The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 12/13/1994 G; CITY OF TIGARD r OREGON F r r 7 PUSUC NOTICE. Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheets). if no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the !mayor ,i at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes t or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. r' Times noted are estimat : it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be } present by 7.15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet RugLi= agenda items can h in order 7.3f8 Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. ~ Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684.2772 (TOD - Telecommunications Devices for the Dem. Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services. • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments: and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please nothy the City of your need by 5.00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: j 6394171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Dean. 1 ~ SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - [DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 1 TIGARD CITE' COUNCIL MEE ING F E. ` DECEMBER 13, 1994 AGENDA i STUDY MEETING: E Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss l labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. Agenda Review s - Administrative Update: Topics may include resort of water issues, ~ upcoming events, scheduling, and current events of interest to the City.) r. i 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 P.M.) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board F.' 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/Lialson Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items ` .a _ i 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Receive and file: ` a. Council Calendar E b. Tentative Agenda C. Canvass of Votes - For the Candidates and Measure Relating to the General Election (Tigard Issues) on November 8, 1994 i 3.2 Initiate !Vacation Proceedings for Two 15-Foot Wide Public Storm Drainage Easements Located Between Lot #35 and Lot .x#36, and Between Lot A27 and Lot #28 in Waverly Estates Subdivision - Resolution No. 94-5 3.3 Appoint New Planning Commission Members Shei Scolar and Jim Griffith - Resolution No. 94-2-121-9 F t. { a COUNCIL AGENDA DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 2 I t. 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 5 ZONE CHANGE ZON 7RIPLE1rS LOCATION: 14180 SW Pacific Highway (WCTM 2S1 10AA, tax lot 401). To amend the Comprehensive Flan Map from Medium Density residential to General Commercial and a zoning change from R-12 (Residential, 12 units acre) to C-G (General Commercial). APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.22,18.32,18.54; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 12. ZONE: R-12 (Multiple-Family Residential) The properties existing in the R-12 zone allows single-family residential units, duplex residential units, muitipie-family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivisions, t - public support services, residential treatment homes, manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations, and temporary uses among other uses. The proposed C-G (General Commercial) zone provides sites for the provision of major retail goods and services, business, and professional services. a. Open Public Hearing E b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report - Community Development Department i d. Public Testimony Applicant - Proponents - Opponents r ; Rebuttal f, 1 e. Staff Recommendation f. Council questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration -Ordinance No. 94-x( p E< 5. COMPREMENSWE PLAN AMENDMENT/CPA 93-0009 ZONE CHANGE/ZON g.. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/SIR 93-0014 CONDITIONAL USE/CUP 93-0002 MINOR LAND PARTITION/MLP 93-0013 F` ALBERTSON'S/DUNCOM E LOCATION: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street. (WCTM 2S1 4138, tax lots 100 and 200). A request for the following development approvals: 1) Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to redesignate approximately eight acres of a 12 acre parcel from Medium-High Density Residential to Community Commercial on tax lot 200 and to redesignate an approximately 6.93 I i acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Density Res!- 3ntial on tax lot 100. Zone changes accompanying the above plan changes includes a zone change from R-12 (PD)c and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 12 to 25 units/acre, Planned Development) to C-C (Community Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre); 2) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 40,000 anchor tenant pad including a 40,000 square foot grocery store and three smaller tenant pads of 1,200, 2,400, and 5,950 square feet adjoining the anchor tenant pad. The applicant also proposes two 4,000 square foot stand alone tenant pads. 3) Minor Land Partition { COUNCIL. AGENDA - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PACE 3 _ j approval to divide the 12 acre parcel Into two parcels of approximately eight acres f and four acres each. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Statewide Planning j Goals 1, 2, 6, 9,10, 11,13 and 14; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.4.1, 6.6.1, 7.1,2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 8.4.1, 9.1.3, 12.1.1, 12.2, 12.2.1, and 12.2.4; Community Development Code 6 Chapters 18.22, 18.32, 18.56, 18.60, 18.61, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, ' 18.114, 18.120, 18.130, 18.162, and 18.164. ZONE: The existing Neighborhood i Commercial zone permits a range of convenience goods and services which are ; j purchased at ieast weekly. Typical uses would include convenience sales and ` personal services, children's day cars, financial, insurance and real estate services, food and beverage retail sales, etc. Neighborhood Commercial centers have a ~ 5,000 square foot lot minimum. The proposed Community Commercial zone permits a range of convenience goods and services which are designed to serve the regular needs of residents of nearby residential neighborhoods. Community Commercial centers typically range E. In size from a minimum of two acres to eight acres. In terms of square footage 1 these centers range from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet. The existing R-25 (PD) zone permits a range of single-family attached, low and medium rise multiple-familhl residential units, for r i ediu i e-high residential development. The R-25 zone permits residential densities yap to 25 units per acre. { The Planned Development zoning district overlay is designed to encourage K . properties to be developed as a single unit in terms of design, access, etc. R a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges c. Staff Report - Community Deveopment Department { d. Public Testimony k Applicant - Proponents - Opponents Rebuttal e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions - j g. Close Public nearing ~pu;v~.i~ ~,,a..,. "`.w h. Council Consideration - Ordinance No. 94-~j 6. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION: CRIME BILL FEDERAL GRANT REQUEST (Set Over from the November 29,1094 Council Meeting) • Staff Report: Chief Ron Goodpastar " a COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 4 r l F, t 7. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION: COMMITTEE REAPPOINTMENT ~i GUIDEUNES (Continuation of Council discussion of November 29, 19 ) f _ Staff Report: Community Relations Coordinator Newton • Council Discussion: Guidelines for Reappointment E Council Consideration: jCo I 7.1 Budget Committee Reappointment - Resolution No. 94-~ 12l~7 7.2 Planning Commission Reappointments - Resolution No. 44t~_57 i S. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE CURRENT 'i EDITION OF TIME STATE ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLING CODE ' • Staff Report: City Administrator Monahan • Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 94_D 9. MON-AGENDA ITEMS 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the prnvislons of ORS 192.650 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 11. ADJOURNMENT i r =1212.94 i C i a f.. f f f i 1 - COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 5 I f, f = 1 f- Council Agenda Item 4 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 i. • Meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m. by Mayor Schwartz. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor John Schwartz; Councilors Wendi Conover Hawley, Pau! G , Hunt, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. Staff Present: Bill Monahan, City Administrator; Pam Beery, Legal Counsel; Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Mark Roberts, Associate Planner; Ed Wegner, Maintenance Services Director; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. STUDY SESSION f • Agenda Review: ' - City Administrator Monahan noted one item to be added to "Non Agenda" - - Report on the 1993 and 1994 League of Oregon Cities Award of Excellence. - City Administrator Monahan referred to Agenda Item 7.1 - Budget E i Committee Reappointment. Floyd Bergmann and Phil Westover have been contacted with regard to some concerns with past attendance. Both Mr. Bergmann and Mr. Westover indicated they would like to continue serving on the Budget Committee. t After brief discussion, Council consensus was to set over consideration of the Budget Committee reappointments to December 27, 1994. Discussion was held on the Tree Task Force. There has been information k out in the community that the City Council would be considering the tree ordinance on December 13. Council discussed concern with the communications that have been sent out with regard to the process on the I tree ordinance. i Council briefly discussed Task Force membership; Legal Counsel Beery advised that it was within the .Council's discretion as to who should serve F on the Task Force. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 1 i k F F - Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:55 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.600 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending I litigation issues. Council reconvened into regular session: 7:35 p.m. E_ r BUSINESS MEETING F `a 1. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: L - Councilor Hunt advised that the Homeless Task Force emergency, bad- f weather shelter had opened at the Water Building. f 1 - It was announced that there would be some discussion on the tree ordinance (process concerns). (See Visitor's Agenda) Non-Agenda: - City Administrator Monahan reported to Council receipt of two awards from - the League of Oregon Cities: ` - a) 1993 Cities Award for Excellence Program - Third Place Award in the Over 25,00 Population Category for "Operation Slowdown." b) 1994 Cities Award for Excellence Program - Honorable Mention in the Over 25,00 Population Category for "Volunteer Video Production Team." i 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA: t f- i • Terry Moore, Metro Councilor, presented to the City Council on behalf of Metro an award which was given to Metro. Councilor Moore advised that she wanted to share the award with the cities in the area and presented to the Council a framed certificate entitled, "Partners for Livable Communities." E Mayor Schwartz thanked Councilor Moore noting that she would end her € term as Councilor at the end of 1994 and wished her luck in the future. t_ i 7 John LeCavalier, P.O. Box 25835, Portland, Oregon, 97225, (Fans of Fanno Creek) testified with regard to the tree ordinance. He noted it was essential 'y for public input to remain in the process as the City reviews proposals for F CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PACE 2 i { F i L 1 i a tree ordinance. Mr. LeCavalier noted several issues including what was E i at stake with regard to the total watershed. • Martha Bishop, 10590 S.W. Cook Lane, Tigard, Oregon noted problems i with -erosion on Bull Mountain citing issues with clear cutting and the , development off Beef Bend Road. (Ms. Bishop also referred to the Aspen Ridge Subdivision.) She advised of concerns of King City residents with > = regard to develppment activity above them. Ms. Bishop also referred to issues with regard to CIT Central and South { and the Tree Task Force. l • Christy Herr, 11386 S.W. Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon, read testimony. ~ (See letter dated December 403, 1994, regarding "Administrative Process.") Ms. Herr's testimony outlined concerns with the tree ordinance and the task ' force. • Carol Krieger, 11910 S.W. rreenburg Road, Tigard, Oregon, referred to information which may have been incorrect with regard to the tree F' ordinance process. She noted that there is a need for an answer that could E be relied upon (tree regulations), and this answer can only come from the. City Council. r • Nancy Tracy, 7310 S.W. Pine, Metzger, Oregon, testified with regard to the F economic activity -which is causing consumption of the environment. She noted the benefits of trees to people and the environment. Ms. Tracy distributed to the City Council a pamphlet entitled "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity." (This pamphlet is on file with the Council packet material.) F • Curtis Herr, 11386 S.W. Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon, testified with regard to the proposed tree ordinance and requested clarification whether ! the public will be able to testify when Council deliberates over an upcoming 'j ordinance proposal. l I He advised he would not want an ordinance to be passed without any I public input. F Council Discussion on the Tree Ordinance and Task Force Process followed: a - Mayor Schwartz called for Council discussion on the tree ordinance process. He noted that the Council formed a Task Force to attempt k to define "developed properties." The Task Force was also asked to determine whether a compromise could be reached with regard to F i ~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 3 i concerns noted for property rights and environmental issues. In the ' interim (until recommendations were received by the Task Force), staff was directed by the Council to bring baUK an ordinance to regulate developable land only. Recommendations as to whether or not residential property should be regulated, and to what extent, would be determined with input from the Task Force. - Senior Planner Bewersdorff advised that it is staff's recommendation to receive public testimony on any ordinance proposal. - Discussion followed with regard to instructions to the Task Force. Mayor Schwartz noted that the Task Force COVId amend any ordinance adopted by the Council or suggest a substitute ordinance. Councilor Hunt referred to the great amount of public input which has been received to date. k' Councilor Hawley noted the Council was not averse to protecting trees, but wanted to do so in a "balanced way." She said she hoped that the Task Force could recommend a definition of a "developable" lot. She encouraged the people on the Task Force to "stick with it." . She also advised that compromise will be necessary. Councilor s Hawley said the Task Force may want to consider designation of historic trees. I Councilor Hawley agreed to be the Council Liaison member to the I-ask Force. 4`. { There was further discussion on the process which had followed to date, including a recent flyer which had been circulated as an insert to the "Oregonian" newspaper. (Note: Council also received the following with regard to the tree € ordinance and/or the Task Force: A communication dated December 13, 1994, from Sally Christensen, 15655 S.W. 78th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, 97224. A letter dated December 12, 1994, from Irma Butterfield, 8770 S.W. Mountainview Lane, Tigard, Oregon 97224. i A letter dated December 7, 1994, from several members of the Tree Task Force. k CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 4 i r hi 1 I. F - A page entitled "Tigard Tree Ordinance -December 7, 1994 -with no author name on it was received. All of the above-mentioned letters are on file with the Council packet material.): , 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to approve the Consent € . Agenda as follows: 3.1 Receive and file: I a.. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda r c. Canvass of Votes - For the Candidates and Measure Relating to the General Election (Tigard Issues) on November 8, 1994 f, 3.2 Initiate Vacation Proceedings for Two 15-Foot Wide Public Storm Drainage Easements Located Between Lot #35 and Lot #36, and Between Lot #27 and Lot #28 in Waverly Estates Subdivision - Resolution No. 94-57 3.3 Appoint New Planning Commission Members Shel Scolar and Jim Griffith - -;1 Resolution No. 94-58 E F The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 94-0005 ZONE CHANGE ZON 94-0004 RIPLEY`S - LOCATION: 14180 SW Pacific Highway (WCTM 2S1 10AA, tax lot 401). To amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from Medium Density } residential to General Commercial and a zoning change from R-12 (Residential, 12 units acre) to C-G (General Commercial). APPLICABLE APPROVAL F;- CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32, 18.54; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 12. ZONE: R-12 (Multiple-Family Residential) The properties existing in the R-12 zone allows single-family residential units, duplex residential units, multiple-family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivisions, k public support services, residential treatment homes, manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations, and temporary uses among other uses. The proposed C-G (General Commercial) zone provides sites for the provision of major retail goods and services, business, and professional services. r C t { CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 5- - j a. Public hearing was opened. } b. Declarations or Challenges No members of Council reported any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits. ;F - Council members indicated that they familiarized themselves with the G application. - There were no challenges from the audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter nor was there a challenge to -1 the participation of any member of the Council. f C. Staff Report: Community Development Department Associate Planner Roberts summarized the Staff Report (on file with the Council packet material.) In addition, he utilized two overhead projector pages which 1) depicted existing zoning and 2) represented an aerial map t _ of the subject area. (Copies of material reviewed is also on file as "hard l copies" in the Council packet.) Mr. Roberts referred to a traffic study, noting that City staff and the Oregon Department of Transportation staff concurred with the findings of the traffic ` study. k Staff recommended Council approval based on the findings contained in the I Final Order as presented in the Council packet. ' In response to questions from Mayor Schwartz, Associate Planner Roberts advised that some displacement of density would occur as a result of the zone change request. The residential units lost (for density requirements) would come out of the reserve. Tigard will be at 10.3 units per acre. d. Public Testimony: k j Mayor Schwartz read the following: i For all those wishing to testify, please be aware that failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Council and parties an E opportunity to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence must be directed toward the criteria that staff will describe or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which you believe apply to the decision. 11_ ER 13 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEM~3, 1994 - PAGE 6 'r f _3 f F f F a _ - Applicant - Michael Robinson, 900 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Portland, Oregon, .j 97204, and Mr. Dave Ripley, 14170 S.W. Pacific Highway, Tigard, Oregon 97224, testified before City Council. Mr. Robinson noted the staff and Planning Commission i { recommendation for approval. He advised that there were no E adverse comments from the neighborhood meeting. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, he noted that this would be ; a two-story building. There was discussion of other two-story buildings which were also in the vicinity. e. Staff Recommendation: Approval of application. f. Public hearing was closed. h. Council Consideration: 4 ' - Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to adopt Ordinance No. 94-26. r ORDINANCE NO. 94.26 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY t' DAVE RIPLEY (CPA 94-0005, ZON 94-0007). The motion was approved a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") `1 l 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/CPA 93-0009 ZONE CHANGE/ZON 93- 0003 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/SDR 93-0014 CONDITIONAL USE/CUP 93-0002 MINOR LAND PARTITION/MLP 93-0013 ALBERTSON'S/DUNCOMBE- i LOCATION: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street. (WCTM 2S1 4BB, tax lots 100 and 200). A request for the following development approvals: 1) Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to redesignate approximately eight acres of a 12 acre parcel from Medium-High Density Residential to Community Commercial on tax lot I 200 and to redesignate an approximately 6.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood i Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential on tax lot 100. Zone changes accompanying the above plan changes includes a zone change from R-12 (PD) and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 12 to 25 units/acre, Planned Development) to C-C i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 7 a r 4 P~ (Community Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25 ~ (Residential, 25 units/acre); 2) Site Development Review approval to allow the ' construction of a 40,000 anchor tenant pad including a 40,000 square foot grocery store and three smaller tenant pads of 1,200, 2,400, and 5,950 square feet j adjoining the anchor tenant pad. The applicant also proposes two 4,000 square foot stand alone tenant pads. 3) Minor Land Partition approval to divide the 12 i acre parcel into two parcels of approximately eight acres and four acres each. f APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11,13 and 14; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.4.1, ;a 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 8.4.1, 9.1.3, 12. 1. 1, i' 12.2, 12.2.1, and 12.2.4; Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32, { 18.56, 18.60, 18.61, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.130, 18.162, and 18.164. ZONE: The existing Neighborhood Commercial zone permits a range of convenience goods and services which are purchased at least . weekly. Typical uses would include convenience sales and personal services, r children's day care, financial, insurance and real estate services, food and beverage retail sales, etc. Neighborhood Commercial centers have a 5,000 square foot lot minimum.' > ! The proposed Community Commercial zone permits a range of convenience goods and services which are designed to serve the regular needs of residents of nearby residential neighborhoods. Community Commercial centers typically range in size ? i:... ' from a minimum of two acres to eight acres. In terms of square footage these a centers range from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet. The existing R-25 (PD) zone permits a range of single-family attached, low and medium rise multiple-family residential units, for medium-high residential development. The R-25 zone permits residential densities up to 25 units per acre. The Planned Development zoning district overlay is designed to encourage properties to be developed as a single unit in terms of design, access, etc. ~ i a. Public hearing was opened. b. Declarations or challenges: t E - Mayor Schwartz asked: Do any members of Council wish to report any ex parts contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits? Councilor Hunt advised he visited the site twice; once when the issue was reviewed by the City Council previously and yesterday. - Council members indicated that they familiarized themselves with the application. - There were no challenge: from the audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter nor was there a challenge to the participation of any member of the Council. r CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 PAGE 8 F, c. Staff Report: Community Development Department (Senior Planner - Bewersdorff and Associate Planner Roberts]. Synopsis of staff report Council was advised of staff concerns with an access off of Northview Drive, i F Several overhead pages were reviewed (hard copies on file with the Council F j packet material). Staff reviewed the history of the application, including the previous application. Staff recommended that a driveway access to S.W. Northview Drive be provided to reduce turning movement conflicts on S.W. Walnut Street which is designated a Major Collector Street. It was noted that the Planning Commission revised the staff recommendation by recommending approval of r; the application without requiring the applicant to modify the site plan to provide F a driveway access to S.W. Northview Drive. j Council discussed and asked questions on the following issues: E • Reviewed restrictions of hours of operation for this type of use. _ I • Discussed the recommendation with regard to the access on Northview Drive. City Engineer Wooley reviewed the concerns of the Engineering Department noting that adequate access to the site to serve the neighborhood should be provided. He also noted problems with overloaded collector streets throughout Tigard. Another driveway connection would protect Walnut Street from turning movements. It was noted that the neighborhood was concerned about cut-through traffic; however, the City Engineer said that he did not think that this would become an issue once the Walnut extension was opened. Discussion followed concerning this access. It was suggested that the driveway, if constructed, could be made narrow to reduce speeds. p' i Public Testimony: a - For all those wishing to testify, please be aware that failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Council and parties an opportunity to k l respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence must be directed toward E the criteria that staff will describe or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which you believe apply to the decision. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 9 :_i ~ 1 Proponents: - Scott Russell was called upon; however, he requested that the legal I counsel for the applicant speak first. - Ed Howden, 11829 S.W. Morning Hill Drive, Tigard, Oregon, advised he i j would like to have the store built. r` Applicant: ;y C r- John W. Shonkwiler, 113425 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, testified as legal counsel on behalf of Albertson's. Mr. Shonkwiler reviewed the history of this issue with City Council, including the zoning on this property. Mr. Shonkwiler reviewed the notice to the neighborhood and the materials r ' submitted to the City Council. He advised that over 80% of the r } ' .j neighborhood favored the application. He also noted that special signs on the property were posted with regard to this proposal. He referred to the "flip flopping" of the zone change request. He advised s i - the north side of Walnut was preferable to the south side for this ; development. Mr. Shonkwiler advised that the Community Commercial zone calls for 20% f landscaping; they will do 30%. G, j He noted he believed that this request met all three criteria for a change in zoning. He reviewed the locational criteria, noting the trade area and why ' he believed that this size of grocery store was appropriate. Mr. Shoiinriiler referred to the site plan, noting that truck noise would be k mitigated because they would enter below the grade of the adjacent neighborhood. Mr. Shonkwiler referred to the efforts made on behalf of the neighbors to make this plan so that it was agreeable to them. He described the surrounding area and points of access, including pedestrian and bicycle r plans. He described the design of the store, noting that it would be constructed with "upscale materials." f Mr. Shonkwiler advised that 15 to 20 neighborhood meetings had been held. He referred to a 4-acre parcel to the rear of the property where no request for a zone change was needed. The neighborhood would like to j acquire this property. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 10 I E i i i i° 1 E: Mr. Shonkwiler described shielding from the lights from the development f and referred to a "lighting plan." The light standards would lower in height. E Noise abatement was also reviewed. I Mr. Shonkwiler advised the applicant had met all the requirements of the ordinance and has tried to satisfy any concerns presented by the neighbors. Mr. Shonkwiler reviewed pedestrian access throughout the site. i He noted that the Planning Commission ultimately agreed with the applicant's proposal. With regard to the Northview Drive access, Mr. Shonkwiler advised it would not make a difference to the development whether or not the driveway was E required; however, members of the neighborhood do not want this access. Concerns with such an access included the apprehension that this would make it easy for people to use it as a cut-through or to make the parking r lot a secondary street. -1 E Mr. Shonkwiler then reviewed the evolution of the development proposal. He advised there was no longer a gas station as was originally proposed and 24-hour services were also not part of the application. Mr. Shonkwiler referred to claims made by the opponents to this development that the property owners were threatening to place multi-family (as was legally allowable) on the site or also threatening to construct low- ; j income housing. Mr. Shonkwiler advised that this was not true. .I F Mr. Shonkwiler asked the Council to approve what the Planning Commission recommended for approval. f There was a period of questions and answers between Mr. Shonkwiler and the Council clarifying issues concerning lighting, landscaping and sidewalks. Councilor Rohlf questioned whether the driveway issue could be decided at a later time. The driveway access, he suggested, could be reserved and, if it was determined that this Northview entrance was necessary or if there were other problems, the driveway could be constructed later. In response to concerns about graffiti on the brick walls, Mr. Shonkwiler _ advised that it would be Albertson's responsibility to maintain the wall. Discussion followed on the operation of the development, including F CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 11 f i f I i- ,I f ' deliveries, garbage pick up, and hours of operation. Mr. Shonkwilar advised that his client plans to mitigate these concerns. Noxious odors were discussed. Mr. Shonkwiler noted that garbage containers would have closed lids; there will be a daily pick-up of garbage. a Council meeting recessed: 9:35 p.m. Council meeting reconvened: 9:47 p.m. ` C -r Proponents: - Scoff Russell, 31291 Raymond, Scappoose, Oregon, distributed an outline of his testimony. (This outline is on file with the Council packet material.) s Mr. Russell requested favorable consideration and asked Council to let i competition work. Ernie Platt, 7610 S.W. Hazelfern, Tigard, Oregon 97223, advised he was t in support of the development. He referred to the involvement of the neighbors. Mr. Platt advised he has expected this property to develop commercially and described the surrounding development activity. j - Don Duncombe, 17001 N.E. San Rafael, Portland, Oregon 97230, advised he was the Real Estate Manager for Albertson's. Mr. Duncombe requested an opportunity for rebuttal, if necessary. With regard to concerns expressed earlier by Councilor Hunt with the { sidewalks being covered with merchandise at the Albertson's stores, he advised he would take care of existing problems with the Albertson's off i Durham Road "tomorrow morning." Mr. Duncombe advised that there should not be any odors coming from the Albertson's store. Mr. Duncombe noted the many meetings that had been held with the neighbors. In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Mr. f Duncombe advised that open space, adjacent to the development could be I dedicated to the neighbors for whatever purpose they would desire. Mr. Shonkwiler noted that the transfer of this property would take place after the election of new neighborhood association officers. David S. Williams, 14143 S.W. Stardust Lane, Tigard, Oregon 97223, advised that, throughout the process, Albertson's has worked with the l neighbors and they have agreed to conditions which, he advised, cost them money. He said he does not want an access on Northview Drive noting that this would offer a way for traffic to cut through the neighborhood this would be detrimental. He said he would favor a pedestrian access, however. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 12 i _ i i~ S ~ ! - Lanny Collins, 14158 S.W. Northview Drive, Tigard, Oregon, advised he F moved into the Castle Hill development last March. He said he has 'i appreciated the process and if these plans were realized, this development . would appear to fit in nicely. He noted concerns with a Northview entrance. 4 He also noted that the Hillshire Woods development could potentially i' 'f connect to this area; this would cause a significant impact. k - Barbara Collins, 14158 S.W. Northview Drive, Tigard, Oregon, noted the 1 . willingness of the Albertson's representatives to work with the neighborhood. She advised of her concerns and objections to a Northview Drive access. She said she has lived in the neighborhood for nine months and was attracted to the area because it was so quiet. She noted her EE appreciation of "no traffic" and advised there were a large number of f i children in this neighborhood. E - Terry Lindstrom, 14194 S.W. Northview Drive, Tigard, Oregon 91223, t advised that she moved into her home 18 months ago with the knowledge of the zone change proposal. She advised she was in favor of it then and f was even more in favor or the proposal now. She noted that the plans for architecture and landscaping would be a good fit for the community. She said that another store was needed in the area because of growth. She noted that competition is good. She advised that it was unfortunate that Thriftway opposed the development to the degree that it had. Ms. Lindstrom was opposed to the Northview driveway because of safety concerns and referred to the many children in the area. She said the driveway would complicate traffic patterns and suggested that there should L . be only one left-turn into the development off of Walnut Street. Three entrances into the parking lot would mean more congestion and problems. In addition, the driveway would be across the sidewalk which would cause additional problems. The driveway would be detrimental to aesthetics. ` Ms. Lindstrom thanked Don Duncombe for his work. In addition, she said that the property owners had never made any threatening comments to the i , neighbors with regard to other developments which could be built on the property. - Cindy Christensen, 14293 S.W. Windsong, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, testified in support of the development. She advised that her living room would overlook the property; she did not think this would obstruct her view or "be ugly to look at." - Troy Christiansen, 14133 S.W. Liden Drive, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, advised that, as Councilor Rohlf suggested, that he would rather that the Northview CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 13 k` h { :i a Drive access be reserved and not constructed now. Later, if it was E determined that it was needed, the access could be built. He noted he would like to have this development; it would be convenient for the i neighbors. t a Albertson's, he advised, is going beyond what was expected. Mr. Christiansen said that he trusted Mr. Duncombe. He also noted that t Albertson's plan to donate land as a park. He advised that Albertson's had gone "above and beyond" in trying to accommodate the neighbors. He said that Thriftway's objections were due to economics. i Opponents: t - Elayne O'Brien, 14051 S.W. Liden Drive, Tigard, Oregon, advised she was G a member of the Castle Hill Neighborhood Association but was speaking on her own behalf. With regard to the claim that 80% of the neighbors were in favor of this development, Ms. O'Brien said that she would like to see something in writing to support this. She noted that when she moved to _ Castle Hill, she was told a small neighborhood commercial development i was slated for the area. She recounted her knowledge of the history of the 1 area and her concerns with a 40,000 square foot grocery store which was planned to serve just the neighborhood. She was concerned with the number of entrances and exits to the development and was adamantly i opposed to the Northview Drive access. She said this development would add to traffic hazard concerns. i ' Ms. O'Brien advised she had lived in New York she referred to zoning designations which were used there for neighborhood development. She r suggested the neighborhood commercial designation be scaled down r 3 careful consideration should be given to criteria. -i • Nancy Rhodes, 13994 S.W. Chehalem Court, Tigard, Oregon 97223, advised she was a member of the Castle Hill Homeowners' Association but E was speaking on her own behalf. She noted problems with the community commercial. This would be one more barrier separating the community. She did not want to see, hear, or put up with more traffic and suggested a smaller, scaled-down version of development would be better. Anthony Bonforte, 14675 S.W. Osprey, #413, Beaverton, Oregon 97007, testified with regard to his development which is being constructed across Scholls Ferry Road from the proposed development now under review. He requested that the driveway opposite to his development be relocated to the f southwest by approximately 18 feet closer to the property line. He described problems with the location of the driveway for his development. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 14 -L L f He said that he had discussed this request with-Albertson's and staff; ` j Albertson's was not opposed. He asked that the driveway relocation be - included as a condition of approval. He advised that the County wants as few access points as possible on Scholls Ferry Road and it would be better ` J to have driveways directly oppose one another. Mr. Bonforte said that he had not testified previously with this request, E ,i because they were not notified. The owners recently purchased the property and, therefore, were missed on the notification list. E ® Mr. Ed Sullivan, 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 3200, Portland, Oregon E ' 97204 and Mr. Greg Winterowd offered testimony, summarized as follows: Mr. Winterowd noted problems of compliance with City and State standards for the Plan Amendment request. He advised that he did not feel the t - Planning Commission examined the materials submitted as testimony for k this development. He described the difficulties that would be created by a "mega store." He also noted that there were Transportation Rule concerns. j Mr. Winterowd distributed several items during his testimony: ' Memorandum to the Honorable Mayor and Members of the Tigard City Council from Greg Winterowd, Consultant, dated December 12, 1994. r' ® A copy of Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18.61 (C-C: Community Commercial District) with comments written by Mr. Winterowd throughout. Mr. Winterowd reviewed these comments with the City Council ® Site Plan Evaluation Map ® Pedestrian-Oriented Development Sites Based on Current Zoning Map. Pedestrian-Oriented Mix-Use Development Site Map ' Map referencing Off-Street Parking and Schedule of Units by Land r Development Consultants, Inc. with a notation that it was "Submitted by Winterowd, 12/13/94; Re: Res. use. All of the above documents are on file with the Council packet. Mr. Winterowd also referred to the threat of low-income, dense development F during a preapplication conference. He advised that the applicant has made cosmetic changes only to their proposal. He was concerned that design did not meet the Council's expectation of a Community Commercial 1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 15 1' f development. Mr. Winterowd then detailed his written testimony at length, i - reviewing TMC Chapter 18.81 with the City Council. Mr. Winterowd also referred to concerns with traffic and a Washington ` County study which noted traffic problems. Mr. Winterowd advised that Community Commercial depends on high- density residential. He advised that Albertson's ignored standards for transportation. He recommended that the application be denied; the application has not met Code standards. j Mr. Sullivan then testified. (An outline was submitted to the City Council: E "Principal Grounds for Denial of Albertson's Application" this outline is on r file with the Council packet material.) ` Mr. Sullivan noted concerns with the neighborhood's acquisition of the parcel to the south. He referred to a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Sullivan advised that the land was not developed. He suggested that lost residential ? density should be considered. E r He advised that determination for operation of hours needed to be clarified; i.e., what might be occurring after open hours of the stores. Mr. Sullivan said the application was based on a "threat and a promise." l i The applicant did not present, and the Planning Commission did not k recommend, a development in response to the Council's view (the articulated version) of a Community-Commercial development. He noted the seriousness of this decision as a first-time use in the Community- Commercial Zone. He asked the Council to uphold the policies of the City and deny the application. • Pam Garcia, 14555 S.W. Teal Boulevard, Beaverton, Oregon, testified that the proposed development would draw a market beyond the 1.5 mile radius ` that it was intended to reach. Ms. Garcia distributed a map to illustrate her testimony with regard to market. She reviewed assumptions for market share. She advised that there was plenty of competition in the area. She said that believed that the application was flawed. [ Ms Garcia said that a denial request was justified insofar as the applicant I needed to "play by the rules" and in this instance, they were not meeting F the laws. In response to a question by Councilor Hawley, Ms. Garcia advised that she did not have the opportunity to respond what waaprepared by staff. She i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMSER 13, 1994 - PAGE 1E I f r I l J said that all information presented is included in earlier documentation. i • Bill Gross, 11035 S.W. 135th, Tigard, Oregon 97223, advised that the E applicant must provide analysis with regard to locational criteria and anticipated traffic congestion. He suggested that this could not go further without analysis being done. He advised that the site proposal could - change. He said staff has not presented information as to why locational E criteria should be waived. i (There was a request that the record remain open for at least seven days to provide additional information.) Council meeting recessed: 11:46 p.m. 'j Council meeting reconvened: 11:57 p.m. E Rebuttal: i Mr. John Shonkwiler addressed the following points during rebuttal: f ' - Pedestrian access E Walnut Street concerns - Access points F` j - No 24-hour operation No drive-through use (noting a Conditional Use permit would be required it a drive-through use was requested) Restaurant would not be "fast food"; rather, it would be a "sit-down" , i restaurant E Low-income housing is not part of the application the reference to low- j income housing comes solely from the Thriftway representatives - All factors of the Transportation Rule, effective in 1995, will be satisfied - Referred to a letter from Washington County which addressed concerns noted by the opponents. Concerns by Washington County were i addressed in revised studies. - No problem in aligning the driveway with the property owner across Scholls Perry Road (reference Anthony Bonforte's testimony above)_ Referred to Thriftway's suggestion that the size of the grocery store be reduced with reference to market draw he said density of development should be considered more important, not distance. - Thriftway did not appeal the decision by the Council with regard to the ^ 1.5 mile radius. h Referred to the "mega'store" mentioned by Mr. Sullivan and advised that i Mr. Sullivan's client has a 43,000 square foot store. Washington County has neighborhood-commercial zoning which allows CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 17 J i l ' a store up to 40,000 square feet. f - Referred to the planning concept for which he believed the site was "perfectly suited" because of density and the encouragement of pedestrian access Referred to Mr. Gross' testimony with regard to the traffic study noting E that the development was well within the realm of meeting requirements. j In response to a question from Councilor Hawley regarding statement that 80% of the neighbors were in favor of this development, Mr. Shonkwiler distributed a memorandum from the Homeowners of Castle i -'i Hill Interim Board to Castle Hill Homeowners dated August 9, 1994, with, ' I regard to a survey of homeowners. (This information is on file with the I Council packet material.) € - With regard to Councilor Hawley's question as to whether there was any k way to preclude certain uses, Mr. Shonkwiler advised that every promise made has been kept. He noted Conditions of Approval would not allow E a gas station; if a gas station was wanted later, then the request must come back to the City Council. Discussion followed on the building plan and the design of pathways in relationship to parking. e. Staff Recommendation was for approval subject to findings contained in the draft final order.. The applicant, it was noted, had also prepared findings to address additional issues. f. Council questions and discussion: In response to a question from Councilor Hawley regarding whether landscaping would, in fact, mitigate noise, Associate Planner Roberts reviewed the site design plans. These plans included excavation, walls, building i orientation and plant materials. 1 Senior Planner Bewersdorff, in response to Councilor Hawley noted that the hours of operation could be conditioned to include deliveries and trucks. ! l In response to a question from Councilor Hawley, Senior Planner Bewersdorff j noted that other uses and pads would be similar to Albertson's. If changes were wanted, these would also have to go through a review. j There was discussion about provisions for bicycle and pedestrian access. Associate Planner Roberts described the proposal. There was discussion about traffic on Scholls Ferry Road. The City Engineer r : noted that another signal would be needed at Walnut and Scholls Ferry Road. I CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 18 _a There was discussion on the proposed findings and whether or not additional information was needed. Council discussed access points. Councilor Rohlf suggested that if a proposal for an access on Northview Drive was requested at a later time, that a public 4 j r a hearing be required. 3 g. Public hearing was closed. h. Council consideration: • Mayor Schwartz reviewed the history of the Community Commercial zone i and the disagreements over store size. He noted the efforts to reach a "happy medium" and the resulting Community-Commercial criteria. He advised that the NPO recommended approval of the Community- Commercial Code criteria. He also advised that this issue was sent through ' the process again to address the concerns of the neighborhood. He noted A, that there have been some changes from the first time this was reviewed k, by the City Council. Mayor referred to the support offered by the neighborhood; this appeared to be a complete turnaround from the neighborhoods' stance for the previous application. He advised that the application appears to meet requirements for the Community-Commercial zoning. Albertson's has done what they were told to do; the application meets the intent of the Code. 1 Councilor Hunt expressed concerns also referring to earlier Council review of this issue. Specific concerns by Councilor Hunt included the location of the loading platform, design requirements for windows, and design criteria ,j so that this would not be a "strip mall" type of building. Councilor Hunt noted design change differences appear to be that of "dressing up" the front and the roof line is different. Councilor Hunt said that Albertson's has done a good job in addressing neighborhood concerns. He said that they have abided by the letter of the law, but was not sure about the spirit. He said he would support the proposal as now presented. • Councilor Hawley recounted her experience with the Community Commercial zoning, advising that this was first brought to her attention as an NPO 5 member. She recalled the discussion of what was envisioned for a Community-Commercial area. She noted that she would prefer more windows and design features. She referred to this decision being the first (precedence) for Community-Commercial. She said that she would not l' want this interpretation of the Code to limit requirements for windows or i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 19 'j E- a design elements. She wanted written assurance with regard to usage for the other two pads (i.e., gas station). She said she would like to see more strict pedestrian access requirements and said the proposed development was "auto-oriented." Councilor Hawley said that this was a good start with Community. Commercial Development. She noted that people who were at one time adamantly opposed to the development were now not present at the meeting. She said that it appeared that Albertson's had responded to the a community and the criteria have been met including a dramatic change in circumstance. • Councilor Rohif referred to the interpretation of the code and precedent- setting concerns. He noted the neighborhood involvement appeared to be good. He advised that he liked the presentation with regard to landscaping. Councilor Rohif noted that it was significant to him that a major competitor (opponent) was requesting that the development be stopped masked ire the guise of impacts on the neighborhood. He noted that the Thriftway store was a Beaverton Store and that the Howard's Grocery Store (also nearby) j representatives were not at the meeting. Councilor Rohif advised that he could support this kind of development for Community-Commercial. • Councilor Scheckla noted concerns that the whole plan was not before the City Council. He wanted more definitive plans with regard to uses within the development. he advised he could not support this application without this information. Mayor Schwartz responded that plans could not be made more definite because this issue has been "dragging on" for three years. It was possible that the developer could not get businesses to commit so far out into the future. • Discussion followed on the elements of the plan, including the fact that a drive-through use would require a Conditional Use approval. Councilor Rohif again noted that he would like to see a public hearing be required if a driveway off of Northview should be determined to be needed. Also of concern was that sidewalks not be used for display of merchandise; that there be minimum of five feet of walkway in front of the stores. In addition, there was the concern that the 18-foot movement of the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13,-1994 - PAGE 20 r= driveway to the southwest off of Scholls Ferry Road be done to comply with Washington County's standards as was requested in previous testimony (Bonaforte). 1 k Staff advised that the findings could be revised to reflect the above notation. a i • Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve CPA } 93-0009, ZON 93-0003, SDR 93-0014, subject to the staff providing corrected findings to the proposed ordinance for the conditions proposed by i staff and the following additional conditions- 1 . An access off Northview Drive is not required at the time of site I development, but can be required at a later date based on the traffic engineer's recommendation and a public hearing. L i 2. The sidewalk area in front of the store shall be kept free of I merchandise so as to provide a minimum of five-feet of clear E walkway. 3. The driveway on the southwest corner of the property shall be a moved approximately 18 feet to the south. The motion was approved by a majority vote of Council present. (Mayor Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, Hunt and Rohlf voted "yes"; Councilor r Scheckla voted "No.") I 6. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION: CRIME BILL FEDERAL GRANT REQUEST (Set Over from the November 29, 1994 Council Meeting) This item was set over to December 27, 1994. r 7. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION: COMMITTEE REAPPOINTMENT k 3 GUIDELINES (Continuation of Council discussion of November 29, 1994) 5 7.1 Budget Committee Reappointment this item was set over to December 27, 1994. 7.2 Planning Commission Reappointments - Resolution No. 94-59 RESOLUTION NO. 94-59 - A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve Resolution No. 94-59. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 - PAGE 21 E F - I i The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor 4- Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE CURRENT EDITION OF THE STATE ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLING CODE k i Staff Report: City Administrator Monahan summarized the Staff Report which is on file with the Council packet material. After brief discussion, Council considered the proposed ordinance. i Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley to adopt the I proposed ordinance. f. r?RDl";A NCE NO. 94-28 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT THE CURRENT EDITION OF THE STATE ONE AND TWO FAMILY DWELLING CODE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. I The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor i Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") F 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS (See above notation - Item No. 1) 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 1:11 a.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), €4 (h) to discuss labor i relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. r 11. ADJOURNMENT: 1:42 a.m. ~fa Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Re order i r, City of Tigard 'j Date: a { o=121S.94 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 13; 1994 - PAGE 22 I' { . ~ i i COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, I NC. Li P.O. BOX 370 PRONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT S 0 5 7 j BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 _ Legal Notice Advertising R F C F 1 V F i~ ~ f i ' )EG 8199 i 1 e City of Tigard ❑ Tearsheet Notice i ; - 13125 SW Hall Blvd, E ® Tigard,Oregon 97223 ® ❑ Duplicate Affidavit CITY OF TIGARi) E i AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 3rri%,%, + STATE OF OREGON, ) 3tFSI" ;L COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. i:)d W being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising t' f Director, or his principal clerk, of the Ti Bard-Tua l a ; n `f;imes Ynrratil,,~1r . ~ a newspaper of genaral circ ation a$ defined in ORS 193.090 ; roc f j and 193.020; published at ictar in the E ~rusn the aforesaid county and state; that the _ a HearingsRipleyls-Albertsons a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the k entire issue of said newspaper for ONF' successive and 1 consecutive in the following issues: J December 1 ,1994 i i i - f i 9/L ~ E Subscribed and sworn to r® nag this 1st day of Decembe , 79~°°®°"°" ?y 0° i !CIAL SEAL I - 8 RC6!fa i+. BufiwsS >t`~ir i NO +;iY Ft r L1C - OREGON CG"'.StS5iCPd NO. 024552 Notary blic for Oregon a 21 MY CCMVV 10x1 EXPER55 MAY 16,1:+97 My Commission Expires: 1 AFFIDAVIT - ~ _I F j I - ; E k _ 7 7 f.. 12 99 33ea #bllerA ing tvul be ea7rs by the dBard CJk Cou ri 90 } , at 7 3£t~w' i 6e ti~'XYgrtttiC#k-~ ~inaet R•uq, T$~r2Aiy ~9 ~~,a jad""cnle~aid; di ard;'Ciregwi,ur~i aiif'iastiitit.oa Wray ~ ,ofrtxinealfauntk..'Caaritstatt i~velti~iaatstx'lit~iasroity La al. or by 639-X117tc stfy idrs of tipiic' lteairing written orsll ba Cttat tlf-« heatinThe pubFiritall 18.32 of andany rules rsf prodlure adopted 4y thl! Cosu~CZ: end at City Ball, - j - 1 LiC IMARING$ SYMAK R A~C3Pi 14k18QS:,' Paesli;;Fiiahetsy"(91CTR12Sl 10A.§„taatlot attkand the Co r rehensive'rlattJViap from -M di=m Nn!u P c"tltklit s genera( Cnre aarcial alkii. a zoning chest a try R+12 E- t r3dentiab. i~uatit h3.C-G (Gee rsiOdrwnNr CA-143 1 rAf1VP.I: CR, RI, : Community Development Coda Chapters ls,~d8.32;1$S4 Compiahm-Mve Plan Policies 1.2; 3 4, 5:7, 8, 9 =1 12 NR: :12'(R4ulti~sit 1'ssnif~r Resiel nt?ai} =MOM tirg in, tli* P=12 zume ai Or~a'sn pia family resit3zritiai'unitsresidential .units, muldple.famil residential imits, residaaiia? care facilities. mobile j home parks and subdi..visions.: public sopport,serylcaa, residential, " F Lreatma5gc i'omes; iria'uitfa lured homes, family day case,_ hams accuriati6fiS and kenipor&J ase® among oth = uses. The prstposod C G , :..(Gansrat Ccunmercl ti}_zt ate paavxdes sieas foi &.a l ren isirxi of etia?or retail t <,`gotaisand,serw,.es 6us€was andprofessionalservices" k _ dsia$G4+It? 4IENi /CPR 93-4t3~?2 3A''TCifs?N 93 L33 T1TC+T1A1 LdSE1(~ F 9 ` R LAND P.~LdTf'1TQy'~j~ I' 4 ' , _ CATI4PI Siiiitlieastandixortheastcyvadran.a oLthe xtitt°rs~eccioti grf 'i Y '-S;W. Scholls FemiRoad aiid S ail. Wairi;t Street (WCTM 2S4 48S um IoW 100 and 200),-A res;uast f ar the foiiuwing"cmvelopmert aptivais i} i Comprehensive P1 i stttd done Change~approval, to ze esi$nhte xi MWI c' acres 6N 12 acre pucod fawn:Mediam4Hg t h Dena" X y f { Residoatxal to Comiisunipy Coinnmercial on uzlot 2WX nd to rcdesi#naty ximateiy 6.93:acreptercCe'from P(Cighl arhonti Commercial to - ".`h4'c Itim4Kigh Density Residential on. tax lot"190.:2;one"changes',, - ricompanying the above plait changes inctrides a zone 6h.-ave frt WIT; (-PR)tand R-25 (PD) (Resdehual,:12 to 25~unitstacre;.Pianned T j Devebpment).toC=C(Cbmmun yCointimerclal)rindC-N04cighborbood rcial} to R-25 (Reiadesttii' 25 nnits/aci'e);2) Site Dovelopmouu w approval to'a1law tiic'ccnsteuctiosi gf it 40,{?0'schor teazasst pathree"smaTieg;traiar41padsd ! , " g:a 40,rfyJ squaie'fcmBe ~uird and of 3„400, 2,400, and S 150 s,qu:ir.eryfeet adjoisung the'anchortenaitt ped4 a aglicant aiso.proposes two 4,Gix1 pite foot stand alotse tenant Partitionapproyal to divWtkhe.l2=acre parcel inlet ` .two:parcels-of"approximately: es Slit scics and foiiracreg each _ ; DICAHLE'REVIEW CRITERIA: StatewidePlanninedbaTslk2~ 9,-10,11, 13 and, W. Compreherisive'Fiaals#sh its l'.i i' T 1.2;-4 1 n 4,2.1.6.1.1, 6.4.1, 6.6,1; 7.1.2; 7,2:'d 7 d.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, $:1 1, $:I $ E1, &2.2,,8.4.1, 9.1"3,A2.1.1, I, 22:2 12.2. I;.and'121.4; Co. 'unit t; ~ ~selcipmeiit Cane Cliapi~s=18.22 lE 32;15'.56,1$.60, "$.51;1$ 9 ' I 1S 100;18,102 1S TOS "$,568; 18114; )6.120; 28.130 s $.162 ea ~ rl ":g$164i bAdEb Themisting,Neihborhoott;Coerimercia3 zone plumate a range of coiavenieitee gozxis aiidservieas seFiicl are purclase4°:alleast vreekly xyirxcal uses.would include canvenierce" sates and pisrsoan!" services; chtldreu's`day carc,`firsenoiai; insuiarca and teat esta:° setvtces food and ltevetagerauil sales etc. Neighlorhood Coinmerciatcenters hameS,}X)O,strtare foi lotgtiniiiiairt - , '2'h propo's`ed Community tatrramer iaE tote }ieriiists x~rge of i "gnvpnienee goads and scrneos wli.ch attr deseo fb"serv he, auTar seeds o8tesideets 0 nkarbrr s;dariCial'rasi~ borltcx4ds ..5mtY4unicy r, commersiaT typit Ity iii ,4in size ftri i a rr tics" aur~i 4 two acres x elhS_ i aer s, In te srt Spam tieiotage these,centers rairgc~ fraita 30 000 to to IW 000'siluare fritisset:'1"ite existing 25`(PD) ~trne prcrrii#. s rsaga tsf s2njgTe'f€ailyatterc tosuand3ndaurxrtise.snulttpidPaRrttiTzesi~ttad ix i1~ fort dsstm h li retdu~al€ 1-davelopinent eta P'2s z4tia nuit5 ssdiaittaidfnsiriea tip x'25 e~tiMa g acre; P1taPi Wil d l ltspmcnt Bonin adastrTc# o~ r o)t )s f e i net" to encourage proper ies-to b WS WW • ° ~v --dxasingleiynttint~of ~~ess ctd - I6_y q r , ~ F ~ 5 92, j t 1 i ~r- COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS9 INC. Legal NotIC®TT 8065 htotic P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 694.0360 i ` BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 R E C E I V E D Legal Notice Advertising DEC 141994 6 *City of Ti9mrd ® CI Tearshoet Notice CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ! eTigard,Oregon 97223 ❑ Duplicate Affidavit f E nova ~ " Ar-FIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION ' r ~ STATE OF OREGON, ) c COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )8e'' ~ v C I, Kathy Snyder r c being first duly sworn, depose and say that 1 am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the`ri Bard-TLalati n Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 ' and 193.020; published at Ti Bard in the tli tr r aforesaid county and state; that the t City Council Business Mta, a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the ' entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the fallowing issues: December 8,1994 i Subscribed and sworn to Tore me thss8th dam, of December, p „AL SEhL ~ F rr I~ k {s t1 rL'PC°SS 6 3 ~ L - (jP.EG hi ~j Notary 6-6lic for Oregon 0<+iJ2 ifCt~ i Ltl tiar $tl'fiC,i(;07 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVI'T' r - r 1 s t f l ty ieiC t xt j Y13h~i11 d'i $g f l ~ Y '.AC z~ 2'I'=s - i Tb- following to ,a ~a b,,• .~7 6 .iG City R .t ad. ,^,s'P es d$$ rrl oi-,-en 972,23, or by cal I ing 619-4,171. n C 21M Y355 ..T-I-1 DEC MUHRI&M U APiTVIT-Y HALL `TOOT UAL L- . A 25S. HALL BOULEVARD, 21 vARD,fJftEGON ga ~.3 j a ~ St 'am (TOT a Iii Conferee r"~zr~3 (6!30 >ecnd f Review' ~ i tar-isteative Update: Topic may iriclude UpCo7ming I=sverits. Sch,.,duling, Current Event; of Intemst to tlr° City -J z ea r tvy^.ct161}g (Tow.-, HMO (7:30 p.n Fu ;Ian Hearraaas:.:=c f C-i1A CIE-ZONI 4A;0004Ri<I Xc~LO 1+3:,14180 S.W. Pacific l`1roway (4~JCTM 2SI 10AA, ,tax io 40Y. To amend tY.Coznpprehensuve Pan1ap ftorn Medium Ilerisity Resetlentil to General Godutrrrerc.al nerd ra zont#t~,cha3€ge from R-12 (R.esi&ntial 12 U11its/acre) to CP (Gea „ral +Camm T ~ ~r-?~~IGIrd 93-C~13 Clot R=N ;ut s Ti t} q 3,Lf Ili SiDtNCOMBF, t q4 airaia of the int gxtittex €rf i LOCAUON- Sous cwt p tl n north, SNIT. cholls Ferry Rosd anti. SM. Walnut ScrceL,A r;,,:luest for the vt l "°rrent au < vals> e D Car:i~rehp rdhie 1~Lt = a d flr;t following F de w I t, ~ ch--Ige'appt'ob i' to retie ianatc ppro i zi tcly €ti ht r£sres of ? 17 I jpafij r ~j I::c:1, tMr1±es I' nSic Commercial Ca tay. lot GG`D ^M' d to Teu i~.iS<t[E w: 9, ~°IU°Sileu.vly' 6,93 acrd.patrcl'ft w; I'le.1 l:hoc ? Con7Muciai to F&cdium-Ilif;:i I.=43t° ' siiy'Residential on Lix M 100 -Zany, changes a co it i jng VIc _j above plan chaag..s er~Indes a fot:c chadge . R -11V v ? arh R-23 (PFD) ~ d°nti2a 12 v: 25 u niisl"acre, Planri€ 3 l evelc 3~nt) to f C-C (Coma iiruity cai t et ciai) nd C~M(Nei ter prla d C0111=r- i cial} to R45 kRcsideitial, 25 unrt /acre}, Site D veYoprn rit Review aPprov 3 to allow the cer n~ctien ofa 40~PKIOI ivchc t:in,-;rt - pad'ircluding, a 40,000 square foot. grocery stun at d thr smaller ~ tenant pads c1 1,2(}tl 2,400, and 5;0x0 sgtiO6 g et adjoi "in € e anchor ten, rrt d. I "he ^ licaa . zlsa prczp-~)s€s t,.,v a A'OU3 square fom statid alai t ant pads, 3) Ivlinar Land Nftllion pprov al to dia do t c 12 a~4e ceg into _v;o pssc Is of ,mproximat ss+ 62"M uce~; air, fszr < tires each. k Cc a-ir•I Dig fix j _ e Pwv-l : fig;~rMj - iT£CrItTVj Si Shit T~ # L i it f.' 1 City 4.°uurciI n; ay vo imm, C L° :h4ti2 scs- S'-on un z ih, e1'VL4IQ: 3 of O-RI A 192 F~aG`6I 6), o), 4'~ al",~ `t.Y 4112- - rf !...i onz, 31 7~S(ipb~..d °vrans2c.tjm s, currlc-jt ; Tid- T; m inn e 1. i k r f ,I a t CITY OF TIGAR®, OREGON A 1DAV IT OF POSTING ~ ,i In the Matter of the Proposed i ` STATE OF OREGON ' County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) • begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose an say: That 1 posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance (Number (4 which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference nude a part hereof, ! on the D day of 19 r a 1. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon ~ 2. West One Bank, 12260 SW Main Street, Tigard, Oregon 3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon i F 4. Albertson's Store, Corner of Pacific Hwy. (State Hwy. 99) and SW Durham Road, Tigard, Oregon ► Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 1,994 OFFICIAL SEAL CONNIE MARTIN 3 NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON Notary COMMISSION No. 015®n Public for Oregon MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 4,1996 M11 My Commission Expires: ~ i hV1n\l0\affp F , a ; CITY OF TIG , OREGON ~ E ORDINANCE NO. 94-2Lo 3 4' AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO PROVE A CONFREIIENSIVE AND MAP AWZIEN nT REQUESTED BY DAB RIPLEY (CPA 94- {'yy{ PLAN +1 T ZONING, OFD p AS, the applicant has requested a Comprehensive Flan and Zone Change Amendments from Medium Density Residential, R-12 to General Commercial, CG for a 1.04 acre parcel (VVCTM 2S1101AA, tax lot 401). a' THE CITY OF TIGAR6D ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: f SEC1ION 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria based upon the facts, findings and conclusions, noted in the attached final order identified as Exhibit `A" and vicinity snaps (2) identified as Exlu'bit E r ~ t SECnON 2: The City Council concurs with the Manning Commission and staff recommendations ` and approves the request to redesignate the parcels illustrated on the attached reaps (Exhibit `V) with a Comprehensive Flan designation of General Commercial and k CG (General Commercial) zoning. SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval t by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By U!)QAIMDUS vote of all Council embers present after being read by number and title only, this _ day of 1994. t . Catherine Wheatley, City Recorde APPROVED: 111is day o1994. 7 ~ - Approved as to form: Schwartz, Mayor n, ty Attorney - bate t r" ; € ORDINANCE No. 944CGS Page 1 EXHIBIT "A" E ' j CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER J F_ A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO AN y APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE - REQUESTED BY DAVE RIPLEY. ~ . The Tigard City Council reviewed the application below at a public hearing on December 13, 1994. The City Council approves the request. The Council has based its decision on the facts, t findings and conclusions noted below. : 1 A. FACTS E 1. General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 94-0005! `j Zone Change ZON 94-0007 a REQUEST: A request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to C-G (General Commercial) j and a Zone Change request from R-12 (12 units per acre) to {i1 C-G (General Commercial). APPLICANT: Dave Ripley l Ripley's Furniture ,j 14170 SW Pacific Highway 1 Tigard, OR 97223 OWNERS: Same C REPRESENTATIVE- Michael C. Robinson i Stoel, Rives, Boley, Jones and Grey 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 900 Portland, OR 97204-1268 I LOCATION: (WCTM 2S1 10AA, tax lot 401) The site is located south of the j Ripley's Furniture Store at 14170 SW Pacific Highway. 2. Vicinity Information F I The site contains 1.04 acres. It is located behind Ripley's Furniture on the south side of SW Pacific Highway. The site is a triangular shaped parcel which is vacant. The Ripley's Furniture Store site is zoned Commercial General (C-G). Much of the property surrounding the subject property is presently zoned R-12. Properties around the subject parcel are largely developed. The site has direct access through the existing parking lot which serves f` the Ripley's Furniture Store. i :414 I. 3. Background Information The Ripley's Furniture Store is a long time Tigard Business. The store has been at its present ; location since the 1950's. ` This request is a result of the current store's lack of space and f the need for expansion. The current site has undergone expansion through Site a Development Reviews 32-76, 15-77 for expansion to the parking lot and furniture store. i The current site was also revised under Variance 6-85 and Lot Line Adjustment 12-86. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description i 3 3 The site is an unusual triangular shaped parcel with limited access width past the furniture ` store to SW Pacific Highway an arterial street in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The site is located to the south and east of sloping, wooded areas which adjoin the existing Canterbury Crest development and Canterbury Lane designated a minor collector street. To -1 the northwest is an existing nursery business which adjoins SW Pacific Highway. To the southeast of the subject property is the Tigard Care Center and the Canterbury ` 1 Terrace Apartments. Both of these projects have access to 105th Court, a cul-de-sac which 1 provides direct access to SW McDonald Street. Southwest McDonald Street is designated a major collector street. Due to the location of the subject property and long term level of i service constraints for direct access onto SW Pacific Highway, the preferred access point to F -j the subject property for development under its current residential designation is through shared access with the Tigard Care Center or the Canterbury Terrace Apartments. However, shared access through both developments is difficult due to the location and design of existing site improvements on these sites. 