City Council Packet - 09/08/1992AGENDA
.A.
AMA
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
PUBLIC NOTICE. Anyone wishing to speak on an
agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up
sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be
recognized by the Mayor at the beginning 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.
Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that
7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet.
order after 7:30 p.m.
6:30 p.m.
• STUDY SESSION (6:30 PM)
persons interested in testifying be present by
Business agenda items can be heard in any
7:30 p.m.
1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 PM)
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
7:35 p.m.
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please)
7:45 p.m.
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 Council Minutes: August 11 and 18, 1992
3.2 Receive & File: Council Calendar
~;pnrrnle Amendment to Resolution No. 92-27 on the Edith Johnson Reimbursement
District - Resolution No. 92-_4±
3.4 Reappointment of Four Budget Committee Members to New Terms - Resolution No.
92-
3.5 Approve Agreement for Traffic Study in the Washington Square Area.
C
COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 - PAGE 1
,rr
7
7:55 p.m.
4. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-0005/ZONE
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0006 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL. PLAN
i~ r* ZONING DISTRICT.
DESIGNAT The City Council will consider amending Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan (Findings, Policies f
and Implementation Strategies) to add a purpose statement and locational criteria for a new Plan
designation (Community Commercial) intended to provide opportunities for commercial
development serving the regular needs of surrounding residential areas. The locational criteria
would limit the establishment of these districts to 1) areas between two and eight acres in size;
2) at limited locations, and 3) locations separated from other commercially zoned properties.
In addition, the Council will consider amending the Community Development Code to create a
new zoning district (C-C) intended to implement the new Plan designation. Some of the
permitted uses in the zone would be limited size grocery stores, retail establishments,
restaurants, and offices. The Council also will consider Community Development Code
amendments related to signage and landscaping and screening for uses within the proposed
new zone.
a. Public Continued from June 23, 1992
b. Declarations or Challenges
C. Staff Report - Community Development Department
d. Public Testimony: Proponents (in favor of amendment)
• Opponents (oppose amendment)
e. Council Questions/Comments
f. Public Hearing Closed
l g. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 92-_
9:00 P.M.
5. PUBLIC HEARING STREET VACATION FOR A PORTION OF S.W. 67TH AVENUE
Located adjacent to property at the northeast corner of S.W. 67th Avenue and S.W. Baylor
Street. The request for a public hearing was initiated by the City Council on July 14, 1992, on
behalf of Mr. Robert Cline.
a. Public Hearing Opened
b. Declarations or Challenges
C. Staff Report - City Engineer
d. Public Testimony -
• Proponents (in favor of vacation)
• Opponents (oppose vacation)
6. Council Questions/Comments
f. Public Hearing Closed
g. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 92--
COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 - PAGE 2
'c
o ~
9:15 p.m.
6. CO IL CONSIDERATION FINAL QRQFR - C®R~PREI-aE1~IS1!!E PLANI AP~IENI®IUIENIY:
a. Staff Report - Community Development
b. Council Consideration - Ordinance No. 92--
9:25 P.M.
®hl A POR~'e®tJ ®1= 5.11/. 1
7. IL CO I+ BSIDERATION PARKINn- RES'TRIC°r1ON4
A1/EN E
a. Staff Report - Engineering
b. Council Consideration - Ordinance No. 92-._
9:45 p.m.
8. e►e~N.®~ENDA ITEMS
9:55 P.M. g p(ECUTI1/E SES~: The Tigard City Council to will
d discuss labor relations, property
provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e),
transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
10:15 P.M.
10. AD QURN MENT
C oca0908.92
4
C
COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 - PAGE 3
Council Agenda Item
T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L
MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 8, 1992
Meeting was called to order at 6:33 p.m. by Mayor Edwards.
1. ROLL CALL
Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Judy
Fessler, Valerie Johnson, and John Schwartz. Staff Present:
Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Dick Bewersdorff, Senior
Planner; Jerry Offer, Associate Planner; Tim Ramis, Legal
Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley,
City Engineer.
STUDY SESSION
Beaverton Study of Realignment of 125th/121st Avenues: City
Engineer reviewed this issue and the options studied by a citizens
group and consultant. The three options reviewed included:
1. A "no build" option.
2. Widen existing (create left turn lanes on 125th and
C 121st)
3. Directly connect 125th to 121st Avenue
After study, it appears the recommendation from the citizens group
and the consultant will be for option No. 2 above. Presently,
traffic impacts are felt on S.W. North Dakota with motorists using
this street as a connection between 125th and 121st. Because of
costs of the direct connection (No. 3 above) and the problems with
building a connector street which would cut through property
earmarked for a future school along with the fact that wetlands
would be involved, all parties appear to agree that Option No. 2 is
the best compromise.
Council noted concern with the North Dakota traffic problems.
Council asked staff to monitor the situation, especially with
regard to notification of the affected neighborhoods.
Agenda Review
Council reviewed the following agenda items:
Item 3.3 City Engineer Wooley reviewed process followed in
the Edith Johnson Sewer Reimbursement District.
This process, as noted in the prior hearing, is
different in most other procedures followed by the
City for public hearings and notification. City
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 - PAGE 1
Engineer advised he waived the three-month deadline
due to the confusion experienced by YIrs. Johnson
concerning the process. Also factored into the
City Engineer's decision to waive the deadline was
the fact that no conditions had changed (i.e., no
requests for construction or alterations in the
District's area).
Item 4 Associate Planner Offer reviewed the changes
proposed in the Community Commercial Ordinance.
The Ordinance, advised Mr. Offer, attempts to
mitigate some problems by offering an alternative
between very small neighborhood shopping areas and
large, regional-type commercial zoning.
There was discussion on the non-mandatory sections
of the ordinance. Council Schwartz expressed
concern with the likelihood of increased appeals to
City Council.
Recess 7:20 p.m.
Reconvene: 7:30 p.m.
BUSINESS MEETING
• Mayor Edwards called the business meeting to order, noting
that Councilor Kasten was absent due to an emergency.
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA:
• Mr. Robert Lamb noted his concerns with Consent Agenda Item
3.3 (Edith Johnson Reimbursement District formation). He said
he learned at the hearing on June 9, 1992, that application
for the reimbursement district occurred after the deadline
specified in the Tigard Municipal Code. He questioned
whether this deadline should have been waived.
Since the time of the June 9 hearing, Mr. Lamb asked questions
of City Staff. Staff responded to Mr. Lamb in a letter
advising him of City's position concerning process used in
this particular instance. If Council affirms staff's
recommendation by adopting the Resolution on the Consent
Agenda (Item 3.3), the decision may be appealed to Circuit
Court.
Mayor advised Mr. Lamb to request, during the Consent Agenda
portion of the meeting, to have this item pulled for
discussion and separate Council consideration.
• Mr. Cal Woolery, Chair of NPO 7, requested that Item No. 4, be
referred to the NPOs for more study because of the significant
changes which have occurred.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 - PAGE 2
3. COEdSENT AGENDA:
~J Mr. Robert C. Lamb, 9735 S.W. McDonald Street, Tigard, Oregon,
requested that Item 3.3 be removed from the Consent Agenda.
Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to
remove Item 3.3 from the Consent Agenda.
Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present.
Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Johnson,
to approve the Consent Agenda as presented with the exception
of Item 3.3:
3.1 Approve Council Minutes: August 11 and 18, 1992
3.2 Receive & File: Council Calendar
3.4 Reappointment of Four Budget Committee Members to New
Terms - Res. No. 92- 45
3.5 Approve Agreement for Traffic Study in the Washington
Square Area.
Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present.
C
Council discussed with Mr. Lamb his concerns over the process
followed in the formation of the Edith Johnson Reimbursement
District. Mr. Lamb advised he was not aware, until the June
9 hearing, that the procedures had not been followed.
Mrs. Beverly Downey, friend of Mrs. Edith Johnson, advised
that Mrs. Johnson did not receive all information concerning
the availability of reimbursement district formation. In
addition, Mrs. Johnson was not aware that sewer laterals to
other properties had also been installed and included as part
of the cost of the sewer line to her property.
Council consensus was that because of the circumstances in
this case, the decision by the City Engineer to waive the
deadline for application to form the reimbursement district
was acceptable. Councilor Fessler advised that she voted
against the resolution on June 9, but after further review,
the circumstances in this case and the compromise by council
on June 9 concerning interest charges, warrant support of the
proposed resolution. She reiterated that the section of the
Code dealing with Reimbursement Districts should be clarified.
Council thanked Mr. Lamb for his testimony which pointed out
the need for clarification of the process in the Municipal
Code.
Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Fessler, to
approve Consent Agenda Item 3.3:
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 - PAGE 3
ANININ 3.3 Approve Amendment to Resolution No. 92-27 on the Edith
Johnson Reimbursement District - Resolution No. 92- 44
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
4. PUBLIC HF, MIN;-C O sREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-0005JZONE-
ORDINANCE Ar~1dDMENT ZOA 91-0006 COMMUNITY COMM-RCIAL PLAN
DESIGNATION :!-C ZONING DISTRICT._
The City Council considered amending Volume II of the
Comprehensive Plan (Findings, Policies and Implementation
Strategies) to add a purpose statement and locational criteria
for a new Plan designation (Community commercial) intended to
provide opportunities for commercial development serving the
regular needs of surrounding residential areas. The
locational criteria would limit the establishment of these
districts to 1) areas between two and eight acres in size; 2)
at limited locations, and 3) locations separated from other
commercially zoned properties.
In addition, the Council considered amending the Community
Development Code to create a new zoning district (C-C)
intended to implement the new Plan designation. Some of the
permitted uses in the zone would be limited size grocery
stores, retail establishments, restaurants, and offices. The
Afth Council to ° si considered landsc ping Development
screening for~
related uses
gnage and
within the proposed new zone.
a. Public hearing was continued from June 23, 1992
b. Mayor Edwards declared he had had dealings with
Albertson°s and United Grocers on issues unrelated to
this hearing item. He advised that such contacts would
not influence his decision.
C. Associate Planner Offer summarized the Staff Report. He
outlined the study and review process to date on this
agenda item.
Mr. Offer noted an error on the map submitted in the
Council packet material. The site at Scholls Ferry Road
and Sunrise Lane does not meet the criteria for
consideration as a community commercial site because
Council, on August 18, 1992, approved Ordinance No. 92-23
(CPA 92-0004/ZCA 92-0002) changing the designation of a
portion of Scholls Ferry Road.
Mr. Offer reviewed the proposed wording changes as
presented in the Staff Report. He advised the current
4 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 - PAGE 4
Staff Report contained significant changes from previous
information presented on June 23, 1992. Staff
recommended approval of the proposal.
d. Councilor Schwartz commented that he was not comfortable
with the non-mandatory design guidelines. Enforceability
and potential for automatic appeal were of concern. He
cited problems with commercial development next to
residential areas (i.e., noise from trucks, odors from
restaurants) and the need to have the mechanism to deal
with these problems.
Councilor Schwartz advised he would like the NPOs to
review the new information. He said he was not prepared
to make a decision at this time.
Mr. Offer noted this was a legislative change; thus,
there was no "clock ticking" with regard to a deadline
for a decision on the issue. If additional NPO and
Planning Commission input is desired, the Council hearing
would probably be reset to a November Council meeting
date.
After discussion, consensus of Council was to take public
testimony and then give direction to staff concerning
whether or not the issue should be remanded to the NPOs
and'Planning Commission.
Staff and Council discussed the fact that the proposal
impacts NPO 7 almost exclusively.
e. Public Testimony
John Shonkwiler, 5750 S.W. Carman Drive, Lake
Oswego, Oregon testified as representative of
Albertson's, Inc. Mr. Shonkwiler noted the purpose
of the proposal was to provide for commercial
opportunities of magnitude between a general-
commercial and a neighborhood zone. He advised
that most of the City is built out; future growth
will occur in the NPO 7 area. He cited relatively
high density in the area without access to readily
available commercial facilities
Mr. Shonkwiler suggested the Council may want to
look at conditional uses. He requested an
opportunity to submit written comments.
(Note: Packet information contains a July 1, 1992
letter from Mr. Shonkwiler to Gerald Edwards,
Mayor.)
C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 - PAGE 5
• Don Duncombe, Real Estate Manager for Albertson's,
17001 N.E. San Rafael, Portland, OR 97230 advised
he generally agrees with the current staff report.
He recommended that Council adopt what was
submitted with latitude to deal with proposals on a
case-by-case basis; i.e., conditional use.
• Cal Woolery, NPO 7 Chair, 12356 S.W. 132nd Court,
Tigard, OR 97223, advised he had had opportunity
for only limited review of the new conditions
contained in the Staff Report. He requested
further NPO review and stressed that this should be
considered as a City-wide issue.
• Ed Sullivan, 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 3200,
Portland, OR 97204, submitted written testimony
(dated 9/8/92). He advised that the number of
candidate sites was reduced to three two within
City limits and one outside. Given the limitations
for siting community commercial uses, the siting of
either of the sites within the City may preclude
the use of other site. Mr. Sullivan also testified
with regard to store size (see written comments
contained in packet.)
Mayor Edwards commented that focus of decision
would be on whether or not the community-commercial
designation was practical and beneficial. He
acknowledged the difference of opinion of
commercial viewpoints with regard to size of the
anchor store.
Craig Petrie, 9600 S. W. Capitol Highway, Portland,
OR 97219 advised he was a commercial real estate
broker and represented a property owner who would
be affected by a change in zoning. (Note: Written
material was received and submitted to Council
see letter dated July 2, 1992 from Craig A. Petrie
to The Tigard City Council.) Mr. Petrie favored
the proposed rezoning. He cited past and projected
build-out in the urban growth boundary area. He
said availability of commercial opportunities in
western Tigard will not cause traffic; the traffic
will already be there by residents who live in the
area.
• Scott Russell, 31291 Raymond, Scappoose, Oregon,
represented family-interests; they own property in
western Tigard which is a potential C-C site. He
testified in favor of a C-C zone noting this would
provide opportunities for residents in the area to
shop. He noted some people prefer to live across
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 - PAGE 6
from a commercial area where shopping is readily
available.
Matt Marcott, 14555 S. W. Teal Boulevard,
Beaverton, OR questioned whether the zone was
necessary. He noted when the issue first came
about, the rationale to create a C-C zoning made
sense. However, now that only one or two sites
were now eligible (for C-C zoning) and were very
close to each other, he questioned whether creating
a separate zone was necessary. He agreed that
western Tigard will grow rapidly and advised that
two existing supermarkets were close by.
Garry P. McMurry, One S.W. Columbia, Portland, OR
argued that because the C-C ordinance would affect
only one area it was precluded from being a city-
wide issue. He reviewed the limiting requirements
of the proposed ordinance which meant that the
ordinance was not flexible.
f. Council discussion. The following are highlights of
discussion between Council and staff:
• Mr. Offer advised that much of the proposed
ordinance was wording used by the City of Bellevue,
Washington in a similar zone. Lake Oswego has some
zoning criteria (their N-C zones) which has
elements of what is being proposed for Tigard.
• While presently the C-C zone would affect only NPO
7, Mr. Offer noted that as Tigard ages, some'
residential areas may be redeveloped and would
conceivably meet criteria to be considered for C-C
zoning.
• Councilor Johnson advised it would be helpful to
have a map showing where commercial property
already exists and also denoting possible future
commercial development.
• Councilor Fessler noted concerns with the evolution
of the process. She referred to the intent of
having community-oriented facilities which fit in
with a neighborhood. Suddenly, she noted, all
available sites are concentrated in one area. She
wanted assurances that acreage as well as size of
store was limited.
After lengthy discussion, Council referred the proposed
ordinance for review by NPO's. Council asked that NPOs
focus on whether or not a zone of this type would be
CITY COUNCIL FETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 - PAGE 7
beneficial to a neighborhood. They requested that the
NPO not argue the point of location but concentrate on
whether they feel such zoning would be of value to the
community.
Council requested that staff work closely with the NPO to
refine the issue.
Public hearing was continued to November 10, 1992.
5. PUBLIC HEARING - STREET VACATION FOR A PORTION OF S.W. 67TH
AVENUE
Located adjacent to property at the northeast corner of S.W.
67th Avenue and S.W. Baylor Street. The request for a public
hearing was initiated by the City Council on July 14, 1992, on
behalf of Mr. Robert Cline.
a. Public hearing was opened.
b. There were no declarations or challenges.
C. Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff reviewed the Staff
Report. (Report is on file with the Council packet
material.)
d. Public testimony:
• Bob Cline, 11670 S.W. 67th Avenue, Tigard, OR
97223, advised he wanted to make improvements to
his property at the subject location. Improving
the property would ordinarily mean that certain
street improvements would be required. He said
this area ("Triangle area") is in transition and to
required street improvements at this time would be
premature. If the vacation request is denied, he
was prepared to go before the Planning Commission
to ask that he be allowed to sign a non-
remonstrance agreement in lieu of street
improvements. Mr. Cline noted this would be
acceptable to him.
• Ann Leiser, 6009 S.W. Pendleton Court, Portland,
Oregon, requested that the vacation be denied
because she would lose the only entrance from 67th
Avenue to property she owns. She expressed concern
over loss of property value if the vacation was
approved.
e. Public hearing was closed.
f. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor
Schwartz, to deny the street vacation request.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 - PAGE 8
r The motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council present.
i
Council directed staff to work with the County to resolve
the problems as outlined in the staff report.
6. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION - FINAL ORDER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDM_E_NT. CPA 92-0002 (ANDERSONT )
a. Senior Planner Bewersdorff reviewed the Staff Report.
The proposed ordinance and findings incorporate the
revised proposal approved by the City Council at the
public hearing held on August 11, 1992.
b. ORDINANCE NO. 92-24 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PTAN AMENDMENT
REQUESTED BY PHYLLIS ANDERSON (CPA 92-0002).
C. Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor
Schwartz, to adopt Ordinance No. 92-24.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
7. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION - PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON A PORTION OF
S.W. 87TH AVENUE NEAR PACIFIC HIGHWAY
a. City Engineer Randy Wooley reviewed the staff report.
b. After discussion, Council declined consideration of the
proposed ordinance. Council requested an advisory report
from the Police Department on the elimination of an
existing loading zone and establishment of a two-hour
parking restriction.
Council, at 10:05, recessed meeting. Council reconvened in the
Town Hall Conference Room. Meeting remained open to the public.
8. NON AGENDA
WATER ISSUES:
Council discussed with Tigard Water District (TWD) Board
representatives Audrey Castile and Bob Wyffles the resolution
recently adopted by TWD Board. The TWD attorney raised some
questions about the ORS 190 agreement process in which the
cities of King City, Durham, and Tigard propose to assume the
operations of the Water District.
