows: 1."Demonstration of compliance with all applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and map designations." Comment: In considering this standard, it is necessary to keep in mind the nature of the application. The Comprehensive Plan Map designation for the site is "General Commercial", and the zoning is CG-PD, which is a consistent zone for the plan designation. This application will not affect the Plan Map nor the base zoning, so this criteria is met with respect to map designations. In considering Comprehensive Plan policy implications, since the land use designations will not change the applicable policies would be those which provide guidance on the creation and application of overlay zones such as the PD provisions. While the plan does discuss such related matters as the application of the General Commercial designation, and natural resource protection, it at no point actually discusses the establishment and application of a Planned Development Overlay zone. Since there is no policy guidance in the Plan, and since the land use designations are not effected, this criteria is inherently met. Nevertheless, the staff has listed a number of Plan Policies that have been identified as applicable to this application. Each is addressed as follows: Policy 1 and its subsections relate to maintaining consistency between the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Statewide Goals as well as other local and regional planning documents. Since this change does not effect the actual land use designation for the site, and the eventual site development will be regulated by existing standards, the proposed zone change doe not impact the consistency of these planning documents. Policy 2 and its subsections relate to the citizen involvement process. This application has been presented at a neighborhood meeting and will be considered by the Planning Commission in a public hearing, which meets the intent of these policies. Policy 3 and its subsections relate to development in areas with physical constraints. The site does contain some wetland area, which have been addressed through approval of DSL/Corps permits and issuance of a CWS Service Provider Latter. There are no floodplain, steep slopes, or geotechnical issues. Further, the PD overlay is not required to address any such physical issues since other Code standards are applicable and will remain in effect after this zone change. Policy 4 and its subsections relate to air, water, and land resource quality. Removing the PD overlay from this site will not effect the implementation of all otherwise required regulations related to these issues. Policy 5 and its subsections relate to economic development and diversification in the City. Removal of the PD overlay from this site will allow the property to be developed in a manner consistent with the Development Code, which will increase job opportunities and economic activity, which is consistent with this policy. Policy 6 relates to housing,which is not applicable to this application. Zone Change Written Staent • December 19, 2007 Page 5 Policy 7 and its subsections relate to the provision of adequate public facilities and services. The removal of the PD overlay has no bearing on the provision of facilities and services, which will be addressed through the development review process. Policy 8 relates to transportation. A traffic study is required for development of this site notwithstanding whether the PD overlay applies or not. Policy 9 relates to energy conservation, which is not impacted by the application of the PD overlay. Policy 12 establishes locational criteria for various types of development areas, including commercial. However, since this zone change does not effect the underlying commercial plan designation and CG zoning, this policy is not applicable to the application. 