5. Agency Comments j The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and offers the following comments: . k i , The applicants have submitted a report in support of their request for the map amendment and rezone that includes a traffic study that examines the effects of additional traffic that would be generated by the change in the zone and proposed development. in the description of the site, it is noted that the site is "landlocked" and has access only through the existing furniture store site. Future development of the site is proposed for J principally warehouse purposes and the proposed building would connect to the existing site. The new building would result in a change to the loading docks area that would be moved from the front of the store to the new rear warehouse building. No changes are ` proposed for the driveways. By moving the dock area, additional parking spaces wi3l be added to the existing parking lot in the front. The existing site access from SW Pacific Highway consists of two right-turn in, right-turn out j driveways, with no change proposed. The traffic report has examined 1995 traffic with the additional traffic from the proposed warehouse and finds that the driveways and the two 'I nearby public street intersections, SW Canterbury Lane to the south, and SW Gaarde/SW McDonald to the north will operate satisfactorily. f 1 Council concludes that any change to the traffic impacts by the proposed project will be minimal. In addition, no substantial impacts are likely on the City utility systems. Therefore, Council finds no objections to the proposed zone change. i The Oregon Department of Transportation reviewed this application and provided the E "j following comments: 1.) Considering the limited size, traffic generation and access to the affected property, { ODOT does not object to the proposed zone change. j' 2.) The applicant should be made aware that the permitted U-Turn at SW Canterbury E Lane is not designed to accommodate large trucks. 3.) The applicant should contact ODOT District 2, Permit Specialist, Sam Hunaidi to ensure that any driveway or drainage issues are addressed. 1 The Building Division, the Advanced Planning Division, General Telephone, Portland General Electric, the Department of Land Conservation and Development and the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue have reviewed the application and have offered no comments or F objections. No other comments have been received. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS r The relevant approval criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.2, 2.1.1, 4.2.1, 5.1.4, 6.1.1, 7.1.2, 8.1.1, 8.1.3 and 12.2.1 and Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32 and 18.62 and the Oregon Revised Statutes OAR Chapter 660-12- 060, Division 12, Transportation Planning Rule. I r Chapter 18.j2 sets forth the procedural requirements for review of quasi-judicial plan amendments. Sections 18.32.090 (D) and (E), set forth the review requirements for quasi- k judicial plan amendments. This section requires that the Planning Commission review a lv proposed amendments and provide a recommendation to the City Council. The application has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Community Development Code. ; E Section 18.22.040 sets forth the standards and procedures for amendments to the Zoning Map which have been reviewed as follows: E A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an { { application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designation and; the change will not r, adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the community; The following are the applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies related to this request. The E j application's relationship to the applicable criteria is reviewed below each policy: Plan Policy 1.1.2 requires that in order to approve a quasi-judicial ar_iendment to the flan, ` the City must find that the change is consistent with applicable plan policies, that a change of physical circumstances has occurred since the original designation, or there is evidence of 'a change in t'he neighborhood or community which affects the subjece ` parcel(s). Alternatively, the City must find that a mistake was rinade in the original designation; This parcel has no'direct access to residential areas due to the site deveiopinent patterns of E existing development to the east. The Tigard Care Center and Canterbury Terrace Apartment projects largely "back into" the subject property. Use of these areas for shared access is expected to require extensive modification of off-site improvements due to the narrow width of access ways, tt a location of parking and accessory uses. Adjoining property owners { would not be expected to support the substantial reconstruction of these sites necessary to provide site access for up to 12 additional residential dwellings. A mistake can be said to have been made in the site's original designation for residential r use due to the topography of the site as it relates to adjoining land uses and Iona term level j of service issues on SW Pacific Highway. It is expected that development of commercial uses on this site would create fewer traffic conflicts on SW Pacific Highway. The sites topography and types of adjoining development constrain site access to SW Pacific Highway. r` Plan Policy 2.1.1 states that the City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement ; - program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in 'I all phases of the planning process. The applicant provided notice of and conducted a a meeting for interested property owners within a 250 foot radius of the affected property. The South CIT representative for this area was also notified of the neighborhood meeting. i Notice has also been provided of the Planning Commission and City Council Public Hearings of this proposal. t Plan Policy 4.2.1 states that all development within the Tigard Urban Planning area shad comply with applicable Federal, State and Regional water quality standards. This site adjoins urban development to the north and east. Future building and site improvements 'J will be reviewed for compliance with applicable federal, state and regional water quality standards in effect at the time of development. The proposed redesignation of the site for General Commercial use will result in significant building or site modifications which will be reviewed through the site development review process. Any changes to impervious surface area shall be reviewed by Unified Sewerage Agency for compliance with the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission's rules for the Tualatin River Basin, including the preparation and implementation of a non-point source pollution control plan. The proposed ' redesignation would not, by itself, affect compliance with this plan policy. Plan Policy 5.1.4 states that the City shall ensure that new commercial and industrial development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial uses. Due to existing topography and land uses surrounding the site this amendment is not expected to negatively impact adjoining residential areas. This policy is i addressed in further detailwithin the applicants statement and under Comprehensive Plan Policies addressing mistakes in the original Comprehensive Plan designations or changes which have occurred in the neighborhood since adoption of the current designation. i Plan Policy 6.1.1 states that the City shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various price and rent level. Due to existing j surrounding land uses and level of service issues on SW Pacific Highway the applicant has demonstrated that the site is more appropriate for commercial use. This change will slightly lower the total density of residentially zoned property within the City of Tigard. The City of Tigard currently offers the opportunity for overall density which exceeds 10.30 dwelling units per acre. The City of Tigard is required to offer an overall residential density of a r ' minimum of 10 units per acre. Due to the limited area involved of 1.04 acres, the City will - continue to offer residential density for slightly over 10.30 dwelling units per acre overall. For reasons discussed within this report this site is currently difficult to develop for residential use and appears to be more appropriately located for commercial use. i - - - - - - - - - - - - Plan Policy 7.1.2 states as a pre-condition to development that: A) Development coincide r with the availability of adequate service capacity for public water, sewer and storm E' drainage; 8) The facilities are capable of serving intervening properties and the proposed development and are designed to City standards, and C) All new development utilities be placed underground. Policies 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.6, 7.5.2, and 7.6.1 have been satisfied E t because adjoining areas are currently served with urban services, including water, sanitary and storm sewer. This site is already developed and is not within the boundaries of the 100-year floodplain or a designated area of ground instability. The requested amendment will not require any changes to the service delivery system. Additionally, all service providers have had the opportunity to comment on this application and have offered no comments or objections. Plan Policy 7.6.1 states that the City shall require as a pre-condition to development that: A) The development be served by a water system having adequate water pressure for fire r' protection purposes; l3) That new development shall not reduce the water pressure in the E area below a level adequate for fire protection purposes; C) and the applicable fire" district review all applications. Development on the subject property can be served by a water system with adequate pressure for fire protection. Future land use will not cause water pressure to be reduced below a level adequate for fire protection purposes. Plan Policy 8.1.1 states that the City shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated feature growth and development. This policy is satisfied because the site has access to SW Pacific Highway which is designated as an arterial street. The existing roadway pattern is able to accommodate the minor increase in traffic volumes resulting from an approval of this application as addressed in the applicants traffic report for the site. Plan Policy 8.1.3 states as a precondition of development that: development abut a j publicly dedicated street; street right of way be dedicated where the street is substandard in width; developer commit to construction of street improvements to City standards to the extent of the development's impacts; parking spaces be set aside and marked for cars operated by disabled persons. This requirement will be satisfied as a condition of approval ~ of any future development or redevelopment on the site. Completion of any necessary street improvements along the site's frontage and/or parking lot modifications would be required to be installed by the developer at the time of such development or redevelopment. The Engineering Division and affected reviewing agencies will review any future development proposals for the site. Plan Policy 12.2.1 #2 lists the locational criteria for General Commercial Zoning District. The applicable locational criteria specified in Chapter 12 of the comprehensive plan are the following: a.) Spacing and locational criteria require that the commercial area shall not be surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. This site is surrounded .by residential zoning on two sides, however, many of these areas are at higher elevations topographically and are physically separated from the subject property by distances of several hundred feet. Adjoining residential uses to the east would also be expected to be effectively screened from future commercial development on this site because of topographic differences and because access would be provided to SW Pacific Highway. Screening and buffering as,set forth within the Community Development Code and as required through appropriate sound attenuation measures would be expected to mitigate the impacts of commercial uses on this site. t b.3 Site access criteria require: A) the proposed area shall not create traffic congestion or traffic safety problems, B) the site shall have direct access from a major collector or arterial street; and Q public transportation shall be available to the i site. The approval of this application will not result in a noticeable change in traffic y' volumes. Due to the site's limited visibility to SW Pacific Highway and the established nature of the Ripley Furniture Store which screens the site from view it is expected that development of the subject property would be for ancillary business € + storage uses as stated within this application. An increase in traffic volumes due to retail services could be expected. Direct site access would be provided through _ existing driveways to SW Pacific Highway. No new driveway accesses are proposed with this application. Any increase in traffic volumes caused by the C-G designation will be negligible as reviewed in the applicant's traffic report due to the type of, c' ancillary commercial uses the site is likely to provide. The exact nature of site improvements will be reviewed through the site development review process. Traffic j report review will be reviewed at that time to address the impacts of a specific development proposal on this site. Transit service is available in proximity to the existing development at the intersection of SW Pacific Highway and SW McDonald F Streets. t c.) Locational criteria also requires that the site be of a size which can accommodate l projected uses and that the site possess high visibility. This criterion is satisfied for the 1.04 acre site. The existing building and site improvements can adequately ! accommodate a variety of uses permitted within the C-G (General Commercial) zoning district. This site is also highly visible from the adjoining roadway. } d.) Impact Assessment is determined by addressing the following criteria: A) the scale of the project shall be compatible with the surrounding user; B) the site 3 configurations shall be such that the privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained; C) it shall be possible to incorporate unique site features into the site design and development plan; and D) the associated lights, noise and activities shall not interfere with adjoining non-commercial uses. This Plan policy is satisfied because the impact to the surrounding land uses is determined to be negligible. The scale of the present development on this site is compatible with the surrounding r uses. The scale and design character of any future development will be reviewed for i compliance with the standards set forth in the Community Development Code. _i 2. The statewide planning goals adopted under Oregon Revised Statues Chapter 197, until f { acknowledgement of the comprehensive plan and ordinances; The Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged, therefore specific review of each of the statewide planning goals is not applicable. Each amendment to the plan is provided to the appropriate state agencies for review. Notice of filing of this application has been provided to the State Department of Land Conservation and Development for comment more than 45 days prior to the final i hearing on this application as required under State of Oregon Administrative Rule 660-18-020. 3. The applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing y ordinance, Code Section 18.62 (General Commercial) contains the standards for the General Commercial zone. The subject site meets these requirements in that the minimum lot width is greater than 50 feet, the existing structure does not exceed 45 feet a : in height, the site coverage is less than 85% and the landscaped area is greater than 15 percent. Additionally, the existing uses are permitted uses within the General Commercial zoning designation. 'The site is presently undeveloped. The parcel exceeds 50 feet in average width. Any future site development improvements will be reviewed through the site development review process to ensure consistency with lot applicable development C standards. i 4. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject i of the development application. This parcel has no direct access to residential areas due to the site development patterns of existing development to the east. The Canterbury Terrace Apartments and the Tigard Care Center (nursing home) are sites which are heavily developed that largely "back into" the subject property. Use of these areas for shared access ,i is expected to require extensive off-site improvements due to the narrow width of access ways and location of parking and ancillary residential uses. Adjoining property owners t would not be expected to support the substantial reconstruction of these sites necessary to provide site access for up to 12 additional residential dwelling units. ' A mistake can be said to have been made in the site's original designation for residential use due to the topography of the site as it relates to adjoining land uses and long term level { of service issues on SW Pacific Highway. It is expected that development of commercial uses on this site would create fewer traffic conflicts on SW Pacific Highway. The t topography of the site and types of adjoining developmentconstrain site access to SW Pacific Highway. The Oregon Revised Statutes OAR Chapter 660-12-060, Division 12, Transportation Planning Rule applies to this type of application. OAR 660-12-060 (1) and (2) provides the following standards for amendments to comprehensive plans: E j (1) Amendments to comprehensive plans, functional plans and land use regulations which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of the I transportation facility; (a) limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the functions, capacity and level of service of the transportation facility; (b) amending i the TSP [Transportation System Plan] to provide transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division; 1 (c) altering land :.■se designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce demand for automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes. i (2) A land use regulation amendment significantly affects the transportation facility if it: f (a) changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (b) changes a standard implementing a classification system; (c) allows types or levels of travel or access which are inconsistent transportation facility; or (d) would be below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP. (3) This section requires the City to have amended its land use and subdivision ordinances to implement OAR 660-12-045 (3), (4) and (5) (d) by May 8, 1994. (4) This section requires that new retail buildings near existing or planned transit stops be oriented towards the transit facility. SW Pacific Highway is designated as an arterial street. This application does not propose to change either the functional classification of any street, or the standards ~ implementing the functional classification. As reviewed within the traffic study prepared for this site, this change is not expected to significantly impact levels of k service on SW Pacific Highway. The City has met.the deadlines set forth in Section (3). The City implements the regulation set forth is section (4) and (S) directly. These sections of the Development 1 Code are applicable to this application. Appropriate development standards which j have been adopted will be applied directly to any site development review applications which are filed for this site. Findings related to standards concerning transit accessibility will also be applied at the time of site development review. k j C. DECISION The City Council approves the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Washington CountyTax Map properties 2S110AA, tax lots 401 from Medium Density Residential, (R-12) r ; respectively to General Commercial, (C-G). The City Council finds that the change will f promote the general welfare of the City and will not be significantly detrimental or injurious to surrounding land uses. It is further ordered that the applicant and parties to these proceedings be notified of the k - entry of this order. i 1 G =1 1 I E I I f i ji I i i I[ t L I 1 i i F I , a a ~ y E: e - F i 1. -1 A • ' v P A d- 12 rt 3 =AUr ! T 1 ® , s E ca ! hpo) I _ i F sg i _ E CASE NO. PLOT PLAN EXHIBIT MAP CFA 94-OOOS Z®lq 94-0007 i ~ f f f E; F -I '3I 1 f 1~ r ) t f i i ~ 7"') T 7 T T F A +1- F- J [ j i I i / j 1 i ' i E I' 'JLd:lu UNINN-VId. (auvou :jo ALioj I ~ ~pq 0"'""+®' -~.w.•.y ~-s^-"~'~-r--- _ - - ~ afr ® .ter +""xs r r aaiii rr f~ ' (;'F ~t1 •f c I~{ ~ ` ~1,._ , O O A a Y ~ rS i~, r~,,✓Zr ~'`I la`v~b-. r i F rr 1 1 i .r `►,~3 ~ n~ T~ ~3a ! - r r I ~ 9 A f i r I r r + f V O i'r 1 I. F ~t f i it 'a Ltn yon Ty > f ~u'.l S~ r I vtit a +~'~r i f~ .r ~r S!~ I .~y f rte T. f+, ral~ t I i~ c ,r i I oar * r { al 1 1 i S~ r f t ~ r ~ r 7¢ r rl 1?~• ,1 F i~oK r`~~~I~I i~~-,' ~W1 Q UM sI jm.. C. Lr h~~~~, u! ~ i i l x P r '!C ~ ~ I ° =r s 7 F, i v4 0• r Y If ~ ~ 1 t l'I1•~~ t itj ♦4, bl~r f. ii - ~r E~ 4 I ! ]fY 1°a 1 ~E +E i'i♦~ rot 4 \ f 5 eA / y r1i ~F~ f I :tom t A IG. y I Ir+ G t lano J t 1 r r ~ t I r r( i, ~.j , I ~ ~ r ~ ~r ~ ~ ,I'r I r } ',r ~ • ' r ~ „I i ' F r ~ a LL k y dw r rl r f 1 f r fq r t f '~k.. ! i t , tr y 1 p•e f +.,..j l., I 1~~~ i ~ ~ ,a r,•Ir ~ V~ Z yl~~{ i j•. e~ t F t'. ti l o- f r fr rYA-S Qw. n I ti' ~S AIM J ~'r',..! { / f Y. r.l 71 1 •T 3 S / r' t p 1 f ~.i ~~d f L ,~~yr I 9. s va V, y •fa ! ~I fiy~%T Y} f I ~~1 ' + i J1 ff{~1~. .iy y, _ y VO~ ~ j 1 A i r ;t, e 4 s r. ~f p 1 r . r - ! tip„ I ~ 1 y .r r} r,. l~ T r ~ •.i~ I i'; 1 ;~Vj'•.t - C I ,~f~ j~~~p~'] e'J L, r z4 •t y f~' I r r f Q•YQ 7 F l r I`~* , w r ,r+ 147' 1 I Apo 14 ' Y `~t , ~ J o k ~~-7 r Pt%0 'l r t• r r +'u r-,a.~. i /~~j yaw ~ ~ ~'r i_ 'sr~ r + ` _ I LLJ I 1 ~ a ~}d.TwlYy 'l '~•;~C ~ - a.• ~ aA ~ ~ r 1 r ~ 1~♦ ~1 I i ( c ~ * t o~ ii '.k4 a 9 ~j r , 5 - 4 ~~r's,, .lam .`_~'~.~~'"....-::y. d s `4 4,,. ~ _.A. ~~~C' ~ It~'~a.~s~,., _ } CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 94-ag s s AN ORDINANCE. AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT THE CURRENT EDITION OF THE STATE ONE AND TWO FAMILY DWELLING CODE AND { DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. 1 WHEREAS, Tigard Municipal Code Section 14.04.03 adopts the 1990 edition ' of the State of Oregon One and Two Family Dwelling Code; and j WHEREAS, the 1993 edition of the State of Oregon One and Two Family Dwelling Code was effective May 1, 1993; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Municipal Code is outdated in this respact; i` THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: I r SECTION 1. Title 14, Section 14.04.030, paragraph (7) is amended to read as follows: E r (7) State of Oregon One and Two Family Dwelling Specialty Code, 1993 Edition, adopted by the State of Oregon Building Codes Division, effective May 1, 1993. f SECTION 2. Inasmuch as it is necessary to amend the Municipal Code f ' i to adopt the current edition of the One and Two Family Dwelling code with the least possible delay to ensure ! that proper authority exists for enforcement, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage and approval by the Council. rl PASSED: By vote of all Council members - preset after being read by number and title only, this I - day of , 1994. t CVEherine Wheatley, City corder 2 OA a APPROVED: This da, of @ `~i , ^ 99•s . I i { { F f J Schwartz, Mayor I l Approved as to form: -12 I F Date City Attorne - H:\L0Q1N\DAYID\TIT14.SF0 ORDINANCE No. 94-° Page 1 r i - i- S € DATM: (Urnited to 2 minutes or less, please) t~ 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 0 NAME & ADDRESS TOPIC CONTACTED L s k; tau f- `T~ ec ` f l E i k l i Ug 6 f8. 4 1 f i' I j Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount j of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair j "'may further limit time R necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 94-0005 ZONE CHANGE ZON 94-0004 RIPLEY'S ~ LOCATION: 14180 SW Pacific Highway (WCTM 2S1 10AA, tax lot 401). To amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from Medium Density residential to General Commercial and a zoning change from R-12 (Residential, 12 units acre) to C-G (General Commercial). APPLICABLE APPROVAL E . !!f CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.22,18.32,18.54; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 12. k ZONE: R-12 (Multiple-Family Residential) The properties existing in the R-12 zone allows single- family residential units, duplex residential units, multiple-family residential units, residential care j facilities, mobile home parks and subdivisions, public support services, residential treatment homes, manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations, and temporary uses among other uses. The proposed C-G (General Commercial) zone provides sites for the provision of major retail goods and services, business, and professional services. k i E_ 1 PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS i i i r i i i f i r . j i 5 ' t f AGENDA ITEM NO. Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) F Nam WrM R N,~me Nave F e 9'd~ rees F Name Name E rem Address t Name Name F rasa Ad res FWm- Name l Address Aed rasa r Name Address Address Name Name r f i r.. Address Address Name i EE] 7Add-= { res+s j 8 k i Mdress Address f Name - Name Add j teas Address Name Name Address Address . t -i F-' a r. i _ PLEASET-UM Proponent - (Speaking in Flavor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) PAM Kum s Address i 4 rd- Address dre ss dress Address [ Name i_ Name t 1 r j Address Address G Address N Address I i Name Name ~ ~ . 1 Address Address ® Name a Address Address 1 j h:\login\`o\testlfy I { ~ G I r J J F 1 f, E 1 7 I_ j I ;a r ,j i r •1 Y 3 ij S i ~r~ : dJ ~ f December 13, 1994 i Tigard City Council: i am not a fighter. I decided to join the tree ordinance task force because I F understood that it was to be a way for private citizens to sit down and come to r' consensus on the regulation of backyard trees. I felt good about my ability to r < participate in the creation of pubic policy. , On December 5th, a member of the task force placed a paid political flyer in the Oregonian in an attempt to" do an end run" around the task force, to negate our input i upon this issue. At the very least he has impacted our ability to work together toward r consensus. If the city council simply allows this to pass without some sort of action, I I must conclude that this process is less straight forward than I had believed. As I stated before, I art not a fighter. Maybe Tigard politics is too dirty for me to feel comfortable participating in. will wait for your decision, then make my own. I J i. Sally Christensen E r- -7 qq r i I E i1 f ~ f l I - I 1 I , I i _ 7 ---Z- 41 t t G ~ i. pEC 12 1994 j _ _j 6v December 7, 1994 Tigard City Council Members HAND DELIVE 1 City hall f . Tigard, OR 97223 k RE: Proposed tree ordinance Dear Council Members: s We respectfully request that you delay your scheduled vote on the proposed tree y ordinance next Tuesday until we have submitted our report to you. You have asked us to generate recommendations for balancing tree preservation and private property concerns by Feb. 28. For you to adopt the proposed ordinance, in whole or in part, prior to our report to you renders our recommendation(s) moot. Specifically, we feel disempowered if your scheduled vote next Tuesday results in de facto elimination of alternatives we may recommend. E ` If there are pending developments between now and Feb. 28 that might result in trees being unnecessarily removed, we urge you to delay such development or permit development with specific restrictions until you have received and reviewed our I recommendations. Very truly yours, Members of the Tree Ordinance Task Force i n • f i Imo) gjgq f t 1 a~ r ~J i~x ~v`t 6 b, TICARD TREE ORDINANCE 7cw DEC. ?,1994 f • Council's scheduled to vote (approve) tree ordinance having to do with development code next ` Tuesday. Purpose is to make developers who have pending projects subject to this ordinance, then deal with residential lots later. 1 This seems to create two separate classes of property owner, with the ordinance applied differently to each. Violates equal protection provision of Constitution. • Proposed ordinance has different rules for trees removed "for purposes of development or k profit." Again, this concept creates a separate set of rules for different classes of people. In fact, the 1 tree being cut doesn't differentiate between the wielder of the chain saw or the end use of the wood. f • Proposed ordinance calls for incentives (Systems Development Charges) for preservation which are more stringent than those required on a residential lot. Also, there is no charge for residential i permit, significant charge for developer permit. l Once again, the ordinance is being applied differently for different classes of owners. This again is discriminatory, r • How does "site development review" differ from design review? Normally, design review addresses the types of landscaping concerns. the proposed ordinance is trying to regulate. If this mechanism is already available, is proposed tree ordinance necessary? 1 The first stated goal of the proposed tree ordinance is to "Encourage the preservation, planting I and replacement of trees in the City." Why not first try positive incentives and programs rather than heavy handed penalties? f' i I j ' I I{ 1 i 1 - q k~ J i f - f - G . t. • s 0HA>": R SIvLI E H ~ - I > Sn}+eri~u mJ the aJv,: mJ M1rnketn}.'rx'.rvicas. G, 4 MP.O. Box 23132 . Portland, Oregon 97281 19Q DEC, COi t~Ji~f~Y DEVELOPMENT J K 1 Tigard City Council Members , City MR Tigard, OR 97223 HAND, DELIVERED f j I 1 r ~ E r ~c I V ,s i lutes 0 q-evid n, r.21 r31gy 3 December 13, 1994 Topic: Administrative Process Christy Herr 3 11386 SW Ironwood Loop Tigard, OR 97223 E I have heard repeatedly that the "Task Force" will determine the j tree ordinance. At the recent council meeting when the task force was suggested, it was cited by several councilors that there seemed to be common ground from both sides and perhaps if the sides came together through the task force, some compromise could be reached. There will never be a consensus from this task force. The Council will have to determine the issue of the developed lot size using the recommendation from the Planning Commission, the recommendations from the Task Force, and hopefully consider the decision of this definition rendered by Judge Lund. k j It is my recollection that the Planning Commission suggested the size of a "developed" lot some time ago with regard to the Tree Ordinance. They thought it should be less than one acre, as I recall. Why did that size disappear from the ordinance? Why now is this issue before the task force to decide? Isn't the Planning ' Commission the correct authority for this determination? Why did staff choose to remove it? I think it is because they want their interpretation, period. r The staff's previous interpretation of a developed lot was -j overturned through the courts. Why does staff insist on using the same ill-definition, overriding the planning commission's ~ suggestion regarding developed lot size. This decision is the only hang up in adopting a tree ordinance for the City of Tigard. Please consider what is fair to all the f community keeping in mind the real purpose of the ordinance...saving trees. The resolution states that a city councilor will be at the task force meetings. Two meetings have passed, I have inquired at both meetings. No councilor has been appointed. Who wili it be? Since no minutes are being taken at these weekly meetings, a councilor would be most beneficial to the process. The next meeting is tomorrow nite at 7:00 p.m. The meeting lasts 90 minutes. I hope to see one of you there. k a s y~- f ; ~ f l.J~! T"mil i. Cc- fad t31~~ 4 k t WILLAMETTE RIVER s WATER TREATMENT PILOT STUDY DEMONSYR.'7ED THAT: I £ hs wx ~ z' f L", L ~A ETTE RIV 1. d _s 1~ + _J t u , 4 4 { URE WATER SUN . • : t t } 1 Human beings and the natural world five lives'in absolute poverty without enough to eat, are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and one in ten suffers serious malnutrition. and often irreversible damage on the environment j j and on critical resources. If not checked, many of ` No more than one or a few decades remain j our current practices put at serious risk the future before the chance to avert the threats we now l confront will be lost and the prospect: for ; that we wish for human society and the plant humanity immeasurably diminished. j . and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the 1 living world that it will be unable to sustain life ! E ! in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the WARNING We the undersigned, senior f collision our present course will bring about. members of the world's scientific commu- nity, hereby warn all humanity of what lies r 1 ahead. A great change in our stewardship j THE ENVIRONMENT The environment is of the earth and the life on it is required, if j suffering critical stress: vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irre- o A azIshe Stratospheric ozone deple- trievably mutilated. tion threatens us with enhanced ultraviolet radia- tion at the earth's surface, which can be damaging 1 or lethal to many life forms. Air pollution near ground WHAT WE gy G Five inextricably linked level, and acid precipitation, are already causing wide- areas must be addressed simultaneously: 1 ' spread injury to humans, forests, and crops. j der I . We must bring environmentally damaging activities u Water ResourceS Heedless exploitation of depletable ground control to restore and protect the integrity of the earth's systems vve water supplies endangers food production and other essential human ; depend on. `,Ve must, for example, move away from fossil fuels to more systems. Heavy demands on the world's surface waters have resulted in benign, inexhaustible energy sources to cut greenhouse gas emissions serious shortages in some 80 countries, containing 40 percent of the and the pollution of our air and water. Priority crust be given to the P world's population. Pollution of rivers, lakes, and ground water further development of energy sources matched to Third World needs-small- limits the supply. scale and relatively easy to implement. COane Destructive pressure on the oceans is severe, particularly in We must halt deforestation, injury to and loss of agricultural land, and the coastal regions which produce most of the world's food fish. The I the loss of terrestrial and marine plant and animal species. p total marine catch is now at or above the estimated maximum sustain- j [ able yield. Some fisheries have already shown signs of collapse. Rivers i 3• Vie must manage resources crucial to human re more effectively. r carrying heavy burdens of eroded soil into the seas also carry industrial, We must give high priority to efficient use of energy, water, and other j municipal, agricultural, and livestock waste-some of it toxic. materials, including expansion of conservation and recycling. . We must stabilize population. This will be possible on all nations 'i j ell toss of soil productivity, which is causing extensive land abandon- ment, is a widespread by-product of current practices in agriculture and recognize that it requires improved social and economic conditions., and I ~ ffective ,voluntary family planning, j animal husbandry. Since 1945, 11 percent of the earth's vegetated sur- the adoption of a face h 'Pen degraded-an area larger than India and China com- i 1 We must reduce and eventually eliminate poverty. v bined .:1 per capita food production in many parts of the world is decreasing.. j. We must ensure sexual equality, and guarantee women cci . col over l ~°t it own reproductive deci~+x,s. 21 r. r 77 -7- e i4 j ..The Union of Concerned Scientists sent the World Scientists Margaret Davis, USA Ricardo Gmaccom, U3A 'Jerome We, USA Brenda Milner, Canada Wanting for endor.,ement to all scientists worldwide who have been Luis D'Croz; Panama Eleanor J. Gibson, USA Robert Kates, USA %6ar Milstein, Argentina i, . ' awarded the Nobel Prize; to members of 10 national science *Gerard Debreu, USA Marvin Goldberger, USA Frederick 1. B. Kayanja, Uganda *Franco Modigliani, USA academies in Africa Canada, Europe, Russia, the United Kingdom, *Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, France Maurice Goldhaber, USA Joseph Keller, USA Andrei Mfenin, Russia j j and the United States; and to selected scientists in China, India, *Hans Dehmelt, USA *Donald Glaser, USA *Henry Kendall, USA Marcos Moshinsky Mexico Japan, and Latin America. *Johann Deuenhofer, Germany *Sheldon Glashow, USA *John Kendrew, Great Britain *Nevill Mon, Great Britain 1 Over 1670 scientLo-s, including 104 Nobel laureates-a majority Frederica de Laguna USA James rowans, France Elisabeth Kessler, Sweden Temald Mukaiyama, Japan Paul-Yves Denis, Canada Roger Green, New Zealand Maung-U Khin, Myanmar Walter Munk, USA of the living recipients of the Prize in the sciences-have signed the Pierre Deligne, France Peter Greenwood, Great Britain Gutdev Khush, India Anne Murray, Sweden Warning so far. These men and women represent 71 countries, Frank Dixon, USA Edward Goldberg, USA Susan Kieffer, USA *Joseph Murray, USA including all of the 19 largest economic powers, all of the 12 most Johanna Dobereiner, Brazil Coluthur Gopolan, India *Klaus von Klitzing, Gemrauy Noreen Murray, Great Britain populous nations, 12 countries in Africa, 14 in Asia, 19 in Europe, Joseph Doob, USA Stephen Jay Gould, USA *Aamn Klug, Great Britain LawrenceMysak, Canada i and 12 in Latin America. Below is a fist of prominent individuals *Renato Dulbecco, USA *Roger Guillemin, USA E. F. Knipling, USA Jayant Vishnu Narlikar, India i j who have signed the Wanting. Hened Dzinotyiweyi, Zimbabwe Herbert Gutowsky, USA Walter Kohn, USA Anwar Nasim, Saudi Arabia *Manfred Eigen, Germany Erwin Hahn, USA Janos Kornai, Hungary Kim Nasmyth, Great Britain Samuel Eilenberg, USA Gonzalo Halfher, Mexico Aderemi Kuku, Nigeria Jaynes Neel, USA j Anatole Abragam, France *Baruch Blumberg, USA Mahdi Elmandjra, Morocco Kerstin Hall, Sweden Ikuo Kushiro,Japan *Louis Neel, France i Carp Aguirre, Bolivia Bert Bolin, Sweden Paul Ehrlich, USA Mohammed Ahmed Hamdan, Devendra Lal, India Yuval Ne'eman, Israel Bice Alberts, USA *Norman Borlaug, USA Thomas Eisner, USA Jordan Gerald Cecil Lalor, Jamaica Oleg M. Nefedov, Russia WalterAlvarez, USA Frederick Borman, USA Mohammed T. El-Ashry, Egypt Adrian Hamoui, Kuwait Gerardo Lamas-Muller, Peru *Erwin Neher, Germany Viqar Uddin Ammad, Pakistan Raoul Boll, USA *Genmde Elion, USA A. M. Harun-Ar Rashid, Torvard Laurent, Sweden -Marshall Nirenberg, USA I Claude Allegre, France Ronald Breslow, USA Aina Elvius, Sweden Bangladesh *Leon Lederman, USA Yasutomi Nishizul4 Japan I Michael Albers, Papua New Guinea Ricardo Bressani, Guatemala K 0. Emery, USA Mohammed H. A. Hassan, Sudan Sang Soo Lee, Rep. of Korea John S. Nkoma, Botsaara 1 ' Anne Anastasi, USA Hermann Bdick, Great Britain Paul En6, Hungary Ahmed Hassanli, Tanzania *Yuan T. Lee, USA Paul Nchoji Nkwi, Camem)on *Philip Anderson, USA Gerardo Budowski, Costa Rica *Richard Emst, Switzerland *Herbert Hauptman, USA Susan Leeman, USA Howard Odum, USA *Christian Arfimn, USA E. Margaret Burbidge, USA Vittorio Ersparmer, Italy Stephen Hawking, Great Britain *Jean-Made Lelia, France Bete Nwoye Okigbo, Nigeria i How Ghee Ang, Singapore RobeR Burris, USA Sandra Faber, USA Elizabeth Hav, USA *Wassily Leontief, USA Ayub Khan Ommaya, Pakistan *\VemerArber, Switzerland Glenn Burton, USA Nina Federoff, USA *Dudley Herschbach, USA Luna Leopold, USA Cyril Agodi Onvumechili, Nigeria Mary Ellen Avery, USA *Adolf Butenandt, Germany Herman Feshbach, USA *Gerhard Herzberg, Canada Louis Leprince-Ringuet, France MaryJane Osborn, USA *Julius Axelrod, USA Sergio Cabrera, Chile *Ernst Otto Fischer, Germany *Antony Hewish, Great Britain Vladilen Letokhov, Russia Yuri Ossipyan, Russia Michael A iyah, Great Britain Paulo C. Campos, Philippines Inga Fischer-Hjalmars, Sweden *George Hitchings, USA *Rita Levi-Montalcini, USA Autar Singh Paintal, India Howard Bachrach, USA Ennio Candom, Brazil Michael Ellis Fisher, Great Britain *Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin, Li Chang-lm, China George Pake, USA I John Backus, USA Hend Cartan, France *Val Fitch, USA Great Britain Shan Tao Liao, China *George Palade, USA Achmad Baiquni, Indonesia Carlos Chagas, Brazil Dagfinn Follesdal, Norway *Roald Hoffman, USA -William Lipscomb, USA Mary Lou Pardue; USA t~t t *David Baltimore, USA Sivaiartnal na Chandrasekhar, 'William Fowler, USA *Robert Holley, USA Jane Lubchenco, USA *Linus Pauling, USA H. A. Barker, USA India Otto Frankel, Australia Nick Holonyak, USA Christopher Magazda, Zimbabwe Barbara Pearse, Great Britain Francisco J. Barrantes, Argentina *Georges Charpak, France Herbert Friedman, USA Lars Hormander, Sweden Lydia Phindile Makhubu, Swaziland Muhammed Abed Peerally, David Bates, Ireland Joseph Chatt, Great Britain *Jerome Friedman, USA Dorothy Horstmann, USA Khursheed Ahmed Malik, Pakistan Mauritius I Alan Battersby, Great Britain Shiing-Shen Chem, China Konstantin V. Frolov, Russia John Houghton, Great Britain Lynn Margulis, USA Manuel Peimbert, Mexico i *Georg Bednorz, Switzerland Christopher Chetsanga, Zimbabwe *Kenichi Fukui, Japan Sarah Hrdy USA Paul Marks, USA Roger Penrose, Great Britain *Baruj Benaunnf, USA Morris Cohen, USA Madhav Gadgil, India Kenneth Hsu, China George Martine, Brazil John Philip, Australia i Gemtot Bergold, Venezuela *Stanley Cohen. USA Mary Gaillard, USA Kun Huang, China Frededco Mayor, Spain Lilian Pickford, Great Britain 4 1 *Sune Bergstrom, Sweden Stanley N. Cohen, USA *D. Carleton Gajdusek, USA Hiroshi Inose, Japan Ernst Mayr, USA John R. Pierce, USA j Daniel Bes, Argentina Mildred Cohn, USA Robert Gallo, USA Turner T. Isoun, Nigeria Maclyn McCarty, USA *John Polanyi, Canada ! I 'Hans Bethe, USA *E. J. Corey, USA Rodrigo Gamez, Costa Rica *Fmngois Jacob, France James McConnell, Ireland *George Porter, Great Britain I ! Arthur Birch, Australia `John Comforth, Great Britain Antonio Garcia-Bellido, Spain Carl-Olof Jacobson, Sweden Digby McLaren, Canada 'Ilya Prigogine, Belgium 1 *Michael Bishop, USA Hector Croxatto, Chile Leopoldo Garcia-Collin, Mexico Dorothea Jameson, USA *James Meade, Great Britain Giampietro Puppi, Italy $ *Konrad Bloch, USA Paul Crutzen, Germany Percy Gamham, Great Britain Daniel Janzen, USA Jerrold Meinwald, USA *Edward Purcell, USA i *Nicholaas Bloembergen, USA Partha Dasgupta, Great Britain Richard Garvin, USA Cecilia Jarlskog, Sweden M. G. K Menou, India Arta ur-Rahman, Pakistan David Mervyn Blow, Great Britain *Jean Dausset, France *Murray Gell-Mann, USA Louise Johnson, Great Britain Gennady Mesiatz, Russia G. N. Ramachandran, India Ogulande Robert Davidson, Georgii Georgiev, Russia Harold Johnston, USA Jan Michalski, Poland Tiruppattur Ramakdshnan, Sierra Leone Human Bishara Ghassib, Jordan Victor A. Fabanov, Russia *Hartmut Michel, Germany India * Nobel laureate 4 largest tion, we a d na- t ase dry i The developed nations aree the overconsump e develoPe icai and temper reatly reduce global environment ort to developing wets as trUP e critical forest t Iley must g aid and stipP zst5 At present rates, son1 resources and the ovide ltnaricial resources li, at Call, i~ idly ical rain for o large t Pressures °the obligation to p ed nations have the destroyed rap and most of the trophcm Will g tiuins have only the develop forest., wie being few years, With because self-interest. 1 l e next ese tasks but enlig gon in a of the century . nations, technical htened es the skills for th typ V` vefore the end ecies. b 2100 may and of altruism, lifeboat. No °l~lo be but one are damaged. no 1 g°n4 tant andani mat sp which Ye are recognition is ers of P ecies' Acting on t his we all have al systems 1 is esP p eciaily serious. numb . irreversible loss of Spec ~~e~WS The living, other benefits, ` global bio1091C 1 scarce resoss mi- ' 11 s ecies now medicinal and the 1 whether industrialized or not, over innstasin mass will cause i Living rn u when vel- t third of a p s Ives e from conflicts instabilities reach orie- hold for providing diversity of life Event g to can escape from l economic instab developed and untie beauty 1 escap otential theYhat genetic and to the astonishing nation ca environmental and uences for ; 1 losing the antribution ical systems l addition, ,ncalc,.rlable conseq one of 1 and the world's bioiog with . e is tobusuiess of the erma rations scale of centuries, or P lev- tl Ped nations alike, itself. ible on a tats* ing carbon that attempt to blunt it will enl°s to -Vhe dzmage is i Increasing on Developing read the earth rrrevers Of ats nations they face, an u , and un human activities, may the gravest thre o ulations go mrentaadinP overly i much t Other processes appear re f from and from deforestation' still their P p seals of envirom ental collapse. ; are nen. lobal warming } whelmed ed in sp and envirOnm vio l I els of gases in the atm fob t fuel burning predictions of tole rable to very severe- become trapP economic, great reduction e released from ct' from to social, wire a conduct lobal scale. `t rest, leading vor will req aration and dioxide needed in alter climate on ato1ect ed effects rang global endea the prep with p rear. of life- this g w devoted to _v,,ill be badly f uncertain- endent web success in esources no , otential risks are very g interd lence and war. to over $1 trillion and elln new challenges but the p world's d deforestation, sPe" - e inflicted by ead adverse effects, 111 ofwar-amounting diverte d to our re A, g erin$ with the ental dam" whose ~ new tasks and should be I Our massive tamp vironm trigger widesP al systems 1 the ne earth. We Must recog- led With the _._could w attitude towards d'schargin mze its 1 c°uP so of critical biologic required---a ne for the ust recognize ties loss, and climate chacollaP eT{ectly understand. A new ethic is req for ourselves and redictable we only imp compla" l to provi de b ravaged 'This ethic must 'i ' including imp of excuse ` sponsibility for caring acity it to and reluctant d namics cann earth's limited cap longer a11ovJ ons and Y of these effects 1 nize the We ust no long reluctant lead~fect the needed interact extent m convincing to s ,themselves m over the t fragflity' real irovement, i o p i uncertainty in facing the threats eop or delay ; motivate a g reluctant ill 4 cency wastes an ` governments and message w reach and ; to absorb energy And changes. e that our t is finite. Its ability food and E. The earth rovide this warnin, hophel of many. Its abi`riYg nrm ers of people is finite. Anlc scientists issuing here. We need the help ~ sCietthsts°"nt9►reilr i effluent is finite, row its. Current economic y The everyw Cam~y~tgi i o ctive for g lim under" ! affect People veld Its ability rths and a hel~ o{ ate of the developed j desire to provide many ent ea in both vital global 'fie require tiers; j finite, coaching , that riieal; we are fast aPpdamage the environm without the risk mdusteial lea of be continued 1 ~ elal, ee®n~ntse, 4 } ! raetices which d eel demands the help of the Warld`s lyusiness an s; and 1 developed nationa> a beyon pair, wth put u woaars relegiot1s leader system$ will be dam g elation 910 sustain- 1 We redire he! ®~e from unrestrained P a„n efforts to achieve awe must } we requ Ire Ile p les. overwhelm any our environment veld el al She world's p y pressures re' 'or d that can wire dLe hp F± on the natural to halt the destruction of while the United } We real fills task. If we are World Bank estim w ate indicates that w us in future . that g rowth. less than mom 12.4 billson billion, a near ,t able We V011 On all to jatt► accept limits to one person in wiulldnot stabilize at population eventual total toll d ent 14 - But, even at C&MBODGe" t Nadoris concle 5 4 billion ' - rn Y of today' trip b tf s ~6 C111J UNION - SPONSOMAD T T T, 4a n cAl 7-c, c, 4 I llis►~-vas ~~rd~ ~1~31~ 1 Global 1105(_. urces Project k . Chintamani Rao, India Boris S. Sokolov, Russia l i' 7 o i i f Eduardo Rapoport, Argentina *Roger Sperry, USA The World Scientists Warning to Human- t r Marianne Rasmuson, Sweden Alexander Spirin, Russia ity is the first step it, the Global Resources j - ' Peter Raven, USA Earlstadtrnan, USA Project, a long-term campaign by the Union _ . 1 y 4 Martin Rees, Great Britain 'rhressa Suritman, USA ( ' ; F j Gerardo Reichel-Dolmatoff, Ledyard Stebbins, USA of Concerned Scientists. The Project's goal ~t r- Columbia -Jack Steinberger, USA is to increase awareness of the threat that t j ` t t *Tadeus Reichstein, Janos Szentgothai, Hungary global environmental degradation poses to Switzerland Tan Jia-zhen, China humanity's life-support systems. The cam- - ~ f Frederick Reines USA Andrezej Tarkowski, Poland + l Alexander Rich, USA Valentine Tele , Switzerland paign will organize efforts in professional r; I -Burton Richter, USA Kirthi Tennalcone, Sri Lanka academies to address this issue and will Ralph Riley, Great Britain WalterThirring, Austria use scientists' voices to educate their fel- I Claude Rimington, Norway *E. Donal! Thomas, USA low citizens and world leaders. I Gustavo Rivas Mijanei, *Jan Tinbergen, Netherlands Venezuela *Samuel C. C. Ting, USA *Frededck Robbins, USA 'James Tobin, USA Wmdell Roelofs,USA *Alexander Todd, Great Britain About the Mion of *Heinrich Rohrer, Switzerland *SusumuTonegawa,Japan Concerned entists t w l' Betty Roots, Canada Cheng Kui Tseng, China Miriam Rothchild, Hans 15tppy, Austria The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) Great Britain James Van Allen, USA is dedicated to advancing responsible pub;'' rz 1 _ Sherwood Rowland, USA *Simon van der Meer, Janet Rowley, USA Netherlands lic policies in areas where technology plays + -Carlo Rubbia, Italy *John Vane, Great Britain a critical role. Established in 1969, UCS has Vera Rubin, USA *Harold Varmus, USA created a unique alliance between many of Yur Rudenko, Russia Martha Vaughan, USA the nation's leading scientists and thousands Elizabeth Russell, USA *George Wald, USA of committed citizens. This partnership I Albert Sabin, USA HenrikWallgren, Finland's j Carl Sagan, USA *E. T. S. Walton, Ireland addresses the most serious environmental Roald Sagdeev, Russia Prawase Wasi, Thailand and security threats facing humanity. UCS a Ruth Sager, USA Gerald Wasserburg, USA is currently working to: encourage respon- ` f ' Farrokh saidi, Iran 'James Watson, USA Bible stewardship of the global environment *Abdus Salam, Pakistan Victor Weisskopf, USA *PreerickSanger, *TtromasWeller,USA and life-sustaining resources; promote en- j f ` Great Britain Direr von Wettstein, Denmark ergy technologies that are renewable, safe, i ! Jose Satukhan, Mexico Fred Whipple, USA and cost effective; reform transportation l r Berta Srharrer,USA Gilbert White, USA policy; and curtail weapons proliferation. Richard Schultes, USA *Torsten Wiesel, USA An independent nonprofit organization, -Melvin Schwartz USA Jerome Wiesner, USA UCS conducts technical studies and public I *Julian Schwinger, USA *Maurice Wilkins, Great Britain = j -Glenn Seaborg, USA *Geoffrey Wilkinson, education, and seeks to influence govem- Michael Bela, Israel Great Britain, ment policy at the local, state, federal, and Ame Semh-Johanson, Norway Richard Willems, Estonia international levels. Salimuzzaman Siddiqui, Edward 0. Wilson, USA Pakistan Lawrence A. Wilson, Trinidad -KaiSiegbahn,Sweden Evelyn WiWn,USA Thomas Silou, Congo Yang Fujia, China 1 *Herbert Simon, USA Alexander L Yanshin, Russia April 1993 Alexej Sitenko, Ukraine Yongyuth Yuthavong, Thailand Jens Skou, Denmark Zhao Zhong-xian, China Printed on recycled paper Charles Slack, NewZealand Zhou Guang-zhao, China *George Snell, USA Solly Zuckerman, Great Britain Union Concerned Scientists I ,r $ k1Iv r _ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E This report presents the findings of a five month conventional filtration pilot study for the Willamette River, conducted for the Tualatin Valley Water District (District). Pilot testing was conducted at Wilsonville, Oregon, approximately 40 miles upstream from the i mouth of the Willamette River. E a PROJECT BACKGROUND i j This pilot study was conducted in the context of a larger regional water supply planning F effort currently underway in the Portland metropolitan area. As a participant to regional € supply planning, the District undertook the pilot study in order to develop cost and r ` treatability information on this potential new source of drinking water. Concerns about immediate and long-term water supply needs in the District's rapidly growing service area provided the primary motivation for an evaluation of the Willamette River as a future source of supply. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The primary objective of the Willamette River Water Treatment Pilot Study (WRWTPS) was to identify an appropriate filtration process for Willamette River water. In order to evaluate the numerous treatment processes and conditions tested during the pilot study, ! stringent water quality and operational goals were developed before beginning pilot plant ! operations. The pilot study treatment goals were selected to: { a meet all current federal and state drinking water regulations; O produce water of high aesthetic duality with desirable taste, odor, and color E 1 characteristics; ! k i a meet levels of regulated. disinfection by-products anticipated in the year 2000; , meet enhanced coagulation requirements under the anticipated Disinfectant/ Disinfection By-Product Rule, scheduled for promulgation in 1996; achieve greater than 3.5 logs (99.97 percent) of particle removal in the Ciardia i E ! and Cryptosporidium size ranges, in anticipation of Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule requirements, scheduled for promulgation in 1996; ! assure an efficient, cost-effective treatment process by meeting operating goals for filter run length and filtered water production. The treated water quality goals for this project were rigorous, in anticipation of more complex and stringent federal drinking water regulations to come. Other considerations, r such as the following, prompted the use of conservative treatment goals for this project: I ES-1 I i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Willamette River Basin supports multiple human activities including ® agriculture, forestry, industry and urban land use; the potential for contamination i l of the River must be recognized; 1 1 Where the Willamette has been used as a drink'ag water source, taste and odor - - : i episodes have been recorded; -i Extensive water quality data on the Willamette River are lacking; j The District's consumers are accustomed to drinking water of high quality. To be l acceptable to the consumer, treatment of the Willamette River must produce drinking water of equally high aesthetic quality. Treatment designed to meet but not surpass existing standards may be perceived as unacceptable by District F customers. For all of these reasons, a conservative treatment philosophy was adopted for the pilot study, on the assumption that the goal was excellence, not adequacy. PROJECT APPROACH A state-of-the-art treatment approach was selected for this project, capable of producing ii water of the highest possible quality, while also being cost effective in comparison to 1 other treatment approaches. This treatment philosophy can be described as a "multiple- barrier approach". To ensure the highest quality treated water, the following multiple _ barriers to chemical, physical, and microbiological contaminants were included as part of the treatment process: • Pre-oxidation with ozone was evaluated in the pilot study because of its powerful oxidation and disinfection abilities. Ozone has been demonstrated to be effective E. 1 ! for the control of pathogens, disinfection by-products, tastes and odors, pesticides { and metals. More than 40 ozone plants have been built in the United States (U.S.) 1 + since the 1970'x, and an estimated 2,000 ozone plants are in operation world-wide - " primarily in Europe). Ozone is increasingly being applied in the U.S. as utilities respond to changing; drinking water regulations and public demands for safe, pure `eater (Tate, 1991). Following pre-oxidation, the coagulation/flocculation/sedimentation process was • tested for removal of dissolved and particulate contaminants. This series of processes is fundamental to conventional water treatment and has been in use for f decades. The sedimentation process is effective for the removal of naturally- occu.*ring organic matter and suspended silts and clays. It also assists in the k removal of contaminants such as heavy metals, pesticides, cysts, and viruses 77 (Montgomery, 1985). 1 Filtration using granular activated carbon (GAC) filter media was evaluated in the j pilot study. GAC media is commonly used in the U.S. for the removal of taste t and odor causing chemicals, synthetic organic chemicals, and naturally-occurring i organic material which forms disinfection by-products. The filtration step is also the final barrier for the removal of microbial contaminants and dissolved and particulate material that affect water clarity and color. i ES-2 i 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In practice, the final barrier in the multiple barrier approach is the use of a secondary, or ti- distribution system residual disinfectant such as chorine or chloramines. Secondary disinfection was not evaluated as part of the pilot study, although it would be practiced in - any full-scale application. F r- r; PROJECT RESULTS t Five months of pilot testing were conducted to evaluate the ability of the processes i described above to meet the project's water quality and operational goals. A successful I`+ treatment process was developed which includes pre-ozonation, coagulation/ flocculation/sedimentation using ferric chloride and cationic polymer, followed by filtration at a rate of 6 gallons per minute per square foot (gpm/sf) through a deep-bed GAGsand dual media. The optimized process produced excellent filtered water quality and filter run, lengths which met operating goals. Levels of disinfection by-products in j ' chlorinated filtered water were well below the regulatory limits anticipated in the year 2000. This treatment process was observed to be effective for the control of naturally- I j occurring earthy/musty odors in Willamette River water. Should herbicides and I pesticides ever be present, this treatment process will also provide barriers to the passage of these chemicals through the treatment plant through the combined action of oxidation, sedimentation and filtration. The major conclusions of the pilot study can be summarized as follows: 1! F • Historical water quality records, as well as data collected during the pilot study 1 indicate that the Willamette River is ahigh-quality source water. This water has j lower levels of organic material than most surface water sources in the U.S. (as t measured by total organic carbon). Ten years of water quality data, collected by ! [ j the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) from 1982 to 1993, : j indicate that the Willamette could be classified as an unfiltered surface water j supply for six months out of the year based on raw water turbidity. A multiple-barrier treatment process can successfully treat Willamette River water " to meet stringent water quality and operational goals. The technology used to treat this-water is commonly available, in the U.S., and, can produce drinking water at costs comparable to other U.S. facilities. • Human activities in the Willamette River basin and the potential introduction of i synthetic organic chemicals into the river was a recognized Issue in this study. ' F Available water quality data do not indicate detectable levels of pesticides or ! j herbicides in the Willamette River mainstem. A worst=case analysis of the k presence of dioxin (a by-product of the Kraft pulp bleaching process) and atrazine s '(a commonly-used herbicide in the Willamette Basin) was conducted using the highest levels of these chemicals which had ever been found in water or sediment anywhere in the Willamette Basin, along with a host of conservative assumptions (see Section 10). The analysis shows that worst-case, chronically-occurring concentrations in the raw water would be expected to meet existing drinking water standards for dioxin and atrazine without filtration treatment. In addition, 3 pilot testing demonstrated the ability of the multiple-barrier process to remove the a spiked herbicide atrazine. The ability of ozone and GAC filtration to remove t organic contaminants is well-documented. I ES-3 1 e J 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ti Pilot testing and worst-case analyses have demonstrated the ability of the multiple-barrier [ treatment process to provide drinking water of excellent quality. All available information suggests that this process will meet treatment goai; over a wide range of water quality conditions. This conclusion can be assured by collecting more information f on Willamette River water quality, particularly with respect to concentrations of previously-undetected synthetic organic chemicals. To this end, the District is undertaking a two-year Willamette River Raw Water Monitoring Program. This program will provide the most comprehensive picture of Willamette River water quality generated E to date, and includes routine analysis for 160 organic chemicals in water and sediment, along with a host of other inorganic and microbiological indicators commonly used in E drinking water treatment. If raw water monitoring detects the presence of specific . chemicals or other water quality parameters at unacceptable levels, then the treatment , k a process must be evaluated to assure its ability to remove them to safe levels. t This pilot study indicates that further consideration of the Willamette River as a future drinking water source would be consistent with the Tualatin Malley Water District's and F ' i the region's goals and expectations with regard to public health, cost, and aesthetics. ! . I E t 4 ,sy r I F l ~ [ i i. i ~ - I L i i ~ i j - j i ES-4 I L i GUIDING PRIWCAPLES FOR THIS PROJECT is { 4 i ' a Provide i quality drinking mater + Meet current . s d anticipated regulatory requirements Meet public expectations for good taste, odor an color of ter ~ E Reasonable cost and cost-effective design a ' i 1 Plant can be expanded to meet future needs { Consistent with regional planning and cooperation t t- i f I 1- t I I f 1 t. ttt 1 t 'i I I I ® i j j l 1 4 i -s i I r- - J i - f . i G. f-- I~ f i ( ®~y f; 1up j ~.n~y Y~ w ~ ? sjopo 12 pR s f .7 '0 q~ ^~S c 7.' yi zV` i 6J I .A leinjeu 4 ~ 'sopped I r1T u!`c4 vi r ry ■ lee d m'; 6 1" i f t f -.J ME 11M r: CONVENTIONAL WATER TREATMENT PROCESS DIAGRi~QL".'~ r # Raw i Water Preoxida+,ion: I - { - chlorine hocculakion Q® o i Chemical Addition: o 00 _ o I F - Alum Sedimentation - polymers Filtration: I - anthracite coal To -sand Users - low rates Chlorine Contactor E' { i i f t i 1 T { _ cm~ureoxaui pp~.._.j I.~.._ w-_._:.~ S 1 ~ 'L.~..u i.~..~. F' PILOT TESTS SAVE { t . Investigate esln options at small scale to save In full-scale plant construction and operations n l r .~s i 'j L; i f i f .l i 3 low q ups speeu 01 ol®upe 1 IOA' l11 Aiddv r F Ito 6 1 d i. ~ f , t" _ k BUILD PILOT 1"ESTS i v t E.. ~ r- v i nstr t t regulators that standards will t - Address public concerns of health, aesthetics, environment, cost I E a r ~a 1 F i cow 66221 C ~L~ ti `{li ~~r E PILOT STUDY FOSTERED t COOPEERATIVE, REGIONAL APPROACH F. f' Pilot trailer an some l _ analyses supplied by - Portland Water Bureau PLAN _ Site provided by City o , ~AtEA TREATMENT PILOT Wilsonville { OHD involvement i I Ri ' { s {:f4' ~'t 4, Integrated with major AWWA Research Foundation projects i a f , 1 1 , t. I HOW DID WE ESTABLISH TREATMENT GOALS FOR THIS STUDY? TVWD F customers are accustomed to excellent grater E New drinking water regulations are being developed I r f E Meet all our goals, but don't waste I E. I; j- 1 i { GOALS WATER QUALITY CRITERIA TO MEET PROJECT F'- Project { titer Quality EPA/State Parameter Criteria Standards { Turbidity < 0.1 NTU < 0.5 NTU Particle Removals ® 5 to 15 !.ern > 99.97% > 99.9% (Giardia size range) i 1 ® 4-7 um in size > 99.97% No Standard (Cryptosporidiurn size range) f I' ® Filtered Water Particles < 50 particles /mL No Standard. (1 to 124 um) E i Finished Water HPG < 10 colonies/mL SWTR Recommendation t r ' I f L ~ _ L~.._.., _...w~, t... 1. WATER QUALIT'VY =17-Rll A TO MEET PROJECT GOALS E I i Project Water Quality EPA/State Parameter gals Standards TOO Removal t E. - raw grater > 2.0 mg/L 40 percent 40 percent* f - raw water< 2.0 g/L < 2.0 mg/L < 2.0* mg/L Disinfection Byproducts ~ - THNIs < 32 mg/L 30*/40** - HAAS < 24 mg/L 60*/00** i ,i Aluminum < 0.05 mg/L 0.05 m9/L Secondary Standard E Iron < 0.05 mg/L 0.3 mg/L Secondary Standard i * Standards in effect in 1997. '"Standards in effect in 2002. ' f i PROJECT STUDY RESULTS MEET PROJECT GOALS i I Coagulant: Ferric Chloride 10 - 30 /L Polymer Addition: Nalco 8105 . - 2.0 / Pre-oxidation: Ozone 0. ® 1. /L Filter Media: 1. mm GAC 60 inches depth 0.5 sand 1 inches depth Filter Rate: 6 - 8 gallons per minute per square foot k; OPTIMIZED WATER TREATMENT PROCESS Raw Water } Preoxidation: ozone o®0 0 0 o0® Chemical Addition: Flocculation - r - Ferric chloride Sedimentation polymer Filtration: - granular activated TO carbon (CAC) Users - sand Chlorine Contactor I - moderate filtration rates { i - G , 1 1 I j 1 1 li, i WATER 'EJ WHAT DOES OZONE D04? IT f Removes: F iaria s cri i r ® Pesticides r Disinfection Byproducts Tastes and Odors F Bacteria 1 s COSTS - ° Increases treatment costs ~ to achieve water quality ene its A 4- . 'i I f WHAT DOES OPTIMIZED FILTRATION DO? I i t WATER CITY ` Removes: Turbidity Pesticides Tastes and Odors f~1`E Ps. f 'r a COSTS G t' Reduces capital costs higher-rate, deeper filter design r r- i 1 i i OPTIMIZED'~7.,',"--',71 ER TREATMENT PROCESS - C I 6 -1 trr 1 ' Treatment costs comparable to other conven- tional facilities, but ozone and Gc provide additional ter quality benefits j it E i i' I 1 7-- f ' FILTRATION i i i i ~ ® Control of iarga F 3 Crypto in VVTPs F sI n an operatio l r I F ~ variables 1 141" E "1.21, 2-year project 4 r j`. ~a f. ~i c f CYST FILTRATION RESULTS t E IT OPTIMIZED PROCESS: I. I E, ® ®5 I, r la removal e 5-6 loci Crypto removal f REQUIREMENTS: EPA ® assumes . logs iar is removal t f , E - :a i a a 9 MOH 1 r >-z 3 i :a e. I i~', IS A LARGE BASIN ® Basin covers 12% of f state 300 mile river length Ff- IORRO its 70% of stag population d 0d i ~ ~ , . resides within basin m aw m wr rro ar.n nom L 70% forest lard u.cn m..•n.s. ut irxo~u~l9buda3 . 3 { ph RIYI 23% agriculture land % urban 7- 7 J yf INTAKE LOC1,0ATED IN RIVER SECTION KNOWN AS NEWBERG POOL F F - RM 26.2 Tualatin River I is Mollalai Pudding River r 30 mile, relatively flat,. -RM 38.0 depositional stream reach Wilsonville - - RM 41.0 - Pilot Plant Site F`. ® Median flow is 15,00 F RM48.6 major dischargers Smurfit Corp. - - - 18 f% upstream 'Yamhill River e` { -RM 60.0 a- i F rr,f i COMMON WATER QUALITY INDICATORS 1 a Turbidity ► sur of water "cloudiness" TOC ® potential for voter to form disinfection byproducts y ® Hardness = measure mineral content Synthetic Organic Chemicals human-made pollutants 1 7 r I f-D M0 En Ism WILLAME'"17TE RIVER HAS GOOD WATER QUALITY MEASURED 1 , 20 j 18 16 i ,a r 12 10 m 8 ;q a 6 a UNFILTERED LIMIT 2 i U j Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul ALV Sep Oct Nov Dac MONTH I 1 ® Meets criteria for an unfiltered surface water supply for 6 rats out o the year i Approaches lull Run ter i summer months ® Berate turbi ities in Fall inter f 4 f. , r TOTAL RIVER HAS GOOD WATER QUALITY AS MEASURED BY ORGANIC k~ Surface raiser T ranges from 0.1 to 20 rng/L In U.S. f Willamette Fiver averages < 2. g/L T over the year, rani from 1. . t . / Bull n ranges from to . _ /L f future T would exempt from T removal due to low ~ T levels E t WATER "SOFT" WILLAMETTE RIVER IS STILL `i G 5 stars of / hardness are classified as "soft" a Willamette River hardness ranges from 18-25 mg! Comparable. t0 Clackamas River, Trask River r r Bull Run waiter ranges from 5-10 g/L hardness treatment requirements may increase the . Corrosion control hardness o II n water 1 Em Em Im %..1YN"1`4HE6"1'0IC ORGANIC CHEMICALS Y ` WERE GIVEN SPECIAL ATTENTION f • C. DIOXIN Most stringent oil all EPA standards Byproduct of chlorine bleaching in pulp I paper ills an in T effluent Detected in some fish samples from river ' - Strongly ,adsorbed sediments Never foe in ter samples ATRAZINE a ® Most heavily use in r Basin of all regulated pesticides or herbicides Has been detected in tributaries of Willamette Does not adsorb well t solids n T Lam iiz { '.1 t t EVEN PRIOR TO TREATMEN T, LEVELS ARE &`A 12 f' 4 Evaluated four scenarios for dioxin and two for atrazine All s rilc show levels in untreated raw tar lass than EPA standards, including: ® Assuming dioxin i sediment ten times greater than a { highest ever faun 4 Assuming % of river l is pulp and paper mill effluent a Assuming if of Willamette flow is agricultural runoff with r tine at highest levels ever measured in basin w dater Monitoring Program now underway will provide ~r. more data { i4 j RECOMMENDED TREATMENT PROVIDED is EFFECTIVE BARRIERS ' i . r ® spike test simulates spill or ether episodic release into river G p tr i spiked into pilot plant raw grater at 3 times EPA standard 3 99. - 99.9% removed by treatment processes even when filters operated at beginning of turbidity "breakthrough' GAC filtration is commonly use in the U.S. for organic chemical removal. Ozone provides a additional barrier. i 3 WATER TREATMENT PILOT STUDY F 3 Recommended treatment et stringent goals State-of-the-art technology provides multiple barriers t contaminants Willamette River is ee source of drinking water { a { s I: G {fI 1 4` 1 1 i _f I - 3 I L, i~ i i i a i ~ t 'i i ~k~ a i . I` f M IV H AA r ;e l i < k s 7-7 =71 77, e _ - - c - f E-1 Emu M r ® i'. PILOT STUDY PROVIDES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMA lr r. 1 Water treatment plant estimated cost: 33 million for 25 MGD , Includes raw water intake, pump station, pipeline, finished water pump station and 20% contingency Does not inch engineering, legal, administrative, or land aquisition costs FA I 1. i i 1 HOW DO WILLAMETTE C*0%STS COMPARE? o S = o. / CA D Barney Reservoir MGD ~a Willamette River = $1.3 / G f j E Unlike other supply options, Willamette is readily expandable P and it cost gees o as capacity goes p s i i i i i I ENGINEERING TASKS t; r, ~ c i Site uisitien i i ® Permitting Environmental Impact Statement Design T r ~ F c I: y -7 1711 -1 i 1 G. 11 1 / ~ I - i' i i t f p i t t i r r F -gym-- ..._3.~__--.--•-__,®., ".__'i.~_.. ..-:4f.--. _ "i S _ - c Ike-~~ (y All 8C.'L3 'Xgjp? t, -1 r lr- t V 1~ y }7 U .t3.4p F " r ~ ~ + r ~ k ` ~ _ ~K...• rte, a - 4 ~ _r ~ ~ ~ 3+'` ~ f z did LEGEND Cl) CLARIFIERS f. ! 1 C~) OZONE ;a1 t 9 ✓?'%.x\ C3) FLOC. TANKS f400mgdj C6) SED. TANKS (600mgd) SITE BOUNDARY ADMIN. i ~G) FILTERS j200mgdl 0 FILTERS 1200t.-od) O o a ✓L~© , U CLEAR@'IAZUS(600mgd) ( - - - - - ; CIIEA"MAL STORAGE r FO rorww TANK lJ \ ) i l.- j 1f SLUDGE MCt;ENER 2 I _ F2 BELT PRESS f 3 - " Y3 SLUDGE DRYING BEDS f ~ 6BOmgd) I Ps ®(D 6 , } T $ p I ~ t\\ f? \ SCALE: 1'=S60' I TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT \ i CONVENTIONAL WTP ! _ t FACILITIES PEARL ' I FIGURE I MONTGOMM WATSON ,i i ,j I --j i2ij woo ME a -i iPL.