There was lengthy discussion over pros/cons of 190 formation.
Water Board Chair Castile noted the need for the Water
District to educate themselves in this process. This will
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 - PAGE 9
take time, she advised, because the Board meets only once a
month and there recently was a new Board member added with
another new member to be appointed in January.
After the discussion, Council directed staff to research the
ramifications of Tigard withdrawing from the Water District
rather than continue with the 1119011 process.
MEETING CANCELLED:
The September 15, 1992, meeting was cancelled.
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Cancelled.
10. ADJOURNMENT: 11:30 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 - PAGE 10
Date:
=0908.92
e
c
C
16-
CO UNITY E SPAPERS9INC.
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360
BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
• ❑ Tearsheet Notice
° City of Tigard
® PO Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223 • 13 Duplicate Aff ida
t2 ~ G ~ ~ y E ~
AUG 311992
r~
TIGARD
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON,
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as'
Judith Koehler
being first duly sworn, depose and say that ~m tthhemAsvertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of the g d ,
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at_ Tigard in the
w
ar,
{
s
aforeaaid eou 4~a d
tice o Pu
N
state; that the
lzc Right o y
~
r.)
I
14
o
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
;:a
O
a=
entire issue of said newspaper for WO successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
E,
August 13 & 20 1992 -
7
Subscribed and.sworn t before ene this 20th day of August, 1992.
Notary Public for Oregon
my Commission ires: 4/r
AFFIDAVIT
Legal
Notice TT 7345
,
4~
/ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
In the Matter of the Proposed
-,a
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss
City of Tigard )
I' begin
fist duly sworn, on oath,
depose and say:
That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance
Number (s)
which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated r~ g I C yi
copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto ached and y reference made a part hereof,
on the day of
1 gg---
1. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
2. Washington Federal Savings Bank, 12260 SW Main Street, Tigard, Oregon
3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
4. Albertson's Store, Corner of Pa ic`H- (,9e Hwy. 99) and SW Durham
Road, Tigard, Oregon
Subscribed and sworn to before me
OFFICIAL SEAL
M. JOANN HAYES
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
COMMISSION N0.006613
My COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 5, 1995
l
f_I C4 Of
1M
Notary P b is for Oregon
My Commission Expires: to 5 4q11
IogingolcwpO t
CITY OF TIGARD, ORE90N
ORDINANCE NO. 92-INGS
TO APPROVE ~ ORDINANVE PLAN PTAMENDMENT FINDREQUES ED BY OPHYLLISN ANDERSON (CPA 92-
CQMPREHENS
0?02).
WT4EREAS, the applicant has requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from
Commercial Professional (3.19 acres, WCTM 2S1 10AC, tax lots 1300 and
1400) and Low Density Residential (3.04 acre portion of WCTM 2S1 1ODB,
Residential; and
tax lot 2100) to Medium-High Density
WHEREAS, the Planning staff made recommendations
hearing of findings ito the City 1992; and
of Tigard Planning Commission at a public WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held public hearing on the proposed
changes on May 12, 1992 and August 11, 1992, to review Planning staff
apd Planning Commission recommendations, as well as public testimony.
+ CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The proposal is consistent with ~all rel conclus nt ncriteria oted in
based upon the facts, findings,
the attached staff report and packet, identified as
Exhibit "A".
Section 2: The City Council concurs with the staff recommendations
parcels
and approves the request to redesignate ha Exhibit
illustrated on the attached map, identified
"B" with a Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium-High
Density Residential.
This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the
Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
B V,1nCL_vn-~1_',.c.e/ vote of all Council members
PASSED: present after being read by number and title only, this
day of Se--ens , 1992.
Cat erine Wheatley, City Reorder
f
APPROVED: This OO day 1992.
n ~
era d R:_:Kdwards, mayor
!Appj ved as to f rm7
C_ II
Ci4t=A t torney U
~llEI9v
Dale
t,
ORDINANCE No. 92-29-
Page 1
these properties to the City of Tigard. The City Council and
Boundary Commission reviews of the annexation request are yet to be
scheduled.
On April 20, 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed this application
at a public hearing. At that time, however, the proposed
redesignation to Medium-high -Density Residential included
approximately 1.5 acres of additional currently designated Low
Density Residential land on the western portion of this site. The
Planning commission unanimously recommended denial of the
application as it was proposed at that time. Staff has reported,
however, that the Commission seemed to feel that the proposal had
much merit except for its potential to place multi-family
residential development next to an existing single family
neighborhood contrary to the neighbors expectations for the subject
site. The neighbors' expectations, however, did not appear to be
consistent with the current Plan designation for commercial
development of the site. The Commission briefly considered what
other Plan designations might be more appropriate for the site
rather than either the current and proposed Plan designations, but
the Commission did not make a recommendation on this alternative.
The application was forwarded to the City Council for review at the
Council's May 12, 1992 meeting. Prior to the Council receiving oral
comments on the proposal, the applicant requested that the Council's
hearing on the item be continued to allow the applicant to meet with
neighbors of the site to see if modifications to the proposal could
be made that might make the request more acceptable to the
community. On July 9, 1992, the applicant submitted the current
revised request and the revised applicant's statement. The
applicant also requested a further continuance of the Council's
hearing on this matter to allow the community and the City's staff
time to respond to the revised request. The Council continued the
hearing to August: 11, 1992. City staff prepared and mailed a
revised notice of the Council's August 8, 1992 hearing on this item
to clearly reflect the changed application.
3. Proposal Description
The applicant requests a Plan Map J~mendment from Commercial
1arofessional to Medium High Density Residential for the 3.19 acres
included in tax lots 1300 and 1400. In addition, the applicant
requests a Plan Map Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium
High Density Residential for approximately 3.03 acres included in
tax lot 2100. Washington County's R-6 zoning for these properties
would not be affected by the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment;
however, the zoning is proposed to be changed through the annexation
request that is pending.
The application package includes a revised applicant's statement
prepared by Planning Resources, Inc. dated July 9, 1992 and a
traffic study prepared by Beech Associates, Inc. in support of the
application. The applicant's statement assumes that R-25 zoning
would be applied upon annexation to implement the Medinm_uigh
Density Residential ^=.i r.e.`.Qawive Plan designation.
C
Page 2
4. Site and Vicinitv Information
The applicant's statement at pages 2 and 3 includes details on
existing development on the subject properties and surrounding area
as well as information on public facilities available to serve
future redevelopment of the site.
5. Agency and NPO Comments
The Oregon Department of Transportation-Highway Division, the
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District, Tigard School District
23J, the City of Tigard Building Division, PGE, GTE, and the Tigard
Water District have reviewed the proposal and have offered no
objections to the proposed redesignation. The Tigard Water
District, however, notes that any future development of the site
above elevation 295 above mean sea level, under either the existing
or proposed zoning, will require an extension of the water main from
the west in order to have adequate water pressure.
NPO #3 has submitted revised comments supporting the proposed
redesignation, as long as the applicant enters into the agreement
reached with neighbors of the site to reduce the area proposed for
redesignation. However, the NPO questions whether there is adequate
sight distance along Bull Mountain Road to allow for intensive
development of this property and desires that the City carefully
review this issue when development plans are submitted for the site.
The NPO also comments that access for this property should be
coordinated with properties to the east of these properties if
possible.
Vicki Artis, Robert Ball, Herbert Moreno, and Mimi Stover -
neighbors of the subject properties - and CPO 4B submitted letters
to the Planning Commission in opposition to the original proposal.
These letters have been provided to the Council.
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The City Council finds that the relevant criteria in this case are
Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13; Tigard Comprehensive
Plan policies 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2, 9.1.2 and 9.1.3,
and Chapter 12.1.1, the locational criteria for residential Plan
designations; and the change or mistake quasi-judicial map amendment
criteria of both Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.2 and Community Development
Code Chapter 18.22.
The City Council concludes that the proposal is consistent with the
applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines based upon the
following findings:
1. Statewide Planning Goal #1 (Citizen Involvement) and Tigard
Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 are supported because the City has
adopted a citizen involvement program including review of all land
use and development applications by City established neighborhood
Page 3
planning organizations (NPOs) and nearby Washington County
established community planning organizations (CPOs). NPO #3 and CPO
#4B have been provided with an opportunity to review both the
original proposal and the revised proposal submitted on July 9,
1992. The NPO's comments have been reported above. No comments
were received from the CPO with regard to the revised proposal. In
addition, all public notice requirements related to this application
have been satisfied.
2. Statewide Planning Goal #2 (Land Use Planning) and the quasi-
judicial plan and zone change approval standards of Code Section
18.22.040 and Implementation Strategy 2 under Plan Policy 1.1.2 are
supported because the City has applied all applicable Statewide
Planning Goals, City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies, and
Community Development code requirements to the review of this
proposal, as described in this report. The City of Tigard has
notified other affected units of government including Washington
County, the Oregon Department of Transportation Highway Division,
and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development of
the proposal. Service and utility providing agencies have also been
notified of the proposal.
3. Goal #9 (Economy of the State) is supported by the proposal,
although the proposal would reduce the City's inventory of
developable commercial land, because:
a. The reduction in Commercial Professional designated land
proposed is not a large amount compared to the total amount of
developable Commercial Professional designated land in the
city. City staff are not aware of any prior significant
interest by others in development of tax lots 1300 and 1400
with uses permitted by the current Commercial Professional
Plan designation applied to a portion of the site, or
development of other properties in the general area of the
site with uses permitted by the C-P zone. The amount of
undeveloped and under-developed Commercial Professional
designated properties in the City may indicates that the
proposed redesignation will not result in a shortage of a
needed type of commercial opportunity.
b. The proposed redesignation of the Commercial Professional
portion of this site may be viewed by some as short sighted in
that long range planning interests, such as the Regional Urban
Growth Goals and objectives program of Metro, urge the
integration of employment opportunities in close proximity to
housing opportunities. Removing the opportunity for
development of office development of this site which is close
to a large, strictly residential area to the west may be
viewed as contrary to those goals and objectives.
On the other hand, the Council finds that allowing multi-
family development on this site near other commercially zoned
developable, or developed buL undra -utilize.: ro ^rties
provide an attractive mix of land uses thereby helping spur
further commercial development in the general area, although
these other nearby properties are designated for Gemral
Commercial use rather than Professional Commercial use. In
Page 4
that way, the City finds that the proposed redesignation is r
supportive of the Regional Urban Growth Goals and objectives
through supporting existing commercial development adjacent to
residential areas.
4. Goal #10 (Housing) is supported because the proposal will provide
for additional housing opportunities as promoted by the City's
Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Housing Rule (Oregon
Administrative Rules, Chapter 660, Division 7). The Metropolitan
Housing Rule requires that the City maintain a minimum housing
opportunity rate for developable land of 10 units per acre and a
minimum 50/50 opportunity mix for single family and multi-family
housing. Approval of the proposal will increase the inventory of
developable residential land within the City's planning area by 3.19
acres and will provide increased housing opportunities on the City's
developable residential lands by a total of 135 dwelling units (at
the maximum density for this site of 25 units per acre). This will
increase the City's housing opportunity rate further beyond the 10
units per acre standard. (NOTE: updated inventory of developable
residential lands includes 13,371 developable units based on
assigned Comprehensive Plan designations, 1298 developable acres,
and a housing opportunity of 10.3 units per acre). Approval will
also provide increased opportunities for multi-family development
relative to single family only opportunities.
5. The proposal is consistent with the public facility objectives of
Goal #11 (Public Facilities and Services) because adequate public
facilities presently exist at or near the site to serve development
at the residential densities proposed by the requested Plan
amendment. As noted by the Cater District, however, special
attention will need to be paid to the design of water facilities to
serve development of this site due to the site's topography. The
City's Engineering Department has echoed this concern with regard to
future specific design considerations related to storm drainage and
sanitary sewers, although the overall storm sewer system and the
sanitary sewer systems have adequate capacity to serve development
of the site under either the proposed or current Plan designations.
6. Goal #12 (Transportation) and Goal #13 (Energy Conservation) are
satisfied through providing the Plan change providing an opportunity
for an intensive land use (multi-family development) to be located
adjacent to a major transportation corridor (Pacific Highway) that
presently is served by Tri-Met buses. In addition, the requested
redesignation will provide housing opportunities near a substantial
amount of existing retail and service opportunities (Canterbury
Square shopping center). The convenience of nearby transit service
and commercial opportunities to a higher density residential
development can result in lesser needs for individual vehicle trips
on overcrowded roads and a companion benefit of lesser energy
resource use. Therefors, the land use pattern that would be
furthered by the proposal is supportive of these Statewide Goals.
The subject site is located along a major collector street, SW Bull
Mountain Road. Specific design concerns related to access to this
road will need to be considered in the daaalcpm..ent review process
for future development of the site under either the current or
proposed Plan designations.
Page 5
C The city council finds that the proposal is consistent with applicable
policies of the comprehensive Plan based upon the findinge noted belowt
7. Plan Policy 6.1.1 is supported because the redesignation will
provide the opportunity for additional multi-family development and
will increase the net housing opportunity on buildable lands in the
City. This is detailed in the discussion for Statewide Planning
Goal 10 above.
8. Plan Policies 7.1.2 and 7.6.1 are satisfied because adequate public
water, sewer, storm sewer, fire and rescue, and police service
capacities are available to serve potential development on the
subject properties. Specific concerns related to extension of
utility services to the site or analysis of storm drain-age
provisions will need to be considered in the development review
processes for future development of the site.
9. Plan Policy 8.1.1 commits the City to plan for a safe and efficient
street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated
future development. Theoretical traffic generation figures for
development of typical uses and intensities under the current and
proposed Plan designations are relatively similar. The traffic
study submitted by the applicant assumes development of the current
Commercial Professional designated portion of the site with medical
and dental offices which has a high traffic potential. Because of
this assumption, the traffic study is able to conclude that
development under the proposed multi-family residential
redesignation would result in less traffic than development under
the current mix of Plan designations. While this might be true for
a comparison of "worst case" development situations, it is difficult
to make assumptions at this point with regard to actual types or
intensities of development under either the current or proposed Plan
designations. However, the Council finds that the requested change
should not undermine the objectives of Plan policy 8.1.1 due to the
absence of an increase in anticipated traffic levels.
Questions related to adequacy of sight distance and necessary street
improvements should not be at issue with this proposal since the
proposed redesignation would not appear to significantly affect
traffic potential from the site. These issues will need to be
reviewed closely under the site development review process for any
development of the site.
10. Plan Policies 8.2.2 and 9.1.2 are satisfied because Tri-Met offers
bus service on 5W Pacific Highway approximately 500 feet from the
eastern edge of the site. In addition, a variety of commercial and
service opportunities exist along SW Pacific Highway relatively
close to the site. Therefore, the proposed redesignation would
locate an intensive type of development within close proximity to an
existing public transit route and needed retail services supportive
or residents' needs, thereby encouraging a reduction in energy t
consumption as compared to typical suburban development patterns..
11. Plan Policy 9.1.3 is supported because the requested redesignation
would allow for the possible development of passive solar d®signsd
multi-family residential units maximizing the site's south facing
l~ orientation thereby resulting in reduced energy consumption as
nano 6
compared to building residential units at a less favorably situated
site. This is not to say that the same benefits could not result
from development of various uses under the Commercial Professional
Plan designations.
12. The locational criteria specified in Plan Policy 12.1.1 for Medium-
High Density Residential use are satisfied for the following
reasons:
a. The subject properties are not committed to low density
development. As the applicant's statement points out, the
surrounding area contains quite a mixture of land uses
including multi-family residential development immediately to
the south.
b. Density transition, buffering, and screening requirements of
the Community Development Code may be used to help make future
development on the subject properties compatible with
neighboring low density single family residences to the north
and west. In addition, topography and existing trees could
also.be utilized to buffer multi-famil .,usa a on-this site
` = ;:from1thoee •nei hborin in le~ryfamil residential -areas ~ ,.,.~•n .
C. T_te subject parcels have direct access to SW Bull Mountain
Road, a major collector street. The subject properties are
also in close proximity to SW Pacific Highway which is
functionally classified as an arterial street.
d. Serious development limitations affecting the properties, such
as flood plains, excessively steep slopes or poor drainage,
are not evident. The site does contain steep slopes, but
these slopes are not anticipated to.negatively impact the
residential developability of the site.
e. Essential public facilities are present to serve future
development on the properties, although extensions of some
service facilities to the site itself will be necessary with
development of the site. It appears that these facilities and
services have sufficient capacity to serve any increase in
demand caused by development of the site.
f. Public transit is available on SW Pacific. Highway,
approximately 500 feet from the site.
g. The properties are located within: one- quarter mile of
commercial service and retail-opportunities in the Canterbury
Square shopping center to the: north on Pacific Highway, as
well as the limited:commercial-.opportunities provided at the nearby Texaco site-.:as-.well°;as opportunities that: may be. .
developed on°the C-P zoned property directly to the east of
the site. .
}
h.::., The applicant,anticipates that,.'. private open space as well as
recreationalfacilities i;:will be provided as part of
development of :the.lsite.: -There.;is,.no existing or planned
;..public or private open space.anywhere.near the subject site. .
Page 7
13. In order to approve a quasi-judicial amendment to the Plan's land
C use map, the City must also find that there is evidence of a
physical change in the neighborhood or community which affects the
subject parcel. Alternatively, the City must find that there has
been a mistake or inconsistency made in the original designation of
the parcel (Comprehensive Plan, Volume 2, Policy 1.1.1,
implementation Strategy 2s Community Development Code Section
18.22.040(A)).
The applicant's statement at page 5 asserts that a mistake was made
in the original designation of a portion of the site with the
Commercial Professional Plan designation in that office building
development is often difficult to accomplish on hillside sites.
Portions of the subject site contain slopes of approximately 15
percent grade. The applicant states that multi-family development
can be more readily accommodated on steep sites because of the use
of smaller build-.ga thaz typical office buildings and the ability
to step foundations between units. The applicant's statement
asserts that "the presence of a steep hillside on this property
constitutes a development limitation for which the 1983 designation
did not account and, therefore, the application of the C-P
designation to this site should be considered a flaw, or mistake, in
that plan designation." The Council concurs with the applicant
that the substantial slope of 15 to 25 percent on portions of this
site is typically not conducive for typical office development. As
was recently demonstrated by the Council's approval of the Triad
apartment site plan, slopes similar to the subject site's can be
conducive, and actually attractive, for multi-family development.
