Loading...
Ordinance No. 96-42 4 ) P ks S y�fcu 4#' A2„r s ' :r .a.m ,W � F} . K q�K +M1 � CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON . t ORDINANCE NO. 96-�� s x ga z 5, as 1 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND AMENDMENTS TO THE � = COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION MAP (ORDINANCE NO. 91-13), 4 F ,ME,� ADDRESSING TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS TO SUPPORT } IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HIGHWAY 217/1-5 INTERCHANGE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. N rf I ' WHEREAS, the applicant City of Tigard has requested certain text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and certain amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Maps to address transportation and access improvements to support improvements to the Highway 217/I-5 Interchange. *`'•�. K r NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: ' g ,t SECTION 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria based upon the facts, findings �t ¢ j and conclusions noted in the attached Final Order. `5 k SECTION 2: The specific text and map amendments attached to this Ordinance are hereby ' adopted and approved the City Council. i+ { SECTION 3: The City Council declares that an emergency exists because of the need to provide r immediate assurance to ODOT of the City's intentions with regard to improvements related to the redesign of the Highway 217/1-5 Interchange. Therefore,this ordinance shall be in full force a _ and effect upon its passage by the City Council. ;. c t„ a PASSED: By: On ly1Uit;vote of all Council members present after being read by €'f _* number and title only, this_5j day of L�rCCkhrl , 1996. ' Catherine Wheatley, City Rec rder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this. day of ttiFn)�` 1996. x� a 'N� J 'Ties Nicon, Mayor r� j ORDINANCE NO. 96a ce �� Page . 5' s d rt� a-SN r '* �' 4 n z g 1 rr T 4 r r • Approved as to form: Attorney ,.: �� J a�.�o l�cv • Date - �y K F & 3a r`• ' ORDINANCE NO.96- Page 2 104 f 45[ lx Tc 411, ht � '. 12/30 13:32 1896 FROM. 503 684 7207 TO: 2473 PAGE: 5 a a 1 ' 12/90/98 19:28 V503 884 7297 CITY OF TIGARD »»» CITY ATTORNEY 10005/019 Proposed Amendment to Chapter 8.Transportation r i Add a new Policy. 8.1.8 THE CITY SHALL ADOPT THE FOLLOWING TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY r �' C r � a. Highway 99W should be widened to 6 lanes throughout the study , area(tool box). This improvement should be constructed in the ; short term.In the event that widening Highway 99 to six lanes is ' j prohibitive due to physical constraints,the Dartmouth extension c could potentially provide needed northeast-to-southwest travel I demand. I-- b. 72nd Avenue should be widened to four lanes with left turn lanes at major intersections and the Hunziker/Hampton overcrossin should r . be constructed. These two improvements will provide additional roadway capacity for circulation within the Triangle and for access to and from the triangle via 72nd Avenue. Construction of the =b , Hunziker/Hampton overcrossing would have the additional advantages of eliminating g geometric deficiencies at the Highway 217172nd Avenue interchange;thereby providing further additional capacity at this interchange. For the buildout scenario(2915),these improvements will provide adequate capacity in the vicinity of the Highway 217172nd Avenue interchange. C. The HamptonlHunzikercennection is only justified based on its operational relief to the 72nd interchange. Further study should , be conducted to examine alternative measures to relieve thisr situation in a more cost effective way.Further study may indicate that extending Hampton further southwesterly(to connect with Hall Boulevard in the vicinity of McDonald Street)may better I accommodate projected travel demand. Short of constructing this m structure,a direct ramp instead of a loop ramp from southbound 72nd Avenue to northbound Highway 217 would provide additional capacity in the vicinity of the Highway 217172nd Avenue interchange. d. Access from Dartmouth to northbound Highway 217 eheuld-tae mem t#e is critical to Tigard Triangle traffic circulation,therefore,it r should be studied as part of the Highway 217 corridor analysis to be performed by ODOT and Metyo.Under existing conditions,there is EXHIBIT J u t RIM J- I >12/30,13.33 1088 FROM: 503 fi84 7287 T0. 2473 PAGE: 6 ` ,+ 12/30/96 13:29 12503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARO »»» CITY ATTORNEY 10006/013 y'S significant roadway congestion near the Highway 99W/Highway 217 j interchange. Construction of the Dartmouth Extension and access to northbound Highway 217 would mitigate congestion at this interchange because motorists in this area of the Tigard Triangle 'w would have the option to access northbound Highway 217 from ` Dartmouth or Highway SSW. fZ -[ e. Analysis indicates that there is a long term(20-30 years)need F for Dartmouth Road to continue over Highway 217 and potentially , south to Hall Boulevard as well as for extending the collector. r ` distributor roads from the Highway 217172nd Avenue.interchanges " through thr Highway 2171Highway 99W interchange. The Highway `4 217 corridor analysis to be performed by Metro and ODOT should f` consider the advantages and disadvantages of these improvements. { The Dartmouth extension to Hall Boulevard should be constructed ; only if further system improvements to Hall Boulevard are made ; I concurrently. If additional capacity is not added to Hall Boulevard i south of where the Dartmouth extension would be connected,the A� I effectiveness of this connection would be diminished.Alternatively, Jk" another roadway could be constructed that provides a connection " ._ from the Dartmouth extension to Hall Boulevard in the vicinity of $ � McDonald Street r f. Adopt the functional classification plan for streets internal to v71,1 -5 5 A the Tigard Triangle as shown on Figure 1. The following Policies ' apply to local streets within the Tigard Triangle: 1. Local street spacing shall be a maximum of 660 feett$ 2. Access way spacing shall be a maximum of 330 feet 3. Spacing of signalized intersections or:Major Arterials shall be a minimum of 600 feet R 1 4. Existing rights of way will,to the greatest extent ? Fy 1 possible,be utilized for a local street system. Right of way vacations will considered only when all other policies in this sf subsection are met <` > g. The transportation projects described in this section should be added to the City of Tigard's Transportation System Plan. The City,ODOT and Metro should work to include these improvements in y regional and state implementation programs. • �. �max,. I 1 A., f f N F 7 l t t { fi� Yf 3- x Y � C r f WOR r _'•, AI i 3 Y E r A ff Zr' � b x §' s p � + • 2 .GA- -3-yr k � `O 5 ' C ` lz 1 Draft x j , o W r t 7f l •Lo<..�f-,a�GrJ/A eivO/S.��in YM ` p' � � DLo R2E^ 2t pr. i R 1 °\� fee Efy :uq r/i<au.MtInM vH dJa FeSf : +t E �;, .♦c<it1 : Ac1N•o..o.R.-.v nu�r wYa?2=° ��°#ta�gf i �. J nnriinuM coo iter PoR.siar.•u�Qv �*: �� lY J•ER�ECTlO+f S. � Fsi ��' i x w� Tigard Triangle Street Plan = s{r-z/r .—" Ciry of Ti-3rd 000r Taos Sox t 1-6 3 k E � v k � s � ,•=3y Y ✓ C fi 3 ZZ p }'Y 4 x DRAFT , Chapter 18._ MUE:MIXED USE EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT. z � IRF ,tw � a ` ; 18, 010 Purpose. t � F 18. 020 Procedures and Approval Process. c C ^A' F 1111, 18._ 030 Permitted and Restricted Uses 18. 040 Conditional Uses(See Chapter 18.130). Y 18._ 050 Dimensional Requirements. 18. 060 Additional Requirements. fr 18. 070 Design Standards. t n � Y,# 18._ 010 Purpose. g 36P NI, 5 A. The purpose of the MUE zoning district is: � d 1. To create a mixed use employment district that is complementary to the rest of the b: community and the region; � . _3 s 2. To provide opportunities for employment and for new business and professional services inclose proximity to retail centers and major transportation facilities; ; 5 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; 3 4. To provide for groups and businesses in centers; r x 5. To provide for residential uses which are compatible with and supportive of retail and 4 { employment uses. es for the Tigard Triangle: B. Guiding principl . 1. To support the Tigard Triangle's position as a eegienally significant location for a variety of commercial,office,business park and research uses; ry 2. To capitalize on and improve the Tigard Triangle's accessibility from Pacific t* Highway,Highway 217 and I-5 by creating a mixed use employment district which serves the Dant m nity rE � za� x " 3. To recognize that accessibility is the key to a successful mixed use employment area , � +k and that the automobile will accommodate the vase majority of trips to the Triangle; x vx� aea 1, 'L. k s �e k e ��i Al L A3 ski 'ail r.