Loading...
City Council Packet - 11/20/1989 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an REGULAR MEETING AGENDA agenda item should sign on the appropriate NOVEMBER 20, 1989 5:30 P14 sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, TIGARD CIVIC CENTER ask to be recognized by the mayor at the 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's H TIGARD, OREGON 972223 Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. 5:30 o COUNCIL WORKSHOP (5:30 p.m.)Id l~lf - Agenda Review 6:30 o STUDY SESSION (6:30 p.m.) - Workshop with State Senator Paul Phillips 7:30 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 p.m.) 1.1 Call to Order 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance 1.3 Call to Council and staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two minutes or Less, please) 7:45 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be } enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request C that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: October 16 & 23, 1989. 3.2 Request League of Oregon Cities' Support on position with Ernployee Relations Board Ruling Concerning Mandatory Bargaining Issues- ! Resolution No. 89- 3.3 Approve Americo mlt to Resolution No. 89-82 Correcting Term Expiration Date of Two Library Board Appointees - Resolution No. 89--,0 7:50 4. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPRUMSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 89-07 ZONE CHANGE 89- 07 METZGER-EMS/ROCKWELL NPO #5 A request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Cc m *x=ial Professional to Medium-High Density Residential and a Zone Change from C-P (commercial Professional) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre) for approximately 5 acres. LOCATION: West side of SW 72nd Avenue, between SW Varns Street. and SW Fir Street (WCIIK 2S1 -DB, Tax Lots 800 & 801, 251, 1DC, Tax Lot 3600). o Public Hearing Continued from November 6, 1989 o Declarations or Challenges o Summation by Community Development Staff o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Mmmination o Reconuendation by Ccam unity Development Staff o Council Questions or Comments o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration by Council COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 6, 1989 - Page 1 I t J 5. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 8:40 6. E}MGUIr VE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (h) & (i) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues, and City Administrator's evaluation. 9:00 7. ADJOURIVM M cca1120 06MCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 6, 1989 - Page 2 T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L - NOVEMBER 20, 1989 o Meeting was called to order at 6:38 p.m. by Mayor Edwards. 1. RCM C AIL: Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Carolyn Eadon, Joe Kasten, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Irene Ertell, Librarian; Ron Goodpaster, Chief of Police; Keith Liden, Senior Planner (arrived at 7:25 p.m.); Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Involvement Coordinator; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. 2. QTY C 2?rER DEVE L14M P Community Development Director reviewed the election results for the City Center Development Plan and outlined some ideas on what might happen next. The Plan lost by 569 votes, with 41% of the registered voters casting their mail-in ballots. An initial review indicated that the measure did not do particularly well in any precinct, although it did pass in a few. The Director enumerated several reasons why the voters might have turned down the ballot measure, including: Projects were controversial (i.e., Ash Avenue connections between Walnut and Hunziker. Urban renewal district issue was difficult to understand. Voters recently approved other taxing measures (schools, parks, roads) and may have seen this as one more tax measure. City of Tualatin has had difficulty with their redevelopment project. .)pposition from some downtown owners and adjacent property owners. Support from city center property owners and merchants was not strong enough. The City failed to explain the measure well enough to the voters. Council discussed, at length, their next step. It was suggested that the City may want to initiate a telephone survey to determine if there was any support for a revised urban renewal plan. Council consensus was to not perform the survey at this time; rather, council will take time to reassess and prioritize a variety of city issues (i.e., "Diamond Area," "Tigard Triangle," and the City Center). Council consensus further directed staff to place on hold any work underway for the Main Street Bridge and the Walnut/Hunziker alignment study. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 20, 1989 - PAGE 1 Council Meeting recessed: 7:02 p.m. Council Meeting reconvened: 7:07 p.m. 3. DISCOSSICH WM SEKkTM PAUL P U11aPS Senator Phillips visited with Council on how cities can effectively express their concerns to the state Legislature. He advised that he felt city elected officials had a great advantage in that they were close to their constituency and could garner voter support on issues of interest to the comutunity. He urged the city to become involved on a more personal level with the State Legislature and to not depend on paid representatives or professional organizations to represent their interests. i Senator Phillips requested Council to identify and prioritize issues of concern to Tigard. He said that now would be the time to begin drafting legislation in order to be prepared for the next Legislative Session. F (Senior Planner Liden arrived: 7:25 p.m.) There was discussion on the need for intergovernmental cooperation.. cities, counties, and districts often appear to be mistrustful of one another. He advised it would be very effective if all cities could work t. together within their own counties and then present a united front to the Legislature. He advised that the competition for dollars to cities from the State would be heightened in the coming years. He emphasized the importance E. of cities maintaining credibility through education on issues. 4. AGERm REVIETR: Council and staff reviewed the business meeting agenda. Senior Planner Liden noted a possible Visitor's Agenda item with regard to the appeal of a Planning Commission decision on Final Order CU 89- 04/V 89-27 (Pollock). t 5. VISTTCRIS AGENDA a. Council heard a request from Russel Head, (11689 S.W. Wilton, Tigard, Oregon) resident and member of NPO #7 to waive a fee for the appeal of Final Order CU 89-04/V 89-27 (Pollock). After listening to Mr. Head's request and consultation with legal counsel, there was a motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Eadon, noting that the NPO did not have standing on this issue; therefore, the appeal for the fee waiver was inappropriate and the request denied. The motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council present. b. Jon Blomgren (9460 S.W. Oak Street Tigard, Oregon) expressed concern with property located near S.W. 95th and Oak Street. He advised that fill material was being placed on this property which he felt was in excess of the permit specifications. He outlined history of this area noting the problems with drainage and flooding which has occurred in the past. r { CITY COUNCIL MEETING =UI'F.S - NOVEMBER 20, 1989 - PAGE 2 After discussion with Mr. Blomgren and staff, Council directed staff to initiate a site visit and respond to Mr. BlongrenIs concerns. Staff will report to Council at their 12/4/89 meeting; a copy of the staff report is to be forwarded to Mr. Blomgren. C. Joe Walsh of Tri-mt distributed information outlining the site selection Study for a Tigard Park and Ride. Of the sites reviewed, the two which appear to be most viable are: 72nd & Pacific Hwy 99 (Tigard Cinema) Commercial & Hall Street (Tigard Transit Center) Council noted several concerns with site selection including traffic impacts and the need to locate transit facilities in areas which have experienced the most growth. Mr. Walsh advised it was still early enough to consider other alternatives. Council s: consensus was to review this issue more thoroughly in the near future. 6. OON5ENr AGENDA: 6.1 Approve Council Minutes: October 16 & 23, 1989. 6.2 Request League of Oregon Cities' Support on Position with Employee' Relations Board Ruling Concerning Mandatory Bargaining Issues- Resolution No. 89-88 6.3 Approve Amendment to Resolution No. 89-82 Correcting Term { Expiration Date of Two Library Board Appointees - Resolution No. 89-89 Y 7. PCEIZC HFARIM - PLAN ANA Nr C3.?A 89-07 ZC NE (MANGE 89- 07 PI~ICE~-I SJI L I PQ 15 . A request for a Comprehensive Plan Amerx3ment from Conmiercial f, Professional to Medium-High Density Residential and a Zone change from G; C-P (Conmiercial Professional) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre) for approximately 5 acres. LOCATION: West side of SW 72nd Avenue, between SW Varns Street and SW Fir Street (WCIM 2S1 1DB, Tax Lots 800 & 801, 2S1, 1DC, Tax Lot 3600). a. Public Hearing Continued from November 6, 1989 b. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Sumnation by Senior Planner Liden: In staff's opinion the application was consistent with State goals; Plan policies contained in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan; locational criteria; and the Commnzity Development Code. The Planning Camission voted 5 to 1 to recoam nd denial. The Ccmunissioners noted that the proposal would likely result in a CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 1989 PAGE 3 quality development for the site, but the Commission was not convinced that a change in circumstances affecting the parcel or a mistake in Plan designations had been demonstrated. commissioners noted that this was a difficult recommendation to make because they found that the site satisfied the applicable locational criteria and the site is well located with respect to proximity to employment/ commercial centers and transportation corridors. However, the general sentiment of the Commission was that there was an obligation for the City to assure the neighbors' expectations for the future development of property. Since the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant had met with neighborhood representatives to discuss the proposal to determine if some kind of agreement could be worked out. Senior Planner Liden noted a letter dated November 20, 1989, had been received from James R. Sitzman, Field Representative, State of Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. Mr. Sitzman advised the application was in compliance with State Goals as well as the Comprehensive Plan. (Said letter is on file with the council meeting packet material.) d. Public Testimony o John DeCosta, Professionals 100 Real Estate, 2851 S.W. Tolkien, Lake Oswego, Oregon, advised he was in favor of the proposal. He said the zone change represented an appropriate use of the subject property. In response to a question from councilor Schwartz, Mr. DeCosta advised he had no personal financial interest in the property at this time. o Raymond Eras, 13400 S.W. Tigard Street, Tigard, Oregon, testified he was a resident in the area in question. He said he was in favor of the proposal as it would appear to be advantageous and would enhance property values. o Mark Rockwell (applicant), 164 S.W. Kingsgate, Lake Oswego, Oregon, enumerated his reasons for urging the Council to approve the proposal: - The current zoning of the parcel (Commercial Professional) does not meet the City's Comprehensive Plan locational criteria. - The property was not conducive to being developed as currently zoned. - The size, shape, and location of the parcel makes it ideally suited for R-25 development. CITY COUNCIL MEETING W NUI'ES - NOVEMBER 20, 1989 - PAGE 4 There was confusion during the Planning Commission meeting with regard to acceptability of R-25 abutting single-family residential property. Following the Planning Commission meeting, the zoning map was reviewed virtually all R-25 zoned property abuts single-family residential neighborhoods. The Code's density transition provisions provide that no more than 4.37 units/acre can be built within 100 feet of a residential property line. The proposed zone would be more compatible to existing neighborhoods than existing zone. The R-25 would serve as an effective transition zone which would preserve the Rolling Hills area and prevent further pressure to convert the neighborhood into a commercial zone. The proposed R-25 zone would allow the preservation of the majority of the existing trees on the east end of the property. There was an abundance of Co mnerical-Professional land in the Tigard Triangle and immediate area. However, in this same area, there was no multi-family land to support and complement the commercial development. The need for multi-family was apparent when compared to similar area; i.e., Kruse Way development. The applicant has worked closely with the neighbors to create high standards of development. Issues of concern have been discussed and resolved including: density, site layout, building quality and design, parking, landscaping, berms for greater privacy, traffic circulation, recreational facilities, site lighting, maintenance, and specified hours for garbage pick up. The proposal responds to the definite community need for affordable multi-family housing on Tigard's east side. o David Metzger, Rt. 4, Box 267C, Sherwood, Oregon, advised the property was owned by his family. He said this was a high- quality development and said he was in favor of the requested amerkhnent. o Ralph Tahran, architect on the project from OTAK, 17355 S.W. Boones Ferry Road, Lake Oswego, advised the proposal as submitted previously to the Planning commission meets all requirements of an R-25 zone. He reviewed the building design with Council. Even though the proposal was under the R-25 density, the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 20, 1989 - PAGE 5 Planning Comaiission cited issues of compatibility and access. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the developer held a series of meetings with the neighbors to determine if there was a way some of the issues could be worked out. He then outlined the changes worked through with the neighborhood which resulted in several changes to the site planning. o Gordon King, Cushman & Wakefield, 4214 S.W. 51st Place, Portland, Oregon, noted changes that have occurred in the market place. He advised that the land was not suitable for certain commercial uses because of its configuration. This site has been on the market for several years. He said the proposed amendment would be the best use for the property and add aesthetic quality to the area. o Craig Hopkins, Chairman NPO #5, 7430 S.W. Varns, Tigard, Oregon, testified on behalf of the NPO and as an affected property owner. Initially, the NPO took the position that this proposal should be denied. Since the Planning Commission hearing, however, there had been much discussion with the developer and property owners. The property owners, concerns were over proposed housing density, traffic flow into and out of the site, and the buffering aspects of the whole project. As a result of those discussions, the applicant and developer have agreed to establish certain binding controls on the development. With this change in circumstance, the NPO now supports the applicant's request for zone change. o Tom Brian, 7630 S.W. Fir, Tigard, Oregon, confirmed the comments of the NPO Chair. He noted initially the neighbors felt R-25 would have a negative affect on the area. He advised the neighborhood continued to keep an open mind and talked to the applicant throughout a mm ber of meetings. A design was negotiated which appears to work for the applicant and meet most of the concerns of the neighborhood. Deed restrictions have been drawn up which will be recorded should the zone change be approved. Based on these representations, he noted that he has been moved from strong opposition to support of the project. He said while he does not represent the neighborhood, two neighborhood meetings were held with attendance of over 40 at one and about 20 at the other. Of those attending most were neutral or positive with one or two still being very reluctant to the zone change. Councilor Kasten asked the City Attorney if the deed restrictions would be binding. The City Attorney responded that he had not reviewed the documentation; however, there should be a reasonable expectation that the restrictions would be enforceable. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MDRYIES - NOVEMBER 20, 1989 - PAGE 6 o Gus Greco, 13425 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, noted changes in the zoning and road improvements to 72nd Avenue for which he was assessed. His property was rezoned Commercial Professional which increased the taxes on his property (he was able to defer the increase until he sells the property). He advised he was in favor of applicant's request. e. Community Developmezt Director advised staff recommends that City Council adopt an ordinance changing the property at 13265 S.W. 72nd from a Comprehensive Plan Designation of Ccmmercial Professional to Medium High Density. Also staff recommended that Council change the zone from CP to R-25 for multiple-family residential. Community Development Director noted the Planning Commission recommended denial.. They have not seen the latest proposal and perhaps would change their recommendation based on the changes. He advised the only issue before Council was the land use definition. Any agreements made between the parties is strictly a private agreement; the City has no authority to enforce those private agreements. In addition, the City has not reviewed the site plan and there may be some changes. He commended the neighbors and developers for negotiating their issues. f. Council Questions/Co mients: o Councilor Schwartz advised he was surprised at the public testimony; he expected there to be opposition to the proposal. He, too, said he thought it was commendable that the neighborhood and developer were able to work through their issues. He said that he thought there was enough support demonstrated by elements of the Comprehensive Plan to :bake this change and that he would vote favorably an the applicant's request. o Councilor Eadon reiterated the agreements reached were between the applicant and the neighbors; the City is not a party to that agreement. The City Attorney, based on the comments he heard during testimony, had noted there was a reasonable expectation the neighborhood's interests were protected as they hoped. She cautioned this may not be the case. Also, Council's action tonight would not have any bearing on the deed restrictions. The site development process has not yet begun for staff review and there may be some further changes to assure compliance with the code. She advised in reading the minutes from the Planning Commission, their deliberation appeared to based on comments made by the neighborhood at that time. As stated by the Community Development Director, the Planning Commission has CITY COUNCIL MEE9M MINUIES - NOVEMBER 20, 1989 - PAGE 7 not had the opportunity to look at the new proposal reached by the developer and neighborhood. She asked that this information be forwarded to the Planning Commission by the staff. o Joe Kasten agreed with comments made by Councilor Eadon and Councilor Schwartz. He noted he would support the proposal. o Mayor Edwards noted agreement with the positions of the Councilors. He also wanted it made clear that this was a zone change only before Council; the basis of their decision was from information received from the staff, developer, and members of the carom mity. He advised that he, too, would support the issue. g. Public Hearing was closed. h. Consideration by Council: Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Kasten, directing staff to draft an ordinance to be considered by Council at their next regular meeting to rezone the property from CP to R-25. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 8. NCH-AGEND& ITEMS: None. 9. EXEX ITVE S SSICN: Cancelled 10. AnJaaRNMENtr- 9:05 p.m. Catherine Wheatley, City rder ATTEST: 7 Gerald Edwards, Mayor ccm1120 CITY C"CIL MMM4G MD TM - NaVIIKBER 20, 1989 - PAGE 8 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF NOTIFICATION In the matter of the proposed! STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss City of Tigard ) I, Z_L6_t1L1'/U & being first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That I: notified the following persons by phone or persipal contact of the Council Meeting of 11Ia0(£g9 , a copy of said written notice being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof on the G day of i CONTACT METHOD: PHONE PERSONAL TIME Tigard Times Reporter at 684-•0360 Name: '10A s6kmi q'f pAnMh-- Oregonian Reporter at 297--8861 I~_ or 245--6997 Name: ~~C V 1(,~_.._..~ King City Regal Courier at 639--5414 C~( Web n~s~ Name: ~h•e rn~~f~,,c~ a~1~1~ w~ ,a~atPcP l/l~(/€4 w Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of f~~yNl.l~ 19`. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: t.t/55576t'1 41. AGENDA `LTEM.# 2. - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE 11720L89L (Limited to 2 minutes or less. please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. NAME & ADDRESS TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED ea d WO Fee. I,aVt r ybti)U -S l3Lorn G~t~Iv /Y/?a r DATE 11/20/89 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) PERSONS WILL BE ALLOWED 10 MINUTES FOR PRESENTATIONS. Item Description: AGENDA-.ITEM"NO 4 -;CWRE k PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 89-07, ZONE CHANGE .,89-07x'= j 4 METZGER-EMS/ROCKWELL.NPQ•#S=- t • t Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) t Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation E k -T6) -I /J W t~ c, S T4 ! d851 5 t1d 'jD~J C:'N CA) ~LV ~Q✓~ ! 2~ "!Vd fLc"74LTJ/L 4 V~t01-f S~ -r,r y2~Y s~~ ~ s a~ G 3-0 S F' R ! r t r t f l i C Sds Sos5 Lm Mao TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator FROM: Ed Murphy, Director of Community Development RE: City Center Plan DATE: November 20, 1989 On November 7, 1989 the voters turned down a proposed "City Center Development Plan". This memo is intended to outline some ideas on what might happen next. SITUATION: THE VOTE: The City Center Development Plan lost by 569 votes, with 41% of the registered voters casting their mail-in ballots. A tally by precinct has been prepared, along with a graphic representation of the voting patterns. An initial review indicates that the measure did not do particularly well in any precinct, although it di pass in a few. THE REASONS WHY IT LOST: There may be any number of reasons why the voters turned this ballot measure down, including: The projects themselves might have been controversial--especially the Ash Avenue connection between Walnut and Hunziker. Urban renewal districts generally are not well understood or popular with the voters ...and typically do not fare well in an election. Voters have recently approved taxing measures for the schools, parks and roads, and may have seen this as another tax measure like the ones preceding it. The City of Tualatin has had trouble getting a solid development project, and news of that situation may have dampened voters attitudes on re-development ideas. There was some opposition from downtown owners, such as A-Boy's, and from properties who were affected, like the Methodist Church. There was not strong enough support for the district from the city center property owners and merchants. And finally, the city did not explain the measure well enough to the voters. WHEN COULD THE CITY CALL FOR ANOTHER ELECTION OF THIS ISSUE? The City can only place an urban renewal type program before the voters in the months of May or November. November of 1990 has been suggested as a possible time for a city tax base election. i t To submit a measure to the voters in May of 1990, the City Council would have to approve a ballot title by March 12 to get it to the elections office by March 15. The election date is May 15. OBJECTIVES: What are we trying to accomplish? An improved image of the downtown An enhanced business climate More attractive and less risky investment opportunities Development standards appropriate for the downtown area More certainty for developers and existing business and landowners regarding standards, capital improvement plans and urban renewal programs. WHAT ARE SOME OPTIONS? 1. Do nothing. Spend the City's staff time and City resources in other areas of the City, or on other issues. 2. Do nothing more regarding "urban renewal", but start some low cost, incremental, programs instead. For instance, try to establish a low interest loan pool, help create a downtown association, try a single LID for a parking lot or improvements to Burnham, work on organization and promotion issues downtown. This approach would tend to be more labor intensive, less capital intensive. 3. Re-submit a ballot to the voters in May of 1990. 4. Wait until May of 1991 to re-submit a ballot measure. f PROPOSALS: r 1. The City Council should hold off on formally deciding about the May of 1990 election until January, unless they are set against the idea. f 2. The City Administrator should immediately contract with a firm to have a sample survey of the registered voters taken. 3. Based on the results of the survey, the Council can decide if they want to change some of the projects or programs. E 4. The Council should begin collecting names and interviewing for the City Center Development Advisory Commission. Meanwhile, staff should draft the proposed structure and purpose of such a commission. The Council could appoint the Commission in January. - 5. The Council should authorize the staff to proceed with the engineering study of the proposed Ash avenue connection. 6. The Council should authorize the staff to proceed with the proposed design of the Main Street bridge 7. The staff should propose a new zoning district for the Planning Commission's and City Council's review. 9. The staff should propose an acquisition policy for Council's review. 10. Methods should be sought to discuss any desired modifications to the Plan, or to the City's public information approach, directly with those perceived leaders within the community. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: Tentatively remain receptive to going to the voters in May, if: The downtown property owners and merchants seem supportive. Through survey methods plus direct contact with leaders within the community, it appears that the reasons the voters turned the measure down was because they did not like certain projects, or that certain projects were too nebulous, or that they did not understand the financing proposals. Use the time between now and January to gather more information. Use the time between January and March to amend the plan, if necessary, and to establish an advisory commission, and to review draft zoning or redevelopment proposals. Use March, April and May to get information out to the public. S M. 7- r 70 7a.3a 94 too M/1- 40o TO.T .T CIA. n %00 ~J OAK c.a. ►+o.s2SST REST 3500 3700 " 3.58 Ac $2.13885 to 3200 $ r 3;300 1. 3400 Z8 Ac. sol.ze !9 Ac. R •29 Ac. " .35 Ac. 31 Ac. ° R s in - R ` W O tpu N W N e 100 p N \ „ Y ° 2.96Ac. s 3100 0 ~ ( .18 Ac. o a To v 112 A 73Sa Tl.z Isszo a. 3000 .a.ss "S"" w Ios s= ` :1 n o u 3600 „ • 1Z Ac. J I s Lt! 30 At. In ^ w ' s 33• iS t 173.40 r' 7S.3a • \ N t • \ ° s LU ° 2900 W ail Z « 17% 1 .35 Ac. o ~ CN. n \ Ott p 1> f 1141- 4 /G cl 8.480Ac. yl G t1 ijJ lpihS ~ o N o qty ~d t m~ 1 \ 14 A . CAN 0 r a.437 % H '1111111/ r/1J7~71J// ahJ '-v0 / 2.e9 Gli. g ~lnllllirlnlrlminlr~'~1.~'$` • 2 } ~ ISO. T4 61Z C. '.may. •jQ L ~ y~W nC bq6 / 1 7I u ~ /-Y 4800 r4•sa'xx t y \ \~s .23Ac/ t►3.60 I 'to 1~•f \ 1 ' a°' ~ /ca 1 r 2J, . ~ 4 1 340.391- 840 ° f LANE p / MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Keith Liden November 14, 1989 FROM: Cathy Wheatley SUBJECT: Appeal of Final Order CU 89--04/V 89-27 (Pollock) Keith, attached is a copy of the appeal received from Russel Head for the above- referenced Final Order by the Hearings Officer. NPO #7 will need to have a representative present at the November 20, 1989, City Council meeting to request a fee waiver. The appeal public hearing can be scheduled for the December 11, 1989 City Council meeting. If you have any questions, please let me know. cw c:Fd mom.-,piny JFrr~ C.~i'FesL- ~CA-F C.~ ~y cxx.' - C 1 LAND USE DECISION APPEAL FILING FORM C The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to w_. Y participate in local government. Tigard' s Land Use /gyp®@~ r Code therefore sets out specific requirements for CINOF TIIFARW filing appeals on certain land use decisions. OREGON E The following form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at 639-4171. 1. APPLICATION BEING APPEALED: (IM S9- d`f~V $-I - 2 ~L ~'orApora-~ian t~2 ~naS Cad' ;car ~pr~,'s~ nn X17 4 2. HOW DO YOU QUALIFY AS A PARTY: IV A- I lasse I Ii +d ~ecr e-{ f2Y i f 3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW!: 1 %h.5 0'e kCa- -6, 3kmid beep vim; eo-c~ ro r~~ (~t L>y4co4i~~q 4,< 46ZVCA~ I" aA ace,,A er va [ r 11 ' s Q. nce bi po- 415. I ~a r G'J 4tsaD ~y Q 4 J~ tiny vi-~ ~av~ wc-5. ~ 1 441\41- It-K14 ckwonan,65 iml 7 ck 44 -2 2 2~rc.-~c~. ~ ~ Gl1ti~c Cif ~~~P~✓t'7- ~!'c~c:ck~ ~ ` 5y\- (7~ Q ec~ A-o Irvvc AeA n ~ 0.S{2e~ 4. SCHEDULED DATE DECISION IS TO BE FINAL: Noyem be y, 5. DATE NOTICE OF FI DECISIO WAS GIVEN: &4)128 J 'q 9 1 6. SIGNATURE(S): IJ~4 -A- ,b9-c.re~ ' t ~(-x-x~t-x~f-x~(-~-x-~F~HHf-IHt•9F~(-x~HHt-fix ~~I~HHK-)E~(•~Ht•9t iHHHt-x _ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY : e ived By :C• b0 L Date : JJ Time: ;55 • W1. j Approved As To Form By:( Date : it Time Denied As To Form By: Date: Time: i K NFMjf~! ~4 )HE %~HHt )Hf)(~(K)(~(K~E )HE 1(%~HEiH(K 1HEiHE)()HENHM~EiE~~HE M)(jM( XXXXXXXXXX" lw/4846A Qe lo. ~v j1X$A - Pd G-k I l~ao l k r-r G~c i t -i 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 On behalf of Neighborhood Planning Organization number seven (NPO 7), we hereby are requesting that the Hearings Officer Decision of October 28th, 1989 be appealled, case number CU 89-04/V 89-27. The basis of this appeal is as follows: The application should have been considered jointly with the application for the application for the multi-family development on the adjacent property. Conditions of approval for the development of the adjacent property should be binding onthis property. As part of the total development plan, it was agreed upon by-the developer, the planning commission, NPO 7, and the residents of the surrounding area, that the conditions would be enforced prior to any development, grading, construction, etc. of the area to provide the agreed upon buffering. In addtion, NPO 7 requests that the appeal fee be waived in full, based upon our participation. Sincerely, Russel Head Secretary NPO 7 CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY HEARINGS OFFICER 1. Concerning Case Number(s): CU 89-04/V 89-27 2. Name of Owner: Donald E. Pollock Name of Applicant: XYZ Corporation 3. Address 10260 SW Greenburg Rd. City Tigard State OR Zip 97223 4. Address of Property: 14140 SW Scholls Ferry Road Tax Map and Lot No(s).: iS1.33CC, tax lot 500 5. Request: A request for Conditional Use approval to allow the development of a 6400 square foot day care center. Also requested is Variance approval to allow a building setback of 65 feet from the centerline of SW Scholls Ferry Road where the Community Development Code requires a 70 foot setback. ZONE: R-25 (Residential 25 units/acre) 6. Action: Approval as requested X Approval with conditions Denial 7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall, and mailed to: X The applicant and owner(s) X Owners of record within the required distance X The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization X Affected governmental agencies 8. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON NOVEMBER 9, 1989 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. 9. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with 13.32.290(b) and Section 18_32.370 which provides that a written r appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and sent- NOVEMBER.9, 1989 t The deadline for filing of an appeal is 10. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard r f Planning Department, 639-4171. bkm/CU89-04.BKM t BEFORE THE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR ) CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL AND VARIANCE) NO. CU-89-04 FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A DAY CARE ) V 89-27 FACILITY WITH A REDUCED SETBACK FROM ) CENTERLINE OF SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD; ) 1 XYZ CORPORATION, APPLICANT. ) f'' E The above-entitled matter came before the hearings officer at the regularly scheduled meeting of October 12, 1989, in the Tigard Civic Center Town Hall Room, in Tigard, Oregon; and i The applicant requests conditional use approval and a vari- ance, on property zoned R-25, Residential, 25 units/acre, and described as Tax Lot 600, May 1S1, Section 33CC, City of Tigard, County of Washington, State of Oregon; and The hearings officer conducted a public hearing on October 12, 1989, at which time testimony, evidence and the planning d department staff report were received; and p 1 The hearings officer adopts the findings of fact and conclu- sions contained in the staff report, a copy of which is attached f c hereto, marked "Exhibit All and incorporated by reference herein; and The hearings officer further finds that this application is considered independently of the application for the multi-family development on adjacent property. Conditions of approval for the development of the adjacent property are not binding on this property. Further, the proposed day care will be somewhere between 300 and 600 feet from the nearest single family residence 1 i' presently developed, and that distance is a sufficient buffer without further requirements. i, f NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that CU 89-04 and V-89-27 t' be and hereby are approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The site plan shall be revised to provide for a minimum of one appropriately sized handicapped parking space and two bicycle rack spaces. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry offer, Planning G. Division. 2. The existing house and garage shall be removed or l' destroyed. A demolition permit shall be obtained from the, Building Division. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast. 3. Right-of-way dedication along SW Scholls Ferry Road shall be executed in accordance with the final decision for SDR 89-07. STAFF CONTACT: Jon Feigion, Engineering Division. 4. Public improvements plans shall be approved and a performance assurance executed for all public improvements required by SDR 89-07 and as proposed by the approved site plans for both projects. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry offer. 5. Prior to commencement of site clearing and grading, a i plan for capping the well on tax lot 600 in compliance with State of Oregon regulations must be approved by the Washington County Watermaster. (Clayton Gardner, 681-7018). A copy of the approved plan shall be provided to the Building Division. STAFF CONTACT: Brad Roast. 6. Fencing with a minimum. height of 6 feet shall be installed around the drip line of all existing trees proposed 2 for retention. The fending shall be inspected and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of a site work permit. STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO.ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT. STAFF CONTACT: JERRY OFFER, PLANNING DIVISION. 7. State of Oregon required certification for day care facilities is to be obtained prior to occupancy. - 8. The landscaping materials, fencing and all other proposed site improvements shall be installed in conformance with the submitted landscaping plan. 9. A sign permit shall be obtained prior to erection of the proposed freestanding sign. 10. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF FINAL DECISION. DATED thi day of October, 1989. HE S OFFICER APPROVED: BETH MAS ON r c~. 3 mousse( I-I-P(zd MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: James Boylan, NPO 7 Chairperson November 15, 1989 Russel Head, NPO 7 Secretary FROM: Jerry Offer, Development Review Planner ISSUE Does Neighborhood Planning Organization 7 (NPO 7) have standing to appeal the City's land use hearing officer's decision for Conditional Use CU 89-04? FACTS A timely appeal has been filed by NPO 7 regarding the October 28, 1989, decision for CU 89-04. The appeal filing form was signed and presented to staff by Russel Head, Secretary of NPO 7. NPO 7 did not return the City's "request for comments" form for this application. NPO 7 had met on September 20, 1989, to review this application and had voted 6-2 in support of the application, with no reservations or conditions expressed in the vote. This information is contained in the NPO's minutes of that meeting which were forwarded to the City on September 25, 1989. The minutes note that Russel"Head was absent at that meeting. on October 12, 1989, the Hearing's Officer conducted a hearing on application CU 89-04. All pre-meeting notice requirements were satisfied. Russel Head was the only person other than the applicant and the applicant's representatives that spoke during the hearing. No written comments of others were presented. Mr. Head signed in as an opponent of the proposal using his home address and not noting any connection with NPO 7. Mr. Head may or may not have introduced himself orally as representing NPO 7 in discussions preceding the hearing. The tape recording of the hearing indicates that Mr. Head did not announce during the hearing that he was representing NPO 7. On October 30, 1989, the' City sent notice of the decision for CU 89-04 to the applicant, to the property owner, to NPO 7 through Chairperson James Boylan, and to Mr. Head as a participant in the hearing. On October 18, 1989, NPO 7 voted in favor of appealing the decision for CU 89-04 as noted in the minutes for that meeting. As previously noted, the appeal filing form was submitted within the required appeal period. APPLICABLE CODE SECTION Community Development Code Section 18.32.290 contains the following requirements for standing to appeal: B. In the case of a decision by the Hearings Officer or the Commission, except for a decision on an appeal of the Director's decision, any person shall be considered a party to a matter, thus having standing to seek review, provided: 1. The person appeared before the Commission or Hearings officer orally or in writing and: a. The person was entitled as of right to notice and hearing prior to the decision to be reviewed; or b. The person is aggrieved or has interests adversely affected by the decision. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) DISCUSSION It appears to staff that NPO 7 does not have standing to appeal this decision because: 1. NPO 7 did not submit any written comments on the proposal either prior to or during the hearing on this application; 2. The NPO 7 September 20, 1989, meeting minutes do not note any issues related to the application; 3. Mr. Head did not attend the September 20th meeting; and C 4. We are unaware of any subsequent NPO 7 meetings prior to the hearing on CU 89-04 during which the NPO may have directed Mr. Head to raise the concerns he spoke of at the October 12, 1989 hearing. It appears to staff that the comments made by Mr. Head at the October 12, 1989, hearing were his own comments reflecting his own concerns rather than those of NPO 7. We therefore believe that a second issue also exists - if the appeal filed on November 9, 1989, by NPO 7 is rejected because of a lack of standing by the NPO, should the City then allow Mr. Head to pursue the appeal at his own expense using the earlier appeal filing date to constitute a timely appeal? CONCLUSION The Planning Division concludes, based on the foregoing discussion, that NPO 7 clearly does not have standing to appeal the decision for CU 89-07 because the NPO did not appear before the hearings officer orally or in writing concerning this matter. The appeal filed on November 9, 1989 by Russel Head on behalf of NPO 7 is therefore not accepted because of a lack of standing. The Planning Division further concludes that because Mr. Head filed the form in a timely manner and because Mr. Head has standing because he appeared orally before the hearings officer, Mr. Head may pursue the appeal already filed on his own if he pays the requisite $315 filing fee as well as a deposit to cover the cost of preparation of a transcript of the October 12, 1989 hearing. Those fees must be submitted to City Recorder Cathy Wheatley no later than 3:30 PM on November 20, 1989. c: Tony Bonforte, Villager Communities Greg Hathaway Phil Grillo, City of Tigard Legal Counsel File CU 89-04 NJ t t r f S f w 1k r. f t: f I C_ DND i, LooK..~ r~ I\SoYkh ~r F ~ tnlr~ 2l ~ ~ ; G15'~ on -rbp or- LbLuEu 1 T g~ J~ • • f 1 {{qq~~ i N,a 'M1rh'%i I ;rte I R ~r I f ^1 ~,F 1 11 1,'I~~ " yea ; _ "•.ti•~ II. "'~+1 9.4 INA o i 1 I, C f f' rl f JJ ~ I I ( V 17 u tt~ Lb t ( i } t 1 TRI-COURjY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF OREGON D TRI-MET 4012 S.E. 17TH AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97202 Tigard Park and Ride Site Selection Study 1. Need - Existing facilities (Barbur, Tualatin) at capacity - On-street/"informal" use - Barbur, Burlingame, Downtown Tigard - Existing 99 W congestion - Tigard - area growth 2. Study Process - Develop selection criteria - Identify sites - Evaluate, develop short list - Refine site plans - Evaluate, choose preferred site 3. Schedule - Site Selection - Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) grant review Feb. - April 1990 - Local Approvals June - Sept. 1990 - Final Engineering Sept. 1990 - March 1991 - Land acqusition Feb. - March 1991 - Construction March - Sept. 1991 4. Funding - Estimated Cost - $750,000 - Sources - UMTA 42%, Federal Highways 45%, Local 13% c. / Auparr i:l:fdk vIPA^Y[rr~ N Mw Sr • t COl U4B4 ~l. IMUISNOMAN CO ~ of `r•,+vYwA WA Ell INO TON Cq A 9 + oa4D e~'. . m[sco r s r + Ma woor~ 3 P Y r P rk ALSr ~ r, coP tT N ^ t) ~ SIAN. N 1A Srlll W dl ^r I Y PORTLAND fDN ~p PNES 1 f i x I~ i P. WAV u" 5L elvD ` e .v. r I, 0 c-lo. sr x x ND + rArr " =D o : l y ~`Pt. µ s , vows ~PCNp0o0o _ $ R 4~ r N r sr ~ NOLOAfF elv0 Be erto / ILfN ell i'~A It I i re[ w-E, PO M rN YAN G r = f AV i , l~ O ~ 4r _ M OABOfW I NOS NOYF +O D N 1(""1 ( ACOY Sr r e< 4b sr BADcq ~•N4 °.a = ^ g MII Ukl"~ ml D^ M . PO t r1 scoff ` Sr 94 u A~AUO PD ` fNr lCefST a D• r •Y, S '4, rNO^LarrsoN Sr Va 1 ~ ~ .~•,T:..•.:ft;~; Q-TlaBfe'.-. ~ 3• x. ~ f IN Ae^ uONV PU ak ,,Ltstw WAl Pf' dT E's:::: ^ w 3 t AYt D Mr igard.~ ro 2 SW TeIDBIf BUII l• COUN/RY _ p O 4c LA•r Mln 4P0 Y ~•:Wr,(:~ AO M DN ~ y` y " sr N M N. Ts " t eov YrN Y ~ elw +D ..~rssrN Pc PP U P Wr J~'i King f P e[N DUPNAU ND i +ra•r• tD Ohr150 d.,1 8'< City Ao « Te[r Ctty +r sr r~ w +rL asw fe urhem tP v o+(^f00ea .~0 ,ryr (L.L.11 DB N _Gla t ne s vergrove " tY Tualatin i s~ ; O PO dA0[er PD •N0 " RI I Sn[PwOOD ~Yi ~ 3 A~ " 8 roro+ West NORTH Linn d w ro D SCALE: t• 2mike nil t is z 0 .5 LEGEND x3 4 v:'ir'>:.t~ ~ atc y~•,~~, < ~ysiu~ N~~~~r.,L., {~•4.K'n4•o ~ r+'•J" 7 .w `::r,~ .'}°~r~' ' }2'?;; i;'3;..~„an ` fs%' .vriwy;Y3rs:C 3 ifi>S;',<; .*`.••.':a'~•'•:<;.5,?c.c~;:?\ifi::c:; SY'S::cy: '.:t;'nf•:,:;.r,;.::.,y}:..`. > ~`i•`•.,';f:::xi Project Study Area :<:<v~.a;.:>.„;:<•,:~..::,i•:;::.:>:v:..«:<;> .:ry=»;,<>..,.:,..:.~.: TRI-MET TIGARD PARK AND RIDE M'KEEVER)MORRIS, I NC. SITING STUDY 812 S.W. Wnddegrew Sheer, Suite 1110 PDrdaed. Oregw 97205 • (503) 228.7J52 /ae (50) 228.7165 f 'a'r_ --t>- ~JL~J~ ~ _ ~i~~.s ~ • ~•'I ~ b~';~wi_-::r r, #i;~ ~ „L >~x~►~4~r SITE#9 R 4etZ0ar w C- O u. -1_.J ate„ ai..'{afr~~rl' i[~C(_((•''~~ Il t jam(//1~-w^-ui i... 11 A'® n.T a/^ry.1. I~ ~ l ~c ~I~ti •~1I 'I ~ Il til'I. ~~`_\I\'~~' ~/=J*~Cwy-,w/+/' _ r elf-IT- i♦~`E`` Ef IE. CICfIL~I_.._.~1L_ its.. I SITE SITE #4 & I: SITE #8 I~R~ ; T L wu~l r ~U I ~ ®H . VANIN r ~ i - ~ `*Y~ ICI ,....~j~~ :.Q~=•~.~~~~ ~1~c~ T.'....~e1L;l `[tJ;JI :`~:1•I(-~,1- ~,J1.1 • t1. . S C ! a.l•r.r. 1 \ • l M R. [ I - Jl'` 1t 's $ L - -,1 J` _ ;III-- ~ ~r SITE SITE #2 D T SITE r--._~;: ;ELI IIi I ~ ~ ~ 91, pI`-~ ,~i~'~'~~ • oe¢ ~p Le xn..w ; !JI I, ~L.;1 I~ I `~;-0.1. ~r-_>),i•. ~ - .a 4, ~S L~u'c=..`"_ ~n I~ •,,I-~lul I~ - ;I "II~i'~-T.''''~ 1~14't IrT ' I =I flLl~ r-_ C 1 p '1' r' _ 1!~I i a t,~.. . -•a• i ' Ij L i. ~;I [II b ' yi' i i _ I 1.. . ; - ' =11 I ~q_- 'SIT 6 !J lJ_ t; nu 'n' 1 v ~ C "q. 1 e e /~9 / T • ~ I I ~ ~ ' / y r~ro,T- -r--- 1 ,~~''II- , s- !L J SITE ~V:., : n. a r t! f t'IF[Ma)• t Imo---f r-- .•O [.1 „ p ' I - j -:::~~I_ , r lf4.w'.. =_c~ -wa ('y~„"00p1 TIGARD Y • o.. >i ! DD. 20.165 I ~ / ~a~~ a fit'-a~~•` ..__:1: _ ~ i «t .a ~ >t .'`tl.~-.-. _ 1' II , `41- •-I II T,._rcL1111. Cl. T!GARO POP. 23.335 NORTH SCALE: ]•.2ooa r--W1 M 0 500 1000 1500 2000 LEGEND 1 72nd & Pacific Hv+Y 99 (T (Overpass) iBara Ctnema 8. Haines St. & 68th Parkway 2. 78th & Pacific H 99 (Dartmouth Fact) 9. 53rd & Pacific Hw 99 (Portland) ~'Y Y wY 17&I- angY Rd.) 3. H2 5 . 82nd & Pacific H 99 (Pfaffle St 4 5. Dartmouth & 68th Parkway (Landmark Ford) TRI-MET 6. Commercial & Hall St.s (Tigard Transit Ctr.) 7. Pacific Hwy 99 & Hwy 217 (Vet Clinic) TIGARD PARK AND RIDE M•KEEVERIMORRIS, INC. SITING STUDY 812 S.W. Wmk-sim, Sweet, Sait[ 1110 • Pertla" Omjm 9nO5 • (503) 228-7352 f"(501) 228.7365 TIGARD ARK AND RIDE SITING STUDY Site "Selection" Summary Matrix November 7, 1989 SITES 1 1P 1PS 2 3 4 4P 5 5X 6 7 8 9 CRITERIA Very Important 1. Transit Trunkline Access 2. Pedestrian/Vehicular Access 3. Affordability .a. 4. Benefits ,t.. s Moderately Important i 5. Size 6. Vacantlunderdeveloped . i 7. Land Use s 1 8. Urban Services SUMMARY SCORE 15 19 21 1s 9 7 9 10 10 18 12 17 19 LEGEND ® GOOD FAIR t Q POOR t TRI-MET TIGARD PARK AND RIDE SITING STUDY SITE EVALUATION FORM SITE #1: South side of Pacific Highway 99 at SW 72nd Avenue (Tigard Cinemas) revised 11116189 Very important site selection criteria: 1. Be accessible to a transit trunkline • Direct in-bound access for trunkline #12 via Villa Ridge (a frontage road). Extension of 72nd Avenue to Pacific Highway 99 would enhance in-bound access. City of Tigard staff suggest a strong possibility of the 72nd Avenue extension occuring within the next two years. 2. Have good pedestrian and vehicular access • Out-bound access would require street crossing across high volume traffic at existing signal. Existing nearby signal would be relocated to 72nd Avenue if extended. • Access to limited residential land within walking distance adjacent to site. Access to substantial residential land within walking distance on north side of Pacific Highway 99. 3. Be affordable -Assessed valuation: $918,000 or $178,600/acre Listing price : $1,119,492, or $217,800/acre • Other issues: Owner will divide site, but will not sell Pacific Highway frontage to first purchaser. Owner prefers ground lease for 45 to 50 years with one or two options for 15 to 25 years. Owner would grant ground lease tenant of $10,000 per month for entire site with a first right of refusal on any purchase. Ground lease for 2 acres would be approximately $4,000 per month. Adjacent Act III theatre owner may have interest in sharing parking spaces. Additional information being pursued on this topic. • Site development costs are estimated to be in the medium range. Demolition would require removal of a few trees. South part of site would require embankment fill. 4. Create the greatest benefits • Demand study indicates that Pacific Highway 99 has a higher demand for Park and Ride facility than I-5. • Facility would provide relief to highly congested area. Moderately important site selection criteria: 5. Be between 1.5 - 4.0 acres in size • Site is 5.14 acres, larger than needed. However, owner will subdivide portion of site. The ability to share parking spaces with the theatre complex would enhance the economics of the site. 6. Be vacant or underdeveloped so as to minimize site development and relocation costs • Site is undeveloped. 7. Have aonropriate land use designations: • Site is zoned C-G, General Commercial. Park and ride facility probably would be a conditional use; ( however, some possibility that a Planning Director's interpretation could determine the facility is an outright use, under the category of "parking facility". Adjacent uses are commercial and single family residential. 8. Have urban services • All urban services available. / CB cv v: ,ht 1 tiT~r}? G G C ■ QP \ p MH. CBD B B. X \S. 237.0 \S.`JO 1 - - X / ■ H \BB. ~ ~ \ \ X / UB ` ~N NOWN `ti•i / 20 MH. 0 H. ' i/ n20 X - ■ [10 I _L_. ~ • / ~ NORTH r ■ o scare r.1oa 0 25 50 75 loo LEGEND w............ r;~:;:;ti~':,5.rri#`?<;C<:C•c:$'`3':?~i#i.:,3.2•~i :.`¢`$:9;?.E:#h'4'•yx '.:4'C". °''pj:~.,?t£ ~ . <€~~~.~'{.;i.f,~,;:;;r:;f;}:,tif{is,~:~',%`•i<f'~,',.•`l`.S>u:tso•.Tl'{#~x#.. • ,~((.{{{,,'~{~;#{<2:~'jcr• ;J;}. ■ s ■ Site Boundary {.N.}':•: ~v:j9}•. {;.}•.,'vrir{.:.TT4.' Z C•i~.}}./`~:.~ii}:'T•v~i: fKt ~,Jy(ti. :#~}~'•r•'vi{•!,.•.✓.{h.{•J;Tr•n,?•,T: by j••}:}'~ .I.J ~;T~a.~. ~,~':3v{'i}/ r f'~i# :}#'T•':a`:•'rr':`:i?::;:rt T}#;:;'rC+;::::ti i,ti}{.T:, k,.. ;%l'S•{,i':%3t :°r{v:T+lf, .{;7>;i: NOTE: Site Area 5.14 acres with :<:>t>::::`.<. .`.}~co}:2:vtfi:'•::iii•.iF•f.:.L}:X!ri7.<,>.`3tr'.?k`.4 3Y/.Z.6 %kT potential for partitioning and/or expan- sion onto adjacent property to north. TIGARD PARK AND RIDE MWEEVER/MORRIS} INC. SITING STUDY 812 S.W. WarWasim Strsst. Srim 1110 . P-d-4 OnBaw 97MS - (503) 22&7352 /as (501) 228.7365 TRI-MET TIGARD PARK AND RIDE SITING STUDY SITE EVALUATION FORM SITE #9: Pacific Highway 99 and SW 53rd (Portland) revised 11116189 Very important site selection criteria: 1. Be accessible to a transit trunkline • Direct access for trunkline #12. • Indirect access also possible for trunkline #96. • Average service time estimates for #96: 2 minutes inbound 2 minutes outbound (Both in and out-bound time #96 estimates areng time increases after accounting for bus time travelling on I-5.) 2. Have good pedestrian and vehicular access • Inbound vehicle access could cross Highway 99 at existing signal. • In-bound pedestrian access would cross Highway 99 at existing signal. • Residential (single and multi-family) development within walking distance. 3. Be affordable C -Listing price : $395,000 or $214,750/acre • Site development costs are estimated to be high. Difficult grades to match, steep slopes on portion of site, 20 foot vertical embankment, unconsolidated fill on site a major issue. 4. Create the greatest benefits • Demand study indicates Pacific Highway 99 trunkline has highest demand for Park and Ride. This site could possibly serve the I-5 trunkline as well. Moderately important site selection criteria: 5. Be between 1.5 - 4.0 acres in size • Site is 1.85 acres. 6. Be vacant or nnderdevel=d so as to minimize site development and relocation costs • Site has three existing structures in disrepair, one is being used for construction office shop and storage. Site also has existing billboard which would need to be moved or removed. 