The URL can be used to link to this page

ZOA1997-0000324.41997 -00003 WI..T74DRAWA/ PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION FILE NO: ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 97 -0003 . Ai� CITY OF TIC OREGON FILE TITLE: Street Standards Adjustment in the CG zone of the Tigard Triangle APPLICANT: City Initiated OWNER: Various REQUEST: Request to amend the adopted design standards for the Tigard Triangle to allow the provision of privately owned "skinny" streets to- meet the connectivity standards in Commercial General zone using an adjustment process. Additionally, minor revisions are proposed to the signing standards within the design standards to clarify the allowance of freeway oriented signs within the Tigard Triangle. LOCATION: Generally, south of Highway 99W, west of 1 -5, and north of Highway 217. APPLICABLE Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies REVIEW CRITERIA: 1.1.a, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.3, 8.1.8 (f). Community. Development Code Chapters 18.30, Triangle Design Standards. ZONE: CIT: X Commercial General (CG), Mixed Use Employment (MUE) East CIT FACILITATOR: List Available Upon Request PHONE NUMBER: (503) ---------------------------------------------------=------ ---------------------------------------------------------- DECISION MAKING BODY STAFF DECISION PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF HEARING: 8/4/97 HEARINGS OFFICER DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:30 TIME: 7:00 X CITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: 8/26/97 TIME: 7:30 ------------------------------------------- RELATIVE COMPONENTS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION VICINITY MAP ARCHITECTURAL PLAN LANDSCAPING PLAN SITE PLAN STAFF CONTACT: Nadine Smith (503) 639 -4171 x388 NARRATIVE x OTHER 1 r4- vv G i iJyI i '`v .itis • June 23, 1997 Gordon S. Martin. Jr. 12263 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard. OR 97223 Subject Urban Growth Managanext Fsnsctional Plan Issues; Tigard Triangle This letter summarizes and elaborates on the Metro staff comments made at our meeting of June 2 regarding issues associated with implementation of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (U(2MF?) in the Tigard Triangle area In the meeting and in this letter, we are attempting to assist the parties in implementing the UG.MFP. Our comments explain our approach to administering the U04FP provisions Resolutions of any disputes or application of specific provisions must be addressed by WAC and the Metro Council General Corremcnts As noted at the meetin& the authority for land use and transportation implemesttation actions within this area resides with the City of Tigard and with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The City has ultimate land use approval authority and both the City and ODOT have r+esponszbility for the area's street and highway system. We will be contacting them both to update them on our conclusions and clarifications, issue identify any additional ises, and deterazi=te if additional action is necessary. We also noted at the meeting that the UGNIFF -was intended as a set of interim measures to help begin implementing the Region 2040 Growth Concept The UGNIFP implements the regional adoption of :he 2040 Growth Concept by requiring local adoption or F . ,scedfic :evinons to Comprehensive Plans and zoning and development codes. Further, Ioc31 elected officals, through ..WAC, requested that Metro adopt the UGNff'? requiremeents. To that extent, the UGti�i' is not strictly a Metro doa2ate L It was developed through consensus of all jurisdictions and tt a public The U-Qv ? represents a set or measures that are minimum standards. However, vie=o staff would generaUv support instances where local jurisdictions exceed the minimums where a public process etas determined it appropriate. Finaily, we also recognize that many of these requirements are new and do not have a history of implementation tecdhniques. We therefore expect a certain amount of __ fle.-d'aility in meeting the letter of these requirements, wiLiie also expec'rng that the intent of these recuirezrierits will be maintained. Page Specific Comments Following are our responses to specific comments and questions raised at the meeting. I . Comment: ?Ire group as+l'ed for darifrration as to the general intent, purpose, and benefits of the Design Standards for Street Connectivity as required in Titk 6, Section 3 of the UG,%fFP. Response: The UGN FP notes that the effectiveness of the regional transportation system is impacted when local travel is restricted by a lack of connecting routes Local traffic is then forced onto the regional network. In addition. the preliminary results of Metro's Street Design Study (currently underway) show that street connectivity reduces vehicle miles of travel by providing direct routes to the collector and arterial systems: and that additional connections are conducive to increased use of alternative modes (more direct access to transit walldng and biking is less circuitous. etc). 2. Comment Public street right"J-taay and other dockpment requbinnerets (landscaping, sidewalks) =u render the pn*vrti s in the area undee gxtble- Response: Metro staff noted at the meeting that we have supported the concept of 'skinny" streets in the past as one way to help maxmiz,e densities - within developments and to avoid overbuilding streets where traditional. rights -of- way sews excessive. For example, the City of Portland allows rights -of- -way as narrow as 46 feet in some areas. This is significantly less than normal minimum right- of-way requirements of 60 feet for local streets. We would support exploring the option of skinny streets with the City of Tigard for streets internal to commercial and /or mixed use developments within the Triangle. We also noted that pedestrian connections (primarily sidewalks) are required from streets to building entryways under the Transportation Planning Rule. 'Those connections should already be included in the developable land calculations. Siur ilady, landscape requiremmus are generally the rule, not the exception within most Iocal codes, and have been for a number of years. Landscape is should also already be included in any developable land calcalationns and should not be a surprise to most developers. 3. Comment: Car 'T- ixtersw!ioru be &Cluded as wart of the S to 20 street carmen ions per :nine cslc-alation (street connections at internals no I&-.s that emery 660 fret)? Resportse: We noted that the liGMFP does not svecifically address this cuestion. However, our pre:ece is for full inmrsec maximize in orcfer maximize traiac operations and safety. We also understand that circumstances may result in a few partial connections in certain areas. Whether the intersections are full or partial, we would expect the 3 to 20 standard to be met on both sides of a sweet wee_ -e conditions allow. Title o, Section 3�A..I.h. and Section 3.B. describe tile - situations where closed street syswms may be necessary. These situations may result due to topography, pre - existing development, barriers such as railroads or ways, or environmental consmints such as major seams or rivers. 4. Cimment: Gn strrets be included as part of tine 3 to Arect connections per mule =lcilation Response: Public streets are the preference. However, private streets may be allowed but should generally have the appearance of a public right of way and be adequately constructed to accommodate the size and weight of vehicles common to the street function and underlying zoning. By the term 'appearance,' the street should include curb and sidewalk appropriate Lane makings, and should connect with other private or public streets. To be counted, private streets must allow free public access and circulation 5. Com ene What mas intended by the term "kcal origin' under the Performance Option of Title 6, Section 3.8.2? Response: As a set of minimum standards. Section 3.8.2 was written for residential areas or mixed use areas that include residential It was understood that in those areas. buildings are set either at the street or at a short, h- significant distance back Frown the property lime consistent with State Transportation Planning Rule requirements. There was no need to differentiate whether local origin was the property line or the front door. When drafted. this section was not written for large commercial only land uses. As I stated at the meeting, if Metro staff were asked to re -draft the language fior large comae:cal deveiopmmts, we would likely recommend that the hunt door be the point of local origin. With the front door borigin, it would ensure a shortest path for pedestrians to a arterial street Any re -draft of the UG`MFP would require MPAC and Metro Council action. I hope this Ietter helps you and the meeting participants better understand our Functional Plan and will help fadlitate the process for development in the Tigard Triangle. As we agreed. I would appreciate you circulating this letter to the other non - sta. f meeting participants. If you have questions or if I may be of further help, please call me at 797- 1733. Stncereiy, ,fchael Hoglund Transportation Planning Manager cc Tom :Coster Mary Webb -- Lax-.v :thaw Leo F-uif, ODOT J'= Hmdrrx, Gtv of Tigard NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL/DENIAL