Loading...
City Council Packet - 02/19/1991 l CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL A G E N D A BUSINESS MEETING FEBRUARY 19,1991 > &Z50 P.M. ' PUBLIC NOTICE. Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda Item TIGARD CIVIC CENTER should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet Is 13125'SW HALL BLVD available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning TIGARD, OREGON 97223 of that agenda item. Visitor's 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. • STUDY SESSION 5:30 p.m. Agenda Review r 6:30 p.m. Discussion Meeting with METRO Councilor Richard Devlin 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 p.m.) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: January 22, 1991 3.2 Approve Resolution Transferring Funds from General Contingency Fund for Purchase of Property Adjacent to Tigard City Hall (Tigard Electric Property) - Resolution No. 91- 3.3 Local Contract Review Board: Authorize the City Engineer to Advertise for Bids for Major Street Bond Projects (SW McDonald Street, S.W. Gaarde Street, S.W. Bonita Street, Main { Street Bridge and 69th Avenue/99W) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 19, 1991 - PAGE 1 4. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 90-0010, CITY OF TIGA.RD ASH AVENUE EXTENSION, BURNHAM/TIGARD ALIGNMENT, PACIFIC f HIGHWAY/TIGARD STREET LOOP (NPO 1 & 2) A request by the City of Tigard to amend the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. The extension of Ash Avenue from Burnham Street to Pacific Highway at Walnut Street would be deleted. The extension of Ash Avenue from Burnham to Hall Boulevard at Hunziker Street would be deleted. An extension of Ash Avenue from Burnham Street to Hill Street would be added. The alignment of Burnham Street to connect with Main Street directly opposite Tigard Street would be deleted. A loop from the southbound lanes of Pack Highway connecting to the city center via Tigard Street would be added. • Open Public Hearing • Summation by Community Development Staff • NPO and/or CPO Testimony • Public Testimony - Proponents - Opponents • Recommendation by Community Development Staff • Council Questions or Comments • Public Hearing Closed • Consideration by Council - Ordinance No. 91- 5. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 90-0004 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING • Open Public Hearing • Summation by Community Development Staff t. NPO and/or CPO Testimony • Public Testimony - Proponents - Opponents • Recommendation by Community Development Staff • Council Questions or Comments • Public Hearing Closed • Consideration by Council - Ordinance No. 91- 6. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into,Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 8. ADJOURNMENT cca219.91 C CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 19, 1991 - PAGE 2 Council Agenda Item 3.1 T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 19, 1991 • Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Mavor Edwards. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Carolyn Eadon, Valerie Johnson, Joe Kasten and John Schwartz Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; John Acker, Assistant Planner; Ron Bunch, Senior Planner; Ken Elliott, Legal Counsel; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. 2. STUDY SESSION a. Arts Plan 2000 Plus City Administrator referred to a letter from Portland City Commissioner Mike Lindberg requesting the City of Tigard contribute $5,000 to Arts Plan 2000 Plus. This planning project is developing the short- and long-term future for the arts in the metro tri-county area. Council consensus was that they could not support a $5,000 expenditure at this time. b. Street Name Change: Atlanta to Haines City Administrator advised that property owners on Atlanta Street had been contacted with regard to the public hearing on the question of renaming Atlanta Street to Haines Street. After brief discussion, council decided against scheduling this item on an agenda in the near future. C. Water Servi.ce&roRgsed Consolidation City- Administrator informed Council that the Boundary Commission would be considering a request for merger of the Metzger and Wolf Creek Water Districts. City Administrator noted the need to consider the following policy questions: What is the City's position on the proposed merger? What does the City want in the long-term with respect to water service to Tigard residents? Lengthy discussion followed. Mayor, City Administrator, and Metzger and Tigard Water District officials will be meeting later this week. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 19, 1991 - PAGE 1 Council consensus was to request that the Metzger Water ( District consider delaying the merger proposal before the Boundary Commission for up to 60 days. This would give the City more time to review the policy questions and determine the long-term ramifications for Tigard residents. Staff was authorized to petition the Boundary commission for a delay if the Metzger Water District declined to do so. d. Discussion with Metropolitan Service District (MSD Councilor Richard Devlin Commissioner Devlin reviewed the Legislature's progress in establishing the MSD Charter Commission (SB 298). Council noted concerns with the proposed makeup of the membership of the Commission and emphasized the need to have representation from the cities which would clearly represent cities' points of view. Council urged that the first priority should be development of definitions which distinguish the difference between local issues and regional issues. In addition, Council suggested that regional consensus building should be worked through from the "bottom up" rather than from the "top down." Abdication of local control is of concern. Commissioner Devlin advised his personal philosophy was that MSD should not be municipal service providers in the areas of police, library, active recreational areas serving local residents, and comprehensive planning. He said regional issues would include functional planning in the areas of transportation and solid waste disposal. The Convention Center and Coliseum would be logical functions for the MSD. He further outlined that a regional issue would be one that requires vast resources and the ability to obligate much of the state's resources; i.e., light rail. Commissioner Devlin said that ORS 268 grants the MSD authority in several areas. He added that METRO has not taken on all the responsibility that it would be allowed under the statute. With regard to the development of MSD goals and objectives, City Administrator noted that it was only after the City of Tigard strongly urged solicitation of input that the cities were apprised of Metro's long-range planning proposals. Commissioner Devlin advised that it was difficult, at times, to find a way to communicate with all the jurisdictions. The Council and CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 19, 1991 - PAGE 2 Administrator emphasized the desire for a partnership in ( establishing METRO's goals. Commissioner Devlin advised he would keep Tigard up to date on the development of the Charter Commission. He reminded everyone that the Charter must be approved by the voters. Economic Activity Centers (EAC's) and the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) were discussed. Council noted that all cities would probably want to see their jurisdictions classified as regional economic activity centers. It was suggested that the free-market system be allowed to define EAC's. In addition, it appears that land use laws created to protect livability are having the opposite effect. For example, state-mandated density requirements are creating transportation problems and school overcrowding. BUSINESS MEETING 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Schwartz to approve the following consent agenda items: 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: January 22, 1991 3.2 Approve Resolution Transferring Funds from General Contingency Fund for Purchase of Property Adjacent to Tigard City Hall (Tigard Electric Property) - Resolution No. 91-04 3.3 Local Contract Review Board: Authorize the City Engineer to Advertise for Bids for Major Street Bond Projects (SW McDonald Street, S.W. Gaarde'Street, S.W. Bonita Street, Main Street Bridge and 69th Avenue/99W) 4. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 90-0010. CITY OF TIGARD ASH AVENUE EXTENSION BURNHAMITIGARD ALIGNMENT._ PACIFIC HIGHWAY/TIGARD STREET LOOP (NPO 1 & 21 a. The public hearing was opened. b. There were no declarations or challenges. c. Community Development Director summarized the staff report. The policy issue was presented as: Should the City amend the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map by 1) deleting the current alignment of the Ash Avenue extension between Hall Boulevard at Hunziker Street and Pacific Highway at Walnut Street; 2) adding an alignment of an Ash Avenue extension between Burnham Street and Hill Street; 3) deleting an CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 19, 1991 - PAGE 3 alignment of Burnham Street approximately between Ash Avenue C and Main Street opposite Tigard Street and; 4) adding a loop connection from Pacific Highway and Tigard Street. The City Council initiated these amendments xy e-olution 90- 56, 90-57, and 90-58 in August 1990. The proi.)os-ed amendments would re-establish the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map as it was prior to changes brought about in connection with the City Center Plan (ORD 89-24) plus add a loop connection from Pacific Highway to Tigard Street. The proposed amendment has been reviewed by NPO #1 & 2, the Planning Commission and the Transportation Advisory Committee. Community Development Director noted that the following letters will be entered into the record (see Council packet material): • Verna Randall, 13195 S.W. Ash Drive, Tigard, Oregon wrote in her letter of 2/15/91 of her opposition to the Ash Avenue extension Burnham/Tigard Alignment Tigard Street Loop. She also advises she had not been notified of tha public hearing. • Dan Bush, 12335 S.W. Ash Street, Tigard, Oregon, writes in his letter of 2/12/91 of his opposition to CPA 90-0010 (Ash Avenue Extension). • Gerald Cash, Cash's Rlty., 12525 S.W. Main Street, Tigard, Oregon, writes in his 2/19/91 letter that he favors elimination of possible road from Tigard Street to Burnham Street. • Michael J. Scott, attorney at 9185 S.W. Burnham writes in his 2/6/91 letter of his concern that Burnham Street does not have sidewalks. Community Development Director further advised that two telephone calls were received earlier in the day concerning the Ash Avenue Extension and opposition to a connection of Walnut at Pacific Highway. Calls were from: Garla Isaacson, 12520 S.W. Walnut and Donna Cameron, 12490 S.W. Walnut. Staff recommendation was as follows: 1. Adopt the proposed ordinance which would: a. Delete the re-alignment of Burnham Street to connect with Main Street opposite Tigard Street. b. Adopt general language for a connection from Pacific Highway to Main Street that does not CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 19, 1991 - PAGE 4 E specify a loop to Tigard Street. C. The decision on the Ash Avenue alignment should be delayed until April 23 to give the Transportation Advisory Committee additional time to review alternatives and prepare a recommendation to the City Couric-' . d. Public testimony: • Edward Duffield, Chair of NPO 1-2, advised they were in favor of general wording which would not adversely affect businesses (specifically with the Tigard loop portion of the proposed ordinance). He cautioned that a 60-day delay of decision had not been advertised as a possible option to be considered by Council. • Transportation Advisory Committee members Ron Holland and Joe Schweitz advised of their concerns for long-range planning and development of the downtown. The requested 60-day delay would allow them time to hold community meetings to discuss transportation issues still of concern to the city center. • James Smith, 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300, Portland, Oregon testified on the Ash Avenue extension component. He advised he represented the owners of the Seafirst Bank property who supported a return to the j original Comprehensive Plan Mar. He cited problems with i marketing the property. The current designation casts uncertainty over development possibilities of the property. • David Peterson, 32271 S.W. Boones Bend Road, Wilsonville, Oregon advised he represented the estate of Greg Eaglson. Commercial property in the estate cannot be sold until the question of the Ash Avenue extension has been settled:, • J. David Hunt, Hunt Development Company, 3030 S.W. First Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97201, advised his firm was interested in constructing a large multi-family project (280 units) on the Seafirst Bank property. The Ash Avenue alignment issue must be settled before they can proceed with their option to purchase. • Barbara Martin, 12600 S.W. Walnut, Tigard, Oregon recounted her concerns with speeds in excess of 25 mph in her residential area. Mayor Edwards responded that he had visited with Mrs. Martin on this issue; this is a county road and she must work with the County in resolving this issue. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 19, 1991 - PAGE 5 • Chuck Woodward, 10215 S.W. Walnut and business owner of property at Burnham/Main, advised he would like to see the original plan restored with regard to the Walnut to Hunziker transportation plans. Mr. Woodard testified he would prefer to see a ramp from Highway 99 W to 217 rather than a loop connection. • Jeff Johnson, 13410 S.W. Ash Avenue, Tigard, Oregon testified of his concern about notification of the public hearing. He noted the ongoing process over the past 18 months and the difficulty of trying to keep informed on the issue. He noted he was opposed to the Ash Avenue extension. He questioned the validity of the traffic studies and assumptions made. e. Public hearing was closed. f. Council discussion followed. After deliberation and conference with legal counsel, the City Council altered the proposed ordinance to amend sections of the Comprehensive Transportation Map as follows: 1. Retain the Ash Avenue connection between Hall Boulevard at Hunziker Street and Commercial Street. 2. Delete the Ash Avenue connection between Commercial Street and Highway 99W at Walnut Street. 3. Reestablish the Ash Avenue connection between Burnham Street and Hill Street. 4. The realignment of Burnham Street to connect with Main Street opposite Tigard Street would be deleted. 5. Add a connection from southbound Highway 99W to Main Street. Several councilors advised of their concern that this issue not be delayed for the 60 day period as requested. g. ORDINANCE 91-03 - AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION MAP BY REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 89-24 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PORTION OF ASH AVENUE BETWEEN HALL BOULEVARD AT HUNZIKER STREET AND COMMERCIAL STREET AND ADDING A CONNECTION FROM SOUTHBOUND HIGHWAY 99W TO MAIN STREET (CPA 90-0010) REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD. i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 19, 1991 - PAGE 6 _ h. Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor Eadon, to approve ordinance No, 91-03 as amended. The motion passed by a majority vote 4 -1; Councilor Johnson voted "Nay." Because the ordinance was not passed by a unanimous vote on the first reading, a second reading and roll-call vote was scheduled for the March 12, 1991 meeting. 5. Solar Access Ordinance (Second reading) a. ORDINANCE 91-02 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA 91-0001) INITIATED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD. b. Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor Schwartz to approved Ordinance No. 91-02. The motion was passed and the ordinance adopted on seconded reading by a majority vote of 3-2; Councilors Eadon and Johnson voted "Nay." (Councilor Johnson left the meeting at 9:55 p.m.) 6. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC Ea ARTNG - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 90-0004 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING a. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Kasten to continue the hearing to the March 12, 1991 meeting. The motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council present. 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 9:58 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 8. ADJOURNMENT: 10:31 p.m. Catherine Wheatley, City R order Att Sti j Mayor; City of Tigard Date : _31~& ccm219.91 ( CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 19, 1991 - PAGE 7 TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal ice 7829 p.0. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 yIist~ea faaY~mfti0n Full wl. (Ze Aclvertesing The fou:owmg meeting w tinghts are iiE31 5 S W Hall g_~ Ya Rtcot tie ~ilY agendas~iayIbejoUtair~elt"from, gon 97223, or~i3y cal.mg F, ~R Ts r wth p' 4 a>~x a x ❑ Tear sheet Notic vBoeard.4 8 , f 1J i % o 9-A) p Duplicate Affidf ~ s RUARYj19;1Q91~R ~ x s and . 'TiGAM o L , TIGMRD O ~ • City of T23397 , s 125SiY NAL aa~~ ~k,: P.O. BOX pt)ln~r ¢ce tfiet ard, OR 97223 '5 30 P Tv Study ldieetin$ i"Town A Efffstrv e Tie li 3t} P'1ul ` Aiscussioi► Meetin an Y Conference Ftoom~ y` . Un, ICATIOPI r ws'y , AFFIDAV1T OF P Publ► M~ PRO STATE OF OREGON, ) ss COUNTY OF WASHINGTON,) ~ ~an~l c gid S,creenifig Z .i-rtC. ^y K Z 1 a g:. that I am the Advertising • being first duly sworn, depose and sal ev evrT3atu~d;Mpg$ r Director, or fiis principal clerk, of the t er of general circ~ s defined in ORS ____193in .010 the Local.` ' a newspap r Is eust $ession~J nt'tliea r• i°tzs4> and 193.020; Published and statethat the aforesaid -county ; ~Iairo'Yre.Taft p + S Business Ineeti published in the ' wasrtj a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, successive and sT f 4 ~ - er for ()r le entire issue of said newspap consecutive in the following issues: Feb 14 1991 14th day of F= rY 1991 Subscribed and sworn to afore me this Notary Public for Oregon ! MY Commission- xpires:,- (le AFFIDAVIT CITY OF TIGARD, OREWN AFFIDAVIT OF POSTIM In the Matter of the Proposed Ord) rla-n ce-- No I - 0 a STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss city of Tigard ) I, begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose say: mat I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number(s) -c~a which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated _ ) f said (s) on the or2 dcate) o being @ hereto oa CA attached and by reference made a part .r 1. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. US National'•Bank, Corner of Main and Scoffins, Tigard, Oregon 3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 4. Albertson's Store, Corner of Pacific Hwy. ( State Hwy. 99) and SW Durham Road, Tigard, Oregon (~.'a 1. rSt~bscribed and sworn to before me this date of v 191( Notary Public for Oregon My Comission Expires: 1-12,43 - ke/CWPOST l CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 91-GZ AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA 91-0001) INITIATED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD. WHEREAS, it is state and federal policy to promote energy conservation and the use of renewable resources and Oregon statutes authorize local governments to encourage, protect, and provide solar access; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 9.1.1 and 9.1.3 encourage energy conservation and the use alternative energy sources, including solar energy; and WHEREAS, without protection of solar access, many opportunities to use solar energy have been lost and will continue to be lost in the future; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard initiated a review of the possible addition of solar access provisions to the Community Development Code to provide improved solar access for single family residential homes; and WHEREAS, the City solicited and received comments from the Neighborhood Planning Organizations (NPO); and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission at public hearings on August 7, 1990 and January 8, 1991 reviewed the proposed amendment and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing regarding the proposed amendment on February 12, 1991, to review the NPO and Planning Commission recommendations as well as public testimony. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Community Development Code is amended with the addition of Chapter 18.88 as shown in Exhibit "A". SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective on and after May 1, 1991 following its passage by Council, and approval by the Mayor. S~ I I 1 PASSED: By 1C(br I+!!t vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this 'day of February, 1991. Catherine Wheatley, City Rec der APPROVED: This day of IC ±946. i Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor Approved as to form: LZn A ity Att rney Dhat'rf Date ZOA91-01.ORD/kl t, ORDINANCE NO. q17-OZ PAGE 2 Chapter 18.88 SOLAR ACCESS REQUIREMENTS Sections: 18.88.010 Purpose 18.88.020 Applicability of Provisions 18.88.030 Definitions 18.88.040 Solar Access for New Development 18.88.050 Solar Balance Point 18.88.010 Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to implement comprehensive plan policies to promote the use of renewable energy sources by establishing criteria to allow improved access to sunlight for single family and duplex residences. 