7. Have appropriate land use designations: • Site is zoned C2S, General Commercial with a sign district over!ay. Park and ride facility would be a conditional use. • Adjacent uses are commercial and multi and single family residential. I 8. Have urban services • All urban services are available. -475 T%- • / ) ~ s ~ ~ f 1q s r - ~ 29 /X 517. ! fx I 21,65 x , _ t hhO I 1 ✓ 131 / X a X 543.23 I I ~ I • 1 BB 139.7 B B I i I I Q NORTH - x 551.3 S. W. SCAL&1•.100' 0 25 50 75 100 ,:•:JV::•2::.p~: r,v yi{:}.~Y•}:•,}r,y~Siix?:(,:?•i~.i::Y}:.:?;i:?:ii}:•<t~~~:~~{:iir>: LEGEND it ~ti Br:Z;:;::::;4,~.;;:;;:':.ct:•£o:;:'t{:ati f:; :.:;4;. : . L::',•'::,<::;i;:.??;:..•°:•::#•`:ES.<{: ■ ®s ■ Site Boundary NOTE: Site Area 1.8 acres. • 4 ~~~4. TRI-MET TIGARD PARK AND RIDE M-KEEVER)MORRIS, INC. SITING STUDY 812 S.W. WaWAStow Ssmal, Subs 1110 Perdam4 Oregon 97205 • (503) 1767352 fez (SOT) 2784365 TRI-MET TIGARD PARK AND RIDE SITING STUDY SITE EVALUATION FORM SITE #6: Hall and Commercial (Downtown) revised 11116189 Very important site selection criteria: 1. Be accessible to a transit trunkline • Buses for trunkline #12 could continue stopping at Tigard Transit Center, one or two blocks from site. 2. Have good pWestrian and vehicular access • Vehicle traffic from south would have to cross railroad. Because Commercial is a local street, probably would not be necessary to add traffic signal. • Pedestrians would walk from lot to Transit Center. Sidewalks would need to be constructed on Commerical. • Nearby residential land in trailer court and multi-family within walking distance. 3. Be affordable • Assessed valuation: $432,500, or $382,743/acre, owner anxious to sell. • Site presents few engineering difficulties. Grading for paving would'be minimal and site development costs are estimated to be in the medium range. 4. Create the greatest benefits • Demand study indicates demand for Park and Ride facility highest on Pacific Highway 99 route. • Site could pose slight increase to vehicle congestion in downtown Tigard. Moderately important site selection criteria: 5. Be between 1.5 - 4.0 acres in size • Site is 1.13 acres, and there is adjacent Southern Pacific RR land (.23 ac) potentially available. 6. Be vacant or underdeveloped so as to minimize site development and relocation costs : • Site has existing warehouse which would have to be demolished. 7. Have anpropdate land use designations: • Site is zoned CBD, Central Business District. Park and ride facility probably would be a conditional use; however, some possibility that a Planning Director's interpretation could determine the facility is an outright use, under the category of "parking facility". • Adjacent uses are commercial, transit center, fire station and railroad. 8. Have urban services • All urban services are available. 173.3 PK PARKING x 181.0 TRAI E R S \ lip COURT x 78.4 O x \ \ ARKING CB PARKING 176. X169. \-F C3 C O ` x ♦~~4i~ C 167. `fit 161.3 t~ J os ♦ ~C/ PARKING 1\( x165 4 CB ~ PARKING \ ♦ x162./ OCB 165.Ox ♦ \ 1.9 065.8 ocs o " • 163.7% 165 y ~ 1.16 xl .3 n OCB / PARKING 16- 1 0.8 ~ \ . • ~ NORTH 0 2s 50 a 100 ' • r.~ t.~,~ LEGEND yvt . # 'Y I~iC ~if ~~~~~.Gy,:}v:•;ii^r. }i' 7•At,••A': I•N Y''' ' Y ?}i. ♦f{•: •;£f. 1 Site Boundary C~~s.• €?'sY.m~Y.. ,`o,%.t::~r r~,,::.> ~~.#J.,.kYt'~°'+•~: j NOTE: Site Area 1.33 acres with f•' ~:,}f.+~.~"~Y.,;•~;~5:. ! potential for expansion of property into Southern Pacific RR right-of-way. TRI-MET TIGARD PARK AND RIDE M'KEEVER/MORRL4, INC. SITING STUDY 812 S.W. waiUW" Stma. We 1110 . P-da%4 0-jai 9710s • (50) r MU21~fsw122&7165 3.1 CITY OF TIGRRO/SPECIAL MEETING BORRO OF DIRECTORS Tigard School District 23J Administration Office October 16, 1989 - 7:00 p.m. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chairman Biggs called the special meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. on October 16, 1989 at the Rdministration Office Board Room. RTTENDING Directors: Pat Biggs, Mike Nelson, Jack Clinton, Rich Carlson Administrators: Russ Joki, I'll Dovidion Tigard City Council Members: Mayor Jerry Edwards, Ualerie Johnson, Pat Reilly, John Swartz, Carolyn Eadon, Joe Kasten, Kathy 4heatley Staff and Others: Jo Conn, Chuck Selig, Xavier Rueda Press: Martha Rllen, Donna Schmidt Recording Clerk: Rae Bowen JOINT IIEETIN6 CITY OF TIGRRD/BORRO OF DIRECTORS The annual workshop meeting is held to allow the City of Tigard City Council and the Tigard School District Board of Directors and administrators an opportunity to discuss matters of mutual Interest, City Manager Pat Reilly reviewed City growth and impact of that growth on the schools. Council member Carolyn Eadon expresed concern about the ability of the schools to meet new growth, Architects Chuck Selig and Xavier Rueda reviewed the construction that is planned and a timeline for construction. Dr. Jokl stated that committees will be formed for the purposes of establishing boundaries, selecting school names, colors/mascots, etc. These committees will begin functioning soon and will continue for the next 2 to 2 1/2 years on the various responsibilities, Council President Ualerie Johnson congratulated the District' on the successful election of September 19 and thanked the presentors for the information. She and Mayor Edwards then reviewed the City's upcoming urban renewal election; the ballots will be mailed out October 19 for the November 7 election. The City staff provided executive summaries of the urban renewal. The City staff also 1 f Indicated that a library levy will go before the voters in 1990. The City of Tigard recently held a successful park election tax base and Dr. Joki - congratulated the Council. f Board Chairman Biggs read a statement (attached) on the status of collective bargaining with the certified staff of Tigard School District, noting the possible impact for cities. i Councilman Swartz asked if the recent class size ruling was taken into consideraton when the district planned new school construction. Directors Biggs and Nelson said it was a labor issue and was not part of school design considerations. Dr. Joki reviewed school capacity and how the middle school program will create some growth room. The Council also discussed possible restrictions they might place on housing developments, such as space for school buses for pick ups and turn arounds. Councilman Eadon asked for clarification on bus service for neighborhoods and hazardous streets on Bull Mountain. Directors Biggs and Nelson explained the district practice, noting time constraints. The SRO program was discussed briefly. The City and TSD are both very pleased with the results of this program and expressed continued support for It. R proclamation on Red Ribbon Week was presented to the Council for action at their next Council meeting. Red Ribbon Week is October 22-29 and deals with drug free education and lifestyle promotion. Ribbons and pins are available from the School District office. The meeting adjourned at 8;40 p.m. with Chairman Biggs stating the need for an executive session pursuant to ORS 192.610-192.690 to discuss collective bargaining and land matters. Minutes Prepared by Tigard School District. Catherin heatley, City Re rder ATTE T• i G aid R. dw s, Mayor E i STATUS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING JOINT CITY/BOARD MEETINGS it Collective bargaining with the Tigard Education Association began in January and continues today. Our teachers started the 1989 year without a contract--a situation that the Board did not want to develop. 21 The state's collective bargaining law includes a 'gag" rule--basically, it means the Board would face some penalties [fines] if Beard directly communicated with teachers. Nothing prevents open discussion with the public. 31 Bargaining has been slow and complicated for a number of reasons: al Association initiated bargaining with a 130 page proposal that has increased in volume during bargaining. b1 Board has responded to a comprehensive attempt to rewrite what was basically a good, trouble-free contract. cl Association has put over 200 proposed changes on the table. 41 Now at factfinding with over 60 issues. 51 We have continued to bargain, but the Association has not made that easy. Last week, for example, the Association introduced six new bargaining demands. 61 Board offered competitive salary Increases above the CPI --5.76% the f first year, 5.72% the second year, and 5.4871; the third year. 71 ERB ruling has impact on city government: Chairman Ellis, in dissent stated: "The essence of the majority holding is as simple as it is disconcerting; if a proposal touches on a mandatory subject at all, no matter how insignificantly, it must be bargained. . It also necessarily follows from the majority opinion that the size and number of fires a fire fighter must fight in a shift are matters concerning workload and therefore mandatory subjects for bargaining. . .and the number of citations a police officer must issue." 81 We value our teachers and want them properly compensated. But we are already paying competitive wages and benefits and settlements in other districts [Portland, Hiilsboror, Forest Grove] as well as private sector groups have been in the 3-42 range with limited benefits. 91 Some teachers think there are only six items on the table--actually over 60 issues: Teacher evaluation Retirement Academic freedom Work year Work day Working conditions Part-time teachers Part-time employees Reduction in force Professional growth Per diem Insurance Preparation time Union president leave Religious leave School nurses Salary proration Salary deductions Pay periods Extended contracts Class size Holidays Elementary activities Family leave Instructional time for students Union leaders leave Salary increases Pay periods Salary advancement 101 Board position on insurance--reduce costs, but not the coverage. Board proposal is simple: the Association should share the costs of future premium increases and District should regularly bid coverage for the best buy possible. 111 Board greatly respects the work of its teachers and other certified employees, but, District has limited resources. 121 District operating on a three year tax base that included promises to the taxpayers and need to add new staff as required by growth. i 131 Board wants a fair and competitive contract and is ready to reach one immediately on that basis. t r k, f 4 1 C= OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA 1TI'EM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: November 20. 1989 DATE SUBMITTED: November 13. 1989 ISSUE/AGE DA TITLE: Request Support of PREVIOUS ACTION: Council Consensus LOC on ERB Rul' Co Mandat to Support at 1116/89 Council Meeting DaMining Issues PREPARED BY: Patrick Reilly DEPT HEAD OK CITY AMM OK REQIJESTID BY: City Council PO Cy ISSUE Should the Council request the League of Oregon Cities to support the Tigard School District Board's position on a recent Employee Relations Board (ERB) Ruling concerning class size as it relates to workload issues for collective bargaining? i 4 INIFORMATION SUMMARY The Tigard City Council met with the Tigard School Board on October 16, 1989, at which time the School Board apprised Council of a recent ERB ruling that class size was a mandatory bargaining subject because of its relationship to workload issues. School Board noted that this may have far-reaching implications to cities because it appeared to be a significant variation from past ERB determinations. The attached resolution notes several of the Council's concerns shared by the School Board. Council consensus, at their November 6, 1989, meeting was to prepare a resolution asking for the League of Oregon Cities' support on this issue. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED , 1. Approve the attached resolution as proposed. E G 2. Approve the attached resolution with amendments. 3. Decline action at this time. FISCAL IMPACT N/A SUGGESTED ACTION Staff reccemnends Council approval of the proposed resolution. cw.erbres i i 3.3 CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA = SUMMARY AGENDA OF: November 20. 1989 DATE SUBMIIZTID: November 13. 1989 ISSUE/AGENm TITLE: Correction of Term PREVIOUS ACTION: Approval of Res. Expiration for Library Board AMjnfg~ No. 89-82 on 10/23189 PREPARED BY: C. Wheatley. Recorder DEFT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: I. Ertell, Librarian PO CY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY Resolution No. 89-82 was approved by City Council on October 23, 1989 which appointed Susan Grossen and Marla Resnick to the Library Board until October 31, 1993. Staff is now reconmrending that the attached resolution be approved which would change the term expiration dates for these new appointees to reflect specifications of the Board's bylaws. Ms. Grossen replaced Walt Munhall and Ms. Resnick replaced Paul Hoefling. ALTS TIVES CONSIDERED 1. Adopt the attached resolution. tt 2. Decline action at this time. FISCAL IlMFACT N/A SUGGESTED ACTION Adopt the attached resolution. cw.libappt. C /VD✓, a_o CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ~ ~lgSq COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: October-23;1989 DATE SUBMITTED: October 11, 1989 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: CPA 89-07/ PREVIOUS ACTION: Reviewed by Planning ZC 88-07 Met er-Ems Rockwell / Commission on October 3 1989 JKI~ ////////PREPARED BY:' Jerr Offer Planner DEPT HEAD O CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy, CD Director POLICY ISSUE Should the City redesignate approximately 5.02 acres from a Comprehensive Plan designation of commercial Professional and a zoning designation of C-P (Professional/Administrative Office Commercial) to a Plan designation of Medium High Density Residential and a zoning designation of R-25 (Multiple-Family Residential, 25 Units Per Acre)? The applicants urge the City to approve the proposal in order to provide for multi-family opportunities within close proximity to the Triangle area and major traffic corridors. Opponents view the proposal as providing the potential for greater impacts upon the established Rolling Hills neighborhood which abuts the site. INFORMATION SUMMARY On October 3, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed the above described Plan Amendment/Zone Change proposal. The subject site is located at 13265 SW 72nd Avenue, south of Varns Street. The site is currently developed with one single family residence. The site abuts the developed, single-family residential Rolling Hills subdivision on the north, west, and south sides. The Planning Division staff report recommends approval of the proposal based upon findings that the proposal is consistent with applicable Statewide Planning Goals, Plan policies, the Plan's locational criteria for the Medium- High Density Residential Plan designation, and a finding that a mistake had been made in original Plan designations. Staff noted that the Plan's locational criteria and policies call for multi-family housing opportunities to be provided near employment and commercial centers and near primary traffic corridors and transit routes. Staff noted, however, that multi-family housing opportunities provided by the existing Plan and zoning maps, (especially with regard to developable properties) are extremely limited near the Triangle, Lincoln Center/Washington Square, SW 72nd industrial corridor, downtown, and near I-5 and Highway 217. Staff's recommendation for approval of this proposal noted that approval would be a step towards correcting this mistake with resultant benefits for the entire community by making a traffic sensitive locational decision. The applicants concurred with the staff analysis and added testimony regarding the site's poor suitability for typical C-P uses as well as a change of circumstances regarding changed markets for office and multi-family development. The applicants added testimony regarding how apartment development on the site could be sensitive to the needs of the adjacent single family neighborhood. Public testimony at the Planning Commission hearing was mixed. Proponents cited reasons why the property was unsuited for typical C-P uses and that the proposal was an opportunity for quality development of the site. Opponents noted potential conflicts with the adjacent neighborhood including increased traffic, noise, crime and fireplace smoke as well as potential decreased property values and the need for the City to assure the neighbors' expectations for the property. The Planning Commission voted 5 to 1 to recommend denial. Commissioners noted that the proposal would likely result in a quality development for the site, but the Commission was not convinced that a change in circumstances affecting the parcel or a mistake in Plan designations had been demonstrated. Commissioners noted that this was a difficult recommendation to make because they found that the site satisfied the applicable locational criteria and the site is well located with respect to proximity to employment/commercial centers and transportation corridors. However, the general sentiment of the Commission was that there is an obligation for the City to assure the neighbors, expectations for the future development of property through denial of the proposed amendments. Attached is a vicinity map; the Planning Division staff report; the October 3, 1989 Planning Commission minutes regarding the proposal; the applicants, proposal description booklet; and written comments on the proposal received by the Planning Commission. r` ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve as recommended by staff. 