Loading...
City Council Packet - 02/13/1996 ~ i s CITY OF TICAR® OREGON j i i 1 TIGARD- CITY COUNCIL I MEETING I February 13, 1996 y I i i f - COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED ~ i l I:FadmyolccPktl.doc'F i 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 r J I Revised 218196 o _ TIGA.RD CITY COUNCIL ! BUSINESS MEETING ITY OF TIGARD FEBRUARY 13,199S 6:30 PM TIGARD CITY HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIG.ARD, OREGON 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor r at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes I or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or ! the City Administrator. Times noted are estimated: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. 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 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; 1 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 notify 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: 639- i . 4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). - SEE ATTACHED AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING 13, 1996 - 6:30 PM -c~ JANUARY i AGENDA 6:30 D.m. • STUDY MEETING > Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f), at (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, and current at pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. > Five-Year Financial Plan Status • Finance Director > Update on Transportation Issues in the Triangle Area • Community Development Director > Agenda Review 7:30 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council at Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 p.m. - 1 2. SPECIAL EVENTS j a. OATH OF OFFICE - BRIAN MOORE I • Mayor Nicoll b. SPECIAL ACI(IOWLEDGEMENT - TEACHER OF THE YEAR - CINDY RUSSELL, TIGARD HIGH SCHOOL • Introduction: Mark Kubiacryk, Tigard High School Principal • Presentation: Mayor Nicoll 7:40 p.m. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) I 7:50 p.m. 4. 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. Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the _ Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. Motion to: 4.1 Approve City Council Minutes: January 9, 16, 1996 4.2 Receive and File: a. Tentative Agendas b. Council Calendar 4.3 Approve Implementation of Classification/Compensation Study Results and r Recommendations for the Management and Professional Staff - Resolution No. 96-jgP COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 2 , ~ f i 7:55 p.m. 5. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ` AND ZONE CHANGE CPA 954)003/ZON 95-0005 BRIAR DEVELOPMENT A request to amend the Comprehensive Plan map from Medium-High Density Residential to General Commercial and change the zoning from R-25 to C-G on 9 acres of a 15.14 acre parcel. Location: Southeast corner of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. 135th Avenue (WCTM 1S1 33AC, Lot 8000). Applicable Review Criteria: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 4.1.1, 5.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, j 8.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1(2); and Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32. Zone: C-G (General Commercial) allows for several commercial uses including convenience sales and services, eating and drinking establishments, food and beverage retail sales, general retail sales, and medical and dental services. a. Continue Public Hearing from the January 23, 1996 Council Meeting b. Public Testimony Rebuttal J C. Staff Recommendation d. Council Questions e. Close Public Hearing f. Council Consideration: Direct staff or applicant to prepare Final Order and resolution or ordinance for Council consideration at a future meeting. 8AS p.m. E . 6. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE CPA 95-0005/ZON 95-000 - PACIFIC CREST/PROVIDENCE A request to amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Parcels 1 and 3 of MLP 94- 0013, located on the southwest corner of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota, from Commercial Professional to Neighborhood Commercial and change the zoning from C-P to C-N; and to amend the Comprehensive Plan map on the property located on the southeast corner of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota from Neighborhood Commercial to Commercial Professional and change the zoning from C-N to C-P. Location: Southwest and southeast corners of Scholls Ferry Road and 1 North Dakota. Applicable Review Criteria: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2) 2.1.1, 5.4, 8.1.1, 12.2.1(1) and 12.2.1(3); Community Development Code Chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 3 12. Zone: C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) allows for several uses including convenience sales and personal services, food and beverage sales, medical and dental services and professional and administrative services. C-P (Professional/ Administrative Office) allows for business support services, communication services, medical and dental services, personal services, convenience sales and services and limited eating and drinking establishments. ' I a. Staff Update: Community Development Dep r ment b. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96- J COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 3 l~ 8:55 P.M. I 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 9S-0008 CLARKE ; _ A request to annex two parcels of 2.14 acres into the city and change the zoning { from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard R-7. Location: South of S. W. Fern Street just west of S.W. 135th Avenue. The two parcels are separated by two other properties. Applicable Review Criteria: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1 - Citizen Involvement; 10.1.1 - Service Delivery Capacity; 10.1.2 - Boundary Criteria; and 101.3 -Zoning Designation. Also 1 Community Development Code Chapters 18.136 - Annexation Requirements, and 18.138 - Land Classification of Annexed Territory. Zone: Presently Washington County R-6. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges "t c. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony Applicant - Proponents - Opponents Rebuttal e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-0'7 Ordinance No. 96- 0 5 9:10 P.M. 8. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 9S- 0019/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 954)0081MINOR LAND PARTITION (ML) 95-0012 - FUTURE SHOP/CHRISTENSEN City Council "Call-Up" for review of the following development applications: 1. Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 40,000 square foot "future shop" general retail building and a 9,SS0 square foot general retail building, 2. Planned Development Review; 3. Minor Land Partition approval to partition one parcel of approximately 4.99 acres into two parcels of approximately 4.27 and .72 acres, Location: East side of S.W. Dartmouth Street, south of S.W. Pacific Highway. (WCTM 1S1 36CD, Tax Lot 2000). Zone: General Commercial (C-G). The General Commercial zone allows public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, and real estate services, business support services, general retail sales, eating and drinking establishments, among other uses. Applicable Review Criteria: Community Development Code Section 18.62, 18.80, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.162 and 18.164. COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 4 L~ L~ i a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Department 1 d. Public Testimony - Applicant I . - Proponents E - Opponents 1 - Rebuttal e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Do the approved plans comply with Community Development Code. 9:45 p.m. 9. ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION -AMENDMENTTO TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 7.40, NUISANCES - AMENDING ARTICLE IV TO REGULATE NOISE LEVELS This proposed amendment would provide for better regulation of noise in residential areas. When issuing a permit for an event which would exceed permissible noise levels, the City Administrator would have the ability to set a limit on the amount of noise created by the event and to impose other conditions on the issuance of a permit. a. Staff Report: Police Department b. Council Questions at Discussion C. Council Consideration - Ordinance No. 96-L(A - 10:00 P.M. 10. ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION - AMENDMENT TO TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.30 (SECTIONS 2.30.060 AND 2.30.070) AUTHORIZING t INVENTORY OF THE CONTENTS OF ARRESTED PERSONS AND IMPOUNDED VEHICLES. a. Staff Report: Police Department 1 b. Council Questions to Discussion C. Council Consideration - Ordinance No. 96-~ . 10:15 P.m. 11. LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD - CONSIDER CITY HALL ROOF PROPOSAL a. Staff Report: Maintenance Services Department b. Council Questions ex Discussion C. Council Consideration: Motion to authorize the City Administrator to enter into an agreement with Richard Raglan for research, analysis and preliminary design (Phase 1) of the City Hall roof project in the amount of $2,310. Y COUNCIL AGENDA FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 5 L~ 10:25 p.m. 12. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 13 S p EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), at (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 10:50 P.M. 14. ADJOURNMENT f:%recorder\cn\ca0213.96 .1111' E : -f , { Y i t 1 COUNCIL AGENDA FEBRUARY 13, 1996 PAGE 6 w, _ - - 771- -j7 rs- Agenda Item No. - Meeting of TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - 6:30 PM MINUTES e STUDY MEETING > Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f), 6x (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, and current ex pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. r _ > Five-Year Financial Plan Status i e Finance Director Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, updated the Council on the five- year plan for a financial perspective for the goal setting process. Since 1981, City of Tigard has worked with 5-year plans. He reviewed the 5-year plans since 1981, noting that the current 5- ` year plan would take the City through the year 2001. He stated i that Year One of the current plan began on July 1, 1996. Mr. Lowry said that the plan was designed to go before the voters every five years, though that was not a legal requirement. He explained that the Council at the time was responding to the voters getting tired of governments constantly asking for more money- The City put together a responsible plan and promised not to come back to the voters for five years. Mr. Lowry distributed copies of the ballot title that went before the voters. He noted the commitments made to police and library in the title. Mr. Lowry reviewed the assumptions in the plan, including adding three police officers a year for the next six years and having $1 million dollars reserved in the general fund at the end of the fifth year. i Mr. Lowry explained that the increased tax base (passed in November 1994) would not take effect until July 1, 1996. If the Council chose to levy less than the voter-approved amount, it would affect the plan. Mr. Lowry reviewed the general fund revenue sources received from the State: cigarette tax, liquor tax and State shared revenues. He explained that they assumed in the plan that they would lose those revenues ($550,000 to $600,000 a year) because in 1994 it looked like the State would be keeping the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 1 1 , money. However, the City did not lose the money and staff put t it back into the plan in Year Six and in Year One. He said that they also added a couple more positions in Year Six. Mr. Lowry explained that the commitment made to the public . was that if the shared revenues are unexpectedly continued after 1996, the Council would extend the five year commitment to the voters based on the amount of shared revenues received by the City. He said that there was a potential of $2.2 to $2.5 E i million dollars in additional revenues to this plan over the fire years. Mr. Lowry explained that the five year plan was essentially a mechanism that allowed him to tell the Council what effect a ' decision they made today would have on the future of the general fund. He noted that there were costs involved in moving things forward in the plan and that the plan was the framework around I which future budgets should be built. Mr. Lowry commented that this was the .62 cents plan, down from the original November 1994 proposal of .94 cents. If the Council decides to do something that was not in the plan, there were financial implications to the change. The plan also made certain assumptions about levels of service. Mr. Lowry stated that any change on the expense side of the plan had to be matched with a change on the revenue side or with some other change offsetting the increase in expenses. Councilor Scheckla asked if revenue sharing was designated for a certain area. Mr. Lowry said that all the revenue sources for the general fund would be used to fund general fund services; those ' services were mainly police, library and parks. Mayor Nicoli asked if the City would have extra unexpected money coming in if they didn't lose the $600,000 and did 1 nothing different on the spending side. Mr. Lowry said that they included two years of revenue sharing dollars in the plan and added some positions that weren't in the original plan. He stated that they checked with all departments in November and identified what changes to the plan have occurred. He said that when those changes were factored in, they had $800,000 or $900,000 dollars remaining at the end of the plan, which was the target. Councilor Scheckla asked if there was any reason to assume that revenue sharing would be discontinued in the future. Mr. Lowry 4 said that he did not know. The State seems to have been able to fund schools since Measure 5; however, the Finance Director said CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 2 YY f I L~ • G he was only willing to put the State shared revenues back into the plan every two years. Bill Monahan, City Administrator, raised the issue of Budget Committee meetings. The Council discussed it and decided to schedule an initial meeting for Thursday, March 7, from 6:30 P.m. to 8:30 p.m. for orientation and the social agency presentation. At that time they would decide on the other meeting dates. Mayor Nicoli suggested that Mr. Lowry poll the Budget Committee members on meeting on March 7. j In response to a concern raised by Mayor Nicoli, Mr. Monahan J said that they would check on the hearing scheduled for March i 26 and reschedule the items on the March 26 agenda to avoid a meeting during Spring Break. > City Hall Roof Councilor Hunt asked if all the contractors were aware that they could submit a different proposal other than for the metal roof preferred by Council. John Acker stated that he talked with all three of the bidders about the preference for a metal roof and all three commented that there might be less expensive ways to do the roof. He said that he told them that they could submit alternative bids along with the metal roof bid. Councilor Hunt asked if the architect for the City Hall roof was the same architect that did the work on the senior center. He said that he wanted to know because he did not think that the details were handled well at the senior center. Mr. Acker said ' that he did not know if it was the same architect but that he would find out. Mayor Nicoli suggested inviting the architect to the next Council work session for an informal visit. i - a Councilor Hunt asked if a decision was made on which of the two i options the City would take. He noted that this bidder was higher on the metal roof, though lower on the alternative roof. If they chose the metal roof, they would not be giving the contract to the low bidder. - " Mr. Acker explained that the City was not required to choose the low bidder when dealing with a personal services contract like this. He said that he chose this bidder over the others because he thought he had the clearest and most detailed scope of services. It indicated specifically what the bidder would be doing for the City. That included three different elevations of metal roofs so that the City could see what it might look like. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 3 f I j > Storm update Mr. Monahan explained the need for a resolution declaring a state of emergency in order to get FEMA funds to help with the storm damage. He said that they were not sure what the damage was yet but that once the water receded from Cook Park, they would and assess the damage. Ed Wegner, Maintenance Services Director, reported that they had major problem areas due to the storm. These included major flooding at Cook Park, a water supply issue and a mud slide on 99W. He said that the City responded to the mudslide because ODOT made it a lower priority. Mr. Wegner reviewed the concerns at Benchview Place where a . house was sliding down the hill. He said that the Community Development Department has worked on the structure. A major problem was the storm drainage system running behind the house that collapsed due to the ground shifting. He said that they made a makeshift catch basin to handle any additional storm drainage and were monitoring the situation. Mr. Wegner said that the sanitary sewer line that ran right behind the home has also moved. They would TV it every Friday to see how much movement there was. He stated that they have been working with USA and had a contingency plan in case the whole sanitary system collapsed; this system served not only the Benchview area but also the Three Mountains Estates. ' Councilor Scheckla asked if the people have been evacuated from the house. Mr. Wegner said yes, and that the house had been "red tagged" since Thursday. He noted that there had been some potential damage to the neighbor to the north but that an engineer worked with the homeowner to take of the problem. Mr. Wegner stated that the other storm related problem was the water supply, which might or might not continue to be a problem. He said that Lake Oswego had shut down its plant several times during the storm event due to the turbidity of the water, until today, Tigard had been buying water from Lake i Oswego and using storage. He stated that on Sunday, Tigard began selling water to Tualatin. He noted that even though the Bull Run water supply was shut down and ground well water used as well as water conservation requested, no one using Bull Run or I Clackamas River water had had to boil water. Mr. Wegner said that even though Portland had lifted its water crisis alert, but Lake Oswego shut down its plant because of a diesel fuel spill on the Clackamas River this afternoon. Tigard z started buying water from the Tualatin Valley system this CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 4 F a afternoon but hoped that the Lake Oswego plant would be back online by early morning. He said that Tiigard's water storage did not drop below 50% until today when it dropped to 49%. Mr. Wegner said that they would continue to monitor the situation. They were pumping over 1 million gallons a day from their own wells. In response to questions from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Wegner said that the only Cook Park would have structural damage resulting from the flood, citing the restrooms and noting the large sinkhole that has appeared in the soccer parking lot. Summerlake Park and Woodard Park would have only ground j maintenance damage. In response to a question from Councilor Rohlf, Mr. Wegner said that he doubted they still had a ramp to the dock but that hopefully the dock was still there. Mr. Wegner reported that they delivered barricades Friday evening to Tualatin and have lent them Tigard's forklift and one of their dump trucks. Mayor Nicoli reported that Tualatin has asked for assistance for building inspections for damaged ! structures; qualified City staff would be sent. Mr. Wegner commented that Tigard had been fortunate and that by Friday night, the emergency had been nearly wrapped up. Councilor Scheckla asked if the apartments flooded on Bonita Road had been evacuated. Mr. Wegner said that the City had not officially evacuated anyone other than the one residence on Benchview. Mayor Nicoli asked if most of their costs were reimbursable by FEMA. Mr. Wegner said that he didn't know yet. He stated that they have received instructions to begin keeping records and gathering data. He reported that sometime after the 19th, a meeting would be held in Salem to inform jurisdictions what was or was not reimbursable. John Acker would meet with the highway people tomorrow to find out about federal funds for City streets damaged during the flood. Councilor Scheckla asked if it was possible to get some funds to replace Tiedeman Bridge and the bridge on Grant between Tigard and Johnson streets. Mr. Wegner said that he would find out. Mr. Monahan reported that another continuing cost they might have related to storm debris collection. Metro has asked local jurisdictions to set up collection areas. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 5 i f Mr. Wegner commented that sand bags contaminated with petroleum would be declared hazardous waste and disposed of separately. Update on Transportation Issues in the Triangle Area • Community Development Director Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, distributed copies of a memo updating the status of the Tigard Triangle area. (Copy of memo on file with the Council packet material.) He reviewed the steps in the memo, noting the request for i consultant assistance to package all the transportation recommendations developed in the past two years, the intent to institute mixed use zoning for the Triangle, and the public involvement process. Mr. Hendryx noted that the project would begin now with wrap up in September. He said that they would need an additional $10 to $15,000 to complete the project as outlined. He mentioned the scope of work attached to the memo. He said that, based on Council direction, he could come back to the February 27 meeting for action and then start getting proposals. Mayor Nicoli asked for the timeline in a graphic form to make it easier for citizens to understand the process and when things were supposed to be accomplished. He asked if wrap up in September meant it would then go to the Planning Commission. Mr. Hendryx said that it would go to the Planning Commission in I late September or early October; the intent was to have the project wrapped up before the end of the year. However if something controversial came up, room has been allowed for additional hearings. Councilor Hunt asked how involved Metro and ODOT were in i this phase. Mr. Hendryx said that the intent was to have them involved. He was meeting with Bruce Warner of ODOT and Andy Cotugno of Metro tomorrow and hoped to have them involved in the first hearings. He commented that the State was very interested in Tiigard's adopting the tool box because it was the first time it has been done in the State and would serve as a template for other jurisdictions. Mr. Hendryx said that they have sent out requests for consultants to a variety of firms to get a broad representation. Mr. Hendryx stated that he heard a commitment from Council to staff to go forward; he would return with the necessary paperwork on the 27th. In the interim, staff would finalize the scope of work and get it out as soon as possible. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 6 l L~ L~ I( 1 I Non-Agenda Items Mr. Monahan said Council would need to consider a resolution declaring a state of emergency because of the storm. Mr. Hendryx mentioned the issue of the coordination with the County Park Advisory Committee regarding the site up on Bull Mountain. He suggested proposing joint funding of the site as a way to split the costs for the 13 acre parcel. Councilor Hunt said that he could not support spending all their money on the Bull Mountain area and would rather see it spread through the City. He commented that a lot of people voted for trail upgrades. He stated that he would vote against this when it came up. . 1 Mayor Nicoll commented that this was an opportunity to cut the cost of the property in half. He said that they didn't need to buy the entire property; they could split some portions off from it. Councilor Scheckla mentioned that recently some people who offered to donate $32,000 to buy some property off Hall Blvd if the City would match the funds withdrew their offer when the City said they didn't necessarily want the entire property. Mr. Hendryx said that all they were doing was asking the County to consider a joint venture. He said that he thought they should try for as many joint ventures as possible to stretch everyone's dollars further. He stated that asking the County to consider this did not bind the City into an agreement. Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Administrator, reported that staff talked to the West CIT about this issue. She thought that the West CIT would like the City to encourage the County to do a joint venture to stretch the dollars further. Both the City and the County had additional sites they were considering. She suggested rewording the letter to encourage a joint venture. Mayor Nicoli proposed that they ask the County to consider a joint venture. He said that he thought it was wise and that the City could double its money. Mr. Hendryx clarified what the letter said. He stated that it asked that as the County went through its selection process to consider working with the City on a joint project. It was an attempt at a cooperative effort since both jurisdictions were looking at similar service areas, rather than an attempt to commit to a specific site. Mr. Hendryx said that they would rewrite the letter. > Agenda Review Councilor Moore stated that he would remove himself from the Briar Development hearing because of a conflict of interest; he'd been on the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 7 L~ X_ ..o, ~ F Planning Commission that reviewed it. However he would participate in the Future Shop hearing since the Council was looking at a different issue than what the Planning Commission had reviewed. 1. BUSINESS MEETING • 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 8z Local Contract Review Board Mayor Nicoli called the study session to order at 6:31 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoll, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. i' Staff present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Property Manager John Acker (Study Session only); Acting City Engineer Gary Alfson; Jim. Hendryx, Community Development Director, Finance Director Wayne f Lowry (Study Session only); Nadine Smith, Senior Planner; Assistant to the City Administrator Liz Newton; Tim Ramis, City Attorney, Maintenance Services Director Ed Wegner (Study Session only); Police Chief Rob Goodpaster; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items City Administrator Monahan said that staff would like to add two items: a resolution declaring a state of emergency, and a request to coordinate with the Washington County Parks Advisory Committee. 2. a. OATH OF OFFICE - BRIAN MOORE Mayor Nicoll administered the oath of office to Brian Moore. b. SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT - TEACHER OF THE YEAR - CINDY RUSSELL, TIGARD HIGH SCHOOL • Introduction: Mark Kubiacryk, Tigard High School Principal • Presentation: Mayor Nicoli i Mr. Kubiacryk introduced Cindy Russell, the teacher who won the National High School Association's Teacher of the Year award for her efforts in school reform and excellence in teaching. Ms. Russell thanked Mr. Kubiacryk for nominating her for the award and encouraging her to remain in Tigard. She said that Tigard High School has made great strides in school reform and expressed her appreciation at being part of it. ! . Mayor Nicoli presented a certificate and some small gifts to Ms. Russell and expressed the community's pride in her for winning a national CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 8 IL j ~ award. Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 8:49 p.m. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA Gene McAdams, 13420 S.W. Brittany Drive, Tigard, spoke on the 130th and I Winterlake bridge and street improvement projects scheduled for construction this summer. He said that former City Engineer Wooley had told him that he thought that work on the projects would start in March. He asked if the City has set dates for public review of the bridge plans. I _ Mayor Nicoll stated that they had not set any dates for public review. He said that the Council had authorized staff to go forward on the timeline without a final review of the project by Council, as was the normal procedure. In this instance, Council also promised a neighborhood meeting to allow residents to see the final documents. Mr. McAdams asked when the Task Force and public would be notified regarding the street improvements and associated amenities plans. He said that that project would require coordination with the public, the public and the Task Force should look at those plans before their final approval. He said that he was anxious to get started on this because he knew that early advertisement on bridge projects helped to get the best deal for building one. 4. CONSENT AGENDA 4.1 Approve City Council Minutes: January 9, 16, 1996 4.2 Receive and File: a. Tentative Agendas b. Council Calendar 4.3 Approve Implementation of Classification/Compensation Study Results and Recommendations for the Management and Professional Staff - Resolution No. 96-06 t MOTION by Councilor Hunt, SECONDED by Councilor Scheckla, to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoll and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 5. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE CPA 95-0003/ZON 95-0005 BRIAR DEVELOPMENT A request to amend the Comprehensive Plan map from Medium-High Density Residential to General Commercial and change the zoning from R-25 to C-G on 9 acres of a 15.14 acre parcel. Location: Southeast corner of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. 135th Avenue (WCTM IS1 33AC, Lot 8000). Applicable Review Criteria: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 9 3 ' E 4.1.1, 5.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1(2); and Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32. Zone: C-G (General Commercial) allows for several commercial uses including convenience sales and services, eating and drinking establishments, food and beverage retail sales, general retail sales, and medical and dental services. a. Continue Public Hearing from the January 23, 1996 Council Meeting Mayor Nicoll read the hearing title, reviewed the hearing procedures and opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges Councilor Moore removed himself from this hearing because he had been a member of the Planning Commission which heard this application and because he had not attended the first Council hearing. The Councilors reported no ex parte contact. They indicated that they had familiarized themselves with the record. There were no challenges. b. Public Testimony Mayor Nicoll explained that this meeting had been continued to allow the applicant to rebut. He asked for a brief report from staff to update the additional information received by Council in the interim. Ray Valone, Associate Planner, reviewed Council's direction at the January 23 meeting to staff to provide copies of CPA 91-0003/ZON 91-0006, the Albertson's application for a zone change. He stated that copies of the August 1991 transportation analysis and its October 1991 addendum, and a set of tax assessors maps used for notification of area residents that were part of the 1991 case were not provided to Council because staff deemed them irrelevant to the purposes for which Council had requested the file. He said that they could be made part of the record if Council chose to do so. Mr. Valone said that because the Albertson's file did not include any i information about the outcome of the hearing, staff researched the Planning Commission minutes of November 4, 1991 and December 16, 1991 when the case was heard. He stated that the relevant portion of those minutes have been provided both to the applicant and to the opponents' attorney, and were available to Council from the City Recorder. Mr. Valone reviewed the outcome, noting that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to direct staff to work with the applicant, all others in the Scholls Ferry area that had previously applied for a rezone and been denied, the NPOs, and those parties interested in the development of a new plan in zoning designations. He said that though the Commission voted to continue the hearing to a later date, no further hearings were held on the matter. He stated that CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 10 1 the minutes excerpts could be made part of the record as Council's j discretion. Rebuttal Joel Gordon, Briar Development Company Director of Development, reviewed the applicant's efforts in working with staff and other agencies for more than a year. He said that they held three community meetings to garner community input, and had been told that there wasn't sufficient interest in the CIT to warrant addressing that group. He stated that they received no negative feedback from the neighborhood at the Planning Commission, and that the opposition at the first Council hearing had been coordinated by economic ji competitors seeking to protect their territory. Mark A. Vandehey, Kittleson at Associates, 610 SW Alder, Portland, stated that he was a professional traffic engineer. He referenced his written response to the issues raised by the opponents at the January 23 hearing. He said that he disagreed with virtually all of the issues raised by Mr. Bernstein, contending that there were technical errors with respect to his trip generation estimates that invalidated his basic premise. Mr. Vandehey pointed out that Mr. Bernstein became involved with this project for only one week prior to the January 23 hearing, and that he collected no field data, did not talk to them about their analysis, or j present any technical analysis demonstrating that the surrounding street system was inadequate to support the proposed zone change. He stated that they have been working on this project for almost a year and have collected operational field data at the study intersection. In addition, they have met with both Washington County and City of Tigard staff who agreed that the assumptions used in their analysis of both the proposed development and a worst case scenario were in fact conservative. Mr. Vandehey stated that they discussed with staff assumptions regarding trip distribution and trip assignment as well as the traffic operations in the existing conditions and in the 2005 scenario. He said that they developed an access scheme which both the County and the developer felt met the access needs of the development and protected j the capacity of Scholls Ferry Road. He said that the Washington County engineers and planners concluded that the proposed development would have similar or less severe impacts on the critical intersections on Scholls Ferry than the apartment complex allowed for under the current zone designation. Mr. Vandehey addressed the issue of neighborhood traffic impacts. He said that they thought that this site was ideally located because it was accessible to the surrounding neighborhood by pedestrians and autos yet did not promote an increase in non-local traffic within the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 1 1 j f. t . neighborhood. He stated that they thought so for two reasons: the f access scheme was designed to facilitate movements to and from Scholls Ferry and 135th, and the City was part of the 130th construction project which had proposed traffic controls designed to restrict movements in the Summerlake neighborhood. David Leland, Managing Director of the Leland Consulting Group, reviewed the qualifications and experience of the firm in serving both public and private clients. He said that they were asked to examine the trade area zone graphics, analyze the public need and look at the availability of vacant commercial land that might accommodate this grocery store. Mr. Leland reviewed the specifics of their September 1995 submittal that used three methods to analyze the trade area to determine public i need. He reviewed objections raised by the opponents regarding the model they used and the size of the trade area. He said that they did cut back on the size of the trade area, and conducted additional analysis. He explained that the Riley gravity model referred to by the opponents did not measure public need; therefore, they used the shared space model that did. Mr. Leland noted the fast growing population in the area and its effect on retail patronage. He stated that they used a very conservative approach in all of their analyses. Mr. Leland reviewed the "four C's" of successful retail: convenience, ' cost, cleanliness and courtesy. He said that the reason why Portland . had small stores that remained profitable was because Portland was running out of land, and therefore competitors couldn't come in and destroy the numbers. Mr. Leland pointed out that the interest of several major grocery chains in this area indicated a public need. He referenced a comparison of the square footage of stores to population as studied within a two mile C" j radius in Tigard, and in the Cities of Eugene and Beaverton. Mr. Leland reviewed the different analyses they did on the trade area. Their conclusion was that this area would need another two stores by 1997 and a third by 1999 to serve this rapidly growing area adequately. Mr. Leland addressed the issue of the availability of space. He said that the Comprehensive Plan stated that Tigard had a shortage of commercial land. He pointed out the location of the remaining commercial zones in both Tigard and Beaverton, and contended that none of them were large enough to accommodate a full service grocery store by today's standards. } Mr. Leland restated the points he made during his presentation, CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 12 L~ t~ particularly emphasizing the need for more grocery stores in the area. He stated that one could not necessarily conclude that there was no public need simply because the two current stores were underperforming. Mr. Gordon stated that their proposal was consistent with the applicable criteria for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, with past decisions of the Council, with good land use planning, and with the City's goals. Mr. Gordon reviewed the evidence presented on the criteria of a changed circumstances in the neighborhood or community. He contended that the dramatic population growth that was in excess of what had been anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan was evidence of ; change in the neighborhood. He argued that the significant road improvements made to Scholls Ferry and 135th since 1983 were further evidence of changed circumstances. Mr. Gordon reiterated that the traffic issues were carefully evaluated by both the City and County staff who were both convinced that this project would not adversely impact the road system. He said that it was the changes to the road system that led them to select this site for the store. Mr. Gordon said that the third changed circumstance was the worsening r^y of the shortage of commercial land in Tigard. Mr. Gordon reviewed the arguments for the second criteria that the proposal have no adverse impact on health, safety and welfare. He stated that there have been no impact based concerns raised by staff or other commenting agencies. He said that a member of their consulting firm confirmed that with the Beaverton Mayor's office that the City of Beaverton was not in fact opposing the rezone. Mr. Gordon stated that the other issues raised by the opponents were based on fear and speculation. Mr. Gordon addressed the concern raised at the hearing that this approval would turn Scholls Ferry into another strip commercial like 99W or that it would open the floodgates to other commercial rezones. He stated that Scholls Ferry within the City was almost completely developed and thus it couldn't be turned into a strip commercial. He said that the locational criteria that commercial be located at the intersection of a major arterial precluded other locations on Scholls Ferry. Mr. Gordon said that the floodgates to commercial rezoning wouldn't be opened either because the inventory of the City's available land j demonstrated that the land wasn't there to be rezoned. Also the locational criteria for commercial land wouldn't allow development in CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 13 i l.~ I1 an area that was already overly congested; that precluded 99W. Mr. Gordon stated that another criteria for commercial zoning was being close to a transit route, which this site was. He said that neither staff nor the opponents presented examples of land that was likely to be rezoned commercial. Mr. Gordon addressed another issue raised by the opponents: whether or not there was sufficient market to support another grocery store. He cited Mr. Leland's testimony on the issue and his conclusion that i there was sufficient demand for additional grocery stores in this area. He stated that the opponents' assertion that the underperformance of their stores indicated too many stores in the area was suggesting an ( inappropriate use of the zoning process for economic protection. Mr. Gordon submitted a letter from the local chapter of the United Food a Commercial Workers in support of the proposal. Mr. Gordon addressed the locational criteria for commercial rezones as the next major issue. He stated that they complied with nine out of the ten locational criteria. The only one with which they did not comply was the criteria that said that general commercial should not be surrounded by residential on more than two sides. Mr. Gordon said that they derived their argument that the site is i surrounded by roads, not residential neighborhoods, by looking at a ~.1 Tigard zoning map. Examples he cited included Howard's, the intersection of Hwy 99W and Durham Road, the intersection of Hwy 99W and Bull Mountain, and the intersection of Hall Blvd and Locust. Mr. Gordon pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan specifically said that the locational criteria were to be construed in a flexible manner in conformance and vary with the degree of change and impact on the community. He said that he thought they had demonstrated that this was a site that would have minimal or no impact on the adjacent community. • I Mr. Gordon addressed the concern raised regarding community commercial designation as opposed to general commercial. He stated i that their site met the criteria for general commercial in ways that the Albertson's site had not. Their site was on a five lane section of Scholls Ferry, it was on a transit route, and the site was well separated from the surrounding neighborhoods. He said that Albertson's pursued the community commercial designation on the recommendation of the Planning Commission; however the Commission had specifically recommended general commercial for the proposed Haggen store. Mr. Gordon reviewed how much more a Haggen store could provide to the community under a general commercial zoning designation than under a community commercial. They could integrate all their uses into CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 14 6 K - y 6[1 j IL I one building rather then separating them out into little shops because more square footage was allowed. Mr. Gordon addressed the concern that while the Haggen development proposal might satisfy the rezone criteria and plan requirements, the other potential uses in a general commercial zone might not. He said that they were willing to accept a condition restricting the site to the uses and/or site plan configuration that they have demonstrated met the applicable criteria and was supported by the available public facilities. He said that while the Planning Commission had not attached j any conditions to their recommendation, Washington County did attach conditions on this specific configuration to their access approval. Mr. Gordon asked that the Council not put them in a "catch 22" position by saying that they would approve it if they could be assured that the Haggen project would go through but not allow them to provide the City with that assurance. Mr. Gordon stated that the City has recognized that growth was here and that they had to address it. However, the planning process did not always project correctly what growth might happen or where it might happen. He contended that the plan amendment process was intended to give the Council the flexibility to make changes as needed. He said that things have changed significantly in this community and that it was appropriate to make this small change to the Comprehensive Plan. j Mr. Gordon argued that if the changes they have demonstrated occurring in this area were not sufficient to justify a plan amendment, then the Council has set a standard that would be impossible to meet. Mr. Gordon reiterated the conditions of the site that made it a good location for this use. He asked the Councilors to consider where they hat he thought would put this store if not in this location. He said; that the Council would be proud to have Haggen be part of the community and asked the Council to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr. Monahan noted another item for the record: a letter from Ball Janick ex Novack addressing the criteria on behalf of the applicant. j Jeff Kleinman, Attorney representing the Friends et Neighbors of Scholls Ferry, asked for the opportunity to respond to the new evidence presented by the applicant. Mayor Nicoli asked for a ruling from the City Attorney on the request, expressing concern that everyone get a fair opportunity to rebut any new information. Mr. Ramis concurred that as long as they limited their remarks to rebuttal of the new evidence and did not introduce additional new evidence, it was allowable. He said that the applicant ..j should have an opportunity to respond to the opponents' remarks. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 15 4 I - t{}eY 1 I, ,1 t I Robert Bernstein, 507 18th Ave, Seattle, stated that he has not seen j Mr. Vandehey's rebuttal to his comments at the last hearing, and therefore would not attempt to rebut the rebuttal. He stated that he was standing by the accuracy of his report. He argued that the assumptions made in the Leland report were anything but conservative and that it had taken him 15 minutes to figure that out. Mr. Bernstein said that no analysis of the proposed access scheme for a right-in, right-out on Scholls Ferry was present in the record; there was only the letter from Washington County saying that it was approved. He commented that the County's responsibility was to see to it that the major arterials functioned properly. He said that even with a new access onto Scholls Ferry, it was conceivable that the arterial might continue to operate properly yet the local streets experience significant changes in traffic. He said that they had no way of reviewing how accurate the analysis was or determining what the impacts actually were. Ralph Anzelatd, Columbia Research Associates, stated that his company did nothing but retail site surveys for grocery stores in the northwest and western states. He said that they had a very high accuracy rate. He mentioned that the report submitted by Don Scott in answer to the Leland study did not include Costco because the Leland survey had not done so and Mr. Scott had wanted to keep his analysis consistent and comparable with the original Leland study. He said that the Leland j ~y study did not include all the other competitor retail stores or convenience stores in their analysis. Mr. Anzelatti said that he had not seen the study done on the reduced trade area and could not do a comparable. He said that he could offer some predictions based on his 15 years experience: if Haggen opened € here, another store in that general core area would close. He said he thought there was room for three stores but not four. Mr. Kleinman addressed the Comprehensive Plan issue. He said that in order to justify an amendment to the plan map, an applicant had to prove either a change in physical circumstances since the original designation or prove that the designation was a mistake made under the original land use design. Mr. Kleinman said that the applicant hasn't come close to satisfying either criteria; rather they were changing the meanings of the terms. He contended that a change in physical circumstances meant a change in the uses near the proposed use, not growth or more traffic or market needs. The uses have not changed. Mr. Kleinman said that "mistake" meant a clerical error or a misunderstanding of what was actually being done at the time of the original plan development and adoption. The designation as multi- family was not a mistake; the City of Tigard knew what it was doing. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 16 k j ~ - L~ Mr. Kleinman said that even if they satisfied those two criteria, the proposal still had to meet all the applicable plan polices: this did not. He argued that compliance with the Comprehensive Plan was not achievable because the applicant has failed to take into account the maximum development of the site as general commercial, and merely looked at applying the criteria to the Haggen store proposal. He cited Policy 5.4 as an absolute rule prohibiting the encroachment of commercial or industrial development into residential areas that were not already designated commercial or industrial. Mr. Kleinman said that Policy 12.2.1(2) was the locational criteria 11 stating that commercial or industrial development could not be inserted in any area where it was surrounded on more than two sides by residential. He said that this location was surrounded on four sides by residential. He contended that the areas cited as having a similar use pattern reflected preexisting uses, not the insertion of commercial into residential. Mr. Kleinman mentioned the argument that the Comprehensive Plan itself said that there was significant growth and not enough land. He contended that the Plan's designation of specific areas as commercial was the method used to meet that need for more commercial properties. Mr. Kleinman pointed out that the responses cited from Beaverton were only hearsay, as Beaverton submitted no documentation supporting this proposal. Mr. Kleinman said that there was no evidence that the same trade areas were used in the traffic analysis as were used in the market analysis. Mr. Kleinman mentioned the argument of future change. He said that the applicant was saying that they should be taken care of today because of changes anticipated in the future, such as the Scholls Ferry Town Center in the Metro 2040 plan. He said that the town center in that plan was located 600 feet away from this site in Beaverton. He contended that the application was in conflict with Metro's plan because it created a new shopping center designation only 600 feet away from the one Metro wanted to create. Mr. Kleinman summarized the applicant's arguments as "we have a neat store, Tigard has grown and there's a lot of traffic, so please amend your Comprehensive Plan and approve the zone change." He said that anyone who lived on a street that was widened could make similar arguments for amending the plan; the precedent set would be disastrous. He said that the periodic review process was the proper place to deal with the issue of whether or not the original Plan contained enough commercial sites, it could be looked at within the context of the whole City, not in a piecemeal fashion. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 17 LL to 4 Mr. Gordon stated that the opponents did not rebut the new evidence but merely reiterated their arguments made at the last hearing. Mr. Vandehey cited their letter as documenting the conservatism of their analysis. He said that both the County and the City required them to do an analysis of both the right-in, right-out access scheme and the initial access scheme that proposed full access to Scholls Ferry. He said that they ended up with a compromise of a right-out and left-in that was based on the County's review, not the right-in, right-out Mr. Bernstein cited. Mr. Gordon said that Mr. Anzelatti did not raise any new facts. He said that the Leland study allowed for the convenience stores and other stores like Costco by using conservative numbers on grocery spending (75% of what was actually spent on groceries). Mr. Gordon contended that Mr. Kleinman cited no authority supporting his interpretation of a change in physical circumstances or a mistake in the Plan. He said that under Mr. Kleinman's interpretation, the criteria could never be met. He asked if the periodic review process was the only place to look at Comprehensive Plan amendments, then why did they allow quasi judicial Comprehensive Plan changes requests. He reiterated that they have met the criteria set out in the Code. C. Staff Recommendation Mr. Valone recommended denial of CP 95-0003 and ZC 95-0005 based on the findings and conclusions in the staff report. d. Council Questions Mayor Nicoli asked for clarification on the locations of the proposed Albertson's and Fred Meyer's stores in relation to the proposed Haggen store. Mr. Valone indicated the locations on the aerial map. Mr. Hendryx stated that the Beaverton staff told him that the Fred Meyer request for the PGE site was withdrawn for consideration for a plan ' amendment in Beaverton. Councilor Hunt asked if the factor of market competition was something that the Council had the legal authority to consider in its deliberations. Mr. Ramis said no. Though it was an interesting controversy, it was not directly relevant to the criteria. Councilor Rohlf asked the applicant to address the issue of the loss of multi family housing needed in a fast growing City if this proposed use went in. Mr. Gordon said that there was no doubt that multi family housing would be lost due to this proposal, but stated that the loss of this amount of acreage would not affect Tigard's ability to meet the 10 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 18 i i units per acre housing rule set by Metro. Mr. Valone concurred that they would lose the housing opportunity but that they would still be above 10 units per acre. Councilor Scheckla commented that in 1983, the thought had been to put apartments in that area because of the close proximity to an elementary school. He said that putting in a commercial development would displace those people; they would have to drive farther to the schools. He asked where else would they move the density in the City of Tigard. Mr. Monahan commented that the property was in the Beaverton School District, not the Tigard District. Mr. Hendryx said that he couldn't really answer where the units might be displaced to. He noted that this project would not affect their I housing mix. Councilor Scheckla commented that the City was prepared to accept the zoning the way it was. He asked why they would want to jeopardize meeting their housing goal by displacing these apartments. He asked Mr. Ramis to explain the "mistake" issue. i Mr. Ramis said that the issue of mistake was one of interpretation under the Code. He said that it was ultimately up to the Council how they applied the standard, and that courts granted deference to jurisdictions in interpreting their own codes. Councilor Scheckla stated that in 1983 he had been part of the Comprehensive Plan process and that he did not think that a mistake had been made. Mr. Valone pointed out that the Plan said "a mistake was made in the original land use designation." Since this site annexed into the City in 1987 and zoned R-25, the mistake would have had to occur in 1987, I not 1983. Mayor Nicoli asked Mr. Hendryx if he remembered any discussions between Beaverton and Tigard on how much commercial development should be allowed on Schoils Ferry, citing Mr. Hendryx's tenure with the City of Beaverton. Mr. Hendryx said that Beaverton had a clear policy about limiting commercial development along major arterials. He said that the two Planning Commissions had met in the late 1980s to discuss a mutual concern about limiting strip development along Scholls Ferry. He said that Tigard did not have a similar criteria other than the locational standards in the Code. Mayor Nicoli asked if both the cities followed the general direction set out during those discussions or gone off in completely different CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 19 bz. L~ ~i directions. He asked if Tigard did not provide for as much commercial property as had been originally intended. Mr. Hendryx said that he did not believe a decision not to allow as much commercial development as the market would bear was ever discussed. There was never an agreement on how much development should occur or where it should occur. The general concern had been to avoid turning Scholls Ferry into another strip commercial road like TV Highway or 99W. Councilor Scheckla presented a February 8 newspaper article. Mayor Nicoll asked Mr. Ramis if Councilor Scheckla could introduce evidence into the record. Mr. Ramis said that Councilors introducing evidence into the record was very unusual; typically only the parties introduced evidence which the Council made judgments on. He said that it could be done but that both the applicant and the opponent would have to be allowed an opportunity to respond to the new evidence. Councilor Scheckla withdrew the article. He commented that the Albertson's in Sherwood opened last September and that last weekend the Food Pavilion went out of business. He said that he had heard the argument made here that there wasn't enough market to go around; somebody would not survive. He commented that the population all over Washington County was increasing by 20% or more. e. Close Public Hearing Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. Mayor Nicoll recessed the meeting at 9:25 p.m. for a 5 minute break. Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 9:37 p.m. f. Council consideration: Councilor Hunt commented that much of the material brought up to the Council by people went unread because they couldn't both read it and listen to the presentation at the same time. He stated that he thought that much of the testimony presented had been irrelevant to the decision on a zone change. Councilor Hunt agreed that the Council has allowed commercial development in an area with residential on three sides of the store, citing the 99W and Durham Road intersection. He said that the market economics of who survived and who didn't were not for the Council to decide. He said that he was not convinced whether apartments or stores would generate the most traffic, having seen too many instances when opposing sides used the same numbers to reach opposite V CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 20 - I i conclusions. Councilor Hunt said that one thing that bothered him about this zone change was the inability to control the potential development in the future, should Haggen's go out of business. They had to zone it commercial; they couldn't zone it for a grocery store. Councilor Hunt said that the second thing that bothered him about this was a previous incident in which high density residential was moved to Bull Mountain from the intersection on 99W and Durham (Albertson's store); this has resulted in nothing but trouble on Bull Mountain. He said that the only way he could support this application was if a location was found for the high density before the application was approved. Councilor Hunt stated that they knew from the Metro 2040 plan that j they were going to have to increase their density. He asked why they should rezone high density now when they would have to find more if Metro insisted on more high density. Councilor Hunt said that he was extremely impressed with the Haggen store and hoped that they could rind another area in town to locate it. However he could not take away the City's current high density, knowing that they would probably have to find more high density in the near future. Councilor Scheckla concurred with Councilor Hunt's comments that the j density had to be addressed; if it wasn't located at this site, then it had to be located somewhere else which probably meant another rezone. This site was already approved for high density, met the Metro 2040 plan, and was close to schools. He agreed that Haggen's was a good store. Councilor Rohlf concurred with the other Councilors' comments. He said that he would like to see a Haggen's in town and suggested the Tigard Triangle area. He said that if this was a decision between letting Haggen's in and fostering Howard's, it would be a tough decision. But it was a land use decision and he was not convinced that a mistake was made in zoning that land multi family. Mayor Nicoll said that his concerns were similar to those of the other Councilors. He complimented Mr. Haggen on his application and support personnel. He stated that he had a hard time accepting growth as justification of a zone change. He said that he did not think that the Council was here to justify who stayed in business or went out of business; they had too many other good criteria to consider. He said that he was impressed with the Haggen store and hoped that they could find another location within Tigard or an adjacent jurisdiction. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 21 j is L~ I~ • MOTION by Councilor Hunt, SECONDED by Councilor Scheckla, to deny the application. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoll and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 6. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE CPA 954)005/ZON 95-0007 - PACIFIC CREST/PROVIDENCE A request to amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Parcels 1 and 3 of MLP 94-0013, located on the southwest corner of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota, from Commercial Professional to Neighborhood Commercial and change the zoning from C-P to C-N; and to amend the Comprehensive Plan map on the property located on the southeast corner of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota from Neighborhood Commercial to Commercial Professional and change the zoning from C-N to C-P. Location: Southwest and southeast corners of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota. Applicable Review Criteria: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2) 2.1.1, 5.4, 8.1.1, 12.2.1 (1) and 12.2.1(3); Community Development Code Chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12. Zone: C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) allows for several uses including convenience sales and personal services, food and beverage sales, medical and dental services and professional and administrative services. C-P i (Professional/ Administrative Office) allows for business support services, communication services, medical and dental services, personal services, convenience sales and services and limited eating and drinking establishments. Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title. He noted that the Council has already taken previous action on this and that tonight was only to review the findings to finalize the Council action. a. Staff Update: Community Development Department Mr. Valone stated that on January 23, the Council did approve the land zone designation swap proposed by Pacific Crest and Providence Health Systems. He said that the ordinance and final order prepared at Council 1 direction were in the council packet. He recommended adoption of those documents. b. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-4 MOTION by Councilor Hunt, SECONDED by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-04. Ord No. 96-04. an ordinance adopting findings and conclusions to approve a Tigard Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change requested by Pacific Crest Partners and Providence Health Systems, CPA 95-0005/ZON 95-0007. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 22 L~ Mayor Nicoli noted that at the last meeting Councilor Rohlf had withdrawn from participating in this action, and that Councilor Moore did not participate either. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the three Councilors taking part. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt and Scheckla voted eyes.") j 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 95-0008 CLARKE A request to annex two parcels of 2.14 acres into the City and change the zoning from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard R-7. Location: South of S. W. Fern Street just west of S.W. 135th Avenue. The two parcels are separated by two other properties. Applicable Review Criteria: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan Policies 2. 1.1 - Citizen Involvement, 10. - Service Delivery Capacity; 10. 1.2 - Boundary Criteria; and 101.3 - Zoning Designation. Also Community Development Code 1 Chapters 18.136 - Annexation Requirements; and 18.138 - Land Classification of Annexed Territory. Zone: Presently Washington County R- 6. a. Open Public Hearing Mayor Nicoll read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges No Councilors reported any ex parte contact or site visits. They all j indicated that they had familiarized themselves with the application. There were no challenges. C. Staff Report: Community Development Department . Mr. Valone presented the staff report. He reviewed on the map the location of the two parcels under consideration for annexation. He said 1 f that the west parcel had a single family residence occupied by the owners while the east parcel was a vacant lot. The owners were requesting annexation by a double majority method to connect to the sanitary sewer service. Mr. Valone stated that the annexation request did comply with all applicable City policies and Boundary Commission requirements. The parcel would be designated Tigard R-7 with the same density per lot as its current designation of Washington County R-6. He said that there were adequate facilities available to service the lot and that all appropriate parties were noticed. He recommended that the Council adopt the resolution and forward the request to the Boundary Commission. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 23 i d. Public Testimony Applicant Jeff Hunt, 3855 A Drive, Hood River, stated that he was an Associate Planner with Hood River County but that he was here on behalf of his father-in-law, John Clarke. He thanked Mr. Valone and the staff for = their help regarding the proposal. He said that they had no problems with the staff report and urged the Council to accept the staff recommendation. - Proponents - none - Opponents -none e. Staff Recommendation f Mr. Valone recommended that the Council forward the initiation to the Boundary Commission. f. Council Questions -none g. Close Public Hearing Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-07 Ordinance No. 96- 05 MOTION by Councilor Rohlf, SECONDED by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Resolution No. 96-07. Resolution No. 96-07, a resolution initiating annexation to the City of Tigard of the territories described in Exhibit A, and illustrated in Exhibit B, ZCA 95-0008. r , The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf, Moore and Scheckla voted eyes. MOTION by Councilor Rohlf, SECONDED by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-05. Ordinance 96-05, an ordinance adopting findings and conclusions to approve a zone change and declaring an effective date, ZCA 95-0008. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf, Moore and Scheckla voted eyes.") z - r _ CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 24 :I - 1 ~ 8. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 95-0019/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 95- 00081MINOR LAND PARTITION (ML) 95-0012 - FUTURE SHOP/CHRISTENSEN City Council "Call-Up" for review of the following development applications: 1. Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 40,000 square foot "future shop" general retail building and a 9,550 square foot general retail building, 2. Planned Development Review, i 3. Minor Land Partition approval to partition one parcel of approximately 4.99 acres into two parcels of approximately 4.27 and .72 acres; Location: East side of S.W. Dartmouth Street, south of S.W. Pacific Highway. (WCTM 1S1 36CD, Tax Lot 2000). Zone: General Commercial (C-G). The General Commercial zone allows public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, and real estate services, business support services, general retail sales, eating and drinking establishments, among other uses. Applicable Review Criteria: Community Development Code Section 18.62, 18.80, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.162 and 18.164. a. Open Public Hearing Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. i. b. Declarations or Challenges No Councilors reported any ex parte contact or site visits. They all indicated that they had familiarized themselves with the application. There were no challenges. Councilor Moore commented that he had reviewed this issue at the Planning Commission but that this was before the Council on a different issue, and therefore he would participate in the hearing. C. Staff Report: Mr. Hendryx presented the staff report. He reviewed the specifics of the application, noting the building profiles and site plan. He said that the minor land partition was to separate out Pad "A." He reported that the applicant has received the Division of State Lands (DSL) permits required to do work within the wetlands with mitigation offsite. He said that the applicant was providing additional right of way on Dartmouth, a half street dedication for the future street Atlanta on the north side of the parcel to access Dartmouth, and access for the property on the north to access Dartmouth. Mr. Hendryx noted that notices were mailed out but that the notice e=,~ run in the Tigard Times did not meet the standard notice requirements. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 25 i i f d. Public Testimony Applicant Sake Remdersma, MPR Architects, 9150 SW Pioneer Court, Wilsonville, representing Future Shop, reviewed the elevations of the building to be built in the Tigard Triangle. He noted the color scheme and landscaping on the site. He pointed out that the 12 foot grade along the back zone set the building down lower. Mayor Nicoll asked if the applicant has discussed with Act III allowing access for the half street dedication that otherwise deadended at the Act 111 property. Ed Christensen, Christensen Engineering Team, Tigard, stated that they have talked with all the adjacent property owners. He said that he had talked with former City Engineer Wooley about any conditions on the Act 111 proposal that might require them to continue Atlanta Street but they have not been able to find any. He said that he understood from staff that if any plans came in for site development review, some kind of connectivity would be required to improve the street to the Act 111 site. He pointed out that to continue Atlanta Street, they would have to cross Red Rock Creek at a very pristine point. Mayor Nicoli asked if at this time they would be doing a curved sidewalk and a half street improvement. Mr. Christensen said that when Burgerville developed, they intended to work with the other property owners to develop an LID to construct Atlanta Street to provide access through the Future Shop site to Dartmouth. He said that presently there was no interest on the part of the other property owners to construct Atlanta Street, which was why they were waiting on the Burgerville development. In response to questions from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Christensen described the location and surrounding property owners. Councilor Rohlf asked how Burgerville had access to the property. Mr. I Christensen said that they would have a right in right out access off of I Dartmouth. He noted that when Dartmouth was fully approved there 1 would be a median strip there that would prevent left hand turns for both Costco and Kurgerville. He said that Burgerville was trying to get a right in off of Hwy 99. He said that Burgerville's conditions of approval stated that they could have a temporary driveway off of Dartmouth until the other access (the one in this application) was developed. Mayor Nicoll asked if Burgerville would get access through the Future Shop site. Mr. Reindersma said yes, they had access through a reciprocal easement. I CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 26 f In response to a concern raised by Councilor Rohlf, Mr. Reindersma said that the access through the Future Shop property from Burgerville was fairly clean with few traffic movements. Mr. Christensen explained that though Burgerville did indicate some objections to the site layout, they have not stated any objections formally because they understood that the current configuration for the building was the only one possible on the site, and they did not believe that their objection was strenuous enough to stop the development completely. He reviewed one of the accesses that they considered but discarded because the grade was too steep. j Councilor Scheckla asked who would alleviate the traffic problems on the easement that went through both ways. Mr. Christensen stated that they did not expect any problems because they had a full 24 foot driveway and the traffic volume was very low. He said that even Burgerville didn't have that high a traffic volume and reviewed the path their traffic would travel from Hwy 99 to Dartmouth to Hwy 99. Councilor Rohlf asked if the design for this layout included overlay concerns that the Council had for the Tri-County Center with respect to the Tigard Triangle. Mr. Christensen said that they have discussed with Future Shop a number of the items coming up and that they were aware of the traffic problems occurring in the Triangle. Councilor Rohlf commented that the Council's concern centered on the overall appearance of the hillside. He said that they did not want to see it turned into "a bunch of big boxes surrounded by concrete and asphalt." He noted that the design of the Tri-County Center had been sensitive to that concern and had made an effort to find a good compromise between preserving the natural features and providing adequate retail possibilities. Mr. Christensen cited the work they have done with USA, DSL and ODFBZW in designing Pad "A" to sit on columns with wetland vegetation underneath it. He pointed out that out of 40,000 square feet of wetland, the project impacted only 7960 square feet of wetland. He said that they have worked hard with USA to design a buffer that f they could sign off on, and that they were mitigating some of that buffer offsite. He explained that the site had very few trees on it, and they all were on the border where Atlanta Street needed to go. He said that they were replacing the trees with a reciprocal amount of onsite vegetation and wetland enhancement. Proponents Gordon Martin, 12265 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Tigard, 97223, of the development to the south of Future Shop, welcomed them to the neighborhood. He said that he understood from the project engineer that they have been apprised of the traffic situation. He commented on the need for LIDS to take care of the traffic problems and welcomed their participation in them. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 27 . . . - Opponents - None e. Staff Recommendation Mr. Hendryx recommended approval of the project as conditioned by the Planning Commission. f. Council Questions I, Councilor Rohlf asked why the staff report contained a number of statements justifying denial of the application. Mr. Hendryx explained i that those statements dealt with concerns over wetlands and the DSL i approval of the plans originally submitted by the applicant. When the 1 applicant provided proof of DSL approval at the Planning Commission hearing, staff changed its recommendation to approval. g. Close Public Hearing - i Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. h. Council Consideration: Do the approved plans comply with Community Development Code. MOTION by Councilor Hunt, SECONDED by Councilor Rohlf, to " approve the application. ti.. J The motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf, Moore and I Scheckla voted "yes.") 9. ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION - AMENDMENT TO TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 7.40, NUISANCES - AMENDING ARTICLE IV TO REGULATE NOISE LEVELS This proposed amendment would provide for better regulation of noise in residential areas. When issuing a permit for an event which would exceed permissible noise levels, the City Administrator would have the ability to set a limit on the amount of noise created by the event and to impose other conditions on the issuance of a permit. a. Staff Report: Police Department ti Police Chief Goodpaster presented the staff report. He explained that these changes to the noise ordinance would enable police to revoke permits issued by the City if the noise exceeded the top noise limits set by this amendment. b. Council Questions 8t Discussion j Mayor Nicoli asked how this ordinance would affect community events i such as a street dance or concerts at Cook Park. Chief Goodpaster stated that there was enough discretion in the ordinance to handle CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 28 i public events. He noted that public events normally did not engender the same type of complaints as a private event did. He stated that he checked on this issue with the City Attorney and did not foresee problems with it in the future. Councilor Scheckla asked how this ordinance would affect the hot air balloon event. Chief Goodpaster stated that they discussed many public events, including the hot air balloons. He said that in talking with the City Attorney, he found that there was still discretion built into the ordinance. i Mr. Ramis stated that the ordinance did provide some flexibility and some room for judgement. He said that if a use became so loud and i obnoxious to the public that it required regulation, the City would have the ability to revoke the permit. C. Council Consideration - Ordinance No. 96-06 MOTION by Councilor Rohlf, SECONDED by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance 96-06. Ordinance 96-06, an ordinance amending chapter 7.40, nuisances, of the Tigard Municipal Code by amending Article 4, Nuisances and Affecting the Public Peace. f The motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoll and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf, Moore and Scheckla voted "yes.") 10. ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION -AMENDMENT TO TIGAR[1 MUNICIPAL - CODE CHAPTER 2.30 (SECTIONS 2.30.060 AND 2.30.070) AUTHORIZING INVENTORY OF THE CONTENTS OF ARRESTED PERSONS AND IMPOUNDED VEHICLES. a. Staff Report: Police Department Police Chief Goodpaster presented the staff report. He explained that a { recent court decision made it necessary for the police department to get 1 legislative authority to conduct inventory of the persons and property arrested as well as of vehicles impounded. He said that this was done i for several reasons, including safety, safeguarding, and liability concerns. Chief Goodpaster reviewed the specifics of the ordinance that set guidelines for the process already in place (see agenda packet), pointing ey's office revising language in the out the mL no from the City Attorn Code regarding inventorying prisoner's property and impounding vehicles. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 29 `}F{L Imo' ' b. Council Questions ez Discussion t Councilor Rohlf asked for an explanation on why they needed to declare an emergency in order to enact this ordinance. Chief Goodpaster explained that every day they did not have this ordinance in place increased the City's potential liability. Mr. Ramis supported the Chief's reasoning. C. Council Consideration - Ordinance No. 96-07 MOTION by Councilor Hunt, SECONDED by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Ordinance 96-07. Ordinance 96-07, an ordinance amending chapter 2.30 of the Tigard Municipal Code by adopting sections 2.30.060 and 2.30.070, authorizing inventory of the content of arrested persons and impounded vehicles and declaring an emergency. i The motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf, Moore and Scheckla voted "yes.") 11. LOCAL. CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD - CONSIDER CITY HALL ROOF PROPOSAL a. Staff Report: Maintenance Services Department j b. Council Questions az Discussion C. Council Consideration: Motion to authorize the City Administrator to enter into an agreement with Richard Raglan for research, analysis and preliminary design (Phase 1) of the City Hall roof project in the amount of $2,310. Mayor Nicoli noted that the Council has already acted on this item. He said that they would meet with the architect at a future council session. 12. NON AGENDA ITEMS a. Resolution - State of Emergency as result of storm last week (Monahan reviewed) - Mr. Monahan explained that it was necessary to declare a state of emergency for both the private property owners and the City, as well as the water district area, to be eligible for financial assistance from FEMA, the State and the County. He said that staff believed there would be significant damage to Cook Park once the water went down. Councilor Hunt pointed out that the City did not own 100% of the water i. " lines and reservoirs and asked if they could still get reimbursement for damage. Mr. Monahan explained that they could do so because they had the " CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 30 +i+ h L~ , } agreement of the other partners. He said that the other three entities should t also pass a similar resolution. E MOTION by Councilor Hunt, SECONDED by Councilor Rohif, to adopt Resolution 96-08. Resolution 9E-08, a resolution of the Tigard City Council declaring a state of emergency as a result of the 2/6/96 storm. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoll and Councilors Hunt, Rohif, Moore and Scheckla voted "yes.") b. Washington County Parks Advisory Committee Mayor Nicoli noted that Council had informally acted on the request concerning coordination with the Washington County Parks Advisory Committee and that Mr. Hendryx had already received direction to reword the letter. Staff could bring the revised letter back next week for Council review. 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), et (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 14. ADJOURNMENT: 10:39 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Record i or, City o Tigard Date: =0213.96 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - PAGE 31 I COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal T P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 Notice TT 8398 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 r. " E I V r Legal Notice Advertising : r:l~ j "I.1gh r -.I • City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice ;)f TiGAKL II 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223-8199 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit E • Accounts Payable-Terry • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. j Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say =d I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of thdr,-T ,a 1 a i n T}mes a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti Bard in the aforgsaid coounty aqd state; that the City Cuncil Meeting-CPA 95-03 et al a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: February 8,1996 Subscribed and sworn to fore me this8th day of February, I99r~'"- dk Cll i~'r/ ' Fii1RGc'SS t Notarylic for Oregon ;S;pyp 0a5`2 6 ' COS~b:' J E:<PIRES AIf . or. My Commission Expires: ~7.: AFFIDAVIT - , I . 1 The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 1996 TIGARD CITY HALL-TOWN HALL 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON i i Study Meeting (Red Rock Creek Room) (6:30 P.M.) • Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may go into Execu- tive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. t. i • Agenda Review y Business Meeting (Town Hall) (7:30 P.M.) Presentation: Public Hearings: • Continuation of Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendment-CPA - 95-03 Briar Development • Annexation of Two Parcels located at the eastern end of S.W. Fern Street west of S.W. 135th Avenue (ZCA 95-0008 - Clarke) • Council call-up for review: Site Development Review (SDR) 95-0019, Planned Development Review (PDR) 95-0008, and j. Minor Land Partition (MLP) 95-0012. Name of Applicant: Future Shop. Location: East side of S.W. Dartmouth Street and South of Pacific Highway. Council Action Items: F • Final Order: Comprehensive Plan Amendment.- CPA 95-05 Pacific Crest/Providence • Amend Tigard Municipal Code authorizing inventory of the con- tents of arrested persons and impounded vehicles j • Amend Tigard Municipal Code to regulate noise levels (regulation - of permits for events in residential areas) ( Local Contncct Review Board Meeting k i ( TT8398 -Publish February 8, 1996. f L~ ~..:.t. Y I I COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 Notice TT 8393 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising •City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SCd Hall Blvd. •Tigard,Oregon 97223-8199 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit •Accounts Payable:Terry • i AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION ` . STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. I, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising i Director, or his principal clerk, of theTi4ard-Tualatin T~ mes a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti card in the o sa1'd cod00>i tY and state• that the Z( ~1 y5-0 Clar~Ce a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and i consecutive in the following issues: February 1,1996 n. Subscribed and sworn to re me this 1st day of February, 1996 6. 6&( Y ; y NOT ^ 0> 1GN Notary Putig for Oregon x ' Co 0 0 My Commission Expires: _ C0~1`4 i?[ AFFIDAVIT K.. The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on February 13. 1996, at 7:30 P.M., at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the City Council. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the request or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to the close of the hearing on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639.4171. PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATTON ZCA 95-0008 Clarke REQUEST, Annex two parcels o acres Into a cry and change the zoning from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard R-7. LOCATION: South of S.W. Fern Street just west of S.W. 135th Avenue. The two parcels are separated by two other properties. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement: 10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Also, Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements; and 18.138, land classification of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-6. ' - t 1 r. vki*yMap "ArMvpNnA mmt. i 1996. TT8393 -Publish February 1, t t ~ H i r e i COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal 1 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 NoticeTT 8399 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising Z p V E • City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223-8199 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit -f n; 71GAR[7 • Accounts Payable-Terry ° f AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION r STATE OF OREGON, . COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, as. 0 Cr I, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the t Bard-R 1al at ; n mimes a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid county and state; that the Site D-v lopm n -F> >rp hop a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and i consecutive in the following issues: February 8,1996 Subscribed and sworn to b re me this v of ebr nary 1Q GGC p:"> y.1 r c URG S' k Notary Pu for Oregon ~x Cam, ; ;pN „0. 024502 } My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT- Y' i 1. - 'J.. w,.w.n. f f The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on Tuesday, I February 13. 1996, at 7:30 P.M., at the Tigard Civic Center -Town Hall, ` 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written tes- timony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, j and rules and procedures of the City Council. Failure to raise an issue in person of by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing accom- ponied by statements or evidence sufficient to allow the hearings authority and all the parties to respond on the request, precludes an appeal, and failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639.4171. PUBLIC HEARINGS SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 95-0019/ PLANNED DEVELOPMENT E 9b_0008/ MINOR LAND PARTITIOA FUTtPESHOP RI TENSEN- «y Council "Call-Up" for review of the following development applica- tions: 1) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 40,000 square foot "future shop" general retail building and a 9,550 square foot general retail building; 2) Planned Development Review; 3) Minor Land Partition approval to partition one parcel of approximately 4.99 acres into two parcels of approximately 4.27 and .72 acres. LOCATION: East side of S.W. Dartmouth Street, south of S.W. Pacific Highway. (WCTM IS1 36CD, tax lot 2000). ZONE: General Commer- cia7 (C-G). The General Commercial zone allows Public agency and ad- ministrative services, public support facilities, professional and ad- ministrative services, financial, insurance, and real estate services, busi- ness support services, general retail sales, eating and drinking establish- ments, among other uses. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Section 18.62, 18.80, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.162 and 18.164. TT8399 - Publish February 8, 1996. j ! CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) 1, Q~l begin first duly sworn, on oath, i depose and y: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number (s) S 7 1 which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated 13 b copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto tt ached and by reference made a part hereof, on the _ I (n day of 19 aL 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Tigard Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 3. Tigard Water Department, 8777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of AetA.. , 19 RG F CIAISEAL Notary P tic for Oregon Ai jO ANN HAYES •,7r•t•• .,9t IC-OREGON NO. onzlae I ly Commission Expires: yhe:. S, I95(# NN MAY 05.1999 1:ladWJolaffMt.dm 1 \JJ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON C ORDINANCE NO. 96-c4I AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY PACIFIC CREST PARTNERS AND PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEMS (CPA 95-000520N 95-0007). i f WHEREAS, the applicants have requested a comprehensive plan map amendment and zone change from Commercial Professional/C-P to Neighborhood Commercial/C-N on two parcels (Parcels 1 and 3 of MLP 94-0013) and from Neighborhood Commercial/C-N to Commercial Professional/C-P on one parcel (northern one acre of 1S1 3413C, lot 401); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the proposed amendment and zone change at its meeting of December 18, 1995, and recommends approval of CPA 95- 000520N 95-0007. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The proposed amendment/zone change is consistent with all relevant criteria based upon the facts, findings and conclusions noted in the attached final order 'ed. 4 (Attachment A); SECTION 2: The City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and staff recommendations and approves the request to designate the parcels illustrated on the attached map (Attachment A, Exhibit A). SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By l.ir Ow: rods vote of all Cou cil members present after being read by number and title only, this 13 'day of 1996. -Catherine Wheatley, City Decor er APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this !!=7 ofrlrCM 996. es Nicoli, Mayor Approved ,a~to form: Attorney Date ~•r ORDINANCE No. 96 L i Page 1 s r CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER f A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO AN APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY PACIFIC CREST PARTNERS AND PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEMS. i The Tigard City Council reviewed the application below at a public hearing on January 23, 1996. The City Council approves the request based on the facts, findings and conclusions noted below. A. FACTS " 1. General Information j CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 95-0005 Zone Change ZON 95-0007 REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Parcels 1 and 3 of J MLP 94-0013 from Commercial Professional to Neighborhood Commercial and change the zoning from C-P to C-N; and amend the Comprehensive Plan map on property at the southeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW North Dakota Street from Neighborhood Commercial to Commercial Professional and change the zoning from C-N to C-P. APPLICANTS: Pacific Crest Partners Providence Health Systems 911 Oak Street 4805 NE Glisan Street Hood River, OR 97031 Portland, OR 97213 OWNERS: Same LOCATION: Southwest and southeast corners of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW North Dakota Street. t 2. Vicinity E ; The proposal is a joint application between Pacific Crest Partners and Providence Health Systems. Two sites are involved in the plan amendment/zone change. 