18 88 020 Applicability of Provisions The provisions of this chapter shall apply to the creation of lots which are intended for single family or duplex residences and the construction of single family or duplex. residences. 18.88.030 Definitions The definitions to be used 1_n this chapter are in addition to Chapter 18.26, Definitions. In the case of sL ilar or identical terminology, the definitions in this section shall govern for Chapter 18.88, Solar Access Requirements. A. Crown Cover: The area within the drip line or perimeter of the foliage of a tree. B. Development: Any partition, subdivision or planned development that is created under the City land division or zoning regulations. C. Exempt tree or vegetation: The full height and breath of vegetation that the Director has identified as "solar friendly" that are listed and kept on file in the office of the Community Development Department; and any vegetation listed on a plat map, a document recorded with the plat, or a solar access permit is exempt. D. Front lot line: For purposes of the solar access regulations, a lot line abutting a street. For corner lots the front lot line is that with the narrowest frontage. When the lot line abutting a street is curved, the front lot line is the chord or straight line connecting the ends of the curve. For a flag lot, the front line is the shortest lot line adjoining the pole portion of the lot, excluding the unbuildable portion of the pole (see Figure 1). E. Non-exempt tree or vegetation: Vegetation that is not exempt. J CDC REVISION - SOLAR - JANUARY, 1991 PAGE 1 EXHIBaT "A° F. Northern lot line: The lot line that is the smallest angle from a line drawn east-west and intersecting the northernmost point of the lot, excluding the pole portion of a flag lot. If the north line adjoins an undevelopu le area other than a required yard area, the northern lot shall be at the north edge of such undevelopable area. If two lot lines have an identical angle relative to a line drawn east-west, or if the northern lot line is less than 35 feet, then the northern line shall be a line 35 feet in length within the lot parallel with and at a maximum distance from the front lot line (see Figure 2). G. North-south dimension: The length of a line beginning at the mid-point of the northern lot line and extending in a southerly direction perpendicular to the northern lot line until it reaches a property boundary (see Figure 3). H. Protected solar building line: A line on a plat or,map recorded with the plat that identifies the location on a lot where a point two feet above may not be shaded by structures or non-exempt trees (see Figure 10). 1. Shade: A shadow cast by the shade point of a structure or vegetation when the sun is at an altitude of 21.3 degrees and an azimuth ranging from 22.7 degrees east and west of true south. J. Shade point: The part of a structure or non-exempt tree that casts the longest shadow onto the adjacent northern lot(s) when the sun is at an altitude of 21.3 degrees and an azimuth ranging from 22.7 degrees east and west of true south; except a shadow caused by a narrow object such as a mast or whip antenna, a dish antenna with a diameter of 3 feet or less, a chimney, utility pole, or wire. The height of the shade point shall be measured from the shade point to either the average elevation at the front lot line or the elevation at the midpoint of the front lot line. If the shade point is located at the north end of a ridgeline of a structure oriented within 45 degrees of a true north-south line, the shade point height computed according to the preceding sentence may be reduced by 3 feet. If a structure has a roof oriented within 45 degrees of a true east-west line with a pitch that is flatter than 5 feet (vertical) in 12 feet (horizontal) the shade point will be the eave of the roof. If such a roof has a pitch that is 5 feet in 12 feet or steeper, the shade point will be the peak of the roof (see Figures 4 and 5). K. Shade reduction line: A line drawn parallel to the northern lot line that intersects the shade point (see Figure 6). L. Shadow pattern: A graphic representation of an area that would be shaded by the shade point of a structure or vegetation when the sun is at an altitude.of 21.3 degrees and an azimuth ranging between 22.7 degrees east and west of true south (see Figure 12). M. Solar access height limit: A series of contour lines establishing the maximum permitted height for non-exempt vegetation is allowed to grow on lots to which a solar access permit applies. % N. Solar access permit: A document issued by the City that describes the maximum height that non-exempt vegetation is allowed to grow on lots to which a solar access permit applies. ( MC REVISION - SOLAR - JANUARY, 1991 PAGE 2 O. Solar feature: A device or combination of devices or elements that does or will use direct sunlight as a source of energy for such purposes as heating or cooling of a structure, heating or pumping of water, and generating electricity. Examples of a solar feature include a window or windows that contain(s) at least 20 square feet of glazing oriented within 45 degrees east and west of true south, a solar greenhouse, or a solar hot water heater. A solar feature may be used for f purposes in addition to collecting solar energy, including but not limited to serving as a structural member or part of a roof, wall, or window. A south- facing wall without windows and without other features that uses solar energy is not a solar feature for purposes of this ordinance. P. Solar gain line: A line parallel to the northern property line(s) of the lot(s) south of and adjoining a given lot, including lots separated only by a street, that intersects the solar feature on that lot (see Figure 7). Q. South or South facing: True south, or 20 degrees east of magnetic south. R. Sunchart: One or more photographs that plot the position of the sun between 10:30 am and 1:30 pm on January 21, prepared pursuant to guidelines issued by the Director. The sunchart shall show the southern skyline through a transparent grid on which is imposed solar altitude for a 45-degree and 30 minute northern latitude in 10-degree increments and solar azimuth from true south in 15-degree increments. S. Undevelopable area: An area that cannot be used practicably for a habitable structure, because of natural conditions, such as slopes exceeding 20% in a direction greater than 45 degrees east or west of true south, severe topographic C relief, water bodies, or conditions that isolate one portion of a property form another portion so that access is not practicable to the unbuildable portion; or manmade conditions, such as existing development which isolates a portion of the site and prevents its further development; or setbacks or development restrictions that prohibit development of a given area of a lot by law or private agreement; or existence or absence of easements or access rights that prevent development of a given area. T. Figures: CDC REVISION - SOLAR - JANUARY, 1991 PAGE 3 r . . F19~re ~ FR0NT 1-0 USE FL F t LOT / toC►~i F►9U'~e 2 .~NERN I-pT L1N'E NpR 45 degrees LQ LO_ tAv pp,GE 4 1991 ` Ng.VISION - SOTS r 3ANN CT1C I Figure 3 f _ NORTH-SOUTH DIMENSION OF THE LOT l t N- NORTH-SOUTH DIMENSION Figure 4 HEIGHT OF THE SHADE POINT OF THE STRUCTURE It the ridgeline runs EAST-WEST It the ridgeline runs EAST-WEST and the pitch is or flatter than 5 in 12: and the pitch is 5 in 12 or steeper. SHADE iEAVE y SHADE POINT - RIDGE 5 in 12 Root Pitch or more SHASHADE POINTRIDGE UTH l It the ridgeline runs NORTH-SOUTH SHADE measure from the northernmost POINT point of the ridge, but reduce the height measurement by three (3) feet. C7~ NORTH --0- _DC REVISION - SOLAR - JANUARY, 1991 PAGE 5 Figure 5 SHADE POINT HEIGHT ~l Measure to average grade at the front tot line. SHADE POINT HEIGHT Front lot line Figure 6 SHADE REDUCTION LINE Shade Reduction Line measured to Shade Point from Northern Lot Line t 600 5 3 N CDC REVISION - SOLAR - JANUARY, 1991 PAGE 6 Figure 7 SOLAR GAIN LINE T Solar Gain Line N ,,tom 10, North Lot Line of your South Neighbor Figure 8 SOLAR BALANCE POINT STANDARD MAXIMUM SHADE POINT HEIGHT ALLOWED SHADE ON SOLAR FEATURE Protecting your northern Locating your house neighbor's sun to receive sun on south windovrs i • s N GUARANTEED 3W HE1GHr IN LOT CENTER --------70-------- 70'--------► ►Ft o-4 1 1 Standard Side Sotbadcs ~5• Redund Side Solbadrs SETBACK ADJUSTMENTS IF NEEDED TO MEET SOLAR STANDARDS I CDC REVISION - SOLAR - JANUARY, 1991 PAGE 7 Figure 9 SOLAR LOT OPTION 1: BASIC REQUIREMENTS r t N Minimum of 90' north-south lot dimension required Front lot tine is within 30 degrees of an east-west axis Figure 10 SOLAR LOT OPTION 2: PROTECTED SOLAR BUILDING LINE t N Protected Solar 8.1cling Line within 30 degrees of east-west r At least 70' between solar budduq ine and middle IN b the sotto. This wit ensure atAW eo tx two r story tause. i r r CDC REVISION - SOLAR - JANUARY, 1991 PAGE 8 Figure 11 SOLAR ACCESS HEIGHT LIMIT 938 Scotts Avenue a Parcel A Parcel B Parcel C 932 944 938 C11 __.20•. North :2i - 2s' U 30'_-------__ --Scotts Ave..----- 35'-------•---- -40•-----•--------- 45• -5o' -60' ---65'- --70•--- ' -75•- 80' Parcel D Parcel E Par 933 F 945 937 SCALE 1" = 100' Figure 12 SHADOW PATTERN North Scotts Avenue 22.7' EAST a WEST OF TRUE t40ATH SOUTH AXIS PAGE 9 CDC REVISION - SOLAR - 3ANUARYr 1991 18.88.040 Solar Access for New Development C A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to ensure that land is divided so that structures can be oriented to maximize solar access and to minimize shade on adjoining properties from structures and trees. B. Applicability. The solar design standard in section 18.88.040 C shall apply to applications for a development to create lots in R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5, and R-7 zones and to create lots for single family detached and duplex dwellings in all other residential zones, except to the extent the approval authority finds that the applicant has shown one or more of the conditions listed in sections 18.88.040 D and E exist, and exemptions or adjustments provided for therein are warranted. C. Design Standard. At least 80 percent of the lots in a development subject to this section -shall comply with one or more of the options in this section; provided, a development may, but is not required to, use the options in subsections 18.88.040 C.2 or C.3 to comply with this section. 1. Basic Requirement (see Figure 9). A lot complies with this section if it: a. Has a north-south dimension of 90 feet or more; and b. Has a front lot line that is oriented within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis. 2. Protected Solar Building Line option (see Figure 10). In the alternative, a lot complies with this section if a solar building line is used to protect solar access as follows: a. A protected solar building line is designated on the plat or in documents recorded with the plat; and b. The protected solar building line is oriented within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis; and c. There is at least 70 feet between the protected solar building line and the middle of the north-south dimension of the lot to the south, measured along a line perpendicular to the protected solar building line; and d. There is at least 45 feet between the protected solar building line and the northern edge of the buildable area of the lot, or habitable structures are situated so that at least 80 percent of their ground floor south wall will not be shaded by structures or non-exempt vegetation. 3. Performance Option. In the alternative, a lot complies with this section if: ( MC REVISION - SOLAR - JANUARY, 1991 PAGE 10 a. Habitable structures built on that lot will have their long axis / oriented within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis, and at least l` 80 percent of their ground floor south wall will be protected from shade by structures and non-exempt trees using appropriate deed restrictions; or b. Habitable structures built on that lot will orient at 32 percent of their glazing and at least 500 square feet of their roof area to face within 30 degrees east or west of true south, and that glazing and roof area are protected from shade by structures and non-exempt trees using appropriate deed restrictions. D. Exemptions from Design Standard. A development is exempt from section 18.88.040 C if the approval authority finds the applicant has shown that one or more of the following conditions apply to the site. A development is partially exempt from section 18. C to the extent the approval authority finds the applicant has shown that one or more of the following conditions apply to a corresponding portion of the site. If a partial exemption is granted for a given development, the remainder of the development shall comply with section 18.88.040 C. 1. Slopes. The site, or a portion of.the site for which the exemption is sought, is sloped 20 percent or more in a direction greater than 45 degrees east or west of true south, based on a topographic survey by a licensed professional land surveyor or USGS or other officially recognized topographic information. 2. Off-site shade. The site, or a portion of the site for which the exemption is sought, is within the shadow pattern of off-site features, such as but not limited to structures, topography, or non-exempt vegetation, which will remain after development occurs on the site from which the shade is originating. a. Shade from an existing or approved off-site dwelling in a sin(y_a family residential zone and from topographic features is assumed to remain after development of the site. b. Shade from an off-site structure in a zone other than a single family residential zone is assumed to be the shadow pattern of the existing or approved development thereon or the shadow pattern that would result from the largest structure allowed at the closest setback on adjoining land, whether or not that structure now exists. c. Shade from off-site vegetation is assumed to remain after development of the site if: M The vegetation that causes it is situated in a required setback area; or (ii) The vegetation is within a fully developed area, public park, or legally reserved open space; or j' CDC REVISION - SOLAR - JANUARY, 1991 PAGE 11 (iii) The vegetation is within a developable remainder of a parcel that is separated by an undevelopable area or feature; or (iv) The vegetation is part of landscaping required pursuant to chapter 18.100. d. Shade from other off-site sources is assumed to be shade that exists or that will be cast by development for which applicable local permits have been approved on the date a complete application for the development i3 filed. 3. On-site shade. The site, or a portion of the site for which the exemption is requested, is: a. Within the shadow pattern of on-site features such as, but not limited to structures and topography which will remain after the development occurs; or b. Contains non-exempt trees at least 30 feet tall and more than 6 inches in diameter measured 4 feet above the ground which have a crown cover over at least 80 percent of the site, or the relevant portion. The applicant can show such crown cover exists using a scaled survey or an aerial photograph. If granted, the exemption shall be approved subject to the condition that the applicant preserve at least 50 percent of the crown cover that causes the shade that warrants the exemption. The applicant shall file a note on the plat or other documents in the office of the county recorder binding the applicant to comply with this requirement. The City shall be made a party to any covenant or restriction created to enforce any provision of this ordinance. The covenant or restriction shall not be amended without written City approval. E. Adjustments to Design Standard. The approval authority shall reduce the percentage of lots that must comply with section 18.88.040 C to the minimum extent necessary if it finds the applicant has shown it would cause or is subject to one or more of the following conditions: 1. Adverse impacts on density and coat or amenities. a. If the design standard in section 18.88.040 C.1 is applied, either the resulting density is less than that proposed, or on-site development costs (e.g. grading, water, storm drainage and sanitary systems, and road) and solar related off-site development costs are at least 5 percent more per lot than if the standard is not applied. The following conditions, among others, could constrain the design of a development in such a way that compliance with section 18.88.040 C.1 would reduce density or increase per lot costs in this manner. The applicant shall show which, if any, of these or other similar site characteristics apply in an application for a development: C CDC REVISION - SOLAR - JANUARY, 1991 PAGE 12 (i) The portion of the site for which the adjustment is sought has a natural grade that is sloped 10 percent or more and is oriented greater than 45 degrees east or west of true south based on a topographic survey of the site by the professional land surveyor or USGS or other officially recognized topographic information. (ii) There is a significant natural feature on the site, identified as such in the comprehensive plan or development ordinance, that prevents given streets or lots from being oriented for solar access, and it will exist after the site is developed. (iii) Existing road patterns must be continued through the site or must terminate on-site to comply with applicable road standards or public road plans in a way that prevents given streets or lots in the development from being oriented for solar access. (iv) An existing public easement or right-of-way prevents given streets or lots in the development from being oriented for solar access. b. In the design standard in section 18.88.040 C.1 applies to a given lot or lots, significant development amenities that would otherwise benefit the lot(s) will be lost or impaired. Evidence that a significant diminution in the market value of the lot(s) would result from having the lot(s) comply with section 18.88.040 C.1 is relevant to whether a significant development amenity is lost or impaired. Refer to amenities that qualify or to relevant comprehensive plan provisions or inventories. 2. Impacts of existing shade. The shadow pattern from non-exempt trees cover over at least 80 percent of the lot and at least 50 percent of the shadow pattern will remain after development of the lot. The applicant can show the shadow pattern using a scaled survey of non-exempt trees on the site or using an aerial photograph. a. Shade from non-exempt trees is assumed to remain if: the trees are situated in a required setback; or they are part of an existing or proposed park, open space, or recreational amenity; or they are separated from the developable remainder of their parcel by an undevelopable area of feature; or they are part of landscaping required pursuant to Chapter 18.100; or they do not need to be removed for a driveway or other development. b. Also, to the extent the shade is caused by on-site trees or off- site trees on land owned by the applicant, it is assumed to remain if the applicant files in the office of the county recorder a ( CDC REVISION - SOLAR - JANUARY, 1991 PAGE 13 covenant binding the applicant to retain the trees causing the shade on the affected lots. F. Protection from Future Shade. Structures and non-exempt vegetation must comply with the Solar Balance Point Ordinance in Section 18.88.050 on all lots in a development subject to the Solar Access Ordinance for New Development, including lots for which exemptions or adjustments to the Solar Access Ordinance for New Development have been granted. The applicant shall file a note on the plat or other documents in the office of the county recorder binding the applicant and subsequent purchasers to comply with the future shade protection standards in Section F. The City shall be made a part of any covenant or restriction created to enforce any provision of this ordinance. The covenant or restriction shall not be amended without written City approval. G. Application. An application for approval of a development subject to this ordinance shall include: 1. Maps and text sufficient to show the development complies with the solar design standard of Section 18.88.050 C, except for lots for which an exemption or adjustment from Section 18.88.050 C is requested, including all of the following items: a. The north-south lot dimension and front lot line orientation of each proposed lot. b. ;Protected solar building lines and relevant building site restrictions, if applicable. C. For the purpose of identifying trees exempt from Section F, a map showing existing trees at least 30 feet tall and over 6 inches diameter at a point 4 feet above grade, including their height, diameter and species, and stating that they are to be retained and are exempt. d. Copies of all private restrictions relating to solar access. 2. If an exemption or adjustment to Section 18.88.050 C is requested, maps and text sufficient to show that given lots or areas in the development comply with the standards for such an exemption or adjustment in Sections 18.88.050 D or E shall also be required. H. Review Process. Compliance with Section 18.88.050 shall be determined by the approval authority in conjunction with an application for a subdivision (Chapter 18.160), or land partition (Chapter 18.162). 