2. "Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other implementing ordinances." Comment: Compliance with standards of the Code is similar to the Comprehensive Plan Policy issue. Since the base zoning is not affected by this change, the only applicable Code standards are the PD section itself and the standards contained in this section related to quasi-judicial changes to the zoning map. The standards of the PD section, as summarized above, are not appropriate for application to this site, and there is no indication that their continued application to the site is necessary to implement the intent of the Code. This discussion of the standards for approval of a quasi-judicial map amendment shows that Standard 2 is met. 3. "Evidence of a change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map a sit relates to the property which is the subject of the development application." Comment: As described above, the PD overlay was legislatively applied to this site in 1984. At that time the City was experiencing development of the larger commercial area west of SW 72' Ave. and there was valid concern about implementing the PD standards as a way to ensure high quality development in the area. Since 1984 the City has adopted the Tigard Triangle Plan, which precipitated the MU-E zone that applies to part of this site, and the Tigard Triangle Design Standards which apply to the CG-PD portion as well as the MU-E portion. Most importantly the City has adopted revisions to the PD section itself which make it relevant to residential development but not to commercial. There has clearly been a change in the neighborhood as result of adoption and implementation of the new Tigard Triangle standards, which makes application of the PD section both unnecessary and inappropriate. This standard is met. Impact Statement: Section 18.390.040.B2(e) of the Code requires an impact study to assess the impacts of an application on public infrastructure. In this case there is no development proposed in association with the application, so there is no impact on public facilities and services. Any impacts and associated mitigation will be considered through the Site Design Review process, which will be required prior to site development. Zone Change Written Stment • December 19, 2007 Page 6 Concluding Comments: This application will not affect the base zoning and development standards for this site. It will, however, allow both parts of the development site to be developed as a single unified project that is consistent with the Tigard Development Code and specifically the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. This change will correct an inequitable situation that has resulted from the application of the PD overlay at a time when this was an appropriate method to address development concerns, but is no longer needed because of the adoption of new standards that achieve the same goals. NE ; &H SERYIO op /vIEETIN6- i • • • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING/POSTING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE IMPORTANT NOTICE: THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO MAIL THE CITY OF TIGARD A COPY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE THAT PERTAINS TO THIS AFFIDAVIT AT THE SAME TIME PROPERTY OWNERS ARE MAILED NOTICE,TO THE ADDRESS BELOW: City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard,OR 97223-8189 IN ADDITION,THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT THIS AFFIDAVIT &COPIES OF ALL NOTICES AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION. MAILING: I, Li -n/S . 7-13(.4_7"" ,being duly sworn,depose and say that on the 231' day of 1J 04$EYL. , 2007 ,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) 72_Ky ,0 r b Q0 tii%u-rg.4-74-t- ,a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office located at 71( E1R-S1 with postage prepaid thereon. Signature •(In the presence of a Notary Public) POSTING: I, L4r'J .1-rota- ,do affirm that IOM(represent)the party initiating interest in a proposed land use application for G644+.e,v/5 t'R/ affecting the land located at(state the approximate location(s)IF no address(s)and all tax lot(s)currently registered) 2S(— I AT, . CQiTS too .4 3nu ,and did on the day of Oec .t6etz- ,2007 personally post notice indicating that the site maybe proposed for a tea/50K/ P zT171-er( land use application,and the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. The sign was posted at Sire Ft47n/TACoe a N 5 0..1 2 22J!P /L/UIO 5'w D T4404.1.14 (state location you posted notice on property) Signature In the presence of a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FORA STATE OF OREGON,NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) STATE OF WOO, ) County of tp ftS.li ilorck‘, ) ss. Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the 04'1—day of -14& - ,20 07 . • • OFFICIAL SEAL • SHIRLEY L TREAT NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO.416777 L ka MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 25,2011 NOTARY P LIC OF OREGON My Commission Expires: 111 I(I c\curpin\masters\neighborhood meetings\affidavit of mailing-posting neighborhood meeting.doc Page 5 I 1 • 7650 SW Beveland Street,Suite 100 4/Vrik.\ M RIPPEY Tigard,OR 97223 Ce SULTING ENGINEERS Phone:(503)443-3900 Fax: (503)443-3700 December 10, 2007 RE: Neighborhood meeting Dear Interested Party: T.M. Rippey Consulting Engineers represents the developer of the property located at the southeast corner of SW Dartmouth St. and SW 72nd Ave. As you may be aware, there has been a previous neighborhood meeting to discuss this project. However, the application process will now include a zone change to remove "Planned Development" overlay zone from the part of the site that is now zoned "CG-PD", as well as a partition to create three parcels within the development. Finally,while the development plan itself remains as previously discussed, the City's time frame for completing the application has been exceeded, so a new neighborhood meeting is required. You are invited to attend a meeting on: Thursday, December 27, 2007; 6:00 PM The meeting will be held at: TM Rippey Consulting Engineers 7650 SW Beveland St. Suite 100 Tigard OR 97223 Please notice this will be an informational meeting on preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to the submittal of the application to the city. I look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please call me at 503/443-3900 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Lans Stout Planning Consultant •N *.dui u� itoo,.“1 awp oil) ti..t.ouotit u)4 1)+1“i low A),R1(10,1d . 1.• •Efa .5k.111 -Had ( ,00 031il1ON VDJV OY01.1. 10 Ail • • •41.1.4 ::4141n44,4.404.4 (I'd Ne.8e0sOiSt 4t.M:441:4.444. 11 0.4RV'tikit.‘ Z*- • • 1S136DC-02504 • 2S101AB-00601 • AMERICAN INDUSTRIES INC FALL FUN PROPERTIES LLC 1750 NW FRONT AVE STE#106 7130 SW ELMHURST ST PORTLAND,OR 97209 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S101AB-01100 1S136DC-03900 BAUER DANIEL E& FARZA JAVAD BAUER BARBARA G 7110 SW CLINTON ST 12335 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136DC-04600 2S101AB-00300 COMMERCIAL NET LEASE REALTY INC FRY DOUGLAS 450 S ORANGE AVE STE 900 23077 SW NEWLAND RD ORLANDO, FL 32801 WILSONVILLE,OR 97070 2S101AA-01800 2 101AB-00100 CORLISS JAMES L&CORA K FR OU S PO BOX 23970 23077 EWLAND RD TIGARD,OR 97281 SONVILL , R 97070 2S101AA-04900 2S101AB-00600 CORLISS-1 LLC GUILLEUX FEMY PO BOX 23970 18200 DAVIS ST TIGARD,OR 97281 SANDY,OR 97055 1S136DC-04400 2S101AB-00801 DARTMOUTH SQUARE LLC HAMPTON PARK APARTMENTS LLC BY ZIMMLER DEVELOPMENT BY COOPER CHASE LLC 7165 SW FIR LP#10 17952 SW PARRISH LN TIGARD,OR 97223 SHERWOOD,OR 97140 1S136DD-07500 2S 01AB-00800 DARTMOUTH TOWNHOMES LLC HA ON PA- 'PARTMENTS LLC 2508 NE 24TH AVE BY CO••E' HASE LLC PORTLAND,OR 97212 17952 .' • 'RRISH LN RWOOD, •- 97140 136DD-07600-' 101AB-00900 DA MO H TOWNHOMES LLC HA 'TON P K APARTMENTS LLC 2508 24TH AVE BY C00:1- CHASE LLC RTLA OR 97212 179 W PA-- SH LN 'ERWOOD,OR •7140 2S101AB-00400 2`.'01AB-01000 DITTER MARK W HA •TON PA- APARTMENTS LLC PRISCILLA A BY CO.• HASE LLC 7070 SW ELMHURST ST 17952 :1 '•RRISH LN TIGARD, OR 97223 S- RWOOD, •- 97140 1S136DC-04000 2S101AB-00700 ESLINGER CASEY HERAS MIGUEL RAMON 7140 SW CLINTON ST ELAINE C TIGARD,OR 97223 12280 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 2S101AB-00303 • 1S136DC-03600 • HUNT CLAYTON R& MYERS FAMILY LLC GORANSON NELS R 12670 SW 68TH PKWY 7040 SW ELMHURST ST STE#200 TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136DC-03800 1S136DC-03700 IMPERIAL INVESTMENT PROPERTIES L MYERS FAMILY LLC 5285 SW MEADOWS RD#369 FIVE CENTERPOINTE DR#280 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 2S101AA-02000 2S101AB-00302 