1 `J 1 ~aLe n., Site A is,on the southwest corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW North Dakota Street; site B is on the southeast corner (Exhibit A). The proposal affects Parcels 1 and 3 of a recently-approved minor land partition (MLP 94-0013) on map 1S1 35AD, lot 2400 (Exhibit B). These parcels have been recently developed as a bank and tenant commercial space. The land uses surrounding the site are as follows: Properties to the north across Scholls Ferry Road are in the City of Beaverton and zoned for single family residential use; to the east across North Dakota Street is the St. Vincent's Medical Clinic, which is built on property zoned for both Neighborhood Commercial and Professional 1 Commercial uses; to the south is medium density residential land, though the Kindercare day care center located immediately to the south is a conditional use; and to the west is medium density residential land that is zoned R-7 (PD) and contains the Summerlake subdivision. d The proposal also includes the property at the southeast corner of Scholls Ferry and North Dakota. The northwestern one acre of map 1S1 346C, lot 401 is zoned for Neighborhood Commercial (Exhibit C). Properties to the north across Scholls Ferry are in the City of Beaverton and zoned for office commercial and single family residential; to the east is general commercial land which contains a McDonald's restaurant and the Greenway Center; to the south is commercial professional land which contains part of the medical clinic and a vacant parcel; and to the west is commercial professional land containing the co-applicant's development. 3. Background Information Site A: Pacific Crest Partners was approved for a minor land partition (MLP 94- 0013) and site development review (SDR 94-0014) on the property at the southwest corner of Scholls Ferry and North Dakota in August of 1994. The original 1.24-acre parcel was divided into three parcels. Parcels 1 and 3 of that partition is the subject of the current application. In April of 1995, Pacific Crest Partners applied for a comprehensive plan amendment/zone change for Parcel 3 only. The applicant proposed to change the parcel from Commercial Professional/C-P to General Commercial/C-G in order to develop it for retail use. The Planning Division recommended denial because the application did not meet all approval criteria. The Planning Commission recommended denial on June 19 and the City Council denied the proposal on July 11. 1 2 i , Tigard Community Development Code 18.32.280 states that an application that has been denied may not be resubmitted for the same or substantially similar i proposal or action for a period of one year unless there is a substantial change in the facts or a change in city policy which would change the outcome. Staff agrees with the applicants that the current proposal is substantially different than the previous one referred to above. This application seeks a change to different designations than the prior one and involves three parcels and two applicants. It also involves a mistake by the city concerning the comprehensive plan and zoning maps. Site B: In November of 1966, the city council adopted Ordinance 86-58, which amended the comprehensive plan and zoning maps on the original parcel (1S1 - 3413C, lot 401) located on the southeast corner of Scholls Ferry and North Dakota. The applicant, Bethany Associates, requested that the 5.4 acre parcel be { redesignated from C-P to C-G on 3.9 acres with the remaining 1.5 acres retaining the C-P designation. The city council decided to designate the eastern 2.9 acres as C-G and the northwestern one acre as C-N, the latter to be used for neighborhood retail uses (Exhibit C), Since the rezoning, the original 5.4 acre site has developed with a McDonald's restaurant, an Oil Can Henry's auto lube and St. Vincent's Medical Clinic. The clinic straddles the C-N and C-P zoning districts (Exhibit D). Since the time of the approval of Ordinance 66-58, a mistake was made by city staff regarding the location and conditions of the C-N zone. The ordinance text and map specifies that the C-N designation be located on the northwest corner of the site and contain one acre; and that commercial development occurring within a zoning district shall not utilize space outside of the respective zone to satisfy parking or landscaping requirements prescribed by the code. The current i comprehensive plan and zoning maps, however, are drawn to include 1.99 acres in this designation; and the medical center development straddles two zoning i districts. The Planning Commission held a hearing on CPA 95-0005/ZON 95-0007 on December 18, 1995, and voted 5-1 to recommend approval of the proposal. 4, Site Information and Proposal Description Site A: The affected parcels, containing 1.10 acres, are located along the west side of North Dakota Street, south of Scholls Ferry Road (Exhibit A). Site j development has recently been completed on this site pursuant to the approved 1 site development application in August of 1994 (SDR 94-0014). Approval of SDR 94-0014 allows for construction of a 3,840 square foot bank on Parcel 1 and 8,415 3 square feet of office/retail space on Parcel 3. Prior to construction, former tax lot 2400 contained a veterinary office, three homes and an apartment building. The applicant requests a comprehensive plan map amendment from Commercial Professional to Neighborhood Commercial and a zone change from C-P to C-N on Parcels 1 and 3. The reason for the requested change is to expand the range of permissible uses to those allowed under C-N zoning. Under C-P zoning, retail commercial use is limited to 20 percent of the entire square footage within the 111 development complex. Under this restriction, only 3,166 of the 8,415 square feet of the building on Parcel 3 could be used for selected retail uses. A change from C-P to C-N will only affect, therefore, the permitted uses for the remaining 5,249 - square feet on Parcel 3. Site B: The affected property, containing one acre, is located on the southeast corner of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota Street. In March of 1988, the city approved SDR 88-05 for the construction of St. Vincent's Medical Clinic. The northern portion only of the clinic is located in the C-N zone; the southern portion is on land zoned C-P. The applicant requests a comprehensive plan map amendment from Neighborhood Commercial to Commercial Professional and a zone change from C-N to C-P on the northwestern one acre of map 1S1 34BC lot 401, as delineated on the map of Ordinance 86-58 (Exhibit C). The reason for the request is to correct a mistake on the zoning map, clear up the split zones upon which the clinic is located and to enable the C-N zone, which is restricted to one quadrant of an intersection, to be more appropriately used by the co-applicant on Site A. A written narrative combining the two requests was submitted as part of the application. It is included as part of this staff report. 5. Agency Comments The Engineering Division, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District, Washington County, Beaverton and Tri-met have reviewed the proposal and have no objections. No other comments were received at the time of this report. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 5.4, 8.1.1, 12.2.1 (1) and 12.2.1 (3); Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660 Division 12. 4 1. Policy 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2, requires that in order to approve quasi- { judicial changes to the comprehensive plan map, the city council must find: a) A change is consistent with applicable plan policies; and b) A change of physical circumstances has occurred since the original designation, or c) A mistake was made in the original land use designation. The applicants' statement in support of this proposal asserts that three physical changes of circumstances have occurred affecting the sites and a mistake was made in the original land use designation of site B. A summary of these arguments follows. St: Vincent's Medical Clinic was partially built on a one-acre parcel, which is zoned Neighborhood Commercial, despite the fact that the city council amended the i comprehensive plan and zoning maps with the intent that retail commercial uses be developed there. CPA 10-862C 18-86 was a request by Bethany Associates to rezone a portion of a 5.4-acre parcel on the comer of Scholls Ferry and North Dakota from C-P to C-G on 3.9 acres, the remainder would remain C-P. This action was to accommodate a neighborhood office and retail center designed to maximize pedestrian access to the site, particularly from the Meadowcreek apartment project immediately south of the site. The proposal stated 'The medical/dentat/ professional office portion of the plan can be built in the present C- P zone so no change is necessary" The city council approved the request with the added conditions that one acre of the site be rezoned as C-N in order to limit the scale of commercial development which is compatible with nearby residential neighborhoods. Despite the intent of the council's action, a regional medical clinic was developed on the C-N zoned property. This use does not fulfill the purpose of this zone. The i Tigard code states, " The purpose of the C-N zoning district is to provide convenience goods and services within a cluster of stores. Convenience goods are goods which are bought frequently, at least weekly, and for which people do not engage in comparison shopping. The uses permitted in the neighborhood center include convenience markets, beauty shops, barber shops and repair shops. The range of uses is limited to those uses which can be sustained by a limited trade area." The expectations of the zone change in 1986, therefore, were never fulfilled and i the neighborhood commercial uses intended by the C-N zone never developed. The applicant claims that this represents one physicei change of circumstances. The applicant asserts that the second physical change of circumstance is related to the type of existing uses on the sites. The recently-completed bank and tenant 5 space on Site A, though allowed under C-P zoning, are more neighborhood commercial or retail uses than the medical clinic on Site B. This situation represents a change from the original designations and intents of the C-P and C-N zones. A third change in physical circumstances since the original designation in 1986, the applicant asserts, is the additional street improvements made in the area. The widening of Scholls Ferry and installation of speed humps along North Dakota improve the traffic flow in the area and discourage use of North Dakota as a cut- through` street. The installation of a traffic signal at Scholls Ferry and North Dakota has made it easier, more safe and convenient to access Sites A and B. In addition to the above, a mistake was made in the original land use designation of Site B. Ordinance 86-58 designated 1.0 acres as C-N on the southeast comer of Scholls Ferry and North Dakota. The current plan and zoning maps show all of tax lot 401, 1.99 acres, as C-N. The medical clinic development, covering approximately two acres, is built on land zoned C-N and C-P. The mistake was t likely a mapping error which designated the whole tax lot as C-N, instead of the northern one acre only. Staff concurs that one physical change of circumstance has occurred since the original designation. More importantly, staff concludes that mistakes were made in the original designation and subsequent development of Site B. The action by the city council in 1986 to rezone the 5.4-acre property on the southeast comer of ✓ Scholls Ferry and North Dakota to C-G and C-N was done to accommodate I neighborhood commercial uses. Ordinance 86-58 reads, in part, ",..the scale of the t project should be limited so as to result in commercial development which is most beneficial to and compatible with nearby residential neighborhoods". Instead, a regional medical clinic was developed on approximately two acres of the western portion of the 5.4-acre site that straddles both the C-N and C-P zoning districts. This could represent a physical change that was not intended by the council, does not fulfill the purpose of the C-N district and precludes development of neighborhood commercial uses on the site. In addition, because of a restriction in the comprehensive plan locational criteria for C-N, the corner of this intersection cannot have another C-N district, thereby precluding a neighborhood commercial i district across North Dakota Street. I Staff also concludes that a mistake was made in the original land use designation of Site B, and a mistake was made in approving the location of the medical clinic development in 1988. The city council action in 1986 to rezone this site included the following provisions. i t '~_lII ' U a) The eastern 2.9 acres of the site shall be redesignated for Commercial J General development in the Comprehensive Plan and C-G on the Zoning Map. The northwest comer containing 1.0 acre will be redesignated for Commercial Neighborhood development in the Comprehensive Plan and C- N on the Zoning Map. [emphasis added] b) Commercial development occurring within a zoning district shall not utilize I space outside of the respective zone to satisfy parking or landscaping requirements prescribed by the Community Development Code. The map referred to in a) above is shown as Exhibit C in this report. The action clearly was to rezone only 1.0 acre as C-N. Currently, the comprehensive plan ' and zoning maps show this district as 1.99 acres (Exhibit E). Staff made a mistake in designating the C-N boundaries in subsequent maps. Provision b) above was adopted by the council due to concern about negative impacts associated with a larger scale commercial retail development spilling over on to another zoning district. The medical clinic development, as built, does indeed cover part of the original C-N district and part of the C-P district to the south of the C-N district. Staff finds that a third mistake was made related to Site B by allowing a single use that exceeds 4,000 square feet. Chapter 18.60 (C-N: Neighborhood Commercial District) of the Tigard Development Code contains the following restriction: "No use shall have a gross floor area greater than 4,000 square feet" The portion of the medical clinic, which is considered a single use, located in the C-N zone - , should not exceed this square footage. The portion of the clinic in this zone is approximately 10,000 to 12,000 square feet. Based on the above discussion, Policy 1.1.2(2) is met. Approval of the this proposal would recognize the changed circumstances and correct the original mistakes made in creating, defining and developing the site within the C-N zone. 2. 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 all phases of the planning process. The policy is satisfied because the surrounding property owners were given notice of public hearings related to the proposal and given the opportunity to comment on the proposal. The notice for the planning commission and city council hearings were sent to surrounding property owners within 250 feet of the affected property, posted at Tigard City Hall and advertised in a local newspaper. In addition, the applicant provided notice of and conducted a neighborhood meeting on October 19, 1995, for interested property owners and those within a 250-foot radius of the affected property. J j. 7 - S 3. Policy 5.4 states that the city shall ensure that new commercial and industrial E J development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial or industrial uses. The properties proposed for redesignation are currently zoned C-P and C-N, both commercial designations. Also, these properties are located among other commercially zoned parcels. This policy is satisfied, therefore, because there will be no encroachment of new commercial development into residential areas. j 4. Policy 8.1.1 states that the city shall plan for a safe and efficient street and i roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. The applicants' argument that the proposal would not have a significant effect on either the local road system in the area or the planned Washington County transportation system (Scholls Ferry Road) depends on the traffic study submitted for the previous application (CPA 95-0002/ZON 95-0003) for a plan and map amendment on Parcel 3 of Site A. The study and subsequent letters and comments from Washington County are included as Exhibit F. The study analyzed the worst case situation under C-G zoning on Parcel 3 only. This analysis showed that the transportation system would not be adversely affected. City and county staff agree that the analysis also suffices for the current proposal to rezone Parcels 1 and 3 to the less intensive C-N. Parcel 1 has recently developed as a bank and is under long-term lease with the property's J owner. This use will not change due to the rezoning. Parcel 3 has recently developed as 8,415 square feet of tenant space. The uses allowed under the C-N zoning would not generate as much traffic as those allowed under C-G. In addition, any one use is limited to 4,000 square feet under C-N zoning. The owner/developer of Parcels 1 and 3 has already made street improvements as j conditions of approval of SDR 94-0014. These improvements serve to mitigate the impact of additional traffic at this site. The traffic impacts resulting from the medical clinic on Site B were analyzed and l mitigated during site development review of that project in 1988 (SDR 88-05). The current proposal, therefore, to rezone this site from C-N to C-P, if approved, will not affect the transportation system because the site is already built out. j The city's Engineering Division and Washington County have reviewed the traffic j analysis and find that the proposed amendment will not have a significant effect on the planned transportation system. The Engineering Division states that because the proposal is an exchange of already existing zoning districts that involves virtually the same amount of land, there will be no additional traffic impact caused f 8 L _ ! either by a new zoning district or by land added to the old districts. For the above reasons, Policy 8.1.1.is satisfied. 5. Policy 12.2.1 (1) provides the locational criteria for designating land as neighborhood commercial (C-N). These criteria apply to Site A. The locational i criteria can be construed in a flexible manner in the interest of accommodating - proposals which are found to be in the public interest and capable of integration into the community. The burden of proving conformance with the criteria varies with the degree of change and impact on the community. The applicable locational criteria with findings are as follows: (1) Spacing and Location a. The service area radius for a neighborhood commercial center shall be at least one-half of a mile. The service area depends on the type of tenants who locate at the site, but it is expected to be at least one-half mile. If approved, this C-N district would be the only one within one mile. There are C-G and C-P districts within one half mile that serve a larger trade area. b. Commercial development shall be limited to one quadrant of a street intersection or where there is no street intersection to on side of the s tree . If this proposal is approved and Site B is designated as C-P, then Site A would be the only quadrant of the intersection designated as C-N. j The northeast quadrant in Beaverton is designated as O-C (Office Commercial); the northwest quadrant in Beaverton is R-7 (Single-Family Residential); and the southeast quadrant would be C-P (Commercial Professional). This criterion, therefore, is satisfied. (2) Access - I a. The proposed center or expansion of an existing center shall not create ! traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem Such a determination shall be bred on street capacity. existing and projected traffic volumes the speed limit. number of turning movements and the traffic generating characteristics of the most intensive use allowed in the zone. As discussed above under 8.1.1, staff agrees that the traffic analysis completed for the previous comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment (CPA 95-0002/ZON 95- 0003) suffices for the current proposal. Based on this analysis and for the reasons cited in 8.1.1, staff concludes that redesignating Parcels 1 and 3 of Site A to C-N will not create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. C This criterion, therefore, is satisfied. J 9 e b. The site shall have direct access from an arterial or a collector street which J will not direct traffic through local neighborhood streets. Access to the site is via North Dakota Street, a minor collector. This was determined by the city's approval of the site development plan (SDR 94-0014) in August of 1994 because direct access to Scholls Ferry Road, an arterial street, was prohibited by Washington County. Because site traffic will use Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota, and traffic is not directed through local neighborhood streets, this criterion is satisfied. (3) Site Characteristics a. The site Ghal be of a size which can accommodate present and Q ir ected uses, but shall not exceed two acres. Parcel 1 of Site A has recently been developed as a bank. Parcel 3 has developed as 8,415 square feet of tenant space. Both uses were reviewed and approved by the city in 1994. The site size does accommodate the present uses. Any additional future uses would have to be approved by the city. Parcels 1 and 3 combined include 1.10 acres. This criterion, therefore, is satisfied. (4) Impact Assessment a. The scale of the project shall be compatible with the surrounding uses. Site A is already developed as a bank and commercial tenant space. Both structures are one story and oriented towards Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota Street. The scale of this project is compatible with the surrounding uses of commercial and medium density residential. b. Site configuration and characteristics and relationship to the street system shall be such that rivacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained. The existing development on Site A is oriented toward Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota Street. To the east across North Dakota i Street is commercially-zoned land which includes the medical clinic- To the i south is the Kindercare day care center, a conditional use in an R-7 (PD) zone. There are no windows or public access facing south towards this residentially-zoned area. To the east is the new veterinary clinic building and a 20-foot buffer between the building and the residential neighborhood. j With the foregoing configurations and characteristics, this criterion is met. C. It shall be possible to incorporate the unique features into the site design and development plan. The site has already been developed. It contained no unique features before development. This criterion, therefore, is satisfied. 10 d. Associated lights noise and activities shall not interfere with adioinincd non- residential uses. The existing site development as approved an constructed does not and will not create noise and lighting impacts to the ! medical clinic across North Dakota Street or the Kindercare center to the south. The Parcel 3 building orientation faces north away from the day care center. This criterion, therefore, is satisfied. 6. Policy 12.2.1 (3) provides the locational criteria for designating land as commercial professional (C-P). These criteria apply to Site B. The locational criteria can be construed in a flexible manner in the interest of accommodating proposals which are found to be in the public interest and capable of integration into the community. The burden of proving conformance with the criteria varies with the degree of change and impact on the community. The applicable locational criteria with j findings are as follows: (1) Spacing and Location a. The Comprehensive Plan man fixes exact boundaries of the commercial professional area. This policy is satisfied because the boundaries of the C- P designation will be set by ordinance that amends the comprehensive plan map. b. The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. The properties to the north of the site are in the City of Beaverton and zoned office commercial; to the west of the site is land zoned commercial professional (C-P); if the current proposal is approved ! the properties to the west would be C-P and C-N; to the south is land zoned C-P; to the east is land zoned C-G. This criterion is satisfied because the affected site is surrounded by commercial districts on all sides. i 1 (2) Access a. The proposed use or expansion of an existing area shall not create traffic congestion or a traffic safes/ problem Such a determination shall be based on street capacity. existing and projected traffic volumes the speed limit number of turning movements and the traffic generating characteristics o the various types of uses. Site B is already developed with the medical clinic. This development was reviewed and approved by the city council in 1988 (SDR 88-05). Traffic concerns were addressed during that review l process. Approval of the current proposal would not affect the existing I - 11 traffic generation or patterns related to this site, therefore, this criterion is satisfied. (3) Site Characteristics a. The site shall be of a size which can accommodate present and projected j needs. Site B is already developed and can accommodate the present needs. There are no plans for expansion of the medical clinic. This criterion, therefore, is satisfied. I b. The site shall have hiq visibifi . The site and existing development is clearly visible from Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota Street. This criterion, therefore, is satisfied. (4) Impact Assessment a. The site configuration and characteristics hall be such that the privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained. The existing medical clinic is oriented towards Scholls Ferry and North Dakota. To the north of the site, across Scholls Ferry is a bank; to the east is a McDonald's restaurant and auto lube center; to the south is a vacant parcel of C-P land; and to the west, across North Dakota, is a bank, veterinary hospital and commercial tenant space. The nearest non-commercial use is the Meadow Creek apartments to the south beyond the vacant commercial parcel. This criterion, therefore, is satisfied. b. It shall be possible to incorporate the unique site features into the site J design and development Ian. The site has already been developed and ! there are no unique features on the site. This criterion, therefore, is satisfied. C. Associated lights noise and activities shall not interfere with adjoining non- residential uses. The site has already been developed. To the north of the site, across Scholls Ferry Road, is a bank; to the east is a McDonald's restaurant and auto lube center; to the south is a vacant parcel of C-P land; and to the west, across North Dakota Street, is a bank, veterinary hospital j and commercial tenant space. The medical clinic does not interfere with j these non-residential uses and, in fact, is complimentary to them. This 1 criterion, therefore, is satisfied. 7. Section 18.32 of the Community Development Code sets forth the procedural requirements for review of quasi-judicial plan amendments. The application has t J 12 been processed in accordance with code sections 18.32.020, 18.32.050 and 18.32.060; hearings have been conducted by the planning commission and city council according to 18.32.090(D); and the requirements for notification of the hearings have been met according to 18.32.130 and 18.32.140. 8. Section 18.22 of the Community Development Code sets forth standards and procedures for quasi-judicial amendments to the plan and zoning district map as follows: i A. 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 i the following standards: 1. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designation: and the change will not adversely affect the health safety and w (fare of the community. The applicable plan policies related to the proposal are reviewed above under section B (Findings and Conclusions). 2. The statewide planning goals adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197 until acknowledgement of the comprehensive plan and ordinances. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged, therefore specific review of each statewide planning goal is not applicable. Notice of filing this proposed amendment has been provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development for comment at least 45 days prior to the final decision date. 3. The applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance. Code sections 18.60 (Neighborhood Commercial { District) and 18.64 (Professional/ Administrative Office Commercial District) contain the standards for the C-N and C-P zones, respectively. Sites A and B have already been developed with commercial uses. The bank and commercial tenant space on Site A were reviewed and approved by the city { under SDR 94-0014; the medical clinic (Site B) was approved under SDR 88-05. The standards under each zone district have been met for these developments. This criterion, therefore, is satisfied. ` 4. Evidence of change in the ngghborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the 1 propeft which is the subject of the development application. See above under B. Findings and Conclusions, section 1. J 13 j 9. Oregon Administrative Rule section 660-12-060 requires that plan amendments be iii consistent with identified function, capacity and level of service of affected transportation facilities. Based on the applicants' traffic analysis and the improvements made to North Dakota Street (pursuant to SDR 94-0014), the proposed plan map and zoning map changes will not significantly affect a transportation facility. Washington County staff agrees that the proposal is consistent with this rule. 10. Conclusion In conclusion, all applicable approval criteria to support a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change have been satisfied. Staff can, therefore, make findings to support application CPA 95-00052ON 95-0007. Further, staff believes that amending the comprehensive plan and zoning maps to switch the locations of the C-P and C-N on this corner better serves the purposes of the city's planning goals and neighborhood public needs. It corrects the mistakes made regarding Site B, that is, the mapping error on the existing C-N district and the mistake in allowing the medical clinic site to be sited in two different zoning districts and developed over 4,000 square feet. By assigning a C-P zone to the one acre at the southeastern corner of Scholls Ferry and North Dakota, the medical clinic development will be located entirely in one appropriate zoning district and comply with all codes. This action will also allow the C-N zone, which is allowed on only one quadrant of an intersection, to be assigned to the southwestern corner of this intersection. Locating a C-N zoning district on this corner will allow the opportunity for provision of convenience goods and services to the local neighborhood. C. DECISION The City Council APPROVES the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 95-0005 and Zone Change ZON 95-0007 based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions. I _j i .J ~ 14 EXHIBIT A BAY N TARPAN i Rp ~ Y GHOLLS FERR F- Map Is for • - T general location only refer to staff report V t- for location ~ v C\l ~w SpRING Ca . - boa o _ I- ! o 4-- DR RR ~ ACC j vicinity Map fZ dd, fanom N btbh CC-M Cotmemw Pmr•rsbMW (C~ Note: Map is not to scale Poem dCormp~wW Z dLuve N N ko ~ c«~w~ri leaf rc..+r on, • \ N 1~ ~ J I Ai00Y0 ~e•N ~ ~ ~ i ; ..^T !!18.50 /!Q ~~4 ~ ~ ~ ~r AVO A0954 A 1 p g U/i r\y x H JOA ILI" SL~O%0aa~ ?/ARC ~ , t lussi . _w m Source: Ordinance 86-58 EXHIBIT C 1 G o aS `r ac 0 23194 ar SCHOLLS . M =&w 7-9-T AC a Aft& 3W I~ c 401 e 1C 359 k J TO a2. ~ ,AcSZ~s W 0 1 ~r o a~ wws w w C~ ~ eL/Y1/41 t~ cY l ~ f SEE MAP 4 j IS 1 33AD • i •1 :40 (1017.94; 400 7A -W A,. 52-29 bCA- IAA . may. - . EXHIBIT D - I~ 17 e 14 'ZotJt t/nI~ `n ~ r 4: ~I - -six ~ / I C ~ - ~ ~ 1 Q ~ ~ 1 ~I GO 1 u)i - i Source: SDR 94-0014 file map. Ii EXHIBIT E LOW " l > . ~.r AND BA Q ~ L TAR►`1 CV PA Im Y PID SCHOi-LS V: -PP- CL Z 1.99 accre res c~ C-G _ Cu N c-P (PD) SG DLO Q Cu 00 - DR S R R-25 0 [ OOC~ •f-+ CT= U ' S U i Np Z o 7777T71 . ~ Vicinity Map Note: Map is not to scale N EXHIBIT F Source: CPA 95-0002/ZON 95-0003 file. MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED CIVIL - STRUCTURAL - SURVEYING - TRANSPORTATION 0690 SW BANCROFT STREET . P O BOX 69039 I . „ PORTLAND. OREGON 97201.0039 • 15031 224.9560 - FAX (503) 220.1285 June 5, 1995 Washington County Land Use and T I raasportation Attention: Scott King 155 North First Avenue, Suite 350 Srllsboro, Oregon 97214 r Re: Pacific Crest Zone Change Scholls Ferry/North Dakota Traffic Conditions Project Number 294149 Dear Mr. King. Mackenzie Engineering Incorporated has reviewed traffic conditions anticipated at the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota Street with development of the Pacific Crest site at the southwest corner of the intersection. The scenarios reviewed include existing traffic conditions before development of the site and 1995 and 2005 conditions with and without the proposed zone change on Parcel3 from C-P to C-G Our previous trip generation comparison indicated that under worst case scenarios, the erdsting J zoning would actually generate more trips than the proposed zoning. j i affic volumes for 1995 were estimated from summer 1994 counts with in-process =ffic added for US I Bank and JiffyLube and traffic generated from the Pacific Crest site. This includes the planned veterinarian office and bank and the "worst case scenarios for Parcel 3. With existing C-P zoning. Parcel 3 could support a 2,800 s.£ convenience market and a 5,300 s.£ Motor Vehicles Department office. Under the proposed C-G zone, the DMV office would be replaced by a video store. Washington County staff provided EMM02 model nms for 2010 projected traffic volumes and 1985 volumes. The 2010 volume projections for Scholls Ferry art below the PM peak hour traffic counts conducted by MEI staffduring the summer of 1994. To estimate the 2005 traffic volumes. the growth rate anticipated between 1985 and 2010 was applied to the 1994 traffic counts. This growth rate was found to be approximately 5% per year. The recent growth rate along Scholls Ferry Road has been 7°/.. The 5% rate was used for long term growth since the 7% rate is reflective of high levels of development in recent years and increased traffic due to the improvements completed on Scholls Ferry Road. Intersection capacity calculations were prepared utilizing NCAP software which simulates the 1985 ILighway Capacity Manual. The calculation accounts for the existing PM signal timing on Scholls Ferry Road. The table below presents the intersection level of service as well as volume to capacity ratio (V/C) and average delay for the existing and proposed zones in 1995 and 2005. The signal progression system j currently operating on Scholls Ferry provides a low average delay for through traffic. Traffic volumes s projected for 2005 result in intersection demand significantly over capacity. These results, although shown, are not reliable. Several variables may affect future operation of the intersection including a constant growth rate of 5%/ how planned roadway improvements will affect Scholls Ferry t2flic, and - FIW PDATAWS-0619414TUSL LSK w 1 " 4 Scott King Project Number 294149 June 5. 1995 Page 2 what improvements if any may be constructed on Scholls Ferry Road such as a third lane or intersection improvements. Some of the planned improvements which may reduce Scholls Ferry traffic include the Murray Boulevard Extension/Walnut improvements and SW 125th Extension to Hall Boulevard. Intersection Capacity and Level of Service Scholls Ferry Road at North Dakota Street Scenario V/C Delay LOS* 1995 C-P Zone 0.993 32.2 D 1995 C-G Zone 0.987 30.5 D 2005 C-P Zone 1.63 >60 F 2005 C-G2one 1.62 >60 F * Level of Service is based upon average delay. The intersection of Scholls Ferry Road at North Dakota Street will experience demand in excess of its capacity within the next few years. The traffic increases will be attributable to development over a large area of Tigard and Beaverton, not one specific project, as Scholls Ferry is a major arterial roadway. The costs of any improvements which may be constructed on Scholls Ferry Road should be shared with all new development in the area Ifyou have any additional questions please call me at 224-9560. Sincerely. M Nt Brent Ahrend~ g105J5r9 Traffic Analyst BTA_sk 40 13 % Enclosures ~p G. LPG` C. Ray Valone, Michael Anderson - City of Tigard Dan Boyden -Pacific Crest Richard Allen - Ball Janik & Novack FiW PDATAW54G0414M5L1SK I 0 Z Scholls Ferry Road A SITE - B 1jL 66f 1 158 1014-~! } *~---1660 75ti\ I I r 85 F a+ o n ~ O mnh co ~ N n r ~ - FIGURE 1 SGSTM DRAWN BY. DMB1994 CHECKED BY. BTA DATE: 6-5-95 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC JOB NUMBER:294149 MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED SHEET OF CIVI1 • Structural . TmnsportaHon III II 11 I 0690 S. W. Bancmft Street • P.O. BOX 69039 Cd wOCDCM D4v4E RHa rUAaoORArED Portland. Oregon 97201-0039 - - O O z Scholls Ferry Road A Y SITE B - N.n~ .rOn ` 1jL djL 901 " 192 901 1 192 983 -1608 983-+ 1608 141! rr 152 132~~ tr 139 O C.4 'o LL! O moo N ~ - ' ~m n Co n n In ! N 1681 j 1461 i j 34~~ I 37ti B .r O r. Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning DMV VIDEO FIGURE 2 DRAWN BY: DMBJr TRAFFiC DATE 6CHECKED-5--BY. 9 95 BTA PM PEAK HOUR JOB NUMBER:294149 MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED SHEET OF Civil Structural Transportation j 0690 S. . W. . S Bancroft Street • P.O. . Box 6903 MACKOME U4=R LRNG WCORPORATED Portland. Oregon 97201-0039 (a 9 III II II I `r t f o ~ Y 0 a Z Scholls Ferry Road A SITE R 03 -n N mh., mhN ^N N c2n -n ^ N N 11L 1~L 1371 1 j 304 1703 ~--2 87 1371 ti 304 1703- .--2787 lsati~ 1 Pr 212 185ti! 1 Pd 199 - O mho f N O a1 ca f h N n 1n~ 'n^ ~ f 1~ 11 1681 1461 34 37~ co © ~m B :m O. Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning DMV VIDEO j - FIGURE 3 DRAWN BY. OMB ZOOS TRAFFIC CHECKED D BY: 8TA DATE: 6-5-SS PM PEAK HOUR J08 NUMBER: 294149 MACKENZIE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED a SHEET OF Sin- 0 90•S. W. Bancroft stn~H P.O. Box 69039 Ell U R 8. W C3 ~1 z N. one. oa R % HM z a FR i F CL 8 ' pl g lit C16 06 g Ili s ~g s m Q 99 ` ~@j mm ~Q tt ,:i :o C ~ ~ O. ~ •N i~j W g s I m P CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO.96-~25 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (ZCA 95-0008). WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on February 13, 1996, to consider a zoning designation for two parcels of land located along SW Fem Street west of SW 135th Avenue; and j WHEREAS, on February 13, 1996, the Tigard City Council approved a resolution forwarding the proposed annexation to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission; and WHEREAS, the zoning district designation recommended by the planning staff as set forth in the attached staff report and in Section 1 below is that which most closely approximates the Washington County land { use designation while implementing the city's existing Comprehensive Plan designation of Low Density Residential. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Upon annexation, the affected properties shall be designated as follows: Tax Map. Lot Number Current Land Use New Land Use 2S1 4131), lots 2100 Wash. Co. R-6 Medium Density Residential i and 2102 Current Zoning New Zoning Wash. Co. R-6 Tigard R-7 SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By L09Ccni✓ma!lS vote of II Council members present after being read by number and title only, this dav of 1996. i 'Qat enne Wheatley, Co Recorder _ APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this Aay of 996. 4 I Ja toll, M yor aa-to Y roved form: i bit~ Attorney Date i ORDINANCE No. 96pS Page 1 IL a CITY OF TIGARD ORDINANCE NO. 76- C& AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7.40, NUISANCES, OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE, BY AMENDING ARTICLE IV, NUISANCES AFFECTING THE PUBLIC PEACE. WIIEREAS, the noise standards adopted by the City in 1990 do not regulate noise where the source of the noise is located in a noise sensitive (residential area); and WHEREAS, the current permit process for an event which will create noise in excess of the adopted noise standards does not allow the City Administrator to set a limit on the amount of noise created by the event nor does the permit process allow the City Administrator to impose other conditions on the issuance of a permit; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council finds that it is in the best interest of public peace, safety and health to amend the City's noise regulations to address the above concerns; now, therefore, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Subsection 7.40.130(d) of the Tigard Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: "Noise-sensitive land use" means any portion of a church, children's day care, hospital, residential group care, school, single or multifamily dwelling unit, and mobile home that is intended for living, sleeping or eating. This definition includes areas or structures such as yard areas, patios and garages." SECTION 2: Section 7.40.170 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: "7.40.170 Maximum Noise Levels For the purposes of Sections 7.40.130 through 7.40.200, the maximum noise levels, as measured pursuant to Section 7.40.180, are set forth in Table I below. Page 1 Ordinance No. I TABLE 1 Maximum Noise Levels Land Use dB Noise Level dB Noise Level of Source Day (7AM - IOPM) Night (IOPM - 7AM) Noise Sensitive 50 40 I Commercial 75 60 Industrial 75 60 "Noise level" refers to the ambient noise level at the nearest noise { sensitive land use." 1 SECTION 3: Subsection 7.40.180(c) of the Tigard Municipal Code shall be amended to read as i follows: "(c) The appropriate measurement point shall be that point on the noise sensitive property, described below, which is further from the noise source: (1) 25 feet toward the noise source from that point on the noise sensitive building nearest the noise 1 source; - I (2) that point on the noise sensitive property line • nearest the noise source." SECTION 4: Subsection 7.40.190(b) of the Tigard Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: "(b) Noise emanating from all public streets due to sounds created by the tires or motor of motor vehicles operating in a manner complying with applicable state motor vehicle noise regulations." SECTION 5: Subsection 7.40.200(c) of the Tigard Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: "(c) The City Administrator shall grant a permit in any instance in which the event and its accompanying noise will not, in his judgment, interfere unreasonably with the peace of those likely to be affected by the noise. In making this judgment, he shall take into account the nature of the surrounding properties and the benefit Page 2 Ordinance No. - ' 5 to the community of the event for which the application is made. The permit shall contain a condition stating that the maximum noise levels permissible in Table I, shall not be exceeded by more than ten decibels. The permit may also contain i additional conditions deemed necessary by the City Administrator to protect the peace of those likely to be affected by the noise. The permit shall be subject to immediate revocation by the City Administrator or the City Administrator's designee if any conditions of the permit are violated." PASSED: By /1( /1 , ",,-u S vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this ; 3 f=' day of - _c 1996. 1 CLf ~ N t 1 ~ Lt it P lt-~L~ I Catherine Wheatley, City Recorde APPROVED: This day of Lac 6 tic r 1996. i i m icoli, Mayor Ap~ oved as to form: i y Attorney Date I ~ i 11 1 4 1. - Page 3 Ordinance No. a LL CITY OF TIGARD ORDINANCE NO.0 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.30 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADOPTING SECTIONS 2.30.060 AND 2.30.070, AUTHORIZING INVENTORY OF THE CONTENTS OF ARRESTED PERSONS AND IMPOUNDED VEHICLES, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, state and federal appellate courts have upheld the use of administrative 1 searches of private property where properly authorized; and WHEREAS, disputes can arise about the disposition of the contents of impounded vehicles and the personal effects of an arrested person; and WHEREAS, impounded vehicles can contain hazardous materials requiring immediate i disposal; and WHEREAS, the carrying of weapons by arrested persons presents a danger to law enforcement personnel; and WHEREAS, a written inventory of the contents of every vehicle impounded pursuant to an order of City staff will protect the interests of both the City as well as the owners of such vehicles; and E. I WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council wishes to grant authority to the Chief of Police to implement rules as to the conduct of such inventory; and WHEREAS, such authority must limit, to the greatest extent possible, any discretion as to which vehicles and what contents are subject to this inventory; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that this inventory process shall be limited in its scope to those items of personal property which are accessible without forced entry; and WHEREAS, the Council does not wish to limit authority to search for evidence of a crime; and j WHEREAS, the Council finds that the authority granted herein is immediately necessary, so that the public peace, health, safety and welfare can be protected; ~ NOW, TF, ER F-F012E; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Tigard Municipal Code is amended by adding section 2.30.060 to read as follows: 2.30.060 Authority to Inventory the Personal Effects of a Person Taken Into Custody. I a. In order to protect the owner's property, safeguard the police department against the assertion of false claims, and protect police department members and others when reasonable suspicion exists to believe that any individual's safety is at risk, every person taken into lawful custody by the police department shall have his or her personal effects inventoried. Forpurposes of this section, the term I "custody" shall mean the imposition of actual or constructive restraint by a police officer pursuant to any lawful authority for the purposes of transporting or involuntarily confining a person t pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute. b. The Chief of Police shall institute regulations describing the manner in which this inventory shall be conducted. These regulations shall eliminate any discretion as to what effects are subject to inventory and shall limit the inventory as follows: (1) All items of personal property shall be removed from the clothing worn by a custodial person. s I (2) All open containers in possession of the custodial person i shall have their contents inventoried. 1 (3) All containers designed for carrying valuables, including, but not limited to, wallets, purses, coin purses, fannypacks, and backpacks, shall have their contents inventoried. a (4) Any valuables found during the inventory and not left in the immediate possession of the custodial person shall be detailed in writing on a property receipt filed with the police department. (5) All closed opaque containers found during the inventory shall not have their contents inventoried except as described l above, or where the container is to be placed in the custodial person's possession, or where the custodial person requests that the closed opaque container be placed in his I immediate possession. l Page 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 0-1 C. Nothing in this section shall be construed in any way to limit the police department's ability to conduct any lawful search. SECTION 2. The Tigard Municipal Code is amended by adding section 2.30.070 to read as follows: 2.30.070 Authority to Inventory the Contents of Impounded Vehicles. a. In order to protect owners' property, safeguard the police department against the assertion of false claims and protect police department members and others when reasonable suspicion exists to believe that any individual's safety is at risk, every vehicle lawfully impounded shall have its contents inventoried. The inventory shall be conducted before the vehicle is released to a third party except under the following circumstances: i (1) If there is reasonable suspicion to believe that any individual's safety will be placed at risk the inventory shall be conducted after such safety concerns are no longer present; or (2) If the vehicle is being impounded for evidentiary purposes in connection with the investigation of a criminal offense, the inventory will be done after such investigation is completed. b. The Chief of Police shall institute regulations consistent with this section describing the manner in which this inventory shall be conducted. These regulations shall eliminate any discretion as to how an inventory shall be conducted, and shall limit the inventory as follows: (1) All open container contents found throughout the passenger j compartments, any unlocked compartments that are part of the vehicle, including but not limited to, unlocked vehicle trunks and unlocked property containers attached to the car, J and any locked compartments including, but not limited to, I locked vehicle trunks, locked property containers attached to the car, if either the keys to these locked compartments are available to be released with the vehicle to a third 1 party, or an unlocking mechanism for such compartment is available within the vehicle shall be inventoried. ~ f Page 3 - ORDINANCE NO. L, (2) An inventory of personal property will be conducted throughout the passenger compartments of the vehicle including, but not limited to, accessible areas under or within the dashboard area, in any door or seat pockets, any console between the seats, or under any seat within the passenger compartment. (3) In addition to any of the above-described areas, an inventory of personal property will also be conducted in any unlocked compartment that is a part of the vehicle including, but not limited to, unlocked vehicle trunks and unlocked property containers attached to the vehicle. An inventory of personal property shall be conducted throughout any locked compartments that are part of the vehicle including, but not limited to, locked vehicle trunks, and locked property containers attached to the vehicle, if either the keys are available to be released with the vehicle to a third party or an unlocking mechanism for such compartment is available within the vehicle. (4) Except as otherwise allowed by this subsection, closed opaque containers shall not be opened, but rather shall be inventoried consistent with their outward appearances only. Purses, wallets, fannypacks, backpacks, and other similar items designed to contain valuables shall be opened and their contents shall be inventoried. (5) All items not left in the immediate possession of the arrested person shall be inventoried in writing and kept on file at the police department. C. Nothing in this section shall be construed in any way to limit the police department's ability to conduct any lawful search. - i I i Page 4 - ORDINANCE NO. I i r; , . IY SECTION 3. An emergency being declared to exist, this ordinance is effective upon its passage by the City Council. UdncvmutS PASSED: By vote of all City Council members present after being read by number and title only this day of 19954' Catherine Wheatley, City Record i - APPROVED this 13 day of 5)E 12ru a. t-1-t 199e { i Ji oli, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ; ~ ~ l 4Ciy tto rney Date t=PXLigud.wd (9.6-95) t ~ ~a ij i Page 5 - ORDINANCE NO. i i -a :ems r-^.r..~-.,. , i AGENDA' ITEM NO. 3 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE: February 13,.1,996 ' E (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. i I STAFF NAME, ADDRESS at PHONE TOPIC CONTACTED ~daJ-71s 7; a 130 Uj" e,rlo t i3 0 ~-to r,tra,~ l~ I i I i j - IF r Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of t 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. .~CGENDA`1TEM NO .5 " DATE:' February 13;1996 j - PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE CPA 95-0003/ZON 95-0005 BRIAR DEVELOPMENT A request to amend the Comprehensive Plan map from Medium-High Density Residential to { j General Commercial and change the zoning from R-25 to C-G on 9 acres of a 15.14 acre parcel. Location: Southeast corner of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and S.W. 135th Avenue (WCTM 1S1 33AC, Lot 8000). Applicable Review Criteria: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 4.1.1, 1 5.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1(2); and Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32. Zone: C-G (General Commercial) allows for several commercial uses including convenience sales and services, eating and drinking establishments, food and beverage retail sales, general retail sales, and medical and dental services. PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS ,l t s A' O { 'ITENT AGENDA PLEASE PRINT ® Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) 7 ame, A ress an one No. Name, Ad rrss an Phone u. - amc, ress an one No. ame, r an Phone No. t , } ame, rest an one No. Name, ras an Phone No. 4 7 Name, Addr- an one No. Name, rest an Phone No. r i Name, Ad rest and Phone No. Name. Address and Phone No. vw7 an one No. Name, Addr amr, rats an one No. J 'Y Name, A r an one No. Name, rats an one No. tf Name, rats and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No zt- I. Name, A dress and Phone No. Name, Add ress and Phone No. f rd, ;,yam ,Z,. 0..,1• c-.^,~m-....-...~~-....._.~~~ _ _ v. -3, • t Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA'ITEM NO DATE: .'Fe1bri4rk43'-,-'1996 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE CPA 95-0005/ZON 95-000 - PACIFIC CREST/PROVIDENCE A request to amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Parcels 1 and 3 of MLP 94-0013, located on the southwest corner of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota, from Commercial Professional to Neighborhood Commercial and change the zoning from C-P to C-N; and to amend the Comprehensive Plan map on the property located on the southeast corner of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota from Neighborhood Commercial to Commercial Professional and change the zoning from C-N to C-P. Location: Southwest and southeast corners of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota. Applicable Review Criteria: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2) 2.1.1, 5.4, 8.1.1, 12.2.1(1) and 12.2.1(3); Community Development Code Chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12. Zone: C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) allows for several uses including convenience sales and personal services, food and beverage sales, medical and dental services and professional and administrative services. C-P (Professional/ Administrative Office) allows for business support services, communication services, medical and dental services, personal services, convenience sales and services and limited eating and drinking establishments. i PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS - f AGENDA":ITEM NU _6 PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In savor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name, Address an Phone No. Name, A ress an one No. " 4 1 j Name, Addrms an one No. ame, ress an one No. r ume, A ress an one No. Name, Add,m an one No. - ! Name, Address an one No. Name, Addrm an one No. L Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and one No. i I . . Name, Addrm an one No. Name, Addrm an one No. ame, Address an one No. Name, Addrm an Phone No. 1 Name, A rc an one No. Nme, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Ad rats an Phone No. 1 V 1 ~Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of j O 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. 7 r DATE, February 13, 1996 AGENDA' ITEM. NO l PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 95-0008 CLARK A request to annex two parcels of 2.14 acres into the city and change the zoning from Washington f County R-6 to City of Tigard R-7. Location: South of S. W. Fern Street just west of S.W. 135th Avenue. The two parcels are separated by two other properties. Applicable Review Criteria: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1 - Citizen Involvement; 10.1.1 - Service Delivery Capacity; 10.1.2 - Boundary Criteria; and 101.3 - Zoning Designation. Also Community Development Code Chapters 18.136 - Annexation Requirements; and 18.138 - Land Classification of Annexed Territory. Zone: Presently Washington County R-6. i PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS i S i7 7,1-, 7 AGENDg rl7EM NO. 7 PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name, A rev an Phone No. Name, Ad rev an one No. Name, Addrm an one No. Name, Add,.s and Phone No. i _ r Name. Addrev an one No. Name, Addrm an one No. i Name, Addrms an one No. Name, Addms an Phone No. j I,. r Name, A rw an Phone No. Name, A rw and Phone No. Name, Addrev an one No. Name, Addrem an one No. s Name, Addrm an one No. Name, one No. Name, A rev an one No. one No. I` f 1 Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Addms and Phone No. F I V - Y~ a - 4 Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of 1 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 I oral testimony. i s I AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 " DATE: 'February 13, 1996 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 95-0019/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 95-0008/MINOR LAND PARTITION (ML) 95-0012 - FUTURE SHOP/CHRISTENSEN City Council "Call-Up" for review of the following development applications: 1. Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 40,000 square foot "future shop" general retail building and a 9,550 square foot general retail building; 2. Planned Development Review; 3. Minor Land Partition approval to partition one parcel of approximately 4.99 acres into two parcels of approximately 4.27 and .72 acres; Location: East side of S.W. Dartmouth Street, south of S.W. Pacific Highway. (WCTM 1S1 36CD, Tax Lot 2000). Zone: General Commercial (C-G). The General Commercial zone allows public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, and real estate services, business support services, general retail i sales, eating and drinking establishments, among other uses. Applicable Review Criteria: Community Development Code Section 18.62, 18.80, 18.1009 18.102, 18.106, 18.1089 18.114, 18.1169 18.120, 18.162 and 18.164. i PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS - j I AGEIYDA.1TlA~I_ Nil - " S s PLEASE PRINT ® Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name, A ms and Phone No. Name, A ress an Phone No. a s. Ivlw~ 1,y. l 2 E S' Sw 7~ .c~ ~~vev~~~ 3 ® 7-(9 Gl~k oy~ a a2 Name, Address and one No. nme, Addms an one No. ( i Name. Addr an one No. amc, Addrw an one No. I nme, Address and one No. Nme,Addms and Phone a. I Name, Address an Phone No. Name, Ad r an one No. Name, Addrem and one No. cone, - an one No. _ . -c. re an ~ooe o. Nnme, Add- and Phone No. i " l Name, A r an one No. Name, Addr an one o. Name, Ad r an Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. l ~ f d I } a. V~ i. E rt S.eSs,~ Y. S CITY OF TIGARD February 13, 1996 OREGON ` Steve Evans, Chairperson Washington County Park Advisory Board j Dear Mr. Evans: I am writing on behalf of the City of Tigard to urge your board to consider partnering -71 with us on the acquisition of a Bull Mountain area Greenspaces site. During the past few months the city and county have been going through similar processes of identifying appropriate sites for the expenditure of our respective local share of Greenspaces funds. Two of the twenty-two potential sites identified by the county are located on Bull Mountain within the City of Tigard's Area of Interest. Similarly, one of the larger sites identified by the city is located on Bull Mountain. To acquaint you with the city-identified site, it is a single forested parcel located near _ the intersection of Bull Mountain Road and 129th Avenue. Nine of the parcel's 12 acres are buildable, with three unbuildable due to slope. Most of the forested area is rated as high quality in Tiigard's 1995 "Bull Mountain Forest Inventory". This same area is identified in the county's Bull Mountain Community Plan as lying within an Area of Special Concern. Approximately 13 acres adjoining the northern side of the parcel are in the process of being dedicated to the city as open space. The 1996 tax assessed F value of the land is $488,000, or roughly 552,000 per acre for the buildable portion of the property. Assuming a service radius of two miles for a large acre natural area, this site and the two Interest Area sites essentially would serve the same population. Since our funds are limited and land on Bull Mountain is expensive to purchase, we are interested in exploring the possibility of working together to jointly fund the acquisition of one of the three potential sites. As you may know, staff-level discussions on the possibility of working together already have occurred. The city's timeline for selecting sites is a month or so ahead of the county's. Assuming an interest in the opportunity to cooperate, for the sake of simplicity, we suggest the following method for reaching an agreement on a preferred site among the three candidates. The city will pick a preferred site in March and decide how much we are prepared to spend on the site. The city will then make a formal joint funding offer for the county to consider as it puts together its list in April. I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 1101111111111111 1 1 - I Page 2 We are, of course, open to any other coordination process or refinements you may wish 60 to suggest. Bull Mountain is developing at a steady pace. The forested areas, which are an important and scenic resource of the mountain, are disappearing. According to our recent inventory, only 26 acres of undisturbed Douglas fir within the incorporated t. area still remain. Many forested sites located on the unincorporated western and southern slopes of the mountain have been developed or are scheduled for development. Given the potential for lost resources, we hope your board will support the concept of partnering with the city to preserve some of the last undisturbed stands of tall trees on Bull Mountain. A necessary qualification to the above is that, as mentioned, our public review and selection process is still in progress. A large number of projects are under consideration. Consequently, it is possible that none of the three Bull Mountain sites will rank as an acquisition priority. Although we cannot prejudge the outcome of our process, which includes extensive public participation, the potential for matching our funds with the country will be an important consideration in pioritizing our acquisition efforts. Sincerely, r Jim Nicoli Mayor f(I _ {J dr.green.let i I f i i I - 1 1 ' A 1 ~7 IA I' MEMORANDUM a1~31~~ DATE: February 12, 1996 TO: City Council 1 FROM: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director RE: Transportation/Triangle Update Following is a summary of the issues to be addressed by staff with the assistance of a consultant: • Packaging of transportation recommendations that will allow amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the "Tool Box" improvements and other transportation improvements that were recommended by the 1994 DKS study. No additional analysis will be necessary with the possible exception of specific intersection improvement requirements. A proposal to institute mixed use zoning in the Tigard Triangle either through overlay zoning or through the creation of a new mixed use zone. This will 1 also address Metro's designation of the site as an office employment center ~J and will be formulated so that it can apply to other areas of the City. i The development of design standards for the Tigard Triangle that will be incorporated into the proposed zoning. • The incorporation of a public involvement effort to provide public input on proposals and coordination with Planning Commission and City Council. t • The preparation of the necessary staff report to present to the Planning Commission and City Council. The above will be accomplished by September of 1996 to allow for public hearings in October. The consultant costs will be covered through existing funds available for special studies, through the use of funds originally ' designated for a significant tree inventory, reformatting of the Community Development Code, salary savings, and through additional moneys provided as part of the supplemental budget process. I anticipate that the total project will cost between $45,000 - $50,000. This however, is a rough estimate and will be refined during the consultant selection process. I will need an additional $10,000 - $15,000 to complete the project as I outlined above. Priorities in the existing budget and work program will be shifted to ensure this project is completed. i REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TRANSPORTATION UPDATE i REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL The City of Tigard requests proposals from qualified applicants to prepare a transportation update for particular City facilities and coordinate the preparation of land use and design standard i recommendations for the Tigard Triangle. The primary purpose of this work is to update and consolidate past work into a forth that can be presented for City adoption. To prepare the update, the City proposes to contract with a qualified firth or individual(s) to perform the services outlined in the Scope of Work. The successful firm or individual(s) shall have demonstrated expertise in land use analysis, scenario development, infrastructure assessment, transportation system i analysis and experience dealing with a public agency. It will be necessary for the consultant to work I closely with City staff, public officials and citizens. ti PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Tigard is interested in evaluation of recent ODOT adopted "tool box" proposals as they relate to City transportation facilities with the purpose of updating and packaging transportation standards for adoption. It is not anticipated that new transportation analysis will be necessary except on a limited basis. Additionally, the City is interested in the evaluation of the potential for mixed use zoning in two areas identified by Metro's 2040 as appropriate for mixed use employment. Part of this effort will include the development of design standards to implement mixed use development in the Tigard Triangle. PROJECT SCOPE The Project Scope will consist of the following tasks: j Task I. Transportation Update - 1 ! A. Review applicable reports, i.e., ODOT 1-5/217 recommendations, DKS Triangle Report, IIII 99W Access Management System Plan. Product: Prepare summary with recommendations. B. Evaluate existing transportation section of the Comprehensive Plan and identify conflicts with findings from Product A. Product: Prepare summary and recommendations. C. Map all transportation facilities identified for improvements in above tasks showing k existing and proposed rights-of-way and existing structures . ` Product: Maps and discussion memo for each impacted right-of-way, identifying existing conditions and potential impacts. D. Prepare maps and displays for citizen involvement. I Product: Informational displays for mail out and work sessions with public. E. Prepare preliminary cost estimates for street identified for improvement. I V i Product: Memo outlining costs and prioritizing necessary improvements. i F. Conduct public involvement process t1 Aft- i Product: A minimum of five informational public meetings to allow public comment and input f with a memo summarizing public comments. { Task II. Creation of Mixed Use Zone f i A. Review existing City regulations for two areas identified by Metro's 2040 as mixed use employment. Determine what types of land use are allowed, including options/recommendations for land use mix. Product: Memo identifying findings. B. Evaluate previous work/studies completed for the Tigard Triangle and determine what information is applicable for mixed-use development that is consistent with mixed use zone. Product: Memo identifying findings. C. Prepare ordinance language including illustrative diagrams to be used during public involvement process. Materials should be easy to understand. D. Establish public involvement process. Product: Hold a minimum of _ informational meetings to collect input from public and i prepare memo summarizing findings. Task III Tigard Triangle Design Standards A. Review existing City standards Product: Prepare illustrative diagrams of current regulations B. Evaluate previous work completed on design standards including previous studies, results of workshops and other preliminary results. Product: Develop recommended standards with illustrative diagrams showing concepts. C. Establish public involvement process (this could be combined with other public involvement elements). Product: Hold a minimum of informational meetings to collect input from public and ` prepare memo summarizing findings. t Task IV Final Report t A. Prepare a final report that summarizes findings from three tasks discussed above that will act as a support document for subsequent work by City staff. i Product: Final report B. Prepare a draft staff report for Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code revisions to implement design standards and mixed use zoning. Product: Draft staff report including conclusions and findings. REPORTS/INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO THE CONSULTANT BY CITY i 1. Base maps of the area. 2 r. j A % . 2. Thematic maps of the area - zoning, existing land use, wetlands, rights-of-way, and other themes that can be created as requested. I _ 3. DKS Associates Transportation Study, dated Tigard Triangle Specific Area Plan, Dated January 1994 ODOT 1-5/217 "Tool Box" Recommendations Past studies and information relating to the Tigard Triangle 4. Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code 5. Relevant inventory, ownership, valuation information for the area. 6. City staff will coordinate citizen participation, and provide requested available materials. PROJECT SCHEDULE Selected consultants will be interviewed by a three person panel during the week of with the final selection by The contract is schedule to be awarded by the Tigard City Council on The consultant should be prepared to start on the project immediately after selection which should be the middle of The project should be completed with ten months of consultant selection. 1 i PROJECT BUDGET The City has 5 available for the consultant's portion of the project. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS r The City requires that interested individuals and firms submit three copies of their proposal for meeting this request. The proposal should include: j 1. Name and qualification for all individuals that will perform work on the project. Include the estimated hours to be spent on the project by each individual and hourly rate for each. 2. An itemization of other project expenses and their estimated cost. i 3. Description of prior experience and references of one or more municipal entities for which the respondent has prepared a similar plan. Include the name of the organization, a contact + person, and a telephone number. 1 4. A detailed work program which describes the services to be rendered including specific phases and the estimated time frame for completion of each phase. 5. Total fee for the proposed work itemized on an hourly basis that includes: Amount of time and budget to be expended by principle(s); Amount of time and budget to be expended by subcontractor; . Amount of budget allocated to materials and expenses. 6. Statement regarding ability to start and complete the project within the defined time frame. CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS The City of Tigard's standard form of contract shall be used for this project. The consultant will be i required to carry insurance in the types and amounts specified by the City in the contract. 3 LL 1 Agenda Item No. - Meeting of Qh3 ICI (A - (Note: Scheduling subject to significant changes subsequent to Council Goal Setting ® I Session Meeting of 2/6/96) Updated 2/05/96 TENTATIVE COUNCIL AGENDAS r (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Statement of Priorities or are scheduled to follow-up a Council matter or request.) Date: February 20, 1996 Type: Workshop (No TV) f ` Start rune: 6:30 p.m. Workshop Meeting Topics: > CIT Communications I 1 > Discussion: Amending park system development charge methodology and fee structure (disamion set over from the 11/21/95 Council C meeting I > Neighborhood Mediation (Liz) > Planning Fees Discussion (Jim H, Vance) > Traffic Calming (30 minute discussion - Bev Froude - see letter in meeting file.) > Community Partners for Affordable Housing - Sheila Greenbw-Fink - see letter in meeting file.) > Visioning f I { i { ELL- (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Statement of Priorities or are scheduled to follow-up a Council matter or request.) Date: February 27, 1996 Type: Business (TV) t Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting Study Session: > Agenda Review Consent Agenda: > Approve Council minutes Business Meeting: 12/7 > Public Hearing - CPA 954)006 - School District; Phil Lewis Site (Ray) > Council Consideration: Purchasing - 2 ordinances and a resolution > Continuation of appeal of PDR 95-0005, SUB 95-0004, SLR 95-0007 ' (Hiilshire Woods 11). (Continued from 1/23/96 Council Meeting) i > Merestone Dam - Funding Issue z i - i i 1 (I E 11~ 1 (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Statement of Priorities or are scheduled to follow-up a Council matter or request.) C Date: March 12, 1996 Type: Business (TV) Start rime: 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting Study Session: > Agenda Review Y Consent Agenda: > Approve Council minutes l ? ` Business Meeting: F > Ordinance - Title 14 Amendments (David) Y y S fjjff` 1 5J r - .r. Wig I I~ 7 ' - ~ILL .r G - 4 (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Statement of Priorities or are scheduled to follow-up a Council matter or request.) Date: March 19, 1996 ~ .r Type: Workshop (No TV) Start rune: 6:30 p.m. Workshop Meeting Topics: > CIT Communications (6:30) ' > Joint Meeting - Planning Commission (7:30) > Update - Computer Systems (Paul deB) 1 , 71 (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Statement of Priorities or are scheduled to follow-up a Council matter or request.) j Date: March 26, 1996 j Type: Business (TV) Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting Study Session: F > Agenda Review t Consent Agenda: > Approve Council minutes r Business Meeting: > ZCA 95-0007 Himing - Annexation Public Hearing I r 1 i rti i S i I (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Statement of Priorities or are scheduled to follow-up a Council matter or request.) Date: April 9, 1996 Type: Business (TV) i Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting Study Session: > Agenda Review w Consent Agenda: ' > Approve Council minutes > Receive at File: Administrator's Memorandum - Whether a rate adjustment should be considered based on the Solid Waste Hauler's Annual reports submitted in March. Business Meeting: . i F i i (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Statement of Priorities or are scheduled to follow-up a Council matter or request.) Date: April 16, 1996 Type: Workshop (No TV) k ' Start rime: 6:30 p.m. y. Workshop Meeting Topics: > CIT Communications ti E: i , - 1 E . (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Statement of Priorities or are scheduled to follow-up a Council matter or request.) Date: April 23, 1996 Type: Business (TV) Start Tune: 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting Study Session: > Agenda Review "c 4 e a Consent Agenda: s > Approve Council minutes t Business Meeting: i E {i a i 7 i f y i 1 2 :t - 2" f "j ITEMS PENDING - DATES TO BE SCHEDULED • Council Review/Discussion: Space Needs - City Facilities • Annexation Comprehensive Plan Changes Ulm) • Transportation Comprehensive Plan Changes (Jim) • Reimbursement District Ordinance Amendment (Randy) • Surface Water Quality Treatment Facilities - Staff Report on Information Requested by Council on September 1995 (Randy) , • OPEU Contract Negotiations - approval of new contract (Sandy) • Community Development Code Amendments - Buffering Uim) • Planning Fees Qim) • Dartmouth LID Financing Hearing (Randy, Wayne) • Neighborhood Mediation Discussion (Bill) • Items to be scheduled after City Vision Statement process is completed by Coundl: • Half Street Improvement Policy (Randy) I f: V ogin\athy\eenagen 1 - I i 1 ~Lj ITEMS PENDING - DATES TO BE SCHEDULED • Council Review/Discussion: Space Needs - City Facilities • Annexation Comprehensive Plan Changes (Jim) • Transportadon Comprehensive Plan Chan 0im) ° Reimbursement District Ordinance Amendment (Gary) on • Surface Water Quality Treatment Facilities - Staff Report Information Requested by Council on September 1995 (Gary) • OPEU Contract Negotiations - approval of new contract (Sandy) • Community Development Code Amendments - Bufferinit (dim) Planning Fees Oim) • Dartmouth LID Financing Hearing (Gary, Wayne) • Neighborhood Mediation Discussion (Bill) f • Items to be scheduled after City Vision Statement process is completed by Council: i • Half Street Improvement Policy (Gary) Mlo&%cathy%tenngen i I k " k V f i Council Agenda Itema b MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON i TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Monahan, City Administrator(ACt DATE: February 6, 1996 SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, February through April, 1996 Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars. February 6 Tues Special Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Goal Setting *13 Toes Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session ' Business Meeting 19 Mon President's Day Holiday - City Offices Closed *20 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) 26 Mon City of Tigard Em toYee Recognition Reception Town Hall - (4.00 p.m.) s *27 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) " Study Session s Business Meeting r, (Please Note: Budget Committee Meetings to be scheduled during March and April) March *12 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting *26 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) *27 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) (Note: Spring Vacation Week) Study Session y _ Business Meeting ._:,v r, t April '9 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) f Study Session Business Meeting '16 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) ; r '23 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting 25 Thurs Volunteer Dinner - (6:00 p.m.) Tigard Christian Church f: \login\cathy\cccal i f .I 1 t { } r _ t F i r J i Council Calendar - Page 2 :-i 7 Y 4 ~.tj t 71 AGENDA ITEM # 't 3 1 For Agenda of x)13 /Gtn O CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON I COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY O ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: A resolution implementing the results of the 1995 Classification and Compensation Study for the Management/Professional Group; adding vision insurance for this group; and, amending previous implementation procedure for Measure 8 for Management/Professional Group PREPARED BY: DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK_ 1 - ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL j Should the City Council implement the results of the 1995 Classification and Compensation for the Management and Professional Group effective January 1, 1996, and amend the existing salary schedule to reflect this; should vision insurance be added as a benefit for the Management and Professional Group pursuant to the recommendations of the study, to be effective April 1, 1996; and should the Council make two adjustments to the implementation of Measure 8 as it relates to the Management and Professional Group - STAFF RECOMMENDATION i Approve revised salary schedule and authorize staff to proceed with implementing the results of the 1995 Classification and Compensation Study for the Management and Professional Group, including adding vision insurance to the city's benefits program for this group; approve changes i to implementation of Measure 8 for this group by allowing interest at the local government pool rate for the 6% set aside for this group, and if IRS regulations and plan rules permit it, allow these employees to elect to have this 6% paid to them as salary, should Measure 8 be ruled invalid. j INFORMATION SUMMARY 1 The City Council authorized a comprehensive City-wide Classification and Compensation Study , be conducted during 1995. The results of this study for the Management and Professional Group. were reviewed at Council's December 19, 1995 meeting. The Council has indicated that they wish to proceed with implementing the results of the study for the Management and Professional J Group effective January 1, 1996. Exhibit A reflects those results and would amend the current salary schedule for this group effective January 1, 1996. As part of the recommendations from . the study, the Council also indicated that they wished to extend vision insurance to the - s ~ Management and Professional Group. Upon adoption by the Council at its February 13, 1996 meeting, the insurance carrier can implement this change effective April 1, 1996. At a previous meeting, the City Council has indicated that they wish to make two adjustments to the current implementation of Measure 8 for the Management and Professional Group. One change would involve the 6% currently being set aside for this group. The Council has stated that it wishes to allow interest to be earned on those funds at the local government pool rate. This has also been extended to OPEU. The second change the Council has indicated it wishes to implement is if Measure 8 is ruled invalid, and if IRS regulations and plan rules permit it, employee's may elect to have the 6% referenced above paid to them as salary (the employee's tax will be withheld, and the City will pay FICA). ` OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL NOTES f I Fiscal implications regarding the results of the Classification and Compensation Study were reviewed by the City Council at their December 19, 1995 meeting. Fiscal implications as a result of the implementation of Measure 8 have also been discussed with Council. I ~ I r ( ! 5 ~ AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of February 13. 1996 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON I COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change CPA - 95-0003/ZON 95-0005 PREPARED BY: Ray Valone DEPT HEAD OK , CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve a comprehensive plan map amendment and zone change on 9 acres from Medium-High Residential/R-25 to General Commercial/C-G? STAFF RECOMMENDATION j The Planning Commission recommended approval of this proposal at its hearing of December 4, 1995. Because staff finds that the proposal does not satisfy all the relevant comprehensive plan criteria, it recommends that the City Council deny Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Zone Change CPA 95- ` 0003/ZON 95-0005. INFORMATION SUMMARY ` The proposed plan amendment and zone change concerns a 9-acre portion of a 15.14-acre parcel of _4 4. land located on the southeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th Avenue. The applicant Briar Development Company, has requested this action in order to develop a Haggen Food Store and Pharmacy. The staff report, including the minutes from the Planning Commission hearing, are attached. The applicant's submittal consists of a written narrative with traffic impact analysis and a market analysis. The council first heard the proposal at its meeting of January 23, 1996. The staff report was given, the hearing opened and testimony was taken. Because new information was given by opponents of the j proposal, the applicant requested and council granted a continuance of the hearing to February 13. The council did close the hearing to further testimony, but agreed to hear the applicant's rebuttal to the opposition testimony before discussing and deciding on the proposal. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED i 1. Approve the comprehensive plan amendment and zone change, and request the applicant to prepare findings demonstrating that all criteria are satisfied. 2. Deny the comprehensive plan amendment and zone change, and request staff to complete a `-resolution and final order for adoption by the council. i 0 EISCAL NOTES ® No direct fiscal impact to the city. It i tt I~ is - 1 i 1 f - ti i r, L -.0 - - z Yr - . UFCW LOCAL 555 ID:503-620-3816 FEB 13'96 13:27 No.011 P.01 L`Yl" ~(n G^-~ fem. - tJFCVU 55~ d~Pc..,t FAX/l31 LOCAL 555 TRANSMITTAL FAX (503) 620-3816 i DATE: TIME: ; 5D FAX r-I I~ - of Pages (Including cover): RE:~gen 1 TO:jP Mol~nr y-F ~i'rga COMPANY: FROM: DEPARTMENT: U'Fl O - ffisl I r ~ j MESSAGE: I 06, IF TRANSMITTAL PROBLEMS OCCUR, J PLEASE CALL (503) 684-2822, ext 335 j UFCW LOCAL 555 - 7095 SW SANDBURG ROAD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 UFCW LOCAL 555 ID 503-620-3816 FEB 13'96 13:28 No.011 P.02 WNW ITED WMN ®®D & OERrAr Ken MacKlllop, President LOCAL 555 Kathy Mortis, Secretary-Treasurer _ P.O. Box 23555 • Tigard, Oregon 97281-3555 • Phone: (503) 684.2822 1.800.452-UFCW FAX: (503) 620-3816 1 Mayor and City Councilors CITY OF TIGARD Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Tigard. OR 97223 I RE: Proposed Haggen Food Stores Greetings: This letter is to support Haggen Foods' request for approval of a new store location on { Scholl's Ferry Road in Tigard. Haggen builds very attractive, high quality stores that I I believe would be an asset to Tigard. i Our union represents members employed at other Tigard food stores and Haggen Foods is a UFCW employer in their other areas of operation. Haggen Food employees receive excellent UFCW negotiated wages, benefits and contribute positively to the community. We encourage you to favorably consider their request. Sincerely yours, Ken MacKillop, President I KMrc I 1 ~t e,w•. F S ~ 1 19 ~ri (e BALL,JANIK 6E NOVACK ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE MAIN PLACE 4 101 S. W. MAIN STREET, SUITE 1100 1101 PENNSYLVANIA AVE N. W.,SUITE 1036 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204.3274 WASHINGTON, D.c 20004 TELEPHONE (503) 226-2525 TELEPHONE (2021636-3301 JACK L. ORCHARD TELECOPY 1503) 295-1056 TELECOPY 12021 7 6 3-6 9 41 February 13, 1996 Tigard City Council Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: CPA 95-0003/ZON 95-0005• Response to Letters from Jeffrey Kleinman to the Tigard City Council and Planning commission Dear Mayor and Councilors: F - J A letter from Jeffrey Kleinman, attorney for Friends of Scholls Ferry Road, was entered into the record at the January 'I 23, 1996 City Council hearing on the above application. A very similar letter was entered into the record at the December 9, 1995 Planning Commission by Mr. Kleinman in his then-capacity as attorney for Murrayhill Thriftway. The Planning Commission found i no merit in the points raised in the letter. The purpose of this letter is to respond to the points raised by the Kleinman letters. The Kleinman letters raised no substantive issues related to the proposal and included points of { such a general nature meriting limited discussion. However, we wish to enter brief responses for the record. Responses to the f { issues concerning various policies and criteria are addressed below. Policy 1.1.2 Implementation Strategy II: We believe these are not the appropriate approval criteria for quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendments and rezones. It is clear from a review of the Comprehensive Plan and the Tigard Municipal Code that the appropriate criteria are found in TMC 18.22.040. i However, we believe this proposal complies with either criteria, regardless of which are used, for the reasons presented in the January 9, 1996 written Haggen submittal to the Council. Policy 5.4: We agree that this Policy applies to our I proposal. However, we believe we meet the Policy, for the reasons outlined in the January 9 Haggen submittal. a i I 0081791.02 f - _ - 'U BALL,JANIK NOVACK Tigard City Council February 13, 1996 Page 2 f' Policy 12.2.1(2): We agree that this Policy applies to our proposal. However, we believe we meet the Policy, for the reasons outlined in the January 9 Haggen submittal. Policy 8.1.1 and OAR 660-12-060: This Policy and State Rule j apply to the proposal. The transportation study included in the record reviewed the transportation impacts of the proposal on major intersections close to the site and found that the proposed i development will meet all adopted City, County and regional roadway level-of-service and operational standards. The study i also found that redesignation of the site would result in a net 65% reduction in vehicle-miles-travelled ("VMT") relative to I buildout of the existing zoning for apartments. Washington County reviewed the proposal and found that "a 60.127 square-foot supermarket at this location would not significantly affect S.W. Scholls Ferry Road" (in a letter dated December 4, 1995). The County found the proposal consistent with OAR 660-12-060, which requires that plan amendments be "consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level-of- service..." of impact road facilities. The County also found that safe access could be provided from the site to Scholls Ferry r Road via a single right-in/right-out/left-in access, spaced approximately 500 feet west of S.W. 130th Avenue. The County has formally issued approval for said access. The County found that this entrance will provide adequate circulation and access into the site. I The County did state that if other more regional uses (such as Wal-Mart or Target) were built on the site, they may create capacity problems on Scholls Ferry Road. However, the site is too small for a Wal-Mart or Target store. We are requesting that { the site be limited to our proposed use to assure that traffic i impacts will meet the relevant criteria. Therefore, this proposal is consistent with Policy 8.1.1 and OAR 660-12-060. Statewide Planning Goal 9: We agree this Goal applies to the proposal. The proposal complies with the Goal for the same reasons outlined in the January 23, 1996 staff report as to how the proposal complies with Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.1. This Comprehensive Plan Policy is very similar to Goal 9. In addition, compliance with this Goal is addressed in the Haggen application. Statewide Planning Goal 10• We agree this Goal applies to the proposal. The proposal complies with the Goal for the same 0081791.02 BALL,JANIK Sa NOVACK Tigard City Council February 13, 1996 Page 3 reasons outlined in the January 23, 1996 staff report as to how the proposal complies with Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.1.1. This Comprehensive Plan Policy is very similar to Goal 10. In addition, compliance with this Goal is addressed in the Haggen application. Policy 1.1.1: The project complies with statewide planning Goals and, therefore, with this Policy as discussed above. Policy 4.1.1: Staff found that this Policy did not apply to the proposal. Even if this Policy does apply, the proposal does comply. The only potential air quality impacts from the proposal would be due to related vehicular traffic. The record shows that the proposal would result in a net 65% reduction in VMT compared to build-out at the existing zoning. Therefore, any potential air quality impacts will be reduced through approval of the proposal. Policy 4.2.1: This Comprehensive Plan amendment/zone change is not the appropriate forum for addressing in detail how the proposal will address applicable water quality standards. Therefore this is not an applicable policy. Prior to construction, the proposal will be required to undergo site development review, where these issues will be fully addressed. This Comprehensive Plan amendment/zone change was not required to be submitted concurrently with an application for site development review. The project consulting team has had preliminary contact with all agencies with jurisdiction and no issues have been identified which represent obstacles to the j project's compliance with all applicable standards. The conceptual site plan filed with the application shows ample room J for both a biofiltration swale and an open detention pond, which I would be the most land consumptive methods for mitigating water + quality impacts. Therefore, this proposal can and will meet whatever specific water quality requirements are applied through site development review. f i Policy 4.3.This Comprehensive Plan amendment/zone change is not the appropriate forum for addressing in detail how the proposal will address applicable noise standards. Therefore this is not an applicable Policy. Prior to construction, the proposal will be required to undergo site development review, where these issues will be fully addressed. This Comprehensive Plan amendment/zone change was not required to be submitted concurrently with an application for site development review. There are no aspects of the development which are likely to F 0081791.02 . Ip r BALL,.JANIK fi. NOVACK Tigard City Council l February 13, 1996 G Page 4 I generate significant noise problems. The conceptual site plan filed with the application shows ample room for beams, sound walls, and landscaping which may be required through the site development review process to reduce noise. Therefore, this F proposal can and will meet whatever specific noise requirements j will be applied through site development review. Policy 6.1.1: The proposed action does comply with this applicable Policy, for reasons outlined in the January 23, 1996 staff report. Policy 6.3.1: This Policy does not apply. The subject property is not within or adjacent to a designated "established residential area," which was mapped by the City. Policies 7.1.2. 