This form must be mailed to DLCD as required by OAR 660 -18 -040 Jurisdiction City of Tigard Local File # ZOA 97 -0003 Date Notice of Proposed Amendment was mailed to DLCD? 7/10/97 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment X Land Use Regulation Amendment Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Zoning Map Amendment New Land Use Regulation Summary of Proposed Action (Write a brief description of the proposed action.) Proposal to provide an adjustment process to allow skinny streets in private ownership to meet the requirements for connectivity within the General Commercial /C -G zone of the Tigard Triangle This Proposal Was: X Withdrawn Local Contact: Nadine Smith Address: 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard OR 97223 Denied Phone: (503) 639 -4171 Send this form to: Department of Land Conservation and Development 1175 Court Street, N.E. Salem, OR 97310 -0590 DLCD File # DLCD Field Representative i UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE i� 1 • Print your name, address, and ZIP Code in this box • First -Class Mail Postage & Fees Paid f USPS { Permit No. G -10 I City of Tigard Planning Division A77"N= ✓101"" 13125 SW Hall Boulevard CITY OF TIGARD Tigard, Oregon 97223 CPA 91 -01; CPA 92 -07; ZOA 92 -04; ZOA 93 -01; CPA 93 -09; ZOA 93 -07; CPA 94 -02; CPA 94 -04; CPA.96 -01; CPA 96 -04; ZON 96 -06; CPA 94 -01; ZOA 97 -03; ZOA 97 -05 a; SENDER: I I also wish to receive the 13 y ■ Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. ■ Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b. , following S2NIC2S (for an a) ■ Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can retum this extra fee): m card to you. ■ Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not 1. El Addressee's Address v permit. ■ Write 'Return Receipt Requested* on the mailplece below the article number. 2. ❑ Restricted Delive ry 2 4) N 4) ■ The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date Consult postmaster for fee. .. CL 4 0 delivered. 3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Article Number -414, z ,2,57/ 0 E DEPT OF LAND CONSERVATION & DEV 4b. Service Type ❑Registered ❑Certified CO) 1175 COURT STREET NE ❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured SALEM OR 97310 -0590 ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ COD. 3 4777 /- % Awl # LOOS 7. Date of Delivery F o P 5. Received By: (Print Name) 8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested { and fee is paid) ca I L ~ i 6. Sig na e: (Addy ssee or Agent) X�Yh- a t T PS Form 3811, December 1994 102595 -98-&0229 Domestic Return Receipt R A&MC DIVMM.. #'1"/v'• III VI J ^' Z 463 251 392 US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail (See reverse -r `DEPT OF LAND CONSERVATION & DEV '1175 COURT STREET NE l SALEM OR 97310 -0590 Postage $ ` CerVied Fee Special Delivery Feed O V ee -" Restricted Delivery F-/--"l' L3 ti n r t� Q n� U-) l Retum Receipt Sho t{g t _ Whom & Date Deliv red .Q UQ Retum Receipt Stowing Date, & Addressee's t j M 0 TOTAL Postage & Fee Ol ch Postmark or Date r-(V M 0) o LL Ott W U A co �U NITY NEWSPAPER9 INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684 -0360 Notice TT 8 9 0 2 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising RECEIVED • City of Tigard ❑ Tearsheet Notice AUG 18 1997 13125 Sti4 Hall Blvd. • Tigard , Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit CITY OF TIGARD • Accounts Payable • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION A STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ass. 1, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tian rd —Tua 1 n i n Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at T i a rrl in the aforesaid county and state; that the ZOA 97 -0003 Tigard Triangle a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for OTSP. successive and consecutive in the following issues: August 14,1997 VNIMAL 6tAL JACaUEUNE ARGI I A 0 10 NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 301011 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE Q. 2001 Subscribed and swo to befoW me this 14th day of Aucrust, 1997 i Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT a • IThe following will bey considered by the Tigard City Council on Tuesday, i August 26, 1997; at 7:30 P.M., at the Tigard Civic Center —Town Hall Room, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223. Both'public oral and written testimony is invited'.-The public hearing on this matter will be ;.conducted in- accordance with the rules of Chapter' 18;32 of the Tigard 'r ;:Municipal Code and rules and procedures of the Tigard City Council. :Failiire to`rase an issue-in person or by letter at some point prior to the 'close�o€ tbe;hYearing on theXrequest of failure to provide statements or Y : °evidence""sufficient -to afford the decisionmaker an opportunity` to respond T. _._ �, recl"udes' an qtp the issue pnoito the.-cibse of the hearing on. a "request; p s L� a7 .. o the Y;and,'TJse Board,of A ' eal >iased on that issue: Further tnformahon may be obtained' "from the Planning- Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard,'Oregon 97223, or by calling 639 -4171 .. iP��] 11r uFp�RiNGS., ., UD �'..�..'.""k.- ��w�1RT1TT /�iA�i the py y �W _TigardTnangetoallo%i thepr'ovtsion`o nvate owne s {1yy{y l.WYHr* �* - ) t- N .L +v T3 [o aAeetrth`e;connecti lt�i standards m Commercial Generp'iopne using an d stmen proc d inorially; mmo revtsions�are ro osw to the J , § .f' .- .s gn --r- - andards= within the designstand to clarify ihe.all ATIO o freeway oriented signs�wrt 99W wesof I S,;and nor ho f H g h aY; Generally;'sfluhSpf,Highway Statev�nde`. Planning G&W 217APPL` ICABLL 'REV1�Ew,'C-p�TEPIlA�es� -a 21 >t_14,1997 .. ` _ . Z0;4c�l -7-03 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes August 4, 1997 1. CALL TO ORDER President Wilson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town .Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Wilson; Commissioners Anderson, Griffith, Holland, Neff, Padgett, and Scolar Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Collson and DeFrang Staff Present: Nadine Smith, Planning Supervisor; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS The Commission was advised that the next meeting would be August 25, 1997. 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4.1 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 97 -0003 STREET STANDARDS ADJUSTMENT IN THE CG ZONE OF THE TIGARD TRIANGLE REQUEST: Request to amend the adopted design standards for the Tigard Triangle to allow the provision of privately owned "skinny" streets to meet the connectivity standards in Commercial General zone using an adjustment process. Additionally, minor revisions are proposed to the signing standards within the design standards to clarify the allowance of freeway oriented signs within the Tigard Triangle. LOCATION: Generally, south of Highway 99W, west of 1 -5, and north of Highway 217. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.a, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.3, 8.1.8 (f). Community Development Code Chapters 18.30, Triangle Design Standards. ZONE: Commercial General (CG), Mixed Use Employment (MUE). STAFF REPORT Planning Supervisor Nadine Smith presented the staff report on behalf of the City. She reported that Council had requested this specific standard be brought back for consideration, as well as to clarify freeway signing. She referred to Exhibit A in the staff report for the new language. She said this would add another option for street connectivity in the .Tigard Triangle. She said Council felt this particular language was appropriate enough to be separate from any other. considerations to PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - August 4, 1997 - Page 1 • 0 changes in the design standards and wanted it to go through the process prior to any other changes. , Smith said this language would allow for the standards to be met through a private street rather than a public street. She said the existing language provides a design option which requires a public street every 660 feet, or a performance option which requires local street spacing of approximately 8 street intersections per mile. Smith advised that the additional language provides for private streets that could be met at a skinnier standard and the street could also count for landscaping requirements. She said this provides for connectivity, allows it to remain in private ownership, allows the City not to have maintenance responsibilities for all the streets, and allows a developer to incorporate a normal driveway with pedestrian and landscaping enhancements to meet the standard that would normally require a public street. Commissioner Holland asked if a developer could control who uses the private street.. Smith answered no, that the street would have to remain open to the . public.. She said there is some concern that by allowing private streets, they may not be maintained properly. - She noted a provision, in the language that, if necessary, allows the City Engineer to require the street to become public. . President Wilson asked "about the right -of -way in terms of private development. Smith answered that the right -of -way would be privately owned, but there is a standard width the developer has to meet for pavement, as well as sidewalk and landscaping.. Smith said Council has also asked for clarification that freeway signs will still be allowed in the Triangle. Commissioner Neff asked about the wording "take jurisdiction" in #3d. Smith answered that it means to take over the jurisdiction, but does not mean to condemn. She said the intent was to allow for the City to take over if the private right -of -way became unusable. She reported that Council had concerns about more private streets, but with this language we would have the ability to have properly maintained private streets. It also allows more flexibility for people trying to develop in the Triangle. Smith said that where there is large lot development, this would give the developer another option to meet the access requirement, basically by providing a commercial driveway with some landscaping and sidewalks. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 4, 1997 - Page 2 Commissioner Padgett remarked that he does .not like the terminology "take jurisdiction ". He asked how the City addresses poorly maintained streets now, outside the Triangle. Smith answered that we do not take jurisdiction of them. Padgett then asked if there would be a separate standard for the Triangle. Smith answered that this has been requested by City Council and that it may be the start of something citywide. Padgett asked, because of the narrowness of a private street with no onstreet parking, if this could diminish parking. Smith noted that normally retail developers on large lots provide much more parking than is necessary. She said that even under the 2040 plan, which has maximum parking, the 2040 standards are not that different from ours. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR No one signed up to speak in favor of this proposal. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION Mike Robinson, 900 SW Fifth, Suite 2300, Portland, OR 97204, testified that his law firm represents the Act III Theaters and Eagle Hardware. He referred to' copies of letters that he sent to the. Commission (Exhibits A and B). He said his clients reluctantly do not support amendments to allow narrow streets, however this position might change. Robinson listed 3 reasons for not supporting the change. First, his clients do not believe it makes it easier to develop large CG parcels in the Triangle. He noted that the streets would still have to be 48'. Also, the streets would not necessarily be designed to serve users on the site, but instead would distribute local traffic in the area. His clients don't feel they should be required to assist the city in moving traffic to other areas unless the impacts of their development require it. Second, Robinson referred to criterion #3d. He said the phrase "take jurisdiction" means take over. He said if the point of the language is make sure, the road is maintained, there are better ways to do it. He noted that the language says "...determination of the City Engineer to meet area circulation needs." He said this does not sound like a concern of whether the road is being maintained. He suggested the possibility of requiring a maintenance agreement with the property owner, then the City has the right to do repairs and bill the property owner. He also brought up the scenario of tenants who have a long term lease. In that case, the tenant may not have permission to give away their landlord's land. Third, Robinson said the adjustment process is difficult to use. He said the Metro Functional Plan, Title Two, requires all cities to eventually establish a cap on parking. He noted that too much available parking would persuade people to use a car rather than walking or using mass transit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - August 4, 1997 - Page 3 = • • Robinson recommended deferring action until Council takes a broader look at the design guidelines. Commissioner Padgett observed that adoption of the new language might not make it easier to develop property, but it does not make it harder. He noted that having another option does not make it mandatory. Robinson questioned whether there is a need for connectivity standards in the Triangle. He referred to the Metro letter which states the connectivity standards section was not written for large commercial only land uses. Robinson stated that this language does not take into account whether a site requires connectivity or whether there's anything to connect to. Commissioner Griffith asked why City Council wanted to break this specific item out of the package. Nadine Smith answered that Council heard from various sources that there are problems for developers of large retail users and that Council requested staff to come back with suggestions for more flexibility in the standards. She said Council found this language to be more flexible and appropriate. Smith reported on a workshop that was held to discuss retail development and the design standards. She said a report would be sent back to the Council which should give them the information they need to decide what works and what doesn't . work. She said Council wanted to move this particular piece forward. Darlene Wozniak, 14200 SW Fern, Tigard, OR 97223, stated she had been on the task force. She acknowledged that she had missed several meetings, but did not believe that the standards were finished correctly. She feels that the standards need "tweaking" and does not believe the problems can be fixed piecemeal. She urged taking time to work on the standards as a package. Tim Roth, 13779 SW Charleston, Tigard, OR 97224, stated that he also was on the task force. He said the 660/330 design option from the Metro Function Plan is intended for residential and mixed use. He said the task force was guided into accepting the language from the Metro Functional Plan because they were led to believe it was a requirement that the City adopt the Metro plan. He said the adopted language was applied across the whole plat, the CG zone as well as the mixed use zoning. Roth said the original Transportation Plan was discussed and the consensus from task force members was that they did not want to see a grid system. He said they felt there was enough existing dedicated right -of -ways to service internal transportation - it was not necessary for the City to require more right -of -ways. He is in opposition to the addition of this dedication language. He believes a study PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - August 4, 1997 - Page 4 should be taken of the existing dedicated right -of -ways to determine if they are needed to complete the transportation plan of the Triangle. Gordon Martin, 12265 SW 72nd Ave., Tigard, OR 97223, agreed with Mr. Roth. He said it is necessary to interpret the term "local origin ". He said Metro gives a recommended definition to the term as being at the street for vehicles and at the front door for pedestrians. He said he supports Metro's definition. Martin said he is only concerned about main portals to get in and out of the Triangle, not the interior circulation. He believes that existing dedicated right -of- ways will take care of themselves. Martin pointed out that the City would take jurisdiction of the private streets for circulation purposes, not to meet maintenance needs. He said he would not oppose having maintenance agreements. He noted that retailers need control over their parking lots. They want the lots for their customers, not used as a park and ride for people to park and take the bus. In closing, Martin reiterated the need to address the terminology for local origin. He said the performance option is relevant to the design standards. He noted that the Metro plan is designed to limit vehicle miles traveled and having dedicated streets inside of a development is not going to limit miles traveled. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Padgett advised that he had been on the task force. He said that originally the task force had looked at the entire Triangle as being the MUE zoning. Then late in the process, it was split so that part of it was CG and part was MUE, with 72nd Ave. being the'dividing line. He did not believe it was the intent of the task force to apply the strict Metro grid standards to the CG parcels. He said it doesn't necessarily improve connectivity because they don't connect to anything within the parcel. Padgett said he thinks City Council might adding this option to the design standards to placate people who object to a grid system inside the CG zone. He thinks the City should address the need for streets, both public and private, inside CG parcels. Padgett said he can't agree with the language in #3c or #3d. He thinks better language can be adopted, specifically looking at the maintenance issue of a private street as opposed to the circulation issues. He suggested looking at maintenance agreements. Padgett said he did not believe the majority of the task force meant for the connectivity language to apply to the large CG parcels. He believes the language PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - August 4, 1997 - Page 5 9 . . 