Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
ZOA2005-00002
ZOA Wø 5 - 00002 WImDiAJ . • CITY OF TIGARD Community TDeve(opment Shaping Better Community LAND USE PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION 120 DAYS = N/A FILE NO.: ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 2005-00002 FILE TITLE: CODE AMENDMENT INCREASING FAR IN THE MUE ZONE • APPLICANT: Specht Properties, Inc. APPLICANT'S Perkins Coie LLP Attn: Joe Curran, Project Manager REP.: Attn: Michael C. Robinson 15400 SW Milikan Way 1120 NW Couch St., 10th Floor Beaverton, OR 97006 Portland, OR 97209-4128 REQUEST: A Zone Ordinance Amendment to amend the Commercial Zoning Districts Chapter (18.520) of the Tigard Community Development Code. The proposed amendment would amend Section 18.520.050.C.1 to allow 1.0 FAR where 0.4 is presently allowed throughout the Mixed Use Employment (MUE) zone in the Tigard Triangle. LOCATION: Tigard Triangle. ZONE: MUE: Mixed-Use Employment. The MUE zoning district' is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380.020 and 18.390.060; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 and 12; The Metro Urban Growth Management Plan Titles 1, 7 and 8; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 11 and 12. COMMENTS SENT: OCTOBER 28, 2005 DUE: NOVEMBER 14, 2005 DATE DLCD NOTICE WAS SENT: OCTOBER 26, 2005 (54 days prior to ISS hearing) DECISION MAKING BODY BELOW: ❑ TYPE I ❑TYPE II ❑ TYPE III ® TYPE IV ® PLANNING COMMISSION (MON.) DATE OF HEARING: DECEMBER 19, 2005 TIME:7:00 PM ® CITY COUNCIL (TUES.) DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 24, 2005 TIME:7:30 PM COMPONENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION ® PROPOSED ORDINANCE/AMENDMENTS ® STAFF REPORT ® DLCD NOTICE ❑ VICINITY MAP ❑ SITE PLAN STAFF CONTACT: Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner (503) 639-4171, Ext. 2434 PRE-APP.HELD BY: CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION • 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OR 97223-8189 ,Z11111 503.639.4171/503.684.7297 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION File# 04 Lc D$-ckpoo2-1 Other Case# PIS-2'°C 5 - 000 z_q Date 'l f cola 5 By :V Receipt# ? �3� City Urb Date Complete TYPE OF PERMIT YOU ARE APPLYING FOR ❑Adjustment/Variance (I or II) ❑ Minor Land Partition (II) ❑ Zone Change (III) ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment (IV) ❑ Planned Development (III) ❑ Zone Change Annexation (IV) ❑ Conditional Use (Ill) ❑ Sensitive Lands Review (I, II or III) pfZone Ordinance Amendment (IV) ❑ Historic Overlay (ii or II!) ❑ Site Development Review (ii) ❑ Home Occupation (II) ❑ Subdivision (II or III) LOCA I ION WHERE PROPOSED AC I IVI FY WILL OCCUR(Address it available) Tigard Triangle - The MIIE - Zoned Area Not applicable FO IAL SI I E SIZE ZONING CLASSIFICA1 ION Not .applicable MITE APPLICAN I* Specht Properties, Inc. MAILo 15400 SW Milikan Way, Beaverton, OR 97006 PHONE NO. FAX NO. 503-646-2202 503-626-8903 PRIMARY CONTACT PERSON PHONE NO. Joe Curran, Project Manager 503-646-2202 X30 PROPER1 Y OWNER/DEED HOLDER(Attach list if more than one) Not applicable MAILING AUURESS/CI I Y/S I A I E/LIP PHONE NO. FAX NO. *When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be thip purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The hers 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) • • To amend Tigard Community Development' Code Section 18.520.050(c)(1) to allow 1.0 FAR where .4 FAR is presently allowed APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT ALL OF THE REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS AS DESCRIBED IN THE "BASIC SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS" INFORMATION SHEET. • . 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. Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Owner': Signature Date A.441L0 7 SOS Appl':ai Agent/Representative's Signature Dat 'deet Mme - Sit ?ro(erVo l T•�c• Applicant/Agent/Representative's Signature Date CITY OF TIGARD 7/7/2005 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 11:16:48AM A t Tigard,Oregon 97223 I (503) 639-4171 1 Receipt #: 27200500000000003130 Date: 07/07/2005 I Line Items: Case No Tran Code Description Revenue Account No Amount Paid ZOA2005-00002 [LANDUS]Amend CDC(Text) 100-0000-438000 2,891.00 ZOA2005-00002 [LRPF]LR Planning Surcharge 100-0000-438050 427.00 Line Item Total: $3,318.00 Payments: Method Payer User ID Acct./Check No.Approval No. How Received Amount Paid Check SPECHT DEVELOPMENT INC KJP 3104 In Person 3,318.00 Payment Total: $3,318.00 - - ra t di9604: Ai 64-y,vo Gary genstecher- RE: Request for meeting_re: FAR MUE Page 11 • • From: Gary Pagenstecher To: Robinson, Michael C. (Perkins Coie) Date: 8/29/2005 5:21:53 PM Subject: RE: Request for meeting re: FAR MUE Mike, Please find attached the Pre-app notes for April 7, 2005. I believe you referred to getting ODOT's cooperation to support your proposal to increase the FAR. The notes are specific in what we would need from them to consider your proposal. I think that it would be premature to talk about scheduling a hearing at the PC unless ODOT's consent is in hand. If you think it is necessary, I have put Thursday at 2 p.m. September 15th on my calendar. Gary >>> "Robinson, Michael C. (Perkins Coie)" <MRobinson @perkinscoie.com> 08/29 12:29 PM >>> Gary, 1.The first two issues that you have raised concern "Council" goals. Are these goals in your acknowledged Plan or contained in another document? Please send them to me so that I can take a look at them. Until I have a chance to read the actual language of the Goals, its not possible to completely respond. Office development in the Tigard Triangle isn't incompatible with either Council goal since the city assumed development in the Triangle. The issue is about whether that goal is met and how its met.This text amendment is about reasonable office development because the .4 FAR is so low as to discourage appropriate office development. Specht has'said that if it can have a higher FAR, it can do more on the site, including the appearance of the building., 2.The Tigard Triangle assumed a certain amount of development, much of which has not occurred, meaning that there is capacity on the roadways based on the city's assumption about build-out. 3. I agree that a TIA will be required under the language at the development review stage.That is evidence that the applicant will have to submit if the text amendment'is adopted. Let's see if we can get a meeting set to discuss these questions. We would like to get a Planning Commission hearing scheduled so we can find out whether there is any support for the text amendment, either as submitted or as may be modified. Thanks. Mike Michael C. Robinson Attorney at Law Perkins Coie LLP Phone: 503-727-2264 Original Message From: Gary Pagenstecher[mailto:Garyp @ci.tigard.or.us] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 2:53 PM To: Robinson, Michael C. Subject: RE: Request for meeting re: FAR MUE • August 25th in the morning would be fine. >>> "Robinson, Michael C." <MRobinson @perkinscoie.com> 8/19/2005 9:37:29 AM >>> Mr. Pagenstecher, Gary_(Pagenstecher- RE: Request for meeting re: FAR MUE Page 21 • • Mike Robinson is available for a meeting Wednesday, August 24 at 1:00 p.m. or later, Thursday, August 25 in the morning and Friday, August 26 in the afternoon. We will try and have a response to the issues listed in your email. Lisa Twombly Perkins Coie LLP Phone: (503) 727-2146 Original Message From: Gary Pagenstecher[mailto:Garyp @ci.tigard.or.us] Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 4:59 PM To: Robinson, Michael C. Cc: Dick Bewersdorff Subject: Request for meeting re: FAR MUE Mike, You have suggested that we meet to discuss your application for a change in the FAR in the Tigard Triangle MUE zone. Let me know when you can meet and we'll find time to discuss the project. In advance of the meeting, please address the following issues to us in writing: Council goal and priority to address problems associated with Hwy 99 in Tigard. How will the potential adverse impacts of the proposed code change impact Hwy 99 and what mitigation would be required to achieve no net impact to Hwy 99 function, capacity, and performance? Council goal and priority to implement the Downtown Improvement Plan. How will allowing increased FAR in the MUE support public and private investment priorities in the Central Business District? Your application, in 3. Tigard Triangle, asserts a history of the FAR limitation in the MUE but provides no documentation to support it. In addition, under 4. (c), you would leave transportation impacts to be tested against specific development proposals consistent with the TSP (660-012-0060 (1)and (2) - Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments). However, given the burden of the first two questions above, a traffic analysis would be required. Gary Associate Planner 503-718-2434 NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. • • , • • • Perkins Cole • 1120 N.W.Couch Street,Tenth Floor Michael C.Robinson Portland,OR 97209-4128 PHONE:503.727.2264 PHONE:503.727.2000 • EMAIL mrobinson@perkinscoie.com FAX:503.727.2222 www.perkinscoie.com September 22, 2005 VIA EMAIL Mr. Gary Pagenstecher • Associate Planner City of Tigard . 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Legislative Text Amendment by Specht Development Company Dear Gary: I am writing to address the issues raised in Morgan Tracy's pre-application notice dated April 7, 2005. Unfortunately, you were the first person to provide me with those notes well after we submitted the application in early July 2005. Our application addressed most of the approval criteria recommended in Morgan's pre-application notes. I have attached the pre-application notes as Exhibit 1. Nevertheless, I appreciate this opportunity to address additional criteria. I would welcome additional substantive comments on the text amendment. A. Tigard Community Development Code ("TCDC") Section 18.380.020 TCDC 18.380.020 isentitled "Legislative Amendments to this Title and Map." This section only defines legislative amendments as a Type IV procedure pursuant to TCDC Section 18.390.060(G). The application at pages 2-6 addresses the required approval criteria pursuant to this section. (Exhibit 2) [18157-0062/PA052650.009] ANCHORAGE • BEIJING BELLEVUE • BOISE • CHICAGO • DENVER - HONG KONG • LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK • OLYMPIA • PHOENIX PORTLAND • SAN FRANCISCO • SEATTLE • WASHINGTON, D.C. Perkins Coie LLP and Affiliates • • Mr. Gary Pagenstecher City of Tigard September 22, 2005 Page 2 B. TCDC Section 18.390.060 This section sets forth the process and approval criteria for a Type IV procedure. TCDC Section 18.390.060(A)-(F) and(H)-(L) are procedural requirements described in the decisionmaking process. TCDC Section 18.390.060(G) addresses the five (5) sets of applicable approval criteria. As noted above, the application addresses these approval criteria. Additional criteria are set forth below. To the extent TCDC Section 18.390.060(B), "Timing of Requests," is relevant, Mr. Bewersdorff agreed that we could submit this application at any time and not during the two "windows" for text amendments. C. Statewide Planning Goals The application addresses Statewide Planning Goals 2, 9 and 12 at pages 2 and 3. (Exhibit 2) 1. Goal 1, "Citizen Involvement" This Goal provides: "To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." Goal 1 is implemented through the acknowledged provisions of the TCDC. It is well settled law that Goal 1 is not an applicable approval criteria for post-acknowledgment amendments except to the extent the citizen involvement program is implicated. This text amendment does not propose amending the City's acknowledged citizen involvement program,-so it is inapplicable. 2. Goal 11, "Public Facilities and Services" This Goal provides: "To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development." The Goal defines urban facilities and services as referring to "key facilities and to appropriate types and levels of at least the following: police protection; sanitary facilities; storm drainage facilities; planning, zoning and subdivision control; health [18157-0062/PA052650.009] 09/22/05 • • Mr. Gary Pagenstecher City of Tigard September 22, 2005 Page 3 services; recreation facilities and services; energy and communication services; and community governmental services." The proposed text amendment does not affect the provision of public facilities and services to the extent this Goal does not address transportation criteria. Transportation facilities are addressed by Goal 12, "Transportation." The original application and narrative addressed Goal 12. The City can find that this Goal is satisfied. 3. Tigard Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan") Policies The application addressed applicable Plan Policies 1.1.1a, 5.1, Economy, Implementation Strategies 1, 8 and 27 and Policies 8.1.4(a), 12.5.1.2.A.2, and 12.5.1.2.A.3. a. Policy 1.1.2 This policy sets forth the requirement of the Comprehensive Plan that its elements be open for amendments that consider compliance with the Metropolitan Service District on an annual basis. This policy contains no substantive approval criteria relevant to this application. The City can find that this policy is satisfied. b. Policies 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 These policies reflect the City's obligation to comply with Goal 1, the citizen involvement process. These policies are implemented through the City's acknowledged community development code. This policy is inapplicable to this application. c. Policy 5.2 This policy requires that the City work with Washington County and adjacent jurisdictions to develop an economic development plan incorporating a local economic development plan. This policy is inapplicable to this application unless the [18157-0062/PA052650.009] 09/22/05 • • Mr. Gary Pagenstecher City of Tigard September 22, 2005 Page 4 City finds that promotion of further economic development is inconsistent with this policy. d. Policy 5.3 This policy provides that the City shall improve and enhance the portions of the Central Business District as the focal point for commercial, high density residential, business, civic and professional activity. This application does not thwart this policy because the policy does not call for the development of the Central Business District to the exclusion of other commercial areas. In fact, Policy 5.1 requires that the City . promote activities that diversify economic opportunities available to Tigard residents. Policies 5.1 and 5.2 are properly read in conjunction with one another so that the City's overall economic policy benefits its citizens. e. Policies 5.4 and 5.5 These policies address, respectively, the prohibition of commercial and industrial development into residential areas and, conversely, prohibition of residential development in commercial and industrial zoning districts with certain exceptions. These policies are irrelevant to this application. f. Policy 5.6 This policy requires the City consider private financing by private developers to provide public facilities. This policy is inapplicable to this application. g. Policies 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 These policies require that applicants demonstrate appropriate public facilities. This application does not affect the need for or availability of public facilities. The City can find that these policies are inapplicable. h. Policy 8.1.1 This policy addresses the planning, design and construction of transportation facilities that enhance the livability of Tigard. This policy is inapplicable to this application because it does not affect the design or location of transportation facilities except to the extent improvements are required along Oregon Highway 99W. [18157-0062/PA052650.009] 09/22/05 • • Mr. Gary Pagenstecher City of Tigard September 22, 2005 Page 5 i. Policy 8.1.2 This policy calls for a providing of a balanced transportation system by incorporating all modes of transportation. This property is inapplicable to this application. j. Policy 8.1.3 This policy calls for a safe transportation system. This policy is inapplicable and, in any event, does not address safety as a result of congestion. k. Policy 8.1.4 This policy calls for the City to establish and maintain transportation performance measures. This policy is implemented through other provisions of the Plan, as well as applicable provisions of the TCDC. • 1. Policy 8.1.5 This policy calls for transportation facilities accessible to all members of the community. This policy is inapplicable. m. Policy 8.1.6 This policy calls for the efficient movement of goods and services and addresses the routing of hazardous materials. This policy is inapplicable. n. Policy 8.1.7 • This policy calls for the implementation of the City's transportation system plan in a coordinated manner with affected governmental entities. This policy is inapplicable. o. Policy 12 This policy addresses the locational criteria for commercial and office uses. The application addresses Policy 12.5.1.2.A.3, which is applicable to provision of goods and services. [18157-0062/PA052650.009] 09/22/05 • • Mr. Gary Pagenstecher City of Tigard September 22, 2005 Page 6 4. Metro Urban Growth Management Plan Titles 1, 7 and 8 The application addressed the applicable requirements. D. Conclusion For the reasons contained in this letter, the City can find that the applicable policies are satisfied. Very ly yours, Michael C. Robinson MCR:It Enclosures cc: Mr. Greg Specht(w/encls.) (via email) Mr. Joe Curran(w/encls.) (via email) Mr. Bill Ciz(w/encls.) (via email) Ms. Susie Wright (w/encls.) (via email) Mr. Steve Pfeiffer(w/encls.) [I 8157-0062/PA052650.009] 09/22/05 • • Pre application notes for City of Tigard To change the Community Development Code text to increase the maximum Floor Area Ratio(FAR)from 0.4 to 0.8 April 7, 2005 STAFF PRESENT: Morgan Tracy APPLICANT: Specht Development AGENT: Mike Robinson PROPERTY LOCATION: MUE Zoned Parcels (Tigard Triangle) TAX MAP/LOT#'s: N/A PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Change the Community Development Code text section 18.520.050.C. to increase the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)from 0.4 to 0.8. • COMP PLAN DESIGNATION: Mixed Use zones ZONING: MUE CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM: East NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING A neighborhood meeting is not required for the text change. NARRATIVE Include a narrative that responds to the applicable criteria. Most applicants for text amendments have a professional land use consultant prepare the narrative. You need to provide background and findings of fact as to why this amendment is necessary, or what public benefit is being promoted? As this restriction is the result of an ODOT requirement, you should address how your proposal will satisfy their concerns. In fact, the City is unwilling to consider adopting changes to this standard without ODOT's express written consent. The adoption of the Mixed Use zoning from the residential classification was brought about through careful negotiation with ODOT based on the inherent impacts to their primary roadway systems (I-5/217/Pacific Highway). IMPACT STUDY 18.390 No impact study is required for Type IV applications. However, to ensure that adverse impacts to the transportation system are not created, a full traffic analysis for the district should be performed. EXHIBIT 1 • • • SUBMITTAL INFORMATION The application shall: a. Contain the information requested on the form; b. Address the appropriate criteria in sufficient detail for review and action; d. Be accompanied by 18 copies of the narrative and all supporting documentation plus 1 copy in digital form, either MS Word or Adobe Acrobat PDF. REQUIRED HEARINGS Two hearings, one before the Commission and one before the Council, are required for all Type IV actions, except annexations where only a hearing by the City Council is required. REVIEW CRITERIA (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.) *18.380.020 •18.390.060 (Type IV process) -*Statewide Planning Goals 1,el:•• 11, and 2� •Metro Urban Growth Management Plan Titles 1, 7, and 8 *Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 12 Decision timeline is generally about 4-6 months from receipt of a complete application. The 120 day rule is not applicable to legislative changes. PREPARED BY: Morgan Tracy • Associate Planner • • Before the City of Tigard in the Matter of an Amendment to Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.520.050.C.1 Concerning the Multiple Use Employment ("MUE") Zoning District 1. Description of Application. This is an amendment to the acknowledged Tigard Community Development Code (the "TCDC"). As a post-acknowledgement amendment, the application must demonstrate compliance with applicable Statewide Planning Goals (the "Goals"), Administrative Rules and applicable Tigard Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan") policies. This is a legislative amendment and is classified in the TCDC as a Type IV procedure. TCDC Section 18.390.060. 2. Specific Request. TCDC Section 18.520.050.C.1 provides as follows: "1. The maximum floor area ration (FAR) for all commercial and industrial use types and mixed-use developments shall not exceed 0.40. Residential use types, including transient lodging, shall not be subject to this requirement." The applicant proposes that the language be amended to provides as follows: "The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for all commercial and industrial use types and mixed-use developments shall not exceed 0.40, but 1.0 shall be allowed where the applicant utilizes the design evaluation team process and where a traffic impact analysis approved through the design evaluation team process and Planning Commission review demonstrate that allowed uses on the subject property will maintain transportation levels consistent with the function, capacity and performance standards of affected transportation facilities consistent with OAR 660-012-0060." 3. Tigard Triangle. Tigard Triangle represents the City's efforts to revitalize the important area located between Oregon Highway 99W on the north, Oregon Highway 217 on the west and Interstate-5 on the east. The multiple use employment ("MUE") zoning district implements the same Plan map designation and provides opportunities for mixed use and commercial development on the east half of the Tigard Triangle roughly between SW 72nd on the west and SW 68th on the east. However, the 0.40 PAGE 1 [1 8 1 57-0062/PA051850.014] 9/22/05 10:12 AM EXHIBIT 2 • • FAR limitation for the MUE areas is based upon an almost 10-year old determination that has not proven true in two respects. First, the City anticipated that the development would occur much more rapidly in the past 10 years thus using more of the transportation capacity in the surrounding area. This has not occurred. Second, the City placed the 0.40 FAR limitation on the MUE zoning district in order to maintain adequate traffic capacity. However, the result is that the MUE zone has been underbilled or in order to provide additional floor area ratio, developers have "purchased development rights from other properties when in the MUE district. The purpose of this text amendment is to provide the opportunity under clear and objective criteria for an appropriate commercial development to exceed the 0.40 FAR. The proposed text amendment utilizes the design evaluation team process to enhance the design and provide for additional scrutiny through Planning Commission review. The text amendment also proposes that transportation capacity be adequate consistent with the transportation planning rule, OAR 660-012-0060(1) and (2). 4. Applicable Approval Criteria. TCDC Section 18.390.060.G sets for the decision-making considerations. This section addresses the following: • applicable goals • applicable Metro regulations • applicable Plan policies, and • applicable provisions of the TCDC. A. Applicable Statewide Planning Goals. (a) Goal 2, Land Use Planning: "To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions." RESPONSE: This goal requires an adequate factual base for post- acknowledgement amendments such as this. In this case, the proposed text amendment would simply provide an opportunity for an appropriate commercial development in the MUE zoning district to exceed the 0.40 FAR. The City may not grant the increased FAR if the application either fails to comply with the clear and objective criteria proposed in the text amendment or fails to comply with the other approval criteria contained in the TCDC. PAGE 2 [18157-0062/PA051850.014] 9/22/05 10:12 AM • The City can find that this goal is satisfied. (b) Goal 9,Economic Development: "To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens." RESPONSE: This text amendment furthers Goal 9 in two ways. First, it allows the potential for greater economic development within the MUE zoning district. Second,because of the design evaluation team process, not only is there a potential for greater commercial development consistent with other applicable development standards, but there is a potential or higher quality design than would otherwise be the case. The City can find that this goal is satisfied (c) Goal 12,Transportation: "To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system." RESPONSE: This application does not cause more traffic than currently exists within the Tigard Triangle or the MUE-designated area. It only provides the opportunity for additional commercial development consistent with the function, capacity and performing standards of affected transportation facilities. The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals held in Citizens for Protection of Neighborhoods LLC v. City of Salem, Or LUBA (LUBA No. 2003-201, June 9, 2004). Transportation impacts will be tested against specific development proposals through the design evaluation team and Planning Commission review process where the application must meet applicable development standards including this transportation- related standard. The City can find that this Goal is satisfied. (d) Conclusion. The City can find that applicable Statewide Planning Goals are satisfied. B. Applicable Plan Policies. (a) Plan Policy 1.1.1a: "This comprehensive plan and all future legislative changes [shall be] consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals adopted by the PAGE 3 [18157-0062/PA051850.014] 9/22/05 10:12 AM • • • Land Conservation and Development Commission,the regional plan adopted by the Metropolitan Service District." RESPONSE: The reasons contained elsewhere in this application,the City can find that this policy is satisfied. (b) Policy 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." RESPONSE: The artificially low 0.40 FAR for the MUE district is contrary to this policy which calls for increasing Tigard's job base for the benefit of its citizens. This text amendment allows this policy to be more fully implemented while, pursuant to the proposed language, ensuring that other development requirements are satisfied. The City can find that this policy is satisfied. (c) Economy, Implementation Strategy 1: "The City's Community Development Code shall incorporate any revisions needed to remove unnecessary obstacles which may deter new economic activities." RESPONSE: This text amendment furthers the simple implementation strategy by providing for the opportunity to exceed the artificially low 0.40 FAR where appropriate. (d) Economy, Implementation Strategy 8: "The City shall target efforts to strategic areas for growth and diversification. Specific areas include the Central Business District, the Tigard Triangle and the 74th Avenue Industrial area." RESPONSE: This text amendment implements this strategy by allowing the opportunity for greater economic development in the Tigard Triangle. The past 10 years have not provided the kind of growth anticipated by the City Council in the past. One of the reasons for this is the difficulty in developing superior commercial and office projects with an artificially low FAR that essentially provides for about one-third of the site to be developed with floor area. This amendment removes that impediment still providing for applicable development standards to be satisfied. PAGE 4 [181 5 7-0062/PA051850.014] 9/22/05 10:12 AM • • (e) Economy, Implementation Strategy 27 "Because access within an area is a significant determinative of economic location, the City shall develop and put into effect measures to reduce traffic congestion." • RESPONSE: This text amendment furthers this implementation strategy by requiring that consistency with the Transportation Planning Rule be determined at the development review stage. (1) Policy 8.1.4(a) "Set a minimum intersection level of service standard for the City of Tigard and require all public facilities to be designed to meet this standard. RESPONSE: This text amendment satisfies this policy,because it requires prior to approval for a FAR greater than 0.40, that the applicant demonstrate compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule. (g) Policy 12.5.1.2.A.2: • "The purpose of the mixed-use employment(MUE) land use designation is: . . . 