City Council Packet - 11/24/1992
► 'Re-vises
I
CI'T'Y OF TIGARD
OREGON
AGENDA
1
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 persons interested in testifying be present by
7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda Items can be heard In anv
order after 7.30 g•m•
J
• STUDY SESSION (5:30 PIA)
Discussion Items:
• Update on Community Center Efforts - Jack Schwab, Committee Member j
• Agenda Review
s
• Administrative Items Update on Ongoing Projects, Programs, Issues
1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30)
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
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please)
s
1
COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 24, 1992 - PAGE 1
i
4
7:45 4
3. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE): TIGARD TRIANGLE PLAN (NPO #4) A hearing to
consider whether to accept a land use master plan and general design standards for the Tigard
Triangle and to direct staff to begin implementing the plan and standards. The Tigard Triangle
is the area bounded by 1-5, Highway 217 and Pacific Highway.
• Public Hearing Opened
• Declarations or Challenges
Does anyone on Council wish to abstain?
Does any member of the audience wish to challendge the junsdiciton of the
Council to hear this matter?
• Planning Commission Report
• Staff Report - Community Development Staff
• Public Testimony
• Council Questions/Comments
• Public Hearing Closed
• Council Consideration: Resolution No. 92-_
8:45
4. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE): COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-
000 - ONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0008 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PLAN
DESIGNATIONIC-C ZONING DISTRICT
The City Council will consider a proposal to amend Volume 11 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 City Council will consider amending the Community Development Code to create y
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 proposal also includes Community Development Code
amendments related to signage and landscaping and screening for uses within the proposed
new zonV.
• Public Hearing Opened
• Declarations or Challenges
Does anyone on Council wish to abstain?
Does any member of the audience wish to challendge the jurisdiciton of the
Council to hear this matter?
Staff Report - Community Development Staff
• Public Testimony
- Proponents
- Opponents
- Neutral
- Response to Testimony - All Parties
• Council Questions/Comments
• Public Hearing Closed
• Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 92-_
COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 24, 1992 - PAGE 2
9:30 /
5. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
9:40
6. EXECU IVE SESSI®N: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the
provisions of CRS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property
transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
10:00
7. AD.1CDURNMEN
=1124.92
C
COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 24, 1992 - PAGE 3
.r
Council Agenda Item
I
r
T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L
MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 24, 1992
Meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. by Council President
Schwartz.
1. ROLL CALL
Council Present: Council President John Schwartz; Councilors
Judy Tessler, and Valerie Johnson. Staff Present: Patrick
Reilly, City Administrator; John Acker, Associate Planner; Joy 4
Cooper, Educational Services Coordinator (present for Study
Session only); Carol Landsman, Senior Planner; Ed Murphy,
Community Development Director; Jerry Offer, Associate
Planner; Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator; Tim i
Ramis, Legal Counsel (arrived at 9:28 p.m.); Michael Robinson, j
Legal Counsel (present from Study Session through 9:27 p.m.);
and Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder.
STUDY SESSION
Commercial Street Community'Center
Council heard a presentation from Mr. Jack Schwab, a member of
Commercial Street Community Center, Inc. (CSCC). CSCC is a
nonprofit corporation formed for the purpose of acquiring the
Commercial Street fire station, renovating and equipping it,
mom
and operating it thereafter as a community center for the
people of Tigard.
Council reviewed material provided by CSCC which included the
summary of need for a center within the community, the
apparent support for such a center, and financial data
outlining what is necessary to make the center a reality.
Mr. Schwab asked the Council schedule a public hearing in this
matter and then place a general obligation bond measure on the
March ballot.
Council asked several questions about the operation of the
center, the financial data, the condition of the building, the
condition of the parking lot, operation of the center,
contingency funds, the City's role, and CSCC's continuing
role.
After lengthy discussion, Council consensus was to set a date
for a January public hearing at their December 8 meeting.
b
r
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 24, 1992 - PAGE 1
BUSINESS MEETING
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA
• Request for Appeal Fee Waiver
Martha Bishop, NPO 3 representative, requested Council
waive the appeal fee for the following:
Director's Decision - Hot N'Now development; MIS
92-0016; SDR 92-0018
(Note: A Director's Decision Appeal is heard by the
Planning Commission.)
Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor
Fessler, to approve the request for fee waiver.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
3. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE): TIGARD TRIANGLE PLAN (NPO #4)
A hearing to consider whether to accept a land use master plan
and general design standards for the Tigard Triangle and to
direct staff to begin implementing the plan and standards.
The Tigard Triangle is the area bounded by I-5, Highway 217
and Pacific Highway.
a. Public hearing was opened.
b. Councilor Fessler declared that she was a Planning
Commission member (August 1991) when this issue came
before that body.
There were no challenges to the jurisdiction of the
Council to hear this matter.
C. Planning Commissioner Wendi Hawley reviewed the Planning
Commission's work history on the Tigard Triangle Plan.
The Planning Commission held several meetings on the
Triangle which began with the development of a goal
statement and then embarking on a process which included
several meetings, collecting public input, and approving
the subsequent recommendation to the City Council.
Several areas were addressed including:
• development of mixed uses
• a pattern of transportation (grid system for
interconnection) must be planned for a implemented
• concern for property owners who have been paying
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 24, 1992 - PAGE 2
iljtg
+v„N
~i
1
commercial taxes over the last number of years
• high density area livability through development
standards
• set aside area for parks
• maintain existing zoning in the Dartmouth Local
Improvement District (LID) area
Commissioner Hawley noted that the Master Plan, as
presented to the Council at this meeting, has evolved and
is very different from the original concepts of a plan
for this area. She advised that the Planning commission
supported the Tigard Triangle Master Plan as presented by
staff; this is a proactive response to future development
potential.
{
d. Associate Planner John Acker reviewed the materials i
contained in Council's meeting packet. The various `
elements of the Plan, as depicted on maps and charts were
noted including comparisons of the proposed and existing
land use and Comprehensive Plan designations. He
identified the residential area (Hermosa/Beveland and the
79th Avenue area). A large portion of the Triangle will
be commercially zoned (general commercial and
professional commercial).
Mr. Acker went over the Triangle Goals. The goals were
then translated into a land use plan and is the
recommended alternative. The major change in the Master
Plan is that area which is designated high density
residential. Approximately 60 acres is suggested to be
developed at an average of 15 units/acre. This will
create opportunities for a pedestrian-oriented community
with approximately 950 living units in the Triangle. Mr.
Acker reviewed how the Planning Commission arrived at
their decisions for the land use designations.
The design overlay is a new designation that will expand
the uses allowed in the Commercial Professional zone.
Additional uses allowed along with offices would be
residential and a small amount of ground-floor retail
with performance and designs standards applied to assure
compatibility. There would be a minimum, overall height
restriction of two stories so there would be a variety of
building types; i.e., one-story and three-story buildings
to attain an overall average of two stories. The Plan is
flexible to allow a developer or property owner to
determine the market and adjust accordingly.
Associate Planner reviewed the Development Standards and
the advantages of the Master Plan as now proposed. '
In response to a question by Councilor Fessler, Associate
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 24, 1992 - PAGE 3
ism
Planner explained that if the Council accepts the Master
Plan then additional plans for the area need to be
developed: Transportation, Parks, Facilities, Capital
Improvement Projects, etc.
In response to a question by Councilor Johnson, staff
advised that specific notices did not go to property
owners about tonight's hearing (notices were published in
the local newspaper). Property owners were notified
individually about the meeting to provide input to the
Planning Commission (June 11, 1992).
e. Public testimony:
• Val Allen, 7540 S.W. Hermosa Way, Tigard, OR 97223,
advised he was an ex-NPO member. He noted concerns
with the proposed changes to the current
Comprehensive Plan and advised of the numerous
hours he and others in the NPO spent developing
this Plan. He noted he did not think there was any
thing new in the revised proposal and recalled that
the mixed-uses, parks, and transportation were all
addressed, but needed further development.
Mr. Allen noted the lack of attention given to this
area since the adoption of the original plan. He
regretted that staff-did not continue to work with
the NPO members in the area. He advised of the
importance of establishing a transportation plan
this.,has been the missing piece for, he estimated,
our the last 20 years and was especially missed since
M the Comprehensive Plan was approved about 10 years
ago. He noted the need for the Triangle area to
access the west side of 217 (he suggested an
overpass).
• Steve Dimbat,,7515 S.W. Hermosa Way, Tigard, OR
97223, reviewed his concerns over the lack of clear
designation and, thus, the protection of the
wetlands. In addition, he noted concerns with the
increased density and subsequent traffic on 72nd
Avenue. Mr. Dimbat also noted potential problems
with residential areas abutting commercial areas.
Councilor Schwartz advised Mr. Dimbat that there
are buffering requirements when commercial and
residential property abut.
With regard to traffic concerns, Senior Planner
Landsman noted that once the Master Plan is
accepted, the next step would be to develop a
detailed land use and transportation plan.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 24, 1992 - PAGE 4
Councilor Fessler advised that the City is aware of
the large wetland areas. These areas, before
development would occur, would be delineated and
plans for mitigation would be required.
• Carl Johnson, 8965 S.W. Burnham, Tigard, OR 97223,
advised he was the current NPO 4 Chairperson. He
said he agreed with Mr. Allen's testimony that the
NPO prefers the present Comprehensive Plan.
As a property owner, Mr. Johnson acknowledged the
benefit which may be afforded the area because of
the flexibility it appears to give a developer to
respond to current market conditions.
In response to a brief discussion with Councilors
Schwartz and Johnson, he again said that the NPO
did not want any changes from the Comprehensive
Plan.
• Doris Van Gordon, 14430 S.W. 94th Court, Tigard,
Oregon, advised her concerns had been addressed.
• Ron Timmerman, 707 S.W. Washington, Suite 1500,
Portland, Oregon advised he was representing the
property owner on the southwest corner of 72nd and
Dartmouth. He advised of agreement with the Plan
as presented. He noted the importance of following
through with transportation planning as the
Triangle is developed.
• Bill Erdle, 7405 S.W. Beveland, Tigard, OR 97223,
declined to comment.
• John Turnquist, 12545 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Tigard, OR
97223, noted he had just purchased his property.
He noted concerns with increased traffic and the
diminished livability potential for him on his
residential property.
Councilor Johnson noted her agreement with Mr.
Turnquist that as the Triangle develops that 72nd
Avenue will be heavily travelled.
Mr. Turnquist expressed the hope that his property
could be rezoned commercial noting its limited
value as a residential property. Councilor Johnson
advised that in the event that 90 percent of his
neighbors (those now zoned residential) agree to
change their zoning to commercial, then his
property could be rezoned.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 24, 1992 - PAGE 5
1
• Mr. Todd Mains, 6705 S.W. Ventura Drive, Tigard, OR '
97223, advised he was a member of the Tigard
Chamber of Commerce and also serves on that
organization's Public Affairs Committee. While the
Committee has not reviewed this specific Plan, they
have supported the elements contained in the
proposal in the past. He advised, in his opinion,
the Chamber of Commerce would support the proposed
Triangle Master Plan.
• Gordon Martin, 12265 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Tigard, OR
97223 noted his agreement with the Planning
commission recommendation that the Hermosa Park
area remain single-family residential with the
opportunity to convert to commercial in the future.
He also noted agreement with the Planning
Commission recommendation that the Dartmouth LID
area retain C-G zoning.
Mr. Martin advised that a petition was circulated
in September through the Hermosa Park area which
supported that the City of Tigard not change the
Comprehensive Plan to multi-family residential.
This desire, evidently, is now reflected in the
proposed Master Plan for Hermosa Park but not on
the undeveloped property,to the west and north (as
requested in the petition). Mr. Martin noted he
prepared a clarification statement to the original
petition (see Council packet). He said he
circulated the petition along with his own personal
notification of this meeting. Mr. Martin presented
the petition and clarification statement to the
City Recorder for the record.
Mr. Martin referred to his efforts over the last
five years for a transportation plan for the Tigard
Triangle area with consideration of the affects on
the entire City. He urged the City to go to the
next step and develop a detailed transportation
plan.
• Bill Erdle, 7405 S.W. Beveland, Tigard, OR 97223
(declined to testify earlier in the meeting; he
requested to speak at this point in the hearing)
advised that he supported the proposed Tigard
Triangle Master Plan. He urged consideration in
future planning for easy pedestrian access to
Portland Community College.
He cautioned, with regard to the petitions
submitted by Mr. Martin, that he did not think
those who signed the "Clarification Statement" read
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 24, 1992 - PAGE 6
1
{
through its text. He suggested that this be
thoroughly checked out.
Councilor Schwartz advised that there would be no
decisions made at this hearing which would be
binding on the residents with regard to specific
changes on their property.
Councilor Johnson referred to Mr. Erdle's June 12,
1992, letter and noted appreciation for his
comments.
f. Council questions:
Council asked staff several questions including
clarification on notification for this hearing.
Notification for the Council hearing was done through
advertisement in the local newspaper. All property
owners of record were notified of the June 11 Planning
Commission Open House on this issue (held at Phil Lewis
School) over 100 people attended. The future process
was explained to everyone at that time.
Another issue discussed was the parks and open spaces:
• At least five acres should be designated for parks
and open spaces. Specific sites would be selected
in a public hearing process.
g. Public hearing was closed.
h. Council consideration:
• Councilor Fessler expressed appreciation for the
efforts of all those who participated in putting
+---gether the Master Plan. She identified areas
which needed detailed attention including parks and
transportation planning. Overall she supported the
plan and acknowledged its flexibility.
• Councilor Johnson referred to the complexities of
the issue and the valid concerns raised during
testimony. She advised of her support for the
proposed Triangle Master Plan because it allowed
flexibility for future development. Councilor
Johnson agreed that traffic on 72nd Avenue would
increase and noted the challenges of developing
abutting commercial and residential property.
Similar problems exist with the current
Comprehensive Plan; however, with the new proposal,
additional options would be available to ease some
of the concerns. She advised she supported the
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 24, 1992 - PAGE 7
mill
proposed Triangle Master Plan.
(Note Mike Robinson left the meeting at 9:27 p.m.; Tim Ramis
arrived at 9:38 p.m.)
• Councilor Schwartz advised he concurred with both
Councilors' comments. He said he supported the
Triangle Master Plan because this plan provided
options to assist with marketing the property in
the area. He said he believes this has been a
problem in the past because property owners have
not been able to develop under the current zoning.
He referred to traffic improvements which will be
completed in this area in the near future. The
72nd extension will make a better connection with
Pacific Highway (intersecting with the Fred Meyer
entrance). Also, the completion of the Dartmouth
connection will be beneficial.
Councilor Schwartz applauded the Planning
Commission for their efforts by keeping the public
informed and soliciting their participation and
making adjustments, when developing the Master
Plan. He advised he supported the Triangle Master
Plan.
i. RESOLUTION NO. 92-54 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, ACCEPTING A MASTER PLAN FOR THE
TIGARD TRIANGLE AREA AND DIRECTING STAFF TO INITIATE
AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT
CODE.
j. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor
Fessler, to approve Resolution No. 92-54.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council present.
k. Community Development Director noted a slight change on
the map (Hermosa-Beveland area znd adjacent general
commercial). (Note: The record copy, attached to
Resolution No. 92-54 has been marked to reflect the
change noted.)
Council meeting recessed at 9:35 p.m. and reconvened at 9:44 pm.
4. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE): COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
CPA 91-00051ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0006 COMMUNITY
COMI4ERCIAL PLAN DESIGNATION C-C ZONING DISTRICT
The City Council considered a proposal to amend Volume II of
the Comprehensive Plan (Findings, Policies and Implementation
Strategies) to add a purpose stateRent and locational criteria
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 24, 1992 - PAGE 8
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 City 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
proposal also includes Community Development Code amendments
related to signage and landscaping and screening for uses
within the proposed new zone.
a. Public hearing was opened.
b. Staff report was summarized by Associate Planner Jerry
Offer. He referred to the packet material and
correspondence received.
Mr. Offer outlined the history of this issue which began
several months ago. (See Agenda Summary for this item.)
C. Public testimony:
• Cal Woolery, NPO 7 Chair, 12356 S.W. 132nd Avenue,
Tigard, OR 97223 testified that the NPO's have been
caught in a marketing battle between two
competitors. He advised the locational criteria,
as proposed is appropriate. With regard to maximum
store size of 40,000 square feet for a grocery
store in this zone, this was a compromise by the
NPO. When questioned by Councilor Johnson, he
advised his feelings for adequate store size were
based on informal conversations.
• Craig Petrie, 9600 S.W. Capitol Highway, Portland,
Oregon, noted his general support for the Planning
commission's recommendation and the proposal now
before the City Council. He referred to his
October 28, 1992 letter with a request that
language be removed (letter is on file with packet
material).
• Scott Russell, 31291 Raymond Street, Scappoose, OR
advised he was a property owner which could be a
-potential C-C site. He noted his involvement with
the issue over the last several months and advised
he thinks prior concerns have been addressed. He
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 24, 1992 - PAGE 9 `
{
s
noted his support.
• Don Duncombe, 17001 N.E. San Rafael, Portland, OR
advised he represented Albertson's and that they
were interested in Mr. Russell's property. He
noted some marketing concerns and referred to the
issues of store size. He noted his preference for
a grocery store up to 50,000 square feet in size.
• Matt Marcott, 14555 S.W. Teal Street, Beaverton, OR
noted he disagreed with the present proposal. He
noted allowing a 40,000 square foot grocery store
in the areas as proposed was unprecedented.
• Mr. Ed Sullivan, 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Portland,
OR 97204-3688, submitted a November 24, 1992
memorandum (on file with the Council meeting
material). He reviewed the points contained in
this memorandum.
d. Public hearing was closed.
e. Council reviewed and deliberated over the criteria and
elements of the proposal. Council appreciated the work
and review of the Planning Commission and NPO's efforts
to develop a proposal which would be of general benefit
to residential areas.
There was concern expressed with the non-mandatory design
requirements and the desire to assure that a specific
site plan would be tied to approval so that a different
site plan could not be substituted later in the process.
Legal Counsel advised that it would be possible to
include language to tie one specific site plan to any
approval for use of a particular piece of property.
Another issue was the possibility that the size (square
footage) was not flexible enough. There was discussion
on this wording for both the grocery store use and the
general retail. Eight acres may be too large as well for
a C-C development.
f
It was noted that the previous density requirements for +
surrounding area was no longer in he proposed wording. 1
Councilor Johnson noted her preference that this language
be retained.
f. City Administrator Reilly listed the elements that he
heard as changes to the proposal desired by Council as:
• tie the site plan to a zone change
• permitted size of a grocery store limited to
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 24, 1992 - PAGE 10
i
,Y.
V
S
30,000 square feet, with conditional use
provisions up to 50,000 square feet
• permitted size of general retail space limited
to 10,000 with conditional use provisions up
to 25,000 square feet ;
• restore density requirement language which was
presented in an earlier proposal f
• consider design guidelines as design
requirements
• eliminate language as suggested in the October
28, 1992, letter from Mr. Craig Petrie
g. Council desires to conclude deliberation of the issue in
December (either on 12/15 or 12/22) and asked staff to
prepare an ordinance incorporating the above components.
5. NON-AGENDA IT&NS: None
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into
Executive Session at 11:45 p.m. under the provisions of ORS
192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real
property transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
7. ADJOURNMENT: 11:52 p.m.
4
Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recor e
City of Tigard
Ca u ~ Date:
=1124.92
3
s
i
i
i
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 24, 1992 - PAGE 11 ~
I!!I 11111;g I! glig
'
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal
Notice TT 7394
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 - PUBLIC HEARING
Ltag~dotice Advertising
The following will be considered by,the Ti$ard,City:Council on14*siyetri-
0 Tearsheet Not ' ber 24, 1992, at 7:30 P.M. at Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall boom,
° City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Fall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. Further information may be.
obtained from the Community I}evelopment_Director o% City Recorder at or by
639-4 ° Tigard, 2OR997223 011 O V 110p,RC'r ° Duplicate Affic ~ -testsameimlocation in advance caning publiclhearing; written d oto't ialbtestimony
° 011 ° will be considered at the hearifig.:The public hearing will be conducted in
accordance with the applicable Chapter 18.32'.6f-die Tigard Municipal
Code and-any rules of )►roce~duris:adopted by the Council and available'al,
city i1aall.,.
QQ0 #4)
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TT ARD 71 AN9 E L
A hearing to consider whether tb accept a land use master plan, and
STATE OF OREGON, general design standards for the Tigard Triangle and to direct staff:to
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. begin implementing the plan and..standards. The Tigard Triangle,is the
Judith Koehler area boundeu by I-5, HighwaY 217:and Pacific Highway
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising PAJB LI HEARING F6]I$CC~11i13?TZEHEsNS1~F`EL-
. S~IA RDINA1kj Ii NDMEI~7T2Q~►91=0 11
Director, or his principal clerk, of the T1gar Tunes CPA91
a newspaper of general circulation ~s defined in ORS 193.010 COMMI7NITSC'MME90 PLAN DESYGNAMN-l
and 193.020; published at Tigar in the Cam` ZOf-MG DISTIZICTs
of°resaii co niy and statg; thut the
Hearing), Tigard Triangle r The City.Council;will considera proposal to amend Volume 1I of:the.
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the Comprehensive Plan (Fundings, Policies and Iinplimentation Strategies) to
add a purpose statement and locitienai criteria for a• new Plan- desi&iation,
entire issue of said newspaper for One successive and (Community CominerCial)- intended to-pipvidc oppoahaiiities for eom:ner
consecutive in the following issues: vial development serving the:regular, needs of suitounding residential
areas:.The-locational criteria;would limit the, establishment of these dis-
November 12, 1992 tricts to l).areas between tw6-nd eight acres in size, 2) ai limited loca=
Lions, and 3), locations separated"fiom,other commercially zoned proper
ties.
In. addition, the City Council will consider amefiding plie.Community
Alt L`evelopment Code to create a new zoning district (Ct :intended to im
plement the new Plan designation. Some of the permitted.uses is the .zone: -
Subscribed and swor to before me this 12th day of November, 19S d 1mT~ih Prted sio Pze grocery includ'es Communb y D velopment~Code'
amendments related to an. landscaping aisd screening for .uses
m signage _
F,+ithir: ?ha proposed new zone
Notary Public for Oregon
T'T*4 = Publish November 12,1992 _
My Commission xpires:
AFFIDAVIT
MAI
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 Notice 7399
BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising ,e follovrutg enen higltlagtifs;arl_pubH9W foryour o~.Pun® C E I Y D o agendas may be obtaened9 r by eey.R~fl 723I25 S I~: Mall;
❑ Tearsheet Not %Ulev>;ird,Tiprd,OreSon_
City of Tigard
® PO Box 233 199 CITY COUNCII:USIIdESS MEE`TItdG
1~f3WNER24;.1g92
Tigard, Or223 ® 13 Duplicate All
® s T1GA30C1TXliAi,I. 'l lldliA1.L.
i~125 SW HALL BOU1AAkb'i--TiGARD, OREGON
CITY OF 71GARD
Study Session (Town Kraig ~hf®rsrceRo°in) tfip.M
Discussion items
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION o AgendaRevse';yOngaainl?B~Ismes.
STATE OF OREGON, Adtntsitattye hems U '1°btas,
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. ;'l~~gatut ~a!!ey Econnin><c Deyelopmcht orgtoztton'Iae1'
Pn`esid~lt
1, Judith Koehler •Uate on Communlt~ Center Effo>~t Jack Sch~ta,`+i>~ra~>Itac
being first duly sworn, depose and say hat I a ii Advertising j"°r
Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tlisarc~mh mes
a newspaper of general circy~ation as defined in ORS 193.010 Busine~s MbnB°a11) X7:30 P M) .
and 193.020; Published at 1 gar in the t► Public Hearings
aforesaid county and state; that the Ti&.d Triangle QIPO No
C V ('nt tnr_i 1 Rt tci naee Mcati rig - Cotnrnlitlity Ceininercw Plana Usl PatlotRf•C-C OCting Daststct
C ,prehenstve-Plan kigndmetit. 91 t)~S ne Oa~dinance
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
: Amendment 91-9 5
entire issue of said newspaper for One successive and
consecutive in the following issues: o LOW ContractRevievi Aoaad,
nlt 19. 19A~ jgxe~r jjve Sess;:ow .1.e..T S ird CCUty .Oounctl Ma go Ynw PxecuUee
Nnvrx i tra das-
Scssioir •y le prov>!seoas~ of OR 192 6!>ib'(1) a ; ce), A
cuss labase relsuons, real g~a+ perty IrausaCttons, c - and perdu- .
litigation 133Je5
h1~ H WWORDERK1 1'CiT1110 92
.r
992
19th da of November 1992 T17399; Publish ~8ovetpber 14
Subscribed and sworn to before me this y
FICIAL SEAL
Nota Public for Ore on RLY B. THOMAS
ry g
0 PUBLIC-OREGON
Miy Commission Expires: ~ 16,-- 1'79-k EXPI ES JOULLY015, ? 994
EMMISSIONW7~
AFFIDAVIT
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 - VISITOR'S AGENDAi DATE: November 24. 1992
(Limited to 2 minutes or less, please)
Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on
other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff.
Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you.
STAFF
NAME & ADDRESS TOPIC CONTACTED
3
>
Al
og n o s ors.s
7
Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount I
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. I
AGENDA ITEM NO. :3 IDA' 'E:?Nl®vdMbdr'24; 'i992
- d
?5
TIGARD TRIANGLE PLAN (NPO #4) A hearing to consider whether to accept a land use master plan w
and general design standards for the Tigard Triangle and to direct staff to begin implementing the plan
and standards. The Tigard Triangle is the area bounded by 1-5, Highway 217 and Pacific Highway.
1
i
,
I
PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS
}
i
i
AGENDA ITEM NO.
Name ame
teas ~ ~ rasa
ame Name
rm
-Mciress Address
l 5 S v-) H VWJ
ame Name
Address Address
~~~?✓r ~✓Lfl ~G Y-4kaP/4
N f Name
i/
CLIO G h WO ki
dress Address
/ v . o s ~v 4 y7'`
N Name
ress ress
Name (3 Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
~ Address Address
Name rV Name
Address Address
aa s--5w
Name Name
r J , LJ Address
~
Name Name
Address Address
PRI®RI
}
• r
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.
AGENDA ITEM NO., 4= `®ATE: November 24, 1992
Public Hearina for Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 91-0005/Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA
9170006 Communb Commercial Plan Desi ng ation f C-C Zoning District
The City Council will consider a proposal to amend Volume 11 of the Comprehensive Plan (Findings,
Policies and Implementation Strategies) to add a purpose statement and location,ai 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; and 4) areas
surrounded by potential residential densities of at least eight dwelling units per acre.
In addition, the City 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
proposal also includes Community Development Code amendments related to signage and landscaping
and screening for uses within the proposed new zone.
The Planning Commission has previously reviewed this proposal. The Commission has stated that it
is interested in reviewing only changes to the proposal that have been made since the Commission's
April 6, 1992 hearing on this matter.
PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATYACHED SHEETS
C
I
I IN=%
1 11 IN
AGENDA, STEM NO. 4
PLEASE PRINT
Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against)
Name
k--
Address ress
13 S w 7 z 110 l ~ K2
am me
c~ rU d
Address
2 ~7la-7° rasa ~~f Za u 9,aoY
Name -Name
CRAI eTRr'~
Address teas
9~00
G~%L
Name Name
Address Address
'
Name Name
0 d HRE
Address Address
Name ame
Cam- Address rasa
ame Name
ress -Ad&ess
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name Name
Address Address
Name ame
Address Ad3ress
1.
i
S
MINIMUM= IN
ji~
diem
STUDY SESSION
COUNCIL MEETING OF 11124192
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Jerry Edwards, Councilor Valerie Johnson, Councilor
John Schwartz, Councilor Joe Kasten, Councilor Judy Fessler
FROM: Commercial Street Community Center, Inc.
DATE: November 17, 1992
Commercial Street Community Center, Inc. (CSCC) is a nonprofit
corporation formed recently for the sole purpose of acquiring the
Commercial Street fire station, renovating and equipping it, and
operating it thereafter as a community center for the benefit of
the people of Tigard.
The Board of Directors of CSCC represents a wide variety of
interests in Tigard. We believe that the development of a
community center is good and necessary. We believe the best way
to acquire, renovate and equip such a facility would be through
general obligation bonds issued by the City of Tigard. We hope
that the attached material regarding projected operating revenues
and expenses will demonstrate that the project can support itself
and not be a continuing burden to the General Fund.
There is a real need for such a facility in our community.
When the fire station is vacated the existing Community Hall and
its kitchen will necessarily be abandoned. More than a dozen
groups, including the Tigard Garden Club, the Tigard Art Club and
the Northwest Steelheaders will lose their regular meeting place.
The only other public facilities in Tigard are the Senior
Center and City Hall. Meeting and activity space and time is
limited at the Senior Center because of the commitment to Meals on
Wheels. There is little "public space" available at City Hall and
it is booked to the limit. The City, Chamber of Commerce and
Washington County Visitors Association continually receive
inquiries about meeting and activity space in this area and much
of that public need goes unfilled.
Both Community Youth Services of Washington County and
Westside Family YMCA have expressed an interest in using this
facility to greatly expand their services to teenagers in the area.
Tiny Tykes Indoor Park is again desperate for space for their
program which entertains preschoolers on most weekday mornings.
i
ig~
Memorandum
Page Two
Head Start needs a new center in Tigard and is interested in
this facility. The City of Tigard itself could greatly expand its
recreational programs if additional meeting and activity space was
available.
Service clubs in the area have expressed interest in an
alternative place to hold their lunch or dinner meetings. CSCC
continues to receive comments that there are inadequate facilities
in our community for wedding receptions, club meetings, exercise
classes, and the like.