-7-,,i~47 CAN BE BUILT IN AN a ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND WAY f f' i ® Wetland preservation, cultural resource preservation, transportation issues, conservation landscaping , and structural aesthetics considered in any projects Water treatment projects being done in sensitive N ~ q ! . watersheds: i Portland's Bull Run a Seattle's TC It an Cedar - Victoria B.C.'s Soo i PUBLIC INFORMATION Pilot plant results plant tours . Raw p ~ ter monitoring program results School program Demonstration plant ( ) Proceed it first phase for sal to growing communities 'j (Wilsonville, Sherwood, Canby) and for Tv peaking needs Coordinate with regional planning process ~ I~ a i THE WILLAMETTE RIVER IS ' A GOOD FUTURE WATER SUPPLY OPTION r ® Willamette River is a high-quality source eater a Can be treated to meet stringent water quality oafs re ® Project can be phased to meet water needs reject is consistent with regional goals and plans 4 'I i I - _I sa JOSEPH L. GILICKER . EDUCATION: M.S. Biochemistry, University of Illinois J _ B.S. Engineering Mechanics, University of Illinois i REGISTRATION: Professional Engineer, Chemical Engineering in Oregon SUMMARY: 1 Mr. Glicker has over twenty years of experience in water and wastewater treatment, municipal utility management, water quality, water resources, watershed management, k groundwater management, capital improvements planning, and water legislation and regulation. Mr. Glicker joined Montgomery Watson in 1994 as a Principal Engineer. For F' fourteen years he was with the Portland Water Bureau serving most recently as Chief f Engineer, after having served as Director of Water Quality and Environmental Policy. RELATED EXPERIENCE: Mr. Glicker was one of five persons representing the water supply community on the U.S. - Environmental Protection Agency Federal Advisory Committee which negotiated the upcoming Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, Disinfectant/Disinfection Byproducts Rule and Information Collection Rule. f ' Mr. Glicker was a member of the AWWA Technical Advisory Workgroup which developed the issues and positions that the water supply community is taking concerning reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). These concepts were developed into the legislation which is currently being discussed in Congress and may pass this year. Mr. Glicker continues to advise AWW A and the Association of Metropolitan Water f" Agencies on SDWA reauthorization issues as they are debated in Congress. r Working at the Portland Water Bureau, Mr. Glicker was Principal-in-Charge of a three year $2.5 million Water Treatment Pilot Study which looked at ozone, chlorine and chloramine i disinfection of Giardia and viruses and at ozone / filtration studies for optimal treatment for microbial and disinfectant byproducts removal. He was also a member of the Technical f j Review Committee for an AWWA Research Foundation project on the removal of Giardia and Cryptosporidiwn in the filtration process. l:Glicker. ' ~ an cxpey6 or, vYalG'i"Alled ldlarlge111G'rlt for water supply source. He was principal investigator for development of a guidance manual for water utilities on establishing practical watershed management programs. He also was responsible for the Portland Water Bureau's watershed management program fcr over 14 years. This program F is a nationally recognized example of effective watershed management, He has also been l active in administrative and legislative issues on water conservation, watershed a management, water rights, and other water resources issues. rI i A G F : JOSEPH L. GLICKER (Continued) - 1 E'- j Working with the Portland Water Bureau, Mr. Glicker was responsible for developing, W j designing, and implementing public involvement and information programs on water quality, water treatment and watershed management issues. He managed an ongoing 7 citizen Water Quality Advisory Committee. He worked with the public involvement staff to develop public information pieces, design customer surveys and conduct public involvement workshops. He was media spokesperson on many utility issues, including those relating to difficult explanations of potential contaminants in the water supply. i As Chief Engineer, Mr. Glicker managed a large professional and support staff responsible for all aspects of engineering, design, water supply, capital improvements, and system operations. He managed a yearly capital program of over S10,000,000 that included complex water treatment, pipeline, pump station, and other water system projects. ; i Mr. Glicker has been responsible for oversight of the effort to recover use of a groundwater source after groundwater contamination was discovered near the Portland E i wellfield. He was responsible for negotiations with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and EPA to obtain their approval to use the wells by demonstrating that the + - groundwater resource would be protected despite the presence of contaminants near the i ' wellfield. - 1 Mr. Glicker led the City of Portland effort to establish a Groundwater Protection Area for its wellfield. At the time it was established in the mid-1980's, prior to discovery of contaminants near the wells, it was the first protection area in Oregon. Mr. Glicker also has six years experience in the design and operation of industrial water and wastewater treatment facilities. He worked both for an engineering consulting firm, and an operating company designing, constructing and operating water and wastewater treatment plants. ORGANIZATIONS AND AWARDS: . , ; American Water Works Association Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies T Project Leader, 1991 People-to-People Water and Wastewater Delegation to the Soviet Union 1993 AWWA Publication Award for Best Paper, ,oumal A WWA 1993 AWWA Water Resources Division Award 1993 AMWA Meritorious Service Award - D/DBP Negotiation f 1 ADVISORY CONLMITTEES Research Advisory Council - AWWA Research Foundation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Advisory Committee Disinfection Byproducts Rule Negotiation Safe Drinking Water Act Reauthorization Workgoup - AMVIA League of Czegon Cities Water And Wastewater Committee Department of Environmental Quality Groundwater Standards Advisory Committee _ Household Hazardous Waste Advisory Committee Metro ~1 Oregon Water Utilities Council Solid Waste Planning Advisory Committee - Metro j { Oregon Environmental Council Groundwater Steering Committed = i _a _ - - - ^ - l t JOSEPH L. CLICKER (Continued) E ~ tl f PUBLICATIONS: Glicker, J.L., "Convincing the Public That Drinking Water is Safe", Journal AWWA. } (January, 1992). Robbins, R., Glicker, 1., Niss, B., and Bloem, D. "Effective Watershed Management For Surface Water Supplies", Journal AWWA. (December, 1991). - Glicker, J., and Edwards, R. "Giardiasis Risk from an Unfiltered, Protected Surface Water Source", Journal AWWA. (November, 1991). - Robbins, R., Glicker, J., Bloem, D., and Niss, B. Effective Watershed Management. r AWAVA Research Foundation, Denver, CO. (September 1991). i_ Glicker, J. "Surface Water Source Protection", Methods for the Investigation and f L_A Prevention of Waterborne Disease Outbreaks, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/1-90/005a. (September, 1990). E_1 Bloem, D., and Glicker, J. "The Evoiution of a Water Utility's Water Quality Information System", International Symposium of the Design of Water Quality Information Systems. i Colorado State University Press. (June, 1989). :s Meyer, E.A., Glicker, J.L., Bingham, A., and Edwards, R. "Inactivation of Giardia Muris Cysts by Chloramines". Water Resources Bulletin. (April, 1989). Glicker, J. and Stewart, R. "Implementing a Lead Solder Ban", Journal AWWA. (January, 1988). f Treweek, G., Glicker, J., Chow, B., and Sprinker, M. "Pilot-plant Simulation of Corrosion in Domestic Pipe Materials", Journal AWWA. (October, 1985). i _ ,r j i 1 ~ i i i F { F i t, a LISA M.OBERMEYER EDUCATION: M.S.E. Civil Engineering, University of Washington ? B.S., University of California, San: Diego REGISTRATION: Professional Engineer in Oregon SUMMARY: Ms. Obermeyer is a Senior Engineer in MW's Applied Research Department. Her expertise is in - a water and wastewater treatment and in the conduct of bench and pilot-scale studies for drinking water treatment. She has performed major filtration pilot studies for the Portland (Oregon) Bureau of Water Works, the Tualatin Walley Water District (Oregon) and the Seattle (Washington) Water Department, and is currently involved in the evaluation of water treatment processes for the removal of Giardia and Cryptosporidium cysts by filtration. EXPERIENCE: "j MONTGOMERY WATSON AMERICAS, INC. j Ms. Obermeyer has been responsible for the following drinking water projects: • Project manager for the Willamette River Water Treatment Pilot Study. Ms. Obermeyer's responsibilities included development of an experimental plan, conduct of the five-month l conventional filtration pilot study, production of a preliminary facilities plan and development of planning-level cost estimates. Ms. Obermeyer also established and - ccuV Intly manages a two-year raw water quality monitoring program for the Willamette • Project engineer on an American Water Works Research Foundation (AWWARF) research project investigating the effects of treatment variables on the removal of Giardia and i Cryptosporidiwn from drinking water. Pilot studies have been conducted at four locations J around the country and have examined the effects of chemical conditions, preoxidation, filtration rate and media design on the removal of these pathogens. Ms. Obermeyer's responsibilities include the design of protocols for seeding Giardia and Cryptosporidium at f pilot scale, the conduct of pilot studies and the development of guidelines for optimized treatment practices to remove these organisms. i • Project engineer on two major filtration pilot studied for the cities of Por-dand, Oregon and Seattle, Washington. These two-year studies examined the effects of a range of preoxidants (including ozone), coagulation/flocculation conditions and filter media configurations for these cold surface waters. 11-4. s. ObeEixacyer also per 1ritted disinfection by-product formation testing, taste and odor removal tests and Giardia seeding studies. She also provided training on pilot plant operation for utility operators, and evaluated changes in aesthetic characteristics of treated water. j • Project manager for the development of a flavor profile analysis training program for the Contra Costa (California) Water District. Ms. Obermeyer performed intensive training of utility staff and prepared a comprehensive training manual for utility use. Ms. Obermeyer I ) conducted a similar program for the Portland Bureau of Water Works. The training manual she developed has been excerpted in the American Water Works Association "Flavor Profile Analysis: Screening and Training of Panelists" (AWWA, 1993). j t, Lisa M. Ober Byer (Continued) Project engineer for the development of a comprehensive manual on conservation practices for utilities in the Northwest entitled "Water Conservation Guidebook for Small and 4 Medium-Sized- Utilities" (Pacific-Northwest Section, American Water Works Association, F 1993). This manual provides information on system supply/demand evaluation and the - design and implementation of conservation measures for interested utilities. Ms. ° Obermeyer is the primary author of this manual. t! FEDERAL WAY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT Ms. Obermeyer was a water quality engineer responsible for ensuring operational compliance for a 4 groundwater system with a population of 90,000. She directed the water quality sampling t program and a non-point source pollution control program to manage the effects of industrial and residential discharges to groundwater in this rapidly growing area of the Puget Sound, Washington. Ms. Obermeyer also developed a pilot treatment strategy for groundwater disinfection, corrosion control and iron/manganese removal for this untreated 50 MGD supply. Ms. Obermeyer was also responsible for public information and customer contact in water quality ( and worked extensively with citizen groups, elected officials and local, state and federal agencies on water quality and water resource issues. is UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON Ms. Obermeyer's graduate research concentrated on the development of a model for the design of sequencing batch reactors for wastewater treatment. The model was developed and verified based on data generated by bench-scale activated sludge batch reactors. ~-J SAVE THE CHILDREN FEDERATION F Ms. Obermeyer worked as a consultant in the United States and North Africa, developing educational materials in technology and public health. ORGANIZATIONS: American Water Works Association PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS: li Obermeyer, Lisa M., and Trussell R. Rhodes, "Turning Theory Into Practice: Applying Flavor Profile Analysis in the Water Industry". To be presented (L. Obermeyer) at the Fourth International Symposium on Off-Flavours in the Aquatic Environment, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia, 1994. Cummngs, Laura T., Patania, Nancy L., McCollum, Larry, Obermeyer, Lisa M., and Jacangelo, Joseph G., "rcrnova1 Correlations of ridium wan= and to AE& muds with Particle Size and Turbidity for Pilot-Scale Seeding Experiments". To be presented (L. Cummings) at American Water Works Association Annual Conference, New York New York, 1994. Cummings, Laura T., Obenneyer, Lisa M., Patania, Nancy L., Oppenheimer, Joan A., and Jacangelo, Joseph G., " is ' and Cry t oridium Pilot-Scale Seeding Methodology". Presented (L. Cummings) at the Water Quality Technology Conference, Miami, Florda,1993. Patania, Nancy L., Cummings, Laura T., Obermeyer, Lisa M. and Jacangelo, Joseph G., "Evaluating removal of 'ar a Cysts, Caploaporidium Oocysts and Particles by Granular Media s ' Lisa M. Obermeyer (Continued) Filtration in Pilot-Scale Microbial Seeding Studies". Presented (N. Patania) at American Water Works Association Annual Conference, San Antonio, Texas, 1993. ; Obermeyer, L., Patania, Nancy L„ Knudson, Mark F., "Treatment Optimization Tradeoffs i Resulting from New Water Quality Regulations". Presented (N. Patania) at American Water Works Association Annual Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1992. f Faris, K. Babette, Schenk, S., Obermeyer, L. and Knudson, Mark F.,"Issues Related to Accurate i E Estimation of ParticleRemoval Efficiency". Presented (K. Faris) at Water Quality Technology Conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1992. E Kreft, P., Obermeyer, L., Knudson, M., "High Rate Filtration for Giardia Cyst Removal". Presented (P. Kreft) at American Water `'Forks Association Annual Conference, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1991. i H Obermeyer, L.., "Impact of the Lead and Copper Rule on a Western Washington Groundwater Utility". Presented at Pacific Northwest Section, American water Works Association Conference, F Eugene Oregon, 1989. L a J Reiber, S.L., Obermeyer, L., Stensel, H.D., "A Model for the Design of Sequencing Batch i Reactors". Presented (S. Reiber) at the American Society of Civil Engineers Annual Conference, a F Vancouver British Columbia, 1988. f_ C.._ ~ E C _ l I f _l L i i I F~ i t T 4. rj -R PETER H. KREFT EDUCATION: M.S., Environmental ?Engineering,_ University of California, Irvine M B.S., Civil and Environmental Engineering i. University of California, Irvine, Magna Cum Laude i. y r ; REGISTRATION: Professional Engineer in Oregon and Washington t ? Civil Engineer in California Grade IV Water Treatment Plant Operator in California r . SUMMARY: s Mr. Kreft has over sixteen years experience as project manager and process engineer for water quality, potable water and wastewater applications. He has been involved in the design of several major water l treatment plants and facilities in Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Montana, Nevada and Utah. Mr. Kreft has been responsible for and has participated in numerous pilot-scale studies ~t investigating state-of-the-art processes for water and wastewater treatment. `i EXPERIENCE: i MONTGOMERY WATSON AMERICAS, INC. - r Mr. Kreft is a Principal Engineer in the Portland office. Currently, he is responsible for water quality and water treatment evaluations, including an Aquifer Storage and Recovery option, for the Phase H -Regional Water Supply Study in the Portland area He is also the project manager for the design and CMS of a . water treatment facility for Medford, Oregon. He is project manager for a Corrosion Control Study and was recently the project engineer for the Water Treatment Pilot Study and the project manager for the ry `p Lusted Hill Ammoniation Facility, all for the City of Portland, Bureau of Water Works. He is also project - manager for corrosion control studies for Tacoma, WA and Vancouver, WA. He was recently the project engineer for the evaluation of a 35 mgd WTP for Westpac Utilities in Reno, Nevada. He was the protect engineer for the detailed design and CMS for two water treatment plants in Southern California. He was ' also assistant project engineer for three other water treatment plants in Southern California. .k, As an engineer in the Environmental Research Division (ERD), Mr. Kreft developed and conducted the experimental design for several pilot-scale water and wastewater treatment studies in numerous states. The water treatment studies evaluated such processes as ozonation, coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, disinfection and taste and odor control. Many of these pilot studies evaluated the treatment of cold water. The wastewater treatment studies included a six month on-site pilot-scale comparison of air l activated sludge versus pure oxygen activated sludge to treat a combined brewery/cheese plant waste and an evaluation of the coagulation/flocculationlsedimentation processes at a 48 mgd physical/chemical wastewater treatment plant. He was responsible for a U.S. EPA Innovative/Alternative (I/A) process evaluation for ultraviolet disinfection of wastewater. Included in this evaluation were field studies (one month each) at four WWWs. Mr. Kreft has performed full-scale water treatment plant operational assistance in Fairbanks, Alaska (iron y and manganese removal) and in Provo, Utah and Hemet, California (surface water treatment). He conducted a year-long bench scale and pilot study to remove selenium from groundwater using activated alumina contactors. He has been involved in preliminary design studies of several water treatment plants, developing hydraulic and water quality criteria in addition to cost estimates. Mr. Kreft directed the f environmental assessment of a large pipeline construction project and has been responsible for water and wastewater sampling programs associated with preliminary design and studies of unit process efficiencies in treatment plants. Prior to his assignment with the ERIC, Mr. Kieft participated in the design of domestic water facilities, t including wells, pumping stations, and reservoirs. He designed and supervised construction of major r V I Peter H. Kreft (Continued) r' k transmission pipelines. Mr. Kreft was also involved in water system master planning including computer 1 analysis of pressure and flow in a distribution network. UNIVERSI'T'Y OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE ~ a r: 'j Graduate Teaching Assistant: Mr. Kreft participated in the instruction and adminisfxative support of an E. [ undergraduate course in engineering dynamics. In addition, he performed general engineering support in - ~ the Air Resources Laboratory and developed laboratory programs for air pollution courses. I ORGAhdIZATIONS: American Water Works Association American Society of Civil Engineers f Water Pollution Control Federation W PUBLICATIONS: f, Trussed, R.R., Trussell, A.R. & Kreft, P. "Selenium Removal from Ground Water Using Activated Alumina," EPA Publication 600/2-80-153, Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 4 Kreft, P., Trussell, J., Lang, J., Kavanaugh & Trussell, R. "Leaching of Organics from a PVC- Polyethylene - Plexiglass Pilot Plant," Journal AWWA (Oct. 1981). _ Kreft, P. & Tate, C. "Water Treatment Investigations for a Glacial Lake," Presented at the, Pacific l Northwest Section AWWA Conference, Eugene, Oregon (May 1984). Trussell, R. & Kreft, P. "Engineering Considerations of Chloramine Application," Presented at the ` National AWWA Conference, Dallas, Texas (June 1984). i Kreft, P., Taylor, W., Treweek, G., Ferguson, K., Kawamura, S., Trussell, R., & Smith, R. "Pilot F Water Trrea'unent Investigations fora Glacial Lake," Presented at the National AWWA Conference, Dallas, i Texas (June 1984). f ppe, R., & Leffler, M. "Comparative Air and Pure Oxygen. Activated Sludge Pretreatment Krefit, P., Teki ! of Blended Brewery and Food Processing Wastes," Presented at the National WPCF Conference, f 1 Industrial Wastes Symposia, New Orleans, LA (Oct. 1984). c i Treweek, G. & Kreft, P. "Leachate Treatability at the Stringfellow Class I Hazardous Waste Disposal ` Site," Presented at the National WPCF Conference, New Orleans, LA (Oct. 1984). k Kreft, P., Umphres, M., Hand, J.M., Tate, C., McGuire, M. & Trussell, R. "The Conversion from Chlorine to Chloramines - A Case Study," Journal AWWA (Jan. 1985). Oppenheimer, J., Eaton, A. & Kreft, P. "Speciation of Selenium in Groundwater," EPA Publication 600/52-94-190, Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio (Jan. 1985). Kreft, P., Scheible, O.K. & Venosa, A. "Hydraulic Studies and Cleaning Evaluations of Ultraviolet Disinfection Units," Journal WPCF (Dec. 1986). Kreft, P., Tate, C., Shannon, D. aid Nelson, L. "Pilot St,.A; w E-1-ting Ozone and TW.gh Rat°v Filtration," Presented at the National AWWA Conference, Cincinnati, OH (June 1990) 3 I ' Peter H. Kreft (Continued) Kreft, P., ®bermeyer, L. and Knudson, M. "High Rate Filtration for Giardia Cyst RemovalPresented j at the National AWWA Conference, Philadelphia, PA (June, 1991) Butts, B., Kreft, P., Schuette, J., and Wilson, G. "A Review of the Asbestos Problem in Monmouth, } ®R", Presented at the Pacific Northwest AWWA Conference, Spokane, WA (June 1994) e- a p E f F i ; i c i ; E j Council Agenda Item ~t d-. MEMORANDUM r CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON i To: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Monahan, Interim City Administrator ; DATE: December 6, 1994 SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, December - February, 1994 ' Regularly scheduled council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the, Monthly Council calendars. f December 1 6 Tue Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Executive Session Special Meeting * 13 Tue Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting t 20 TUG Cancelled 26 Mon Christmas Holiday - City Offices Closed *27 Tue Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting r 30 Fri Reception Honoring Mayor John Schwartz for 13 Years of Outstanding Service to the City of Tigard - 5-7 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers (Town Mall) January 2 Mon' New Years Holiday - City Offices Closed j *10 Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. OATHS OF OFFICE: f cmamE C 1W "DRESS EXECUTTVE SUMMARY i ELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT RECEPTION FOR NEW MAYOR & COUNCIL MEMBERS I 16 Mon Martin Luther Ring Day - City Offices Closed k *17 Tues Employee Recognition Reception - 4-5 p.m. Ti Council Study Meeting (6:30 p.m.) *24 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting f *14 '.T°ues Council Meeting _ 6:30 p.m. Study Session j easiness bleating 20 Mon Presidents' Day - City offices closed 'j *21 Tues Council Study Meeting (6:30 p.m.) i' *28 Tues 'Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session E:- Business Meeting hALon lnlcathy\,cccal l t_ I i i i i f , i` i- Council Calendar Page 2 4 i i Agenda Item No. ( r ? Council Meeting vi !~IIA BELOW IS A TENTATIVE;, SCHEDULE OF COUNCIL AGENDAS FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEKS. PLEASE CONTACT CATHY IF YOU HAVE CHANGES, COMMENTS, OR QUESTIONS... Updated: December 5, 1994 TENTATIVE SCHEDULE - CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS December 6 - January 24, 1994 1 December 6 6:30 p.m. Executive Session F, Business Meeting to Consider Revolutions - OPEU Contracts; Personnel Contracts ` December 13 6:30 p.m. Study Session ' Executive Session - water Issues • Agenda Review' 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting • Update on water Public Hearings Albertson°s _ Ripley's Council Consideration: • Crime Bill Federal Grant 3 Request • Committee Reappointment Guidelines • Building Code Ordinance - State One- and Two-Family D=uelling Code { December 20 6:30 p.m. Cancelled December 27 6:30 p<.m. Study Session • Computer Report (Introduce New Computer Systeniki Manager) • Agenda Review 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting i Public Hearings None Council Review Consideration ® CT_T Update (Oral Report) ® Metzger Park Issues (Tentative) i ;i i January 10 6:30 p.m. Special Meeting ~i - Oaths of Office i - State of the City Address Executive Summary - Election of Council President - Presentation of Government Finance officer Association Awards - Reception for New Mayor ~ Council Members January 17 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting t 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting ° Review Results of CIT Questionnaires January 24 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting ° Tree Ordinance (development) Public Hearings f i ° Tigard Triangle I ° FEMA - Regulation Review (mfd. domes and sensitive land responsibility outline) To be scheduled: ° Annexations Planned Development Ordinance ® update on Notification process - proposed amendments to land use notification procedures Community Development Fee Increases - Resolution Ordinance - Proposed amendments to Initiative & Referendum process i j h:\login\cathy\ entagen i 1 ,x f AGENDA I'T'EM *3. FOR AGENDA OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, i ` OREGON V 3 u 1994 rNO November 29, 1994 ! U u z City Recorder i City of Tigard! 13125 SW Hall Blvd E Tigard, OR 97223 Enclosed you will fi.id a copy of the Abstract of Voters for the Candidates and Measure relating to the General Election held on i November 8, 1994. In the accordance with ORS 255.295, please canvass the votes and notify the Washington County Elections. Division within thirty (30) days of receipt. Please sign and return the bottom portion of this letter to Washington County Elections Division. E Thank you very much.. - Si c re y, - E GINNY KINGSLEY t _ ELECTIONS SAGER _ i j GK/mg Send to: Washington County Elections Division 155 N First Avenue, Suite B10 Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 i ha.ve canvassed the votes for the Candidates and Measure relating r to the General Election on November 8, 1994. By signing this r canvass letter, I agree that any candidate elected to district office is qualified to hold that office. City of Tigard DATE T Department of ftsenment Taxation, Ekidiom Division M N. First Avenue, Suite Bio i tiiisboro, Oregon 97924 Phone: 503/648-8670 ti OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF-VOTES CAST AT H GENERAL LECTIC'N 04 NOVE E , CITY OF TIGARD t Page NurBer 2 7.12 .001 E U U I E 1 0 I N N Y S Y T U U 0 0 ER T T F F E P T T D E I I F._ R G G 0 E R R F i T N D D E T S 6 f 16 MAISON ARMORY 1041 7471.514 28 30 C F TIGARD ELEM SCH 10 6781 62.4% 2828 t- 31 TIGARD WATER DIST 12 9031 70.3 3 38 32 C F TIGARD SCH 124 8931 71.5% 406 38 _ 33 N WWWARD ELEM SCH 75 5472.0 195 2 34 J TEHPLETCN SCH 12 906 72.5 404 35 PHIL LEWIS SCH 81 48 59. 20 21 i 0 TWALITY MID SCH 12 834 65. 38 32 1 SUDIMERFLD CLUB HOUSE 11 94 79.II 36 OUR REDEEMER LUTH C 140 9 68. 4201 4021 80 SUMERFLD CLUB 9 75 80. 3171 33 192 METZGER SCHOOL 8 k 57.6 19 20 94 PHIL LEWIS SCH 84 4 57. 2 20 f FE 95 FRIENDS CHURCH 84 59 70. 28 23 15 C F TIGARD SCH 85 57 67.6 24 260 1 17 VOTE BY MAIL. 4 2 2ZI 52.3 1 _ 21 TRINITY EVANG CHURCH 7 5271 Z 69.0 2271 21! 1 24 FOWLER MID SCH 69 47 68.1% 2131 184 1 25 CHUB OF CHRIST 138 9501 68.8% 4 334 26 M WOODWARD EL£q SCH 991 6k 65.1 28 27 50 FRIENDS CHURCH 64 48 74.0" 21 18. 51 N WOODWARD ELEM SCH 70 5% 72.1~ 2U 21 1 T O T A L S 2U85 1439 69.0 6277 604 I a. ~ 4. 1 ~ t f i f f i 1 9 F OFFICIAL STATEN T 0 VOTES CAS AT THE GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER ° F TIGARD MAYOR Page Niger 129.061 .001 T E U U I U A G R R G D G H 3 FM & 0 0 I RY R S y T U U D F D D' T T MS MI D E Y L Y 0 V C RR R I T N S G E k-, 16 PIAISON ARMORY 1041 74 71.5_ 26 311 { 30 C F TIGARD ELEM SCN 10 6 62.4 25 3071 i 31 TIGARD VATER DIST 12 ' 90' 70.3 3471 42 32 C F TIGARD SCH 12411 84 71.5 35 4361 33 M WOODMD ELEM SCH 75 54 72.0 166 30 ! 34 J TEMPLETON SCH 124 72.5 3271 4314 35 PHIL LEWIS SCH 81 48 59.2 1691 23 P 0 TWAIITY P1ID SCH 12 65. 2 41 1 SU€MERFLD CLUB HOUSE 11 94 79.8 307AI 4 6 OUR REDEEMER LOTH C 140 9 68. 32 42 80 SUHMERFLD CLUB 93 75 80. 22661 441 92 METZGER SCHOOL 80 4 57.6 1821 18 194 PHIL LEWIS SCH 1%81 49 57.79 16 2 95 FRIENDS CHURCH 84 54 70. 2271 2 15 C F TIGARD SCH 85 5761 67.6 13 341 17 VOTE BY MAIL 4 2 52.3A 71 1 21 TRINITY EVANG CHURC 7 5271 69.0 9 23 24 FOWLER MID SCH 69 4761 68.1 1211 25 25 CHUR OF CHRIST 138 9501 68.8 3091 480 e 26 M'W WARD ELEM SCH 991 6461 65.1 2361 2 50 FRIENDS CHURCH 64 48 74.0 15 24 51 M WOODWARD ELEM SCH 70 50 72.1 14 2 T 0 T A L S *~*g* 2085 1439 69.0 490 703 i `j 1 I i i f F-F i I i - i 1 F d } 1 OFF CI -L 1'A Eta O s~T S CAST A TH GENERAL ELECTION TIGARD CITY COUNCIL - POSITion 3 age Nurber 130.062.001 R T T T K G R R G N 8 0 0 R S T U U D C - E T T H E P I C v R Y L t 0 N 0 R A N S E ! L r 16 NAISON ARMORY 1041 7451 71.5. 3651 30 C F TIGARD ELEM SCH 1 67EI 62.4 391-, 31 TIGARD UATER DIST 1283 90 70.3 5191 j 32 C F TIGARD SCH 124 893 71.5% 53 33 M WOODWARD ELEN SCH 75 54 72.0 311 34 J TEMPLETON SCH 124 72.5 Si.` { 35 PHIL LEWIS SCH 81 48 59.2 271 0 TWALITY MID SCH 12 65. 4571 1 SUWIERFLD CLUB HOUS 11 BRE 94 79.8 51 6 OUR REDEEMER LUTH C 140 68. 505 1 80 SUMMERFLO CLUB 9 75 80.' 42 92 METZGER SCHOOL 80 4 57.6 251 t 94 PHIL LEWIS SCH 84 4 57. 275 95 FRIENDS CHURCH 8451 59 70. 34 15 C F TIGARD SCH 85 57 67.6 31 a 17 VOTE BY MAIL 421 221 52.3 129 21 TRINITY EVANG CHURL 7 52 69.0 28 R- 24 FOWLER MID 5CH 69 47 68.1 24 25 CHUB OF CHRIST 1 95. 613.8 53 i 26 M WARD ELEM SCH 99i 64 55.1 29 50 'FRIENDS CHURCH 48 74.0 251 51 M WOODWARD ELEM SCH 70 50 72.1 28 i l 449 T O T AL S °*4* 2D85 1439 69.014 791 1 I f t G- F: _ 0 F CIAL STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST AT THE GENERAL ELECTiCW ON NOVEMBER , i TIGARD CITY COUNCIL - POSITION 4 age Neer 31.063.001 R T T T 8 G R R G 8 r L" I N N A 3 T U U D 0 I, E T T At R C L E P I F D R Y O E C T N 0 E T U R A N S R I i L 16 I1A1S6N ARMORY 1041 74 71.5 34 ~V 30 C F TIGARD ELEM SCH 1 67 62.4 368 1 TIGARD WATER DIST 1283 90 70.3 49 32 C F TIGARD SCH 1249 89 71.5 47 33 M WOODWARD ELEM SCw 75 54 72.0 29.: _ 34 J TEMPLETON SCH 124 72.514 4 35 PHIL LEWIS SCH 81 48 59, 277 C 40 TWALITY MID SCH 1269 83 65. 43 1 SUHMERFLD CLUB HOUSE 11 94 79.8 47 r y OUR REDEEMER LUTN C 140 9 68. 502 1 8D SI4ERFLD CLUB 93 75 80. 40 92 ~4ET2GER SCHOOL 80 4 57.614 23 194 PHIL LEWIS SCN 84 49 57. 26 195 FRIENDS CHURCH 84 59 70. 32 15 C F TIGARD SCH 85 57 67.6;4 1 3i 17 VOTE BY MAIL 4 2 52.3A 1 1 - 21 TRINITY EVANG CHURCH 7 52 69.0% 27 24 FOWLER MID SCH 69 47 68.1% 23 25 CHUR OF CHRIST 138 95 68.8% 51 26 M N40S1WARD ELEM SCN 991 64 65.1% 33 50 FRIENDS CHURCH 64 48 74.0 23 51 M WOODWARD ELEM SCH 7051 50 72.1 27 T 0 T A L S**** 2085 1439 69.0 7578 1 i i - 3 f 44 i 1 3 f e i F t. _ - 3 F ' Page 1 GENERAL ELECTION Date 11/22/94 1 DABC01 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1994 Time 16:02x32 r S UM MARY REPORT Q REP IN CONGRESS (#/PCT 256)11 SENATE DISTRICT 3 (#/PCT 654 REPRESENTATIVE DIST 3 (#/PC'T' 46)(1 REPRESENTATIVE DIST 6 (#/PCT 35)(1 IST DISTRICT (#/RPT 255)11 (#/RPT 65)11 (#/RPT 46)11 f#/RPT 35)11 11 (No, to vote for 1) (t/RP 99,.6)11 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0)11 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.00 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0)1; ll ELIZABETH FURSE' 60174 441.51 TOM HARTUNG 21555 59.111 MARCUS SIMANTEL 8990 45.5( EILEEN PUTUB 10013 50.711 11 BREWSTER GILLETT 3735 2.711 ROBERT M SHOOn 14879 40.811 CHARLES STARR 10741 54.411 JEAN AYERS 9728 49.20 11 BILL WITT 68455 50.611 0 h ii 11 DANIEL C WILSON 2163 2.011 Blank voted (ballots) 4124 10.111 Blank voted (ballots) 1779 8.20 Blank voted (ballots) 2594 11:5{1 { 11 1l Over voted (ballots) 52 0.11 Over voted (ballots) 25 0.lll over voted (ballots) 29 0.111 11 Blank voted (ballots) 6988 4.81 1 11 Over voted (ballots) 517 0.30 h 11 l I SENATE.DISTRICT 5 (#/PCT 77)11 REPRESENTATIVE DIST 5 (#/PCT 32)11 REPRESENTATIVE DIST 9 (#/PCT 44)11 11 II (#/RPT 77)11 (#/RPT 32)11 (#/RPT 44)11 11 GOVERNOR (#/PCT 256)19 (No, to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0)11 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100,011 (No. to vote for 1) RAP 100.011 1 H (#/RPT 255)11 tl 11 8 11 (No. to vote fcr 1) (t/RP 99.6)11 JEANNETTE HAMBY 23329 100.00 JOHN E MEEK 10332 67.411 TOM BRIAN 12962 100.011 II 11 l) MARY WHITMORE 4981 32.511 11 11 ED HICKAM 6874 4.911 Blank. voted (ballots) 15237 39.511 11 Blank voted (ballots) 12286 48.611 r-,I 11 DANFORD PVANDER PLOEG 2054 1.411 Over voted (ballots) 0 0..0H Blank voted (ballots) 1683 9.811 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.011` I1 JOHN KITZHABER 72744 52.81 - ,I over voted (ballots) 34 0.11 1 11 DENNY SMITH 56036 40.611 t N it 11 SENATE DISTRICT 13 (#/PCT 30)1) 11 REPRESENTATIVE DIST 24 (#/PCT 10)[1 i 11 Blank voted (ballots) 4579 3.211 (#/RPT 30)U REPRESENTATIVE DIST 6 (#/PCT 30)11 (#/RPT 10)11 (t/RP 200.0){{ 1 q 11 Over voted (ballots) 345 0.211 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100,0)11 (#/RPT 30)11 (No. to vote for l) 1 ~I 11 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0)11 11 ° 11 II RANDY MILLER 7362. 64.411 11 RICHARD DEVLIN 1522 44.811 it COMMISSIONER BUREAU (#/PCT 256)11 ROBERT L LUPOq 4056 35.511 CRAIG IRWIN 7220 43.911 BOB TIERNAN 1868 55.18 OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES (#/RPT 255)1( 11 KEN STROBECK 9207 56.011 11 ` 11 (No, to vote for 1) (t/RP 99.6)11 Blank voted (ballots) 2311 16.8( 11 Blank voted (ballots) 508 13.011 ! 11 11 Over voted (ballots) 18 0.111 Blank voted (ballots) 2437 12.911 Over voted (ballots) 4 0.10 g 11 MARY WENDY.ROBERTS 64214 50.411 = 7l Over voted (ballots) 26 0.1p, - ,1 I 11 JACK ROBERTS 63163 49.511 Ii 1 11 11 11 REPRESENTATIVE DIST 2 (#/PCT 4)11 11 REPRESENTATIVE DIST 27 (#/PCT 20)11 1 11 Blank voted (ballots) 15001 10.511 (R/RPT 4)11 REPRESENTATIVE DIST 7 (#/PCT 35)11 (#/RPT 20)1, 11 Over voted (ballots) 254 0.1(1 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.011 (#/RPT 35)11 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.011 ( ~l fl (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0)11 # 11 11 SCOTT R BUSHNELL 456 42.911 11 RON ADAMS 5113 63.311 1i SENATE DISTRICT 1 (#/PCT 4)1; TIM JOSI 605 57,011 JF-AME ATKINS 9383 46.911 ALEX THURBER 2960 36.611 Q (#/RPT 4)19 11 CHUCK CARPENTER 9791 51.011 0 ii (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 10C.0)11 Blank voted (ballots) 280 20.811 11 Blank voted (ballots) 1768 17.911 11 1~ Over voted (ballots) 1 0.011 Blank voted (ballots) 2517 11 511 Over voted (ballots) 4 0.011 t it JOAN M DUKES 690 100,01= - 1 Over voted (ballots) 29 0.111 - 1 11 Blank voted (ballots) 652 48.511 1 I1 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.011 Tom, AND By __Slum ~~LA~ i Page 2 - GENERAL ELECTION Date 11/22,154 DABCOi TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1994 Time 16:02:32 ! SU M M A R Y R E P O R T i- rr- j. _ JUDGE COURT OF APPEALS (#/PCT 256)1 JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT {#/PCT- 256)11 SOIL AND WATER DIRECTOR (#/PCT 255)0 METRO DISTRICT - ERE (#/PCT 23 0 POSITION 10 (#/RPT 255)11 COURT - DEPARTMENT 1 (#/RPT 255)1! ZONE 2 (#/RPT 255)0 CUTIVE OFFICER - AT LARG (#/RPT 233)0 ' 11 (N0, to vote for 1) (t/RP 99.00 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 99.6111 (No. to vote for 11 (t/RP 100.0)(1 (No. to vote for T) (t/RP 100.0) 11 i{ r 0 0 REK ARMSTRONG 44612 57.011 JAMES M GLEESON 69641 100.011 ELDON JOSSI 67009 100.00 BONNIE L HAYS 51268 51.20 1 11 BARRY L.ADAMSON 33554 42.90 0 - 11 MIKE BURTON 48823 43.70 -Blank voted (ballots)- 72991 51.111 Blank voted (ballots) 74667 52.711 0 % 0 Blank voted (ballots) 64103 44.911 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.00 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.011 Blank voted (ballots) 28332 21.911 0 Over voted (ballots) 363 0.21 1 Over voted (ballots) 382 U.20 1 it {I ~1 - 11 11 COUNTYAUDITOR (#/PCT 255)0 SOIL AND WATER DIRECTOR (#/PCT 255)0 0 jl JUDGE OF THE SUPREME (#/PCT 256)11 (#/RPT 255)0 ZONE 3 (#/RPT 255)11 METRO DISTRICT COUNCILOR (#/PCT 2)0 11 COURT . POSITION 3 (#/RPT 255)0 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0)0 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0)1( POSITION 2 (#/RPT 2)0 11 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 99.011 11 0 (No, to vote for 1) (t/RP 100!0)0 C',.. 11 11 ALAN PERCELL 69560 100.011 STEVEN P HUFFMAN 65029 100.011 11 1 11 ROBERT D DURHAM 71106 100.011 0 11 RALPH GROENER 6 40.011 i 11 11 Blank voted .(ballots) 72316 50:90 Blank voted (ballots) 76847 54.111 DON MORISSETTE 9 60.011 11 Blank voted (ballots) 71526 50.111 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.00 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.011 1 ~ . 11 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.01 --'11 Blank voted (ballots) 6 28 511 J I I 1{ it Over voted (ballots) B 0.00 { 11 0-COUNTY COMMISSIONER. (#/PCP 255)0 SOIL AND WATER DIRECTOR (#/PCT 255) 11 ~j 11JUDGE COURT OF APPEALS (#/PCT 256)11 AT LARGE (#/RPT 255)11 ZONE 4 (#/RPT 255)11 0 ; 11 POSITION 5 (#/RPT 255)11 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0)11 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.011 METRO DISTRICT COUNCILOR (#/PCT 115)11 c 11 (No, to vote for 1) (t/RP 99.6)11. 11 11 POSITION 4 (#/RPT 115)11 0 11 MARY L TOBIAS 52282 49.70 MARIAN GRAY 33943 48.011 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.011 II RICK' WELTON 69060 100.011 LINDA PETERS 52774 50.211 JOHN A MCDONALD 36678 51.90 0 U 11 11 11 SUSAN MCLAIN 22635 52.90 11 Blank voted (ballots) 73572 51.511 Blank voted (ballots) 36312 25.511 Blank voted (ballots) 69950 49.311 KEVIN CAPUZZI 20119 47.011 11 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.011 Over voted (ballots) 508 0.30 Over voted (ballots) 1305 0.90 11 € 1r j Blank voted (ballots) i°.395 31.10 II 11 it II Over voted (ballots) 110 0..111 11 JUDGE COURT OF APPEALS (#/PCr 256)11 COUNTY COMMISSIONER (#/PCT 64)11 SOIL AND WATER DIRECTOR (#/PCT 255)1 0 POSITION 7 (#/RPT 255)1) DISTRICT 2 (#/RPT 64)0 ZONE 5 (#/RPT 255)0 11 0 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 99.6)11 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0)11 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0)0 METRO DISTRICT COUNCILOR (#/PCT 7111 ' 11 11 11 11 POSITION 7 (#/RPT 7) 11 SUSAN 14 LEESON 69687 100.011 KATHY CHRISTY 19572 100.011 DANIEL JAMES LOGAN 44966 100.011 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0)11 ' 11 11 11 11 i 11 Blank voted (ballots) 72945 51.111 Blank votrd (ballots) 18946 49.111 Blank voted (ballots) 96910 68.311 PATRICIA MCCAIG 1083 100.00 - 11 over voted (ballots) 0 0.00 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.011 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.011 31 1 Blank voted (ballots) 1584 59.311 it it II it Over voted (ballots) 0 0.011 11 JUDGE COURT OF APPEALS (#/PCP 256)0 COUNTY COMMISSIONER (#/PCT 67)0 SOIL AND WATER DIRECTOR (#/PCT 255)1 6 11 POSITION 8 (#/RPT 255)11 DISTRICT 4 (#/RPT 67)11 AT LARGE (#/RPT 255)0 i ' (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 99.6)11 (go. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0)H (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0) if II U II r , 11 11 11 -..i 11 JACK L LANDAU 69258 100.011 ANDY DUYCK 14805 59.20 GARY A CLARK 46015 100.011 C j 11 11 KAREN MCKINNEY 10187 40.711 11 j' 11 Blank voted (ballots) 73374 51.40 11 Blank voted (ballots) 95861 67.511 11 Over voted (ballots) 0.011 Blank voted (ballots) 6590 20.811 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.011 1 Over voted (ballots) 39 0.11rL - - - Ls i 1 1 1 ; ) t ' .i _ - - tzrn.+sp,-s:,.~,rs .nnc, xx.4,c. _ maa.maww~~an _ u.a~-xrvrmwimr;;t -i . hmsmeaawa I Page 3 GENERAL ELECTION Date 11/22/94 r _ DABC01 _ TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1994 Time 16:02:32 S U M M A R Y R E P O R T 11 BANKS MAYOR (#/PCT 1)11 BEAVERTON CITY COUNCIL (#/PCT 37) FOREST GROVE MAYOR (#/PCP 7)p HILLSBORO CITY COUNCIL (#/PCT 27a (#/RPT 1)11 POSITION 5 (#/RPT 37)0 (#/RPT 7)1 - WARD I (#/RPT 27) 0 1I. (No.. to vote for 1) (t/RP 109.0)1) (No. to vote for 1) it/RP 100,011 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0) (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0)1 MICHAEL A CRIPPEN 93 57.411 DENNIS DOYLE 11938 100.011 RICHARD G KIDD III 1876 46.11 DONALD N SUHRBIER 4293 39.311 II HOWARD STEINBACH 69 42.511 11 MICHAEL.J O"BRIEN 2190. 53.89 BRUCE STARR 6626 60.60 II Blank voted (ballots) 70571 46.90 6 11 Blank voted (ballots) 7 4.111 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.011 Blank voted (ballots) 837 17.00 Blank voted (ballots) 4562 29.40 11 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.01 I Over voted (ballots) 7 0.11 Over voted (ballots) 30 0.11 11 CORNELIUS MAYOR (#/PCT 3)1 II BANKS CITY COUNCIL - (#/PCT 1)11 (#/RPT 3)11 FOREST GROVE CITY COUN- (#/PCT 7)i1 HILLSBORO CITY COUNCIL (#/PCT 27 ) II VOTE FOR 3 (#/RPT 1)II (No, to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0)1) CIL - VOTE FOR 3 (#/RPT 7)l - WARD 2 {#/RPT 27I~ II (No, to vote for 3) (t/RP 100.0)11 II (No. to vote for 3) (t/RP 100.0) (No. to vote for 1) M/RP 100.0) 11 NEAL KNIGHT 739 42.611 1 _ 0 II LLOYD FELLAS 63 14.311 RALPH D BROWN 995 57.311 JAMES DRAZNIN 1439 14.011 DARLENE M GREENE 7750 100.0 1 II LYNN M KING 56 12.711 11 JOYCE DEMONNIN 687 6.71 11 RAYMOND DEETH 51 11.611 Blank voted (ballots) 139 7.411 JOHN R MINOR 2125 20.70 Blank voted (ballots) 7751 50.0j I( JUDITH J CLIFFORD 74 16.811 Over voted (ballots) 2 0.111 KENNETH R MELIE 887 8.61 Over voted iballots) 0 0.011 16S9 16.1E KAY II TIMOTHY F VICTORIA SON M WEAVER 112 25.511 II NANCY SPIELER 1197 11.611 11 G'' 11 11 CORNELIUS CITY COUNCIL (#/PCT 3)11 VICTORIA LOWE 932 9.011 HILLSBORO CITY COUNCIL (#/PCT 27)h 11 Blank voted (ballots) 7 4.111 VOTE FOR 2 (#/RPT 3)11 LINDY LARKINS 1322 12.90 - WARD 3 (#/RPT 27)p I II. Over voted (ballots) 2 1.111 (No. to vote for 2). (t/RP 100.011 11 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0) '9) I I it Blank voted (ballots) 1004 20.411 1 € II 1I SCOTT L RICE 374 14.011 Over voted (ballots) 100 2.011 JIM HILL 5511 51.1(1 F BrAVERTON CITY COUNCIL (#/PCT 37)11 TERRA D DE LORA 337 12.71--~= - ~1 SUE HORTON 5256 48.811 it POSITION i (#/RPT 37)11 DAVID R ASHCRAFT 457 17.211 11 1 ` -r p (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0)11. NEIL R CLOUGH 373 14.011 GASTON MAYOR (#/PCT 1)II. Blank voted (ballots) 4729 30.4)! _ (I 11 WILLIAM D BASH 391 14.711 (#/RPT 1)11 Over voted (ballots) 25 0.00 f 4 II WRS YUEN 11584 100.011 JOYCE SWANSON 721 27.111 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0)1 it 11 it 1i 1 - 1i Blank voted (ballots) 10925 48.511 Blank voted (ballots) 377 20.111 BRETT L COSTELLOE 95 100.011 KING CITY COUNCIL - (#/PCP 2)[; ) p Over voted (ballots) 0 0.011 Over voted (ballots) 9 0.411 1 3(4 YR TERMS) 4 3(2 YR) (#/RPT 2)11 ` Blank voted (ballots) 55 36.611 (No. to vote for 6) (t/RP 100.0)11 1 (I 11 u Over voted (ballots) 0 0.011 11 II BE.AVERTON CITY COUNCIL (O/PCT 37)11 DURHAM CITY COUNCIL. (#/PCT 2)'. I JACK KLOSTER 927 15.51 II POSITION 2 (#/RPT 37)11 - VOTE FOR 3 (#/RPT 2)11 11 JAN DRANGSHOLT 836 14.01 j 11 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0)11 (No. to vote for 3) (t/RP 100.011 GASTON CITY COUNCIL (#/PCT 1)11 LILAS E DACH 406 6.711 II II II - POSITION 6 (#/RPT 1) 11 MARY GARRETT .525 10.411 11 EVELYN BRZEZINSKI 11454 100.011 CHRISTOPHER HADFIELD 163 20.511 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0)II CLAUDIA ANDERSON 765 12.811 1 f II 11 BILL GILRAM 154 19.311 11 ROBERT S CARLSON 763 12.711 jI Blank voted (ballots) 11055 49.111 FRED F MCKINNON 123 15.411 DAVID JOHNSON 99 100.011 VIOLET YAGER 804 13.411 i `9 II Over voted (ballots) 0 0.011 PATRICK CARROLL 168 21.111 11 DON WAYLETT 845 14.1.1 i 6 -,1. GERY SCHIRADO 186 23.411 Blank voted (ballots) 51 34.011 11 h 11 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.01 Blank voted (ballots) 286 18.70 t 11 Blank voted (ballots) 114 26.21 ( Over voted (ballots) 22 1.411 II Over voted (ballots) 5 1.111 C- di n G I I V Page 4 - GEWERAL ELECTION Dare 11/22/94 DABC01 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1994 Time 16:02:32 S U M M A R Y R E P O R,T r LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL (#/PCT 1)1 PORTLAND CITY COMMIS (#/PCT 5)0 SHERWOOD CITY COUNCIL (#/PCT 2)0 TUALATIN MAYOR (#/PCT 11)1 VOTE .FOR.3 (#/RPT 1)1 =ONER - POSITION 2 (#/RPT 5) 11 (#/RPT 2)1 (#/Rvr 11)1 11 (No. to vote for 3) (t/RP 100.0)11 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0)11 (N0. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0)11 (N0. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.011 t 0 DAVID COPLEY FORMAN 0 0.00 EARL BLUMENAUER 199 100.0 BARRY W r.ENNEDY 1123 100.01) RICHARD HAGER 937 26.011 O.JASON K FELDMAN 0 0.011 1 1 KATHY FORREST 1146 31.811 p KARL ROHDE 0 0.011 Blank voted (ballots) 172 46.311 Blank voted (ballots) 763 40.411 LOU OGDEN 1511 42.01 0 JOSH REITER 0 0.00 Over voted (ballots) 0 O.Op Over voted (ballots) 0 0.01 0 1 BILL ATHERTON 1 16.61 Blame voted (ballots) 2047 36.2p F 11 HEATHER CHRISMAN 2 33.30 1 Over voted (ballots) 9 0.30 11 EDWARDK CHRISTENSEN 0 0,011 PORTLAND CITY COMMIS (#/PCT 5) 1 SHERWOOD CITY COUNCIL (#/PCT 2) H CRAIG PROSSER 0 0.011 SIONER - POSITION 3 (#/RPT 5)11 - VOTE FOR 2 (#/RPT 2)1{ 1 11 NOPJALA HEYSER PETERSON 1 16.511 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0)0 (No. to vote for 2) MR, 100.0)11 TJALATIN CITY COUNCIL (#/PCT 11)1 0 ROBERT S SIMON 0 0.011 1 0 POSITION f (#/RPT 11)0 i 11 TOM LOWREY 2. 33.311 GRETCHEN KAFOURY 180 100.011 JOSEPH C NAUGHTON 547 25.311 (No. to vote for 1) (t%RP 100.011 If 11 If JANE AAMOLD 750 34.811 1 i f_ 11 Blank voted (ballots). 2 50.011 Blank voted (ballots) 191 51.411 BILL BOYLE 858 39.80 WALLY. MACDOUGALL 1697 41.80 ' 11 Overvoted (ballots) 0 0.011 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.011 11 HELEN CAIN 2360 58.111 j}~.-------- 1 Blank voted (ballots) 491 26.011 II 11 it 11 Over voted (ballots) 11 0.51{ Blank voted (ballots) 1582 28.00 t 1NORTH PLAINS MAYOR (#/PCT 1)11 RIVERGROVE CITY COUNCIL (#/PCT 1)1 Over voted (ballots) 11 0.1{1 i{ (#/RPT 1)1 2(4 YR TERMS) & 1(2 YR) (#/RPT 1)1 1 ' 11 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0)1 (No. to vote for 3) (t/RP 100.0)H TIGARD MAYOR (#/PCT 22)p 0 it If 0 (#/RPT 22)11 TUALATIN CITY COUNCIL (#/PCr 11)11 1{ ROBERT KINDEL JR 281 100.01) JONNIE C KUYPERS 5 15.611 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0)0 - POSITION 3 (#/RPT 11)0 ? - 0 11-ANDREW KLOSSNER 9 28.111 1 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0)0 Ip 11. Blank voted (ballots) 121 30.011 SUSAN SALCH 6 18.711 JUDY FESSLER 4902 41.011 0 F"_ 0 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.011 VIVIAN J SCHafiNS 4 12.SH JAMES NICOLI 7039 58.911 GREG GREEN 2033 52.10 Ie- :I EDITH E A STARK 8 25.01 11 GREG ZUFFREA 1869 47.80 ! 1 !1 - it 11 Blank voted (ballots) 2345 16.31 0 11 NORTH PLAINS CITY COUN- (#/PCT 1)1 Blank voted (ballots) 5 29.411 Over voted (ballots) 17 0.10 Blank voted (ballots) 1739 30.70 11 CIL - VOTE FOR 3 WRPT 1)11 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.00 ---~1 Over voted (ballots) 9 0.111 t - J1 (No. to vote for 3) (t/RP 100.0)11- 4 ~-H li 1 11 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL (#/PCr 22)9 If ! 1 CHERI L OLSON 242 29.111 SHERWOOD MAYOR (#/PCT 2)p POSITION 3 (#/RPT 22)11 TUALATIN CITY COUNCIL (#/PCT II)p 11 SANDRA R MCCUEN 195 23.511 (#/RPT 2)0 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.01 - POSITION 5 (#/RPT 11)0 t'.1 0 DANIEL M STINCHFIELD 210 25.30 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0)1 If (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.011 1{ ANN STEARNS 182 21.911 1 KEN SCHECKLA 7910 100.011 1 1 11 WALT HITCHCOCK. 1196 100.01 0 JIM MUIR 1694 45.4p ) Blank voted (ballots! 63 15.61 it Blank voted (ballots) 6393 44.611 TONY WELLER 2031 54.51 f 1{ Over voted (ballots) 1 0.211 Blank voted (ballots) 690 36.511 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.01 0 P (r - ~1 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.00 _91 Blank voted (ballots) 1918 33.91 I li IL I 1 over voted (ballots) 7 0.11 II PORTLAND CITY AUDITOR (#/PCT 5)1 1 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL (#/PCT 22)rc i1. (#/RPT 5)II 1 - POSITION 4 (#/RPT 22)0 0 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 300.011 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100.0)1 j if BARBARA CLARK 194 1G0.011 11 BOB ROHLF 7578 100.0 h, 11 Blank voted (ballots) 177 47.711 0 Blank voted (ballots) 6725 47.00 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.011 1 over voted (ballots) 0 0.00 I t. f: l Page - 5 _ GENERAL ELECTION Date 11/22/94 DRBC01 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1994 'rime 16:02:32 - S U.MM A R Y R E P O R T 11 WIISONVILLE CITY COUNCIL 1#/PCT 1)11 STATE MEASURE 6 (#/PCT 256)11 STATE MEASURE 10 (4/PCT 256)11 STATE N.EASUR2 14 (#/PCT 256)11 N - VOTE FOR 2 (#/RPT 1)II (#/RPT 255)(I (#/RPT 255)11 (#/RPT 255)(1 11 (No. to vote for 2) (t/RP 100.0) (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 99.011 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 93.6)11 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 99.6)11 ii E LEE REEDY 0 0.011 YES 70614 52.911 YES 90301 57.611 YES 63875 48.4& ! 11 JANE LEO 0 0.011 NO 62700 47.011 NO 43156 32.311 1:0 68066 51.511 11 TIM LEAHY 0 0.011 11 11 11 I' 0 1 Blank voted (ballots) 9190 6.41E Blank voted (ballots) 9045 6.311 Blank voted (ballots) 10515 7.30 3 S 11 Blank voted .(ballots) 3 100.011 Over voted (ballots) .128 -0.011 Over voted (ballots) 130 0.011 Over voted (ballots) 173 0.11 _ IE Over voted •(ballots) 0 0.0E ) 11 11 STATE -MEASURE .7 (#/PCT 256)1) STATE MEASURE 11 (#/PCT 256)11 STATE MEASURE 15 (#/PCT 256)11 11 'STATE MEASURE 3 (#/PCT 256)11 (#/RPT 255)0 (#/RPT 255)0 (#/RPT 255)11 II (#/RPT' 255)11 (No. to vote for 3) (t/RP 99.6)(1 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 99.6)11 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 99.6)1 I II (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 99.6)11 11 0 YES 59889 44.911 YES 92186 67.511 YES 51264 37.71E :I 11 YES 91649 71.011 NO 13362 55.011 NO 44207 32.411 NO 84605 62.211 11 NO 37420 28.911 11 ii 11 11 Blank voted (ballots) 9138 6.411 Blank voted (ballots) 6043 4.211 Blank voted (ballots) 6572 4.611 Blank voted (ballots) 13385 9.311 Over voted (ballots) 243 0.111 Over voted (ballots) 196 0.10 Over voted (ballots) 191 0.10 1r~ Over voted (ballots) 178 0.11 - . 1 11 11 . STATE MEASURE 8 (#/PCT 256)11 STATE MEASURE 12 (#/PCT 256)11 STATE MEASURE 16 (#/PCT 256)0 1 11 STATE MEASURE 4 (#/PCT 256)11 (#/RPT 255)11 (#/RPT 255)11 (#/RPT 255)U 11 (#/RPT 255)11 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 99.6)11 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 99.6)11 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 99.011 i"•- 11 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 99.6)11 11 II 11 11 11 YES 79323 57.511 YES 59705 44.711 YES 72268 52.211 1. - 11 YES 121548 90.411 NO 58565 42.411 NO 73825 55.211 NO 66047 47.711 II NO 12776 9.511 11 11 1 11 0 Blank voted (ballots) 4505 3.111 Blank voted (ballots) 8864 6.211 Blank voted (ballots) 4149 2.911 1 11 Blank voted (ballots) 8143 5.711 Over voted (ballots) 219 0.111 Over voted (ballots) 238 0.111 Over voted (ballots) 168 0.16 Over voted (ballots) 165 0.11E - - 11 11 STATE MEASURE 9 (N/PCP 256)11 STATE MEASURE 13 (#/PCT 256)11 STATE, MEASURE 17 (N/PCP 256)11 11 STATE MEASURE 5 (#/PCT 256)11 (#/RPT 255)11 (#/RPT 2S5)11 (#/RPT 255)11 j it (#/RPT 255)11 (No, to vote for 1) (t/RP 99.6)11 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 99.011 (No. to vote for 11 (t/RP 99.6)11 { II (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 99.6)11 11 11 11 f{ j 11 11 YES 99834 75.311 YES 61191 44.211 YES 99899 73.01';, - 11 YES 64197 46.811 NO 32616 24.611 NO 77124 55.711 NO 36889 26.911 j 11 No 72789 53.111 11 11 11 #t[ 11 11 Blank voted (ballots) 9905 6.911 Blank voted (ballots) 4040 2.811 Blank voted (ballots) 5656 3.911 { 11 Blank voted (ballots) 5284 3.711 Over voted (ballots) 277 0.111- Over voted (ballots) 277 0.111 Over voted (ballots) 188 0.111 1.• II Over voted (ballots) 363 0.21------ rs ° O 1 Page 6 GENERAL ELECTION Date 11/22/94 DABCOI TUESDAY, .-NOVEMBER 8, 1994 Time 16:02:32 p S U M.M A R Y R E P O R T - II STATE MEASURE 18 (#/PCT 256)11 TUALATIN HILLS PARK (#/PCr 114)11 CITY OF PORTLAND (#/PCT 5)11 II (#/RPT 255)11 AND REC (#/RPT 214)jj (#/RPT 5)11 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 99.6)1) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0)11 (No. to vote for 1) (4/RP 100.0)11 11 11 11 i 11 YES 79632 58.311 YES 341.32 57.311 YES 216 71.511 11 NO 56895 41.611 NO 25360 42.611 NO 86 28.411 11 11 I! 0 jl Blank voted (ballots) 5936 4.111 Blank voted (ballots) 6309 9.511 Blank voted (ballots) 69 18.511 11 Over voted (ballots) 169 0.111 Over voted (ballots) 36 0.011 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.00 F _ s. !I II II 11 f" 11 STATE MEASURE 19 (#/PCT' 256).11 CITY OF CORNELIUS (#/PCT 3)0 CITY OF TIGARD (#/PCT 22)11 r 11 (#/RPT' 255)11 (#/RPT 3)0 (#/RPT 22)11 f it (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 99.6)11 (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0)1) (No. to vote for 1) (8/RP 100.0)11 1 11 YES 61086 45.411 YES 819 49.611 YES 6277 50.911 11 NO 73326 54.511 NO 831 50.3H NO 6040 49.011 II if - I1 a it Blank voted (ballots) 8010 5.611 Blank voted (ballots) 222 11.8p Blank voted (ballots) 1975 13.811 it Over voted (ballots) 210 0.111 Over voted (ballots) 3 0.111 Over voted (ballots) 11 0.0l1 Il STATE MEASURE 20 (#/PL-l' 256)11 CITY OF FOREST GROVE (#/PCr 7)11 TOTAL VOTER STATISTICS (#/PCP 256)11 11 (#/RPT' 255)11 (#/RPT 7)H (#/RPT 255)11 11 (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 99.6)11 (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0)11 (k/RP 99.6)11 II, 11 H 11 it YES 28965 21.911 YES 1860 44.111 VOTER REGISTRATION 206126 11 11 NO 102695 78.011 NO 2349 55.811 TURNOUT 141876 68.811 ~1 11 11 Ii FAIL SAFE 756 11 H Blank voted (ballots) 10836 7.511 Blank voted (ballots) 699 14.211 GRAND TOTAL 142632 69.111 it Over voted (ballots) 136 0.011 Over voted (ballots) 4 0.0 i 11 TRI-MET (#/PCT 235)11 CITY OF LAKE OSNEGO (#/PCT 1)H I1 (#/RPT 235)1) (#/RPT 1)II (No. to vote for 1) (t/RP 100:0" (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0)1. 1 11 YES 69516 59.311 YES 1 25.011 I 11. NO 47597 40.611 NO 3 75.011 11 11 H Blank voted (ballots) 13217 10.111 Blank voted (ballots) 0 0.011 j (I Over voted (ballots) 122 0.011 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.011 1 i j ( I 1,1 i k , y e AGENDA ITEM # 3• o~ For Agenda of IQ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON a COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Initiation of Vacation Proceedings for two 15 foot wide public storm drainage easements located between lot X35 and lot #36, and between lotJ27 and lot #28 in Waverly Estates subdivision. PREPARED BY: Will D'Andrea DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL E Should the City Council initiate vacation proceedings for two 15 foot wide public storm drainage easements located between lot #35 and lot ##36, and between lot #27 and lot #28, in Waverly Estates subdivision. a ` STAFF RECOMMENDATION t.' 1 It is recommended that Council initiate vacation proceedings by adopting the attached resolution. INFORMATION SUMMARY - In the City vacation process of streets, easements, and other public ` dedicated areas, the City Council begins the process by passing a resolution _ to schedule a public hearing to consider such requests. Kenneth Waymire, the petitioner, is requesting that the City Council initiate vacation proceedings for two 15 foot wide public storm drainage easements located between lot #35 and lot #36 (Exhibit A), and between lot #27 and lot #28 (Exhibit B), in Waverly Estates subdivision. A storm drainage easement was provided with the Waverly Estates subdivision approval SUB 93-0007. Due 1 to changes during construction of the drainage facilities it is necessary to relocate the drainage easements. The locations of the new easements are shown in Exhibits C and D. Appropriate agencies shall be contacted for comments. 4 Attachments: -Exhibit -A vicinity map; Exhibit-B,C,D,E site map OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED j 1. Take no action at this time. FISCAL NOTES l All fees have been paid by the applicant. J . E. r ' t I AGENDA ITEM For Agenda of 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON l COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A_ oin cents to the Plannin Commission PREPARED BY: Liz Newton EPT HEAD OK ' CITY ADMIN OK &tVf7--' ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Appointments to the Planning Commission to fill two vacancies. STAFF RECOW4EIL.,DAT ION =7 Approve the attached resolution appointing Shel Scalar and Jim Griffith to j the Planning Commission. j _______________c==c===_=c=_====-==s=___=coocc__=c=c===c_=_c_==_a===c__=c_c== _ INFORMATION SUMMARY Harry Saporta and Joe Schweitz° terms on the Planning Commission have expired. Neither wishes to be reappointed. The Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee met on November 14 and interviewed four people interested in serving on the Commission. The Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee recommends the appointment of Shel Scolar and Jim Griffith to the Planning { Commission and the attached resolution reflects their recommendation. Copies ^)of Shel Scolar and Jim Griffith's Citizen Interest applications are also attac~~ed. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED t Delay action at this time. FISCAL NOTES 3 i 3j i RESOLUTION NO. 94- f Page 2 F< P02 ;a one MINI I T APPUCATION Ira) o; James E. Griffith Date: CNovembe Narn d as* 10915 S.w. Fairhaven Way Rae. pijC : 6399625+ i Address usj: 1A'n -~~a rat. ; .prrtLim, C. 9721 US. Ph g: 293 5 ® ears Councilman l Loy of Residence in 71gard: Suggested 6y: gin s n where did you live previously: southwest Portland for Ys years Eduwg oPta! SaG ato i1d: B.s. Portland State University; University of Minnesota 1984-Present ® der, Jim Griffith & Assoc., a Lead `>upiW u and Background: Use Plwming ~ Construction Permit Processing firm for ld years; 1975-1984- i How IoM have YOU been employed with this flPrn: OwneE' fox 10 yeas E PrWAOUS 3 mmun gsaati~aaes Busaneh Assn. Fact id~nt, ~sre flt Corr€ nding Secre : T,ions Clubr Sub-C ttee chair on Governor's Task Force on local i ®.,.y ba nt®ryc?~ (121.- _ Qgan=lom and Alliance of Portland Neigh rhood Buainees Assn. Board Member, Oregon Rentodelers Assn, member, Chairman Urban Develo nt & Planning Committee for APIM, Chair=m Senate Task Force on building permits/inspections (1492-93 i ar ( enarml R Married v/ four grown children and I am s~1llg to spend the time, and have the interest, required to serve on the Comission. i 0d In: Planning Co mission ! f the r pardnant lr ' ( w to ? For nearly 20 {ears I have been reply i involved in building and donne regulations at all levels. I have served their _ inane and negative, o ities, businesses and private citizens. I b 1a yr this g~v~s a t i$ t~3 tive to serve on the PI nir~ Camission. dam 0 n ssn-Ay &Qo-A474 TM f.q8j1 1-2 r OCT -19 1994 l 1 °f OREGON I C.I EE INTEREST -APPUC-ATION CTi Nrame: ~rf r L J Ge ~ C-/ I Date: Address (Res.): i n A "i, i at rtes. Phone: 6 3 ,1- 3 4 ~ Address (Bus.): Bus. Phone: yo ~~,ct Length of Residence in Tigard: Suggested b !~4 t Where did you dive previously: dAl-i 4 ' Educational Back9round: aA r Occupational s and Background: a f,nbJ TF-rP~~ r r ~ ° Mow long have you been employed with thls rm: - to Previous Community Activity; c Organizations and Offices: g-~ rE=: 1.4 C. Other Information (General Remarks): Board or Committee Interested in: AN M Pj Any other pertinent Information you want to share? 1312,5 Sift Hail R/d., Tigard, OR 97223'(503) 639.4171 TD-D (503) 684-27i2 AGENDA ITEM 0 For Agenda of December 13, 1994 g 5 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 94-0005 and Zone Change ZON 94-0007 t' 4 F: PREPARED BY: Mark Roberts DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL F ' Should the City Council approve a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from Medium Density, Residential zo General Commercial and a Zone Change request from R-12 (Multiple Family Residential) to C-G (General Commercial)? ate STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 94-0005 and Zone Change 94-0005. INFORMATION SUMMARY P j The amendment concerns a parcel of property located on the south side of SW Pacific Highway behind the existing Ripley's Furniture Store site at 14170 SW Pacific Highway. The site is between SW Canterbury Lane and SW McDonald Street. The property is presently vacant. A land use designation change has been requested to allow for future expansion of the furniture store. Commercial use of the site is expected to have fewer transportation impacts on SW Pacific Highway than f the current multiple family residential designation because of existing access constraints. Due to the design of site improvements on adjoining properties, provision of shared access to SW McDonald Street is difficult. The subject property is also topographically separated from adjoining, residentially developed property such that future expansion to the existing Ripley's Furniture Store should have minimal impact to } residential areas. The Planning Commission recommended approval at its hearing on October 17, 1994. The proposed final order, vicinity maps, ordinance and applicant's statement are attached. The Planning Commission Minutes will be available at the meeting. _ . = = = e~ -mss = = - r^!'~~ tcIr~rnrr~~ - =/ZT L1C® ALTERM 1 A TIVES v I e iLV, A T CONSIDERED-1 1. Approve the attached ordinance, thereby approving the requested Comprehensive Plan Map E Amendment and Zoning Map Change by adopting the staff report as findings in support of the decision. { 2. Deny the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Change request. FISCAL NOTES I No direct fiscal impacts. E i i _ i _ r p ~ e f 't I; -g sHa . ..-Fb 3..- ..-Z^.i e i t FABLE OF CONTENTS Page ~ro 1. SUNMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A. SITE DESCRIPTION 2 . . B. AREA STREETS 3 . E C. PROPOSAL 3 . . . . . j D. PRE-APPLICATION MEETING AND NEIGHBORHOOD METING . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ~ r E. CLASSIFICATION OF THE APPLICATION AS A QUASI- JUDICIAL REQUES'T' 4 F. APPLICABLE CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 E 1. Comprehensive Plan p amendment 5 2. Zoning Map Amendment 5 r:: i III. RESPONSE TO APPLICABLE CRITERIA 5 A. COMPF SIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMNT S 1. Statewide Planning Goals 5 2. Applicable Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 11 3. OAR Chapter 651, Divisions 12 . (Transportation Planning Rule) . . . . . . 23 B. ZONING MAP mENT 25 1. Applicable Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 25 2. Tigard ConlMunity Development Code _ 18.22.040(A) 25 IV. CONCLUSION . 28 EXHIBITS J &DX1-116233.1 231110001 i t 6 , r i ? E Gam,' 1 .j 1. S Y r OWNER AND PLIC.s Ripley's Furniture 14170 SW Pacific Highway 1 Tigard, OR 97217 Contact: Dave Ripley Telephone: (503) 639-4611 ArPLI 'S ATTO : Michael C. Robinson r'°; Stoel Rives Holey Jones & Grey 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 f Portland, OR 97204-1268 Telephone: (503) 294-9194 Fax: (503) 220-2480 PLI 'S'P ING Jerry Offer CONSULT : OTAR, Inc. 17355 SST Boones Ferry Road Lake Oswego, OR 97035 E` Telephone: (503) 635-3618 } Fax: (503) 635-5395 APPLICANTS ` FIC Rent Racir i CONSULT b: Rittelson & AssociaLee , 610 SW Alder, Suite 700 Portland, OR 97205 r Telephone: (503) 228-5230 Fax: (503) 273-8169 LEGAL DESCRIPT'ION% Tax Map 2S110AA, Tax Lot 401 SITE SIZE: 1.04 acres CURRENT TIGARD Medium Density Residential (MDR) LJCOMPREHENSrVB PL. f j DESIGNATION: CURRENT TIGARD Residential (R-12) ZONING DESIGNATION: ~ i { PROPOSAL: Comprehensive Plan map amendment to C cial General (C-G) and zoning map amendment to Ccnmercial General (C-G) f S I ~ PDXI-116238.1'2111 O W1 ~ s ~ f ` 4 F 11. SITE DESCRXPTION MM PROPOSAL a A. SITE DESCRIPTION This site contains 1.04 acres. It is located behind Ripley's Furniture on the south side of SW Pacific Highway. ffiq2 Exhibit 1. The site is a triangular-shaped parcel that is E vacant. The Ripley's Furniture store site is zoned Commercial 1 General (C-G). The remainder of the area surrounding the site is zoned R-12. Exhibit 2. Ripley's Furniture is a long-time Tigard business. The store has been at the present location since the 1950s. t - ri This request is a result of Ripley's lack of apace in its store and the need for expansion. The parcel to the north (Tax Lot 300) is developed as a nursing home. The parcels to the nest and the south (Tax Lots 200, 1400 and 1500) are vacant. The parcel immediately to " the south of Ripley's Furniture (Tax Lot 1100) is a plant i i nursery. a~ Exh3. j The site is gland-locked." The only available access to it is through the Ripley's store parking lot. Southwest t 105th Avenue is a cul-de-sac ending at Tax Lot 300 and cannot ' be extended through Tax Lot 300 because of development of that :.a site. The site is at the bottom of steep, wooded slopes on t Tax Lots 200 and 1500. The topography and coniferous trees on f ' these parcels block views of and from this site. ,S_g j Exhibit 3. MC-1-116233.1 23111 0001 2 ` d I E The site contains no weelands, significant vegetation, floed plain or other hazardous conditions. t B. AREA STREETS. kj The site does not abut a public or private street. i Its access is through the Ripley's store parking lot to k SW Pacific Highway. SW Pacific Highway is a state-controlled highway. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan ("TCP") transportation map classifies SW Pacific Highway as an arterial. McDonald C" Street intersects SW Pacific Highway 270 feet north of the 4 3 { Ripley's property. The TCP transportation map classifies McDonald Street as a major collector. Canterbury Lane is south of Tax Lot 1500 and is a minor collector. fy The Ripley's store parking lot has two driveways onto F, SW Pacific Highway. C. PROPOSAL s . Approval of this request will allows Ripley's Furniture to expand its building onto this site. The plans for ` 3 the expansion are not final, but the expansion would lively add a t, 10,000 to 20,000 square feet in a one- or two-level building E attached to the existing store. The new space would be used for warehousing and storage use with the possibility of some ? i retail space. All customer parking would remain in front of the existing store. The truck parking currently located in front of the ` f store would move to this site. Truck deliveries to the site - occur about once a week. l MI-116M.1 23111 OWI 3 No additional eignage is anticipated. Ripley's would minimize exterior lighting and irxstall screening (a fence or . landscaping) adjacent to the nursing home to mitigate off-site k- impacts. y G D. PRE-APPLICATION ETIVG A_ NEIGHBORHOOD DIETING The pre-application meeting on this application was held on March 3, 1994 pursuant to Tigard Community Development E' F Code ("TCDC") 18.32.040. The applicant held a neighborhood F meeting to discuss this application on August 1, 1994 and invited members of the South Area Citizens Involvement Team -:i F ("CIT") and adjacent property owners. None of the three 1 persons present at the meeting opposed the request. The P~ applicant advertised the meeting by a notice posted on'the site and letters to property owners within 250 feet of the site and y the CIT representative. See Exhibit 4. E. C:L S=PI ATION OF TRE APPLICATION AS A QUASI-JUDICIAL REQUEST This application is a quasi-judicial application which is not subject to the time limitations on submittals for F` legislative comprehensive plan amendments. TCP 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2. "Quasi-judicial" is defined in the TCDC as an "action which involves the application of adopted l policy to a specific development application or amendment." TCDC 18.26.030. "Legislative" is defined as "a land use ~ I - decision that applies to a large number of individuals or property." TCDC 18.26.030. a - - MXi-11623S.1 23111 W01 4 i t R 1 1 This application applies adopted policies to a i specific development application or amendment. Therefore, it is properly categorized as a quasi-judicial application. See Davenport v City of Tigard; 22 Or LUBA 577 (1992) (explanation of test to determine if an application is quasi-judicial). F. APPLICABLE CRITERIA 1. C rehensive Plan X&P Amendment The applicable criteria for the comprehensive plan fi i map amendment include the Statewide Planning Goals' ("Goals"), i applicable policies in the TCP TCDC 18.10:010(A)l, and 4a OAR Chapter 661, Division 12 (the Transportation Planning Rule). E: 2. Zoning map Amendment The zoning map amendment must be consistent with a applicable policies of the TCP. TCDC 18.10.010(A). TCDC 18.22.040(A) also contains four criteria for a quasi-judicial zoning map amendment. i. + ! 111. RESPONSE TO APPLICABLE CRITERIA This section responds to the criteria applicable to the comprehensive plan leap and zoning map amendmeni-.i. i A. C SI P 1. Statewide sl;=+ning Goals i~ a. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement: °To develop a citizen involvemmt Program that ensure the opport ity for PDXI.116238.1231110001 5 i ~ i j 1 ~ ~ 5 L ' citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." ; Response: This Goal is satisfied through provisions r in the acknowledged TCP and TCDC which provide for citizen i participation. The applicant met with the CIT representatives ' and adjacent property owners prior to submitting this application. b. Goal 3, Land Use Pl inga LJ "To as lish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of f; land and to asssa;re an adequate factual, base for decisions and actions." Response: This Goal is met because the acknowledged € TCP and TCAC contain provisions implementing the planning process. C. Goal 3, Agricultural Landaz OTo preserve and maintain agricultural i lands. 