2. to provide opportunities for employment and for new business and professional services in close proximity to retail centers and major transportation facilities." RESPONSE: This text amendment furthers this policy by providing the opportunity for enhanced office development which will provide additional opportunities for employment and for new business and professional services in the Tigard Triangle area. (h) Policy 12.5.1.2.A.3: "To provide for major retail goods and services accessible to the general public, and minor retail goods and services accessible to the public which works and lives within the MUE district." RESPONSE: This application furthers this policy by providing a greater opportunity for the provision of services accessible to the general public within and outside of the MUE district. PAGE 5 1181 57-0062/PA051850.014] 9/22/05 10:12 AM • • . • (i) Conclusion: The City can find that applicable Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies and implementation strategies are satisfied. C. Applicable Metro Functional Plan Policies. The Tigard Triangle MUE area is designated as a Metro Title IV employment area. Employment areas are defined as "design types of employment and some residential development are encouraged in employment areas with limited commercial uses." Metro Code Section 3.07.130, "Design type boundaries requirement." Employment areas are intended to generate 20 employees per acre. Metro Code Section 3.07.170(A), design type density recommendations. This proposed text amendment will assist the City in implementing the employment area designation and the goal of providing a certain number of employees per acre by allowing greater commercial development consistent with development standards. Most specific Metro Code policy apply to this amendment. 5. Conclusion. For the reasons contained herein, the City can find that applicable approval standards are satisfied. The applicant respectfully requests that the City approve the text amendment. • PAGE 6 [18157-0062/PA051850.014] 9/22/05 10:12 AM • • • • Perkins Cole • 1120 N.W.Couch Street,Tenth Floor Michael C.Robinson Portland,OR 97209-4128 PHONE: 503.727.2264 PHONE 503.727.2000 EMAIL:mrobinson@perkinscoie.com FAX.503 727 2222 www.perkinscoie.com July 29, 2005 VIA EMAIL • Mr. Morgan Tracy Associate Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 • Re: Legislative Amendment Application by Specht Properties Dear.Morgan: Please find enclosed a letter from Kittelson & Associates addressing Statewide Planning Goal 12 and OAR 660-012-0060(1). Please place this letter with our . application file. I look forward to discussing the application including this letter with you at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, ±'t tit C L, ,( C 019`1\''V S>Vj A-t.. Michael C. Robinson • MCR:lt Enclosure • cc: Mr. Greg Specht(w/encl.) (via email) Mr. Joe Curran (w/encl.) (via email) Ms. Susan Wright (w/encl.) (via email) Mr. Steven L. Pfeiffer (w/encl.) [I 8157-0062/PA052080.099] ANCHORAGE • BEIJING . BELLEVUE - BOISE • CHICAGO • DENVER • HONG KONG • LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK . OLYMPIA • PORTLAND • SAN FRANCISCO • SEATTLE WASHINGTON, D.C. Perkins Coie LIP and Affiliates • • 7 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING �. 610 SW ALDER,SUITE 700 • PORTLAND,OR 97205 • (503)228-5230 • FAX(503)273-8169 July 13, 2005 Project#: 7321.0 Mr.Dick Bewersdorff Planning Director City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard,OR 97223 RE: Tigard Community Development Code Text Amendment to the MUE Zoning District Dear Mr. Bewersdorff, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. has reviewed the Tigard Community Development Code Text Amendment to Section 18.520.050(C)(1) that has been proposed by Specht Properties, Inc. and the July 6th, 2005 narrative prepared by Perkins Coie concerning the application. We concur with the findings of Perkins Coie that the City of Tigard can find that the applicable approval standards are satisfied, as they are related to transportation, and approve the text amendment. Specifically, we find that the proposed text amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 12(Transportation),Oregon Administrative Rules Division 12(the Transportation Planning Rule,TPR), and the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.1.4(a). The finding is based on the justifications outlined in the remainder of this letter. The proposed text amendment allows an increase of the maximum allowable floor area ratio in the Multiple Use Employment (MUE) zoning district from 0.4 to 1.0 if, through the design evaluation team process and Planning Commission review, the applicant demonstrates that the allowed uses (i.e., the reasonable worst-case land use scenario) will maintain transportation levels consistent with the function,capacity and performance standards of affected transportation facilities consistent with OAR 660-012-0060 (i.e., any development application proposing an FAR greater than 0.40 would be required to demonstrate that the reasonable worst-case land use scenario of the proposed FAR compared to the existing FAR does not have a "significant impact" on transportation facilities in the planning year). If the proposed increase in FAR produces a "significant impact" on transportation facilities, the development would be required to mitigate them according to the allowable mitigations outlined in OAR 660-012-0060(2). The text amendment application is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 12 and the City's Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.1.4(a) because it does not approve any development or allow developments with an FAR greater than 0.40 to be approved without going through a quasi- judicial review process and demonstrating compliance with the TPR. All development proposals within the MUE zoning district would still be required to go through development review and demonstrate that they meet the City's minimum intersection level of service standards. H:\projfile\7321\report\draft\7321 textamendmentletter.doc • • Snecht Properties, Inc. -MUE Zoning District Text Amendment Project#:7321.0 Juy 13,2005 Page:2 The proposed text amendment and approach to allowing higher density development within the Tigard Triangle is consistent with a decision made by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA)to uphold comprehensive plan and development code amendments made by the City of Salem in LUBA No. 2003-201 on June 9, 2004 in the Citizens for Protection of neighborhoods LLC v. City of Salem. This decision found that comprehensive plan and development code amendments do not have a "significant impact" under the TPR, if they do not specifically allow development and that the development is still subject to review that ensures that the land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards.of affected transportation systems (i.e.,compliance with the TPR). We trust that this letter adequately addresses your questions with regard to the proposed text amendment to the Tigard Community Development Code MUE zoning district. If we can be of further assistance. please do not hesitate to call us at(503)228-5230. Sincerely, KITTELSON& ASSOCIATES,INC. \ Marc A.'Butorac,P.E.,P.T.O.E. Susan L. Wright Principal Engineer Engineering Associate Attachments: A)Land Use Permit Application from Specht Properties,Inc. B)Narrative from Perkins Coie Addressing the Applicable Approval Criteria • Kittelson 14 Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ;r • • Perkins Coie 1120 N.W.Couch Street,Tenth Floor Michael C.Robinson Portland,OR 20 128 97 9-4 PHONE:503.727.2264 PHONE:503.727.2000 EMAIL:mrobinson @perkinscoie.com FAX:503.727.2222 www.perkinscoie.com July 6, 2005 VIA MESSENGER Mr. Dick Bewersdorff Planning Director City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Tigard Community Development Code Text Amendment Dear Mr. Bewersdorff: This office represents Specht Development Company. Please find enclosed an application to amend Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.520.050(C)(1). I have enclosed the following information: 1. A completed City of Tigard Planning Division "Land Use Permit Application" form signed by a Specht Development Company representative. 2. A check made payable to the City of Tigard in the amount of$3,318.00 as the applicable fee for this legislative zoning ordinance text amendment. 3. Eighteen (18) copies of a narrative addressing the applicable approval criteria including applicable Statewide Planning Goals, administrative rules, Metro Functional Plan requirements and Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies. The information required for a Quasi-judicial Application is unnecessary here. I have not submitted the basic submittal requirements with the exception of the check. Please send me copies of all official correspondence sent by the City, correspondence received by the City, notices of public hearing, and staff reports for this matter. [18157-0062/PA051820.034] ANCHORAGE • BEIJING - BELLEVUE • BOISE - CHICAGO • DENVER - HONG KONG • LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK • OLYMPIA • PHOENIX - PORTLAND • SAN FRANCISCO - SEATTLE - WASHINGTON, D.C. Perkins Coie LLP and Affiliates • • Mr. Dick Bewersdorff July 6, 2005 Page 2 We look forward to working with City staff on this application. Very truly yours, 0 0 C), V.17.(9-1\nS Michael C. Robinson 1/t MCR:lcr Enclosures cc: Mr. Greg Specht (w/encl.) (via email) Mr. Todd Sheaffer (w/encl.)-(via email) Mr. Joe Curran (w/encl.) (via email) Mr. Bill Ciz (w/encl.) (via email) Ms. Susie Wright (w/encl.) (via email) Mr. Steve Pfeiffer(w/encl.) [18157-0062/PA051820.034] 07/06/05 • • Before the City of Tigard in the Matter of an Amendment to Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.520.050.C.1 Concerning the Multiple Use Employment ("MUE") Zoning District 1. Description of Application. This is an amendment to the acknowledged Tigard Community Development Code (the "TCDC"). As a post-acknowledgement amendment, the application must demonstrate compliance with applicable Statewide Planning Goals (the "Goals"), Administrative Rules and applicable Tigard Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan") policies. This is a legislative amendment and is classified in the TCDC as a Type IV procedure. TCDC Section 18.390.060. 2. Specific Request. TCDC Section 18.520.050.C.1 provides as follows: "1. The maximum floor area ration (FAR) for all commercial and industrial use types and mixed-use developments shall not exceed 0.40. Residential use types, including transient lodging, shall not be subject to this requirement." The applicant proposes that the language be amended to provides as follows: "The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for all commercial and industrial use types and mixed-use developments shall not exceed 0.40, but 1.0 shall be allowed where the applicant utilizes the design evaluation team process and where a traffic impact analysis approved through the design evaluation team process and Planning Commission review demonstrate that allowed uses on the subject property will maintain transportation levels consistent with the function, capacity and performance standards of affected transportation facilities consistent with OAR 660-012-0060." 3. Tigard Triangle. Tigard Triangle represents the City's efforts to revitalize the important area located between Oregon Highway 99W on the north, Oregon Highway 217 on the west and Interstate-5 on the east. The multiple use employment ("MUE") zoning district implements the same Plan map designation and provides opportunities for mixed use and commercial development on the east half of the Tigard Triangle roughly between SW 72nd on the west and SW 68th on the east. However, the 0.40 PAGE 1 [18157-0062-000000/PA051850.014] 7/5/05 12:16 PM • • FAR limitation for the MUE areas is based upon an almost 10-year old determination that has not proven true in two respects. First, the City anticipated that the development would occur much more rapidly in the past 10 years thus using more of the transportation capacity in the surrounding area. This has not occurred. Second, the City placed the 0.40 FAR limitation on the MUE zoning district in order to maintain adequate traffic capacity. However, the result is that the MUE zone has been underbilled or in order to provide additional floor area ratio, developers have "purchased development rights from other properties when in the MUE district. The purpose of this text amendment is to provide the opportunity under clear and objective criteria for an appropriate commercial development to exceed the 0.40 FAR. The proposed text amendment utilizes the design evaluation team process to enhance the design and provide for additional scrutiny through Planning Commission review. The text amendment also proposes that transportation capacity be adequate consistent with the transportation planning rule, OAR 660-012-0060(1) and (2). 4. Applicable Approval Criteria. TCDC Section 1.8.390.06.G sets for the decision-making considerations. This section addresses the following: • applicable goals • applicable Metro regulations • applicable Plan policies, and • • applicable provisions of the TCDC. A. Applicable Statewide Planning Goals. (a) Goal 2, Land Use Planning: "To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions." RESPONSE: This goal requires an adequate factual base for post- acknowledgement amendments such as this. In this case, the proposed text amendment would simply provide an opportunity for an appropriate commercial development in the MUE zoning district to exceed the 0.40 FAR. The City may not grant the increased FAR if the application either fails to comply with the clear and objective criteria proposed in the text amendment or fails to comply with the other approval criteria contained in the TCDC. PAGE 2 [18157-0062-000000/PA051850.014] 7/5/05 12:16 PM • • The City can find that this goal is satisfied. (b) Goal 9, Economic Development: "To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens." RESPONSE: This text amendment furthers Goal 9 in two ways. First, it allows the potential for greater economic development within the MUE zoning district. Second, because of the design evaluation team process, not only is there a potential for greater commercial development consistent with other applicable development standards, but there is a potential or higher quality design than would otherwise be the case. The City can find that this goal is satisfied (c) Goal 12, Transportation: "To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system." RESPONSE: This application does not cause more traffic than currently exists within the Tigard Triangle or the MUE-designated area. It only provides the opportunity for additional commercial development consistent with the function, capacity and performing standards of affected transportation facilities. The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals held in Citizens for Protection of Neighborhoods LLC v. City of Salem, Or LUBA (LUBA No. 2003-201, June 9, 2004). Transportation impacts will be tested against specific development proposals through the design evaluation team and Planning Commission review process where the application must meet applicable development standards including this transportation- related standard. The City can find that this Goal is satisfied. (d) Conclusion. The City can find that applicable Statewide Planning Goals are satisfied. B. Applicable Plan Policies. (a) Plan Policy 1.1.1a: "This comprehensive plan and all future legislative changes [shall be] consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals adopted by the PAGE 3 [18157-0062-000000/PA051850.014] 7/5/05 12:16 PM • • Land Conservation and Development Commission, the regional plan adopted by the Metropolitan Service District." RESPONSE: The reasons contained elsewhere in this application, the City can find that this policy is satisfied. (b) Policy 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." RESPONSE: The artificially low 0.40 FAR for the MUE district is contrary to this policy which calls for increasing Tigard's job base for the benefit of its citizens. This text amendment allows this policy to be more fully implemented while, pursuant to the proposed language, ensuring that other development requirements are satisfied. The City can find that this policy is satisfied. (c) Economy, Implementation Strategy 1: "The City's Community Development Code shall incorporate any revisions needed to remove unnecessary obstacles which may deter new economic activities." RESPONSE: This text amendment furthers the simple implementation strategy by providing for the opportunity to exceed the artificially low 0.40 FAR where appropriate. (d) Economy, Implementation Strategy 8: "The City shall target efforts to strategic areas for growth and diversification. Specific areas include the Central Business District, the Tigard Triangle and the 74th Avenue Industrial area." RESPONSE: This text amendment implements this strategy by allowing the opportunity for greater economic development in the Tigard Triangle. The past 10 years have not provided the kind of growth anticipated by the City Council in the past. One of the reasons for this is the difficulty in developing superior commercial and office projects with an artificially low FAR that essentially provides for about one-third of the site to be developed with floor area. This amendment removes that impediment still providing for applicable development standards to be satisfied. PAGE 4 [18157-0062-000000/PA051850.0141 7/5/05 12:16 PM • • (e) Economy, Implementation Strategy 27 "Because access within an area is a significant determinative of economic location, the City shall develop and put into effect measures to reduce traffic congestion." RESPONSE: This text amendment furthers this implementation strategy by requiring that consistency with the Transportation Planning Rule be determined at the development review stage. (f) Policy 8.1.4(a) "Set a minimum intersection level of service standard for the City of Tigard and require all public facilities to be designed to meet this standard. RESPONSE: This text amendment satisfies this policy, because it requires prior to approval for a FAR greater than 0.40, that the applicant demonstrate compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule. (g) Policy 12.5.1.2.A.2: "The purpose of the mixed-use employment (MUE) land use designation is: . . . 2. to provide opportunities for employment and for new business and professional services in close proximity to retail centers and major transportation facilities." RESPONSE: This text amendment furthers this policy by providing the opportunity for enhanced office development which will provide additional opportunities for employment and for new business and professional services in the Tigard Triangle area. (h) Policy 12.5.1.2.A.3: "To provide for major retail goods and services accessible to the general public, and minor retail goods and services accessible to the public which works and lives within the MUE district." RESPONSE: This application furthers this policy by providing a greater opportunity for the provision of services accessible to the general public within and outside of the MUE district. PAGE 5 [181 57-0062-000000/PA05I 850.014] 7/5/05 12:16 PM • • (i) Conclusion: The City can find that applicable Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies and implementation strategies are satisfied. C. Applicable Metro Functional Plan Policies. The Tigard Triangle MUE area is designated as a Metro Title IV employment area. Employment areas are defined as "design types of employment and some residential development are encouraged in employment areas with limited commercial uses." Metro Code Section 3.07.130, "Design type boundaries requirement." Employment areas are intended to generate 20 employees per acre. Metro Code Section 3.07.170(A), design type density recommendations. This proposed text amendment will assist the City in implementing the employment area designation and the goal of providing a certain number of employees per acre by allowing greater commercial development consistent with development standards. Most specific Metro Code policy apply to this amendment. 5. Conclusion. For the reasons contained herein, the City can find that applicable approval standards are satisfied. The applicant respectfully requests that the City approve the text amendment. PAGE 6 [181 5 7-0062-000000/PA051850.014] 7/5/05 12:16 PM • • KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 610 SW ALDER,SUITE 700 • PORTLAND,OR 97205 • (503)228-5230 • FAX(503)273-8169 MEMORANDUM Date: September 7, 2005 Project#: 7321 . To: Joe Curran Specht Development Inc. 15400 SW Millikan Way Beaverton, OR 97006 • From Susan Wright Marc Butorac, P.E., P.T.O.E. z -. Dave Daly • - ^: Project: Tigard Triangle General Office Building Subject: Increased FAR Traffic Impact Analysis Per your request, Kittelson & Associates Inca-has prepared this memorandum to summarize the transportation impacts for the potential Floor Area.Ratio (FAR) increase for the proposed Tigard Triangle General Office Building. This study concludes that the proposed office development with an FAR of 1.0 (compared to the existing zoning maximum FAR-of 0.4), does not pose "significant transportation impacts" to the surrounding roadway network:under future 2025 traffic conditions. Additional details of the study`methodology, findings and recommendations are provided herein. Scope of the Report • This analysis determines=the'transportation=related-impacts associated with increasing the FAR in the Multiple Use Employment (1V.RJE)•=zoning:district for the proposed Tigard Triangle General Office Building. A due`diligence analysis,:was prepared to address the following transportation issues: • -Planned year 2025 lane configurations and traffic control devices within the site vicinity • Forecast year 2025'\background traffic conditions (assumes site development within FAR • Trip,.generation estimates based on the existing and proposed FAR's during the weekday p.m. peak,period • Trip distribution estimates based on METRO traffic model data for the Tigard Triangle area • Forecast year 2025 Total Traffic Conditions (assumes site development with FAR of 1.0) Operational analyses were preformed at the following intersections, where the potential increased FAR is anticipated to have the most significant impact: FILENAME:H:\projfile\7321\Memo\analys s memo dmli expanded 83 105.doc Tigard Triangle General Office •lidding • Project #: 7321 September 7, 2005 Page 2 • SW Dartmouth Street/Ore 99W • SW Dartmouth Street/SW 72nd Avenue • SW Dartmouth Street/SW 68' Avenue • SW 72nd Avenue/Ore 217 NB Ramp • SW 72❑d Avenue/Ore 217 SB Ramp • SW Atlanta Street/SW 68`h Avenue • SW Haines Street/SW 65th Avenue Figure 1 shows the site vicinity and Figure 2 shows the proposed site 2025 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC The background traffic analysis identifies how the study area's transportation system will operate in the 2025 horizon year. This analysis includes traffic _growth"due to development within the study area, general growth in the region, as well as'.traffic from the site assuming development under the existing 0.4 FAR. Traffic model data from,Metrowas obtained to determine a projected growth rate for the Tigard Triangle Area, and the of Tigard TSP was used to identify planned transportation improvements within the study area: Planned Transportation improvements. . Current transportation improvements identified in the:City=of Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP) for the Tigard Triangle area include the.following: • Widening of SW :Dartmouth Street to five lanes, from SW 72nd Avenue to SW 68`h Avenue (In the,TSP and 'financially constrained RTP, identified in the TSP as being partially funded by development) • Widening SW;72nd..Avenue'to five:;lanes from Oregon Highway 99W to Hunziker Road (In the TSP and fmancially constrained"RTP, identified in the TSP as being partially funded by development) :Constructing 69`h Avenue.-:to ultimate section in compliance with Tigard Triangle Design ' Standards. •'• Signalizing SW :72nd Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street (Identified in the TSP as being partially funded:by development) Y . • Signalizing'SW 68th Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street (Identified in the TSP as being partially funded by development) • Signalizing SW 68`h Avenue/SW Atlanta/SW Haines Street (Identified in the TSP as being partially funded by development) The assumed intersection lane configurations for the year 2025 background traffic conditions analysis are shown in Figure 3. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Tigard Triangle General Office Building • • September 2005 0 (NO SCALE) 9944 IP 1‘y`O' rn co SW ATLANTA ST p SW v, >BAYLOR ST_ • < <'„ m -� Nn SW CLINTON .. ST m ® OART MOUTH ST SW A HERMOSO �MHURST ST SITE _ ( Wy FR4NKLIN ST SW BEVE—E1— RD - Cl) m SW GONZAG S SW HAMPTON ST - ii m N N I \\ 1 N I N N I N I N\ a7 N I - N N I O\ I • ti to N D 0 N I h N o \ N t PV N WASHINGTON COUNTy 8 _�' a� ® , 411 3 13 rn ID 4;1 co NNW/ 7;; I ID E E N cn m SITE VICINITY MAP FIGURE a. TIGARD,OREGON 1 KITTEL &ASSOCIATES, [� TRANSPORTATION SON PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERIINC.NG Tigard Triangle General Office Building 0 0 September 2005 : . . . . : . : 0 . . .. . ! .• .• .• i .• .• I .• .• .• . . .• I I . : .• . I I (NO SCALE) I ! r----—; I ; • I . 1 i .•• .• .• - I . .• I 1 i .• .• i .• .• .• . a : .• .• , . .• : .• . .• r ; ?"7.'• - • • • I : .• .• ___ i I .• .• .• _ . , .• .• I I i : I . . .• • t 11-----, . : i . . _ i 1 1 .• .• . 1 1 I . • . 11.!„.„, : , • 1 .• .• i 1 -1-111 I): 1 1 1 11: )1 I 1 .• .• 1 1 — 1 ... ■ ,,..... .- ------- 1 g 1. _ • I .• .• , -.. . —•1 f i .• ..• ,- - ,-.. - --...,..--.7.- -1.7--I .1 i , . 1 1 -,47.--1 fr7..r.:;.1 ,...:-.1) _.: . - " - I i I - .• , : i • i •---_--0 i . •t:•••_.] :11'• I___,: •[' • ' '--.''' ) •. ,...,"• S.W.CLINTON STREET _.., ,..„.„._.... ..._ „...__.,, i • .- ! • r's , -r• I ; I I a ; .0'' : . I I'tt.'• : . ; f- ) I . , .• .;,'": ,-.,,-• 4 I .._ 11,.. ( .'.r,-,2-) —1- .• . : . . : ,.... _.. . .• .• : • •••• f.„-i:• .• . ....., : . ----1— .. •--i ir.i•It-.., , .• , ... , I -- e ,4„_„, :. . ,,• ,!‘„ •.,. •. :41 I ,. ! i i 5 4: 1.1: 1,Cf:: '''• ' • ',,,,,'".'" '1;:••'' 1 . -1 11' 44 ,f, ‘-1=-------fr. f •;1 I LIW1I1'. -;:r 1 • . ?>1 o S ,,-• .• : 11- 11,• --1...-‘1 1 I 41 ,„R. ,d, ,•,-11V..-•-) A.:".•::‘,-t1if. -.. IF • :.,11; ;11 :4: II •••7 . -.1 \ cn 1-;:-'-±..• -',-'f r -7,,,,'•''.••. .„ .; 1 p.'••I : --- L-- : -'.- -.I. _. .-•'1 I g I , z • .;i ..7.:::,.-". ,*-4..: "-;,..'' ,-:,.•''':,;-1::-,, • 1 . ..V.- _ c.v , .,--• -...17.1-,••-, : .. ' .: I I- ■ ,. • , g,,! " ! r• .-,-7 ,-- ! ,•.a.., . 1 : -L:,..;/- ...,,, c% ,•-, -.i::•,,..i...,:i. -A ___4„ . .• .• '' .• .• (177____ 1 ..-- ----• s-cc-'' '''' A \ - ...---- ......- 1 .- . 17, ______-------' .•-- ..----- 1 _ _---- ,,• I .• . , -6 ••-•-- ...7 • gt . Is. i .7.4 !a PROPOSED SITE PLAN FIGURE Q. TIGARD, OREGON 2 KITTELSON&ASSOCIATES,INC. p TRANSPORTATION PLANNING I TRAFFIC ENGINEERING K Tigard Triangle General Office Building September 2005 8 (NO SCALE) EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING • Th4 10 : Pr ...N 18 _2_ • • PLANNED PLANNED PLANNED 4- A ♦- Ei ~ - �� 1 ii4 tif IN ( 'i if • • •• oP`�9g� a) • 5 c G� • GP _ P P vG 0 N SITE SW ATLANTA ST ,, o SW v x G:AYLOR ST • m®,`, UNTO i b ART 140 p-r t t O I I 3HERMOSO ELMHURS y© W . . . • SW BEVELAHD boll S+SW HAMPTON ^ . • . ` • 4 m . EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING • EXISTING � � -iv al , .%_ . "N Id r -T 6 47- • Th, 1, A2 ', t'' tr ', t r 'fit f • PLANNED PLANNED PLANNED PLANNED 2 i11 11ki► i11ki► 1:1 1k, . . L >, ,, IN ttfi ttfi • 'ittfi 'itf E Lo N O O • 3� - Vl N n \ LEGEND a - STOP SIGN EXISTING.AND PLANNED 2025 LANE CONFIGURATIONS FIGURE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 3 TIGARD, OREGON } \- K KITLO &ASSOCIATES,INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFlC ENGINEERING • Tigard Triangle General Office lidding Project #. 7321 September 7, 2005 Page 6 Year 2025 Background Traffic Operations Analysis Year 2025 background traffic volumes were developed using Metro traffic model data to account for development within the study area under existing zoning (including the site) as well as regional - traffic growth in the study area. A two percent per year annual growth rate was applied to historical year 2001 traffic volumes to account for growth inside Tigard Triangle. For the intersections of SW Dartmouth St/Ore 99W, SW Atlanta St/SW 68th Avenue and SW Haines St/SW 65th Avenue, a 0.5 percent per year growth rate was applied. The Metro traffic model forecasts the majority of development to occur within the Tigard Triangle boundary, therefore the higher growth rate was used for intersections within the same boundary. ,, As shown in Figure 4 the study intersections are forecast to operate acceptably under year 2025 background traffic conditions during the weekday p.m. peak hour, with the exception of SW Dartmouth St/Ore 99W. Under year 2025 background traffic operations, the intersection of SW Dartinouth'St/Ore 99W is forecast to exceed the volume-to-capacity threshold of 0.9,9 set forth-by the,:Oregon.Department of Transportation (ODOT). - - • • ' • Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Tigard Triangle General Office Building • • September 2005 f O N O / (NO SCALE) I l LOS=D 520—1 Del=30.8 F 270 e 5-II LOS=D -145 420 V/C=0.95 15 90— Del=36.6 4—75 20 mok V/C=0.78 c 370 I J( n o • t /Y •ict CV • U)N U) N 0 VI . Ai 1L 65 IL`450 • 1890—► Del=68.2 f—1820 993 T• 25 V/C=>1.0 or 70 y10 c° ,,a m `N t j' G��\Grv. _ Sr-° S-I- N . • SITE '9F Z SW ATLANTA ST• p SW >VIII'TAYLOR ST , ', NTO® �� CA 14I • • Ole •3HERMOSO ELMHURS pi • h iQJN-Iiiiir E. SW BEVELAND RD • SW HAMPTON - • • . rn m ' o ' O . it . ti 5 o .• C 0 7 M- 0 O i � T O lN iLi \6, n • 100 1 R LOS=D `85 <5 LOS=B 10 LOS=C 75 450-10. Del=35.6 F 300 Del=19.2 ♦–10 445—► Del=33.3 F 240 215 V/C=0.64 <5 V/C=0.83 V/C=0.53 ca 0 m ,—o cco v a, m000 N R— n3 N 3 a rn vi N LEGEND r. o, CM=CRITICAL MOVEMENT(UNSIGNALIZED) g, LOS=INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (SIGNALIZED)/CRITICAL MOVEMENT LEVEL a O- F SERVICE(UNSIGNALIZED) ^ Del=INTERSECTION AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY NOTE:All traffic volumes have been rounded to the nearest five vehicles. s (SIGNALIZED)/CRITICAL MOVEMENT CONTROL 2025 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS FIGURE s D- ELAY(UNSIGNAUZED) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR „V/C=CRITICAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO TIGARD, OREGON 4 K KITTELSON&ASSOCIATES,INC. TRANSPORTA11ON PLANNING/TRAFFlC ENGINEERING Tigard Triangle General Office •Building • Project #: 7321 September 7, 2005 Page 8 ZONING ANALYSIS SCENARIOS The proposed land use action will require increasing the maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR) in the current Multiple Use Employment (MUE) zoning district from 0.4 to 1.0. A reasonable worst-case development scenario was used to compare the traffic impacts of the existing zoning district FAR to the proposed FAR of 1.0. The comparative analysis assumes a maximum FAR of 1.0 resulting in 118,044-square feet of office space compared to the existing FAR of 0.4, which results in 47,217-square feet of office space. TRIP GENERATION Estimates of daily and weekday p.m. peak hour vehicle trip ends for the proposed Tigard Triangle General Office Building were developed based on empirical obgervationat similar land uses. These observations are summarized in the standard reference',Trip Generation; 7`h Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (Reference-=1). Table:;1 .summarizes the estimated site trip generation during a typical weekday as.'wel1:as during the weekday.p.m. peak hour (all trip ends shown in the tables have been rounded to the"nearest five trips) "for both the proposed and existing FAR. It should be noted that for the purposes of this analysis, "the"fitted curve equation in the ITE Trip Generation Manual was used to determine, the most reasonable:worst-case scenario for the • proposed site Table 1 - Reasonable Worst-Case'Estimated Trip Generation Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips `=.ITEM' . Size.„ Daily Land Use.,- \Code:' (sq:'ft.) Trips Total In Out General Office Building"(Proposed 1.0 FAR) 7'10 -.118,044 1515 210 35 175 General Office Building(Existing.0:4-FAR)_.,,, 71"0 47,217 750 130 20 110 Net New Trips (Proposed vs. Existing FAR)` 765 80 15 65 As shown-in, Table,1,.the proposed1".0 FAR is anticipated to generate approximately 1,515 trips during.a-typical-weekday, and;210 trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour. The existing 0.4 FAR is'anticipated to:generated approximately 750 trips during a typical weekday, and 130 trips during'.the weekday;.),cm. peak hour. The proposed 1.0 FAR land use scenario results in an increase,of approximately 765 daily vehicle trip ends to the site, and approximately 80 vehicle trip ends to the. site•during"the weekday p.m. peak hour. Trip Distribution Metro traffic volume model data was also used to determine a trip distribution pattern, shown in Figure 5, for the site-generated traffic. Approximately 50-percent of the site generated traffic is forecast to access the site from the north of the site via Interstate 5 and ORE 217. The remaining 50-percent of site generated traffic is forecast to access the site from the south via ORE 99W, SW 72"`' Avenue, Interstate 5, and ORE 217. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Tigard Triangle General Office Building • • September2005 in (NO SCALE) • Ao g9`4 cn © 7i \,_, wt, CO �444 z C/\°\-' to y S44 N SITE c, SW ATLANTA ST 2 So p SW BAYLOR ST M m SW 161 .1 cuNro e ll e ® D 1tMOUTH j®' HERMOSO ELMHU' 3HU' SW BEVELAND RD El SW 'ONZAG S SW HAMPTON a, I m h 0 a ii It-, 5 �, 0 12 o 51 I-co° U E to h v0 S N K 0 a CO a .. N C') IN a N N ESTIMATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERN FIGURE TIGARD, OREGON 5 K KITTELSON&ASSOCIATES,INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IOC TRAFPIC ENGINEERING Tigard Triangle General Office wilding • Project #: 7321 September 7, 2005 Page 10 YEAR 2025 TOTAL TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The total traffic conditions analysis forecasts how the study area's transportation system will operate with the inclusion of traffic from the proposed increased FAR for the proposed site. Year 2025 total traffic volumes were developed by adding the difference in site generated traffic volumes from the 1.0 and 0.4 FAR scenarios to the 2025 background traffic volumes for the weekday p.m. peak hour analysis period. As shown in Figure 6, the study intersections are forecast to operate acceptably under 2025 total traffic conditions with the exception of the SW Dartmouth St/Ore 99W intersection, which is forecast to operate outside of the ODOT volume- to-capacity threshold of 0.99. Necessary mitigation for the year 2025 total traffic conditions at the':intersection of SW Dartmouth St/Ore 99W is a separate westbound right turn lane on Ore 99W.The addition of a separate westbound turn lane results in a volume-to-capacity ratio of0.96,.whichis,within ODOT operation standards. The proposed increase in FAR only results in 20 new:trips`'through the intersection, none of which would use the recommended separate;westbound right turn lane. • • • - y Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Tigard Triangle General Office Building September 2005 El"' (NO SCALE) ADDED TRAFFIC ADDED TRAFFIC ADDED TRAFFIC 5mil f �<5 R I 1 N V • TOTAL TRAFFIC TOTAL TRAFFIC TOTAL TRAFFIC VOD ON0 O O N )c V) .1jL .1j'. 65 LOS=D 450 5 Jr LOS_D 145 LOS=O 1890 Del=40.3 1—1820 90—1 Del=36.5 4-75 520--II. Del=30.9 F 270 25 mit V/C=0.97' 70 20 V/C=0.78 c 370 420-.14 V/C=0.95 /15 V\ t 1' t 1' IN 1' i N V) N N P] C N • TRAFFIC OPERATIONS INCLUDE SEPERATE • WESTBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE ON ORE 99W . • • • • . ric), - 1p • .0_ cr) . C, S�QP SITE ' ^t SW ATLANTA ST z SW >:AYLORST 1 f cn m "77 ; UNTO 4111!.... m ® OgRTh10UT �' •3HERMOSO ELMHURS .nat c� W • SW BEVELAND •RD ■ • SW • ZADpp ST' • • . SW HAMPTON ' . a • • . ' < m • • ADDED TRAFFIC' .ADDED TRAFFIC ' ADDED TRAFFIC •ADDED TRAFFIC V 0 0 0 L in N \:.... i\I' i' \& iv \h �5 <5 L<5 5—* 4-15 I 41—<5 2 } } f • • 1 I I N 0 N N V V TOTAL TRAFFIC TOTAL TRAFFIC TOTAL TRAFFIC TOTAL TRAFFIC 0 � ON o o N 0 O U,V O N 0 Jillcn cA O 0 c' l�� 1 � i � (///...............'.-NiN\ R 100 LOS=D 85 'LOS=C 205 ' <5-I LOS=B -10 200- _LOS=C `80 3 450-* Del=35.8 4—315 Del=27.8 Del=19.4 4—10 445—► Del=33.5 4---245 215 Thi V/C=0.65 f 175 V/C=0.91 J 295 <5 V/C=0.83 or 35 35 V/C=0.54 -105 r' 1 I `` t !� t 1r 1 t ( IN t ( E CN,)O^ O N N VI 0 0 0 VI N V n C V m M c'7 O CO h N N O N t. K O n v c 3 I D • V N LEGEND o, CM=CRITICAL MOVEMENT(UNSIGNALIZED) a, LOS=INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE b (SIGNALIZED)/CRITICAL MOVEMENT LEVEL . a OF SERVICE(UNSIGNALIZED) m Del=INTERSECTION AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY NOTE:All traffic volumes have been rounded to the nearest five vehicles. (SIGNALIZED)/CRITICAL MOVEMENT CONTROL INCREASED FAR NET TRIPS AND 2025 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS FIGURE ' n DELAY(UNSIGNALIZED) c VWC=CRITICAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR V TIGARD, OREGON J K KITTELSON&ASSOCIATES,INC. • RANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFRC ENGINEERING Office Tigard Triangle General rce Lidding ng • Project #: 7321 g g September 7, 2005 Page 12 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE As part of this study, the proposed zone change was reviewed to ensure its' compliance with Section 660-12-060 of the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) and the adopted March 1999 Oregon Highway Plan. The following section evaluates the proposed zone change application's compliance with the TPR. Transportation Plan Rule Section 660-12-060 of the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) sets forth the relative criteria for evaluating plan and land use regulation amendments. Specifically, the sectionrieads as follows: I. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly,affects:.a transportation facility if it: (a) Changes the functional classification of an existing or planned.tr-ansportationIacility; (b) Changes standards implementing a functional classification.system, (c) (A) Allows types of land uses which would result yin-level of travel or"access which are inconsistent with the transportation facility; (B) Would reduce the level of service of the facility"below'the.,minimum acceptable level of service identified in the TSP. (C)Would worsen the performance of:an existing or'planned•transportation facility that is otherwise projected to perform, below ,the minimum'acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. II. Amendments to functional'plans,.acknowledged comprehensive plans, and land use regulations which significantly affect,,a transportation"facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function,''capacity, and level of service of the facility. This shall be accomplished"by either: • a) Adopting measures that 'demonstrate •allowed land uses are consistent with the planned function, capacity, and,level-of--service'of:the transportation facility; b) Amending the TSP:to provide,transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed land uses,consistent with the requirements of this division; c) Altering,,.the landuse designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce demand for '._automobile,travel and meet:travel needs through other modes; d) "Amending the'TSP to modify the planned function, capacity or performance standards of the transportation facility; or, e) Providing other measures as a condition of development or through a development agreement of similar'funding method, including transportation system management measures, demand management or minor transportation improvements. The relevant Transportation Plan Rule criteria in this instance are: A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it: (a) Changes the functional classification of an existing of planned transportation facility; Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon � Tigard Triangle General Office lidding Project #: 7321 September 7, 2005 Page 13 Response: The proposed increase in FAR from 0.4 to 1.0 will not require or result in any changes to the functional classification of any transportation facility in the vicinity of the site. (b) Changes standards implementing a functional classification system; Response: The proposed increase in FAR from 0.4 to 1.0 will not require or result in any changes to the standards that implement the functional classification system. (c)(A) Allows types of land uses, which would result in level of travel or access, which are inconsistent with the transportation facility; Response: The proposed increase in FAR from 0.4 to 1.0 is consistent,with the functional classification of the facilities that serve the site. (c)(B) Would reduce the level of service of the facility below the'minimum acceptable level of service identified in the TSP. Response: The proposed increase in FAR from 0.4,1o'1`50 will-not result m degradation of traffic operations below minimum acceptable levels of any of the study intersections with the exception of the SW Dartmouth St/Ore 99W intersection. This intersection is forecast to operate above the maximum acceptable volume-tol.capacity ratio of 0.99 for the facility under 2025 background conditions. The proposed':increase in FAR will result in an additional 20 new trips through the intersection;, none. of which would use the recommended separate westboundright turn lane. (c)(C) Would worsen the perfoiniance of-an'existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to perform below 'the:Minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP. Response: The proposed, increase in.;FAR from.0`.4 to 1.0 would result in a volume-to- capacity ratio increase at the intersection of SW Dartmouth St/ Ore 99W that would worsen the intersections existing sub standard operations. A separate westbound right turn lane on Ore 99W would:mitigate.-the:intersection to the pre-development operations and improve theintersection-to meet.the.operation standards for the facility. Under._Policy lF-(Highway''Mobility-Standards), Section 1F.6, of the Oregon Highway Plan, the evaluation of<amendments to 'tra nsportation system plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans and land,use regulations subject to OAR 660-12-060, in situations where the volume-to-capacity ratio fora highway.:seginent, intersection or interchange is above the standards in Table 6 or Table '7,of the Oregon:Highway Plan, or those otherwise approved by the Commission, and transportation improvements are not planned within the planning horizon to bring performance to standard,''-the,performance standard is to avoid further degradation. If an amendment to a transportation system plan, acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation increases the volume to capacity ratio further, it will significantly affect the facility. Response: All ODOT study area intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable volume-to- capacity standards (0.99) in year 2025 as established in the Oregon Highway Plan with the exception of SW Dartmouth St/Ore 99W which will not meet acceptable standards without the site development. The proposed new development will further degrade the operations of this Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon • Tigard Triangle General Office Building Project #. 7321 September 7, 2005 Page 14 intersection. A westbound right turn lane on Ore 99W is proposed to mitigate operations at this intersection. FINDINGS Based on the results of the due diligence traffic analysis, the proposed Tigard Triangle General Office Building can be rezoned to a 1.0 FAR without having a "significant impact" on the planned transportation system. The primary fmdings and recommendations of the analysis are summarized below. Year 2025 Background Traffic Conditions • The study intersections are anticipated to operate acceptably-urider year 2025 weekday p.m. peak hour traffic conditions with a 0.4 FAR for the proposed site with the exception of the SW Dartmouth St/Ore 99W intersection, which will. exceed-the,0.99 volume-to- capacity threshold set forth by the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan. • Proposed Development Activities • • The proposed Tigard Triangle General Oflzce. Building is anticipated to generate approximately 210 weekday p.m. peak hour.irips.:under the;proposed 1.0 FAR. • The proposed 1.0 FAR results in an increase'of'80::"trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour, compared to the existing 0.4 FAR. Year 2025 Total Traffic Conditions • Under forecast year 2025 total'traffic :conditions (with-the proposed Tigard Triangle General Office Building with the 1:0 FAY, the study intersections and the site-driveways are forecast to operate acceptably during,the weekday p.m. peak hour. With the exception of the SW Dartmouth-St/Ore 99W 'intersection, which exceeds the ODOT volume-to- capacity threshold • • A Potential initigation`measure for this intersection is a separate westbound right turn lane on Ore 99W..- . .,f • Adding a separate westboundright-turn lane would result in a volume-to-capacity ratio of 0:96,.which is within.acceptable ODOT operation standards. • 'The-proposed:"FAR increase results only in 20 new trips this intersection, none of which ;would use'the"recommended separate westbound right turn lane. In conclusion, mcr-easing the project site from an MUE maximum FAR of 0.4 to 1.0 is anticipated to be feasible without-having a "significant impact" to the planned transportation system with the construction of a westbound right turn lane on Ore 99W at SW Dartmouth Street. If you have any questions with regard to this memorandum or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call us at (503) 228-5230. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon • • Before the City of Tigard in the Matter of an Amendment to Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.520.050.C.1 Concerning the Multiple Use Employment ("MUE") Zoning District 1. Description of Application. This is an amendment to the acknowledged Tigard Community Development Code (the "TCDC"). As a post-acknowledgement amendment, the application must demonstrate compliance with applicable Statewide Planning Goals (the "Goals"), Administrative Rules and applicable Tigard Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan") policies. This is a legislative amendment and is classified in the TCDC as a Type IV procedure. TCDC Section 18.390.060. 2. Specific Request. TCDC Section 18.520.050.C.1 provides as follows: "1. The maximum floor area ration (FAR) for all commercial and industrial use types and mixed-use developments shall not exceed 0.40. Residential use types, including transient lodging, shall not be subject to this requirement." The applicant proposes that the language be amended to provides as follows: "The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for all commercial and industrial use types and mixed-use developments shall not exceed 0.40, but 1.0 shall be allowed where the applicant utilizes the design evaluation team process and where a traffic impact analysis approved through the design evaluation team process and Planning Commission review demonstrate that allowed uses on the subject property will maintain transportation levels consistent with the function, capacity and performance standards of affected transportation facilities consistent with OAR 660-012-0060." 3. Tigard Triangle. Tigard Triangle represents the City's efforts to revitalize the important area located between Oregon Highway 99W on the north, Oregon Highway 217 on the west and Interstate-5 on the east. The multiple use employment ("MUE") zoning - district implements the same Plan map designation and provides opportunities for mixed use and commercial development on the east half of the Tigard Triangle roughly between SW 72nd on the west and SW 68th on the east. However, the 0.40 PAGE 1 [181 57-0062-000000/PA051850.014] 7/5/05 12:16 PM /Knit& : _ , tin- Its ig� C T s i-1--1-e 1 cal c. 1 , y • • FAR limitation for the MUE areas is based upon an almost 10-year old determination that has not proven true in two respects. First, the City anticipated that the development would occur much more rapidly in the past 10 years thus using more of . the transportation capacity in the surrounding area. This has not occurred. Second, the City placed the 0.40 FAR limitation on the MUE zoning district in order to maintain adequate traffic capacity. However, the result is that the MUE zone has been underbilled or in order to provide additional floor area ratio, developers have "purchased development rights from other properties when in the MUE district. The purpose of this text amendment is to provide the opportunity under clear and objective criteria for an appropriate commercial development to exceed the 0.40 FAR. The proposed text amendment utilizes the design evaluation team process to enhance the design and provide for additional scrutiny through Planning Commission review. The text amendment also proposes that transportation capacity be adequate consistent with the transportation planning rule, OAR 660-012-0060(1) and (2). 