7.2.1. 7.5.2. 7.6.1 and 8.1.3: These policies do not apply. This Comprehensive Plan amendment/zone change is not "development approval" as stated by these Policies. "Development approval" will be made at the time of site development review. This Comprehensive Plan amendment/zone change was not required to be submitted concurrently with an application for site development review. Policy 8.2.1: This Policy has nothing to do with this It is a 1• proposal. general Policy which calls for the City to 1 work with Tri-Met to establish bus service within the planning area. j 47 Policy 8.4.1: This Policy does not apply to the proposal. It addresses the requirement that the City designate pedestrian/bikeway corridors and does not apply to project actions. ` ~ c. a Policy 9.1.3: This Policy will be addressed through the 1 review of the facility's building permit. The building can and will comply with all energy code and building code requirements. i I Policy 12.2.1: As demonstrated above and in Haggen's January 9, 1996 submittal, this proposal complies with all d applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. G i 0081791.02 s _q f SALL,JANIK & NOVACK Tigard City Council February 13, 1996 Page 5 'I Community Development Code (CDC) 18.56: CDC 18.56 is totally irrelevant to this proposal. It contains the permitted uses for the R-25 zone. This proposal is for a rezone to the CG zone. CDC 18.100, 18.102. 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, and 18.164: The proposed supermarket will be reviewed for compliance with these j actions of the Tigard Community Development Code at the time of site development review (see CDC 18.120.180). CDC 18.120: This proposal will undergo site development review after approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change and prior to construction. There is nothing in the Code which requires an application for site development review to f. occur concurrently with a Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change to General Commercial. I believe it is clear from this letter and from the other materials that have been submitted that this proposed action complies with all applicable policies. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, a Jack L. Orchard r cc: Joel Gordon E r 1 i I' i 5 =i 0081791.02 s FEB-13-196 13.17 ID.HAGGENS CORPORATE TFL NO:6508236 #106 P02 UFCW LOCAL 555 ID:503-620-3816 FEB 13'96 12:06 No.009 P.01 NITER e 0 D& OMMERCIAL ORKERS LOCAL 555 Kaft MOM*, 8*WbWrTft-W P.O. Box 235% • Tlgerd, Oregon 97261-=5 • Phone: (6a1) M-2822 • 1-000462-UFCW • VAX (5W 620J618 •qlm- Mayor and City Councilors CITY OF TIGARD Tigard City Hall 13126 SW Hall Tigard OR 9=3 RE: Proposed Haggen Food Stores Greetings: This letter Is to support Happen Foods' request for approval of a new store location on j Scholl's Ferry Road In Tigard. Haggen builds very attractive, high quality stores that I believe would be an asset to Tigard. Our union represents members employed at other Tigard food stones and Haggen Foods Is a UFCW employer in their other areas of operation. Haggen Food employees receive excellent UFCW negotiated wages, benefits and contribute positively to the I community. We encourage you to favorably consider their request. Sincerely yours, f 1 ~ ~ k Ken MacKlllop, President ~c i. F.. 1 , i MEMORANDUM TO: Tigard City Council FROM: Leland Consulting Group DATE: 13 February 1996 SUBJECT: Public Need for Grocery Facilities: Rebuttal Information The City of Tigard acknowledged the lack of adequately-zoned General Commercial land in 1989, with the revision of the Comprehensive Plan. Since that time, more commercial land has been used up and the population has increased considerably, creating higher levels of public need for more commercial uses. The subject site is an ideal location for redesignation to commercial uses. At the intersection of a major arterial road and major collector, this parcel is in the midst of a rapidly-growing residential area, with no other commercial development nearby. Recent public policies such as Oregon's Transportation Planning Rule support the location of commercial uses adjacent to growing residential areas. The analysis that follows reinforces the Leland Consulting Group' report submitted in September 1995 in support of a comprehensive plan and zone change proposed by Briar Development Company for development of a 60,000-square-foot Haggen Food and Pharmacy. In that report, Leland Consulting Group analyzed public need for a grocery facility at the subject site using three analytic approaches. This submittal rebuts the opposition testimony by Columbia Research Associates and Retail Research Group. i, Their opposing submittals criticized some of points in the analyses, but not the overall approach to the public need question, nor did either opposition economists actually prepare a model of public need. i Leland Consulting Group was retained by Briar Development Company to ! conduct a public need analysis for the proposed comprehensive plan and zone change. The assignment was to determine whether the population and household growth in this area warrants development of additional grocery facilities. This was not an analysis to determine how a particular store would perform in a particular location. The success of any one grocery store's performance is dependent on a variety of factors-location, size, selection of merchandise, pricing, management policies, operations, cleanliness, courtesy to customers, and many other factors. Rather, it was an analysis of demographic trends relating to land use. ' Leland Consulting Group, Real Estate Economists, Development Advisors and Project Managers, is a Portland-based real estate consulting organization with offices in Denver and Seattle The firm is regularly involved in assessing public need for new projects in virtually ali land use categories. We do not work exclusively for the grocery store industry as do the two opponent economists, but have a variety of public and private sector clients. J E" !eland Consulting Group Real Estate Economists, Development Advisors & Project Managers 1 " . As was noted in the September 1995 analysis, the study area continues to exhibit very strong demographic growth. The population is growing at an annual rate of approximately 3.5 percent -a very high rate of growth. Tigard's population was estimated at 33,700 for 1994, already exceeding the population projection of 33,400 for year 2000 in Tigard's comprehensive plan. In addition, since households are getting smaller, household growth is exceeding the already-rapid population growth rate. Household incomes in the study area are nearly four percent higher than those in Washington County as a whole. Despite these indicators of growth, no new grocery stores have been built to serve this immediate population since 1988. Columbia Research Associates review: - "market study based on gravity modeling was not performed/revealed" --Columbia Research Associates While Reilly's Model of Retail Gravitation-otherwise known as a gravity model-is a recognized model for evaluating a site for a supermarket, a gravity model requires highly detailed information, including data not collected in states without a retail sales tax (of which Oregon is one). Without such data, the model must rely on numerous assumptions (store utility, relative attractiveness, competitive pricing, specific sales in other stores, customer service, selection and many other factors), any of which can lead to a distorted image of the market. Leland Consulting Group analyzed public need for the overall trade area, not how well a Haggen Store or a Howard's Store will perform at the subject location. The gravity model would attempt to analyze specific store performance. Land use regulatory matters address public need, not profitability or ability of specific stores to compete. "Haggens Market Analysis uses research methods that are not validated by the supermarket industry." -Columbia Research Associates Leland Consulting Group constructed three analytic models to evaluate public need for the plan and zone change request. In lieu of the gravity model (not used due to both a lack of data and because it answers the wrong question), Leland Consulting Group conducted a peripheral impact analysis based on the Share of Space Approach described by G. Vincent Barrett and John P. Blair in their book How to Conduct & Analyze Real Estate Market & Feasibility Studies, published by Van Nostrand Reinhold. This approach is acknowledged by the economics research industry as a serviceable and dependable model. I Leland Consulting Group • Real Estate Economists, Deoelopnumt Adviwrs & Project Manager; 2 The Share of Space Approach was combined with the traditional trade area analysis and verifying ring study approach used successfully by Leland Consulting Group to analyze public need on many other past projects. It is noteworthy that the purposes of most analyses by the grocery industry are not to assess land use feasibility, but to gauge competition. Our methods do not show, as does a gravity model, what the effect of competition will be, but rather the fact that there is sufficient demographic support within a trade area to support additional stores, These are such differing goals that a gravity model would be an inappropriate indicator under these circumstances. "Leland Market Analysis shows a trade area that is greatly overstated for the subject site... Columbia Research has defined a trade area, based on demographic factors affecting the site (roads, shopping flow patterns, existing and proposed supermarket competition)." -Columbia Research Associates Columbia Research Associates identified a trade area that is different than that use by Leland Consulting Group. Columbia Research Associates' trade area includes seven grocery stores identified in the Leland Consulting Group study. However, Columbia Research Associates did not perform any analysis on the buying power within their trade area. In response to this criticism, Leland Consulting Group conducted an analysis of the consumer buying power of Columbia Research Associates' trade area against the grocery stores square footage provided by the seven stores. This comparison further f substantiated public need at the subject site. The trade area defined by Columbia Research Associates supports the development of an additional 4 113,000 square feet of grocery stores in 1994, nearly enough square footage to develop two 60,000-square-foot Haggen stores. Even with the development of j ' the pending Albertson's store, consumer buying power in the trade area defined by Columbia Research Associates shows unmet grocery store demand of over 120,000 square feet in 1997 and unmet demand of over 150,000 square feet by 1999. ( . COLUMBIA RESEARCH ASSOCIATES' TRADE AREA 1994 1997' 19990 Number of Households 28,734 32,229 34,559 i Average Annual Spending per Household 54,066 54,070 $4,072 Aggregate Annual Spending at Grocery Stores 5116,821,354 5131,171,717 $140,738,626 I Square Feet of Grocery Supportable 386,008 433,425 465,036 Square Feet of Grocery Existing 273,000 273,000 273,000 Potential Square Feet (Albertson's store) na 40,000 40,000 Square Feet of Unmet Demand 113,008 120125 152,036 1997 and 1999 figures are in constant 1994 dollars Source: Claritas, Inc., Urban Land Institute, Grubb b Ellis and Leland Consulting Group. Leland Consulting Group • Real Estate Economists, Development Advisors & project Managers 3 GF, I "The average dollar per square foot for the Tigard stores is $6.45, which is 7% less than the Portland Metro area average of $6.91 per foot. This shows a modest oversupply of existing supermarket square footage in Tigard when compared to Portland." --Columbia Research Associates Public need for grocery facilities is based on a population's demand for food- at-home and related grocery items. Public choice dictates where the population fulfills that need. As noted earlier, shoppers make decisions about where to shop based on a variety of factors-location, size, selection of merchandise, pricing, management policies, operations, cleanliness, courtesy to customers, and many other factors. Therefore, the performance of individual stores is not a valid indicator of public need. According to data provided by the Census, Metro, and the City of Tigard, this area is experiencing rapid population growth. If the two stores nearest the subject site (Howard's and Murrayhill Thriftway) are underperforming the Tigard average, the Portland average, and the state average in this area of population growth, household growth and income growth, then it follows that these two stores are not effectively meeting the needs of consumers for any combination of factors cited above. The comparison of square-foot sales in grocery stores is not a good comparison. There is a general lack of land in the City of Portland for development of additional grocery stores. Older, smaller stores stay open because they are very profitable--competition cannot come in, in many cases. A comparison of one underserved market with another only provides a distorted image of existing market conditions. In response to the assertion that the immediate area has an oversupply of grocery stores, Leland Consulting Group compared square footage of grocery per population served in a two-mile radius of the subject site to square footage of grocery per population in the cities of Eugene and Beaverton. This j analysis revealed that on a per-capita basis, the residents nearest the subject site are served by 41 percent less grocery store space than the residents of ; . i Eugene and nearly 47 percent less grocery store space than the residents of Beaverton. Even with the pending development of a 40,000-square foot Albertson's, the residents of the immediate area remain underserved-with 38 percent less per capita grocery space than residents of Eugene and nearly 44 percent less than residents of neighboring Beaverton. Leland Consulting Group • Real Estate Economists, Development Advisors b Project Managers 4 - 4 1 i GROCERY STORE SPACE COMPARISON Trade Area vs. cities of Eugene and Beaverton Square Feet Square Feet Population Crocery perperson Eugene 120,560 719,119 5.96 f " Beaverton 61,085 378,500 6.20 Two-mile ring 70,060 296,000 4.22 Two-mile ring in 1997 77,816 336,000 4.32 Source. Portland State University Amer can Business Lists, Grubb & Ells, Northland Real Estate, Lane County Assessor's Office, Claritas, Inc., Haggen Food and Pharmacy and Leland Consulting Group. It is noteworthy that three successful grocery retailers (Fred Meyer, Albertson's and Haggen)-all with independent analyses-want to come into this marketplace. These retailers are prepared to make $10 million plus of private investment to this rapidly-growing area to meet public need for groceries and related retail. Retail Research Group review: ; Six stores labeled as "missing" are outside of the trade area. As explained in the original Leland Consulting Group report, the only stores included in the ✓ trade area analysis were those within the actual trade area. The Peripheral Impact Analysis considers the addition of four large-volume stores (two Cub j Foods stores and two Fred Meyer stores) near the periphery of the trade area. Unlike neighborhood grocery stores, these retailers are included in the Peripheral Impact Analysis because of their relatively larger trade areas than traditional neighborhood grocery stores. A traditional grocery store outside the trade area is not significant. To quote from the original Leland Consulting Group analysis: "Cub Foods draws from a larger market area than Haggen and other grocery stores because of pricing supported by higher volumes of sales at smaller margins. Fred Meyer stores also draw from a larger trade area than typical grocery stores because of the stronger pull offered by Fred Meyer's dominating non-food departments. Unlike Haggen and other neighborhood grocery stores, non-food sales currently account for 58.4 percent of Fred Meyer's sales and have helped draw consumer buying power into their facilities." (page 16) Regarding the two Sherwood grocery stores on the periphery of the trade area _ that are indeed 7in g froouranalysisthesclealy ve little effect Columbia Reseah ciaes intd ut that on one n our marettra d, the de is overstated by including parts of Sherwood. On the other hand, the Retail Research Group submittal points out that two stores in Sherwood on the periphery of the trade area were not included in the analysis. Leland Consulting Group agrees that the Sherwood stores are out of E P Leland Consulting Group • Real Estate Economists, Development Advisors & Project Managers 5 a 1 the trade area, and the trade area has been modified accordingly. That is, the trade area has been modified to exclude the Sherwood stores and the corresponding nearby purchasing power. As was pointed out in the last hearing, some food items are available at non- grocery stores such as Costco. At the same time, however, shoppers are purchasing an increasing amount of non-food items at grocery stores. In traditional grocery stores, approximately 25 to 30 percent of the floor area is devoted to items that are not included in food-at-home spending data. These items include beer and wine, cigarettes and other tobacco products, personal care items, housekeeping supplies, paper products, pet food and pet care items, books and magazines, health and beauty aids, and other non-food items. The Leland Consulting Group analysis did not initially include spending on these items, since they can also be purchased at other types of stores (liquor stores, book stores, drug stores, and the like). Therefore, the initial three analyses by Leland Consulting Group are very conservative since they applied some food-only spending to food and non-food areas, thereby seriously understating public need. Leland Consulting Group also conducted food-only models of public need by allocating 25 percent of floor area to these non-food items. The analysis shows significant public need for additional stores. Similarly, the peripheral impact analysis shows public need to support proposed development. Using ten separate analytical methodologies including the trade area drawn by Columbia Research Associates, public need shows strong unmet demand for additional grocery facilities. The results of the analyses are summarized below. 1 SUMMARY OF UNMET DEMAND FOR GROCERY STORE SPACE Square Feet of Unmet Demand r 1994 '1997 "1999 ' I Trade Area Analysis-Modified Area 90,884 63,093 107,465 Trade Area Food-Only Analysis-Original Area 195,810 140,162 193,282 Trade Area Food-Only Analysis-Modified Area 185,608 171,887 221,708 Peripheral Impact Analysis-Original Area 106,565 60,086 127,3% Peripheral Impact Analysis-Modified Area 102,854 92,968 137,340 Peripheral Impact Food-Only Analysis-Original Area 222.267 194,186 247,305 Peripheral Impact Food-Only Analysis-Modified Area 196,830 199,895 249,716 Trade Area Analysis--Columbia Trade Area 113,008 120,425 152,036 King Study Analysis 76,302 81,000 110,798 Ring Study Food-Only Analysis 140,517 153,202 186,659 Square Feet of Unmet Demand (average) 143,065 129,690 173,371 j i • 1997 and 1999 anat ses include square footage provide! by 1995 Albcrtson's and pending stores "Middle estimates ofyperipheral impact analyses are shown Source. City of Tigard, CLaritas, Inc., Urban Land Institute, Grubb & Ellis and Leland Consulting Group. { Leland Consulting Group • Real Estate Economists, Development Advisors & Project Managers 6 L~ ' n i The results of the analyses show that population growth, household growth, and consumer spending of the area near the subject site warrant development of additional grocery facilities. The inventory of existing grocery stores in the immediate area has not increased since 1988 despite dramatic and unanticipated growth in the area. As this analysis shows, this area exhibits strong public need for additional grocery stores. Without adequately-zoned land to allow the proposed development, the population within the trade area will continue to face limited choice in terms of grocery and related retail. Redesignation of this site to Commercial-General will allow the applicant to development the proposed 60,000-square-foot grocery facility to serve the grocery and other convenience retail needs of the area residents. J14 f , i i ~ L Leland ConsuUing Group • Real Estate Economists, Deoefopnunt Advisors b Project Managers 7 i j • r' i HAGGEN STORES • MARKET DEMAND AND PUBLIC NEED ANALYSIS 13 FEBRUARY 1996 TRADE AREA ANALYSIS SUMMARY Food-only Methodology, Original Trade Area 1994 *1997 *1999 r Number of Households 42,966 48,257 51,785 Average Annual Food-at-Home Spending per Household $3,618 $3,621 $3,623 Aggregate Annual Spending on Food-at-Home Items $155,450,503 $174,741,968 $187,602,945 Square Feet of Food-Selling Space Supportable 513,648 577,392 619,888 Square Feet of Food-Selling Grocery Space Existing 357,000 357,000 357,000 Estimated Food-Selling Space in na 108,263 108,263 Sherwood Albertson's and pending stores Additional Square Feet Food-Selling Space Supported 156,648 112,130 154,626 Net Additional Square Feet Total Grocery Store 195,810 140,162 193,282 Space Supported by Trade Area Residents r I • 1997 and 1999 figures are in constant 1994 dollars Source. U.S. Bureau of the Census, City of Tigard, Claritas, Inc., Urban Land Institute, Grubb & Ellis and Leland Consulting Group. i LELAND CONSULTING GROUP • REAL ESTATE ECONOMISTS, DEVELOPMENT ADVISORS & PROJECT MANAGERS i 1 1 U LI& HAGGEN STORES • MARKET DEMAND AND PUBLIC NEED ANALYSIS 13 FEBRUARY 1996 f i TRADE AREA ANALYSIS SUMMARY Food-only Methodology, Modified Trade Area 1994 *1997 *1999 Number of Households 40,678 45,635 48,939 Average Annual Food-at-Home Spending per Household $3,621 $3,624 $3,626 Aggregate Annual Spending on Food-at-Home Items $147,306,002 $165,399,405 $177,461,674 Square Feet of Food-Selling Space Supportable 486,737 546,522 586,379 Square Feet of Food-Selling Grocery Space Existing 338,250 338,250 338,250 Estimated Food-Selling Space in na 70,763 70,763 Sherwood Albertson's and pending stores Additional Square Feet Food-Selling Space Supported 148,487 137,509 177,366 Net Additional Square Feet Total Grocery Store 185,608 171,887 221,708 Space Supported by Trade Area Residents { * 1997 and 1999 figures are in constant 1994 dollars Source. U.S. Bureau of the Census, City of Tigard, Claritas, Inc., Urban Land Institute, Grubb 6 Ellis and Leland Consulting Group. LELAND CONSULTING GROUP • REAL ESTATE ECONOMISTS, DEVELOPMENT ADVISORS & PROJECT MANAGERS f . 1 t- 13 FE$RU~Y 1996 - ANQ WQpU6UCNEED ANALYSIS ( ~ . MA~~ DEM GINS 14 s S C'~ XNXL~ ~RXL *1999 Original Trade Area *1997 Original Methodology, 1994 51,785 48,257 $4,p33 42,966 $4,031 holds $4,028 194,540,233 $208,85$59 ho 121 Number of "Ouse Seia6mS per Household $173,063,04`1 }2,811 690,121 ual Grocer' p 571,845 , Average A~ ending . ual Grocer' Sp ortable 516,688 Aggregate An" S ace Supp 516,688 Grocery p 560 562,725 Square Feet of SPaCe: 426, 562,725 608,763 care Feet of Grocery 465,280 608,763 Effective S9 504,000 81359173,434 1.0w Eshmatt ate 67'g45-145r755 34,09`8126,123 Medium Es Space timate feet Grocery Hlgh esidents Group- Net AddOrteY d b TT de Area R Leland Consul Grubb ting Support & Ellis and dollars urban Land Institute, are in constant 1.994 Claritas, lner * 1997 and 199 Bureau of the Census, City of Tigard, source: U.S. AQVISORS k PRO}ECC MANAGES ECONoM1515,'~vE~orcnENT REA1,E5fATE ( 4ANQCONSULTINGC'EOUP r7 A C.} ~ t HAGGEN STORES • MARKET DEMAND AND PUBLIC NEED ANALYSIS 13 FEBRUARY 1996 I PERIPHERAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY ' Original Methodology, Modified Trade Area t a Y 1994 *1997 *1999 Number of Households 40,678 45,635 48,939 Average Annual Grocery Spending per Household $4,032 $4,035 $4,037 Aggregate Annual Grocery Spending $163,995,772 $184,139,158 $197,568,082 Square Feet of Grocery Space Supportable 541,884 608,443 652,815 Effective Square Feet of Grocery Space: Low Estimate 404,060 476,188 476,188 Medium Estimate 439,030 515,475 515,475 High Estimate 474,000 554,763 554,763 Net Additional Square Feet Grocery Space 67,884-137,824 53,680-132,255 98,053-176,628 Supported by Trade Area Residents • 1997 and 1999 figures are in constant 1994 dollars Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, City of Tigard, Claritas, Inc., Urban Land Institute, Grubb 6 Ellis and Leland Consulting Group. i I LELAND CONSULTING GROUP • REAL ESTATE ECONOMISTS, DEVELOPMENT ADVISORS & PROJECT MANAGERS s ® ® 11 s L: HAGGEN SPORES • MARKET DEMAND AND PUBLIC NEED ANALYSIS 13 FEBRUARY 1996 PERIPHERAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY Food-Only Methodology, Modified Trade Area 1994 *1997 *1999 Number of Households 42,966 48,257 51,785 Average Annual Food-at-Home Spending per Household $3,718 $3,621 $3,623 Aggregate Annual Spending on Food-at-Home Items $155,450,503 $174,741,968 $187,602,945 Square Feet of Food-Selling Space Supportable 513,648 577,392 619,888 Effective Square Feet of Food-Selling Grocery Space: Low Estimate 308,670 387,516 387,516 Medium Estimate 335,835 422,044 422,044 High Estimate 363,000 456,572 456,572 Additional Square Feet Food-Selling Space Supported 150,648-204,978 120,820-189,877 163,316-232,373 Net Additional Square Feet Total Grocery Store 188,310-256,223 151,025-237,346 204,145-290,466 Space Supported by Trade Area Residents • 1997 and 1999 figures are in constant 1994 dollars Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, City of Tigard, Claritas, Inc., Urban Land Institute, Grubb & Ellis and Leland Consulting Group. i LELAND CONSULTING GROUP • REAL ESTATE ECONOMISTS, DEVELOPMENT ADVISORS & PROJECT MANAGERS k -MOWN 13 FEBRUARY 1996 " DEMAND AND PUBLiCNEED ANALYSIS _ ~ ; .MARKET HAGGEN STORES ~~'Y ALYS1~ 1 1V~.PA.CT AN V'TLAL 1)14- Area W-9 Modified Trade *1999 Food-Only Methodology, *1997 1994 48,939 45,635 40,678 $3,626 $3,624 $3,621 $177,461,674 Number of Households - Ome Spending per Household 147,306,002 $165,399,405 586,379 ual Food at H e items $ 546,522 Average Ann on Food-at-Hom 486,737 ual Spending portable Aggregate Ann Space Sup357,141 re 357,141 386 Square Feet of Food - Grocery Space: 303,045 ,606 Of Food-Selling 386,606 072 Ef fective Square Feet o 329,273 416,072 416, Low Estimate 355,500 0 450-189,381 170,317-229,231 Estimate 7"183,692 13 , 212,884-286,54 Medium igh Estimate _SeUing Space Supported 1 13164,,23046-229,615 163,063-23b,727 H wareFeet Food Additional ,q uare Feet Total Grocery Store Net Addition, orted by Trade Area Residents Space SupP Consulting Group. Grubb are in constant & Ellis and Leland * 1994 dollars Land institute, 1997 and 1999 figures , Bureau of the Census, City of Tigard Claritas, Inc., Urban NT Source: U. S* ELOPME ADVISORS 6c PROJECT MANAGES RE AL ESf A•f E ECONOMISTS, UEV * CONSUL LING GROUP LELAND { HAGGEN SPORES • MARKET DEMAND AND PUBLIC NEED ANALYSIS 13 FEBRUARY 1996 F COLUMBIA RESEARCH ASSOCIATES' TRADE AREA Original Methodology 1994 1997* 1999* 7 i Number of Households 28,734 32,229 34,559 ' Average Annual Spending per Household $4,066 $4,070 $4,072 Aggregate Annual Spending at Grocery Stores $116,821,354 $131,171,717 $140,738,626 Square Feet of Grocery Supportable 386,008 433,425 465,036 Square Feet of Grocery Existing 273,000 273,000 273,000 Potential Square Feet (Albertson's store) na 40,000 40,000 Square Feet of Unmet Demand 113,008 120,425 152,036 " 1997 and 1999 figures are in constant 1994 dollars Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, City of Tigard, Claritas, Inc., Urban Land Institute, Grubb & Ellis and Leland Consulting Group. i i 14LELAND CONSULTING GROUP • REAL ESTATE ECONOMISTS, DEVELOPMENT ADVISORS & PROJECP MANAGERS r - RAGGEN STORES • MARKET DEMAND AND PUBLIC NEED ANALYSIS 13 FEBRUARY 1996 :r i RING STUDY SUMMARY Original Methodology 1994 *1997 *1999 t Number of Households 27,835 31,139 33,342 Average Annual Grocery Spending per Household $4,048 $4,053 $4,056 Aggregate Annual Grocery Spending $112,673,562 $126,200,794 $135,218,949 Square Feet of Grocery Space Supportable 372,302 417,000 446,798 Square Feet of Grocery Space Existing 296,000 296,000 296,000 Estimated Grocery Space in Pending Albertson's store na 40,000 40,000 Additional Square Feet Grocery Space Supported 76,302 81,000 110,798 by Ring Study Area Residents I 1997 and 1999 figures are in constant 1994 dollars Source. U.S. Bureau of the Census, City of Tigard, Claritas, Inc., Urban Land Institute, Grubb 6 Ellis and Leland Consulting Group. LELAND CONSULTING GROUP • REAL ESTATE ECONOMISTS, DEVELOPMENT ADVISORS & PROJECT MANAGERS i fol HAGGEN STORES • MARKET DEMAND AND PUBLIC NEED ANALYSIS 13 FEBRUARY 1996 k d r i f 1 yi RING STUDY SUMMARY Food-Only Methodology 4 1994 *1997 *1999 Number of Households 27,835 31,139 33,342 Average Annual Food-at-Home Spending per Household $3,636 $3,640 $3,643 Aggregate Annual Spending on Food-at-Home Items $101,206,828 $113,357,400 $121,457,782 Square Feet of Food-Selling Space Supportable 334,413 374,562 401,328 Square Feet of Food-Selling Grocery Space Existing 222,000 222,000 222,000 Estimated Food-Selling Space in Pending Albertson's store na 30,000 30,000 Additional Square Feet Food-Selling Space Supported 112,413 122,562 149,328 Net Additional Square Feet Total Grocery Store 140,517 153,202 186,659 Space Supported by Trade Area Residents 1997 and 1999 figures are in constant 1994 dollars Source. U.S. Bureau of the Census, City of Tigard, Claritas, Inc., Urban Land Institute, Grubb & Ellis and Leland Consulting Group. i LELAND CONSULTING GROUP • REAL ESTATE ECONOMISTS, DEVELOPMENT ADVISORS & PROJECT MANAGERS l s KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 610 SW ALDER. SUITE 700 • PORTLAND, OR 97205 (503) 2285230 FAX (503) 273 8169 ! February 13, 1996 Project No.: 1628.00 Tigard City Council - City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mayor Nicoli and Members of Council: The purpose of this letter is to provide a written response to the traffic-related testimony you heard at the January 23, 1996 City Council Hearing regarding the Briar Development Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change application. The majority of our response focuses on the oral and written testimony submitted by Mr. Bernstein; however we have also provided responses to the traffic-related comments made by the other citizens who provided comments. Before addressing specific comments made by Mr. Bernstein's testimony, an overriding factor which should be carefully considered when reviewing his testimony is that he became involved in the project approximately one week prior to January 23, 1996. Further, Mr. Bernstein did not conduct any technical analysis of traffic operations within the study area nor did he collect any traffic operational field data. By contrast, the traffic studies prepared by our firm and included in the record represents the cumulative effort of our involvement in the project for close to a year. During that time, we collected several hours of traffic operational field data at the study area intersections and worked closely with the City of Tigard, Washington County, and the ~j applicant to thoroughly evaluate both the near term and long term impacts of the proposed Comprehensive I Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Throughout the project, Washington County, given their concern over potential impacts to Scholls Ferry Road, closely scrutinized all of the background data used in the traffic study, as well as the land use, trip generation, and trip distribution assumptions for both the existing and proposed zoning. Having been closely involved in every element of the transportation analysis, Washington County concluded that the proposed j development would have a similar or perhaps less severe impact on the critical intersections on Scholls Ferry 3j Road than an apartment complex developed in accordance with the existing zone designation. In summary, having had a chance to review Mr. Bernstein's report we found nothing that would change any of the findings or conclusions of our analysis. Included in the following pages is our response to each of the comments made by Mr. Bernstein in his oral and written testimony. Continent: Traffic generated by the grocery store could be significantly higher than estimated by the applicant. Response: The trip generation rates used in our analysis are published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and are included in a standard reference document used by transportation planners t' and engineers (the ITE Trip Generation manual). The procedure used is accepted nationally for estimating the trip generation of new development. Further, these trip rates were r reviewed and agreed to be reasonable by City of Tigard and Washington County. l j Written Rebuttal to Traffic Related Testimony n February 13, 1996 Page 2 t llie trip generation rates chosen by Mr. Bernstein are inappropriate for the proposed 1-laggen supermarket. The data points referred to represent supermarkets that are approximately half the size of the proposed Haggen store and thus are not directly comparable. Using Mr. i Bernstein's logic, it would be just as appropriate to use the data point representing the next larger-sized supermarket, which has a trip generation rate that is lower than the rate that was used in our analysis. In general, the ITE trip generation manual has very few data points for buildings the size of the proposed Haggen supermarket (approximately 60,000 gross square feet). Most of the data points are for uses that are much smaller. Trip generation rates for } most retail uses decline as the development size increases. In other words, doubling the size of a development doesn't double its trip generation. However, our analysis assumes a linear relationship between building size and trip generation rates, which, if anything, yields a conservatively high estimate of trip generation. i Comment: Unmet demand ideniiJted in the market analysis ivill result in more traffic than estimated. } Response: There is no factual data to support this conclusion because there is no market data to accompany the ITE data. However, the unmet demand identified in the Haggen market analysis likely results in above-average traffic demand at existing stores within the overall trade area. After the Haggen store is constructed, traffic will re-distribute as the supply more closely matches the demand. Coninrent: The traffic analysis should consider the maximum development of the site, i-esulting in fit-ice J the number of trips shown in the applicant's traffic analyssis. Response: The calculations Mr. Bernstein uses to develop this assertion are flawed. In all six of the _ elements that go into the calculation of the maximum-development trip generation, lie either uses incorrect methods to develop his trip generation or tails to take into account the various trip types that occur with retail uses: • Retail. Mr. Bernstein uses the rate for a 23,000-square-foot stand-alone retail site, which has a higher trip generation rate per square foot than the 83,000-square-foot retail center that would actually be developed under this worst-case scenario. This results in a significant over-estimation of trip generation potential. • Supermarket. Mr. Bernstein uses the inappropriately-inflated supermarket rates described previously. • Fast Food. Mr. Bernstein uses the trip rate for the peak hour of the generator (which typically occurs around noon), rather than the peak hour of the adjacent j street system (which occurs between 4:00-6:00 p.m.). This results in a significant over-estimation of trip generation potential. • Pass-by trips. As Mr. Bernstein acknowledges in his testimony, many of the trips j to the site will be trips that are made on the way to some other destination (such as work to home). owever, he doesn't take these pass-by trips into account when H developing his trip generation estimates. Since pass-by trips already exist on the i ~ z b 41 jU Written Rebuttal to Traffic Related Testimony February 13, 1996 Page 3 adjacent street system, they do not add to existing Uac vohunes and should not be counted as new trips. i j • Internal trips. Under the maximum development scenario, there would be other uses on the site in addition to the grocery store. These uses, such as a fast-food restaurant, would attract some of their customers from the other businesses on the site. Mr. Bernstein does not take these internal trips into account, which results in j an overestimation of the new trips added to the surrounding street system. I ~ . • Diverted trips. Some of the trips to the proposed Haggen store will be diverted trips: people who decide to buy groceries at the Haggen store because it is more convenient, or offers products, prices, or services not available elsewhere. To be j conservative, the Haggen traffic analysis treated these trips as new trips in the immediate vicinity of the site. However, the number of trips on the area's transportation system remains the same as a result of these diverted trips: the trip is still made, only the destination changes. Once again, Mr. Bernstein fails to j acknowledge the effects of these trips. Any one of these mistakes and omissions by itself should call into question Mr. Bernstein s methodology. Taken together, it is clear that his findings and conclusions are not supported i by any factual evidence. j ~ j it should be emphasized that the assumptions for the worst-case maximum-development scenario were developed by Washington County staff and are believed to represent a reasonable "worst-case" commercial development scenario on the site. The analysis found that under this scenario, the SW Scholls Ferry Road/SW 135th Avenue intersection would operate at capacity in the year 2005. Under these conditions, the "worst-case" use, if it were to develop on the site, would be required to mitigate the intersection to produce acceptable i levels of service. Furthermore, Washington County's access modification only applies to the proposed Haggen store and any future, larger development would have to reapply for access onto SW Scholls Ferry Road. Comment: Vehicle miles traveled on local transportation svstent will not change. ! Response: Our analysis clearly documents how we arrived at the conclusion that a reduction in vehicle j miles traveled (VMT) on the system would occur as a result of the proposed Haggen use. If the number of net new trips are known, along with the average trip length, the net change in VMT can be easily calculated. Mr. Bernstein makes the claim that the apartments will simply be built at some other location, so the apartment-related VMT will not change. This is not neccessarily true since the City found that an adequate supply of multi-family housing exists within the City of Tigard with the removal of the housing units that could be built on this site. Asa result, the assumptions we made to estimate the net change in VMT are valid. I L~ a - - _ Written Rebuttal to Traffic Related Testimony February 13, 1996 Page 4 j From a more regional perspective, common sense suggests that VMT on a regional level 1 would be reduced as well. The location of employment centers and essential services such i 4 as grocery stores in relation to where people live have a significant impact On regional VMT. i` In order to achieve the VMT reductions called for by the Transportation Planning Rule (20 i percent per capita over the next 20 years), a mix of commercial, residential, and employment j i uses in closer proximity to one another will be required. This concept is illustrated in the Metro 2040 Plan. j Even if it were true that the VMT generated by the apartments will simply be displaced to some other location within the region, the region-wide change in VMT would likely be f negligible because the average trip length for a relatively small number of apartment dwellers will likely not change. However, by locating a commercial development (such as a grocery store) in an area under-served by commercial uses, the average retail trip length and hence VMT can be reduced at a regional level. In the specific case of the proposed Haggen development, this reduction comes from providing shorter trip lengths for a much larger group of people within the local neighborhoods. Some people may drive farther because of certain products and services offered by Haggen, but this increase is more than i offset by the reduction in trip length for a much larger number of local residents. { . Mr, Bernstein also claims that pass-by trips will occur at other grocery stores if the Haggen ' Food and Pharmacy is not built. This is not necessarily true. In order to attract pass-by trips, a store must be located along a major commute route so that people can easily stop at the store on their way home from work. If it is not a convenient stop, the customer will likely 1111 make a separate trip to another grocery store, thus increasing VMT. I Comment: The trip distribution is incon•ect all trips were assumed to return to their startingpoint. Response: This comment suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of trip types. "New" trips-those i trips made solely for the purpose of grocery shopping-and "diverted" trips-those trips that formerly went to another grocery store-will return to their origin. Approximately 60% of grocery store trips were conservatively assumed to fall into this category. This assumption is supported by research reported in ITE's Trip Generation manual. Furthermore, "pass-by" trips-those trips that include a slop at the grocery- store as part of another trip-were distributed according to volume on Scholls Ferry Road in exactly the manner that Mr. i Bernstein claims was not done. As a result, the trip distribution accurately reflects traffic patterns into and out of the site. Comment: The site access plan analysed in the report does not meet Machingion Corouys requirements. Response: Our traffic analysis actually evaluated two access scenarios: (1) the access plan originally proposed by the applicant with two access points, and (2) a right-in, right-out-only access onto Scholls Ferry Road, thus providing both maxinunn and minimum site access scenarios. Washington County recognizes that its access standards do not cover all possible situations and provides a means for modifying the standards when appropriate. Consequently, { analyzing the more liberal access scenario in addition to the minimum-access scenario was ~ ,J Written Rebuttal to Traffic Related Testimony 1 February 13, 1996 i Page 5 justified. The applicant submitted a request for a modification of Washington County's standards, which resulted in the left-in, right-in, right-out access approved by the County. At the request of the County, Kittclson & Associates, Inc. conducted an analysis of the final approved site access plan and found no operational deficiencies at the study area intersections. Comment. Queuing on Sclrolls Ferry Road and the site driveways was not analyzed Response: A queuing analysis on Scholls Ferry Road was performed and it was found that standing queues on Scholls Ferry Road would not affect site access. The only movement that had the potential to be impacted by standing queues on Sclrolls Ferry road was the Iefl-out access originally proposed by the applicant. The access plan approved by Washington County did not provide for a left-out movement. 'File proposed access is located 800 feet cast of the SW I Scholls Ferry Road/SW 135th Avenue intersection, well away from the influence of queues in either the left-tum or through lanes. Neither Washington County nor the City of Tigard had any concerns with respect to standing queues at any study area intersection. Comment: Anticipated delay exiting the site driveway-especially for left turns onto Scholls Ferry Road-will encourage motorists to divert onto neighborhood streets. Response: Mr. Bernstein is making a very broad generalization that would only be applicable in this case if (a) drivers experienced exceedingly long delays at the site driveways, and (b) the J alternative routes would result in less delay (including the delay associated with traveling out-of-direction). With respect to (a), the anticipated delays at the site driveways for both 4 entering and exiting traffic will be lower than the delays experienced at the adjacent i signalized intersections. As a result, drivers will not have any incentive to divert to the local 1 streets. With respect to (b), the major arterials and collector facilities located in the vicinity f of the site (Scholls Ferry, Murray Road, 135th, and Walnut) provide the quickest, most direct route to the site from the various origins and desinations within the trade area. The presence of these facilities negates both the need and the incentive to use the local streets to serve anything other than local trips generated from within the surrounding neighborhoods. Comment: The trip generation is neither credible nor applicable. Response: As shown previously, the trip generation is both credible and applicable. Washington County has reviewed and approved both the original traffic report and the updated analysis ; reflecting the final approved access plan. The County has a vested interest in ensuring that Scholls Ferry Road and its intersections operate below capacity and at acceptable levels of ' service. % f The following is a response to comments made by other citizens who attended the hearing. ' Comments from Cleo McCloud: Comment: There is presently a 90-second wait to get onto Scholls Ferry Road from .SIV 135th Avenue: ^ the store will double or triple that. i r. Written Rebuttal to Traffic Related Testimony February 13, 1996 Page 6 Response: The movement with the highest delay to turn onto to Scholls Ferry Road is the northbound left-turn movement. Under existing conditions, the average delay to motorists making this maneuver is approximately 30 seconds. With the proposed development,this delay would increase to approximately 40 seconds. Comment. SW 135th Avenue is too narrow to accommodate additional traffic. Response: Our analysis demonstrates that one through lane in each direction is sufficient to I accommodate traffic through the year 2005. i - Comments from Jim Rasmussen Comment: Scholls Ferry Road is gridlocked between 4 and 6 p.m. Response: Although traffic is noticeably higher during these hours, Scholls Ferry Road operates at acceptable levels of service during the afternoon rush hour and will continue to do so i following the construction of the.Haggen Food and Pharmacy. As shown previously, the ! proposed Haggen store will have the same or less of an impact on the critical intersections near Highway 217, compared to apartments on the site. f Comment: The store will attract shoppers from large areas who didn't pay for the streets. I Response: The majority of the shoppers are expected to come from local neighborhoods, including those who participated in LIDS in the area. The Scholls Ferry Road improvements were paid for by state and federal tax dollars. The Haggen Food and Pharmacy, like all development r within Tigard, will have to pay a transportation systems development charge that will be applied towards local road projects. The SDC that Haggen would pay will be substantially greater than what apartments would pay (approximately $240,000 versus approximately $175,000 for a 180-unit apartment complex). Comments from Eric Johnson Comment. Washington County severely limited access, which will affect the traffic study. Response: One of the access scenarios the Haggen traffic analysis studied was a right-in, right-out access scenario, which is more restrictive than what the County eventually approved. A follow-up study based on the final approved access scenario found that area intersections will operate below capacity and at acceptable levels of service through the year 2005. i Comments from Ron Royce Comment. Truck deliveries will impact the neighborhood. Response: Except for a short stretch of Hawks Beard Street of less than a block to the site, trucks will not enter the neighborhood. 1 , F1 Written Rebuttal to Traffic Related Testimony February 13, 1996 Page 7 Continent: Cut-through traffic will be generated within Beaverton. Response: The local street system on the north side of Scholls Ferry Road within Beaverton developed in such a way that there is no advantage for through traffic to use local streets instead of the collector and arterial system. Local residents will use SW 130th Avenue and SW Davies Road to access Scholls Ferry to get to the site, just as they do now to go shopping farther away. Comment from Mark Johnson Continent: Walking to existing stores will be less safe. Response: There is more traffic on Scholls Ferry Road next to the existing Howard's Thrifhvay than there is next to the proposed Haggen site. Signalized crosswalks are available at the SW Scholls Ferry/SW 135th Avenue intersection, providing a controlled way to cross Scholls Ferry Road. Seniors from the Village at Forest Glen Retirement Center located on the north side of Scholls Ferry Road support the project because they see the the proposed Haggen Food and Pharmacy would be more convenient for them to walk to than other alternative stores. % Comments from Karen Copeland i Cntirment: Cu[-through traffic will be generated an SW Hacks Beard Street east ofSfV 130th Avenue. Response: Due to the site's location at the corner of an arterial and a collector (Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135th) with quick convenient connections to Nlurrav Rind and Walnut. there will he no incentive to use Hawks Beard as a cut-through route. the section of Hawks Beard between SW 130th and SW 135th will experience an increase in traffic, but this would not be classified as cut-through traffic. Further, as part of Tigard's SW 130th Avenue bridge project, no eastbound traffic will be allowed to enter the Summerlake neighborhood from SW 130th Avenue. This restriction will actually require some of the local traffic within the Summerlake neighborhood to use Scholls Ferry Road. I trust this information adequately responds to the transportation-related issues raised with respect to the proposed application. Sincerely, KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. j r dch Y P i j _ L~ j U CON o~ ti~a 13 FEBRUARY 1996 ~`~leQ ant 11131 i a a y ' HAGGEN STORES i i MARKET DEMAND AND PUBLIC NEED ANALYSIS TIGARD, OREGON i P LELAND CONSULTING GROUP REAL ESTATE ECONOMISTS, DEVELOPMENT ADVISORS 6c PROJECT MANAGERS DENVER • PORTLAND • SEATTLE 7-7 7*777 • 13 FEBRUARY 19'j~ Isis 1. ( l . MAgI DEMAND ANDPUBLICNEED rJ;GEN STORES O.RCL IENT5 ~U 17 A~}~ SECrl Unroln County, Montana RVc"ENT LinnCounty,Or~Oregon Marion County, Oregon al A ency, County, Colorado Medford Urban Rene D st gt of O g° ~ur Oregon Ser~jCe vemme Aspen Colorado Metropolitan of Go City of Aspen, Colorado vtid-Willamette Council City of Aurora C Oregon ula County, Montana of Boardman, lvlisso riment of Agricultu Community Services City Washington Oregon Depa elopment city of Bremerton, Colorado Oregon Department of Housing City o tion & Dev f Commerce City, rtment of Land Conserva Denver, Colorado Colorado Oregon Depa rtauon Ci us. Authority, Oregon Department of Transco nt Association Crry o of f Denver Ho g wntown Develop rtment Gresham, Oregon Oregon Do is Development Depa City of Department of Planning, Oregon Oregon Oregon Econom City of Hillsboro e of the City Mang Oreg°n state University Ci►y of lillsboro office on Colorado City of Keizer, Oreg Pitken County, r,°n of Medford, °n Polk County, Oregon ssion City Texas Portland Development Comm City of Midland, Bureau, OreS°n ty Newberg Oregon Portland Planning Ci of ashington City o4 Newport, Oregon on Port of Alsea,gW au of Planning, Oration, Oregon Pori of Anam "es, City of Portland Bureartment of Cranspo Port of Kennewick, Washington City of Portland lorado f St. Helens, 'A r Toledo, Greg City of Rarruler, on Porto veto ment Councl,Oeg°n Port of on City of e ~reg°° Rx inier EcOnornic Strict, Oregon C field, QtegO° Area Mass on of Spring salemPlannfngDePartr nt, ro Ore ity City of Toledo, Ord gaquach County, Colorado City of Troutdale, Oregon Oregon aqua District 24.1, Oregon and Recreation Department, eg of Salida, COlorad0 Village, City of Tualatin, Oregon Colorado °f'rualatinParl* Agency, on Town City Renewal ss City of Tub n Urbam Town of Snowma : Village, Oregon Tri-Met, Portland, OT Oregon Qepartmen planning, Oregon City of t of W County, Oregon Tualatin Cori County Clackamas Colorado ashing Denver county, W MANAGERS County, Colorado ration, Oregon °n PR t OIE~ Eldorado c Developmen Corp° ent,Oreg ApV150RS 1 tepPner Eco Development Departm ~VELOPIemENT T-lillsbom Economic ECONISTS, - REALESTATE - • CONSULTING GROUP - ` LELAND - HLEN SPORES • MARKET DEMAND AND PUBLIC NEED AN~ YSIS 13 FEBRUARY 1996 HAGGEN ASSIGNMENT AND TASKS Leland Consulting Group was retained by Briar Development Company to analyze public need for the Haggen Food & Pharmacy. • Trade area demographics • Increasing population • Decreasing household size • Increasing household income • Increasing number of workers per household • Analysis of public need (not profitability) • Analysis of vacant commercial land i • Commercial-General in Tigard • General Commercial in Beaverton - i • Response to opposition testimony i. LELAND CONSULTING GROUP REAL ESWE ECONOMISTS, DEVELOPMENT ADVISORS do PROJECT MANAGERS i~ . I HAGGEN STORES • MARKET DEMAND AND PUBLIC NEED ANALYSIS 13 FEBRUARY 1996 i I ii i THREE ANALYTIC APPROACHES Leland Consulting Group examined public need using three separate analytical approaches: • Trade Area Analysis • A five-minute driving time to the north, east and south and a twelve- minute driving time to the west where the UGB limits the availability of grocery outlets. • Compares square footage supportable against square footage provided. • Peripheral Impact Analysis • Quantifies the impact of stores near the edge (inside and outside) the defined trade area. • Ring Study • Compares square footage of grocery supportable in a contained two-mile radius against the square footage of grocery provided in that radius. LELAND CONSULTING GROUP • REAL ESTATE ECONOMISTS, DEVELOPMENT ADVISORS do PROJECT MANAGERS HAGGEN STORES • MARKET DEMAND AND PUBLIC NEED ANALYSIS C 13 FEBRUARY 1996 OPPOSITION ISSUES Columbia Research Associates • No gravity model • Research methods not validated by the supermarket industry • Size of trade area (too large) • Lower performance of stores nearest the subject site Retail Research Group • Missing stores Note: Neither opponent economist actually ran a model-they criticized some aspects of the Leland Consulting Group analysis. LELAND CONSULTING GROUP • REAL ESTATE ECONOMISTS, DEVELOPMENT ADVISORS & PROJECT MANAGERS L Ji- J ~ F s, HA GEN STORES • MARKET DEMAND AND PUBLIC NEED AN~LYSIS 13 FEBRUARY 1§4 r, POPULATION GROWTH i Washington County, Oregon i Percent Percent Percent 1980 1990 Change 1994 Change 1999 Change (Census) (Census) 1979-1989 (Estimate) 1989-1994 (Projected) 1994-1999 Washington Co. 245,807 311,554 26.75% 359,328 15.33% 419,233 16.67% City of Tigard 21,354 29,344 37.42% 33,730 18.17% 41,363 19.28% City of Beaverton 39,171 53,310 36.10% 61,085 13.78% 69,888 15.22% Modified Trade Area 60,685 87,762 44.62% 103,482 17.91% 123,180 19.04% i Source. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Portland State University, Claritas, Inc. and Leland Consulting Group. j i i i. LELAND CONSULTING GROUP • REAL ESTATE ECONOMISTS, DEVELOPMENT ADVISORS & PROJECT MANAGERS HAGGEN STORES • MARKET DEMAND AND PUBLIC NEED ANALYSIS 13 FEBRUARY 1996 } r 1994 AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME a $53,887 $54,000 $53,000 $51,893 $52,000 $51,000 $50,318 $50,102 $50,000 $49,000 $48,000 Washington City of City of Trade Area County Beaverton Tigard Source. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Claritas, Inc. and Leland Consulting Group. LELAND CONSULTING GROUP • REAL ESTATE ECONOMISTS, DEVELOPMENT ADVISORS & PROJECT MANAGERS i - - - v H&GEN STORES • MARKET DEMAND AND PUBLIC NEED ANALYSIS 13 FEBRUARY 196 i AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE I 2.7 2.65 a 2.6 , 2.55 ■ Washington County Z 2.5 - City of Beaverton 2.45 --t1 City of Tigard 2.4 • Trade Area a. 2.35 2.3 i 2.25 1980 1990 1999 Year Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Claritas, Inc. and Leland Consulting Group. LELAND CONSULTING GROUP • REAL ESTATE ECONOMISTS, DEVELOPMENT ADVISORS & PROJECT MANAGERS j- 1 r- HAGGEN STORES • MARKET DEMAND AND PUBLIC NEED ANALYSIS 13 FEBRUARY 1996 1 i i METHOD OF APPROACH • Trade areas (three different approaches and areas) • Population and households • Income and purchasing patterns* • Square feet supportable* • Existing and planned stores* • Solve for unserved public need CONSIDERATIONS • People tend to shop at the nearest store • Edge of trade areas are subjective • Location can strengthen a store, but performance is based on many factors Food at home: Very conservative approach LELAND CONSULTING GROUP • REAL ESTATE ECONOMISTS, DEVELOPMENT ADVISORS & PROJECT MANAGERS f H GEN SPORES • MARKET DEMAND AND PUBLIC NEED ANALYSIS ' 13 FEBRUARY 1996 I a 3 REBUTTAL: SIZE OF TRADE AREA Columbia Research Associates asserts that the trade area is oversized. Leland Consulting Group has modified the trade area on the southern edge. Leland Consulting Group conducted additional analyses on the following trade areas: Y Original traditional trade area • Modified traditional trade area a Columbia Research Associates' trade area • Two-mile radius from subject site - i LELAND CONSULTING GROUP REAL ESTATE ECONOMISTS, DEVELOPMENT ADVISORS & PROJECT MANAGERS L ` t t HAGGEN STORES • MARKET DEMAND AND PUBLIC NEED ANALYSIS 13 FEBRUARY 1 J6 r REBUTTAL: METHODOLOGY • Gravity model gauges competition and the likelihood of store success, not public need • Gravity model dependent on extensive data not available without sales tax or consumer interviews • Share of Space Approach is an accepted methodology, published by Van Nostrand Reinhold and others • Leland Consulting Group has prepared over 100 public need analyses using this methodology r LELAND CONSULTING GROUP • REAL ESTATE ECONOMISTS, DEVELOPMENT ADVISORS do PROJECT MANAGERS f -7 7~7 HAGGEN STORES • MARKET DEMAND AND PUBLIC NEED ANALYSIS 13 FEBRUARY 1996 REBUTTAL: PERFORMANCE OF NEARBY STORES • Public need is based on demand for food-at-home and related retail items. • Public choice dictates where the population fulfills that need. Shoppers decisions on where to shop are based on a variety of factors, including: • location • size • selection • pricing • management policies • operations • cleanliness • courtesy to customers • Comparison to Portland grocery stores distorts sales per square foot-lack of land prevents additional grocery development • Albertson's, Fred Meyer and Haggen-each with independent analyses and decision-makers-are each ready to make a $10 million plus private investment to serve the grocery needs of this growing area LELAND CONSULTING GROUP • REAL ESTATE ECONOMISTS, DEVELOPMENT ADVISORS & PROJECT MANAGERS f 13 FEBRUARY 1996 1 I a HL EN STORES • MARKET DEMAND AND PUBLIC NEED ANALYSIS GROCERY STORE SPACE COMPARISON Two-Mile Radius vs. cities of Eugene and Beaverton Square Feet Square Feet ` Population Grocery per person Two-mile ring 70,060 296,000 4.22 Two-mile ring in 1997 77,816 336,000 4.32 Eugene 120,560 719,119 5.96 Beaverton 61,085 378,500 6.20 i Source. Portland State University, American Business Lists, Grubb & Ellis, Northland Real Estate, Lane County Assessor's Office, Claritas, Inc., Haggen Food and Pharmacy and Leland Consulting Group. F F REAL ESTATE ECONOMISTS, DEVELOPMENT ADVISORS & PROJECT MANAGERS LELAND CONSULTING GROUP HAGGEN SPORES • MARKET DEMAND AND PUBLIC NEED ANALYSIS 13 FEBRUARY 1996 SUMMARY OF UNMET DEMAND FOR GROCERY STORE SPACE Square Feet of Unmet Demand 1994 *1997 *1999 Traditional Trade Area Analysis-Modified Area 90,884 63,093 107,465 Traditional Trade Area Food-Only Analysis-Original Area 195,810 140,162 193,282 Trade Area Food-Only Analysis-Modified Area 185,608 171,887 221,708 Peripheral Impact Analysis-Original Area 106,565 80,086 127,396 Peripheral Impact Analysis-Modified Area 102,854 92,968 137,340 Peripheral Impact Food-Only Analysis-Original Area 222,267 194,186 247,305 Peripheral Impact Food-Only Analysis-Modified Area 196,830 199,895 249,716 Trade Area Analysis-Columbia Trade Area 113,008 120,425 152,036 Ring Study Analysis 76,302 81,000 110,798 Ring Study Food-Only Analysis 140,517 153,202 186,659 Square Feet of Unmet Demand (average) 143,065 129,690 173,371 1997 and 1999 analyses include square footage provided by 1995 Albertson's and pending stores "Middle estimates of peripheral impact analyses are shown Source. U.S. Bureau of the Census, City of Tigard, Claritas, Inc., Urban [and Institute, Grubb 6 Ellis and Leland Consulting Group. LELAND CONSULTING GROUP • REAL ESTATE ECONOMISTS, DEVELOPMENT ADVISORS & PROJECT MANAGERS f i _ -j F7. = HALLEN STORES • MARKET DEMAND AND PUBLIC NEED ANALYSIS 13 FEBRUARY 1996 CITY OF T'IGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN t the lack or diminishing supply of land available for general commercial and industrial development is one of the core problems facing City economic development. It represents the most significant change in economic development opportunities since the City's Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged..." City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan (adopted November 1983; revised June 1991) Tigard's inventory of vacant commercial and industrial land is composed of a multitude of small parcels and that comparatively few unconstrained, larger sites remain for future expansion and growth." City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan (adopted November 1983; revised June 1991) LELAND CONSULTING GROUP • REAL ESTATE ECONOMISTS, DEVELOPMENT ADVISORS & PROJECT MANAGERS HAGGEN STORES • MARKET DEMAND AND PUBLIC NEED ANALYSIS 13 FEBRUARY 1996 VACANT COMMERCIAL-GENERAL PARCELS WITHIN THE CITY OF TIGARD • SW 72nd Avenue and Pacific Highway: 3.39 acres • SW 72nd Avenue and Pacific Highway: 1.00 acres • SW 72nd Avenue and Pacific Highway: 0.59 acres • SW Park Street and Pacific Highway: 1.07 acres SW Park Street and Pacific Highway: 0.86 acres e SW Park Street and Pacific Highway: 0.35 acres • SW Park Street and Pacific Highway: 0.24 acres • SW Park Street and Pacific Highway: 0.21 acres • SW Park Street and Pacific Highway: 0.10 acres • SW 72nd Avenue and Dartmouth Street: 4.41 acres • SW 72nd Avenue and Dartmouth Street: 3.22 acres O SW 72nd Avenue and Dartmouth Street: 3.12 acres Y SW 72nd Avenue and Dartmouth Street: 0.19 acres • SW 72nd Avenue and Dartmouth Street: 0.14 acres a SW 72nd Avenue and Dartmouth Street: 0.12 acres • SW Hall Boulevard and Scholls Ferry Road: 0.93 acres LELAND CONSULTING GROUP • REAL ESTATE ECONOMISTS, DEVELOPMENT ADVISORS & PROJECT MANAGERS r 7 r HAG`GEN STORES • MARKET DEMAND AND PUBLIC NEED ANALYSIS 13 FEBRUARY 1996 VACANT GENERAL COMMERCIAL ' PARCELS WITHIN THE CITY OF PEAVERTON • SW Cedar Hills between Henry and Dawson Streets: 3.43 acres f • SW Farmington Road and Hocken Street: 1.44 acres • SW Farmington Road and 139th Avenue: 1.02 acres i LELAND CONSULTING GROUP • REAL ESTATE ECONOMISTS, DEVELOPMENT ADVISORS & PROJECT MANAGERS : GCEN STORES • MARKET DEMAND AND PUBLIC NEED ANALYSIS 13 FEBRUARY 1996 VACANT COMMUNITY SERVICE PARCELS WITHIN THE CITY OF BEAVERTON s Waterhouse Area: 0.64 acres Office Park in the Meadow: 1.38 acres 0.66 acres 1.36 acres 1.75 acres 1.38 acres 0.97 acres Cedar Hills Boulevard: 0.50 acres 1.13 acres 0.50 acres 1.02 acres 0.31 acres 0.93 acres 0.38 acres 0.89 acres 0.91 acres 2.19 acres 0.52 acres 0.07 acres 1.25 acres Denney Office Park: 0.80 acres 1.68 acres 1.00 acres 1.16 acres t LELAND CONSULTING GROUP REAL ESTATE ECONOMISTS, DEVELOPMENT ADVISORS & PROJECT MANAGERS S - - . _ t U 13 FEBRUARY 1996 } . MARKETDEMANDANDpuBuCNFED ANALYSIS HAGGEN STORES CONCLUSIONS • Rapidly-growing population new stores in the immediate area since 1988 public need No Leland Consulting Group ran ten separate models to evaluate 0 000 s uare feet (two to three stores) by 1997 and over • Need for nearly 13 , q t 170 000 square feet (three to four stores) by 1999 with • Albertson's, Fred Meyer and Haggen all want to enter this marketplace investment to meet the public need for grocery and related $10 million plus of retail one-stop shopping, increasing amount of • New stores tend to be larger-more -more choice non-food purchasing, greater stores do not indicate a lack of public need for • Two under-performing additional grocery stores • No General Commercial land is available to accommodate the proposed development ble for commercial uses-intersection of a major arterial an a • The site 1s suita major collector near fast-growing residential neighborhoods DEVELOPMENT ADVISORS ds PROJECT MANAGERS REAL ESTATEECONOMIS[S, LELAND CONSULTING GROUP I _ _ f SO CIA TED ; A NSP OR TA TION GINEERING & ANNING AT Ep ' TRANSPORTATION ANAL I YSIS FOR j TIGARD RETAIL CENTER TIGARD, OREGON - - - - - - - - - - - TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS TIGARD RETAIL CENTER TIGARD, OREGON E PREPARED FOR C ALBERTSON'S INC. I BOISE, IDAHO i PROfFS f aaccon ~qRO L. ~F. f~ PREPARED BY > ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING, (ATEP) 4040 DOUGLAS WAY LAKE OSWEGO, OR. 97035 91-452 AUGUST 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS f EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 II REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS 2 INTRODUCTION 3 BASE YEAR CONDITIONS . 3 TRAFFIC CONTROL 3 TRAFFIC VOLUMES 3 BASE YEAR LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH EXISTING LAND USE 7 ; . EXISTING LAND USE - NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 11 E TRIP GENERATION 12 TRIP DISTRIBUTION & ASSIGNMENT . 13 LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH EXISTING LAND USE 14 PROPOSED LAND USE - GENERAL COMMERCIAL 17 TRIP GENERATION 17 TRIP DISTRIBUTION & ASSIGNMENT . 18 LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH PROPOSED LAND USE 22 1992 CONDITIONS 23 FUTURE STACKING DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS 25 CONCLUSIONS 26 RECOMMENDATIONS 26 I APPENDIX F 27 - f APPENDIX A Base year - Levels Of Service Calculations APPENDIX B Existing Land Use Data Trip Generation For Existing Land Use i Levels of Service Calculations I APPENDIX C Proposed Land Use Data Trip Generation For Proposed Land Use 1 Levels Of Service Calculations i APPENDIX D 1992 Levels Of Service Calculations With Tigard Retail Center i 4- . . - n TABLES 1. Level of Service Definitions (Signalized Intersections) 2. Criteria for Signalized Intersections . 7 3. Level of Service Definitions (UnsignalizedIntersections) 8 4. Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections . ' ' ' ' " ' ' ' ' ' " ' ' • • • 9 5. Levels of Service for Base year without Existing Land Use 10 6. Trip Generation for Existing Land Use - Neighborhood Commercial . . . . ' ' • " • " 11 7. Levels of Service for Existing Land Use . ' " ' ' ' ' • ' • • • • • 12 r 8. Trip Generation for Proposed Land Use -General Commeraal ' • 13 F 9. Level of Service for Proposed Land Use ' • ' 17 10. Levels of Service Comparison Neighborhood commercial ~and~General Commercial al 22 j 11. Levels of Service for Required Improvements 22 I J 12. Stacking Distance Requirements for Build out 23 2S `I - I i i j; V L.~ 4 FIGURES _J I. Site Plan & Vicinity Map 5 2. Base Year Traffic Volumes 6 3. Existing Land Use Trip Distribution 14 4. Existing Land Use Site Generated Traffic 15 5. Existing Land Use Total Traffic volumes . 16 6. Proposed Land Use Trip Distribution 16 , 7. Proposed Land Use Site Generated Traffic Volumes 20 8. Proposed Land Use Total Traffic volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9. 1992 Total Traffic Volumes 24 i 1 ; -III- fj EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report covers the construction of a 78,966 square foot commercial retail development located on the southeast comer of S.W Scholls Ferry Road and the future extension of S.W. Murray Blvd. The analysis done in this report compares the results of a comprehensive land use change from Neighborhood Commercial to General Commercial and the differences in impact at build out of the Bull Mountain area. The Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study was used for the base traffic volume information. Under existing zoning, numerous types of development could be constructed on the site. It was ; determined after field review, office space was lacking in the surrounding areas. Since the need for additional retail development was low, the site was developed to accommodate approximately 144,000 square feet of offices. This was done, even though other allowed uses would generate a higher number of trips than office. The 144,000 square feet of offices under the existing zoning would be limited to approximately 4,000 square feet of floor area per business. Using this assumption, the existing land use would generate approximately 1,800 trips per day f with 266 trips during the p.m. peak hour (43 in and 224 out). This impact is documented by the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study- The proposed use consists of 47,510 square feet grocery store and a 31,456 square feet general retail store. This proposal would generate approximately 4,143 new trips per day with 358 new trips during the p.m. peak hour (176 in and 183 out). It is estimated that 35% of the trips coming to the site will be trips that are already on the roadway or what is called by-pass or drop-in trips. This reduction accounts for trips that would otherwise be double counted because they are already on the road system. These trips include stops made by persons entering or leaving nearby commercial and residential property, and by persons whose primary destination is to other commercial areas. While a majority of the roadways described in the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study are currently not constructed, the analysis indicates that the impact of the proposed land use change is not significant. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 1 L~ REQUIRED fMPROYEMEMS , j The traffic generated by the development will not have a substantial impact on the proposed ined in the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study. In order to street improvements outl mitigate the impact of the development between now and build out of the area the following improvements need to be made. 1) The proposed development be constructed with two (2) full access driveways onto Scholls Ferry Road at approximately 400 feet and 700 feet west of the Murray Blvd extension and one full access driveway onto Murray Blvd at approximately 300 feet south of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road. i 2) The proposed driveways be constructed with two exit lanes and one entrance lane. This would provide left and right turn lanes for exiting traffic. 3) S.W. Scholls Ferry Road be widened to provide left turn lanes and right turn deceleration lanes for both of the site driveways. r I I I TIGARD RETAIL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 2 L This report describes the results of a 7N7RODUCTION transportation analysis for the construction of a retail center development Iocated on the southeast comer of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and the new south leg of the S.W. Murray extension currently under construction. (See Figure 1, page 5). The traffic impact analysis outlined in this report identifies the impact of the development on the surrounding street network and is based on three different periods of time: • First, the build out of the area less the current land use. • Second, the build out of the area with the current zoning - Neighborhood Commercial • Third, build out of the area with the proposed zoning - General Commercial BASE YEAR CONDITIONS 4 The study area consists of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road between the proposed S.W. Murray Extension and New S.W. Scholls Ferry Road to the north. Currently the area to the south and east of the site is being developed as residential and the area to the north is vacant - i S.W. Scholls Ferry Road at build out is proposed to be a five lane arterial street through this area and carrying approximately 16,000 vehicles per day. The posted speed limit on this section of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road is 35 miles per hour. TRAFFIC CONTROL Currently the side street intersections along S.W. Scholls Ferry Road are controlled by stop signs. As proposed, the development will take access from S.W. Scholls Ferry Road at two locations ` and from the S.W. Murray extension at approximately 300 feet to the south of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road. i TRAFFIC VOLUMES The traffic volumes used in this analysis were derived from the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study and are considered to be traffic volumes at build out, which will occur some day in the future. These volumes are diagramed in Figure 2 on page S. Adjustments TIGARD RETAIL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PACE 3 L~ - G were made to the traffic count information to account for build out of the area without the r , existing land use. SASE YEAR LEVELS OF SERVICE Level of Service (LOS) is a concept that was developed to measure how the driver perceives the conditions surrounding them as they travel through an intersection or roadway segment. This degree of perception includes such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impedances caused by other vehicles. As originally defined by the 1965 Highway Capacity Manual six grades are used to denote the various LOS; these grades are shown in Table 1. Using this definition, it is generally agreed that for signalized intersections LOS "D" is the minimum acceptable for an urban area and for unsignalized intersections LOS "E" is the minimum acceptable level of service for urban areas. Unsignalized intersections require a somewhat different approach to determine the capacity of the intersection. The 1985 Highway Capacity Manual offers the concept of "Reserve Capacity" as the guideline for measuring the capacity. Reserve Capacity is defined as " that portion of available hourly capacity that is not used". it { should be noted that the concept of Reserve Capacity only applies to the individual movements of traffic on an approach to an intersection, either in an individual lane or a shared lane, not to the overall operation of the intersection. This determination is made after all approaches are analyzed and the LOS determined is usually that approach that typifies the "Worst Case" condition or worst Level of Service. A description of the levels of service relating to the Reserve E Capacity Concept is shown in Tables 3 & 4. LOS analyses presented in this report were performed in accordance with the procedures described above. 4. - f"_ I TIGARD RETAIL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 4 I L~ j 4 NORTH ow ML5 WRY KO t ~G O .:51TE . 5W WAI,NJf s fIOARO Ff AL WEER VIGINIfY MAP . „ I ,i a i NORTH 01.0 M 5 FERRY RO 169 p t9_' .-111 361--► x.-506 r.173 ~ ~ 1 ~ p r 183 ~G O r 5W WNAif is E M LU ` r -o BASE fRAFFIG VOlS PM PEAK M Table 1 - Level Of Service Definitions (Signalized Intersections) Level of Service Traffic Flow Characteristics A Very low delay, less than 5.0 seconds per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B Average delay in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS . A, Causing higher levels of average delay. C Average delay in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although may still pass through the intersection without stopping. D Average delay in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 seconds per vehicle At LOS D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from i some combination of unfavorable progression, longer cycle lengths, or high v/c rations. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Frequent signal cycle failures and associated congestion. - E Average delay in the range of 40.1 to 60 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These hi h delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v~c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. F Forced flow, with average delay in excess of 60.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flows rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.00 with may individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. Note: A signal cycle failure is considered to occur when one or more vehicles are forced to wait through more than one green signal indication for a particular approach. Source: Transportation Research Board. "Highway Capacity Manual", Special Report 209 (1985)• ~II 1 TIGARD RETAIL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 7 F ~i L ~J Table 2 - Criteria For Signalized Intersections delay per , LOS vehicle ,(seconds) I A .00 -5.00 ' B .5.1 -15.0 C 15.1- 25.0 I p D 25.1-40.0 p j F 40.1= 60.0- F?. > 60.0 i"'Source: Transportation Research Board. "Highway Capacity Manual", Special ' Report 209 (1985)..._ TIGARD RETAIL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 8 r~ LL Table 3 - Level Of Service Definitions (Unsignalized Intersections) Level of Service Traffic Flow Characteristics A -Average delay per vehicle between 0 and 10 seconds free-flowing with no congestion. Very few vehicles waiting in a queue. B Average delay per vehicle between 10 and 20 seconds. Slight delay to vehicles We or no vehicles in queue. C Average delay per vehicle 20 to 30 seconds. Occasional delay and congestions, j more than one vehicle in queue. i D Average delay per vehicle 30 to 40 seconds. Frequent delay and. congestion,more . than one vehicle per queue. -E . Average delay per vehicle in excess of 40 to 60 seconds. This condition exists j when the demand is near or equal to the capacity of the intersection or movement. Unstable flow which includes almost continuous vehicles in the queue. F Forced flow, with average delay per vehicle in excess of _60 seconds. _ Queue is J extensive . j: Source: Transportation Research Board. "Highway Capaci ty Manual", Special Report 209 (1985)• j i i TIGARD RETAIL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 9 r Table 4 - Criteria For Unsignalized Intersections „ Reserve Expeded delay to minor street traffic Capad >400 A Little or no delay 300-399 B Short traffic delays 200-299 C Average traffic delays 100-199 D Long traffic delays 0- 99 E Very long delays. F • j * When demand volume on any approach or movement exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered with queuing which may cause severe congestion 'affection other._traffic movements in the intersection. This condition usually warrants improvement to the intersection Source: Transportation Research Board. "Highway Capacity Manual", Special Report 209 (1985). i TIGARD RETAIL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 10 L~ Table 5 - Base Year Level of Service for build out without the existing land use U rm prnic . rMersecaon q ~ Aw ~ ti/C Reserve moimmm s'w sdu& ~r~*r A4xray Ext EB teh ' D 27.1 71S Old Schols L New Schoaa EB Thru D 919 A17 FXISI7NG LWD USE NOCHBORHOOD C3DMM ERCJAL Under the current Neighborhood development code, any number of business types could b placed on the site. For example, a small retail development such as the one at 120th Street anc S•W. Scholls Ferry Road could be developed. These types of retail centers could house a 7 11 convenience store, a gas station, small shops etc. All of which generate large volumes a trips per day. A review of the area indicated that several of these types of f in the surrounding area, and very little if any office spa as provided. Based on centers this site was not considered for additional neighborhood retail development. Since little or no office space has been provided in the area, the site was chosen to provide ` office development under the existing land use. As required by the City of Tigard development code the . Neighborhood Commercial development is 85%. maximum lot coverage for this type of f ! Using the development computer software "Development Lot Coverage" a computer program that provides the developer with a tool to determine a base building size and required parking ' for any size parcel of land, that based on one parking space for each 350 square feet of office, a two story 144,724 square foot building could be built on the eight acres of land covered by ! this proposal. It was assumed that the proposed office complex would have driveways onto both S.W. Mu and on S.W. Scholls Ferry Road. rry I! TIGARD RETAIL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 11 L~ s TRIP GENERATION i~ Estimating the number of vehicle trip ends that will be generated by the proposed development is of prime importance to City of Tigard and ODOT. Two basic procedures are available to traffic engineers for estimating the number of driveway vehicle trips generated by a proposed but not-yet-existing development: 1. Apply averages observed through field studies conducted at other similar facilities located throughout the United States. A number of sources are available for this information including Trip Generation Manual (4th Edition) 1987, which is published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE); and summary trip generation reports prepared by the California Department of Transportation, the Arizona Department of Transportation, and other public transportation agencies. All of these sources provide excellent guidance in estimating the trip generation rates for various land uses, but obviously do not take into account the effects of local conditions and unique characteristics of the proposed land use. 2. Observe through field studies the actual trip generation characteristics of other similar and existing developments within the local area. Procedure one above was used in the development of this report. The figures shown in Table 6 below,represent the expected number of vehicle trip ends to be generated by the proposed development on a daily p.m. peak hour basis based on the mathematical regression equations j found on page 885 Section 710 of the Trip Generation Manual (4th Edition). Table 6 - Trip Generation For Existing Neighborhood Commercial Land Use Generated Trips (6) P M Peak Hour Size of Land Use Daily Land Use GSF (A) Volumes Total In Out E General Office 144,724 1,803 267 43 224 NOTES: A. GSF = gross leasable square feet B. Total trips generated by the site TIGARD RETAIL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 12 i Currently TriMet does not have a regularly scheduled transit line in this area and no transit is available to this site. Therefore, this assumption tends to cause the analysis to reflect a worst-case condition, and over estimate the traffic impacts associated with this development. 1 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips determined by the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study was used for this report and are shown in Figure 3 page 14. This trip distribution was used to develop the site generated traffic for the specific driveway and street distributions as shown on Figure 4 page 15. The site generated trips from Figure 4 were then added to the Base year traffic volumes shown in Figure 2 to arrive at the total traffic volumes for the existing land use for the p.m. peak periods shown in Figure 5 pages 16. The peak hour levels of service were calculated using the volumes shown in Figure 5 and are shown in Table 7. j Table 7 - Level of Service for Existing Neighborhood Commercial Land Use. f M PEAK Intersection (Critical ..lA5 Ave V/C Reserve . Left ~+PMliY S.W. sdwBs & Murray Eu EBL~ D 29.4 0.7M R . old SdmN & New SdwBs EB Th. D 318 0.429 S.W. Sd)oBs & Site Drive NB Left E 51 Murray Evt & Site Drive EB Left F -W A comparison of Table 5 and Table 7 indicates that the improvements listed for the build out condition will handle the traffic generated by the existing land use. ` j, TIGARD RETAIL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 13 r 3 i NORTH 01,0 SGhOl 5 FERRY 90 z s ~G O X60 .:51fE.. SW WAI,Nif 9 TIOARO REfM MCA DRIP 015tRIVI0N ~T. II(` i i NORTH WO SGn 5 FERRY RO i 15 ✓ 1 ~5 ~g t ~ A r1 1 5W W&Wf \10 t s 51tE -emfEO fRAFFIG VOI.tw 01596 M USE) N PEAK W NORTH 01,0 VM5 FERRY 90 Ric O i 31-• •-tpp t70"14% r 111 361-. 4...506 ~b^,~ ~C t 0'„1 r 191 dr ~G ~ ~s o t as 4 SITE Sw wAAr m tIWO WAL Of CA f0% 1'RAFFIG VOI,UulES 0159b M U5E) Fm PEAK f10UR . : PROPOSED LAND !!SE GENERAL.COMMERCIAL ~J This proposal will change approximately eight (8) acres of land from Neighborhood Commercial to General Commercial designation. The proposed development consists of a 47,510 square foot grocery store and a 31,456 square foot general retail store. The development proposes to have three driveways, two (2) onto S.W. Scholls Ferry Road approximately 400 feet and 700 feet respectively from the center line of the proposed Murray Extension. The third driveway would be located on the Murray Extension approximately 300 feet south of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road. TRIP GENERATION Procedure one as listed on pages 11 and 12 of this report was used in the development of this report. The figures shown in Table 8 below, represent the expected number of vehicle trip ends to be generated by the proposed development on a daily p.m. peak hour basis based on the j mathematical regression equations found on page 1150 Section 820 of the Trip Generation Manual (4th Edition). Table 8 - Trip Generation For Proposed General Commercial Land Use. Generated Trips (B) P M Peak Hour Size of Land Use Daily Out Land Use GSF '(A) Volumes Total In Commercial 78,966 6,373 551. 270 281 f NET NEW TRIP ENDS GENERATED BY THE SITE (C) 4,143 359 176 183 TIGARD RETAIL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 17 xr NOTES: A. GSF = gross leasable square feet j B. Total trips generated by the site C. Assumes that 35 percent of the trips attracted to the commercial retail development represent drop-in trips or by-pass trips by vehicles that are already on the adjacent road system. " This assumption is based on studies published in the "ITE Journal"'. This reduction accounts for trips that would otherwise be double counted because they are already on the road system. These trips include stops made by persons entering or leaving nearby commensal and residential property, and by persons whose primary destination is to other commercial areas. Currently TriMet does not have a regularly scheduled transit line in this area. Therefore, this assumption tends to cause the analysis to reflect a worst-case condition, and over estimate the traffic impacts associated with this development. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips generated by this development was determined by reviewing the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study. The trip assignment percentages are shown in Figure 6 page 19. This trip distribution was used to develop the site generated traffic for the specific driveway and street distributions as shown on Figure 7, pages 20. The site generated trips from Figure 6 were then added to the Base year traffic volumes shown in Figure 2 to arrive at the total traffic f volumes for the Tigard Retail Center for the p.m. peak periods shown in Figure 8, page 21. I E ' Krttieson, Wayne K. and Lawton, T. Keith, 'Evaluation of Shopping Center Trip Types', rrE loumal. Volume 57, Number 2, February 1987, Pg.35. Slade, Louis J. and Grove, Fredrick E., 'Reduction in Estimates of Traffic Impacts of Regional Shopping Centers' ITE loumal. Volume 51, Number 1, January 1981, Pg 16. Smith, Steven A., • A Methodology of Considering Pass - by Trips in Traffic Impact Analyses for Shopping Centers' ITE loumal. Volume 56, Number 8, Pg.37. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 18 s. _ a i ao vu5 FERRY Ro s G O :51tE 5W WAI,NJf r, TRIP OURIVION f MOP05E0 Wo U5E) ~ I ' i OL.O SGNOl.l.S FERRY RO ~ NORTH i 7 S Z_ 13 r F`T 3j t ~ 1 rr46 as e-N :SITE 5w WALNUT 9 11wo RETAIL. o m 511"E ( ERAtEO WIG VOWK'5 (MOP05E0 M LrA R1 m , N PM PEAK HOUR o , NORTH ow 5(NOl s FERRY RO 3 s tOt.~~ ~ ~a. 0 36-► o-t33 361--. e-306 G t ~i 5W AM c TIGARO RETAIL. (ENTER fof& fRAFFIG VOI.Uul15 fff\(Y M NANO LrA 4 fm BEAK W loo 7 77T The peak hour levels of service were calculated using the volumes shown in Figure 8 and are shown in Table 9. - Table 9 - Level of Service for Proposed General Commercial Land Use. PM KAK :(Crmcal 'Los Ave .,'V /C "Reserve !nU PM Delay Ratio Capacity - SW. Wmils & Murray Est E8 Lek D 29.8 0.783 . Ofd Scholls & New S@roRs. . EB Thru D 345 0.456 SW. Sdvns & First She Drive Na Left E - Sl _ SW. Shcoh & Second Site Drive ' N8 Left E 53 Murray Est & Site Drive E8 Leh F .56 Table 10 which is a comparison of the level of service impact between Table 8 (Neighborhood Commercial) and Table 9 (General Commercial). Table 10 indicates that the street system as proposed by the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study is sufficient to handle the change in land use zoning. Table 10 - Level of Service comparison between Neighborhood Commercial Land Use and the proposed General Commercial Land Use. i Neieborhood Contmerew General CommercW Intersection LO Ave v/C Reserve LOS Ave Reserve PM Delay Ratio cap" GPI PM Delay S.W. Scholls & Murray ExL O 29.4 0.770 D 29.8 0.783 " . _ Ord Schotis & New Scho@t D 315 0.429 D 348 0.156 SW.SdwOs & First Site Drive E 51 E 51 S.W.Schoth & Second Site Drive E 53 Murray Eat & site Drive F -36 F 56 i i j V f TIGARD RETAIL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PACE 22 s~ 1992 CONDMONS I The development is scheduled to be constructed in the spring of 1992 and the analysis presented above considers the impact of the development at full build out of the Bull Mountain Area. In order to determine what if any improvements would be required of the development, an analysis must be completed for the existing or 1992 conditions. The Murray Blvd extension to the south has yet to be constructed but is an improvement requirement of the residential subdivision to the south and east of the subject property. This subdivision is required to construct Murray Blvd to a three lane section, which will provide two through lanes and a left turn pocket for northbound traffic and provide for a left turn lane from westbound S.W. Scholls Ferry Road to the new Murray Blvd. By reviewing traffic counts in the surrounding area and growth factors provided by the Oregon Department of Transportation Systems Planning Unit, the build out volumes listed in the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study were extrapolated to 1992 traffic volumes. k Using these numbers and the improvements required by the residential subdivision, the surrounding intersections were evaluated for impact by the development and are shown in Figure 9. Table 11 indicates the level of service impact of the development on the proposed improvements in the area. Table 11 - Level of Service for Required Improvements ~ rFAK interseraon (Critical Un Ave V/c Reserve Moven,er4 FM Delay Ratio _ ..Capacity S.W.Sdwes L Murray raL NB left b 387 Old SdnBS II New Sdto9s 4 so Q357 SW.Sdwits i First She Drive ; BNB Left A 503 _ SWSdrolb L Second She Drive NB Left A 512 Murray 8C t Ste Drive $ Lit A 488 I~ S • TIGARD RETAIL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 23 L~ L~ - - - - - - - - - - N~ ORTH~ lao SG u5 FERRY Ro t I. 1b--► •-15p lyl-► .