The Council therefore finds that a mistake was apparently made in
designating a portion of the subject site Commercial Professional
due to the development limitations imposed by the site's slope on
the construction of typical office buildings found in that zone.
The applicant also has argued that the Plan Amendment and Zone
Change (file #CPA 4-84/ZC4-84, approved May 14, 1984) and subsequent
development of the Wellington Estates condominium complex which
occurred subsequent to the original designation of the subject
properties with their current Plan designations constitutes a
substantial change in circumstances in the neighborhood of the site
that affects the subject properties. CPA 4-84 redesignated the
Wellington Estates site from the Commercial Professional Plan
designation to High Density Residential with R-40 zoning. The
current applicant's statement says that "the elimination of this
area of potential office development seriously eroded the
feasibility of developing an office park in this area as it removed
access to Beef Bend Road. As a result, all of the impact of office
related traffic would fall upon Bull Mountain Road rather than being
split between two intersections with Highway 99W." staff testified
that comments from residents of the subject area indicates that this
potential traffic impact, coupled with what the neighbors perceive
as an intrusion of commercial development into a residential area,
would be very undesirable to the neighbors.
The Council concurs that the rezoning of the Wellington Estates site
and the subsequent development of apartments on the Wellington site
was certainly a change in physical circumstances affecting this
area. This change has removed the potential for developing these
Page 8
parcels jointly with a possible road connection to Beef Bend Road.
In addition, the current application has made neighbors of the
subject site aware of the site's current Plan designation and its e
potential for office development. Many neighbors were apparently
unaware of this development potential and have essentially opposed
not only the proposed Plan redesignation to Medium-high Density
Residential but also the current Plan designation because of
potential traffic conflicts and feelings of incompatibility between
differing land uses. These neighbors should understand that due to
the proximity of this area to Pacific Highway and the intensive
development that necessarily exists along such a roadway, there has
to be some interface between different land uses in this area. That
interface has previously been established by the Comprehensive Plan
to bisect the Anderson properties in the boundary between Commercial
Professional and Low Density Residential designations. It would be
very difficult for the City to now down-zone the higher intensity
designated, but as yet undeveloped properties so as to move this
interface between uses further eastward to "protect" the low density
uses to the west but to diminish the values of these properties.
However, the current proposal offers to replace the current
potential for office development with a possibly more acceptable
potential use from the neighbors, perspectives. While this change
in the neighbors' awareness of the current development potential of
the subject site, and possibly a change in what the neighbors feel
is an acceptable neighboring land use, are not changes in physical
circumstances, these circumstances certainly are relevant
information for the City Council to consider in considering a
modification to the Plan designation of the subject site.
The applicant has offered to change this application from how it was
originally proposed to essentially guarantee a physical separation
between existing low-density residential development owned by others
and the potential multi-family development on the seibject site
through removing some of the applicant's property from consideration
for intensification. This also should result in a less significant
increase in traffic on Bull Mountain Road upon development of the
site than was assumed in the applicant's traffic study. This change
in the application should serve to make the current request more
acceptable to the neighbors than has been reflected in the earlier
comments received by the Planning Commission and City Council.
C. DECISION
The Tigard City Council concludes that the requested Comprehensive Plan
Amendment will promote the general welfare of the City and will not be
significantly detrimental nor injurious to surrounding land uses, provided
that development that occurs after this decision complies with applicable
local state and federal laws.
In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein, and
incorporating the staff report and other reports of affected agencies and
public testimony and exhibits received in this matter, the Council
approves the requested Plan Map Amendment from Commercial Professional to
Medium High Density Residential for the 3.19 acres included in tax lots
1300 and 1400 and from Low Density Residential to Medium High Density
Residential for approximately 3.03 acres included in tax lot 2100 (See
Page 9
i
Exhibit B). Because the resignation will result in a split Plan
designation for talc lot 2100, approval of the redesignation request is
conditioned upon the applicant adjusting the property boundari®s for-this
tax lot through either a lot line asdjustmant ornainor land partition prior
to or concurrent with any devolopment application for the parcel.
It is further ordered that the applicant and parties to these proceedings
be notified of the entry of this order.
PASSED: This day of August, 1992, by the City Council of the City of
Tigard.
Gerald Edwards, Mayor
Tigard City Council
El
EXHIBIT "B' ,
~ . Lone (~~s 1 ~ E Z x fvl ~ F~
z _
wo •4 r a
t v v A-µ7 sat: rpm a 11
Y.: •~ys'~'r~,,.5?••~ sr v_~: - rji r'-'^ 1 jh1.~5ti P~ti-•.
' •r
tii we t
t}' l V, to - _ _ -
° 131.15 r `r c i AC 9
2100
.urAr* a
1500 t6OO
IOt) caws
rwc o $
sK ' ~ ire.
- •V ~r
1 VISA
0
L
s - ~
2 Sa
o-
~saor
L f
x
h
Ka
" rrr
X65. c9 ' ~~S.S/i.awo
z
-
car
- - Goo
.VJCTM a5 i to AC TAx Lo-VS 1300 l~/GQ
FQow, ('~,wi v~EYZCt ~+20~ . Ss tE~1v TU g~.
ME D1LA wt-(-IIG}4 DENSiTV RESIDEPi TIAL.
3.0q ACRt`5 (APr'2cX)
. Or: WCT,v, .BSI IoDff
F2cn~ Low ~c N 5, ry rec-.- CC,) alc- To
NILDtu. M f•:i=`•,;U%ly!
'.'.y lil 07 ..e'sa A.Oc F 'a
'
C
O~
O~
O ~ll
r
n
t.~1ca'
C7 ~~~„~OC~~OV
ta.~ P2 66
Pg. S
CY)
.®I~
OppUC~OP
~
b 0c~..a.~.GtJ
n
a
m-
WSW
O
Z e
LIJ Mo
N
~
0) m m
.0C W
•
O
W C
N
0 0
z
V m
a
o
6f~ w
a 13 13
0
Opp Z
61
® O O
Z
P z
0
a!
ca
l9 v;
rr
r
Q
M
0
m
`
Q
U.
co
a
^
H
O
®
ch
CN
Q
H
O
It
-Z
Z!E
Q
cly,
'
~-t
r M O
cLLI c O
1
4
t-
0
N
w
0 LL
-
U. O
r,
r
a c~
po ta0
U
H
41
0
Z
PG
W
~00
.y
o o e
OU _
ao
q ~ .
~ C
b
r;F G N i
H ~
r~
(D
_ O
CD
'0
C
'y
T L
w
O
.L+
C
q)
c
c
>
>
m
M
ro (1)
rn
L
0
C)
r
E' O
C
0.
0
(Q
c
3
-
O
w
T
0
OV
Q
O
CD
X
m
aj
W (D
V 0.
0 O
N U
_
m
m
00-
~
o
m V O W
e
n
C
~.0
L
3
o
cG.mW
U C L
1
'ot_{
t
®
C
=
O
N
01
3O c (D.!2
'a01~
T
;
ro
L
ai
O
mm
:5
>.m0o
e
n
~L mC
d
O
4)
0
N
0 cc 0
0
:
CLcd Li
.0
r m 0 co 03 0
W
m
0
Q
N
e--i
4-3
0
a~
.0
C
W
ro
0
s
U
a
C
O
cm
m
0
O
U
W
0
Z h
V
I--
0
I--
.03 E
U 6L
LA.
~ e
00
M
J $
6
z
co
LU
ca
Z
0
c
CD
v
Z
o~
2p
0
Q
O
2
0
aW
W
CO
oM
O
m
O
a
Im
c
a
V
It
Cd
m
C4,
'oc ro :i 64
as `i 'A G . o o ~ ch
ty
•rs ~ .a ~,t c r~
is
t7+ c
C3 cs G a QC)
b
Cc,
1 Q p„ O
10
t+3 g, cn N 1 57.. COG U 00 N,
&044
0 a>
•Cq t*
V4 u 0.
X81 0 ~ ~ .•.~C C~ ~
w c`r~ I I e~ 1 I 1 W .Oi cr3 M
fto
~ ~ va Gq
Q
t O
y .0 CL
'c, a - o r c I
CD p v, O « m
N ~ o
07)
Gr P
0
a- r
W
L/) U.
M
N
10 C,4
c14U rn
H O
n
O cM
~ pN~•I
®p
CD
v
Q
CL
s• O
z
e
W m
a
C
'
cc.
m
« ~
J
y m Ctl
D
d
•O « e
LL
co
Co o c~.
O
mY
z
o`°
5;
0
'a
0
moo;
L
Z
O
OCrD_yi
LL
w
(7
3: -4
p A
•
Q
Q
m~
y
a
~.m mi
OO
d 8 CN 1
O
O it.
y coo 4
.
: Q
}
uiz -J
a
C7
"_pmp~~
~
U
c
m ■
~ e c
CO
-
oO co a
CD
m CO
L m
Um
Ma
.C ~
r y
a
fA
O
9
.p
x (1)
C
e
at
oo
om
m
® C
n m C
w
U O
.C c p
$ M
y m
o m «
o O C
U m >
m ~ U
c m W
° o
o m U
to
N
ON
CS
e-I
il
s
OC
b
M
Mn
m
E
0
V
m
C
C9
V
m
A
y
.o
N
u
Li
CL
W
e
O
E
E
U
a
N
L:
`a
AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE:
(t_imited 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.
STAFF
NAME & ADDRESS TOPIC CONTACTED
-05
S. W. -27
Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount
~r of time each person has to apeak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair
may further limit time if ; iecessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to
supplement oral testimony.
Please sign in to testify on the following:
5
PLEASE PRINT Pros rent 4 g 6-Favd pf Opponent = (Spaa{c~i Againk C®mp"rei ensive
Gomp Chet v~ lar~ Aman~rra nt G!?A Pty nendmaht CPA
91-~00.5lZo~®~ 3rdonean endrnent ZOO 91-0005/Zone Ord1nence AmsndmentZOA
9 pi~J S,~Q ra raity..~Gommerc~al Pla_ n 31-0 o~~muhity!Commercial "elan
---Z-anln~'.DlStriCt~;"- -
V/
J
me a 0. (J - o N
ress '
F
It
0
o
L LE
i
l
9
Name
Address
/7v o ni L jn do e
Address
ame
Name
Address
Address
23 n&
Name
1V
Name
Addressi
~ ~U
'I
Address
V` L
t f
Name
Name
Address
b o CI S /c, L!/ Wr~ O /Q .
Address
ame 7 )
Name
US~2L
Address
Address
3 29 o,ti~ ~7a~
ame
ame
Address
Address
Name
G -~f C Vv\
Name
Address
~
Address
,0
Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount
of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair
may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to
supplement oral testimony.
Please sign in to testify on the following:
,06" PLEASE PRINT
C
''oponqat a~eal~~r~g~>lnaitzr
d t"
Cp~,.;e S sakE a't>,
of r ,`Feat Vacon:
. 3
ame
65d~' ~
0
Name
i
r
G
~
7~
dress
~cog
Name
ame
Address
Address
Name
Name
Address
Address
Name
Name
Address
Address
Name
Name
Address
Address
ame
-Name
Address
Address
Name
Name
Address
Address
Name
Name
Address
Address
SEP 08 192 09:03AM CITY OF EERVERTON
EXECUTIVE SUMLNRY
P.2
OTAK
STUDY PURPOSE
The purpose of the 121st - 125th Land Use and Transportation Study has been to review a proposed
direct street connection of SW 121st Avenue at Scholls Ferry Road to SW 125th Avenue at Conestoga
Drive as a means of meeting future north-south travel needs between the cities of Tigard and
Beaverton. This new road would cross property owned by the Beaverton School District that is
planned for development as a Middle School. This study has focused on examining the engineering,
planning, environmental, and citizen issues raised by the proposed street connection. The study also
examined a "No Build" option and a "Widen Existing facilities option. Fundamental questions
addressed in this study have been:
Is the New Street Necessary?
■ As a part of the 1988 update of the City's Comprehensive Plan, this road link was proposed to
improve street system continuity between Beaverton and Tigard and to eliminate unnecessary
traffic congestion on Scholls Ferry Road.
m SW North Dakota Street, and extension of SW 125th into Tigard south of Scholls Ferry Road, has
experienced a rising problem of "cut-thru" traffic diminishing the quality of life along this
residential street.
■ The City's Transportation Plan currently recognizes the road link as an area of "study". This
study will fulfill the intent of the City's Transportation Plan by examining current and future
traffic and assessing the value or need for this new street link.
Is the New Alignment Feasible?
There are a number of competing interests along this proposed street alignment, including: school
siting needs, resource protection needs, access, safety, and road improvement needs.
r If the New Alignment is necessary, can an acceptable design be developed that will not seriously
compromise the function and/or safety of existing and proposed facilities?
Is the New Alignment Acceptable to the Public, Regulatory Agencies, and Other
Stakeholders?
m Can a solution be developed that will meet everyone's needs?
■ Are there changes in traffic circulation patterns that will be acceptable to the public?
■ Are there issues of particular concern to interest groups in the study area? Can these issues be
addressed to the satisfaction of these groups?
Can the New Alignment coexist with the proposed Middle School?
a Will there be a negative impact to business?
3843/EXSU a.NAR
0992.04
1
SEP 08 '92 09:04AM CITY OF BEAVERTON
P.3
EXEOUTWE SUMMARY
OTAK
STUDY PROCESS
The City of Beaverton retained the services of OTAK. Incorporated, a local firm with expertise in
transportation and environmental planning and public involvement, to conduct the SW 121st - 125th
Land Use and Transportation Study. OTAK augmented its project tear=s with professionals from
Kittelson & Associates, a traffic engineering and transportation planning firm familiar with
Beaverton traffic issues. The consultant work effort was guided by a Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC), comprised of staff from the Cities of Beaverton and Tigard, the Beaverton School District, the
Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District, Washington County, and Tri-Met.
The consultant team collected and reviewed existing information, performed field reconnaissance, and
interviewed agency staff to identify constraints and opportunities in the study area and to develop
traffic data and conceptual designs for the alternatives considered. The alternatives were evaluated
using "Decision Criteria developed by the consultant team and the TAC (Figure 1).
Technical Memoranda summarizing project findings were reviewed by the TAC and presented to a
Citizen Advisory Committee comprised of representatives of neighborhoods and other residential and
business interests in the study area. The CAC evaluated the technical information and rated the
acceptability of the alternatives to project stakeholders. This information was incorporated into a
Draft Final Report which was reviewed by both the TAC and the CAC.
C STUDY CONCLUSIONS
Is the New Street Necessary?
■ Yes, one of the Build alternatives is needed to provide adequate traffic capacity through the year
2010. Both of the Build alternatives provide acceptable levels of seivice.
The Widen Existing alternative will do little to reduce "cut-thru" traffic on either SW North
Dakota street in Tigard or SW Conestoga in Beaverton.
■ The New Alignment alternative does effectively eliminate "cut-thru" traffic using North Dakota to
travel north-south in the corridor and reduces traffic on Conestoga east of its intersection with SW
125th. However, the alignment has little impact on traffic using North Dakota between Tigard
and points west on Scholls Ferry or on traffic using Conestoga west of its intersection with SW
125th.
Is the New Alignment Feasible?
e Both the Widen Existing and the New Alignment alternatives are technically feasible.
a The study assumes that North Dakota remains open to through traffic. Closure of North Dakota
would impact traffic patterns in the study area. While the traffic modeling performed for this
study did not evaluate the impact of closure, any future analysis of the impacts of closure should
consider the performance of the SW 121st Avenue/Scholls Ferry intersection.
3s43/B, u.m.NAR 2
0992.04
SEP 06 '92 09:05RM CITY OF BEAVERTON
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
P.4
OTAK
e The New Alignment alternative entails right-of-way acquisition, relocation of athletic fields,
wetland mitigation, stormwater quality and quantity management, air and noise analysis, potential
noise walls, and a significant public involvement effort. Protection of the school site under federal
law (23 U.S.C. 133 (Section 4(f) of the DOT Act)) effectively precludes the use of federal funding
on the New Alignment alternative.
Is the New Alignment Acceptable to the Public, Regulatory Agencies, and Other
Stakeholders?
The Do Nothing Alternative was rated to have:
• A negative impact for the citizens of Beaverton and Tigard and for the Tigard Neighborhood along
N. Dakota.
The Widen Existine Alternative was rated to have:
• Fairly neutral ratings for all stakeholder groups.
The New AliFmrnent Alternative was rated to have:
• A very negative impact on the Beaverton School District.
• A very positive impact on the Tigard Neighborhood along North Dakota.
• Positive impacts on the Citizens of Beaverton and Tigard.
Negative impacts on Beaverton Neighborhoods East of 125th and Tigard Neighborhoods along
121st.
Overall, our evaluation indicates the CAC perceives that the New Alignment Alternative would be
beneficial to the general public who use the corridor, but that it would be detrimental to more
localized stakeholders, particularly the Beaverton. School District. The opposite conclusion applies to
the Do Nothing Alternative - doing nothing would be negative for the general motoring public, but
neutral or even beneficial to local interests.
RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS
1. Should the SW 121st-125th Connection (the New Alignment) be incorporated into the
Transportation Element of the Beaverton Comprehensive Plan?
• While the New Alignment provides a superior solution to traffic and capacity issues in the corridor,
the alternative does have negative environmental and technical impacts. These concerns can be
mitigated, but lead to a low public acceptability rating for the alternative,
• Construction of the New Alignment is estimated to cost almost $1 million in 1992 dollars.
• Federal funding would not be available to the City for the New Alignment alternative. Local
funding does not exist and is not projected to be available. If local funding were available, the City
currently has higher priority uses for it.
■ The Widen Existing alternative, while not the optimal technical solution, does work and does meet
C federal funding requirements.
ssA&sxsum.NAR
0992.04
SEP 06 '92 09:06AM CITY OF BEAVERTON P.5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OTAIK
■ The Widen Existing alternative does not solve the problem of "cut-thru" traffic on North Dakota.
o Unless the School District becomes a willing partner in developing the New Alignment, or
Beaverton, Tigard, and Washington County are convinced that the impacts to traffic on Scholls
Ferry of the Widen Existing alternative are unacceptable and the benefits of the New Alignment
outweigh the negative impacts, we recommend not proposing to incorporate the Connection into
the City Comprehensive Plan.