0 should be even more relaxed for large CG parcels - it needs more flexibility. He said a CG parcel is different from MUE, both in size and intent. He noted that most of the CG zone backs up to the freeway and has nowhere to go. There is a need for connectivity from arterials to their development, but not within the parcels themselves. He stated a need for a third option, one that is site specific - looking at what makes sense for a particular site. Padgett did support the language for freeway signs. Commissioner Anderson said she did not like the language in #3d. She noted a lack of criteria for enforcement and the statement was too general. She thought it might cause a lot of problems trying to enforce. Commissioner Holland said he saw this as being a special adjustment for the CG zone, but in practicality, developers would provide for the connectivity they need anyway. He said he also was bothered by the language in #3c and #3d. - Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend denial of ZOA 97 -0003 to City Council, based on testimony heard. Commissioner Holland seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously: Commissioner Padgett moved to recommend approval of the part of ZOA 97 -0003 that addressed freeway signing. Commissioner Griffith seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 5. OTHER BUSINESS None 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - August 4, 1997 - Page 6 = lry • • Agenda Item: 4.1 Hearing Date:August 4, 1997 Time: 7:30 PM STAFF REPORT CITY OFTIGARD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON CASE: FILE NAME: Street Standard Adjustment in the CG zone of the Tigard Triangle Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 97 -0003 PROPOSAL: Request to amend the adopted design standards for the Tigard Triangle to allow the provision of privately owned, "skinny" street to meet the connectivity standards in the Commercial General zone using an adjustment process. Additionally, minor revisions are proposed to the signing standards within the design standards to clarify the allowance of freeway oriented signs within the Tigard Triangle. APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: N/A 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 ZONING DESIGNATION: Commercial General (CG), Mixed Use Employment (MUE) LOCATION: Generally, south of Highway 99W, west of 1 -5, and north of Highway 217. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.3, 8.1.8(f). Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and adopted design standards for the Tigard Triangle. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance amendments according to the findings found in Section III of this report. Staff Report City of Tigard/ZOA 97 -0003 Page 1 On March 11, 1997, City Council approved design standards for the Tigard Triangle that incorporate specific requirements for street connectivity. To add flexibility to the standards, staff was directed by City Council to provide an option through an adjustment process to meet the street connectivity standards through the provision of a private street with a narrower right of way width in the CG zone. Additionally, City Council requested that staff clarify in the standards that freeway signing as currently allowed by the development code, continues to apply to the Triangle. It should be noted that City Council's direction was to consider only these two issues and not to reconsider any other Triangle design standard at this time. •Z I NJ 2 1,'! 9► Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement. Notice of the hearings and opportunity for response was advertised in the local newspaper and request for comments were sent to all CITs, DLCD, and all other impacted agencies. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning. Adoption of implementation measures is provided for under Goal 2 and ORS 197. The proposed ordinance requirements fine -tune existing adopted and acknowledged ordinance requirements. Goal 12 - Transportation. Goal 12 requires a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The proposed amendment to allow private streets at a lesser right of way width will continue to meet Goal 12 requirements- for safe, convenient streets and will allow this to be accomplished in a more economic way in that less area of a lot will be devoted to pavement and that area may remain in private ownership. This will relieve the City of maintenance responsibility and will allow a developer to devote less area to meet connectivity requirements. 1.1.1 a. - This policy requires that legislative changes are consistent with statewide planning goals and the regional development plan. The findings above address statewide goals. Metro was sent a request for.comments and had earlier commented in a letter (attached) that they recommended the use of skinny streets to meet connectivity standards and could accept the use of private streets to meet those standards under certain circumstances. 2.1.1 - This policy requires an ongoing citizen involvement process. A request for comments was sent to the East Citizen Involvement Team and was legally advertised. Staff Report City of Tigard/ZOA 97 -0003 Page 2 2.1.2 - This policy requirlothe opportunity for citizen involvei4fent on planning efforts through the CIT process. The CIT notification process has been followed for this zoning ordinance amendment request. 2.1.3 - This policy requires that information on issues be available. The staff report and findings, and proposed ordinance have been available for review since July 11, 1997. 8.1.1 - This policy requires . that the city plan for a safe and efficient street system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. The ability to meet adjustment criteria to provide a private, skinny street will allow a safe, efficient transportation system and accommodate future growth. 8.1.2 - This policy requires that the City coordinate with other local, state and federal jurisdictions. The City has requested comments from all appropriate agencies. None have commented in writing on the specific proposals as of this writing. 8.1.3(a) - This policy requires that development abut a publicly dedicated street or have adequate access approved by the appropriate authority. The proposed development code amendment sets out a method for an alternative provision of transportation facilities be approved by the appropriate authority. 8.1.8(f) - This policy defines the requirements within the Tigard Triangle for street spacing. Since the proposed amendments allow this policy to be met through an alternative provision, this policy is met. Chapter 18.30 - This code section establishes the procedures for legislative amendments to the Community Development Code. The provisions of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards have not yet been codified into the Development Code. The first two paragraphs of the introductory comments to the provisions express the intent of the design standards. They are as follows: "Design standards for public street improvements and for new development and renovation projects have been prepared for the Tigard Triangle. These design standards address several important guiding principals adopted for the Tigard Triangle, including creating a high - quality mixed use employment area, providing a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system within the Triangle, and utilizing streetscape to create a high quality image for the area. All new developments, including remodeling and renovation projects resulting in non single family residential uses, are expected to contribute to the character and quality of the area. In addition to meeting the design standards described below and other development standards required by the Development and Building Codes, developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets, connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage, and participate in Staff Report City of Tigard20A 97-0003 Page 3 • fundin future transportation and public improvements prPects necessary within the Tigard Triangle." The proposal to modify the standards to allow flexibility in one aspect of provision of connectivity under specific circumstances will continue to meet the goals and intent for the development of the Triangle, in that it provides flexibility while still requiring connections within the Triangle. The proposal to modify the signing standards to allow the continued use of freeway oriented signs reflects the past commitment of the City in considering where such signing is appropriate. The specific changes to the Design Standards are indicated in attached Exhibit A. The City of Tigard Engineering, Planning, and Public Works have reviewed this proposal and offer no comments specific to the proposal. A AGENCY COMMENTS As of the writing of this report, no agency comments have been received. PREPARED BY: Nadine Smith Planning Supervisor 7/9/97 DATE Staff Report City of Tigard20A 97 -0003 Page 4 Exhibit A New language is indicated by bolding. L� A. Street Connectivity. All development must demonstrate how one of the following standard options will be met. Variance of these standards may be approved per the requirements of Chapter 18.134 where topography, barriers such as railroads or freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams and rivers prevent street extensions and connections. 1. Design Option a. Local street spacing shall provide public street connections at intervals of no more than 660 feet b. Bike and pedestrian connections on public easements or right -of -way shall be provided at intervals of no more than 330 feet 2. Performance Option a. Local street spacing shall occur at intervals of no less than eight street intersections per mile. b. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than one and one -half the straight -line distance. Additional Language: 3. Special Adjustment for CG Zone within the Tigard Triangle The purpose of this section is to provide flexibility in meeting the need for vehicular connectivity on sites in the Tigard Triangle that are zoned Commercial General. This provision is not intended to eliminate the need for vehicular and pedestrian connectivity, but to allow flexibility in location and design. This will allow the provision of a private street with reduced right of way widths from that of a local street under certain circumstances as defined below. The Planning Director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application to provide a private street to meet the requirements found in Section of the Design Standards for the Tigard Triangle. The requirement for vehicular and pedestrian connectivity may be met in the following way: a. A private street may be built to public structural standards at a minimum width of 48 feet of right of way with 24' of improvement, curb to curb, and six foot sidev%alks separated by six feet of landscaping. b. The applicant shall demonstrate that adequate on site parking exists to allow the elimination of on street parking on the proposed street and to allow the reduced right of way width. c. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed private street provides vehicular circulation through the site and opportunities for connectivity to surrounding areas. • • d. Private streets shall be allowed by the creation of an agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, that the City may take jurisdiction of the street if required in the determination of the City Engineer to meet area circulation needs. To clarify signing standards: New language indicated by bolding 0. Signs. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.114 of the Development Code the following standards shall be met: 1. Zoning district regulations - Residential only developments within the CG and MUE zones shall meet the sign requirements for the R -25 zone (18.114.1308); non - residential developments with the C-G zone shall meet the sign requirements for the commercial zones (18.114.130C), Including the allowance for freeway oriented sign(s), and non - residential development within the MUE zone shall meet the sign requirements of the C -P zone (18.114.130D). 1:%LRPLN%NAO I NEITRIANGLE W OJ.00C Special Adjustment for CG Zone within the Tigard Triangle The purpose of this section is to provide flexibility in meeting the need for vehicular connectivity on sites in the Tigard Triangle that are zoned Commercial General. This provision is not intended to eliminate the need for vehicular and pedestrian connectivity, but to allow flexibility in location and design. This will allow the provision of a private street with reduced right of way widths from that of a local street under certain circumstances as defined below. The Planning Director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application to provide a private street to meet the requirements found in Section of the Design Standards for the Tigard Triangle. The requirement for vehicular and pedestrian connectivity may be met in the following way: A private street may be built to public structural standards at a minimum width of 48 feet of right of way with 24' of improvement, curb to curb, and six foot sidewalks separated by six feet of landscaping. 2. The applicant shall demonstrate that adequate on site parking exists to allow the elimination of on street parking on the proposed street and to allow the reduced right of way width. 3. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed private street provides vehicular circulation through the site and opportunities for connectivity to surrounding areas. 4. Private streets shall be allowed by the creation of an agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, that the City may take jurisdiction of the street if required in the determination of the City Engineer to meet area circulation needs. I: \LRPL"ADINE\TRIANGLE\ADJ. DOC STATE OF OREGON County of Washington City of Tigard �J AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING ) ss. • I, Jerree L. Gaynor, being first duly sworn /affirm, on oath depose and say: That I am a Department Secretary for The City of Tigard, Oregon. ,i�L CITY OF TIGARD OREGON X That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planning Director X Tigard Planning Commission Tigard Hearings Officer X Tigard City Council A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE of which is attached, marked Exhibit "A ", was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit "B ", on the n/a day of n/a, 1997; said PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE as hereto attached, was posted on an appropriate bulletin board on the 14th day of July, 1997 and deposited in the United States Mail on the n/a day of n/a , 1997, postage prepaid. Notice Subscribed and sworn /affirmed before me on the day of , 19_. NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON My Commission Expires: OPUBLIC HEARING • T!XHIBITj..0 NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BEFORE THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION ON MONDAY, Monday, August 4, 1997, AT 7:30 P.M. AND BEFORE THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL, ON TUESDAY, Tuesday, August 26, 1997, AT 7:30 P.M. HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED IN THE TOWN HALL AT TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, LOCATED AT 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON. THESE HEARINGS ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 97 -0003 Street Standards Adjustment in the CG zone of the Tigard Triangle REQUEST: Request to amend the adopted design standards for the Tigard Triangle to allow the provision of privately owned "skinny" streets to meet the connectivity standards in Commercial General zone using an adjustment process. Additionally, minor revisions are proposed to the signing standards within the design standards to clarify the allowance of freeway oriented signs within the Tigard Triangle. LOCATION: Generally, south of Highway 99W, west of 1 -5, and north of Highway 217. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.a, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.3, 8.1.8 (f). Community Development Code Chapters 18.30, Triangle Design Standards. ZONE: Commercial General (CG), Mixed Use Employment (MUE). THE PUBLIC HEARINUS ON I Hlb MATTER WILL BE GUNDUL; I LU IN ACCORDANCE WITH I HE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30 OF THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639 -4171, EXT. 323 (VOICE) OR (503) 684 -2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF), NO LESS THAN ONE (1) WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARINGS TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO, OR AT, THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, THE HEARING BODY WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE HEARING BODY MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER July 14, 1997, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. A REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN CAN BE MADE 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 HEARING BODY WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THERITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEAS, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT -COMMENTS RELATING TO THFIREQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALL O THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO AFFORD THE DECISIONMAKER AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST, PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE -NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY -FIVE CENTS PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY -FIVE CENTS PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER, Nadine Smith. AT (503) 639- 4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON. i • • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, Jerree L. Gaynor, being first duly sworn /affirm, on oath depose and say: That I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for The City of Tigard, Oregon. That I mailed a NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO: Oregon DLCD 1175 Court Street, N.E. Salem, OR 97310 -0590 A,�� CITY OF TIGARD OREGON A copy of the NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT of whigh is attached, marked Exhibit "A ", was deposited in the United States Mail on the _/a ay of 1997, postage prepaid. Notice Subscribed and sworn /affirmed before me on the Lary of , 19TZ OFFICIAL SEAL DIANE M JELDERKS NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON COMMISSION NO. 046142 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07, 1999 NOTARY PU16X OF OREG N My Commission Expires: 9 / NOTIC F PROPOSED AMI*DMENFfHIBTT -fi- This form must be received by DLCD at least 45 days prior to the final hearing ORS 197.610 and OAR Chapter 660, Division 18 See reverse side for submittal requirements Jurisdiction City of Tigard Date of Final Hearing August 26, 1997 Local File # ZOA 97 -0003 Has this proposal been previously submitted to DLCD? ___Yes xNo 7/9/97 Date Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment x Land Use Regulation Amendment Zoning Map Amendment __ New Land Use Regulation Briefly summarize the proposal. Do not use technical terms. Do not write "See Attached." Proposal to provide an_adiustment process to allow "skinny" streets in private ownership to meet the requirements for connectivity within the CG zone of the Tigard Triangle. i Additional proposal to clarify that freeway oriented signs will continue to be allowed within the Tigard Triangle Plan Map Change From . n/a to n/a Zone Map Change From n/a to n/a Location: Tigard Triangle Acres Involved: Approx. 