18.88.050 Solar Balance Point A. Purpose. The purposes of this section are to promote the use of solar energy, to minimize shading of structures and accessory structures, and, where CDC REVISION - SOLAR - JANUARY, 1991 PAGE 14 applicable, to minimize shading of structures by trees. Decisions related to this section are intended to be ministerial. B. Applicability. This section applies to an application for a building permit for all structures in R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5, and R-7 zones and all single family detached and duplex structures in all other residential zones, except to the extent the approval authority finds the applicant has shown that one or more of the conditions listed in sections 18.88.050 E or F exists, and exemptions or adjustments provided for them are warranted. In addition, non-exempt vegetation planted on lots subject to the provisions of section 18.88.040.F of the Solar Access Ordinance for New Development shall comply with the shade point height standards as provided in sections 18.88.050 D and E. C. Solar Site Plan Required. An applicant for a building permit for a structure subject to this section shall submit a site plan that shows: 1. The maximum shade point height allowed under section 18.88.050 D; 2. If the maximum shade point height is adjusted pursuant to section 18.88.050 D.l.b, the average elevation of the rear property line; and 3. The location of the shade point, its height relative to the average elevation of the front lot line or the elevation at the midpoint of the front lot line, and its orientation relative to true south; and, if applicable, 4. The solar balance point for the structure as provided in section 18.88.050 H. D. Maximum Shade Point Height Standard. The height of the shade point shall comply with either subsection 1 or 2 below. 1. Basic Requirement. a. The height of the shade point shall be less than or equal to the height specified in Table A or computed using the following formula. The height of the shade point shall be measured from the shade point to either the average elevation at the front lot line or the elevation at the midpoint of the front lot line. If necessary interpolate between the 5 foot dimensions listed in Table A. H = (2 x SRL) - N + 150 5 Where: H = the maximum allowed height of the shade point (see Figures 4 and 5); SRL = shade reduction line (the distance between the shade point and the northern lot line, see Figure 6); and N = the north-south lot dimension, provided that a north-south lot dimension more than 90 feet shall use a value of 90 feet for this section. CDC REVISION - SOLAR - JANUARY, 1991 PAGE 15 b. Provided, the maximum allowed height of the shade point may be C increased one foot above the amount calculated using the formula or Table A for each foot that the average grade at the rear property line exceeds the average grade at the front property line. TABLE A - MAXIMUM PERMITTED SHADE POINT HEIGHT (In Feet) Distance to North-south lot dimension (in feet) Shade 100+ 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 Reduction Line from northern lot line (in feet) 70 40 40 40 41 42 43 44 65 38 38 38 39 40 41 42 43 60 36 36 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 55 34 34 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 50 32 32 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 45 30 30 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 28 28 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 35 26 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 30 24 24 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 25 22 22 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 20 20 20 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 18 18 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 16 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 5 14 14 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2. Performance Option. The proposed structure, or applicable non-exempt vegetation, will shade not more than 20 percent of the south-facing glazing of existing habitable structure(s), or, where applicable, the proposed structure or non-exempt vegetation comply with section 18.88.040.0.2 or C.3 of the Solar Access Ordinance for New Development. If section 18.88.040.0.2, Protected Solar Building Line, is used, non-exempt trees and the shade point structures shall be set back from the protected solar building line 2.5 feet for every 1 foot of height of the structure or of the mature height of non-exempt vegetation over 2 feet. E. Exemption from the Maximum Shade Point Height Standard. The approval authority shall exempt a proposed structure or aon-exempt vegetation from sections 18.88.050 C and D if the applicant shows that one or more of the conditions in this section exist, based on plot plans or plats, corner elevations or other topographical data, shadow patterns, suncharts or photographs, or other substantial evidence submitted by the applicant. 1. Exempt Lot. When created, the lot was subject to the Solar Access Ordinance for New Development and was not subject to the provisions of section 18.88.040 F. CDC REVISION - SOLAR - JANUARY, 1991 PAGE 16 2. Pre-existing shade. The structure or applicable non-exempt vegetation will shade an area that is shaded by one of more of the following: j ' a. An existing or approved building or structure; b. A topographical feature; or c. Non-exempt vegetation will remain after development of the site. It is assumed that this vegetation will remain after development if it: (i) Is situated in a building setback required by this title; or (ii) Is part of a developed area or landscaping required by }5 Chapter 18.100, a public park or landscape strip, or legally reserved open space; or (iii) Is in a developable remainder of a parcel that is separated by an undevelopable area or feature; or (iv) Is on the applicant's property and not affected by the development; or (v) A duly executed covenant is used to preserve trees causing such shade. 3. Slope. The site has an average slope that exceeds 20 percent in a direction greater than 45 degrees east or west of true south based on a y' topographic survey by a licensed professional land surveyor or USGS or other officially recognized topographic information. 4. Insignificant benefit. The proposed structure or non-exempt vegetation shades one or more of the following: a. An undevelopable area; b. The wall of an unheated space, such as a typical garage; C. An area without solar features; or d. An undeveloped lot, other than a lot that was subject to the Solar Access Ordinance for New Development, where: (i) There are at least four single family detached or attached homes or duplexes within 250 feet of the lot within the same subdivision or a phase of the subdivision; and (ii) A majority of the homes identified in subsection d.(i) above have no solar features. CDC REVISION - SOLAR - JANUARY, 1991 PAGE 17 i 5. Public Improvement. The proposed structure is a publicly owned ( improvement. l F. Adjustments to the Maximum Shade Point Height Standard. The approval authority shall increase the maximum permitted height of the shade point determined using section 18.88.050 D to the extent it finds the applicant has shown one or more of the following conditions exist, 'based on plot plans or plats, corner elevations or other topographical data, shadow patterns, suncharts or photographs, or other substantial evidence submitted by the applicant. 1. Physical conditions. Physical conditions preclude development of the site in a manner that complies with section 18.88.050 D, due to such things as lot size less than 3,000 square feet, unstable or wet soils, or a drainage way, public or private easement, or right-of-way. 2. Conflict between the Maximum Shade Point Height and Allowed Shade on the Solar Feature Standards. A proposed structure may be sited to meet the solar balance point standard described in section 18.88.050 H or be sited as near to the solar balance point as allowed by section 18.88.050 H, if: a. Siting the proposed structure to meet the maximum shade point height standard using section 18.88.050 D would cause its solar feature(s) to potentially be shaded as determined using section 18.88.050 G; and b. The application includes a form provided for that purpose by the City that: AIr Releases the applicant from complying with section 18.88.050 D and agrees that the proposed structure may shade an area otherwise protected by section 18.88.050 D; (ii) Releases the city from liability for damages resulting from the adjustment; and (iii) Is signed by the owner(s) of the properties that would be shaded by the proposed structure more than allowed by the provisions of section 18.88.050 D. C. Before the city issues a permit for a proposed structure for which an adjustment has been granted pursuant to section 18.88.050 F.2, the applicant shall file the form provided for in subsection 2.b above in the office of the County Recorder with the deeds to the affected properties. G. Analysis of Allowed Shade on Solar Feature 1. An applicant may, but is not required to, perform the calculations in or comply with the standards of section 18.88.050 G. 2. Applicants are encouraged to design and site a proposed habitable structure so that the lowest height of any solar feature(s) will not be ( CDC REVISION - SOLAR - JANUARY, 1991 PAGE 18 shaded by buildings or non-exempt trees on lot(s) to the south. The / applicant should complete the following calculation procedure to l determine if solar feature(s) of the proposed structure will be shaded. To start, the applicant should choose which of the following sources of shade originating from adjacent lot(s) to the south to use to calculate the maximum shade height at the north property line: a. Existing structure(s) or non-exempt trees; or b. The maximum shade that can be cast from future buildings or non- exempt trees, based on Table C. If the lot(s) to the south can be further divided, then the north-south dimension is assumed to be the minimum lot width required for a new lot in that zone. 3. The height of the lowest point of any solar feature of the proposed structure is calculated with respect to either the average elevation or the elevation at the midpoint of the front lot line of the lot to the south. 4. The applicant can determine the height of the shadow that may be cast upon the applicant's solar feature by the source of shade selected in subsection 2 by using the following formula or Table B. SFSH = SH - (SGL/2.5) Where: SFSH = the allowed shadow height on the solar feature (see Figure 8) SH = the height of the shade at the northern lot line of lot(s) to the south as determined in section 18.88.050 G.2 SGL = the solar gain line (the distance from the solar feature to the northern lot line of adjacent lot(s) to the south, see Figure 7) TABLE B - MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF SHADOW AT SOLAR FEATURE (feet) Distance from Allowed Shade Height at Northern Lot Line Solar Gain Line of Adjacent Lot(s) to the South (feet) to lot line (feet) 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 50 2 1 45 4 3 2 1 40 6 5 4 3 2 1 35 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 30 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 25 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 20 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 15 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 10 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 5 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 Table C may be used to determine (SH) in the above formula ( MC REVISION - SOLAR - JANUARY, 1991 PAGE 19 TABLE C l( North-south lot dimension of adjacent 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 lot(s) to south Allowed shade height at the north property 12 12 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 line of adjacent lot(s) to south 5. If the allowed shade height on the solar feature calculated in subsection 4 is higher than the lowest height of the solar feature calculated in subsection 3, the applicant shall be encouraged to consider changes to the house design or location which would make it practical to locate the solar feature so that it will not be shaded in the future. H. Solar Balance Point. If a structure does not comply with maximum shade point height standard in section 18.88.050 D and the allowed shade on a solar feature standard in section 18.88.050 G, then the solar balance point of the lot shall be calculated (see Figure 8). The solar balance point is the point on the lot where a structure would be the same from complying with both of these standards. 1. Yard Setback Adjustment. The City shall grant an adjustment to the setback requirement(s) as indicated below if necessary to build a proposed structure so it complies with either the shade point height standard in section 18.88.050 D, the allowed shade on a solar feature standard in section 18.88.050 G, or the solar balance point standard in section 18.88.050 H as provided herein (see Figure 8). This adjustment is not intended to encourage reductions in available solar access or unnecessary modification of setback requirements, and shall apply only if necessary. for a structure to comply with the applicable provisions of this chapter. 1. R-7, R-12, R-25, and R-40 Zones: a. A front yard setback may be reduced to not less than 10 feet. b. A rear yard setback may be reduced to not less than 10 feet. C. A side yard setback may be reduced to not less than 3 feet. d. Corner and through lot setbacks may be reduced to not less than 15 feet. e. Setback to the front of a garage may be reduced to not less than 18 feet. 2. R-3.5 and R-4.5 Zones: l CDC REVISION - SOLAR - JANUARY, 1991 PAGE 20 C a. A front yard setback may be reduced to not less than 15 feet. b. A rear yard setback may be reduced to not less than 10 feet. C. A side yard setback may be reduced to not less than 3 feet. d. Corner and through lot setbacks may be reduced to not less than 15 feet. e. Setback to the front of a garage may be reduced to not less than 18 feet. 3. R-1 and R-2 Zones: a. A front yard setback may be reduced to not less than 25 feet. b. A rear yard setback may be reduced to not less than 20 feet. C. A side yard setback may be reduced to not less than 5 feet. d. Corner and through lot setbacks may be reduced to not less than 15 feet. e. Setback to the front of a garage may be reduced to not less than 18 feet. J. Review Process. Compliance with section 18.88.050 shall be determined by the Director in conjunction with an application for a building permit. OTHER RELATED CODE AMENDMENTS 18.32.090 Approval Authority Responsibilities A. 13. Tree removal permits; [and) 14. Director's interpretations (.1; and 15. Solar Access Requirements pursuant to Chanter 18.88. C. 7. An appeal of a sign permit decision or administrative exception made by the Director pursuant to Subsections 18.114.030 D and E or section 18.114.148, respectively[.]; and 8. An appeal of a Solar Access Requirements decision by the Director pursuant to Chapter 18.88. D. 9. lands annexed to the City; [and] 10. Recommendations to the City Council on annexations[.) and t \ CDC REVISION - SOLAR - JANUARY, 1991 PAGE 21 C 11. Solar Access Requirements pursuant to Chapter 18.88. 18.44.060 Additional Requirements A. 2. overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned Development, ? 18.82 Historic Overlay District, [and] 18.84 Sensitive Lands, and 18.88 Solar Access Requirements; 18.46.060 Additional Requirements : A. 2. Overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned Development, 18.82 Historic Overlay District, [and] 18.84 Sensitive Lands, and 18.88 Solar Access Requirements; 18.48.060 Additional Requirements A. 2. Overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned Development, 18.82 Historic Overlay District, [and] 18.84 Sensitive Lands, and 18.88 Solar Access Requirements; 18.50.060 Additional Requirements A. 2. Overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned Development, 18.82 Historic Overlay District, [and] 18.84 Sensitive Lands, and 18.88 Solar Access Requirements; 18.52.060 Additional Requirements A. 2. Overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned Development, 18.82 Historic Overlay District, [and] 18.84 Sensitive Lands, and 18.88 Solar Access Requirements; 18.54.060 Additional Requirements A. 2. Overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned Development, 18.82 Historic Overlay District, 18.84 Sensitive Lands, [and] Action Areasand 18.88 Solar Access Requirements; 18.56.060 Additional Requirements A. 2. Overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned Development, 18.82 Historic Overlay District, 18.84 Sensitive Lands, [and] Action Areas[;], and 18.88 Solar Access Requirements; 18.58.060 Additional Requirements A. 2. Overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned Development, 18.82 Historic Overlay District, 18.84 Sensitive Lands, [and] Action Areas[;], and 18.88 Solar Access Requirements; r, CDC REVISION - SOLAR - JANUARY, 1991 PAGE 22 } 18.130.150 Standard Dimensional Requirements for Conditional Use Types C. 15. Duplexes; a. Lot Size: 10,000 square feet;. [and] b. Solar Access Requirements, Chapter 18.88; and [bjc. The remaining dimensional requirements of the underlying zoning district shall apply. SOLARACC/RL CDC REVISION - SOLAR - JANUARY, 1991 PAGE 23 AGENDA ITEM NO . ' 2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE : 2/19/91 (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 PLEASE PRINT yE~ -BMW M Gish r;L+,& j or1 _ (,0"1® 14u nsik,, , r Please sign in to testify on the following: AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 DATE: 2/19/91 PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION MAP Question: Should the City delete the current alignment of the Ash Avenue extension between Hall Blvd. at Hunziker St. an aci is wy. at Walnut Street. PLEASE PRINT NAME & ADDRESS NAME & ADDRESS Proponent: Delete Alignment opponent: Keep Alignment 1300 sw S- $4 :2 3CO 51Jn. v►ll J dw. 97d-7U e?CYL4~~ op- C~'Sh Ex~~nSf ~r1 C Be~Fe.~een R~u~,n ha~rn, Please sign in to testify on the following: AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 DATE: 2/19/91 PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN i TRANSPORTATION MAP Question: Should the-City add an alignment of an Ash , Avenue extension between Burnham Street an 'H1 Street PLEASE PRINT NAME & ADDRESS NAME & ADDRESS i( roponent: Add Alignment Opponent: Do Not Add Alignment r Mies -c, 5~" ow f /3A0 -EW Stu- -#`Z-3c " _5 Jnz~ x Q7 26 ! ~ .lr `J c-FF ~l o o Sw s Y v; {h ~ fit ~~l y4~ Burn ha.~v► ~tty'nm~PM7~' g ask 4, c_ Please sign in to testify on the following: 4 DATE - 2/19/91 AGENDA ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANS- PORTATION MAP Question: Should the City delete an alignment of Burnham J:~ Street approximately between Ash Avenue and Main Street k:!f, opposite Tigard Street. PLEASE PRINT NAME & ADDRESS NAME & ADDRESS Proponent: Delete Alignment Opponent: Keep Alignment :I RW►i!-z5 9. SNft l r" - ~ /.eau 1308sUJ*a300 ~ , JXMIAM Olt K? Loop a)n ngc4-;. Please sign in to testify on the following: AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 DATE- 2/19/91 PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION MAP Question: Should the City add a loop connection from Pacific Highway and Tigard Street. PlIMSE PRINT NAME & ADDRESS NAME & ADDRESS Proponent: Add Connection Opponent: Do Not Add Connec 'on 8 u 7-q Q Q C Please sign in to testify on the following: AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 DATE: 2/19/91 PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 90-0004 - LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING Question: Should the City revise the Development code standards as they relate to buffering and screening? PLEASE PRINT NAME & ADDRESS NAME & ADDRESS Proponent: Revise Standards Opponent: Do Not Revisp Standards 1 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: February 19, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: February 8, 1991 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Purchase of PREVIOUS ACTION: t i Tigard Electric Property PREPARED BY : DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OR REQUESTED BY: Patrick J.Reilly =7 ~c.=a===-=o==c-=oa,f POL C ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY z Attached is a Resolution authorizing transfer of funds from the General Fund Contingency for purchase of property adjacent to the Tigard City Hall (Tigard s Electric property). i 'S ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve resolution as presented. 2. Approve resolution with modifications. FISCAL IMPACT Purchase negotiations are nearing completion pending only the environmental assessment which is expected in the near future. SUGGESTED ACTION Approve the resolution as presented. sun219 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3 3 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AGENDA OF: February 19,1991 DATE SUBMITTED: February 4,1991 j ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Authorization PREVIOUS ACTION: to advertise for bids for Major Street Bond Pr 'ec PREPARED BY: Gary Alf son _ DEPT HEAD OIC CITY ADMIN OI~ REQUESTED BY: P LICY ISSUE Shall the City Engineer be authorized to advertise for bids for SW McDonald Street, SW Gaarde Street, SW Bonita Road, Main Street Bridge and 69th Avenue/99W Major Street Bond Projects. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Major Streets Bond Projects are the final projects to be constructed in the third year of the Bond. Construction plans are being prepared and negotiations for additional right of way and easements are in progress. Staff proposes to advertise for construction bids as soon as construction drawings are complete. The City's purchasing rules require Local Contract Reveiw Board (LCRB) approval prior to advertising for bids. After bids are received, the LCRB reveiw will again be required prior to awarding the contract. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED . 1. Authorize the City Engineer to advertise for bids. 2. Withhold approval to advertise. FISCAL IMPACT All projects are funded under the Street Bond. SUGGESTED ACTION That the LCRB, by motion, authorize the City Engineer to advertise for bids on the McDonald Street, Gaarde Street, Bonita Road, and Main Street Bridge Projects ga/SS-91pro.ga l COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM _ LJ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: February 19, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: CPA90-0010 PREVIOUS ACTION: COUNCIL INITIATED / BY RES 90-56, 90-57 & 90-58 PREPARED BY: JOHN ACKER DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN 01, REQUESTED BY: ED MURPHY - POLICY ISSUE Should the City amend the Comprehensiv Plan Transportation Map by 1) deleting the current alignment of the Ash Avenue extension between Hall Boulevard at Hunziker Street and Pacific Highway at Walnut Street; 2) adding an alignment of an Ash Avenue extension between Burnham Street and Hill Street; 3) deleting an alignment of Burnham Street approximately between Ash Avenue and Main Street opposite Tigard Street and; 4) adding a loop connection from Pacific Highway and Tigard Street. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City Council initiated these amendments by resolution 90-56, 90-57, and 90-58 in August 1990. The proposed amendments would re-establish the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map as it was prior to changes brought about in connection with the City Center Plan (ORD 89-24) plus add a loop connection from Pacific Highway to Tigard Street. The proposed amendment has been reviewad by NPO #1 & 2, the Planning Commission and the Transportation Advisory Committee. More detailed information is contained in the attached memo. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Adopt the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as proposed 2. Deny the Comprehensive Plan Amendment 3. Adopt a portion of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment 4. Alter the Comprehensive Plan Amendment 5. Defer a decision to a later date - FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact analysis was done regarding capital costs associated with the different street alignment alternatives. Specific alignment studies may be necessary. If further study is required to resolve other issues money and/or staff time can be estimated when details are known. SUGGESTED ACTION 1. Adopt the attached ordinance (on green paper) that would: a. Delete the re-alignment of Burnham Street to connect with Main Street opposite Tigard Street. b. Adopt general language for a connection from Pacific Highway to Main Street that does not specify a loop to Tigard Street. c. The decision on the Ash Avenue alignment should be delayed until April 23 to give the Transportation Advisory Committee additional time to review alternatives and prepare a recommendation to the City Council. s Alternatively the City Council may want to adopt the attached ordinance (on blue paper) adopting the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as it was initiated by the Council. ik MEMORANDUM i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator FROM: Ed Murphy, Director of Community Development DATE: February 8, 1991 y x SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map Amendment for Ash Ave, Burnham , Street, and 99W BACKGROUND ti In 1989, as part of the development of the City Center Plan, the Comprehensive' Plan Transportation Map was changed for the Ash Avenue extension, and for the alignment of Burnham Street. At the time of adoption, this amendment was intended to benefit traffic circulation and to accommodate planned growth within the downtown area, while minimizing the interference between local and regional travel needs as noted in Ordinance 89-24. The alignment of Ash Avenue was established on the Transportation Map as a broad corridor with additional language adopted requiring a specific alignment study to be conducted as soon as possible (Ordinance 89-24). After the City Center Plan was turned down by Tigard voters in November, 1989, there was no urgency to conduct an alignment study. At Council's direction the study for specific alignment for Ash Avenue has not been done. However, $30,000 was appropriated in the FY 90-91 budget for an Ash Avenue alignment study . In August of 1990, partly in response to property owners' concerns about effects that identifying future street corridors had on their property, the City Council passed Resolutions 90-57 and 90-58. These Resolutions initiated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map that would effectively eliminate the 1989 amendments and re-establish the Transportation Map as it was prior to the City Center Plan. In addition, the City Council passed Resolution 90-56 that would establish a loop connection between Highway 99W and Tigard Street. This amendment was initiated in order to bring the idea of this connection to the attention of ODOT as they study the possibility of improving 99W in this area. t C' ' ss n PROCESS x The application was initiated on behalf of the City and public contact was begun. 3 The following is a summary of public input and responses: S NPO #1 The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments were presented to NPO #1, ' & 2 on November 14, 1990 with the response that there were no objections but a comment that the 99W loop concept was incomplete in that is seems to create a difficult situation where Tigard Street ' intersects with Main Street. i Planning Commission The Planning Commission recommended on December 4, 1990 { that the City Council: S 1) Change the alignment of Ash Avenue back to what ; existed prior to the passage of ordinance 89 - 24. This would delete the current Pacific Highway to Hunziker Connection and connect Ash through to Hill utilizing existing City right of way. 2) Delete the current Tigard/Burnham Connection, and; x: 'F- k 3) Adopt more general language to indicate to the Oregon Department of Transportation that a !w connection from the southbound lanes of Highway 99W should be made to Main Street. They considered language calling for a "loop" connection from Highway 99W to Main Street, but felt such wording was too specific. The Planning Commission was not unanimous in their decision. They voted five to three to change the Ash Avenue and Tigard/Burnham street alignment and six to two to provide for a connection to the downtown from Highway 99W. There was considerable discussion that changing the alignment of Ash Avenue back to the way it was may not be in the best interests of long term transportation planning in the downtown. Transportation Committee The Transportation Advisory Committee on January 24, 1991 voted to recommend that the Council delay action on the Planning Commission's recommendation for sixty days. The Transportation Committee desires additional time to study Ash Avenue and present alternatives to the City Council. The Committee strongly feels that there are important transportation concepts that should be maintained. The Committee will have a member at the Council Hearing to present their views. 1 'flv 4 DISCUSSION i Issues kept in mind throughout this process include: a) Property owners along the proposed routes of Ash Avenue and the Tigard/ Burnham alignment have a great deal of uncertainty about the future of their property. b) Undesirable impacts to neighborhoods need to be minimized. c) A workable transportation plan needs to be in place in the downtown to accommodate planned development. The proposed amendments have been structured in a way to provide maximum flexibility and to allow discussion of separate parts of the proposed amendments independently. The following identifies each part of the proposal: 1) Ash Avenue between Burnham Street and Pacific Highway at Walnut Street 2) Ash Avenue between Burnham Street and Hall Boulevard at Hunziker Street 3) Burnham Street between Ash Street and Main Street opposite Tigard Street 4) Loop between Pacific Highway and Tigard Street For each of the four parts there are a number of possible actions: . o Adopt the proposal; amend the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map as proposed o Do nothing; leave the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map as it is o Postpone the decision; do nothing now but set a date-certain hearing to take action later o Adopt a variation of the proposed amendment RECOMMENDATION Based on compliance with approval criteria, staff recommends the portion of the amendment that would delete the Tigard/Burnham Connection be approved as proposed and recommended by the Planning Commission. Based on compliance with approval criteria and concerns that there is not enough information available to identify a specific access configuration and route from Highway 99 to downtown Tigard, staff recommends approval of more general language "a connection between the south-bound lanes of Highway 99W and Main Street" as recommended by the Planning Commission. Based on interest shown by the Transportation Advisory Committee and the committee's desire to commit their time to further analyze transportation issues in the downtown area, staff recommends that the decision on the Ash Avenue alignment be delayed as requested by the Transportation Advisory Committee. If the Council wished to proceed as recommended by staff an ordinance has been prepared and is attached (on green paper). If the Council wishes to adopt the amendment as originally initiated by the Council, an ordinance reflecting that has been prepared (on blue paper). t 7 j CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION MAP BY DELETING A PORTION OF ORDINANCE 89-24 AND ADDING A CONNECTION FROM HIGHWAY 99W TO MAIN STREET (CPA 90-0010) REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD. WHEREAS, the request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map as follows: 4) Delete the re-alignment of Burnham Street to connect with Main Street opposite Tigard Street. 5) Add a connection between Highway 99W and Main Street. WHEREAS, NPO #1 & 2 discussed,the CPA 90-0010 proposal at its regular meeting on November 14, 1990 and recommends approval; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard the CPA 90-0010 proposal at its regular meeting on December 4, 1990 and recommends approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council took public testimony on the CPA 90-0010 proposal on February 19, 1991 NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria as noted below: The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 12, and City of C Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 11.2.1, 11.2.2, 11.2.3 and applicable Community Development Code sections related to legislative plan amendments. The proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Goals based on the following findings: 1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, is met because the City has an adopted citizen involvement program which includes review of land use applications by neighborhood planning organizations. In addition, this proposal has been reviewed in public hearings by the Planning Commission and by the City Council for which the public has been properly notified. Moreover, this issue was brought before the public at a public workshop held by the City Council and at a public hearing on August 27, 1990 at which time a decision was made to initiate the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Map amendments. 2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, is met because the City has applied all relevant Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan policies, and Community Development Code requirements in the review of this proposal. 3. Goal 12, Transportation, is met because the City has adopted policies related to improving the transportation network and continuing coordination of transportation improvements with other involved agencies. ORDINANCE No. 91- Page 1 The proposal is consistent with the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: 1. Policy 1.1.1 a. is satisfied because the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan will not affect compliance of the City's acknowledged Plan with the Statewide Goals. 2. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because Neighborhood Planning Organization #1 has been notified of the hearing and has , commented on the proposal and surrounding property owners have s, been notified of the date, time and place of the hearing. 3. Policy 8.1.1 is satisfied because the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current and future needs. z 4. Policy 8.1.2 is satisfied because the City is working jointly with the Oregon Department of Transportation to promote a cooperative solution to improving access to the Central Business District from Highway 99W. { SECTION 2: The City Council hereby deletes the text portion in brackets and the map area in Q> of ordinance 89-24 (Exhibit "A") thus deleting from the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map the re-alignment of Burnham Street to connect with Tigard Street at Main Street. SECTION 3: The City Council hereby adds reference to a connection from Highway 99W (i onto Main Street on the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map as shown in Exhibit "B". SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of , 1991. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: This , day of 1991. Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date 4f ORDINANCE No. 91- Page 2 Ex ii i e i -r "A CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 89-,-~X A ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION MAP (CPA 89-06 ASH AVENUE AND BURNHAM/TIGARD REALIGNMENT) REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD. WHEREAS, the request was to amend the Comprehensive Plan Transportation map as follows: (1) The Ash Avenue connection to be modified to indicate a connection between the intersection of SW Walnut and Pacific Highway to the intersection of Hunziker Street and Hall Boulevard. (2) The alignment of SW Burnham to be modified to intersect to SW Main Street opposite SW Tigard. The realigned portion will replace the existing portion of Burnham as the collector route; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard the above application at its regular meeting of June 20, 1989 and recommended approval; and, WHEREAS, the City Council took public testimony on the above application at its regular meetings of July 10, 1989 and August 21, 1989. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria as noted below: 1. Location ASH AVENUE EXTENSION - between SW Pacific Highway at Walnut and Hall at- Hunziker. (WCTM 2S1 2BD, 2S1 2AC, 2S1, 2CA, 2S1 2DB, 2S1 2AD & 2S1 2AA.) BURNHAM/TIGARD REALIGNMENT - between SW Main Street at Tigard and the existing right-of-way of SW Burnham. (WCTM 2S1 2AB & 2S1 2AD.) 2. Background Information On May 9, 1983, the City council adopted the Comprehensive Plan Transportation map by approving Ordinance 83-24. Subsequent to the original adoption, changes have been made to the map but none which affect the revisions being considered for Ash Avenue and the Burnham/Tigard realignment. On November 9, 1983, the City Council adopted Ordinance 83-52 which accepted Volume II of the City's Comprehensive Plan containing findings, policies and implementation strategies. The policies relating to Ash Avenue read as follows: "11.2.1 Ash Avenue shall be extended across Fanno Creek, enabling access to the neighborhoods and commercial area without using Pacific Highway. Design features shall be used to slow traffic and make the street as safe as possible. Ash Avenue shall be designated as a minor collector in conformance with the Master Street Plan. Design features and mitigation measures shall hold traffic volumes to the middle limits of a minor collector. ~ T ORDINANCE NO. 89-0 PAGE 1 11.2.2 Improvements to SW Ash Avenue from SW Hill to Fanno Creek shall be constructed as a condition of development of adjacent properties. The street improvements along with the development of a major commercial site will increase traffic on Ash. A barricade shall be placed at Hill Street approximately at the end of the existing pavement to protect the neighborhood residents from the commercial traffic. 11.2.3 Methods of mitigating the traffic impact on the neighborhood shall include, in the following order of improvement, construction: a. Improving SW McDonald Street to interim maintenance standards to encourage traffic from south of McDonald to use McDonald to exit to Hall and/or Pacific Highway. b. Improvements to the residential portion of Ash from Hill to Frewing. These improvements could include -limited parking, delineation of traffic lanes and sidewalks on one or both sides of the street. C. The extension of SW Hill to SW O'Hara and/or the improvement of SW Ash from Frewing to Garrett. d. The extension of SW O'Mara to SW Hill parallel to SW Ash. e. Removal of the barricade in place on SW Ash Avenue at SW Hill. f. Improvement of SW O'Mara Street to interim maintenance standards to encourage an alternate route. g. Installation of traffic inhibitors to the residential portion of Ash if and when traffic volumes exceed the -middle range for a minor collector. Traffic inhibitors include but are'not limited to planting islands, speed bumps, buttons, turning restrictions., load limits and enforcement." Compliance with the above policies is discussed in more detail i.i the findings and conclusions section of this report. The proposed revision to the Ash Avenue extension, however,' in effect will eliminate the need for most of the above conditions as traffic volumes through the neighborhood will not reach the levels anticipated under the original alignment. There are no policies in Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan which address the Burnham/Tigard realignment. 3. Vicinity Information Ash Avenue extension - Currently, Ash Avenue is improved from SW McDonald Street north and north-westerly to a point approximately 225 feet past the intersection with SW Hill Street. This section of Ash Avenue passes through established residential neighborhoods of primarily single family homes. The other section of "Ash is improved from SW Scoffins to Commercial and from SW Burnham southwesterly approximately 500 feet. This portion of SW Ash runs through the Central Business District which is comprised of mixed residential and commercial land uses. ORDINANCE NO. 89- PAGE 2 Burnham/Tigard realignment - The alignment which is the subject of this report is currently not in place. Burnham currently runs from SW Main Street to SW Hall Blvd. Burnham provides access to a mix of land uses within the Central Business District. 4. Proposal Information Over the past two years, the City has been engaged in an effort to create and implement an action plan for the city center area. As part of that effort, the City contracted with several different firms to provide specialized recommendations for the area. Reports were prepared on the economic potential of the area, transportation alternatives, recommendations for improvements to Fanno Creek Park, design concepts for the area, and possible funding sources. One element common to all of the recommendations provided was the identification of the need to improve access to and through the city center area. In particular, the. draft of the Downtown Tigard Traffic and Circulation Study prepared by Rittelson & Associates makes the following conclusions and recommendations: "Create new entry portals into and out of the downtown area. These new portals will have a beneficial effect on both local and regional traffic circulation patterns within the area. They are necessary to accommodate planned growth within the downtown area, while at the-same time minimizing the interference between local and regional travel needs." C! Based on the conclusions and recommendations, Rittelson proposes a package i of improvement options including the following: "Extension of Ash Street to connect between the Pacific Highway/Walnut Street intersection and the existing Hall Boulevard/Hunziker Road intersection; Improvement of Burnham Street between Main Street and Hall Boulevard; and Realignment of Burnham Street to connect with the existing Main Street/Tigard Street intersection." The recommendation goes further to state that all of the improvements need not be constructed at a single time and that a staged approach would work. Under a staged approach, Rittelson recommends that the Burnham-Tigard connection be constructed first. It is important to note that the revisions proposed to the map do not imply construction of the improvements immediately. The projects will have to be designed and funded prior to construction. The Urban Design Plan prepared by Gutherie/Slusarenko/Associates also recommended the Burnham/Tigard realignment and the Ash Avenue extension on the Capital Improvements Projects list. In addition, the City Center Development Plan and Report prepared by Moore Breithaupt & Associates emphasizes the need for improved access to the city center area and identifies the need for these specific projects as necessary to improving the access and circulation to and through the city center area. ORDINANCE NO. 89-- PAGE 3 5. Agency and NPO Comments { At the August 21, 1989 City Council meeting, NPO #1 presented an advisory statement suggesting that the proposal be rejected and that another solution would be more suitable which would better utilize the existing Johnson-Pacific Highway signal, and open up the downtown area without as much impact on property and lifestyle. 