�ya �'$a''�i'.� C a y a sx„r3 " is ski i 71 d "�_P�.SR F Y 4€'MSG '`. MA inN't -' 4. To support transit and other modes in order to maximize their potential; sx��cc ► � U€ S. To create a complementary land use pattern that allows for a number of trip purposes IZI IZ& T s e a to be satisfied during a single visit to the Tigard Triangle,and distributes those trips over a broad period of the day; ,> ► 6. To add roadways and utilities to existing infrastructure to accommodate future growth; 7. To include a safe,secure and convenient pedestrian aad bikeway system within the Tigard Triangle that links internal uses,and connects to the city-wide system; ry 8. To integrate within new development the significant natural features found within the Triangle; ' 9. To use streetscape as a key element to create a high quality image for the Triangle and fr to establish people-friendly spaces; 10. To assure that transitions from existing low density residential uses to mixed use fr Q employment uses occur in ways that respect the livability of the residential areas; } a ,^a 11. To allow for the opportunity for residential uses within compatible employment u areas. t ,y rSR 18._ 020 Procedures and Approval Process. RIM A. A permitted use,Section 18._.030,is a use which is allowed outright,but is subject to all applicable provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a permitted use outright,it may be held to be similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43,Unlisted Use. i B. A restricted use,Section 18._.030,is a use which is allowed outright,but is subject tox specific restrictions and all applicable provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a restrictedaY use outright,it may be held to be similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43, �: Unlisted Use. C. A conditional use,Section 18.64.040,is a use the approval of which is discretionary with i the Hearings Officer. The approval process and criteria for approval are set forth in Chapter �k 18.130,Conditional Use. If a use is not listed as a conditional use,it may be held to be a similar x unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43,Unlisted Use. a iRz.SacY, 18. 030 Permitted and Restricted Uses r kr � , vt.Kik,p ' ¥• 2k f r 3 � f- z r~ r 1 rix �s a +�i,{` �s..r H��r ,� „+•,a:�scar.b, ,.'x',.r+�iu..�,+..a�sf.'kaarbs�.s..� u.�.---^ s�p� 311 <4p. Permitted and Restricted Uses in the MUE district are as follows: a F if (p_perinitted;R-permitted with restrictions) L Use Categories Co (VI.� mmercial Use Types `F r � rw # Amusement enterprises including cinemas P w s Animal es and services MI salR(1) ` `tAutomotive and equipment R(1) ` j Building maintenance services P #'r s ; ' Business equipment salesand services R(l) * za ` Pa'a ` rx,`r Building support services -P Communication Communication services t } t 4 Convenience sales and personal services R(l) " } 4 Children's day care Pe Eating and drinking establishments P y i Financial,insurance and real estate services P a z � f { x- �- Food and beverage retail sales R(1) Funeral and internment services P " General retail sales R(I) a Medical and dental services P $ e Participation sports and recreation P a Personal services,general P '. Professional and administrative services P �& P r Consumer repair services Religious assembly P Via.. fi r Research services P r j Tr^sientlodging P = she v j zr ri v +s >'3w2, Yx >� * a r 3 .rte h� r r Vis, VX a qua r: "lZ q � xi. adam` '' 'No:f} t , r CY F f � 'n,awe Pi ' 7, �� • y x g b use Categories Civic Use Types ti ' y Public agency administrative services P + �? Cultural exhibits and library services P s # � z Public support facilities P ° ` r, °�; { Lodges,fraternal and civic assembly P c. t ?, Pa`Icing facilities P ` +' Postal Services P ` Public safety services P Residential Use Types r t ' Single-family attached P Multiple-family residential PIN t X¢" C} Single family residential R(2) t �s y Home occupations P Family day care P aFP` •""' Industrial Use Types jN x` Manufacturing of finished products R(3) �t t ,l Packaging and processing R(3) h t i ' Light R(3) ys. ' Wholesale,storage and distribution R(4) .x' B. Use restrictions referenced in the table above are as follows: z s 1. Retail and sates uses larger than 60,000 square feet of gross leasable area per building s - r. or business shall be prohibited east e€7T4-Prvenae within the Tigard Triangle-mQI for t_h 3 € r , c zoned -r at the time this Chanter is adopted. x T �� �+r-3 M, d- ; are 04x p .: 2. Pre-existing housing units permitted. 44r c r 4 5 $c + 51, Jif �`9`^14 �-r n r. h i ppm *'1 S ` ��.yX kir i� � — _..-_....,. __.._-......,..,,.u�-a,r.v__�x,v._t�e «.w-,..,, m.�..,.4ra....,,.-..•...»,._. .-.-..-....�xiw:.ea..•v.. .e.�i..w...,�z.,;:ac:.�'- Fri '+c �,�� �"5'��aw ,5.#} sa ",PO: SRI 91 u � Use Categories uwn s Civic Use Typesx ��}� Public agency administrative services P #� i "�r 3 Cultural exhibits and library services P 3 "ah 'S crus IMP t Public support facilities P e j ` t Lodges,fraternal and civic assembly P e z s� P r Parking facilities U T j Postal Services P Public safety services P Residential Use Types x { Single-family attached P a ; 3� }fiy w Multiple-family residential P xa� Single family residential R(Z) ` Home occupations P i Family day care P w t # 1 Industrial Use Types Manufacturing of finished products R(3) I'll 4 v A-1 Packaging and processing R(3) r * . R(3) Light ( ) 3 a' x " ;' Wholesale,storage and distribution R(4) < 5 � r r B. Use restrictions referenced in the table above are as follows: R evg 1. Retail and sales uses larger than 60,000 square feet of gross leasable area per building r; or business shall be prohibited easE�A-ve—Within the Tigard TrianglesX_ce_pt for those " r are mooned C-G at the time this Chanter i a opted. ,} h � 2. Pre eatisting housing units permitted. ',��., .� a � 514 L < ' t* ,t, ��,�+r �s� •�3 �.�`� +. E.` $ F'+'�kt � tit .•'�{���� �i v, IRV n 1� do i'' ,����F <j N ._ •, ;4"t9te 9®iT+r..@kakwv.9+.'Gr`f-.v.WMi.....v£...cw-..s. .._.'r.,.+.n -.-..,..._ ., s..».rn.,,<,-......_.. ....,__.._..,.n.m- �.n.� .....x..,ru.r..�.e,.+uv 4k�..��1�.'«£, k xj 3.All activities associated with this use,except employee and customer parking,shall be a contained within building(s). lt1x. 4. Permitted as an accessory to a permitted use as long as this use is contained within the x > same building as the permitted use,and does not exceed the floor area of the permitted use. �.AAS jw 18._ 040 Conditional Uses(See Chapter 18.130). # UW"—, A. Conditional uses in the MUE district are as follows: � x qty 1.Community recreation including structures; n s r 2. Religious assembly; F � 3. Schools and related facilities; ' r e}. N 4. Hospitals; # a 5. Parking facilities; 6. Utilities;and F; a' 7. Construction Contractor's Professional Offices. 7 18._ 050 Dimensional Requirements. 3 A. j?imencional Mquirements for all co merci�l uc tunes civic use tyros industrial use tunes and mixed use developments including these use_tvpes shall be the same as the C.-Ci 1 , district. { k 'K Dimensional requirements for residential use types shall be the same as the R-25 district. y 18. 060 Additional Requirements, a A. The maximum floor area ratio(FAR)for all commercial and industrial use types shall not i s $ exceed 0.40. Residential use types including housing shall not be subject to this tgquirement.WV B. On lots greater thim three acres,general retail sales uses are li—mited to 30.0QQjqUUg-fw of gms.;leasable a*ea n lus one additional foot of gross luable ale f general re '1 sales k t k use for each additional four sguaare feet of non-general retail sales use. < _�',:,. b . y5A zy -, qy— { Yt f J 2 n 4 h � t d atr� s;�u f, A7.4 syr rt_ f,,,,++�-t" I Will NU 18._ 070 Design Standards. MO, ' {U WNs �s :ra r H x 'Y �%•'4 r 'a EEee 4i�,,,,�}i � -r d j }gwfiti'L _t?r VV R b - x r ux3!* kkx r 6 t�r5r ME— .i1 ® a4.. goi y "XI �}+ `xT Y 4 t F � i k CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL sV (4W }Y + a� rrr FINAL ORDER g`" x HIGHWAY 217 INTERCHANGE VICINITY311 x TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS r- rr r y A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARDtY N 7a r TO AN APPLICATION FOR A LEGISLATIVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN r AMENDMENT ADDRESSING TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS x ��,��• TO SUPPORT IlVII'ROVII9IEN'PS TO THE HIGHWAY 217/I-5 INTERCHANGE. A. FACTS . 