Enclosed with this memorandum are the following documents:
1. Acquisition and Renovation Budget (Projected);
2. Operating Revenues and Expenses Projection;
3. Proposed floor plan.
Representatives of CSCC will be available at the council
meeting on November 24, 1992 to make additional comments and answer
any questions. We believe there is a demonstrated need for a
community center in Tigard and that the community will support the
issuance of general obligation bonds to acquire, renovate and equip
the facility. We ask that the City Council schedule a public
hearing in this matter and, then, place a general obligation bond
measure on the ballot on the fourth Tuesday in March. The board of
directors of CSCC pledge to organize and finance a campaign to
support the bond measure. We will work hard for its passage.
s
C
ACQUISITION AND RENOVATION BUDGET (PROJECTED)
A&e ist sitiion
Cost of existing building $250,000.00
Renovation
Engineering and architectural services $ 20,000.00
Demolition 3,500.00
Interior Doors 20,000.00
Main Entry Doors 5,000.00
Other Exterior Doors 10,000.00
Ceramic Tile (Bathroom) 3,200.00
Cabinets (Counters) 4,000.00
Carpet, Vinyl and base 20,000.00
Accoustical ceiling 10,000.00
Course of Construction Insurance 2,000.00
Electrical, lighting & plugs 30,000.00
Mechanical 30,000.00
Masonry 3,000.00
Painting (Interior) 8,000.0p
Exterior Renovation (South and
East Wall only) 19,500.00
Interior Walls including taping 12,000.00
New canopy at main entrance 2,000.00
Windows (new) 850.00
(upgrade existing) 4,000.00
Bathroom partitions 11800.00
i
s
Other. bathroom accessories 800.00
Plumbing (restrooms) (6 water closets,
2 urinals, 6 sinks) 8,000.00
Paving 12,000.00
Plumbing on community kitchen
1 convenience sink in Chamber area 2,000.00
Ceramic tile floor only in kitchen 3,000.00
Special wall coverings in kitchen area 3,000.00
Signage 2,000.00
Burglar and fire detection
alarm system 3,000.00
Wall repair and preparation in large
community room 2,000.00
Mum.
Exterior painting (wood siding area) 1,500.00
C Skylights - repair and renovation 3,000.00
Landscaping 3,000.00
Overhead 15,000.00 $267,150.00
Equipent
Kitchen - Equipment & furnishings
(tables and chair s, etc.11 $ 35, 000.00
Furnishings for remaining rooms 35.000.00 $-701000.00
GRAND TOTAL $587,150.00
MINIM;
2011
COMMERCIAL STREET COMMUNITY CENTER, INC.
Operating Revenues And Expenses Projection
Revenues: Year l Year 2 Year 3
Hail Rental - Morning 2,100 2,200 2,300
Hall Rental - Lunches 5,000 5,250 5,500
Hall Rental - Evenings & Weekends 8,000 10,000 12,000
Office Rental - Chamber 4,150 4,150 4,150
Office Rental - Agency 3,250 3,250 3,250
Board & Conference Rooms Rental 2.600 2.800 3.000
Total Revenues 25,100 27.650 30,200
Expenses:
Water 315 331 347
Sewer 980 1,029 1,080
Electricity 4,800 5,040 5,292
Gas 4,560 4,788 5,027
Phone 360 378 397
Garbage 1,220 1,281 1,345
Supplies 1,500 1,575 1,654
Janitorial 4,800 5,040 5,292
Insurance 3,000 3,150 3,307
Landscape Maintenance 1,200 1,260 1,323
Parking Lot Maintenance 1.200 1.260 1.323
Total Expenses 23.935 25.132 26.388
Net Revenues Over Expenses 1.165 21518 3.812
Cumulative Available for Capital Maintenance 1.165 3.683 7.495
Caterers will be charged a fixed percentage of their gross (estimated to be 3-5%) for a kitchen
fund to be used for breakage of dishes and utensils.
i
S
t
See attached page for sources and explanations of accounts.
I
1
mom
COMMERCIAL STREET COMMUNITY CENTER, INC.
Operating Revenues And Expenses Explanations
Revenues:
Hall Rental - Morning: Used Tiny Tikes current rent at Metzger Park for three sessions increas-
ing it some due to increased space allowing more students. A fourth session is also possible.
Hall Rental - Lunches: 50 weeks at an average of $40 per luncheon, for an average of 2 1/2
days a week.
Hall Rental - Evenings & Weekends: Metzger park currently receives $12,000 annually. We are
estimating it could take us a couple of years to get known by all groups and caterers.
Office Rental - Chamber. Using $6.50 a square foot. This is what Portland public schools uses.
Office Rental - Agency: Using $6.50 a square foot. This is what Portland public schools uses.
Board & Conference Rooms Rental: 50 weeks at $4 per hour, for an average of 13 hours per
week. $4 per hour is what Chehalem Park & Rec. District uses.
C_ Expenses:
Water: Average of Fire Stations bill has been $315 per year for the last 2 1/2 years.
Sewer: Called City of Tigard to find out what Fire Stations bills have been.
Electricity: Received printout from PGE showing last year and a half for the Fire Station.
Increased it by approximately 5 percent due to an additional cooler we're adding.
Gas: Called NW Natural Gas and found out the average the Fire Station has been paying over
the two years.
Phone: One residential phone line for a pay phone in the building with local extended access.
Garbage: Called Miller's Garbage Service and received a quote for a dumpster to be picked
up once a week.
Supplies: Used what Hillsboro Community Center has paid on -an average for the past two years.
Janitorial: Received a quote from Suburban West Maintenance to clean the offices, conference
rooms and the hall once a week. With a strip and wax job on the hall once a month.
Insurance: Received a quote from Insurance Associates.
Landscape Maintenance: Estimated $100 per month.
Parking Lot Maintenance: Estimated $100 per month.
Expenses estimated to increase at 5% per year.
i
I
1rA'rcf a1t~aP°iz° yyi`i 4 r}r }cyy~ w~~' a a4. t:SEE f lNG ACTIM 1 Y: RU'
MS 592S.If
t 105 ~ r r x ~
4 4 Y ~ S~ JC x A ~F.
3. ti r u
,12
TOF~iE C"~
92 SQ. Ff. '
103
CLO. CLO.
MEN':
ts39S~::~7.
1~IOMEN>
237'x: Ff'
11
p=
GONFEFkNNc
{ 312 Sfl FT ~
;i U0 LOBBY
s*,. 113
FOYER
354 SQ. Ff. FACE OF WALL
11 AT SECOND FLOOR
- NOTE:
I I
I I 2ND FLOOR OFFICE
L.....J (NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY)
860 50. FT.
FLOOMP"PLAN
1/16' m 1'-p•
ola"
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Dick Bewersdorff, Se for Planner
FROM: Cathy Wheatle ityf~Recorder
O
DATE: November 20, 1992
SUBJECT: Appeal of Staff Decision MIS 92-0016; SDR 92-0018 (Hot N'
Now)
Dick, attached is the appeal received from NPO 3 (signed by Herman
Porter) reference the above-captioned Planning Staff Decision. I
understand that a representative from NPO 3 will appear at the
November 24, 1992 Council meeting to request a fee waiver for the
appeal.
Please advise the applicant of the appeal. If the Council approves
the fee waiver request, the NPO and applicant should be advised as
to the date the• appeal hearing will be scheduled before the
Planning Commission. If the Council denies the fee waiver, the NPO
must submit the fee by 3 p.m. on the third working day after the
council meeting.
Thanks.
c: Ed Murphy, Community Development Director
Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator
Council File - November 24, 1992 Meeting
C
ECEIVED
LAND USE DECISION APPEAL FILING FORM 0 2 01992
The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to
participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use VELOPMENT
Code therefore sets out specific requirements for
filing appeals on certain land use decisions. 0C F TIGAR
The following form has been developed to assist you in OREGON
filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper
form. To determine what filing fees will be required
or to answer any questions you have regarding the
appeal process, -please contact the Planning Division
or the City Recorder at 639-4171.
1. APPLICATION BEING APPEALED: f~l~ ,~'2 -(1O f G
n~f C
2. HOW DO YOU QUALIFY AS A PARTY:
3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW: 77 O ~1 `-u-e--
C i
/111--. C f G 6LA
4. SCHEDULED DATE DECISION IS TO BE FINAL: 5. DATE NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION WAS GIVEN:
6. SIGNATURE(S):~_ !l/
•x n (M MM X x~f~HHHE HMO!) *X X X X H~F3Hf k~HHF )HHFM X X X X ) x x3H(x x 3(3(3EK YE d X-X- E*X* K-x-K X 3HEj4iH(x x
/11 fl
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Rceived By: Date: Time: 3
Approved As To Form By Date: a1 2-TiML ( /M,
Denied As To Form By: Date: Time:
Receipt No. Amount:
~E 9HE x )Ex x x x~HE x )E x~E ~E ~Ex 1E x X x x x~HE SHE x x x x x x x x~E x )E x9E3E9E x~t )t FX X-"*- -X-X-X-X-X- H(•x-x-x-X x x X jE•x"•X**
13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503)639-4`171
NOV-20-1992 09:23 FROM ERC PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TO 96847297 P.02i02
C_.
S. CM NPO 3 LNG
November 19, 1992
Meeting culled to order at 6.•52 p.m.
Present: Bishop, Proude, Garner, Helm, Mortensen, Porter.
Afcenr_ Fltmven
The meeting was called to discuss the Park St. neighborhood concern with traffic flow from
the planted nor n' Naw restaurant to be Imwed at Park St. and Highway 99W.
Tate City of Tigard Planning Department has stated that the restaurant owner will be asked to
put a sign up at the property exit saying °Right Turn Only". 73te City staff and Planning
Commission have said rhat the City will not enforce the right turn request f violated.
Marsha Bishop distributed a petition to residents in the area on this issue. It was signed by
seventy (70) legal residerus and, filed with the city.
Tigard 7Ualatin School ,District 231 has written a letter to Jerry Offer of the City of Tigard
stating that if the proposed right turn only exit is changed or not er f r.-PW. that the Distrirx
have the opportunity to address the sty to object to the traffic flow.
M0770M. It was moved and seconded than NPO 3 appeal the Planning Department decision
regarding the Hot N' Now development on behalf of the seventy neighbors who signed a
petition and the school district's letter requesting a change which would require the city to
enforce a right turn only sign exiting the property. NPO 3 also reguesis thar the appeal fee
be waived.
The nu lwts passed ar"d rtously.
Respec#dly submitted,
Lila Gamer
Q
c
-----O - - _ < . 4.
j
i
i
I
17 k
64- --=tom =-C~- - -
i
i
i
p X992------
1
- -
t
I -
Now
d
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM -3
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: November 24, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: -November 10, 1992
ISSUE/AGENDA I LE: Ti and Trian 1 PREVIOUS ACTION: none
PREPARED BY: John Acker
DEPT HEAD O CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY:
ISSUE BEFO THE COUNCIL
Should the City Council accept a "Master Plan" for the Tigard Triangle, and
direct staff to begin refining and implementing the plan by initiating
Comprehensive Plan and Development Code amendments.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution that
accepts the Tigard Triangle master plan.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
In August 1991, the City Council asked the Planning Commission to lead a
study of the Tigard Triangle. During the succeeding months, the Planning
Commission (with the help of a consultant, staff and extensive citizen input)
established goals and from these goals developed, reviewed and refined
several alternative land use plans for the Triangle.
The final land use plan was developed by the Planning Commission on October
19, and is being recommended to the City Council for acceptance. In addition
to outlining general development standards and a general street grid, the
land use plan maintains the General Commercial designations west of 72nd as
well as single-family designations in the Hermoso-Beveland and 79th
neighborhoods. The plan provides that east of 72nd Street about 60 acres
would be designated higher density residential at an average density of 15
units per acre. The remainder of the area, indicated on the attached map as
"design overlay", would carry a new designation in which a mix of office
commercial, residential and a small amount of retail would be allowed,
vim allowing more opportunity for this area to be responsive to the market.
Background information prepared by Al Benkendorf and Associates is available
under separate cover. Attached to this report are Planning Commission
minutes, plus letters from interested citizens.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES -
1. Accept the plan as presented by adopting the attached resolution.
2. Revise the plan and adopt the attached resolution.
3. Postpone action until a later date.
FISCAL NOTES
No financial implications of adopting the plan, other than the staff time
involved with processing amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and development
codes.
r MEMORANDUM
l DATE: October 9, 1992
TO: Planning Commissioners
FROM: Planning Staff
RE: Tigard Triangle Plan Recommendation
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends a land use plan that, east of 72nd, combines the
certainty of housing in some areas with the flexibility of a new
mixed use designation, called design overlay, in others. West of
72nd, there is a continuation of existing commercial and single-
family residential with some residential buffering for the Hermoso-
Beveland neighborhood. In discussions with the community, staff
heard about as many comments favoring the certainty of traditional
zoning as those favoring the flexibility of a new design overlay
zone. The recommended plan also includes general development
standards. These standards will be refined during implementation.
This plan is the result of extensive and detailed analysis of the
characteristics and circumstances in the Triangle as well as the
review and comments of property owners, residents, NPOs, the
Chamber of Commerce and the Tigard-Tualatin School District.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept this master
plan with general development standards and forward it along with
background material to the City Council with a recommendation for
them to accept the plan and to direct staff to begin
implementation.
REM DISCUSSION
Over the past year, the Planning Commission has worked to establish
a thoughtful plan for development of the Tigard Triangle that will
make the area an asset to the community for years to come. During
that time the Commission discussed concepts of planning and
development, reviewed several plan proposals, and held discussions
with citizens, elected officials, and professional planners. This
participatory and iterative process resulted in two alternative
plans that were reviewed in August.'
At the August 24th meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the
two alternative plans that were developed to address voiced
concerns. The Commission directed staff to solicit community
feedback and report back with a recommendation. The alternatives
C reviewed in August mostly retained the allowed uses for the
Dartmouth LID but afforded some protection for the Hermoso-Beveland
Ulm
neighborhood. The difference was the area east of 72nd where 1)
{ there was a combination of residential, retail and office uses in
separate districts next to each other; or 2) a design overlay
concept which would require a minimum building height of two
stories and allow both office and residential as well as a limited
amount of retail on the ground floor. The design overlay would
include performance and design standards to insure compatibility.
The Planning Commission discussion at that time centered around the
merits of certainty vs. flexibility.
The recommended plan allows the Triangle to develop with a
compatible mixture of uses, thus creating an environment that can
be pleasing to live in, shop in and work in. In order to create
the sense of a community, or neighborhood, the plan allows a
minimum 825 units of housing by designating the central area of the
Triangle predominantly for housing. This provides certainty that
a critical population mass is established.
The remainder of the area east of 72nd will be predominantly
designated design overlay. The design overlay designation will
allow professional offices, residential, or ground floor retail
determined by the market.
The area west of 72nd and along Pacific Highway would mostly retain
existing designations. The exceptions are adjacent to the Hermoso-
Beveland neighborhood where higher density residential would be
designated, primarily to buffer the neighborhood from commercial
areas. The other exception is in the 79th neighborhood where
residents have requested re-designation to residential. There
would be the stipulation that a preponderance of the neighborhood
(90%) agree in order to change the designation in the future.
PROCESS
After a plan is accepted by the Planning commission, it, along with
background material, will be forwarded to the City Council with a
MEMO recommendation for acceptance. The City Council will conduct a
public hearing on the recommended Triangle master plan. After the
City Council accepts the plan and directs staff to begin
implementation, more detailed work will be done and the plan will
be refined. After refinement, the plan will be implemented with
comprehensive plan amendments, zone changes, and development code
changes as appropriate. Implementation measures will be processed
through normal procedures, with public hearings as necessary.
ja/ttstaff.2
November 16, 1992
1
•e~•~ • • • e e • • • \
.u~1'. • • • • • • • "1
ISO
Mfr/~ ,r,. ~ '•~y w~-~}~~i{~ /7 N ~y
/ ,,iA.1 r. tit ,
::ti•
.0.1. runrt .•.••u n
5 1
m I r 1 :w, nr•
1410 4VC ! r ,//p <
u / ' A
7 /o
Mw. ! ! !s \ o ~d1
y ar
72ne AVE.
y 1. 111 ' j AVe. \T
A NA
Son gAl
~ w.
Ylff ( AY(•MeMI Ylft 'tat
.rem}
e I 'I 1 IQ/ U4 AV n
. ~r~ ~ v- 6010 Av!
INTERMI b r'
1 RID .tlw 6e1n
r C o -v c~ z~ T o. o ~
C TRIANGLE GOALS
General Community Goals
Protect existing residential neighborhoods throughout the city
Minimize cars on residential streets
Improve or limit increase of traffic congestion, particularly on 99W
Keep taxes low
Planning Commission Goals for the Triangle
Create a pleasant living and working environment
Complement the rest of the community
Create an environment that is urban in nature
Support pedestrian and transit use
Creates a sense of identity
Improves aesthetics of the area
Concerns of citizens from the Triangle
Protect natural areas, especially trees
Maintain existing zoning in the Dartmouth LID area
Maximize sale value of property
/ is/ttgoal.824
October 12, 1992
i
C
FINAL DRAFT
DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO EVALUATION CRITERIA
December 17, 1991
URBAN FORM 1
1. Establishes a living and working environment that
is complementary to the rest of the community.
2. Provides a living and working environment not now
available in the City, that is, urban in character
with generous parks and open space.
TRANSPORTATION
1. Establishes a model for improving the remainder of
the 99W corridor.
2. Assures development of a circulation system that is
supportive of transit and provides pedestrian and
bicycle paths that are complementary to the land uses.
AESTHETIC
1. Creates a sense of identity for the Triangle and for the
City as a whole.
2. Improves the aesthetic appearance of the Triangle and
the City.
3. Protects view opportunities for residential land'uses.
ENVIRONMENTAL
1. Protect and enhance the natural resources of the area especially
the wetlands and vegetation.
2. Retain the environmental quality of the Triangle by providing
generous areas of open space and parks.
IMPLEMENTATION
1. Increase the value of the area while minimizing the
impact on public services.
2. Prescribes a role for the City in the development/
redevelopment of this area.
c
1
:t
t
4-
1r
1121 Bill
F
s
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - OCTOBER 19, 1992
1. CALL TO ORDER: Vice President Castile called the meeting to
order at 7:30 PM. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic
Center - TOWN HALL, - 13125 SW Hall Boulevard.
2. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Commissioners Boone, Castile, Hawley, Moore,
Saporta, Saxton, and Schwab. '
ABSENT: Commissioner Fyre.
3. APPROVE MINUTES:
Commissioner Saporta moved and Commissioner Moore seconded-to
approve the minutes for the October 5th meeting as corrected.
Motion passed by majority vote of Commissioners present.
Commissioner Saxton Abstained.
4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
There were no communications received for this meeting.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
5.1 TIGARD TRIANGLE PLAN (NPO #4) A hearing to consider whether to
accept a land use plan and general development standards for
the Tigard Triangle and to forward the plan and standards to
the [__ity Council. The Tigard Triangle is the area bounded by
I-5, Highway 217, and Pacific Highway. lmplemerstation
measures will be initiated if the plan is accepted by the City
Council.
o Senior Planner John Acker reviewed the history of the planning
process initiated by the City Council. He discussed the
subject area and characteristics. He talked about the goals
which were developed to deal with economic, environmental, and
transportation issues. He reviewed the various plans which
were developed and the final two which were chosen as the best
alternatives. He pointed out the residential areas and
commercial designations and discussed the flexibility built
into the plan.
o Associate Planner answered questions from Commissioners
regarding current zoning, density, and funding for parks.
C PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 19, 1992 PAGE 1
o Commissioner hawley read the comments received by staff
members from the public during NPO meetings regarding Triangle
plan:
NPO 1, 2, and 4 met on September 9, 1992
o Preservation of trees was important
o Residential is preferred to low quality Commercial
o Walking paths are a natural in the Triangle
o Should be community involvement when dealing with wetland
issues
o Traffic issues on SW 72nd
NPO 5 and 6 met on September 16, 1992
o Area should be creatively developed
o Development should be balanced
o The Plan should not be an experiment
o Area was meant to be Commercial
o Is Phil Lewis School a good location?
Chamber of Commerce Public Affairs Committee met on
September 22, 1992
o Debate of flexibility versus certainty
o Mixed use with transit is a benefit
o Majority favored alternative B which is the design
overlay alternative i
o September 23, 19932 Chamber Board of Directors endorsed
Alternative B
NPO 8 met on October 1, 1992
o Plan should consider affordable housing
o Plan should be realistic
a 72nd through the Triangle needs to be improved at one
time
o Consider residents in planning
o Mixed use concept (European model works)
NPO 3 and 7 met on October 7, 1992
o Possibility for an RV park in the Triangle
o Process is most important
Tigard/Tualatin School District discussed on the phone with
John Acker on September 29, 1992
C PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 19, 1992 PAGE 2
ail!
f
o School District has no plans for changing Phil Lewis
School
o Changes in numbers of students in Triangle will be
considered in planning, but no comments at this time
o Commissioner Castile read a petition (Exhibit A) received
against comprehensive plan change:
"We the undersigned residents of Hermosa Park, Tigard, Oregon,
hereby petition the City of Tigard to not change the
Comprehensive Plan to Multi-Family Residential for the Hermosa
Park and the undeveloped property directly to the north and
west of Hermosa Park.-
0 Associate Planner Acker discussed the petition he received
while he was attending the NPO 5 meeting, although it was not
from an NPO member.
o Discussion followed and Associate Planner advised that area
was low-density Residential and Commercial.
o Commissioner Schwab read a letter dated October 11, 1992,
addressed to the Planning Commission regarding specifically
described property currently zoned General Commercial (Exhibit
B). The letter was from property owners Hunziker, Gerlach,
and VanGordon and requests that the existing Commercial zoning
remain in place, as the proximity to Hwy. 217 makes it better
EWA for Commercial zoning than for Residential. Noise, pollution,
and safety issues were cited as the main reasons this property
should not be made Residential.
o PUBLIC HEARINGS
o Doris VanGordon, 14430 SW 94th Court, Tigard, Oregon, stated
that she feels the property referred to in the above letter is
properly zoned and should not be changed. She answered
questions clarifying safety concerns and discussed current
access to the property.
o Gordon Martin, 12265 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, said he lives in
the Tigard Triangle area. He noted there was protection with
regard to zoning for some Residential areas and not for
others. Discussion followed regarding buffering between
Residential and Commercial areas. He discussed the petition
presented concerning the Hermosa Park area. He suggested that
the petition was not clear to the Commissioners, and he
proposed that he prepare another petition with more clear
wording. He said his concern was regarding property values
being greater for Commercial property, and the desire of
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 19, 1992 PAGE 3
Hermosa Park residents to bring their Residential property to
a Commercial designation in the future. Discussion followed
regarding the intentions of the residents of Hermosa Park and
the interpretation of the petition. Commissioner Hawley
advised that the residents spoke in person indicating their
intention to remain Residential.
Gordon Martin spoke about the goals and guidelines discussed
during the NPO 5 meeting. He talked the Dartmouth LID, which
he said did not meet the goals and guidelines. He suggested
setting the assessment against the Commercial property and not
against Residential property.
Regarding the grading of the area, he said it is going to be
very expensive. He said development is going to be too
expensive with the LID and the grading costs.
Mr. Martin distributed copies of the approved minutes from the
NPO 4 meeting of April 8th, which recommended that
"...currently zoning of the Tigard Triangle not be changed for
now."
o Long-range Planner Carol Landsman, discussed the process for
determining the Residential area and use of the community
school. She clarified that although the LID area has been
identified, the financing mechanism has not been determine.
o Ron Timmerman, Concourse Development Northwest, Inc., stated
he is interest in the Triangle area is development of the
Martin property. He discussed the buffering issue, which he
did not think made a lot of sense. He talked about the grade
problems as it pertains to their development plans. He
reviewed some of the amen- ties which are possible with his 25
acre project, for example pedestrian pathways. He recommended
MOM
having an overlay to allow high-density multi-family in any
IllIlM
area. He noted that the key to developing the Triangle is OHM
improving SW 72nd and Dartmouth.
o Irving Larson, NPO #4 member, said he would answer questions
pertaining to the NPO minutes. Commissioner Hawley read again
the comments which were read into the records earlier in this
evening's meeting. He agreed with the issues involving SW
72nd.
Commissioner Boone inquired of Mr. Larson what the residents
of Hermosa Park prefer. Mr. Larson stated Commercial would be
preferred.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 19, 1992 PAGE 4
CIRRI MEN ~lxllll@lillf~ll
V IN
o Commissioner Moore said the majority of Hermosa residents he
talked with indicated their preference to maintain their
neighborhood as it is, with buffering between Commercial. He
said he favored recommending to Council the Alternative A\B
shown tonight, as it has the best flexibility and use of land.
o Commissioner Hawley talked about the tax liability which would
adversely affect Hermosa Park if it were zoned Commercial.
She noted that the residents wanted to remain residential.
She favored the current alternative A/B.
o Commissioner Saporta discussed the public hearing during which
the residents of Hermosa Park indicated their preference for
Residential. He was concerned with the small sliver of
Commercial area at the end of Residential because of traffic
issues. Concerning the Northwest corner of the Triangle, he
felt buffering should be considered if possible. He did not
want to see Commercial zones up against the school. -He
favored the current alternative because of its flexibility.
o Commissioner Schwab favored recommending the current
alternative to Council. He discussed the SW 79th and Hermosa
Park areas. He clarified that the residents do not wish to
change to multi-family, but they prefer to remain residential
until a later time when they can be successfully zoned
Commercial. He recommended changing the pipe stem area back
to Commercial-General down to the Triangle owned by Mrs. Van
Gordon, except for the one single-family residential. He
talked about the goal of keeping as much of the LID as
possible in its present commercial zoning, especially on the
west side of SW 72nd.
o C4r►missioner Moore discussed the petition from Hermosa Park.
He was not comfortable with it as it was worded. Discussion
followed concerning the interpretation of the petition.
o Commissioner Boone did not favor buffering single-family
residential with multi-family residential.
o Commissioner Saxton noted that the petition was not dated, and
does not specifically refer to any of the alternatives. He
discussed the NPO minutes dated April 8th. He discussed the
comments from Mrs. VanGordon. He agreed with Commissioner
Schwab regarding the pipe stem which should be Commercial. He
also agreed that everything west of SW 72nd will eventually
end up Commercial. He favored modifying this plan and
forwarding it to Council. The section of Multi-family to
Commercial and changing the triangle at the end of Beveland to
Commercial with connection to the property to the north for
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 19, 1992 PAGE 5
access.
o Commissioner Castile expressed agreement with Commission
Saxton's comments. In addition, he favored protecting
Beveland from through traffic to the Commercial area.
o Commissioner Saporta discussed the pressure which will cause
the Residential area to change to Commercial without a buffer
of multi-family.
it
o Planner Carol Landsman discussed Phil Lewis School. She
clarified high-density residential, and the various
possibilities. She explained the design overlay district
height requirement.
* Commissioner Hawley moved to recommend this plan to City
Council suggested recommending the current plan to Council.
Motion failed with Commissioners Moore, Hawley, and Saporta
voting yes and Commissioners Castile, Boone, Schwab, and
Saxton voting no.
* Commissioner Saxton moved and Commissioner Boone
seconded to amend the current alternative dated October 19,
1992 to change the high-density residential located west of
72nd and north of Hermosa Park to General-Commercial and to
restore the General-Commercial to the VanGordon property (3.12
acres, WCTM 2S1 1BD tax lot 100) back to General-Commercial.
Motion passed by majority vote of Commissioners present.
Commissioners Moore, Hawley, Saporta voted no, and
Commissioners Schwab, Boone, Castile, and Saxton voted yes.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
Community Development Director. Ed Murphy invited the
Commissioners to attend the Metro 2040 meeting on Tuesday,
October 27, 1992 at 6:30 PM. He said alternatives will be
discussed and comments will be taken.
There was discussion concerning landscaping plan for Dartmouth
area.
7. ADJOURNMENT
_ a
ii
Y
i
S
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 19, 1992 PAGE 6
2
A
S
E
3
e
g1l;'11 1111 I le 1111W1
f'
t
l
A}}y
l
PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY MEETING - TIGARD TRIANGLE PLANNING
AUGUST 24, 1992 n
1. CALL TO ORDER: Vice President Castile called the meeting to
order at 6:00 PM. The meeting was held in the Town Hall
Conference Room.
2. ROLL CALL:
j
PRESENT: Vice President Castile; Commissioners Hawley,
Moore, and Schwab. .Staff: Associate Planner John
Acker, Senior Planner Richard Bewersdorff, Senior
Planner Carol Landsman, Community Development
Director Ed Murphy, and Secretary Ellen Fox
ABSENT: President Fyre; Commissioners Boone, Saporta, and
Saxton.
3. TIGARD TRIANGLE DISCUSSION
o Associate Planner John Acker discussed the previous meetings
and why the Commission had determined that Plan D was not
acceptable. He reviewed the community goals, Planning
Commission's Triangle goals, and the concerns of Triangle
residents. He discussed the importance of protecting existing
neighborhoods and improving overall density. He commented on
the traffic issues and the need for better circulation between
neighborhoods, as well as pedestrian access to commercial
areas. Concerning aesthetics, he noted that staff is
suggesting a minimum density and he talked about the role of
design standards.
o Associate Planner provided details of each option. He
displayed maps showing Alternative F and the Design Overlay
Alternative. He pointed out the areas of medium density and
low density residential, General Commercial, Professional
Commercial, and the public area.
o Discussion followed concerning the area of the LID, which is
in place and is not based on zoning. Community Development
Director Ed Murphy talked about the Dartmouth extension, which
is expected to be completed next spring or summer. He said
bids will go out in September.
C PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1992 PAGE 1
MEMO
Y
o Several Commissioners were concerned that the mixed use plan
could turn out looking "splotchy." There was discussion about
using design and performance standards to control the
appearance and quality of the design.
o Senior Planner Carol Landsman talked about the SDC, a
development charge which developers would pay into and which
would be the way to raise funds for a park. She provided
details about the Urban Growth Management Grant funded by the
Department of Land Conservation and Development. She said
this grant would provide funding for an implementation plan
for the study. She described what a "specific plan" is and
how it is distinguished from a "general plan." She said a
"specific plan" would include such things as land use plan,
urban design plan, topography, and transportation. Discussion
followed concerning the timing of the study and implementation
plan. Senior Planner Landsman expected the implementation
plan, along with proposed Comp Plan and Development Code
amendments, would be completed by late spring.
o Commissioner Moore favored the Design Overlay Alternative as
it would give options to do what the market wants.
o Commissioner Hawley talked about development problems in the
Central Business District (CBD) and asked how the two areas
compared. There was consensus that the design standards set
for the Triangle area would protect the it from the
development problems which CBD has faced.
o Commissioner Schwab favored Alternative F because it seemed
more certain. He said he would
line to see even more ^.eral Em
Commercial use along Dartmouth. Commissioner Hawley agreed
and asked for more General Commercial along Dartmouth between
Clinton Street and Elmhurst.
o Discussion followed regarding Residential use, and Senior
Planner Landsman advised they proposed to zone Hermosa as
Residential until a majority of the residents on the street
agreed to change it.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
o Ross Gifford said he preferred to have 79th Street where he
lives zoned Residential rather than the Commercial designation
it now shows.
C PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1992 PAGE 2
o Herb Larson, representing NPO Chairman Carl Johnson, discussed
a letter dated April 20, 1992, from Martin Investments
(Exhibit A) concerning zoning and transportation problems. In
the letter the public input process was criticized.
o Ken Rosenfeld commented about the tremendous amount of traf f is
which will result from further development in the Triangle.
Discussion followed regarding transportation planning and the
study which is now under way by the 99W Task Force.
o One resident spoke about the economic impacts to homeowners,
stating that Residential designation would be less profitable
to the property owners than Commercial.
o A resident who lives on Baylor Street did not like the "hodge
podge" look of the Overlay Alternative, as it did not look
very pleasing. He expressed concern that development would be
detrimental to the wildlife which now use the creek near
Clinton and Baylor.
o Evelyn Beach discussed SW 72nd, which she said is at the base
of a volcano and talked about the associated water problems.
She stated that Cub Foods is going to have to dig a well for
that area.
o David Peterson said the design overlay would be great, but he
wanted to see minimum size specified for different uses.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
o Co-issioner Castile talked about the efforts thus far to f?nd
a good plan for the Triangle area.
o Senior Planner Landsman discussed the public input process.
She described the presentations planned for gathering public
input, and she advised that a report would be made to City
Council after public comments have been received.
o Commissioner Moore preferred the :Flexibility provided by the
overlay option. He favored adding more Commercial along
'Dartmouth and a medium density buffer near Hermosa.
i
o Commissioner Hawley agreed with Commissioner Moore's
additions, and also wanted to add low density around SW 79th
Avenue. She favored the design overlay option because of its
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1992 PAGE 3
III MIIIIII,111
flexibility and thought it might increase property value for
property owners when they sell.
o Commissioner Schwab preferred Alternative F to the overlay
option. He said he favored designating SW 79th as
Residential.
o Commissioner Castile favored Alternative F, but east of SW
72nd would go with design overlay to allow for certainty. He
favored having medium density Residential buffer around low
density areas.
o Senior Planner Landsman recapped the suggestions: buffers
around low density residential, mixed use community, some
favored design overlay and some did not. She indicated that
after the modifications were made, presentations of the two
plans would be made to various public groups for their
comments. Input would then be provided to the Commission at
the September 21st meeting. Commissioners agreed that they
would be happy if the public found that the plans meet the
needs of the community.
ADJOURNMENT - 7:40 PM
Ellen P. Fox, Secr tary
ATTEST:
NEW-
im Castile, Vice President
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1992 PAGE 4
BMW
i
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 22, 1992
6:30 - WORKSHOP
TIGARD TRIANGLE REVIEW
o Commissioners discussed the comments received during the Tigard Triangle
Open House held on June 11, 1992. There was concern that possibly the
people who were against change were the most vocal, and the silent
majority" may have stayed home. It was also suggested that the people
who were most vocal may have intimidated those who would otherwise have
expressed support for the proposed plan to improve the triangle area.
Commissioner Schwab suggested modifying the designated plan to have more
Commercial area and less Residential.
Commissioner Fyre noted that the concern most people have in the area is
economic.
There was agreement that most of the people who spoke out against the
proposed plan were interested in the short-term future of the area.
o Al Benkendorf complimented the Commission on their handling of the open
house. He explained there was an incorrect assumption by some of the
property owners concerning input from the public at the beginning of the
planning process. He stated that there were several meetings with NPO
during which 4 to 8 people attended and gave input. He further advised
C that the developers who spoke at the open house compromised the project. i
i
o Associate Planner John Acker advised that the LID information provided
to commissioners from a member of the open house audience was not
accurate, as it has not been established yet. He recommended having the
City Council provide direction regarding the zoning and the LID.
o Discussion followed concerning the Dartmouth extension and its impact on
Kan past and future development. Property values were considered, as well
as current market demand for residential, commercial, and office space.
Senior Planner Carol Landsman suggested: 1) look at modifying Plan D;
and 2) consider possible overlay districts, expanding mixed use, while
keeping underlying land use.
There was discussion of how to proceed. Consensus was to look further
at Plan D and modify it and look at overlay districts. Commissioners
Moore and Boone favored incorporating the Kittleson plan for improving
traffic flow. Commissioner Barber recommended requesting more
clarification from City Council. Commissioner Schwab pointed out the
importance of finding out what political and legal constraints exist.
It was agreed there would be an August meeting to work on Triangle plan. }
RECEIVED PLANNING
C- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 22, 1992 PAGE 1
Kam
,i
1. REGULAR MEETING
President Fyre called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. The meeting was
held at Tigard Civic Center - TOWN HALL - 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,
Tigard, Oregon.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: President Fyre; Commissioners Barber, Boone,
Moore, and Schwab.
Absent: Commissioners Castile, Hawley, Saporta, and
Saxton.
Staff: Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff, Associate
Planner Jerry Offer, City Attorney Mike
Robinson, City Engineer Randy Wooley, and
Planning Commission Secretary Ellen Fox.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Barber moved and Commissioner Moore seconded to approve the
minutes of the June 8th meeting as written. Motion carried by majority
vote of Commissioners present. Commissioner Boone abstained.
4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Planning Commission communications.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
r.
5.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 92-0002 VARIANCE VAR 92-0011 CLINE (NPO
#4) An appeal of conditions of approval #4 and #5 of the Director's
approval of a Site Development Review request to convert an existing
residential home on a 'commercial zoned parcel to a professional office
building. These conditions required the applicant to construct half
street improvements on the site's SW 67th Avenue frontage as a condition
of development approval. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Community
Develop=n4$,- Code Chapter 13.64, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120,
and 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.1.3. LOCATION: 11670 SW 67th
Avenue (WCTM 1S1 36DD, tax lot 3900) ZONE: C-P (Professional
Commercial) The C-G zone allows public agency administrative services,
public support facilities, professional and administrative services,
financial, insurance, real estate and business support services, and
multiple-family residential units among other uses.
4
Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff explained the issues involved. He f
advised that staff recommended denial of the appeal. He answered I
questions from Commissioners.
i
!
i
t
i
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 22, 1992 PAGE 2
i
a
{
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
TIGARD TRIANGLE OPEN HOUSE
JUNE 11, 1992
1. The open house was held at Phil Lewis School, Tigard, Oregon.
2. Present: President Fyre; Commissioners Barber, Hawley, Moore, Saporta,
and Schwab.
PRESENTATION BY COMMISSIONERS
o President Fyre introduced himself and explained the process for studying
the Tigard Triangle which includes gathering input from consultants,
developers, and area residents.
o Commissioners each introduced themselves and briefly shared their
involvement with planning in Tigard and interests in the Tigard Triangle.
o Commissioner Saporta explained some of the details of Plan D and
described how the plan was developed.
o Commissioner Barber described the study process which included 8
workshops the Commissioners participated in. She explained the "vision
exercise" done initially to discover what aspects were most desirable
and undesirable in a community.
o Commissioner Hawley provided specific details about Plan D and explained
how the plan deals with the issues of transportation, livability, and
the desire to decrease dependence on automobiles.
INPUT FROM THE TIGARD TRIANGLE RESIDENTS
The following comments were made:
o The graphic display of Plan D would be easier to understand if the
stl eels were labeled.
1
o Concern was voiced regarding the hi-density residential proposed because
the schools are overcrowded at this time.
o Dartmouth needs to be completed for anything to improve in the Triangle.
o Many people agreed hi-density residential was not desirable.
o One person stated he wanted zoning to be Residential and not Commercial.
o Comment was made about the values of the land, stating they were being
taxed as though the land is Commercial.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1992 PAGE 1
t
i
O One resident who lives on Hermosa Way declared her preference for zoning
to remain Commercial, but she warned residents that if the developer
buys one house at a time, it would not be as profitable for the home
. owner.
o LaValle Allen favored changing zoning in the area only if all the
property owners wanted it changed.
o There was concern about creating parks and who will maintain and pay for
them.
o Regarding the zoning, it was advised that NPO recommended proceeding
with the plan but not changing the zoning yet.
o Planner John Acker answered questions regarding medium density
residential development. There was concern that property values will go
down.
o There was wide consensus in favor of retaining as many trees as possible
no matter which plan is chosen.
o Commissioner Schwab advised that standards of development and better
environmental standards would increase the likelihood of a high quality
community.
o A resident was concerned that single family residential was being
eliminated. Commissioner Hawley explained that this was a typographical
error, as it was not the intention of the Commission to eliminate single
family residences.
o President Fyre explained the City Council's concerns with improving the
City and the desire to create a plan that pleases everybody. He asked
the audience how many people who have single family residences now would
want to live in the Triangle. Consensus was that most would sell out
and move away if a fair price could be obtained for their property.
o One resident was angry that Dartmouth has not been finished, and he said
the lack of development in the Triangle is due to the Dartmouth
extention not being put through.
o One resident urged the Commission to change the zoning back to
Residential.
o Speaking out against Residential zoning, a property owner pointed out
that surveys and tests have shown the area to be low in air quality and
poor as far as noise pollution because of the proximity to freeways and
highways. He said he was concerned that increased traffic in the area
would only increase the noise and pollution problems.
o There was discussion concerning property acquisition and how the market
would determine what property values are at any given time.
PLANNING COMMISSIO{;y, MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1992 PAGE 2
C
1
o Larry Bissett talked about the LID formed some years ago for the
Dartmouth extension. He advised that if the area were rezoned to medium
density Residential from Commercial, this would financially be pulling
the rug out from under the property owners.
He commented on the positive aspects of the mixed use concept. He said
it was obsolete to limit a zone to exclusively one use. He made the
following suggestions: (1) do not change the underlying zoning in the
Triangle, keep it as is; (2) leave fundamental zoning and enact
overlay which will allow flexibility to develop other uses; (3)
development of Dartmouth would then give market impetus. He said this
approach would give more latitude to developers.
o LaValle Allen spoke again about the mixed use concept. He commended the
Planning Commission on their efforts. He said this process has been
going on for 20 years, "trying to shove something down the throats of
Triangle owners." He said he blamed City Council.
o Ron Summerman, developer and real estate professional, disagreed with
the Benkendorff study. He said he is ready to develop the Martin
property, and wanted some assurances that they can go ahead and build.
Discussion followed regarding his obtaining a building permit, with
agreement that there are no guarantees. However, John Acker advised him
when his application is submitted, he would be reviewed under the what
is in effect at the time.
o Robert Freedman reiterated that the lack of a road system is at the root
of the development problems in the Triangle. He also spoke about the
need for developers to "make a go of it" in order to encourage more
development to occur. He discussed the location of the park and design
standards. He urged Commission to leave the zoning as it is.
o Gordon Davis spoke representing West Coast Grocery (Cub Foods). He
commented there was no lack of interest for commercial use. He urged
the Commission to keep the current zoning; otherwise the Dartmouth
extension may not occur.
o Another resident stated he was pleased that Dartmouth has been delayed,
as it would not be beneficial to homeowners. He would like to see more
delay in building this street.
o Comments against high density residential were heard with one speaker
stating that "everybody that lives here wants out."
o Residents who live on SW Clinton spoke about the cloud hanging over
their heads as to what will happen.
o A resident of Bevlin Street advised they love their neighborhood and do
not want to move. However, she expressed concern about over-crowded
schools.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1992 PAGE 3
o There was discussion about the further study of ideas and
recommendations, and it was agreed that street names would be included
in any future plans presented to the public.
ADJOURNED - 9:00 PM
Ellen P. Fox, Secretary
ATTEST:
Milt F. Fyre, President
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1992 PAGE 4
d
f
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 20, 1992
1. 5:30 PM - JOINT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND NPO #4
TO DISCUSS TIGARD TRIANGLE
Present: President Milt Fyre; and Commissioners Barber, Boone, Castile,
Hawley, and Moore.
City Staff: Associate Planner John Acker, Community Development
Engineer Ed Murphy, and Planning Commission Secretary Ellen Fox.
Also present: Dave Peterson, Jen Larson, Ken Rosenfeld, Marilyn
Rosenfeld, Bill Gross, Gordon Martin, Carl Johnson, and Alan Roth.
o Associate Planner John Acker provided an background of the Tigard
Triangle area and pertinent issues. He gave an overview of the Planning
Commission's work do date, and he distributed an outline of the process.
o Commissioner Moore asked NPO members to share their thoughts regarding
the draft plan as it now reads.
o Ken Rosenfeld advised there were some members who would like to see the
zoning left as it is. Dave Peterson clarified the reasons for this
feeling, which he said were due mostly to financial concerns.
o There was discussion of the time frame for proceeding, with the process
including review by NPO and City Council. Associate Planner advised
Comp Plan and Zone changes could begin as early as August. He explained
the public hearing process and said the typical notification to citizens
would be made.
' o Alan Roth expressed concern about SW 72nd, which he stated needed safety
improvements. He favored leaving the zoning in Tigard Triangle the way
it was because it took years to develop.
o Commissioner Hawley addressed the issue of zone change, explaining the
need to have proper zoning to encourage activity and to help those
properties which are being held back from development. She noted there
is an over abundance of office space, which must be dealt with.
o Commissioner Moore explained to the NPO members how the information was
obtained, and he said the Triangle needs proper zoning for protection.
o President Fyre talked about the consultant's presentations regarding
market studies, traffic issues, and topographic factors.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1992 PAGE 1
C.
o Ken Rosenfeld requested clarification concerning page 2 in the
Development Plan where it stated "elimination of single family
residential" was a goal. There was discussion regarding new residential
( in certain areas. Mr. Rosenfeld expressed concern regarding possible
traffic density increases and school overcrowding. Discussion follow
regarding Phil Lewis School and the way the boundaries are set out.
o There was discussion of the concept of "City Village" type communities,.
and examples were cited. Associate Planner provided information about
developers and their role in planning, design, aesthetics, and quality,
which he said is related to market needs.
o Marilyn Rosenfeld brought up the issue of transportation, expressing
concern about access to and from the Triangle area.
o Gordon Martin agreed there was a need to improve the access to the
Triangle. He stated the reason development has not occurred in the area
was due to the poor access. He favored leaving the commercial and
retail zoning as they now are. He preferred to have the Dartmouth
Extension completed to connect with Hwy. 217. He provided a map/plan
designed by Kittleson Associates and explained the changes, routes, and
frontage roads. He talked about the benefits this design would bring
about: 1) it would relieve congestion on 99W, and 2) it would provide
major portal out of Triangle.
o Dave Peterson commented that the NPO thought this plan was a good way to
move traffic in and out of the Triangle. Community Development Engineer
Ed Murphy talked about the 99 W Task Force and advised that Wayne
Kittleson would be making a presentation of his transportation plan at
the April 23 99W Task Force meeting.
o Gordon Martin spoke about problems in developing his own property. He
expressed dissatisfaction that Cub Foods was not invited to give their
input to the Commission. President Fyre advised this workshop was not
the proper forum for solving this issue. Discussion followed regarding
what issues were appropriate for this workshop session.
o NPO #4 Chairman Johnson advised he prefers Plan D, and he added that
people who pay for the LID should be compensated.
o Dave Peterson favored Plan E because the Commercial zone lining both
sides of Dartmouth extension would be an advantage. He believed it
would be better for commercial property to pay for the traffic
improvements rather than residential property.
o In summing up, Commissioner Moore favored Plan D, and he said the most
important issue is traffic. Commissioner Barber advised that doing
nothing was not a good option. She said the plan is not perfect, and
any changes will make it better. She thanked the NPO members for their
input.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1992 PAGE 2
C, .
o Commissioner Castile talked about the many hours of time spent by the
Commission studying the various issues and options. He reminded the
attendees that the meetings have been open to the public and there was
no hidden agenda. He advised they were seeking what will benefit Tigard
and the Triangle property owners.
a President Fyre summarized what had been discussed and thanked the
participants for their comments, encouraging NPO to provide input during
the upcoming process.
7:25 PM WORKSHOP ADJOURNED
President Fyre called the regular meeting to order at 7:35 PM. The
meeting was held at Tigard Civic Center - TOWN HALL - 13125 SW Hall
Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: President Fyre, Barber, and Commissioners
Boone, Hawley, and Moore.
Absent: Commissioners Castile, Saporta, and Saxton.
Staff: Associate Planner Jerry Offer, Assistant
Planner Ron Pomeroy, and Planning Commission
Secretary Ellen Fox.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Boone moved and Commissioner-Hawley seconded to approve the
minutes of the April 6th meeting as corrected. Motion carried by
majority vote of Commissioners present,-with Commissioner Barber
abstaining.
4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Liz Newton advised that the Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee was
recommending that Jo Sorell be appointed to NPO 1/2.
* Commissioner Barber moved and Commissioner Boone seconded to recommend
to City Council appointment of Jo A. Sorell. Motion passed by unanimous
vote of Commissioners present.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 92-0001 ZONE CHANGE ZON 92-0001
ROBINSON (NPO #7) A request for Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change
approval to allow redesignation of-a 2.55 acre site from Medium Density
Residential to Medium-High Density Residential and a zone change from
R-12 (residential, 12 units/acre) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre).
APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals: 1,2,10,11,12,
and 13; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.1,
7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, 9.1.2, and 12.1.1;
Community Development Code Chapters 18.22 & 12.32. LOCATION: 10330 SW
Scholls Ferry Road (WCTM 1S1 34AB, tax lot 3300)
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1992 PAGE 3
C
Jill 5
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 16, 1992
1. Vice-President Barber called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. The
meeting was held at Tigard Civic Center - TOWN HALL - 13125 SW Hall
Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: Vice President Barber; Commissioners Boone,
Castile, Fessler, Hawley, and Moore.
Absent: Commissioners Fyre, Saporta, and Saxton.
Staff: Associate Planner John Acker, Community
Development Director Ed Murphy, and Planning Commission
Secretary Ellen Fox.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Boone moved and Commissioner Castile seconded to approve
the minutes of the March 2nd meeting as corrected. Motion carried by
unanimous vote of Commissioners present.
4. PLANNING-COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
There were no communications.
5.1 TIGARD TRIANGLE WORKSHOP
Associate Planner John Acker reviewed the background of the Tigard
Triangle planning process which has been going on for more than five
years. He described the locational factors which make the area
important to the City. He referred to a memo from Pat Reilly (see
packet), dated June 14, 1991, pointing out the major themes of retail
and residential uses as well as marketing and zoning considerations. He
discussed the citizen involvement process as it relates to the planning
process.
Associate Planner talked about the information in the binders provided
to Commissioners for this meeting. There was discussion regarding the
NPO involvement and input received.
Associate Planner reviewed the completion process and the master plan
which is intended to provide a guideline for future planning. He said
the public involvement will be important at this stage.
o There was discussion concerning the term "Land Use Analysis," and
Associate Planner provided clarification.
o Community Development Director Ed Murphy talked about the existing,
outdated zoning which is not currently in harmony with the natural
features, present market conditions, and transportation. Discussion
( Followed regarding land use and the various elements involved.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 16, 1992 PAGE 1
s
o Community Development Director explained the importance of design
standards. Commissioner Boone was not in favor of too strict design
standards, as he believed they might tend to discourage developers.
Discussion followed concerning language used, with Commissioner Barber
noting the use of terms such as "encourage" and "promote" in the design
standards are seem to be more flexible. There was discussion of when to
present the design standards to the public for their input, as well as
gathering input from developers.
o Further discussion followed concerning gathering input from the public
and the NPO and what information to send out to the Triangle property
owners. Commissioner Hawley suggested sending out the page from the
packet entitled "What We've Done to Date," to update the public on the
process. Commissioner Fessler suggested sending out packets to the NPO
similar to the ones provided to the Commission for this meeting. She
favored giving the NPO some time to digest and discuss the information
to be followed by a joint meeting between the Commission and NPO for
discussion. Commissioners agreed to have a meeting with NPO #4 on April
20th at 6:00 prior to the regular meeting at 7:00, and John Acker said
he would forward the necessary information to the NPO for their April
meeting. It was also agreed to set up a meeting several weeks later
with the property owners.
o It was decided to send "Alternative D" to the property owners and the
NPO to study, but there was some disagreement as to how "polished" the
document should be. Commissioners made suggestions for modifying some
of the language, and Associate Planner agreed to eliminate or clarify
particular statements before sending out the document to the public.
There was consensus to change the section on "Design Standards" to
"Development Ideas." It was agreed to label the document with either
"PRELIMINARY" or "DRAFT". Community Development Director suggested the
Commissioners report ex-parte contact to each other as a matter of
courtesy.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
o Community Development Director talked about "Land Use, Transportation,
Air Quulit} Connection" (LUTRAC) study being sponsored by 1000 Freinds
of Oregon, and also about Metro's "2040" study. He said that the
Planning Commission and City Council could consider a joint meeting in
May for a work session on the "2040" study. He advised he would send
summary information to the Commission.
o Commissioners discussed future transit plans.
ADJOURNMENT - 9:30 PM
C
Ellen P. Fox, Secretary
ATTEST: `
s
vlasta N. barber, Vice President
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 16, 1992 PAGE 2
Council Agenda Item i
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 18, 1992
• Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Edwards.
1. ROLL CALL
Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Valerie Johnson, Joe Kasten, and
Jack Schwab. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; John Acker,
Associate Planner; Ken Elliott, Legal Counsel; Ed Murphy, Community Development
Director; Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator, Catherine Wheatley, City
Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer.
WORKSHOP SESSION
2. COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION -
TIGARD TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Planning Commissioners Present: Vlasta Barber, Vice President; Commissioners
Harold Boone, Judy Fessler, Wendi Hawley, Brian Moore, and Harry Saporta.
C
Benkendorf Associate Consultants reviewed the work done on the plan to date.
During the last four months, the Planning Commission, consultant and staff have
been examining a wide range of development alternatives for the Tigard Triangle
area. This examination has been based on a recognition that:
The T riangle is an important part of the City.
A new direction is needed to encourage development.
Transportation and accessibility are important ingredients to the future of this
area.
The goal was stated as:
Create a living and working environment not now available in the City that
is urban in character and complementary to the rest of the community.
Also reviewed were the following elements of the Triangle: Market assessment, site
assessment, development pIan, transportation, and development standards. '
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MIND M - FEBRUARY 18, 1992 - PAGE 1
~r.. The purpose of this meeting was stated as:
...To gain a consensus among the members of the Council and Planning
Commission on the thrust of this program...
After the presentation by the Consultant, the Council and the Planning Commission
discussed the process to date on this project. There was concern about methodology
and whether too much or too little detail was available at this point. Some
development (i.e., Cub Foods) is likely to occur in the area under existing zoning
provisions.
There was discussion on the concern for the public input process. A great deal of
work is yet to be accomplished in providing opportunity for public scrutiny and
formulation of a draft document for a Planning Commission hearing.
Following the discussion, it was generally agreed the next steps would include:
• Meetings with Tualatin Valley Economic Development Corporation, NPO 4,
Developers, Property Owners & Consultants.
• Market data and property owner interests should be analyzed at the same
time.
C( It was suggested that a "Town Hall" format be used to inform the public. This
would include a presentation of an option(s) by the Planner Commission.
Public comment would be welcomed at that time.
• Once a series of informational meetings had been held, the Planning
Commission will review and hold a public hearing(s). The purpose will be to
determine if the Planning Commission recommends a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA) for the Triangle area.
maim A Comprehensive i Dlpan a A.......~.~......... mendment t,,f re............. commended) public h..aa.u~ ding ..,,,lA
A W~.~ , Wvauu
Now then be scheduled for City Council.
3. REGION 2040: TRANSPORTATION & LAND USE CONCEPTS. PHASE I
Mr. Ethan Selzer of the Metropolitan Service District outlined the details of the
Region 2040 Planning Project. The project results from a recommendation made as
part of the process leading to the adoption of the Regional Urban Growth Goals and
Objectives (RUGGOS). The project is intended to provide guidance for the testing
and implementation of concepts in RUGGO.
C~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 18, 1992 - PAGE 2 '
OEM=
4. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
a. MSTIP II Funds
Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Mayor Edwards, authorizing
application for MSTIP funds of approximately $54,840 as part of an overall
funding strategy to construct bike paths.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present.
b. Oregon Deoartment of Transportation - Six Year Plan
City Engineer reviewed several projects scheduled on the ODOT six year plan
in the Tigard area. Hearings on the prioritization of projects are scheduled
for February 26 (Hillsboro) and March 5 (West Linn). Councilor Schwab will
attend the hearings to advise of Tigard's interests.
5. ADJOURNMENT: 9:15 p.m
Attest: ? Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
c 'Mayor, City of Tigard
Date• 3-10-q2-
h.\rccotder\ccm\crm021s.92
<C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 18, 1992 - PAGE 3
i'
i,'
s
a~. a r
i
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 6, 1992
o TRIANGLE WORKSHOP
Associate Planner John Acker reviewed the meeting of November 18, 1991.
He handed out a workshop agenda and other information prepared by
Benkendorf and Associates. A wall map was displayed showing Alternative
D, which the Planning Commission preferred over the other alternatives,
and it included the modifications Commission had requested at the last
meeting. For comparison, Associate Planner showed a map showing the
existing Comp Plan and discussed the changes.
o There was discussion concerning Cub Foods and how the proposed changes
in the Comp Plan and Zone changes would affect this and other interested
businesses.
o Commissioners discussed population density and traffic issues as they
relate to a unique mixed-use community.
F
o Community Development Director Ed Murphy shared comments and suggestions
regarding land use, transportation, and natural features. Commissioners
discussed the information provided, including where to locate parks and E
how many parks would be feasible, connecting streets for good traffic C
flow, and the potential use of light rail.
o Robert Freeman; a partner in Western Investment Properties, talked about
their interest in building a Cub Foods store. He indicated studies
showed there was more of a market for retail use than for office space
use. He suggested keeping the retail zoning where it now exists along
Highway 99 and locating park area where the school is.
o Discussion followed, with Commissioner Moore suggesting that staff look
at all the issues raised this evening and make recommendations for
modifications to "Alternative D" to incorporate these concerns.
o Al Benkendorf, of Benkendorf Associates, talked about the perception
that 99W needs a change, and changing from commercial to office use
would accomplish this goal. He noted that the Comp Plan allows for a
3-acre park, and he discussed pocket parks as a better alternative.
o There was discussion in favor of pocket parks, and funding these was
discussed. There was agreement that it would be good to have a center
intersection where the streets come together.
o Mr. Benkendorf requested that the Commissioners comment in writing and
return their suggestions to John Acker by January 16th. He briefly
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 6, 1992 PAGE 1
Z
t
111 litial
ill 1611 1 ill:
reviewed the material in the Workshop packet. He discussed the goals,
statements, objectives, existing Comp Plan, and the standards. He used
maps to show the standards now in place and those proposed. He said the
proposed standards would promote more open space, more tuck-under
parking, and smaller setbacks.
1. President Fyre called the meeting to order at 8:00 PM. The meeting was
held at Tigard Civic Center - TOWN HALL - 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,
Tigard, Oregon.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: President Fyre; Commissioners Barber, Boone,
Fessler, Moore, Saporta, and Saxton.
Absent: Commissioners Castile and Hawley.
Staff: Senior Planner Richard Bewersdorff, City Engineer
Randy Wooley, and Planning Commission Secretary Ellen Fox.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Saporta moved and Commissioner Boone seconded to approve
the minutes of the December 16th meeting as written. Commissioner
Barber abstained.
4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Senior Planner Bewersdorff noted there was a memo in the meeting packets
from Liz Newton regarding appointments of two NPO members. After brief
discussion, Commissioners voted. _
* Commissioner Barber moved and Commissioner Fessler seconded to recommend
to City Council appointment of the two applicants as per the suggestions
made by the Mayor's committee. Commissioner Saxton voted "Nay."
5.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 91-0015 GRECO/SHONKWILER (NPO #5) An
appeal of a Director's decision regarding condition of approval numbers
two and four relating to sanitary sewer connection and half-street
improvements on SW Fir-Street respectively. ZONE: C-P (Professional
Commercial) The C-P zoning allows public agency administrative
services, services, financial, insurance, real estate, and business
support services among other uses. LOCATION: 13425 SW 72nd Avenue
(WCTM 2S1 1DC, tax lot 100) APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community
Development Sections 18.164.030 (E), 18.164.030 (N), 18.164.070 (A),
18.164.030 (A) (1) (c) (vi), and 18.164.090; Comprehensive Plan Policies
7.4 and 8.1.
Senior Planner Richard Bewersdorff reviewed the background of this
appeal and explained the two conditions of approval being appealed. He
stated that Condition 2 required connecting to the sanitary sewer, and
he discussed Code policies, Comp Plan Policy 7.4.4, and the Unified
Sewerage Agency regulations pertaining to this situation. He explained
why staff determined that a nonremonstrance agreement was not
warranted. He reviewed Condition 4 which deals with half-street
improvements and discussed why staff determined that a nonremonstrance
agreement relating to improvements on SW Fir Street was not warranted.
C,• PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 6, 1992 PAGE 2
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY MEETING - NOVEMBER 18, 1991
1. Vice President Barber called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. The
meeting was held at Tigard Civic Center - TOWN HALL - 13125 SW Hall
Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: Vice President Barber; Commissioners Boone,
Castile, Fessler, Moore, Saporta, and Saxton.
Absent: President Fyre; Commissioner Hawley.
Staff: Associate Planner John Acker and Planning
Commission Secretary Ellen Fox.
Consultant present: Al Benkendorf of The Benkendorf
Associates Corporation.
3. TIGARD TRIANGLE WORKSHOP
o Associate Planner John Acker reviewed the last two study meetings of the
Planning Commission and the meeting of City Council, in which evaluation
criteria were looked at. He noted that the Planning Commission
expressed a preference for alternative C. When meeting with NPO 4, it
was their strong desire, he said, to have parks, open spaces, and
pedestrian pathways within an urban style development. He advised that
the NPO preferred a design that would be practical.and implementable.
o Associate Planner talked about evaluation criteria and he handed out the
Final Draft of the Development Scenario Evaluation Criteria from
Benkendorf Associates (Exhibit A). He asked Commissioners to read
through the evaluation criteria and requested that each Commissioner
rank the four most important items.
7:55 PM - Commissioner Moore arrived.
o Mr. Benkendorf and Associate Planner Acker listed on a chart the
compiled information concerning Commissioners' preferences. He replaced
the word "other" with the word "implementation" which was the fourth
section on this draft. There was discussion about each section and the
importance of the various listed items.
o Associate Planner noted that the emphasis appeared to be on two areas:
(1) the Transportation section, item 4 "Assures development of a
circulation system that is supportive of the development and
redevelopment of the Triangle;" and (2) the Urban Form section, item 1
"Establishes a living and working environment that complements the rest
of the community."