2. Deny as recommended by the Planning Commission. FISCAL IMPACT f i SUGGESTED ACTION r" i li Approve the proposed Plan/zoning map amendments. Adopt the staff report as findings supporting the approval and supplement these findings as necessary. G Direct the staff to prepare a final order. k r. i br/CPACC.jo s fi ~ 1 DYVALL fT <IX i► ~ ~ _ 1 1 ; rwECr _ / 1 \ / S.. CLIMi~ M \ 1 1 `Oleo ' _ V 1 rata R R CR ♦ , `A`)rOUTN [fT[Mf IOM OT•'~ 36 9 • PART( f V/' RUN Pl' , o t • ~ 1 fir, RAMKLIM fC i . ~ f.R: /(VELAM r •R • R L1 <1. ~ PHIL LEWIS 4 ELEMENTARY fi a sr. ~R SCHOOL .;s sl a« sT. i .ss• / ~ ~.i j f~ i AKO ar T PARK.Ar tM • sT- TT OR ~ s v. uR s T. b t S.. TECH C[MTER DRIVE / 4 _ nl 2 I yl 11 12 K i f~LR«o«.R_ .y` -i----~ s. call cc -T 1111 I 1 ° o I / S..' f.MM f i ' 1 CRtt•.u % 1 I ~ 1b M'•~~ l . 6.11 R~ _ ~ ItR SE_ - \ ~ S. p11TA 1 1 G' C Sr lrvEf T 1 - zC~~/ /tr'G MAP i AGENDA ITEM E t STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION j HEARING DATE: October 3, 1989 - 7:30 P.M. HEARING LOCATION: Tigard City Hall - Town Hall ii 13125 SW Hall Blvd. - Tigard, OR 97223 f A. FACTS f t l 1. General Information I CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 89-07/zone Change ZC 89-07 S REQUEST: 1) Plan Map Amendment from Commercial Professional to Medium-High Density Residential. 2) Zone Change from C-P (Professional/Administrative office commercial) to R-25 (Multiple-Family Residential, 25 Units Per Acres APPLICANT: Criterion Equities AGENT: OTAK, Inc. (Mark Rockwell) (Ralph Tahran) 1800 One Main Place 17355 SW Boones Ferry Rd. E 101 SW Main Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 4. Portland, OR 97204 OWNERS: David Metzger Raymond Ems P.O. Box 275 13400 SW 76th Avenue Sherwood, OR 97140 Tigard, OR 97223 (Tax Lots 800 & 801) (Tax Lot 3600) LOCATION: 13265 SW 72nd Avenue. Approximately 5.03 acres located on the west side of SW 72nd Avenue, between SW Varns Street and SW Fir Street (see vicinity map, Page 10) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: WCTM,2S1 1DB, Tax Lots 800 and 801 WCTM 2S1 1DC, Tax Lot 3600 (portion) 2. Background Information creation of tax lots 800 and 801 from a single parcel was approved through Minor Land Partition MLP 1-81. The Plan and zoning designations for these parcels were changed from R-7 (Residential, 7,500 square feet minimum lot size) to their current Commercial Professional/C-P designations during city-wide Plan and zoning map revisions in 1983. No other previous land use or development applications regarding these properties have been reviewed by the City. STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-07/ZC 89-07 (Criterion Equities) - PAGE 1 3. Vicinity Information Adjacent properties to the north, west, and southwest are zoned R-3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units per acre) and are developed with single family residences. Properties directly south of the site are zoned C-P and are presently vacant or occupied by single family residences. Properties across SW 72nd Avenue from the site are also zoned C-P. These properties are developed with a number of office buildings containing a variety of commercial and professional uses. The subject site has 367 feet of frontage on SW 72nd Avenue. SW 72nd Avenue is functionally classified as a major collector street on the City's Transportation Plan Map. SW 72nd Avenue is developed with 44 feet of pavement, curbs, storm drains, streetlights, and a sidewalk along the site's frontage. The site has slightly more than 600 feet of frontage along SW Fir Street. SW Fir Street consists of 20 feet of gravel covered right-of- way which dead ends into the driveways of residences to the south of the site. The Transportation Plan Map designates SW Fir Street as a local street. Fully developed local streets typically consist of 50 feet of public right-of-way improved with full street improvements. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The subject property consists of three parcels totalling approximately 5.03 acres, including a 16.5 foot by 630 foot section of tax lot 3600 between SW Fir Street and the other involved parcels. The remainder of tax lot 3600 is not included in the proposed Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change proposal. Tax lot 800 contains a house in its northeastern corner. The other parcels are vacant. The site contains a grove of trees in the northeastern corner of the site. The remainder of the site is mostly open and covered with grasses, weeds, and fruit trees. The parcels are relatively flat with a slight slope towards the east. The applicants request a Plan Map Amendment from Commercial Professional to Medium High Density Residential and a zone change from C-P (Professional/Administrative Office Commercial) to R-25 (Multiple- Family Residential, 25 Units Per Acre) for the subject parcels. Although a development plan for the parcel need not be submitted for a proposed plan/zone change, a conceptual site plan illustrating how the site might be developed with a multiple-family residential development has been provided by the applicants. The applicants' intent in providing the conceptual site plan was to illustrate that a multiple- family development which would comply with the Community Development Code's density transition requirements could be constructed on the site. Code Section 18.40.040(A) requires that area within 100 feet of an established area not be developed at a residential density greater than 12S percent of the allowed density (as specified by the Comprehensive Plan designation rather than the current zoning STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-07/ZC 89-07 (Criterion Equities) - PAGE 2 designation) of the adjacent established residential area. For the subject properties, areas within 100 feet of the Rolling Hills subdivision to the north and west could not be developed at a density greater than 6.25 units per acre because the maximum density allowed by the Plan's Low Density Residential designation applied to Rolling Hills is 5 units per acre. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division has reviewed the request and has commented that development of the site with a multiple-family residential development in the R-25 zone, would generate substantially fewer vehicle trips per work day on adjacent streets as well as lesser traffic peaks at typical AM and PM rush hours as compared to office development in the existing C-P zone, . Development of the site under either the C-P or R-25 zones would require increasing the rights-of- way for both SW 72nd Avenue and SW Fir Street and would also require substantial improvements to SW Fir Street. Storm and sanitary sewers to serve the site are available in SW 72nd Avenue. NPO #5 has reviewed the proposal and has commented that they believe that the majority of the neighbors of the subject property oppose the project. Planning Division staff attended a neighborhood meeting for review of the proposal. some neighbors commented that they favored the proposed plan/zone amendment because they felt it provided the opportunity for a quality development on the site as opposed to other uses that could be located on the site under the present zoning. A number of neighbors voiced opposition to the proposal and made comments related to increased neighborhood traffic on evenings and weekends, the potential "domino effect" this proposal might have on later rezoning in the neighborhood, the compatibility between low density and high density development, the need for additional multi-family housing opportunities, and the effect this proposed action might have on neighboring properties' values. Other comments related to specific items the neighbors felt should be considered in the review of a site development plan for the property. The Building Division, the Tigard School District, and Metzger Water District have reviewed the request and made no comments. or objections . regarding the proposal. No other comments were received. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, and 13; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 6.5.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 7.8.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, 9.1.2, and Chapter 12, Locational Criteria; and the change or i STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-07/ZC 89-07 (Criterion Equities) - PAGE 3 mistake quasi-judicial map amendment criteria of both the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code. The Planning Division concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines based upon the following findings: 1. Goal #1 (Citizen Involvement) is met because the City has adopted a citizen involvement program including review of all development applications by Neighborhood Planning Organizations (NPO). In addition, all public notice requirements have been satisfied for this application. 2. Goal #2 (Land Use Planning) is met because the City has applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies, and Community Development Code requirements to the review of the proposal. 3. Goal #9 (Economy of the State) is satisfied, although the proposal would reduce the City's inventory of developable commercial land, because l) the reduction of C-P zoned land proposed is not a large amount compared to the total amount of developable C-P zoned land in C the immediate area and the Tigard Triangle area; and 2) allowing multi-family development near C-P and I-P zoned developable properties may provide an attractive mix of land uses thereby helping spur commercial and industrial development in the area. Other communities have shown that such a mix of land uses can successfully co-exist without adversely affecting commercial or industrial growth. The applicants have pointed to the neighboring Kruse way area of Lake Oswego where such a mixture of land uses exists. 4. Goal #10 (Housing) is satisfied because the proposal will provide for additional housing opportunities as l promoted by the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Housing Rule (Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660, Division 7). Approval of the proposal would increase housing opportunities on the City's developable residential lands by a total of 125 dwelling units. Approval would also provide increased opportunities for multi-family development. The Metropolitan Housing Rule requires that the City maintain.a minimum housing opportunity rate for developable land of 10 units per acre and a minimum 50/50 opportunity mix for single family and multi-family housing. 5. Goal #12 (Transportation) and Goal #13 (Energy Conservation) would be satisfied through providing the opportunity for an intensive land use near major transportation corridors (Highway 217 and I-5) as well as near employment centers. This promotes efficient use of -the transportation system thereby promoting energy conservation. The Planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-07/ZC 89-07 (Criterion Equities) - PAGE 4 Will applicable portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: 1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because Neighborhood Planning organization #5 and surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the proposal. In addition, the applicants have met with the immediate neighbors of the site to present their proposal in advance of the public hearings. 2. Plan Policy 6.1.1 is satisfied because the proposal would provide the opportunity for additional multi-family development and would increase the net housing opportunity on buildable lands in the City. This is detailed in the discussion for Statewide Planning Goal 10 above and the attached memo regarding the effect of both current plan/zone amendment proposals on the City's compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule. 3. Plan policies 6.3.2 and 6.3.3 will be satisfied because the proposal would allow for development of the properties in ways that may be more compatible with adjacent established low density residential areas than the currently permitted uses of the C-P zone would be. Future residential development of the parcels will be subject to density transition limitations within 100 feet of the Low Density Residential Plan designated areas to the north and west of the site. These limitations would tend to lessen impacts on adjacent properties to a greater extent than Code requirements applicable to development proposals under the current Plan and zone designations. Both the existing C-P zoning designation and the proposed R-25 zoning designation allow a maximum building height of 45 feet. The C-P zone requires 20 foot side yard and rear yard setbacks from residential zones and thus under the current zoning designation, a 45 foot tall building could be constructed within 20 feet of the abutting developed residential parcels. Because the density transition requirements of Policy 6.3.2(a) and Community Development Code Section 18.40.040(A) would apply if the properties were zoned R-25, it is unlikely that multi-family residential buildings taller than two stories tall would be built within 100 feet of the properties, boundaries with adjacent developed residential parcels - much less within 20 feet of those properties. The applicants' conceptual site plan illustrates how development of the site might occur in light of the density transfer requirements. While the housing types allowed in the adjacent R-3.5 zone and the R-25 zone proposed for this site may be substantially different, the density transition requirements along with Code requirements regarding landscaping and buffering can be used to make the differing housing types compatible. 4.. Plan Policy 6.5.1 will be satisfied through review of a development proposal for the site through the Site Development Review and building permit review processes to assure that developments on the site will not create nuisances and that all buildings will comply with the Uniform Building Code. STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-07/ZC 89-07 (Criterion Equities) - PAGE 5 l - 5. Plan Policy 6.6.1 will be satisfied through the imposition of buffering and screening requirements of the Community Development Code to any future development proposal for the properties. 6. Plan Policies 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, and 7.6.1 are satisfied because adequate public service capacities are available to serve potential development on the properties. 7. Plan Policy 7.8.1 is satisfied because the Tigard School District was informed of this proposal. The School District has not commented that the proposed addition of housing opportunities within the District would cause exceeded capacities in the District's schools. The School District has been making plans fur increased school capacity through several preliminary school construction and expansion proposals for which funding has been approved through the recent school funding tax levy request. 8. Plan Policy 8.1.1 commits the City to plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future development. This policy would be satisfied because development resulting from the proposed redesignation of these parcels would tend to reduce the anticipated traffic onto SW 72nd Avenue and other nearby streets as compared to development under the current zoning. SW 72nd Avenue is a major collector street developed with primarily commercial and industrial uses and with good connections to several arterials. Although residential use of the site would be anticipated to generate more nighttime and weekend traffic than most of the permitted uses in the current C-P zone, that traffic would be expected to be on SW 72nd Avenue and not on local streets in the adjacent residential neighborhood. The Engineering Division will review any future development proposal for the property and may require improvements to affected public streets to reduce impacts resulting from future developments. 9. Plan Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied as a condition of approval of any future development of the properties. Necessary street improvements would be required at the time of development. The City's Engineering Division will review any future development proposals for the properties. 10. Plan Policy 8.2.2 is satisfied because Tri-Met offers bus service on SW 72nd Avenue on which the parcels have frontage. Therefore, the proposed redesignation would locate an intensive type of development within close proximity to an existing public transit route. 