1. General Information ' CASE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 96-0008 ra ;A + $ REQUEST: A request for approval of legislative amendments to Comprehensive � ' g Plan text and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation t Map(Ordinance No. 91-13). x F This application includes two specific requests. First, the deletion of existing text from Comprehensive Plan, Volume II, Urbanization `s ` Section 11.4.2 which has become outmoded because the road improvement proposed in that text has now been constructed. Second, " a description of improvements to streets and access in the vicinity of the I-5/217 Interchange which has been requested by the Oregon Department of Transportation to be included within the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map by + September of 1996. This request has been made by ODOT and METRO in order to assure that the projects would be permitted and to �� s a ,ti assure that Tigard's plans were coordinated with those of METRO and " t ODOT before those agencies proceeded with amendments to thewz " Regional Transportation Plan to provide for these improvements. APPLICANT: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard 4 Tigard, OR 97223 n}{Q a OWNER: Various . t� u LOCATION: In the vicinity of Highway 217,Interstate 5 and State Highway 'j 99 West in the City of Tigard. ' ZI h 5 MA Page- 1 fi }. 01 f r a �_ t � k 1i ii m �N '�.�T ERA.� a �dX � .*S&j 2. Vicinity { ss, The proposal affects the street system and access in the vicinity of the I-5/217 i interchange and nearby portions of State Highway 99 West. 3. Background Information: Puroose of Study 7 Through an extensive process o59, f stud and analysis ODOT, in cooperation with g p Y Y Tigard, Lake Oswego,Washington and Clackamas counties, completed a sub-area ' i'- plan for transportation improvements in the vicinity of the Highway 217 interchange £� ii , with I-5. A series of local improvements were identified by the study that would serve to protect the integrity and longevity of the public investment in the interchange. On March 1, 1996 ODOT, through its regional manager Bruce A. Warner, stated that, "improvements to the streets and access to the area of Tigard bounded by I-5,Highway 217,and Highway 99W the so-called Tigard Triangle are key elements in the recommendation of the sub-area study." { Mr. Warner discussed this matter with Tigard's mayor and City staff and obtained an agreement that the City would amend its Transportation Plan by September 1996. In February of 1996 the City Council authorized the staff to engage consultants to assist in analyzing transportation issues,coordinate with ODOT and METRO, and develop amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that would satisfy the agreement with 4 tet ` ODOT and the conclusion of DLCD that "it is necessary for the City to amend its y � t r Transportation Plan to provide these transportation facilities...". Letter of Eric Jacobson, February 12, 1996. With the assistance of the consulting team,a task force ' was formed made up of representatives of area residents,business owners, developers, ODOT and METRO, k £ The task force and consultants studied transportation issues and problems in the _ I-5/217 interchange and Pacific Highway areas. There analysis was based upon traffic volumes expected in 2015 based upon the volume of trips on the regional " ' system and based upon the trips expected to be generated by development in the Tigard Triangle area under its current Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations $ { (or amendments to those designations which would generate no greater level of traffic than the existing designations). The transportation impacts on the system from development within the Tigard F r ' Triangle was determined based upon estimates of the development that could be x achieved under the existing zoning,assuming a Floor Area Ratio(FAR)of 0.60. Thele , analysis also examined the effects of development at a lower FAR(the so -calledt { "constrained" analysis)but we have accepted the opinion of the project expert that an f � FAR of 0.60 is the correct estimate. s , t � �✓ Page-2 L2- tl •` eyy�.ry.�-..�L,s ti,wt..�T._ .� ,�:.,, v -.:� . e ;� J� �: y y4 d 5 3 9 f k SFA y i. s1 r i .j -� x,r � l ► s � to W Ft - _0 � v a The outcome of the work by the Task Force and the consultants was the identification ' '' ° *`� t{{ of several road and access improvement projects to serve regional and local traffic , ` T, through the planning period. These projects are described by ODOT as the"toolbox" ti " projects, presumably because they were tools that could be employed to improve the O 4 transportation system. kR x a 2 G t , As documented in Exhibit B to the staff report and presented to the Council at its ,t * � ' t December 17, 1996 hearing, the consulting firms of Kittelson and Associates and 4� Spencer and Kupper analyzed previous studies, interviewed current property owners �� s, and developers in the Triangle and applied current and future development trends toy ' , i Mx establish findings on the impacts of development on the transportation system. The �§-���� thrust of the analysis was to determine with more specificity than occurs in the t current Comprehensive Plan, what transportation improvements, or options for improvements,would be necessary in order to accommodate the transportation needsg generated by current acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and the additional impacts F ; being created by increasing use of the regional system in the vicinity of Tigard. 4. Background Information: Transportation Analysis of 2015 (Buildout)Development s � c r Conce Using traffic volumes expected to be generated by the land uses already Permitted by s the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan(or land use designations producing the same A� traffic impact),a transportation analysis of the Development Concept shown in Table , j 1 of the staff report was undertaken utilizing the Metro forecasting model. They analysis assumed a "worst case"condition that full builu,_it would be achieved by , 2015. �� The Base Case transportation network improvements included the items identified as "toolbox" items in the I-5/Highway 217 project. The"toolbox" is a set of k recommendations that were developed by a large regional committee that examined ways to improve the function and capacity of the I-5/Highway 217 interchange. They recommended list of projects are commonly called the"toolbox" and were accepted by the Oregon Transportation Commission. Included in those recommendations are: ' 6 lanes on Highway 99W between I-5 and the Highway 99W/Highway 217 interchange; • 4 lanes(with left tum pockets at intersections)on 72nd between Highway 217 S5 and Highway 99W; the proposed improvements to the I-5/Highway 217 and Highway 217/72nd �p �� ,'� Avenue interchanges; W Page-3 + r � x aks E N .sem. 'x" J 4��fR- � S �s a 41 r; 2 4 s �: _ .hFi Y3^e C • £ q x the proposed bridge connection across Highway 217 between Hampton and , Hunziker Streets; and The second scenario(Dartmouth Extension scenario)considered included the A above improvements and: • the Dartmouth overcrossing of Highway 217 to Hunziker;and j,z, r • extension of collector-distributor roads from the Highway 217/72nd Avenue + x � interchange intersecting with the Dartmouth Avenue overcrossing and ' " A; . ti extending through to the Highway 217/Highway 99W interchange. T z - . PM 2015 p.m. peak hour traffic volume forecasts were developed for each of two possible ;, F"'MOOO 4. j transportation networks. Under the Base Case scenario, (Figures 1 and 2 describe Base Case traffic volumes and Volume to Capacity(V/C)ratios) it is predicted that with construction of the Hunziker to Hampton over-crossing approximately 500 3 �� vehicles will use this structure during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Further approximately 750 motorists will use Dartmouth Street west of 72nd Avenue. East of mv _ � 72nd Avenue traffic volumes on Dartmouth Street will vary as a function of the location of development. In the vicinity of Highway 99W approximately 1,000Y� motorists will travel on Dartmouth Street;closer to 72nd Avenue this volume r decreases to approximately 350 p.m, peak hour motorists. r �� As compared to the Base Case scenario,the second scenario included constructing the 1 Dartmouth Extension overcrossing