-tA1 50'~ r 103 ~8-ti r 183 ft r s r - ati ~J .:51tE 5W WAWf TARO RKAL CENTER TIT\ m tO1'AL 1ggZ MWIG Va,lW N PEAK W 7-7 As Table 11 indicates, the development under 1992 traffic volumes and road improvements that are currently required, will not impact the surrounding road system. The existing or required J road improvements are sufficient to handle the traffic generated by this development 1 FUTURE STACKING DISTANCE REQUIREAW[S This portion of the analysis compares the future traffic volumes as described in the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study and the stacking distance required for lanes at the intersections. This review provides guidance in the placement of proposed driveways into and out of the site and identifies possible conflicts that might arise between vehicles stopped at a signal and vehicles turning from the driveways. Table 12 - Stacking Distance Requirements for Build Out PM peak hour stacking distances required by int6rsection Distance Intersection Movement Required Murray Blvd at Scholls Ferry NB LT 369' Murray Blvd at Scholls Ferry WB LT 792' Murray Blvd at Scholls Ferry EB LT 216' - l ~t Table 12 indicates that the driveway onto Murray Blvd located at approximately 300 feet south of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road may be blocked during certain periods of the p.m. peak hour unless i additional lanes or signal configuration can be provided in the future. i TIGARD RETAIL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 25 ,1111 • Based on field review and the above analysis the CONCLUSIONS following conclusions can be made: The proposed development can be built and if the improvements listed in this report are constructed should not significantly impact the surrounding street system. • The differences in traffic impact between the existing Neighborhood Commercial and the proposed General Commercial land use is negligible • The intersection improvements required for the residential development to the southeast of the site will handle the development traffic without additional improvements. • The site driveways will operate at level of service "B" or better until build out of the area occurs. Based on the results of the traffic access analysis RECOMMENDATIONS.. described in this report, it is concluded that the property as proposed can be constructed with minimal impact to the surrounding street system. To ensure the safe and efficient movement of traffic and pedestrians within the area, the following traffic operational improvements are recommended. 1) The proposed development be constructed with two (2) full access driveways onto S.W. Scholls Ferry Road at approximately 400 feet and 700 feet west of the Murray Blvd extension and one full access driveway onto Murray Blvd at approximately 300 feet south of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road. 2) The proposed driveways be constructed with two exit lanes and one entrance lane. This would provide left and right turn lanes for exiting traffic. 3) S.W. Scholls Ferry Road be widened to provide left turn lanes and right turn deceleration lanes for both of the site driveways. TIGARD RETAIL CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PAGE 26 L~ . SO CIA T~'D ANSPCR TA TI ON GINEERING & ANNING A TEP I APPENDIX A BASE YEAR LEVELS OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS _ 1 1985 HCH: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT Hfiflffiftf{1HHtltfff{iffifflfiffliHfifi#fi1HIMItHlffffflfifHlfi ITERSECTIDN.. SCHOLLS FERRY RDISY MURRAY AREA TYPE..... OTHER ANALYST N DATE.......... 18/13/91 TIME.......... PM PEAK i COMMENT....... BASE YEAR (BUILD OUT MINUS EXISTING LAND USE VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB 118 NB SB : ED 98 NB SB LT 189 173 386 25 : L 12.1 L 12.1 L 12.1 L 12.1 TH 29 197 181 491 : T 12.4 T 12.1 T 12.1 T 12.1 RT 215 1 21 151 t TR 12.1 TR 12.1 TR 12.1 TR 12.1 RR 151 1 1/ 111: 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 t 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 : 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. PUT. ARR. TYPE (I) (i) YIN No Nb YIN *in T ED 1.01 2.11 N I 1 1.91 5 N 25.8 3 NB 1.11 2.00 N 1 I 1.91 5 N 25.8 3 RD 1.11 2.11 N 1 1 1.91 5 N 25.8 3 { SB 1.10 2.11 N 1 1 1.91 5 N y25.8 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 92.1 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 "EB LT I NB LT I I TH I TH I I RT I RT I I PD PD 118 LT 1 $8 LT I TH I TH I RT I RT I PD PD GREEN 13.1 14.1 1.1 1.1 GREEN 27.1 5.1 21.1 1.1 YELLOW 3.1 3.1 1.1 1.1 YELLOW 3.1 1.1 3.1 1.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. IELAY APP. LOS ED L 8.078 1.141 49.3 E 41.7 E j TR 1.211 1.152 22.1 C jj WB L 1.814 1.141 41.1 E 31.3 D TR 1.424 1.152 23.1 C N8 L 1.728 1.348 23.1 C 21.6 C TR 1.222 1.283 16.3 C SB L 1.156 1.293 17.7 C 24.4 C TR 0.787 1.228 24.7 C INTERSECTION: Delay = 27.1 (sec/reh) VIC = 1.715 LOS = 0 '.1 1 t ~e yG iU IM HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS I SUMMARY REPORT {fifHH!#UHH!!!!!f!!{ffH{H{lHiif/ffiffffHif!lffHffffiflflfflfilf f IpTERSECTION-NEW SCROLLS /OLD SCHOLLS { 'EA TYPE.....DTHER ``~IIALrsr.....DR DATE...... ......IB/13/91 j TIME.......... PM PEAK • . ' COMMENT BASE YEAR VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB VB R SB : EB WD NB SB LT 1 183 1 1 : TR 12.1 L 12.1 L 12.1 12.1 TH 367 516 1 1 : 12.1 T 12.1 R 12.1 11.1 IT 1 1 145 1 : 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 RR I I 111 I : 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE NV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEGS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (1) (1) TIN Ns Nb TIN sin T ES 1.10 2.A1 N I 1 1.91 5 N 11.3 3 WB 1.01 2.01 N 1 1 1.91 5 N 11.3 3 I NB 1.18 2.11 N 1 1 0.91 5 N 16.8 3 SB~ 1.0 2.111 N I 1~ 11_91` 5- N 16.8 3 _ SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 117.1 PN-1 PN-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 LT IM LT I TH I TH RT I RT I PD PO 93 LT I 58 LT TH I I TH RT RT PD PD GREEN 21.1 24.1 1.1 9.1 GREEN 53.1 0.1 1.1 1.1 YELLOW 3.1 3.1 1.1 1.1 YELLOW 3.1 0.1 1.1 1.1 6 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. VIC SIC DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB TR 1.121 1.224 61.1 F 61.1 F n L 1.612 1.196 32.2 D 21.1 C T 1.713 1.449 17.1 C NB L 1.111 1.495 25.5 0 9.1 D R 1.167 1.495 9.1 B INTERSECTION: Delay = 33.9 (sec/reh) VIC = 1.417 _ LOS = B l ' V SO CIA TED ANSPOR TA TION GINEERING & ANNING A TE.P F. . APPENDIX B EXISTING LAND USE & LOS CALCULATIONS I ,j " TRIP GENERATION BY EQUATIONS LISTED IN 4TH EDITION EQUATIONS WITH LOGS ~WECT: ALBERTSDNS EXISTING LANE USE ATE: 12-Any-91 LAND USE 1 711 TYPE OF LAND USE GENERAL OFFICE f TIME PERIOD: WEEKDAY VALUE OF I = 144 VALUE OF A = 1.75 VALUE OF 1 = 3.77 i PASSBY I = 1.111 I1N 51.1/1 I OUT 51.M1 EQUATION 1 LN(T) = A(LN(I)) 1 LN(T) 7.497359 PASS BY NEW TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS 1613 1 1113 VEHICLE IN • 912 1 912 VEHICLES OUT = 912 1 912 L. { j 1 X I C " j 1 J S J`w X11./✓~~ _ ' ~-n..,r ,mat. plo s _ y ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION TRIP GENERATION PROGRAM PROJECT: ALBERTSDMS EXISTING LANE USE nIATE3 12-Aug-91 ',LAND USE B 711 TYPE OF LAID) USE GENERAL OFFICE TIME PERIOD: M PEAT( VALUE OF I = 144 F VALUE OF A = 1.86 VALUE OF B a 1.34 i PASSBY 1 = 1.112 1IN 87.01 I OUT 13.161 ERUATION 1 LN(T) • A(LN(I)) 4 B LN(T) = 3.614139 PASS BY NEV TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS 274 1 274 VEHICLE IN = 239 1 23! VEHICLES OUT ■ 36 1 36 i t i i i t '.I ~ { C ~ l i mom.. , - ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION TRIP GENERATION PROGRAM PROJECT: ALBERTSONS EXISTING LANE USE ATE: 12-Aug-91 rME 1 711 TYPE OF LAND USE GENERAL OFFICE TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK VALUE OF I ■ 144 VALUE OF A - 6.83 VALUE OF I - 1.46 PASSBY I • 1.18I c ` Z1N 16.t1Z I OUT 84.112 EQUATION 1 LN(T) ■ A(LN(I)) • LN(T) - 5.564943 PASS 1Y NEU TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS 266 6 266 VEHICLE IN ■ 43 6 43 VEHICLES OUT ■ 224 6 224 r 1 Ir r y j 1 ~ l k h ,t 1985 NMI SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SODUTARY REPORT ~~H{{{{{i{{{{f{{Ii{Hiff{{}f{{{{N{H{{{f{{{{f{H!{{{f{{Hf{H{{N{{{{{{{ r _ ,dTERSECTION..'YCAOLLS FERRY RD/SW MURRAY AREA TYPE OTHER a ANALYST....... DU DATE.......... 19/13191 TIME.......... PM PEAK COMMEMT.......BASE YEAR WITH EXISTING LAND USE - VOLUMES s GEOMETRY i ED WB MB S8 s ED WB NB SB LT 214 177 436 25 s L 12.1 L 12.1 L 12.1 L 12.1 TH 37 211 207 514 s T 12.1 T 12.1 T 12.1 T 12.1 RT 251 1 28 151 s TR 12.1 TR 12.1 TR 12.1 TR 12.1 RR 151 1 11 111 s 12.1 12.1 12.0 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.0 12.1 ` s 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 Y- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE IN ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE t (I) (I) TIN No Nb YIN sin T EB 1.10 2.01 N 1 1 0.91 5 N 25.8 3 WB 0.01 2J1 N 1 8 0.91 5 N 25.6 3 I 8 1.18 2.01 N 1 0 1.91 5 N 25.8 3 S8 1.11 2.01 N 1 8 1.91 5 N 25.8 3 - SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH - 92.1 PH-I PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-I PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 ED LT I NB LT I I TH I TH I I RT I RT I I PD PD i WB LT I 58 LT I TH I TH I RT I RT i a PD PD t GREEN 13.1 14.1 11.1 1.1 GREEN 27.1 5.1 21.1 1.1 i YELLOW 3.1 3.1 8.1 1.1 YELLOW 3.1 11.1 3.1 8.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE e l LANE GRP. VIC SIC DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS ED L 1.948 1.141 61.6 F 45.5 E j TR 1.330 1.152 22.6 C WB L 1.822 1.141 42.8 E 32.1 D TR 0.431 1.152 23.2 C a NB L 1.823 8.348 27.2 D 23.5 C TR 1.253 1.283 16.5 C SB L 1.056 8.293 17.7 C 25.1 C TR 1.816 0.228 25.3 D INTERSECTION: Delay = 29.4 (setlveh) VIC = 1.771 LOS = D a . 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SU88ARY REPORT 1, 4f/Hft4ttf!!!ltiflttl4fftHfffif4!!i!!flff4lf4illHlf#ffft44HilfHf4iflf -ITERSECTION..NEY SCROLLS /OLD SCROLLS EA TYPE OTHER ANALYST DY DATE.......... 18/13/91 TIME.......... PR PEAK COMMENT....... BASE YEAR Y/ EXISTING LAND USE VOLUMES s GEOMETRY EB MB NB SB s EB YB NB SB LT 1 196 1 1 : TR 12.1 L 12.1 L 12.1 12J TH 367 516 1 1 : 12.1 T 12.1 R 12.1 12.1 RT 1 1 153 1 : 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 RR 1 / 181 1 : 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.0 12.0 s 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ~ GRADE MV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PECS PED. Kff. ARR. TYPE (i) (I) YIN NA Nb TIN Bain T EB 1.18 2.18 N 1 1 1.91 5 N 11.3 3 YB 1.11 2.11 N 1 1 1.91 S N 11.3 3 NB 1.10 2.18 N 1 1 1.91 S N 16.8 3 SB - 1.11 2.10 N / 1 1.91 S N 16.8 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 117.1 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-I PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 I NB LT I 1H TH RT I RT I PB PD YB LT I SB LT TH I I n1 RT RT PD PO j GREEN 21.1 24.1 8.1 1.1 GREEN 53.1 1.1 8.1 1./ YELLOV 3.1 3.1 1.1 1.1 YELLOY 3.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE - LANE UP. VIC G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS u ' EB TR 1.121 1.224 61.1 F 61.1 F j MB L 1.635 1.1% 32.8 D 21.3 C r 1 1.713 1.449 17.8 c N8 L 1.111 1.495 25.5 0 9.2 B { R 1.179 1.495 9.2 B INTERSECTION: Delay = 33.8 (sec/veh) VIC = 1.429 LOS = D r, i t - i 'f I . . wo, F 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS page-1 1 }f}#}iHffffi}i}ff}}ffH}Hf#fiii}tiffs}}fftifffiffii}Hff}}fiffff}}f IDENTIFYING INFORMATION i i AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................................9 AREA POPULATION 111118 NAME OF THE EASUVEST STREET SCHOLLS FERRY NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET HURRAY NAME OF THE ANALYST DY DATE OF THE ANALYSIS In/dd/yy) 181139191 ! TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION: BASE YEAR Y/EIISTING LAND USE i INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION I r MJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST ; CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN y TRAFFIC VOLUMES ff 4 EB WB_ NB_ SB i LEFT 1 3 31 THRU 423 787 1 - RIGHT 11 1 68 - NUMBER OF LANES EB UB 1111 so 1 LANES - 2 ---2- 2- - i J,. M - 7-7 .:7 R E I A ~ o:[ t N 1 E y i i ~ A s , s 0 jj W y! !i i ~ K H y ~ ~ F~1~+ J 1 I~ b C! oa a~ e • e ~ h h ~ _ oo N E y t pQ oo _ r 0 oi. Lp~ j _ S d 1 W < < ' l~! c-11 j ~1 u I~ j n A Y8; 1 W O~ r 1 o _ y. 1 ; i i ~cd r' - . . .J IM HCM: UNSISNALIZED INTERSECTIONS hqe-t HlifffffiifliflHfffiHlflFiflfllffllfiffifffll!lfflififlfffilfffff! IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................................9 AREA POPULATION 110888 i ` { NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET SY MURRAT j NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET SITE DRIVE c NAME OF THE ANALYST N ' BATE OF THE ANALYSIS (u/dd/yy) 18111/91 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION: BASE YEAR W/EIISTING LAND USE O INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH t y4 - CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES } ED WB NB SB i LEFT 77 13 1 THRU 1 - 586 854 RIGHT 49 1 17 NUMBER OF LANES ED WB NB 58 42 LANES 2 2 2 I r . i F j M 1 : s .y vy y3--sue' • • • 4_ - ',F~~„ ae ra N ~ i i ~~cc .~yy ~1 • i { Z 40 1 w~ n Cl _ C N 1 i ; • • • N ri r~ - - i i3g { 19 s ~t it a s ~ I CAPACITY AND LEVEL-0F-SERVICE Page-3 PDTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY NVENENT r(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c e c - r LDS N SH R SH HIM STREET } ED LEFT 94 61 58 5g _36 F RIGHT 61 639 639 639 519 A K f HAJDR STREET E 1 [ 6 LEFT 16 345 345 345 329 1 t i t n SO CIA TED ANSPOR TA TION GINEERING & ANNING A TEP APPENDIX C PROPOSED LAND USE & LOS CALCULA TIONS TRIP GENERATION BY EQUATIONS LISTED IN 4TH EDITION CENTERS UNDER 218K OJECT: ALBERTSONS TIBARD ~ ~--aATEt 11-Auq-91 , LAND USE 1 821 TYPE OF LAID USE SHOPPING CENTER 71NE FER10D: VEEKDAY j VALUE OF Y ■ 78.%6 I VALUE OF A = 1.65 VALUE OF B = 5.91 PASSBY Y = 35.11% YIM 51.I1Z % an 51.10% EQUATION 1 LN(T) = A(LN(J)) • B LN(T) = 8.759861 PASS BY MY TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS 6373 2231 4143 VEHICLE IN = 3187 1115 2171 VEHICLES OUT = 3167 1115 2171 { -i _ F~ t, F t ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION TRIP GENERATION PROGRAM PROJECT: ALBERTSONS TIGARD TE: 11-Aug-91 D USE 1 831 TYPE W LAND USE SHOPPING CENTER TIME PERIOD: AM PEAK VALUE W t = 78.966 VALUE W A = 8.6 VALUE W 1 = 2.4 PASSBT 2 = 35.111 iIN 71.611 C I OUT 31.111 EQUATION I LN(T) = A(LN(I)) + B LN(T) • 5.121411 PASS BY NEN TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS 152 53 99 VEHICLE IN = 116 37 69 VEHICLES OUT = 45 16 31 r ; C ' i { t 'vq 1. ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION TRIP GENERATION PROGRAM PROJECT: ALBERTSONS TIM ~r.iATE: to-Aug-91 USE 1 821 ~D TYPE OF LAND USE SHOPPING CENTER TIME PERIOD: PH PEAK VALUE OF I = 78.%6 VALUE OF A = 1.52 VALUE OF 1 = 4.14 PASSBY 1 = 35.101 j IIN 49.101 1 OUT 31.111 EQUATION 1 LN(T) = A(LN(I)) • 1 LN(T) = 6.311889 PASS BY NEW TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS 551 193 358 VEHICLE IN = 271 95 116 VEHICLES OUT = 281 98 183 } k F ' r . 6 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT !~Trttttrtuttttrettrtrrtrrrttttrrartrrtrttwtrtttrrrttrrtrrrrrrratrttrrrtt INTERSECTION... : SCROLLS FERRY RD/SH MURRAY AREA TYPE OTHER ANALYST....... ON - DATE.......... 18/13191 i TIME.......... PM PEAK COMMENT....... BASE YEAR WITH PROPOSED LAND USE VOLUMES s GEOMETRY Ell 98 NO SO : Ell WB NB SB LT 202 181 419 25 : L 12.1 L 12.1 L 12.1 L 12.1 TH 36 233 211 545 s T 12.1 T 12.1 T 12.0 T 12.1 RT 238 1 21 151 : TR 12.1 TR 12.1 TR 12.1 TR 12.1 RR 151 0 11 111 : 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 r 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.0 : 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE NV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF MS M. WT. ARR. TYPE (I) (I) YIN No N6 YIN fin T EB 1.11 2.18 N 1 8 1.91 5 N 25.8 3 NO 1.11 2.11 N I 1 1.90 5 N 25.8 3 a NB 1. If 2.11 N 1 1 1.98 5 N 25.8 3 SB 0.11 2.01 N 1 8 1.90 5 N - 25.8 3 516MAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH ■ 92.1 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PHi ES LT f NB LT I I - TH I TH I I RT I RT I I PD PD NO LT I SB LT I TH I TH I RT I RT I PD PD GREEN 13.1 14.1 1.1 8.1 GREEN 27.1 5.1 21.1 0.0 YELLOW 3.1 3.1 1.1 1.8 YELLOW 3.1 1.1 3.1 0.1 t.. LEVEL Of SERVICE } LANE GRP. VIC SIC DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 1.938 0.141 59.6 E 45.1 E TR 1.298 1.152 22.5 C NO L 1.836 1.141 44'.2 E 32.4 D TR 1.501 8.152 23.7 C NB L 1.791 1.348 25.5 D 22.4 C j TR 1.245 0.283 16.5 C SO L 1.156 1.293 17.7 C 27.5 D t TR 1.864 1.228 27.9 D INTERSECTION: Delay ■ 29.8 (set/veh) VIC = 1.783 LOS = D S P':t - - ILL 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT eertrerrerrerrrerrrrerreererrreeerrrrrtrtrtrtterrtrrrrrrrererttrrtttererrr TERSECTION..NEW SCHOLLS /OLD SCHOLLS EA TYPE OTHER ANALYST D9 IATE.......... U113/91 TIME.......... PM PEAK COMMENT....... BASE YEAR N/PROPOSED LAND USE VOLUMES s y GEOMETRY Y y Ell NB Na SB : Ell NB NB SB LT 1 229 8 1 : TR 12.1 L 12.1 L 12.1 12.8 TH 367 516 1 12.1 1 12.1 R 12.1 12.1 RT 1 1 152 1 : 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.6 RR 1 0 111 1 : 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 t 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. WT. ARR. TYPE (1) YIN No lb YIN @in T a EB B.IB 2.11 N 1 1 1.91 5 N 11.3 3 ! 98 1.11 2.11 N I 1 1.98 5 N 11.3 3 08 8.18 2.18 N 1 1 1.91 5 N 16.8 3 SB 1.11 2.011 N 1 1 1.91 5 N 16.8 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 117.8 I! PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 LT NO LT I TH I IN RT I RT T f PD YB LT 1 SB LT TH L 2 iH RT Ri PD PD GREEN 21.1 24.1 1.1 1.1 GREEN 53.1 e.g 8./ 1.1 YELLOW 3.1 3.1 1.1 6.1 YELLOW 3.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 --------_.»_-_w~-LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. VIC SIC DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB TR 1.121 1.224 61.1 F 61.1 F YB L 1.766 1.196 37.9 D 23.5 C T 1.783 1.449 17.1 C NB L 1.111 1.495 25.5 1 9.2 8 K, R 1.177 8.495 9.2 B INTERSECTION: IelaY = 34.8 (sec/reb) VIC = 1.456 LOS = D s - j s. 1 1 } i t 1985 HCH: UNSIGNALIIED INTERSECTIONS - ~ I /#f##Ff#f#Hi/i/#f#H#/H//#ff/i#fff4#4##fF/f//tH##fFHH##!#/##//// IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR t AREA POPULATION 111881 NAME OF THE EAST/VEST STREET SITE DRIVE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET HURRAY NAME OF THE ANALYST DV DATE OF THE ANALYSIS lo/ddlyy) 18113/91 . -.rj TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM PEAK F 11 OTHER INFORMATION: BASE YEAR V/PROPOSED LAID USE t INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL 1 INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION p ~ l MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH E. CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB VB NB SB LEFT 82 - 81 I c THRU I - 557 B81 i RIGHT 68 1 83 NUMBER OF LANES_~_--_--_--~ - "i z_ EB VB Na SB LAMES 2- 2 W2 ~ z ELL- h, ADJUSTMENT FACTIMtS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS ((t) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE--_ FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.01 91 21 N i HESTBOUND - r ~ NORTHBOUND 1.11 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 1.11 91 21 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION I SU TRUCKS I COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES I MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND I 1 1 VESTBOUND ' j h f NORTHBOUND I I 1 SOUTHBOUND 1 I 1 a CRITICAL SAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 11-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.71 5.71 1.18 5.71 k MAJOR LEFTS t i NB 5.61 5.61 1.18 5.61 MINOR LEFTS EB 7.38 7.38 11.18 7.38 - lj i • z j - 1 F CAPACITY AND LEVEL-W-SERVICE Page-3 ~J POTEN- ACTUAL nOY- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(Pcph) c (Pcph) c (Pcph) c (Pcph) c = c - v LOS P M SH R SH i MINOR STREET ED LEFT IM in 45 45 -56 F RIGHT 83 612 612 612 519 A MAJOR STREET KB LEFT 99 314 314 314 215 C ; t 'i f i I r ~ V • 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 of# fit* fit IDENTIFYING INFORMATION n i AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................................9 s AREA POPULATION 111888 • NAME OF THE EAST/NEST STREET SCHOLLS FERRY NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET SECOND DRIVE NAME OF THE ANALYST N DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (n/dd/pr) 08114/91 L TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION: V/PROPOSED LAND USE INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION , MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/VEST , - r CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN r r' r r TRAFFIC VOLUMES ED VB NB 58 LEFT I 13 25 THRU 411 791 I - RIGHT 45 I 35 NUMBER OF LANES F EB YB NB WSB LANES - 2 2 ~2 - ;I r Page-2 FACTORS PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR R16HT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS s EASTBOUND 1.11 91 21 N NESTBOUND 1.18 9I 28 N NORTHBOUND I." 98 21 N E.' SOUTHBOUND - - VEHICLE COMPOSITION 1 SU TRUCKS I COMBINATION AND RVIS VEHICLES i MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND I IESTBOUND 1 NORTHBOUND I 1 SOUTHBOUND CRITICAL SAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 11-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP f , - MINOR RIGHTS NB 5.71 5.71 1.11 5.71 MAJOR LEFTS VB 5.61 5.61 1.11 5.61 i MINOR LEFTS r' NB 7.31 7.31 1.18 7.38 vJ CAPACITY AND LEVEL-W-SERVICE Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOR- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY f MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c■ c - v LOS p N SN R SN MINOR STREET [f NB LEFT 31 84 83 83 53 E f RIGHT 43 83I 837 837 794 A ~ MAJOR STREET f 0 LEFT 16 623 623 623 607 A I t E G f i a n 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-I ' Vii' tae~eeit+ti~eteeti~;t4iteetttti~tatirieetfieaeiteaFtiaiteeeteieetoeta IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................................9 AREA POPULATION 189118 1 NAME OF THE EAST/REST STREET SCHOLLS FERRY NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET -WRRAY SST ~jne MANE OF THE ANALYST 9Y DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (u/dd/yy) 68/139/91 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM PEAK ~ r OTHER INFORMATION: BASE YEAR N/PROPOSED LAND USE INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL r INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/NEST t . CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB VB NB SB LEFT 9 23 25 t ;f THRU 431 779 9 - i, c RIGHT 15 9 45 - G i NUMBER OF LANES EB NB NB GB LANES M 2 - 2 2 - . r t ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS ((t) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND /.M 91 21 N VESTBOUND 1.11 90 21 N ; r NORTHBOUND 1.11 91 21 N F SOUTHBOUND - VEHICLE COMPOSITION I SU TRUCKS I COMBINATION AND RV'S- VEHICLES I MOTORCYCLES r' f EASTBOUND 1 / N I NESTBOUND 1 / N NORTHBOUND 1 0 / SOUTHBOUND - CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL C (Table 11-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS NB 5.71 5.71 1.11 5.71 E MAJOR LEFTS NB 5.61 5.G1 1.11 5.61 t MINOR LEFTS 7 NB 7.31 7.31 1.11 .31 ' f , CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY ( NOV" r(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS rN p - N SH R SH M MINOR STREET ND LEFT 31 64 82 82 51 E RIGHT 55 842 842 842 787 A [ MAJOR STREET VB LEFT 28 631 631 631 613 A j i ( l f r i ~ o- r t f 1 ,i 2 , ;l ' SO CIA TED NSPORTATIOAT GINEERING & NNING (A TEP k APPENDIX D r 1992 LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS 1985 HCM: UNSIBNALIZED INTERSECTIONS h1e-1 I 1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................................9 -5 AREA POPULATION 118889 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET SCROLLS FERRY RD f NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET 1ST SITE DRIVE NAME OF THE ANALYST DW DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (u/dd/yy) 18/11/91 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION: 1992 VOLUMES V/DEVELOPMENT INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL_ 1 INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/PEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN r TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB YB NB SB LEFT 1 23 25 THRU 91 198 1 4 i RIGHT 15 1 15 - NUMBER OF LANES ED YB N8 SB LANES 1 2 2 r .2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 1.11 20 N NESTBOUND 1.11 48 21 N NORTHBOUND 1.11 91 21 N SOUTHBOUND - - VEHICLE COMPOSITION I SO TRUCKS I COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES 1 MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 1 RESTBOUND I 1 NORTHBOUND 1 1 1 SOUTHBOUND i CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT GIST. FINAL (Table 11-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS NB 5.71 5.71 1.11 5.71 f i MAJOR LEFTS NB 5.11 5.11 1.18 5.11 ' f MINOR LEFTS NB 6.81 6.81 1.18 6.88 fi l t CAPACITY AND LEVEL-DF-SERVICE Page-3 po, ~J POTEN- ACTUAL FLDN- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE } RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(Pcph) c (Pcph) C (Pcph) c (Pcph) c ■ c - v LDS 1 M SH R SH 1 _ - fi - MINOR STREET Ill LEFT 31 543 534 534 513 A RIGHT 55 985 985 985 931 A t MAJOR STREET r . a LEFT 28 997 997 997 969 A ` t. ~s - :t j 1 '~.+fM.'.!~ ~^R:. e:Y,+-rxr..+ra'.-.•e...---.-..~._..,-~_.. _r..-. .a. 't r _Y,--_.~- - I 1965 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 fiiffififffiffHiffffffffiffffffifHffftififffffifif tf ififfftlfffitii IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................................9 AREA POPULATION 110888 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET SCROLLS FERRY RD NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET 2ND SITE DRIVE NAME OF THE ANALYST DW DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (u/dd/yy) 18114/91 t TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM PEAK j I OTHER INFORMATION: 1992 VOLUMES W/DEVELOPMENT f n l a INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4 ED WB NB SB LEFT ~1 13 23 i THRU 11 212 1 - t. R16HT 45 1 35 - r NUMBER OF LANES ED WB NB Sl LANES 1 2 2 ' i r ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE i GRADE - ANGLE - FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS l EASTBOUND 1.11 9• 21 N NESTBOUND 1.1E 9e 21 N NORTHBOUND 1.11 91 21 N f SOUTHBOUND - - - _ r VEHICLE COMPOSITION S SU TRUCKS I COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES 2 MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 1 1 0 YESTBOUND I 1 NORTHBOUND 1 1 / SOUTHBOUND - - CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL r (Table 11-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS RB 5.71 5.71 1.18 5.71 MAJOR LEFTS t HB 5.1e s. 11 LIB s. 11 fffl MINOR LEFTS I NB 6.Be 6. Be I.IB 6. BE ~l i 12 .r 1 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-W-SERVICE Pagel 1 POTEN- ACTUAL i FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SNARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY f MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c= c - v LOS M SH R SH MINOR STREET i 0 LEFT 28 516 511 511 512 A RIGHT 13 991 991 991 918 A MAIOR STREET YB LEFT 16 996 996 996 981 A f - c P f . 5 P j , - r • 1985 NCR: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-I { - - {ffftfiii!!#fiHfffffiiHtflf!litfiftlii{flfH!{iflii#fffif/#ffiffi// IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................................9 AREA POPULATION 118188 WE OF THE EAST/WEST STREET SITE DRIVE r' NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET MURRAY MIME OF THE ANALYST DY DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (oa/dd/pr) 88/14/91 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION: 1992 V/IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL E INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN i TRAFFIC VOLUMES { EB WB- NB SB I L LEFT 82 81 1 THRU 1 - 18 78 RIGHT 68 I 83 NUMBER OF LANES EB VB NB SB 'l F: LANES 2 l 1 LL .i ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS - ~ EASTBOUND 1.11 ---9Y - - 21 ~ N 'j NESTBOUND - - - NORTHBOUND 8.10 91 21 N SOUTHBDUND 1.11 9s 21 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION Z SU TRUCKS Z COMBINATION j AND RV'S VEHICLES I MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND e e 1 ,i - I KSTBOUND - - - r NORTHBOUND 0 • 1 E SOUTHBOUND CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 11-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR R16NiS EB 5.71 5.71 1.10 5.70 MAJOR LEFTS f i NB 5.11 5.10 1.18 5.11 MINOR LEFTS EB 6.88 6.28 8.b 6.81 f 4 y s n CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS P - M -SHR SH - l MINOR STREET EB LEFT 1M 626 588 588 188 A I ' RIGHT 83 961 961 961 817 A r MAJOR STREET NB LEFT 99 988 988 988 889 A i F 1 f - ~ i f k ELL- 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Ptle-1 ~~t #iHflfH#ffiliitHf#fHftiffftf#fiififfi#iitlHi#tilfllif#ii#ffffH# IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................................9 f i AREA POPULATION 111188 NAME OF THE EAST/NEST STREET SCHOLLS FERRY RD NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET MURRAY EIT ; NAME OF THE ANALYST DR DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (u/dd/yy) 18/14191 , c TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM PEAK 3 OTHER INFORMATION: 1992 VOLUMES N/DEVELOPMENT j INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL N . INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/NEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN t. TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB VB NB SB LEFT 1 113 55 THRU 78 158 1 RIGHT 58 / 45 - NUMBER OF LANES f i i E8 NB NB SB » LAMES 1 2- - 2 .I~ 2 ~ ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRACE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 1.11 91 21 N j IESTBOUND I.M 91 20 N NORTHBOUND 1.18 91 21 N { SOUTHBOUND VEHICLE COMPOSITION Z SU TRUCKS Z COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES Z MOTORCYCLES I EASTBOUND 1 1 0 IESTBOUND I NORTHBOUND 0 1 1 SOUTHBOUND - f~ , f CRITICAL SAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 11-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP ~ MINOR RIGHTS NB 5.71 5.71 I.M 5.71 i MAJOR LEFTS VB 5.11 5.11 1.11 5.11 MINOR LEFTS f NB 6.81 6.88 1.10 6.88 i LLL r i CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE page-3 t PDTEN- ACTUAL FL861- 11AL NOVENENT SNARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c WA) c (pcph) c■ c - r LOS f 1 M SH R SH MINOR STREET NB LEFT 67 494 454 454 387 3 RI6NT SS 975 975 975 921 A f MAJOR STREET 1a LEFT 126 992 992 992 866 A tt r , f J ~ I t 7 1 i t' t - t 11 T! { RECEIVED OCT 15 1991 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT so cIA I -P-j ANSPOR TA TION GINEERING & A.NNING (A TEP TRANSPOR TA TION ANAL, YSIS r ADDEND UM TIGARD ALBERTSON'S TI GARD, OREGON ADDENDUM TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS TIGARD RETAIL CENTER TIGARD, OREGON i' PREPARED FOR ALBERTSON'S INC. G BOISE, IDAHO ~p PROFFS nt k 17. cygRO L. `~F, PREPARED BY ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING, (ATEP) 4040 DOUGLAS WAY ! - LAKE OSWEGO, OR. 97035 91-452 OCTOBER 1991 a October 15, 1991 Mr. Jerry Offer SO CIA TED Land Use Planner ANSPOR TA TION 13125 SW Hall Blvd GINEERING & 1f Tigard, OR 97223 ANNING (A TEP) (503) 636-9232 (503) 743-4491 RE: Albertson's Zone Change Dear Jerry: ; This letter is in response to our discussions and your letter of September 26, 1991 regarding the additional information request for the Albertson's Zone Change Traffic Analysis report prepared by Associated Transportation Engineering & Planning (ATEP). I will address the your request and the request of Washington County in the order provided and j as follows: ! 1. The ATEP report uses a total of 144,000 square feet of office space that could be developed in the existing zone. On page 11 of the ATEP report, fifth paragraph last sentence should read ....could be built on the seven acres of land covered by the existing zone. In reviewing the calculation sheets, I found that the 144,000 square feet was calculated on seven acres not the eight acres reported in the orginal yreport. 2. The Albertson's proposal would potentially eliminate 1.01 acres of multi-family residential or 24.24 units. Albertson's primarily proposes replacing these "lost" 24.24 units on a "one for one" basis. This primary approach would involve changing a minimum ppoortion of the remaining R-25 multi-family to R-40. The net effect of the proposal will be to increase commercial from 6.99 acres to 8 acres; and the total number of residential f units at the site will remain the same (no net gain or loss). ' In the event that the City Council desires an increase in housing stock, Albertson's has proposed an alternative approach of rezoning the remaining 4.5 acres south of the Murry Extension to R-40. This alternative would create 72 units with a net increase at the site of 48 units. Therefore the attached addendum to the original report reflects only an increase of 48 units. See attached Figures 7 and 8. 3. The addendum addresses the change in location and access for the existing CN zone. Please note that this has no overall affect on the operation of the surrounding street system. j 4640 DOUGLAS WAY LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 (503) 636.9232 P.O. BOX 13185 SALEM, OR 97309 (503) 743491 Tigard Retain Center Addendum October 15, 1991 Page 3 4. Having rechecked the calculations compiled for Table 8, no calculation error could be found. The only error found is the column heading alignment. The "Net New Trip Ends" table is a 35% reduction in trips due to the pass by trips. Appendix A of the original ATEP report contains the actual trip generation calculations showing total trips, pass-by, and new trips. The attached Table 8 reflects the addition of the 48 Multi-family units to be added by the Albertson's second alternative. 5. In reviewing, the calculation sheets for Figure 7, the site driveway volumes located on SW Walnut should read 93 vehicles from the north rather than 83 vehicles into the site driveway. The traffic volumes shown at the Scholls/Murray intersection are not intended to show 7 pass by traffic only new trips at the intersection. The pass by trips have been removed since they are accounted for in the total traffic volumes in Figure 8. By removing the pass by trips from the site generated trips shows those new trips that are actually - generated by the site, not those trips that are already on the roadway. 6. The addendum includes the analysis of the North Scholls/Murray intersection as requested by Washington County. The analysis indicates that in the year 2010 the ! intersection will operate at level of service "E" with or without this development. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING, (ATEP) i E Richard ~LWo~elkPij.E Principal I - 1 Tigard Retail Center Addendum October 15, 1991 l U.. Page 4 PROPOSED LAND USE - GENERAL COMMERCIAL This proposal will change approximately eight (8) acres of land from Neighborhood Commercial to General Commercial designation. The proposed development consists of a 47,510 square foot grocery store and a 31,456 square foot general retail store. The development proposes to have three driveways, two (2) onto S.W. Scholls Ferry Road approximately 400 feet and 700 feet respectively from the center line of the proposed Murray Extension. The third driveway would be located on the Murray Extension approximately 300 feet south of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road. TRIP GENERATION Procedure one as listed on pages 11 and 12 of this report was used in the development of this report. The figures shown in Table 8 below, represent the expected number of vehicle trip ends to be generated by the proposed development on a daily p.m. peak hour basis based on the mathematical regression equations found on page 1150 Section 820 of the Trip Generation Manual (4th Edition). Table 8 - Trip Generation For Proposed General Commercial Land Use. Generated Trips (B) P M Peak Hour Size of Land Use Daily Land Use GSF (A) Volumes Total In Out Commercial 78,966 6,373 551 270 281 Apartments 48 293 32 22 10 Total 6,666 583 292 291 NET NEW TRIP ENDS GENERATED BY THE SITE (C) 4,416 391 198 193 7777 'Tigard Retail Center Addendum October 15, 1991 Page 5 The peak hour levels of service were calculated using the volumes shown in Figure 8 and are shown in Table 9. Table 9 - Level of Service for Proposed General Commercial Land Use. i PM PEAK Intersection (Grit" LOS Ave V/C Reserve . Movernen0 PM Delay Ratio Capacty S.W. Scholls & Murray Ext EB Lek D 29.4 0.783 Old Scholhs & New Scholls. Ell Thru D 34.8 0.456 SW. Scho& & First She Drive !78 left E 51 S.W. schom & Secad SMe Drive NB Lek E 53 M-W Eia & Site Drive EB Lek F _ •S6 Table 10 which is a comparison of the level of service impact between Table 8 (Neighborhood Commercial) and Table 9 (General Commercial). Table 10 indicates that the street system as proposed by the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study is sufficient to handle the change in land use zoning. Table 10 - Level of Service comparison between Neighborhood Commercial Land Use and the proposed General Commercial Land Use. Neighborhood Commercial Gerxral Commercial Intersection LOS Ave V/C Reserve LOS Ave V/C Reserve PM Delay Ratio Capacity PM Delay Ratio Capacity - S.W. Scholls & Murray Ea. D 30.3 0.792 D 29.8 (1783 - - • Old Scholls & New Sc olls. D 33.8 0.429 D 34.8 0.436 Murray Ext & She Drive F •38 F -56 F . r- } F7 - - - - QQ ' NORTH ao 5cf101.~5 rMy RO m i .y 10 r 1 r7 O R' C O G O . . ~p y 5W WALNUT - i i fIOARO REfAL WEER 51fE (fWfEO fKWIG Va,LW 015% WO USE) ~ ~ PM PEAK DOUR - - L i NORTH 1 01.0 SM 5 ray 90 ~N ~ o c~o~. Sao i G O ` 51 tE:.:.:::.: r~ 5W WaRif c MAKO WAL (.Mfa _ PM PEAK W - > NORTH 01.0 5Ua,1,5 ORY KO 16,rsd! 13 a°` \h is 35 r 7 drab rL" 5W WALNUT ~ DIAL c fIWD REfAL OfER 51fE OWAM fWIG Va-LW (PROPOSED WO USE) PM PEAK Nab j ( 1 r i ~y ' NORTH WO 5Ua 5 KKKY KO rr l eo5.a 0 • `9 ~ AZ ti -e49 361--0 .-50i 1o\h~ Ap J 1 S 100 p ^y~ t r2Z9 G b ~J . del i' W Rif fin g fIGARO REfAL (M0 --";3 fOfk fKWIG Va LW (PRffM LANG USE) PM PEAK I10UR w r i TRIP GENERATION BY EQUATIONS LISTED IN 4TH EDITION APARTMENTS F^ ',OJECT: TIGARD RETAIL CENTER <--Alf: 14-Oct-91 LAND USE 8 228 TYPE OF LAND USE APARTMENTS i TIME PERIOD: WEEKDAY VALUE OF I = 48 VALUE OF A = 6.163 { VALUE OF 8 = 0 F. PASSBY Z = 6.88% %IN 58.88% I OUT 50.89% f f EQUATION 2 (T) = A (1) - r (T) = 292.944 PASS BY NEW TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS 293 6 293 VEHICLE IN = 146 6 146 VEHICLES BUT = 146 0 146 l 2 Y. f~ ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION TRIP GENERATION PROGRAM I PROJECT: TIGARD RETAIL CENTER -nATE: 14-Oct-91 ..10 USE 1 221 TYPE OF LAND USE APARTMENTS TIME PERIOD: AM PEAK VALUE OF X = 4B VALUE OF A = 0.532 VALUE OF B = 0 PASSBY I = 2.99% IIN 1B.BBI I OUT 82.001 F EQUATION 2 (T) = A (X) i (T) 25.536 PASS BY NEW TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS 26 0 26 VEHICLE IN = 5 0 5 VEHICLES OUT = 21 0 21 t r f E E C { x C { GSSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION TRIP GENERATION PROGRAM PROJECT: TIGARD RETAIL CENTER DATE: 14-Ott-91 ! --4ND USE t 228 ~-_,YPE OF LAND USE APARTMENTS TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK VALUE OF I = 48 > f I VALUE OF A = 8.673 VALUE OF B = 8 PASSBY % = 8.882 a 21N 68.882 2 OUT 32.882 EQUATION 2 (T) = A (I) f (T) = 32.384 PASS BY NEW TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS 32 B 32 t VEHICLE IN = 22 8 22 VEHICLES OUT = 18 8 18 L k i i i - 7 I f k -r ~~w..-w .............-.....,a-..>,,...n« . -.a.a......,.+v...:an».a-_.unr......-...._.~..- . _ _.--ter.-....-...u.aw.ue. n.~r......,....---..-..._-,-w. 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ~ `ififilf#i#~f#f#a~ii tffi/fiff tafflfi•}i#f!#iiif f~f#ia4{f4#fi #fl4fff4}I#ffff ~ - INTEP,SECTION..SCHOLLS FERRY RD/HURRAY EXTENSION (,--~A TYPE..... OTHER r ~LYST....... 09 DATE.......... 16/15/91 TIME.......... PM PEAK COMMENT....... 1992 W/EXISTING LAND USE VOLUMES GEOMETRY ED WB NB SB : ED WB NB SB LT 284 188 466 25 : L 12.8 L 12.8 L 12.8 L 12.8 TH 37 208 226 504: T 12.8 T 12.0 T 12.8 T 12.8 RT 268 0 28 150: TR 12.8 TR 12.8 TR 12.6 TR 12.8 ` RR 150 8 18 l00 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.0 - 12.0 12.8 12.8 12.8 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS t . GRADE HV A01 PK6 BUSES PHF PEDS FED. BUT. ARR. TYPE l (X) (I) YIN No NG YIN ein T ED 6.88 2.88 N 8 8 8.98 5' N 25.8 3 WB 8.88 2.08 N 8 8 8.98 5 N 25.8 3 NB 8.80 2.88 N 8 8 8.98 5 N 25.8 3 SD 8.08 2.88 N 8 8 8.98 5 N 25.8 3 - - SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 92.8 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 LT X NB X X TN X lH TH X X RT X RT I X PD PD y WB LT X SO LT X TH X TH X RT I RT I ~i PD PD GREEN 13.1 14.0 8.8 1.0 GREEN 27.8 5.8 21.8 1.0 YELLOW 3.8 3.8 0.0 1.1 YELLOW 3.8 1.1 3.8 1.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C BIC DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS s ED L 8.948 1.141 61.6 F 44.9 E TR 8.355 8.152 22.8 C WB L 0.836 8.141 44.2 E 32.9 D TR 1.436 0.152 23.2 C NO L ' 8.879 6.348 31.5 0 26.2 D TR 0.286 8.283 16.7 C SB L 8.156 8.293 17.7 C 25.8 C . TR 1.886 8.228 25.3 D E t INTERSECTION: Delay : 38.3 (sec/vehl VIC = 8.792 LOS = 0 E , I V dft 1985 NCR: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT - f#ffH4#f44Hfffffiff}ffiH ff}iiif t}ff Hifftfftiltfff#i!t#ff4##f#Hffif i! ;iERSECTION..OLD SCHOLLS FERRY RD/HURRAY BLVD EXTENSION AREA TYPE OTHER c. ANALYST....... 00 DATE.......... 18/11/91 TIME.......... PM PEAK I_ COMMENT "BIB TRAFFIC W/DEVELOPMENT I VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB W9 NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 203 243 53 583: L 12.6 L 12.6 L 12.8 L 12.8 TH 216 568 222 381: T 12.8 T 12.8 T 12.8 LT 12.0 RT 60 896 114 184: T 12.8 T 12.8 TR 12.8 T 12.8 C.: RR 18 688 58 158: R 12.8 R 12.8 12.8 R 12.1 12.8 12.0 12.8 12.8 v.' 12.1 12.1 12.8 12.e - - ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE } (I) (I) YIN No Nb YIN min T EB 8.80 2.88 N B 0 8.90 0 Y 28.8 3 f WB 1.80 2.88 N 0 8 8.98 8 Y 28.8 3 NB 8.08 2.80 N 1 1 8.98 8 Y 31.8 3 SS 1.81 2.88 N B 0 8.90 0 Y 31.8 3 SI6NAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH - 128.1 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 LT I NB LT X TH I TH X RT I RT I PD PD h I WB LT I SB LT I I TH X TH I I RT I RT I I PD PD GREEN 15.3 52.1 1.1 8.0 GREEN 12.2 12.4 12.8 6.8 YELLOW 4.8 4.1 1.1 1.8 YELLOW 4.8 1.8 4.1 1.1 1. LEVEL OF SERVICE + LANE GRP. VIC 6/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY . APP. LOS F 1 EB L 8.981 8.136 79.7 F 48.3 E T 1.166 1.443 13.1 8 R 0.056 1.656 4.8 A we L 1.174 8.136 161.9 F 46.6 E T 8.418 8.443 14.9 B R 8.498 8.443 15.8 C NB L 0.316 8.118 37.8 D 46.2 E TR 1.893 8.188 47.7 E SB L 8.972 0._13 55.9 E 58.5 E T 1.887 1.212 42.5 E R 0.117 0.212 24.7 C f - DRSECTION: Delay = 46.B (sec/reh) VIC = 8.756 LOS : E • 1 1985 HCM: UNS16NALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 +ttt+trrt++tttttrttrttttt+ttttt++rtrrtttrrrtrtrrrttrt+r+t+rt+tttttttt IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 35 ~ f PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................................9 } 'i AREA POPULATION 158860 f• NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET SW MURRAY EXTENSION c NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET SITE DRIVEWAY NAME OF THE ANALYST OW 18!15/91 DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (uldd/yy) G. _ TINE PERIOD ANALYZED PM PEAK j OTHER INFORMATION: EXISTING ZONE INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL P INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ----48 NB SB E9 LEFT --30 ~-8 --91 ( r ` r THRU 854 SB6 B RIGHT 8 13 134 NUMBER OF LANES f i EB WB NB SB LANES 2 1 - 2 i. - ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE - - - FOR RIGHT TURNS GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 8.88 98 18 N WESTBOUND 8.88 98 28 N ' NORTHBOUND - SOUTHBOUND 8.88 93 28 N 7 VEHICLE COMPOSITION f Z SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES Z MOTORCYCLES t i. E EASTBOUND 8 8 B r WESTBOUND e e 8 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND B 8 B c i CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 18-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.78 5.78 8.88 5.78 MAJOR LEFTS ED 5.18 5.18 8.88 5.18 } MINOR LEFTS SB 6.88 6.88 8.88 6.88 E4 6. r•. a Y' , CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page -3 POTEN- ACTUAL f FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY I MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c= c - v LOS f p M SH R SH f MINOR STREET 58 LEFT 111 75 72 72 -3B F R16HT 164 517 517 517 353 B MAJOR STREET ED LEFT 37 587 587 587 551 A k C 1 1 f i:.Y: 'U I n CITY OF TIGARO, OREGON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT APPLICATION CITY OF TIGARD, 13125 SW Hall, PO Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 - (503) 639-4171 FOR STAFF USE ONLY CASE NO. ( PA 9/ - f`CO~ OTHER CASE NO'S: ZQ"i yl - ooo6 ' RECEIPT N0. 9 / -.2K- i APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: DATE: 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Application elements submitted: Between S.W. (New) PROPERTY ADDRESS/LOCATION Scholls Ferrv Road and ✓ (A) Application form (1) 135th at proposed Murra extension ✓M Owner's signature/written TAX MAP AND TAX LOT NO. Mao 21E-4B, western Dart of authorization Tae Lot 101 ✓ (C) Applicant's statement 30 er: /~^~jTE SIZE 19.49 acres aooroximately (pre-app check list) f- = 'PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER* Margery Crist ✓ (D) Piling fee -7.2 ADDRESS PHONE Additional information for Compre- CITY ZIP sive Plan Map Amendments/Zone Changes APPLICANT* Albertsons', inc. (Don Buncombe) ----(E) Maps indicating property ADDRESS 17001 N.E. San Rafael PHONE 251-9500 location (pre-app check list) I i CITY Portland. OreQOn ZIP 97290 *When the owner and the applicant are different -addresses-within 250-feet-F1) people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record f (G) Assessor's Map (1) or a leasee in possession with written authorization _(H) Title transfer instrument (1) from the owner or an agent of the owner with written Pw C.,..a-A;fdPAIG rbn2ie Atvn=rel 8/73/1 authorization. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on page two or submit a written authorization with this application. DATE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE: 2. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property FINAL DECISION DEADLINE: request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (if COMP. PLAN/ZONE DESIGNATION: applicable) from residential to General Commercial and a Zone Change from R-25 & R-12 to N.P.O. Number: OR• The applicant requests an amendment to the Planning Commission Approval Date: `r following sections of the Comprehensive Plan or Community Development Code Add new cc ercial cone nrcmmur.ity „ and City Council Approval Date: Ccmmerc _ to 1_ - CDC 15.61 t5 0737P 23Pt. Revd: 5/87 A 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 described in the attached information sheet at the time you submit this application. 5. THE APPLICANT(S).SHALL CERTIFY THAT: A. The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon 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. t 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 % day of C 19 Cl/ SIGNATURES of each owner (eg. husband and wife) of the subject property. ~•J t i ~Iarkery t Sec AClG7~ To~..L rnnT a4. ,0 i}q2. of - 111 I / _ tC~ OGtl ne. Z S f (KSL:pm/0737P) i ; i a _ - "Owners" v~ • Lam' , r o R. Cr st T stee under Margery F. Crist Living Trust Margery' F--Crist Trustee under Margery F. Crist Living Trust William Scott Russell Individually and Trustee for Trust Agreements dated December 26, t. 1978 and December 27, 1978 Frederick Henry R sell Individually and Trustee for Trust Agreements dated May 2, 1986 and May 3, 1985 e R. Weama Individually and Trustee under Trust Agreements dated December 20, 1978 and December 21, 1978; and as Co-Conservator for Gerald Vincent Russell Leiwl Russell /J Co-Conservator for Gerald Vincent I j r r eel a v rg a R. Mare { Indivl.dually and Trustea under Trust Agreements dated DcComber If v4f 18, 1978 and December 19, 1978 s. f- z MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Planning Commissioners i FROM: J~ j► pffer, Development Review Planner i ! DATE: December 9, 1991 SUBJECT: Albertsons/Crist CPA 91-03/ZON 91-08 On November 4, 1991, the Commission continued the hearing for the Albertsons Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change to December 16, 1991 to allow the staff and the property owners to attempt to resolve the issue of exactly how much C-N designated area presently exists on the subject site. Since that time, Mike Robinson, of the City attorneys office, and Garry McMurray, an attorney representing ; the property owners, have both spent a substantial amount of time reviewing the case law and statutes pertinent to determination of a Plan and zoning boundary. There is still disagreement at this time with regard to the current acreage of the portion of the site that is zoned C-N. It appears that this issue will need to be determined by either the City Council or a court. The applicants, Albertsons, have submitted an addendum to the traffic study which is intended to provide alternative findings to those previously submitted in the traffic study. These alternative findings are intended to reflect the existing situation if it is found that there are currently only 5.0 acres of C-N zoning on the subject property. At this point, staff recommends that the Commission should not try to decide the C-N area issue. This issue: can best be determined by the City Council or a court, if necessary, prior to the Council taking final action on the current application. Instead the Commission should focus on the Albertsons Plan/Zone change request: 1. Change the existing Commercial Professional/C-N Plan and zoning designations on the north side of the SW Walnut Street extension to Medium-High Density Residential/ R-25 Plan and zoning designations; 2. Change 8 acres of Medium-High Density Residential/R-25 I Plan and zoning designations to General Commercial/C-G at the southeastern corner of SW Scholls Ferry and the future Walnut extension; and 3. Possibly increasing residential Plan and zoning densities j on either the north side of Walnut or south of the i commercial site to High Density Residential/R-40. ' 4 f The staff recommendation with regard to the Albertsons application remains the same as was presented in the staff report for the November 4th hearing, except with regard to any action on the size ~V of the current C-N zoned area. Staff's recommendation therefore is: 1. Deny the applicants' request for redesignation of a portion of tax lot 100 to the General Commercial Plan designation and C-N zoning district. Deny the applicants' request for redesignation of any portion of tax lot 100 with either the Medium-High Density f Residential or High Density Residential Plan designations and R-25 or R-40 zoning districts. 2. Direct staff to work with the current applicants, the applicants for recently denied or withdrawn applications to commercial designations, all NPOs in the City, and a, other interested parties on the development of new Plan and zoning designations patterned loosely upon the applicants' discussion of a community commercial zone. Attached are the Albertsons traffic study addendum, a memorandum from Cal woolery of NPO V, and a letter from Marlin and Marilyn Hopfer. If you do not still have the November 4th packet for cPA 91-03/ZON ^ 91-06, please let me know and I will have it copied. Y C i j C i F~ 1 rtl~[Nlj LM SWI .t \ LAURMON' T h e C 1 t y O F Z Q T I G A R D :FTi a CPA \ W. ENO MORNI I S.W. 91-0003 32133 t I ! : •,11.x,,, ,ti . t. , , i.W ; 5 4 ,;1.',•. r~~l,;~.,;:;;`;,~:1,1:;,,, y~,,~;,!~j1~. ; IST ; /1~1` 11',1.~ J 6 11. , 1y11~1~,1A~ i 1~11111~11. "11'1' PROPOSAL 1`111 X1•`.'17111' ► p''; ~ 111 3 m • 11`1 •1,1'x' 1 •~11 , ~u,..1,!11• 1•~il'11'7 -INDON 2 T. S.W. I e r e a '!~11`,~~IP,.1111'1~~~~;,,~•,•~,' '1~',.':! ~ -t~I;;:; s.w. sc '~~.A , , 111!1, 1',1! 1 1 ";;::~•,;1 / .1,11 ~1 1 11,F111,~~1,111t•11111111111 ~ EXTENSION - ,~-l '%1 11 1 111 w p11111111``L,Id 1{1`'1''1 1.1!1•.'` \ ~~1~,1;1~,11'11'1!1,1111,1111~1'`il~~j!,'11,)~'1i1T \ ~ - i ~ S.W. HARD I ~ I C r T Q S.W. WALNUT ST. rn c~i •s FER w NORTH . CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY CITY COUNCIL 1. Concerning Case Number(s): CPA 91-0003/ZON 91-0006 2. Name of Owner: Margery Crist Name of Applicant: Albertson's Inc. 3. Address 17001 NE San Rafael City Portland State OR Zip 97230 i 4. Address of Property: East side of SW Scholls Ferry Road th the proposed - Murray Blvd. Extension Tax Map and Lot No(s).: 2S1 4B, tax lot 101 I 5. Request: A request for Comprehensive Plan Map amendment from Medium- High Density Residential and Zone change from R-25 PD l (Residential, 25 unite acre, Planned Development Overlay) f( to the General Commercial Plan designation and C-G zoning for an eight acre arceI in the southeast quadrant of the Scholls Ferry Road Murray Blvd. extension intersection. In _ addition, the applicant requests Plan redesignation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential and a Zone change from C-N Nei hborhood Commercial to R-40 (Residential, 40 unite acre) at the northeast quadrant of 1 the Scholls/Murray intersection on a 6.99 acre parcel; or alternatively to High Densitv Residential and R-40 for 4.5 I{ Nn area presently zoned R-25 to the south of the proposed General Commercial site. 6. Action: Approval as requested Approval with conditions Denial 7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, Posted at City Hall, and mailed to: X The applicant and owner(s) X owners of record within the required distance X The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization , X Affected governmental agencies - B. Final Decision: THE DECISION WAS SIGNED ON , AND - BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON - i The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of conditions can j be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent j with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures. 9. QUESTIONS: If you have any questions, please call the Tigard City Recorder at 639-4171. i i bkm/CPA91-03.BKM -i t!' AFFIDAVIT OF HAILING ' STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) Z, 9/IAMB taw being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: (Please print) That I am a 'n l 2 A,,S, S~LL T~ for The City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: _ That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planning Director ~ Tigard Planning Commission Tigard Hearings Officer _ Tigard City Council i4 A copy (Public Hearing Notice/Notice of Decision) of which is attached (Harked I Exhibit "A") was mailed to each named persons at the addre s shown onV he l attached list marked exhibit "B" on the 't day of 1r- 19 said notice NOTICE OF DECISION as here o attached, was posted on an appropriate bulletin board on the day of 19 and deposited in the United States Hail on the '"Z day of , 19-1 1 postage prepaid. Prepared Notice Posted (For Decision Only) Sub ibed and sworn/affirm to me on the day of ~/~r 19. NOT Y PUBLIC OF OREGO _ H mmission Expires: "S i + Person wh ivered t POST OFFICE Subscribed and sworn/affirm to me on the day of My Commission P .ion Expires: ~ Hy Commission Expires: • bkm/AFFIDAV_BRH ' V s N O T I C E O F P U B L I C H E A R I N G NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT ITS MEETING ON MONDAY, December 16, 1991, AT 7:30 PH, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC ' - CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OREGON, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO.: CPA 91-0003/ZON 91-0006 FILE TITLE: Albertson's Inc. NPO NO: 7 APPLICANT: Albertson's Inc. OWNER: Margery Crist, et al (Don Duncombe) Rt. 1 Box 792 17001 NE San Rafael Beaverton, OR 97007 Portland, OR 97230 REQUEST: COHPREHENSZVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-0003 ZONE CHANGE ZON 91-0006 r ALBERTSON'S INC. (NPO #7) A request for Comprehensive Plan Hap amendment f _ approval from Medium-High Density Residential and a Zone change from R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development overlay) to the General Commercial Plan designation and C-G zoning for an eight acre parcel in the southeast quadrant of the Scholls Ferry Road/Murray Blvd. extension intersection. _ In addition, the applicant requests Plan redesignation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential and a Zone change from C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-40 (Residential, 40 units/acre) at the northeast quadrant of the Scholls/Hurray intersection on a five acre parcel; or alternatively to High Density Residential and R-40 for 4.5 acre area presently zoned R-25 to the south of the proposed General Commercial site. The General Commercial designation allows civic uses, commercial use including retail, financial, medical, and administrative services. The R-40 designation permits single family, duplex, multi-family dwelling units as well a mobile home parks, residential care, and group care facilities. NOTE: If the proposed Plan/zone redesignations by the applicant are not approved as requested, staff will ask the City Council to set the boundaries for the five acre C-N parcel. This five acre designation was approved by the Council in 1986 without firm boundaries. In addition, it is noted that the requested sizes of the various Plan and zoning designations may be varied through the City Council's actions on this proposal. LOCATION: East side of SW Scholls Ferry Road at the proposed Murray Extension (WCTM 2S1 4B, tax lot 101) APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32, 18.56, 18.58, 18.60, & 18.62; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 4.4.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.4, 6.1.1, 6.4.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 12.1.3, 12.2.1, & 12.2.2; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, and 13. (See Map On Reverse Side) THE COMMISSION'S REVIEW IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY - COUNCIL ON THE REQUEST. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL ALSO CONDUCT A HEARING ON THE REQUEST PRIOR TO MAKING A DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL. ' THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES - OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN I- WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT \ THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECIEVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND 1 INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY CONTINUE THE iiii PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE Al ICATION AFTER ISSUANCE OF THI NOTICE, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. UNLESS THERE IS A CONTINUANCE, IF A PARTICIPANT SO REQUESTS BEFORE THE CONCLUSION OF THE INITIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING, THE RECORD SHALL REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE COMMISSION WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE, OR FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE WITH SUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY SO AS TO PROVIDE THE CITY, APPLICANT, OR OTHER PARTIES TO THE APPLICATION WITH A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, WILL PRECLUDE APPEAL ON SAID ISSUE TO THE STATE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA). i - ALL DOCUMENTS, THE APPLICATION, AND EVIDENCE IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TEN CENTS PER PAGE. AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TEN CENTS PER PAGE. FOR FARTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER JERRY OFFER AT 639- - 4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BLVD., OR CONTACT YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION (NPO) # 7 CHAIRPERSON: Cal Woolerv PHONE NUMBER: 639-4297 H L7 \4 LAUR" The City of p ® T I G A R D o~ /1 Yom C ( ENO - P/"~ " - 91-0003 3233 W G 1 °5 W m5~ II 5 ' 4 r fit ~yC; r\ 4" PROPOSAL ' r p y~ 1 1 INDON S.W.~ S i l t A r e a k ~E~1~~`~~ 1 I ~~r EiTENSION c1 7 ~~F td ~Ga1 ",1~+~ t y car \ S.W. NAR i S .W. WALNUT ST. RN ' ~I' ~ tl e 1T1 Ash 2S104BD-01600 2S1048D-0370 J-•-•---•----••---... _ W%LLIAMS, DONNEL N AND BECKHAM, CARVE A S--•PHANIZ S Y-3,R ILYN - % 65 SW PERK 12620 SW 135TH , ARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BC-00100 - 2SI04SC-00200 BOPPHAN, PAUL RUSSELL AND BRIDGWATER, DAVID R AND APLING, ALYNNE H LORENE S 13985 SW PERK 13995 SW FERN ST ,t TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 J 2S104BC-00300 - 2S104BC-00400 LODLIIH, ROBERT S AND LUDLUM, ROBERT S n JO.1NN F JOANN P 14065 SW FERN ST 14065 SW ST TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2SI04BC-00500 2510480-00600 LUDLUM, ROBERT S BOBAN, THOMAS D 14065 SW FERN ST 14115 SW PERK TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD - OR 97223 ~ f1 2S104BC-00700 2S104BC-00800 F ,I CE0, MOON S/SANG Y BOWMAN, MARVIN S DEPT OF VETERANS 14235 SW FERN IRS - TAX SECTION TIGARD OR 97223 13125 SW FERN ST ARD ~ OR 97223 `L,f104BC-00900 2S104BC-01000 DARLENE PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC 14285 SW FERN COMPANY TIGARD OR 97223 121 SW SALMON ATTN:PROPERTY DEPARTMENT PORTLAND OR 97204 f r 2SI04RA-01400 251048A-01500 . P-TL'g:R, BRIAN V AND FATEHI, AHIR H AND CONNZNGia2f-PZZ2L9R, R DIANE CUTTING, CAROL L 13858 SW BINDON CT 13870 SW 82NDON CT _ZGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BA-01600 - 2S104RA-01700 '.i ODE-LL, ROBERT H JR is JOHNSON, KENNETH C & CAROA C I, i 13892 SW HINDON CT 13918 HINDON CT TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 - i 2S104BA-01800 2SI04RA-01900 DAfRON, GORDON L JR AND DRAGA, ROBERT F/CATHLEEN L DE80RAH 13901 SW HINDON CT 13923 SW HZNDON CT TIG~~ OR 97223 - TIGARD OR 97223 4BA-02000 251043A-02100 . MORiSSETT BUILDERS, INC DORSETT, KATHRYN C 1 400 S:: ALLE:i BLVD 13347 SW H1NDOt7 CT BF-WERTO\ OR 97005 TZG??•D OR 97223 •2510490-00200 2S104BO-00201-J CLICKITAT VALLEY BANK CHABAD LUBAVITCH OF OREGON PO BOX 167 14355 SW SCHOLLS FERRY RD - \LDENDALE WA 98620 BEAVERTON OR 97007 `rJ - r 25104AC-00100 2SIOSOO-01200 . BENJFRAN DEVELOPMENT, INC HORSE BROS., INC ` PO BOX 6400 PO BOX 7 501 SE HAWTHORNE BLVD LEBANON OR 97355 III - PORTLAND OR 97228 2S105DO-01300 2S10500-01401 EVANS, ROBERT V CHURCHILL, MARGARET A 12745 HE MORRIS ST RT 1 BOX 405 - PORTLAND OR 97230 BEAVERTON OR 97007 r. 2S104AB-04700 2S104AS-13200 _ BENJFRAN DEVELOP - , INC BEjFX DEVELOP , INC PO BOX 6400 PO 400 j 501 SE 8A RNE BLVD 50A ORNE BLVD FO R OR 97228' PO OR 97228 f L 2S104AB-13300 2S104AB-13400 BENJFRAN D , INC BENJFRAN DEVELOP NT, INC .I PO BOX 6400 PO BOX 6400 BLVD j 501 SE ORNE BLVD 501 SE HA ORNE I R OR 97228 PORT OR 97228 25104AB-13600 2S104AB-13500 D E ANDERSON INC D E ANDSF2SON 9363 SW BVTH-HLSDL HWY 9363 SW 8 -HLSDL HWY SEAV?RTON OR 97005 BEAVER OR 97005 f 2S104BD-00100 2S104BD-00200 JOHANSSON, MARTIN L JOAN JAMIESON, D BRUCE 13535 SW WALNUT RITA E - TIGA_RD OR 97223 13585 SW WALNUT • TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BD-00300 2S104BD-00400 CAGLE, OTIS T RUBY G COOK, HELEN E 13635 SW WALNUT 13735 SW WALNUT TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 i f 2SI04BD-00500 2S104BD-00800 NEWM.AN, JOHN P NORTON, JOHN S AND SHIRLE-Y A KATHLEEN A 12615 SW 136TH CT 13590 SW Wr•1LNUT - - TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 r = 04BD-00900 2SI043D-01500 . SON, RUSSELL A;ID COOK, ELLEN E C RUTH 13735 SH :IUT ST L tip- A I , _ 2S2043a-02400 2S104BA-02500 KLEIN, STZV N A AND BOOTH, DAVID K AND RGAET LYNN MARY PATRICIA i -/D49 SR WILTON AVE 13874 SW CREST CT r" TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 I t. 2S104BA-02600 2S104BA-02700 t - > LAMERS, BILL H AND DEBBIE L PHILLIPS, JOHN P/KRISTI A ' r 13916 SW GRIST CT 13938 SW CREST `I TIGARD OR 97223 TZCARD OR 97223 t 1S1330C-00300 15133CC-00400 CLARK, GEORGE V MOORE, LIZA H ESTATE _ Y1RGD RITE A 9 HOPPER, MARLIN H & MARILYN D 381 02LK LF_A. DR 14190 SW SCHOLLS PERRY RD `r EDGENE OR 97402 TIGARD OR 97223 1S133CD-00203 1S133CD-08600 MODSIDE VILLAGE L79_ PAR` MRSHIP WELTY, PAUL G & KRISTINS H 10260 SW CtEENU RG RD. SUITE 400 13909 SW GRIST CT PORTLAND, OR 97224 TIGARD OR 97223 k IS133CD-08700 1S133CD-08800' 1I MILLER, MATTHEW H AND ILENE R PERRY, RICHARD J & LISA H _ 13887 SW GRIST CT 13865 SW GRIST CT f -j TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 9 j 1S133CD-08900 THOMAS, JERRY M & RaRRngA M :2027 SW WILTON AVE TIGARD OR 97223 i 1 1 a t 1 F i I 1 BOX 411 l.l: iw vrt 7IL~-. ALORA OR 9700 2S105DA-00600 2S104BA-00100 JACKSON, CHRISTOPHER E A:.'D WALTER WEST CORPORATION BEVERLY A % HELDFOND, RUTH D 1 BOX 411 BY GUARDIAN MGMT - ``:.iOHA OR 97007 4380 SW MACADAM SUITS 380 PORTLAND OR 97201 25104BA-00200 2SI04BA-00700 ASZHAN, FRANK E JANIS E COON, MARY ANN R ( i PETERSCHHIDT, STEPHEN J 12098 SW WESTBURY TERRACE FRIDAY, VICKI DIANE TIGARD OR 97223 12130 SW 135TH - TIGARD OR 97223 2SI04BA-00800 2S104BA-00900 GEONETTA, PATRICK AND MCGEHEE, JAMES R SPINUZZI, JULIE PO BOX 25571 12112 SW WESTSQRY PORTLAND OR 97225 TIGARD OR 97223 2SI04RA-01000 - 2S104BA-01100 f POHLMAN, ARTHUR JAMES AND HCGEBI'.E, JAMES R fff - SUTHERLAND, JEANNZE ANN PO BOX 25571 12196 SW WESTURY TERRACE PORTLAND OR 97225 ' TIGARD OR 97223 2S104B8-01200 2S104HA-01300 ~ ?ZSCITELLI, VITO N _ BENNETT, RHONDA H - 12232 SW WESTSURY 12254 SW WESTBURY TERRACE r TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 4p I~. -i304BA-03300 2S104BA-03100 y BARTHOLOMEW, KEVIN L HONG, JOHN & HAE R 12087 SW WESTBIIRY TERRACE 12181 SW WESTBURY TERRACE TICARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BA-03200 ;,(1 S7--PH' RICHARD A/KENDRA J 12169 SS7 WESTBURY TERRACE ?ZGARD OR 97223 I f i ~ r i 1 Fth I i 1 i , y F, 14 20 SW nt D HAVEN D.~i 2SOS SW 1-%7- "I°:: BLVD B EAVERTON OR 97Q OS' EG; OR 9703: t1 2S105DA-00400 SPEZZ_a, BUD C:-,L-;u; is DAVIS, MICHAEL AISD T_ =.I:2:E _ 5970 SW SPRUCE B-AVE_RT0.7 OR 97005 t I ~ SOOL6 220 r NOSiI3nt 3DA22dS MS OL6S 3mmar QNK Z3NHDIx 'SIAYO 9 Nv-.-dta GAB "<ZZ'cdS 007C0-VG90TSZ - - 4£OL6 EO -).-SO ! OL6 220 NOS?3A' g a Ql.'I6 I lv'I S SOS Ea tS A~a1 O.='c YS OZt L TrCARD OR 972( TIGARD OR 97223 ` 2S104HD-00900 - J_.- 2S104BD-01500 BANSON, RUSSELL RAND COOK. HELEN E G RUTH 13735 SW WALNUT ST - 540 SW WALNUT TIGARD OR 97223 11 . ,-•=1'IGARD OR 97223 2S104BA-02300 -02200 2S104HA i DUNN, KEVIN L/CAROL J RICKARD, DAVID A/MARGARET S 12083 SW WILTON AVE 12061 SW WILTON AVE TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97224 - DON DUNC.'OMBE ALBERTSON'S INC. 17001 NE SAN RAFAEL PORTLAND, OR 97230 1 i MARGERY CRIST RT 1 BOX 792 BEAVERTU`I, OR 97007 - a i JOHN SHONKWILER MATT MARCO= 4040 DOUGLAS WAY 14555 SW TEAL LAKE OSWEGO OR 155E BEAVERTON, OR 97007 JOHN SHONKWILER 4040 DOUGLAS WAY PO BOX 1568 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 DICK WOELK ATEP 4040 DOUGLAS WAY LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 f l C- -L : COLERY 12356 S:v 132-D CT TIQ;RD, OR 97223 AFFIDAVIT OF HAILING STATE OF OREGON ) - _ County of Washington ) es. City of Tigard (I ) I• '~CL~Q~IQ 1[~\V ~11~ , being first duly sworn/affirm, on, oath depose and say: (Please print) L( That I am a V\ for - The City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: _ That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planning Director ✓ Tigard Planning Commission Tigard Hearings officer Tigard City Council A copy (Public Hearing Notice/Notice of Decision) of which is attached (Harked Exhibit -A') was mailed to each named persons at thncjdre^ss shown on the attached list marked exhibit "B" on the J ~F day ofr~Ly^i 19 said notice NOTICE OF DECISION as here tq attached, was posted on an appropriate bulletin board on the day of N 19 and deposited in the United States Hail on the IS~ day of 19__Lf__, postage prepaid. ~"Z'IiY LV A 1.L 4 V, Prepared Notice Posted (For Decision Only) Subscribed and sworn/affirm to me on the day of 19 G~ ti NOT PUBLIC OF OREGON s?~` Hy✓ mmission Expires: Person wh delivered to POST OFFICE Subscribed and sworn/affirm to me on the Q day of r~ CJCI.O - ' i i I 9661 'S AVW S38[dX3 NOISSIWW00 AW E19900*ONNOISSIWW00 i j N0o3'!0.OnandAdVION ~i. - 1 S3AVHNNVOf'W NOTARY BLIC OF OREGCN ~V~SlV101j~0 Hy Commi sion Expires: (q9s - bkm/AFFIDAV.BKH 6 L N O T I C E O F P U B L I C H E A R I N G NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT ITS MEETING ON MONDAY, November 4, 1991, AT 7.30 PM, IN THE TOWN HAT-1 OF THE TZGARD CIVIC I CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OREGON, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: fff FILE NO.; CPA 91-0003/ZON 91-0006 FILE TITLE: Albertson's Inc. NPO NO: 7 APPLICANT: Albertson's Inc. OWNER: Margery Crist, et al . (Don Duncombe) Rt. 1 Box 792 j.. 17001 NE San Rafael Beaverton, OR 97007 Portland, OR 97230 _ REQUEST: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-0003 ZONE CHANGE ZON 91-0006 ALBERTSON'S INC. (NPO #7) A request for comprehensive Plan Map amendment - - approval from Medium-High Density Residential and a Zone change from R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development overlay) to the General Commercial Plan designation and C-G zoning for an eight acre parcel in the southeast quadrant of the Scholls Ferry Road/Murray Blvd. extension intersection. In addition, the applicant requests Plan redesignation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential and a Zone change from C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-40 (Residential, 40 units/acre) at the northeast quadrant of the Scholls/Murray intersection on a five acre parcel; or alternatively to High 7 Density Residential and R-40 for 4.5 acre area presently zoned R-25 to the south v of the proposed General Commercial site. The General Commercial designation allows civic uses, commercial use including retail, financial, medical, and administrative services. The R-40 designation permits single family, duplex, multi-family dwelling units as well a mobile home parks, residential care, and group care facilities. NOTE: If the proposed Plan/zone redesignations by the applicant are not approved as requested, staff will ask the City Council to set the boundaries for the five acre C-N parcel. This five acre designation was approved by the Council in 1986 without firm boundaries. In addition, it is noted that the requested sizes of the various Plan and zoning designations may be varied through the City Council's actions on this proposal. LOCATION: East side of SW Scholls Ferry Road at the proposed Murray Extension (WCTM 2S1 4B, tax _ lot 101) APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32, 18.56, 18.58, 18.60, & 18.52; comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 4.4.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.4, 6.1.1, 6.4.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 12.1.3, 12.2.1, & 12.2.2; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, and 13. (See Map On Reverse Side) _ THE COMMISSION'S REVIEW IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE REQUEST. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL ALSO CONDUCT A HEARING ON THE REQUEST PRIOR TO MAKING A DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL. _ THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES . OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED , BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN - WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECIEVE ,•2.._ A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND \J] INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE - _..._.,w.___... INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA AP.-:CABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN- RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE COMMISSION WILL ' BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. 1 i 1 FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE, OR FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE WITH SUFFICIENT ,I SPECIFICITY SO AS TO PROVIDE THE CITY, APPLICANT, OR OTHER PARTIES- TO THE 1 APPLICATION WITH A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, WILL PRECLUDE APPEAL ON SAID ISSUE TO THE STATE LAND USE BOARD OF-APPEALS (LUBA). ALL DOCUMENTS, THE APPLICATION, AND EVIDENCE IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TEN CENTS PER PAGE. AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TEN CENTS PER PAGE. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER JERRY OFFER AT 639- _ - - 4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BLVD., OR CONTACT YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION (NPO) # 7 CHAIRPERSON: Cal Woolery PHONE NUMBER: 639-4297 - b1®/CPA91-03.BKM t E • unu The City of o T I G A R D \ \ ; 'W' ENS _ MORNII CPA \ \ W 91-0003 32 33 ,N atST ~ 5 4 are\1 ! ~~C ~I"h' A1~\4. PROPOSAAL OiA1 1 i y,73 PD1 lt`, "4 \ \ooH s.w.~ 3; 1 Site Area I, ~v~ ~(1~11 Addd~l J.,l v ,4 . S.W. sc 3.wa. i l 1P1S ll 1~, 1`11114-.1 E1LTEHSloN ,kd 11 1 a1,`A1t11ra {11 ~ ~ \ = S.W. HAR p I I Ta j I S.W. WAIHUT 5T. ~ ~ - 1 U pra ~ 90 1T! . uI Ye, .1 l~ 2S104BD-01600 2S104BD 03701 WILLIAMS, DONNEL N AND BECKHAM, GARVE A STEPHANIE S MARILYN 13865 SW FERN 12620 SW 135TH I TIGARD OR 97223 7SCARD OR 97223 f -00200 2S104SC 2S104BC-00100 HOFFMAN, PAUL RUSSELL AND BRIDGWATER, DAVID R AND APLING, ALYNNE H LORENE S 13985 SW PERK 13995 SW FERN ST f TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BC-00300 2S104BC-00400 LUDLUM, ROBERT S AND LUDLUM, ROBERT S JOANH F JOANN F 14065 SW FERN ST 14065 SW ST TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S104SC 2S104BC-00500 -00600 LUDLUM, ROBERT S BOSAN, THOMAS D 14065 SW FERN ST 14115 SW FERN 2IGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BC-00700 25104EC-00800 CEO, MOON S/SANG Y BOWMAN, HARVIN S ~ BY DEPT OF VETERAN'S 14235 SW FERN AFFAIRS - TAX SECTION TIGARD OR 97223 ~ 14125 SW FERN ST TIGARD OR 97223 `104 C-009001048C-OGHONERAL DARLENE PORTLAND ELECTRIC '_4285 SW FERN COMPANY TIGARD OR 97223 121 SW SALMON ATTN:PROPERTY DEPARTMENT PORTLAND OR 97204 2S104BA-01400 2S104BA-01500 PILHER, BRIAN V AND FATEHI, AMIR H AND CUNNINGHAH-PILMER, R DIANE CUTTING, CAROL L 13858 SW HINDON CT 13870 SW HINDON CT :IGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BA-01600 2S104BA-01700 ODELL, ROBERT H JR JOHNSON, KENNETH C & CARLA C 13892 SW HINDON CT 13918 HINDON CT TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 i, i - ' p' 2S104BA-01800 2S104BA-01900 DAMRON, GORDON L JR. AND DRAGA, ROBERT F/CATHLEEN L DZBORAH K 13901 SW HINDON CT _ 13923 SW HINDON CT TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 ` 2S104BA-02000 2S104BA-02100 HERB HORISSETTE BUILDERS, INC DORSETT, KATHRYN C 00 SW ALLEN BLVD 13847 SW HINDON CT VERTON OR 97005 TIGARD OR 97223 i s .i 25104B0-00200 2SI04BO-00201-J -KLICKITAT VALLEY BANK CHABAD LUBAVITCH OF OREGON PO BOX 167 14355 SW SCHOLLS PERRY RD GOLDENDALE WA 98620 BEAVERTON OR 97007 2S104AC-00100 • 2510500-01200 ~t BENJFRAN DEVELOPMENT, INC HORSE BROS., INC PO BOX 6400 PO BOX 7 501 SE HAWTBORN33 BLVD LEBANON OR 97355 PORTLAND OR 97228 2510500-01300 2510500-01401 EVANS, ROBERT V CHURCHILL, MARGARET A 12745 HE MORRIS ST RT 1 BOX 405 PORTLAND OR 97230 BEAVERTON OR 97007 2S104A8 2S104AB-04700 -13200 BENJFRAN D7RNE , INC BENJFRAN DELO, INC PO BOX 640PO BOX 640501 SE HA BLVD 501 SE HA D OR 97228 PORTLAND~ OR 97228 PORTLA i 2S104AB-13300 2S104A8-13400 BENJPRAN D , INC BENJFRAN DEVELOP , INC PO BOX 6400 PO BOX 6400 - 501 SE ORNE BLVD 501 SE HA ORNE BLVD _ OR 97228 PORTLA OR 97228 4AB-13500 2S104AB-13600 ANDERSON INC D E ANDERSON 9363 SW BVTN-"TSDL HWY 9363 SW B -HLSDL HWY BEAVERTON OR 97005 BEAVER OR 97005 2S104BD-00100 2S104BD-00200 JOHANSSON, MARTIN L JOAN JAMIESON, D BRUCE 13535 SW WALNUT RITA E - TZGARD OR 97223 13585 SW WALNUT - TIGARD OR 97223 - 1 2S1043D-00300 2S104BD-00400 CAGLE, OTIS T RUBY G COOK, HELEN E 13635 SW WALNUT 13735 SW WALNUT i TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 f E -i 2S104BD-00500 2S104BD-00800 NEWHFIN, JOHN P NORTON, JOHN S AND SHIRLEY A KATHLEEN A _ 12615 SW 136TH CT 13590 SW WALNUT ~ TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S1048D-01500 2S104BD-00900 - FzITSON, RIISSELL COOK, HELEN E ~JTH 13735 SW NUT ST - - ISJS HCM: S16MALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT i#tffit#f tiff iftttffft44ffifit#}ffttt#ttt}ffff}#t}f}#}}tf#fif#f #f if#Ft 4}ff r ''TERSECTION..OLD SCHOLLS FERRY RD/MUP.RAY BLVD EXTENSION ~'[A TYPE OTHER ANALYST DW 1 DATE.......... 18/11/91 TIME.......... PM PEAK COMMENT....... 2818 TRAFFIC W/O DEVELOPMENT - VOLUMES GEOMETRY ED WB NB SB Ell W8 N8 SB LT 203 143 48 583 : L 12.8 L 12.8 L 11.6 L 12.8 TH 216 568 202 267 : T 12.8 T 12.8 T 12.8 LT 12.8 RT 48 896 114 184 : T 12.8 T 12.0 TR 12.8 T 12.8 RR 16 688 58 158 : R 12.8 R 12.1 (2.8 R 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.1 i 12.1 12.8 12.8 12.1 - - ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (X) (X) Y/N Nm Nh Y/N sin T ED 8.88 2.81 N 8 8 8.98 8 Y 2B.G 3 W8 8.18 2.88 N I 1 8.91 8 Y 28.8 3 NB 8.88 2.88 N 1 8 6.98 8 Y 31.8 3 S8 1.18 2.88 N 8 B 1.98 1 Y 31.8 3 v SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 128.6 ~r PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 0 LT I NB LT X } TH I TH X RT X RT X PD PD WD LT I SB LT X X TH X TH I Y RT X RT I X c,. a PD PD GREEN 15.3 52.1 1.1 9.8 GREEN 12.2 12.4 12.8 8.8 YELLOW 4.8 4.8 8.1 8.8 YELLOW 4.8 1.1 4.1 8.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE OR?. V/C 6/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS Ell L 8.981 1.136 79.7 F 41.9 E ' T 8.168 8.443 13.8 8 R 0.134 1.656 4.7 A f WB L 1.174 8.136 161.9 F 46.6 E T 8.418 1.443 14.9 B k R 1.498 8.443 15.8 C NB L 0.239 1.111 37.2 D 41.9 E TR 8.832 8.108 42.5 E SB L 8.972 8.213 55.9 E 4B.6 E T 8.787 8.212 35.8 D R 8.117 0.212 24.7 C f RSECTION: Delay = 46.8 (sec/veh) VIC = 8.749 LOS = E 1 i } 2S1048A-02400 2s104aA-02500 KLEIN, STEVEN A AND BOOTH, DAVID K AND - MARGARET LYNN MARY PATRICIA - 12049 SW WILTON AVE 13874 SW CREST CT ARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 r'C ` 251048A-02600 25104BA-02700 ~ LAMERS, BILL H AND DEBBIE L PHILLIPS, JOHN F/RRISTZ A 13916 SW CREST CT 13938 SW CRZST TIGARD OR 97223 TIGAAD OR 97223 1S133CC 1S133CC-00300 -00400 CLARK, GEORGE V MOORE, LBLA H ESTATE Y.ARGDERLTE A $ HOPPER, MARLIN 8 & MARILYN D 381 OAR LEAF DR 14190 SW SCSOLLS FERRY RD EUGENE OR 97402 TIGARD OR 97223 1S133CD 1S133CD-00203 -08600 WELTY, PAUL G WOODSIDE VILLAGE LTD. PARTNERSHIP F. KRISTINE H 1 10260 SW GREENBURG RD. SUITE 400 13909 SW W CR CRZST Cr TIGARD OR 97223 4I PORTLAND, OR 97224 t . 'I 1S133CD-08700 1S133CD-08800 r. PERRY, RICHARD J & LISA H HILLER, MATTHEW 8 AND ILBIZB R 13887 SW GRIST CT 13865 SW CRZST CT TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 i { ,3CD-08900 JERRY H & BARBARA H .2027 SW WILTON AVE TIGARD OR 97223 - r. i I f - ` RT I BOX 411 'i'll;Aiw ux 7r[L4 , ALOHA OR 97007 2SIOSDA-00600 2S104HA-00100 JACKSON, CHRISTOPHER E AND WALTER WEST CORPORATION BEVERLY A 8 HELDFOND, RUTH D RT 1 BOY 411 BY GUARDIAN HGMT r-"OHA OR 97007 4380 SW MACADAM SUITE 380 PORTLAND OR 97201 2S104BA-00200 2S104BA-00700 ASZMAN, FRANK E JANIS E COON, MARY ANN R 3 PETERSCHHIDT, STEPHEN J 12098 SW WESTBURY TERRACE FRIDAY, VICKI DIANE TIGARD OR 97223 12130 SW 135TH TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BA-00800 2S104RA-00900 GEONETTA, PATRICK AND HCGEHES, JAMES R SPINUZZI, JULIE PO BOX 25571 12112 SW WESTBURY PORTLAND OR 97225 TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BA-01000 2S104BA-01100 POHLMAN, ARTHUR JAMES AND MCGEHEE, JAMES R SUTHERLAND, JEANNIE ANN PO BOX 25571 12196 SW WESTURY TERRACE PORTLAND OR 97225 TIGARD OR 97223 2SI048A-01200 2S104BA-01300 1 PISCITELLI, VITO N BENNETT, RHONDA H 12232 SW WESTBURY 12254 SW WESTBURY TERRACE TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 I~ 04RA-03300 2S104BA-03100 BARTHOLOMEW, KEVIN L HONG, JOHN & MAE R 12087 SW WESTBURY TERRACE 12181 SW WESTBURY TERRACE TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 - 2S104BA-03200 STEPH, RICHARD A/KENDRA J r 12169 SW WESTBURY TERRACE 7IGARD OR 97223 - i j TIGARD OR 97223 TIGA RD OR 97223 U 2S104HD-00900 2S104BD-01500 HANSON, RUSSELL R AND COOK, HELEN E G RUTH 13735 SW WALNUT ST l 13540 SW WALNUT TIGARD OR 97223 GARD OR 97223 2SI04BA-02300 DUNN, 2SI048A-02200 DIINN, KEVIN L/CAROL J RICKARD, DAVID A/HARGARET S 12063 SW WILTON AVE 12061 SW WILTON AVE TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97224 DON DUNCOMBE ALBERTSON'S INC. 17001 NE SAN RAEAEL PORTLAND, OR 97230 _ j MARGERY CRIST RT 1 BOX 792 BEAVERTON, OR 97007 4' If t j _ MATT MARCOTT 14555 SW TEAL BEAVERTON, OR 97007 JOHN W. SPONKWILER, P_C= 5335 SW MEDOWS SUITE 251 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 c i P CAL WOOLERY k 12356 SW 132ND CT TIGARD, OR 97223 `r 1 14220 SW RED RAVEN DR 2808 SW LA° 'tIZW BLVD • BEAVERTON OR 970' LAKE OSWEG. OR 97034 i ~ 25105DA-00400 SPEZZA, BUD CARMAN % DAVIS, MICHAEL AND JEANNE 70 SW SPRUCE VSRTON OR 97005 { 5 ~ f s- 1 - S: Sa a k. F l 2S104BD-01600 2S104BD-037C WILLIAMS, DONNEL N AND BECKHAM, GARVE A STEPHANIE S MARILYN 13865 SW FERN 12620 SW 135TH .WARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S-304BC-00100 2S104BC-00200 HOFFMAN, PAUL RUSSELL AND BRIDGWATER, DAVID R AND APLING, ALYNNE M LORENE S 13985 SW FERN 13995 SW FERN ST TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BC 2S104HC-00300 -00400 LUDLUM, ROBERT S AND LUDLUM, ROBERT S JOANN F JOANN F 14065 SW FERN ST 14065 SW FERN ST TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BC-00500 2S104BC-00600 LUDLUM, ROBERT S BOHAN, THOMAS D 14065 SW FERN ST 14115 SW FERN TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 i i 2S104BC-00700 2S104BC-00800 CHO, MOON S/SANG Y BOWMAN, MARVIN S BY DEPT OF VETERAN'S 14235 SW FERN AFFAIRS - TAX SECTION TIGARD OR 97223 14125 SW FERN ST TIGARD OR 97223 ~J04BC-00900 2S104BC-01000 R, DARLENE PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC 14285 SW FERN COMPANY F TIGARD OR 97223 121 SW SALMON ATTN:PROPERTY DEPARTMENT PORTLAND OR 97204 2S104BA-01400 2S104BA-01500 - PILMER, BRIAN V AND FATEHI, AMIR M AND I . CUNNINGHAM-PILMER, R DIANE CUTTING, CAROL L 13858 SW HINDON CT 13870 SW HINDON CT f TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 tl 2S104BA-01600 2S104BA-01700 ODELL, ROBERT M JR JOHNSON, KENNETH C & CARLA C 1 13892 SW HINDON CT 13918 HINDON CT TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BA-01800 251048A-01900 DAMRON, GORDON L JR AND DRAGA, ROBERT F/CATHLEEN L DEBORAH K 13901 SW HINDON CT 13923 SW HINDON CT TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BA-02000 2S104BA-02100 f HERB MORISSETTE BUILDERS, INC DORSETT, KATHRYN C --%100 SW ALLEN BLVD 13847 SW HINDON CT ~r VERTON OR 97005 TIGARD OR 97223 i Lam. 12949 SW WALNUT RT 1 BOX 792 TIGARD OR 97223 BEAVERTON 97007 2S104BO-00200 2S104BO-00201 CKITAT VALLEY BANK CHABAD LUBAVITCH OF OREGON j SOX 167 14355 SW SCHOLLS FERRY RD GOLDENDALE WA 98620 BEAVERTON OR 97007 2S104AC-00100 2510500-01200 BENJFRAN DEVELOPMENT, INC HORSE BROS., INC PO BOX 6400 PO BOX 7 501 SE HAWTHORNE BLVD LEBANON OR 97355 PORTLAND OR 97228 ;a 2510500-01300 2510500-01401 _ EVANS, ROBERT V CHURCHILL, MARGARET A 12745 NE MORRIS ST RT 1 BOX 405 PORTLAND OR 97230 BEAVERTON OR 97007 2S104AB-04700 2S104AB-13200 BENJFRAN DEVELOPMENT, INC BENJFRAN DEVELOPMENT, INC PO BOX 6400 PO BOX 6400 501 SE HAWTHORNE BLVD 501 SE HAWTHORNE BLVD PORTLAND OR 97228 PORTLAND OR 97228 2SI04AB-13300 2S104AB-13400 BENJFRAN DEVELOPMENT, INC BENJFRAN DEVELOPMENT INC PO BOX 6400 PO BOX 6400 SE HAWTHORNE BLVD 501 SE HAWTHORNE BLVD S..kTLAND OR 97228 PORTLAND OR 97228 ' i 2S104AB-13500 2S104AB-13600 D E ANDERSON INC D E ANDERSON INC 9363 SW BVTN-HLSDL HWY 9363 SW BVTN-HLSDL HWY BEAVERTON OR 97005 BEAVERTON OR 97005 2S104BD-00100 2S104BD-00200 JOHANSSON, MARTIN L JOAN JAMIESON, D BRUCE 13535 SW WALNUT RITA E 1 TIGARD OR 97223 13585 SW WALNUT TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BD-00300 2S104BD-00400 CAGLE, OTIS T RUBY G COOK, HELEN E ,..,.j 13635 SW WALNUT 13735 SW WALNUT TIGARD OR 97223 TZGARD OR 97223 t 2S104BD-00500 2S104BD-00800 NEWMAN, JOHN P NORTON, JOHN S AND 1 - SHIRLEY A KATHLEEN A 12615 SW 136TH CT 13590 SW WALNUT TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 t 25104BD-00900 2S104BD-01500 HANSON, RUSSELL R AND COOK, HELEN E G RUTH 13735 SW WALNUT ST ---TM 12083 SW WILTON AVE 12061 SW WIL--N AVE TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 1224 So: 2S104BA-02400 2S104BA-02500 I ' SIN, STEVEN A AND BOOTH, DAVID R AP ID GARET LYNN MARY PATRICIA 12049 SW WILTON AVE 13874 SW CREST CT TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S1048A-02600 2S104BA-02700 LAMERS, BILL M AND DEBBIE L PHILLIPS, JOHN F/KRISTI A 13916 SW CRIST CT 13938 SW CRIST TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1S133CC-00300 1S133CC-00400 CLARK, GEORGE V MOORE, LELA H ESTATE MARGUERITE A % HOPFER, MARLIN H & MARILYN D 381 OAK LEAF DR 14190 SW SCHOLLS FERRY RD EUGENE OR 97402 TIGARD OR 97223 r 1S133CD-00203 1S133CD-08600 WELTY, PAUL G & KRISTINE M 13909 SW CRIST CT TIGARD OR 97223 - 1S133CD-08700 1S133CD-08800 MILLER, MATTHEW H AND ILENE R PERRY, RICHARD J & LISA M 4 13887 SW CRIST CT 13865 SW CRIST CT (BARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1S133CD-08900 THOMAS, JERRY M & BARBARA M 12027 SW WILTON AVE TIGARD OR 97223 `j i t r 1 L~ ; d-Z r ELAINE E _ _ .,.,..,....,...r~_.~....-i-.._ KATHLEEN A 12660 SW 136TH CT 13590 SW WAL TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 I t 25104BD-00900 25104BD-01500 ",SON, RUSSELL R AND COOK, HELEN E UTH 13735 SW WALNUT ST 13540 SW WALNUT TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 ,i 02300 2SI04BA 2SI048A-02200 - DUNN, KEVIN L/CAROL J RICKARD, DAVID A/MARGARET S 12063 SW WILTON AVE 12061 SW WILTON AVE TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97224 aIi t. I i C h I - ' f 1 1 4 I t. i s 14705 SW SUNP'SE LANE BEVERLY A TIGARD OR 97224 RT 1 BOX 411 ALOHA OR 97007 2S104HA-00100 2S105DA-00600 WALTER WEST CORPORATION JACKSON, CHRISTOPHER E AND g MELDFOND, RUTH D 'MY A BY GUARDIAN MGHT RT 1 BOX 411 4380 SW MACADAM SUITE 380 ALOHA OR 97007 PORTLAND OR 97201 i 2S104BA-00700 2S104BA-00200 ASZMAN, FRANK E JANIS E COON, MARY ANN R $ PETERSCHMZDT, STEPHEN J 12098 SW WESTBURY TERRACE TIGARD OR 97223 FRIDAY, VICKI DIANE 12130 SW 135TH TIGARD OR 97223 2S104HA-00900 2S1048A-00800 1 GEONETTA, PATRICK AND MCGEHEE, JAMES R SPINUZZI, JULIE PO BOX 25571 12112 SW WESTBURY PORTLAND OR 97225 TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BA-01100 251048A-01000 POHLMAN, ARTHUR JAMES AND MCGEHEE, JAMES R SUTHERLAND JEANNIE ANN PO SOX 25571 12196 SW WESTURY TERRACE PORTLAND OR 97225 TIGARD OR 97223 01300 2S104BA 2S104BA-01200 - BENNETT, RHONDA M PISCITELLI, VITO N 12232 SW WESTHURY 12254 SW WESTBURY TERRACE p SGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S104HA-03300 2S104BA-03100 BARTHOLOMEW, KEVIN L HONG, JOHN & MAE R 12087 SW WESTBURY TERRACE 12181 SW WESTHURY TERRACE T IGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2S104BA-03200 STEPH, RICHARD A/KENDRA J 12169 SW WESTBURY TERRACE TIGARD OR 97223 - V 4'. TY CATHERINE M ROBERTA W 0 14220 SW RED HAVEN DR 2808 SW LAREt d BLVD BEAVERTON OR 97005 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 1 2S105DA-00400 F~ZZA, HUD CARMAN i; AVIS, MICHAEL AND JEANNE 5970 SW SPRUCE ] BEAVERTON OR 97005 i - I t ' i 1 "i ,n I. l _ I , ,^~*!'^'c'SS "F Cd x".Y^~.t r,. .,t, . ~Il, t STT vv Irl SECTION( ) ~SHINGTON C~JNTY OREGON ° 40 23 w tz9.47 % SCALE I°= 1001 :r I 6.13AC. 1 t C.S. 12493 W i G f. 2 I _ 1/4 CDR. N0 °38'5E 255 DR. _ - FROM TXE SE C CF SEC. S By D.P.P. FROM C•5. 12950 . N 89° 24 0! ~ E o - S B9° 24. 03• w 650.58 a SEE MAP N 2S 15 700 N 0°53 E 1171.5 AND H B9°!T''N 428.28 AHD 53.04Ac• N D° 57'E 1249.20 FEET C.S. 12493 Y FROM THE SE CDR. OF SEC. 5 By DEED o - 2 PROPERTT LINE By DEED ` 5 89_40 FD I/2• IF T2B•OS By C. S. 12943 B C.5.12950 WEST 400 B.e7Ac. m ti 51-84 1 f r5 p:-aw..e~^\r T^w..~+.!n .w~ w.n q- i Y Rim !1 l 1 t _ ' wy W4.e9,« a- u...s..,._.......-.... .......~...e J.~ ..w..w...u~v.....~..._........ter►~...~..+~w++r+".i'i'°L~ u., a w... a ..M M w..-.n.•.s. a. .r-. C.S. 7919 if O y I W P 3 0 z i N 89° 49' W 426,26 PND ° Si E 1762.15 FROM S E COR• 976/519 No THE SE COR. OF SEC, 5 BY OEED 6 65.7919 844.28 BY DEED - SE COR, 976/519 EAST - BY C.S. 852 l5 67° IS' 42"E 644.26 p 424,25 c S 69° 54' 40" E CS. 19443 g R 500 , N e9° 54' 40" w 244.53 - 4 26 p•75AC. 94 i J i i. u i N I ~ A SEE MAP W 2S I 5DD o NO°58 55"E E z 1400 FROM THE I SE COR. SEC, 5~ N 69° 21' 05"w 179 I - _ may"'- ~ p _ 7 Flt d F`1.~+ i I~ I 32 o\ 32 32 I ° 20' CANCELLED TAX LOTS } - - I 1/4 CORNER 001,805,3501,2900, _ 100, 305,3004,2602, T ~ SSOI, 3302,!07, 2001 ~ - - 8'304 m /.97at. 2260 14 00,1402,1403,1501.1503. 4 2400,2401,2500,2501,2600, 2603 2604,2700,2800,2001, 0 1.91.2901. 'f 1 252 200 ~A ''F• 290!,3000,5001,3002, 5003, ,i03 69.01 At. 9 'r.I 3005, 3100,3101 ,3102,3103, /I AC S104,3105,l200,3201, 5100, °o v EA9EMENt, •t 5400,5401,5402,3500,3502, ni $ 01 30/163 O 3600,5601,5602,5603, O 3704,5700,5701,3702, 301 ° 3703,2202.2203.1001. 2671 o LET 42.68 LOT 42.60 20' I I l ° 34 1I16l.60 I 330; 1 I 1200 453.75' 3.26At. 0 o E n , m ry~ b h ~ 51-78 I ° N09°39'E m - SEE MAP 440' 540' 377.3' 375.3' = soa 1100 I 1 Isoa ; 10.24 Aa 10. 73AC. 1 .4 13a +s. Ac. W - 2S 1 48 4, LV 5b~ j ./O At. °1 n n l f• 0 O C r m m N 1 T ,.I Iw y o 1500 apB39f a2. < a SB9° 35'M' °°T" 0r S6At. a43z 7 10332 25'•N x 1 IIOI 214.32 1401 - " 00 A: 1. 34AC ~o34'E Ap06 (,Be m I m F z .r, _on e ° m ° 5 a 5 1600 a b 1502 n SEt 2 1T 9. IJ Ac. c I./e A'. A Z 06 1700 0 n C) A20sE. 4 M A 9 4, - 40+0 7 583°aDN 5°C t n l 049 10 CL 442? 1600h m w _I CC aM0!`C reAt. o = 355.9, 1900 N W e1 Ci N N 2000 7B?dt. r nl I-I ' _ 0 3.67dr p •m „ A IW; N r CENTER n I1D N =~C; =IG11 _ OF SEC - n . I0 - 1/4 Co 1 : m m g• n 100 I^.S.N•.12950 0 y „a , n m I m SEE MAP 1 S' r+ •e*rrear++m.n O / 7 C I A rrl m - ;~F ~r}c v av •~t+:ur.ev.pw4rR~+rrn.!:=a2. n>.1~-~r•r'~^`.•~,•' nw,.w}-..w F i, l.. vn.A`•.Mn.ma -.cF..•..-nr., ice,...,. ~r ....~r.r.r~ ♦w i- •+,v +r u.w.w .v Iw -..`...+.r..... ~w-•. Z M~.u+a~- ~v . rO zs m Io S d 6nc'Jd ses°wt • 0 2 19° 9 I ~1 . ~ 2001 „y h1'~ ` I 589°337' 589; 12T[ S 88 ° 19 - 204 IWN ` w 3 a SEE MAP 2S 1 4 SEE MAP 2S 15DB o 0 i i ? w z SEE MAP •Ll 2S 15DD J W 2 2 FOR ASSESSMENT SEE MAP GO 2S 15DC PURPOSES ONLY DO NOT RELY ON FOR ANY OTHER USE +KER LANE 4 /4 COP. g ioo' 9 i S EE MAP SEE MAP 2S 1 g I 23-m 2S 1 BAB i j ~2S" k 4 IVG i/4t IVYV 1/'t +Gl. I IUIV 'Lt I GJ K I V►I Vn t WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON f SCALE I°= IOOI ' z T1 SEE MAP u IS I 33CD SECTION 33 TIS RIW 1 _ SECTION 4 T2S RIW L 66.23 C'R`SST CT. 90 90 „2700 CjW. Rin 'I, z 2800 3600 0 108 1 240015~ LU ° 117 125 105 2600 2500. 93 2900 3500 h 0 b 118 124 n ei 107 a J of2300~ a~ 106 104 ° 61.46 SEE MAP e7•13 9D{O ° 3000 3400 2S I 4B e1.19 2000 2200 Z 119 123 0 1900 _9U 100 a 101 103 0 60 906 93 0 J 3100 " ' 3200 " 33pA 0162 36.96 2100 . 120 aI 1800 3ry '9~ 1 102 n o° * Q,♦ N? i 99 •{('J R. SIG, 6 ,,dry 16,JP 43.66 60 12.16 ON ry ° SSW HIND \ rp N}3 °cr. s.w .0 50,61 i ggOc, 1600 '1500 1400p^ ' 30 rya 9 39 60 z 9// z o<_ 95 130Q 120 z3 I~~197 r~ ` 9r~ a n 4 93 a J\~ 8097.3 0 13.38 9ia ry0 j -^1 8.665 1611 1711 SO 60 70 S.W. J MURRAYN66~2303•W 124.3, BUUL SEE MAP 2S I 4B 51-85 L~ Fii % . 50 - 35 2O 100.01 NBB°25.03"W 480 /I 30 84 $ ~ z ~.N g I . ~ v 90.05 4.70 C. R 400 0 85 o z ° 90 ° 500 b 86 ° Q 600 e 87~° V„ ti b . ° (C.S. NO. 21,466) a SEE MAP J C in 700 : 2S I 4A8 W / ~U in O b + b % O C (n 30 M Liu 1e00 89 ° ~ °zs•os'w g Iso B 32 .200 f i C. 0 t... } p 150 'S P000 ~r - J b e J Ob h y0 1 93.61 26.18 !e 588°25.03"E HBO v~ V'A`R DN.53^ 1 ,0 F L 1/4 NE 1/4 SECTION: vYV 10' W SEE MAP = !WASHINGTON COurl' 2S 14A8 3SCALE I IB 25° (A Zcr DO goo' Zp 11 Q 100 s'Ozs' ioo N ~ 22.B5AC. H r a (CS. 22,729) ( . f 'M n ~ I 51-85 JOB r. 100 0. N O T _ ' rCR ~ (23~ 93q~N ate, ~40• W R. 533, Ip rR SEE MAP '~B•3c tf J 2S I 4BD 200 2.12 AC. 300 } 1 .52 AC. " . i. + P a T2S R I W W.M. 2Sy. 1:.. 4AC; `-!TY OREGON W IOU CANCELLED TAX TATS NMW 1200, 98.67 210 .45 5d< 9.52 i 78 ,64 '4 - i p T d V N p r NN~O. ONt0, E z } xxP i 4 X W O p~ - N O n ep ^j i S iS + ~ ,1St SEE MAP 2S 1 4AD i 5 87p 29' 44" E 521.08 T STREETo ° 267' 90 137, 40' 1 120 I 614 124) 7 w 1300 1 1 zo 1400 .24Ac ml .46 AC I 180AOC. r m W ! S57p29'44"E 122.i^ -1 I Q 1900 X03 r ~ R' 325 676?~I Ni) ZOO po P 144~~. Wi ~\1 I m 11300 z 145 Ld SEE MAP > IS 1 33CC Q 11400 3 (C.S. 21,399) 146 11500 e m 147~e m ~ m n 11600 o s 148 e r ' 11700 0 149Z - m 1 O 11800 % J 150~e + 1 . 11900 ° f 151 i-.. 90 - o, 12000 tibe 152 °N I Y 090° 1210 ~ b 1 153 bL/ f P b i 9?•e6 ~ 012200 a 154 9'n a 20.3 41.70 ~7i9y u1 9000 ao 13 m - Nes°2T'16~E 58 1°1.22 .+i 67.79 65.60 II 202 37 8700 tl 8800 8900 R 50 n~860110 : III a 112 e ~ I 0 10-4 S3 j6 J630 41690 ` :N.69•~' - - 6B. ry 73.?6 8:225 ' R•so CFti ST CT. SW• ' C y0 I 2~ 30.73 3700 • Lr S hS ` 5[ 5< 52 52• d 52 V~52/ b 52 j S / `rt 35 ~2S.W. ASHBURY LANES 85.02 / f I 1y .s 11 r6 a, R 3800 / I 72.96 62.01 ~'Sy yF• •p• 41.99 52' 52' 52 52 42.01 x06000) m 2500 P 50' 14700 4600 4500 4400 4300 v` ~R'~• 36 / _ 23 N N 42~ SO' X9.13 100' ^ 140 a 99' a _ / 9° ^ 2400 m 45 a 44 43 42 41 in 40 a (L 3900 / t - - , p 107007 6 22 6 O ^ 10o0 ^ 11 01 139 59' 59' Q 4000 ~2d _ 2300 h 4800 4900 5000 5100 5200 5300 J 38 X^ / j 10600 ° 21 ° P 100' _ / I 138 P ^ ^ P 46 ° 47 48 49 50 a 51 ^ g 4100 q~ n~2200 n Z C6 q< A \6 39 10500 ° ^ 20 O ?y, e` 42.01 52' S2 52' Sz' 41.99 63' 137 31^ s `2100 - ° S.W. 9nFEtRtNG ^yb 9LANEb~ 6 19 o z 52 52 52 52 42.01 166.9 qb'`q< 63 o'I0 - 10400 w .F5 ^ 136 2000 r 5800 5700 5600 5500N 5400 5o a 3pp yN / _ Q 18 56 55 54 53 52 r loo 31 \ f 10300 ^ 1900 ~ IM m r r1 r >m r o 400 g 135.1^ O 17 ° 59' 52' 52' S9 ~j 2 /n 53' IIO' 3.05 L .,9.01 100.46 /m I' . 00 10200 V 1800 -6000 ° 6100 62N 6300 6400 0 ,p 0 500 po~ V n 134 ^ n 916 n Uj 56 59 60 61 62 ~v G~O 0 ry 3 ~ V 1700 .20° 50 r~v : 600 a 1033 ^ 15 : ~`sss 42.01 5z' 52' 2A a,1zs J n <i 90 LI^ ^ 65.36 S.W. 0 700 4 ° ~ Q 1600 JN R: AOgO 800 1, 5 & INITIAL PT. 010000 4e.73 51 51 3430 R 14 rl'c, A2.9~B 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 , 3 es 33' OF 132~~ 6 s3S' 1500 1400„ R o 6, a 33 9900 13 12 II a IO N 9 $ 8 7 ss9 6 7500 7600 131 o N °22 2D" w 0 74 OF e w.3~16.31 o' S1' 61' 1 ' 7400 73 - of a 9800 32 52.40 52.40 52.40 52.40 5 .40 52.40 52.40 37.20 b 6y 72 ~~O O / a 6500 6600 6700 6800S e6° 22'2e w 7300 309 .96 9700 7000 7100 7200 / c 130 a 6900 0 71 ~y9 / S.W. M a 129 a d 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 °0 70 ~ c 63 _ I OR1VEsd 0 HILL I 49.52 .B, 6. 1996 St v 9" \l \J A 17.63 DS\ R. 6D 27. 