11. Plan Policy 9.1.2 is satisfied because the proposed redesignation would provide the opportunity for high density residential development in proximity to transit routes, major highways, and employment centers thereby promoting efficient use of the transportation system and reduced energy consumption. STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-07/ZC 89-07 (Criterion Equities) - PAGE 6 i i 12. The Locational criteria specified in Chapter 12 of the Plan for Medium-High Density Residential use are satisfied for the following reasons: a. The subject properties are not committed to low density development. b. Density transition, buffering, and screening requirements of the Community Development Code may be used to help make future. development on the subject properties compatible with neighboring t. low density single family residences to the north and west. kk l: C. The subject parcels have direct access to SW 72nd Avenue, a•major collector street, and are in close proximity to Highway 217 and I-5, both which are functionally classified as arterials. d. Serious development-limitations affecting the properties, such as steep slopes or poor drainage, are not evident. Essential public facilities are present to serve future development on the € properties and have sufficient capacity to serve any increase in demand caused by development of the site. x e. Public transit is available on SW 72nd Avenue in front of the E, site. f. The properties are located within one quarter mile of a business and office center across SW 72nd Avenue from the site. The site t is also relatively close to the under-developed Tigard Triangle area which is anticipated to be a major employment center in the future. The applicants point out that there are few multi- family housing opportunities, developed or undeveloped, within close proximity to this future major employment center. Development of additional housing near the Triangle may result in reduced needs for automobile commuting between home and work. The applicants point to the successes of the Kruse Way corridor to the east as an example for the Triangle area of a successful mix of new, high quality office development, mixed density residential development; and limited retail development. Although the site is some distance from convenience retail 4 services at this time, it is quite possible that convenience retail uses may become available as adjacent properties and the Triangle are developed. g. The applicants anticipate that private open space as well as recreational facilities will be provided as part of development of the site. In order to approve a quasi-judicial amendment to the Plan and zoning maps, the City must also find that there is evidence of a change in the neighborhood or community which affects the subject parcel. Alternatively, the City must find that there has been a mistake or inconsistency made in STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-07/ZC 89-07 (Criterion Equities) - PAGE 7 the original designation of the parcel (Comprehensive Plan, Volume 2,Policy 1.1.1, implementation Strategy 2; Community Development Code Section 18.22.040(A)). The applicants assert that a change in circumstances has occurred in that there is now a significant demand for housing opportunities within close proximity to employment centers. This sort of demand was not as evident just a few years ago. Substantial recent growth in the region has led to increased traffic congestion and increased commuting times. Proximity to one's place of employment is now a major factor in deciding where to call home. The housing industry has responded by developing all densities of housing close to employment centers. The applicants point to the neighboring Kruse Way area as an example of such a mixed use, mixed residential density area that has developed in recent years. Opportunities within the City of Tigard within one mile of the Triangle area for developing any type of housing, especially multi-family housing, are extremely limited except for multi-family development above the first floor in mixed use developments within the Triangle. The Planning Division staff concurs with the applicants' assessment of the increased demand for housing opportunities near employment centers. Our assessment is based not only on our discussions with potential developers f but also on discussions with potential residents of the City looking to / live-nearby their places of employment and with current residents who are t concerned with their increased commute times. We also have noticed an ' increase in mixed use developments and less strict segregation of land uses in other cities. Primarily because such mixtures of uses can result' in decreased traffic and fuel consumption, staff supports integration of land uses where it is possible for the uses to harmoniously co-exist through proper site planning. Staff also believes that a mistake in the original Plan designation for this site in-particular as well as mistakes in the Plan Map city-wide exist that the proposed action can help to rectify. It is difficult to assert that a mistake was made in the Professional/Commercial designation of this particular site in 1983 because of the extensive discussions and deliberations regarding this site that occurred at that time. Nevertheless, we believe that the mistake that was made here, and in other locations throughout the city, was that not enough attention was paid to the need for multiple family residential opportunities at locations such as this that are near major employment centers, near commercial centers, near major highway corridors, and near public transit corridors. By locating higher density residential opportunities near employment/commercial centers r and with respect to transportation opportunities, reduced dependence on automobile transportation could have been promoted and some of Tigard's present traffic congestion could have been avoided with positive impacts for the entire city. Instead, the current Plan Map designates the majority of areas available for new multiple family residential development far from employment and commercial centers. The primary areas that are designated for multi-family housing opportunities are at the far western and southwestern edges of the city. The City Council and Planning Commission € are well aware.of the difficulties that have arisen as these areas have STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-07/ZC 89-07 (Criterion Equities') - PAGE 8 developed and as rapid growth has hit the city in general. A common complaint in recent years has been the great increase in traffic in the newly developing areas and in developed areas through which the new residents must pass in their travels to I-5, Highway 217, and local employment and commercial centers. Providing multi-family housing opportunities nearer the Triangle, the SW 72nd Avenue Corridor, Washington Square/Lincoln Center, the central business district, and near I-5 and Highway 217 can help correct the mistakes of current Plan designations and minimize future traffic congestion. We therefore find that the current designation of this site can be categorized as a mistake in that it represents a lost opportunity to serve the city as a whole through locating multi-family housing opportunities close to typical traffic attractors. Such a redirection will require difficult decisions regarding existing neighborhoods, such as the Rolling Hills neighborhood, but we believe that the density transition requirements of the Community Development code and careful site selection and site plan scrutiny can be utilized to afford compatibility between housing developments of differing intensities. We find that the subject site is ideally located with regard to the Plan's locational criteria for multiple family residential opportunities, especially with respect to proximity to employment centers and highway and transit access. We.. also find that the applicants, conceptual site plan illustrates how the density transition requirement and careful site planning could make high density residential use of this site largely compatible with the adjacent low density residential development. C. RECOMMENDATION E Based upon the findings and conclusions listed above, the Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation for approval of CPA 89-07/ZC 89-07 for the subject properties to Medium-High Density Residential and R-25. 5 611,4,df ~VI J / ~2~&w vaf~ - i PREP BYJ:e r f fer M496Vb5 Y: Re h Liden s an Planner Senior Planner J F br/CPA8907.J0 STAFF REPORT - CPA 89-07/ZC 89-07 (Criterion Equities) - PAGE 9 MEMORANDUM i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Planning Commission DATE: October 3, 1989 FROM: Jerry offer and Deborah Stuart Assistant Planners SUBJECT: Metro Housing Rule Compliance The Metropolitan Housing Rule (Oregon Administrative Rule 660, Division 7) requires that the average density allowed for all developable residential land within the City's original planning area be a minimum of ten dwelling units per acre. Two plan amendment proposals before you tonight could affect the City's overall housing opportunity index or allowable density on lands that are classified by the Plan as buildable residential lands. The City's Plan, as acknowledged by LCDC in 1984, inventoried 1,311 acres of developable residential land in the City. Zoning at that time provided for a housing opportunity of 13,110 units, just meeting the Metropolitan Housing Rule standard. Since that time, eight Plan amendments have been approved which have affected the inventory. Those redesignations provide a current inventory of 1,290 acres and a housing opportunity for 13,112 units (10.16 units per acre). The two proposals before the Commission will have somewhat counter effects on the amount of developable residential acreage and the housing opportunity index. The Gross proposal (CPA 89-08/ZC 89-08) would reduce the amount of developable residential land by approximately 2 acres and the housing opportunity index by 47 units. The Criterion Equities proposal (CPA 89-07/ZC 89-07) would increase the amount of developable land by approximately 5 acres and the City's housing opportunity index by 125 units. The effect of these proposals, singly and jointly, on the developable lands inventory and the housing opportunity index is displayed below. 1. Approval of Gross proposal Developable acres - 1,288 acres Potential dwelling units - 13,065 units Housing opportunity index - 10.14 2. Approval of Criterion Equities proposal Developable acres - 1,295 Potential dwelling unit - 13237 dwelling units Housing opportunity index - 10.22 3. Approval of both proposals Developable acres - 1,293 acres Potential Dwelling units - 13,190 dwelling units Housing opportunity index - 10.20 units/acre Hong- TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - OCTOBER 3, 1989 1. President Moen called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. The meeting was held at the Tigard Civic Center - TOWN HALL - 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: President Moen; Commissioners Castile, Pyre, Leverett, Rosborough, and Saporta. Absent: Commissioners Barber, and Peterson. Staff: Assistant Planner Jerry Offer (left 10:00 PM); Assistant Planner Deborah Stuart; Planning Secretary Diane M. Jelderks. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Fyre moved and Commissioner Rosborough seconded to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioner Saporta abstained. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o President Moen announced that Agenda Item 5.3, an appeal from NPO 3 regarding manufactured homes, is being postponed to the October 17th Planning Commission hearing. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 89-07 AND ZONE CHANGE ZC 89-07 METZGER-EMS/ROCKWELL NPO #5 A request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from (Commercial Professional) to Medium-High Density residential and a zone change from C-P (Commercial Professional) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre). ZONE: C-P (Commercial Professional) LOCATION: West side of SW 72nd Avenue, between SW Varna Street and SW Fir Street (WCTM 2S1 1DB, tax lots 800 & 801, 2S1 1DC, tax lot 3600) Assistant Planner Jerry Offer reviewed the proposal and staff's reasons for recommending approval. Discussion followed regarding maximum building heights of the existing and proposed zones and the density transition required between a R-3.5 and R-25 zone. Also discussed was why the staff was recommending approval of the R-25 rather than the R-12 zone. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Mark Rockwell, Criterion Equities, 1800 One Main Place, 101 SW Main St., Portland, OR 97204, reviewed the existing condition of the property and uses which would be permitted under the existing C-P zoning. He reviewed C reasons for and the need for the proposed change from C-P to Residential and why R-25 versus R-12 would be better suited for the property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - , 1989 - PAGE 1 ` o Ralph Tahran, OTAK Architects, 17355 SW Boones Ferry Road, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, explained that this proposal would minimize exposure to the single family residential area and is not designed to the maximum density which would be permitted. He compared design and site development review standards between the C-P and R-25 zone. He stated that the traffic from an R-25 development would have less conflict during peak times than C-P traffic and that they are willing to commit to the design concept that they are proposing. PUBLIC TESTIHONY o Craig Hopkins, NPO # 5 Chairperson, stated that the NPO was impressed with the proposal. However, they are supporting the neighborhood in their opposition to the proposal. They feel that the Comprehensive Plan provides for orderly development of the area and that the C-P zoning should be maintained. o Jack Stiger, Steiger Enterprises, Inc., 10250 SW Greenburg Road, Tigard, OR. 97223, stated he has shown the site several times and feels that the site is better suited for a high quality, high density residential use. j o Gordon King, 4214 SW 51st Place, Portland, Or 97221, Commercial Realtor j; or Cushman Wakefield stated he had passed on listing this site as it is inappropriate for commercial professional use and would be better suited F to high density residential. o Dale Rossman, 13355 SW 76th, Tigard, OR., 97223, lives 200 feet from the west end of the project. He supports staff's recommendation for approval. He felt it would increase the value of property and enhance the area for future development. o Raymond Ems, 13440 SW 76th, Tigard, OR. 97223, had owned the majority of the land that is now the Rolling Hills Subdivision. He felt the proposal would clean up the area, that there is a high demand for residences in this area, and that there are probably 500 jobs available within a five minute walking distance from the proposal. o David Metzger, Rt. 4 Box 267C, Sherwood, OR., representing his mother who owns the property, stated that the property has been listed for 9 years and they have been told repeatedly that this is a poor site for office use. He added that a large number of offices across the street have- remained vacant. They have had several offers for the front half of their property which would leave the back half, which abuts the residential area, with a structure that would 'be constructed of less quality than the ! multi-family structures proposed. o James Powell, 7660 SW Fir, Tigard, OR., lives two to three houses away. He was concerned that it had been decided in 83/84 how the site would develop and that now there is a change in thinking, and the developer - wants to change the use. He was opposed to the change in principle. Discussion followed regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - , 1989 - PAGE 2 o Bob Sudlow, 7530 SW Varns, Tigard, OR. 97223, supported the proposal. He would prefer single family residential but realizes that is not ti practical. He stated there has been no growth under the current t circumstances and felt the proposal would increase property values. Currently the residential area is an island and if the site is developed as commercial professional it will further fragment the residential i island. 3 r 0 Staff submitted letters of support from Leonard Ludwig, First Portland Leasing Corp.; John Decosta, Professionals 100; Jim and Nancy Wryn; and I Wallace Harding, Harding Fletcher Company. i o Bruce MacKay, 7430 SW Cherry Dr., Tigard, OR. 97223, abuts the south I boundary of the property. He had investigated the zoning at the time of purchase and had made his decision to buy on the basis that the abutting property would develop as commercial professional and opposed changing the zone to multi-family. o Jerry Howe, 13280 SW 76th, Tigard, OR. 97223, lives adjacent to the proposal and had purchased his home a year and a half ago because of the large lots and low traffic. He felt if the site is developed as r commercial professional, the traffic would end after 5:00 pm. If the site p developes as multi-family, he felt traffic would occur at all hours, that higher crime rate would result, and that the multi-family area would not be maintained to the neighborhood's standards. He questioned how many times will they have to face rezoning issues? i e o Ray Piricl, 7745 SW Varns, Tigard, OR. 97223, neither favors or opposes f' the request. He stated that this site had been a major issue during the i Comprehensive Plan process, originally it was zoned I-P and as a comprise was zoned C-P. He added that the Rolling Hills Subdivision is a special case and the City had made a commitment to protect the subdivision and he felt the City should honor that commitment. o Earla Guerra, 7670 SW Cherry Drive, Tigard, OR. 97223, was concerned what would happen to other adjacent vacant land if this site is allowed to change to high density residential. She opposed the change. o Joanne Bieker, 7730 SW Cherry, Tigard, OR. 97223, requested that the property remain C-P. She did not feel the City had taken care of problems such as the apartments to the north of the subdivision. G. o Millie Cox, 13320 SW 76th Ave., Tigard, OR. 97223, stated they had i purchased their property two and a half years ago knowing that they abutted C-P zoning. They would not have purchased if the property had been zoned for multi-family. She stated the subdivision has approximately s' F 65 quiet, large, well kept lots and that the proposal would more than € double the population. She was also concerned that property value would go down. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - , 1989 - PAGE 3 r i o Ron Katon, 13395 SW 72nd Ave., Tigard, OR 97223, resident for 18 years was concerned about what effect the proposed exit/entrance would have on his road. Hie other concerns were that crime would increase, evening and weekend noise would increase, population would triple, and what would happen to the other vacant eight acres to the south which are in close proximity to this site along Fir Street. o Sharon Takahashi, 7610 SW Cherry Dr., Tigard, OR. 97223, stated she has been a member of NPO # 5 since 1981 and they,have had to protect the neighborhood against Tech Center, Hillside/Hunziker, and the batch plant. -She did not feel that there was an error in the plan and if there is a need for additional multi-family that the Tigard Triangle should be evaluated for that use. o Ed Gordon 7475 SW Cherry Dr., Tigard, OR. 97223, stated he owns apartments and has concerns for the problems that high density living creates such as traffic at all hours. He opposed the change. o Dennis Worznick, 7495 SW Cherry, Tigard, OR. 97223, opposed the request. He felt that lack of housing should be put in the Tigard Triangle. He was concerned that adjacent vacant property would be changed to R-25 if this proposal is approved. o Jim Jackson, 7380 SW Varna, Tigard, Or. 97223, located on the north side of the project likes the look of the project, however, has concerns regarding crime, noise, and air quality from fireplaces. C o Greg Weber, 7425 SW Varns, Tigard, OR. 97223, opposed the request. He was concerned about air pollution and traffic. o Tom Brian, 7630 SW Fir, Tigard, OR. 97223, nearby, not adjacent, did not feel a substantial change had been made to justify the change and that market changes come and go. Many owners had purchased homes based upon the existing zoning and he felt the Comprehensive Plan should be relied upon. He noted that the criteria is the same for R-25 zone as it is for the C-P zone, that the City is in compliance with the housing goal, that additional residential uses (R-40) are allowed in the Tigard Triangle above the first floor, and that if housing is targeted in the wrong area this should be addressed during periodic review. He added that a neighborhood meeting had voted 30 to 3 to keep the C-P zone and that economic circumstances should not be balanced on the backs of this neighborhood. He requested denial. However, if the Commission chose to recommend approval he suggested that the applicant be required to sit down with the neighborhood and come up with some restrictive covenants. REBUTTAL o Mark Rockwell stated that the applicants are willing to commit to restrictive covenants. He felt that the reason the neighbors are happy with the C-P zoning is because of the vacant site they have not been exposed to the uses which would be permitted, several of which would not ( end at 5:00 pm. In addition, they could have a 45 foot tall concrete PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - , 1989 - PAGE 4 PROFESSIONALS 100, INC., REALTORS® Mr. Jerry Offer Community Development Department City of Tigard Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Ammendment and Zone Change for 13265 S.W. 72nd. Avenue; 2S1 1DB, tax lots 800 S 801, a portion of 2S1 1DC, tax lot 3600) Dear Mr. Offer: Based on my experience in marketing the property, there are several reasons why I recommend approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Ammendment. First, the site is not large enough to accommodate C-P projects of substantial scope and quality. Second, the site is disproportionately deep in relationship to its width and frontage on S.W. 72nd. This eliminates most C-P developments as greater width and visibility are nearly always important requirements. These limitations result in two small sites. One on the front that is 2-2.5 acres, and the balance of the property in the back making up a second "landlocked" site of a similar size. If the current zoning is maintained, I fully expect the property will be divided into two parcels as we have had interest from various individuals to purchase the front portion to build a small office or commercial building. That leaves the "landlocked" back half of the property undeveloped and with relatively little value. Given these circumstances, I would not anticipate that the development on the property will be of high quality, particularly on the back half. However, if the comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change are made, the opposite is true. The size, shape, and location of the property are excellent for accommodating a high quality multi-family development. Furthermore, the change would help to adjust a significant imbalance in available land. At present there is a large supply of undeveloped C-P land yet there is no R-25 land available in or near the Tigard Triangle. Sincerely, 17 / ohn Decosta Lake Oswego Branch • "Kruse Woods One", 5285 S.W. Meadows Rd., Suite 161, Lake Oswego, OR 97035 • ,(503) 636-4545 building 20 feet from their property line. He felt 9 years was a long time to ask a property owner to be patient. Also, that traffic would be 50% less than a commercial development and would not penetrate the neighborhood. He felt that the concerns for increased crime are unfounded i and that even homes in the Rolling Hills Subdivision have been allowed to run down; that the $50,000 units they proposed would not denigrate but would enhance the area and increase home values. He did not feel the R-40 j. density allowed above the first floor in the Triangle was a serious zone as it has not even been able to work downtown Portland. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED r i o Commissioner Leverett favored the request. r r o Commissioner Rosborough felt that this was a high quality proposal. However, he was unsure whether the criteria had been met. He did not feel a mistake had been made. o Commissioner Castile was impressed with the design, however, he felt the C-P zone should be preserved. o Commissioner Pyre felt that this is a good development; however, there are no guarantees that this is the project that would be constructed. He did not feel that the criteria had been met for a change. He felt that perhaps the entire area should be looked at for a change to multi-family. o Commissioner Saporta did not feel the criteria had been met. i. o President Moen-was concerned that the criteria had not been met to warrant a change. He had a problems with abutting R-25 and R-3.5 zones. He felt that density transition and buffering help, however Rolling Hills is unique and the City did make a commitment to protect the subdivision. o Commissioner Pyre moved and commissioner Castile seconded to forward CPA 89-07 and ZC 89-07 to City Council with a recommendation for denial based on the finding that the proposal did not meet the criteria to allow a change in the Comprehensive Plan. 5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 89-08 ZONE CHANGE ZC 89-08 GROSS NPO #7 A request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium-High Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial and a Zone Change from R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre)' to C-N (Commercial,. Neighborhood). ZONE: R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre) LOCATION: Southwest corner of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue. (WCTM 1S1 33CA, Tax Lot 100) Assistant Planner Deborah Stuart reviewed the proposal, the proposed road improvements, and made staff's recommendation for denial. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - , 1989 - PAGE 5 R M. and Mu. Jame, N. Wayn `4 1989 7570 S.W. Cheney Dive //f! Tigan.d, Oaegon 97223 (;~Y11n~~SS~~.inm vnitq Development TigaAd cwt-y-~A,~~t City Hatt T.iga&d, On.egon Regandtng: Zone change Son RoU-i.ng NitZ6 Estates Dean Councit, En,i.end and Newghbou, We a&e honky we could not be heae tonight in peuson, but we would tike to tend out support in avoa os the zone change. We Seen theme wound be beautisut wett kept apa&tnents. Beautisut .tandscapt.ng and wett maintained. The bui,tdeu have osseted to give us this assurance in w&iti.ng. They woutd be mote attaacti.ve than a zt&rite o66-ice buitding, and we have no azzmance that an oss.ice building wi U be bui,?t theme. It could be any numbeA os us.inessu. It could be a day ease eenteA, with say a hundred paAentm coming and going twice a day at peak tta6 S.ic houtus. It eoutd be and E.tks on Moose Lodge bu tt theme with many night .tine aetiviti.em going on. These ate empty oSS.iees att over T.iga&d, Who wou.td want to build another oSS.iee buitding to stand vacant. Take a watk around youA neighboahood and Zook at the empty oss.ieem So,% tent. Ttass.ic--we ate doomed to have mote ttais.ic, no mattes what is bu tt theme. We think it wound be bettea to have mote caws than 18 wheetenm making and pick- ing up deP.ivefriem Saom a businems on, wanehoume. These apw fitment dwetteu ate not aP.t going to be pouni.ng out onto 72nd street at 7:45 A.M. each morning, they w U be coming and going Just as you and I do, at vali.ous houU We beet you wou.td be betteA oss with these nice apa4tments behind you than what we have. We know what it is tike to be awakened in the night by .someone pound= .eng st e2 of dropping gds in the dumpstet, of ttuck6 .id.P,i.ng hats the night, waiting Sat a pickup. Beti.eve me you don't want that. We think most o6 the tez ident6 o6 Rotting ff itP.s wou td tike to see thim tand temai.n as it .us, but with .ta.nd in such shoat supply, it can not be. Someone is going to bui.td something on thim .land and we wound aathet see it be a beautisut devetopement than a pig in-a poke. We have enough ug.ty on 72nd, Zet's have some pretty Sot a change. kl&ega&d6, y Wxyn v lb/l~6/t5y 49V: 30 "bb3 z6tj 'Ibis HAKOING.FLETCHEK CITY Of T1UAfU1 tPlIdl9G MORIGAGE BANKERS wE vANOREALESTATECONSULTANTS October 3. 1989 Mr. Jerry Offer Community Development Department City of Tigard 1:3125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard. Oregon 97223 RR: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Commercial Professional (C-P) to Residential R-25 13266 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon Dear Mr. Offer: For the past 28 years. I have been involved in financing a wide assortment of real estate developments throughout Portland and the State of Oregon. My background includes reviewing prospec- tive development sites and assessing proposed projects' financial feasibility. This year we anticipate Harding Fletcher will finance over 100 million dollars in real estate. much of which is in the Portland area. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change repre- sent a very positive opportunity for the immediate neighborhood and the community at large. The site in quesLlun lu ttuL well suited for C-P development. it has relatively little frontage in comparison to its overall depth. The C-P zone also permits a wide assortment of uses (many of which would not be desirable neighbors to the adjoining homes) to place varied types of buildings up to a minimum of only 20' from the adjacent residential lots.. It is unlikely the property will be developed as a quality office location. The office buildings on the east side of SW 72nd Avenue have not been as financially successful as had been originally aaLlclplaLed. Rental rates continue to be below the overall office market, and vacancies are high. Re-zoning the property to k-25 accomplishes several Lhings: 1. The site is the correct size. shape and location for a financially successful multi-family development. 2. Tigard has very little multi-family land available in that area of town and the zone change would respond to that need. Lloyd Center Tower • Suite 1050.825 N.E. Multnomah • Fbrtland. OR 97232' Phone (503) 235.43'28 • FAX (503) 239-7513 1V/VJ/UA t/D.\J1 UUV.J L.J.7 fD1.J I'IAIW II`1V l'LL:.l l.1lL:.l\ \..l / 1 l/l' l AV-&W Mr. Jerry offer Oulubur 3. 1989 Page 2 I 3. A multi-family residential project is more compatible with the adjoining single family development. It would i act as a buffer between the homes and the more intense commercial and industrial uses and thus serve to rein- F force and preserve the Rolling Hills neighborhood. I strongly encourage the City of Tigard to adopt the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Change from C-P to R-25. 4 ours very ruly 4 WL C~ Wallace E. Harding, CMB President WEH/jg k f 44, P r~ E F~F 6, NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION #5 After a brief introduction to Tigard's new police chief, Ron Goodpaster, our NPO adjourned to the city hall conference room to deal with the niqht's agenda. Present were Chair Craig Hopkins, Orm Doty, Wendy Hawley, Wayne MacKinnon, Larry Schmidt and Sharon Takahashi. Guests this evening were Dick Bauer and Martha Bishop. The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. and the minutes of the previous meeting were approved as submitted. Unfinished business: 1. The question of the congestion and confusing lane markings on the 72nd Avenue overpass has had attention drawn to it and a letter has been sent to the Regional Highway Board. 2. The speed on Hall from Hunziker to Durham has also been similarly addressed. New business: *8: SDR 89-22/V89-28: This item was moved up in the agenda to accommodate Mr. Bauer, a principal in the issue, and Mr. Schmidt. Schmidt's Sanitary Service is seeking to expand and relocate a nonconforming sanitary service business. A new truck barn and areas to place recycling bins and containers / away from the adjacent residential property are planned. t, Fuel tanks are to be removed or decommissioned by Oct. of 1990 and new fencing will be added. A second driveway will be added to access property on west side of house. This plan was an amicable solution to both Mr. Bauer and Mr. Schmidt. 1: HOP 89-33: Sunset Wall Covering. Michael Lehman of 7925 SW Ashford. No objection voiced. 2. SDR Appeal of Calling Firs at Durham Road. Information only. Final appeal denied. 4. S 89-07: Bristol/McMonagle proposal to divide 2.48 acre parcel into 13 lots. No objection seen as it is allowable use and development. 5. SDR 89-16/V 89-23: Edwards/Castile proposal for commercial landscape construction and nursery business. Has been granted by the planning commission. 6. SDR 89-19: Pactrust Buildings 218 and 220 in Oregon Business Park III. No objection. 7. SDR 89-19: Two buildings in Pacific Corporate Center. No objection. 9: CPA 89-07/cc 89-07: Metzger-Ems/Rockwell. Request for a comp plan amendment and cone change to allow 110 apartment units on 72nd Avenue, between Varns and Fir. The membership of the NPO had no strong feelings on the proposal but urged the residents of the'area to attend the informational meeting to be help at Phil Lewis School on Sept. 27. at 7:30 p.m. At that time they will be able to ask questions and voice their opinions on the project. r1FSF UOI)TUAND LEASING cert. FORMERLY CHARTER EQUIPMENT LEASING CORP. OF THE NORTHWEST September 29, 1989 Mr. Jerry Offer Community Development Department City of Tigard Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change for 13265 S.W. 72nd. Avenue; 2S1 1DB,(tax lots 800 & 801, a por- tion of 2S1 1DC, tax lot 3600) Dear Mr. Offer: Since I am unable to attend the public hearing on Tuesday, October 3rd, I am writing you this letter. As a property owner on south- west Varns street, I want to express my strong support for the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change. As you are aware, in addition to the large employment base already located in this area, Tigard has plans that call for developing - thousands of new jobs within the Tigard Triangle as well as a large number for the southern end of S.W. 72nd. However, to my knowledge, there are no provisions in place to provide for any new multi-family housing within the triangle and there is very little inventory of multi-family is*-Ld in the east and northeast portions of Tigard, and that is particularly true of land designated R-25. The proposed change is a step in the right direction. It's a mis- take to plan for thousands of new jobs and not accommodate the ob- vious need for additional multi-family housing. Sincerely, Leonard Ludwig,: President LL:dab Li..,AIN6 c O CT 0 2 1989 7145 S.W. Varns Street 0 Portland, Oregon 97223-8057 • (503) 684-3417 Fax: (503) 684-0087 rr REQUEST FOR A PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE - COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL (CP) TO f MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R25) i f i CRITERION EQUITIES 1800 ONE MAIN PLACE 101 SW MAIN STREET t. f. PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 x ~ v t F K AUGUST 149 1989 otak architects, p.c. ti355 S.W. Boons Ferry Re. Lake Oswego.OR97MS (SM) 635-3618 i 1 1 t A REQUST FOR A PLAN AMENDMENT I AND ZONE CHANGE i FROM COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL (C-P) ! TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY (R-25) RESIDENTIAL i I I Prepared for: CRITERION EQUITIES 1800 One Main Place _ 101 SW Main Street Portland, OR 97204 f- I Prepared by: OTAB ARCHITECTS, P.C. 17355 S.W. Boones Ferry Road Lake Oswego, OR 97035 August 14, 1989 I~ ill • c I- i PROPOSED: A request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Commercial Professional (C-P) to Medium-High Density (R-25) Residential. I^ LOCATION: A 5.03 acre parcel of land fronting on the west side of SW 72nd Avenue between SW Varns Street and SW Fir Street. 