340 Specified change in Density: 'Current Density n/a Proposed Density n/a Applicable Goals: 1. 2 and 12 Is an Exception proposed? __ Yes x No Affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: ODOT. Metro Local Contact: Nadine Smith Phone: 639 -4171, Ext. 388 Address: 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard. OR 97223 DLCD File # ------ Date Rec'd ----- — # Days Notice______ *UBMITTAL REQUIREMENT ORS 197.610 and OAR Chapter 660, Division 18 Send this Form and Three (3) Copies of the Proposed Amendment to: Department of Land Conservation and Development 1175 Court Street, N.E. Salem, Oregon 97310 -0590 2. Unless exempt by ORS 197.610 (2), proposed amendments must be received at the Salem DLCD office at least 45 days before thefinal hearing on the proposal. 3. Submittal of proposed amendments shall include the text of the amendment and any other information the local government believes is necessary to advise DLCD of the proposal. "Text" means the specific language being added to or deleted from the acknowledged plan or land use regulations. A general description of the proposal is not adequate. 4. Submittal of proposed "map" amendments must include a map of the affected area showing existing and proposed plan and zone designations. The map should be on 8 1/2 by 11 inch paper. A legal description, tax account number, address or general description is not adequate. 5. Submittal of proposed amendments which involve a goal exception must include the proposed language of the exception. If you need more copies of this form, copy it on green paper or call the DLCD office at 503 -373- 0050. EXEWT. Agenda Item: Hearing Date: July 24, 1997 Time: 7:30 PM STAFF REPORT CITY OF TIGARD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 1. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASE: FILE NAME: Street "Standard Adjustment in the CG zone of the Tigard Triangle Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 97 -0003 • PROPOSAL: Request to amend the adopted design standards for the Tigard Triangle to allow the provision of privately owned, "skinny" street to meet the connectivity standards in the Commercial General zone using an adjustment process. Additionally, minor revisions are proposed to the signing standards within the design standards to clarify the allowance of freeway oriented signs within the Tigard Triangle. APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: N/A 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 ZONING DESIGNATION: Commercial General (CG), Mixed Use Employment (MUE) LOCATION: Generally, south of Highway 99W, west of 1 -5, and north of Highway 217. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.3, 8.1.8(f). Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and adopted design standards for the Tigard Triangle. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance amendments according to the findings found in Section III of this report. Staff Report City of Tigard/ZOA 97 -0003 Page 1 III. BACKGROU N A FORMATION On March 11, 1997, City Council approved design standards for the Tigard Triangle that incorporate specific requirements for street connectivity. To add flexibility to the standards, staff was directed by City Council to provide an option through an adjustment process to meet the street connectivity standards through the provision of a private street with a narrower right of way width in the CG zone. Additionally, City Council requested that staff clarify in the standards that freeway signing as currently allowed by the development code, continues to apply to the Triangle. It should be noted that City Council's direction was to consider only these two issues and not to reconsider any other Triangle design standard at this time. IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS LCDC Goals: Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement. Notice of the hearings and opportunity for response was advertised in the local newspaper and request for comments were sent to all CITs, DLCD, and all other impacted agencies. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning. Adoption of implementation measures is provided for under Goal 2 and ORS 197. The proposed ordinance requirements fine -tune existing adopted and acknowledged ordinance requirements. Goal 12 - Transportation. Goal 12 requires a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The proposed amendment to allow private streets at a lesser right of way width will continue to meet -Goal 12 requirements for safe, convenient streets and will allow this to be accomplished in a more economic way in that less area of a lot will be devoted to pavement and that area may remain in private ownership. This will relieve the City of maintenance responsibility and will allow a developer to devote less area to meet connectivity requirements. Comprehensive Plan Policies: 1.1.1 a. - This policy requires that legislative changes are consistent with statewide planning goals and the regional development plan. The findings above address statewide goals. Metro was sent a request for comments and had earlier commented in a letter (attached) that they recommended the use of skinny streets to meet connectivity standards and could accept the use of private streets to meet those standards under certain circumstances. 2.1.1 - This policy requires an ongoing citizen involvement process. A request for comments was sent to the East Citizen Involvement Team and was legally advertised. Staff Report City of Tigard/ZOA 97 -0003 Page 2 2.1.2 - This policy req& the opportunity for citizen invoaent on planning efforts through the CIT process. The CIT notification process has been followed for this zoning ordinance amendment request. 2.1.3 - This policy requires that information on issues be available. The staff report and findings, and proposed ordinance have been available for review since July 11, 1997. 8.1.1 - This policy requires that the city plan for a safe and efficient street system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. The ability to meet adjustment criteria to provide a private, skinny street will allow a safe, efficient transportation system and accommodate future growth. 8.1.2 - This policy requires that the City coordinate with other local, state and federal jurisdictions. The City has requested comments from all appropriate agencies. None have commented in writing on the specific proposals as of this writing. 8.1.3(a) - This policy requires that development abut a publicly dedicated street or have adequate access approved by the appropriate authority. The proposed development code amendment sets out a method for an alternative provision of transportation facilities be approved by the appropriate authority. 8.1.8(f) - This policy defines the requirements within the Tigard Triangle for street spacing. Since the proposed amendments allow this policy to be met through an alternative provision, this policy is met. Community Development Code: Chapter 18.30 - This code section establishes the procedures for legislative amendments to the Community Development Code. Tigard Triangle Design Standards The provisions of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards have not yet been codified into the Development Code. The first two paragraphs of the introductory comments to the provisions express the intent of the design standards. They are as follows: "Design standards for public street improvements and for new development and renovation projects have been prepared for the Tigard Triangle. These design standards address several important guiding principals adopted for the Tigard Triangle, including creating a high - quality mixed use employment area, providing a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system within the Triangle, and utilizing streetscape to create a high quality image for the area. All new developments, including remodeling and renovation projects resulting in non single family residential uses, are expected to contribute to the character and quality of the area. In addition to meeting the design standards described below and other development standards required by the Development and Building Codes, developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets, connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage, and participate in Staff Report City of Tigard/ZOA 97 -0003 Page 3 funding future tran,rtation and public improvements plects necessary within the Tigard Triangle." The proposal to modify the standards to allow flexibility in one aspect of provision of connectivity under specific circumstances will continue to meet the goals and intent for the development of the Triangle, in that it provides flexibility while still requiring connections within the Triangle. The proposal to modify the signing standards to allow the continued use of freeway oriented signs reflects the past commitment of the City in considering where such signing is appropriate. The specific changes to the Design Standards are indicated in attached Exhibit A. V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Engineering, Planning, and Public Works have reviewed this proposal and offer no comments specific to the proposal. A AGENCY COMMENTS As of the writing of this report, no agency comments have been received. PREPARED BY: Nadine Smith Planning Supervisor 7/9/97 DATE Staff Report City of Tigard20A 97 -0003 Page 4 I-] Exhibit A New language is indicated by bolding. Existing Language: • A. Street Connectivity. All development must demonstrate how one of the following standard options will be met. Variance of these standards may be approved per the requirements of Chapter 18.134 where topography, barriers such as railroads or freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams and rivers prevent street extensions and connections. 