2. Should the City proceed with planning, design, and construction of the 'W'iden E-;dsting
alternative?
a The SW 125th Avenue/Scholls Ferry Road intersection is projected to fail by the year 2010.
a The Cities of Beaverton and Tigard and Washington County should program improvements to the
alignment based upon the Widen Existing alternative into their capital plans. Analysis should be
performed to determine•the impacts of future widening of Scholls Ferry and/or the potential
closure of North Dakota.
a If improvements are made to the 121st-125th corridor before improvements are made to the major
north-south trafficways (I-5/Kruse Way/Highway 217, Murray Boulevard, Highway 217, the
Western Bypass), inappropriate through traffic could discover the corridor and add to traffic
congestion in central Beaverton.
3s43/F_-sum.NAR 4
0992.04
SEP 08 '92 09:06AM CITY OF BEAVERTON
C
G
Y
i
t
C
i
I
I
P.6
x
+
4
M
i
t
t
O
C
+
t
t
t
Z
ti
Al
l Q
O
t
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
'1'
O
t
t
t
t
•
3~
Zo
O
O
O
O
4
O
O
O
O
b
O
t
^J
+
O
4
+
t
f..
N
G
C
u
V
P~
•
u
V
?
C
G
j°
t-'
u
Z
e
.tea
<
v
_
v
p
V
E
u
7
•
•
~
y
=
3
d
V
r,
G
L
o
e
v
y
u
E
i
m
e
v
~
o
v
~
s
`p
c
v
n
C
j ~
O
J
o
c
`
c
Q
^
u
=
a
?
?
o
u
c
o
°c
o
`
•
v
S CJ
a
e
e
v
u
c
2°S
E
L
o
-
a
>
„
G>
•
p
G
"
U
V
-
p
L
M
C
V
J
t
n
L•
~
p
~
u
=
~
a
o
~
~
ti
•
c-
=
~
v
~
$
g
r
r=
<
E
r
L
~
may
e
•
{
.
V
.
~
~
e
C
y
V
y
C
y
V
R
V
N
J
C
~
~
Z'
~
~
L
"
r
3
z
F
F
X
c
F
C3
3
<
J
c7
_
_
Figure 1
C-
Council Agenda Item 3.a.
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator
DATE: August 28, 1992
SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, September - November 192
Official Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally
OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council
Calendars.
September 192
7 Mon Labor Day - City Hall Offices Closed
8 Tue Council Meeting
Council Study Session (6:30)
Council Business Meeting (7:30)
15 Tue Council Study Meeting (6:30)
22 Tue Council Meeting
Council Study Session (6:30)
Council Business Meeting (7:30)
C
October '92
13 Tue Council Meeting
Council Study Session (6:30)
Council Business Meeting (7:30)
20 Tue Council Study Meeting (6:30)
27 Tue Council Meeting
Council Study Session (6:30)
Council Business Meeting (7:30)
November '92
3
Tue
Election Day
10
Tue
Council Meeting
Council Study Se
ssion (6:30)
Council Business
Meeting (7:30)
11
Wed
Veteran's Day Holiday
- City Offices Closed
14-16
Sat-
League of Oregon Citie
s Conference - Portland
Mon
17
Tue
Council Study Meeting
(6:30)
24
Tue
council meeting
Council Study Se
ssion (6:30)
Council Business
Meeting (7:30)
26,27
Thur-
Thanksgiving Holidays
- City Hall Offices Closed
Fri
28
Sat
Departure for National
League of Cities Conference - New
Orleans (November 28 -
December 2)
h:\login\cathy\cccal
C
AGENDA OF: Septemh
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE:
Sanitarv Sewer Rein
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3.3
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
1992 DATE SUBMITTED:
th Johnson PREVIOUS ACTION:
DEPT HEAD OK WjL1- CITY ADMIN OK
PREPARED BY: Citv Enaineer
REQUESTED BY:
Amendment of the Edith Johnson Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the attached resolution.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Edith Johnson Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District was formed in June by
Resolution No. 92-27. A property owner petitioned for a hearing on the
district formation in accordance with the procedures of TMC 13.08. The
hearing was held on August 18, 1992.
After considering the testimony received, the Council determined that
interest should be charged only on the portion of the reimbursement charge
related to the side sewer stubs and not on the portion related to extension
of the sewer main. Council directed staff to prepare a revised resolution.
The attached resolution will formally adopt the revisions as directed by the
Council.
The cost of side sewers has been calculated at $748.95 each based on the
ddcumentation previously submitted by Mrs. Johnson. This amount includes the
extra pavement replacement and engineering associated with the side sewers.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
FISCAL NOTES
C rw/John
-3
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3.'-I
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
C AGENDA OF: September 8 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: Aucrust 25,_1992
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Reappointments to PREVIOUS ACTION:
the Budapf f!nmmi 1-f-ve
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK PREPARED BY.
REQUESTED BY:
Reappointment of four members of the Budget Committee to new terms.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached Resolution.
INFORMATION SIMMRY
On June 30, 1992, the terms of four members of the Budget Committee expired.
Under ORS 294.336(5), the appointive members of the Budget Committee shall be
appointed to three year terms. In addition, the terms shall be staggered so
that approximately one-third of the terms expire each year. The terms of
these four Budget Committee members coincide. In order to comply with the
provisions of the ORS, the attached resolution proposes the reappointment of
two members to two year terms and two members to three year terms.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES `
1. Delay action at this time.
2. Adopt the attached resolution.
FISCAL NOTES
C
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3,5
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: September 8. 1992 DATE SUBMITTED:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Agreement for `PREVIOUS ACTION:
DEPT HEAD O CITY ADMIN OK
A proposed traffic study in the general
August 31, 1992
PREPARED BY: Ed Murphy
REQUESTED BY:
Square area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Administrator to enter into an agreement with other
interested parties, and also to retain the services of a consultant to
complete a traffic study.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The idea of completing a traffic study of the area around Washington Square
has been discussed for some years, but for a variety of reasons, never was
accomplished. A consensus has now been reached regarding the scope, timing,
and funding of such a study among most of the interested or affected parties,
including Winmar, Forum Properties, Embassy Suites, ODOT, Tri-Met, Metro,
Washington County, Beaverton and Tigard. (A commitment to participate was
C made at one time by representatives of Lincoln VIII Limited Partnership, but
that commitment has not yet been assumed by the new owners, SF Oregon Co.,
Ltd. Meanwhile, Winmar has agreed to "advance" SF Oregon's share).
Washington County has already committed funds. They and the other agencies
also are willing to commit staff time or other ".in-kind" resources.
One of the expected outcomes of the study is clarification of the project for
which $2,000,000 was targeted as part of the MSTIP II.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Do not authorize the study or a professional services contract.
2. Authorize the agreement, but ask staff to return to the Council with the
proposed professional services agreement.
3. Authorize the City Administrator to enter into an agreement and a
contract for professional services.
FISCAL NOTES
The total cost of the study is estimated to be $50,000. The City of Tigard's
share will be approximately $20,000. The study is budgeted for FY 92-93.
AGREEMENT
This agreement is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF
TIGARD, WINMAR, EMBASSY SUITES, FORUM PROPERTIES, AND SF OREGON
CO., INC.
WITNESSETH
RECITALS:
The parties to this agreement agree to jointly fund a traffic
study to mitigate traffic problems in the Washington
Square/Greenburg Road area.
The scope of work for the study is generally described in
Exhibit "A" attached to this agreement.
The cost of the study is estimated to be $50,000, with half of
the cost being born by the parties in the private sector, and half
by the public sector.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as
follows:
1. Effective Date. This agreement shall take effect on the date
it is executed by all parties. It will remain in effect until
all of the parties have repaid the City of Tigard.
2. Term. The length of the study is estimated to be six to eight
months, and will be initiated as soon as possible.
3. Cost Share. The study is estimated to cost $50,000, to be
apportioned as follows:
Tigard $25,000 50%
Winmar $11,000 22%
Embassy Suites $ 1,000 2%
Forum Properties $ 3,000 6%
SF Oregon Co., Ltd. $10,000 20%
TOTAL $50,000 100%
Should the study cost less than $50,000, the parties will
share in the savings based on the above apportionment.
An overage of more than 10% will not be allowed without
approval of all of the parties. Any additional costs are to
be apportioned in the same way.
C TRAFFIC STUDY AGREEMENT - Page 1
4
the party be by Pa ►men TI~3 wit Will thene bill the other
-Ja City to whatever
~?~tt~Z' their stare according
coed' uc inc- t.'c s arties
tc t1` ne
parties • All p
thy. City shall determi
schedule of of Tigard within 3o days of
agree to na3:e 'P-AY the City
being billed-
on Co., Ltd . does not
,,~e 'event that SF ~i mar agrees to pay the
5 . Reims-4c this agreement, If and when the
ve.
become fi mar-_-v F Oregon as noted abo
share as-
zmez; ~ from SF Oregon on t this study Cit , dd='~+ c ontribu tiestassoci t d with Lincoln Center,
Co., i td . , ms's; znt';~ Par
G1 y` w+„ se Winmar that amount received.
the
a Addresses. All written notices required
~~a w
6. und _ `=-ant will be sent as follows:
Randy Wooley
TI City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223 i
Randy Kyte
Win'-"ar square Road
9585 SW Washington Tigard,
Ken Buksa, Manager
EMBASSY SUITES: Embassy Suites Hotel Road
9000 SW Washington square
Tigard, OR 97223
Jeff Sackett
FORUM PROPERTIES: Forum Properties
905 Suite 230
8705 SW Nimbus Avenue
Beaverton,
Kurt Van Volkenburg, Agent for
Sr OREGON CO., LTD. SF Oregon Co., Ltd.
Lincoln Center, Suite 345
10220 SW Greenburg Road
Tigard, OR 97223
t and affixed
herein above hand ten
EREOF, the parties have
WITNESS
their seals as of the date and year
TRAFFIC STUDY AGREEMENT - Page 2
CITY OF TIGARD, by and through
its City Officials
By:
City Administrator
EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL
By:
SF OREGON CO., LTD.
By:
br/Traff.Agr
TRAFFIC STUDY AGREEMENT - Page 3
WINMAR COMPANY, INC.
By:
FORUM PROPERTIES
By:
January 6, 1992 Zk h ®b l t "A"
DRAFT SCOPE OF WORK
HALUGREENBURG/SCHOLLS AREA TRAFFIC NEEDS ANALYSIS
Study Area
The primary study area is the area shown on Attachment "A". In general, the primary
study area is bounded on the west by Fanno Creek, on the south by Ash Creek, and on
the north and west by Hall Boulevard (including the properties with direct access to Hall
Boulevard).
The focus of this study is to plan for transportation needs within the primary study area.
However, it is recognized that it will be necessary to include other areas in the study to
the extent that growth in the other areas may significantly affect the primary area. Also,,
it may be appropriate to plan for improvements in adjoining areas in order to adequately
address transportation needs and traffic impacts of the study area.
Backaround
Transportation needs for the study area may be significantly influenced by various
regional transportation and land-use planning processes which are currently under way
and expected to be completed within the next two to five years. A decision has been
made to defer long-range transportation planning for the study area until the results of
these important regional processes are known. However, in the interim, a short-term plan
is needed to address existing transportation problems and the impacts of development
expected to occur within the next five years. In addition, a better understanding of the
area's longer-range development potential and subsequent transportation investment
requirements would contribute to the next round of comprehensive land use and
transportation planning efforts affecting the area.
Study Purpose
The purpose of the study is to prepare a short-term transportation plan for the study area
and to develop a data base for use in longer-term planning. The study report shall
include:
1. Estimates of expected development and population growth within the study area
for both the short-term (1992-1997) and a longer time period (beyond 1997). The
estimates shall be based on current zoning and the development expectations of
major property owners. The estimates shall be approved by the TAC before work
proceeds on definition of transportation needs.
4 2. A description of base traffic conditions sufficiently detailed to enable measurement
of incremental deteriorations in service quality caused by additional development
(e.g., saturation levels, seconds of intersection delay).
3. Definition of operational type transportation improvements (TSM, transit,
pedestrian, bicycle, minor capital improvements) needed to maintain LOS "D" or
better on study area roadways, including access routes, through 1997. The study
should include review of Highway 217 ramps but is not intended to resolve
capacity problems on the mainline Highway 217.
4. Definition of the portion of identified operational improvement needs caused by
anticipated new development in the study area and a strategy for providing the
required improvements concurrent with new development.
5. Definition of additional capital improvements or TDM measures required to serve
both short and longer term identified growth and development, organized in a
sequential manner to match expected development.
6. A plan for protection of adjoining neighborhoods from through traffic with origins
or destinations in the study area. The goal is no additional through traffic in the
neighborhoods, especially the residential area east of Hall Boulevard.
7. A strategy to encourage use of Highway 217 for longer-distance trips and to
discourage use of Highway 217 for local trips.
8. A transportation data base for the study area in anticipation of longer term study
requirements and for measuring the impacts of proposed developments.
Assumptions
In performing the study analyses, the following assumptions will be made:
1. Regional population and traffic will be in accordance with the assumptions made
by Metro in its regional transportation model. Study area population and traffic
growth will be based on growth estimates prepared as part of the study.
2. No major transportation system capital improvements will be completed within the
study area nor on access routes to the study area prior to 1997, except:
ramp metering on all Highway 217 interchanges;
completion of current widening projects on Scholls Ferry Road west of
Highway 217 and on Hall Boulevard south of Locust Street.
3. There will be no significant changes to land-use zoning.
. Available Background Material
Materials to be provided at no cost to the consultant include:
Washington Square Existing Conditions Report (April 1991)
Washington Square customer origins data
Existing traffic counts
Study Process
1. A technical advisory committee (TAC) shall be formed. The TAC shall review the
study progress periodically and shall be advisory to the consultant. The TAC shall
have nine members with one member each appointed by City of Tigard, City of
Beaverton, Washington County, ODOT, Tri-Met, Metro, Washington Square,
Lincoln Center, and a citizen representative appointed by NPO #8. The consultant
shall meet with the TAC at least three times during the study process.
2. Citizen involvement shall be provided through the established citizen participation
organizations serving the study area. Prior to completion of the final report, the
consultant shall meet with the Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee, Tigard
NPO #8 and Washington County CPO #4-Metzger. At the meetings, the
consultant shall present the study results and preliminary recommendations and
shall accept citizen input. Additional meetings may be scheduled during the study
process, if appropriate.
3. The City of Tigard shall be the lead agency for this study. Coordination of the
study process and consultant contract shall be by the City of Tigard.
Other Considerations:
Keep in mind the longer-range requirements of LCDC Goal 12, Metro's RUGGO,
and alternatives being considered by the Western Bypass Study. Where practical,
prepare the plan to accommodate these future changes.
2. Explore ways to encourage and better accommodate greater use of bicycle,
pedestrian, and transit travel modes.
Schedule
The study shall be completed and a final report shall be issued within six months after
notice to proceed is issued to the consultant.
C
s ~
1
r
l
U
A- T
t
t
Y
oti n
i
i
) l~
4 Q et`•'
WNRFORO
JUN.
MON
n SCHOOL
22 23
c z7 26
Pao
a VTTT Co
i
1
I n~
11
I 1
1
1 i
I `
;y
11
f 1
I IS, 11,
L _L_11
X2 26 3 2a
v 251 .
► J~ i
00
S
a
FFfl--.T.M EM
•
lm~
MF
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF:
September 8. 1992
DATE SUBMITTED: Au
gust 26, 1992
ISSUE/AGENDA
TITLE:Comp_Plan Amendm
PREVIOUS ACTION:
Continued from
CPA 91-0005/Zone Ordinance Amendmeli
June 23, 1992
ZOA 91-0006
unit Commercial
PREPARED BY: Jer
Offer Planner
DEPT HEAD OR
CITY ADMIN OR
REQUESTED BY: Ed Mu
rphy. CDD
Should the City amend the Comprehensive Plan to create a commercial
designation intended to provide limited scale development opportunities for
neighborhood/community serving retail and service uses? Should the City
amend the Community Development Code to create a new mid-range commercial
zoning district to implement this Plan designation?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached ordinance amending the Plan and Development Code.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
In response to suggestions that the City should provide for a commercial
zoning district that would provide a middle ground between the small-scale,
limited use C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district and the broad scope
of permitted uses and large scale of the C-G (General Commercial) zone, the
!lanning Commission directed staff to draft a new mid-range commercial zone.
The Planning Division has drafted the attached proposed amendments to Volume
Two of the Comprehensive Plan to create a new Community Commercial Plan
designation and amendments to the Community Development Code to create a C-C
(Community Commercial) zoning district. In addition, related Code revisions
are proposed to include the C-C zoning district as needed in indexes,
listings of zoning districts, individual conditional use listings, and to
apply screening and buffering standards and signage requirements for C-C uses
similar to what is required for C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) uses.
The Council previously held a hearing on this proposal on June 23, 1992.
Substantial community testimony was received with the primary issues
appearing to be the allowable sizes of grocery stores, the need for site
design guidelines and/or standards to minimize the impacts of future
developments in community commercial.districts upon surrounding residential
uses, and concerns about particular locations that were identified in a staff
prepared map that illustrated locales that met some of the proposed
locational criteria for this Plan designation. The Council directed staff to
further research these issues, revise the proposal as necessary, and bring
the proposal back to the Council at the September 8th meeting.
Staff has made several modifications to the proposal previously before the
Council. The most notable changes include: 1) requiring that community
commercial sites be located only where there is an average potential dwelling
unit density of eight units per acre (as determined by present zoning) within
one half mile; 2) specifically noting in the Plan and Community Development
-'ode that the City may limit the size of a community commercial site or place
^onditions of approval on a Plan Map amendment related to needed site
mprovements or business operating hours in order to minimize effects on
surrounding residential uses; and 3) including special site design and
building design guidelines and standards intended to guarantee a high
quality, community friendly development. These revisions are highlighted on
the attached pages. The surrounding area dwelling unit density standard
should serve to significantly limit the number of potential community
commercial sites and should provide a substantial nearby population base to
support businesses within the development. (Exhibit C shows that only two
sites within the city limits and two sites within the city's future urban
growth area meet both the surrounding area dwelling unit density standard and
the previously proposed intersection locational standard). It is hoped that
the nearby residents will be able to walk or bicycle to the commercial center
to do some of their shopping, thereby reducing dependence on their
automobiles and a resultant reduction in traffic. The site and building
design guidelines and standards as well as the ability to limit site size or
place conditions upon future development of a site will allow the City
additional leverage in seeking to avoid negative effects upon residential
uses surrounding a community commercial center. These provisions also will
promote pedestrian and bicyclist accessibility and safety to and within the
development.