4. Applicable Approval Criteria. TCDC Section 18.390.06.G sets for the decision-making considerations. This section addresses the following: • applicable goals • applicable Metro regulations • applicable Plan policies, and • applicable provisions of the TCDC. A. Applicable Statewide Planning Goals. (a) Goal 2, Land Use Planning: "To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions." RESPONSE: This goal requires an adequate factual base for post- acknowledgement amendments such as this. In this case, the proposed text amendment would simply provide an opportunity for an appropriate commercial development in the MUE zoning district to exceed the 0.40 FAR. The City may not grant the increased FAR if the application either fails to comply with the clear and objective criteria proposed in the text amendment or fails to comply with the other approval criteria contained in the TCDC. PAGE 2 [18157-0062-000000/PA051850.014] 7/5/05 12:16 PM • • The City can find that this goal is satisfied. (b) Goal 9, Economic Development: "To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens." RESPONSE: This text amendment furthers Goal 9 in two ways. First, it allows the potential for greater economic development within the MUE zoning district. Second, because of the design evaluation team process, not only is there a potential for greater commercial development consistent with other applicable development standards, but there is a potential or higher quality design than would otherwise be the case. The City can find that this goal is satisfied (c) Goal 12, Transportation: "To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system." RESPONSE: This application does not cause more traffic than currently exists within the Tigard Triangle or the MUE-designated area. It only provides the opportunity for additional commercial development consistent with the function, capacity and performing standards of affected transportation facilities. The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals held in Citizens for Protection of Neighborhoods LLC v. City of Salem, Or LUBA (LUBA No. 2003-201, June 9, 2004). Transportation impacts will be tested against specific development proposals through the design evaluation team and Planning Commission review process where the application must meet applicable development standards including this transportation- related standard. The City can find that this Goal is satisfied. (d) Conclusion. The City can find that applicable Statewide Planning Goals are satisfied. B. Applicable Plan Policies. (a) Plan Policy 1.1.1a: "This comprehensive plan and all future legislative changes [shall be] consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals adopted by the PAGE 3 [18157-0062-000000/PA051850.014] 7/5/05 12:16 PM • • Land Conservation and Development Commission, the regional plan adopted by the Metropolitan Service District." RESPONSE: The reasons contained elsewhere in this application, the City can find that this policy is satisfied. (b) Policy 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." RESPONSE: The artificially low 0.40 FAR for the MUE district is contrary to this policy which calls for increasing Tigard's job base for the benefit of its citizens. This text amendment allows this policy to be more fully implemented while, pursuant to the proposed language, ensuring that other development requirements are satisfied. The City can find that this policy is satisfied. (c) Economy, Implementation Strategy 1: "The City's Community Development Code shall incorporate any revisions needed to remove unnecessary obstacles which may deter new economic activities." RESPONSE: This text amendment furthers the simple implementation strategy by providing for the opportunity to exceed the artificially low 0.40 FAR where appropriate. (d) Economy, Implementation Strategy 8: "The City shall target efforts to strategic areas for growth and diversification. Specific areas include the Central Business District, the Tigard Triangle and the 74th Avenue Industrial area." RESPONSE: This text amendment implements this strategy by allowing the opportunity for greater economic development in the Tigard Triangle. The past 10 years have not provided the kind of growth anticipated by the City Council in the past. One of the reasons for this is the difficulty in developing superior commercial and office projects with an artificially low FAR that essentially provides for about one-third of the site to be developed with floor area. This amendment removes that impediment still providing for applicable development standards to be satisfied. PAGE 4 [18157-0062-000000/PA051850.014] 7/5/05 12:16 PM • • (e) Economy, Implementation Strategy 27 "Because access within an area is a significant determinative of economic location, the City shall develop and put into effect measures to reduce traffic congestion." RESPONSE: This text amendment furthers this implementation strategy by requiring that consistency with the Transportation Planning Rule be determined at the development review stage. (f) Policy 8.1.4(a) "Set a minimum intersection level of service standard for the City of Tigard and require all public facilities to be designed to meet this standard. RESPONSE: This text amendment satisfies this policy, because it requires prior to approval for a FAR greater than 0.40, that the applicant demonstrate compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule. (g) Policy 12.5.1.2.A.2: "The purpose of the mixed-use employment (MUE) land use designation is: . . . 2. to provide opportunities for employment and for new business and professional services in close proximity to retail centers and major transportation facilities." RESPONSE: This text amendment furthers this policy by providing the opportunity for enhanced office development which will provide additional opportunities for employment and for new business and professional services in the Tigard Triangle area. (h) Policy 12.5.1.2.A.3: "To provide for major retail goods and services accessible to the general public, and minor retail goods and services accessible to the public which works and lives within the MUE district." RESPONSE: This application furthers this policy by providing a greater opportunity for the provision of services accessible to the general public within and outside of the MUE district. PAGE 5 [18157-0062-000000/PA051850.014] 7/5/05 12:16 PM • • (i) Conclusion: The City can find that applicable Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies and implementation strategies are satisfied. C. Applicable Metro Functional Plan Policies. The Tigard Triangle MUE area is designated as a Metro Title IV employment area. Employment areas are defined as "design types of employment and some residential development are encouraged in employment areas with limited commercial uses." Metro Code Section 3.07.130, "Design type boundaries requirement." Employment areas are intended to generate 20 employees per acre. Metro Code Section 3.07.170(A), design type density recommendations. This proposed text amendment will assist the City in implementing the employment area designation and the goal of providing a certain number of employees per acre by allowing greater commercial development consistent with development standards. Most specific Metro Code policy apply to this amendment. 5. Conclusion. For the reasons contained herein, the City can find that applicable approval standards are satisfied. The applicant respectfully requests that the City approve the text amendment. • PAGE 6 [1 8 1 57-0062-000000/PA051850.014] 7/5/05 12:16 PM M. E 0 R A N D • U M 600 NORTHEAST GRAND AVENUE PORTLAND,OREGON 97232 2736 TEL 503 797 1700 FAX 503 797 1794 W j \ METRO DATE: June 28, 2005 TO: MTAC Members and Interested Parties FROM: Tom Kloster, Transportation Planning Manager SUBJECT: Recent Transportation Planning Rule Amendments On March 15, the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) adopted broad revisions to OAR 660-012-0060, the state Transportation Planning Rule. This round of amendments was focused on critical issues raised by the recent Jaqua vs. City of Springfield case that threatened current planning practices for balancing transportation and land use plans. While the LCDC response to the Jaqua case began as "fine tuning" amendments to the TPR, sweeping new provisions were introduced shortly before the draft rule was released for public review on January 3, 2005. These provisions, and staff recommendations for remedying them, are discussed in this memorandum. The "1/2 Mile Rule" The amended TPR reaffirms the existing practice of evaluating land use and transportation plan amendments for their effects in the horizon year of adopted 20-year plans in response to the Jaqua decision. However, the amended rule also applies a special test for transportation system adequacy along certain interstate highway corridors that creates a bar so high that the practical effect will be a zoning freeze in many of the affected areas of the metropolitan region. Known as the "1/2 mile rule", this provision represents a major shift in policy that Metro believes unacceptable because of the effects on the region's ability to implement the 2040 Growth Concept in these corridors. The 1/2 mile rule requires plan amendments within a half mile radius of interchanges on I-5, I-205, I-405 and I-84 to be evaluated according to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) "financially constrained" system, a set of improvements that represents just over one third of the needed projects in the region. Metro's analysis of the financially constrained system showed that most of the interstate system in the region would fail to meet the RTP level of service policy in the 2020 horizon year with this limited set of improvements. The net effect would be a cap on plan amendments in affected areas that where added housing or employment might be proposed. This means that zoning to increase employment or housing densities could be blocked in the Portland Central City, Gateway, Clackamas and Oregon City regional centers, Hollywood, Lents, West Linn, Tualatin and Wilsonville town centers and every station • community along the Interstate, Airport and I-205 MAX lines. The inner portions of the • • Banfield MAX line are also affected. In many cases, local zoning that implements these 2040 designations hasn't been adopted yet, so the impact is dramatic along the Interstate and I-205 MAX corridors, in particular. In the Tualatin/Wilsonville area and Gresham's Springwater employment area, planned industry on land recently brought inside the urban growth boundary could be affected. In Metro's preliminary analysis, the rule affects more than 24,000 acres in these corridors, of which more than 8,000 areas fall into 2040 centers, station communities and main streets, alone. Metro has opposed the "1/2 mile rule" over concerns that it is overly simplistic and has significant unintended effects that were not considered during rulemaking. Unfortunately, the State did not complete any sort of land use or transportation analysis when drafting these requirements. While Metro shares the state's interest in protecting the integrity of the interstate highway system, we also believe this goal can be much more effectively achieved through more thoughtful strategies that are coordinated with adopted land use . and transportation plans. There is also some dispute over whether the amendments apply to areas beyond the interchanges, due to confusion over how the amendments related to pre-existing terminology in the rule. This stems from an interpretation by State planning staff that the recent amendments changed the definition of "funding plan" as the term has been applied to system plans over the past 15 years. Under this interpretation, the provisions of the "1/2 mile rule" would be expanded to cover all state-owned facilities. Metro staff do not agree that this was the intention of the OTC and LCDC when the amendments, since it represents a sweeping expansion of the interchange policy that was not discussed by the joint commissions during rulemaking. To address these issues, the accompanying amendments would establish a different process for those metropolitan areas where a regional system plan is already required by the TPR. A regional plan already provides a more comprehensive look at interchanges than the "1/2 mile rule" offers, but under the proposed amendments, regional plans would be required to include a strategy for completing Interchange Area Management Plans (IAMPs) to replace the "1/2 mile rule" for metropolitan areas. Interchange Area Management Plans already exist in state regulations, and can better address the complexities of urban interchanges. The proposed amendments also include better definition of TPR terminology used in these provisions to address the dispute over the scope of the recent rule changes, including clarity of what constitutes a "funding plan" versus a "funding mechanism." ODOT as a Land Use Authority The caveat to the 1/2 mile rule is that ODOT staff will be allowed to determine if additional improvements beyond the RTP financially constrained system are deemed "reasonably likely" to occur, a discretionary interpretation that would occur outside the planning process, and put ODOT staff in the position of deciding land use actions in affected areas. This provision represents a departure from Oregon's planning tradition where local elected officials adopt comprehensive plans in a public process intended to provide certainty in the development process. The effect of this provision would be to allow ODOT to make discretionary, arbitrary decisions that second-guess local policy makers on major planning decisions. It's also unclear how this could be applied in our region, since most of the affected highway corridors are deferred to refinement plans, and have no major improvements identified in the RTP until individual corridor plans are complete. Thus, ODOT staff would be in the position of choosing projects that don't exist in the RTP in order to use this provision to "approve" plan amendments. This determination by ODOT requires no public process for evaluating the merit or impacts of such projects. Metro opposes the "reasonably likely" provisions because it places ODOT in an • • inappropriate role as decision maker in the planning process, and could undermine the region's effort to concentrate future growth in existing urban centers and corridors in an effort to reduce urban sprawl. The draft amendments to the TPR that would limit the scope and impact of this provision in our region and reinforce the current practices used in evaluating comprehensive plan amendments. However, the proposed amendments to not seek to strike the provision, since there seems to be strong interest by the State in retaining this option. In order to be considered by the LCDC, the proposed amendments must be considered by JPACT, MPAC and the Council by early July, with the request that the regional policy makers forward them to the LCDC for consideration in the final stages of the TPR update. The Metro Council has also reserved the option to petition for rulemaking, should other avenues for addressing our concerns fail. • • July 14, 2005 John VanLandingham, Chair Land Conservation and Development Commission 635 Capitol St., NE Suite 150 Salem, OR 97301-2540 Dear Chair VanLandingham: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on update to the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). We commend the joint OTC/LCDC Transportation Subcommittee for producing these amendments in such a short time frame, and support the Commission's effort to remedy the critical issues raised by the Jaqua vs. City of Springfield case. When the Commission adopted the first round of TPR amendments addressing the Jaqua case earlier this year, you encouraged local agencies to work with the Commission to fine-tune the rule to best meet this new challenge. We have since engaged our local and regional partners in the Metro region in a review of the new TPR provisions, and are proposing following comments on Section 660-012-0060 in the spirit of fine tuning the TPR. We believe that these amendments build on existing strengths of the TPR, while also recognizing the complexity of planning in larger urban settings. The comments focus on the "1/2 mile rule", in particular. While we are proposing amendments to this set of provisions, the changes are offered with a commitment from our region that public investments in highway interchanges are guarded carefully against inappropriate land use actions. While we have a small share of the state's highway interchanges, they also serve as gateways to the state's most important marine and air terminals, and provide primary access to public facilities like the Oregon Convention Center, Oregon Health and Science University, Central Post Office, Portland State University, Oregon Zoo, Metro Expo Center and many other cultural, commercial, medical and recreational destinations that serve residents of the entire state. Thus, we are keenly aware of the need to protect these access points over the long term. 5 Lusaj, Oici'tt3P) O larifying Funding Plans vs. nding Mechanisms The recent amendments to the TPR resulted in a confusing mix of transportation funding terminology that requires clarification in order to avoid invalidating currently acknowledged transportation system plans (TSP) in the Metro region. For the purpose of the rule, we recommend that "funding plans" be defined as a TSP element where a strategy, or range of strategies, wwtiJ 6 ke4- 5 • • establish a road map for funding transportation revenue shortfalls during the 20-year plan period. Conversely, "funding mechanisms" would be identified as adopted or approved sources of transportation revenue that can be used to fund projects and programs identified in TSPs. The proposed amendments in Attachment 'A' distinguish between these terms, and clarify how they apply to plan amendments in "interchange" areas and other areas within a locality. We recently learned of DLCD staff's new interpretation of what a "funding plan" constitutes, and strongly disagree that the recent TPR amendments were intended to change this definition as it was applied in the acknowledgement of our regional transportation plan in 2000. The sharp difference of opinion between state agencies and local jurisdictions on the current language is evidence of the need to clarify the terminology. The proposed amendments would confirm the original interpretation of a "funding plan" to be part of shaping a long-range planning process, and not the state of current funding policies. The amendments would also reduce the need to rely on ODOT interpretations of"reasonably likely" transportation improvements, which will introduce great uncertainty and ambiguity (and resulting litigation), as well as a new step in the already complicated local planning process. Local officials in the Metro region expressed concern over placing the role of an ODOT administrator above that of elected policy makers in making land use decisions, a significant departure from current practice. Instead, we believe that better interchange protections are possible through improved consultation and coordination between ODOT and local governments, as suggested below. Interchange Management Strategy We continue to oppose the "1/2 mile rule", a new layer of planning regulations intended to protect interstate highway interchanges from overdevelopment. As you know, Metro shares the state's concern for protecting the capacity and function of interstate interchanges. But the 1/2- mile rule is overly simplistic, particularly for urban areas where even the definition for measuring this radius cannot be applied to many interchanges. Instead, we support the use of interchange area management plans (IAMPs) in these areas, an existing tool that offers the best protection for interchanges, but has been largely unfunded by ODOT. Our recommendation is based on a review of the interchanges located within the Metro region, and upon consultation with the Oregon MPO Consortium, which includes members from the Salem-Keizer, Eugene-Springfield, Rogue Valley, Corvallis and Bend MPOs. Our finding is that the 1/2 mile rule would not only block desired land use plans in existing urban areas, where compact development is proposed near interchanges, but also have the subsequent effect of pushing development toward the urban fringe, where the greatest interchange capacity exists in the state's larger urban areas. This effect is • • clearly in conflict with statewide planning goals to limit sprawl and promote compact development. The 1/2 mile rule also ignores the reality that, in larger urban areas, a much larger area might necessarily be managed as part of protecting interchanges. For example, in the Metro region, the Marine Drive interchange on Interstate-5 serves the major marine terminals of the Portland Harbor, yet all are located outside the 'h mile area. We believe that IAMPs provide a better alternative for customizing a strategy that meets the needs of each interchange, such as Marine Drive. The proposed amendments to the TPR shown in Attachment 'A' would require Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to develop an interchange management strategy as part of adopting a regional TSP. The strategy would establish priorities and timing for completion of interchange area managements plans for areas governed by MPOs, and is modeled after the existing "refinement planning" provisions of the TPR. The approach is also based on the notion that the TPR already calls out MPOs as unique in their transportation needs, and thus ties the interchange management responsibility to the regional TSPs that are required for the six MPOs. ODOT would be strongly encouraged to participate in the completion of IAMPs for these areas, since the investment in completing this work represents a fraction of what just one interchange construction project could cost in the event of an inappropriate land use decision in an interchange area. It should be noted, however, that much of the corridor planning, and even some capital improvements to ODOT highways in the Metro region are now being funded with local or regional dollars. We strongly recommend that ODOT make a meaningful investment in protecting interchanges by funding the IAMP efforts for critical facilities. ODOT has already begun this effort in the Metro region by preparing an analysis of"at risk" interchanges, but the Region 1 office will need funding support from the OTC to complete this work. Conclusion We look forward to continued participation and comment as the remaining portions of the TPR are reviewed by the Commission in coming months. We are committed to finding a workable solution to better protecting our interchange investments, and appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important effort. Sincerely, Rex Burkholder Jack_Hoffman David Bragdon JPACT Chair MPAC Chair Metro Council President • • cc: Members of the LCDC Lane Shetterly, Department of Land Conservation and Development Members of the Oregon Transportation Commission Bruce Warner, Oregon Department of Transportation • • Attachment `A' 660-012-0005 - Definitions (7)_�::Eundii g:=Plan means;a;feasonable strate o rangefof strategies�'adopted in a local] A;f,! "!.^°." -;�.0.'S°'«.µms.•'�.r, cis- �'T... ;.:1°'�"YT".':-':��., ,. „-e°;ur_�Yk: i.F,/•'e,`_�"r y. 'P "xaa"x'.'[dp'°Y^aa'�ni: transportation system°planµ^that=ad"dresses-'identified;funding-shortfalls°dunn-g the p ,i g period:'� ...... .._.. . .. ._ _. . . ....... ._.�. . __. �.. ihi��. i.. g»' .. k: n Dore �8�"£�"Fundin �=Meeliariism�:�:'mean`st-an ado o tecior a� ."roved"tra ��ortah'on.revenue used,to:finanee�pro�eets�ancipro grams includedii�localtransportation=;system�plas; (9)°"Interchan'ge Management Strategy"means an adopted strategy.`for°de`eloping', interchafge management plans in=:MPOtareas. 660-012-0060 - Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments (1) Where an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, the local government shall put in place measures as provided in section(2) of this rule to assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards (e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would: (a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility(exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or (c) As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted transportation system plan: (A)Allow land uses or levels of development that would result in types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (B)Reduce the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or (C) Worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. • • • (2) Where a local government determines that there would be a significant effect, compliance with section(1) shall be accomplished through one or a combination of the following: (a) Adopting measures that demonstrate allowed land uses are consistent with the planned function, capacity, and performance standards of the transportation facility. (b) Amending the TSP or comprehensive plan to provide transportation facilities, improvements or services adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division; such amendments shall include a funding plan or fund g m e hani`sing consistent with section(4) or include an amendment to the transportation finance plan so that the facility, improvement, or service will be provided by the end of the planning period. (c) Altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce demand for automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes. (d) Amending the TSP to modify the planned function, capacity or performance standards of the transportation facility. (e) Providing other measures as a condition of development or through a development agreement or similar funding method, including transportation system management measures, demand management or minor transportation improvements. Local governments shall as part of the amendment specify when measures or improvements provided pursuant to this subsection will be provided. (3)Notwithstanding sections (1) and (2) of this rule, a local government may approve an amendment that would significantly affect an existing transportation facility without assuring that the allowed land uses are consistent with the function, capacity and performance standards of the facility where: (a) The facility is already performing below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan on the date the amendment application is submitted; (b) In the absence of the amendment, planned transportation facilities, improvements and services as set forth in section (4) of this rule would not be adequate to achieve consistency with the identified function, capacity or performance standard for that facility by the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP; (c) Development resulting from the amendment will, at a minimum, mitigate the impacts of the amendment in a manner that avoids further degradation to the performance of the facility by the time of the development through one or a combination of transportation improvements or measures; • • (d)The amendment d oesnot involve property located in an interchange area as defined in paragraph(4)(d)(C); and (e)For affected state highways, ODOT provides a written statement that the proposed funding and timing for the identified mitigation improvements or measures are, at a minimum, sufficient to avoid further degradation to the performance of the affected state highway. However, if a local government provides the appropriate ODOT regional office with written notice of a proposed amendment in a manner that provides ODOT reasonable opportunity to submit a written statement into the record of the local government proceeding, and ODOT does not provide a written statement, then the local government may proceed with applying subsections(a) through(d) of this section. (4) Determinations under sections (1)-(3) of this rule shall be coordinated with affected transportation facility and service providers and other affected local governments. (a) In determining whether an amendment has a significant effect on an existing or planned transportation facility under subsection(1)(c) of this rule, local governments shall rely on existing transportation facilities and services and on the planned transportation facilities, improvements and services set forth in subsections (b) and (c)below. (b) Outside of interstate interchange areas, the following are considered planned facilities, improvements and services: (A) Transportation facilities, improvements or services that are funded for construction or implementation in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program or a locally or regionally adopted transportation improvement program or capital improvement plan or program of a transportation service provider. (B)Transportation facilities, improvements or services that are authorized in a local transportation system plan and for which a funding plan or fiindin �+��,,,� SQ._�,„7 :-,,�- } mechanism is in place or approved. These Funding nlech in smd include, but are not limited to, transportation facilities, improvements or services for which: transportation systems development charge revenues are being collected; a local improvement district or reimbursement district has been established or will be established prior to development; a development agreement has been adopted; or conditions of approval to fund the improvement have been adopted. (C) Transportation facilities, improvements or services in a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) area that are part of the area's federally-approved, financially constrained regional transportation system plan. (D)Improvements to state highways that are included as planned improvements in a regional or local transportation system plan or comprehensive plan when • • ODOT provides a written statement that the improvements are reasonably likely to be provided by the end of the planning period. (E) Improvements to regional and local roads, streets or other transportation facilities or services that are included as planned improvements in a regional or local transportation system plan or comprehensive plan when the local government(s) or transportation service provider(s)responsible for the facility, improvement or service provides a written statement that the facility, improvement or service is reasonably likely to be provided by the end of the planning period. (c) Within interstate interchange areas, the improvements included in(b)(A)`=(B) and'< thos vi"ded tl rou fu din mechan sri s in (C) are considered planned facilities, improvements and services, except where bneraf:t low ni g-applies (A) ODOT provides a written statement that the proposed funding and timing of mitigation measures are sufficient to avoid a significant adverse impact on the Interstate Highway system, then local governments may also rely on the improvements identified in paragraphs (b)(D) and (E) of this section; or (B) There is an adopted interchange area management plan, then local governments may also rely on the improvements identified in that plan and which are also identified in paragraphs (b)(D) and (E) of this section. (Cn)WThere is an adopted:interchangeAmanagement�;strateg3r m a regional' trap tportatioresystemvplansiiVMPJO areas. (d) As used in this section and section(3): (A) Planned interchange means new interchanges and relocation of existing interchanges that are authorized in an adopted transportation system plan or comprehensive plan; (B) Interstate highway means Interstates 5, 82, 84, 105, 205 and 405; and (C) Interstate interchange area means: (i) Property within one-half mile of an existing or planned interchange on an Interstate Highway as measured from the center point of the interchange; or (ii)The interchange area as defined in the Interchange Area Management Plan adopted as an amendment to the Oregon Highway Plan. Dr..