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 1
I
o Discussion f o i i owed about adding more parks ana open space, and about
where this language should be in the criteria. It was agreed that this
would fit into the Urban.Form section, probably item 2.
o Associate Planner further explained the reasons for selecting a limited
set of criteria..which would provide a means for evaluating the plan.
Consensus was that many of the elements were inter-related and some
terms needed definitions for clarification.
o The concept of "Urban Development Character" was discussed, and there..
were comparisons made with areas in Portland as examples of typical
elements. The need for mixed uses was discussed with the accompanying
residential and occupational requirements.
o The wording of statements in the evaluation criteria were considered.
The following suggestions were made:
Commissioner Saxton: Urban Form #2, "Provides a living and working
environment not now available in the City;" add
the words "urban development with parks and
open space.
Commissioner Saporta: Transportation #4, "Assures development of a
circulation system that is supportive of the
development and redevelopment of the Triangle"
add the words "and provides pedestrian and
bicycle paths."-
Commissioner Barber: Transportation item 1 and 2 may not need to be
stated, as they would be the natural outcome if
items 3 and 4 were chosen.
Commissioner Boone: Choose one statement for each of the four main
sections.
o Commissioners agreed that in Transportation section items 2, 3 and 4
could probably be combined into one sentence, such as: "Assures
dPV01A n+ of circulation that of `--is pm,° L.i system ~haL I Si7ppui'tI vi Wne
development and redevelopment of the Triangle, and encourages the use of
transit, pedestrian, and bicycle paths and complementary land uses."
Another suggestion was to combine Transportation items 2 and 3 to read:
"Provides land uses and densities that are supportive of transit by
providing transit, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and complementary land
uses."
Regarding other section (Implementation) item 1, Commissioner Saxton
suggested that staff fashion some language for this item.
Associate Planner asked Commissioners if the language of the criteria
would work for them, and the consensus was yes, these criteria would be
acceptable.
PLANING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 2
o Mr. Benkendori presented maps showing proposed plan alternatives D and
E. These maps demonstrated the size and placement of residential,
commercial, and park/open space areas and the road system. The plans
Aff differed in that Plan D had more Residential, while Plan E had more
Professional Commercial and General Commercial, minimizing Residential
area. He handed out sheet entitled "Land Allocation Comparison of
Existing Zoning" which showed the amount of land by use as it now exists
and as it would be allocated in alternatives D and E .
o Mr. Benkendorf answered questions and Commissioners discussed the two
alternatives. There was discussion as to number of units per acre
allowed, and heights for high-rise buildings.
o To allow mixed use and flexibility, a designated overlay zone north of
Dartmouth was suggested. Consensus was it would be a good idea to do
this.
o There was consensus that Alternative D was the preferred alternative
with an overly zone north of Dartmouth to allow mixed use and
flexibility.
i
4. RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION (Schumacher)
Associate Planner John Acker described the Right-of-Way applied for by
Mr. Schumacher. After discussion, it was agreed this item could be
decided without public hearing, as Associate Planner was informed this
was proper. Associate Planner agreed to check on this to make sure this
could be done.
* Commissioner Castile moved and Commissioner Moore seconded to recommend
to City Council approval of the Right-of-Way Vacation. Motion passed by
majority vote of Commissioners present, with Commissioner Fessler voting
Nay.
5. OTHER
o There was a brief review of the upcoming December meetings.
o Commissioner Fessler requested that copies be provided showing the newly
chosen Tigard Triangle Alternative D on a map with details. Associate
Planner agreed to provide these to Commissioners.
6. ADJOURNMENT - 9:45 PM
Ellen P. Fox, Secretary
ATTEST:
f
Vlasta Barber, Vice President
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 3
son=
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 21, 1991
7:30 P.M. - TOWN HALL
1. Members Present: President Milt Fyre, Commissioners Harold Boone,
Jim Castile, Judy Fessler, Wendi Hawley, and Doug Saxton.
Members Absent: Commissioners Vlasta Barber and Harry Saporta.
Staff Present: Associate Planner John Acker and Acting Planning
Commission Secretary Diane Jelderks.
Consultants Present: Al Benkendorf and Jim Coker from The Benkendorf
Associates.
2. Tigard Triangle Studv
• John Acker gave project update and introduced Al Benkendorf.
• Al Benkendorf reviewed the Available Lands Analysis and
Alternatives "A", "B'-, and "C" proposals for the Tigard
Triangle.
• Concerns/issues raised were as follows:
- Value of homes in the area proposed for rezoning.
- Number of homes connected to sewer.
- Location of a proposed Tri-Met park and ride.
- The amount of residential density being proposed.
- Whether residential areas should or should not be located
adjacent to 99W, 217, or I-5.
- Which proposal would least impact existing right-of-ways.
- Location of a proposed park.
- Adequate access to the school.
- Need to clarify how the Open space/wetlands area can be used.
- Commissioner Fessler felt the City should work closely with the
School District to ensure availability of schools.
- Commissioner Boone was concerned whether residential should even
be considered for the area. He felt the only views were
commercial and industrial roof tops.
- 72nd Avenue should go through.
- Where the best location for commercial would be.
- What impact would rezoning have on property taxes.
• Discussion followed regarding process. If a plan is selected
what would the next step be. Staff would evaluate by doing a
traffic and cost analysis.
• Each Commissioner was asked to give their input as to which
alternative they prefer.
- Commissioner Castile, Alternative "C", if 72nd Avenue went
through. Also, he would like to see some residential parks,
maybe 100 x 100 rather than a four acre park.
PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES - 10/21/91 PAGE 1
s
t
MEMO! -it 5 oil!
Rig
Commissioner Moore agreed, liked not having residential area by
217 and 99W. Plan needs parks for the medium density
residential areas. No dead end streets.
- Commissioner Boone, Alternative "C", with 72nd going through.
Doesn't see this area as a residential area. Residential area
should be based on size of park land and school. Part of area
should be use for light industrial.
Commissioner Hawley, agreed, except for light industrial. There
should be smaller, parks throughout as part of developments
rather than City parks. 72nd should go through.
Commissioner Fessler, Alternative "C", with 72nd going through.
Needs more connections. Some smaller parks, but would like to
see a larger park further south. Maybe another commercial area
in the middle of the high density residential.
- Commissioner Saxton, Alternative "C", with 72nd going through.
Liked the buffer of commercial along the freeway. Would like
to see the wetlands/open space area with nature trails in lieu
of a park.
- Acting Planning Commission Secretary Diane Jelderks asked to
give her comments. Preferred Alternative "C" because it had the
residential area closer to the schools. No residential areas
next to 217 and 99W. She use to live on 72nd and freeway noise
from 217 was easily heard.
- Commissioner Fyre, Alternative "C", with 72nd connection and a
park adjacent to the school.
• Al Benkendorf distributed a "Development Scenario Evaluation
Criteria", suggested that the Commissioners take it home, review
and consider which criteria they may want to use. They would
be drawing up an Alternative "D" from comments given by the
Commission.
3. Meeting adjourned 9:30 P.M.
Diane M. Jeld r
Acting Plannin ommission Secretary
ATTE T •
Fyr , d t
PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES - 10/21/91 PAGE 2
S
z
Council Agenda Item
{
3 T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L
MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 15, 1991
• Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Council President
Schwartz.
1. ROLL CALL
Council Present: Council President John Schwartz; Councilors
Valerie Johnson, Joe Kasten and Jack Schwab. Staff Present:
Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; John Acker, Interim Senior
Planner; Chuck Corrigan, Legal Counsel; Ed Murphy, Community
Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Relations
Coordinator; and Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder.
STUDY MEETING
2. CODREMTY INVOLVwuw PROGRAM
a. Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator advised:
• The Tree Lighting Event is scheduled for
December 6, 5:30 - 6:30 p.m. at City Hall.
Review of Community Involvement Program:
Ms. Newton reported two years- have passed since her
appointment to this newly created position. She noted
she has become more involved than planned with boards and
committee because of the need for education and guidance.
She noted time is needed for new member orientation vaid
role explanation. She has spent time with the NPOs, on
different occasions, to help them present their case to
the decision makers. Ms. Newton advised that most of the
boards and committees have solid technical support from
staff.
Ms. Newton recommended that the boards and committees be
assisted in making their focus clear; that is, why are
they in existence?
Selection process for board and committee membership will
change because of recent legal advice from the City
Attorney°s office. Board and committee members will be
interviewed at an advertised public meeting and will be
scheduled on Council meeting dates at a time just prior
to the regular Council meeting.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 15, 1991 - PAGE 1
SEEMS=
R
She noted the role of NPOs could be expanded from land
s use reviewers to more of a neighborhood group assisting
# with issues such as crime prevention and service delivery
` suggestions. There was Council discussion on this point.
Councilor Schwartz suggested that a questionnaire be sent
to the NPOs to find out what they would like to be
involved in. There was discussion on the benefits of the
i NPOs focusing on community issues and thereby creating a
neighborhood feeling. Some of the areas of Tigard are
built-out and a shift in focus to issues other than of
land use would be a good next step. Tremendous potential
may exist at the NPO level.
Ms. Newton advised that her ombudsman role has proven to
be more time-consuming in that 50-60 percent of her time
is directed towards answering citizen questions and/or
complaints. She noted her evolvement in this area and
advised that she has become more effective in her role in
educating or responding to concerns.
For the future, Ms. Newton says she would like to develop
a "New Citizen's Packet" to familiarize them with their
local government. Also, she would like to invite new
citizens to an "Open House" to talk about community
issues and encourage them to become involved.
The 30th Birthday was deemed a successful event. Now, it +
must be determined if there will be a similar celebration
next year. The Birthday Committee will meet on
November 8 to discuss the future. In response to
Councilor Schwartz, City Administrator Reilly said this
event, if continued, would probably serve to replace the
former Cruisin' Tigard celebration; it is unclear if the
events' sponsors wish to continue their involvement..
"M1.1a31 CEPS PROGRAM
3. 2CH` lat~ ca~...~-
City Administrator reported that there will be a meeting on
the Metro Greenspaces in Hillsboro on Thursday. Councilor
Schwab will attend.
4. WESTERN BYPASS UPDATE
There will be a meeting on this subject Thursday at the Tigard
Water District. City Administrator will attend. Several
options are under review including a No-Build and an Arterial-
Expansion option.
There was discussion on the-process and the implications of
the arterial expansion option for Tigard. Neighboring cities
also have their concerns. Consensus of Council was to meet
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 15, 1991 - PAGE 2
MIN
no= 11111'
ONE=
individually with the Tualatin and Sherwood Councils. City
Administrator will contact Tualatin to see if it is possible
to meet with their Council before the end of the year.
Recess: 6:27 p.m.
Reconvened: 6:35 p.m.
5. TIGARD TRIANGLE DISCUSSION
Community Develp=, pment Director i ntroduced Mr A! Rgnlr rfen --dorff,
consultant for development planning for the Tigard Triangle.
The purpose of having Mr. Benkendorff meet council was to
acquaint Council with Mr. Benkendorff; ascertain if Council
felt the procedure was on the right track; update Council on
the project status; and review the evaluation process.
Interim Senior Planner, John Acker, noted the project was in
its early stages. The Planning commission is the primary
citizen involvement group and they met in a workshop on the
Triangle on September 9. Staff has also spent time with NPO 4
and the Economic Development Committee. The goal is to
involve as many people as possible in the process.
Mr. Benkendorff reviewed the work flow diagram (distributed to
Council; a copy can be found in the Council meeting packet).
He also reviewed a handout, "Available Lands Analysis. 11
Mr. Benkendorff noted that little has changed in the area in
the last 20 years, while tremendous change has occurred all
around. He advised there is great development potential for
this identified tract; market conditions have slowed making it
an ideal time for planning.
Mr. Benkendorff and Council reviewed a map of the area noting
current conditions in the Triangle. They then reviewed the
results of the Planning Commission exercise. (A rnpy of t:.h4S
which is entitled "Results of Planning Commission Visioning
Exercise" has" been filed with the Council packet material.)
Council discussed the Development Scenario Evaluation Criteria
(this has been filed with the Council packet material). The
property will probably be developed piecemeal; thus the need
for a master plan overlay. Council offered several ideas
including the fact that they wanted the views protected, use
of mass transit encouraged and the use of autos discouraged.
They discussed the perception that Tigard residents prefer a
suburban feel in the community. If dense living zoning is
designated, then it should be balanced with large open spaces.
It was suggested that a list of varying degrees of City
involvement be proposed for Council review and included in the
different scenarios' presentation..
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 15, 1991 - PAGE 3
Councilor Schwartz noted ViFA. Criteria Teo. 10 was the
overriding element; this should be applied '.o Lill i _
steps throughout the process. i
Council will be briefed again after the Planning Commission
and NPO has worked through tbc nee )rt stage :identified in. the
work flow program. {
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The T3_c,~ I'd City Council went into
Executive Session at 7:40 p. i-i . -Linder the provisions o Or's
192.660 (1) (d) , . (e), & (h) tc, J rouss labo.-, relations f :L-c-&1
property transacCions, curren-t-. ~x,6 pending .1 i tigation
7. ADJOURNMENT: 8:20 p.m.
Attest: Cattle ~,c Wheatley ; City Re _ c?c :gin
Mayor, City of Tigard
Date :
can1015.91
i
i
i
i
i
i
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCT0 F C1•R 15, 1991 PAGE 4
r •
7
i
i
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
( WORK SESSION - SEPTEMBER 9, 1991
1. President Fyre called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. The meeting was
held at Tigard Civic Center - TOWN HALL - 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,
Tigard, Oregon.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: President Fyre; Commissioners Boone, Barber,
Castile, Fessler, Hawley, and Moore.
Absent: Commissioners Saporta and Saxton.
Staff: Associate Planner John Acker and Planning
Commission Secretary Ellen Fox.
3. TIGARD TRIANGLE WORK SESSION
o Associate Planner John Acker introduced the Commissioners and the
speaker, Al Benkendorf, of The Benkendorf Associates Corporation.
o Mr. Benkendorf briefly talked about his background and his involvement
with the development of Summerlake.
7:35 PM - Commissioner Hawley arrived.
Mr. Benkendorf discussed reasons he feels this is a good time to work on
the Tigard Triangle project, noting that development has slowed quite a
bit and will become more active soon encouraging more development to
occur.
He referred to a work flow diagram and talked about alternatives to be
developed. He stated there would be a market evaluation, traffic
analyses, and public hearings. He gave a target date of January to
finish up public hearings. He clarified that staff and City Council are
looking to Planning Commission to guide the study of this project and to
J
forward recommendations to Council and staff.
Commissioner Moore spoke about the involvement of the Economic
Development Commission and the questionnaire sent out to property owners
and developers. He said the feedback was very positive, and the general
consensus was "we need a plan."
o Associate Planner John Acker gave a brief history of planning activity
for the Triangle involving various meetings with developers to get an
idea of the desirability of the area.
He referred to a wall map of the Triangle study area. He advised that
NPO #4 had long ago put together a Triangle Plan which spoke to the
conversion areas in the Triangle. It was planned that eventually
residential areas would disappear and be converted over.
C
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1991 PAGE 1
i
He spoke about .l transportation system which w, }seen as an impediment
to development. He described the topography, zoning, and City interest
in the area.
o Larry Bissett, former Planning Director for the City who was seated in
the audience, answered a question for Commissioner Hawley pertaining to
the decision to locate Washington Square in Progress as opposed to the
Tigard Triangle.
o Al Benkendorf handed out a questionnaire for the Commissioners to gill
out regarding urban areas in the Portland Metro area and in Tigard (see
Exhibit A). Commissioners filled out questionnaires.
o Mr. Benkendorf collected the questionnaires and reviewed the answers
while Associate Planner wrote them on the board as follows:.
Nils
1. Favorite urban area in Portland Metro area?
West Hills 18th - 23rd NW Portland
Reed Campus area Centerpointe
Waterfront PDX (mix) Urban Renewal in Portland
NW Portland
In Tigard?
Fanno Creek Park Main Street
City Hall Area Lincoln Center
Summerfield area Bull Mt.
Whole city Morning Hill
Tuality Jr. High area
2. Least favorite urban area in Portland Metro area?
82nd Ave. 82nd St. '
Inner NE Portland Albina/Columbia Blvd.
Downtown Portland SE Burnside to Morrison
East of the Willamette R.
In Tigard?
99W strip Lack of ability to go from one part
core area of Tigard to any other part of Tigard
Down town Tigard
99 W Greenberg to S.
East side of Pacific Hwy. from Fred Meyer to Tigard St.
3. What distinguishes the Triangle area from the rest of Tigard?
- only being bounded by highways on 3 sides
sun - Island surrounded by highways
- major highway access
- access/wooded areas
- isolation
- cut off from rest of Tigard
- unique transportation area
C PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1991 PAGE 2
4, Sacred resources within Triangle?
- wetlands
- some potential for park area z
- maintain
- tree and park-like setting
- wetlands/habitat/sensitive lands
- there's nothing sacred
- nothing sacred
- woodlands
- wetlands
- nothing is sacred
5. Least favorite part in Triangle?
- intersection at 72nd/99W
- traffic
- extremes in land use (residential next to commercial)
- traffic I
- car dealership
- similar use/car lots inconsistent use
- a smorgasbord of land uses
- land uses
- residential use may be the least best suited
6. Future uses to plan for Triangle?
- high-density/non-industrial jobs and housing
- commercial industrial offices with lots of greenway
- tourism attraction/regional park, small shop access
bicycle access
- mix of general commercial and general professional and
industrial park
- multi-use residential commercial with park, planned development
- office may not work perhaps light industrial would
o Commissioners discussed future uses. Commissioner Castile suggested
considering high-rise lw~ 1h-rise cond depe ,.+^/~GIi.,r
n.~ i11~mU11J and an l lnll{.~.IIV b Cv111111Un i ly with
small businesses which service the community. There was discussion of
jobs in this community, school issues, and urban vs. suburban
characteristics.
Commissioner Boone did not see this type of community capable of
providing jobs and supporting economically feasible businesses.
Commissioner Hawley suggested commercial development at the edge of area
to provide jobs.
Discussion followed regarding traffic issues and importance of
complementing the rest of Tigard as opposed to competing with the City.
There was discussion concerning current make-up of the area, ownership
of property, and topography.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1991 PAGE 3
i
11~11111111 Will!
Meeting recessed - 8:50 PM
Meeting reconvened - 9:00 PM
o Al Benkendorf displayed the following graphics:
1. Natural features
wetlands, topography, vegetation
2. Existing landuse
vacant, rest en iai, commercial, public
3. Comprehensive Plan
General CmmerciaT, Professional Commercial, Residential, Public
4. Hard/Soft Analysis
vacant, committed, underutilized, restricted, consider for re-use
Discussion followed concerning residential areas and property values.
The ages and conditions of neighborhoods were considered. Zoning and
zone change ideas were discussed. Transportation was seen as an
important issue to deal with.
Mr. Benkendorf handed out a draft of Tigard Triangle Baseline Scenario
sheet which breaks down the acres by zone an sows type o use see
Exhibit B). He talked about the breakdown of property and how they
arrived at various figures.
Planning Secretary left meeting - 9:20 PM
There was discussion about further research to be done and of three
alternative scenarios to study. The material for the October Planning
Commission meeting would be provided early according to Associate
Planner.
Commissioner Fessler requested information from staff concerning the
Bull Mountain Transportation Plan, and Associate Planner confirmed this
would be provided.
ADJOUNMENT - 9:30 PM
Ellen P. Fox, Secretar
ATTEST:
Mi 1 Fyr s i d ~t
i
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 1991 PAGE 4
i
COU%---lqiA5s,30N-v)UNCc
c
i
November 1, 1992
Timard City Council
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon, 97223
Re: T,Zap 2S1 1BD, Tax Lot 100
3.12 Acres
Zoned, C-G General Commercial i
Hunziker, Gerlach, Van Gordon
Property Owners
Sam
We are the oviners of property which is recommended
lam
to be continued to be zoned General Commercial.
We support the Planning Commission's recommendation
to adopt the revised Master Plan.
Respectfully,
Doris Van Gordon
11~-s=CTS
t
ONES
C
October 11, 1992
Tigard Planning Commission
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Re: Map 2S1 1BD, Tax Lot 100
3.12 Acres
Zoned C-G General Commercial
Hunziker, Gerlach, Van Gordon
Property Owners
The above referenced property has been zoned industrial and
then (C-G) General Commercial since the city was incorporated
in 1962. Surrounding development has taken place with the
knowledge of the existing zoning.
We request the existing zoning remain for the following
reasons:
There is an elevation change between SW 72nd and Hwy. 217.
Any future development would be below the existing
Beveland Street houses. Potential development noise,
traffic and visual impact would not seriously affect the
neighborhood with the permitted development uses such as
business support services, professional and administrative
offices.
Alternate access to the property may be developed by
packaging with other property owners to the North. Even
though the property has not been on the market, we have
been approached to consider this concept. As the property
to the North is largely undeveloped, this optinn is still
open.
The triangle configuration, as well as the topography of
the lot, does not lend itself to pleasant residential
living. The wide exposure to Hwy. 217, with its noise,
pollution and more importantly, the safety hazards, would
not be desirable housing
We feel this property is correctly zoned and respectfully
request the existing (C-G) General Commercial Zone remain in
effect.
Respectively,
Doris Van Gordon
gni'1 u I'''~°I L; ~~I HM,' t
.~a RE P, A- Pi N-_-
m - - =o
~ urr ,
LTJ
2 w ,Irvr
9 _ ~ f
\F\C fit.
1 Y VI\Q,
~
L 1 l 4~
~ I
-FT
ij JF
5 36 -6
f `T~__ . ~ I Dour ~ 3
> 7TI
g4 < J
4r PHIL LEWIS _ E,
ELEMENTARY _
SCHOOL ■ EE -:B ± -
i
n
• 4
TIGARD
0VIC
I I rv
GVIC
CENTER
LAK
i
105
i IOR L II9 1
n,nr 4a _ i ,
f,, ■ rr i4 I\, f
PETITION AGAINST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE
We, the undersigned residents of Hermosa Park, Tigard, Oregon, hereby
petition the City of Tigard to NOT change the Comprehensive. Plan to
Multifamily Residential for Hermosa Park and the undeveloped property i
directly to thg north and wrest of Hermosa Park.:
TAX LOT # NAME ADDRESS
a&lud ~~ca ~ ~ `7lp/y SCJ ~ye~~-~ r2c~• j
2. 2
3. 70 ! % o
4.~ a7vr
8. t~o8 7 s' D rte,
-
10.3 C-14 Q-7j
44,~
j, Qjjm-,~,j
13.3 1~ v 76 / /
~cJ tUtdD ,2
• 14. 3 L'r op
2e, Z
15.
y
1
i
j
l
( PETITION AGAINST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE
We, the undersigned residents of Hermosa Park, Tigard, Oregon, hereby
petition the City of Tigard to NOT change the Comprehensive Plan to j
Multifamily Residential for Hermosa Park and the undeveloped property
directly to the- north and west of Hermosa Park.
TAX LOT # NAME ADDRESS
2.
3. .
5 93 0 S70 ,
6 Leo 7 3/0 5-rt)
8. 150( A•J~f~~ 7 SV-ss al ~/•c.4,d, ora ajwy 7-6,i/4v
i "
10. 'S iv
11. S
e 13.
14
J
15
1
y
j
S
PLAN CjjAt4GE
AGA here to }
$;gardvehengve,'Plan
ermosa paritte k, comp ed property
ned residents = change i - e undevelop
and
Wer the and Cilg yigard to ®sa park
ercnosa
petition a resid of ential fw e of erm park-
~ultifa to the' north and U~RES~ ,
directly p
-JAY. LOT # 0
tom, ! ~ 5 5~ w w
2. s. W.
-7
3.
I S-
'
4.
s.
y 4
I•
8•
11. '
12.
13.
' 14.
15.
NINE, INS
long=
„IM
G
~ . • I,.N, wNr 1400
y . W J401
.fO a,
r l
i • "s~ 402 L h too
• \ ~ = 700 L L
41 % 400 K04 1405 1402 1401 1100 1200 1100 • ` • 1 . I tW •r
23-i
0 7 6 5 4 ' 2 1 fS „rwY
HERMOSO,«•w « WAY s'
1 / wf. ` ~ '~40T 1609 r' t600 N'T_ 1601 r' Ii02 rw e.•160L' • W°w ~
M
J
'~7 1500 1601 Y ! • - : 10 1000
M, I I 1 12 is t :.a ;1 1~0
1 too - {-f • Ir ,Mr
1 n I
I+ is too ZS X'so 406 1600 1606 1604 tf00 f 1 240
1602
IX « y . . f (2wo
22 20 t~ 19 , sd t• IT d 4 q;. = 1:•
! e L
'o Imo` M' N• IN
{ 1 200 4, \ = S. W. 8 EVELAND ROAD S
' 270! 2704 1' 'A
EVE2701 ITttt
2roY' -1, _ - 8 'b
1 . w'f.' Z1W~
270! 2706
1 ~jc ti ` r .
~
.Q • 24 • 25 26 2t= Zs r;( 2f 'a so S : s1. 'd 2600
T a
7A
4J 1900 soo
to,
UMO 4 utr boo
~ i ' ~ t 11
• W GOF;Z
_ „ i, ~ f ~ • Too
' ?I ~ rat
4a.
Ila
10. 1 1 -
. M! swass
~a' j00
Jim
°I
t
x4
ar.«r .«ns. 1400
f. r.r• • 1 40t
^w_r_ uM - J i • t 402 j N »
f !
400 0404 1403 1402 HOt 13W 1200 - 1100
. t Got a^g t
\ I s•r ~1
sF e i HERMOSO WAY .1..-- k
L1607 IB00 M tE01 ~ K02 a.9601r r s a. orw !'P.~..
t3001501 Y 9• s p } lot } V 12 } t5 a t w+c a 1gOD
h loo i . wi ...•N ,
w" w S.
l 1 . r$ w 11R t900~u' 1 ...r w....l.«+°°
1 100 2) 1 u • LN 18A9 19o0 1600 1805 Mott 7 f ? 2,pp•
2 ` 19 '9 b 4• 17 t fb ; % kf; " 1`I'
22 2 • ; 20
} i zoo of 0y \ t S. W. , 8 EYELAND ROAD
\ + - ,
;'OT « « i° « 4s 270'}~ .E J Yt~
` Y rm. 2701 2702 27CS Y70e• Ms 1 2708 .
1 t ~i0;j l • ' 24 ' 25 " 2e f 27 as f \ I: 2t 90 31 ` e 2800 ' .t J
\ .r
i /0 i \ r
500
y
•~~7A`' ! ryq~, y 1900
V ! 10) / 1 •r_ r •00
a/fr \ ~ .jt !1
t i .a tI j`t r
t G0
tS i ~ ~ ` • r Y'~eoo • .
T • 4 700 ..i
is ~ t r•. ~ 4 r '.t.
•t i 3°81 :i 7a i .~.;Y
got
a r ck { t , t
21
AiI
7405 S.W. Beveland Rd.
Tigard, OR 97223
June 12, 1992
l
John Acker
City of Tigard
Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223
I attended the Tigard Triangle Open House, and I have a few
comments I'd like to pass on to you for your consideration.
I think the plan you proposed is basically very good.
Unlike a lot of people who attended the meeting, I don't
want to leave this area. In fact, I just moved here three
years ago because I wanted to live here. In order to create
an environment where people would like to live and work, you
will need to put in a plan like the one you proposed.
The people in the meeting have been very frustrated over the
years and just want to be bought-out. Although their
comments should be taken under consideration, they have no
long-term interest in the Tigard Triangle. They are not the
ones I would look to for guidance in turning this area into
a more desirable location to live.
The following are some suggestions on how I'd modify your
plan:
The area proposed as medium density residential would allow
greater density than the single family homes currently found
here. I think the beauty of this area is in the large lots,
single homes, and all the space. If you are not willing to
leave this area as it is, teen consider zoning part of it
differently. The Beveland and Hermoso neighborhoods could
remain as low density and the rest of the area could be
medium density as you proposed. This would provide greater
diversity in zoning and more choice as to what type of an
area a person could choose to live. My feeling is that most
people on this part of Beveland would not want to see a
duplex or apartment building located here. It would destroy
the area's character. I also feel that having a range of
low to medium to high density would make the triangle even
more desirable than the areas you mentioned in your vision
exercises.
I love the idea of having a park adjacent to the wetlands.
The park would buffer the wetlands and be part of the
showcase that would make this area visually appealing due to
its exposure to Dartmouth.
The neighborhood parks should be funded and maintained by
the development that is near to them. The one park on S.W.
Beveland Rd. in your medium density area is not needed since
we are so close to the grade school and its facilities. If
anything, you could put in a formal path to the school from
i r
Beveland Rd. Right now, a lot of kids cut between two
houses that are next to the school.
Pedestrians should have an easy way to get to Portland
Community college via Haines Road. This would add to the
concept of reducing vehicle traffic and making this area
attractive to more people. I'd like to see a sidewalk
and/or bike path leading up to the Haines St. bridge.
Portland should put in a sidewalk and/or bike path along
S.W. Lesser road as it approaches PCC.
There is also a need to ensure pedestrians can get across 15
and 217 to Kruse Way. At present, you take your life in
your hands.
I'd like the city to take a good look at the businesses that
intend to locate here to make sure we have a good mix--not
an overabundance of fast food shops or gas stations, for
example.
Consider a narrow green space buffer along 72nd St. between
72nd and your proposed high density residential section.
This would give the whole area a park like appearance and
add to its appeal along with buffering the high density area
from the street and from the low to medium density neighbors
on the other side of the street.
Try to save as many of the existing trees as you can. I
think it's important.
One method you may be able to use to find out what people
want the area to look like is through a questionnaire
approach. You recently heard from residents-who were most
upset and want to leave. I would think you would also want
to hear from those individuals who like it here and have no
intention of leaving. Some of these people may have
attended_ the meeting but had second thoughts abort voicing
their opinions in such an acrimonious atmosphere. You can
design a questionnaire to educate people in general and to
get at the opinions of the residents who are here for the
long-term, those people who will be most affected by your
plans.
Please feel free to call me at 624-8276 if you have any
comments or questions.
sincerely,
Bill Erdle
III Ir
RECEIVED PLANNING
JUN 0 9 1992
1809 Brier Way
Carmichael, CA 95508
June 5, 1992
John Acker
% City of Tigard
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Mr. Acker and Tigard Triangle Open House:
I recently received an invitation from you to attend the
Tigard Triangle Open House on June 11 at Phil Lewis School.