6. Planning Commission Recomendation On June 20,1989, Planning Commission met and recommended in favor of the proposed Burnham Road realignment and the Walnut to Ash Avenue connection, with an Ash Avenue/Hill Street connection preserved as a future option. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 12, and City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 8.1.1, 11.2.1, 11.2.2, 11.2.3 and applicable community Development code sections related to legislative plan amendments. Staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Goals based on the following findings: 1. Goal 1 is met because the City has an adopted citizen involvement program which includes review of land use applications by the neighborhood planning •organizations. In addition, public notice C has been provided. 2. Goal 2 is met because the City has applied all relevant Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan policies, and Community Development Code requirements in the review of this proposal. 3. Goal 12 is met because the City has adopted policies related to improving the transportation network and continued coordination of transportation improvements with other involved agencies. Staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the City's acknowledged comprehensive Plan based upon the following findings: 1. Policy 1.1.1 a. is satisfied because the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan will not affect compliance of the City's acknowledged Plan with the Statewide Goals. 2. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because Neighborhood Planning Organization #1 and surrounding property owners have been notified of the proposal and the date of the hearing and have been encouraged to comment on the proposal. 3. Policy 8.1.1 is satisfied because the amendments proposed to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map will address the need for a safe and efficient street system designed to accommodate current and future traffic volumes. C~ ORDINANCE NO. 89--1~:& PAGE 4 4. Policies 11.2.1, 11.2.2, and 11.2.3 are satisfied because the ! proposal to revise the route of the Ash Avenue extension redirects the extension away from the existing residential section of Ash avoiding the potential of substantially increasing traffic volumes through the local residential area. Policies 11.2.1, 11.2.2 and 11.2.3 were instituted to lessen the impact of the original route on the residential neighborhood. This proposal by design essentially meets the intent of those policies. Section 2: The City Council upholds the Planning Commission recommendation for approval of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation map amendment (Exhibit ^A") showing the realignment of Burnham St. to connect with Tigard St. an showing the extension of Ash St. to provide a connection between the Walnut/Pacific Highway intersection and the Hunziker Street/Hall Boulevard intersection and following the approximate alignment of the existing Ash Avenue in the downtown area. Section 3: The Council directs staff to proceed with the specific alignment analysis, outlined in Exhibit "B" attached, to determine practical alternative alignments for the proposed new roadway between Hunziker and Walnut Streets. Section 4: The Council, therefore ORDERS that the above referenced request be APPROVED. The Council FURTHER ORDERS that the C Planning Director and the City Recorder send a copy of the Final order as a Notice of Final decision to the parties in this case. Section 5: This ordinance shall be effective on and after the 31st day after its passage by Council, and approval by the Mayor. PASSED: By una-n iv40U S vote of all Council members present afte b ing read by number and title only, this day of rvs~P~L , 1989. Catherine Wheatley, Deputy Recor r APPROVED: This day of , 1989. Gerald R. Hdwards, Mayor dr/Ash.ln ORDINANCE NO. 89-'JPAGE 5 EXHIBIT "A" IN THE NW AND NE 1/4 SECTION 2 T20, R 1 W.M. O V~ J ONOON ~ ; a J SS. 9G 1 T vi U J ~ 8W ti ~ p cEkr~R PJ~. 3536 l~C4R p 1T AGG~a♦ O 2 +J k % 99 Z W 6 Fi~j4t G~~S S .W. sw. K pro ~''`A ♦`~4'~ o H s9"' ST, 9 sue` 4q r~ 1 ` ST. TIGARD ^ CIVIC CENTER _ sc 9 9~fC pv4. A- < -N- S F 1 ~0 a`4~`~ ~ mr SEF ,n TIGARO IU{ SENIOR 5• ~rR+ c'+ R cGE f 3 NO SCALE z• 6F~,~' t j cf L STREET ~ Z v V~ lLt• Y S'a z m sw OM ARA .__J I J• ( / \ oa „ s, P1 DRAFT Exhibit "B" ' REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING TO DETERMINE A SPECIFIC ALIGNMENT FOR THE PROPOSED WALNUT-HUNZIKER CONNECTION Background Tigard's City Center Plan has recommended construction of a new roadway to provide a collector street connection between the Walnut Street/Pacific Highway intersection and the Hunziker/Hall Boulevard intersection. on September 11, 1989, the City Council formally adopted the new roadway concept as a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. So far, only the roadway concept and a general corridor have been indicated. No specific alignment has been defined.. As a result, it cannot be determined which properties will be impacted by the new roadway nor to what extent they will be impacted. This leaves uncertainty for residents as to the future development and use of their properties. To relieve the uncertainty, the City. Council has directed that selection of a specific alignment proceed as quickly as possible. C ( Purpose \ The purpose of the consultant work will be to perform preliminary engineering sufficient to identify practicable alternative alignments for the proposed roadway and to provide sufficient data on the alternative alignments so that a specific alignment can be selected by the City. Scope of Work A. Citizen Input Early in the preliminary engineering process, the consultant- will. be, expected to hold at least one public meeting, to receive input from citizens regarding specific concerns or goals which they wish to see considered during the preliminary engineering process. The City will provide meeting space. In addition, the consultant will be expected to provide an opportunity for property owners to express specific concerns or preferences to the consultant in a one-on-one basis. These meetings would be expected to provide an opportunity for property owners to convey to the consultant team specific details about their properties which they wish the consultants to consider. For example, some-property owners have indicated specific ideas for future development of their properties which they would like to r coordinate with the roadway design. 1 t B. Development of Alternatives The consultant will be expected to develop alternative street alignments which meet the following criteria: 1. The new street should provide a connection between the Walnut/Pacific Highway intersection and the Hunziker Street/Hall Boulevard intersection and following the approximate alignment of existing Ash Avenue in the downtown area. The Walnut/Pacific and Hunziker/Hall intersections may be relocated if appropriate to achieve other design criteria. 2. Each alignment shall meet the minimum design criteria for collector streets. 3. The street should be designed to have a parkway type appearance in accordance with the city Center Plan. 4. The proposed roadway should be designed with lane configurations and intersection iaprovements in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Downtown Tigard Traffic and Circulation Study prepared by Kittelson and Associates and dated August 1989. 5. The proposed alignment should be consistent with the Fanno Creek Park f Plan to the maximum extent possible. 6. The new crossing of Fanno Creek shall be in accordance with the city's Drainage Master Plan. 7. In each alternative, the consultant should indicate how a local street connection could be constructed from the Ash -Avenue/Hill Street neighborhood to the new street if such a connection is desired in the future. C. comparison of Alternatives The consultant should provide a comparison of the various alternatives developed. The analysis of the alternatives should consider as a minimum the following items: 1. Total cost including cost of construction and right-of-way acquisition. In reporting costa, the consultant should show the potential for phasing of construction. 2. Environmental impacts and the potential for mitigation of these impacts. Environmental review should be limited to matters which may affect selection of • an alternative alignment. A detailed environmental impact statement is not required. 2 3. Impacts on existing buildings and the utility of any parcel r(i remainders. 4. Consistency with the preferences expressed by property owners. 5. Consistency with the City Center Plan and the Fanno Creek Park Plan. 6. Ability to safely and efficiently accommodate the traffic volumes projected in the Downtown Circulation Plan. D. Public Review After developing alignment alternatives and completing analysis of the alternatives, the consultant will provide an opportunity for the public to review the data which has been collected. Typically this would involve issuance of a preliminary report followed by an informal public meeting to explain the alternatives developed and to receive public comment. E. Formal Report and Recommendations After receiving public comment, the consultant will prepare a formal design report and a recommendation of the alternative to be selected by the City. The consultant will be expected to present and support the recommendations at formal hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. C~ Priorities The City is especially anxious to define a more specific alignment for the portion of the proposed roadway closest to Pacific Highway. Specifically, the area of greatest concern is the developed area along Walnut Place, McKenzie Place, and Ash Drive. If it proves practical for the consultant to finish review of the route closest. to Pacific Highway ahead of completion of the remaining route review and to bring this portion of the route to the public meeting and formal hearing process, the City would wish to proceed with this phased approach. dj/RFP-WHC.RW 3 4 4 ~:A F a. S w sr r N H. t-h vil , A P. % av N3 1N M R. 3q f1 CC ' ,a rt (D m n C~ Y ° rrr '#,4 4 p 4p k h N. 0 'y 9, t rr rr y O nor ht . r S m En r t" rt 1 , s.w Q 40 n m v 70 Hatt. s.w. _ _ .N~W AGENDA ITEM 5_1 STAFF REPORT December 4, 1990 - 7:30 TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 90-0010 REQUEST: An amendment to the comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. The proposed amendment would: 1. Delete the extension of Ash Avenue between Pacific Highway at Walnut Street and Burnham Street. 2. Delete the extension of Ash Avenue between Burnham Street and Hall Boulevard at Hunziker. 3. Establish an extension of Ash Avenue between Burnham and Hill Streets. 4. Delete the alignment of Burnham Street to connect with Tigard Street at Main Street. 5. Establish a loop connection from southbound Pacific Highway to Tigard Street. This request will reinstate the alignment of Ash Avenue, Tigard and Burnham Streets back to what was originally adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. (Ordinance 83-24). Comprehensive Plan Designations: The area encompassed by the deleted portions of the Ash Avenue Alignment consists of Central Business District, Medium Density Residential, Medium-High Density Residential, and General Commercial Plan Designations. The new Ash Avenue extension is designated as Central Business District. The portion of the deleted Burnham/Tigard alignment is designated as central Business District. The new Pacific Highway/Tigard street connection is designated as Central Business District and Light l Industrial. t Staff Report CPA 90-0010 page 1 i ! Zoning Designations: The deleted Ash Avenue extensions are zoned CBD, R-25, R- 12 and C-G. The new Ash Avenue extension is zoned CBD. The deleted Burnham/Tigard alignment is zoned CBD. The new Pacific Highway/City Center connection is zoned CBD and I-P. Applicant: City of Tigard OWNER: Various 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 LOCATION: DELETED ASH AVENUE EXTENSIONS - between Hall Boulevard at Hunziker and Pacific Highway at Walnut (WCTM 2S1 2AA, 2S1 2AC, 2S1 2AD, 2S1 2BD, 2S1 2CA, 2S1 2BD. NEW ASH AVENUE EXTENSION - between Burnham Street and Hill Street (WCTM 2S1 2AC, 2AD, 2DB). PACIFIC HIGHWAY/CITY CENTER CONNECTION - between the southbound lanes of Pacific Highway and Tigard Street near the Pacific Highway viaduct (2S1 2AB). ( 2. Background Information 1 Ash Avenue Extension and Burnham/Tigard Street Alicinment on May 9, 1983 the City Council adopted the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map by approving ordinance 83-24. on November 9, 1983 the City Council adopted Ordinance 83-52 which accepted The Tigard Comprehensive Plan Volume II: Findings Policies and Implementation Strategies. Within the Comprehensive Plan, Ash Avenue was designated as a "Special Area of Concern". The following Comprehensive Plan Policies pertain to Ash Avenue: 11.2.1 Ash Avenue shall be extended across Fanno Creek, enabling access to the neighborhoods and commercial area without using Pacific Highway. Design features shall be used to slow traffic and make the street as safe as possible. Ash Avenue shall be designated as a minor collector in conformance with the Master Street Plan. Design features and mitigation measures shall hold traffic volumes to the middle limits of a minor collector. 11.2.2 Improvements to S.W. Ash Avenue from S.W. Hill to Fanno Creek shall be constructed as a condition of development of adjacent properties. The street improvements along with the development of a major commercial site will increase traffic on Ash. A barricade shall be placed at Hill street approximately at the end of the existing pavement to protect the neighborhood residents from commercial traffic. Staff Report CPA 90-0010 page 2 l 11.2.3 Methods of mitigating the traffic impact on the l neighborhood shall include, in the following order of improvement, construction: a. Improving S.W. McDonald Street to interim maintenance standards to encourage traffic from south of McDonald to use McDonald to exit to Hall and/or Pacific Highway. b. Improvements to the residential portion of Ash form Hill to Frewing. These improvements could include limited parking, delineation of traffic lanes and sidewalks on one or both sides of the street. c. The extension of S.W. Hill to S.W. O'Mara and/or the improvement of S.W. Ash from Frewing to Garrett. d. The extension of S.W. O'Mara to S.W. Hill parallel to S.W. Ash. e. Removal of the barricade in place on S.W. Ash Avenue at S.W. Hill. f. Improvement of S.W. O'Mara Street to interim maintenance standards to encourage an alternate route. g. Installation of traffic inhibitors to the residential portion of Ash if and when traffic volumes exceed the middle range for a minor collector. Traffic inhibitors include but are not limited to planting islands, speed bumps, buttons, turning restrictions, load limits and enforcement." On September 11, 1989 The Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map was amended by ordinance 89-24 (EXHIBIT "A"). This amendment changed the Ash Avenue alignment between Burnham and Hill so that the western end of Ash terminated at Pacific Highway opposite Walnut Street, added an extension to Ash Avenue from Burnham to Hall opposite Hunziker and added an alignment of Burnham from north of Ash to Main Street opposite Tigard Street. The City Council in ordinance 89-24 also directed staff to proceed with a specific alignment analysis for Ash Avenue. Later, following voter disapproval in November, 1989 of the City Center Development Plan and the tax increment method for project financing, the City Council directed staff not to proceed with the alignment study. To date, the alignment study has not been undertaken. The current Ash Avenue and Burnham/Tigard Street alignments were recommended by the Downtown Tigard Traffic and Circulation Study, Kittelson & Associates, 1989., The report was not received nor reviewed by the City Council and it was not adopted. The Kittelson study recommended a number of changes to improve the transportation system in the downtown. The overall purpose of these improvements were to, "Create new entry portals into and out of the downtown area. These new portals will have a beneficial effect on both the local and regional traffic circulation patterns within the area. Staff Report CPA 90-0010 page 3 R MEN They are necessary to accommodate planned growth within the downtown area, while at the same time minimizing the interference between local and regional travel needs." The Kittleson Report stressed that The Ash Avenue and Burnham Street alignments were seen as necessary to accommodate new development in the downtown which would have resulted from urban renewal activities. Other, more specific reasons for Ash Avenue and Burnham Street alignments were given as follows: Ash Street Extension: a) "It provides good connectivity to the adjacent regional transportation system, and especially so if the Nimbus- Greenburg-Tigard Connector is implemented. In this case, Ash Street would facilitate traffic movements between the downtown area and the Highway 217/Scholls Ferry Road/Washington Square area. Also the realignment would eliminate the offset intersection at Hall Boulevard/Scoffins Street/Hunziker Street. b) By redirecting the proposed extension away from the existing residential section of Ash Creek (located between Fanno Creek Park and McDonald Street), this alternative avoids the potential of substantially increasing traffic volumes passing through a residential area. Realignment of Burnham to match with the existing Main Street/Tigard Street Intersection: a) "This option has the advantage of providing for a direct Burnham/Main connection. Although, this option would create a four-leg intersection close to the Main Street/Southern Pacific Railroad tracks intersection, the traffic impacts associated with this design can be accommodated. The Ash Avenue and Burnham/Tigard Street alignments remain in place after the failure of the City Center Development Plan. The result is that many property owners in the area are faced with considerable uncertainty as, to the future development potential of their property. The above alignments were to have supported the redevelopment of the downtown, but without a development plan and a funding source, the current street alignments are unlikely to be implemented. Furthermore, without a specific funding source, there are no specific time-frames as to when the improvements will be initiated. This adds to the atmosphere of uncertainty that property owners must contend with. At a work session in July, 1990, the City Council directed staff to initiate amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map to change the alignments of the above streets back to what they were prior to the adoption of ordinance 89-24 in 1989. On August 27, 1990 the City Council passed Resolutions 90-57, 90-58, initiating the above Transportation Plan Map Amendments. Staff Report CPA 90-0010 page 4 i Pacific Highway/Tigard Street Loop The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has proposed to improve Highway 99W from Pfaffle to Main Street. Improved access to the Tigard Central Business from Highway 99W is a high priority of the City of Tigard. The City wishes to ensure that this is addressed in ODOT•s plans for this project. In order to accomplish this, the City Council passed Resolution 90-56 on August 27, 1990 initiating a Transportation Plan Map amendment to indicate a "loop" connection from Highway 99W to Tigard Street. 3. Vicinity Information Ash Avenue Extension: Currently, Ash Avenue is improved from S.W. McDonald Street north and northwesterly to a point approximately 225 feet past the intersection with S.W. Hill Street. This section of Ash Avenue passes through established residential neighborhoods of primarily single family homes. Ash Avenue is also improved from S.W. Scoffins Street to Commercial Street and from S.W. Burnham Street southwesterly approximately 500 feet. This portion of Ash passes through a commercially zoned area of mixed residential and commercial land uses. Burnham/Tigard Realignment: Burnham Street currently is improved from Hall Street to Main Street. Burnham passes through a commercial area of mixed uses. The realignment of Burnham which is currently identified on the Transportation Map would passes through an area of commercial land uses. Pacific Highway/Tigard Street Loop: The ares of the proposed addition to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map is currently developed with industrial uses. 4. Proposal Information In 1989, based on recommendations developed for the City Center Development Plan, the City amended its Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map by expanding and changing the alignment of the Ash Avenue extension as well as adding an alignment of Burnham St_ with Tigard St. (Ordinance 89-24). Voters then failed to approve tax increment financing which would have implemented the City Center Development Plan through urban renewal. The City Center Development Plan was subsequently declared null and void. The 1989 Transportation Plan Map amendments were intended to support the implementation of the City Center Development Plan. Failure to approve the City Center Development Plan and the subsequent extinguishment of that plan created a situation whereby: - There is no identified means to finance the improvements. - Without implementation of the City Center Development Plan, there is no immediate justification or need to implement the amendments. Staff Report CPA 90-0010 page 5 - Additional work is needed to determine future development potential of the downtown, and commensurate transportation needs. Currently, there is no assurance that the alignments that are proposed to be deleted are appropriate for future development needs in the downtown. Property owners must contend with substantial uncertainty as to existing and future development potential of their property. This proposal will re-establish the comprehensive Plan Transportation Map as it was prior to the changes brought about by ordinance 89-24 by removing the current alignment of the Ash Avenue extensions, adding an extension of Ash Avenue between Burnham Street and Hill Street and removing the Burnham/Tigard Street alignment. This proposal would also establish a loop connection on the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map from Highway 99W to Tigard Street. Improved access from Highway 99W to the Tigard Cental Business District is a priority of the City of Tigard. The City wishes to ensure that this is addressed in the Oregon Department of Transportation's (ODOT) future plans to improve Highway 99 W. It is important that the City's Transportation Plan Map provide direction to ODOT that improved access to the downtown is important. 5. Acrencv and NPO Comments NPO $1 has the following comments: The loop connection from Pacific Highway to Tigard Street is incomplete because nothing is shown to divert the traffic onward once it gets off the proposed loop onto Tigard Street. If the loop is adopted, the left turn at Greenburg & Main should be eliminated. The Economic Development Committee has the following comment: The Economic Development Committee recommends the approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 90-0010 as proposed. The Tigard School District has reviewed this proposal and has no objections to it. The Engineering Department provided the following comments: 1. Ash Avenue Extensions "The map accompanying the request for comments is misleading. It implies that the Comprehensive Plan currently includes a specific route for the connection between Walnut Street and Hunziker Street. That is not the case. Ordinance No. 89-24 established the Walnut-Hunziker connection as a part of the r Staff Report CPA 90-0010 page 6 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. Ordinance No. 89-24 did not establish a specific route. Instead, it called for further engineering analysis and community review to determine the roadway alignment." i The Engineering Department believes that the current plan is superior to the proposed amendment for the following reasons: a) "The proposed amendment would provide a direct connection between Burnham Street and the residential area of Ash Avenue. The direct connection would be likely to increase traffic volumes and traffic speeds on the residential portion of Ash Avenue. The current plan routes the new street north of the residential area. An indirect connection to the residential area is included as an option, but not a requirement. b) The current plan provides better access between the downtown business district and other major traffic generators. The need for additional access points to downtown was identified in the traffic analysis and report prepared by Kittelson & Associates in 1989. The report suggested that better access is imperative to future development of the downtown area. The current plan provides for improved access from 99W and from Hall Boulevard. The proposed amendment provides for increased access, but not from a major traffic generator. The proposed amendment does not satisfy the access need identified by Kittelson. c) The proposed amendment would lead to additional traffic on Highway 99W, Hall Boulevard, and Main Street. It maintains the existing street system that requires that most traffic to and from downtown must travel on Hail Boulevard or on Main Street and 99W. The current plan provides for a new street that would provide an alternative access route to downtown for many motorists. By providing an alternative route, traffic volumes on the arterial streets would be reduced." 2. Burnham/Tigard Connection "This connection was intended primarily to improve traffic circulation within the downtown area. The connection would reduce the volume of traffic on the portion of Main Street between Tigard and Burnham Streets. It would also reduce the volume of turning movements at the Main Street intersections. Deletion of the connection will lead to greater increases in future traffic volumes on Main Street and increased delays for ( traffic. In the future, it may be necessary to prohibit t Staff Report CPA 90-0010 page 7 1•. parking on additional portions of Main Street in order to accommodate the increased traffic at an acceptable level of service. However, it appears that :lain Street can operate satisfactorily without the connection, if signals are installed and parking is restricted in the future as traffic volumes increase. Therefore, we have no objection to deletion of the connection from the Comprehensive Plan." 3) Ramp from 99W to Tigard Street "This connection was suggested by the Kittelson report as another way to increase access to the downtown area and to reduce turning movements on Pacific Highway. We support this concept. It should be noted that the State Highway Division is currently planning for improvements to Highway 99W. As part of the planning work, the State will be considering alternative concepts for a ramp connection from 99W to downtown Tigard. The City will be participation in the review by the State. Upon completion of the State's review, the City should again review its Comprehensive Plan to see if further amendments are appropriate." No other comments had been received at the time this report was written. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION i The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 12, and City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 11.2.1, 11.2.2, 11.2.3 and applicable Community Development Code sections related to legislative plan amendments. Staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Goals based on the following findings: 1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, is met because the city has an adopted citizen involvement program which includes review of land use applications by neighborhood planning organizations. In addition, this proposal will be reviewed in public hearings by the Planning Commission and by the City Council for which the public has been or will be properly notified. Moreover, this issue was brought before, the public at a public workshop held by the City Council and at a public hearing at which time a decision was made to initiate the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Map amendments. 2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, is met because the City has applied all relevant Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan policies, and community Development Code requirements in the review of this proposal. 3. Goal 12, Transportation, is met because the City has adopted policies related to improving the transportation network and Staff Report CPA 90-0010 page 8 continuing coordination of transportation improvements with other involved agencies. Staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: 1. Policy 1.1.1 a. is satisfied because the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan will not affect compliance of the City's acknowledged Plan with the Statewide Goals. 2. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because Neighborhood Planning organization #1 has been notified of the hearing and has commented on the proposal and surrounding property owners have been notified of the date, time and place of the hearing. 3. Policy 8.1.1 is satisfied because the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current and future needs. 4. Policy 8.1.2 is satisfied because the City is working jointly with the Oregon Department of Transportation to promote a cooperative solution to improving access to the Central Business District from Highway 99W. 5. Policies 11.2.2, 11.2.2 and 11.2.3 are satisfied because the proposed Ash Avenue extension alignment west from Burnham Street re-establishes the alignment for which these policies where established. There have been no change in circumstances that would invalidate the compatibility of the proposed alignment with these policies. Analysis of Comments: The map referenced in the Engineering Department's comments as misleading is an exact duplicate of the Ash Avenue extension and the Burnham/Tigard Street alignment as they appear in Ordinance 89- 24. The map represents the general alignment of the streets on the current Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. A directive to staff contained in Ordinance 89-24 to conduct a specific alignment study for Ash Avenue is not part of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map and therefore cannot be construed as part of this or any other comprehensive Plan Transportation Map Amendment. The City Council has provided an opportunity for community review at a work session and at a public hearing prior to initiating the amendments to change the Transportation Plan Map in this area back to what it was prior to Ordinance 89-24. At that time, the Council received public input which lead them to initiate the Transportation Plan Map amendments to change it back to what it was for reasons described previously. L Staff Report CPA 90-0010 page 9 j It is also necessary to consider the higher probability that Ash Street could actually be built within its former alignment between Hill and Burnham Street. The City owns the right-of-way necessary for this to happen. Furthermore, it is possible for that portion of Ash to be built by a developer as a condition of development. On the other hand current circumstances indicate that it is ; unlikely the Ash Avenue extension would be built between Highway 99 W and Hunziker because: 1. There is no right-of-way to accommodate the Hunziker-Burnham alignment of Ash street or the alignment between Pacific Boulevard and Burnham Street. 2. There are no identified funding sources to finance the improvements. Consequently, there is no time-table for implementation. The Engineering Department states that a new connection directly between Burnham Street and Hill Street is likely to increase traffic volumes and speeds on the residential portions of Ash Avenue. There are, however, comprehensive Plan policies, 11.2.1, 11.2.2, & 11.2.3, that require mitigation for potential for traffic impacts in residential neighborhoods because of the extension of Ash Avenue. Therefore, traffic impacts on residential neighborhoods are adequately addressed. The Engineering Department states that changing Ash Avenue back to its former alignment does not comply with elements of a traffic analysis and report prepared by Kittelson and Associates in 1989. This is true, but the report was used to propose roadway improvements necessary to accommodate development generated by a downtown urban renewal district. A downtown urban renewal district does not now exist. The Engineering Department states that the proposed Ash Avenue extension would lead to additional traffic on Highway 99W, Hall Boulevard and Main Street and that the alternative route provided by the existing Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map would reduce traffic volumes. This may be correct if improvements on these adjacent roadways are not developed in the future. However, under current circumstances it is not clear that the safety and efficiency of the overall transportation system would be compromised with adoption of the proposed amendments. It is indeed essential that transportation needs in the downtown be adequately served, but under the present circumstances it is not clear that the existing Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map is consistent with current and future development needs of the area. Improved access to the Tigard Cental Business from Highway 99 W is a high priority of the City of Tigard. The City wishes to ensure that this is addressed in ODOT's future plans to improve Highway 99 W. ODOT is evaluating a number of options to provide this connection. Presently, other options are being evaluated in addition to "loop." It may be necessary to process another Staff Report CPA 90-0010 page 10 amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Plan Map when a j" preferred alternative is jointly decided upon by ODOT and the City. \ However, at this time it is important that the City's Transportation Plan Map provide direction to ODOT that improved access to the downtown is important. Identification of Alternatives The Tigard Engineering Department's comments are well taken in that the need for transportation improvements in the downtown should be addressed. In light of the Engineering Department's comments it is important to evaluate alternatives to changing the alignments of Burnham and Tigard Streets and Ash Avenue back to what they were prior to the adoption of ordinance 89-24. It is appropriate to consider these alternatives when making the decision to amend the comprehensive Plan Map. Perhaps the downtown would be better served with one or a combination of the following five alternatives: 1) Realign Ash Avenue between Burnham and Hill Streets but maintain the alignment of Burnham to match the existing Main Street/Tigard Street Intersection: This alternative would connect Tigard Street with Burnham at a single intersection on Main Street. It would provide for a logical north-south connection to Burnham from Main Street. Furthermore it would enhance north-south movements for traffic coming off the proposed "loop" from Highway 99W. 2) Realign Ash Avenue between Burnham and Hill Streets, but maintain the Ash Avenue connection between Burnham and Hunziker Streets: This alternative would have the advantage or providing a direct connection between Burnham and Hunziker Streets for eastbound traffic. This could provide an important link between the Downtown, Interstate 5, and future development in the Tigard Triangle. 3) Realign Ash Avenue between Burnham and Hill Streets, but maintain the Ash Avenue connection between Burnham and Hunziker Streets, and also maintain the Burnham/Tigard Street Alignment. This option would provide the benefits as outlined in ¢2 above with the added advantage of providing a north- south connection to Main Street and Highway 99W, if the "loop" is developed. 4) Realign Ash Avenue only between Highway 99W and Burnham Street. and delete that portion between Burnham and Hunziker. This option would provide for direct Highway 99W access to Burnham. Burnham could be improved to serve as a major north-south connector between Hall Boulevard and Main Street. North-south traffic could be augmented by maintaining the Burnham/Tigard Street alignment. 5) Maintain the Alignment of Ash Avenue between Highway 99W and C Hunziker but delete the Tigard/Burnham Street Connection- In Staff Report CPA 90-0010 page 11 ' this case a major east-west connector could be developed which would provide the benefits as outlined in #2 above. The above alternatives are shown on the attached EXHIBITS "B" one through five. C. CONCLUSION Staff finds that a number of circumstances have changed with respect to the Tigard Central Business District which makes it necessary to amend the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Plan Map. The 1989 Transportation Plan Map amendments adopted through Ordinance 89-24 were intended to support the implementation of the City Center Development Plan. The failure of tax increment financing and the Urban Renewal District and the subsequent extinguishment of the City Center Development Plan as an encumbrance upon real property within the plan area has created a situation whereby: - There is no reasonable means to finance the proposed transportation improvements. Nor is there a specific time- frame within which the improvements are to be initiated. - Without implementation of the City Center Development Plan, there is no immediate justification or need to implement the amendments. - Additional work is needed to determine future development potential of the downtown, and commensurate transportation needs. Currently, there is no assurance that the alignments that are proposed to be deleted are appropriate for future development needs in the downtown. - Property owners must contend with substantial uncertainty as to existing and future development potential of their property. On September 11, 1989 the alignments for Ash Avenue and Tigard/Burnham Street were placed on the Transportation Plan Map as broad corridors through substantially developed areas, with the assurance given at that time that a specific alignment study would be conducted soon after. The Ash Avenue extensions and the Tigard/Burnham alignment were identified as projects in the Tigard City Center Development Plan which also established authority and procedures for property acquisition and relocation assistance. These projects were also given costs, sources of funding, and time frames for completion in the Tigard City Center Development Report which accompanied the Development Plan. In November 1989 Tigard voters rejected the development plan, the specific alignment study was never done, and project costs, sources of funding and time schedules became void. In March, 1990, the City Center Development Plan was extinguished as an encumbrance to real property within the plan area. However the Ash Avenue extension and the Burnham /Tigard alignment remain on the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. Staff Report CPA 90-0010 page 12 Since there is no longer any schedule for completion of these roadways ~r nor any identified sources of funding to do so, there exists a great deal of uncertainty for property owners within and adjacent to the Ash Avenue and Burnham/Tigard alignment corridors. Staff also finds that because of new Oregon Department of Transportation f plans there is a change in circumstances regarding the need for access to downtown Tigard from Pacific Highway. The Department of i Transportation has initiated planning for improvements to Pacific Highway that may include a connection from southbound Pacific Highway to Tigard's downtown. The City wishes to ensure that this is addressed in ODOT's future plans to improve Highway 99 W. It is important that the City's Transportation Plan Map provide direction to ODOT that improved access to the downtown is important. D. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings and conclusion stated above, the Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 90-0010 to the City Council to amend the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map as shown on the attached EXHIBIT "C". ,R1-42 Prepared by: Date: as- `l r 7A Prepared by: Date Staff Report CPA 90-0010 page 13 ® Ir - . ,Syt 4 G~ .~4 x pryh 4C S x ti _ H ~x ~~'T~, ~Y~ ~ by h7 S~~ ~ C3•~ t ~ ' a ~1 t x• 1 t M ' Try LING 1 I • a . J ~4 ~Po ~ ~ 14 N X 1 All 1• IIVC S.W. C W N H Ste'-X'~-" ' U1 D ~ m ,.1 f~ WS ~)g rn to in nt w M -„tlN V G. 9 . °'o+ ,orb a A's y OZ ' a . ti. d ~ y It K ~ u 9 ~`,Yo G4• 'k S b? 1 ~ n ~r~ ~ YY y } MYJr ..e $ s o r~ `~o 1J~, i 3 ~ N h ~ 'M•S ~1N tlH o w a z t ass r ° d ~o Y' 3 yet d ~ y,~• c~a~ ~s> y M's , 0 4 if y nd ~ FM'~Q', Sao yes ors WO-M S Ci a 4 w,~ 1S , ~ ~ ~ r 4~ N' eI `ub Af S 3 -wom (0 N ti H ® . LO C',J -n+Iol(-Ij ~~i 11dH W N ~ t-C3V 4 P`\P I ~ O_ . 735, oaf' ~ • ~ a o O , a r 5 4 d ~ J M -S y'i . 4~ 'a V 3 K1~. N fj vP L® ~ I'~ ~ ~ a Sw N~ E~ e AV Q' 7W ass \~'o p'~• ~ ` ti~ gF~ ~S IA ; 3 y~ . . y 6~ F sw •N WNW l y rZ r+l~ N vqy ,c~ Sl r~ i s qt 1f~j.~~rs y o s S / q, -Ottq~ W n C~Nq~F c~C n w tom" 1 ' o r ~ ykJ- h Q F9 .a7 V r Ai`' 99 V • 9~ ty a y G~ -j N ~ sty ' J r- f° 4 f F S k. ~~4 ,y Sf G~ ip~ I W A 4a~~na~ S~ Af b ~,r? h AV t N ~ s'y 4 yM 'dam t (,4 , s y, Yo 44 `Pt h ' A C" 1 ~T1 h ' ~ 1.►S Y y Z S.W ~ `I • • ` y~ O~ 4 0 ~t ? = t~~ z,~ v A ALL S.W. 1. • r,,, - lima OKI% t Ayr Y L r0 ~ q d \dd 40 s~ s h~p~ ~t 1 ~tv~~ p~ "~1 y Z \ / f 3 N CC ANN 4C~, D ~ a 1.--• ~ J ~ ~r q 1 C ~ nr (D ~ 7 a 4~ n a K ~ ~ ~ys~ cr 4~.r \ 4viy Q O ~ S.r. 42 na Av f 41 ~ IINC l ~Y R M 0 S.w C P 1y „ i Cf~ !QQ ~ ~ , 1 o ~ M 0. r IA Z CS D i ~ `m 4~vo Sw N W ~ . natl. , ,J TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - DECEMBER 4, 1990 1. President Moen called the meeting to order at 7:30 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 Barber, Boone, Castile, Fessler, Fyre, Moore, and Peterson, Absent: Commissioner Saporta. Staff: Senior Planner Ron Bunch; Planning Secretary Ellen Fox. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Barber moved and Commissioner Boone seconded to approve the minutes as written. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. Commissioners Fyre and Peterson abstained. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o There was no communication received. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 90-0010 CITY OF TIGARD ASH AVENUE EXTENSION, BURNHAM/TIGARL ALIGNMENT, PACIFIC HIGHWAY/TIGARD STREET LOOP (NPO #1 & #2) A request by the City of Tigard to amend the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. The extension of Ash Avenue from Burnham Street to Pacific Highway at Walnut Street to be deleted. The extension of Ash Avenue from Burnham to Hall Boulevard at Hunziker street to be deleted. An extension of Ash Avenue from Burnham Street to Hill Street to be added. The alignment of Burnham Street to connect with Main Street directly opposite Tigard Street to be deleted. A loop from the southbound lanes of Pacific Highway connecting to the city center via Tigard Street to be added. LOCATION: ASH AVENUE EXTENSION ADDITION - between the ends of existing Ash Avenue near Burnham Street and near Hill Street. (WCTM 2S1 2AC, 2S1 2AD, 2S1 2CA) ASH AVENUE DELETIONS - between Pacific Highway at Walnut Street and Burnham and between Burnham and Hall Boulevard at Hunziker Street (WCTM 2S1 2AA, 2S1 2AC, 2S1 2AD, 2S1 2BD, 2S1 2CA, and 2S1 2BD). BURNHAM/TIGARD ALIGNMENT DELETION - between SW Main Street at Tigard Street and the existing right-of-way of Burnham Street at point south of 9185 SW Burnham (WCTM 2S1 2AB and 2S1 2AD). PACIFIC HIGHWAY RAMP ADDITION - between the southbound lanes of Pacific Highway and the City Center under the Pacific Highway viaduct (WCTM 2S1 2AB). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 4, 1990 PAGE 1 Senior Planner Ron Bunch explained the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. He referred to a wall map pointing out the locations of the proposed street deletions, extensions, and alignments. He provided a historic background and discussed the 1989 proposed Urban Renewal District, which the voters turned down. He noted that a study-of the downtown traffic circulation problems and needs was undertaken as part of the Urban Renewal District. The purpose of the study was to create new entry portals into and out of the downtown area, and these would have,a beneficial effect on both local and regional transportation. He advised that the study recommended alignment of Ash Avenue and Burnham Street. He spoke about the role of the Oregon Department of Transportation in planning improvements to Highway 99. Senior Planner discussed the reasons for changing back to the original Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map as it was prior to the anticipated Urban Renewal District. He pointed out the uncertainty for some residents in the subject area. He shared comments from NPO #1, Economic Development Committee, the Engineering Department pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He reviewed the five alternatives developed by staff, and he explained the factors which influenced staff to recommend approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. o Commissioners Barber and Fessler discussed financing methods concerning the various alternatives. o Commissioner Moen suggested that Planning Commission focus on the planning issues, and the City Council can decide on the financing methods.. o Commissioner Boone spoke about the traffic problems a loop would create. He suggested there should be an additional route for westbound traffic that would reduce traffic on Highway 99.. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Edward Duffield, 8895 SW Edgewood, Tigard, Chairman of NPO #1, reported his NPO was in favor of reverting to the original plan and deleting the 1989 proposed changes. He said they would like to see a study concerning the loop and its affect on the businesses below the loop. o Commissioner Moen requested clarification of what a loop would consist -of. Senior Planner described the structure and said it would provide a route into, but no out of, the downtown area. o James S. Smith, stated he is an attorney and represents Sea First Bank. He explained that the homeowners and business owners in the area are suffering due to the uncertainty brought about by the changes to the Comprehensive Plan and the resulting negative impact on property values. He said the city is losing money because the plan discourages PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 4, 1990 PAGE 2 investment in Tigard. He encouraged the Commissioners to support staff's recommendation and return the Comprehensive Plan to the original status. OPPONENTS o Chuck Woodard, 10215 SW Walnut, suggested that the the Comp Plan be restored to its original state, and the proposed spiral ramp be eliminated from future transportation plan. He spoke about his interest in preserving a historic section of Tigard. He used the wall map to describe a proposal he and a group of interested citizens designed to divert southbound traffic down Center Street to Commercial. He explained that some of Sea First's property and City of Tigard property would be used, but few homeowners would be displaced. o There were questions from Commissioners clarifying the location and various features. PROPONENT'S REBUTTAL o Jim Smith, Attorney for Sea First Bank, spoke again regarding the previous speaker's suggested transportation plan. He advised the cost of condemning Sea First's property would be staggering. a There was discussion concerning time limitations, with Senior Planner stating ODOT would be doing an environmental impact study of the Main to Pfaffel Project, of which the ramp project is part. He said it was hoped there would be a decision by December or January. There was discussion concerning extending the 120-day period to allow for more study. Commissioner Castile asked if the matter had been presented to the Transportation Committee, and Senior Planner advised it had not. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioner Moore said he was in favor of returning to the original Comp Plan; however, he preferred to have the ramp issue treated separate! o Commissioner Peterson did not favor a loop, but he did not oppose the ramp idea, if it is the quickest way to move traffic through the area. o Commissioner Boone discussed the alternatives proposed by Senior Planner. He favored alternative #2, and said he was against each of the other alternatives. He suggested providing a route that would not enter Highway 99 in the middle of town. o Commissioner Fessler noted there were many issues being addressed. She discussed meetings she had attended with ODOT, and she pointed out there had been an engineering study done on the ramp, where no study had been done on the loop design. As far as the ramp and loop choices, she said there was not enough information about the different alternatives on ( which to base a decision at this point. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 4, 1990 PAGE 3 41 o Commissioner Barber favored reinstating the alignment of Ash Avenue and alternative #2. On the issue of the ramp, she preferred waiting until there was more information available. o Commissioner Fyre agreed with the other Commissioners who favored going back to the original•Comp Plan. He suggested changing the language of alternative #5 which reads "Establish a loop connection from southbound Pacific Highway to Tigard Street," by adding "or Commercial Street." o Commissioner Castile expressed concern because the issue had not been heard by the Transportation Committee. He said the more input and ideas received, the better the plan will be. He suggested tabling the issue for 30 to 45 days to allow for study and a meeting with the ' Transportation Committee. o Commissioner Moen said he agreed with the recommendations by the Engineering Department. He discussed the increasing traffic flow problems affecting the downtown area. He spoke about the alternatives and reasons he did not favor alternative #2. He agreed that the loop plan ought to be treated as a separate issue. He favored recommending to City Council to keep the Comp Plan as it is now, or to postpone the decision and get input from the Transportation Committee. o Commissioner Fyre urged the Commission to revert back to the original plan because of the uncertainty to the property owners caused by the current plan. He said-that the development of the downtown area is up in the air; but he suggested that as development occurs, the developers would have to accommodate transportation improvements. Discussion followed concerning the appropriate time for planning for future transportation needs. * Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to recommend to City Council to approve CPA-0010 with the five items as outlined by the staff, changing item #5 deleting the word "loop" and adding "or Commercial Street" after Tigard Street. There was brief discussion with Commission Castile in favor of gathering more input before making such a recommendation. Commissioner Fyre commented that this motion did not preclude further study and finetuning. Motion failed with Commissioners Moen, Boone, Castile, and Fessler opposed to the motion, and Commissioners Barber, Fyre, Moore, and Peterson in favor. * Commissioner Castile moved and Commissioner Fessler seconded to table the motion until a recommendation from the Transportation Committee is heard. There was discussion with Commissioner Moen suggesting a better plan is needed as well as input from the Transportation Committee. Motion failed four to four, with Commissioners Barber, Moen, Castile, and Fessler in favor, -and Commissioners Peterson, Moore, Boone, and Fyre opposed. } PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 4, 1990 PAGE 4 * Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to recommend to City Council approval of CPA 90-0010 including items #1 through #4 of the proposed amendment, with a separate vote on item #5 following this motion. Motion carried by a five to three vote of Commissioners present, with Commissioners Moen, Castile, and Fessler opposed. * Commissioner Boone moved and Commissioner Fessler seconded to establish a connection from southbound Pacific Hwy. to Main Street. Motion carried by majority vote of Commissioners present, with Commissioners Castile and Fyre opposed. 5.2 RENAMING OF ATLANTA STREET TO HAINES STREET Senior Planner Ron Bunch explained that the street currently is shown in the records of Washington County as Atlanta Street, but the residents and business owners along Atlanta Street have used the name Haines Road in their addresses for years. He said that when street signs were installed by Washington County, this has caused confusion as stated in the petition (see meeting packet). PUBLIC HEARING OPENED o No one signed up to speak on this issue. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED * Commissioner Barber moved and Commissioner Boone seconded to rename Atlanta Street to Haines Street. Motion carried by unanimous vote of Commissioners present. 6.0 OTHER BUSINESS Senior Planner asked the Commissioners for their thoughts on changing the day of the week that Planning Commission meetings are held. There was discussion about the days available, with Commissioners agreeing that Tuesday was the only day acceptable to everyone. ADJOURNMENT - 9;00 PM Ellen P. Fox, Secretary ATTEST: A. Donald Moen, President { PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 4, 1990 PAGE 5 November 14, 1990 NPO #1 & 12 Started 7:00 p.m. Attending: Gott, Sena, Duffield. Visitor: John Acker, Staff 1. Presentation of solar access guidelines and protection ordinances; to be useful on a regional basis,- a solar code would be helpful to both builders and home owners to maintain consistency in how future housing divisions are planned. We think this is useful and far-sighted code ideal, and approve of its intent. 2. Variance 90-0035 Building an accessory 864 square foot storage building We have no problem with the oversize building, as long as it's built in a good manner, and its appearance is favorable to the neighborhood. May our NPO chairman get a copy of the building exterior plan? 3. Discussion as to whether the Senior Center is being used to any good effective purpose or not. Can its use be expanded? 4. Comp Plan Amendment CPA 90-0010 - Comprehensive plan amendment to return to the earlier Ash Avenue extension plan, where Ash is run straight to Burnham Street. Also, a loop is proposed to get into downtown Tigard. This would be still an incomplete proposal because nothing is shown to divert the traffic onward once it gets off the proposed loop onto Tigard Street. If loop adopted, the left turn at Greenburg & Main should be eliminated. 5. Other Business Is Hwy 99 complete or not? We will contact Randy Wooley to see if the State intends to clean up the meridian going to King City. Trees have been removed, and it is wondered whether the State is going to make an effort to beautify the strip to a level to at least match what used to exist at these places. 6. Park Grant Discussion: We approve if practical. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dan Gott, Secretary NPO #1 (639-3065) I og I n\ I I ZXapo2m I n ' i I 1 y ,+y EN5 . sneer To : w oo Bey C From, N ancy N~euic-CM10, Sec~reiaej Transro r+oL+; ork Pvisor/ ~o mr►1, ee- -Dur,i n +~C JCknUk&-y 5pe-C.,0, ran ee~tY ~ ~I y b-F '-f-kL Tran~sporfottorl Advt3or 6orv ih" tee. The- o w ~ -ti o n 5 as5 e cl Ck U0of fo nq ~Yt o v~1 c~ t~ .sJ Ino, CJ\/ Council del a tkei r dec i 5 i 0V) - re9ard i e\l ro P oSed re v i n o r\ s o t' comrrehenslve. ?fan jrAY15po,-~~ton mc~r -for- days Liniti ~ { , cord ca.h5 por-cJ'lOl AdVI50ry G3Yn ~ I I e2 h(~5 01 CK nCe -~o s-tud ctItornofVe aid YY\.ake- y r~cmmrner~~`~ion s, ` 5rtr A ITEI~i 4., LAW OFFICES FUMR & SCOTT k R 1~ 1 9185 S.W. BURNHAM STREET POST OFFICE BOX 23414 r~ PATRICK J. FURRER TIGARD, OREGON 97223 AREA CODE 503 MICHAEL J. SCOTT FACSIMILE 620-4315 THOMAS J. MURPHY TELEPHONE 620-4540 KEVIN W. Luny GREGORY P. COLVIN February 6, 1991 Tigard City Counsel 13125 SW Hall Blvd. P. O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: File No.: CPA 90-0010 Ash Ave. Ext. - Burnham/Tigard Align. Pacific Hwy./Tigard St. Loop Applicant: City of Tigard Owner: Various Dear Mayor Edwards and Counsel Members: In am in receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing for February 19, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. relating to the above-referenced matter. I will be unable to attend the hearing. My concern relating to this proposal is that Burnham Street still does not have sidewalks down its entire length. I would estimate that there are other significant capital expenditures for a "loop". Before you incur further capital expenditures relating to "new" projects, I would ask that you recognize there are substantial needs for existing projects and that Burnham Street get the sidewalks it so desperately needs. Before you simple crumple this letter up and throw it into a file, I would urge you to get out of your counsel chairs and walk from the Civic Center to Main Street and back. Remember, that by creating your "loop" you will likely than not be putting more traffic on Burnham. Before you put more traffic into downtown, I would suggest that you prepare downtown to be ready for the traffic. I apologize for not being able to meet with you in person. I look forward to any consideration you can provide in this matter. Very tr y y rs, M' J. tt MJS/lcr cc: Patrick J. Furrer l ►LV1..~ . ~1~ 13195 SW Ash Drive r E g 18 1991 Tigard, OR 97223 February 15, 1991 { rr RD TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I want to go on record as being unalterably opposed to the Ash Ave. + Ext.-Burnham/Tigard Align.-Tigard St. Loop, File No.: CPA 90-0010 Residents on Walnut are already having their rights of safety and protection of property ignored. This extension would intensify the abuse of these homeowners' rights. In addition, this plan calls for disrupting businesses, churches and hones of a large swath through some well established areas of Tigard. It would literally erase what remains of Tigard as a viable community and make it a cross- roads for speeding commuters. As aresident whose property would be affected if this plan were allowed to remain, I had been led to believe the matter of deletion had already been taken care of. Through word of mouth I discover it's still on the agenda. We residents of Ash Avenue-Ash Drive and area had been assured we would be notified of all hearings concern- ing the plan. Only one resident had been so notified in my neighbor- hood. What happened to that promise? We elect officials we believe will represent our best interests. We should be able to trust them to protect those interests. Why must we residents continue to be embroiled in never-ending controversies over basic human rights of freedom from harassment of home and property? Let's delete this extension plan now. Thank you for your efforts in this matter. Si erely, Verna Randall cc: Mayor Gerald R. Edwards Councilors: Joe Kasten Valerie Johnson Carolyn Eadon John Schwartz City Administrator Pat Reilly Gbut~ ffev~ f,~ ~~lcillt'! - CC~ne~- 'i FEB 15 1991 jeb 12, 1941 r' r 'RD ;i Tigard City Council Tigard Oregon CONCERNING: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 90-0010 City of Tigard Ash Avenue Extension. I do not believe that this admenment is very well planed out as it does not address the increase in traffic on several adjacent streets. It also does not solve several traffic problems that exist now and will add problems on main street. I am glad that most of the Ash Avenue Extension will be Deleted, but small section should not be removed from the plan. That portion is the from Hall to Ash on Scoffins. I believe that Scoffins Street should be straightened to realign it with Hunziker Street. This would remove a dangerous tight corner and improve the traffic flow at the corner of Hall Street and Scoffins Street. The Addition that you propose; The extension of Ash Street between Burnham Street and near Hill Street and the Pacific Highway Ramp Addition does not seem to address the additional traffic that this plan would add to Main Street, Burnham Street, and Commercial Street. Right now it is difficult to make a turn at Burnham Street and at Tigard Street. During certain times it is almost impossible to cross Main Street at Commercial Street. I believe that the problems the the addition would add be addressed before it is added. I do think that the ramp is a good idea and will increase business in the Downtown area as long as the traffic problems are addressed before it becomes a reality. THANK YOU Dan Bush 12335 SW ASH ST Tigard, Or DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LAw Or•FICEs 2300 FIRST INTERSTATE TowER • 1300 SW FIFTH AvENuE • PORTLAND, OR 97201-5682 (503)241.2300 JAMES S. SMITH Member Oregon and Washington State Ban February 18, 1991 City Council City of Tigard Tigard City Hall - Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Ash Avenue Extension/SeaFirst Bank Our File No. 785111-28 Dear Council: Our firm represents SeaFirst National Bank, the owner of some property in the City of Tigard impacted by the City's 1989 Comprehensive Plan transportation map changes. This letter is to support the repeal of Ordinance 89-24 and the connection of Ash Avenue through to Hill Street utilizing the existing city right-of- way. Like many other property owners in the City of Tigard, SeaFirst is currently "held hostage" by a Comprehensive Plan which designates its property as a proposed route for transportation corridors which will never be constructed. The 1989 changes made by the Council include SeaFirst property as a transportation,, corridor for improvements to the transportation systems which were to have been completed after voter approval of funding. When the Tigard Center City Plan was rejected by Tigard voters in November, 1989, the Comprehensive Plan transportation map became unworkable. Because the voters have rejected the Center City Plan, and the funding therefor, the current Comprehensive Plan configuration inhibits property values without need, since Tigard will never complete the plan originally created. The solution is to realign the Comprehensive Plan to its original configuration: a configuration which can be cost effectively completed, and which does not unduly burden property owned by the City. By reverting to the prior Comprehensive Plan, the City frees valuable property from the uncertainty of a Comprehensive Plan designation that will never be realized, and encourages development in the economy of Tigard. Otherwise, FAX: (503) 778.5299 • TEtrx 185224 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA • BEI1XVUE, WASHINGTON • BOISE, IDAHO • LOS ANGFl Fs, CALIFORNIA RICHLAND, WASHINGTON • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON- WASHINGTON, D.C. i City of Tigard City Council February 19, 1991 Page 2 property owners will remain in "limbo" and will continue to suffer degradation of property values. In SeaFirst's case, continuing uncertain over a Comprehensive Plan designation that is unrealistic will cost SeaFirst at least tens of thousands of dollars. Since SeaFirst is not in the real property development business, it would like to sell the property interested in investing on the property, but cannot achieve a saleable price unless and until this situation is resolved. For the benefit of property owners, the City, its economy and its residents, the prior Comprehensive Plan configuration should be readopted as soon as possible. Very truly yours, DAV WRIGHT TREMAINE - ~ ~e_ es Stuart Smith JSS:se cc: Mr. David Hoy Mr. David Hunt [J:\8\785111\28\council.ltrl I CaA '-'4 Rity. Phone: 639-4137 REAL ESTATE & BUILDING SERVICE 12525 S.W. Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 February 19, 1991 RECEIVED PLANNING ± FEB 19 1991 City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Ore. 97223 Attn: Tigard City Council I am sorry that I am unable to attend this evening's meeting t and would appreciate your consideration regarding the following matters: (1) I am in favor of the elimination of possible road from Tigard Ave. to Burnham St. Please eliminate said road from maps also. (2) I am in favor of rezoning property (as are, in my estimation, approximately 90% of owners) to Light Industrial which most of the property is now being used. Sincerely CASH'S RLTY Gerald C. Cach Broker/Owner Cash's Rlty GCC:kg Agenda Item No. 4 2/19/91 Garla Isaacson, 12520 S.W. Walnut, called today concerning the Ash Street Extension hearing. She would be opposed to continuing any consideration of an extension connecting Walnut at Pacific to Ash. She said this would only compound the problems for Walnut Street by making a "freeway out of residential area." Donna Cameron, 12490 S.W. Walnut, also called and advised she was opposed to connection of Walnut @ Pacific Hwy. to Ash Street. Cathy COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM S - CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: February 19, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: January 29, 1991 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Revisions to the PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission Buffering and Screening Standards of Recommended Approval of the Amendments the Tigard Development Code. at Their January 21, 1991 Meeting. PREPARED BY: Ron Bunch, Sr. Planner DEPT HEAD-OK CITY ADMIN OWV~ I REQUESTED BY: C.D. Director ----------------ll-mil O CY ISSUE Should the City Council revise the velopment Code standards as they relate to buffering and screening? _____=~===c===vc=cc====ccv===c=cvcccc==c=s=---a-=-=--_ INFORMATION INFORMATION SUMMARY A public hearing on the proposed Code revisions was opened by the council on December 17, 1990, and continued to a date certain. The Council, at that meeting, referred the amendments to the Planning Commission for additional review. The Planning commission, on January 21, 1991, voted unanimously to recommend adoption for approval with several suggested changes. Most of changes proposed by the Planning Commission are minor in nature. However, the Commission has proposed one significant departure from the original code amendments. The Planning Commission has suggested that developers of single family projects not be required to provide buffering and screening from adjacent zones or uses which are of a different type. Staff believes that there are good arguments both for and against requiring single family developments to provide buffering and screening. f The revisions are intended to accomplish the following objectives: ~y._. 1. Increase the level of buffering and screening between different potentially incompatible uses; 2. Add new land use categories that are required to install buffering and screening; and 3. Provide for more specific standards. These amendments will better protect land uses from each other and add more clarity to the Code. They will also increase the cost of development, both because more area is required to be buffered and screened, and because the standards for buffering and screening would be raised. There has been no comment from the public or development community on the proposed ordinance revisions. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Not adopt the buffering and screening revisions. 2. Adopt the revisions as per the Planning Commission's recommendation. 3. Make additional changes, and adopt the proposed buffering and screening provisions. FISCAL IMPACT No measurable impact to the City is anticipated. The more specific nature of the revisions will make the ordinance easier to administer and may result in saved staff time. SUGGESTED ACTION Adopt the revised buffering and screening standards as recommended by the Planning Commission. rb/ccsumbuf.rb9 i MEMORANDUM / CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator FROM: Ed Murphy, Community Development Director:-.; DATE: February 11, 1991 SUBJECT: Revisions to the Buffering and Screening Provisions of the Tigard Development Code The Planning Commission, at their January 21, 1990, voted unanimously to recommended to the City Council that the attached revisions to the buffering and screening provisions of the Tigard Development Code be approved. The Planning Commission recommended a number of wording changes to the proposed ordinance language. These changes have been included in the attached revised provisions (Exhibit "A"). The reasons for these changes are described as follows: Section: 18.100.080 General Provisions There was concern with the concept that, "a detailed buffering/ screening plan may be submitted for the Director's approval as an alternative to the buffering and standards provided it affords the same degree of buffering as required by the code." It was felt that instead of a director's decision, a variance should be required if a developer proposes to reduce the dimensions required by the code for a buffer area. However, the director should have the flexibility to objectively evaluate alternative buffer area landscaping and screening proposals. With this in mind, the following language was proposed "In lieu of these standards, a detailed buffer area landscaping and screening plan may be submitted for the Director's approval as an alternative to the buffer area landscaping and screening standards, provided it affords the same degree of buffering and screening as required by this code." (New wording is in bold) 18.100.090. D (2) It was felt that the words, "in addition", should be added to the sentence to make it clear that shrubs need to be planted in buffer areas "in addition" to trees. This provision is proposed to read as follows: "In addition, at least -10 five gallon shrubs or 20 one gallon shrubs shall be planted for each 1000 square feet of required buffer area. (New wording is in bold) ( 1 _ 18.100.090 E (1) The word "evergreen" as used in this sentence was thought to be confusing. It was mentioned that many people could interpret this as meaning that only coniferous shrubs are to be used, and not utilize broadleaf evergreen plants such as laurel, photinia, mock orange, etc. This provision is proposed to read as follows: "A hedge of narrow or broadleaf evergreen shrubs shall be planted which will form a four foot continuous screen within two years of planting, or; (New wording is in bold) 18.100.090 E (3) It was mentioned that property owners should, if necessary, have the opportunity to build taller fences to provide for adequate screening. This provision is proposed to read as follows: "A five foot or taller fence or wall shall be constructed to provide a continuous sight obscuring screen." (New wording is in bold) The Planning Commission was asked by staff as to whether non- conforming uses should be buffered and screened. An example used in the discussion was, "Should non-conforming residential uses in commercial or industrial zones cause an adjacent developer to use a portion of his property to install buffering and screening?" The Commission felt strongly that non-conforming uses should be buffered and screened from adjacent uses. This is what the proposed ordinance provides. The Commission felt that developers of single family projects should not be required to provide buffering and screening from adjacent existing uses of a different type as was proposed by staff. The Commissioners felt that this is an issue of individual preference. Future property owners should have the opportunity to choose whether to install their own buffering and screening. This change has been made on the attached buffering and screening matrix. Staff believes that there are good arguments both for and against requiring single family developments to provide buffering and screening. The Council may wish to evaluate whether this would be appropriate in all cases, especially if single family development is built adjacent to industrial uses. A possible way to approach this issue would be to require "residential subdivisions" to provide buffering and screening from commercial and industrial uses and zones instead of "detached dwelling units." The revised buffering and screening standards are attached as Exhibit "A". Because of the extent of the proposed changes, both 2 i the proposed and current buffering and screening matrices are attached for comparison by the Council as Exhibits "B" and "C"' respectively. The proposed changes have been indicated to the extent possible on the current matrix (Exhibit "C". Areas where changes are proposed have been highlighted. However, it is important that the following additional major changes be noted on the proposed matrix (Exhibit "B"): - Instead of the words, "Abutting Zoning District" being used, the following is proposed "Abutting Use or Zoning District." This means that non-conforming uses, such as existing single family homes in an industrial district, would cause new adjacent industrial development to installing buffering. - Different buffering and screening standards are proposed for one-story and multi-story attached dwelling units respectively. Multi-story attached dwelling units would have to provide for greater buffering and screening when adjacent to single story residential units. - Buffering and Screening standards have been increased between commercial/professional uses and residential uses. - Mobile home parks and subdivisions is a new category which requires buffering and screening from different uses. - Parking lots containing more than four spaces on adjacent property are proposed to be buffered and screened from residential uses. Staff is continuing to draft other related language regarding setbacks, front yard and parking lot landscaping standards, landscaping and buffering along arterial streets, and street tree provisions. These will be forwarded to the Planning Commission in the near future. rb/mccbuff2.12 3 l CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 90- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BUFFERING AND SCREENING STANDARDS r" OF TITLE 18 OF THE TIGARD MUNCIPAL CODE WHEREAS, Tigard Municipal Code, Chapter 18.100,'landscaping and Screening," provides for regulations to reduce the impacts that result from adjacent zones and uses of different types through the application of buffering and screening standards. WHEREAS, in certain situations the above buffering and screening standards have been found to be lacking in mitigating these adverse impacts. WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council finds that amendments to Chapter 18.100 of the Tigard Municipal Code, identified as Exhibits "A" and "B" are necessary to enhance community livability by further reducing the impacts that adjacent uses of different types have on one another. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Chapter 18.100 shall be amended as shown in Exhibits "A" and "B". SECTION 2: In Exhibit "A" added portions are underlined and deleted portions are shown in [brackets]. SECTION 3: Exhibit'B" hereby referenced as the'Buffering and Screening Matrix," Section 18.100.110, shall be adopted in its entirety to replace Section 18.100.130 "Buffer Matrix." SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of .1991 Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: This day of ---41990. Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date ORDINANCE. NO. 91- rb/bufford.rb9 EXHIBIT A PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.100 Landscaping and Screening Sections 18.100.70 to 18.100.110 Pertaining to Buffering and Screening Note: Underline represents proposed new language (Brackets] represents language proposed to be deleted [18.100.070 Buffering, Screening (General): Use Prohibited in Buffer Areas] 18.100.070 BUFFERING AND SCREENING 18.100.080 General Provisions It is the intent that these requirements shall provide for privacy and protection and reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of visual or noise pollution at a development site, without unduly interfering with the view from neighboring properties or jeopardizing the safety of pedestrians and vehicles. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52). Buffering and Screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrix in this chapter. The owner of each proposed development is responsible for the installation and effective maintenance of buffering and screening. When different uses would be abutting one another except for separation by a right of way, buffering, but not screening, shall be required as specified in the matrix. In lieu of these standards, a detailed buffer area landscaping and screening plan may be submitted for the Director's approval as an alternative to the buffer area landscaping and screening standards, provided it affords the same degree of buffering and screening as required by this code. 18.100.090 Buffering/Screening Requirements A. A buffer consists of an area within a required interior setback adjacent to a property line and having a depth equal to the amount specified in [Section 18.100.110, Buffer Matrix,] the buffering and screening matrix and containing a length equal to the length of the property line of the abutting use or uses. B. A buffer area may only be occupied by utilities, screening, sidewalks and bikeways, and landscaping. No buildings, accessways, or parking areas shall be allowed in a buffer area except where an accessway has been approved by the City. C. A fence, hedge, or wall, or any combination of such elements which are located in any yard is subject to the conditions and requirements of Section 18.100.80. [D. It is the intent that these requirements shall provide for privacy and protection and reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of visual or noise pollution at a development site, without unduly interfering with the view from neighboring properties or jeopardizing the safety of pedestrians and vehicles. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52).] [18.100.080 Buffering/Screening Requirements] D. The minimum improvements within a buffer area shall consist of the followina: [A]1. At least one row of trees (with a combination of deciduous and evergreen trees] shall be planted. They shall be not less than 10 feet high for deciduous trees and five feet high for evergreen trees at the time of planting [and spaced as follows by size of tree.] Spacing for trees shall be as follows: [1.]i. Small or narrow stature trees, under 25 feet tall [and] or less than 16 feet wide [branching] at maturity shall be spaced no further than 15 feet apart.[; and) [2.]ii. Medium sized trees between 25 feet to 40 feet tall and with 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart. [3].iii. Large trees, over 40 feet tall and with more than 35 feet wide branching at maturity, shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart. 2. In addition, at least 10 five gallon shrubs or 20 one gallon shrubs shall be planted for each 1000 square feet of required buffer area. 3. The remaining area shall be planted in lawn, groundcover, or spread with bark mulch. E. Where screening is required the following standards shall apply in addition to those required for buffering: 1. A hedge of narrow or broadleaf evergreen shrubs shall be planted which will form a four foot continuous screen within two years of planting, or; 2. An earthen berm planted with evergreen plant materials shall be provided which will form a continuous screen six feet in height within two years The unplanted portion of the berm shall be planted in lawn, ground cover or bark mulched, or; 3. A five foot or taller fence or wall shall be constructed to provide a continuous sight obscuring screen. F. Buffering and Screening provisions shall be superseded by the vision clearance requirements as set forth in Chapter 18.102. G. When the use to be screened is downhill from the adjoining zone or use, the prescribed heights of required fences, walls, or landscape screening shall be measured from the actual grade of the adjoining property. In this case, fences and walls may exceed the permitted six foot height at the discretion of the director as a condition of approval When the grades4are so steep so as to make the installation of walls fences or landscaping to the required height impractical, a detailed landscape/ screening plan shall be submitted for approval. [B].H.Fences, and Walls. 1. Fences and walls shall be constructed of any materials commonly used in the construction of fences and walls such as wood or brick, or otherwise acceptable by the Director; 2. Such fence or wall construction shall be in compliance with other City regulations; and 3. Chain link fences with [or without] slats shall qualify for screening. [only in conjunction with evergreen plant materials at the same height or taller than the fence.] However, chainlink fences without slats shall require the planting of a continuous evergreen hedge to be considered screening. [C.]I.Hedges. 1. An evergreen hedge or other dense evergreen landscaping may satisfy a requirement for a sight obscuring fence where required subject to the height requirement in Subsections 18.100.090.B.1 and 2; 2. Such hedge or other dense landscaping shall be properly maintained and shall be replaced with another hedge, other dense evergreen landscaping, or a fence or wall when it ceases to serve the purpose of obscuring view; and 3. No hedge shall be grown or maintained at a height greater than that permitted by these regulations for a fence or wall in a vision clearance area as set forth in Chapter 18.102. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84- 71; Ord. 83-52) 18.100.100 Screening of Refuse Containers Recruired Except for one and two family dwellings any refuse container or refuse collection area which would be visible from a public street, parking lot, residential or commercial area or any Public facility such as a school or park shall be screened or enclosed from view by placement of a solid wood fence, masonry wall or evergreen hedge. All refuse shall be contained within the screened area. rb/lsbuffsc.rb7 r t BUFFER.MATRIX PROPOSED USE: EXHIBIT B rE)dsting Detached Attached Dwelling Units -1 Attached Dwelling Units 2 Mobile Commercial Industrial Ught Heavy Dwelling Story Stories or More Home & Park Use Industrial industrial Any Parking lot Units Parks & Professional Use Use 4-50 50 or more & Duplexes : Subdivisions Uses R-7 R-12 R-20 R-40 R-7 R-12 R-20 R-40 Spaces Spaces Detached Single Family or R-1, R-2, R3.5, R-4.5, R7 0' 10's 10'S IVS 15's 10's 10'S 10's 15's 10's 20's 20's WS 40's 10's 20's Attached Dwelling Units R-7 1 Story - Districts R-12 10' 0' 0' 10' 15' t0's 10's 199; 15'S 10's 2o's 20's 30s 40s 10's 20s Attached Dwelling Units 2 or more stories. 19s no's 10's 1o's la's la's IV 10' 10' 1o'S 2o's 20's sacs 4Vs 1o's 20's R-12, R-20, R-40 Districts Mobile Home Parks * & subdivision In any District las ` 10's 10's 10's 10's 10's 10's 10's itys 10's 20's 20's s0's 40's 10's 20's Commercial & Professional Uses CM, CG, CP, CBD 1lYs 10 s 10's IVs 10's 10s 10's la s 10s 10's 0 2tY 0 20's 0 Districts Industrial Park 20 20's 20's 20's 20's 20's 20's 20's 20's 20's 111 0' t0s Ught industrial 26s i25's 26s 26s 25's 26s 26S 26s 26s 26s t0' 0' 0' 0' 0 Heavy Industrial 4VS '40's 4as 40's 40's 40's 40's 49s 40's 49s 2a' 20' o' 0' 0 Any parking lot with 4 - 50 spaces * 10's °10's 10's 10's 10's 10's 10's 10's 10's 10's 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' Any parking lot with 50 or more spaces 10's ,y0's 10's 10's 10s las 10's 10's 10's 10's a 0' 0' 0' o' Proposed Buffer & Screening Matrix Section 18.100.110 * Represents New Categories W Indicates screening required ke/BUFFMATX ab cli 9~ .piC .yt ts).yt' (s)ue ts). ts), ts1.tY c:).tt cs),sr (s)ue -l m ioz a2 ,oa ,oZ x Qr7 Ot7 O(b ,ot7 ,otb qtr 131st or, cd .0 .C .0 at .01 001 .01 (s).LL (s).LL (s).LL C (3)•LL (3).Li M .St (S).SL 7-) LL 13).Oi • •0 , w .01 .01 001 •01 '($).at (3).OL t3).OL Z (3)o0L Meal (S).01 (S1.0t i-t •01 r• .0 •0 00 •0 MOOT (S)oat (s).!T tVM. ► 4 ts).tl t3D.tt ts).tl ls).tT Ona _ , oa M. (t)ool ~$3 ,9ti .OT ~ .0 .0 .0 .0 (S).OT (s).ol ($).Ot TIf3i! (3)801 (0.01 ts).OL (1).01 t-a e J , OZ .Ot y .0 ,0 00 IS) •ot 00 Moot (t)ool (S)OOT 161.01 Moot tS).OT M sot (S).01 7-, Ir 07, (s)eal ° (S) O{ •01 .0 •0 00 .o t3)o0l tS)o0T (S).Ct TEiOOT (t)ool 1:1601 'ts),01 (S),pt M-a • m H ~07, rte c:'~z cs;• c:s.oL c:~.yY (s1.01 c:toot (:).01 0,s (s3 (s;od(r ~5j~, s; slo C5 or CS~ot C~' o "-1 w ts).Sr ts).yf ts).oi t:).st ts).01 13),01 12).01 (glpt~. p w ©b CA (y).at (S)oot (s1,0t oL-: IS)(s).OL IS).~tC (s)-ol ts).01 ($).OT o 07- (4)01 (4)01 C5?01 (4)DI Ll-1 ~m°a (y)~l t'fla~ (SS~J$ is).SL (S).St M.OL tt).LT (S).01 ($).at (3).01 .L .f 00. .01 OL at .ol • T '73T.sT t .0% iST:b L (S3 (t~'fdT :5;. tl 3 , .6 .5 :o .t 8 01M (s)f t (s). (s).ot t31• u).ot ts).ot ts).pl (y) oli, C ct, (S)st (5)01 (slot .o -o .o s•►-a 2v (Slog; ~ ~2i Oz ts)/yt ts).yf ts),oz (s) f{ ts).ot (s).at (s).ol (41t1 (ylol (S of :3', i .o .o ,o .o G t-a o Qt, Qy dj - N (3).X (t).pL (3) (S).p1 (3).p1 131.p1 Cei).!1 (S)01 (S~pt ~~.Sk 3 .p •p -p .p Q L-s co pp 017 - Oi 01 n N • U is ~ (3) (,).at 13)..s oL ~ M.01 M.01 MOT y (y)ptf •O .p .0 ,0 Y N o (S )!T <Sapt C ~pT :b` 1-s N 'D 0 ~M < rt-y N OF - t a Cd~.o ti~ ~c .+p 0696d03.1 C~' < m ) 94 rC `d' S ealuva X~-I-f ~i..! I hU1~ St J .118111X3