of Highway 217(See figures 3 and 4 for traffic volumes and VIC ratios). This scenario also included extending the collector- Z distributor road system from the 72nd Avenue interchange through to the Highway 99W interchange. Approximately 1,700 vehicles will use the Dartmouth Extension z � overcrossing north of Highway 217; and approximately 850 motorists will use this interchange west of Highway 217. The forecasts indicate that approximately 500 }a f motorists would use the Dartmouth Extension overcrossing to gain access to the collector-distributor road intersecting with Highway 99W. In this way motorists I Y` could avoid congestion at the Highway 99W/Highway 217 interchange. - ' With construction of the Dartmouth Extension overcrossing,traffic volumes onk � Dartmouth Street are forecast to increase relative to the Base Case. West of 72nd Avenue,approximately 1,500 motorists will travel on Dartmouth Street. Immediately ' east of 72nd Avenue, the traffic volumes grow to approximately 1,200 p.m.peak hour trips. In both the Base Case and the Dartmouth extension scenario,traffic tx volumes on Highway 99W will be approximately 3,000-3,300 vehicles by direction t 4 k during the forecast 2015 weekday p.m.peak hour. The Dartmouth Extension would u divert approximately 300 vehicles per hour from Highway 99W in the peak direction = r during the peak hour. w , - y t6 r �k Page-4 low LL - a; s r , r, `. 1 � r r N • NO ffij MJ At 003 �'� t=a+�� �. .�R.: J e am Re i 55 =x -10 'WrNR"662"XOne option examined in this analysis was that Highway 99W would be widened to six �� t ' lanes(as described in the"toolbox"). This widening would likely result in significant 4 414 } disruption to many businesses along Highway 99W. Another option was alsojR " identified and examined. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the effectiveness of the Dartmouth Extension to eliminate the need for this widening of rnra , C� 99W. Accordingly,this analysis indicated that, with afour-lane Dartmouth fs Extension, Highway 99W could potentially operate marginally acceptably in its 3 current configuration. Without the widening of Highway 99W,the Dartmouth ' Extension would carry as much as 2,000 vph in the peak direction. Therefore,if tt" ti< physical constraints prohibit the widening of Highway 99W to six lanes as assumed in this analysis, the Dartmouth Extension would play a substantially more significant �? role in relieving future traffic congestion through Tigard. 5. Background Information• Task Force Conclusions a d Based on the assumed buildout of the Tigard Triangle under current zoning with a 0.60 FAR(or under Mixed Use Employment designation with a 0.40 FAR cap), ` analysis of 2015 buildout conditions indicate the following conclusions: t (1) Six lanes on Highway 99W are necessary,and best serves east/west travel demand(already assumed in the tool box). Even so, Highway 99W will still operate over capacity. The demand in this corridor will exceed the capacity KLA x even at 6 lanes. If widening of Highway 99W is prohibited due to physicalt=8 'I constraints, there would be a substantially greater need for the Dartmouth r } extension. ° - (2) 72nd Avenue within the Tigard Triangle needs to be four lanes with turn lanes (already assumed in the"toolbox"), , U (3) The Tigard Triangle is most deficient in its northbound access to Highway 217 1 at the Highway 99W interchange. (4) The Dartmouth connection to Highway 217 would directly divert 400-500 p j vehicles per hour(vph)from Highway 99W and from the Highway 99W/217 ' interchange to the Dartmouth extension access to the collector-distributor road � and access to Highway 217. * x` r (5) The Dartmouth extension would cavy about 1,000 vph westbound(east of r Highway 217),and about 700 vehicles eastbound(east of Highway 217), d 4 t t .., .4 . t Ss E F kt Page-5 i y 3 n CSS' X T 1 23t i r '�r�"�,R, � "•fit-'�" L .' f � e Lin 1 INAIN `''u' ..s,., ..tt' .:�.w..A... _....Y._. ..,..,...�. ....,....._..._.m____._,_..._.n.,...w.r._,. _�.-,.a..:....,,d,,..,...,...�.. .;earx;•ea .� + $%a" . } 01 x `.,a'"`�-e-;' * S..- k q (6) Model estimates indicate that about 225 vph would travel through on Y���� k„ z4°'s:�- MobDartmouth from Interstate 5 to Hall Boulevard(each direction during the peak c r hour). � (7) With the Dartmouth extension, Hall Boulevard south of Hunziker would need I'" to be widened to 4 lanes. Alternatively, additional north-south capacity would tit ' , mow j r y need to be provided in another alignment.Without this additional north-south r *s capacity,the effectiveness of the Dartmouth extension would be diminished. �� ��� � � ;_ � pk �ti +mss�*�+•�,�4sy,a'�d�� (8) Including the Dartmouth Extension,the Hampton/Hunziker connection would kr ` E tr carry about 250 vph in the southbound direction, which is probably insufficient �� 4 to justify the relatively high cost of this connection. However, this connection e k } will relieve operational and geometric deficiencies at the 72nd/Highway 217 interchange. Further e conducted Hampton her study should be to determine whether Hatona j s: ' 's x could be extended further southwestward to connect with Hall Boulevard in the N x vicinity of McDonald Street. This connection would likely make greater use of the Hampton/Hunziker connection;moreover, this connection would likely i divert a portion of through volumes from Highway 99, relieving capacity z constraints in that critical corridor. s (9) The results of this analysis indicate that the proposed comprehensive plan and j development regulation amendments for use designations with the Tigard .r Triangle do not result in significant changes to trip generation currently allowed by existing plan and code regulations which they replace. The n] j proposed changes therefore would not significantly affect planned transportation facilities. (10) The "toolbox"projects prescribed for the Tigard Triangle roadway system �,� ' necessary to serve development under existing plan and zoning will accommodate the proposed mixed use land uses at acceptable service levels. x 4 j (I1) It is the conclusion of the transportation analysis that an additional connection ( to northbound Highway 217 may be needed to accommodate development under existing plan and code requirements and may be required for the proposed plan and code amendments and should be the subject of further , s i study. S a ' ` Page- 6 ,t Nss T _ �-R,"iAg. at t {! ' w N ,q ry RRVAINZ. ,k K NMI, 4 .x i � x L n rvkM1R n y N gR �x isd Based upon these conclusions the following recommendations were forwarded to the 4 City Council with respect to the 2015 trarrspaiLaiivn network needs to accommodate � 'ruxr-��• regional trips on the system and trips generated by new development under the land ` 4u M uses currently specified in the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan: r j ix (1) Highway 99W should be widened to 6 lanes throughout the study area(as tool box). This improvement should be constructed in the short 4 Y` proposed P term.In the event that widening Highway 99 to six lanes is prohibitive,the Dartmouth extension could potentially provide needed northeast-to-southwestM. travel demand. a fa (2) It is recommended that in the near future, 72nd Avenue be widened to four i n� rr lanes with left turn lanes at major intersections and that the Hunziker/Hampton overcrossing be constructed. These two improvements will provide additional roadway capacity for circulation within the triangle and for access to and from the triangle via 72nd Avenue. Construction of the Hunziker/Hampton _ ks ' overcrossing would have the additional advantages of eliminating geometric �y deficiencies at the Highway 217/72nd Avenue interchange; thereby providing _ 1 further additional capacityat this interchange. For the buildout scenario t >xx , (2015), these improvements will provide adequate capacity in the vicinity of F ,f the Highway 217/72nd Avenue interchange. r (3) The Hampton/Hunziker connection is only justified based on its operational Cz relief to the 72nd interchange. Further study should be conducted to examine alternative measures to relieve this situation in a more cost effective way. � �, Further study may indicate that extending Hampton further southwesterly(to VI connect with Hall Boulevard in the vicinity of McDonald Street)may better accommodate projected travel demand. Short of constructing this structure,ax M direct ramp instead of a loop ramp from southbound 72nd Avenue to northbound Highway 217 would provide additional capacity in the vicinity of the Highway 217/72nd Avenue interchange. Sq (4) Access from Dartmouth to northbound Highway 217 should be constructed in the intermediate term(10-15 years)pending results from the Highway 217 *` corridor analysis to be performed by ODOT and Metro. Under existing conditions,there is significant roadway congestion near the Highway yam , 99W/Highway 217 interchange. Construction of the Dartmouth Extension and a t, access to northbound Highway 217 would mitigate congestion at this interchange because motorists in this area of the Tigard Triangle would have ' the option to access northbound Highway 217 from Dartmouth or Highway , ; 7 99W. l; t, t rPage-7 t q s � rr r 6F'r � r ? A �s� f —%Z M. OF ' ,sa `�' i• .