LANDMARK FORD INC NORDLING GEORGE DALE& ATTN:JIM CORLISS JOANNE TRUSTEES PO BOX 23970 6695 SW HYLAND WAY TIGARD,OR 97281 BEAVERTON,OR 97008 2S101AA-05200 2S101AA-02301 LANDMARK FORD INC OPDAL ELLA J PO BOX 23970 12170 SW 69TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97281 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S101AB-00500 2S101BA-00101 LAU JOSHUA L& PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES MARCHWICK SARAH B ATTN: N PIVEN 7100 SW ELMHURST ST 15350 SW SEQUOIA PKWY#300 TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97224 2S 101 AB-00101 1 S 136 D D-06900 MARTIN GORDON R ROTH J T JR&THERESA A 8565 SW BARBUR BLVD 12600 SW 72ND AVE STE 200 PORTLAND,OR 97219 TIGARD,OR 97223 2 S 101 AB-00200 1 S 136D D-07001 MARTIN GORDON R ROTH JACOB T JR&THERESA A BY ADAMS&STEWART 12600 SW 72ND AVE#200 8565 SW BARBUR BLVD TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND, OR 97219 2S101BA-00400 1S136DD-07601 MARTIN GORDON S SALARIE MARZIE 12265 SW 72ND AVE 19432 WILDERNESS DR TIGARD, OR 97223 WEST LINN,OR 97068 2 101BA-00402 2S101AB-00301 MA IN G ON S SCOTT JOHN D/DEBORA K 12265 72ND AVE 7085 SW ELMHURST T RD,0 7223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S101AA-02300 1 S136DD-07300 MATHANY A JAMES SORENSEN JOHN A& PO BOX 1769 EVANGELINE P LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 250 STAMPHER RD LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 1S1360D-06300 • 1S136DC-04200 • SPECHT DEVELOPMENT INC TL C 15400 SW MILLIKAN WAY PO B 716 BEAVERTON,OR 97006 TLAND,OR 97298 1S136D0-06200 1S1360C-04300 ' S'•CHTS' ELOPMENT INC TL LC 15400 MILLIKAN WAY PO B 25716 •VER ,OR 97006 P TLA ,OR 97298 1 136DD-06100 2S101BA-00401 SP HT ELOPMENT INC TRI-COUNTY CENTER TRUST 1540 MILLIKAN WAY BY ADAMS&STEWART VERTO , OR 97006 8565 SW BARBUR BLVD PORTLAND,OR 97219 1S136DD-06600 2S101BA-00100 SP T D ELOPMENT INC TRI-COUNTY CENTER TRUST 15400 MILLIKAN WAY MARTIN GORDON R TR B VERT OR 97006 BY ADAMS&STEWART 8565 SW BARBUR BLVD PORTLAND,OR 97219 2S101AA-02900 1S136DC-04500 TIGARD CORPORATE CENTER WINCO FOOD LLC LTD PARTNERSHIP ATTN: SUSAN BUSCHE ATTN:GREG SPECHT PO BOX 5756 15400 MILLIKAN WAY BOISE, ID 83705 BEAVERTON, OR 97006 2S101AA-09100 TI ' •D CORPORA E CENTER LTD PA` NER P ATTN:GRP'= SPECHT 1540. ,ILLIKA' AY : •VERTON, OR •"006 2S101AA-03800 T ••RD CORPO•• CENTER LTDP 'TNE•:'IP ATTN:G•• SPECHT 15400 ILLI • WAY •VERTON,OR • 006 2S101BA-00300 TIGARD TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT LLC 12265 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136DC-04100 TLB LLC PO BOX 25716 PORTLAND, OR 97298 136DC-044 TLB PO 716 RTLAND, R 97298 • • • Nathan and Ann Murdock Mildren Designroup O Box 231265 Attn: Gene Mildren PO OR 97281 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, OR 97223 Sue Rorman Susan Beilke 11250 SW 82nd Avenue 11755 SW 114th Place Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Naomi Gallucci Dayle D. & Evelyn 0. Beach 11285 SW 78th Avenue 11530 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Diane Baldwin 3706 Kinsale Lane SE Olympia, WA 98501 Brad Spring 7555 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Alexander Craghead 12205 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-6210 Gretchen Buehner 13249 SW 136th Place Tigard, OR 97224 John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, OR 97223 CPO 4B 16200 SW Pacific Highway, Suite H242 Tigard, OR 97224 CPO 4M Pat Whiting 8122 SW Spruce Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD - EAST INTERESTED PARTIES (i:\curpin\setup\labels\CIT East.doc) UPDATED: 6-Aug-07 • • NEIGHBOR MEETING: FRY SITE AT 72ND AND DARTMOUTH MEETING MINUTES 12-27-07 6:00 PM Attendance list attached. Lans Stout described the project and the additional steps in the development process that will be forthcoming, including the zone change to remove the PD overlay, followed by Site Design Review and Partition applications. Several questions were raised about the relationship of this project to other property in the area. The site plan and use of the buildings also were discussed. The participants raised the following issues: 1. Traffic on Elmhurst will be a problem until it is developed the entire length to 72°a. The residents feel that temporary barricades should be installed. 