>,.:;�:«.w.,. .;.4a. s ¢.r .,.r, .�c n<.M..: "�'`• a �, r,..--Air.'? a)Ii terehail management<strategyrnearisEan ado ted`fstrate afor de�elo in i p gY p. g•- ��'' /�+°ii�:b�3AC�S'i�i:£'r6.ii$l;i.¢�"y'..�,f•>:`:"'1421 n •.ea..:._��•Yp,_ �'�;ri:�;�:..;rrz'C. "�;..s,�;.�"``:• � nterchangemanagement plans�uiJMROiare* Slntercl tinge rrianagementastratesie • establish pnorihes and tlmm foricomple 6ii of interehan eFinana ement flans for_areas_goverried by_MPOs _._ , (e)For purposes of this section, a written statement provided pursuant to paragraphs (b)(D), (b)(E) or(c)(A)provided by ODOT, a local government or transportation facility provider, as appropriate, shall be conclusive in determining whether a transportation facility, improvement or service is a planned transportation facility, improvement or service. In the absence of a written statement, a local government can only rely upon planned transportation facilities, improvements and services identified in paragraphs (b)(A)-(C)to determine whether there is a significant effect that requires application of the remedies in section(2). (5) The presence of a transportation facility or improvement shall not be a basis for an exception to allow residential, commercial, institutional or industrial development on rural lands under this division or OAR 660-004-0022 and 660-004-0028. (6) In determining whether proposed land uses would affect or be consistent with.planned transportation facilities as provided in 0060(1) and (2), local governments shall give full credit for potential reduction in vehicle trips for uses located in mixed-use,pedestrian- friendly centers, and neighborhoods as provided in (a)-(d)below; (a) Absent adopted local standards or detailed information about the vehicle trip reduction benefits of mixed-use,pedestrian-friendly development, local governments shall assume that uses located within a mixed-use,pedestrian-friendly center, or neighborhood, will generate 10% fewer daily and peak hour trips than are specified in available published estimates, such as those provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual that do not specifically account for the effects of mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly development. The 10% reduction allowed for by this section shall be available only if uses which rely solely on auto trips, such as gas stations, car washes, storage facilities, and motels are prohibited; (b) Local governments shall use detailed or local information about the trip reduction benefits of mixed-use,pedestrian-friendly development where such information is available and presented to the local government. Local governments may, based on such information, allow reductions greater than the 10%reduction required in(a); (c) Where a local government assumes or estimates lower vehicle trip generation as provided in (a) or(b) above, it shall assure through conditions of approval, site plans, or approval standards that subsequent development approvals support the development of a mixed-use,pedestrian-friendly center or neighborhood and provide for on-site bike and pedestrian connectivity and access to transit as provided for in 0045(3) and (4). The provision of on-site bike and pedestrian connectivity and access to transit may be accomplished through application of acknowledged ordinance provisions which comply with 0045(3) and(4) or through conditions of approval or • 4 findings adopted with the plan amendment that assure compliance with these rule requirements at the time of development approval; and (d) The purpose of this section is to provide an incentive for the designation and implementation of pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use centers and neighborhoods by lowering the regulatory barriers to plan amendments which accomplish this type of development. The actual trip reduction benefits of mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly development will vary from case to case and may be somewhat higher or lower than presumed pursuant to (a) above. The Commission concludes that this assumption is warranted given general information about the expected effects of mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly development and its intent to encourage changes to plans and development patterns. Nothing in this section is intended to affect the application of provisions in local plans or ordinances which provide for the calculation or assessment of systems development charges or in preparing conformity determinations required under the federal Clean Air Act. (7) Amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations which meet all of the criteria listed in (a)-(c)below shall include an amendment to the comprehensive plan, transportation system plan the adoption of a local street plan, access management plan, future street plan or other binding local transportation plan to provide for on-site alignment of streets or accessways with existing and planned arterial, collector, and local streets surrounding the site as necessary to implement the requirements in Section 0020(2)(b) and Section 0045(3)of this division: (a) The plan or land use regulation amendment results in designation of two or more acres of land for commercial use; (b) The local government has not adopted a TSP or local street plan which complies with Section 0020(2)(b) or, in the Portland Metropolitan Area, has not complied with Metro's requirement for street connectivity as contained in,Chapter 6Iof the"Regionals „<.°.� ....=�...,� , _,� ,,.,ems,- -�.,�..,.;,.�,,;�w,---.,.. Transportati'onPlariw: - ' : ::a•�z:�w..»':�.�:,.:ram,cw, .,.,.,�;-,�x:,,��,.... ; and . ... ,. (c) The proposed amendment would significantly affect a transportation facility as provided in 0060(1). (8) A "mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly center or neighborhood" for the purposes of this rule,means: (a) Any one of the following: (A) An existing central business district or downtown; (B) An area designated as a central city, regional center, town center or main street in the Portland Metro 2040 Regional Growth Concept; i • (C) An area designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan as a transit oriented development or a pedestrian district; or (D) An area designated as a special transportation area as provided for in the Oregon Highway Plan. (b) An area other than those listed in(a)which includes or is planned to include the following characteristics: (A) A concentration of a variety of land uses in a well-defined area, including the following: (i) Medium to high density residential development (12 or more units per acre); (ii) Offices or office buildings; (iii) Retail stores and services; (iv) Restaurants; and (v)Public open space or private open space which is available for public use; such as a park or plaza. (B) Generally include civic or cultural uses; (C) A core commercial area where multi-story buildings are permitted; (D) Buildings and building entrances oriented to streets; (E) Street connections and crossings that make the center safe and conveniently accessible from adjacent areas; (F) A network of streets and,where appropriate, accessways and major driveways that make it attractive and highly convenient for people to walk between uses within the center or neighborhood, including streets and major driveways within the center with wide sidewalks and other features, including pedestrian-oriented street crossings, street trees,pedestrian-scale lighting and on-street parking; (G) One or more transit stops (in urban areas with fixed route transit service); and (H) Limit or do not allow low-intensity or land extensive uses, such as most industrial uses, automobile sales and services, and drive-through services. Stat.Auth.:ORS 183& 197.040 • • �. . • Stats.Implemented:ORS 195.025, 197.040, 197.230, 197.245, 197.610- 197.625, 197.628- 197.646, 197.712, 197.717& 197.732 Hist.:LCDC 1-1991,f.&cert.ef.5-8-91;LCDD 6-1998,f.&cert.ef. 10-30-98;LCDD 6-1999,f.&cert.ef. 8-6-99; LCDD 3-2005,f.&cert.ef.4-11-05 • • • ',` 2)05 T 4 ,v04, , L glii:5 P/ 7a,/,n,f/t, -co 0)4-- / we-el -e, hcej-i<51 - _ _ / ef,,;t2J4 s *(74,-/-6. .. ey_.6.74 C 01.4.49 , C.I..k. 1,11 _ $146".e. / 4 Grilt,( ` / � _ R _ ems'C 5 w *', . 9 c-/-- -e--}-1 (9c)---r /we* &-61) - ( it, RitteiM ,H 1' ,,,.. e.-- --' H 61-4 • t" ' ' -:‘,,,4 64.. A;,,e4 . e o A _ cr5 (10,4 rf_ s 4 4 ef/7-14 f �, � , 64 - C 4 G 2Q , 1,2)1 os 6r v(J kia..,) „,ee.,,,,J, (k-tc C- /tife9Z cic-,,, . A.,, 2./-± -I— - > Pteiti . / z ' j 'll/a1L-t-T -1,4,ese_.& _i 471 und&-704.ge/A-. 4-,e-G,‘ beZect-c -0_-v X-er _ } • • .'i 4 g-zz; (z-</d6-x-, 1 ` S /30/GP b ?r 7- ))9.4 /nirlei/CA R1115.40"441.t . Z('W- rl,t mug- i 6tr15.c(^)s S"c' 7�c�n•Z�c� o�� ��o 1.14-(4. 0/4,(4.4.71 ecAikod / /1.21 1,fA/tAAji ee:C'e(-4'144°1j , 41 u/itt-s T//5/ . 74,�/ it a} +i • . COMMUNICATION RECORD Kittelson & Associates, Inc. DATE PROJECT# 17 Transportation Planning/Traffic Engineering 610 SW Alder,Suite 700 . Portland OR 97205 Telephone:(503)228-5230 PROJECT NAME N Fax:(503)273-8169 E-mail:info @kittelson.com http://www.kittelson.com/ ISSUED BY: ❑TELEPHONE CALL Talked to: • Of: Time: AM PM Phone# • ❑INTERNAL MEMO To: Of: AM ❑ MEETING lime: PM Location: Attending: . RE: 516% /P ./144et. 9-To2Z c K444c.:9 1v- t- 4 c cj mks S03 z2 -5Z D FA Lb C17, PeticA PK e.f-y ty' 4--o ; 2 z/fos. i1G1� ii 0- / cL, ©I3Q r //2¢i��ic 5D 3 731 -5 z/ G L e>-.f s� f l f 7 so3 - 7133 2 e(j a.e 1 ri-ex . S ft-c. t- So G kg c)-4eia_ t'ou SGT--eer2. S/he-c )Y- So 3 C r‘ - S w K( 4 C. 5°3 8-S O J -5 ireR-5'.53 /� ©Dor r-4.55,6 SG?- 73/- X22/ S ? Z2 vo Vic . �cAv►Qc/,�' 0 OT- niS � 2f} J - 2 12M W tike OV - 1A /0(*.1*/, 00, fzi- o S > "'"--14-- KAIFORMP101 , • • I R S Sic7Aein in 1 L �5 n Z O N I N G S U M M A R Y : TIGARD OFFICE BUILDING �. Specht Development October 5,2005 m Note:Zoning shall be reviewed with City of Tigard to confirm interpretations and requirements. a rt CHAPTER 18.620 TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS m 1. Street Frontage(18.260.030.A.1) Minimum 50%building frontage on Major and Minor Arterials Proposed: Depends on how City interprets angled frontage-may need extended façade wall. E Will need City's interpretation that both parcels are to be considered together. w 5 2. Building Setback(18.260.030.A.2) Minimum building setback shall be 0 feet a Proposed: More than 0 feet. in Maximum building setback shall be 10 feet. c. Proposed: Less than 10 feet at SW 68th Parkway 0-15'from SW Dartmouth(at stepped plan) 103'from SW 69th Avenue 65'from SW Clinton Street 3. Front Yard Setback(18.260.030.A.3) Landscape/arcade/pedestrian path extension required ro between structure and public street where building abuts street. Landscape must be L-1 on public street(low screen). Proposed: Landscape/path on SW 68th Parkway Landscape on SW Dartmouth 4.Walkway connection(18.260.030.A.4) Walkway connection between building entrance and public street, minimum 6'wide. Proposed: Walkway connection to SW 69th Avenue 5. Parking, Landscaping(18.260.030.A.5) Parking required to side or rear of new buildings. If parking is to side, must be 50%minimum frontage and landscaped to L-1, minimum 5'wide or equal to building setback(whichever is greater). Proposed: Parking is to side and rear. Parking has 5'landscaped buffer at all sides. 6. Ground Floor Windows(18.620.040.A.1) All street-facing elevations within building setback(0 to10') along public streets—minimum 50%of ground wall area (from 3'to 9'above grade)shall be windows/displays/ doorways. Proposed: To be determined. 7. Building Facades(18.620.040.A.2) Facades facing public streets shall extend no more than 50' • without variation in materials/1'building offset/wall projection/or structural design feature. Also, any building 300'or more requires pedestrian connection between or through building. Proposed: To be determined. 8. Weather protection(18.620.0404) Weather protection required at entranc Weather protection encouraged along Milling frontages. • Proposed: Canopy at main entry. No canopies along frontage. 9. Building Materials(18.620.040.A.4) Not allowed:plain concrete block, corrugated metal, plywood, sheet press board or vinyl siding. Foundations not greater than 2' high can be exposed concrete. Proposed: To be determined. 10. Roof and Roof lines(18.620.040.A.5) Roofs shall be extension of primary materials, and respect structure and architecture. No false fronts or false roofs. Proposed: Will conform. 11. Roof equipment(18.620.040.A.6) All roof-mounted equipment shall be screened from view from public streets. Proposed: Will conform. 12. Signs(18.620.050) (Review Development code for applicable requirements.) 13. Entry Portals(18.620.070) Entry Portal required at intersection of 1-5 and Dartmouth. Proposed: To be determined. 14. Landscaping L-1, L-2(18.620.070) (Standards for L-1 and L-2)defined in this section and referred to in other sections.) 15. Street Classification(18.620.080.a) Dartmouth Street: Major Arterial 72'wide R.O.W.east of 72nd Ave SW 68th Avenue Minor Arterial 70' R.O.W. • • • • • • CHAPTER 18.520 COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS ZONE MUE, MIXED USE EMPLOYMENT: C-G,GENERAL COMMERCIAL • Table 18.520.1. Use Table:Commercial Zones Office Permitted Table 18.520.2.Commercial Development Standards Standard Required Provided Comments 1. Minimum Lot Size None 103,219 sf+/- 2. Minimum Lot Width 50' 189' 3. Minimum Setback- Front Yard 0' (1) 4. Minimum Setback-Side Yard 0'/20' (1);20'required at R zone 5. Minimum Setback-Rear Yard 07 20' (1);20'required at R zone 6. Minimum Building Height N/A 7. Maximum Building Height 45 feet TBD 8. Maximum Site Coverage 85% 85% (2) 9. Minimum Landscape Requirement 15% 15% • 10. Minimum FAR N/A (3) 0.40 TBD Per 18.520.050 11. Bicycle Racks(18.520.060.A.2.b.5) 20 (4)(for 228 parking stalls) 12. Corner feature(18.520.060.A.2.b.6) Required TBD (5) (1)Superseded by Tigard Triangle Design Standards (2) Includes building and impervious area (3)Superseded by 18.520.050 (4) 10 bike stalls for first 100 parking stalls, 5 stalls for every additional 100 parking stalls. See also Table 18.765.2 (5) Landscape feature, seasonal color planting area, sculpture or water feature. • • CHAPTER 18.765 OFFSTREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS 1. Carpool/Vanpool parking(18.765.030.F) Parking lots in excess of 20 long-term parking spaces require at least 5%reserved for carpool/vanpool. Proposed: To be determined. 2. Parking overhang (18.765.030.J) The front 3'of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscaping (does not apply to landscape area). 3. Parking Dimensions(Figure 18.765.1) For 90 degree parking stalls(Off-street surface parking) Compact stalls 7.5'x 16.5' Aisles 28' 7.75'x 16.5' Aisles 25' 8'x 16.5' Aisles 24' Compact stalls can total 50%of total number of stalls. Standard stalls 8.5'x 18.5' Aisles 28' 9'x 18.5' Aisles 26' 9.5'x 18.5' Aisles 25' 10'x 18.5' Aisles 24' 4. Bicycle Parking (18.765.050) Should be under cover where possible(min. 7'clear) Size: 2.5'x 6' Aisles 5' 5. Min. parking reduction(18.765.070.F) May be reduced up to 20%by Director for: bus stops and pull-outs, bus shelters,transit-oriented developments(Type II procedure). 6. Off-street Loading(18.765.080) Minimum 1 loading space for 10,000 sf or more. Minimum 2 loading spaces for 40,000 sf or more. (Size not defined in code.) Provided: 2 spaces. 7. Minimum Parking(Table 18.765.2) Office Minimum 2.7/1000 SF Maximum 3.4/1000 SF Zone A Bicycle 0.5/1000 SF • ........r...1.-... '.'.,1* i. , ..r—r. .. '-m° : 4, ..i.l•-•,—' ***** • . •'..•n .4 rea,44 7.......110 . 4 twTHI, .,. ... , .„,„„ ...ri ie... ,....... ...,... .....„..._ iiii........ag.......... 1------iiti_ff......triii.lid .......----...„...,.... .,...........=....se..1.---Iiii...:,,,,.....!.wz......:.7-.....7sil . ...t..!...:.. _ ::.!,...,.....!,....................41.,....,.. ........,.... . .,...---..-- .7.Mill.,111...,..i1".......•....•.•...•••••......:ii.:::::.!....,•••••...................iiti,i ..• .....!!..'.....:, . 1....!.i..... ...1, • . .. A a.. .... ,..,..... . ...,.. -,-,--11 ,i10,,,, ..7.,Ti=0:....". ,:geaiiii 4,.......M. :. akiami•'.ilti-11%,1111! Ir:ii'::ii"...ii ""*"**::.:1.''..i. • , ,,...,„!..../11.1i.1:1!!ii.• ,•:.11. - •.•::. ••••• WI=::• ,•.• ••••, ••_•_::....•••:•!: •:•••••AK. i..• ....... •••• .';...;.:„ •••.j•,• IN * il• •i•......... . ,...• ' ..,••••:1....';.:4* . ....,,,,..:::,.. ii ...,..:: .-ma- ::: ----.... .......,. .,, , ......,,,...... .,,,„..:..ri ,, m.,.................,........ .... , ............::11,11i:!..,,..... i . .....,,,,.., ,• ........ .• ....„... gm-. 11-0.:...... ,....,,,,.,..„ 4 ..„..,...,,....,_ .:.:„. ......,„;:3L....,., ,...........:::,........... ......,............:..........,...--ii.r,:::,,.....:1::5...:::.:.....,, ..: ...,,,,,... ,:„„„.1,i,i.......::::„,,, ::::::::,: ... . ..:::. ..... ••••••••igipto•••"•••••:: :F.:. • :::•••••.: 4 11'"441 E116.Vill..'..;.141_ Illig..,,.... ..!•....! t .- . limo'...... ..'1.........''.. ......i...:::. .:!:,,,:=.......••••••■■•Est sai•inm .. .1 .""im .44" 't" miiIIMIN.1•9111M1111111111 ' . ::.: .::: 4 : ••.: ..' *a.'....';':'.f.i'!!..''...1...... ....14M 4411 MI =111114716141.• rel ..1 01' . * 111161111"Ell ...........::::,ik..................4..;.....liog. . ...L., '0,J% itzl,... Ail kai :1;g101 ,Ok14..41 4 Otrefit41,41,4*"Zattititri.x#4,. ..,,)t,,gsph:i,;,,,44#4,,,,e,d,,,,t,, .41:10,,,,,4;...*.,... ..:,,, ' ' *'?'.....2.601111L. -1.1!1!— - i000041i-isowti- . 'ii :: 2•1•:** •••••• • - . .. . '991wr • EEIS.1. ELE‘/A7.10i4 ... SCHEME C R'5 • . • • PRE-APPL1 C4YlQ &J CONFERENCE NOTES • • Pre application notes for City of Tigard To change the Community Development Code text to increase the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.4 to 0.8 April 7, 2005 STAFF PRESENT: Morgan Tracy APPLICANT: Specht Development • AGENT: Mike Robinson PROPERTY LOCATION: MUE Zoned Parcels (Tigard Triangle) TAX MAP/ LOT #'s: N/A PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Change the Community Development Code text section 18.520.050.C. to increase the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.4 to 0.8. COMP PLAN DESIGNATION: Mixed Use zones ZONING: MUE CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM: East NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING A neighborhood meeting is not required for the text change. NARRATIVE Include a narrative that responds to the applicable criteria. Most applicants for text amendments have a professional land use consultant prepare the narrative. You need to provide background and findings of fact as to why this amendment is . necessary, or what public benefit is being promoted? As this restriction is the result of an ODOT requirement, you should address how your proposal will satisfy their concerns. In fact, the City is unwilling to consider adopting changes to this standard without ODOT's express written consent. The adoption of the Mixed Use zoning from the residential classification was brought about through careful negotiation with ODOT based on the inherent impacts to their primary roadway systems (I-5/217/Pacific Highway). IMPACT STUDY 18.390 No impact study is required for Type IV applications. However, to ensure that adverse impacts to the transportation system are not created, a full traffic analysis for the district should be performed. • • • SUBMITTAL INFORMATION The application shall: a. Contain the information requested on the form; b. Address the appropriate criteria in sufficient detail for review and action; d. Be accompanied by 18 copies of the narrative and all supporting documentation plus 1 copy in digital form, either MS Word or Adobe Acrobat PDF. REQUIRED HEARINGS Two hearings, one before the Commission and one before the Council, are required for all Type IV actions, except annexations where only a hearing by the. City Council is required. . REVIEW CRITERIA (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.) •18.380.020 •18.390.060 (Type IV process) •Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 11, and 12. •Metro Urban Growth Management Plan Titles 1, 7, and 8 •Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 12 Decision timeline is generally about 4-6 months from receipt of a complete application. The 120 day rule is not applicable to legislative changes. PREPARED BY: Morgan Tracy Associate Planner 7/7/2006 Case Activity Listing l0:25:30AM TIDEMARK Case #: ZOA2005-00002 COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC. , ,;�Poi• , Assigned Done' Updated . .;.:. Activi` Descri tioii Date l's. Date 2.`" Date 3 Hold'', ° ;Dis To 13,31' B Notes ZON1020 Application received 7/6/2005 None DONE KJP 7/7/2005 KJP ZON1030 Case created 7/7/2005 None DONE KJP 7/7/2005 KJP ZON1040 Pre-app.conference 7/7/2005 None DONE KJP 7/7/2005 held KJP ZON1050 Planner assigned 7/7/2005 None 7/7/2005 KJP ZON1000 CASE REVIEW 8/17/2005 None DONE GBP 8/17/2005 Planner reassigned to Gary MENU GBP Pagenstecher on Morgan's departure ZON1110 Application 1/25/2006 None WDRN GBP PLL 7/7/2006 1/25/06 the applicant(Specht withdrawn PLL Properties,Inc.)officially withdrew this application. • Page 1 of 1 CaseActivity..rpt Gary Pagenstecher- FAR increase -application withdraw Page 11 From: "Joe Curran" <JCurran @spechtprop.com> To: "Gary Pagenstecher" <Garyp @tigard-or.gov> Date: 1/25/2006 12:09:12 PM Subject: FAR increase-application withdraw Gary, As we discussed earlier today, Specht Properties, Inc. requests that the City of Tigard withdraw land use application ZOA 2005-00002 which requests an amendment in the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.520.050(c)(1)to allow 1.0 FAR where 0.4 FAR is presently allowed. • If there is any reimbursement of application fees, please forward a check to: Specht Properties, Inc. Attn -Toni Wheat 15400 SW Millikan Way Beaverton, Oregon 97006 Thanks for your help with the FAR increase. Joe • CC: "Robinson, Michael C. (Perkins Coie)" <MRobinson @perkinscoie.com>, "Joe Curran" <JCurran @spechtprop.com> • • .. . ..M - ea...••••. M. m '4"-"r,-• h A: tatiot-ra ea ;at its i ,:, .,liii;,.......1 - . • . - •,....... :• • •-•. ,...,.... . .-4....1.1.r..• g...*:::r..F.....f., ::::: . . •: • .< t -— : .1..7,-; ...... .-- I. .......- : r=lir4r.,...,,„i i miffv-ili„..„.„ re—riT.-1---rt„„......„ - ,. .-.......1N, : .iiiiii.. ' . . .I.11..,....,:::::::.:...'..':'....:'......11...:.5. t Ne a ze. . ..... .....,:....: til._ tii tz4.-... ra.,......-‘a ..: ...7.;..... .I11"•!.!..:......fi.ii.:::::,...ii.1.1.•:::::.:.:::::::..:1.:.:Iffiiiii..,*•••:c.i.j.........!•,;........:::...... „..„ ' tom • ... . .... . . . ,,....-.--- „77.- - ,.., --...- ,,...„ 1 . ... .. --41k• , ,'... ; •,, .:le,fiiii41 — . ..._,........,,— T-1--f : :: i r : • ON — ''' ''..—.-- or- .' ...i... :...4p........, "•=:11=IIMI =11= .,.. . ,i,......., ,,,,,, ,„,„ ..„... ,,,,,,,, ,IL pig J: . ' . n.,'"',4,•:...\.• -tif. .:,.. • .. ;9., L....;ant ....,•Oda re nit 4. ,;;;, z414tv . ;. • ......_ ........4 4.,,...r.... ..._ - -„.; .....4..k., .:!ii .,_ . ,,, :''...'.. .. ..,...,. 4,. ,,,....., :,........... z. IfF-•A`g:4,1' le. ' .... ' I ..;1 ' ....,,. 4' -.^.;Pr., • -;;;;;;;;........„;-;;* •';;;..”...........1..14....-............_LI,..;4;;.