�.e;,�.;f1�.. ...;�.wu.:.x ..,........._.._.... „ ., ...... -_.....-...,.....�..,w..,,.__,.ss�r..`t Ta.,,t .,.2':a.,,. .s:�...ca= ` JE-t ..�`iQzq ^�"�;'. , A. w ( " (5) The analysis indicates that there is a long term(20-30 years)need for Dartmouth Road to continue over Highway 217 and potentially south to Hall :. i Boulevard as well as for extending the collector-distributor roads from the Nr Highway 217/72nd Avenue interchange through the Highway 217/Highway r a F Y 99W interchange. The Highway 217 corridor analysis to be performed by � � . Metro and ODOT should consider the advantages and disadvantages of these improvements. The Dartmouth extension to Hall Boulevard should bervf i constructed only if further system improvements to Hall Boulevard are made eA ' k concurrently. If additional capacity is not added to Hall Boulevard south of Y P Y x � ¢, where the Dartmouth extension would be connected,the effectiveness of this connection would be diminished. Alternatively,another roadway could be constructed that provides a connection from the Dartmouth extension to Hall Boulevard in the vicinity of McDonald Street. (6) These projects should be added to the City of Tigard's Transportation System '! Plan. The City,ODOT and Metro should work to include these improvements in regional and state implementation programs. (7) Tigard Triangle Internal Circulation: ` P Red, ` s Within the Tigard Triangle,it has been assumed that a roadway system would be developed to accommodate the proposed land use patterns. This xi transportation network is schematically represented in the staff report in attached figure 5. These provisions should be adopted and incorporated into = G , the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. �r 6. Issue Before Council ' The issue before the City Council is whether to adopt, reject or modify these v$z proposals. Consideration of this matter is separate and independent from the matter which was heard concurrently, whether to adopt new land use designations for the 6, n Tigard Triangle. Whether or not new Tigard Triangle land use designations are adopted, ODOT has requested amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to include the = • r "toolbox"projects and options. Because the existing Tigard Triangle land use designations and the proposed designations yield the same traffic impacts we can ; � . f? consider the proposed amendments to the transportation text of the Comprehensive Plain and the Transportation Map independently of whether we approve or reject the .r y,t r proposed land use amendments. f R r ai— � � F � � p Y Page- 8 s ffiy k � a 1 1 i f _,�i4iiS'+kVvaC:} .wnRsa-v { -'Wr }F, x v� Me S �4 ••.. ..4r �.. ,r Y`3c E'..1:`i,.�,Sru.... �N� AR Y B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS %rd The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Goals 1,2,9, 11, 12 and 13: Oregon t .r Administrative Rule 660-12;Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1 and 6.1.1, 4Ei €� 6.6.6., 8.1.1, 8.2.2, 9.1.1,9.1.3, 12.1.1 and 12.2.1 and Community Development , 507 Code Chapter 18.22 and 18.32. } r 3 E "f STATEWIDE GOALS 1. Citizen Involvement: - ; c�s n4 , v— Goal 1 requires a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for x4 � ,, citizens to be involved in the planning process. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy7 �"�' r W­ 2.1.1 and Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18 provide for citizen x t participation and notice. Notice of the Planning Commission and City Council {,= hearings and opportunity for response was advertised in the local newspaper and � i j request for comments were sent to all CITs and the Department of Land Conservation and Development. The proposals were the subject of public hearings before the `•` � d,tW�N�;� Planning Commission and City Council which included citizen testimony. That ; f testimony was considered in reaching a final decision. Information was mailed out to s all property owners within the Triangle as it was available regarding workshops and 14 other actions being considered. In addition,the proposal was presented to the CITs. a�=w Additionally,two public open houses were held,one in August and one in October of �; ,: 1996. This goal is satisfied. 2 q{ 2. Land Use Plannine: Goal 2 requires, in part,that adopted comprehensive plans be revised to take into account changing public policies and circr+.— aces. These amendments ' 4 1 respond to the large scale planning effort undertaken by multiple agencies to redesign ; and rebuild the Highway 217/I-5 Interchange. Finally resolving the design issues between various governmental interests has been a major achievement of ODOT. Agreement on this design represents a major change in circumstances in the area. These amendments respond to that design process by placing specific reference in Tigard's Comprehensive Plan to those projects which ODOT feels are necessary in order to protect the public's investment in improvements to the Interchange. t Goal 2 also requires that land use plans must be the basis for specific implementation measures and that those measures must be consistent with and adequate to carry out the plans. ODOT has requested the inclusion of the proposed04 s� amendments in the Comprehensive Plan in order to provide recognition that the ' projects are permitted within the City and not prohibited by the Comprehensive Plan. _ z, Inclusion of the projects in the Plan provides the basis for implementation. r r r Page-9 , 0, y 4 �Y33F� T4 7 rt M JM"# 7,; s t- r , J t RK Actual construction of the improvements will require future implementation measures to be developed and coordinated action between the City, regional and state agencies. By adding these amendments,the City is facilitating specific implementation steps that 5 r would be taken by ODOT and METRO in the future in order to bring the projects to 4MfiID flects the City's intention to support those agencies reality. The record of this case re z, in amending the Regional Transportation Plan, gamering funding, obtaining right of 2 way and constructing the project. The City will also coordinate future implementations .; * � y measures as they are developed. Goal 2 also requires that the plan and related implementation measures shall be coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units. The initial step s � ; t required in coordination is to engage in an exchange of information between the >§ Ila AM, planning jurisdiction and affected governmental units, or at least invite such an i 3 exchange. The record demonstrates that the cit has complied with this requirement. z { Y P reg -". a- The process has included contacts with Washington County,Metro, and ODOT. h j Washington County had no comment but Metro and ODOT were included in the task r x force which guided the work of consultants and staff. The record indicates that Metro ' and ODOT exchanged information with city staff and consultants, expressed their concerns,preferences and cooperatively developed factual information used to } k evaluate the proposal. . _ G b The second aspect of coordination is to use the information provided by effected s jurisdictions to balance the needs of all governmental units as well as the needs of the , citizens in developing the plan. �3aS The outcome of the work of the task force was a recommendation, supported by ODOT and Metro, to adopt the amendments before us for consideration. In enacting the amendments we are therefore not taking unilateral action inconsistent with the desires of those units of government. The balancing of interests aspect of the coordination requirement is therefore met. z Goal 2 also requires the identification of issues and problems for each applicable statewide planning goal and evaluation of alternative courses of action and ultimate policy choices. As the text of these findings documents, the