2. The two-story design of Building C is a concern to the neighbors to the south. It was agreed that the design team would try to lower the elevation of the building as much as possible, and that a grading plan would be provided and explained when it is ready. 3. Construction noise is an issue. 4. The wetland fill and enhancement was discussed but it is not a concern. 5. Timing of the signal installation and street improvements is seen as very important given the current traffic conditions. The meeting adjourned at 7:00 PM. By: Lans Stout • • scram ,a l LC o 2 roc 'r�n/G G 2.-7 9- o 7 I _C5 ST�u-7' .A4• &Ley_ y (ICZZ,�, kEktL& 5 1 .t Tt5 I ,o $Je o e r Iy,--1n S S,.d 7�' � yw , D tQ 17171 0- ' jj, !_ -r,4G{��c,,v 7 o 4.5 5 C..t) C-f / • - . --XA.X.C8 g id©4 Conte — ;I (4 -A6, � 7 01D S'W. £(��UI'�� Ti cvd daici' y, tci z b 20 /705b H . G., AoL. - C:o • * :;Cck._ 04-4f-1 c,.t,vz1 �wT CAN WA eR a EFSNI Icis Dec. 21. 2007 9: 12AM No. 4183 . P. 1 : wUt� uuto • • • :; DEC 2 0 2007 Our comnitmcril h cicor. File Nuetter. Sensitive Area Pre-Screening 7--00/46.3 Site Assessment Jurisdiction: Property Information: (example 1$224A9o1400) Owner Information: Taxlot i0(e); 2,5I— _l Name: DOW. 5 �t _Ma L t O Company: .d lgatt4, CIAL.'i!E1 Qj\7C A 1V1S .S, - Address:, Z1.S Site Address; _ T''t aft Q72. — Phona/Fax:_ I • Nearest Cross Street: 72"!0/pyt 4.4 E-mail:, Development Activity: Check all that apply Applicant information: Addition to Single Family Residence (rooms,deck,garage) [a Name: Lit-S■J3 meter Lot lane Adjustment G] Minor Land Partition ❑ Company:-1-.4.4 g4pvpzi 44:01S, Residential Condominium ID Commercial Condominium ❑ Address:__762Sb .tug RaueL4 4 +#io_O Residential Subdivision (l Commercial Subdivision ❑ -Ti 6/.21z4 Single Lot Commercial Multi Lot Commercial ❑ phoneIFeex: e ` , �29be7 I_SC. 3 1'7aS?_ Other • on45 C lanizAr an(S-y _ E-mail: L uT ca Tkt_Jtl 4 661 Am? etN reUdT/DIIr O(4,7.161 Rd_ Will the project Involve any off-site work: YES❑ NO tz Unknown ❑ Location end description of off-site work: Additional comments or information that may ba needed to understand your project: 74f+5 COQ. P fvorJW Cldanez e' L - � :.1� — Ur, //6. e. - - • .. L_[a'717' 1.1 his application deer Ndrrepiaco the need for Grading and Eroefon Control Permits,Connection Permits,Building Pemllts,Site Development Permits,DEO 1200-C Permit or other permits as Issued by the Department of Environmental Quality,Department of State Lends and/or Department of the Army COE.All required permits and approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable local,mate,and federal law, Sy signing this form.the Owner or Owner's authorized spent or representative,acknowledges and agrees that employees of Clean Water Services have authority to enter the project site at ell reasonable times tor the purpose of tweeting project elte oanditlone and gathering information related to the project site. I certify that I am familiar with the information contained In this document,and to the best of my knowledge and belief,Ihle Information Is true,complete,end aeeurats. Prtntlrype Name: 'S7'Dcc.T Print/Type Title: 42aJ uc *f T Signature: FOR DISTRICT USE ONLY D Sensitive areas potentially exist on site or within 200'of the site. :Era A PLICANT MIDST PE17�ORM A SITE ASSESSMENT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A SERVICE PROVIDER LETTBR. if Sensitive Areas exist on the site or within 200 feet on adjacent properties,a Natural Resources Assessment Report may also be required. • ❑ Based on review of the submitted materials and best available Information Sensitive areas do not appear to exist on site or within 200'of the site, This Sensitive Area Pre-Screening Sits Assessment does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect water quality senelttve areas if they are subsequently discovered. This document will serve as your Service Provider letter as required by Resolution and Order 07-20,Section 3.02.1. All required permits and approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable local,Slate,and federal law. Based on review of the submitted materials and best