1. Design Option a. Local street spacing shall provide public street connections at intervals of no more than 660 feet. b. Bike and pedestrian connections on public easements or right -of -way shall be provided at intervals of no more than 330 feet. 2. Performance Option a. Local street spacing shall occur at intervals of no less than eight street intersections per mile. b. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than one and one -half the straight -line distance. Additional Language: 3. Special Adjustment for CG Zone within the Tigard Triangle The purpose of this section is to provide flexibility in meeting the need for vehicular connectivity on sites in the Tigard Triangle that are zoned Commercial General. This provision is not intended to eliminate the need for vehicular and pedestrian connectivity, but to allow flexibility in location and design. This will allow the provision of a private street with reduced right of way widths from that of a local street under certain circumstances as defined below. The Planning Director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application to provide a private street to meet the requirements found in Section of the Design Standards for the Tigard Triangle. The requirement for vehicular and pedestrian connectivity may be met in the following way: a. A private street may be built to public structural standards at a minimum width of 48 feet of right of way with 24' of improvement, curb to curb, and six foot sidev%alks separated by six feet of landscaping. b. The applicant shall demonstrate that adequate on site parking exists to allow the elimination of on street parking on the proposed street and to allow the reduced right of way width. c. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed private street provides vehicular circulation through the site and opportunities for connectivity to surrounding areas. d. Private streets shall be allowed by the creation of an agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, that the City may take jurisdiction of the street if required in the determination of the City Engineer to meet area circulation needs. To clarify signing standards: New language indicated by bolding D. Signs. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.114 of the Development Code the following standards shall be met: 1. Zoning district regulations - Residential only developments within the CG and MUE zones shall meet the sign requirements for the R -25 zone (18.114.1306); non - residential developments with the C -G zone shall meet the sign requirements for the commercial zones (18.114.130C), including the allowance for freeway oriented sign(s), and non - residential development within the MUE zone shall meet the sign requirements of the C -P zone (18.114.130D). I:\LRPLN\NADINE \TRIANGLE\ADJ. DOC V, _ Yr METRO June 23, 1997 Gordon S. Martin, Jr. 12265 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Subject Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Issues; Tigard Triangle RECD JUN 24 1997 This letter summarizes and elaborates on the Metro staff comments made at our meeting of June 2 regarding issues associated with implementation of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP) in the Tigard Triangle area. In the meeting and in this letter, we are attempting to assist the parties in implementing the UGMFP. Our comments explain our approach to administering the UGMFP provisions. Resolutions of any disputes or application of specific provisions must be addressed by MPAC and the Metro Council- General Comments As noted at the meeting, the authority for land use and transportation implementation actions within this area resides with the City of Tigard and with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The City has ultimate land use approval authority and both the City and ODOT have responsibility for the area's street and highway system. We will be contacting them both to update them on our conclusions and clarifications, identify any additional issues, and determine if additional action is necessary. We also noted at the meeting that the UGMFP -vas intended as a set of interim measures to help begin implementing the Region 2040 Growth Concept The UGMFP implements the regional adoption of the 2040 Growth Concept by requiring local adoption of specific revisions to Comprehensive Plans and zoning and development codes. Further, local elected officials, through MPAC, requested that Metro adopt the U(MviFP requirements. To that extent, the UGMFP is not strictly a M. etro document. It was developed through consensus of all Jurisdictions and the public. The UGMFP represents a set of measures that are minimum standards. However, Metro staff would generally support instances where local Jurisdictions exceed the minimums where a public process has determined it appropriate. Finally, we also recognize that many of these requirements are new and do not have a history of implementation techniques. We therefore expect a certain amount of _* flexibility in meeting the letter of these requirements, while also expecting that the intent of these requirements will be maintained. t..r.r.d r.... June 23, 1997 Page � • • Specific Comments Following are our responses to specific comments and questions raised at the meeting. 1. Comment: The group asked for clarification as to the general intent, purpose, and benefits of the Design Standards for Street Connectivity as required in. Title 6, Section 3 of the UGA►fFP. Response: The UGMFP notes that the effectiveness of the regional transportation system is impacted when local travel is restricted by a lack of connecting routes. Local traffic is then forced onto the regional network. In addition, the preliminary results of Metro's Street Design Study (currently underway) show that street connectivity reduces vehicle miles of travel by providing direct routes to the collector and arterial system; and that additional connections are conducive to increased use of alternative modes (more direct access to transit, walking and biking is less circuitous, etc.). 2. Comment Public street rights- ojLtaay and other development requirements (landscaping, sideuniks) will render the properties in the arcs undevelopable. Response: Metro staff noted at the meeting that we have supported the concept of "skinny"' streets in the past as one way to help aum m»P densities within developments and to avoid over - budding streets where traditional rights-of- way seem excessive. For,example, the City of Portland allows rights -of -way as narrow as 46 feet in some areas. This is significantly less than normal minimum right-of-way requirements of 60 feet for local streets. We would support exploring the option of skinny streets with the City of Tigard for streets internal to commercial and /or mixed use developments within the Triangle_ We also noted that pedestrian connections (primarily sidewalks) are required from streets to building entryways under the Transportation Planning Rule. Those connections should already be included in the developable land calculations. Similarly, landscape requirements are generally the rule, not the exception within most local codes, and have been for a number of years. Landscape requirements should also already be included in any developable land calculations and should not be a surprise to most developers. 3. Comment Can "T" iriier'ections be included as part of the 8 to 20 street connections per mile calculation (street connections at iitter=Ls no less than every 660 feet) ? Response: We noted that the UGMFP does not specifically address this question. However, our preference is for full intersections in order to maximize traffic operations and safety. We also understand that circumstances may result in a few partial connections in certain areas. Whether the intersections are full or partial, we would expect the 8 to 20 standard to be met on both sides of a street where conditions allow. Title 6, Section 3-A-11L and Section 3.B. describe the - situations where closed street systems may be necessary. These situations may result due to topography, pre - existing development, barriers such as railroads or freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams or rivers. une :J, ly5►i . • -IAage 3 • 4. Comment: Can private streets be included as part of the 8 to 20 street connections per mile calculation? Response: Public streets are the preference. However, private streets may be allowed but should generally have the appearance of a public right of way and be adequately constructed to aeconu nodate the size and weight of vehicles common to the street function and underlying zoning. By the tercet "appearance," the street should include curb and sidewalk, appropriate lane markings, and should connect with other private or public streets. To be counted, private streets must allow free public access and dreulation. S. Comment What was intended by the term "local origin" under the Performance Option of Title 6, Section 3.3.2? Response: As a set of minimum standards. Section 3.B2 was, written for residential areas or mixed use areas that include residential. It was understood that in those areas, buildings are set either at the street or at a short, insignificant distance back from the property line consistent with State Transportation Planning Rule requirements. There was no need to differentiate whether local origin was the property line or the front door. When drafted, this section was not written for large commercial only land uses. As I stated at the meeting, if Metro staff were asked to redraft the language for large commercial developments, we would likely recommend that the front door be the point of local origin. With the front door being the point of local origin, it would ensure a shortest path for pedestrians to a designated collector or arterial street Any re -draft of the UGMFF would require MPAC and Metro Council action I hope this letter helps you and the meeting participants better understand our Functional Plan and will help facilitate the process for development in the Tigard Triangle. As we agreed, I would appreciate you circulating this letter to the other non- staff meeting participants. If you have questions or if I may be of further help, please call me at 797 -1743. Sincerely, Michael Hoglund — Transportation Planning Manager cc Tom Kloster Mary Weber Larry Shaw Leo Huff, ODOT Jim Hendryx, City of Tigard m SENDER: l ■Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. I also wish to receive the I ■Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b. 7D L71 following services (for an l d ■ Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this extra fee): i card to you. this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not 1. ❑ Addressee's Address ai d■permit L Z d ■ Write'Retum Receipt Requested' on the mailpiece below the article number. 2• ❑ Restricted Delivery j .t. ■The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date ., o delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. E: 3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Articl Number d ' P 569 760 E E DEPT OF LAND CONSV & DEVEL 4b. Service Type d. `0' 1175 COURT ST. NE ❑ Registered UCertified ¢ w SALEM, OR 97310 -0590 ❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured y ' ❑ Return Receipt-for Merchandise ❑ COD a 7. Date ofeDelivbryi I 0 /r 0 5. Received By: (Print Name) 8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested c l u and fee is paid) t I g 6. Si re: (Addressee or A nt) ~ )T X I PS For, 3811, December 1994 Domestic Return Receipt P 474 569 760 US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. Receipt Sliowaig pate, � Addressee's Address�v' TOTAL P�ge & Fees_ �"� Poshna C4 CrJ 717 7D L71 LT7 G7 L Z Z aDo n not use for international man aed n7vvrae Sent to DLCD �tTJW'�OURT ST NE Post office, State, 8 ZIP Code SALEM OR 97310 -0590 Postage Certified Fee � S Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt Showing to 1 Whom 8 Date Delivered rs Return C4 CrJ 717 7D L71 LT7 G7 L Z Z aDo n TO: FROM: • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS Per Attached List Tigard Planning Division • Ai� CITY OF TIC OREGON DATE: June 27. 1997 STAFF CONTACT: Nadine Smith Phone: (503) 639 -4171 Fax: (503) 684 -7297 RE: ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 97 -0003 Street Standards Adjustment in the CG zone of the Tigard Triangle REQUEST: Request to amend the adopted design standards for the Tigard Triangle to allow the provision of privately owned "skinny" streets to meet the connectivity standards in Commercial General zone using an adjustment process. Additionally, minor revisions are proposed to the signing standards within the design standards to clarify the allowance of freeway oriented signs within the Tigard Triangle. LOCATION: Generally, south of Highway 99W, west of 1 -5, and north of Highway 217. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.a, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.3, 8.1.8 (f). Community Development Code Chapters 18.30, Triangle Design Standards. ZONE: Commercial General (CG), Mixed Use Employment (MUE) From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: Monday, July 7. 1997. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: (Please provide the following information) Name of Person Commenting: Phone Number: �C $AILING ADDRESS REFERENCES AND CORRESPONDING TYPEWRITER CODES TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE Fire Marshall Washington County Fire District (place in pick -up box) CITY OF BEAVERTON PO Box-4755 Beaverton, OR 97076 Larry Conrad, s.*. Pt.. Mike Matteucci, ww &m coca. CITY OF DURHAM City Manager PO Box 23483 Durham, OR 97281 -3483 CITY OF KING CITY City Manager 15300 SW 116th Avenue King City, OR 97224 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Planning Director PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 CITY OF PORTLAND David Knowles. Pwm.q smau (W. Portland Building 106. Rm. 1002 1120 SW Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97204 BURLINGTON NORTHERN R/R Administrative Office 1313 W. 11th Street Vancouver, WA 98660 -3000 COLUMBIA CABLE CO. Craig Eyestone 14200 SW Brigadoon Court Beaverton. OR 97005 GENERAL TELEPHONE Paul Koft, Engineering PO Box 23416 MC: OR030546 Tigard. OR 97281 -3416 TIGARD TIMES NEWSPAPER Donna Schmidt PO Box 370 Beaverton, OR 97075 SPECUL8181BICIS TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Administrative Office PO Box 745 Beaverton, OR 97075 tesu axe srnn iURISoIenaxs CITY OF TUALATIN Planning Director PO Box 369 Tualatin, OR 97062 METRO 600 NE Grand Avenue Portland. OR 97232 -2736 UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY Julia Huffman/SWM Program 155 N. First Street Hillsboro, OR 97124 OR. DEPT. OF FISH 3 WILDLIFE 2501 SW First Avenue PO Box 59 Portland. OR 97207 OR. DEPT. OF GEO. B MINERAL IND. 800 NE Oregon Street, Suite 5 Portland, OR 97232 _ Paulette Allen, oiowm mwwi;wrw%cow*=w OR. DEPT. OF LAND CONSERV.S DVLP. _ Mel Huie, Gmwmpwncowm owicPAvzoA•s) 1175 Court Street, NE Salem, OR 97310 -0590 METRO AREA BOUNDARY COMMISSION 800 NE Oregon Street OREGON DEPT. OF TRANS. (ODOT) Building #16, Suite 540 Aeronautics Division Portland, OR 97232 -2109 Attn: Tom Highland, Pion 3040 25th Street, SE OR. DEPT. OF ENERGY Salem, OR 97310 Bonneville Power Administration PO Box 3621 Routing TTRC - Attn: Renae Ferreira Portland, OR 97208 -3621 OREGON, DEPT. OF ENVIRON. QUALITY 811 SW Sixth Avenue Portland, OR 97204 ODOT, REGION 1 V Sonya Kazen, owvRS. Rw,. cows. 123 NW Flanders Portland, OR 97209 -4037 ODOT, REGION 1 - DISTRICT 2A Jane Estes. Pwnr speciew 2131 SW Scholls Ferry Road PO Box 25412 Portland, OR 97298 -0412 ontmr e,orIDEes, sreeuu aaaeiE& MD xEwM oFReEs METRO AREA COMMUNICATIONS Jason Hewitt Twin Oaks Technology Center 1815 NW 169th Place, S-6020 Beaverton, OR 97006.4886 NW NATURAL GAS CO. Scott Palmer 220 SW Second Avenue Portland, OR 97209 -3991 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. Brian Moore 14655 SW Old Scholls Ferry Road Beaverton, OR 97007 SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS. CO.(R/R) Clifford C. Cabe, Construction Engineer 5424 SE McLoughlin Boulevard Portland. OR 97232 TCI CABLEVISION OF OR. Linda Peterson 3500 SW Bond Street PorUand.OR 97201 TIGARD HEARING'S OFFICER Larry Epstein, P.C. 209 SW Oak Street, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204 REQUEST RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF ALL P06UC HEARINGS [via ageadasi rcVattftnastersknaikode.mst 7- May -97 OR. DIV. OF STATE LANDS 775 Summer Street. NE Salem, OR 97310 -1337 OR. PUB. UTILITIES COMM. 550 Capitol Street, NE Salem, OR 97310 -1380 US ARMY CORPS. OF ENG. 333 SW First Avenue PO Box 2946 Portland, OR 97208 -2946 WASHINGTON COUNTY Dept. of Land Use & Trans. 155 N. First Avenue Suite 350, MS 13 Hillsboro, OR 97124 rent Curtis (CPA•$) _ Scott King (cPA-s) _ Mike Borreson ( _ Jim Tice OGKS) _ Tom Harty (curma Pt Apps.) _ Phil Healy (cWnra Pt Apps.) TRI -MET TRANSIT DVLPMT. Michael Kiser, Project Planner 710 NE Holladay Street Portland, OR 97232 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS Pete Nelson 421 SW Oak Street Portland, OR 97204 TIGARD HEARING'S OFFICER Deniece Won 6295 SW 155th Avenue Beaverton, OR 97007 BUSINESS JOURNAL DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE NORRIS S STEVENS REALTORS Steve Law & Alex Williams Robert Goldfield Tom McDowell PO Box 14490 PO Box 10127 520 SW 6th. Suite 400 Portland, OR 97214 Portland, OR 97210-0127 Portland, OR 97204