city council s ' undertook identification of issues and problems,evaluated options and made the t r ultimate policy choice. r ' air aX 4 4 v yd r"' .t} '.,. .acmes $ f Page 10 £ s A r x7 x } F � ij If 3 t Q, 4 g .. - V MX',. • s 4 ( 3. Economic Development: rYa ° r < ; ? This Goal has been met because the amendments are designed to allow transportation improvements which will support continued opportunities for a 3 { variety of economic activities in the vicinity of the I-5/217 Highway Interchange € which are vital health, welfare and prosperity Tigard citizens. Providing „ e _ additional specificity in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the transportation # improvements to support development in the area will contribute to a stable and L P PP P , � r healthful economy because it will lay the groundwork for rational economic planning. t # _ IMON Improvements described in these amendments, according to ODOT, will protect the ANrr; ' Y capital state's investment in improvements to the Interchange. Maintaining the 3 workability of the Interchange is critical to the region's economy because of the , w important role the Interchange plays in moving goods and services within the regions A= > and the state. By adopting these amendments City will play a roll in continuing to Rn provide adequate opportunities in Tigard and throughout the state for a variety ofAt economic activities which are vital to the health, welfare and prosperity to Oregon's , ° citizens. The alternative is not a good policy choice. By failing to act on these amendments we would leave METRO and ODOT in doubt as to whether the City will play a x i responsible role in supporting improvements to the Interchange. A failure to act ` would no doubt slow down progress towards improvement of the Interchange and , therefore undermine the interests which are protected by Goal 9. We therefore conclude that taking action to adopt the proposed amendments is . consistent with Goal 9. 4. Public Facilities and Services: ON Goal 11 calls for the planning and development of a timely,orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services. The proposal before us does not , violate the Goal because it does not create additional impacts on the transportation r7' system. Rather, it identifies options for improvements to the transportation system to " accommodate the level of impact which will arise from the acknowledged land use x l designations in the area. The amendments are based upon maintaining the status quo "� } ' with respect to impacts on transportation facilities. , Other facilities and services will not be negatively affected by the proposal. There is x no dispute on this point on the record before us. `. V e r "o. rx f Page- 11 tG nk t F �n r F rf rf? 4 � x £ x t a K01 N,� b y 7f n l '4 '� e z xir#x. -4 L _ � V 5. Transportation: '�s 3 Goal 12 requires a safe,convenient and economic transportation system. �¢ � fv r A. Consideration of the Problem and Policy Choices: � ��' .•.���3��r�, The problem presented to the Task Force and its predecessors in transportation planning for the area is to identify the system improvements that will be required to a4 accommodate regional and local needs at the level of impact generated by the land use designations that currently appear in the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan, or the 3 r equivalent. �r` � � t._,. We conclude from the record that several alternatives are before us. We could leave x 4 I the Comprehensive Plan unamended. A major consequence of such an action would , be to leave METRO and ODOT planners with uncertainty with respect to whether x � Tigard's Comprehensive Plan would prevent improvements to the transportation 1k ` I system which would protect the state's investment in improvements to the I-5/217 ^s " ' � U • j Highway Interchange. " Clearly the City has been urged by involved agencies to act on these amendments. u � x � • On January 10, 1995, Laurie Nicholson,Transportation Planner with ODOT, � stated by letter, "We suggest that the best method to demonstrate compliance with the this rule(TPR)is to adopt the recommendation of the I-5/217 subarea E�� plan and the Western Bypass study in the city's transportation plan..." � . • On February 12, 1996,Eric D.Jacobson,Transportation/Land Use Planner with ODOT, stated by letter, "It is necessary for the city to amend its transportation plan to require and allow the roadway projects necessary to support the planned land uses identified in the Tigard Triangle Update Study ^ ' and the I-5/217 studies, such as widening Highway 99W to six lanes, either } prior to, or concurrent with, land use changes permitting more intensive { development in the Tigard Triangle." � i • On March, 1, 1996,Bruce Warner, P.E., Region 1 Manager wrote Anna; + Russo, Program Development Manager, Department of Land conservation and r `t� Development, and stated"The adoption of local transportation systems plansgP ` or systems plan amendments by local governments in the vicinity of the I- 1 A 5/217 interchange that incorporate the recommendations of the subarea study is of great interest to ODOT" ..."I have talked to the Mayor and city staff and r h they assured me that they will immediately start a process to consider all of # be the transportation system improvements and amend their transportation plan by i : September, 1996. I support their process and am comfortable with their �t# t Page- 12 _k ,.nag VO F 5 d i �r z� �ya�tE }may ,a - 8 1, commitment. in other words, Region 1 will work with the city to assure that ` l ,> their system plan adequately deals with the transportation demands and protects iF the safety and capacity of our plans to improve the interchange of I-5/Highway x XT, t 217 ... } N In addition to these requests,the record reflects the fact that the I-5/217 subarea plan, 7 p which includes the "toolbox", was adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission in 1996. Their recommendations were forwarded to the METRO Council which took ,t� " action this past summer. Specifically,the Council adopted the 1-5/217 intersection portion of the subarea plan. ODOT is currently completing final design of the interchange. METRO staff was directed, by resolution, to work with local i r M- jurisdictions, specifically Tigard, on adopting the subarea improvements that are identified in the I-5/217 subarea plan. METRO is committed to work with local l jurisdictions in adopting the recommendations into local plans. ' •1 -JC Based upon these considerations we reject the option of taking no action. This wouldis� " be contrary to development of a coordinated transportation plan for the region. It x ` would frustrate the planning efforts of ODOT and METRO. Another option would be to direct further study assuming even greater transportation impacts based upon the possibility of more intense land uses in the Tigard Triangle. � � We are mindful of the fact that the current land use designations have no limit on fTk"' 'z FAR. Development could, therefore,theoretically take place at a higher FAR than 0.60 under existing land use designations. We are convinced, however, by the weight of the evidence in the record that an PARC = of 0.60 is the proper basis for planning. This point is disputed by DLCD staff in = their letter of December 17, 1996 which states: "We disagree with the assumption that r existing zoning will result in buildout averaging 0.60 Floor Area Ration(FAR)". s ' While it is possible under our code to build at a higher FAR than 0.60,DLCD rr ' { apparently believes that development will take place at less intensive levels. If they ,. are correct,the analysis supporting recommendations before us indeed present a worst s. case scenario. It is, therefore,not necessary,based upon DLCD's comments,to have { these matters reanalyzed for the possibility for more intense development. DLCD and our consultants agree this is not likely to happen. We therefore conclude that it is not necessary to send this matter back for further study of the effects of more intense land 3 xx use development, We also have the option of asking for more study of the level of improvements necessa to accommodate a less intensive development than will be generated at an FAR of 0.60 under the current land use designations. The issue here is whether we „M should rely upon the evidence provided by Mr.John Spencer or that provided in r'1, DLCD's letter of December 17, 1996. Mr. Spencer offered the opinion that an FAR i ,n of 0.60 was the appropriate assumption for analysis of the intensity of development - r A- sz ` Xy Page- 13 } yx a r r x,• Tt Y ` `• > : i a 211 r Mw a r r ` r r, k P y �� lllllr ZM that should be expected under current land use designations. Mr. Oulman of DLCD rt " � wrote to us that he disagreed with that assumption. 