available information the above referenced project Will not significantly impact the existing or potentially sensitive area(s)found near the site.This Sensitive Area Pre-Screening Site Assessment does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect additional water quality sensitive areas if they are subsequently discovered. This document will serve as your Service Provider leiter as required by Resolution and Order 07-20. Section 3.02.1. All required permits iand approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable local,state,and federal law. n This Service Provider Letter is not valid unless CWS approved site plan(e)are attached. ❑ The proposed eotivlty does not meet the definition of development or the lot was platted after 919195 ORS 92.040(2), NO SITE ASSESSMENT 0 RV1C1=PRO IDER LETTER IS REQUIRED. /��x l G Reviewed By: - Date: i 255Q SW Hillsboro Highway•tiNsboro,Oregon 57129 rtx Phone: (503)651.5100•Pax: (503)851-4439•wwWalennaatarserviaaa.ora nwu,ro tmv D.NO FREAPPLI CAT; c ,V noTEs if rr- • • Ga..!SL[C- 7N(i PRE-APPLICA 'ON NOTES TM Rippey. Engineers December 4,2007 STAFF PRESENT: Gary Pagenstecher,Dick Bewersdorff APPLICANT: Lans Stout,TM Rippey Construction Engineers PROPERTY LOCATION: 12625 SW 70th Avenue;southeast corner of SW 72nd and Dartmouth TAX MAP/LOT#'s: 2S101AB-00100 &00300 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: To remove the Planned Development (PD) overlay on Tax Lot 100 and rezone as C-G (General Commercial). COMP PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONING: Tax Lot 100,C-G (PD);Tax Lot 300,MUE. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING A neighborhood meeting is required for the proposed zone change. NARRATIVE Include a narrative that responds to the applicable review criteria and Comprehensive Plan policies. (Note that this list is intended to provide guidance in preparation of your application, and that additional criteria may be identified dependant upon the nature of the specific application, or as other issues are raised. In other words, this is not an exhaustive list of all criteria. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that all applicable standards are met.) Comprehensive Plan Policies: 1,2,3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9,& 12 Zoning Map and Text Amendments 18.380.030: Quasi-judicial zoning map amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050,using standards of approval below. The Commission shall decide zone change applications which do not involve comprehensive plan map amendments. The proposed zone change is a quasi-judicial amendment because the Comprehensive Plan Designation for both the C-G (PD) and C-G is "General Commercial". 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. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; 2. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance;and • 3. 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. Section 18.390.050 Decision-Making Procedures (type III process) Application must include information on the application form, a narrative addressing the relevant criteria in sufficient detail for review and action, the required fee, and an impact study: The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large,public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirements, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Approval or denial of a Type III action shall be based on standards and criteria,which shall be set forth in the development ordinance,and which shall relate approval on denial of a discretionary permit application to the development ordinance and,when appropriate,to the comprehensive plan for the area in which the development would occur and to the development ordinance and comprehensive plan for the City as a whole; The decision of the Planning Commission in a Type III action is final for purposes of appeal.The decision of the City Council on any Type III appeal is the final decision of the City. Application Fees for a Quasi Judicial Zoning Map Amendment: $3,200.00 Decision timeline is approximately 6 to 8 weeks from receipt of a complete application. PREPARED BY: / Gary Pagenstecher Associate Planner