0 Response: This Goal is inapplicable because the site is not agricultural land as defined in the Goals. d. Goal 4, Forest Lando: "To conserve forest land by maintaining the forest land base and to proatact the Statelp forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure tho continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, ter, and fish and wildlife resources i PDX1-11 .1 23111 0001 6 ' 1 f i t and to provide for recreational + opportunities and agriculture.° i Response: The site is not forest land as defined in s ZA , the Goals. - j m. Goffil 5, en Spec®a'. Scenic and historic i Areas and uratural nesourcess OTo conserve open space and protect - natural and scenic resources." 3 r Response: The site is not designated by the TCP as containing open space, scenic and historic areas or natural resources protected through the TCP. t f. Coal S, Air, Water and Land Resources ; J Quality l =To 'iintain and LuTrove the quality E ` of the air, water and lased resources of the i state.° F Response: This application will not degrade the - quality of the air of the state. Commercial uses are not "point source" generators of air pollution. The water quality of the state will not be degraded by this application. The stormwrater runoff will either be retained on-site to allow for gradual filtration into the stormwater system or a "fee in t` lieu" of on-site retention will be paid to assist the Unified r_ Sewerage Agency with water quality treatment. The land resources of the state will not be degraded by this application. The site is not in farm or forest use and does riot constitute an important resource for the state. i r pvxa-11an8.1 23111 oWc 7 t Lv t. g• Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: J "To protect life and, property from natural disasters and hazards.w j Response: The site is not subject to natural events that could result in injury to persons or properties, such as { stream flooding, ocean flooding, erosion, land slides, i t. earthquakes or hazardous soil conditions. h. Goal 8, Recreational Needs: E`.1. QSatisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors, whom appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities, issclud- ing destination resorts." L Response: This Goal is inapplicably; to this site because the site is not necessary to satisfy the recreational . needs of the state. E i. Goal 9, Economic Development: WTo provide adequate opportunities tl=oughout the state for a variety of ! economic activiti®s vital to the health, { welfare, and prosperity of Oregon t citizens." i Response: This Goal is satisfied because the application provides for needed commercially-zoned land close to a heavily-travelled arterial. This site is "land locked" i and is unlikely to be developed except in conjunction with Ripley's Furniture. The residential uses to the east and south will not be expanded onto this site because of the steep grade. L'he amendment will allow the land to be more beneficially used for commercial purposes. f 1 FDX1-11rro3.1 231110W1 8 __M_ MMM F4 • Goal 10, Housing: F r 'To provide for housing nesda of citizens of the state.a a F? Response: The site is currently planned and zoned to . ~ f s allow 12 dwelling units per acre. The 1.04-acre site could ! accommodate 12 dwelling units. However, this site is f inappropriate for residential use. It is immediately adjacent i to two commercial uses. The site is too small, to accommodate 3 residential amenities such as open space or recreational U, facilities. It is separated from other residential uses by Steep topography and lack of pedestrian and vehicular connections. This removes the ability of housing on this site s` to become part of a larger neighborhood. i Further, Tigard currently exceeds the density F a 1 required by OAR 660-07-035 (3) , "Minimum Residential Density Allocation for New Construction." 8~ E ._,..g--AJAo TCP, 6.1, "Housing Needs," II-32. Removing this site from residential zoning will not undercut the City's housing goals. k. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services: ®To plan and develop a timely, orderly and, efficient arrangement of public 4 facilities and services to serve as a j framework for urban and rural development." Response: This Goal is satisfied because the site can be served by appropriate ro riate levels of i Y PP P police and fire services, sanitaxy facilities, water, storm drainage facilities, and energy and communications services. ?DXI-116233.1 23111OW1 9 ! __a 1 ~ I I f I .3 ~ 1. Goal 12, Wransportation: "To provide and encourage a na2e, { convenient and economic transportation f j R-sponne: This plan amendment satisfies this Goal I because it will not cause congestion on nearby streets. figf Exhibit S. M. Goal 13, Energy Conservation: G OTo conserve energy." Response:' This application furthers this Goal because it locates commercial land near other commercial land uses, thereby encouraging reduced auto trips because persons can shop at more than one store in one trip. Tri-Met providers transit service along SW Pacific Highway adjacent to this site. Exhibit 6. n. Goal 14, Urbanization; OTo provide for r orderly and efficient transition fre rural to urban land, une." i s Response: This Goal is inapplicable because it does not request an urban land use outside of the urban growth boundary. o. Coal 13, Willamette Diver Gres way; Goal 16, Estuarine Resources, Coal 17 Coastal - Shorel ; Coal. 1e, oa c-hes and rn=es; and Coal 19, ocean Resources. Response: These Goals are inapplicable because none of the listed natural resources are adjacent to this site. F 10 P►X1-11038.1 23111 OMI f ,i , i CONCLUSION: This Comprehensive plan amendment conforms to the-applicable Statewide Planning Goals. 2. Applicable Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies ' a. Citizen Involvement, TCP Polio 2.1.1: 'I 1 "Tho City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. aespanse- The subject property is located within the South Area CIT area which has been notified of the proposal. i The applicant held an informational meeting on August 1, 1994 to explain the request. ' Notice of the public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council will be provided to surrounding property owners as required by the TCDC. b. Natural Features and Open Space, TCP Policy 3.1.1: "The City shall not allow development is areas having the following development t limitations except where it can be s that established and proven engineering techni ea related to a specific site plan will make the area suitable for the proposed, development. (Note: This policy does not apply to lands designated as _ significant wetlands on the flood plan and wetlands p.)_ 71 (1) Areas meeting the definition of wetlands der Chapter 18.26 of the _ community davelo t code; (2) Areas having as severe soil i. ~J erosion potentials i (3) Areas subject to slumping, earth € slide or movement; PDX1.116=.1 33111 OW1 11 I 4._ 9 ' "3 (4) Areas having slopes in excess of f 25% or (5) areas having severe weak foundation soils." Response: The subject property has no wetlands, severe soil erosion, slopes exceeding 25 percent, severe weak foundation soils nor is it subject to slumping, earth slides or movement. Nearby property is developed with no evidence of development limitations. i c. Air, Water and Land Rescurcos Quality, TCP Policy 4.2. 1: ~-t "All development within the Tigard Urban Planning Area shall comply with applicable federal, state, and regional ter quality atandards.". Response: This policy will be satisfied through the t development review and building permit process. The proposed comprehensive plan map amendment will not affect compliance with this policy. d. Hcon , TCP Policy ®Ths City shall pr to activities aimed at the diversification of the economic opportunities available to Tigard rosid is with particular emphasis on the gr h of the local job rket " Response: This application furthers this policy by S strengthening Ripley's Furniture, a long-time Tigard employer. The application will allow Ripley's to provide new warehousing ' space, thereby creating some additional retail space in the r F existing furniture store. ; S x1-I IC38.1 23111 1 12 t, j j~ Li 3 e. Rconc=y, TCP Policy 5.1.4$ t 'The City shall enauro that n commercial and industrial development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial or a industrial use.w i_ Response. This site is adjacent to residential areas on two sides, but it does not encroach into these areas. The adjacent residential areas are separated from this site by f topography and trees.; This site has been owned by Ripley's for about 30 years. The site's comprehensive plan map and zoning G designation is likely a mistake, reflecting vacant land k_ adjacent to commercial development along SW Pacific Highway. ' e Despite the residential designation, the site is physically and visually separated from the adjacent residential areas. This application also results in a buffer between the i 1 f^/ commercial uses oriented toward SW Pacific Highway and the sW residential uses to the east. The proposed use on the site will be warehousing. This use is less intensive, and has fewer exterior- impacts than would a building devoted entirely to ' retail uses. f. Houaing, TcP Policy 6.1.1: The City shall provide an for a diversity of housing densities and u; resid tial.types at various price and rent 1 levels.0 Reagonsea This application is not inconsistent with this policy because this site is not suitable for residential Xt-116233.1 23111 0001 13 i3 f 1 4,. development due to its size and location. it is not adjacent j to other residential development nor can it connect to existing neighborhoods because of steep topography. As previously { noted, removal of this site does not affect the City's compliance with the housing density rule. Housing, TCP Policy 5.6.1: E< OThe City shall rewire: on. Suffering between different types P of land tames (for example between single family residential and multiple family residential and residential and commercial uses and residential and industrial uses) and the following factors shall be f considered in determining the type and ~ extent of the required buffer: 1 01. The purpose of the buffer, for example, to decrease nine levels, absorb air pollution, filter dint or to provide a visual barrier. - 02. The size of Wis buffer weeded in to of width and height to achieve the purpose. i N3. The direction (s) from which buffering is needed. ®4. The rewired density of he buffering. tiW 05. ether the viewer is stationary or mobile. - ~ j Ob. On site screening of such things as sarvieo areas and facilities, storage areas and parsing lots, and the following R I factors shall be conaid.q=®d in determining the type and extent of the screenings 1 01. What nea®ds to be screened. 02. The direction from which it is needed. i E PDx1.115238.1 23111 WDI 14 i s_ ~ 7 [ 03. How dense the-screen needs to bow E ' 04. Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile. -other the screening needs to be yaar round." E! Responses This site requires little additional. buffering between it and the adjacent residential areas. The E combination of steep topography and coniferous and deciduous { P, vegetation provides an effective visual screen. Some buffering will be required between the site and the adjacent nursing E: home. The necessary buffering can be determined at the site { development review stage. i' The building on the site will be oriented away from a r: ; the site's eastern and southern boundaries and to the west (the t current Ripley's store). The building's orientation will be t determined by the fact that the driveway to the site is along Ripley's southern boundary. Exhibit 1. The truck entrances and exterior lighting will, therefore, be oriented to the west and away from the residential areas. E g. Public Facilities and Servicos, T'CP Policy l "'t'he City shall require as a pro- E. condition to develo ent approval that: (1) Devel r=ont coincide with the availability of adequate service capacity i' i r including: (a) Public ter; i PDX1-116238.1 23111 0DO1 15 { i t<J (la) Public B ewer shall be required for zee development within the l City unless the property is over 300 fact fr a sower line and Washington County j Health Department approval for a private disposal, system is obtained) and (e) Sto= drainage. 3 L (2) The fac:ilitios eras J (a) Capable of adequately serving all intervening properties and the proposed davalo t) (b) Designed to City standards) and I (c) All n development utilities to be placed, underground.0 ` Response: This plan policy is satisfied because all necessary public services are available to the subject r ~ property at adequate capacities. All new service extensions brought f F f ; into the subject property will be placed underground. h. Public Facilitiam and Services, TCP policy 7.2.1.: 4 *The City shall require as a pre- condition to development that: (1) A site develo =-t study be outwitted for development in areas subject to poor drainage, ground instability or flooding which shows that the development - is safe and will not cr to adverse off- site impacts) (2) Natural drainage ways be maintained unless submitted studios show that alternative drainage solutions can salve on-site drainage problems and will ensure no advarme off-site impactoi ' (1) All drainage site or there is an lternative solution which will not increase off-site impact; r PDXi-116MB.1 23111 0001 16 l 1 F i (4) The 100-year flood plan elevation an established by the 1901 flood insurance study conducted by the D3 A=W Corps of s gingers be protectod3 and (5) ronia : control techniques be included an a part of the site development - plans $esponce: 'T'here is no evidence that poor drainage, -i j ground instability or flooding are or will be present on the E. subject property. No natural drainageways exist on the property. Erosion control techniques, if applicable, will be f' included as part of the site's development. i. Public Facilities and Services, TCp Policy WThe City shall require as a pro- condition to development t hats j (1) The devel ent be zerved by a water system having adequate cater pressure l for fiwe protection purposes; (2) The development shall not reduce the water pressure in the area below a level adequate for fire protection j purposes; and (3) The applicable fire district review all applicationa.® f. t I Response: Development on the subject property can be ,i served by a water system with adequate pressure for f=ire protection. Future land use will not cause a der pressure to be reduced below a level adequate for fire protection purposes. I - i J MI-116M.1 23111 OWI 17 E. r: j. Transportation, TCP Policy 8.1.1: "The City shall plan for a safe and mfficient street roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development." ' Response: The traffic study concludes that SW Pacific Highway is currently a safe street. The study finds i that this application will not reduce the street's safety. See G Exhibit S. k. Transportation, TCP Policy 8.1.3: k ®Thc City shall require as a precondi- tion to development ;approval that s (1) Development abut a publicly dedicated street or have adequate access approved by that appropriate approval authority; (B) Street right-of-way be dedicated where the street is substandard in, width; - (3) The developer c t to the j construction of the streets, curbs and sid lks to City Stancar within the development; (4) individual developers participate in the improvement of existing streets, curbs and sidewalks to the tent of the developments impacts; (5) Street improvements be spade and street signs or signals be provided when the development is found to create or intensify a traffic hazard; (6) Transit steps, busy turnout lanes and shelters be provided rah the proposed { us is of a type which generates tranEdt ridership; i (7) Parking spaces be not aside and marked for cars operated by disabled persons and that the spaces be located as l$ BDXi-116298.1 231110001 -1 f.` close as posvible to the entrance 4_ personal and designated for disabled (8) Land be dedicated to impla=ent the bicycle®ptadentrian corridor in accordance with the adapted plan-0 j Response: she subject property abuts SIB Pacific Highway, which is a dedicated public street with sufficient right-of-way and capacity to accommodate expected trip generation from this site. 3= Exhibit S. New streets and sidewalks will not be needed on the subject property. L1. Locational Criteria, TCP Policy 12.2.1: f ` OThe City shall: (1) Provide for commercial development based on the types of use, its E size and rewired trade area. (2) ply all applicable plan policies. (3) ply the appropriate location 1 criteria applicable to tho stale of the project.0 ®aenoral Commercial. r General C ercial areas are intended to provide fox major retail goo and sorvic s. The eases classified as general c rdial may involve drive-in services, large ace users, a combination of retail, service, wholesale and retail services or provide services to the traveling public. The urea range from automobile repair and services, client equipment storage, vehicle sales, arrive-in restaurants to laundry i f PDXl-1 t6233.1 zataloooi 19 -a 1 ' 3 establishments. It is intended that these ~ I a used be adjacent to an arterial or major collector atreet." Reonaa: This site is located on an arterial l street, 5W Pacific Highway. The following criteria for a General.Commercial location are satisfied. j `j (1.) kale (2) Locational Criteria (a.) Spacing and Location F 1 (i) The commercial area, is not surrounded by residential districts on more i than two sides. 0 -nesponse: This policy is intended to prevent the LA encroachment of commercial areas into residential areas. This site is essentially a triangle. The northern leg of the triangle consists of a long segment and a short segment. ; Residential districts surround the site on only two sides. Moreover, the surrounding residential area is buffered from this site by topography and trees. Exhibits 1 and 3. This is met based on this interpretation policy because the site will not be surrounded on more than two sides by residential districts. y 6(b) seas (i) The proposed areas or expansion of an existing areas shall not i create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall' . .I be band on street capacity, existing and projected traffic volumes, the spoed limit, F I- 1 r PAXt-116238.1 231110001 20 ~i ZJ- { number of turning movement and the traffic - generating characteristics of the various ~ Fr typos-of users." C LA Response: The traffic study demonstrated that the proposal will not create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Exhibit S. i "(ii) The site shall have a direct access from a major collector or arterial atreot.® ! Response: The site has direct access to SW Pacific Highway through the Ripley's Furniture parking lot. 0(111) Site Characteristics ti (a) The site shall be of a sizo which can acc dato present and j projected usea.0 Response: The site is large enough to accommodate a 10,000-square foot building pad and parking. O (b) The situ shall have high visibility. { Response: This'3ite is highly visible from Std Pacific Highway. Moreover, this site will be used in conjunction with the existing Ripley's store, which is also 1 i highly visible. i Li 13 (c) Public transportation shall be available to the cite or general area.0 v 4fta service' along SW Pacific i ~:3 k Highway. 3ga Exhibit 6. r n ;DXi-116233.1 13112 t 23. _i . t=, •7 - w(iv) ZmPact Assessment j' - (a) The scale of the r; projectshall be compatible with the surrounding uses." r` Response: The applicant has not finalized a design t p for this site. However, the structure will be compatible in "i scale with the existing Ripley's Furniture store. The i structure will be higher than the nursing home because the site 1 is higher. However, 'the building's scale will not be out of I, context with the nursing home. l s mo(b) The site configuration and characteristics shall be such that j the privacy of adjacent non-cc=arcial uses can be maintained.o i Response: The privacy of.residential uses will be ' unaffected by this development. The site's configuration dictates that the building's orientation will be towards ` SW Pacit,'ic Highway. The steep terrain and vegetation on the ' site will preserve privacy. 9(c) It oball possible to incorporate the unique site features into site design and development - plmmn.~ E- Response: The site contains no unique features. O (d) The associated lights, noise and activities shall not interfere with adjoining non- - =avid®ential usea.0 Response: Lights, noise and outdoor activities on the site will be minimal. Lights will be limited to security lighting, lighting for parking and illuminated signage. The _i PDX1.116235.1 23111 0001 22 j a 1 t ! lights will face SW Pacific Boulevard rather than residential areas. No outdoor storage or retail uses are proposed, so exterior noise will be minimal. Exterior activities will also be minimal. Lights, noise and activity will have no impact on 3 the Suburban Propane property to the north. 0,7M Chapter 661, Division 12 (Transportation i Planning Rule) ;.1 a. QTR 560-y2-0LU k- This State Administrative Rule applies to amendments to comprehensive plans, functional plans and land use regulations. OAR 660-12-060(1). The rule is applicable to g: i this application because it is for a comprehensive plan amendment. OAR 660-12-060(1) and (2) provides as follows: 0(1) Am4midments to comprehensive pl a, functional plans and lased use regulations Which.si ificantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land oases are consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of than facility.. This shall be accomplished wither: (a) limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the plan functions, capacity and level of service of thw transportation facility; (b) amending the TSP (Transportation Syat Plan] to provide transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with than requirements of pia divisions (c) altering lanai use designa- tions, d ities4 or design requirements to reduce demand far. automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes. (2) .A land use regulation amendment significantly affects the transportation facility if its (a) changes the functional classification of misting or planned f Pnxt-1167.3$.1 23111 axe! 23 1 a' 1 F transportation facility3 (b) changes a l standard implementing a functional clas€i- fication systems (c) allows types or levels of land uses which would-result in levels ~ of travel or access which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facilitys or (d) would reduce, the level of service of the facility E below the minimum acceptable level E _ # identified in TSP. SW Pacific Highway is identified as an arterial on the TCY Transportation Map. No other transportation facilities are affected. This application does not propose to change either g the functional classification of any street or the standards t" 1 P'1 1" implementing the functional classification. The application f will not reduce the level of service on SW Pacific Highway below the minimum acceptable level nor will it allow types or levels of land uses which result in levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the road's designations. r Exhibit 4. Therefore, this application conforms to the requirements of the Transportation Planning Rule because it does not significantly affect a transportation facility, b. QM 66 0-12-055.(3). 4 j t _ This part of the administrative male requires the 1 City to have amended its land use and subdivision ordinances to ' implement OAR 660-12-045(3), (4)(a)-(e) and 5(d) by May 8, 1994. The City has met this deadline except for OAR 660-12- 045(4)(b). This section requires connections between new I retail uses and transit stops. - i; F,1 ' PDXt-116232.1231116001 24 3 Ewa F.. r r- ~ - p - ORS 197.646(14) and CAR 660-12-055(3) provide that an F 9 1 administrative rule becomes directly applicable to land use decisions when the rule's deadline is not met. ` OAA 660-12-045(4)(b) is, therefore, directly applicable to this decision. g E h^ OAR 660-12-045(4)(b) requires that new retail E buildings near existing or planned transit stops be oriented towards the stop. This rule is inapplicable to this { application because the request does not address site design. i-- _ Nevertheless, this site can meet the rule or an implementing ordinance. The nearest transit stop is at the intersection of Highway 99W and McDonald. The new building will likely be E; connected to the existing store. Customers can reach the ` transit stop by sulking through the existing store to the F'1 '1 sidewalk along Highway 99E. B. ZQWMQ MAP AN3MINUIRMT 1. Applicable Tigard C r sine Plan Policies A, 4 TCDC 18.10.010(8) requires that each application be i - consistent with the TCP. The applicant hereby incorporates E Pert III(A)(2) of this application ("Applicable TCP Policies") j as responses to the criteria for the zoning map amendment. ® Tigard n it Dowel o^."a.n C-de 18.22.040 (A) The criteria fora quasi-judicial amendment to the i zoning map are found in TCDC 18.22.040(A)(1)-(4). The - standards are as* follows: ` J i, p323++I-226233.1 23212 0001 25 r i 1 t 01. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and rap designation and the change will not adversely affect the health, safety and walfare of the community' 2. The statewide planning goals i adopted under Oregon Revised statutes' --;;4 chapter 197, until acknowledgment of the i c reheaaive plan and ordinances; 3. The applicable sta n r of any provision of this code or other applicable impla enting ordinance; and E r 4. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or com=ity or a mistake or inconsistency in the c rehenwive plan or j zoning p as it relates to the property which is the subject of this development application. a. Reaponse to (1): The zoning map amendment a is consistent with applicable TCP policies. The findings in r Part III(A)(1) of this application on the TCP policies are also applicable to the zoning map application. The change will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the community. For example, the traffic study found that the change will not worsen traffic congestion or cause impaired traffic safety. The site is not located in a flood plain nor does it contain hazardous soils or other undesirable features. b. Responne to (2): The TCP and TCDC are i ~ I azck--nowledged, so the Goals are inapplicable to this request. c. Response to (3): The zoning map amendment is consistent'with the applicable provisions of the TCDC, V i ~ I 1 j 26 PDX1-11 .1 23111 0001 r i~ -a . 3 ~f Chapter 18.62 "General Commercial District." This chapter establishes the-requirements for the C-G zoning district. (1) Permitted Use. The proposed retail } use is a permitted use in the C-G zoning district. S_W TCDC 18.62.030(A)(2)(1), "General Retail Sales.,, The warehouse use will be an accessory use to the retail sales, so a conditional use permit will not be necessary.' (2) Minimum Lot Area. The C-G district i t E' does not require a minimum lot area. TCDC 18.62. 050 (.h) (1) . (3) Xini=un Average Lot Width. The i i required average rdnimum lot width is 50 feet. TCDC o, 18.62.050(A)(2). This lot exceeds the average minimum lot i width. (4) Other Dimensional Requirements. The f.y proposed buildings will comply with the dimensional requirements of the C-G zone. TCDG 18.62.050(A)(3) (setbacks) (4) (45-foot maximum height), (5) (maximum ;.3 site coverage of 85 percent including all buildings and impervious surfaces) and (6) (minimum landscape a requirement of 15 percent of the lot). d. Response to (4)a This criteria is met because it appears the comprehensive plan map mistakenly i L; The applicant intends to adjust the property line between the two lots to create one lot :Following approval of this request. . 1DX1-11613$.1 73111 0001 27 i =i designated this site for residential use. The plan map J ; designates all commercially-developed property along SW Pacific _j Highway in this area as C-G. See Exhibit 2. Interior parcels i s such as this are designated for residential use. However, this property has no access to residential areas and it is physically separated from those areas. Moreover, its physical isolation from other residential areas and its close proximity to commercial areas makes it unlikely that the City intended this site to be developed for residential purposes. i IV. CONCLUSION i 3 This application satisfies the applicable criteria for a comprehensive plan trap and zoning map amendment. i f r, i f _I - ? 7 j { s Pnxl-116=.1 23111 CW1 28 ~ s 7 !j LIST OF IEITS i' Exhibit 1 SITE MAP Exhibit 2 AREA ZONING MAC F' IJ Exhibit 3 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH ` Exhibit 4 SAMPLE LETTER TO AND LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 250 FEET OF SUBJECT PROPERTY, AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING AND AFFIDAVIT OF. POSTING NOTICE ON ~ THE SITE i Exhibit 5 77ANSPORTATION IMACT STUDY BY KITTELSON & f ASSOCIATES 1 Exhibit 6 TRI-MET SERVICE IN THE GENERAL AREA j Exhibit 7 APPLICATION FORM t e J ~a I t i I 'r i i j PDXI-116933.1 23111 0001 - L i 1 a" 3 t` i ter, fi a ~ h 9 i d:!"d"1 i o;,* 1 , NOTE: h ~ S 3S A CONCEPTUAL SITE KAM THE ACTUAL DEVELCM LATER. SITE SAO WILL BE j' J / I i 1 i Z l iw y i ~ y as'1 `w , a : Ill l.d, l i CE 1! 1 ! 111 9 1 i ?:chibit 3 i 77. A,42;.~-;ry:#.w5c,~'yy :tt 4#.. yr y 1 } °rwtd vc.: * z+"r ..Y CE G..~ ;.tp ~'~'h's'..'~.»^'Ka x«rre+=Ss*+y"`''.t: r•: '"s <s'.r`L~,.~iA~..q '~:f.''"w*.,'^ ~-it~.'v~R Y,-T'~ IZq~ ~1 m 3 tr F 4 r. A f Y Mir i S - f 1 ilxf.~'t i7 to . +#1'fayyf h kco ~s J h - "~i.< tb s Men z sib y£~ tom` r - xyf t 77+i' n_z a'! r `,j~4'~.F~'`fi}_ ~~~tY,~~'f'^i h p✓~~,~'~:~Y~S Y",~fy*zF~9t ~y.,f &sx'~,~ j. ix ,~t~,~#~~? 1~ ~)y~, F`s 5~ ♦ rt k }~E{,✓~c '=,S 7 A T.. F~,• a-.4~ c'~ y~, i't.+~ rs. .A c$er~i'!°~tF~? ~`°vi OK 1 f"riyp rff 4 lx,x,S r>" a? 4 rr`.~# ff-wY''1 ` F 'rte 11 - i t ],(<l i ~.t' ~4t 1•i qk 4gY 7Y , . I 2-,Z, CN ' 1 Jam. ~ ~ W r vf, °e 'rs !,i rr~ •t DENSITY 0.J' 6 6./ d V TIC $ _ a ,y • l F r ' ` _ Ob. A. i i ? JY Lx+ U~l t a' lr.'tr. ! e r F.. C, f M1` t LOW G C ` i- t~ 'CiN ' - Tkl .:.,mod f. C f ~ 6 - kl l - 1. 1 P -lw-NAL i'. r7l { . j t F I' Fit i. ~r t'Y,' Jr 1~ t • Y. a ~ ~ ~ ~ „ate 4't I v i j Y } t i .av;~ s'~Mp_e~4 add ~aWaF., 1, 1 51 } 1 _ TAIL 'R 'lLf" A!U As~ QV.; M.-Nal i ~ f a .Ly Ifg - lk..I~ ;SKr' 3 All. T7`7 ~i 4PIP A% i. - i ~ r r ~ Y f A 1 •9t yea ,r ~ t 1 ~z / «rs~~':St 3~•SPa+sa. #i.• tE ^'R.tcd.•x++i "~d '7^S~:' ;i•. t -r I ` - y a ~ it.BAhz+ S+#ts•rtr i.~¢..s# ww ~a i ~;y ~ w i ~ • t { 1 C " !A6^ i€t•~~~~ ~ •~R...,@'~y'~~~ ~ H~ EtC~ - ~ ~ 1, r~ s f ~ if j~'1 •iir{*'",. ~ g 1~ 'SG`ik'~'ay ~+'r-tt~~E$ r{t~ ~b + t .n81 -'i•.~ r' aeh.°'~ ~ r g~ + h 18Si anvYq " ~0'' r ,Y ~ [A i~. ~ t Jyty i.••-- ) :rg $ax. r}-i<' N~ ~ f [ I 'r , y- ; ♦ ~ v' .r r Y , • " xy t t c 31, es a ~r. r• ~ ~ i1 - r ~ try r yy\ ~ ~ '.:r + - ~ ~ E,~~~MYYY BI'~$ J 1 1 , 'j 4 lif" f .I~ 41 164 r ?r ti +A4 `v [A 49 ~„ef''iw f•. r 1 is•+iiy ~ i ~ 7 1._ rte'` - r~~•. _ r f ;~dg ' j s_y] 1 a s AFFIDAVIT OF AIU I . y S'(Arz' CF OREGON y SS CTj 1' Michael C. Robinson b'• duty depose sworv% and say Umton July 15, 1994 _ 3g ! caused to have ataijed to each of me persons on the a €hed lilt a nefte of a meeting to d a proposed development at RiiDlev's Furniture on 99W a tCapy of 'Ahicfi notice so mailed attached hereto and is de a part of hereof. i ~ I further state gist said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to said persons and were deposited on the elate indicated above in the United States Po-at Office at pertla d OR vMh postage prepaid thereon. C. Signature Subscribed and ~ to before me this ~ day of 1 :v C , ` r f .53 Notary Public SSIG^! C:,;::=_S OcC Q. 1996 My Con. mission Ecpbr - ~ z t ck,, L9 g E Exhibit 4 Y~ f- union oil Co. of California PO Box 7600 Los-Angeles, CA- 90053. i Lee and Donna Ohanesian 14785 SW 150th Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 F. Interland Investment Corporation i 14050 SW Pacific Highway Tigard, OR 97224 Beverly Ent. Tigard Care Center 1560 Broadway, Suite 730 Denver, CO 87202 Stephen C. and Jodette S. Bates 15500 SE Wallace Road Milwaukie, OR 97267 c Oregon Foundation Inc. 520 SW Sixth Avenue Portland., OR 97204 F r< James L. and Darlene L. Cain` 17350 SW Scholls Sherwood Road • Sherwood, OR 97140 - Karen Ann Murphy . 19060,47th Place NE Seattle, WA 98155 Charles J. and Agnes Mari Bernards ( 14175 SW 103rd Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 a Tarry D. Kelley 4000 SW Corbett Avenue l Portland, OR 97201 i The Presbytery of Portland 14603 SW 103rd Tigard, OR 97223 I Irwin J. and Patricia L. Boehr . 10470 SW View Terrace Tigard, OR 97224 t Rodney J. Oakes 4 10440 SW View Terrace Tigard, OR 97224 f MI-128614.1 23111 0001 I r F a Fill Mitchell a CIT South Area Representative _j 13380 SW Ash Avenue f -i Tiaarrd, OR 97224 i 6 { 1 S' -j i ~t , 1 I { !r 1 is I ~ i 1 PAX1-125614.1 21111 0001 2 a i i i i t i- i 1 y ($03) 294-8194 July 15, 1994 - l l W f [Addressee] [Address] ~ F Re: Application by Ripley's Furniture for j Cotnwrehensive Plan Mead and Zoning Maw Azrcendz~c~~lt ` A I Dear I represent Ripley's Furniture, owner of an ' undeveloped lot behind the Ripley's store on Highway 99[x. A E map showing the location of the lot is enclosed. Ripley's intends to submit a request to the City of Tigard to amend the i comprehensive plan map and zoning map from medium residential to Commercial General. Before applying to the City for -this approval, we would like to meet with you to discuss the, proposal.. We have scheduled a meeting on Monday, August 1, at i 6 p.m. at the Tigard Water Department Building auditorium. The ' building is located at the corner of Durham and Hall Streets. 1 This will be an informational meeting to discuss Ripley's application. The application may change prior to i submittal to the City. i I look forward to meeting you and discussing this proposal with you. Please call me at 294-9194 if you have any questions before the meeting. .3 ~ very ti: sly yours, F' I 1 Michael C. Robinson R MCR:ipc ' Enclosure i t i PDX1-127874.1 99999 0006 I 1 a s. Name of applicantR12lev' s Furniture and Lot Tax bat 401 (containing 1.04 acres), Map 2S 1 10AC ~ Subject Property Tau Map r dress or Genera location behind the Riplev' s Furniture store on Highway •99W at t ' 14170 Pacific Highway AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE I lDavid M. Demers do af&rn that l am nt ) Hie i initiating interest in a proposed endment of the Comprehensive Plane land located behind 14170 pacific E affecting th at Highway . and did on the 15th day of July .19 94 personal9y post notice indicating that the site may be proposed for an amendment to -the Comprehensive Plan l j ads kafon, and the time, date and place of a neighborhood rneeting to discuss the proposal. 6 The sign was posted at 141X? Pacific Highway (state location on property) This 15 n day of J 19 9 4 r Si„nature Subscribed and sworn to, affirmed, before me this i t5 day of 19. l a N0T t ! Notary Public for the State of Oregon - - - My Commission Expires: j WITHIN SEVEN ~ CALENDAR ®A OF THE S~~ NC., RETURN THIS AFF1DAV`ri' 7'®: • I City of Tigard Planning Division 13925 SW Hag Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 f i 1 , f ~ - 8/1/94 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ~ r 9 NAME ADDRESS j: Lori Ohanesian 14130 SW 105th, $#7 i Tigard, OR 3 Lee Ohanesian 114785 SW 150th Tigard, OR Steve Bates 142440 SW Pacific Highway 1 Tigard, OR F- LL f I L C t I I a KITTEL SON & ASSOCIATES, INC. ti. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 610 SW at_DER SUiiE '00 • PORTLAND. OR 97205 5031228.5230 • °AX (4-031273-3169 1 - f V 7 J August 25. 1994 i j Project Number 1262.00 i Gerald Schroeder Ripley's Furniture 14170 SW Pacific Highway Tigard, OR 97224 ' i RE: Traffic Analysis for Proposed Zone Change in Tigard, Oregon i Dear Mr. Schroeder: As you requested. Kittelson & Associates, Inc., has conducted a traffic impact analysis associated with the proposed rezone for the 1.04-acre parcel located adjacent to the Ripley's Furniture store in Tigard. Oregon. The proposal laud-use modification would change the current Comprehensive Plan map designation from Medium-Density Residential to Commercial General, and, in addition, change the current zoning map designation from Residential to Commercial General. Our analysis resulted in the following findings: 1. The proposed 20,000-square-foot expansion of the existing Ripley's furniture store will add approximately 5 trips during the a.m. peak period and 10 trips during the p.m. peak period.. 2. The proposed zone change would not significantly affect the study area intersections. The intended land use, expansion of the existing store, will not generate any more trips than a development that complies with the current zoning. j; BACKGROUND INFORMATION r Ripley's Furniture is proposing amendments to the comprehensive plan map and zoning map for a parcel of land located between the intersections of Highway 99W/SW McDonald Street and ' Hig away 99/SW Canterbury Street in Tigard, Oregon. The triangular-shaped site is located t immediately behind (south of) the existing Ripley's Furniture store. Access can only be via the existing furniture store's lot, which fronts onto Highway 99. The intended use of parcel is an expansion of the existing furniture store to allow for warehousing/storage and some additional retail space. All customer parking would remain in the front of the existing store. The truck parking currently located in front of the store would be moved to the expanded building area. The 1.04-acre site is currently vacant. Figure 1 shows the site location and vicinity map. E 1. ~ i { BELLEVUE m PORTLAND a SACRAMENTO -xhi}pit 3 w 1 E 1 t - 3 j NORTH 6.J 217 (NAT TO Saki) SEE 9 Lmn i 13uu. brrE - ~ I - ~y 4 INSET I I -l I i f I S.W. GBAARDE S.W. MMONAL@ i I I -i f EXISTING i LErS STORE VACARBT PARCEL I I SUBJECT OF ! ZONE CHANGE t I QUEST I c I I I i I 3; ~ I r t14~ SITE° VICINITY SITE l TIGARD REZONE FIGURE I TIGARD OffGAN 1JUNE 1994 _ ~zazFC~T LA i Mr. Gerald Schroeder August 26, 1994 € Page 3 F i i SCOPE OF REPORT This traffic analysis evaluated the current peak hour traffic operations at highway 99Vd/SW McDonald Street and Highway 99W/SW Canterbury Street and the two site driveways located on Highway 99W that serve the existing furniture store. This traffic analysis evaluated the base year 1995 peak hour traffic operations. The traffic analysis compared the trip generation ' characteristics of land uses allowed within the current and proposed zoning and calculated the 4 j level of service for both scenarios. As you will see later in the report, the change in operations between the base case scenario and either land-use scenario is very small. t i A growth rate of approximately 1.5 percent per year in background traffic was determined with the help of ODOT planning staff. For the year 2015. this amounts to an additional 400 to 500 a vehicles per hour for most approaches an Highway 99W in the through direction. Because the methods of predicting 20- year traffic volumes are not an exact science, and the 1995 analysis t _ i showed a very small change in operations, the 20-year traffic volumes were not evaluated. i ~j EXISTING CONDITIONS Weekday am. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes for the study area intersections were obtained from manual turning movement counts conducted in May 1994 as part of this study and are ' shown in Figure 2 r The intersections of SW McDonald/Highway 99W and SW Canterbury/Highway 99W are signalized intersections. The site driveways, north and south, are right=in, right-out, and conmolled by stop signs at the driveway approaches. Highway 99W is a five-lane major arterial, and the side streets, SW McDonald and SW Canterbury, are two-lane roadways. The existing f traffic control and lane configurations are shown in Figure 3. The traffic operations were evaluated based on level of service (LOS), which is a measure of traffic congestion and vehicle delay. The level of service was calculated for each movement based on the techniques presented in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. To ensure that this analysis was based on a worst-case scenario, the peak 15-minute flow rate during the weekday j p.m. peak hours was used in the evaluation of all the intersection levels of service. Therefore, the analysis reflects the conditions that are likely to occur for only 15 minutes out of each average weekday p.m. peak hour. For this reason, traffic during all other weekday periods will likely operate under better conditions than described in this report. Theresults of the level of service analyses for existing traffic conditions are shown in Table 1. r-7 , E r L ~ . (NOT TO SCALE) R A 66) 1w, k4cl2 I- QNALO r~q F ~ ~yey f i 3 ~ r E ow 1 7 w 7-- A.M./P.M. PEAK HOUR 1994 EXISTING A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES TIGARD REZONE F)cuRE TIGARD OREGON JUNE 199$ ' 1252FO 2 I 3 F NORTH -i (NOT TO SCALE) I 41 Ilk 1 I t _1 F Vf M j , ~ f J c' LEGEND s E T~L+FFIC SIGNAL i STOP SIGN (DE FACTO) EXISTING' LANE CONFIGURATIONS AND TRAFFIC C0NTR0L TIGARD REZONE FIGURE Vr-, ~ TIGF~RD OREGON JUNEUNE i IL °i 722 O3 Mr. Gerald: Schroeder August 26, 1994 Page 6 4 I~ y Table 1 E 1994 Existing Levels of Service s Signalized Unsignalized I. Intersection Delay V/C LOS Reserve LOS Capacity Weekday A.M. Peak Hour E_ SW Ga Ue-SW McDonald/99W 15.1 0.75 C North Access Drive/99W 270 C South Access Drive/99w 271 C SW Canterbury/99W 4.0 0.61 A i ; Weekday PJ%L Peak Hour ~ SW Gaarde-SW McDonald/99W 27.4 0.91 D E North Access Drive/99W 333 B ~ South Access Drive/99W 334 B SW Canterbury/99W 9.6 0.83 B t As shown in Table 1, during the a.m. peak hour, all intersections are calculated to operate at acceptable levels of service. However, during the p.m. peak hour, the intersection of SW Gaarde- SW McDonald arad Highway 99W was calculated to operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS "F) with associated long delays. All other study area intersections were calculated to operate at an acceptable level of service during the p.m. peak hour. E TTt. ' G LAPACT 1995 Traffic Conditions The 1995 background traffic volumes were projected with the use of existing traffic volumes and 2015 projected traffic volumes for Highway 99W. These volumes were obtained from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The growth rate was calculated to be 1.5 percent per year. A separate figure was not made to illustrate only 1995 background traffic volumes because the change in traffic volumes as compared to existing 1994 traffic volumes was very small. The level of service for background conditions only is shown in Table 2. i w r i Mr. Gerald Schroeder j August 26. 1994 Page 7 Table r 1995 Background Levels of Service v Signalized Unsignalized Intersection Delay V/C LOS Reserve LOS Capacity r= 'VBreekday A.M. Peaty Floor f SW Gaarde-SW McDonald/99W 15.4 0.77 C North Access Drive/99W 264 C South Access Drive/99W 266 C SNY Canterbury/99W 5.7 0.63 B _ ` Wiekday P.M. Peak Hour SW Gaarde-SW McDonald/99W 2U 0.92 D a ` North Access Drive/99W 326 B South Acccm Drive/99W 328 B j I SW Canterburyl99W 9.0 0.84 B w~ I r _ Table 2 shows that there were no significant changes in traffic operations during either the a.m. or p.m. peak hour. During the am. peals hour, all intersections were calculated to operate at f acceptable levels of service. During the p.m. peals hour, the intersection of SW Gaarde-SW McDonald/Highway 99W intersection was calculated to operate at an unacceptable level of service. All other study area intersections were calculated to operate at acceptable levels of service. - Trip Generation Under existing zoning, twelve medium-density residential units could be developed. Trip generation estimates for the currently zoned land use have been calculated based on trip rates , from similar uses as compiled in Trip Generation, 5th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The expected number of site-generated. trips for the currently zoned land use during the weekday am. and p.m. peak hours is shown in fable 3. j L1 j Mr. Gerald Schroeder August 26. 1995 K Page 8 a Table 3 Existing Zoning Trip Generation j ITE AM Peak Hour PM Peals Hour Land Use Code Size i Total in out Total in out Medium-Density 220 12 6 1 5 8 5 3 n'Tesidencial (R-12) Under the proposed zoning, many types of businesses are avowed. A sample of the allowed 1 businesses are those currently located along Highway 99W, e.g., fast food restaurants, nursery, ' i and specialty retail shops. In order to assess a worst-case scenario, the ITE Trip Generation manual was reviewed for the highest intensity (trip generation) land uses that could use this r i parcel. Table 4 is a summary of the allowed land uses under the proposed zoning. Table 4 F Proposed Zoning Trip Generation. ITE Size AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour i Land Use Code j 1 Avg. Site Total in out Total in out j Manufacturing 140 30 acres 1.04 7 6 1 7 4 3 Hardware/ 816 3 acres 1.04. 50 25 25 50 25 25 Paint Store l - Furniture 890 37,400 (1) 6 1 5 8 5 3 - gsf 20.000 4 3 1 8 5 3 (Proposal) 1 ~J r ore: I-`Ftaxatnum sstuare rootage owes ors site WI out any p ng. t Table 4 does not include a fast-food restaurant, one of the highest trip generators allowed under the proposed zoning, because the 1.04-acre parcel could not be developed without some type of full access, which this site does not have. It was noted in a previous section that access to this site is proposed via the Ripley's furniture. Without the Ripley's access, this parcel is land- locked. r 1 I ' i.. P i i ~II 1 U 1 G K Intr. Gerald Schroeder - August 26, 1994 Page 9 i - 1 f-_ 'T'rip !Distribution and Assignment s As shown in Figure 3, the only access to the 1.04-acre parcel is through the existing furniture store's parking lot, which is restricted to right-in, right-out movement-%. All new trips were assigned to those driveways and also assigned on a proportional basis to the study area f. intersections. 1995 Total Traffic and Peak Hour Operation with Proposed Development t Site-generated traffic volumes from the proposed development, shown in Table 4, were added to the 1995 background traffic volumes. The 1995 total traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4. a In comparing Figures 2 and 4, there is little difference in traffic volumes between 1994 existing a and 1995 total traffic volumes. c Level of service was calculated for 1995 total traffic conditions and the results are shown in Table 5. - Table 5 3 1995 Background Pitts Proposed Site Development Levels of Service Signalized Unsignalized Intersection Delay V/C LOS Reserve LOS Capacity j Weekday A.M. Peak Hour i SW Gaarde-SW McDonald/99W 15.5 0.77 C 3 ` North Access Drive/99W 260 C South Access Drive/99W 262 C t SW Canterbury/99W 5.7 0.64 B j i- Weekday P.NL Peak Hour SW Gaarde-SW McDonald/99W 28.6 0.92 D is- North Access Drive/99W 319 B South Access Drive/99w 320 B ' SW Canterbury/99W iQ.O 0.85 13 a y. ~ F k -_.j - NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) _ as t 'o t ss, `?9/,ad ia, Its,.y waas//t-r. I j W j , M/3"-q j r~+ c { b-,a/,o 1 3 ow 1 Lr; 'I. i i ' s~ o•sr ,S•cs~sss tea' ~ . I e-,t i ! 1 LE PROPOSED LAND-USE: A.M./P.M. P` k9UR +20,000 SO. FT. FURNITURE STORE 1995 BACKGROUND WITH SITE A. M. AND P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES TIGARD REZONE FIGURE TIGARD OREGON ,JUNE 199+5 t 62 OOa a _ Mr Gerald Schroeder August 26, 1994 k = Page 11 - ' r As shown in Table 5, the effects of site-generated traffic on study area intersections are insignificant. For comparison purposes, a hardware store, which is one of the highest trip generators under the proposed zone change, was analyzed for its affect on traffic operations at study area intersections. f Figure 5 illustrates the site-generated traffic volumes for a hardware store. The 1995 background k traffic volumes were added to the site-generated traffic volumes shown in Figure 5 to arrive at the total traffic volumes shown in Figure 6. The level of service was re-calculated for the study area intersections, and the results are shown in Table 6. As shown in Table 6, there is minimal difference in traffic operations. 'fable 6 3995 Background Plus Alternative Development Levels of Service Signalized Unsignalized Intersection Delay V/C LOS Reserve LOS Capacity Weekday A.M, Peak Hour F SW Gaarde-SW McDonald/99W 16.6 0.77 C North Access Drive/99W 225 C South Access Drive/99W 247 C SW Canterbury/99W 6.3 0.66 B i Weekday P.M. Peak Hour SW Gaarde-SW McDonald/99W 29.1 0.93 D f North Access Drive/99W 281 C South Access Drive/99W 308 B ' StV Canterburyf94W 9.2 0.84 B I Required NUtigation r On the basis of this traffic analysis and physical observation, it is apparent that all study area intersections operate at acceptable levels of service. The impact of this zone change is minimal. The intersection of SW McDonald and ifiahway 99W will operate at LOS "D", 28.5 seconds of i E3 s F; CgIA~ NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) _ ~ one i 0 '0 i 1 W M A r f i. t I - -,1 1 P SUE 4 i YP 4. f. 1 oao ' sJa ~s ' a- -0 1 PROPOSED LAND-USE: HARDWARE STORE SITE-GENERATED -TRAFFIC A. M. AND P.M. PEAK HOUR ALTERNATIVE LAND USE TIC D REZONE FIGURE TIGARD OREGON JUNE 19594 i i- 1 a NORTH _ (NOT TO SCALE) , f{9/IYa..r ~b/4f0 ' tie-MMUM 1 1 ` L>,/sa $ P s S f so/ao 9 j d eo/ao 1alss..a d aa!'s °i t i LEO= PROPOSED LAND-USE: _ A.M./P.M. PEAK HOUR HARDWARE STORE 1995 BACKGROUND WITH ALTERNATIVE A. M. AND P.M. PEAK HOUR a TRAFFIC VOLUMES a TIGARD REZONE FIGURE(? TIGARD OREGON { KNEE 1994 e t 1202 ca i i ! N4r. Gerald Schroeder 1 August 26, 1994 ` Page 14 j delay per vehicle, and avolume-to-capacity ratio of 0.92, during 1995 p.m, peak hour. This represents worst-case traffic conditions at this intersection. If Ripley's Furniture is allowed to expand their operations, as proposed, this intersection would continue to operate at LOS "D", but % with 28.6 seconds of delay per vehicle and a volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.92 during 1995 p.m. 5 peak hour. This would also be true for traffic operations for existing zoning development activity of 12 units of medium-density residential development per acre. If the zone change is allowed, f but Ripley's Furniture developed something other than a furniture store, but remained consistent with the proposed zone change designation, traffic operations at SW McDonald and Highway 99W would operate at LOS "D" with 29.1 seconds of delay per vehicle and a volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.93 during 1995 p.m. peak hour. From these analyses, a very small change in traffic operations as a result of the added traffic from either land-use scenario is indicated. No mitigation measures are required as a result of this zone change. OREGON'S STATEW DE PLANNING GOAT. 12 (TRANSPORTAnON) ~ Oregon's Statewide Planning Goal 12, Transportation (OAR 660-12-060(1)(a)), provides the following guideline for detern iciing when to evaluate the function, capacity, and level of service of transportation facilities with respect to proposed land use changes: "Amendments to functional plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans, and lard f use regulations which significantly affect (emphasis added) a transportation 1 This traffic study demonstrates that the proposed zone change and comprehensive plan amendment, as well as the proposed use, will not have a significant effect on the transportation facilities (vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, or transit) serving the site. Sighl Distance on Highway 99W € As part of the traffic safety evaluation, it was determined that the existing sight distance at the proposed access imints (driveway to existing Ripley's store) exceeds generally accepted ' guidelinesfor acceptable sight distance. As shown in Table 7, the proposed site access locat'soa j has adequate sight distance in both directions, although the sight access is restricted to a right-in, right-out drive. J Site Access Issues Because this site will use the existing access to Ripley's Furniture store, which is a right-in, right-out driveway, no additional access permits will be required. j ~i _ j 1 Z_ J t 4, Mr. Gerald Schroeder August 26, 1994 Page 15 a t" l Table 7 Sight Distance ` Location/Movement EAai ight Required Sight Okay? eet) Distance (feet) H ighway 99W Pdorth 450 YES South 450 YES 1 ' CONCLUSIONS AND RECO QED EUPROVEMENTS .Based. on the results of the traffic analysis described in this letter, the proposed 20,000-square_ foot expansion of the existing Ripley's Furniture store can be developed with minimal charges = to the existing roadway operations at the study area intersections. Furthermore, it was found that E there is an insignificant difference between the existing land-use scenario and the proposed land- use scenario impacts in traffic operations. The intersection of SW Gaarde.-SW McDonald and Highway 99W is operating at acceptable levels of service today, and will remain within acceptable criteria in the year 1995 with background project traffic conditions. The site- generated traffic volumes for either land-use scenario do not significantly change this intersection's operation. I trust this letter adequately addresses the transportation-related issues associated with this proposed zoning change. Please contact me if you have any additional questions or concerns regarding this analysis. Sincerely, SON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Kent Kacir, P.E. j Associate _ file-H:L..1126--JtEPORTS\LL-rRP7't.DOC 1 -i Conn»us~ ss ~ ~ rZ, mnaW aabt r. Barber Blvd. Z t _ v'4CA 10 Hamilton IV 43 -0 55 i Zom 3 Zone 2 7' o •9g0 Sartiur LJ i $ q* Burlingame King City 1 `a Royalty vc d as Tigard' Six Corners Pecitto 75 r Jorgens Timrspoint ®Transit Center r t q~ ® Pam = ® Transfer Point Tone Boundary G Transfer & Timapoint sRSeeusoa Park & Ride cety H Sher . i k3 71- 1: j - Tigard I-5 Express r ;®r ~ ' t ~ ks, C1~y f Zone 3 No stogy in Zone 2 Zone I V5 Paafic~ Bun Mw ry Rd (IDTransfar a Timepoint Park & Ride ourt,am Rd Zone Boundary o N 163 g j- Exhibit 6 s~ i ~ e 1L CITY t .i LM.RbflU, %7 O t'FTAl"'OFS/7 ktE OI~TT?~tOl? A~Re,"q,•n~tl43.I 1, _ - - CITY OF TIGARD, 13125 STS Hall, PO Box 2:3397 4 Irigard, Oregon 97223'° (503) 539$171 FOP. STAFF USE ONLY CASE NO. i =a OTEEM CASE NO'S: i j j r RECEIPT NO. APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: K DATE: _ L~1. GENERAL O ICION Application elements submitted: 1PEtOPMLTY ADDRESS/LOCATION 14170 SW Pacific Highw~y (A) Application form (1) { ~(B) Owner's signature/vcitten 25110AA, Trac Loh 401 authorization TAB MAP MW TAX LOT no. (C) Applicant's statement rTB SI2S 1.04 ass (pre-app check list) j ` AOPERTY 0 DEED HOLDEFL* t o 'rnif-±~+r _ ___(D) Filing fee " j9T5DB3aSS 1¢170 SGT Pacific Highway PHONE 639-461: additional i or tion for Comprc- y,'CIT~ Tigard, OR ZIP q7>17 naive Plan Hap Ameudmeats/Zone Changes ~(E) Haps indicating property APPLICANT* Dave P.iDley !ADDRESS 14170 St7 Pacific HiclLr W pHOt 639«4611 location (pre-app check list) CITY Tigard, Ora. ZIP 97217 (F) List of property, owners and `f*Whea the owner and the applicant are different addresses within 250 feet (1) y -Peopl,e, the applicant must be the purchaser of record (G) Assessor's Asap (1) ,cr a lessee in poseession with written authorization ~(H) Title transfer instrument (1) rros the owner or an agent of the owner with written 'authorization. The owane-r(s) mast sign this application in the space provided on page two or W-1 ttwn a thnrizaa.tion with this application. DATE DETERMINED TO BE COMETS: E 2. PROPOSAL SUHMAB.Y The owners of record of the subject property FINAL DECISION DEADLY: i request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (if COMP. PLAN/ZONE DESIG17ATION applicable) from PMR to C and ea Zone Change from R-12 to t C-G ~ P.P.O. Number: 0 The applicant requests an amendment to the PlanuinS Co ission Approval Date: following sections of the Comprehensive Plan or Community Development Coale City Council Approval Date: 07377021# T ev'd: 5/87 ^xhibit 7 3. List any variance, conditional uses, or other land use actions to be considered as part of this application: 4. Applicants: To have a complete application you will need to submit attachments }i described in the attached information sheet at the time you submit this - application. r_ ` 5. THE AAPPLICANT(S).SHALL CERTIFY TUAT: a ~ .A. The above request does not violate any dead restrictions that may be attached to or imposed uon the subject property. B. If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. C. All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the ~ applicants °so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. D. 'The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. DATED this 25th day of August 11 94 SIGNATURES of each owner (eg. husband and wife) of the subject property. L E 1 i Dave ',oley - - i i a n_ F (KSL:pm/0737P) e r 1 - 1 3. List say variance, conditional asses, or other land use actions to be considered i as part of this application: { 4. Applicants: To have a complete application you will need to submit attachments described in the attached information sheet at the time you submit this 1 application. # J S. ' APPLI (a'. SUJLLL CRITTFY THAT: A. above re vest doers not violate any deed restrictions that may be The attached Go or 3~pose~l upon ehe aub~ject property. i S. If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. C. All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the k applicants -so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are { false. D. 'The applicant has read the entire contents of the apPlicattion, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. k' 3 DATED this 25th day of 82M~ 19 94 _ SIGHATURES of each owner (eg. husband and wife) of the subject property. i ' ~ Davy 'ral~y ~ 1 s . i (KSL:pm/0737P) . • i 1 Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount ¢ 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. j COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/CPA 93-0009 ZONE C NGE/ZON 9 SITE DEVELOPMENT R IE / D 14 CONDITIONAL USE/CUP 93-CM MINOR LAND PAR ONJ LP 93-0013 ALBERTSON'S/DUNCOMBE LOCATION: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and 511/alnut Street. (16!!lCTM 2S1 413B, tax lots 100 and 200). A request for the following development approvals: 1) Comprehensive Man and ° Zone Change approval to redesignate approximately eight acres of a 12 acre parcel from Medium-High i Density Residential to Community Commercial on tax lot 200 and to redesignate an apps.-rim a atmly v.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential on tax lot 100. Zone changes accompanying the above plan changes Includes a zone change from R-12 (PD) and R-25 (PD) J (Residential, 12 to 25 units/acre, Planned Development) to C-C (Community Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre); 2) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 40,000 anchor tenant pad including a 40,000 square foot grocery store i and three smaller tenant pads of 1,200, 2,400, and 5,950 square feet adjoining the anchor tenant pad. The applicant also proposes two 4,000 square foot a.-and alone tenant pads. 3) Minor Land Partition ;approval to divide the 12 acre parcel into two parcels of approximately eight acres and four acres each. 'APPLICA6L~ APPROVAL CRITERIA: Statewide- Planning Coals 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 5.1.1, 6.4.1, 6.6.1, 7.1:2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.3, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 5.4.1, 9.1.8, 12.1.1, 12.2,12.2.1, and 12.2.4; Community Development Code Chapters 18;22,16.32,15.56,15.60,15.61,16.93, 18.100,13.102,13.106,11.8.108,15.114,13.120, 18.130, 18.162, and 18.164. ZONE: The existing Neighborhood Commercial zone permits a range of convenience goods and services which are purchased at least weekly. Typical uses would include convenience sales and personal services, children's day care, financial, insurance and real estate services, food and beverage retail sales, etc. Neighborhood Commercial centers have a 5,000 square foot lot minimum. The proposed Community Commercial zone permits a range of convenience goods and services which are designed to serve the regular needs of residents of nearby residential neighborhoods. Community Cormmerclal centers typically range in size from a minimum of two acres to eight acres. In terms of square footage these centers range from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet. i The existing R-25 (PD) zone permits a range of single-family attached, love and medium rise multiple-family residential units, for medium-high residential development. The R-25 zone permits residential densities up to 25 units per acre. The Planned Development zoning district overlay is designed to encourage properties to be developed as a single unit in terms of design, access, etc. PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS i ^ S ~ P 3 v AGENDA ITEM NO. E PRINT Proponent W (Speaking in Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Address 2" I ~reru,~ 5~~-~} AP CIA F? / U7 S Gv. rase , Address Game Addrm r Address 4 f` 7. x3 iw &7,s 'Sw 1>,j,-VuEz 0,1i3 TAwAc27ih,.1 97~o I Kh( rc #ddress ! Name f Address i dO i'~3n (~5~~'S acJ~r" yc NM i - R j j Lq j q ~ w ST' i2 d S f ~ its T I C tZ`7 rasa n n E i e Name V Y 11 I%Aoidy Co 4.4.i Addre Address tufts S_w Rama F'~me /AMWdd _ Address r ~i( `p1 t) ..1F31~i~1tTt J 1 ~ cu tii ; °'''n 5r q nc v 6 Name Addt 970-'19 Address s~ar„e e a' / t Yd ~e Name - z L73 e Name - C Addrose Address a n~~ I t~~r F 1 13 teen 9'a i 6 AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of December 13, 1994 is CITY OF TIG_ARD, OREGON 4 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA: TITLE Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment CPA 93-0009. Zone. Chancre ZON 93-000 i PREPARED BY: Roberts DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL G Should the City Council approve a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to redesignate approximately eight acres of a 11.95 acre parcel from Medium- High Density Residential to Community Commercial and a Comprehensive Plan i. approval to redesignate a 6.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential? The request includes accompanying Zone Changes which propose to redesignate the property from R-12(PD) and R- ! 25(PD) (Residential, 12/25 units per acre, Planned Development) to C-C j" (Community Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood-Commercial) to R-25 { (Residential, 25 units per acre). t STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 94-0005 and Zone Change 94-0006. INFORMATION SUMMARY j l The request concerns the land use designation of property on both the southeast and northeast corners of the intersection of SW Walnut Street and j, SW Scholls Ferry Road. The applicant also requested Site Development is Review and Minor Land Partition approval for a 40,000 square foot Albertson's Grocery Store, three tenant pads of 5,950, 2,400 and 1,200 square feet and two detached 4,000 square foot pads. On January 25, 1994 the City Council remanded this application back to the i Planning Commission due to concerns related to property owner notification, the findings within the staff report and the appropriateness of the proposed development within the Community Commercial Zoning District. The applicant modified their request in response to these concerns by deleting the conditional use requests for a service station use and 24-hour i operation of the Albertson's Store. The applicant also addressed impacts on adjoining residences by proposing to construct a brick wall along the property frontage on SW Northview Drive. Due to the impacts identified within a required noise study the applicant has proposed to use a quieter evaporative cooler mounted inside the store rather than a standard air cooled condenser unit mounted on the roof. C To address property owner notification issues, the Public Hearing Notice has E { I i been provided to property owners within 250 feet of the affected properties and to those who signed in at previous neighborhood meetings and public hearings. ' Prior to the Planning Commission review of this request, Mr. Bill Gross expressed concern with the amount and type of information provided within the Public Hearing notice. The City Attorney determined that the notice for the Planning Commission Hearing did not appear to be fatally flawed, Additional ' information concerning the type of uses which are permitted within each zone was included within the notice for this meeting. The applicant has also f ' reviewed the public hearing notice for compliance with legal requirements. After extensive public testimony the Planning Commission recommended approval at its November 7, 1994 meeting. The proposed ordinance includes provisions in Section 3 that make the Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change effective at F; the time of issuance of building or development permits. If development does not occur, the plan and zone changes would not be effective because the t `i Council adopted Community Commercial Development Code provisions that call for concurrent review of the site plan. Due to neighborhood concerns the Planning Commission revised the staff recommendation by approving the application without requiring the applicant 1 to modify the site plan to provide a driveway access to SW Northview Drive. The Commission expressed some support for a one way, in only driveway from SW ! Northview Drive. Staff recommends that this driveway be provided at one of three locations to reduce turning movement conflicts on SW Walnut Street E " which is designated a Major Collector Street. A driveway can be provided - onto SW Northview without creating significant through traffic or light and noise impacts on adjoining residences. The proposed final order, ordinance addditional findings, the site and vicinity maps, the applicant's submittal which includes draft findings and the letter by Mr. Bill Gross are attached. The minutes of the November 7, 1994 Planning Commission will be available at the meeting. ~ OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED f- 1. Approve the attached ordinance, thereby approving the requested Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Change by adopting the staff report as findings in support of the decision. s 2. Modify the approval and direct staff to prepare a revised ordinance and j findings as necessary. 3. Deny the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Change, FISCAL NOTES r No direct fiscal impacts. j= i 1 _J ;f v j' CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 94- 1 TT.ITIT T/.7r! 21 AN ORDINANCE N 1TCE ~ FINDINGS .ND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A f. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY ALBERTSON'S INCORPORATED (CPA 93-0009 AND ZON 93-0003). t i r WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from Medium-High Density Residential to redesignate approximately 8 acres of a 11.95 acre parcel from Medium-High Density Residential to 9 Community Commercial and a Comprehensive Plan approval to redesignate a 6.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential. The applicant's request also includes accompanying Zone Changes which propose to redesignate the property from R-12(PD) and R- p 25(PD) (Residential, 12/25 units per acre, Planned Development) to C-C f (Community Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood-Commercial) to R-25 Residential, 25 units per acre). i c THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: j SECTION 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria based upon the facts, findings and conclusions, noted in the attached final order, additional findings and vicinity maps identified as Exhibits A, B, C-1 and C-2; r SECTION 2: The City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and staff recommendations and approves the request to redesignate the parcels illustrated on the attached maps (Exhibits C-1 and C-2) with Comprehensive Plan designations of Community Commercial and Medium-High Density Residential. t SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective at the time of issuance of f building or development permits. If development does not occur, this ordinance shall not become effective because the Community Commercial Zoning District provisions require concurrent review of the site plan. i PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of 1994. i Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: This day of- , 1994. i- i i i John Schwartz, Mayor i 1 Approved as to form: 7 1 City Attorney Date 1 ~ c F P 1 i 7 - 1 f i F i 4 ORDINANCE No. 94- Page i ~ L J, i 1 -i EXHIBIT "A" _ CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER i A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO AN APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND MINOR LAND PARTITION APPLICATIONS REQUESTED BY ALBERTSON'S INCORPORATED. i _ The Tigard City Council reviewed the application below at a public hearing on December 13, 1994. The City Council approves the ' request. The Council has based its decision on the facts, findings and conclusions noted below. A. FACTS 1 i 1. General Information Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 93-0009 Zone Change ZON 93-0003 Site Development Review SDR 93-0014 Minor Land. Partition MLP 93-0013 A request for the following development approvals: 1) Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change to redesignate approximately 8 acres of a 11.95 acre parcel from Medium-High Density Residential to Community Commercial and a Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to redesignate a 6.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential. Proposed Zone Changes accompanying the above plan changes includes request for a zone change from R- 12 (PD) and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development) to C-C (Community Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to P_-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre); 2) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 40,000 square foot Albertson's Grocery Store and three smaller tenant pads of 5,950, 2,400 and 1,200 square feet. The applicant has also proposed two 4,000 square foot retail pads 3) Minor Land Partition approval to divide an 11.95 acre parcel into t,o parcels of approximately 8 acres and 3.95 acres each. Applicant: Albertson's, Inc. (Don Duncombe) 17001 NE San Rafael Portland, OR 97230 FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 1 F K. } Agent: John Shonkwiler, P.C. Attorney at Law 4040 Douglas Way PO Box 1568 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 " Owner: Margery Crist, et. al. Route 1, Box 792 Beaverton, OR 97007 Location: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street. (WCTM 2S1 4BB, tax lots 100 and 200). i Applicable Review Criteria: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14; t. Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.4.