••'f;:*;;; 111% WES1 LLEVArl(Dri - SCHf.......:1\11E. C ... . . . . .. . , .. . . . • • Specht LID November 29, 2005 Meeting with City Engineer DISCUSSION POINTS o Outline of proposal o Staff general reaction o Date for neighborhood meeting, and notice o Boundaries o Improvements o R/W acquisition costs; use of condemnation o Likely assessment methods o Sewer service to north end. Extension through reimbursement district? o Paying for the pre-formation costs—evaluation report, engineering plans, preliminary assessment roll, surveys, appraisals, environmental evaluation, etc. o General timeframes - Initiating LID—taking request to Council meeting - Preliminary Engineering Analysis and Report - Resolution of intent - Preliminary Assessment Ordinance - Design - Bid advertisement and award - Construction o Next steps - Neighborhood meeting - Submit petition and supporting documents • • DRAFT LDC NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE Design Group Proposed Local Improvement District • Specht Development, Inc. plans to propose the formation of a Local Improvement District to improve some of the streets and infrastructure in the Tigard Triangle, which are more specifically identified below. Prior to I requesting that the City Council initiate the LID process, they would like to discuss the idea with the surrounding property owners. You are invited to attend an informational meeting on: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 at 7:00 P. M . Red Rock Creek Conference Room 3 Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97224 -r Explanation A Local Improvement District (LID) is a way for improve streets and public % utilities in a specific area through special assessments to• the benefiting . properties. The City has the improvements constructed, and then levies x assessments against the property for approximately 10 or more years fi following the completion of the improvements. If the LID is formed, the amount of each individual property owner's assessment will be based on a methodology set by the City Council. Typically the assessments are based on lineal feet of street frontage, on total land area, or a combination of both. The proposed LID would include the following improvements and costs: o Streets, including sidewalks, street trees, street lights and signage ° Sanitary Sewer ° Water, including fire hydrants • ° Stormwater, including storm water quality and storm water detentions facilities - 20085 NW TANASBOURNE DR HILLSBORO OR 97124 4 ° Under grounding of overhead utility wires PH 503. 858. 4242 9 9 y 11Y FX 503. 645. 5500 o Right-of-way acquisition WWW.LDCDESIGN.COM CORPORATE OFFICE HILLSBORO, OREGON o Street and utility engineering design and related professional services TILLAMOOK, OREGON VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON The street sections that Specht Development is tentatively proposing for improvement include the following: BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON COEUR D'ALENE, IDAHO ROCKLIN, CALIFORNIA CLERMONT, FLORIDA November 29, 2005 • 41030 RAFT Page 2 o SW 68th Avenue, between SW Dartmouth Street and SW Baylor Street, along the west side of the street only (Pacific NW Properties is improving the east side of the street as a condition of development) o SW 69th Avenue between SW Dartmouth Street and SW Baylor Street, (except that portion being developed by others between SW Dartmouth Street and SW Clinton Street along the west side of SW 69th Avenue.) o SW 70th Avenue, between SW Dartmouth Street and SW Baylor Street, with full street improvements from SW Dartmouth Street to SW Clinton Street, and "half-street" improvements along the east side between SW Clinton Street and SW Baylor Street o SW Dartmouth Street between SW 68th and SW 70th Avenues o SW Clinton Street between SW 68th and SW 70th Avenues o SW Baylor Street between SW 69th and SW 70th Avenues, along the south side only At this time, we are assuming that most streets would be 36-feet wide in a 60-foot wide right-of-way, except for SW 68th Avenue, which would be 44-feet wide in a 70-foot wide right-of-way, and Dartmouth Avenue, which would be 56-feet wide in a 94-foot wide right-of-way. We have enclosed a drawing showing the proposed LID boundaries. This drawing illustrates where the City would make street improvements if it forms the LID. Of course, the scope of the project, the methodology used to determine assessments, and the District boundaries are ultimately up to the City Council, following public hearings. We would like to discuss the proposed LID with you, and hear your ideas on the proposed project. A representative of the City of Tigard Engineering Department plans,to attend this meeting to review the City's LID process and respond to questions. If you have any questions, please come to the informational meeting, or contact me at the phone number, mailing address, e-mail address, or fax number listed below. CONTACT: Ed Murphy, Comprehensive Planning Manager LDC Design Group ADDRESS: 20085 NW Tanasbourne Drive Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 PHONE NUMBER: 503.858.4242 FAX NUMBER: 503.645.5500 E-MAIL: murphye(a�ldcdesign.com 1017.001/spechtlid/neighnotice2nddr/1 1/23/05 2 . .... ... . ........ .... . .... . ........ .,.•••• • . . . .... .......... • •• • •••••••••• .......... . ,.,.......... . _..........._. , .., •• ........... ....---••••••••••••,, . .... . -•- - --- .. • ... ........... .. 1' I ..-...........•••--"It 1 . ... . i I i I I,. •i f...". „1 i• .• .. "•... .• . . 1 i I III :I Ii .• .• : •.. .• . : L'IN i III'• • I /1 % I L. `... .: NG •... : .., .• .• I \ ••••• I .. .•. ',•. .. ,.• ,..i • .• .• .• .• 1. if....................•..•••••.................1.;•' ,.,... .• i ..• .• •• 1 . .• • 1 ..... ,... ..• ,.• ......, .• --- —.1.................... , / .....1 . It 1 .. 1 ) ..1 ..... t.....................1.•......... - ,,,,T,.......,.................,.....,,,,,.. .„1 I r_....... ,-.:,......„,...„......7.,„:„.....„.......,-......„.......„.„.,:............„.,......,, , ,, \ • 1 . . : _.1......._ .......,.....\.\ ... . , \ I .... ,.. ‘,.. ----"--- ------„, . i . ..., i • , •• II% I .. ... .. • •• : I \ \ .-NN,..... LI I Q 1 r, ....,.. / \ 'II *III•tr .: .... 1 -. • :: 1 i I II. • ‘ L.,„.,,.. ......„.„.„D„..„, . . . , : . . . G„.„,...;.„...... .,D ,a. ) ‘ i t • . f--.• \ .,..... .... ....... ........ di ...., ......- . ........',i.\ ....• 1 • ,.: \ \ s...............„— s. ,...- ,..i.• 1 „...4.: 1....„........,....,,...........„,..-,. 4 I 1 t I, \ - .. ... ../11.1 1 \ , . . .._.........._... ...._ -••••• „..„._______._._........ ...............____.... ..... --- --...- 0,-.1.1.-1-11-11— •11\•••••.••••-------- .........--Ga•-• .0- / .:•• •I , . .. :„:„.,• -..... L .. . • .-.......... ......•..... --. .... ----- LD .:1211.1_111 . • 11' • .. • . •-..: . .• ..L.L. , •I• .. ••:: .• 11N I 1 •,...------ 111IN . . •• ,,,, • • i .... .. • 1 .. i• .. i .:• I 11.1.\ 4• .....- ,I" 1 .-. IIII. .4. ".... , ......: •••„. •:•,••: . \ ..•1: r-ral • .•. • • .o. I .••• i . 444.......■•• .. •• . . 44 .. - .• •• . ... 4 ...... IIII . . ....,. 1 ak I al I './.. .... •• • --*.•tt;••::, . f 1*., • ...... ..,..:. . . . ..\.....-*............ t . I 1..„,....1 ...........,,,,,.......... •.. • r-----4..........................._•••• •'•• •••• ••• .;••••••• .• •••• .. ... ...: ., • •. ° , . Is„ 1.**********14 I IIII1 1 I111.111.1...... .11......1114111I1111.11'1.•I t , III...7 .; ...X. . 4 A I III II .. t•..... .-. .; 1 • .. \ : .. . \\ :I. • • \ I ,.. . ...... • : .• .• . •..., i ..... I 1 ...... • • .• . .: . 4,. 1 : 1 .• ,.• .r. i i .• • -',... . . f I _____j • E.•• , . , , 1 : • .... „..•:::., : , .,. . .. .. I ' . ....... II' IIII•11•••-•••1111-Iti . ......ts,„.„„,,,,.,„, i I 4 LEGEND: . ,.. 4 ,NIN .... , : i I . < \ FUTURE SEWER . — . . • • .• ,.. Ri 1 I :•• • . .. I I ..! f i•• . , E,›.1IIIST/11PROP S/W •• 1 . a • a .;Ia.1, I F 7 • ..;/ . • .• • ,,.. . F. • r 1 ..., .. • • .. . L 1 . ... . , . •, ; ■ - I. / \ I to. I . at 1 : .• .• \ SI/ -........,,.. - 4 a•I • • ....!:....:••••'1.........i ..:••' • •. ■ It. 1 r .• r„.........„_ .• ; rs\ acr,r..;;;• I 1 i i ,.....• : . . . . • ..\\ r•rr.„-- / , ..„ • • • • . .„../ I SCALE: I' =•40CE 1 1 II. . . . I . ....., , .... • .•.. I . 1 .• .• I .. .1 \\.. . L i • I r 1 I 1 .• I 1 .• . . i.• ••• ............. nn .........*. \,.............. n. .• 4...44 .1 I:• ..• . .. .• .. . . . R\ I R\ ••„., E. .. ... \ • ... \ . f111.1111.1.1.1.1111t1111'1111:11 I t III at taI 1 ...•1 I , I \:°•\.. \ ,.... • k. i •.. — ,,,:„,...\ R , .... •,.. . . . .1 .. . ........... . . ... ..... . .• TIGARD RN • .• . .• .•, ... • •... •!......_.•`.1f.)•:!'••.117.1.F.DDLLG Df.'..1111;11.ID....i...D.L.L.I...r ..•-... .1 PROPO.'DED LID BOtirlDPAR • . •... •..:,•,... , ,:•••••. ! . .. I()1••• .• .• .• 1 • . ,,,•••• i .::„. , • y....1,,.... AID. 4 • . ... ... ..... _.__________.„........„ „„ ,...,-..T.,,-.„-...:,•,11,4••?,„;:)..y) _ .___,....____.„.„....___......................„_._ .• .• .• .. . i ••: •:„•.•, ••••., ..,....,•.., __________........................„ „_._.... „„ _______. ...._._...............__.._____ ..______ • . 4. 1 • 4 i Cr4 i U.: t i: • i • • i • ...r; . •:r • . • '• • „... ›, ii. • ..,.. •,1:, . . • 1 •„:,..) 4,44 : 44t.: ,...), tiff 1. : . • .ff a I &.:*s:1 :co : ...- J.::: ,... I ;::':' •:ff : ... .— 0 ...). . i • . • . . • , .I .• , , , • . • '1 , . • C 'i • . . .. . . . . . - ' •• . • . •• .. HI 3AV S9 SAS . .............33....._ . , mv , . ...........„3.........3 . . +. . I. 0 \1 0 . . . ' . ' . .r..4;....'....4'. ..::: 4.4:'■'....) *::::::+4.........'.....4 !.:::::::'4.."....:"...; I I '444".44' > . . : . .. ... .. .. 0 . . : .. . '..;.',........i', - . ■ 0 F.,...„, ;.: ::::',:l... :::: ■•••'..... ..2.4. ,...: ..:. 2 '....';'''"i ... 0 . ff) • ..);If Iff)'ff)) • ) I'f f f)) f..). :)) •'I f.f : f.)'ff:fi ff.)Q ifff ff.)fiff" .. • • "..)f'ff ) I --I i 0 t .) 0 CI) 1 0 "'-'''''' • ' I 1 (1) 4.occ: AV 131.69 MS 0 1.--... I > ff.))) 0) . -,.., — -,-••• I ht- C.) "— 0 f•I'. '•I • • . 7,..-...... . O) coOPO: I 0... . . .. • . . i (.1) i ,"..',.....;.......... ! :•••:'?.';'•••.'• ,,,.., C.'") I ...': 1 • • ';:.:.',:• ...."' ' v. 1. '...,' ••,%'•'. • • . . • • • 1 ;:.•:: '..f... ! . ., . . . ., . . . . . . . .....,,,......,.. i -0 ....i..... 1 . ..... . . • . •• • • . . ,. ••,..:" i . . . . . • I I n cn .f., i . , . 0 0 3V ? >.■ ;4... . . ,,.., (.....) : . : .' .., , ' }';.::;;;',..: • i i . . .1, ....1.4 17:' .1..• . ; . . . ... .. : . . • : I . :1) ff. ' • • . . . . . . : ! . . . . . . . . . • 1 '.... : ... :1 .------ ---.. ___ — . :,30.0 A.I,O000) OIP'OOOOPOYO.°A 4:.01.0r) '0 0041V,P..“00.) al : 1111.0.0,1 '1,...) i ...001.41.1 4....g.10-440A 00 ; ‘tiooLtieli!,1, ',..J.D...),:r,,m1,10•4 .z.„i0 I Al it:Pt...A.00a 9.t.•••,...K•?,„;,1 4.4 -01.0.) 4.11)000 44.4 ............... • _ _ _... .7.: ,... LE.GENIE, • --- ----• • ... . 1 EB- i 111:000A BENNEBN •• I Ir.p1.5.)',.:,.:rrl....?;CI f•..Af.1*.?...:•1*,••> : .• 7:: i ..... . ... .• .• ... : •,t, 4 : ..7.., .••• .• 15'; .••• .• .••• "3...: .••• .• 4 i 7. i .••• .. .• .• .• • . --------•• : .• ••••• : D I .• ,<.„,.A.. ---• : .. : • ,:-:• •t.:I.,:: . ; .••• ...... : : .. : .••• •.- ; .••• i 1 ;.,-:.• .• i '1••:,,••:*::•••:f.:. ; : .• ...41:: 1 , : .• .••• ;;;0;• .• 7 4 ... , : ,••• I .••• .• i 4 .••• < I I' .••• <4 i ,•• : .• < Il . .-.- i• : .• 4:1.4.4•I : .• j 1`,4-..A.Ai• , : .••• si .• .... l... .... . .• : I "•.....4:,":11 i••• .••• il .•••• ........ .••• • > .E.:* i - --• .....- < ----- i >v '. • •:*•.';1-*-;C:I., .1 < .3 T 4TO.1.<4. , .••• .• 4"4-I. i =1 1<4 A.<.<4 1:4=.•• I : .••• .• < 1 1_, t::,mu o i ,...... .••• - tot r•••:,<..,:•••:A : ,o i.s. t Au ••••• - ... .... „„ .••• ............. ,..... •}.•tt 1 Dt) : .••• .••• < i t::.•T A, .••• .• ..--. 03. -.,..-ic•:, i : ........ 1 CO .••• .• '..I.1 • • :.••.'-,,,,..:, : • .••• . : . • ...::.••.;:•..f....11, l' i . .••• i -..1:,:r,-:-..- :=,...•1 . 4 I 1> : 1 .. . AAIA•}•••<IT< i .••• 4, AATAAIIA • .••• < 4 .• < i•• <4 . T...< T.._.........—....- . ,.......A... • .•••• • . .._,../ 4 .••• ....T. ._.-...... IS Vi CLINTON ST i • : „,,, .• .••• f .••• .......... •- ...... i . .• .••• ....1 ; : ,•• ; : .L1 I . $'• • 1. •F..:.1'',.F.i•-•:.. • > • i ; . 1 I.•°..:)6•'A.'. i . : .• < 1..C.T., i f .T.••••::: i L.L.g : 42... 1 i'•;,.-F1.1 I '1 <-> : . .•••••••• .••• .• ...... ...... . ..... i = : "S. .• : .• I • *:!....,''Si....:::: I .• 1'.7.,' • .• :i • ... c ' '';';`,:.;;:, i ;4<.:.,C..".:1 I (.0 : • .T.; i ••" • ---•• i i'-',..r..... • I`....•••:.161••,•*.,- 1 7..'..... .••• .••• ".7.7.....'”' • : .• :i ....,:r•:-...;•••,::•: i Cf) : . : .. : • : .• .... . ......... • .. . : : i 1.::.1 v....1)r . 1.?......:YI • .•••• i ---* : . - .••• .• *.....' 7...•:',..: : : .••• . PC,7....ENji:-.E...:: .• 1 • !•':,??:".:.•:: : 1 ou .• .••• A...... i r '::.•I...:6E,11, }•••'(..•;:• ■••• 1 : . : .• i .••• : ty• : : i 1..!.*:,...,.• • -;.". J : .• •,..) .• • ......) : .••• . • .• >. L :,.,,,•••LLLL'....". ..--- ---- .......-_-.....___..... . ...,.• .••• _ .• • .• ::: • -----1:':.':i6';'.:**. . .• .II,I • f.:•*:••'..•I • : .• 1••••••.." : . ..••• . : - is::::I ••• -• .••• •• - ....... ..... . ...... . . • •• S . .• SI:I.; SIN DARTMOUTH DT . R, . • NORTH ....... . L.,..,.. .••• ....• . LDc Figure 2: Improvement District : i 223 12005 .••• .••• - • ..••• L • : Specht LD I .••• ..... . i„ • : City of Tigard Washington Cc)unty, Oregon ri., I • r ■0 le:Cl.A.. •• A, : S,:•,..,......e.• :i 1 01 7.001 OE ..• .•: e, : Mr..!!:..!..,i•b3t.'?.,..'..:4.;.,.:'..:.W.I.;C C.:r ff.::.,::n..I:'..i L.I I t..,1...s•rs I.:•:sc.Assi:',1 2ISS :i •-• e", . r...B:-..Biln B y: CE B :j••• ....., . ........................... ................................... ........,._ *c , . ,. ' ••• •---- •. i• ' . . .. ' • . . . . , lir I . • .. ......: an i il , : Li,: •I . • . t't “..) '....... : . : . . 04 04 4.4 i . 1 0 . . . . .. . .. , . .. 4'4 4.1. ' .4.4 ' ' ' ' . , .4' 4; 04 4.0 .kr? .,....., ..., ;;;•'; :, ...c r....r . . . . .... 0 . ....," ..r.. ....... ' ' '. .., I n• •,-- t•-• . .....• ........ ,......- , . . . • . I ii •-• Cr, ....- 0_ ,..- Li . . : . . . . 2 1 ....1 . : . . : . : . . . . . ' . ' .1 ' . . . ' . . ' . ... ' 0 :1AV H. R9 tir . . ..:) .: I cy) I co .., . .. , . . ., . c..„ '..,..c . . . .. ........... . . . . . . . . :, ,. c.., ... .... c . o (444 0 • • . :.: •44 0:''4,...,,.44.°0. ('•,..'40 4,...4 . '' . . . 0 L.L. 444(44 4.4 i C 44 I (4) (T) . 0: 0. 4 .44 0 4: '- • . 0 )04 i 44 .4.9 : i (f) : !?.:-'.....; ' ::....:.;+++:.:++ ' j...;4:::'.....i ++: . :+:1's';"+++:+:', • ::::1;:.,:: ..'; : 0... . . Q :•,., ,•:•.. cr.: - . G.L......13. 1 m 0 c,.... .,... I . . . . ... . . .... . ... Cf) 0° 0*) C . . . . . . . ' : •. '44... 00 .I 0 0 4° 0 1...) . . 00 . •. ..... , ,,,-. 0, ... 0 ::::: ..:..:. cr.) . ':-:. ••.;.:.... ':..'•,,•:.):; ] 0..... '1 „: : . ..,,... .. : .......: 1,;z:........ ... .....;.! : . .... ... : ... .... . . . . . . . .. . :1 cY, 73 f•r- . . . ... . : . 1.-- ,.•:•, . . • • • e.•:•'.•,.::::••••• . . .. : . . . . . . .I •::., . . . . :,:').. • ,, .0: . . . . .f::,,, ,,,.. ' '' •:"... ' 7••t. :,..... ::'1'''•....., :: ! D C.3) 1— If . ' . . . . : c LC 0 : . ' ' . 3A\i. . ..U...- H— .... .. ... . . .... . : .,... .. . . . : .... 0 . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . : . . . , . :I. ,,,, •4 4(44 4: : : • . - 44 • ' '4)4 0 : '1.. .,. . • . . . . • ' . : : . . .. • ... . . . ' : ‘ a :.:::'.. :1••, . .. . . .- .. . : . . ...) :,.; ::,.•:•.::!'.:'. ! :• . . • ' . . . . : • . . • 0 •.^-•• : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . • . . . . . . . .. : • • . . . : . . . .. . . . . . 1 11..,. . i ' . ' i 4------- ----- 04 : i 100 010 0000000000.4000 0.00.4000 ' 01 1 00000 A 000 0 4,0000443 V 4,4 4.44000444 00.40044 00.40 44,04 : 04.0.000.00,1,, 40.400540.1 zio i ...4.4..lunluar>....) qt:!.).t.?,3 4..:? . rino.i.z) ot.i .....4:40 Doi 1,....2 _ — • t•-• I 0 0 •••• • • • ••• • y i . ..• • > I • L E GE!......rE.-: . ..• ..•• .7.:. I •• . ..• -,-;•• I . . • • - i Pp:Jeer:IE.:3 0.4,in ed By,:)thefs :::: I 3:3.....3''....,i••.:':..7.,.:4."":',.. r.::.r 4(...•'::•••:. I '....:, I ........... . . •••:: I • 7:: i • • • . . T..)r•:,p e Pies aysid el By 1-..:...:.t.....-e(.:1-•:t .... i 1:4 1(:::.•:.:i s::::., i'l ...•:r 5.(-..:'...:: I - . ••-_, I . •,.: 1 12..::224::2 ••• :-...'.•12. E.2.....23,2 't •:fr..2.2.2•:. I •• i•l" 1 • • . . i••••••••••••••••••••••• I - ...,:' I SRA/ BAkil OR ST >*:: I • •• • • ....7., 1 "- • • 7.: I i . • 'S•1.:•.::.,:... 1•:...,:::: i• ..,..:*.: ...•,•:::. '..-.5"..?,.•::..".: • ••--- I ::".. I . .. • ...1 I • .<, I 7...., I •1.1:•.,:•::•i::, • 7. i “:1.."•iW• g I •••,.•.....,....,...f, • I ••••''. I . • •,•••.I•::::••••:.•.• . .. ". I •• ._. ,.„ • ..„„.. ::-.". 1 ••1...1...i _ , < „„,>. ,..11.....:•.1:',..1' • • . .7." I • : "‹, • Lt...i — i .......c. >- 74 1 e...-D ..:•:::::::: . •••••••- %......• 1 0 I CIS • . .. ..... c.....0 I I ••••• i •••••••••:',..1..D - ,,....: f:,1) • • . ...- ::::.::•,: . ••••••.4..,,:-..:: l'i ;•'''41 I •,...7i. i . .. • -• • • . .. •' , SO/CLATON ST .1 , , 1 :..i.°• 1 . • .. . . . • . • . . . i 1 ',...f 1 . .• .. • 1 l'i...*?:ii.i:)::: • > 1•:'..'•'3,•::::.:::: . i : '4::1 4 1.....1.*: ' **.''.4(.'•••• • • • i.:1:',, • . • • < :'Y.-. • 3: .i,...z.,...,*F....;t: • . .. .. .'.1,..:::.,,:•,:i.:>•.1.f.. •• .... .. . •••• . • • • ..,e. • . i E 1?t•-j:::::: , ..• : *.i.; . • • . — . . . • f.:.,":: . '''..m. . 1::,`Itif;',: ±'.;•::'.••'•'.*:'... • 5..■ . . • • ''.:':r:C.:C.V.;''. • ...":1—,:. • 7:: . • . .. 1.--- • •• • • i 5:1.a.,D;:. • . .1.'';.•:*.::.".:.:.:'I. . • 7......::,..: . . C . r. • . • • •• X 1.::...1......'•:.;:'...• .•• • • :II . • ;ifr•::::: • j • • .. . , 1•••?•;.. ;••••. • • • .....? •'•'••.. • • .' • ".::-:...'.'„1., - •?•-•'' . • ...... . : . •L'•' • • . • . • c.• • • „.•• •, . . .. • , `''.. .••• ... :„ ,• • • - i NORTH ;...-.1, - - •• . ...: ; ., .. • , , • :•: 1:1'...1a...i;1..3•;;::::::,05 Figure 4i; Parcel Square Footage • ..• • •- Specht LID se • • sc:,;;••,. . • (...,. : it of Tigard Washi ngton County, Or cacaos • • • ..• ,s, , .,....•.;• ••••.... . sosc, • islissie 00 .•••• .••• • • ., :• m,....,:n7:r.)...,!...,P,..:,.r.•••;*;•c;:*.;r,,,•$••• :',?i..!;•.:i i ..,•::,•:::•••,n.::r:A::::::,,-.?......)...; ........ , -•• , •....: i D•ra.,,wn By: (....:EB I — L._ C7 " ci 00 uo5e 'Aiuno j uo u! seM `piebi o onJpedS o5eiuoa j Jeaui] . aan � HJJia1\I M; f : < ` 1 l.• . 0 .. T ', i:- . V L '}^ ` .y N ry c.,,, ::,) LC 1, < t r:m •» r YAK Lk_ SA. .... e.1. • cy: .v I s— � • i q � . r: e. ♦.:. -. : 0.wW) • • • , k a W ar v j • : : •is • x;e E C (rs t •. . H ... . Li. 0 . 3AV 31.01. MS . . • • • • • • • • 0 • • k RD'k D,DCIEZi::':(3!<?`(: he:fdt."., 1;.:i:k(i D4);") e i)l.a..1 ,f).A;7:_K?,) al 3.1Ep?}=it.?•1 :)j;.;: <)!'t1.:+I!._#i9 '..(:)ni31a'_tL3E::.1 \!ro )1;.)C:)U.u.'.I!3 1 •S_=.3C>S:'..rsH 4'I i-I..,) ; D.D...1(.1U:.,::) !.E.'..AT.."3-I F:' (i1-4(a i',..) t.BV..ii.)(a :..)(li i....1.:)(:::: ()fit:ago (1.3(4..).4.4.) • tti i•••':•...tr.....tti 4....4..linpiimy 1 OR l•-iiiisiv...w.t.), •Tilia£114,)(.:Pti 1 V\IA ViArls::::::aaver, 3£71001)5 c.:::::A. R0.:011 11...) 4:::::::::)fi.:•,..ir Li'd00::::•, f.•L.. 1::::14....1r0o 0A,:•••:A., )171,1)11):0150.111I <50 :t - 0-0_00 • - .... .. ______ _____. ................ ........__... ....______ ..................._............_...........................................................................................).......)......................-77....- .; • t 1 i • I I i • . • : •• • • .) . . . • • • ■ [ )1 t;t..11 7 )5 ; ••• - 1 • •I ..; , 1775 • 7 I . „• , - ..• , ... • • • • 7)' r 5 CI • . ••• • : I t '•7 •r 5 I t : . 5 • t..,• , 7 . • - • - -. : . ' • •.•I.- • 6 n , • . • :.• • r::: : • • . • : . .: — • . : . , • • . . : • , 1 :::: :::• „ : . .„ ; , . ., ' :,•',::::::55 I:. r 17 5." ••••• • • ::I. • • 4. .1•'.Q •':. .., ...''..'L:!: .. . . ,t i: ::::••••. .2.,...e. :• • • : • • • .• • .. : . . , t • : .••• :: . • ,. ... • • • 4::.< .i.I • . . ...—+, :-::•- ...... . t . —Ti •••• • ..t:...:2.:,.....: . . i7. ---i • ••••—::•••.••••.• ::::v., . : ,.:?... — (.0 : •. . . I ci (.0 C • . . • . .. — .......— . ,..... . ....• ..., ks . ••••• SW 70TH AVE • ci. ., : ..... — -- • -4 : • A - - . 1 1 t 1 . I „))) ' •- c:),„ ti) .7 1 1 1). 7 ".; • / 1 tr: CO 0 ••• •• • : 1•,•;) CI) : ),•••)) .4::::'f.... : • ...•...••••••.::•••••; 't i 1 ::::•.• (j) -0 3 i 3 : :i:.... ..::: 4 • i :.::: •',•••': 1 i . i ••••;,.•••:c • i . : : ••••:;I D D:-:::• 0 i . •• I .....:••••••••••:• '7: : ...... • f • 1 Ii I 1 CID • 1 •••1 17 • • •• • • 1 15' 1) C.,C) fa+ < • CZ ,,, ..... , :•••••• I ..... •,.. * • i •,...5,. 00-4- s.... t....D • : --I I !.•:,.:::, " f cil i •:•.,:::......=.• f 1 p 0 — :, ...• i ......r ...f;5...!..:,...,..:....i .....!.....,...........: i ,..,..— 1 ..,)....:::!...:.515 I'••• 1 1;11 7 1)' 1 )1 1) i • :, • C7) "." .5 I '5 ;), i ;'). i 1);7.7 51) ••:. 1••••• 7.1).1)• 7 1 S., 'CI CD . --i • .... • - i C—) 1 I ri''•• :::• ••••••,: ., i''':: 1 • 17 0 •••• -- ___„,_. • :•••••• —__ ..... • . : •-•,, 0 0-4::: : ., ,..........__........„ ..i••:: • ---i SVV 69TH AE C 0 • • . ...... ......v.........„__ : ,v 0 : • .... U) . ••• I.: Col f —0.........„ ------.- : , — • 0 C) : i t..-.:-.t...7.; • t I,,,:::::"I t I —t. ',.. ,..:::..'?, .'.:.''t',.•:••:itt, :".t:: c.r.) • Ill . : ...2.". • f : -I: •::'• ; ! ••••:-. xl ,:::), ..„: • •, „,:::. ::::;41:'1••• : . —ti fr t•-• 7 t; CD ,, • (C) \/ i ... ,- , ... ,• ,:: I . . • • • ..„, : . cIc • 55.51:))•• 1.,I.,.,,..,'..f......1.',,,,..57.:'.....:1 i ....‹..„ 11 ■.; ,..... i n • , \I ::::• : • :•••,: •, •,•,, I . • ....., k••••::k. i Is, : • .. , •\• z, • 1 7 ) ••- .•••• , . 2 ... . ,... ,.., .................. • : ‘.........__ ci, : •••...,.. ,..., : ..:•• .... . ,.......'...,,:f, ,..............,....,,,,,-,.....„..,......,-, ,.... . .) 0 ..., ..::: C-> Ttstt :,:- t.—.: ..titt ;;;;:. • v ••••-•s " •0 .... - • . .. 1 ......-, ,.• v. •", s. ;:-, v v.: v ..: . -- : •••••::- 0 (.::: vs .• M A ••••' .. i -- :•••••., : CD ,:,•••' •:::, :':':+:1-: ::•:.:••••:, •: • ,. I IL,. 01 .„::::- —:. 7"t • : t.t.' '":" .•• • • . 1 tr. i 71 11. I .C. 177 • i ; 1 t . . i . . 1 i . • ............7............................,_•••••••••••-••••••-•---,- ,- ........................................................................................................................................................................................................-........................-.....---- ____...___________.----•-•••••••••••••••••••••................................................................................) 3 .. i i 5i ,,,, ,:::: ...,,, ...... }., ...,... ,,.., ..„...... , ,,, .:...!4 ft ...,4',... 1-. 1 .... ..A,� mi q. C} r— C.— •777•-• • u\ • • • .1... ;'; • • • y� y €./.f .... .. 0 to • • • a co cc) •i.. C.H• ..`i th5 Fit 1-1169 [ CD ... �» i V Yw tMsi] 6--. ¢ g 6 i. ] t'.' C.... ... ... M1J.d�y; 1 Dc cr.: .^.t .J J.:•...: K:.:• R d p"°, C.f • • • • • 0 •• 1 tom! • • i • 0 • UL")\''‘ C' .'::: ,...,.'. 1.:•;.::..:,.!...::: .1.•.' • 3;e'3•3•A4I,:,•E,"<3-,nr'.It"c'9 •�.:nr.ti' : ii s:3i47E4y �.s '..'.3''it.s::s Er?<c_'t CIi .E.''- 2:i !°3 'Jr;n:_a;:.. '� 43nrlc_-..R1f::? �z r�'t N�a:R.a.ui I E. t).aC)1:. >13!E._t . E(7 I AL .<'ii).::•_.. E. -',E=::c +_° . (Ar)c:>.3f,t 1.0.51e •3 a C)a••i•_) ..5. _5.5.... • —611, — 6 i 2 I • •• • • Sce:22. SY_BIS.22;2 i:.:C;/ Ot-CDS z 2 •.)1 7 FCC: :IC ..ID•-••:.• I c i I - i 7 i S t rt.....'q.:.:T. F•c:::22.2.<12. By 1:1<:•!...<.<1. .::: .1 1143:!"..,Bs !or 122!!1: •••: I 21 I • ... : s 1 5: 1 • ; 1 I:"2:::<<•.1..<2. 1112,:n co By !!!1.<!-2.2.< ...., I • 1 : . 77 .7•7 I:1.. 71 A",': r•en n.— .7. .02,:•k:'Y OP,T BUB !:D 1 r • . • • •• •••• . _ .. • • •" . . . .• • • • 77 i I:•' . • , "ii7:7.1...... :....., i :.". •:::' i ••'3 I....f.:',1:, ...::',..: ":•-.2.' i :: - - • , : • 7,-;.- 1 :-, I::14.•I.::., ....•:. .. :,. . . • •••-•: I • \-' I ' .....__: .... -. •. ._ -s. I 172 i • • •:1,71-j ■ : ; • ••7 . DJ 1-..- i • .. 7:',. . • .c.:c . 2 i • :,<C, .1:.: 1 ill :„: ,•-•,.•:=FDD : ....„,,,.., :: ::r. ...:,....- : i CD ' C'•'-':' c •• 2::::.,..., -••• F...- : :• 111 • - I .. • !! cc; ' (.2B • • < I • • 1.....-ty..! !!!!!• :: -2., . <:!-::22:1::: . • (By CT ::1•': I : •;':I....Sr:'1, . '-i, 1 • . ...4.... 1 . . -•• ;.-..)."..• . • . .. . ., • . . .. . • • • ..• ... i • - . • • .... . -, • 014'Hil 4.,,,Ltr's1;Ljtv 6,I . ...5. • • .. 6... ... .. 6 . . _ 6 .... ... .. . . . • •••• 6 • • - • .• • • .. : . 16,-666 ". • 1 6. •666 . • • 6 1 I ii•6:66 : ::,....).:: :.!: ; • 1 .• ..• :••• • • .5.. _...: 5.2........ +.2. . :••• .2 . . ..• 2 • • 2:5«•:: ;! : I 21:D.:::: ..• 2 : : . ; ::::::•:::::: / . ..• :c- c. :••• ..• c: . .. . • ..• :•• • • • '1 ::::111: ; ••51::::21...,..: : • . . : f:'...••' ,'. :-- . . _ . , , , .. . „, _, ..••• ..• •:,1 1 :,... :'::...... :••• :::: • — • • : • : ..P • . •• .••• .....: . • . . • 1.• 2 . •.•1:C•::•::: • • . i • ... • :: • . . ... D • i2 • • ,:•-• c : •. i 1 • D.:•ci r• 5 . ..•• • • < . . 5. • • . . . _ . - . _ • • • • < . ..... . _. < : ' • • c • .....i*V Id t"i.)N 1 1 V i Li 1/4.,i 1 i :,)f ' • NORTH paa,a if. Figure 9: Linear echt Street Frontage ii 1 i2*3:2 00 5 1 _! ... Sp LID S<a I c• 1 1"c:1 50ft ! Dos:::22: of(.522 City of Tigard. Washington County. Oregon .... . 11: PycBect 41. :„..1 Sciim.1.:• I 01 7 00 1.00 i ,..... ...., L i • / WY ! 2 ' l,Izi 6 ride deNta-,: // �detifi-td; �/l sil/JS oda7/ - PLEASE PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LOGO IN THE LEGAL NOTICE ECTION OF TIGARD TIMES, THE FOLLOWING: Ae/u. y ig PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on Monday December 19, 2005 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Public oral or written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be held under Title 18 and rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Section 18.390.060E. The Planning Commission's review is for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council on the request. The Council will then hold a public hearing on the request prior to making a decision. Further information may be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division (Staff contact: Gary Pagenstecher) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223 or by calling 503-639-4171. ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 2005-00002 > CODE AMENDMENT INCREASING FAR IN THE MUE ZONE < REQUEST: A Zone Ordinance Amendment to amend the Commercial Zoning Districts Chapter (18.520) of the Tigard Community Development Code. The proposed amendment would amend Section 18.520.050.C.1 to allow 1.0 FAR where 0.4 is presently allowed throughout the Mixed Use Employment (MUE) zone in the Tigard Triangle. LOCATION: Tigard Triangle. ZONE: MUE: Mixed-Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380.020 and 18.390.060; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 and 12; The Metro Urban Growth Management Plan Titles 1, 7 and 8; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 11 and 12. (THERE IS NO MAP TO BE PUBLISHED WITH THIS NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION. THANK YO ) CDD i�flo�,� a_ 44 . 