4 W , � + ! �• " } x When an a'-gumption is disputed we must consider which evidence to rely upon.' � � � } "� Based ulx..�our review of the record we fmd that the floor area ratio estimate � � provided by Spencer and Kupper is the most credible and reliable evidence. Mr. Spencer appeared at our hearing and explained the basis upon which he recommended the use of that number. His opinion was based upon his professional expertise as well � h interviews with owners and developers in the Triangle and his knowledge of levels of #h ' t r development in other similar areas in the region. We found him to be a credible ' witness with strong credentials. In opposition to his opinion we have only the written o statement that"we disagree", without any further explanation. No representative of pp° � F v DLCD appeared before us and therefore we were unable to inquire further into their analysis or to compare their testimony and credibility with the live witness that 1f i appeared before us. We therefore accept the expert opinion of Mr. Spencer that a 0.60 floor area ratio is the correct assumption to make regarding intensity of . development in the Triangle over the planning period. ver Ia The final option under consideration is the adoption of the recommendations which have been laced before us. We conclude that this is the superior policy choice. rr P Pe Po Y This option will contribute to coordination of transportation planning in the region. It ! also will not create energy and environmental impacts exceeding those anticipated by " azo j the land use designations in the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan. Identification of these transportation projects and options will support the social and economicfi i objectives supported by the existing acknowledged Comprehensive Plan. B. Other Goal 12 Issues: In addition to its December 17, 1996 letter,DLCD sent a communication to us dated December 12, 1996. The threshold argument in the letter, that OAR 660-12-060 can K trigger the application of the Transportation Planning Rule to a proposal which G � maintains the status quo, was waived by DLCD Director Richard Benner in a meeting � with Tigard staff which took place on December 16, 1996. That fact is confirmed by ; the subsequent communication which abandons this argument. Based upon this waiver we have not asked for additional information from DLCD or others on this point. 3 �V21 ' No other assumption, methodology or data is in dispute on the record before us. kt t � Page- 14 r r z3 tv �x z ��•s x� per ' yt K Y{ -W, Y,i 'k""y � t '� t t f f e. Cyyt 5 &i,t � K¢ '�`hi2,£.'� QF Tp C,is a ' w'y t � While this threshold argument has been waived, and the December 16 letter appearsgk e r ? r< to be directed at the proposed changes to land use designations in the Tigard Triangle, �� ? j we will nevertheless address some of the other points in the letter because they make hx reference to the "toolbox"projects. +x r 1. Transportation Planning Rules OAR 660-12-060 The TPR requires us to first determine whether a plan or land use regulation «� a i *fi7 amendment"significantly affects"a transportation facility. OAR 660-12-060(2) * ° reads: 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 ' <d transportation facility,- (b) acility;(b) Changes standards implementing a functional classification system; ; 3 (c) Allows types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel #. or access which are inconsistent with the functional classification of ay �: " transportation facility;or +f r (d) Would reduce the level of service of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP. x > We find that subsections(a), (b)and(c)do not apply to the proposal before us. The 1 r transportation amendments do not change the functional classification or standards for e any transportation facility. All of the affected facilities are currently designated ° appropriately for the changes contemplated by this proposal. Nor do the amendments ' 3 allow levels of travel or access inconsistent with the functional classification of any transportation facility. ; a„ With respect to subsection(d) we find that the transportation amendments will notes r x reduce the level of service of any transportation facility below levels of service �� h identified in our Transportation Plan. On the contrary, we find that the recommended Jt � a 4 kit, transportation improvements will improve service levels of the affected transportation y facilities under any land use scenario. To the extent that any of the actions in the proposal might be held to "significantlyre " affect" a transportation facility under OAR 660-12-060(2), we take notice of the fact that we have adopted Order No. and have found that land uses in the tigardr Triangle are limited in a fashion that complies with OAR 660-12-060(1). We also Iti 1� i ; h ` r ,t �kdw Page- 15 " , " �- a F S"`,i'�iss'� „.<�,..-.v, .t.+- - 1M r.�s M'+��rr s e ,�,a`t�"�yl`� •v 4 71 r � j � $ Ysq, ua � c si x � FZ' j 4M 'VM si m r M- take notice of other provisions in our Code which limit land uses,and contain design F"17,` 1n, `^ standards intended to assure that allowed uses are consistent with function,capacity s _ and level of service of all affected transportation facilities. For example, Section t 18.32.050.B.5 mandates that applications for development approval must submit a 5 transportation impact study that must propose the improvements necessary to meet City standards and minimize the impact of the project on public facilities systems. $ --AE£ Development in the Triangle, as limited, will not produce transportation effects ' } exceeding the current designations. We have therefore appropriately limited uses 'e KP under OAR 660-12-060(1)(a). � , � k -{ 2. Coordination g ' As a preliminary factual matter the December 12, 1996 DLCD letter agrees with the t evidence presented by consultants retained by the City that the proposals being y considered by City maintain the status quo with respect to traffic generation effects on the transportation system. There is no claim in the record before us that inclusion of q` the "toolbox"projects in the Comprehensive Plan will increase the impacts of the j automobile on the transportation facilities over that which would be caused by the tjY� existing Comprehensive Plan.- DLCD argues that by adopting the "toolbox"projects now,the City Plan will bes ` uncoordinated with regional and statewide transportation plans which do not yet _ '^+l include these projects. DLCD's contention is that local jurisdictions may take no ti+o 44, action to include projects in their Comprehensive Plan until those projects are 14, included in the Regional Transportation Plan. z In its letter of December 17, 1996 ODOT maintains that it is the proposed amendments , h to the land use designations within the area of the Tigard Triangle,and not the transportation , project amendments, which significantly affect a transportation facility and trigger the r t� provisions of the TPR. In our Final Order regarding the land use amendments to the Tigard r Triangle, we decline to adopt DLCD's analysis of reasoning. Their contention is that the proposed amendments to the land use designations would create traffic impacts exceeding the status quo because they predict a lower intensity of buildout than the 0.60 FAR predicted by s the consultants. For other reasons described in this Order, and in the Tigard Triangle Final v It, Order, we agree with the evidence presented by the consultants and adopt as fact the expert " w � s opinion that the traffic volumes produced by the proposed land use amendments will not #, create an increase in traffic that will significantly affect the transportation facility. 4�-�'��„ .� Qfg� The dispute over this point does not change the fact that the record contains no contention that the proposed transportation amendments create transportation impacts which sir would trigger application of the Transportation Planning Rule under OAR 660-12-060(1). A ty Page- 16 JI Y C ¢�}'Xk�i LLi L Me � 1 L 3 F � t� i t "tiA Vii"k , ��. �.„.xiw.isx-.�.�.�s�..-....,�,�,.,,...�,........._.., ....-....d.. .v,.---- ”- _.._.........-e.c .e,x•..... ...�.....