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, 8.4.1, 9.1.3, 12.1.1., 12.2, and 12.2.1 and 12.2.4; and 1 Community Development Code Chapters 18.22- 18.32, 18.56,18.60, 18.61, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 1 18.114, 18.120, 18.130, 18.162, and 18.164. i F 2. Background Information An area that included the subject property was annexed to the City of Tigard on June 12, 1983. In August 1983, the City approved a variety of plan and zone designations for the area, including Medium-High Density Residential (R-20, now R-25 zone), Medium Density Residential (R-12 zone), and Neighborhood Commercial (C-N zone). The City subsequently approved the relocation of the C-N designation in a number of locations in the vicinity between 1983 and 1986 (Case files CPA 18-83/AC 14-83, CPA 4-85/ZC 4- 85, CPA 1-86/ZC 3-86). The current C-N designation is located on Tax Lot 100. A complete summary of past City actions pertaining to the amendments to the size and location of the N-C designation is presented in the staff report for an earlier Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposed by Albertson's for this property (Case File CPA 91-0003/ZCA 91-0006). { A number of single family and multi-family residential developments have been proposed for all or a portion of the subject property between 1986 and 1990 (Case Files SDR 4-86, S 87-04/V 87-04, S 87-07, SUB 90-04/ZON 90-04/ZON 90-04/VAR - 90-08). Development has recently occurred following the r approval of Castle Hill Subdivision. FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 2 1 + i i s In 1991, Albertsons applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Jand Zone Change (CPA 91-0003/ZCA 91-0006) to establish an - eight acre Commercial General (C-G) site on Tax Lot 200. The request also involved the redesignation of the existing C-N site on Tax Lot 100 to Medium-high Residential (R-25) A 3 final decision by the City Council was stayed at the request of the applicant. i Following this application, the City considered including a new Community Commercial zoning designation as part of the s Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code. After a j lengthy review, the City adopted the Community Commercial designation in December 1992. On November 15, 1993 the Planning Commission recommended that k, the City Council approve the application with the inclusion of E` conditions for an automobile access driveway to SW Northview F Drive, a pedestrian staircase to SW Northview Drive, ` conceptual building design details which are consistent with the grocery store design. The Planning Commission also recommended that an access plan for the 3.95 acre parcel south of the site and an improved interior parking lot pedestrian i pathway system. On January 25, 1994 the City Council remanded the application back to the Planning Commission due to concerns related to property owner notification, the findings within the staff -report and the appropriateness of proposed development within the Community Commercial Zoning District. The applicant has made the following revisions to the proposal as a result of concerns raised at neighborhood meetings and issues raised by the City Council at the January 25, 1994 Public Nearing: w The proposed commercial uses on the pads oppposite to the Albertsons pad have been modififed. The gas station and Shari's uses have been eliminated as prospective tenants. The pads are shown as 4,000 square foot retail sites. ' ® A new brick wall has been proposed along portions of the proposed eight acre parcel's property frontage on SW Northview Drive. i 0 The staircase entrance from SW Northview Drive has been modified to include a series of 90 degree turns to obscure the staircase entrance. e The applicant has agreed not to develop the site with tenants which would have 24-hour commercial operations due to potential impacts to adjoining residential areas. q FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 3 i i i 3 ® The applicant revised the site plan to provide a separate staircase from SW Northview Drive to the grocery store ' building and separated pedestrian -pathways for internal. circulation between all buildings and through the center of s the parking lot. 0 The site has been posted with a sign showing the proposed site j development plan for the shopping center. 0 The applicant has also discussed dedication of the multi- t' family area south of the Albertson's site to the Castle Hill Neighborhood Association for future development as a p. neighborhood open space area. 0 The applicant has provided a history of the application, a synopsis of the changes which have been made to the plan, a security lighting plan, a noise study and conceptual plans for Albertson's store, the site plan, the wall proposed along SW NorY_hview Drive. On November 7, 1994 the Planning Commission recommended that r a the City Council approve the application without the inclusion 'j of conditions for an automobile access driveway to SW Northview Drive. A portion of the Commission felt that the Council should consider provision of a one-way drive way which f allows ingress but not egress onto SW Northview Drive. The Commission felt that the improved interior parking lot pedestrian pathway system was sufficient as proposed. The staff recommendation is still to provide additional pedestrian connections into the site along the southerly and northerly driveways from SW Scholls Ferry. It is also recommended that a driveway be provided into the site from one of three potential locations along SW Northview Drive in 3 order to avoid turning conflicts to and from SW Walnut, Street. The applicant has prepared proposed findings which reflect the Planning Commission recommendation. It is recommended that the applicant prepare detailed findings which address the Council's decision which would be incorporated into a final order. j E 3. Vicinity Information Single family residential development in the Castle Hill Subdivision lies to the east and south. To the northeast is the Cotswald Subdivision which is of a similar character and 1 density. A day school is on the west side of SW Scholls Ferry ' Road_ A few large lot single family residences also exist to the north, south and west of the subject area. A quarry operated by Morse Brothers Inc. is located to the southwest, across SW Scholls Ferry Road. - FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 4 v _r R-25(PD) zoning surrounds the parcel currently designated C-N. The area south of the proposed C-C designation is zoned R- 12 (PD) and R-25(PD). The area across SW Scholls Ferry Road from this area is zoned by the City of Beaverton as R-2 s (multi-family, 2,000 square feet lot area/unit). The average allowable density within a 1/2 mile radius of the site is approximately 15 units per acre. { i other commercial sites within the general vicinity of the proposal include: rr E, i Murray Hill Shopping Center located approximately 3/4 mile north on Murray Boulevard; E Greenway Town Center Shopping Center located approximately I- 1/4 mile east on Scholls Ferry Road; r. Washington Square located approximately 2-1/2 miles east; and Several commercial centers along Pacific Highway, including the Tigard Central Business District, located approximately f two miles to the southeast. 4. Site Information There are two properties involved in this application. Tax` Lot 100 is 6.93 acres in size, zoned C-N, and located on the northeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and Walnut Street. This parcel is a vacant, grassy field with a relatively moderate grade. i Tax Lot 200 is 11.95 acres in size, zoned R-12(PD) and R- 25(PD), and located on the southeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and Walnut Street. This property is also a vacant, grassy field, but it slopes significantly downward away from the Castle Hill Subdivision to Scholls Ferry Road. 5. Proposal Description The applicant has submitted a packet of materials which describe the various facets of the application. The applicant has also provided an update to the previous traffic studies conducted in August and December of 1993, a noise impact study and a security lighting plan has also been provided. a The application includes the following four separate components: a. CPA 93-0009/ZCA 93-0003 A proposed change of the C-N designation on Tax Lot 100 to R- 25, and change the R-12(PD) and R-25(PD) designation for 8 FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 5 { 1 1 acres of Tax Lot 200 to C•-C, leaving the remaining land use E designations on the property as they are (see Exhibit A). This change is proposed to be consistent with the requirements associated with the City's C-C designation and the obligations of the City to maintain an adequate inventory of multi-family residential land. F` b. SDR 93-0014 The applicant proposes to develop a shopping center with a total of 57,550 square feet of floor space. This space ± includes a 40,000 square foot grocery store, 9,550 square feet of additional commercial space adjacent to the grocery store and two separate pad sites totalling 8,000 square feet,(see Exhibit B). The applicant has provided preliminary site, t grading, utility, and landscaping plans. Conceptual building elevations providing detail of proposed design features for the Albertson's have also been provided. k A 40,000 square foot Albertson's Grocery Store and 9,550 square feet of commercial space are proposed for the southern portion of the site. A truck access and loading area is proposed along the south side of the building. The southern and eastern portions of the site are proposed to be graded { extensively and the south side of the main building would have a floor elevation that is 8 to 24 feet below the existing f grade. A freestanding tenant pad site is proposed towards the southeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut j Street, a second freestanding pad is intended for the southwest corner of SW Walnut Street and SW Northview Drive. The applicant has revised the application to indicate both pads are intended to be developed with retail uses. The applicant has withdrawn the conditional use permit portion of this application. The applicant has not submitted development plans for any of the residential areas on the subject properties. In addition to the specific uses shown on the site plan and referred to in the applicant's statement, approval of other uses is requested. This is because all tenants of the center have not been committed. It is also expected that tenants will change over time. The additional uses which may be located at the site and are permitted in the C-C zone for which.. the applicant requests approval are: Animal sales and services; I Consumer repair services; Convenience sales and personal services; Children's day care; L` a l FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 6 1 ~ a Eating and drinking facilities; General retail sales (less than 10,000 square feet; General offices (medical, dental, financial, insurance, real I: estate, professional and administrative services); and indoor participant sports and recreation. Three driveways are proposed on SW Scholls Ferry Road and one driveway is shown on SW Walnut Street. Internal sidewalks are shown immeczateay adjacent to the commercial buildings. Sidewalks link the two pad sites with the public sidewalks on the perimeter of the project, a sidewalk and staircase connections are proposed between the grocery store and SW Northview Drive. F` ,a c. MLP 93-0013 + The applicant wishes to create a separate 8 acre parcel for the shopping center. The other 3.95 acre parcel is intended y for future residential development. The applicant has also j discussed the option of dedicating this parcel to the i y Castlehill Homeowners Association (see Exhibit A). f _j 6. Adencv and Neighborhood Comments The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and offers the following comments: Findings: f 1. ACCESS a The proposed site plan shows driveway access to SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street, but no driveway access to SW Northview Drive. This application, as previously reviewed by the Engineering Department, recommends a driveway connection to SW Northview Drive. Although the recent public discussion has indicated that the present property owners in the adjacent subdivision, object to a driveway from SW Northview Drive, the department continues to recommend vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access to SW Northview Drive. It is our opinion that a driveway to the site could be designed to satisfy the concerns expressed by the property owners and provide the recommended access. The driveway location has several options that include the following: The entrance could be located opposite SW Stardust Lane, with ` a curvilinear ramp, and avoid the objection relating to the light from cars exiting toward the new residences. The main building would have to be moved to the west approximately i. seven feet. j - FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 7 i f 9 1 A driveway could be constructed through the proposed green space south of the commercial center. The driveway would -i connect to SW Northview Drive at a location south of SW Stardust Lane. It could connect to the commercial center parking lot either at a location along the east side of the } ] Albertson's store, or at a location near Store "C". If the green space area is dedicated to the homeowners' association, as proposed by the applicant, the neighborhood could control 2= i the use of the driveway. i A driveway could be constructed directly from the parking lot a to SW Northview Drive, with screening provided between the F driveway and the nearby homes. Because the C-C zoning is intended to serve the immediate r' neighborhoods rather than regional customers, the proposed retail center can be expected to draw many of its customers from the adjoining Castle Hill subdivision (64 lots), the proposed Castle Hill No. 2 subdivision (123 lots), and the adjoining residential areas. While we hope that many of these 3 customers will walk or bike to the center, we can expect that E j many will drive. Trips for major grocery purchases are likely to be made by car even though customers may live quite close to the center. If the center is intended to serve the. neighborhood, it should have a more convenient access to the neighborhood. i a SW Walnut Street is a Major Collector Street and as shown. on the Comprehensive Plan, is designated to be extended westward to connect with SW Murray Boulevard by intersecting with old Scholls Ferry Road to the north. At present, the connection between SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue towards the subject properties is under construction and will be open this fall. As the area continues to develop, SW Walnut Street will carry substantial traffic volumes, similar to the traffic ' volumes on SW Durham Road in the vicinity of an existing I } Albertson's store. In order to protect the safety and capacity of SW Walnut Street, it is desirable to eliminate traffic and turning movements on SW Walnut Street where possible. l A direct driveway from SW Northview Drive will provide a convenient connection for the local residents as Northview Drive is the principal access for the adjoining subdivisions. The direct driveway would preclude the use of SW Walnut Street ' to access the site, and reduce left-turn movements. In some neighborhoods, direct access to retail facilities is I, resisted due to a concern that direct access will lead to additional traffic in the neighborhood. This does not appear r to be a problem in this instance. The proposed alignment of SW Northview Drive and the connecting streets of Castle Hill No. FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S -PAGE 8 l r i i , 2 discourage the use of the street for any through traffic. SW Walnut Street will remain the most direct access for the E traffic generated from outside the immediate neighborhood. For these reasons, we reiterate our recommendation that the center be required to provide a driveway access to SW Northview Drive. [ i 2. STREETS i The site is located between SW Northview Drive and SW Scholls Ferry Road south of SW Walnut Street. SW Walnut Street and SW E Northview Drive are City streets. These streets were { previously dedicated and fully improved in conjunction with the Castle Hill subdivision, with exception of the sidewalk on SW Northview Drive. A traffic study has been submitted by the applicant that indicates that the existing improvements on SW i Walnut Street and SW Northview Drive can adequately accommodate the traffic expected from the proposed development. SW Scholls Ferry Road is a Washington County major collector and is classified as a City arterial. Improvement standards' for Washington County major collector include 37 feet of right-of-way from centerline, 21 feet of pavement from centerline along with curb and sidewalk. Currently, the frontage is improved with 14 feet of pavement without curbs or drainage. The required 37 feet of right-of-way appears to exist but should be confirmed. a Washington County has not requested any change to the existing I improvements but has recommended that a non-remonstrance agreement be accepted. However, the Engineering Department recommends that full half-street improvements be constructed. i In regards to the four acre site contiguous to the proposed commercial center, it is recommended that the applicant provide for the construction of the frontage improvements on both SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Northview Drive, inasmuch as this property is a part of the development application and there is no further development proposed for the 4 acre site. r. The proposed grading of the commercial development incorporates substantial cuts, fills and slope construction. The applicant should be required to perform all grading in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. i 3. SANITARY SEWER j The applicant is proposing to connect to an existing eight inch public sanitary sewer within SW Scholls Ferry Road. The FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 9 l a , line is operated by the City of Beaverton. The applicant should show evidence that the City of Beaverton has reviewed and accepted this proposal and that any special requirements of the City of Beaverton have been met. The final design and alignment of the sewer shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Tigard Engineering Department. 4. STORM SEWER The applicant proposes to collect run-off into a private storm sewer and discharge it to an. existing box culvert in SW Scholls Ferry. The Unified Sewerage Agency has established and the City has agreed to enforce (Resolution and Order No. 91-47) surface water management regulations requiring the construction of on site water quality facilities or fee in lieu of their € construction. The applicant is proposing to satisfy this f requirement by constructing an on-site water quality facility along the SW Scholls Ferry frontage. The facility should be privately owned and maintained. The Public Works Department provided no comments or objection to the request. The Building Division provided no comment or objection to the request. The City of Beaverton provided no comment or objection to the request. j Washington County's Department of Land Use and Transportation i indicates that an access report must be prepared by the applicant. The applicant has been advised and the Department estimates that an [ additional response regarding access will be available soon. The y Department also has the following comments: This proposal includes a partition request with both parcels having frontage on SW Scholls Ferry Road. As proposed, Parcel 1 (8.00 acres) will be zoned commercial and contain an Albertsons Store and several associated commercial businesses E (restaurant, video store, etc.) and Parcel 2 (3.95 acres) will be zoned multi-family residential. The proposal does not contain any specific development plans for Parcel 2. All of the conditions of approval outlined in this report pertain to both parcels (i.e., sidewalks, waiver, etc.). Since Parcel 2 k does not include a request: for access to SW Scholls Fe r Road, specific access related issues for this parcel are not reviewed at this time. The County may deny a separate access to Parcel. 2 from SW Scholls Ferry Road and require shared access with the shopping center or access only from SW Northview Drive. SW Scholls Ferry Road is designated as a major collector on the County Transportation Plan. Resolution and order (R&O) FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14: ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 10 r i 1 86-95 and the Community Development Code limit access to 100 feet. The proposed access _ points meet the spacing requirements. However, there are significant safety concerns dealing with access to the site from SW Scholls Ferry Road, primarily concerning left turn stacking queues. Since these n issues cannot be determined until the County Traffic Analyst k has completed his report, this letter does not approve any access to SW Scholis Ferry Road at this time. The County i Traffic Analyst's access report will determine the appropriate number and spacing for access points to the site. Resolution and order 86-95 also requires a minimum 450 feet of sight distance at the proposed access location. This site has over 700 feet of frontage and sight distance can be obtained or is acceptable at several possible access locations. As discussed above, specific access points for this site will be determined as a part of the Traffic Analyst's review. There 1 are a couple of vertical curves along the frontage which limit sight distance in some locations, particularly at the northeast end of the site. The applicant will be required to provide certification of sight distance by a registered E professional engineer for all access locations prior to occupancy. 1 A traffic analysis for this development proposal is being performed by the County Traffic Analyst, whose findings and recommendations will be forwarded to the City at the time of completion of the review. This review and the recommended conditions of approval which will be developed as a part of that review are required by Resolution and Order 86-95 and Section 501.5.2.B. of the Community Development Code. The Tigard Water Department states that although the agency does not have any objections to the proposal, it should be noted that: All exterior portions of the buildings must be within 250 feet F. of a fire hydrant; I Backflow prevention devices (minimum of double check valve assembly) will be required on all water services; and i The agency will require proper line protection for automatic fire sprinkler systems. Washington County Fire District requested that a meeting with the applicant's engineer to discuss access requirements to hydrant locations and fire flow. In a phone conversation with Gene Birchill of the District, concern was expressed regarding the E provision of future access to the proposed 3.95 acre parcel. i Portland General Electric has no objections to the application. 1 School District #48 (Beaverton) states that the proposed zone E changes and development will not have a student impact on the District. FINAL ORDBFR CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE l 1 i r L The neighborhood reviewed the proposal on July 30, 1993, and notes from the meeting have been submitted by the applicant as an exhibit. Issues raised included buffering, views, traffic, truck deliveries, multi-family development on the proposed 3.95 acre parcel, and 24 hour operations on the site. At the conclusion of the meeting the group suggested four changes: a. A brick fence (4 or 5 feet high) should be constructed along SW Northview Drive with landscaping. The fence could extend up to or just past the p proposed pathway leading to the shopping center. b. A small gas station should not be included. C. Require by covenants and restrictions that tenants maintain property so as not to have litter, teenage loitering, etc. d. Allow weekend or evening use of portions of the site and parking area for special neighborhood functions and j activities. The applicant conducted an additional neighborhood meeting on August 8 1994 prior to submittal of the current proposal. The issues which were reviewed included the following: a. An old NPO vote for the site had recommended approval of a gas station at the site. b. concerns were raised about traffic, noise, lights and safety for pedestrians. Issues about ecology of a gas station use if the site was later abandoned. t C. All attendees were opposed to a gas station use. d. The attendees felt that the corner of SW 135th and SW Scholls Ferry Road was more appropriate for a gas station. e. The participants felt that the staircase proposed from SW Northview Drive was a good idea and a proper location. I f. The participants felt that a no "parking area" should be designated along SW Northview Drive adjoining the staircase entrance location(s). g. The participants were opposed to the SW Northview Drive l driveway connection from the site. h. The participants were opposed to 24-hour operation of businesses at the facility due to potential issues with noise, light, vandalism and theft. 1 i. Participants raised concerns over parking lot lighting due to added light glare impact to adjoining residential areas. I j. Participants raised concerns over the landscaping shown along FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 ALBERTSOMIS - PACE 12 m... _ - - SW Northview Drive and requested that a brick wall be constructed along SW Northview Drive. C: k. Participants raised concerns over what would be built on the, 3.95 acre multiple family site to the south of the proposed t Albertson's site. The participants preferred that the site be ; set aside for common open space area. 1. The proposed uses on site were discussed and were thought to be appropriate with the exception of the gas station and the Shari's uses. i m. Concern was expressed over the SW Murray Boulevard extension from Beaverton to SW Walnut Street. The consensus of the participants was not that this application generated the need for the connection but a general concern that the street would a greatly increase traffic in the area. i n. The participants discussed the appearance of the building design and thought the type of design used at the Albertson's located at Durham and Pacific Highway would be preferred. F A E o. The participants discussed the overall site design and were in favor of the grading plan which was proposed due to the ability of the slope to mitigate the noise caused by trucks and the types of uses proposed. The participants felt that 1 commercial zoning at this site made more sense than on the north side of SW Walnut where it is presently located. I p. A vote was taken of the site plan which approved the site plan 32-1 as proposed with the staircase and walkway changes which had been to the previous plan. The participants preferred ? that the site plan not include direct access to SW Northview Drive as was previously approved by the Planning Commission,.. f No other comments have been received. B. MAJOR ISSUES This section of the report provides an overview and evaluation of the major issues pertaining to the four parts of the application. Findings and conclusions regarding the applicable criteria are found in. Exhibit B. 1. Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change a. Commercial Neighborhood (C-N) to Medium-High Residential (R-25). i As noted earlier in this report, the C-N designation has been moved several times since 1983. Before it was applied to Tax Lot 100, this property was designated R-25. in order to meet the applicable locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan, the C-N designation must be changed in order to have commercial use (C-G) on only one quadrant of an intersection. FINAL ORDER CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTS©N'S - PAGE 13 j; b I Also, this redesignation to R-25 helps offset the loss of R-25 J+ zoning caused by the proposed C-C designation. f: b. Medium-High Residential (R-25PD) to Community Commercial (C-C) . Compliance with the locational criteria for the C-C designation, the Metropolitan Housing Rule, and compatibility k with the surrounding residential areas is of key importance. The locational criteria are satisfied as described in the I draft findings and conclusions (Exhibit C)• The proposal ::ill result in a net loss of 1.07 acres of R-25 land, for an impact of 25 units. The City's inventory shows f. that presently there are 1,305 acres of developable residential land with a total potential of 13,475 dwelling units. This yields an average allowable density of 10.328 units per acre. The Housing Rule has a minimum requirement of 10 units per acre. This change will have a minimal impact that results in 1,304 developable acres, 13,452 potential units, and an average possible density of 10.315 units per acre. t, - The remainder of Tax Lot 200 approximately 3.95 acres has been _ discussed as being developed by property owners within the area for common open space use. Limitations to development of this area for multiple family uses would further decrease the total density of 10.27 dwelling units per acre for the remaining 1,300 developable acres of residential land'. Annexation of areas such as the Walnut Island in the future is also expected to further decrease residential density of the City to point below 10 units per acre. This would mean that other properties now zoned for low density residential use would need to be rezoned for higher density residential. Due to the neighborhood's proximity to Summerlake Park, it's approximate 27 acre size at completion and the cost of developing new park improvements, it is recommended that future park funding in the area concentrate on completing the improvement of Summerlake Park rather than developing the i proposed 3.95 acre "remainder parcel" as a City park. i F i Redesignation to C-C requires that the necessary development applications be processed with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning amendments. Compatibility issues are addressed using the applicable code criteria. 2. Site Devel.ooment Review for the Shopping Center There are several issues relating to the development of the k site that are of special importance. The, following highlighted sections represent concerns reviewed within the previous staff report and how this current proposal addresses the previous recommendations: i FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBER.TSON'S - PAGE 14 r i. F a. Vehicular Access The applicant proposes four driveways to serve the project. _ A fifth driveway onto SW Northviewa is suggested by the Engineering Department to provide more convenient access' between the center the adjoining residential area, and to reduce the number of turning movements in and out of the SW Walnut Street driveway and SW Northview Drive. This will reduce potential congestion on SW Walnut, and due to the ; design of the streets in Castle Dill subdivision, through; traffic is not anticipated as a result of this additional driveway. Although development is not currently contemplated for the proposed 3.95 acre parcel, access should be considered now. This parcel has a limited frontage on SW Scholls Ferry Road. This situation will be complicated further by Washington k County driveway spacing standards. The options for driveway access (multi-family development), public street access (single family development), and emergency access should all be considered before the site plan, shopping center access, and partition plans are finalized. The proposed site plan provides the same design as reviewed previously by the Planning Commission as it relates to driveway locations and numbers of driveways. It is recommended that an additional { driveway be provided from SW Northview Drive into the site. Due to the length of property frontage on SW Northview Drive - i and the design of the center it appears that there are three ' potential driveway locations. The applicant may provide ' shared access with the vacant 3.95 acre parcel to the south. A driveway which intersects with SW Stardust Lane or at a location towards the intersection of SW Walnut Street south of the corner pad. If either the second or third options are utilized construction of a driveway along the southern property towards' SW Scholls Ferry Road should be considered to allow for future access between the 3.95 acre parcel and the Albertson's site without the use of adjoining streets. 1 i b. Pedestrian and Bicycle Access The proposed internal system of sidewalks does not connect all destinations on the site or with surrounding public streets and sidewalks. The following improvements should be provided: Provide a sidewalk along one side of the eastern and western driveways on SW Scholls Ferry Road, and the SW Walnut Street driveway. An improved system of sidewalks have been provided internally into the center as a part of this revised design. A sidewalk, hao been proposed into the site from SW Scholls Ferry Road along the center driveway. Additional sidewalks are recommended along both of the other two driveways from SW Scholls Ferry Road. FILIAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 15 An additional sidewalk connection is recommended along the SW Walnut Street driveway onto the site. An additional sidewalk is also recommended from SW Walnut Street to the 4,000 square foot pad at the corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut - Street. s Provide an internal system of sidewalks that connects these E driveway entrances, the pad sites, and the main building in a safe and convenient manner. It is recommended that additional sidewalks be provided into the site. Each of the driveway F` - t entrances into the site should provide sidewalks into the site h to create an integrated system of internal connections f; designed for exclusive use by pedestrians. 3 Where walkways cross paved surfaces the use of durable, low maintenance materials designed to be visually distinguishable f from the paved surfaces shall be provided as required by the CC zone. It is suggested that the walkway material match or F: compliment other commonly used materials throughout the site. j It is also recommended that the six parking spaces shown along the SW Walnut Street driveway into the site be replaced with a walkway and a wider landscaped parkway type major entrance to the site. This change would eliminate traffic conflicts } and allow for an additional pedestrian walkway to be developed which aligns with the walkway shown to the Albertson's store entrance. E Amend the design of the proposed sidewalk to SW Northview Drive so that it connects with Northview at its intersection with SLAT Stardust Lane to enhance convenience to the neighborhood and to encourage proper pedestrian crossings at the intersection rather that at mid-block. This may require a switchback as well as an amendment to the grading plan and the parking layout near the sidewalk. The applicant addressed this concern by providing pedestrian connections into the site. It is again recommended that the applicant provide a driveway into the site from SW Nor.thview Drive. The driveway j location can take place in either of the following locations: { 1) a shared driveway for both the Albertson's site and the t 3.95 acre multiple-family property, 2) alongside the Albertson's store ending at an intersection with SW Stardust 1 Lane or, 3) towards the corner of SW Walnut and SW Northview Drive south of the proposed freestanding pad site. F Two of the handicapped parking spaces near the front of the grocery store should be moved to be adjacent to the building so that crossing the driveway will not be necessary to reach the entrance. The applicant has not amended the site plan to reflect this concern. It is recommended that this revision be incorporated into the site plan due to address store access concerns. C. Landscaping FINAL ORDER - CPA 53-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 16 4 j 1 The conceptual landscaping plan appears to be consistent with 1 the landscaping and buffering standards in the code. More detail is necessary prior to final development approval to ensure that specific code provisions are satisfied. If approved, further review of final landscape plans would be conducted through the building permit plan check. It is recommended that the final landscape plan provide a minimum of 35% canopy coverage over the parking stalls. i d. Noise The issue of noise impact needs further evaluation. While the i'. loading area is well below grade and it will be visually screened, potential noise from loading operations and rooftop equipment must be carefully reviewed and appropriate i mitigation measures taken. Sound barriers, location and type j of equipment, and hours of equipment operation should all be I. considered. The applicant provided a noise study addressing the expected noise generators from the site and their impacts j to adjoining residential areas. Based on the noise background measurements at adjoining residential areas, the site improvements as proposed are expected to meet or exceed all applicable noise criteria if an evaporative condenser cooling unit is constructed within the mezanine level of the Albertson's store rather than an air I cooled, roof mounted unit (TMC 7.40.130-210) and Code criteria. e. Design ; m The C-C provisions in Chapter 18.61 include design guidelines pertaining to design and architectural details. The only conceptual building design which has been provided to date is for the grocery store. It is not clear how the appearance of the remaining structures will relate to each other in terme ^f design. 3. Conditional Use Requests a. Service Station i while a service station may be appropriate on this site, the applicant has not provided sufficient information to justify an approval of this use. The applicant has withdrawn the request for consideration of a conditional use permit for a gas station on the site. Approval of the applications under review does not permit development of a service station on the site. At a later date the applicant may request conditional use permit review for a range of, uses which are conditionally permitted within the Community Commercial Zone. The Development Code requires a public hearing before the i Hearing's Officer for review of all conditional use permit requests. J { FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 17 ~ i j 3 1 b. 24 Hour Operation of the Grocery Store i A primary purpose of the C-C designation is to provide j convenient commercial services in residential areas Vnile maintaining a compatible relationship between uses. Many of the evaluation criteria noted in this report are intended to aehieve; this result. a Evening operations are usually problematic because of noise, lights, and traffic. Due to the orientation of the grocery store, the distance of the store entrance from nearby ' residential properties, and the buffering provided by the grading and landscaping, a 24 hour operation, appears to be i appropriate. Chapter 18.130, Conditional Use has general criteria that have been addressed by the applicant (or will be as required by the recommended conditions of approval). There are no specific review criteria in Chapter 18.130 for 24 hour operation. The applicant has also withdrawn their request to operate the Albertson's on a 24-hour basis due to concerns raised by the neighborhood. The CC Zone restricts all commercial businesses from operating after 11:00 pm or earlier than 6:00 am without prior approval of a conditional use permit to do so. A security lighting plan has been provided by the applicant which proposes to use lighting fixtures of 25 feet in. height as measured from the site's finish grade elevations. Based on the proposed grading plan for the site and the proposed screening measures to be employed between adjoining 4 residential areas, light generated by these fixtures is not expected to overlap into neighboring residential areas. The lighting fixture specifications provided by the applicant i did not clearly indicate that the fixtures would use light cut off shields to prevent spillover onto other properties. It is recommended that these fixtures use this design feature to further minimize light splash as required by the CC Zoning District. ~ f 4. Minor Land Partition This portion of the application is consistent with the dimensional requirementa for the R-25 and C-C designations. The only issue related to the partition is future access as discussed above. The recommended conditions include provision for street improvements along the street frontages of both parcels. C. RECD NDATIONS The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation for approval to the City Council for i a CPA 93-0009/ZCA 93-0009, SDR 93-0014, and MLP 93-0013 subject to the following conditions. Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of building FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON' S - PAGE 18 l` permits. 1. Approve CPA 93-0009/ZCA93-0009 to change the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations on Tax Lot 3.00 from Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) to Medium-High Residential/Planned a Development (R-25PD), and to change the Comprehensive Plan and r Zoning designation for 8 acres of Tax Lot 200 from Medium and d Medium-High Residential /Planned Development R-25 to Community Commercial (C-C). The Comprehensive Plan and zoning map amendments shall be finalized at the time a building or other development permit (e.g., grading) is issued. a 2. Approve the Site Development portion of the application with the following conditions: ' a. A revised site plan shall be submitted for approval which includes the following modifications: 1. A walkway system which has sidewalks along each of the SW Scholls Ferry Road driveways shall be provided. Differing walkway materials be used to designate walkway areas. r 2. A sidewalk/stairway from the grocery store shall connect with SW Northview Drive. -i 3. The applicant shall modify the site and landscape plan to delete the six parking spaces proposed along the SW Walnut Street Driveway into the site. The area shown with these six parking spaces shall be landscaped to form a wider parkway entrance to the site. 4. Two of the proposed handicapped parking spaces in front of the grocery store shall be moved to be adjacent to the building. 3 5. The applicant shall supply details concerning the screening of all mechanical equipment to be used on p the perimeter of the building or on the roof. 6. All cooling units shall be as specified within the noise study dated September 29, 1994. The study recommended the use of quieter evaporative condensers f- located within the mezanine level of the store rather than air cooled condenser units located on the roof. 7. A detailed landscaping plan shall be provided showing the size and species of landscaping material to be f used throughout the development. The landscaping shall achieve a minimum of 35% canopy coverage at maturity over the 'parking stall areas. 8. Conceptual building design details shall be provided FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 19 for the entire development. Of key importance will be consistent size and scale of buildings and signs. The applicant shall create a sign program for the center _ identifying the size, location and design of all freestanding and wall signage. 9. All lighting fixtures shall use cut-off shields to prevent the spillover of light to adjoining properties.' 10. if either driveway design is utilized which would intersect with SW Stardust Lane or south of the corner glad towards SW Walnut Street, construction of a driveway along the southern property towards SW Scholls Ferry. Road should be considered to allow for n1l future access between the 3.95 acre parcel and the Albertson's site. 11. The applicant shall prepare detailed findings ; concerning the City Council decision concerning this application for incorporation into the final order. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. is 3. The site plan shall be revised to provide for driveway access to SW Northview Drive in a location as approved by the City Engineer. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department. 4. Two (2) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile l construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. Seven (7) sets of approved drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, all prepared by a Professional Engineer, shall be ' submitted for final review and approval (NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Department. 5. Building permits will not be issued and construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the public improvement plans and a street opening permit or construction compliance agreement has been executed. A 100 percent performance assurance or letter of commitment, a developer-engineer agreement, the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight fee are required. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Department. 6. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the SW Scholls Ferry Road frontage to increase the right-of- way to 37 feet from the centerline. If the existing right-of- way is. has been dedicated to the required width, the applicant shall submit survey and title information to confirm. The FINAL ORDER - CPA 93 - 09/ZON 93 -03 /SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON' S - PAGE 20 j: description of any additional right-of--way shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. For additional informati-on contact Washington County Survey Division. 7. Standard half-street A.mprovements, including concrete sidewalk, driveway apron, curb, asphaltic concrete pavement, E: j sanitary sewer, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed along the SW Scholls Ferry Road C - frontage, including the frontage of all parcels within the E minor land partition. Improvements along SW Scholls Ferry " Road shall be designed and constructed to Washington County Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards and shall conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements or to ar. j alignment approved by the Washington County Engineering Department. For additional information contact Washington County Engineering Department. a. The applicant shall obtain a facility permit from the Department of Land Use and Transportation of Washington County, to perform work within the right-of-way of SW Scholls Ferry Road. A copy of this permit shall be provided to the i, City Engineering Department prior to issuance of a Public Improvement Permit. s ' 9. Standard half-street improvements, including concrete ,t sidewalk, driveway apron, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed, along the SW Northview Drive and "Green Space" frontage of SW Northview Drive. Improvements shall.be designed and constructed to local street standards k and shall conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements or to an alignment approved by the Engineering Department. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department. 10. The applicant shall submit sanitary sewer plans to the City of Beaverton for their approval. The plans shall also be submitted for the review and approval of the City of Tigard Engineering Department. A copy of the approved plans shall be provided to the City of Tigard prior to the construction of any public improvements. 11. The applicant shall provide anon-site water quality facility as established under the guidelines of Unified Sewerage Agency k Resolution and Order No. 91-47. Submitted design information shall include an operation and maintenance plan. STAFF l CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Department. 12. The applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can be discharged' into the existing drainageways without t significantly impacting properties downstream. STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Department. 13. The proposed privately operated and maintained sanitary sewer and storm drainage system plan-profile details shall be provided as part of the -public improvement plans. STAFF FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 21 i _ I t - i 1. CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department. k _ r-,I 14. The applicant shall obtain a "Joint Permit" from the City of Tigard. This permit shall meet the requirements of the NPDES and Tualatin Basin Erosion Control Program. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department. j f 15. A grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements. Staff Contact: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department. 16. The applicant shall provide a geo-technical report that f addresses the slope stability adjacent to SW Northview Drive f and the overall grading conditions of the proposed y; development, in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. STAFF CONTACT: Michael i:. Anderson, Engineering Department. ' k 17. The applicant shall underground the existing overhead facilities along each frontage or pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering i Department. a 18. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, November _ 1984. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department. 19. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site or - within the SW Northview Drive and SW Walnut Street right-of- way. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park, on the adjoining residentail public streets. . Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor I or subcontractor involved in the construction of the site improvements or buildings proposed by this application, and j shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees 1 associated with the project. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department. 20. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: A. Three copies of the partition plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. „j B. The partition plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92;.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. C. Copy of boundary survey FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 22 1 1 . i STAFF CONTACT: John Hadley, Engineering Department. . THE FOLLOWING CONDITION (S) SHOULD BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO FINAL OCCUPANCY PERMIT: 21. Provide the Engineering Department with a recorded mylar copy° of the final survey; or if not recorded with Washington County but has been approved by the City of Tigard the applicant E shall have 30 days after recording with Washington County to submit the copy. 4 D. DECISION The City Council approves the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Washington County Tax Map properties 2S1 4BB, tax lots 00100 and 00200 from Neighborhood Commercial and 4`.. Medium-High Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential and Community Commercial respectively. The City Council also approves the accompanying Zone Change request, { Site Development Review and Minor Land Partition. The City Council finds that the change will promote the general welfare of the City and will not be significantly detrimental or injurious to surrounding land uses. It is further ordered that the applicant and parties to these proceedings be notified of the entry of this order. i 9 4 I ; FILIAL ORDER.- CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 23 i { ' s - i EXHIBIT "Bn FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The applicants have presented a report entitled Albertson's, n Inc. Application for Site Development Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendments for Community Commercial (hereafter referred to as the applicant's statement) that j. addresses the Statewide Planning Goals, 'the Tigard I Comprehensive Plan policies, and the Community Development Code provisions that are applicable to the request. The applicant has also submitted a traffic study and supplement prepared by Kittelson and Associates, Inc. in support of the application. Staff finds that the following Statewide Planning Goals, City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies, and Tigard Community Development Code chapters are applicable to the request: Applicable Review Criteria: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 1..1.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.4.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, 8.4.1, 9.1.3, 12.1.1(3), 12.2.1 (4) 12.2 and 12.2.4; and F Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32, 18.56, 18.60, 18.61, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, ! 18.130, 18.162, and 18.164, k 1. Statewide Planning Goals and Related Plan Policies The Planning Division concludes that the proposal complies with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Comprehensive Plan policies based upon the following findings: a• Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement) and Policy 2.1.1 are satisfied j because the City has adopted a citizen involvement program including review of all-land use and development applications by nearby property owners and residents. Notice was provided by the applicant for the neighborhood meeting which was conducted August 4, 1994. Notice is also provided of public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. At each public hearing the opportunity will be provided public input concerning this proposal. Policy 2.1.8 is satisfied because information regarding the new C-C designation was explained to the public at numerous public forums. In addition, notices and information about 1 this proposal has been provided so that the basic planning issues are understood by the public. Comments received have . I been included in the staff report and applicant's statement. i FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09./ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSONS PAGE 24 Y is In addition, all public notice requirements related to this i ? application have been satisfied. b. Goal 2 (Land Use Planning), Policy 1.1.1, and the quasi- judicial plan and zone change approval standards of Code Section 18.22,040 are satisfied because the City has applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals through the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code -i requirements to the review of this proposal, as described in this report. The City of Tigard has notified other affected units of government including the City of Beaverton, Washington County, the Oregon Department of Transportation, ' j and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development of the proposal. Service,and utility providing agencies have also been notified of the proposal. Policy 1.1.2 requires that the Comprehensive Plan and each of its elements shall be opened for review by the Metropolitan Service District or its successor on an annual basis, and may be amended or revised. Implementation Strategy 2 of this policy requires that the City review Quasi-Judicial Amendments i in accordance with the standards set forth in the Chapter 18.22 of the Community Development Code. These standards have j. been reviewed within the applicants statement. is i c. Goal 6 (Air/Water Quality) is satisfied because that proposed C-C zone and the surrounding residential properties will result in fewer and shorter automobile trips to obtain commercial goods and services. The proposed center, as designed and conditioned, will provide for ease of access to the surrounding neighborhoods. This in turn will help satisfy k: Policy 4.1.1 by reducing potential air quality impacts from the new residents and their automobiles. Also, Policy 4.2.1 will be satisfied through the development review and building permit processes at which time a development proposal for this site must be shown to comply with applicable federal, state, and regional water quality requirements including preparation and implementation of a non-point source pollution control plan in compliance with the r Oregon Environmental Quality Commission's temporary rules for the Tualatin River Basin. The proposed redesignation would not by itself affect compliance with this plan policy. i, d. Policy 4.3.1 and related TMC Sections 7.40.130-210 have been satisfied as demonstrated by a noise study which identified, evaluated, and mitigated noise impacts as required by the conditions of approval. If approved this policy will be further implemented through the building permit plan check process in which landscaping and proposed site improvements will be reviewed to minimize noise impacts on neighboring land uses. h ( ) e. Goal. 9 (Economy of the State) is satisfied because the proposed redesignation would increase the City's inventory of developable commercial land, thereby increasing employment FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 25 t 1 f 1 1 ' ~ opportunities in the City. The proposal is consistent with Policy 5.4 because the proposed C-C designation will maintain a compatible relationship with nearby residential properties as required by the Community Development Code standards. In addition, the site is physically separated from residential uses by streets I on three sides of the property and a steep slope to the south. A commercial service center of modest size has been contemplated for this area since the 1983 adoption of the Bull Mountain Community Plan. The proposed C-C designation will replace the C-N designation and therefore, no encroachment into a residential area will result. f. Goal 10 (Housing) as well as Policy 6.1.1 are satisfied because the proposal will result in a loss of 1.07 acres of R- 25 land and a net residential opportunity of 26 units. As discussed in Section B. "Major Issues", this change by itself _ has an insignificant impact on the City's ability to comply G, with the Metropolitan Housing Rule. °i The average potential density of the undeveloped residential land in the City has historically varied as land was developed and as Comprehensive Plan Amendments were approved. This represents a reduction in the amount of developable residential land in the City of only 0.77%. . a 4 Policy 6.4_.1 requires that the City designate developing areas p which are not designated as established areas on the Comprehensive Plan Map and encourage flexible efficient development within these areas. This area is currently a developing area. The applicant is requesting Comprehensive Plan and Zoning changes which allow greater flexiblity in developing commercial uses to provide more types of goods and services than the present Neighborhood Commercial designation { on the adjoining corner would permit. This change is will f reduce impacts to the transportation system by reducing the length of travel required by residents to access other area grocery and commercial shopping centers. Policy 6..6.1 can be satisfied because the proposed design and related conditions of approval are intended to provide buffering and visual separation between the center and nearby residential neighborhoods. As noted in this report, specific landscaping noise mitigation measures must be provided to ensure that this policy and related Code and TMtC provisions are inet. g. Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services) and Policies 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, and 7.6.1, are satisfied because adequate public service and educational capacities are available to serve future development of this site, under either the { existing or proposed Plan and zoning designations. Extensioin of necessary public facilities to serve the site are the FINAL ORDER: CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 26 responsibility of the developer, at the time of site development. The City of Tigard notifies applicable public and private utility providers of pending development applications. No adverse comments were xeceived from service providers with respect to the current application. h. Goal 12 (Transportation) and Policy 8.1.1 are satisfied because the proposed redesignation would not be expected to g result in unsuitable or unsafe levels of traffic on SW Walnut h., Street or Scholls Ferry Road. Although commercial development of this site might be expected to result in some increase in total traffic on these roads adjacent to the site as compared to what would be expected under the current designations, the impact on the city-wide or regional transportation systems d.` will be beneficial through providing commercial opportunities closer to adjoining residential areas than is currently available. Therefore, a net reduction in total system traffic ! is anticipated. Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied as a condition of development approval under either the existing or proposed plan and zoning designations. Completion of necessary street improvements along the site's frontages will be required to be installed by the developer at the time of development. The Engineering Division and Washington County will review final development plans for the site with regard to necessary road improvements adjacent to the site and on other affected roadways. Policy 8.1.2 calls for the City to provide for safe and efficient management of the transportation planning process within the City and the metropolitan area through cooperation with other federal, state, regional and local jurisdictions. The City has provided copies of the appliction to other affected agfncies for review and comment. Policy 8.2.2 calls for placing intensive land uses, such as commercial and multi-family, in locations that can be served by transit. Though Tri-Met service does not presently serve the immediate area, an extension of service along SW Scholls Ferry Road appears very likely. } Policy 8.4.1 states that the City shall locate bicycle and pedestrian corridors in a manner which provides for pedestrian and bicycle users, safe and convenient movement in all parts of the City, by developing the pathway system shown on the adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan. The site does not adjoin a designated pedesterian/bikeway corridor area. The development proposes to provide sidewalks along each property frontage. The provisions of the Transportation Planning Rule are not applicable to this application because it was submitted for review prior to adoption of these rule changes. The applicant has addressed transit and pedestrian orientation requirements throught the development of a walkway system from adjoining streets into the site. The applicant has proposed to provide a potential bus turnout location on SW Scholls Ferry Road near FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 27 ' a i the intersection of SW Walnut Street in anticipation of future transit service along SW Scholls Ferry Road. ! i. Goal 13 (Energy Conservation) and Policies 9.1.3 which encourage energy conservation through design and construction. i Because of the sites location and ability to provide greater numbers of services an expected reduction in the number and' length of automobile trips to existing commercial areas, the amount of energy consumed by area residents to commercial services will be less. Through application of current . building code requirements during the building permit review f process all new construction on the site will be developed in an energy efficient manner. j. Policy 12.2 identifies types of commercial zoning districts. This policy sets the following general requirements: 1) That uses within each district shall be planned at a scale which { relates to its location, site and type of stores to the trade area to be served. The scale of development has been reviewed t as it relates to surrounding land uses and the site's existing E proposed topography and appears compatible with adjoining 6-- >y residential areas as reviewed within this report. 2) That surrounding residential uses be protected from any possible c. adverse effects in terms of loss of privacy, noise, lights and j glare. The applicant has addressed design aspects of the ?j proposal as it relates to these issues. 3) That commercial $ centers be asthetically attractive and landscaped. The applicant has provided conceptual design details for the center which have been reviewed against the applicable standards elsewhere within this report as it relates to building and site improvement asthetics and landscaping. 4) That ingress and egress points not create traffic congestion . and hazard. The design of the site has been reviewed ' elsewhere within this report as it relates to connectivity with adjoining rights-of-way and neighboring properties. 5) That vehicle trips be reduced both in length and total number. Reduction in vehicular trips has been addressed elsewhere in this report in terms of length and number. 6) This portion ? of the policy states that the Central Business District is not included in the locational criteria because there is only one i_ Central Business District within Tigard. This does not apply to this application because it is not within the Central Business District. k. The locational criteria for Medium-High Residential (R-25) specified in Policy 12.1.1 (3) are met for the following reasons: j (1) The parcels intended for the R-25 designation are vacant and are not committed to low density development. Since 1983, these properties have been designated for multi-family and commercial use. Prior to being designated C-N, Tax Lot 100 was designated R-25. (2) The two areas untended for R.-25 density are well buffered FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 28 or separated from single family residential neighborhoods. Tax Lot 100 abuts R-25 zoning to the north and east. The area north is undeveloped and the eastern property line is bordered by Cotswald Subdivision. Because of the properties size and lack of physical constraints, adequate buffering can be provided along the property boundaries. f The R-25 area south of the center will be adjacent to R-25 and F R-12 zoned areas that developed as single family neighborhoods. This 3.95 acre parcel will provide a + transition between the single family development and the shopping center. (3) Both proposed R-25 parcels have direct access from major collectors streets. a (4) The properties have a moderate grade and do not appear to have any development limitations due to natural features of Code requirements. (5) As noted in this report, existing facilities have adequate capacity to serve the development. (6) The property is approximately 1/2 mile from the nearest Tri-Met route. This bus stop is served by Tri-Met bus line - #62. However, SW Scholls Ferry Road and Walnut Street are logical routes for expansion in the future as the area grows - and the demand for bus service increases. (7) The two proposed R-25 areas will have excellent access to shopping. (8) When the residential properties develop, common and/or private open space will be required as a condition of development. 1. The locational criteria for Community Commercial uses specified in Policy 12.2.1 (4) are satisfied for the following reasons: (1) The density within the 1/2 mile trade area averages over 8 units per acre. Supporting information is supplied in the applicant's statement and in the staff report information on file as part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to create the C-C designation. (2) The proposed center and its components all meet the maximum gross floor area standards of 100,000 square feet total, 40,000 for grocery stores, 10,000 square feet for general retail, and 5,000 square feet for other uses. _ (3) The proposed commercial designation will apply to only the' southeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and Walnut Street. i FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/$DR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S' PAGE 29 { 's _j (4) The site is over 1/2 mile from any other commercial retail land use designations. j (5) The site is located at the intersection of two major collector streets. The traffic analysis presented by Kittelson and Associates and the subsequent evaluation by the f ! Engineering Division and Washington County indicate that no adverse traffic impacts will result. j (6) The commercial site is eight acres which coincides with the maximum allowable size for a Community Commercial center. E 1 ` (7) Design issues, such as vehicular access, pedestrian and bicyclist access, coordinated development, local street connections between the commercial use and the neighborhood, lighting, and noise, have all been addressed using the applicable Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code policies and standards. ;a 2. Community Development Code a. Chapter 18.22 ry, a In order to approve a quasi-judicial amendment to the Plan and zoning maps, the City must also find that there is evidence of a change in the neighborhood or community which affects the } parcel. Alternatively, the City must find that there has been t._ a mistake or inconsistency with regard to the original designation of the parcel (Comprehensive Plan, Volume 2,'. Policy 1.1.1, Implementation Strategy 2; Community Development Code Section 18.22.040(A). f. The applicant's statement (pages 5 through 9) addresses these considerations. The staff concurs with the basic analysis presented by the applicant. 4 b. Chapter 18.56 - R-25 Multiple-Family Residential At this time, no development is proposed for Tax Lot 100 or the proposed 3.95 acre parcel south of the shopping center. Both parcels meet the dimensional requirements of the R-25 ` zone (Section 18.56.050) and it appears that both parcels can be suitably developed in the future. C. Chapter 18.61 - C-C Community Commercial Section 18.61.030 is satisfied because the uses proposed by f the applicant are permitted with the exception of the service station and 24 hour grocery store operation which are subject to conditional use approval criteria (Chapter 18.130). The proposed improvements for the site can accommodate all of the permitted uses shown on the site plan and proposed as alternate tenants in the center. Section 18..61.45 is satisfied"because all primary commercial FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR.93-14 - ALBERTSON`S PAGE, 30 i i , 'i activities shall be conducted inside; all uses, except for the grocery and video stores will be less than the 5,000 square foot maximum; and any outdoor displays and open air dining { shall be conducted within the limits of this section. _J Section 18.61.050 is satisfied because the proposed renter meets all applicable standards for lot size and dimensions, setbacks, lot coverage, building height, and landscaped area. Section 18.61.055 contains a number of design guidelines and standards for C-C development. The basic design concepts presented by the applicant are generally consistent with these Code provisions. In some cases design concepts need to be amended and in others more detailed information needs to be provided (as conditions of approval) to ensure compliance with this Code section. f Section 18.61.055 A. 1. contains building design guidelines which have been partially satisfied. The applicant has provided a proposed design for the grocery store, but not for the remaining 9,550 square feet of retail space adjacent to it - } or for the two building.pad sites. r. Also, the grocery will have blank walls facing SW Northview Drive. However, this building elevations will be screened from view by landscaping and should result in a pleasing appearance. Section 18.61.055 A. 2. discourages loading areas that face 4 toward residential uses. The proposed loading area abuts an i undeveloped residential parcel and is near Castle Hill Subdivision. Because of the proposed grading of the site, the loading area will be approximately 24 feet below the existing grade. This design serves to mitigate noise impacts to adjoining residential areas along with landscaping and screening will provide a satisfactory visual buffer,. Section 18.61.055 B. 1. requires internal walkways to facilitate pedestrian circulation on the site. The site plan shows sidewalks in the vicinity of the building locations and one walkway to SW Northview Drive. This Code section can be satisfied if additional walkways are provided as recommended in the conditions of approval. Section 18.61.055 B. 2. can be satisfied with the submission of additional information regarding, mechanical equipment, refuse and recycling containers, bicycle parking, pedestrian/vehicular conflicts, landscaping, screening, and special site features (e.g., walls) as required in the a conditions of approval. d. Chapter 18.100 - Landscaping and Screening - i The provisions of this Chapter can be satisfied provided the conditions of approval are met. The conceptual plan is found e FINAL ORDER - CPA 93,-091ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 31 - E to be consistent with the criteria in this Chapter, but the j details need to be confirmed prior to issuance of development permits. r Section 18.100.030 - 440 requires street trees as part of new commercial development. The landscaping plan submitted indicates that street trees will be planted with 40 foot spacing. A list of trees to be used is provided, but the tree i to be used is not identified. With 40 foot spacing, the street trees will need to have a mature height of 40+ feet. E.. Section 18.100.070 - 080 requires screening between different ' uses, such as commercial and residential. The proposed landscaping plan includes vegetative screening that is , consistent with the standards of these sections. Only more 3 detailed information regarding the size and species of 1 plantings, as required in the conditions of approval is needed to ensure compliance. j Section 18.100.090 pertains to fences and walls. The 3 applicant has proposed the construction of a wall along a portion of the perimeter of the development. A conceptual 3 elevation plan for a portion of this wall along SW Northview " Drive has been included in the application. The applicant has provided the wall to address specific neighborhood concerns due to potential site impacts. Using walls as a unifying design element is encouraged by Chapter 18.100 and the C-C Zone. Section 18.100.110 requires screening for parking and loading areas. The landscaping plan satisfies the relevant requirements for landscaped islands in the parking area and the number of trees in the parking area. However, in order to accommodate the pedestrian walkways noted elsewhere in this report, some of the landscaped features will have to be modif ied. t ` Section 18.100.130 contains a buffer matrix that prescribes the minimum width and type of buffer required in different circumstances. The applicants proposed minimum buffer area of 20 feet with vegetative screening meets or exceeds the standards for commercial development and parking lots which abut residential uses. e. Chapter 18.102 - Visual Clearance Areas All intersections meet the visual clearance provisions of this Chapter. f. Chapter 18.106 - Off-Street and Loading Requirements Although the exact number of required parking spaces in Section 18.106.030 cannot be determined because all of the tenants have not been identified, the applicant's estimate of 255 required spaces is reasonable. A total of 293 spaces are FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S-- PAGE 32 F- i 3 provided. Section 18.106.050 describes the dimensional standards for i. parking areas. All of these requirements for parking spaces and aisle widths are met or exceeded, as shown on the site i , z plan. Chapter 18.108 Access, Egress, and Circulation The number and dimensions of the proposed driveways meet the I provisions of this Chapter. - I Section 18.108.060 discourage: direct access onto arterial and collector streets. While the number of driveways for the t:. commercial development appears justified (pending Washington i, County's final analysis and recommendations), based on the traffic study and the findings of the Engineering Department, the future access for the proposed 3.95 acre parcel must be 'j addressed as noted in this report. E' r. h. Chapter 18.114 - Signs i i The plans submitted by the applicant indicate one freestanding i sign along the SW Scholls Ferry Road frontage, as allowed by Section 18.114.130 E. A sign drawing has been submitted F ' without dimensions. Sign permits shall be required as a condition of approval to ensure compliance with Code standards for the C-C Zone. j i. Chapter 18.120 - Site Development Review The relevant design standards in Section 18,120. 180 A. have been addressed elsewhere in this report, with the exception of noise (18.180.180 A._5.). As discussed earlier, the loading area on the south side of the grocery store is visually screened from adjoining residential properties. However, noise from truck traffic, trash collection and compacting, and, rooftop equipment has proven to be a source of conflict F, between commercial and residential uses. Sufficient information has been provided to address the { expected major noise generators on site. The applicant should i comply with the recommendations made within the accoustical engineer's report as addressed previously within this report. Based on this study it appears that the site improvements can be modified to comply with the applicable Development Code criteria for mitigation of noise. j. Chapter 18.162 - Major and Minor Land Partitioning The proposed partition complies with all of the dimensional requirements of the C-C and R-25 zones, and the requirements j of this Chapter shall be satisfied by the conditions of approval. FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON'S - PAGE 33 1 r 7,' k. Chapter 18.164 - Street and Utility Improvement Standards These shall be satisfied as required by the City Engineering Department and the Washington County Department of Land Use 1 and Transportation, - 'i t 1 i 4 1 i j r 3 1 ,.f ?y i 3 1 [ i i 1 i I i i j i l f 1I - ~ L. 1 i FINAL ORDER - CPA 93-09/ZON 93-03/SDR 93-14 - ALBERTSON`S - PAGE 34 (IVOH Au and S170308 us owl lift Iffm Ong r r C3 big- ; J tS 4MCP f i ; ( E r 1 J. 104 Dot Dta ~ r &:D Dee {mD ~ ` + 'SS.,.T"~ ~ r coca 0 Coco ppoc D&w%D I. c DEPT. { f. - i wz 4 Y R-12 PD to C i rTTI CL ~ i r: e L' i i ~ E t _ S CASE NO. VICINITY f CPA 093-0009 EXHIBIT MAP ZON 094-0003 R 093-0014 IMP 93-00:3 E' " APPLICANT'S REVISED SUBMITTAL k• i. 4 JOHN W. SHOtVIf VILER, P. C. _ Attorney at Law 13425 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 C y fax: 684-8971 624-0917 September 30, 1994 C Attn: Mark Roberts Assistant Planner City of Tigard Planning Department 13125 SW Hall Boulevard ~ Tigard, Oregon 97223 wa Re: Albertson's Application - Planning Commission Submittal r t. i ' Dear Mark: Pursuant to your August 26, 1994, letter requesting additional information for the prospective Planning Commission r hearing on November 7, 1994, enclosed are the following (in j twenty sets of copies): 1 1. Narrative on changes made in the application as a result of public hearings and neighborhood meetings. r 2. Complete set of plans for the development proposal. I F 3. Brief synopsis of project history. 4. Updated traffic study. 5. Noise study. 6. Security lighting plan. t Please call if you have any questions and thank you for your cooperation. S•n "rely, John W. Shonkwiler • cd 4 E { r \ ALBFRTSONS I ` I I ~ a KM~ ~ ~ ~ (O +~4CSS~SLM r~{ A PROJECT FOR A COB RpAL PROJECT AT mom= 54:. 5'GYiDLLS FEwY RD. S.Q. ITABlPiIT ST. I 254 PARKL7M= ELw. TIGAR 1 ear IDAHO OREGON (2a~}sas-a2os Faz (2as)~-use G) _ r 3+" ssi F j ~ dyr.,~r qp \ i i 4' _ ~ ) ~ i4 r 'ICI ~ _ - fix, a c 44 j Y r s ,17fa1t _ r ~ .;v - % t .a" l j~'y~ r:"~ ~~1, P~%~~js'>'✓',. r~, f'F _ t{' ~ - ~ ~,~~~4r ~ ' 9~~~~ IIN ~ Iii'. ~ .;t~s~;4~ ,s r't ;;~~~JZ: I z rj 3 16. 1 i h i w, ~R MR. ' r. ¢7 4 3 4 '~"1 l5su~rIKG.f~`` k"e" ybg~ 1 P #d~ 4 i i - mm,. - - - - - _ 1 CHANGES MADE IN THE ALBPRTSON'S APPLICATION RESULTING FROM COMMENTS AT PUBLIC HEARING AND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS The original Albertson's Application called for a single building located upon a moderately-excavated site with the building facing Scholls Ferry Road. The building included a 50,000 square-foot grocery store and a 35,000 square-foot drug store. The single building also had a flat front facade and roof, and was located toward the eastern boundary (backed up against Northview Drive with the truck loading-dock along Northview Drive) about in the middle of the property along that t eastern boundary. As a direct result of the neighborhood input and public hearing recommendations, the Application has undergone the following changes: (1) Flip-Flop Zones. The current commercial location north of Walnut was "flip-.flopped" with the current multi- family zoning south of Walnut to provide a better ; i planning location for the commercial use to lessen adverse impacts on the neighborhood. (2) 35.000 Sauare-foot Drury Store Eliminated. The 35,000 square-foot drug store use was eliminated and replaced 6 with a mixture of commercial uses totalling 17,550 square feet (an approximate reduction of 500). (3) Break Un of Single Building. The single building design was broken up into three buildings. (4) Loading Dock and Truck Entrance. Isolation of loading dock and truck entrance by placing their function in a buffered "valley" between a steep slope at the end of the property and the back of the large grocery store building. 1 (5) Modified Building Facades. The facade of the grocery store was altered to include sloped roofs, brick_ appointmentsand formal columns. (6) Alteration of the Design of Largest Building. The f larger building (which includes the grocery store) was ' modified to make it appear as several. smaller buildings aligned together by angling a portion of the building k and altering the placement of spaces. j (7) Re-orientation.of Buildings. The orientation of buildings was changed from facing Scholls Ferry Road to facing Walnut. The larger structure was also placed at the southern end of the property. 1 j Page 1 - APPLICATION CHANGES MADE FROM PUBLIC HEARINGS IJNS\ADLFRT50\APP,MZ 4 ~`r t i S (8) Excavation. The site is now to be dramatically excavated to lower the shopping center well below the t grade of Northview Drive, and to allow the grocer store structure (largest building) to be at or below grade at its south end. Combined with grade level t: landscaping of trees and buses, the shopping center will generally be below line-of-sisht and obscured by landscaping. (9) Commercial Uses. Inclusion of proposed video store, l' "sit-down" restaurant, ice cream parlor and small gas station.' 1 (10) Commercial Uses Revised. Elimination of "Shari's" as the restaurant and elimination of the gas station. (11) New Brick Wall. Inclusion of a brick fence-wall.` running along Northview Drive. (12) Modification of Staircase Entrance. Modification of the Northview Drive fence, by a series of 900 turns, to obscure the staircase entrance." a 'r (13) No 24-hour O-erations. Agreement not to have 24-hour commercial operations. E (14) Modification of Pedestrian Accesses. Inclusion of pedestrian staircase from Northview Drive to the grocery store building; and separated pedestrian pathways for internal circulation, including between all buildings and through the center of the parking lot. ' E {15) Signs Posted. Posting of large signs upon the property showing the proposed site development plan for the "CC" shopping center since January of 1994. 9 f F f j i. Page 2 - APPLICATION CHANGES MADE FROM PUBLIC HEARINGS ' { ~.7H511lA:ERTSff\AFP ClU35) ,i f - . let 3 • GAPS ka AVI, e r EXHIBIT' PAGE OF • 5 i ' A) Po - -7 E j i Azi U U r y ce. yo~4 /-07 "7i4d f>-e i d . C,~~.,,~- 'j G,"ate , ~ Yom. i df ; - - - - - - -ss~ Q e . _J_-~ _LcrLV% X ~ r. ffalA I" el, E, 4 9 ' jar E _ a U _ -CL f CIA Itirc~✓t~ t~.v~.4 f~-e ~u-~ t~.c-- C71 ' i E6 j e r G _ - - a o Q ~ ab- - - o-o_p. _ - t F ,j f - - - . - _ - - - j . i 1 3 n- - 4~f ___cri . ce, G-~ 1 6 - i~.N 1 / Gtr ~{~~'j/'-~ lJF"t„~•~-'y✓L G~-~-~ i v t` 0 /i - _ -5.~-c- . ~~-ems.- ~z-~P f ..9-~-'L~ - _ _ - E ~ k . ..__s _ t,~J~ -~J~_---- + i ~ ~ ~ , . _ . ~~--e.~ ~1-~ F w L t r4Z a z AjCr s TV N F f r le'r r r E t E t C` s: ALBERTSON'S APPLICATION HISTORY The following is a synopsis of the Albertson's application r' history including public hearings and neighborhood meetings. 1. July 11-1291 - Albertson's pre-application conference with city planning department. City planner suggested the N.C. zone be "flipped" with the multi-family residential E:. i zone south of Walnut. 2. August 15, 1991 - Albertson's, Inc., filed an application for a comprehensive plan and zone change seeking approval for a 50,000 square-foot grocery store and a 35,000 square-foot drug store. The application sought a General Commercial (CG) zoning, and in the alternative, city adoption of a new intermediate commercial zone - "Community Commercial." 3. In 1991 - After Planning Comma ssion recommendation for a new Community Commercial zone, the City Council held its public hearing on the Albertson's application and decided to stay the quasi-judicial application pending City initiation -i and ultimate adoption of new legislation creating "Community Commercial" zoning and plan amendments. 4. December 15. 1992 - After multiple public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the City Council, s the City Council unanimously adopted the new "Community -i Commercial (CC)" comprehensive plan and zoning code amendments. " j j 5. Januarv 6, 1993 - Albertson's revised its development plans and presented them to the neighborhood association meeting of NPO-7. Members of NPO-7 made several suggestions for the design and uses in the proposed shopping center: a. Supported an exchange of locations for the commercial use from the north side of Walnut to the south side of Walnut. b. Supported excavating the site to lower the shopping center in order to lessen adverse impacts on the neighborhood. c. Incorporating a sloping partial roof on the grocery store structure so that it does not have a "flat wall" front facade. E Page 1 - APPLICATION HISTORY s d. Incorporating a brick or brick-like appointment in the i building designs and brick entry walls for the parking lot. i e. Divide the single building into three structures. f. In addition to the 40,000 square-foot grocery store, other possible uses suggested were: "sit down" restaurant, laundry, child care and a gas station. 6. Februarv 3. 1993 - Albertson's revised its development plans to incorporate NPO-71s prior suggestions and resubmitted them to NPO-7 for review., The NPO-7 supported the exchange of "flip-flop" of zones, conversion of 'INC" to "CC", size of the j grocery store, eight-acre "CC" site and the site development c plan. The choice of brick and brick-like appointments to the t building facades was acceptable. NPO-7 members also expressed their preference for placement of columns in the grocery store F 1 entry facade and a desire to see a pictorial rendering of the 1 grocery store. 7. March-a3, 1993 - Pre-application conference with city planning covering changes in comprehensive plan and zoning, and requirements for a community commercial shopping center. The t pre-application conference staff notes are attached to the ' Albertson's Applicant's Statement for "CC" zoning as Exhibit "H." ' B. July 30. 1993 - Prior to Albertson's refiling or re- initiating its current application, NPO-7 was disbanded by the city and a new CIT had not yet been formed. Albertson's met with the neighbors within 300 feet of the project site (in accordance with the city's new ordinance requiring notice to property within at least 250 -feet) on July 30, 1993. Neighbors raised the following concerns at the meeting: that they just recently R. bought their property and had not been informed of the proposed community-commercial shopping center prior to the purchase; concern that the shopping center buildings would "stick up" and block their views of the valley if the site is not excavated to lower it below Northview Drive; concern about traffic on Scholls Ferry Road, multi-family development of approximately four-acre site south of the shopping center, and that the proposed restaurant should be more "upscale" than a "Shari's." Suggested changes or additions included: a brick wall along Northvi.ew Drive, deletion of the proposed conditional use for a. gas station, requirement that tenants maintain property (through j covenants, conditions and restrictions) as not to have litter or teenage littering; and the shopping center allow weekend or I evening use of the site or parking area for special neighborhood functions. Page 2 - APPLICATION HISTORY - ta+rs~xsea+.YZ:~xa~rstzr.~ , - d i 3 9. August 14, 1993 - Albertson's filed its application for Community commercial zoning on eight acres south of walnut, relocation of multi-family residential zoning to north of Walnut, and approval of a shopping center site development plan.` 10. November 7.5 1993 - Planning Commission hearing on the Albertson's application. Issues raised during the hearing included: modifications needed in site-development plan that would address better pedestrian access, such as inclusion of a staircase from Northview Drive and marked or separated pedestrian pathways through the parking lot between building locations; need for an access plan for the approximately four-acre multi-family residential property located to the south of the site; inappropriateness of a gas station use at this site; and need for an automobile driveway access from Northview Drive near the Northview -Walnut intersection. After deliberation, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the City Council approve the Application, without the gas station use for pad "D;" E, with the inclusion of conditions for an automobile access driveway to Northview Drive, pedestrian staircase to Northview Drive, submittal of conceptual building design details for the other buildings that are consistent with the grocery store design., access plan for the approximate four-acre parcel south of the site and an improved interior parking lot pedestrian pathway system. 11. January 3_1994, - The newly-formed West CIT held a f meeting to review the Albertson's application. The issues raised at that time were as follows: nature of CC zone, history of NC ` zone at site, and effective market area for the CC zone; concerns about the public notification process (250 feet from site) may have missed new property purchasers in Castlehill Subdivision and, therefore, there is a need for a project sign posted on property; future of Murray Boulevard expansion to Walnut; future development around site (multi-family residential to south and - quarry property to west) ; and completion of Walnut to 135th. Members expressed concern that the Albertson's application had digressed into a discussion of "Grocery Store Wars." Then, issues were raised directly related to the application and included: Dislike for the automobile access to North-view Drive; question about how signs would look and extent of lighting; dislike for 24-hour operation for restaurant and favor for extended grocery store hours of operation; concern about possible increased noise and traffic; questions about type of building materials to be used and type of roofing; and discussion about uses including disfavor of gas station, favor of 40,000 square-foot grocery store, video store size and landscaping composition and location. No vote on the application or potential modifications was taken by the CIT. Page 3 - APPLICATION HISTORY ~,n:s~use>.-axle.=a ":s.ti 1 l 12. January, 25.„, 1994 - City Council hearing on the Albertson's application. City Council voted to remand the application review back to the Planning Commission due to recent % property owners in Castlehill not being notified in time to testify before the Planning Commission; and the Planning Commission findings did not address or adequately provide the City Council with an evaluation of its vision for the new CC k zone, location and size, pedestrian enhancement policies, and.' application of design standards and guidelines. City Council indicated that they also wanted the notice area for the remanded i Planning Commission hearing to be beyond the minimum of 250 feet and left the determination of the exact increased distance to the discretion of the City Planning Director. 13. June 20, 1_99_4 - Albertson 's met with Castlehill ,i Neighborhood Association members and discussed the site size, location and shopping center design. Favorable responses were raised by members as to the proposed "CC" zoning size, location and design. Castlehill members recruested that landowners and Albertson's cooperate to have the approximately four-acre multi- family site located south of the Albertson's project be donated to the Castlehill Neighborhood Association as additional common area. Landowners and Albertson's agreed to get together and explore the acquisition-donation feasibility. L - 14. Julv F, 1994 - Albertson's meeting with Castlehill Neighborhood Association members. Members discussed support for proposed Albertson's project design and uses. Albertson's and landowners discussed their willingness to proceed with possible donation of the southern four acres adjacent to Albertson's project to the Castlehill Neighborhood Association as additional common area. Members discussed concerns and options for funding maintenance of additional common area. 15. August 4,-1994 - Duly noticed neighborhood meeting (ordinance required notice to owners and occupiers of land within 250 feet of site), held at City Senior Center to discuss the Albertson's application. Notice was actually sent to landowners ' and occupiers within 500 feet of the site (double the ordinance requirement). After Albertson's presentation of the proposed Community Commercial zoning and site plan for a shopping center, the landowners voted on the following issues: j a. Proposed gas station - unanimously opposed. b. Proposed staircase - unanimously in favor. Comment about concern about parking along Northview Drive and that City should post "No Parking" signs. C. Automobile access to Northview Drive from Albertson's f parking lot Unanimously opposed. Page 4 - APPLICATION HISTORY (JW5\AL2E.R?5ffi%AF7 WM71 i I d. 24-hour operations - no vote because Albertson's agreed not to request 24-hour operation. e. Shari's restaurant - consensus was that Albertson's E should select a different restaurant company or use for the corner pad. 3 r:, f. Donation of multi-family land south of Albertson's site to Castlehill Neighborhood Association common area - unanimously in favor. g. Vote to approve the Albertson's proposed CC zone, r'. - shopping center design, proposed uses and sizes--32 r votes in favor of approval, 1 vote in opposition. h. In addition, the president of the Matrix Company that is developing the Castlehill Subdivision expressed his r; agreement with the neighborhood association members that the property located immediately south of the f. Albertson's site should become common area for the Association. He stated that the new common area would be a better use of the land and enhance his company's € investment in the Castlehill Subdivision. He then stated that Matrix was willing to donate $20,000 to the Castlehill Neighborhood Association for maintenance of the donated land. k, [Minutes of the meeting are attached hereto as Exhibit "A, 16. Aucxust 22, 1994 - Albertson's provides city with copies of revised application plans reflecting recommended changes of the neighborhoods, and requested scheduling of the Planning Commission hearing for the remand of the Application. i i 'r s F j g j Page 5 - APPLICATION HISTORY I aWS\ALDU-SD:••APO HIST) i K'7 @T°E! ELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 610 S.W. ALDER, SUITE 700 + PORTLAND, OR 87205 • (503) 2285230 • FAX (503) 273.8165 ' E: ( September 28, 1991 Project Number: 1050.00 SEP 3 0 1994 Mark Roberts, Assistant Planner City of Tigard flr~~t ORE:C30 I r 13125 SW Nall Blvd. k i Tigard, Oregon 97223 ICE: Alberts•ons Application - Pl annirzg Commission Hearing Submittal Dear Mr. Roberts: E. This letter is being provided at your request for the purpose of providing an update to tha Traffic Impaui Analysis Rcpurt on tiec peupuscd T igrad Albeztsoris, conducted by Kittelsun aced ~ Associates and submitted for review in August 1993. ' I A review of the August and December 1993 report submitted to the City of Tigard regarding this T.) proposed development indicates the following, with regard to the site plan and study assumptions: Modifications to the site plan will not impact the nature, volume, and/or movement of traffic to and from the proposed development over what was originally estimated. ' ~ i ° Development, construction, and occupancy of the site will not occur in the calendar year 1994 as assumed in tlae study, but is expected to occur in the calendar year 1995, if , approved. i In-process developments, identified by the City as a required element of consideration for the study, have generally followed the timelines of development and have, therefore, been accounted for in the traffic volumes estimated to represent the full buildout condition. ° The cntly identifiable difference for traffic conditions would be the additional one year grov,ih in background traffic from year 1994 to year 1995. This background growth is estimated to be slightly less than 2% based upon weighted average measured growth rates f for the City of Tigard, City of Beaverton, and Washington County. j As indicated in Table 5 (Page 23) of the December 1993 report, the kev study area intersections would experience good LOS C or better at the signalized intersections and LOS D at the S unsignalized intersections during the weekday p.m. peak hour, at the time of full build-out a: ' occupancy ( 1994). These LOS =racks are well within the City's minimum acceptable standards for signalized (LOS D) and unsignalized (LOS E) intersections. } r BELLEVUE $ PORTLAND SACRAMENTO I E 1 F i Mark Roberts September 28, 1994 Tigard Albertsons Page 2 i The additional 2 percent growth in background traffic from year 1994 to year 1995 is insignificant when compared against daily fluctuations in p.m. peak hour volumes ranging from _ 5 to 10 percent, hone the less, the additional 2 percent increase would not effect the LOS grade J of any intersection in the study area. t Therefore, it is concluded that the condition represented in the December 1993 Traffic Impact Analysis Report on the Tigard Albertsons adequately reports conditions at the time of full ` buildout and occupancy and indicates the adequacy of the transportation system to facilitate this development. 1 Should you have additional questions regarding this analysis which I may be able to address, please call me at 228-5230. Thank you for this opportunity to respond to your concerns. Sincerely, { j ekA.andehey, P.E. Traffic Engineer t H:U'Rv.FILEU 05(y,')40928NIR.LTR i I I J i j { i E Musii Perkowitz Muth A• a°.•:a;tva s:meaaoa;. Co•p Ach;e;tu•e i Nino-, September 29, 1994 Mr. Mark Roberts Assistant Planer City of Tigard Law' and M. Lapals: reoce Elusil, AIA 13125 S. W. Hall Blvd. Simon Perkovrtz. AIA. PE k Tigard, OR 97223 Steven J. Rush. A!A Associates : Environmental Noise Study Theod: Cfe AlbeAsons Grocery Stove KennethP.band,- Brznko Prebz^tle ~ Walnut and Scholls Ferry Kenneth W. Shouse E Tigard, OR. Ted T. Yoshiza+! Dear Mr. Roberts: i This letter is provided as an attachment to the Environmental Noise Study generated by Darr-Standlee and Associates (study dated 9/29194). It is Alberston's intent to design their refrigeration and air conditioning systems to utilize the quieter evaporative condenser units. This design will mean quieter store operation and no roof mounted condenser units. If you have any questions regarding this project or our design intent, please contact me. Sincerely, .P?PRhitects Norman L. Sh n F Project Manage cc: Jim Moore - Albertsons Don Duncombe - Albertsons John Shonkwiler File r C' 1 KENGINEERS : September 29, 1994 Daly Standlee & Associates, Inc. j 4400 SW Gr4tnn V++ve i SjOe 216 Beovenon 0,e©on 47005 j (503) 646 4420 Idtustl Perkowitz Ruth Fa. (5031 640 3385 9150 SW Pioneer Court, Suite T { Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 Attn: Mr. Norman Schoen, Architect { Re: Albertson's Grocery Store on Walnut Street, Tigard, Oregon File: 295941 Environmental Noise Study ' At your request, Daly-Standlee & Associates, Inc. conducted) a study to determine the environmental noise that would be generated by the Albertson Grocery Store proposed at the 4 intersection of SW Walnut Street and SW Scholls Ferry Road in Tigard, Oregon. Additionally, i we determined if the noise radiating frorn the new store would meet or exceed the Oregon Department of, Environmental Quality- noise. regulations per the . request of the City of Tigard Planning Department. This letter is intended to document the findings of the study. l In conducting the environmental noise study, four noise sources were addressed that will be associated with the new store. The sources were: 1) refrigeration and HVAC condenser units proposed for the store, 2) a compactor unit proposed to be located at the rear of the store, 3) trailer mounted refrigeration equipment that will be present at times at the store loading dock F and 4) customer vehicle traffic that will enter and leave the parking lot of the store. 'The noise that will radiate from the refrigeration and HVAC condensers, the compactor and the trailer mounted refrigeration equipment was predicted using a computer program called "Noisecalc". Noisecalc is a noise modeling program developed in 1985 by Mr. Daniel Driscoll while he was a employed with the New York State Department of Public Service to assist in the prediction of sound transmission in the environment. The program has the ability to include sound attenuation j by the atmosphere and by the terrain. Traffic generated noise was predicted using a highway noise model based on the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) model for predicting traffic s 1 noise. An anal%sis was conducted for the sound that would radiate from two different types of condenser units. First an analysis was conducted assuming the condensers were air cooled condensers located near the center of roof along the south wall. Second an analysis was conducted assuming a single evaporative condenser was located on the mezzanine level inside ' the store and the air from the condenser exhausted out the roof near the south wall. The results of the analysis showed the noise radiating from the roof mounted air cooled condensers would be approximately 57 dBA at the nearest residence east of the store and approximately 57 dBA at the nearest residence south of the store, The noise level radiating from the evaporative condenser unit was predicted to be 40 dBA at the nearest residence east of the store with the t condenser fan operating at high speed and 32 dBA with the fa.7 operating at low speed. At the nearest residence south of the store, the sound level from the evaporative condenser was f a5'-' -,let i k Albertson Grocery Store Noise Study i September 29, 1994 predicted to be approximately 35 dBA with the fan operating at high speed and 27 dBA with the fan operating at low speed. The noise radiating from the compactor unit was predicted to be 39 dBA at the nearest residence east of the store and 35 dBA at the nearest residence south of the store. The noise radiating from the trailer mounted refrigeration equipment was predicted to be approximately 37 dBA.at the nearest residence east of the store and approximately 49 dBA at the nearest residence south " of the store. The proposed store will be located on a previously unused commercial site. The DEQ noise regulations require that the new store on a previously unused site not produce noise that exceeds ! the maximum allowable hourly statistical sound levels for commercial and industrial noise sources nor increases the existing hourly 1.10 or L50 noise levels at any noise sensitive receiver by more than 10 dBA. The hourly L10 and L50 noise levels are defined as that level equalled or exceeded 10% and 50% of an hour respectively. To assist in evaluating the noise levels of the equipment at the proposed store, sound r measurements were-made in the vicinity. of the nearest home located east of the proposed store site and the nearest home located south of the store site. The sound measurements were made between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m. and between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. the morning of September 23, - 1994. The Z a.m. to 3 a.m. measurements were made to provide a baseline set of data for late night and early morning noise at the store. The 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. measurements were made to provide a baseline set of data for general day time and early evening hours. Note was made during the sound measurement periods that the existing noise in the vicinity of ; ill the residences was a result mainly of traffic on Old Scholls Ferry Road (to the north of the site) during late night hours. During daytime hours, the noise was mainly a result of traffic on Scholls Ferry Road, construction equipment located at a new housing development east of the store site and quarry activity at Progress Quarry. r i 1 r F 'r i i i 195941-l .let 2 . i Albertson Grocery Store Noise Study September 29, 1994 'The results of the sound measurements indicated the existing hourly L10 and L50 sound levels in the area of the residences are: . Existing Noise Levels Measurement "Daytime" (lam - "Nighttime" 1,10pm - "Latenight" (lam - 5 Location lOpm) Hourly lam & Sam - lam) am) Hourly Statistical Statistical Sound Hourly Statistical Sound Level (dBA)# Level (dBA)* Sound Level WBA) + L10 L50 L10 L50 L10 L50 G Bast 52 45 45 39 38 33 Residences 4 South 47 44 48 39 39 34 Residences E Based on sound levels measured between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on September 23, 1994. + Based on sound levels measured between 1 a.m. and 2 a.m. or, September 23, 1994. E AN Based on sound levels measured between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. on September 23, 1994. t i - In evaluating the noise that will radiate from the proposed Albertson store site, we have to consider the times when the noise sources will be radiating noise. Albertson's mechanical C engineering firm (McKellip Engineering, P.A.) said that if the air cooled condensers were used at the store, the refrigeration condenser fans would operate continuously all hours of the day and the HVAC condensers would most likely operate more than 30 minutes of each hour of the day. Therefore, the noise from the air cooled condensers would always be present. If the evaporative condenser was used, the fan on the condenser would operate continuously throughout the day but the fan would be a two speed fan and during late night hours, the fan would most likely f operate at low speed. According to information you supplied, the compactor would be used approximately 40 times throughout the day. Each time the compactor is used, noise will radiate from the store for only a couple of minutes. You indicated trucks could be present at the loading dock between 5:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. You said there would be approximately 10 trucks per week with trailer mounted refrigeration equipment at the store. Typically, the trucks would be present at the store for 30 minutes to 45 minutes at a time. f, For the worst "latenight" noise hour (1 a.m. to 5 a.m.), we assumed the store refrigeration and HVAC condensers and the compactor would be radiating noise from the store. For the worst "nighttime" noise hours (10 p.m. to 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. to 7 a.m.) we assumed the refrigeration and HVAC condensers, the compactor and the trailer mounted refrigeration equipment would be radiating noise from the store (actually the trucks are only expected during the 5:30 a.m. to 7 a.m. pant of the "nighttime" period). For the worst "daytime" noise hour, the assumed the f` 195941-1.1et 3 Albertson Grocery Store Noise Study September 29, 1994 j - store refrigeration and HVAC condensers, the compactor and a trailer recounted refrigeration E equipment would radiate noise from the store. { The results of the analysis shows that during the "latenight" time period, the DEQ allowable noise levels will be exceeded at residences east and south of the store if the roof mounted air cooled condensers are used at the store. However, if the evaporative condenser system is used at the store, the DEQ noise regulations will be met during the "latenight" time period. During the "nighttime" time period, the DEQ noise regulations will be exceeded at the east and south residences if the roof mounted air cooled condensers are used at the store. If the evaporative condenser is used instead of the air cooled condensers, the DEQ noise regulations will be met at both the east and south residences. During the daytime hours, the DEQ noise regulations will be exceeded if the roof mounted air cooled condensers are used at the store. If the evaporative , condensers are used, the DEQ noise regulations will be met. Traffic noise was considered separately from the noise radiating from the store because generally r 3 the noise caused by traffic will affect residences along the major roads in the area and the store equipment will affect only those residences near the store. The analysis results showed that the j traffic generated by the shopping center will cause an increase in the peak traffic hour sound- levels by approximately I dBA at residences along Scholls Ferry Road and there will be virtually no change at residences along Walnut Street. Along Northview Drive there will also be no I change in the peak traffic hour sound levels. During off-peak daytime traffic hours we expect a 2 dBA increase in the hourly noise levels on Scholls Ferry Road. On Northview Drive and - Walnut Street, we expect a 3 dBA increase in the off-peak daytime noise levels. In all cases, the increase in traffic noise will be well within the 10 dBA allowed by the DEQ noise regulations. In summary, if an evaporative condenser instead of roof mounted air cooled condensers is used for refrigeration and 1-IVAC equipment at the store, the noise radiating from the new Albertson's store will meet all DEQ noise regulations. 'The fact the site will be graded to allow the store ~ to beset into the hillside helps control noise radiating from sources such as the compactor, the loading dock and traffic in the parking lot. s I hope this information will help you in developing the Albertson's site. If you have any questions concerning the information, please feel free to call. i Sincerely, Daly-Standlee & associates, Inc. 9 `yf~(~~ lid E i CA K 'e G. Standlee, P.E. i l 195941-I.let 4 3 9 ~ f f Tam-_ i J 1 I I 1 •t r \ t 37Y+$3 /~9 ~ffi1Sftl ` I i I sue. / r wvm / I _ I I ~1 _ sV ww _ - i Musil erkowitzRuth A, a•cnnectura` P,yss,ona! Goa ° architecture 1 Planning September 29, 1994 f Mr. Mark Roberts Assistant Planner City of Tigard i 13125 SW Fall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Ni LaHrence A IA Simon Ferk0A tz. AA. PE RR: Security Lighting Flan Sieve,- J. Rj;•. AIA Albeh tsons Grocery Store Walnut and Scholls Ferry Tigard, OR Kerns', P G. - t 6~a•e; Pre a _ Kenney.; Dear Mr. Roberts: Ted T. Yos' za a y Please find enclosed the lighting plan for the above project. A detail of the site light fixture has been provided too. The lighting plan is designed to provide a safe level of lighting on site while not impacting the adjoining residential areas. This is accomplished by using a low mounted (25'-0") fixture. The lighting pattern (highlighted in yellow) shows a safe level of lighting up to the property line. This site provides the following light levels: 1. A minin,urn 2-foot candles maintained at grade level for all vehicle and pedestrian ; entrances on site, at on-site vehicle intersections and at Albertson store entrances. y' 2. A minimum I-foot candle maintained at grade level. These light levels are safe and could be called an "industry standard". If there are any questions regarding the above please contact me. Sincerely, qP chit is L. h n h~tanager cc: Jim Moore - Alberstons Don Duncombe - Albertsons John Shonkwiler Fite G: 'e 1 ' - I 1 STRAIGHT SQUARE STEEL POLES- ER I ES PSSS ~ Max Max 9~~ - Nominal Pole Pole Bolt Ancharage i Wt EPA unting Shaft Size Shalt Circle Size. 'v at{t ~+Q CATALOG NUMBER MoI 31 FYI (IN) Gua9e UN) (lNl {LB) i54 Ft) (1-6! PSSS4 t 10 4 11 9.0 '4 x 24 400 26.5 94 f PSSS412-1t V) V 1 12 4 15 9.0 Y. x 24 400 20.8 108 PS5S414.11f`it•') 14 4 it 9.0 % x 24 400 16.5 121 PSSS416.11 trfi 4 11 9.0 '4 x 24 400 13.1 734 PSSS418.11 VI 1") 16 4 11 9.0 is x 24 400 10.3 148 i 4 •11 9.0 ---j 7x 24 400 6A 161 Psss4zo•11 V) t••1 ao ( P$SS422-11 t'1 22 d 11 9.0 1: x 24 400 7.4 174 i PSS5424.11 l'! 24 d 11 9.0 'V . x'14 400 6.1 187 PSSS426-11 V I ("1 ~26 d y t 1t 1 9.0 f: x 24 400 4.8 200 PSSS 4 I r l 9.0 V x 2d 400 13.7 Z29 70 42o•7 1'1 1' _ E PSS5422.7 ('i 22 c 7 {t 90 x 24 c00 t00 2<5 ` PSSS424-7 V) c i 7 I s.o V. x 24 400 6.8 270 I f ("1 24 1 PSSS426.7 26 c r 9.0 Y. x 2< 400 6.6 5r 1 r, 24 450 I tE.t PSSS5 76-7 t6 7 11 - 1 . - --1i 3.1 3G 450 I 1j,2 I PSS5516.7 I•) i°_I is PSSS52G•7 (•11l I--- tf J . 30 c50 P55552?-7 V) l" 1 ( - 7 ; 1 t b i a 30 1 450 t ? C 25: - ~ 711.51 s:.30 1 4=0 I It 0 3tE 1 P5555?<71'11"i 24 i PS55526 7 t* 1 V- 7 I 1 20 - 11 51 1 s 3G cG 3.' _ !.-.rr_ k.. 4(.1 PS5552E 71'11"! 213 7 11 5+ t > 3C PSS553074.1(••)-- 30 - 7LSA 7a3C 3•:_J L PS55535 7 ( ; 1 1 3. - 11.5 t i C i i its tr3G i On 1 15000 Gam' II PSSS639-3 Ci 1"1 1 450 ,c Et( PSSSF<C'•3.t•1!..! ( c0 , 3 l 3GJ- ----1 (DBE) For Dart. Btcti:e 1'0'•: 4. ('I FINISH urethane;(BLE! For Se i GIt s_ t. act, i olt.nethene: (P) For -Prime time h, (G) For Galsa•` ized. I TENON (2) For 2 318•' 0 D . (3i f a 2 7r8•• O.D : (3.5) For 31;:" &D (4) f o: 4" 0. D. BC Base Cover SPECIFICATIONS r. I AICCHOft 1301-15 Cno1 / rar• u 190111 a COn.me:c,., ho-. j rStec! 1).-.? 1t'.L, r•..,.. 8: r .::r,o :1 lair, sttt•neth C.' S': 0:17 py, F1•.. p•1, Ci perly S17l'[i anGhO' 1)ulr15. ('.•C!. y1 ...4:- •l1. tl',0 111111:::1 he? 11111` 0111 t•.aSI ~:t ' i fur voshcd_::r.r! chll,dr, , - n' r • v.15r cftcclfn•r1 A.nr!•r,i hGtt; t;n1::1!;t.,. i. { ~ sh;•!! hr galv:1n17eu u1 n.'t d "1 i!,:i ( ANCHOR BASE. lttr ..nt l.• •.:hnt .a,d No- r, simclo,ol tp,ailty hot tullr•tl { Carbon steel plate that mir- tt t ,>11r+!y n~rtullenn y,vlt! s11-e•xtlh of 31ij)00 ps, 111, k- anchor base telescopes the pule shalt and is ettcumlcrenlialiy welded lop and bottom r i t POLE SHAFT The pole shar•1 ts'one piece construction, being fabricated from a weld- able grade carbon steel structural tubing which has a uniform wall thickness of .120" (1 •i ga.l. .188" (7 ga.), or .250" Q qa ) The pole shaft material shall conform to ASTM A•500 Grade 6 with a minimum yield strength of 46,000 psi or. when noted. TT-70 wilt, ;r a minimum yield strength of 70.000 psi Tile pole shalt has a lull length longitudinal resistance weld and as uniformly square 111 cross-section with flat sides, small corner radii and excellent torstona! propcrtlcs 7 HANDHOLL A-rectatlotoly rcndoteed handflole, havrllq a nornmal 2••x5•• inside ` t opcn+ng and located V above the past, is standard on all poles unless other wise Specified D5 i.. ®~7 LIGHTING SYSTEMS, INC. Da r i i - - - - i L": ' ; ~ '-SC OLLS` FERRY =RO.AD ' W. H _ _ SIGN ~ APaEC ~F9AN_ rY - - ~ j ~ r • ° _ . ; .I ` 1, _ is ~C FtH i . - iFEE LLRdP FRQ1CaR:OM,D t0 ~ - ~ • • • ht` r+R4TeRavcM - ~ Pl,~W ~'bLEF ~ ~ I`'CE ~ - f311MwD'0'BTd109 D 0 DO NOL PENETRATE ROOT BdLL ~ \ • IIR^16LdKEA DRIVE 3'MW I .A,A, I rr TREE TIES ~ - ~ G G ~ ~ ' - IaErorE eURLAF! dV0 w+'+E FRG •A N Tor u4 a BALL aPreR BraKPn ~ PAD BLDG REncve au wWE awawD BaEe _ ' L a TICEE TIe3xTD THE PIpT Bcwcu, 0 4,IXI0 ff .8 R.~ROOT edu aTTararuLCU g( o nicM clRUe WATER I>ruW r arPrmx. Shrub Planting Detail ' DEFTN MW 34' Dld, BdRK I•WLDN GIFKLE • ~ • • ~ ~ i•~ I W Tlra aREaB. _ I TvPICAL r I ~ W i I 90IL nw BdCKPWL m srecniED. oW kbT r W xARrr waLLS dND aoTTan cr n u B RdNTRY PIT. C ~ -2 ta~'f~M SLG~~~ 3~ ' C` S.~O BF o ° 1 ~KEpk2gtG ~"ACIBPIU.• q K 2dao SF 1 4. IXDId. cs (L,♦;~ 6FEC'S1 .1•A' 3 /n ROOT BELL ~ I V 1 m~~' { A I TRBB PLANTINCa DETAIL - Groundwver Planting Detail - - ;M~, He ~ NiE NjG1 ~ ~ / 1{~ ""N ~ p ° i I 1 \ J M1r,~,4` H,' I .YNw 1 # ~ J I ~~ivNF Q GUY ALL CONIFERS VEING ~ ALBERTSONS \ ° EQUAL NATERIALS. ;Vwef 40,CW ~ ~ REMOVE BUflLAP b TWINE FRON_TOP OF BAIL AFTER SLAKWG, i MULCH CRCLE WATER BASIN I/ o ) 1"1/Y MW. DEPTH. '~Y'22 v II/~ MIN. 2f WIOE BARK MULCH j°Wn \ J PAD BLDG CIRCLE W iGRF APEAG. ,2'i (~i \ 4~~ EF BACNFEL SOIL MRTUflE= 'W'-~'A' ~ ~,yk5 ( ° ~ 1 1 1 " ' ' F'cRThLIEER AS GPcCGI_0. ~~,Af' j 5 _ - iii n SCARIFY WALLS AND BOTTOM1I 4 / 1~ / OF PLANTING PIT. W'.WnrrF I`"/ o , 3• a 1 Tt s DIA.OF fl00i 9 Nw~ ~'^'^k I ~ . > c VEGETATNE acPE Conifer Planting Detail NTS z, 'i n"~'':~ \ ~ FZ I PEDESTRdN PL4NTWG 'HIT*AF • s"w",d i P y,~r ❑ ACCESS - PAMq W v^`3 - .w E • ~ ~Awt I ~ PECESTRAN ~ o = . R 0 "'"'`.~uK , ; \ 1 PLANT LEGEND F VII T~FF.ESI SUGGEST~D PLANT LIST 1 OTY COOE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE NOTES ~ " ` STiEET TPSE HONEY LOCUST O ACCENT TFEE :CHERRY, DOGWQ"9 Q AND RLM TREES i AC ACER CPCE4ATUM NNE MARE T-d' d CANE MN 8 6 B ~ TAE SNA LiS AND (ZYILNpCOVEq AF8 ACER PALMIATUM ELCCCGCOD' BLOOOGOCO JMANESE PMPLE 8'-10 B 8 B .nv,~ DOLCIAS Poi & CEDAA AEO ACER RATANDl7ES EMEPALD OLEEN EMEPALD WEEN MdRE 3' CAL B B B AFW ACER FUBRUM 'AFiMSTRChG' AFMSTFgN Cq.UMNAR MAPLE 7 GAL B & B FC.C PYRUS CALLCRYANA CHANTICLEER CWIMCIFER PEAR 7 ~L R & B / PWRGMG TFEE HONEY LUCLST _ PM PEElAOTSLG4 MENZESr COUGIAB Fq B B & B a PSV FflIANLG SERR.AATA 'SHgOTAE' MT. FLN RCWERNG CHERRY 7 CAL 8 6 B Cq CUEFCUS R1BRA FED CAN 7 CAL 8 8 B / o~ SPECMLW TFFE : RCWERNG FFAfl i $tiRUBS AT AZALEA TPAGTgN TPAORCN RN% 19'-18' BT BEFIgEF,PoS THUNBERGo acLSv GLOM ROSY GLUY JAPANESE BAFE.EPA1• 2 GAL / CP COTONCASTEALATA CCMPACTA' PCCMPACT WNGEDSTELCNYMOUS U'~18' EA ELCNYM❑!S A PROJECT FOR A COMMERCIAL PROJECT AT IOC C.EX CRENATA COMPACTA' JAPANESE HCt1Y 2 GAL CG ILEX CfENWTA GREEN GLAPC' JAPANESE HgJ.Y 2 GAL Ncc NANDNU ~MEBTICA T•.aMPACrA• COMIoACT FEAVEnwv eAMeoo z GAL ~ S.W. SCHOLLS FERRY RD. AND S.W. WALNUT ST. PJF PIERS ,13~A 'FLAME' FIAME RERB 2 GAL PLZ PRUNA.S LAUPACERACL6 CT70 LUYNEN OTTO LUYKEIJ LALPEL 79'-24' B & B FELD CR7rYN ONLY FMP RNUS MlAaH7 PUMhLO DNAFK MLGFq PINE 6'-IB' B 6 B g~o~ RA,d ACOCOENDRON'JEAN MORE' RHCCOCENORCN 21'-24' Ru RiCOCCENCgON UMDJE Po.gDODENOACN 2r-24~ T I G A R D C~ROUNOCOVER PA~C~TI:A ~w' EF FUCNYNCUB FCRTLNEI SILVER QUEEN SLVER DUEEN ETLCNYHCUB ~ C~,4L 1B' OG ~ HC FYPEFICUM CALYCWUM ST. JOHNS WCq ~.y~D~.~D~~~ I' O R E G O N Ha HECEPAL FELDf 'GLACER GLACIER M! 4' FOTS 19' GG - tcw/.~D:rL2cv'T SHH SAFCLCCCG4 HOONERAN4 HJMLS SARDCCOCCA I GAL 8'OG F77: (208)385"6412 30. 0 30 fi0 , .n dlchgwlWtl ® N PrDIaMmPI CDryoreUCn Nh~il Pt~l~mz Ruth . eou ti.0.IYT - Archllaclura r,r o FRJI Planning m~'~ - ' I 73n2a.p,nd°Il~.a ~ . Aan.>Ir Io@ - 08121196 , glllllll ll ll 111 l p I II IIII I I I I I~ p II I I I II I I IIAI~II ~ ~ '~y L.:! Il ul lip lfl~l~al IIflh IEI0111: . ih~ ~~III ° ~16'i ll(I~III~~I I~I~ I~ B~II d - L„ d .c - - . 3.a1< yr.'- ~ I s,u-::~. I na;~l, ,.~;...rA.wk r a- S - _ .S~ w, ETREETSCHOLLS FERPROJECT .ROAD ~ I TREES ,SIGN. - - ~ ~ PEDESTRIAN , _ _ - ~ LANDSCAPE • ~ ~ ~ FEATURE AN 4~ . TYPICAL scREE~NEE" PAD BLDG. 4,000 5F VEGETATVE SLOPE I PLANTING TYPIC I . I C IS A ONG W ATE HC I~ I B L~IC.PHIING W ~ 5,950 SF o ~L 2,400 SF v/ FUTURE GREEN SPAC A I 1,200 SF \ ACCESSIBLE C PATH 5' WIDE ~ ~ 1 HC z ~ J HC Q HC ALBERTSONS G 40,000 SF ~ ~ PAD BLDG. PLANT LEGEND o a,ooo sF ' PARKING TREE :HONEY LOCUST ' STREET TREE : RED OAK € 3 ~ / VEGETATIVE PLANTING `'•wY PEOESTRIAN SLOPE ~ ~ ACCESS -RAMP SPECIMAN TREE : FLOWERING PEAR \ n' V' I E PEDESTRIAN ACCENT TREE : CHERRY, DOGWOOD AND PLUM Q ~~-I ACCESS - O EVPICAR N I ERC EE O `''h, SCREEN [y~~ `\I • 1 CONIFER /SCREENING TREE : DOUGLAS FIR AN CEDAR '~w.+'' STREET ~ y~ \ ~,VI ' TREES V' J I l SHRUBS AND GROUNOCOVER sc wATMN RIVE A PROJECT FOR A COMMERCIAL PROJECT AT LAWN NG NOR EW D S.W. SCROLLS FERRY RD. AND S.W. WALNUT ST. e A D 250 PARKCENTER BLVD. 1 ~G R BOISE, IDAHO OREGON (208)385-6204.. Fax: (208)385-6442 30 ~ 0 30 60 , RK4~d _ N, _~Ilusil P~I~mzRuth Archihcturo ~~i,i a~YR4~T . i 'Plannlnq a'~T~ - - - mirw.rw~N"ne ..J wxlwn 'i ~ i-:. 08121!96 Ir-, II!{pl~ll Iliq II ! ~ I I I III ~ ~ I ~ I III, - - I ~ III ~I~tl III I I:. I~ .Y 1 . + APPLICANT'S PROPOSED FINAIM- GS E BEFORE THE P1JLNNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TIGARD t. Comprehensive Plan Amendment ) CPA 93-0009; Zone Change ZON 93-0003; ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS Site Development Review SDR 93-0014; ) AND ORDER Minor Land Partition MLP 93-0013 ) Albertson's Application } An application for a comprehensive plan amendment, zone change, site development review and minor land partition to allow a "Community Commercial" designation and a shopping center at the southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street in Tigard was reviewed at a public hearing duly noticed. and held at 7:30 p.m. on November 7, 1994, at a regular commission session at City Hall. At the session, persons desiring to speak were heard, written statements, evidence and objections were considered, and the commission made a. decision to recommend approval of all the applications to the City Council, in accordance with the following Findings, Conclusions and Order. 1. GENERAL INFORMATION AND FACTS E i A. Application i Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 98\3-0009 1 ; Zone Change ZON 98-0003 E Site Development Review SCR 93-0014 Minor Land Partition MLP 93-0013 A request for the following development approvals: 1} Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change to redesignate E approximately 8 acres of a 12-acre parcel from Medium- High Density Residential to Community Commercial and a Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to redesignate a 6.93-acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential. Zone changes accompanying the above plan changes includes a zone change from R-12(PD) and R-25(PD) (Residential, 12/25 units/acre, Planned Development) to C-C (Community Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25(PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development); 2) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 40,000 square foot Albertson's Grocery Store and three smaller tenant pads of 5,950, 2,400 and 1,200 square feet. The applicant has also proposed two 4,000 square foot retail pads. j 3) Minor Land Partition approval to divide an 11.95- acre parcel into two.parcels of approximately 8 acres and 1 ~ 4 i. f 3.95 acres each. r a j =J Appligant: Albertson's Inc. (Don Duncombe) 17001 NE San Rafael =i Portland, OR 97230 Agent: John Shonkwiier, P.C. Attornev at Law k 13425 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Owner: Margery Crist, et. al. Route 1, Box 792 i Beaverton, OR 97007 Location: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the E intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street. (WCTM 2S1 4BB, tax f lots 100 and 200). { Applicable Review Criteria: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, T 6.1.1, 6.4.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 4. 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, 8.4.1, 9.1.3, 12.1.1, 12.2, 12.2.1 and 12.2.4; and Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32, 18.56, 18.60, 18.61, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.114, { 18.120, 18.130, 18.162, and 18.164. t B. Backgroimd Information An area that included the subject property was annexed to the City of Tigard on June 12, 19983. In August, 1983, ` the City approved a variety of plan and zone designations d for the area, including Medium-High Density Residential (R-20, now R-25 zone), Medium Density Residential (R-12 + zone), and Neighborhood Commercial (C-N zone). 1 The City subsequently approved the relocation of the C-N designation in a number of locations in the vicinity between 1983 and 1986 (Case files CPA 18-83/AC 14-83, CPA 4-85/ZC 4-85, CPA 1-86/ZC 3-86). The current. C-N designation is located on Tax Lot 100 and comprises 6.93 acres. A complete summary of past City actions pertaining to the amendments to the size and location of the N-C designation is presented in the staff report for an earlier Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposed by 2 _ i AAl ' Albertson's for this property (Case File CPA 91-0003/ZCA j t 91-0006). A number of single-family and multi-family residential developments have been proposed for all or a portion of the subject property between 1986 and 1990 (Case Files SDR 4-86, S 87-04/V 87-04, S 87-07, SUB 90-04/ZON 90- 04/ZON 90-04/VAR 90-08). Development has recently ' occurred ~.aa d followi^ a g the approval Of Castle Hill Subdivision. In 1991, Albertson's applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change (CPA 91.-0003/ZCA 91-0006) to a establish an eight-acre commercial General (C-G) site on i Tax Lot 200. The request also involved the redesignation of the existing C-N site on Tax Lot 100 to Medium-High Residential (R-25). A final decision by the City Council E; has been stayed at the request of the applicant. f; Following this application, the City considered including a new Community Commercial zoning designation as part of p` the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code. 3 After a lengthy review, the City adopted the Community i Commercial designation in December, 1992. t On November 15, 1993, the Planning Commission recommended { that the City Council approve the application with the inclusion of conditions for an automobile access to driveway to SW Northview Drive, a pedestrian staircase to SW Northview Drive, conceptual building design details which are consistent with the grocery store design. The Planning Commission also recommended that an access plan _ for the approximate four-acre parcel south of the site and an improved interior parking lot pedestrian pathway system. { On January 25, 1994, the City Council remanded the application back to the Planning Commission due to concerns related to property owner notification, the findings within the staff report and the appropriateness of proposed development within the Community Commercial Zoning District. The applicant has made the following revisions to the proposal as a result of concerns raised at neighborhood meetings and issues raised by the City Council at the January 25, 1994, Public Hearing. - * The proposed commercial uses on the pads opposite to the Albertson's pad have been modified. The gas station and Shari's uses have been eliminated as prospective tenants. The pads are shown as 4,000 3 ' i F square-foot retail sites. A new brick wall has been proposed along portions of the proposed eight-acre parcel's property' frontage on SW Northview Drive. * The applicant has agreed not to develop the site t with tenants which would have 24-hour commercial operations due to potential impacts to adjoining i` =i residential areas. The applicant revised the site plan to provide a separate staircase from SW Northview Drive to the ,.1 grocery store buildings and separated pedestrian pathways for internal circulation between all buildings and through the center of the parking F` lot. The staircase entrance from SW Northview Drive has 1 been modified to include a series of 90-degree turns to obscure the staircase entrance. * The site has been posted with signs showing the, proposed site-development plan for the shopping center. _i * The applicant has also discussed dedication of the multi-family area south of the Albertson's site to the Castle Hill Neighborhood Association. * The applicant has provided Applicant's Additional Testimony and Evidence (dated January 14, 1994), a ' history of the application, a synopsis of the changes which have been made to the plan, a security -lighting plan, a noise study and conceptual plans for Albertson's store, the site t plan and the wall proposed along SW Northview - Drive. C. Vicinity Information Single-family residential development in the Castle Hill Subdivision lies to the east and south. To the northeast is the Cotswald Subdivision which is of a similar K character and density. A day school is on the west side of SW Scholls Ferry Road. A few large-lot single-family j residences also exist to the north, south and west of the subject area. A quarry operated by Morse Brothers Inc. is located to the southwest, across SW Scholls Ferry Road. t R-25(PD) zoning surrounds the parcel currently designated 4 i - i k j C-N. The area south of the proposed C-C designation is E ' zoned R-12(PD) and R-25(PD). The area across SW Scholls Ferry Road from this area is zoned by the City of Beaverton as R-2 (multi-family, 2,000 square feet lot area/unit). The average allowable density within a 1/2 mile radius of the site is approximately 15 units per F acre. i other commercial. sites within the general vicinity of the proposal include: f Murray Hill Shopping Center located approximately •'i 3/4 mile north on Murray Boulevard; is - Greenway Town Center Shopping Center located approximately 1-1/4 mile east on Scholls Ferry Road; - Washington Square located approximately 2-1/2 miles east; and - Several commercial centers along Pacific Highway, ;J including the Tigard Central Business District, located approximately two miles to the southeast. D. Site Information There are two properties involved in this application. Tax Lot 100 is 6.93 acres in size, zoned C-N and located j on the northeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and Walnut Street. This parcel is a vacant, grassy field with a relatively moderate grade. Tax Lot 200 is 11. 95 acres in size, zoned R-12 (PD) and R- 25 (PD) , and located on the southeast corner of SW Scholls s _ Ferry Road and Walnut Street. This property is also a C.. vacant, grassy field, -but it slopes significantly downward toward from the Castle Hill Subdivision to Scholls Ferry Road. E. Proposal Description -j The applicant has submitted a packet of materials which describe the various facts of the application. The applicant has also provided an update to the previous traffic studies conducted in August and December of 199?, a noise impact study and a security lighting plan has also been provided. j The application includes the following four separate f components: 5 l ° i - ! 1. CPA 93-0009 2. ZCA 93-0003 3 Change the C-N designation on Tax Lot 100 to R-25, and change the R-25(PD) designation for 8 acres of Tax Lot 200 to C-C, leaving the remaining land use designations on the property as they are (see Exhibit A). This change is proposed to be consistent with the requirements associated with the City's C-C designation and the obligations of t. the City to maintain an adequate inventory of multi-family residential land. 3. SDR 93-0014 f The applicant proposes to develop a shopping center with a total of 657.550 square feet of floor space. This space includes a 40,000 square-foot grocery store, 9,550 square feet of additional commercial space adjacent to the grocery store and two separate pad sites totalling 8,000 square feet (see Exhibit B). The applicant has provided preliminary site, grading, utility, and landscaping plans. Conceptual building elevations providing detail of proposed design features for the Albertson's have a also been provided. A 40,00 square-foot Albertson's Grocery Store and. 9,550 square feet of commercial space are proposed for the southern portion of the site. A truck access and loading area is proposed along the south side of the building. The southern and eastern portions of the site are proposed to be graded extensively and the south side of the main building would have a floor elevation that is 8 to 24 feet f` below the existing grade. A free-standing tenant pad site is proposed towards the southeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street, a second free-standing pad is intended for the southwest corner of SW Walnut Street and SW Northview Drive. The applicant has revised the application to indicate both pads are intended to be developed with retail or office r: uses. The applicant has withdrawn the conditional use permit portion of this application for a gas station and 24-hour service. In addition to the specific uses shown on the site G, plan and referred to in the applicant's statement, approval of other uses is requested. This is j i i because all tenants of the center have not been committed. It is also expected that tenants will change over time. The additional uses which may be ~ 1 located at the site and are permitted in the; C-C zone for which the applicant requests approval are: - Animal sales and services; f j - Consumer repair services; - Convenience sales and personal services; - Children's day care; - Eating and drinking facilities; - General retail sales (less than 10,000 square feet; F: - General offices (medical, dental, financial, g insurance, real estate, professional and administrative services); and F. ' - Indoor participant sports and recreation. E, -i Three driveways are proposed on SW Scholls Ferry Road and one driveway is shown on SW Walnut Street., Internal sidewalks are shown immediately adjacent ` to the commercial buildings. Sidewalks link the j two pad sites with the public sidewalks on the F i perimeter of the project, a sidewalk and staircase connections are proposed between the grocery sore and SW Northview Drive. An internal sidewalk traverses the parking lot generally north-south. ` 4. MLP 93-0013 i 'j The applicant wishes to create a separate 8-acre parcel for -the shopping center. The other 3.95- acre parcel is intended for future residential development. The applicant has also discussed the option of dedicating this parcel to the Castle Hill Homeowners Association. This parcel will have R-12(PD) and R-25(PD) zoning designations (see Exhibit A). T3. ANALYSIS The applicants have presented a report entitled Albertson's Inc Application for Site Development Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendments for Community Commercial (hereafter referred to as the applicant's statement) that addresses the Statewide Planning Goals, the Tigard f Comprehensive Plan policies, and the Community Development Code provisions that are applicable to the request. The applicant has also submitted Applicant's Additional Testimony and Evidence (dated January 14, 1994), a,traffic study and supplement prepared by Kittelson and Associates, Inc., in i support of the application. i a I ` Applicable Review Criteria: E Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14; E 3 Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, p`. 6.4.1, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, 8.4.1, 9.1.3, 12.1.1, 12.2, and 12.2.1 and 12.2.4; and r Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32, 18.56, 18.60, 18.61, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, t 18.130, 18.162, and 18.164. # ! A. Statewide Planning Goals and Related Plan Policies ! The Planning Division concludes that the proposal complies with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Comprehensive Plan policies based upon the following findings: 1. Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement) and Policy 2.1.1 are F satisfied because the City has adopted a citizen involvement program including review of all land use and development applications by nearby property owners and residents. The original application was filed July 11, 1991. That application was reviewed by the Planning J - Commission and ultimately tabled by the City Council pending the review and adoption of a new j "Community Commercial,, zone and plan amendment. E After notices provided, the applicant held public 5 meetings with then active NPO-7 on January 6, 1993. Thereafter, the applicant met with the neighbors on July 30, 1993, in accordance with the City's new code provisions. Since the application was re- filed on August 14, 1993, notices have been provided for and a Planning Commission hearing was held on November 15, 1993. On January 3, 1994, the L # newly-formed CIT West held a public meeting to review the applicant's proposals. Thereafter, notice was provided for and a City Council public hearing was held on January 25, 1994, resulting in a remand to the Planning commission for a further consideration. Notice covering an area twice the size required by the code was provided by the applicant for the - neighborhood meeting which was conducted August 4, 1994. Notice is also provided of public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. At each public hearing the opportunity will be provided public input concerning this proposal. r 8 i f 4 Policy 2.1.3 is satisfied because information regarding the new C-C designation was explained to i` 9 the public at numerous public forums. In addition, notices and information about this proposal have been provided so that the basic planning issues are understood by the public. Comments received have f been included in the staff report and applicant's statement. In addition, all public notice requirements related to this application have been i satisfied. 2. Goal 2 (Land Use Planning), Policy 1.1.1, and the ' 1 quasi-judicial plan and zone change approval standards of Code Section 18.22.040 are satisfied because the City has applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals through the City's: i acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and Community i Development Code requirements to the review of this a proposal, as described in this report. The City of Tigard has notified other affected units of 1 government including the City of Beaverton, Washington County, the Oregon Department of ! Transportation, and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development of the proposal. ? Service and utility providing agencies have also been notified of the proposal. The City adopted the new "Community Commercial" plan and zoning amendments in December of 1992 in t i recognition that the City has a need for mid-range commercial centers focused in residential ,I neighborhood areas. Presently, there are no areas within the city that are actually zoned "Community r Commercial" to satisfy this need. The 1/2-mile radius neighborhood which includes the subject property consists of approximately 14,300 people and is projected to increase to 19,200 people by 1995. There are no existing or designated commercial facilities in this area to serve this large of a trade area. A neighborhood commercial (C-N) is currently located at Walnut and Scholls Ferry Road, but the C-N district can only serve a maximum of 5,000 people in a one-half mile radius area. A general commercial district includes location criteria and perm'tted uses that I would make it inappropriate for a residential neighborhood. There are four potential sites that were identified y in the City Planning staff's inventory that satisfy all the location criteria for siting of a C-C zone. r 1 9 i i f i The applicant's site is the prime site located generally in the center of the four sites. The - applicant's site is one of only two sites that are actually inside the City to serve immediate City j needs for C-C zoning functions. The applicant's site also possesses the highest planning and built- out densities within 1/2 mile of all sites. As all other potential sites are either 50% or 20% less in planned density that the Application site, the applicant's site best satisfies the location and trade area density requirements of C-C zoning. k Centering the location takes best advantage of encouraging pedestrian and bicycle or transportation alternatives, and diminishes the need for cross-town or cross-area automobile traffic to and from the shopping center. Finally, the other two sites (at Sunrise Lane and the intersection of old and new Scholls Ferry Roads) are outside the City and cannot readily " provide immediate C-C functions for the City. The fourth site at 135th and Scholls Ferry has severe development restrictions due to existing wetlands. 1 Policy 1.1.2 requires that the Comprehensive Plan and each of its elements shall be opened for review by the Metropolitan Service District or its successor on an annual basis, and may be amended or revised. Implementation Strategy 2 of this policy requires that the City review Quasi-Judicial Amendments in accordance with the standards set '.j forth in the Chapter 18.22 of the Community Development Code. These standards have been reviewed within the applicant's statement. I. 3. Goal 6 (Air/Water Quality) is satisfied because that proposed C-C zone and the surrounding residential properties will result in fewer and shorter automobile trips to obtain commercial goods and services. The proposed center, as designed and conditioned, will provide for ease of access to the surrounding neighborhoods. This in turn will help satisfy Policy 4.1.1.by reducing potential air quality impacts from the new residents and their automobiles. The proposed plan places the C-C zone. within a highly dense planned residential area (15 units per acre) to enhance the opportunity for walking or bicycling to and from the proposed shopping center. Walkways, bicycling pathways, a ramp and a staircE.se are provided to these neighboring _ i 10 ~ F C residential densities. Also, Policy 4.2.1 will be satisfied through the development review and building permit processes at . which time a development proposal for this site must be shown to comply with applicable federal, state, and regional water quality requirements { including preparation and implementation of a non- Point source pollution control plan in compliance f with the Oregon Environmental QualiLy Commission's temporary rules for the Tualatin River Basin. Applicant's submittals relating to these requirements establish the feasibility of the applicant's ultimate compliance. The proposed redesignation would not by itself affect compliance with this plan policy. 4. Policy 4.3.1 and related TMC Sections 7.40.130-210 have been satisfied as demonstrated by a noise study which identified, evaluated, and mitigated noise impacts as required by the conditions of t + approval. If approved, this policy will be further implemented through the building permit plan check ` process in which landscaping and proposed site improvements will be reviewed to minimize noise a impacts on neighboring land uses. 5. Goal 9 (Economy of the State) is satisfied because the proposed redesignation would increase the City's inventory of developable commercial land, thereby increasing employment opportunities in the City. The proposal is consistent with Policy 5.4 because the proposed C-C designation will maintain a compatible relationship with nearby residential properties as required by the Community Development Code standards. In addition, the site is i physically separated from residential uses by streets on three sides of the property and a steep slope to the south. i t a A commercial service center of modest size has been i contemplated for this area since the 1983 adoption of the Bull Mountain Community Plan. The proposed C-C designation will replace the C-N designation and therefore, no encroachment into a residential area will result. 1 6. Goal 10 (Housing) as well as Policy 6.1.1 are satisfied because the proposal will result in a loss Of 1.07 acres of R-25 land and a net 11 r r r 1 t { 'j residential opportunity of 26 units. The City's f inventory shows that presently there are 1,305 acres of developable residential land with a total potential of 13,478 dwelling units. This yields an average allowable density of 10.328 units per acre. The Housing Rule has a minimum requirement of 10 unit per acre. This change will have a minimal E { impact that results in 1,304 developable acres, 13, 452 potential units, and an average possible density of 10.315 units per acre. As a result, this change by itself has an insignificant impact on the City's ability to comply with the t _ Metropolitan Housing Rule and multi-family density i availability. F 'a The average potential density of the undeveloped residential land in the City has historically t varied as land was developed and as Comprehensive i' ' Plan Amendments were approved. This represents a reduction in the amount of developable residential land in the City of only 0.070. ; . Policy 6.4.1 requires that the City designate developing areas which are not designated as established areas on the Comprehensive Plan Map and encourages flexible efficient development within ! these areas. This area is currently a developing area. The applicant is requesting Comprehensive Plan and Zoning changes which allow greater k flexibility in developing commercial uses to provide more type of goods and services than the present Neighborhood Commercial designation on the adjoining corner would permit. This change is expected to reduce impacts to the transportation system by reducing the length of travel required by residents to access other area grocery and E' commercial shopping centers. ' r Policy 6.6.1 can be satisfied because the proposed design and related conditions of approval are intended to provide excellent buffering and visual ! separation between the center and nearby residential neighborhoods. As noted in this report, specific landscaping noise mitigation -j measures must be provided to ensure that this policy and related Code and TMC provisions are met. i 7. Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services) and Policies 7.1.12, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2 and 7.5.1, are satisfied because adequate public service and educational capacities are available to serve future development of this site, under either the 'i 12 r 1 i_ j i ~r existing or proposed Plan and zoning designations. Extension of necessary public facilities to serve j - the site are the responsibility of the developer, at the time of site development. The City of Tigard notifies applicable public and private utility providers of pending development € applications. No adverse comments were received F -z from service providers with respect to the current r. application. j y 8. Goal 12 (Transportation), the transportation rule 4 j (OAR 660, Div. 12), and Policy 8.1.1 are satisfied ( because the proposed redesignation would not be expected to result in unsuitable or unsafe levels of traffic on SW Walnut Street" or Scholls Ferry Road. Although commercial development of this site t might be expected to result in some increase in total traffic on these roads adjacent to the site as compared to what would be expected under the current designations, the impact on the city-wide or regional transportation systems should be E beneficial through providing commercial opportunities closer to adjoining residential areas than is currently available. Therefore, a net reduction in total system traffic is anticipated and supported by the traffic studies. Policy 8.1.3 will be satisfied as a condition of development approval under either the existing or proposed plan and zoning designations. Completion of necessary street improvements along the site's frontages will be required to be installed by the developer at the time of development. The Engineering Division and Washington County will review final development plans for the site with regard to necessary road improvements adjacent to the site and on other affected roadways. 1 1 Policy 8.1.2 calls for the City to provide for safe a and efficient management of the transportation planning process within the City and the metropolitan area through cooperation with other federal, state, regional and local jurisdictions. The City has provided copies of the application to other affect agencies for review and comment. i Policy 8.2.2 calls for placing intensive land uses, such as commercial and multi-family, in locations that can be served by transit. Though Tri-Met service does not presently serve the immediate r' area, an extension of service along SW Scholls Ferry Road appears very likely. Adequate bus stop " 13 i f. 1 r a locations can be accommodated within the right-of- G, way of the Scholls Ferry Road proposed twin lanes - near Walnut Street as identified by the applicant. r Policy 5.4.1 states that the City shall locate ! bicycle and pedestrian corridors in a manner which 1 provides for pedestrian and bicycle users, safe and convenient movement in all parts of the City, by I developing the pathway system shown on the adopted pedestrian/.bikeway plan. The site does not adjoin k= a designated pedestrian/bikeway corridor area. The development proposes to provide sidewalks for each property frontage. Adequate alternative modes of transportation are provided for in the site plan and addressed in the traffic studies. Access' analysis is set forth in the traffic report and Washington County responses establishing feasibility. The proposed sidewalks, pathways,_ ramps and staircases link the site with surrounding residential designations (Castle Hill to the east, F multi-family to the north and south, and ' residential to the west) which include the focus i ' points of pedestrian and bicycle activity at ' j North-view Drive and Walnut Street intersection,' Walnut Street and Scholls Ferry Road intersection., Northview Drive and Stardust intersection and along r Scholls Ferry Road from the south. Access and developable capability of the 3.95-acre multi- family parcel to the south is identified in Applicant's Additional Testimony and Evidence and Exhibit "J" thereto. 9. Goal 13 (Energy Conservation) and Policies 9.1.3 which encourage energy conservation through design and construction. Because of the sites location and ability to provide greater numbers of services, ,i an expected reduction in the number and length of ! i, automobile trips to existing commercial areas, the amount of energy consumed by area residents to commercial services is expected to be less. Through application of current building code requirements during the building permit review process, all new construction on the site will be developed in an energy-efficient manner. 10. Policy 12.2 identifies types of commercial zoning districts. This policy sets the following general requirements: 1) That uses within each district shall be planned at a scale which relates to its location, site and type-of stores to the trade area G to be served. The scale of development, including i the specific sizes of the proposed uses, has been 14 E, i reviewed as it relates to surrounding land uses and the site's existing proposed topography and appears compatible with adjoining residential areas and comparable commercial centers in the metropolitan area, as reviewed within this report and Applicant's Additional Testimony and Evidence, 2) That surrounding residential uses be protected from any possible adverse effects in terms of loss of privacy, noise, lights and glare. The applicant has addressed design aspects of the proposal as it relates to these issues. 3) That commercial centers be aesthetically attractive and landscaped. ' The applicant has provided. conceptual design k details for the center which have been reviewed against the applicable standards elsewhere within this report as it relates to buildings and site improvement aesthetics and landscaping. 4) That a ingress and egress points not create traffic congestion and hazard. The design of the site has been reviewed elsewhere within this report as it relates to connectivity with adjoining rights-of- t way and neighboring properties. 5) That vehicle trips be reduced both in length and. total number. r" Reduction in vehicular trips has been addressed elsewhere in this report in terms of length and 1 number. 6) This portion of the policy states that the Central Business District is not included in the location criteria because there is only one Central business District within Tigard. This does 1 not apply to this application because it is not within the Central Business District. The code and comprehensive plan requirements (5,1.3-5.1.5) related to the Central Business District and the community Commercial District have designated trade area size, limitations on uses and/or one-have-mile F - ' separation requirements of this C-C district, and the districts are meant to be independent of each F ? other and no comparative effects analysis is required for location of Community Commercial districts. t 11. The location criteria for Medium-High Residential e (R-25) specified in Policy 3.2.1.1 (3) are met for the following reasons: (a) The parcels intended for the R-25 designation are vacant and are not committed to low- density development. Since 1983, these properties have been designated for multi- family and commercial use. Prior to being designated C-N, Tax Lot 100 was designated R-25. 15 i - (b) The two areas intended for k-25 density are t well-buffered or separated from single-family i residential neighborhoods. Tax Lot 100 abuts R-25 zoning to the north and east. The area north is undeveloped and the eastern property line is bordered by Cotswald Subdivision. Because of the properties size and lack of physical constraints, adequate buffering can be provided along the property boundaries. The R-25 area south of the center will be adjacent to r-25 and R-12 zoned areas that developed as single-family neighborhoods. This 3.95-acre parcel will provide a [ transition between the single-family E ` development and the shopping center. r (c) Both Proposed R-25 parcels have direct access f.; from major collectors streets. (d) The properties have a moderate grade and do not appear to have any development limitations due to natural features of Code requirements. - (e) As noted in this report, existing facilities have adequate capacity to serve the development. r i t (f) The property is approximately 1/2 mile from the nearest Tri-Met route. This bus stop is served by Tri-Met bus line #62. However, SW Scholls Ferry Road and Walnut Street are logical routes for expansion in the future as f the area grows and the demand for bus service increases. l Bus stops can be accommodated within the right-of-way of Scholls Ferry Road at the proposed twin lanes near SW Walnut Street. The adjacent mini-park at the corner with its bench facilities and direct access to the pedestrian and bicycle network at the site will provide a proper anO feasible location for the bus stop when it becomes necessary. (g) The two proposed R-25 areas will have excellent access to shopping. (h) When the residential properties develop, common and/or private open space will be required as a condition of development. I l 16 _.i 12. The location criteria for Community Commercial uses specified in Policy 12.2.1 (4) are satisfied for the following reasons: E (a) The density within the 1/2 mile trade area f j averages over 8 units per acre. Supporting information is supplied in the applicant's statement and in the staff report information on file as part of the comprehensive Plan Amendment to create the C-C designation. 1 (b) The proposed center and its components all meet the maximum gross floor area standards of 100,000 square feet total, 40,000 for grocery 't stores, 10,000 square feet for general retail, and 5,000 square feet for other uses. k (c) The proposed commercial designation will apply to only the southeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and Walnut Street. (d) The site is over 1/2 mile from any other commercial retail land use designations. ~3 t (e) The site is located at the intersection of two f major collector streets. The traffic analysis presented by Kittelson and Associates and the subsequent evaluation by the Engineering { Division and Washington County indicate that no adverse traffic impacts will result. f: (f) The commercial site is eight acres which ! coincides with the maximum allowable size for a Community Commercial center. i , (g) Design issues, such as vehicular access, pedestrian and bicyclist access, coordinated development, local street connections between' the commercial use and the neighborhood, lighting, and noise, have all been addressed using the applicable Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code policies and i standards. B. Community Development Code 1. Chapter 18.22 In order to approve a quasi-judicial amendment to the Plan and zoning maps, the City must also find that there is evidence of a change in the neighborhood or community which affects the parcel. 17 i • i Alternatively, the City must f ind that there has i been a mistake or inconsistency with regard to the t- original designation of the parcel (Comprehensive Plan, Volume 2, Policy 1.1.1, Implementation Strategy 2; Community Development Code Section 18.22.040 (A) . a i The applicant's statement (pages 5 through 9) addresses and satisfies these considerations. i 2. Chapter 18.56 - R-25 Multiple-Family Residential At this time, no development is proposed for Tax Lot 100 or the proposed 3.95-acre parcel south of f` the shopping center. Both parcels meet the dimensional requirements of the R-25 zone (Section s 18.56,050) and it appears that both parcels can n i~.._.v_c adequate 'a be suitably developed in ~ _iaaccess an.. oP._ the future. E`. The neighboring homeowners association has indicated a desire to have the 3.95 acres developed as a park some time in the future. However, that issue is not before us in this application and a a change in zoning would require a separate,. application, public hearing and compliance with all applicable code and comprehensive plan requirements. l 3. Chapter 3.8.61 - C-C Community Commercial k ? Section 18.61.030 is satisfied because the uses 1 proposed by the applicant are permitted. The 40,000 square-foot grocery, store and related uses 1 are necessary for the size of population in the. trade area. The 5,950 square-foot general retail sales unit may include a video store. -The City's interpretation of "general retail sales" includes f; the types of sales activities identified in Applicant's Additional Testimony and Evidence Exhibit "F". The proposed improvements for the site can accommodate all of the permitted uses E shown on the site plan and proposed as alternate tenants in the center. Section 18.61.45 is satisfied because all primary commercial activities shall be conducted inside; all uses, except for the grocery and video stores will be less tLan the 5,000 square-foot maximum; and any outdoor displays and open-air dining shall be conducted within the limits of this section. 18 L I E ' E- i Section 18.61. 050 is satisfied because the proposed center meets all applicable standards for lot size and dimensions, setbacks, lot coverage, building height, and landscaped area. Section 18.61.055 contains a number of design.. guidelines and standards for C-C development. The basic design concepts presented by the applicant are consistent with these Code provisions. In some cases design concepts need to be amended and in others more detailed information needs to be provided (as conditions of approval) to ensure compliance with this Code section. The design guidelines are not mandatory, but intended to be discretionary. The identified examples in the guidelines are intended only as suggestions and are not intended as a requirement unless otherwise f, specified by the City upon review. Since the applicant has generally complied with the guidelines as described herein, none are deemed necessary to become mandatory. r Section 18.61.055 A. 1. contains building design guidelines which have been generally satisfied. The applicant has provided a , proposed design for the grocery store, but no for the remaining 9,550 square feet of retail space adjacent to it or for the two building pad sites, Also, the grocery will have blank walls facing SW Northview Drive. However, this building elevation will be screened from view by the _ site excavated below street grade for almost the height of the building and by landscaping, and should result in a pleasing appearance. Section 18.61.055 A. @. discourages loading areas that face toward residential uses. The proposed loading area abuts an undeveloped residential parcel and is near Castle Hill Subdivision. Because of the proposed grading of the site, the loading area will be approximately 24 feet below the existing grade. This design serves to mitigate noise impacts to adjoining residential areas along with landscaping and screening will provide a " satisfactory visual buffer. - Section 18.61.055 B. 1. requires internal walkways to facilitate pedestrian circulation k on the site. The site plan shows sidewalks in 19 a 'j the vicinity of the building locations and two walkways to SW Northview Drive. This Code 1 section will be satisfied by the additional walkways as required in the conditions of [ approval. Modification of the site plan to accommodate these requirements is practical and feasible for the overall project design. - Section 18.61.055 B. Q. will be satisfied with the submission of additional information [ regarding mechanical equipment, refuse and recycling containers, bicycle parking, ' pedestrian/vehicular conflicts, landscaping, screening, and special site features (e.g., f- walls) as required in the conditions of approval. These submittals are additional design details that are feasible for the E applicant to satisfy and be accommodated in the existing site plan (see LkMLiicant's ; Additional Testimony and Evidence, and revised G•' site plan). k 4. Chapter 18.100 - Landscaping and Screening E The provisions of this Chapter are satisfied provided the conditions of approval are met. The conceptual plan is found to be consistent with the - criteria in this Chapter, but the details need to be confirmed prior to issuance of development permits. - Section 18.100.030 - 040 requires street trees as part of new commercial development. The f landscaping plan submitted indicates that i street trees will be planted with 40-foot spacing. A list of trees to be used is provided, but the tree to be used is not identified. with 40-foot spacing, the street trees will need to have a mature height of 40+ feet. - Section 18.100.070 - 080 requires screening between different uses, such as commercial and residential. The proposed landscaping plan includes vegetative screening that is consistent with the standards of these sections. only more detailed information regarding the size and species of plantings, as required in the conditions of approval is - needed to ensure compliance. - Section 18.100.090 pertains to fences and 20 ! L walls. The applicant has proposed the construction of a wall along a portion of the 3 perimeter of the development. A conceptual g elevation plan for a portion of this wall along SW Northview Drive has been included in the application. The applicant has provided the wall to address specific neighborhood concerns due to potential site impacts. Using walls as a unifying design element is E' encouraged by Chapter 18.100 and the C-C zone. - Section 18.100.110 requires screening for parking and loading areas. The landscaping i plan satisfies the relevant requirements for landscaped islands in the parking area and the number of trees in the parking area. However, in order to accommodate the pedestrian, _ wal kwavc _noted elsewhere in thi^ - y- - repo" sv of the landscaped features will have to be modified.' } i - Section 18.100.130 contains a buffer matrix ' that prescribes the minimum width and type of buffer required in different circumstances. The proposed minimum buffer area of 20 feet with vegetative screening meets or exceeds the r standards for commercial development and parking lots which abut residential uses. s: 5. Chapter 18.102 - Visual clearance Areas All intersections meet the visual clearance provisions of this Chapter. 6. Chapter 18.106 Off-Street and Loading l Requirements Although the exact number of required parking spaces in Section 18.106.030 cannot be determined because all of the tenants have not been identified, the applicant's estimate of 255 required spaces is reasonable. A total of 293 I. spaces are provided. The loss of six parking spaces near the Walnut Street driveway for walkway will not conflict with the applicant's requirements. Section 18.106.050 describes the dimensional standards for parking areas. All of these t requirements for parking spaces and aisle widths are met or exceeded, as shown on the site plan. 21 E i k f. r j L- _ j 7. Chapter 18.108 - Access, Egress, and Circulation The number and dimensions of the proposed driveways r 1 meet the provisions of this Chapter. Section 18.108.060 discourages direct access onto " j arterial and collector streets. The number of driveways for the commercial development appears j justified (pending Washington County's final analysis and recommendations). The future access ! for the proposed 3.95-acre parcel has been s adequately addressed in the Applicant's Additional Testimony and Evidence. E 8. Chapter 18.114 - Signs The plans submitted by the applicant indicate one 4; free-standing sign along the SW Scholls Ferry Road `.j frontage, as allowed by Section 18.114.130 E. A [ sign drawing has been submitted without dimensions. Sign permits shall be required as a condition of approval to ensure compliance with Code standards for the C-C zone. j 9. Chapter 18.120 - Site Development Review 3 The relevant design standards in Section 18.120.180 A. have been addressed elsewhere in this report, with the exception of noise (18.180.180 A. o.). As discussed earlier, the loading area on the south k.. side of the grocery store is visually screened from E` adjoining residential properties. However, noise j from truck traffic, trash collection and I compacting, and rooftop equipment has proven to be a source of conflict between commercial and residential uses. Sufficient information has been provided to address the expected major noise generators on site. The applicant should comply with the recommendations { made within the acoustical engineer's report as E { addressed previously within this report. Based on this study it appears that the site improvements can comply with the applicable Development code criteria for mitigation of noise. i 10. Chapter 18.162 - Major and Minor Land Partitioning The proposed partition complies with all of the dimensional requirements of the C-C and R-25 zones, and the requirements of this Chapter shall be satisfied by the conditions of approval. 22 i ; ~ f- ~ i i S i 11. Chapter 18.164 - Street and Utility Improvement Standards L, These shall be satisfied as required by the City Engineering Department and the Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation. 111. CONCLUSIONS With the identified conditions of approval, the application meets the requirements of the applicable Statewide Planning Goals, Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development code `s provisions. The application satisfies the standards of CDC 18.22 in that it is consistent with the applicable plan policies and code 1 provisions and the applicant has submitted sufficient reliable evidence of a change in the neighborhood or community, mistake and inconsistency in the existing comprehensive plan and zoning maps and text. The conditions of approval require certain changes or additional detail for the approval. Related decisions of the City E staff may be appealed under 18.32.110 and 290 for a public hearing and interested parties are entitled to notice of the decisions (so as to perfect an appeal) when requested under 18.32.120(a)(1)(E). t ` The C-N designation has been moved several times since 1983, with the final location north of Walnut Street and east of Scholls Ferry Road. By prior order of the City Council and the final } location of Walnut Street, the C-N zoned property comprises 6.93 acres. The redesignation of this site from C-N to R-25 helps to E I offset the loss or R-25 zoning caused by the proposed C-C designation, and returns the property to its earlier R-25 designation. a The proposed 8-acre site for the C-C designation provides a better location for commercial development due to its physical characteristics and proximaties. It enables the development to be excavated below adjacent residential grades to help mask the larger commercial' building and parking lot behind graded slopes and - extensive landscaping, thus diminishing adverse impacts of noise, light, activity, traffic and the different adjacent use. It also ' provides a more practical lot-size and shape, better access, transition of uses and centering of commercial for the area. Some questions were raised regarding the proposals effect on r housing requirements. The net loss in zoning designated for -i housing by the proposal will be a maximum potential of 26 units. With this housing reduction the City's allowable housing density f will be 10.315 units per acre which is still above the minimum of 10 units per acre for the City under the Housing Rule. The redesignation of the approximately 7 acres of C-N property as R-25 ` will retain the bulk of the multi-family housing previously located on the proposed C-C lands, in the same area of the City to satisfy the sub-regional needs. The loss of 26 multi-family units will not 23 i r' cause the City to fail to meet any overall requirements for providing availability of multi-family housing or specifically Medium-High density residential. The immediate neighborhood association has expressed a desire to acquire ownership of the southern 3.95-acre parcel designed for multi-family dwellings. Applicants are, however, seeking to retain the multi-family (R-25 PD) designation on this property. The issue of acquisition is not a matter to be considered as part of -i reviewing the approval standards for this application. Any future zoning and/or comprehensive plan changes proposed for this 3.95- acre property will subject to a separate application and public 'i hearing process. ' r Questions were raised regarding the possible need for a i vehicular access (fifth driveway) from the shopping center to SW Northview Drive. Support for the additional driveway access included more convenient vehicular access to Castle Hill area, reduction of turning movements at Walnut Street access and ` Northview Drive intersection with Walnut Street. Contrary arguments included the additional driveway would conflict with the C-C policy of encouraging pedestrian and bicycle use over vehicular use, allow drivers to by-pass the traffic light at Walnut and l Scholls Ferry Road by cutting through the shopping center parking ' lot (eliminating any expected reduction in turning movements), and increase in noise and vehicular headlight interference with single- F family residences along Northview Drive. On balance, the adverse impacts outweigh the advantages for an additional access; and - therefore, no vehicular access driveway should be approved to Northview Drive. I j Access and development feasibility questions were raised as to the 3.95-acre multi-family property to the south of the proposed shopping center. The proposed access and development site plan ' j submitted on behalf of the land's owner (Applicant's Additional Testimony and Evidence, Exhibit J) identifies that the site can feasibly accommodate adequate access and development that is compatible with nearby uses and facilities. Many more questions were raised concerning the application of approval standards and proposed design. Applicant has adequately addressed these concerns in Ppplicant's Additional Testimony and Evidence (January 14, 1994) and the subsequent submittals. In addition, applicant has modified the application to eliminate any request or reference to allowing a gas station use or 24-hour operating hours. In addition, plan policies 5.1.3 and 11.1 were raised as being potentially applicable to the application. These provisions relate to considerations regarding the Central Business District, and are not applicable to this application for Community Commercial plan and zoning designation and placement. Similarly, policy 8.2.1 regarding coordination with Tri-Met is not applicable as Tri.-Met has no current or projected expansion plan for the 24 f _ E 1 f i j a k application area. Evidence of policy 8.2.1.(a) through (d) must all exist before the overall policy applies. In this instance, the requirement of 8.2.1.(a) is not present. Code provisions 18.60 for E, ' Neighborhood Commercial and 18.80 for overlay designations, also do not apply. "'he existing N-C district and PD designation are being eliminated by the proposal. Code sections 18.60 and 18.80 are intended to address and apply standards for when a N-C or overlay 6 site is to be developed as such. As the proposal does not request the N-C or overlay designations, the provisions do not apply to the application's approval. s IV. DE-CISION AND ORDER k Approval of an order by the Planning Commission to forward a r ' recommendation for approval to the City Council for CPA 93-0009/ZCA [ 93-0009, SDR 93-0014, and MLP 93-0013 subject to the following conditions. Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be E,Y 7 satisfied prior to issuance of building permits. h j 1. Approve CPA 93-0009/ZCA 93-0009 to change the 33 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations on Tax Lot 100 i from Neighborhood Commercial (C•-N) to Medium-High Residential/Planned Development (R-25 PD), and to change E the comprehensive Plan and Zoning designation for 8 acres E i of Tax Lot 200 from Medium and Medium-High Residential /Planned Development (R-12 PD and R-25 PD) to Community Commercial (C-C). r The Comprehensive Plan and zoning map amendments shall be finalized at the time a building or other development permit (e.g., grading) is issued. 2. Approve the site Development portion of the application with the following conditions: a. A revised site plan shall be submitted for approval which includes the following modifications: 1. A walkway system which has sidewalks along each of the SW Scholls Ferry Road driveways. 2. A sidewalk from the grocery store shall connect near S:9 Northview Drive. 3. Two of the proposed handicapped parking spaces in front of the grocery store shall be moved to be adjacent to the building. 4. The applicant shall supply details concerning the screening of all mechanical equipment to be used on the perimeter of the building or on the roof. 25 l 5. All cooling units shall be as specified within the noise study dated September 29, 1994. The study recommended the use of quieter -j evaporative condensers located within the mezzanine level of the store rather than air- cooled condenser units located on the roof. 6. A detailed landscaping plan shall be provided showing the size and species of landscaping material to be used throughout the development. 7. Building design details shall be provided for the entire development. Of key importance r- will be consistent size and scale of buildings and signs. The applicant shall create a sign j program for the center identifying the size, location and design of all free-standing and wall signage. 8. All lighting fixtures shall use cut-off ! shields to prevent the spill-over of light to adjoining properties. 9. The southern property towards SW Scholls Ferry j Road should be considered to allow for future access between the 3.95-acre parcel and the f? Albertson°s site. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. j ~ b; Two (2) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. Seven (7) sets of approved drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, } all prepared by a Professional Engineer, shall be { submitted for final review and approval (NOTE: j these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Department. i C. Building permits will not be issued and construction of proposed public improvements shall j j not commence until after the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the public improvement plans and a street opening permit or construction compliance agreement has been executed. A 100 per cent performance assurance or letter of commitment, a developer-engineer agreement, the payment of a a ' ~ S J 26, i 1 r ' t permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight fee are required. -..1 d. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the -j Public along the SW Scholls Ferry Road frontage to increase the right-of-way to 37 feet from the JJJ centerline. If the existing right-of-way has been dedicated to the required width, the applicant k shall submit survey and title information to confirm. The description of any additional right- of-way shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. For additional information contact Washington County Survey Division. G, r e. Standard half-street improvements, including concrete sidewalk, driveway apron, curb, asphaltic F concrete pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, streetlights, L`_, and underground ~..t,.s.,......~litia..c a -hall be f dergrt3t2liu installed along the SW Scholls Ferry Road a___ frontage, j including the frontage of all parcels within the minor land partition. Improvements along SW Ai Scholls Ferry Road shall be designed and ! constructed to Washington County Uniform Road { Improvement Design Standards and shall conform to j the alignment of existing adjacent improvements or to an alignment approved by the Washington County E; Engineering Department. For additional information 1 contact Washington County Engineering Department. f. The applicant shall obtain a facility permit from the Department of Land Use and Transportation of Washington County, to perform work within the right-of-way of SW Scholls Ferry Road. A copy of s this permit shall be provided to the City Engineering Department prior to issuance of a Public Improvement Permit. g. Standard half-street improvements, including i concrete sidewalk, driveway apron, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed along the SW Northview Drive and "Green Space" frontage of SW Northview Drive. Improvements shall be F designed and constructed to local street standards and shall conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements or to an alignment approved ;i by the Engineering Department. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department. t h. The applicant shall submit sanitary sewer plans to the City of Beaverton for their approval. The plans shall also be submitted for the review and 'j approval' of the. City of Tigard Engineering 27 7 Department. A copy of the approved plans shall be S Y., ) provided to the City of Tigard prior to the E construction of any public improvements. ' i. The applicant shall provide an on-site water `E quality facility as established under the guidelines of Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution + s and Order No. 91-47. Submitted design information shall include an operation and maintenance plan. j STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Department. j. The applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can be discharged into the existing drainage ways without significantly impacting properties r.l downstream. STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, ' Engineering Department. -.f k, The proposed pr-vat t•vs~ l• -operated d maiia ~.a.i aac talne"~u u r.aa'~'a ` sanitary sewer and storm drainage system plan- prof details shall be provided as part of the ' public improvement plans. STAFF CONTACT: Michael F Anderson, Engineering Department. E 1. The applicant shall obtain a "Joint Permit" from !!!li the City of Tigard. This permit shall meet the requirements of the NPDES and Tualatin Basin , Erosion Control Program. STAFF CONTACT: Michael l Anderson, Engineering Department. m. A grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department. 1 n. The applicant shall provide a geo-technical report r that addresses the slope stability adjacent to SW Northview Drive and the overall grading conditions f ` of the proposed development, in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, ` Engineering Department. o. The applicant shall underground the existing overhead facilities alcng each frontage or pay the fee in lieu of undergrounding. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department. P. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part -i of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Control Plans - Technical Guidance'Handbook, November, 1989. STAFF CONTACT: k - 28 _i i 1 r' F i Michael Anderson, Engineering Department. f 3 q. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle' access and parking plan for approval by' the city Engineer. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site or within the SW Northview Drive and SW Walnut Street right-of-way. No construction vehicles or equipment will be I permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or sub-contractor G involved in the construction of the site improvements or buildings proposed by j this F" application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the C project. STAFF CONTACT: Michael :Anderson, Engineering Department. 3. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements. a. Three copies of the partition plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. b. The partition plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the 1 Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. C. Copy of boundary survey STAFF CONTACT: John Hadley, Engineering Department. I THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S) SHOULD BE REOUIRED PRIOR TO FINAL OCCUPANCY PERMIT: 4. Provide the Engineering Department with a recorded mylar copy of the final survey; or if not recorded with Washington County but has been approved by the City of I Tigard the applicant shall have 30 days after recording with Washington County to submit the copy. T i F - i ~ F 29 ' I j a DATED this day of November, 1994. Chairman Tigard Planning Commission _ November 7, 1994 Commission F Session F` f `t J ~J E; f; f i f a i i t I ~ i y 30 d NOV- a°a {~9+'4 -T'HU lei ::21 0 P. a2 e O SILL GROSS'S LETTER CONCERNING PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE ISSUES E J ~ Bill Gross 1l S.M. 135th T1 d, 02 97223 r 21 nark mebeff-to TV W TX E IM25 S.U. coati Tigard, 3 . 3 93 e ® u s t t Dc=' Roberts, Notice l this proposal. 'falls to mply ulth C1ty ordInai=ez and State law. First, It r clearly Idomtlfy each this action to be taken dw-Ang 1ccumolldeted eight-application ® Vor exanp2e: I. Plan Hap a t -fran lfeighb4-rhood Coe cia m to mccuam- VAsh Residetntlal lain use t lot lea; 1 2. t Iran C--H to 2-25 41 ct as TL 1COg 3. Zoning Hag amendment to apply Flamne d 64r_ sagest overlay TL I I. Plan Way aftendnent Iron NonAlim-HIgh ty Residential to Conmaralty C crcl al, land use cm tax lot 208z i I S. Zoning - fr R-25 to C-C district an TL 208-. 6. Ze"Ing Rap asst to rcnave Flammed e t oaerlay l zone TL 200; f 7. ted review cm i'L b and • 'Land rdfmar par-UtIon on TL ZGO. - Second. It "St list asses in h 2 s ct; for exanplazz i j ct r d l.. gm- i Pace 2 - ~ Y r 2. Duplex it tl 'fie 3 $ i q. ffAAt1-fam1XV S. Group care faclUtlem; , 7. Rmamfactured sand a. mommle hone parks; use shm2l. have a groos floor area greater then feat: -1,0= equw-e J 2. Conauter repair =erulamsu j i" 4. Day care !s. gri . i read eatate services: S. Food and be4mrage rmtzdA es; V. r1m-dlcal and tdental ver"cezz f 0. Indoor participant =parts and recreation: 9. rrof ",ems c l cez9 i 10. Eating amd drinking li ts; it. Umblele: f 12 « ate 'dare 72410 &.n. and after 10=00 p .a . v c. c-c et .a2 u=mz i 1. Unle= ft ® d ze. no use 3L3L home a "C floor area greatow- th= 5. a- feety r 2. fladmal groaning; { 1 ~I Pave 3 3. Cansuncr r m i 4. converAmm= sales and pervoral c v i.~ G. to f lift m 7. Food and beveraq-- mall, sales C size of 8. General, retail size of r- f Refteml and r. d services; t I e . ri a, , icstate zerolcesz Fraftsmicts.-a and i n.a'ti r ~ 4 aecon4 lTt 13. ti° ag lp residential dwellings oo or above the cif structures; floor I 15. U rZe fuel salc%; ~ F 16. Drive up windaws; cad 3 37, Umes operating ore 6=08 m.n. andlor af ter II=00 p.n Third. It nust list e t a that Ig to every action. T crIt1ca2 Oubstaa e t a awe am® Benzitsp Rezddcattlal l 2. CDC pt 18. for Zoalag Rep t to apply a e Planned t coca-lay Fourth, it aka . r y stag tomt It v lts culdencim =opport of the applicartAon after notIce. anyone is ent-Itled to a or? the hearing. Vimt%, it Dust r y state thmt y ~~a the r t - uIll. be ba=4 on the listed tar-la -vkd other, t a ism the fCoa;m*f-- hattsive Plan or CAwammitle t Code ch anpime delicvez apply to the l . i i a f sit re"em of to ardinam;e-j and State Rau .shcus th.ts t® true= b4m CaC 618.32.160 Ca i tlon e [I. t there is a consolidation of 'Y E` J I . jgoa notice ztmllL i f.V tet be ta&enz 2. CE slem a plan gmp t shall prg!mde t r- erAgdcm an the proposed zone chaose OM other actions-. mad 3. Separate shall taken an each aP ic6tl . . 4 - 1 ,1 is of the *Afor Public Hearings puxwm"t to Section 18.32.130 l include the 9'xl ` ate Informatlon.- 4. The nature or the a li , in 11cl t detail to vqmprIze perzons t,: t® noftce of the appli is propc=lz BUS 1 eir local ®judI.al lased rase art ; notice Cm3o Exp2adn the t o tb l.leatl and the gwapowed uses tesich i - could esa 1 i Cb;; Lim the applicable criteria frc the er ao plan that apply to the application at I =mm; ' C42 (a)$ 1 docaumnts or relied euldm=m n by the plIc t shall he mubalt-ked tea loe;ama goverTment. and he emda t l wmllabXim to the public at the time notA p d in wZvsectlon C3~ s section is prated . W~ Paw staff report at the hang *hall 1 e K at learnt zewen d prior to the hearing. I? tl docunen-ts or culdeme Is pruw1drad In support of the la . any party ll entitled to m continu- r ance the hem-Ing. C59 ft the t a 1wmr-Ing under a cap-Prahenzium plan I sue- land uve r lati . aka std t o l m We to o i at e that= Col' Ll li e t taws Grit a9 t j , r i Cb' State= that t y and muldeme nmzt be d:Lr* a d d in parWaph Ca3o o s subw-Ctlcn ar other C-3 n in the plan or lewd use 'lleves to applv to the declalca; 7 I :insist that the DDArector cwrv=t and d nefAce 4' e: any ng F :Is heM an ffi r a S9 e Grc= allpe r i • j_ _ I { i t ' r{ i hh{ i t i. - e I. 1 aara- - Esau x c a _ w _ 0-r ,j 1 000, r E103REGON ICE IS MRSBY GIVEN THAT = P 45 C0XKX5SXOU, AT ITS MEETING ON t MONMY, F vember 7A-122_4, AT Z.;1_0 PH, nT TEE TOM MALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC , 13125 SW Fi1`M BLVD.. TI GM, OREGM, WILL CONSID-SR IRS Et'OE.LOrn-rb-0 APPLICATICY'. FILE NO: CPA 93-0009120A3 93-0003/SDR 93-0014/MLP 93-0013. FXLB TITLE: Albertson's Inc./Duac e ! APPLICANT: Albertson's Inc. OMER: BKa;gery Cri.st 17001 San Rafael. Rt: I Box 792 Portland, OR '97230 Beaverton. OR 97007 REREST: A request for the follow~auE dezreloaat approvals t 1) Comprehensive Plan and Zone mange approval to redesignate approximately eight - acres of a 12 acre parcel from Medium-High Density Residential to i j Community Co rcial on taX lot 200 and to redesignate an approximately 6.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to I Medium-High Density Residential an tax lot- 100. zone changes f accompanying the above plan changes includes a saw change from R•2S ~ (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre. Planned Development) to C-C ~ (Community Commercial) and C-H (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-2S is (Residential, 2S units/acre), 2) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of Q *0,000 anchor tenant pad including as 40,000 square toot grocery store and three smaller tenant pads of i 1,200, 2,400, and 5,950 agUare feet adjoining the anchor tenant pad. The applicant also proposes t 8, 000 aquare foot stand alone terrine pads. 3) Hinor Lazed Partition approval to divide the 12 acre'garcel into two parcels of approximately eight acres and four acres each. LOCATION: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street., (RCTM 2S1 03, tax lots 7.00 and 200) s APPLICAB1Z APPROVAL, CRITERIA. Statewide P7 g Goals 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 5.4.1, ! 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.5.1. 0.1.1, 0.1.3, 0.2.1, 0.2.2, 0.8.1, 9.1.3, 12.2, 12.2.1, and 12.2.4; C 'ty 5)evelopment Code Chapters 10.22, 15.32, 10.56, 18.64, 10.61, 80.90. 18.100, 10.108, 10.105, 10.118, 10.120, 10.130, 15.162, and 10.164. T PUBLIC HEARING 01; THIS MATTER WnZ BE CONDUCTED n: ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE C DEVMOPMENT 0003 RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY TIOARD CITY COUNCIL AM A ISLE AT CITY HAM, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. ASSISTM LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAZLABLE FOR PERSONS WITH ZMAIRED . M 1 CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR. TO ARRAPG8 FOR. QUALIFIED SIM WW % INTERPRETERS AND l UflALIFIED BILINGUAL 3R P RS UPWI REQUEST, P R CALL 639-4171, EXT. 3:56 (VOICE) OR 604-2773 (`IDD - TELEC CATIONS D CP.S FOR . DEAF) No LESS TxW ONE 51EPRIOR TC) T INCA TO i G Fa'~~F SN C' aU i'16vd.. near d. OR 9M3 f:~ 131 639-,k'1`1- IM3.s 1 -2772 I'Lo.v-. U-19,4 'rHu 1!5:2!5 43 P. 00 ! ANYONE Wl'IS912M TO PRSSE= WRITTEN dESTL NY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO X11 ~ 1 WRITING PRIOR TO OA AT P %,eC HISAR11M. Off. TESTIMONY MAY Sg P SG AT E THE r PUBLIC HEARING. AT T PUBLIC MMUNG, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL PECEXn I •A, STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM M- CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC REARIMI AIM - l XWXTS 'OR31L+ AND TWAITTEN TESTIMONY. THE P VING COP'.k~ISSION WY CONTIOUE THE PUBLIC asaiwo TO ANOTHER P-vsTLwG TO OBTAIN xiaxI'IONAL IP I°ION, OR CLOSE nis PUBLIC YinlG ARW TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE TIM AYM e? 4 SUPPORT TO APPLICATI024 X18. IM t ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO TJES'T A SCE OF TEE "TP O. IF TME IS NO COb7TI CE G AT THE MARM, JOY PARTICIPANT IN TIM 4 PAY R ST THAT THE RECORD RE14AIN OP FOR i AT LEAST SEMI DAYS AFTER TEE r ngCLUDRD I2; THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO TIM REQUEST MOM TEO TTIGARD TY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD CMW SIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE ST BY TS3 SS ION WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERYA AM THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT AS $4MORTANT THAT COMMWTS ~ RZATIM TO TgE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISA. j FAILURS TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SO?fE POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE amnRING ON THE REQUEST OR FAILMUZ TO PR DE SUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY TO ; AFFORD THE DECISION MAJUM AN OPPORTONdTY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRECLUDES AN APP: AL, TO TEM LAND USE BOA OF APP E= BAS ON THAT ISSUE. AM DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA Ill TIM ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR ON AT NO COS`a OR COPIES BE OSTATINED FOR TEN CENTS PER RAGE. AT LEAST OEM DAYS PRIOR TO THE BEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL SEA LE FOR ] r CAN BE OBTAINED FOR CENTS PER 'AGa:. TEN j INSPEGTION.AT NO COST, OR A COPY FOR FURTHER TION PLEASE CONTACT THZ SVFF PLMMR Uamk- R_a_ its _ AT f j 633-4171, TIGARD CITY EAM, '13135 SW FT.L, BLVD. F- llon f'- i ~9~dNC' m 07T ~424-7: i t i E r i l • PIT E December 13, 1994 Lsr nu 13 1,1 V F. To: Tigard City Council From: Scott Russell r 31291 Raymond Creek Road Sca-opoose, Oregon 97056 RE: Albertson`s Application s OUTLINE OF TESTIMONY BY SCOTT RUSSELL R 1. Family farmed land in this area since early 1960's H. Application remanded by city council, January ?,4, 1994: A. Work out problems with neighbors: 1. Three meetings with Castle Hill neighbors f2. Met with neighbors within 500 feet of site r a 3. Presented the application to ClT west B. Results of the Meetings: 1. Better understanding of concerns- noise, visuals, traffic ~ i. 2. Mechanical equipment changed i 3. Use of ground versus roof top(HVAQ - quieter F 4. Elimination of gas station on site F 5. Shared concern of access to and from site from Northview Loop 6. Develop landscape/brick wall visuals - 30% vs 20% landscaping 7. These meetings had representation from homeowners of Castle HM, Al.bertsons, Matrix Development and the owners of the site. 1 , F 7 3 ~ i 1 C. Remanding also requested by Marcotltrhriftway: ~ E 1. Marcott did not know about planning commission meeting i = 2. Opposition to the C,C zone provisions 3. Proposed different, unworkable layouts at planning commission E meeting 4. Pam Garcia quote at December 14, 1993 City Council Meeting- "I don't want any grocery store there." 5. Pam Garcia quote at November 7, 1994 planning commission meeting - the grocery store will "severely impact our family ` business." j l III. Conclusion: _i A. The C-C zone fills a need to provide services for the growing community B. The planned development for this property included the construction of Walnut Street which serves the region. The road is nearly completed. It would be nice to see the entire project finished up C. Albertson's, Matrix Development, and the Castle Hill neighbors have worked together to create a commercial center that will benefit the community as a whole l I 4 WPS Memorandum TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Tigard City Council FROM: Greg Winterowd, Consultant Planner SUBJECT: Albertsons' Proposed Plan Amendment and Zone Change f CPA 93-0009 / ZCA 93-0003 / CUP 93-0002 / SDR 93-0014 DATE: December 12, 1994 r E 3 Introduction f' Marcott does not object to Albertsons developing a neighborhood commercial i center consistent with the existing PVC zoning district. Ivor would Marcott object 1 to an anchor grocery store oriented towards the surrounding neighborhood, rather than to the "travelling public."' 3 ? However, Marcott strongly objects to approval of Albertsons' 8-acre power mall and "big box" design, because it fails to comply with the purpose of the l- Community Commercial zone, as interpreted through "strongly encouraged" design guidelines and "mandatory" design standards. i [ Albertsons is requesting to change the rules of the game, and thereby to achieve a competitive advantage, by asking for an unsupported plan amendment and zone change. Part of being competitive in a market economy is the ability to adapt to changing conditions, including changing regulatory conditions. Albertsons' corporate structure is ill-equipped to adapt to the regulatory requirements of Tigard's Community Commercial zone or the Oregon Transportation Rule.. because their corporate shopping center design is auto-oriented and designed to pull traffic from major streets, rather than surrounding neighborhoods. The uses that will I occupy the two front "pads" (fast-food and chain restaurants), are similarly oriented towards the motoring public. i The evidence demonstrates that a 40,000 square foot store at this location would pull from a market area considerably greater than the 1.5 miles specified in the CC zoning district. United Grocers' marketing experts tell us that a store of 30,000 square feet would be appropriate for a 1.5 mile market area. Land Use and Resource Planning a Growth Management ® Site Development ` Suite 385, Office Courts 8ailding ® 700 North Hayden Island Drive Portland, OR 97297 Tel: (503) 735-0853 Fax: (503) 735-4622 W'PS Memorandum i ' Page 2 } Marcott requests that the Council remember that Albertsons bears the burden of demonstrating compliance with the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Community _ Commercial zone. As our testimony shows, Albertsons has failed to carry this burden. The Community Commercial zone calls for the type of pedestrian- and neighborhood-oriented development that Albertsons simply is unwilling to consider. Albertsons' design may be characterized as a "big box" in the back, separated from "pads" by a large parking lot. By definition, such designs are not pedestrian- or neighborhood-friendly. They are designed, a!mcst exclusive! y , to sere people who drive. Therefore, we strongly recommend denial of their application. t Marcott has provided two alternative design concepts that are consist nt with the "vision," guidelines and standards expressed in the CC zoning district. Albertsons has chosen to ignore these proposals. Albertsons continues to rely on its formula strip commercial design plan, rather than seriously consider alternatives. j Albertsons and its allies have been reasonably effective in playing to the neighborhood's fears of low-income, transient housing. Rather than supporting r higher density housing adjacent to the proposed center, Albertsons has promised k the neighborhood a "greenway" and a "walled single-family subdivision." i i however, the result of this approach is to eliminate the adjacent higher density housing needed to support true pedestrian- and neighborhood-oriented commercial development. The result of their, design is that even neighborhood shoppers will drive to center, rather than walk across a 300 space parking lot. k j In summary, Marcott asks only that Albertsons plays by the rules as stated in the Tigard Comprehensive Flan and Tigard Community Development Code. The a j remainder of this memorandum, as well as our previous submissions, demonstrate that Albertsons proposal is inconsistent with the "vision" of the CC zone, as expressed in its purpose statement, design guidelines and design standards. For this reason, Marcott is convinced that Albertsons' proposal, if approved by the City, will fail on appear. . r Reason for Remand to the Planning Commission On January 25, 1994, the Tigard City Council remanded this land use application to the Planning Commission to enable the Commission, among other things, to evaluate the considerable amount of new evidence presented for the first time Land Use and Resource Planning ® Growth Management a Site Development Suite 365, Office Courts Building a 700 North Hayden Island Drive a Portland OR 97217 Tel: (503) 735-0853 Fax: (503) 735-4622 1 - s ; WPS Memorandum r Page 3 before the City Council. Several individual Council members made specific comments regarding their concerns and reasons for asking the Planning Commission to re-evaluate Albertsons' proposal: a Councilor Schwartz: And so / think there's not just one thing, or just a few things, that the Planning Commission needs to review. / think they need to review s the entire record. There's lots of things in there that really pertain to this and not t only the, you know, the size of the development, the road systems * * ~ pedestrian ways / would support the remand with the entire document ! going back to the Planning Commission. - E l Councilor Fessler: / would like to say that l really feel that in the spirit and ' vision of the plan, and we've all worked at various stages of developing the community commercial code, that l would support looking at really the spirit of the 'J zoning, and whether than can be in specific ideas as far was what we feel to consider and to look at and to target, whether it be the size and the scale, the site t design itself, and the mix. Councilor Hawley: * * * we as a Council need to give the Planning i _ Commission a little bit of direction as to what we are going to expect from them. * * * / m concerned about the design requirements as part of the Code and also ! about * * * the size of the store. * * * what we need to do is speak in more general terms and say we're interested in maintaining the vision that the Code was originally intended to promote. It is clear from these comments that the Council expected the Planning Commission to re-evaluate the proposal for consistency with the "spirit" of the CC zone well as specific limitations, such as size, scale and design which could affect i the "vision" expressed in the CC zone. The "spirit" or "vision" of the CC zone is expressed in the "purpose" section, and in "design guidelines" and "design standards." The provisions of the CC zone need to be read together to determine the vision and spirit of the CC district. The Council clearly envisioned the ; possibility of project re-design consistent with the vision of the CC zone. ! { To meet the Council's expectations, the Council remanded the proposal so that (a) Albertsons' would have time to reconsider its design, and (b) the Planning Commission would be able to critically evaluate Albertsons' revised design to determine whether it meets these stringent requirements. Land Use and Resource Planning a Growth Management ® Site Development Suite 385, Office Courts Building a 700 North Hayden Island Drive a Portland, OR 97297 + Tel: (503) 735-0853 Fax: (503) 735-4612 i ~ E a C `i WPS Memorandum 'e Page 4 1 r 'j The Purpose of the Community Commercial District ~ The "vision" or "spirit" of the CC district is clearly expressed in the district j standards and guidelines, and may be summarized as follows: ® Use Limitations: Provide a primarily ngI hborhood orientation - not so large as to be oriented toward the region or travelling public rather than outside surrounding neighborhoods. Community Commercial shopping centers are designed to serve adjacent multiple family development and nearby (within a half mile) single family I development. To maintain neighborhood orientation, between 2 and 8 acres and from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet are needed. No use greater than 5,000 square feet is allowed, except for grocery stores, which may be up to 40,000 square feet. ' However, 8 acres and 40,000 square feet are maximums and may be reduced consistent with the purpose of the code and the characteristics of the neighborhood. e Neighborhood Oriented Design: Avoid the appearance and feeling of typical commercial strip development. Consider locating buildings at front of lots with entrances from public sidewalks, with windows, doors and special architectural treatment facing public streets and neighboring properties. Provide distinctive and unified project design. Include special corner features and protected outdoor ¢ seating. I m Pedestrian, Bicycle, Neighborhood and Transit Friendly: Promote bicycle y `j and pedestrian friendly environment by parking design and building layout which i facilitates safe and comfortable internal and external pedestrian movement. For neighborhood friendliness, separate internal pedestrian accessways from parking areas with landscaping. Connect focal points of development and transit stops with protected walkways. Locate buildings adjacent to streets with front doors and windows, and without intervening parking lots. I. e Neighborhood Impacts: To minimize impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods, the community commercial center must be located at the intersection of two or more major collector or arterial streets. Activities must be conducted within enclosed structures, with 20 foot building setback from residential zones and a 20 percent landscape requirement. Land Use and Resource Planning a Growth Management a Site Development f Suite 385, Office Courts Building a 700 North Hayden Island Drive ® Portland, OR 97217 Tel. (503J 735-0853 Fax: (503) 735-4522 I , r i f a WPS Memorandum Page 5 _ -i 3 Albertsons' Response Unfortunately, Albertsons' revised proposal is virtually the same as the proposal the Council saw almost a year ago.2 The following short list describes what Albertsons has actually changed in their site design since January of 1994, when the Council voted to remand the project for Planning Commission consideration: -i 'l . Elimination of Shari's and a gas station, and replacement with unknown j commercial users and unknown building designs. 2. Construction of a new neighborhood unfriendly brick wall that separates the _ Castle Hill neighborhood from the auto-oriented regional commercial center. ; l 3. Modification of the Northview Drive wall to obscure the 26 stair pedestrian accessway and 150' pedestrian rampway to the Albertsons' building. This 5 obscuring negates the purpose of the access, which is that people can see it and walk to it. 4. Inclusion of a 5' pedestrian pathway across a 455' parking lot, between a double row of vehicles, without defining landscaping, and single sidewalk along one side of one of three driveways serving Scholls Ferry Road. 5. Removal of vehicular access to Northview, contrary to the Planning ` Commission's recommendation and the purpose of the CC zone, which is to make the shopping center primarily accessible to the neighborhood, rather than to the commuting public. r J Albertsons has not considered alternative pedestrian-oriented designs and building layouts, as strongly suggested in the Council's deliberations and as required by Statewide Planning Goal 2, Land Use Planning. In particular, they have not considered re-designing the development so that it meets the "vision" or letter of the a CC zone, as expressed in the purpose and design sections of the code. a As part of their October '1994 re-submission, Albertsons prepared a document entitled "Changes Made in the Albertsons' Application Resulting from Comments at Public Hearings- and Neighborhood Meetings." Albertsons begins their chronology of "changes" from the date of the proposed rezoning to General Commercial. However, most of these changes are irrelevant to this application for a change to Community Commercial zoning, and the Council's direction. Land Use and Resource Planning a Growth Management a Site Development Suite 385, Office Courts Building 0 700 North Hayden Island Drive o Portland, OR 9729' k Tel: (503) 735-0853 Fax: (503) 735-4622 i i s IMPS Memorandum ; 1 '.J~ Page 6 E r Fred Glick, a noted landscape architect who specializes in pedestrian- and transit- . friendly commercial and residential design, furnished two alternative designs for the Planning Commission's consideration. Unlike Albertsons' standard "big box" design, 't these pedestrian- and neighborhood-oriented designs are consistent with the Council's vision of the CC zoning district, and with Oregon's Transportation Planning Rule. We have provided copies of Mr. Glick's alternatives to the City Council. i However, throughout this process Albertsons has adhered to its original strip power k mall layout, with its regional market area and auto-oriented format. Typical of such designs, the "anchor" tenant (Albertsons) is located in the rear of the center, € separated from front "pads" (usually fast food or chain restaurants) by a large -3 parking lot. Aside from perimeter screening and facade treatment of an otherwise i undistinguished 230' X 160' box, this shopping center looks like every other Albertsons which has been constructed in the metropolitan area over the last ten years. There is no "unified design" for this shopping center, because Albertsons has ' given no indication of who its "pad" tenants will be, and no indication of how the r buiidings will be designed. ' Albertsons' only street frontage (along Northview) has no front door and no windows. Albertsons' big box has only one public entry way, separated from Walnut Street by 465' and hundreds of parking spaces. Rather than being oriented toward ,i the neighborhood, the project design (with three vehicular access points) is oriented i toward Scholls Ferry Road and its regional market. In fact, the development is j separated from the neighborhood by brick walls, 25' slope differentials, and a 300 space parking lot. Most neighborhood residents will drive to Albertsons, rather than walk up and down two and a half flights of stairs (or 150' of ramp), or walk across collector and arterials streets, and through an over-sized parking lot. ? i G The "distinguishing feature" of the Albertsons' design is that the 40,000 square foot windowless building is buried in a cut in the side of a well-vegetated hill. As such, Albertsons' design may be appropriately characterized as placing a square box in a well-vegetated round hole. However, the effect is to isolate the commercial center from the neighborhood and to encourage increased reliance on the automobile to serve a regional market. ' f ! Land Use and Resource Planning ® Growth Management ® Site Development Suite 385, Office Courts Building e 700 North Hayden Island Drive Portland, OR 97217 i Tel. (503) 735-0853 Fax: (503) 735-4822 r " WP Memorandum Page 7 Planning Commission's Evaluation t Perhaps even more unfortunately, the minutes of the Planning Commission's (November 7, 1994 deliberations shows that he Commission devoted little attention to answering the Council's basic question what is the "vision" expressed in the CC zoning district as expressed in the purpose section of the code and in design s guidelines and standards?3 When asked by the chair to describe the "vision" of the Community Commercial zone, Commissioner Wilson questioned whether the CC zone even required ? r "pedestrian" or "neighborhood" oriented design. In fact, the CC zone specifically mentions the word "pedestrian," "pedestrian-oriented" or "pedestrian-friendly" at total r of 14 times, and requires compliance with mandatory design standards. According :.r to the minutes, Commissioner Moore said that "his interpretation was that a store j this big wasn't a community store" but that 40,000 square feet was allowed by the „ f code. Similarly, Chair Frye was "concerned about the size of the store but it was within the code." In fact, the code specifically requires that the shopping center be located to serve the "regular needs of nearby residential neighborhoods" and not be E; oriented "primarily to the travelling public. The size of the store ranges from 2-8 ' acres, depending the merits of the application. 4 # Other commissioners questioned whether anyone would walk to the store anyway. Commission Moore stated his view as follows: 3 Your [Greg Wihterowd's] comment about making this pedestrian- and bicycle- ? friendly is kind of a moot point. It its not going to be used for the purpose, on one hand, why would it be necessary to make it pedestrian- and bicycle- oriented?" In fact, the code specifically states that commercial developments are subject to "mandatory site design standards intended to promote pedestrian and bicyclist friendly development." i' 1 3 WPS presented a lengthy document entitled LAND USE REPORT - REMAND TO TIGAR,D PLANNING COMMISSION, which distilled the common features of the Community Commercial district and addressed each section of the code and how well Albertsons' design responds. Land Use and Resource Planning ® Growth lWanagement a Site Development Suite 385, Office Courts Building ® 700 North Hayden Island Drive e Portland, OR 97217 Tel: (503) 735-0853 Fax: (503) 735-4622 i F WPS Memorandum } Page 8 I j In short, the Planning Commission was either unaware, or questioned the 3 basic premises of, the Community Commercial zone and plan designation. In answer to the Council's question concerning the "vision" of the CC zone, the Planning Commission found that a standard Albertsons' design, with buffering _i (landscaping, walls and below-ground-level placement) and a walkway between double rows of parking, was good enough.' We have provided a line-by-line review of CC district approval standards for your consideration. This review demonstrates conclusively why Albertsons' design falls far short of the intended mark, and why the Council should deny this application. d What the Community Commercial Plan Designation and Code Actually Say E The Second Land Use Report - Albertsons' Consolidated Land Use application s CPA 93-0009 / ZCA 93-0003 / CUP 93-0002 / SDR 93-0014 - City Council i Remand to Tigard Planning Commission, prepared by VVinterowd Planning Services, provides a detailed account of why the Albertsons' proposal is inconsistent with the purpose of the CC zoning district, and with its design guidelines and standards. Testimony presented by Mr. Fred Glick, a landscape architect who specializes in pedestrian- and transit-friendly design, described the specific elements of the Albertsons' design which are directly contrary to the stated purpose and design guidelines and standards of the CC zones i The Planning Commission did not expressly consider this testimony, other than to question the basic premise of pedestrian-oriented shopping centers, and suggesting that it was merely a "matter of interpretation. So that the Council can review the 1 actual text of the CC plan designation and zone, in context, WPS has copied this text and added marginal comments concerning (a) Albertsons' proposed design and i a As the Planning Commission minutes demonstrate, the Commissioners focused most of their discussion on vehicular access to Northview and the width of the pedestrian walkway across 455 feet of parking lot located between a double row of parked vehicles (they settled on XX t faet). i 5 As discussed before the Planning Commission, the CC zone mirrors the basic requirements of the Oregon Transportation Rule (TPR), which we believe is applicable to this decision. Not surprisingly, Albertsons' design complies with neither the CC zone nor the TPR. Land Use and Resource Planning a Growth Management a Site Development Suite 385, Office Courts Building a 700 North Hayden Island Drive a Portland, OR 97217 Tel: (503) 735-0853 Fax: (503) 735-4622 f ' 1 i . 1. WPS Memorandum Page 9 1 (b) Planning Commission comments during the course of their November 7, 1994 k public hearing. Impacts on R-12 Property to the South Last year, we. objected to the proposed plan amendment and zone change because -j it resulted in an irregularly-shaped and difficult-to-develop 3.95 acre parcel or R-12 f land immediately south of the proposed Albertsons site. Since one of the cornerstones of the CC zone is its location adjacent to higher density housing, it appeared inconsistent to create a parcel which would be unlikely to develop for its intended purpose. It is clear that the result of Albertsons' design is that adverse impacts from noise and a long, blank wall will be focused on this 3.95 acre property. Moreover, Albertsons' design does not provide a pedestrian or vehicular link to this r 1 R-12lR-25 property, as required by the design standards of the CC zone. ' As it turns out, we were correct in our view that the property owner never seriously - intended this property to develop at R-121R-25 densities.6 The property owner has t offered to leave this property as "greenspace." By effectively "down-zoning" the property to the south, the rationale for designating the CC district continues to erode, because there is no adjacent mu tiple-family development to support the theoretically neighborhood-oriented center. The R-25 area east of the center, across Northview, has already developed for i single-family residential use. One of the arguments that Albertsons uses to support its zone change is that there will be little R-25 land lost. '.side from the fact that f Albertsons over-states the amount of land now designated for Neighborhood Commercial use, the property owners have represented to the neighborhood their intent to develop the proposed R-25 land north of Walnut (now a mixture of CN and c e The property owner did hire Land Development Consultants to prepare a concept plan for the site to show that it could be developed at R-121R- 25 densities. The concept plan, however, yiolated zoning setback standards by placing the units virtually on the property line. TCDC 18.56.050 (R-25 dimensional requirements) establishes a 30' setback adjacent to the more restrict R-12 zoning. A minimum 20' rear yard setback, and a 10' sideyard setback, is otherwise required. The proposed design shows 0' setbacks adjacent to the Albertsons and 2` setbacks adjacent to existing single-family residential development. Such a plan would not be permitted in the city of Tigard. i Land Use and Resource Planning a Growth Management a Site Development Suite 385, Office Courts Building a 700 North Hayden Island Drive a Portland, OR 97297 Tel: (503) 35-0853 Fax: (503) 735-4622 a WPS Memorandum ' Page 10 a R-25) as a walled, single-family residential subdivision. Thus, on three sides abutting the proposed CC zone in Tigard, there will be either iuw density development or unbuildable "greenspace." The reason for the CC zone proximity to higher density residential development, has now largely disappeared. i t ~ Noise Impacts Albertsons relies on an Environmental Noise Study prepared by Daly, Standlee & Associates (DSA) in drawing the conclusion that there will be no noise impacts on j adjoining properties resulting from placement of the truck unloading area behind (south of) the Albertsons. This 3.95-acre property is zoned for a combination of R- c 12 and R-25. The property owners have prepared a concept plan showing 92 units i' with walls a little as 20' from the truck turn-around area. In contrast, the nearest existing single family residence is 200' from the truck turn-around area. However, the DSA study does not consider noise impacts on this potential and permitted multiple family development (study at page 2): The noise radiating from the compactor unit was predicted to be 39 dBA at the nearest residence east of the store and 35 dBA at the nearest residence south of the store. The noise radiating from the trailer mounted refrigeration ; equipment was predicted to be approximately 37 dBA at the nearest residence east of the store and approximately 49 dBA at the nearest residence south of the store. The study notes that the compactor would be used approximately 40 times daily and t that trucks could be present at loading docks during the early morning hours, typically for 30-45 minutes a trip. The steady assumes that the refrigeration condenser fans would "most likely operate at low speed," and therefore would be less noisy. The study concludes that DEQ noise levels will not be exceeded for existing single family homes to the south if the evaporative condensers are used. The study notes that site grading helps to control noise from sources such as the compactor, the loading dock and traffic in the parking lot. The study misses a key impact area future apartments to the south. The study assumes that condensers will operate at low levels at night, which is less likely r during the summer months, when windows are most likely going to be open. The Land Use and Rescurce Planning ® Growth Management ® Site Development c Suite 385, Office Courts Building W 700 North Hayden Island Drive ® Portland, OR 97217 i « Tel: (503) 735-0853 Fax: (503) 735-4622 } i f i r WPS Memorandum 1 E Page 11 _s -j study is considers the effects of grading on sound mitigation for homes further to the l` south; however, this mitigation effect may well be less for apartments immediately above the condensers and trucks and compactors. Although the study considers i_ noise from refrigerator units mounted on the trucks, it does not consider noise from truck traffic, which frequently occurs in the early morning hours. For all of these a reasons, the study cannot be relied upon to demonstrate compliance with DEQ or ;E local standards. E '_:i Conclusion The Albertsons plan amendment and rezone proposal is inconsistent with the r. relevant approval standards. Since Albertsons has shown no willingness to consider pedestrian-, transit- and neighborhood-oriented design options, the proposal should be denied. 'i I s { 3 i 1+ L g I -I i r- I k 1 t l Land Use and Resource Planning a Growth Management 0 Site Development _ Suite 385, Office Courts Building a 700 North Hayden Island Drive o Portland, OR 97217 Tel: (503) 735-0853 Fax: (503) 735-4622 i , t i Chanter 18.61 CON^9137RCIAL!61~ ICI Ode ,.ds•~_ tb a` aUtO_o~te fat ey o~ ti~aait. t` aAS seN~e e I~D4 re e d o t`o ~r1oh flee °s .afro Os, t sn5to~`~ ° ire 0, a r sa aX < s je a ' F.. The purpose of the =:CTC °om-ftt.?rii tY Co err zoning dist-a ict is to provide locations for = r> asp ~z h2' 2oin~ facilities that oyi.de for th€: regular a, 'ra need f e id ra :c fM az ad sid3_-ntia1, hei hborhoods I It is intended that ; the°`cointriunity commercial center be ideally developed as a unit with adequate ' i off-street parking for customers and eimployees, and with appropriate landscaping and screening to insure compatibility with the surrounding residential environment. Gross floor area in community commercial centers ty~i.call range from 30,000 to 100, 000 square feet, and" Viand 'area ranges r { 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 [ m o d :not, crc+ to or eohtribute 'to a commercial strip. development pattern: This 'district 'is intended to be located adjacent to se,.reral residential neighborhoods, ideally at the : iii Prse titan .of' two or . more'. major collector 'Fie '.ntersd6tion; df ~ih arteria an a::co lector street, ~....n......+r 1 d~s~rict zs to be applied in only one cgziadrant ofn intersection. The i n ten'de d S, rvxc%.. area o the . ti act s u ° to ° one and one 4a l f miles f root ;2.t ' ineersecti~rr a fear' Bou'dVarrl s cn®sen assn " alnutf~+!urra er Tk°i sc#e oad and th Murray of SUIP pQw try _ for the t s,a ~{3Q }nrsecaQn- d. its oci9°r►~,anCtenet` no pl izs <ti ,~x . ry r pi£' ale r.. rt~;r, ,ohs°n dot cha9 slc~ns, the the, to 1.:ii;ait? :s3 94ic~tav SoQ~ (eat Q$ 1000 of ~ ~.,.....siGrvya4: ~p;Gad of C, SU atf'd the USu,,kkj $a'a~ $t0 /a f t$ °`°s~ °s lsar►t" ad t 1Ot. P°s;d, t ®f a" t ' crated from ~ JOTC ~tVSc~da treatrr° ~ rfs seP ~rze~ fa34' ~'`t1`oe a.. r "thy i - r~ ' ts~tca~ p her tea CjVa t a lei t ' e;1s~ 0 a')O' J y t3~4 ryry6;x~C - Q 'Oev tie 011- oc "'o a, j 0140 10 405 Y • . C atoo% " Ofd Ida :IP040 Ova The community commercial development shall be compatible with surrounding uses as determined through the review and approval of a Site pevelopi~,ent j plan, including o c the s' a and buildin deli S. standardsa - co tamed "in `ttaa s - .ti , con em soxaneous faith, and a cart cif e the apias oval zt r~ The site plan f approval may include conditions relating to site and building development f a through conditions of approval of a zone charge for the site or through the Site Development Review process. Such considerations may include, but are not limited to, accts,i'l ic46 ~,aons, 1 special,- setbacks, increased 1 sees, and' secindscaping p j al design? j or buffering, lix~ists ' cisx off-street rk~g 11 apter s a ;s ova dera t7iohs tor. pedestriaaz..-ancl - 1 clast,_ access w- -rhis j provioe _t~ qr a sa a s.. ~2.e3lines'. and, nandatcs site. deli n ° ~~nr `intended to -minimize site development impacts on surrounding resida n~.ial neighborhoods and o erlestro ~an~ d ba 'y0 eWx~ a~qP c fl, 0 -4 -1 "0 i e. r gt! b01~(i i~~ a~~ oar F JXP e 169 ,if~o fed`` e R ~a 0.0 ~N evp Ox 6e! sr NY, XVIa \es -q\Yl. t _ Aaa6 RAyy,,~(c~. •`,~g~dy1~y^V1~g4~ N " a' D ~C~~'~. ry.OF`'a iVM•1~ ~y, e - a1'`ya V RO, .211-0 011 ee fl IVIx' 1 r e deem E, i and wilding ~ i~_ a ntar ; VJittX SAG n #t°t: th°'s~ d of°,t4ud desk li® °ts P well 4 Scapa d,. iEdec~ ed „dad ilip ,l ; rtso,\ . - IA Oa a d lid d P~lt'ectc~ ~ e taae f; lot 4 t d ~j °de ct YON! west n Pi ~4 ~ e~so~s does. ~wildtr~g de , ea e 99. " it is preferable. _that c l site be developed a one unit "g s "1 13 ~i' L'ai acres rr ICIr ~3Si~i3C?$~• MUM es$EIA Sign {$e• s L1Ci aS crux' Te thin c rr-2n t:I cailSL[ a .9. 55 r' ' 41l t Ve o d { ire ttgat dere2e9ptrsnta ` 4 r a n~C1i3t tY .t7'..: 1 1YK `3 smCts t9 -77 - a e' ai r A is b.,,! cdordinat6d. thr 4l~h d~vO~:OPme:at" reuie a €~ce d Access needs of individual parcels , and uses-.shall-be coon, ignatedwitban a site so as to, 'W` r ~iic~vewa s 'taa cl3 za tre ts... With respect for the d st.~ -la ~r g~~~ i ll-a~eiteci in* size and agnage wall be strictly p13 miti~z f 1 height sad 03/17/93 ~;A pace 124-1 5•e ~IV 0,j Ot 50, tee. P ~e6- o~ e e 6\01 The code permits sep ~ arate Aa!case there is an+On®,p e i 5 `2r` do ependent~ ; however, in this v~ ~s no a . Go parcel` and no unified plan of developrrcent. There ro o'sed- oddly 'halted r "clevelopmen pan for the p l~ 4 INC 1e restderif parce116 the sOuth.: vc~~ i' <al sets sayers} °o °Gm~tode tie 'ihe~` c, vIeSTIV3. o , e c° o reP_r -d°t°` of a d~ ~ s~r3g d e „n _ e u~l°c . tre s or Z' o ~ die fit o c°i t ti ,ts, d ltd c ~i P ~cc~° Q ~;ti ltoUt a cees n irn~zojeO . lat°ds ` Gte~5 incid~ i aa°'Hd sPe•~i~, a water ,za yad d„ SEcuct"° p c~ 9e a cA $a` ~s - irve°d 71- < l pwi& h~% ~tCVG Ut act ON all V;- ~ apps Cj ~'`3 p dt~~ i` ' ~ ~ti'~ GtlC` 0, '40% anqe, 2,5\ 0 ' ~V~ C on'_ ct _jr ^ -ac: itf3t TlYs'C~ ~ ~F1 y t ye~TS kY2€~fS '~~'TJ2~►~i c3 ~3Cat71LSY1 and or ConditioI?a U_~~sszm%'c r epending upon tie prbsed 'usage of the site. 'The Site. 1 Use plan approval shall iCnc?ire,~►_w Developnyent Rc vsew or sye$ ~ ~ ixies a ie3 tazadard es e.3-on' Conditions of approval ude, ut sre nod limited to,. stay of s ha : 3 of the dev~lopmernt plan may also Inc sites te ldincg. design quidelineu Glee e- . opriate to be mandato ~ ~ n x ions, specla set c s, increase ara scapin or bu'i erinc, A s ~ F c~oxcl 3~a e 3 l~ualdaracr desa R a,. ] imit o 4if- •.tr et n - - r rrgz l G sd d~g^.'" c '2'' T't''<`, )-•7 r::1, FS>,-~ ei a .z 7 existing or potent: a t mi'atabilwith Bete minecx"to be 'necessary to assure co 1, neicl-Lbori ng uses. ry i -ioz 4,,o ification-a to the 40ye'a~rsite D 'M, ~i8. 3 0 . f yy a iTtu i?" yDeyel ozsment Code Sect ioans l _:12C , t~7 } and J or proposed modification to, the conditions of development approval, c ~ac3 aa . zone. chain_ e. other modifications shall be processed as Direc;tcr's9 decision in accordance with Community Development Code Sections f. 18.120.080 and 18.130.060. E i ? design= ' s huitis~9 to , str~.~t ~ ~ CG 100e, It Oki ~ tip fie I ate `a its On ..,.a-~;y ffi viz %Ties ci dete detP 10V Inv 5~~~~~ sic",~" ~~~'6 ~'i~~ CO~j~' .~eC~'~.18n~~~1 •~Gt~~~ s+5ts` +G' ,,.d1~t0 at0' Gt J~ ,~d'll~s ebtcieS, r f ry Lyi ' ' Y i li'e tin t°i VOA et T6%1 t + st oN, A~ci, cs~.. nod. S y u` Sds 3r GEC" ~'i: J v i A A. Permitted uses in the C-C district are as follows: f. " mac': $ ...~a drd" 6..retdil s L s-- ri cimum i e'of Oft F 000 scua.re a cc~<1i`..,rrRa side es _€?~Qarfeet~ _(t4€3 ` s si x..1011a1 Use See Chapter 18.130) A. Conditional uses in the C-C district are as follows: i 6, a.m. ; and/or: lifter l: F, ..M. as . _ i t~,!I e - - z 07. Drive u windows Albe-tsons ►IaY have drop ed its request for conditional use 'approval gar 24 hour operations;hhovvever,"fi^ie sieff report a : a :t niwmctii tacan cars C Se*s''¢ appears to aPioirove 24-hour operation thiHugh this zone ohi~n~e pruc~ss; . , ; f , r Special limitations in the C-C district are as follows: 1. The use shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed structure, except .3 for outside play areas for children's day care facilities, and as -f allowed in Subsections 3 and 4 of this section; u_. 2. hetll --have an '5, 0 c = . c, 01 i -0 ~s eno; 5 oS K y e tee -~tiei` b,4, P t ° N~ cod : c~ lei ~a(e ..,~e®~e s~ ems, p't$ col W S1<"e..=®U5°'>., ; `s a G~' teke``,. G o` S4„y`ae® .0 a ~ , shot \G.. 0®~e - s4 e ti c3'`ety .~`~~je. ~~,o gad 04 r~'`' a1 9~~3c"~~ate'' ~too~G ' c ~a, _ _ s~'_• ten: @ Z~ sd. i t E The following design guidelines are •stron IL , ours` for developments ` within the.2nd F: ' ions -of aor esv,91, (community commercial) . district. .r ! i the d =l rzr plan mad" include, but are not limi'Ehrl'to, a.nv of the site and @ z.I"!Q Rd4 VUSOWL Cwl i3,i_ ear: ~:x d`- r1 r' Ij 1. Building Design Guidelines a. The design of buildings within a cor,#muni.ty commercial development should incorporate a eAZ Architin ctural_. d6t i%al-s' ' distinctive color . scohesmuceh s a saaec ~l r s eciaa~ art' z: hd t5ut6e2' ~v.rs:n;ares, iwhx.ch are sensitive o --art cn ance e , surroun ing area an serve to 3 n ef► -ts r91 csm o ( -ret ail cis lex yes in the city. _ f A E b All :ildang c~,thnualti-li+silding comj;?ex should achieve: ; "a use 161: BORROW, i IM iii R11: 71 .u..f v..aaxn~gaa: u.-~xr ..n E ! ~ ?,:3s-»: y } ` ...rom~..a..~..e+,~« ~t y~ t O bu * C ~ nQ materi alts e• "his not distinguishable from other strip' as M. ~]AlE?- Es, t1le .C,~ ~.L1cr in q= Jt fernpity rE, r r~Li~l.o rna ~~3 ~ ~(R~ q~fl' ♦ grCJce i t ~!''lrl ~ftp n five vo t sy au Y~lr! .n a 91fl~ iilwn. 4€t17~ £ tii{>i Cl'~ ~c~€ =+3 a bui ~`c;c~1rat c it . ~jl~t t $lv~Y$ pM1]!~~! ib ~ ~~ur~! ll~YfC~~[°f~?~rl 3~9 ~f~ccz e, and palb~~te EC?w' is ~irt1 li i5e€~ 4<.U 3e~ fT4onotor3'V o lGng,' ! ee.~t 4r01ti :!'OLES ~3~,i3~1~~. a~E13a'~}r3G(~lA/ie.~^~-~~ ~v"FIjl: (165' o`- ~♦i'.°~~sS.'4~`' ~ ' • t~~lrs f~l~~ ~~rE~~ta?~ d 235' (on south, facing Mature R- 1 0' "Q $ ' • , E -00 -00 s' ~NI i0 Ell" S ~'*t~. L q • r~o oo~~aa~o~' ose, ~r4 `t a ` r~ r t;L ` Nffi ty. r ,„3 c E. ff rye) goOLN -3 jXOX Ok da% ; CD1r t3 em ; „ :I c. Individual buildings should incorporate ~°95ni•ac eta>RcrAt ~1se ~Wsh a.s.:surface material. colpr. .rc~o tT-,nAL1ae, & <F , otz%s s'dec idifl tc chi _ve a of 7C~te ~ das car tY.a ~3~ r "g, r c~ r_s G i ~a :•tat-sss7rl ~Tr7~arlt u~~i,~2 -.tr,.r..~,~~.~.~;3~'~r~'~ has ~ ' ttr. ,r9 i -~j f 1 l1EIt21i7. T3 Q~ tv, C owaLd -d u 1 c acne eiem yn nm color texture ' 3 i scam .n or wall t reatmert to P1: ovacae v sual nterest a.n revent t'he desrelsaoment lone _ontzgiudus ank k Px..F i tits Deesign Guidelinesa v,C dam "it des ~°ir t3S.:ShQL not he located 43n' t hA side 6f • idi n t a. w ~ cr .c s tt; ward a rezident'ial 'use'.i Loading areas, if located j :sec wean the building an e s ree , should be oriented away from the street and should be screened to minimize views of the loading area from the street and sidewalk. streets, yet A,~ , e on 3 Pi~b!`c b~ tag NN only ko~ to e k\ e; N40 \e' Ov, `o we tp ~ o~ ' t 1CP . v~ J - Sort t000.... . AO- Solos r'~ e~so"S ,oe~ rcpt, to 1 dot ~ L`. . ,'4K~ Stands! rds The followingcltory. design standards apply within the community commercial district: n Albertsons prop -.,Wit out pr0'e~tsve landsoaping,_between a double roue of 1. Internal Walkways. parking spaces across 455 feet of parking lot. a. elaht feet. minimum txdth, shall be rovided from the Mg (r p Pp;x b c: si ewalk _or: z ght-o -w~.y_ to the a oc s ` intst of minimimu, walkways s a located to conned f destrian actsvi!s/ su.h as.tYaEisst .stt3 S asic"`strew"drass~ng to a `md iOr 11ilgiii eIatYYl,z , b. Wa' five feet minimum width, shall be provided to ~c„c ~_qe% t a~?,... _kwavs or pot-intial walkway, l,ocations on adjoarbi g 4Yt.r"~~a3E','G""='? i:(,? creai:e cb c i as d~slrea_ lanes ~ u~ ~edestr'r~;e_._r,~s?~,...,. e wg o'er e walkway should be commensurate w6 e anticipated level of pedestrian activity along the connecting walkway. Pa 124-5 :ed 03/17193 9e r t. ,E`er 11, V 800,7, Mond '19 IN. "llb ~QX 10r o ~e 4b~~pQ~fro 9e 4QV z' y p~ f it ~t coot 'Vill t: jQC g No walkways are shown connec t,?9> ct~th R 2 area with tt" jhopping sna.. rrN' ~ (or ,'futl. re greenspace 6 i - ' F O~ NIL t - kto vqSO MME 00. 0i%G~p,S`aOat ; e✓_..:' St~ kei- '0 ® Iv exe. 0 i. 7aj w s shay tae. provided along the foil length of thQ l igii . a -c zar, } ~r e_ wha 4a ~sr s' ~k' d1 access': to tie` _abilic _ nr her - Public ~sr cin is eve i 2ab2e to rov de safe ahc comfortable- edestrian access -to. the b~ii2ding". ii. on the Sides of the, building which.provide public access a C34id C3c W1 C enou .,.~C ®SJt COY ~t l sJ ~ +h{ 1 3LYL{~k1 : 11 - s ac ~ e _ As pe es Tian ` ~.:a"~.'~J~1. 5nF_.3 _'~~.Y ~3a~Y=P^.M'? X12 Of. t F)cy ~ R . ?lkld be: - uovided ?it a iIl n T"! t...a ai yi c tJ" ra'c area i ~i 13ro 3 Ydte, ~ will;,~ t fat t ~I` ~ L'G' wc$ ~~C''~ C. re' Ikwav surfaces For 1 ~tvti ross3$E~¢ ,,]G'~.1nQ s3*F ,Xs~sha22 be,, t si _ neci to zs' 4r 1 , d t uishable from 9 , n g Sur f.ad4sv through the use or jduirable, ow maintenance star ace materia s such as,paaverw, bs ck , or scored concrete to enhance pedestrian safety and comfort. ' i r 3 ~xjet p~~s ~NbE sa s 60 P to ~ ,gat d a~ ay e~ ~ e a ergs? F$, a =v`~e wt-, gfli not ®e r et%,,SPA Atha ea-~'ti4 1 fire Topslat ko~ NO o P ati~~' h e~'4 ~O K~ ~ PO ~ Z r i 7 k ycern4ng nlnd Mate In c~~~ ttcr~ tree lnd~ ~,~d ; at, on 11~~~ ar# 'Inc eve.. 11 r f" ~h ,v- G i E 1 2. Othd.::,Site Development St.andardsi a. All lighting fixtures shall incorporate cut--off shields to prevent the spillover of light to adjoining properties. ~I j E b. Mechanical .eguiszaent, if located on the building, shall be s. F within the o aoscreening structure, fh dosig~ - the-building hich s cons stentlwath` the desi n of : the building , E cu Mechanical equipment, not located on the building, shall be i screened from views from the public street, sidewalk, and E properties outside the district with a durable, selid wall; or r~ i tea' car c3nva'x green ` hedc~ !or a combination of the above . J ~ tai-o d. All ~^~ftzse aced recycli cone anero within the district shall be ` contained within structures enclosed on all four sides and which y o°a are at least as high as the tallest container within the 0 °Fr structure. 01- a Bicye6le racks shall be rovided'-on site,' Facilities for a minimum o ten bicycles shall be provided for developments ct0 having 100 or fewer parking stalls, notwithstanding Code Section a 18.106.020.p. For each 100 additional stalls, facilities for five additional bicyc-les shall be provided. Bicycle parking areas small not be located within parking aisles, landscape ; areas, or pedestrian ways. t_ i.s °strom lv ehcru ~g s c~rrle arking.ateas be covered are ShownF ale racks ~gdedly j' a No Covered icy c cue Fads and~lY~ee~cn~, i~ is ` t , 001c+ to ine clo`,~ $5 plri'lGcs,s~• soArr,~~,t or O-C occ sioredll`~ nee, nC`iCs~! r r'1, l~r~ c`1 , t~ te~~`flr ~aa e Tti1~c ' to G w z yy camp e i J by diStet t ti,e!` cad 1as is p ~o~ ,~b?®~ ;o ~ ON, 3 j g . .tx re s -'s9xakl b de i axed € ea . tainimize conflicts between` tae~r ~~a end ~tPxxc~a~ar. m~veaaiens_ far i`ng .tea ea sca zn ~L "a, c~ leap x se saxes par zns~t access. .~an t ds~~>.aax a~'e~s rd~ ~ixzz~ r~zrca.aiq ~c~~v . ; p h. The :landscape {~PSA4~i ~ F~ ' jF@L ~3I E., aLlc?i e ~ 3t 1 ca' Ch eau 4 x c prie major poln''t" Ot peceIG-11all 'Elklcl -"a 'chic 2s> e~ sz e,. a~ t to ro=: ® ink _slESt~ page 124-6 .~d 03/17/93 ® tom``` -nds~'`~7-rkoVv sn- the ' i ta4d ~ ~ a 000 ~a e 1 t' i eel, tAX M 00 = No C°or4 F4e _r~, Sto b-7 r3av > F4R'Albeftsons tt). r. {31 j 1, a Iacati . _ y publsc, streets' ~ios•. gp h~rejq' urge inter~ailriiri4 i anct r~►i ii g area ; separating Aber spns frd tie t~ two main streets serving the site (Walnut and Schools Ferry Ftr%ad}. st`.fetre such as fences, walls, refuse, and recycling s . ne ; facility -encJLosures,- and light fixtures shall be st t; wJith the scale. and architectural. c~es~ ~s4" of'' the -orimarr-Y -fit:-'+act~sre s'? u °es s esl ne any f t"=' tontriau;:~e to _ the pe Est r1 an erlvaanrsiet""~st rleve ~opmen J , l ltx e k~~ ~I la 6 c~ npl a br a dams G3~a 1 be lorateci C+frD'<bt "03 R .F P,.,destrialY YtYuven4fil:- I- tween ; rA h 'F•y. n,6 r 1 - ~ _ r ~O A.ciC A L g „a Lfi. ~ ..a- a~ t 4een ~ !"7-51c~.~' ( r Cat LCi a ~ ~ rrY Close ad-i Sc61-,t 613E S t7 ion t C~ [74 ZC~~J~1tl~ )l~~[(fi~i~2+~ CSC ?F m m 1 s.r - t^ 5 r ~j 3 s ! y r.7 e,_l t -o 9 t t r. Y C r 4^Z 1 2 La n i -~~1..n.., 3 r};r..' g'j.:'+'1T9.C Ix fa 4 _rsac.e. for this m Buildings are located to'discourage "safe and corrzfortaoie" pedestrian "rriove~enV 'between them. It 'is ~~A ,oz necessary, to; cress large parking lot,'without intervening landscape-protection, to get from either of the pads to the Alberts®ns complex. G ~ \ I ® The fern who actually walk across this large parking lot j 1 0~? are unlikely to walk between adouble "rover of parked" ' \QG° vehic leC desoile the textured (if invisible) pavement., Pedestrians are more likely to take the shortest and g~65, 0.- most direct route and compete directly ~►oth vehicles., 4 4 5 - ' - ~ e0 ~ fi k i xc ,c ® Alternative designs vac r& r~;~yarded to the I'lo•tning. Carr~rra€5srara which o[~6a nil c6w,416r6181 buildings close to rage str(el, W'Hthl Parking in the rear, as Oriv. lone- in the r c~rn;r unity ~ommercia! district. { i ''i"ho" staff dotes that transit service is likely at the future i6ter6e6tlon om lalnuti urra3 y Boulevard and cho11s 1=ei ry road However, no spcifcxclegr for transit Taviiitiei~arc ;ir"aposed. o~. @ ie0 pt shodvn on o r~ ~1R tha nrY.~ dye tit ;~puld :eC~tltrE% ` s died * . taatt,~toPOfl space parklng ~r~~p4o~eo F aced . yl7 e ~sv the O ptat* ono end thK+~ug cocnr o ~g~T,Ie,Mttbettsons frost e~,ar~.`ti. o~ F lot to get to ® v G~XO~ Q; ' j k. CSo tui x. a~ ha1~ . fournd fear safe, convenient, and pl.easarit c ~ aa1, connec ans a cis nn+ o propose :transit 1 facalitaesa thsre :-net e s ers v:ayn ayover areas-, for t~ ins t-,... v aaacles small a ancorgora a In q. t o sx. e S 1 c3eye `c>eenta - ~ ~ In bider to be accessible to transit, the Albe►tsons 3. `S~grn.rCJesign..Standard she=a be located adjacee~t to no$ across-~i-parking-lot" E from, the transit route. # a . All i signnage 'sb l l be , an integral ° part of the , architectural } a Signagezcannot be "an integral part of the architectural design"' when the ar itedtural tiesign'of all but one 'hi 61 ilding is un no r"n. lo&O \~e~Poc~~o oot~~ one des' 2,P P Toe -s I 3 i i i Schells Perry fte _ _ . Parking UPI with "Pads" • Three (3) Curb Cuts Along Scholls Ferry • Parking Ratio: 6:02 per IM sq. & Retail fr=--9 d (assumes yr/ 550 sq. ft. tretaB on B a, site) A • Buildings Removed Location from i Scholls Ferry Will Require Large Sign t Angle Parking Layout is Inefficient E / • Huge Parking Lot Overloads Site with too Y \ much Parking and Asphalt p s • - Site Plan Demonstrates Reliance on Automobile (in co: flirt With spirit of 1 4~ Tigard's Cade) Retail Site Lack of Clear Pedestrian Access • Service Access Orients Toward /f Pedestrian Barrisr Neighborhood f 'a • Retail Development "Buried" • 47,350 sq. ft. of Retail Space Turning Its Back on Residential Neighborhood + + Forces Use of Automobile When Tigard ~ Code Calls .for Pedestrian-Oriented Site o Residential Development in Community l~elghb0'rhQOt~€ LC~`g~ Commercial Zone. - • Uninviting, Alienating to Pedestrians • Steep Slope Really Cuts-Off Site Plan valuation Neighborhood from Retail Development j • 24-Step Staircase - { Steep cut 'Slope 150 Long Handicap Ramp Proposed Commercial Development Site ; j • Forces Residential Neighbors to Use Auto • Severe Cut-Slope Approximately 30 to Drive One or' wo Blocks for What ft, high ('butchers" site adjacent to Comer of Ccholls Ferry and Walnut Should Be a Short Walk Away. residential neighborhood) i ~ Demuth Glick Consultants, Ltd., s t - - - - - - - - - - i • . a 1 ` LEBEND t 2 VeHICOtAF, 01KWLATI014 Multi-Femily Residential • PenStmm GIRGULATIay Specialty Retail _ 1tOWHoUSES + jSPCCIALTY KE-AIL C6 PAKKi" + Density Range of 22 Units Per Acre iJ Tl-t`AAtitY GROCERY GREENWAY 20,000 square feet + Buffered from Single Family Residential + Pedestrian Access from Walnut and by Medium Density Row House Areas Nearby Residential Neighborhoods BA ceases Densities to Increase Market Requires Less Parking Bemuse o@ Greatei Support for New Community ash _ - Commercial Area Accessibility to Rtsidential Areas and rr r, Y 6 True Pedestrian Orientation ~ Row Mouses r t, Row Houses (Medium Density Groceq Store Residential) are an Appropriate I P r i t,` L' Transition Between Single Family .k • 1,0,000 sq, ft. grocery store ! Residential Neighborhoods to the South ~ j and West (much better than 30 foot Cut Service Area oriented toward Access Bank and heavy Screening)). See 11 P6 • Drive. e Accompanying Row House Drawing, I 5 j illustrating Homy Scale and Aesthetic of 't p edestrian Esplanade in Front of Store This Row H'ouse'fype are Completely :J along Walnut Appropriate for Such a Site-Fitting in Quite Nicely S - r r C NoW ThIs Site laraut Diagram Is intended to Emphasize the Pedetllian N11"'), Wh[Ch Structures the Davelopmenl ne! drawn to Scar.. All n - Concept. Nil Pedestrian Network eautredUs.In Parking f~r~aS It's Locations Shown Have Ample Spec. IV a Dea Boa - t pman. i Truly Structures Thls Mixed Use • Ample Parking Can :Be Located in Proper Development Relationship to All Commercial Facilities • Creates a Project Which Offers Pedestrians in This Layout and Physically Impaired Individuals Easy Parking Requirement Can Actually Be I Access Throughout Pedestrian-Oriented Reduced Throughout to Make Room for is . Development ices cased On Other Amenities Due to True Pedestrian Enhanced with Generous Landscaping; Orientation of This Site Plan Tree-Lined Pedestrian Ways dt Drives; Current Zoning Plazas in Front of Retail and Grocery r+~ Well-Designed Pedestrian Esplanades Stores; Variety of Walkway, Pathway, with Extensive Landscaping Structure Sidewalk, Esplanade Conditions This Scheme, as Well as Parking Lots Demuth Glick Consultants, Ltd., Portland, Oregon ar'- .W ~ I i } 1,60E.N D ® VEHICULAR CIACMATIOW PAW-Family Residential - • PEDE5TNAI4 C1KCULA1I0W r `I KOWH0U4I5 )SPECIALTY AET^IL t`6 PhrKIW,9 Parking Area E f Buffered from Single Family Residential )MULTI-F4,4 0 faRGGERY 6meij VAY by Row House Area 1.5 Aces in Size Increases Densities talncTease Market • 150 Parking Spaces for Grocery Support for New Community 35 Parking Spaces for Specialty Retail Commercial Area e ~ Row Wcrtsaes Grocery Stare Row Houses Nedium Density i - q Residential) are an Appropri ate t 2 a • 20,000 - 30,000 sq. h. grccery store Transition Between Single Family i Residential Neighborhoods to the South Service Area oriented toward Scholls and West (much better than 30 foot Cut, Ferry Bank and F3axvy Screening)). See • Oriented Toward Pedestrian Esplanade Accompanying Row House Drawing, Illustrating How Scale and Aesthetics of R O VJ along Walnut and new Entry This Row House Type are Completely /Drive Appropriate for Such a Site, Fitting in Quite Nicely I Note. This Site Layout 0Ie4Bn1 is Intended to Empnm IM Padaalnan Natn,k WAII'h SINCturoa Iha Oivaloplnan[ Conoso. At is not drawn 16 Scale. All Asqul,ad Laos In Pedestrian Network the .1opmon6 s aWn Nave Ample SpaCA for a Daa rabl6 S~eclalty Retail 1 Wrebpmem • Now Truly Structures This Mixed Use • 15,000 -17,500 square feet Development ° Pedestrian Access from. Walnut • Creates a Project Which Offers Pedestrians and Physically Impaired Individuals Easy Pedestrian Access Along Entry Drive Access Throughout • Pedestrian Access Feasible from North Enhanced with Generous Landscaping; estrian- riented View Includes Tree Lined Pedestrian Ways end Mixed-Use Development Site Requires Less Parking Because of Greater 'l Drives; Plazas in Front of Retail and Grocery Store with Street Trees and Accessibility to Residential Areas i Landscaping; Variety of Walkway, Pathway, Sidewalk; Esplanade Conditions Demuth Glick Consultants, Ltd., Portland Oregon 4. 1.~ 1 r3 r' ~ ~ s PRINCIPAL GROUNDS FOR DENIAL OF ALBERTSONS APPLICATION j PLAN AMENDMENTS REQUIRE AD HOC RETHINKING OF CITY'S PLAN AND CONFORMITY TO STATE LAW This'is not a conditional use permit, where high level of thinking already done in the plan "State law" includes applicable goals and riles (including transportation planning rule) "City plan considerations" include considerations of the effects of redesignation and both ( residential and commercial land allocations THIS IS THE SAME BASIC "BIG BOX" ORIENTED MALL THE COUNCIL a'EMANDED j TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REDESIGN i j Not neighborhood oriented by its size and location, it is intended for region, rather 3 than surrounding or nearby neighborhoods Out of scale only 30,000 sq. ft. justified for community commercial use 1 Violates Transportation Planning Rule by its building orientation, accesses, and hostility f to pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit E Incomplete Application: Building plans and design not determined j landscaping incomplete i _ noise report inadequate` access left until later signage available only for Albertsons use - loading area issues not finalized design requirements canp_ot be met until uses known 24 hour operations must be resolved at this juncture "Details" left for later without public notice or participation BASIC LAND USE ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED ADEQUATELY' "Fit" with City's commercial land allocations (7.93 acres of neighborhood commercial not equivalent to 8 acres of community commercial land) Effect on surrounding residential uses by unresolved design issues Effect on potential residential uses (especially R-25-PD area) by representations of 3 donated park- - f F: f I i S ! r> - r' rrpt ertt nu e)Y lSJkbJ 1k0 ! } w,<.AR,f 0 ID A o114 40 ~ 64 ~ 0 n ~ vf% ' 'Of ~ S'S'oi. f 1 I Allr ~ an ~ i j h C n IIW .71 .~r-- ~nsrrr Aly ' ~ lsar~ Y l P Ail Jr~ ~ ~n to _ off! / .ll ) 111 V, k N6PR / v _6 _ .9 p 4. It y~D}4(5 Aor .::Ili A6! AYf 47 A9A Fn ~ ~c O / -.~f , 1) AVM ti"-C("p ~ - giM _ agq 1757w av VIT tool" / M nuxts .i)taar~an 1f r} X ev[ : fly }p (6\ ` if At I avtl/ eYl Rd NIPN' ® _r r '~tq i d j- (!lf9u"j CA 'tY ~n 4 \~A~. p?r; ~ 1 ~ { v 'Tr ` 3 TO: CASTLE HILL HOMEOWNERS ' FROM: HOMEOWNERS OF CASTLE 14ILL INTERIM BOARD t DATE: AUGUST 9, 1994 ¢ i Thank you for your input on our recent questionnaire regarding our homeowners association r l and land development issues. We value your opinion and appreciate your involvement. Of i the 56 homeowners surveyed 55% responded. The results from the survey are as follows: o 949o' of the respondents were in favor of the formation of a Castle Hill Homeowners f Association, 6% opposed. , . r ' o 81% favored the proposed Albertson's development on the 11.95 acres, 13% were opposed, 6% needed more information to rnake a decision. F o 10%a favored a multi-family development on the 11.95 acre site, 84% were opposed r and 6% needed more information to snake a decision. o given the proposed development, 77% favored the option of a passive park in the remaining 3.95 acres, 16% prefined ulti-family development, 4%Q preferred t neither and 3% needed more information to make a decision, o Concerning the issue of monthly dues to support tie park option, 197S were not willing to pay anything, 45% would pay $5-19, 23% would support $20-49 and 13% were undecided. k o Preference for the land use on the 6.99 acre field at the intersection of Scholls Ferry ° and the north side of Walnut were as follows: 0% multi-family apartments, 37. multi-family condominiums, 26% neighborhood commercial and 68% preferred single family high density homes. One respondent would { prefer a school. 1 f Think you again and we look forward to your continuing support and input. E 1 i _ 1 - F- C COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ~ COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY t AGENDA OF: _ M-keember 13. 1994 DATE SUBMITTED: Aecember 6. 199$ ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Federal. _9&t_ PREVIOUS ACTION: F' Rect est PREPARED BY: Ronald D. Goodpaster DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Egnald D. Goodpasteg F ` ISSUE BFFOBE TIME C0 JNC ,ja ' Should the council approve the attached application for funding for 2 police officers under the Federal C.O.P.S. Grant Program? STAFF RECONDATION Staff recommendation is to approve request. f . j INFORMATION SUMMARY Y1 Refer to attached memorandum and fact sheets. 1 r j PROPOSED ALnERATIVES { r: i Not approve. i FISCAL N0Tr_'S 3 j If authorized, the city would need to approve funding to cover the cost of the two officers after the C.O.P.S. $75,000 per officer ran out, which would be in the 17th month of their employment. In addition to the salary and benefits, $15,000 would be needed to pay for uniforms, to cover overtime, and to provide training and materials. Total cost to the City for each, if -they were hired 7-1-95, would be $285,022 through our new tax base to 6-30-01. i' r 1 MFMORANDUICI ~ TIGARD POLICE DEPARTMENT TO: Bill Monahan City Administrator { Ronald D. Goodpaster Chief of Police DATE: December 6, 199 '.I SM,JECT: Federal Grant Request ~ t Attached is a copy of a Federal grant application for two additional police officers under the Federal Crime Bill. The Federal grant will pay up to 75 percent or $75,000, whichever is the least, of an officer°s cost, including salary and benefits for a 3--year period. Refer to attached financial projections based on hiring an officer at Step 1 or Step 2. The projections identify the Federal/City split under both scenarios. l The grant application requests two officers that would be used in a storefront/community policing project and would work at Washington Square. I have already had. discussions with Mr. Reardon, the administrator at Washington Square, who, will provide j work space for the program. ' i The purpose of the two officers would be to have at least one officer assigned inside the square during their open hours to handle calls and complaints and to assist the square security staff. These officers would also provide information, answer { questions, and assist the general public with issues, concerns or questions regarding police services in Tigard. They would also be able to answer and assist the general citizenry with questions regarding the City of Tigard. If approved, theae officers would take significant impact off patrol, since Washington Square accounts for approximately 21 percent of all of our Part I and Part II reports. This would also allow us to better utilize our patrol personnel and address issues throughout the rest of the City of Tigard. The initial one-page application attached needs to be filed with the COPS Program in Washington by December 31, 1994. Also attached is additional { general information regarding the Federal grant program and the conditions,and application process. The COPS Program would notify us by February 1, 1995, if we were successful or not in obtaining s a grant. i f If you have any questions regarding this issue, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. ;I i OUM *ban U"OPS FAST Application This FAST Application is for jurisdictions serving papai.sans o? undue 30,000. This Want pays only for salaries and benefits of new or mhhvd Police Officers. Complete the inforinati= below, read the assuranecs on the back and the enclosed C flcatiaats, and sign below. By SiPing t193 t 1PPli ion you Also t r l tlzttt COPS FAST hiring tents povtde Clow of 1~tica~g a maximum federal contribution of 75% of the salary and benefits of { ass btfma a rya, 3M flow .314-2030 each Officer over tkive yews, up to a r of 875,000 per officer, wfth the CC 2013t FAX 534-92r2 federal share m_ yet to year. APPifcarrt Orgtniaatlon'a L"al Namo Cit of Ti ~rrj ko1 r crr i rY1lr~~nP Oregon i Law . natant 1rx lvws mama Ronald D. Goodlsaster Chief of Police Address, 13125 SW Hal..! Blvd. city Ti&ard State Orson s Talal, (503) 639-6168 FAX (503) 684-5654 Zip Code _7223 i Government Emscuthro's Name Bill Monahan City Adrrz3nistrator Address 13125 Std Hall Blvd. C TiQard CRY Zip Cods _97223 Telephone (503) 639-•4171 FAX _ (503) 684-7297 _ r Numbor of Officers ReqtivaW Through FAST Nt lts sr of Sve m Omcars performing Law F.rdbrasr ant Functions as of 9019194 L 46 4 rArea T of Jurisdiction (square mirazzD rl B,evo3 Annual Sa lacy Per Otlicar 10.6 $37,044 t- Number of 1993 UCR kart i Crimes Entry Level Annual Fringe Sensfib Cosh Per I Offizer 2315 $ E Currant Population Served (per most recont U,S, to the applicant organization delinquent on any federal census data) debt? (1t answer [a yea, please attach an explanation.) 32,145-- Y i NO I terrify that the inf6rmation provided on this form is true and accurate to the best ofmy imowledge. I uftderzmnd that the applicant r must comply with tBra- assurances on the meme side if the assistance is awarded On be)alfofthe applicant.,rcerri y cosapli j ±~iih tF.e appditable raquiremerxs of the Certi~tations l~®ardd»g Lobbyi.ag; ' IJebarrr~nr. arrstuic: t orut Oilrtr ltasparzsibility j .Matters: D-g-Frye B# -1plu¢ts Itequtreme=. orr.Svpolmatdr:g Lave Enfforcement Executive's Signature Government Executive's Signature Ram m this form postmarked by December 31, 1994 to. COPS office. P.O.13ox 14440. Vlasllita gwo 631 Indiana Avatue. NW. Third Floor, Washington, DC 20531. FAX: (202) 314-4272 " DC 20044. Ovagtight anal! PWRa repazing burtnra for this cdocnim of to a=zdoc is a 55 mitmus pa e for raeilwing fiLMUoaMs g was=g B 0 s dasa tr i sad 0 0 eedEesd~ of :dad ewm wgudio0 dais ben e=== army o*a of dais oadler o;'iai' iosic::ss~ 'ooa f~ 3 ~s ~ etx Ofica of . 61 M=Vzmart 3 b4baa Ave- MW. Third Fem. SWar a• DC 20331: seed to dal pubMa Us* RV" Prop M 11054061.Offlso of dm j %Mm OM= of sand ScrodM w*mm DC 20503. tM4lta9 f _ a c' j Assurances Several provisions of federal law and policy apply to all grant pro s. We (the Office of i Community Oriented Policing Sa-vi ) need to secs yottr assurance that you (tile applicant) will comply with dma provisions. Ifyou would like fauther information about: any of the matters on which we seek your assurance, please contact us. i By your authorized e'ss suture, you assure us and certify to us that, if the grant is awarded, you will comply writh all legal and administrative requirements that govern the acceptance and use of federal Vant funds. In particular, you asswe us that.. c K ' - 3 { 1. You have been legally end officially authorized by the national origin. gender, disability or age, unlawfully appropriate governing body (tor example. mayor or city excluclis M person from participation in, deny the emricio to apply for this grant and that the persons signing benesttts or employment to any person. or subject any the application and the. assurances on your behalf am person to discrimination in connection with any programs ? authorized to do so and to act on your behaff witPt respect to or activitles funded In wholo or In part with federal funds. Theso civil rights, requirements are found in tha nandis- f any issues that may ariso during processing of this apprIca n, rr•minstian provisions of the Omnibus Crime Contra] and Sate Streets Act of 1SM. as amended (42 U.S.C. F 2. You will comply with the previsions of federal law which § 37M(d)) Tide VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1954, as Omit certain political activities of your employees whose amended (42 U.S.C. § 2000d); the Indian Civil principal employment is in connection with an activity Rights Act (25 U.S.C. 1301-1303); Section 504 of F financred in whole or in part with this grant. These restrict the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 lions area set fortlr in 5 U.S.C, § 1501, q. U.S.C. § 794); Titre If, Subtitle A of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12101, cS 3. You will comply with the minimum wage and um see.): th~ Ace Discrimination Ad of 1875 (42 U.S.C. hours provisions of the f=ederal Pair Labor Standards Act. if they apply to you. § 5101, and Department of Justice Non- Discrimination Regulations contained in Tide 2E, Parts 35 4. You will establish safeguards, if you have not done so and 42 (oubpa C, D. E and G) of the Code of Federal already. to prohibit employees from using their positions for Regulations, a purpose that is. of gives the appearance of wing, mod- A- in the event that any court or administrative vated by a desire for private On for themselves or others. agency makes a finding of discrimination on grounds of particularly those with whom they have family, business, or race, color, religion, national origin or sex against you other ilea. after a due process hearing, you agree to forward a copy i of the finding to the Office of General Counsel. COPS, 5. You evill give us or ft Comptroller General access to P.O.13ox 14440, Washington, DC 20t}44. and the right to examine records and documents related to the grant S. If you are applying for a grant of 55t)0400 or 6. You will comply with all requirements imposed by us as a more and Department regrilations (28 CFd 42.301 M condition or administrative requirement of the grant, with the ) require you to submit an Equal Opportunity Employ- re Q6iY$merlts of OPAIa Ciccuiaes A-87 (governing cost meat Plan, you vain do so at the time of this application, if calculations) and A-128 (governing audits), erith the appti you have not dor:s so in the past cable provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 9. You will Insure that the facilities under your ownership, 1 Streets Act of 1-068, as ascended. with 25 CFR Past 66 i (Uniform Administrative Requirements), with the provisions Iowa or supervision which shall be utilized in the i accosrp:ishrrtent of the project are not fisted on the f. of the anent od'ation of the Office of Justice Programs Envi:r riment it Protection Agenr ys (EPA) l?st of Viotatirig Financial and Adzhh' ' e Guide for Grants, and with all Fadl'itles and that you will notify us 1.1 you are `dvised by other applicable laws, orders, regulations, or circulars. tyre EPA indicating that a facility to be used ir. this grant is 7. You will, to the extent practicable, seek, recruit, and hire under consideration for fisting by EPA. member of racial and ethnic minority groups and warren in 10. If your state has established a review and comment ortlar to in=ane their rank within the swam positions in J_- _ J n-2 s~ and haw pr'rcedu a inndar Exeu do Order 121XI b area aw yQtir agency. selected this program for reviaw. you have made this 8. You will not, an the ground of race; Dior, religion, a pp'nation vmilabie for raviavs by the State Single Point of Contact. COPS cutler (50W - i 11/15194 City Of Tigard Officer Step 1 - gages & Federal General Benefits Grant Funds July 95 4,387 4,387 Aug 95 4,387 4,387 -a Sept 95 4,387 4,387 Oct 95 4,387 4,387 Nov 95 4,387 4,387 i Dec 95 4,387 4,387 i Jan 96 4,387 4,387 ; Feb 96 4,387 4,387 x March 96 4,387 4,387 i April 96 4,387 4,387 may 96 4,387 4,387 June 96 4,387 4,387 7 July 96 4,519 4,518 Aug 96 4,519 4,519 Sept 96 4,519 4,519 Oct 96 4,519 4,519 Nov 96 4,519 4,282 237 Dec 96 4,519 4,519 E Jan 97 4,519 4,519 Fet; 97 4,519 4,519 j March 97 4,519 4,519 April 97 4,519 4,51 a may 97 4,519 4,519 June 97 4,519 4,519 i 97198 55,850 55,850 98/99 57,526 57,526 99/00 59,251 59,251 00/01 61,929 61,029 Total 6 yr costs 340,523 75,000 265,523 Percentage Funded 22.02% 77.980/6 a p i i u ~ t 1 f 11/15/94 City Of Tigard Officer Step 2 Wages & Federal General ' Benefits Gant Funds July 95 4,606 4,606 Aug 95 4,606 4,606 Sept 95 4,606 4,606 Oct 95 4,606 4,606 j Nov 95 4,606 4,606 Dec 95 4,606 4,606 r Jan 96 4,606 4,606 Feb 96 4,606 4,606 - March 96 4,606 4,606 :i April 96 4,606 4,606 May 96 4,606 4,606 June 96 4,606 4,606 July 96 4,744 4,744 Aug 96 4,744 4,744 Sept 96 4,744 4,744 Oct 96 4,744 4,744 Nov 96 4,744 751 3,993 Dec 96 4,744 4,744 Jan 97 4,744 4,744 Feb 97 4,744 4,744 F 4,744 April 97 4,744 4,744 May 97 4,744 4,744 June 97 4,744 4,744 97/98 58,638 58,638 _ e ' 98/99 60,397 60,397 99/00 62,209 62,209 00/01 64,075 64,075 Total 6 yr costs 357,522 75,000 282,522 Percentage Funded 20.98°/® 79.02% 1 i- I a S U.& Department oritistlee U®' . Department of stiff E Community Oriented Policing Services Funding tiAccelerated for Smaller Towns (COPS FAST) f Populations under 50, E Program Information Q Up to $165 million in grants will be trade under ` The COPS FASO' Application is one of several COPS FAST to state, local and other public law enforce- approaches developed by the Department of Justice under meat agencies which serve populations under 50,000. If tine Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of requests exceed the funds available, the amount or Start- 1994 to speed the deployment of new officers devotes) to erg date of grants may be adjusted to accommodate de- community policing on the streets and rural routes in this mand. t_ nation. As directed by Congress, the FAST Application ^ dramatically simplifies the task of applying for a federal U Funding will begin once the FAST Application has grant. The FAST Application may be used by jurisdic- been approved and the new officers have been sworn. eons with populations under 50,000, white the COPS Grants will be made for up to 75 percent of the total sal- f i UMAD approach will expedite the hiring by agencies ary and benefits of each officer over three years, up to a serving larger populatimis. maximum of 575,000 per officer. { Funding Provisions C3 COPS grant funds must not be used to replace funds that eligible agencies otherwise would have devoted to O The FAST Application - a fill-in-the-blank, one page future officer hiring. In other words, any hiring under the 1 form - will be available by November 1, 1994. The COPS program must be in addition to, and not in lieu of, application will request basic identifying information previous hiring plans. about the agency, the number of police officers currently on the force and the number of new officers requested, 0 In hiring new officers, agencies may not reduce the basic financial infoimation, and an agreement to abide by scope of their customary screening and training proce- standard legal requirements. dures, and mast include community policing principles in their wining curricula In addition, to the extent practi- l ® Completed applications will be due to the COPS Of- cable, COPS ant funds should be used to increase the rice by December 31, 1994. The COPS Office will in- representation of women and racial and ethnic minorities forma the agency of an authorized hiring level by February within the ranks of sworn officers. 1, 1995. Before funding may begin, jurisdictions desig- nated for funding will be required to submit necessary 0 An award under COPS FAST will not affect the con- budget information and a brief, satisfactory description of sideration of an agency's application for a grant under any community policing plains. Technical assistance with the . other COPS program. An agency that received funding development of policing plans will be provided to j%Wis- under COPS Phase 1 is eligible to receive additional fUnd- diction in need of such assistance. ing under COPS FAST. C~-_bw is, IOU f -.-j _ U_% Department of,fustfte 4 ®t>I'lee of Community Oriented Policing Services CERTIFICATIONS REGARDING LOBBYING; DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION AND k OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS; DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE REQUIREMENTS; AND NON-SUPPLANTING AI tlr Derment of Jame lairs rues every effm to siamtplify 64 application Mwess, other Mvisiona of federal Im requirm us to mk your certification regarding tauLn vt Applicants shoeald read the regulations cited balow end the bnwm- tions for ca ificadoo iatcluded in the regnlstioos to urAwmand the requirezrmim The si of the appliciat's represcamitive on the mptirstion Provides for compliartee with certification requirements under 29 CFi2 Put 69, 'New Restrictions on LobbyinS* and 22 CFR Pat 67, "Greer t-w t and Suspension (Ado ) Covemme t-w is for Dmg- { Free Workplace (Cmaats)," and time rotrsupptsating m*tireinents of the i eolent Ctitrte Cenral and Law Enforceracat Act of 1994. 1 The saisaificsti sfeetl be treated as a material representation of fact capon which reliance will be placed when the Departitent of Justice dcura=as to award &a covescd gratm 3 1. LOBBYING (I) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment. declares! ineligible, sentenced to a denial of { As required by Section 1362, Turtle 31 of the F.S. Code, Federal benefits by a State or Federal court, or vehartarily and implemented at 28 CFR Part 69. for persons entering excluded from covered transactions by any Federal into a grant or cooperative agreement over $100,Ct30, as department or agency; i defined at 28 CFR Part 69. the applicant certifies that (il) Have not within a three-year period preceding this (a) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will application been convicted of or had a civil judgment be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person rendered against them for commission of fraud or a for Influencing or attempting to influence ad oar or criminal offense In connection with obtaining, attempting to employee of any agency, a mbar of Congress. an obtain, or performing public (Federal. State, or loci officer or employee of Congress, or are emp*ea of a transaction or contract under a public tmns<aeion; viola- Member of Congress in connection with the making of any tion of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commmssmor of Federal gtanL the Waring into of any cooperative embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or agreement, and time extension, continuation, renewal, destruction of records, malting false statements, or amendment, or modification of any Federal grant or receiving stolen properly; cocpersthre agreement; (III) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or (b) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State, or have been piW or will be paid to any person for influenc- loci) wiflm commission of any of the offenses enumerated j. ing or attempting to Influx an officer or employee of in paragraph (A)(ii) of this certiftc;atitm; and r any agency, a Member of Congresa, an officer or er- ployee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of (v) Have not within a three-year period preceding this Congress in connection with this Federal grant or coop- application had one or more public transactions (Fe . erative agreement, time undersigned shall cornpleto and State, or local) terminated for cause cr default; and submit Standard Form - l.ll, `Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.' in accordance with its instructions. (Blank B. Where; the applicant is unable to certify to any of the c opus of Standard Form - LLL can be obtained fro,. the statements in this certification, he or she shall attach an Department of Justice Response Center at (800) 421• explanation to this application. 6770); 3. DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE (GRANTEES OTT (c) The undersigned' shall require that the language of THAN INDIVIDUALS) this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at ali tiers (Includ;ng subgrants, contracts As required by the Drag-Free Workplace Act of 1963, and _ under grants and cooperative agreements, and subcon- implemented at 28 CFR Part 67, Subpart F. for grantees. tracts) and that all sub-=cIpients shall certify and disclose as defined at 28 CFI2 Part 87 Sections 67.615 and accordingty. 67.620- 2. DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER RE- A. The applicant certifies that it will or wrist continue to { SPONSWILITY MATTERS (DIRECT RECIPIENT) provide a drug-free %vorkplace by: As required by Executive Order 12549. Debarment and (i} Publishing a statement notifying employees V'sat the Suspension, and implemented at 28 CFR Part 67, for unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, posses- prospective participants in primary covered transactions, lion, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the as deed at 28 CFR Part 67. Section 67.510 - grantee's workpl andspecifying the actions that will be i , . taken against employeas for violation of such prohibition; A. The applicant certifies Brat it and its principals: 'The sir.' a en the=Iicatien constitutes certification as to these =-isiam COPS uMm i , i PI) Establishing an on-going drug-fte awareness program to such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, lave infov in employes about , enforcement or other appropriate agency; f (a) The dangers of drug abuse In the workplace: (viz Making a good faith emit to continue to maintain a (b) The graraY 'e policy of maintaining a dnsg-f work- dn*f a replace 11tro gh implementation of para- (b) graphs C). (11). C HO. (Iv). (v), and (vi). placa; (c) Any available drug counseling, reshabllitatio.r, and B. The grantee may insert in the space pcovide:d below employee assistarica drug 3 s; and the site(s) for this performances of work dome in connection E with the specific grant: t (d) The penalties that may be Imposed upon employees for Place of Performances (Street address, city. county. state, [ drug abuse violations occurring in the, wrrkplace; zip fie) CCi) Making it a requirement that each employee to be eriMed in " performance of the grant be given a copy of the ement required by paragraph 0i r,. ('iv) notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph n that, as a condition of employmeM under the grant, the employee will - Check 0 if there are workplaces or fie that are not Identified here. • (a) Abide tr, f the terms of the, statement and won 67.630 of they regulations provides that a granite (b) Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction for a that Is a State may elect to make one certification in each violation of a criminal drug statute occurring In the workplace Federal fiscal year, a copy of which should be include ei , no later than five calendar days after such conviction; W th each application for Department of Justice funding. States and State agencies may elect to use OJP Fora ' - x_ ._.s..:e.. .:as.•a - (Y) Notifying LEie3 agency. to ca!endar days ea. sve.ue,y, vs.u,r.. _ _ - - after receiving notice under subparagraph (Iv)(b) from an chicle ®►fthe State has elected to complete OJP employee or othercalse receiving actual notice of such Form 4061f7. conviction. Employers of convicted employees trust provide notice, including position title, to:' COPS Program, P.O. Box 4. h ON-S''° UPPLANTING 1444G. Washington, D.C. 20043. Notice shall include the identification number(s) of each afiec„ted grant; The applicant hereby certifies that Federal funds wlil not (VI) Taking :nee of the following actions, within 30 calendar be used to replace or supplant State or local funds, or days of receiving notice under subparagraph (°rv)(b), with the funds supplied the cal aid, of Indian Affairs: that would, respect to any employ" who is so convicted • employment absence of o of f federal , be made available for the of laver enforcement officers. I (a) raking appropriate personnel action against such an The applicant furthe=r c errtifies that funds required to pay employee, up to and including termination, consistent with the the non-federal or "wsh match" portion of the grant requirements of the Rehabilete*Jon Act of 1973, as amended; program shall be in addition to funds that would otherwise € or be made available for the employment of laws enforce- (b) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a me nY officers. drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for i F COPS rioaroe raayci ~ . _ C U.& Department of Justice ®Iticc of Community Oriented Policing Services ' INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW 1 j Executive Order 12372 requites applicants from State and local units of kovernmetat or other organi;wtions providing service Within a State to aubmht a copy of the licadon to the Swe Single Point of Contact (SPOC~ if one ctists, and if this progtrtun has been selected for review by the State. You must contact your State SPOC to find out if this pro= has been selected for review by your state. ` 'Me Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance references for tW program are nurnber 16.726, "Public Safety and Community Policing Gamts.' A Current list of State SPOC is set forth below.* ARIZONA DELAWARE GEORGIA € Janice Dunn Francine Booth Charles H. Badger Arizona State Clearinghouse State Singles Point of Contact Administrator 3800 N. Central Avenue ExecAve Departnrsttt Georgia State Clearinghouse Fourteenth Floor Thomas Collins Building 254 Washington Street, S.W. - Phoenix, .Rona 95012 Dover, Delaware 19503 Room 401J Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Telephone: (602) 280-1315 Telephone: (302) 739.3325 FAX: (602) 290-1305 FAX: (302) 739-5661 Telephone: (404) 656-3955 or (404) 656-3929 ARKANSAS DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FAX: (404) 656-7938 ,y 1 Mr. Tracy L. Copeland Charles Nichols ILLINOIS r Manager; State Clearinghouse State Single Point of Contact Office of Intergovernmental Services Office of Grants Mgmt. 8 Dev. Steve 10okkenga Department of Finance and Adminis- 717 14th Street, N.W. Suite 500 State Single Point of Contact a trallon Washington, DC 20005 Office of the Governor 1515 W. 7th St, Room 412 ;07 Stratton Building Little Rock. Arkansas 72203 Telephone: (202) 7'2MSSI Springfteid, Illinois 62706 i FAX: (202) 727-1617 i Telephone: (501) 682-1074 Telephone: (217) 792-1671 FAX: (501) 682-5206 FLORIDA. FAX: (217) 792-5620 CALIFORNIA Suzanne Traub-Metiay INDIANA Florida State Clearinghouse Grants Coordinator Intergovernmental Affairs Policy Unit Frances E. Williams Office of Planning & Research Executive Office of the Governor State Budget Agency 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 The Capitol (Room 1603) 212 State House Sacramento, California 95814 Tallahassee. Florida 323W-OMI Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Telephone: (916) 323-7490 Telephona: (904) 488-3114 Telephone: (317) 232:2972 FAX: (916) 323-3018 FAX: (904) 488-90OS FAX: (317) 233-3323 i • In accordance with Executive Order 612372, 'Imtagovaa rental Review of Federal Pro• this listing represents the designated State Single "i . a'gwe..w °+`/.'ll: HM 30Q_tt-erne-t 'rt'eGera --not C'oirr'GS Of totrtact. 1 tee office of M CMbCR and Drti'iiet Fuseer of E~7i+ra:a fin2 +i''pda"'dr4 uei~ves iu. - - listed no longer participm in the process. These include: Alabarna; Alaska: Colorado; Canneaicut; Kansas; Hrvafi; lesho; Louisiana: Minnesota; A+ cnianm Nebraska; Oklahoma; Oregon. Pertnsylvcnia: Sawh Dakota: Virginia; and Washington. This list is based on tee tram emr.-M infortuation provided by the Sues. Information on any changes or appment errors should be provided w the Office of Mataganent and Budget and the State in question. Changes to the list will only be made upon farraol notification by the State. Also, this listing is published biannually in the C Logue of Feda-9 Ami er. i - i- 009 ' IOWA MICHIGAN NEWJERSEY i Steven R. McCann Richard S. Pastuls, Director Gregory W. Adkins, Director _ Dlvislon for Community Assistance Ofiic a of Federal Grants Division of Community Resources IrAva Dexu nt of Economic D€tvel- Michis,)an Department of Commerce Now Jersey Department of Community opmant P.O. Box 30225 Affairs ~ 200 East Grant Avenue , Michigan 48509 Des Moinas, Iowa 50309 Please direct afo rAnespondence and Telephone: (517) 373-7356 questions about intergovernmental i Telephone: (515) 242.4719 FAX: (517) 373.6683 review to: FAX: (515) 242-4859 Andrew J. Jaskalka 3 MISSISSIPPI State Review Process aENTUC KY Division of Community Resources Cati':y Malette CN 814, Room 609 Ronald W. Cools Cteoringhouse Officer Trenton, Now Jersey 08625-0814 O of the +Govamor Office of Federal Grant Management E i Department of Local Government and Reporting Telephone: (609) 232-9025 ~ 1024 Capitol Center Drive Department of Finance and Administra- FAX: (609) 984-0386 Frankfort. Kentucky 40601-8204 tion r 301 West Pearl Street NEW MEXICO Telephorc : (502) 573-2382 Jackson. Mississippi 390203 i FAX: (502) 583.2512 George Elliott Telephone: (601) 949-2174 Deputy Director MAINE FAX: (601) 949-2125 State Budget Division Room 190 Bataan Memorial Building Joyce Benson MISSOURI Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503 State Planning Office State House Station 038 Lois Pohl Telephone: (505) 827-3640 E Augusta, Maine 04333 Federal Assistance Clearinghouse i Office of Administration NEW YORK Telephone. (207) 287-3261 P.O. Box 908 y FAX: (207) 287-6489 Room 760. Truman Building New York State Clearinghouse Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Division of the Budget ! d4 AKTLP.RW State Capitol Telephone: (314) 751-4834 Albany, New York 12224 Roland E. English III FAX: (314) 751.7819 Chief, State Clearinghouse for Inter- Telephone: (518) 474-1605 govemmental Assistance NEVADA. Maryland Office of Planning NORTH CARO`.INA 301 W. Preston Street - Roam 1104 Department of Administration Baltimore. Maryland 21201-2365 State Clearinghouse Chrys Baggett. Director Capitol Complex N.C. State Clearinghouse Telephone: (410) 225-4490 Carson City, Nevada 89710 Office of the Secretary of Admin. FAX: (410) 22514480 116 West Jones Street i Telephone: (702) 6874085 Ralprgh, North Carolina 27603-8003 l MASSACHt3S cTTS FAX: (702) 687-3983 I Telephone: (919) 733-7232 Karen Aronq NEW HAMPSHIRE FAX- (919) 733-9571 State Clearinghouse Executive Office of Communities and Jeffrey H. Taylor NORTH DAKOTA Development Director, New Hampshire Office of State 100 Cambridge Street, Room 1803 Planning North Dakota Single Point of Contact ' Briton, Massachusetts 02202 Attn: Intergovernmental Review Office of Intergovernmental Assistance Process 600 East Boulevard Avenue Telephone: (617) 727-7001 ext. James E. Bieber Bismarck. North Dakota 58505-0170 443 2 112 Beacon Street FAY.: (617) 727-4259 Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Telephone: (701) 224-2094 FAX: (70.) 224-2308 i Telephone (603) 271-2155 FAX: (603) 271-1728 i _ x _ E OHIO TEXAS United States Territories r Larry Wearer Torn Adams GUAM State Single Point of Contact Dinecior, Intergovernmental Coordination State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 13005 Mr. Giovanni T. Sgambelluri Office of Budget and Management Austin. Texas 78711 Director 30 East Broad Ste t, 34th Floor Bureau of Budget and Mann nt ' Columbus, Ohio 43266-0411 Telephone: (312) 463-1771 Research FAX: (512) 463-1984 Office of the Governor Please direct correspondence and P.O. Box 2950 questions about Intergovernmental UTAH Agana, Guam 96910 ; review to: Linda Wise Carolyn Wright Telephone: 011-671-472-2285 Telephone: (614) 466-0698 Utah State Clearinghouse FAX: 011-571-472 2825 FAX: (614) 460-5400 Office of Planning and Budget Room 116 State Capitol PUERTO RICO RHODE ISLAND Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 j Noma Burgos/Jose E. Caro Daniel W. Varin Telephone: (801) 538-1535 Chairwoman/Director Associate Director FAX: (801) 538-1547 Puerto Rico Planning Board r Department of Administration Federal Proposals Review Office Division of Planning VERMONT Mlnillas Government Center One Capitol Hill. 4th Floor P.O. Box 41119 i a Providence, Rhode Island 02908- Nancy McAvoy San Juan, Puerto Rico 00940-1119 5870 State Single Point of Contact i Pavilion Office Building Telephone: (809) 727-4444 Telephone: (401) 277-2655 109 State street (809) 723-6190 FAX: (401) 277-2083 Montpelier, Vermont 05609 FAX: (809) 724-3270 F (809) 724-3103 Please direct correspondence and Telephone: (802) 828-3326 _ questions to: FAX: (802) 828-3339 NORTH MARIANA ISLANDS Review Coordinator Office of Stratecic Plannino WEST VIRGINIA State Single Point of Contact Planning and Budget Once SOUTH CAROLINA Fred Cutlip, Director Office of the Governor Community Development Division Saipan, CM Onfeagia Burgess W. Virginia Development Office Northem Mariana Islands 98950 State Single Point of Contact Building 06, Room 553 Grant Services Charleston, West Virginia 25305 VIRGIN ISLANDS Office of the Governor 1205 Pendleton Street - Room 477 Telephone: (304) 558-4010 Jose George i Columbia, South Carolina 29201 FAX: (304) 558-3248 Director, Office of Management and Budget 'T'elephone: (803) 734-0494 WISCONSIN *41 Norregade Emancipation Garden i FAX: (803) 734-0385 Station Martha Kerner Second Floor TENNESSEE Section Chief, State/Federal Relations Saint Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802 Wisconsin Department of Administration Charles Brown 101 East Wilson Street - 6th Floor Please direct all questions and State Single Point of Contact P.O. Box 7868 correspondence about intergovem- State Planning Office Madison, Wisconsin 53707 mental review to: 500 Charlotte Avenue Linda Clarice # John Sevier Building - Suite 309 Telephoner (608) 266-2125 Telephone: (809) 774-0750 Nashville, Tennessee 37243-0001 FAX: (608) 267-6931 FAX: (809) 778-0069 k - Telephone: (615) 741-1676 WYOMING Sheryl Jeffries State Single Point of Contact 6 He:rschler Building 4th Floor, East Wing Cheyenne. Wyoming 82002 Telephone: (307) 777-7574 FAX: (307) 638-8967 AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of ~a1~3 1,-,( (4 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA,ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE , ppoint:rme s to the Budget Committee t + PREPARED BY: DEPT HEAD Off CITY ADMIN OX r ~"4 'I'N~~ C®LpI3CSL ° i ISSUE Reappointment of Floyd Bergmann to the Budget Committee. F - STAFF RgCgj=NDATION { 4 'j Adopt the attached resolution reappointing Floyd Bergmann to the Budget committee. l' INFOBMATION S y Floyd Bergmann°s term has expired on the Budget Committee. He is interested in reappointment. At the November 29, 1994 City Council meeting, the Council considered a ,I resolution to appoint Craig Dirksen and reappoint Floyd Bergmann to the Budget Committee. The Council approved an amended resolution appointing E, r". Craig Dirksen to the Budget Committee and asked that Floyd Bergmann Is reappointment be considered by the full Council on December 13, 1994. The attached resolution, if adopted, would reappoint Floyd Bergmann to the Budget i Committee. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Delay action at this time. C r FISCAL, _NOTE'S i. I 1 i I i I CITY OP TIC , ORE-CON RESOLUTION NO. 94-- t` A SOLUTION ' OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL 1141AKING APPOINTMENTS To THE - 4MORM , Floyd Barg-+ann has been serving on the Budget Committee since December 15, 1986 and a}s m , Floyd Eergm ps current term on the Budget Committee has ~ axpired; and V7 , Floyd Bergmann is interested in reappointment to the Budget Committee: and NOW, THEREFORX, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: section 1: Floyd Bergmann be reappointed to a three year terns on - the P Budget Committee that expires on June 30, 1997. PASSED: This day of , 1994. ' i ! Mayor City of Tigard ATTEST: _ i City Recorder City of Tigard ! i I t i i i I y 4 i RESOLUTION NO. 94-„ ! Page 1 AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of CITY or TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SU1► RY ISSUE/AGENDA TITS RgApp9intments the Plannina C iss. o PREPARED DY:i 9Stt=n DEPT HEAD OX CITY ADMIN OX ISSX?E BEFORE THE COUNCIL { Reappointment of Carolyn DeFrang and Michael Collson to the Planning commission. STAFF RECOP NDAT10N Adopt the attached resolution appointing Carolyn DeFrang and Michael Collson to the Planning Commission. { INFORMATION SUMMARY i Carolyn DeFrang was appointed to the Planning commission on November 23, 1993 a to fill the unexpired term of Jim Castile who resigned. Michael Collson was appointed to the Planning commission to fill the unexpired term of Harold Boone who resigned. Both are interested in reappointment to the Commission. -'Attached is a memo regarding Planning commission attendance over the last ' year. Also attached is a resolution which. if annroved _ would _-ol -it - Carol-M DeFrang and Michael Collson to four year terms on the Commission. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Delay action at this time. FISCAL NO'T'ES 3 i I f 1 j t MEMORANDUM f CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON I a r TO: Liz Newton j, ` F; FROM: Bonnie Mulhearn DATE: December 6, 1994 SUBJECT: Planning Commission attendance Planning Commission held 20 meetings from November 1, 1993 to October 17, 1994. 4 1 COMMISSIONERS MEETINGS ATTENDED Milton F. Fyre 16 C 1 i Michael Collson* 10 j;- j Carolyn DeFrang 16 I k Ron Holland 17 Brian Moore 18 - Harry Saporta** 11 Doug Saxton 13 Joe Schweitz** 18 7 r, Nick Wilson 15 * Not appointed until 2/22/94 - only 14 meetings held. r Commissioners Saporta and Schweitz have resigned. f i - A ' J g' _ Budget Committee Attendance For last two years 3 Duddy C. George Deyra ~~ovd Phil 4/5/93 yes yes yes yes no 4/15/93 yes yes yes yes no 5/10/93 yes yes yes yes yes 5/17/93 yes yes yes no no ~ 5/24/93 yes yes no no no f`. 10/4/93 yos yes yes acio yes ,j 2/28/94 yes yes yes no no j 4/4/94 yes yes no yes yes -i 5123/94 y®$ yes yes ia^0 no y 5/26/94 yes yes yes yes no -,j 5/31/94 yes yes no yes yes r ii ! Tot Attended 11 11 8 6 4 i o - ' i - i ~ F AGENDA ITEM For Agenda of CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Ordinance adontina the current edition of the State One i and Two Family Dwelling Code T PREPARED BY: David Scott DEFT HEAD OK CITY AYlM7N nK - . ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City adopt the most current edition of the State of Oregon One and I' i Two Family Dwelling Code? i, STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached ordinance which adopts the most current edition of the State of Oregon One and Two Family Dwelling Code. INFORMATION SUMMARY 1 ~ Currently Title 3.4 of the Tigard Municipal Code adopts the 1990 edition of the Oregon One and Two Family Dwelling Code. The 1993 edition of the Oregon I One and Two Family Dwelling Code became effective May 1, 1993. Municipalities administering a bu: ld:ia code program. rust adopt and enforce the most current edition of all relevant codes. The 1993 edition of the Oregon One and Two . Family Dwelling Code was adopted by the State during the period between the resignation of the previous Building Official and the starting date of the current Building Official. Local adoption of this Code was inadvertently overlooked until recently. Tigard has been enforcing the current edition since it became effective. The attached ordinance simply brings our Municipal Code up to date. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. j FISCAL NOTES There is no fiscal impact. I f i i