Staff has not been convinced by the proponents of either increasing or
decreasing the allowed size of grocery stores in this zone to change the
proposed maximum grocery store size of 40,000 square feet. Staff also did
not receive any direction on this issue from the Council at the June 23rd
meeting. Therefore, this issue remains for the Council to decide as a matter
~_)f community choice. Staff continues to recommend 40,000 square feet as a
maximum grocery store size that should be large enough to provide for a wide
selection of groceries and related services for surrounding neighborhoods,
yet this size should be small enough to discourage the development of large
grocery stores that may tend to attract shoppers from outside surrounding
neighborhoods.
The revised proposal has not been sent back to the Planning Commission or
neighborhood organizations for comment. For this reason, and because of the
grocery store size issue, the Council may want to further continue the review
of this proposal for additional public comment. However, if this is done,
staff strongly urges the Council to provide additional guidance on the
grocery store size issue and any other aspects of the current proposal at
this meeting.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt the attached ordinance amending the Plan and Development Code.
2. Direct staff to prepare ordinances for the October 20, 1992 meeting
adopting the amendments to the Plan and Code with revisions related to scale
of Community Commercial sites and/or maximum floor area for particular uses.
3. Deny the proposal.
FISCAL MOTES
'done applicable.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 92-
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND VOLUME II OF THE CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TO CREATE A COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND TO AMEND THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO CREATE A NEW C-C (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL)
ZONING DISTRICT AND TO AMEND OTHER RELATED SECTIONS OF THE CODE (CPA 91-
0005/ZOA 91-0006).
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the
Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code periodically to
improve the guidance of land usage and development in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission has initiated the
proposed amendments and has held public hearings on the proposed
amendments on March 2, 1992 and April 6, 1992 and has recommended
approval of the amendments to the Council, and
WHEREAS, the City Council held hearings on June 23, 1992 and September
8, 1992 to consider the proposed amendments.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Plan Policy 12.2.1, at #4 of Volume II of the Comprehensive
Plan shall be amended as shown in attached Exhibit A (new section shown
in its entirety);
SECTION 2: The Community Development Code shall be amended as shown in
attached Exhibit B (new Chapter 18.61 shown in its entirety; amendments
to existing sections of the Code shown with additions underlined and
C deletions bracketed
SECTION 3: 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 , 1992.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: This day of , 1992.
Approved as to form:
Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor
City Attorney
Date
C jo/ord-cc
ORDINANCE No. 92-
EXHIBIT A r AUGUST 26, 1992 DRAFT
The community commercial Plan designation is intended to
provide locations for retail and service uses which have a
primarily neighborhood orientation. Such facilities should be
located so that their frequency and distributional pattern
reflect their primary neighborhood orientation. Such
facilities should not be so large or so broad in scope and
services as to attract substantial amounts of trade from
outside of surrounding neighborhoods, and shall be large
enough to provide a variety of goods and services at one
location. It is further the intent of this designation to
restrict the size of such facilities and that the community
commercial plan designation should not be located in close
proximity to other commercial areas so as to avoid the
appearance. and feel* I of t ica1 commercial stri
development.
a. Scale
(1) Trade Area: surrounding residential neighborhoods
generally within a 1 and 1/2 mile radius.
- 1 -
4. Community Commercial
(2) Gross Floor Area. 30,000 to 100,000
square foot gross commercial floor area.
Food sales up to 40,000 sq. ft. per
establishment; general retail sales up to
10,000 sq. ft. per establishment;. other
commercial sales and service facilities up to
5,000 sq. ft. in size per establishment.
b. Locational Criteria
(1) Spacing and Location
(a) Commercial development shall be limited to one
quadrant of a street intersection r, or
where there is no street intersection
immediately adjacent to the site, to one side
of the street.]
(b) Community commercial districts shall be spaced
at least one-half mile from other sites which
are designated for commercial retail use.
Special consideration may also be given to
providing a similar separation from non-
commercially designated sites that involve
retail use as part of a mixed use development,
or to provide less than the minimum separation
for commercially designated sites which are
developed with non-retail uses.
(2) Access
(a) The proposed community commercial district
shall not be anticipated to create traffic
congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such
a determination shall be based on the capacity
of adjacent streets, existing and projected
traffic volumes, roadway geometry of adjacent
streets, number of turning movements, and the
traffic generating characteristics of the most
intensive uses allowed in the zone.
(b) The site shall be located along an arterial or
a major collector street as designated on.the
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. Sites
should be located at or adjacent to an
intersection of a major or minor collector
street with an arterial or at the intersection
of two major collector streets.
2 -
(3) Site Characteristics
(a) The site shall be a minimum of two acres in
size and a maximum of eight acres in size.
(4) Impact Assessment
(a) The scale and intensity of the project shall
be compatible with surrounding uses. This may
be accomplished through special site
(b) It is generally preferable that a community
commercial site be developed as one unit with
coordinated access, circulation, building
design, signage, and landscaping. Parcels
within a community commercial site, however,
may be developed independently although the
City may require that developmental aspects of
individual parcels be coordinated through the
development review process.
(c) Convenient pedestrian and bicyclist access to
a development site from adjoining residential
areas shall be provided where practical.
Local street connections between community
commercial sites and adjoining neighborhoods
shall be considered on a case-by-case basis.
The site configuration and characteristics and
relationship to the street system shall be
such that privacy of adjacent non-commercial
uses can be maintained.
(d) Access needs of individual parcels and uses
shall be coordinated within a site so as to
- 3 -
bicyclist access and safety.
limit the number of access driveways to
adjacent streets.
(e) Unique features of the site should be
incorporated into the site development plan.
(f) Associated lights, noise, and activities shall
not significantly affect adjoining residential
uses. operating hour restrictions may be
placed on uses within the district. either
approval of a Plan map amendment for a
particular site.
JO/Com-Com.Mst
c
- 4 -
EXHIBIT B - AUGUST 26, 1992 DRAF '
Chapter 18.61
C-C COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
Sections:
18.61.010 Purpose
18.61.020 Procedures and Approval Process
18.61.030 Permitted Uses
18.61.040 Conditional Uses (See Chapter 18.130)
18.61.045 Special Limitations on Uses
18.61.050 Dimensional Requirements
18.61.055 Site and Building Design Guidelines/Standards
18.61.060 Additional Requirements
C
18.61.010 Purpose
A. The purpose of the C-C (Community Commercial) zoning
district is to provide locations for convenience shopping
facilities that provide for the regular needs of
residents of nearby residential neighborhoods. It is
intended that the community commercial [shopping] center
be ideally developed as a unit, with adequate off-street
parking for customers and employees and with appropriate
landscaping and screening to insure compatibility with
the surrounding residential environment. Gross floor
area in [a] community commercial centers typically
range[s] from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet, and land
area ranges between [consists of] 2 to 8 acres [in size].
Community commercial centers are intended to be separated
from other commercially zoned properties which provide
retail and service opportunities by at least one half
mile. The designation of a site with this district
should not create or contribute to a commercial strip
development pattern. This district is intended to be
located adjacent to several residential neighborhoods,
ideally at the intersection of two or more major
collector streets or at the intersection of an arterial
and a collector street. The district is to be applied in
only one quadrant of an intersection. The intended
[primary] service area of the district is up to one and
one half miles from a site, with a surrounding area
C_
- 1 -
c
With respect for the district,'s primary neighborhood
orientation rather than to the travelling public, signage
will [should] be strictly limited in size and height.
18.61.020 Procedures and Approval Process
A. A permitted use, Section 18.61.030, is a use which is
allowed outright, but which is subject to all applicable
provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a
permitted use, it may be held to be a similar unlisted
use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43, Unlisted Use.
B. A conditional use, Section 18.61.040, is a use the
approval of which is discretionary with the Hearings
Officer. The approval process and criteria for approval
are set forth in Chapter 18.130, Conditional Use. It is
incumbent upon the applicant for conditional use approval
to demonstrate that the intended use is consistent with
the purposes of the Community Commercial zone and that
the proposed use will not alter the character of the
- 2 -
access ariveways to aaaacent streets
surrounding area in a manner which substantially limits, j
impairs, or precludes the use of surrounding properties '
for the primary uses listed in the underlying
district(s). If a use is not listed as a conditional
use, it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under
the provisions of Chapter 18.43, Unlisted Use.
18.61.030 Permitted Uses
A. Permitted uses in the C-C district are as follows:
1. Civic use types:
a. Public agency administrative services;
b. Community recreation
c. Cultural exhibits and library services;
d. Public support facilities;
e. Postal services; and
f. Public safety services;
2. Commercial use types:
a. Animal sales and service:
(i) Grooming;
b, Consumer repair services;
C. Convenience sales and personal services;
d. Children's day care;
e. Eating and drinking facilities;
f. Food and beverage retail sales (maximum size
of 40,000 square feet);
g. General retail sales (maximum size of 10,000
square feet);
h. General offices, such that where these uses
are combined in one structure, each separate
establishment shall not exceed 5,000 square
feet in size.
(i) Medical and dental services;
- 3 -
(ii) Financial, insurance and real estate
services;
(iii) Professional and administrative
services;
i. Participant sports and recreation:
(i) Indoor;
3. Single or multi-family residential dwellings, as a
mixed use in conjunction with a commercial
development, on or above the second floor of the
structure, at densities not to exceed 12 units per
gross acre.
4. Home occupations subject to provisions of Chapter
18.142.
5. Temporary uses;
6. Fuel tanks; or
7. Accessory structures.
'!fl G7 nwn 'J
...v . vs . 040 ivitul. t-s.ona
onat Uses (See Chapter 18.130)
A. Conditional uses in the C-C district are as follows:
1. Automotive and Equipment:
(i) Cleaning;
2. Vehicle fuel sales;
3. Lodge, fraternal, and civic assembly;
4. Parking facilities, including transit centers.
5. Religious assembly;
6. Uses operating before 6:00 a.m. and/or after 11:00
p.m., unless extended hours have been specifically
permitted as an outright use through the
establishment of the zoning on the site;
7. Drive up windows.
~I - 4 -
C
1. The minimum lot size shall be 5,000 square feet;
2. The minimum lot width shall be 50 feet;
3. Except as otherwise provided in chapter 18.96 and
Section 18.100.130, the minimum setback
requirements are as follows:
a. No front yard setback shall be required,
except a 20 foot front yard setback shall
apply within 50 feet of a residential
district;
b. No corner yard setback shall be required;
however, the provisions of Chapter 18.102
(Vision Clearance) must be satisfied;
C. No side yard setback shall be required except
a 20 foot building setback shall be required
from a residential zoning district; and
18.61.045 S ecial Li as -on Uses
A.
Special limitations in the C-C district are as follows:
1. The use shall be conducted wholly within
enclosed structure, except for outside play areas
for children's day care facilities, and as allowed
in Subsections 3 and 4 of this section;
than 5,000 square feet;
2 gross sf 1 or specified
greaten a
3. Accessory open air sales/display/storage shall be
permitted for horticultural and food merchandising
uses only and shall constitute no more than five
any
percent of the gross building floor area of individual establishment;
4. Accessory open air dining or drinking areas shall
be permitted for approved eating and drinking
establishments or retail food stores only. outside
dining areas are not permitted within 200 feet of
any developed residential area. Public or privot ate
sidewalk areas around dining areas may
reduced to less than five feet of clear walkway.
18. 1.050 Dimensiona] Requirements
A. Dimensional requirements in the C-C district are as
follows:
C= - 5 -
C d. No rear yard setback shall be required except
a 20 foot setback shall be required from a
residential zoning district; and
e. All building separations shall meet Uniform
Building Code requirements;
4. No building in the C-C zoning district shall exceed
35 feet in height;
5. The maximum site coverage shall be 80 percent
including all buildings and impervious surfaces;
and
6. The minimum landscaped area requirement shall be 20
percent.
18 61 055 Site and Building Design Guidelines/Standards
A. Design Guidelines
1. Building Design Guidelines
a. The design of buildings within a community
commercial development should incorporate
and enhance the surrounding area and serve to
distinguish the complex from other retail
complexes in the city.
b. All buildings within a multi-building complex
should achieve a unity of design through the
use of similar architectural elements, such as
roof form,, exterior building materials,
colors, and window pattern.
c.
- 6 -
Individual buildings should incorporate
similar design elements, such as surface
materials color, roof treatment, windows and
doors, on all sides of the building to achieve
a unity of design. The sides of a building
building which face toward an adjoining
( property, but not toward a public street,_
should include elements such as windows,
doors, color, texture, landscaping or wall
treatment to provide visual interest and
prevent the development of a long continuous
blank wall.
2. Site Design Guidelines
a.
b.
c.
d.
e. Loading areas should not be located on the
side of a building which faces toward a
residential use. Loading areas should not be
located between the building and the street
oriented away from the street and screened to
minimize views of the loading area from the
street and sidewalk.
f. In multiple building complexes, buildings_
should be located to facilitate safe and
comfortable pedestrian movement between
C -7-
feature seasonal color planting area,
sculpture or water feature. The feature
should provide a visual landmark and some
amount of seating area.
primary structure(s). Such site features
should be designed and located to contribute
to the pedestrian environment of the site
development.
Cl.
facilities. Where needed, shelters and lay-
over areas for transit vehicles should be
incorporated into the site development.
3. Sign Design Guidelines.
a. All signage should be an integral part of the
architectural design.
b.
B. Design Standards
The following mandatory design standards apply within the
community commercial district:
1. Internal Walkways.
a.
walkways shall be located to connect focus
points of pedestrian activity such as transit
stops and street crossings to the major
building entry points.
b.
create an integrated internal walkway system
along the desired lines of pedestrian travel.
The width of the walkway should be
commensurate with the anticipated level of
C - 8 -
C pedestrian activity along the connecting
walkway.
i. Walkways shall be provided along the full
length of the building on any side which
provides building access to the public or
where public parking is available, to
provide safe and comfortable _pedestrian
access to the building.
ii. on the sides of the building which
provide public access into the building,
the walkway should be wide enough to
allow for sidewalk seating areas as well
as pedestrian travel. Weather protection
of the walkway should be provided at a
minimum at the entrance area and, if
appropriate, alone the entire walkway.
C.
the us_e_ of durable, low maintenance surface
materials such as pavers, bricks, or scored
concrete to enhance pedestrian safety and
comfort.
2.. Other Site Development Standards
a.
b.
c.
d. All refuse and recvclina containers within the
district shall be contained within structures
enclosed on all four sides and which are at
least as high as the tallest container within
the structure.
- 9 -
wall or fence, or an evergreen hedge or a
combination of the above.
e-
18. 61 060 Additional Requirements
A. Additional related requirements in the C-C district are
as follows:
1. Overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned
Development, 18.82 Historic Overlay District, and
18.84 Sensitive Lands;
2. Supplemental Provisions, Chapters 18.90
Environmental Performance Standards, 18.96
Additional Yard Setback Requirements and
Exceptions, 18.98 Building Height Limitations:
Exceptions, 18.100 Landscaping and screening,
18.102 Visual Clearance Areas, 18.104 Fuel Tank
Installations, 18.106 Off-Street Parking and
Loading Requirements, 18.108 Access, Egress, and
Circulation, and 18.114 Signs;
3. Site Development Review, Chapter 18.120;
4. Development and Administration, Chapters 18.130
Conditional Use, 18.132 Nonconforming situations,
18.134 Variance, 18.140 Temporary Uses, 18.142 Home
occupations, 18.144 Accessory Structures, 18.146
Flexible Setback Standards, and 18.150 Tree
Removal; and
5. Land Division and Development Standards, Chapters
18.160 Land Division: Subdivision, 18.162 Land
Division: Land Partitioning - Lot Line Adjustment,
and 18.164 Street and utility improvement
Standards.
- 10 -
areas be covered.
C
18.114.130 Zoning District Regulations
E. Neighborhood Commercial and Community commercial Zones
1. No sign shall be permitted in [ a ] the C-N or C-C
zones except for the following:
a. Freestanding Signs:
(i) Freestanding signs shall have certain
limitations and conditions when permitted
on properties zoned C-N or C-C:
(1) -One multif aced, freestanding sign
per premises shall be permitted
subject to conditions and
limitations as stated herein; and
(2) A readsrboard
integral part
sign;
(ii) Area Limits:
asse-mbly may be an
of the freestanding
(1) The maximum square footage of
freestanding signs shall be 32
square feet per face or a total of
64 square feet for all sign faces.
No part of any freestanding sign
shall extend over a property line
into public right-of-way space;
(iii) Area Limit Increases:
(1) The sign area may be increased one
square foot for each lineal foot the
sign is moved back from the front
property line to which the sign is
adjacent. If the street is curbed
and paved the measurement may be
taken from a point which is 15 feet
from the pavement. This increase in
sign area is limited to a maximum of
52 square feet per face or a total
of 104 square feet for all faces;
and
- 11 -
wk.'4; v:;':'''::::::Ii':i7i%:`k~.$•,'::::1'A'.;:'kA,y~~yp:~)q~r~yry9
..r. i:. A+JJ.xv.w:::J: rvnr::r.r~;r
(iv) Height Limits:
(1) Freestanding signs located next to
the public right-of-way shall not
exceed 20 feet in height. Height
may be increased one foot in height
for each ten feet of setback from
the property line or a point 15 feet
from the edge of pavement whichever
is less to a maximum of 22 feet in
height;
b. Wall Signs
(i) Allowable Area:
(1) Wall signs, including illuminated
reader-boards, may be erected or
maintained but shall not exceed in
gross area ten percent of any
building face on which the sign is
to be mounted;
(ii) Wall signs shall be parallel to the face
of the building upon which the sign is
located; and
(iii) If it is determined under the development
review process that the wall sign's
visual appeal and overall design quality
would be served, an additional 50 percent
of the allowable sign area may be
permitted. No copy will be permitted,
however, in the additional area
permitted. For purposes of this
subsection, "copy01 includes symbols,
logos, and letters;
C. Directional signs on private property when
such signs are solely designed to identify
driveway entrances and exits for motorists on
adjoining public streets. One sign with an
area of four square feet per face shall be
permitted per driveway. Said signs shall be
consistent with Chapter 18.102, Visual
Clearance Areas;
d. Temporary Signs in accordance with Sections
18.114.090 and 18.114.100;
e. Lawn Signs in accordance with Subsections
18.114.060 A.6 and B.2.
{ - 12 -
C
f. Special Condition Signs in accordance with
Section 18.114.090; and
g. Additional Allowable Signs:
(i) Awning sign(s), tenant sign(s), flush
pitched "roof" sign(s), and painted wall
sign(s).
III. Zoning District Classifications and Requirements
18.61 Community Commercial District
n... n::..::. n.v. n:: }:C:?: n.. n......::. x. r»:. rr.. rn.:...:.... r... r.:. r...... n.. n..:, }:..:u.......:
18.40.010.a Classification of Zones (matrix)
Zoning District Map Symbol Dwelling Units Minimum
Per Net Acre Lot Size
C
Community commercial C-C 12
18.100.130 Buffer Matrix
ADD C-C ZONE TO MATRIX'S LEFT
COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
6,000
sq_. ft.
MARGIN WITH OTHER
18.130.150 Standard Dimensional Requirements for Conditional
Use Types
18.130.150.0.19 Parking Facilities
a. Applicable Zones: R-12, R-25, R-40, C-C and C-N
zones
18.130.150.C.29 Drive-up Windows
a. Applicable Zones: CBD and C-C zones.
jom-mone.ord
C - 13 -
LEGEND - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL MAP
Potential Community Commercial sites, i.e,
intersections satisfy proposed Transportation Plan Map
functional street classification criterion and also are
at least one half mile from other commercially zoned
properties (or already have another commercial zone
Rep oR GOLD applied at the intersection).
Surrounding area potential residential density within one
40/0. half mile of intersection (expressed in dwelling units
per acre). It is proposed that Community Commercial
sites must have a potential residential density of eight
dwelling units or more per acre within one half mile of
the site (as measured by maximum residential density
permitted by zoning).
A Possible Community Commercial sites. These sites meet
functional intersection criterion, distance from other
commercial zones criterion, and surrounding area
potential icaiucaaL,us .icaaoaty criterion.
-T
¢ ~
the City at
P ~ " ~
~ C
SEE 110TE ;,r t~p~e~e~~t~e k
* ~ S
Plan
~
TT~~S fir k
~ti;:, ~ ~ d ~ t 0 fl
y ~ ~ X0/0. ~ ~ w~.t.,
SEE N4T~ 5~
~ ; E i t
► ~ Ch, Rai 1
4 . - ,
~ ~
S!U$ ire
~ ~ ii
skud~ area F
i;
SEE
}
NOTE
q
SEEN ~rkerial
G ~ ~ » 'r" r
q~ R a' a r
~ ,mot d„< C o l e e l o r
<6 aw4 ~
kiinar
N a T E 9 ~ d~~~, Y G n I
?d~la I 1 ec kor
_,~;.,as~ R
f~ I F•? ® ~[eeNa
SEE NOTE ' ~ inkerc an e
i ~ A B
0
""y 7~gillr dU/ 1 •Iq rePruee-
Nlite rolgilN f IIe CII
~ d
of Tiqu/ Uilldioq Seogre-
~ Ylic Io1nM;h1 S dlee
1 G ~ I
dy / ~ ~~/di ( CIf) rol l.ere. lelor-
/ pp' \ nllien gerlrryel Iu1
Ordinance No,uRa / \ e:Iq 11 llluded to 11
at_13 _ r ueel rill edlilio+It
SEE N O R T H l!<Alieol Iel/or
Map adopted ~uNS iss~ ~ ( inl,r,rellllte date
See b ~ NOTE ~ 11 delernined Iq
ack for reYIS1011 schedule Ue Citq el tigerd.
j 8 t P JYP IAXSJ
]600 (Ill1dl91J
_'7 &t
t~cls
$ D
THS ORI
0
WA~Y'E PLAM iHAHSRKtIRTATtf~1 tYAP MI7i1~S
1. 8taeAs Fealr Rmd 1a he b or+wrec't with i]ariras
2 Sir area b delesrriate a tip cs+rrreriras ttre tllariryt►t
irle®aefos ~ Ibe tat ietarawdlx+a. A ~ taa~4er egaee#as d
Geeede Sa9eal ~ bees rerarsrsesded ~ the 11enlrrast t~ liburelaila
Tfare ~1i Rappt. 11s is~reff eaaeegrua of ariasr eiaReaiea has
tlaare ~ b~ att~b llA.
~ shoats tsr the etAsesreee of i3Rsd Arraw~ a~
al Beud~llsr Te~gpw, t;]Filh Aretxte ser,IMt of t+Yalr>ti Street, and 8sstlttiiierr
Terrem weal al timed Ate. Ttrs+ee are ro be defpgned as slhM#r
oa~Iredaes wiM+ a ► speed si ~ e►Ab.-
4. Barry area to delensirre IIrA a9~Q4~ert et a new eerrrraeien belrreert
eetAltdotxM i~a4c>!4gfrs~ and Dirt t;t-
5. i>ludy aroa to de4~atina M+e ~ of a r aoltedor ereeT ean+eding
1 Red Rant Creek riti► ~ Bae6noudt a ant
riMr tlwnptae t~sA al T2sd AyarMre triltr q+e taar6erpudt tweet eadenaian wi9rin
dra parliort OI the Tigard T~iartgla,
6, t9udy stove b deMernrrre ~ s9igrrttpnl cl ~ between Hi~trey 2t 7,
iGuee Way. FS recd ~ Tigmd TriarFgia.
7. Canxactiagt betwear Hwtziket Street. FIaM Boulevard at A'Mara Street
(gerteKapy~ and Gonda Road.
8. Sandy 8re8 t0 tlortaidar exlendort a! Hap Boulevard sauth+serd t0 OOMQU wilt
Baortes Ferry Road In Tualalirt kx either pedeehian a vetrbular sooees.
9. A bc~ street oorrtedion from t001h Averme to /09Ur Avenue interaectGrg t001h
Avwwe ehher at Sadler Street or at a point ar lead 100 feel tram the oxiszirp
S~Uer Street interaectbn.
10. M extension end reaignment of 109th Avsmue south of the Sadler Street
exlerts<on, to Intersect Padflc Highway at Royally Parkway. The resigned
1091h Avenue shag intersect Naeve Street at a point approximatey 250 teat to
450 lest east of Padfic Highway.
mptms.per
t
■
.
T IS LESS } j'l l"1 ~ ~
L Is l~l ..1 i~lf~llirli'i Tlrir `i"il,riiilliil
~G TIi IS NOTATION, •I I I ~ ~ ~ I I I
4 ~ AP p
I7~{~S DUE T0~ . EQUALITY, OF . , _ ~ LL .Z5 ~ 993
THE ORIGINAL DOCUFIENT.'' ~ ,
ram el"'
't~' 6~ ~ Z t t t T t t t' Gii e 9
U ~ I II I II! I ll~gll IIIIIIUI Illllllll illl~lll!III
-
~
i
PRESTON
THORGRIMSON
'HIDLER
GATES & ELLIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Tigard City Council
Edward J. Sullivan, for Matt Marcott, Thriftway
September 8, 1992
3200 U.S. Bancorp Tower
111 S.W. Fifth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204-3688
Telephone: (503) 228-3200
Facsimile: (503) 248-9085
Proposed Community Commercial Plan and Zone Designation
At tonight's meeting, Council has before it the continuation of proceedings On
proposals to adopt a community commercial plan and zone designation. This memorandum
will summarize the position of Matt Marcott, an independent grocer, on the revised
proposal. Of particular concern to Mr. Marcott are proposals submitted by a large chain
store to facilitate larger food stores and shopping centers which are inconsistent with the
community commercial designation.
Staff has suggested a number of changes to the text of the proposed plan and
Development Code as a result of testimony and written materials submitted at its June 23,
1992 Council meeting. Those changes include:
a. The use of locational criteria to site community commercial uses Of particular
importance in the latest revisions is the use of a minimum residential density of 8
dwelling unit per acre in the area within 1/2 mile of a proposed designation.
b. The use of design criteria as a consideration in the plan amendment and land
development processes The plan designation and zone initially applicable to a site
would consider the specific uses to be permitted and would also consider mitigation
of the potentially adverse effects of those uses. (Council may also wish to convert
some of the non-mandatory criteria in the development code into factors to be
considered at the time of plan amendment. We have made some particular
suggestions along these lines at the end of this memorandum.)
Page 1 - MEMORANDUM
Anchorage • Bellevue - Seattle • Spokane - Tacoma • Washington, D.C.
A Partnership Including A Professional Corporation
PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS
c. Factors for considering the size of the community commercial site Staff
and neighborhood associations have expressed concerns over the de facto
conversion of the proposed community commercial designation to the more
intense General Commercial ("CG") category by the use of sites at the higher
end of the 2-8 acre category, along with the maximum use of the retail food
anchor. The proposed community commercial designation is designed for the
needs of "nearby residential neighborhoods" and is oriented so that those
neighborhood residents can walk or bike to these areas and thereby avoid
vehicular congestion, the revised proposal contains factors by which the size
of a site may be evaluated at the time of plan amendment and zone change.
d. Limitation on Hours of Operation Unless a Conditional Use Permit Be Secured -
Again, consistent with concerns that the proposed designation not be regional
in scope, the staff has suggested limiting operational hours from 6 AM to 11
PM, unless otherwise provided at the time of the initial plan amendment and
zone change.
These are significant changes. However, the major focus of the testimony and letters
before both the Planning Commission and Council was the size of the retail food store
( which all expect will provide the "anchor" to a community commercial designation. The staff
felt it had no direction from Council on this issue. It appeared that Council desired
additional time to think about the matter when it continued the hearing from June 23rd to
September 8th of this year. It also appeared there was interest to provide a middle ground
between the maximum of 4,000 sq. ft. of retail space allowable in the CN zone and the
unlimited space allowed in the CG zone.
A proposal has been made to set the maximum retail store size at 50,000 sq. ft. by
one chain food store and by a property owner who would be benefitted. Both claimed this
was the industry norm. The independent grocers prefer a 25,000 or 30,000 sq. ft. maximum
as being more consistent with community commercial use and reflected new food store
construction. The Planning Commission has recommended a 40,000 sq. ft. size by a split
vote, a minority wanting a smaller size. Staff remains with the planning commission but has
indicated that it wished Council direction before it changes the proposal.
A significant result of the revisions made between June 23rd and the Council
proceedings on September 8th is the reduction of the number of candidate sites to four, all
in northwestern Tigard. Two are within the City and two are outside. Given the one-half
mile radius limitations for siting community commercial uses, the siting of either of the sites
vdthin the city may preclude the use of other sites.
C Page 2 - MEMORANDUM
PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS
Moreover under the revised proposal, only the two sites within the City could be
candidates for an application immediately upon adoption of the revised proposal by Council.
These sites would thus have a "leg up" on the other two sites now outside the City. Even
if the chain store were not successful in raising the maximum food store size, the market
may preclude the location of another community commercial site anchored by a food store
in the same trade area as the first applicant.
Council may recall the testimony of the chain food store executive on June 23rd, in
which a 2 and 1/2 mile trade area was suggested. Although the chain store's attorney tried
to convert this trade area measurement from "radius" to "diameter," the industry uses radius
as its measuring stick. What Council heard was a slip of the tongue in which the actual
expectations of an executive of a larger player in food marketing released his actual
expectations. Those expectations are, in effect, that if that chain store applies first (which
is what we expect), it will preempt other potential sites, either legally or practically.
If that is true, the Council must decide whether the months of effort the City has
made to provide for community commercial designations will be done for the benefit of
what may be ?single developer. I:. of her words, is that exercise worth it for this result?
If Council feels this whole exercise may still be worth the effort, it should reduce the
maximum retail food store size to 30,000 sq. ft. so that more food stores may compete for
customers and more than one of the candidate sites can be used now. The use of the 30,000
sq. ft. size is not only justified by practical considerations of competition, but by other
significant considerations:
a. Aside from the avowedly regional food stores (Cub, Fred Meyer, Costco etc.), the
major builder of 40,000 sq. ft. or larger food stores is the same chain which seeks the larger
maximum retail food size before Council. As Thriftway has testified, food retailers will
build 25,000 sq. ft. stores or they will build 50,000 sq. ft. stores. Their only constraint is the
market and local regulations. In this case, a larger food chain wishes to manipulate the
community commercial designation to site a regional facility.
b. A 40,000 sq. ft. or larger size food store on a 2-8 acre site is not a "community
commercial" use which facilitates shopping by those who wish to walk or bike to the site, nor
which has "primarily neighborhood orientation." It is a regional center which competes with
the CG designation.
c. If, as a landowner who would benefit by the larger food store size has admitted,
a 4-1 ratio exists between food store size and land area needed (primarily due to parking
Page 3 - MEMORANDUM
PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS
C..
space), the secondary effects of a 40,000 or 50,000 sq. ft. store on a neighborhood are
tremendous. The parking area requirements, the congestion which would result (which staff
has indicated is unknown), and the other uses associated with the anchor food store are all
reasons to consider the impacts of the current version of the community commercial
designation. The nature of the community commercial designation, after all, is driven by
the size of the anchor food store.
If Council agrees with our positions on further design considerations for the new
designation and to a reduction in the anchor food store size, we request that it adopt the
following amendments to the August 26, 1992 draft (Previous additions and deletions
remain, new proposals set forth in mold):
a. Plan Amendments, sec. 4 (Community Commercial), a. (Scale), paragraph 2.Gross
Floor Area at p. 2 of the draft should be revised as follows:
(2) Gross Floor Area. 30,000 to 100,000 square foot gross
commercial food area.
Food sales up to [40,000] 30,000 sq. ft. per establishment;
general retail sales up to 10,000 sq. ft. per establishment; other
commercial sales and service facilities up to 5,000 sq. ft. in size
per estabiishinent.
b. Plan Amendments, sec. 4 (Community Commercial), b. (Locational Criteria),
paragraph (4)(a) (Impact Assessment) at p. 3 of the draft should be revised to read as
follows:
(a) The scale and intensity of the project shall be compatible
surrounding uses. This may be accomplished through special
site development considerations to be placed on a Darticular
site through conditions of approval of a Plan map amendment
for the site or through site andlor building design standards.
Such considerations may include but are not limited to. access
ng,
limitations special setbacks increased landscaping or bufferi
coordinated building design Land] special design considerations
for pedestrian and bicyclist access and safety, and those
buildina and site design guidelines design standards and other
site development standards contained in the community
commercial zoning district.
Page 4 - . MEMORANDUM
PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS
c. Development Code amendments, sec. 16.61.030(A)(2)(f) at p. 3 of the draft should
be revised to read as follows:
L Food and beverage retail sales (maximum size of [40,000]
30,000 square feet);
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter.
Page 5 - MEMORANDUM
C, C'.v" G /Pc -
JOHN W. SHONKWILER, P. C. iN C ATTORNEYATLAW 13425 SW
, O72nd Avenuer _
Tiggar ard Oregon 97223 "J
ja,c 684-8971
624-0917
July 1, 1992
Gerald Edwards, Mayor
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
P.O. Box 23397
Tigard, Oregon 97223
RE: Suggested Locational Criteria changes for the proposed
community Commercial Zoning District.
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
At the June 23, 1992, city council meeting on the proposed
Community Commercial ("CC") zoning district text and plan
amendments, several concerns were raised by both the public and
the City Council as to the market area and scope for a CC zone
siting. On behalf of Albertson's Inc., Mr. Don Duncombe and I
testified in favor of the new CC zoning with sorie modifications.
The modifications that we requested were included at page 7 of my
June 1, 1992, written testimony submitted to the City Council.
The following is-a clarification of some of the testimony
submitted that evening and suggestions as to how the locational
criteria can be altered to better protect the over-all city's
interest in providing for new CC locations.
A. Trade Area for a 0,000 50000 square-foot grocery store
1. Mr. Duncombe's testimony
Mr. Duncombe testified about the size of grocery stores
being built today by approximately 90-95% of the grocery
store industry, including his own Albertson's Inc. Other
witnesses at the hearing had suggested that a grocery store
greater than 30,000 square feet in size would draw customers
from across the city or from "out of town." In response to
this inaccurate assertion, Mr. Duncombe identified that in
the most extreme example of his company's inventory of
grocery stores, the largest store would draw customers from
a market area of only two and a half miles.
~er,~y Ala 1~2c4L
City of Tigard
Suggested Locational Criteria
Page 2
Subsequent remarks by a few witnesses thereafter
illustrated that Mr. Duncombe's remarks were misinterpreted
or misunderstood. This misinterpretation apparently arises
from the frequent confusion or mixing of the term, "radius,"
as opposed to "diameter" in defining a trade area. Mr.
Duncombe was identifying that the largest market area needed
for his grocery store was two and a half miles (the diameter
of the market area). The proposed CC zone sets a radius of
lZ miles for the trade area (a diameter of 2-3 miles).
Thus, Mr. Duncombe's remarks were not inconsistent with the
proposed locational criteria for the new CC zone.
L . _Lhe l..l)1ltJ l~Clti1Q1 {..lades ;;.c4-.ia1 L J de'" na.. market area b e
population density or size, and not by mere distance.
Further confusion is created by the proposed CC zone
defining market or trade area by a radial distance of 12
miles. In reality nearly all commercial ventures define
their own market areas by the minimum and maximum population
they need to support their businesses. Thus, population
density is the primary issue, not distance. Please note
that for the city's Neighborhood Commercial zone the
locational criteria identify that the trade area would be
0-5,000 people. See Comprehensive Plan Policy 12.2.1 at
II 81.
For example, Albertson's Inc. is on record in an
application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 91-0003 and
Zone Change ZON-0006 (as well as the current proceeding on
the CC zoning) that their market area is approximately 8,000
people and can serve a trade area of 8,000 to 15,000 people.
This corresponds directly to one of the potential locations
for the new CC zone previously suggested by both Albertson's
and the City staff--the Scholls Ferry Road and Walnut-Murray
Boulevard extension area. This area was identified in the
record as currently .:wiry in exc^cs of pe;:ple a.nd is
projected to grow to an excess of 15,000 people within five
to ten years. The radial distance of this area is one to
one and a half miles. Again, Mr. Duncombe's testimony is
consistent with the proposed locational requirements of the
new CC zone.
In contrast, no commercial enterprise (whether a
grocery store or a flower shop) would want to locate in a
one to one and a half radial mile area if no one actually
lived in that area. Thus, the size or degree of population
density is far more critical to the trade area than is the
mere distance of its boundaries.
C, B. Suggested changes in locational criteria for the CC zone
City of Tigard
Suggested Locational Criteria
Page 3
During the public hearing it was apparent that many citizens
and the City Council felt that the currently proposed CC zone
could be applied to too many locations within the city. The
matter was then delayed for decision to allow time to consider
other ways of addressing the locational criteria to possibly
diminish this adverse impact. The following are some suggested
changes in the locational criteria that may assist the city in
reaching its desired goal of providing a useable zone between NC
and CG, but limiting its effect so that it would not have
dramatic adverse impact on smaller developed residential
neighborhoods.