__._"__ ,.,. � r�r-.. �v' _ q�Al Our effort to coordinate has included seeking out opinions of affected agencies as well t a � as taking those opinions into account in adopting proposed amendments. In fact, f' ��,` r adoption of the proposed amendments is consistent with the wishes of ODOT andfr: 5 METRO. We understand this to meet the requirements of Goals 12 and 2. If the } TPR requires more stringent coordination, that requirement would not apply in this [• case because it is undisputed in the current record that the amendments before us '} ........... � ^^ preserve the status quo. The amendments, therefore, do not significantly affect the ' yt transportation system. t2 t 3. Funding sr DLCD also contends that Goal 2 is violated because"money does not exist' for +z,+ construction of the identified projects. Our staff has been unable to identify any other ; jurisdiction which has been asked to meet this standard. Moreover,the current ' ° Comprehensive Plan could not have been acknowledged by LCDC if Goal 2 required i s `< the existence of funding for all infrastructure projects required to implement the Plan. This requirement does not appear to be mandated by Goal 2. F 4. Specific and Adequate Implementation Measures t'g DLCD also contends that the absence of the"toolbox"from the Regional Transportation Plan,coupled with the non-existence of funding for the projects x I violates Goal 2's requirement that plans provide a basis for 5W&iJr-ig implementation t ± measures and that the implementation measures are adNuate. f We have addressed this subject under our discussion of Goal 2. As our understanding Of ODOT's request that the City provide Comprehensive Plan language that would serve as the policy basis for future specific implementation measures. Not all of cher" , 3 implementation measures for construction of the Interchange and the supporting 4 5 projects are known at this time. When they are known,the City will adopt specifics implementation measures which are consistent with and adequate to carry out the , policy choice which has been identified by adoption of the transportation 3 � s y improvements described in the proposal before us. " ` C. Conclusion: ' t Y Based upon the foregoing discussion we conclude that adoption of the proposal is consistent with Goal 12. 6. Energy Conservation: a�y Goal 13 requires that land and uses be developed to maximize the conservation of z r n r all forms of energy. The proposal will not affect land uses within the area. Those Page- 17ugvi x � � YV � r ,r t 6 *1+ 9 I } -72 � �, ` y✓ N RXYS t P `� t �_ �• Y. �st s C r Es a atiT-� A, f a` OWN uses have been acknowledged as being in compliance with Goal 13 and the proposed I + road improvements will support that arrangement of land uses. AN + ; COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES h � 7. General Policies: The proposal is consistent with statewide planning Goals as3� �c s q Y addressed above under"Stam Ode Goals". ,s 8. Citizen Involvement• Policy 2.1.1 states that the City shall maintain an ongoing ''`'' r► citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an p opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. A request for ' .• fir comments was sent to all City CITs and the Planning Commission hearing was legally advertised. In addition, the proposal was presented at all CIT meetings during i rNovember, and two work shops were held and extensive mailings were made toi property owners within the Triangle. This policy is satisfied. COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: E�,,. Procedures for Decision Making: LePislative• Chapter 18.30 establishes procedures for F consideration of legislative changes to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan t , d ,h implementing ordinances and maps. Section 18.30.120 lists the factors upon which the Planning Commission and City Council shall base their decisions. The factors and responses are as follows: �5 � 1. The statewide planning goals and guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised `. E F' Statutes Chapter 197. These standards are addressed in these findings. 2. Any federal or state statutes or guidelines found applicable. The applicability of y � Transportation Planning Rule is addressed in these findings. y � :.` 51`yeSs h5 3. Applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District. METRO's functional plan is not yet applicable. 11 4. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map. These standards are {4 x s addressed under"Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policies". 5. The applicable provisions of the implementing ordinances. The proposal violates no applicable implementing ordinance. K " 6. Consideration may also be given to proof of a change in the neighborhood or x tW-Z. t : community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or ixr�a implementing ordinance which is the subject of the application. kx� 3�rw° r a 1 Page- 18 16Z a rs � W1 _ a ,,,�. ,,� 54, ✓a 5� ' r k t tt',wr„n'� xe2X.,Nyy . F { tSi 2- £ R,V� a 62Q ON � ' $ x v ' .T r �k # S t 4 a ` LOW r 'N qM,UiZr L G P KI je "{fi The major change is the development of a plan for improvement of the 217/I-5 „k ' Interchange as described in this Order. x' ' ,y `s1 A. AGENCY COMMENTS ' jr .$} - c s 1. Metro reviewed this proposal and the attached letter dated November 18, 1996 was v entered into the record at the Planning Commission public hearing. , ' 5 k t'r.A _� L { 2. Washington County reviewed this proposal and had no comment. ` [r 3. ODOT has reviewed this proposal and has submitted a letter dated November 18, xr 1 1996 that was entered into the public record at the Planning Commission. The letter recommends that the area be identified as an employment center,that the city adopt4 � j the "toolbox" strategies and that specific language be adopted in the Comprehensive � �� 't 1 Plan as it related to the need to increase access to Highway 217 from the Triangle. Specifically, ODOT requested that access from Dartmouth be stated as being critical j "to the property owners in the Triangle". The Planning Commission, in discussingz ; ' this issue,determined that access was not only critical to property owners in the Triangle,but to anyone using the transportation system, and declined to add the y u proposed language. F 4. A letter was received from DLCD on December 2, 1996. That letter was attached to * �� e'�� the staff report dated December 17, 1996. A second letter was FAXED to the City24 r.J on December 17, 1996 and was entered into the record as Exhibit A. That letter Ex expresses disagreement with the assumptions of the"unconstrained" scenario that assumes a 0.60 FAR for future development in the Triangle. No evidence is provided from DLCD that outlines why there is disagreement with the assumption. The City �r has received expert analysis and testimony from Spencer&Kupper and Kittelson& s Associates regarding this issue and accepts the validity of the assumptions. ODOT and Metro were also provided these assumptions as part of the information to support the transportation recommendations of the City and neither agency questioned the [ , assumptions provided. t The City,therefore, does not agree with DLCD's conclusion that OAR 660-12-060 of a the Transportation Planning Rule applies in the event that the City approves the changes proposed for the land uses in the Tigard Triangle. The City has found ' ¢ � through its land use and transportation analysis that impacts on the transportation system will be virtually the same under buildout of the new Mixed Use Employment , district and what could be built out under current zoning. With this finding,060 does i '- not apply in that the planned changes to the Comprehensive Plan will not have a significant impact on the function, capacity and level of service of the transportation ' , ax system. The analysis of the proposed transportation amendments is the same k regardless of whether the City adopts the proposed land use changes or leaves the r;: . current designations in place. s c Page- 19 b & � . Rl Y' U w, r } a v r ash it c f 3 a z K t ���,� z t Yg wt€ r _ r wpp7 , s The record indicates that the principal argument advanced by DLCD in its December , 2, 1996, letter,that the TPR applies event though the status quo is being maintained +Alp for traffic volumes, was withdrawn by Mr. Richard Benner, Director of DLCD,at a y meeting with city staff which took place on December 16, 1996. �v&fink' R B. DECISION Xi { The City Council APPROVES Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0008. RM, ; _ e IN .jtl its +�,,t�k.r 4M�k �d�cn�✓ F ��... ,;y as i *re,"t• Page-20 " V - a �t, Ww Nm kOR - .�.�,.