7 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tax lots 800, 801, 2S1, 1DB and a 16.5 foot wide strip of the northerly portion of tax lot 3600, 2S 1, 1DC., Tigard, Oregon. I Total area: 5.03 Acres. I. i f S . 1 ( '7 INTRODUCTION This application is to seek an amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan to change a 5.03 acre Commercial Professional parcel to Medium-High Density (R-25); Residential. In the Comprehensive Plan Policies, the Commercial Professional Zone and the Medium-High Density (R-25) Residential Zone must meet the same locational criteria, to suggest that the land uses are somewhat interchangeable. We believe that a change in circumstances has occurred since the original designation on the Comprehensive i j Plan and the remainder of this narrative will serve as the supporting documentation. The i Tigard Triangle area is developing as a high quality business center much like the Kruse s. Way Corridor to the east of the site. The Kruse Way Corridor has an added dimension to j this business center concept, by providing a mix of housing types so the public can live close to their employment. A similar situation is possible in the Tigard Triangle but there is a: shortage of sites that would be available to develop high quality multi-family in close proximity to the business centers. The subject site does not have the size or site , configuration necessary to develop as a business park or office park to effectively compete as a viable commercial use. It also appears as though a commercial use would intrude more into the residential area just by the nature of its design requirements. A multi-family project must meet more strict design requirements and screening and buffering to fit into the site more positively. We have designed for this amendment proposal a suitable residentially scaled attractive project that proposes significant screening, setbacks and buffers I from the existing residences. The multi-family market remains extremely strong and, in this case, provides a housing choice that is not available at this time to complement the Tigard; I Triangle. i; SITE DESCRIPTION t; I t The site is an approximately 5.03 acre relatively flat parcel of land gently sloping from west to the eastern boundary. The property fronts on a major collector, SW 72nd Avenue and SW Fir Street. Single-family development abuts the site on the northern and western boundary. Across SW 72nd to the east is a business park. A nice collection of mature trees exist along the SW 72nd Avenue frontage and will remain with the proposed project. The site is a rectangular shape that goes deeply into the residential area and has all public 1 - facilities available. I_ 'r. • F: R G 2 i _ E rCONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES t PLAN POLICY 1.1.2 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY change is consistent with Plan Policies and change in circumstances affecting parcel or neighborhood, or a mistake in original land use designation As will be discussed in great detail, this request for a change to Medium-High Density Residential is consistent with all the applicable Plan Policies and locational criteria for _ Medium-High Density Residential designation. Changes in circumstances have taken place affecting this parcel, neighborhood, metropolitan housing policies and the preference the public has indicated in the past few years to live I closer to their places of employment. As the Tigard Triangle area continues to develop, a pattern much like the Kruse Way area is resulting, an area of high quality development on major transportation corridors where people can work in the office and business centers _ and have a choice of quality housing opportunities, mixes of single-family and multi-family;, in effect, a mixed use development on a broader scale. The subject parcel meets all the locational criteria outlined in the Comprehensive Plan for a Medium-High Density Residential Zone designation. Development of nearby business I centers and the absence of high quality multi-family housing in the immediate area make this an ideal site to provide housing for the continuing development of the business and office parks. Metropolitan housing policies have caused a change in circumstances since the original adoption of Comprehensive Plans, increasing housing density requirements on communities to approximately 10 units per acre, up from an original mandate of approximately 8 units I per acre. Recent decisions by Metro to limit extending the Urban Growth Boundary changes the circumstances to continue to develop more intensely. These recent policies, Metro wide, along with the continuing demand for multi-family housing and the public's increasing desire to live closer to where they work to minimize commute time and increase leisure time make this an attractive, ideally located Medium-High Density Residential site. PLAN POLICY 2.1.1 NEIGHBORHOOD REVIEW OF PROPOSAL For a comprehensive review of our proposal by the neighborhood, we will implement all the strategies outlined in the Plan Policies. We will inform. and meet with the appropriate Neighborhood Planning Organization up until the scheduled hearing date. The Plan Amendment process assures that affected owners are notified. The City also assists the I process in providing meeting areas in City Hall. l 3 I - .I PLAN POLICY 6.1.1 INCREASED HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES The policy is satisfied by offering housing development to occur, to the greatest extent possible, on designated buildable lands in areas where public facilities and services can be readily extended to those lands. All services are available to this site and the proposed design preserves the trees and character along the 72nd Avenue frontage to the maximum extent. The proposal would provide for additional multi-family development and would increase the net housing opportunity on buildable lands in the City. The City is obligated through the Metropolitan Housing Rule to provide for an equal housing opportunity mix of single-family and multi-family units with an overall development density of 10 units per acre. This redesignation request would further the City's compliance with these requirements. PLAN POLICIES 6.3.2 AND 6.3.3 COMPATIBILITY WITH LOWER DENSITY ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL ZONE These policies will be satisfied through strict buffering and screening criteria in the Community Development Code. The density within 100 feet of each property line abutting residential will not exceed 25% over the density shown on the Comprehensive Plan for the adjacent land. The increased setbacks, density limitations and height restrictions will mandate a development more compatible with adjacent residential areas than the existing zone designation of Commercial Professional. PLAN POLICY 6.6.1 BUFFERING AND SCREENING This policy will be satisfied through the Design Review process. This proposal will be subject to more stringent buffering and screening requirements than the current allowed use ? of Commercial Professional. In general, we also intend to increase the buffer by placing garages against the property line areas abutting residential to form a solid secure buffer. ' PLAN POLICIES 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4. 7.6.1 PUBLIC FACILITY AND SERVICE CAPABILITIES I The Policies are satisfied because adequate public service capacities are available to serve J development on the property. Sanitary sewer and water is available on SW 72nd Avenue. Site drainage will be directed to nearby storm sewers. A 2/3 street improvement on Fir Street will be required. Erosion control techniques will be included as part of the site development plan. PLAN POLICY 7.8.1 ADEQUACY OF SCHOOL SYSTEM The Tigard School District is being informed of this proposal. A new addition to the i Durham Elementary School is nearly completed. It is our understanding that the School District is also reviewing proposed changes to school attendance boundaries to alleviate overcrowding in existing classrooms and to provide additional capacity to serve future growth. 4 PLAN POLICY 8.1.1 SAFE AND EFFICIENT STREET SYSTEM AND PLAN POLICY 8.1.3 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS I The proposed development directly abuts SW 72nd Avenue a developed major collector street. Street right of way will be dedicated along SW 72nd Avenue and SW Fir Street. Our development will construct a 2/3 street improvement on SW Fir Street to serve as access to our development, so that traffic from our development will not pass through existing neighborhoods. Tri-Met service is available abutting the site at SW 72nd Avenue. PLAN POLICY 8.2.2 LOCATING INTENSIVE LAND USE IN AREAS SERVED BY PUBLIC TRANSIT This policy is satisfied because Tri-Met offers bus service on SW 72nd Avenue, less than one quarter mile from the properties. The proposed redesignation would locate an intensive type of development on an existing public transit route to maximize use. PLAN POLICY 12.1.1 LOCATIONAL CRITERIA FOR MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PLAN DESIGNATION C'. The proposal is in complete agreement with the outlined locational criteria for Medium- High Density Residential use. 6 1. Density transition, buffering and screening requirements of the Community Development Code will assure that the development will be compatible with adjacent residences. 2. The proposed development plan maximizes the privacy of the existing residential area. I.w 3. The subject parcel fronts on and has direct access to SW 72nd Avenue, a major collector street. 1. t I 4. The subject site is relatively flat, with sparse tree cover, and is fully serviced; so no development limitations exist. I 5. Tri-Met service is available on 72nd so public transit is available within one quarter mile. 's 6. A business center is located across SW 72nd from the site. Convenience retail service is also available nearby. Also relevant is the part increased housing opportunities will play in the development of the Tigard Triangle, an area that will provide a mix of uses; employment centers with complementing housing areas, much like the Kruse Way Corridor is developing to the east of the subject site. I 7. The proposed development will provide its own open space and recreational facilities. f- 5 i COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LCDC GOALS AND GUIDELINES . GOAL 1 - CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT This application follows the Plan Amendment process and the subsequent notification procedures required to insure the general public may become involved in the planning process. Additionally, neighborhood meetings will be held to present our proposal to the immediate area. I GOAL 2 - LAND USE PLANNING w By following the designated process and by providing a factual basis to support said change, this amendment conforms to said goal. 4 GOAL 3 - AGRICULTURAL GOAL Not applicable. ` GOAL 4 - FOREST LANDS { Not applicable. GOAL 5 - OPEN SPACE SCENIC AND HISTORICAL AREAS AND NATURAL RESOURCES Not applicable, except for open space requirements of the Medium-High Density (R.-25) Residential Zone. GOAL 6 - AIR., WATER AND LAND RESOURCE QUALITY The development would conform to all environmental quality statutes, rules and standards. GOAL 7 - AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL DISASTERS AND HAZARDS Not applicable. GOAL 8 - RECREATIONAL NEEDS Not applicable. { GOAL 9 - ECONOMY OF STATE The subject project will provide jobs and services to residents of the State. Development of the site will have a positive influence on the tax base. 1. 6 s I 77 GOAL 10 - HOUSING C The proposal will provide for additional housing opportunities as promoted by the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Housing Rule. The Metropolitan Housing Rule requires that the City maintain a minimum housing opportunity rate for developable lands of 10 units per acre and a minimum 50/50 opportunity mix for single-family and multi- family housing. GOAL 11 - PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES Urban services exist on or in close proximity to the subject site. The proposed Plan Amendment would allow for the use of these facilities and services in an efficient and reasonable manner. GOAL 12 - TRANSPORTATION The proposed use would make efficient use of a major transportation corridor. GOAL 13 - ENERGY CONSERVATION I Greater efficiency is achieved by placing increased intensity along high capacity I transportation corridors. GOAL 14 - URBANIZATION j The site is within the Urban Growth Boundary. a , y v I 7 I - - Z a cA•R t25. 4 oe. 3e5•o~~ ~aa %A 9~81Ac. 1 23'43 'a 710 .a 'r Na j 2 5 9 e ~_~.7~ d ' f y t 2 3.'t 3' '709 Y g 0 • N S~ E ~Co:nd ,25.,3 7~,8 t W• ° b' d BARN tNs~ 123.~3' 707 29 2 : S N.z0'j0 "a in r S tey S9 U) n 100o Z7 0.0 .66AC. 4 -C 40 22 12 x~ 11.2 ~ ~ O ~ ~ ►Zi` ?Y yiy r' K x 1loo 23 goo n •54Ar. e g.40AC, It pn f 69~t8 E Ai S Ste 215Y 3 2{ W 4201 ~ , K s9 .48 AF q 1 N. ~ ' ~,w r ~ X68 0 j2 150.32 1 0O c asu t40 6902 29 502 - 1„ F ` r "r 1 W (Oy~ 1 162j6 47 ACt 501 s . , c 4 O Acr ~Y) r o N 87 At. f j~'111 310 30 40 -x'•'~ta5 _ AC- v 292.50 152 2Q0 o ~j ° 87Ac' i ~ x 0~a fW~ ` . yt~ N 3500 " •48 Ac. ' ^ t I. NORTH 217 - 1-5 TIGARD 99W l w PROJECT SITE w a 0 z N I. VICINITY MAP ot* architects, P.C. 17]55 S.W. Boons Ferry Rd Lake Oswego. OR 97035 (5071635.7616 101 E 6m Street Vancouvej. WA 9&, O (206) 695057 25 cents Way 6105 Kirkland. WA 96017 (2061672-"-c!6 i I i Sl ! (Yt i A., c Jl, C~ Src 6" i Department of Land Conservation and Development Portland Field Office: ►+6, "PT 320 SW STARK, RM 530, PORTLAND, OR 97204-2684 PHONE (503) 229.6068 lKdn 01Na: 1173 COURT STREET NE SALEM. OREGON 973104500 MlOUE (103111!-00!0 November 20, 1989 Jerry Offer, Assistant Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Jerry: The Department of Land conservation and Development has reviewed the proposed plan amendment from C-P to Medium-High Density Residential and zone change from C-P to R-25 for 5.03 acres contained in Local File Number CPA 89-07/Zc 89-07 (DLCD File No. 007-89). We are favorably impressed by the way these proposals comply with the city's criteria Eor locating high density residential development, their timeliness and their contribution s to the city's comprehensive plan. Therefore we urge the city's planning commission and city council to adopt these amendments. F An important element of Oregon's land use planning laws is the r reliance upon plans and standards as the bases for making land use decisions. The city of Tigard has plan and code standards which have been recognized as suitable for siting high density residential uses. It is appropriate, as well as legal, therefore for the city to approve amendments which comply with the standards. A second central feature of Oregon's land use planning program is the emphasis on providing opportunity to build a variety of housing types at price ranges responsive to the needs of Oregonians. As you are aware, there are many financial, labor, tax and other factors which cause fluctuation over time in housinq construction costs. Conditions are favorable at this time for multifamily housing construction, which makes the proposal before you timely as well as consistent with your i comprehensive plan. iFinally, a review of Tigard's plan indicates that opportunities for high density residential uses are prevalent in the southwesterly part of the city, with few opportunities in the more built-up employment areas in the east. Approval of these; proposals would locate more multifamily housing close to jobs and improved transportation facilities. oV - In summary, the city has the opportunity to approve plan and zone amendments permitting a development which satisfies your plan and code criteria, is timely in the housing market, and assists the k city in achieving a'balance between housing, employment and transportation. We support the city's approval of these amendments. C Please include this letter in the city council proceedings regarding case file number CP 89-09/ZC 89-07. Regards, Jam s R. Sitzman Fie d Representative