1. Trade area and gross leasable area
Currently, the proposed criteria involves a one and
one-half mile radius and a gross leasable area of 30,000 to
100,000 square feet of gross leasable area. Given the
public commentary at both the planning commission and the
city council hearing, I believe that these criteria are
appropriate and should not be changed.
2. Spacing and location
` Sub-section (a) currently states: "Commercial
development shall be limited to one quadrant of a street
intersection or where there is no street intersection,
immediately adjacent to the site, to one side of the
street."
This requirement appears to be too broad. First, it
identifies that you can have a CC zone on a corner or a mid-
block location of a street. One could argue that a mid-
block location would be, too limiting for adequate pedestrian
and bicycle traffic'access. It also may be too overloading
of the single street for automobile traffic. Under this
reasoning it :i:cakes iiiQr5. seise to limit the location of CC
zones to major intersections involving an arterial and .a
major collector or two arterials or two major collectors.
Such a limitation would provide the maximum possibility for
diminishing traffic and providing access for pedestrian and
bicycle traffic. Therefore, I suggest that the spacing and
location sub-paragraph (a) be re-written to read:
"(a) Commercial development shall be limited to
one quadrant of a street intersection."
C
City of Tigard
Suggested Locational Criteria
Page 4
Subsection (b) of the proposed CC zone states:
"Community Commercial district shall be spaced at least one-
half mile from other sites which are designated for
commercial retail use. Special consideration may be given
to providing a similar separation from non-commercially
designated sites that involve retail use as part of a mixed-
use development, or to provide less than the minimum
separation for commercially-designated sites which are
developed with non-retail uses."
Apparently, there are a few commentators that feel that
there is a problem with this locational criteria. However,
this locational criteria would allow the most potential
locations within the city. Also, several people felt that
the CC zone was so inclusive of large uses that it could be
used to compete or draw from General Commercial (CG) zones.
The city could add additional criteria under this
category pertaining to spacing location from existing
General Commercial zones that would greatly help to solve
these problems or concerns. For example, if a one mile
spacing requirement for distance from existing General
commercial zones was applied, approximately 80% of the over-
all potential sites under the existing CC language would be
eliminated. These sites would be primarily in the already
well-developed neighborhoods both directly east and west of
Pacific Highway running through the city.
Therefore I suggest the inclusion of the following
language to this criteria as follows (the underlined portion
is the new language):
(b) "Community Commercial district shall be spaced at
least one-half mile from other sites which are
designated for commercial retail use. Special
consideration MaNT be given to providing a. similar
separation from non-commercially designated sites that
involve retail use as part of a mixed-use development,
or to provide less than the minimum separation for
commercially-designated sites which are developed with
non-retail uses. Communitv Commercial districts shall
3. Access
The next locational criteria is for "access."
Subsection (a) identified criteria for avoiding problems
with traffic congestion and traffic safety. There does not
appear to be any commentary that would object to this form
City of Tigard
Suggested Locational Criteria
Page 5
of criteria. Therefore, I suggest that it remain as
proposed.
Subsection (b) provides that: "The site shall be
located along an arterial or a major collector street as
designated on the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. It
is preferable that designated sites should be located at
intersections of a major or minor collector street with an
arterial or the intersection of two major collector
streets."
Again, this particular locational criteria provides an
opportunity to limit the number of sites within the city
that the CC zone would apply. Since the class of street
directly relates to traffic capacity and impact, this would
appear to be a logical area for modification. Since I have
previously identified that it is in the city's best interest
to designate new CC sites at an intersection of streets,
alteration of this criteria could be as follows:
" b The site shall be located at the intersection of
two arterials or an arterial and a major collector
street or the intersection of two major collector
streets as designated on the Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Map."
Again, this alteration in the language should
substantially assist the city in limiting the number of
potential sites.
4. Site Characteristics
As this criteria allows for a span of a commercial
solution between the two-acre maximum of Neighborhood
Commercial and General Commercial, I believe this criteria
should remain as proposed. I would also point out that the
vast majority of commentary at both the planning commission
and the city council hearings identified that the proposed
language appears appropriate and practical for the zone.
5. Impact Assessment
Generally the commentary at the public hearings
identified that these criteria (1) through (5) identified in
the proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment are
appropriate. However, there was some concern that the new
CC zone could be disruptive to established or already
developed neighborhoods.
City of Tigard
Suggested Locational Criteria
Page 6
This may not be of a practical concern if the above-
proposed changes were imposed. By imposing the above
changes, nearly all of the fully-developed or well-
established neighborhoods would be precluded from
consideration for the new CC zone.
However, if there are any remaining potential sites in
a developed area, additional language could be added under
subsection (a) which relates to the scale of the project
being compatible with surrounding uses. Potentially the
city could impose language that would either make the citing
of CC zones prohibited or discretionary in neighborhoods
that have been 80-100% developed with residential uses.
Some conditional language could allow the city to impose use
and acreage limitation to a particular site at the
implementation of zoning for a specific location.
It is difficult to identify language for this purpose
as the State of Oregon "generally" requires a clear and
objective standard for zoning ordinances. Again, I don't
believe altering this criteria is necessary if the above-
proposed changes were implemented. If the City Council
would like some suggested language in this area, upon
request I would be more than willing to give the matter some
thought and provide you with some suggestions.
I hope the above will prove helpful in your deliberations.
i Vv
j;-John W. Shonkwiler
v`
cd
cc: Don Duncombe
r
1'
RECEIVED. THE PET I E COMPANY 0: ~d
JUL 0 21992 COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE D Lk
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (593) 246-7977-
July 2, 1992 i l~G(/Z ✓~c G~~•J' ,~✓i~~
zo
TO: The Tigard City Council
FROM: Craig A. Petrie
RE: Proposed Community Commercial Zone 'O
Please include this in the record from your hearing on June 23,
1992. The timeframe for this letter is within the ten days the
record is left open on matters which have been continued.
Dear Tigard City Council,
I appreciate the Council taking the time to consider the
Community Commercial zone. As the urban growth boundary fills
up during the next few years traffic, shopping, parks, planning,
and overall general livability are real!,, going to come to the
surface as we all learn how to live with less space and with more
people. During the next twenty years over 1/2 a million people
will move to the Portland metropolitian area. How do we plan
and provide for everyones recreation, transportation, shopping
and livability?
The answer lies in the hard decisions which must be made by our
leaders now and during the next few years. The attitude of do
nothing, stop everything, will only provide us the same mess that
the greater Seattle area now has; for Seattle it is too late,
for us it is not. But the answer lies in the leadership
decisions made now and during the next few critical years. None
of the decisions you will make will satisfy all the people and
there will always be a vocal minority claiming some decision is
horrible and will ruin everything. The legacy (and livability)
we all pass on to our children depends on tough decisions being
made now.
The Community Commercial zone is one of those tough decisions.
Western Tigard and the land not in the City of Tigard but which
naturally utilizes the Scholls Ferry Roads is beginning to
explode in residential growth and in my opinion will fill up very
rapidly. From the map I submitted on June 23 1992 the
population based on existing, serviced, and zoned property could
reach over 21,000 west of 135th. These people have to shop
somewhere----they will either shop near to where they live or get
on our collector streets and arterials and Just further
contribute to the current traffic problem.
9600 SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY o PORTLAND, OR 97219
FAX: (503) 244-0123
Page Two
A full size neighborhood/community grocery store in western
Tigard will not cause traffic----the traffic will already be
there by residents who live in the area. As you consider the
Community Commercial zone please think about these things and
plan to incorporate and provide for the growth which is upon us
and the remaining growth which we know is coming soon.
Sincerely yours,
Craig A. Petrie
C
h 0 1 & 4A.3r
GV a S
o m v .aw■ a eI'Ap9mm aw
OREGON
June 23 letter concerning the proposed
Comprehensive Plan and Zone Ordinance Amendments developing
criteria for a community Commercial Plan Designation.
Enclosed is a copy of the Recap of the council meeting, giving you
an idea of where we are in the hearing process (Page 2). The
Council continued the hearing to September 8.
J~
July Thank 1, 1992
_
John and you for Maudie Bushnell
15300 S.W. Bull your Mountain Road
Tigard, OR 97224
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bushnell:
city council for their review and will be incorporated into the
Your comments are appreciated. -Your letter was forwarded to the
formal record.
Sincerel
I
Pat ck J/trato
Ci Admi Enclosure
prc0701.92
13125 SW Hal! Blvd. P.O. Box 23397, ilflard Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171
1414f 01'
June 23, 1992
C Tigard City Council, a
Tigard, Cregon .97223
p¢ JUN 2 6 1992 ,
Tigard Planning Staff Lp l '
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Dear Members -
Re: Amendments to Comprehensive an and Zone Regulations
Since we are not able to attend the Tuesday, June 23rd meeting
concerning rezoning in several Tigard areas, we are writing
this letter to explain our viewpoints, based not only' ractical A.P
but also esthetic considerations.
We have lived on Bull Mountain (near 150th) for over sixty years,
so you know we have seen dramatic changes through the years.
To allow building any commercial kind of structure near that
intersection would-devastate a residential neighborhood and be
entirely unnecessary, and a financial failure.
Actually, we cannot believe it is a serious consideration.
At one time, and possibly even yet, we've thought a small "papa
and mama" store at the intersection of Beef Bend Rd. and Old
Scholls Ferry Rd could be a help to many residents, saving longer
trips to the several large shopping centers on the highway through
Tigard.
As you know, at the east end of Bull Mountain Rd. there are a
large grocery-store and several other spaces which have been
empty much of the time since construction. The road-change made
by the highway engineers at the time of the Texaco installation
did nothing at all to help the merchants and buyers. To change
it now would be costly (and could have been done then via other
approaches such as an overhead pass). But the shopping center
is there, and is a better idea than an all-new one on our hill.
This would involve very destructive and foolish costs, millions
of dollars for road-changes, purchasing property - and is such
a bad idea we cannot believe anyone would ever be so foolish.
Traffic would increase, we would need a 4-lane road, shopping by
car would be inevitable since those who could oet there by foot
would have been moved out.
Now a bicycle-path across the three miles of Bull Mountain Rd.
would be a wise and excellent solution for many problems.
As we understand, the City Council and Planning Staff are not
at all empowered in the near future to undertaking any of the
intersection-for-shopping-center changes. But we also realize
P.2
Tigard City Council
,Tigard Planning Staff
plans must be considered for in advance. I am confining my
remarks to the SW 150th and Bull Mountain Rd. intersection, altho'
some of the other suggestions are equally erroneous.
Most of the locations are not even within Tigard city limits. We
perceive you are trying to keep ahead of the projected growth of
this beautiful area, but we hope and trust your successors will
be judicious, thinking first of people and their homes. Without
happy neighborhoods, you will have no use for big shopping centers.
Commercialization is, like government, meant simply to serve people.
Thank you for reading our feelings and thoughts. We will continue
to be concerned and interested, even though we cannot often attend
the meetings.
Yours sincerely,
John and Maudie Bushnell
15300 SW Bull Mtn Rd.
Tigard, Oregon 97224
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM .J
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: September 8 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: Aug. 26, 1992
ISSUE/AGENDA TI LE: Vacation o4RE PREVIOUS ACTION: None
portion of SW 619th Avenue PREPARED BY: Ron Pomeroy
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy
ISSUE COUNCIL
Should the City Council vacate a portion of SW 67th Avenue?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council deny the vacation. If the Council desires to
approve this vacation, the public hearing should be continued to a time
certain as indicated in the summary and alternatives below.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Council initiated this street vacation (vicinity map; Exhibit A) at a meeting
held on July 14, 1992 (Res. 92-36; Exhibit B).
Mr. Robert Cline, petitioner, requests City Council approval to vacate a
portion of the SW 67th Avenue right-of-way extending from the intersection of
SW 67th Avenue and SW Baylor Street to a point approximately 175 feet south
-of SW Clinton Street (Exhibit D).
The applicant initially requested the vacation of a portion of SW 67th Avenue
extending from SW Baylor Street to the southern lot line of tax lot 4000
(Exhibit C). Upon initial staff review of this request, it was determined
that a street vacation for SW 67th Avenue extending from SW Baylor Street to
the ODOT access control line, south of SW Clinton Street plus a portion of SW
Clinton Street (exhibit E) was approved by the Council in 1985 (Ord. 85-37).
At that time, it was determined that SW 67th Avenue was still under the
jurisdiction of Washington County. The City, therefore, did not have the
authority to approve a street vacation for SW 67th Avenue. On March 3, 1986,
the Council amended Section 1 of Ordinance 85-37 by removing all references
to the vacation of 67th Avenue (Ord. 86-16, exhibit F). The City gained
jurisdiction of a portion 67th Avenue in July, 1986. Apparently, no further
action was taken to vacate this portion of SW 67th Avenue.
Therefore, the Cline vacation request was expanded to include that portion of
SW 67th Avenue which the City Council intended to vacate in 1985.
Appropriate agencies have been contacted for comments. Concerns have been
noted regarding the need for providing access and utility easements within
this vacated right-of-way.
City Staff is recommending denial of this application for three reasons:
1. Access for the existing homes would still be required. This would
require providing common access for these lots.
2. It would not generally be a requirement to have the existing
pavement removed, leaving the impression that this is still a
public street and being maintained by the City.
3. Easements would have to be obtained for all the existing
utilities.
In addition, when the City Engineering staff was preparing a legal
description for the vacation, they discovered a discrepancy in the
description transferring jurisdiction of 67th. While the County intended to
transfer the jurisdiction of all of 67th to the City and both City and County
maps show jurisdiction by the City, the description did not include all of
67th. According to the City Attorney's office, the city needs to request
that the Washington County Board of Commissioners adopt a Resolution and
Order that would correct the description of the transfer of jurisdiction to
include all of SW 67th Avenue that was intended to be transferred in 1986
prior to approving a vacation of the street.
If the Council chooses to proceed with the vacation, the public hearing
should be continued for at least 60 to 90 days (Nov. 10, or Dec. 8) to
provide time for Washington County to correct the description of the transfer
of jurisdiction of SW 67th. Even if the Council chooses not to proceed with
the vacation, the city Engineering staff should be directed to request
( Washington County to correct the transfer of jurisdiction of SW 67th.
Staff recommends that if this street vacation is to be approved, that it
should be subject to three conditions. These conditions have been included
in the attached ordinance. These conditions require; 1) posting the vacated
street as private property; 2) provision of easements for all utilities; and
3) common driveway access agreements for all potentially landlocked parcels.
Exhibits: A) Vicinity map; B) Resolution 92-36; C) original request;
D) current request; E) 1985 vacation approval; F) 1986 ordinance amendment.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Deny the attached ordinance and vacation proposal and direct staff to
request Washington County to correct the description of the transfer of
SW 67th Avenue to the City of Tigard.
2. Continue the public hearing to a time certain and direct staff to request
Washington County to correct the description of the transfer of SW 67th
Avenue to the City of Tigard.
FISCAL NOTES -
All fees and staff costs shall be paid by the applicant.
O j
tl.E
L
?UTH
c
N
ti
WAY
C.
ZY S
ATLAM"
aw.
e ~
Q .4 RE/}
Q BAYL R STREE Q Pe epese
To Ra
t S.W. CLI
STREE T
EXTEPNSOOW 0
EnLMHU ST.
S.W.
TOM o w .
m
S.W. .
ST. 3
vi
W[l 3
S.W. G
GOMZAGA ST. 3
Exhibit A
36 31 S-`"r~000GLA5-'
S !4 DOUGLAS
tc)
F- W
E~-
w.
W
Z
3
3
~
N
4
E
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 92 -
AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF SW 67TH
AVENUE, LOCATED BETWEEN SW BAYLOR STREET AND A POINT APPROXIMATELY
175 FEET SOUTH OF SW CLINTON STREET, IN THE CITY OF TIGARD,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON.
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council initiated this vacation request
pursuant to Section 15.08.040 of the Tigard Municipal Code on July
14, 1992; and
WHEREAS, This portion of SW 67th Avenue is a dedicated public
right-of-way, giving the public rights over the land for street and
utility improvements; and
WHEREAS, the purpose for this vacation is to vacate a portion of SW
67th Avenue that is no longer needed and because access is
available to all abutting properties through the granting of access
easements; and
WHEREAS, the vestees of the adjacent properties support this
»
Y ijV~ti-
4 V ion; and
WHEREAS, the vacation has been initiated by the City Council and
approval has been recommended by the Community Development
Department; and
WHEREAS, all affected service providers, including utility
companies and emergency services, have reviewed this vacation
proposal and either have no objections or have recommended specific
conditions of approval which have been incorporated into this
ordinance; and
WHEREAS, notice has been mailed to all property owners abutting
said vacation area and all owners in the affected area, as
described by ORS 271.080; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with TMC 15.08.040, the Recorder posted
notice in the area to be vacated and published notice of the public
hearing; the owners of the majority of the area affected have not
objected in writing; and
WHEREAS, the Council having considered the request on July 14,
1992, finds that it is in the public interest to approve the
request to vacate that certain portion of public street right-of-
way for SW 67th Avenue because the public interest will not be
prejudiced by this vacation as provided by ORS 271.120 and TMC
Section 15.08.130.
ORDINANCE NO. 92-
C Page 1
ci
l a Q-G
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby orders the vacation
of that certain portion of public street right-of-
way, as described on the attached Exhibit A (map of
area to be vacated), and Exhibit B (legal
description of area to be vacated) and by this
reference made part hereof.
SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council further orders that the
vacation be subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall be required to post SW
67th Avenue, at SW Baylor and SW Clinton
Street intersections, stating that the roadway
is private property. The specific language to
be determined by the City Engineer prior to
sign installation.
2. Easements shall be provided for all existing
utilities.
3. Common driveway access agreements shall be
provided for all potentially landlocked
parcels.
C SECTION 3: In no situation shall this ordinance be.effective
until the 31st day after its enactment by the City
Council, approval by the Mayor, and after a
certified copy of this ordinance has been recorded
with the Washington County Clerk, Assessor, and
Surveyor.
PASSED: By vote of the Council members
present after being read by number and title only,
this 8th day of September, 1992.
Catherine Wheatly, City Recorder
APPROVED: This day of , 1992.
Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor
ORDINANCE NO. 92-
Page 2
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
irate
rp\cline.ord
r ORDINANCE NO. 92-
Page 3
IL
C
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 92-360
A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF SW 67TH
AVENUE, BETWEEN SW BAYLOR AND THE ODOT ACCESS CONTROL LINE SOUTH OF
SW CLINTON STREET, IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY,
OREGON.
WHEREAS, this portion of SW 67th Avenue is a dedicated public
right-of-way, giving the public rights over the land for street and
utility improvements; and
WHEREAS, SW 67th Avenue, in the vicinity of the area proposed for
vacation is no longer needed; and
WHEREAS, the property owner(s) will be required to provide
easement(s) for access and any utilities located within the area
proposed for vacation; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council finds it necessary and desirable
to initiate •:acation proceedings for said right-of-way.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
(1) The Tigard City Council initiates the vacation request with
the understanding that those property owners who would
normally sign a petition shall be notified by mail of the
proceedings; and
(2) A public hearing is hereby called to be held by the City
Council on Tuesday, August_ , 1992, at 7:30 PM at the Tigard
Civic Center Town Hall Room, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, within
the City of Tigard, at which time and place the Council shall
hear any objections thereto, and any interested person may
appear and be heard for or against the proposed vacating of
said right-of-way; and
(3) the City Recorder be, and (s)he is hereby, authorized and
directed to cause to have published in the Tigard Times, a
newspaper of general circulation in the City of Tigard hereby
designated for such purpose, a notice of said hearing in the
form hereto attached and by this reference made a part hereof,
the first publication to be July 30 1992 and the final
publication to be on August_-{-, 1992. Ac,tcJ~ls~ j3
dp
The Recorder be, and (s)he is hereby, further directed to
cause to have posted within five (5) days after the date of
first publication, a copy of said notice at or near each end
of the area proposed to be vacated; and
RESOLUTION NO. 92-30
t a,yNe dec t1d 64•a C
7hyigz
ca" UAta*Ack
Exhibit B
PAGE 1
C
C
(4) That the particular portion of granted public right-of-way to
be vacated is shown on the attached sheet labeled Exhibit "1"
and by reference made a part thereof.
PASSED: This J^/ L/7 day of J, 1992.
ATTEST:
City Recorder - City of Ti rd
'.t
'.i
1t
f
y'
2- ✓e PAGE 2
RESOLUTION NO. 92-3e//
Robert E. & Joan D. Cline
16200 S.W Grinison Court
Portland, OR 97224
503 6847584 RECEIVED PLANNING
C ^ Fix 503 639.7373
JUN 10 199
March 16, 1992
Mr. Ron Pomeroy
Community Development Department
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
PO Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: Vacation on SW 67th Avenue, Tigard OR - Letter of Intent
Dear Mr. Pomeroy:
This letter shall serve as a letter of intent on behalf of the affected property owners to
request vacation of the northerly 225 feet of S.W. 67th Avenue between S.W. Baylor and
S.W. Clinton Street. It is the intent of the property owners to keep the street open, that is
to erect no barrier to hamper delivery or emergency vehicles.
It is our understanding that you will begin contacting the property owners immediately. I
believe that you will find that the affected property owners are in accord.
Enclosed please find a check for the required filing fee.
Thank you, Ron, for your assistance.
Cordially,
Robert E. Cline
o:\wp51\admin\otfice\pomoroy3.LTR
C June 9, 1992 / 4:16pm
Exhibit C
57 ~ 7 _N IA 200 100
N
AC. N . 80-11117 .29AC 40
801 -VAC .36 AC.
N
22 N / °e .22AC 22 +STA. 449.343 22 a
(C.S.2l,831) so' et N
21 4 21 N W a 4 21 N -to
20 N 5 20 a z a 5 20
a
N! 6 19 N N 6 4 19 N
0 N 800 18 n « 301 .06AC 18 a
..gg.. +
N 30' j3o' _r;~T + T 17 T N 600
400 .06AC .34AC. N
T T T
x'54+0000 am 500
15 > 9 10 if 12 13 14 15 ~ o -23AC g °9 [0 11 12 13 14 15 160-0
d- 2S' 2s' as' as' 25' 25• 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 2s' 25'
so-m
3AYLOR 80-14553 S T R E E i
12Z. 1 ~
f IS' 25! 25' IS 2S' 25! ZS 25' 25 25 25' 25' 25' 25' 60
6C 3300 3301 f 3900 3800
.29AC. .16AC. o o /7AC. /-2/ AC o
7 88 1 2 4 5 7 82 21, 2 3 4 5 6 7 82
a
Z-1
L -L o
L 1 L
16 -40 b
N 3402 36 ° 36
N N N CI
5~ a a + 4000
-1
.68 AC. 35 ® .29AC t,
P N 35 N
W
N N 1! 37(111 N N 11 ~ 34 ;i . W m
N N 12 + .23vAC .o an 1 n
N N 12 33 a
w 13 8. 32- N a 13 -L+ 32 h
00. CQ
14 31 N a 4100 31 ~
15 3600 • ON .4/AC 30 °40.
6d N
cz: .
v a 16 .12 AC.
16 29
V ° i[f
17 3403 N ~ 17 ttl' 28 N
./2 AC F
.r 18 N 10 t8 27
F 'm T T loo' N
L 3500 3400
25 40
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 'Sao/4~i 21 22 s -23 Ar, ~ - + o aeo/asl
°
25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' d '4
L 1 L N1 i 1 L.
STREET-00 STREET VACATION
e6-9637
zs' 2s' 25' 2s' zs' z 3 ' f T T T T T T T -1
_ 5400 5300
v .20 AC .44 AC.
8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8° CC24-774
1.. L L L+ 1 -L t .1
r 1 9 6000 N
e o 10 .17AC N f -1
as ~e► 11 1 3 34 N CC41-144 1
v / F 2 5900
03
CC41-144
0 &A
~z m
-E x
~fOI
7
w
STA. 41461.52
-tl-
U)
f
+
} STA. 43492.66
Y'
c
0
+ STA. 4s+00.00
3
~
Q
+
LLJ
W
1.1._
+ -1
LL
Y
®
+ STA. 50400.00
Q
~T
1
c
M'
PROPOSED VACATION OF
SW 67TH Ae/E Eh CLINTON ST IN
SEC 36 TIS RIB', VIM
WASHINGTON CO, OR
SCALE l =IOU
I BAYLOR STREET
i
S
OD
W
CL INTON
yg:
f
L
F
STREET
Exhibit D
i
iz
I~
Ldn~
E' • • i
O~
t~~ cam. orK a3
WEST PORT~,naD 4-t~~L~
A
CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON!
ORDINANCE NO. 85-3-7
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF SW 67TH AVENUE AND CLINTON STREET AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council initiated this vacation request pursuant to
Section 15.08.040 of the Tigard Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the reason and purpose for this vacation is to return the area within
SW 67th Avenue and Clinton Street to the adjacent property owners to
facilitate future development possibilities; and
WHEREAS, the vacation is recommended by the Planning Commission and the City
Engineer; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with ORS 271.100, and TM7C Section 15.08.110, the
Council fixed a time and place for the public hearing and the Recorder
published notice and posted notice in the area to be vacated; and
WHEREAS, notice has been mailed to all property owners abutting said vacation
area a all _w-ners in the affected area, as described in ORS 271.080; and
WHEREAS, the Council, having held a hearing on September 23, 1985, finds the
public interest will not be prejudiced by the vacation as provided by ORS
271.120 and TtiC Section 15.08.130; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that it is in the public interest to approve the
request to vacate a portion of SW 67th Avenue and Clinton Street because the
public interest will not be prejudiced; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that the following conditions are necessary to
vacate said land:
o A private ingress/egress easement be retained on SW 67th Avenue from
the South line of SW Baylor Street, 15 feet on both sides of the
existing right-of-way centerline, to the North Pane of the Oregon
.Department of Transportation Control Access Line. Said easement
must contained the notarized signatures of all abutting property
owners to 67th Avenue and be in a form approved by the Tigard City
Attorney's office. Said easement shall be recorded with this
ordinance to make the vacation effective.
o The Street Vacation should be granted for transportation
right-of-way purposes. however, a public easement for utility
purposes shall be retained over the entire area.
o This vacation for transportation right-of-way purposes shall not be
effective until the effective date of this ordinance and it shall be
not effective until a certified copy of this ordinance has been
recorded with the Washington County clerk, assessor and surveyor.
0"LVANCE 85- 3?
Page 1
IE X h 1 b e t E - i
THE CITY OF TIC-ARO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS :
Section 1: The Tigard City Council hereby orders the vacation for
transportation right-of-way purposes of that portion of SW 67th Avenue and
Clinton Street as described on the attached Exhibit "A" and shown on the
attached Exhibit "B", and by this reference made parts hereof.
Section 2: The Tigard City Council further orders that the vacation be
subject to the following conditions:
o A private ingress/egress easement be retained on Sig! 67th Avenue from
the South line of SW Baylor Street, 15 feet on both sides of the
existing right-of-way centerline, to the North line of the Oregon
Department of Transportation Control Access Line. Said easement
must contained the notarized signatures of all abutting property
owners to 67th Avenue and be in a form approved by the Tigard City
Attorney's office. Said easement shall be recorded with this
ordinance to make the vacation effective.
o The Street Vacation should be granted for transportation
right-of-way purposes, however, a public easement for utility
purposes shall be retained over the entire area.
S shall not be
ihI s 'vac--ion for tr ans rl.att ion right-of-way purpn¢A•-'-
F1c7 r-• r--
effective until the effective date of this ordinance and it shall be
not effective until a certified copy of this ordinance has been
recorded with the Washington County clerk, assessor and surveyor.
Section 3: In no situation shall this ordinance be effective until the 315t
day after its enactment by the City Council and approval by the-Mayor.
• 'i
i •
~s
PASSED: By (A,nr. n.yY)QaS vote of all Council members present after
bei read by number and title only, this -ken day
of 1985.
W
6ep.1y City Recorder - City of Tigard
APPROVED: This day of 1985.
- City of Tiga
0-4:1CA-n C_-: a P,
ORDMALM NO. 85-
Page 2
~..3 lw/3214A
FTA
LEGAL DESCRIPT!ON FOR VACATION Of STREETS FOR JERRY CASH
A parcel of land in the plat of HES7 PORTLAND HEIGHTS, Washington County,
Oregon: the said parcel being a portion of S.W. 67th Avenue and S.W.
Clinton Street abutting Blocks 7, 8. 13, and 14 in said plat described as
follows: -
Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 33, said Block 13; thence North
along the East line of said Block 13, 175 feet to the Northeast corner
thereof; thence East 30 feet; thence North 60 feet; thence West 30 feet to
the Southeast corner of said Block 8; thence North along the East. line of
said Block 8. 450 feet to the Northeast corner thereof; thence East. 60 feet -
to the Northwest corner of said Block 7; thence South along the West line
of said Block 7, 450 feet to the Southwest corner thereof; thence East
along the cauth line of said Block 7; 193 feet more or less to the Access
Control Line of the Southbound Exit Ramp of the Haines Road Interchange;
thence Southwesterly along said Access Control Line 63.25 feet more or less -
to the North line of said Block 14; thence West along said North line 173
feet more or less to the Northwest corner of said Block 14; thence South
along the West line of said Block 14, 146.87 feet more or less to the
Access Control Line of the Southbound Exit Ramp of the Haines Road Inter-
change; thence Southwesterly 66.25 feet to the point of beginning.
Save and except an easement for utility purposes.
Save and except an easement for ingress and egress over and across the
following described parcel: -
A strip of land 30 feet in width being 15 feet on each side of the
following described center line: Beginning ata point 30 feet East of the
Northeast corner of said Block 8. WEST PORTLAND HEIGHTS; thence South
parallel to the East line of said Block 8. 670.94 feet to a point on the
said Access Control Line. This easement for ingress and egress is for the
use of abutting properties only and it may be terminated by mutual consent
of the abutting property owners.
A
PROPOSED VACATION OF
SW 67TH AVE a CLINTON ST IN
SEC 36 T I S R S vv, WM
w WASHINGTON CO OR
Q ~1985__ SCALE 1"=IOU
BAYLO R
W
I
L
STREET
I
N%
qJ7
E-4
_ s
P- t 4 ✓~J
x
7~Y
O~.
t~lE GC~C_ LOT ~3, ELK d3
VvEST ~oRTt..P.'s~s[a
s CLINTON
STREET
Y
a
MEMORANDUM •I'
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Mayor and City Council February 28, 1986
FROM: Loreen Wilson, Recorder
i
SUBJECT: 67th 6 Clinton Street Vacation
On 9/30/85, City Council held -.a public hearing for the above mentioned
vacation request and adopted Ordinance No_. 85-37 to approveithe vacation based
on the following conditions:
o A private ingress/egress easement be retained :on SW 67th Avenue
from the South line of SW Baylor Street, 15 fegt on both s:"'as of
the existing right-of-way centerline, to the North line of the
Oregon Department of Transportation Control Access Line. Said
easement must contain the notarized signatures of all abutting
property owners to 67th Avenue and be in a form approved by the
Tigard City Attorney's office. Said easement shall-be recorded
with this ordinance to make the vacation-effective.
o The Street vacation should be granted for transportation
right-of-way purposes, however, a public easement for utility
purposes shall be retained over the entire area.
This vacation for transportation right-of-way purposes shall not
~r be effective until the effective date of this ordinance and it
shall not be effective until a certified copy of this ordinance
has been recorded with the Washington County cle.R, Assessor, and
Surveyor.
Staff was advised Wednesday, 2/26/86, that the City does not have jurisdiction .
of,-67th- Avenue'.` Randy Clarnio, Engineering Division Manager, and I have
discussed this issue at length with Washington County Surveyor's office and
Tim Ramis.
Th4-~-jurisdiction documentation which Washington County has,iwas never *-ecorded=
and. unavailable for staff information prior to the "public . hearing z. Since the
ORS does not allow the City to consider vacations on lainds which are not
within our jurisdiction. Ordinance fdo. 85-37 should be modified.
Staff and Legal Counsel would recommend modifying the ordinance to vacate only
that portion of Clinton Street which lies east of 67th Avenue to terminate at
the ODOT Control Access Line. An ordinance is being prepared. to accomplish
-this and will be hand-carried to Council Monday evening.'
Staff will update Council further at that time-
lw/3585A
E X h 1 b 1 t
CI I Y OI 1 1GARD. ORI'GM
° 011011VAP441. NO 86 16
AN ORDINANCI AMENDING OROINANCI NO •I•. 4/, VACA1ING A I1c)I2110N (A "W t:1 UNION
STREET AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS. the Tigard City Council initiated this vacation request pursuant to
Section 15.08.040 of the Tigard, Municipal Cade; and
WHEREAS, the Council, having held a public hearing con 9/23/85, found that it
was in the public interest to vacate a portion of 67th and Clinton Streets; and
WHEREAS, the Council is now advised tt"t tht portion of SW 67th Avenue which
was proposed to be vacated is not within City of iigar•d street jurisdiction.
NOW, THEREFORE,' THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAIN`: AS FOII.OWS
Section 1: The Tigard City Council hereeby aws!nds Ordinance No. 85-37 by
removing all references to the vacation of 67th Avenue by amending Section 1
of that ordinance to read as follows-
"Section 1: The Tigard City Council hereby orders the vacation of
Cli:tan Street as described an the attached Exhibit "A" and shown on
the attached Exhibit "B••, and by this reference made paints hereof.
Section 2: The Tigard City Council further amends Ordinance No. 85-37 by
amending Section 2 which set forth the required conditions placed on that
vacation as follows:
"Section 2: The Tigard City Council further orders that the
vacation be subject to the following condition:
"o This vacation shall not be effective until the effective date of
this ordinance and it shall not be effective until a certified copy
of this ordinance has been recorded with the Washington County
cleric, assessor, and surveyor."
f
-ic
Section 3: Effective Date: As this ordinance is to amend an ordinance passed
by the Tigard City Council and effective in October, 1985, and as the Council
was unable to vacate 67th Avenue which was under Washington County
jurisdiction, an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this ordinance
shall become effective upon its passage by the Council and approval by the
Mayor.
PASSED: By r,%r,tt5 vote of all Council nK•aebers res nt after ;
being read by nuwber .and title 'only. day
of \(-yNe,3ce In 1986.
1 .,r.•en R Wi Isoon, Deputy Recorder
APPROVt'1l: This i tf•~ _ clay of 1~1c!!'_ti-~ 1 _ 1•)aA
i
1
i
i
f
C
I FGAL D f-CR1P1Is)N F *()R VACAI CON OF CLINiON SFRFET
O Parcel of land in the plat f f WI :;T PORTLAND HEIGHTS. Washington County,
Oregon; the said parcel being a portion of Sod Clinton Street abutting Riocks 7
and 14 in said plat described as follows:
Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 19, said 81ock.7; thence East along
the South line of said Block 7, 193 feet more or less to the Access Control
Line of the Southbound fruit R.,mp of the Haines Road Interchange; thence
Southwesterly along said Access Ccmtrol Line 63.25 feet more or less to the
North line of said Black 14; • ths,nce West along said North line 173 feet more
or less to the Northwest crjrner of said Block 14• thence North 60 feet to the
point of beginning.
lw/3585A '
s
t
PROPOSED VACATION OF
S 67TH AVE a CL.IN ON ST 1
SEC 36 TIS Rl ,-WM
U'.ASHINGT y C~
~fAY' t9S5 SCALE l"=t0
- ST EE`T
SAYLOA'
STREET"
1
l
B
f®
g CLINTON
C
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
AGENDA OF: Septemb
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE:
DEPT HEAD OK
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
er 8, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: August 26. 1991
Ordinance & Final PREVIOUS ACTION: P.C. Hrg. 4-20-92
p Amendment - CP C.C. Hr s. 5-12 & 8-11-92
PREPARED BY: Bewersdorff ff
CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy
Should the City Council approve and adopt the attached ordinance, final order
and findings to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map to redesignate a 6.23 acre,
three parcel site on the south side of Bull Mountain Road from Commercial
Professional (3.19 acres), and Low Density Residential (3.04 acres) to
Medium-High Density Residential?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the attached ordinance, final order and findings.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The subject properties are presently outside the City limits but within the
City's planning area. The applicant has an application for annexation
pending. The property is currently zoned R-6 (Residential 6 units per acre)
by Washington County.
The Planning Commission recommended denial of the original application at its
April 20, 1992 meeting. After a public hearing on May 12, 1992 with the City
Council, the applicant met with the NPO and neighbors of the site and agreed
to revise the proposal to provide a buffer of single family residential to
the properties to the west and to limit multi-family development to 18
dwelling units per acre. The City Council approved the revised proposal at
its August 11, 1992 public hearing. The attached ordinance and findings
incorporates that decision.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the attached ordinance, final order and findings.
2. Revise the attached ordinance, final order and findings.
FISCAL NOTES
No direct impacts.
Agenda
Ro. -I
bn inud -b
q-22~q 2
To K)* n I -*,iesfric~iuns Dn 5U) V ~ ML
C~