3ai4-e-41._ ,ye' TT PUBLISH DATE: DECEMBER 1, 2005 • Aft • .4 � oregon ,: Oregon Department of Transportation ;. „'j ODOT Region 1 Theodore R.Kulongoski,Governor 123 NW Flanders St Portland,OR 97209-4037 Telephone(503)731-8200 FAX(503)731-8259 File code: PLA9 2A-1 ODOT Case No:2313 November 14, 2005 City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 • Attn: Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner Re: Tigard Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the Tigard Triangle Haines Street interchange on 1-5, 72nd interchange on Highway 217 and Highway 99W Dear Mr: Pagenstecher, We have reviewed the applicant's proposal for a zone ordinance amendment to increase the floor area ratio from 0.4 to 1.0 in the mixed-use employment zone (MUE). The site is adjacent to the Haines Street interchange on 1-5, the 72nd interchange on Highway 217 and Highway 99W. ODOT has jurisdiction of these State highway facilities and an interest in assuring that the proposed zone change/comprehensive plan amendment is consistent with the identified function, capacity and performance standard of these facilities. For zone changes and comprehensive plan amendments local governments must make findings that the proposed amendment complies with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) OAR 660- 012-0060. There must be substantial evidence in the record to either make the finding of"no significant effect" on the transportation system, or if there is a significant effect assurance that the allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standard of the transportation facility. In order to determine whether or not there will be a significant effect on the State transportation system, ODOT requests the City of Tigard require the applicant to amend their traffic impact study (TIS). The TIS submitted by the applicant raised a number of transportation concerns which were not addressed. The applicant should meet with ODOT staff to amend the TIS analysis to address the following: 1. The traffic impact study assumes the 1-5 ramps across from Dartmouth Street will be widened to five lanes to match the anticipated 5-lane section on Dartmouth. However, the 1-5 ramp improvements are not in the constrained RTP, and there are a number of constraints (alignment of the ramps, existing and proposed developments and streets) which could make this improvement difficult to construct. Even the location of the subject development could affect the chances of getting the east-and westbound thru lanes at the intersection to line up across the intersection. It's recommended the applicant analyze the Dartmouth /68th intersection assuming the ramps aren't widened • City of Tigard Tigard Triangle Zone Ordinance Amendment ODOT RESPONSE 2 to determine whether the additional lanes on the ramps are necessary to meet mobility standards. If they are, a conceptual design of the intersection with the additional lanes is needed along with information from the City or the developer regarding how they anticipate the improvements to the ramps will be funded. 2. Similarly, the study indicates a project to widen 72nd Avenue from ORE 99W to Hunziker is in the fiscally constrained RTP. However, the study assumes the five-lane section extends south of the Hunziker intersection, which is immediately south of the ORE 217 underpass, through the intersection with the ORE 217 southbound ramp terminals. According to the 2004 Federal Update to the RTP Project List, the cost for this project is $3,465,000. This cost is insufficient to cover the cost of widening the ORE 217 overpass. To the contrary, there's a $17.3 million project on the "unconstrained" RTP list to completely reconstruct the interchange, which would widen the overpass, build a new overpass for Hunziker to tie into Hamilton and reconstruct the interchange ramps. Since the interchange improvements are not in the constrained RTP and since there isn't enough room between the overpass and the ramp terminals to effectively develop the five-lane section, it's recommended the applicant analyze the ramp terminal intersections and the Hunziker intersection using the existing lane configurations, to determine whether additional lanes are necessary to meet mobility standards. If they are, the City or the applicant will need to provide information regarding how they anticipate the improvements will be funded within the current planning period. 3. The traffic study proposes constructing a southbound right turn lane on ORE 99W at Dartmouth. However, there is currently a right-in only connection on 99W southbound at Pfaff le which is immediately north of the Dartmouth intersection. Under the circumstances, it seems unlikely the forecast 450 right turns will occur at Dartmouth, in which case the right turn lane probably isn't necessary. 4. The traffic study indicates the text amendment will lead to the site generating 20 additional northbound trips on 68th north of Atlanta. This is similar to the amount of traffic expected to be added to the ORE 99W/ Dartmouth intersection. Presumably, most, if not all, of this traffic is expected to pass through the 68th Avenue/ORE 99W intersection. That intersection wasn't covered by the traffic study, but it should be. 5. In the October 11 meeting, the applicant stated that given the location and size of the remaining MUE property in the triangle, it was unlikely other properties would be developed to a FAR of 1.0. The study indicates an FAR of 1.0 for the subject property would correspond to a 118,000 square foot building which, based on the building footprint shown in the study, would be five or more stories tall. If the applicant's building will be less than 1.0 FAR and it's unlikely other buildings will be built to that density, why set the bar that high? Our concern is the potential for opening wide the flood gates for a number of developments to incrementally add more traffic to 99W and the Haines and/or 72nd Avenue interchanges when there are unfunded needs at those locations. According to the Oregon Highway Plan, the mobility standard for ORE 99W through Tigard is 0.95, not 0.99 as indicated in the TIS. ODOT Log No:2313 • • City of Tigard Tigard Triangle Zone Ordinance Amendment ODOT RESPONSE 3 Prior to commencing the amended TIS, the applicant should contact Jason Grassman PE, ODOT Region 1 Traffic Analyst at (503) 731-8221 to obtain ODOT concurrence with the scope of the study. Thank you for providing ODOT the opportunity to participate in this land use review. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (503) 731- 8221. Sincerely, 7 i// f �1 Timothy Wilson, AICP Development Review Planner cc: Marty Jensvold, ODOT Region 1 Access Management Jason Grassman PE, ODOT Region 1 Traffic Sam Hunaidi ODOT District 2A • • • • • ODOT Log No:2313 47-7 i----Aliteadfee--4-f -k 141A-k4c. --1-0 t; .-20,--cd-c-,-IA-,-1 "1.00A4 i a Git.' A p p ffrOA el p. 4,,,,,",41.0444 er.d,t2r8;41 .mg,oti) IA It 47,ift.th . . . _ . . . , • . . . , - „ _______ .......„ , , __.! ,_ev.,.__Fk.,,,, Li i , / .; ,...5„ 4 ....4., .1cAL,',, (5' ..4■4,--.. -,, _ _, • 0 14 0 7 4° -.0(0 * '7 P ---, • net,, .. he, 1 - , .1"--'11 mi e 444644 : G I--kr._ -.Jae PL., .„ill. . ,,,e;•-14 _-- . ., .- .,. ., il- . I 0, -,:e_44.i_l_-_- s!' pr / 1 , _ 4 f -..,A _ _ __ 1 ,° ----- -- ---- - -- -- . ,,- ‘., •,:t t.-,IA_#. I - - --- ------ _- - -------------------- --- - --- ---- -------------- • • t�. SPECHT SPECHT PROPERTIES SPECHT DEVELOPMENT November 7, 2005 15400 S.W.Millikan Way•Beaverton OR 97006 RECEIVED PLANNING 503/646-2202 Fax 503/626-8903 www.spechtprop.com Gary Pagenstecher NOV 1 0 2005 City of Tigard Via: US Mail & Fax 503-624-3681 13125 SW Hall Boulevard CITY OF TIGARD Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Tigard Floor Area Ratio("FAR")Increase Request—Tigard Build-out Analysis Dear Gary: Per your request at our meeting earlier this month, this letter is an attempt to forecast future build-out for MUE zoned land in the Tigard Triangle area. Of course, there can be no guarantee that build-out will occur as forecasted in this letter; market conditions will ultimately determine the scale and timing of the MUE build-out in the years to come. I will confine my comments to the MUE zoned land, because the Proposed Text Amendment would only pertain to MUE zoned land. The Proposed Text Amendment referred to below is the "text amendment allowing MUE zoned land to develop at up to 1.0 FAR instead of the currently allowed 0.4 FAR on a single development basis with the preparation of a TPR analysis." It is important to remember that the Proposed Text Amendment (and FAR increase) would only become applicable after a two step process that guarantees any additional traffic impacts will be mitigated: Step 1 is for the City of Tigard to process a text amendment to their zoning code allowing up to 1.0 FAR when the applicant mitigates the applicable traffic impacts revealed through a TPR analysis. Step 2 is to apply for Site Development Review on the specific site and show (through the design evaluation team process) that applicable planning year traffic impacts from the increased FAR and the year of build-out traffic impacts from the proposed development will be mitigated. I believe the main constraints of development for MUE zoned land in the Tigard Triangle are as follows: 1. Difficulty of assemblage due to fractured ownership - The majority of the available MUE parcels in the Triangle are less than a third of an acre. The majority of these available parcels are held by single parcel owners. Assembling the land necessary for a three or more story class A office building therefore most often entails negotiating with five to ten land owners (40,000 SF building, requiring 2.3 acres). Since the individual land owners know that the failure of any one negotiation means the failure of the entire development, the land owners often hold out for unreasonable land prices. Additionally, many of the land owners actually reside on the parcel and have no desire to relocate or are so emotionally attached to their land that negotiations are very difficult. 2. Demand for infill housing sites increases the competition for available MUE land —Due to the torrid demand for residential land,town home developers can pay higher prices for a properly zoned site than can office developers. Normally, town home developers are not in competition for land with office developers due to zoning restrictions. But with the flexible MUE zoning, it is very possible that available office sites could become town home developments. It is also S:\Projects-Corporate\Tigard-S.of Clinton,N.of Dartmouth\FAR Change\ODOT Triangle Buildout Letter I I.07.05.doc • • much easier for a town home site to develop on a site that is smaller than what is necessary for a larger office development. Town homes can be built in groups of two or three. The large floor plate and parking requirements of an office building do not allow the same flexibility regarding smaller sites. 3. Grid system requirements make large buildings difficult to plan — Even if land can be acquired from the various private land owners, Tigard's tight grid system(approximately 200' of private land between 68th and 69th Street) not only limits the size of parcels that can be assembled, but also increases the cost/sf due to more off-site infrastructure costs than would otherwise be associated with a larger parcel of land. 4. High price of land is slowing redevelopment — The pricing expectations for owners of MUE land has continued to rise, while the rental rates for office space have fallen from the highs of 2001. Most of the owners who are willing to sell have already sold. We have found that the remaining landowners are holding out for prices beyond the reach of office developers, or are completely disinterested in selling. 5. Location drives density — not likely deep in Triangle — One of the reasons that development has occurred around the portal locations in the Triangle, is that location drives density. The convenient access to and visibility from I-5 is a significant benefit for the office locations along Dartmouth. We believe the sites near the portal locations are most likely to take advantage of the Proposed Text Amendment. Sites further removed from 217 and 1-5 are less desirable for office (but more desirable for town homes)and will likely develop within the current FAR limitations. 6. A significant amount of redevelopment in the MUE Zone has occurred over the past decade, and is unlikely to redevelop again in the foreseeable future. Based on the constraints described above, I believe that in addition to Specht's site, there are a very limited number of sites that may use the Proposed Text Amendment. To assist your review, I have enclosed an aerial map showing parcel outlines, an aerial map showing undeveloped parcels and a map showing the zoning and size of each parcel in the Tigard Triangle area. Please let me know if you have any questions. B•.t Regards, 1 r CeN-04.4.,....._ e Curran .'roject Manager Specht Development, Inc. C: Tim Wilson Bill Ciz Marc Butorac Susan Wright Todd Sheaffer S:\Projects-Corporate\Tigard-S.of Clinton,N.of Dartmouth\FAR Change\ODOT Triangle Buildout Letter 11.07.05 doc . . . • at......... i . L. • • • • • • • .• • • • • •• • • • • •• : • • • • .... . • • • • . 4....„.8.. ., • :: . • • • • • • • .•• • •• • ..:., • • • ;,.. , • • • •• • , • • • • • • a • • lisilloP'• • : ... • .: . • • • . •••••._ I . ;„• .1 ! 11....,...1 .! 'I . •...........: . •• • i •••:, • ... • • ..• . . • ,•,...••••••__ rim. ... •••■• •v, , •4 h. . . . . . . _maw! . . ....1 • • ii. .i....t.:,..„ : Ayr' • ...• :::::„.•... • .. • ... •. •• . . ••••• • ••,..... i .:,..., •:... •,::.. let, IMP . •'.' .............".4---t:',. ..::::::..•-, .. - r ' !i• • •••__0""sir'''t 41/641t.: , •-••• ... ..' . .41,.. '..." •.••••.' \ ii... L:• •••iiiiiit ••• 0 . . • • ..- • • . • . . . . . . • - .. • . :..... . . . ' : .... '."::. .:'.. i..a.:1(1 •. ..: . . • • . • . : ,..!..:! ...m • • . ... i••: St •• . . At :: •,::.'"'. .1. ' . • • •.., . . . • • . ..",-.......01m -..... : ..ia . : • III • • *.. -: .. . ...i• . .. • .. . ....• s a . . • : . . 4...,,r--i . . .. • • • • •• e ' 4i:'r • . . . . • . . . ..c • •..•• • . • .. . . • • • . . • • ... , ..:. . . . ... .• • :: • . • r , . . . • • : .• • I . ........... ....... ...... .., . .. . i , . . . r• : • . . ...4.; • :• . : • :. •••. • • .• :::::::,. . . ........ . . . .. . • • • .,`,..,,e.,4.. ," . .. . • • .. . . .. .. ... . . .; . . .. , ..,..--..'.:.....: . . .. . _ .s.,•-1 .,. • •• . ,... . ... ,. - „ , . , ,„ ,,. , , ,, . •.. • -t •• 11111 • • i. ••:•;: • . . •• • •W•••• . 4°,1,‘,!.4.;• 1 AI.:171 ' .• •-i ' ::....••••••::::,:. .•,.. •iii •• . . ...1:::::•'•.•,..i..•••••••••• • • ....• • .••: • •• ' ..'‘.. ......::::,11...12:11-.1.* '''N:"....s...,;"•;•11:::•••a!!ifill •• ,,,ii,1:::;!;•11:;•••r.,- .,. • • .•_ , . •••*.. ....-.'".:iti':::$:::iN;:;:iiir!.' •.•.;'•••4•4:14iip._ •,.;;;:;;;;;.:111!:,!••••••,::,:.••••••• • . ...•• • .• ........_.....,, ""- •• "...'.•• • 1: ' ,.....,:::;•;:-• .,,ligiiPA::IIIT'...!:',•.;:,::',;:iii..-., . • . • • •.5..•. • ... 40114'.14:=:::::i•:„..:',....: • .,. t '',.' .• .. ••• .... '4."io. '� 'r.�r' �.it - ... a ri. .. 1�, ,�+ ... .r.r.. •` ,...r•`�' �'' :i ..k .d`'p,', ''''1:?-„,`;1 4Lit..g�•`"�Y r tiz''x$s< ,0.,#. :•„.•`.YLV.+1.i({{'�d"R'�4 ,11It. ynl6.(31t a — ,.,•41 ,....,'.,r' i ., a :. ( ..ti+ ii [ fs'4•-• lyd[i'♦ �w.,�rdtt p n. .. ,. �, �, •�} ?!”.. "1 ^I (' * w ' :a.1f11'IralR a! t '• .. :. ‘74...:.:.r: t ..::. 1' '1 .. � tr :;7Mt cr« t:�.r ilF_r -3�. �a. 1, i. '.�' .. Iti- : 1.a .. t.l:.:" �i .i .4i •'" (le'.6X . "v ` Z.� ?k•ar � `�',�(�. 'M:L: �� . A'—',..:...s.:: . • "'',..,' ' ..'Ir, t1 . • +�°'°'" 4•. . y,d t».p .�.c'rmNIC'. ... n:. :!. . ;'Y" �'R i . ....._( • ... iii � \ r , 1_ yy{{ yam''' • •• "5.1'-r9i.-*• 1-'14,.,.. ,. M• a: 1 11 iitx ..-. I •.• .' , 1- --7,i ,...• •-•.: :••,...• A:" ::- A..'"kt • i ll'A"` 10"821":1!, .:::rid W .r #40014 _ — � .. y i A,0,,,,„..---i,,,....., 1;:.. :115' ` �:tr� f����II,. • • lik I ,...� i. .• ._` :I''� � .> § i 4i ..:'!itb � �� --I l t f '4114..�2 '.4 11 ��yp �i 9�Fr•!.1,1a;. ,1., $'d—' !.., ;...'1;4:: � V ���+�11i.j�:�t�'i', �1� n.ryy ..�iri.M,<�. i.�'k'. �—rr :.w_. }�:.�r ri•* ��, "'7• l'' - lf,;.; ,_.1L;11.31110111101/11, Ii4.-.4„..':'''*:•:.:':;.44r: . - .4." 111'":13 !t•-*-.!..': ''-. '...'k.: .. ". • "'::'.. ''41-4:"7 i 't -- . Vi 'i::,c,"' '''..* ..1.4-..:'-'-1-711'.!. Vo'.44e;-;::.. 4 .iv . .::: Li mul 4,4•001116 lust : / w- .:.�, t , � .... j ..r At; ' 4.. _ , J s ' Aa•. Itt � «�t + L#Y. . : .4 V: „ .1 ,„„,...„.4. ,.4.i' IfP - m �iY� :..� ,. y ':., il`�ll ti y 111154 Al ili 1 r •r y � :i..... -:. '. '' ' . . 4'.••• "1.:,:i11:11: —••Ali. 11:1.1;1 .; -1r 4111' 11 4••••.;1.1'131. .1.1 i 11 i iiiii .. I .. : Fut14..... ...9. ''4( - 1 ?, „. . A � w : �'z.J iiisigfrii4iii. v°'.Ns tu .., �; !_�.!,Y.L•r '';Af: '' '-"5 1 t r h' r. .::_. `5.tr, 14;:. ii,,t* 1;.1. R li • • •.••-'-'• . 11 :iirl:%is ■.!E,17.s.„ 14""-:i.: ' ..k. ,*: '-' ......:_ivi.;7. 41.0." E.7.---..: -217......n,---....1:-.. --4 ..•( •`Y. i s .; _ :•! k. 7',.• .e.r••• i . 1r , f . ;, �'�.�• '� 'i :,�4 .r„tea . -1••• ..., t!....:.r '�'• 1 yy.. # �••ti�-itrM — F' v .•j)'rrrr7.':"F... .. e.v. i.' :.�,{;�.�.r.�.!e:�.�"�, #.yr� { '.�:i:�::'�' � r✓ f ...00,44, } 0 * . .• .. CG . . R5 . . . . . ... • . . . ... ••••••• .... . .. ••••-•i •• • . . . . • • . . . : .. . . • . ...cc • • . . , . . : • . . • •• ......000 • • ... • • • ,:-.,• • • ..... . • : .. ..... . .. ..• .• • • • • • .. • : ••••••• Mt:1E . • • • . . . I ••••, ...••• . : . . : • . • . • • . • • . . . . . . • • . . . . . , . . .. •••••• . .. . ... . : • . . . • • • . .. , • C•-G --• ".... So • ' I-. ' •::: • ::::, : — .. . . : • • . • . : • • • • .... • .. • • • • • .. •• . '...";;.• • ......• • • : •• • • s. . • ', :-:• • •• • • • • • • • ..., . .• ,... • ... •••>•:;.: • • . • • . . . • . • . . • .. G••G ... ..... ... • . • • •• •• • .... f• .'• , . :.. . . . . •••-. . . .. "''....V,_ . -—• 7-, .,-• ... , . • • : : . . . . . . . .. •- . . . . . . . . . . . : .. . •"...' : : . . . .. . . .. . • • • . • . . . . . . .. , . . . . . . . . . • • . .. . . : • • . . . . : . . . . . .... • • : ..-...-. •• ::: • . .... • ... .... . -....- .......... . . . .. . . . . . • : . . . . . . . . . . • • • . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . .. . . . . . .. . . . • ...• .. . . . . . . ••• • . . . • C-G • .° • . • • ..... . • •• .. .. • ..... • • • . • • . • . . . • •i c . : - . .. • • . . • • . ........... • • . . • • -• • • .... • . • •. • • • . .... • . • • . . : . • : • • • :• : • :. . • •• • . • . . • . • . • : • • • : . : . . • . • • • • • • . . . • . : • • - • • • . • : •: • • • • . •: ••• . . . . .. : .. • . • • • .. . •• • • • . . • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . ••• •• • • • • • • . • . : • • . • • • • • . • . • • • . •• • . • :: MUG : . . • . • . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . •.. •................ . . . . . . . .. . .... • • . . . . . . . . .. . .. ... . . • . . . • . . . . . -i: - ....• .::::::';7..,,....r-...,.. • • . . . .. . : . . . . . ....• 1 Gary Pagenstecher- FW: Tigard Triangle d-velopment Page 1 From: "WILSON Timothy J" <Timothy.J.WILSON @odot.state.or.us> To: <garyp @ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 10/31/2005 7:37:59 AM Subject: FW: Tigard Triangle development Gary, Traffic has a number of questions regarding the development. I'm unclear as too its status? Is it an actual amendment, or is it a proposal? If it is a city zone ordinance amendment, than I would have to prepare a letter using the TRP (0060) requirements of'reasonable likely'to determine if the improvements to our facilities would be done within the planning period. The improvements required at the Haines Street interchange are not in your TSP. Let me know. Tim > Original Message > From: JENSVOLD Martin R > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 2:25 PM > To: WILSON Timothy J > Cc: HUNAIDI Sam H; GRASSMAN Jason M > Subject: RE: Tigard Triangle development > Tim, > I don't know if we have enough information to say if the improvements > assumed in the study are reasonably likely to occur by 2015. A number > of the improvements on the City's system are noted as being > "identified in the TSP as being partially funded by development". I > don't know if the improvements, or the developments to partially pay >for them, will be in place by 2015. I also don't know whether the > assumed improvements, or a portion thereof, are necessary to satisfy >the mobility standards. For the intersections that are outside our >jurisdiction, I assume it would be up to the City to determine whether >the improvements are reasonably likely to occur. > For the intersections within our jurisdiction, I have the following > comments: > The traffic impact study assumes the 1-5 ramps across from Dartmouth > Street will be widened to five lanes to match the anticipated 5-lane > section on Dartmouth. However, I don't believe this improvement is in > the constrained RTP, and there are a number of constraints(alignment > of the ramps, existing and proposed developments and streets)which > could make this improvement difficult to construct. Even the location > of the subject development could affect the chances of getting the > east-and westbound thru lanes at the intersection to line up across > the intersection. A conceptual design of the intersection with the • > five-lane configuration is needed along with information from the City > regarding how they anticipate the improvements to the ramps will be >funded. > Similarly, the study indicates a project to widen 72nd Avenue from ORE . > 99W to Hunziker is in the fiscally constrained RTP. However, the > study assumes the five-lane section extends south of the Hunziker > intersection, which is immediately south of the ORE 217 underpass, > through the intersection with the ORE 217 southbound ramp terminals, > in which case the latter intersection would be outside the project 1 Cary'Pa'genstecher- FW: Tigard Triangle development Page 2 • > limits. There were also discussions years ago about taking Hunziker > over ORE 217 and tying it into 72nd north of the interchange, in which > case the entire interchange would be outside the project limits. > Therefore, it's unclear whether all the improvements assumed to be in > place in the vicinity of the ORE 217 interchange are actually in the >fiscally constrained RTP. >The traffic study proposes constructing a southbound right turn lane > on ORE 99W at Dartmouth. However, there is currently a right-in only > connection on 99W southbound at Pfaffle which is immediately north of >the Dartmouth intersection. Unless the City plans to close the > Pfaffle connection, it seems unlikely the forecast 450 right turns >will occur at Dartmouth, in which case the right turn lane probably > isn't necessary. >The traffic study indicates the text amendment will lead to the site > generating 20 additional northbound trips on 68th north of Atlanta. >This is similar to the amount of traffic expected to be added to the > ORE 99W/ Dartmouth intersection. Presumably, most, if not all, of > this traffic is expected to pass through the 68th Avenue/ORE 99W > intersection. That intersection wasn't covered by the traffic study, > but it should be. > In the October 11 meeting, the applicant said that given the location • > and size of the remaining MOE property in the triangle, it was > unlikely other properties would be developed to a FAR of 1.0. He was > asked to provide a detailed assessment in writing, but as far as I > know, he hasn't provided that information. The study indicates an FAR > of 1.0 for the subject property would correspond to a 118,000 sf > building which, based on the building footprint shown in the study, >would be five or more stories tall. I don't remember the building > they showed us in the meeting being that tall. If their building will > be less than 1.0 FAR and it's unlikely other buildings will be built >to that density, why set the bar that high? >According to the Oregon Highway Plan, the mobility standard for ORE > 99W through Tigard is 0.95, not 0.99 as indicated in the study. > - > • > Original Message > From: WILSON Timothy J > Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 10:17 AM >To: JENSVOLD Martin R > Subject: Tigard Triangle development > Marty >Attached is a draft letter regarding the Tigard plan amendment. I >focused on the Haines Street interchange influence area. Should we > also include 99W? Can you add your comments to the letter? I would > like to finalize it by the end of the week. > « File: tigard triangle.doc » Tim • • • SPECHT SPECHT PROPERTIES SPECHT DEVELOPMENT 15400 S.W.Millikan Way•Beaverton OR 97006 October 25, 2005 503/646-2202 Fax 503/626-8903 www.spechtprop.com T RECEIVED PLANNING Timothy J. Wilson Oregon Department of Transportation OCT 2 7 2005 123 NW Flanders Street Portland, OR 97209-4037 CITY OF TIGARD RE: Tigard Floor Area Ratio ("FAR") Increase Request Dear Timothy: Thank you and the rest of the ODOT staff for meeting with us earlier this month to discuss a potential zone change in the City of Tigard allowing up to 1.0 FAR for MUE zoned land. As we discussed at the meeting, the increased FAR is a two step process. Step 1 is for the City of Tigard to process a text amendment to their zoning code allowing up to 1.0 FAR when the applicant mitigates the applicable traffic impacts revealed through a TPR analysis. Step 2 is to apply for Site Development Review on the Specht Site and show (through the design evaluation team process) that applicable planning year traffic impacts from the increased FAR and the year of build-out traffic impacts from the proposed development will be mitigated. Although we are still working our way through Step 1 of the process, Kittelson & Associates analysis has shown that the planning year traffic impacts of an increase in FAR from 0.4 to 1.0 on our specific site can be mitigated with the addition of a right turn lane from Westbound Hwy .. 99 to Northbound 78th Ave. A preliminary design of the right turn lane improvement was distributed and discussion of ROW issues occurred during our meeting earlier this month. There was also discussion about future development patterns within the Tigard Triangle area and at the request of ODOT, Specht is preparing an analysis of the same to be delivered under separate cover. The City of Tigard is moving forward with their review and staff report for text amendment (Step 1 of the process), but the City staff has been reluctant to make a recommendation without feedback from ODOT. In order to accommodate the City's schedule for approval of the text amendment, we respectfully request the following from ODOT by November 1, 2005: 1. ODOT's comments regarding the text amendment allowing MUE zoned land to develop at 1.0 FAR instead of the currently allowed 0.4 FAR on a single development basis with the preparation of a TPR analysis. 