Although I will not be able to attend this meeting, I would
like to express my opinion about the planning of the Tigard
Triangle.
The development of this area is of great interest to me. I
have owned land within the Triangle nearly all my life and,
incidentally, I attended Phil Lewis School the first year it
opened. Those who ultimately decide the fate of the Tigard
Triangle will have the opportunity to either utilize this
area to enhance the economic success of Tigard or to allow
mismanagement and lack of vision to stunt the triangle's, and
in turn the city of Tigard's, true potential in the 21
Century. !
The most thought out plan, which will allow the best !
utilization of the Tigard Triangle, is already available to
you at no cost to the city. All we need to do is allow
ourselves the vision to reach out and make this plan reality.
The plan.I'm referring to is the plan prepared by Kittelson
and Associates as well as CH2M/HILL.
Not only will this plan provide the needed reduction of
traffic on Hwy. 99W for years to come, the main street
designed through the Triangle will also connect the area with
the heart of present day downtown Tigard by providing a
bridge over Hwy 217 and the railroad tracks to connect with
Hall Blvd. near the Tigard Civic Center. The proposed access
to this street will be a true convenience for present and
future businesses located within the area.
I can remember when the Tigard Triangle wasn't called merely
the Tigard Triangle but rather the Golden Triangle, because
of the golden future it could help create in Tigard. Let's
pull the Kittelson plan off paper and on to the terrain so
the golden era of the Tigard Triangle can begin.
Mr. Acker, please feel free to read this letter at any
meeting. Thank you so much for allowing me to make my
C feelings known.
Sincerely,
Judy Strojny
`a
-l
R
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
May 15, 1992
Mr. Donald E. Pollock
Don Pollock Investments
i
1834 S.W. 58th Avenue, Suite 202
Portland, OR 97221
Re: Tigard Triangle
Dear Mr. Pollock:
Thank you for your May 7 letter concerning the Tigard Triangle.
Your letter has been forwarded to each member of the City Council
as well as the Planning Commission.
Presently, a Tigard Triangle public meeting "open house" is being
planned in June. All Triangle property owners, of record, will be
mailed a notice of this meeting.
Sincere y,
atric R 1 y
ity A inistra r
c: Ed Murphy, Community Development Director
ptc0515.92
13126 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171
.,.'DON. POLLOCK INVESTMENTS
'1834 S. W- 58th Avenue
Suite 202 ell
Portland, Oregon 97221 r..:
. - - y
(503) .292-4373
FAX (503) 292-4862 OAY
x.992. .
Play "7;. 3492. • ' ~4r~: ~ .
Tigard City Council~y~y,~
1.3125 S.W. Hall Blvd/•
Tigard, Oregon 97223" Re: Tigard Triangle 1`
Dear City Council. members:
_
A; a property owner of several. pieces of property in the Tigard Triangle, I would.
like the City._of Tigard-to be aware of m'y'feeli#gs for' that area:
(1)'• I'oppose-the rezonzng'from Commercial General to Residential.
'(2) We went" into:the'L_I.D. with the understanding that: ve would be
developing as commercial and that we could defer the cost of the
-road-through. income frown commercial development.
(3) We feel that the property o,4ners and developers who have risked their
money in.the Triangle should be the ones who are consulted and be
formulating the plans.for their area and not someone outside of the
Triangle or someone who does•not have an understanding of the
problems.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
stn • .
Donald E. Pollock
C
law
MARTIN INVESTMENTS
C 12265 S.W. 72ND AVENUE
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
TELEPHONE (503) 620.2477
April 20, 1992
is
Mr. Carl Johnson
NPO #4 Chairman
CITY OF TIGARD
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
i
RE: Zoning in Tigard Triangle
Dear Carl:
L would like to applaud NPO #41s motion and recommendation to the Tigard City
Council that the current General Commercial zoning for the Tigard Triangle be
maintained as currently depicted on the Comprehensive Plan zoning map.
The Martins are in utter disbelief that the planning of the Tigard Triangle has
reached this level without direct input from the property owners. We are also very
distressed that this meeting on April 20, 1992 is the first chance we have had to
officially testify against the proposed zone changes..
The Martins have made their position clear at earlier NPO #4 meetings that they
adamantly oppose the rezoning of their 27.5 acres of General Commercial property
to residential. Furthermore, the Martins find it scandalous that the City is now
trying to hide the traffic capacity problems in the Triangle by down zoning the
property to a use that generates less traffic.
The present problem of slow commercial retail development in the Tigard Triangle
has not been caused by lack of demand for retail uses, but by persons and entities
with special interests that have been able to influence and control debate on a
comprehensive transportation plan for the Tigard area. They seem to be motivated
by either saving their pride or not being required to spend the time necessary to
properly design and implement a workable transportation system for the Tigard
Triangle and the highways surrounding it. Too often the decisions of one or two
people are represented as being the City or ODOT backed decisions when in fact
they are often undocumented political decisions contrary to the factual reality of
the area and its highways.
The Planners that are advocating reducing the amount of commercial land should
realize that property near and with access to highways with high levels of traffic is
a diminishing resource and should be preserved for its highest and best use which is
commercial.
l
Carl 3ohnson NPO #4
4/20/92
page 2
The Martins have retained the most qualified engineers in the country to develop a
completely workable transportation plan for the Tigard Triangle and the
surrounding highways. The plan provides sufficient traffic capacity for a 100%
buildout of the Triangle without sacrificing the commercial land uses. Futhermore,
the plan which is the extension of Dartmouth as a five lane arterial collector that
interfaces with Highway 217 and ultimately connects to Hall Boulevard, will
eliminate the need to widen Highway 99W to six lanes. Unless this transportation
plan is adopted into the City of Tigard's transportation plan immediately, the plan
alternatives will be foreclosed upon due to design limitation originating from the
construction of the I-5/Highway 217 interchange project.
Property owners in the Dartmouth LID boundaries originally decided to pursue the
project based on the fact that they could develop their property as commercial
retail, thereby absorbing the expensive street assessments with a high end land
uses. Robert Freeman of Western Investment Properties put it eloquently in his
January 30, 1992 letter to Edward Murphy when he wrote: "These changes would
surely allow the Martins to file additional lawsuits, while at the same time
certainly diminish the economic viability for us and Cub to the point where we are
not able to justify the bond cost for the LID."
It has become increasingly obvious over the last seven years that the City of Tigard
will stop at nothing to get the Dartmouth LID built regardless of whether it will
provide the required traffic capacity for all properties that are paying for it. A
clear example of their attitude is illustrated in the OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF
THE CITY OF TIGARD relating to Limited Tax General Obligation Bond
Anticipation Notes Series 1992 for the Dartmouth LID. On page 16 under
Economic Development it stales that: "Note proceeds will be used to fund
infrastructure improvements for development of this prime commercial property."
(emphasis added).
It is unconscionable and deceptive for the City to advertise in an official document
the sale of $2,643,945.60 in General Obligation Bonds to the public while
representing that the Note proceeds will be used to fund infrastructure
improvements for development of prime commercial property, when in fact they
are simultaneously promoting a change in zone of said property from commercial
to residential.
The Martins urge the NPO #4 to maintain its present position that commercial
zoning in the Triangle be retained as currently displayed on the Comprehensive
Plan Zoning Map. Furthermore, we request that the NPO #4 redirect the City's
misguided planning efforts for the Triangle away from zoning, and concentrate on
solving the traffic capacity problem by adding the Dartmouth Extension / Highway
217 Interface proposal to the Triangle Master Plan and the Tigard Comprehensive
Plan Transportation Map.
Sincerely, 0
t Gordon S. Martin
Enclosures.
GORDON E. DAVIS
1020 TAYLO.:' BUl! DING, SUITE 555
POST OFFICE BOX 8774
PORTLAND, OREGON 97207
503-248-1185
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES February 13, 1992
PUBLIC AFFAIRS CONSULTING
STRATEGIC PLANNING
City Council
Planning Commission
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, Oregon 97223
RE: Tigard Triangle Planning
Dear Members of the City Council
and Planning Commission:
As you may know, West Coast Grocery Company, a division of SuperValu Stores, has just
( completed the purchase of 27 acres in the Tigard Triangle. This land includes a majority of
` proposed Dartmouth Road rights-of-way between Hwy 99 and 72nd Avenue and also includes all
of the homes along Duvall Street.
We have been working on this acquisition for over two years and we have been in active
discussions with city staff throughout this time on a number of issues, including Dartmouth Road.
Both we and the City have long known the importance of Dartmouth as a catalyst for
development in the Triangle. The City's commitment to let the LID proceed and our commitment
to a $5,000,000 land purchase and the development of a major retail complex including a CUB
food store is the type of partnership that will finally get development going in the Triangle.
We have been following with considerable interest the work of the Planning Commission and its
consultant as you have been reconsidering how you want the Triangle to develop. While you are
not yet finished, we want to take this opportunity to share some thoughts and observations.
First of all, we commend you for your work and vision. It is clear from your discussions and the
materials you have developed, that you have begun to shape a new idea of what the Triangle
can become. This is particularly true with your reintroduction of residential uses and the idea of ,
mixed development in the Triangle area.
The idea of a much more intense level of development, a mix of uses, and more "user friendly"
development, is certainly appealing when we truly try to visualize the quality of life for the people
who might live, work and shop in this area. The Triangle may be the place to try to implement
this vision.
However, the preliminary proposals we have reviewed have apparently assumed that the entire
Triangle should develop under this same vision which would be just as limiting as current land
use policies that assume the entire Triangle should develop with.all retail and offices.
MEN! I. :IllllliIill
i
Tigard Council and Planning Commission
February 13, 1992
Page 2
We have the following suggestions:
1. The construction of two major intersecting arterials which will eventually be expanded to
five lanes--Dartmouth and 72nd--creates special use and design problems that do not j
lend themselves to the type of dense, small scale, pedestrian oriented development
that has been proposed in the preliminary drafts. Both arterials are essential to the
efficient movement of traffic through the Triangle. As you know, the City's present land
use standards, particularly with regard to large scale retail and office development, are
designed for exactly these conditions. Treating areas adjacent to arterials with
standards that promote a dense, small scale, pedestrian oriented development,
jeopardizes both the transportation function of the roadways and the viability of
adjacent development.
2. The vision of a mixed living and small scale retail environment will be best achieved
within the residential areas. The types of policies, standards and incentives in the draft
materials, will nonetheless only work if they are applied to areas with a residential base
zone. If they are applied to large scale commercial and office areas, they will only
serve as disincentives and, once again, stymie development within these areas of the
Triangle.
In summary, the goal to "create a living and working environment not now. available in the city
that is urban in character and complementary to the rest of the community" can be achieved in
the Triangle. However, it will only be achieved if the Triangle is divided into smaller areas and
land use standards are selectively applied to each area.
We believe current standards will work best within the areas designated for large scale `
commercial and office development which, based on the proposed land use map, will also
6 ensure that the arterial system in the Triangle continues to function efficiently. New policies and
standards which promote dense, mixed use, pedestrian scale development should be applied
solely within the areas designated for residential.
Such an approach will assist, not hinder development of the Triangle. It also will provide the
opportunity for creation of a diverse living, working and shopping environment that meets the
needs of residents within the Triangle and the entire community.
We look forward to being a part of the Triangle. We are pleased at the prospect that the Triangle
will develop with a range of uses and design standards. The diversity that results will ultimately
make the Triangle an exciting place to live and shop.
We also look forward to continuing our discussion with the City and to following the planning
process.
Sincerely,
Gordon E. Ravi , for
West Coast Grocery, a division of
SuperVafu Stores
MIMI
1008 North iNotk Road • Suite MO ~ Cupertino. 0911 i'llill 0014-19§7
~ - f
r a
Yatlcw Flnant•iai Center. a t408y 496-t17t01 • t-Ak: (408) 996-1029
• t 1;
. a'
Anu 30, 1992. ,
VIA PAk 3* 031Z434M AND U.S. MAIL f
Timothyy V. Ramis, i3sy.
O'I ONKELL RAM,1S, Citi;W & CORRIOAN
1727 N.W. ltayt Strov f:'72
Ponisind, OR 97209
1 t `ril;atti Triangle t
Y•
Dw Tlm., r:
Western InvestmentPropettics, its yott know, hay lirert actively irivolved In theTignrd Triangle
since 19138 when we met with you to discuss our proposed development adjacent to Dartmouth
Road and the pending MaMn lewtutt, whioli had s lowe8 rensu%iction of thus road. At that time,
we were encoutaged to hear from you end vartous: city staff' membtrs that one of the City's
highest priorities; was to complete tho construction of Dartmouth and to promote high quality
development in the Trigngio. • With this encouregeMoit , pie optltined a number of pamets to the
Ttl.anglo and'bmught Cub Food Stores into our pbposad deve opimnt u-s our anchor tanttnt.
Sitim that initial r xtfngg, the tsettletmnt of the Martin. lawsuit had begun to drag on. 1n tut effact
to by to sotdc the lawi I had numerous converssatipns with Uotdon Martin and his attorney,
Chuck Rattan. to draft a developrntnt agftment which oould, In. effect, serve as a sseldemett
di clo nt beA ewel th6t agreement; end the City. You monitored out progress ih drafting this • -
p but,. vnrortunatt:l the tigreetttont was never signed by the
Magins• As you will remember, this sgr to mnt (and, in fact, all subsequent agtxmentsj
guRranttxd the development of our pmperttta utt tzing the earimttg toning and development ;
sn ddaids in exchango for Martins stopping their lawsuit rind guatamoing to pay their L.I.D.
share,
Y
After this agreement failed, we alone offered t6 guWi lt:b MartiWs Share of the L.M. should
their lawsuit prevalt. You had informed us that with this guanritte the City would then be
s
willing to ttwvc forward with the constructlon bf bartmouth. After we dratted this agreement,
we were Informed that the band counsel tiaeded Hditional sectill in order to lttove forward
whit Dartmouth imm6dia#tely, Chit way to protrida this additlonat teoc Aty was to add Cub flood E
Stores' signature, At this point, we were able td convince Cub to join with us In signing the
guarantee, thus allowing Dartmouth to move fotwArd, Unfortunately, after reaching this
• agreement with•the City, the P.C.P.'s initiative wo passel. 17hi9 initiative clouded the entire
issue of L.I.D. financing and, thus, on66 agaln slowed the Constant of Uartmovdif
In spite-or all of these problem., you, Chuck Corrigan and various city stuff mcmbtrts were stilt
post Ive that the City wanted Dartmouth to be, t:ontiNcted and our pmJect to be developed. With
thi in mind, Western Investment Propetider. Want tthead with the pure ase of approximately 16
. '
acres In the Triangle, t_ate last year we onct agairs eneoutaged the City to tmtve forward with ;
Dartmouth by offering a mM$ed guamntt+e, Wttich would not ottly guarantee the. City stgaintt'tha
potential Msa'ttn lawsuit outcome, but also against the P.D.R's initiative. As late as only a few
months ago, we were informed by Chuck Corrigan that the newly modified •guaantee ggneement
would no longer be nerastsaty AnCC the City was willing to move "full spend shead" with tht: f
t
t'nrtnna•r•a•i.a) iG•af I xt.tlr• t'arttu~is,ht tit.` i
tilnaltltinl~ ('t•nlrr 1 fa•t•t•I,aitlturlt .
' +r
„ , ...E
Timothy, . Ratnls. Esu.
0,150 al , Karats, Cribw & C wTi$an }
January 30, 1992,
'
gage ~ •
road without any guar ntrat; Inplark. At that tltnb, Y Asked about the dtvelopnient of fire
'Triangle and was tuld Otat the Chyle attitude toward our pert of th6 Triangle had not changed---
that Is, they wA,tted quality mtatl developm®nt ln•thts tuo unec Dartmouth was consauvied.
This new pledge to trove Dartmouth aloe was VetT ®neouraging to US. At this point, w6 fait we
could. glva a aammlimont to a major retairtemat that out project at sang last would tie tooving
ulsead. Unfortunately, just last ttwridt I heard quitsb~ yacCrdont that the Cif had bleed a plonding
oonsultant to review the entire plan for the 11gatd T Ifigle, to t ornplcie disbollef of this tumor, l : ' j
Called Ed Murphy tend wo lrrl'otttM that in fiat not only was It true, but a meeting was set rot
Janutuy, 6th to review tht; prelfredriassyy results of this new planning effort with the Planning '
Commission. As Y told you, I atttnd 3M this Meeting And wu completely shocked that tho
consultant was proposing nozonln not only our land, but also tht~ Martins' land, Further, the .
proposed plan concerned us sinmit would gxeat~ly diminish the ability of Cub and Pollock to
develop their properties by changing zoning and/or development standards. My shock And great
Concern At seeing this pra sed planning change tbVolves around two basic issues. First, any
changes to the zoning or the Triangle in erteml fAhd to the Martin pra tt t;pt'elfically, will
y
clearly allow the Maftini the abilityy tb addit~ottill iaasuits, Secondly, by ehangin the and/or development standards on i~uVa. PO looks and our property, you are at risk or~osing tho
economic engine that was, rot a large part, msponalble for moving along the construction of
Dartmouth and the ultimate development of the: T'cian lo, lowly, wC were greatly amazod to
find that this major planning action was going on which would directly impact the value of our }
property, without our being InfordW.
Together wlth the City. we have [ought long and had to first sottlo the Martin lawsuit, and when
that was not possible, to then guarantee the construction of Dartmouth. During this entire battle i
we were alwAys on the side of the City. Now t fear out joint efforts in waging this battle could '
be wasted by this ill-conceived lannin action,, It ahouid bo clearly understood by the City that s
Any-action it takes, which modiflee the Unngle, will: (1) be u!cd by Mattln in subsequent
lawsults to once again stop the development of the Triangle; and (z) dramatically Impact the '
ability for the Danniouth L.I.D. to be funded, strict the plan would make much of our properties
tirilmablo and unsaleAblo,
I urge you to remind the city council of our erforte to work with them in promoting the
construction of Vartn uth and the development of the Triangle. please cncourAge them to not '
let our Joint efforts go to waste, In order to enturt; that our joint endeavors are not rquandered, I
think the City Council must provide clear direction to the ptanna to either go back to the original
toning on ours, Martin's, Cub's and Pollock's land, or to delay the implernehtation of this
planning effort until sometime after Dartmouth stood has beta constNOM and our developments : f .
undertaken. ;
Thank you very much for your help.
Yours very truly,
'b' PS'i[-t3P,N INVESTMENT PROPER71M Y11I
ROBERT I3, FREEMAN
General pattner
-11 'C;2
100 0.90 V. Wolfe Road • Suite 310 o Cupertino, Califor •a 95014-2597
Vin tt Fi, a icial Center • (408) 996-0700 • FAX: (408) 996--1127
Ja, mary 30, 1992 VIA FtiY 5031684-7297 AND U.S. MAIL
Ir. Edward J. Murphy
Director of Community Development
CITY OF TIGARD
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: Tigard Triangle
Benkendorf Plan
Dear Ed:
Thank you for informing me of the January 6, 1992 work session sleeting with th° Planning
Commission to discuss the rezoning of the Tigard Triangle in time i -rr me to be able .o attend.
As 1 told you after that meeting, we were shocked to find that planning was going on involving
our property without being formally notified. We were also very distressed to fund out that the
plan proposed major changes to ours, Martin's and Cub's properties. The-.-. changes woula surely
allow the Martins to file additional lawsuits, while at the same time certain:y diminish the
- economic viability for us and Cub to the point where we are not able to jusd!y the bond cost :,jr
the L.I.D.
As you know, for our property, Benkendorfs plan is promoting the rezoning frovi general
commercial to a combination of professional commercial, park and wetlands. Wt have been
involved in this site since 1988, specifically because it was zoned to allow a retail cotntnercial
project to be developed. Had we known that there was ever even a remote chance that this
property would be zoned professional commercial, we never would have become involved with
it In discussing the professional commercial zone after this meeting with numerous office
developers we found that we could not give our land away for office development, even if we
paid for the LXD. In fact, one developer told us that there was enough office product alread; on
the market to meet demand for the next ten years. Secondly, Benkendorfs plan proposes a park
directly on the major curve of Dartmouth. Certainly, this non-centralized park located at the
most dangerous location on a high speed road makes poor planning logic. This poor planning is
certainly exacerbated by the fact that even if the City would be willing to acquire our land, they
then would be faced with the very high L.I.D. assessments, since the park is proposed
immediately contiguous to Dartmouth Road Additionally, showing a major portion of our
southerly property as wetlands without a formal wetlands study also shows poor planning
judgment. Finally, the proposed plan is shortsighted in that it does not lend itself to the potential
reality that Dartmouth could someday extend over 217 to Hall Boulevard
As we also discussed, I am greatly concerned with Mr. Benkendorfs proposed development
standards for commercial, which in my opinion would legislate his outdated prejudices against
commercial development instead of encouraging logically planned and architecturally compatible
projects with integrated landscaping and signing criteria. Legislating the elimination of strip
commercial buildings and freestanding pads in this market area makes absolutely no planning or
economic sense.
Shopping Center Development Commercial Real 1=state. Partnerships
JAN 31 '92 15:08 WESTEPN I' - E=:_ TI^,E; 1 f
Mr. Edward J. Murphy
City of Tigard
January 30,1992
Page 2
Thus, rd, we encourage you to work with NU. Benkendorf in developing a Man for the Triangle
that w ould recognize both the realities of potential Martin lawsuits, as well a` the need to allow
pv des which ay fos the development of Dartmouth to be economicall , developed.
Ad& zonally, your help its eliminating some of Mr. Benkendorfs outdated prejudices and
substctuting insightful planning, architectural and landscape design standards wo.tld be greatly j
appri xiated, not only by us, but I am certain by a great many of Tigard's citizens.
i
Unff, munately, I will not be able to attend the joint Planning Comraission/City CounAl work s
ws., ion on the Benkendorf plan. but in my place my partner, Chuck Marsh, will be atte.nding. At
tha- time, W Marsh will voice our concerns on the Benkendorf plan.
I Ic plc forward to worldng with you in revising the plan for the Triangle to recognize the volitical !
am economic realities of this area. Please let me know should you have any questions.
Yo frs very truly,
WESTERN RWES71e.N ' PltOPPATTES VM ~
i
--4 A
ROBERIf E. FREEMAN
General Partner
cc: Timothy V. Ramis, Esq.
Charles L. Marsh. Jr.
S
t
t
!
MIER!
( PETITION AGAINST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE ~
1
We, the undersigned residents of Hermosa Park, Tigard, Oregon, hereby
petition the City of Tigard to NOT change the Comprehensive Plan to
Multifamily Residential for Hermosa Park and the undeveloped property
directly to the north and west of Hermosa Park.
TAX LOT # NAME ADDRESS
/M~A I'--
2. /6D7 J>.
OW
4.
X316
5
t ~ Z/1
6 o y~4)~ 7310 S~y 4e
o
7a &,Q
9..j 56 j 3, W.
-s iv-
L7
Olt)- 11
13 LI
• 14 y
15 O
•,i=ra'xo~ ' ~ 1601 p - G•
1 x00 `"•r w~•, K r ~ .~y,.o..
• s. Y i -
' !'.:Sale ~ aro.• 2 rn 1 S~'.~.
.ON ~ x ~ . s,l tl[I3 i [IOt11~
` . x f00 i 1 Z Y
ago,
lo_
C u01 Ia01 I I L -74-
_ II
.41N. 130D oil
i , e r 1 i I 11 Yte _ so
Q s . I z 23
~J r -
x H ERMOSO
- T _ _ . n WAY r ••"a._ - "-~.rnn-u•r ~?I _i 1 1 I. .
•r•~ .r•+ -•r•i ,Yr0i Ib0!-' I1mo- r00'uT_ ii01- - - t x, - - • e~gl0[11x212x{MY[I
1 + loo r Isao 1e01 1111 : O O d
1, Ni 11 l /T J1 'j i•~"'.+ .°.•r"v. o t sIW v~. .
loo raa•r 'f i•n Z [ :r7 lo
1 I I . ~w
.i 1=_ s lava smf, i
as
I 7 v a If0l w' , • i 1~ 1 l71
1 1 . °~9• • . ,N •ra• j1iW" i06• aai" aleoo...n I,x'a' i
Iw r `F + [a t • _ 1! [I r . / a T~00 am • x701 zxm• aa0 y].•1 'i sl
9p 23=81
1 iw r1• • .r, ~1.-.-- r j • n• ..1 i • i I e o ~Lr
Y•a11 W. B EVELAND • S t 1 IL A I D 111 » - ~y_
ROAD 1 ~Gj4 xM1 - zio¢" xro~ I no:° z>os" _ w•- Y - so-
9Pp ' za x xra~ :roY"' BEHE{iAND ST.
\X~ ! P! zrrli m!{i 1 w sl x Stlth mco --a
1T_
y »r... a two
i 23T Cyr \ J r. i slM,at It°I
Im 9 j ..e:,, a • III 1 , 1I 1
1[00
5W
loo
V /7 r~~ soo I i Lam` ..n
1,\ la .z i~ to i1 ° i r I I i
7-0 i°ic vo ~~Y i~° ; f✓ a N
GONZAGA .STREET --fi
r-zw- i~ r Ix & xaoo
700
I1o
0;_ o I , Ta . 1 70 • , s :~i lll'e 111 ~1 n I _I i .
1 L~ ' so-
~e
NII
Owosso op
1
f
t
A
• lf,!";~ x
r
IN ®R
,Q If
PETITION AGAINST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE
We, the undersigned residents of Hermosa Park, Tigard, Oregon, hereby
petition the City of Tigard to NOT change the Comprehensive Plan to ~
Multifamily Residential for Hermosa Park and the undeveloped property !
'
directly to the north and west of Hermosa Park.'
TAX LOT # NAME ADDRESS
~mz Jadid -?v7-1 Cep `7CP/v S CJy e~cu~ i'co. c
5. d3 7 s~~~
8. Lf 0$
7-06G ~kVe Z .
10.: (14o -7)
12.
13.' 3 !s 00 JI-ri 511 ~ 7~ /S • /,'d
14. 3 C~S~~~) ~fl ✓ n Z S, 'U BEG'~L h ab
15.
- -
loon
NEWS
2a0 ~ , 4.7
' c.i i , e ►l h 7211 1~ O ~ .
'te='a y
40, ".00
o w.e w 71
Ls1 s 402 - y :L 7a~ - , 1 1 , i
~ ti nod- ~se_
i_-
--•1• • wo. i ,.O] NOt 11,0 1700 1200 ,p0 `c•-~s ao
a 23-81
y HERMOSO WAY ei,a{w~t:lzz,u~+,
law
• too loo .z j1H L a ;f~n 1, SY,„ E ,z u , , I•°O.r. r 1 - -~7` salt, 1
7aa.. C: D va0
14 i . B s 2 . ytb ,eo7Y *00 1,600 ,aa6• woi rnco...n r••,.. two
11..y 111
• r.• F9 not ! - 200 lua no0 `-m-
t 20 _
2 erg' ° t p a,2000 ,n _ ,mt„
IT
i ~ro ri e
! \ ' t S. W. B EVELAND ;r y 4~- A 0 _-it-
ROAD
I 'c nm~ z2o, zr0i zro" ST. f • g - s
6
i ~C'• 21a I zro~°K i z~ 2roY" a $ Vh - 'BEVE AIID t40o
ea v
zs p n a+ To ~t m i. 70
oil,
23 74 ti~ . s . .
"00 400
wo 400
600
i' 7 ~1 C1 r..r 1;
`I/Jl° GONZASA STREET ^---tom
sw 20.
7 90C~ i 900
Z/ ce-
~ . I • a
2a •
PETITION AGAINST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE
We, the undersigned residents of Hermosa Park, Tigard, Oregon, hereby
petition the City of Tigard to NOT change the Comprehensive . Plan to
Multifamily Residential for Hermosa Park and the undeveloped property
directly to the north and west of Hermosa Park.
TAX LOT # NAME ADDRESS
73& 5
2. 17 -73
732'j. Z?
5 /S-
9.
11. l ~~Sy~s S w
12.
13.
14.
15.
f
mum
G .xpp 1 ] 1
s`s ad:n t~
r' ] I II-
- Ste,.
40,
120
6 .su ] _ .600 ` 1 Y Li
%
N0. 1.01 1003 1•a 1a00 1x00 1400 y41
a H ERMOSO WAY r r n its
~IWi X605 ~ T~=--Mpp 1001- IfCx'e• ..760.1- ~ f '1 ' . Sit
Y
-7 ,um 601 a *
~ ` ' loo r a~q ! llliu
1 loo - aaa •r =i x'H _ ( 1. Jln t voaf ` 1 I
51
23 .03 { h _ x afN' woe• i 1600'• 1606• 100•w Ia00•w.•l' . , 1 /au. w./+ ' • 1 $.,y 1 i1
' "+1'w•• ~r 9~F 1 . Jx i • = m i la u i ~ Ir 1 a - x'~ moo 2'x iua ri0D i C 79
sue
{1
S. W. 8 EVELAND ROAD --p-
3 \ . +r`zan~ :>ol` xrox"• l z70i r0:r. • 1-- ,rl ST~~ t' - =•y
m1~ mb :nV'1 a 5V{F- - .BEVE4,rAND u _n
,c9fl i s. I x] as n ss i; r Y n WO ]aoa r Y +-.I T's
~ h I I : I6 ~ ~ o{ 1 1 1 ~ ' 1a
to 22
{ ~ ! \ .-ark ~ a~• - 1 ~ , 1
23-74 ti9. SIN
no0 loo
300
-ZU
AO
600 r': 10 Ij t a ] i` I I I
GONZAGA ..•STREET-~ n_ -
SW '0000` xoc~ zvo= ~
700 II 1' 16 _
\ x0
i
I N I • Y• A L>-}
a~ try ~1 m IYe _
lull
t3~ $1 Ls.l ~ '„•:et S /ri7 to 4so ~ .t=~:.._~.~~•
t
kti ZL•'t- tl!-11
~ M.f ~s.N•I 1
fi• v.• W N Ti lAW---r
Q Q0
nvo
{ 91 ~ s} r- a ~S• 1.
3 Y ` I,11 .•1 I.I.w
to Lwd
LL,
i is = ~ $ ~ M •s / •.a~,
I $ vi ,
iI 00 • i
001-
I
iijj
.j
y CLARIFICATION STATEMENT FOR SEPTEMBER ZONING PETITION
On or about September 1, 1992, a significant majority of the property owners in the
Hermosa Park residential neighborhood requested by petition that: the City of Tigard
" change the comprehensive plan to multi-family residential for Hermosa Park and the
undeveloped property directly to the north and wrest of Hermosa Park."
During Its October hearing for the Tigard Triangle Plan, the Tigard Planning Commission
voted in support of the petitioners by voting 4-3 against a change in the comprehensive plan
relating to Hermosa Park and the undeveloped property directly to the north and west of
Hermosa Psrk. However, there are members of the city staff and planning commission who
have misinterpreted the petition. The intent of this clarification statement is to eliminate
any further misinterpretation of the petition by the city staff or the planning commission
members at the city council's Tigard Triangle Plan Hearing scheduled for November 24,
1992 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall.
The rationale behind the petition was based on the fact that the triangle is becoming an
increasingly undesirable location for residential neighborhoods. This undesirability is due
to the high levels of Noise and pollution associated with increasing traffic volumes on the
major highways surrounding the triangle and an increase in traffic that has been and will
be generated by new commercial development within the triangle.
The Hermosa Park residents recognize that as a group the best way to profitably relocate
their residences to a more desirable neighborhood is to have their individual properties
consolidated into one parcel for commercial development. This is the only land use that can
generate property values which will allow profitable neighborhood relocation.
Combining the Hermosa Park site with the undeveloped commercial property to the north
and west, or at least having it directly adjacent to commercial development on the property
to the north and west (rather than multi-family, as has been promoted by city staff in the
past), is essential to maintaining Hermosa Park as an attreetive and viable future
commercial site. The workability of profitable conversion has been demonstrated on the
Cub Food Site, where the Duvall Street neighborhood was recently purchased for
conversion to commercial use. This conversion was 1300 feet north of Hermosa Park.
We the undersigned do hereby ratify and support this clarification statement:
TAX LOT# NAME ADDRESS
1. t a, U- t~1 7 3 o w I ►m~S
2.
3.~
a
CLAIRLIPICATION STATEMENT FOR SEPTEMBER ZONING PETITION
On or about September 1, 1992, a significant majority of the property owners in the
Hermosa Park residential neighborhood requested by petition that: the City of Tigard
"&Q,r change the comprehensive plan to multi-family residential for Hermosa Park and the
undeveloped property directly to the north and west of Hermosa Park."
During its October hearing for the Tigard 'T'riangle Plan, the Tigard Planning Commission
voted in support of the petitioners by voting 4-3 against a change in the comprehensive plan
relating to Hermosa Park and the undeveloped property directly to the north and west of
Hermosa Park. However, there are members of the city staff and planning commission who
have misinterpreted the petition. The intent of this clarification statement is to eliminate
any further misinterpretation of the petition by the city staff or the planning commission
members at the city council's Tigard Triangle Plan Hearing scheduled for November 24,
1992 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall.
The rationale behind the petition was based on the fact that the triangle is becoming an
Increasingly undesirable location for residential neighborhoods. This undesirability is due
to the high levels of noise and pollution associated with Increasing traffic volumes on the
major highways surrounding the triangle and an increase in traffic that has been and will
be generated by new commercial development within the triangle.
The Hermosa Park residents recognize that as a group the best way to profitably relocate
their residences to a more desirable neighborhood Is to have their individual properties
consolidated into one parcel for commercial development. This is the only land use that can
generate property values which will allow profitable neighborhood relocation.
Combining the Hermosa Park site with the undeveloped commercial property to the north
and west, or at least haying It directly adjacent to commercial development on the property
to the north and west (rather than multi-family, as has been promoted by city staff in the
past), Is essential to maintaining Hermosa Par:: as an attractive and viable future
commercial site. The workability of profitable conversion has been demonstrated on the
Cub Food Site, where the Duvall Street neighborhood was recently purchased for
conversion to commercial use. This conversion was 1340 feet north of Hermosa Park.
We the undersigned do hereby ratify and support this clarification statement:
TAX LOT# N E ADDRESS
1. 766 ~l.~t
2.
3.
` CLARIFICATION STATEMENT FOR SEPTEMBER ZONING PETITION
On or about September 1, 1992, a significant majority of the property owners in the
Hermosa Park residential neighborhood requested by petition that: the City of Tigard
"Y_Q_l change the comprehensive plan to multi-family residential for Hermosa Park and the
undeveloped property directly to the north and west of Hermosa Park."
During its October hearing for the Tigard Triangle Plan, the Tigard Planning Commission
voted in support of the petitioners by voting 4-3 against a change in the comprehensive plan
relating to Hermosa Park and the undeveloped property directly to the north and west of
Hermosa Park. However, there are members of the city staff' and planning commission who
have misinterpreted the petition. The intent of this clarification statement is to eliminate
any further misinterpretation of the petition by the city staff or the planning commission
members at the city council's Tigard Triangle Plan Hearing scheduled for November 24,
3992 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall.
The rationale behind the petition was based on the fact that the triangle is becoming an
increasingly undesirable location for residential neighborhoods. This undesirability is due
to the high levels of noise and pollution associated with increasing traffic volumes on the
major highways surrounding the triangle and an increase in traffic that has been and will
be generated by new commercial development within the triangle.
The Hermosa Park residents recognize that as a group the best way to profitably relocate
their residences to a more desirable neighborhood is to have their individual properties
consolidated into one parcel for commercial development. This is the only land use that can
generate property values which will allow profitable neighborhood relocation.
Combining the Hermosa Park site with the undeveloped commercial property to the north
and west, or at least having it directly adjacent to commercial development on the property
to the north and west (rather than multi-family, as has been promoted by city staff in the
past), is essential to !maintaining Hermosa Park as an attractive and viable future
commercial site. The workability of profitable conversion has been demonstrated on the
Cub Food Site, where the Duvall Street neighborhood was recently purchased for
conversion to commercial use. This conversion was 1300 feet north of Hermosa Park.
We the undersigned do hereby ratify and support this clarification statement:
TAX L®T# NAME ADDRESS
- 7 Zti3
1. C- 7 ' 5w- zkd~
2.
3.
e. CLARIFICATION STATEMENT FOR SEPTEMBER ZONING PETITION
On or about September 1, 1992, a significant majority of the property owners in the
Hermosa Parts residential neighborhood requested by petition that: the City of Tigard
"=change the comprehensive plan to multi-family residential for Hermosa Park and the
undeveloped property directly to the north and west of Hermosa Park."
During its October hearing for the Tigard Triangle Plan, the Tigard Planning Commission
voted in support of the petitioners by voting 4-3 against a change in the comprehensive plan
relating to Hermosa Park and the undeveloped property directly to the north and west of
Hermosa Park. However, there are members of the city staff and planning commission who
have misinterpreted the petition. The Intent of this clarification statement is to eliminate
any further misinterpretation of the petition by the city staff or the planning commission
members at the city council's Tigard 'T'riangle Plan Dearing scheduled for November 24,
1942 at 7:36 p.m. at City Hall.
The rationale behind the petition was based on the fact that the triangle is becoming an
Increasingly undesirable location for residential neighborhoods. This urdesirablllty Is due
to the high levels of noise and pollution associated with increasing traffic volumes on the
major highways surrounding the triangle and an increase in traffic that has been and will
be generated by new commercial development within the triangle.
The Hermosa Park residents recognize that as a group the best way to profitably relocate
their residences to a more desirable neighborhood Is to have their individual properties
consolidated into one parcel for commercial development. This is the only land.use that can
generate property values which will allow profitable neighborhood relocation.
Combining the Hermosa Park site with the undeveloped commercial property to the north
and west, or at least having it directly adjacent to commercial development on the property
to the north and west (rather than multi-family, as has been promoted by city staff In the
past), is essential to maintaining Hermosa Park as an attractive and viable future
commercial site. The workability of profitable conversion has been demonstrated on the
Cub Food Site, where the Duvall Street neighborhood was recently purchased for
conversion to commercial use. This conversion was 1300 feet north of Hermosa Park.
We the undersigned do hereby ratify and support this clarification statement:
TAX LOT# NAME ADDRESS
2.
3.
low
R CLARIFICATION STATEMENT FOR SEPTEMBER ZONING PETITION
On or about September 1, 1992, a significant majority of the property owners in the
Hermosa Park residential neighborhood requested by petition that: the City of Tigard
"=change the comprehensive plan to multi-family residential for Hermosa Park and the
undeveloped property directly to the north and west of Hermosa Park."
During its October hearing for the Tigard Triangle Plan, the Tigard Planning Commission
voted in support of the petitioners by voting 4-3 against a change in the comprehensive plan
relating to Hermosa Park and the undeveloped property directly to the north and west of
Hermosa Park. However, there are members of the city staff and planning commission who
have misinterpreted the petition. The intent of this clarification statement is to eliminate
any further misinterpretation of the petition by the city staff or the planning commission
members at the city council's Tigard Triangle Plan Nearing scheduled for November 24,
1992 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall. '
The rationale behind the petition was based on the fact that the triangle is becoming an
increasingly undesirable location for residential neighborhoods. This undesirability is due
to the high levels of noise and pollution associated with increusing traffic volumes on the
major highways surrounding the triangle and an Increase in traffic that has been and will
be generated by new commercial development within the triangle.
The Hermosa Park residents recognize that as a group the best way to profitably relocate
their residences to a more desirable neighborhood is to have their individual properties
consolidated into one parcel for commercial development. This is the only land use that can
generate property values which will allow profitable neighborhood relocation.
Combining the Hermosa Park site with the undeveloped commercial property to the north
and west, or at least having It directly adjacent to commercial development on the property
to the north and west (rather than multi-family, as has been promoted by city staff in the
past), is essential to maintaining Hermosa Park as an attractive and viable future
commercial site. The workability of profitable conversion has been demonstrated on the
Cub Food Site, where the Duvall Street neighborhood was recently purchased for
conversion to commercial use. This conversion was 1300 feet north of Hermosa Park.
We the undersigned do hereby ratify and support this clarification statement:
TAX LOT# Ali ADDRESS
1. - qal t
3.
MINE
CLARIFICATION STATEMENT FOR SEPTEMBER ZONING PETITION
On or about September 1, 1992, a significant majority of the property owners in the
Hermosa Park residential neighborhood requested by petition that: the City of Tigard
change the comprehensive plan to multi-family residential for Hermosa Pant and the
undeveloped property directly to the north and west of Hermosa Park."
During its October hearing for the Tigard Triangle Plan, the Tigard Planning Commission
voted in support of the petitioners by voting 4-3 against a change in the comprehensive plan
relating to Hermosa Park and the undeveloped property directly to the north and west of
Hermosa Park. However, there are members of the city staff and planning commission who
have misinterpreted the petition. The intent of this clarification statement is to eliminate
any further misinterpretation of the petition by the city staff or the planning commission
members at the city council's Tigard Triangle Plan Hearing scheduled for November 24,
1992 at 7:30 p.m. at City Fall.
The rationale behind the petition was based on the fact that the triangle is becoming an
increasingly undesirable location for residential neighborhoods. This undesirability is due
to the high levels of noise and pollution associated with Increasing traffic volumes on the
major highways surrounding the triangle and an increase in traffic that has been and will
be generated by new commercial development within the triangle.
The Hermosa Park residents recognize that as a group the best way to profitably relocate
their residences to a more desirable neighborhood is to have their individual properties
consolidated into one parcel for commercial development. This is the only land use that can
generate property values which will allow profitable neighborhood relocation.
Combining the Hermosa Parr site with the undeveloped commercial property to the north
and west, or at least having it directly adjacent to commercial development on the property
to the north and west (rather than multi-family, as has been promoted by city staff in the
past), Is essential to maintaining Hermosa Park as an attractive and viable future
commercial site. The workability of profitable conversion has been demonstrated on the
Cub Food Site, where the Duvall Street neighborhood was recently purchased for
conversion to commercial use. This conversion was 1300 feet north of Hermosa Park.
We the undersigned do hereby ratify and support this clarification statement:
TAX LOTif NAME ADDRESS
2.
3.
CLARIFICATION STATEMENT FOR SEPTEMBE11. ZONING PETITION
On or about September 1, 1992, a significant majority of the property owners in the
Hermosa Park residential neighborhood requested by petition that: the City of Tigard
"=T change the comprehensive plan to multi-family residential for Hermosa Park and the
undeveloped property directly to the north and west of Hermosa Park."
During its October hearing for the Tigard Triangle Plan, the Tigard Planning Commission
voted in support of the petitioners by voting 4-3 against a change In the comprehensive plan
relating to Hermosa Park and the undeveloped property directly to the north and west of
Hermosa Park. However, there are members of the city staff and planning commission who
have misinterpreted the petition. The Intent of this clarification statement is to eliminate
any further misinterpretation of the petition by the city staff or the planning commission
members at the city council's Tigard Triangle Plan Dearing scheduled for November 24,
1992 at 7:30 p.m. at City Ralf.
The rationale behind the petition was based on the fact that the triangle is becoming an
increasingly undesirable location for residential neighborhoods. This undesirability is due
to the high levels of noise and pollution associated with increasing traffic volumes on the
major highways surrounding the triangle and an increase in traffic that has been and will
be generated by new commercial development within the triangle.
The Hermosa Park residents recognize that as a group the best way to profitably relocate
their resides to a more desirable neighborhood is to have their individual propeeties
consolidated into one parcel for commercial development. This is the only land use that can
generate property values which will allow profitable neighborhood relocation.
Combining the Hermosa Park site with the' undeveloped commercial property to the north
and west, or at least having it directly adjacent to commercial development on the property
to the north and west (rather than multi-family, as has been promoted by city staff in the
past), is essential to maintaining Hermosa Park as an attractive and viable future
commercial site. The workability of profitable conversion has been demonstrated on the
Cub Food Site, where the Duvall Street neighborhood was recently purchased for
conversion to commercial use. This conversion was 1300 feet north of Hermosa Park.
We the undersigned do hereby ratify and support this clarification statement:
TAX L®T# NAME ADDRESS
1. 0 C)
2.
3•
CLARIFICATION STATEMENT FOR SEPTEMBER ZONING PETIT ION
On or about September 1, 1992, a significant majority of the property owners in the
Hermosa Park residential neighborhood requested by petition that: the City of Tigard
"NOT change the comprehensive plan to multi-family residential for Hermosa Park and the
undeveloped property directly to the north and west of Hermosa Park."
During its October hearing for the Tigard Triangle Plan, the Tigard Planning Commission
voted in support of the petitioners by voting 4-3 against a change in the comprehensive plan
relating to Hermosa Park and the undeveloped property directly to the north and west of
Hermosa Park. However, there are members of the city staff and planning commission who
have misinterpreted the petition. The intent of this clarification statement is to eliminate
any further misinterpretation of the petition by the city staff or the planning commission
members at the city council's Tigard Triangle Plan Bearing scheduled for November 24,
1992 at 7:30 p.m. at City Fall.
The rationale behind the petition was based on the fact that the triangle is becoming an
increasingly undesirable location for residential neighborhoods. This undesirability is due
to the high levels of noise and pollution associated with increasing traffic volumes on the
major highways surrounding the triangle and an Increase in traffic that has been and will
be generated by new commercial development within the triangle.
The Hermosa Park residents recognize that as a group the best way to profitably relocate
their residences to a more desirable neighborhood is to have their individual properties
consolidated into one parcel for commercial development. This is the only land use that can
generate property values which will allow profitable neighborhood relocation.
Combining the Hermosa Park site with the undeveloped commercial property to the north
and west, or at least having it directly adjacent to commercial development on the property
to the north and west (rather than multi-family, as has been promoted by city staff in the
past), is essential to maintaining Hermosa Park as an attractive and viable future
commercial site. The workability of profitable conversion has been demonstrated on the
Cub Food Site, where the Duvall Street neighborhood was recently purchased for
conversion to commercial use. This conversion was 1300 feet north of Hermosa Park.
We the undersigned do hereby ratify and support this clarification statement:
TAX LOT# N ADDRESS
1.
Ay~
2.
# 3.
C1LAPLIFICATI+L N STATEMENT FOR SEPTEMBER ZONING PETITION
On or about September 1, 1992, a significant majority of the property owners in the
Hermosa Park residential neighborhood requested by petition that: the City of Tigard
" &QJ change the comprehensive plan to multi-family residential for Hermosa Park and the
undeveloped property directly to the north and west of Hermosa Park."
During Its October hearing for the Tigard Triangle Plan, the Tigard Planning Commission
voted in support of the petitioners by voting 4-3 against a change in the comprehensive plan
relating to Hermosa Park and the undeveloped property directly to the north and west of
Hermosa Park. However, there are members of the city staff and planning commission who
have misinterpreted the petition. The intent of this clarification statement is to eliminate
any further misinterpretation of the petition by the city staff or the planning commission
members at the city council's Tigard Triangle Plan Dearing scheduled for November 24,
1992 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall.
The rationale behind the petition was based on the fact that the triangle is becoming an
increasingly undesirable location for residential neighborhoods. This undesirability is due
to the high levels of noise and pollution associated with increasing traffic volumes on the
major highways surrounding the triangle and an Increase in traffic that has been and will
be generated by new commercial development within the triangle.
The Hermosa Park residents recognize that as a group the best way to profitably relocate
their residences to a more desirable neighborhood is to have their individual properties
consolidated into one parcel for commercial development. This is the only land use that can
generate property values which will allow profitable neighborhood relocation.
Combining the Hermosa Park site with the undeveloped commercial property to the north
and west, or at least having it directly adjacent to commercial development on the property
to the north and west (rather than multi-family, as has been promoted by city staff in the
past), is essential to maintaining Hermosa Park as an attractive and viable future
commercial site. The workability of profitable conversion has been demonstrated on the
Cub Food Site, where the Duvall Street neighborhood was recently purchased for
conversion to commercial use. This conversion was 1300 feet north of Hermosa Park.
We the undersigned do hereby ratify and support this clarification statement:
TAX LOU NAME ADDRESS
1. l co / .6 7 ys S. u~• yEA.aiGSb tv V
2. 50 rz ~7J 2- L' L-1n0Sd CU - 2'1'L_d'e'6
MEN
CLARIFICATION STATEMENT FOR SEPTEMBER ZONING PETITION
On or about September 1, 1992, a significant majority of the property owners in the
Hermosa Park residential neighborhood requested by petition that: the City of Tigard
"Vachange the comprehensive plan to multi-family residential for Hermosa Park and the
undeveloped property directly to the north and west of Hermosa Park."
During its October hearing for the Tigard 'T'riangle Plan, the Tigard Planning Commission
voted in support of the petitioners by voting 4-3 against a change in the comprehensive plan
relating to Hermosa Park and the undeveloped property directly to the north and west of
Hermosa Park. However, there are members of the city staff and planning commission who
have misinterpreted the petition. The intent of this clarification statement is to eliminate
any further misinterpretation of the petition by the city staff or the planning commission
members at the city council's Tigard Triangle Plan Hearing scheduled for November 24,
1992 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hail.
The rationale behind the petition was based on the fact that the triangle is becoming an
increasingly undesirable location for residential neighborhoods. This undesirability is due
to the high levels of noise and pollution associated with increasing traffic volumes on the
major highways surrounding the triangle and an Increase in traffic that has been and will
be generated by new commercial development within the triangle.
The Hermosa Park residents recognize that as a group the best way to profitably relocate
their residences to a more desirable neighborhood is to have their individual properties
consolidated into one parcel for commercial development. This is the only land use that can
generate property values which will allow profitable neighborhood relocation.
Combining the Hermosa Park site with the undeveloped commercial property to the north
and west, or at least having it directly adjacent to commercial development on the property
to the north and west (rather than multi-family, as has been promoted by city staff in the
past), is essential to ?naintaining Hermosa Park as an attractive and viable future
commercial site. The workability of profitable conversion has been demonstrated on the
Cub Food Site, where the Duvall Street tieighborhood was recently purchased for
conversion to commercial use. This conversion was 1300 feet north of Hermosa Park.
We the undersigned do hereby ratify and support this clarification statement:
TAXbOTA NAIi4E -/Do ADDRESS
-71, 129.1 ke-~ Ph
i
ROM
3.
CLARIFICATION STATEMENT FOR SEPTEMBER ZONING PETI-TgON
On or abort September 1, 1992, a significant majority of the property owners in the
Hermosa Park residential neighborhood requested by petition that: the City of Tigard
" change the comprehensive plan to multi-family residential for Hermosa Park and the
undeveloped property directly to the north and west of Hermosa Park."
During its October hearing for the Tigard Triangle Plan, the Tigard Planning Commission
voted in support of the petitioners by voting 4-3 against a change in the comprehensive plan
relating to Hermosa Park and the undeveloped property directly to the north and west of
Hermosa Park. However, there are members of the city staff and planning commission who
have misinterpreted the petition. The intent of this clarification statement is to eliminate
any further misinterpretation of the petition by the city staff' or the planning commission
members at the city council's Tigard Triangle Plan Hearing scheduled for November 24,
1992 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall.
The rationale behind the petition was based on the fact that the triangle is becoming an
increasingly undesirable location for residential neighborhoods. This undesirability is due
to the high levels of noise and pollution associated with increusing traffic volumes on the
major highways surrounding the triangle and an Increase in traffic that has been and will
be generated by new commercial development within the triangle.
The Hermosa Part: residents recognize that as a group the best way to profitably relocate
their residences to a more desirable neighborhood is to have their individual properties
consolidated into one parcel for commercial development. This is the only land use that can
generate property values which will allow profitable neighborhood relocation.
Combining the Hermosa Park site with the undeveloped commercial property to the north
and west, or at least having it directly adjacent to commercial development on the property
to the north and west (rather than multi-family, as has been promoted by city staff in the
past), Is essential to maintaining Hermosa Park as an attractive and viable future
commercial site. The workability of profitable conversion has been demonstrated on the
Cub Food Site, where the Duvall Street neighborhood was recently purchased for
conversion to commercial use. This conversion was 1300 feet north of Hermosa Park.
We the undersigned do hereby ratify and support this clarification statement:
TAX LOTO NAME ADDRESS
- G a
1. 3 Soo 5.44 1 ,;;Al
2.
C 3.
Ii
I
i
3
CLARIFICATION STATEMENT FOR SEPTEMBER ZONING PETITION
r
On or about September 1, 1992, a significant majority of the property owners In the
Hermosa Park residential neighborhood requested by petition that: the City of Tigard
" change the comprehensive plan to multi-family residential for Hermosa Park and the
undeveloped property directly to the north and west of Hermosa Park."
During its October hearing for the Tigard Triangle Plan, the Tigard Planning Commission
voted in support of the petitioners by voting 4-3 against a change in the comprehensive plan
relating to Hermosa Park and the undeveloped property directly to the north and west of t
Hermosa Park. However, there are members of the city staff and planning commission who
have misinterpreted the petition. The intent of this clarification statement is to eliminate
any further misinterpretation of the petition by the city staff' or the planning commission
members at the city council's Tigard Triangle Plan Hearing scheduled for November 24,
1992 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall.
The rationale behind the petition was based on the fact that the triangle is becoming an
increasingly undesirable location for residential neighborhoods. This undesirability Is due
to the high levels of noise and pollution associated with increasing traffic volumes on the
major highways surrounding the triangle and an Increase in traffic that has been and will
be generated by new commercial development within the triangle.
The Hermosa Park residents recognize that as a group the best way to profitably relocate
their residences to a more desirable neighborhood is to have their individual properties
consolidated into one parcel for commercial development. This is the only land use that can
generate property values which will allow profitable neighborhood relocation.
Combining the Hermosa Park site with the undeveloped commercial property to the north
and west, or at least having it directly adjacent to commercial development on the property
to the north and west (rather than multi-family, as has been promoted by city staff in the
past), is essential to maintaining Hermosa Park as an attractive and viable future
commercial site. The workability of profitable conversion has been demonstrated on the
Cub Food Site, where the Duvall Street neighborhood was recently purchased for
conversion to commercial use. This conversion was 1300 feet north of Hermosa Park.
We the undersigned do hereby ratify and support this clarification statement:
TAX LOT# NAME ADDRESS
2.
3.
CLARIFICATION STATEMENT FOR SEPTEMBER ZONING PETITION
On or about September 1, 1992, a significant majority of the property owners in the
Hermosa Park residential neighborhood requested by petition that: the City of Tigard
"=change the comprehensive plan to multi-family residential for Hermosa Park and the
undeveloped property directly to the north and west of Hermosa Park."
During its October hearing for the Tigard Triangle Plan, the Tigard Planning Commission
voted in support of the petitioners by voting 4-3 against a change in the comprehensive plan
relating to Hermosa Park and the undeveloped property directly to the north and west of
Hermosa Park. However, there are members of the city staff and planning commission who
have misinterpreted the petition. The Intent of this clarification statement is to eliminate
any further misinterpretation of the petition by the city staff or the planning commission
members at the city council's Tigard Triangle Plan Hearing scheduled for November 24,
1992 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall.
The rationale behind the petition was based on the fact that the triangle is becoming an
increasingly undesirable location for residential neighborhoods. This undesirability is due
to the high levels of noise and pollution associated with inereusing traffic volumes on the
major highways surrounding the triangle and an Increase in traf'f'ic that has been and will
be generated by new commercial development within the triangle.
The Hermosa Park residents recognize that as a group the best way to profitably relocate
their residences to a more desirable neighborhood is to have their individual properties
consolidated Into one parcel for commercial development. This is the only land use-that can
generate property values which will allow profitable neighborhood relocation.
Combining the Hermosa Park site with the undeveloped commercial property to the north
and west, or at least having it directly adjacent to commercial development on the property
to the north and west (rather than multi-family, as has been promoted by city staff In the
past), Is essential to maintaining Hermosa Park as an attractive and viable future
commercial site. The workability of profitable conversion has been demonstrated on the
Cub Food Site, where the Duvall Street neighborhood was recently purchased for
conversion to commercial use. This conversion was 1300 feet north of Hermosa Park.
We the undersigned do hereby ratify and support this clarification statement:
TAX LOTO NAME ADDRESS
U ;
3.
mom
CLARIFICATION STATEMENT FOR SEPTEMBER ZONING PETITION
On or about September 1, 1992, a significant majority of the property owners in the
Hermosa Park residential neighborhood requested by petition that: the City of Tigard
"Yff change the comprehensive plan to multi-family residential for Hermosa Park and the
undeveloped property directly to the north and west of Hermosa Park."
During its October hearing for the Tigard Triangle Plan, the Tigard Planning Commission
voted in support of the petitioners by voting 4-3 against a change in the comprehensive plan
relating to Hermosa Park and the undeveloped property directly to the north and west of
Hermosa Park. However, there are members of the city staff and planning commission who
have misinterpreted the petition. The intent of this clarification statement is to eliminate
any further misinterpretation of the petition by the city staff' or the planning commission
members at the city council's Tigard 'T'riangle Plan Hearing scheduled for November 24,
9992 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall.
The rationale behind the petition was based on the fact that the triangle is becoming an
increasingly undesirable location for residential neighborhoods. This undesirability is due
to the high levels of noise and pollution associated with increasing traffic volumes on the
major. highways surrounding the triangle and an increase in traffic that has been and will
be generated by new commercial development within the triangle.
The Hermosa Park residents recognize that as a group the best way to profitably relocate
their residences to a more desirable neighborhood is to have their individual properties
consolidated into one parcel for commercial development. This is the only land use that can
generate property values which will allow profitable neighborhood relocation.
Combining the Hermosa Park site with the undeveloped commercial property to the north
and west, or at least having it directly adjacent to commercial development on the property
to the north and west (rather than multi-family, as has been promoted by city staff in the
past), is essential to maintaining 'Hermosa Park as an attractive and viable future
commercial site. The workability of profitable conversion has been demonstrated on the
Cub Food Site, where the Duvall Street neighborhood was recently purchased for
conversion to commercial use. This conversion was 1300 feet north of Hermosa Park.
We the undersigned do hereby ratify and support this clarification statement:
TAX LOU NAME ADDRESS
1. l~O OS S; ICe{
2.
3.
a
P.
CLARIFICATION STATEMENT FOR SEPTEMBER ZONING PETITION
On or about September 1, 1992, a significant majority of the property owners in the
Hermosa Park residential neighborhood requested by petition that: the City of Tigard !
"NOT change the comprehensive plan to multi-family residential for !Hermosa Park and the
undeveloped property directly to the north and west of Hermosa Park."
During its October hearing for the Tigard Triangle Plan, the Tigard Planning Commission
voted in support of the petitioners by voting 4-3 against a change in the comprehensive plan
relating to Hermosa Park and the undeveloped property directly to the north and west of
Hermosa Park. However, there are members of the city staff and planning commission who
have misinterpreted the petition. The intent of this clarification statement is to eliminate i
any further misinterpretation of the petition by the city staff or the planning commission
members at the city council's Tigard Triangle Plan Hearing scheduled for November 24,
1992 at 7:30 p.m. at City Fall.
The rationale behind the petition was based on the fact that the triangle is becoming an
increasingly undesirable location for residential neighborhoods. This undesirability is due
to the high levels of noise and pollution associated with increasing traffic volumes on the
major highways surrounding the triangle and an increase in traffic that has been and will
be generated by new commer^ial development within the triangle.
The Hermosa Pork residents recognize that as a group the best way to profitably relocate
their residences to a more desirable neighborhood is to have their individual properties
consolidated into one parcel for commercial development, This is the only land use that can
generate property values which will allow profitable neighborhood relocation.
Combining the Hermosa Park site with the undeveloped commercial property to the north
and west, or at least having It directly adjacent to commercial development on the property
to the north and west (rather than multi-family, as has been promoted by city staff in the
past), Is essential to maintaining Hermosa Park as an attractive and viable future
commercial site. The workability of profitable conversion has been demonstrated on the
Cub Food Site, where the Duvall Street neighborhood was recently purchased for
conversion to commercial use. This conversion was 1300 feet north of Hermosa Park.
We the undersigned do hereby ratify and support this clarification statement:
TAX LOT# NAME ADDRESS
1'
2. / aC
3.
I--
J
CLARIFICATION STATEMENT FOR SEPTEMBER ZONING PETITION
On or about September 1, 1992, a significant majority of the property owners in the
Hermosa Park residential neighborhood requested by petition that: the City of Tigard
"NOL change the comprehensive plan to multi-a:nily residential for Hermosa Park and the
undeveloped property directly to the north and west of Hermosa Park."
During its October hearing for the Tigard Triangle Plan, the Tigard Planning Commission
voted In support of the petitioners by voting 4-3 against a change In the comprehensive plan
relating to Hermosa Park and the undeveloped property directly to the north and west of
Hermosa Park. However, there are members of the city staff and planning commission who
have misinterpreted the petition. The Intent of this clarification statement is to eliminate
any further misinterpretation of the petition by the city staff or the planning commission
members at the city council's Tigard Triangle Plan Hearing scheduled for November 24,
1992 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall.
The rationale behind the petition was based on the fact that the triangle is becoming an
increasingly undesirable location for residential neighborhoods. This undesirability is due
to the high levels of noise and pollution associated with increasing traffic volumes on the
major highways surrounding the triangle and an Increase in traffic that has been and will
be generated by new commercial development within the triangle.
The Hermosa Park residents recognize that as a group the best way to prr,fitably relocate
their residences to a more desirable neighborhood is to have their individual properties
consolidated Into one parcel for commercial development. This is the only land use that can
generate property values which will allow profitable neighborhood relocation.
Combining the Hermosa Park site with the undeveloped commercial property to the north
and west, or at least having it directly adjacent to commercial development on the property
to the north and west (rather than multi-family, as has been promoted by city staff in the
past), Is essential to maintaining Hermosa Park as an attractive and viable future
commercial site. The workability of profitable conversion has been demonstrated on the
Cub Food Site, where the Duvall Street neighborhood was recently purchased for
conversion to commercial use. This conversion was 1300 feet north of Hermosa Park.
We the undersigned do hereby ratify and support this clarification statement:
TAX LOT NIA ' ADDRESS
2.
Q 3.
CLARIFICATION STATEMENT FOR SEPTEMBER ZONING PETITION
On or about September 1, 1992, a significant majority of the property owners In the
Hermosa Park residential neighborhood requested by petition that: the City of Tigard
"=change the comprehensive plan to multi-family residential for Hermosa Park and the
undeveloped property directly to the north and west of Hermosa Park."
During Its October hearing for the Tigard Triangle Plan, the Tigard Planning Commission
voted in support of the petitioners by voting 4-3 against a change in the comprehensive plan
relating to Hermosa Park and the undeveloped property directly to the north and west of
Hermosa Park. However, there are members of the city staff and planning commission who '
have misinterpreted the petition. The Intent of this clarification statement is to eliminate
any further misinterpretation of the petition by the city staff or the planning commission
members at the city council's Tigard Triangle Plan Hearing scheduled for November 24,
1992 at 7:30 p.m. at City Fall.
The rationale behind the petition was based on the fact that the triangle is becoming an
increasingly undesirable location for residential neighborhoods. This undesirability is due i
to the high levels of noise and pollution associated with increasing traffic volumes on the
major highways surrounding the triangle and an increase in traffic that has been and will
be generated by new commercial development within the triangle.
The Hermosa Park residents recognize that as a group the best way to profitably relocate
their residences to a more desirable neighborhood Is to have their individual properties
consolidated into one parcel for commercial development. This is the only land use that can
generate property values which will allow profitable neighborhood relocation.
Combining the Hermosa Park site with the undeveloped commercial property to the north
and west, or at least having it directly adjacent to commercial development on the property
to the north and west (rather than multi-family, as has been promoted by city staff in the
past), Is essential to maintaining Hermosa Park as an attractive and viable future
commercial site. The workability of profitable conversion has been demonstrated on the
Cub Food Site, where the Duvall Street neighborhood was recently purchased for
conversion to commercial use. This conversion was 1300 feet north of Hermosa Park.
We the undersigned do hereby ratify and support this clarification statement:
TAX LOT# NAME ~ ADDRESS
~ ~ ~ ~ Cam- ~ obi ~Y
2.
3.
CLARIFICATION STATEMENT FOR SEPTEMBER ZONING PETITION
On or about September 1, 1992, a significant majority of the property owners in the
Hermosa Park residential neighborhood requested by petition that: the City of Tigard
" change the comprehensive plan to multi-family residential for Hermosa Park and the
undeveloped property directly to the north and west of Hermosa Park."
During its October hearing for the Tigard Triangle Plan, the Tigard Planning Commission
voted in support of the petitioners by voting 4-3 against a change in the comprehensive plan
relating to Hermosa Park and the undeveloped property directly to the north and west of
Hermosa Park. However, there are members of the city staff and planning commission who
have misinterpreted the petition. The Intent of this clarification statement is to eliminate
any further misinterpretation of the petition by the city staff or the planning commission
members at the city council's Tigard Triangle Plan Hearing scheduled for November 24,
1992 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall.
The rationale behind the petition was based on the fact that the triangle is becoming an
increasingly undesirable location for residential neighborhoods. This undesirability is due
to the high levels of noise and pollution associated with increusing traffic volumes on the
major highways surrounding the triangle and an Increase in traffic that has been and will
be generated by new commercial development within the triangle.
The Hermosa Park residents recognize that as a group the best way to profitably relocate
their residences to a more desirable neighborhood is to have their individual properties
consolidated into one parcel for commercial development. This is the only land use that can
generate property values which will allow profitable neighborhood relocation..
Combining the Hermosa Park site with the undeveloped commercial property to the north
and west, or at least having it directly adjacent to commercial development on the property
to the north and west (rather than multi-family, as has been promoted. by city staff in the
past), Is essential to maintaining Hermosa Park as an attractive and viable future
commercial site. The workability of profitable conversion has been demonstrated on the
Cub Food Site, where the Duvall Street neighborhood was recently purchased for
conversion to commercial use. This conversion was 1100 feet north of Hermosa Park.
We the undersigned do hereby ratify and support this clarification statement:
TAX LOT# NAME ADDRESS
1. 1 t L )
2. G
3.
CLARIFICATION 5TATEMENT FOR SEPTEMBER ZONING PETITION
On or about September 1, 1992, a significant majority of the property owners in the
Hermosa Park residential neighborhood requested by petition that: the City of Tigard
"NT change the comprehensive plan to multi-family residential for Hermosa Park and the
undeveloped property directly to the north and west of Hermosa Park."
During its October hearing for the Tigard Triangle Plan, the Tigard Planning Commission
voted in support of the petitioners by voting 4-3 against a change in the comprehensive plan
relating to Hermosa Park and the undeveloped property directly to the north and west of
Hermosa Park. However, there are members of the city staff and planning commission who
have misinterpreted the petition. The Intent of this clarification statement is to eliminate
any further misinterpretation of the petition by the city staff or the planning commission
members at the city council's Tigard Triangle Plan Hearing scheduled for November 24,
1992 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall.
The rationale behind the petition was based on the fact that the triangle is becoming an
increasingly undesirable location for residential neighborhoods. This undesirability is due
to the high levels of noise and pollution associated with increasing traffic volumes on the
major highways surrounding the triangle and an increase in traffic that has been and will
be generated by new commercial development within the triangle.
The Hermosa Park residents recognize that as a group the best way to profitably relocate
their residences to a more desirable neighborhood is to have their individual properties
consolidated into one parcel for commercial development. This is the only land use that can
generate property values which will allow profitable neighborhood relocation.
Combining the Hermosa Park site with the undeveloped commercial property to the north
and west, or at least having it directly adjacent to commercial development on the property
to the north and west (rather than multi-family, as has been promoted by city staff in the
past), is essential to maintaining Hermosa Park as an attractive and viable future
commercial site. The workability of profitable conversion has been demonstrated on the
Cub Food Site, where the Duvall Street neighborhood was recently purchased for
conversion to commercial use.. This conversion was 1300 feet north of Aermosa Park.
We the undersigned do hereby ratify and support this clarification statement:
TAX LOT# NAME ADDRESS
1 v 1 0, -7 Li ),D
2.
~f
t 3.
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 1
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: November 24, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: November 13, 1992
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Comp Plan Amendment PREVIOUS ACTION: Continued from
CPA 92-0005/Zone Ordinance Amendme September 8 1992
ZOA 91-0006 C unit Commercial PREPARED BY: Jer Offer Planner
DEPT HEAD OK - CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Ed M rphv. CDD
J ISSUE BE THE COUNCIL
Should the City Council amend the Comprehensive Plan to create a commercial
plan designation intended to provide limited scale development opportunities
for neighborhood/community serving retail and service uses? Should the City
Council amend the Community Development Code to create a new mid-range
commercial zoning district to implement this Plan designation?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached ordinances 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
Planning Commission directed staff to draft a new mid-range commercial zoning
district. 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 held a hearing on this proposal on June 23, 1992. Substantial
community testimony was received. Primary issues appeared to be: 1) the
allowable sizes of grocery stores; 2) 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 3) concerns about
particular locations that were identified in a staff prepared map that
illustrated general locations that met some of the proposed locational
criteria for this Plan designation. The Council directed staff to further
research these issues, revise the proposal 23 necessary, and bring the
proposal back to the Council at the September 8th meeting.
At the September 8th meeting, staff submitted a revised proposal which
C attempted to address these issues. The most notable changes included:
1) requiring that community commercial sites be located only where there is
NINE
-an average potential dwelling unit density of eight units per acre (as
letermined by present zoning) within one half mile; 2) specifically noting
in the Plan and Community Development Code that the City may limit the size
of a community commercial site or place conditions of approval on a Plan Map
amendment related to needed site improvements 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. Because of the
significance of these proposed changes and because the Planning Commission
and NPOs had not had an opportunity to review the proposed changes, the
Council further continued the hearing on the community commercial proposal to
allow time for their review.
The revised proposal has been sent back to the Planning Commission and all
neighborhood organizations for comment. The minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting and neighborhood organizations which commented on the
revised proposal are attached. In accordance with the comments of the
neighborhood organizations and others, the Planning Commission revised the
proposed Plan and Code amendments to delete the requirement for a surrounding
area potential dwelling unit density locational standard, deleted a portion
of the site design guidelines dealing with loading area locations, and
corrected typographic errors. Staff concurs with these changes and has
incorporated the changes on the attached exhibits. Staff and the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the proposal as attached.
The Planning Commission has not modified their earlier recommendation for a
maximum allowed size of 40,000 square feet for grocery stores in the proposed
'ommunity Commercial zoning district. Staff concurs with the Planning
Commission°s recommendation. A maximum grocery store size of 40,000 square
feet 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.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt the attached ordinances amending the Plan and Development Code.
2. Direct staff to prepare ordinances for the December 8, 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 NOTES
None.
a
C
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, April 6, 1992, and November 2, 1992
and has recommended approval of the amendments to the Council, and
WHEREAS, the City Council held hearings on June 23, 1992, September 8,
1992, and November 24, 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
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.
Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor
Approved as to farm:
City Attorney Date
i
EXHIBIT A - NOVEMBER 9, 1992 DRAFT
.u•...•:.:i:, {,G::n •:nt•:n :'tr::~:}.s:~yryJrr .,...k•..K. ; nrr:.,: r:• a. c. u..• ar.. i~• r"r•$ .~t] ,,,+~r~; r+ .a+•
:::;r:<:::c::;,g>r.<crrf: c ...:.:^:.cco.:::.:...::..::•:::::,:..t.:::::;•.::::..::»:.:,.:.:.;:: rocc•+a. .::..r. ....:,,r••rr:~:a: :5~:;~icc;c<:<;~'(,fk,::: ;..;f;: r:•r. n.;
'}FN: J.J ::~1;.. 'f{ :i:;f•r,'<c y:.;+ fc ..,r::: r~•:,F
..G.ofu.•:ir::f..^:.:;f:^•.::F..<:+•'~T:`^':'✓.•'.`.:.2,...,...•.c:•.":L::;••,:3•; ovrz.Si.L3G.^r:;:C::~.~.:^.kk''✓.•n`::..y::•::.`:.,4c~:~.h•:"•'/;:i'?:ter :k..kv,'r;'Ar•;5;.;:..Y.<b f5f£`~:•3:✓.. w.:.:^..: ::'1.::•%:::,k f:.3 ,,~d
4. Community Commercial
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 amoun•%'-s 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 feeling of typical commercial strip
development.
a. Scale
(1) Trade Area: Surrounding residential neighborhoods
generally within a 1 and 1/2 mile radius.
(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.
(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
r C - 1 -
jj~
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.
(3) Site Characteristics
(a) The site shall be a minimum of two acres 'in
size and a maximum of eight acres in size.
The City may limit the size of a community
commercial site to less than the maximum site
size if it is found that a smaller site is
necessary to ensure consistency of community
commercial development with other Plan
policies and locational criteria.
(4) Impact Assessment
(a) The scale and intensity of the project shall
be compatible with surrounding uses. This may
be accomplished through special site
development considerations to be placed on a
particular site through conditions of approval
of a Plan map amendment for the site or
through site and/or building design standards.
Such considerations may include, but are not
limited to, access limitations, special
setbacks, increased landscaping or buffering,
limits on off-street parking spaces,
coordinated building design, and special
C . - 2 -
design considerations for pedestrian and
~I. bicyclist access and safety.
(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.
4
(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
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
through restrictions within the zoning
district regulations or through conditions of
approval of a Plan map amendment for a
particular site.
jo/cw-Com.Mst
j
- 3 - i
1
:t
f
r
OREM
EXHIBIT 8 NOVEMBER 9, 199 DRA
c~
ShrSi{ISY+r:: rSerrru:rs:NS v :rl,Nf:r'iirx:r,.v.Sf :rrvxx.uS.yr4C:rM:rSr:.wr. i.;7 u;.: vSxr: r:Y.vSm }~~$?ti J,
.~~:r~„~~::c~~c:::,.a.,w::r: r:r..3»raaari :.r:f..r.m...Ya. .c.rra.....::.rr. ri>.:'F•:vr':..•:,:~crfr Y.✓•' acwra..u <u,.
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
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 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
community commercial centers typically range from 30,000
to 100,000 square feet, and land area ranges between 2 to
8 acres.
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
service area of the district is up to one and one half
miles from a site.
- 1 -
f
owl
The scale of a community commercial development shall be
compatible with surrounding uses. This may be
accomplished through special site development
considerations which may be placed on a particular
community commercial site through conditions of approval
of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map amendments for
the site or through the site development review process.
Such considerations may include, but are not limited to,
access limitations, special setbacks, increased
landscaping or buffering, limits on off-street parking
spaces, and special design considerations for pedestrian
and bicyclist access. This Chapter shall provide special
non-mandatory building and site design guidelines and
special mandatory site design standards intended to
minimize site development impacts on surrounding
residential neighborhoods and to promote pedestrian and
bicyclist friendly development.
It is 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 may be
developed independently, however, although the City may
require that developmental aspects of individual parcels
be coordinated through the development review process.
Access needs of individual parcels and uses shall be
coordinated within a site so as to limit the number of
access driveways to adjacent streets.
With respect for the district's primary neighborhood
orientation rather than to the travelling public, signage
will 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
surrounding area in a manner which substantially limits,
impairs, or precludes the use of surrounding properties
for the primary uses listed in the underlying
- 2
IN=
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;
G. 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;
(ii) Financial, insurance and real estate
services;
C -3- '
i
(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.
18.61.040 Conditional Uses (See Chapter 18.130)
A. Conditional uses in the C-C district are as follows:
r
C 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.
18.61.045 Special Limitations on Uses
A. Special limitations in the C-C district are as follows:
1. The use shall be conducted wholly within an
enclosed structure, except for outside play areas
C -4-
i
i
-r
for children's day care facilities, and as allowed
in Subsections 3 and 4 of this section;
2. Unless specified otherwise, no use shall have a
gross floor area greater than 5,000 square feet;
3. Accessory open air sales/display/storage shall be
permitted for horticultural.and food merchandising
uses only and shall constitute no more than five
percent of the gross building floor area of any
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 private
sidewalk areas around dining areas may not be
reduced to less than five feet of clear walkway.
18.61.050 Dimensional Requirements
A. Dimensional requirements in the C-C district are as
follows: ,
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
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;
- 5
,A 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
The following non-mandatory design guidelines are
strongly encouraged for developments within the community
commercial district:
1. Building Design Guidelines
a. The design of buildings within a community
commercial development should incorporate
elements such as special architectural
details, distinctive color schemes, special
art and other features, which are sensitive to
and enhance the surrounding area and serve to
distinguish the complex from other retail
t~ 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. 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
which face toward a public street should
include public entrances to the building and
windows to provide visual access to the
activity within the building. The sides of a
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.
- 6 -
2. Site Design Guidelines
a. The site development plan should incorporate a
special feature at the corner of the site. A
special corner feature can be a landscape
feature, seasonal color planting area,
sculpture or water feature. The feature
should provide a visual landmark and some
amount of seating area.
b. Parking areas should be designed to minimize
conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular
movements. Parking area landscaping should be
used to define and separate parking, access,
and pedestrian areas within parking lots.
C. The landscape design for the site should
include plantings which emphasize the major
points of pedestrian and vehicular access to
and within the site.
d. Site features such as fences, walls, refuse
and recycling facility enclosures, and light
fixtures should be designed to be consistent
with the scale and architectural design of the
primary structure(s). Such site features
should be designed and located to contribute
to the pedestrian. environment of the site
development.
e. Loading areas should not be located on the
side of a building which faces toward a
residential use. Loading areas, if located
between the building and the street, should be
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
buildings. On sites which are adjacent to
other properties within the community
commercial district, building location should
be chosen to facilitate pedestrian and
vehicular connections to buildings on those
adjacent properties. Consideration should be
given to locating buildings closer to the
public street with entrances to the buildings
from the public sidewalk, with no intervening
parking or driving area. Corner locations are
particularly appropriate for this treatment.
- 7
r
f
i
g. Opportunities should be found for safe,
convenient, and pleasant pedestrian
connections to existing or proposed transit
facilities. Where needed, shelters and lay-
over areas for transit vehicles should be 1
incorporated into the site development.
3. Sign Design Guidelines.
l
a. All signage should be an integral part of the
architectural design.
b. Tenant signage should he oriented to face the
major direction of pedestrian movement toward
and within the district.
B. Design Standards
The following mandatory design standards apply within the
community commercial district:
1. Internal Walkways.
a. Walkways, eight feet minimum width, shall be
provided from the public sidewalk or right-of-
way to the building(s). At a minimum,
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. Walkways, five feet minimum width, shall be
provided to connect with walkways or potential
walkway locations on adjoining properties to
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
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
- S - j
i
as pedestrian travel. Weather protection
AIP- of the walkway should be provided at a
minimum at the entrance area and, if
appropriate, along the entire walkway.
C. Walkway surfaces for walkways crossing parking
areas shall be designed to be visually
distinguishable from driving surfaces through
the use 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. All lighting fixtures shall incorporate cut-
off shields.to prevent the spillover of light
to adjoining properties.
b. Mechanical equipment, if located on the
building, shall be located within the roof
form of the building or enclosed within a
screening structure, the design of which is
consistent with the design of the building.
C. Mechanical equipment, not located on the
building, shall be screened from views from
the public street, sidewalk, and properties
outside the district with a durable, solid
wall or fence, or an evergreen hedge or a
combination of the above.
d. All refuse and recycling 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.
e. Bicycle, racks shall be provided on site.
Facilities for a minimum of ten bicycles shall
be provided for developments having 100 or
fewer parking stalls, notwithstanding Code
Section 18.106.020.P. For each 100 additional
stalls, facilities for five additional
bicycles shall be provided. Bicycle parking
areas shall not be located within parking
aisles, landscape areas, or pedestrian ways.
It is strongly encouraged that bicycle parking
areas be covered.
- 9 -
t
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
l 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.
y.;.nk:2C}L:iiiy.}::v::v:::i::;.: .}.ni :i:„::.:i,~ ..f............:4:v.,w:.::::v: x::: iiitit;4:;Ji: iiiiv.:4iii: n........ n. v: ♦ ~1~.
-two
18.114.130 Zoning District Regulations
E. Neighborhood Comm(.rcial and Community commercial Zones
1. No sign shall be permitted in the C-N or C-C
zones except for the following:
1r
- 10 -
a. Freestanding Signs:
(i) Freestanding signs shall have certain
limitations and conditions when permitted
on properties zoned C-N or C-C:
(1) One multifaced, freestanding sign
per premises shall be permitted
subject to conditions and
limitations as stated herein; and
(2) A readerboard assembly may be an
integral part of the freestanding
sign;
(ii) Area Limits:
(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
ad`-cent. 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
(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;
7
b. Wall Signs
(i) Allowable Area:
(1) Wall signs, including illuminated j
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 so 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, rrcopy" includes symbols,
logos, and letters;
,r 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.
f. Special Condition signs in accordance with
Section 18.114.090; and
i
g. Additional Allowable Signs:
(i) Awning sign(s), tenant sign(s), flush
pitched "roof" sign(s), and painted wall
sign(s).
'i
- 12 - a.
n
e
III. Zoning District Classifications and Requirements
18.61 Community Commercial District z
n:3/n'4 H.Si:}' rvtCWnv.$'LC~i}}.{n'xrv.{,Y•:v}n»J}}:~:nvl.":iii}:iv}ii}'iv h9':4}Y' '
18.40.010.a Classification of Zones (matrix)
Zoning District Nap Symbol Dwelling Units Minimum
Per Net Acre Lot Size
Community Commercial C-C 12 51000
sq. ft.
s}nSS,i?n`A,:l:<.F .::•ho:4}r•}:.w}w4:4w} ~ wvu..vnpa.dry'4~.}:' io,&'}} v:4:x{: 4 W';}}x:
rt-eL r`~:Yii1X :ll:~i$:•i:: :[t,y~.•i:,..~J}i'JO ::4•'.v~~
IXYl:.'•};tii<{{}i.::4:.f:Y.•:v}fYr:•}}.vlJCfv.l++.4i.:,:.}}:: A}}} •}i}}}'1f.+1Na'F+f :4}':}~ :{:4}}}}YiA:':4Y.......... rii:YJ.^}:{•}}:i'{^}}... Y... Y.v
18.100.130 Buffer Matrix
ADD C-C ZONE TO MATRIX'S LEFT MARGIN WITH OTHER
COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
18.130.150 Standard Dimensional Requirements for Conditional
Use Types
18.130.150.C.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.
jo:c-czone.ord
ii
f
C - 13 -
f
ti
Oil
r
-PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
C
On"RAFT
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - NOVEMBER 2, 1992
1. CALL TO ORDER: President Fyre called the meeting to order at
7:30 PM. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center -
TOWN HALL - 13125 SW Hall Boulevard.
2. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: President Fyre; Commissioners Boone, Castile,
Hawley, Moore, Saporta, and Saxton.
ABSENT: Commissioner Schwab.
APPROVE MINUTES:
ommissioner Saxton moved and Commis 'oner Moore seconded to
a rove the minutes for the November O ober 1-9th meeting as
cor cted. Motion passed by majority v e of Commissioners
prese Commissioner Fyre abstained.
4. PLANNING MMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
There were no ommunications received for this me ing.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DMENT CPA 92-0006 ZONE CHANGE ON
92-0004 AITKEN (NPO # CONTINUED FROM 10/05/92 PLANNI
COMMISSION HEARING A re st for a Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment to redesignate a 30 acre site from Professional
Commercial to General Commercialand a Zone Change from the C-
P zone (Professional Commerciale to the C-G zone (General
APPRO CRITERIA: Statewide
Commercial). APPLICABLE V
Planning Goals 2, 9, 12, and 13; Com ehensive Plan Polices
1.1.2, 8.1.1, 8.2.2, and 12.2.1. LOCAT N: 11895 and 11935
SW Greenberg Road (WCTM 251 2AA, tax lots 200 and 1300)
sociate Planner Jerry Offer reviewed the sta report. He
dis ssed the review criteria. He described the u es proposed
and a 'sed that staff was not able to recommen ositive
findings sed on the Statewide Planning Goal 12 a d City
policy 8.1. He noted that the proximity of the subjec site
to Greenberg Ro and the possibility of high traffic busi ss
in the future were 'ssues to consider. He also said that t
applicant was unab1 to show there had been a change in
circumstances or error i he original zoning. He recommended
denial of this application.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 1992 PAGE 1
n
APPLICANT'S PRESEN ATION
Jack Ste' er, Steiger Enterpr'ses Inc. 10250 SW Greenburg
Road, S to 102B, Tigard, s e representing Mr. Aitken. H
discus ed the uses planne for the site. He stated that e
site is too small for m t intense uses. He discusse the
c ge in circumstances, noting that office space did t seem
t be in high demand, and he said there was plenty office
ace available, c' ing examples of high vacanc rates for
this type of prop y. On the other hand, he wised there
was a 2 percent acancy rate for retail comme ial property,
with nothing av i.lable other than in small re ail centers. He i
answered ques ons from Commissioners conce ing possible uses
for this pr erty and vacancy rates. j
PUBLIC TESTIM {
No on was signed up to speak on is item.
PUBLIC ING CLOSED
o sociate Planner offer ans Bred questions pertai ng to use
variance and conditional es allowed. There wa discussion
about how the site had b en modified without C' y knowledge.
o Commissioner Moore ressed concern abo t the area of
Greenburg Road wh' h he said he did not envision as
Commercial. He aid this type of c nge might set an
unfavorable stan rd for future commer_c al development along
Greenburg Road.
o Commissioner aporta did not find ev dence that there had been
a change in ircumstances. He no d that a property being on
the marke for 6 months does n necessarily mean it is an
inapprop late use.
o Commi sioner Hawley 'receiv clarification from Assoc' to
Pla er concerning currentl allowed uses and proposed es if
zo ng were changed.
* ommissioner Hawley mov d and Commissioner Saporta econded to
forward a recommendat' n to City Council to deny a requested
Comp Plan amendment Motion carried by un imous vote of
Commissioners pres t.
5.2 PUBLIC HEARING FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-0005
ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0006 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
PLAN DESIGNATION C-C ZONING DISTRICT The Planning Commission
will again consider a proposal to amend Volume II of the
C PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 1992 PAGE 2
Cv
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; and 4) areas surrounded by
potential residential densities of at least eight dwelling
units per acre.
In addition, the Commission will again 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
proposal also includes Community Development Code amendments
related to signage and landscaping and screening for uses
within the proposed new zone.
The Planning Commission has previously reviewed this proposal.
The Commission has stated that it is interested in reviewing
only changes to the proposal that have been made since the
Commission's April 6, 1992 hearing on this matter. r
o Associate Planner Jerry Offer reviewed the past hearings of
Planning Commission and City Council concerning the proposed
Community Commercial Plan Designation. He said City Council
expressed concern regarding number of sites, limiting sites,
and residential density standards of 8 units/acre. He
Him discussed the site design guidelines and criteria adopted from
the Bellevue, Washington Code to make it necessary for design
to fit with surrounding neighborhoods. He discussed
requirements for setbacks, limits on off-street parking
spaces, pedestrian access and safety.
o Associate Planner discussed the changes which had been made
since the original proposal was presented. He distributed
copies of NPO #7 meeting minutes (Exhibit A). He said NPOs
recommended doing away with proposed density guidelines and
locational criteria. He advised that staff was recommending
approval as it was presented to City Council on September 9,
1992. He indicated that staff recommended leaving design
guidelines as non-mandatory, since they are not quantifiable.
This differs from the NPO's preference of making the
guidelines mandatory. Since the design standards are
quantifiable, staff recommends they be mandatory.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 1992 PAGE 3
r
MEL-
o On the wall map Associate Planner reviewed the locations which
meet the locational criteria as it is now proposed.
Discussion followed regarding the locational criteria and the
hearing process for each future application.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o Cal Woolery, NPO #7, 12356 SW 132nd Ct., stated that the NPO
was very supportive of the concept of Community Commercial
Zone. He said there was concern that the locational criteria
of.S units per acre would be too much of a limitation.
o John Shonkwiler, 13425 SW 72nd, Tigard, spoke on behalf of
Albertsons. He talked about the City Council's hearing and
their questions concerning store size. He said there would be
concern of how to apply the broad ordinance to specific sites.
He discussed the guidelines, noting they were too general.
However, he felt the guidelines would be helpful and should
not be deleted. He suggested there would be problems in
interpreting the mandatory standards.
o Scott Russell, 31291 Raymond, Scappoose, Oregon, stated that
he owns property on Scholls Ferry Road. He discussed the
origination of the concept of Community Commercial zone and
the reasons this zone is needed in Tigard. He endorsed the
concept, but was concerned "that if the criteria is too
stringent, it will limit opportunities. He advised that he
fully supported the proposed designation.
o Associate Planner Offer distributed a memorandum from Keith
Liden, former planner with City of Tigard (Exhibit B).
Associate Planner favored recommending approval of the
proposed C-C designation, but he suggested dropping the trade
area density requirement based on comments from the NPO and
Mr. Shonkwiler. He suggested striking the wording on page 1
of staff report Exhibit B, second paragraph, "...with a
surrounding area potential residential density of eight
dwelling units per acre within one half mile of a community
commercial site." He also recommended striking the second
portion of section 2.e., page 7 concerning loading areas. He
reiterated that staff favors approval of this proposed
designation.
o Keith Liden, McKieve Morris, 722 SW 2nd Avenue, Portland,
spoke regarding the background of the C-C designation. He
described various ways other jurisdictions have handled this
type of designation. He indicated that many favored limits on
building size of 25,000 to 30,000 square feet.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 1992 PAGE 4
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
o Commissioner Boone discussed the language in Exhibit A of the
staff report. For example, he said page 4 "unique features"
was an ambiguous term. He pointed out several other instances
of language he felt was difficult to interpret.
o Associate Planner answered questions regarding existing
wetlands on site and provided examples to illustrate his
explanation. He clarified information about mixed use
residential uses.
o Commissioner Hawley discussed the site design guidelines and
signs. Discussion followed regarding guidelines to promote
uniformity for signs.
o President Fyre recapped the process to date. He expressed
concern as to whether this may encourage others to request
zone change for special purposes.
* Commissioner Hawley moved and Commissioner Saxton seconded to
forward to City Council recommendation for approval of C-C
zone as presented by staff, with the following changes:
1. Drop trade area density requirement in Exhibit A,
2. Change sentence in Exhibit B, page 1, second paragraph,
sentence to end at "site."
3. Delete 2,e page 7, in Exhibit B, second sentence
regarding loading areas between the building and the
street.
4. Correct the square footage typing error, page 13 and page
5 to the correct minimum lot size.
Motion passed by majority vote of Commissioners present.
Commissioner Fyre and Boone voted "nay." Commissioner Saporta
abstained.
Discussion followed regarding problems with sites and size of
buildings.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
Senior Planner Richard Bewersdorff requested Commissioners
make a presentation to City Council regarding the Triangle at
the November 24th meeting. Commissioner Hawley volunteered to
speak before the Council on behalf of the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 1992 PAGE 5
C
Discussion followed concerning the process for studying Tigard
Triangle.
7. ADJOURNMENT - 9:50 p.m.
Ellen P. Fos, Secretary
ATTEST:
Milt F. Pyre, President
I
i
C PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 2, 1992 PAGE 6
i
3
Him
NPO AND OTHER COMMENTS
A
C
3
@QT-08-1G92 16a 15 FROM ERC PROGRRM MRNHGtMENT TO 96847297 P.02 j
NM #3 NMVEn ES
October 7, 1992
Joint meeting with NPO 7 convened at 7:02 p.m.
n
1. NPO #7 joined us for an u hn Acker regaziprehensive plan
studies being conducted fo a Tigard T ' He. zoning maps were shown
and in.put from citi'.ens is elcc~me-~~ tl 'de emphasized the need to be sure all
residents and businesses ink" ve hE 'ng notices.
2. Jerry offer went over the proposed amen drd'2~ is to the develvprawit "Ar. pertitiuing tv
tree removal. Jerry said the city attorne expressed a need to close some holes in
the code. Bill Gilmore, a certified " . from Metro Forestry Inc. had been invited
by Martha Bishop and he talked abou of urban friendly trees and his participation
in helping communities establish ordinances. Sue Iamb, of Tualatin, attended to
1 provide info ination about he ' frets.
Jerry Offer also shared the latest information about the proposed Community Commercial
zoning code. Attached are NPO 3's responses to the questionnaire.
4
4. Art Louie of ODOT and Kirk IJansea attended at the request of NPO 7, to clarify the
issue regarding the lac on the south side of Scholls Ferry Rd, bet een 131
Ave. and 135 Av a explained th . idewalk was not includ a need to
widen the read a temporary
traffic si at the "Y" 00-Mcho"s Ferry
Roads. Art pt ' sed a compromise to lay ' .~'d~"""t sidewalk at grade with a 4"
high drain b beiwe*► sidewalk n- i t Funds for this could be requested
immediately an n or before they turn the project over in
December. This pro was acceptable, erly requested that ODOT plan changes
made in writing to the community.
Joint meeting with NPO 7 adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
5. Roll call for NPO #3: present, Porter, Bish roude, Garner, Helm and Mortensen.
Excuser!: Hansen.
6. Minutes from September 2, 1992 approved
7. Judy 1~essler talked about ways to' and protect significant trees in the city. She
suggested a grass roots effort amoa 'zebs to pool information and energies. Beverly
mentioned the need for good pu relations to make such an effort succeed. Martha
Bishop will invite Bill G' Metro Forestry to our November meeting to discuss
Tree City USA and oth ptions. Interested staff members and NPO 7 are invited to
C attend.
t OCT-08-1;992 16:16 FROM ERC PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TO 96847297 P.03
NFO #3 M1NI3TFS. OCTOBER 7, 1992
8. ZCA. 92-OW6: Garrett Annexation It was moved and sewn ed to approve the
rotlucst. Motion passed -nnaim ly.
9. MLP 92-Mg: Wittenberg N d was moved and seconded to approve
this request with the following nnfs; a would like the applicant to make the
ingress/egress onto 114 Ave_ instead of de, we have a concern about the sewer
hookup, and is the applicant r *onsible proviclisaE a sidewalk on Gaarde? With these
concerns expressed the ffiotimn passed anirsously.
Meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. f _ .
r
Re_gv c fully submitted,
Lila Garner
f.
j~.
FR
3
OCT-00-1992 16:16 FROM ERC PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TO 96847297*? 4
~ S Ow W% iRC RO SAL
Z. Does tbo O think that this proposal is warranted if so few
possible sites may be involved?
2- Should the iorowsed criteria be looser-ad 'COQ allow the
possibility of additional sites?
Other locational criteria the NPO would suggest?
3_ Do you think the proposed non-mandatory design guidelines and
mandatoty design standards help or hurt this proposal?
-What other design aspects should be covered?
4. Do you think we should add design guidelines and'standards to
,other zoning districts?
r,6
5. Do you think we should add design -guidelines.,-and standards to
other zoning districts?
6. Other cements.
UIj l- G- yL 1 HU 1 3= LJ V 1<1-1 1~ _ b 1
1 Od:iSc f
Bill Gross
11035 SU 135th
Tigard. OR 97223
Tel: 524-6325
October 7. 1992
Liz Newton
Tigard Community Development
13125 SU Hall
Tigard. OR 97223
Tel: 639-4171
Fax: 684-7297
RE: MPG #7 MEETING; UEDHESDAY, OCTOBER 7. 1992-7:00 PH
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7'.03 PH.
ROLL CflLL o
Present: U 4y~rsett, 6 s. ~a *
Excused: nchard. Howden. ~
Absent: Winningham. Mc611nchy
JOINT TIN JIt 43
a
Our MPG convened with HPO 43 to hea ',presentations from Tigard Planners
Johri'Acker and Jerry Offer and State ighway Engineer Art Luey.
Planner Acker presented the proposed gard Triangle plan.
Planner Offer presented 1) the proposed tree removal ordinance amend-
ments and 2> the last drafts of the pppposed coAmunity commercial dis-
rict plan and ordinance texts. ;
Highway Engineer Luey presented the Late proposal to construct an in-
terim asphalt sidewalk on the Tigar site of the Scholls Highway, dust
east of 135th. to connect existing gard sidewalks.
Mr Luey presented this proposal response to Chairman Uoolery°s con-
cerns for pedestrian safety at is location. This location is with-
out any curb and sidewalk, a though the Scholls Highway reconstruc-
tion project is almost don nd the State did not intend to construct
any sidewalk at the to n.
MPG 7 HEETIHG-OCTOBER'7_ 1992 PAGE 1
OCT- $-soy Y HU 1 3 :re-4 ORRr4c r _ ko +
i
s ~
C RPPROUED MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 2 7992 MEETING HS RERO.
WELCOME TO GUESTS
Chairman Uoolery welcomed Scott Russell, landowner in the Scholls Ferry
and Murray area as a guest to our meeting.
REOIEU OF NOTICES OF DECISION
Chairman Uoolery read notices of decision received.
NO FURTHER BUSINESS URS CONSIDERED DUE TO NO QUORUM.
MEEETING ADJOURNED HT 9-35 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill Gross, Secretary
i
NPO 7 MEETING-OCTOBER 1992 PRGE 2'
n
j-
OC-f 159a c
COMMENTS ON COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PROPOSAL
1. Does the NPO think that this proposal is warranted if so few
possible sites may be involved?
2. Should the proposed criteria be loosened to allow the
possibility of additional sites?
6 Ci.S P~o~GSdY ~/J =2 "{IILSTS-tc ~t'~.
r
Other locational criteria the NPO would suggest?
3. Do you think the proposed non-mandatory design guidelines and
mandatory design standards( help or hurt this proposal?
We- b¢.l«,Cv ~ S-f-o4.►~~ds $~u Z ~ be rn~da-i-o~y1
What other design aspects should be covered?
4. Do you think we should add design guidelines and standards to
other zoning districts?
e, S
5. macs you think we should add design guidelines and standards to
other zoning districts? 11
C.Orv►.XAa1. fp►vi ems. L4
6. Other comments.
.OCT 01 192 1514 P.2i5
M Aim
McKeever/1Mor4s, Inc.
722 S. W. Second Avenue
Suite 400
wx 50 Portland, Oregon 97204
/nx 503 228-7365
503 228-7352 p
MEMORANDUM 0/4
TO. NPO #5 and #7
FROM: Keith S. Liden, AICP
RE: Commercial Neighborhood Zoning Districts
DATE: October 6, 1992
As you are aware, the City Council has reviewed a proposal to add a fifth commercial land use
designation to Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code. The Council decided to
ask the NPOs and Planning Commission for further comment on the proposed C-C (Community
Commercial) designation before taldng final action.
COMMUNITY COMMIFF_RCIAL ISSUES
The primary issues related to this proposal are:
• Is a new commercial designation between the intensity of the C-N (Neighborhood
Commercial) and C -G (General Commercial) necessary?
• What, if any, size limits should be placed on development that occurs in this new zone?
Where should Community. Commercial developments be located?
What size market area should be served by a Community Commercial development?
SURVEY OlF "P IERMFEDIATE" COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS
v
In order to help address these issues, I have reviewed the neighborhood commercial provisions for
the majority of the local jurisdictions in the Panland metropolitan area. All jurisdictions reviewed
bad several commercial zones and many have an intermediate commercial designation similar to the
Community Commercial zoning designation being considered by the City of Tigard.
The approach taken by different jurisdictions varies widely; however, three key observations can
be made from a review of other zoning and development ordinances.
• Most jurisdictions have a commercial none similar to the Tigard Neighborhood
Commercial C-N zone that is intended for small sites in residential areas with store
sizes often limited to 5,000 square feet in floor area on sites that typically are 1/4 to
2 acres in size.
• Jurisdictions which have an intetnwAaw neighborhood or community commercial
designation often feature a licit on food store floor area between 10,000 and
35,000 square feet. In some cases larger store sizes are allowed subject to a
conditional use review. Maximum site size is also commonly specified.
f~tmuurty
Public brK,h'e+nent
Project Mana;ernent Nei6ibarhood Commercial Zone Summmy - PA ge 1
Landscape Architecture
OCT 06 '92 15:14 P.3/5
elf • Several jurisdictions have locatioual criteria requiring access to major streets or
spacing standards between commercial centers.
A summary of these intermediate designations from other jurisdictions follows.
Gresham
The Gresham Community Development Code has a Neighborhood Commercial District
designation (Section 2.0210) which allows for a variety of retail uses, including grocery stores
with a maximum gross floor area of 35,000 square feet. Other retail uses are also limited to
specified gross floor areas. The designation has a required site size range of 1 to 4 acres and a
minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet_
Tualatin
The Neighborhood Commercial Planning District (CN) (Section 51), in the Tualatin Development
Code, permits food stores and other retail uses that are subject to a number of requirements
including:
• Maximum commercial floor area limit of 10,000 square per occupant;
• Maximum lot coverage for buildings and parking of 751%;
• Maximum height of 25 feet; and
• Minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet (no maximum).
Clackamas County
The Clackamas County Zoning and Development Ordinance has two commercial zones intended
for neighborhood areas. The Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zone (Section 501) permits
grocery stores with:
• A maximum floor area of 5,000 square feet;
• Maximum building coverage on the site of 5001b;
• Maximum site size of 1 acre; and -
• Access to a collector or arterial street.
' The Community Commercial (CC) Zone (Section 502) allows grocery stores and supermarkets
with no minimum lot size. The CC district is limited to a maximum size of 10 acres.
Lake Oswego
The Lake Oswego Zoning Ordinance has a Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District (Section
48.300) that permits markets under 25,000 square feet in size and other retail uses under 10,000
square feet per tenant. The zone has no maximum lot coverage limit (presumably the landscaping
standards will require landscaped area) but does have a Floor Area Patio (FAR) of .25 to 1.
Wilsonville
The City of Wilsonville Zoning Code handles the majority of development requests through a
planned development process. In the Planned Development Residential Zone (Sections 4.123 and
4.133 (1)), a Neighborhood Commercial Center is permitted if it meets a number of criteria
including:
• It is "compatible" with surrounding residential uses and structures;
i
' Neighborhood Commercial Zone Summary - Page 2
37 o '92 15:15 P.4/5
C
" It shall be a minimum of 12 mile firotn any other commercial sites;
• A maximum site size of 5% of the total planned development of 1 acre, whichever
is less; and
• Access is available from a collector street.
Washington County
Volume IV of the Washington County Comprehensive Plan, Community Development Code has
two zones which may be considered as neighborhood commercial retail. The Neighborhood
Commercial (NQ none (Section 311) tows convenience groceries with a maximum floor am of
5,000 square feet and food markets with a maximum floor area of 35,000 square feet. The zone
also places size limits on other types of commercial activity including a 10,000 square foot limit for
retail businesses. Food markets with a floor area of up to 50,000 square feet may be approved
through a Type M (public hearing) process.
In the Washington County Bull Mountain Community Plan, the NC zone was originally intended
for a 2 to 4 acne site on the future intersection of 135th and Murray Boulevard extension (now
often referred to as the Walnut extension). The final site size and subsequent design was to be
determined after this intersection was constructed. Before this occurred, the area was annexed into
the Tigard and the City's Neighborhood Commercial zone was applied. This designation was later
enlarged and moved to its present location on Scholls Ferry Road. The County NC designation
also applies to the commercial site identified in the Tigard staff report regarding the C-C
designation located at the intersection of new Scholls Ferry Road and Old Scholls Ferry Road.
The Community Business District (CBD) zone (Section 313) is intended to provide the
community with a mix of retail, service and business establishments on a medium to large scale."
Food markets are permitted without any limit to size. This zone is very similar in character and
application to the Tigard General Commercial (CC) designation.
Beaverton
The Beaverton Development Code has a Neighborhood Service District (NS) limits the size of
individual retail businesses to 15,000 square feet with the exception of food stores. The District
also requires:
• One-half mile spacing from "like districts"; '
• Access to a collector or arterial street;
• A district size of 4 to 12 acres;
• A 7,000 square foot minimum lot size; and
• A landscaped area standard of 15%.
Clark County, Washington
The Clark County Zoning Ordinance has a wide variety of commercial designations (Chapter
18.313) of which three are relevant to the Tigard Community Commmial proposal.
The Convenience Commercial (Cl) District is intended to provide for the fiequent needs of the
residents of the immediate urban neighborhood..." and has a number of requirements that are
applied including:
• A district size range of 1/4 to 12 acre;
• Markets must be less than 5,000 square feet of floor area; and
• Other cornmercial/rctail uses are very limited.
Neighborhood Commercial Zone Summary - page 3
E III MOROI R, 11"
Oct 05 '92 15 16 P.5/5
The Neighborhood Commemial (C2) District is intended to provide for the shopping and service
needs of the immediate neighborhood. Centers are to range from 1 to 7 acres in size. Markets
with a floor area between 5,000 and 25,000 are permitted uses and the markets over 25,000 square
feet trust be reviewed as a conditional use.
F
RECOMMBNDAIION
The floor area and site size limitations are commonly used as a tool by other jurisdictions to allow ?
necessary commercial se vices in predominantly residential locations that do rat bcc^= so large z
scale as to create conflicts with surrounding land uses. The proposed grocery store floor area y
limitation of 30,000 square feet proposed by NPO 7 is an appropriate method for limiting the scale
of Community Commercial development that is consistent with the approach taken by a number of '
other communities in the Portland area.
The locational criteria which are part of the Community Commercial package proposed by the staff
are justified given the allowed scale of development that includes grocery stores up to 40,000 j
square feet. However, these criteria leave very few sites that will be eligible for the new
Community Commercial designation. This has raised the question of whether the new designation
in its current form is worth pursuing.
Two possible solutions that appear to have the most promise are to:
1) Determine that the application of the proposed new designation is too limited and
leave the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code in its present
form with the present C-N, C-P, C-G, and CBD designations; or
2) Modify the proposed Community Commercial designation so that it will be
appropriate in more locations in the City.
This second option could be accomplished by modifying the proposed Comtnumty Commercial
designation to be more limited in scale to be compatible in a wider variety of residential situations.
The design criteria proposed by the staff will clearly help in this regard, but reducing the size of the
development (defined according to gross floor area and/or site sire) is essential to ensure
compatibility with surrounding residences.
c: Ed Sullivan
Matt Marcott
Jerry Offer
4
I
5
1
t
Neighborhood Commcrcial Zone Summary - Page a i
:t
THE PETRIE COMPANY
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
C - (503) 2467977
~Irl F r ra~tn nq-~
October 28, 1992 -
TO: Jerry Offer & Tigard City Council 11 O V 0 3 1992 {
C/O City of Tigard Planning Dept. ,
FROM: Craig A. Petrie - - - -
RE: Community Commercial Zone--Input of Keith Liden
Dear Jerry,
On page four of a June 23, 1992 memo to the City Council from Keith Liden he made a
suggested addition to Section 4.b. (3) which evidently has been included in proposed
language. His addition was as follows:
(b) "The maximum size of the site may be required to be less than eight acres if it is
found that a smaller site is necessary to ensure consistency of community commercial
development with other Plan policies and Locational Criteria"
I feel that you should consider removing this language as it is unnecessary and vague. If it
was a sound idea why didn't his language include "The minimum size of a site may be
required to be more than------etc., etc." The reason for insertion of this language is to
have basis to appeal and delay any proposals in western Tigard. It certainly has not been
suggested because it is a benefit to this new zone. It will leave questions for City Staff,
questions for property owners, questions for neighborhood groups, questions for an
applicant attempting to utilize this zone. In short a lawyer whose client wants to delay or
just stop something will have a field day--this is why the language has been suggested. It
is time to take a very clear focus on why Keith Liden and Ed Sullivan (lawyer) have been
hired to give input in this process.
"Their agenda is to
1. Kill the new zone if possible (which they have suggested
repeatedly)
OR
2. If there is going to be a new zone then to make sure there is
language in the new zone which makes it easier to appeal
and/or delay a proposal-in short to make sure their client
does not get any new competition.
C.
9600 SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY • PORTLAND, OR 97219
Page one of Two FAX: (503) 2440123
C_
Under the guise of supporting the zone if their maneuvering is successful it will only cause
the City staff more time and money and will cost the City economic growth, viability, and
livability.
The Planning Staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council are perfectly capable of
analyzing the information on an application and maldng a recommendation and decision on
the size of a particular community commercial site. I urge you to consider removing the
language discussed above.
Sincerely yours,
Craig Pet 'e
C Page Two of Two
O C Ycr 3 i0 - 9 2 P R I 9 26 O R P A C P- 0 I
Bill Gross
C. 11035 SU 135th
Tigard, OR 97223
Tel: 524-6325
October 29, 1992
Jerry Offer
Tigard Community Development
13125 Std Hall
Tigard, OR 97223
Tel; 639-4171
Fax: 684-7297
RE: SPECIFIL. HPO #7 MEETIHG; THURSOAY, OCTOBER 29, 1992-7:00 PM
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER RT 7:00 PM.
ROLL CALL
Presents Uoolery, Blanchard, Cunningham, Dorsett, Gross, Howden,
McGlinchy.
REUIEU OF CPA 91-0005/20n 91-0006= HEW COMMUHITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
Members considered whether to endorse or oppose the recent revisions to
the Plan and ordinance texts for this new district.
Members reconsidered the merit of this new district.
Motion: Ed Howden; to endorse, in general, this new district in order
to allow possible nearby shopping opportunities for Tigard's neighbor-
hoods.
Second: Cal Uoolery; In Favor: 6; Against: 1: Abstain: 0.
Members considered the merit of the new scale criterion which requires
that the zoning districts within one-half mile of this district must
average no less than eight dwelling units per acre:
1. It is a criterion which might be practical for urban medium
and high density neighborhoods, but not for Tigard's suburban
low density neighborhoods; and
t
HPO 7 MEETIHG-OCTOBER 29, 1992 PAGE. 1
11 1111~1111ill 11111 11~,;Igig 11 11111 ol 1111,115 1111 1111,111mjgp~1111111~
f
O C T- 3 0- 9 2 F R I 9 2 T O R P AiC P 0 2
C 2. It denies Tigard's low density suburban neighborhoods of poss-
ible nearby shopping opportunities.
Motion: Jim Blanchard; to oppose the new density criterion in order to
allow more possible community commercial sites.
Second: Katy Dorsett: In favor: 7; Rgainst: 0: Rbstain: 0.
Members considered the merit of the new locational criterion which ex-
plicitly allows the City to limit the size of this district to less
than eight acres to ensure consistency with other Plan policies'and
•locational criteria.
Motion: Bill Gross; to endorse the new site size limitation criterion
in order. to ensure that possible community commercial sites would be
compatible with nearby neighborhoods.
Second: Ed Howden; In Favor: 6; Against= 1: Rbstain: 0.
Members considered the merit of the new locational criteria which allow
conditions of approval for this district at any future site such as,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, access. setbacks, buffers, parking. coordinated de-
sign and operating hours.
Motion: Bill Gross; to endorse the new conditions of approval criteria
in order to ensure neighborhood compatibility.
Second: Katy Dorsett; In Favor: 7; Against:. 0; Rbstain: 0.
Members considered the merit of the new design guidelines and standards.
for this new district.
Motion: Lee Cunningham; to endorse the new design guidelines and stand-
ards and propose that,the new design guidelines become mandatory design
standards in order to ensure neighborhood compatibility.
Second: Ed Howden; In favor: 6; Rgainst: 0; Abstain: 1.
Motion: Larry Mc6linchy; to propose that the planners consider possible
environmental standards for this new district as well.
Second: Katy Dorsett; In Favor_ 6; Rgainst: 0; Rbstain: 1.
Members considered the merit of possible design guidelines or standards
f for existing districts.
l
HPO 7 MEETIHG-OCTOBER 29, 1992 PRGE 2
O C.T - 3 O- 9 2 F R l 9: 2 8 O R P A C P_ 0 3
notion: Larry McGlinchy; to oppose any design guidelines and standards
for existing districts.
Second: Ed Howden; In Favor: 4: Against: 3; Rbstain: 0.
Nk
Chairman Uoolery will present our positions on the recent rev ions to
the Plan and ordinance texts for this district at the Planning Commiss-
ion's public hearing on November 2, 1992.
MEETING ADJOURNED RT 8:25 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Sill Gross, Secretary
HPO 7 MEETIN6-OCT08ER 29, 1992 PAGE 3
WOMI
MEN= on 1! 11 111
PRESTON 32w U.S. Bancorp lower
rn~ p, q Met 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue
TI-IORG RI M$DN Co x E , ~ Portland, OR 97204-3688
t SH I DLER ~ Telephone: (503) 228-3200
GATES & ELLIS Facsimile: (503) 248-9085
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MEMORANDUM
To: Tigard City Council
From: Edward J. Sullivan, for Matt Marcott, Thriftway
Date: November 24, 1992
Re: Proposed Community Commercial Plan and Zone Designation
This evening, Council will consider once again proposals for amendment of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and Development Code to accommodate a Community Commercial
designation. Additional changes have been suggested by the NPOs and the Planning
Commission; however it is Council which must make the final determination as to whether
the proposals to add a new plan and zoning designation are justified, and, if so, what those
changes should be.
When this matter was last before the Council, Mr. Marcott, an independent grocer
whose interests are certainly affected by the shape of the new plan and zoning designation,
r questioned the viability of this proposal because the locational criteria limited consideration
of candidate sites within the City to two, one of which was being touted by a chain store,
its realtor and its lawyer. That limitation has since been removed.
There now appear to be three issues remaining for Council:
1. The size of the community commercial site and anchor store Staff and
neighborhood associations have expressed concerns over the dg 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
C_
Page 1 - MEMORANDUM K:\EJS\30318-00.001\5YMCC112.327
Anchorage - Bellevue - Seattle • Spokane • Tacoma • Washington, D.C.
A Partnership Including A Professional Corporation
i
PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS
C
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.
Since the last Council meeting, Keith Liden, AICP, a former planner for Tigard,
submitted a memorandum dated October 6, 1992 (which is in Council's packet) and setting
forth how other local governments in the Portland metropolitan area dealt with these issues.
Mr. Liden concluded that floor area and site size limitations were commonly used to limit
community commercial uses so that they do not become so large as to conflict with
surrounding land uses. In this vein, he suggested a maximum anchor store size of 30,000
square feet, which was consistent with the approach taken by other jurisdictions in the
metropolitan area.
It also appears that the Planning Commission has made the current recommendations
before Council by a bare majority, the anchor store size still being a concern. That concern
remains our concern as well. As we indicated to Council on September 8, 1992:
"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 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
t Page 2 - MEMORANDUM K:\EJS\30318-00.001\SYMCC112.327
PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS
t_
of the community commercial designation, after all, is driven by
the size of the anchor food store."
We believe these concerns militate in favor of the use of a 30,000 square foot
maximum anchor store size. We have prepared amendments to carry out that goal as
follows:
a. Plan Amendments, sec. 4 (Community Commercial), a. (Scale), paragraph
2 (Gross Floor Area) at p. 1 of the draft should be revised as set forth in part
3, below. [That change reduces the maximum anchor store site from 40,000
to 30,000 square feet.]
fib. Development Code amendments, sec. 16.61.030(A)(2)(f) at p. 3 of the draft
should be revised to read as follows (Deleted material in [brackets]; new
material in bold):
"f. Food and beverage retail sales (maximum size of
[40,000] 30,000 square feet);"
C
2. The Role of Design Criteria The City's approach to design in these proposals
reflects a greater ambivalence over design criteria generally. The proposed plan
amendments at pp. 2-3, items (4)(b)(4)(a), (c), (e), and (f) all provide for a strong basis for
design review. For example, item (4)(b)(4)(a) states that:
' "The scare and intensity of the project shall be compatible with surrounding
land uses. [The section goes on to illustrate how this may be done.]
Yet in the Development Code, there are set forth (useless) "non-mandatory" design
"guidelines" in proposed section 18.61.055(A), along with binding (but not very difficult)
standards relating to walkways, mechanical equipment, and bikeways in section 18.61.055(B).
The issue for Council is whether it expects these commercial centers to adhere to
community standards for attractiveness and utility. We have prepared amendments if the
Council wishes to proceed beyond the minimalist approach suggested by staff. Those
amendments are as follows:
Proposed Plan Amendments, Sec. 4 (Community Commercial), b. (Locational
Criteria), paragraph (4)(a) (Impact Assessment) at p. 2-3 of the draft should
be revised to read as follows:
4
Page 3 - MEMORANDUM K:\EJS\30318-00.001\SYMCC112.327
PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS
(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 particular
site through conditions of approval of a Plan map amendment
for the site or through site and/or building design standards.
Such considerations may include, but are not limited to, access
limitations, special setbacks, increased landscaping or buffering,
limits on off-street parking spaces, coordinated building design,
[and] special design considerations for pedestrian and bicyclist
access and safety, and those building and site design guidelines,
design standards, and other site development standards
contained in the community commercial zoning district as the
result of conditions imposed in the plan amendment or
rezoning process.
This approach would allow the Planning Commission and Council to make site-
specific development requirements at the time of consideration of the plan amendment,
rather than instituting design review requirements throughout the City generally.
_ 3. The Precision of the Plan and Ordinance Standards It is not clear just how much
the City wishes to apply the standards contained in its plan and ordinance proposals. We
believe that, if the standards are to be used, they should be enforceable; otherwise, they
should be dropped. As above, the following set forth the text of those standards with the
deleted. language [bracketed], and suggested additions in bold.
A- The Proposed Plan Revisions
.p. 1. "Community Commercial"
"The community commercial Plan designation [is intended to provide]
provides for locations for retail and services uses which have a [primarily]
neighborhood orientation. Such facilities [should] shall be located so that
their frequency and distributional pattern reflect their [primary] neighborhood
orientation. Such facilities [should] shall 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] The size of such facilities shall be restricted [and] so that the
r
Page 4 - MEMORANDUM K:\EJS\30318-00.001\SY14CC112.327
i
i
PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLB
commercial plan designation [should] shall not be located in close proximity
to other commercial areas so as to avoid the appearance and feeling of typical
commercial strip development."
n. 1 "Scale"
"(1) Trade Area: The trade area of a community commercial development
shall be those surrounding [Surrounding] residential neighborhoods
[generally] within a 1 and 1/2 mile radius.
(2) Gross Floor Area[.]: The gross floor area within the community
commercial designation shall be 30,000 to 100,000 square foot per gross
commercial floor area, with the following additional specifications:
Food sales shall be allowed up to [40,000] 30,000
sq. ft. per establishment; general retail sales shall
be allowed up to 10,000 sq. ft. per establishment;
other commercial sales and service facilities shall
be allowed up to 5,000 sq. ft. in size per
establishment."
p. 2. item (2)(b) ""Access"
"The site shall be located along an arterial or a major collector
street as designated on the Comprehensive Plan Tansportation
Map. Sites [should] shall either 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."
p. 3. item 4Z(e). "Unique Features of the Site'.
"Unique features of the site [should] shall be incorporated into
the site development plan."
B. The Development Code Amendments
Proposed section 18.61.010
"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
Page 5 - MEMORANDUM K:\EJS\30318-00.001\SYMCC312.327
ffam
PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES cot. ELLIS
&EM
i
nearby residential neighborhoods. [It is intended that the] The
community commercial center shall be ideally developed as a
unit, whenever practicable, with adequate off-street parking for
customers and employees, and with appropriate landscaping and'
screening to insure compatibility with the surrounding i
residential environment. Gross floor area in community
commercial centers [typically] range from 30,000 to 100,000
square feet, and land area ranges between 2 to 8 acres.
"Community commercial centers [are intended to] shall be
separated from other commercially zoned property which
provide retail and service opportunities by at least one half
mile. The designation of a site with this district [should] shall
not create or contribute to a commercial strip development
pattern. This district [is intended to] shall be located adjacent
to several residential neighborhoods, [ideally] and at the
intersection of two or more major collector streets or at the
intersection of an arterial and a collector street. The district
[is] shall be applied in only one quadrant of an intersection.
® The [intended] service area of the district [is] shall be up to one
and one half miles from a site.
'"The scale of a community commercial development shall be
compatible with surrounding uses. This may be accomplished
through special site developm' ent considerations which may be
placed on a particular community commercial site through
conditions of approval of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
map amendments for the site or through the site development
review process. Such considerations may include, but are not
limited to, 'access limitations, special setbacks, increased
landscaping or buffering, limits on off-street parking spaces,
coordinated building design, [and] special design considerations
for pedestrian and bicyclist access and safety, and those
building and site design guidelines, design standards, and other
site development standards provided in the community
commercial zoning district as the result of conditions imposed
in the plan amendment or rezoning process. This Chapter shall
provide special [non-mandatory] building and site design
guidelines and [special mandatory] site design standards
[intended] to mi:umize site development impacts on
Page 6 - MEMORANDUM K;\EJS\30310-00.001\SYMCC112.327
3
i
PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS
surrounding residential neighborhoods and to promote
pedestrian and bicyclist friendly development."
Proposed Section 18.61.055
A. Design Guidelines
The following [non-mandatory] design guidelines [are strongly
encouraged] shall be considered during the plan amendment,
rezoning, or site design process for developments within the
community commercial district and may be the subject of
conditions imposed on developments:
The result of this series of amendments is to make the text clearer and to provide
guidance to regulators, citizens, and developers alike as to the expectations of the City.
Moreover, if the design criteria have no functions other than non-binding suggestions, they
should be eliminated or, at the very least, made factors at the plan amendment, rezoning
or development review stage.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter.
s
C
Page 7 - MEMORANDUM K:\EJS\3031a-00.001\SYMCC122.327