7700 04 P / J,- A 40 32.31 .4 520 52.40 72.40 52.40 62.40 52.40 52.21 1 P.1y ry _ r 6 40 "9 S.W. MORNING H~ v e 75 OF <j 3246 sel. B• 7~' ,5}. J' .i n~ / 9100 9,g.c) 52.11 7 58.81 5.-44 60 9 69?•8500 8400 8300 8200 8100 8000 7900 To' 01 I ' ° 114 128 p• tiN o v m m o 7 / 90 6999 + 3m nN )8 3 6 \~1° 82 g 81 y m 78 'c 77 e 6 ^ @~ q 9200 a 9500 N 08° 25.3"w INITIAL iVINT 115 0 127 p~.+ 7 7 ' 70' : I 4' 96.7{ Y 9 R 6637 90.52 hS W y 336 a / 1/4 COP NEP " - J 0 9300 9400 T / . , 116 126 6.75 / 90 90 - SEE MAP 4 1 2S I 48A NW 1/4 NE 1/4 SECTION 4 T2; WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGC 1 SCALE I"= 100' / SEE MAP IS I 33DC N Be°3i0' SS" w 30 100 201 m 2.66 AC. 1/4 RNER 3zo 200 r w LLJ es 0;, 900 I- 8 300 ° Z W '~JJ~~ J'90 qv@5 2; 60 H W ^ 1 1, : A 1 1 Jr I 1 J 9 0 400 39.63 y Yd n„ n 15 0~ e u C Q m e 5,5 to 0 500 , 1 m 800 ° SEE MAP zn i se.SC s, 1 II titi s i 2S I 48A 1001 r-JJ! ! m m 14 3a h a N0 @d `J 75 700 16 °2 a9.97 600 ° ° ti , 13 n e - m na s.w ° c• 12 0. 7el.ia+ - n h,0. qN ~ - m ~ " 1100 e0. m~a F 210 N C 6a3 3s x ee3 ao' s5" w 17 , ~'y~MN E ypl~0 a2.7g ~.z89 J Q \ 1J 96 ~lO .L► .D~ 26.2 / 55' 142' 0~„` • 5 65.09 2• e.~ 1200 29,o ~r o i. c / 8400 n NITIAI►~1NT 90 / 50,7 A?"'o s / 113 tr] o ~00 3700 / 1300 H 5961 / Nz' ,16 3600 18 n 1400 Iz.7 IV" 8500 O 71 n 70 N s? , / 19 20 0 1500 a~'n nes: W n ZI V m m~ 6 / n 114 z 69 @ 6 m z ass 3500 77017 0z.. m u, 170 / W laz' o •>@g 68 m 3400 ° W n I 2: / n8600 Z D= S.W J, 3300 7 / R 6 s7 J \67 m m 3200 3100 7 = Ilaz' -10 4 e u SCQ ~0 ~ 66 - 65 0 a 1~ 16202 / 28700 TRACT'S TT q.@7J,0ae J \ 64 N v_ / b 3001 ti~e~ @ S 5o.q / R~ ' 65 / m 116 w eo Llg a5pz :J = 6 ...i / 144 N 'F - K i _ --_-..r . ~ 0 3900 _ _ • 40 _ _ . ~~lDl' _ .7 ~ ~s?,'_ ~99n; 8800 U 72 7 3 4100 ° C Y DRi l/c a 0 9 R / n 1 ° H y. )384 C zo'/`. R ee W N °~a e..wP r~ 74 4200 so q r/ ,I 2800 sP ysp 7 ~0 4 75 I° 4300 62 In 4700 a l\I Jr 76 ` = - i. Pn 2.69ae• 62 ! N 7702900 t 40' a°)w 9 17 63 I m IIT .3 3 N 11200 k° 50. 6s \ ° ; 141 103' n 10750 N n 11100 e 140 ° j m 11300 a m h 04.33 142 j i SEE MAP 11000 10! 2S I 42 05.50 2 m 139 e N W 1NIT94L P 11400 ? NWI !512900 9 0 143 T.9 102.02 12.32157 No N R., aO 10900 K 105.56 SR. BO _ I S 0 O n 13000 7.39 N ?g q" 77.76 94.22 ryb 138 a n s 158 -.TCILANp S 30 75' 91330\ J -Sw~ 92.80 - 50 7 9 x W 5T.16 116 B7.z! d 0' ' E. 2 J 95.37 70.05 00e m 10800 - / 13400 13300 1300 / C(} I I 13100 "1h q"'V12800 11500 5.41 m~ m / n1 o`~N r~161 o J61 C O 00 u_ W 137 a 16- - / 159 fy 0 0 144 145 N 1---II~n • 156 ± A . ~ hPph1 , J I I T L ~h 50' r ?2 p S5. 5. / 48' 75' e0 J 91.96 q'd y 70.05 70.42 •b~ ,A' r - / 07 69.79 100.93 •'OS•W HART < -264 109.32 " STREET ,~s► 11700 ~ 1- ab ~y .12700 / q 61 $ 155 3146 1•~'q~ 59.46 2 i of 12000 / 'p x..,13500 P' t ti q's•136084.5 13700 7 e'o C u ,o0.s1 n ° 100.07 a• _ , _ 149 163 ~W _ m o•ol o 9-11800 O 64 165 n 12600 - H / n o~MQ ORee°ioo'W~\~ J~ 154 nZ 147 100' I i' TR. DD 100' • Tq, CC °n n o' 100' 3 11900 ' n 148 r 50, 40' n TRAOT'Y 100' SEE MAP C i, . ,.t'LU.:%wnv...r_.,w....~_+.._.~.__.._._.~._.-_... . n. 1. _ _.i _..aw.l_.E. .L LLL -EE MAP t I 32 N M a r+ ~ Z O w H 3 p 300 a //.OO AC. i 0 I 4 4 L ' - t 1 1 32 33 ` f ~ , 5 4 SEt 2Sr VI/ C ~ a 3 ~f ! i 1 5 8 Zoo 22 AC. } a7 SEE MAF IS I 33Cf f i ~ s ti o r ' 3 r I f e o i WEST 200 flr - - f ~e 334.44 y ` S B9° 42' E - 500 2.00 AC. ` P } P o 51410 N CO 35 EASEMENT 601/497 200, S 69° 42' E 472.99 1 J 400 4.64 AC. t 1 -T i F FOR ASSESSMU ONi i DO NOT RELY OTHER{ r t41 , r ~ i MAP 4 ` 1 4 B 3 BEA\ T J L ~R. dw, L SE 1/4 NW 1/4 SEC ; WASHINGTCJ sc/l 1600 400 300 200 1 89° c; v rJ _ 4 - t3 S! IBC S.1h! WALNU' 500 800 1500 of .4 - 3.r ' V I+ _ s_ 8i 3 (D c ` 4 6 5 4 - Pn P _ 126 5. I '1 I 700 600 1300 5!r84 ~ J I [14 0G i 10 i i ~ S.1" • FERN 17C, • 3..' COI: S IE_ 19".. X0;1- £10.• ~ IT y 4 I FiON 4 T2S R I W W.M. ' - jN COUNTY OREGON LE I"= 100' Y 1 '-E MAP i I 4B 169 D4 ' E INITIAL i j' loo Pou;T °I .46 A.:. 6 i - r~ I \ j 166 S- ir STREET~; 900 Y Ld s. i 7 I 3706 FOF ,4SSESSA'EI W L SEE MAP Ot! Y ii Q 0 2S 14AC DD NOT RELY C t- F El?, Y, ocx t< OTHER ili 5: c j I 1000 1° 2 I I 360 0 J3 C• ~A/ 3500 - r ~ - - ~ 38D0 I ~`4 1200: '8 1 I 1100 I- 01 T~ J J II 1: 3400 I 3900 6 7 `6 t ~ 32 STREET IF F ~ L40: s 330C' 1 k I , 33 „ I j L~ I 1 I t I r^/ I 151-85 F'V 1/4 NW 1/4 SECTION 4 T2 WASHINGTON COUNTY OREG(. SCALE I"= 1001 t SEE MAP 2S I 48 7 A77 100 150.06, 170.01 1700" 170.01 170.01, - 1000 900 800 700 s e~° w' w qq L 90 AC 4.94 AC. Z /3 AC 65 AC. S } - G ~ z m II _O 12 Q 15 14 nl 13 JN 206 i y0 I I ti~ 03~ +-55 G ~ I e 1 1 q°~ , I y=jm „I N N 1 230 03 170 65 7d 106 4(1 I i a I I I S.V11. lsoo .94 AC. ;;I r 10a '10, 100 50' SO 3005 170 66 70 ' 1500 ~ -I 200 02' 23063 1300 1400 .93 AC.. 51-8 j 104 AC. 2.50 Ac e O 20 d I - 1700 x -109 A(. 1 77* a - ' R I W W.M. 2S I 4~~ DN f i . >lAlAlJIn ir71 rrrrivruiiriiii iivi inriu ..•.rrnrr rouoiioii ruvi r uiriirriivirii i riiiui i r1, i v i rii r1, i rrirrorvi rii iri 01,1,1,1, i r uii r " vi riiiri..; - - " 17001, !70.01' 17001, 17001, 600 300 200 100 /.45 AC .49 AC. 182 AC 2.08 AC. - ' 170.01 I o 400 10 .58 AC. e o. _ 119.98 V o ~I~ - 500 m l 0 .47 AC. 7 _ - o i _ ' - ~ (C-S. 13165) - 172.20' 93 g0. B,6p i 112.90 )6"8, 1900 .46 AC. 2100 0;. 10. ZOO AC. I ~9 i I 2300 103 RFFT e,, stF . I .46 AC. ° s6B 2S 1 - . 1,4 n~ Q}25 B 16 ~I N - I 2500 .47 AC, I - 5d- I o - 123 54' 2400 m 2 72 AC 1800 - 00 1111 41' 12354_ J 12089' 2600 2.38 AC 2200 ^ pzpp 1.11 .t'!. I 19137' LL N 'WI/ 4 S SECTION WAS14INGTON CC SCALE V SEE MAP 32 33 IS I 33CC SEE MAP+ IS 1 33CE~ Ne9°4o' sei.e 141.71 410.02 202 t ~O. 1.00Ac. 101 5 i 90/ ~g9J 65. JBAa t ..201 1.00AC. 0 ;:200. JA .515 1 `I` / 4 m 0 . , .P ~1 . `oo I r LOT 42.46 51- 8 Ejl 4. Z o a F Ix t / 0 o N m ~ a ' r i 3 ti q oo. a W o J u~ ~ W s 0 z z z n in 5 09 ° 30'N' 7 R SEE MAP 9S i 4Rr 1 ' T 2 S R I W WAVII. JUNTY CIREGON 4 1 2 001 CANCELLED 1190. 1300.4C 290!,2102,: ' 300.600.700,. l 1001, 1100,12IX 1402.146 l,14( 1407.1408,140 - • 1300,1501,150 i 1/4 C O R. 40 1600,1700,170 2001,2002,20 !3 2101,204,22P 2400,2500,25 2700,2701,28 t 2900,2902,2! 3 101.3102,I0C ' of i SEE MAP z n W 2S 14BA o a i J p c r ~ w e tip. s j f n R: 500 I80 Q'~ IBB 00 424.31 24.47 ao - j SEE MA R LOT 42.28 2S I 4AU a j r r 1 1 F IP M I 1 ~ 40 i o 3 SF.E i,.-,•: i 2 S I a ~ S.W. WALNUT + - STREET SEE MAP N JAs~~ L.,Sr:~KaQ 9 dt !y . 94 1 4Rfl i I l -i c i t I I S-, G' i i i•F'_ - PT fF FH'!~'•'_+. . ~CE1,PT r.:f7. 71 IUDPEt `JC `=41 +H[AC+Gi•k F.n vri`+'n1suJT LP T r. Iv `1_ ' 1 ` . L _r Ii-, +-F t:: -PIFN, rt (i 'i•'t ~ -W iE, d t t i i REQUEST FOR COMMENTS TO: air DATE: September 12, 1991 FROM: Tigard Planning Department - RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-0003 ZONE CHANGE ZON 91-0006 ALBERTSON'S INC. (NPO $7) A request for Comprehensive Plan Map amendment from Medium-High Density Residential and Zone change from R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development Overlay) to the General Commercial Plan designation and C-G zoning for an eight acre parcel in the southeast quadrant of the Scholls Ferry Road/Murray Blvd. extension intersection. In addition, the applicant requests Plan redesignation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential and a Zone change from C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-40 (Residential, 40 units/acre) at the northeast quadrant of the Scholls/Murray intersection on a 6.99 acre parcel; or alternatively to High Density Residential and R-40 for 4.5 acre area presently zoned R-25 to the south of the proposed General Commercial site. LOCATION: East side of SW Scholls Ferry Road at the proposed Murray Extension (WCTM 2S1 4B, tax lot 101) Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, we need your comments by Sept.23, 1991. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639-4171. ~ STAFF CONTACT: PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. - - Written Comments: ' t f 4 t i ~ Name of Person commenting: i Phone Number: blan/CPA91-03.BKM F • r 77. r N, -FICATION LIST FOR ALL APPLICATI_ S 'f-NPO NO. (2 copies) /CPO NO. 2. CITY DEPARTMENTS v Building Inspector/Brad R. Parka & Recreation Board City Recorder Police ✓Engineering/carY-lfr. - ~C other / Permits Coordinator/Viola-G. 3. SPECIAL~'rsmicTs Fire District _ School Dist. No. 48 (Beavr) (pick-up box bldg.) Joy Pahl PO Box 200 Tigard Water District Beaverton, OR 97075 8777 SW Burnham St. School District 23J (Tig) Tigard, OR 97223 13137 SW Pacific Hwy. Tigard, OR 97223 Metzger Water District 6501 SW Taylors Ferry Rd. Tigard, OR 97223 4. AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS Wash. Co. Land Use & Transp. Boundary Commission 150 N. First Ave. 320 SW Stark Room 530 Hills o, OR 971241 Portland, OR 97204 Brent Curtis t~ (y~ Kevin Martin METRO / ~Toann Rice `1v 2000 SW 1st Ave. Scott Ringv Portland, OR 97201-5398 /EC{ed Eberle / ✓ Hike Borreaon V DLCD (CPA's only) 1175 Court St. NE ' / im Hendryx Salem, OR 97310-0590 8 ~l City of Beaverton PO Box 4755 Other Beaverton, OR 97076 State Highway Division Portland General Electric Lee Gunderson Brian Moore tcV4 PO Box 565 14655 SW Old Scholle Ferry Beaverton, OR 97075 Beaverton, OR 97007 ~r S. 1 SPECIAL AGENCIES Metro Area Communications Harlan Cook E General Telephone Twin Oaks Technology Center _ Hike Lutz 1815 NW 169th Place 5-6020 12460 SW Hain St. Beaverton, OR 97006-4886 Beaverton, OR 97007 _ US West NW Natural Gas Pete Nelson Don Thomas 421 SW Oak St. 220 NW Second Ave. Portland, OR 97204 Portland, OR 97209 TCI Cablevision of Oregon, Inc., Hike Hallock 3500 SW Bond Portland, OR 97201 F AGENDA ITEM 5.1 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 4, 1991 HEARING LOCATION: TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON A. FACTS 1. General Information Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 91-0003 Zone Change ZON 91-0006 A request for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from medium-High Density Residential and a Zone Change from R-25(PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre Planned Development overlay) to the General Commercial Plan designation and C-G zoning for an 8 acre parcel in the southeast quadrant of the Scholls Ferry Road/Murray Boulevard extension intersection. In addition, the applicant requests comprehensive Plan redesignation from Neighborhood- Commercial to High-Density Residential, and a Zone Change i from C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-40 (Residential, 40 units/acre) at the northeast quadrant of the Scholls/ Murray intersection on an approximately 5 acre parcel; alternatively, the applicant requests plan redesignation to High-Density Residential and zoning redesignation to U R-40 for a 4.5 acre area presently designated Medium-High 4 Density Residential and zoned R-25 located to the south of the proposed General-Commercial site. In addition, the staff notes that the 5 acre Neighborhood Commercial/C-N designated site at the northeast quadrant of the intersection has not had its boundaries re-established after the determination of a future alignment of the Murray Boulevard extension through the subject site. If the applicant's request is denied, staff requests that the City Council re-establish the boundaries of this 5-acre Neighborhood Commercial site. Applicant: Albertson's, Inc. (Don Duncombe) 17001 NE San Rafael Portland, OR 97230 Agent: John Shonkwiler, P.C. Attorney at Law 4040 Douglas Way ' PO Box 1568 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 STAFF REPORT - CPA91-0003/ZON 91-0006 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 1 .1" 7 t•- Owner: Margery Crist, et. al. Route 1, Box 792 Beaverton, OR 97007 LOCATION: East side of SW Scholls Ferry Road at the k proposed Murray Boulevard extension (WCTM 2S1 4B, Tax Lot 101). i APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.56, 18.58, 18.60, and 18.62; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 4.2.1, 4.4.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.4, 6.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, ; 8.1.3, 12.1.1, and 12.2.1; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. 2. Background Information The area that includes tax lot 100 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) for tax lot 100. In February, 1984, the City approved the relocation of the C-N area from the west side of 135th Avenue to the northwest corner of the proposed intersection of the Murray Boulevard extension and SW 135th Avenue (CPA 18-83/AC 14-83). In 1985, a shift in the location of the C-N designation to the future Murray Boulevard/Scholls Ferry Road intersection on the west side of tax lot 100 was proposed (CPA 4-85/ZC 4-85). Because the request was determined to be premature due to unanswered questions related to the Murray Boulevard extension, the four acre C-N designation was reapplied at the original location on the southwest side of 135th Avenue. It was also agreed that once the alignment of Murray Boulevard was determined, the applicant, Russ Krueger, would be entitled to propose another Murray Boulevard location for the C-N zone. In 1986, Mr. Krueger proposed shifting the C-N designation to a five acre site at the northeast corner of the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road and the proposed Murray Boulevard extension (CPA 1-86/ZC 3-86). The City Council approved the applicant's proposal and included a declaration that the configuration of the five acres designated C-N could be modified to conform with the final alignment of Murray Boulevard (Ordinance No. 86-12). s STAFF REPORT - CPA91-0003/ZON 91-0006 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 2 Al Job- - In 1987, a Plan Amendment from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium High Density Residential and a zone change from C-N to R-25 for the 5.0 acres located at the northeast corner of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and proposed Murray Boulevard extension and a companion Plan Amendment/zone change from Medium-High Density Residential/R-25 and Medium Density Residential/R-12 to General Commercial/C-G for 15 acres at the southeast corner of the same intersection was proposed (CPA 87- 06/ZC 87-20). That proposal was denied by the City Council. A 170 unit apartment complex was proposed in 1986 on the eastern 11.4 acres of the subject property (SDR 4-86), but the application was withdrawn prior to a decision being made. In April, 1987, an 85 lot subdivision of the eastern 22.4 acres of the subject parcel was approved by the Planning Commission (S 87-04, V 87-04). That subdivision was never recorded. Later in 1987, another subdivision proposal for the eastern portion of the parcel was brought before the City's Hearings Officer (S 87-07j. That proposal was to I divide the 24.75 acre southeastern portion of the larger parcel into 128 lots ranging in size between 5,358 and 7,300 square feet. That proposal was approved by the Hearings Officer but also was never recorded. In May 8, 1990, the Planning Commission approved a zone change to add the planned development overlay zone to all of the parcel south of the Murray Boulevard extension. The commission also approved a subdivision preliminary plat/planned development conceptual plan approval for a 194 lot, two phase subdivision and reservation of a j section of the western portion of tax lot 100 for 300 apartment units (SUB 90-04/ZON 90-04/ZON 90-04/VAR 90- 08). Three parcels to the north of the Murray extension would have been created by this subdivision including an approximately 7 acre parcel at the northeast quadrant of the Scholls/Murray intersection. These parcels were not affected by the zone change adding the planned development overlay. On October 23, 1991, the Planning Division approved an extension of the approval period for the subdivision preliminary plat/planned development conceptual development plan until November 22, 1991. The letter approving this extension is included as Appendix Two to tinis report. STAFF REPORT - CPA91-0003/ZON 91-0006 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 3 3_ Vicinity Information ^ Except for single family residential development to the ( ) northeast in the Cotswald Subdivision, the area surrounding the site is largely undeveloped and currently used for agriculture or is wooded. A few large lot single family residences also exist to the north, south and west of the subject area. A quarry operated by Morse F Brothers Inc. is located to the southwest, across SW Scholls Ferry Road. R-25 zoning surrounds the parcel currently designated C-N. The area south of the proposed C-G designation is zoned R-12 (PD). The area across 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. Other commercial sites within the general vicinity of the proposal include the Murray Hill Shopping Center located approximately 3/4 miles north on Murray Boulevard; the 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 a number of commercial areas along Pacific Highway including the Tigard Central Business District. 4. Site Information The entirety of Tax Lot 101 consists of 63.4 acres spanning between SW Scholls Ferry Road on the west to SW 135th on the east. The property contains several different Comprehensive Plan land use and zoning designations. As previously noted, a 5 acre Neighborhood-Commercial designation exists in the northwestern corner of this site to the north of the tt Murray Boulevard extension. Approximately 29.5 acres of i. the site extending east to west and south of the j Neighborhood-Commercial site is zoned R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development). The southern 28.9 acres of this site is zoned R-12 (PD) i (Residential, 12 units/acre, Planned Development). i This site is primarily grass covered with some trees within drainageways on the southern portion of this site. The areas affected by the proposed Plan and zone redesignations on the western portion of the site slope generally to the north and west. There is presently no development on the entire 63.4 acre site. STAFF REPORT - CPA91-0003/ZON 91-0006 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 4 _J1 do- 5. Proposal Description The applicants have submitted a report entitled Albertson's Inc Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Chancre (Map Changes or Text and Map Chancres. Staff has reviewed this document, and quite frankly finds the document rather confusing as to what exactly the applicants are requesting. It appears, however, that the basic change that Albertson's wishes to accomplish with this application is an exchange of the Neighborhood-Commercial (C-N) plan and zoning designations from the northeast quadrant of the Scholls/Murray intersection to the southeast corner of the intersection, with the northeast corner being redesignated for multi-family residential use. Albertson's would like the Neighborhood-Commercial j designation to be replaced in the southeast quadrant with the General-Commercial designation and the area of commercial designation increased from 5 acres (the applicant assumes 6.99 acres) to 8 acres. Albertson's proposes that the area in the northeast quadrant could be redesignated with either the Medium-High Residential Plan designation and R-25 zoning, or else could be ' redesignated with the High-Density Residential Plan designation and R-40 zoning. •1 Alternatively, Albertson's proposes increasing some of the site south of the proposed General Commercial redesignation to High Density Residential with R-40 zoning. Yet another alternative raised by the applicants is for the City of Tigard to either absorb the loss of housing units into the "surplus" housing opportunity that the City possesses in its housing opportunity index required by the Metropolitan Housing Rule; or else through increasing residential density opportunities at C other locations within the city through other Plan 4 amendments and zone changes. Although not a part of the current request, the, Albertson's applicants' statement raises the possibility of the City creating new plan and zoning designations that would fall midway between Neighborhood Commercial/ i.' d C-N and General Commercial/C-G Plan and zoning i designations. This alternative is generally described on Page 2 of the applicants' statement. Albertson's states that such a zone (which is referred to as a Community Commercial zone) could allow for a greater variety of uses than the current C-N zone and could also be located on larger sites than the 2 acre maximum site size for C-N designations as prescribed by the Comprehensive plan's locational criteria. Also, uses permitted in this new zone could be somewhat limited in scope to not allow as STAFF REPORT - CPA91-0003/ZON 91-0006 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 5 great a variety of uses as the C-G zone, and could have an upper limit on the size of establishments that would be located within such a new zoning district. F;==' 6. Aaencv and NPO Comments The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and offers the following comments: . Zone Change The traffic study submitted by the applicant indicates that the proposed changes to zoning would have negligible impacts on the future traffic volumes and levels of service of the adjoining street system. Following receipt of additional information from the traffic engineer, we now support the conclusions of the traffic study. Because there would be little change in the total areas of commercial zoning and multi-family residential zoning, the proposed zone change would have no impact on the utilities needed for future development of the area. (Planning Division Note: this statement was made based on the Engineering Division's acceptance of the applicants statement's representation of the current sizes of the Plan and $ zone designations applied to the property rather i than the sizes of these areas as understood by the Planning Division.) Location of Commercial Zoning The proposal to move the commercial zone from the north side of Murray to the south side has potential benefits, even if the zoning designation and acreage are not changed. The existing wedge-shaped commercial parcel has access only to the future Murray extension. All traffic will have to access the site from Murray. Existing development prevents it from having access from any other direction. The proposed new location would have frontage on two collector streets Murray and Scholls Ferry. It also has potential direct access from the adjoining residential neighborhoods. This would allow traffic to be dispersed to more access locations. It potentially would allow nearby residents to access the site without travelling on STAFF REPORT - CPA91-0003/ZON 91-0006 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 6 the collector street system. The result would be reduced traffic impacts. . Therefore, we support relocation of the commercial zoning as proposed. i Jim Hendryx, Planning Manager for the City of Beaverton has reviewed the proposal and has provided the following comments: • I concur with several points that the applicant has made in their presentation about district size and marketing changes for supermarkets. The only issue that I find is associated with need. The area is well served by retail sites on both Murray Blvd. " ;::•ti. ; and Scholls Ferry Roads. If approved, the proposal should be limited in area to the absolute minimum that is necessary to accommodate the proposed use. j This would be consistent with our joint efforts to i"•` limit the expansion of commercial development in the Murray/Scholls corridor. Oregon Administrative Rule 660-07-035 requires the City of Tigard to provide for an overall housing opportunity of 10 or more dwelling units per net buildable acre on developable land. The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has commented that the possible loss of potential dwelling units from the city's inventory of housing opportunity might limit decision making flexibility for future plan amendments that could also result in the loss of potential dwelling units. DLCD also notes that Oregon Administrative Rule j 660-12-060 requires that land uses permitted as a result i of a plan amendment be consistent with the function, capacity, and level of service of the the facility. Simply stated, the planned transportation facilities must be adequate to serve the planned use. DLCD notes that f the applicants' traffic report analyzes only the proposed change from Neighborhood Commercial to General Commercial only, and ignores the proposed changes in residential ? designations. i I - I Washington County's Department of Land Use and Transportation has reviewed the proposal and has provided the following comments: • Scholls Ferry Road, adjacent to the site will soon be transferred from the State to the County's jurisdiction. The roadway is classified as a major collector in the Washington County Transportation I - STAFF REPORT - CPA91-0003/ZON 91-0006 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 7 i' Plan. The proposal did not include an analysis of 2010 level of service for the north Scholls a Ferry/Murray intersection, for the north Scholls 1 Ferry/south Scholls Ferry intersection. Such an analysis is warranted to determine the future : effects of the proposed change. NPO #7 has reviewed the proposal and has unanimously voted to recommend denial. The NPO has provided the following comments with regard to the proposal: FACTS 1. Scholls Ferry is under state Highway jurisdiction at present. HOWEVER, it will be under Washington county jurisdiction within the year. 2. The Functional Classification Map for the County Transportation Plan shows : a. Scholls Ferry will be a 2-lane major collector street from Old Scholls to old Scholls, and b. The proposed Murray Extension will be a 2-lane collector street. 3. No TRI-MET transit line serves Scholls Ferry from old Scholls to Old Scholls. O 4. In CPA 1-86 and Ordinance 86-12 the City Council approved five acres of C-N and only declared that the configuration and the five acres could be modified to conform with the final alignment of f Murray Blvd. f i FINDINGS f 1. Policy 8.1.1 is not satisfied because the proposal l assumes IN ERROR that Scholls Ferry will be a 5- lane arterial street. 2. Policy 8.1.1 is not satisfied because the proposal assumes IN ERROR that the proposed Murray Extension from old Scholls to Scholls Ferry will be built in j the near future. f 3. Policy 12.2. is not satisfied as the proposal does not meet locational criteria for General Commercial areas because: a. The proposal would be surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. STAFF REPORT - CPA91-0003/ZON 91-0006 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 8^^- 1 b. The scale of the proposal would not be compatible with surrounding residential uses. C. Public transportation would not be available to the proposal or the general area. CPO 4B's steering committee recommends denial of the proposal. Among the concerns raised by CPO members were the lack of a need for such a large supermarket in a residential area, f excessive traffic due to the presence of such a large commercial center, damage to the character of the existing neighborhood, and uncertainty as to what commercial uses would locate in the center if the parcel is zoned C-G. I The Tualatin valley Fire and Rescue District has reviewed the i proposal and has noted no objection to the proposed Plan and zone changes. The District notes that they would look for i Murray to extend through as a circulating street with necessary improvements to be reviewed at the time of development of this site. B. MAJOR ISSUES 1. Size of the C-N Zoned Portion of the Site/Adequacy of Submittal In communications with the Planning Division, NPO »7 raised a concern with the applicants representing the Neighborhood Commercial designated portion of tax lot 100 as 6.99 acres whereas the City Council's decision for CPA 1-86/ZC 3-86 designated only 5 acres at this intersection for Neighborhood Commercial use. The Council's decision provided that the configuration, but not the size, of the 5-acre parcel could be adjusted when the alignment of SW Murray Boulevard extension was defined. An Urban Planning Area Agreement between Washington County, ` Beaverton, and Tigard was approved in November, 1988, j setting the alignment of Murray Boulevard further south across this site from what had been assumed at the time of the 1986 Plan and zone change. The Urban Planning ; Area Agreement provides that Murray Boulevard through the site will be a collector street. Appendix one contains communications between NPO 7 and the staff with regard to the issue of the size of the Neighborhood Commercial/C-N designated portion of tax lot 100. Exhibit B of Council Ordinance No. 86-12 shows the 5-acre size approved for Neighborhood-Commercial STAFF REPORT - CPA91-0003/ZON 91-0006 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 9 oi, designation in 1986, with the alignment of the SW Murray Boulevard extension as defined at that time. That ordinance noted that the configuration of the 5 acre C-N designation could be modified to conform with the final alignment of Murray Boulevard. Staff is of the understanding that the reconfiguration referred to by the City Council in this ordinance included only the possible relocation of the 5.0 acre C-N designation. Staff does not understand the Council's { decision to provide for an increase in size of the C-N designated area, as the applicants in this current proposal have assumed in stating the area's 6.99 acres without the Council specifically approving such an expansion. Such a change would affect compliance with many more Plan policies and Statewide Planning Goals and rules than were referred to in the staff report referenced as findings by Ordinance No. 86-12. For example, such an increase in the C-N area would necessarily result in a reduction of the R-25 zoned area of the site with a loss of 50 units of multi-family housing opportunity. This would have reduced the City's _ housing opportunity index for developable lands required by the Metropolitan Housing Rule (Oregon Administrative Rule 660, Division 7) as well as affecting City Comprehensive Plan policies related to housing, transportation, and economic development in ways not contemplated by the Council's findings for Ordinance No. 86-12. Staff finds the current boundaries of the Neighborhood Commercial/C-N designated portion of tax lot 100 to be exactly as illustrated on exhibit B of Ordinance No. 86- 12. This determination is notwithstanding Code Section " 18.40.030.A which provides guidance on the exact location of zoning district boundaries. That section provides guidelines to be used where due to the scale, lack of detail, illegibility of the zoning map, or other reason, there is uncertainty as to district boundary lines. Staff does not find that there is any uncertainty as to the location of the boundaries of the C-N site because Exhibit B is legible, detailed, and to a scale from which precise boundaries can be determined. The guidelines provided in Section 18.40.030 provide for boundaries, in cases of uncertainty, to follow street centerlines, - platted lot lines, City limits, or drainage channels. If there was uncertainty of the boundaries of the C-N designated site, staff still would have a difficult time applying any of these guidelines to move the southern boundary of the site southward as the applicants obviously have presumed, due to the absence at this time of any recorded lot line or road right-of-way along the STAFF REPORT - CPA91-0003/ZOi7 91-0006 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 10 ~ future Murray alignment. Without these clues, staff would have to hold with the dimensions provided by Exhibit B of Ordinance No. 86-12. Staff therefore finds that the applicants' statement is in error with regard to the size of the portion of the site that is already designated for commercial use. Therefore, the applicants' statement and traffic study i contain many errors with regard to the potential impacts of the current proposal with regard to background traffic levels and housing opportunities. As such, staff is of the opinion that the applicants have failed to provide adequate findings in support of the proposed redesignations and therefore the application should be denied. Staff does not find that sufficient reasons exist for the staff, commission, or Council to undertake to produce the necessary findings in response to an application that has not been adequately supported by the j applicants own findings. Nevertheless, the remainder of this report endeavors to assess the merits of this application with regard to the applicable Plan amendment and zone change approval criteria. In order to clarify the situation with regard to the C-N ' designated area, staff requests that the Planning commission recommend to the Council a more appropriate location including no more than 5 acres for the Neighborhood Commercial/C-N designations at the J Scholls/Murray intersection. Such a reconfiguration would be consistent with the Council's earlier decision to allow reconfiguration subsequent to the determination of an alignment for SW Murray through the site, even though the right-of-way for this road has yet to be recorded. At present, the area designated C-N by ordinance 86-12 does not actually have frontage on the approved Murray alignment but is separated from the road i by a strip of R-25 designated land. A reconfiguration at this time should have frontage on both Scholls Ferry Road and the Murray alignment. Staff does not find that the specific location of this 5 acre Neighborhood Commercial designation on the western portion of tax lot 100 affects compliance with Plan policies, Community Development Code requirements, or Statewide Planning Goals as long as the location is in either the northeast or southeast quadrants of this intersection. It is noted that relocation of the C-N designation to the southeast quadrant of the intersection would have the effect of materially changing the planned development conceptual development plan for the area south of Murray approved by the Planning Commission for SUB 90-04/PDR 90- 04 and thus would invalidate the recently extended STAFF REPORT - CPA91-0003/ZON 91-0006 - AL,BERTSON'S PAGE 11 i approval for this subdivision/planned development. This has been communicated to the property's owners through conversations and a memorandum provided to Craig Petrie, the listing real estate broker for this property (See i Appendix Two). However, we can agree with the f Engineering Department that relocation of the ` Neighborhood Commercial designation to the south side of f this intersection may be beneficial with regard to access to the site- Access to the site from a local street from the yet to be constructed subdivision to the east would allow neighbors to access the site without travelling on collector streets, thereby reducing traffic impacts. L,- Attached Map $2 illustrates the preliminary plat/planned development conceptual plan approved for this site. f; 2. Appropriateness of Commercial Zones at this Location The applicants' statement at pages 4 and 5 points out that the current 5 acre designation of this site with the Neighborhood Commercial Plan designation is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 12.2.1 by designating a five acre site with this land use classification whereas the Neighborhood Commercial Plan designation locational criteria is supposed to limited such designations to a maximum site size of two acres. The applicants also point out that the C-N zoning district's 4,000 square foot restriction on the maximum floor area of any use in this zone (Community Development Code Section 18.60.040.A.2) will make it difficult to obtain full development of this relatively large site creating a hardship to the property's owners in trying to develop the site. NPO =7's comments on this application point out that this site is not consistent with Plan Policy 12.2.1's locational criteria relative to availability of public transportation and adjacency of residential zoning districts on more than two sides of the site. The site therefore cannot be found to be fully consistent with the lllj locational criteria for either of these commercial plan designations. Nevertheless, staff believes that there are plenty of reasons for having some commercial designated land in this area to serve the commercial needs of at least the immediate neighborhood and possibly the larger residential area consisting of western Tigard. These reasons clearly include convenience for area residents and an attempt to provide commercial goods and services in a location that need not require vehicular trips on collector or arterial streets to satisfy. Numerous Comprehensive Plan Policies as well as the Statewide Planning Goals support such objectives to provide for an STAFF REPORT - CPA91-0003/ZON 91-0006 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 12 appropriate balance of land uses in a suburban environment such as western Tigard. Because a portion of tax lot 100 has been designated for commercial use prior to annexation and because this parcel is abutted or traversed by three collector streets, this parcel is clearly an appropriate location for some commercial j usage. Staff believes the i;sue with regard to this site should be limited to scale of the commercial use. j For these reasons, staff would not recommend that the City delete all commercial designation for the subject parcel at this time despite the finding that this parcel is not consistent with either the Neighborhood Commercial or General Commercial Plan designation locational criteria. Instead, staff recommends that the commission and Council briefly consider the applicants' suggestion of a new zoning designation that might be a middle ground zone between these two existing zones. Such a zone could provide for a greater variety and size of neighborhood serving uses than the C-N zone, yet such a zone need not provide for many of the uses permitted in the C-G zone that would not only serve a neighborhood or section of the city but instead would serve a larger trade area and { have significant visual or traffic impacts (e.g., theaters, auto and truck dealers, hotels, spectator sports and entertainment facilities, large retail stores). Limits upon the size of permitted uses could attempt to control the scale of such uses. The applicants' statement refers to the greater variety of permitted uses in Washington County's Neighborhood Commercial zone as an assertion that the City made.a mistake when the City applied the City's more limited C-N zone to the property upon annexation. While we disagree with this assertion under the circumstances of the annexation, this does point to a zoning district in another jurisdiction that provides for greater variety and scale of community commercial uses than Tigard's C-N zone. Staff review of Beaverton, Gresham, and Portland's zoning ordinances provide other examples of zoning districts that provide for a greater variety of community uses at a limited scale than Tigard's C-N zone. We feel the applicants suggestion of the need for a "community commercial" zoning district has a lot of merit for the city of Tigard, perhaps most notably in this general area. Staff recommends that the Commission or Council direct the staff to work with the applicants, all NPOs, and other interested parties to develop a new "middle ground" commercial zoning district that would be j intended to serve community rather than neighborhood only needs and yet would not provide for regional or even city-wide needs. STAFF REPORT - CPA91-0003/ZON 91-0006 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 13 - .J ~r'}. It is important to note that the locational criteria and permitted uses adopted for such new Plan and zoning district designations may not meet the needs of the current applicants' intentions with regard to the Crist - l property and creation of these designations should not be ! viewed as directed to this property or this applicants, ` desires. However, the City should be willing to consider the potential for such a new land use designation with f respect to this particular property as well as possibly the Gross and Cunningham properties further east on Scholls as well as other appropriate locations in the city. These other properties were also the subject of recent Plan and zone redesignation applications that were recommended for denial at least partially because the locational criteria for General Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial could not be satisfied - - not because there was no market need demonstrated for the intended uses of these sites. C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The applicants have presented a report entitled Albertson's. Inc Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change (Map Changes or Text and Map Changes (hereafter referred to as the applicant's statement) that addresses the Statewide Planning Goals and Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies applicable to the proposed Plan and zoning redesignation. The applicants have also submitted a traffic study and supplement prepared by ATEP, Inc. in support of the application. Staff finds that the following are relevant Statewide Planning Goals, City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies, and Tigard Community Development Code sections applicable to the request: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 4.2.1, 4.4.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.4, 6.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 12.1.1, and 12.2.1 Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32, 18.56, 18.58, 18.60, and 18.62. 7 The Planning Division concludes that the proposal is only partially in compliance with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals based upon the following findings: 1. Goal ,"rl (Citizen Involvement) and Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 are satisfied because the City has adopted a citizen involvement program including review of all land use and development applications by City established ' neighborhood planning organizations (NPOs) and nearby STAFF REPORT - CPA91-0003/ZON 91-0006 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 14 ff yy Washington County established community planning organizations (CPOs). NPO #7 and CPO #4B have been j provided with an opportunity to review the proposal. Their comments have been included in the staff report to the Planning Commission and City Council. In addition, E all public notice requirements related to this application have been satisfied. 2. Goal ,#2 (.Land Use Planning), Plan 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, City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies, and Community Development Code requirements to the review of this proposal, as described in this report. The City of Tigard has notified other affected units of government G 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. E 3. Goal 49 (Economy of the State) and Plan policy 5.1.1 are partially satisfied because the proposed redesignation would increase the City's inventory of developable commercial land, thereby increasing employment opportunities in the City. Because the proposed redesignation would provide opportunities for primarily J retail and service uses, the proposal would likely not diversify the employment opportunities in the City. The applicants' statement makes several references to "need" for grocery services in the western portion of Tigard. However, the City of Tigard's criteria for Plan and zone redesignations do not rely on need because need is extremely subjective and subject to the manipulations of statisticians. It is important to remember that the proposed redesignation would not guarantee that a grocery store would be developed if the proposal is approved, the proposed redesignation would provide an opportunity for a great variety of uses permitted in the C-G zoning I` district including uses for which it would be difficult to prove there is a need for in the area. The proposal would conflict with Plan policy 5.1.4 because the proposed increase in commercially designated I property would encroach into an area designated for residential development. The applicants have not demonstrated any reasons why this area might be ! unsuitable for residential development. i STAFF REPORT - CPA91-0003/ZON 91-0006 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 15 A 4. Statewide Goal #10 (Housing) as well as Plan policy 6.1.1 would not be satisfied because the applicants proposal to increase commercial designations on tax lot 100 could j result in a decrease in multi-family residential 1 opportunities by 75 units because of the elimination of 3 acres of Medium-High Density Plan designation and R-25 zoning, if these housing opportunities are not replaced elsewhere. The proposal would be detrimental to the purposes of the Goal and policy even though the proposed change would not place the City of Tigard out of compliance with the 10 unit per acre requirement of the Metropolitan Housing Rule ~ g (OAR 660, Division 7). A reduction of developable residential land by 3 acres and a resultant decrease of housing opportunities would result in 13,312 developable units on 1,292 acres for a housing opportunity index of 10.187 units per acre, thereby reducing the City's "cushion" above the minimum opportunity required by the Housing Rule. However, the applicants have proposed increasing residential opportunities through redesignation of other portions of tax lot 100 to High Density Residential and R-40 (40 units per acre). While this could reduce the amount of housing opportunity that would be lost to increased area for commercial designation, staff finds problems with the proposal to increase density opportunities elsewhere on tax lot 100 or outside of the immediate area. The applicants' submittal has not addressed the locational criteria for the High-Density Residential Plan designation with respect to their suggestion that areas either to the north or south of the proposed General Commercial redesignation be increased in housing opportunity with R-40 zoning. Staff does not believe that 40 unit per acre housing is appropriate in this location due to the nature of surrounding lower density development and the absence of public transit to the site. On the other hand, the City's obligation to provide a housing opportunity of 10 units per acre on developable residential land should be taken seriously. Therefore, the City should avoid dumping higher density housing opportunities on sites that are unlikely to develop at that density, as the applicants' statement appears to suggest on page 14. The City's obligation to provide housing opportunities is more than just a paper exercise. 5. Statewide Planning Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services) and Comprehensive Plan Policies 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, and 7.6.1 are satisfied because adequate public service capacities are available to serve future development of this site, under either the existing or proposed Plan and zoning designations. Extension of STAFF REPORT - CPA91-0003/ZON 91-0006 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 16 t necessary public facilities to serve 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 from service providers with respect to the current application. 6. Goal #12 (Transportation) and Comprehensive Plan policy 8.1.1 are satisfied because the proposed redesignation would not be expected to result in unsuitable or unsafe levels of traffic on Murray Boulevard 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 E would be expected under the current designations, the impact on the city-wide or regional transportation systems should be beneficial through providing commercial opportunities closer to users' residences than is currently available. Therefore, a net reduction in total j system traffic is anticipated. Such a reduction would be supportive of the objectives of Statewide Planning Goal 13 (Energy Conservation) and Comprehensive Plan policies 9.1.2, and 9.1.3 which encourage energy conservation through a balanced and efficient transportation system. 7. Plan Policy 4.2.1 will be satisfied through the development review and building permit processes at which ~J 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 Oregon Environmental Quality Commission's temporary rules for the Tualatin River Basin. The proposed redesignation would not by itself t•-; affect compliance with this Plan Policy. 8. Plan Policy 4.3.1 is implemented through the development review process in which building placement and landscaping are reviewed with respect to minimizing noise impacts of the developing use upon neighboring land uses. 9. Plan Policy 8.1.3 would be satisfied as a condition of j approval of any future development of this site, under either the existing or proposed Plan and zoning designations. Completion of necessary street improvements along the site's frontages would be required to be installed by the developer at the time of development. The Engineering Division and Washington i county would review any future development proposals for i i r~+, STAFF REPORT - CPA91-0003/ZON 91-0006 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 17 the site with regard to necessary road improvements both adjacent to the site and on other affected sections of roadways 10. The locational criteria for General Commercial uses specified in Chapter 12 of the Comprehensive Plan (Policy 12.2.1) are partially satisfied for the following reasons: A. The subject area is surrounded by residential Plan ` and zoning designations on more than two sides, I contrary to the locational criteria, although these future residential areas would be separated from the proposed commercial site by collector streets on the north and west. B. As discussed above under Statewide Planning Goal #12 and Plan Policy 8.1.1, the Engineering Department and City of Beaverton staff are persuaded that the proposed commercial redesignation would not substantially increase traffic on adjacent streets and intersections beyond acceptable levels. C. The site is located at the intersection of an arterial (Scholls Ferry Road) and a collector street (Murray Road). (It is pointed out that a discrepancy exists between Washington County's designation of Scholls Ferry as a major collector and Tigard's designation of the same street as an arterial. This discrepancy should be corrected by the City and County separate from the current application). Access to the site for any future development will t~ be determined in conjunction with Washington County through the development review process. E { D. Public transportation is not currently available to the site, despite the applicants' statement otherwise (page 15). The closest bus stop to the site is approximately 3,500 feet to the northeast at the intersection of New Scholls Ferry Road, Old Scholls Ferry Road, and SW 135th Avenue. This bus stop is served by Tri-Met bus line 462. Whether or not this site will be served by public transportation in the future under either the i... existing or proposed designations would be purely speculative at this time. E. The 8 acre site is an adequate size to accommodate a variety of uses permitted in the C-G zoning STAFF REPORT - CPA91-0003/ZON 91-0006 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 18 ' J district, including the applicants stated intended uses of a grocery store and drug store. F. This site would be highly visible from the I adjoining streets. G. Compatibility of this site with adjacent uses is difficult to ascertain without an actual development proposal. However, the City of Tigard's Site Development Review and Conditional Use review processes are intended to provide an f opportunity for review of a potential development's relationship with adjacent existing uses. 11. The application is deficient by not addressing the locational criteria for the High Density Residential Plan designation or by providing sufficient reasons for increasing residential opportunities on a portion of the subject site (Plan policy 12.1.1). 12. At present, the relatively large undeveloped site would be consistent with the dimensional and use standards of - Community Development Code Chapters 18.56 (R-25 zone), 18.58 (R-40 zone), 18.60 (C-N zone), and 18.62 (C-G) zone. Any future development proposals for this site would need to be shown to comply with the standards of i whatever zone(s) are applied to the site. In order to approve a quasi-judicial amendment to the Plan and zoning maps, the City must also find that there is evidence of a change in the neighborhood or community which affects the parcel. Alternatively, the City must find that there has been 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)). j The applicant's statement asserts that there has been a change in the character of the area surrounding the site since annexation because of the substantial amount of residential development that has occurred to the north and west of the site, thereby establishing an additional need for a grocery store in this area. The City is well aware of the residential growth in this area; however, the densities at which this area has developed at is significantly less than the residential densities that the area was planned for and upon which the City and County based their decisions to provide for commercial development opportunities. If anything, this growth pattern would seem to support a reduction in commercial opportunities in the area rather than an enlargement as proposed. i STAFF REPORT - CPA91-0003/ZON 91-0006 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 19 f In addition, staff is wary of the applicants "need" argument as applied to the site because, while a need for a particular use may be demonstrated through the parameters established by an applicant, a community need not provide land use opportunities for every need that can be identified. Also, the proposed Plan and zone change would not limit opportunities for establishment of uses to only the "needed" use, but instead would permit any of the uses allowed in the C-G zone. Staff finds it curious that the applicants focus only on the "need" for a grocery store in this area and are silent with regard to any "need" for a drug-variety store - the applicants stated other intended use for the site. I" Even if the City should be persuaded that a "need" exists for a grocery store in this area, there is no justification provided by the applicants with regard to the size of the area of General Commercial redesignation requested. If the City is persuaded that a "need" exists for a grocery store in this area, perhaps the City should provide for this need through amending the C-N zone to allow grocery stores thereby allowing development of a grocery store on the 5 acre C-N site. Alternatively, the City could provide opportunities for grocery use through creation of new "community commercial" zoning designation that would allow a more limited number of uses than the C-G designation. Staff is not persuaded that enough of a change in circumstances affecting the neighborhood or site has occurred to justify the requested Plan and zone change. The applicants also allege that mistake was made regarding the designation of the site with the City's C-N zone upon annexation of the site. The applicants point out that the previous N-C (Neighborhood Commercial) designation applied by Washington County to the site allowed food markets of up to 50,000 square feet as a conditional use, whereas the City's C-N zone currently applied to the site permits only food and beverage store of up to 4,000 square feet. The applicants allege that the City's application of the C-N zone therefore constitutes a down-zoning of the property. The applicants state that this downgrading of the zoning is in direct conflict with City policy as well as ORS 227.110. The applicants state that past policy as well as ORS 227.110 require the city to adopt city zoning for newly annexed property that fairly matches the former zoning in the County. Staff fails to see how ORS 227.110, which relates to extra- territorial plat approvals, is at all relevant to this situation. With regard to City policy on rezoning upon annexation, the applicants apparently concede that the City's C-G zoning district would not have matched up any better with the County's N-C zone than the City's C-N zone because the C-G zone has a much broader listing of uses than the county's N-C zone. The applicants then argue that the City should have STAFF REPORT - CPA91-0003/ZON 91-0006 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 20 adopted a new zone (such as the applicants idea for a community commercial zone) at the time of annexation (applicants statement, page 4). If this is the applicants' p " - real argument, that is what they should have applied for now rather requesting rezoning with the too-broad C-G zone. While the applicants may be at least partially (minimally, from i staff's viewpoint) correct about the C-N zone having some down-zoning effect, they certainly have not demonstrated that the request to redesignate the C-N area as C-G is the best solution to correct an earlier mistake. On the other hand, more than eight years have passed since the site was designated with the City's C-N zone and five Plan/zone change applications have occurred since annexation. The property's owners have had several chances to raise the issue of the alleged "down-zoning." Instead, the earlier Plan/zone change requests that the owners have been parties to have focussed on moving the C-N zoned area around on tax lot 100 to a more advantageous location for the owners and have also resulted in an increase in the size of this area. It is I pretty late for the property owners (through the current applicants) to claim that an action eight years ago was a i down-zoning that must now be corrected. In addition, it would be reasonable for the City to take the position that the earlier approved relocations and expansion of the C-N designation have already compensated the property's owners for any possible diminution of the property's value because the } City's C-N zone does not permit grocery stores. The applicants also raise the issue of the 5.0 acre Neighborhood Commercial designated site exceeding the maximum size for this designation provided by the Comprehensive Plan's locational criteria. Staff concurs that this site exceeds this standard. However, we do not agree with the applicants statement at page 5 "that the site must be changed to C-G or a new commercial zone (such as "community commercial" that would allow the Albertson's, Inc. proposed store complex." Other options exist. The City could reduce the size of the C-N designated area to two acres or less. The 5.0 acre area could be left as is. The City could choose to create new commercial Plan and zoning designations to designate this site with that would allow a five acre or larger site but that k ( would not permit the proposed Albertson's store complex. Or, i the city could indeed create new designations like the community commercial zone that the applicants have suggested that might include the Albertson's complex. Therefore, many options exist with regard to correcting the alleged "mistake" in size of the C-N designation that would not necessitate redesignating the site General Commercial/C-G as the current application requests. STAFF REPORT - CPA91-0003/ZON 91-0006 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 21 The applicants also assert that a mistake exists with regard to an alleged undersupply of commercially designated properties to satisfy the demands of the trade area centered on the site. Exhibit C of the applicants statement purports to demonstrate that the currently designated commercial site is too small for the trade area. Exhibit C tells us next to ' nothing other than population projections for the area surrounding the site. It does not demonstrate that the commercial "needs" of this population surrounding the site need to be provided for at the site or in any location anywhere near here. The applicants provide no analysis of whether or not these "needs" may already be satisfiable at other nearby locations. As previously stated, even if the applicants could demonstrate a need for additional commercial opportunities to serve a trade area, the city is under no obligation to supply properly designated areas to accommodate opportunities for all identifiable needs. The applicants have failed to convince the staff that sufficient reasons exist to redesignate 8 acres of the subject site to General Commercial/C-G or to increase residential densities on other portions of this site. Staff therefore concludes that the current application should be denied. D. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Deny the applicants' request for redesignation of a portion of tax lot 100 to the General Commercial Plan designation and C-N zoning district. Deny the applicants' request for redesignation of any portion of tax lot 100 with either the Medium-High Density Residential or High Density Residential Plan designations and R-25 or R-40 zoning districts. 2. Designate a 5.0 acre portion of tax lot 100 abutting both SW Scholls Ferry Road and the Murray Boulevard alignment with the Neighborhood Commercial Plan designation and C-N zoning district. In effect, reconfigure the earlier 5.0 acre portion of this site with respect to the currently accepted alignment of Murray Boulevard. From a J transportation viewpoint, staff would recommend that the Neighborhood Commercial designation be located in the southeastern quadrant of the intersection; however, since such an action would invalidate the subdivision/planned development approval for SUB 90-04/PDR 90-04, staff recommends that the Commission and Council respect the desires of the property's owners with regard to the $3 location of the redesignation. STAFF REPORT - CPA91-0003/ZON 91-0006 - ALBERTSON'S PAGE 22 0 3. Direct staff to work with the current applicants, the y applicants for recently denied or withdrawn applications to commercial designations, the NPOs, and other interested parties on the development of new Plan and zoning designations patterned loosely upon the applicants' discussion of a community commercial zone. ' i j, I PREPARED J DATE el t Review Planner I i - br/JO:CPA91-03.PC PAL -'7 wESiERN I - DIVISION OFFICE _ i ofI- yy~ ~ 32 33 Q~~ _ LI LLLL1 ~l e•,a MEDIUM lYI H STAFF REPORT - CPA91-0003/ZON 91-0006 - ALBERTSON'S PACE 23 L~ " CIA- C¢ ` MEMORANDUM ' CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON. i TO, Planning Commissioners FROM: Jy bffer, Development Review Planner DATE: December 9, 1991 SUBJECT: Albertsons/Crist CPA 91-03/ZON 91-08 On November 4, 1991, the Commission continued the hearing for the Albertsons Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change to December 16, 1991 to allow the staff and,the property owners to attempt to resolve the issue of exactly how much C-N designated area presently exists on the subject site. Since that time, Mike Robinson, of the City attorneys office, and Garry McMurray, an attorney representing the property owners, have both spent a substantial amount of time reviewing the case law and statutes pertinent to determination of a Plan and zoning boundary. There is still disagreement at this time with regard to the current acreage of the portion of the site that is zoned C-N. It appears that this issue will need to be determined by either the City Council or a court. The applicants, Albertsons, have submitted an addendum to the J traffic study which is intended to provide alternative findings to those previously submitted in the traffic study. These alternative findings are intended to reflect the existing situation if it is found that there are currently only 5.0 acres of C-N zoning on the subject property. At this point, staff recommends that the Commission should not try } to decide the C-N area issue. This issu,: can best be determined by the City Council or a court, if necessary, prior to the Council taking final action on the current application. Instead the Commission should focus on the Albertsons Plan/Zone change request: 1. Change the existing Commercial Professional/C-N Plan and i.:. zoning designations on the north side of the SW Walnut Street extension to Medium-High Density Residential/ R-25 Plan and zoning designations; 2. Change 8 acres of Medium-High Density Residential/R-25 Plan and zoning designations to General Commercial/C-G at the southeastern corner of SW Scholls Ferry and the future Walnut extension; and 3. Possibly increasing residential Plan and zoning densities on either the north side of Walnut or south of the commercial site to High Density Residential/R-40. The staff recommendation with regard to the Albertsons application remains the same as was presented in the staff report for the November 4th hearing, except with regard to any action on the size of the current C-N zoned area. Staff's recommendation therefore is: 1. Deny the applicants' request for redesignation of a portion of tax lot 100 to the General Commercial Plan designation and C-N zoning district. Deny the applicants' request for redesignation of any portion of tax lot 100 with either the Medium-High Density Residential or High Density Residential Plan designations and R-25 or R-40 zoning districts. 2. Direct staff to work with the current applicants, the applicants for recently denied or withdrawn applications to commercial designations, all NPOs in the City, and other interested parties on the development of new Plan and zoning designations patterned loosely upon the applicants' discussion of a community commercial zone. 4 Attached are the Albertsons traffic study addendum, a memorandum from Cal Woolery of NPO V, and a letter from Marlin and Marilyn Hopfer. i If you do not still have the November 4th packet for CPA 91-03/ZON 91-06, please let me know and I will have it copied. . i . s i 1 November 4, 1991 Recommendations of NPO #7 for the Albertson's application: 1. NPO #7 recommends denial of the Albertson's application. tr a.) The density transfer proposed would adversely impact the adjacent single family development. b.) Further, NPO #7 supports staff's recommendation for denial. Y 2. NPO #7 recommends location of the C-N area to the Southeast Quadrant of the Murray alignment and Scholls Ferry Road. a.) NPO #7 also supports the Planning Department's request to develop a new "middle ground commerical" zone on a city-wide basis but NOT as a consideration for the Albertson's application. 3. NPO #7 recommends the size of the C-N be reduced to 2 (two) acres to conform to the Neighborhood Commercial designation in the Comprehensive Plan since the present size is non-conforming for a C-N designation. a.) This 2 acre C-N at the Southeast Quadrant does not conflict nor create a major change with SUB 90-04/PDR 90-04. Respectfully submitted, Cal Woolery, Chair NPO #7 t. i vJ s l 14190 S.W. Scholls Fry. Rd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 November 18, 1991 RECEIVED PLANNING Mr. Jerry Offer & Planning Commission NOV 2 p 199 CITY OF TIGARD 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr. Offer & Ccrrmission: It seems to us that the best way to serve the needs of West Tigard would be to have a grocery store/shopping mall on the Northeast Corner of Scholls Ferry Rd. at the Intersection of the proposed Walnut and Murray extension. Such a site should include the five (5) acres of the Crist property designated CN and should be expanded to include adjacent property to the north of 4.6 acres for a total of 9.6 acres. A small buffer zone of apartments could be created between the commercial site and the existing residences of the Cotswald subdivisions if there are objections to a cartnercial property next door to those property owners. Thank you for your consideration in thismetter. Sincerely Yours, yy~ o y~ Marlin Fopfer Marilyn D. Hopfer r i ~.J `a 1 ~'.5• - Jul t~ ~t'~ _Y Uewa~ O o 00 LZI -j - NI"~~T i t S as ■ ~Iij L. ~ M t l fa ~ 9 LL11 _rl_i1 _ - n. - - ; iV • Y 77,~~ L loll RECEIVED PLANNING DEC 0 2 1991 November 26, 1991 SO CIA TED Mr. Jerry Offer ANSPOR TA TION Land Use Planner GINEERING & City of Tigard ANNING (A TEP~ 13125 SW Hall Blvd (503) 636-9232 (503) 743-4491 Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Albertson's Traffic Analysis Addendum # 2 t>, Dear Jerry: This letter is in response to discussions between City Staff and Mr. John Shonkwiler, Attorney at Law representing Albertson's regarding the size and location of the existing zones. This letter 1 is being submitted because of the issue of whether the property north of the Murray Extension is comprised wholly of Neighborhood Commercial or split five (5) acres and 1.99 acres commercial - multi-family. As a result, ATEP is submitting this addendum to cover the option that the city ultimately determines that the Neighborhood Commercial Was originally five (5) acres and no larger. This addendum is divided into three parts: Alternative C - Neighborhood Commercial is only five (5) acres in size. Alternative D1 - The new R-40 zone would be located on SW Walnut Alternative D2 - The new R-40 zone would be located on SW Scholls south of the new eight acre commercial zone. 4040 DOUGLAS WAY LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 (503) 636-9232 P.O. BOX 13185 SALEM, OR 97309 (503) 743-0491 J Tigard Retail Center Addendum #2 November 25, 1991 ' Page 2 ALTERNATIVE C - F111E ACRES NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 1 This alternative would construct a 47,510 square foot grocery store on the existing zone of five acres of Neighborhood Commercial. The development would require two driveways onto the Murray Extension, one driveway would be located on the Murray Extension approximately 300 feet south of S.W. Scholls Ferry Road and the second would be at the south property line of the zone. TRIP GENERATION Procedure one as listed on pages 11 and 12 of the orginal ATEP report was used in the development of this report. The figures shown in Table 1 below, represent the expected number of vehicle trip ends to be generated by the proposed development on a daily p.m. peak hour basis based on the mathematical regression equations found on page 1150 Section 820 of the Trip Generation Manual (4th Edition). l l ft Table 1 - Trip Generation For Five Acre General Commercial Land Use. k v Generated Trips (B) P M Peak Hour Size of Land Use Daily i Land Use GSF (A) Volumes Total In Out Commercial 47,510 4,581 423 207 216 NET NEW TRIP ENDS GENERATED BY THE SITE (C) 2,977 275 135 140 Tigard Retail Center Addendum #2 November 25, 1991 Page 3 The peak hour levels of service were calculated using the volumes shown in Figure 1 and 2 are shown in Table 1. Table 1 - Level of Service for Five Acres of Neighborhood Commercial Land Use. i PM PEAK Intersection (Critical LOS Ave Reserve Movement) PM Delay Capacity - S.W. Scholls & Murray Ext. EB Left D 30.5 Old Scholls & New Schotls. EB Thru D 29.3 Murray Ext & South Site Drive SS Left F -17 Murray 6a & First Site Drive EB Left E 41 . j f ALTERNATIVE D1- EIGHT ACRES OF NC WITH MF ON WALNUT BLVD This alternative describes the impact of the proposed development eight (8) acres of ~y Neighborhood Commercial located on the southwest corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and the ~J Murray Extension. The R-40 high density Multi-family zone would be located on the Murry Extension at the northeast corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and the Murray Extension. Figures 3 and 4 shows the trip distribution of the two sites and Table 2 indicates the level of service at the surrounding intersection for this alternative. i Table 2 - Level of Service for General Commercial Land Use. PM PEAK Intei section (critical LOS Ave Reserve Movement) PM Delay capscity _ S.W. Scholls & Murray Ext. EB Left D 30.1 Oid Scholls & New ScholL% EB Thru D 34.8 S.W. Scholls & First Site Drive NS Leh E 51 _ S.W. Scholls & Second She Drive NB Left E 53 Murray Err & Site Drive EB Left F -56 w. ,s Tigard Retail Center Addendum #2 November 25, 1991 Page 4 ALTERNATIVE D1- E1CHT ACRES OF NC WITH MF ON SW SCHOLLS This alternative describes the impact of the proposed development eight (8) acres of Neighborhood Commercial located on the southwest corner of SW Scholls Ferry Road and the Murray Extension. The R-40 high density Multi-family zone would be located on SW Scholls f Ferry Road to the south of the proposed eight acres of Neighborhood Commercial I I. Figures 5 and 6 shows the trip distribution of the two sites and Table 3 indicates the level of service at the surrounding intersection for this alternative. Table 3 - Level of Service for General Commercial Land Use. i PM PEAK Intersection (Critical LOS Ave Reserve Movement) PM Delay Capacity S.W. Sdwlh: & Murray Est ES trh D 29.9 Old Scholi& & NeW Scholls. ES Thru D 34.8 - ~ S.W. Scholls & First Site Drive NB Leh E 51 S.W. Scholls & Second Site Drive NB Left E S3 " Murray Ext & Site Drive ES Leh F -S6 - Table 4 is a comparison of the level of service impact between Alternatives C, D1 and 132. Included in table 4 is the orginal alternatives described in Addendum 1 of the original ATEP report dated October 15, 1991. f F rf/. - ~1 t _ I. Tigard Retail Center Addendum #2 November 25, 1991 Page 5 Table 4 - Level of Service comparison between Alternatives ..i Ak A AN 8 Ak C Alt DI Ak D2 I Base Year Eight Acres Five Acres Eght Acres D t Acres Mf on Wa4wt M~ on Schof4 i Intersection LOS LOS LOS LOS PM PM PM PM i S.W. Scholls & Murray Ext. D D D D D Old SchoBs & New Scholls D D D D D S.W. Sdrolls & First Site Drive E E E S.W. Sclwlls & Second Drive E E E i 'Homy W& Side Drive F F F F > Muki-Famly Access/ E F E Second Ske Drive i - r Table 4 indicates that the street system as proposed by the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study is sufficient to handle the change in land use zoning regardless of the location of the land use change. If there are questions regarding the assumptions in this addendum, please contact at 743-4491, or I will answer them at the public hearing December 16, 1991. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING, (ATEP) Richard L. Woelk P.E.,T.E Principal _ 7 % j r -~i l NORTH ao 5cr%5 FERRY Ro m Z X r C4 rr-Z O ~p :SItE:.: . SW WAI.NUt qj h MAW REt L Wfff\ 511"E Comffv WIC ValLw (FIVE AM W MEKGIAW PM PEAK M f 77 - F k F N ORTH 01,0 SCI M5 FERRY RO ~ m i 6q l~~ o 1rr Z9--. •--197 361--. 4-506 441-4 IT 0 1 gtr 0 511E 5W WAWf IAI,~ t0% 1"WIC VOLUMES (FIVE WK CD~vIEKC ` PM PEAK M rq~ - _ - - - - N( ORTH 01,0 JI.al/5 FERRY 90 F pL o~° r: - rr ti~ i x-23 33-4 ~y c3 1 1 1 r ° CJ LY W5 ✓r~ j 0 . 51 tE 5W WAM s _ AI.ffRNAf~VE rn flow WAIL, GE W n {U fl'fN116Y UdifS WO W55 f0 5W WNAf f W6 GENER M V&W (ff\ff M I ANO M a. , PM PEAK W f f F7 t a NORTH 01,0 7U U5 FERRY RO m t i ~ ~ 3fi1--► x-506 40 ~h cJ 1 1 r G ~s 5 "fl Q~~/~ ~r b F N.fERNAfNE Ol 75 -MILY flow F\Mll, WgffiR Mtcss 55 l ro 51 sr u+irs TO rni.,uf 1'0% 1'WIG VOI~LW (PROP05E0 LANG AYE) N PEAK DOUR } r ~;j i. NORTH aO 5CP101.1,5 FERRY KO m t 0 4-0 A^fr►O1c 9s 33-" r" 1 0-,. r4C 01 1h J ~ qtr ~ l r :'::51tE : 5W WAI,NJt r f~510lNfIlJ. ' AM ON i S n bUHAOILY LHfS WIN TIGAFIffAil, CENtER ACU55 f0 51 5CHU5 WY ~ 51tE (~~1ERAfEO VOI.l~lES (PROPO`~EO I,ANO USE) ' i'M BEAK HOUR - r. ~ s fiL7'. C EXC54 1 5r~e ~5 deaeeuy- S/v gro~iy ~t R S - At. C'-AJ 3r/e. Mpbw AST a-~ fk. Gtr Srk pf 5fr'`'1 7r{e re tox~ ~a ' ALT. l7 - Z ° ~ AG GCr .e~6 G/Cr~¢~ !/N 5(~ ~ ~~f/a G p -Zan~.~ • f re- a~~d ~o f ,ScP1s!<<<os LtvE ~2~.~ dI dCs~ty~ l Y f E:- „i ,I r i e November 4, 1991 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Scott Fussell 31291 Raymond creek Road Scappoose, OR 97056 RE: Amended Decision - Extension of Approval Period for PDR 90-04/SUB 90-04 (Bull Mountain North Planned Development/Subdivision; location: between SW 135th Avenue and SW Scholls Ferry Road, WCTH 2S1 4B, Tax Lot 101) ti On September 23, 1991, your representative Craig Petrie submitted a request for an extension of the approval period for the Bull Mountain North planned development/subdivision. The extension was requested in order to allow additional time to record the final plat for the initial phase of this development. The decision on this application was issued on May 11, 1990 and became a final decision on May 22, 1990. The original approval period will expire on November 22, 1991. On October 23, 1991, I issued a decision extending the approval time for this application for a one year period, conditioned upon automatic revocation of the extension if the pending Plan Amendment/Zone Change affecting the subject parcel is approved. Your attorney, Garry HcHurry, raised concerns with the Planning Division's ability to condition the extension with an automatic revocation if the Plan/Zone amendment is approved. Upon review of Mr-. McHurry's November 1, 1991, ^ letter, we have decided to issue an amended decision granting the approval for `.11 a one year period expiring on November 22, 1992 without an automatic revocation. This amended decision is issued in accordance with Community Development Code Section 18.32.275. Accordingly, we provide the following findings in support of this decision. Community Development Code Section 18.80.030 allows the Planning Division to extend the approval period for a planned development application for one year It subject to the Division determining that: 1) there have been no changes made to f the original conceptual plan approved by the Commission; 2) the applicant intends to submit a final plat during the extended approval period; and 3) there have been no changes in the Plan policies or ordinance provisions on which the original decision was based. Similarly, Code Section 18.160.040 allows the Planning Division to extend a subdivision approval period if the same extension approval standards listed above can be satisfied and if the extension of time will not preclude development of abutting properties. The Planning Division finds that these conditions for approval of an extension exist. No significant revisions to the approved preliminary subdivision plat have been made at this time; therefore, no changes have been made to the approved 1 development plan as of the writing of this letter. However, a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and zone change are pending upon the western portion of this site. The conceptual planned development plan for Bull Mountain North indicated that this area was to be reserved for development of up to 300 apartment units. The Plan/zone change application would redesignate this future multi-family residential site for General Commercial use. If this application is approved, f a substantial change would exist that would affect the original conceptual I planned development plan approved by the Planning Commission. Since this would E create a significant conflict with the approved conceptual development plan that I would still be in effect, we urge the city Council to deny the proposed Plan/Zone change based upon such an approval creating a conflict between an °h approved development plan and a change in the potential use of the land involved 13125 SW Hall Blvd, P.O. Box 23397.7igcrd. Oregon ?7223 (E031039.4171 L~ ems., - - in the development decision. As you undoubtedly know, this is just one of our many concerns with the proposed Plan/Zone Change, but it potentially could be a ti significant issue with regard to this other application. Hr. Petrie's letter indicates that there is an intention to record the plat for the first phase of the planned development/subdivision within the extended approval period. We are unaware of any changes in the facts applicable to the decision such as a substantial change in the ability of service providing agencies to provide necessary public services to the proposed development or substantial changes to the roads which would provide access to the site. No substantive changes in the Plan or ordinances on which the decision was based have occurred since the original approval, with the exception of the adoption of solar access requirements that apply to the creation of new single-family lots (Code Section 18.88.040). However, Code Section 18.88.050 also provides solar access standards to be applied to home construction on individual lots, regardless whether the lots were created prior to or after the effective date of the solar access standards. Although staff is unable to find specific mention of whether the City Council intended for approved but as yet un-created lots to be required to be re-reviewed for solar accessibility of the subdivision layout, it is believed that the Council intended only for these lots to be subject to the f , solar access standards that apply to home construction on these lots. E Approval of an extension would not preclude development on any abutting property. A twenty lot subdivision was recently approved for development on an i approximately five acre parcel abutting the subject property on its southern - boundary. That subdivision would not be dependant on the development of the Bull Mountain North project for access or utility extensions, although in time the road and utility networks of the two approved but yet unbuilt subdivisions will be joined. It was made clear at the hearing on this twenty lot subdivision that a request for an extension of the approval period for the Bull Mountain North development was going to be made. The prospective developers of the smaller subdivision had no comment with regard to the needed extension. The Planning Division therefore concludes that the request for extension of the approval period for application PDR 90-04/SUB 90-04 is consistent with the requirements for extension of the approvals for planned developments and subdivisions. The approval period for recording the final plat for the initial phase is hereby extended to November 22, 1992. In accordance with Code Section 18.80.030.D, this decision may be appealed within 10 days of the issuance of this amended decision. The appeal period expires November 14, 1991. Appeals would be heard by the Planning Commission and would be confined to a review of the record in this matter. Further information regarding the subject of this amended decision and appeal procedures may be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Department. t I Please contact me if you have further y questions. Sincerely, 1rnne sc'ate r ois ` c : File Craig Petrie Cal Woolery, NPO 17 i carol Boyle, CPO 43 Garry McMurry JO: extension MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON CITY OF TIVARD TO: Rat Dorsett, NPO 7 Secretary V OREGON FROM: Je fer, Development Review Planner DATE: October 18, 1991 SUBJECT: Albertson's CPA/ZC I have received NPO 7's request for additional information with regard to ATEP's traffic study in support of the Albertson's plan amendment. I will forward this request to ATEP and Albertson's representatives so that they may respond to this request at the hearing on this matter scheduled for November 4, 1991. At this late point in the application review process, we cannot consider the NPO's letter a req::est to declare the application incomplete; instead, these matters can only be considered possible deficiencies with regard to the support for the application. If in fact these items are deficient, the applicants may wish to further amend their traffic study in response to the NPO's and others comments prior to the Council hearing on this matter. That hearing is tentatively set for December 10, 1991. With regard to the NPO's request for a determination of the current size of the C-N designation in the northeastern quadrant of the future Scholls/hurray intersection, staff agrees that the C-N designation covers only 5.0 acres of the total 63.38 acres of tax lot 101. No reconfiguration or expansion of this area has been approved since the Council's decision for CPA 1-86. The decision for SUB 90-0004 only allowed creation of a 6.99 acre parcel in the northeast quadrant of this intersection without approval of an _ expansion of the C-N designated portion of this parcel. This parcel has yet to be created. In the Planning Division's opinion, this parcel would be a split zoned parcel upon its creation. The City's zoning map and Comprehensive Plan Map contain several other split zoned/split Plan designation parcels. An increase in the t, size of a parcel through a lot line adjustment or the division of a split zoned parcel along other than zoning boundaries does not automatically result in an enlarged Plan designation or zone designation. The Council's decision for CPA 1-86 only said that this 5.0 acre area could be reconfigured, not enlarged. We believe that the Albertson's applicant's statement is in error when it refers to a 6.99 acre Neighborhood Commercial/C-N parcel on this site. Staff will ask the City Council to determine a new configuration for this 5.0 acre C-N area if the Council fails to approve the Albertson's application. c: John Shonkwiler, representative of Albertson's Inc. Dick Woelck, ATEP Engineering Ed Murphy, Community Development Director 13125 SW Hcll Blvd., P.O.3cx 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (5/03) 639-4171 APPENDIX ONE s - October 16. 1991 RECEIVED OCT 17 1 Attn: Dick B esdorff 199] Tigard ng COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P. O. 3397Tigar OR 97223 RE: NPO #7 REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION Gentlemen: NPO #7 HEREIN SUPPLEMENTS ITS REQUEST TO THE DIRECTOR, DATED 4 OCTOBER 4, 1991, to INTERPRET the FINAL DECISIONS in CPA 1-86 / ZC 3-86 and SUB 90-0004. 1) The FINAL DECISION in CPA 1-86 / ZC 3-86 declared, "The CONFIGURATION of the five acre C-N DESIGNATION may be modified to conform with the final alignment of Murray Bv.". The term CONFIGURATION should be GIVEN ITS COMMON DICTIONARY MEANING in ANY INTERPRETATION, PURSUANT TO 18.26.010 A. Webster's New World Dictionarv defines CONFIGURATION as, "a) arrangement of marts b) form or figure as determined by the arrangement of the parts; contour; outline". Webster's defines CONTOUR as, "1. the outline of a figure, mass, land". Webster's defines OUTLINE as, "1. a line bounding the LIMITS of an object, showing its SHAPE: contour line". This decision declared that ONLY THE CONFIGURATION, NOT THE SIZE, of the five acre C-N DESIGNATION may be i modified. FURTHERMORE, this DECISION ONLY created a C-N DESIGNATION. The INTENT of this DECISION was to: a) LIMIT the C-N DESIGNATION to FIVE acres, BUT b) ALLOW its EXACT SHAPE AND LOCATION to conform with the THEN UNKNOWN final alignment of Murray Bv. This INTENT is found in the staff remort and the applicant's statement as NOTED IN NPO #71s ORIGINAL REQUEST, DATED OCTOBER 4, 1991. FURTHERMORE, this INTENT is found in the City Council d _ Page 2, NPO *7 Request for Interpretation 1 1 MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 24, 1986. IN PUBLIC TESTIMONY, Russ Kruger, the APPLICANT, "suggested this (request) could be approved now with the understanding that if the extension of Murray Blvd. were (sic) slightly relocated in the future the designation could then be LIMITED or MODIFIED TO ALLOW FOR 4 ACRES OF DEVELOPMENT". IN PUBLIC TESTIMONY, staff recommended aaproval of a REVISED LOCATION for this 4 ACRE C-N DESIGNATION next to New Scholls Ferry. This REVISED LOCATION was FURTHER from the THEN EXISTING COTSWOLD SUBDIVISION than the applicant's original location. This REVISED C-N ZONE LOCATION was bordered on the east and south by applicant's VACANT LANDS. IT WAS THIS FACT, PLUS THE FACT THAT NO PARCEL WAS TO BE CREATED, that made it possible for the Council to declare, "The CONFIGURATION of the five acre C-N DESIGNATION may be modified to conform with the final alignment of Murray Bv" IT IS THIS FACT that makes it clear that the INTENT of the Council was to LIMIT the C-N DESIGNATION to FIVE acres. The City Council DID NOT IMAGINE that the aonlicant WOULD SELL his VACANT LANDS BEFORE the final alignment of Murray Bv, and IN SUCH A WAY AS TO RESULT IN ANYTHING OTHER THAN A 5 ACRE PARCEL TO MATCH THE 5 ACRE C-N ZONE. NPO 47 FINDS that the INTENT in this FINAL DECISION was to LIMIT this C-N DESIGNATION TO NO MORE THAN five acres. IN ADDITION, if the GENERAL SHAPE of this zone is to became SQUARE or RECTANGULAR, its SIZE SHOULD BE REDUCED to four acres. 2) The FINAL DECISION in SUB 90-0004 created an INCIDENTAL parcel of 6.99 acres along the Murray Extension. Five acres of C-N DESIGNATION from CPA 1-86 / ZC 3-86 is WITHIN this INCIDENTAL parcel. NPO --7 FINDS that the C-N ZONE at Schools Ferrv and Murrav is NO MORE THAN five acres WITHIN this parcel. The OTHER 1.99 acres in this parcel SHOULD BE R-25 zone. IN THE EVENT the Director FINDS that the C-N ZONE at Scholls Ferrv and Murray is 6.99 acres BY OPERATION OF LAW under SUB 90-0004. N?O :7 WOULD PETITION for REVOCATION OF APPROVAL u _ _ Page 3, NPO #7 Request for Interpretation i OF SUB 90-0004, PURSUANT TO 18.32.390 A.4. and 18.32.390 C., to-wit: NPO #7 FINDS a MATERIAL MISTAKE IN FACT in the staff report for SUB 90-0004 regarding the SIZE of this C-N ZONE AND PARCEL. NPO #7 HEREIN REQUESTS THE DIRECTOR TO ISSUE AN INTERPRETATION OF THE FINAL DECISIONS in CPA 1-86 / ZC 3-86 and SUB 90-0004 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ON CPA 91-0003 / ZON 91-0006. SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 4, 1991. Respectf 11 For NPO #7 By Katy Dorsett, Secretary xc: Ed Murphy Liz Newton NPO #7 Members 1 rC • 6. PUBLIC HEARLNG - KRUEGER ZONE CHANGE ZC 3-86 6 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE CPA 1-86 - NPO N7 A request by Marge Krueger to move a four acre area which is designated Neighborhood Commercial in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and zoned C-N (Commercial Neighborhood) from the west side of 135th Avenue to a location on the north side of the proposed Murray Blvd, extension, approximately 500 feet west of 135th Avenue. The subject property is located between 135th Avenue and Scholls Ferry Road approximately 1/4 mile north of Walnut Street (WCTM 1S1 33C, Tax Lot 1000). a. Public Hearing Opened b. Keith Liden, Senior Planner, presented staff report and noted the requirements to relocate the 4 acre design of Commercial-Neighborhood zoning due to the Murray Boulevard extension relocation. C. Public Testimony; Proponents o Russ Krueger, 3515 SW Barbur Blvd., outlined the history of the request and suggested thin could be approved now with the understanding that if the extension of Murray Blvd, were slightly relocated in the future the design could then be limited or modified to allow for 4 acres of development. o Frank Ossman, owner of lot 100 in area, noted support of the relocation and of the land use application. d. Senior Planner Liden recommended approval newly submitted map to be attached to the ordinance and marked Exhibit "B". e. Discussion followed regarding whether the parcel should be 4 or 5 acres and the location. City Administrator stated the proposed location would not be effected by the tentative location of Murray Boulevard. f. Public Hearing Closes 9. ORDINANCE '40. 86-12 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA 1-86) AND ZONE CHANGE (ZC 3-86) PROPOSED BY MARGE KRUEGER, h. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Edwards to adopt ordinance with newly distributed Exhibit "B° attached. i. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Edwards to amend Section 2 of the ordinance to show the parcel to be 5 acres of C-N zone desia_ration. Motion to amend was approved by unanimous vote of Council present, notion to adopt Ordinance No. 86-12, as amended, was approved by unanimous veto of Council present. Page Z - COUNCIL M-VAIT`eS - FEBRUARY 24, 1986 - - Page 1 r- _ October 4, 1991 RECEIVED PLANNING Attn: Dick Bewersdorff O(,+1 7 1991 Tigard Planning PO Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 RE: NPO #7 REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION Gentlemen, Albertsons Inc. CLAIMS that the C-N zone at Schoils Ferry and the proposed Murray extension is 6.99 acres. HOWEVER, NPO #7 FINDS this C-N zone IS, AND SHOULD BE, NO MORE THAN five acres. q; THEREFORE, NPO #7 REQUESTS the Director to INTERPRET the FINAL DECISIONS in CPA 1-86 / ZC 3-86 and SUB 90-0004, PURSUANT TO 18.1Z.010 A., to-wit. 1) The FINAL DECISION in CPA 1-86 / ZC 3-86 declared, "The CONFIGURATION of the five acre C-N DESIGNATION may be modified to conform with the final alignment of Murray Bv.". This DECISION ONLY created a C-N DESIGNATION. IT DID NOT create a PARCEL. This DECISION declared that ONLY THE CONFIGURATION, NOT THE SIZE, of the five acre C-N DESIGNATION may be modified. The INTENT of this DECISION was to; a) LIMIT the C-N DESIGNATION to FIVE acres, BUT b) ALLOW its EXACT SHAPE AND LOCATION to conform with the THEN UNKNOWN final alignment of Murray By. { This INTENT is found in the staff report, the applicant's I statement and Ordinance 86-12. I F 4 ~ ` f { 1 1 i. „r , Page Z Staff recommended that the C-N DESIGNATION be NO MORE THAN four acres in order to be CONSISTENT with the County Comprehensive Plan and to DEPART NO FURTHER from the locational criteria in the City Plan. IN FACT, staff reminded readers that no use could exceed a gross floor area of 4,000 square feet in this C-N zone. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the C-N DESIGNATION WITH THE CONDITION that this zone NOT EXCEED four acres. HOWEVER, applicant argued that the GENERAL SHAPE of this C-N zone was unusual (an irregular triangle) which would cause development inefficiencies and require more landscaping. IN ADDITION, applicant argued that five acres of C-N would allow ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING and visual variety which would be MORE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING and FIT INTO THE CHARACTER OF THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. NPO #7 FINDS that the INTENT in this FINAL DECISION was to LIMIT this C-N zone to NO MORE THAN five acres. IN ADDITION, if the GENERAL SHAPE of this zone is to become SQUARE or RECTANGULAR, its SIZE SHOULD BE REDUCED to four acres. Z) The FINAL DECISION in SUB 90-0004 created a subdivision and four parcels along the Murray Extension. HOWEVER, the three parcels on the north side of Murray were ONLY INCIDENTAL IN NATURE to the subdivision. IN FACT, applicant's statement and exhibits DID NOT EVEN disclose the SIZE of these INCIDENTAL parcels. Five acres of C-N DESIGNATION from CPA 1-86 / ZC 3-86 was WITHIN the largest INCIDENTAL parcel. Staff ASSUMED the SIZE of this parcel was THE SAME AS the SIZE of the C-N DESIGNATION. The staff report stated, "...In addition, the proposed division would result in the creation of three additional parcels on the north side of the Murray Bv. extension - one approximately S.0 acre undeveloped parcel currently zoned C-N and two small R-ZS zoned remnant parcels...". k The ACTUAL SIZE of this parcel is 6.99 acres. HOWEVER, this fact WOULD NOT INCREASE the SIZE of the C-N DESIGNATION WITHIN this parcel to 6.99 acres. The FINAL DECISION in CPA 1-86 / ZC 3-86 limited the SIZE of the C-N DESIGNATION to five acres REGARDLESS of the SIZE of any parcel. It declared that THE CONFIGURATION, NOT THE SIZE, of the C-N DESIGNATION could be modified. NPO #7 FINDS that the C-N zone at Scholls Ferry and Murray is-NO MORE THAN five acres WITHIN this parcel. The OTHER 1.99 acres in this parcel SHOULD BE R-ZS zone. r, s_ Page 3 IN THE EVENT the Director FINDS that the C-N zone at Scholls Ferry y and Murray is 6.99 acres BY OPERATION OF LAU under SUB 90-0004, NPO #7 UOULD PETITION for REVOCATION OF APPROVAL of SUB 90-0004, PURSUANT TO 18. A.4. and 18. C., to-uit: NPO #7 FINDS a MATERIAL MISTAKE IN FACT in the staff report for SUB 90-0004 regarding the SIZE of the "undeveloped parcel currently zoned C-N". Respectfully, Lla.~- NPO by Bill Gross r - f44 i i - F t. I' 1 f J Pape ( 0. F Octobar, 4, 1991 Attn: .Tarry Offer Tigard Planning gAi PO Box 23397 O Tigard, OR 97123 O RE: NPO !CJ REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Gentlemen, IN ORDER TO PROPERLY EVALUATE CPA 91-0003/ZON 91-0005, HPO S;7 REQUESTS the Director to require additional information on ATEP's transportation analysis for Albertsons' Proposal, PURSUANT TO 18.31.060 A.3.b.fv) AND - 18.32.@80 A. 1., to-wit: 1) SUPPORT for ATEP's 3SY REDUCTION in the commercial area's 5,373 site generated OAILY NEW TRIPS due to DROP-IN TRIPS (ATEP Table 0). In 1992, ATEP's site generated PM peak hour trip volume is SS1 ` (RTEP Table a), WHILE its background traffic PM peak hour volume is ONLY 3SO (ATEP Figure 9). Would DROP-IN TRIPS from this SMALL background traffic volume ACTUALLY reduce site generated PM peak hour NEW TRIPS to 3597 Would DRILY DROP-IN TRIPS from this background traffic volume ACTUALLY reduce site generated DAILY NEW TRIPS to 4,143 in 19927 In 2010, RTEP's background traffic PM peak hour volume grows to Z,04S (ATEP Figure 2). EVEN THOUGH background traffic would grow, would traffic at this OUT-OF-THE-WAY site ACTUALLY contribute DROP-IN TRIPS to reduce site generated DAILY NEW TRIPS to 4,143 in Z0107 Would trips an INTERIOR NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR streets ACTUALLY be made by persons entering or leaving nearby commercial and residential property or by persons whose primary destination is to other commercial areas? I Did any of the studies published in the ITE Journal evaluate any shopping centers next to COLLECTOR streets; or did the studies just evaluate centers next to arterials or freeways? Z) ANALYSIS of the impact of the high density residential area's site generated trips. r .r , r t - - Page 2 3) REVISION of ATEP'a RECOMMENDATIONS for REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS to mitigate the impact of the Commercial and high density residential arena' site generated trips. ATEP's LOS evaluation ASSUMES. AND DEPENDS ON. the proposed street improvements in the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study (NE Bull Mtn TS Appendix E) which includes a) Seholls Ferry would be built to S lanes. b) Murray Extension would be built to S lanes at Scholls Ferry, c) Murry Extension intersections would be signalized at) 1) Scholls Ferry ii) 13Sth north iii) 13Sth south WHILE. ATEP's LOS evaluation DEPENDS ON these proposed street improvements. ATEP ASSUMES these improvements would be done by i OTHERS. Would developers SUCH AS Albertson make these street It improvements? Which improvements would Aibortaons make? 4) RECONCILIATION OF ATEP's LOS evaluation with Parsons Brinekerhoff's LOS evaluation of the Murray Extension in the Western Bypass Study (2010 Peak Hour Volume and LOS Forecast For Mayor North-South Roadways). Parsons Brinckerhoff forecasts F level LOS on the Murray Extension for several transportation improvement strategies. Respectfully. %y.e'er j NPO #7 by Bill Gross Enel G i 1 - s RECEIVED PLANNING OCT 171991 October 16. 1991 Attn: Jerrv Offer Tigard Planning P. 0. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 RE: NPO #7 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Gentlemen: IN ORDER TO PROPERLY EVALUATE CPA 91-0003/ZON 91-0006, NPO #7 REVISES ITS REQUEST TO THE DIRECTOR, DATED OCTOBER 4, 1991. NPO #7 REQUESTS: _ i REQUEST #1 RE: ATEP's 35% REDUCTION in the site's 6,373 SITE GENERATED DAILY NEW TRIPS due to DROP-IN TRIPS at this OUT-OF- THE-WAY site on INTERIOR NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR streets. SUPPORT FOR ATEP's 35% REDUCTION in the site's 6.373 SITE GENERATED DAILY NEW TRIPS for the BENEFIT OF ALL REVIEW BODIES and NPO #7 PURSUANT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 2.1.1. i REQUEST #3 RE: REVISION of ATEP's RECOMMENDATIONS for REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS in order to mitigate the impact of the site's commercial and high density residential SITE GENERATED DAILY NEW TRIPS. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REVISION of ATEP's LOS evaluation TO ASSUME, AND ONLY DEPEND ON, MINIMUM street improvements which include: a) Scholls Ferry would be built to 2 lanes, b) Murrav Extension would be built to 2 lanes, and c) Murrav Extension intersections would NOT BE signalized. j Respectfully, For NPO #7 ~..J By Katy Dorsett, Secretary xc: Ed Murphy, Liz Newton. NPO #7 members 6,d F CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION - BY CITY COUNCIL (Sec. 18.32.380) FF. 1. Concerning Case Number(s): CPA 1-86 ZC 3-86 2. Name of Owner: Marge Krueger 3. Name of Applicant: Russ Krueger Address3515 SW Barbur Blvd. Y-1 City Portland State OR Zip 97201 4. Location of Property: Address Between Scholls Ferry Rd. & 135th Ave. i mile north of Walnut St. Legal Description ISI 33C loc 1000 I 5. Nature of Application: To move the present C-N (Commercial Neighborhood) designation from the west side of 135th Ave. to a location on the north side I of the Murray Road extension. Approximately 500 feet west of 135th. 4 6. Action: The Tigard City Council, on 2/24/86, heard the above noted request. Council upheld the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the request and approved the commercial designation to be located as shown in Exhibit "B" attached. The configuration of the five acre C-N designation may be modified to conform with the final alignment of Murray Blvd. A copy of Ordinance No. 86-12 is attached for your files. 7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: X The applicant & owners j X Owners of record within the required distance X The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization X Affected governmental agencies 8. Final Decision: THE DECISION WAS SIGNED ON 2/26/86' AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON 3/29/86 The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of condition can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 12755 SW Ash, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures. 9. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the Tigard City C:) Recorder at 639-4171. v (0257P) oreen R. Wilson, Recorder . L t . C11Y OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 86- AN ORDINANCE A00PI'ING 6'INOINGS AND CUNCLUSION; IU APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I AMENDMENT (CPA 1-86) AND ZONE CHANGE (7C 3-86) PROPOSED BY MARGE KRUEGER. WHEREAS, the applicant has request:_d A Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone 7, Y, Change to shift the existing area coned C-N (Commercial Neighborhood) from the side of 135th Avenue to a loration on the north side of the proposed Murray Blvd. extension approximately 500 feet west of 135th Ave. (WCTM 1S1 33C, T.L. 1000); WHEREAS, the Planning commission reviewed the proposal on February 4, 1986 and recommended approval with a condition that the C-N designation not exceed four acres in size; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before City Council on February 24, 1986 to consider the Commission recommendation. THE CI7-Y OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria as discussed in the February 4, 1986 Planning staff report to Planning commission (Exhibit "A"). Section 7-: The City Council upholds the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map Amendment and the commercial designation, will be located as shown in Exhibit "B". The configuration of the five acre C-N designation may be modified to conform with the final alignment of Murray Blvd. i Section 3: The area presently zoned C-N shall be designated R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre). Section 4: That this ordinance shall be effective on and after the 31st day after its passage by the Council, and approval by the Mayor. PASSED: By (~kno_n;mcuS vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this ;aq71, day of r=7e - 1986. Ar",n R. Wilson, Deputy Recorder APPROVED: This day of ~ r 1986 KRI Conk, Mayor ( Pm5)) ORDINANCE NO. 36. Page # i - ORD -~a - I lit F RI.11UR1 .t :i Mir, I I r M 'r. 7 _ I I:BRIJARY ! lU P.M 11CARD P1 ANN fNG t (:e1M1SSrON t)l:i 1.17 J1IN IUR 111411 '.t ;ll(A )1 I I:T IU80') S.W WALNUT rIGARO, OREGON 97223 i A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 1-86 and Zone Change ZC 3-86 REQUEST: To move the present area designated C-N (Commercial Neighborhood) from the west side of 135th Avenue to a , location on the north side of the Murray Road extension, approximately 500 feet west of 135th Avenue. c j COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium High Density Residential/Neighborhood Commercial ZONING DESIGNATION: R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre) and C-N (Commercial Neighborhood) APPLICANT: Russ Krueger OWNER: Marge Krueger 3515 SW Barbur Blvd Rt. 1, Box 792 Suite Y-1 Beaverton, OR 97007 Portland, OR 97201 I LOCATION: Between Scholls Ferry Road. and 135th Avenue, approximately one quarter mile north of Walnut Street (Wash. Co. Tax Map IS1 33C, Tax Lot 1000). 2. Background The property was annexed to the City on June 12, 1983 and in August, 1983, the City approved a variety of Plan and Zone designations for the property which included Medium-High Density Residential (R-20), Medium Density Residential (R-12) and Neighborhood Commercial (C~1). In February, 1984, the City approved the relocation of the C-N area from the west side of 135th Avenue to the northwest corner of the proposed intersection of the Murray Road extension and 135th Avenue (CPA 18-83/ZC 14-83. . I 'j In 1985, shift in the location of the C-N zone to the future Murray Road/Scholls Ferry Road intersection was proposed (CPA 4-85/ZC 4-85). Because this request was determined to be premature, due to the unanswered questions related to Murray Road extension, the four acre C-N _ designation was reapplied at the original location on the west side of 135th Avenue. It was also agreed that on.:o the alignment of Murray Road was d?terntined, the applicant would be entitled to propose yet another 1 l' Murray Rn,d location. W-V i. • 3 VlCtnit_y Info. ai. Lion _ f:xcc•pt fr~r' ;everdl c:+L t.er~•a tu~n„r•,rl.•,• rt,r br•t.wovn 13`iLh Avenue >;,-bolls F,:vey R,.•.,'- tti .~ndnv: l•.p,"1 -,r uLrll;nd Ln a iimitcd extvrnt for olgr•iculture :ir In wood,•d Ihv .r, ••i I.o Lhe nor Lh are being developed for single family residenc,!s (Cr,Lswald Subdivision). The land surrounding the present and proposed conlmercttil sites is zoned R-25. 4. Site Information 0 The existing and proposed commercial sites are undeveloped. The commercial site is intended to be located an the north side of the Murray Road extension approximately 500 feet west of 135th Avenue. A specific development plan has not been formulated. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division has the following comments: r a. Site Development Review approval will be required prior to development of the property. b. Sanitary sewerage and storm drainage provisions will be necessary in conjunction with development. C. Participation in the improvement of 135th Avenue and Murray Road will be required as a condition of development. The Building Inspection Office has no objection to the request. The City of Beaverton suggests that the affect this proposal could have upon the future development plans for tax lot 100 to the east be carefully evaluated. No other comments have been received B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1 and 8,1.1 and Chapter 12, Localional Criteria. The Planning staff concludes that Lhe proposal is consistent with the f relevant portions of Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: 1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. 2. Policy 8.1.1 is satisfied because Lhv proposed relocation of the C-N zone will allow for the appropriate alignment of the Murray - Road extension r j _ i~ n - I; P.I .-90 d, n.. LI. tic f,t ;t - I n - - , Aft. ttt•r'l,. U Ru si Lc is propuscd L„ be rnl..r yr•„ size , r,a thnr than the ar_r•rr yu tdni~n., ,,.1 . ttr tri it Plan A 4 st to wes es Lab I ishod it u.r, :h. t......... ty unrc+od t.u - the City in order to be r,on sistenL wtLh the W,a hinyton County Plan which applied priur Lo the ,irtne&.4LtCori Since this expansion represents a further dep.r[urn I'rvm adopted Plan Policy, the staff recommends Lhat the 4 <acre limit be retained. b. There are no other commercial properties within on half mile of the proposed site. C. The commercial site will be limited to the north side of Murray Road. d No significant traffic impacts are anticipated from this move. Specific traffic related issues will be addressed during the Site Development Review process. e. The site will have direct access to a collector street. t j", a f. The eventual development of the commercial center will be evaluated according to the applicable standards in the Community Development Code. Since the entire area is undeveloped, establishing a compatible relationship between i uses should not present a problem. ! Although it is not necessary to consider specific provisions of the C-N J zone, it should be noted that Section 18.60.045 of the code states that no use shall exceed a gross floor area of 4,000 square feet." A variance must be approved in conjunction with the Site Development Review process in order for this standard to be exceeded. C REC(N'TgENDATLON Based upon the findings and conclusions noted above, the Planning staff recommends approval of CPA 1-86 and ZC 3-86 subject to the following conditions: 1-he new C-N zone designation shall be no more than 4 acres in size. + i r PREPARED BY: Keith Liden APPROVED BY- William'A. Monahan Senior Planner Director of Planning E Development (KSL.bsdS) t V Curt i ~ 1 - • ,I / L L ZXA4if- 3 w October 23, 1991 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Scott Russell 31291 Raymond Creek Road Scappoose, OR 97056 RE: Extension of Approval Period for PDR 90-04/SUB 90-04 (Bull Mountain North) Craig Petrie has submitted a request for an extension of the approval period for the Bull Mountain North planned development/subdivision. The extension is requested in order to allow additional time to record the final plat for the initial phase of this development. The decision on this application was issued on May 11, 1990 and became a final decision on May 22, 1990. The original approval period will expire on November 22, 1991. Community Development Code Section 18.80.030 allows the Planning-Division to extend the approval period for a planned development application for one year subject to the Division determining that: 1) there have been no changes made to the original conceptual plan approved by the Commission; 2) the applicant intends to submit a final plat during the extended approval period; and 3) there have been no changes in the facts or ordinance provisions on which the original decision was based. Similarly, Code Section 18_160.040 allows the Planning Division to extend a subdivision approval period if the same extension approval standards listed above can be satisfied and if the extension of time will not preclude development of abutting properties. The Planning Division finds that these conditions for approval of an extension exist. No significant revisions to the approved preliminary subdivision plat have been made at this time; therefore, no changes have been made to the approved development plan as of the writing of this letter. However, a Comprehensive Plan Hap Amendment and zone change are pending upon the western portion of this site. The conceptual planned development plan for Bull Mountain North indicated that this area was to be reserved for development of up to 300 apartment units. The Plan/zone change application would redesignate this future multi-family residential site for General Commercial use. If this application is approved, a substantial change would exist that would affect the original conceptual planned development plan approved by the Planning Commission. This would i necessarily make any extension of the approval period void. 1 Hr. Petrie's letter indicates that there is an intention to record the plat for the first phase of the planned development/subdivision within the extended approval period. We are unaware of any changes in the facts applicable to the decision such as a substantial change in the ability of service providing agencies to provide necessary public services to the proposed development or substantial changes to the roads which would provide access to the site. No substantive changes in the Plan or ordinances on which the decision was based have occurred since the original approval, with the exception of the adoption of solar access requirements that apply to the creation of new single-family lots ' (Code Section 18.88.040). However, Code Section 18.88.050 also provides solar access standards to be applied to home construction on individual lots, regardless whether the lots were created prior to or after the effective date of the solar access standards- although staff is unable to find specific mention - of whether the City Council intended for approved but as yet un-created lots to - be required to be re-reviewed for solar accessibility of the subdivision layout, it is believed that the Council intended only for these lots to be subject to the solar access standards that apDly to home construction on these lots. P 13125 SW Noll Blvd.. P.O. Box 23397. Tigcrd, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 - v - Approval of an extension would not preclude development on any abutting property. A twenty lot subdivision was recently approved for development on an approximately five acre parcel abutting the subject property on its southern boundary. That subdivision would not be dependant on the development of the Bull Mountain North project for access or utility extensions, although in time the road and utility networks of the two approved but yet unbuilt subdivisions will be joined. It was made clear at the hearing on this twenty lot subdivision that a request for an extension of the approval period for the Bull Mountain North development was going to be made. The prospective developers of the smaller subdivision had no comment with regard to the needed extension. The Planning Division therefore concludes that the request for extension of the approval period for application PDR 90-04/SUB 90-04 is consistent with the requirements for extension of the approvals for planned developments and subdivisions. The approval period for recording the final plat for the initial phase is hereby extended to November 22, 1992. This extension is however conditioned upon no changes being made in the comprehensive Plan or zoning designations applied to any portion of this parcel which are subject to the Planned Development overlay zone, or in other words, that portion south of the E i approved alignment of the Walnut-Hurray connection. If any change to the Plan or zoning designations is made, such a change would certainly constitute a change in the original the conceptual plan for the Bull Mountain North planned development approved by the Commission. The extended approval period would therefore become void upon approval of a plan or zone change affecting the subject parcel. {fl Please contact me if you have further questions. Sincerely, If Jerry vfPer / • ' . Associate Plapner c: File Craig Petrie Cal Woolery, NPO i7 ' Carol Boyle, CPO 4B JO: extension S= i - f i Mr - Jerry u.. ar RECEIVED PLANNING Development F.ev;e Planner Vi M-1 G= T laird 13125 SW Hall Blvd. SEP231941 Ticard Oregon 97223 RE: Final Order 90-12 PC---Bull Mountain North PD (oart og Tax Lot 101, Map 2S 1W, 4B, Washington County Oregon) I Dear Mr. 0s. As owners o-- the real orooert7 that Final Order PC (approved May 11th, 1950) applies to we are requesting a one year extension o£ the approval and the 26 conditions which were attached so that we may complete negotiations with a company which will build the Bull Mountain North PD. The uoheaval in the financial markets combined with the additional burden o£ the financing and construction o£ Walnut Street through our property have made getting this project under way di-fficult. No changes in the final order are being requested at this time. The final I plat will be submitted within this one year period. i Would you please send a letter confirming that this extension has been granted as soon as possible. Please Address it to Scott Russell and send a copy to Craig Petrie. Scott Russell Craig Petrie 31291 Raymond Creek Road The Petrie Company Scappoose Oregon 97056 20920 SW Barbur Blvd. J Portland Oregon 97219 f Sincerely, OWNERS: Date: 2-i/ September, ?.991. Marg ry F. Crist, T stee under the Margery F. Crist Living Trust dated July 1, 1988 ~~u~- .may . ~`7✓~~~„%~ ~~/1-~-u1~(~ Date: September, 1991. 1 John R. Criss, Trustee under the Margery F. Crist Living Trust dated July 1, 1983 Date: September, W1' 11=am Scott Russell Irdi Jidually riillia~ Scott Russel- --ustae Willi- Scott Russel, Tr.stae under T_.:sz ag_esuent dated December 25, 1970 fc- be.^.e_"_- c= Zaccary =a:::S Russell and T= ~s sae Wider :.c-eer_..u Dece^er 2 19-S ~cr z.:e ;e e?_u Of Carl ~yade ~se__. I - - ?age Two 9/5/91 letter co Jerry Offer Cicy of Tigard Planning Depc. Date. SzPz_tioer, 1991. deri ck ..enr Russell -ndi -_duallL -edericx Henr-f Russel-, Trustee crederick Henry Russell, Trustee, under Trust Agreement dated may 1, 3935 for the benefit of Rebecca _zich Russell and Trustee under Trust Ag*_zement dated May 2, 1985 for t_ e benefit of Anna Marie Russell and Trustee under Trust Agreement dated May 3, 1985 for the benefit of Steohan_e Jo Russell. Date: 941/ September, 1391. ./f4!/ ,lG~rtO Beg R. Weems (formerly ?mown as egg_ R. Ayres) -ndividualiv t0 ~ !Y Pe R. Weems, Trustee (formerly k.'ow-n as Peggy R. Ayres) Peg R_ Weems, Trustee, under Trust Agreement dated December 20, 1978 for the benefit of Nancy Ayres and Trustee under Trust Agreement dated December 21, 1973 for the benefit of Alan Scott Ayres, and Trustee under Trust agreement dated December 21, 1978 for the benefit of Amy Ayres. ~lejytd ,~%Csnr Dated: September, 1991. f - Pe R. Weems as Co-Conservator for Gerald Vincent Russell (Peggy R. Weems was formerly known as Peggy R. Ayres) 41119 Ile /AAd !4 ~l~L~~~ 'Dated: -Z( September, 1.991. iewis Russel as Co-Cansz--vator _or Gerald Vincent Russell Date: f_7 September, 1991. t Jr, ini R. Marel, Individually Date: September, 1991. Virgin' R. Marel, Trustee Virgin a R. Marel, under Trust Agreement dated December 18, 1978 for the benefit of Rita Hawkins and Trustee under Agreement dated December 19, 1978 for the benefit of Kenneth Pee Hawkins. S! 1 SO' R.O W. ROAD S(CIICIN 11Y1., R.0.1Yf_ROAD'SECTION ITYI'1 t_ J ' En u.Dw. RoAU s[ulnN nrr.. ~ • l ' i Joy„ f.. j f - ` .,f aµ'nn.`w rn.no l a I wt "~•1 -Wc r A,eA t } ~ f.W. Ilmdon 5,. .r-'~V.~ i• j G •/rr/ 1 \~Ir~. ~ 1~ 7 r ..-w_d`' w, •A•I r ~ r~ ~s e'i / .!•f.+1:7 I~4•y ,om rAcnuu ' r ._...1 ~~~~:7,};l`s" ',+l'1•.L LS.:DII:~~f-;1,:~y~ a~ a .4~~\\~}• Z t ' - _ . . ..~a: ' ~(~7~ ~ T ; ~ ' ter, '1 J.;.S•~ 41,,~ 1 r 1"~,.'+ n.......e..r• µY t.. , 1111 ~~"w' • Y7~ t~^ .T• \ :T~ Z . ~1i•~ ' h~?~g j ~1.'"~.~,i~~1 , f ,'L.ti a f1_Y~y ~ a zz:; ((s..'y., ~ ~ \ f. K I,d1+~.tbh,alvyl.a. 1 ~ f~1. i. W i{ . l ~ .Ar , %-.'r I . ~ 1 ~ lous:w I.' I 1171,:_A;Eafl \ li, _1SJ^- , -Jl`J ~~,r, rA;uK,• a, 1_ . - I~.' - <;°~.~r~~r:_7n,;r~ti~.:'~---r~11° , _ • 1 1 . W Otak li I I j_ 1 1 11 1 1 1u.n w•n r. P.Imurl. ~ _ S.W. MURRAY RIVD. SECTfON - COLUMBIA _ DEVELOPNUWI COMPANY 1661 0 E 9nd August 30, 1991 9NINNVId a3A1333H Mr. Jerry Offer Tigard city Planner 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: ALBERTSONIS ZONE CHANGE Dear Mr. Offer: Columbia Willamette has read with interest the articles regarding a proposed development by Albertson's on Scholls Ferry Road near Walnut Street. I write to alert you to our concerns for such a development in close proximity to Murrayhill. As owners of the Murrayhill community and the Murrayhill J Marketplace shopping center we are acutely aware of the existing supply of and demand for grocery and other retail services in the area. It is our opinion as owners and investors that additional grocery and related retail outlets are not warranted by local demand and would cause substantial financial harm to existing shops in the area. Murrayhill Marketplace has been well over three years in its initial leasing process and is only now reaching full occupancy. To add additional retail space in close proximity to Murrayhill Marketplace at this time would be to invite the risk of failure of existing businesses (especially the smaller ones) and subject the new development to a protracted period of high vacancies. Both results would be deleterious to the quality of life in the area and inconsistent with good planning practices. Columbia-Willamette encourages you to deny any zone change to commercial usage at the subject location. Bes r ds 1 D u Nichol Vice esident s:v .:Cry s - - F-cN- =034644141 FAX 223 9262 - 77. RECEIVED PLANNING October 25, 1991 OCT 2 5 1991 DEPARTMENT OF Jerry Offer Development Review Planner LAND City of Tigard CONSERVATION P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 AND Dear Jerry: DEVELOPMENT The department has reviewed the proposed comprehensive plan map and zone amendment for property located on Scholls Ferry Road at the intersection with the "future" Murray Boulevard extension (local file #CPA 91-0003/ZON 91-0006). The applicant proposes a comprehensive plan and zone amendment for a parcel of land south of the Murray Boulevard extension from Medium High Density Residential to General Commercial. The applicant also proposes a comprehensive plan and zone change for a parcel of land north of the Murray Boulevard extension from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential. The department submits the following comments regarding the proposed plan and zone change. Metropolitan Housing OAR 660-07-035 requires the City of Tigard to provide for an overall housing density of 10 or more dwelling units per net buildable acre. The proposed plan and zone amendments would result in elimination of 1.01 acres of Medium High Density Residential land resulting in a potential loss of 24 dwelling units in Tigard. To compensate for the loss in dwelling units, the applicant proposes changes increasing residential density on part of the 6.99-acre parcel north of the Murray Boulevard extension or in the remaining 4.5 acres of the parcel south of the Murray Boulevard extension. Alternatively, the applicant proposes that the city absorb the 24-unit loss into its housing density surplus. The city should consider that absorbing the 24 unit loss for this proposal may limit decision making flexibility on future plan amendments l that would also result in the loss of potential housing units. Go""', Transoortation Planning OAR 660-12-060 requires that land uses permitted as a result of a plan amendment be consistent with the °1\nr function, capacity, and level of service of the 1175 Court Street NE Salem OR x7310.05eo 1503 3'3-0050 FAX (_03) 362-6705 Jerry offer -2- October 25, 1991 I 1 facility. Simply stated, the planned transportation facilities must be adequate to serve the planned land use. The traffic report submitted with the application analyzes a proposed change from Neighborhood Commercial to General Commercial only. It does not consider the other possible changes included in the application. These changes could include increasing the residential density on part of the 6.99-acre parcel north of the Murray Boulevard extension or on the remaining 4.5 acres south of the Murray Boulevard extension. To i determine if the transportation facilities are adequate to serve the proposed land uses, the traffic analysis must consider the traffic impacts of the possible changes in residential densities as well as the change in commercial zoning. If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Elaine Smith at 373-0086. t Sincerely, Michael J. Rupp Plan Review Manager _ s MJR:LS:bh a <pa> E cc: Jim Sitzman, Field Service Manager Tigard Plan Amendment File 007-91 z, ~ F i F. F `i 1 i l a; r*_ _71 T - REMVED PLANNING Nov 1 - 191 ATTORNEY AT L.%%v ~ ~:IS BENJ. FRnNI<LI~ P(..\L.\ L i ONE S.W. COLT:? BIB STREET POf2TI..\NU. URk:f:UN '1'35M TELErROVE,so:ucew«sFS November 1, 1991 TF:LEL'UkIER VIA TELECOPIER ' Mr. Jerry Offer Development Review Planner 77, Tigard City Hall 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 91-0003 Zone Change ZON 91-0006 Scholls Ferry Road/Murray Blvd. Extension Intersection Dear Mr. Offer: The undersigned has been retained by the Owners of Tax Lot 101, bounded to the northwest by Scholls Ferry Road and to the east by 135th Avenue. I am writing to you on behalf of the owners to share with you and the Planning Commission the owners' views on two points raised in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission for the November 4th hearing on Albertson's petition. The first point concerns the size of the parcel of property at the northeast quadrant of Scholls/Murray Road intersection, presently designated C-N. The second point concerns the staff's interpretation that a grant of Albertson's petition will invalidate the one-year extension of owners' submission of final development plans. Turning to the amount of acreage in the C-N designated parcel, I ` at the northeast quadrant of Scholls/Murray intersection; it is the f OcanerS. position that the parcel of land northeast of the i Scholls/Murray intersection approximates 6.99 acres following the realignment of the Murray Road extension. The entirety of that } parcel, whatever its final acreage, still retains the C-N zone designation. lie note, in your report of November 4, 1991, at page 3 thereof, your apparent concurrence with this view wherein you state: "Three parcels to the north of the Murray extension would have been created by this subdivision including an approximate acre parcel at the northeast quadrant of J Scholls/Murray intersection." -6 9! Gy . . 1 I = Mr. Jerry Offer November 1, 1991 Page Two We also note at page 2 of your report that the City Council in 1986, by Ordinance No. 86-12, approved the applicants' [Kruegers'] proposal and included a declaration that the configuration of the five acres designated C-N could be modified to conform with the final alignment of Murray Boulevard. . . In the Final Order, No. 90-12 PC of the Tigard Planning Commission, dated May 11, 1990, conditions 2 a-d, 3, 4, and 5, describe the configuration of Murray Road extension with particularity, thereby defining the acreage of the parcel presently designated C-N. We believe that this position is supported by the historical planning of this site, as well as the consistent i treatment of the parcel as C-N in its entirety, whatever its ultimate boundaries may be. Ordinance No. 86-12 explicitly provides that the "five acre C-N designation may be modified to conform with the final alignment of Murray Blvd." Thus, the actual acreage, dependant upon the Murray Boulevard realignment, could have been greater or less. In fact, it is now determined to be slightly larger than shown on the original alignment, and the Council expressly contemplated a C-N designation for that actual acreage. i Further, Mr. '9ooley's letter to Craig Petrie (Owners' real estate broker) confirms that the Final Order related to all of Tax Lot 101, and qualifies all parcels for Traffic Impact Fee credits (copy enclosed). With the above history in mind, owners are confused by your memorandum of October 18, 1991 to NPO 7 Secretary, Katy Dorsett, ;:herein you state: "...staff agrees that the C-N designation covers only 5.0 acres of the total 63.38 acres of tax lot 101. No reconfiguration or expansion of this area has been approved since the Council's decision for CPA 1-86. The decision for SUB 90-0004 only allowed creation of a 6.99 acre parcel in the northeast quadrant of this intersection without approval of an expansion of the C-N designated portion of this parcel. This parcel has yet to be creatLd. In the Planning Division's opinion, this parcel w:.ald be a split zoned parcel upon its creation.. The Council's decision for CPA 1-86 only said that this 5.., acre area could be reconfigured, not enlarged...." { r ~ "r Mr. Jerry Offer November 1, 1991 Page Three We believe that a correct interpretation of Ordinance No. 86- 12 is as set forth in your staff report on page 2: "The City Council approved the applicant's proposal and included a declaration that the configuration of the five acres designated C-N could be modified to conform with the final alignment of Murray Boulevard...." A present limitation of this C-N designation to five acres misreads Ordinance No. 86-12, and the Final Order for this site, which explicitly states that the neighborhood commercial is approximately 5.0 acres. It was understood in 1986, that the southerly location of the Murray extension would increase the i. . acreage of the C-N parcel, and that the C-N designation would apply to the totality of that parcel. This is only logical due to the fact that the southerly location of the Murray extension would otherwise create a southerly strip of land abutting the Murray extension zoned as R-25. There has never been an implication that moving the Murray extension southerly would create an anomalous split zone along the southern border of the parcel in question. J Such an implication is illogical as it might render both portions of the site unusable because the C-N zone would not have access to the Murray extension and the P.-25 zone would be unbuildable. i Clearly that was, and is, no one's intent. Logic, as well as the law, supports the Owners' interpretation. Had the Murray extension been dedicated, the dedicated fee would remain in the grantor with an easement, for the purpose of the dedication, residing in the public. See: Portland Baseball Club v. Portland, 142 Or. 13, 18 P.2d 811 (1933). Upon E vacation or relocatiDn or intentional abandonment, the fee Il belonging to the abutting owners is free from the easement's J servitude. ORS 271.060(2), 271.140; Fowler v Gehrke, 166 Or. 239, 111 P.2d 831 (1941). Consistent zoning should apply to incremental land added to the site as approximately 5.0 acres is not a description which controls over a road boundary. Section j 15.=0.030(5) of Ti;ard's Code so provides. By way of furtner analogy, a conveyance following vacation of an abutting street, conveys the street portion of the fee even though it is not included in the description. It is presumed to have been conveyed, so as not to have title to a narrow strip of land in question. State ex rel Dent. of Transoortation v Tolke, 36 Cr. App. 751, 586 P.2d 791 (1978). The presumption against split zoning, or strip zoning, resulting from a street alignment being changed, should be the same as in real property conveyance law. L: i I 1 Mr. Jerry Offer November 1, 1991 Page Four otherwise, a strip of land may preclude rational development, pending resolution of the zoning; a result not favored by the law of real property, nor by Tigard's own Code. See 18.40.030(5). Turning to the second point: potential invalidation of the extension granted October 23, 1991, upon grant of Albertson's petition; it is owners' position that a subsequent amendment by the Commission to the Final Order, would not invalidate the earlier extension granted. The staff, in its report to the Planning commission, at pages 11-12, advised that the grant of the petition of Albertson's would invalidate the extension for submission of a final plat and detailed planned development, granted October 23, 1991. In addition, in the grant of extension issued to Scott Russell on October 23, 1991, you state: "This extension is however conditioned upon no changes being made in the Comprehensive Plan or zoning designations applied to any portion of this parcel which are subject to the Planned Development overlay zone, or in othez words, that portion south of the approved alignment of the Walnut-Murray connection. If any change to the Plan or zoning designations is made, such a change would certainly constitute a change in the original the (sic) conceptual plan for the Bull Mountain North planned development approved by the Commission. The extended approval period would therefore become void upon approval of a plan or zone change effecting the subject parcel." (See copy of letter attached.) This position relies upon the Community Development Code Section 18.80.030 and 18.160.140. j Section 18.80.030, as pertinent, provides as follows: "The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required fee, grant an extension of the approval period not to exceed one year provided that: 1. No changes hare been mule on the original conceptual development plan as approved by the commission; 2. The applicant can show intent of applying for detailed development within the one year extension period; and a .,-;,~1. .r Mr. Jerry Offer November 1, 1991 Page Five 3. There have been no changes to applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions on which the approval was based." (Italics provided) Community Development Code Section 18.160.040, which applies to extensions for submitting subdivision final plats, as pertinent, provides as follows: B. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required fee, grant one extension of the approval period not to exceed six months; provided that: 1. No changes are made on the original preliminary plat as approved by the Hearings Officer. (Italics provided) Both code sections require that the Director grant the extension for detailed planned development and subdivision plats for one year and six months, respectively, unless there has been a change in the development concept or subdivision plat prior to the extension being granted. As stated above, the extension was granted on October 23, 1991, for one year, and no change has, as yet, been made to either € the planned development concept or the subdivision plat. The change may be effected during the extension period which has been granted. However, the Owners are unable to find any Tigard Code section which retroactively voids or invalidates an extension if the Commission or Council subsequently alters or amends a previously submitt_d plan or plat. Applying the above sections retroactive) _ an extension if changes are made to Y. so as to void parcels which are subject to the j conceptual plan, would appear illogical. The very purpose of the conceptual plan is to allow developers to conceptualize future use 1 of parcels under the preliminary approval process, and to seek modifications as developmental and efficiency of land use options become apparent. If that were not the case, there would be no need for conceptual approval, and the City of Tigard would resolve planning issues on final plats and subdivisions. The entire flexibility of the overlay zones is destroyed if changes automatically void extensions necessary to adequately develop the land. y. Mr. Jerry Offer November 1, 1991 I _ Page Six The change proposed by the Albertson's application, at most, results in a shift of one acre from multi-family utilization to neighborhood commercial use, and exchanges those uses through zone change, less than 100 feet to the south, north across the Murray Road extension. It will, undoubtedly, reduce residential density and provide for enhanced area commercial use which the staff recommends. We would appreciate your review of the owners' concerns regarding the above points, so that these matters will not be points of contention, diverting the staff and Commission from the real issues involved in the Albertson's application. I would be pleased to talk with you or the City Attorney's Office about these matters prior to the Monday, November 4th hearing, in an effort to continue our cooperative efforts to develop the property in the best interests of the City, and the Owners. Very truly yours, GARRY P. MURRY & ASSOCIATES Garry. McM r GPhl: cj c cc: Scott Russell (Via Telecopier) Craig Petrie (Via Telecopier) John Shonkwiler, Esq. (Via Telecopier) i f f 1 R 4 71 i ,HOC A CMOLA I jel OCT- P. 02 %Tur0 24, 1991 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Craig Petrie he Petrie Company 10920 SW Larbur Blvd. Portland, OR 97219 Re: Case No. SUB 90-0004/PDR 90-0004/Z6N 90-0004/VAR 90-0008 Dear Mr. Petrie: t Following our discussion today, we reviewed Planning Commission Final Order No. 90-12?C related to the referenced case number. Following further review, we find that the Planning Commission action applied to all of Tax Lot 101 of Tax Map 291 dB. This finding is based on the fact that (1) the Planning Commission action included approval of a conceptual planned development plan for all of the property( south of the proposed Murray Blvd. extension and (Z) in its final order, the Planning Commission recognizes that the proposed action will result in the creation of new parcels comprising the remainder of the property north of the proposed Murray Blvd. extension. Thug, the Planning Commission's review included all of Tax Lot 101. Final Order No, 90-12Pc requires the construction of Murray Blvd. extension (also known as Walnut Street connection) as a condition of approval. Under the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) ordinance (Washington County Ordinance No. 379), the Walnut Connection is listed as an eligible facility and TIF credits may be issued to the developer who constructs the Stialr= Correction. Therefore, under Final Order No. 90-12VC, any TIP credits issued for the construction of Murray extension/Walnut connection street improvementa tt may be apportioned to any part of the property now known as Tax Lot 101. t i Please rote that some of the costa of street improvements are not eligible for Ti- credits. section 3.17.o7oC of the County ordinance descries which items are eligible. I trust that this letter answers your questions regarding TIF credits. pct, please call me. S' erely, R3,yda11 a. Wooley City Engineer i 74. October 23, 1991 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Scott Russell 31291 Raymond Creek Road Scappoose, OR 97056 RE: Extension of Approval Period for PDR 90-04/SUB 90-04 (Bull Mountain North) Craig Petrie has submitted a request for an extension of the approval period for the Bull Mountain North planned development/subdivision. The extension is requested in order to allow additional time to record the final plat for the initial phase of this development. The decision on this application was issued on May 11, 1990 and became a final decision on Hay 22, 1990. The original approval period will expire on November 22, 1991. i Community Development Code Section 18_80.030 allows the Planning. Division to extend the approval period for a planned development application for one year subject to the Division determining that: 1) there have been no changes made to the original conceptual plan approved by the Commission; 2) the applicant intends to submit a final plat during the extended approval period; and 3) there have been no changes in the facts or ordinance provisions on which the original decision was based. Similarly, Code Section 18.160.040 allows the Planning Division to extend a subdivision approval period if the same extension approval standards listed above can be satisfied and if the extension of time will not preclude development of abutting properties. The Planning Division finds that these conditions for approval of an extension r exist. No significant revisions to the approved preliminary subdivision plat have been made at this time; therefore, no changes have been made to the approved development plan as of the writing of this letter. However, a comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and zone change are pending upon the western portion of this site. The conceptual planned development plan for Bull Mountain North indicated that this area was to be reserved for development of up to 300 apartment units. The k: Plan/zone change application would redesignate this future multi-family I residential site for General Commercial use. If this application is approved, If a substantial change would exist that would affect the original conceptual planned development plan approved by the Planning Commission. This would necessarily make any extension of the approval period void. L Mr. Petrie's letter indicates that there is an intention to record the plat for the first phase of the planned development/subdivision within the extended approval period. We are unaware of any changes in the facts applicable to the decision such as a substantial change in the ability of service providing agencies to provide necessary public services to the proposed development or substantial changes to the roads which would provide access to the site. No substantive changes in the Plan or ordinances on which the decision was based have occurred since the original approval, with the exception of the adoption of solar access requirements that apply to the creation of new single-family lots (Code Section 18.88.040). However, Code Section 18.88.050 also provides solar access standards to be applied to home construction on individual lots, recardless whether the lots were created prior to or after the effective date of the solar access standards. Althouch staff is unable to find specific mention of whether the City Council intended for approved but as yet un-created lots to v be required to be re-reviewed for solar accessibility of the subdivision layout, is believed that the council intended only for these lots to be subject to the solar access standards that apply to home construction on these lots. APPENDIX Two 1 Approval of an extension would not preclude development on any abutting Property- Approval twenty lot subdivision was recently approved for development on an approximately five acre parcel abutting the subject property on its southern boundary. That subdivision would not be dependant on the development of the Bull _ Mountain North project for access or utility extensions, although in time the road and utility networks of the two approved but yet unbuilt subdivisions will be joined. It was made clear at the hearing on this twenty lot subdivision that a request for an extension of the approval period for the Bull Mountain North development was going to be made. The prospective developers of the smaller subdivision had no comment with regard to the needed extension. The Planning Division therefore concludes that the request for extension of the approval period for application PDR 90-04/SUB 90-04 is consistent with the requizements for extension of the approvals for planned developments and subdivisions. The approval period for recording the final plat for the initial phase is hereby extended to November 22, 1992. This extension is however conditioned upon no changes being made in the Comprehensive Plan or zoning designations applied to any portion of this parcel which are subject to the Planned Development overlay zone, or in other words, that portion south of the approved alignment of the Walnut-Hurray connection. If any change to the Plan or zoning designations is made, such a change would certainly constitute a change in the original the conceptual plan for the Bull Mountain North planned development approved by the Commission. The extended approval period would therefore become void upon approval of a plan or zone change affecting the subject parcel. Please contact me if you have further questions. Sincerely, Jerry offers Associate Planner c: File Craig Petrie r _ Cal Hoolery, NPO J7 i Carol Boyle, CPO 4B r -.I JO: extension 1 I J i rr. e5r G== J RECEIVED PLANNING Gev~looa~ v1 Planner ' Vit': G= T 13.95^ j 12125 SW Hall Blvd. HP2:3 1983 { Tigard Grecon 97223 RE: Final Order 90_12 o.l___Bui_ ?fountain North PO (part o: Tam Lot 101. Yap 25 1W. 4B. Washington County Orecon) Dear Mr. 0==e-. As owners o= ^.e -_=1 property that Final Order z =0-12 PC (aomroved May 11th. 1950) applies to we are requesting a one year extension o- the approval and the 26 conditions which were attached so that we may complete negotiations with a company which will build the Bull :fountain North PD. The upheaval in the ?inancial markets combined with the additional burden o---7 the financing and construction of Walnut Street through our property have made getting ti's project under way dif.icult. No changes in the =final order are being requested at this tome. The finai Plat will be submitted within this one year period. Would you please send a letter confirming that this extension has been granted as soon as possible. Please Address it to Scott Russell and send a copy to Craig Petrie. - Scott Russell Craig Petrie 31291 Raymond Creek Road The Petrie Company Scamoeose Orecon 97055 10920 SW Barbur Blvd. Portland Oregon 97219 Sincerely, OWNERS: />p Data: September, i.991. 1w-e=g ^7 _ _ Crism, T=sLee under t!ze 2•Sarae_ y F. C--45t ss t dated ~uZy 1985 "Ile Dates Senter, 1991. ' UOhn R. C--isL, Tr•.:stae under he Margerr Gist -ling __usZ dated j ly 1980 / ~li,.,,Il LCrlf Data.= S2DCe=:;er, 1997. n_~ _ar scot R?Issa__ v4 .°.-all v n. :a^ Scott Russel. store Scott FL'ssel_ L'-_er T.-:s ag_s ^e.^.L dated Dec__l-er 25, ce a=-= ..acta= Zaa_s =usse'_- a: d -_-'s -=e ---_der --___-_.t - 2.977S ........-..,_'L _-a °/5i°1 c___ 0:.__ ..a '1inr.,_-;yDe?.C.:..~~_.J...-_.____-•_~. Daze: -"r v <e{ lid Frederick Hear- Russell, T_ru'stae Frederick Henry Russell, Trustee, u,^.aer Trust Agraement dated Xav 1.935 for the benefit of Rebecca _eicr: Russell and I Trustaa under Trust Agreement dated Mav 2, 1983 for the benefit of *ca Mar=e Russell and ^_=sstee under Trust Sr_eme_nz dated =av_ 3, 1935 for "We benefit of Stegr_anis So Russell. y1Q Date: 9611/ Seat be:, 1591. Pe- R. Weems (fcrmerly :mown as ?eggy R. Ayres) div,dually !Y Per R. rieems, Trustae (formerly t.ccrt as Peggy R. Ayres) Peggy R_ Weems, '_rustae, under T_ast agreement cared December 20, 197S for the benefit of Na=7 A_r_-as and Trustee under Trust Agreement dated December 21, 1973 for the benefit cf Alan Scant A_-_es, and T=astae under Trast agreement cat _a Dec.jber 21, 1970 for the benefit of Amy Ayres. lw4w, 1'-65,0a le-ly ~ifG/Y Dated* ~rX! Sentz:b eV , 1091. Pe-;V R: Weems as Co-Consecrator r Gerald Vince _t Russell (Peggy R. Weems was fcrrer_.r ;mown as _ sc; r R. unto ~~'u~' ~ ated: z d Septa=her, IS91_ ~eu_s Russel; as Cc-2onsz= razor =or Gerald 7'_^.ca:_t ~LT5521? Data: September, 1991. virgini R_ Marei, _ndividually Date: September, 1991. Virgins R. Mare., Trustee Virgin_a R. Mare! under Trast Agreement dated December 13, 1973 for the nene=,t Rita Hawkins and Trustee under 3cr=_ement dated December 19, 1973 for the benefit of Kenneth Lee 1 Hawkins. w I ___Jj , - I ~ -j I j I I _ rte,. ;1 c~:---I-~.r---.I'~=. J••-k t'i .If II,111 IlikOW. ROAD S(CII(1rJ 1 IY•PA 1. ROAD SICII(IIJIIYP 1 ^ SP R O. IV. ROAD S(CIIO14 (IYI. 1 J I 1 A, -I I '(•ri ) ///'I 1 t.w. it a.. II. - ~ / , ::L,Y~ I. i ~..!<i ',~:~.~,.•.;.~1 4 ate ~.ur. - 4. \ acn.n l.ur G1 s1 ! 1 'tliotl:.l':i~~'/.(j~a j,:'::.~~,'' -r :y#•,.~, •1: .•,,,1,. ..u.... ' i ..•1 •R ~...y ~y/'~}~' ;,J J• Y~..i.,•. u i G ~y. 1 ' !.L1 4 ii;`r1 7 l'. fu,nt5nut:, lS•'.,~ ~ ~,•'1.(,5.~.~.~, I~,.y tl.~;~1~::b ~ i.:.` ((v `!_}r~ (a~ Lf_f 1_ 1 / u. . 4 c.4_ r.~.. . t i . i•f. ~ I I" J•' 1+ r= E.~a~:,i.~,\ f•, j~gYf~:f'~,i ,"~,`~1~,~1',~:~~~::~t ~.~i. Imo, t.:;;~.,1 )'r t_~y o n n ( .,y a tw tt u.t: a IL '`7"l i ~ ~ ,(_f'_1t~f:_1.~:~rL3:~-Y=-Y~1~l~J=L~.~-(~~•/.~~...~._..r-,1._• ~ ~ S.:V. MURRAY BLVD. SECTIC]N BURROUGHS DEX 3800 _..Y._ ....~P '~7 - i ! I 16665 S.W. Bangy Road. Suite tot Lake Oswego, Oregon 97036 Phone:(503) 620-7688 j FAX: (503) 620.7486 ; r ; RECEIVED NOV - 1991 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT November 4, 1991 I t I f Planning Commission Cit3+'of Tigard. P.O., Sox 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 i i Re: File #CPS 91-0003, ZON 91-006 Albertsons * Scholls Ferry Road Dear Commissi.onerx: i -ji We would like to go on record in support of the proposed 1 Albertsons store at Scholls Ferry Road. The five phases of / Village at Summer Lake Park total 212 new homes for the neighborhood, of which up;-ruxintately 70 are yet fo he. completed. i sincerely, Don'Morissette Homes, Inc. Sharon Bjorn i [ 538-1284 I L i ~ i . I i ~ L i r (;r ` I I I~ I • " oY- 9l xv 77 77 L. - € ~ g (741s ~ssv4 wss 1Z~-~sa~ g~~~e q .~27y1~ ) I a (y GRAI lR~e l~`la-o scJ ~'~~'bU~, Q~~(• ~~r~}~ O `T~'~; A 'S ~Ci ryiyDtJr/ c ~1l 3'7y Z- ; . rLl Q.LIG~~ - /-It ~a"L-44L eU /la a'7 .St..( IJesYb~~ Tug` -r:~,,•~0., 97a~3 ( ~cren- 7~-L/C/a r l 3 / J'C S' L t' >-.tic f~ ~ ! lJ ~9 7 3 - ~ • ~ ti v~ YAP ti~ LtJ~'~ C4 , - ~ ~ f ~rt . I ~ I ~ ? . u:. ~r-t.;~, / / c~ / 7.x.3 ~ ~ac~- L-- R'rAil~ 1 Z7JR) s~-c: ~i'r c1 tG,,• ~~i\I, ~ .~l ('c,.~ ~ ~2T. /u % v` ~~~-f~i ~ r / 39c'/ 5 f~ir,<~•<r c f ~i~a.~c/ U/~ 97C~ ' ~ Sn,~-~1 1I39(O S,.i ~q 47z13 pue) C C e l~~t LcCc~r15/ 11f n? f C 7 .,'d, T 7, / ► ~~~s /~c," r~ 1, r7,*1/ t 1 tN ~,i 71 Viol, FA X to -~g --Cl E,~ MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON CITY OF TIGARD TO: John honkwiler OREGON i FROM: Jer 0 , Development Review Planner DATE: October , 1991 SUBJECT: Possible Postponement of CPA 91-03 Planning Commission Hearing I have discussed the request you made on Friday to postpone the Planning Commission's hearing on CPA 91-03/ZON 91-08 (Albertson's) with Community Development Director Ed Murphy and Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff. Notice has already been mailed and advertised for the Commission hearing to occur on November 4, 1991. It is our decision to not postpone the hearing at this late date. Other j people have expectations with regard to this scheduled hearing time and may have rearranged their schedules with respect to this date or contracted with attorneys or others to represent their interests at the November 4th meeting. We do not feel that it would be fair to upset their schedules at this late date. We have mailed your copy of the staff report today. One of the reasons we are not agreeing to postpone the hearing is that we do not feel that the error with regard to C-N site size is that important to the staff, and other's, recommendations. We believe I that the request is not supportable primarily because the application does not demonstrate that there has been enough of a ~y,... change in circumstances affecting the site or a mistake in the current designation that would justify the requested Plan/zone change. However, we also do point out that if the Commission and Council do support your request, the figures with regard to housing and trip generation which you provided will need to be revised to correspond with the correct acreage figures. We feel that this can be deferred until either a continuance in the Commission's hearing or between the Commission hearing and the Council hearing. You could request at the November 4th hearing that the Planning Commission continue the hearing on this item to allow you to correct or supplement the materials submitted in support of your application. You could request that the Commission continue the hearing without taking any testimony on November 4th, or you could request that the Commission continue the hearing after testimony has been received and before the Commission takes action on this item. I wouldn't expect the staff to support the first option but I think we probably could support the second. Call me if you have further questions. 13125 SW Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397, - - i Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 , i ~~d_ "74-7 6=' .44 d. J NPO #7 Minutes October 2, 1991 i Call to Order: 7:45 pm Roll Call Present: Blanchard, Howden, Dorsett, Gross, McGlinchy, Cunningham Absent: Woolery 1. Approved minutes from September 4, 1991 meeting. Motion to approve by Blanchard; seconded by Cunningham. In favor 6; against 0. 2. CPA 91-00032ON 91-006-Albertsons, Inc. Discussion ensued. Motion by: Ed Howden. Motion that the Albertsons proposal be denied. Please note the facts and findings. Exhibit A attached. Seconded by: Larry McGlinchy. In favor: 6 Against: 0 3. Motion by Larry McGlinchy regarding Albertsons proposal: We feel that the imposition of R40 zoning adjacent to single family residential, existing neighborhood (Cotswald) is incompatible. R40 adjacent to R6 or R7 is also incompatible. We need to have the acreage reduced before this happens again. How can we challenge this oversized piece of land when it is zoned neighborhood. 1.5 miles to two shopping centers. We need a hearing? Seconded by: Katy Dorsett. In favor: 6 Against 0 j 4. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Katy Dorsett ` Li EXHIBIT "A" CASE CPA 91-0003 / ZON 91-0006 FACTS 1. Scholls Ferry is under State Highway jurisdiction at present. HOWEVER, it will be under Washington County jurisdiction within the year. 2. The Functional Classification Map for the County Transportation Plan shows: a. Scholls Ferry will be a 2-lane major collector street from Old Scholls to Old Scholls, and b. The proposed Murray Extension will be a 2-lane collector street. i 3. No TRIMET transit line serves Scholls Ferry from Old Scholls to Old Scholls. p 4. In CPA 1-86 and Ordinance 86-12 the City Council approved five acres of C-N and only declared that the configuration and the five acres could be modified to conform with the final alignment of Murray Blvd. i1 FINDINGS \ J 1. Policy 8.1.1 is not satisfied because the proposal assumes IN ERROR that Scholls Ferry will be a 5-lane arterial street. 2. Policy 8.1.1 is not satisfied because the proposal assumes IN ERROR that the proposed Murray Extension from Old Scholls to Scholls Ferry will be built in the near future. 3. Policy 12.2.1 is not satisfied as the proposal does not meet locational criteria for l General Commercial areas because: r- a. The proposal would be surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. b. The scale of the proposal would not be compatible with surrounding j residential uses. C. Public transportation would not be available to the proposal or the general area. h.1bg inJcV%po7min.105 NPO #8 Minutes October 9, 1991 I j 7:40 meeting called to order. i I Present: Blomgren, Hein, Juve, Haglund, Iford, Chase 1. 6th paragraph to be amended to state Franklin Commons instead of "Lincoln Commons." John states Dartmouth Street is in. Food Club to be built in that area. Alice moved minutes be accepted as corrected. Marge seconded. 2. 91-004 - Davis property. John explained what Dr. Davis wants. Jim moved we recommend these restrictions be denied. Alice seconded. t I 3. Property on Taylors Ferry Road, owner Len F. Dalton. Request variance that is smaller than City approves. Neighborhood would be impacted. Marge made motion: Access from side not adequate -difficulty for fire trucks, does not fit into rest of area and would be additional driveway onto Taylors Ferry Road. John seconded. 4. SDR 91-0010 - Watson. Confusion on zone clarified. 5. Request for annex - 7607 SW Landau Street owned by Craig P. Jurney, San Francisco, CA. 6. SDR 91-0011. Develop a lot on Greenburg 15,000 square feet. Only concern was construction traffic using Locust by school. 7. Cathy stated that the request by Legacy Health Systems for a medical office building at 9325 SW Hall Blvd. has been approved by the Planning Director's designee for the City of Tigard for the 20 feet of land in the Tigard City limits. ; 8. Marge made motion at 9:10 p.m. for meeting adjourn. Alice seconded motion. Written by Cynthia E. Iford. i Sogin~cVpoSfnin i r r - . 5.5 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 1-86 KAI7_ER PERMANENTE DENTAL CLINIC/MARI'iN BROS. Request to construct a 21 sq. ft., per side, free standing sign, where 15 sq. ft_ is permitted. LOCATED: 7105 SW Hampton St. (2S1 1AC, 1200 6 1300), Se •or Planner Newton reviewed the staff report and made s ff's reco mendation for approval with four conditions. APPLICANT'S RESENTATION o Jim William 1241 Leo St. NE, Salem, 97303, concurr d with the staff report include g the condition requiring them to mov the sign for visual clearance. NPO COMMENT o Geraldine Ball, NPO 8 Chairperson, ated she had called all of her unemb,a-, .and Lhr:y favur,:d i-L,_ •,ign r,i„.! a une_ - PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to speak. I PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Discussion followed egarding how the size was etermined, location, what G' criteria had to b met, and how a sign code exce ion could be requested at the time of S- a Development Review. Commissioner Bergmann moved and Commission Leverett seer ded to approve SCE 4-85 ending condition number one to read "22 1/2 square feet" and try direct aff to prepare the final order and for President Moen o sign off on th- final order. Motion carried by majority vote. Com 'ssioner But rand Newman voting no. i 5.. PLANNLU ULVELOPMLNI PU 1-86, ZONE CHANGE ANNEXA170N ZC 1-86, t:UDUIVISION S 4-86 FUNCIIESS/NESVOLD/OGLE/TtiOENNES/SPEECE/BISSETT/VANDEWATER NPO N 6 Located: East side of SW 108th south of Durham Road (Kenneth Waymire) C THIS ITI"M WAS WITHDRAWN FROM TIIE AGENDA. i 57 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 1-86 ZONE CIIANGE -LC 3-86 KRUEGER NPO 8 7 RequesL to move the preserr,t area esignated C-N (Commercial Neighborhood) from the wesL side of 115th Ave. to a location on Lhe north side of Lhr 1\` Murray Ro.id extension, approximately 500 feHt west of 135th Avenue. Senior Planner Newton made reviewed the staff report arid made staff's recummr.ndaLiun for approval with one r_ondition, that Lhe arr.a bra limiLpd to four acres. PLANNING Ct)MM17::a()N MINUTC: FtHRUARY 4, 1986 Page 8 t APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Russell Krueger, 3515 SW Barbur Blvd. Y-1, Portland, 97201, explained why they needed the flexibility of having 5 acres available. Discussion followed. I PUBLIC TESTIMONY { o Frank Aszman, 12085 SW 135th, supported the proposal and had no problem with the increased size. o Jim Thompson, 7628 Champoeg Rd., St. Paul, Realtor, supported the proposed change because traffic would not be entering onto 11rl:h and tho CommPrr.i.al Neighborhood would not be abutting single family residential. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Discussion followed regarding moving the location, the number of times it i had been moved, why move it now, why the existing site has four acres, instead of 2 acres permitted in the Commercial Neighborhood zone, and whether they should or should not increase the size to five acres. i If 1 * Commissioner Leverett moved and Commissioner Bergmann seconded to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval with the condition that the site not exceed four acres unless the Murray Road alignment required then f limit to five acres. Motion failed four to two. Commissioner Moen, t Butler, Newman, and Peterson voting no. * Commissioner Leverett moved and Commissioner Bergmann seconded to forward to City Council a recommendation of approval with the condition that the I' site be limited to four acres. Motion carried by majority vote of Commissioners present. Commissioner Butler and Newman voting no. f f 6. OTHER BUSINESS a There was nu other business. i 7. Meeting Adjourned 11:52 PM i Diane M. Jelder- Secretary i AITFST: A. Donald Moen, President _ dj/51P i 1 PLANNING COMMIS-ION MINUTF.ti FEBRUARY 4, 1.986 Page 9 Page 1 October 4, 1991 1 Attn: Jerry Offer Tigard Planning PO Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 RE: NPO #7 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Gentlemen, l IN ORDER TO PROPERLY EVALUATE CPA 91-0003/ZON 91-0006, NPO 3Y7 REQUESTS the Director to require additional information on ATEP's transportation analysis for Rlbartsons' proposal, PURSUANT TO 18.32.060 A.3.b.(v) AND 18.32.080 A.I., to-wit: 1 1) SUPPORT for ATEP's 35% REDUCTION in the commercial area's 6,373 site generated DAILY NEW TRIPS due to DROP-IN TRIPS (ATEP Table 8). In 1992, ATEP's site generated PM peak hour trip volume is SS1 (ATEP Table 8), WHILE its background traffic PM peak hour volume is ONLY 350 (ATEP Figure 9). Would DROP-IN TRIPS from this SMALL background traffic'volume ACTUALLY reduce site generated PM peak hour NEW TRIPS to 3597 Would DAILY DROP-IN TRIPS from this background traffic volume ACTUALLY reduce site generated DAILY NEW TRIPS to 4,143 in 19927 In 2010, ATEP's background traffic PM peak hour volume grows to 2,045 (ATEP Figure 2). i i EVEN THOUGH background traffic would grow, would traffic at this OUT-OF-THE-WRY site ACTUALLY contribute DROP-IN TRIPS to reduce site generated DAILY NEW TRIPS to 4,143 in 20107 Would trips on INTERIOR NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR streets ACTUALLY be made by persons entering or leaving nearby commercial and residential property or by persons whose primary destination is to other commercial areas? Did any of the studies published in the ITE Journal evaluate any shopping centers next to COLLECTOR streets; or did the studies just evaluate centers next to arterials or freeuays7 Z) ANALYSIS of the impact of the high density residential area's site generated trips. RECEIVED PLANNINQ OCT 0 4 1991 - Page 2 -1 - 3) REVISION of ATEP's RECOMMENDATIONS far REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS to { mitigate the impact of the commercial and high density residential areas' site generated trips. ATEP's LOS evaluation ASSUMES, AND DEPENDS ON, the proposed street improvements in the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study (NE Bull Mtn TS Appendix E) which includes f a) Scholls Ferry would be built to 5 lanes, b) Murray Extension would be built to S lanes at Scholls Ferry, c) Murry Extension intersections would be signalized at; i i) Scholls Ferry st ii) 135th north i' iii) 135th south G' WHILE, ATEP's LOS evaluation DEPENDS ON these proposed street C improvements, ATEP ASSUMES these improvements would be done by OTHERS. Would developers SUCH AS Albertsons make these street improvements? Which improvements would Albertsons make? 4) RECONCILIATION OF ATEP's LOS evaluation with Parsons Brinckerhoff's LOS evaluation of the Murray Extension in the Western Bypass Study (2010 Peak Hour Volume and LOS Forecast For Major North-South Roadways). Parsons Brinckerhoff forecasts F level LOS on the Murray Extension for several transportation improvement strategies. j Respect//f ul l y , ~Ll!~ NPO #7 by Bill Gross Encl MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD i TO: Jerry Offer October 22, 1991 FROM Randy Woolel ~ IVVJ SUBJECT: CPA 91-0003/ZON 91-0006 (Albertson's Inc.) Zone Chanae The traffic study submitted by the applicant indicates that the proposed changes to zoning would have negligible impacts on the future traffic volumes and levels of service of the adjoining street system. Following receipt of additional information from j the traffic engineer, we now support the conclusions of the traffic study. ! Because there would be little change in the total areas of commercial zoning and multi-family residential zoning, the proposed zone change would have no impact on the utilities needed for future development of the area. l Therefore, we have no objection to the proposed comprehensive plan f and zoning amendments. ~ Location of Commercial Zoning The proposal to move the commercial zone from the north side of Murray to the south side has potential benefits, even if the zoning designation and acreage are not changed. The ex.isring wedge-shaped commercial parcel has access onl% to the future `hurray extension. 311 traffic will have to access the site from ))L:rr3\'. Existing development prevents it from having 3CCeSS from an\" other direction. The nronosen new location wnul• have frontage '?n two collecror s*reets %iurra} and Sc)lolls Ferri . It also has potential direct access from the adjoining residential neighborhoods. This would 3.1ow traffic *_D be :Lspersed LD more access locat--.. potentiallv would allow nearby residents to access the site without -ra\'eli1I?g oil the 5rr?eC 3\-SLapl. T;la ra5lllt ?dured traffic lm J3Ct3. -1h ereror9. suoP,_r, rho relocation of the 70mlile rC'_3' !i`:VJ as proposed. rw: alberr- i 1 RECEIVED PLANNING OCT 2 2 1991 { 21 October 1991 CP04B Bull Mountain - King City - Tigard j c/o Larry Westerman, Secretary Treasurer 13663 SW Fern Street Tigard OR 97223 'rt Tigard City Planning Commission 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard OR 97223 To the Planning Commission: j I am writing regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 91-0003 and Zone Change 1 ZON 91-0006 Albertson's Inc. We met with a representative of Albertson's at our October steering committee, and held a question and answer session with him regarding the application and the planned development. A motion was made and accepted to express our disapproval of this plan amendment and zone change request. Among the concerns expressed by the members present were lack of need for such a large supermarket in a residential area; excessive traffic due to the presence of this commercial center; damage to character of existing neighborhood; and uncertainty about what commercial uses will be allowed if the parcel in question is zoned for general commercial development. We plan to discuss this matter further at our October general meeting, and we will forward any additional comments to you after that time. Yours truly, 4 1 Larry Westerman Secretary/Treasurer I i ;j i MEMORANDUM ; CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON CITY OF TIGARD I V V~i~C i OREGON TO: Reviewing Agencies FROM: Jerry Offer, Development Review Planner DATE: October 16, 1991 SUBJECT: Addendum to Transportation Study - Albertson's CPA 91-03 The attached addendum to the transportation analysis for the proposed Albertson's Comprehensive Plan Amendment was received yesterday afternoon. The addendum was completed in response to comments raised by the City's Engineering Department, Washington j County, and NPO 7 that were forwarded to ATEP. Please consider this addendum in your comments with regard to this application. The Planning Commission hearing on this item is scheduled for November 2, 1991. I will need your revised or new comments no later than October 23 in order that I may include them in my staff j report to the Commission. You can fax me comments at 684-7297. If you cannot get comments to me by that time, the comments are still welcome. All written comments received prior to the hearing will I ,J be submitted to the Commission at the hearing for their consideration. Later comments will be included for the City Council's consideration before they make the final decision on this application, probably in early December. 1 Thanks for your participation in our review. { c: Randy Wooley, City Engineer 1 Jim Hendryx, City of Beaverton Planning Manager Andy Back, Washington County Senior Planner Cal Woolery, NPO 7 Lidwien Rahman, ODOT Planning Representative - Region 1 CPO 4B I ed, - - 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O, Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 i.~ RECENEU UCT 7 1991 Gry of Beaverton October 4, 1991 ~ i Ed Murphy Tigard Planning Department Post Office Box 23397 13123 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE:' CPA 91-0003 - 2OM 910.006----- i Ed: k Thank you for the opportunity to review the above noted request. I concur with several points that the applicant has made in their presentation about district site and marketing changes for supermarkets. The only issue that I find is associated with need. The area is well served by retail sites on both Murray Boulevard and Scholls Ferry Roads. If approved, the proposal should be limited in area to the absolute minimum that is necessary to accommodate the proposed use. This would be consistent with our joint efforts to limit the expansion of commercial development in the Murray / Scholls corridors. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 526-2424. Sincerely, James I.P. Hendrvx Plarnine `fanaper t t F2999 E' f 1-55 5.\V. Griffith Drive, P.O. Box 4733. Beaverton, OR 9:076. General Information: !503) 526-2222 i . i 4n .CL.iI 9caut~m;: ,mplo<e• r ~ October 9, 1991 Jerry. Responses e>rreopond with `Ir. 1:ross's request numbers. 1. I don't need the additional information. It might be fair t: ask the applicant to respond to the NPO request, though, rather than leaving it up to us to explain. I have already requested this additional info from iTEP. 3. It seems to me that this relates to a future SDR, not to the current question of whether the zoning should be hanged. The question at this point is "How does the zone change impact future traffic capacities in the area?" , not "Who is going to pay for the various improvements?". i 4. aTEP has based their work on the Vortheast Bull Mountain Transportation Study Report data, which is based on current adopted plans and is specific to this planning area. This seems appropriate to me. The Western Bypass Study work is looking at some por?ntial alternatives none of which have been adopted to address broad regional needs. It would be inappropriate to use the rough preliminary: data from Western Bypass Study to evaluate the impacts of an 8-acre zone change on a specific intersection. The Western Bypass Studv table was intended only to make very r i general comparisons of the various broad alternatives; I believe .,iiat_ `ir. 3ross is using it out of context. i V '.i - Page I AJ!'a 7;;s - October 4, 1991 Attn: Jerry Offer ,,!!C y~s S ~~~J ylG^ vI Tigard Planning PO Box Z3397 14-"L.'~t~ Tigard, OR 97ZZ3 v RE: NPO #7 REQUEST FOR ADDITIO AL INFORMATION Gentlemen, Y g~ IN ORDER TO PROPERLY EVALUATE CPA 91-0003/ZON 91-0006, NPO k7 REQUEST the Director to require additional information on ATEP's transportatibbj I analysis for Albertsons' proposal, PURSUANT TO 18.3Z.060 A.3.b.(v) AND I 18.3Z.080 A.I., to-wit: 1) SUPPORT for ATEP's 35% REDUCTION in the commercial area's 6,373 site generated DAILY NEW TRIPS due to DROP-IN TRIPS (ATEP Table 8). • In 1992, ATEP's site generated PM peak hour trip volume is 5S1 (ATEP Table 8), WHILE its background traffic PM peak hour volume is ONLY 350 (ATEP Figure 9). I Would DROP-IN TRIPS from this SMALL background traffic volume generated PM peak hour NEW TRIPS to 3597 ACTUALLY reduce site Would DAILY DROP-IN TRIPS from this background traffic volume ACTUALLY reduce site generated DAILY NEW TRIPS to 4,143 in 199Z7 In 2010, ATEP's background traffic PM peak hour volume grows to 2,045 (ATEP Figure Z). EVEN THOUGH background traffic would grow, would traffic at this OUT-OF-THE-WAY site ACTUALLY contribute DROP-IN TRIPS to reduce site generated DAILY NEW TRIPS to 4,143 in Z0107 Uould trips on I INTERIOR NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR streets ACTUALLY be made by persons t entering or leaving nearby commercial and residential property or by persons whose primary destination is to other commercial areas? Did any of the studies published in the ITE Journal evaluate any shopping centers next to COLLECTOR streets; or did the studies just evaluate centers next to arterials or freeways? Z) ANALYSIS of the impact of the high density residential area's site generated trips. RECEIVED PLANNING j OCT 0 4 1991 Page 2 3) REVISION of ATEP'a RECOMMENDATIONS for REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS to l mitigate the impact of the commercial and high density residential areas' site generated trips. ATEP'a LOS evaluation ASSUMES, AND DEPENDS ON, the proposed street improvements in the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study (NE Bull Mtn TS Appendix E) which include; a) Scholls Ferry uould be built to 5 lanes, b) Murray Extension would be built to S lanes at Scholls Ferry, c) Murry Extension intersections would be signalized at; i) Scholls Ferry ii) 135th north j iii) 135th south I t WHILE. ATEP's LOS evaluation DEPENDS ON these proposed street i improvements, ATEP ASSUMES these improvements would be done by OTHERS. Would developers SUCH AS Albertsons make these street improvements? Which improvements would Albertsons make? 4) RECONCILIATION OF ATEP's LOS evaluation with Parsons Brinckerhoff's LOS evaluation of the Murray Extension in the Western Bypass Study (2010 Peak Hour Volume and LOS Forecast For Major North-South 1 Roadways). {II Parsons Brinckerhoff forecasts F level LOS on the Murray Extension for several transportation improvement strategies. i ~ Respec+fully, L-L~~IJ i ;a NPO #7 by Bill Gross I Encl F i E , jw, I l~ - 2010 PEAK-HOUR VOLUME AND LEVELS-OF-SERVICE FORECAST F WITHINO HE WESTERN BYPASS STUDY AREA (BY STRATEGY) ROADWAYS ALTERNATIVE STRATEGY Bypass Transit Transit (HOV)t Bypass Common Arterial A LOS B No-Build Improvements Expansion LRT Arterial OS Volume Volume LOS Volume LOS Volume LOS Volume L Volume LOS Volume LOS A -D, .3,840 A -D 4,890 A-D 4.310 A-D 4,534: .-r" LOCATION BT0 A D 4814 4;260 A l 4,470 _ A D at 72nd 3;990 . -E. 3.3;970. :A•D' 4,920 A=D 3;960 A -D 4,920 A D Northbound Hi hwa 217 Avenue Southbound Highway 217 at72nd'Avenue 4;080 Northbound Highway 217 at Hall Boulevard 4,380 E 5,750 A D 4,380 C 5,720 A-D 5,190 A•D 5,350 A-D 4,640. A- Southbound Highway 217 at Hall Boulevard 4,470 4,290 E 4,370 E 6,070 A-D 5,440 A-D 5,640 A-D M 4,500 A-D 4.750 A-D A;$10 A-D E 6,170 4,800-:' A ADD , -4, 5.380 ,470 460 AE A-D 6,060 A-D 5;410 A-D 5,850 A- 5 660 A-D 5,770 A=D Northbound Hi hwa 217 at Sunset Ht hwa 3,:470 4;570 470 A=ED 4,380 F 1,110 A D 770 F 1,080 A -D 730 30 A-D 360 AD Southbound Hi ray Boulevard at e hway` 750 A.p 400 A-D 736 Northbound Murray Extension NA NA NA NA 3600 A A-DD 400 A-D 370 - 130 A-D A-D . 1:200 A-D 1,050 A-D 1:040 A=D Southbound Murray Boulevard Extension F 740 650 A D 7°;19 1;320, A . Northbound Murra 'Boulevaid at SCfiotls Ferry Rdad 620 A-D' 1;030 A-D• 1,040 A D 1,020 A-D 1,250 A-D 900 A D 930 D Northbound Murray Boulevard North of Allen Boulevard 1,090 A -D 1,140 A -D 1,810 F 2,060 E 1,790 E Murray BoulevarBoulevardd, at Sch North o of tls Fee . Allen . Road Boulevard 1,880 F 1,890 F 1220 E 1,080 A-D 1,200 A-D 1,320 A-D 1.200 A-D 2'180 A D 1760 E Southbound Southbound Murray 1.760 E 1.$70 E -1.590 A-D _1,7f4 E - 1 730 E 1iD9D: ' F 1,720 _1.660 A_p 1,72U E Northbound Murra Boulevard at.SunseYHi hw AjEI80 E 1,600' A;D a 1 pB0 F 1;730 E 2,000. A=D E NA } gg0 A D NA NA Southbound Murray Boulevard at Sunset Hi bwaY NA NA NA NA NA NA NA - NA NA NA NA NA NA NA - NA 2.290 A-D Westbound Bypass A, West of 1-5 and East of Hwy. 99W NA NA NA NA NA _ NA NA NA NA A;D 99W NA 1.290 NA NA NA NA NA NA Eastbound Bypass A, West of 1.5 and East of Hwy. NA 1 560 A D NA NA NA NA NA NA ass A, North of SCholls Fetr "-Road NA NA ; NA NA NA NA 2 160 E NA NA Northbound N A NA NA NA ".Southbound B ass A;North of St:holls Fer Road NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 180 A_D NA NA NA NA NA NA Northbound Bypass A, Sunset Highway NA NA NA NA 'NA NA 1,770 Aol) t1A NA NA NA A D Southbound Bypass A. Sunset Highway NA NA NA; _ NA ' NA NA NA iJA ' . . 'NA NA 2,0 90 NA NA ; NA NA . 'NA . NA NA NA `NA tWastbound,8 ass B 'West of Interstate 5 boun B ass B,:Wesaot lnterstate.5. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 460 A-D >£ast Northbound Bypass Road NA NA NA 590 A-D NA NA NA NA NA NA 8, North of Schotls Ferry NA NA Southbound Bypass B, North of Schotls Ferry Road NA r August, 1991 r' arsons Birnckerholl 7. Maintain and preserve the file for each --alication The file shall incluc as applicable, a list of pe Zs required to be given notice and a copy of the notice given pu-uant to Section 18.32.120 or 18.32.130 and the accompanying affidavits, the application and all supporting information, the staff report, the final decision, including the findings, conclusions and conditions, if any, all correspondence, the minutes of any meeting at which the application was considered and any other exhibit, information or documentation 1 which was considered by the hearing body with respect to the application; and 8. Administer the appeals and review process pursuant to Sections 18.32.290 through 18.32.370. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-69, Ord. 83-52) 18.32.070 Alternative Recommendation by Director A. The Director shall make a recommendation to the initial hearings body on the application; however, in addition, the Director may recommend an alternative or alternatives. B. such alternatives shall be considered only if: 1. Notice of such alternative (s) has been given as part of the hearing notice in addition to the matters contained in Section 18.32.140; and I{ 2. The staff report prepared as provided by subsection 18.32.060.A.3.b supports such an alternative(s). (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 1 ( , 1 18.32.080 Additional Information Required, Waiver of Requirements and Report Required - - •1 A. The Director may require information in addition to that required by a specific provision of this title, provided: f,. r 1. The information is needed to properly evaluate the proposed development proposal; and 2. The need can be justified on the basis of a special or unforeseen circumstance. i B. The Director may waive the submission of information for a specific requirement subject to the provisions of subsection (C) of this section, provided: 1. The Director finds that specific information is not necessary to j properly evaluate the application; or I1 2. The Director finds that a specific approval standard is not applicable to the application. Revised 1/17/91 Page 51 I RECEIVED PLANNING OCT 0 8 1991 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS To: DATE: September 12, 1991 - FROM: Tigard Planning De artment RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-0003 ZONE CHANGE ZON 91-0006 ALBERTSON'S INC. (NPO #7) A request for Comprehensive Plan Map amendment from Medium-High Density Residential and Zone change from R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development Overlay) to the General Commercial Plan designation and C-G zoning for an eight acre parcel in the southeast quadrant of the scholls Ferry Road/Murray Blvd. extension intersection. In addition, the applicant requests Plan redesignation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential and a Zone change from - C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-40 (Residential, 40 units/acre) at the northeast quadrant of the Scholls/Murray intersection on a 6.99 acre parcel; or alternatively to High Density Residential and R-40 for 4.5 acre area presently zoned R-25 to the south of the proposed General Commercial site. LOCATION: East side of SW Scholls Ferry Road at the proposed Murray Extension (WCTM 2S1 46, tax lot 101) _ Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish i to comment on this application, we need your comments by Sept.30, 1991. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: - ~ We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written Comments* ' i l Name of Person Commenting: ' 001_ c Phone Number: Z J O C% (f- bkm/CPA91-03.BKM I~ L~ NOTICE OF PROPOSED ACTION Must be sent to DLCD 45 days prior to the final !ic,tring See OAR 660-18-020 Jurisdiction ~IT\i pF 7i(,ARD Date Mailed ~~g Local File Number Q/- p-704 $//-Ocot Date Set for Final Hearing on Adoption a Month ~D•ay Year Time and Place for Hearing .7 c30 P. M. 7o u) ,&4R 0fla JZ p~ , /~/aZS cS~ ~/~GG LYD• I/G~RO~ Ae 4 Type of Proposed Action (Check all that apply) Comprehensive Land Use New Land Use s X Plan Amendment Regulation Amendment Regulation Please Complete (A) for Text Amendments and (S) for Map Amendments -A. Summary and Purpose of Proposed Action (Write a brief ? description of the proposed action. Avoid highly technical terms and stating "see attached"-)= 'vim 033 ~ . • s S B For Map Amendments Fill Out the Following (For each area to N s be changed, provide a separate sheet if necessary. Do not use z tax lot number alone.): Current Plan Designation: Proposed Plan Des~~irrgnation: s i ~M 5 dEn ~ia~ ~TJ~- n Ac. Lo►h►VlE~GIQ t. v -c_s Current Zone: Proposed Zone: 0 a) r 7~ 5 C-G (,e44 em( C'0144Mc~01 m Z Location: 62~- 5ac of- SW Sc 0 s rayrr•ti 20 a ad VAC - 4yu e Mu ✓rav /vd, e ,,kAsivi s r Acreage Involve : 'S S Does this Change Include an Exception? Yes X No __0Q 0 + N For Residential Changes Please Specify the Change in Allowed e Density in Units Per Net Acre: S > o Current Density: Proposed Density: No Cfc%ta•je 1COSLI06 ~awever ,'ca.h~f ikv;,/es .24! un) / kks ( e oZ o,c l~ List Statewide Goals Which May Apply to the Proposal: 9,10 12,15 List any State or Federal Agencies, Local Government or Local Special Service Districts Which may be Interested in or Impacted by the Proposal: 1 / --AghwaJ vi-siat {~/i<NrN6TafJ C1~CCN7~ 1.~~1 of JERRf OFFE2. Direct Questions and Comments To nEVF~oFME_tJT QFV~Ew A ANNE'2 cry Pr- TIC A.4 D Tir~kaD, (J~ ~i7~ (Phone) _(039-~11! T~ Please Attach rr~--(-3) Copies of the Proposal to this Form and Mail To Department of Land Conservation and Development 1175 Court Street, N.E Salem, Oregon 97310-6590 NOTE: If more copies of this form are needed, please contact the DLCD office at 373-0050, or this.form may be duplicated on green paper. Please be advised that statutes require the "text" of a proposal to be provided. A general description of the intended action is not sufficient, Proposed plan and land use regulation amendments must be sent to DLCD at least 45 days prior to the final hearing (See OAR 660-18-020). E * * * FOR DLCD OFFICE USE * * DLCD File Number ? Days Notice I j <pa>proposedform : % REQUEST FOR COMMENTS l TO: tC4 DATE: September 12, 1991 FROM: Tigard Planning Department _ RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-0003 ZONE CHANGE ZON 91-0006 ALBERTSON'S INC. (NPO 47) A request for Comprehensive Plan Map amendment ' from Medium-High Density Residential and Zone change from R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 unite/acre, Planned Development Overlay) to the General Commercial Plan designation and C-G zoning for an eight acre parcel in the southeast quadrant of the Scholls Ferry Road/Hurray Blvd_ extension intersection. In addition, the applicant requests Plan redesignation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential and a Zone change from C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-40 (Residential, 40 units/acre) at the northeast quadrant of the Scholls/Hurray intersection on a 6.99 acre parcel; or alternatively to High Density Residential and R-40 for 4.5 acre area presently zoned R-25 to the south of the proposed General Commercial site. LOCATION: East side of SW Scholls Ferry Road at the proposed Murray Extension (WCTH 2S1 48, tax lot 101) Attached is the site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other j information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future- If you wish to comment on this application, we need your comments by Sept.23, 1991. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: - We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written Comments: p- 7- &r r s~ _ ? . 1 t ti .i t C, J V-H Ti lc' ~17 xJ C r-71 .,t J i . C I- L) A y~ l_..7r H ~1ti7S 1 M~~l ~l ~i ~ RtJ ~C~ JL~ Name Of Person Commenting: J~ l .r, F( [ C~/~ 'i Phone Number: bkm/CPA91-03.BKM ~ ~ I(1 F AX TRANSMITTAL NOTICE CITY OFTICARD OREGON TO: LIICfG (/(/Oe~~ DATE: ' ZG-9~ CO./DEPT. tfP FAX a: FROM: PHONE 9: 639-4171 CO.: City of Tigard FAX N: 684-7297 SUBJECT: o4f C~~e !a -7e GSA i Message: rer~.~ aub~l~~dy Aye Q1e ~xy ~~rm&4 on ,lle 4-,t4' ,4lhe +'s, AS aw /a !!/s, Su.►/w!~,~ ~l o/u' L'Qst r~jQ/i1d `lD Ycrs2 GD7jI/HB~7J AW1414 67 y V .ZT .71 un/I r uiiP cr2a«- ,v ~ueeE e e~ ~e Aro , 62 G f PAGE 1 OF -7d j / FA:{ 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 %K - RECEIVED PLANNING' REQUEST FOR COMMENTS SE P 2 0 1991 TO, Cr;. r lti• DATE: September 12, 1991 " - FROM: Tigard Planning Department RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 91-0003 ZONE CHANGE ZON 91-0006 . ALBERTSON'S INC. (NPO #7) A request for Comprehensive Plan map amendment from Medium-High Density Residential and Zone change from R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 unite/acre, Planned Development Overlay) to the General Commercial Plan designation and C-G zoning for an eight acre parcel in the southeast quadrant of the Scholls Ferry Road/Hurray Blvd. extens_' n intersection. In addition, the applicant requests Plan redesignation fr.m Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential and a Zone change from C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-40 (Residential, 40 units/acre) at the northeast quadrant of the Scholls/Hurray intersection on a 6.99 acre parcel; or alternatively to High Density Residential and R-40 for 4.5 acre area presently zoned R-25 to the south of the proposed General Commercial site. LOCATION, East side of SW Scholls Ferry Road at the proposed Murray Exteneion (WCTM 2S1 4B, tax lot 101) - Attached is the Site Plan and applicant's statement for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, we need your comments by Sept.23, 1991. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted below with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. if you have any questions regarding this matter, contact the Tigard Planning Department, PO Box 23397, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. PHONE: 639-4171. STAFF CONTACT: PLEASE "?SCR THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Wr ten Comments: ' - - .ricy - 4U,n i Ala;' - 'i-: {.YC~ / 7wr:... l,;_,-~ C_c '-i i - •-a~' S Ci•~a, rS f'~._^/K/ ~~F ~ ctl; -?Lli w- .,'Wa = :r. . a . ~:«rr Name of Person Comm-n nc: Phone Number: -nc- .7- rF7 f •1 JG :C) b)=/CPA91-03. BF2i 1 1t191 J WASHINGTON COUNTY j DEPARTMENT OP ' 1ND USE AND TP.ANSPOP•TAT ION , - i ~ I Albertsoii's Zone Chanoe Request ATEP report. 1. The report assumes that the existing CN zone and the proposed Cc, zone are equal in size. In aCtuality, the existing zone is approximately 7 acres while th,? proposed zone is 8 acres. 2. The zone change application also proposes to increase the area of R-40 residential zoning. The potential number of apartment units will be increased by between 42 and 80 units, depending on the alternative proposal. This increase needs to be included in the traffic analysis. 3. The report assumes that the existing CN zone is in the same location as the proposed CG zone. In actuality, the existing CN zone lies north of proposed Murray Boulevard in a wedge-shaped parcel. The existing zone has no opportunity for direct access to Scholls Ferrv Road. The assumptions of the report should be amended to reflect this access restriction. 1. There appears to be a calculation error in the "Vet New Trip 1 Ends" figures in Table B. 5. The total of site generated trips shown on Figure 7 does not j agree with the total shown in Table 8. Also, in Figure 7, the traffic volumes shown at the SCholls/MUrray intersection are not consistent with the volumes of traffic exiting the site driveways. i rw/cpa91-03 r C f I fl r j_ PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION FILE NO: CPA 91-0003 / ZON 91-0006 FILE TITLE: ALBERTSONS INC. APPLICANT: ALBERTSONS INC. OWNER: MARGERY CRIST DON DUNCOMBE RT.1 BOX 792 17001 N.E. SAN RAFAEL BEAVERTON, OR 97007 PORTLAND, OR 97230 REQUEST, ZONE, LOCATION: Applicant requests Comprehensive Plan Map amendment from Medium-High Density Residential and Zone change from R-25 PD (Residential, 25 units per acre, Planned Development Overlay) to the General Commercial Plan designation and C-G zoning for an 8 acre parcel in the southeast quadrant of the Scholls Ferry Road / Murray Blvd. extension intersection. In addition, the applicant requests Plan redesignation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential and a Zone change from C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-40 (Residential, 40 units per acre) at the Northeast quadrant of the Scholls / Murray intersection on a 6.99 acre parcel; or alternatively to High _ Density Residential and R-40 for a 4.5 acre area presently zoned R- t 25 to the south of the proposed General Commercial site. LOCATION: East side of SW Scholls Ferry Road at the proposed Murray ; 1 Extension. z NPO NO: 7 NPO CHAIRPERSON: Cal Woolery PHONE NUMBER: 639-4297 CHECK ALL WHICH APPLY: _ STAFF DECISION COMMENTS DUE BACK TO STAFF ON 1991 X PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF HEARING: 10/21/91 TIME:7:30 j. _ HEARINGS OFFICER DATE OF HEARING: TIME:7:00 CITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: TIME:7:30 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND ATTACHMENTS: X VICINITY MAP LANDSCAPING PLAN X NARRATIVE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN X SITE PLAN OTHER: PREPARE FOR PLANNER APPROVAL: X ADVERTISEMENT - TIGARD TIMES OREGONIAN X NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS TO BE MAILED LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATION NOTICE TO DLCD - ATTACHMENTS: STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer I APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: 7 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS: 1, 2, 9, 11, 12 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 4.4.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.4, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 6.1.1, 6.4.1, 7.5.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 12.1.3, 12.2.1, 12.2.2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE: 18.22, 18.32, 18.56, 18.58, 18.60 18.62 r r~ { .a = } i 6• J j L ' 1 l r j J ALBERTSONS'o INC. j APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE (MAP CHANGES OR TEXT AND MAP CHANGES) v' -i 1 a I ~ - i r, i i i i bz, f7 i TABLE OF CONTENTS A_ NATURE OF APPLICATION - i ` 1. Current Zoning and Planning Designations 2 Proposed Changes in Zoning and Planning Designations 3. Alternative Proposal of a New Commercial Zone and Planning Designation B. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS FOR QUASI-JUDICIAL AMENDMENTS 1. Mistake or Inconsistency 2 Change in the Neighborhood or Community C. LOCATIONAI. CRITERIA FOR ZONE CHANGE (Volume Chapter 122) 1. Spacing and Location 2 Access 3. Site Characteristics 4. Impact Assessment ~ D. STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES 1. Goal No. 1 - Citizen Involvement 2 Goal No. 2 - Land Use Planning 3. Goal No. 3 -Ag» cul1tural Lands 4. Goal No. 4 -Foust Lands 5. Goal No. S - Open Spacer, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources ? 6 Goal No. 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality Z Goal No. 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards 8. Goal No. 8 - Recreational Needs 9. Goal No. 9 - Economy of the State 10. Goal No. 10 - Housing I 11. Goal No. 11 - Public Fatalities and Services C 12 Goal No. 12 - Transportation 13. Goal No. 13 - Energy Conservation E 14. Goal No. 14 - Urbanization t E. CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES i 1. Section 3 - Natural Featurrs and Open Spaces 2 Section 4 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality 3. Section S - Economy 4. Section 6 - Housing 5. Section 7 - Public Fatalities and Services 6 Section 8 - 7)-ansportation 7. Sections 9 and 10 - Energy and Urbanization F. EXHIBITS ei- r ALBERTSONS1, INC. APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE (MAP CHANGES OR TEXT AND MAP CHANGES) i A. NATURE OF APPLICATION 1. Current Zoning and Planning Designations The subject property, comprising approximately 19.49 acres, is in the northwestern portion of a 54.7-acre parcel that was approved on May 11, 1990, by the city planning commission for a planned development overlay zone and a preliminary plat-planned development conceptual plan. As a result of this approval, the subject property was divided into two parcels by the future extension of Murray Blvd. The parcel to the south of approximately 12.5 acres was designated multi-family with a maximum density of 300 units. The parcel to the north of approximately 6.99 acres was designated Neighborhood Commercial (C-N). Since annexation of the area into the city on June 12, 1983, the "Neighborhood Commercial" zone has shifted locations within the planned development area. However, in 1986 the landowner proposed locating the C-N designation to a parcel of approximately five f acres at the northeast corner of the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road and the Murray Blvd. extension. The City Council approved this proposal and included a declaration that the configuration of J the designated C-N parcel could be modified to conform in size with the final alignment of Murray Blvd. The approved Planned Development identifies the location of the Murray Blvd. extension and the boundary locations for the C-N parcel (shown on Exhibit "All as "Commercial Parcel-Parcel C"). The total actual acreage measured for this approved C-N parcel is 6.99 acres. 2. Proposed Changes in Zoning and Planning Designations The Applicant proposes exchanging zoning locations upon the t 19.49-acre property by: (1) moving the commercial zoning and planning from the northeast corner of Scholls and Murray extension to the southeast corner of Scholls and Murray extension; and (2) moving the multi-family zoning and planning from the southeast corner of Scholls and Murray extension to the northeast corner of Scholls and Murray extension. The Applicant then proposes to change Neighborhood Commercial zoning and planning designations to "General Commercial" (CG) and expand the 6.99 acres to an 8-acre parcel. This would effectively reduce the multi-family designated units by 1.01 acres or 24.24 units. See Exhibit "Bn for this calculation of housing density short fall. 1 - APPLICATION (JWS0814.1J) i Finally, the Applicant proposes increasing the residential 1 density to "High" and R-40: (1) on part of the new multi-family 6.99-acre parcel north of Murray Blvd. extension; or (2) on the remaining 4.5 acres multi-family parcel south of Murray Blvd. extension. In the alternative, the city may approve the Applicant's request without increasing the housing density at the subject property and: (1) absorb the loss of 24 units into the surplus that the city possesses in its housing density ratio required by the Metropolitan Service District; or (2) increase density at another more appropriate location within the city by legislative proceedings. Ultimately, the Applicant intends to construct on the 8-acre site an Albertsons' standard-sized grocery store (approximately 40 - 50,000 square feet) and a drug-variety store(s) (approximately 30 < - 35,000 square feet). These commercial uses service a market of approximately 8,500 people in a neighborhood within two miles of the subject property. See Exhibit "C". 3. Alternative Proposal of a New Commercial Zone and Planning Designation In the alternative to designating the above described 8-acre parcel as "General Commercial" and zoned CC, the Applicant is proposing that the city recognize that a new zoning designation be established for location of grocery stores in neighborhood market areas. This new commercial zone could be called "Community Commercial" or "C-C" and represent commercial needs falling midway between "Neighborhood Commercial" and "General Commercial". Historically, grocery stores have evolved from small stores (5,000 square feet or less) to the large full-service stores of today (30 - 50,000 square feet). However, the market area for these modern grocery stores still remains neighborhood-area oriented. A standard grocery store of today generally serves a market of about 8,000 people within a two-mile radius of the store. This neighborhood market concept addresses the frequent (sometimes G daily and bi-weekly) purchasing of grocery customers. Further, central location of grocery stores in these neighborhood markets helps to reduce cross-town or cross-area trips on already congested major arterial roads. The reality of today is that modern grocery stores have outgrown the city's "Neighborhood Commercial" zoning. In contrast, "General Commercial" is located in a few large commercial areas or strips around the city. As is applicable to the subject property's neighborhood, there are neighborhood areas between these major "General Commercial: zones that are greater than two miles in size. With the one exception of a parcel at 121 Street and Scholls Ferry Road (not available to site a grocery store), there are no General Commercial zones in the entire northwest one-third of the city to provide for a modern grocery store. 2 - APPLICATION (JWS0814.1J) ~Y . LL In essence, the city has a need for a commercial zone that allows for a modern grocery store complex to serve this northwestern one-third of the city. However, a "General Commercial" zone may be too unlimited in scope. What is needed is a new zone ("Community Commercial") that allows the neighborhood- oriented grocery store, but limits the impacts that might be felt by the residential character of the area. These potential impacts could be limited by setting the maximum site-size at ten acres, the maximum gross floor area for each use at 50,000 square feet, and the trade area at 8,000 - 15,000 people. B. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS FOR QUASI-JUDICIAL AMENDMENTS The application satisfies the standards of CDC 18.22.040. The requirement that the application is consistent with the applicable plan policies and code provisions is addressed in Section "C" of ' this Application. Compliance with statewide planning goals is addressed in Section "D" of this Application. The last standard requires evidence of a change in the neighborhood or community, or a mistake or inconsistency in the Comprehensive Plan or zoning map. 1. Mistake or Inconsistency The primary justification for the Comprehensive plan and zoning changes is that there are a series of mistakes and inconsistencies with the present designations and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. (a) Mistake in Originally Designating Site as "Neighborhood Commerciale When the original property (approximately 63 acres) was j under Washington County jurisdiction, it was zoned for 4 residential with a "Neighborhood Commercial" Center. The property was annexed on June 12, 1983, with the city merely adopting its own "Neighborhood Commercial" designation to replace the Washington County designation. However, the Washington County "Neighborhood Commercial" is not the same as the City's "Neighborhood Commercial". The City's zone is far more restrictive and intended for a much smaller market or trade area. In essence, a five-acre site I (6.99-acre site after Murray Blvd. extension) is far too large a parcel to have been considered under the City's "C-N" zone. j First, the Washington County "Neighborhood Commercial" zone (NC) allows food markets with a gross floor area of up to 50,000 quare feet (See Wash. Co. Code § 311-4.5 attached as Exhibit "D"). This is the same size proposed for the subject `j property by Albertsons', Inc. In contrast, the City's 3 - APPLICATION s~ (JWS0814.1J) L ~J I , "Neighborhood Commercial" zone (C-N) allowed food and beverage retail sales [CDC 18.060.030(2) (E)] in a building with a maximum gross floor area of only 4,000 square feet. Essentially, when the property was annexed, the city mistakenly down-zoned the use of the property for food market purposes by 92%. This downgrading of the zoning is in direct contrast with the city's policy and ORS 227.110 of adopting city zoning for the newly annexed property that fairly matches the former zoning in the county. Second, the Washington County "Neighborhood Commercial" district was intended to include "medium-sized shopping and service facilities" for the "shopping and service needs of the immediate urban neighborhood" (Wash. Co. Code 4 311-1). The County's 'INC" zone fit the subject property as the immediate 8,500-populace neighborhood needed a modern grocery complex and the five- to seven-acre site was consistent for that purpose. In contrast, the city's "C-N" zone limits a "Neighborhood Commercial" site to a trade area of only 5,000 people and a maximum area of only two acres [City Comprehensive Plan, Vol. 2, Chapter 12.2.1.A (1) and (2)]. It appears that the city mistakenly applied the city's "C-N" zone to the property when a consistent carry-over of the Washington County zoning would have required the city's "General Commercial" designation for the property. It may be argued that the city's "General Commercial" was too broad a scope for the site back in 1983, in which case, the city mistakenly zoned the property "C-N" when it should have adopted a new zone (such as "Community Commercial") to allow a zone midway between the too-restrictive "C-N" and the too broad "C-G" zones. (b) Mistake in site Size for a "C-N" Zone Because of the mistake in labeling this site as "C-N" after annexation, we now have a 6.99-acre parcel designated for Neighborhood Commercial. Unresolvably inconsistent with the "C-N" designation for this site, the City Comprehensive Plan provides that the maximum site-size shall not exceed two acres for a "C-N" district. Prior to transferring the "C-N" site to its present location, the five-acre site was already 250% larger than the Comprehensive Plan allows. After the Murray Blvd. extension was established resulting in a 6.99- acre "C-N" site, the subject property was now 349.5% larger than the Comprehensive Plan allows. 4 - APPLICATION (JWS0814.1J) 1 t4 ' Again, the proper conclusion is that the "C-N" zone for 1 this site must be changed to "C-G" or a new commercial zone (such as "Community Commercial") that would allow the Albertsons', Inc. proposed store complex. (C) Mistake in Designated Trade Area As previously identified, the city's "C-N" district assumes a maximum site of two acres with a maximum gross floor area for a store of 4,000 square feet. This small-scale use would serve a neighborhood area of one-half mile radius or a maximum of 5,000 people. However, the subject property is 6.99 acres of "C-N", and this size of commercial parcel would support a trade area of a two-mile radius and approximately 13,000 people (See Exhibit "C"). Even assuming the former five-acre "C-N" location, that site was 2500 larger than the allowed "C-N" district size. Such a five-acre site would support a trade area of 12,500 people (2k times the "C-N" district assumption of 5,000 people served by a two-acre site.) The neighborhood surrounding the subject property (and I trade area) consists of approximately 8,500 people and is projected to increase to 13,400 people by 1995. See Exhibit - "C". The city's zoning for this two-mile radius area includes only one "C-N" district - the subject property. Under both the Applicant's and the City Comprehensive Plan's trade area calculations, a single two-acre "C-N" site for this entire trade area would be far too small and clearly a "mistake." The Applicant's proposed eight-acre general commercial designation is consistent with the parcel size needed to serve this 8,500 - 13,400 populace market area. See Exhibit "C". Combined with providing proper landscaping, access and parking, the minimum site needed for this modern grocery store complex is eight acres. See the conceptual drawing for the site attached as Exhibit "E". In summation, the zoning and comprehensive planning for the subject property needs to be changed to correct mistakes and inconsistencies with the plan and code. The developmental history of this property is replete with failed attempts at making the "mistake" work under current zoning. These attempts have all failed because you cannot fit the proverbial j round peg of an over-sized general commercial need into the small square hole of a "C-N" district. The mistake must be rectified. The Applicant's proposed changes are realistic and I consistent with the intent, policies and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and Code. In contrast, the city cannot simply reduce the present "C-N" zone to a two-acre site. First, there are not enough other "C-N" sites in this area to 5 - APPLICATION (Jh'S0814.1J) serve the neighborhood market. To be consistent with the Plan, the city would still need to re-zone another 4 -6 acres of residential to commercial to serve this northeastern one- third of the city. Second, the downzoning of this property from approximately 7 acres to 2 acres of commercial would interfere with the development and investment-backed expectations of the property; and thereby causing a "taking" under both the Oregon and U.S. Constitutions. Compensation for the "taken" property would have to be paid by the city to the landowners-investors. See, First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County, 107 S.Ct. 2378 (1987); Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale, 720 P.2d 528 (Ariz. 1985). 2. Change in the Neighborhood or Community Since annexation of the property into the city, sewers have been extended adjacent to the site on the east and to nearby areas in the west ("football area" designated on Exhibit RIF"). The neighborhood market or trade area has substantially filled-in to the west and north on previously vacant land. Exhibit nF" j identifies housing densities projected for these areas. As a result, the existing trade areas at the time of annexation was limited to the eastern side of the subject property. In the very near future, the subject property will be surrounded by a trade area covering the northwestern one-third of Tigard and a part of southeastern Beaverton. The projected trade areas will involve 13,400 people by 1995, thereby establishing a need for a modern sized grocery store complex to serve this substantially formed market. See Exhibit "C". ff C. LOCATIONAL CRITERIA FOR ZONE CHANGE (Volume 2, Chapter 12.2) I 1. Spacing and Location The AlbertsonsI property is bordered by industrial uses [Morse Bros. Portland Metropolitan Division Quarry (Quarry), Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) power lines and a petroleum pipeline valve station] to the west. Also bordering the western boundary of the site is Scholls Ferry Road, a State Highway and designated f "arterial". Scholls Ferry Road separates the property from vacant lands in Beaverton designated high density residential. The Greenfield Village Apartments and the Cotswald Subdivisions (zoned R-25) are within the city and located to the north. The Morning Hill Subdivision is within the city and is located to the east. The area to the south is a mostly development unincorporated single-family residential district of Washington County. The proposed "General commercial" designation is consistent with the intent of the locational criteria in that the site is i. separated from vacant lands outside the city on two sides by Scholls Ferry Road (State Highway and arterial) and Murray Blvd. 6 - APPLICATION i (JWS0814.1J). r:. 1~ - extension (designated a "collector"). This area to the southwest and west is characterized by existing industrial uses (Quarry, BPA power lines and a petroleum pipeline valve station). Prior to annexation to the city, Washington County recognized that a portion of the original 63 acres was potentially appropriate for the commercial use of a 50,000 square foot market and related variety sales. These commercial uses would be "General commercial" under the city's zoning code. 2. Access (a) The Proposed General Commercial (C-G) Designation for 8 Acres of the Subject Property Located at the Southeast Corner of Scholls Ferry Road and Murray Blvd. Extension Shall Not Create Traffic congestion or Traffic Safety Problems Attached to and in support of this application is a Traffic Analysis prepared by Associated Transportation engineering and Planning, Inc. The report provides data and analysis which addresses street capacity, existing and projected volumes, speed limitations, number of turning movements and site traffic generation. For purposes of analysis, the report utilizes traffic volumes and characteristics on a "worst case" or maximum vehicles possible basis. The report concludes that with full J development of the Albertsons' property as general commercial all existing and proposed intersections will operate well within city standards (Level of Service "D" or better). Service Level "D" is generally utilized as the standard for assessing urban traffic operations and design of urban roadways. It is also the adopted policy of the Metropolitan Service District (MSD) to maintain a level of service "D" on its major roadways within the Portland Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary during peak periods of operation. At Level "D", there generally is at least 10% more capacity for traffic within the designed characteristics of the roadway. As previously stated, the Traffic Analysis was completed using data for a "worse case" application. It is reasonable to assume that full development of the Albertsons' property as general commercial will not reach the "worse case" impact on roadway systems. Traffic generation for Albertsons' property will not add 100% new traffic to the existing vehicular trips - along Scholls Ferry Road, 135th Street and Murray Blvd. extension. Many of the customers to the Albertsons' property will be "drop-ins" already on these roads for other reasons, such as commuting to and from work or shopping. Many of these vehicular trips will also involve customers changing their 7 - APPLICATION j (JWS0814.1J) shopping habits and choosing Albertsons' grocery store or adjacent drug-variety over other such businesses located 2 - 5 miles from this area. (b) The Site Shall Have Direct Access From a Major Collector or Arterial Street The Albertsons' property abuts Scholls Ferry Road, a State Highway and arterial. The property also abuts on the north the future Murray Blvd. extension which is a major collector street. 135th Street, bordering the overall 54.7 acre planned development on the east is also a "collector" street. The attached Traffic Analysis sets forth possible access points on Scholls Ferry Road and Murray Blvd. See Exhibit "E". (c) Public Transportation Shall Be Available to the Site or General Area Tri-Met bus service to the area is along Scholls Ferry Road. r 3. Site Characteristics (a) The Site Shall Be a Size Which Can Accommodate Present and Projected Uses r1 The proposed general commercial designation and related J site development plans will utilize the entire site. The Albertsons' property is 8 acres in size with easy accessibility to Scholls Ferry Road and Murray Blvd. The property is roughly rectangular in shape and there are no physical characteristics of the site that would prevent ! development as general commercial. f The proposed conceptual site development plan, attached as Exhibit "E", illustrates that the site can easily accommodate the grocery store complex and utilize less than 85% of the site coverage. The projected uses include approximately 47 -48,000 square feet of grocery store and 31 - 32,000 square feet of drug-variety uses. At least 15% of the site will be landscaped with special attention to buffering the eastern boundary which borders "Northview Loop" road (a f residential roadway). Both the physical characteristics of the site and the proposed development plan clearly illustrate that the site can accommodate projected general commercial r uses. I( (b) The site Shall Have Hiah Visibility The Albertsons' property is located at the southeastern corner of Scholls Ferry Road and Murray Blvd. extension. 8 - APPLICATION (JWS0814.1J) i r L~ • There is well over a thousand feet of visibility from this 1 State Highway and intersecting collector street. The site also slopes down from the southeastern corner to the northwestern corner, provided enhanced visibility for the grocery store complex. See the attached Traffic Analysis for existing and projected traffic volumes on these adjacent roadways. 4. Impact Assessment (a) The Scale of the Project Shall Be Compatible With the Surrounding Uses The Albertsons' property is located near to four major multi-family complexes that generally are of comparable size. In addition, the Planned Development for the original 54.7 acre parcel will bracket the site with more multi-family (6.99 acres) to the north and 4.5 acres to the south. These multi- family developments will provide a proper transition from the single-family residential farther away from the site. See Exhibit "G". To the west and southwest is the large gravel quarry that encompasses an area over twice the size of the Albertsons' property. The Planned Development area for single-family residences and the nearby development Morning f Hill Subdivision to the east are all of a scale larger than t. the proposed grocery store complex. All these existing ` projects share the same general development scale with the proposed Albertsons' project. (b) The Site Configuration and Characteristics Shall Be Such That the Privacy of Adjacent Non-Commercial Uses Can Be Maintained The site slopes away from the residential districts to the east and south. The Albertsons' store complex will be oriented away from these residential areas and toward Scholls Ferry Road and Murray Blvd. The property will be surrounded and separated on at least three sides by streets. The Albertsons' site will provide a buffer strip along its eastern i' and southern boundaries to provide privacy to those adjacent residences. The 4.5 acres to the south and 6.99 acres to the north will be developed as multi-family complexes. These developments will also be required to provide orientation and buffering to help assure privacy for those dwelling units. Similarly, privacy will be protected for multi-family projects to be developed in Beaverton across Scholls Ferry Road to the northwest. The industrial uses of the Quarry, BPA power lines, etc. do not require privacy protection. - 9 - APPLICATION (JWS0814.1J) ) is - (c) It Shall Be Possible to Incorporate the Unique Site 1 Features Into the Site Design and Development Plan The site has been entirely under cultivation in the past and possess no distinctive vegetation features. The site, however, slopes downward toward Scholls Ferry Road and Murray Blvd. extension. The site design will incorporate this slope feature to orient the building complex. The commercial complex will also be located with the back of the building to the east. This will help block noise and light from residential uses to that side. The southern area will have the parking lot sloping upward from the complex and a landscaped buffer area to separate the multi-family uses from the complex. Traffic to and from the site will be directed onto Scholls Ferry Road and Murray Blvd., and away from the non- j commercial uses to the south and east. No access to Northview Loop (to the east) is expected for this project. (d) The Associated Lights, Noise and Activities Shall Not Interfere With the Adjoining Non-Residential Uses F The uses to the west and north will be separated by Scholls Ferry Road, Murray Blvd. and landscaping areas. Lighting in the parking area will be directed so as to prevent interference with nearby uses. The uses to the immediate west I and southwest are industrial in nature and will not be adversely effected by activities at the site. The residential uses to the east and south will be buffered by landscaping strips and building orientation. The ? placement of the building complex (downhill from the south boundary line and with its back to the east) will assist in blocking noise, light and the effects of activities at the j site. D. STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES f The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and zone change (and map changes) are consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals. i 1. Goal No. 1 - Citizen Involvement The proposed Comprehensive Plan and zone change amendments will require a series of public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council as required by the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.32.090(c) and (d). In addition, the proposed amendments will not alter the citizen involvement policy identified in the Comprehensive Plan policy 2.1.1 at II-9. The existing public hearing process shall ensure that the citizens of ! Tigard will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases 10 - APPLICATION (JWS0814.1J) u - of the planning process for these amendments. Finally, the City of Tigard has received compliance acknowledgment from LCDC as to these planning and ordinance provisions, thereby establishing that this review process will be consistent with the Statewide Planning Goal No. 1. 2. Goal No 2 - Land Use Planning Goal No. 2 states that each plan and related implementation measure shall be coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units. As part of the public hearing process, the i city shall notify for comments all affected governmental units. In all other respects, the proposed plan and zone change for the subject site complies with the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal No. 2. An adequate factual basis for decision has been presented as identified in the data in the above sections and related facts pertaining to the various goal considerations hereinafter. The proposed changes, as identified hereinafter, are compatible with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Tigard. 3. Goal No 3 - Agricultural Lands The subject property is not and has not been designated as agricultural lands under City of Tigard planning and zoning. The subject site and the entire surrounding area are within the Portland Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary previously acknowledged by LCDC. There is no conflict between the proposed plan and zone changes with Goal No. 3. 4. Goal No. 4 - Forest Lands The subject site is not and has not been designated as forest j lands by the City of Tigard. As stated in subsection 3 above, the land is designated urban and is committed to urban uses. There is no conflict between the proposed amendments and Goal No. 4. 5. Goal No. 5 - open spaces Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources There is no portion of the Albertsons' property that is within a designated open space, scenic, historic or natural resources area. The Comprehensive Plan mapping for the City of Tigard designates the property entirely for urban uses. These planning designations and regulations have already received compliance acknowledgment for LCDC. Therefore, the proposed amendments are in { conformance with Goal No. 5. 6. Goal No 6 - Air Water and Land Resources Quality The proposed planning and zoning amendments will not adversely affect compliance with Goal No. 6. All waste and process 11 - APPLICATION (JWS0814.1J) i discharges from future development shall not threaten to violate, or violate applicable state or federal environmental quality statutes, rules and standards. The site shall be served by sewerage processing system through the City of Tigard. Correspondingly, storm drainage and waste treatment will also be " provided through city systems. A change to general commercial for this site will also involve the same requirements related to indirect sources of a:r pollution for a site located within the Portland urban area. 7. Goal No. 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards There are no areas within the subject site that are subject to natural disasters and hazards as defined under Goal No. 7. Also, there are no natural hazard characteristics identified for the site in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Tigard. 8. Goal No. 8 - Recreational Needs Essentially, there will be no change in the requirements for recreational need by the proposed amendments. The site is not I designated under the Comprehensive Plan for recreational needs. Indeed, the site does not lend itself to the purposes of developing recreational needs. Therefore, the proposed amendments would be consistent with Goal No. 8.. 9. Goal No. 9 - Economy of the State j The proposed amendments will substantially aid the City of Tigard in satisfying the Statewide Planning Goal requirements for diversity and improvements of the economy of the state. Earlier, the city identified in its Comprehensive Plan that it contemplated commercial shopping development should occur in near Scholls Ferry Road and Murray Blvd. extension to provide for the commercial needs of the surrounding area (generally the northwestern one-third of I the city). As identified above, the locational criteria are all satisfied for this site. There is a substantial absence of vacant general commercial lands of 8 - 10 acres or greater in size within the City of Tigard planning area. There are no other neighborhood commercial sites in this entire northeastern quadrant of the city. This is also reflected by the Comprehensive Plan's statement that "the supply of developed commercial space is low, but it is expected that the supply will catch up with needs before long." The addition of this 8 acre site will substantially aid the city in meeting its own economic needs, as well as, aid the state in providing a broader and more diversified economic base. The City of Tigard needs to designate this 8 acre site as general commercial to proved for a more complete variety and selection of commercial uses and services for this market area of the city. 12 - APPLICATION (JWS0814.1J) As previously stated, the area was annexed in June of 1983. The Washington County zoning designated the subject site as "Neighborhood Commercial" including uses more consistent with the city's "General Commercial" district - allowance of a food market having up to a 50,000 square foot floor area. The proposed Albertsons' store complex is clearly within these specifications and meets the market or trade area in this part of Tigard. 04 The proposed uses in the Albertsons' development plan include a modern grocery facility and drug-variety services. There are no drug-variety stores within the surrounding districts. The nearest drug-variety store is approximately three miles east on Pacific Highway. There are a variety of commercial uses in a local economy which assume and incorporate a level of direct competition. These commercial services sometimes provide different levels of service for the same products or a different style of the product. Each level and style comprises a portion of the total market share. In the west Tigard area, there is only one existing general grocery store, i.e., Thriftway Super Store off Murray Blvd. in Beaverton. See Exhibit 11C11. The only other general grocery stores are located approximately three miles to the east and south of downtown Tigard. It is well established that the grocery shopping needs of any given community involve competition between a number of different general grocery stores. For a population market in excess of 8,500 13,400 people identified in the U.S. Census, there is a substantial absence of general grocery services for the market in this area. The Albertsons' proposed development will also provide a substantial temporary construction employment for the site. The development's general construction and specific user alterations are expected to involve employment in excess of 100 people. After completion, the development is expected to provide permanent employment on both a full-time and part-time basis of approximately 150 people. By the very nature of this community commercial construction and services operation, it is expected that a majority of the employees, general contrac-ors and subcontractors will come form this sector of the metropolitan area. Finally, as this site is well within the Portland Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary acknowledged by LCDC, the proposed amendments would be consistent with and would enhance the economy of the state under Goal No. 9. 10. Goal No. 10 - HousincT The redesignating of the Albertsons' property as general commercial will eliminate 1.01 acres of housing designations or 24.24 units for the property. However, an analysis of changes in the city's housing, zoning and redesignation of adjacent residential property will enable the city to allow general commercial on the site without causing a conflict with Goal No. 10. 13 - APPLICATION (JWS0814.1J) i l~ Exhibit "B" identifies that the net shortfall or loss of housing units by approval of an 8 acre general commercial district would only be 24.24 units. The subject site also includes 6.99 acres of medium-high density residential to the north and 4.5 acres of medium-high density residential to the south. Applicant, as one approach, is proposing that one or a portion of these sites be redesignated as "high" density residential with an R-40 zoning. As an example, the southern 4.5 acre parcel could be redesignated R-40 producing a net increase in density of 72 units: 4.5 acres x 40 units (R-40) = 180 units 4.5 acres x 24 units (the approved P.D. units per acre) = 108 units Increase in Units 72 units By subtracting the 24.24 units lost as a result of the proposed zone and plan change, the Application will provide an overall increase of 47.76 dwelling units. Alternatively, the zone and plan i change to "high" (R-40) can be located north of Albertsons' f 1 property on a smaller parcel to reach an exact effect of no change f in housing unit loss (for example a rezoning of only 2 acres of the If 6.99 acres). It should be noted that the Statewide Planning Goal No. 10 on t[f Housing does not require the actual implementation of residential J lands at the planned densities. The Goal merely requires that there be an "opportunity" for those housing densities through the various applied classifications. From the standpoint of l calculating consistency with Statewide Planning Goals, LCDC only requires that the zone be analyzed for its "opportunity". After the city adopted the Comprehensive Plan and the buildable lands unit per acre calculations, the city has approved residential zone increases in density. As a second approach, the city could absorb these 24.24 units in the current housing density surplus. As a result of these calculations, the city's reclassification of the AlbertsonsI property to general commercial would not adversely impact the City of Tigards' housing needs and would be consistent with Goal No. 10. 11. Goal No. 11 - Public Facilities and Services ! The proposed plan and zoning amendments would be consistent with Goal No. 11. The redesignation of the property to general j commercial would result in a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services. The site is designated for urban densities as a result of being within the `i Portland Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary. The City of Tigard v 14 - APPLICATION (JWS0814.1J) i has designated the site for intensive urban uses. Full urban services can be extended to the site and immediately utilized upon i`- redesignation of the property as general commercial. The site can be adequately served with sewer, water and related utilites. Such public facilites and services already adjoin the site and are providing services to the nulti-family and single-family developments to the north and east. The city already has a responsibility for the provision of public facilities and services to this site. Therefore, the proposed plan and zoning amendments are consistent with Goal No. 11. j, 12. Goal No. 12 - Transportation The proposed plan and zoning amendments are consistent with Goal No. 12 and would aid in providing and encouraging a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. As identified - above, a Traffic Analysis has been completed for the area and specifically identifying traffic impacts generated by a redesignation of the Albertsons' property as general commercial. The Traffic Analysis concludes that the proposed plan and zoning amendments would not significantly change the existing Level service for roadway networks and intersections. The proposed plan and zoning amendments are also consistent with transportaion policies conerning mass transit. The site is already served by Tri-Met bus routes. The attached Traffic Analysis also identifies that MSD projects that 4 to 6% of all home base person trips for purposes unrelated to work will be made by transit. This would include trips to commercial shopping areas. Albertsons' proposed development plan would provide for a drug and grocery store complex at this central location. It should also k, be noted that the site is adjoined by large tracts of existing and 1t planned for medium to high density residential development. It is r reasonable to assume that the development and usage of the Albertsons' general commercial property will encourage pedestrian and bus ridership by neighboring households. This alteration in the traffic pattern should also help to reduce traffic on arterials and collector streets in this neighborhood. 13. Goal No 13 - Energy Conservation The land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles. The same Tigard Community Development Code provisions for energy conservation shall apply to the redesignation of the property.as General Commercial. In particular, the development proposal as identified above in subsection 12 would aid in the conservation of energy through the i enhancement of more efficient transportation modes and land-use patterns, reduction of travel distances between residential and v 15 - APPLICATION (JWS0814.1J) } i L~ commercial areas, generally increasing densities of land uses at 1 the site, and enhancing the prospect for mass transit ridership. These functions of the development proposal support the finding for energy conservation under the City's Comprehensive Plan, Volume II at 62. These provisions have obtained compliance acknowledgment from LCDC, and therefore the proposed plan and zone change is in conformance with Goal No. 13. 14. Goal No. 14 - Urbanization The subject site is within the urban growth boundaries of the City of Tigard and MSD. The urban growth boundaries of Tigard and MSD have been given compliance acknowledgment by LCDC. The zone change that is proposed is merely a change from one intensive urban use to another intensive urban use. The plan and zone-change proposals do not require any establishment or change in the existing ur"'an boundaries. Therefore, the proposed plan and zone change are in conformance with Goal No. 14. ' c E. CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES j 1. Section 3 - Natural Features and Open Space II i The site is not subject to severe soil erosion potential, slumping, earth slides or movement, severe weak foundation soils; nor does it have slopes in excess of 25%. See the attached proposed development plan. Also, the subject site is not within the 100-floodplain designated by the City of Tigard. There are no existing hazards or physical limitations on the site that would preclude its ultimate development. There are no rock mineral resources available at the site. Similarly, the subject site is not part of a significant wetland or potential location for parks, recreation and open space. 2. Section 4 - Air, Water and Land Resources Ouality f The City's Comprehensive Plan policies regarding air, water and land resources quality are based upon application of quality f standards imposed by the DEQ and other appropriate agencies. As previously stated under Section D for statewide planning goals, development of the site will be subject to and can comply with air quality standards regulated by the DEQ. Extension of water and sewer services to the site will ensure water quality. 3. Section 5 - Economy As previously stated in Section, D(5) above, the proposed changes are not only consistent with economic goals, but significantly enhance them. In addition to the items supporting economic development listed in that section, the City's policies f also support the proposal. The first economic policy listed at II- i 16 - APPLICATION (JWS0814.1J) p 4 30 identifies that "the City shall promote activities aimed at the n diversification of the economic opportunities available to Tigard residents with particular emphasis placed on the growth of the local job market." At II-29 the Comprehensive Plan sets forth the following finding regarding the make-up of employment opportunities: "Manufacturing, wholesale and retail activities provide the majority of the employment opportunities to area residents." As previously stated, the development of the Albertsons' property as general commercial will provide substantial part-time construction employment and substantial permanent retail- related employment. It is forecasted that the majority of these employment opportunities would be locally-based. The proposal is also consistent with the City's policy on expansion or creation of new commercial areas. First, the Albertsons' property is part of a mixed-use area that combines commercial with medium- to high-density large block residential development. The land proposed for general commercial development has not been committed physically to residential development. Secondly, a portion of the subject property has been designated as commercial to serve the needs of the surrounding trade area cr f.. community. This trade area is encompassed by a two-mile circle hat includes approximately one-third of the City of Tigard. Iithin this market or trade area this site comprises the only undeveloped commercial site. One other developed site exists in Beaverton off Murray Blvd. and one exists in the city east on Scholls Ferry Road.' Both of these sites are approximately one mile away and are unavailable as new grocery store sites. Provision of a site at the subject propoerty for a modern grocery store complex will provide much-needed retail food services at the center of this 8,500 - 13,400 populace area. Only one other comparable grocery store potentially services a part of this area, and it is located in Beaverton approximately one mile away. The designation of this property will continue and support the existing development pattern and planning principles in this area. The proposed plan and zone changes would also, thereby, satisfy the economic finding at II-30 for the Comprehensive Plan: "Residential development in commercial districts complements commercial uses, helps to minimize crime within the commercial districts, provides housing for senior citizens which is in close proximity to shopping areas, and minimizes vehicular traffic which would reduce pollution and conserve energy." See also discussions related to this issue under ` Section D(12) regarding the direct compatibility between the proposal and transportation goals. Finally, the proposed plan and zone amendments would aid the City in carrying out its implementation strategies, particularly strategy No. 10 at II-31 of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal would "aid in the creation and maintenance of new and continuous employment opportunities to afford City residents the choice of working within the City." The City is also directed to implement an economic development program that would also "strive to improve 17 - APPLICATION (JWS0814.1J) i diversity and stabilize the economic base of the community thus reducing the tax burden of the residential property owner." The provision of approximately 79,000 square feet of retail activity would provide a substantial employment base in the category that the City has designated as "the majority of the employment opportunities to area residents" and would provide a substantial economic base for reducing the tax burden on local residents. In addition, the proposed plan and zone amendments would aid in effective utilization of land, energy and human resources by providing an appropriate buffer between the traffic arterial and residential zones and also insure that service levels in the traffic corridor would not be adversely impacted. Finally, the proposed changes carry out the finding that there should be a provision for timely development of all public facilities and services and their delivery systems. The subject property is immediately adjacent to existing City public facilities and services already being provided to intensive uses. The subject property is located within the urban growth boundaries of the City of Tigard and MSD. All jurisdictions designate the property for intensive urban development. Intensive urban uses already exist and surround the site on three sides. Redesignation of the property as general commercial and provision of public facilities and services from the City of Tigard is consistent with the City's economic policies and would be a provision for timely development. 4. Section 6 - Housing The proposed plan and zone amendments are consistent with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan on housing. The proposed changes, coupled with a redesignation of high density residential to an adjacent 2- to 4.5-acre parcel, will provide necessary buffering as directed in the Comprehensive Plan policies and ultimately result in either no significant change in the number of housing-unit opportunities or will result in a gain of up to 47.46 t units for the City's housing stock. See also, information identifying that housing goals are supported by the proposal identified in Section D(10) above. Transition and buffer planning techniques are important planning functions identified in the Comprehensive Plan amendments, would be consistent with these policies and, in fact, would enhance buffering, screening and transitional effectiveness for the area. Development of the subject property would provide the location of a large single structure to function as a solid screen for the east and south residential areas. The approximately 4.5 acres to the t immediate south of the subject property should be redesignated as high-density residential or R-40. This re-zoning scenario would provide a 47- to 48-unit surplus in the city's housing stock. In the alternative, the City could re-zone two acres to the north of the Albertsons' property across Murray Blvd. This would result in no net loss of housing stock and would provide a proper planning transition from general commercial to high-density residential to IS - APPLICATION (JWS0814.1J) i Lam. medium-high-density residential to single-fanily residential as one travels north. - S. Section 7 - Public Facilities and Services The proposed plan and zone amendments would be consistent with the City's goals on public facilities and services. See the discussion in Section D(11). Extension of services to these properties are contemplated by the comprehensive plan for intensive urban development and timely for extension of water, sewer, and the provision of fire and police protection. All private utilities such as natural gas, electric and telephone are already adjacent to the site to the immediate north and east. The provision of general commercial at the site will not adversely impact schools, and, in fact, will aid in providing the necessary economic base to the City to alleviate residents' burden for school budgeting. The proposal is also consistent with all other related urban services such as local government facilities, library services, and solid waste disposal and recycling. 6. Section 8 - Transportation I The proposed plan and zoning amendments are consistent with E the City's policies for transportation. See the attached Traffic Analysis and the information pertaining to traffic identified in Section C(2) and D(12) above. The proposed development does abut two publicly dedicated streets that have been or will be C constructed in accordance with the City's standards. The applicant agrees to commit to the construction of such street improvements, curbs and sidewalks as required by City standards for the development. The applicant also agrees to provide intersection improvements and signalization as may be required for the intersection. In addition, the site and the proposed use are compatible and will enhance mass transit consideration identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan under Section 8. 7. Sections 9 and 10 - Enerc7y and Urbanization The proposed plan and zone amendment are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan policies regarding energy and urbanization. See Section D(13) and (14) above. i 19 - APPLICATION i (JWS0814.1J) , I \ ' ~ IfrM11KW MKS, / - 1 1 r {.M. 11.4111. Ir ♦.1 • ' ~ 4 rat' n i 1 '.•,r r.a - - - r..a... .`I ff ^g.f.l ,l) •9t ,.r •NN ,n _ ' ..'.1,:•,~ ✓ ter.' r :IA I Y~ 41^K+r,• ~✓•`/nl :I.wM 111 r. / N~1~1 •~III~I.u1r YII1 1~, t•!: w V4~~~ "'i ♦ ~ S~j/p 111 M Y.(.II II m V(~YY• 'It ,w rb ••,Ttl•1/..~'•,l h1~"TT !u// , 1 ! ^~>1»\\\111- D ~ / / ~ l ~~,.f, j~ l~• ~ V. Al. ' I ~ / I % 1 rt~~~•,:1.. '~~~r.i~.l`~;~L~J].~y~,' • nd~•'}~/ Jt~~, 1 1~ f INW U" ' 0 1 i j 7:'i ~ • ,n Im ~w9 a ' 'Lt C .lTt'. t'1. 1-; n it. u. -7411 I I I , • I I II r 4 • I I nj7 I ` I t S.W. MURRAY BLVD. SECTION . I f . 1 1 BULL MOUNTAIN NORTH, Planned Development Iw1r. a. j Site Map ial r r ` 2•fOL r A ` } ! FUTURE T' ~ Ti.s~ 1 t t , PRO?ER;~r PI BERTS02;S S 1 t..5~ r •'~t ~'4 ~ ..t s.i r g ACRE ! ^ • ..i , Pill, kit It. + o" _s% _ ~ , ..FAMILY tt .5 ACRES ! i ~1 i~j . ~ ►1 ~~v r' M[SI+TI ~ . J ( I...l,w~!:rL', ,1 • ,(`.J .r i ' ~ `Mt M• ~ r r r. N•~~ tom. ` \ ~ . 0 • To. 1 - 1 . 5 MuRRI, J ~xr-116Crt' .2 0----F PAGE EXHIBIT B CALCULATION OF THE HOUSING DENSITY SHORTFALL The May 11, 1990 city approval for the subject property included a 12.6-acre parcel having a maximum of 300 multi-family units. This computes to a maximum of 24 units per acre. The following is a calculation of the lost multi-family density as a result of expanding the commercial parcel from 6.99 acres to 8 acres: 34 1. Commercial area expanded 8.00 acres 2. Less exchanged site north of (6.99 acres) Murray Blvd. extension S 3. Difference - reduction in 1.01 acres multi-family 4. Maximum number of multi-family units reduced by expansion of commercial zone 1.01 acres x 24 units = 24.24 ~J 4 j 1 - V EXHIBIT PAGE _1_ OF Study No. 91.100 July 26, 1001 'Trade Area Demographics: { 1991 Estimated Average Household Income ■ $28,600' j 1991 Average Household Size ■ 2.67 1991 Average Per Cap ■ $34,90 Average % White ■ 92% Average X Spanish Origin 2% Average % Under 18 • 32% Average % 65 ad Over ■ 7% I Population Growth: Map Sectors with Growth _ _P~pulati_o_n 2 1.000 300 2,000 6 1.800 2,4100 3,400 8 MOD 21800 21000. it 1.200 1,900 2,200 1.300 11400 1,700 14 S00 800 1,200 - 1 EXHIBIT C PAGE OF 2 r ~ •"tir~ ~ ~jl/ .~I a A I~I ~rl h♦' C n L.Y T>•~ 1'•j V f A ~ •I ~ j~~,~+ 5 k_a ooh ~c F ~ „~tyy. , _ 1~ v F ~ir,.wY 7 a f } rcpt ~a• ,J Ft~R c++.l.. ~ I. r u tolled enlargement of proocset roac extensions ~'Dln y t _ • •~(~N kOM R C,,RD. V RD a~ rU•..~~'~C •,1~;~ f 1 ~G ~ C l 1• Y L 3 1~r 1~A~' ~ ~ H•I.JYS'~ Z ~ R rM • Lw S ~ D-IIti'~ r 4•~~~ R O `Pp 0000 r.cr S-1 1 c p Oil R r o ~ • yy~, I allowards on n Thri way Su per Store r7' N Ro 1 ~ Y woR- cLVdf0.[1( $16510 K4C'xLs- k ON MILL 1 R / k IJl ~~A ff1~~?7' R &LVO L S o SIT `599;-`+ 12 - cRRO: ~wtkvT /•~L 1.rr .w n = NIT ra 'i 1 O a MIA 1 Mile ~CNOL ( .k T .t 7 .J[/ CT v 1300 N PA0 tiles 4f,RLN 11 - 4.' _9 O t A TJ .S ",ON TCQ 0 A s _ t~ L (`uT 0 1t cis ..I KINO y c CITY1 i i ?I 80K? vc.l g Ki n0w~ 3p % ....cep 4 EXH1BTT C., K565-T PAGE 2 OF 2 •/~C~ ~ aR.IT t I L..1 WASH INGTO•N COUNTY III-43 311 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL - (NC) 311-1 Intent and Purpose The purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial District is to allow small to medium sized shopping and service facilities and limited office use in Neighborhood Commercial Centers. This District is intended to provide for the shopping and service needs of the immediate urban neighborhood. Neighborhood Commercial locations should be easily accessible by car and foot from neighborhoods in the area. Centers should have minimal negative impact on surrounding residential properties. 311-2 Uses Permitted Through a Type I Procedure The following uses are permitted subject to the applicable stan- dards as set forth in this Section and in Article IV. 311-2.1 Accessory Use - Section 430-1 ' i 1 311-2.2 Agricultural Uses and Structures - Section 430-5 311-2.3 Any Type II or III use, expansion of an existing use or change of use which meets all of the following: A. Is exempt from application of the Public Facility rl Standards under Section 501-2.1; J B. Is not in an 'Area of Special Concern' as designated on the applicable Community Plan•map; E t C. Is on an existing lot; i. D. Does not amend any previous approval or previous condition of approval; and E. Is in compliance with all applicable standards of this Code. 311-2.4 Bus Shelter - Section 430-23 311-2.5 Parks with a maximum total gross area of ten-thousand (10,000) square feet - Section 430-95 311-2.6 Recycle Drop Box - Section 430-113 311-2.7 Temporary Use - Section 430-135.1 311-3 Uses Permitted Through a Type 11 Pro edurp The following uses are permitted subject to the applicable stan- dards as set forth in this section and in Article IV. i~ . EXHIBIT D PAGE OF 75 11/24/89 III-44 Wilma 311-3.1 Access to a manufactured dwelling park - Section 430-77.14 311-3.2 Ambulance Service - Section 430-9.1 311-3.3 Convenience Groceries, with a maximum gross floor area of five-thousand (5000) square feet - Section 430-35 311-3.4 Day Care Center - Section 430-53.2 311-3.5 Drive-In Establishment with a gross floor area of five-thousand (5000) square feet - Section 430-41 311-3.6 Dwelling units provided: A. The ground floor is used for neighborhood commercial uses; B. Height and yard requirements are the same as the i Neighborhood Commercial district requirements; and t C. Maximum density of fifteen (15) units per acre. 311-3.7 Eating and Drinking Establishments with a maximum gross floor area of thirty-five-hundred (3500) square feet 311-3.8 Financial Institutions such as branch banks, insurance ! agents, real estate offices - with a maximum gross j floor area of five-thousand (5000) square feet per use '311-3.9 Food Market with a maximum gross floor area of thirty- five thousand (35,000) square feet, limited to one (1) per Neighborhood Commercial Center 311-3.10 Personal Service Establishments such as laundry, dry cleaners, barber and beauty shop, shoe repair, photo- graphic studios - with a maximum gross floor area of five thousand (5000) square feet per use 311-3.11 Professional Offices, including veterinary clinics or ! offices which do not include boarding facilities other than indoor boarding for immediate, critical care. There shall-be a maximum floor area of thirty-five { hundred (3,500) square feet per use. 311-3.12 Radio Station 311-3.13 Residential Facility - Section 430-53.7 311-3.14 Retail Businesses such as variety, hardware, drug, dry U goods, clothing, photography, hobby and similar retail w EXHIBIT D _ ~ - Revised 11/23/90 PAGE OF - t III-45 uses - with a maximum gross floor area of ten-thousand (10,000) square feet per use 311-3.15 Service Station - Section 430-123 311-3.16 A Type I or Type II Home Occupation in a nonconforming residence as an interim temporary use subject to the standards of Section 430-63.1 - Type I Home Occupation or Section 430-63.2 - Type II Home Occupation. 311-4 Uses Which May Be Permitted Throuch a Type ITT Procedure The following uses may be permitted subject to the applicable standards as set forth in Article IV and as may be further con- ditioned by the Review Authority. 311-4.1 Churches - Section 430-29 311-4.2 Public Buildings - such as a post office, police and fire stations at a scale oriented to the surrounding neighborhood - Section 430-103 311-4.3 Public Utility - Section 430-105 311-4.4 Special Recreation Use - Section 430-13I 311-4.5 Food Market - with a maximum gross floor area of-fifty thousand (50,000) square feet, limited to one (1) food market greater than five thousand (5,000) square feet er neighborhood commercial center 311-5 prohibited Uses 311-5.1 Structures or uses of land not specifically authorized.. by this District unless the structure or use has ' substantially similar use and impact characteristics ` to a use listed, as determined through the.provisions of Section 202-2.2. 311-5.2 Adult Book Stores - Section 430-3 311-5.3 The use of a manufactured dwelling, except as provided in Section 430-135.1A - Temporary Uses and 430-1.2.D. - Accessory Use 311-5.4 New residential uses'except as provided in Section 311-3.6 and 311-3.16. 311-5.5 The location of service facilities such as high schools, hospitals, nursing homes, public assembly and high density residential development in airport i approach zones. Location of these facilities shall be 1 avoided within any existing (June, 19B3) airport year . 2000 LDN fifty-five (55) contour. EXHIBIT D Revised 11/23/90 PAGE 3 OF - } L~ . vi ell f 1 LL ~ o ~0. r i SZ - 64 SF F m w 10 17 J*, F 670 c URzw S $0 f PPy Y - sic SF f 4 A4 f C U - Zoo sf. :bOT +LL 34 At VV~ a -Now I r X~ t C' ~Cy + . of . , , ~ r tel. n F' ~w AN 01. M „T \ b to W . r` ~~y~ • ~ [ j; ; ,t ~:vC. ~ 1 0 G) ti y1~► + . RECEIVED PLANNING _ JOHN W. SHONKWILER, P.c. AUG 2 9 1991 J ATTO&VEYAT L41V 4040 Douglas JVuy _ P .O. Box 1563 Lakc Oavcgo, OreSun 97035 f= 636-6745 6:4-0917 August 28, 1991 Mr. Jerry Offer City of Tigard Planning Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 s Re: Albertsons_' Inc. - Application for Zone Change and Plan Amendment Dear Jerry: As we discussed over the telephone, this letter is an explanation of the alternative suggestion for a new commercial zone raised in the application and the applicant's statement. The Albertsons' Application is for exchange of a existing multi-family zone with neighborhood commercial zone; and then enlarging the commercial zone to eight (8) acres and changing it to general commercial. These include both comprehensive plan and zoning map changes. In the event, the City feels that a general commercial zone is too broad for this area, but a grocery-drug store complex is f acceptable; Albertsons' Application Statement identifies that the tt City council may consider another alternative. This alternatiy_ would be that the City Council initiate a legislative change, at its own request, for a new commercial zone placed between "CN" I and "CG" - such as "Community Commercial". As such a zoning and planning change would directly and broadly C effect the entire city, Albertsons' Inc. does not presume to draft a "Community Commercial" ordinance and plan text for immediate adoption by the City. Albertsons' Inc. believes that the City Council will first need to decide whether it is j interested in such an alternative; and if so, then the Council y would give the Staff and Albertsons' direction as to the new commercial zone's name, scope and limitations. l Offer Letter August 28, 1991 Page 2 If the City Council decides to initiate this legislative alternative, Albertsons' Inc. will provide assistance in drafting and compiling supporting evidence for the new legislation. Again, this alternative for a new commercial zone is raised in the event that the Planning Commission and/or City Council finds that the "CG" zone too broad for this area. Albertsons' Inc. believes that City Staff time and facilities should not be taken up with this alternative until the City Council determines that such an approach is worth pursuing. However, Albertsons' Inc. (as any party may do) is merely raising the alternative suggestion with the City Council for consideration of a Council initiated legislative change. As it is an alternative and may be mooted by an approval of the proposed "CG" zone change, the appropriate time for the Council to consider the Albertsons' suggested alternative would be at the time it considers the Albertsons' Application. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call. ~ ~ ~S~ngerely, John W. Shonkwiler JWS:jlf r cc: Don Duncombe `l i . APP More-5 flit ICA ~Jm«N ~!(~K1JlLE~ ~(o2q- oRl-7) rcpr~sewfih~ ~e s ~/~~ss SATE - ~C►ue~;,~/Cr~s-f parcel Lei-w, 131 fGi/S,ko/ls//~fuvva~/ ~x~evisioh ~~+cw~~.l ~v~~osc.~l - Re~s~y~u,~e. Gt~P~ox S~cves ~t-ow, ~or~~bd eom le.cia) 7a iC, -.25( McW--Ay~ ~'esic~eKlS~~ I 5 ~ ETC ~hd ~ d~ ~ u~prox B - /0 ~7!iLes pJ po i r sue s cC~ti7"- Gl.CNZ S~~YO~ ~Ili~t e ih c:rvcu~r5 vlc~s Or AI! 5-~ke Cl/~ riot Chu/li-~aM;/y P~~r~uhi adJacehf Cdfsw~~~ sue. ~ C/,~~' 271 u'ILG~L ~f'~GG~ ~~i~C.. D'Gufi1~1 f IQB~ ~ 8 7 CPA ZC wte- f~~ ~,.zy 710 "P141 7L //l i j' f w" _ (PP }-i1NGTON COUNTY • (POJ - 1 =sNpqu -r i. 1 1 i 1 JF' v11,6-7877 J 1 b,-ficee•l /55-th d6chcA sccurlrc~ ccc~4 qr. .1 '5f Lir ZCA,16D -/02 b) -,-'25- (PD -All ~V/ ~JCT AVCDi FrC 4.710 -1-C) Z7c, L C. A17 . A)oxrf/ /i«C 114. / r¢T ~tJl~ L 9-~ C~1(,L / 2 ~ i(,~►,.cJ ,ems Env y 1rYl l SS i GiIJ. CC// 144 Cc=V' /r-- SoM&GA.e ~64A/a 7Z; /ueSCl~ Th~I 2 AS APPP-Gv~D A-D ~ff~1r~6E E/ ~7; y C'-G Li L D a E G Ilu frClu S 7 &cC77Cn.% ~F f~fJSE- V As /S Ati's ~G~ Tifc 5~7~ Tc e /f Ae/E7U kEZIK P447- REV167e,r -F1 ~ / !7S AIA SE faoP6rED ('.v5n,)a677CAJ G/= r ~ 4~ti~clr ~ rE71'51c ' 5591' /3Sfh 4~ScHcLcs 6 =c E DE~~zcf'E i%i4y 11CErx LiE5 G~Ej~IT Kk CGsr c~ 57k&j~ ~ GI T2cu~iq T7E,J ttc ✓ RLj t::-: RP GH , VG Gib 55/7-E L06A770/1J /lorfheus z~~~(<~~~~f eF Sctio~/s F~ ry ~/17/v~~av fk s / 7~ ex/e~s'1oy ~ZL = ~~~rox lea-es cus5cD ,PC,nw7-1,4G GF CO%;P/1et~Eh'sit%~giv ~/l~c~l.-p/1lt~llT r Fkow, A416 iee7Z KCCv Lo~~r~EIZCt,~o Tv 9~E~AC ~~1~f6 AlUID Z-CNE Ctb*r ~C F,C or.2 C "-/V 70 C-~ 4rj b MD V/AJG C ""VEZC/AC ZO AJ IAJG ro SE Co,4DRA•n/T OF /NTE7p- 5e -7 /00 /xi ll-,'A715 iVA,' j o,2 1~azo%^Mr; - - Dr?Tie~~ Tl L Its -FEZ? 7~r _ t tl~~ G 1 Act& /5 //~G . ~//'r I OA,C C'r{fi/~GC Cg 7 E7QI 9 pt . 4 V-Isl a N 1JNIH dM- - _ •u tiY.r V t 1 i_-_ j /140 ~t .u Y,Y 1 I-Ft - ~1T Y,a _ f •MYYJ Yl 'YI - l1 !l1N1 ~t C n g HU91 r4 Y wnlam 7 0 ~ ~ No,YN~~Y) C ~L n e •t J r o . L - , f .y i t 1..1 O • I ~ Iw`OM •f ` a] MM ~ I 1 ® OY ' 49 o t .M,r O ~ ,t £ / \ •.L Mt 1111 • •i ~1ti~{'. ~ OMI • ` ll J•' Y 1 ' liA1}'Y:.~~:5 '•'~1i• ~I~+ ~ Yl 'U Y 111. L , `y lj 'Nl YYYI \ ~ ✓"4 •YG !A ]r♦/T1U 1 •LY11MtY • ' •o 4 ~ r , tit . Y ~ a, 1 ~1_I_l~l~ -~,+y• ,.fir _I ~ 1~d - o1JlYd t t vrr 'n - ~ ~•'NdWu~ArY'1p3~MNA9~'~' ~ ~ 3), ~ . .:.:r 1 1 as .in •n]riT \ ' ~ I ~ - Y 'IFICATION LIST FOR ALL APPLI Is 1. "-/IZNPO NO. (2 coPies -T~ 1 ) CPO NO_ ..1 2. CITY DEP TMENTS j Bui ing inspector/Brad R. _ ka & Recreation Boazd ty Recorder Police sneering/Gary A. Other Permits Coordinator/Viola G. j 3. SPECIAL ISTRICTS Fire District School Dist. No. 48 (Beavr) (pick-up box bldg.) Joy Pahl PO Box 200 Tigard Water District Beaverton, OR 97075 8777 SW Burnham St. School District 23J (Tig) Tigard, OR 97223 13137 SW Pacific Hwy. Tigard, OR 97223 f.. Metzger Water District 6501 SW Taylors Ferry Rd. Tigard, OR 97223 4• AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS ' Wash. Co. Land Use & Transp. Boundary Commission 150 N. First Ave. 320 SW Stark Room 530 Hill abo OR 97124 Portland, OR 97204 Brent Curtis Kevin Martin METRO Joann Rice 2000 SW 1st Ave. ✓Scott King Portland, OR 97201-5398 Fred Eberle Mike Borreson DLCD (CPA's only) _ 1175 Court St. NE Jim Hendryx Salem, OR 97310-0590 City of Beaverton f PO Box 4755 Other Beaverton, OR 97076 _(Ztate Highway Division Lrtland General Electric Lee Gunderson Brian Moore PO Box 565 14655 SW Old Scholls Ferry Beaverton, OR 97075 Beaverton, OR 97007 5. SPECIAL AGENCIES Metro Area Communications Harlan Cook General Telephone Twin Oaks Technology Center Mike Lutz 1815 NW 169th Place 5-6020 12460 SW Hain St. Beavertcn, OR 97006-4886 Be erton, OR 97007 t _ US West k NW Natural Gas Pete Nelson Don Thomas 421 SW Oak St. 220 NW Second Ave. Portland, OR 97204 Portland, OR 97209 TCI Cablevision of Oregon, Inc., Mike Hallock 3500 SW Bond Portland, OR 97201 I _ t STATE AGENCIES 6. Aeronautics Div. (ODOT) DOGAMI [ iJ Engineer Division of State Lands Board of Health Commerce Dept.-M.H. Park; Fish & Wildlife f Paarks & Recrea. Div. LCDC Subdivision Supervisor PUC i Dept. of Energy Fire Marshall Dept. of Environ. Quality other 7. FEDERAL AGENCIES t Corps. of Engineers Other Post Office 8. OTHER ' - Southern Pacific Transportation Company Duane M. Forney, PLS - Project Engineer 800 NW 6th Avenue, Rm. 324, Union Station Portland, OR 97209 r t i :y s i r i 1 1. NOT.LST r f q., b 1. GENERAL The purpose of this section is to establish the relationship between the City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan and a 1. Chapter 197 of the Oregon Revised Statutes and the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines of the Land Conservation and Development Commission; 2. The Regional Plan set forth by the Metropolitan Service District; t - 3. The Comprehensive Framework Plan and policies of Washington County; 4. The requirement that plans be updated. The plan will be updated to ensure that the plan, as the land use policy for Tigard, reflects the changing needs and circumstances of the community. FINDINGS Q o Each plan adopted under the Land Conservation and Development Commission's Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines must meet the following: j 1. Goal {fl: Develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to get involved in all aspects of 2 the planning process. 2. Goal q2: Establish a land use planning process and policy framework as the basis of all land use decisions and actions, and ` ensure an adequate factual data base to substantiate those 1 decisions and actions; 3. Goal N3: Preserve and maintain agricultural lands beyond the Urban ` Growth Boundary of the community, W ~ Q 4. Goal N4: Conserve forest lands, not committed for urban uses, for 3 strictly forest uses. 5. Goal q5: Conserve open space and protect natural and service resources; i n 6. Goal H6: Maintain and improve the quality of air, water and land v a resources; 7. Goal N7: Protect the community's life and property from natural disaster and hazard areas; S. Goal qe: Meet the recreational needs of residents of the community, State, and visitors; 9. Goal N9: D' ersify and improve the economy of the community and the State; i 10. Goal q10: Provide adequate housing for the needs of the community, region and state; 11 _ 5 l - % 11. Goal H11: Plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as the framework for urban development. 12~t;oal # Provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system; 13. Goal H13: Conserve energy; and 14. Goal N14:- Provide for an orderly and efficient transition from urbanizable to urban land uses. o The Metropolitan Service District established a Regional Urban Growth Boundary which includes enough land to accommodate urban needs to the year 2000. This boundary includes all of Tigard. o The City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan includes three parts: The first part includes the individual comprehensive plan reports (Citizens Involvement; Natural Features and Open Space; Air, Water and Land Resources; Economy; Housing; Public Facilities and Services; Transportation; Energy and Urbanization.)', which constitute the findings; the second part of the plan includes the summary and policy document for i the findings, polices and implementation strategies; and the third part of the plan includes the Tigard Community Development Code, which sets forth the development standards and outlines the procedures for obtaining the necessary development approvals. o The ongoing planning program will include the preparation of a capital improvement plan outlining the major capital investments needed to realize full development of the planning area, funding sources and a budget. POLICIES 1.1.1 THE CITY SHALL ENSURE THAT: a. THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ALL FUTURE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS ADOPTED BY THE LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, THE REGIONAL PLAN ADOPTED BY THE METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT; b. ANY NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION PLANS AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE-OF THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ARE DESIGNED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THIS PLAN; AND c. THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE ARE KEPT CURRENT WITH THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY. IN ORDER TO DO THIS: i 1. THIS PLAN SHALL BE REVIEWED AND UPDATED AT LEAST EVERY FIVE YEARS. J 11 - 6 PRA 14 s 11 ~tJ o Ctt= S 1.1.2 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND EACH OF ITS ELEMENTS SHALL nE OPENED 10tz AMENDMENTS THAT CONSIDER COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLANS OF THE METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT (MSO) OR ITS SUCCESSOR ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, AND MAY BE SO AMENDED OR REVISED 'IF DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE CITY COUNCIL. ANNUAL AMENDMENT AND REVISION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE ABOVE REGIONAL GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND PLANS SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH ANY SCHEDULE FOR RE-OPENING OF LOCAL PLANS APPROVED BY THE LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (LCOC). THIS PROVISION IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS WAIVING ANY LEGAL RIGHTS WHICH THE CITY MAY HAVE TO CHALLENGE THE LEGALITY OF A REGIONAL GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR PLAN PROVISION. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and the Official Zoning District map will reflect the plan policies and apply land use categories in the following manner: a. Low Density Residential - 1 to 5 units to the net acre. The applicable zoning districts are all single family residential 1 (R-1, R-2, R-3.5 and R-4.5) b. Medium Density Residential - 6 to 12 units to the net acre. The applicable zoning district are multiple family (R-7 and R-12). c. Medium - High Density Residential - 13 to 20 units to the net acre. The applicable zoning district is R-20. l! d. High Density Residential - 20 to 40+ units to the net acre. The 1 applicable zoning districts are R-20, and R-40. e. Neighborhood Commercial - Areas of concentration of small commercial and personal service activities and related uses necessary to satisfy the daily shopping and related needs of nearby residents. The applicable zoning district is Neighborhood Commercial (C-N). f. General Commercial - Refers to areas for auto-oriented and related commercial uses located along major trafficways. The applicable 4 zoning district is General Commercial (C-G). g. Commercial Professional - Areas deemed appropriate for business G and professional offices and related uses. The applicable zoning district is Commercial Professional (C-P). h. Central Business District - The area deemed appropriate for high intensity mixed use development allowing commercial, office, as well as higher density residential uses of a minimum of 40 units per acre. The applicable zoning districts are, the Central Business District (CBD) and the Special District which limits residential uses to 12 units per acre. j 11 - 7 LJ Light' Industrial - Refers to areas deemed appropriate for industrial activities which include manufacturing, processing, assembling, packaging or treatment of products from previously prepared materials and which are devoid of nuisance factors that would adversely affect other properties. Thu mppropriato coning districts are Light Industrial (I-L) and Industrial Park (I-P) which also permit offices and related uses. j. Heavy Industrial - Those areas deemed appropriate for intensive 111; manufacturing, processing, or assembly of -semi-finished or finished products, including fabrication, and whose operating characteristics are potentially incompatible with most other land uses. k. Public/Institutional - Refers to areas deemed for municipal uses, school uses or other public uses, e.g., Durham Treatment Plant. 1. Open Space - Areas designated for retention in a natural state and for development for recreational uses, e.g., floodplain, parks, etc. 2. The Community Development Code (C.D.C.) shall provide quasi-judicial { changes to the Comprehensive Plan Map which may be initiated by affected parties on a semi-annual basis and approved if the City Council finds: a. The change is consistent with applicable plan policies; r. b. A change of physical circumstances has occurred since the original designation; or i I~ 01 O(L Y- c. A mistake was made in the original land use designation. 3. Functional master plans sh311 be prepared. and implemented in conformance to the Comprehensive Plan and the Tigard Community Development Code. 2. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT This chapter addresses Statewide Planning Goal N1: "To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." Tigard is now well known for its active citizen participation program; primarily with the Neighborhood Planning Organizations. Through the drafting and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, these organizations contributed their time and energy developing Tigard 's plan. ~ I II-8 - - - a _ Plan policies have been prepared to preserve the continuity of Tigard's active ' citizen involvement program and to ensure that citizens will continue to have , access to information that enables them to identify, understand, and have input in the planning issues related to implementation of the Comprehensive i Plan. Additional information on this topic is available in the "Comprehensive Plan Report: Citizens Involvement." i FINDINGS o Throughout the development of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, the City has actively sought the participation of Neighborhood Planning Organizations and other citizens groups. i o The Neighborhood Planning Organizations and the Committee for Citizen Involvement met on a monthly basis throughout the Comprehensive Plan revision process. o Continued citizen participation in all aspects of land use planning helps to ensure that City government meets the needs of Tigard's citizens. o In order to participate in land use planning decisions, citizens need to have access to information which enables them to become aware of and informed about planning issues and City policies. It is essential that this information be made available to all citizens in an understandable form. .o Land use planning education i's-'important to promote and stimulate interest in the citizen participation process during all phases of planning. POLICY 2.1.1 THE 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. ' IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES i 1. The City shall periodically review notification requirements and methods to determine if they adequately provide notice to affected citizens-and revise these requirements and methods as necessary. 2. The City shall continue to inform, in a timely manner, appropriate Neighborhood Planning Organizations (NPO) and other citizens groups on all land use planning matters. a 3. The City shall continue to assist and support any City Council recognized citizen group in providing adequate meeting places, distribution of materials, policy direction and staff involvement. I II -9 s - -L a.2 - warER-QuA~IrY - FINDINGS „j o The quality of Tigard's surface waters are fair, inasmuch as the waters are not used for drinking purposes. o No major point source water polluters threaten local creeks. i Some infiltration-problems exist in the sewage systems. o o Reduction of open space, removal of vegetation cover, and development which increases the amount of impervious surface all contribute significantly to increases in the peak flows of urban storm runoff entering storm sewers, creeks and drainageways. o Offsetting measures can reduce the negative effects of urban development on water quality and quantity problems. Examples include on site retention/ detention of storm water, inclusion of landscape buffer areas adjacent to new development and conservation and improvement of streamside vegetation along creeks and other water courses. { POLICIES I ~.2.1 ALL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA SHALL COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND REGIONAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. 4.2.2 THE CITY SHALL RECOGNIZE AND ASSUME ITS RESPONSIBILITY FOR OPERATING, PLANNING, AND REGULATING WASTEWATER SYSTEMS AS DESIGNATED IN MSD'S WASTE TREATMENT MANAGEMENT COMPONENT AND 208 CRAG STUDY. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES C 1. In order to improve the water quality and and quantity in the Tigard p Area, the City shall consider developing regulations in the Tigard Community Development Code or instituting programs to: - 1 a. Increase public awareness of techniques and practices private individuals can employ to help correct water quality problems b. Improve the management of industrial and commercial operations to reduce negative water quality impacts; do c. Regulate site planning for new development and construction through the Tigard Community Development Code to better control j drainages and erosion and to manage storm runoff; d. Increase storage and retention of storm runoff to lower and delay j peak storm flows; e. Reduce street related water quality and quantity problems; and LJ 11 - 25 o A need exists to p,omote the benefits of operating A busincs% in Tigard. o The Central Business District demands attention and community support in } order that improvement programs may be set in motion to make it a more diversified and economically viable core area. ! J o The existing railroad facilities in Tigard are an asset to industrial and commercial development on property adjacent to the rails. o Ease of access to I-5 and Highway 217 serve as incentives to economic ' development in Tigard. o Tigard's proximity to Portland Community College provides opportunity for the creation of specialized job training programs to serve existing, expanding, and new industries in the City. o Residential development in commercial districts compliments commercial uses, helps to minimize crime within the commercial districts, provides housing for senior citizens which is in close proximity to shopping areas, and minimizes vehicular travel which would reduce pollution and conserve energy. i o A need exists for public facility development to make industrial and commercial lands available for economic development purposes. POLICIES 5.1.1 THE CITY SHALL PROMOTE ACTIVITIES AIMED AT THE DIVERSIFICATION OF THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE TO TIGARD RESIDENTS WITH PARTICULAR I HA PiP 0.51C THE GROWTH OF THHEE -L1OCA JOBB MARK W0.y~ a kv-(s el 5.1.2 tE CITY SMALL WORK QWITHyW WASHINGTON COUNTY AND DJACXJURISDICTIONS TO DEVELOP AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN INCORPORATING A LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN. 5.1.3 THE CITY SHALL IMPROVE AND ENHANCE THE PORTIONS OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AS THE FOCAL POINT FOR COMMERCIAL, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, BUSINESS, CIVIC, AND PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY CREATING A DIVERSIFIED AND ECONOMICALLY VIABLE CORE AREA. f 5.1.4 THE CITY SHALL ENSURE THAT NEW COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT j SHALL NOT ENCROACH INTO RESIDENTIAL AREAS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN DESIGNATED FOR COMMERCIAL OR INDUS -fR IAL USES. /'~cJ~170n '{.1Q'f ~1i5 klOtl7" he [CCS7 k 5.1.5 THE CITY SHALL PROHIBIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN COMMERCIAL AND Ip- INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS EXCEPT: COMPLIMENTARY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PERMITTED ABOVE THE FIRST FLOOR IN THE CENTRAL. BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND ABOVE THE SECOND FLOOR IN COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL DISTRICTS. (THE DENSITY OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE R-40 DISTRICTS.) 11 - 30 i poLICIES r . 7.1.1 THE CITY SHALL: a. PREPARE AND IMPLEMENT A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM IN CONJUNCTION WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY AND THE APPLICABLE SERVICE DISTRICTS; i b. WORK WITH THE SERVICE DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE A COORDINATED SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING SERVICES; c. PROVIDE URBAN SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN , TO THE EXTENT OF THE CITY'S FINANCIAL RESOURCES; d. USE THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM AS A MEANS FOR PROVIDING FOR ORDERLY GROWTH AND THE EFFICIENT USE OF LAND: e. DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH CONSIDERATION BEING GIVEN TO THE ' LEVEL AND CAPACITY OF THE EXISTING SERVICES; AND t f: ADOPT LOCATIONAL CRITERIA AS THE BASIS FOR MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT ~ THE PROPER LOCATION FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES. 7.1.2 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRE--CONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL THAT: a. DEVELOPMENT COINCIDE WITH THE' AVAILABILITY OF ADEQUATE SERVICE CAPACITY INCLUDING: 1. PUBLIC WATER; _2. PUBLIC SEWER (NEW DEVELOPMENT ON SEPTIC TANKS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE CITY); AND _ i ;V3. STORM DRAINAGE. b. THE FACILITIES ARE: 1. CAPABLE OF ADEQUATELY SERVING. ALL INTERVENING PROPERTIES AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT; AND 2. DESIGNED TO CITY STANDARDS. c. ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES TO BE PLACED UNDERGROUND. • I IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ii 1. As a part of the ongoing planning program, the City will prepare a capital improvements program; and a. The staging of facilities will be based on the availability of financial resources; II - 42 IJ o Most of the folloi g policies have been transformed into City regulations. POLICIES r 7.2.1 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRE-CONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT THAT a A SITE DEVELOPMENT STUDY BE SUBMITTED FOR DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS SUBJECT TO POOR DRAINAGE, GROUND INSTABILITY OR FLOODING WHICH SHOWS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS SAFE AND WILL NOT CREATE ADVERSE OFFSITE IMPACTS: b. NATURAL DRAINAGE WAYS BE MAINTAINED UNLESS SUBMITTED STUDIES SHOW j THAT ALTERNATIVE DRAINAGE SOLUTIONS CAN SOLVE ON-SITE DRAINAGE ! PROBLEMS AND WILL ASSURE NO ADVERSE OFFSITE IMPACTS; c. ALL DRAINAGE CAN BE HANDLED ON-SITE OR THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION WHICH WILL NOT INCREASE THE OFFSITE IMPACT; d. THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION AS ESTABLISHED BY THE 1981 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY CONDUCTED BY THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS BE PROTECTED; AND i i e. EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES BE INCLUDED AS A PART OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. 7.2.2 THE CITY SHALL: a. INCLUDE IN -ITS CAPTT'AL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM PLANS FOR SOLVING .DRAINAGE PROBLEMS IN THE EXISTING DEVELOPED AREAS; Jl b. RECOGNIZE AND ASSUME ITS RESPONSIBILITY FOR OPERATING, PLANNING AND REGULATING WASTEWATER SYSTEMS AS DESIGNATED IN THE MSD WASTEWATER -I TREATMENT MANAGEMENT "208" PLAN; AND c. APPLY ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO WASTEWATER. t IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES i 1. The City will include measures in this plan and in its implementation ordinances to reduce soil erosion. 7.3 WATER SERVICE FINDINGS o Both Tigard and Metzger Water Districts have made substantial capital improvements in recent years to provide the highest quality water at the most reasonable rates. o Reliable and adequate water supply, storage, and delivery systems are i + presently available or planned to provide sufficient quantities of high quality water to meet existing and future needs of the community. I II - 44 a y L • records. As the area develops, the problem is bound to become more YYY conspicuous. Local authorities (the City of Tigard, the Unified Sewerage Agency, and the Washington County Health Department) may not have the l`1 legal discretion to avoid this solution to the issue of failing septic systems. On the other hand, the potential hardship of enforcing these regulations on some property owners cannot be ignored. o The existing system by which septic tanks are monitored appears to have serious defects that need to be remedied. According to some soil scientists, for instance, the dye method of tracing septic tank contamination is inadequate. o Washington County's existing and proposed large-lot zoning designations in the Tigard Plan Area (and to the west on Bull Mountain) may permit septic systems that may fail. Developments in these areas. should either be required to have public sewer service or have larger lot sizes than now allowed or envisioned. POLICIES ,.j 7.4.1 THE CITY SHALL:- a. DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 'THAT IDENTIFIES THE PRESENT AND t FUTURE CAPACITY NEEDS FOR A SEWAGE SYSTEM IN THE 'PLANNING AREA, AND f PROBABLE ROUTES OF FUTURE TRUNKLINES. b. REQUIRE THAT FUTURE EXTENSIONS OF COLLECTOR SEWER LINES SHALL BE r CONSISTENT WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY AND THE UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY (USA). - i c. ADOPT A CLEAR AND CONCISE AGREEMENT WITH USA, IMPLEMENTING THE CITY'S POLICIES FOR EXTENDING THE AVAILABILITY OF SEWER SERVICES AND ENCOURAGING THE PHASING OUT OF SEPTIC TANKS. 7 ,4.2 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE THAT AREAS DETERMINED BY THE WASHINGTON COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT OR THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TO HAVE FAILING SEPTIC SYSTEMS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE PUBLIC SEWER f SYSTEM. Ef} 7.4.3 IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW SEWER SYSTEMS, PRIORITY SHALL: L. a. FIRST, BE GIVEN TO AREAS HAVING HEALTH HAZARD PROBLEMS WHICH WILL BE DETERMINED BY DEQ; AND b. SECOND, BE GIVEN TO AREAS WHERE THE COST-BENEFITS ARE THE j GREATEST IN TERMS OF NUMBER OF POTENTIAL CONNECTIONS. ' 7.4.4 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE THAT ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT BE CONNECTED TO AN APPROVED SANITARY SEWERAGE SYSTEM. II - 46 is 3. The nature and level of police services will be subject to coordinated monitoring by the. City police dopar•tmenL for evaluation and long-range planning. l 4. The City will strive to reduce citizen fear of, and susceptibility to .I crime through increasing awareness of crime prevention methods in development, and involving the entire community in crime prevention programs. 7.6 FIRE PROTECTION FINDINGS 0 Currently, the City of Tigard is serviced by the Tualatin Rural Fire District and'Washington County Fire District #1. o Continued growth and urbanization places additional need for fire related services. o Congestion on some area streets slows the response time to fires. Among -locations where this has been noticed are: i Vicinity of Greenburg S Tiedeman r Pacific Highway Main Street Hall Boulevard between Commercial and Pacific Highway Walnut Street Tiedeman 1 Railroad crossings at Hall Boulevard and Main Street During flooding, some bridges may be closed (e.g. at Grant Street and on Hall Boulevard) necessitating the use of time consuming circuitous routes. o Subdivision plats can create access problems when there are too few through streets. There are numerous examples of dead end streets throughout the City. POLICY ..~7.6.1 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS R PRE-CONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT THAT: a. THE DEVELOPMENT BE SERVED BY A WATER SYSTEM HAVING ADEQUATE WATER PRESSURE FOR FIRE PROTECTION PURPOSES; b. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL NOT REDUCE THE WATER PRESSURE IN THE AREA BELOW A LEVEL ADEQUATE FOR FIRE PROTECTION PURPOSES; AND ' c. THE APPLICABLE FIRE DISTRICT REVIEW ALL APPLICATIONS. s ~j II - 49 1 ' Yet ' S o Many of the streets in Tigard are dead-ended which adds to the congestion I on existing completed streets. Therefore, a number of street connections need to be constructed. I ~ i o A major concern of the community regarding transportation is the need to maintain and improve the livability of residential areas in the face of increasing population and transportation requirements. o The City needs to develop a strategy to coordinate public street improvements with private sector improvements to achieve the most effective use of the limited dollars available for road development and improvement. o The major residential growth during the planning period is expected to occur in the westerly and southerly areas of Tigard. Both of these areas lack adequate improved trafficways. o A need exists during the planning period to complete a collector street system' between Scholls Ferry Road, Walnut Street, Gaarde Street, Bull Mountain Road and Pacific Highway. The location of these connections needs to be coordinated between the City, County, State and the 1 Metropolitan Service District. o A need exists to complete the collector street system within the Tigard Triangle area to make more of this area accessible to developers, employers and employees. POLICIES 8.1.1 THE CITY SHALL PLAN FOR A SAFE AND EFFICIENT STREET AND ROADWAY SYSTEM THAT MEETS CURRENT NEEDS AND ANTICIPATED FUTURE GROWTH AND y DEVELOPMENT. 8.1.2. THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE FOR EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS WITHIN THE CITY AND THE METROPOLITAN AREA THROUGH COOPERATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL, STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. E E 8.1.3 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRECONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL THAT: ~a. DEVELOPMENT ABUT A PUBLICLY DEDICATED 'STREET OR HAVE ADEQUATE ACCESS APPROVED BY THE APPROPRIATE APPROVAL AUTHORITY: STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY BE DEDICATED WHERE THE STREET IS SUBSTANDARD IN WIDTH: x c. THE DEVELOPER COMMIT TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STREETS, CURBS AND SIDEWALKS TO CITY STANDARDS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT; ~d. INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPERS PARTICIPATE IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING STREETS, CURBS AND SIDEWALKS TO THE EXTENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT'S IMPACTS; ~e. STREET IMPROVEMENTS BE MADE AND STREET SIGNS OR SIGNALS BE PROVIDED WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT IS FOUND TO CREATE OR INTENSIFY A TRAFFIC HAZARD: II - 56 i I d- as TRANSIT STOP-, BUS TURNOUT LANES AND SHELTE-i DE PROVIDED WIZEN 111E F• PROPOSED USE OF A TYPE WHICH GENERATES TRANSIT RIDERSHIP; i. g• PARKING SPACES BE SET ASIDE AND MARKED FOR CARS OPERATED BY DISABLED i1 PERSONS AND THAT THE SPACES BE LOCATED AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THE ENTRANCE DESIGNED FOR DISABLED PERSONS; AND h. LAND BE DEDICATED TO IMPLEMENT THE BICYCLE/ PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED PLAN. / f}IftrcWLE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The City shall develop, adopt and implement a master street plan that anticipates all needed trafficway improvements so as to plan for the necessary available resources to develop these streets when they are needed. 2. The City shall develop, maintain and implement a capital improvements program which: a. Is consistent with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Plan; + b. Encourages a safe, convenient and economical transportation system; 1 C. Furthers -the policies and implementation strategies of the City's % Comprehensive Plan; Yw~ d. Considers a variety of transit modes within the rights-of-way; -.r f e. Meets local needs for improved transportation services; f. Pursues and establishes other funding sources from the federal, state, regional and/or local agencies; and g. Designates the timing of such projects to ensure their installation when those facilities are needed. 3. The City shall specify street design standards within the Tigard Community Development Code. ,i 4. The City shall maintain the carrying capacity of arterials and collectors by reducing curb cuts and other means of direct access, and requiring adequate right-of-way and setback lines as part of the development process. The Community Development Code shall state the access requirements for each street classification. i 5. The City's Tigard community Development Code shall require developers of land to dedicate necessary rights-of-ways and install necessary street improvements to the City's standards when such improvements have not been done prior to the developer's proposals. These necessary dedications may be required upon approval of any development proposal. 6. The City shall control and limit the number of access points and will :.f signalize trafficways in a manner that provides for a consistent flow of traffic and therefore minimizes or reduces vehicular emissions. 11 - 57 1 (7) Areas within one quarter mile from neighborhood and general commercial shopping centers or business and office centers. (8) Areas adjacent to either private or public permanent open space. j 8. The following factors will be determinants of the density ranges allowed in the medium-high and high density planned areas should the city adopt more than one high density zone. (1) The topography and natural features of the area and the degree of possible buffering from established low density residential areas. (2) The capacity of the services. (3) The distance from public transit. (4) The relationship of the site to existing neighborhood and general commercial centers and office and business centers. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The Community Development Code shall: f a. Include a broad range of residential districts. b. Provide for schools, churches, parks and other quasi public and public uses as conditional development in the residential districts. C. Require medium density, medium-high density, and high density residential uses to be subject to the design review process, unless ' those developments have received detailed planned development or conditional development approvals. d. Require medium density and high density residential developments to provide a minimum of 20% of the gross area to be landscaped. The 1 landscaping requirement may be reduced during the review process where it can be demonstrated that exceptional design will achieve: (1) An equally desirable development. (2) An uncluttered appearance and openness intended by the landscaping requirement. e. Require the dedication of land or monetary contribution to the public for parks or recreation facilities. 12.2 COMMERCIAL The Comprehensive Plan provides for four types of commercial development: j neighborhood, general commercial areas, professional commercial and the central business district. It is the intent of plan that: iF } 1. Commercial areas be planned at a scale which relates its location, site i and type of stores to the trade area to be served. II - 80 'l . Y 2. Surrounding residential areas be protected from any possible adverse effects in terms of loss of privacy, noise, lights and glare. 3. Commercial centers and uses be aesthetically attractive and landscaped. i 4. Ingress and egress points -not create traffic congestion or hazards. r 5. Vehicle trips be reduced both in terms of the length of vehicle trip and total number of trips. 6. The central business district is not included in the locational criteria because there is only one designated area. POLICY 12.2.1 THE CITY SHALL: h a. PROVIDE FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BASED ON THE TYPE OF USE, ITS SIZE AND REQUIRED TRADE AREA. a b.. APPLY ALL APPLICABLE PLAN POLICIES. c. APPLY THE APPROPRIATE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE SCALE OF THE PROJECT. 1. Neighborhood Commercial .~J Neighborhood commercial centers are intended to provide convenience goods and services within a cluster of stores. Convenience goods are goods which are bought frequently, at least weekly, and for which people do not engage in comparison shopping. The uses permitted in the neighborhood center include convenience markets, beauty shops, barber shops and repair shops. The range of uses is limited to those \ i uses which can be sustained by a limited trade area. A. Scale (1) Trade Area. Up to 5000 people. (2) Site Size. Two acre maximum. (3) Gross Leasable Area. Varies. O~ B. Locational Criteria V (1) Spacing and Location Y (a) The service area radius for a neighborhood commercial center shall be at least one half of a mile. (b) Commercial development rhall be limited to one quadrant of a street intersection or where there is no street intersection, to one side of the street. ZI - 81 (2) Access (a) The proposed center or expansion of an existing center shall not create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on the street capacity, existing and projected traffic volumes, the speed limit, number of turning movements and the traffic generating characteristics of the most intensive use allowed in the zone. (b) The site shall have direct access from one of the following: (i) An arterial. (ii') A collector street which.will not direct traffic through local neighborhood streets. (3) Site Characteristics. The site shall be of a size which can accommodate the present and future uses, but shall not exceed two acres. (4) Impact Assessment (a) The scale of the project shall be compatible with the E. surrounding uses. S "i (b) The site configuration and characteristics and relationship i to the street system shall be such that privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained. ` w (c) It shall be 'possible to incorporate the unique features into. J the site design and development plan. (d) The associated lights, noise and activities shall not a interfere with adjoining non-residential uses. i 2. General Commercial r Ih ~J General Commercial areas are intended to provide for major retail goods and y services. The uses classified as general commercial may involve drive-in [ services, large space users, a combination of retail, service, wholesale and repair services or provide services to the traveling public. The uses range from automobile repair and services, supply and equipment stores, vehicle sales, drive-in restaurants to laundry establishments. It is intended that 1 these uses be adjacent to an arterial or major collector street. A. Scale (1) Trade Area. Varies i (2) Site Size. Depends on development. V~ y b (3) Gross Leasable Area. Varies. 1Q, i 3. i II - 82 4.1 4 . 6 p. Locational Criteria (1) Spacing and Location ya' (a) The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. (2) Access (a) The proposed area or expansion of an existing area shall not create traffic congestion or a traffic safety problem. Such a determination shall be based on the street capacity, existing and projected traffic volumes, the speed limit, number of turning movements, and the traffic generating characteristics of the various types of uses. (b) The site shall have direct access from a major collector or { arterial street. (c) Public transportation shall be available to the site or general area. F E (3) Site Characteristics 411 (a) The site shall be of a size which can accommodate present and projected uses. ` (b) The site shall Have high visibility. (4) Impact Assessment (a) The scale of the project shall be compatible with the surrounding uses. 1 (b) The site configuration and characteristics shall be such that r the privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained. (c) It shall be possible to incorporate the unique site features into the site design and development plan. f I [ (d) The associated lights, noise and activities shall not i. interfere with adjoining non-residential uses. 3. mercial Professional Commercial ofessional areas are intended for diverse range of office uses and supportive es; and to promote user convenienc hroughout the City. A. Scale (1) Trade area. Var jj (2) Site size. Varies { (3) Gross.leasable area. Varies i II - 83 : r L i AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of February 13. 1996 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON i COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY i ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change I CPA -0 /Z 95-0007 PREPARED BY: Ray Valone DEPT HEAD OK ITY ADMIN OK~ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council adopt an ordinance and final order for a comprehensive plan map amendment f { and zone change on 1.1 acres from Commercial Professional/C-P to Neighborhood Commercial/C-N; and on 1.0 acres from Neighborhood Commercial/C-N to Commercial Professional/C-P? STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended approval of this proposal at its hearing of December 18, 1995. Staff finds that the proposal satisfies all relevant comprehensive plan criteria and recommended that the City Council approve CPA 95-0005/ZON 95-0007 at the meeting of January 23. INFORMATION SUMMARY The proposed plan amendment and zone change concerns two separate sites located on the southwest and southeast corners of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW North Dakota Street. The applicant for Site A, Pacific Crest Partners, has requested this action in order to expand the range of permissible uses to those allowed under C-N zoning. The applicant for Site B, Providence Health Systems, has requested this action to correct a mistake on the zoning map, clear up the split zones upon which the existing development is located, and to enable a C-N zone to be more appropriately used by the co-applicant on Site A. The council heard this proposal at its meeting of January 23 and voted to approve it. Staff was directed to return on February 13 with the ordinance and final order for adoption by the council. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not adopt the ordinance and final order for CPA 95-0005/ZON 95-0007. FISCAL NOTES No direct fiscal impact to the city. - CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes December 18, 1995 1. CALL TO ORDER i President Wilson called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. - 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present* President Wilson; Commissioners Anderson, Griffith, Holland, Padgett, and Scolar i Commissioners Absent' Commissioners Collson, DeFrang, and Moore 1 Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Ray Valone, Associate Planner; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 1. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS i At the December 4th meeting, the Commissioners voted to amend the minutes of November 20, 1995, regarding a motion to purchase the Gage property on SW Bond Street for a greenspace area. After listening to the tape, the Planning Commission Secretary advised the Commissioners of the actual wording of the motion in question. Commissioner Holland moved to accept the November 20th minutes as originally written. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4.1 CPA 95-000520N 95-0007 PACIFIC CREST/PROVIDENCE REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Parcels 1 and 3 of MLP 94-0013, located on the southwest comer of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota, from Commercial Professional to Neighborhood Ccmmercial and change f the zoning from C-P to C-N; and to amend the Comprehensive Plan map on the property located on the southeast comer of Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota from Neighborhood Commercial to Commercial Professional and change the zoning from C-N to C-P. LOCATION: Southwest and southeast comers of k Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: f Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 5.4, 8.1.1, 12.2.1 (1) and 12.2.1(3); Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12. ZONE: C-N (Neighborhood PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - December 18, 1995 - Page 1 Commercial) allows for several uses including convenience sales and personal n services, food and beverage sales, medical and dental services and professional and administrative services. C-P (Professional/Administrative Office) allows for business support services, communication services, medical and dental services, personal services, convenience sales and services and limited eating and drinking establishments. STAFF REPORT Commissioner Padgett asked if the staff report for this case was available for a minimum of 7 days prior to the meeting. Associate Planner Ray Valone answered that it was. Valone then presented the staff report on behalf of the city. He noted this is a proposal to amend the comp plan and zone map for 2 sites. The applicant for site "A" requests a change on 2 parcels, from Commercial Professional (CP) to Commercial Neighborhood (CN). The applicant for site "B" requests a change I I from Commercial Neighborhood (CN) to Commercial Professional (CP). i i F Valone stated that the applicant for site "A" received approval for a minor land partition and a site development review in 1994, which resulted in the partition of the site into 3 parcels, and the development of a bank, veterinary office, and tenant spaces. The owner applied for a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change last April to change parcel 3 only from Commercial Professional to General Commercial. The Planning Commission recommended denial and the City Council voted to deny the proposal because it did not meet all the criteria. Valone reported that the northern 1 acre of site "B" was rezoned in 1983 from Commercial Professional to Commercial Neighborhood. Valone said that staff finds that the proposal meets all applicable comprehensive i plan and development code criteria, as well as the transportation planning rule. He said staff finds that the primary criteria (Policy 1.1.2), which requires that a change in physical circumstances or that a mistake was made in the original land use designation, was clearly met. Valone stated that staff recommends that the commission forward a recommendation of approval Commissioner Holland clarified that the C-N designation only allows 4,000 square feet peruse and that the medical center has over 10,000 square feet. He noted f that this was one mistake that would be corrected by changing the comp plan. I APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Ed Murphy, 9875 SW Murdock, Tigard, OR 97224, spoke on behalf of the two j applicants. Murphy noted that the current zoning map is opposite of what is actually built. He noted that the amendments would more accurately reflect what i . i actually has been built, they would carry out the regional intent of the - comprehensive plan and free up the Commercial Neighborhood zone. i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - December 18, 1995 - Page 2 t~ ....v_..,.._~_ Murphy reminded the commissioners that the current CP zone already allows 20% of the building square footage to be used for retail. He remarked that the definition i of the word "use" in the development code is subject to interpretation, i.e., use by ! tenant space, or use by building space. He said that this change would correct mistakes in mapping and would fulfill the intent of the Commercial Neighborhood zone. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR There was no public testimony in support of the proposal. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION Dan Spriggel, 180 W. First St., Dundee, OR 97115, expressed his concern about the impact of a competitor at this site. He also talked about the impact of changing the comprehensive plan and the negative effect it would have on the surrounding I areas on North Dakota. Dan Kearns, 111 SW 5th, Suite 3200, Portland, OR 97204, representing Dan Spriggel, presented the Commissioners with a memorandum in opposition to the application (Exhibit "A). He referred to traffic information presented with the previous application. j Kearns requested a continuance to allow time to analyze the staff report and the traffic report. He noted that the "120 day rule" does not apply to this comp plan 1 amendment. Kearns listed 3 issues of traffic concern: capacity at the intersection of Scholls Ferry and North Dakota, traffic infiltration into the neighborhood down North Dakota, and parking on this site. Kearns talked about "mistake versus change". He said he understood the building of the clinic in the C-N zone to be either a mistake in zoning or an unlawful use, as opposed to a non-conforming use. He remarked that a zone change provisions were designed to validate zoning violations, that this should not be used as justification to rezone parcel 3. Kearns then went into detail about the traffic concerns and how they would f adversely affect the neighborhoods. APPLICANTS REBUTTAL Ed Murphy stated that the property on the southwest corner is already zoned for professional offices, which means it already has a commercial zone and that eating and drinking establishments are already allowed, as long as they don't exceed 4,000 square feet. He noted that parking requirements would be checked by staff as each individual tenant comes in. i - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - December 13, 1995 - Page 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - j { - f Murphy reported that Hollywood Video was not one of the tenants currently being considered for this site. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED In response to a question from President Wilson, Dick Bewersdorff said that the commission, if they chose, could judge that the staff report was not available because the opponent did not receive it and could then grant a continuance. Bewersdorff said, that if the applicant had asked, the commission could also have held the record open for 7 days. He noted that since the commission was only making a recommendation to council, the applicant and the opponent would have opportunity to tailor their arguments. Commissioner Padgett asked about the driveway cuts and the number of parking spaces. Ray Valone that these are handled at site review and must conform to city standards. Commissioner Holland noted that the Neighborhood Commercial designation was intended to allow some commercial use every so many miles. He remarked that j he was upset that this particular C-N parcel was used to build a facility that could have been built in a C-P zone. He said that it made sense to swap the two parcel designations. J Commissioner Scolar agreed with Commissioner Holland, but said he would like to give the opponent extra time to make their case. Commissioner Griffith asked if the sites were both built out and what would the plan amendment accomplish if they were. Ray Valone answered yes and that council approval of the plan amendment would correct the use that is straddling 2 zones. Approval would also free up the Commercial Neighborhood zone. According to Valone, Washington County stated that this application is consistent with the Transportation Planning Rule. Commissioner Padgett agreed that there was a mistake made and that this application will counter balance the mistake. He said he does not think there will be a substantive change in the amount of traffic through the intersection from what is currently zoned there to what is proposed. Padgett did disagree with the staff report in that the widening of Scholls Ferry Road and the installation of speed bumps on North Dakota should not constitute a change in physical circumstances that would support a comp plan amendment. Commissioner Holland moved to approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 95-0005/Zone Change 95-0007, in accordance with the staff report. i PLANNING COMrvIISSION MEETING MINUTES - December 18, 1995 - Page 4 { .4/. ;.-V'~-- - ~zlr`n•,..• __.~..r..~..-._._-~v..va.t.s_•..•2... r.n,... An-n..-_..~_.. v1 ` Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by majority vote. Commissioners Wilson, Anderson, Griffith, Holland, and Padgett voted for the motion. Commissioner Scolar voted against the motion. i I 5. OTHER BUSINESS None 6. ADJOURNMENT 4 The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary ATTEST: President Nick Wilson /171 1 j PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - December 18, 1995 - Page 5 AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of Februaly 13. 1996 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE - Zone Change Annexation ZCA 95-0008 PREPARED BY: Ray Valone DEPT HEAD OK -eITY ADMIN OK ~ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council forward to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission a request to initiate annexation of two parcels consisting of 2.14 acres located at the eastern end of SW Fern Street west of SW 135th Avenue? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation request to the Boundary Commission and to assign comprehensive plan and zone designations to the property in conformance with the city comprehensive plan. INFORMATION SUMMARY l - The proposed annexation consists of territory comprised of two parcels of land, totaling 2.14 acres, which is contiguous to the City of Tigard. The applicant requests annexation in order to partition the property. Attached is a resolution initiating annexation and an ordinance to change the comprehensive plan and zone designations from Washington County R-6 to Tigard Medium Density Residential, R-7. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Deny the request. i FISCAL NOTES Since the territory is not within the city's active planning area, the applicant is responsible for the L Boundary Commission application fee of $605. ; j ~ i r AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of a/ I a I q CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: FUTURE SHOP/CHRISTENSEN SDR 95-0019/PDR 95.0008/MLP 95-0 12/S 95-0014 i PREPARED BY: William D'Andrea DEPT HEAD OK I CITY ADMIN OK U~Rr l~ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Do the approved plans comply with Community Development Code criteria? STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council find the approved plans to comply with the applicable criteria of the Community •I Development Code. I 1 U INFORMATION SUMMARY On January 8, 1996, the Planning Commission approved this application subject to certain conditions. During the j appeal period, the Council called up this application for review. A final decision must be made on this application j prior to February 20, 1996, in accordance with the 120-day rule. I Attachments: Exhibit A - (Planning Commission Final Order and site plan). OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED=====____________________ _ j 1. Make findings that the applicable standards have not been satisfied and deny the application. 2. Make findings that the applicable standards have not been satisfied and provide conditions of ! approval which will ensure compliance. I ; I> CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO 96-0001 PC 4* BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONCERNING CASE NUMBER(S): SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 95-00t9, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 9s-own and MINOR LAND PARTMON (MLP) 95-0012 NAME OF OWNER Waremart Inc. NAMEOFAPPdCANT.• Future Shoy Attn: Rozanne Kipnes ADDRESS OFAPPLI W,• Suite 1400-1111 West Georgia St. CIIY.• Vancouver STATE British Columbia ZIP. WE 4M3 ADDRESS OFPROPERIX E side of SW Dartmouth St and S. of Pacific Hwy. C17Y: Tigard STATE: Oreg ZIP: 97223 TAX MAP 910T NOW.: WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 2000 ReauesL ➢ A request for the following development applications: 1.) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 40,000 square foot 'future shop' general retail building and a 9,550 square foot general retail building; 2.) Planned Development Review; 3.) Minor Land Partition approval to partition one (1) parcel of approximately 4.99 acres into two (2) parcels of approximately 4.27 and .72 acres. Zone: General Commercial, Planned Development (C•G(PD). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial (C-G). APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA Community Development Code Chapters 18.62, 18.80, 18.84, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114,18.116, 18.120, 18.162 and ` 18.164. t Action: ➢ ❑ Approval as requested ® Approval with conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: f 19 Owners of record within the required distance 19 Affected governmental agencies 19 The affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator 91 The applicant and owner(s) Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON JANUARY 26. 1996 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Anneal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with 18.32.290 (B) and Section 18.32.370, which provides that a written appeal may be filed within ten (10) days after notice is li given and sent. The appeal may be submitted on City forms and must be accompanied by the appeal fee(s) of $315.00 plus transcript costs, not in excess of $500.00. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF AN APPEAL IS 3:30 P.M. ON JANUARY 26, 1996. j Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department at (503) 639-4171. SDR f!-oolf/PDII ffdoOt/IHLP fSO01! FUTURE SHOP/CHMSTENSEN NOTICE OP ANAL GUER NO. %-oIPC BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION I ' (COVER SHEET) Z ? CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.: 96-01 PC A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, AND MINOR LAND PARTITION. 1. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: FILE NAME: FUTURE SHOP/CHRISTENSEN Site Development Review SDR 95-0019 Planned Development Review PDR 95-0008 Minor Land Partition MLP 95-0012 PROPOSAL: The applicant requests the following development applications: 1.) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 40,000 square foot 'Uure shop" general retail building and a 9,550 square foot general retail building; 2.) Planned Development Review; 3.) Minor Land Partition approval to partition one (1) parcel of approximately 4.99 acres into two (2) parcels of approximately 4.27 and .72 acres. I APPLICANT: Future Shop (Rozanne Kipnes) - y Suite 1400 -1111 West Georgia St. Vancouver, British Columbia WE 4M3 PROJECT MANAGER: Ed Christensen 7000 SW Hampton Street, Suite 220 Portland, OR 97223 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial (C-G). ZONING DESIGNATION: General Commercial, Planned Development - C-G(PD). f LOCATION: East side of SW Dartmouth Street and south of SW Pacific Highway (WCTM 1S1 36CD, tax lot 2000). APPLICABLE REVIEW J CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.62, 18.80, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.162 and 18.164. DECISION: APPROVED, subject to the following conditions. P.C. FINAL ORDER NO..: 96-01 PC SOR 95-OOIWPDR 950009IMLP 95-0012-FURJRE SHOP/CHRISTENSEN PAGE t 7 11 DECISION Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission has approved the proposal subject to certain conditions. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Sections IV. and V. of this report. I CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED OR FINANCIALLY SECURED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. I 1. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the public along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage to increase the right-of-way to a minimum of 47 feet from centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Department. 2. Standard half-street improvements, including concrete sidewalk, driveway apron, curb, portland cement concrete pavement, storm drainage, street lights, and underground utilities shall be installed along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage to widen the pavement to 33 feet from centerline, as measured to the curb face. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to conform with the street i . . standards as established by the Dartmouth LID, or to an alignment approved by ' the Engineering Department. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Department. I 3. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of SW Atlanta Street to increase the right-of-way to 25 feet from the centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. STAFF CONTACT: Diane Jelderks, Engineering Department (639-4171). 4. 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 I' 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 (639- 4171). 5. An agreement shall be provided, in a form approved by the Engineering Department, that provides access between SW Dartmouth Street and the properties to the north of the applicant's site (tax lots 1S1 36 CD 1700, 1601 and J 1501). STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Department (639-4171). P.C. FINAL ORDER NO., 98-01 PC SOR 95MI91POR 95000aW P 950012.FUTURE SHOPICHRISTENSEN PAGE 2 ~s 6. A joint use and maintenance agreement shall be executed and recorded on City - standard forms for all common driveways for the parcels resulting from the r partition. The agreement shall be referenced on and become part of all applicable parcel deeds. The agreement shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to recording. STAFF CONTACT- John Hagman, Engineering Department (639-4171). 7. Design details and calculations for the water quality treatment facility shall be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Department. STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Department (639-4171). 8. An agreement shall be executed, on forms provided by the City, which waives the property owner's right to oppose or remonstrate against a future local improvement district formed to install a traffic signal or otherwise improve SW Dartmouth Street. STAFF CONTACT: Diane Jelderks, Engineering Department (639-4171). 9. An agreement shall be executed, on forms provided by the City, which waives the property owner's right to oppose or remonstrate against a future local improvement district formed to improve SW Atlanta Street to local street standards. STAFF CONTACT: Diane Jelderks, Engineering Department (639-4171). 10. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: J A. Three (3) copies of the partition plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. I 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), r Washington County, and by the City of Tigard, j C. The street dedications for SW Dartmouth Street and SW Atlantic Street shall be made on the partition plat. STAFF CONTACT: John Hadley, Engineering Department (639-4171). 11. Revised site and landscaping plans shall be submitted for review by the Planning f, Division. Staff Contact: Will D'Andrea. The revised plans shall include the following: A. Continuation of landscaping provided with the Cub Foods approval and compliance with landscaping standards in accordance with the Landscaping Development Standards for the Dartmouth Street extension. J B. Parking area located in front of pad "A" to comply with the one (1) tree per seven (7) parking spaces requirement. Continuation of the landscape frontage in front of Cub Foods with formal street trees and I . parking lot buffer plantings. - P.C. FINAL ORDER NO_: 96-01 PC SOR 95-001SPM 95-00MULP 95-0012-FUTURE SHOP/CHRISTENSEN PAGE 3 C. One (1) additional accessible parking space, for a total of seven (7) spaces. D. Relocation of the building to allow a 25 foot Atlanta Street right-of-way. i ~ E. A plan which shows compliance with Community Development Code Chapter 18.116, Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage. The applicant shall choose one (1) of the following four (4) methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign- off. The applicant shall also obtain from the disposal hauler a written sign-off on the location of, and the compatibility of facilities. F. An exterior lighting plan shall be submitted to the Police Department for review and approval. Staff Contact: Kelley Jennings, Police Department - (639-4171). THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY- PERMITS: I~ 1. Provide the Engineering Department with a recorded mylar copy of the final i survey; or if not recorded with Washington County but has been approved by the ' l City of Tigard the applicant shall have 30 days after recording with Washington County to submit the copy. q 2. All site improvements shall be installed as per the approved revised site plans. f. THIS APPROVAL IS VALID IF EXERCISED WITHIN EIGHTEEN I - MONTHS OF THE DATE OF THE FINAL DECISION. III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Prouty History: No development applications were found to have been filed with the City. f Vicinity Information: The site is located east of SW Pacific Highway on SW Dartmouth Street. Surrounding properties are zoned C-G (General Commercial). The Cub Foods shopping center is located on the property to the east, Costco is located to the south, and Tigard Act III Theaters is located to the north. i Property to the east is currently developed with Doughty's TV and Appliance Store, American ! Legion Hall, and a Spunky's Restaurant. The Spunky's site had a development approval to remove the existing structure and construct a Burgerville drive-through Restaurant. ~ III • f I P.C. FINAL ORDER NO.: 9601 PC SOR 95-M19MOR 95400Br1.LLP 95-0012-FLMJRE SHOP/CHRISTENSEN PAGEa 4 site information and ProaQsal Description: The 4.99 acre, vacant site has frontage on SW Dartmouth Street. The site slopes an average 5% grade from the northwest comer with an elevation of 204 feet, to the southern tip at Red Rack I Creek at an elevation of 165 feet The centerline of Red Rock Creek is the eastern boundary line of the property. There are 1.08 acres of wetland on this site. The applicant requests approval to construct a 40,000 square foot "Future Shop" retail building with a 9,550 square foot pad W. The proposal includes 233 parking spaces, two (2) access drives onto SW Dartmouth and a future Atlanta Street extension along the north property line. The proposed plan will require the filling in of .177 acres of wetland. The applicant has applied for and has received a Division of State Lands Fill/Mitigation Permit. A Minor Land Partition has also been requested in order to provide a parcel for the pad W. IV APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA Compliance with Community Development Code Sections: Use Classification: The applicant is proposing to build a retail sales store. This use is classified in Code Section 18.42 Use Classifications) as General Retail Sales. Code section 18.62.030 General Retail Sales is a permitted use in the C-G zone. Minimum Lot Area: Section 18.62.050 states that the minimum lot width shall be 50 feet for parcels in the C-G zoning district There is no minimum lot size requirement. The site has an average lot width of 260 feet, exceeding the minimum lot width standard. Developments within the C-G zone are required to provide a minimum of 15% landscaping. The applicant is proposing to provide approximately 27% landscaping, thereby satisfying the minimum landscape criteria. $etbacks: Section 18.62.50 states that there is no front yard or side yard setback facing the street No side and rear yard setback shall be required except 20 feet shall be required where a C-G abuts a residential zoning district The site does not abut a residential zoning district. The maximum building height is 45 feet The applicant is proposing a building of 42 feet, j . under the maximum allowed. _ I Section 18.120.180(A)(1) (Site Development Review - Approval Standards) requires that a development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of the Community Development Code. The applicable criteria in this case are chapters 18.80, 18.84, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, and 18.164. These chapters are also listed as approval standards for a Planned Development Review application under Section 18.80.120.2. I The proposai's consistency with these Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of Code Chapters 18.92 (Density Computations), 18.94 (Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations), 18.98 (Building Height Limitations: Exceptions), or 18.144 (Accessory Use and Structures) which are also listed under i Section 18.120.180.A.1. These Chapters are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval i standards. i P.O. FINAL ORDER NO..: 9601 PC SOR 95-001SPM 95000&MLP 9&W12.FUTURE SNOMMISTENSEN PAGE 5 . 11 Code Section 18.120.180.A.2 provides other Site Development Review approval standards not necessarily covered by the provisions of the previously listed sections. These other standards are addressed immediately below. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of 18.120.180.3 (Exterior Elevations), 18.120.180.5 (Privacy and Noise), 18.120.180.6 (Private Outdoor Areas: Residential Use), 18.120.180.7 (Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Residential Use), 18.120.180.8 (100-year floodplain), 18.120.180.9 (Demarcation of Spaces), and are therefore found to be inapplicable as approval standards. Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment: Section 18.120.180.2 states that buildings shall be located to preserve existing trees, topography, and natural drainage and that trees having a six (6) inch caliper or greater shall be preserved or replaced by new plantings of equal character. The site will require an extensive amount of regrading in order to accommodate the proposed building and parking area. Surface water runoff from impervious surface will be collected into a storm drainage system. This system will provide that the existing wetland will not be impacted by water runoff. The applicant has received a Division of State Lands Fill/Mitigation Permit. DSL states that the issuance of this permit is conditional upon establishment of replacement wetlands of approximately .56 acres and .23 acres off-site for buffer replacement, for loss of approximately .18 acres of wetland habitat. In obtaining this permit, the applicant had to satisfy Unified Sewerage Agency (USA)concems regarding the provision of a 25 foot wetlands buffer. Staff has discussed this issue with USA and confirmed that the applicant's proposal would be acceptable provided buffer mitigation was included in the DSL permit. USA's comments are included as an attachment to the DSL permit. Generally speaking, the proposal would fill in wetland area and provide a 25 foot buffer. The applicant is then proposing to enhance the buffer area to such a great extent that it will eventually become a wetland area itself. Again, this proposal is acceptable to Unified Sewerage Agency and regulations conceming the provision i of a wetland buffer. Buffering. Screening and Compatibility between adjoining uses: Section 18.120.108.4(A) states that buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses. This proposal does not abut a use which requires a buffer as required in the Buffer Matrix (18.100.130). Section 18.120.108.4(6) states that on-site screening from view of adjoining properties of such things as service and storage areas, parking lots, and mechanical devices on roof tops shall be provided. The plans show the provision of landscaping which is intended to provide screening in accordance with this section. Crime Prevention and Safety: Section 18.120.108.10 requires that exterior lighting levels be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime and shall be placed in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic. This section shall be satisfied as the applicant shall submit exterior lighting plans to be reviewed and approved by the City of Tigard Police Department. Planned Development: Section 18.80.120 identifies approval criteria for a planned development site plan. Section 18.80.120.A.2 lists other code sections which are essentially the same approval standards as 18.120.180 (Site Development Review). Section 18.80.120.A.3.a states that site elements shall be designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography, and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible. As discussed above, this section is satisfied as the applicant has received a DSL fill/mitigation permit. F P C. FINAL ORDER NO_: 9601 PC SOR 95001%PDR 95-OOM LP 95-W12.FUTURE SMGP/CNRISTENSEN PAGE 6 i Section 18.80.120.A.3.b provides standards relative to buffering and screening a proposed development site from surrounding uses and streets. As stated previously, this site does not abut a use which requires buffering and screening. Sections 18.80.120.A.3.c,.d, and e refer to residential developments and, as such, are not applicable. Section 18.80.120.A.3.f, g, J, J. A are i j essentially references to the requirements of other code sections dealing with access, I landscaping, signs, parking and drainage, and are addressed in the sections below. Section 18.80.120.A.3.1 is not applicable as the site is not within a floodplain. Section 18.80.120A.3.h allows the approval authority to require the developer to provide facilities relative to public transit needs such as bus tum-outs or shelters, if the proposed development abuts a transit route. Southwest Dartmouth Street is not currently served by Tri-Met bus service. Tri-Met has not requested the provision of any transit related facilities. Therefore, no transit related facilities will be required as conditions of approval. Chapter 18.84.015(C) states that landforn alterations or developments which are only within wetland areas that meet the jurisdictional requirements and permit criteria of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands, Unified Sewerage Agency, and/or other Federal, State, or Regional agencies do not require a sensitive lands permit The City shall require that all necessary permits from other agencies are obtained. All other applicable City requirements must be satisfied, including sensitive land permits for areas within 100-year floodplain, slopes of 25% or greater, or unstable ground, drainageways, and wetlands which are not under State or Federal jurisdiction. The applicant has applied for, and has received, a fill/mitigation permit through the Division of State Lands. Therefore, a sensitive lands permit will not be required as part of this application. Landscaping Plan: Section 18.100.015 requires that the applicant submit a landscaping plan. This requirement is partially satisfied as the applicant has submitted a conceptual plan -J indicating the number, type and location of trees and shrubs. I r Street Trees: Section 18.100.033 states that all development projects fronting on a public street shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with section 18.100.035. Section 18.100.035 requires that street trees be spaced between 20 and 40 feet apart E depending on the size classification of the tree at maturity (small, medium or large). While the landscape plan is conceptual in nature, the applicant states on sheet 4 that the Dartmouth Streetscape provides a continuation of the landscape frontage in front of Cub Foods with formal j street trees and parking lot buffer plantings. A detailed landscape plan would have to be provided j for review for a continuation of landscaping provided with the Cub Foods approval, and 11 compliance with landscaping standards in accordance with the Landscaping Development Standards for the Dartmouth Street extension. i. creening: Special Provisions: Section 18,100,1101At requires the screening of parking and loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. Planting materials to be installed should achieve a relative balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees. Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect The minimum dimension on the landscape islands shall be three (3) feet and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some forth of wheel guard or curb. The site plan partially complies with the parking lot tree requirements. The parking located in front of pad "A' does not comply with the one (1) tree per seven (7) parking spaces requirement. While the landscape plan is conceptual in nature, the applicant states on sheet 4 that the Dartmouth Streetscape provides a continuation of the landscape frontage in front of Cub Foods with formal street trees and parking lot buffer plantings. A final plan would have to ¢ be submitted for review for compliance with this section. 6 P.C. FINAL ORDER NO., 9601 PC SDR 950014'POR 9S00M% P 95-0012-FLr URE SHOP/CHRISTENSEN PAGE 7 s Visual Clearance Areas: Section 18.102 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the comers of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the j intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three (3) feet in height The code provides that obstructions which may be located in this area shall be visually clear between three (3), and eight (8) feet in height (trees may be placed within this area provided all branches below eight (8) feet are j removed). A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30 foot j distance along the street right-of-way and the driveway and then connecting these two 30 foot distance points with a straight line. A revised, detailed landscape plan will have to be submitted for review for compliance with this section. Minimum OffStreet Parking: Section 18.106.030(C)(20) requires a minimum of one (1) parking space per 400 square feet of gross floor area for General Retail Sales. The 40,000 ' square foot Future Shop building requires 100 parking spaces. The proposed 9,550 square foot j pad W requires 24 parking spaces. The total required number of parking spaces is, therefore, 124 parking spaces. The proposed site plan shows the provision of 233 parking spaces, exceeding this requirement. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADAI, which became effective on January 26, 1992, requires seven (7) disabled parking spaces if 201 to 300 parking spaces are provided. This section is partially satisfied as the proposed site plan shows the provision of six (6) disabled person parking spaces. A revised plan shall be submitted which provides for an additional one (1) parking space, thereby, satisfying this requirement. Bicycle Parking: Section 18.106.020(P) requires one (1) bicycle parking rack space for each 15 vehicular parking spaces in any development Bicycle parking areas shall not be j located within parking aisles, landscape areas, or pedestrian ways. Frfteen (15) bicycle parking spaces will be required for this development. The proposal indicates the provision of sixteen (16) bicycle parking spaces, thereby, satisfying this requirement. ! -Street Loading spaces: Section 18.106.080 requires that every commercial or + Off industrial use having floor area of 10,000 square feet or more, shall have at least one (1) 1 off-street loading space on site. The proposal shows the provision of one (1) loading space, - thereby, satisfying this requirement. I Access: Section 18.108.080 requires that commercial and industrial uses which require - more than 100 parking spaces provide two (2) accesses with a minimum width of 30 feet j and a minimum pavement width of 24 feet The preliminary site plan shows the provision of two (2) access drives, with an additional future access to the proposed Atlanta Street extension. The two (2) drives are shown to have driveway widths of 24 feet, thereby, satisfying this requirement. I i The Atlanta Street connection is in response to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. Note #5 of that plan states that it is a study area to determine the alignment of a minor collector j street connecting 68th Parkway near Red Rock Creek with the Dartmouth Street extension; and with Hampton Street at 72nd Avenue with the Dartmouth Street extension within the westerly portion of the Tigard Triangle. The DKS plan has shown that a need exists for a common access along the north property line of the subject property. It recommends joint use circulation due to area wide circulation needs, existing/proposed driveway locations, and Pacific Highway access changes. P C. FINAL ORDER NO_: 9641 PC SDR 9500191POR 950008/MLP 950012-FUTURE SHOP/CHRISTENSEN PAGES { The applicant's submittal shows a future Atlanta Street connection that is 32 feet wide. The proposal also included that the City maintain this street. City standards for a local commercial I street call for 34 feet of roadway width, within a 50 foot right-of-way. The proposed 32 foot width did not meet City standards for a public street. The proposed plan has been modified in that the applicant is now requesting (see letter dated December 20th) that the City accept a dedication of their half of a 50 foot right-of-way. It is also their intent to construct a half street improvement within the 50 foot right-of-way prior to the occupancy of the Burgerville restaurant. In order to provide a 25 foot right-of-way on the subject property, a revised plan shall be submitted which relocates the building such that the increased width of Atlanta Street can be accommodated. While the applicant has decided to provide a public street width which meets City standards and relocate the building slightly to accommodate that additional width, the Engineering Departments' comments related to access to Burgerville have yet to be addressed. The concerns expressed by the Engineering Department are found in section V below. The main concern is that a previous Planning Commission approval of the Burgerville site has required that the only long-tern, left-tum access to/from the Burgerville site will be through the joint accesses across the subject site, and that the proposed site layout will provide a rather circuitous route for the proposed joint access drives, and especially for the Burgerville site. The City Engineer has contacted Burgerville. They have stated that they do not plan on attending the hearing to lodge a formal objection but that they do not support the site layout. aW Ikways: Section 18.108.050(A) requires that a walkway be extended from the ground floor entrance of the structure to the street which provides the required ingress and egress. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum six (6) inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum three (3) foot horizontal separation, except 1 that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four (4) feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards. The plan shows pedestrian connections to SW Dartmouth Street, thereby, satisfying this criteria. 51=: Section 18.114.130(C) lists the type of allowable signs and sign area permitted in I the C-G zone. All signs shall be approved through the Sign Permit process as administered by the Planning Division. Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage: Section 18.116 requires that new construction incorporates functional and adequate space for on-site storage and efficient collection of mixed solid waste and source separated Recyclables prior to pick-up and removal by haulers. The applicant must choose one (1) of the following four (4) methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling j Plan, or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign-Off. The applicant will have to submit evidence or a plan which indicates compliance with this section. Regardless of which method chosen, the applicant will have to submit a written -sign-off from the franchise hauler regarding the facility location and compatibility. MINOR LAND -PARTITION -Findings and Recommendations: The applicant is proposing to partition the approximately 4.99 acre parcel into two (2) parcels of approximately 4.27 and .72 acres to split the two (2) building site into separate parcels. 2{Sg P.C. FINAL ORDER NO._ 9601 PC SOR 95.OCIWPDR 95 =&MLP 95-0012-FLI URE SHOPICHRISTENSEN PAGE 9 ' Section 18.162.040 contains the following general approval criteria for a Minor Land Partition: { 1. The proposal conforms with the City's Comprehensive Plan; 1 2. The proposed partition complies with all statutory and ordinance ! requirements and regulations; 3. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposal; ! 4. All proposed lots conform to the size and dimensional requirements of this title; and 5. All proposed improvements meet City and applicable agency standards (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52). The proposal conforms with the City's comprehensive plan in that the newly created lot will continue to allow for commercial development. This proposal, therefore, is not in conflict with the General Commercial Comprehensive Plan designation. This proposed partition complies with all statutory and ordinance requirements and regulations as demonstrated both by the analysis presented within this administrative decision and by this application and review process. Adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposal. Section 18.162.050 contains the following special provisions for lots created through the Partition Process: 1. Lot Width: The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning district 2. Lot Area: The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district In the case of a flag lot, the accessway may not be included in the lot area calculation. 3. Lot Frontane: Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right-of-way by at least 15 feet or have a legally recorded minimum 15 foot wide access easement i 4. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district { 5. Front Yard Determination for Flag Lot: When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may determine the location of the front yard, provided that no side yard is less than 10 feet Structures shall generally be located so as to maximize separation from existing structures. i 6. Screening on Flag Lots: A screen shall be provided along the property line of a lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is located within ten feet of an abutting lot in accordance with Sections 18.100.080 and 18.100.090. Screening may also be required to maintain privacy for abutting lots and to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed development i ! P.C. FINAL ORDER NO.: 96-01 PC SOR 95WISPDR 95=0&WLP 950012oFLITURE SHOPiCHRISTENSEN PAGE 10 t' e 7. Fire Protection: The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an accessway would have a detrimental effect on fire fighting capabilities. 8. Reciprocal Easements: Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one (1) lot, a reciprocal easement which will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map. 9. Accessway: Any accessway shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.108, Access, Egress, and Circulation. ~ I 10. Flood Ica ain: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the one-hundred-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrianlbicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. Criteria 1 is satisfied as the proposed lot widths are approximately 100 and 260 feet, exce eding the minimum 50 foot lot width requirement in the C-G zone. There is no minimum lot size requirement, thereby, satisfying criteria 2. Criteria 3 is satisfied as the proposed lots have approximately 260 and 360 feet of frontage on SW Dartmouth Street, thereby, exceeding the 25 foot frontage requirement. Criteria 4 is satisfied as there are not applicable setbacks on this property. Criteria 5 and = 6 are not applicable because neither lot is a flag lot. Fire hydrants shall be consistent with Uniform Fire Code standards, thereby, satisfying Criteria 7. Criteria 8 shall be satisfied as a reciprocal access easement shall be recorded. As indicated on the site plan, Criteria 9 is satisfied. Criteria 10 is not applicable as these lots are not within the floodplain. V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS Public Facility Concerns: (Engineering Department Comments) Sections 18.164.030(E)(1)(a) (Streets), 18.164.090 (Sanitary Sewer), and 18.164.100 (Storm Drains) shall be satisfied as specified below: i i Streets: DARTMOUTH STREET: The applicant proposes to widen Dartmouth Street along the development frontage to provide a 5-lane street. A 5-lane section for Dartmouth is consistent with all recent traffic studies and should be approved. Additional right-of-way will be required to accommodate ,r the street widening. e P.C. FINAL ORDER NO..: 96-01 PC SDR 95.OOISPOR 954OC&MLP 95-0012-FUTURE SHOP/CHRISTENSEN PAGE 11 ~ - i r The proposed widening does not include the crossing of Red Rock Creek. Other recent developments in the area have not been required to widen at the creek. However, they have been required to sign a waiver of remonstrance against a future local improvement j district to complete improvements on Dartmouth Street. A similar waiver should be required for any development of the subject site. I "ATLANTA STREET" The City's Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map includes Note 5 which defines a study area in the Triangle. Among other things, Note 5 creates a "Study area to determine the alignment of a minor collector street connecting 68th Parkway near Red Rock Creek with the Dartmouth Street extension...." In recent planning for the Triangle, it has been assumed that any such street would actually connect to 68th at existing Atlanta Street. In the past, the City has taken the position that a developer of property subject to a i. Transportation Plan study area has three (3) options: 1. Wait for the City to complete needed transportation studies and adopt more definitive transportation plans; or 2. Show that the proposed development does not preclude any reasonable study options; or J 3. Complete additional study work to show that the proposed development is consistent with the best transportation plan for the area. In the current application, the applicant has effectively chosen a combination of these options. The applicant relies on the 1994 "Dartmouth Street Concept Plan" completed by DKS Associates for the City. Using the DKS report, the applicant attempts to show that the proposed development will allow for implementation of a Note 5 street connection in the future. The DKS report suggests that a roadway connection is needed to provide access both to the subject parcel, and to the adjoining parcels to the north. However, DKS suggests that the connection could be provided with joint-use private, driveways rather than the full collector street roadway described in Note 5. DKS suggests a private driveway along the 4 . north edge of the subject parcel and having a minimum width of 32 feet. Because this I f driveway will intersect Dartmouth close to Pacific Highway, in an area where Dartmouth traffic queues for the traffic signal, DKS recommends that left turns be prohibited at Dartmouth. To provide for left turns, DKS recommends a joint-use agreement to allow traffic totfrom the parcels to the north to use the internal driveways on the subject parcel. The applicant has basically followed the DKS suggestions but with an amendment that conflicts with City standards. Instead of a private driveway, the applicant is proposing a future public street along the north edge of the parcel but with the street built to driveway standards. The proposed building location would not accommodate a public street to commercial area standards in accordance with Community Development Code Chapter i 18.164.030-E. -i P.C. FINAL ORDER NO..: 96-01 PC SDR 95.OOIWPOR 95000&MLP 950012-FUTURE SH OP/CMSTENSEN PAGE 12 In addition, the proposed site layout will provide a rather circuitous route for the proposed joint access drives, especially for the Burgerville site (formerly Spunky's) at the comer of Dartmouth and Pacific Highway. Previous Planning Commission approval of the Burgerville site has required that the only long-term, left-turn access toffrom the Burgerville site will be through the joint accesses across the subject site. It appears to us that additional work is needed to achieve a site plan that adequately addresses both Note 5, and City development standards. Therefore, we recommend that the proposal be denied until these issues can be resolved. We are open to meeting with the applicant's representatives to discuss potential options for a solution. We agree that use of the DKS report is a reasonable way to address the Note 5 requirements. However, additional work is required to identify an adequate plan. i (Note: The Planning Commission found that the route was not too circuitous so as to jusiitfy relocating the proposed building. The Commission found that the curcuitous nature was not unlike other commercial centers in the way the traffic flow functions. Further, Future Shop agreed to let traffic pass through their property.) Sanitary Sewer. Service is provided by a public sanitary sewer within SW Dartmouth Street. This line has sufficient capacity to serve this development and no public sewer extensions are required. Storm Drainage: On-site runoff will be collected into a private storm drain that will discharge to a proposed I storm water quality treatment facil-rty. Wetlands: The applicant has submitted a wetlands delineation study and has shown the wetlands on the site plan. Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order 91-47 at 6.08.3 requires that there be a 25 foot wide undisturbed corridor along the wetlands. The submitted site plan does not meet this requirement; accordingly, the requested approval should be denied for this reason as well. (Note: As previously discussed, the applicant has received a Division of State Lands Permit which has addressed the buffer concerns.) Additional Staff Comments: i The City of Tigard Police Department states that the applicant shall submit exterior lighting plans for the exterior of the building and the parking area. VI. AGENCY COMMENTS The Unified Sewerage Agency has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: P.C. MAL ORDER NO..: 96-01 PC SDR 95401%VDR 95400W ALP 950012eFUTURE SHOP/ MSTENSEN PAGE 13 The following comment was returned to the Division of State Lands on October 26, 1995 from Unified Sewerage Agency related to the subject proposal. All three (3) proposed options have an impact on Red Rock Creek. Options one (1) and two (2) do not provide on site mitigation for impact to wetland/sensitive area, do not provide the required 25 foot undisturbed corridor between the development and the sensitive area, and do not provide for the required water quality facility. Option three (3) shows on site mitigation and water quality but does not provide the required 25 foot corridor and has a roof over the wetland mitigation site and water quality facility (pad A). 'Note: Pad "A", if it is necessary to the development, could be placed over the parking lot, thereby, allowing the wetland mitigation and water quality facility to function normally. Unified Sewerage Agency can not approve this project until the above problems are resolved. General Telephone and Electronics has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Developer to place conduit to GTE's specifications. City of Tigard Maintenance Services Division, City of Tigard Building Division, Tualatin Valley Water District, Unified Sewerage Agency, Tualatin Valley Fire District, and Portland General Electric have reviewed this application and have offered no comments or objections. No other comments have been received. It is further ordered that the applicant and the parties to these proceedings be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This day of January, 1996 by the Planning Commission of the City of I Tigard, Oregon. {Signature box below} Nick Wilson, Chair City of Tigard Planning Commission . P.C. FINAL. ORDER NO..: 9641 PC SDR 95-WIW OR 9540OWLP 95-0012-FUn RE SNOPICNRISTPNSEN PAGE 14 i ~~<T tt 's?'--~/--- fit i`. FU SHOP' -TUPE t Ee £ 17 fill I-A rt aF { ~ g o der _ Ott CASE N°' N P L.01 P l- AN FutuRE $ ®4 MAP ~T M E X~~B _ J G z ~CC G ~~pG CL 1 Z ~ ~ V I IiI LL j F- CASE: SDR95-0019/PDR95-0008 999 VICINITY MAP n MLP95-0012 1 S1 NOTE: MAP IS NOT TO SCALE N 36CD-02000 s. - FAX TRANSMITTAL - 3 PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LOGO LEGAL NOTICE SECTION OF TIGARD TIMES DATE: 2/5/96 TO: Mary White, Legals (fax) 620-3433 FROM: Patricia Lunsford, City of Tigard (Ph.) 639-4171 The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on Tuesday February 13, 1996 at 7:30 PM at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The G , public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the City Council. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the dose of the hearing accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to allow the hearings authority and all the l parties to respond on the request, precludes an appeal, and failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. 1 E 1 PUBLIC HEARINGS: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 9"0191PLANNNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) I 95-00081MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 9'5-0012 ➢ FUTURE SHOP/CHRISTENSEN 4 City Council 'Call-Up' for review of the following development applications: 1.) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 40,000 square foot 'future shop' general retail building and a 9,550 square foot general retail building; Planned Development Review; Minor Land Partition approval to partition one parcel of approximately 4.99 acres into two parcels of approximately 4.27 and .72 acres; 1 LOCATION: East side of SW Dartmouth Street, south of SW Pacific Highway. (WCTM 1S1 36CD, tax lot 2000) ZONE: General Commercial (C-G). The General Commercial zone allows Public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, and real estate services, business support services, general retail sales, eating and drinking establishments, among other uses. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Section 18.62, 18.80, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.162 and 18.164. 3 TT PUBLISH DATE: 218196 I _ CITY OF TIGARD MEMORANDUM j CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON i i. TO: Bill Monahan FROM: Dick Bewersdo i rfr I:. I DATE: January 19, 1996 SUBJECT: Approved Land Use Decisions Through 1119196 (Total decisions this memo: 3) Final Order Issued: 1/16/96 j Final Appeal Date: 1/26/96 1.) SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 95-0019/PL4NNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW i (PDR) 95-0008/MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 95-0012 ➢ FUTURE SHOP/CHRISTENSEN Q The Tigard Planning Commission at the January 8, 1996 Public Hearing APPROVED, subject to conditions (attached), a request for approval of the following development applications: 1.) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 40,000 square foot "future shop" general retail building and a 9,550 square foot general retail building; 2.) Planned Development Review; and Minor Land Partition approval to partition one (1) parcel of approximately 4.99 ! (Vicinity Map below) J acres into two (2) parcels of approximately 4.27 and .72 acres. (Plot Plan/Map attached) " ~ oc I I i l ! IJ q;off I i ZONE: General Commercial (C-G). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.62, 18.80, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.162 and 18.164. h:Vogin\ ig3\oatty\doall•19-96.m2 (Memo Cover Page 113) Li 1 - :.:C..l° pG~LMITT C1.i Ji 1~T I.. I 1 \ 1 I I - + !I W. ll~ f: •It FUTURE SHOP III T Frf i. rl~ EJ l+ 1 C j ';1I t c} PAD "A t ..Y w I S'~ I ALAtrA a-MEET EXTEtSKN f rl 1 Wl+ q"SET G~111y Y~ SECTION S-5 It, LEGEND: Si; Spa. ~ V PLOT PLAN CASE NO. sm g5 -°°l9'"rp ` EXHIBIT MAP FUTURE SHOP (FUTURE (FUTURE SHOPlCHRISTENSEN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL) (Page 1 of J) Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Planning Commission has approved the proposal subject to certain conditions. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Sections IV. and Y. of this report. ~ " . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED OR FINANCIALLY SECURED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. • ~ f 1 1. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the public along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage If to increase the right-of-way to a minimum of 47 feet from centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. a- Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, i Engineering Department. 2. Standard half-street improvements, including concrete sidewalk, driveway apron, curb, portland cement concrete pavement, storm drainage, street lights, and underground utilities shall be installed along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage to widen the pavement to 33 feet from centerline, as measured to the curb face. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to conform with the street standards as established by the Dartmouth LID, or to an alignment i approved by the Engineering Department. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Department. 3. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of SW Atlanta Street to increase the right-of-way to 25 feet from the centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. STAFF CONTACT: Diane Jelderks, Engineering Department (639-4171). i - 4. 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: 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 (639-4171). 5. An agreement shall be provided, in a form approved by the Engineering Department, that provides access between SW Dartmouth Street and the properties to the north of the applicant's site (tax lots 1S1 36 CD 1700, 1601 and 1501). STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering ' Department (639-4171). 6. A joint use and maintenance agreement shall be executed and recorded on City standard forms for all common driveways for the parcels resulting from the partition. The agreement shall be referenced on and become part of all applicable parcel deeds. The agreement shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to recording. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Department (639171). ~J. Design details and calculations for the water quality treatment facility shall be submitted to and approved b the Engineering Department. STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Y • Department (639-4171). - (FUTURE SHOP/CHRISTENSEN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL) (Page 2 of 3) - - 8: An agreement shall be executed, on forms provided by the City, which waives the property owner's right to oppose or remonstrate against a future local improvement district formed to install a traffic signal or otherwise improve SW Dartmouth Street. STAFF CONTACT: Diane Jelderks, Engineering Department (63911171). 4 9. An agreement shall be executed, on forms provided by the City, which waives the property owner's right to oppose or remonstrate against a future local improvement district formed to improve SW Atlanta Street to local street standards. STAFF CONTACT: Diane Jelderks, Engineering Department (639-4171). ! 10. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: 4 A. Three (3) copies of the partition plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in j 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 Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. C. The street dedications for SW Dartmouth Street and SW Atlantic Street shall be made on the partition plat. STAFF CONTACT: John Hadley, Engineering Department (639-4171). 11. Revised site and landscaping plans shall be submitted for review by the Planning Division. Staff Contact: Will D'Andrea. The revised plans shall include the following: A. Continuation of landscaping provided with the Cub Foods approval and compliance with landscaping standards in accordance with the Landscaping Development Standards for the Dartmouth Street extension. B. Parking area located in front of pad "A" to comply with the one (1) tree per seven (7) parking spaces requirement. Continuation of the landscape frontage in front of Cub Foods with formal street trees and parking lot buffer plantings. C. One (1) additional accessible parking space, for a total of seven (7) spaces. D. Relocation of the building to allow a 25 foot Atlanta Street right-of-way. E. A plan which shows compliance with Community Development Code Chapter 18.116, Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage. The applicant shall choose one (1) of the . j following four (4) methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste I Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign- ! off. The applicant shall also obtain from the disposal hauler a written sign-off on the location of, and the compatibility of facilities. F. An exterior lighting plan shall be submitted to the Police Department for review and ! approval. Staff Contact: Kelley Jennings, Police Department (639-4171). i t I _ , - ~ _ ~.-r..,w.u,.... ..n-i a.rw...~., t.. .-,.+....~:tw.._.a.r.~ar.u... i..ctar..~v.:r._.... (FUTURE SHOPICHRISTENSEN CONOITIONS OF APPROVAL) (Page 3 of 3) I THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: I 1. 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 f shall have 30 days after recording with Washington County to submit the copy. 2. All site improvements shall be installed as per the approved revised site plans. I THIS APPROVAL IS VALID IF EXERCISED WITHIN EIGHTEEN MONTHS OF THE DATE OF THE FINAL DECISION. f T 'j t 1 i I J 1 ii 1 ' i 1 1 . 71. Decision Issued Date: 1/16196 Final Appeal Date: 1/26/96 23 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 95-0023 ➢ WORZNIAK LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 4 The Tigard Planning Director has APPROVED, subject to conditions (attached), a request for approval of a ) _Lot Line Adjustment to adjust two (2) parcels of approximately 20,796 and 16,640 square feet into two (2) parcels of approximately 24,956 and 12,480 square feet. 1i LOCATION: 7495 SW Cherry Avenue (WCTM 2S1 01 DC, Tax Lot 3101) and 13493 SW 75th Place (WCTM 2S1 01 DC, Tax Lot 5300 and Tax Lot 5400). (Vicinity Map below) (Plot Plan/Map attached) { VAR t _ -I-I I I ST I I I I ~ S Q VARNS FIR FIR LP z 04 Su j ct.-->> c s->> ' i DR r' ANDBURG i i c C ZONE: R-3.5 (Residential 3.5 units per acre). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.48, 18.162.050 and 18.162.060. h:uoginUig3~patty%docs\1-1e-96.m2 (Memo Cover Page 2n) t E f rlaao' f- I CL 4 e 7aso i _ I 1Q 660 SF. r b Q " a ' 1sa 15• j 141. zoo, I- =a2• 8 15Z0s• Z o 0 .2158' $ 5 6 0~ 0 8 Z u 14001 SF. e ' 24,956 SQUARE FOOT o - • . J _ PARCEL _ 141.50' -a, N- CL .1RS Bd' 3 • 7 14 oor -sr b~ 104.26' I~ 0 125.00' a Q 44 N N 45 I ,m N e 2,480 SQUARE FOO a O PARCEL ex ~ ' - _ .a. r. - - - - - - ~ f h S.W. CHERRY S TREEZ V ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CASE NO. PLOT PLAN EXHIBIT MAP A AHP MIS 95-0023 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (WORZNIAK LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL) - (Page 1 of 1) • r j CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall provide evidence that Tax Lots 5300 and 5400 have been consolidated into one (1) tax lot. Staff Contact: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 1 ` 2. A lot line adjustment survey map and legal descriptions showing the existing and proposed lot I. lines shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. The survey map shall include all access and utility easements. Staff Contact: John Hadley, Engineering Department. THIS APPROVAL IS VALID IF EXERCISED WITHIN EIGHTEEN MONTHS OF THE FINAL DECISION DATE NOTED UNDER THE PROCEDURE AND APPEAL SECTION BELOW 1 t J Decision Issued Date: 1/19/96 Final Appeal Date: 1129196 33 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 95-0026 DETAILED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 95-0002 ➢ BD LUBE/STERLING Q -The Tigard Planning Director has APPROVED, subject to conditions (attached), a request for approval of 10 Site Development Review and Detailed Planned Development to allow the construction of a 3,590 square foot automotive lube service facility on Pad F of the Tigard Promenade Shopping Center. LOCATION: 15000 Black of SW Pacific Highway (Vicinity Map below) (WCTM 2S1 10DB, tax lots 600 and 702). (Plot Plan/Map attached) i - f - WM V F I I T SITE tow9 C7 ZONE: General Commercial (C-G). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.62,18-80,18.100,18.102,18.106,18.108,18.114,18,116,18.120 and 18.164. h:Uogin\tig3lpatty\docsl1-19-96.m2 (Memo Cover Page 3/3) Ol I 20 O3 VAN T AU -JA-l 10 _ = 393 S¢2 FT. W BB AU ' i. 13 Ob 21 02 BBik MA a Flag Polde At, 158 03 STOP \ CL SIGN Annual Bed AP L-1 :5- U PLOT PLAN 1 CASE No. STERLINGNALVOLINE LUBE SITE EXHIBIT MAP SDR95-0026 PDR 95-0002 - - - - - ice---° (80 LUBEISTERLING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL) (Page 1 of 9)... I CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED OR FINANCIALLY SECURED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 1. A joint use and maintenance agreement shall be executed and recorded on City standard forms for all common driveways. The agreement shall be referenced on and become part of all applicable parcel deeds. The agreement shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to recording. STAFF CONTACT: John Hagman, Engineering Department. 2. The applicant shall provide for roof and pavement rain drainage to the public stormwater drainage system. STAFF CONTACT: David Scott, Building Division. 3. The applicant shall provide connection of proposed buildings to the public sanitary sewerage system. A connection permit is required to connect to the existing public sanitary sewer system. STAFF CONTACT: David Scott, Building Division. 4. The applicant shall provide design details and calculations for the on-site water quality facility as required by Unified Sewage Agency Resolution and Order No. 91-47. The calculations shall include all sites to be served by the facility. STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Department. . ' I` PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT, j . THE FOLLOWING CONDITION SHALL BE SATISFIED: f The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order No. 91-47. STAFF CONTACT: Letha Thomas, Engineering Department. THIS APPROVAL IS VALID IF EXERCISED WITHIN EIGHTEEN MONTHS OF THE DATE OF THE FINAL DECISION. The Planning Commission previously approved this development subject to the following conditions of approval The applicant has addressed these conditions within the Detailed Planned Development 1. Standard half-street improvements, including concrete sidewalk, driveway apron, curb, asphaltic concrete pavement, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed along the SW Pacific Highway frontage. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to both State Highway and City standards, and shall provide for the dual j southbound left-turn lanes, and shall conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements or to an alignment approved by the ODOT and the Engineering Department. All required traffic signal modification work shall be included with the construction plans. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department. The property owner has obtained an Access Permit through the Oregon Department of Transportation(ODOT). is d (BO LUBEISTERLING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL) (Page 2 of 9) 2. Standard full-street improvements, including concrete sidewalk on the both sides of SW 109th Avenue fronting the proposed development, driveway aprons utilizing standard 25 r, foot radius return, curb, asphaltic concrete pavement, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed along the SW 109th Avenue frontage. In addition, improvements shall be designed and constructed to an alignment as approved by the Engineering Department, and the pavement construction shall extend to existing SW Naeve Street. The final plans shall include a striping plan. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department, 1 The developer of the shopping center, Sterling Development, and the City of Tigard have { executed a roadway improvement agreement. 3. Right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the SW 109th Avenue frontage to increase the right-of-way to 72 feet for the portion of roadway providing four (4) lanes, and the transition from four (4) lanes, to the three (3) lane portion. The description shall be tied to the proposed right-of-way centerline as approved by the Engineering Department and align with the through street requirements of the intersection with SW Royalty Parkway to the west, in King City. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. STAFF CONTACT: John Hadley, Engineering Department The site plan has been revised to reflect the dedication for public right-of-way along SW 109th to be 72 feet for the portion of roadway providing four (4) lanes. A dedication document for 12 additional feet of right-of-way has been executed as a part of the public improvement plan review. I - 4. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the State of Oregon Highway Division, to perform work within the right-of-way of SW Pacific Highway. A copy of the permit shall be } provided to the City Engineering Department prior to issuance of a Public Improvement j Permit STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department. - The developer of the shopping center has obtained an Access Permit through ODOT. ( 5. The applicant shall submit a revised site and street geometric plan for approval by the Engineering Department prior to the application for the public works improvements l permit. The revised plan shall include a revised design for the driveway near Building D , to prohibit traffic from exiting to SW 109th Avenue extension via that driveway. STAFF I CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department ) f The developer of the shopping center has an approved site and geometric plan that reflects a right-in only adjacent to Building Pad D from SW 109th Street. 6. Three (3) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings { shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. Seven (7) sets I 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. a a. (BD LUBMTERLING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL) (Page 7 of 9) YYY The developer of the shopping center is currently constructing SW Royalty Parkway and street frontage improvements along SW Pacific Highway. } rT, A joint use and maintenance agreement shall be executed and recorded on City standard forms for all common driveways. The agreement shall be referenced on, and become part of, all applicable parcel deeds. The agreement shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to recording. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department A joint use and maintenance agreement has been prepared, and is to be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to recording of parcel deeds. 8. The applicant shall provide a hydrology and hydraulic study of the proposed storm drain systems for approval of the Engineering Department STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, ; Engineering Department The shopping center developer has submitted a hydrology and hydraulics study has been submitted for review. Site drainage issues were reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the overall shopping center. 9. The design of the intersection revisions and traffic signal modifications at SW 109th f Avenue and SW Pacific Highway shall be approved by the City Engineer. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department f The revised site plan illustrates the intersection revisions required to facilitate a 72-foot wide 1{ right-of-way at the intersection with SW Pacific Highway and SW Royalty Parkway. 10. The applicant shall pay the fees as established under the guidelines of Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order No. 91-47. NOTE: This is a two (2) part fee which is paid at different times. The first part is paid with any associated public improvements which is for that portion of the development which increases the impervious area within the public right-of-way. The second part is paid at Building Permit issuance which is for each individual lot The { applicant proposes to construct an on-site water quality facility for the southerly parcel l and shall receive a credit based on the amount of storm water treated. The facility will be privately owned and operated. i l The applicant has designed an on-site water quality treatment facility for this purpose. The applicant is required to pay a fee to make up for any difference (if any) of the water treated by this facility and that required to be treated based on the increase in impervious areas. I 11. The applicant shall underground the existing overhead utilities along the site frontage of i SW Pacific Highway, or pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. STAFF CONTACT: Michael ,I Anderson, Engineering Department ! The shopping center developer is currently evaluating whether to underground the existing j overhead utilities or pay a fee in lieu of undergrounding. L~ (BD LUSEISTERLING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL) ' . (Page 4 of 9) - 12. Washington County has established and the City has agreed to collect Traffic Impact Fees in accordance with Resolution No. 94-18. The applicant shall pay the fee established for the proposed use. The applicant has paid the Washington County Traffic Impact Fees associated with the project. 13. The applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can be discharged into the existing drainageways without significantly impacting properties downstream. STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Department. The shopping center developers hydrology and hydraulic study has been prepared to demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can be discharged into the existing drainageways without significantly impacting properties downstream. The on-site storm water detention system has been designed to meet the standards set by ODOT and the City. 14. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, February, 1994." STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Department. An erosion control plan has been approved as part of the public improvement plans for the development of the shopping center. 15. The applicant shall submit a traffic engineering report one (1) year after the opening of the shopping center that provides a study of the operation of the main driveway near Building C. The report shall verify that the four-way intersection is operating within the projected parameters of the revised traffic studies and the basis of the site plan approval, and/or to recommend any operational changes to comply with the original report, as approved by the City Engineer. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department. i The shopping center developer will submit a traffic report one (1) year after the opening of the ~l entire shopping center to review the operation of the main driveway near Building C. 16. Revised site and landscape plans and/or studies shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts Planning Division. f a. The applicant shall submit an application for the Detailed Planned Development Review stage of the entire development. This submittal fulfills this requirement. i b. The applicant shall record a Partition Plat, Lot Line Adjustment or a lot consolidation prior to avoid construction of new improvements over the existing property lines within the southerly Safeway Shopping Center. This condition is not applicable to this development site. c. The applicant shall record a partition plat, lot line adjustment or a lot consolidation prior to development of the northerly Les Schwab Center. This condition has been addressed through a previous Lot Line Adjustment. . L~ _ " (BD LUBEISTERLING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL) (Page 5 of 9) d. Where required by the Department of Environmental Quality the applicant shall obtain an indirect Source Construction Permit for construction of parking lot(s). The shopping center developer has obtained an Indirect Source Construction Permit for the construction of parking lots. i e site and landscape plans to provide impervious e. The applicant shalt revise th surface to landscape ratios at a minimum of 15% of the entire site. i The applicants site plan has demonstrated that landscaping is to be provided in excess of the 15% minimum requirement. f. The applicant shall provide floor plans of future tenant improvement plan submittals be reviewed to verify continuing compliance with the parking ratio standards. The applicant's site plan demonstrates that the proposed automotive service use has been provided with slightly under one (1) parking space for each 500 square feet of gross ' floor area. Both of the other two (2) uses which are approved for this portion of the shopping center I' (the Les Schwab Facility and the Washington Federal Savings Bank) have proposed to construct parking spaces in excess of the minimum required number. Although the BD Lube Facility proposes to construct seven (7) parking spaces instead of the required eight (8) spaces, the overall shopping center complies with the minimum standard. Therefore, an additional parking space is not required. g. A direct walkway connection shall be provided from SW 109th to Pad F and to widen the walkway as necessary between Pads A and B such that the walkway will provide a minimum of four (4) feet of feet of width clear of obstructions. A minimum of eight (8) of the 15 feet of total walkway width shown in front of the Safeway store shall be kept clear at all times to allow pedestrians to use this walkway rather than the main driveway when approaching the store. The applicant has provided a pedestrian walkway from the building entrance to SW { Pacific Highway. h. The property owners shall jointly agree to the shared access shown between the Les Schwab and Kasch's Nursery sites and shall jointly share maintenance. This condition is not applicable as a part of this review because the Les Schwab Pad was not included. i. Where necessary the applicant shall relocate or reconfigure Pads D and F to comply with the clear vision standards. The enclosures shall not be located within driveway aisle intersections or within parking lot areas where possible. This standard is addressed with the location of the building pad and the proposed landscaping. The trash and recycling enclosure has been located so as to not be a clear vision obstruction. L~ (BD LUBEISTERUNG CONDmONS OF APPROVAL) (Page I of 9) j. The applicant shall obtain approval for the enclosure design and location from the ( franchise hauler Pride Disposal. The applicant has obtained approval from the franchise hauler for the design of the trash `l and recycling enclosure. k. Driveways shall be narrowed to a maximum of 36 feet in width or pedestrian refuges provided for increased pedestrian crossing safety. The plans shall also be revised to provide varied pavement markings or contrasting materials to designate these as pedestrian crossing areas. The interior widths of the driveways do not exceed a width of 36 feet. j 1. Along portions of the center where the design provides less than ten feet of landscape buffer to the street that the applicant shall demonstrate how this width buffers the view of the parking lot from the street. Where necessary the plan shall be revised to include the use of berming, low three foot maximum height walls or increase the width to serve this purpose. If low walls are used it is suggested that they be constructed of rocks which match the flagstone base of the principal Pad A, B and C store elevations. The applicant has not proposed to develop parking lot areas towards the street frontage. The location of the building pad and landscape improvements have been designed to screen the parking to be developed for this use. M. The landscape plan within the buffer area shall be revised to provide a minimum of the following design features: 1.) A row of shrubs; 2.) A row of evergreen trees with a three inch minimum caliper at planting at the appropriate spacing for growth at maturity; and fff 3.) A berm with a minimum slope of one foot of rise for every three feet of depth be provided 4.) All screening measures should be designed to provide year round protection due to the year round-nature of the proposed uses. This condition is not applicable to this development site. n. The applicant shall review this plan with TRI-MET and revise the plan to provide a waiting shelter where required. CONTACT: Kim Knox, TRI-MET and STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. This condition is not applicable to this development site.