2. ODOT's comments regarding Kittelson's traffic analysis for a 1.0 FAR build-out on the Specht Site. S:Projects-Corpoi ate'Tgard-S.ofClinton.N.of Danrnoulh':PAR Change,ODOT follow up letter I.doc . • • 3. ODOT's comments regarding Kittelson's recommended mitigation — the addition of a right turn lane from Westbound Hwy 99 to Northbound 78th Ave. 4. Confirmation that comments from ODOT will be consistent for both Step 1 and Step 2. We appreciate your time and counsel on this issue. Best regards, • •I /enior e Curran Project Manager CC: Sam H. Hunaidi Jason Grassman Marty Jensvold Gary Pagenstecher Marc Butorac Susan Wright Todd Sheaffer • S:`Projects-Corporate'Tigard-S.of Clinton,N.of Danmouth'FAR Change'ODOT follow up letter I.dot • 1 Notice of Proposed Amendment 0 0 THIS FORM MUST BE RECEIVED BY DLCD II� da3 45 DAYS PRIOR TO THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY HEARING For DLCD Use Only PER ORS 197.610,OAR CHAPTER 660-DIVISION 18 AND SENATE BILL 543, EFFECTIVE JUNE 30, 1999 Jurisdiction: City of Tigard Local file number: ZOA2005-00002 Date First Evidentiary hearing: December 19, 2005 Date of Final Hearing: January 24, 2006 Date this Notice of Proposed Amendment was mailed to DLCD: October 26, 2005 (54 days) Is this a REVISED Proposal previously submitted to DLCD? OYES NO Date Submitted:N/A ❑ Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment ❑ Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment ® Land Use Regulation Amendment ❑ Zoning Map Amendment ❑ New Land Use Regulation ❑ Other: Briefly Summarize Proposal. Do not use technical terms. Do not write "See Attached". (limit of 500 characters) A Zone Ordinance Amendment to amend the commercial zoning •districts chapter (18.520.050.C.1) of the Tigard Community Development Code. The proposed amendment would allow 1.0 FAR where 0.4 is presently allowed throughout the mixed use employment zone in the Tigard Triangle. Plan Map Changed from: N/A to: N/A Zone Map Changed from: N/A to: N/A Location: MUE zoned parcels within the Tigard Triangle Acres Involved: 240.76 Specify Density: Previous: 0.4 FAR New: 1.0 FAR Applicable Statewide Planning Goals: 1, 2, 9, 11 & 12 Is an Exception Proposed? ❑ YES ® NO Affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: Local Contact: Gary Pagenstecher Phone: (503) 639-4171 Extension: 2434 Address: 13125 SW Hall Boulevard City: Tigard, Oregon Zip: 97223 Fax Number: 503-598-1960 Email Address:_Garyp(&,,tigard-or.gov DLCD File No.: S3MITTAL RE Q UIREMATS This form must be received by DLCD at least 45 days prior to the first evidentiary hearing per ORS 197.610, OAR Chapter 660 -Division 18 and Senate Bill 543 effective on June 30, 1999. 1. This form must be submitted by local jurisdictions only. 2. When submitting, please print this form on green paper. 3. Send this Form and TWO (2) Copies of the Proposed Amendment to: ATTENTION: PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIALIST DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 635 CAPITOL STREET NE, SUITE 150 SALEM, OREGON 97301-2540 COPY TO: .Metro Land Use&Planning • 600 NE Grand Avenue Portland,OR 97232-2736 ODOT—Region 1,District 2-A Sam Hunaidi,Assistant District Manager 6000 SW Raab Road Portland,OR 97221 4. Unless exempt by ORS 197.610 (2),proposed amendments must be received at the DLCD's SALEM OFFICE at least FORTY-FIVE (45) days before the first evidentiary hearing on the proposal. The first evidentiary hearing is usually the first public hearing held by the jurisdiction's planning commission on the proposal. 5. 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. • 6. 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 x 11 inch paper. A legal description, tax account number, address or general description is not adequate. Text of background and/ or reason for change request should be included. 7. Submittal of proposed amendments which involve a goal exception must include the proposed language of the exception. 8. Need More Copies? You can copy this form on to 8-1/2x11 green paper only; or call the DLCD Office at (503) 373-0050; or Fax your request to:(503) 378-5518; or email your request to mara.ulloa @state.or.us - ATTENTION: PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIALIST. - ZOA2005-00002 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS CHAPTER OF THEW TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE (18.520). • DELETIONS indicated by STRIKEOUT. ADDITIONS indicated by BOLD and UNDERLINE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT CHANGES: Section 18.520.050.C.1 C. In the MUE zone. Special limitations in the MUE zoning district are as follows: 1. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for all commercial and industrial use types and mixed-use developments shall not exceed 0.40, but 1.0 shall be allowed where the applicant utilizes the design evaluation team process and where a traffic impact analysis approved through the design evaluation process and Planning Commission review demonstrate that allowed uses on the subject property will maintain transportation levels consistent with the function, capacity and performance standards of affected transportation facilities consistent with OAR 660-012-0060. e • • r U.S. Postal Service,. CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT ru 'u-) (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) D For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.coma o F • L USE .A Postage •—EOM D Certified Fee NEM Return Reclept Fee ((( Postmark D (Endorsement Required) /Tit Here i 7 (N D Restricted Delivery Fee re� r I ..D (Endorsement Required) ; f r. f1J Total Postage&Fees EW® m -- - - D Sent TN- 'Ng,ATTN: PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIALIST orP Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation & Deve Gi 635 Capital Street NE, Suite 150 ;Salem, OR 97301-2540 -.._�,.. SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Signature item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. x /; -C 9 n ❑Agent • Print your name and address on the reverse (/t� ❑Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by(Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑ No ATTN: PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIALIST' Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation & Deve 635 Capital Street NE, Suite 150 Salem, OR 97301-2540 3. Service Type Certified Mail ❑Express Mail ❑Registered ❑Retum Receipt for Merchandise ❑Insured Mail ❑C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 70032260 0001 6401 0525 I' PS Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 1o2595-02-M-154o • • - U.S. Postal Service. ., � cr CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT :in (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) CZI For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.coma CI O O f F O C O A, L USE "D Postage 1-1 Certified Fee NISI f J {{ .;J t ci Return Reclept Fee 1 • Postrreta►k • (Endorsement Required) i•r Here1 - ) im Restricted Delivery Fee v3-�\ '01._;‘"1 n _D (Endorsement Required) ,} .. `�,/ Total Postage&Fees ( OL rn ID Sent To 'Metro ci 1'- -S`heet,Apt.No.; ATTN: LAND USE & PLANNING orPOBoxNo. 600 NE Grand Avenue c/IY,Stare 2IP14 Portland, OR 97232-2736 1 PS Form 3800,June 2002 See Reverse for Instructions SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete ' -I item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. 01 Agent I • Print your name and address on the reverse , l Addressee I so that we can return the card to you. B eceived by(Printed Name) C, Dat=of Delivery I • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, ! i LLwo e;r)t 16 ' ,1 D 5 or on the front if space permits. �/J D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑ No Metro ATTN: LAND USE & PLANNING 600 NE Grand Avenue Portland, OR 97232-2736 3. Service Type Certified Mail- ❑Express Mail — ❑ Registered ❑Retum Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Insured Mail ❑C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Article Number 7003 2260 0001 6401 0549 (Transfer from service label) f PS Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595.02-M-1540 0 • U.S. Postal Service,. ru CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT m �n (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) I0 For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.come CLFDCDAL USE Posta �� ra Certified Fee 0 Postmark °y CI Return Reclept Fee 1 ;Here t (Endorsement Required) ,- )<, r;4 O Restricted Delivery Fee 7)-j••-. . -C rD (Endorsement Required) %-, r .J Ill " Total Postage&Fees WMI m I - p Sent To D ' ODOT— Region 1, District 2-A ,""" rte- "1ir'eer, or PO Bo)Sam Hunaidi, Assistant District Manager city,Sate 6000 SW Raab Road Portland OR 97221 PS Form 3800,June 2002 See Reverse for Instructions SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY ' • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Si.natu = i item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. / r Agent • Print your name and address on the reverse X �� / / .❑Addressee I so that we can return the card to you. B. R ed b (P• ted Name) C. Date o;Delivery • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. l - r-l((r► /0 °L 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑Yes — - -— —_--___ If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑No ''ODOT—Region 1, District 2-A Sam Hunaidi, Assistant District Manager 6000 SW Raab Road Portland, OR 97221 3. Service Type ' Certified Mall ❑Express Mail ❑Registered ❑Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑Insured Mail ❑C.O.D. , 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes � 1 2. Article Number '- - ----__ -- -- -- — ——-- (Transfer from service labeq I 7003 2 2 6 2 0001 6 4 01 0532 , I PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540� PvEsr FUR CoMA4€,vrS REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CIO IGARD Community(Ueve(opment Shaping A Better Community DATE: October 27,2005 TO: Rob Murchison,Public Works Project Engineer FROM: CiAi of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Gary Pagenstecher Associate Planner[x24341 Phone: [5031539-4171/Fax: [5031684-7297 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA)2005-00002 ➢ CODE AMENDMENT INCREASING FAR IN THE MUE ZONE < REQUEST: A Zone Ordinance Amendment to amend the Commercial Zoning Districts Chapter 18.520) of the Tigard Community Development Code. The proposed amendment would amend Section 18.520.050.C.1 to allow 1.0 FAR where 0.4 is presently allowed throughout the Mixed Use Employment (MUE) zone in the Tigard Triangle. LOCATION: Tigard Triangle. ZONE: MUE: Mixed- Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380.020 and 18.390.060; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 and 12; The Metro Urban Growth Management Plan Titles 1, 7 and 8; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 11 and 12. Attached is a "DRAFT" of the Proposed Amendments for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: NOVEMBER 14, 2005. 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: AtmWe 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: Name/Phone#of Person Commenting: L. 0 AA REQUEST FOR COMMENT ` -- CITY OF TIGARD Community Deveropment • Shaping A Better Community DATE: October 27,2005 TO: Jim Wolf,Tigard Police Department Crime Prevention Officer RECEIVED PLANNING FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division NOV 0 1 2005 STAFF CONTACT: Phone: 15031539--417UFax:1503168472974341 CITY OF TIGARD ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 2005-00002 > CODE AMENDMENT INCREASING FAR IN THE MUE ZONE < REQUEST: A Zone Ordinance Amendment to amend the Commercial Zoning Districts Chapter (18.520) of the Tigard Community Development Code. The proposed amendment would amend Section 18.520.050.C.1 to allow 1.0 FAR where 0.4 is presently allowed throughout the Mixed Use Employment (MUE) zone in the Tigard Triangle. LOCATION: Tigard Triangle. ZONE: MUE: Mixed- Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.38 .020 and 18.390.060; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 and 12; The Metro Urban Growth Management Plan Titles 1, 7 and 8; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 11 and 12. Attached is a "DRAFT" of the Proposed Amendments for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: NOVEMBER 14, 2005. 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: 4/ 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: gi,Name/Phone#of Person Commenting: 718.d36/ REQUEST FOR COMMENII CITY `OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community DATE: October 27,2005 TO: PER ATTACHED FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Gary Pa enstecher Associate Planner 1x2434) Phone: 15031539-4171/Fax: L5031684-7297 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA)2005-00002 ➢ CODE AMENDMENT INCREASING FAR IN THE MUE ZONE Q REQUEST: A Zone Ordinance Amendment to amend the Commercial Zoning Districts Chapter (18.520) of the Tigard Community Development Code. The proposed amendment would amend Section 18.520.050.C.1 to allow 1.0 FAR where 0.4 is presently allowed throughout the Mixed Use Employment (MUE) zone in the Tigard Triangle. LOCATION: Tigard Triangle. ZONE: MUE: Mixed- Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail ggood and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380.020 and 18.390.060; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 and 12; The Metro Urban Growth Management Plan Titles 1, 7 and 8; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 11 and 12. Attached is a "DRAFT" of the Proposed Amendments for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: NOVEMBER 14, 2005. 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: Name/Phone#of Person Commenting: CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOUOMMENTS / z ..t '' NOTIFICAI! LIST FOR LAND USE & COMMUNITY DWLOPMENT APPLICATIONS FILE NOS.: -7-x.)4- 700 880 2. FILE NAME: C 41 O elle MIL fifill615. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAMS 1 14-DAY PENDING APPLICATION NOTICE TOINTERESTED PARTIES OF AREA: ['Central ['East ['South West CITY OFFICES —NG RANGE PLANNING/Barbara Shields,Planning Mgr. _COMMUNITY DVLPMNT.DEPTJPIanning-Engineering Techs.ZOLICE DEPTJJim Wolf,Crime Prevention Officer . BUILDING DIVISION/Gary Lampella,Building Official ENGINEERING DEPTJKim McMillan,Dvlpmnt.Review Engineer_PUBLIC WORKS/Matt Stine,Urban Forester _ �'LCITY ADMINISTRATION'Cathy Wheatley,City Recorder ,[PUBLIC WORKS/Rob Murchison,Project Engineer . 41ANNER—POST PROJECT SITE IF A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM•10 BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING! SPECIAL DISTRICTS _ TUAL.HILLS PARK&REC.DIST.*_ TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE&RESCUE* _ TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT* _ CLEANWATER SERVICES Planning Manager Fire Marshall Administrative Office Lee Walker/SWM Program 15707 SW Walker Road Washington County Fire District PO Box 745 155 N.First Avenue Beaverton,OR 97006 (place in pick-up box) Beaverton,OR 97075 Hillsboro,OR 97124 LOCAL AND STATE JURISDICTIONS b CITY OF BEAVERTON* _ CITY OF TUALATIN* _OR.DEPT.OF FISH&WILDLIFE _OR.DIV.OF STATE LANDS — Planning Manager Planning Manager 3406 Cherry Avenue NE Melinda Wood(WLUN Form Required) — Steven Sparks,Dev.Svcs.Manager 18880 SW Martinazzi Avenue Salem,OR 97303 775 Summer Street NE,Suite 100 PO Box 4755 Tualatin,OR 97062 Salem,OR 97301-1279 Beaverton,OR 97076 _ 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 PO Box 23483 _ Bob Knight,Data Resource Center(ZCA) _US ARMY CORPS.OF ENG. Durham,OR 97281-3483 _ Paulette Allen,Growth Management Coordinator _OR.DEPT.OF LAND CONSERV.&DVLP. Kathryn Harris(Maps s cws Letter Only) Mel Huie,Greenspaces Coordinator(cPAIzoA) Larry French(Comp.Plan Amendments only) Routing CENWP-OP-G —CITY OF KING CITY* _ Jennifer Budhabhatti,Regional Planner(Wetlands) 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(Powerlines in Area) _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 Steve Conway(General Apps.) Lake Oswego,OR 97034 _Gregg Leion(CPA) _ OR.DEPT.OF ENVIRON.QUALITY(DEQ) DOT,REGION 1 * _Brent Curtis(CPA) CITY OF PORTLAND (Notify for Wetlands and Potential Environmental Impacts) C Grant Robinson,Development Review Coordinator _Doria Mateja(ZCA)MS 14 Planning Bureau Director Regional Administrator _Carl Torland, Right-of-Way Section(vacations) _Sr.Cartographer(CPAaCA)MS14 1900 SW 4th Avenue,Suite 4100 2020 SW Fourth Avenue,Suite 400 123 NW Flanders _Jim Nims,SurveyorntcA)Ms 15 Portland,OR 97201 Portland,OR 97201-4987 Portland,OR 97209-4037 _WA.CO.CONSOL.COMM.AGNCY 'ODOT,REGION 1 -DISTRICT 2A* _ODOT,RAIL DIVISION _STATE HISTORIC Dave Austin(wcccA)-s,t^lMm.,d.Toww.) 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 555-13th Street,NE,Suite 3 1115 Commercial Street,NE Salem,OR 97301-4179 Salem,OR 97301-1012 UTILITY PROVIDERS AND SPECIAL AGENCIES •PORTLAND WESTERN R/R,BURLINGTON NORTHERN/SANTA FE R/R,OREGON ELECTRIC R/R(Burlington Northern/Santa Fe R/R Predecessor) Robert I.Melbo,President&General Manager . 110 W.10th Avenue Albany,OR 97321 —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) Randy Bice IS..Map for Area cower) (If Project is Within'/.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 Ken Gutierrez,Svc.Design Consultant Scott Palmer,Engineering Coord. David Bryant,Engineering Florence Mott, Eng.ROW Mgr. 9480 SW Boeckman Road 220 NW Second Avenue OR 030533/PO Box 1100 8021 SW Capitol Hill Rd,Rm 110 Wilsonville,OR 97070 Portland,OR 97209-3991 Beaverton,OR 97075-1100 Portland,OR 97219 _TIGARD/TUALATIN SCHOOL DIST.#23J_BEAVERTON SCHOOL DIST.#48 _COMCAST CABLE CORP. _COMCAST CABLE COMMUNIC. Marsha Butler,Administrative Offices Jan Youngquist,Demographics Alex Silantiev(See Map for Area Conha) Diana Carpenter(App.E.ofn.MNOraswl 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: 16-Aug-05) (Also update:is\curpin\setup\labels\annexation_utilities and franchises.doc when updating this document) PIAMNIM & SEcRET'Alky MATE.RiALS • • PLEASE PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LOGO IN THE LEGAL NOTICE SECTION OF TIGARD TIMES, THE FOLLOWING: PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on Monday December 19, 2005 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic Center- Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Public oral or written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be held under Title 18 and rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Section 18.390.060E. The Planning Commission's review is for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council on the request. The Council will then hold a public hearing on the request prior to making a decision. Further information may be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division (Staff contact: Gary Pagenstecher) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223 or by calling 503-639-4171. ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 2005-00002 ➢ CODE AMENDMENT INCREASING FAR IN THE MUE ZONE Q REQUEST: A Zone Ordinance Amendment to amend the Commercial Zoning Districts Chapter (18.520) of the Tigard Community Development Code. The proposed amendment would amend Section 18.520.050.C.1 to allow 1.0 FAR where 0.4 is presently allowed throughout the Mixed Use Employment (MUE) zone in the Tigard Triangle. LOCATION: Tigard Triangle. ZONE: MUE: Mixed-Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380.020 and 18.390.060; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 and 12; The Metro Urban Growth Management Plan Titles 1, 7 and 8; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 11 and 12. (THERE IS NO MAP TO BE PUBLISHED WITH THIS NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION. THANK YOU) TT PUBLISH DATE: DECEMBER 1, 2005 • • PLEASE PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LOGO IN THE LEGAL NOTICE SECTION OF TIGARD TIMES, THE FOLLOWING: PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on Tuesday January 24, 2006 at 7:30 PM at the Tigard Civic Center- Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Public oral or written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be held under Title 18 and rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Section 18.390.060.E. Further information may be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division (Staff contact: Gary Pagenstecher) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223 or by calling 503-639-4171. ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 2005-00002 ➢ CODE AMENDMENT INCREASING FAR IN THE MUE ZONE < REQUEST: A Zone Ordinance Amendment to amend the Commercial Zoning Districts Chapter (18.520) of the Tigard Community Development Code. The proposed amendment would amend Section 18.520.050.C.1 to allow 1.0 FAR where 0.4 is presently allowed throughout the Mixed Use Employment (MUE) zone in the Tigard Triangle. LOCATION: Tigard Triangle. ZONE: MUE: Mixed-Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380.020 and 18.390.060; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 and 12; The Metro Urban Growth Management Plan Titles 1, 7 and 8; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 11 and 12. (THERE IS NO MAP TO BE PUBLISHED WITH THIS NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION. THANK YOU) TT PUBLISH DATE: JANUARY 5, 2005 Specht Properties, Inc. ZOA2005-00002 Attn: Joe Curran, Project Manager CODE AMENDMENT INCREASING FAR IN THE 15400 SW Milikan Way MUE ZONE Beaverton, OR 97006 Perkins Coie LLP Attn: Michael C. Robinson 1120 NW Couch Street, Tenth Floor Portland, OR 97209-4128 �In • • 'I 120 DAYS = N/A CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community CITY OF TIGARD • Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Case Number: ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 2005-00002 Case Name: CODE AMENDMENT INCREASING FAR IN THE MUE ZONE Names of Owners: N/A Name of Applicant: Specht Properties, Inc. Attn: Joe Curran, Project Manager Address of Applicant: 15400 SW Mllikan Way Beaverton, Oregon 97006 Address of Property: Tigard Triangle Tax Map/Lot Nos.: N/A A FINAL ORDER INCORPORATING THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT(ORDINANCE NO. 04-14). THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL HAVE REVIEWED THE APPLICANT'S PLANS, NARRATIVE, MATERIALS, 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 TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON DECEMBER 19 2005 FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE REQUEST. THE CITY COUNCIL ALSO HELD A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON JANUARY 24 2006 PRIOR TO MAKING A DECISION ON THE REQUEST. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS FINAL ORDER. Subject: > A Zone Ordinance Amendment to amend the Commercial Zoning Districts Chapter (18.520) of the Tigard Community Development Code. The proposed amendment would amend Section 18.520.050.C.1 to allow 1.0 FAR where 0.4 is presently allowed throughout the Mixed Use Employment (MUE) zone in the Tigard Triangle. LOCATION: Tigard Triangle. ZONE: MUE: Mixed-Use Employment. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380.020 and 18.390.060; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 and 12; The Metro Urban Growth Management Plan Titles 1, 7 and 8; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 11 and 12. Action: > ® Approval as Requested ❑ Approval with Restrictions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: ® Affected Government Agencies ® Interested Parties Final Decision: THIS IS THE FINAL DECISION BY THE CITY AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON JANUARY ??, 2006. The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. Appeal: A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) within 21 days according to their procedures. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division or the City Recorder at (503) 639-4171. M 2 Notice of Adoption THIS FORM MUST BE MAILED TO DLCD WITHIN 5 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE FINAL DECISION PER ORS 197.610,OAR CHAPTER 660-DIVISION 18 For DLCD Use Only Jurisdiction: City of Tigard Local file number: ZOA2005-00002 Date of Adoption: January 24, 2006 Date Mailed: Date original Notice of Proposed Amendment was mailed to DLCD: October 26, 2005 ❑ Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment ❑ Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment ® Land Use Regulation Amendment ❑ Zoning Map Amendment ❑ New Land Use Regulation ❑ Other: Summarize the adopted amendment. Do not use technical terms. Do not write "See Attached". Describe how the adopted amendment differs from the proposed amendment. If it is the same, write "SAME". If you did not give Notice for the Proposed Amendment, write "N/A". Plan Map Changed from: N/A to: N/A Zone Map Changed from: N/A to: N/A Location: MUE zoned parcels within the Tigard Triangle Acres Involved: 240.76 Specify Density: Previous: 0.4 FAR New: 1.0 FAR Applicable Statewide Planning Goals: 1, 2, 9, 11 & 12 Was and Exception Adopted? ❑ YES ® NO DLCD File No.: Did the Department of Land Conservation and Development receive a Notice of Proposed Amendment Forty-five (45) days prior to first evidentiary hearing? ® Yes ❑ No If no, do the statewide planning goals apply? ❑ Yes ❑ No If no, did Emergency Circumstances require immediate adoption? ❑ Yes ❑ No Affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: City of Tigard Local Contact: Gary Pagenstecher Phone: (503) 639-4171 Extension: 2434 Address: 13125 SW Hall Boulevard City: Tigard, Oregon Zip Code +4: 97223-8189 Email Address: Garyp@tigard-or.gov ADOPTION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS This form must be mailed to DLCD within 5 working days after the final decision per ORS 197.610, OAR Chapter 660-Division 18. COPIES TO: Metro Land Use&Planning ODOT—Region 1,District 2-A 600 NE Grand Avenue Sam Hunaidi,Assistant District Manager Portland,OR 97232-2736 6000 SW Raab Road Portland,OR 97221 1. Send this Form and TWO (2) Copies of the Adopted Amendment to: ATTENTION: PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIALIST DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 635 CAPITOL STREET NE, SUITE 150 SALEM, OREGON 97301-2540 2. Submit TWO (2) copies the adopted material, if copies are bounded please submit TWO (2) complete copies of documents and maps. 3. Please Note: Adopted materials must be sent to DLCD not later than FIVE (5) working days following the date of the final decision on the amendment. 4. Submittal of this Notice of Adoption must include the text of the amendment plus adopted findings and supplementary information. 5. The deadline to appeal will not be extended if you submit this notice of adoption within five working days of the final decision. Appeals to LUBA may be filed within TWENTY-ONE (21) days of the date, the Notice of Adoption is sent to DLCD. 6. In addition to sending the Notice of Adoption to DLCD, you must notify persons who participated in the local hearing and requested notice of the final decision. 7. Need More Copies? You can copy this form on to 8-1/2x11 green paper only; or call the DLCD Office at (503) 373-0050; or Fax your request to:(503) 378-5518; or Email your request to mara.ulloa @state.or.us - ATTENTION: PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIALIST.