Loading...
City Council Packet - 10/22/1996 i 1 nctQ CITY OF TIGARD 1 I ~ OREGON i TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ~ MEETING I { o OCTOBER 22, 1996 COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE ~ TELEVISED I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 1. , TIGARD CE96 CITY OF TIGARD I51Ti~ESS MEETING 1 PUBLIC NOTICE: OCTOBER PM Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda TIGARD CIitem should sign on the appropriate sign- 13t2S SW up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask TIGARD, O to be recognized by the Mayor at the _ j beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. j 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 I 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; and A • 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: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA f. r; COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 22, 1995 - PAGE 1 AGENDA Tigard City Council Meeting - October 22, 1996 6:30 p.m. STUDY MEETING > Agenda Review i 7:30 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council ez Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 4.: 3 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request _ that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes - September 17 and 24, 1996 3.2 Approve Resolution Amending the FY 1996-97 Salary Schedule for Management and Professional Group to add Youth Services Specialist at Range 50A - Resolution No. 96- 3.3 Approve Resolution Amending Labor Agreement with the Oregon Public Employees Union, Local 199, to Provide for Bonus Pay to Certain Classifications for Possession of Manufactured Home I Installation Inspector Certification - Resolution No. 96- 3.4 Approve Formation of Reimbursement District 8 without Modification to the Engineer's Report 3.5 Local Contract Review Board: a. Approve Contract with Bookin Group-SRI/Shapiro to Update the Development Code b. Award GIS Utility Survey Contract to G.E. Raleigh Associates • 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. COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 2 j , L~ 4. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION - Council Call-Up for Review: (SUBDIVISION (SUB) 96- 0004; PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 96-0005; VARIANCE (VAR) 96-0006 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 96-0002 - A request to subdivide a 6.08 acre parcel into 24 lots. Planned Development Review to reduce the minimum lot size below 5,000 square feet to minimize site development impacts. Variances to the maximum permitted street length, a reduction of setbacks, and to the number of dwellings that would access a cul-de-sac street. Sensitive Lands Review to develop portions of the site with slopes in excess of 25 percent and to perform land form alterations to "-x wetlands. Location: 13011 SW Ascension. The site is located on the west side of SW Ascension Drive, approximately 650 feet south of SW Fern Street. Applicable Review Criteria: Community Development Code Chapters 18.52, 18.80, 18.84, 18.88, 18.90, 18.92, 18.120, 18.134, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. I Zone: R-7 (PD). (Single-family residential, 5,000 square feet attached per ~ unit). The purpose of the R-7 zoning district is to establish sites for attached and detached single-family residences. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges c. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents, Rebuttal) e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing j. h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-_ 1 , COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 3 . r: ~i r,. I S. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY STREET f VACATION SW TORLAND COURT - Request for a vacation of approximately 4,431 square feet of public right-of-way located on SW ! Torland Court, also together with an 8-foot wide utility easement along i 1 the south boundary of Lot 3 and the north boundary of Lot 4, reserving an i 8- foot wide easement along the east boundary of the area being vacated. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents, Rebuttal) e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g- Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96- 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may 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. 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0006/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96-0001 DR. GENE DAVIS/FOREIGN MISSION REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Tax Lots 3500, ( 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900, Map IS 1 35AC, located southeast of Oak Street, east of SW 95th, from Low Density Residential to Commercial 1 Professional and a Zone Change from R 4.5 to CP. LOCATION: Southeast of SW Oak Street, east of SW 95th, north of Highway 217. 1 APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 1. 12(2), 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1 and 12.2.3; Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12. Continued to next page... COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 4 i . i ZONE: R-4.5 (Single-Family Residential) allows single-family detached n units, manufactured homes, farming, family day care and conditional uses such as single-family attached units, duplex units, religious assembly and schools. C-P (Professional/Administrative Office) allows for business support services, communication services, medical and dental services, e personal services, convenience sales and services and limited eating and drinking establishments. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents, Rebuttal) e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Motion Directing Staff to Return November 12, 1996 with a Final Order (Ordinance 8t Final Order for Approval or Resolution at Final Order for Denial of Applicant's Request) 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: GOAL 5 WETLANDS - AMEND WORK PROGRAM BY REPLACING THE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL (ESEE) APPROACH WITH THE "SAFE HARBOR" PLANNING ALTERNATIVE AVAILABLE UNDER THE NEW GOAL 5 ADMINISTRATIVE RULES. a. Staff Report: Community Development Department b. Council Consideration: Motion to Amend the Work Program 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS i 10. CONTINUE EXECUTIVE SESSION (if necessary): The Tigard City Council may 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. 11. ADJOURNMENT \ i:\adm\cathy\cca\96I022p.do " COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 5 ~i Agenda Item Meeting of I a 13 I CfID TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 " • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Council President Paul Hunt > Council Present: Council President Paul Hunt, Councilors Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Associate Planner Dick Bewersdorff; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Asst. to the City Administrator Liz Newton; Development Review Engineer Brian Rager; Senior Planner Nadine Smith; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley. > Agenda Review Armory: Bill Monahan, City Administrator, reported on the status of I - the discussions with the Armory. Ms. Newton and Chief Goodpaster have met with them. The Armory has scheduled a meeting for Tuesday, October 29, to discuss their rental policy and new rental process. Tri-County Center Aoolication: In response to a question from Councilor Rohlf, Mr. Monahan said that the Mayor and Mr. Bewersdorff have been talking with Mr. Christensen regarding the Tri-County center application. The applicant did not request an extension within one-and-one-half years of the original application; therefore, the application was void. The City Attorney's office has provided a written opinion on this matter. Mr. Monahan commented _ that alterations to the application would be needed regardless. In response to a concern from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Monahan said that Council could pull this matter up to review the staff interpretation. He explained that he thought that staff could work with the applicant to package their application to go through both, levels of review simultaneously. Councilor Moore indicated support of the staff's decision. He asked if the applicant would continue to be willing to incorporate some of j the design elements of the original Tigard Triangle plan. Mr. Monahan said that staff was attempting to work through issues with j the applicant. i Farmer's Insurance Office Building: Councilor Rohlf asked if Council needed to pull up the Farmers Insurance office building for review. Dick Bewersdorff, Associate Planner, explained that the applicant was meeting the requirements. The development was high quality. He noted that a large number of trees would be removed and the fees that would be assessed. Councilor Rohlf commented that if staff felt that the developer would put in a development consistent with the design overlay, then there wasn't a need to call it up for S review. Councilor Moore commented that he visited the site and thought that they could build the development with minimal tree removal since ' many of the trees ran down a gully. The Council reviewed a map to j determine where the trees were located. Mr. Bewersdorff commented that there wasn't much the City could do, the applicant was meeting code requirements. > 2040 Functional Plan: Mr. Monahan referred to the most recent changes in the 2040 Functional Plan, mentioning in particular the increase of maximum retail square footage from 50,000 square feet to 60,000 square feet. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 1 { { J L~ .1 I(~ Councilor Rohlf questioned from where a 60,000 square foot store would draw its market. Nadine Smith, Senior Planner, commented that Metro wanted stores to draw from a small market area. Councilor Rohlf stated that he disagreed with Metro's intent. Ms. Smith explained that another change was the criteria a local jurisdiction had to use to approve something larger than 60,000 square feet. This criteria included a demonstration in the record that adequate transportation facilities would be available by the time the retail operation began and that adequate transportation { facilities for the planned uses in the employment areas were included in the applicable Comprehensive Plan provision. Ms. Smith pointed out that this was unclear: what did "adequate" mean? Did the requirement mean funded or simply planned? In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Ms. Smith said that she thought Metro wanted them to have a plan for transportation facilities in the Comprehensive Plan by which they could judge a request for something over 60,000 square feet. Councilor Scheckla commented on the necessity of knowing where the funding was coming 6.. from when planning transportation. ` Ms. Smith reviewed the public hearing schedule on the Functional f Plan and the adoption process; October 24 might be the last time to give input on the document. Mr. Monahan stated that a staff member would attend the meeting on October 24. The Council discussed the issue of large stores. Councilor Rohlf commented that grocery stores needed a minimum of 65,000 to 70,000 i square feet to operate these days. Ms. Smith commented that Councilor Kvistad proposed dropping this title because Metro didn't know how to locate retail property and shouldn't be telling the local jurisdictions how to do it. Mr. Monahan said that another area of concern was the accessory units on all residential units. He reviewed Councilor Morrisette's proposal to allow each individual lot one accessory unit; the proposal was still under discussion at Metro. t' Mr. Monahan said that this issue would be discussed at the joint meeting of Washington County managers as well as at MPAC. He commented that MPAC had worked hard to attain a compromise and that they would probably object to these changes. He said that staff would express Councilor Scheckla's concern at the lack of responsiveness to local jurisdiction concerns. Councilor Rohlf expressed dissatisfaction with Metro's proposal on the "big box" issue. He said that Metro should drop this issue since this was a responsibility of the local jurisdiction. After discussion, Mr. Monahan asked for Council direction to write a f letter to Metro on the accessory structures and the big box issues. Ms. Smith stated that she has not noted any additional new issues; the issues discussed in the past were still issues in this document. The Council agreed by consensus to direct staff to write a letter on the additional issues. > Interfaith Outreach and the Severe Weather Shelter: Mr. Monahan reviewed the history of the severe weather policy established by the Council in 1994 that was implemented by Interfaith Outreach Services (IOS) For two years, IOS managed a severe weather shelter in the water Building to provide temporary accommodations for the homeless. He noted management problems that resulted in Interfaith outreach's decision to reexamine its role as the provider of this service. Mr. Monahan said that he suggested to Interfaith that in November and January they use the water building for the shelter, and in December and February they use the building the city was letting j. them use for offices. He reported that he received a letter from Kim Brown stating that IOS was concentrating its efforts on the - CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 2 - - ' E I capital campaign and land use and funding problems for the RITE Center. The Board decided that they will be unable to operate the severe weather shelter this year. Mr. Monahan stated that the City still had a policy of having a shelter; however, he did not know of any other agency interested in operating the shelter, particularly on such short notice. He noted that the water building and the senior center were potential shelter sites. Councilor Hunt stated that he thought there was room for a shelter at the city-owned building where SOS had offices. Mr. Monahan i concurred but said that it wasn't an issue of space or security, but rather IOS' concentration on getting the RITE Center up and running. l Councilor Scheckla asked if Interfaith's operations overlapped with Neighborshare. Mr. Monahan explained Interfaith's program included job counseling, crisis management and temporary shelter. He said that Ms. Brown said that Interfaith may be able to operate a severe 11 weather shelter on a case-by-case basis at the Methodist church as they did last year. Councilor Rohlf noted that the City funded both Interfaith and Neighborshare. He commented that if both were available, they served a larger public. Councilor Hunt pointed out that Interfaith and Neighborshare had two different goals. Interfaith's goal was to train people and help them to take care of themselves. Neighborshare might simply take care of immediate needs. Mr. Monahan commented that the severe weather shelter didn't really fit into Interfaith's philosophy of providing a full range of services to families and homeless people in need. He said that last year Interfaith found that the clientele at the severe weather shelter had changed; it was no longer families but the day laborers who preferred to live in the woods. Councilor Hunt commented that he had suggested moving Interfaith into the city office building because he thought there was an understanding during budget discussions that it could also be used for the severe weather shelter. Mr. Monahan said that he thought Interfaith said they would consider doing so, but they had not yet decided on whether or not they would run the shelter this year. ~11 Councilor Scheckla commented that he thought the amount of money and effort going into the RITE Center was a high price to pay for only 30 beds. He noted the need of the homeless for more immediate help than was available. Councilor Hunt referenced the failed attempt two years ago to build a homeless facility for southeastern Washington County. In response to a question from Councilor Moore, Mr. Monahan stated that none of the surrounding communities had temporary shelters. He said Ms. Brown indicated that Beaverton had discussed with IOS the ossibility of providing land, but IOS wanted to remain at their base in Tigard. Councilor Moore commented that Tigard could not support the whole region's homeless; something had to be done outside of Tigard also. Councilor Hunt concurred. Mr. Monahan said that the question before the Council was whether or not they wanted a severe weather shelter, and if so, how would they do it. He said that he did not think using volunteers was a good idea; it was better to use professional trained staff to deal with i this situation and clientele. He said that he did not promote using j the Senior Center facility for a temporary shelter. Councilor Hunt asked if they could take back part of the building they leased to Interfaith and renovate it for a shelter. Mr. Monahan said that he didn't think they could do that since the City CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 3 i : L~ I leased the entire building to them without an understanding that the Psevere weather shelter would be located there. Councilor Rohlf suggested dropping the program this year. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Monahan reviewed the Council's discussions on this issue over the last several E months. He noted an additional concern raised by the City's Risk Manager of an airborne pathogen (such as tuberculosis) in a confined space. i. I Councilor Hunt said that he attended an Interfaith meeting 6 to e months ago at which Interfaith stated that if they had enough money II to operate both the severe weather shelter and their own programs, they would do so; however, their first priority was the homeless center. Councilor Rohlf commented that he has seen this program as the City's support of Interfaith 's program. Mr. Monahan said that they i wrote the policy for a severe weather shelter primarily because was an operator willing to step forward. Without an operator, the policy fell apart. Councilor Hunt did not agree, referring to the Task Force that initially addressed this issue on an area-wide basis. Councilor Rohlf commented that his concern that children were being locked out was alleviated by knowing that the severe-weather clientele did not consist of children. The Council agreed by consensus to drop the severe weather shelter program until such time as Interfaith would support it again. Harry Bodine asked if the City would consider a request to operate the shelter from another responsible organization. The Council indicated yes, although they expressed concerns at using the Water Building. Any organization operating such a shelter would also need to cover liability coverage. > Mr. Monahan announced an invitation from Jack Reardon to attend a t meeting at the Summit Conference Room at Washington Square tomorrow to discuss Washington Square's donation of property for the 1 Greenburg/Maple Leaf improvements. He said that he, the Mayor, and Gus Duenas were planning to attend. > Councilor Rohlf noted typographical errors on Page 26 of the Final i Order for Hillshire Hollow. ! > Council President Hunt adjourned the study session at 6:27 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING o Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Council President Paul Hunt called the business meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. • Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None e Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items Public Works Director Ed Wegner presented to Jeff Munroe, Senior Utility Worker, Grounds Division, an award to the City from the Oregon Parks and Recreation Association in recognition of outstanding maintenance and operations for flood damage repair work at Cook Park. He congratulated Mr. Munroe on a job well done. - Mr. Munroe expressed his thanks to Mr. Wegner and to the City departments and citizen volunteers who participated in the clean up effort. t CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 4 t t~ ' r j - { 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA Nancy Downs, PO Box 525, Wilsonville, a member of the Wilsonville Development Review Board, thanked City staff for their response to her requests for information. She presented photographs of illegal signs - posted in the city, county and state rights of way, and pointed out that citizens had the right to take down unsightly signs. She advised that one business posting these types of signs was a Tigard-based business. She asked that the Tigard City Council act on this issue and that volunteers were ready and willing to help clean up the city. Legal Counsel Pam Beery and Mayor Jim Nicoli arrived at 7:44 p.m. - Councilor Hunt asked Pam Beery, Legal Counsel, if citizens could take down - signs posted in the public right of way. Ms. Beery said such signs could be removed In addition, she noted that the City had regulations prohibiting obstructions and visual clutter in the rights of way. Mr. Monahan commented that staff has scheduled a meeting for November 21 to continue a discussion on this topic. He expressed appreciation for Ms. Downs' comments. ' Council President Hunt turned the meeting over to Mayor Nicoli who had arrived at 7:44 p.m. - 3. CONSENT AGENDA - r Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve the 1 Consent Agenda. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") .l 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: September 17 and 24, 1996 3.2 Approve Resolution Amending the FY 1996-97 Salary Schedule for Management and Professional Group to add Youth Services Specialist at Range SOA - Resolution No. 96-66 3.3 Approve Resolution Amending Labor Agreement with the Oregon Public Employees Union, Local 199, to Provide for Bonus Pay to Certain Classifications for Possession of Manufactured Home Installation Inspector Certification - Resolution NO. 96-67 ' 3.4 Approve Formation of Reimbursement District 8 without modification to the Engineer's Report If 3.5 Local Contract Review Board: a. Approve Contract with Bookin Group-SRI/Shapiro to update the Development Code b. P.:aard GIS Utility Survey Contract to G.E. Raleigh Associates 4. PUBLIC HEARING - (QUASI-JUDICIAL) HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION - COUNCIL I - CALL-UP FOR REVIEW: (SUBDIVISION (SUB) 96-004; PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 96-0005; VARIANCE (VAR) 96-0006 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 96-002 - A request to subdivide a 6.08 acre parcel into 24 lots. Planned Development Review to reduce the minimum lot size below 5,000 square feet to minimize site development impacts. Variances to the maximum permitted street length, a reduction of setbacks, and to the number of dwellings that would access a cul-de-sac street. Sensitive Lands Review to develop portions of the site with slopes in excess of 25 percent and to perform land form alterations to wetlands. 1 Location: 13001 SW Ascension. The site is located on the west side of SW - Ascension Drive, approximately 650 feet south of SW Fern Street. Applicable Review Criteria: Community Development Code chapters 18.52, 18.80, 18.84, 18.88, 18.90, 18,92, 18.120, 18.134, 18.150, 18.160 and Zone: R-7 (PD). (Single family residential, 5,000 square feet attached per unit). The purpose of the R-7 zoning district is to establish sites i for attached and detached single family residences. ' CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 5 - , ^ a. Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. i b. Declarations or Challenges: None C. Staff Report Dick Bewersdorff, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He reviewed the location of the development and the staff recommendation 'vate streets Public streets would t ra. to allow private require a redesign of at least 10 of the units because of the - , difference in street setback requirements between public (20 feet) and private (8 feet) streets. He stated that the Planning Commission approved the private streets because of the redesign issues and because a street extension in this location would not be feasible. He noted several typographical errors on Page 26 which would be corrected. d. Public Testimony Mayor Nicoli explained the hearing procedures and criteria. Mr. Monahan noted that the Council was scheduled to go into Executive Session at 8:30 p.m., which might cause a recess of this k hearing. W.C. Cox, attorney for the applicant, requested clarification on this call up for review. Based on the meeting minutes, he understood that the only concern the Council had with this application was the private streets, not with the project itself. He said that they were prepared to answer questions on that issue and to help the Council deal with it however they could. Councilor Rohlf stated he was also concerned that the staff concern on the drainage of Lots 16 through 22 (page 32) be addressed also. Mark Ferris, Alpha Engineering, 9600 SW Oak, Portland, noted that Ed ~J Freeman and Steve Oswald were available to answer questions. He reviewed the history and context of the project, noting the location of the development on a map. He said that the parcel was long and narrow with steep hillsides on the south and east sides of the property. Other constraints included an easement and a significant drainage course along the west side of the property. He stated that there was no potential for through streets and that the topography j made this an ideal site for infill development. Mr. Ferris described the development: 12 duplexes on 24 lots (out of the 31 lots allowed). They tried to minimize the sensitive land impacts of the development by siting most of the units on the flatter portions of the site. He quoted from the Tigard Code to support their efforts "to create a more efficient economically viable development that preserved natural features while implementing the density ranges in the Comprehensive Plan." He noted the two issues under discussion tonight: public vs. private streets, and the City's concern for street maintenance and upkeep. Mr. Ferris reviewed the history of their work with staff to reach i the present point of a private street built to public street standards. i Mr. Cox reiterated that he had understood that the scope of this hearing was the private vs. public streets issue, despite the notice ( including the variance as part of the discussion. Mayor Nicoli concurred with Mr. Cox that concerns with the Benchview Estates development (private street issues) was why the Council was ? concerned about private streets. He said that property owners in Benchview Estates felt that they had not been adequately advised, when they bought their homes, that they were responsible for the maintenance of the private street. Benchview residents wanted to give the street to the City even though the street was not built to city standards. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 6 • I Mayor Nicoli asked if there was a clear statement in the recording - r1 documentation for each individual home that it was on a private ~ 7 street. He asked if the applicant intended to have all the property owners in the subdivision responsible for the maintenance of the street that was in front of just 10 homes. Mr. Cox said that the street was designed and planned as a separate tract which would be deeded over to the Homeowners Association. He reviewed similar arrangements he has made in the past regarding private streets; homeowners paid a fee that went into a maintenance fund and a reserve fund (designed to build up over the lifespan of the road). A street built to city standards should last 20 years. 1 Mr. Cox noted Tigard's requirement in TMC 18.165.030 for a one- to two-year maintenance bond on private streets. He described what Mr. Freeman would do when the deed was turned over to the Homeowners Association. In effect, there would be an insurance policyy providing a bond for the City's benefit should the Association not be able to pay for the improvements. Mr. Cox explained the difference between the Benchview development and this development. He said that in other cities, the City Attorney would review homeowner association documents to protect the City. He commented that if Tigard did away with private streets, it would make it very difficult to develop infill areas because infill land tended to have physical problems. Private streets allow manipulation of setback requirements to achieve a higher density while maintaining the sense of a single family community. Mayor Nicoli noted Mr. Cox's point that Benchview might have been set up improperly. He asked how long did Mr. Cox think it was reasonable for a builder to be required to stand behind his work and make repairs as necessary. Mr. Cox said that he understood that the utilities would remain in r+. public ownership with easements in the private street. Fees would ~j be paid by taxpayers for maintenance of those utilities. He referred to the two-year maintenance bond required by the City to cover defects in design or construction. He said that most cities, when they fixed water or sewer lines in private streets, only filled in the hole, leaving resurfacing of the street to the Homeowners 1 Association. j Mayor Nicoli explained that the City turned responsibility for the i building of a private street to city standards over to the applicant. If the contractor forgot to compact the rock and the street started to break up after several years, at what point was it fair for the homeowners to return to the engineer of record and the contractor for performance failure. He asked who would be responsible if something went wrong. He spoke for guaranteeing the road for a period of time to give the homeowners some protection. Mr. Cox said that the warranty bond normally given to the owners by a contractor could be assigned to the Homeowners Association or directly to a local government (to avoid having two bonds covering i the same risk). He commented that the life of the bonded _ maintenance agreement provided for in the City's code was the life of the street until it was resurfaced (usually 15 to 20 years), though this was an issue best dealt with by the City Engineer. Mr. Cox said that most problems with a street would probably occur within the first two years and would be covered by the other bond. j He stated that whatever vehicle the City chose needed a reality check to determine whether a bonding company would write a bond for f that long. Mayor Nicoli asked if it was possible to get a bond for four to five years. He mentioned Chat another problem the City has is its inability to enforce CC&RS. t ` CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 7 Mr. Cox commented that most local jurisdictions did not want to have any responsibility to enforce CC&Rs, citing the City of Portland as an example. Mayor Nicoli cited an example to illustrate the purpose of his question. When homeowners failed to maintain a storm drainage system, the problems spread beyond the area, resulting in damage and liability for the City as well as for the Association. He expressed concern over a situation in which there was damage caused to other people and the City's hands were tied. I i Mr. Cox stated that he thought there was a legitimate government purpose in that situation. He said that the City could require access in a situation when there was a private system connected to the public system. Ed Freeman, Sierra Pacific, explained in detail the question of maintenance assurance continued beyond the developer's assurance of one to two years. Mr. Freeman said that they estimated a cost of $6,000 to resurface`.. the road. He said that they were willing to forward the Homeowners Association $10,000 to set up the fund with the money paid back as the fund built up. Mr. Freeman stated that he thought there was a distinction between a single family detached residence subdivision like Benchview with a private street and the Hillshire Hollow type of project with a private street. He said that this discussion would not be occurring if they didn't have individual lots in this subdivision. He said that the original concept had been a private community with a security gate. j > Mayor Nicoli recessed the hearing at 8:32 p.m. The Tigard City Council " went into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. n > Mayor Nicoli reconvened the hearing at 9:24 p.m. Councilor Hunt commented that in this situation it appeared that some homeowners bought on a private street while others bought on a public street, yet all the homeowners (as part of the Homeowners Association) would be responsible for maintenance of the private j street. He said that a lot of people would buy without awareness of I liability for the private street, a situation that needed to be remedied. Councilor Hunt reviewed the process described by Mr. Cox for setting up the Homeowners Association, noting that the Council would not see this application again to confirm that their concerns were specifically addressed in writing in the document. He pointed out j that physical problems with terrain were the cause of the problem in the other case. He questioned whether the same thing would happen ( here. !I Councilor Hunt asked if the private street would meet all the public street design standards except for the street setback. Mr. Ferris reviewed the public street requirements that this street would meet, confirming that the only variance was in the street setback of 8 feet instead of 20 feet. Councilor Hunt noted discrepancies on page 27 pointed out by Councilor Rohlf in which there would be a sidewalk on only one side, and a 20 foot street width instead of a 24 foot width. Mr. Ferris clarified that there were in fact two private streets in this development; the main private street would be built to city public street standards and the small private street in Tract D serving 8 units would be built to city private street standards. He reviewed the location of the two streets on the map. i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 8 - i Councilor Scheckla asked what would happen if the Homeowners Association were dissolved. Ms. Beery said that the applicant could most appropriately answer that question, since the answer depended on how they structured the document. She said that she did not advocate the City getting into the regular business of enforcing CC&RS; the cost and policy issues required more discussion. Ms. Beery suggested conditioning the development in a limited situation like this by requiring a review of the CC&RS by the City Attorney's office to insure that Council's concerns were addressed. If the CC&RS weren't acceptable, then the development would not move forward. She said that she wanted more direction from council on the issues of concern to them. Mayor Nicoli suggested that staff and the applicant work together on j} appropriate documents and return to Council. Ms. Beery stated that the applicant would have to waive the 120 day rule which was up for this application on November 5. 1 Mr. Cox stated for the record that the Tigard Code already allowed private streets and that the applicant had the right to rely on the x' Code. He said that while they were willing to help the Council work through this issue, he did not want to waive the right to rely on the Code as written. Mr. Cox commented that the way some of the Council questions were formulated, it sounded as if they were making a legislative decision that would affect subdivisions in the future. He questioned making large legislative changes within the context of a quasijudicial hearing. He said that his client came in a good faith effort to answer questions about private streets not to throw his application into a debate about approving it with private streets. Mayor Nicoli asked Ms. Beery for her opinion on Mr. Cox's comments. Ms. Beery said that Mr. Cox was correct to a point. She noted the discussion on Page 26 of the staff report which indicated a limitation on the number of lots allowed on a private street, suggesting that Council ask staff about that. Mr. Bewersdorff said that the City allowed private street development with six units; the applicant was using the planned development process to allow them the flexibility to add more than j six units. He said that it was up to the judgment of the Council , whether or not to allow more than six units on this private street. Mayor Nicoli noted that this was a request for 24 units on private streets. i Ms. Beery said that the factor that weighed in the Council's consideration was whether or not it was an appropriate situation to use a private street. She said that the applicant had a right to build six units on a private street. - i. Ms. Beery said that another factor in considering this request was the fact that they were building the street to city standards. She i said that while she concurred with Mr. Cox's concern about setting policy in the context of a single hearing, she didn't hear that happening here. She said that this was simply a review of the project, pointing out that any discussion of issues relating to the CC&Rs had nothing to do with this application, Ms. Beery noted for the record that other members of her law firm i have represented this developer in the past, although she has never I ' done so nor did she have knowledge about any of the other projects. However she said there was no problem if the City wanted a different firm to review the CC&Rs. Councilor Rohlf referenced Page 32 in the staff report in which staff indicated that they were uncertain about the drainage of Lots 15 through 22. He asked if there was a drainage plan for those areas. Mr. Ferris said that from an engineering standpoint, they had a couple of options on drainage; the preliminary plans indicated CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 9 . L~~ that they could serve and drain those lots by a deeper stormline { within the street itself. Councilor Rohlf expressed his surprise that staff recommended approval, given the four pages relating concerns about streets. Mr. Bewersdorff said that they had recognized the problems the topography caused in this situation, and had wanted to point out all the problems of private streets. He stated that this was a dead-end street with minimal traffic. He said that the Planning Commission found it acceptable to use private streets in this particular circumstance, and that staff did not disagree with that, given the topography, her conditions, and compliance with public street standards. In response to questions from Councilor Rohlf, Mr. Bewersdorff said that there were a considerable number of private streets in the City serving six units, with a few private streets serving a higher { number of units. Councilor Scheckla asked if the police patrolled private streets. Mr. Monahan said they did not patrol the streets but would come in if called. Ms. Beery confirmed Councilor Scheckla's comment that a private street meant no public access, not even pedestrian. Mayor Nicoli suggested that Councilors make a position statement prior to closing the public hearing. Ms. Beery cautioned that if new evidence was mentioned, the applicant would have the right of rebuttal. ` Mayor Nicoli said that he did not have a problem with the proposal as long as the issues of concern to the Council were addressed properly. He said that he thought they could have private streets i here if additional documentation were attached. Councilor Hunt asked if they could deny the project because the applicant was putting more than six homes on a private street. Ms. Beery said yes. Councilor Rohlf concurred with the Mayor, stating that he was more concerned with a situation like Benchview surprising homeowners. Councilor Rohlf stated that he was fundamentally opposed to the concept of private streets. He said that he was not sure that it would be a problem for the community to restrict private streets. He questioned whether there was community support for infill j development. He suggested wording the CC&RS in such a way that people would not miss that they were responsible for the maintenance of the road. Councilor Moore commented that they would have private streets until such time as the Code was changed. He said that he thought this was an appropriate situation for private streets. He said that he would uphold the Planning Commission decision. i Councilor Moore said the City should recommend that the developer do the best job possible to make sure homeowners were aware of what they were buying into. While he did not object to a City review of the CC&R's, he said he did not think that was the City's role. Councilor Scheckla expressed concern at the liability that might come back to the City if something happened on a private street, such as erosion, flooding, etc. She stated that she did not think this subdivision was any more liable to produce problems for the i City than any other subdivision. Mayor Nicoli suggested (prior to selling any lots) putting up a sign at the entrance to the private street stating that it was a private street beyond this point. Councilor Hunt commented that they would not be able to enforce such a sign. Councilor Rohlf suggested a Council workshop with staff to discuss the issue of private streets and to review the Code. Eventually, CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 10 L~ IU I the Council could decide the question legislatively at a public ~y hearing. j Mr. Cox pointed out that the staff report on Page 27 stated that private streets serving more than six lots were allowed in planned developments. He said that he was hearing the suggestion that anything over six lots was something new when in fact they were allowed. He said that he did not think a sign at the entrance would be a positive selling point from a realtor's point of view. Mr. Cox said that his client would do what was necessary to inform people. He noted that some mandated consumer laws worked while others did not. He said that they were willing to cooperate with ~ staff and submit a set of proposed Homeowners Association documents for review prior to the building permit approval. Councilor Hunt commented that the Homeowners Association documents didn't really mean anything because the homeowners could change them with a majority vote. Mr. Cox said that the state statutes did allow that; although he did not know if the Association could do away with a street fund. The Association's membership could adjust " the amount paid monthly to the fund by each homeowner. Mayor Nicoli asked if the agreement could say that the fund could not fall below a certain dollar amount over the life of the property in order to maintain certain items. Mr. Cox said that the Association standards he wrote stated clearly that the Association could not dissolve or do away with the street maintenance fund unless approved by the City. i j Councilor Hunt noted agreement with Councilor Moore's position to ' avoid City responsibility to enforce CC&RS. Mayor Nicoli commented that other subdivisions promised to take care of the City's concerns through their CC&RS, but then wrote the CC&RS - so poorly that the Association had no way to enforce its own CC&Rs, leaving the City to take them to circuit court to resolve problems. He said that if they were going to allow developers to use CC&RS, then they needed to make sure they were written so that the City would have some ability to enforce areas of concern. I, I Councilor Rohlf said that he did not favor that as he thought it led to accountability of the City for those private streets. Councilor Rohlf asked staff if they stood by their recommendation to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation without any changes to the CC&RS. Mr. Bewersdorff said that they could change Condition #S if the Council wanted to put "more teeth" into the CC&RS. e. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. f. Council Consideration Motion by Councilor Moore to adopt Exhibit A. There was no second. Councilor Rohlf asked if the applicant would be willing to adjust the CC&RS about notice to the purchasing public both now and in the future. He mentioned Mr. Cox's suggestion to put a notification in - the CC&R document in bold, extra-large print. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt i Resolution No. 96-68, with the modification to give notice in the CC&Rs to buyers with no obligation on the City's part. The City Recorder read the number and title of Resolution No. 96-68 - RESOLUTION NO. 96-68, A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION (SUB 96-04) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-02, VARIANCE 96-06 AND SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW 96-02. " - v CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 11 ' , Ms. Beery asked if the Council wanted a modification to Condition I No. 5 adding language that the property owners be clearly notified in bold print in the CC&Rs of the ownership and maintenance responsibility of the private street. Mr. Monahan noted the language in Section 5 that addressed that issue already including submitting copies to the City Engineering Department and the City Attorney. The Council indicated that they wanted the City Attorney excluded. Motion was approved by 4-1 voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes"; Councilor - Hunt voted "no.") 5. PUBLIC HEARING - (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY STREET VACATION SW TORLAND COURT - Request for a vacation of approximately 4,431 square feet of public right-of-way located on SW Torland Court, also together with an 8-foot wide utility easement along the south boundary of Lot 3 and the north boundary of Lot 4, reserving an 8-foot wide easement along the east boundary of the area being vacated. a. Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges: None C. Staff Report Mr. Bewersdorff presented the staff report. He reviewed the specifics of this request to vacate a public right-of-way utility easement that was originally dedicated to allow the extension and connection of future streets . He said that Mr. Kinnon partitioned his property prior to the platting of Torland Estates; he now wanted to repartition Lot 6200 to allow development. Mr. Bewersdorff said that developing the lot required the street vacation. He said that because of surrounding development and street connections, staff did not think it necessary to keep Torland Court. He said that Mr. Kinnon would provide easements along the western edge of the right of way to handle the utilities. d. Public Testimony: None ! f e. Staff Recommendation Mr. Bewersdorff recommended approval. f. Council Questions t Councilor Moore asked if Tract 1 would become part of Lot 3 and Tract 2 part of Lot 4. Mr. Bewersdorff said yes. Councilor Rohlf asked if the City paid for the property when it was acquired. Mr. Bewersdorff said that it was dedicated as part of the subdivision. I g. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. h. Council Consideration Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-27. . The City Recorder read the number and title of Ordinance No. 96-37. ORDINANCE NO. 96-37, AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE VACATION OF APPROXIMATELY 4, 431 SQUARE FEET OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ON SW TORLAND COURT ALSO TOGETHER WITH AN 8 FOOT WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT - ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF LOT 3 AND THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF LOT 4 IN - - THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON. Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoll, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 12 J E , I 7. PUBLIC HEARING - (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96- ! 0006/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96-001 DR. GENE DAVIS/FOREIGN MISSION - REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900, Map 1S1 36AC, located southeast of Oak Street, east of SW 95th, from Low Density Residential to Commercial Professional and a Zone - Change from R 4.5 to CP. . Location: Southeast of SW Oak Street, north of Highway 217. - Applicable Review Criteria: Comprehensive Plan polices 1.12(2), 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1 and 12.2.3; Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12. " Zone: R-4.5 (Single family residential) allows single-family detached units, manufactured homes, farming, family day care and conditional uses such as single-family attached units, duplex units, religious assembly and schools. C-P (Professional/Administrative office) allows for business support services, communication services, medical and dental services, 4 personal services, convenience sales and services and limited eating and drinking establishments. a. Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges: None _ c. Staff Report ' Laurie Nicholson, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. JI She reviewed the specifics of the request for a plan amendment to rezone the property under consideration from R-4.5 to CP in order to I construct a 6,000 square-foot restaurant. In addition, the applicant requested a plan amendment to reorient the hotel already approved on the adjacent property. She reviewed the location of the parcel on a map. Ms. Nicholson noted that both ODOT and Washington County recommended denial of the request due to traffic impacts, although they both would support the request if the plan amendment were conditioned to I limit the number of trips allowed for the land use. She said that Metro supported the request because it was compatible with this area's designation in the 2040 plan as a regional transportation center. Ms. Nicholson mentioned that the Washington Square developer, Windmar Pacific, recommended denial based on negative traffic impacts. Pat Whiting submitted two letters recommending denial on the traffic and wetlands issues. Ms. Nicholson said that staff did not believe that the land use was appropriate for the site. The City has supported the 2040 designation of this area as a regional center with the recommended mix of office, high density residential, and commercial uses. She commented that the City was not required to comply with the Metro plan at this time. Ms. Nicholson explained that staff believed that transportation was the main concern for this application. She noted that the primary facility that would be impacted was Greenburg Road which was under County jurisdiction. The County recommended denial if the land use ! was not limited. She stated that traditionally the City has not conditioned a plan amendment, pointing out that it added another layer of enforcement which currently the staff did not do. The City Attorney's office recommended against such a condition because of the enforcement issues. Ms. Nicholson said that the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan was to V provide guidelines for land use, not to address specific design issues, which were typically addressed during the site design review, application. She said that staff did not think it was good policy CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 13 ~ II to place trip conditions on a plan amendment. She stated that staff and the Planning Commission both recommended denial. d. Public Testimony APPLICANT - Dave Seagall, W & H Pacific, 8405 SW Nimbus, Beaverton, representing the applicant Dr. Gene Davis, gave an overview of their presentation. He said the roadway and parking for the proposed hotel would be provided for on the adjacent property. j Mr. Seagall stated that when a proposed land use action met all the specific criteria for approval, then approval should be granted. He said that staff indicated that the proposal met all the criteria for a proposed land zone change except for the transportation impact. He said that they intended to present evidence demonstrating that the proposal met the transportation test and should be approved. He stated that they would also provide a demonstration of good will to address the concerns regarding development with high intensity uses. Laura Jensen, W & H Pacific, 8405 SW Nimbus, Beaverton, reviewed on overhead graphics the location of the 4.5 acre parcel. She said that they were requesting rotation of the already approved hotel for aesthetic reasons and development of the adjacent parcel as a restaurant with possible other commercial uses to support the hotel (such as dry cleaners, coffee outlet). She stated that the site had no wetlands on it. She described the access road to the hotel. I Ms. Jensen stated that the current zoning of low density residential was not an appropriate use of the land The commercial band along the freeway made the residential area into an island. She said that the commercial property adjacent to the highway would probably not develop without the proposed road through this parcel, which provided the primary access. without rezone approval, the road would not be built and the properties would not develop. She said that residential use did not make economic sense and that neither hotel owners nor the neighbors wanted hotel patrons traveling through a single-family residential neighborhood. Ms. Jensen reiterated that the City of Tigard allowed zone changes i. if the criteria were met and that staff acknowledged in their report f j and testimony before the Planning Commission that this proposal met 1i1 all the applicable criteria with the exception of the traffic criteria. Ms. Jensen reviewed the history of the property. She said that the property was zoned residential upon annexation to the City to match the County's zoning, similar to the properties on which Lincoln Center and the Unisys building were located (these were rezoned to allow commercial development). She mentioned the City's attempt in 1990 to designate this area for redevelopment as the "President's Parkway," a ballot issue which failed, causing the rezoning to j commercial to revert to the original zoning of residential. Ms. Jensen said that there have been neighborhood meetings over the past couple of years to discuss several proposals for the larger area (including other properties owned by the applicant and by others). All the proposals except one fell through; last year Dr. Davis got approval to build a hotel on the site. However, in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing hotel and to meet the requirements, they wanted to rotate the hotel. This would cause a small amount of the entry area to fall on the subject parcel. She said that as part of this proposal, Dr. Davis was committed to j extending Lincoln Street as the access road on the subject property. Ms. Jensen explained that while the parcel was 4.5 acres, when they took out the land for roadway, parking, and right of way, they were left with only 2 to 2.5 acres. She said that the scenario on which the traffic study was based was the worst-case scenario for the entire 4.5 acres. The intensity of development and amount of traffic CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 14 1 $ i , I _ generated would be significantly less when the acreage was reduced by the road and parking. Ms. Jensen stated that there was a commitment to develop the adjacent CP site as a hotel. One of the conditions of approval for that development was the extension of Lincoln Street into the site for access. This commitment restricted the amount of developable land in the 4.5 acre parcel and would eliminate any sort of large office type development. Ms. Jensen stated that the request met the siting criteria for the I CP zone as defined in the city's Code and the changes in land use proposed under Metro's 2040 framework. She said that it did not impact the City's housing balance. She stated that the only issue that could be considered as a basis for denial was transportation, specifically on Greenburg Road. Ms. Jensen said that because Greenburg Road was a Washington County ' road, the comments from the Washington County staff were treated with relevance, as were ODOT's because Hall Blvd was an ODOT facility. She said that traffic would reroute to Locust and Hall because of the traffic signal at that intersection; ODOT staff found this acceptable. She noted that ODOT also suggested approval of a condition to limit traffic generated by the site, though they did not mention whether to condition the land use or to condition the traffic generation. Hahn Lee, Parametrics, 7820 S8 Holman, Suite 86, Portland, the applicant's traffic consultant, addressed traffic analysis methodology and the results of the traffic analysis. He reviewed k the two types of traffic analysis methodology used by Washington County, a general planning level analysis and an operational level ( analysis. He explained that the County used the general planning level analysis because a rezone request went to the long-range planning staff, not to the transportation staff. Mr. Lee said that the general planning level analysis resulted only in preliminary and general conclusions and was not applicable in this case because it did not address the complex traffic issues on Greenburg Road. He said that the County transportation staff would have used the same operational analysis that Parametrics used at the request of the City of Tigard staff. Mr. Lee reviewed the conclusions of the operational analysis. The proposal met the Washington County level of service D requirement along Greenburg Road. A comparison between the level of service between the existing and proposed zoning alternatives showed only a 1-2 second difference in the average intersection delay (which was considered insignificant). Traffic added by the rezone alternatives would equal less than one car per minute per lane (also considered insignificant). The proposed extension of Lincoln Street would significantly improve local traffic circulation but would not occur without a rezone. The results of the traffic analysis were j consistent with the Hall/Greenburg/Scholls Ferry Traffic Needs Study conducted for the City of Tigard by Parametrics in 1993. Mr. Lee stated that Parametrics used the appropriate analysis approach to determine the impact. He reiterated that they met the level of service standard test, that there were no significant differences between existing and proposed zoning alternatives and that the study results were consistent with the regional study conducted in 1993 (which resulted in the Greenburg Road improvement i project expected to accommodate traffic at level of service D to the year 2010). i Ms. Jensen stated that the request deserved approval, pointing out that they used the traffic analysis method requested by the City and they have demonstrated that they met the level of service standard. Mr. Seagall discussed the conditioning of the zone change with a v limitation on either the type of development or on the trips CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 15 1 J - i 1 ' generated by future development. He said that this was a common practice with most communities of any size in Oregon. He said that 7 they were not talking about conditioning a plan amendment but conditioning the zone change that would occur concurrently with the plan amendment if approved. Mr. Seagall cited Section 18.32.250 of the Tigard Development Code which allowed the City to attach conditions to a zone change if it wished to do so. He noted that initially staff had been favorable towards their proposal but grew concerned for the potential traffic impact because of the Washington County letter. He said that they met with staff to try to find a way to deal with the situation, possibly placing a limitation on use. Mr. Seagall stated that staff indicated concerns with tracking conditions of approval and, therefore, declined to recommend approval. He noted that many communities routinely conditioned the ( zone change accompanying a plan amendment change, citing his experience as the Development Services Manager for the City of Salem. He said that tracking such conditions could be done in a manner that was not onerous. Mr. Seagall noted the Planning Commission's discussion of approving the request with a condition on the future development of the 4.5 acres. The Planning Commission attempted to develop appropriate language that at the hearing. When their attempt failed, they denied the request. Mr. Seagall reiterated that the property would serve as the access road and parking for an adjacent development already approved by the IJ City. He said that according to the staff report, they met the criteria for a plan and zone change and that they have demonstrated that they meet the City's standards for traffic impact. He noted their willingness to work with staff to alleviate concerns regarding the intensity of uses on the property (which was only 2.5 acres ' after taking away for parking, roadway and right of way) Mayor Nicoli asked if there was a good map showing exactly where the parcel was located. Ms. Nicholson reviewed the map. Councilor Scheckla stated that he looked at the property and noticed wetlands and wildlife. He asked why that wasn't acknowledged. Ms. Jensen cxplained that about a year ago a wetlands scientist, DSL, and the Army Corps of Engineers identified all the wetlands in that vicinity; this parcel was not in the area below the old railroad right of way which was where all the wetlands were located. Councilor Scheckla asked if putting in pavement wouldn't affect the wetlands runoff. Ms. Jensen said that all conditions with respect to wetlands would be dealt with during the site design approval. Mr. Seagall stated that there were no wetlands identified on the 4.5 acres under consideration tonight. He said that, should this be approved, they would have to go through a rigorous development review process during which any wetlands issues would be resolved before the development could be approved. Councilor Scheckla said that he realized that but thought that there would be an impact and problems. Councilor Scheckla noted concerns about the findings of the traffic study. He asked who should the Council believe: ODOT and the County or the applicant's hired consultant? Mr. Seagall asked staff to explain the development review process the applicant would have to go through. Mr. Bewersdorff said that Mr. Seagall was correct in stating that there were no wetlands on the property. He noted that there was a creek running at the very southern portion of the area but that he didn't know if this property was part of the creek. He stated that those issues would be dealt with during development review. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 16 1 s Mr. Seagall reiterated that the wetlands issue would be dealt with to the City's satisfaction during development review or the development would not proceed. PROPONENTS: Ed Dunden, commercial real estate broker specializing in the hotel industry, stated that Dr. Davis has had a long term goal of attracting an upscale hotel to his property; he has been working with him recently to accomplish this goal. He said that he has been asked to comment on the suitability of the site for a hotel. Mr. Dunden said that the developer currently interested in ! developing a hotel on this property intended to build a hotel of the quality of a Suites hotel or Residence Inn. He said that without - the zone change, it would be impossible to site the hotel { appropriately on the land currently zoned for the hotel. He said that the current site plan proposed by the developer included land over to the proposed Lincoln Street extension. He commented that the extension would encourage better traffic flow in the area. Joel Adamson, 4485 NW Wallowa, Portland, stated that he owned property on Oak Street that was part of this proposal. He referred to the Trammel Crow proposal for the President's Parkway development which was had been opposed by many at the time. He said that those same people now admitted that the area would inevitably be ! developed. He cited as an example one man who moved out of the area I{ because he could see that the residential quality of life would continue to decline. He said that he would like to see the area developed. I OPPONENTS Jacqueline Smith, 8935 SW Oak Street, a 27-year resident, stated that she thought that the citizens needed to look at this area as a resource. A plan for the area should be developed based on what has already transpired, rather than changing the zoning one parcel at a time. The plan should include consideration of wetlands, traffic and schools. The school in the area would be isolated by this proposal. i Cliff Epler, 8845 SW Spruce Street, said that he opposed the proposal because the land use was not appropriate for the site. He said that, based on ODOT and Washington County's comments, the City should look at this area in the overall spectrum. He mentioned the President's Parkway urban renewal attempt and noted that 82% of the people voted against the President's Parkway because of the projected 12,000 cars a day. He contended that the road extension was a small street, not like Hall or Greenburg, and that vehicles servicing the hotel would go down the street next to the school and turn around. j Mr. Epler said that if there were no wetlands in that area, then ' someone has filled them in because Ash Creek ran right through the middle. He stated that there was a flood plain there also. A plan for the area was needed to deal with the water and traffic problems. He said part of the area was unbuildable because it was a wetland. Mr. Epler said that there was no access from the street except to Hall or Greenburg which was a serious problem that the City needed to consider. He stated that an offramp from 217 in this project would alleviate a lot o problems but that Mr. Davis would not give ! up the land for an exit at the new street because it would not be economically viable for him. Councilor Hunt asked if the floodplain had flooded last winter. Mr. Epler noted the improvements to Hall and Greenburg with new culverts to take the water, and the fast moving water running down to Ash Creek, which was a channel through the land. He said that the land I should have flooded last winter but it did not. The 100- year flood I ~J plain did not have a chance to do its job. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 17 i Pat Whiting, 8122 SW Spruce Street, CPO #4N representative, referred - to the written testimony submitted by the CPO. She noted the importance of the wetland and floodplain area in this vicinity. She reported that the Tigard City Hearings Officer in the early 1990s said that a study of the area was needed. Ms. Whiting pointed out a map that was attached to their written testimony (produced by Carl Hasche, Tigard architect working in cooperation with USA) looking at the area as a potential site for bioswales and storm water containment to deal with the water which was a major issue. She contended that USA's interest precluded a zone change at this time and suggested talking to USA. Ms. Whiting expressed the CPO's concerns about the elementary school ■ located within a block of this property with children walking and biking. She contended that the traffic impacts would not be limited to Greenburg Road but would affect the entire Metzger and east Tigard community. She commented on the increased commercial traffic spilling onto commercial streets because of the nearby Washington Square and Lincoln Center developments. Ms. Whiting concurred with ODOT's recommendation for a major transportation analysis of this area. She also noted concern with flooding in the area. Ms. Whiting said that she did not agree with Metro's interpretation, as she did not think that they even looked at the area. She pointed out that this property was at the bottom of the Fanno Creek watershed. She objected to "piecmeal" commercial development. i She said she agreed with the Planning Department, the Planning j Commission that this amendment be denied. She said that the CPO requested that it be refused. Mayor Nicoli asked if Ms. Whiting truly thought that someone would put residential on this R-4.5 parcel adjacent to the existing uses. Ms. Whiting said that she could not answer that question, commenting that the parcel was adjacent to a wetland with wildlife, and that there was a need to use the area for water retention. - , 'mayor Nicoli commented that the water issue was irrelevant to the _ discussion this evening. He said that the question was "what is the best use of the land?" He said that the development review process " would stop the application if there were wetland or water problems. Ms. Whiting said that, from an economic g perspective on the issue of the best and highest use of the land, a commercial designation might be the way to go, but not from a neighborhood perspective. She said that, given the area, the road situation, the traffic needs, the close proximity of the school and the existing residents in the area, she wuld not want to see the parcel converted to commercial at this timoe. She commented that it would not be financially feasible to put in R-4.5 housing, she mentioned that in the past the applicant supported the land reverting back to residential from the commercial designation it had for the President's Parkway. Mayor Nicoli commented that the Council had to look at what was best for the community. He reiterated that he would not want to see residential built there because they would have even more problems. He stated that he was not saying that the proposed development was right, but that he did not think that the current zoning was appropriate. Ms. Whiting commented that the people on the perimeter of the area wanted to live here and that others were interested in living close to a natural setting; perhaps, someone might be interested in this as a residential area. Todd Kingsley, 8840 SW Spruce, stated that he lived in the home to the east of the property. He said that the proposal for the traffic CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 18 loading has been changed since the Planning Commission meeting two .y weeks ago from a level F to a level D. He commented that there has 7 been no discussion for improvements to Oak Street or a method to force traffic to stay in the main traffic zone. He contended that hotel patrons would take Oak when the other roadways were busy but that nothing has been proposed to improve Oak to a level where it could support that traffic. Mr. Kingsley noted the present plan allowed motorists to drive by either side of the Metzger school if Greenburg was busy. He spoke for accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the application until the City had an understanding of what would happen on the roadways once the area was fully developed. Jane Kingsley, 8840 SW Spruce, referred to a letter she signed in opposition to this proposal. She commented on the amount of traffic already on Hall; the hotel would further impact Hall Blvd. She commented on the inadequate parking at Metzger School; parents were parking in the street to pick up their children. This applicant has not addressed this issue. She concurred with her husband that the applicant had not addressed the impact to Oak Street. Mrs. Kingsley said the hotel would add to the water runoff problem and impact the floodplain. She stated that Mr. Davis has dumped debris and garbage into the wetlands on a daily basis. Mrs. Kingsley noted that the Planning commission denied this zone change two weeks ago and asked if another notice was sent out on I( this hearing tonight. She said that no one knew of this hearing until notification by Ms. Pat Whiting yesterday. She asked why those who lived so close to the proposed development were not notified and asked to be notified in order to participate in development close to their neighborhood. Mr. Monahan noted for the record the five identical letters signed by five different people was received by staff while the Council was in Executive Session. These letters will be entered into the record. Laurie Pickering, 14447 Tewkesbury, commented that the biggest issue i at the Planning Commission meeting was the inability to enforce a deed restriction on a zone change. She stated that she was opposed to a zone change with a deed restriction because of the applicant's past performance and the traffic impacts on the surrounding area. She said that site development plans should be submitted first; a zone change was simply a stepping stone for development. She noted the features of the area, including a pond, homes, a school, and the Washington Square shopping center. Andrew Jordan, attorney for the applicant, objected to Mr. Pickering's standing in the case. j Ms. Beery stated that Tigard had no code limitations that provided that a person living a certain distance from a particular application was not allowed to speak. She said that while Mr. Jordan's objection was noted, there was no basis for disallowing Mr. Pickering's testimony. Curtis Pickering, 1447 Tewkesbury, stated that Mr. Davis was asking for a zone change on 4.5 acres because he couldn't fit a hotel on the acreage that he had available to him with access off 98th i Street. He said that he did not think it was appropriate to use that reason to expand the zoning. He said the whole picture should be looked at and concurred with the Mayor that this parcel would be developed into commercial. A commercial development would impact a much larger area than a 250-foot radius especially when considered as part of the 2040 plan. He commented that this was the first stage of multiple development. Mr. Pickering noted the recommendation in Mr. Lee's traffic study that there would be little impact because of the street being opened CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 19 _77r7l ~1 1 up. He stated that Mr. Davis did not own the property where that A street was located and could not insure that opening up the street would be part of the development. Mr. Pickering pointed out that the subject property was surrounded on three sides by residential. He referred to past City policy to not approve a commercial rezone request when the property is surrounded on three sides by residential. He cautioned about precedent-setting if this request was approved. He also commented that a traffic study's conclusions should be based on site-specific plans. Mr. Pickering stated that there were wetlands on the property and referred to a map and pointed out the location of these wetlands. He said that increasing the zoning to a higher density would automatically impact the wetlands. Mr. Pickering stated that Mr. Davis had a history of not honoring deed restrictions, citing a deed restriction on the property to not allow cattle to graze. He commented that there was no means to enforce the deed restriction. Mr. Pickering stated that Mr. Davis could develop the hotel where it was. He said that Mr. Davis elected not to buy the other piece of property. Mayor Nicoli commented that, in looking at the whole area of Washington Square, Lincoln Center, and the neighborhood, he saw that there was a problem. He noted the Metro designation of the area as a reVional transportation center (which meant first priority in funding). He noted the features of the area and asked what was the best solution to transition between a commercial area and an established single family neighborhood. Mr. Pickering commented that there has been a lot of work in trying to find a solution. He noted that the traffic study showed Level F ~l on both Hall and Greenburg on almost any day, and with the Christmas shopping season just around the corner, they would have hours of Level F. He said that any impact right now was a negative impact. He stated that he did not think that ODOT or Washington County clearly understood that when they were asked the question because part of the assumption was that the applicant would open up Lincoln i Street and create a larger traffic circulation. i Mr. Pickering spoke to looking at the area as a whole for development. If developed piecemeal, a tremendous hazard would be I created on Hall Boulevard. He said that all of Oak Street from Hall to Greenburg needed to be reviewed. He suggested that either the applicant get together with the neighbors to find a plan or the City take a stance for a plan. He said that doing this piecemeal did not provide adequate infrastructure to support such development and would set a precedent. Mr. Pickering said that another precedent would be set in approving a commercial zone on property surrounded on three sides by residential. He cited the denial of a zone change on Scholls Ferry because the parcel was surrounded on two sides by residential. John Blomgren stated that he was on the original Planning Committee for Metzger which laid out a plan for the area showing commercial, residential, parking, etc.; this plan was approved by the County. He said that plan showed commercial only to 93rd Street out of a i concern to protect the school children and the wetlands. He said that the area was a wetlands and that it flooded, referring to pictures he has taken over the past 25 years as proof. He noted the 100 year flood plain that flooded every year. He asked where all the water would go if development came in. He said that Mr. Davis filled in a pond, which was an illegal action no one has done l anything about. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 20 ~ G G j Mr. Blomgren reiterated that commercial development should not go east of 93rd because of the children. He cited his observations from his house on the corner of increasing traffic in the area since Washington Square was built. He said that adding traffic would create congestion at Oak and 87th, a few feet from Hall Blvd where a light was supposed to go in. Mr. Blomgren commented that he fed the birds daily in the wetland and that parents brought their children to participate. He said that development should occur on the drylands and that the wetlands should be left as they were. He suggested that the City buy the land and make it a park. II REBUTTAL I Andrew Jordan. 1600 SW Cedar Hills Blvd, Portland, representing the III applicant, stated that the applicant could not provide a master plan I for the entire area. He said that some master planning for the area has already been done and cited the Hall/Greenburg/SCholls Ferry Traffic Needs Study done for the City of Tigard by Parametrics. He said that this study concluded that there would be no impact on Hall from this development. He noted that the traffic study done by the applicant demonstrated that the traffic impact was toward Greenburg I. Road, not toward residential development. Mr. Jordan contended that this was not piecemeal planning, even though they were focusing on only four acres tonight. He said that tr: " this was the only piece of property owned by Dr. Davis that was not zoned commercial. Pending approval of the commercial zoning, this property would be included in the planning for the large commercial area. Mr. Jordan stated that both the applicant and his consultant believed that this parcel could not be developed as residential. He noted the trend in the area of buying up houses by developers for commercial development. He said that developing a street to serve this area as residential was economically unfeasible. He stated that the best use of this area was commercial. Mr. Jordan stated that the property did not flood last year according to Dr. Davis. No wetlands were identified on the parcel. E r i He stated that these matters were development review issues that would be dealt with at a later time. He said that other development review issues included whether or not Oak Street should be improved and the traffic issues. i Mr. Jordan noted that Dr. Davis donated 6-8 acres of land for wetland mitigation several years ago when he developed the southerly portion of the land. The wetlands were developed in accordance with state guidelines and were found satisfactory over the five year period of review. He noted the complaints about cattle in the area and the way the wetlands were treated, commenting that if the land j were developed, those issues would go away. Mr. Jordan stated that Mr. Pickering was associated with developers who owned the neighboring property and who were interested in keeping the value of Dr. Davis' property as low as possible in order to force him to sell. He said that those developers owned the property which prevented the street from going through. Dave Seagall reiterated that the question was "what is the best use of the property?" He noted that staff has indicated in their staff report that the current zoning was inappropriate and that the proposed zoning made a good deal of sense. He reviewed the two methods of addressing traffic impact: a planning level (as used by Washington County in considering long range planning) and a more rigorous test (which the City required the applicant to perform). He said that if Washington County had used the more rigorous test, as they commonly did, they would have reached the conclusion that the proposal did meet the traffic criteria for a plan amendment (level of service D). CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 21 J i IG j ~ Mr. Seagall noted that there were higher intensity uses allowed ^ within the CP zone than the applicant was proposing to develop. He 1 said that they were willing to work with staff to condition the amendment to restrict the uses allowed in the zone to the less intensive ones. He held that they have met all the applicable criteria and should be granted outright approval but they would work with staff on a conditioned zoned change. e. Council Questions Councilor Hunt noted his confusion regarding the road location because of the poor maps. Ms. Nicholson reviewed where the j extension would be located. Mr. Bewersdorff noted that the development approval for the hotel required the connection through to Lincoln Street. Councilor Hunt commented that he understood from Mr. Jordan that someone else owned the land where the road extension was to go. He noted that there was a problem if the other people bought the land in order to prevent the road extension that was a condition of development. Mr. Jordan noted the two parcels of land that would have to be obtained to allow development of the hotel. One parcel was owned by the School District. He reiterated that development of the street to serve the parcel was already a condition of approval for the development of the hotel. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Jordan said that the School District was willing to sell the property, and that he has not heard of a concern regarding safety from the school district. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Jordan said that he was not suggesting that the property owner of the other parcel was wrong, but that they had an interest in the testimony i they were giving. Mr. Pickering stated for the record that he was not representing the interests of the other property owners. He noted that Dr. Davis has j had many opportunities to buy that parcel and refused to do so. _ Councilor Moore asked what was the number of potential units that i could be built on the 4.5 acre parcel if it was developed under the current zoning. Ms. Nicholson said that there could be five houses per acre for a total of 20 units. f Councilor Scheckla asked why this land wasn't included for one of t the areas considered for purchase by the City for a park. Mr. Monahan said that in the Greenspaces program, the City had accepted recommendations through the CIT process, and that apparently no one recommended this parcel for purchase. Mayor Nicoli asked Councilor Scheckla to clarify for the record whether or not he made a site visit. Councilor Scheckla stated that he did visit the site. Mayor Nicoli noted that Metro money could only be used to purchase property from a willing seller; the City could not condemn property with Metro money. Councilor Scheckla said that he had not been suggesting that. j Mayor Nicoli commented that the focus of the hearing was on the zone change issue. He stated that he has not yet heard anyone explain the relevance of the wetlands issue. Councilor Scheckla said that he also had concerns about the transportation element based on Washington County and ODOT's comments. - Councilor Moore asked how the amount of traffic to the site could be f controlled through a condition. Ms. Nicholson reported Scott King I of Washington County suggested to control the number of trips by the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 22 w square footage allowed for the development. She said that they ,.y looked at land use and the ITE manual to see how many trips the land use generated and then based the amount of square footage allowed on that formula. She said that the traffic study showed that the proposed development would have fewer trips than development under the existing zoning. f. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. g, Council Consideration. Mayor Nicoli said that the relevant testimony from both sides was correct. He said that he could see why the Planning Commission went - through the exercise they went through. He commented that they have identified a problem which must be dealt with: specifically the conflicts between a commercial development next to an established single family neighborhood. He said that he could go either way, although he did not like the options that came with either a "yes" vote or a "no" vote. Councilor Moore emphasized that regardless of the zoning of this parcel, there would be problems. He said that any kind of development would have to go a traffic analysis and design review. He said that he didn't have much faith in traffic reports because different people reached different conclusions. He commented that he drove in the area and was aware that traffic was an issue. Councilor Hunt said that he had mixed emotions on this also. He stated that while he saw the need to take care of the safety issues, he didn't see how this would develop as anything but commercial. He said that he was still debating which way to go, commenting that if j they denied it now, it might just come back later. i Councilor Rohlf expressed concern at the piecemeal nature of the planning efforts, noting the structure of the Comprehensive Plan which encouraged that. He said that he faulted the City for not looking at the big picture, particularly in reference to traffic. ; He commented that this area was already bad and that doing anything would simply make things worse, especially without stepping back for a good overview. Councilor Rohlf noted that staff clearly was not convinced that the application addressed the traffic situation. The applicant has indicated that there was a piece of property that would probably hold up the road from coming through; therefore, the applicant could not alleviate the traffic problems that way. He said he sympathized with the neighborhoods having to contend with cut-through traffic and potentially heavy vehicles servicing the hotel. He said that he was strongly leaning towards denial. Councilor Scheckla stated that he would vote against the application due to transportation and safety concerns. In response to a question from Mayor Nicoli, Ms. Nicholson stated that she did not think comprehensive plan amendment requests were subject to the 120 day rule. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to direct staff to return November 12, 1996 with a final order (Resolution a Final Order for denial of Applicant's request). Motion was approved by 3-0-2 voice vote of Council present. (Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes"; Mayor Nicoli and Councilor Hunt abstained.) 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: GOAL 5 WETLANDS - AMEND WORK PROGRAM BY REPLACING THE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL (ESEE) APPROACH WITH THE „SAFE HARBOR" PLANNING ALTERNATIVE AVAILABLE UNDER THE NEW GOAL 5 ADMINISTRATIVE RULES. ! - This item was postponed. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 23 _ E f 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at ' 12:18 a.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 15. ADJOURNMENT: 12:34 a.m. j /J (_C~.Gl~,J2•z.i-i~.e .~[.~%I~.PCC~-~L•'t~. Attes CTineTley, City Recor M r, City o Tigar Date: i } I CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1996 - PAGE 24 4 k COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 E C NOticip TT 8655 - BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 ir. r r I '~Ut{f r Legal Notice Advertising • City of Tigard • 11 Tearsheet Notice ITY Of ?IGAIZI 13125 SW Hall Blvd. a • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit y *Accounts Payable • t 1 {1 d AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, v COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. 1, Kathy Snyder r4r being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising o t'' Director, or his principal clerk, of theTigard-Tualatin Times " 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 City Council Business Meeting a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the Y entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: r1t•tnhar l7 19QF r Subscribed and sworn to ore me this17t day of October , OFFICIAL SEAL } ROBIN A. BURGESS + Notary P lic for Oregon t NOTAR LIC -OREGON COMM 024552 My Commission Expires: t!'t SIOt. Eu .RES MAY16,199: AFFIDAVIT i l E 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. C CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING October 22, 1996 TIGARD CITY HALL- TOWN HALL 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON Study Meeting (Red Rock Creek Room) (6:30 P.M.) • Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pend- ing litigation issues. • Agenda Review Business Meeting (Town Hall) (7:30 P.M.) Public Hearings: City Council review of the Hillshire Hollow Subdivision that was approved by the Planning Commission on September 9, 1996 (SUBDIVISION (SUB) 96-0004; PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 96-0005; VARIANCE (VAR) 96-0006; SENSI- TIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 96-0002 - A request to subdivide a 6.08 acre parcel into 24 lots. Location: 13011 S.W. Ascension. - The site is located on the west side of S.W. Ascension Drive, ap- proximately 650 feet south of S.W. Fern Street. Public Right of Way Street Vacation Hearing for a vacation of ap- proximately 4,431 square feet of public right-of-way located on S.W. Torland Court, also together, with an 8-foot wide utility ease- ment along the south boundary of Lot 3 and the north boundary of Lot 4, reserving an 8-foot wide easement along the east boundary of the area being vacated. i Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 96-0006/Zone Change (ZON) 96-0001 Dr. Gene Davis/Foreign Mission. REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Tax Lots located southeast of Oak Street, east of S.W. 95th, from Low Density Residential to Commercial Professional and a Zone Change from R-4.5 to CP. Location: Southeast of S.W. Oak Street, east of S.W. 95th, north of . Highway 217. Council Consideration: • Remove Greenburg Right-of-Way Acquisition (for future road widening) from the Capital Improvement Project List and Reallo- cate Funds to other projects. Consider a "safe harbor" approach to Goal 5 planning for wetlands. • Award Bid for Police Department Building Remodel. M655 - Publish October 17, 1996. i i I 1 - COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 8 6 5 2 BEAVERTON,PREGON 97075 Legal Notice A4 egIsjng i • City of Tigard •f heat Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. I~~E@ • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit ry E- •Accounts Payable • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' I, 1 Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that 1 am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of theTigard-Tualatin Times 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 i' subdivic~on 96-0004/Hillshire 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: f_ - October 10,1996 E r. Subscribed and savor before me this i n+ v of Ostobar. OR=iCIAL S- EAI ' - i r ROB"' A. P.'J:iGESS y? ? VOTAi -OREGON No Public for Oregon jai . 024552 ) My Commission Expires: s Wy 16,19V - AFFIDAVIT _ i - i t f -l The following will bz considered by the Tigard City Council on October 22, 1996, at 7:30 P.M., at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13123 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon, 97223. 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 any rules and procedures adopted by the Tigard City Council, or f rules of procedure set forth in Chapter 18.30. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the 4 close of the hearing accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to allow the Hearings authority and all the parties to respond on the request _ precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue, 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 is available at City Hall and may be obtained from the Community Development Director or City Recorder at the same location, or by calling (503) 639-4171. ; PUBLIC HEARING SUBDIVISION (SUB) 96.0004/ ! - "11 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 96.0005 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 96-0002 4 96-00061 > HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION ff City Council review of the following development a licalions that were approved eptember 9. 1996, by the Planning Comm ssion: A re- quest to subdivide a 6.08 acre parcel mt0 24 lots. Planned Development Review to reduce the minimum lot size below 5,000 square feet to mini- mize site development impacts. Variances to the maximum permitted i street length, a reduction of setbacks, and to the number of dwellings that 1 would access a cul-de-sac street. Sensitive Lands Review to develop por- tions of the site with slopes in excess of 25 percent and to perform land E form alterations to wetlands. LOCATION: 13011 S.W. Ascension Drive I (WCfM 2S1 041313, Tax Lot 2100). The site is located on the west side of i S.W. Ascension Drive, approximately 650 feet south of S.W. Fem Street. { ZONE: R-7 (PD). (Single-family residential, 5,000 square feet attached per unit). The purpose of the R-7 zoning district is to establish sites for at- tached and detached single-family residences. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.52, 18.80, 18.84, 18.88, 18.90, 18.92, 18.120, 18.134, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. i 178652 - Publish October 10, 1996. ~.J i i AM- i r l 77 i ` a1 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 Notice TT 8 6 4 5 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 E1: iV. Legal Notice Advertising r t' ly':'~ • City of Tigard 1 • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. iTY of OGANIt a Tigard,Oregon 97223' s ❑ Duplicate Affidavit i .Accounts Payable • • I AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) ' COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as' a 1 1, KAthy Snyder `Y S being first duly sworn, depose and sayy that I AT the Advertising TI ard-Tualatin Times a! Director, or his principal clerk, of the -4 I a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid county and ,,ate; that the I S Street Vacation Hearin4 a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for T470 successive and consecutive in the following issues: } October 3,10,1996 Subscribed and sworn o t afore me this 10 dGy of October, O= CIAL SEAL ~j ROBI,'' A. P.1:"GESS + NOTAi ; - OREGON ) ' Not Pub Ic for Oregon' 024552 MY ,lor: CSMAY16,1977 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT - _ i L NOTICE OF PUBLIC-RIGHT-OF-WAY STREET VACATION HEARING VACATION OF APPROXIMATELY 4,431 SQUARE FEET OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED ON SW TORLAND COURT, ALSO TOGETHER WITH AN 8-FOOT-WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF LOT 3 AND THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF LOT 4, RESERVING AN 8-FOOT-WIDE EASE- MENT ALONG THE EAST BOUNDARY OF THE AREA BEING VA- CATED. I The Tigard City Council will hold a public hearing on 7besday, October 22, 1996, at 7:30 P.M., at the Tigard City Hall, Town Hall Room, 13125 S. W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon, to consider the proposed vacation 1 of approximately 4,431 square feet of public right-of-way on S.W. Tor- land Court, also together with an 8-foot-wide utility easement along the I south boundary of lot 3 and the north boundary of lot 4, reserving an 8- i foot-wide easement along the east boundary of the area being vacated, e The request was initiated by the City Council on August 27, 1996. Any in- terested person may appear and be heard for or against the proposed vaca- tion of said public right-of-way vacation. Any written objections or remonstrances shall be filed with the City Recorder by October 22, 1996, by 7:30 P.M. 1 9 I; r I I e ,~s I f 1----_-_-~ - 1 1 I I I 1 Iz ~ ' ~ 1 t 1 ~ I 1 C I ~ t r t 3 4°°r»rr , ' .r 1 Ie•+~nutt c . is i•.s i R . tr).°a•I (f ~ US[L[ni C s _+.I l' 1 ~ • S_3S']Sf a ~ _a.al• c . s.aa• F I Ca . Ralla'•S-~ C . 4)a' t . c ° Maa• ! EECETTO -tnaT i t 1 ` i6CV[ T ~ 1 C S.If• i . ~ECEE I 1 t • 1 1 I ca = . ssra•lsc i ~ 1 1 IUnD SURVEY- RCS+S)Clj) 1 / R[S:SVC I I PROGESSV1- 1 L' a' uiRltt I i V() =R G S:VCVf NDi=c: t I I - ~ ^i _ CJMfa'~i`l Sa.'•»C$I 1 t yrr->~ . ! a-__ v+,;+tLD taT a I -tOSUna CST+iCr I ; CEDMARD I) R). t I~ I TT8645 - Publish October 3, 10, 1996. i l~ j i COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 P)'i(FJtf `Sd3j 66460 Notice TT 8 6 5 0 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 ` r~^ G 1996 Legal Notice Advertising (-Ty OF 11GARD" • City of Tigard • ❑ ~earsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. I j • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit 1. •Accounts Payable • I AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION f STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, as. I, Kathy Snyder tcn being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the Ti gard-Tina 1 at~Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 - and 193.020; published at Ti garA in the t. tiJ aforesaid county and state•thatthe i' Comprehensive Phan Amendment-96-0006 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: October 10,1996 I Subscribed and :Tt afore me this ob CC~~ OFFICIAL SEAL ROCS"' A. BURGESS j Nota ublic for OregonNOTAf' : - OREGON OW,, 024552 My Commission Expires: ;Rn LS MAY16.1997 . ._......m,. ,~.a.~.. - AFFIDAVIT % The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on October q2_1 996 , at 7:30 P.M., al the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 S.W. Ha11 Boulevard, 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, 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 re- quest or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decisionmaker 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 AppPeals based on that issue. Further information may be obtained from the lanning Division at 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling (503) 639-4171. PUBLIC HEARINGS: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0006/ ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96.0001 DR. GENE DAVISIFOREIGN MISSION REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900, Map IS1 35AC, located southeast of Oak Street, cast of S.W. 95th, from Low Density Residential to Commercial Profes- sional and a Zone Change from R-4.5 to CP. LOCATION: Southeast of S.W. Oak Street, east of S.W. 95th, north of Highway 217. AP- PLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 1.12(2), 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1 and 12.2.3; Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 . ti Division 12. ZONE: R-4.5 (Single-Family Residential) allows single- family detached units, manufactured homes, farming, family day care and _ conditional uses such as single-family attached units, duplex units, religious assembly and schools. 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. COW ~ I I 1 ' ~m ST Lie'/ I 1 1 t I TT8650 -Publish October 20, 1996. i i r i I C1TY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed f STATE OF OREGON ) i County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose anay: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number (s) - 3 which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated 1 b as copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the _ 1 a~ day of 13 Iby P 'a )jr , 19 Q~ - I 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon I 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 -N ~ day of IIANO b;-L~' - , 19 I OFfICIALSEAL Not Public for Oregon CONNIE MARTIN ~3' I NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSIONNO.OS5532 CCI )!l~/`~ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 07. 2000 My Commission Expires: L1~1.~ L~~ J qqq . - ~ J L•1admVoWTpmidoe dd . s _ _ - - _ . l ~ . CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 96-3--7 AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE VACATION OF APPROXIMATELY 4,431 SQUARE FEET OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ON SOUTHWEST TORLAND COURT, ALSO TOGETHER WITH AN 8-FOOT-WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF LOT 3 AND THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF LOT 4, IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON. WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council initiated this vacation request pursuant to Section 15.08.040 of the Tigard Municipal Code on August 27th, 1996; and WHEREAS, the right-of-way for SW Torland Court had been dedicated to the public with the recording of Torland Estates Subdivision on September 30, 1994; and ' WHEREAS, the easement is a dedicated easement, giving rights over the land for utilities: and 4 . WHEREAS, the utility easements are no longer necessary; and 1.: WHEREAS, Southwest Torland Court stubs at the property line of tax lot 6200; and WHEREAS, the property owners of tax lot 6200 (created with the recording of a final partition plat (MLP 94-0005) on May 10, 1994) desire to partition tax lot 6200 to create an additional two lots; and I ; WHEREAS, City codes requires the extension and/or provision of a turnaround for SW Torland Court; and i WHEREAS, such an improvement would render the proposed partition not feasible; and WHEREAS, the applicant contends that extension of SW Torland Street is not necessary given the surrounding development patterns; and WHEREAS, the vacation has been initiated by the City Council and approval has been recommended by the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, all affected service providers, including utility companies and emergency service providers, have reviewed the vacation proposal and have no objections; and WHEREAS. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue requires the provision of an easement for emergency vehicle turnaround purposes; and ORDINANCE No. 96-31-1 i:WtywidUordXvactorl1ord (WillD.)l0/0W64A9Pb1 Pate t of 3 i t- w ..._.w. - WHEREAS, Northwest Natural Gas has facilities located within the proposed vacation area that will require the granting of an easement protecting the facility for right of access, repair, and/or replacement, and requiring that no structure be built or erected within a distance of ten feet from the centerline of said facilities: and WHEREAS. PGE requires the provision of easements for PGE underground facilities: and f WHEREAS, notice has been mailed to all property owners abutting said vacation area and all owners in the affected area. as described by ORS 271.080; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Tigard Municipal Code 15.08.120, the City Recorder posted notice in the area to be vacated and published notice of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the property owners of the majority of the area affected have not objected in writing; and WHEREAS, the City Council having considered the request on October 22nd, 1996, finds that it is ' in the public interest to approve the request to vacate said public right-of-way and portions of a utility easement as the public interest will not be prejudiced by this vacation, as provided be ORS 271.120 and TMC Section 15.08.130; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the following conditions are necessary to vacate said land: 1. A utility easement shall be provided within the vacation area. t 2. An access easement for emergency vehicles shall be provided within the vacation area. I NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby orders the vacation of said approximately 4,431 square feet of public right-of-way, also together with an 8-foot-wide public utility easement along the south boundary of Lot 3 and the north boundary of Lot 4, reserving an 8-foot-wide easement along the east boundary of the area being vacated, as shown and described on the attached Exhibits A and B (map and legal description of area to be vacated), and by this reference, made part thereof. SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council further orders that the vacation be subject to the following condition: 1. A utility easement shall be provided within the vacation area. 2. An access easement for emergency vehicles shall be provided within the J vacation area. ORDINANCE No. 96-317 i^.cir widcWrdlvwtorn.ord (Will D.)10108196 4:19 PNI Pape 2 of 3 SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By U hlinienacts vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, thisi2nddav of Oet-nkzz 1996. j ~p Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder l , APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of y996. Jame coli, Mayor k I Approved as to form: . 1 1 City Attorney /v/aa /9 Lp Date ) _ s - j ORDINANCE No.96$~ is\cit"vide\ord\vact0rl2.ord (WillD.)l0/0&964:19P%1 Pate 3 of 3 L EXHIBIT A V r r I - ~ I r I ~ 1 I t t r ' I VgC.iTi: j•o7• I d• UTturr R c 17.00' I t e R= 17.00'i EAi EuENT C _ 94..13' 4S = 2^ 35'3S L = 2o.33• I C .C--- C9 = NiaSO'39'"~ L = 6.70• ~t! Sd9 So 38-E 69.30' Cd = s 10'5520'w . - - - - - vC0'30.53~w 1 C t 4.: 0' ~ R o 44.00' ~•i G = 2X41'39" AIIEATODE C = Is.Oo VACATED ; cs ='s1'09SW.Tia®lAlIB E sca~:a*S -STREET _ f YACa" i U1IL:7Y 1 I R = 44,C0 _ 1 = 6t~3S1' i ~,ScMENT I ROBSE I I L 47..46* E 1 l L 46• j I I C3 = SZZ22.32-E l l I 1 RECISTERE3 REScRYE 1 I PRCFESSiONAL 3 unurr t i S LAND SURv_YCR E.1ScuENT r ';C.+.: cJ TS ^T 3 i sCUTnwEST ~ I t < ~.^aC TO 6E LuRNER ! I ORc' G ON viCi7_] TS 101 TCRLl,10 EVATES I r:-' . i 1 1 s~7 t t TCRLANO C:Z7 T= ,,,City Cf Tigcr. Ncsning:On Ccunty. OCegcn S 7c*__A" VACATICN MAP ~k i •:cle: Dcce: i 4 Feb. 1995 Drcwn r' TIRLMD C0®RT f ~'r?9are= W. Reneir ce 0evelepment phone: , F'RUCRIGNT•aFWAr { tc7? s: w w:.aam.t;e Fcit_ Orive. West L;nn, phonon 9x63657-57_ STREffVACAnlN Y EXHIBIT B LEONARD A. RYDELL, P.E., P.L.S. Consulting Civil Engineer - Land Survayor 601 PINEHURST DRIVE, NEWBERG, OREGON 97132 (503) 538-5700 FAX 538-9167 LEG->`L. DESCRIP'T'ION - Tract Two W.O. Nu. 9 115 ~ Prepared fur Arthur Torland/Renaissance Development 15 February 1995 A portion of S. W. Torland Court located in the plat of "TORL.%-' D ESTATES", a subdivision recorded in Book 92, Pages 50 and 51, Washington County Plat Records, and located in the J. L. Hicklin Donation Land Claim No. 54 in the Northwest h Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of " the Willamette Meridian, City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, and more fully . described based on the plat of "TORLAND ESTATES" as follows: f Beginning at a 5/8-inch iron rebar with a yellow plastic cap marked "RYDELL PLS 1437" at the Northwest corner of Lot 4 of said "TORL:UvD ESTATES", thence North 00° 20' 52" West along the West line of said "TORL-NIND ESTATES" 35.90 feet; thence North 88° 29'38" East 822S feet; thence on a 44.00 foot radius curve left (long chord bears South 321 22' 32** East 45.19 feet) an arc distance of 47.46 feet to the North line of Lot 4 of said "TORL-N.ND ESTATES"; thence North 89° 56' 38" West along the North line of said Lot 4 of "TORL.AND ESTATES" 106.23 feet to the True Point ut• Beginning. Said parcel containing 3312 square feet. 3 n ALSO TOGETHER WITH the 8.00 foot wide utility easement along the North boundary of said Lot 4. ; RESERVING an 8.00 foot wide utility easement along the East boundary of said tract being vacated including its extension into Lot 4 of said "TORL-AND ESTATES". a; adST:`U , L" D SUR': u . i PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS • RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS WATER, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS LAND SURVEYS • SOLAR-CONSERVATION HOMES L_ EXHIBIT B _2 LEONARD A. RYDELL, P.E., P.L.S. Consulting Civil Engineer - Land Surveyir 601 PINEHURST DRIVE, NEWBERG, OREGON 9713 (503) 538-5700 FAX 538-9167 j LEG-'iL DESCRIPTION -Tract One V.O. No. 911:5 I Prepared for Arthur Torland/Renaissance Development 15 rebruary 1995 A portion of S. W. Torland Court located in the plat of "TORLAIND ESTATES", a subdivision recorded in Book 92, Pages 50 and 51, Washington County Plat Records. f and located in the J. L. Hicklin Donation Land Claim No. 54 in the Northwest I Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of k the Willamette Meridian, City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, and more fully described based on the plat of "TORLAND ESTATES" as follows: Beginning at a 518-inch iron rebar with a yellow plastic cap marked "RYDELL PLS 1437" at the Southwest corner of Lot 3 of said "TORLAND i ESTATES", thence South 89° 56'38" East 69.80 feet along the South line of said Lot 3 to a to a 5/8-inch iron rebar; thence on a 17.00 foot radius curve left - (long chord bears North 44° 50' 29" East 34.13 feet) an arc distance of 26.83 teec; thence South 00° 22' 23" East 4.67 feet; thence on a 17.00 foot radius; j j curve right (long chord bears South 10° 55' 20" West 6.66 feet) an arc distance of 6.70 feet; thence on a 44.00 foot radius curve left (long chord bears South E 100 22' 18" West 18.06 feet) an arc distance of 18.19 feet; thence South 88° 29' 38" West S2.2S feet to the West boundary of the plat of said "TORL.AND iI ESTATES"; thence North 00° 20' 52" West along the West boundary of the 1 plat of said "TORL~~tD ESTATES" 14.10 feet to the True Point of Beginning . Said parcel containing 1,119 square feet. ALSO TOGETHER WITH the 8.00 foot wide public utility easement along the South boundary of said Lot 3. RESERVING an 8.00 foot wide public utility easement along the East boundary of said tract bein; vacated. r a~ctsT.xeo ~ Pl\Q fT. .t.Siv it :.L j LAte. s:;:~ % - t4sy PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS • RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS WATER, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS LAND SURVEYS o SOLAR-CONSERVATION HOMES _-J L.~ `.h :u. ECRIBIT B -3 ~T 1 2 _ r r- 1 CV I ? f ~J l 1 1 < SOCr22 2S*E I 4.67•I , i l POINT OF VACATE g = 17.00' 8' UTILITY R = J 7.00' 8ECINNING G EASEMENT = 90 -5'4S l p = 22'35.25' TRACT ONE ( C = 24.13' C = 6.66 ( 1 L = 26.83' L = 6.70' N4a50'29Ca =.SIO.55'2.), .-------i \ 5a9'56.3417E 69.x0 R =144.00' . _ 40C 20'527W I.1 Ja74 T RACT ONE J v = 2r4t 29- t 4. t 0' so. FT. t 82.28' L = 18.109' .~.W.- I VRLA.1'I:' _ N82r29'38E - - - - _ Ca = S1022'1a'w I Ndc•_0 52"w E3311 7: TRACT TWO STREET .9d' FT tiI 1 N89'So'38'W IOo.23' • ' _ - l LINT OF - GINNING _ - 1N~ TRACT TWO - • • VACATE ( I a = 61'43'1 t" a' UTILITY 1 ( C = 45.19 EASEMENT E{01JSt l t L = 47.46' l ( CS = S32722'32-E 1 ( REGISTERED RESERVE 1 i PROFESSIONAL - I 5 L. ND SURVEYOR EASEMENT I 1 NOTES: j 1 1. TRACT ONE TO 3E 1 I OREvON SOUTHWEST ' VACATED T0 LOT 3 CORNER ( I t:PTE>J0f3 }4. ? 2. TRACT wo TO 3E -TCRLAND ESTATES" ( I LEONARD A. RYDE' f VACAT=] TO LOT 4 { ( 1 c~7 RENEWAL n• IC lei ,'.1 l'•.; y . j TCRL AND ESTATES City ci Tiger<4. Wesnington County. Oregon PREPARED BY. Sicc" -T VACATION MAP LcCNaRO A. RtLEtt. PE. FL. -fit t. y 6Ot P'n .ur3 Griv.• Sr.-Cie: 1 = 40 iDate: 14 Feb. 1995 Orcxnr~~- ~ °r 1 S7112 Prepereu For Reioissanee Development Pmcne: (503) 657-573 Pn•~ne: .(`0;) -~;Oi 1672 S. w. oriicmetta Fclts Drive. 'Nest Linn. Crecon 97068 W.0, NJ. £kHIBIT _ 1 I sy s ~ - C\i !12 5 =3. e 3eAV 4iZ114,~_ iNs= _ -J 34- S 4 ~ -ai E G - 2E Sq Q - a z .want = - / , -06 !VICINITY ~ CASE No. EXHIBIT MAP 19 OBUwo 81IVIT WAY STREET VACATION L~ l~ . AUhNDA ITEM NO. 2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE : October 22.1996 f ! (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) l . Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. STAFF NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC CONTACTED ■ j f - I 1. i 41 i F 10,; le-My01vlsIESM30o -J~epending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of _me each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may ~ . further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 DATE: October 22, 1996 i PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION - Council Call-Up for Review: (SUBDIVISION (SUB) 96-0004; PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 96-0005; i VARIANCE (VAR) 96-0006 SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 96-0002 - A request to subdivide a 6.08 acre parcel into 24 lots. Planned Development Review to reduce the minimum lot size below 5,000 square feet to minimize site development impacts. Variances to the maximum permitted street length, a reduction of setbacks, and to the number of dwellings that would access a cul-de-sac street. Sensitive Lands Review to develop portions of the site with slopes in excess of 25 percent and to perform land form alterations to wetlands. Location: 13011 SW Ascension. The site is located on the west side of SW Ascension Drive, approximately 650 feet south of SW Fern Street. Applicable Review Criteria: Community Development Code Chapters 18.52, 18.80, 18.84, 18.88, 18.90, 18.92, 18.120, 18.134, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. Zone: R-7 (PD). (Single-family residential, 5,000 square feet attached per unit). The purpose of the R- 7 zoning district is to establish sites for attached and detached single-family residences. k i PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS ' 1 • III _ ~GENDA ITEM NO. 4_ PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. 6~2~ 6172! G G _S Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. 1r'((OD ~1:~/. Q9r~ mot Name, Address a Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. - i i ame, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. 1±' j _ Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. . f. 0 ._...u epending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of e each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may i further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. ! AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 DATE: October 22, 1996 . PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY STREET VACATION SW TORLAND COURT - Request for a vacation of approximately 4,431 square feet of public right-of-way located on SW Torland Court, also together with an 8-foot wide utility easement along the south boundary of Lot 3 and the north boundary of Lot 4, reserving an 8- foot wide easement along the east _ boundary of the area being vacated. PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS i I f _ " l i ILL tGENDA ITEM NO. 5_ PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. 0 / I I ~ i Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. f .I Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. i ame, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. j Repending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of e each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may r further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. r AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 - DATE: October 22, 1996 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96 0006/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96-0001 DR. GENE DAVIS/FOREIGN MISSION h; REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900, Map 1S1 35AC, located southeast of Oak Street, east of SW 95th, from Low Density Residential to Commercial Professional and a Zone Change from R 4.5 to CP. LOCATION: Southeast of SW Oak Street, east of SW 95th, north of Highway 217. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan policies 1. 12(2), 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 8. 1.1 and 12.2.3; Community Development Code chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 12. _ J ZONE: R-4.5 (Single-Family Residential) allows single-family detached units, manufactured homes, farming, family day care and conditional uses such as single-family attached units, duplex units, religious assembly and schools. C-P (Professional/Administrative Office) allows for business support services, communication services, medical and dental services, personal services, convenience sales and services and i limited eating and drinking establishments PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS E I GENDA ITEM NO. 7_ ~ PL.F,A .PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) f Name, Address and Phone Notf7,/ Name, Address and Phone No. m { cY~v.~ /c6EG_ ~0~1-cam/ss Jacc~c~elL~vi n? Sr3l~ <JN~~cic is S'93S Oak S-,~os stJ.tlir~~sc s CL d- 0 q M1- tjci-~dcir:~~~ o~~i7co8 ~.SC•cl-!v .`SFfcP . . Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. ps•t~-.ems Dnv~ i fl~> 5 S~ 49 88415 SCO s rK c~ Sf it9a,,d9> zz~z ~y6~6Z ~~<<C~ ,a~P i9~a3 aye s~~3 N me Addr? and Phone Ng. Name, Address and Phone No. AJo-~1 JAGIc50/V(( lIy~,tst4-"he 11 eaLe:- ►5, • moos 2- -0 rti (uZG YSS j Name, Address and Phone No. Nai 4 dress and Phone No. i ~-rdZo ~..,G t-tol,.....,. ] 5..,tv ~•-6 g~~~ S.CII. 5P1'uGC 5'~✓2+2fi ~ i (~o,+t Q,a , u R 9 Z Y sZ s ct 4 Ti -o( f . 9 7 2 .z 3 977 o3z 7 z i N Name, Address an Pne jN...1 G Name, Address and Phone No. i} ;91 5 iv w W j,~,IG~d ~l ~i C ~1- a y. G G 7 2 2 !X Y / r Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. T(fE ~a~vva,v cv. ~ ~yt-Il 5ta i2,laSbu, r ~ trr . ~ - s 3e 9 s WR-f (-47 ZZy oRT a~ Q7~2 Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. ct•~,~-~-~5 Pt~nee,rts{ . iyµ4l st,0 ~EW~Slxtr~ pr - 7~ r~c~c~ rCl ~^2 C) % t uL Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. 576,77-7 c~1~6o S.Gi/JdA` ' . ~a ~~Zf q ~ ~ Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. - i t S CJ SP S S. br-, w-ss+ un Decision Issued: 10117196 Final Appeal Date: 10128196 1 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0019 FARMER'S INSURANCE 4 The Tigard Planning Director has APPROVED, (subject to conditions, attached), a request for Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a four (4) building, 190,000 square foot office complex. I LOCATION: West of SW 66th Avenue and on both the north and south sides of SW 68th Avenue; f WCTM 2S1 01 DA, Tax Lots 100, 200, 300,400 and 2200. (vicinity Map below) (Plot Plan/Map attached) (5) SUBJECT r - - NE: C-P (Professional Commercial). The Professional Commercial zone allows public agency and i administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, and real estate services, business support services, transient lodging, among others. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106. 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150, and 18.164. k1patfyY -N10-1a-96.m2 (Memo Cover page 2n) _ , r I N ~ r p~!►aiatE b , m 0 T1Ca .T Y OF: C► logo- WOOL f C (FARMER'S INSURANCE -CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL) (Page 1 of 3) i 7 j t j CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: (Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact shall be Brian Rager, Engineering Department (503) 639-4171.) i _ 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a Street Opening Permit will be required for this project to 1 cover the sidewalk work, sanitary and stonn sewer taps, water connections and any other work in the public right-of-way. The applicant will need to submit five (5) sets of the proposed public improvement plans for review and approval. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include information relevant to the public I k. improvements. y 2. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the name, address, and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who f will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement and providing the financial I assurance for the public improvements. 3. Building permits will not be issued and construction of proposed public improvements shall not j commence until after the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the public improvement plans and a permit from the Engineering Department has been issued. Financial ! assurance equal to 100 percent of the cost of the public improvements, a Developer-Engineer j Agreement, the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight fee (if applicable) are required. 4. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall dedicate a public pedestrian/bicycle i path easement for placement of a 6-foot-wide sidewalk on the north/east side of SW 68th Avenue. The sidewalk shall be constructed in a meandered alignment similar to the existing sidewalk on the southwest side of the roadway. The applicant shall construct the sidewalk as part of Phase I (Buildings A and B) and the easement width should be wide enough to accommodate the entire sidewalk. 5. An agreement shall be executed by the applicant, 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 66th Avenue. 6. A joint use and maintenance agreement shall be executed and recorded on standard City 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. U: The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connection prior to issuance of the City's public improvement permit. r (FARMER'S INSURANCE -CONDmONS OF APPROVAL) (Page 2 of J) Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall record the appropriate private utility easements to allow the proposed private sanitary, water, and storm sewer lines to cross over property lines. 9. The street opening permit shall include the private storm pipe crossing of SW 68th Avenue. Any portion of the private storm pipe within the public Right-of-way (ROW) shall be constructed to public standards. 10. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order No. 91-47. Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. In addition, a proposed maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations, for review and approval. f 11. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the site improvement drawings to be reviewed by the Building Division. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, February 1994. 12. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act 3. Plans approved by Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. i 14. Revised site and landscaping plans shall be submitted for review by the Planning Division, Staff 3 Contact: Will D'Andrea (503-639-4171). The revised plans shall include the following: A. Impervious surface/landscaping calculations shall be submitted which demonstrate that a I minimum of 15% landscaping will be provided. The applicant shall provide total site j calculations, as well as calculations provided with each phase of the development. B. Nine (9) disabled parking spaces for phase one, and eight (8) disabled parking spaces for phase two. C. Seventeen (17) bicycle parking spaces for phase one, and nineteen (19) bicycle parking spaces for phase two. i D. Location of a loading space for each building. The location and design of such spaces shall be approved by the City Engineer E. Walkway connection with the existing concrete walk shown to connect with the Farmers Insurance building. 4 F. Written solid waste hauler approval of facility location and equipment compatibility. J I ! (FARMER'S INSURANCE-CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL) . ) (Page 3 of 3) G. Mitigation plan that provides for mitigation of 1,794 caliper inches. The applicant may 1 wish to provide a mitigation plan based upon the removal of trees associated with each 1 phase. Tree removal shall not be allowed prior to the applicant providing resolution to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) right-of-way property. 15. A letter from the consulting arborist that verifies that tree protection measures have been { installed according to the tree protection specifications submitted with the application. a 16. Prior to the release of any permits for phase two (south side of 68th Avenue), the applicant shall provide documentation of resolution of the ODOT right-of-way issue. The applicant shall j provide proof of ownership of that portion of land which is currently ODOT right-of-way. If the f. applicant does not obtain ownership of the subject property, the plans shall be revised and a new site development review application shall be submitted for development of phase two. I ~ - THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 17. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall complete the required public improvements. - j 08. All site improvements shall be installed as approved, per the revised site plan. { THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 1o MON-I HS I FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. i J <I Decision Issued: 10117/96 Final Appeal Date: 10128196 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 9"020/VARL4,NCE (VAR) 96-0012 L ➢ PARKWEST PROPERTIES, INC. OFFICE BUILDING Q The Tigard Planning Director has APPROVED, (subject to conditions, attached), a request for approval of the following development applications: 1. Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of an ; approximately 3,120 square foot office building and; 2. Variance approval from a required 20-foot buffer where a commercial development adjoins a single-family residence. 1 ' LOCATION: 12670 SW 68th Avenue; WCTM 2S1 01AD, Tax Lot 01600. East side of SW 68th Avenue, north i of SW Hampton Street and south sof SW Franklin Street (vicinity Map below) II (Plot Plan/Map attached) t i A. - - I D omercialal GP). The rofes-.iona Commercial zone allows public agency and ZONE: Professional administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, i insurance, and real estate services, business support services, transient lodging, among others. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.134, 18.150, and 18.164. hApaii&ocs\10.18-96.m2 (Mertes Cover Page 3r3) t[ , L 1. 1 3nN3AV W09 'M'S Now e ~'1 •~l~ ~ ~ • i i1>Iwn!'!?1• ..M • ' ~ , y , • ..Lhl~.}• " i Rl • ~ ~ q k, _ ~ Y}y'Y. ~ •~NrIG: ~1 ~.o~M i y:: • 1~Ia +mJ~y T-• (n 9NI01108 301110 z OISWOV8 ' g F....-~ N at CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DEPT. L -1 (PARKWEST PROPERTIES, INC. OFFICE BUILDING -CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL) (Page 1 of 2) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: (Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact shall be Brian Rager, Engineering Department (503) 639-4171.) 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a Street Opening Permit will be required for this project to j cover the new driveway, sidewalk and the sanitary and storm sewer taps. The applicant will need to submit five (5) sets of the proposed public improvement plans for review and approval. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include information relevant to the public improvements. 2. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement and providing the financial I assurance for the public improvements. 3. The applicant shall construct a 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the frontage of SW 68th Parkway. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall coordinate with the property owner to - the north for the proposed joint driveway. Cross-over easements shall be recorded to allow for the joint use of the driveway. In addition, a joint use and maintenance agreement shall be executed and recorded on City standard forms for the driveway. 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. i - I 5. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall pay the fee in-lieu of constructing an on-site water quality facility. The fee is based on the total area of new impervious surfaces in the proposed development and is equal to $ 180 for every 2.640 square feet of new impervious 1 surfaces. 6. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 68th Parkway underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $ 27.50 per lineal foot. In this case, the frontage on 68th Parkway is 100 feet, therefore the fee will be $ 2,750.00. 7 Plans approved by Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. ' i t ~ . L~ . e i (PARKWEST PROPERTIES, INC. OFFICE BUILDING • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL) (Page 2 of 2) i _ - Revised site and landscaping plans shall be submitted for review by the Planning Division, Staff Contact: Will D'Andrea, Planning Department (639-4171). The revised plans shall include the following: A. Removal of the parking stall within the vision clearance area. B. Provision for a walkway connection with the property to the north. I, C. An arborist report shall be submitted which verifies that the 15-inch tree is damaged and a potential hazard. If such a finding cannot be made, a mitigation plan shall be submitted I which identifies a mitigation of 15 caliper inches. This mitigation shall be in addition to any required landscaping. r . THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: i 9. All site improvement shall be installed as approved, per the revised site plan. a THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. I j - - e M E M O R A N D U M ~~laa(ccc~ METRO TO: Charlie Hales, Chairman, MPAC, and Members FROM: John Fregonese, Director, Growth Management Services DATE: October 17, 1996 SUBJECT.- Urban Growth Management Functional Plan - Metro Council decisions Summarized below ate Metro Council changes to the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan concluded during meetings held on October 3rd, 10th and 17th. With the short time available, we have attempted to categorize changes from the August 23 draft into policy and technical type f amendments. Policy Amendments: Title 1 • revised list of where minimum density standard does not apply (lines 98-113) _ added a requirement that cities and counties allow accessory units. (Lines 292-297) . I tii C Title 2 i substituted a variance process for an adjustment process. (Lines 400, 426) • revised Zone B Maximum Permitted Parking Ratios to make them recommendations, not i1 required. (Lines 381-397) i Title 3 - No policy changes. Title 4 • revises regulations to differentiate between employment area restrictions and industrial area restrictions (lines 599- 615, lines 616-621); • added specific requirements for exceptions (lines 627-637), demonstration of transportation facility capacity or market area not more than 2.5 miles from the site Title 5 - No policy changes. Title 6 - No policy changes. Title 7 - No policy changes. y I Title 8 U replaced the required adjustment process to a variance process. (Line 970) MPAC MEETING 10/23/96 - AGENDA ITEM 5.2 -FUNCTIONAL PLAN I !FlFt Technical Amendments: Title 1 • consistency/clarification redraft by Office of General Counsel • substitute "full-time and part-time jobs" for "employment" establishes design type boundaries and a new section of Title 1 recommending design type densities - changes employment areas to 20 persons per acres and add industrial arras at 9 employees per acre „ Table i • changes "Household" to "Dwelling Unit Capacity% changes to wording in table footnotes Title 2 • clarifications Title 4 k • changed 113-acre Multnomah Kennel Club site from "Employment Area" to part of the Fairview "Town Center". • changed employment area north and west of St. Johns Bridge, in the vicinity of Linnton, to industrial area. i • changed employment area to industrial area at the Brooklyn rail yards, (SE Portland, south of Powell Blvd) • changed 110-acre Progress Quarry site near Murray Blvd. And Old Scholls Ferry Rd. from "Employment Area" to "Town Center" Title 6 • amended map to include planned southerly extension of Murray Boulevard Title 6 • clarifications Title 7 • clarification, defined "fair share" strategy and affordable housing Title 8 • clarification; added an exemption based upon current or projected needs within the jurisdiction • Changed order of sections add two new sections that deal with the compliance interpretation process and citizen review process. Title 9 • clarification; added subsections that deal with cost of land and average vacancy rate • report on performance measures due March 1, 1999 rather than March 1, 1998 Title 10 ~ • defined "variance" • definition amendments for titles 1, 2, 3, 6 and 8 1 f _ w. M E M O R A N D U M r METRO Date: October 18, 1996 To: Metro Council From: Lary Shaw, Office of General Counsel r Subject: Hearing Draft of Urban Growth Management Functional Plan This Metro Council draft is dated October 24, 1996, the date of the scheduled hearing. The draft includes amendments to the Growth Management Committee draft adopted in work sessions on October 3, 10 and 17: Kvistad #2, 3 McCaig #1, 2,3 McFarland #2 McLain #2, 2A, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8A, 9, 10 f' 1 f Monroe #1, 2 Morissette #3 Washington #1, 2 Consistency changes include: i - . • "local governments" to "cities and counties;" and • ' expected capacity" to "calculated capacity;" and I • "employment" to "jobs" in Title 1 (consistent with Table 1); and { • "housing unit," "households" to "dwelling units" in Title 1 (consistent with Table 1). f.. Maps for "Employment and Industrial Areas" (as amended) and "Open Spaces" "are being prepared. I`MDOCSX07.P&D~04.20401.MPLW3UGMFNC.PLM000NCILI.018 _ I~ c URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN 2 A functional plan for early implementation of the Metro 2040 Growth Concept 3 Introduction 4 Metro was created after a vote of the citizens of the region as an elected regional government 5 responsible for addressing issues of metropolitan concern and is enabled by state law, adopted 6 by the Oregon Legislature in 1977. In addition, the voters of the region adopted a Metro 7 Charter in 1992, which describes additional responsibilities for the agency. Metro has an 8 elected seven member Council which determines region-wide policies. In addition, Metro has 9 an elected Executive Officer to enforce Metro ordinances and execute the policies of the 10 council. i 11 The Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) is comprised of local government elected t2 officials and appointed citizens from throughout the region and was created to advise the 13 regionally elected Metro Council on matters of metropolitan concern. MPAC has 14 recommended specific policies to be included in a new functional plan to be adopted by the 15 Metro Council as soon as practicable. Early implementation of the 2040 Growth Concept is 16 intended to take advantage of opportunities now and avoid use of land inconsistent with the - 17 long-term growth policy. 1',- MPAC, as well as the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT), and the l i 19 Water Resource Policy Advisory Committee cWRPAC> have made recommendations that are l 20 the basis for this functional plan. All of the elements considered by MPAC, JPACT and 21 WRPAC were deemed by the Metro Council to be [natters of metropolitan concern that have 22 significant impact upon the orderly and responsible development of the metropolitan area. The _ 1 23 functional plan establishes regional policies, which will apply to all 24 cities and 3 counties 24 within the Metro region. The legal form of these regional policies is a functional plan, not 25 adoption as a "component" of the Regional Framework Plan. The policies in this functional 26 plan will be updated and coordinated with other policies to be adopted as components of the 27 Metro Charter mandated Regional Framework Plan, on or before December 30, 1997. 28 Functional plans are a primary regional policy tool that may contain both "recommendations" 29 and "requirements" for changes in local plans. This functional plan relies on further actions, 30 primarily changes to local government comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances, to 31 effectuate the actions described below. f 32 The Meaning of Regional Functional Plan Adoption 33 The regional policies which are adopted by this Urban Growth Management Functional Plan 34 recommend and require changes to city and county comprehensive plans and implementing 35 ordinances. The purpose of this functional plan is to implement regional goals and objectives +6 adopted by the Metro Council as the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGO), ;7 including the Metro 2040 Growth Concept. The comprehensive plan changes and related I SC Page Q--Urbin Growth Managemem Functional Plan Oclnt- 24• 1996 { G - - - - i i 38 actions, including implementing regulations, required by this functional plan, shall be adopted 39 by all cities and counties in the Metro region within twenty-four (24) months from the effective 40 date of this ordinance. 1 41 Any city or county determination not to incorporate all required functional plan policies into 42 comprehensive plans shall be subject to the conflict resolution and mediation processes 43 included within the RUGGO, Goal I provisions, prior to the final adoption of inconsistent 44 policies or actions. Upon the effective date of this ordinance, any city or county amendment to 45 a comprehensive plan or implementing ordinance that is inconsistent with requirements of this 1 46 functional plan, is subject to appeal for violation of the functional plan. 47 Regional Policy Basis i " 48 The regional policies adopted in this functional plan are formulated from, and are consistent 49 with, the RUGGOs, including the Metro 2040 Growth Concept. The overall principles of the 50 Greenspaces Master Plan are also incorporated within this functional plan. In addition, the 51 updated Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)1 , when adopted, will serve as the primary 52 transportation policy implementation of the 2040 Growth Concept. However, early 53 implementation land use policies in this functional plan are integrated with early 54 implementation transportation policies derived from -preparation of the 1996 Regional 55 Transportation Plan, and consistent with the Metro 2040 Growth Concept. 56 Structure of Reouirements 57 The Urban Growth Management Functional Plan is a regional functional plan which contains 58 "requirements" that are binding on cities and counties of the region as well as 59 recommendations that are not binding. "Shall" or other directive words are used with 60 requirements. The words "should" or "may" are used with recommendations. In general, the 61 Plan is structured so that local jurisdictions may choose either performance standard 62 requirements or prescriptive requirements. The intent of the requirements is to assure that i 63 cities and counties have a significant amount of flexibility as to how they meet requirements. 64 Performance standards are included in aNmost titles. If local jurisdictions demonstrate to 65 Metro that they meet the performance standard, they have met [hate requirement of the title. 66 Standard methods of compliance are also included in the plan to establish one very specific 67 way that jurisdictions may meet a title requirement, but these standard methods are not the 68 only way a city or county may show compliance. In addition, certain mandatory requirements - 69 that apply to all cities and counties are established by this functional plan. j _ Metro has an adopted Regional Transportation Plan. However, because of changing local and regional conditions, as well as state and federal reytnrements, the RTP is scheduled to bemg amended to 19976 Page 22--Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Octoher 24• 19% " aas•.__ - - s 7 a ' REGIONAL FUNCTIONAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS 71 TITLE 1: REQUIREMENTS FOR HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT 72 ACCOMMODATION 73 Section 1. Intent i i ' 74 State law and Metro eCode require that the Metro urban growth boundary (UGB) have { 75 sufficient capacity to accommodate the expected growth for 20 years. It is Metro policy to 76 minimize the amount of urban growth boundary expansion required for the expected population 77 and employment growth by the year 2017 consistent with all Statewide Goals. To eeeemplish 78 further that policy, it is beneficial and desirable for Metro to require actions intended to j 79 increase the capacity a€ land a%-aileble for development of land within the UGB. Increasing the 80 capacity of land within the UGB wi_II includes 3sefeffiiag-ia requiring chanties for appropriate 81 locations _n both the rate of development permitted per acre (zoned density) and the rate at 82 which housing and employment are actually built within the UGB. Development consistent 83 with the design types of the Metro 2040 Growth Concept will focus these efforts. As a matter 84 of regional policv._£each city and county must contribute its fair share to increasing the 85 development capacity of land within the UGB. Metro will work with local iurisdictions to develop a set of region-wide community I development code provisions, standards and other regulations which local jurisdictions may i 88 adopt that will help implement the 2040 Growth Concept and this Functional Plan. Included in 89 this proiect will be a review of development standards in support of smaller lots and more 90 flexible use of land, strategies to encourage land assembly, more flexible zoning and 91 improvements in the ore-application process to ensure timely and thorough review and to 92 provide for early involvement by the public to address neighborhood concerns and assure 93 community acceptance of these changes. 94 Section 32. Methods to Increase Calculated CariacitvF*Peeted Required for 95 All Cities and Counties 96 All cities and counties within Metro are required to include within their comprehensive plans 97 and implementing ordinances the following provisions: 98 A. All zones allowing residential use shall include a minimum density standard that 99 fequires which provides that no lend use deeisien development application, including a 100 partition or subdivision, may be approved unless the proposed-eetien development will 101 pfoyide that no less than result in the building of 80 percent or more of the maximum j 102 number of dwelling units per net acre permitted 103 develepfnent b the zoning designation for the site. No comprehensive plan provision, 104 implementing ordinance or local process (such as site or design review) may be applied 1 Iand of no condition of approval may limit -development be imposed that would have the { l0~ effect of reducing the density to less than 80 percent of the maximum permitted density. Page 2;--Urban Growth Marugemem Functional Plan Octohe, 2a• 191)6 I ff4 Y i i j 107 For high density zones with maximum vermkEed zoned density higher than 37 dwelling j 108 units per net acre. the minimum residential density may be 30 dwelling units per net 109 acre. . if that density is eensistent with lie taf:gei jensities listed in 110 This minimum density standard does not apply (I)outside the urban growth boundarx, Ill (2) inside areas designated as open space on the attached Open Spaces Map. and (i t 112 inside areas designated as unbuildable on the attached Open Space Map. The maximum 1 113 zoned density does not include the density bonus for zones that allow them. 114 B Cities and counties shall not prohibit partitioning or subdividing inside the Metro urban 115 growth boundary where existing lot sizes are two or more times that of the minimum 116 lot size in the development code.. d 117 Section i Design Type Boundaries Requirement 118 For each of the following 2040 Growth Concept design types, city and county como_rghensiv-e 119 Bans shall be amended to include the boundaries of each area, detemuned by the city or count - - 120 consistent with the general locations shown on the 2040 Growth Concept Map: 121 Central City--Downtown Portland is the Central City which serves as the major regional center. 122 an employment and cultural center for the metropolitan area. 123 Regional Centers--Nine regional centers will become. the focus of compact development 124 redevelopment and high-quality transit service and multimodal street networks. 125 S5tation Communities--Nodes of development centered approximately one-half mile around a 126 light rail or high capacity transit station that feature a high-quality pedestrian envuonment. 127 Town Centers--Local retail and services will be provided in town centers with compact 128 development and transit service. 129 Main Streets--Neighborhoods will be served by main streets with retail and service developments 130 served by transit. 131 Corridors--Along good quality transit lines, corridors feature a hi h-quality pedestrian 132 environment, convenient access to transit, and somewhat higher than current densities. 1 133 Emnlovment Areas--Various types of employment and some residential development are 134 encouraged in employment areas with limited commercial uses. 135 Industrial Areas-Industrial area are set aside primarily for industrial activities with limited 136 supporting uses. i 137 inner Neighborhoods--Residential areas accessible to jobs and neiehborh_ood businesses with 138 smaller lot sizes are inner neighhorhoods. j U M Page . -Urban Growth Management Funconnal Plan OctoDcr 24. B% j ~J . ~g Outer Neighborhoods--Residential neighborhoods farther away from large employment centers t.,; with larger lot sizes and lower densities are outer neighborhoods. 141 Section 4. Requirements to Increase Canacih• If Recent Development At Low Density 142 IAA. Reyiew All cities and counties shall determine whether actual built densities for housing 143 during 1990-1995 were less than 80 percent of permitted maximum zoned densities. 144 The 1990-1995 actual built densities within its jurisdiction shall be compared with i 145 permitted zoned densities for housing units end-etpplayment during that period. Th6 t 146 t ` { 147 i. Residential and-employment-developments to be analyzed shall be those which 148 were permitted by a land use action and constructed during the period from a 149 1990 to 1995, and residential density shall be measured in households per net 150 developed acre.' 151 2. Employment peffeFmafiee shall be measuFed by eempaFing the a 152 juFisdieiien wide ifieFease dufing the yeafs 1990 1995 with the jarisdietion tivide 153 inefease listed in Table 1. This sball inelede enly these deyelepments that 154 { i 155 156 B. 4---If the comparison of actual built densities to maximum zoned densities for the period 1990-1995; indicates that actual 158 built densities were less than 80 percent of perfniaed maximum zoned densities, the 1 159 joFisdiet-ien city or county shall also demonstrate that it has considered and adopted at 160 least two of the following methods to increase capacity : 161 a. Financial incentives for higher density housing; 162 b. Provisions permitting additional density beyond that generally allowed in ; 163 the zoning district in exchange for amenities and features provided by the 164 developer; 165 c. Removal or easing of approval standards or procedures; 166 d. Redevelopment and infill strategies; 167 e. Authorization of housing types not previously allowed by the plan or I 168 regulations; and f. 169 t t . 170 Section 45. Review of Perm* Determination of Calculated Capacity of Housing Units 171 and Jobsl-pWyme*4 172 The purpose of this fet,, section is to require each city and county within the Metro region to 173 determine the housing and employment capacity of its existing comprehensive plans and 174 implementing ordinances; determine calculated f see oefinrtton:. . Pape 11--Urban Growth Management Functional Plan October 24, I M6 y 17. 175 capacity for dwelling units and jobs by the method in this section, and increase calculated ` 176 capacity, if necessary. to achieve the functional plan capacities in Table 1.' -hethef amendments 177 xisting _t,,.-s aFe tieeessat:y to eam..ly kh ceetio. 2 of this Title.° Each city and county I 178 within the Metro region is hereby required to complete the following steps: 179 A. 180 . ■ l81 Determine the calculated capacity of dwelling units and jobs by the vcar 3017 usin_ the 182 zoned eaoacity_ of its current comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances. 183 1. Cities and counties shall use Metro estimates of vacant land, and land likely to 184 redevelop, unless thev hay data that thvi+ believes is more 185 accurate. In this case, the legal vefam?utcity or county may provide Metro the 186 following: 187 a. The source of the data; 188 b. The reasons that the locally developed data is a more accurate estimate 189 than the Metro estimate of vacant and redevelopable land; 190 c. The database from which the above were derived; 191 d. The database of committed development lands. 192 Cities and counties may use their data, subject to acceptance by the Metro 193 Council or its designee, after lvleEFe the Executive Officer determines that the 194 city or county data is mz more accurate than the Metro data. The Executive 195 Officer shall notify the Metro Council of each instance in which the -data 196 submitted by a city or county is determined by e+4etfe staf€ the Executive Officer 197 to be less accurate than Metro data. t ' i 198 2. In _te :~:?^:_:?^a r__.__ determining the calculated capacity of existing 199 comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances, leeal go%-emments cities and 200 counties shall not _.-p__-_ use a calculated capacity for dwelling units of 201 at more than 80 percent of maximum peffnitted zoned residential density, unless: j 202 a. Actual experience in the jurisdiction since 1990 has shown that 203 development has occurred at density greater than 80 percent of peFfflitted I 204 zoned residential density; or 205 b. Minimum density standards are adopted or proposed for adoption in the 206 zoning code that require residential development at greater than 80 percent 207 of maximum omitted zoned residential density. t 208 3. r• -ice, diet;eff5Cities and counties calculating capacity through the use of density 209 bonus provisions may consider transfers, including off-site transfers, only upon 210 demonstration that previous approvals of all density transfers within the past 5 2 Sec Tale 10. DeRnmons, te 1 --d denw,, ear- and -ee -lcuMeJ eapacny.' i l Page t.}-Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Ocmber 24, I VX • f J 9 t e years have resulted in an average of at least 80 percent of maximum perF~-.-,ed 2Y1 zoned densities actually being built. i 213 }4. The capacity calculation shall used only those development types that 2-e e 214 :a allowed in the development code. Any discretionary dec. ion 215 must not diminish the peFatritted zoned density if it is to be counted as a part of - 216 --"calculated capacity; and i _ 217 35. Cities and counties, in coordination with special districts, shall demonstrate that ! 218 !hey have reviewed their public facility capacities and plans to assure that planned j 219 public facilities can be provided, to accommodate gfewt the calculated capacity 220 within the plan periocL-, end 221 B. Calculate the increases in expeeted wellin units and empleytFaeFt &b capacities 222 by the year 2017 from any proposed changes to the current comprehensive plans and 223 implementing ordinances that must be adopted to comply with Section 23 of this Title 224 and add the increases to the calculation of expected capacities. 225 C. Determine the effect of each of the following on expeeted calculated capacities, and 226 include the eMet in the ealeulatien of any resulting increase or decrease in 227 calculated capacities: l - 1. Required dedications for public streets, consistent with the Regional Accessibility 229 Title; 4 230 2. Off-street parking requirements, consistent with this functional plan; 231 3. Landscaping, setback, and maximum lot coverage requirements; I I 232 4. The effects of tree preservation ordinances, environmental protection ordinances, 233 view preservation ordinances, solar access ordinances, or any other regulations 234 that may have the effect of reducing the capacity of the land to develop at the 235 pefmitted zoned density; 236 5. The effects of areas dedicated to bio-swales, storm water retention, open space 1 237 dedications, and other requirements of local codes that may reduce the capacity of I 238 the land to develop at the penrARed zoned density. j - 239 AD. If anv ofof the eeeted calculated capacities are 240 determined to be less than Any--of the city's or county's target heusin wellin unit and 241 gbbe-ple5~ capacities in Table 1, either jurisdiction-wide or in mixed-use areas, or 242 both, then the city or county shall comply with the performance standards in Section ?G of ! 243 this Title by amending its comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances to increase i 244, its"-e".Teeted calculated capacities, as needed. to comply with the Fegeifed calculated f 2,~ ca acitics reguiredeapeeities in Table 1. Page 72-.Urban Grouts Muugemem Functional Plan Omber 24.19% - S 246 EE. Exceptions to the Section 6.B requirement that target capacities lie demonstrated eati 247 ma~, be requested according to Title 8 if a city or county determines that any e 248 calculated capacity requirement in Table 1 cannot be achieved after implementation of 249 Section 2. 3 and 4 policies to increase expected capacities. 250 if Ehe °••efage of "...,,.n bull. densities of 1990 1995 was less flian 80 pefee^L"E t c i 251 per-Enitted I 252 highef a^" es in ealeulaiiing theiF - ---d ea ae - 253 Section 26. Local Plan Accommodation of Expected Growth Capacity for Housing and 254 Emplo37nent-Performance Standard r 255 All cities and counties within Metro shall demonstrate that: 256 13A. . The provisions n~lat3 requiredmentus set `^_,n in Sections 23-t~ of 257 this Title have been included in comprehensive plans and 258 implementing ordinances; and that Using the computation method in Section 5, 259 AB. Their. zeniag and ether Fegulatiew 260 including the minimum residential density provisions required in Section 2. that 261 calculated capacities will achieve the target capacities for 262 hew"OwellinZ units and full-time and part-time iobs eifigleymem contained in Table 1 263 in the Appendix to this plan, including both jurisdiction-wide expected capacities-as 264 well as and capacities for mixed-use areas; and that i 265 C. Effective measures have been taken to reasonably assure that the _xpeetedcalculated 266 capacities will be built for wellin units and eileytttese; and that 267 D. Expected development has been permitted at locations and densities likely to be 268 achieved during the 20-year planning period by the private market or assisted housing 269 programs, once all new regulations are in effect. 270 Section 7. Design Type Density Recommendations 271 $A. For the area of each of the 2040 Growth Concept design types, the following average 272 densities for housing and employment are recommended to cities and counties: 273 Central City - 250 persons per acre 274 Regional Centers - 60 persons per acre 275 Station Communities - 45 persons per acre 276 Town Centers - 40 persons per acre 277 Main Streets - 39 persons per acre j 278 Corridor - 25 persons per acre 279 Employment Areas - 20 persons per acre Pape Fi-Urban GrowN Manapment Fumtional Plan OanAV 24, i s - - - 1 Industrial Areas - 9 employees per acre 3 281 Inner Neighborhoods - 14 persons per acre 282 Outer Neighborhoods - 13 persons per acre 283 Pnippleyfliet}f Areas 11 pefsens - - 284 B. he OF !he afes: fOF eaeh design type, ineleding-IndustFial AFeas, shall -be 285 286 287 ° 288 k 289 i 290 g-th be nda- ..he existing le h c 291 j 292 ->c Cities and counties shall not prohibit the construction of at least one accessory unit 293 within any detached single family dwelling that is permitted to be built in any zone 294 inside the urban growth boundary. Reasonable regulations of acce sore units may 295 include but are not limited to, size, lighting, entrances and owner occupancy of the 296 primary unit, but shall not prohibit rental occupancy, separate access and full kitchens 297J to the accessory units. - 299 300 adopt that will r implemeat the n Growth n, ^Y and this r s Plan. t s a d 301 i , 1`t 302 flexible -r I-A e eneoufage land assembly, mere flexible zeeing and 303 it 304 305 • 306 D. ReN,iew whetheF aetual built denskies during. 1999 1995 wem iess !hen 80 pereent e j 307 pemiitted densities. The 1999 1995 eetual built-densities within its jwisdiefieii shall be I 308 eempaFed wkh peRmkted densities FeF hettsing units and empleyment during that er-iod. 309 I - 310 Residem:el and em-l'-ftent-deyele-mems be _ whieh 311 .4 Ffem 1990 312 le i995, l1lid Fesidemia; density shall be --.-A _ 313 de%, ed eeFe.;- ' I 314 315 ' Ow tteitial r 'he eitFr-i o . 3 see aerninons. I Page 22-UrWn Growth Management Functional Plan i October N. I'Y% t i L- 316 317 = - . 318 _ • . deiisitia5 !;3F 1990 _ 319 320 densities in ° ° 321 SeeNen Gnpneity 322 323 ° ° Table a,- _.a: 4. Ri- 324 yr _ 325 Title 65, ameHdin its eemprehensive plans and `e ilieFed-2-45 erdiiiaiiee5 326 327 . ° 328 aeeerdin.- 329 1•..t, a,,..._.,,.._ leas. .a _ ° ia-eeleulatitie eapeeiEies {'ef heesing. -a„d 330 etleFteet; - 331 i The eapeeity ealeulatien used eel), these deN-elepi-hem types that are a petomiR 332 use in the development eede. Any disereiienefy deeision must ae! diminish Eke 333 334 335 336 c._.•..., 4.G abe-and 337 338 339 pre, i 340 341 densities densities, jffisdieiien shell 342 else demenstrate !hat it has eensideFed and adepted at least iwe eF the fell 343 344 345 h. Pi-evisiens 346 the eefiiiig distriet in ° •a 347 ° ' develepeF- 348 349 dl e. Remek-al 8F R :+w+l ° t rn 350 r ~-J k~~ Wit! riall o!- 351 r' ~ztcrasiens~ mid 352 Page .10.L-Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Octohcr 24• ItN1L - • " Imb- 354 -ed 355 0 I i - _ f 1 1 ~ h F 4 i i i I P.Be I I;-Urban Growth ManIpment Funcimml Plan Octobc, 24, V.06 L s 356 TITLE 2: REGIONAL PARKING POLICY 357 Section 1. Intent 358 The State's Transportation Planning FRule calls for gef: eapits reductions in of vehicle miles 359 traveled per capita and restrictions on construction of new parking spaces as a means of 360 responding to transportation and land use impacts of growth. The Metro 2040 Growth Concept ! ■ 361 calls for more compact development as a means to encourage more efficient use of land, promote 362 non-auto trips and protect air quality. In addition, the federally mandated air quality plan 363 adopted by the state relies on the 2040 Growth Concept fully achieving its transportation 364 objectives. Notably, it the air quality plan relies upon reducing vehicle trips per capita and 365 related parking spaces through minimum and maximum parking ratios. This title tstr-eyi 1e -;e 366 addresses these stateteFy state and federal requirements and preserves the quality of life of the 367 region. 368 A compact urban form requires that each use of land is carefully considered and that more 369 efficient forms are favored over less efficient ones. Parking, especially that provided in new 370 developments, can result in a less efficient land usage and lower floor to area ratios. Parking also 371 has implications for transportation. In areas where transit is provided or other non-auto modes 372 (walking, biking) are convenient, less parking can be provided and still allow accessibility and 373 mobility for all modes, including autos. Reductions in auto trips when substituted by non-auto 374 modes can reduce congestion and increase air quality. 375 Section 2. Performance Standard 376 A. Cities and counties are hereby required to adept amendments, if 377 ---s« that their comprehensive plans and implementing regulations-if 378 necessary, to meet or exceed the following minimum standards: S 379 1. ities and counties shall Rrequire tae more parking than the minimum as shown 380 on Regional Parking Standards Table, attached hereto; and 381 2. Cities and counties shall -Bestablish parking maximums at ratios no greater than Z 382 those listed in the Parking Table and as illustrated in the Parking Maximum Map 383 for Zone A. The designation of the A and 13 zones on the Parking Maximum Map 384 should be reviewed after the completion of the Regional Transportation Plan and 385 every five 'three ears thereafter. If 20-minute peak hour transit service has 1 386 become available to an area within a one-quarter mile walking distance for bus 387 transit or one-half mile walkine distance for light rail transit, that area shall be 388 added to Zone A. If 20-minute peak hour transit service is no longer available to 389 an area within a one-quarter mile walking distance for bus transit or one-half mile 390 walking distance for light rail transit, that area shall be removed from Zone A. and 391 392 9eoe-.A-,et4es 393 and eetifiIies shall establish padeing spaee Fna r dies these listed 394 in Zene B in !he Pwkifig Table and as jllEJS!F.-_ 0 J 1 Page 12}-Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Oouher 24• 1'',% 1 ago- r~ 1 ' eeal . g Cities and counties should designate Zone A parking ratios in 396 areas with good pedestrian access to commercial or et»ple5cniem areas (within 113 397 mile walk) from adjacent residential areas. 398 3. Cities and counties shall l-ttsa aerest abiish an administrative or public hearing 399 process for considering ratios for individual or joint developments to allow a 400 variance-edjestmest for parking when a development application is received_ 401 which may result in approval of construction of parking spaces either - i I 402 8. in excess of the maximum parking ratios; or afd 403 b. less than the minimum parking ratios. 404 r eeal gevefmnefit Cities and counties may grant aft edjustmettt variance from 405 maximum parking ratios through aft-adjas"efif eF variance 406 process. 407 S. Free surface parking spaces shall be subject to the regional parking maximums provided 408 for Zone A. Parking spaces in parking structures, fleet parking, parking for vehicles 409 that are for sale, lease, or rent, employee car pool parking spaces, dedicated valet 410 parking spaces, spaces that are user paid, market rate parking or other high-efficiency 411 parking management alternatives may be exempted from maximum parking standards 412 by cities and counties. Sites that are proposed for redevelopment may be allowed to phase in reductions as a local option. Where mixed land uses are proposed, leesl 4, geyeFf neat% cities and counties shall provide for blended parking rates. It is 415 recommended that Ieeal oevefmnents cities and counties count adjacent on-sweet 416 parking spaces, nearby public parking and shared parking toward required parking 1 417 minimum standards. 418 C.' ' eeal GeveffHffent% Cities and counties may use categories or measurement standards 419 other than those in the Parking Table, but must provide findings that the effect of the 420 local regulations will be substantially the same as the application of the Regional 421 Parking Ratios. 422 D. t l ge - ._fit~ Cities and counties shall monitor and provide the following data to 423 Metro on an annual basis: 424 1. the number and location of newly developed parking spaces, and 425 2 demonstration of compliance with the minimum and maximum parking 426 standards, including the application of any variances leea{-efljastfttenfs to the . 427 regional standards in this Title. Coordination with Metro collection of other 428 building data should be encouraged. Page 13;-Urban Growth Mane ernent Functional Plan ' B October N. I796 , J 429 TITLE 3: WATER QUALITY AND FLOOD MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION 430 Section 1. Intent 43! To protect the beneficial uses and functional values of resources within the Water Quality and 432 Flood Management Areas by limiting or mitigating the impact on these areas from development 433 activities. 434 Section 2. Requirement r 435 Cities and counties shall ensure that their comprehensive plans and implementing regulations 436 protect Water Quality and Flood Management Areas pursuant to Section 4. Exceptions to this 437 requirement will be considered under the provisions of Section 7. 438 Section 3. Implementation Process for Cities and Counties 439 Cities and counties are hereby required to amend their plans and implementing ordinances, if 440 necessary, to ensure that they comply with this Title in one of the following ways: 441 A. Either adopt the relevant provisions of the Metro Water Quality and Flood Management 442 model ordinance and map entitled Metro Water Quality and Flood Management 443 Conservation Area Map; or 444 B. Demonstrate that the plans and implementing ordinances substantially comply with the 445 performance standards, including the map, contained in Section 4. In this case; the 446 purpose of this map is to provide a performance standard for evaluation of substantial 447 compliance for those jurisdictions who choose to develop their own map of water quality 448 and flood management areas ; or 449 C. Any combination of A and B above that substantially complies with all performance 450 standards in Section 4. { 451 Section 4. Performance Standards ij 452 A. Flood Mitigation. The purpose of these standards is to protect against flooding, and 3 453 prevent or reduce risk to human life and properties, by allowing for the storage and j 454 conveyance of stream flows through these natural systems. 455 The plans and implementing ordinances of cities and counties shall be in substantial compliance 456 with the following performance standards: 457 1. Prohibit development within the water quality and flood management area; or 458 2. Limit development in a manner that requires balanced cut and fill; unless the 459 project is demonstrated, by an engineering study, that there is no rise in flood 460 elevation or that it will have a net beneficial effect on flood mitigation. i Pagc 144-Urban Growh M.mccmcnl Funcunml Plan October 24. 1'ML _ t _ .i - i 461 3. Require minimum finished floor elevations at least one foot above the design 1 462 flood height or other applicable flood hazard standard for new habitable 463 structures in the Water Quality and Flood Management Area. 464 4. Require that temporary fills permitted during construction shall be removed. 465 B. Water Quality. The purpose of these standards is to protect and allow for enhancement 466 of water quality associated with beneficial uses as defined by the Oregon Water 467 Resources Department and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 468 The plans and implementing ordinances of cities and counties shall be in substantial 469 compliance with the following performance standards: P i 470 1. Require erosion and sediment control for all new development within the Metro 471 boundary as contained in the Metro Water Quality and Flood Management model 472 ordinance. 473 2. Require to the maximum extent practicable that native vegetation cover is 474 maintained or re-established during development, and that trees and shrubs in the i 475 Water Quality and Flood Management Area are maintained. The vegetative cover 476 required pursuant to these provisions shall not allow the use of "Prohibited Plants for Stream Corridors and Wetlands" contained in the Water Quality and Flood 478 Management Model Code adopted by the Metro Council. 479 3. Prohibit new uses of uncontained areas of hazardous materials as defined by DEQ 480 in the Water Quality and Flood Management Areas; and i i 481 C. Protect the long term regional continuity and integrity of Water Quality and Flood 482 Management Areas E 483 Standards: Local jurisdictions shall establish or adopt transfer of density within 484 ownership to mitigate the effects of development in Water Quality and Flood 485 Management Areas, or through Transferable Development Rights (TDRs), which have 486 substantially equivalent effect as the Metro Water Quality and Flood Management Model 487 Ordinance. I 488 Metro encourages local government to require that approvals of applications for 489 partitions, subdivisions and design review actions must be conditioned with protecting i. 490 Water Quality and Flood Management Areas with a conservation easement, platted as a 491 common open space, or through purchase or donation of fee simple ownership to public 492 agencies or private non-profits for preservation where feasible. Metro and cities and 493 counties lecal b shall recognize that applications involving pre-existing i 494 development within the Water Quality and Flood Management Areas shall be exempted 49~ from the provisions concerning conservation easements and purchase or donation of fee 4J simple ownership to public agencies or private non-profits for preservation. Page IS}-Urban Growh Marusemem FuneunrW Plan Oaohcr 24. 1996 - i .,f s 497 Section 5. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area ! 498 A. The purpose of these standards is to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife 499 habitat within the fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas identified on the water - 500 quality and flood management area map by establishing performance standards and 501 promoting coordination by Metro of regional urban water sheds. 502 B. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Recommendations i 503 These areas shall be shown on the Water Quality and Flood Management Area Map. 504 Fishand Wildlife Habitat Conservation Habitat Areas generally include and/or go beyond 505 the Water Quality and Flood Management Areas.. These areas shown on the map are h., 506 Metro's initial inventory of significant fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Metro 507 hereby recommends that local jurisdictions adopt the following temporary standards: 508 1. Prohibit development in the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas that adversely 509 impacts fish and wildlife habitat. 510 Exceptions: It is recognized that urban development will, at times, necessitate 511 development activities within or adjacent to Fish and Wildlife Habitat 512 Conservation Areas. The following Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation 513 Mitigation Policy, except for emergency situations, applies to all the following 514 exceptions: ! j , 515 A project alternatives analysis, where public need for the project has been 516 established, will be required for any of the exceptions listed below. The 517 alternatives analysis must seek to avoid adverse environmental impacts by • } 518 demonstrating there are no practicable, less environmentally damaging 519 alternatives available. In those cases where there are no practicable, less I ! 520 environmentally damaging alternatives, the project proponent will seek i 521 alternatives which reduce or minimize adverse environmental impacts. Where 522 impacts are unavoidable, compensation, by complete replacement of the impacted ! 523 site's ecological attributes or, where appropriate, substitute resources of equal or 524 greater value will be provided in accordance with the Metro Water Quality and ` 525 Flood Management model ordinance. 526 a. Utility construction within a maximum construction zone width 527 established by cities and countiesleeal geverrrs. 528 b. Overhead or underground electric power, telecommunications and cable 529 television lines within a sewer or stormwater right-of-way or within a 530 maximum construction zone width established by cities and countiesleee{ 531 g meats. 532 c. Trails, boardwalks and viewing areas construction. 533 d. Transportation crossings and widenings. Transportation crossings and 534 widenings shall be designed to minimize disturbance, allow for fish and Pa Fe 162--U,b n GroWN Marogemem F.mimat Plan October 24. 1714 _ j i t V- • i wildlife passage and crossings should be preferably at right angles to the stream channel. 537 2. Limit the clearing or removal of native vegetation from the Fish and Wildlife I 538 Habitat Conservation Area to ensure its long term survival and health. Allow and 539 encourage enhancement and restoration projects for the benefit of fish and 540 wildlife. 1 i 541 3. Require the revegetation of disturbed areas with native plants to 90 percent cover { 542 within three years. Disturbed areas should be replanted with native plants on the 543 Metro Plant List or an approved locally adopted plant list. Planting or 544 propagation of plants listed on the Metro Prohibited Plant List within the 1 545 Conservation Area shall be prohibited. 546 4. Require compliance with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 547 seasonal restrictions for in-stream work. Limit development activities that would 548 impair fish and wildlife during key life-cycle events according to the guidelines I 549 contained in ODFW's "Oregon Guidelines for Timing of In-water Work to 550 Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources." i` 551 C. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection 55 Within eighteen (18) months from the effective date of this functional plan, Metro shall 5Sb complete the following regional coordination program by adoption of functional plan % 554 provisions. 555 1. Metro shall establish criteria to define and identify regionally significant fish and 556 wildlife habitat areas. 557 2. Metro shall adopt a map of regionally significant fish and wildlife areas after (1) { 558 examining existing Goal 5 data, reports and regulation from cities and counties, 559 and (2) hclding public hearings. 1 560 3. Metro shall identify inadequate or inconsistent data and protection in existing 561 Goal 5 data, reports and regulations on fish and wildlife habitat. City and county 562 comprehensive plan provisions where inventories of significant resources were 563 completed and accepted by a LCDC Periodic Review Order after January 1, 1993, 564 shall not be required to comply until their next periodic review. i 565 4. Metro shall complete Goal 5 economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) i 566 analyses for mapped regionally significant fish and wildlife habitat areas only for { 567 those areas where inadequate or inconsistent data or protection has been 968 identified. ! I - - Page 172-Urb&n Growth Management Funcuonal Plan October 24• 171G . Lam. 569 5. Metro shall establish performance standards for protection of regionally 570 significant fish and wildlife habitat which must be met by the plans implementine 571 ordinances of cities and counties. l 572 Section 6. Metro Model Ordinance Required a 573 Metro shall adopt a Water Quality and Flood Management Model Ordinance and map for use by f 574 local jurisdictions to comply with this section. Sections 14 of this title shall not become I 575 effective until 24 months after Metro Council has adopted a Model Code and map that addresses 576 all of the provisions of this title. Metro may adopt a Model Code and map for protection of r 577 regionally significant fish and wildlife habitat. Section 5 of this title shall be implemented by 578 adoption of new functional plan provisions. t - 579 Section 7. Variances 580 City and county comprehensive plans and implementing regulations are hereby required to ! 581 include procedures to consider claims of map error and hardship variances to reduce or remove 582 stream corridor protection for any property demonstrated to be converted to an unbuildable lot by 583 application of stream corridor protections. C I _ l Page L9;-UrWn Growth Management Funcuonnt Plan 1. GctUAcr ?d, 11XNr ~....r..r...... : 1 s TITLE 4: RETAIL IN EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS 585 Section 1. Intent 586 It is the intent of the Metro 2040 Growth Concept that Employment and Industrial Areas contain 587et-lEle supportive retail development. Employment and Industrial areas would be expected to 588 include some limited retail commercial uses primarily to serve the needs of people working or 589 living in the immediate emple5gitem areas Emolovment or Industrial Areas not larger market j 590 areas outside the L4npleymeRf area Employment or Industrial Areas. .eHA 59! Empleyment and hid-Iii-I Map--- 592 593 Section 2. Comprehensive Plan and Implementing Ordinance Changes Required k 594 A. Cities and counties are hereby required to amend their comprehensive plans and 595 implementing regulations if necessary. to prohibit retail uses larger than 36,099 60.000 596 s feet of gross leasable area per building or business in the Ehipleymem 597 Industrial Areas speei€eelly designated on the 2040 Gfewth attached 598 Employment and Industrial Areas Map. 599 B. This subsection applies to city and county comprehensive elan designations and zonine 600 prdinances acknowledged by the effective date of this Functional Plan. which allow retail uses larger than 60.000 square feet of gross leasable area per building or business in I f Employment Areas designated on the attached Employment and Industrial Areas Map. 603 These cities and counties are hereby required to amend their comprehensive plans and 604 implementing regulations, if necessary, to require a process resulting in a land use 605 decision for any retail uses larger than 60.000 square feet of gross leasable area per 606 building or business on those lands where such uses are currently allowed by any process. t 607 The standards for the land use decision to allow any such retail uses shall require (1) a 608 demonstration in the record that adequate transportation facilities will be in place at the 609 time the retail use begins operation: and (2) a demonstration that adequate transportation t 610 facilities for the other planned uses in the Employment Areas are included in the 611 applicable comprehensive plan provisions. If the Situ and county comprehensive plan 612 designations and zoning ordinances which allow retail uses larger than 60.000 square feet { 613 of gross leasable area per building or business in Employment Areas have not been 614 acknowledged by the effective date of this Functional Plan, subsection 2.C. of this Title 615 shall apply. I 616 C. City or county comprehensive plan designations and zoning ordinances acknowledged by 617 the effective date of this Functional Plan which do not allow retail uses larger than 60.000 f 618 square feet of gross leasable area per building or business in Employment Areas 619 designated on the attached Employment and Industrial Areas Man shall continue to i 620 prohibit them unless an exception is established under Section 3 of this Title pursuant to G 621 the compliance procedures of Title 8. i } .J t t Page 143-Urban Growth Management Functrorul Plan October 24, 19% f 1 622 Section 3. Exceptions 623 Exceptions to this standard for Employment Areas may be included in local compliance plans 624 for: 625 A. Low traffic generating, land-consumptive commercial uses with low parking demand kk 626 which have a community or region wide market, or 627 B. As identified en the Employment and industrial , Specific Employment eF 628 industfial Areas which elfeady have substantially developed as retail eenteFe areas or 629 which designated are proposed to be or have been 630 locally designated, but not acknowledged by the effective date of this Functional Plan. as 631 retail areas, may allow new or redeveloped retail uses where adequate transportation ti. 632 facilities capacity is demonstrated in local compliance plans as provided in Title 8. 633 634 as pre~ 635 C. Retail uses that primarily draw business from a market area not more than 2.5 miles from 636 the site where adequate transportation facilities capacity is demonstrated in local 637 compliance plans as provided in Title 8. r i ~ i Page 2tt~-Urhan Growth Management Functional Plan October 24, 1714 - s - i 8 TITLE 5: NEIGHBOR CITIES AND RURAL RESERVES 639 Section 1. Intent 640 The intent of this title is to clearly define Metro policy with regard to areas outside the M ro 641 urban growth boundary. NO PORTION OF THIS TITLE CAN REQUIRE ANY ACTIONS 642 BY NEIGHBORING CITIES. .Metro, if neighboring cities jointly agree, will adopt or sign 643 rural reserve agreements for those areas designated rural reserve in the Metro 2040 Growth 644 Concept with Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington County, and Neighbor City Agreements 645 with Sandy, Canby, and North Plains. Metro would welcome discussion about agreements with ' 646 other cities if they request such agreements. } I 647 In addition, counties and cities within the Metro boundary are hereby required to amend their 648 comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances within twenty-four months to reflect the rural 649 reserves and green corridors policies described in the Metro 2040 Growth Concept. 650 Section 2. Rural Reserves and Green Corridors 651 Metro shall attempt to designate and protect common rural reserves between Metro's urban ' 652 growth boundary and designated urban reserve areas and each neighbor city's urban growth 653 boundary and designated urban reserves, and designate and protect common locations for green 654 corridors along transportation corridors connecting the Metro region and each neighboring city. For areas within the Metro boundary, counties are hereby required to amend their comprehensive 6- plans and implementing ordinances to identify and protect the rural reserves and green corridors i 657 described in the adopted 2040 Growth Concept and shown on the adopted 2040 Growth Concept 658 Map. These rural lands shall maintain the rural character of the landscape and our agricultural f 659 economy. New rural commercial or industrial development shall be restricted to the extent 660 allowed by law. Zoning shall be for resource protection on farm and forestry land, and very low- 661 density residential (no greater average density than one unit for five acres) for exception land. r 662 For areas outside the Metro boundary, Metro shall encourage intergovernmental agreements with 663 the cities of Sandy, Canby and North Plains. C 664 Section 3. Invitations for Intergovernmental Agreements 665 Metro shall invite the cities and countiesleeel-geveniments outside the Metro boundary and 666 named in Section 1 of this title to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement, similar to the draft 667 agreements attached hereto. i 668 Section 4. Metro Intent with Regard to Green Corridors f 669 Metro shall attempt to negotiate a Green Corridor Intergovernmental Agreement with Oregon 670 Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the three counties (Clackamas, Multnomah and l 671 Washington) to designate and protect areas along transportation corridors connecting Metro and 677,, neighboring cities. Page Ll;-Urban Growth Muutement Functiu u] Plan October :a, I>x J 1 i 673 TITLE 6- REGIONAL ACCESSIBILITY ° 674 Section 1. Intent 1 675 Implementation of the 2040 Growth Concept requires that the region identify key measures of 676 transportation effectiveness which include all modes of transportation. Developing a full array of j 677 these measures will require additional analysis. Focusing development in the concentrated 678 activity centers, including the central city, regional centers, and station communities, requires the 679 use of alternative modes of transportation in order to avoid unacceptable levels of congestion, 680 . The continued economic 681 vitality of industrial areas and intermodal facilities is largely dependent on preserving or 682 improving access to these areas and maintaining reasonable levels of freight mobility inert the 683 region' Therefore, regional congestion standards and other regional system t 684 performance measures shall be tailored to reinforce the specific development needs of the 685 individual 2040 Growth Concept design tomes 686 These regional standards will be linked to a series of regional street design concepts that fully 687 integrate transportation and land use needs for each of the 2040 land use components. The 688 designs generally fort a continuum; a network of throughways (freeway and highway designs) 689 will emphasize auto and freight mobility and connect major activity centers. Slower-speed 690 boulevard designs within concentrated activity centers will balance the multi-modal travel 691 demands for each mode of transportation within-e€ these areas. Street and road designs will 692 complete the continuum, with multi-modal designs that reflect the land uses they serve, but also 693 serving as moderate-speed vehicle connections between activity centers that complement the 694 throughway system. While these designs are under development, it is important. that 695 improvements in the most concentrated activity centers are designed to lessen the negative 696 effects of motor vehicle traffic on other modes of travel. Therefore, the implementation 697 of amenity oriented boulevard treatment that better serves pedestrianbi, cycle and transit travel in k 698 the central city, regional centers, main streets, town centers, and station communities is a key j 699 step in the overall implementation of the Metro 2040 Growth Concept. i i 700 It is intended that the entirety of these Title 6 standards will be supplemented by the Regional 1 701 Transportation Plan (RTP) when the RTP is approved and adopted by the Metro Council. i 702 Section 2. Boulevard Design 703 Fen-FRegional routes in the central city, regional centers, station communities, main streets and f 704 town centers ar_designated on the Boulevard Design Map. In eeneral, pedestrian and transit j 705 oriented design elements are the nriority in the central city and regional centers, station 706 communities, main streets and town centers.-a All cities and counties within the Metro region 707 shall implement or allow others to be-implemented boulevard design 708 eiements as improvements are made to these facilities including those facilities built by ODOT i 709 or Tri-Met. Each jurisdiction shall adept-amendments, 'r neeessaiey, to ensUFe their 710 comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances, if necessary, to require consideration or 711 installation of the following boulevard design elements when proceeding with right-of-way 712 improvements on regional routes designated on the boulevard design map:. I-n ti mil; Page 222-Urwn Growth Management Funcuoml Plan O,ruber 24• 1716 J iii regienal 714 eeniefs, a 715 A. Wide sidewalks with pedestrian amenities such as benches, awnings and special lighting; 716 B. Landscape strips, street trees and other design features that create a pedestrian buffer 717 between curb and sidewalk; 718 C. Pedestrian crossings at all intersections, and mid-block crossings where intersection ! 719 spacing is excessive; S i f a 720 D. The use of medians and curb extensions to enhance pedestrian crossings where wide f e ! 721 streets make crossing difficult; i 722 E. Accommodation of bicycle travelBikew&e ; 723 F. On-street parking; 724 G. Motor vehicle lane widths that consider the above improvements; 725 H. Use of landscaped medians where appropriate to enhance the visual quality of the 1 726 streetscape. 727 Section 3. Design Standards for Street Connectivity 728 The design of local street systems, including "local" and "collector" functional classifications, is 729 generally beyond the scope of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). However, the aggregate 730 effect of local street design impacts the effectiveness of the regional system when local travel is 731 restricted by a lack of connecting routes, and local trips are forced onto the regional network. i 732 Therefore, the followineD7O " design and performance options are intended to 733 impmveing local circulation in a manner that protects the 734 integrity of the regional system. 735 Local jurisdictions within the Metro region are hereby required to amend their comprehensive j 736 plans and implementing ordinances, if necessary, to comply with or exceed ooze of the following 737. options in the development review process: 738 A. Design Option. Cities and counties shall ensure that their comprehensive plans, 739 implementing ordinances and administrative codes require demonstration of compliance 740 with the following: j 741 1. New residential and mixed-use developments shall include local street plans that: i 742 a. encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel by providing short, direct public 747"-, right-of-way routes to connect residential uses with nearby existing and Page 27.1-Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Octoher 24. 19% - L~ l~ - A . E 744 planned commercial services, schools, parks and other neighborhood 745 facilities; and 746 b. include no cul-de-sac streets longer than 200 feet, and no more than 25 747 dwelling 'units on a closed-end street system except where topoerapliv, 748 barriers such as railroads or freewavs. or environmental constraints such as 749 maior streams and rivers, prevent street extension; and 750 c. provide bike and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of- 751 way when full street connections are not possible, with spacing between 752 connections of no more than 330 feet except where topographv, banters' 753 such as railroads or freeways, or environmental constraints such as major 754 streams and rivers, prevent street extension; and 755 d. consider opportunities to incrementally extend and connect local streets in 756 primarily developed areas; and 757 e. serve a mix of land uses on contiguous local streets; and 758 f. support posted speed limits; and 759 g. consider narrow street design alternatives that feature total right-of-way of 760 no more than 46 feet, including pavement widths of no more than 28 feet, 761 curb-face to curb-face, sidewalk widths of at least 5 feet and landscaped 762 pedestrian buffer strips that include street trees; and 763 h. limit the use of cul-de-sac designs and closed street systems to situations 764 where topography, pre-existing development paRenvi-or environmental 765 constraints prevent full street extensions. 766 2. For new residential and mixed-use development, all contiguous areas of vacant 767 and primarily undeveloped land of five acres or more shall be identified by cities 768 and counties and the following will be prepared: 769 A map that identifies possible local street connections to adjacent developing 770 areas. The map shall include street connections at intervals of no more than 660 771 feet, with more frequent connections in areas planned for mixed use or dense 772 development. 773 B. Performance Option. For residential and mixed use areas, cities and counties shall 774 enswcamend their comprehensive plans, implementing ordinances and 775 administrative codes, if necessary, to require demonstration of compliance with 776 performance criteria in the following manner. Cities and counties shall develop local 777 street design reps er standards in text or maps or both with street intersection spacing to 778 occur at intervals of no less than eight street intersections per mile 4 The number of 779 street intersections should be greatest in the highest density 2040 Growth Concept design 780 types' d Fnixed land uses- 781 Local street designs for new developments shall satisfy bath of the following additional 782 criteria: j 783 1. Performance Criterion: minimize local traffic on the regional motor vehicle 784 system, by demonstrating that local vehicle trips on a given regional facility do l Page LQ--Urhan Growth Management Functional Plan Onober 24• I'M l I ' not exceed the 1995 arithmetic median of regional trips for facilities of the same 786 motor vehicle system classification by more than 25 percent. 787 2. Performance Criterion: everyday local travel needs are served by direct, 788 connected local street systems where: (1) the shortest motor vehicle trip over 789 public streets from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than 790 twice the straight-line distance; and (2) the shortest pedestrian trip on public right- 791 of-way is no more than one and one-half the straight-line distance. i 792 Section 4. Transportation Performance Standards 793 A. Alternative Mode Analysis ' 794 1. Mode split will be used as the key regional measure for transportation i 795 effectiveness in the Central City, Regional Centers and Station Communities. 796 Each jurisdiction shall establish an alternative mode split target (defined as non- 797 Single Occupancy Vehicle person-fins as a percentage of all person-tries for all 798 modes of transportation` all Single Oeeu. t ' r, hiPe,., --.,.a C Fien ( 799 spenatiert) for each of the central city, regional centers and station ' 800 communities within its boundaries. The altemative mode split target shall be no 801 less than the regional targets for these Region 2040 Growth Concept land use components to be established in the Regional Transportation Plan). - ~ U j 803 2. Cities and counties which have Central City, regional centers J 804 and station communities shall identify actions which will implement the mode 805 split targets. These actions should include consideration of the maximum parking 806 ratios adopted as part of Title 2, Section 2, Boulevard - Design of this title, and I 807 transit's role in serving the area. 808 B. Motor Vehicle Congestion Analysis I 809 1. Level-elf-sSlervice (LOS) is a measurement of the use of a transportation facility 810 as a share of designed capacity. The following table using Level Of Service may Bit be incorporated into local comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances to { 812 replace current methods of determining motor vehicle congestion on regional I j 813 facilities, if a city or county determines that this change is needed to permit i 814 Title 1. Table 1 capacities Metre ;040 GreAqh Geneept in the 815 Central City, Regional Centers, Town Centers, Main Streets and Station 816 Communities: 817 General Performance Standards (using LOS*) i j Preferred Acceptable Exceeds Mid-Dav one-hour C or better D E or worse Peak two-hour E/E or better FIE F/F or worse ~J Page 257.-Urban Grown Management Functional Plan October 24. 1996 - - J A 818 "Level-of-Service is determined by using either the latest edition of the Highway 819 Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board) or through volume to capacity 820 ratio equivalencies as follows: LOS C = .8 or better; LOS D = .3 to .9; LOS = .9 821 to 1.0; and LOS F = greater than 1.0. A copy of the Level of Service Tables 822 from the Highway Capacity Manual is attached as Exhibit A. 823 2. Accessibility. If a congestion standard is exceeded as identified in 4.13.1, cities and 824 counties tori shall evaluate the impact of the congestion on regional 825 accessibility using the best available methods (quantitative or qualitative). If a 826 determination is made by Metro that the congestion negatively impacts regional 827 accessibility, local jurisdictions shall follow the congestion management procedures 828 identified in 4.C. below. 829 C. Congestion Management 830 For a city or county to amend their comprehensive plan to adaD~~- - ~_a:-- a 831 significant capacity expansion to a regional facility, 832 the following actions shall be applied, unless'the 833 capacity expansion is included adequateW in the Regional Transportation Plan: 834 1. To address Level of Service: 835 a. Transportation system management techniques 836 b. Corridor or site-level transportation demand management techniques 837 c. Additional readiveymtoto~r vehicle capacity to parallel facilities, including 838 the consideration of a grid pattern consistent with connectivity standards 839 contained in Title 6 of this plan 840 d. Transit service improvements to increase ridership 841 2. To address preservation of stfeetmotor vehicle function: { 842 a: Traffic calming 1 843 b. SireetMotor vehicle function classification 844 3. To address or preserve existing street capacity { 845 a. Transportation management (e.g. access management, signal interties, lane 846 channelization) l 847 If the above considerations do not adequately and cost-effectively address the problem, 848 capacity improvements may be included in the comprehensive plan. l Page 244-Urban Growth Management Functional Plan ' O.mhcr 20, 1996 - t E 1 ~ta~ _ i and Signalized Intersections t - $ for ~reeWaysr Arterials an efinition TRAFEtC FLOW CNAGTER(STtCS l Level 01 Service tL0510 StGi1A~ NS AR'f ERi►it s tP17ERS e PVavel speed (stopped delay Pet unimpeded completely EWAYS (avetag a icalttee vehtcie) tree now: FRE ad LOS in r1 Vtttualty to .60 (average tta el mp assum 9 h speed 1140 mph) 5 seconds; ratio less than It equal assumin now g Less than do not votumeirapac w design speed) mph mostv ehlles peded delays; reasonably unim 6D mph Greater than 35 stop at all' A Greater than Stable now with slaght "t seconds; more ratio •61 to 70 Average s acing p 5,1 to 15 etcapacity r than tot volum 22 car•ten9ths to 35 mPh vehicles stop to maneuver 28 M Los A less tteedom m 0 G7 to 60 mph vnih delays Stable now 7 t to .80 Average spacing' 15.1 to 25 seconds; at rty ratio of . µ dust cycle iailutes 'Iolumetrsp A3 car lengths Y begin to appear ~ 22 to 28 mph c 54 to 57 mph High dons Ki but stable now y e spacing 40 seconds; a6w t311e of .8i to .90 pveta9 25.1 to le(anutes votumetcap 9 "t-lengths Ind'rAluai Cyr 17 to 22 mPh a~ttyunstable now 54 mph are noticeable of neat rap 0 46 to Opetaking rondttions at acing rat. •91 to 1.00 Average sp 40.1 toua0q& failures voiumetcapacity 6 car-lengths 13 to 17 mPh indrvid uent; poor 46 mph are tieq conditions E 30 to progression Foteed now, breakdown e spacing'. Greater than 60 achy re6o o(greater than 1.00 Avetag not acceptable votumetcap 1.10 4 cat•1en9ths seconds ratios of greater than Less than 13 mPh tot most duvets DemandtcapaeW F Less than 30 mPh a carried and olume that c Peak Period WIN" 1o"bumPef add, timiun9v extendinfl the Pe yF Demand exceeds roadway cap ' an don to parallel rohF Descri ptions) totting excess dea - Manual (P.throug so ice'. 1985 Highway CaPUOn) Metro (>F DesenP f i j t f i 849 TITLE 7: AFFORDABLE HOUSING 850 Section 1. Intent 851 RUGGO Objective 17 requires M r ` 852 mgienal item and 853 designated that Metro adopt a "fair share" stratew for 854 meeting the housing needs of the urban population in cities and counties based on a subregionai j 855 analysis. A "fair share" strategy will include (1) a_diverse range of housing, types available 856 within cities and counties inside the UGB: (2) specific goals for low and moderate rate housing 857 to ensure that sufficient and affordable housing is available to households of all income levels 858 that live or have a member working in each jurisdiction: (3) housing densities and costs 859 supportive of adopted public policy for the development of the regional transportation svstem 860 and designated centers and corridors: and (4) a balance of jobs and housing within the region and t 861 subregions. 862 Title l of this functional plan requires cities and counties to change their zoning to accommodate 863 development at higher densities in locations supportive of the transportation system. Two other 864 parts of the "fair share" strategy are addressed here: (1) encouraging use of tools identified to 865 improve availability of sufficient housing affordable to households of all income levels; and (2) 866 encouraging manufactured housing to assure a diverse range of available housing types. 867 Section 2. Recommendations to Improve Availability of Affordable Housing 868 According to HUD standards housing is affordable if the resident is paving no more than •one- 869 third of their income for housing Data from the federally required County Consolidated Plans 870 clearly demonstrate that there exists a shortage of housing affordable to low and moderate 871 income people in most, if not all, cities and counties. Metro recommends that cities and counties 872 increase their efforts to provide for the housing needs of households of all income levels that live 873 or have a member working in each jurisdiction and that they consider implementation of some or 1 874 211 of -Tlhe following tools and approaches to facilitate the development of affordable housing- 875 eFe feeen-- nded ie begin ie meet the need c _ "'K'^ t„nd "tY dabl 876 A. Donate buildable tax-foreclosed properties to nonprofit organizations for 877 development as mixed market affordable housing. 878 B. Develop permitting process incentives for housing being developed to serve 879 people at or below 80% of area median income. 880 C. Provide fee waivers and property tax exemptions for projects developed by 881 nonprofit organizations serving people at or below 60% of area median income. j 882 D. Create a land banking program to enhance the availability of appropriate sites for 883 permanently affordable housing. I } Page 7.'--urban Growth Management Functional Plan October 24. 19% I E. Consider replacement ordinances that would require developers of high-income 885 housing, commercial, industrial, recreational or government projects to replace 886 any affordable housing destroyed by these projects. 887 F. Consider linkage'programs that require developers of job-producing development, 888 particularly. that which receives tax incentives, to contribute to an affordable j 889 housing fund. i I 890 G. Commit locally controlled funds, such as Community Development Block Grants, 891 Strateeic Investment Program tax abatement funds or general fund dollars, to the ` 892 development of permanently affordable housing for people at or below 60% of 893 area median income. ` 894 H. Consider inclusionary, zoning requirements, particularly in tax incentive i 895 programs, for new development in transit zones and other areas where public I 896 investment has contributed to the value and developability of land. 897 Section 3. Recommendations to Encourage Manufactured Housing 898 State housing policy requires the provision of manufactured housing inside all Urban Growth 899 Boundaries as part of the housing mix with appropriate placement standards. The following are 9`00 recommended to reduce regulatory barriers to appropriately placed manufactured housing: j 901A. Requirements for a minimum of five acres to develop a manufactured housing l 902 park should be reviewed to consider a lesser requirement, or elimination-of a 903 minimum parcel and/or lot size entirely. 1 904 B. Manufactured homes configured as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, etc. should be 1 905 encouraged outside manufactured dwelling parks where zoning densities are 906 consistent with single story development. l i i i I ; t i Page L92-Urban Growth Management Functional Plan October 2<, 179G 907 TITLE 8: COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES 908 Section 1. Compliance Required i F i 909 All cities and counties within the Metro boundary are hereby required to amend their 910 comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances to- comply with the provisions of this 911 functional plan within twenty-four months of the effective date of this ordinance. Metro 912 recommends the adoption of the policies that affect land consumption as soon as possible. 913 Section 2. Compliance Procedures 914 A. On or before six months prior to the deadline established in Section 1, cities and counties 915 shall transmit to Metro the following: a 916 1. An evaluation of their local plans, including public facility capacities and the 917 amendments necessary to comply with this functional plan; t 918 2. Copies of all applicable comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances and 919 public facility plans, as proposed to be amended; 920 3. Findings that explain how the amended local comprehensive plans will achieve 921 the standards required in titles 1 through 6 of this functional plan. 922 In developing the evaluation, plan and ordinance amendments and findings, cities and 923 counties shall address the Metro 2040 Growth Concept, and explain how the proposed 924 amendments implement the Growth Concept. 925 B. ErxempEiens-€><emExceotions to any of the requirements in the above titles may be granted 926 by the Metro Council, as provided for in the Regional Urban Growth Goals and 927 Objectives, Section 5.3, after MPAC reviewa-, besed-"_Reouests for an exception should 928 include a city or county submittal as specified in this section. The Metro Council will 929 make all final decisions basis for the grant of any 930 requested exception eft-km. 931 1. Population and Eflq}eymenE Capacity. An e>emp6E)n-€fem exception to the 932 requirement contained in Table 1 of Title 1 that the target capacities shall be met 933 or exceeded may be granted based on a submittal which includes, but is not 934 limited to, the following: 935 a. A demonstration of substantial evidence of the economic infeasibility to 936 provide sanitary sewer, water, stotmwater or transportation facilities to an 937 area or areas; or 938 b. A demonstration that the city or county is unable to meet the target 939 capacities listed in Table 1 because substantial areas have prior 940 commitments to development at densities inconsistent with Metro target; 941 or Page LA-Urban Growth Management Functional Plan j p:weef 24.19% C. A demonstration that the heasehlik6dwelline unit and eetp#ey Aeet•ob 4a3 capacities cannot be accommodated at densities or locations the market or 944 assisted programs will likely build during the planning period. 945 As part of any request for exemptiet3 exception under this subsection, a 946 city or county shall also submit an estimate of the amount of 947 heuseheldsdwelline units or enqAeymerAj2bs included in the capacity i" 948 listed in Table 1 that cannot be accommodated; and a recommendation 949 which identifies land that would provide for the unaccommodated capacity L, 950 located outside the urban growth boundary and near or adjacent to the city 951 or county. i f b 952 In reviewing any request for exemption exception based on the financial 953 feasibility of providing public services, Metro, along with cities and countiesleeat 954 goes, shall estimate tha cost of providing necessary public services and . 955 compare those with the estimated costs submitted by the city or county requesting i .956 the exemption. I i - f 957 2. Parking Measures. Subject to the provisions of Title 2, cities or counties may 958 request an exemptioe f'Fem exception to parking requirements. Metro may 1 959 consider a city or county government request to allow areas designated as Zone A _ 960 to be subject to Zone B requirements upon the city or county establishing that, for S~ the area in question: 962 a. There are no existing plans to provide transit service with 20-minute or 963 lower peak frequencies; and 964 b. There are no adjacent neighborhoods close enough to generate sufficient 965 pedestrian activity; and 966 c. There are no significant pedestrian activity within the present business 967 district; and I 968 d. That it will be feasible for. the excess parking to be converted to the 969 development of housing, commerce or industry in the future. j 970 The burden of proof for an-edjestfttent variance shall increase based on the quality 971 and timing of transit service. The existence of transit service or plans for the 972 provision of transit service near a 20-minute or lower peak frequency shall 973 establish a higher burden to establish the need for the exce tionetterptien. f - - 974 j. Water Quality and Flood Management Areas. Cities and counties may request 975 areas to be added or deleted from the Metro Water Quality and Flood 976 Management Area based on a finding that the area identified on the map is not a 977 Water Quality and Flood Management Area or a Fish and Wildlife Habitat 978 Conservation Area, as defined in this functional plan. Areas may also be deleted 979 from the map if the city or county can prove that its deletion and the cumulative 98" impact of all deletions in its jurisdiction will have minimal impact on the water f " f Pate Y63-Urban Growth Muu6c rent Functional Plan October 24. 1996 j t~ • i 981 quality of the stream and on flood effects. Findings shall be supported by 982 evidence, including the results of field investigations. 983 4. Retail in Employment and Industrial Areas. Subject to the provisions of Title 4, 984 cities and counties may request a change in the Employment and Industrial Areas 985 Map. Metro may consider a city or county request to modify a mapped 1 986 E ;play ent and lfidusaie "-e an Employment Area to exempt existing or 987 locally designated retail eeFtteFS areas. unacknowledged by the date of this 988 Functional Plan, where they can demonstrate that- 989 e- The Employment and Industrial Areas Mfnap e+'edeel ed included lands 990 within Emplovlnent Areas having a substantially developed existing retail 991 eeater area or a locally designated retail eeateF area pursuant to a 992 comprehensive plan acknowledged by the date of this Functional Plan 993 which allowed retail uses larger than 60,000 square feet of gross leasable 994 area per building or business: or 995 b. The recuested retail area in an Fmplo= nt Area hash been found to he 996 appropriate for an exception based upon current or projected needs within 997 the jurisdiction and the city or county can demonstrate that adequate 998 transportation facilities capacity exists for that retail area. 999 5. Regional Accessibility. Cities or counties may request ic[-e em an exception to 1000 the requirements of Title 6, Regional Accessibility, where they can show that a 1001 street system or connection is not feasible for reasons of topographic constraints 1002 or natural or built environment considerations. 1003 C. In addition to the above demonstrations, any city or county request or determination 1004 thatsteE4e-raeeepefate functional plan policies should not or cannot be incorporated into 1005 comprehensive plans shall be subject to the conflict resolution and mediation processes 1006 included within the RUGGO, Goal I. provisions prior to the final adoption of 1007 inconsistent policies or actions. Leeel-aetieas Final land use decisions of cities and 1008 counties inconsistent with functional plan requirements are subject to immediate appeal 1009 for violation of the functional plan. } 1010 D. Compliance with requirements of this plan shall not require cities or counties to violate 1011 federal or state law, including statewide land use goals Conflicting interoretations of 1012 legal requirements may be the subiect of a compliance intemretation and conflict 1013 resolution under RUGGO Obiective 5.3. f 1014 Section 3. Any Comprehensive Plan Change must Comply ; 1015 After the effective date of this ordinance, any amendment of a comprehensive plan or 1016 implementing ordinance shall be consistent with the ftineiienal plaFi requirements of this j 1017 functional plan eantaiRed :H Metro shall assist cities and countiesshe legal 'I Page LQ-Urbin Growth Management FuncUmul Plan October 20• IM j i i i ~,F 1 ^ 1 f gaveFAmem-in achieving compliance with all applicable functional plan requirements. Upon lOl9 request, Metro. will review' proposed comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances for 1020 functional plan compliance prior to city or county adoption. 1021 Section 4. Compliance Plan Assistance 1022 A. Any city o^ r county may request of Metro a compliance plan which 1023 contains the following: 1024 1. An analysis of the city or county o ' comprehensive plan and 1025 implementing ordinances, and what sections require change to comply with the 1026 performance standards. t t 1027 2. Specific amendments that would bring the city or countvittrisdietioR into 1028 compliance with the requirements of Sections 1 to 8, if necessary. 1029 B. hies and counties must make the request within four months of,the 1030 effective date of this ordinance. The request shall be signed by the highest elected official 4 1031 of the jurisdiction. 1032 C. Metro shall deliver a compliance plan within four months of the request date. The 1033 compliance plan shall be a recommendation from the Executive Officer. The compliance 1 plan shall be filed with the Metro Council two weeks before it is transmitted, for possible j ' I 1035 review and comment. I 1036 Section 5. Compliance Interpretation Process j 1037 After the effective date of this ordinance. Metro shall provide a process for cities and counties 7 1038 required by this functional plan to change their plans to seek interpretations of the requirements 1039 this functional plan. Application for a compliance interpretation shall be made in writing to 1040 the Executive Officer for preparation of a report and recommendation. The compliance 1041 interpretation process shall include a hearings officer decision based on the case record. An 1042 appeal to the Metro Council shall be available to parties in the case and by vote of the Metro 1043 gouncil,_'1'he Metro Council may initiate a compliance interpretation on its_ow_ _n_ motion with or 1044 without an application. 1045 Section 6. Citizen Review Process 1046 A citizen who has presented written or oral testimony at the local level on the interoretation issue ` 1047 may petition the Metro Council for a compliance interoretation. After hearing the citizen 1048 petition, the Council may initiate a compliance interoretation. Page Lp-Urban Growth Mam;ennem Functional Plan October 24. 19% 1 i 1 1049 Section 7. Enforcement; } 1050 A. Prior to a final ae+ien decision to amend a comprehensive plan or implementing 1051 ordinance, a Ieeeacity or county determination that a requirement of this functional plan should 1052 not or cannot be implemented shall may be subject to a compliance intervretation and the conflict i 1053 resolution process provided for in RUGGO, Goal I at the request of the city or county. 1054 B. City or county actions to amend a comprehensive plan or implementing ordinance in 1055 violation of this functional plan at any time after the effective date of this ordinance shall be 1056 subject to appeal or other legal action for violation of a regional functional plan requirement, 1057 including but not limited to reduction of regional transportation funding and funding priorities. 1059 C. Failure to amend comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances as required by 1059 Section 1 of this Title shall be subject to any and all enforcement actions authorized by law.-A*iy I 1060 - i. 1061 i plan-is~subjee t t- ----a 1062 - I . i i i1 i r 1. I . I Page 117}-Urban Growth Management Functional Plan ' _ OuoEer 24, I',-)G - - -i Mb- TITLE 9: PERFORMANCE MEASURES' 1064 Section 1. Intent 1065 In order to monitor progress in implementation of this functional plan, and in order to implement j 1066' Objective 10 of RUGGO, Metro shall establish benchmarks related to the achievement and I 1067 expected outcome resulting from the implementation of this functional plan. 1068 Section 2. Performance Measures Adoption i 1069 A. Within three months of the adoption of this functional plan, the Metro Executive Officer j 1070 shall submit to the Council the Executive Officer's recommendations for;.-pe 1071 fftel~sttFes, 1072 1073 1. -pgerformance measures willto be used in evaluating the progress of the 1074 region in implementation of this functional plan;; and 1 1075 1076 2. Policies for corrective action should the performance 1077 measures net -be aekieaed-indicate that the eoals contained in the functional plan are not 1078 bein¢ achieved. 1079 1 In developing these performance measures and policies-t--The Executive Officer shall use the 1' best technology available to Metro, and shall, in addition, submit the current and recent historic 1082 levels for the proposed performance measures. 1083 B. The Council, after receiving advice and comment from the Metropolitan Policy Advisory 1084 Committee, shall adopt a list of performance measures that will be used to monitor and 1085 evaluate this functional plan. The performance measures will be evaluated at least by 1086 regional level, by Growth Concept design types, by regional and town center market 1087 areas, and by jurisdiction. The performance measures shall include a biennial goal for the 1088 next six years, and shall be accompanied by policies for adjusting the regional plans 1089 based on actual performance. 1090 C. The performance measures shall include, but shall not be limited to the following: 1091 1. Amount of land converted from vacant to other uses, according to jurisdiction, 1092 Growth Concept design type, and zoning; 1093 2. Number and types of housing constructed, their location, density, and costs, 1094 according to jurisdiction, Growth Concept design type, and zoning; 1095 3. The number of new jobs created in the region, according to jurisdiction, Growth 1096 Concept design type, and zoning; Page i%-Urban Growth Manajement Functional Plan October 24, 19% 1 3 1097 4. The amount of development of both jobs and housing that occurred as 1098 redevelopment or in611, according to jurisdiction, Growth Concept design type, 1099 and zoning; I 1100 S. The amount of land that is environmentally sensitive that is permanently 1 1101 protected, and the amount that is developed; j ~ 1102 6. Other measures that can be reliably measured and will measure progress in 1103 implementation in key areas. 1104 7. Cost of land based on lot prices according to jurisdiction, Growth Concept design 1105 t~ e• and zoning: and according to redeveloped and vacant classifications. y. 1106 R. The average vacancy rate for all residential units, 1107 D. Use of the performance measures i - 1108 1. The performance measures will contain both the current level of achievement, and 1109 the proposed level necessary to implement this functional plan and achieve the 1110 Metro 2040 Growth Concept adopted in the Regional Urban Growth Goals and 1111 Objectives (RUGGO). The performance measures will be used to evaluate and _ 1112 adjust, as necessary, Metro's functional plans, Urban Growth Boundary, and other 1113 regional plans. 1114 2. By March 1 of every other year beginning March 1, 19994998, the Executive 1115 Officer shall report to the Council an assessment of the regional performance 1116 measures, and recommend corrective actions, as necessary, consistent with the 1117 Metro Council's policies. { 1118 3. The Council shall refer the recommendations to the Hearing Officer, who shall 1119 hold a hearing to review the data in the Executive Officer's report on the 1120 performance measures, and gather additional data from any interested party. The 1121 Hearing officer shall review all of the information presented on the performance 111 1122 measures. The complete record of information, findings of fact, and a 1123 recommendation shall be forwarded to the Council by the Hearing Officer. 1124 4. The Council shall hold a hearing on the record, adopt findings of fact, and take 1125 any necessary corrective action by September 1 of the year. { : 1 I i ~ i Page Z2-Urban Growth Marugemem Funuioml Pion OctoDcr 24• I07G I"' TITLE 10: DEFINITIONS i 1127 Accessibilitv means the amount of time reauir_ed to reach a given location or service by anv , 1128 mode of travel 1129 Alternative Modes means alternative methods of travel to the automobile including public 1130 transportation (light rail, bus and other forms of public transportation), bicycles and walking. . 1131 Balanced cut and fill means no net increase in fill within the floodplain. { 1132 Bikeway means separated bike oaths. striped bike lanes, or wide outside lanes that i 1133 accommodate bicvcles and motor vehicles. 1134 Boulevard Design means a design concept that emphasizes pedestrian travel, bicycling and the 1135 use of public transportation. and accommodates motor vehicle travel. 1136 Calculated Capacity means the number of dwelling units and jobs that can be contained in an 1137 area based on the calculation required by this functional plan. 1138 Capacity Expansion means constructed or operational improvements to the regional motor 1139 vehicle system that increase the capacity of the system. 1.10 Comprehensive plan means the all inclusive, generalized, coordinated land use map and policy 1141 statement of cities and counties defined in OR 197.015(5). I1 " r 1 1142 Connectivity means the degree to which _the_local and regional street systems in a given area 1143 are interconnected. 1144 Designated Beneficial Water Uses means the same as the term as defined by the Oregon j 1145 Department of Water Resources, which is: an instream public use of water for the benefit of an 1146 appropriator for a purpose consistent with the laws and the economic and general welfare of the 1147 people of the state and includes, but is not limited to, domestic, fish life, industrial, irrigation, 1148 mining, municipal, pollution abatement, power development, recreation, stockwater and wildlife 1149 uses. j 1150 Design Type means the conceptual areas described in the Metro 2040 Growth Concept text and f 1151 map in Metro's regional goals and objectives. includine central city regional centers, town 1152 centers, station communities, corridors, main streets, inner and outer neighborhoods industrial 1153 areas, and employment areas. j 1154 Development means any manmade change defined as buildings or other structures, mining, 1155 dredging, paving, filling, or grading in amounts greater than ten (10) cubic yards on any lot or 1156 excavation. In addition, any other activity that results in the removal of more than 10% of the existing vegetated area on the lot is defined as development, for the purposes of Title 3. U r Page 2(Q--Urban Growth Management Functional Plan , October za, 119C, t Ll t 1158 Exceptions: lT~y,:• 1159 a. Stream enhancement or restoration projects approved by cities and countiesleeiA 1160 j ieiiens. f 1161 b. Agricultural activity. 1162 c. Replacement. Aadditions:-a td alterations and accessory uses forte existing 1163 structures and development that do not encroach into the Water Quality and Flood 1164 Management Area more than the existing structure or development. 1165 DBH means the diameter of a tree measured at breast height. 1166 DLCD Goal 5 ESEE means a decision process local Qovemments carry out under OAR 660-23- : 1167 040. 1168 1169 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area means the area defined on the Metro Water 1170 Quality and Flood Management Area Map to be completed and attached hereto. These include 1171 all Water Quality and Flood Management Areas that require regulation in order to protect fish 1172 and wildlife habitat. This area has been mapped to generally include the area 200 feet from top 1173 of bank of streams in undeveloped areas with less than 25% slope, and 100 feet from edge of - 1174 mapped wetland on undeveloped land. 1175 Floodplain means land subject to periodic flooding, including the 100-year floodplain as 1176 mapped by FEMA Flood Insurance Studies or other substantial evidence of actual flood events. i 1177 Functions and Values of Stream Corridors means stream corridors have the following 1178 functions and values: water quality retention and enhancement, flood attenuation, fish and l 1179 wildlife habitat, recreation, erosion control, education, aesthetic, open space and wildlife i 1180 corridor. 1181 . 1182 Growth Concept Map means the conceptual map demonstrating the 2040 Growth Concept 1183 design types attached to this plan in the Appendix as Bi bi!3. 1184 Hazardous materials means materials described as hazardous by Oregon Department of , 1185 Environmental Quality. i 1186 Implementing Regulations means any city or county land use regulation as defined by 1187 ORS 197.015(11) which includes zoning. land division or other ordinances which establish 1188 standards for implementing a comprehensive plan. 1 1189 Landscape Strip means the portion of public right-of-way located between the sidewalk and 1190 curb. Page J72-Urb2n Growth Marugemem Functional Plan October 24.19% J 1 l1 9i Level-of-Service (LOS) means the ratio of the volume of motor vehicle demand to the capacjt 1192 of the motor vehicle system during a specific increment of time. 1193 Local Trip means a trip 2'/a miles or less in length. 1194 Median means the center portion of public right-of-way, located between opposing directions 1195 of motor vehicle travel lanes. A median is usually raised and may be landscaped,_ and usually 1196 incorporates left turn lanes for motor vehicles at intersections and major access points. t i 1197 Metro means the regional government of the metropolitan area, the elected Metro Council as the 1198 policy setting body of the government. 1199 Metro Boundary means the jurisdictional boundary of Metro, the elected regional government 1200 of the metropolitan area. I 1201 Metro Urban Growth Boundary means the urban growth boundary as adopted and amended by 1202 the Metro Council, consistent with state law. 1203 Mixed Use means comprehensive plan or implementing regulations that permit a mixture of 1204 commercial and residential development. Mobility means the speed at which a given mode of travel operates in a specific location. 1206 Mode-Sblit Target means the individual percentage of public transportation, pedestrian j 1207 bicycle and shared-ride trios expressed as a share of total person-trips. 1208 Motor Vehicle means automobiles vans, public and private buses. trucks and semi-trucks, l 1209 motorcycles and mopeds. 1210 Multi-Modal means transportation facilities or programs designed to serve many or all 1211 methods of travel, including alt forms of motor vehicles, public transportation. bjcvcles and 1212 walkine. 1213 Narrow Street Design means streets with less than 46 feet of total right-of=wav and no more 1214 than 28 feet of pavement width between curbs. I~ 1215 Net Acre means an area measuring 43.560 square feet which excludes: f 1216 (I) any developed road rights-of-way through or on the edge of the land; and 1217 (2) environmentally constrained areas, including any open water areas, floodplains, I 1218 natural resource areas protected under statewide planning Goal 5 in the 1219 comprehensive plans of cities and counties in the region, slopes in excess of 25 1 percent and wetlands requiring a Federal fill and removal permit under Section 1'2z( 404 of the Clean Water Act. These excluded areas do not include lands for which Page 2P-Urban Growls Management Furcuotil Ptan October 24, 1996 - 1222 the local zoning code provides a density bonus or other mechanism which allows 1223 the transfer of the allowable density or use to another area or to development 1224 elsewhere on the same site; and 1225 (3) all publicly-owned land designated for park and open spaces uses. 1226 Net Developed Acre consists of 43,560 square feet of land, after excluding present and future 1227 rights-of-way, school lands and other public uses. I: 1228 Perennial Streams means all primary and secondary perennial water ways as mapped by the 1229 U.S. Geological Survey. E 1230 Performance Measure means a measurement derived from technical analysis aimed at 1231 determining whether a planning policy is achieving the expected outcome or intent associated 1232 with the policy. 1233 highest Fler-FnWed Gn-eeity means the 1234 1235 Persons Per Acre means the intensity of building development by combining residents per net 1236 acre and employees per net acre. 1237 Person-Trips means the total number of discrete tri ps by individuals using any mode of travel 1238 Practicable means available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, 1239 existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purpose. f- - 1240 Primarily Developed means areas where less than 1072of parcels are either vacant or 1241 underdeveloped. i 1242 Redevelopable Land means land on which development has already occurred which due to j 1243 present or expected market forces, there exists the strong likelihood that existing development ~f 1244 will be converted to more intensive uses dunn the planning period f 1245 Regional Goals and Obiectives are the land use goals and objectives that Metro is required to j 1246 adont under ORS 268.380(1). .247 Retail means activities which include the sale lease or rent of new or used products to the 248 general public or the provision of product repair or services for consumer and business goods 249 Hotels or motels, restaurants or firms involved in the provision of personal services or office 250 space are not considered retail uses 251 Riparian area means the water influenced area adjacent to a river, lake or stream consisting of 252 the area of transition from an hydric ecosystem to a terrestrial ecosystem where the presence of 253 water directly influences the soil-vegetation complex and the soil-vegetation complex directly Page L?-UrWn GrowA Management Functional Plan October 24. 1996 . - l I_ ; influences the water body. It can be identified primarily by a combination of geomorphologic 1255 and ecologic characteristics. i 1256 Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) means private passenger vehicles carrying one occuoant. 1257 Shared-Ride mean rivate passenger vehicles carrying more than one occupant. { j I 1258 Straight-Line Distance means the shortest distance measured between two points. i 1259 Target capacities means the capacities in Table I required to be demonstrated by cities and I t 1260 counties for compliance with Title 1, Section 2. 1261 Target densities means the average combined household and employment densities established 1262 for each design type in the RUGGO 2040 Growth Concept. i 1263 Top of Bank means the same as "bankfull stage" defined in OAR 141-85-010(2). 1264 Traffic Calming means street design or operational features intended to maintain a given 1265 motor vehicle travel speed. 1266 Underdeveloped Parcels means those parcels of land with less than 10% of the net acreage 17-Z_ developed with permanent structures. 1268 Vacant Land: Land identified in the Metro or local government inventory as undeveloped land. 1269 Variance means a discretionary decision to permit modification of the terms of an implementing 1270 ordinance based on a demonstration of unusual hardship or exceptional circumstance unique to a 1271 specific property. 1272 Water Quality and Flood Management Area means an area defined on the Metro Water 1273 Quality and Flood Management Area Map, to be attached hereto. These are areas that require 1274 regulation in order to mitigate flood hazards and to preserve and enhance water quality. This 1275 area has been mapped to generally include the following: stream or river channels, known and 1276 mapped wetlands, areas with floodprone soils adjacent to the stream, floodplains, and sensitive 1277 water areas. The sensitive areas are generally defined as 50 feet from top of bank of streams for 1278 areas of less than 25% slope, and 200 feet from top of bank on either side of the stream for areas 1279 greater than 25% slope, and 50 feet from the edge of a mapped wetland. i 1280 Zoned Capacity means the highest number of dwelling units or iobs that are allowed to be 1281 contained in an area by zoning and other city or county iurisdiction regulations I i Pate !O?-Urban Growh MuuEemcm Nmuunal PI.. - Ociotcr 24.1996 . I j j 1282 ~ i Table 1 - Target Capacity for Housing and Employment Units - Year 1994 to 2017 ~ Dwelling Unit Job I City or County Capacity' Capacity Mixed Use Areas HwseMeiBDwllina Job f Unit Caoacity Increase ! Beaverton 15,021 25,122 9.019 19,084 Cornelius 1,019 2,812 48 335 Durham 262 498 0 0 Fairview 2,921 5,689 635 2,745 Forest Grove 2,873 5,488 67 628 Gladstone 600 1,530 20 140 `u Gresham 16,817 23,753 3,146 9,695 Happy Valley 2,030 1,767 52 245 Hillsboro 14,812 58,247 9,758 20,338 r Johnson City 168 180 0 0 King City 182 241 55 184 Lake Oswego 3,353 8,179 446 3,022 Maywood Park 27 5 0 0 Milwaukie 3,514 7,478 2,571 6,444 Oregon City 6,157 8,185 341 2,341 Portland 70,704 158,503 26,960 100,087 River Grove (15) 41 0 0 Sherwood 5,010 8,156 1,108 3,585 Tigard 6,073 14,901 981 8,026 Troutdale 3,789 5,570 107 267 Tualatin 3,635 9,794 1,248 2,069 West Linn 2,577 2.114 0 594 Wilsonville 4,425 15,030 743 4,952 ' Wood Village 423 736 68 211 Clackamas County'19,530 42,685 1,661 13,886 1! Multnomah County 3,089 2,381 0 0 j Washington County" 54,999 52,578 13,273 25,450 I 243,993 461,633 I 1283 SAW an Housag Heeds Anatysis. Applies to existing city limits as or Jury, 1995. A,,naaations to cities would include tnrrty assumin 1111 1284 2responaibitity Ia I..abley6 a Tercet Ceoecity previously accarvtwdated in Lmincoroorated county. 1285 SagaWasa 1 aaaae~ toad use, anal are: central City - bn 250 1286 it_a ryna«tA per ern: regional center; • can tW ppa: tam centers ao ppa.: sufion - 3txmntunllias • as X45 ppa.; main streets - a .=39 ppa. Standuds apply to the urban unincorporwed portion of the county only- At the raouaat of cities, Matto may 61.0 supdy targets for plrvtirg erns for gtbas in addition to the -sting boundary treats cited Above. i Page Ali-Urban Growth Management Functional Plan October 24, 1996 ` Regional Parking Ratios (parking ratios are based on spaces per 1,000 sq ft of gross leasable area unless otherwise stated) i Land Use Minimum Parking Maximum Maximum Permitted 1 Requirements Permitted Parking Ratios - Zone B: l (See) Central City Parking - LRecorrtmendedl Transportation Zone A: Management Plan i ■ i . for downtown Portland stds Requirements may Transit and Rut of Region ' Not Exceed Pedestrian Accessible Areast General Office (includes Office Park, 2.7 3.4 4.1 "Flex-Space", Government Office & f. - misc. Services s Light Industrial 1.6 None None Industrial Park Manufacturing s Warehouse (gross square feet; parking 0.3 0.4 0.5 ratios apply to warehouses 150,000 gsf or greater) Schools: College/ 0.2 0.3 0.3 University & High School s aces/# of students and staff) Tennis Racquetball Court 1.0 1.3 1.5 Sports Club/Recreation 4.3 5.4 6.5 Facilities Retail/Commercial, including shopping 4.1 5.1 6.2 centers Bank with Drive-In 4.3 5.4 6.5 ! Movie Theater 0.3 0.4 0.5 s aces/number or seats) Food with Drive Thrn 9.9 12.4 14.9 Other Restaurants 15.3 19.1 23 Place of Worship 0.5 0.6 0.8 (spaces/seats) MedieaVDental Clinic 3.9 4.9 5.9 Residential Uses Hotel/Motel 1 none none Single Family Detached 1 none none Residential unit, less than 500 square ! none none feet per unit, one bedroom j Multi-family. townhouse, one bedroom 1.25 none none i. - Multi-family, townhouse, two bedroom 1.5 none none Multi-family, townhouse, three 1.75 none none bedroom 1287 t Ratios for uses m! nrstuded to this uble would be determined by cities and counGnfamm Ft g tFrimmels, in the event that a local government 12F prop-! : afferent rnmsure, for mample, spaces per swung area for a restaurant instead of gross leasable area. Metro may grant approval upon a demonstratwn by the local government dut the parking space rcquiretndn is substantially similar to the regional standard. - I - Page !.2a-Urban Growth Management Puneuonul Plan October 14• 19% - 10/22/96 16.02 'eSO3 04 7297 CITY OF TIGARU PAUL HUNT oul)1/004 io 1 fe- i MEMORANDUM ~ CITY OF TIGARD TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: William A. Monahan, City Administrator DATE: October 22, 1996 SUBJECT: Metro 2040 The latest proposal will be discussed by Nadine Smith in Study Session tonight. As we discussed last week, Metro is making last minute proposals that will be reviewed at Thursday's ! ! Metro Council meeting. Attached are three pages that Nadine has taken from the latest draft which concern issues discussed earlier by Council: accessory units and limitation on size of commercial buildings. The section on accessory units (page 1) is the same proposal discussed at our Study Session last week. The sections on size limitations (pages 2 and 3) differ from earlier versions. The size limit has increased from 50,000 to 60,000 feet of gross leasable area. Last week it was reported that the limit would apply only in indicated areas. The new version would apply to retail uses in Employment Areas. Section 2B includes some troubling language that to allow f buildings larger than 60,000 square feet, a City must demonstrate that adequate transportation facilities will be in place at the time the retail operations begins and that adequate "transportation facilities for the other planned uses in the Employment Areas are included in the applicable Comprehensive Plan provision." These standards have not been properly i ! discussed and reviewed. As page 3 illustrates, the "Employment Areas" discussed in Section 2 include a market area not more than 2.5 miles from the site. That is, if adopted, to gain an exception from the 60,000 square foot limit, a City must show there is adequate transportation facilities for the planned uses in a 2.5 mile area. Nadine will be present at the Study Session to discuss these proposals and others within the i latest draft. t , WAM1jh i:hdmlbi1lu02296-5. doe j i 10/22,96 16:02 Q$S07 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD PAUL HUNT X002!004 280 Industrial Arras -9e 0 olces per acre 281 Inner Neighborhoods - 14 persons per acre 232 Outer Neighborhoods - 13 persons per acre 1 283 I 284 185 287 288 3 289 r i 290 Jj 291 lei size im the develepmeat4wde. i 292 ~C. Cities and countj~shaU_nqjLpjLghibit the cons tlction of a[ Itast one acc~ssorv unit s 293 within - p8g~e__~amil~ dwelling Ibatt k- SA_ i~iAl 81171 ~D1~ 244 inside the uttan "owth 'boundary. Remaable reffu!~ns~f s 295 -~~ut are tma 1"ttttited oo. size. 42MM- ea mam and mvnet ocr~Tmnev of~the . 296 ntimarv unit, but shall not tmohibit rental oxunaam se m 297 in the amessorv units _ Ate j 299 300. 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 . 309 310 - 311 3l2 - - ON -let 313 developed 314 Employment peFfemanee shall be measumd by u 315 'o Seenuwrts. _ . ARC 9a~UrEon CAO.Ai Mar~eamrfmmmml ~-~.'~-:c. _ _ r=:-~~ ^`'O~toEer 2~.`IYDS ~'•-d'i. t i I li lU 22,'96 113:09 $509 644 7297 CITY OF TIGARD PAUL HUNT ®009 UOd qa TITLE 4: RETAIL IN EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS 585 Section 1. Intent 586 It is the intent of the Metro 2040 Growth Concept that Employment and Industrial Areas contain 587 %IOFY'ittle u rtiyg retail development Employment and Industrial arras would be expected to 588 include some limited retail commercial uses primarily to serve the nee& of people working or 589 living in the immediate ernpley4rrentes4 E~ t or Tndustrial ras: not larger market 590 areas outside the emple Employment or [ndustrial_Ar 591 i 592 i t s 593 Section 2. " Comprehensive Plan and Implementing Ordinance Changes Required i 594 Ate-Cities and counties am harby required to amend their comprehensive- plans and I k 595 implementing regulations. if necessary. to prohibit retaH uses larger than -5G,"-0--QM 596 u#qg feet of grass leasable area per building or business in the I;spleyrtteet- end 597 Industrial Areas 9peeifieelly desigaaW on the 2Q40 Grwmih aAgOL& j 598 Employ Indusiria Map. s i 599 B. on li an d flirt 600 otdirlatl ackmawledQed b ~ctive gagrthis Frmetiolta2 Plat` allow tttaiI 601 lar°~ w,s.. 60.000 s4nare'fed of g= leasable per buildintLOr basin ip _ -t desi eat Ma stjcc~ DI These citim and ti to v tuts and 1 604 wplementin>t_[ SWgj Mif n to reauic~1 erortss tesultn¢ n a land se c: of=`tcisable ueaJoer retail' laiier tban_b0.000'sausie 606 -few dxts~. _ " , s 606 buildings or bu;iri_ on those lands where such use ae i~rt~tiy all by arrir rrtocess 607 The lumduk for the land M decision ball a _Q g= 608 demon jjj the record that R-ftuAte "lines 611 be in y1a;2 at the ; k. 609 time the retail use bra s otgeration: and f2 a dam on_ihat 3deouate transpqjMt:ton 610 facil• ' for the other plwmed uses in the Employment Areas ate included m th 611 applicable ve lam if the cr 11r1 com ve lam F 000 feet r 612 designaflons 4 613 of o~ncc laat,tn am txr_ ddine or b in EmntovmINA Areas have not b aclmt vzvvledeed by the efieetive daft of this Futtteti Plan subsection 2. • of this True 3 614 615 shall apply. ~ c 616 C City or county comprehensive olatLdesienations and zoni ^ ordinances acknowl ed by 617 We effective date of this Functional Plan which g2 not allow retatl. u= lum an 60 i 618 uare fee of gross l kW1din&pE business 1 t Areas 619 OK3gnArcd on the attached Employment and Indus A! Areas Man. stwil continue to ~ 620 plo~iibit th u less an exeentio •s established under Scchon 3 of this Title p rt rat to 621 the compliance procedures o Title 8. - - I ~ I hLe !jYUrtun GmvQ+Mwie°'tt Fynctioml Ptah WOW 24.1714 1 ~ f i J 10/22/96 16:04 $503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD PAUL HUNT 10004/004 622 Section 3. Exceptions 623- Exceptions to this standard for Employment Areas may be included in local cotnoliance lans 624 for. +I 625 A. Low traffic generating land-consumptive commercial uses with low parking demand 626 which have a community or region wide market, or , 627 B. 'fic Employment of As Wentified en the Employffiew and l"dustfial 628 in al Areas which akeedy have substantially developed as retail eeatmarea. or 629 which have bees leaelly ate posed to IM n~ have been 630 oEa11v designated, but not acknowledged bvthe_effective date of this Functional Pian. as 631 retail ateag may allow =w or redeveloped retail tins where adeauarc truisportation 632 facilities_cupaeity is dated in Iota! eomoifance plans as provided in Title S. 633 634 635 C. Retail uses that o_timawy draw business from a market arm not more than 2.5 m_ ilrs from 636 the.-site where adequate 100M in local 637 c 2MI 180r& clans as movided in Title g. i Pa jt ?23"UrLa Grw&ih M.uujarrs Fu==W Plan OcmEa 24. I7JG IG 4 From: METRO COUNCIL To: MAYOR and COUNCIL Date: 18118/88 Time: 08:76:58 Page 1 of 24 i - - FACSIMILE COVER PAGE To: MAYOR and COUNCIL Time: 00:38:44 -om : METRO COUNCIL Date: 10/16/66 '-rages (including cover): 24 Attached to this cover page are the councilor-proposed amendments to the Metro Growth Management Functional Plan. These are to be considered at the October 17, 1996 meeting of Metro Council. Should you have questions or comments, please telephone Michael J. Morrissey, Staff Analyst, at 797-1907. ac David Aeschliman Metro Council Information Specialist u t - i E J r t 1 From: METRO COUNCIL To: MAYOR and COUNCIL Date: 10/19196 Time: 00:19:10 Faye 2 of 24 i TO: Jon Kvistad, Presiding Officer Susan McLain, Chair, Growth Management Committee FROM: Michael Morrissey Staff DATE: Octobe r 15, 1996 RE: Councilor Proposed Amendments to Functional Plan for Action at October 17 Council Meeting METRO URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ***(This packet contains only those amendments submitted after October 10. All amendments will be available at October 17 Council meeting, arranged by title.) The following amendments were approved at a council work session on October 3, 1996: Kvistad #2: Title 4, Employment and Industrial Areas-map change. ' Kvistad 93: Title 6, Regional Accessibility--boulevard design map change. McLain #4: Title 2, Regional Parking Policy-maximum parking ratios. Morissette 43: Title 1, Requirements for Housing and Employment Accommodation-accessory units. The following amendments were approved at the council work session October 10, 1996 ' McLain #3, Title 1, Requirements for Housing and Employment Accommodation, section 3, design type and density. Monroe #1, Title 6, Clarification draft of Title 6, Regional Accessibility on Transportation The following amendments are active proposals, available for discussion and/or vote: Kvistad 44, Title 4, Deletion of Title 4. *McCaig 91, Titles 2, 8 and 10, Changes Parking Requirement "Adjustment" Process to "Variance" Process *McCaig #2, Title 8, Compliance Interpretation/Citizen Review **(Work in progress-may be further modifications) *McCaig #3, Title 9, Performance Measures Amendments **(Work in progress- may be further modifications.) McLain #2, Titles 1, 8 and 10. Consistency/clarification redraft by Office of General Counsel. 4. % From: METRO COUNCIL To: MAYOR and COUNCIL Date: 10116/98 Time: 00:40:25 gage 3 of 24 4 i *McLain #2A, Definitions Amendments for Titles 1,2,3,6, and 8. *McLain #6, Title 4, Retail in Employment and Industrial Areas. Title 8, Compliance Procedures. *McLain 97, Title 2, Clarifications *McLain #8, Title 1, Minimum Densities, Employment *McLain #9, Title 1, Accessory Unit Clarification Morissette #9, Title 9, Performance Measures. j Washington #1, Title 7, Affordable Housing-"fair share" strategy. I *Washington #2, Title 4, Employment and Industrial Areas Map Change *introduced on or after October 10 mm r. , j i j I i - From. METRO COUNCIL To. MAYOR and COUNCIL Date: 10N&90 Time: 00:41:01 page 4 of 24 ; URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN z=' McCaig Amendment No. 1 (Parking Requirement "Adjustment" Process to Variance Process) I Title 2 and Title 8 of the August 23, 1996 draft of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, at lines 274-276, 278-279, 297, and 771, to change the required "adjustment' process to a traditional variance process, and Title 10 is amended to add a definition of variance as follows: lines 274-276: "Ensure-thet Establish an administrative or public hearing process for considering ratios for individual or joint developments to allow a variance adjustment for parking when:" lines 278-279: t. "Cities and counties T aeal gavewAnefitq may grant am variance adjustment from any maximum parking ratios er and minimum parking ratios through an-edjttshnent variance process." line 297: " including the application of any variances leeal adjustments to the regional standards in this titleline 771: "The burden of proof for an variance adjustment shall increase based on the quality and timing of transit service." I Add to Title 10 Definitions: "Variance means a discretionary decision to permit modification of the terms of an implementing ordinance based on a demonstration of unusual hardship or exceptionul circumstances unique to a specific property." I jCp 1:\DOCS807.P.4D\04.20.101..'WL\03UGMFNC.PLN\NICCAIG.NI I L:. i , l' i f 17i • From: METRO COUNCIL To: MAYOR and COUNCIL pate: 10116196 Time: 00:41:50 Page 5 of 24 URBAN GROWTH (MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN McCaig Amendment No. 2 DRAFT - WORK IN PROGRESS (Title 8, Compliance Interpretation Process) The August 23, 1996 draft of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 8, is amended i as follows: ~ff after line 807 I "Section 4. Compliance Plan Assistance t A. Any local government may request of Metro a compliance plan which contains the ( following: 1. An analysis of the local government's comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances, and what sections require change to comply with the performance standards. i 2. Specific amendments that would bring the jurisdiction into compliance with the i requirements of Sections 1 to 8, if necessary. B. Jurisdictions must make the request within tour months of the eflaeetive date of this ordinance. The request shall be signed by the highest elected official of the jurisdiction. C. Metro shall deliver a compliance plan within four months of the request date. The compliance plan shall be a recommendation from the Executive Officer. The compliance plan shall be filed with the Metro Council two weeks before it is transmitted, for possible l review and comment. ! Section 5. Compliance Interpretation Process 1 After the effective date of this ordinance, Metro shall provide a process for cities and counties required by this functional plan to change their plans to seek interpretations of the requirements of j this functional plan Application for a compliance interpretation shall be made in wnhng to the f Executive Officer for preparation of a report and recommendation. The compliance interpretation process shall include a hearings officer decision based on the case record. An appeal to the Metro Council shall be available to parties in the case and by vote of the Metro Council. The Metro Council may initiate a compliance interpretation on its own motion with or without a request. Section 6. Citizen Review Process A citizen who has presented written or oral testimonv at the local level on the interpretation issue may petition the Metro Council for a compliance interpretation. After hearing the citizen petition, the Council may. . J ' From: METRO COUNCIL To: MAYOR and COUNCIL Date. 10118199 Time: 00:02:52 Page 8 of 24 Section 7. Enforcement City or county actions to amend a comprehensive plan or implementing ordinance in violation of this functional plan at any time after the effective date of this ordinance shall be subject to appeal or other legal action for violation of a regional functional plan requirement, including but not limited to reduction of regional transportation finding and finding priorities. Failure to amend comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances as required by Section 1 shall be subject to any and all enforcement actions authorized by law. Prior to a final action to amend a comprehensive plan or implementing ordinance, a local determination that a functional plan should not or cannot be implemented shall be subject to the conflict resolution process provided for in RUGGO, Goal L Any city or county land use decision made more than 24 months after the effective date of this ordinance that is inconsistent with the requirements of this functional plan is subject to appeal for violation of this functional plan." jep I:\DOCSM07.P&DW .20301.NIPL%03UGMFNC.PLN~MCCAIG.2 I I 1 - 1 I F r ~ t. I F7. ' From: METRO COUNCIL To: MAYOR and COUNCIL Date: 10116196 Time: 00:33:37 Page 7 of 24 V j l I URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN McCaig Amendment No. 3 DRAFT - WORK IN PROGRESS f (Performance Measures Amendments) i Title 9 of the August 23, 1996 draft of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan is amended as follows: i lines 840-846: l "A. Within three months of the adoption of this functional plan, the Metro Executive Officer shall submit to the Council the Executive Officer's recommendations for per&fmfflee • 1. 41"Performance measures will to be used in evaluating the progress of the i region in implementation of this functional plan; and i j 2. Policies for corrective action should the performance i measures net-ba-eehieved indicate that the goals contained in the functional plan are not being achieved. i In developing these performance measures and policies, tT-he Executive Officer shall use the best technology available to Metro and shall, in addition, submit the current and recent historic levels for the proposed performance measures." ? after line 867, add: 1 "7. Cost of land based on lot prices according to jurisdiction. Growth Concept design type j and zoning: and according to redeveloped and vacant classifications. f 8. The average vacancy rate for all residential units." lines 875-876: "By March 1 of every other year beginning March 1, 1999 4999, the Executive Officer shall i report to the Council an assessment ofthe regional performance measures, jcp 1:\DC)CSg07.P&D\U1 :0101.NIPL103UGh1FNC.PLN1%ICCAIG.3 1 I 1. _ - - I From: METRO COUNCIL Yo: MAYOR a d COUNCIL Date: 10116199 Time: 00:66:23 Page E of 24 - - i n Date: October 15, 1996 To: Susan McLain, Metro Councilor From: Lary Shaw, Office of General Counsel i - Subject: Title 4/bfcLain Amendment #6 h Introduction i As you requested, the 2.5-mile market area approach has been added to Section 3 "Exceptions" in Title 4. f Industrial Areas Not Affected The requirement in Section 2.A. to prohibit new retail uses larger than 60,000' in Industrial Areas remains unaffected by this amendment because Section 3 now allows exceptions only for employment areas. Market Area Approach Market Areas are mentioned in the RUGGO text on "employment areas." The 2.5-mile radius used in this exception may go outside the employment area. The exception approach means that retail uses over 60,000' would not be allowed in employment areas unless a local government requested and received an exception from the Metro Council. Based on the local government request the Metro Council would consider an exception for a site, some sites or an employment f I area where the 2.5-mile market area approach was used. How the market area approach is written into a proposed local ordinance would be reviewed for the exception. I RUGGO Compliance Industrial areas are "set aside primarily for industrial activity some retail uses, may be } allowed if limited to sizes and locations intended to serve primary industrial uses." Therefore, 60,000' is the size limit. Employment areas include some limited retail commercial uses primarily to serve the needs of people working in the immediate employment areas, not larger market areas, outside the employment area. Exceptions to this general policy can be made only for certain areas, indicated in a functional plan." The market area approach is a basis for an exception that is proposed to be stated in the functional plan. cc: Metro Council Executive Officer John Fregonese i jep I?DOCS#07.PSD'04 -0401.\IPL103UC;NTNC.PLNNICLAIDn0.15 ' i l €rom: METRO COUNCIL T O. MAYOR and COUNCIL f aNafSG T4-: 00:45:2-a Page a of N - ' URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN INIcLain Amendment No. 6 (Title 4, Retail in Employment and Industrial Areas, and Title 8, Compliance Procedures) On page 15 othee August 23, 1996, Plan, at Lines 455 to 476, amend Sections 1, 2 and 3 of Title 4 to read as follows: TITLE 4: RETAIL IN EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS Section 1. Intent It is the intent of the Metro 2040 Growth Concept that Employment and Industrial Areas contain vaFy lidla-s_pportive retail development. Employment and Industrial Areas would be expected to include some limited retail commercial uses primarily to serve the needs of people working or living in the immediate empleyment trees, Emplovment or Industrial Areas, not larger market areas outside the empley -eraeErn loyment or Industrial Areas. i. liqdustFial Areas -Map- Section 2. Comprehensive Plan and Implementing Ordinance Changes Required A. Cities and counties are hereby required to amend their comprehensive plans and - implementing regulations, if necessary, to prohibit new retail uses larger than 30,000 60,000 square feet of gross leasable area per building or business in the Employment and Industrial Areas speei-lieally--designated on the 2040 Gfew-th Geneept Map attached Emplovment and Industrial Areas Map. r . ' B. This subsection applies to city and county comprehensive plan designations and zoning ordinances acknowledged by the effective date of this Functional Plan, which allow retail uses larger than 60.000 square feet of gross leasable area per building or business in Emplovment Areas designated on the attached Emplovment and Industrial Areas Map. I These cities and counties are hereby required to amend their comprehensive plans and implementing regulations, if necessary, to require a process resulting in a land use decision i for anv retail uses larger than 60,000 square feet of eross leasable area per building or business on those lands where such uses are currently allowed by any process. The standards for the land use decision to allow anv such retail uses shall require (1) a demonstration in the record that adequate transportation facilities will be in place at the time the retail use begins operation-, and (2) a demonstration that adequate transportation facilities for the other planned uses in the Employment Areas are included in the applicable comprehensive plan provisions. If the city and county comprehensive plan designations j and zoning ordinances which allow retail uses larger than 60.000 square feet of Bross leasable area per building or business in Emplov nient Areas have not been acknowledged by the effective date of this Functional Plan. subsection 2.C. of this Title shall apply. t UGivl Functional Plan - McLain Amendment No. 6 Page 1 l l i L~ w Flom: MFTPO COUNCIL To: MAYOR and COUNCIL Date: 10116196 Time: 00:46:41 Page 10 of 24 L f C. Citv or county comprehensive plan designations and zoning ordinances acknowledged by the effective date of this Functional Plan which do not allow retail uses larger than 60,000 square feet of Bross leasable area per building or business in Employment Areas designated on the attached Emplovment and Industrial Areas Map shall continue to f prohibit then unless an exception is established under Section 3 of this Title pursuant to Illj the compliance procedures of Title 8. i I Section 3. Exceptions Exceptions to this standard for Emplovment Areas may be included in local compliance plans for: A. Low traffic generating, land-consumptive commercial uses with low parking demand which have a community or region wide market; or B. As identified an the t!!~Efflple5ftien! and industfial --veds Map; sSpecific Employment er-Industrial Areas which already have substantially developed as-retail areas or which have been leeally designated as retail ee are proposed to be or have been 1 f locally designated, but not acknowledged by the effective date of this Functional Plan, as retail areas, may allow new or redeveloped retail uses where adequate transportation facilities capacity is demonstrated in local compliance plans as provided in Title 8. provided nx Tiasro 8. c E _ C. Retail uses that primarily draw business from a market area not more than 2.5 miles from - the site where adequate transportation facilities capacity is demonstrated in local compliance plans as provided in Title 8. On page 26 of the August 23, 1996, Plan, at Lines 784 to 790, amend Section 2.13.4 of Title 8, Compliance Procedures, to read as follows: `t 4. Retail in Employment and Industrial Areas. Subject to the provisions of Title 4, . cities and counties may request a change in the Employment and Industrial Areas I Map. Metro shall consider a city or county request to modify a- mapped an Employment Area to exempt existing or locally designated retail eentefsareas. unacknowledged by the date of this Functional Plan, where they can demonstrate that: i a. The Emplovment and Industrial Areas fnMap everleeked included lands within Emplovment Areas having a substantially developed existing retail e enter-area or a locally designated retail eenter. area pursuant to a comprehensive plan acknowledged by the date of this Functional Plan which allowed retail uses larger than 60,000 square feet of gross leasable area per building or business; or b. The requested retail area in an Emplovment Area has been found to be appropriate for an exception based upon current or projected needs within i UGM Functional Plan - McLain Amendment No. 6 Page 2 i . i i . Frg- : facTRO COUNCIL To: MAYOR and COUNCIL Dale, 10116/86 Tim.: 00:07:53 Page 11 of 24 1 the jurisdiction and the city or countv can demonstrate that adequate transportation facilities capacity exjsts for that retail area. jcp I:\DOCSM07.PSDW4-20.101.AIPLW3UG%IFNC.PLMMCLAIN.66 I f 'i UGM Functional Plan - McLain Amendment No. 6 Page 3 % 1 t From: METRO COUNCIL To: MAYOR and COUNCIL Dale: 10118/98 Time: 00:48:24 Page 12 or 24 i URBAN GROWTH bLINAGE:NIENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN n McLain Amendment No. 7 (Title 2, Clarifications) The August 23, 1996, draft of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 2 as amended by McLain Amendment No. 4 (Maximum Parking Ratios), is amended as follows: i TITLE 2: REGIONAL PARIONG POLICY a Section 1. Intent i The State's Transportation Planning FRule culls for per eo$ttn-reductions in of vehicle miles traveled per capita and restrictions on construction of new parking spaces as a means of responding to transportation and land use impacts of growth. The Metro 2040 Growth Concept calls for more compact development as a means to encourage more efficient use of land, promote non-auto trips and protect air quality. In addition, the federally mandated air quality plan adopted " by the state relies on the 2040 Growth Concept fully achieving its transportation objectives. Notably, it the air quality plan relies upon reducing vehicle trips per capita and related parking I~ spaces through minimum and maximum parking ratios. This title is pFevid-te addresses these stetutery state and federal requirements and preserves the quality of life of the region A compact urban form requires that each use of land is carefully considered and that more i. efficient forms are favored over less efficient ones. Parking, especially that provided in new developments, can result in a less efficient land usage and lower floor to area ratios. Parking also has implications for transportation. In areas where transit is provided or other non-auto modes (walking, biking) are convenient, less parking can be provided and still allow accessibility and mobility for all modes, including autos. Reductions in auto trips when substituted by non-auto modes can reduce congestion and increase air quality. Section 2. Performance Standard A. Cities and counties are hereby required to adept arnendn,ents, ;f their comprehensive plans and implementing regulations, if necessary, to meet or exceed the following minimum standards: I I c 1. R Cities and counties shall require rte more parking than the minimum as shown on Regional Parking Standards Table, attached hereto; and 2. E Cities and counties shall establish parking maximums at ratios no greater than k, those listed in tine Parking Table and as illustrated in the Parking Maximum Map for Zone A. The designation of the A enA zones on the Parking Maximum Map I should be reviewed after the completion of the Regional Transportation Plan and every #iva ttrree years thereafter. If 20-minute peak hour transit has service has become available to an area within a one-quarter mile walking distance for bus transit or one-half mile walking distance for light rail transit- that area shall be added to Zone A. If 20-minute peak hour transit bus service is no longer available to an area within a one-quarter mile walking distance for bus transit or one-half i mile walking distance for light rail transit that area shall be removed from Zone A. r • l L~ . ! Frame: _".-O t0!!`!.1! To: 1!.aYOR _Rd COUNCIL Date: 1011&90 Time: 00:49:42 Page 13 of 24 Y i • ' - listad in Zone n t n t.: T..t,t. and at.,....,.-a the n,,.t.:.,,. ~t...,:........ Cities and counties should designate Zone A parking ratios in areas with good pedestrian access to commercial or employment areas (within 1/3 mile walk) from adjacent residential areas. 3. li Cities and counties shall ensure that an administrative or public hearing process for considering ratios for individual or joint developments allow adjustment for parking when a development application is received which may result in approval of construction of parking spaces either: 0. in excess of the maximum parking ratios-, or and b-less than the minimum parking ratios. beeel-gent- Cities and counties may grant an adjustment from maximum parking ratios or minimum parking ratios through an adjustment or variance process. B. Free surface parking spaces shall be subject to the regional parking maximums provided for Zone A. Parking spaces in parking structures, fleet parking, parking for vehicles that I i are for sale, lease, or rent, employee car pool parking spaces, dedicated valet parking spaces, spaces that are user paid, market rate parking or other high-efficiency parking I management alternatives may be exempted from maximum parking standards by cities and counties. Sites that are proposed for redevelopment may be allowed to phase in reductions I as a local option. Where mixed land uses are proposed, leeel geyernrnents cities and counties shall provide for blended parking rates. It is recommended that cities and counties !___l geve rments count adjacent on-street parking spaces, nearby public parking i and shared parking toward required parking minimum standards. C. Cities and counties may use categories or measurement standards other than those in the Parking Table, but must provide findings that the effect of the local i regulations will be substantially the same as the application of the Regional Parking Ratios. D. heeal-geverninruts Cities and counties shall monitor and provide the following data to Metro on an annual basis: 1. the number and location of newly developed parking spaces, and 2 demonstration of compliance with the minimum and maximum parking standards, including the application of any local adjustments to the regional standards in this E" title. Coordination with Metro collection of o81er building data should be encouraged. ! jcp i1DGCS#07.P&D\04 2040Lr,@L103UG11FNC.PL4VrICLAN.N7 i i . i i From: METRO COUNCIL To. MAYOR and COUNCIL Page 14 .1 24 , i I URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN McLain Amendment No. 8 (Title 1, Minimum Densities, Employment) Title 1 of the August 23, 1996, draft of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, at Line 117, is amended as follows: I may be 30 dwelling units per net acre, ' a"°"°""" listed subseetieft B, below-. This minimum density standard does not apply (1) outside the urban erotvdh boundary(2) inside areas desienated as open space on the attached Open Spaces Map (3) inside areas designated as unbuildable on the attached Open Spaces Map and (4) to include the densitv bonus for zones that allow them." 1 Title 1 at Line 87 is amended as follows: "Their zoning and other regulations will permit the target capacity for housing units and full-time and part-time iobs ~t contained in Table 1 t _ c' jcp I:IDOCSMO7PaD\04.2. OI.WLW3UCiN NC.PLN\l.ICLAIN.MB ~f I I; 1., io, - 1 i + i `I From: METRO COUNCIL To: MAYOR and COUNCIL Date: 1010190 Time: 00:51:33 Page 15 or 24 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN McLain Amendment No. 9 j (Title 1, Accessory Unit Clarification) Title 1 of the August 23, 1996, draft of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, after Line 139, is amended as follows: "D. Cities and counties shall not prohibit the construction of at least one accessory unit within any allowed detached single family dwelling unit that is permitted to be built in any zone inside the urban growth boundary. Reasonable regulations of accessory units may include, but are not limited to, size, lighting, entrances and owner occupancy." i . jep 1:\DOCSN07PRD\61-26401.%TL\03UGNTNC.PLM%ICLAIN.N9 t I 'F { OFF- e From: METRO COUNCIL To. MAYOR and COUNCIL Date. 10H 8198 Time: 00:52:12 Page 18 0}24 % GROWTH INI NAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN URBAN GRO 1 2 McLain Amendment No. 2A 3 4 (Definitions Amendments for Titles 1, 2, 3, 6, 8)) 5 6 In the August 23, 1996, draft of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 10 is 7 amended to read: 8 Y 9 "Title 10. Definitions 10 Accessibility means the amount of time required to reach a given location or service by any mode 11 of travel. 1 12 Alternative Modes means alternative methods of travel to the automobile, including public k 13 transportation (light rail bus and other forms of public transportation), bicycles and walking. I. 14 Balanced Cut and Fill means no net increase in fill within the floodplain. 15 Bikewav means separated bike paths striped bike lanes or wide outside lanes that accommodate 16 bievcles and motor vehicles. 17 Boulevard Design means a design concept that emphasizes pedestrian travel, bicycling and the I 18 use of public transportation, and accommodates motor vehicle travel. 19 Calculated Capacity means the number of households and employees that can be contained in an 20 area based on the calculation required by this functional plan. 21 Capacity Expansion means constructed or operational improvements to the regional motor 22 vehicle system that increase the capacity of the system. • i ' 23 Comprehensive plan means the all inclusive generalized coordinated land use map and policy 24 statement of cities and counties defined in ORS 197.015(5). 25 Connectivitv means the degree to which the local and regional street systems in a given area are 26 interconnected. 27 Designated Beneflcial Water Uses means the same as the term as defined by the Oregon 28 Department of Water Resources, which is: an instream public use of water for the benefit of an 29 appropriator for a purpose consistent with the laws and the economic and general welfare of the 30 people of the state and includes, but is not limited to, domestic, fish life, industrial, irrigation, 31 mining, municipal, pollution abatement, power development, recreation, stockwater and wildlife 32 uses. 33 Desi-+n F7eod Height means . { ii } fl0® ,t I From: METRO COUNCIL To: MAYOR end COUNCIL Date: 10119196 Tine: 00:53:20 Page 17 of 24 { I 34 Desip-n Type means the conceptual areas described in the Nfetro 2040 Growth Concept text and 35 map in Metro's regional goals and objectives including central city, regional centers, town 36 centers station communities corridors main streets inner and outer neighborhoods, industrial 37 areas and employment areas. 38 Development means any manmade change defined as buildings or other structures, mining, 39 dredging, paving, tilling, or grading in amounts greater than ten (10) cubic yards on any lot or 40 excavation. In addition, any other activity that results in the removal of more than 10% of the i 41 existing vegetated area on the lot is defined as development, for the purposes of Title 3. 42 Exceptions: 43 a. Stream enhancement or restoration projects approved by local jurisdictions. j . . 44 b. Agricultural activity. 45 c. Replacement, tladditions,--and alterations and accessory uses fore-existing 46 structures and-development-that do not encroach into the Water Quality and Flood I ' 47 Management Area more than the existing structure or development. 48 DHB means the diameter of a tree measured at breast height. !I preeess I---' oaM, eut under GAR 660 2-3- 50 040: i 51 Expected Capacity means the number arnetf8t of households and employees units that can be `-J 52 expected to be contained in an area. 53 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area means the area defined on the Metro Water 54 Quality and Flood Management Area Map to be completed and attached hereto. These include { 55 all Water Quality and Flood Management Areas that require regulation in order to protect fish and 56 wildlife habitat. This area has been mapped to generally include the area 200 feet from top of I 57 bank of streams in undeveloped areas with less than 251.6 slope, and 100 feet from edge of - 58 mapped wetland on undeveloped land. 59 Floodplain means land subject to periodic flooding, including the 100-year floodplain as mapped 60 by FENIA Flood Insurance Studies or other substantial evidence of actual flood events. 61 Functions and Values of Stream Corridors means stream corridors have the following 62 functions and values: water quality retention and enhancement, flood attenuation, fish and wildlife 63 habitat, recreation, erosion control, education, aesthetic, open space and wildlife corridor. 64 Goal 5 ESEE means a decision process local govemments carry out under OAR 660-23-040. i 66 Growth Concept Map means the conceptual map demonstrating the 2040 Growth Concept - 67 design types attached to this plan in the Appendix as, From: uerpq COUNCIL To: Msygp anA COUNCIL Date: 10116196 Time: 00:54:37 P.C. 18 of 24 U 68 Hazardous materials means materials described as hazardous by Oregon Department of } 69 Environmental Quality. 70 Implementirta Regulations means any city or county land use regulation as defined by 71 ORS 197 015(111 which includes zoning land division or other ordinances which establish 72 standards for implementing a comprehensive plan. 73 Landscape Strip means the portion of public ri ht-of-wav located between the sidewalk and 74 curb. i 75 Level-of-Service (LOS) means the ratio of the volume of motor vehicle demand to the capacity ! 76 of the motor vehicle svstem during a specific increment of time. 77 Local Trip means a trip 2'/s miles or less in length. ! 78 Median means the center portion of public right-of-wav, located between opposing directions of i 79 I motor vehicle travel lanes A median is usually raised and may be landscaped, and usually 80 incorporates left turn lanes for motor vehicles at intersections and major access points. 81 Metro means the regional government of the metropolitan area, the elected Metro Council as the 82 policy setting body of the government. 83 Metro Boundary means the jurisdictional boundary of Metro, the elected regional government of 84 the metropolitan area. 85 Metro Urban Growth Boundary means the urban growth boundary as adopted and amended by 86 the Metro Council, consistent with state law. 87 Mixed Use means comprehensive plan or implementing regulations that permit a mixture of 88 commercial and residential development. i 89 Mobility means the speed at which a given mode of travel operates in a specific location. I j 90 Mode-Split Target means the individual percentage of public transportation, pedestrian, bicycle i 91 and shared-ride trips expressed as a share of total person-trips. 92 Motor Vehicle means automobiles vans public and private buses, trucks and semi-trucks, 93 motorcycles and mopeds. 94 D'fulti- odal means transportation facilities or programs designed to serve manv or all methods i 95 of travel including all forms of motor vehicles public transportation, bicycles and walking. I 96 Narrow Street Design means streets with less than 46 feet of total right-of-wav and no more than 97 28 feet of pavement width between curbs. I i 98 Net Acre means an area measuring 43.560 square feet which excludes: From: METRO COUNCIL To: MAYOR and COUNCIL Date: 10/16196 Time: 00:55A6 Page 19 or 24 99 (1) any developed road rights-of-way through or on the edge of the land; and 100 (2) environmentally constrained areas, including any open water areas, floodplains, 101 natural resource areas protected under statewide planning Goal 5 in the 102 comprehensive plans of cities and counties in the region, slopes in excess of 25 103 percent and wetlands requiring a Federal fill and removal permit under Section 404 y 104 of the Clean Water Act. These excluded areas do not include lands for which the 105 local zoning code provides a density bonus or other mechanism which allows the 106 transfer of the allowable density or use to another area or to development 107 elsewhere on the same site; and 108 (3) all publicly-owned land designated for park and open spaces uses. F. , 109 Net Developed Acre consists of 43,560 square feet of land, after excluding present and future 110 rights-of-way, school lands and other public uses. - 111 Perennial Streams means all primary and secondary perennial water ways as mapped by the 112 U.S. Geological Survey. i 113 Performance Measure means a measurement derived from technical analysis aimed at 114 determining whether a planning policy is achieving the expected outcome or intent associated with 115 the policy, 1 116 peernitted-Gapnei t anteunt of ltuits that ere peratiited be a©atain~ d in as: ergo II - I 117 I I 118 Persons Per Acre means the intensity of building development by combining residents per net 119 acre and emplovees per net acre. 120 Person-Trips means the total number of discreet trips by individuals using any mode of travel. 121 Practicable means available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, 122 existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purpose. 123 Primarily Developed means areas where less than 10% of parcels are either vacant or 124 underdeveloped. 125 Redevelopable Land means land on which development has already occurred which due to 126 present or expected market forces there exists the strong likelihood that existing development will 127 be converted to more intensive uses during the planning period i 1 f J From: METRO COUNCIL To: MAYOR and COUNCIL Date: 10116196 Time: 00:56:57 Page 20 of 24 i i 128 Regional Goals and Obiectives are the land use goals and obiectives that Metro is required to 129 adopt under ORS 268.380(1). 130 Retail means activities which include the sale, lease or rent of new or used products to the general 131 public or the provision of product repair or services for consumer and business goods Hotels or 132 motels restaurants or firms involved in the provision of personal services or office space are not 133 considered retail uses. 134 Riparian Area means the water influenced area adjacent to a river, lake or stream consisting of 135 the area of transition from an hydric ecosystem to a terrestrial ecosystem where the presence of ' 136 water directly influences the soil-vegetation complex and the soil-vegetation complex directly 137 influences the water body. It can be identified primarily by a combination of geomorphologic and 138 ecologic characteristics. 139 Single Occupancv Vehicle (SOV) means private passenger vehicles carrving one occupant. 140 Shared-Ride means private passenger vehicles carrying more than one occupant. 141 Straight-Line Distance means the shortest distance measured between two points. 142 Target Capacities means the capacities in Table 1 required to be demonstrated by cities and 143 counties for compliance with Title 1, Section 2. 144 Target Densities means the average combined household and employment densities established . 145 for each design type in the RUGGO 2040 Growth Concept. 146 Top of Bank means the same as "bankfull stage" defined in OAR 141-85-10(2). 147 Traffic Calmine means street design or operational features intended to maintain a given motor 148 vehicle travel speed. 149 Underdeveloped Parcels means those parcels of land with less than 1094, of the net acreage 150 developed with permanent structures. 151 Vacant Land: Land identified in the Metro or local government inventory as undeveloped land. Al. 152 Variance means a discretionary decision to permit modification of the terns of an implementing f 153 ordinance based on a demonstration of unusual hardship or exceptional circumstance unique to a I 154 specific property. kk I 155 Water Quality and Flood Management Area means an area defined on the Metro Water I . 156 Quality and Flood Management Area Map, to be attached hereto. These are areas that require 157 regulation in order to mitigate flood hazards and to preserve and enhance water quality. This area ; 158 has been mapped to generally include the following: stream or river channels, known and mapped 159 wetlands, areas with floodprone soils adjacent to the stream, floodplains, and sensitive water 160 areas. The sensitive areas are generally defined as 50 feet from top of bank of streams for areas I 11r From: METRO COUNCIL To: MAYOR and COUNCIL Ozte. 10118/96 Tine: 00:58:15 Page 21 of 24 ,1 I 161 of less than 25% slope, and 200 feet from top of bank on either side of the stream for areas greater 162 than 25% slope, and 50 feet from the edge of a mapped wetland. 163 Zoned Capacity means the highest number of households or emDlovees that are allowed to be 164 contained in an area by zoning and other local jurisdiction regulations." :.f jcp I:tDOC5X07.PSD\0440401.NPLW3UGNIFNC.PLMTITLEI0 1. I i I .i i i i 1 AM- From: METRO COUNCIL To: MAYOR and COUNCIL Date: 10116196 Time: 00:58:50 Page 22 of 24 ~ 165 n Table 1 - Target Capacity for Housing and Employment Units - Year 1994 to 2017 Dwelling Unit Job City or County Capacity' Capacity Mixed Use Areas2 t Household Job , Increase - Beaverton 15,021 25,122 9,019 19,084 Cornelius 1,019 2,812 48 335 Durham 262 498 0 0 Fairview 2,921 5,689 635 2,745 Forest Grove 2,873 5,488 67 628 Gladstone 600 1,530 20 140 Gresham 16,817 23,753 3,146 9,695 Happy Valle 2,030 1,767 52 245 Hillsboro 14,812 58,247 9,758 20,338 i Johnson City 168 180 0 0 Kin City 182 241 55 184 4. Lake Oswego 3,353 8,179 446 3,022 Maywood Park 27 5 0 0 Milwaukie 3,514 7,478 2,571 6,444 Oregon City 6,157 8,185 341 2,341 Portland 70,704 158,503 26,960 100,087 River Grove 15 41 0 0 Sherwood 5,010 8,156 1,108 3,585 - Tigard 6,073 14,901 981 8,026 Troutdale 3,789 5,570 107 267 ' Tualatin 3,635 9,794 1,248 2,069 West Linn 2,577 2,114 0 594 Wilsonville 4,425 15,030 743 4,952 Wood Villa a 423 736 68 211 Clackamas Coun 19,530 42,685 1,661 13,886 Multnomah County" 3,089 2,381 0 0 Washington 54,999 52,578 13,273 25,450 CountY3 243,993 461,633 I 166 1 B...d en Housing Need. Ma 9 Nsi An to atlat ed city times .s of Jun., 1996. Annentwm to chin would include assuming responsibility for 167 2iv.ble share previously accommodated in n unincorporated Garay. _ 168 Target donsdias for mixed use area are: Control City - 250 parsons per zero; regional canton - 60 ppa, town cantors 40 ppa,; station communities - 1 169 45 ppa ; main streets 39 ppa. 1 Standards apply to the urban unincorporated portion of the county only. At the roquost of cities, Motromay also supply targets for planning areasfor -I cities in addd'an to the casting boundary targets cited above. i I I I J 1 From: METRO COUNCIL To: MAYOR and COUNCIL gate: 10118198 Time: 00:59:45 Page 23 .1 24 Regional Parking Ratios (parking ratios are based on spaces er 1,000 s ft of ross leasable area unless otherwise stated Land Use Minimum Parking Maximum Maximum Permitted Requirements Permitted Parking Ratios - Zone B: (See) Central City Parking - Transportation Zone A Management Plan for downtown Portland stds) Requirements may Transit and Rest of Region % Not Exceed Pedestrian Accessible Areas' General Office (includes Office Park, 2.7 3.4 4.1 "Flex-Space", Government Office & k; misc. Services) •1) Light Industrial 1.6 None None Industrial Park Manufacturing f) Warehouse (gross square feet, parking 0.3 0.4 0.5 I ratios apply to warehouses 150,000 gsf of eater) - Schools: College/ 0.2 0.3 0.3 University & High School (s aces/# of students and staff) i Tennis Racquetball Court 1.0 1.3 1.5 1 Sports Club/Recreation 4.3 5.4 6.5 Facilities f4 Retail/Commercial, including shopping 4.1 5.1 6.2 centers Bank with Drive-in 4.3 5.4 6.5 Movie Theater 0.3 0.4 0.5 (`J ace3/numbeT of seats) Fast Food with Drive Thru 9.9 12.4 14.9 Other Restaurants 15.3 19.1 23 Place of Worship 0.5 0.6 0.8 (s aces/scats) Medical/Dental Clinic 3.9 4.9 5.9 Residential Uses _ Hotel/Motel 1 none none Single Family Detached I none none - Residential unit, less than 500 square I none none feet per unit, one bedroom Multi-family, townhouse, one bedroom 1.25 none none i _ i Multi-family, townhouse, two bedroom 1-5 none none Multi-family, townhouse, three 1.75 none none bedroom 'Ratios for uses not included in this table would be determined by local govenunrnu. In the event that a local government proposes a different measure, for exanple• spaces per seating =a for a restaurant instead of gross leasable area Metro may grant approval upon a demonsuation by the local government that the parking space requirement is substantially sirnilar to the regional standard. jep IaDOC9#07.P&D1041040LDIPL103UG%fFNC.PLNITITLE.10 From: METRO COUNCIL To: MAYOR and COUNCIL Date. 1C/15195 TIrre: of oo:s4 Page 24 of 24 _ URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN w.~ Washington Amendment No. 2 I 1 (Employment and Industrial Areas Map Change) The Employment and Industrial Areas Map in the August 23, 1995, draft of the Urban Growth ' Management Functional Plan is amended as follows: The Employment Area north and west of the St. Johns Bridge in the vicinity of Linnton is changed to industrial Area. i I . i k4 1:1DOCSM07.P&D104-10401bePL103Uc%TNC.PLN"WASFQNGT.N2 I i. I- I1 i i 7 1 ribte"GQ, 1D1»lr b `V ONES ® S4 u.t[ I Bill Monahan. Citv Administrator f Citv orTi=ard ! 1 125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 9722; p October 17, 1996 Dear Mr. Monahan, Let After serious consideration, Interfaith Outreach Services has determined ® that we will be unable to operate the Severe Weather Shelter in 1996/97. This has been a very difficult decision and is not one in which we take t Let lightly. While operating costs are always a problem for this type of program this decision is not expense based. The SWS is a time intensive program and IDS has a small staff with many responsibilities. We have simply been forced to prioritize how our time can best be utilized. As you know. IOS is currently in the midst of a Capital Campaign and building project. Both of these activities are being conducted 1 simultaneously with an extremely small staff. Due to the time constraints i( ® that IDS is under in this campaign we are unable at this time to provide the time and energy that is necessary to operate the Severe Weather Shelter successfully. The SWS presents many challenges both to IOS and the city. The most fundamental challenge is an appropriate, consistent, space for the facility. The city has graciously provided space in the Water District Building for the past two years. Clearly this facility is not designed to be used as a shelter on an on-going basis. Examples of the challenges presented are ~•"I security, health regulations. unavailability of the facility for use by other *10go citizens, and storage. ~-T ® IOS strongly believes that our current administrative offices. leased to us by the City, are an inappropriate place for this program as well, for many of the same reasons as stated above. IOS maintains that a permanent, regular i~ space needs to be located if the SWS program is to continue to operate ® successfully in the City of Tigard. I IDS believes that the original intent of the SWS program remains essential ® to our community. With concerted effort we believe that the program can • and vvill be successful in the years to come. "From the hopelessness of porert►• to the porter of independence." w 77] _ 1 - - It 'You have any questions please tcel trce to contact me I kno%% that there have been misunderstandings regarding the SWS in the past and hope that %%e can %eork as a team to tOCUS on solutions I think it would appropriate I'or us to meet to ensure a full understanding ot'the situation and to discuss future plans for this program. r Sincerely. Kim Brown Executive Director E E r f i i i i i FOR T . f SEE + is COUNCIL MEETINU PHOTO FILE 1996 -i i i DATE: o IQ C AGENDA S ,tea ITEM v►s'ra~ ~ NUMBER OF PHOTOS: AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF _I 010D l 4L9 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A resolution amending the existine FY1996-97 Salary Schedule for Management and Professional Group to add the new classification of Youth Services Specialist at Range 50A ~ PREPARED BY: Kim Huey DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADM1N OK ISSUE BEFORE THE O 1NCIL t.. Should the City Council act to amend the existing FY 1996-97 Salary Schedule for Management and Professional Group employees by adding the new classification of Youth Services Specialist at Range 50A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION I: Amend the existing FY 1996-97 Salary Schedule for Management and Professional Group employees as shown on Exhibit A attached to the resolution. INFORMATION SUMMARY Qased on a request from the Library Director, Human Resources staff reviewed the duties and responsibilities of one position of Librarian to determine if it was correctly classified and appropriately compensated. Based on the review, it was determined that the classification of Librarian was no longer appropriate for this position, primarily due to its supervisory duties and its responsibilities to assist management with policy setting and administration. Human Resources recommended that a new classification titled Youth Services Specialist be created. Utilizing the guidelines for compensation adopted by City Council during the recent Classification/Compensation Study, Human Resources determined that Range 50A of the Management Professional Group Salary Schedule is the appropriate range for this new classification. Pursuant to Article 1, . section 3 of the current labor agreement with OPEU, the Union was notified of this recommendation on 1 September 11, 1996. i OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED i FISCAL. NOTES The fiscal impact of the reclassification of one position of Librarian to one position of Youth Services Specialist is $1119. for the remainder of this Fiscal Year. Sufficient funds are available within the Library budget to accommodate this impact. 1 3.3 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF _~Dl 2A Isla CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A resolution amending the current labor agreement between the City of Tigard and the Oregon Public Employees Union. Local 199, to provide for bonus pay to certain classifications for possession B of Manufactured Home Installation Inspector certification. PREPARED BY: Kim Huey DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK Should the Council act to amend the current labor agreement between the City and OPEU to provide for bonus pay to the classifications of Building Inspector 1 and Plans Examiner for possession of Manufactured Home Installation Inspector certification. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Amend the current labor agreement to provide for such bonus pay as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. ,J INFORMATION SUMMARY During negotiations leading to the current labor agreement between the City and OPEU a bonus pay plan for { possession of certain State inspection certifications was agreed upon by both parties and was ratified by Council in I their adoption of the labor agreement. At that time the issue of bonus pay for the Manufactured Home Installation Inspector certification was briefly discussed; however, the need for bonus pay for that particular certification was I undetermined. The City and Union agreed that negotiations would take place at a later date when the issue was more clear. Since those initial discussions, which were held in late 1995/early 1996, the Department of Community Development has determined that manufactured home inspections and plans examinations form a significant portion of the work of Plans Examiners and Building Inspector Is; therefore, the Union and the City met to reach an agreement on the issue resulting in a Letter of Agreement for bonus pay on the amount of f $10./month for the classifications of Plans Examiner and Building Inspector 1 only. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The alternative of contracting out the manufactured home inspections was initially considered by the Department of Community Development; however, the cost of this service would have been either $50. per inspection or $55. per hour for an annual cost of approximately $1000. for the inspections alone. This amount does not include any plans examination services which might be required in conjunction with the inspections. Bonus pay at $10. per month limited to two classifications was determined to be considerably more fiscally prudent. t r , FISCAL NOTES ~ The maximum fiscal impact for the remainder of FY 1996-97 would be $400. Currently there are only three employees eligible to receive the bonus the selection process is underway to fill the fourth position which would qualify if the new employee possessed the certification. Sufficient funds are available within the budget of the Department of Community Development to cover this expenditure. The maximum fiscal impact in succeeding years would be $480. I i i t. i:ki"idel-dot ' - k F g' i I - e Now AGENDA ITEM # • `I v FOR AGENDA OF Octber 22.1996 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Finalize formation of Sanitary Sewer Reimborsement District No. u PREPARED BY: G.N. Bearv DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COI INCIr Finalize the formation of Reimbursement District 8. STAFF RF .OMMENDATION Approve, by motion, the formation of Reimbursement District 8 without modification to the Engineer's Report. INFORMATIONS IMMARY Council approved the formation of the district by Resolution 96-61 on September 24, 1996. Since then, construction of the improvements has been completed. As shown on the attached pay request from the contractor, e final cost of the project is unchanged from the expected cost in the Engineer's Report. Consequently, no vision to the Engineer's Report is proposed. This requested approval will permit connection to the sewer and payment of the reimbursement fee. i OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Direct that the Engineer's Report be modified. '.z FISCAL NOTES II1CI YWIDEWWREIMBRDOC - J i Exhibit A City Engineer's Report Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District 8 Back rg ound The City of Tigard has recently started a Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program (NSEP). L Under the program the City of Tigard would install public sewers to properties within a project area. At the time the property owner connects to the sewer, the owner would reimburse the City for a fair share of the total project cost. There is no requirement to connect to the sewer or pay " any fee until connection is made. P.owever, to be considered for the program, a neighborhood s. needs to submit evidence of resident support of a project. One neighborhood showing support of a project is on SW Tigard Street. SW Tigard Street has existing sanitary lines at SW 107th Place and at SW Cornell Place as shown on the attached exhibit map (Exhibit B). There are five properties to the north of Tigard Street, between SW 107th Place and SW Cornell Place, which are not connected to sanitary sewer at this time and there is one property which is connected. One of the unsewered properties can be served by an alternate sanitary sewer line located on SW 106th Avenue. The remaining four unsewered properties would be best served by a sewer line on SW Tigard Street, There are properties to the south of Tigard Street, however, they are at an elevation that is lower than the proposed line on Tigard Street. This project would consist of extending the existing sewer on SW 107th place approximately 335 feet, west on SW Tigard Street and would serve four properties as shown on Exhibit B. i1 Project Area The project area is the four properties shown as the cross-hatched area on Exhibit B and is { described in Exhibit C. The area includes only those properties which are adjacent to the new sewer and which can be expected to connect to the sewer in the future. Properties to the south of SW Tigard Street which are lower than the proposed sewer were excluded. Properties which already had or could potentially have sewer service from an alternate line were excluded. The i district formation date will be September 24, 1996, which is the date that the project will be approved of by City Council, It is recommended that the reimbursement district continue for fifteen years as provided in the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) 13.09.110 (5). Fifteen years after the formation of the reimbursement district, properties connecting to the sewer would no longer be required to pay the reimbursement fee. i t inanc'n Construction of this project will be paid for by the City's NSEP fund. It is expected that the NSEP fund will be reimbursed in the future as each property connects to the sewer. Each property owner will be required to pay their fair share of the project, in full, at the time of connection is made. Ss~t The bid price for the sanitary sewer construction is $20,946.75. Engineering and Inspection fees amount to $2,827.81 (13.5%) as defined in TMC 13.09.040 (1), making the total project cost of $23,774.56. The property owner directly west of SW 107th Place as shown on Exhibit B is currently connected to public sewer. When connection was made, in lieu of extending the line to the west property line, a $3,000 deposit was made by the property owner and is on account at the h, City of Tigard. The deposit was intended to help fund a future sewer extension for upstream property owners and will be applied to this project. This makes the total cost of the project $20,774.56. All of this should be reimbursed to the NSEP fund as properties connect to the sewer and pay their and share of the total amount. In addition to paying their fair share of the sewer line, each property owner will be required to pay an additional $2235 connection and inspection fee when connection to the public line is made, and will be responsible for all plumbing costs required for work done on private property. i Reimbursement Rate i A common method for assessment of sewer costs is square footage of each property. The square footage method is not recommended in this case for the following reason. All lots, except for j one, has an existing house on the property. A house will be constructed on the vacant lot within the next year. The three properties that currently have houses are on larger lots with areas ranging from .44 acres to 1 acre. Due to the location of the existing houses on the lots, redevelopment of these lots would require removal or relocation of the houses. The property with the proposed house is on a lot with an area of. 17 acres which makes it unlikely that there will be more than one house constructed on this lot. Because redevelopment is unlikely in this is area, it seems inappropriate to assess the lots based on area. Another method for assessment of sewer costs is front footage along SW Tigard Street. This method is not recommended because two of the four properties are flag lot properties, which have very little frontage property along SW Tigard Street. It appears that each of the four properties will benefit equally from the construction of the sewer i line, with each property having one connection. Therefore, it is recommended that the total cost of the project, $ 20,774.56, be divided up equally among the four properties shown on Exhibit B and described in Exhibit C. Each properties fair share of the sewer line will be $5,193.64. ! Interest Rate ~_wJ n TMC 13.09.11 states that an annual percentage rate shall be applied to each propert y owner's fair share of the sewer line costs on the anniversary date of the reimbursement agreement. The Finance Director is currently proposing this rate and its adoption is recommended. Recommendation It is recommended that a reimbursement district be formed with an annual fee increase as indicated above. i Submitted September 24, 1996 f Greg Berry Acting City Engineer 19CITY IDEWWREIMBE.DOC I l i _ i S j i V _ l EXISTING 5 SW TIGARD STREET NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER EXTENSION 1 SCALE: 1" = 60' I NORTH DAKOTA ST J\• { ROBERT EVANS 10905 SW TIGARC TIGARD ST WILL HOOK UP IN I ro ON SW 108TH A~ ti KATHERINE ST. ~ VICINITY MAP PROJECT AF 1 PROJECT INFORMATION NUMBER OF LOTS = 4 - INTERESTED = 4 - NOT INTERESTED = 0 APPROX. LENGTH OF PIPE = 350 FT. ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS = $30,000 BURN 10895 SW (INTERf . a ^ i z r t N EXISTING SEYVERT * ~ - EDGE OF PAVEMENT e \J 1 .;EWER ~t 1 J s s~ IS= r FITZGERALD f 10835:.SW TIGARD ST. (INTERESTED) ti I ST. J BACK n y E. Y t 1 • ;SEA ; . SURGHARDT i 1 I NO ADDRESS PROPOSED HOUSE ' (INTERESTED) j . t i ~ I _ I t MAI a j iHART TIGARD ST. 10755 SW TIGARD ST. !!t y -STED) I HOOKED-UP n f TO SAN. SEWER ° i N } I ; I I i 10805 SWHTIGARD ST. t (INTERESTED) i EXISTING SEWER I SW TIGARD ST. PROPOSED SEWER CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER ~•J~ EDGE OF PAVEMENT k . , ,mnn2loo2 ~ ' CL'C4 'f LGA~ t ~ 1 14 ~6n~ BAd 42p7 ~ 3~ 1 , ~ y0lL6lsA Lg:it 8 8 8. 4~~.i •3 NN 1~ "''r t ' ~ ~ ` ~ Itn' la ' W ' Y ` A l 04 r ~ n +1 r'~ ~ ot4 i ' i t^ ' ~g SZ9 1 966T tT v~- . AGENDA ITEM # : 3,5 0 . FOR AGENDA OF: 1 u I CLn CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Development Code Revision Contract PREPARED BY: Dick B. DEPT HEAD OK ` CITY ADMINOK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve the attached contract with Bookin Group-SRI/Shapiro to complete services for a development code update? ° i STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the contract and authorization of the City Administrator to sign the attached contract. INFORMATION SUMMARY he City of Tigard received five responses to a request for proposal to update the City's Development Code. Of the five, three were selected for interview by a group consisting of Kevin Curry, Government Affairs Manager of the Home Builders Association, Nick Wilson, Planning Commission President, Brian Moore, City Council, Jim Hendryx and Dick Bewersdorf£ The same group conducted interviews on September 19, 1996. The concensus was that the Bookin Group was the best suited to complete the project in a manner that reflects the City's needs. While all of the proposals had strengths and weaknesses, the Bookin Group's management, citizen involvement, and graphic emphasis stood out. Contracts over $25,000 require approval of the City's Local Contract Review Board. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED i Hire additional staff to do the project. FISCAL NOTES $75,000 was approved in the 1996-97 fiscal year budget to complete the project. f - 3rywidc\sum\codbook.sum i 0103196 10:39 ANI - f i S CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON a yyv~ l -l J 1~1 PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this Q day of October, 1996 by and between the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, t - hereinafter called CITY, and THE BOOKIN GROUP - SRI SHAPIRO, INC., 621 SW Morrison, Suite 201, Portland, Oregon 97205, hereinafter called CONTRACTOR. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, CITY has need for the services of a company with a particular training, f ability, knowledge, and experience possessed by CONTRACTOR, and WHEREAS, City Manager has determined that The Bookin Group is qualified and capable of performing the professional services as CITY does hereinafter require, under those terms and conditions set forth: z NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED: CONTRACTOR shall initiate services immediately upon receipt of CITY's notice to proceed, together with an executed copy of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to complete work which is detailed in Exhibit "A" and referenced as "Community Development Code (Title 18) Revision Work Program", and within the consultants proposal dated August 23, 1996 attached as Exhibit "B", and by this reference made a part hereof. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION: This Agreement shall become effective upon the date of execution, and shall expire, unless otherwise terminated or extended on afoym 3 1997. = All work under this Agreement shall be completed prior to the expiration of this Agreemen. City has relied upon representations made by Consultants within Exhibit "B" and during an oral interview of September 19, 1996, that all consulting activities promised by consultant shall be provided consistent with the proposal. 1. - 3. COMPENSATION: CITY agrees to pay CONTRACTOR, not to exceed $75,000 for performance of those services described herein, which payment shall be based upon the following applicable terms: j Personal Services Contract: Bookin Group/City of Tigard Page 1 of 10 i Community Development Code Re-write iAcurplnkontract.cdc 1 j a. Payment by CITY to CONTRACTOR for performance of services under this Agreement includes all expenses incurred by CONTRACTOR, with the exception of expenses, if any, identified in this Agreement as separately reimbursable. i b. Payment will be made in installments based on CONTRACTOR's invoice, subject to the approval of the City Manager, and not more frequently than monthly. Payment shall be made only for work actually completed as of the date of invoice. i j C. Payment by CITY shall release CITY from any further obligation for ~ _ payment to CONTRACTOR, for services performed or expenses incurred as of the date of the invoice. Payment shall not be considered acceptance or approval of any work or waiver of any defects therein. d. CONTRACTOR shall make payments promptly, as due, to all persons supplying labor or materials for the prosecution of this work. e. CONTRACTOR shall not permit any lien or claim to be filed or prosecuted against the CITY on any account of any labor or material furnished. ! f. CONTRACTOR shall pay to the Department of Revenue all sums withheld from employees pursuant to ORS 316.167. I g. If CONTRACTOR fails, neglects or refuses to make prompt payment of any claim for labor or services furnished to CONTRACTOR or a subcontractor by any person as such claim becomes due, CITY's finance director may pay such claim and charge the amount of the payment against funds due or to + become due the CONTRACTOR. The payment of the claim in this manner i shall not relieve CONTRACTOR or their surety from obligation with respect to any unpaid claims. h. CONTRACTOR shall pay employees at least time and a half pay for all [ overtime worked in excess of 40 hours in any one week except for ! individuals under the contract who are excluded under ORS 653.010 to 653.261 or under 29 USC sections 201 to 209 from receiving overtime. L CONTRACTOR shall promptly, as due, make payment to any person, co-partnership, association or corporation, furnishing medical, surgical and hospital care or other needed care and attention incident to sickness or injury to the employees of CONTRACTOR or all sums which CONTRACTOR agrees to pay for such services and all moneys and sums which CONTRACTOR collected or deducted from the wages of employees pursuant to any law, contract or agreement for the purpose of providing or paying for such service. i - `J J. The CITY certifies that sufficient funds are available and authorized for expenditure to finance costs of this contract. Personal Services Contract: Bookin Group/City of Tigard Page 2 of 10 I . Community Development Code Re-write iAcurph%contract.cdc - a 4. OWNERSHIP OF WORK PRODUCT: CITY shall by the owner of and shall be entitled to possession of any and all work products of CONTRACTOR which result from this Agreement, including any computations, plans, correspondence or pertinent data and information gathered by or computed by CONTRACTOR prior to termination of this Agreement by CONTRACTOR or upon completion of the work pursuant to this Agreement. 5. ASSIGNMENT/DELEGATION: i Neither party shall assign, sublet or transfer any interest in or duty under this Agreement without the written consent of the other and no assignment shall be of i any force or effect whatsoever unless and until the other party has so consented. If CITY agrees to assignment of tasks to a subcontract, CONTRACTOR shall be fully responsible for the acts or omissions of any subcontractors and of all persons employed by them, and neither the approval by CITY of any subcontractor nor anything contained herein shall be deemed to create any contractual relation i between the subcontractor and CITY. 6. STATUS OF CONTRACTOR AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: CONTRACTOR certifies that: a. CONTRACTOR acknowledges that for all purposes related to this j Agreement, CONTRACTOR is and shall be deemed to be an independent contractor as defined by ORS 670.700 and not an employee of CITY, shall not be entitled to benefits of any kind to which an employee of CITY is entitled and shall be solely responsible for all payments and taxes required by law. Furthermore, in the event that CONTRACTOR is found by a court of law or any administrative agency to be an employee of CITY for any purpose, CITY shall be entitled to offset compensation due, or to demand i repayment of any amounts paid to CONTRACTOR under the terms of this Agreement, to the full extent of any benefits or other remuneration CONTRACTOR receives (from CITY or third party) as a result of said finding and to the full extent of any payments that City is required to make to CONTRACTOR or to a third a as a result of said finding. i b. The undersigned CONTRACTOR hereby represents that no employee of the City of TIGARD, or any partnership or corporation in which a CITY employee has an interest, has or will receive any remuneration of any description from CONTRACTOR, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the letting or performance of this Agreement, except as specifically declared in writing. If this payment is to be charged against Federal funds, CONTRACTOR % J certifies that he or she is not currently employed by the Federal Government and the amount charged does not exceed his or her normal charge for the type of service provided. Personal Services Contract: Bookin Group/City of Tigard Page 3 of 10 Community Development Code Re-write i:tcurpln\contract.cdc i - t I t 1 rr.,, 1 CONTRACTOR and its employees, if any, are not active members of the l Oregon Public Employees Retirement System and are not employed for a total of 600 hours or more in the calendar year by any public employer participating in the Retirement System. i C. CONTRACTOR is not an officer, employee, or agent of the City of Tigard as those terms are used in ORS 30.265. 7. INDEMNIFICATION: CITY has relied upon the professional ability and training of CONTRACTOR as a material inducement to enter into this Agreement. CONTRACTOR warrants that { i all its work will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional 1 practices and standards as well as the requirements of applicable federal, state iI t and local laws, it being understood that acceptance of a CONTRACTOR's work by CITY shall not operate as a waiver or release. ' CONTRACTOR agrees to indemnify and defend the City of Tigard, its officers, agents and employees and hold them harmless from any and all liability, causes of E action, claims, losses, damages, judgments or other costs or expenses including attorney's fees and witness costs and (at both trial and appeal level, whether or not a trial or appeal ever takes place) that may be asserted by any person or entity which in any way arise from, during or in connection with the performance of the work described in this contract, except liability arising out of the sole negligence of the CITY and its employees. Such indemnification shall also cover claims brought against the City of Tigard under state or federal worker's compensation laws. If any aspect of this indemnity shall be found to be illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder i of this indemnification. i! 8. INSURANCE: CONTRACTOR and its subcontractors shall maintain insurance acceptable to CITY in full force and effect throughout the term of this contract. Such insurance i shall cover all risks arising directly or indirectly out of CONTRACTOR's activities or { work hereunder, including the operations of its subcontractors of any tier. Such I insurance shall include provisions that such insurance is primary insurance with i respect to the interests of CITY and that any other insurance maintained by CITY j is excess and not contributory insurance with the insurance required hereunder. ~ i ' The policy or policies of insurance maintained by the CONTRACTOR and its ' j subcontractor shall provide at least the following limits and coverages: Personal Services Contract: Bookin Group/City of Tigard Page 4 of 10 Community Development Code Re-write iacurptntcontract.cdc Types of Insurance Limits of Liability General Liability Each occurrence - $500,000 i General Aggregate $500,000 (indicate if "Claims i Made" or "Occurrence") t ~ i ■ Automobile Liability Combined singular limit $500,000, or covering any vehicle bodily i injury, $200,000 per person used on CITY business and $500,000 per occurrence a j CONTRACTOR's insurance policy shall contain provisions that such policies shall M not be canceled or their limits of liability reduced without thirty (30) days prior l notice to CITY. A copy of each insurance policy, certified as a true copy by an authorized representative of the issuing insurance company, or at the discretion of I CITY, in lieu thereof, a certificate in form satisfactory to CITY certifying to the i issuance of such insurance shall be forwarded to: - Wayne Lowry Finance Director 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 ; Such policies or certificates must be delivered prior to commencement of the work. 1 Ten days cancellation notice shall be provided CITY by certified mail to the Finance Director at the address listed above in event of cancellation or non- renewal of the insurance. The procuring of such required insurance shall not be construed to limit CONTRACTOR's liability hereunder. Notwithstanding said insurance, i CONTRACTOR shall be obligated for the total amount of any damage, injury, or } loss caused by negligence or neglect connected with this contract. 9. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COVERAGE: l i CONTRACTOR, its subcontractors, if any, and all employers working under this Agreement are subject employers under the Oregon Workers' Compensation Law and shall comply with ORS 656.017, which requires them to provide workers' compensation coverage for all their subject workers. CONTRACTOR shall maintain insurance acceptable to the CITY in full force and effect during the term of the Agreement, with the CITY, its officers and employees named as additional i I. Personal Services Contract: Bookin Group/City of Tigard Page 5 of 10 i Community Development Code Re-write i:lcurplmcontract.cdc I( € 1 r ' • t) r insured, covering all risks arising directly or indirectly out of CONTRACTOR's activities, including errors, omissions, or negligent acts related to the professional n services to be provided under this Agreement and contractual liability coverage for yyr the indemnity provided under this Agreement. l I 10. METHOD AND PLACE OF GIVING NOTICE, SUBMITTING BILLS AND MAKING PAYMENTS: All notices, bills and payments shall be made in writing and may be given by f personal delivery or by mail. Notices, bills and payments sent by mail should be { addressed as follows: ` CITY: I{{ { City of Tigard Attn: Richard Bewersdorff, Planning Manager 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 CONTRACTOR: The Bookin Group - SRI/SHAPIRO, Inc. Attn: Beverly Bookin 621 SW Morrison, Suite 201 { Portland, OR 97205 and when so addressed, shall be deemed given upon deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid. In all other instances, notices, bills and payments shall be deemed given at the time of actual delivery. Changes may be made in the names i ! and addresses of the person to whom notices, bills and payments are to be given by giving written notice pursuant to this paragraph. i. 11. MERGER: This writing is intended both as a final expression of the Agreement between the parties with respect to the included terms and as a complete and exclusive f statement of the terms of the Agreement. No modification of this Agreement shall be effective unless and until it is made in writing and signed by both parties. 12. TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE: At any time and without cause, CITY shall have the right in its sole discretion, to f terminate this Agreement by giving notice to CONTRACTOR. If CITY terminates 1 the contract pursuant to this paragraph, it shall pay CONTRACTOR for services rendered to the date of termination. Personal Services Contract: Sookin Group/City of Tigard Page 6 of 10 p Community Development Code Re-write i:lcurptakontract.cdc 13. TERMINATION WITH CAUSE: j a. CITY may terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to CONTRACTOR, or at such later date as may be established by CITY, under any of the following conditions: i. If CITY funding from federal, state, local, or other sources is not obtained and continued at levels sufficient to allow for the purchase of the indicated quantity of services. This Agreement may be modified to accommodate a reduction in funds. ii. If federal or state regulations or guidelines are modified, changed, or interpreted in such a way that the services are no longer allowable or ` appropriate for purchase under this Agreement. iii. If any license or certificate required by law or regulation to be held by CONTRACTOR, its subcontractors, agents, and employees to provide the services required by this Agreement is for any reason denied, revoked, or not renewed. iv. If CONTRACTOR becomes insolvent, if voluntary or involuntary I petition in bankruptcy is filed by or against CONTRACTOR, if a j receiver or trustee is appointed for CONTRACTOR, or if there is an assignment for the benefit of creditors of CONTRACTOR. Any such termination of this agreement under paragraph (a) shall be without prejudice to any obligations or liabilities of either party already accrued prior to such termination. b. CITY, by written notice of default (including breach of contract) to CONTRACTOR, may terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement: i. If CONTRACTOR fails to provide services called for by this i agreement within the time specified herein or any extension thereof, or i I ii. If CONTRACTOR fails to perform any of the other provisions of this Agreement, or so fails to pursue the work as to endanger performance of this agreement in accordance with its terms, and I after receipt of written notice from CITY, fails to correct such failures within ten (10) days or such other period as CITY may authorize. i I j The rights and remedies of CITY provided in the above clause related to defaults ` (including breach of contract) by CONTRACTOR shall not be exclusive and are in ..J addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. Personal Services Contract: Bookin Group/City of Tigard Page 7 of 10 Community Development Code Rewrite Ocurplnkontraa.cdc a i IE If CITY terminates this Agreement under paragraph (b), CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to receive as full payment for all services satisfactorily rendered and expenses incurred, an amount which bears the same ratio to the total fees specified in this Agreement as the services satisfactorily rendered by CONTRACTOR bear to the total services otherwise required to be performed for such total fee; provided, that there shall be deducted from such amount the i amount of damages, if any, sustained by CITY due to breach of contract by CONTRACTOR. Damages for breach of contract shall be those allowed by Oregon law, reasonable and necessary attorney fees, and other costs of litigation I at trial and upon appeal. 14. ACCESS TO RECORDS: j CITY shall have access to such books, documents, papers and records of i CONTRACTOR as are directly pertinent to this Agreement for the purpose of a making audit, examination, excerpts and transcripts. i 15. FORCE MAJEURE: Neither CITY nor CONTRACTOR shall be considered in default because of any delays in completion and responsibilities hereunder due to causes beyond the control and without fault or negligence on the part of the parties so disenabled, including but not restricted to, an act of God or of a public enemy, civil unrest, volcano, earthquake, fire, flood, epidemic, quarantine restriction, area-wide strike, freight embargo, unusually severe weather or delay of subcontractor or supplies due to such cause; provided that the parties so disenabled shall within ten (10) days from the beginning of such delay, notify the other party in writing of the cause of delay and its probably extent. Such notification shall not be the basis for a claim for additional compensation. Each party shall, however, make all reasonable efforts to remove or eliminate such a cause of delay or default and shall, upon cessation of the cause, diligently pursue performance of its obligation under the j Agreement. 1 16. NON-WAIVER: I The failure of CITY to insist upon or enforce strict performance by CONTRACTOR of any of the terms of this Agreement or to exercise any rights hereunder, should not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment to any extent of its rights to assert or rely upon such terms or rights on any future occasion. 17. NON-DISCRIMINATION: CONTRACTOR agrees to comply with all applicable requirements of federal and state civil rights and rehabilitation statues, rules, and regulations. CONTRACTOR also shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, ORS 659.425, and all regulations and administrative rules established pursuant to those laws. Personal Services Contract: Bookin Group/City of Tigard Page 8 of 10 Community Development Code Re-write i:tcurplntcontraa.cdc I J 18. ERRORS: CONTRACTOR shall perform such additional work as may be necessary to correct errors in the work required under this Agreement without undue delays and without additional cost. 19. EXTRA (CHANGES) WORK: Only the City Administrator may authorize extra (and/or changes) work. Failure of CONTRACTOR to secure Administrator's authorization for extra work shall constitute a waiver of all right to adjustment in the contract price or contract time { due to such unauthorized extra work and CONTRACTOR thereafter shall be entitled to no compensation whatsoever for the performance of such work. 20. WARRANTIES: All work shall be guaranteed by CONTRACTOR for a period of one year after the date of final acceptance of the work by the owner. CONTRACTOR warrants that all practices and procedures, workmanship and materials shall be the best available unless otherwise specified in the profession. Neither acceptance of the work nor payment therefore shall relieve CONTRACTOR from liability under warranties contained in or implied by this Agreement. 21. ATTORNEY'S FEES: In case suit or action is instituted to enforce the provisions of this contract, the j parties agree that the losing party shall pay such sum as the court may adjudge reasonable attomey fees and court costs, including attorney's fees and court costs on appeal. 22. GOVERNING LAW: The provisions of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the provisions of the laws of the State of Oregon. Any action or suits involving any question arising under this Agreement must be brought in the appropriate court of l the State of Oregon. i 23. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW: CONTRACTOR shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws and ordinances applicable to the work under this Agreement, including those set forth in ORS 279.310 to 279.320. j 24. CONFLICT BETWEEN TERMS: I4 It is further expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto that should there J be any conflict between the terms of this instrument in the proposal of the contract, this instrument shall control and nothing herein shall be considered as an { acceptance of the said terms of said proposal conflicting herewith. E Personal Services Contract: Bookin GroupiCity of Tigard Page 9 of 10 Community Development Code Re-write OcurpWoontraa.cdc I i L.~ 25. AUDIT: CONTRACTOR shall maintain records to assure conformance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and to assure adequate performance and accurate expenditures within the contract period. CONTRACTOR agrees to permit City of Tigard, the State of Oregon, the federal government, or their duly authorized representatives to audit all records pertaining to this Agreement to assure the accurate expenditure of funds. Any independent audit report of CONTRACTOR's activities or finances prepared for CONTRACTOR shall be submitted to the City of Tigard's Finance Director. i „ I 26. SEVERABILITY: j In the event any provision or portion of this Agreement is held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected or invalidated. thereby. 27. COMPLETE AGREEMENT: This Agreement and attached exhibits constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties. No waiver, consent, modification, or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties. Such waiver, consent, modification, or change if made, shall be effective only in _ specific instances and for the specific purpose given. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement. CONTRACTOR, by the signature of its authorized representative, hereby acknowledges that he has read this Agreement, understands it and agrees to be bound by its terms and conditions. I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized undersigned officer and CONTRACTOR has executed this Agreement on the date hereinabove first written. I CITY OF RGARG By: - William A. Monahan City Administrator CONTRACTOR By: Beverly Bookin The Bookin Group SRI/SHAPIRO, Inc. Personal Services Contract: Bookin Group/City of Tigard Page 10 of 10 Community Development Code Re-write Ocurplnlcontract.cdc i i EWIBiT A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 18) REVISION {YORK PROGRAM T.4SK 1 LVIT1.4 TE PROJECT ! Purpose: Meet with City representatives to reline work program, schedule and budget. Establish Technical Advisory (TAC) and Steering Committees. Tasks: 1.1 Meet with City representatives to review study expectations; determine availability of Cityplanning 1 staff to provide back-up assistance; identify time constraints and other factors which will affect a project. Revise work program, schedule and budget as required. Sign contract. Ill! 1.2 Review all pertinent information related to the code update including but not limited to comprehensive plan: related ordinances: work by other consultants, e.g., Tigard Triangle Plan, Goal 5 compliance review; federal, state and regional mandates or requirements to be addressed, and relevant case law. Prepare memorandum containing a preliminary list of all new requirements j and court decisions which must be addressed. Identify codes of other Oregon communities which might serve as model for Tigard revisions. I 1.3 Establish TAC and Steering Committee. With assistance of City project manager, determine ! composition of TAC, to include representatives of the Citys planning, transportation and public works departments, and a Steering Committee, including City Attomey,' representatives of 1 Planning Commission, City Council and Community Planning Organizations (CPOs); major business interests, property owners and developers; and/or others deemed appropriate. The consulting team will consult with the City about the feasibility/desirability of televising some or all j of the Steering Committee meetings on cable television. 1 1.4 Develop public involvement strateav with the City's Public Involvement Coordinator. This will include two public town hall meetings at the beginning of the adoption process (Task 4), possible meetings with Citizen Involvement Teams (CM and/or CPOs, and periodic articles prepared by the consulting team for inclusion in the City's newsletter. The consulting team will support the Public Involvement Coordination in other activities as identified in this task. i Products: Revised work program, schedule and budget f Preliminary issues memorandum 11 TAC/Steering Committee composition • Public involvement strategy TASK 2 CONDUCT PLANNING WORKSHOP 1 Puryose: Hold initial planning workshops with members of TAC/Steering Committee and Planning Commission/City Council to insure that proposed update process meets both public- and private- sector expectations and concerns. f i Tasks: ( - 2.1 Conduct planning workshop with TAG and Steering Committee to 1) establish project goals and expectations; 2) identify and determine priority of portions of code requiring revision; 3) identify ' neighborhood and private-sector needs and concerns to be addressed; 4) review citizen involvement strategy; and 5) establish preliminary Steering Committee meeting schedule. (The consulting team will meet biweekly with the TAC.) Prepare workshop summary for distribution to City staff, TAC and Steering Committee members; modify work program as necessary to reflect participants' comments. ! . t. Exhibit A: Community Development Code (Title 18) Revision Work Program 1 i - 2.2 Make presentation to icint worker session of the Planning Commission and City Council describing the proposed project including goals, process, documentation, schedule and public involvement Modify as necessary to address concerns raised by these public officials. Product: • TAC/Steering Committee Workshop summary • Final work program and schedule TASK 3 INITIATE CODE UPDATE II j Purpose: Prepare code revisions with assistance from TAC and periodic review of Steering Committee. 1 Tasks: j 3.1 Confirm priority list of code sections to be extensively revised as opposed to those which will need minimal substantive revision with TAC. Develop a strategy for incorporating special provisions into the code including Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), 2040 mandates, public facility 4 concurrency requirements, Goal 5 requirements and other outstanding issues including environmental performance standards and staff-generated issues list. Revise preliminary issues memorandum prepared in Task 1.2. 3.2 Develop one or more new code formats. including "style sheet" outlining organization, page layout, J printing fonts, section numbering system, and present to TAC and Steering Committee for approval. Once new code format is determined, move all existing code sections into appropriate location within new format on disc using a computer format compatible with that of the City. 3.3 Undertake substantive code revisions based on priorities suggested by TAC and Steering Committee in Task 2.1; these include relating to definitions, land use classifications, base zones, l overlay zones and special development standards. Revise regulations as needed to reflect 1 changing conditions; innovative planning practices, emerging technologies; and federal, state and regional mandates. Check to insure that proposed revisions are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Display information in tabular form when possible. Develop simple drawings to illustrate selected planning concepts and definitions. Prepare background comments for each section to explainlustify proposed revisions for inclusion in the draft ordinance. Rely upon 1 on-going TAC review. 3.4 Undertake review and revision of sections related to land use reviews to streamline approval process. Prepare background comments for each section to explain1j'ustify proposed revisions. 3.5 Implement internal cross-referencing system. Check for and correct conflicts and inconsistencies. 3.6 Present draft code revisions to combined TAC/Steering Committee at regularly scheduled intervals, featuring one or two sections at each meeting. Provide TAC/Steering Committee members with copies of draft sections and background notes in advance of each meeting. Revise updated sections as necessary to address issues and concerns raised in these meetings. 3.7 Meet with TAC for intensive session(s) to review draft of updated code. Prepare discussion draft of updated code. 3.8 Make presentation to igint working committee of Planning Commission and City Council in preparation for public hearings in Task 4. Exhibit A: Community Development Code (Tide 18) Revision Work Program 2 J s_ - F-7 Products Revised issues memorandum - , Interim drafts of code revisions for TAC/Steering Committee review • One discussion draft of proposed code revisions in copy-ready hard copy and computer disc formats TASK 4 OBT.-IIN PUBLIC APPROVALS i Pprnnse; Support planning staff at public hearings on proposed code revisions. I Tasks: 4.1 Support planning staff in presentation of proposed regulations to Pl nning Commission for up to two hearings. Revise draft code revisions as directed by the Planning Commission. 4.2 Support planning Staff in presentation of proposed maul Lion to itv Council for up to two i hearings. Make final revisions. Product. 5.,. • One final draft of proposed code revisions in copy-ready hard copy and computer disc formats • Memorandum summarizing additional tasks/activities to be undertaken by City staff during the post- adoption period TASK S MANAGE PROJECT r Purpose: provide project management services to ensure adequate coordination within the consulting team and coordination of the consulting team and City. Tasks: - ® 5.1 Manage project including coordination within the consulting team and coordination of the consulting team and City. Products Monthly status reports and billings Irr i r1. I Exhibit A: CommunityDevelopment Code (Title I8) Revision Work Program 9 I C ` rl:.. L.~ s~..a~++~-~ui~.s..x,.........^Y.~..~-.s...e......._._., i..i. __..~i_. .,.,-.~....,...,...,rlS:'.'L_:.::,.~.__:'y::u,..: ...._.......n..Y~....~. y EXHIBIT B i _ Proposal to prepare City r - of Tigard - Development Code Revision % t ~e _ t r'. gyn. A joint venture of _ The Bookin Group ~j - SRI/SHAPIRO Inc. with assistancefro - m - Foster Pepper & Shefelm - on = 71 Robert Foster Consultants ,J August 23, 1996 . . t t~ l August 23, 1996 Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager THE Department of Community Development BODKIN City of Tigard GROUP 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Dick: Land We & A joint venture of The Bookin Group (TBG) and SRUSHAPIRO is pleased to respond to the Institutional recent request for proposals (RFP) to assist the City of Tigard in preparing a major revision of planning its community development code (Title 18). -J Policy Analysis I 4. For contract administration purposes, TBG will serve as prime contractor and Beverly Bookin, Project AICP, as project manager if our team is selected. She has 15 years experience as an urban Mana ement planner which includes expertise in land use and transportation g planning , institutional master planning, public policy analysis, ordinance preparation and group facilitation/public Group involvement. We have assembled an excellent team which includes Dennis Egner, AICP Facilitation (SRI/SHAPIRO), Senior Planner; Phil Grillo, Esq. (Foster Pepper & Shefelman), Legal I Consultant; and Robert Foster, ASLA (Robert H. Foster Consultants), Urban Designer. I 1 Augmented by planners Cindy Hahn and Kevin Brady, of SRI/SHAPIRO and TBG, ! --i respectively, this team includes expertise in all of the disciplines needed to successfully i undertake a complex project of this nature. The team's strengths include: • Experience in public-sector planning practice and administration; land use administrative law; hearings officer practice; and private-sector land use consulting. • Experience in Tigard, including familiarity with development regulations and City planning, transportation, public works and legal staffs. Phil Grillo served as Assistant City Attorney when he was an associate of O'Donnell Ramis Crew & Corrigan and also has served as back- up hearings officer for the City. 1 . , - • Familiarity with zoning regulations and quasi judicial procedures in a variety of Oregon and J Washington jurisdictions including Portland, Gresham, Beaverton, Hillsboro, Newberg, McMinnville, Oregon City, The Dalles, Hermiston, Ashland, Tualatin, La Grande, Keizer, and Multnomah, Clackamas, Washington and Clark Counties. Several team members have drafted ordinances on behalf of these various jurisdictions. • Expertise in substantive planning issues including those relating to land use law, urban 1 design, and environmental and transportation planning. This includes familiarity with recent legislation and case law, Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), Metro's _ Region 2040 Growth Concept, and neo-traditional design and transit-oriented development concepts, all of which should be incorporated into an updated code. Complementary skills and extensive experience working with one another, creating a i L dynamic inter-disciplinary team. t It is the team's intent to develop a process and final product which reflect the City's vision statement: "Setting the Standard for Service Excellence [through] Participation, Innovation, J 621 SW Monson Responsiveness, Communication, Courtesy." To this end, we submit the following proposal Suite 201 i Suite 201 Oregon including description of the project team, understanding of the project, work program, relevant 97205 experience, references, and preliminary schedule and cost estimate. I Telephone 7 /.503.241.2423 1 - { Facsimile 503.24 - Letter to Dick Bewersdorff _J t-) &now August 23, 1996 Page 2 ` THE BOOKIN GROUP Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal. We hope we have the opportunity to assist the City in this important and challenging project. If you have any further questions or concerns in this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Beverly B(dokin, AICP Dennis Egner, AICP The Bookin Group SRIISHAPIRO Enclosure f - i i. r ~ +1 ,r I~ v t 1 J i y j 7 ` Lam. _ . - j Proposal to prepare city of Tigard 1 Development Code Revision J r-n 1 i f Prepared for Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager J City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. - +D Tigard, Oregon r, A joint venture of The Bookin Group SRI/SHAPIRO, Inc. with assistance frann Foster Pepper Shefelman Robert Foster Consultants August 23, 1996 i IJ UNDERSTANDING OF PROJECT 1 The Tigard Incorporated in 1961 as a freestanding agricultural Development Code marketing town, the City of Tigard now has 35,000 residents, making it the third largest suburb in the Revision Team Portland metropolitan area. Although it has much in common with other large suburbs -Beaverton, Gresham, Oregon City, Lake Oswego - Tigard Beverly Bookin, AICP (The Bookin Group). Project Manager/Senior Planner. retains its unique physical character, development Responsibilities include project manage- history, demographics and community values, which ment, TAC/Steering Committee facilita- will significantly influence its future growth. I i tion, and review/revision of format, base/ I - overlay zones, and parking/other related There is no more important a vehicle for guiding the TPR regulations. community's growth than its development code, which must strike the delicate balance between the ^ rights, needs and concerns of individual property Dennis Egner, AICP (SRI/SHAPIRO), Senior Planner. Responsibilities include owners and those of the community as a whole. Tigard adopted its first zoning code in the 1950s and 7 overall coordination of code revisions 4... has modified it many times since, most recently in with special emphasis on development/ 1994. design standards, special districts, envi- ronmental regulations, and definitions. Nevertheless, there are some changing conditions, Phillip Grillo, Esq. (Foster Pepper & current planning trends, and recently-enacted fed- Shefelman), Legal Consultant. Responsi- era], state and regional mandates to which the code bilities include review/revision of admin- currently does not comply. Moreover, the J , community's elected and appointed officials are istrative procedures and legislative/quasi- always striving to make its regulations more rel- judicial land use reviews. evant and "user-friendly." For these reasons, the Robert Foster, ASLA (Robert Foster City wishes to retain a qualified consulting team to Consultants), Urban Designer/Illustrator. assist it in undertaking a major but selective update r of its development code. ! Responsibilities include review/revision of landscaping regulations and illustra- The consulting team assembled by The Bookin bons. Group and SRI/SHAPIRO recognizes that to be Cindy Hahn (SRUSHAPIRO), Project successful, both the update process and the revised Planner. Responsibilities include variety regulations themselves must reflect the City's of research, planning and writing tasks at mission statement: Senior Planners' direction. City of Tigard Kevin Brady (The Bookin Group), Setting the Standard Project Planner. Responsibilities include of Service Excellence variety of research, planning and writing tasks at Senior Planners' direction. Participation Innovation Responsiveness Communication Illustrations used in this proposal are the work of Courtesy Robert Foster of Robert Foster Consultants. I J Tigard Development Code Revision-] ( ' ' Update Process. To insure that the resulting regula- complex document, necessitating significant internal j tions are both technically sound and politically cross-referencing to obtain complete and accurate acceptable, it is critical that both City staff and information. The organization of the code is the key citizens be involved in the update process. Although to the accessibility of this information for both the consulting team has broad planning expertise, applicants and the planning staff who assist them. none of its members has as much in-depth knowl- Some City planning officials voice concern that the edge of Tigard as does the City's staff, administer Tigard development code is poorly organized, the development code and related ordinances on a making it very difficult for non-planners to use. - day-to-day basis. For this reason, the consulting team proposes that it meet weekly or biweekly with In this portion of the code update, the consulting a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) composed team will review and refine the format, most re- i of selected representatives from the City's planning, cently revised in 1994, to simplify it and make it transportation and public works departments. more "user-friendly." This could include: It is also important that the revised regulations be Grouping related sections into broad categories y reviewed for their relevance and political acceptabil- - Definitions, Base Zones, Overlay Zones, ! ity by a broad cross-section of the community. For Special Regulations, Administrative Procedures, j _ this reason, the consulting team urges the establish- Land Use Reviews - and providing section tabs ' ment of a Steering Committee whose membership throughout the body of the text. 1J could include selected City staff; City Attorney; j a representatives of the Planning Commission, City Identifying opportunities to put information into Council, and Citizen Involvement Teams (CITs); tabular form, since this greatly improves the major business interests, landowners and develop- accessibility of such information. One possibil- ers; and/or others as deemed appropriate. The ity is grouping allowed uses and development consulting team will present proposed revisions to standards for groups of base zones. Examples this committee at key decision points five or six from the City of Portland Zoning Code are times during the update process. This insures that presented in the Appendix section of this pro- j' the Steering Committee will be able to provide posal. Vehicular/bicycle parking requirements by valuable and timely input while using members' use also lend themselves to a tabular presenta- time efficiently. Work with the Steering Committee tion. will be augmented with other citizen involvement f activities. Ensuring accurate cross-referencing of other sections which may affect the proposed develop- 1 - This proposed update process fulfills the City's ment, e.g., in the parking/loading section there = i mission related to Participation. should be across-reference to parking lot land- scaping requirements if these have been incorpo- j Format. By its very nature, a development code is a rated into the landscaping section. ii ty Tigard Development Code Revision-2 - Incorporating simple line drawings to illustrate some existing base zones. r 1 selected planning concepts and definitions. Review criteria recently developed by the City Providing zoning maps which include base to evaluate "rough proportionality" for required II zones, overlay zones and special plan designa- exactions - pedestrian/bike path requirements, tions. flood plain and wetlands set-asides - in re- sponse to Dolan Y. City of Tigard. The selective re-formatting of the code fulfills the City's mission related to Communication and Cour- Review and appropriately adjust vehicular tesy. parking standards to comply with TPR and recently-proposed Metro standards. Content. The mark of good development code is i the inclusion of standards, requirements and ap- Review environmental performance standards proval criteria which are technically sound, legally- and sensitive land sections for compliance with sufficient, fair and reasonable. In a word, a good recent DLCD Statewide Goal 5 requirements. code should be comprehensive and provide adequate guidance without resulting in over-regulation. All Expand definitions section; consider adding a development codes require modification over time section to definitions which defines use catego- to reflect the changing planning environment includ- ries, including generic description, typical ing: accessory uses and typical examples. Examples of use categories include "household living." • Changes in the community's values and develop- "group living." "community services." and ment characteristics; "industrial service". - j Innovations in general pianning practice, e.g., The proposed TAC can be very helpful in selecting neo-traditional design, institutional zoning; those sections of the code which are confusing, inadequate and/or outdated, so that these can be New land uses resulting from emerging new targeted by the consulting team for revision. The r technology, e.g., cellular telephone transmission proposed Steering Committee can also provide facilities; and valuable insights regarding the potential private- .y sector impacts and/or political acceptability of Legally-binding federal, state and regional adopting proposed development and parking stan- mandates, e.g., court cases such as Dolan v. City dards. of Tigard, Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), _ Department of Land Conservation and Develop- Updating the content of the code to address the ment (DLCD) Goal 5 requirements, and Region above concerns fulfills the City's mission statement 2040 Growth Concept. related to Service Excellence and Innovation. Revisions could include but are not limited to: Permit Approval Process. A successful community 1 y is judged both by the fairness of its development Update development standards and approval regulations and the efficiency of the permit approval i criteria, with special attention to meeting the process. Currently, the section in the code relating "clear and objective" standard in Oregon case to quasi-judicial decisions (18-32) is overly long, " law, incorporating new planning concepts, and/ poorly organized and confusing. Moreover, the or meeting Metro 2040 requirements, where sections on specific land use reviews, e.g., vari- y appropriate. antes, conditional uses, site review, do not clearly identify the type of review procedure required. • Encourage more mixed-use development either by creating one or more new mixed-use base To rectify these problems, the project team will zones or permitting a greater range of uses in review and revise as necessary the City's current Tigard Development Code Revision-3 i ~J - s -7 -i procedures for land use reviews, to ensure that these TASK 1 INITIATE PROJECT are legally-rigorous, fair, cost-effective and timely, including: Purpose: Meet with City representatives to refine work program, schedule and budget. • Evaluate advantages of adopting Type I, II and Establish Technical Advisory (TAC) and III nomenclature and, if adopted, revise 18.32 to Steering Committees. contain sections pertaining to each procedure type, including pre-application conference, Tasks: ! notification and application submission require- _ ments; decision-making process and processing 1.1 Meet with City representatives to review time; and appeal procedures. study expectations; determine availability - of City planning staff to provide back-up • Revise each land use review section to clearly assistance-, identify time constraints and define appropriate review procedure. Review other factors which will affect project. and refine approval criteria as required to ensure Revise work program, schedule and budget 9 ! that these are reasonable, clear and objective. as required. Sign contract. J Develop the outline for information sheets on 1.2 Review all pertinent information related to i each land use review which summarize submis- the code update including but not limited to - sion requirements and hearing process, for comprehensive plan; related ordinances; ! distribution to applicants. work by other consultants, e.g., Tigard i Triangle Plan, Goal 5 compliance review; j Improving the fairness and efficiency of the land use and federal, state and regional mandates or approval process meets the City's mission statement requirements to be addressed. Identify related to Responsiveness. codes of other Oregon communities and the APA model ordinance which might serve as The consulting team's proposed work program model for Tigard revisions. i which incorporates the above concepts, is presented in the following section. 1.3 Establish TAC and Steering Committee. With assistance of City project manager, determine composition of TAC, to include PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM representatives of the City's planning, transportation and public works depart- Based on the requirements of the RFP, a proposed ments, and a Steering Committee, including work program has been prepared as detailed a broad cross-section of community inter- below,which is subject to refinement once the ests. I - contract is awarded: ! 1.4 Develop public involvement strategy in - coordination with the City's Public Involve- ment Coordinator. These will include two public town hall meetings at the beginning of the adoption process (Task 4) and peri- odic articles prepared by the consulting ' team for inclusion in the City's periodic J newsletter. The consultants will support the Public Involvement Coordinator in other j activities as identified in this task. Tigard Development Code Revision-4 f i I i Products: i • Revised work program, schedule and budget r-( • TAC/Steering Committee composition LI ! Public involvement strategy {ZFhtOEN7U L~ t eiveWAJX 5' 6'•N1N. fANOS~gPG - . i TASK 2 CONDUCT PLANNING WORKSHOP Purpose: Hold initial workshops with members of i TAC/Steering Committee and Planning M IN t Commission/City Council to insure that proposed update process meets both GorlMt=zGtAt ! public- and private-sector expectations and concerns. Tasks: TASK 3 INITIATE CODE UPDATE I 2.1 Conduct planning workshop with TAC and Purpose: Prepare code revisions with assistance Steering Committee to 1) establish project from TAC and periodic review of i goals, expectations and schedule; 2) Steering Committee. identify and determine priority of portions of code requiring revision; 3) identify Tasks: neighborhood and private-sector needs and ~J concerns to be addressed; and 4) establish 3.1 Develop one or more new code formats I preliminary meeting schedule for Steering and present to TAC and Steering Commit- Committee. (Consultant team will meet tee for approval. Once new code format is weekly or biweekly with TAC). Prepare determined, move all existing code sec- workshop summary for distribution to City tions into appropriate location within new staff, TAC and Steering Committee mem- format. i bers; modify work program as necessary to reflect participants' comments. 3.2 Undertake substantive code revisions 1 based on priorities suggested by TAC and ` 2.2 Make presentation to joint working session Steering Committee in Task 2.1; these of the Planning Commission and City include all sections except administrative { Council describing the proposed project procedures and land use reviews. Revise { including goals, process, documentation, regulations as needed to reflect changing - - schedule and public involvement. Modify conditions; innovative planning practices; work program as necessary to address emerging technologies; and federal, state concerns raised by these public officials. and regional mandates. Display informa- tion in tabular form when possible. De- Products: velop simple drawings to illustrate selected planning concepts and definitions. Rely ..1 TAC/Steering Committee workshop summary upon on-going TAC review. Prepare • Final work program and schedule background comments for each section to explain/justify proposed revisions; see J example in the Appendix section of this proposal. f E l J Tignnl Development Code Revision-5 3.3 Undertake review and revision of sections 4.3 Support planning staff in presentation of J related to land use reviews to streamline proposed regulations to City Council for approval process. Prepare background up to two hearings. Make final revisions. ! comments for each section to explain/ justify proposed revisions. Product: / J 3.4 Present draft code revisions to combined One final draft of proposed code revisions in TAC/Steering Committee at regularly copy-ready hard copy and computer disc for- scheduled intervals, featuring specific mats. J sections at each meeting. Provide TAC/ i Steering Committee members with copies of draft sections and background notes in TASK 5 MANAGE PROJECT k advance of each meeting. Revise updated f ! r sections as necessary to address issues and Purpose: Provide project management services to f concerns raised in these meetings. ensure adequate coordination of j consulting team and City. 3.5 Meet with TAC for intensive session(s) to Tasks: i review draft code. Prepare discussion draft of updated code. 5.1 Manage project including coordination within consultant team, and coordination 3.6 Make presentation to joint working com- of consultant team and City. mittee of Planning Commission and City Council in preparation for public hearings Product: in Task 4. Monthly billings. .1 Products: A summary of roles and responsibilities, a project - One discussion draft of proposed code revisions schedule, and budget are included on the following J in copy-ready hard copy and computer disc pages. I formats. TASK 4 OBTAIN PUBLIC APPROVALS Purpose: Support planning staff at public hearings on proposed code revisions. Tasks: 4.1 Conduct two public town hall meetings to present proposed draft to citizens of com- munity. „~1L_ 01 4.2 Support planning staff in presentation of proposed regulations to Planning Commis- - sion for up to two hearings. Revise draft code revisions as directed by the Planning Commission. Tigard Development Code Revision-6 j Tigard Development Code Revision Roles and Reponsiblities Matrix TASKS CT TBG SRI FPS RFC 1.0 INITIATE PROJECT 1.1 Meet with City Representatives P P S i 1.2 Review all Pertinent Information P P S 1.3 Establish TAC/Steering Committee P S L 1.4 Develop Public Involvement Process 2.0 CONDUCT PLANNING WORKSHOP I 2.1 Conduct TAC/Steering Committee Workshop $ P P S + J 2.2 Make Presentation to Joint Work Session $ P P 3.0 INITIATE CODE UPDATE 3.1 Develop Code Format(s) S P S S 3.2 Undertake Substantive Revisions S S P S _ 3.3 Revise Land Use Process Sections $ P S S i 3.4 Present Revisions to TAC/Steering S P P S 3.5 Conduct Work Session with the TAC S P P S 3.6 Make Presentation to Joint Session S P P S S ' 4.0 OBTAIN PUBLIC APPROVALS t J 4.1 Conduct Public Meetings P P S $ 4.2 Participate in Planning Commission Hearings P S S S S 4.3 Participate in City Council Hearings P S S $ $ 5.0 MANAGE PROJECT P P S i CT City of Tigard Staff TBG The Bookin Group SRI SRI/SHAPIRO, Inc. ` C FPS Foster Pepper Shefelman E RFC Robert Foster Consultants f P Prime Project Role S Support Project Role v 04 I 1. J L ! [ l 1 :J L _ ._J 1 J :J _.__J Tigard Development Code Revision F Project Schedule Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1.0 INITIATE PROJECT 2.0 CONDUCT PLANNING WORKSHOP 3.0 INITIATE CODE UPDATE 4.0 OBTAIN PUBLIC APPROVALS U 3MISM Z= m7=1 5.0 MANAGE PROJECT *0** O X e ® ® A 1 Meetings: M M ® M M X I ® Steering Committee ~C Technical Advisory Committee O Joint Planning Commission/City Council Work Session i X Public Meetings ® Public Hearings 3 i i . rte- 0 NEW Tigard Development Project 7961045 Date: August 23, 1996 1 - Total Hours e r TBG SRI/SHAPIRO FPS rFo* Tasks D CH PBF Total Task Hours Totals 1.0 initiate Projects j 1.1 Meet with City Representatives 12 2 14 $1,232 I 1.2 Review all Pertinent Information 8 8 4 20 $2,068 1.3 Establish TAC/Steering Committee 4 4 $352 % - 1.4 Dovele Public Involvpmpnt Process 4 $352 I i 2.0 Conduct Planning Workshops E . - - . 2.1 Conduct TAC/Steering Committee Workshop 15 10 5 5 35 $3,400 2.2 Make Presentation to Joint Work Session 5 5 10 $880 3.0 Initiate Code Update 3.1 Develop Code Format(s) 20 20 40 $2,760 t" i t 3.2 Undertake Substative Revisions 54 78 80 98 ~I 40 350 $25,748 3.3 Revise Land Use Process Sections 15 9 79 I,I 103 $15,147 r- 3.4 Present revisions to TAC/Steering 7 7 18 $1,892 - 3.5 Conduct Work Session with TAC 12 15 12 15~ 60 $4,932 3.6 Make Presentation to Joint Session 5 5 1. 3 13 $1,375 4.0 Obtain Public Approvals ' 1 4.1 Conduct Public Meetings 5 5 5 15 $1,255 4.2 Participate in Planning Commission Hearings 25 5 III 3 5 38 $3,510 4.3 Participate in City Council Hearings 25 5 II 3 5 38 $3,510 i 5.0 Mana~o Projeet q 1 4811 $4,224 5.1 qq Total Hours/$ 260 113 157 1131 10711 6011 81011 $72,637 n • I J Billing Rates TBG SRI/SHAPIRO IIGIillO Foster _ BB KB DE CH J PGA BF 589 550 SeBI 572 1 5165 575 J Total Labor $72,637 1 Total F~cpenses• $2 369 j Project Total $75,000 - Project Team TBG- - BB - Beverly Book n. Project Manager •Nolaz: Esp<nses ndutle. KB -Kevin Brady, Protect Planner Travel 50 25(ml; Copies $o.10Jpege; FAX 51.00/pogo; SRIy51tAPIRO Phone. Lim development and field supp. at cost. - DE - Donny Egner. Senior Planner - ' CH - Cindy Hahn, Project Planner , Foster Popper BSholnlman { - PG - Phlli Grillo. Legal Consultant i i Robert Foster Consultants BF - Bob Foster, Urban Dosifl^or, Illustrator 1 use and regulatory factors affecting the siting of TEAM CAPABILITIES television and radio towers on behalf of Multnomah i County, Oregon, and assisted in drafting the first i -1 Beverly Bookin, AICP, (The Bookin Group) comprehensive tower siting ordinance in the nation. Project Manager/Senior Planner. A land use planner for over 15 years, Beverly has extensive She also has prepared medical center zoning regula- experience in general land use and transportation tions which were adopted by the Cities of Tualatin ! planning, pubic policy analysis, ordinance prepaza- and Ashland, tailored to the development needs of Legacy Meridian Park Hospital and Ashland Commu- lion, group facilitation and project management. nity Hospital, respectively. Currently, she is assisting ! - Providence Newberg Hospital (PNH) to formulate -a She has prepared all types of land use applications ! for private clients in a number of Oregon jurisdic- special institutional zone, in conjunction with George 4 Fox College and the City of Newberg, to be incorpo- tions including the Cities of Portland, Tigard, Newberg, Beaverton, Hillsboro, Gresham, Tualatin, rated into the Newberg Development Code. l±, Aurora, Ashland, North Plains and Hermiston, and Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington Counties. Ms. Bookin received her Bachelor's Degree in sociol- ogy from Northwestern University, where she gradu- Currently, Ms. Bookin serves as project manager in ated Phi Beta Kappa, and Master's Degree in urban ^ the development of a campus master plan for the studies from Portland State University. She is a j _ member of the American Institute of Certified Plan- Oregon Regional Primate Research Center ' (ORPRC). She is representing the institution in a ners (AICP). City-sponsored LRT Station Area Master Plan effort; she recently completed the draft of a new I Station Community Research Park (SCRP) district, Dennis Egner, AICP, (SRI/SHAPIRO) Senior -i in conjunction with City of Hillsboro staff. Planner. Mr. Egner, Planning Manager at SRI J SHAPIRO, has more than 16 years of experience in { - Ms. Bookin recently completed a comprehensive land use and environmental planning, citizen involve- i revision of the City of Gresham's parking regula- ment, comprehensive planning, and community ! Lions; Gresham becomes the first jurisdiction in the development. Portland metropolitan area to adopt maximum prior to joining SRUSHAPIRO, Mr. Egner was the parking ratios for all land uses. She also recently planning director for the City of Newberg and also 1 completed an assignment as project manager to prepare the five-year Central City Public Parking has worked for other jurisdictions in a planning Facilities Plan for the City of Portland Bureau of capacity. He has managed periodic review/plan updates for six Oregon cities and has extensive General Services. - knowledge of Oregon Statewide Planning Goals and - She served as a member on the DEQ Parking Ratio administrative rules. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), Metro Study ! Group on Building Orientation, and City of Portland In 1995, Mr. Egner led Transportation and Growth Bicycle Facility Task Force, committees which Management (TGM) projects in LaGrande, The j evaluated ways in which local jurisdictions could Dalles, Beaverton, Gresham, Washington County, implement of state-mandated Transportation Plan- Keizer, and Salem. He currently is a member of the ning Rule (TPR). Oregon APA Board and serves as the chapter's Professional Development Officer. Ms. Bookin has prepared comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances for the Cities of Aurora, North Mr. Egner has been a speaker at numerous confer- 1 Plains and Hermiston, Oregon and Juneau, Alaska. ences and workshops, including the Oregon Planner's She briefly served as consulting planning directors Institute and state and national APA planning confer- ; for the Cities of Aurora and North Plains. She ences. In November 1995, he organized the TGM j Toolbox - a statewide workshop on successful trans- managed astudy, which assessed the technical, land Tigard Development Code Revision-10 (i { z 6 4 J L~ 1 1 ® portation and growth management projects. He received his Bachelor's of Environmental Design E r , Degree from University of Colorado, and his I i Master's Degree in Urban Planning from University of Oregon. Mr. Egner is a member of the American J 1 f ~1f' ' t i ~ Institute of Certified Planners (AICP). Phillip Grillo, Esq. (Foster Pepper & Shefelman), Legal Consultant. Mr. Grillo is trained both as a / - t land use planner and attorney specializing in land ~ _ stew use and environmental law. Since 1994, he has been Of Counsel with Foster Pepper & Shefelman (FP&S), where he serves as Chair of the Land Use and Environmental Practice Group in the Portland I I- r office. In addition to providing legal services to numerous private clients, Mr. Grillo has served as land use hearings officer for the Cities of Portland, Gresham, mercial, business/industrial parks, housing, urban Tigard, and Molalla, as well as Multnomah County, design, parks, recreation, golf course design and Oregon and Clark County, Washington. land use planning. i Mr. Grillo was an associate with the firm O'Donnell Foster Consultants provides professional land use Ramis Crew from 1987-1990. While at the film he planning and project design services from feasibility often served as Tigard's Assistant City Attorney, and master planning to permitting and construction advising the city on various land use and municipal documentation. issues. Over the course of his career he has pre- sented numerous articles relating to the quasi- Mr. Foster holds a Bachelor's degree from Syracuse judicial land use process, regulatory reform, growth University, and an Master of Landscape Architecture management, and transportation planning. from UC Berkeley. He is an Associate of the Land- scape Institute, London, England, and a State of - Mr. Grillo holds a Bachelor's Degree in Urban Oregon Registered Landscape Architect (License f Planning and Public Policy from Michigan State #129). I { University and a law degree from Northwestern School of Law, Lewis & Clark College. He has Cindy Hahn (SRI/SHAPIRO), Project Planner. _ been admitted to the bar in both the States of Or- As a Senior Planner with SRUSHAPIRO, Ms. egon and Washington. Hahn's responsibilities include research, data analy- J sis, editing, and project management for the prepara- Robert Foster, ASLA (Robert Foster Consult- tion of environmental analyses and planning studies. ants), Urban Designer and Illustrator. Bob Foster Ms. Hahn has contributed as a primary author on is a Landscape Architect and Land Development numerous environmental and planning reports, and Planner with over 27 years experience. He estab- has managed and conducted environmental analyses lished Foster Consultants in April of 1988. His for a variety of military activity, transportation, solid experience has been in New York, San Francisco, waste and commercial and residential projects. London, Geneva, New Orleans, and Portland, Oregon. Ms. Hahn brings to her work three years of land development experience in the private sector and Mr. Foster's planning and urban design experience several years experience in the environmental includes mixed-use riverfront development, com- planning field. Ms. Hahn is recognized by clients i Tigard Development Code Revision-11 j i i I L~ for her ability to coordinate projects effectively and protection, manufactured housing, airport protec- efficiently with a keen perception of concerns and tion, and other implementation ordinances for a attention to detail. number of Oregon cities. SRI/ SHAPIRO is a certified women's business enterprise (WBE) or Ms. Hahn holds a Bachelors degree in Geography disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) in Wash- from the University of Oregon, where she graduted ington, Oregon, California, and Idaho. Phi Beta Kappa, and a Master of Urban Planning Degree from University of Washington. Foster Pepper & Shefelman (FPS) Foster Pepper & Shefelman (FPS) is one of the Northwest's largest full-service law firms with offices in Seattle, Kevin Brady (The Bookin Group), Project Plan- Bellevue, Portland and Anchorage. Founded nearly I ner. Mr. Brady is a land use and transportation 100 years ago, the firm has 142 attorneys who j planner with six years experience. He worked for specialize in all legal disciplines. The firm is a five years for the City of Portland, first as assistant nationally recognized leader in Land and Environ- y . planner for the Office of Transportation and then as mental Law. a planner in the Bureau of Planning's Permit Center. In the latter position, he worked closely with appli- Robert Foster Consultants was established by fl _ cants interpreting code requirements, reviewing Robert Foster in April of 1988. His experience has j application submissions and undertaking inter- been in New York, San Francisco, London, Geneva, 1 bureau tracking of permits. Currently, he is a con- New Orleans, and Portland, Oregon. His planning i sultant who undertakes research and prepares land and urban design experience includes mixed-use use applications for private development clients. riverfront development, commercial, business/ industrial parks, housing, urban design, parks, Mr. Brady holds a Bachelor's Degree in geography recreation, golf course design and land use planning. _ "1 1 and minor in urban studies from Portland State Foster Consultants provides professional land use University in 1990. planning and project design services from feasibility and master planning to permitting and construction documentation. FIRM QUALIFICATIONS The Bookin Group (TBG) is the sole proprietor- RELEVANT EXPERIENCE t I ship of Beverly Bookin, AICP, an urban planner in practice since 1982. Founded in 1990, the firm Beverly Bookin, AICP (The Bookin Group) undertakes assignments in land use and transporta- tion planning; institutional master planning; public Oregon Regional Primate Research Center policy analysis; ordinance preparation; group facili- (ORPRC). Ms. Bookin serves as project manager i tation; and project management. TBG is certified as of a consulting team to assist ORPRC to develop a a Women's Business Enterprise (WBE) and Emerg- strategic and facilities plan for its 250-acre campus ing Small Business (ESB) by the State of Oregon. in Hillsboro, Oregon. She also serves as one of ORPRC's representatives in the development of a SRIISHAPIRO, Inc. SRI/SHAPIRO is a consulting light rail transit (LRT) station area plan, as the firm of planners and scientists providing solutions to institution will be located adjacent to two Westside planning and development-related issues and analy- LRT stations, at 185th and 205th Avenues, respec- sis of environmental data and regulations. SRI/ tively. As part of this work, she is helping to draft SHAPIRO delivers a full spectrum of land use and regulations for a new zoning district to be known as natural resource services to clients in the Pacific the Station Community Research Park Zone. Northwest. The firm has prepared ordinance amendments addressing a variety of issues and Portland Bureau of General Services (BGS). Ms. i M1 concerns, including: development review processes, Bookin recently served as project manager of a design review for historic buildings, open space consulting team assisting the BGS in the develop- Tigard Development Code Re14sion-12 J {{I F J w ■ ment of a Central City Public Parking Facilities Plan Transportation and Growth Management for its Smart Park garage system. The plan is de- Projects. Mr. Egner was selected to lead a team of 7 signed to identify priority public parking invest- planners in preparation of various infill and redevel- ments over the next five years. The planning process opment studies under the State of Oregon's Trans- represents a departure for the City as consideration portation and Growth Management Program. In the is now being given to providing parking in other City of the Dalles, SRI/SHAPIRO developed strate- districts of the Central City and for other uses gies for commercial and residential infill develop- i (cultural activities, housing), whereas previously it ment. In Gresham, the team developed new plan j has concentrated its efforts in providing short-term concepts for pedestrian and transit oriented develop- customer parking in downtown's retail core. ment and redevelopment. Strategies for residential infill development were examined in Beaverton. City of Gresham Development Code Revisions. Commercial neighborhood development on new and Ms. Bookin recently completed revisions to the City redeveloped sites as the focus of the team's work in of Gresham Development Code related to updating Washington County. In addition to these projects, minimum and establishing new maximum parking SRI/SHAPIRO provided support planning services i b standards and developing provisions for shared for infill and redevelopment projects in Ashland, parking. Part of the City's Transportation System Jacksonville, and the Hollywood neighborhood in I now under development, the purpose of this study is Portland. For all projects development code lan- to slow the development of private off-street park- guage was created to implement the concepts. ing, thus, encouraging use of alternative modes of transportation and preventing over-building of State of Oregon Transportation Planning Rule. unnecessary spaces. Mr. Egner prepared revisions to various Oregon cities subdivision and zoning ordinances to bring the Providence Newberg Hospital (PNH). Ms. Bookin ordinances into compliance with the State of _ is representing PNH in development of a special Oregon's Transportation Planning Rule. Mr. Egner institutional overlay zone in collaboration with assisted the cities of Woodburn, Toledo, Milwaukie, representatives from George Fox College, and Troutdale with their Transportation Systems Friendsview Manor and the City of Newberg. Plan. `j Featuring development standards tailored to institu- tional characteristics and expedited approval pro- Periodic Review of Various Oregon Cities. Mr. y cesses, such zones have been used to replace the Egner completed Periodic Review and update of conditional use status accorded to institutions in Comprehensive Plans in Newberg, Oregon City, most jurisdictions. Brookings, Dundee, Woodburn, and Sheridan, Oregon. The process involved creation of new plans and ordinances for historic preservation, wetland Dennis Egner, AICP (SRI/SHAPIRO) protection, economic development, manufactured housing, public utility coordination, and growth Newberg Development Code Revisions. Mr. management. Extensive knowledge of Statewide Egner prepared major revisions to the Newberg Planning Goals was required. _ zoning and subdivision ordinances. The subdivsion ordinance was reformatted and updated to be consis- tent with current state law. The zoning ordinance was revised to include new sections on historic Phillip Grillo, ESC. (Foster Pepper & preservation, manufactured housing, open space Shefelman) protection and airport overlay zoning. Mr. Egner also prepared zoning ordinance amendments to Transit Oriented Development. Mr. Grillo serves implement the Northwest Newberg Specific Plan. as a legal representative for the Oregon Regional The amendments included new design standards and PrimateResearch Center (ORPRC) on the City of streamlined development review procedures. Hillsboro's 206th Area Advisory Team. As part of this effort, he provides advice to the client and the j Tigard Development Code Revision-13 1 J~ city on new regulations and procedures for imple- Project References menting the City's transit oriented development -1 policies within the research park planned by ORPRC. Beverly Bookin, AICP (The Bookin Group) Washington State Regulatory Reform. Mr. Grillo Dr. M. Susan Smith has worked with Governor Mike Lowery's Task Executive Director i Force on Regulatory Reform, particularly on issues Oregon Regional Primate Research Center relating to procedural reform of the state's land use (503) 690-53M system. Task Force efforts have already lead to the h passage of HB 1724, which resulted in sweeping Steve Goodrich changes in Washington's land use procedures. Senior Administrative Manager Portland Bureau of General Services Portland Title 34 Rewrite. Mr. Grillo has served (503) 823-6929 as a member of the City of Portland Title 34 Advi- sory Committee. This committee has been involved Mike Mabrey in rewriting the City's land development code to Lead Transportation Planner incorporate Region 2040 principles and streamline City of Gresham the approval process. Mr. Grillo was appointed to the committee by Commissioner Charlie Hales. (503) 618-2818 _ - ~ J Robert Foster, ASLA (Robert Foster Con- SRI/SHAPIRO , sultonts) Dan Moore t~~J City Planner Central Bethany. Foster Consultants, working City of La Grande with a planning team of professional designers, (541) 962-1308 recently completed the Master Plan for this mixed J use neo-traditional style new community develop- Brian Shetterly ment including commercial, retail, housing, and Senior Planner recreation on a 200-acre site in north Beaverton, Oregon. Mr. Foster's responsibilities included City of Gresham t concept planning, site development design, and (503) 669-2529 l i landscape architecture. John Morgan ! J Redevelopment and Infill Strategy. Foster Con- Planning Director ~ sultants recently completed the preparation of The City of Keizer Dalles, Oregon, Redevelopment and Infill Strategy (503) 390-3700 study and Concept Master Plans with SRI/SHA- PIRO. The study will create guidelines for future Foster Pepper & Shefelmon development in industrial and retail neighborhood centers. Dr. M. Susan Smith Executive Director Chemawa/River Road Specific Plan. Foster Oregon Regional Primate Research Center ' Consultants recently completed the Chemawa/River (503) 690-5300 Road Specific Plan for Keizer, Oregon. with SRI/ i 71 SHAPIRO. This was a four block Master Plan of Paul Parker the downtown area including mixed use with Washington State Association of Counties J housing, commercial, and employment elements. (206) 753-1884 Tigard Development Code Revision-14 i J i. , - e i I Charlie Hales City of Portland Commissioner (503) 823-4682 I ~ Robert Foster Consultants Roger Neu I Vice President j J Schnitzer Investments Inc. (503) 224-9900 Ken Dauble Community Planning Manager ' i Clackamas County -j (503) 655-8521 k i v. ' John Morgan ? Planning Director City of Keizer (503)390-3700 IJ Team Resumes _ I a. Resumes for key team members are included on the following pages, which highlight the experience, _ skills, and abilities of the individuals selected for the City of Tigard Development Code Revision team. J { -1 J Tigard Development Code Revision-15 L Lad THE i I BOOKIN jzr i GROUP s. a 9I;Y .J i Founded in 1990, The Bookin Group (TBG) is the sole proprietorship of Beverly 1 Bookin, an urban planner in practice since 1982. Beverly undertakes assign- ments in general land use and transportation planning; institutional master planning; health care planning and facility design; group facilitation; and project management. She has provided these services to a wide range of public agencies, institutions, private-sector companies and non-profit organizations. ' Eitheralone orin collaboration with otherprofessionals, Beverly's workis known for its integrity, technical soundness, quality presentation, and political sensitiv- ity. Using a collaborative approach, she assists clients to make sound strategic decisions and then translate these into actions which optimize the utilization of their assets, given existing and future needs and conditions. She holds a Bachelor's Degree in Sociology from Northwestern University and a Master's Degree in Urban Planning from Portland State University. She is a J J member of Phi Beta Kappa and the American Institute of Certified Planners _ (AICP). She co-authored Regulating Radio and TV Towers (1984), for the I American Planning Association's (APA) Planning Advisory Service. TBG is certified as a Women's Business Enterprise (WBE) and Emerging Small J Business (ESB) by the State of Oregon. FF, J j i Boom THE BOOKIN GROUP LAND USE PLANNING i -7 THE Good Samaritan Hospital & dfedical Center (GSHMC). Beverly Bookin served as director of planning at BOOKIN GSHMC, a Legacy Health System-affiliate, undertaking a broad range of clinical program, facility and GROUP land use planning. She prepared the institution's Master Land Use Plan (1985) and Update (1989); Master Internal Facilities Plan (1990); and Comprehensive Transportation Management Plan (1988). She prepared need assessments and undertook preliminary planning for the new maternity and intensive care units and the remodelling of radiology and emergency services. f Oregon Regional Primate Research Center (ORPRC). She serves as project manager of a consulting team to assist ORPRC to develop a strategic and facilities plan for its 250-acre campus in Hillsboro, Oregon. One of seven NIH-funded primate centers in the country, ORPRC recently became a free- standing bio-medical institute of Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU). In addition to serving as group facilitator in the development of an internal strategic plan, she is serving as a liaison to other - - , i i nearby research facilities, Oregon Graduate Institute and CAPITAL Center, in the development of a i J 500-acre regional research park which will combine research, graduate education, technology transfer and community service. She also serves as one of ORPRC's representatives in the development of a light rail transit (LRT) station area plan, as the institution will be located adjacent to two Westside LRT stations, at 185th and 205th Avenues, respectively. As part of this work, she is helping to draft regulations for a new zoning district to be known as the Transit-Oriented Research Park Zone. Portland Bureau of General Services (BGS). She recently served as project manager of a consulting team assisting the BGS in the development of a Central City Public Parking Facilities Plan for its Smart Park garage system. The plan is designed to identify priority public parking investments over the next five years. The planning process represents a departure for the City as consideration is now being _j given to providing parking in other districts of the Central City and for other uses - cultural activities, housing - whereas previously it has concentrated its efforts in providing short-term customer parking j in downtown's retail core. She also prepared the conditional use application to permit expansion of Smart Park's 4th/Yamhill Garage. City of Gresham. She recently completed revisions to the City of Gresham Development Code related 4. to updating minimum and establishing new maximum parking standards and developing provisions for shared parking. Part of the City's Transportation System now under development, the purpose of this study is to slow the development of private off-street parking, thus, encouraging use of alternative modes of transportation and preventing over-building of unnecessary spaces. Portland Community College (PCQ. She recently revised the parking element of PCC's Cascade Campus Master Plan. Rather than build a new parking structure on the campus, PCC leased and beautified space at the under-utilized parking lot of a nearby grocery store. The college also is stepping up implementation of transportation demand management (TDM) techniques to reduce parking and encourage use of alternative transportation modes. She completed the land use application to obtain a conditional use for the proposed changes, which was approved by the City of Portland. Legacy Health System (LHS). She has served as consulting land use planner to LHS, which operates - four hospitals in the Portland area. Projects for LHS have included a comprehensive transportation management plan and conditional use application for an $18-million medical office building/parking J complex at Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Center, conditional use permit for the expansion of the Life Flight air ambulance service; a zone change to permit construction of the Legacy corporate offices in the vacant Physicians and Surgeons Hospital; and a facility re-use plan for Holladay Park Hospital, which has subsequently been closed. J The Boo •m Group - Land Use Planning J L~ J Port of Portland. She recently served as consulting planner to the Port of Portland undertaking h g preparation of land use applications. Projects included a conditional use approval of a cruise ship bert at the Portland Ship Yard, greenway permit for the Port's dredging operation on Swan Island; and subdivision approval of the Ramsey Lake Industrial Park in Rivergate. . Portland Institutional Coalition. Ms. Bookin also initiated formation of and served as project manager for a coalition of Portland hospitals and colleges to assist the staff of the Portland Bureau of Planning in drafting regulations for institutional master plans as part of the City's revised zoning code. The EJ coalition's recommendations were adopted. Assisted the coalition in its efforts to work with the City to adopt institutional zoning as part of the Albina Community Plan; this new zoning designation provides e an alternative to institutions' current status as conditional uses in selected areas of the city. Coalition j members included OHSU, Legacy Health System, Kaiser Permanente, Providence Portland and Portland Adventist Medical Centers, University of Portland, Portland Community College, Portland State University and Reed College. Private Development Clients. She has served as the consulting planner for The Holland, Inc. (BurgerVille k USA), undertaking land use permitting and neighborhood negotiations for the company's site l development projects. She has represented the Lewis River Golf Club and Resort (Cowlitz County, L Washington) in its efforts to obtain approval for a 200-acre rural mixed-use planned unit development (PUD) to augment the existing golf course. She is also consulting planner for the Zidell and Hampton Lumber Companies, two of Oregon's largest industrial concerns. She prepared plan amendments to permit reallocation of land uses within the 600-acre Tanasbourne and 200-acre Waterhouse PUDs, in suburban Washington County, Oregon. i Comprehensive PlanVZoning Ordinances. Ms. Bookin has prepared comprehensive plans and zoning u j ordinances for the Cities of Aurora, North Plains and Hermiston, Oregon and Juneau, Alaska. She managed a study, which assessed the technical, land use and regulatory factors affecting the siting of television and radio towers on behalf of Multnomah County, Oregon, and assisted in drafting the first comprehensive tower siting ordinance in the nation. Based on this work, she co-authored a technical report, Regulating Radio and TV Towers, for the American Planning Association's (APA) Planning Advisory Service in 1964. J { Institutional Ordinances. She prepared medical center zoning regulations which were adopted by the Cities of Tualatin and Ashland, tailored to the development needs of Legacy Meridian Park Hospital j and Ashland Community Hospital, respectively. Currently, she is assisting Providence, Newberg L• Hospital (PNH) to formulate a special institutional zone, in conjunction with George Fox College and the City of Newberg, to be incorporated into the Newberg Development Code. She is also assisting Tuality Community Hospital (TCH) to evaluate the impacts on its continuing development resulting from I adoption of a transit-supportive development ordinance; the latter is related to completion of the Hillsboro Extension of the Westside Light Rail Transit (LRT) line. J Institutional Afaster Plans. She has prepared facility and/or master plans for several other Oregon ! institutions and non-profit organizations, including Ashland Community, McKenzie-Willamette, Providence St. Vincent, and Tuality Community Hospitals; Mittleman Jewish Community Center, Mainstream Youth Program; and Washington County Community Action Program. E Ld The Bookiu Group - Land Use Planning 2 I 4 _ C - Dennis Egner, AICP Mr. Egner, Planning Manager at SRI/SHAPIRO, has more than 16 years of experience in j land use and environmental planning, citizen involvement, comprehensive planning, and community development. Prior to joining SRIISHAPIRO, Mr. Egner was the planning director for the City of Newberg and also has worked for other jurisdictions in a planning t capacity. He has managed periodic review/plan updates for six Oregon cities and has extensive knowledge of Oregon Statewide Planning Goals and administrative rules. In i 1995, Mr. Egner led Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) projects in LaGrande, The Dalles, Beaverton, Gresham, Washington County, Keizer, and Salem. He currently is a member of the Oregon APA Board and serves as the chapter's Professional Development Officer. Mr. Egner has been a speaker at numerous conferences and workshops, including the Orgeon Planner's Institute and state and national APA planning conferences. In November 1995, he organized the TGM Toolbox - a statewide workshop on successful transportation and growth management projects. Education M.U.P. Urban Planning, University of Oregon B.E.D. Environmental Design, University of Colorado Selected Experience: • Land Use and Fnvironmental Planning Mr. Egner prepared land use ordinance i' amendments and a Goal 5 ESEE analysis for open space protection in Newberg; prepared a Goal 5 ESEE analysis for Edgefield Manor in Troutdale; prepared Goal 5 ESEE analyses and historic preservation ordinance amendments in Newberg and J Oregon City; completed the environmental inventory and analysis for LCDC acknowledgment of the McMinnville Comprehensive Plan; managed a 150-acre ! Specific Development Plan Project which incorporated neotraditional design concepts and protected environmentally sensitive areas; served as a member of the State r Technical Advisory Committee for preparation of a reconnaissance study for a freeway bypass of Newberg and Dundee; coordinated land use ordinance ; amendments for the Newberg Transportation System Plan and its compliance of State Planning Goals 12 and 5. • Citizen Involvement, Mr. Egner was project coordinator for a multi-jurisdictional strategic planning vision for the Chehalem Valley; managed citizen involvement on a State Parks sponsored beach access plan for the Oregon coast; restructured the citizen J involvement process and created a planning newsletter for Newberg citizens. Mr. Egner has coordinated citizen committees for a variety of projects. J Comprehensive Planning and Community Development. Mr. Egner conducted site analysis, feasibility studies, and permit applications for commercial and residential development projects; served as project manager for the creation of an Urban Reserve Area for the Newberg Area; prepared Periodic Review/Plan Updates requiring extensive knowledge of Statewide Planning Goals for Brookings, Dundee, Oregon City, Newberg, Sheridan, and Woodburn, Oregon; preparation of a neighborhood plan in Larimer County, Colorado; Urban Renewal Plans for Milwaukie and Lebanon, Oregon; author of economic development studies for Sheridan, McMinnville, Oregon - City and Lane County, Oregon; design review studies for Gresham and Oregon City, Oregon. L~ 1 f. _ FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN ~ P H I L L I P E. GRILLO i PERSONAL: Born March 24, 1956 ~ t Detroit, Michigan PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Foster Pepper & Shefelman Portland, Oregon f. Of Counsel - 1994- Practice concentrated in land use and environmental law with particular experience in local permits, state and federal approvals and appeals. Also PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES: serves as a land use hearings officer i for the cities of Portland, Gresham Oregon State Bar i and Molalla, and Multnomah and Clark counties. i Multnomah Bar Association % Chair of the Portland Office's Land Oregon Planning Association E - Use and Environmental Practice Group. American Planning Association 1 Phillip E. Grillo, P.C. PUBLICATIONS: Portland, Oregon { Partner - 1990-1994 "Local Government Liability for Superfund Cleanup: Municipal Defense Strategies;' O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew and Corrigan November 1989. Portland, Oregon U Associate - 1987-1990 "Incentive Zoning Revisited," January 1984. ff Metropolitan Public Defender Services ` Portland, Oregon "1983-1989 Capital Improvement Program," Trial Attorney -1984-1987 Gresham, Oregon, September 1982. EDUCATION: "The Mid-County Urban Service Study," Gresham, Oregon, September 1982. Northwestern School of Law Lewis & Clark College "Extraterritorial Sewer Policy;" Gresham, J.D., 1984 Oregon, June 1981. Michigan State University "1982-1983 Capital Improvement Budget," B.A., Urban Planning and Public Policy, Gresham, Oregon, May 1981. 1978 "Comprehensive Plan," CIP, Volume 5, HONORS AND AWARDS: April 1981. "A Growth Policy for Indianapolis," ~ j National Endowment for the Humanities Grant Recipient, 1978 Indianapolis, Indiana, August 1980. ADMITTED TO PRACTICE: "A Computer-Assisted Land Use Information System," Indianapolis, Indiana, Oregon, 1985 June 1980. Washington, 1995 Ind anapolse inrd ana,rApril 19Plan" 80. continued ONE MAIN PLACE 101 S.W MAIN STREET. 15TH FLOOR PORTLAND. OREGON 97204 15031 221-0607 f 1 PUBLICATIONS (Cont.): ;T r r~' n Ld '"Transportation System Management Process," Indianapolis, Indiana, June 1979. L '"Transportation Improvement Program," Battle Creek Area Transportation Study, May 1979. I` - ~4 - "Opportunities for Effective Citizen r, + ParticipationBattle Creek Area Transportation Study, January 1979. "Marks of History: Architectural - ';t;",'•`i= History in the Village of Manchester;' Manchester, Michigan, October 1978. "Environmental Impact Statement Staff Analysis," Arlington, Massachusetts, April 1977. "A Primer on New Town Planning," j m, Sweden, August 1976. 1 ; • ''s" Stockholm, Sweden, August 1976. _ I E PRESENTATIONS: I "Polity Implementation Through i Procedural Ref State of 0- Washington Governors Task Force on Regulatory Reform, May 5, 1994, ,..+,,~~,s•, Vancouver, Washington. ti-`=f "Conditions of Approval Workshops;" f`;;~~- ,.'ti•:,'.,'4;. :,r,'r;.,,.. City of Gresham, January-Ma 1994, Gresham, Oregon. i REPORTED CASES: Beck v. City of Tillamook, 3 X•.;.`:<;:_>.", ~'~•-,,a 13 Or. 148, 831 - ,t P.2d 678 (1992) (law of the case/waiver N -0 ' doctrine). Weeks v. City of Tillamook, 113 Or. App. 285, 832 P.2d 1246 1992 (finality of local land use decision V s/LUBA jurisdiction). Weeks v. City of Tillamook, 117 Or. App. - 449, 844 P.2d 914 (1992 (adequacy of findings interpreting local ordinance). 8e1 Enterprises v. Tillamook Conn 118 hJ• Or. App. 342,847 P.2d 869, rev. denied, 3170 r. 162 (1993) (120-day rule Dolan v.Cit of Tigard City (Dolan l), 20 Or. u LUBA 4 11 (1991) (takings claims/ ripeness). - 1 - -t r~ :1 4 -t> : y Robert Foster, ASLA Robert Foster Consultants Mr. Foster is a Landscape Architect and Land Development Planner with over 27 years experience. He established Foster Consultants in April of 1988. His experience has been in -1 New York, San Francisco, London, Geneva, New Orleans, and Portland, Oregon His planning and urban design experience includes mixed-use riverfront development, commercial, business/industrial parks, housing, urban design, parks, recreation, golf course design and land use planning. Foster Consultants provides professional land use planning and project design services from feasibility and master planning to permitting and construction documentation. f Education: M.L.A., UC Berkeley , J Bachelors from Syracuse University State of Oregon Registered Landscape Architect (License #129) Associate of the Landscape Institute, London, England. Selected Experience: • Waterhouse Trust Properties. -Seaside, OR. Prepared drawings for the residential development of a 60-acre highly constrained site. Constraints included ravines, wetlands, and stream corridors. Central Bethany Master Plan, Beaverton, OR. Foster Consultants is currently working on the Central Bethany Master Plan, a mixed use neo-traditional new community development including commercial, retail, housing and recreation on a 200 acre site in I north Beaverton, Oregon. Mr. Foster's responsibilities include concept planning, site y development design, and the graphic production of the Master Plan. I "l Land Use Development Master Plan, Vancouver, WA. Foster Consultants prepared the _ Land Use Development Master Plan for the 60 acre mixed use development for i Vancouver Federal Bank, Vancouver, Washington. The plan included housing, a retail i center, office, a library and industrial flex space development. • Lake Wood Bay Master Plan and Urban Design , Lake Oswego, OR. Foster Consultants prepared the master plan and urban design for the Lake Wood Bay Waterfront in Lake Oswego, Oregon for the Lake Oswego Downtown Beautification Alliance. This project involved a downtown commercial development with housing and - retail elements on 13 acres of the City designated Redevelopment Area.. • Spring-brook Village Center Master Plan, Newberg. OR. Mr. Foster, working as part of a team of consultants, created a master plan for a mixed use development on 185 acres in Newberg, Oregon. The development includes the revitalization of the old Springbrook _ Village center and includes commercial, light industrial and residential uses. • The Dalles Redevelopment and Infill Strategies The Dalles OR. Mr. Foster provided f urban design services for this 1995 TGM project that focused on development of infill and redevelopment strategies for three different types of sites in The Dalles: an existing commercial strip, an underdeveloped area on the city fringe, and a neighborhood center - in an older historic portion of the community. Design concepts, interim development standards, and design compatibility standards were developed, and incentives and code amendments drafted to implement the concepts. 71 w...... I t _......_.w.~.__ Cindy Hahn As a Senior Planner with SRI/SHAPIRO, Ms. Hahn's responsibilities include research, data analysis, editing, and project management for the preparation of environmental analyses and planning studies. Ms. Hahn has contributed as a primary author on numerous environmental and planning reports, and has managed and conducted environmental analyses for a variety of military activity, transportation, solid waste and commercial and residential projects. s. Hahn brings to her work three years of land development experience in the private sector and several years experience in the environmental j planning field. Ms. Hahn is recognized by clients for her ability to coordinate projects effectively and efficiently with a keen perception of concerns and attention to detail. Education M.U.P. Urban Planning, University of Washington B.A. Geography, University of Oregon Selected Project Experience ` ' - • Western Bypass EIS. SHAPIRO is preparing an EIS for the Western Bypass Study. Ms. Hahn authored the technical report on hazardous materials and assisted with the technical report on visual quality. She is currently writing EIS sections addressing these topics. • Multnomah County West Hills Significant Streams ESEE Analysis. SRI/SHAPIRO inventoried and evaluated significant streams in the West Hills area of Multnomah County. Ms. Hahn prepared the Statewide Planning Goal 5 ESEE analysis for the streams. • City of Milwaukie - TPR Implementation Ordnances. SRUSHAPIRO prepared , t amendments to the City of Milwaukie's zoning and subdivision ordnances to implement the state transportation planning rule. Ms. Hahn provided editing services for the project. • Adams County Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan EIS. Adams County was updating its Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, and considering whether to allow development of a regional landfill within its boundaries. SHAPIRO prepared components of the plan update that address regional landfill issues, and prepared the EIS on the entire plan update. Ms. Hahn managed this project and was principal author for components of the plan addressing the regional landfill alternative. • Woodland Green Planned Residential Development (PRD) SEPA EIS. SRUSHAPIRO completed a natural resource assessment and is preparing a SEPA EIS for this PRD located in unincorporated Thurston County. The 386-acre development would include an 18-hole golf course, clubhouse, and driving range, and single family and multifamily residential uses. Ms. Hahn has assisted with the EIS portion of this project. Her work includes: planning and attending public scoping meetings on the Draft EIS, preparing a comment summary which was distributed to all participants, and preparing the scoping letter and follow up mailings to interested parties for the County. i J Blakely Ridge Master Plan Development EIS, King County Washington. Ms. Hahn is assistant project manager for this unusually large and complex environmental impact statement. Blakely Ridge is a proposed planned community located in King I County's Bear Creek Planning Area. The project, to be built in phases, includes about 3,600 units on approximately 1,100 acres. The development includes community businesses, office areas, significant open space, and a civic center. Ms. Hahn is also writing the parks and recreation, description of alternatives, and summary of the document. - i. 1.. Appendix Title 33, Planning and Zoning Chapter 33.130 111191 Commercial Zones Table 130-1 Commercial Zone Primary Uses Use Categories CN1 CN2 C01 C02 CM CS CG CX i Residential Categories Household Living Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y I Group Living L/CU L/CU L/CU L/CU L/CU L/CU L/CU L/CU 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Commercial Categories Retail Sales And Service L 2 Y N L 3 L 4 Y Y Y Office L 2 Y Y Y L 4 Y Y Y Quick Vehicle Servicing N Y N N N N Y Y Vehicle Repair N N N N N Y Y L 5 w, Commercial Parkin N N N N N Y Y CU j Self-Service Storage N N N N N N L 6 L 6 Commercial Outdoor Recreation N N N N Y Y Y Y Major Event Entertainment N N N N N CU CU Y f Industrial Categories - I, Manufacturing And Production L 2 L 2 N N L [2,41 L 5 L [5,71 L 5 l Warehouse And Freight Movement N N N N N N CU (5,7] N J Wholesale Sales N N N N L [2,41 L 5 L f5,71 L 5 1 Industrial Service N N N N N CU 5 CU [5,71 CU 5 Railroad Yards N N N N N N N N ` Waste-Related N N N N N N N N Institutional Categories j Basic Utilities Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Community Service Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Essential Service Providers L 8 L 8 L 8 L 8 L 8 L 8 L 8 L 8 Parks And Open Areas Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Schools Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y. Colleges Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Medical Centers Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y i Religious Institutions Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Daycare Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Other Categories A 'culture N N N N N CU CU CU I" Aviation And Surface Passenger Terminals N N N N N N CU CU Detention Facilities N N N N N N CU CU j Mining N N N N N N N Radio & TV Broadcast Facilities L/CU L/CU L/CJff L/CU L/CU L/CU L/CU 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Rail Lines And Utiliorridors CU CU CU CU CU CU CU Y = Yes, Allowed L = Allowed, But Special Limitations CU = Conditional Use Review Required N = No, Prohibited Notes: • The use categories are described in Chapter 33.920. • Regulations that correspond to the bracketed numbers [ ] are stated in 33.130.100.13. • Specific uses and developments may also be subject to regulations in the 200s series of chapters. 130.5 (((jf Chapter 33.130 Title 33, Planning and Zoning Commercial Zones 111191 I - Table 130-3 Development Standards 1 Standard CN1 CN2 Col. C02 CM CS CG CX i Maximum FAR [2] .75 to 1 .75 to 1 .75 to 1 2 to 1 1 to 1 3 to 1 3 to 1 4 to 1 see 33.130.205 3 - Maximum Height 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 45 ft. 45 ft. 45 ft. 45 ft. 75 ft. { - see 33.130.210 Min. Building Stbks (see 33.130.215) 0 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 0 0 5 ft. 0 I. Street Lot Line i - Lot Line Abutting an OS, RX, C, E, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i. i or I Zone Lot i Lot Line Abutting 0 to I4 0 to 14 0 to 14 0 to 14 0 to 14 O co 14 0 to 14 O to 14 other R Zoned Lot ft 4 ft. 4 ft 4 ft. 4 ft 4 ft. 4 ft 4 ft. 4 i j Max.Building Stbks (see 33.130.215) None None None None 10 ft. [5] 10 ft. (5] None None Street Lot Line Building Coverage Max. of Max. of Max. of Max. of Min. of Min. of -Max. of No (see 33.130.220) 85% of 65% of 50% of 65% of 50% of 50% of 85% of Limit site area site area site area site area site area site area site area Min. Landscaped 15% of 15% of 15% of 15% of 15%0 f Arra site area site area site area site area None None site area None - see 33.130.225 Landscaping Abutting an R Zoned 5 ft. @ 5 ft. @ 5 ft. @ 5 ft. @ 5 ft. @ 5 ft. @ 5 ft. @ 5 ft. @ Lot [6] L3 L3 L3 L3 L3 L3 L3 L3 see 33.130.215.B. - Ground Floor Window Stds. Apply Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes see 33.130.230 Pedestrian Requirements Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes L J see 33.130 240 Required parking [7] None, None None None Amount Yes Yes Yes Required Required Yes Required Limited Parking allowed between buildings No Yes No Yes No No Yes No and streets 7 Notes: - (1] Plan district or overlay zone regulations may supercede these standards. (2] The FAR limits apply to nonresidential development. Additional floor area is allowed for residential development. See 33.130.250 for residential and mixed-use regulations. (3) For every sq. ft. of commercial development an equal amount of residential development is required. See 33.130.100 B.4. and 33.130.250. (4] See Table 1304. (5) At least 50 percent of the length of the ground level wall of buildings must be within 10 feet of the i street lot line. This standard applies to walls facing a street lot line. If the site has three or more ! - block frontages, this standard only applies to two frontages. J [6) Does not apply to lot lines that abut a lot in the RX zone. Landscaping is not required where buildings abut a lot line. (7] This part of the table is for general information purposes only; see Chapter 33.266, Parking and Loading, for the specific standards. 130-8 GRESHAM PARKING STUDY PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS WIN n OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS (SECTION 3.0300) 77 Section 3.0310 -General Provisions - Replaced by (IQ below. J (A) Vehicto Varg6 Plan ReauirameW s. A veWe parking plan, Moved from 3.0310 (E) drawn to scale, shall accompany development permit applications • excluding single and two dwelling structures. The plan shall show ` _ all those elements necessary to indicate that the requirements of this Ordinance are being fulfilled and shall include, but are not limited to......... The word 'Vehicle" is added to parking throughout when (B) Location of Motor Ysf~ck Parkirsa All 4" parking spaces needed.to distinguish from ' shall be on the same lot as the main structure it serves or on an bicycle parking. - abutting lot. However, upon demonstration by the applicant that parking on the same lot or abutting lot is not available, the approval authority may authorize the parking spaces to be on any lot within 1000 2% feet walking distance for the structure being Adds necessary flexibility; f served upon written findings of compliance with the following off-site parking not to be j provisions: confused with "joint parking" described in (J) below. al c. \ f I (1) There is a safe, direct, attractive.,Ikjhted and convenient ? pedestrian route between the vehicle parking area and the use being served; i (2) There Is an assurance in the form of deed, lease, contrail or other similar document that the required spaces will J continue to be available for off-street parking use according ` f to the required standards; I O 3 Loading spaces a_ and vehicle maneuvering areas shall be located only on or abutting the property served; and i (4) Land devoted to off-site Vst" parking facilities is computed as a portion of total land area when determining the mk*num and ma)dmum land use Intensifies in terms of commercial and business office uses and the number of residential dwellings allowed. . (C) tJse of i~teoerlielsiite Pit~ksa Wis. Required vsh3cte parking shall be available for the parking of operable automobiles and bicycles of residents, customers and employees and shall not be used for the storage of vehicles, materials or for the parking of trucks used in conducting business or use. A required loading space shall not be used for any other purpose than the immediate loading or unloading of goods. , Replaced by (J) below. Text Changes Section 3.0310 General Provisions (1!8/96) CPA-95-6419 14 j>Q~ , I AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF i D CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Award contract for GIS Utility Survey PREPARED BY: J. Hadley DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK' ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL _ Award survey services contract for the GIS Utility Survey. i - STAFF RECOMMENDATION i. Award the project to G.E. Raleigh Associates Inc., and to direct the City Administrator to sign the contract. INFORMATION SUMMARY Earlier in 1996 the City of Tigard contracted with Orbitech to perform a control survey on all the Section Corners, 1/4 Comers and Donation Land Claim Comers within the City of Tigard. This survey was done to establish control for the base map for the GIS (Geographic Information System). e le GIS Utility Survey will be utilized by the Geographic Information System to establish accurate utility maps, which will be attached to the base map that was created from the GIS Control Survey done previously by the City of Tigard. This Utility Survey is part of the GIS implementation to create an accurate computerized basis for recording and disseminating information. j. On August 30,1996, seven proposals with bids (listed below) were received. They were evaluated using the j following criteria: qualifications, personnel, ability to the complete utility survey within the allotted time, and cost as described in Section 3 of the attached Request for Proposal. . G.E. Raleigh Associates Inc., Beaverton $65,000 Richard B. Davis CO. Inc., Smith River, CA $67,000 Stuntzner Engineering & Forestry, LLC, Wilsonville $67,500 Orbitech, Bend $69,000 Merrick Engineers and Architects, Inc., Aurora CO $79,018 f ASCG, Inc., Beaverton $79,506 Tom Nelson and Associates, Milwaukie $182,543 t OTHER ALTNATIV S CONSIDERED f" ! FISCAL NOTES X-ending for this project is included in the $86,000 budgeted for Professional Services in the FY 1996/1997 - i'City ..de.w. Si=lwm _J1 w , cam, ~ ~ nG~ s Cto_~j (~ec I~r 117 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 1 CONTRACT FOR SURVEYING SERVICES S THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this-l day ofd, 1, by and between the City of Tigard, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the i "City," and G E. Raleigh and Associates. Inc. whose authorized representative ark R Heidecke Senior Vice President, and having a principal being a registered Land Surveyor 1 of the State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as the "Engineer." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City has prepared contract documents entitled Request for Proposal for t GIS Utili Survey; and, i WHEREAS, the accomplishment of the work and services described in this agreement are necessary and essential to the project; and, WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the Engineer to render professional surveying services for the project described in this Agreement, and the Engineer is willing to perform such services. IN CONSIDERATION of the promises and covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 1. Engineer's Scope of Services I The Engineer shall perform professional surveying services relevant to the Project in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein, and as provided in Section 1, which is attached hereto and by this reference made f a part of this Agreement. 1. 2. Changes in Scope If changes occur either in the Engineer's Scope of Services or the Description of the Project, a supplemental agreement shall be negotiated at the request of either party. Absent such supplemental agreement, each party shall only be bound to the terms of this original agreement. 1 t 3. Engineer's Fee A. Basic Fee. 1. As compensation for Basic Services as described in Section 1 of this Agreement, the Engineer shall be paid a basic fee which shall constitute full and complete payment for said services and all expenditures which may be made and expenses incurred, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement. The Basic Fee shall not exceed the amount of si five thousand dollars ($65.000) without prior written authorization. 2. The parties hereto do expressly agree that the Basic Fee is F . based upon the Scope of Services to be provided by the Engineer and is not necessarily related to the estimated cost ! of the Project. In the event that the actual cost differs from j the estimated cost, the Engineer's compensation will not be II adjusted unless the Scope of Services to be provided by the Engineer changes. j B. Payment Schedule for Basic Fee. f Payments shall be made upon receipt of billings based on the percentage of work completed. Billings shall be submitted by the consultant periodically, but not more frequently than monthly. Payment by the City shall release the City from any further obligation for payment to the engineer for service or services performed or expenses incurred as of the date of the statement of services. j Payment shall not be considered acceptance or approval of any work or waiver of any defects therein. C. Payment for Special Services. I - As compensation for the services rendered by the Engineer as set forth in Paragraph B of Exhibit I of this Agreement entitled "Special Services," the City shall pay the Engineer at the rates described on the schedule of Exhibit II, or if the work is done by a third party, the reasonable invoice cost to the Engineer charged by the third party plus ten percent (10%). D. Certified Cost Records. The Engineer shall furnish certified cost records for all billings pertaining to other than lump sum fees to substantiate all charges. j s For such purposes, the books of account of the Engineer shall be subject to audit by the City. The Engineer shall complete work and cost records for all billings on such forms and in such manner as will be satisfactory to the City. E. Contract Identification i The Engineer shall furnish to the City its employer identification number, as designated by the Internal Revenue Service, or Social o Security Number, as the City deems applicable. 4. Ownership of Plans and Documents: Records. A. Except as otherwise provided in Section t, the field notes, and III original drawings of surveys, as instruments of service, are and shall y remain, the property of the Engineer; however, the City shall be furnished, at no additional cost one set of the required information as indicated in Section 1. B. The City shall make copies, for the use of and without cost to the Engineer, of all of its maps, records, or other data pertinent to the work to be performed by the Engineer pursuant to this Agreement, and also make available any other maps, records, or other materials available to the City from any other public agency or body. C. The Engineer shall furnish to the City, copies of all maps, records, and field notes, which were developed in the course of work for the City and for which compensation has been received by the Engineer at no additional expense to the City except as provided elsewhere in this Agreement. 5. Engineer Is Independent Contractor A. Engineer's services shall be provided under the general supervision of City's project director or his or her designee, but Engineer shall be an independent contractor for all purposes and shall be entitled to no compensation other than the compensation provided for under paragraph 4 of this Agreement. B. In the event Engineer is to perform the services described in this Agreement without the assistance of others, Engineer hereby agrees . to file a joint declaration with City to the effect that Engineer's services are those of an independent contractor, as provided under J Chapter 864 Oregon Laws 1979. C. Engineer acknowledges that for all purposes related to this agreement, Engineer is and shall be deemed to be an independent contractor and not an employee of City, shall not be entitled to j benefits of any kind to which an employee of the City is entitled and shall be solely responsible for all payments and taxes required by law; and furthermore in the event that Engineer is found by a court of law or an administrative agency to be an employee of the City for 1 any purpose, City shall be entitled to offset compensation due to ' demand repayment of any amounts paid to Engineer under the terms of the agreement, to the full extent of any benefits or other I remuneration Engineer receives (from City or third party) as result of j said finding and to the full extent of any payments that City is ' required to make (to Engineer or to a third party) as a result of said finding. D. The undersigned Engineer hereby represents that no employee of the City of Tigard, or any partnership or corporation in which a City employee has an interest, has or will receive any remuneration of any description from the Engineer, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the letting or performance of this contract, except as specifically declared in writing. 6. Engineer's Employees Medical Payments Engineer agrees to pay promptly as due, to any person, co-partnership, association or corporation furnishing medical, surgical, and hospital care or other needed care and attention incident to sickness or injury to the Engineer's employees, all sums which the Engineer agreed to pay for such j services and all moneys and sums which the Engineer collected or deducted from employee wages pursuant to any law, contract or agreement for providing or paying for such service. f 7. Early Termination A. This Agreement may be terminated without cause prior to the expiration of the agreed upon term by mutual written consent of the parties and for the following reasons authorized by ORS 279.326: i - 1. If work under the Contract is suspended by an order of a public agency for any reason considered to be in the public ' interest other than by a labor dispute or by reason of any third party judicial proceeding relating to the work other than suit or action filed in regard to a labor dispute; and j i r -LF 2. If the circumstances or conditions are such that it is impracticable within a reasonable time to proceed with a substantial portion of the Contract. B. Payment of Engineer shall be as provided by ORS 279.330 and shall be prorated to and include the day of termination and shall be in full satisfaction of all claims by Engineer against City under this k f Agreement. i. { C. Termination under any provision of this paragraph shall not affect any right, obligation or liability of Engineer or City which accrued prior to such termination. 8. Cancellation for Cause. City may cancel all or any part of this Contract if Engineer breaches any of the terms hereof or in the event of any of the following: Insolvency of Engineer; voluntary or involuntary petition in bankruptcy by or against Engineer, appointment of a receiver or trustee for Engineer, or an I assignment for benefit of creditors of Engineer. Damages for breach shall I be those allowed by Oregon law, reasonable and necessary attorney's fees, and other costs of litigation at trial and upon appeal. - 9. Assignment This Agreement shall not be assignable except at the written consent of the parties hereto, and if so assigned, shall extend to and be binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties hereto. 10. Nonwaiver. The failure of the City to insist upon or enforce strict performance by Engineer of any of the terms of this contract or to exercise any rights hereunder shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment to any - extent of its right to assert or rely upon such terms or rights on any future occasion. 11. Attorney's Fees i In case suit or action is instituted to enforce the provisions of this contract, the parties agree that the losing party shall pay to the winning party such sum as the Court may adjudge reasonable attorney's fees and court costs including attorney's fees and court costs on appeal to appellate courts. 1 12. Applicable Law This contract will be governed by the laws of the State of Oregon. 13. Conflict Between Terms i Should there be any conflict between the terms of this instrument and the proposal of the Engineer, this instrument shall control and nothing herein ` shall be considered as an acceptance of the said terms of said proposal conflicting herewith. ! 14. Indemnification h . The City has relied upon the professional ability and training of the Surveyor as a material inducement to enter into this Agreement. Surveyor warrants that all its work will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and standards as well as the requirements of applicable federal, state and local laws, it being understood that acceptance of a Surveyor's work by the City shall not operate as a waiver or release. Surveyor agrees to indemnify and defend the City, its offers, agents and employees and hold them harmless from any and all liability, causes of action, claims, losses, damages, judgments or other costs or expenses including attorney's fees and witness costs and (at both trial and appeal levei, whether or not a trail or appeal ever takes place) that may be asserted by any person or entity which in any way arise from, during or in connection with the performance of the work described in this contract, except liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City and its employees. Such indemnification shall also cover claims brought against i the City under state or federal workers' compensation laws. If any aspect of this indemnity shall be found to be illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this indemnification. 15. Insurance Surveyor and its subcontractors shall maintain insurance acceptable to the City in full force and effect throughout the term of this contract. Such insurance shall cover all risks arising directly or indirectly out of Surveyor's activities or work hereunder, including the operations of its subcontractors of any tier. Such insurance shall include provisions that such insurance is primary insurance with respect to the interests of the City and that any other insurance maintained by the City is excess and not contributory insurance with the insurance required hereunder. i • t. 1 The policy or policies of insurance maintained by the Surveyor and its subcontractors shall provide at least the following limits and coverages: Types of Insurance Limits of Liability General Liability Each occurrence - $500,000 General Aggregate $1,000,000 Automobile Liability Combined singular limit covering any vehicle $1,000,000, or bodily injury j used on City business $200,000 per person and $500,000 per occurrence. Each policy shall be endorsed to require coverage not be suspended, voided or canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits, except after 30 days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested has been given to the City. As evidence of the insurance coverage required by this contract, the contractor shall furnish a Certificate of Insurance to the City. No contract shall be effected until the required certificates have been received and approved by the City. A renewal certificate will be sent to the City's representative. All insurance is to be placed with insurers with a I Best's rating of no less than A:VIII and be on an "occurrence" form (1986 ` ISO or equivalent). f 16. Worker's Compensation Insurance i The Engineer agrees to procure and maintain Worker's Compensation Insurance at its expense until final payment by the City for services covered by this Agreement. Before commencing the work, the Engineer shall i furnish to the City a certificate or certificates in a form satisfactory to the City, showing that it has complied with this paragraph. All certificates shall provide that the policy shall not be changed or canceled until at least ten (10) days' prior written notice shall have been given to the City. Kinds and amounts of insurance required are as follows: Workers' Compensation Insurance shall be from the State Accident Insurance Fund or from a responsible private carrier. Private insurance shall provide the schedule of employee benefits required by law. 17. Complete Agreement . This contract and any referenced attachments constitute the complete agreement between the City and Engineer and supersedes all prior written or oral discussions or agreements. . -1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this agreement to be executed by its duly authorized undersigned officer, and the engineer has executed this agreement on the • date hereinabove first written. . f ~ CITY OF TIGARD yJ Title:_ DATE: / ENGINEER ENGINEER BY: BY: I Title: Title: DATE: DATE. f I i I i i i REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR GIS UTILITY SURVEY SECTION 1 REQUIREMENTS 1.1 PURPOSE: The City of Tigard is implementing a Geographic Information System (GIS). The j purpose of this survey is to provide State Plane Coordinates on all Storm Sewer Manholes, Catch Basins, Sanitary Sewer Manholes, and Cleanouts within the City of Tigard and all Water valves, and Fire Hydrants within the Tigard Water Service area which includes, the City of Durham Water, King City, and the Bull Mountain Unincorporated Area. 1.2 HISTORY: J The present parcel base maps were digitized from existing paper maps without any survey control and contain many errors. There has been some effort into establishing a GIS mapping system within the city using this base map data, but the data has been found to be too inaccurate for some uses. Random errors of 5 feet to 80 feet have been discovered. The City of Tigard recently contracted for a Control Survey to improve the quality of these base maps. The City of Tigard GIS committee decided to continue to use the most advanced method to develop it's utility data. The committee recommended the use of GPS to tie the utilities to be placed on the new base that was prepared. This RFP is the next step in creating an accurate GIS. 1.3 DESCRIPTION: This Survey shall include locating all the Storm Sewer Manholes, Catch Basins, Sanitary Sewer Manholes, and Cleanouts within the City of Tigard and all the Water valves, and Fire Hydrants within the Tigard Water Service area which includes, the City of Durham Water, King City, and the Bull Mountain j Unincorporated Area within Sections 25,26,33 through 36, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian and Sections 1 through 5 and 8 through 16, Township 2 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian. The total number of points is approximately 20,000. The Utilities will be tied, by GPS to the Control Survey recently completed for the City of Tigard. i The Utilities will be located with in 1/2 foot horizontally and vertically. The Utilities will be occupied for a sufficient time to obtain the desired results. When it is not possible to directly occupy the desired utilities alternative means may be required to obtain the desired results. The method used is up the contract Surveyor. Field spot checks will be made by City personnel to assure location acquisition is within acceptable tolerances. If any feature is obviously out of i REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR GIS CONTROL SURVEY PAGE 1 1~ • position, the contractor shall re-observe the feature and acquire the correct position. Three control points have been established with direct connection to the Super Net. They are Bull Mountain 3, Boni, and the Reference Monument to the Section corner 26,27,34,35 T1S R1 W WM. . The numbering system on the utilities shall be identical to that used by the City of Tigard Sewer and Water Departments, and shall have the attributes required to connect to the Hansen's Infrastructure Management System. The GPS survey shall be performed under the direct supervision of a Surveyor licensed to do surveys within the State of Oregon. Any monuments set by the Contract Surveyor shall be stamped with the Surveyors Oregon Professional Land Surveyors Number and the year it was set and a survey filed with Washington County. 1.4 CITY OF TIGARD WILL PROVIDE: The City of Tigard will provide a copy of the Control Survey done for the City of Tigard. The City of Tigard will provide maps showing the approximate locations of the 1 Utility features to be tied. The City of Tigard will provide a numbering system for the water valves, fire hydrants, storm manholes, catch basins, sanitary sewers manholes, and cleanouts. 1.5 CONTRACT SURVEYOR WILL: i - ~ f ' Provide all equipment, software, and personnel to do the required survey. 1.6 PRODUCT REQUIRED FROM THE CONTRACT SURVEYOR: i Contractor will provide the City with Autocad.dwg files of the collected features, i." with layer conventions directed by the City. Each common feature shall be given a unique Autocad block symbol placed within the City directed layer. Each feature shall be given an assigned attribute that matches that feature item code in the f City's Hansen IMS database. If additional control is required a map shall be filed with Washington County that complies with ORS 209-250. These Washington County regulations are available from the Washington County Surveyor. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR GIS CONTROL SURVEY PAGE 2 ~ - • , F - • A complete list of all coordinate descriptions and elevations shall be provided to the City of Tigard. 1.7 UNITS OF MEASURE: j ■ All State Plane Coordinates shall be expressed in International Feet to at least 3 f decimal places. ■ i 1.8 COMPLETION: The project shall be completed within 180 days after the Notice to Proceed. i 1 i I ; 1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR GIS CONTROL SURVEY PAGE 3 E:j REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR GIS CONTROL SURVEY SECTION 2 PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS f 2.1 GENERAL INFORMATION: A. Ability to perform the work in Section 1. ` - s A statement of the Contract Surveyor's qualifications to perform the work and to meet All the requirements described in Section 1. This statement should provide details of the experience and background of both the firm and the individuals performing similar GPS projecis. ` References of a minimum of 3 (three) former clients with summaries of the work performed. B. Availability of resources. A statement describing the availability of personnel. equipment and material resources available to complete the GPS project. Names of the key professional persons who will be assigned to perform the GPS work, and a current resume, including a description of qualifications, skills, level of responsibility, and licenses. All GPS surveying must be performed under the direct supervision of an Oregon Professional Land Surveyor. 2.2 Closing Date for Submittal of Proposal Three copies of the proposal must be received no later than 2:00 P.M. Friday August 30, 1996, to: I~ John Hadley f Engineering Department f City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. C Tigard, Or. 97223 j 2.3 Right of Award or Rejection Proposals shall specifically stipulate that all terms and conditions contained in the RFP are included in the proposal and accepted by the Contract Surveyor. It is understood that all proposals will become a part of the public file on this matter without obligation to the City. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR GIS CONTROL SURVEY PAGE 4 f 2.4 Incurring Costs / I The City is not liable for any costs incurred by the Contract Surveyor in the preparation or ~ presentation of the proposal. 2.5 Inquiries Questions that arise during preparation of the proposal shall be directed to John Hadley, Engineering Survey Specialist, Engineering Department, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, phone 503-639-4171. The proposal shall list a responsible person, with a phone number, for contact during the proposal review process. I j REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR GIS CONTROL SURVEY PAGE 5 K Alm- REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR GIS CONTROL SURVEY SECTION 3 PROPOSAL EVALUATION i 3.1 GENERAL INFORMATION i The proposal shall be limited in length and will be evaluated as described in Section 3.2, Proposal Evaluation. This section identifies the evaluation criteria, the maximum score given, and the number of sheets allowed for each. The City will award the contract to the Contract Surveyor whose proposal is deemed most advantageous to the public. The top three Consultants may be required to present an oral presentation to review the qualifications and the method of performing the GPS survey. The selected review committee will review and evaluate the proposals received according to the criteria listed in subsection 3.2.. The Contract Surveyor selection process will be carried out under Oregon Administrative Rules 734-15-030 through 734-15-080, dated December 18, 1990. 3.2 PROPOSAL EVALUATION Each proposal will be evaluated and scored based upon the following criteria: Maximum No. Maximum Criteria of pages Score 1. Consultant's qualifications 30 30 Y 2. Comparability of cost 2 25 j 3. Availability of personnel 2 20 4. Ability to perform 2 20 5. Clarity and completeness - 5 Total Score Possible 36 pages 100 points 3.3 EXPLANATION OF CRITERIA Consultant's qualifications to perform the work, based on qualifications of staff, verified performance of previous work on similar projects, and references of former clients REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR GIS CONTROL SURVEY PAGE 6 r { Availability of personnel, equipment, material resources to perform the work in a 1 timely manner. Ability to perform the GPS Survey within the time specified. - _ 0 Comparability of cost shall consist of hourly rates for all personnel and the total cost of performing the GIS utility survey. Clarity and completeness is the look of the proposal and how it addresses the perceived problems of this survey. I .74 t f ii Ua !1 V l REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR GIS CONTROL SURVEY PAGE 7 E AGENDA ITEM FOR AGENDA OF: October 22, 1996 i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDATITLE:rr>>lshire Hollow Subdivision - Subdivision (SUB) 96-0004. Planned Development 4 Review (PDR) 96-0002. Sensitive Lands Review (SLR) 96 0002 and Variance (VAR) 96-0006 Review PREPARED BY: Mark Roberts DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The City Council voted to review the Planning Commission approval of the Hillshire Hollow Subdivision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION I Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission approval of the development with private streets and approve the attached Resolution and Final Order (Exhibit A). INFORMATION SUMMARY On September 9, 1996 the Planning Commission approved an application to subdivide a six acre site located along the west side of SW Ascension Drive. The portion of the property proposed for development is at the bottom of a steep hillside. The applicant has proposed to subdivide the site into 24 lots to develop 12 duplexes. The applicant has proposed two private streets to serve this development. aecently, the City Council denied the Benchview Homeowners request to dedicate a developed private street to the public for ongoing maintenance. Because of similar concerns, staff recommended that the Planning Commission require that the proposed private street to serve 16 of the 24 lots be dedicated to the public. A public street would require a redesign of the proposed floor plan for 10 of the 24 lots. A redesign would be i needed because a 20-foot setback is required to be maintained from the garage entrance to the property line. Private streets only require an eight foot setback. Revised floor plans and/or the use of a mixture of detached single-family and duplex dwellings are possible to accommodate the setback requirements of a public street. To date the developer has requested approval with the original design. The applicant has not requested a variance to i. setback standards in order to use a public street The Planning Commission found that because the proposed private streets were designed to serve up to 24 dwelling units and are not viable for future extension that their use in this situation was acceptable. The 120- day approval deadline expires November 5, 1996. The City Council must take action on this item or the I applicant must agree to a waiver to continue this hearing. EXHIBIT A: Draft Resolution and Final Order approving the proposal with private streets. EXHIBIT B: Draft Resolution and Final Order approving the proposal with a public and a private street. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED j Approve the proposal with a Public Street. An alternate Resolution and Final Order (Exhibit B) are provided. t 1 FISCAL. NOTES q/A i1cip~idchum`ho11m.doc : _ . . MOM 3:30 PM Made R. `i . . CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON i{ RESOLUTION N0.96- A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVSION (SUB) 96-0004, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 96-0002, VARIANCE (VAR) 96-00006 AND SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (SLR) 96-0002 WHEREAS, the applicant requested Subdivision approval to divide a 6.08 acre parcel into 24 lots. The applicant requested Planned Development Review approval to reduce lot sizes below the 5,000 square foot f minimum. The applicant requested Variances to allow a street length longer than 400 feet for a cul-de-sac, Ji to allow the street to provide acces to more than 20 dwelling units and to allow a reduction to the rear yard setback from 15 feet to the minimum Uniform Building Code requirement for Lots 11-14. The applicant also requested Sensitive Lands Review for portions of the site with slopes in excess of 25% and to fill ` wetlands. } WHEREAS, the City Council held a Public Hearing on October 22, 1996 to consider the proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The proposal is consistent with all of the relevant criteria noted in the attached final order (Exhibit B). SECTION 2: The City Council revised the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the development with Conditions of Approval. The Conditions of Approval allow this development to go forward with the use of a public street and a private street (Exhibit j B). ( SECTION 3: The City Council, therefore, orders that Subdivsion (SUB) 96-0004, Planned _ Development Review (PDR) 96-0002, Variance (VAR) 96-00006 and Sensitive Lands (SLR) 96-0002 be APPROVED, and further orders that the City Recorder send a copy of the final resolution as a Notice of Final Decision to the parties in this case. PASSED: This day of 1996. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard is citywidc\rcs%hollowLdoc \r RESOLUTION NO. 96-_ Page I J- _ 1 ~ - EXHIBIT B CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON CITY COUNCIL OF LTIOARD FINAL ORDER A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, VARIANCE, AND SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW. SECTION I: APPLICATION SUMMARY i CASES: FILE NAME• HILI SHIRE 4Ir11 1 f1W c~ ~onnmm~~~ I - Subdivision SUB 96-0004 Planned Development Review PDR 96-0005 Variance VAR 96-0006 Sensitive Lands Review F SLR 96-0002 PROPOSAL: 1. The applicant has requested Subdivision approval to divide a 6.08 acre parcel into 24 lots. The parcels would range in size from approximately 1,983 square feet to 6,029 square feet. 2. Planned Development Review approval to reduce the minimum lot size below 5,000 square feet. 3. Variance approvals to allow the street length at greater than the 400-foot length for - a cul-de-sac, to provide access for more than 20 dwelling units and to reduce the rear yard setback from 15 feet to the minimum allowed by the Uniform Building f Code. 4. Sensitive Lands Review for portions of the site in excess of 25%, to perform land form alterations, and to fill wetlands. 1 APPLICANT: Prime Sierra Partners OWNER: Same I P.O. Box 1754 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential (7 to 12 units per acre). ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7. Single-Family Residential/Planned Development Overlay. LOCATION: 13011 SW Ascension Drive; (WCTM 2S1 04CB, Tax Lot 02100). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.52, 18.80, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92, 18.100, 18.120, 18,134, 18.150,18.160, and 18.164. C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 9 - 6-0004/PDR 960005NAR 96-0006/SLR 96-0002 - HI HIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 1 . ' j FL 1 i f SECTION II: DECISION i The City Council revised the Planning Commission decision and APPROVED this development request subject to revised Conditions of Approval finding that the proposed development will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY. UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, THE STAFF CONTACT FOR ALL CONDITIONS IS BRIAN RAGER WITH THE CITY OF TIGARD ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AT (503) 639-4171. 1. Prior to approval of the final plat, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project. Five (5) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the ` Engineering Department. Once redline comments are addressed and the plans are revised, the design engineer shall then submit nine (9) sets of revised drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate 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. Public improvement plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall. 2. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the name, address, and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the construction documents and financial assurance for the public improvements. I 3. The applicant shall revise the proposed subdivision plan to provide for public street j access to the proposed lots. Tract D could remain private provided it serves no more { than 6 lots. The proposed cul-de-sac length is acceptable, but the right-of-way and pavement widths shall comply with TMC standards. Specifically, the minimum right-of- way width shall be 40 feet and the minimum pavement width shall be 28 feet. 4. The structural section of Tract D private street shall be built to meet the public local residential street standard. 5. The applicant shall cause a statement to be placed on the final plat to indicate that the proposed Tract D private street will be jointly owned and maintained by the private property owners who abut and take access from it. 6. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall prepare Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project, to be recorded with the final plat, that clearly lays out a maintenance plan and agreement for the proposed Tract D private street. The CC&R's shall obligate the private property owners within the subdivision to create a `J homeowner's association to ensure regulation of maintenance for the street. The _ t C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-0004/PDR 96-0005NAR 96-0006/SLR 96-0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 2 ` - R i, s. applicant shall submit a copy of the CC&R's to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) prior to approval of the final plat. 1 7. The applicant shall revise the proposed subdivision plan to provide for public street access to the proposed lots. The proposed cul-de-sac length is acceptable, but the j right-of-way and pavement widths shall comply with Tigard Municipal Code standards. { Specifically, the minimum right-of-way width shall be 40 feet, and the minimum pavement width shall be 28 feet. ■ 8. Full width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the subdivision. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards. 9. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed public improvement construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water Department. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Miller, Tigard Water Department. 10. The applicant shall provide a minimum of an 8-inch public water line within this project. 11. No connection shall be made to the existing 12-inch water line in the Hillshire Creek ! Estates Subdivision until the Tigard Water Department has formally accepted the line as complete. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Miller, Tigard Water Department. 12. Sanitary sewer and storm drainage details shall be provided as part of the public improvement plans. Calculations and a topographic map of the storm drainage basin and sanitary sewer service area shall be provided as a supplement to the public I improvement plans. Calculations shall be based on full development of the serviceable area. The location and capacity of existing, proposed, and future lines shall be addressed. 13. Any connection to the existing sanitary sewer line within the Hillshire Creek Estates Subdivision shall be approved by Unified Sewerage Agency (USA). Any permits necessary from USA shall be obtained by the applicant prior to issuance of the City's j public improvement permit. No connection shall be made to this sewer line until USA has formally accepted the line as complete. 14. The applicant shall clarify how Lots 15 through 22 will be drained. Either the storm line ! in the street will need to be deepened, or the applicant will have to install a private storm ' line behind these lots. 15. Prior to issuance of the public improvement permit, the applicant's design engineer shall submit documentation, for review by the City, of the downstream capacity of any existing storm facility impacted by the proposed development. The design engineer must `ter perform an analysis of the drainage system downstream of the development, to a point - C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-0004/PDR 96-00051VAR 96-00061SLR 96-0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 3 n 1 1 i in the drainage system where the proposed development site constitutes 10 percent or less of the total tributary drainage volume, but in no event less than 1/4 mile. 16. If the capacity of any downstream public storm conveyance system or culvert is l surpassed during the 25-year design storm event due directly to the development, the s developer shall correct the capacity problem or construct an on-site detention facility. 17. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed public water quality facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Department as a part of the public improvement plans. ► Included with the plans shall be a proposed landscape plan to be approved by the City Engineer. The proposed facility shall be dedicated in a tract to the City of Tigard on the final plat. As a part of the improvement plans submittal, the applicant shall submit an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the proposed facility for approval by the Maintenance Services Director. The facilities shall be maintained by the developer fora w three-year period from the conditional acceptance of the public improvements. A written evaluation of the operation and maintenance shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the City. 18. The applicant shall provide a maintenance access road to the water quality facility and any drainage structures within the facility to accommodate City maintenance vehicles. 19. 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". 20. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of the lots that are to be "pad" graded to insure that the drainage is directed to the street or a public facility approved by the Engineering Department. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). i 21. The applicant shall provide a geotechnical report for the proposed grading slope I construction. The recommendations of the report shall be incorporated into the final grading plan. A final construction supervision report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, shall be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building - permits. 22. Prior to issuance of the public improvement permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of a Department of Sensitive Lands (DSL)/Army Corps of Engineers permit for the proposed wetland fill and creek re-channelization. Any measures required by that permit for mitigation or construction shall be indicated in the public improvement drawings and shall be complied with prior to, or in conjunction with, the construction of the public improvements. C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-MG41PDR 96.0005NAR 96-0006ISLR 96-0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 4 - F1, 1 23. The proposed retaining walls shall be located completely within the private property ' boundaries of the subject site. No part of the walls shall be located within the City open space area. I 24. The applicant's geotechnical and design engineers shall provide direction as to the conveyance of all surface and subsurface drainage from the steep slopes to the east of i the proposed retaining walls and houses. The storm drainage system for this site shall include provisions to pick up all surface or subsurface runoff that will flow toward the development from the adjacent slopes. I 25. The final plat shall be revised so that the area shown as Tract A is owned and maintained by the future property owners. The final plat and any necessary related documents shall be revised or provided, to reflect this change. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. a, 26. A street tree planting plan shall be provided. This plan will be reviewed for compliance with the street tree size and spacing standards. The tree species and spacing shall be indicated for this purpose. The plan shall provide a method of guarantee to ensure the planting of the approved street trees. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. i _ I i 27. The applicant shall provide calculations for the total number of caliper inches of healthy trees that are to be removed in excess of 12 inches in diameter, and a mitigation plan demonstrating that no net loss of trees will occur. The mitigation may be provided through the planting of on-site replacement trees, off-site trees, or payment into an account to plant tree's city wide. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. 1. _ 28. Pathways shall be deve!oped through Tracts B and C to extend to the property line of 1 the dedicated open space tract. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: i (Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact shall be Brian Rager, Engineering Department (503) 639-4171.) 29. The applicant shall provide a landscape plan that demonstrates compliance with the 20% minimum landscape requirement. 30. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a recorded mylar copy of the approved subdivision plat. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; THIS IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LIST: C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-0004/PDR 96-0005NAR 96-0006ISLR 96-0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 5 - AND- 18,160,170 Improvement Agreement: 1. Before City approval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the Subdivider shall: A. Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and B. Include in the agreement provisions that if such work is not completed within the period specified, the City may complete the work and recover the full cost and 11 expenses from the subdivider. i 2. The agreement shall stipulate improvement fees and deposits as may be required to be paid and may also provide for the construction of the improvements in stages and for the extension of time under specific conditions therein stated in the contract. 18.160.180 Bond: 1. As required by Section 18.160.170, the subdivider shall file with the agreement an assurance of performance supported by one of the following: A. An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to _ transact business in the State of Oregon; B. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business in j the State of Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by I the City in writing that it may be terminated; or C. Cash. 2. The subdivider shall furnish to the City Engineer an itemized improvement estimate, certified by a registered civil engineer, to assist the City Engineer in calculating the amount of the performance assurance. 3. The subdivider shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the City. i 18.160,190 Filing and Recording: 1. Within 60 days of the City review and approval, the applicant shall submit the final plat to the County for signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92. 2. Upon final recording with the County, the applicant shall submit to the City a mylar copy of the recorded final plat. C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-00041PDR 96-0005NAR 96-0006/SLR 96-0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 7 ~ 18.162.080 Final Plat Aoolication Submission Requirements: 1. Three copies of the subdivision plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. 2. The subdivision 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 1 of Tigard. 3. Street centerline monumentation shall be provided as follows: i A. Centerline Monumentation 1. In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection (2), the centerline of all street and roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street improvement. 2. The following centerline monuments shall be set: a. All centerline-centerline intersection points. b. All cul-de-sac center points. C. Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PTs). 3. All centerline monuments shall be set during the first lift of pavement. I B. Monument Boxes Required { 1. Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, cul-de-sac center points, and curve points. 2. The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. I_• 18.164 Street & Utility Improvement Standards: 1. 18.164.120 Utilities A. All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, " . communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface-mounted transformers, surface- mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-0004IPDR 96-0005NAR 96.0006/SLR 96-0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 8 I ' 2. 18, 164,130 Cash or Bond Required A. All improvements installed by the subdivider shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of one year following acceptance by the city. B. Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. C. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.160.180. 3. 18.164.150 Installation: Prerequisite/Permit Fee A. No land division improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefor have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. I l 4. 18.164.180 Notice to City Required A. Work shall not begin until the City has been notified in advance. B. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. 5. 18.164.200 Engineer's Certification Required A. The land divider's engineer shall provide written certification of a form provided by a the City that all improvements, workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices, and are of high grade, prior to the City acceptance of the subdivision's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. SECTION III: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: The current property dimensions were created in 1995, as Lot 37, of the Hillshire Woods Subdivision. Along its easterly boundary, the site adjoins SW Ascension Drive that was ! developed to serve the Hillshire Woods Development. C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-00041PDR 96-DOOSNAR 96.0006/SLR 96-0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 9 - s Vicinity Information: _ To the west, the site contains a portion of the Portland General Electric Utility Easement. To the west of this easement is a Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Utility Easement. ! Further to the west is the developing Hillshire Creek Subdivision within Washington County ! Jurisdiction. To the south of the property is an open space tract that is dedicated to the City through the development of the Hillshire Woods Subdivision. To the north of the site are properties developed with detached single-family residences. The property immediately to the north of this site is proposed for development through Minor Land Partition 96-0011. , Site Information and Proposal Description: The site is currently undeveloped and contains approximately 134 trees or groups of trees, in excess of 12 inches in diameter. The area along the easterly property line steeply slopes down to the portion of the site that is proposed for development. This proposed buildable area is approximately 150 feet west of SW Ascension Drive. The site also contains all of one wetland, and a part of a second wetland. A stream meanders through a portion of the E southwest corner of the developable portion of the property. ff The applicant has proposed to subdivide this parcel into 24 lots for the purpose of developing ! duplexes. The subdivision is proposed to be developed under a Planned Development with lot sizes below 5,000 square feet. Sensitive Lands Review has been requested to develop portions of the site with slopes in excess of 25%, to fill and modify the existing wetlands, and to alter the course of an existing stream. The applicant has proposed three variances related to the maximum allowable street length, the number of dwelling units to be accessed on a cul-de-sac street, and to the rear yard setback of four lots. The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on September 9, 1996 and allowed Tract E as the primary private street to serve 16 of the 24 lots to be developed as a private street as proposed by the applicant. Staff had recommended requiring ! Tract E to be dedicated to the Public due to long term maintenance issues. On September 26, 1996 the City Council voted 4-1 to call up the Planning Commission decision to approve this proposal. On October 22, 1996 the City Council conducted a Public Hearing and reversed the Planning Commission decision to approve this development with private streets. The City Council required that one of the two streets be dedicated to the Public. SECTION IV: APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Use Classification: The applicant is proposing to build 24 duplex residential dwelling i units. This use is classified in Code Section 18.42 (Use Classifications) as a duplex. Section 18.52 lists a duplex, as a permitted use in the R-7 Zoning District. The applicant { C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-0004/PDR 96-0005NAR 96-0006/SLR 96-0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 10 J IMF- I ~u has proposed to develop twelve duplexes, with a total of 24 dwelling units. The duplexes are a I permitted use in the R-7 Zoning District. Dimensional Requirements: Section 18.52 states that the minimum lot area for each dwelling unit in the R-7 zoning district is 5,000 square feet. There is no minimum lot width requirement due to the Planned Development Overlay District. Developments within the R-7 Zoning Districts are required to provide a minimum of 20% landscaping. The applicant has not provided a landscape plan that demonstrates compliance with the 20% minimum landscape requirement. The applicant shall provide this prior to the issuance of Building Permits for each lot. Development Standards: Section 18.52 contains standards for the R-7 zone. Single- family detached residential units are a permitted use in the zone, and must comply with the following dimensional requirements: Minimum lot size 5,000 Square Feet Average lot width 40 Feet Front setback 15 Feet Garage setback 20 Feet Interior side yard setback 5 Feet Corner side yard setback 10 Feet Rear setback 15 Feet Maximum building height 35 Feet The Planned Development Overlay does not require that a minimum lot size be maintained. The applicant has proposed to develop utilizing the reduced setbacks allowed under a Planned Development Overlay. Except for a 20-foot minimum garage setback to a Public Street, building setbacks within the interior of a Planned Development may be reduced to comply with only the Uniform Building Code requirements. Setbacks along the perimeter of a project are required to comply with the standards of the underlying zoning district. Developments that access a private street are required to maintain an eight-foot setback from the property line to the face of the garage, or a 20-foot setback where no garage is provided. Clear Vision standards must also be maintained on either side of the driveway. The j development, as proposed, complies with all setback requirements if the rear yard setback variance is approved, and the exclusive use of private streets is allowed. If the use of a public street is required for the area shown as Tract E, then 11 of the dwelling units as proposed, will not comply with the front yard setback requirement. Planned Development: Section 18.80 allows the option for an applicant to create a more efficient, economically viable development that preserves natural land features while implementing the density range provided through the Comprehensive Plan. This type of subdivision normally permits higher density than would be possible given the minimum lot size requirement for the zoning district. Due to the extent of the 100-year floodplain and wetlands on this site the applicant has proposed to concentrate the residential ' I C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-0004/PDR 96.0005NAR 96-0006/SLR 96.0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 11 S - development density within the flatter areas of the site to not impact sensitive lands' areas. Section 18.80.130(A)(1) (Planned Development Review - Approval Standards) requires that a development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of other Community Development Code Sections. The applicable criteria in this case are Chapters 18.52, 18.80, 18.84, 18.88, 18.92, 18.100, 18.120, 18,134, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. The proposal's consistency with these sections has been reviewed within this report The Planned Development Code Section 18.80 lists Section 18.160 (Subdivisions) as an j . applicable review criterion for Planned Developments that has been reviewed elsewhere within this report • F, The Planned Development Review is a three step process as follows: 1. Approval of a planned development overlay zone; 2. The second step is the approval of the planned development concept plan; and f 3. Approval of a Detailed Development Plan is also required. The Planned Development Overlay Zone was previously approved for this property through the annexation of what has since been subdivided as part of the Hillshire Woods Subdivision. Because this application is for a subdivision, Section 18.80.015(E) allows the Conceptual and Detailed portions of the Planned Development Review to be consolidated as is proposed through this action. Section 18.80.120(A)(3) provides further review standards for Planned Development that have been addressed below as follows: 1 i C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96.0004/PDR 96-0005/VAR 96.00061SLR 96-0002 • HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 12 i Relationship to the natural and physical environment: j _ (i) The streets, buildings, and other site elements shall be designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography, and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible; (ii) Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to ground slumping and sliding; (iii) There shall be adequate distance between on-site buildings and other on-site and off-site buildings on adjoining properties to provide for adequate light and air circulation and for fire protection; (iv) The structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions, where possible; and (v) Trees with a six inch caliper measured at four feet in height from ground level, shall be saved where possible; - The provisions related to adequate light and air are addressed elsewhere within this report under the minimum setback requirements. The Fire District has been provided with a copy of this plan and will conduct a Fire and Life Safety Review prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the site. Solar accessibility is addressed elsewhere within this report. The applicant . has proposed to remove trees as part of this development. The tree removal is discussed in detail elsewhere within this report. y Buffering, screening, and compatibility between adjoining uses: (i) Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses (for example, between single-family and multiple-family residential, and residential, and commercial); i ' (ii) In addition to the requirements of the buffer matrix, the following factors shall be t considered in determining the adequacy and extent of the buffer required under Chapter 18.100: (a) The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels, absorb air pollution, filter dust, or to provide a visual barrier; (b) The size of the buffer needs in terms of width and height to achieve the purpose; (c) The direction(s) from which buffering is needed; (d) The required density of the buffering; and (e) Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile; - screening from view from adjoining properties of such things as service f (iii) On areas, storage areas, parking lots, and mechanical devices on roof tops shall be provided and the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening: C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-00041PDR 9"0051VAR 96-00061SLR 96-0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 13 i 1 (a) What needs to be screened; (b) The direction from which it is needed; and (c) Whether the screening needs to be year-round; Screening and buffering are not required where single-family attached residential uses adjoin other single-family residential uses, utility easements or open space areas. Privacy and noise: (i) Non-residential structures which abut existing residential dwellings shall be located on the site or be designed in a manner, to the maximum degree possible, to protect the private areas on the adjoining properties from view and noise; This criterion is not applicable because the applicant has proposed to create future residential building sites. Private outdoor area: residential use: (i) In addition to the requirements of subparagraph (iii), each ground level residential i dwelling unit shall have an outdoor private area (patio, terrace, porch) of not less j than 48 square feet; _ j (ii) Wherever possible, private outdoor open spaces should be oriented toward the sun; and (iii) Private outdoor spaces shall be screened or designed to provide privacy for the use of the space; Provision of common outdoor open space areas is not required because the applicant has proposed to create building sites for single-family residences, rather than a multiple-family 1 residential development such as an apartment complex. Shared outdoor recreation areas: residential use: (i) In addition to subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) of this section each multiple- dwelling development shall incorporate shared usable outdoor recreation areas within the development plan as follows: (a) Studio units up to and including two bedroom units, 200 square feet per unit; and (b) Three or more bedroom units, 300 square feet per unit; (ii) Shared outdoor recreation space shall be readily observable from adjacent units for reasons of crime prevention and safety; (iii) The required recreation space may be provided as follows: C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-0004IPDR 96.OOOSAIAR 96-0006ISLR 96-0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 14 r: ! (a) It may be all outdoor space; or (b) It may be part outdoor space and part indoor space; for example, an outdoor tennis court and indoor recreation room; or II (c) It may be all public or common space; or (d) It may be part common space and part private; for example, it could be an I outdoor tennis court, indoor recreation room, and balconies on each unit; or (e) Where balconies are added to units, the balconies shall not be less than 48 square feet; The provision of common outdoor open space areas is not required because the applicant has proposed to create building sites for single-family residences. i Access and circulation: (i) The number of allowed access points for a development shall be provided in Chapter 18.108; (ii) All circulation patterns within a development must be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles; and I (iii) Provisions shall be made for pedestrian and bicycle ways if such facilities are ` shown on an adopted plan; The design of the proposed street improvements has been reviewed by the Engineering Department, the Police Department, and the Fire District. The Engineering Department reviewed street improvement requirements in detail elsewhere within this report. Completion of I the proposed street, as revised by the Conditions of Approval, complies with the standards of the Community Development Code as reviewed elsewhere within this report. Landscaping and open space: i (i) Residential Development: In addition to the requirements of subparagraphs (iv) and (v) of section A of this subsection, a minimum of 20 percent of the site shall be landscaped; (ii) Commercial Development: A minimum of 15 percent of the site shall be landscaped; and (iii) Industrial Development: A minimum of 15 percent of the site shall be landscaped; C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-0004/PDR 96-0005/VAR 96-0006/SLR 96-0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 15 ~ 1 . j Section (i) is applicable to this request. Because the applicant has proposed to maintain I portions of the site in an open space tract, approximately 40% of the site will continue to be 171) private or public open spaces, wetlands, or other new landscape plantings, in compliance with the 20% requirement. Section (ii) and (iii) are not applicable because no commercial or industrial development is proposed. i Public transit: i I (i) Provisions for public transit may be required where the site abuts a public transit route. The required facilities shall be based on the following criteria: (a) The location of other transit facilities in the area; and i (b) The size and type of the proposed development; The proposed streets will not be transit served facilities, therefore, these requirements are not applicable. (ii) The required facilities shall be limited to such facilities as: (a) A waiting shelter; (b) A turn-out area for loading and unloading; and (c) Hard surface paths connecting the development to the waiting area; The local streets under development in this area and the proposed streets, are not, and will not, be transit served facilities; therefore, this requirement is not applicable. j Signs: ; j (i) In addition to the provisions of Chapter 18.114, Signs: j (a) Location of all signs proposed for the development site; and (b) The signs shall not obscure vehicle driver's sight distance; i All future signage at the site will be reviewed through the sign permit process for conformance with the provisions of Chapter 18.114. i. Parking: (i) All parking and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.106; Each of the residences to be developed on these parcels will be reviewed during the Building ` Permit review process to verify the provision of required off-street parking spaces. C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-0004/PDR 96-0005NAR 96-0006/SLR 96.0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 16 - - Drainage: (i) All drainage provisions shall be generally laid out in accordance with the + requirements set forth in Chapter 18.84 and the criteria in the adopted 1981 master drainage plan; The Engineering Department reviewed this application and determined that the capacity exists within storm drainage facilities upstream and downstream of the development to handle the increase in runoff caused by additional impervious surfaces to be developed on this site. Floodplain dedication: (i) Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. This site does not adjoin areas within the 100-year flood plain, therefore, this requirement is not applicable. Sensitive Lands: Section 18.84 contains regulations for lands within 100 year floodplains that are subject to Sensitive Lands Review. Sensitive Lands Review of proposed developments in these areas is intended to implement floodplain protection measures and to protect rivers, streams and creeks by minimizing erosion, promoting bank stability, maintaining and enhancing water quality and fish and wildlife habitat, and preserving scenic quality and recreational potential. Approval Standards: Section 18.84.040 states that the Hearings Officer shall approve or 111 approve with conditions an application request based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: I Section 18.84.040(6) states that the Director shall approve an application for sensitive j lands permit on slopes of 25% or greater based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. The extent and nature of the proposed land use form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use. 2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property. 3. The structures are appropriately sited and designed to ensure structural stability and proper drainage of foundation and crawl space areas for development with I C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-0004/PDR 96-0005NAR 96-0006/SLR 96-0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 17 r -4111111- i any of the following soil conditions: wet/high water table; high shrink-swell capability; compressiblelorganic; and shallow depth-to-bedrock. 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening. This application has addressed Criteria #1-4. Approximately two acres of the gross site area contains steep slope areas in excess of a 25% slope. The applicant has proposed to grade approximately one-half acre of this area for inclusion into the larger development site. The areas to be graded do not involve dramatic land form alterations of the majority of the steeply sloping areas. By performing this grading, the use of special building techniques involved with development in steep slope areas can largely be avoided. Retaining walls have been proposed in conjunction with this grading in order to allow development to occur within portions of the site that adjoin steep slope areas. Section 18.84.040(C) states that the appropriate authority shall approve or approve with conditions an application request for a sensitive lands permit within the drainageways in Subsections 18.84.015 B. and D. based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. The extent and mature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to the extent greater than that required for the use; 2. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion, I stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects of hazards to life of property; 3. The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased; 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be S replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening; 5. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan. 6. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, I Division of State Lands approvals shall be obtained. i 7. Where landform alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the floodplain in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. Section 18.26.030 defines a drainageway as "undeveloped land inundated during a 25 year storm with a peak flow of at least five cubic feet per second, and conveyed, at least in part, by j identifiable channels that either drain to the Tualatin River directly, or after flowing through I I i C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-00041PDR 96-0005NAR 96-0006/SLR 96-0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 18 t 1 i I I other drainageways, channels, creeks or floodplain". The affected creek is not part of a continuous system, such as those listed by definition. Because a portion of the stream meanders into the southwest corner of the less steeply sloping portion of the site, it would be difficult to develop site improvements on any part of this area without building one or more stream crossings. It is recommended that the applicant be permitted to re-route this stream to allow site improvements to be constructed on this corner of the property. Section 6.08 of the applicable Unified Sewerage Agency, Resolution and Order 91-47 requires a 25-foot undisturbed buffer for creeks, streams, etc. that are a drainage basin for 100 acres or more. The hydrology calculations performed for this development indicate that this drainage basin is less than 100 acres. The project is within a drainage basin for a 15 acre watershed. For this reason, the provision of a 25-foot undisturbed buffer is also not applicable to this I . landform alteration. Section 18.84.040(D) states that the Director shall approve or approve with conditions an application request for sensitive lands permit within wetlands based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. The proposed landform alteration or development is neither on wetland in an area designated as significant wetland on the Comprehensive Plan Floodplain and Wetland Map nor is within 25 feet of such a wetland. j 2. The extent and nature of the proposed landform alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for the use. 3. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site drainage which would adversely impact wetland characteristics have been mitigated. 4. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to landform alteration or development, erosion control provisions of the Surface Water Management program of Washington County must be met and areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted in like or similar species in accordance with Chapter 18.100, Landscaping and Screening. 5. All other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter have been met. 6. The provisions of Chapter 18.150, Tree Removal, shall be met. j 7. Physical Limitations and Natural Hazards, Floodplains and Wetlands, Natural Areas, and Parks, Recreation and Open Space policies of the Comprehensive Plan have been satisfied. This application addresses Criteria #1 because the wetlands is not adjacent to, or within 25 feet of a significant wetlands as reviewed in Comprehensive Plan inventory. The application addresses Criteria #2 and #3 because the applicant has identified the location f of the wetlands. The site contains all or a part, of two wetlands' areas. The applicant has i proposed to fill the smaller wetland's area, and at least a portion of a second wetlands. Due to the site constraints of the approved alignment of the street that is to be extended from the east of the property, the larger wetlands must be at least partially filled in order to extend necessary street and utility improvements. C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-0004lPDR 96.0005NAR 96-0006/SLR 96-0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 19 Ask- I Due to the amount of fill that is proposed, the applicant is required to obtain a permit for the proposed street work that would bisect the larger of the two wetlands areas. Prior to recording the plat, the applicant shall provide the City with a copy of the necessary Division of State jI Lands fill permit(s). I A Division of State Lands fill permit is not required to perform the fill work to the smaller I wetlands. The small wetlands is approximately 800 square feet in size. The total fill involved will be approximately 30 cubic yards. A permit is not required for fill of less than 50 cubic yards. _ I Criteria #4, relative to erosion control, will be addressed through the Public Improvement and the Building Permit Plan Review processes that are required prior to construction of the proposed site improvements. Criteria #5 and #6 have been discussed because the applicable criteria of other affected sensitive lands have been addressed elsewhere within this staff report. Criterion's #7 has been addressed elsewhere in this report through the review of the related development standards as contained in the Community Development Code. i - Solar Access: Section 18.88.040(C)(1) contains solar access standards for new i residential development. A lot meets the basic solar access lot standard if it has a north-south dimension of 90 feet or more and has a front lot line that is oriented within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis. A subdivision complies with the basic requirement if 80% or more of the newly created parcels meet this standard. Alternatively, an applicant can meet the City's Solar Access Standards by complying with the protected Solar Building Line Option or the Performance Option. Energy efficiency is ensured through the location of the residence with sufficient solar access t or through the design of the homes that incorporates window glazing with solar orientation. An applicant can request an exception to the solar access standards based on the following development constraints: Site topography in excess of a 10 percent slope, shade from existing on-site or off-site vegetation or structures, significant natural features, existing street public easement patterns, impacts to density, cost or amenities of the project that adds five percent or more to the cost of each lot. To comply with the Basic Standard, a minimum of 20 of the 24 lots must be designed with a north-south dimension of 90 feet of more. The subdivision, as designed, provides passive solar access, in compliance with the Basic Standard to Lots 1 and 2 of the development. The remaining 22 lots do not comply with the passive solar access requirements. The longest property dimension of areas with less steeply sloping topography is the north-to-south direction. Site grading and other development costs associated with the development of this property are reduced by orienting the site improvements as proposed. For these reasons, it is not recommended that the site improvements be reoriented to further comply with the Basic Solar Access standard. Solar Balance Point: Section 18.88.050 requires that one and two family residences that are developed on lots that were exempted from Compliance with the basic Solar Access standards comply with the Solar Balance Point requirements. All attached and detached, _ C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-0004/PDR 96-00051VAR 96~0006ISLR 96-0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 20 3 I 7 s single-family residences are required to comply with the Solar Balance Point requirements. This will be reviewed prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Density: Section 18.92.020 contains standards for determining the permitted project density. The number of allowable dwelling units is based on the net development area. The net area is the remaining area, excluding sensitive lands and land dedicated for public roads or parks. The net area is then divided by the minimum parcel size permitted by the zoning district to determine the number of lots that may be created on a 1 site. The site has a gross acreage of approximately 6.08 acres. A total of two acres of the site contains slopes in excess of 25% that is deducted. Wetlands' areas of 6,700 square is also deducted. A minimum of 20% of the gross site area is required to be deducted for public streets. After these deductions, a net site area of 3.14 acres remains. For density determination purposes a maximum of 25 percent of the density lost from the steep slope areas, or .50 acres, is allowed to be transferred to the buildable portions of the property. This yields a net site area of 3.64 acres. When divided by the minimum sized lot allowed in the R-7 Zoning District, the site allows the opportunity for development of up to 31 dwelling units. The applicant proposes to develop 24 dwelling units and therefore, does not exceed the maximum number of permitted units. Landscaping: Section 18.100 contains landscaping standards for new development. The applicant must also comply with the standards set forth in Section 18.100.035 that requires that all development projects fronting on a public or private street, or a private ' driveway more than 100 feet in length plant street trees. i Street Trees: Section 18.100.035(B) states the specific spacing of street trees by size of j tree shall be as follows: ~ j j 1. Small or narrow stature trees (under 25 feet tall and less than 16 feet wide j branching) shall be spaced no greater than 20 feet apart; 2. Medium sized trees (25 feet to 40 feet tall, 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; 3. Large trees (over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching) shall be ' spaced no greater than 40 feet apart; Prior to recording the subdivision plat, a street tree planting plan shall be provided. This plan will be reviewed for compliance with the street tree size and spacing standards. The plan shall also provide a method of guarantee to ensure the planting of the approved street trees. Visual Clearance Areas: Section 18.102 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30 foot distance along the street right-of-way and the driveway and then connecting these two 30 foot distances with a straight line. A - clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, signs, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three feet in height. The height is C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-0004IPDR 96-00051VAR 96-0006/SLR 96-0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 21 . e measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line j grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. The structures, as proposed, comply with these i standards. This will again be reviewed prior to the issuance of Building Permits. IA Variance: Section 18.134.050 allows approval, approval with conditions, or denial of a request for a variance. The applicant has requested variance to the following development standards: Section 18.164.030(K) requires that a cul-de-sac shall be no more than 400 feet long nor provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units. The total length of the cul-de-sac and additional dead private street is approximately 600 feet. A total of 24 dwelling units are proposed to be accessed from these streets. The applicant has also requested variance from 15 feet to the minimum setback allowed by the Uniform Building Code for Lots 11 through 14. This variance would allow setbacks to be reduced to a minimum of three feet. The following findings are recommended concerning these variances: 1. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, be in conflict with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to any other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; The proposed variances will allow development to occur on a site that is surrounded by steep sloping areas, dedicated open space areas, other developing properties, and utility easements that largely preclude and alleviate the necessity for extension of streets for future access. The proposed variances are not in conflict with the general policies of the Comprehensive Plan because the implementing standards of the Community Development Code permit variances of this nature due to the development constraints that affect this property. 2. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size, 1 shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning I district; The development site is an area that is largely surrounded by sloping portions of the site in excess of a 25% slope, dedicated open space areas, and utility easements. The extension of streets to these areas in order alleviate the need for approval of a variance is not possible given the location of the aforementioned development constraints. The rear yard setback variance is in response to existing development constraints such as the existing utility easement, compliance with other setback requirements, the width necessary to construct a private street, and development of dwelling units. 3. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting some economic use of the land. The proposed duplex use is a permitted use within the R-7 Zoning District. Other applicable development requirements are to be complied with through this application as proposed. C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-0004/PDR 96-0005/VAR 96-0006/SLR 96-0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 22 x" 1 r t a i 4. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were located as specified by this title; and Due to the nature of the site development constraints, variances to the 400-foot street length and the 20 dwelling unit maximum that are to be accessed, allows the applicant to develop without dramatically impacting adjoining dramatic land forms, natural drainage systems or dedicated open space areas. i Given the 62-foot lot depth available to serve Lots 11-14, the Variance allows the limited developable portion of the property to be maximized without unduly impacting the open space area. Because the site adjoins a City dedicated open space area, no other private development will adjoin the parcels that would have the reduced setback. 5. The hardship is not self imposed and the variance requested is the minimum r - variance that would alleviate the hardship. Given that the applicant proposes to I comply with all other applicable setbacks and provide the required off-street parking, the proposed variance is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the hardship. Tree Removal: Section 18.150.025 requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal and i protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a subdivision application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, which trees are to be removed, protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. The applicant has provided a plan that identifies all existing trees greater than six inches in caliper. The site has 134 trees, or groups of trees that are in excess of 12 inches in diameter. The proposed site plan identifies 16 trees or groups of trees that will be saved. Due to the limited areas available for development, it is recommended that the applicant be permitted to remove the trees as proposed. Since the applicant is retaining less than 25 percent of the existing trees, Section 18.150.070.D requires a mitigation program that provides for no net loss of healthy, larger trees. Prior to recording the plat, the applicant shall provide calculations for the total number of caliper inches of healthy trees that are to be removed in excess of 12 inches in diameter, and a mitigation plan demonstrating that no net loss of trees will occur. The mitigation may be provided through the planting of on-site replacement trees, off-site trees, or payment into an account to plant tree's city wide. Subdivision Design: Section 18.160.060(A) contains standards for subdivision of parcels into four or more lots. To be approved, a preliminary plat must comply with the following criteria: 1. The proposal must comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the applicable ~ zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations; 2. The proposed plat name must not be duplicative and must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92; C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-0004/PDR 96.0005NAR 960006/SLR 96-0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE-2-3- j F J: 71 3. Streets and roads must be laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of partitions or subdivisions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern; and 4. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. The application's compliance with the applicable review criteria has been reviewed within this report. The proposed plat name of Hillshire Hollow Subdivision is not duplicative of other plats. The streets, as proposed, have been laid out to serve the development. No additional streets are proposed to be extended to other developments. The applicant has requested variances to the applicable street connectivity standards. The street connectivity standards are addressed elsewhere within this staff report. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. - 4 Due to the approximate 40% slope of Tract A and the limited public use that is expected, it is recommended that this area be owned and maintained by the future property owners rather than dedicated to the City. The final plat and any applicable related documents shall be revised to reflect this change. Because they provide connections to other another dedicated open space area and both areas are less steep, it is recommended that Tracts B and C be dedicated to the City as proposed. i, Street and Utility Improvements Standards: Section 18.164 contains standards for streets and utilities serving a subdivision. Improvements: Section 18.164.030(A) requires streets within and adjoining a development to be dedicated and improved based on the classification of the street. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.164.030(E) provides a range for Public Streets to be developed for Local Street purposes. This chart provides a range j for right-of-way and street widths. The right-of-way width range provided for this purpose is 36 to 50 feet. The street width range is 24 to 34 feet of width. A private street is required to provide a minimum of 25 feet of total right-of-way. A minimum street width of 20 feet is required. The applicant has proposed the use of two private streets. Tract E, a private street, is proposed to serve 16 of the 24 lots. This street has a total right-of-way of 40 feet with a paved section of 28 feet. Tract D, a second private street, is proposed for the remaining eight units. More than six dwelling units are proposed to be served on each section of the private street. The Community Development Code limits this type of development where appropriate to a Planned Development and through a type of a development where appropriate to a Planned Development and through a Variance. As discussed in the Engineering Department review of this application, it is recommended that the proposed "Tract E" private street be dedicated to the public and that access to "Tract D" be limited to six dwelling units. Given the proposed design of this street, dedication and construction of this street to comply with public standards is feasible. The right-of-way width and design would comply with the street right-of-way ranges set forth in this section. i I C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-0004/PDR 96.0005NAR 96.0006/SLR 96.0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 24 - ' Iq - t l,~ Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.164.030(F) states that a future street plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future streets _ from the boundaries of the proposed land division. Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street. Street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de- sac since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. The applicant has requested a Variance to the extension of future streets due to the topographic and other development constraints that exist on adjoining properties. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.164.030(G) requires all local streets that abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is precluded when it is not possible to redesign, or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. Through the Variance discussion, the I applicant has made findings concerning the need for a waiver of for the requirements for future street connectivity. Cul-de-sacs: Section 18.164.030(K) requires that a cul-de-sac shall be no more than 400 feet long nor provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units. The applicant has requested Variances to these standards. The proposed cul-de-sac is 680 feet in length. A total of 24 dwelling units are proposed to be provided access to the cul-de-sac. i Grades and Curves: Section 18.164.030(M) requires that grades shall not exceed 12 percent on local streets, except that local residential streets may have segments with grades up to 15 percent for distances of no greater than 250 feet. The street sections, as proposed, do not exceed a slope of 12 percent. The average slope of the proposed street is approximately 10% over the length of the street. For these reasons, the street as proposed, complies with this standard. Curbs Curb Cuts Ramos and Driveway Approaches: Section 18.164.030(N) requires the following: 1. Concrete curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair, bicycle ramps and driveway approaches shall be constructed in accordance with standards specified in this chapter and Section 15.04.080, and; a. Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except b. Where no sidewalk is planned, an asphalt approach may be constructed with City Engineer approval; and c. Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the property line shall be built to City configuration standards. C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-0004/PDR 96-0005NAR 96-0006ISLR 96-0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 25 , J i If the Planning Commission determines that the proposed parcels would adjoin a public street, the individual street access the applicant is likely to propose is acceptable where all street opening permit requirements are met. It should be noted that a five-foot setback is required 1 from each side of the driveway "wings" to the property line. Given the limited lot frontage proposed, this requirement may limit the width of certain driveways within the public right-of- way. In the case of Lots 1 and 2, it is recommended that the applicant obtain approval to construct a single driveway within the PGE Easement. This standard is not applicable where the Planning Commission allows the use of a private street throughout this development. Block Deg; : Section 18.164.040(A) states that the length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. The length of the proposed block section is the minimum length necessary to serve the proposed development. The extension of street stubs to serve future streets is not possible in this instance due to the site development constraints that are discussed in the Variance findings. Block Sizes: Section 18.164.040(B)(1) states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of-way line except: ' 1. Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other _ bodies of water or, pre-existing development or; 2. For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads. 3. For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. jf Because of the development constraints listed within Criteria #1, the proposed development is unable to comply with the 1,800 foot maximum block length. Block Lengths: Section 18.164.040(B)(2) states that when block lengths greater than 600 feet are permitted, pedestrian/bikeways shalt be provided through the block. The section of street that is to be developed is approximately 680 feet in length. This estimated length was measured from the westerly side of the PGE Easement to the end of the second private street (Tract D). Because they adjoin dedicated open space areas, pathways should be developed through Tracts B and C to extend to the property line of the existing dedicated open space area to the south and east. Lots - Size and Shape: Section 18.164.060(A) prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5 times the average lot width, unless the parcel is less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. Because the applicant has proposed to develop under Planned Development standards, no minimum lot size is applicable. For this reason, no lot depth-to-width ratio is applicable to this development. L. C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 960004IPDR 96-0005AIAR 96.00061SLR 96-0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 26 - I 7 I~ ~G Lot Frontage: Section 18.164.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley unless the subdivision is intended to be I 1 developed for attached single family residential development. In this instance a minimum of 15 feet is required to be maintained. Each lot has been provided with a minimum of 15 feet of frontage in compliance with this requirement. Sidewalks: Section 18.164.070 requires sidewalks adjoining all residential streets. A I private street is not required to be constructed with sidewalks. The applicant has proposed to develop sidewalks on one side of the street along both private streets. Compliance with this standard is reviewed below under Pubic Facility Concerns. I Sanitary Sewers: Section 18.164.090 requires sanitary sewer service. The applicant has addressed these requirements. Compliance with this standard is reviewed below under Pubic Facility Concerns. Storm Drainage: Section 18.164.100 requires adequate provisions for storm water runoff and dedication of easements for storm drainage facilities. The applicant has addressed these requirements. Compliance with this standard is reviewed below under Pubic Facility Concerns. PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS: The provision of public facilities in compliance with Sections 18,164.030(E)(1)(a) (Streets), 18.164,090 (Sanitary Sewer), and 18.164,100 (Storm Drains) shall be satisfied. In addition to the listed section provisions for Water, Water Quality Treatment, Grading and Erosion Control have also been reviewed below: Wor STREETS: This site backs up to SW Ascension Drive, but because of the steep topography of the site, access is impossible from that street. There is an existing public street to the west of the BPA easement that the applicant proposes to extend into this project (SW Creekshire Drive). The subdivision where Creekshire Drive originates is called Hillshire Creek Estates, and is within unincorporated Washington County. The public improvements in that project are currently under construction. The applicant is proposing private streets within this project. They have shown the extension of Creekshire Drive (shown as Tract E on the plan) to be "private" within the Hillshire Hollow development. In addition, they are showing Tract D as an additional private street to serve 8 lots at the south end of the project. There has been considerable discussion between City staff and the applicant with regard to the private street issue. From the applicant's perspective, the private street is advantageous because they will not be subject to the same front yard setback requirement as with a private street. For instance, if they obtain Planned Development approval (PD) and are allowed to serve the proposed lots with a private street, i they will not have to provide a 20-foot front yard setback per TMC 18.80.080(4)(c)(ii). That j C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-0004/PDR 96-0005NAR 96-0006/SLR 96-0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 27 p C provision allows an 8-foot front yard setback for attached single-family units in a PD as long as the required off-street parking spaces are provided. Private street Tract D would be advantageous for the same reason, but in addition, they are proposing a sidewalk on one side only and a 20-foot wide street section (minimum public street width is 24 feet). Tract E private street is proposed to be a 40-foot wide tract with a 28-foot wide street section, which would meet public street standards. From Staffs perspective, the private street issue causes much concern. Per TMC 18.164.030(S)(3), private streets are allowed in projects not serving more than 6 lots. Private . streets serving more than 6 lots are allowed in Planned Developments. Prior to 1995, when . the City adopted a revision to public street standards to allow narrower local streets, the development community often made proposals to allow private streets within residential developments. The typical reason for the request was to allow narrower pavement and right- of-way (ROW) widths. The City standard prior to 1995 required 50-foot ROW and 32-foot - : 4 pavement widths. Many developers found the City's public street width standard to be burdensome and conflicted with their ability to utilize the developable land to the extent desired. Over the years, the City has allowed private streets to be installed in various projects, but have experienced a number of negative consequences as a result. The following are Staffs concerns with private streets: 1 1. We find that many times a home owner does not realize they own a house on a private street. Although they should know based on what is shown on the final plat, recorded Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's), and notes in their title reports, many citizens are still surprised and many times upset to find out they are partly responsible for the maintenance of their street. We also hear reports that Realtors fail to recognize and reveal this information. 5 2. Private streets often look very much like an ordinary public street to the average citizen, and if there is a problem with the street, the citizen will tend to call the City for help. The City must then spend time explaining that the street is a private street. This can take a significant amount of time, especially if several calls come in regarding the same street. 3. We have found that over time, a homeowner's association becomes less willing to deal with the private streets. This can be for several reasons, but usually it is due to the expense of maintenance, and the difficulty in organizing the neighborhood in the maintenance effort. It can be expensive to properly maintain a street; there is street - sweeping, street lighting, sanding in the winter and eventual surface repair that must be considered. A homeowner's association is required to manage these costs and establish a system for collecting funds from the property owners to cover them. We have heard from citizens involved with private streets that it can be very difficult to properly manage these efforts long term. V i C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-00041POR 96-0005NAR 96-00061SLR 96-0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 28 f AN- f In 1986, the City granted approval to allow 3 private streets to be built within the Benchview 1 i Estates subdivision. The streets were required to have the same structural section as public streets, but were allowed to have a narrower ROW width (34 feet versus 50 feet required for a public street) and a narrower pavement width (28 feet versus 32 feet required for a public street). In addition, sidewalks were allowed to be built on one side of the street rather than on both sides as is required on a public street. The allowance of the narrow private streets enabled the developer to build lots on both sides of the street, which may not have been possible if a public street were required, as the project is located in a steep area. The developer of the Benchview Estates project was required to place a note on the final recorded plat to indicate that the private streets were to be owned and maintained by the homeowners within the project. In addition, CC&R's were required to be recorded with the plat specifying that a homeowner's association would need to be established in order to manage the maintenance of the private streets. Both the note and the CC&R's are established (CC&R's are recorded as Document No. 88-24149, Washington County). In 1994, only 8 years after the City granted approval of the project, the Benchview Homeowner's Association (BHA) approached the City with a request to have the City take over the maintenance of the streets and essentially accept them as "public". Thus far, the City has not taken steps to do so. During a Planning Commission hearing in July, 1996, BHA spokespeople cited several reasons why they no longer wished to maintain the streets: 1. The costs to maintain the streets are more than they desire to manage. 2. BHA has difficulty collecting dues from the home owners in the development to cover maintenance costs. i 3. BHA does not want to be liable for the streets or for any accident that occurs in the streets. 4. BHA does not want to pay for the street lighting costs. I 5. BHA does not want to pay for the sanding of the roadway surfaces in the winter time. This proves to be a significant concern for them because of the steep terrain in the project. 6. BHA stated that the Tigard Police Department has indicated that complaints such as illegally parked cars on a private street will not be given a high priority. In reality, a complaint such as this would need to be handled by the private property owners because the vehicle would be on private property. 7. Several BHA spokespeople commented that they did not know the streets were private, even though it is clearly depicted on the plat, in the CC&R's and in title reports for the lots. C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-00041PDR 96-0005NAR 96-00061SLR 96-0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 29 i t 8. BHA complained that they pay the same property taxes as citizens who live on public streets, but do not receive the same services (street sweeping, sanding, etc.) as those 1 citizens. Many of these comments are typical of what City Staff and other jurisdictions hear from citizens who live on private streets. Regarding the subject application, the applicant is proposing development of a site that is constricted by steep slopes on the east side and a creek that runs along the west side. The applicant has proposed to relocate the centerline of the creek after obtaining the necessary permits from the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Division of State Lands (DSL). In order for the applicant to create lots on both sides of the street, he must obtain approval for a private street, which will allow a front yard setback of 8 feet, and for a variance to allow a reduced rear yard setbacks for lots 11 through 14. Although the private street would allow the applicant to develop the site as they desire, Staff does not recommend that private streets be allowed based on the type of feedback received from the general public who live on private streets. The applicant should be required to revise their subdivision plan to provide public streets. i Since the code allows a private street to serve up to 6 lots, Staff would support allowing Tract D to serve only 6 lots. The applicant will likely request a variance to the City's 20-foot front yard setback to allow an 8-foot setback. Staff would recommend that a front yard setback ; variance be denied. The City standard of 20 feet is consistent with other jurisdictions and y was determined by gathering measurements of vehicles parked in front of garages. The average length from the face of a garage to the rear bumper of a car is 20 feet, and in order to prevent a car from extending over a public sidewalk, a garage should be setback from the k ROW line by 20 feet. If a car extends over a public sidewalk, pedestrians are forced to walk in the street where they are in danger of moving vehicles. The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on September 9, 1996 and allowed Tract E be developed as a private street as proposed by the applicant. On j October 22, 1996 the City Council conducted a Public Hearing concerning this issue and revised the Planning Commission decision. The City Council that one of the two streets (Tract E) be dedicated to the Public. { Staff does not have a concern with the variance to the rear yard setback standard. However, there will be considerable grading taking place adjacent to open space that is proposed to be dedicated to the City. See Grading and Erosion Control section for more discussion I regarding this issue. Regarding the variance for cul-de-sac length. The applicant's proposal would yield a cul-de- sac of approximately 680 to 700 feet in length, as measured from the nearest street intersection (within the Hillshire Creek Estates project) to the very end of the proposed street system (south end of Tract D). Staff has talked to Washington County Planning staff who indicate that they do not have a concern with the street terminating in a cul-de-sac. City and County staff agree that a street connection beyond this site is not necessary, nor is it C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-0004/PDR 96-00051VAR 96-0006/SLR 96-0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 30 i 1 7 i J I i j practical due to the topographic constraints of the site. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) has submitted comments for this project and does not have a concern with the length. Staff, therefore, recommends that the variance to the cul-de-sac length standard be approved. SANITARY SEWER: The applicant proposes to extend an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer line from the Hillshire Creek Estates project to serve this site. This line will adequately serve the site. The existing sewer line is within USA's service area and any proposed connection to that line will need to be approved by USA. Because the public improvements within Hillshire Creek Estates are still under construction, the existing sewer line has not likely been accepted by Washington County and USA. No connections to that sewer line should be permitted until USA has accepted the sewer line. STORM DRAINAGE: ! 1 Storm water from this site will be conveyed to the north where it will be treated in a water II quality facility. From there, the applicant intends to discharge the storm water into the existing creek. A downstream analysis meeting the criteria of USA's Resolution and Order No. 91-47 will be required to be submitted by the applicant prior to construction. If the analysis indicates that the additional storm water from this project will adversely impact the downstream system, they will either have to improve the downstream system or provide on- site detention. j The plan leaves some question as to how Lots 15 through 22 will be drained, since their grades will be below the elevation of the proposed street system. The applicant will either need to make sure the storm line in the street is low enough to serve these lots, or he will have to install a private storm line behind the lots. Staff is concerned about the proximity of the proposed houses that will be downhill of the steep slopes to the east of the development, specifically any surface or subsurface runoff that will be cut off by the placement of the retaining walls and the construction of the homes. Staff recommends that the applicant's storm drainage system be designed to pick up all surface and subsurface water that may flow toward the new homes. The applicant's geotechnical and design engineers shall provide direction as to how this water will be picked up and conveyed into the proposed storm system. WATER QUALITY: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 91-47, as amended by R&O 91-75) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan is required to be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be k~ C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96.0004/PDR 96-0005NAR 96.0006/SLR 96.0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 31 i Ism- used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of R&O 91-47. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of the building permit. The applicant's plan indicates that a vegetated Swale will be used to treat the storm water from this site. Preliminary calculations submitted by the applicant indicate the swale area should be large enough to treat the storm water from this project. The water quality facility will need to be a public facility and eventually turned over to the City for maintenance. The facility will need to be located within a tract to be conveyed to the City on the final subdivision plat. The applicant will be required to maintain the facility for a period of 3 years after the City accepts the public improvements within the development. The 3-year maintenance period will ensure that the landscaping will be established before the City takes over responsibility of the facility. The applicant will also be required to provide a maintenance access road to the facility and any drainage structures within the facility to accommodate City maintenance vehicles. Final design of the facility and maintenance road(s) will be reviewed by the Engineering `I Department prior to construction. WATER: ( There is an existing 12-inch water line in SW Creekshire Drive that terminates at the south end of the Hillshire Creek Estates project. The applicant's plan shows a proposal to extend the existing public water line into the project, but reduce it in size to a 6-inch line. The Water Department indicates that a 6-inch line will be too small; an 8-inch line is required. The applicant will be required to provide an 8-inch line through the project. Because the improvements within Hillshire Creek Estates are still under construction, the water line has not likely been accepted by the Water Department. No connections to the existing water line will be allowed until that line is approved by the Tigard Water Department. GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL: USA R&O 91-47 also regulates erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity that accelerates erosion. Per R&O 91-47, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. - As was mentioned previously, the applicant is proposing construction of the project adjacent to a creek that will be partially realigned. The applicant has stated that a DSL permit has been applied for. Prior to construction of this project, the applicant shall submit a copy of the DSL permit and shall demonstrate that all conditions from DSL will be met. Any mitigation j required by DSL shall be done prior to, or in conjunction with this project. 1 C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96"00041PDR 96-0005NAR 96-00061SLR 95-0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 32 ~ I i r f The extensive grading required along the east edge of the project (adjacent to the steep 1 slopes) will necessitate the installation of retaining walls to support the slope behind the proposed lots. The City currently owns an open space area directly behind Lots 11 - 14 that is a fairly steep area considered undevelopable. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to place the proposed retaining wall fully within the boundaries of the subdivision and, therefore, keep it out of the City open space area. The City should not be responsible for the maintenance of these retaining walls. In addition, the applicant's geotechnical engineer shall provide guidance for the design, placement and construction of the walls, including drainage provisions. As was stated previously, the drainage system behind the retaining walls must be tied into the proposed storm system for the project. SECTION V• OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The Building Department reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: It is not clear where Lots 15-22 will drain. The existing topography is not conducive to drainage to the proposed streets. A private storm line at the rear of these lots may be needed. The storm line may need to be located immediately adjacent to the PGE Easement, or will PGE accept the drainage? The following Conditions of Approval were recommended: = 1. A private storm line or other acceptable drainage plan shall be provided at the westerly end of Lots 15-22. ; 2. A geotechnical report regarding the proposed grading and the retaining wall, including design recommendations, shall be submitted with the Public Improvement Plans. No other comments or objections have been received. f SECTION VI: AGENCY COMMENTS The Tualatin Valley Fire District reviewed this proposal and stated that this plan is not approved as proposed. The following items shall be addressed and resubmitted for review and approval to the Tualatin Valley Fire Marshall's Office: When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the requirements for fire apparatus access may be modified as approved by the Chief. (UFC Sec. 902.2.1 Exception 1). Where there are 20 or more dwellings, an approved second fire apparatus access roadway must be provided to a city/county roadway or access easement. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2). I C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-0004/PDR 96-0005/VAR 96-0006/SLR 96-0002 - HILLSHIRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 33 Ar- The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall not be less than 25 feet and 45 feet respectively, as measured from the same center point. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.3). Fire apparatus access roadway grades shall not exceed an average grade of 10 percent with a maximum grade of 15 percent for lengths of more than 200 feet. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.6). Intersections and turnarounds shall be level (maximum 5%) except for crowning for water run-off. Fire hydrants shall not be located more than 15 feet from an approved fire apparatus access a roadway. (UFC Sec 903.4.2.4). The minimum available fire flow for single-family dwellings and duplexes shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. If the structure(s) are 3,600 square feet or larger, the required fire flow shall be determined according to UFC Appendix Table A-III-A-1. (UFC Appendix III-A, Sec. 5). The Unified Sewerage Agency reviewed this application and provided the following comments: Wetlands mitigation to occur on-site or adjacent to the development. A Division of State Lands fill permit is required. No other comments or objections have been received. SUBDIVISION APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID ONLY IF THE FINAL PLAT IS SUBMITTED , TO THE CITY OF TIGARD WITHIN EIGHTEEN MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. i It i j s further ordered that the applicant and the parties to these proceedings be notified of the entry of this order. C.C. FINAL ORDER SUB 96-0004/PDR 96-0o05NAR 96-00061SLR 96.0002 - ILL IRE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 34 f C i t .0 woo- o 1 f 1' III ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i Sub. 1 I ills hu~ RollVicuv~I Nip f 1 ar F-41 I 2 L O • 0 0 i 3 a Y. ~ 30, Y - M' y i a~~ Y. 4 m ~ A A ; Lam{ 1 W 2 WY. > sr I a/fa Y. LrV. f ti, ~r b a L n O V. r $ 14 a 24WMI ' ( r CASE NO. PLOT PLAN Hillshire Hollow Subdivision SUB 96-0004 EXHIBIT MAP s P DR96-0005 VAR 96-0006 SLR 96-0002 ~ i ! • ~ q 5 / J ~ 1 / / / ~ / O / ~ ' { QV ~ ~ } r ~ SKr e . J 320 / ~ r ~ 4 ~ ~ + ~ / / ~ ~ LrA'~LS ` M / y r ~ D ~ f'~.ir,h 's' ~ ~ r ~ ; 32 r, Nl .,rn~: ,gyp pp ~ H' 1 x ' 2~ `';.(tea z~ _ I ~ 1 w~;~ 332 o~ n VO 1 / ~1 ~ ~ JJ ~~f - - - r:v 5 D ` r `1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 338 y~ +"a.n. ~ v I~ ~ . ❑ I m ~~L/ / ~ : ^ i;t a l~ J. . Cats } r. .Q _ . I \ 0/w ~J J ~ _ yT ~ 1. ~.4W`Ts -~D m - I s j 93 ~ =gym II ~ i r:' ~ k+~~rt a ee n A - ~ f / tD / ~a-`t; _ ~ 1--- z ~ _348 C ~ ~ ~ sr„ ' OL, ~ C7 ~ r/ G: II y/L ~ _ ~J I r _ ' - Z 3 1• r, Sri W ~ ~ / W t~' VI / ~ T ..;lt~i S C ~ • w ~t . ~ n t i I I ~ S2 ~I~~_ 0 ~ r b : 1 ~ ~ .A (h - ~ .r~ . ~ ,1.• ~ 35 ~II , X ~,(i;iy °T~~` f e~ / i . ~ ~ .1 .vl //J. } O O ~ z SHEET DESIGNED BY Ni flO DATE 8196 N0. DATE REVISION BY Oirrff~UQ, DRAWid BY t81 DAT~6/QB_ o o A ~p P~£ , 3 SITE & EROSION PLAN 2.9J2 q ~ REU~Ex£D BY FiHO DATE_§~ ' OF - ORE PROJECT N0. ~'0~ REF. HR.iCHIRP HOLLOW P. 'tty~ + SCALE r'20' P'.DEYEI.OGENT 9EINEERINGmINC. 9 N4RD H. G~ 9y OPFlDE 503-152-8009 - FA% 303-152-0019 P1.1ZA IfEST • SD17E 290. 9600 SK OAY. • PORTI.WD,OR 97229 va,ID THROUGH 06-30-97 7t000fiAD I 8~W BULL MOUN iGIN- ROdD~ ~ ~ °0 U ■ e~ °y{ Fy+ N W % » ~ ' ` ~ , ~ ~s e yd' ~ b ~ . „ ~a ~6 ~ h~ ~ ° J1 dLPAE ~ ' HILLSHIRE ~ ~R ~ ° ~ SUMMIT ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ° u ~ HILLSHIRE No. 2 ,~~,i~ oa~ HILLSHIRE SUMMIT ESTATES No. 2 ° w, ~ , I v ° 1 • " v ~ \ e, iI 0 b ~ f, 61 ~ / ~ b ' \ p\ w y° 10 i ~sy °p vl in i m a ~ i Y a u n \.e a~~E~ n vo , ,Gy e~/ ~G m nisnEioe owva a • ~ e ® °y iv y~' ~ 8W Mi9iLEt0E d ~ ; 4 'd 'p ~ b9 I/ ~j / HILLSHIRE ~ j ~ ~ ° ~ ESTATES ~ ~ ,wE a / ~ HILLSHIRE I, " ~a,~ ESTATES - ~ I k ~ ,il !1 b~p~'+ - _ - \yy / ~ ~ • 4 - „ C ~ / / _ _ M ~ / f ~ / • • • 5 , / - ~ bl / . _ to ~ / - - ° i°, i ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ m o n ~ m am ""~+ar ~'~ence ~ / _ ~ 90 ~ D • ~ 9LL YE°iRIOGE _ C ~ ai x n _ ~ :e _ ~ ~ U ~ ~ HILLSHIRE „ - / ~ » ~ HOLLOW r M T. Q ~ ° _ - ; % e . w HILLSHIRE HILLSHIRE ~ ~ » n M ° ° ° [ ~ HILLSHIRE WOODS : M CREEK ESTATES ~ -7 - „ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ E a N ! e ~ ~ i e 1 ~ / ° • w HILLSHIRE ~ ~ . Q/,, VILLAGE x ~ ° ° ° ~ ~ °p b A . ~ HILLSHIRE= wp CREEK ESTATES " ~ ° ' No. 1 ~U / i ~i/', / v~ ' ~Z1C? D r1~ . ~ Sl ~?1~1~G1 p~11C1 i C CMG UG ~,O ~~1'1~ C®. =a,~ S t1w _ s ~ _ h ~ ~w. CJg 4~ ~s h ~ Q - ° c ~i - ~~xu~(.,,. ~ ~ ~ !I, - _ <i • ~.ay ~ 1 ~ , _ - _ - , ^7 r O nh ~,`,1. , ~ C N , bY. ~ a ~ TRA , `al N - , fy "'a'p1h~,t, c' /i ~ 'II'l i F , t„ ~ _ ~ ~ I s' „ ~ o v~ a' m ~ m r ~ \ a ~ ~ QY p :r r ~ - .q ~~,I~ ~ a •;j s 'e~ '~r; / / _ F , __.F ~ • • I - . Y; ^ hA "r - / ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ' - / SSE WENT FENCC ~ towline ~ -m-~ ~ / , ~ G~ ~ ~L / ~ 3 v ~ z ~ r ~G ~ ' ~ O 11 ~ ~ ~ ~ to ~ ~ .s` ~ ~ ~ ~ .,t ~ r V` B =SEDIMENT BARRIER ARGUND CATCH BASINS ~ ~ ~ L ~ GRAPHIC SCALF. I Im I•eer I I u,cb - 20 fl 'H.E9fE hCl101Y 7p-00 CCA6TRA'G -l (0 m~. , ,i„~~~", w:~~, m,• ynd 2 2196 .~i'Injl I. nl Iliil I fl'I I I i l I'I I I I I I I I I vlli II!ii I ~'I I i lit !'I I Iii':' ~I i'I I'.I I I Ip I I I'I I ICI l i l l l i l III I I I: III I I'i I I I'I III S I. ;I~~L~Ilwl_III,IIIJ~11~1~114IIII;.ISlli~lls~~ll,il,~il,lle~lll~l~~~llllll I III Illllllil.li •t ~ i u i u f n n n n m i I o u m m n m ~ Ip ~'I -4 -I I I~IP`i11~ 111,'!~I~!III;IILlllllllld~l lei lp:IliiiI III III I'. IP~!I!~PO~~I: Il II~~'li uill'Prn ii'I IIIIII~iI'~IiII;L'Illhll!IIIIIIIIUIIIIIIII!IIIII~I;hIIIIIIiIiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIn~Ilii~iiPlilulrvi~l~ " ' If this notice appaars clem'cr ;han the AU6 2 4 1998 document, the document is of marginal ;uaiiq•' ~ MICROFILMED I•`. ~11I`ll...l,ll.i.fllflla[TI :l 11i 1i'i 1'.Il`.[ 1.Fi.'i: fI" TT1' I! lei}"I`E::E.{.~ +ITG~II I~`~• !1~1~(~f I ,I:,(#~-~l. l,l.l I I.I i #I lit (il E t-l~~#1.~ i#.l i l 11? l-1Tf~ J 1 l~#~~,1~ ~1_I#{ LL 1`l~#1~_ ~11j Crl E. INCN ~ MACE IN CNIN~t -r•n x.. ~ • t 3 l _ r?.^1 q1. 'J9;'. 11 , 12 -13 ~ 14 ~ ~i5 ti ~ Y 14 iB~'.`'Y9 .y~, P.,yy,<:. :ti'' 26 YB -...,IB 39 ~~luhllllllulllii[im6111lllldlllllllullil~uudtlulllll~lllllludi~liliiidllllllluhliilllllhullmduuluullalllu~dulllllllhullim mllllullllllllullllluudulllmdllldNlililll (11111(111~1IIIIUI1~mUllldltulllil If~ fAi~l}(ti(Illllllli l iul W N ~ ¢YWN IWt- tpW4 p Jffi-Z I W - i I , - ' ~fl 1 LL 1 . I W I- 1 f~WQ 0 nl f L ~ 1 \ W L I.- , ' ~ - W a3 1 I 1 7 6 - O • L 1 L r x Ir^ o• N VJ n • °b I c~ ~0 F x 1 1 - e •~y~,~ f~( x •`•s>, VJ K L x x x v a 1 ~ 11 •~)~h JI-p L 1 •~g\ I J~Z x =L/ W ! a x a / t L 1 L. fis ~ -W ~ W I r I ~ ~ ~ i I' e p a 1 1 1 ~ 1 I a , f i 3 i F _ f 1 S I ~ f F = x ~ Y i I 9 G S 7 9 ~ A a I - , 9 ~ _ ~Pr I L ~ p 1• i 3 F c +c,... L \r i ~ ~a. L W W ~ p ~W 1rr 1 /1~ ~ a S x Y ~ ~ ; o _ tV Y. T- 5 , r ~ ° JIB Q .L L ~ I - 1 NJ 5 ~ p 'b L x f II _ J~ o i J~ W 1 B _ 1 I( JN ~ ~N I> i{ 6 ~ s 9/ x c x• I 3 d a e ~ TO I' B 0 Y 1 d I V Q ! 2 L ~ 3 3~ 1 U f ~ p ' ~ ~~i ~ x ~ 2 f '~i • L N! mL ~ i 1 A I ~ ~ 1 ! Orr 1 rll x t'. s a drµ. 1 : p 6 °b, o I~,, ~ 1 V p ~~a~ , ~ 1 ~n• a r p / r d 1 I ~~;1 F f , x n 1. B ~ g {jy l 1 it L t o L 1 D Y L C B lI 1~ 4 x• S .~4 a • d E x L s p A F /lJ~~ I W ' ~1 r. ~ L a ^ b I x s' x rr I:~ _ ~p d L ~ o x LL 1 6 r ~ 9 L 9 ^f d 1 x ImI ~ o s x 's '~~E' p x a I n x ~I1 j l: 0 r B s ~ S x 4 V! I e ml + a S 1 a f ~ 1 ~ 4 tr' J " x 9 9 L 7 ~ 1 ii x - J i t p L 1 1 1 1 9 Y 1 i n ~ ! I ~ 1 x z x ' W t _ _ D G f- ~ - - - ~ ' x 1 e r Y A N x 7 S p nr I ~ /fl C O ~ . ~ ,~Z WN ~W I I~ i NQ ' J V- ~ JN -W I j X na. nmirr apnrac ararcr li:an mr NOV 2 21996 1 ~ ~ Jarmnn:p lnr dna:menl iF of marxinal:Imlily' i 1 1111 1 I l l l l l l l l qlp p 11 I I 111 111 I I I 1 gglu I q1p Ipp I gglp Ipp 1 Ipp~111pi, I glUp~lpp I iplggglp I IIIDUI 111 IU I I I I I I f I i,lllll,,~,1,1,11111111,1,11 111111 ,III I ~ I 3\/i X a. i I i ii iihai udlo mdBUIBIdNilmihoamdoao;ihmlBidoliuodoomldumuuluoullduuuildiolBiBfiilNUdBimoli md1 mdmBiBlfioi iiidiiB Odin mlimu ® r iliutluidiiuiioloolulilimllodla iidiu ~ t11 hfl~ ~ -i ` If this notice appears clearer than the AUG 2 4 1998 acument the document is et' m:u•ginal ;uaiity. I ROTILMED d MIC ~ i - ~ I ~ r ~ ' ~ I ~ t ~f:r~LL . E ttr~~~>:t}>ijllTfTf: l ~ - : i ~ 1 t1i l I f t r,~ i i~tj}r r{i{j{a t{~jl,{I~IjT~rfl >~j?11}q~~ r~:U1?1!1!~1~. {1~1?Ii.. ~ 1 li~l l~ INCX ~ ~NACE IN CI{INk . -r-` - ~ 1 ' t a ^ i e n •t 12 uc+' to t u 1 u t° ~ I I111111~IIIIIfi11Il Iliilllll II QIIII{IIIIIILIIIIUIIIIIi IIIIIIIII mIlml~flllUllllllt(IJi , q I I III(IIIllllllllli I i IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!ul~~lillhitl~lli(~Illiilldtlllllulhllllullh~lullldlul~lallull~~ulluulludlllllllldull~llllll~lllut<Illu~lallllll~lllll •uuhl II 5 • ~ ~ AGENDA ITEM FOR AGENDA OF: Ogtnher 22. 1996 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Tnnr AND CO rRT PUBLIC u n W /UTI1 ITY EASEMENT VACATION 1. Vacation of approximately 4.431 square feet of public right-of-way on Southwest Torland Court and: 2. An -8-foot-wide utility alqn2 the south boundan, of Lot 3 and Jhe north boundary of Lot 4 r I PREPARED BY: William D'Attdrelt DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN I SUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council vacate approximately 4,431 square feet of public right-of-way on SW Torland Court and the majority of an 8-foot-wide public utility easement along the south boundary of Lot 3 and the north boundary of r Lot 4? STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council approve the vacation as requested. " INFORMATION SUMMARY 1 ouncil initiated this vacation at a public meeting held on August 27, 1996 (Res. 96-49). Tom Kenyon and Laura Martin are requesting that the City Council vacate approximately 4,431 square feet of I public right-of-way on SW Torland Court. Southwest Torland Court was created with the recording of Torland Estates Subdivision (SUB 91-0016) on September 30, 1994 and stubs at the property line of tax lot 6200, owned by the applicants. Tar lot 6200 was created with the recording of a two lot partition plat (MLP 94-0005) on May 10, 1994. The partition was approved without requiring extension of SW Torland Court because at the time of the partition application, the subdivision had been in an approved status, but un-built, since 1991. No action had been y., taken to record the subdivision. Mr. Kenyon constructed a single-family detached residence on tax lot 6200. The applicants desire to partition tax lot 6200 to create an additional two lots. City codes require the extension and/or provision of a turnaround for SW Torland Court. A turnaround would render the proposed partition unfeasible given the location of the residence and code standards relating to public street widths. Southwest Torland Court was originally extended to provide the potential to connect to other streets. Given the surrounding development patterns and the applicants desire to partition, the applicant contends that extension of SW Torland Street is not necessary. The applicant requests that approximately 4,431 square feet of SW Torland Court be vacated because the public right-of-way is no longer needed. The 8-foot-wide utility easements were provided with the recording of the Torland Estates subdivision plat. The applicant requests that portions of an 8-foot-wide public utility easement along the south boundary of Lot 3 and the north boundary of Lot 4 be vacated since these easements are no longer needed. An 8-foot easement along the east boundary of the area being vacated will be reserved. i ~ ,kttachmcnts: Exhibit A - (site plan) Exhibit B 1-3 - (legal description) Exhibit C - (vicinity map) is\cityNide\sum\vactor12.sum Page 1 oft 10109/96 9:58 AM F _ S U _ f { , 1 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ,y=l 1. Approve the vacation. 2. Deny the vacation request. 3. Take no action at this time. 1 _ FISCAL NOTES ■ All fees have been paid by the applicant. h. . 3 1 1 t:\crtyw,dc\sum\vactor12.sum Page 2 of 2 10/09/96 9:58 AM w~: a AGENDA ITEM # ! For Agenda of October 22. 1996 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change CPA 96-0006/ZON 96-001- Davis/Foreign Mission PREPARED BY: Laurie Nicholson DEPT HEAD OKA"CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve a comprehensive plan map amendment and zone change on 4.54 acres from Low-Density Residential to Commercial-Professional? j STAFF RECOMMENDATION I The Planning Commission recommended denial of this proposal at its hearing of October, 7 1996. Staff finds that the proposal does not satisfy all relevant comprehensive plan criteria and recommends that i the City Council deny CPA 96-0006/ZON 96-01. INFORMATION SUMMARY The proposed plan map amendment and zone change concerns a parcel located on S.W. Oak Street, i between S.W. Greenburg Road and S.W. Hall Boulevard. The applicant is requesting the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change to construct a 6,000 square foot restaurant and re-orient an already approved hotel on the adjacent parcel. Washington County recommended denial of I j the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change, if the plan amendment is not f conditioned limiting the number of vehicle trips allowed. Staff does not recommend that the City become involved in conditioning plan amendments. Enforcement of conditional plan amendments is difficult; conditional plan amendments add another layer of regulation that the City is currently not prepared to track or enforce. From the legal liability standpoint, a comprehensive plan amendment with conditions can put the City in the position of giving inaccurate information regarding allowed land uses. The applicant's submittal includes a narrative and transportation impact analysis. These are included in the council packet. The staff report and minutes from the Planning Commission's two hearings on the proposal are attached. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED l 1. Approve the proposal and direct staff to return on Nov. 12 with the ordinance and final order for adoption by the council. Deny the proposal and direct staff to return on Nov. 12 with the resolution and final order for doption by the council. . l FISCAL NOES No direct fiscal impact to the city. _n. I i a f. i - - s 11 • i • CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FINAL ORDER A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO AN APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY DR. GENE DAVIS. A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change CPA 96-0006/ZON 96-0001 REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan map and change the zoning from Low-Density Residential (R 4.5) to Commercial- Professional (C-P). APPLICANT: Dr. Gene Davis Foreign Mission 10875 S.W. 89th Tigard, OR 97223 OWNER: Same r, REPRESENTATIVE: Dave Siegal l' W&H Pacific 8405 S.W. Nimbus Avenue Beaverton, OR 97008 LOCATION: Southeast of S.W. Oak Street, east of S.W. 95th, north of Highway 217 (Map 1S1 35AC, Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700, l: 2. Vicinity The affected site is a 4.5-acre parcel which is part of a larger parcel that the applicant wishes to develop. The remaining 9.71 acres are zoned Commercial- Professional (CP). The affected site is generally vacant, except for some single family houses along the southside of S.W. Oak Street. 3800, and 3900) 1 L ( U 3. )background Information i d The subject parcel was annexed to the city in 1987, as part of the South Metzger Community. Washington County zoned this area as Low Density Residential, consequently, the City annexed this area as Low Density Residential (R-4.5) to conform to Washington County's zoning. This site is part of the property that was included in the President's Parkway project, a proposed urban renewal project. When city council approved the plan for the urban renewal project, the site in question and other surrounding properties, were rezoned from Low Density Residential to Commercial Professional. When the urban renewal bond measure for the project failed to obtain voter approval, city council repealed the President's Parkway Urban Renewal Plan on August 2, 1990. Since the general consensus of the neighborhood planning organizations and citizen planning organizations was to change the Plan for the area back to what it was previous to the President's Parkway proposal, the city council subsequently changed the zoning back to Low Density Residential. Their decision to change the zoning back became effective on September 10, 1990. r Site Information and Proposal Description I , The applicant requests a comprehensive plan map amendment from Low Density Residential to C-P (Commercial Professional) and a zone change from R-4.5 to C- P on the 4.54-acre site. A written narrative and transportation analysis have been submitted by the applicant in support of the request. If the proposal is approved, the applicant wishes to develop a restaurant and also this rezoned property will y i allow the applicant to re-orient the already approved motel on the adjacent parcel. l A written narrative and transportation analysis was submitted by the applicant and is included as part of this staff report. 5. Agency Comments i . Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation has commented on this application (Exhibit A), indicating that they do not support the proposed l plan amendment and zone change due to the impacts that the land use change y will have on S.W. Greenburg Road (refer to attached letter dated September, 25 1996). The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has reviewed the applicant's traffic study and has concerns regarding the impacts of the plan amendment and 2 [ e, - - I L.~ J _____I 1 zone change on the surrounding transportation facilities, specifically, the intersection of S.W. Greenburg Road and S.W. Washington Square Road. Their comments are included in a letter dated August 26, 1996 (Exhibit B). Because of the potential impacts of the uses allowed in the C-P zone, they cannot support the plan amendment without conditions; however, they had no concerns with the impacts of the proposed specific development plan on the transportation system. Based on the information received from Washington County and ODOT, the City Engineering Department recommends in a memorandum dated, September 25, 1996, (Exhibit C) that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change be denied. Aside from the transportation issue, Engineering finds the I proposal acceptable with regards to water and sanitary sewer. Storm drainage and storm water quality issues would be addressed during a site design review k application. Metro has sent comments, dated August 27,1996, supporting the proposed plan amendment and zone change (Exhibit D). Ray Valone, of Metro, states that the proposed Davis plan amendment and zone change will help meet the density targets and allow a mix of land uses for this area, which is classified as a Regional Center in Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. The letter also states that Metro currently does not require local jurisdictions to bring comprehensive plans into compliance with regional policies and implementation ! measures. Widmar Pacific, owner and developer of Washington Square, submitted a letter on October 7, 1996 (Exhibit E) supporting staffs recommendation of denial. The letter states that: "[w]hile Winmar continues to be a strong supporter of i . development within the vicinity of the Greenburg Road/Hwy 217 interchange, and we fully expect to continue our committment to development of our Washington Square properties, we also recognize that any such development should be undertaken in a planned manner and with extraordinary regard to the ongoing public facilities and services. The letter also expresses concern that the allowed uses under the Commercial-Professional zone could not be supported by the planned transportation system. i _ I The applicant's representative, Dave Siegal of W&H Pacific, submitted a letter on October 7, 1996 (Exhibit F) including language for a conditional plan amendment. He said that if a condition was placed on the plan amendment limiting the land use, then Washington County'concerns would be addressed and also that the applicant is willing to place a deed restriction on his property that would limit the land uses allowed on the property. 3 L~ J ~.■y Scott King submitted a letter on October 7, 1996 (Exhibit G) to clarify his previous F f letter. The letter outlines conditions that would need to be placed on the plan amendment so that the County could support the plan amendment. His letter states that the plan amendment would have to be conditioned to a specific number I of trips. Pat Whiting of CPO #4 submitted a letter on October 7,1996 (Exhibit 1) supporting staff's recommendation of denial because of potential traffic impacts and environmental impacts. Tri-Met, Tualatin Valley Water District, and the Tigard Police Department had no objections to this land use application. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 5.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1 (3); Community Development Code chapters 18.22, 18.32 and 18,62; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 12. f , 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) The 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 change is not consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies. As i discussed below, policies 8.1.1,12.2.1(3)(2b) and the Oregon Administrative Rule (660-12-060) are not satisfied. The applicant claims b) and c) of this criterion are satisfied in two ways: the increasing levels of traffic congestion, being located in close proximity to intensive ` commercial land uses, and noise represent a change of physical circumstances, and that these physical conditions reflect a mistake in the existing plan j designation and, in addition, this property was zoned from residential to C-P for the presidential parkway project and the zoning was changed back to residential when funding for the project could not be obtained. Furthermore, the applicant questions j the suitability of this area for single family residential development. Staff does not agree with the applicant's argument that increasing levels of traffic and noise represents a change in physical circumstance. The surrounding physical circumstances i.e., Highway 217 and Washington Square were present when the j i 4 f L~ I i properties were annexed to the City of Tigard as residential. The City assigned zoning of Low Density Residential (R-4.5) to the area so that the annexed area j conformed to Washington County's zoning for this area. Since the City of Tigard is growing rapidly, there is probably increasing levels of traffic and noise in many parts of Tigard. If we follow the applicant's logic, many parts of Tigard should be upzoned to commercial because of the increasing traffic and noise. What may be considered unforeseen is the intensity of development in the existing, adjacent areas that are zoned Commercial-Professional. It may not have been anticipated that Lincoln Tower and the Unisys building would be built I adjacent to this Low Density Residential area. The unanticipated development of the high intensity commercial uses, adjacent to the subject site, represents a t change in physical circumstances and this physical change meets the criterion of Policy 1.1.2. Comprehensive Plan policy 11.8.5 placed a condition on the President's Parkway i project which stated: "...If for any reason the President's Parkway Development Plan is not adopted, [t]he City Council will hold a public hearing to determine the course of action regarding land use within the area ...in order to re-evaluate the... Comprehensive Plan Amendment (which changed land designations in the area from Residential to Commercial Professional)." Since the neighborhoods supported changing the zoning back to residential, City Council approved changing the zoning back. Since that time, the area has been designated as part of the Regional Center associated with Washington Square. Although Metro's j Functional Plan has not yet been adopted, the city has agreed with the Regional i Plan designation for this area to this point. Since the area is included in the Regional Center, a physical change has occurred and, therefore, it is a mistake to have Low-Density Single-Family uses in this area. A physical change has occurred and therefore the proposed land use change satisfies this comprehensive 3 plan policy. 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. As previously mentioned, a group of neighbors submitted a letter to staff, dated September 24, 1996, stating their opposition to the proposal (Exhibit E). 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 .5 ` I i i s advertised in a local newspaper. In addition, the applicant provided notice of and conducted a neighborhood meeting on July, 18 1996 for property owners within a 250-foot radius of the affected property and other interested parties, 3. Policy 5.1 states that the city shall promote activities aimed at the diversification of the economic opportunities available to Tigard residents with particular emphasis placed on growth of the local job market. This policy is satisfied because development of the site as a commercial professional use may employ local residents. 4. Policy 5.4 states that the city shall ensure that new commercial and industrial development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial or industrial uses. ; The applicant states that the site should not be considered an area for Low- Density Residential housing for the following reasons: the property was previously approved for redesignation as Commercial Professional,• this neighborhocd has already been severely impacted by adjacent commercial development and nearby roadways; and the redesignation of the subject area may assist redevelopment of underdeveloped parcels in the area. According to the applicant, the rezoned parcel - will make the land use compatible with the adjacent parcel to the west and the land use change would be in conformance with the Region 2040 land use concept which designates this area as a Regional Center. Metro, (Exhibit C) supports this proposed land use change because the Commercial Professional use would be compatible with the Region 2040 Regional Center designation for this area and would become a focus of compact j development and redevelopment. Although Metro currently does not require local compliance with the 2040 plan, the designation of the site as a regional center has been acceptable to Tigard thus far. Since this area is designated for a mix of commercial and employment uses under Metro's plan, staff believes that the applicant has met the requirements of policy 5.4. 5. Policy 6.1.1 states that the city shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This criterion is primarily implemented through the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR i 660-07) which requires the city maintain sufficient residential buildable land to 1 provide the opportunity for at least 50% of new units to be attached single family or multi-family housing and to provide for an overall density of ten units per acre. The proposal does not bring the City out of compliance with the requirements of the housing rule, which applies primarily to attached dwellings. Staff has checked V ~ 6 L~ 4 . ~1 i j data regarding the requirement for housing opportunities and found that the proposal would slightly decrease the housing opportunity for single family detached housing. Therefore, Staff agrees that the applicant has satisfied this policy requirement. 6. Policy 8.1.1 states that the city shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and - development. The findings from the applicant's traffic study are as follows: a. 1999 maximum project site build out with existing zoning is expected to generate approximately 4,694 daily, 636 AM peak hour, and 596 PM peak hour trips. The 1999 maximum project site build out with the proposed y changed zoning is expected to generate approximately 6,900 daily, 896 AM peak hour, and 823 PM peak hour trips. The actual development proposal is estimated to generate 3,450 daily, 365 AM peak hour, and 384 PM peak hour trips. b. All of the signalized intersections under both zoning scenarios would operate at level- of-service (LOS) D or better in 1999. c. The levels of service at all the unsignalized study area intersections are LOS D or better in the AM peak hour for both zoning alternatives. In the PM peak hour, the levels of service are LOS F for all the unsignalized intersections under both zoning alternatives with the exception of the S. W. Greenburg Road/S.W. Oak Street intersection which operates at LOS B under both zoning alternatives. j d. Although all of the study area intersections on S. IN Greenburg Road are projected to operate at LOS D or better in the two build conditions, existing field observations, made by the applicant, indicate that the S. W. Greenburg traffic experiences progression problems through the corridor. These existing problems may be partially alleviated by the S. W. Greenburg Road widening project from the Highway 217 Southbound ramps to Washington ; Square Road. However, signal coordination improvements should still be considered in 1999 with or without the project to further enhance traffic flow. e. All of the study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or i better in 1999 with the actual development, except for the unsignalized intersection of S. IN Hall Boulevard and S. W. Oak Street. In the PM peak hour the eastbound and westbound traffic at this intersection will operate at LOS F. This deficiency is due primarily to the eastbound and westbound left turn movements conflicting with heavy northbound and southbound traffic volumes on S. W. Hall Boulevard. As the delays become significant, traffic will divert to the signalized intersection at S. W. Hall and S. W. Locust Street. j - { r f. The proposed project access is the southern leg of the new intersection that would be created with the extension of S. W. Lincoln Street to S. W. Oak Street. The applicant says that the most efficient design for the project access is two outbound lanes and one inbound lane. The primary affected roads are S.W. Greenburg Road and S.W. Hall Boulevard. S.W. Greenburg Road is under the jurisdiction of Washington County and they have commented regarding this land use change. According to the Washington County Senior Planner, Scott King: ' "...The 1999 analysis [submitted by the applicant] does indicate that in the P.M. peak hour link volumes on Greenburg Road between Washington Square Road and the Highway 217 ramps will exceed the 2005 planned capacity for this link under both the existing and proposed land use r . scenarios with the proposed zoning scenario adding an additional 113 p.m. peak hour trips over the existing zoning (Figs. 15 and 17 from Parametrix t Traffic Study). In addition, the intersection level of service analysis suggests to the County that individual movements at intersections of this link of Greenburg Road (see page 10 and 13 of the Parametrix Traffic Study) will not operate at acceptable levels of service ...[B]ased on the evidence in the record for this request, we find that this request would "significantly affect" the planned capacity, and possibly the acceptable level- i _ of-service of S.W. Greenburg Road. Washington County recommends that y the City either limit this plan amendment to the P.M. peak trip levels identified for the subject site under the R-4.5 land use scenario, wait for the region to develop a transportation system and new level-of-service standard which would allow higher densities under the Region 2040 Concept, or reject this request." j S.W. Hall Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of ODOT and they have commented on this proposal. As previously indicated, the intersection of S.W. Hall Boulevard and S.W. Oak Street will operate at level-of-service F in 1999 for left-turning p movements. According to the applicant this problem can be remedied through E traffic diverting to the signalized intersection of S.W. Hall Boulevard and S.W. Locust Street. Staff discussed this option with Christy Hitchen of ODOT. She i agreed that the diversion of traffic to the S.W. Hall Boulevard and S.W. Locust is _ j an acceptable approach to allow left turns through this intersection. However, the j letter from ODOT stated that the proposed plan amendment and zone change could not be supported because the land use change, without conditions attached, would degrade key intersections in the area. City Engineering concurs with the recommendations forwarded by both Washington County and ODOT and adds that no mitigation has been proposed for j 8 s i; solving the problem with the intersection of S.W. Greenburg Road and Washington Square Road. Based on the concerns raised by Washington County, staff finds that applicant cannot meet Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.1.1, unless the plan amendment and zone change is limited to the number of trips for the proposed development. Placing a condition on the plan amendment and zone change would be difficult to enforce. If the applicant sells the property, there would be no mechanism to 'i ensure that the buyer will put in a use that will not exceed the number of trips ' conditioned on the plan amendment. 7. Policy 8.2.2 states that the city shall encourage the use of public transit by locating land intensive uses in close proximity to transit ways. This policy is satisfied . ct because locating a professional commercial use at the site would support public transit in the Washington Square area. 8. Policy 12.2.1(3) provides the locational criteria for designating land as professional commercial on the plan map. 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 findings are as follows: Z:g (1) Spacing and Location (b) The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. This criterion is satisfied because the triangle shaped site has residential uses on only two sides. The property on the adjacent, west side is zoned Commercial Professional, while the adjacent properties to the north and east are zoned residential. (2) Access (a) The proposed area or expansion of an existing area shall not create traffic conaestion or a traffic safety problem Such a determination shall be based on street capacity, existing and projected traffic volpmac the speed limit number of turning movements and the traffic generating characteristics of the various types of uses. As stated under Finding #7, the applicant cannot meet this criterion. i (3) Site Characteristics i 9 R r- , i 711 (a) The site shall be of a size which can accommodate present and pr jected needs. This criterion is satisfied because the site is large enough, 4.54 acres, to accommodate the applicant's proposed 6,000 square foot restaurant and also to allow the applicant to re-orient the already approved motel on the adjacent parcel. The applicant plans to incorporate parts of the existing wetlands area and other natural features into the proposed site plan. (b) The site shall have high visibilitv. This criterion is satisfied because the southern portion of the property is bounded by Highway 217. (4) Impact Assessment (a) The configuration and characteristics shall be such that the privacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained The ability of the site design to ensure the privacy of adjacent uses would be evaluated during review of a specific development proposal. (b) It shall be possible to incomorate the undue site features into the site design and development plan. The site does have significant wetlands that are part of the city's natural resources inventory. During site design review, - ! the applicant will have to address preservation of wetlands. ! (c) The associated lights noise and activities shall not interfere with adjoining non-residential uses. The potential effects from the noise, lights and activities of a specific project would be evaluated and mitigated during the site development review process. 9. Section 18.32 of the Community Development Code sets forth the procedural j requirements for review of quasi-judicial plan amendments. The application has ' been processed in accordance with code sections 18.32.020, 18.32.050 and 18.32.060; a hearing has been scheduled with both the Planning Commission and City Council according to 18.32.090 (D) and (E); and the requirements for notification of the hearings have been met according to 18.32.130 and 18.32.140. 10. Section 18.22 of the Community Development Code sets forth standards and ' procedures for quasi-juoicial amendments to the plan and zoning district map as follows: 10 r J ' 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 the following standards: 1. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designation: and the change will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare 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 acknowleggment of the comprehensive plgn 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 applicaNe standards of any provision of this code or other ap li abl implementing_prdinance. Code section 18.62 (Commercial Professional District) contains the standards for the C-P zone. The subject site could 1 meet the standards listed under "dimensional requirements" and "additional requirements" for a development. Specific future site development ( improvements would be reviewed through the site development review i and/or subdivision process to ensure consistency with the standards in 1 section 18.62. 4. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or 1 inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the i propee a which is the subject of the development ap lication. See above under B.1. j 11. Oregon Administrative Rule section 660-12-060 requires that plan amendments be consistent with identified function, capacity and level of service of affected transportation facilities. S.W. Greenburg Road is under the jurisdiction of Washington County. Highway 217 and Hall Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of ODOT. Washington County has commented and indicated that the proposal does significantly affect the planned capacity, and possibly the level-of-service for S.W. Greenburg Road. The proposed plan amendment will generate unacceptably high volumes of traffic on S.W. Greenburg Road. 11 j According to ODOT's letter, there are no issues with the function, capacity, and i level of service for Highway 217. The intersection of Hall Boulevard and S.W. Oak will function at an unacceptable level of service in 1999 for eastbound and westbound left turns. The applicant indicated that this problem can be remedied by cars diverting to the intersection of S.W. Hall Boulevard and S.W. Locust Street, which is signalized. Staff asked ODOT engineer Christy Hitchens about this approach and she indicated support because it will have no negative impacts on the intersection of S.W. Hall and S.W. Locust. One potential problem with trips diverting to S.W. Hall and S.W. Locust, however, is that there will be more cut through traffic created in the neighborhood. Because the projected volumes for 1999 are unacceptably high for Greenburg Road, the applicant cannot meet the criteria for the Transportation Planning Rule h (660-12-060). 12. Conclusion The current proposal is a request to amend the comprehensive plan and zoning maps to allow any use under the C-P (Commercial Professional) category. Approval or denial of this request is not contingent upon the impact of a particular commercial use, but whether any use allowed under C-P meets the relevant review criteria listed above. Staff finds that all applicable approval criteria to support a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change have not been satisfied. Comprehensive Plan policies 8.1.1, 12.1.1(3)(2a) and OAR 660-12-060 are not satisfied by the applicant. Though Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 5.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1(2)(1 a) are satisfied for the development of a j 6,000 square foot restaurant, these policies have not been satisfied for all allowable uses under the Commercial Professional category and C-P zoning. Washington County and ODOT could support the plan amendment if it is 4 conditioned to include only the proposed plan for development. Although a conditional plan amendment and zone change would allow the proposed land use change to be in compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule (660-12-060), additional enforcement requirements would be placed during site design review which may be difficult to ensure compliance. City Engineering notes that no method of enforcing a condition of approval has been proposed that would place traffic volume limits on development beyond those permitted by the proposed zoning. Should the property change owners, there would be no mechanism to ensure that the new owner would limit the land use not exceed the trip limit. As indicated in the Washington County letter, the issue is timing. Although the applicant's development meets the local land use criteria and Metro 2040 land use criteria, the transportation system is currently not in place to support the land use. 12 I _=alb I ' ' C. DECISION } The City Council DENIES Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-00062ON 96-0001 based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions. f f.. 1 13 M.... - STAFF REPORT September 30,1996 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TIGARD TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD ' TIGARD, OREGON 97223 - I A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0006 Zone Change ZON 96-0001 REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan from Low Density Residential to Commercial Professional and a Zone Change from R 4.5 to CP. APPLICANT: Dr. Gene Davis , - Foreign Mission Foundation 10875 S.W. 89th Tigard, OR 97223 OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: Southeast of S.W. Oak Street, east of S.W. 95th, north of Highway 217 (Map 1S1 35AC, Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800, and 3900). 2. Vicinity The affected site is a 4.5-acre parcel which is part of a larger parcel that the applicant wishes to develop. The remaining 9.71 acres are zoned Commercial- Professional (CP). The affected site is generally vacant, except for some single family houses along the southside of S.W. Oak Street. On the northwest and east side of the parcel, the adjacent parcels are zoned Low- Density Residential. The southwestern corner of the affected site is zoned i Commercial Professional and is part of the applicant's property. i 1 s _ 6 Washington Square is located west of the site, across S.W. Greenburg Road. Highway 217 is located to the south; S.W. Oak is Street to the north; and S.W. 89th is to the east. Highway 217 is a four-lane, limited access state i highway/freeway, classified as an arterial in Tigard's comprehensive plan. S.W. Oak Street is designated as a minor collector street between S.W. Greenburg t Road and S.W. Lincoln Street, and as a local access street east of S.W. Lincoln Street. S.W.89th is a local access street. S.W. Greenburg Road is under the jurisdiction of Washington county and is designated as a major collector in Tigard's comprehensive plan. `i 3. Background Information F The subject parcel was annexed to the city in 1987, as part of the South Metzger Community. Washington County zoned this area as Low Density Residential, consequently, the City annexed this area as Low Density Residential (R-4.5) to conform to Washington County's zoning. This site is part of the property that was included in the President's Parkway project, a proposed urban renewal project. When city council approved the plan for the urban renewal project, the site in question and other surrounding properties, _ were rezoned from Low Density Residential to Commercial Professional. When the urban renewal bond measure for the project failed to obtain voter approval, city council repealed the President's Parkway Urban Renewal Plan on August 2, 1990. Since the general consensus of the neighborhood planning organizations and citizen planning organizations was to change the Plan for the area back to what it was previous to the President's Parkway proposal, the city council subsequently _ { changed the zoning back to Low Density Residential. Their decision to change the zoning back became effective on September 10, 1990. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The applicant requests a comprehensive plan map amendment from Low Density Residential to C-P (Commercial Professional) and a zone change from R-4.5 to C- P on the 4.54-acre site. A written narrative and transportation analysis have been submitted by the applicant in support of the request. If the proposal is approved, the applicant wishes to develop a restaurant and also this rezoned property will _ allow the applicant to re-orient the already approved motel on the adjacent parcel. I `eat 2 i i t ~ t ' j n 5. Agency Comments j Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation has commented on this application (Exhibit A), indicating that they do not support the proposed i plan amendment and zone change due to the impacts that the land use change j will have on S.W. Greenburg Road (refer to attached letter dated September, 25 t 1996). The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has reviewed the applicant's traffic study and has concerns regarding the impacts of the plan amendment and zone change on the surrounding transportation facilities, specifically, the intersection of S.W. Greenburg Road and S.W. Washington Square Road. Their comments are included in a letter dated August 26, 1996 (Exhibit B). Because of y; the potential impacts of the uses allowed in the C-P zone, they cannot support the plan amendment without conditions; however, they had no concerns with the impacts of the proposed specific development plan on the transportation system. Based on the information received from Washington County and ODOT, the City Engineering Department recommends in a memorandum dated, September 25, 1996, (Exhibit C) that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change be denied. Aside from the transportation issue, Engineering finds the proposal acceptable with regards to water and sanitary sewer. Storm drainage and storm water quality issues would be addressed during a site design review application. Metro has sent comments, dated August 27,1996, supporting the proposed plan f amendment and zone change (Exhibit D). Ray Valone, of Metro, states that the I 1 proposed Davis plan amendment and zone change will help meet the density l t targets and allow a mix of land uses for this area, which is classified as a Regional Center in Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. The letter also states that Metro currently does not require local jurisdictions to bring comprehensive plans into compliance with regional policies and implementation measures. Tri-Met, Tualatin Valley Water District, and the Tigard Police Department had no objections to this land use application. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 5.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1 (3); Community Development Code chapters 18.22, 18.32 and 18.62; and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 12. 3 i 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) The 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 change is not consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies. As discussed below, policies 8.1.1,12.2.1(3)(2b) and the Oregon Administrative Rule (660-12-060) are not satisfied. I The applicant claims b) and c) of this criterion are satisfied in two ways: the increasing levels of traffic congestion, being located in close proximity to intensive commercial land uses, and noise represent a change of physical circumstances, and that these physical conditions reflect a mistake in the existing plan designation and, in addition, this property was zoned from residential to C-P for the presidential parkway project and the zoning was changed back to residential when funding for the project could not be obtained. Furthermore, the applicant questions the suitability of this area for single family residential development. Staff does not agree with the applicant's argument that increasing levels of traffic and noise represents a change in physical circumstance. The surrounding physical circumstances i.e., Highway 217 and Washington Square were present when the properties were annexed to the City of Tigard as residential. The City assigned j zoning of Low Density Residential (R-4.5) to the area so that the annexed area ' conformed to Washington County's zoning for this area. Since the City of Tigard is growing rapidly, there is probably increasing levels of g traffic and noise in many parts of Tigard. If we follow the applicant's logic, many parts of Tigard should be upzoned to commercial because of the increasing traffic and noise. I What may be considered unforeseen is the intensity of development in the existing, adjacent areas that are zoned Commercial-Professional. It may not have j been anticipated that Lincoln Tower and the Unisys building would be built adjacent to this Low Density Residential area. The unanticipated development of the high intensity commercial uses, adjacent to the subject site, represents a change in physical circumstances and this physical change meets the criterion of Policy 1.1.2. 4 t L~ I , 1 Comprehensive Plan policy 11.8.5 placed a condition on the President's Parkway project which stated: "...If for any reason the President's Parkway Development Plan is not adopted, [t]he City Council will hold a public hearing to determine the course of action regarding land use within the area ...in order to re-evaluate the... Comprehensive Plan Amendment (which changed land designations in the area from Residential to Commercial Professional)." Since the neighborhoods supported changing the zoning back to residential, City Council approved changing the zoning back. Since that time, the area has been designated as part of the Regional Center associated with Washington Square. Although Metro's Functional Plan has not yet been adopted, the city has agreed with the Regional Plan designation for this area to this point. Since the area is included in the " Regional Center, a physical change has occurred and, therefore, it is a mistake to I` have Low-Density Single-Family uses in this area. A physical change has occurred and therefore the proposed land use change satisfies this comprehensive plan policy. 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 I surrounding property owners were given notice of public hearings related to the proposal and given the opportunity to comment on the proposal. As previously mentioned, a group of neighbors submitted a letter to staff, dated September 24, r 1996, stating their opposition to the proposal (Exhibit E). The notice for the z 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 . 1 conducted a neighborhood meeting on July, 18 1996 for property owners within a 250-foot radius of the affected property and other interested parties. 3. Policy 5.1 states that the city shall promote activities aimed at the diversification of the economic opportunities available to Tigard residents with particular emphasis i placed on growth of the local job market. This policy is satisfied because development of the site as a commercial professional use may employ local residents. 1 ' 4. Policy 5.4 states that the city shall ensure that new commercial and industrial development shall not encroach into residential areas that have not been designated for commercial or industrial uses. The applicant states that the site should not be considered an area for Low- Density Residential housing for the following reasons: the property was previously I approved for redesignation as Commercial Professional; this neighborhood has { 5 M ~y i already been severely impacted by adjacent commercial development and nearby roadways; and the redesignation of the subject area may assist redevelopment of underdeveloped parcels in the area. According to the applicant, the rezoned parcel will make the land use compatible with the adjacent parcel to the west and the land use change would be in conformance with the Region 2040 land use concept which designates this area as a Regional Center. Metro, (Exhibit C) supports this proposed land use change because the Commercial Professional use would be compatible with the Region 2040 Regional Center designation for this area and would become a focus of compact development and redevelopment. Although Metro currently does not require local compliance with the 2040 plan, the designation of the site as a regional center has been acceptable to Tigard thus far. Since this area is designated for a mix of . commercial and employment uses under Metro's plan, staff believes that the applicant has met the requirements of policy 5.4. 5. Policy 6.1.1 states that the city shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This criterion is primarily implemented through the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07) which requires the city maintain sufficient residential buildable land to provide the opportunity for at least 50% of new units to be attached single family or _ multi-family housing and to provide for an overall density of ten units per acre. The proposal does not bring the City out of compliance with the requirements of the housing rule, which applies primarily to attached dwellings. Staff has checked data regarding the requirement for housing opportunities and found that the proposal would slightly decrease the housing opportunity for single family detached housing. Therefore, Staff agrees that the applicant has satisfied this policy requirement. 6. Policy 8.1.1 states that the city shall plan for a safe and efficient street and f roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. I The findings from the applicant's traffic study are as follows: a. 1999 maximum project site build out with existing zoning is expected to generate approximately 4,694 daily, 636 AM peak hour, and 596 PM peak hour trips. The 1999 maximum project site build out with the proposed changed zoning is expected to generate approximately 6,900 daily, 896 AM peak hour, and 823 PM peak hour trips. The actual development proposal is estimated to generate 3,450 daily, 365 AM peak hour, and 384 PM peak hour trips. j I 6 i d r g b. All of the signalized intersections under both zoning scenarios would operate at level- of-service (LOS) D or better in 1999. c. The levels of service at all the unsignalized study area intersections are j LOS D or better in the AM peak hour for both zoning alternatives. In the PM peak hour, the levels of service are LOS F for all the unsignalized intersections under both zoning alternatives with the exception of the S. W. Greenburg Road/S.W. Oak Street intersection which operates at LOS B under both zoning alternatives. d. Although all of the study area intersections on S. W. Greenburg Road are projected to operate at LOS D or better in the two build conditions, existing field observations, made by the applicant, indicate that the S. W. Greenburg j traffic experiences progression problems through the corridor. These existing problems may be partially alleviated by the S. W. Greenburg Road widening project from the Highway 217 Southbound ramps to Vl'ashington Square Road. However, signal coordination improvements should still be considered in 1999 with or without the project to further enhance traffic flow. e. All of the study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better in 1999 with the actual development, except for the unsignalized intersection of S. IN Hall Boulevard and S. W. Oak Street. In the PM peak hour the eastbound and westbound traffic at this intersection will operate at LOS F. This deficiency is due primarily to the eastbound and westbound left turn movements conflicting with heavy northbound and southbound - traffic volumes on S. IN Hall Boulevard. As the delays become significant, traffic will divert to the signalized intersection at S. IN Hall and S. W. Locust 1 Street. f. The proposed project access is the southem leg of the new intersection that would be created with the extension of S. W. Lincoln Street to S. W. Oak Street. The applicant says that the most efficient design for the project ! access is two outbound lanes and one inbound lane. The primary affected roads are S.W. Greenburg Road and S.W. Hall Boulevard. S.W. Greenburg Road is under the jurisdiction of Washington County and they have commented regarding this land use change. According to the Washington County Senior Planner, Scott King: "...The 1999 analysis [submitted by the applicant] does indicate that in the P.M. peak hour link volumes on Greenburg Road between Washington Square Road and the Highway 217 ramps will exceed the 2005 planned capacity for this link under both the existing and proposed land use scenarios with the proposed zoning scenario adding an additional 113 p.m. peak hour trips over the existing zoning (Figs. 15 and 17 from Parametrix Traffic Study). In addition, the intersection level of service analysis suggests to the County that individual movements at intersections of this 7 J link of Greenburg Road (see page 10 and 13 of the Parametrix Traffic Study) will not operate at acceptable levels of service ...[B]ased on the ii evidence in the record for this request, we find that this request would i "significantly affect" the planned capacity, and possibly the acceptable level- of-service of S.W. Greenburg Road. Washington County recommends that the City either limit this plan amendment to the P.M. peak trip levels identified for the subject site under the R-4.5 land use scenario, wait for the region to develop a transportation system and new level-of-service standard which would allow higher densities under the Region 2040 Concept, or reject this request." I I S.W. Hall Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of ODOT and they have commented on this proposal. As previously indicated, the intersection of S.W. Half Boulevard M and S.W. Oak Street will operate at level-of-service F in 1999 for left-turning movements. According to the applicant this problem can be remedied through traffic diverting to the signalized intersection of S.W. Hall Boulevard and S.W. Locust Street. Staff discussed this option with Christy Hitchen of ODOT. She agreed that the diversion of traffic to the S.W. Hall Boulevard and S.W. Locust is an acceptable approach to allow left turns through this intersection. However, the letter from ODOT stated that the proposed plan amendment and zone change could not be supported because the land use change, without conditions attached, would degrade key intersections in the area. 1 City Engineering concurs with the recommendations forwarded by both Washington County and ODOT and adds that no mitigation has been proposed for solving the problem with the intersection of S.W. Greenburg Road and Washington , Square Road. i. Based on the concerns raised by Washington County, staff finds that applicant j cannot meet Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.1.1, unless the plan amendment and zone change is limited to the number of trips for the proposed development. Placing a condition on the plan amendment and zone change would be difficult to enforce. If the applicant sells the property, there would be no mechanism to } ensure that the buyer will put in a use that will not exceed the number of trips conditioned on the plan amendment. 7. Policy 8.2.2 states that the city shall encourage the use of public transit by locating land intensive uses in close proximity to transit ways. This policy is satisfied j because locating a professional commercial use at the site would support public transit in the Washington Square area. I 8 8. Policy 12.2.1(3) provides the locational criteria for designating land as professional { commercial on the plan map. 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 findings are as follows: (1) Spacing and Location (b) The commercial area is not surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides. This criterion is satisfied because the triangle shaped site has residential uses on only two sides. The property on the adjacent, west side - is zoned Commercial Professional, while the adjacent properties to the k north and east are zoned residential. (2) Access (a) The proposed area or expansion of an existing area shall not create traffic congestion or a traffic safety p[Qblem Such a determination hall be based on 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. As stated under Finding #7, the applicant cannot meet this criterion. (3) Site Characteristics f. (a) The site shall be ofa size which can accommodate present and projected i needs. This criterion is satisfied because the site is large enough, 4.54 Ili acres, to accommodate the applicant's proposed 6,000 square foot restaurant and also to allow the applicant to re-orient the already approved motel on the adjacent parcel. The applicant plans to incorporate parts of the existing wetlands area and other natural features into the proposed site t plan. (b) The site shall have high visibility. This criterion is satisfied because the ' southern portion of the property is bounded by Highway 217. (4) Impact Assessment (a) The configuration and characteristics shall b such that th Eiyacy of adjacent non-commercial uses can be maintained. The ability of the site i i 9 t _ C , r t - J I design to ensure the privacy of adjacent uses would be evaluated during review of a specific development proposal. (b) It shall be possible to incorporate the unique site features into the site design and development pI an The site does have significant wetlands that are part of the city's natural resources inventory. During site design review, the applicant will have to address preservation of wetlands. (c) The associated lights noise an activities hall not interfere with adioinina non-residential uses. The potential effects from the noise, lights and , activities of a specific project would be evaluated and mitigated during the l . site development review process. 9. Section 18.32 of the Community Development Code sets forth the procedural' requirements for review of quasi-judicial plan amendments. The application has been processed in accordance with code sections 18.32.020, 18.32.050 and 18.32.060; a hearing has been scheduled with both the Planning Commission and City Council according to 18.32.090 (D) and (E); and the requirements for notification of the hearings have been met according to 18.32.130 and 18.32.140. 10. Section 18.22 of the Community Development Code sets forth standards and i procedures for quasi-judicial amendments to the plan and zoning district map as follows: 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 the following standards: 1. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and-map designation- any the i s change will not adv r iy affect the health safety and welfare of the i community. The applicable plan policies related to the proposal are reviewed above under section B (Findings and Conclusions). 2. The statewide 12-lanning goals adopted under Oregon Revised Stat rtes i Chapter 197 until a knoyledgment of the comprehensive plan and ordinates. 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. i 10 ! 1 l~ . t a I , ' i ~ 3. The applicable standards of any provision of his code or other applicable 1 implementing ordinance. Code section 18.62 (Commercial Professional District) contains the standards for the C-P zone. The subject site could meet the standards listed under "dimensional requirements" and "additional requirements" for a development. Specific future site development improvements would be reviewed through the site development review and/or subdivision process to ensure consistency with the standards in section 18.62. 4. Fvirlanro of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or - inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the I" ft which is the subject of the development application. See above prop under B.1. 11. Oregon Administrative Rule section 660-12-060 requires that plan amendments be consistent with identified function, capacity and level of service of affected transportation facilities. S.W. Greenburg Road is under the jurisdiction of Washington County. Highway 217 and Hall Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of ODOT. r. Washington County has commented and indicated that the proposal does _ significantly affect the planned capacity, and possibly the level-of-service for S.W. Fo: Greenburg Road. The proposed plan amendment will generate unacceptably high volumes of traffic on S.W. Greenburg Road. According to ODOT's letter, there are no issues with the function, capacity, and level of service for Highway 217. The intersection of Hall Boulevard and S.W. Oak will function at an unacceptable level of service in 1999 for eastbound and westbound left turns. The applicant indicated that this problem can be remedied by cars diverting to the intersection of S.W. Hall Boulevard and S.W. Locust Street, which is signalized. Staff asked ODOT engineer Christy Hitchens about this approach and she indicated support because it will have no negative impacts on the intersection of S.W. Hall and S.W. Locust. One potential problem with trips ! . diverting to S.W. Hall and S.W. Locust, however, is that there will be more cut through traffic created in the neighborhood. j Because the projected volumes for 1999 are unacceptably high for Greenburg Road, the applicant cannot meet the criteria for the Transportation Planning Rule (660-12-060). 12. Conclusion i' i i I 11 - 1 i The current proposal is a request to amend the comprehensive plan and zoning maps to allow any use under the C-P (Commercial Professional) category. Approval or denial of this request is not contingent upon the impact of a particular commercial use, but whether any use allowed under C-P meets the relevant review criteria listed above. Staff finds that all applicable approval criteria to support a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change have not been satisfied. Comprehensive Plan policies 8.1.1, 12.1.1(3)(2a) and OAR 660-12-060 are not satisfied by the applicant. Though Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2(2), 2.1.1, 5.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.2.2 and 12.2.1(2)(1 a) are satisfied for the development of a 6,000 square foot restaurant, these policies have not been satisfied for all allowable uses under the Commercial Professional category and C-P zoning. l Washington County and ODOT could support the plan amendment if it is conditioned to include only the proposed plan for development. Although a conditional plan amendment and zone change would allow the proposed land use change to be in compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule (660-12-060), additional enforcement requirements would be placed during site design review f which may be difficult to ensure compliance. City Engineering notes that no I method of enforcing a condition of approval has been proposed that would place traffic volume limits on development beyond those permitted by the proposed zoning. Should the property change owners, there would be no mechanism to ensure that the new owner would limit the land use not exceed the trip limit. As indicated in the Washington County letter, the issue is timing. Although the applicant's development meets the local land use criteria and Metro 2040 land use criteria, the transportation system is currently not in place to support the land use. C. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council for DENIAL of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 96-0001 and Zone Change ZON 96-0001. At the October 7, 1996 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted 5-1 to DENY the application. Section 18.32.280 of the Community Development Code states that an application that has been denied may resubmit for the same or similar proposal, without a time limitation, if there is a substantial change in facts or a change in City policy which would change the outcome. Staff believes this section of the code applies to the applicant because the revision of Metro's level-of-service could change the evaluation of the traffic impacts of the applicant's proposal. When this revision occurs or when Metro's Regional Transportation Plan is updated, staff 12 i s F g _ ~ J 1 recommends that the applicant consider re-submittal of the plan amendment and zone change. i I- _ r. ,I -i 1 13 WASHINGTON COUNTY . w OREGON I September 25, 1996 I Lori Nicholson City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 i RE: CPA 96.006/ZON 96-0001 DAVIS FOREIGN MISSION ~ e Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this plan amendment request. As you are aware, County staff has only had a couple of days to review the materials in this request. The request seeks to change a 4.54 acre site currently designated R-4.5 (Low Density Residential) to Commercial Professional (CP). j When reviewing the potential Impacts to the County road system from plan amendment requests under i1 OAR 660-12-060, Washington County requires a comparative reasonable worst case traffic analysis for both the existing plan designation and the proposed plan designation. This traffic analysis should be based on the year 2005, which is the planning horizon for the County Transport ation Plan. In this case, SW Greenburg Road is a County minor arterial which is also included as part of the countywide road system. The reasonable worst case land use assumptions for this analysis appear to be acceptable for this analysis, however the year 1999 planning year does not fully address the potential impacts to the County's planned transportation system. Nevertheless, the 1999 analysis does indicate that in the P.M. 7 peak hour link volumes on Greenburg Road between Washington Square Road and the Hwy 217 ramps will exceed the 2005 planned capacity for this link under both the existing and proposed land use scenarios with the proposed zoning scenario adding an additional 113 p.m. peak hour trips over the existing zoning (Figs. 15 and 17 from Parametrix Traffic Impact Study). In addition, the Intersection level of service analysis suggests to the County that Individual movements at intersections of this link of Greenburg Road (see page 10 and 13 of the Parametrix Traffic Impact Study) will not operate at acceptable levels of service. Finally, Section VII of the plan amendment application (Discussion of . Transportation and TPR Issues) from Wilsey & Ham has no analysis or discussion about impacts to Greenburg Road. We understand that this proposal may be consistent with the 2040 "Regional Center' designation for this area regarding land use density, however, the region has yet to define what the acceptable transportation system Is to support these densities. While the Count supports the idea of increased densities in the region to offset the need to add additional lands within the IJGB, we also believe that the region and local governments need to know what the impacts of the increased density will be as it relates to a functional transportation system. Until the future transportation Issues are settled, local governments are legally bound by their acknowledged comprehensive plans and current state laws. The current regional level of service standard from the Regional Transportation Plan, which plan amendments must be measured against, continues to be at the "D/E" boundary. Based on requirements of OAR 660- 12-060 and the findings above, this proposal would "significantly affect" the planned transportation system, especially the planned capacity SW Greenburg Road. Metro, is currently In a planning process which will seek to define a new regional level of service standard by which plan amendments to implement the 2040 Growth Concept may be measured. Based on the ongoing regional transportation _ +°O planning efforts, we believe it would be in the best interests of all affected parties to delay final action on Department of Land Use & Transportation " Planning Division 155 N First Avenue, Suite 350.14, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 Phone: (503) 640.3519 " f m (503) 693-4412 i any plan amendments where transportation is "significantly affected' until the long range planning efforts are complete. At that time, plan amendments can be evaluated against the future vision for the area. is* i In conclusion, based on the evidence in the record for this request, we find that this request would 'significantly affect" the planned capacity, and possibly the acceptable level-of-service of SW Greenburg Road. Washington County recommends the City either limit this plan amendment to the P.M. peak trip levels Identified for the subject she under the R-4.5 land use scenario, wait for the region to develop a transportation system and new level-of-service standard which would allow higher densities under the Region 2040 Concept, or reject this request. _ l - If you have any questions, please call me at 681-3961. r; Scott Kin 9 Senior Planner c: Mark Brown 1 ' 7-7 77 f EXHIBIT ra t September 27, 1996 ( ) City of Tigard DEPARTMENT OF 1 Planning Division TRANSPORTATION 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 - Region 1 Att: Nels Mickaelson PLA9-2A-TIG Re: CPA96-006/ZC96-0001: Davis/Foreign Mission FILECODF.: Thank you for providing ODOT the opportunity to participate in the review of this proposed zone change. Our comments are as follows: • The subject property is located in close proximity to the OR 217- Greenburg Road interchange. According to the Oregon Highway Plan (1991), OR 217 is classified as a highway of Statewide significance. The management objective for OR 217 is to "provide for safe and efficient high to moderate-speed operations with limited interruptions of flow in urban and urbanizing areas." The Hall Boulevard section of the Beaverton-Tualatin Highway (Hall Boulevard) is also a state facility in this vicinity. • Our staff traffic analyst has reviewed the traffic report submitted " by Parametrix. As the attached memo by Kristy Hitchen summarizes, projected levels of service at several key intersections in the area would be at or above LOS D under the Background and Existing Zoning l scenarios. The Re-zoning scenario, however, shows that the most l` intensive uses allowed under Tigard's CP zoning would further degrade the level of service at several key intersections in the study area. • Therefore, ODOT cannot support a comprehensive plan amendment/zone change for Parcel B at this time. However, we would support the plan amendment if a condition were to be placed upon this land use change limiting its application to the land use proposed in the current application. I Please call me at 731-8282 if you have further questions regarding the i above. Aya en, Pl er Development Review cc: Kristy Hitchen, Trans. Analyst, ODOT Region 1 Robert Schmidt, Engr. Coord., ODOT District 2A Laurie Nicholson, Planner, ODOT Region 1 1 encl: 1 ]23 NW Flanders - Portland, OR 972094037 734-1st p t-elt (503) 731-8200 FAX (503) 731-8259 1 t rah August 26, 1996 oo (o /z G 76 -coo cPR 96 - i INTEROFFICE To: Evelyn Rayfield MEMO From: Christy Hitchen Subject: Davis Property Zone Change % 1 have reviewed the Davis-Foreign Mission Foundation Rezone Traffic Impact Study prepared by Parametrix, Inc., July 1996. The analysis accessed the transportation impacts related to a comprehensive plan and zone designation for a 4.54-acre piece of property north of Highway 217 and east of Greenburg Road. The project site consists of two adjacent parcels, Parcel A and Parcel B. The southern Parcel A is 9.71 acres and zoned commercial. The northern Parcel B is 4.54 acres with a residential zoning. The current project site plan calls for the rezone of Parcel B from residential to commercial. The traffic analysis performed by Parametrix used HCM methodologies to evaluate intersection level of service. While this is an acceptable methodology to analyze operating conditions, ODOT generally requests that volume to capacity ratios be reported in addition to average delay. Using the Signalized Intersection Analysis Program (Sigcap) and the 1999 traffic volumes for the Background, Existing Zoning, and Rezoning scenarios I performed additional analysis on all of the signalized intersections within the study area and determined that they will operate at or above a LOS D under the Background and Existing Zoning scenarios. However, under the Rezoning scenario, the Greenburg/ Washington Square intersection will operate at a LOS E (.93) during the p.m. peak period. The unsignalized intersection analysis revealed that the Hall Boulevard/ Oak Street intersection's stop controlled movements will operate at LOS F under the Background scenario. The report concluded that the left and through movements from Oak Street would divert to the less congested signal at Locust Street/Hall Boulevard. Under this assumption the Locust Street/Hall Boulevard intersection will continue to operate at acceptable level of service in year b 1999. The 1999 future traffic conditions without the project (Background scenario) were estimated by determining the trip generation and distribution characteristics related to the development of 80 to 90 I percent buildout of the vacant property in the study area. These volumes were consistent with the j projected traffic volumes used in the Highway 217/Greenburg Interchange analysis recently performed by 3 ODOT. The 1999 maximum project site buildout with existing zoning is expected to generate approximately 4,694 daily, 636 AM peak hour, and 596 PM peak hour trips. The 1999 maximum project site build out with the proposed changed zoning is expected to generate approximately 6,900 daily, 896 AM peak hour, and 823 PM peak hour trips. The actual development proposal is estimated to generate 3,450 daily, 365 AM peak hour, and 384 PM peak hour trips. If the site is developed to its maximum allowable under the commercial zoning it appears that mitigation may be needed at the Greenburg/Washington Square intersection to maintain an acceptable 1999 LOS. However, if the site is developed as proposed under the commercial zoning ( 300 room hotel, 125 room all suites hotel, and a 6,000 gsf restaurant) then the traffic impacts to Greenburg Road and the Highway 217 interchange are expected to be less than those under the existing allowed zoning. If you have any question, please feel free to contact me at 731-8220. - j II l~ I. 1 EXHIBrr C MEMORANDUM j CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DATE: September 25, 1996 j TO: Laurie Nicholson, Planning Division j FROM: Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer RE: CPA 96-0006/ZON 96-0001, DR. GENE DAVIS/FOREIGN I MISSION i Description: This request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan map on Tax Lots 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800 and 3900, WCTM 1S1 35AC, located southeast of Oak Street, east of SW 95th Avenue, from Low Density Residential to Commercial Professional and a Zone Change from R 4.5 to CP. I j. f. Findings: 1. Streets: This site is south of and adjacent to SW Oak Street and northeast of and 'r adjacent to Highway 217. The entrance to this site will likely come from a ` southern extension of SW Lincoln Avenue to Oak Street. A southern extension of Lincoln Avenue is depicted on the City's Transportation Map. SW Oak Street is classified as a minor collector street between SW Greenburg Road and SW Lincoln Avenue. East of Lincoln Avenue, SW Oak is classified as a local residential street. t> SW Lincoln Avenue is classified as a minor collector street connecting Oak and Locust Streets. A traffic impact study was prepared by Parametrix, Inc., dated July 1996. The report analyzed local intersections that may be impacted by this zone change. The study considered the following intersections: * SW Greenburg Road/SW Locust Street (signalized) * SW Greenburg Road/Washington Square Road (signalized) * SW Greenburg Road/Highway 217 NB ramps (signalized) * SW Greenburg Road/Highway 217 SB ramps (signalized) ENGINEERING COMMENTS CPA 96-0006/ZON 96-0001 Davis PAGE 1 i l SW Hall Boulevard/SW Locust Street (signalized) 1 * SW Locust Street/SW Lincoln Street (unsignalized) * SW Greenburg/SW Oak Street (unsignalized) * SW Hall Boulevard/SW Oak Street (unsignalized). ( The traffic impact study has been reviewed by ODOT and Washington { County staff. Under build out conditions with the existing zoning, 1999 traffic predictions indicate most intersections in the area will operate at level of service (LOS) of D or better, which is typically acceptable. One exception to this is the intersection of SW Oak and SW Hall Boulevard, which is an unsignalized intersection and will experience LOS of F during the PM peak. However, the study indicates that vehicles could divert to the SW Locust Street/Hall Boulevard intersection where there is a signal and the level of service would remain acceptable (D or better). Comments received from ODOT staff indicate this would be acceptable. Another intersection that will experience problems in at SW Lincoln Street and SW Locust Street. During the PM peak, this intersection will have a LOS F for the northbound approach. Considering the maximum allowable site build out under the proposed zone change (most intense allowable uses), the report indicates no change in LOS between existing zoning and proposed. However, ODOT staff disagreed with the methodology of the traffic study because Parametrix only considered vehicle delay in determining level of service. ODOT typically analyses volume-to-capacity ratios. ODOT performed an additional analysis on the intersections and found that with the zone change, the intersection of Greenburg and Washington Square Road will f operate at LOS E during the PM peak. ODOT is concerned about this t i impact and stated that if the site were developed as per the applicant's intentions, the traffic impact is expected to be less than under maximum f allowable conditions. ODOT would support the zone change if the City i can place a condition of approval on the zone change to guarantee that the site is developed per the applicant's proposal. A Washington County review resulted in similar conclusions by finding that the proposed zoning would add 113 P.M. peak hour trips over the traffic volume expected from the existing zoning that already exceeds the planned capacity of Greenburg Road between Washington Square Road and Highway 217. The County recommended that the application not be currently approved unless P.M. peak trip levels are limited to those expected from the existing zoning. i j ENGINEERING COMMENTS CPA 96-0006/ZON 96-0001 Davis PAGE 2 1 7: No method of enforcing a condition of approval has been proposed that would place traffic volume limits on development beyond those permitted by the proposed zoning. Moreover, no improvements to mitigate the effects of the increased traffic have been proposed. 2. Water: There are existing public water lines in this area that will adequately serve this development. 3. Sanitary Sewer: The existing sanitary sewer system in this area is expected to adequately serve this development. Sewer demands for commercial development is expected to be less than demands from residential development. 4. Storm Drainage: Upon development, the applicant will be required to provide a drainage basin study and storm plan for the development. A downstream analysis will be required to determine if there will be any adverse impacts from the development. Staff does not expect the storm drainage impact to be significantly different because of the zone change. 5. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 91-47, as amended by R&O 91-75) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. Upon development, the applicant will be required to provide on-site water quality facilities as required by R&O 91-47. commendation: Based on the traffic concerns expressed in the comments received from ODOT and Washington County staff, it is recommended the CPA and zone change be denied. • i ENGINEERING COMMENTS CPA 96-0006/ZON 96-0001 Davis PAGE 3 i ~I i r.7f ` 111 i rte' c_l:.._:.... 5_.~.~., o._ ..1 APPROVED: n Greg Berry, Acting City Engineer t IIENG3 RIAWCOMMENTSICPA96-06. BDR i f l s t Sw• 04 w 4, E ENGINEERING COMMENTS CPA 96-0006/ZON 96-0001 Davis PAGE 4 a • * • 6 0 0 NOR)R EA Si GR4N0 AVENUE I POR IIAN O. OREGON II111 1136 ' iEl 60l )91 1)00 A% 50) ]9) 1)9] - M ETRO August 27, 1996 Mr. Nels Mickaelson ii City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard - Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Nels: d - Re: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0006/Zone Change ZON 96- 0001 (Davis/Foreign Mission) i Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change on the Dr. Davis property. The subject property is located in the Washington Square area. The 2040 Growth Concept identifies this area as a Regional Center. As such, the area would become a focus of compact development, redevelopment and high-quality transit service serving the southwest metropolitan region. 9 While Metro does not, at present, require compliance of local comprehensive plans to regional policies, implementation measures for regional goals and objectives, including the Regional Center design type, are currently being considered by the Metro Council. The Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, which contains these measures, will i recommend and require changes to city and county comprehensive plans and ordinances to accommodate the design concepts. The Plan is scheduled to be adopted by the Metro Council in October of this year. 1 According to the August 6 draft of the Functional Plan, local comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances shall permit a target density of 60 persons per acre for housing and employment in the Regional Centers. The Davis proposal to rezone 4.5 acres from Low Density Residential to Commercial Professional would support the Regional Center designation, helping the City to meet the target density for this area. Metro supports efforts to allow land uses that provide a variety of goods and services while increasing employment opportunities in compact centers. In addition, design elements that better serve pedestrian, bicycle and transit travel are key factors for the implementation of the 2040 Growth Concept. IL Mr. Nels Mickaelson City of Tigard August 27, 1996 Page 2 The conclusions in this review of CPA 96-0006/ZON 96-0001 are preliminary to adoption of the Functional Plan requirements. The 2040 Growth Concept states regional policies that only become directly applicable to comprehensive plans upon adoption of Functional i { Plan provisions. Tigard remains responsible for the compliance of its adopted plans and zoning with applicable functional requirements. i If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at 797-1808. Sincerely, Ray Valone Associate Regional Planner Growth Management Services 1AGM\ RV/erb I:\GM\VALONE\TIGDRESP.LTR _ I cc: Larry Shaw Mary Weber I i i. f RECD OCT 09 1995 WINMAR PACIFIC, INC. 700 FIFTH AVENUE Telephone: (206) 223.4500 ! 2600 GATEWAY TOWER Reply to: P.O. Box 21545 ! _ SEATTLE, WA 98104-5026 Seattle, WA 98111-3545 - October 7, 1996 Tigard Planning Commission V L7, Tigard Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 i Re: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment - CPA 96-0006 1 Zone Change ZON 96-001 Davis/Foreign Mission Foundation Dear Commissioners: On behalf of Winmar Pacific, Inc. ("Winmar"), I offer these comments in opposition to the above- referenced application. As you may know, Willmar is the owner and developer of Washington Square and, accordingly, has extensive economic and real property interests which would be wl- substantially affected by this proposal. I would request that these written comments be made a y. part of the Commissions record in this proceeding. We have come to learn of this proposed map amendment application only recently and we have yet to review the entire file in detail. Nonetheless, our preliminary review of the proposal, f . together with the staff report, lead us to urge the Commission to support the staff recommendation of denial of the application in its present form. While Winmar continues to be a strong supporter of development within the vicinity of the Greenburg Road/Highway 217 interchange, and we fully expect to continue our commitment to development of our Washington Square properties, we also recognize that any such development should be undertaken in a planned manner and with extraordinary regard to the ongoing availability of public facilities and services. ! E As the staffs for the City of Tigard, Washington County and the Oregon Department of f Transportation have indicated, the existing transportation system servicing this site and surrounding properties such as Washington Square cannot accommodate additional development of the magnitude to be allowed under this designation. While the applicant insists that the purpose of the proposal is to develop a restaurant and allow re-orientation of an otherwise approved motel on the adjacent parcel, it is apparent that the full intensity of allowed uses, coupled with the extraordinary number of associated new vehicular trips onto the system, which would be allowed under this proposal, must serve as the basis for any determination of compliance with applicable comprehensive plan and ordinance criteria. As, once again, the staff I report confirms, such infrastructure capacity is not available at t11e present time and there are no i - .w i` i Tigard Planning Commission October 7, 1996 Page 2 solutions offered to resolve these deficiencies. As a result, we believe that the Commission has no choice but to reject the application based on the information made available at this time. It is apparent to all involved that the subject site and surrounding properties owned or formerly owned by the applicant are ideally situated for redevelopment. It is also apparent, however, that I any approach toward such development should follow a master plan model which serves to link f ; projected development with needed infrastructure improvements. Regardless of whether this is accomplished on a phasing or other basis, we strongly believe that any decision to move forward with piecemeal applications of this nature will lead to unforeseen cumulative impacts which can only serve to diminish the current level of service available to existing properties and otherwise discourage development of this designated regional center, Given the tenuous level of service available today and the ability to coordinate the type and location of development on this large single tract of vacant land, we believe that the City and the region as a whole should demand master planning as the only viable approach. To this end, we respectfully request that the Commission reject the current application under review. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments and please do not hesitate to have your staff contact me if you have any questions regarding our position. Otherwise, I would appreciate y it if we could continue to be apprised of subsequent hearings before the Planning Commission and i, i the City Council pertaining to this proposal. i. Very truly yours, WIN MAR P R IC, C. /Ili. Ramey K e { JMgpk E i cc: Ms. Laurie Nickleson Mr. William Monahan Mr. Steven L. Pfeiffer Mr. Jack Reardon MMMW~ -I'M F-71' PACIFIC 8405 SAV. Nimbus Avenue Beawrion. OR 9 7008-7 1 2 0 . October 7, 1996 i City of Tigard Planning Commissioners 4 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-0006 Zone Change ZON 96-0001 The purpose of this letter is twofold: 1. To "bring you up to speed" on recent activities concerning the request of Dr. Davis to change the plan and zoning designation of approximately 4.5 acres from "residential" to "commercial professional"; and 2. To request the Commission to recommend approval of the proposal, with a condition limiting the future use of the property. On Friday, September 27th, I learned that my client's (Dr. Davis) request for a zone and plan change had received a staff recommendation for denial. According to the report (and subsequent visits and conversations with staff), staff's concerns center around 1) the potential impact of the plan/zone change upon the transportation system; and 2) the granting of a plan/zone change with conditions. I believe there is a way to satisfy both the needs of Dr. Davis and of the city staff: By way of background regarding recent actions taken to address staff's concerns, staff has received a new letter from Washington County (October 7, 1996, copy attached) clarifying their earlier review of the proposal, and indicating no concern with the proposed change, if conditioned to limit the future uses to those less intensive as proposed by the applicant (uses related to the operation of a hotel and restaurant, see Option A, county's letter) . This is similar to the comment offered by the Oregon Department of Transportation in their review of the proposal. In addition, I met with city staff on Thursday, October 3, to explore the potential for granting a plan/zone change with conditions limiting 1 future use, a course of action used by many communities. Staff was very helpful, but indicated their concerns over the tracking of such conditions. Staff asked if Dr. Davis might be willing to consider recording a deed restriction against the property, so that the responsibility for enforcing the future use of the property would fall upon him. Dr. Davis has considered this suggestion, and is willing to record a deed restriction governing future use of the property, as suggested by staff. Given that the two areas of concern to City staffhave been addressed, it appears that the reasons for a recommendation of denial have been resolved, and that approval is appropriate. Accordingly, it is requested that the Commission recommend granting of the requested plan/zone change, under the condition that subsequent future development of the property be limited to a hotel, restaurant, associated access, parking and landscaping, and commercial uses in support of hotel, restaurant and nearby office uses. I'll look forward to discussing this issue with you at the public hearing. Thank you for your consideration. Sihperely, W&f~jj PACIF,17>E= i Da M egcl, AI P Beni <ProjectManagcr Attachment I _ (503) 616-0455 Fax (503) 526-0775 Planning • Engineering • Surveying • Landscape Architecture • Environmental Services ~ V~-I di '7c ¢Jl~~-irn wnw ~ru i.. ~:JL• innn,:,r ~ - I WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON October 7, 1996 VIA FAX Lori Nicholson City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: CPA 96-006/ZON 960001 DAVIS FOREIGN MISSION I am sending this letter as a supplement to my letter of September 25, 1996, regarding the above noted . land use action. The recommendation in that letter Is based on our analysis of the traffic impacts associated with the reasonable worst case land use assumptions for both the existing and proposed land use districts on the 4.54 acre Davis she. Our recommendation was not based on the applicant's stated proposal for actual development of the total site If the plan amendment Is successful. Based on the land use and trip generation data Included on es Traffic Analysis where peg 25 through 27 of the t potential trip generation Is compared to the applicant's development plans, , the County would support this plan amendment R the City is willing to limit the plan amendment as follows: j a) Limit development of the total project site (Parcel A - 9.71 ac. and Parcel B - 4.54 ac.) to 596 PM ff peak hour trips. f - This trip rate reflects the worst case development of the entire 14.25 acre site under the existing land use designations and is substantially higher than the irlps associated with the applicant's specific development proposal descr/bed on pages 25 and 27 of the 4 Paramefrix Traffic Analysis (300 room hotel, 125 room all suites hotel, and 6,000 gsf restaurant, or 384 PM peak hour trips). OR I b) Limit development of Parcel B (4.54 ac) to 38 PM peak hour trips. This trip rate reflects the worst case development of Parcel B (4.54 ac) under the existing land use designation. Either of these scenarios will ensure that traffic impacts associated with this plan amendment request will not 'significantly affect' SW Greenburg Road. If you have any questions please call me at 681-3961. l Scott King Senior Planner i c: Mark Brown V Dave Siegel Department of Land Use & IYansportation - Planning Division 155 N First Avenue. Susie 350-14. MUsboro, OR 97124-3072 phone: (503) 6403519 - fax: (503) 693-4412 _J CPO 4-M Steering Comm. c/o Pat Whiting, Chair Ward Rader, Vice-Chair II 7617 SW Cedarcrest 1 Portland, Ore. 97223 October 7, 1996 1 Tigard Planning Commission c/o City of Tigard 1 Tigard City HaLL 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 96-0006/zone change(ZON) 96-0001 Dear Planning Commission: M CP04-M (Citizen Participation Organization 4-M) Steering Committee has received the public Hearing notice for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment located southeast of Oak Street, east of S.W. 95th from Low Density Residential to Commerical Professional with a I zone change from R4.5 to CP. I-. This area is part of an important system of water r channeling, wet land and a flood plain. Attached is a proposed map showing the Fanno Creek and Ash Creek system and the Ash Creek Wetland. To the north and west of this land is an elementary school, resident homes, aioffice commerical area and Washington Square Shopping Center. Currently, traffic in this and surrounding residential areas has developed i into a major problem with commuters attempting to avoid Hwy 217 and Hall Blvd to travel to and from Barber and Hwy I-5. The proposal before you does not take into consideration the importance of retaining this area in a low density and use for the necessary wetland. Downhill Properties in Tigard such as Toys Are Us and other businesses not to mention other surrounding properties in the Metzger Area now have major water flooding problems. Therefore, we are opposed to this zone change and request that USA which is conducting a major Fanno Creek Watershed and Ash Creek Study and the governmental agencies responsible for traffic management review this area before any zone change is considered, We respectfully request that this letter be entered into the record the evening of October 7, 1996 at the Planning Commission Meeting, Thank you, ei~a Whiting c/o Steering Comm. f E _ e+ ..mot t I I i - II . / -I + 1111 I g j1t r BEAVER 1 JJJ f to i + n,nP7 , Faaao Creek Watershed Flu e Middle Sarno Creek and Ash Creels 1°1 40 m ® t° OCi'. 22, 1996 CPO 4-M Steering Comm. AGaRXiUMM#7 c/o Pat Whiting, Chair j Ward Rader, Vice Chair/Sec. 7617 SW Cedarcrest 1 October 22, 1996 Tigard City Council City of Tigard Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 96-0006/Zone Change (ZON) 96-0001 1 Dear Council Members: . u CPO 4-M (Citizen Participation Organization) Steering Committee has received the Public Hearing Notice for the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment 96-0006 & Requested Zone Change 96-0001. The proposal before the Council is a request j'. to change low density residential to commercial professional from R 4.5 to CP. This area is part of an important system of water channel- } ing, wet land and flood plain. In the early 1990's A Tigard City j Hearings Officer, in her deliberation and investigation, found I this area to be in need of wetland interaction and imposed conditions. Attached is a recently proposed map showing the Fanno Creek and Ash Creek system and the Ash Creek Wetland. {I It is the down-hill area of the Fanno Creek Watershed area. i USA is looking at this area in response to the need to manage flooding problems in the surrounding area including down-hill businesses in the City. We received this information at the USA open house meeting. It is a study being reviewed by Kurahasi j & Associates, Inc. in Tigard, Oregon. Also, to the North one block of this site is the Tigard School District 23J Metzger Elementary. Many children walk i throughout this area which is surrounded on three sides by residential housing. To the west is an office commercial area and Washington Square Shopping Center. With the configuration of I-5, Hwy 217, Barbur & Pacific Hwy heavy traffic problems are no longer grid-lock at rush hour. The traffic problem is major throughout the day and, consequently, commerical traffic is cutting through residential areas in Tigard and in the Metzger Community. Given the need for a major traffic study of the area, the need to better manage water flooding problems affecting surrounding residential and business properties, the need for mitigation enforcement and control of commercial traffic through residential neighborhoods and the need to accommodate 4 the safety of children in relation to the Elementary School site regarding walking and bicycling, CPO 4-M respectfully opposes the proposed zone change before you. Please enter our letter into your records. Thank you. Pat Whiting c/o Steering Comm. A R e ~ I L ncaPp ~ , . NI - 1.x.0 \ A ~ r r y~ i Fanno Creek Watershed - Middle ranno Creek and Ash Creek KURAHASIH FANNO CREEK WATERSHED PLANNING Qptions - Middle Fanno and Ash Creek Map Project Number / Stream Reach Comments Middle Fanno Creek F-13 Greenway Park, Kali Center Wetland; Fanno Creek Park Plant native vegetation in riparian corridor and pond edge Stabilize stream banks that threaten structures ! trails Increase floodplain storage at Koll Center and in wetland pockets Alter maintenance practices Protect forested wetland tract east of Hwy 217 Monitor Koll center wetland for siltation Install compost drop-in units or other treatment at commercial drainages mid-Fanno Creek Park and off Nimbus Pretreat stormwater from outfalls along the reach I{ with bioswales draining commercial / parking lot areas, where possible Reduces stormwater pollutants entering stream SP-5,6,7 Pretreat Be! Aire drainage with biofiltration F-14 Fanno Creek Park to H 217 Increase floodplain storage by removing berm or improves water quality by shading, reducing reconfiguring berm (south of Denny) erosion Enhance / create wetlands on disturbed floodplain Benefits Temperature, DO, algae, bacteria levels. Plant native vegetation in riparian corridor Total Phosphorous & other nutrient removal Ash Crook i i i -1 Confluence to Hwy 217 i' Install bioswales along commercial lots to pretreat j stormwater C Install compost filter or other treatment with high 1 flow bypass between Toys-R-Us & LP Gas, and a SP-3 U-Store or near highway to pretreat stormwater Reduces stormwater pollutants entering stream A-2 Hwy. 217 to Hall Blvd. Increase floodplain storage / wetland function Improves water quality by shading, reducing Create regional detention to reduce upstream erosion Detention flooding problems Decreases flooding impacts 1 Plant native vegetation in riparian corridor Check Tigard and DSL requirements Increase conveyance capacity of HWY 217 culverts to reduce upstream flooding of existing B structures Decreases flooding impacts -5 Middle Fork - Park Place to Cedarcrest Rd. Remove concrete spillway at the pond Restore natural stream cross section and wetlands Improves water quality by shading, reducing Plant native vegetation in riparian corridor erosion Enhance pond edge with native vegetation; create B a wetland Improves water quality by shading, biofiltration j - i - 2 { I 5211111001 ~_m_ III: oill III "J* -2 V--- -7 CD~22~~t4 93041444 09 wealsiv toshoo'.l"'! 1 ~ ~ yt f J r/ f OK 51;Iwnif drl.'~ ~lsd tj b, l„~,~ 7 ~1 ✓ sf AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: Tarlmv, Jordm G Schreda, P.C. r h Attn: Gone L. Smiley 1600 SW cedar Hill. Blvd, 0100 Tbrduhd OR 97215.5698 (.,17/22D61) d 7h4 rpaw prohided/br ooordrr a rur. c DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WHEREAS, GENE L. DAVIS and VIVIAN M, DAVIS, husband and wife, are the owner of real property described (n the attached Exhibit A, end I[ WHEREAS, it is the desire and intention of the owners to set aaido the property described above for wedand teaouru protection; NOW, THEREFORE, the owner hereby declare that sit of the property dw ribod in Exhibit A is held and ahali to hold, conveyed, ` hypo .l' r atod or wwmbucd. bawd, xomod, wed, occupled, end i=provod subject m the hollowing Untitatioos, rewlcttons, conditions, end ' covewms, all of which are declued and agreed upon for the purpose of profiting the property for wetland purpow. Allof the Ilmitatiow, restrictions, conditions, and covooaats shall run with the land and shall be binding on all parties laving or acquiring any tight, title, or interest in the druribed property or any, part thereof. The property deuribod in Exhibit A is to be managed for wttand re-tree proration. Goring, filling, or other alto cdon is prohibited, except u required for walaad protection purposes. Eaforcement shall be by proceedings at Isw or I. equity ageltut any person or pcmw violating or attempting to Violate the above _ covenams, rather to restrain violation or to roeover damages. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the owner hsve signed this Dataration this ZL d p ' 1997. GENE L. DAVIS I M. AVIS ' STATE OF OREGON ) N. County of Washington ) This instrument was acknowledged before mo on April , 1997 by Gene L. Davie and Vivian M. Davis. 0FFiC1AL REAL NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OREGON 1.9 9~ 1I[ITH A. {CRUET! My Cormniarien ExpireI % NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON COMMISSIONN0.OD0988 RECORDED .11 OREGON TITLE AS AN ACCOMOOATION ONLY- NO 9.MMISSIONEXPIRES AUG. 00. 104 LIABILITY Ill ll ACCEPTED FOR THE CONDITION OF TITLE OR FOR THE VALIDITY, SUFFICteNCY, OR EFFECT OF THIS DOCUMENT. Page i • DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT 1r 1 auDltw.aooiuhrol.I s f BRIDIEY & 6CHLEINING 1 ( AND A350\4"ArE3, ING. ENGINEE/ April 29, 1993 SURVEYORS (Third revision) Legal Description for Ash Creek Property Open Space Deed Restriction No. 1 A r I~ (W.B. Wells & Assoc., Inc. - Job No. 88-208) r1 N "ys A tract of land for the purpose of an Open Space Deed d = Restriction being a portion of Lots 20 G 21 of the duly recorded plat of "Ashbrook Farm" in the D.C. Graham D.L.C. No. 52, and the N.E. one-quarter of Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the N.E. corner of Lot 17, "Ashbrook Farm"; thence along the East line of Lot 17, South 00133118" East, a distance of 558.17 feet to the Northwesterly line of Lot 18, thence along said Northwesterly line, North 52°21'42" East, a distance or 37.65 feet to the North line of Lot 18; thence along the North line of Lot 18 and Lot 20, South 84°59'29" East, a distance of 220.05 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the herein described tract; thence leaving the said North line, South 00°33118" East, _ a distance of 40.19 feat; thence South 84°59129" East, a distance of 381.75 feet; thence south 04°59143" East, a distance of 259.66 feet; thence South 33°11'13" East, a distance of 389.62 feet to the Westerly extension of the South line of Lot 36 of the duly recorded plat of "Graham Acres"; thence along said Westerly extension, South 89130'30" East, a distance of 359.15 feet to the West right-of-way line of B.W. 89th Ave.; thence along said West line, North 00°06'30" West, a distance of 35.00 feet; thence leaving said West line, North 89130130" West, a distance of 217.81 feet; thence North 06°57126" West, a distance of 102.34 feet; thence North 00°06'30" West, a distance of 417.47 feet; thence South 84°59129" East, a distance of 255.86 feet, to the West line of that tract of land described in deed to Louis Clifton Steele, recorded October 28, 1922, in Book 124, Page 294, Washington County Deed Records; thence along the West line of said Steele tract, North 00°07'00" West, a distance of 41.63 feet to the North line of said Lot 21; thence along the said North line, West, a distance of 16.78 feet; thence North 84°59'29" West, a distance of 986.43 feet to the True Point of Beginning. dsk 7 ashbrook.res EXHIBfT Z - PkuE 4230 N.E. FREMONT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97213 PHONE 284.8896 i S F l III- - _ r i esua Fr n sawwua P+WLY W. D~ ANO Ass cL4TES, INC. ENGINEERS SURVEYORS • t'`v January 24, 1991 ~S Legal Description for Ash Creek Property Open Space Deed Restriction No. 2 (W.B. Wells & Assoc., Inc. - Job No. 88-208) A tract of land for the purpose of an Open Space Deed Restriction being a portion of Lot 13 of the duly recorded plat of "Ashbrook Farm" in the D.C. Graham D.L.C. No. 52, and the N.E. one-quarter of Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the S.E. corner of that tract of land i described in deed to Thelma Cpouch, recorded February 11, 1965, in book No. 540, Page 476, Washington County Deed 4 Records, said beginning point bears West, a distance of 226.24 feet from the N.E. corner of Lot 21, said deed records; thence along the East line of said Cpouch tract, North 00°07'00" Went, a distance of 253.02 feet; thence leaving said East line, North 65020'32" West, a distance i of 67.50 feet; thence South 55°34149" West, a distance of 148.60 feet; thence South 81116'10" West, a distance of 114.34 feet to the East line of said Cpouch tract; thence along the said East line, South 00133'18" East, a distance of 171.54 feet to the North line of said Lot 21; thence along the said North line, South 84°59'29" East, a distance of 95,12 feet; thence East, a distance of 201.04 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 1.57 acres, more or less. P: "D ° 1.11 1~ I 22 3 DAVID V1. !4ILLS EXHIBIT. A 01515 FAui a " C a /130/9/ 4230 N.E. FREMONT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97213 PHONE 284.5896 1 i I I 7-7 I()c ~jc151 f SpM W 1 ~5 { t ~y. b arc D Q 0 0 C3 a i 9 Boa G 9e ~ • O.B. ~G'r I . ~r:"e9s7'••"• .•r :'v•...-•ti":•• N SPACE # 1 r T.P.O.D. # I~1 ' n y;.;y.;:.:,...«.;~•.;y.~/. !v o A8T LINE N84-59-29-1, 1206.10' k 1 1•~ v qa • 1lr 4 .i DK. 540. PG. 476 _ r a;-•.• 4e a °20.12 Lei (TO uoe1....., ( - j,o . y yf t+ P.0.0. OPEN 780 1 v' .••.a .,~'.y,n'y % • r~ • SPAGE # 2 .u _ L 2 li •:•ia°>h' ~7~C2aF':'~ N.E. CORNER °01.7 l7g I LI ~/f, .L~'. W V • :'vL . LOT 21--- 62 I'J •1 l3 iL]! tIL106 B'(f' '1'_~IE. Y~ 226! t T.P.O.D. # 11 I~ - - Le. L7+y L13 5T 111.26 t . • +4a 9900 . - - -5.W. WKNPR x a - 4rOMPWN 71.09' tT~' (j~~ +LQT I~ S84•59'29•E 98.12. t + - - • • S99.30'90•E SPRUCE ST. Y••~•} •t7.• • • . . 24.93' WE5TLINE t Q W ICI " t ~Y ' ;v . Y \ c DK. 124. P.&. 294 Y • • , Is - - - THORN ST - - - t Y t • z Qd 909 \ . REGISTERED oF~?o0\ Y: v : yy:y•y . J I I LANDFSUR EYOR • 'La4 I OREGON ` \ Sa9.30'30•E 685.89' F\ 1 1 DAVID W. l.1iLtS 1 01915 L_ I ~ f _l _ SE 1/4 NE 1/4 SEC II ION 35 1 1 ni vv r.•m- WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON OI SCALE 1"-100' LOT Yi O SEE GAP IS 1 33AA 12 - - -rOAK' T T STREET """°`°t° "4c.~ wa as Q 4,J0 ■w.w p Is W 1303 1302 1301 1200 .Mac ."Ac. .!!ae !i. € e a cc _ Q g # 1300 If 323 Ac ASH F~ d ~S w 1 O Q •ar P 1 900 1 1464C SEE MAP IM s IS 1 35 AC F A 8 b 1103 1100 j4 Ac A7 ac .33 A. , 3400 JOac(\ 1400 V. " / • " - A cm, TV= 1101 3300 23-8 A. ..aa.' c ■u~° • Tae t SPRUCE .~RCR~ ~At~cR .•~o .c..r• , z1o1 'leol 1900 tool 40 ` ISM 2 - 2 - 1 2200 0 s J. Mann Lee { Bachelors of Science, Civil Engineering E Mr. Lee has seven years of experience as a transportation planner/traffic engineer. His experience has 1 included positions in both the private and public sectors. This experience has given him keen insight in i meeting the needs of municipal clients. Mr. Lee has conducted numerous transportation plans, corridor j studies, transportation alternative analyses, travel demand forecasts with modeling software, parking studies, and traffic impact analyses. Mr. Lee's public sector experience was at the City of Federal Way, Washington, where Mr. Lee was the j Traffic Analyst for the Public Works Department. His responsibilities included reviewing traffic impact f{ studies; testifying at hearings as the city's traffic expert; coordinating contracted services for small l intersection and roadway projects; accident analysis; and preparing TIA, UATA, ISTEA, and HES grant applications. He was also responsible for working with neighborhood traffic groups, maintaining the city's traffic information database, analyzing traffic operations problems, and conducting special projects. i The special projects included an average vehicle occupancy study, deriving seasonal traffic volume adjustment factors, Sea-Tac Mall trip generation analysis, city-wide level of service analysis, supporting the city's transportation planner in the City EMME/2 modeling efforts, and developing traffic impact analysis guidelines. I-205 and East/West Arterials Study - Clark County, Washington j Mr. Lee is currently analyzing the existing and future traffic congestion problems in the southeastern portion of the Vancouver (WA) urbanized area including the I-205 corridor. This study includes analysis I of overall arterial street and freeway system capacity and circulation within the study area with particular emphasis on 1-205 and the east-west arterial street system; transit accessibility; freight movement; and f . travel demand/transportation system management strategies. Major system improvements will be considered, including additional east/west arterial street capacity and a potential new interchange on I- f 1 205. The project also includes a preliminary environmental screening of potential transportation l improvement impacts, development of conceptual design options for arterial street and interchange i improvements, development of preliminary cost estimates and cost-benefit analysis, and extensive public involvement. South/North Light Rail DEIS, Transportation Impact Analysis - Portland, Oregon Mr. Lee is responsible for conducting the local traffic impact analysis for a portion of the 21-mile proposed light rail corridor. Analysis will include an assessment of existing conditions, future (2015) no-build conditions developed from regional and city travel demand model output, and a variety of future l "build" alternatives. Three major park-and-ride options are being assessed including a 3,900-space parking structure in downtown Vancouver, Washington. Mr. Lee is also responsible for the corridor- wide analysis of parking impacts associated with the light rail alternatives. Washington Coastal Corridor Study Mr. Lee has played a key role in the analysis of transportation issues and problems for this WSDOT project which is presently underway in the 365-mile, US 101 corridor. His responsibilities include collection and analysis of all multi-modal transportation system and service data, identification of existing and potential future operational and system problems, and analysis of potential solutions. Additionally, Mr. Lee is participating in the development of a Corridor Master Plan for this highway under the ISTEA 1 National Scenic Byways program. y r L~ J. Hann Lee _ E East Airport Area Traffic Needs Study - Portland, Oregon On behalf of the Port of Portland, a study was conducted to assess the transportation infrastructure I requirements for major land development alternatives in the area bounded by Marine Drive, I-205, 82nd i Avenue, and Columbia Boulevard. This study includes consideration of traffic growth to/from the Portland International Center, the Portland International Airport (including both passenger, employee, I and air cargo-related traffic), and other area development. Mr. Lee assisted in the formulation and analysis of 16 land development and local circulation alternatives for the study area. These alternatives were evaluated and refined to identify specific mitigation strategies which could be developed to accommodate the projected traffic. Alternatives analyzed by Mr. Lee included intersection modifications, road extensions, modifications to the existing I-205/Airport Way interchange, and the addition of new grade-separated intersections along Airport Way. West Hayden Island Development Program - Portland, Oregon Mr. Lee served as technical analyst to assess the traffic implications of developing a marine terminal facility on the west end of Hayden Island. Key issues included assessment of options to provide regional access to the facility (including development of a new bridge to the island); internal circulation and integration with rail and dock facilities; and assessment of non-motorized circulation for potential recreational uses adjacent to the marine terminal. Analysis included addressing issues related to the ISTEA requirements for a Major Investment Study. E South Coast Transportation Study - Brookings, Oregon Mr. Lee was a major participant in this study to develop a multi-modal transportation system plan for the _ City and its surrounding unincorporated area. His responsibilities included data collection, analysis of existing conditions and development of future traffic volume projections, analysis of existing and future system deficiencies, and development of an improvement program. Key issues addressed in this 9-mile % corridor study which focused on US 101 included: system needs associated with future community growth; access management; highway needs versus local circulation; safety and traffic control improvement needs; access to intermodal facilities including the harbor, airport and trucking depots; bicycle and pedestrian circulation; and paratransit needs. r Myrtle Creek Transportation Study - Myrtle Creek, Oregon j The purpose of this study was to develop a multi-modal transportation system plan for the community with particular emphasis on access to and safety issues along Interstate 5. Mr. Lee's role in this study, included an assessment of existing and future system deficiencies relative to local and freeway traffic circulation, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, paratransit and intermodal access. A major part of this study was the development of design concepts for freeway interchange modifications and/or freeway connections with accompanying necessary modifications to the local circulation system. i f' Transportation Advisory Services - Federal Way, Washington t Mr. provided transportation advisory services to the City of Federal Way which included the following: scoping traffic impact studies for proposed developments, reviewing traffic impact studies, developing > required transportation mitigation measures for proposed developments based on their transportation impacts, and supporting the City Attorney in appealing development projects in other neighboring jurisdictions having spillover impacts into Federal Way. k City of Ellensburg Transportation Plan - Ellensburg, Washington Mr. Lee prepared a draft transportation plan for the City of Ellensburg as part of their comprehensive 7 5 ! - _ J f 1. Hann Lce r planning process. The plan included documenting the existing conditions, identifying existing transportation system deficiencies, developing a transportation forecasting model, and testing alternative transportation improvements to alleviate future traffic congestion. i Division Street - Spokane, Washington Mr. Lee prepared the transportation portion of a DEIS for a corridor improvement project. Specific tasks included evaluation of three alternative roadway improvement plans for a major north-south arterial in the City. SR 125 Transportation Study - Walla Walla, Washington Mr. Lee participated in the preparation of a study involving the analysis of realignment alternatives of SR 125 in Walla Walla, Washington. Alternative comparisons considered construction, maintenance, and J. road user costs as well as social and environmental factors. j City of Federal Way Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines - Federal Way, Washington Mr. Lee was responsible for developing and implementing traffic impact analysis guidelines for the City of Federal Way. The guidelines were developed as the City's interpretation of the information needed to meet SEPA requirements in identifying and mitigating traffic impacts by proposed developments. Werner Road/Loxie Eagans Boulevard Traffic Operations Study - Bremerton, Washington J Mr. Lee was responsible for conducting this study. The project involved multi jurisdictional cooperation 1 between the City of Bremerton, Washington Department of Transportation, Kitsap County, and Kitsap Transit. The analysis established a plan for the corridor identifying the ultimate 2015 roadway geometry required to support the anticipated development in the area. Hansard Area Infrastructure Improvements - Lebanon, Oregon This project involved the design of utilities and local access roadways needed to support future industrial developments in the area. Mr. Lee prepared a traffic analysis to determine the intersection geometry at two state highway intersections which would provide direct access to the study area. If E Tochterman Block Hotel DSEIS - Bellevue, Washington Mr. Lee prepared a Draft Supplemental EIS to the City of Bellevue's Transportation Facilities Plan (TFP), 1994-2005 Final EIS which analyzed the specific impacts of a hotel within the Tochterman "Super Block" in downtown Bellevue. The DSEIS was required since the TFP Final EIS only generally analyzed the impacts of the proposed hotel. The DSEIS documented the specific project impacts, and differential I impacts between two site alternatives under consideration, and the potential mitigation measures appropriate to each site alternative. Sea-Van DEIS - Mt. Vernon, Washington Mr. Lee prepared the transportation portion of a DEIS for a proposed residential/golf course community in Mt. Vernon, Washington. The project proposal consisted of a 27-hole golf course, between 696 and 780 single-family dwelling units, 70,000 gross square feet (gsf) of commercial space, and 30,000 gsf of office space. Two other alternatives were also analyzed. Glacier Park - Auburn, Washington Mr. Lee prepared a comprehensive transportation analysis for a 660-acre subarea in Auburn, Washington. The transportation improvements needed to support the full build-out of this area were identified. The s J. Hann Lee . study included developing future trip generation, forecasting future traffic volumes on existing and future " roadway links, and identifying needed roadway improvements. Pearson Property Master Plan - Yakima, Washington Mr. Lee prepared a traffic impact analysis for this mixed-use development. The project included 24 single family dwelling units, 102 duplexes, 90 multi-family dwelling units, 80 bed nursing home, 66,000 gsf of office space, 80 room hotel, and 73,500 gsf of commercial space. Heritage Woods Traffic Impact Study - Federal Way, Washington This project involved disputing traffic impacts and mitigation; the Hearing Examiner's authority to review the Public Works Director's determination as to the required improvements to mitigate direct plat impacts; and the application of zoning code, comprehensive plan, and SEPA in a consistent manner. Mr. Lee prepared traffic comments for a request for reconsideration report, conducted a presentation at the r u hearing with follow-up analysis, and responded to cross-examination by developer's land use attorney. Ashbrook Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study - Tigard, Oregon Mr. Lee prepared a traffic impact analysis for the Ashbrook Mixed-Use Development located in the immediate vicinity of the Washington Square Regional Mall and Lincoln Center high-rise office complex. The project consisted of 300,000 gsf of office space in four buildings, a 250-room all-suites hotel, 125,000 gsf racquet/health club, and two 6,000 gsf restaurants. i - - TIGNRD t CITY of OREGOFi lit, ~~MG,1scfoLLS~ IIALL/GPJ 'PS N-LTEI PFPOP : Iss Prepared for: CITY OF TIGA D i t preparel3 by; ® ,.r INC.: E,. f { TABLE OF CONTENTS eA Page SECTION I: INTRODUCTION Background I-1 Study Area I-1 ii Study Objectives I-1 Report Content and Organization 1-4 j SECTION II: EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ~I In Street and Highway System H-1 ~ 1 State Route 217 H-1 Hall Boulevard II-1 n Scholls Ferry Road H-3 Greenburg Road II-3 Locust Street II-3 Major Intersections Analyzed in the Study Area I[-3 Traffic Characteristics II-4 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes H-4 Existing Level of Service Analysis II-5 Accident History II-12 Existing Public Transit Service 1I-13 Non-Motorized Transportation/Circulation H-17 3 Summary of Existing Transportation System Problems and Issues 11-17 i SECTION III: DEVELOPMENT OF TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS ri Methodology III-1 Existing Households and Employment III-1 Evaluation of Base Year Model Results III-4 Analysis of Existing Travel Patterns IH-4 Evaluation of Future Year Model Results III-16 _ y, SECTION IV: STUDY AREA DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES ry Identification of Alternatives IV-1 Vacant Developable Land IV-1 Projections of Households, Employment and Trip-Making IV-2 "I Existing Plus Approved Projects IV-3 50-60% Development IV-3 ry 80-90% Development IV-3 I{ I-A 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued ~r Page ~.a SECTION IV: STUDY AREA DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES Continued 5 1997 Background Traffic with Approved Projects IV-10 1997 Traffic with 50-60% Development IV-10 1997 Traffic with 80-90% Development IV-17 SECTION V: IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF ROADWAY j IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS i Scholls Ferry Road h Scholls Ferry Road at Hall Boulevard V-1 Scholls Ferry Road at Nimbus Avenue V-5 Hall Boulevard Hall Boulevard at US Bank Access V-5 Hall Boulevard at SR-217 Southbound/Cascade n Boulevard V-6 ej Hall Boulevard at Greenburg Road V-6 Hall Boulevard at Nimbus Avenue V-6 Traffic Signal Progression Along Hall Boulevard V-7 Greenburg Road { Minor Modifications at SR-217 Ramps V-8 Major Interchange Reconstruction Options V-21 J Greenburg Road Right-of-Way Issues V-26 Scholls Ferry Road at Northbound SR-217 Ramps V-28 Neighborhood Traffic Intrusion V-31 Roadway Signing V-35 Access Management V-36 j j Encouraging the Use of SR-217 for Longer-Distance Trips V-37 SECTION VI: TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT/NON-MOTORIZED FACILITIES 1 Improvements to Public Transit Service/Facilities VI-1 J Travel Demand Management VI-4 Bicycle/Pedestrian Facility Improvements VI-5 . ; . r TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued E Pane 1 N ~ t~ SECTION VII: IMPLEMENTATION AND COST ESTIMATES g ~`1 Summary of Improvement Cost Estimates VII-1 9 Relationship of Improvements to Development Alternatives VII-1 Li Timing of Recommended Improvements VII-5 Funding Options VII-5 Relationship to State and Regional Plans and Programs VII-9 ri ra ::cam i A- .J~..~ LIST OF FIGURES um er Description Page 1 Study Area Vicinity 1-2 2 Study Area Boundaries 1-3 3 Existing Lane Configurations II-2 t 4 Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes II-6 5 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 11_7 a 6 Existing AM Peak Hour Levels of Service H-9 7 Existing PM Peak Hour Levels of Service II-10 8 Key Accident Locations II-14 9 Existing Transit Service II-16 10 Existing Pedestrian Facilities II-18 11 Key Circulation Issues II-19 12 Study Area in Relation to Metro Traffic Analysis Zones III-2 + 13 Study Area Traffic Analysis Zones 1II-3 j 14 Study Area Traffic Cutlines -7 `i 15 1990 Study Area Trip Patterns M-8 16 Analysis of Trips on Hall Blvd. East of Scholls Ferry Road III-11 17 Analysis of Trips on Greenburg Road North of SR-217 M-12 l 18 Analysis of Trips on Scholls Ferry Road South of Hall Blvd. III-13 `i 19 Analysis of Trips on Locust Street East of Hall Blvd. III-14 20 Analysis of Trips on Nimbus Avenue South of Hall Blvd. III-15 - P LIST OF FIGURES Continued i Number Description Page ' 21 1997 Study Area Trip Patterns III-17 22 Vacant Land in Study Area (Acres and Comp. Plan Land Use), r, Approved Projects IV-4 23 Vacant Land in Study Area (Acres and Comp. Plan Land Use), 50-60% Development by 1997 IV-6 24 Vacant Land in Study Area (Acres and Comp. Plan Land Use), 80-90% Development by 1997 IV-8 25 1997 Plus Approved Project, PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes IV-11 o- 26 PM Peak Levels of Service, 1997 with Approved Projects IV-14 27 1997 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes with Growth on 50-60% of Vacant Developable Land IV-15 28 PM Peak Levels of Service, 1997 with 50-60% Build-out IV-16 29 1997 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes with Growth on 80-90% of Vacant Developable Land IV-18 j 30 PM Peak Levels of Service, 1997 with 80-90% Build-out IV-19 6 31 Improvement Options with 50-60% Build-out V-2 32 Improvement Options with 80-90% Build-out V-3 jj 33 SR-217/Greenburg Road Interchange, Existing Lanes V-9 34 SR-217/Greenburg Road Interchange, Option 1 Restriping V-13 ~S1 35 SR-217/Greenburg Road Interchange, Option 2 Restriping V-14 36 SR-217/Greenburg Road Interchange, Option 3 Restriping V-15 J j 37 SR-217/Greenburg Road Interchange, Option 4 Restriping V-16 k. s j.~ LIST OF FIGURES Continued n' Y Num er Description Pagg EE F 38 SR-217/Greenburg Road Interchange, Option 5 Restriping and c-. Additional Lanes on Off-Ramps V-17 39 SR-217/Greenburg Road Interchange, Option 6 Loop Ramp with V-18 ' Restriping 40 SR-217/Greenburg Road Interchange, Option 7 Restriping and V-19 Added Lane on Off-Ramp 41 SR-217/Greenburg Road Interchange, option 8, Option 7 Plus Added Turn Lane at Washington Square Road V-20 42 SR- 217/Greenburv Road Interchange, Option 9, Widen Bridge V-23 "t y , a o _ o 43 Year 2010 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes V-24 44 SR-217/Greenburg Road Interchange, Option 10 Direct Ramps to/ from Washington Square V-27 1 45 SR-217/Scholls Ferry Road Interchange, Option 1 V-29 46 SR-216/Scholls Ferry Road Interchange, Option 2 V-32 47 Target Store Access Modification V-39 48 Proposed Modifications to Existing Transit Service/Facilities VI-2 49 Deficiencies in Existing Pedestrian System VI-6 { i % _ - L~ LIST OF TABLES _ Number Description Page e 1 Existing Levels of Service at Signalized Intersections II-11 2 Existing Levels of Service at Unsignalized Intersections II-12 s 3 Summary of Traffic Accident History in Study Area II-13 4 Characteristics of Transit Service in Study Area II-15 5 1990 Household and Employment Estimates for Study Area " Traffic Analysis Zones III-5 .J 6 2010 Household and Employment Projections for Study Area ~ Traffic Analysis Zones III-6 7 Comparison of 1990 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes at Cutlines III-9 H 8 Trip Generation for Approved Projects in Study Area IV-5 Eli 9 Trip Generation for 50-60% Build-out of Vacant Developable Acreage in Study Area IV-7 r; 10 Trip Generation for 80-90% Build-out of Vacant Developable Acreage in Study Area IV-9 11 PM Peak Hour Levels of Service at Signalized Intersections with Various Development Scenarios IV-12 mmi 12 PM Peak Hour Levels of Service at Unsignalized Intersections with Various Development Scenarios IV-13 13 Summary of Levels of Service with Miscellaneous Intersection Improvement Options V-4 r` 14 Summary of Levels of Service by Intersection with SR-217/ Greenburg Road Interchange Improvement Options and 80-90% Build-out V-10 15 Summary of Year 2010 Levels of Service by Intersection with = SR-217/Greenburg Road Bridge Widening Options V-25_ .1 6 i i~ r--,~ LIST OF TABLES Continued Number Description page 16 Summary of Levels of Service with Northbound SR-217/ Scholls Ferry Road Interchange Improvement Options and 80-90% Build-out V-30 e 17 Summary of Neighborhood Traffic Management Techniques V-34 18 Summary of Signal Progression Analysis Along Hall Boulevard with 80-90% Build-out V-38 19 Summary of Cost Estimates for Improvement Options VII-2 ILI 20 Summary of R ecvmmendcd Roadway irnplovenievas by Land Development Option VII-3 21 Timing of Improvement Recommendations Vn_g L 6 F Iz~ HALL/GREENBURG/SCROLLS AREA TRAFFIC NEEDS STUDY FINAL REPORT } Prepared for: CITY OF TIGARD qt I. - 1 Prepared by: PARAMETRI%, INC. 7820 N.E. Holman Street, Suite B-6 Portland, Oregon 97218 (503) 256-5444 ul _l January, 1994 J Jv 3 SECTION I t n INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND The Hall/Greenburg/Scholls Ferry area within the Cities of Tigard and Beaverton has experienced a significant increase in traffic volumes and congestion over the past decade. This area includes a major regional mall (Washington Square), as well as low- and high-rise office, commercial and industrial/business park development. This area attracts a significant number of trips from throughout the western portion of the Metropolitan Area for a variety of purposes. It also sits at the junction of several state routes including Hall Boulevard (the Beaverton- Tualatin Highway), Scholls Ferry Road (SR-210) and the SR-217 freeway. These streets and " freeway access ramps currently experience a high volume of through traffic adding to the traffic generated by local development. n It is anticipated that the travel needs within the study area will be significantly impacted by land development activities which are currently underway or which will be initiated within the next five years. Accordingly, it is important that a plan be formulated for addressing existing and oy short-term transportation system problems. Consistent with the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule, it is also important that the needs of alternative transportation modes be addressed with the goal of reducing the use of Single Occupant Vehicles (SOVs). This report documents the Py r~ analysis of existing and short-term multi-modal transportation system needs in the study area and identifies a program of selected improvements. v,. STUDY AREA 1 The study area for the Hall/Greenburg/Scholls Traffic Needs analysis is generally bounded by Hall Boulevard on the north and east, Fanno Creek on the west, and Ash Creek on the south. The regional setting of the study area is depicted in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows the study area vicinity. I t STUDY OBJECTIVES ~.3 ' As noted above, the purpose of this study is to prepare a short-term transportation plan for the study area and to develop a data base for use in longer-term planning. More specifically, the study is to address: u - Expected development and population/employment growth for both the short-term (1992- 1997) and a longer time period (beyond 1997); - Evaluation of incremental traffic impacts associated with various development assumptions; 1 _ 1A9~r F7, C \F~ \F ~ f - SR 8 SR 10 ! PORTLAND BEAVERTON HILLS STUDY AREA TIGARD i - r ' LAKE OSWEGO ` kli j N Fl~ uo mss-ot xsasoiu .roe:27-2545-01 Figure 1 Parametrix, Inc. STUDY AREA VICINITY 71 n ~ • ~ v ~ 4W D O7 h 0 Z D { .5. yy z m s y WASHINGTON p SQUARE m i ~ LEHMAN ST. a CORAL ST. r _ o J'S a - _ SAN LOCUST Sr. F vo OUSgRe RDA S ?f A~ N y OAK ST. f m m S Y S4 Me 254501LO JOB: 27_2545-01 Parametrix, Inc. Figure 2 STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES - Analysis of various operational improvements to the transportation system including 6 TDM (Transportation Demand Management), transit, HOV use, pedestrian and bicycle facilities and minor capital improvements needed through 1997. Analysis of ramp 71 improvements to the SR 217/Greenburg Road interchange would also be included; 41 Development of a strategy to implement necessary improvements required by new development in the study area; and Issues related to neighborhood traffic intrusion, especially in the residential area east of Hall Boulevard. REPORT CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION This report is organized into seven sections, the first of which is this Introduction. Section II documents the existing transportation system and traffic conditions in the study area including the existing street and highway system, traffic volumes, intersection levels of service, accident history, auto occupancy, transit service and pedestrian activity. In Section III, the development of a sub-area travel demand model for estimating future traffic volumes is documented. Included in this section are existing and projected land use and employment in the study area, as well as an assessment of existing and future travel patterns. r°~ Section IV includes a discussion of the land development alternatives which were prepared an 0 d 6J analyzed to identify future short-term traffic problems in the study area. The traffic volume projections associated with each development alternative is presented and impacts on intersection levels of service are evaluated. In Section V a series of roadway improvement options are identified and evaluated. These i options address the existing and short-term future traffic circulation and congestion problems 6dl identified in Sections H and IV. Also included in this section is a discussion of options for addressing the existing problem of neighborhood traffic intrusion, roadway directional signing and access management. J Section VI addresses issues related to transit, travel demand management and the development of improved facilities for non-motorized transportation. V Section VII presents a summarized implementation program including identification of preferred J or suggested improvements, costs and timing. r'1 ru~I V -4 r~ _ f~ o SECTION II F' \ J EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM E } In this section, the existing transportation system and traffic conditions in the study area is y discussed including the existing street and highway system, traffic volumes, intersection levels of service, accident history, auto occupancy, transit service and pedestrian activity. 44 is STREET AND HIGHWAY SYSTEM k~ The following provides a description of the existing street and highway system in the study area including a description of street classifications and characteristics. Figure 3 shows the existing . roadway system in the study area including number of lanes at all major intersections and traffic control features. State Route 217 The major transportation facility in the study area is State Route 217, a north-south freeway connecting SR 26 (the Sunset Highway) on the north with Interstate 5 on the south. SR 217 is a four-lane, 55 MPH limited access facility with auxiliary lanes at several locations within and a, near the study area. SR 217 is connected to the study area by three interchanges including: Hall Boulevard (southbound on- and off-ramps only); Scholls Ferry road (north- and southbound on- and off-ramps); and Greenburg Road (north- and southbound on- and off-ramps). Hall Boulevard WA Hall Boulevard is designated as an arterial street in the Tigard Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Hall Boulevard is also known as the Beaverton-Tualatin Highway in the Oregon State Highway System. The section of Hall Boulevard which lies within the jurisdiction of Washington County (west of Scholls Ferry Road) is designated as a major arterial in the Washington County Transportation Plan. g Hall Boulevard is generally a four-lane roadway west of the Target Store main entrance (east 1 of Scholls Ferry Road) and becomes a two-lane road with left turn pockets (and eastbound right turn lanes) at intersections between the Target entrance and Greenburg Road. Fast of Greenburg Road, Hall Boulevard is a two lane road with shoulders and left turn pockets at the intersection • i with Locust, Oak, Pfaffle and Pine Streets. Hall Boulevard is traffic signal-controlled at most intersections in the study area west of and including Greenburg Road. As properties adjacent to Hall Boulevard and west of Greenburg Road develop, frontage 1 improvements will require widening of this street to a five-lane cross-section in accordance with j U ODOT development concept for the street. East of Greenburg Road, a three-lane cross-section _L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ 11 ~ r ~ ~ ~ r ~ J y ►t~ ~ r ~ H ~ ~ m yd~ Ir c 0 z 0 a ~ a LL r ~ ~ Z~ ~ J!( f f ~ -~~C ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~I k a J ~ I m WASHINGTON JL 1 j SQUARE ~ --~I, ~ 1 I' ~ + J w r 1 TTF )r .YY ~ iQ CORAL ST. ~ ~ SdA awn sT. F r- N ~ S°"~ERO a 1 f- f o ~ ~ Icy A OAK 5T. 5 'L I y/ Ifs ~ ~ I ~ LEGEND 1 Ir ~ ( ~3 ~ r > ~x ~ Traffic signal l~ 1 Traffic signal Stop Sign me ctuov~+S-oivsumC +:a zm-urm b" Aarametrix, Inc. Flgure 3 EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS '10122196 Agenda # 7 7 of8 If this notice appears clearer :h:m the AUG 2 41998 ; 'document, the document is of m.tlginal quaiih•. ~ MICROFILMED G[a~~( (~~(~rl(~1u ~T«I i}r~rr>t;1~1° I ~ _ - . r( • ~ INCX r ~NADE #1 CHXLI . =:n---~ c.,..,. _.a. - , ~ _ i - _ ..ps: _ I ~,t r:: a _ -r-r- 70__ ..tt.. It irz~' . u ~ts - : is r Ie a =::'t0. _ is - ~i _ ..8 ~IIIIIWIIIIIIlI111111IH11(IIII~IIIIIIIIUfIIIIITIIItllll~ll~4(Illlll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIfillllli[IIIIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIIIhllllllll~lfllllll~lllllllll~i1111114~IlIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIIII(IIIllitili~l Ilit 811 i I(n ~l[ ((1[~IIf111llIIllII~IpIIIIQ I IGIIIIIIll ; • ~ i. _ ~ z x ~ , ~ h t- 50 /ry/y~ R o 'v,%i ~ 200 ^ 670 ~ .J/\ / pJ J a ^,15 J ~ ~ T' BO J + ~ ]0 I \ ~ 375 " I in ) J 5 50 ~ 7 10 g(q p Po ~ 1 Z~~ l r ~ ~ ~ Ja5 ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 360 5~~ ~ aw ~ c p ~ J)5 > ~ Q ~I NA4 y Jeo ~ c JO 6B & ~ 1/p ~ (r n I hy8 A R ` ~ 400 r-,66 ) ~ 33'0\ 3 e°m 7SO~~\\ ` Ss° r yI~ ~ ~.m )s s . o° % :5 X30 ; ~ o` o b \L ( ~ / J~ ~ m 9°'^ a J / 1 ~,o WASHINGTON s ~ SQUARE ~ ~ 5 J o is m ~ ~ r 1 0 J/ ~0 ~0 ~/'A40 u ~ JIO yo?)~\ / Zp0 IEHMAN ST. 1( NN Zfi5 ~ 0 ,,H` n LOCUST Si. F 55 J 1 fib 9 WA S~~E~~a~ a 5 ~ o ~ / P OAK 5T. ~6 ]z5 J ~ a ~e X00 I " J ' ` 5 1 0~' 0~3 ( ~1p ~l -5 \ 10 NOTE: I ~~j~ S fir- 5°, ~f(" ~~h Volumes h ~ ~~o ave been rounded to the nearest 5 vehicles rue ~ ~c~owu-aJw,sme: JOB 17-15156, 1.' Parametrix Inc. Figure 4 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1G124196 Agenda # 7 2of8 i~~ If this notice appavs clearer :han the AUG 2 41998 document, the document is of marginal ,uaiih-' ± MICROFILMED .4; 1 :~~I~~ F~I~I 1 i.~1~1h l`[:L~jt I~T~ [t~7[f(l}I 1~1=IT~~•~:f.~~Fi~i, ~ , I -~1~ ' : ' - . fmI}.'' . , Ms: tNCN -i ~M,IDE U. WIN4 - 7r- _ i 1 ~ _ - t x: a-_ - .a ~ i _ n; i e ->7=-~ u.., .~s r to tT:: is a - - - ~IIIIIIIIIII~II~IIIIMII(IIIOillllllfll(Illllflf IffIIIII~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGIiIIfiIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIlI111111111IIIIIIIII~IIIIIIIIIIIillUllJ)I1lIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIfIIllllfllliil ifs h I1Il Ifs tl(I1plTllll~lll8l((]II!<1111Ii Ilf~lillll~lil ' ; . . . , _ 1p ~ ul^u g„o 3~S Lao 93D sg _ ~W J+m `ws rro ti ao N J ~ xsa ~ aos ~C r~ v eo o R' 650` It im$ JIl( ~S75S A 0'~ 1' 11551 ~N ~b ~ f ~I1p D _ ~ ar kALL y >SS J Z &b, p ~ 3Bp ~ ~ I I y ~a$ ~ X40 B~ ~a r 17J 1 J~ x C } 51`b ~ ~ a ~~a ,,>sl ~ ~,o y~ a 3 S ` df. v~9° ~ ~ - g sso )ti ~ J L - J `o WASHINGTON ~s ~ ~ I ~s J 1bi~~ o SQUARE trs, 1 ,z5 r V~~9h fEHNAN ST. J/ us % ~ ~J~ ~ r B COAAL ST. nn / ' P ~ o ~ 1g5 "I ~ ~ N`0 `b yG~' LOCUST Si. F C 14p BAS ^ a swp rxcr 3 5 J a ~TROk l~ ~ 1f P UAN s<. ;~,o ~n~ 1~J ~/~h ~ J++ ~10 <>S \ ' ` ,W ~ ` 65 150 1 0~ 0 ~0 C 7J 0 JO a JJ ~\SS ' 150 s 7 ~1r obi s~ NOTE: 4ey _ Volumes have been rounded to the nearest 5 vehicles ~«Aaw,S-a~~A1 ,na tt-nu-m Parametrix, Ir1C. Figure 5 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME 10!22/96 Agenda # 7 3 of 8 r, _ - ' If this notice appeiirs clever than the • { AUG 2 41998 doc ment the document is of m.i;ginnl ,uaiity• CROFILMED 11 ~ _ jL~ 1-~~L(1 ~11[~~ ~I - :~1~#~~ ,{fit I,fi,L:_ ' IHCX ~ 'MACE IN dIH7A _ ° - ~ - ,,,;~c- _ _ _ tp ~ @.r . s. s r u e -ta u u ° u; u • ts;. u ; ; t• (R nl IU 1111li11llQIl~lUlhlll~~lllll LLlhlll~llUli~ lulu ltl l~ifrlarl~Ilillullfulllmlhiutilllf mluldu1111111iuumufllulue(ullllndlll~luu6alululaual11111n1uuhulumhl,lo l m, Iftl I 1~ ~ldul~mlluu1l11dMU~ludull a lr t { ~ A 1~ its 8~m ~ gW~ L>o ~ y,~ N v; n ~ zes J } C in's ) { L T iu° z Ms ~ '7p V oJ2o ~ 1 } ~ 111' gz~ ~ n NAIL j"` 105 O d ~ b. " yep ~ l l z D 8 " 1 i { ~ aos 455 ~p \ .yy { 'zs 1 3 Jryryyy / 3t S ~ o yP h ~ 1z~ ~ S S Sgo f,~ ^'~`•a V~4O SO H d- vs' / 6p0 8 ~ ~ ~ / 9,5 m J { '4° 3 ) ~ j ,~g'oo SA6HINGTDN ss ~ 1 pTO~ N OUARE I { ~s J 00 ,a5 ~ 11 ~q ~ ~ 1 J L sps ~ ~ r~5 r / v s'o / `55 LEHMAN ST. L ~ ~i 0 CORAL Si. o / 50O / ~N4o ~o ~O ~ IC `f95 Ha0 LOCUST Sf. \ } 45 a µ.A F 11p ^ , o sou~~cRO 3 s J it ~ OAK ST. ~yti o ~'0p~ I ~//~y 5 ,~yry s0s ` ! ~ L as ~ Jo ~\fs 7„ ~p ~15p NOTE: > > a~i~ ~r °1p` 1tr by 1 Volumes have been rounded to the _ nearest 5 vehicles illE CtClp~td6"OI~L'NOIY4 .OB Y1-2S1,'FOI Parametrix I c ,n. Flgure 25 1997 PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 10/2/96 Agenda # 7 bof8 _ i " i .r If this notice nppaars clearer than the AUG 2 41998 , document, the document ifi of marginDt gnaiitp' ± MICROFILMED c'a T I~i~l~r l!~~ ~~t ! ~?T~.~~t~~~Ia~: ~ ~ ~1J:1... ~ ilk} vrx- - - ^.ar INCH ' MADE DI CHMk ~ u-:'•• : . r- _.c_.... -1 s+- L Y.. L _ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S:i: _ - .t.._= 'iD _'.:~t! , .li 95 i~ . II i n. <:=za, _ =2i-. -;~a . M.! VllI~III111I11~111111111~41(1111~TIIIlllll~f[1111111{llltlllf III 11(~IIIIIIII~IIIIIIIIIGI1111111fOfIIIfIIII ~ IIII ~ ~ ~ 11(11 ~tti~iif(Ilf~~111111~ID11411I1~>1111T~IhIII~ItiIWU ; I ( 111111111/ ill[(I1111~11191L1(IiuUlll.lllllllll ulllulllllf Ihlllo~m I tT 1 ~ ~ A •z!= 8~a ` Sm `pa~o J ~ `B° ^ 890 J/ 1 ISS ~ o'~ 6] J1'1 1)p D ) J 6p oI l ~ , m P ~s]5 S ~O~'J n e zep D yF N ~ Z o ~C BT ID 'y' T9C J 2 p .Ip~ ~Ir 1 Aga A K ]O5 f" X55 SJ \ ^\9pS ~hM1% TTp • ` a JJpJ U ~\JJ n~ TSJ~ ~JJ J$ c~a v ~0~ys J'o / \ ,I,yO S J ~ WASHINGTON ss J I gown ~ SCUARE ~p _l ~ ~ ~s \SS ~IS~ 1 ~0 1 ~ I o / ~ - 0.P - . ~,o j ~ ~zzp 815 N o LOCUST Sf, J n° u` yl I ~ 155 I S~~IHCT ~ 0 '14C Bp a I r S J - A 1 oAx n. sps ~ p~ i, 1(~ ~l -5° OJ ~sJJ ~~4 dos ]s J J-'s,o NOTE: > > ,I;p~ !r ~ llr Volumes have been rounded to the 5 ~ nearest 5 vehicles rt~'+n\n15-al\uuans JO& p1-151Y01 Aarametrix I t1 C. Figure 2T 1997 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME WITH GROWTH ON 5096-6096 OF VACANT DEVELOPABLE foizvss LAND Agenda # 7 5of8 _ If this notice appears clearer thin the UG 2 1998 - ~l A I' ~ 4 'document, the document is of marginal yu:liitp, ; MICROFILMED I ~ r(}~~~~i i I-~~Ill~il~_~11~ I _ I I ~~I} I ~ ~il~~}r;t~ ; ( _ 11~~}11~~ _ }~f~} INCX i 'MADE IN IXNLC - ._~s~ ~ ~ - - I I t it-. v to=, . es.:-.,. t. - I. t.:.... _ w, _ _ Il l lll ~ I II I (n sa u,: . I~IIIIII~IIIIIIII(~IIIIIdIIIIIIIIiIIIIINI~(fIIIIII~Iiltlllli~ll~IIIIIIIII~IIII~III IIII~1((IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIflIIIIIIIII~IIIdIIiI~IIIUlA~111111!IIIlIIIIINII111111IlIlllllllii~~~i]din 1~,[IIIIOITII lllUllllllll III 14111IIlUW~ ; • i. 8~m 8n; L,o ~".p l ~eo - 9os N `t9 J1C 'Cb JIB r75 I l ~1 -„o ~z„ N a~ ~ 29,5 o a X70 ~v ~ ~7~ I r 11 iesl oar ss -l _ m e JI/ `~scs p e°`~ l o > xp zas o ar ~~B m BUJ c ~Ir o ~ ;~s < I ]0.9 r 155 Bp0 ~ n^ I ~iS ~ ^IS.VO //h~ 1 JAS ~ ~ `~~O nb0 1~~~ J~ 1 ~)/r s~ ~ o ~ b0bes ''o ~ G ~ b l'~~~L / 9~„ JI ~s ( ,y5 3 J ~ WASHINGTON 25 J ~ 1 .s°~5^ s SOUARE w 1 ~ I ,5 u $ 9,00 ~ ,,0 1 I JI' SJS `090 ~'a ii / 00 LEHMAN Si. 0\` ( ARH P CORAL ST. ~ , ~ Lszo ~a 050 ^ s ~ LOCUST Si. J I N` q WH 155 S ~N ry$ 0 ~HRfCRaN 5 5 J m„ p I r 1 ~ A I aAK n. s05 \ / ~ L ~ o~ ova r, r~ J1~ '~a 's s ~a ~ 'S r' 4a ~ s o ~ NOTE: 5~j s ~ oy,. l,- Ir Oy ~ ~ w; Volumes have been rounded to the nearest 5 vehicles a~i: clunW.s-m Wuone dae: n.aus-m Parametrix lac. Figure 29 1997 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME WITH GROWTH ON 80%-90% OF VACANT DEVELOPABLE A~'a~ , LAND 6of8 i ~ If this notice appears clearer them the AUG i998 - t 24 ,I~ ,;document, the document is of marginal ,naiitp. ~ MICROFILMED 'i , ~i r~[>,~ _!la,Eyi~?.~1~ +.~i~ll(rf`f~~ t~TftTI?[r~r~l ; w_?~'q~T~ ~~[I~~E+'i~.:.. I ~ ~ r~T} i INCN I MADE al CH -c-r... - _ 1. ~ ~ ~ - 2 i ~ 1 rni.= - S,. :4. . t_ -~_f,:: ~t '~11.:.., ,12 .r.. K aS r; t8 t.;:5~)t . 18':';c'ta. _ I~111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIf(lII1~H11111 tlillllllll Ill I t ' yy - ~ I ~ I~li~lllll Ili IIII[I111~111111111~II11(III1~11111011(IIIIIf(Ililllllllll~illllll8~llllllllllllldlill~liUllll~AIIIIIII~IIIIIIIII~IIIIIIIIIIIIH(I(n~1N fflii~f I~f tll lOlrll[I1llIlU.IIIIUIIIIIi lll){f ml iulull~m>< ; ~ t . ,d''~ r ~ ~ I r '°4 ris° t ~ 1 1~ i<; ~ 1 r! \ ohs ry ~ ( t ~~~o, I've fr r URA %x,65 r R 1 SAD ,5;65~„d ~ °y / 1 r r ~O°y ~ J I 1 + r ( 1 v'~0 I r IL ~ {i r ! 3 I i^~_ ~ t ~ , t _ f f ~7 f ~1y! ""m"y."'h wJO°4'"y. ~ t~ f ~ ~1 t 3 ~ f ~5 + jf I , - j I~ ~ • fr~f" f, •,ti ~ ,l Y .-I '~'f ~ z~ A~. Lam` . . 1 ~ i J• f' fie' ff;r F f, 1. _..,,,,._,.1-' r 1 1, F i I . ' ,F ..3 ~ f...~~._...~ , = I 3 E E ~ U t I U f f I 1 f V E t € ~ i ~ ~ .„,ri Z ~ 10°'' ~3 r I ND1L 91°X5 FY PEU( NiYLES BY (AK MM !OF-Kb[ OE5II0°F3YNf _ PIL C~LAD~1513-01 ~f91301NA JO& 2l-TSAL01 V ParametrlX, Inc. Figure 44 SR 217lGREENBURG RDAD INTERCHANGE OPTION 12 DIRECT RAMPS TOlFROM WASHINGTON 1022196 S4UARE Agenda # 7 7of8 ' ~ Fr ~ i ' ~ ~ If this notice ~ppa:us clearef ,han the At1G 2 41998 :'document, the document is of maf•ginal ,nuiiq • MICROFILMED ' , ~1• ~_i~~~ ~ i~r~~ r~r~t : I ~~r? r~~~: ifi~ii'i'~:. ( 111ti~~ . _ _ _ I ~ INCX ~ NADE W CXNU _ - t ~r s r r r . 1~ I ~ w to d n u t: , fl1HI ~(i[-Illl lhljllll(1lltIIDI(Illllllll ~IIT(il ~~llll(Ilil ~ duuiuuluurludllmmdtiumu~ttaiiu1iiaiil~uli~~il(ialllildiuil~ut[m~lull6!uluiululilmllmlllu(uulm~lu~uu~luuluhnliml6111iuldauiullhuhlmnun 1 ~ • A _ - , i i+ ~ I -.I ~ ~ r' ~ ! I i i' j ~ i j ,I ! ~l I ~ i t ~ \ ti, ~ i s^°" a f i o"~y ry~y ~ ~ z~s a j ~ f `Oa. SJp `~~°`,,Lr. ! y *PoY 2'T9p r w J70 ` f ~ F3z0 0' f ~ E~ ~ N ~y f L E ~i SOS -•a„~ y t ~ `-z. 7~y ~J F JGS - - ~ SrW V`j - - _ _ _ ROLLS F r - ERRY RD. ------a~~. BEAVERTON - TIGARD HWY. Z NOTE SHOWS PM PEAK VOLUMES BY LANE N11t1 80%90% DEVELOPEMENT +ar nlun\zs+s-al W~soma zw-m Parametrix Inc, Figure 45 SR 217/SCROLLS FERRY ROAD loaves ~ INTERCHANGE OPTION 1 Agenda # 7 BofB i ~ If this notice nppzars clelrer than the AUG 2 1996 - { 4 I .document, the document is of msrginnl ,uniih, ~ MICROFILMED 5.;. I ~I1~~~ _ t-l~ll[I~EE~~iI~ ~-Tltl IL~~1 r~~ ~?~~IC!~: i 1?1 _ ~ _ ~ (rllf i;. ; w INCH i MADE IM CHNU _c n - - - - 1 - av a.:-.." ~ t 1.:=_ t 1t_'. _12....12=_?'... d "t:---.. 15 1": 18 li~~..,. ~ _ _ n-... . ,<v ti.. . ~ ~ i~IIIIIIIIIIIIII(IInIIIlIil111fldTlllllllfUIIIIIIIIhllllllf III1141111111~IlIlllllllllll~flllllll[IfIIIIillliifllllllllilllhlli~lllllllll)111IIIIII~Il1UIl~AIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIl11f11filllllllflm ml ~f Im ml II1~iillliar~tulGu~tin flli I I~mlihl~ ; ~ _ n r n Scholls Ferrv Road Scholls Ferry Road is designated as an arterial in the Tigard Comprehensive Tnansporation Plan an a major arterial in the Washiangton County Transportation Plan. This four-lane roadway is also known as Scholls Highway (State Route 210) in the state highway system, and serves southwest-to-northeast regional travel movements between portions of unincorporated 6.1 Washington County, Beaverton and Portland. Scholls Ferry Road has a designated speed limit of 35 MPH and has no on-street parking. Scholls Ferry Road intersects Hall Boulevard at a four-way signalized intersection. This intersection has experienced capacity and safety problems ~J for many years and has recently been improved. j Greenbure Road Greenbure Road is designated as a major collector street in the Tigard Transportation Plan. This roadway has a four -lane cross-section with left turn pockets at major access points south of Locust Street. North of Locust Street, Greenburg road narrows to a single through lane in each direction with left turn channelization. Approaching Hall Boulevard, Greenburg widens out again to a four-lane cross-section with left turn channelizado- at Hall. To the north of Hall Boulevard, Greenburg Road is known as Oleson Road and has a single travel lane in each direction with left turn pockets at intersections. Within the study area Greenburg Road is signed for 40 MPH speeds and has no on-street parking. Locust Street ,I Locust Street is identified as a collector street serving the residential neighborhood directly east of Greenburg Road and north of SR-217. This street has a single travel lane in each direction r u with traffic signal control at Greenbure Road and Hall Boulevard. Locust Street also serves the major office development at Lincoln Center and the Metzger School i Maior Intersections Analvrpd in the Stud Area J The following signalized intersections were analyzed as part of this study: Scholls Ferry Road at: - Hall Boulevard - SR-217 northbound on-ramp - SR-217 northbound off-ramp j - SR-217 southbound on- and off-ramps U - Cascade Boulevard - Nimbus Avenue _ J II-3 i , - o 71 J Greenburg Road at: - Hall Boulevard r+ - Locust Avenue - Washington Square Road (Mapleleaf Road) - SR-217 northbound on- and off-ramps - SR-217 southbound on- and off-ramps - Cascade Boulevard Hall Boulevard at: Nimbus Avenue - SR-217 southbound on and off-ramps/Cascade Boulevard - Embassy Suites Access Road J - Target Store Access Road A . The following unsignalized intersections were analyzed as part of this study: Scholls Ferry Road at: - Washington Square Entrance Road _ Greenburg Road at: - Washington Square North Driveway North Cemetary Access Road - South Cemetary Access Road Oak Street Hall Boulevard at: - US Bank Access Road TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Morning and evening peak hour turning movement counts were conducted at all signalized and at many major unsignalized intersections in the study area. The majority of these counts were ? J taken in November of 1990, and were documented in a report entitled "Traffic Operations Analysis for the Washington Square Shopping Center", (Kittelson and Associates, Inc.) dated April, 1991. These counts were updated where necessary due to significant changes in traffic J volumes between then and the present, or to supplement the count data presented in this report. To supplement or update the earlier counts, morning and evening peak hour counts were v conducted at eight of the previously identified intersections during the month of January, 1993. These intersections included: Hall Boulevard at Nimbus Avenue; Scholls Ferry Road at the southbound SR217 ramps, Cascade Boulevard and Nimbus Avenue; and Greenburg Road at the J southbound SR217 ramps and Cascade Boulevard. An evening peak hour count was also conducted at the intersection of Greenburg Road with the northbound SR217 ramps during this - J H-4 7~j s _ n month. Additionally, during the month of November, 1992, an evening peak hour count was conducted at the intersection of Hall Boulevard with Scholls Ferry Road. Existing morning and evening peak hour turning movement counts in the study area are presented in Figures 4 and 5, respectively. ~.1 Existing Level of Service Analysis Based on the volumes presented in Figures 4 and 5, peak hourly traffic operations were analyzed ,J at the intersections identified above using the methodologies outlined in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). J According to the HCM, there are six levels of service (LOS) by which the operational performance of an intersection may be described. These levels of service range between LOS r, "A" which indicates a relatively free-flowing condition and LOS "F" which indicates operational breakdown. LOS "D" is usually considered as a minimum acceptable standard in urban areas. With this level of service, some delays are expected for certain traffic movements. The HCM methodology for analysis of signalized intersections was used at those locations which are currently traffic signal-controlled. At these intersections, level of service is related to the u.wu6~ u 11c '"y ~-'pcc-' 11VW by all vehicles as they approach clay the intersection. The following table © summarizes the relationship between level of service and average delay. Average Delay Level of Service Seconds per Vehicle J A < 5.0 B 5.1 -15.0 i C 15.1 -25.0 D 25.1 - 40.0 E 40.1 -60.0 F > 60.0 At unsignalized intersections, level of service is related to reserve, or unused, roadway capacity J (measured in passenger cars per hour). Reserve capacity is evaluated for all vehicles entering or crossing the major roadway traffic flow from side streets, as well as those making left turns on the major roadway. The relationship between various levels of service and reserve capacity I J is as follows: I II-5 t I i VE i I EETING ATE: i AuEN®.A: SEE 35MEMWE LL FILM iArecordslmi - -oflm\targets\osdocccm.doc U. Reserve Capacity Level of Expected Delay to f J LPCPHI Service Minor Street Traffic + / > 400 A Little or no delay 300-399 B Short traffic delays 200-299 C Average traffic delays i - 100-199 D Long traffic delays 0-99 E Very long traffic delays <0 F Extreme delays, usually warrants intersection improvement n Note: PCPH means Passenger Cars per Hour Existing morning and evening levels of service are depicted in Figures 6 and 7, respectively. This data is also summarized in Table 1 for signalized intersections and in Table 2 for unsignalized intersections in the study area. As indicated in Table 1, all signalized intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels of service during the morning peak hour. During the evening peak hour, several of these J intersections are currently experiencing deficiencies including: - Scholls Ferry Road at Hall Boulevard - LOS "F" during PM peak - J - Scholls Ferry Road at SD SR217 ramps - LOS "E" during PM peak Scholls Ferry Road at Nimbus Avenue - LOS "E" during PM peak All other signalized intersections in the study area are currently operating at an acceptable level of service "D" or better during the evening peak hour. According the data in Table 2, all critical movements at the major unsignalized intersections in the study area are currently operating at an acceptable level of service with the exception of Hall Boulevard at the US Bank Access Road. During the evening peak hour, northbound left-turning vehicles at this intersection are currently experiencing level of service "E" conditions. This intersection operates at an acceptable level of service during the morning peak hour. ri - - While not reflected in the individual level of service calculations, the intersections of Greenburg Road with the SR-217 ramps also experience significant congestion during the evening peak hour with southbound traffic queues observed to back up from the northbound SR-217 ramps to Washington Square Road, a distance of approximately 500 feet. A major reason for this queue is the lack of adequate green time for southbound vehicles to progress along Greenburg Road through the interchange area. This is in part the result of heavy turning movements at from both the east and west at Washington Square Road which continually adds to the platoon of through- moving volume. It is also, in part, the result of the existing lane configuration on the Greenburg Road bridge which forces all vehicles heading to destinations south of the interchange into a single travel lane. 64 V 0 w 4W D> n hgGC 9 ~ D 1 G yd• A N~ C 2 ~ Apo k z ~ s . d f y r«j a WASHINGTON SQUARE w LEHMAN ST. _ ~~~~111 CORAL ST. SLR LOCUST ST. NO Wq m o SQUgRf RO. ~ - Ap N OAK ST. 1th O LOS C OR BETTER S ® LOS D ~J ' ,10@ 27-2515-01 Parametrix, Inc. Figure 6 EXISTING A.M. PEAK LEVELS OF SERVICE _ . - F f N ~ 4W D A Co ~ h O Z " v j APO. 0 y ~ a SQUAREUN = Z•p I E.r•' - ~ LEHMAN ST. CORAL ST. Fy y S`aOJ• LOCUST ST. F m - (°`1 so OUARf RDN a ` _ J OAK ST. 0 m O LOS C OR BETTER 5 ® LOS D LOS E LOS F "`E X J08:27-2545-01 e~ 4 r. Pararnetrix, Inc. Figure 7 EXISTING P.M. PEAK LEVELS OF SERVICE s , w; - F. f~ Table 1 t Existing Levels of Service at Signalized Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Average Level of Average Level of Intersection Delay Service Delay Service Scholls Ferry Road at: Hall Boulevard 28.8 D 62.3 F SR 217/NB on-ramp 12.4 B 24.0 C t SR 217/NB off-ramp 12.4 B 17.8 C i SR 217/SB ramps 29.8 D 44.2 E Cascade Boulevard 7.4 B 23.9 C h i j Nimbus Avenue 28.9 D 40.6 E Greenburg Road at: Hall Boulevard 21.4 C 32.9 D Locust Street 10.3 B 15.1 C j Washington Square Road 12.7 B 27.5 D SR 217/NB ramps 14.4 B 33.8 D 21 cv 2i'nen is n 7 243 C Cascade Boulevard 17.6 C 19.5 C Hall Boulevard at: Nimbus Avenue 32.0 D 32.6 D SR 217 SB ramps/Cascade Blvd. 20.3 C 34.9 D Embassy Suites Access 6.1 B 17.1 C Target Store Access 3.8 A 12.0 B For example, while the individual intersection capacity calculations for Greenburg Road in the r vicinity of SR 217 indicate level of service "D" operations during the evening peak hour, actual traffic operations were observed to be significantly congested. Southbound traffic queues were observed to back up from the northbound ramps to Washington Square Road, a distance of approximately 500 feet. A major reason for this queue is the lack of adequate green time for i southbound vehicles to progress along Greenburg Road through the interchange area. This is in part the result of heavy turning movements from both the east and west at Washington Square Rood which continually add to the platoon of through-moving vehicles. It is also, in part, the result of the existing lane configurations on the Greenburg Road bridge which forces all vehicles i heading to destinations south of the interchange into a single travel lane. i..~ According to data in Table 2, all critical movements at the major unsignalized intersections in the study area are currently operating at an acceptable level of service with the exception of Hall Boulevard at the US Bank Access Road. During the evening peak hour, northbound left-turning vehicles at this intersection are currently experiencing level of service "E" conditions. This intersection operates at an acceptable level of service during the morning peak hour. II-11 . Ll i P, Table 2 F Existing Levels of Service } at Unsignalized Intersections a AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour I Critical Reserve Level of Reserve Level of Intersection Movement Capacity Service Ca aci Service Scholls Ferry Road at: Wash. Sq. Entrance SBL 242 C 211 C i Greenburg Road at: Wd Wash. Sq. No. Dvwy. NBL 668 A 680 A EBL 302 B 198 D 6 EBR 914 A 924 A No. Cemetery Access NBL 785 A 821 A EBL 349 B 187 D EBR 707 A 660 A So. Cemetery Access NBL 778 A 713 A I FRT R Al0 a 200 e Oak Street SBL 358 B 353 B 7 WBR 673 A 640 A Hall Boulevard at: US Bank Access NBL 130 D 34 E NBR 518 A 305 B WBL 543 A 445 A Accident History Accident data on major roadways in the study area was obtained from the Cities of Tigard and Beaverton and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Data was provided by the City of Tigard for the period between February, 1989 and January, 1993 and includes total _ accidents and accidents by type (i.e, fatal, injury or property damage only). The City of Beaverton provided data by accident type for the years 1988 through 1990 inclusive, while data J from ODOT included the period from January, 1989 through September, 1992. Accident data is summarized in Table 3 and discussed on the following pages. Jl J II-12 a ^ Table 3 Summary of Traffic Accident History in Study Area Average Daily Average Number of Accidents/Million r j Intersection Traffic Volumes Annual Accidents- Entering Vehicles J Scholls Ferry Road at: Hall Boulevard 39,600 10.1 0.82 j SR217 NB on ramp 29,750 7.5 0.81 I ` SR217 NB off ramp 25,550 1.3 0.16 SR217 SB ramps 34,650 4.0 0.37 Cascade Boulevard 36,050 6.4 0.57 Nimbus Avenue 36,750 2.3 0.20 j ^ Greenburg Road at: a Hall Boulevard 26,650 1.8 0.22 Locust Street 13,800 2.3 0.54 tt Washington Sq. Rd. 23,550 1.0 0.14 E. :•J Oak Street 23,950 1.8 0.24 SR217Interchange 36,400 14.3 1.27 Hall Boulevard at: . Nimbus Avenue 31,150 4.3 0.45 Cascade Boulevard 32,050 2.9 0.29 p~9 Review of Table 3 indicates that the most significant number of accidents in the study area occurred at the SR 217 interchange with Greenburg Road (includes both ramp terminal intersections) with an average of over 14 accidents per year. This equates to an accident rate of 1.27 per million vehicles entering these intersections. Also significant is the accident iJ experience at the intersections of Scholls Ferry Road with Hall Boulevard and with the northbound on-ramp to SR 217. Accident rates at these two intersections are 0.82 and 0.81, respectively. It should be noted that the accident rate at the Scholls Ferry/Hall intersections has signficantly improved over the past few years, since completion by ODOT of an intersection improvement project. All other intersections within the study area for which data was available, do not appear to be experiencing significant accident problems. Figure 8 illustrates key accident locations within the study area. I EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE Public transit service in the study area is provided by the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District (Tri-Met). Service within the study area is focused on the existing transit center located on the west side of Washington Square and includes five routes; three providing service between the Tigard/Washington Square area and downtown Portland and two providing 11 - 13 u OIL- ~ o HAS 9 ti r Clp yn1 ay > i, ~ y Cl) 0 i Z D _ ~ a gyp. X50 7. rt5 a - $ WASHINGTON ¢ p SQUARE ed LEHMAN ST. CORAL ST. Ry ~ LOCUST ST. i SAS~yiry m C7 ~ARf RON Li p g OAK ST. m i ~J ME: 2 10 - eq JOB: 27-2545-01 f 4 Parametrix, Inc. Figure 8 ~.1 KEY ACCIDENT LOCATIONS ~ i service to the Beaverton Transit Center (one of these also serves the Lake Oswego Transit Center). These routes include #43 (Taylors Ferry Road), #45 (Garden Home), #56 (Scholls Ferry Road), #62 (Murray Boulevard), and #78 (Beaverton/Lake Oswego). The alignment of these routes in the study area is presented in Figure 9, while Table 4 includes a summary of their key service characteristics. The major transit destination in the study area is the Washington Square Transit Center with s over 1,100 daily boardings according to the 1990 Passenger Census. Other major transit destinations include bus stops along the access roads into the Mall, and at the intersections of Scholls Ferry Road with Hall Boulevard and Nimbus Avenue, and Hall Boulevard with Nimbus S Avenue (the latter two intersections provide direct access into the business park located between Hall Boulevard and Scholls Ferry Road west of the railroad tracks. Table 4 k Characteristics of Existing Transit Service i j in Study Area ..4 Trip Frequency Line Description Peak Hour Off-Peak Saturday Sundgy 43 "Taylors Ferry Road" 30 min. 60 min. 60 min. 60 min. Washington Square to Downtown Portland a t 45 "Garden Home" 20 min. AM 60min. 60 min. 60 min. Li Tigard T.C. to 30 min. PM Downtown Portland r~ 56 "Scholls Ferry Road" 15 min. AM 30 min. 60 min. 60 min. Washington Square to 20 min. PM Downtown Portland 62 "Murray Boulevard" 20 min. 30 min. 60 min. None Washington Square to Beaverton T.C. 78 "Beaverton/Lake 20 min. 30 min. 30 min. 60 min. r Oswego" - Lake 60 min. Oswego T.C. to after 1 Beaverton T.C.' 6:00 PM ' Via Washington Square and Tigard Transit Center ~ r u-15 i J now, o D - ~ cA7 o {N y Co zz 0 B j i bl ~ n 0.~ ~ m o 43 a m S L J WASHINGTON p SQUARE 43,45,56, a~ l1 162,78 r LEHMAN ST. - - a A CORAL ST. Eaa ~ LOCUST ST. ASH~NOT J W F- s o OUARf RON =A N D ~ OAK 5T. °m m , MAJOR TRANSIT Py DESTINATIONS J J I FllL' 2 IK7 rl Ja6:2T-25«01 Parametrix, Inc. Figure 9 LJ EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE n NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION The non-motorized transportation system in the study area includes both bikeways and pedestrian facilities. Some street space has been set aside and delineated for bike travel along Scholls Ferry 8 Road north of SR-217 and along Hall Boulevard east of Scholls Ferry Road, but the system is not continuous. There are no bike facilities along Greenburg Road in the study area. A Figure 10 illustrates the major portions of the existing sidewalk and pathway system in the study area which is provided to facilitate safe pedestrian circulation and access. As indicated in this M; figure, sidewalks are most frequently provided in those portions of the study area where development has recently occurred. In particular, this includes the business park along Nimbus Avenue and Gemini Drive and in the area around Lincoln Center. There are significant gaps in the existing pedestrian system, most notably between the Metzger neighborhood and the major employment and shopping destinations in the study area, and along Scholls Ferry Road and j Cascade Boulevard. SUMMARY OF EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PROBLEMS AND ISSUES 71 Figure 11 presents a summary of the key traffic circulation issues and problems in the study area. These include: a~ A significant level of congestion in the vicinity of the SR-217/Greenburg Road - 'm AWN interchange. - Significant congestion in the vicinity of the Scholls Ferry Road/Hall Boulevard intersection J and adjacent intersections. - Significant congestion along Scholls Ferry Road between the southbound SR-217 ramps - and Nimbus Avenue. ,o, Lack of clarity in freeway access along Scholls Ferry Road. Access is circuitous and can i 71 be confusing as on- and off-ramps are not placed in logical proximity to each other. Signing to the freeway from major destinations and access routes is not always clear and 1 can result in motorist confusion. - Intrusion of through traffic into the Metzger neighborhood east of Greenburg Road. i - Lack of pedestrian and bicycle connections between residential areas and employment/shopping areas and along key streets in the study area. J 1 J It- 17 I ___..n~....,....- - . _-...r r 1 H ~ A J y c Z @ 0 a < I m m WASHINGTON- 61 SQUARE w W LEHMAN ST. 61 CORAL ST. ~ fg SOU- LOCUST ST. F ~7{ Na m 1 (7 S~~Re R N a - 1 D. s OAK ST. V m I FI 111111 1 1J N m r ~ _1 - u - . JM- 25150186 - - 108:27-25«01 Parametrix, Inc. Figure 10 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES J 'K 21 o I 1..j Bc n h Co c z v SIGNIFICANT CONGESTION 88 iu :.i•• S ~J > I Ac OF CLARITY _z IN F EEWAY ACCESS ~ Z D 0 c m° N 3 c D m o Z WASHINGTON p SQUARE v i LACK OF PEDESTRIAN w CONNECTIONS 1 , SIG I CANT ~y LEHMAN ST. - CON STION LACK 0 PEDESTRIAN CONNE TIONS CORAL ST. I SOaO LOCUST ST. r OuJHOR00 NEIGHBORHOOD m o qRf TRAFFIC INTRUSION 3 0 F a OAK ST. L V m m SIGNIFICANT CONGESTION J tt' 2-'4 O,N7 rt ~::7_zx}al 1 Parametrix, Inc. Figure 11 u KEY CIRCULATION ISSUES J r SECTION III J n. DEVELOPMENT OF TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS r, METHODOLOGY The assessment of traffic impacts and facility improvement requirements associated with short- term development in the study area was based on a travel demand forecasting methodology 1 developed specifically for this project. This methodology included both manual and computerized forecasting techniques and used the regional transportation model developed and r, maintained by Metro as a starting point. The regional model was modified and refined to create L! a sub-area model focused specifically on the study area. This model was used to assess the 3 implications of regional growth on the study area, to identify the nature of existing travel ry patterns within and through the study area, and to provide a framework for the analysis of specific development activity in the study area. The development of and results from the sub- area model are discussed in this Section. Section IV presents a discussion of the manual analysis of traffic growth associated with specific development activity within the study area. The development of traffic projections was based on a series of assumptions including the following: Population/employment and traffic estimates for the larger area surrounding the project study area would be consistent with the assumptions made by Metro in its regional s transportation model. Within the project study area population/employment and traffic growth would be based on growth estimates prepared as part of the study. i j - There would be no significant rezoning or property in or near the study area prior to 1997. 'i - There would be no major system capital improvements in the study area or on access routes to the study area prior to 1997, except: I~ - Ramp metering would be instituted at all SR-217 interchanges; and - The current widening projects on Scholls Ferry Road west of SR-217 and on Hall Boulevard south of Locust Street would be completed. EXISTING HOUSEHOLDS AND EMPLOYMENT t In developing a sub-area travel demand model for the study area, a detailed system of traffic i J analysis zones was identified and a supporting street and highway network was developed. with distance from the study area, this zone system became increasingly less detailed. Figure 12 depicts the study area in relation to the original traffic analysis zone (TAZ) structure developed j by Metro and used for regional transportation planning purposes. Figure 13 shows the refined zone structure used for the sub-area model. ~J - 'LPOM 95 i BEAVERTON 86 I L' (p° a r f mom., ~r f 1.0 17 ~ s ,~15• , • U '~~(l ll ~I III j ji Ilk" 93 16 JL, ~-~7 a~ -,111 f III ~ 1G RD 3 17 JM C GAD 1lH JDB 27-23{}01 01 !y ~ r Parametrix, Inc. Figure 12 STUDY AREA IN RELATION TO METRO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES s _ L~ 7,1 1108 1204 a 1205 1203 4 N 1202 ~1 1201 1200 \ 1207 11 8 t ~ 1 08 1199 ti 1197 m 1186 11 1 N ~ - i < oq _ II 1 08 WASHINGTON ~ 1190 t~ SQUARE 12 10 1192 1185 LEHHAN ST. 121 CORAL ST. w = J LOCUST ST. 1211 S fcrpA < N r 1194 4 1193 V n A H % n S a OAK ST. m ~ t d 1213 M~ JR u 2i~ P~ JOB: 2 2E: UD N}O1 2NSOILD . J ` JO7-2545-01 - 1 Parametrix, Inc. Figure 13 STUDY AREA TRAFFIC J ANALYSIS ZONES The 1990 and 2010 household and employment projections originally prepared by Metro for the [ t f"1 j regional zone system were split in accordance with existing and planned land uses. The i resulting household and employment estimates are summarized in Table 5 for 1990 and in Table 1..~ 6 for 2010. Based on the household and employment data in the refined zones, estimates of travel demand were prepared and traffic assignments to the roadway network were made. . fff EVALUATION OF BASE YEAR MODEL RESULTS A significant effort was made to ensure that the forecasting methodology was reliable and that _ the 1990 traffic volume projections were reasonably consistent with actual traffic volumes 3 a 1 counted on the major streets in the study area. The results of this effort are illustrated in Table _ 7 which summarizes a comparison of modeled volumes with 1990 PM peak hour traffic volumes crossing a series of cutlines in the study area. A cutline is an artificial line drawn through s several generally parallel roads. Modeled traffic volumes crossing the cutline are added and _ compared to the sum of actual traffic counts crossing the same cutline on all major roads. Where the modeled volumes are reasonably close to the counted volumes (i.e. less than 10 y percent deviation), the model is said to be adequate for replicating existing traffic flow. 3 As indicated in Table ? modeled volumes crossing cutline #1 (see Figure 14 for the location of f cutlines) varied by a total of less than 0.1 percent from counted volumes. Both inbound and outbound traffic projections were reasonably close to actual volumes. At cutline #2, total difference was 0.2 percent including freeway volumes, with a difference of 0.3 percent without M: freeway traffic. Cutline #3, representing the eastern edge of the study area experienced the 9 greatest deviation from ground counts with a total difference of 16.6 percent (26% in the inbound direction and 6.2% in the outbound direction). At cutline #4, there was a total deviation of 9.5 percent with 2.3% in the inbound direction and 11.9% in the outbound direction. 9 ~ ;j Generally, it was concluded that the sub-area model provided a reasonable simulation of existing traffic conditions and would be an acceptable tool for evaluating future traffic volumes. However, due to the low assignment across cutline #3 (east of the study area), the model may underestimate the volume of traffic which may intrude into the residential neighborhoods of that area. l r~ ANALYSIS OF EXISTING TRAVEL PATTERNS After validation of the sub-area model was completed, this analysis tool was used to develop a greater understanding of existing patterns of traffic movement within and through the study area. t In particular, analysis was conducted of the existing origin and destination patterns of traffic coming into and out of the study area; both in the aggregate and along selected segments of the street system. 111-4 ~l 1 Table 5 1990 Household and Employment Estimates n for Study Area Traffic Analysis Zones Metro New Employment Zone Zone Households Retail Other Total 11 90 1190 358 24 35 59 1191 223 35 88 123 1192 313 178 227 405 ~ 894 237 350 587 92 1193 61 - 2,592 2,592 1194 373 = 373 1195 1,615 1,615 1196 - 372 173 545 1197 91 124 691 815 152 2,484 3,456 5,940 93 1198 197 14 46 60 1199 _ 184 184 +m 1200 - - 92 92 1201 66 257 597 854 263 271 90 1,190 94 1202 - 65 - 65 - 1203 290 - 221 221 1204 435 147 147 725 65 368 433 - 115 1205 - 244 3,213 3,484 1206 540 27 _ 27 540 271 3,213 3,511 116 1207 - 44 578 622 1208 655 96 751 M 1209 - 87 96 183 1210 87 1.155 1.242 0 873 1,925 2,798 a 310 310 291 7 9 16 316 1211 95 196 694 1212 - 890 196 520 716 1213 589 521 1.110 95 981 1,735 2,716 L `tad III - 5 t - 1 Table 6 2010 Household and Employment Projections for Study Area Traffic Analysis Zones L} Metro New Employment Zone Zone Households Retail Other Total 1 n 90 1190 466 27 63 90 1191 333 40 195 235 1192 532 199 268 467 1,331 266 526 792 Q1 92 1193 124 - 3,242 3,242 1194 - 584 - 584 1195 - 2,334 - 2,334 ' 1196 - 778 211 989 1197 91 194 758 952 215 3,890 4,211 8,101 93 1198 351 18 52 70 1199 - - 301 301 v 1200 - - 93 93 1201 88 346 592 938 439 364 1,038 1,402 Li 94 1202 - 86 - 86 O 1203 358 92 292 1204 665 195 195 1,023 86 487 573 115 1205 - 295 3,773 4,068 1206 647 33 33 647 328 3,773 4,101 116 1207 - 57 1,109 1,166 1208 - 741 139 880 1209 171 139 310 ~Yr 1210 171 1 387 1 558 0 1,140 2,774 3,914 310 310 390 29 41 70 a 316 1211 97 203 1,110 1,313 1212 - 203 832 1,035 1213 608 832 1 440 97 1,014 2,774 3,788 V I U III - 6 f U - n n HACC y m ~J B<~. p ay > yS O CO z 71 M O moo. D m > ~ m O a a y WASHINGTON SQUARE _ m LEHMAN ST. ~y CORAL ST. x ZpN LOCUST ST. Ln Kq m n S9U~Rf RON S O - Pp N g OAK ST. m J JO(k P. RlE 27-2545--01 Parametrix, Inc. Figure 14 STUDY AREA TRAFFIC CUTLINES 1~ n Helvetia ¢l ° cO~G MARINE OR L• O MBIA 9 Portland l «o Internatiot i eP i-• BOMBARD ST Airport 9GNSFT pQ~~UnlOn KILL INGSWORTH All Others 38.9% Gs W b I ~ ~ = Sp v I ELL °v f RD R 3 BAPr~~ ortland VALLEY HWY Y N I opN j Aloha v..: a RD. TON HI ~ rt f'w WOOD: R~GS a ve zl7 ~A m 6L v~~ 0~ 1 v t Cooper { ington Mtn KING ilwa ii Ti r - S RRr Bull eQ,QOOs ak go S King °a~ 00 0 City , u m I I Tualati vergrove GI E Tualatin L_ U.U L I-• o 2 a) West 1'- 0 C.D Q e a : n s herwood =Q oP° o o~9'LO 05 Linn 1 r (n d1~ ~1~~ mc: c uo >rs-ot solu2 j 611 JOB:27-2515-01 Parametrix, Inc. Figure 15 1990 STUDY AREA TRIP PATTERNS hl r a 4 Table 7 Comparison of 1990 PM Peak Traffic Volumes at Cutlines Difference j Modeled (Modeled uttine Direction Ground Count Volume vs. Actual) 1 Inbound 1,745 1,648 - 5.6% Outbound 3.505 609 +3.0% 5,250 5,257 < 0.1% 2 w/fwy Inbound 6,240 6,350 + 1.8% Outbound 6,360 6.042 - 5.0% 12,600 12,392 - 0.2% 4~} 2 w/o fwy Inbound 1,990 2,007 +0.9% ? Outbound 2.100 1.977 - 5.7% 4,090 3,984 - 0.3% 3 Inbound 1,565 1,155 -26.6% Outbound 1 Ain 1 Zen _ ~ 1) m_ Is, f 3,015 2,515 - 16.6% 4 Inbound 1,660 1,699 +2.3% 1 Outbound 275 2.809 - 11. o 4,935 4,508 +9.5% j Total Inbound 6,410 6,022 - 6.1% Outbound 8,045 8,118 + 0.9% 14,455 14,140 +2.2% Figure 15 illustrates existing traffic patterns into and out of the study area. As indicated in this figure, there is a strong travel relationship between the study area and the remainder of the ~I Cities of Tigard and Beaverton (15.2 percent and 17.6 percent of all study area trips travel to or from these destinations, respectively). Also of significance is the fact that 12.0 percent of all trips generated in the study area remain within that area. This likely indicates that there is J a significant level of non home-based trip-making occurring (i.e., trips between work and shop, work and another office, etc.) Figures 16 through 20 present the results of several select link analyses conducted on various F~ roadway segments in the study area. Select link analysis is used to identify the types of trips J being made on a roadway segment (i.e., local vs. through trips) and can aid in the understanding of travel patterns in the study area and in the development of roadway improvement options. III-9 P: R ' .f~ f p t Figure 16 depicts the results of select link analysis conducted on Hall Boulevard immediately east of Scholls Ferry Road. At this location, very few trips are being made to/from origins and destinations solely within the study area (less than 7 percent). Nearly 60 percent of trips at this location are being made to/from destinations within the study area and approximately 35 percent are through trips (i.e., trips that do not stop within the study area). This level of through trip- making is reasonable given the proximity of the select link to the SR 217 on- and off-ramps. Figure 17 shows the results of select link analysis for Greenburg Road north of SR 217. At this location, nearly 83 percent of all trips have one end (i.e., either an origin or a destination) f 6 within the study area. Major destinations outside of the study area include elsewhere in the City of Tigard (22 percent), Lake Oswego (13 percent),and the outer southwest portion of the Metropolitan Area (12 percent). 11 percent of the total trips made on this link are through trips and only 6 percent are made totally within the study area. These findings are indicative of a link which is very close to a major destination (such as Washington Square or Lincoln Center). i ~ Trips to/from these destinations dominate the traffic flow at this location. In Figure 18, the results of select link analysis on Scholls Ferry Road immediately south of Hall r j Boulevard are presented. At this location, over 47 percent of existing traffic are through trips indicating the importance of Scholls Ferry Road as a north-south connection in the overall circulation system for this portion of the Metropolitan Area. Nearly half of the trips on this link haee _1 origin or destination within the study area and less than d percent are (rips made solely within the study area. i Accordingly to the select link analysis shown in Figure 19, 68 percent of the trips made on Locust Street east of Hall Boulevard have an origin or destination within the study area. Many of these trips are likely made to/from the major trip attractors in the study area including j Washington Square or Lincoln Center. Others are likely made to/from the residential area east of Greenburg Road. 29 percent of the trips at this location are through trips and only 3 percent are trips made solely within the study area. i 1 r Figure 20 shows the results of select link analysis made on Nimbus Avenue south of Hall Boulevard. This analysis was conducted to identify the level of through trip-making along this a link by motorists seeking to avoid existing congestion on Scholls Ferry Road. The results indicate that approximately 8 percent of these trips are made entirely within the study area. 92 percent are made to/from a destination in the study area and a point outside of the study area. Many of these trips are likely made to/from the businesses located along Nimbus Avenue or Gemini Drive. There may also be a number of trips coming from or going to a destination in i the study area and a point outside which use Nimbus Avenue as a route of choice. No through h J trips were identified. In addition to the select link analysis conducted using the 1990 Base Year model, the model was also used to identify a series of select zone loadings. Select zone loadings indicate the percent € of trips traveling in all directions by all possible routes from the subject traffic analysis zone of origin. Select zone loadings were conducted for zones 1191, 1193, 1195 and 1207 as illustrated in Figure 13. The trip distribution percentages developed from this analysis were used in the .J manual analysis of project area trip-making which is further discussed in Section IV.' ~ III-10 F77 N a 6.9 % WITHIN STUDY AREA c~ ~ o ry 59.6 7. TO/FROM STUDY AREA '31tiq~C g~ -20.2% BEAVERTON > - 3.1 % TIGARD m . a j h - 6.6% SW PORTLAND m - 11.0% UNINCORP. WEST HILLS r! - 0.3% LAKE OSWEGO o - 0.2% OUTER SOUTHWEST y - 2.9% OUTER WEST A - 15.3% REST OF REGION j 33.5% THROUGH TRIPS tr a ~0 4 ~So m ~ Y ~ m L fA o QSHIN TON UARE - ~ LEHIAAN ST. y P CORAL ST. 666]// 0R LOCUST ST. F tP0 C1 OUgRfC~ON ~ O a n N OAK ST. °m uE: ua:oiu JOB 37-2545~01 Parametrix, Inc. Figure 16 ANALYSIS OF TRIPS ON HALL BLVD. I E/O SCHOLLS FERRY RD. F7,: I ri ' 6.4 R WITHIN STUDY AREA o OF n 82.8 % TO/FROM STUDY AREA y It r~ - 9.0% BEAVERTON i.l 8~~. a 3y -22.0% TIGARD a - y " cr - 2.8% SW PORTLAND Co - 3.3% UNINCORP. WEST HILLS ~ -12.8% LAKE OSWEGO Z E. - 12.0% OUTER SOUTHWEST A If - 4.3% OUTER WEST - 16.6% REST OF REGION ~ 10.8% THROUGH TRIPS 6M1 QO• Zp~ D ~ n i D ijy N m L l WASHINGTON m SQUARE v m r a LEHMAN ST. - J { CORAL ST. f. S i LOCUST ST. F 1 ~ DU~gR£ RON S f9 N LI o OAK ST. m m i 3 ~ - - ~21~w JO& 2"/-2515-01 ra V Parametrix, Inc. Figure 17 ANALYSIS OF TRIPS ON GREENBURG RD. N/O SR217 - a° 3.5 % WITHIN STUDY AREA cy a n Hq 49.3 % TO/FROM STUDY AREA _ I h D l_~l u B~ y0 ti -14.8% BEAVERTON m " d7 - 4.1 7. TIGARD y } yc~ - 1.5% SW PORTLAND - n - 5.5% UNINCORP. WEST HILLS 03 ■ 1 i - 3.4% LAKE OSWEGO o . llla~JJJ - 2.9% OUTER SOUTHWEST - 2.4% OUTER WEST j pq - 14.7% REST OF REGION 47.2% THROUGH TRIPS SOa ~ n D m m y m - D m L ~ 3 a0 WASHINGTON SQUARE m U t d LEHMAN SL ~i ~1yy CORAL ST. LOCUST ST. F a ~Uq ~NCTp m Rf RpN , 11 N o OAK ST. m ' i tc- 2X c - _ - ~:2T-25 2515-01 Parametrix, Inc. Figure 18 ANALYSIS OF TRIPS ON SCHOLLS FERRY RD. 6d S/O HALL BLVD. n 3.0 % WITHIN STUDY AREA o 67.9% TO/FROM STUDY AREA n HAS BLS ta" 3' RTON -27.5% TIGA D D -15.0% SW PORTLAND m - 0.0% UNINCORP. WEST HILLS ~ - 6.6% LAKE OSWEGO z I - 1.6% OUTER SOUTHWEST - 0.7% OUTER WEST j -16.3% REST OF REGION 29.1 Z THROUGH TRIPS ~~Spd ~ n c s m o Z WASHINGTON r SQUARE n r LEHAIAN SL ` - Ry R CORAL ST. {`0[ ER Spy LOCUST ST. -00 OUgRf RON ~ O P n g OAK ST. • m (JOB: JOEL 23150151 27-2515-01 - , P'arametrix, Inc. Figure 19 ANALYSIS OF TRIPS ON LOCUST ST. E/O HALL BLVD. f7, I O N 8.2 % WITHIN STUDY AREA c m n 4W 91.8% TO/FROM STUDY AREA " HqC[ g ti - 31.7% BEAVERTON A - 2.4% TIGARD D i h - 5.7% SW PORTLAND Co -12.3% UNINCORP. WEST HILLS ~ rI - 2.7% LAKE OSWEGO z - 2.4% OUTER SOUTHWEST A i - 5.6% OUTER WEST ' -29.0% REST OF REGION w m L ~ ~ o WASHINGTON - p SQUARE c, m' p V LEHMAN ST. CORAL ST. SOS LOCUST ST. F - 00 S-L-4 ROH S - OAK ST. g a- . W ~ I^ m FllL 251301H~ dO~27-25{5-01 L Parametrix, Inc. Figure 20 a ANALYSIS OF TRIPS ON NIMBUS AVE. S/O HALL BLVD. • k _ F n EVALUATION OF FUTURE YEAR MODEL RESULTS i After completion and validation of the 1990 Base Year sub-area model, development of a model for estimating 1997 non project-area background traffic conditions was initiated. This model t-. was derived from an interpolation of population, employment and trip-making data between 1990 and 2010 (the long-range time period analyzed by Metro in the regional transportation planning l process). Based on the data interpolation, a 1997 trip table was developed using the Traffic Analysis Zone structure previously identified. Trips within the study area were held constant at 1990 levels to permit a more fine-tuned analysis of specific development proposals. The 1997 aj trip table was assigned to the 1990 roadway network, which had been modified to account for roadway widening on Scholls Ferry Road west of SR 217 and for the implementation of ramp metering on SR 217. The 1997 background traffic assignment indicates that, without specific t„ development activity in the study area, there will be little change by 1997 from existing traffic a i volumes. ' Figure 21 depicts the overall patterns of traffic to/from and within the study area. Comparison 9 with the 1990 Base Year analysis (see Figure 15) indicates that there would be little change in "r the patterns of trip origins and destinations over the seven-year analysis period. There would continue to be a strong travel relationship between the study area and the remainder of the Cities j of Tigard and Beaverton (15.3 percent and 17.7 percent of all study area trips travel to or from these destinations, respectively). Approximately 11.9 percent of all trips generated in the study area would remain within that area. 6. t.., j M { 1 S r . _ . - SIB MAAINB OR • Portlat onal G IntXirport UMBIA e v ~•'l~ O„ GOMBARD ST l etvetia KILL ORTH t 1 INGSW Qpy t .c7 x w w~ West $-$?a Gs o ~NSfir oea unionA'~ ©thers ~o ? 5P U r ^ =1 ~ ELL ~o orttand y l RD x BAPS t ri €LI RD J CP ~i j iJ LION ° WOODST • HI V HW y VALLEY HWY P1oh pD evert Zi7 KING AD ~PPM~ m r v0 ibNaukl' ~ T BC v ~L y Cooper i_. Mtn ~o Lave lgton o T' ar a 0swe9° y RRY P 6u11 S'b ``we l0~C a Qha~s, 5 S ~s I s VCing GI sto m City : u rove << Jk r latt Tualatin RZ Tua St t We LY~ Linn Orc , za o o C a^~ O'er Q ~ p~9y4 05 ~ TIE. herwood ~ ~ G~ 2.~y0t ~,4y01M3 AREA RIP ..r~ =7-="- Figure 21 T etrix, inc. j997 sT param PATTERS } J r' SECTION IV STUDY AREA DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES n IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES L~ One of the primary objectives of the Hall/Greenburg/Scholls Area Traffic Needs study is the f n identification of traffic impacts and necessary mitigation measures associated with continued land development in the study area. To assess these impacts and identify the nature and timing of appropriate improvements, three land development alternatives were established and evaluated. These alternatives reflect varying levels of development and are all based on the assumption that ld only vacant land (or land which is currently used for parking) will be developed and that no f major redevelopment or rezoning will occur. Based on consensus of the Technical Advisory Committee overseeing this study, these 9 alternatives include the following: - Existing development plus all approved projects in the study area; - Existing and approved development plus development of 50-60% of the currently vacant and developable land; and - Existing and approved development plus development of 80-90% of the currently tal vacant and developable land. f. jl: VACANT DEVELOPABLE LAND t The identification of vacant land available for development within the study area was based on data obtained from the Washington County GIS system supported by review of aerial photography and field reconnaissance. From the County's GIS system, three maps were printed including a map of vacant parcels overlaid by natural resource areas and wetlands, a map of 64 existing land uses, and a map of current Comprehensive Plan designations. V Maps, aerial photography and field reconnaissance data were assembled and vacant developable parcels were identified. It was assumed that parcels or portions of parcels within natural resource areas (i.e., 100 year flood plain) and/or wetlands would not be available for development. The size and planned land use for the remaining vacant parcels were identified and reviewed by various Technical Advisory Committee members. These persons provided input on the nature, type and location of any pending development proposals, as well as f identifying which parcels were the most likely to develop first. This input was used to develop the three land development scenarios and formed the basis for the population, employment and trip-making estimates described below. _ U iv-1 C { PROJECTIONS OF HOUSEHOLDS, EMPLOYMENT AND TRIP-MAKING ~•.J n Based on the identification of vacant developable parcels by size and land use, estimates were developed of the number of households (for residentially-zoned parcels) and employees (for M parcels zoned as retail, office or industrial. These estimates were based on the following l " n assumptions: [ . - The number of households developed on a parcel would be consistent with existing j zoning (i.e, R5 = 5 dwelling units/acre; R9 = 9 dwelling units/acre; R15 = 15 J dwelling units/acre); - Employment estimates for retail, office and industrial land development were as t.~! follows: Retail commercial = 35 employees/acre (comparable to 2.7/thousand square feet ~J of building) Office commercial = 50 employees/acre (comparable to 4.0/thousand square feet of building) Industrial = 15 employees/acre (comparable to 1.2/thousand square feet of I"t building) n Employment densities were developed from estimates prepared in consultation with the Portland Development Commission for transportation analysis of the South Waterfront/North Macadam area (including suburban office and small retail development) and Columbia South Shore ' (including office park and industrial development). Estimates of evening peak hour trip-making associated with each land development alternative J were prepared based on data contained in the 5th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers publication entitled "Trip Generation". Composite rates for retail, office and industrial land uses were identified to facilitate the trip generation process. The resulting trip generation rates were compared with the composite trip generation rates developed by Metro for the regional transportation planning process for household, retail and other employment trip- making and were found to be generally consistent. The trip generation rates used in this study were as follows: PM Peak Hour Trips/Unit I-and Use Inbound Outbound J Single family dwelling units 0.66 0.35 Multi-family dwelling units 0.43 0.20 u Retail Employees (excluding mall) 0.76 0.99 Retail Employees (mall addition) 0.41 0.41 Office Employees 0.08 0.42 Industrial Employees 0.14 0.36 (Composite Other Employees) (0.11) (0.39) IV-2 Y 1 Figures 22 through 24 illustrate the location, size and land use of the various vacant developable parcels in the study area which would be developed under each of the three land development ^t alternatives. Tables 8 through 10 present a summary of acreage, household/employment i projections, and evening peak hour trip generation by parcel for each alternative. The three alternatives are further discussed below. 1 J Existing Plus Approved Projects Figure 22 depicts the location, size and land use of approved and pending development in the j ` study area. Projected household and employment data for this alternative are summarized by f parcel in Table 8. As indicated in this figure and table, five parcels currently have approved development proposals or are actively under construction. These include a total of 50 new dwelling units, 197 retail employees and 245 other employees (i.e., office and/or industrial workers). Employment categories are differentiated into retail and non-retail (or other) for F consistency with the regional transportation planning process. + . cen ..4- to ^ *h. study area It is estimated that this alternative will duu' a total ut°ayyavxiTatcia~ .'•.v Y° circulation system during the evening peak hour, with a total of 235 inbound and slightly over 300 outbound. 50 -60% Development This alternative is intended to reflect development of approximately 50-60 percent of the vacant developable acreage in the study area. Figure 23 shows the location of these parcels and Table 9 summarizes estimates of additional households, employment and evening peak hour trip- making. With this alternative, a total of 78 new dwelling units, 250 retail employees and 1,130 U office and industrial (other) employees would be added to those already included in approved projects and documented under the preceding alternative). A total of 1,275 evening peak hour trips would be added to the streets in the study area with 455 inbound and 820 outbound. 80-90% Development J i • ~ With this alternative, 80-90% of the vacant developable land would be developed. Practically i speaking, this alternative represents full build-out of the study area as the remaining parcels are marginal at best. Figure 24 shows the location, size and land use of all parcels included in this alternative. Table 10 summarizes estimates of additional households, employment and evening peak hour trip-making. With this alternative, a total of 158 new dwelling units, 285 retail employees and 1,245 office and industrial (other) employees would be added to those included J in the first alternative. A total of 1,480 evening peak hour trips would be added to the streets in the study area with 550 inbound and 930 outbound. r~ Using the estimates of trip generation identified in Table 8 and the trip distribution assumptions developed from the select zone loadings of the sub-area model previously described, 1997 evening peak hour traffic volume projections were prepared for each alternative. These estimates are illustrated in Figures 25 through 27 and include all key intersections in the study IV 3 k v..l ~ n - m > a.l ygLC BL ~9 6 D h~ GO Z O .l > ;0 < 4.0 OFFICE - r~ 0.8 ® 5.5 .7 LT. IND. M ^OFFICE ,SO 6 R9 2.3 FFICE ggyK O a 1.5 24 € RETAIL 5 F 02.5 1A z d WASHINGTON 3.1 R15 - SQUARE R9 - - I ®J ~ D - i 0 RETAILF LEHMAN ST. 0.6 2 HVY. IND. OFFICE w+ i 7 P CORAL ST. .9II b3 0.8 OFFICE R9 S~ LOCUST ST. ~ " m' `~'o wq 10OKSF 3 O { S~N2! E TAM OOFFICE 1.5 HD R9 RE RE q 1~ n TAIL O 20 F 2'0 RETAIL LEGEND LT. IND. S OAK ST. ry m 1.5 PARCEL DEVELOPED m 3.6 O S LT. IND. OFFICE UNDER THIS LT. r ALTERNATIVE r' ~K5 Parametrix, Inc. Figure 22 J VACANT LAND IN STUDY AREA LAND USE) (ACRES AND COMP AN r° . APPROVED PROJECTS 1 r77 r ~I ! E::~. L:__J (.V 3, U__2 C3 ~t==: [ LY3 1 H I l l C I 1 1 irk J ._J Table 8 l Trip Generation for Approved Projects in Stud; Area Map Comprehensive Plan Vacant Employment PM Peak Tri P Endst Land Use Designation Acres KSF Households Retail ther Inbound Outbound A R5 (5 dus/acre) 2.4 12 8 4 E j D R15 (15 dus/acre) 2.5 38 16 8 J Retail Comm. (mall)' 72.8 197 80 80 M Office Commercial 4.0 200 16 84 O Retail Commercial' 2.0 10.0 45 115 125 Total 50 197 245 235 301 N d ~ 3 t . j Trip generation based on composite ]TE 5th Edition rates for each major category of uses including: retail, office and industrial. Reflects trip generation of additional square footage added to existing regional mall. j i Generated trips reduced to account for pass-by trip-making. i , i '1 . s ®wi' t0RNERSE AI . MWOMA N o A p D k~ a"I H~L4 BG ID N Yy m _ m I C ~ J ua~ .Z D X -c 3 w~ 4.0 OFFICE 0 5.5 LT. IND. ® L OFFICE 6.7 O EZ R9 y 7.3 OFFICE . 5 H m 1.5 R2.4 m RETAIL R5 A 3 ® a 2.5 3.1 S C R15 y WASHINGTON IR a SQUARE v R9 V ® 72.8KSF " LEHMAN ST. 3 2.0 RETAIL 0.6 Wf. IND. OFFICE - 1 g CORAL ST. hd 0.7 y` 0.8 SCy~"" OFFICE LOCUST ST. . bi W,1gy~ ®100KSF m SGU,gRfURO OFFICE 1.5 O l 1.0 H R9 O . r"~ A RETAIL f7 2-0 " 64 LTO IND. S O OAK Si. RETAIL • ~ m 1 LEGEND m 3s ~1s ] S LT. IND. OFFICE d (//J PARCEL DEVELOPED T S [~LQQ UNDER THIS 1 y~ .s ALTERNATIVE - I r:1 f' I ~ d ,loa 27_7545_OI • 4 7 A P2rametrix, Inc. Figure 23 VACANT LAND IN STUDY AREA f. (ACRES AND COMP PLAN LAND USE) k W 60-60% DEVELOPMENT BY 1997 t _7T 1 C C-2 U-3 L~2 C::~ E:3 ' U-3 ® t 3 C ] L ~3 U-3 L_l E7 (_J €-Y7 LLI L~:] s t r Table 9 t Trip Generation for 50-60% Build-out of Vacant Developable Acreage in Study Area Map Comprehensive Plan Vacant Employment PM Peak Trip Ends' Land Use Designation Acres KSF Households Retail Other Inbound Outbound A R5 (5 dus/acre) 2.4 12 - 8 4 C R9 (9 dus/acre) 3.1 28 12 6 D R15 (15 dus/acre) 2.5 38 16 8 E Office Commercial 0.6 30 2 13 G Office Commercial 0.8 - 40 99 107 H Office Commercial 100.0 - 400 32 168 J Retail Comm. (mall)' 72.8 197 80 80 K Retail Commercial 1.5 53 40 52 I L Office Commercial 5.5 275 22 116 M Office Commercial 4.0 200 16 84 0 Retail Commercial' 2.0 10.0 45 115 125 T Office Commercial 35.0 140 11 59 I Total 78 250 1,130 453 822 Trip generation based on composite rrE 5th Edition rates for each major category of uses including: retail, office and industrial. = Reflects trip generation of additional square footage added to existing regional mall. Generated trips reduced to account for pass-by trip-making. i - •n~tNaaaR~w• OT~maeagRVat+rsm+.rs. ' j r t r; i .I e• N Q < ....1 BC 1D v ~cS D i ~ i Z rs'iti 4.0 . . OFFICE MA A 0 LT. .8 IND. ® L 5.5 ~,o• / ' `2 - ig O OFFlCE R 67 R9 a N 2.3 11 Z > OFFICE h1 L c ° 1.5 24 m RETAIL B R5 WASHINGTON m 3.~ 2.5 - - R15 SQUARE C3 119 0 J 2.0 RETAILF LEHMAN SL 0.6 . s pl HVY. IND. OFFICE i .3 I F CORAL ST. j 0.7 0.8 2 gG~''03 OFFICE LOCUSTT ST. s J ~ u+ F t00KSF m _ S~gRE RoN ®OFFICE 1.5 ® `a RE H R9 O 1.0 2.0 TAIL® f-7 >0 2.0 P .i LT. IND. g RETAIL OAK ST. 3.6 R"' LEGEND m LT. IND. 1.5 a LT. O OFFICE _ PARCEL DEVELOPED y UNDER THIS ALTERNATIVE 1 ~ { t ~ D JO& 27-2513-M . Parametrlx, Inc. Figure 24 VACANT LAND IN STUDY AREA [ ! (ACRES AND COMP PLAN LAND USE) j J 80-90% DEVELOPMENT BY 1997 Table 10 1 Trip Generation for 80-90% Build out of Vacant Developable Acreage in Study Area Map Comprehensive Plan Vacant Employment PM Peals Trip Ends' Land Use Designation Acres KSF Households Retail Other Inbound Outbound -Key A R5 (5 dus/acre) 2.4 12 - 8 4 R9 (9 dus acre) 6.7 60 26 12 B Office Commercial 2.3 - 115 9 48 C R9 (9 dus/acre) 3.1 28 12 6 D R15 (15 dus/acre) 2.5 38 16 8 E Office Commercial 0.6 30 2 13 F R9 (9 dus/acre) 0.7 6 3 1 G Office Commercial 0.8 40 99 107 _ H Office Commercial 100.0 400 32 168 I Retail Commercial 6.0 35 53 45 to J Retail Comm. (mall)' 72.8 197 80 80 K Retail Commercial 1.5 53 40 52 L Office Commercial 5.5 275 22 116 M Office Commercial 4.0 200 16 84 0 Retail Commercial' 2.0 10.0 45 115 125 Q R9 (9 dus/acre) 1.5 14 - 6 3 ! T Office Commercial 35.0 140 11 59 Total 158 285 1,245 550 931 j Trip generation based on composite rrE 5th Edition rates for each major category of uses including: retail, office and industrial. Z Reflects trip generation of additional square footage added to existing regional mall. ' Generated trips reduced to account for pass-by trip-making. - j i s E g1~ I area. These projections and an analysis of the traffic operational implications associated with ! each alternative is presented below. ! i 1997 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC WITH APPROVED PROJECTS i Based on the traffic volumes in Figure 25 and the existing roadway system as shown in Figure s 3 (including pending improvements to Scholls Ferry Road at Cascade Boulevard and the SR-217 ( . i southbound ramps), a traffic operations analysis was conducted to identify future levels of service with the approved project alternative. This analysis was based on the methodologies described in Section II and is summarized in Table 11 for signalized intersections and in Table ~i 12 for unsignalized intersections. Evening peak hour levels of service for the approved projects alternative are also illustrated in Figure 26. ~N According to Table 11, significant congestion problems would be experienced at the intersections of Scholls Ferry Road with Hall Boulevard (level of service "F") and Nimbus Avenue (level of service "E"). Comparison with Table 1 indicates that this is similar to the existing congestion problems experienced at these intersections, with the addition of approved project traffic increasing slightly the average delay experienced by each vehicle. A significant improvement J in level of service would be experienced at the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road with the SR- 217 southbound ramps resulting from the widening project currently underway. Level of service 1 at this intersection is expected to improve from LOS "E" to a mid-range LOS "D" even with the addition of approved project traffic. i According to Table 12, all unsignalized intersections in the study are would continue to operate i at an acceptable level of service "D" or better during the evening peak hour with the exception t of northbound left turns at the intersection of Hall Boulevard with the US Bank Access Road. This movement would continue to operate at a low LOS "E". 1997 TRAFFIC WITH 50-60% DEVELOPMENT t P ~'1 Based on the traffic volumes in Figure 27 and the existing but improved roadway system, a traffic operations analysis was conducted to identify future levels of service with this alternative. 9 The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 11 for signalized intersections and in Table 12 for unsignalized intersections. Evening peak hour levels of service for the alternative including 50-60 percent build-out of existing vacant developable land are also illustrated in Figure 28. According to Table 11, significant congestion problems experienced at the intersections of Scholls Ferry Road with Hall Boulevard (level of service "F") and Nimbus Avenue (level of t i service "E") would be slightly worsened with the addition of traffic associated with this R alternative. In addition, the anticipated level of service for the intersection of Greenburg Road j i with the SR-217 northbound ramps would drop from LOS "D" to LOS "E". This would t exacerbate the existing congestion and queueing problems presently experienced in the y interchange area. Average delay at the intersection of Hall Boulevard with the SR-2.17 1i ~ - IV-10 R P: I vE I ZE® ®CUMENTS MEETING DATE: a AGENDA SEE 35MM KL.L i=1LM i:\records\microflm\targets\osdocccm.doc j 1.~1 I C:_..J L.1 F=:J LA. E_J L_J L_J L __l F=._=J -~1 f_.__l t~l Table 11 fi } PM Peak Hour Levels of Service at Signalized Intersections a With Various Development Scenarios Approved Development 50-60% Development 80-90% Development Average Level of Average Level of Average Level of Intersection Delay Service Delay Service Delay Service Scholls Ferry Road at: Hall Boulevard 64.3 F 67.0 F 73.9 F SR-217/NB on-ramp 24.4 D 25.1 D 25.2 D SR-217 NB off-ramp 18.0 C 18.3 C 18.3 C SR-217 SB ramps 35.0 D 34.4 D 35.9 D Cascade Boulevard 24.3 C 28.4 D 29.6 D Nimbus Avenue 48.0 E 53.6 E 55.6 E Greenburg Road at: Hall Boulevard 34.1 D 35.2 D 38.7 D Locust Street 15.1 C 1.5.3 C 15.4 C Washington Square Road 28.1 D 3'3.0 D 34.1 ' D SR-217 NB ramps 31.7 D 4.1.2 E 41.5 E SR-217 SB ramps 25.6 D 27.3 D 28.0 D j Cascade Boulevard 19.9 C 20.3 C 20.7 C Hall Boulevard at: Nimbus Avenue 32.9 D 33.0 D 33.9 D SR-217 SB/Cascade Blvd. 36.4 D 39.6 D 40.4 E Embassy Suites Access 17.6 C 18.0 C 18.1 C Target Access 12.1 B 12.3 B 12.5 B i E r I r 77 L_3 L__1 1.--1 I___1 LA L'--A L-A L I L --I IL 'I LJ' L-1 I 1--.1 t_-_1 L__I L__1 LJ f f Table 12 E ~ i PM Peak Hour Levels of Service at Unsignalized Intersections With Various Development: Scenarios • i r Approved Development 50-60% Develo ment 80-90% Development Critical Reserve Level of Reserve Level of Reserve Level of Intersection ovem n Capacity Service a aci Service Capacity Service Scholls Ferry Road at: I Wash. Sq. Entrance SBL 172 D 161 D 159 D Greenburg Road at: Wash. Sq. No. Dvwy. NBL 658 A 619 A 599 A EBL 189 D 149 D 135 D EBR 911 A 883 A 871 A No. Cemetery Access NBL 798 A 762 A 744 A < EBL 173 D 135 D 123 D w EBR 637 A 601 A 583 A So. Cemetery Access NBL 696 A 663 A 646 A EBLR 289 C 247 C 235 C Oak Street SBL 349 B 333 B 317 B WBR 636 A 620 A 606 A i Hall Boulevard at: ' US Bank Access NBL 34 E 5 E 3 E NBR 287 C 287 C 275 C WBL 427 A 422 A 404 A j „ k , A ~ 9 r~ a v 1 y^~ B y > ;D . ~~1 Lam. ~a, D J h O c z 1 e.+ D { ~ m WASHINGTON p SQUARE AC) ~.d ca LEHMAN ST. CORAL ST. rd a0 J' x LOCUST ST. -on SO!/gReCRON S - O c OAK ST. m o LOS C OR BETTER S `y ® LOS D + Sy LOS E LOS IF JOE z7-254ss+e • ,_JI roe: ns-m ~ - Parametrix, Inc. Figure 26 111 P.M. PEAK LEVELS OF SERVICE 1997 WITH APPROVED PROJECTS -~1 f I j l , VERSIZE OCUME TS . i ivi M EETING DATE: 17-)1an J AGENDA 7 i j SEE 35M M ROLL FILM i:\records\microflm\targets\osdocccm.doc 1 f ` O W 0 H,~ a k 4Qt ~ h m z I z +aa A I Pa. F,S n { Z N N T m M D { it c~ a 0 = p WASHINGTON SQUARE _ LEHMAN ST. CORAL ST. oy `'Ga LOCUST ST. ~ N y a Wg3}I~ryO r~ )q~d ~ '~ARf RpN ~ A ~ A V ~ OAK ST. ~ s LOS C OR BETTER qq " LOS D 3 LOS E LOS F ' roa 27-2545-01 g r k Parametrlx, Inc. i Figure 28 j P.M. PEAK LEVELS OF SERVICE 6 1997 - WITH 50-60% BUILD-OUT i + i d t 4..~~ southbound rumps/Cascade Boulevard would also increase, resulting in near LOS "E" conditions. According to Table 12, all unsignalized intersections in the study are would continue to operate J at an acceptable level of service "D" or better during the evening peak hour with the exception i of northbound left turns at the intersection of Hall Boulevard with the US Bank Access Road. This movement would continue to operate at a low LOS "E". 1997 TRAFFIC WITIi 80-9001v DEVELOPMENT Based on the traffic volumes in Figure 29 and the existing but improved roadway system, a traffic operations analysis was conducted to identify future levels of service with this alternative. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 11 for signalized intersections and in Table 12 for unsignalized intersections. Evening peak hour levels of service for the alternative b including 80-90 percent build-out of existing vacant developable land are also illustrated in Figure 30. According to Table 11, the significant congestion problems experienced with the previous alternative would continue, with average delay per vehicle being slightly higher. In addition, the anticipated level of service for the intersection of Hall Boulevard with the SR-217 southbound ramps/Cascade Boulevard would drop from LOS "D" to LOS "E" with average delay slightly over 40 second per vehicle. The intersection of Hall Boulevard with Greenburg Road is expected to be a high LOS "D" with over 38 seconds of average delay per vehicle. Should parcel "L" (as depicted in figures 23 and 24) develop as retail commercial as suggested by County staff, additional peak hour traffic will be generated. This traffic will adversely t impact the Hall/Greenburg intersection, potentially resulting in LOS "E" conditions. According to Table 12, all unsignalized intersections in the study are would continue to operate ~i at an acceptable level of service "D" or better during the evening peak hour with the exception of northbound left turns at the intersection of Hall Boulevard with the US Bank Access Road. This movement would continue to operate at a very low LOS "E". t i ~ 1 iv-n J I 1 r s {j I OV"FERSIZED DOCUMENTS AGENDA : SEE 35MM ROLL FILM i:\records\microflm\targets\osdocccm.doc F7 l k. wz 1 C I N^ 4W I t[ a BL yp ay D y m c ti OZ - ' Sped 17 > d H m° _ a m L n5 WASHINGTON o P SQUARE ca LEHMAN ST. CORAL ST. GNO LOCUST ST. J O Sig R f RDY S g OAK ST. O LOS C OR BETTER !3 i r ® LOS D LOS E?i) yl LOS F r1 ~rt'1 sic: zswo,a, .aa 27-7545-o, ti Parametrix, Inc. J Figure 30 P.M. PEAK LEVELS OF SERVICE '1 1997 - WITH 80-90% BUILD-OUT All- ;.-y SECTION V IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF I ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS 1 r, 3 1 To address the various existing and short-term future intersection and interchange area congestion problems and identify potential solutions, a series of improvement options were i developed and evaluated. Options needed to address the congestion problems which would be experienced with the 50-60% Development Alternative are depicted in Figure 31. Figure 32 shows options to address the problems identified with the 80-90% Development Alternative. Each of the improvement options is discussed in greater detail in the following paragraphs for each intersection or roadway segment. SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD Improvements along Scholls Ferry Road focused on the intersections with Hall Boulevard and Nimbus Avenue. A summary of average delay and levels of service for the improvement options along this street which are associated with each land development alternative is presented in Table 13. w Scholls Fera Road at i:all Boulevard The intersection of Scholls Ferry Road with Hall Boulevard was improved a few years ago .r primarily to address the significant number of accidents being experienced at that time. With the addition of these improvements, there has been a substantial reduction in accident rates. However, the intersection continued to experience significant congestion problems. Currently, this intersection is experiencing level of service "F" conditions during the evening peak hour with average delays of over 62 seconds per vehicle. t J Average delays are expected to increase to 67 seconds per vehicle with the 50-60% Development Alternative, and to 74 seconds per vehicle with the 80-90% Development Alternative. The ^i capacity problem at this intersection is largely due to an inadequate number of travel lanes, particularly for turning movements. The intersection is a major bottleneck in the circulation a system in this portion of the study area. Improvements should address relief of this bottleneck and should focus on balancing traffic flow through the area rather than increasing overall system capacity. ` The existing northbound left turning volume of 375 vehicles exceeds the desirable capacity for a single turning lane. Accordingly, dual northbound left turn lanes were considered, but rejected due to right-of-way constraints. Other options evaluated included development of eastbound and southbound right turn lanes to segregate this traffic from the through-moving volume and to reduce the number of vehicles using the existing through lanes. r V-1 r' t ' tw* ~.__......_._...r WJ ~ v, N^~ Bc yO. Ya ~3Y D ~ . C13 h b n° ADD LANE X ' INSTALL Po• MODIFY SIGNAL 4so~ INTERCH NGE - ~ = n iy z a 0 m ADD LANE !A g a 1 hJ WASHINGTON ii SQUARE o m' W LEHMAN ST. CORAL ST. r ~oJS r ADD so LANE LOCUST ST. j n ARE A,ON S DIRECT ACCESS TO/FROM A N WASHINGTON SQUARE g OAK ST. 1 RESTRIPE AND/OR J S ADD LANES ME: 23UOtY7 y' JCS 27-2545-M P[a. i= Parametrix, Inc. Figure 31 IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS WITH. 50%-60% BUILD-OUT malEft- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - j ~j ADD LANE H~k > = > ADD LANE v v ADD LANE { INSTALL moo' ` MODIFY SIGNAL INTERC ANGE o + c ~ ADD LANE m ~ ~ S o WASHINGTON p SQUARE LEHMAN ST. U r ~yy P CORAL ST. ~,oys rADD = LANE N LOCUST ST. F S1; ROh r~ DIRECT ACCESS TO/FROM j A N WASHINGTON SQUARE g OAK ST. m RESTRIPE AND/OR ADD LANES 71 ice nLL 21130~Y6 - - - X& 27-2315-IM - J Parametrix, Inc. Figure 32 IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS WITH J 80%-90% BUILD-OUT w _:.a__. _ - h.1 ~ s Table 13 Summary of PM Peak Hour Levels of Service _ff with Miscellaneous Intersection Improvement Options Approved 50 - 60% 80 - 90% Development Build-out • Build-out Average Level of Average Level of Average Level of Intersection/Ootion Delay Service Delay Service Delay Service Scholls Ferry a@ Hall: without improvement 64.3 F 67.8 F 73.9 F with EB right 35.7 D 37.5 D 41.2 E with EB & SB right - - - 39.1 D 1 with EB right & 2 NB Left - - - - 35.8 D r Scholls Ferry a Nimbus: Lj without improvement 48.0 E 53.6 E 55.6 E with NB right 34.1 D 34A D 36.3 Hall a US Bank Access: L without improvement (1) - E - E E with signal 22.0 C 24.5 C 23.8 C Hall Co SB 217/Cascade: r without improvement 36.4 D 39.6 D 40,4 E with SB right 29.0 D Hall @ Nimbus: (2) without improvement 49.2 E with EB right 28.4 D ^^1 (1) Refers to lowest level of service for a movement at this intersection - in this case, northbound left turns. J (2) Based on Ahi peak hour levels of service. ^t V4 _ I_ o 1 ~ h } ~ i .00 s 00, m \ R~ Roq R t x`10 % r \y y wl 7 / j 7 . _C ~Q NOTE SHOWS PM PEAK VOLUUES BY LANE WITH 80Y.-907'DEVELOPEMENT a nLF- JJoe 3712515 Of Y01 ~2530iRV R Parametrix, Inc. t. 1 e, ,I il or • ~ ~ I I I y~~- ti ~ y Z W ~1 L, J L ~~~I 70 m CO n~ L. m z j / SHADY LANE w 1. / r- -1 X c j f ! r ~f - f A. l i. i i-_~ L- -t I - ] 1_-=1 L. LA L_.~ L-:1 L .l LL] L-,' ~ 1 L - l .t ~ J L _ I 11 _J LA 0 J Table 14 ! Summary of Levels of Service by Intersection with SR 217/Greenburg Road Interchange Improvement Options and 80 - 90% Build-out (1) i Option: Cascade Boulevard SB 217 NB 217 Washington Square Access Locust Street i Delay'/LOS VIC D IaylTJJS \5C N.{a .O,S We lklayll.OS VIC ! DelzyAAS Z5C'... Option 0 - Interconnect 11.78 0.81 20.11C 1.00 36.7/D 1.16 28.0/1) 1.04 9.2B 0.51 Existing Signals Option I - Restriping 11.9B 0.82 32.3/1) 1.16 40.9/E 1.19 31.2/1) 1.05 8.98 0.52 Option 2 - Restriping 12.3B 0.82 53.4/E 1.25 39.3/1) 1.18 31.1/1) 1.05 8.9B 0.52 Option 3 - Restriping 12.3B 0.82 26.9/1) 1.14 39.3/1) 1.18 31.1/D 1.05 8.91B 0.52 Option 4 - Restriping 11.8B 0.82 28.8/1) 1.14 7I.0/F 1.25 31.2/1) 1.05 8.9B 0.52 Option 5 - Restriping & 11.98 0.82 28.6/1) 1.14 35.6/1) 1.11 31.1/D 1.05 8.98 0.52 NBR & SBR Ramp Lanes h Option 6 - Restriping & I I. iB 0.81 6.2B 0.70 19.8/C 1.01 29.7/1) 1.04 9.08 0.51 Loop Ramp 0 Option 7 - Restriping & 12.08 0.80 26.7/1) 1.11 19.8/C 0.97 29.3/1) 1.00 9.88 0.51 NBR Ramp Lane Option 8 - Option 7 & Dual NBL 12.9B 0.80 25.3/1) 1.08 10.6/C 0.96 22.1/C 0.89 10.48 0.50 @ Washington Sq. Rd. i Option 9 - Add NBR Ramp Lane 12.6B 0.82 19.8/C 0.97 21.5/C 0.94 29.3/1) 0.95 11.1/B 0.50 Option 10 - Option 9 & Dual NBL 12.3B 0.81 18.8/C 0.98 20.3/C 0.96 21.8/C 0.90 10.1B 0.50 @ Washington Sq. Road Option I1 - Widen Bridge 11.98 0.82 17.4/C 0.99 12.6B 0.87 22.71C 0.92 8.9B 0.52 Dual NBL @ Wash. Sq. Rd. and NBR Ramp Lane Option 12 - Direct Access 12.2/C 0.81 16.3/C 0.87 37.91D 1.16 17.8/C 0.77 8.2B 0.50 to/from Washington Square i - (1) V/C Refers to Volume/Capacity ratio RK intersection. f _ ~ ;-fir` t ~ J MW 021 IN 1. 1 1 Elm I 1 I In evaluating the information in Table 14, consideration should be given to both the estimated E average delay per vehicle and the volume/capacity (v/c) ratio. There is not a strict correlation between these two measures of intersection operating performance; that is to say, if delay is low, the v/c ratio must also necessarily be low and vice versa. As noted in the Highway Capacity Manual, it is possible to experience significant delays at an intersection while the v/c ratio is I quite low. Very high delays can be experienced with low v/c ratios when some combination of the following conditions exists: 1) the cycle length is long, 2) the lane group in question is disadvantaged by the signal timing (i.e., has a long red time), and/or 3) the signal progression for the subject movements is poor. . , Conversely, it is also possible that an intersection (or specific movements at an intersection) may have a high v/c ratio and experience low delays if. 1) the cycle length is short, and/or 2) the signal progression is favorable for the subject movement. Thus, level of service "F" as defined by the average delay per vehicle does not always imply that the intersection, approach or specific i traffic movement is overloaded. By the same token, a designation of LOS "A" to "E" does not automatically imply that there is unused capacity available.- Both the average delay (and associated level of service designation) and the volume-to-capacity ratio must be considered to fully evaluate the operation of a signalized intersection. 1. Option 0 a This option illustrates the impact of implementing a traffic signal interconnect system j without additional improvement or modification to existing lane channelization. As t indicated in Table 14, this option would result in a high level of service "D" at the intersection of the northbound ramps with Greenburg Road. The volume-to-capacity ratio at this location would exceed 1.00 indicating that there remains a high potential for traffic queueing from one intersection to the next. It should be noted that there are several potential problems with implementing a signal interconnect system along Greenburg Road between Locust Street and Cascade Boulevard. These include: 7 The older software in use at the interchange ramp termini is not compatible with the Wapiti software used at the other signals which would be included in an interconnected system; There is no conduit available for the interconnect wiring between Washington Square t Road and the Highway 217 ramps. Installation of conduit may require the acquisition of additional right-of-way along Greenburg Road; and There is currently an incompatibility in cycle lengths between those at the ramp termini and those at the intersections with Washington Square Road and Locust Street (these are longer to accommodate pedestrian crossings). i V-1 1 1 _ i i I ` 2. Options 1 through 4 Options 1 through 4 (shown in Figures 34 through 37, respectively) include only restriping of existing lanes on the Greenburg Road bridge. In evaluating the analysis results documented in Table 14, it appears that none of these options will provide an acceptable level of service at all intersections along this portion of Greenburg Road. ^ 3. Option S As illustrated in Figure 38, Option 5 includes lane restriping plus the addition of right turning lanes on the north- and southbound off-ramps. This option would not significantly change levels of service at all intersections at each intersection with the exception of the northbound SR-217 ramps which would operate at LOS "D". Some conflicts may be experienced between right-turning vehicles on the southbound off-ramp and left-turning vehicles at Shady Lane. a 4. Option 6 Figure 39 depicts Option 6 which includes lane restriping and development of a loop ramp to replace the existing left turn lanes for vehicles heading from southbound Greenburg Road t to southbound SR-217. Levels of service with this option range from LOS "B" at Locust Street, the southbound SR-217 ramps and Cascade Boulevard to LOS "D" at the northbound SR-217 ramps and LOS "C/D" at Washington Square Road. The level of service results f. a depicted in Table 14 are based on a 60-second signal cycle length. 5. Option 7 Option 7 (illustrated in Figure 40) includes elements of both Options 3 and 5. With this option, the Greenburg Road bridge would be restriped in the southbound direction to t J provide a single left turn lane, a dual left/through lane and a through-only lane. An additional northbound right turn lane would be also added to the northbound SR-217 off- ramp. With this option, all intersections analyzed would operate at an acceptable level of 3 service "D" or better with an 86-second signal cycle. 6. Option 8 t i As illustrated in Figure 41, Option 8 includes all elements of Option 7 with the addition of dual northbound left turn lanes at Washington Square Road. The addition of these lanes would require purchase of right-of-way and roadway widening, probably along the east side of Greenburg Road between Oak Street and a point approximately 150 feet north of the Lincoln Center entrance where the roadway widening can taper back to the existing curb - line. With this option, all intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service "C/D" or better. v-12 1. 00 h ^ J \Rp\D \R Fl. / S r l J z ~ OFF f NOTE: SHOWS PM PEAK VOLUMES BY LANE WITH 807-907 DEVELOPEMENT RIE C~CM\zxs-o~W450ILZ " _ - A& R7-251S-O7 ~ s Parametrix, Inc. Lam. 71 771 • ~ ~ - -✓..~:C3..4.u ~a ~.un wM...a,a~+a~•. _.~.V'...~~.•....- •u.~i.a.~.ww- ~ ~.-R:..w...~ ~.~~ti ~~.r_.._-•.. `\.....w+.-.t e.•. W~..wr4n:+~::~11"t - r ~ r i ~ ~ / O+/~~n y```am\``` O/V R Mai O Co a z • L~1 Q - _ W SHADY LANE z m i s y J ~ it ; , } A ® ® 3 i L I f- } l., h h ~ i i 111 I I ~ ` ! ` JAS \ \ ~ / ~ \ W \ \ \ \UR~ i ..i j / \R\O`p ~~\F t is / G f / t ' F . z pF L~; { NOTE., SHOWS PM PEAK VOLUMES By LANE WITH BOX-907 DEVELOPEMENT ni[.: c1uo\zs.a-mWuoiu Parametrix, Inc, x. t k 1 _ 1 i a- _ _ 7777 { i r ~I Y `1... /V RAM I , ( M:~ CA m to ~ M (D .u_ ~ O Z m SHADY LANE mz " 0c O ~ dF- r --r'ti- O / to > j I `I J i h h 3 \ \ t r iJ \ w I J ~ J'ZTy 3`S \ \ 1 _ 7 43 y S / \ \ \ ENB RG \ \ t i ~ \\by ~afO ~ I l _ 1Y COQ k G ~P 6J NOTE: SNOWS PM PEAK VOLUMES BY LANE M H 807-907 DEVELOPEMENT 4 - 2 i { 'E ~iar~n1u~is-ms-oiw.sa~u Z Aarametrix, Inc. . J 17 77 • 1 1 Sg OA' Mcn mn r7d M CD 0-4 m z SHADY LANE r-- Z 6 t_ D /f r rj, I 7 by t JeJ \ \ ~ i S. ! ~ / Asa i• I I T I / P. ~ s o= s i f 41 ~P~e 4 I 5 a - S NOTE SHOWS PM PEAK VOLUMES BY LANE WITH BOX-90% DEVELOPEMENT - 1 2Q7ol Parametrix, Inc. I b i \ v wI J I _ y ([1 O ` l m-I:Dc / 'o = y % SHADY LANE i / 6)Zm / { I I_.. m z i W "U m d G7 d f O i .A D ! M1 ry ~ I f _•-`~~```F y r I L f - JJSy - r - . ``~~y ~Jl3 URG R t / /i I ~--OAD / / t r _ I J I O~ C; NOTE: SHOWS PM PEAK VOLUMES BY LANE WITH 80L-90Z DEVELOPEMENT J 4 l - nLL.C: ~zs~s-mW.3mH, JO@ I,_~3-p~ Parametrix, Inc. r 7 r _ ; . r ~ - . J r ~ rl y 1 / / Sg ON r m z co -n ED L, - / / IF__. NMC)jm C) -4 o co i zza O O O m ; SHADY LANE i -namz -nz / I...~ ~o0C: Dy~~ T 0 0 F rr t- r zD o rr ~a a: - 1 ; ' . c i 1 ` w / / sa i / / a\" Aso 310 wJ f" / ! i 5 ' c -1 NO7E: SHOWS PM PEAK VOLUMES BY LANE WITH 807-907. DEVELOPEMENT / E - nLL c uo im 27 Parametrix, Inc. PPP ~s,~ ` rr c SB O N RAA~p 45 o) -n a~M c 0-4 = Z m m SHADY LANE ' I ~z l / r co o 11 -4 -u 22 d -00 Z Z O d > ao a - h h RE i / URG t / ref \.i f 1= o , i NOTE SHOWS PM PEAK VOLUMES BY LANE WITH 807-90x DEVE[.OPEMENT ~ f ~Iw,s m~s+~o ~x Joe Parametrix, Inc. F. I- 1 Y. 1 1:: I~ I \ / / / _ ~ / i tidy ~1 a r r 1.__.._I I I y I O/v R / qMp z co M i aim i ! m -f z~=tvyo ( - O a m z SHADY LANE D p 0 % O p - ( . . "U Z m~ F ! f I...i V a d 1 L...~ - r ; - 1 70 fife i/ O/ ~OA \ \ \ \ \ \ / / ` R _ l ~ ?so ~ ti \ \ r • i t 1 ~ - 50 N07E SHOWS PM PEAK VOLUMES BY LANE WITH 807-90Y DEVELOPEMENT ? Z Joe:. 27 `J Parametrix, Inc. y fn-Ipcn -n ,a r a mro Z0M M i m > -A Om -~Zm 0 y C m z SHADY LANE >71 av-gyp- =mp Z Z O d r I, p ODD a - D Elm= !6 7. Option 9 ~ - This option involves no lane restriping, but it does include interconnecting the existing traffic signals between Locust Street and Cascade Boulevard and adding a second ` northbound right turn lane on the SR-217 off-ramp at Greenburg Road. Analysis indicates that this option would operate at level of service "D" at the intersection with Washington Square Road and at LOS "C" or better at all other intersections. The highest v/c ratio would be experienced at the intersection with the southbound SR-217 ramps where a We of 0.97 is expected. These results indicate that this option would be relatively effective in dealing with existing and projected congestion problems along this portion of Greenburg Road. 8. Option 10 i This option includes the same features as Option 9, plus the addition of a second northbound right turn lane at Washington Square Road (similar to Option 8). This addition would 1 include converting the existing through/left lane to through traffic movement. As noted under Option 8, this feature would involve acquisition of right-of-way for construction of the additional lane and modification of the existing signal system. Analysis of this option indicates that it would operate with a slightly better level of service than Option 9, particularly at Washington Square Road. Analysis of traffic operations at this intersection using Highway Capacity Manual software was conducted to determine if i' any side street congestion problems, not identified by the progression analysis, would be experienced. None were indicated. Additionally, HCM analysis was used to evaluate the impact of prohibiting right turns on red for vehicles leaving Washington Square. Currently, these vehicles absorb a significant amount of the available traffic storage space at the intersection with the northbound ramps. During peak signal cycles, insufficient storage space remains to accommodate vehicles traveling along Greenburg Road or turning left from Mi Lincoln Center. Prohibition of these turns will increase the available storage space on Greenburg Road and is not expected to adversely impact the overall level of service at the j intersection. 1 i Maior Interchange Reconstruction Options r In addition to the minor restriping and lane additions described above, a variety of options were analyzed which involved major reconstruction of the Greenburg Road bridge and interchange with SR-217. These options included the following: Development of an urban interchange; Development of a split diamond interchange with frontage roads between Greenburg Road j and Hall Boulevard. I . i Widening of the Greenburg Road bridge; and r 9 V-21 l e ~ I j Provision of direct access between SR-217 and Washington Square. Options involving development of an urban interchange or a split diamond with frontage roads would be extremely expensive and may have significant impacts on the natural environment (particularly on wetlands) and/or on local traffic circulation and neighborhood traffic intrusion. Current experience with urban interchange design indicates that these facilities can cost upwards J of $25 million. With the urban interchange concept, through moving-vehicles are physically { 1 separated from turning vehicles at the interchange and all turning traffic is brought together at I a single point rather than two separate intersections. Capacity improvements resulting from development of an urban interchange can be significant. Detailed analysis was conducted of the latter two options which are described below. 1. Option 11 j Option 11 presents one alternative for widening the. existing Greenburg Road bridge at SR- r 1 217. This option is depicted in Figure 42, and includes the addition of a single travel lane to provide increased left-turning capacity, principally for vehicles destined to southbound J SR-217. A variation on this option would be the addition of two additional travel lanes, one in each direction to provide additional storage space for left-turning vehicles. The addition of a single travel lane could be accommodated by the existing street system approaching the bridge in either direction. With the addition of two travel lanes, it may be necessary to °a convert the existing right-turn only lanes for the north- and southbound on-ramps to right/through operation or to acquire additional right-of-way and widen the bridge approaches. Option 11 also includes the addition of a second right-turn lane to the northbound off-ramp and dual northbound left turn lanes at Washington Square Road, similar to Options 8 and 10. With this option, all intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service "C" or better. Traffic operations with Option 11 were also evaluated under projected year 2010 conditions. Year 2010 traffic volumes were estimated using the Metro regional model which was refined 1 I to reflect a greater degree of detail in the study area. Year 2010 traffic volume projections for Greenburg Road in the vicinity of SR-217 are presented in Figure 43. Based on these volumes, intersection capacity analysis was conducted for Option 11, the results of which J are summarized in Table 15. As indicated in this table, all intersections in the vicinity of the interchange are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service "D" or better with this option. J ~ - t~ 2. Option 12 i3 Evaluation was made of the provision of direct access to/from Washington Square from SR- 217 to identify ways in which this heavy traffic flow could be diverted from Greenburg j Road to improve traffic operations along the street. Several options were evaluated j including: 1 J V-22 r t h ry i ~ - . ~ I ~ ~ 715 / : . / / y 5 6/t a 4 1 ~ ~ t FF v f y~ t , _ NOTE: SNOWS PM PEAK VOLUMES BY LANE WITH 809.•-9011 DEVELOPEMENT f JQ& Wi i➢E: C~=~-01 ~7SISOIKY ~p U t 11: Parametrix, Inc. ~ . J N f ! 1, f ' I I j f t Y . / Nr ~1 Se OA( i. W Oro Z l i i....... m m z I SHADY LANE Oa ' O 0 NOW c WASHINGTON ' . SQUARE CORAL ST. - - O OQ WASHINGTON SQUARE o L-215 / r ` 250 LOCUST ST, i µ-AS 7 roryry I SDUgR f RD• 55 LINCOLN 13 ' CENTER 400--, ^ 45 p N `700 OAK ST. 71.0 ` 370 w 7 d N 1 n 360 5 r 565 0 JAG mo ~ CASCADe SLW. S . J r-- 5 5 SR ? 2 0 J 210 1 ~I~ - rum zsaso,oz aoa n-zxs-m ti Parametriz, inc. Figure 43 YEAR 2010 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES I ...a L___J L.=J E-3 1 U L._.] t l f i Table 15 j Summary of Year 2010 Levels of Service by Intersection _ 1 with SR 217/Greenburg Road Bridge Widening Options (1) 1 x_ j i Option: Cascade Boulevard SB 217 NB 217 Washington Square Access Locust Street pelgws V/C' w.ay/(ps V/C . Delty/Los V/C.: Delayws . V/C Ddtyans V/C Add one lane to bridge 16.1/C 0.93 35.31) 1.18 20.8/C 1.07 35.2/1) 1.08 9.48 0.55 i Add one lane to bridge and 16.2/C 0.93 18.5/C 1.02 20.6/C 1.07 36.7/1) 1.10 9.48 0.55 a SBR to off-ramp Add one lane to bridge, 16.2/C 0.92 18.3/C 1.02 20.6/C 1.07 27.7/D 1.06 9.48 0.55 SBR on off-ramp and separate EfW left-tum lanes at Wash. Sq. Rd. ' (1) V/C Refm to Volume to Capacity ratio for intersectim I N ii (.71 1 1 i i j F 11 1 1 S A i t ` 7; ; U 1. Construction of an off-ramp immediately north of the northbound Greenburg Road on- ramp. This option would create an inadequate weaving/merging distance between the i ( existing on-ramp and the new off-ramp, adversely impacting safety and the quality of i traffic operations along this portion of SR-217. This option would only provide access to vehicles entering Washington Square and would not accommodate southbound vehicles 0 leaving the Mall. Public comment has been made that grading for such a ramp is in - place, having been completed when the freeway was initially constructed. ODOT has ^ indicated that the area under question was never grade to serve as an off-ramp, nor would such a ramp be permitted due to the weaving/merging issues mentioned above and r i because of the State's policy precluding the construction of freeway ramps to serve private development. 3 i 2. Addition of an auxiliary lane from the northbound Greenburg Road off-ramp to Washington Square which goes under the Greenburg Road bridge and over the northbound on-ramp to connect directly with Washington Square's internal roadway ^ system. With this option, the weaving/merging problems identified above would be resolved. To serve southbound traffic a similar ramp could be constructed from 9 Washington Square over SR-217, passing under the Greenburg Road bridge and connecting to the southbound on-ramp prior to its merge with the southbound mainline. ^ A major constraint with this option involves providing adequate clearance between the i 1 new northbound off-ramp and the existing on-ramp. Additionally, ODOT has expressed concerns regarding the adequacy of existing width beneath the Greenburg Road bridge _ to accommodate both the proposed on- and off-ramps and the pending freeway widening project. 3. Construct;,m of a system of on- and off ramps which provide direct access to Washington 3 Square's internal roadway system using the existing Greenburg Road ramp terminals. This option, entitled Option 12, is depicted in Figure 44. It's concept includes development of a direct access to Washington Square from the northbound on-ramp and ! construction of a bridge over the freeway to link southbound traffic from the Mall to the southbound Greenburg Road interchange. Separation and channelization of turning } movements from the Mall and the freeway would occur at the ramp terminal. This option was analyzed using the Passer II-90 software to identify traffic operational impacts along Greenburg Road. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 14 and i indicate that a significant adverse impact would be experienced at the intersection of I Greenburg Road with the northbound SR-217 ramps. Very poor level of service "D" } conditions are expected with a volume-to-capacity ratio of 1.16. ! Greenburg Road Right-of-WM Issues 3 , As indicated in Section II, the existing portion of Greenburg Road between Hall Boulevard and Locust Street varies from a five-lane cross-section at Hall to a three-lane cross-section between the northern cemetery access road and north of Locust Street. While the analysis of 1997 short- term traffic projections documented in this report does not identify a need for widening the Greenburg Road within the next five years, in the long-run such an improvement may be } J necessary. Existing right-of-way along this segment of Greenburg Road varies from 50 to 80 V-26 I to"J"VERSIZELD"' DOCUMENTS 7 MEETING DATE: ~ 22 AGE N DA f - SEE 35M ROLL FILM i:\records\microrlm\targets\osdocccm.doc feet depending on location. Additional right-of-way should be reserved or acquired in the near future to bring the entire roadway segment to a uniform width of at least 80-feet, preferably 84 feet. This additional width would accommodate roadway widening to a five-lane cross-section, sidewalks, and 5-foot on-street bike lanes. Provision of right-of-way is particularly important adjacent to the cemetery to ensure that future widening is not precluded by the location of - - graves. 1 SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD AT NORTHBOUND SR-217 RAMPS = In addition to evaluating improvements at the Greenburg Road interchange which would improve access to Washington Square, improvements were also considered at the SR-217/Scholls Ferry W Road interchange. The primary objective of these improvements would be to improve driver perception of accessibility to the Mall from this ramp as an altemative to using Greenburg Road. Several options were evaluated and eliminated due to significant adverse traffic impacts, topographical constraints and/or cost. Two options were analyzed in greater detail and these are illustrated in Figures 45 and 46. Figure 45 depicts Option 1 for modifying the northbound SR-217/Scholls Ferry Road intersection and existing split access to Washington Square from Scholls Ferry Road. In this option, the i northbound off-ramp would be moved slightly north while the northbound on-ramp would be moved several hundred feet south to a point directly opposite the off-ramp. Access to/from Washington Square would be consolidated at a single signalized intersection slightly north of the existing entrance road. i -J Option 1 would have the advantages of segregating freeway and shopping center traffic, consolidating northbound freeway access to a single point which enhances system clarity and improved access for southbound traffic on Scholls Ferry Road to the Mall. Currently, 1 southbound left turns into the Mall are made at an unsignalized intersection and, with the s addition of traffic attributable to any of the alternatives analyzed, are expected to operate at LOS "D" during the evening peak hour. Relocation of this movement to a signalized intersection will improve overall accessibility of the Mall. In addition, because the intersection is farther south of Hall Boulevard than the existing intersection, more storage space would be available to southbound left turning vehicles. This is a constraint with the existing intersection configuration. I Major disadvantages of Option 1 include cost of implementation, and the need for traffic exiting the Mall which is destined for northbound SR-217 to make two turns to reach the freeway rather than having direct access. Table 16 summarizes the results of Passer E-90 traffic signal progression analysis for Option 1. Based on an optimal 125 second signal cycle, each of the intersections included in the : - progression would operate at acceptable levels of service with the exception of Cascade Boulevard. This intersection is expected to operate at LOS "E" during the evening peak hour i with traffic attributable to the 80-90% Development Alternative. J V-28 i OVERSIZED DCLjI'.11ENTS MEETING DATE: AGENDA I SEE 35Mr%fi owl ROLL FILL i:\records\microfim\targets\osdocccm.doc n~r.-v ILL, - Table 16 t Sununaty of Levels of Service by Intcrscction Road Interchange with Northbound SR 217/Scholls Ferry I' - Improvement Options and 80 - 90% Build-out (1) j' _ Washington Square p Option: Cascade Blvd. SB 217 NB 217 Access _ Without Improvement (2) 30.5/D 30.0/D 15.5/C 26.8/1) ? Option 1 42.6/B 26.6/D 29.8/D 26.5/1) Option 2 34.2/D 27.0/1) 31.4/D 27.5/D .1 (1) xx.x/y = Average seconds of delay/Level of service (2) Note that average delay differs slightly from that presented in Table I1 due to use of different analysis i methodology. Levels of service, however, are consistent. J r 4 J r V-30 6 w Option 2 is illustrated in Figure 46. This option includes the same general intersection - configuration as Option 1 with the exception that Scholls Ferry Road itself would be realigned slightly east and the location of the new intersections would be different than with Option 1. i This option has the advantage of bringing the northbound ramps closer to the southbound ramps, creating a more typical diamond intersection configuration. This helps to improve clarity of the circulation system. This option would also segregate freeway traffic from Washington Square traffic and would provide signalized traffic control and increase vehicle storage for southbound left turns into the Mall. Major disadvantages are similar as with Option 1 except that Option 2 may be more costly and would require acquisition or dedication of right-of-way from the Mall. Analysis of this option using Passer II-90 indicates that acceptable signal progression could be maintained along Scholls Ferry Road with this option. All intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service "D" daring the evening peak hour with 80-90% development traffic. j . j NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC INTRUSION Over the past several years the intrusion of non-residential traffic into the neighborhood east of Greenburg Road has become an increasing problem. In the Metzger/Progress Downs area plan prepared by Washington County in the early 1980's, this problem was identified and several solutions proposed. These included installation of a traffic signal at the Hall Boulevard/Locust Street intersection and improvement of Locust Street to serve as a collector facility for traffic I in the area. Sidewalks were added along the south side of this street between Greenburg Road - and Hall Boulevard to serve the residential neighborhood and the Metzger School. However, the problem with through traffic using neighborhood streets, particularly Oak Street, has continued. In addition, there is a significant amount of cut-through traffic in the area east of - Hall Boulevard between the study area and Highway 99W east of Pfaffle Street. Major streets affected by this cut-through traffic include Locust, 80th, Oak, 72nd and 71st. The addition of increased development activity in the study area will likely add some level of traffic onto neighborhood streets, depending upon the location and magnitude of that development. For example, it is unlikely that development occurring along Nimbus Avenue will add an appreciable level of traffic to Locust and Oak Streets east of Greenburg Road due to the minimal level of project traffic which would be attracted to this area. However, development close to Locust or Oak Streets would likely add traffic to the streets in this neighborhood, particularly for motorists wishing to avoid congestion at the Greenburg Road/SR-217 ' interchange. The recommendations of this study include several improvements to Greenburg Road, u particularly in the vicinity of the interchange. The primary intent of these improvements is to provide for better traffic movement through the interchange, improved intersection levels of service and shorter travel times. The extent to which these improvements are successful will r; determine, in part, the extent to which both new and existing office and retail traffic along i i Greenburg Road chooses to use the arterial street system rather than cutting through the neighborhoods. To that extent, arterial street improvements can provide some mitigation for ` u local neighborhood traffic problems. At the very least, they are not expected to worsen existing i problems. i~ .r V-31 t i NEW I4 1 2Y, "L J90 j ~-J20 I I - 400 S SC yo Qs f i BEAVERTON - TV 1 i f "t I NOTE. SHOWS PM PEAK VOLUMES BY LANE KITH 809e-907 DEVELOPEMENT nix: C~CAD\3515-01\7.9,SOIN3 L J f . ~ .10@ 27-3.51x01 l Parametrix, Inc. s ii F. i i - 1 I J I t05 Y .os 4 ~ FERRY RD. GARD HWY. a r - •i E Figure 46 i' SR 217/SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD INTERCHANGE OPTION 2 However, these improvements do not address existing arterial street problems outside of the study area, particularly along such streets as Highway 99W west of SR-217, Greenburg Road i = as it approaches Highway 99W, and Hall Boulevard in the vicinity of Highway 99W. The fi significant congestion problems at these locations influence decisions by motorists to cut through i the neighborhoods east of Greenburg Road in order to reach Highway 99W east of the SR-217 interchange where this street is less congested. To address this problem, it is appropriate that ti a series of specific neighborhood traffic management (or "traffic calming") techniques be considered. Neighborhood traffic management techniques can include a wide variety of activities. Table 17 ^ lists many of the actions which have been endorsed or tested by the City of Portland as part of its Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. The table indicates the impacts and relative effectiveness of each action or device included. Many of the devices frequently used by the City j include: cul-de-sacs, median barriers, traffic circles, chokers/curb extensions, diverters and F. a semi-diverters, turn prohibitions and speed bumps. A number of the foregoing devices are commonly used in cities throughout the United States and 1 in communities both in Europe and Australia. Some or all of them might be considered -i selectively for their applicability in the residential neighborhoods east of Greenburg Road, depending upon the specific and localized nature of the problem being addressed. For example, j 7 techniques and devices which narrow the roadway surface and/or introduce undulations in the pavement (like speed bumps) can be effective in reducing speed. Other devices, such as turn prohibitors, diverters, semi-diverters, pork chops and cul-de-sacs can be effective in reducing the volume of through traffic in a neighborhood. The installation of these and other types of t devices can be very effective in "calming" an existing neighborhood traffic problem. However, f the use of these devices must be weighed against the need for access into and through an area I qq by all residents and by service or emergency vehicles. y A particular focus for installation of neighborhood traffic mitigation might be placed on E 1 I addressing the through traffic issues on Oak Street which is a designated local street and not designed to carry a large volume of traffic. Possible actions which could be taken on this street i could include constructing a cul-de-sac or traffic diver-ter adjacent Lincoln Center. These devices would preclude through traffic from using this street, significantly reducing existing traffic volumes. However, implementation of these devices must be coordinated with the need for prompt emergency access. 3 ~ Another area of emphasis might be to initiate a sidewalk installation program to enhance the safety of non-motorists in the area. A third area for installation of devices could be along j Locust Street where control of speeding might be the desired objective. This street is currently ! designated as a neighborhood collector and, thus, is the most appropriate route for traffic into Ml and through the area. I J i V-33 [__a U-.j E =1 t H t j I L-1 1---] i__._.l i------ 1 J i Table 17 Neighborhood Traffic Managem:nt Devices I Emergency Level Cost t Traffic Noise Management Volume Speed Directional And Access Vehicle Maintenance Of Effectiveness Device Reduction Reduction Control Polution Safety Ressrictiom Access Problems Violation (for Constmction) Recommendation Speed Bumps Possible Yea Inlikely Small Increase Unknown None Possible Problems Snowplow Not High Approved Applicable Speed Undulations Possible Yes Unlikely No Change No Documented None No Documented No Documented Not Unknown Currently Not Allawxd Problems Problems Problems Applicable by Stale of Oregon - Rumble Strips Yes - Small Possible Unlikely Increase Vehicles, good None No Problems Snowplow Not High Possible , r Bicycles, bad Applicable DiagonalDiverim Yes Likely Possible Decrease Shifts I.eRor Right Some Constraint Vandalism Low Moderate to Approved Accidents turn only High Cul-de-Sac Yes Likely Yes Decrease Shifts Total Some Constraint Vandalism Low Low Approved Accidents . Semi-Diverter Yes Likely Yes Decrease Shn Restricted Minor Contraint Vandalism Potentially Moderate to Approved Accidents One Direction High High Forced Turn Yes Likely Yes Decrease Improved Some Minor Constraint Vandalism Potentially High Approved W Channeliration High P. Median Bdlrlcr Yea None Yes Decrease Improved Right Tum Only Minor Constraint No Documented Low High Approved Problems TrafficCrcle Possible Likely Unlikely No Change No Document None Some Constraint Vandalism Low High Approved Problems Unlikely Misr Unlikely No Change Improved for None Possible Problems No Docrrmented Not Low Approved Click= Pedestrians Problems Applicable Stop Signs Possible No Unlikely Increase Unclear None No Problems No Documented Potentially High Hhiult Co. Problem High criteria met One-WayStreet Yes No Yes Decease Uncle" Restricted Restricted No Documented Low Moderate to Approved One Direction One Direction Problems High _ Turn Prohibition Yes Likely Yes Decrease Improved No turn(s) No Problem No Documented Moderate Low Approved Problems signs Improved None None None Low Very Low Approved Improve Arterial Possible Unlikely Unlikely Do== s Streets i Source: City of Portland, Bureau of Traffic Management i - ;i T 1 -t Prior to implementing any traffic calming device, a thorough evaluation of opportunities and constraints should be undertaken in close coordination with the affected residents of the area. 3 This evaluation should be less a study and more a consultation with the neighborhoods. This consultation should include testing of potential devices which address the existing problems and ^ the traffic control objectives of the neighborhood. ROADWAY SIGNING t ~ Directional signing is an important component of the transportation system in that it enables ^ motorists to orient themselves to a community or area and to accurately locate their destination and an appropriate travel route. Clarity of directional signing is critical as the motorist needs w~ accurate information which is provided with sufficient advance notice to prevent panic maneuvers or out-of-direction travel. Directional signing can also be used to divert motorists away from sensitive or congested areas by identifying other, perhaps less congested routes to reach the same destination. M! In reviewing directional signing within the study area a number of issues have been identified including: } Freeway signing to Washington Square, particularly from the south; f. Signing to access routes into Washington Square from Greenburg Road, particularly from the south; .M Signing from Washington Square to Scholls Ferry Road and the northbound SR-217 on- ramp; and Signing on the Greenburg Road bridge at the SR-217 interchange. Current signing on northbound SR-217 south of Greenburg Road identifies the "next two exits" as preferred routes of access to Washington Square. A significant number of motorists choose the first exit, Greenburg Road, the reach the Mall contributing to congestion problems along this street between the freeway and Washington Square Road. Consideration should be given to modifying the existing sign to direct more motorists to the Scholls Ferry Road exit where access ; to the Mall is also available. Suggested wording might include: "Washington Square South - Next Right, Washington Square North - Second Right". A similar sign might be installed on Greenburg Road approaching Washington Square Road to direct motorists with destinations in the northern part of the Mall further up Greenburg Road to another entrance. Most of the entrances along the northern portion of Greenburg Road are ' currently lightly utilized. ` Additional signing to clarify lane usage should be added to the road exiting Washington Square k a onto Scholls Ferry Road at the northbound SR-217 on-ramp. Currently, there are three lanes u where this road intersects Scholls Ferry Road; the left for vehicles wishing to go south on { V-35 - F . i Scholls Ferry Road, the center for vehicles destined for northbound SR-217 and the right for vehicles headed for northbound Scholls Ferry Road. This lane usage is unclear to the uninitiated - prior to reaching the intersection at which time it may be too late to make a lane change. Advance warning of these lane restrictions would be desirable. - Similar signs identifying lane channelization on Greenburg Road at the SR-217 interchange would be beneficial for motorists unfamiliar with this area. Only the outside lanes on the bridge are actually through lanes. Motorists in the inside lanes who do not wish to enter the freeway j must weave out of these lanes with little advance warning. Installation of signing would clarify existing lane use and should be considered. This recommendation would also be appropriate if t 1 any of the lane restriping options discussed earlier in this Section were implemented. ACCESS MANAGEMENT Most segments of the arterial streets in the study area currently have good access control to a minimize conflicts between through-moving vehicles and those entering or leaving driveways. ! j The number of driveways along Greenburg and Scholls Ferry Roads throughout much of the study area are limited and, for the most part, do not create a significant impact on through- j moving traffic. Exceptions might be along Greenburg Road south of the SR-217 interchange and f ~j along Scholls Ferry Road north of Hall Boulevard. Along Hall Boulevard between Cascade 93 Boulevard and Greenburg Road there are frequent driveways many of which serve individual 7 W parcels or businesses. This is particularly true along the northern portion of this street segment for approximately 500 feet east of Scholls Ferry Road and along the south side of Hall for approximately 400 feet west of Scholls Ferry. j Review of the location and spacing of driveways along these two portions of Hall Boulevard j indicates that many parcels have few alternatives for relocation and/or consolidation of existing driveways due to topographic constraints and parcel configuration. However, as redevelopment r~ opportunities are presented, consideration should be given to reducing the number of existing driveways. As development proposals are received for the currently vacant parcel on the southwest corner of the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road and Hall Boulevard, consideration should be given to consolidation of access to this parcel with the adjacent parcel to the west. This will be particularly important if an eastbound right turn lane is constructed as identified earlier in this Section. For areas along Hall Boulevard which are currently undeveloped, a plan should be developed to identify and pursue opportunities for driveway consolidation to the maximum extent possible. L. J In addition to addressing the issue of access management for driveways, an analysis was also i 9 made of traffic signal progression along Hall Boulevard. Options evaluated included: Removal of the existing traffic signal at the Target Store access road; i ~ Removal of the Target signal and installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection ' of Hall Boulevard with the U.S. Bank Access Road; and 71 V-36 r - L~ _ i Retain Target signal and install new signal at the U.S. Bank Access. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 18. LLJ Removal of the Target Store access signal would also include installation of a median, and conversion of the entrance road to right-in/right-out access only. Left turn access to/from this store could be provided by delineating a road and establishing an intersection with the existing Embassy Suites Access Road which is traffic signal-controlled at Hall Boulevard and permits turning movements in all directions. These access modifications are illustrated in Figure 47. _ Modifications to the Target Store Access Road would reduce the number of traffic signals and locations for conflicting traffic movements along this portion of Hall Boulevard and would i provide for improved through traffic movement between Greenburg Road and Embassy Suites. j Analysis of the impact of adding this diverted traffic to the Hall Boulevard/Embassy Suites i intersection indicates that level of service "C" conditions could be maintained even with the addition of traffic attributable to the 80-90% Development Alternative. However, the distance between Embassy Suites and Greenburg Road is approximately 1,800 feet and it is unlikely that ~I signal progression would be effective between these two locations due to the dispersal of vehicle platoons. Level of service at Scholls Ferry Road is poor as this analysis did not include the ' j proposed improvements discussed earlier in this report. Level of service at Greenburg Road is f" } J marginal "D/E". 111 o- - With the addition of a new traffic signal at the intersection of the U.S. Bank Access Road with Hall Boulevard, acceptable levels of service could be maintained at intersections between Scholls Ferry and Greenburg Roads. Levels of service at Scholls Ferry and Greenburg Roads would j be similar to those discussed above. i r _ 1 With the addition of a new traffic signal at the U.S. Bank Access and retention of the Target Access signal, no adverse impacts on traffic operations along Hall Boulevard are expected. Consideration should be given to improving a direct connection between the Target store parking lot and Washington Square Mall to improve internal circulation south of Hall Boulevard and eliminate the need for persons traveling between Target and the Mall to use Hall Boulevard. Consideration should also be given to reducing the number of right-in/right/out driveways along this section of Hall Boulevard, focusing traffic on the signalized intersections. ENCOURAGING THE USE OF SR-217 FOR LONGER-DISTANCE TRIPS I Actions which can be taken to encourage the use of SR-217 for longer-distance trips, while discouraging its use for short trips might include the following: 1 Improvements to bottlenecks and congestion points along local arterial streets as discussed in this report to improve travel time and make these facilities more attractive for short trips to/from and within the study area; E, V-37 l~ h r i=ce L C L L 3 C. l 3 EA L J $ 1 [_~l _:l c~=1 L-3 .I L- l C'i 0 Table 18 j Summary of Signal Progression Analysis Along Hall Boulevard with 80-90% Build-out (1) t. I i Option: Scholls Ferry Road Embassy Suites Access Target Access U.S. Bank Access Greenberg Road _ r Deky4AS V/C Deley/LOs VIC ; Delay/LOS V/C. DelayW V/C Delayws VIC j Existing Signals 67.1/F 1.16 23.0/C 0.71 6.18 0.47 - - 39.6/1) 1.04 i Option 1 -Remove 67.0/F 1.16 22.3/C 0.71 - - - - 40.18 1.04 signal at Target - - Option 2 - Install 67.1/F 1.16 21.9/C 0.71 12.38 0.88 39.0/1) 1.04 signal at U.S. Bank Option 3 - Signals 67.1/17 1.16 23.5/C 0.71 7.3B 0.75 11.98 0.88 39.0/1) 1.04 at both Target & U.S. Bank - < (1) V/C Refen to Volume to Capacity ratio for intersection. w e0 i I I i f t -`r _4 LEGEND O EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL PERMITTED TURNING v MOVEMENT ...I N NEW ROAD t { y REMOVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL 71 U 0 m ED TARGET r STORE 0 O . WASHINGTON SQUARE LEHMAN ST. ~I JO& JM 252543 45{5 1 I7-.01 Parametrix, Inc. Figure 47 TARGET STORE ACCESS MODIFICATION L~ i EMONapp- -.F7' Signing of major destination within and close to the study area via the arterial street system. Particularly significant would be signing along the lines of that discussed above to/from Washington Square or to other major destinations such as Lincoln Center; and Improvements to arterial streets in the general vicinity of the study area, particularly along Greenburg Road and Highway 99W. Currently, these facilities are over capacity at many locations making them less desirable to motorists making short trips. It should be noted that SR-217 plays a unique role in the circulation system of eastern Washington County. There are few arterial streets which parallel it for any distance, and which serve similar destinations with the same degree of speed and directness. This makes the use of j alternative routes less desirable. The most effective strategy for encouraging short trips to be made on the arterial street system and not on the freeway is to make these streets more travel d time competitive. h -j W ~ f k J ►t ! V-40 f t - 1 SECTION VI i J TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT/NON-MOTORIZED FACILITIES This section identifies actions which are planned or could be implemented to improve the movement of persons other than by the automobile. Included is a discussion of improvements to existing public transit facilities and service, travel demand management, and the pedestrian/ Z I bicycle circulation system. IMPROVEMENTS TO PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE/FACILITIES a - A number of public transit improvements in and near the study area were implemented by Tri- F` 7 Met during the month of.September, 1993. Others will be implemented over the next two to j five years including such major improvements as light rail transit service in the Westside Corridor from 185th Avenue to the Portland Central City via downtown Beaverton. Recent improvements include: 1. Initiation of new line 92 express bus service from Murray Hall to downtown Portland. m This service will include a stop at the temporary park-and-ride lot soon to be constructed adjacent to the northbound SR-217 on-ramp on Scholls Ferry Road. Service from the 1 park-and-ride lot to downtown Portland will be offered during peak periods only in the j peak direction. The service will be direct with no stops between the park-an-ride lot and 9 °a downtown Portland. S 2. Initiation of new line 76 service between Meridian Park Hospital in Tualatin and the Tigard Transit Center. This service creates an opportunity for transfers to Beaverton and j Washington Square from the outer southwest portion of the region. Service is provided 5 at 30 minute headways on weekdays and every 60 minutes on Saturdays. Pending and proposed improvements include: 1 r 1. Relocation of the existing Washington Square Transit Center to the northern side of the j Mall adjacent to J.C. Penneys and Mervyns. The five existing routes currently serving the Mall will be reoriented to this new location. The location of the new transit center ! - and the possible realignment of bus routes accessing this center are shown in Figure 48. 'j Access to the new transit center from the east and south will be via the US Bank Access Road or the North Cemetery Access Road. The US Bank Access Road would likely be p preferred and traffic signalization of this intersection should be considered to facilitate bus movements. Warrants for traffic signal installation are currently met at this location. 2. Increased service frequency on line 78 to every 30 minutes on Saturdays between Lake Oswego and the Tigard Transit Center, if existing ridership is sustained or grows. This : increase could occur within the next year. Vt-t N v ' NACC 9~ y ^ ~ - > I. J y x °c h(o F I n ..d cv c ° C) m 4J f g 43,45,56,62,78 o f 'J y WASHINGTON I SQUARE 77/ V LEHMAN ST. CORAL ST. Sys LOCUST ST. F ' S~Mf RoH S Ill O b OAK ST. r1 ~ i 1 © RELOCATED TRANSIT j CENTER © TEMPORARY PARK-AND-RIDE LOT _YI JO@ 27-2545-ot - Parametrix, Inc. Figure 48 PROPOSED TRANSIT SERVICE . IMPROVEMENTS 1 h i 3. Initiating 15 minute service on line 78 during weekdays. This increase could occur within the next two years. j 4. By September, 1997, Tri-Met will initiate light rail transit service in the Westside Corridor with supporting feeder bus service. While the nearest light rail station in located in downtown Beaverton, several miles from the study area, the new service will likely affect transit use throughout eastern Washington County. As part of the Westside light rail program, Tri-Met is initiating an extensive review of transit services in this j area. The objective is to integrate bus and rail services, to review existing service and 1 va to identify areas where service expansion would be appropriate due to community 1 growth. 4 i Analysis of the impact on the study area of the Westside bus and light rail improvements was conducted using travel demand data prepared by Metro and published in the Westside Corridor environmental documentation. This analysis indicates that daily ~ ridership increases in the order of 250 to 300 riders might be experienced in the study s area with these improvements. If all of this increase is a result of motorists shifting to transit, the increase would reduce daily vehicular trips by 200 to 250 vehicles. This reduction would likely be experienced throughout the study area, but there may be some concentration on routes to/from Washington Square. During the morning or evening peak hour, the number of vehicles reduced will likely not be sufficient to alter the i roadway improvement recommendations contained in Section V. - In addition to the new and proposed service which would be operated by Tri-Met in the study ing localized transit service such as a shuttle bus area, consideration was also given to proved i system. Such a system could be structured in a number of different ways. Service could be as simple as a vehicle or vehicles running between major trip generators (such as the Mall and Lincoln Center) to a loop which encompasses much of the study area (i.e., linking the business j t park and office development along Nimbus Avenue with the Mall and Lincoln Center area). Service could be provided on a fixed route with a fixed schedule, it could be demand responsive or it could be some combination of the two. I Shuttle bus service could be focused on several target markets which would dictate the type of service offered, area of service coverage or route(s), vehicle headways (time between vehicles), hours of operation, etc. Target markets could include employees (for trips to/from work and/or for other trips during the day), shoppers, elderly persons, and others (including hotel guests). One option for providing service might be to operate on a fixed route and fixed schedule between Lincoln Center and Washington Square during the midday peak period (i.e., 11 AM to 2 PM). i Typically, shuttle bus service which operates in a suburban office and retail environment requires a sufficiently high density and number of employees to be successful. Several successful shuttle bus systems in Southern California operate in areas with more than 5,000,000 i of office and retail space. Additionally, the productivity of shuttle bus service in these communities is directly correlated with the number of elderly passengers using the system. The more accessible the system is to the elderly, the better utilized the system is. i f V1-3 1 i ~I Development of a shuttle bus system for the study area is not recommended at this time. However, as the area around Washington Square continues to grow and develop, consideration should be given to further evaluating the feasibility of shuttle bus service. TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT Travel demand management includes a wide variety of activities which are geared towards . reducing vehicular travel demand during peak periods, and thus relieving traffic congestion and . $ ! minimizing the need for improvement projects to increase roadway capacity. Typical travel r demand management or TDM strategies might include but not be limited to ridesharing (i.e., carpooling or vanpooling), improved transit service including express buses and park-and-ride I service, employee flex-time or staggered work hours, telecommuting, parking restrictions and/or parking fees, preferential parking, and fringe parking with a short shuttle. Each of these . strategies has varying degrees of effectiveness depending on the nature and length of the effected ! - trip (for example, commuter vs. shopping) and the availability of alternatives to the single occupant automobile. It is not the intent of this study to conduct a detailed assessment of the potential for f a implementing various TDM strategies within the study area and the associated effectiveness of these strategies in reducing existing and future congestion problems. However, to identify the I~ general effectiveness of TDM in this area, a "case study" analysis was made of reductions in traffic congestion which could be associated with a significant increase in ridesharing at Lincoln Center. Field data collection at the major access points to Lincoln Center indicates that during the evening peak hour, average auto occupancy to/from this facility was 1.15 (persons per vehicle). This is substantially higher than the regional average of 1.08, indicating that a significant level I I of ridesharing is already occurring. If the existing auto occupancy rate was double to 1.30, approximately 130 cars would be removed from Greenburg Road both north and south of the A Center. The impact of this reduction on traffic operations was analyzed at the critical intersection of Greenburg Road with the northbound SR-217 ramps. This analysis indicates that average vehicle delay at this intersection during the existing PM peak hour would be reduced by slightly over 2 seconds, No level of service improvement is expected. 1 - While the institution of limited or sporadic travel demand management strategies appears to have no significant impact on traffic congestion or roadway improvement requirements, a wider-based program including, but not limited to, more employees within the Lincoln Center complex and a`s`• at Washington Square may have a greater impact. At a minimum, travel demand management j V programs should be encouraged and supported to provide an increment of improvement in i overall traffic congestion. Future programs will likely need to be consistent with a regional ! TDM program or strategy should one be adopted as expected within the next few years. C1 ~r! J V1-4 ~.1 L L.~ L.~ I _I 9 71 BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS As indicated in Section II, there are a number of deficiencies with the existing pedestrian and bicycle circulation system in the study area, including circuitous access to various significant destinations and lack of system continuity along streets, across streets and between key points j of origin and destination. Figure 49 illustrates the location of major deficiencies in the { pedestrian circulation system which include: 1 i j 1. Lack of continuous sidewalks along: - The west side of Cascade Boulevard between Hall Boulevard and Scholls Ferry f - Road; The west side of Cascade Boulevard between Scholls Ferry Road and Greenburg j Road; ? - The west side of Greenburg Road between Cascade Boulevard and the southbound ! SR-217 ramps; f - The west side of Greenburg Road between Coral Street and south of Greenburg 7 Road; Both sides of Scholls Ferry Road between Cascade Boulevard and the entrance to Washington Square; and i - The north side of Hall Boulevard between Embassy Suites Road and Greenburg E Road. In addition, many of the local streets in the residential area east of Greenburg Road do not have sidewalks or shoulders where pedestrians may walk out of the flow of traffic. 2. Lack of connections between the residential neighborhood east of Greenburg Road and r ' both the Washington Square Shopping Mall and the future transit center as discussed above. Pedestrian access between these two areas is constrained by several factors including: u - - The configuration of existing residential blocks and the lack of connections to I Greenburg Road in the northern portion of the residential area; I - The lack of protected crossings of Greenburg Road between Locust Street and { i Hall Boulevard; and { - The lack of pedestrian-friendly connections between Greenburg Road and the Mall building. j 3. Access to Washington Square from all directions is not pedestrian-friendly. Persons arriving at the Mall on foot from the north or northeast must walk through the parking lot in conflict with vehicular traffic. Persons walking from the south have a segregated pathway but the entrance point to the Mall is immediately adjacent to the truck loading docks. j VI5 i i( N f 4W D - Bc~a. aY n h o z LACK OF CONTINUITY LACK OF CONTINUITY LACK OF CONTINUITY Fo• z m s N m ACCESS THRU PARKING LOT -LACK OF v '7 i WASHINGTON m CONTINUITY p SQUARE t R LACK OF CONNECT] 1 TO MALL AND FUTURE LEHMAN S ANSIT CENTER CIRCUITOUS ~y ACCESS CORAL ST. ~pF Z _ SON03 LOCUST ST. i SWARf TON S O RO• p , LACK OF N' OAK ST. C TIN TY m LACK OF m CONTINUITY R.~ LACK OF "I CONTINUITY aaa 27-2545-01 Parametrtx, Inc, Figure 49 DEFICIENCIES IN EXISTING _j PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM I e - i I ^ The City of Tigard's existing code requires that, in conjunction with most development, half- width street improvements be made where necessary and that sidewalks be constructed adjacent - to the developed property. Consideration should be given to evaluating the need for additional pedestrian circulation improvements in conjunction with future major development activity to address the system deficiencies discussed above. This would be particularly important along Greenburg Road in proximity to the existing residential area. Additionally, opportunities for providing a safer pedestrian crossing of Greenburg Road between Locust Street and Hall Boulevard should be explored. A possibility may be to periodically evaluate traffic operations and signal warrants at the intersection of Greenburg Road with the North Cemetery Road to identify eligibility for traffic signal installation at this location. Development of a pedestrian overcrossing of Greenburg Road has J been suggested by the public. This would represent an unusual treatment to accommodate pedestrian movements across an arterial street in a suburban environment. It is not anticipated N that there would be sufficient pedestrian traffic to justify the cost involved in providing such a - facility. i In addition to improvements to the pedestrian circulation system, consideration should be given to bicycle access and improvement of the bicycle circulation system within the study area. In the Regional Transportation Plan, Hall Boulevard and Scholls Ferry Road have been identified of a regional bikeway network. There area currently painted bike lanes along portions of these streets, but a comprehensive system does not exist. Current ODOT policy requires construction of bicycle facilities in conjunction with improvements to state-owned streets or • highways where the addition of these facilities would not result in unsafe condition or unreasonable expense. As improvements are made to the key arterial streets in the study are, sufficient space should be provided for bicycle movement where feasible. Pavement markings j y which delineate these facilities should be maintained on a regular basis. 1 ~ 1 Y~ vi-7 I _ _ l SECTION VII IMPLEMENTATION AND COST ESTIMATES SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATES A summary of estimated costs for the various options and improvements discussed in Section V of this report is presented in Table 19 on the following page. Estimated costs include both i construction and right-of-way acquisition, except as noted. Right-of-way estimates were based on assessed valuation of affected parcels, calculation of a cost per square foot for each parcel, estimate of square footage requirements for each improvement, and determination of a total i estimated cost. ` At the Greenburg Road/SR-217 interchange, cost estimates were based on addition of a single travel lane. The estimate includes seismic reconstruction, which was assumed to cost approximately one third of the amount required for bridge construction. An accurate estimate for bridge widening is difficult to determine at a planning level of analysis because there are so many variables involved with the bridge including age, maintenance history, design, geo- i technical details, etc. A more detailed estimate should be prepared during preliminary design. RELATIONSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES r . Table 20 summarizes the recommended short-term roadway improvements for the study area and „ indicates their applicability by land development alternative and their estimated cost. Total improvement costs associated with the Existing + Approved Projects Alternative is estimated to range from approximately $554,000 to $920,000. The higher end of this range is dependent upon implementation of the recommended interim improvements along Greenburg Road in the i vicinity of SR-217 (Option 7). Should design and construction of the Greenburg Road bridge i1 be delayed beyond 5 years, consideration should be given to implementation of these improvements to relieve existing congestion problems. If full funding is available and bridge improvements can proceed expeditiously, this improvement would not be necessary. [ Improvement costs associated with the 50-60% Development Alternative were estimated to range from $694,000 to $1,060,000. With the 80-90% Development Alternative, improvement costs were estimated to range from $1,359,000 to $1,724,000. 3 In addition to the short-term improvements presented in Table 20, one other potential roadway improvement has been identified. As noted previously in this report, the intersection of Hall Boulevard at Greenburg Road is expected to operate very close to level of service "E" with the ` 1 80-90% Development Alternative. If the parcel north of Hall and west of Oleson Road were to develop for intensive retail use rather than the office use assumed in this report, improvements - I to this intersection will likely be needed. [ j V11-1 ! V k i L~ l l V Table 19 Summary of Cost Estimates for Improvement Options Intersection/Roadwav Improvement Estimated Cost (1) i Scholls Ferry @ Hall: Add 150' eastbound right-turn lane $331,400 (2) Add 420' eastbound right-turn lane $413,400 (2) Add 150' southbound right-turn lane $136,200 Scholls Ferry @ Nimbus: Add 200' northbound right-turn lane $141,000 j - Hall @ US Bank Access: Install traffic signal $110,000 Add 250' eastbound through lane to Greenburg Road $30,000 77 Hall @ SB 217/Cascade: Add 320' southbound right-turn lane $128,000 (3) Hall @ Nimbus: Add 400' eastbound right turn lane $400,000 J Greenburg Road/217 Option 0 - signal interconnect $50,000 Interchange: Option 1 - restriping $77,000 , Option 2 -restriping $77,000 J Option 3 - restriping $77,000 Option 4 - restriping $77,000 Option 5 - restriping plus lane added to both NB $453,000 and SB offramps Option 6 - restriping plus SB loop ramp and added $1,028,000 (4) 1 _ lane to NB offramp Option 7 - restriping plus lane added to NB offramp $209,000 Option 8 - Option 7 plus dual NBL @ Wash. Sq. Rd. $397,400 _ Option 9 - Added lane on NB off ramp plus interconn $177,000 t Option 10 - Option 9 plus dual NBL @ Wash Sq. Rd. $365,400 Option I I - widen bridge, dual NBL @ Wash. Sq. Rd $2,350,000 ` plus lane added to NB offramp t Option 12 - direct access to/from Washington Square $3,966,000 (4) Scholls Ferry Road @ Option I - ramp modification $582,000 (5) NB 217 Ramps: Option 2 - ramp modification $990,000 (5) (1) Cost for right-0f--way acquisition based on assessed value of affected parcels. Major utility relocation costs, if applicable, are not included. (2) Assumes acquisition of entire parcel on southwest quadrant (3) Assumes no railroad interference or problems with obtaining sufficient right-of-way f (4) Assumes no widening of Greenburg Road bridge j (5) Excludes cost for right-of-way acquisition VII-2 a _ t Table 20 Summary of Recommended Roadway Improvements by Land Development Alternative ! Development Alternatives Approved 50-6001o 80-90% Estimated 1 ! Location/Improvement Projects Development Development Cost (1993 $1 Scholls Ferry Road at Hall Boulevard ^ - Add 420' eastbound x X X $413,400 right-turn lane J - Add 150' X $136,200 southbound right- turn lane Scholls Ferry Road at Nimbus Avenue - Add 200' X X X $141,000 u northbound right- turn lane Greenburg Road/SR-217 Interchange I - Option 10: Install x X X ($365,400) interconnect, add J northbound right- turn lane to off- ramp and NBL at Washington Sq. Rd. tt) r"I This improvement could be incorporated into a project to widen the Greenburg Road bridge if sufficient J funding is available to proceed with design and construction of this project in the next 3-5 years. Otherwise, this improvement should be made. The need for the Greenburg Road bridge widening is not directly associated with or triggered by the land development alternatives analyzed in this report. VII-3 T d Development Alternatives Approved 50-60% 80-9090 Estimated Location/Improvement Projects Development Development Cost (1993 { - Hall Boulevard at U.S. W Bank Access Road - Install traffic signal x X $110,000 - Complete 250' half- X X $30,000 - width on south side, east of access road Hall Boulevard at SB 217/ t. Cascade Boulevard - Add 320' X $128,000 southbound right- turn lane Hall Boulevard at Nimbus Avenue i~ - Add 400' eastbound x $400,000 right-turn lane i J TOTAL COST $554,400- $694,400- $1,358,600 - $1,358,600 - $919,800 $1,059,800 $1,724,000 $1,724,000 Note: If the parcel north of Hall Blvd. and west of Oleson Rd. develops for intensive retail use, improvement to the J the Hall/Greenburg intersection will likely be needed. This should be included as a part of both future development alternatives. f - r,^ .J L.J VII-4 J s TIMING OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Table 21 summarizes the improvement recommendations of this report and indicates appropriate timing for implementation. This table includes both roadway improvement projects and other improvements such as driveway consolidation, transit service, signing, neighborhood traffic 3 y management, and travel demand management. f , FUNDING OPTIONS ; j There are a variety of options available for funding the improvement recommendations j ( summarized in this Section, including federal, state and local sources. Federal funding is available through the Intermodal Surface Efficiency Act (ISTEA). Applicable programs under ISTEA include: the Surface Transportation Program which provides funding for a variety of roadway improvement projects on both state and local roadway systems. ISTEA also provides A~ 1 1 funding bicycle and pedestrian projects through its Transportation Enhancement program. State funding is provided largely through the existing Gas Tax, which is allocated to State 1 highways, cities and counties for roadway improvement projects. Additionally, not less than 1 I percent of the gas tax funds received by a jurisdiction must be spent on bicycle/pedestrian-related (r improvements. Local funding is available from a wide variety of sources including, but not limited to the following: Washington County Major Streets Improvement Program ry (MSTIP) which is currently in its second round of voter-approved funding for street projects throughout the County. Approximately $2,000,000 has been set aside under MSTIP-2 for improvements to the Greenburg Road bridge in the vicinity of SR-217. Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) which can be formed by affected property owners in a given geographical area to provide funding for transportation improvements benefiting the area. I • Conditions of Development Approval which can be required as is necessary and reasonable to mitigate traffic impacts created by specific land development projects. Local Funds. Local general funds can also be used to implement transportation 1 u improvements including road projects, reservation of right-of-way, bicycle and pedestrian ry projects and travel demand management strategies. In addition to the funding options mentioned above, two additional sources of transportation 3 funding are presently under consideration. Metro is developing a Regional Arterial funding ! J program which will likely be presented to voters late in 1994. Washington County is considering development of a third Major Street Improvement Program and seeking voter approval either late in 1994 or in 1995. Should either of these measures be approved, additional VII-5 ! 1 'l Table 21 Timing of Improvement Recommendations " L. _ Recommendation Timing l 1. Initiate process to identify, test, and implement Immediate I . neighborhood traffic management strategies. 2. Improve directional signing Immediate :j - To encourage diversion of trips to Washington Square from Greenburg Road, especially left turns a at Washington Square Road. r 3. Incorporate consideration of driveway consolidation, Immediate j. especially along Hall Blvd., into development review 9 process. 4. Improve connections between Target store parking lot Immediate f; j and Mall. 5. Implement transit service improvements as proposed New Washington Square transit center Next 1-2 years Improve service frequency as supported by ridership Next 1-2 years J growth - Develop new/modified routes to support Westside Next 5 years LRT - Consider development of shuttle bus service Next 5 years t ' 6. Encourage and support implementation of travel Immediate demand management strategies by major employers 7. Improve pedestrian/bicycle circulation system in study i area f - Complete gaps in the pedestrian system as In conjunction with f development occurs along Hall Blvd., Greenburg adjacent i_ Rd., and Cascade Blvd. development I rJ - Encourage improved pedestrian connections to/from In conjunction with Washington Square Mall development activity ` Improve pedestrian crossing of Greenburg Rd. As warranted between Locust St. and Hall Blvd. (consider traffic I signal installation at Greenburg Rd./North Cemetery Rd. with crosswalks) Ir V11-6 _wy _ _ . . _ . 7,1 Recommendation Timing - Initiate sidewalk improvements in residential area as Next 1-5 years physically possible and desirable - Provide sufficient road space for bicyclists in Next 1-5 years conjunction with street improvements where safe and, 1 feasible 8. Implement roadway improvements A. Scholls Ferry/Hall - Add 420' eastbound right-turn lane Immediate - Add 150' southbound right-turn lane Next 2-5 years B. Scholls Ferry/Nimbus i - Add 200' northbound right-turn lane Immediate I .i C. Greenburg/SR 217 Interchange j - Install signal interconnect between Washington Immediate Square Road and Cascade Blvd; add right turn lane to northbound off-ramp; widen Greenburg Road to add northbound left turn lane at Washington Square Road tit J - Initiate preliminary engineering for widening Next 3-5 years Greenburg Road bridge - Widen Greenburg Road bridge at SR 217 Mid-term D. Hall/US Bank Access t: - Install traffic signal As development on north side occurs - Complete 250' half-width on south side Next 1-2 years E. Hall/SB 217 - Cascade Add 320' southbound right turn lane Next 2-5 years J F. Hall/Nimbus Next 2-5 years Add 400' eastbound right turn lane 1 J tt) This improvement should be incorporated into a project to uri&n the Greenburg Road bridge if sufficient funding is 1 available to proceed with design and construction of this project in the next 35 years. Otherwise. this improvement should be made. I F V11-7 - Recommendation Timine j G. Hall/Greenburg Identify appropriate improvement such as dual Dependent upon . eastbound left-turn lanes with necessary intensity of receiving lanes development west of I Oleson Rd. and north of Mall H. Greenburg Road, Locust to Hall Acquire sufficient right-of-way for ultimate 5- Next 1-3 years t lane cross-section j I. Hall Blvd., Oleson to Embassy Suites Road - Improve traffic signal timing to facilitate peak Immediate and off-peak through movement F i - I J~ i J i I J i i i vn-a funding to implement the recommendations presented in this report will be available. RELATIONSHIP TO STATE AND REGIONAL PLANS AND PROGRAMS { I The improvement recommendations contained in this report were evaluated for consistency with ' a variety of state and regional plans and policies including the Transportation Planning Rule li (Goal 12), the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGO), and the Regional Transportation Plan. `y The key features of the Transportation Planning Rule include a requirement for: Ensuring that transportation facilities are adequate to support planned land uses and that 3 these uses are consistent with the function and capacity of the planned transportation c system; Better planning for alternative modes of transportation including transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and travel demand management. As appropriate, the rule also requires that new development be designed such that short trips can be made without driving; . More coordination among the different levels of government to better provide for state and regional transportation needs; and Reducing Vehicle Miles of Travel per capita through increased ridesharing and the use of alternative modes. J The recommendations contained in this report are consistent with Goal 12 in that they address both the basic infrastructure needed to support planned land development and identify a series of planned or potential improvements to encourage the use of alternative transportation modes including walking. The improvement recommendations would not add significant new capacity to the roadway system; rather, they seek to relieve congestion as specific bottlenecks and to provide for the balanced movement of traffic. The implementation of many of the ' recommendations contained in this report should occur through the land development process, at which time focused attention can be paid to issues relating to site layout, TDM strategies, access control, pedestrian and bicycle circulation and accessibility to transit. The intent of this r report is to facilitate that process by identifying deficiencies in the existing (and short-term future) multi-modal transportation system and recommending specific improvements or more general guidance. r The Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGOs) do not apply directly to city or j - county comprehensive plans or to site-specific land use actions. However, they do provide ce on a regional level for the developing urban form and transportation system of the I guidan metropolitan area. Generally, the RUGGOs support the: VII-9 [ i l1 ' Provision of infrastructure and critical public services concurrently with the pace of urban development; and Creation of a balanced transportation system which is less dependent on the private I automobile, support by both the use of emerging technology and the collocation of jobs, E . housing, commercial activity, parks and open space. t _ As with the Transportation Planning Rule, the recommendations in this report are responsive to both of these objectives. The Regional Transportation Plan provides more specific guidance on the development of I transportation facilities and services in the Portland Metropolitan Area. Several projects have been identified in the study area and its vicinity including: t Widening of SR-217 to six lanes including the addition of auxiliary lanes where appropriate; Development of a limited access facility from I-5 to Highway 99W or the TV Highway ~ as identified in the ODOT Western Bypass study (various interchange improvements both north and south of the study area are contingent on the conclusions of this study); Widening the Greenburg Road bridge at SR-217; Widening of Scholls Ferry Road from Hall Boulevard to Beef Bend Road, and Hall Boulevard from Scholls Ferry Road to Durham Road (these projects have largely been completed in the study area with the exception of the Scholls/Hall intersection and i porticns of Hall Boulevard); n Development of a new transit center at Washington Square (shortly to be constructed); i and Development and implementation of various regional TDM strategies to provide guidance on programs to reduce VMT and auto-related emissions, conserve energy, and assist in ' achieving regional objectives with respect to congestion and mobility (this effort is underway). The recommendations in this report are consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan in that ' they are either specifically referenced in the RTP or are compatible with and support j _ implementation of RTP recommendations. Nothing in this report precludes implementation of an RTP improvement including the widening of SR-217 to six lanes and/or development of a J Western Bypass. Analysis of local street impacts associated with the SR-217 widening indicates , that the provision of additional capacity on this facility will cause an increase in traffic volumes I r~ on the arterial streets leading to the freeway, particularly Greenburg Road. These impacts _ should be addressed in conjunction with the freeway widening project. VII-10 Ids- - - lid I It I k F 111 .'t. r.• , ' - f ~ Ilol.~.a, ~ ' 1 ~ ~ , to ~'~_h 1 •e ~ ~ / " 1 Al. ~ '1 tdurL rcr j - mil] f"f ' f- j •YJi'~•11ri'f17rrRG 1 Yt'~YI ! ! f' ' ~a..~~ Il j~ 1 Ir J ; 10. SA. CF.TIA ~ ` <,;-~,,~.~~,; ;5r 1 ,phase ~ I ~,'ll• , } e r uIdg-c 51 ; Phi ~``-'.--1,~.` , ~ atinps . • . 1 1`` ~ 6ui~er+'la~~ Fence ~~IS~-~ N1~, ,-+.,,...-N J - ' ~ St fY~fIY~O ~ 1ntt µl1 } 11.1. ~ • Skate -00 . ter' aCtu~"v E~ Al t y..,l~tl '6 v C~ ~„Ep uv~•'•..o. ~ry E''!r`use . a0P ly o t0t5 Uyty.•r-""L,,` Or .:t-- oc}CIC~ 11N7 Snl _ • YwY•1~ ,r ?rN •9. 1?~Y~FY IJ•tiv•1•1lCbJlu+I C P.i``' - r.+• FvM n,,lr • ~f X09 v V. pR£~ .t+t ..iVr~~EV ~`uvE~~ ~Iryrrv.~~~~T.p tr ~'1 ,,,~-•-^'-1.. . 1,y yVt4E7N aYUV'f J7-~ ~•Y,f Jtn i(r.'SU.VUfI :U.•• - fN"E ~ AA Agenda Rom No. '7 Meeting of 10 ;1a I RL I~I October 16, 1996 I j To: Tigard City Council Members From: Laurie Nicholson, Associate Planner i Subject: Dr. Davis/Foreign Mission Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change, CPA 96-00062ON 96-0001 During the Planning Commission Meeting, there were questions raised regarding why the property was changed back to residential after the President's Parkway a Urban Renewal Project failed to obtain voter approval. Enclosed please find the minutes from the City Council meeting where the land use designation for this area was changed back to residential. Enclosure - 5. CONSENT AGENDA: ' 5.1 Approve City Council Minutes: July 2, and 23, 1990 5.2 Receive and File: Council calendar 1 5.3 Local Contract Review Board: Award Bids for: a. Greenburg Road Storm Drainage Improvements b. Greenburg Road and Locust Street Traffic Signal I' C. Lincoln Street and Locust Street Local Improvement District d. 1990 Major Maintenance Program 5.4 Call for Public Hearing - Sanitary Sewer Easement Vacation on Lot 7 of Aum Downs Subdivision - Resolution No. 90- 5.5 Approve Appointments to Various Neighborhood Planning Organizations - Resolution No. 90- j 5.6 Authorize City Administrator to Sign Agreement for Government Access Production services with Metropolitan j Area Cable Communications (MACC) f Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Johnson to 1. approve the-.Consent Agenda. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. f i - f+_ piTRT.TC RF.ARTNG: A RF.ARTN(_ TA RF.rF.TVF. P[TRT.T(' TNpIPf' ATTT) RRiF. ~ PLANNING COMUSSION'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PRESIDENT"S 1 PARKWAY (NPO #8) The City Council will hold a public hearing to determine the i course of action regarding land use within the area previously proposed as "President's Parkway Urban Renewal District." This public hearing is required by Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy i 11.8.5 which states, "If for any reason the President's Parkway Development Plan is not adopted or approved within 90 days of such a decision (June 11, 1990), the Tigard City Council shall l hold a public hearing in order to re-evaluate the policies i+ noted above (the implementing policies) and the Comprehensive 1 Plan Amendment (which changed land use designations in the area from Residential to Commercial Professional). a. Public hearing was opened. b. Declarations or Challenges: Mayor Edwards stated that I he does business with Trammell Crowe and he leases space in the Trammell Crowe Lincoln Five Building, which is not a part of the Urban Renewal. However, he said he would be impartial in hearing this matter. C. City Attorney Ramis advised that the issue being decided at this meeting was a narrow one. The issue was: Should the Council initiate the hearing procedure which could lead to the repeal of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning J which has previously been placed on the Presidents Parkway property. i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1990 - PAGE 3 ! f d. Summation by Community Development Staff: Community Development Director Ed Murphy stated that the Planning Commission recommended that city Council initiate the procedure to change the Comprehensive Plan Map and the Comprehensive Plan text back to what it was prior to the President's Parkway designation. He displayed a map of the area under consideration. He reported that NPO #8 and CPO #4 were in favor of changing the Comprehensive Plan policies and map back to the prior designation of Residential. He said the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance do not match, which creates a state of uncertainty. In addition, he said it had been recommended by the NPO, CPO and the Planning Commission r, to incorporate part or all of the Metzger/Progress Community Plan text. He advised that the staff agreed with the findings of the Planning commission, and suggested scheduling the public } hearing for the. September City Council Meeting.,. which: !1 Planning commission would attend. e. Public Testimony o Troy Vanderhoof, 10181 S.W. Jefferson, Tigard, read i a letter he and his wife had written (see packet). j He requested a change back to the original I residential designation on the Comprehensive Plan , and map. He advised that local banks are not willing to lend money to homeowners for remodeling because of the mis-match between the zoning and the { Comprehensive Plan designation. He read a second letter from his neighbors Mike and Bev Mills who requested the change back to residential designation, citing the same reasons. o Cliff Epler, 8845 SW Spruce, Tigard, encouraged Council to move ahead on the change back to residential designation. He referred to the May 18th vote, saying that not one precinct voted in i favor of the Presidents Parkway Development. y. o John Blomgren, 9460 SW Oak Street, Tigard, said there were two reasons he favored changing the designation back to residential. First, more time is needed to study the possible traffic impact of such a development; and second, current residents need more time to relocate. J o Marjorie Hagland, 11075 S.W. Hall Boulevard, said she is a member of NPO #8. She reported many CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1990 - PAGE 4 i I people were originally in favor of the President's Parkway development. However, as it became apparent that it would be a financial hardship on ! some of the residents of the area, people began to oppose the project. She also addressed the traffic i impact on Hall Boulevard. She said that according to the Tigard data report, 10,000 cars per day i travel along the section of Hall Boulevard where i she lives. She suggested pressuring ODOT to begin if solving the problem by installing a middle turn land, i o Gary Ott, 9055 SW Edgewood, Tigard, spoke in support of City Council initiating a Comprehensive Plan map amendment to change the plan designation of the proposed President's Parkway Development area from Commercial-Professional back to Low- density Residential and to rescind the policies adopted in the Comprehensive Plan text. He testified the change to commercial-professional I• zoning was arrived at without considerations of the requirements of the City code and without the i consideration of the LCDC goals, especially goals i directed at traffic, air, and water quality. In - 1 addition, z= .tad that the City :ice demonstrate the need for more Commercial zoned land. He said he favored adopting the text from the Metzger/Progress Community Plan into the city's comprehensive Plan, and he suggested incorporating the wetlands and open space designation on the Plan map. j i i o Ken Beck, 8820 SW Thorn, Tigard, said he appreciated the fact that the citizens did get to attend hearings pertaining to the President's Parkway issue. He suggested that the City get more input from the area residents prior to deciding on issues in the future. He urged City Council to proceed with process to re-designate the area as i Residential. o Pat Whiting, NPO #4 Chairman, urged Council to - reinstate the Residential designation and to adopt the text of the Metzger-Progress Community Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan. o Terry Moore, 8440 SW Godwin Court, spoke on behalf of CPO #3 (Garden Home-Raleigh Hills Citizen Planning Organization). She reported that CPO 113 voted to return the area of the proposed President's Parkway back to Low-density Residential designation, and to adopt the text from the ' Metzger-Progress Community Plan into Tigard's i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1990 - PAGE 5 4 S } f __3 Comprehensive Plan. i o Alice Juvey, testified she has lived 44 years in Tigard. She urged Council to change the Comprehensive Plan back to Residential designation. j o Dr. Davis, 10875 SW 89th, supported changing the Comprehensive Plan back to Low-density Residential designation. f. Council Questions or Comments: o Legal Counsel Tim Ramis responded to questions pertaining to the actions covered by the resolution. He advised that the only action before Council was to initiate the hearing. g. Public hearing was closed. h. Consideration by Council: Council agreed September 10 would be the date set for a joint meeting with City Council and the Planning Commission. RESOLUTION NO. 90-51 A RESOLUTION TO INITIATE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE AREA PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED AS THE PRESIDENT'S PARKWAY URBAN RENEWAL { DISTRICT. j j. Councilor Johnson moved, and Councilor Eadon seconded to adopt Resolution 90-51. i { k. Motion carried by a unanimous vote of council present. 7. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PL&N AMENDMENT CPA 90-0004; ZONE CHANGE ZON 90-0002 BINGHAM/SPIEKER (NPO 15) A request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Light Industrial to General Commercial and to change the zoning designation from I-L to C-G. LOCATION: Between SW 72nd Avenue and Interstate 5 and south to the Oregon Business Park (WCTM 2S1 13 AD, Tax Lot 1700) a. Public hearing was opened- b. Declarations or Challenges: There were none. C. Summation by Community Development Staff:- Senior Planner Keith Liden displayed maps showing the J location of the subject property and the surrounding areas and their Comprehensive Plan designations which CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1990 - PAGE 6t t _ F ('^g October 21, 1996 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97228 Respectfully submitted for the record to the City Counsel members at their meeting of October 22, 1996. Re: Zone change application CPA 96-0006, Zone change ZON 98-0001. The Planning commission DENIED this zone change on 10-7-96, a large number of neighbors testified of their opposition to the zone change. The City of Tigard staff report dated 9-30-96 recommended DENIAL. At the City Planning Commission meeting, Gene Davis asked the City to consider approving this zone change with a deed restriction placed upon the subject property. We strongly caution the City NOT to grant a zone change with a deed restriction. Davis' lack of compliance to existing City of Tigard's deed restrictions and the fact that the City cannot enforce his compliance, we ask the City to deny a deed restriction as a method to restrict use of the property. Please accept this as a formal complaint that Gene Davis has not complied with the i commitments of his deed restrictions placed on habitat areas on hissproperty. These ry restrictions are required by the City of Tigard to protect the no impact habitat areas. } The following are direct violations of his deed restrictions: • Habitat grass, brush and trees have been cut down. - • An additional 12 ft. culvert has been placed to prepare for a road which is intended to go through the habitat area. It has now been extended to 24 ft. • Thousands of yards of lumber by products consisting of wood chips, logs, branches, and yard debris has been dumped onto the habitat area property which may cause toxic leaching into the habitat area and into the adjacent creek. The above waste has been dumped within 3 ft of the creek. Debris has flowed _ downstream during high water damaging the creek bed. • Cows are allowed to graze in the habitat area. His cows have on several occasions wandered onto State Highway 217. S« ptlk4W Rc sf"trcf~r t ~t 53oy/1/Vy 'I j' j • Cows are allowed free access into Ashcreek and the two habitat ponds. i Disregard of Davis's previous deed restrictions has resulted in the above violations and therefore must be considered when granting a zone change with a deed restriction. J We respectfully request the City to follow up with Codes Enforcement and initiate the Sensitive Lands review process before the habitat area will be further destroyed by non compliance. A noise study should be provided and lighting impacts addressed. Clearly, hotels and restaurants would have serious impacts to surrounding areas. The surrounding residential areas and night time users of State highway 217 would be impacted. Traffic is an extreme concern. Before the City approves a zone change, Davis should be required to provide a site development plan and identify site specific users which would clearly define Davis' intended use on the entire property. Until site development is addressed and identified we cannot clearly determine what the traffic impact will be. At the current traffic level F, ANY impacts to traffic is extremely serious and unsafe. Because this is a first step of a large regional impact, notice should be given to area residents beyond 250 ft. In the past, as was Presidents Parkway, this issue should become a vote of the Citizens of Tigard. Respectfully Submitted, C ~.~~~Qc 88s~i SW SPru u Sf Y Ty~`d R Q~.;223 i 9 The Cbncerhed Citizens cc: 1000 Friends of Oregon Fans of Fanno Creek { OR Dept. of State Lands Metro Washington Square Lincoln Center Oregon DOT CON Unified Sewerage Agency i i f i October 21, 1996 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97228 Respectfully submitted for the record to the City Counsel members at their meeting of October 22, 1996. Re: Zone change application CPA 96-0006, Zone change ZON 98-0001. t The Planning commission DENIED this zone change on 10-7-96, a large number of neighbors testified of their opposition to the zone change. The City of Tigard staff report dated 9-30-96 recommended DENIAL. At the City Planning Commission meeting, Gene Davis asked the City to consider approving this zone change with a deed restriction placed upon the subject property. We strongly caution the City NOT to grant a zone change with a deed restriction. Davis' lack of compliance to existing City of Tigard's deed restrictions and the fact that the City cannot enforce his compliance, we ask the City to deny a deed restriction as a method to restrict use of the property. Please accept this as a formal complaint that Gene Davis has not complied with the commitments of his deed restrictions placed on habitat areas on his property. These restrictions are required by the City of Tigard to protect the no impact habitat areas. The following are direct violations of his deed restrictions: • Habitat grass, brush and trees have been cut down. :r. • An additional 12 ft. culvert has been placed to prepare for a road which is intended to go through the habitat area. It has now been extended to 24 ft. • Thousands of yards of lumber by products consisting of wood chips, logs, branches, and yard debris has been dumped onto the habitat area property which F. may cause toxic leaching into the habitat area and into the adjacent creek. The above waste has been dumped within 3 ft of the creek. Debris has flowed ~II downstream during high water damaging the creek bed. k 1 • Cows are allowed to graze in the habitat area. His cows have on several occasions i wandered onto State Highway 217. j ' 5 r, / Cows are allowed free access into Ashereek and the two habitat ponds. Disregard of Davis's previous deed restrictions has resulted in the above r violations and therefore must be considered when granting a zone change with a deed restriction. We respectfully request the City to follow up with Codes Enforcement and initiate the 1 Sensitive Lands review process before the habitat area will be further destroyed by non 1 compliance. A noise study should be provided and lighting impacts addressed. Clearly, hotels and restaurants would have serious impacts to surrounding areas. The surrounding residential areas and night time users of State highway 217 would be impacted. Traffic is an extreme concern. Before the City approves a zone change, Davis should be required to provide a site development plan and identify site specific users which would clearly define Davis' intended use on the entire property. Until site development is addressed and identified we cannot clearly determine what the traffic impact will be. At the current traffic level F, ANY impacts to traffic is extremely serious and unsafe. Because this is a first step ofa large regional impact, notice residents beyond 250 ft. In the past, as was Presidents Parkway, this eislue shou d area become a vote of the Citizens of Tigard. Respectfully Submit d, S YLti Cc 6Z ✓Y v, ~ b'0 7 Cut C The Concerned Citizens cc: 1000 Friends of Oregon Fans ofFanno Creek r 'd OR Dept. of State Lands ld, Metro Washington Square Lincoln Center Oregon DOT CON Unified Sewerage Agency 7 7- 5 October 21, 1996 w City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97228 i i Respectfully submitted for the record to the City Counsel members at their meeting of I~ October 22, 1996. i Re: Zone change application CPA 96-0006, Zone change ZON 98-0001. The Planning commission DENIED this zone change on 10-7-96, a large number of neighbors testified of their opposition to the zone change. The City of Tigard staff report dated 9-30-96 recommended DENIAL. At the City Planning Commission meeting, Gene Davis asked the City to consider approving this zone change with a deed restriction placed upon the subject property. We strongly caution the City NOT to grant a zone change with a deed restriction. - Davis' lack of compliance to existing City of Tigard's deed restrictions and the fact that the City cannot enforce his compliance, we ask the City to deny a deed restriction as a method to restrict use of the property. Please accept this as a formal complaint that Gene Davis has not complied with the commitments of his deed restrictions placed on habitat areas on his property. These restrictions are required by the City of Tigard to protect the no impact habitat areas. ; The following are direct violations of his deed restrictions: • Habitat grass, brush and trees have been cut down. • An additional 12 ft. culvert has been placed to prepare for a road which is intended to go through the habitat area. It has now been extended to 24 ft. • Thousands of yards of lumber by products consisting of wood chips, logs, branches, and yard debris has been dumped onto the habitat area property which may cause toxic leaching into the habitat area and into the adjacent creek. The above waste has been dumped within 3 ft of the creek. Debris has flowed downstream during high water damaging the creek bed. • Cows are allowed to graze in the habitat area. His cows have on several occasions wandered onto State Highway 217. 5 1 i i. i • Cows are allowed free access into Ashereek and the two habitat ponds. E~. f' Disregard of Davis's previous deed restrictions has resulted in the above violations and therefore must be considered when granting a zone change with a j deed restriction. We respectfully request the City to follow up with Codes Enforcement and initiate the I Sensitive Lands review process before the habitat area will be further destroyed by non compliance. A noise study should be provided and lighting impacts addressed. Clearly, hotels and restaurants would have serious impacts to surrounding areas. The surrounding residential areas and night time users of State highway 217 would be impacted. Traffic is an extreme concern. Before the City approves a zone change, Davis should be required to provide a site development plan and identify site specific users which would clearly define Davis' intended use on the entire property. Until site development is addressed and identified we cannot clearly determine what the traffic impact will be. At the current traffic level F, ANY impacts to traffic is extremely serious and unsafe. ® Because this is a first step of a large regional impact, notice should be given to area residents beyond 250 ft. In the past, as was Presidents Parkway, this issue should become a vote of the Citizens of Tigard. Respectfully Submitted, i The Concerned Citizens cc: 1000 Friends of Oregon Fans of Fanno Creek OR Dept. of State Lands Metro Washington Square Lincoln Center Oregon DOT CON U ed S werag~e~4gency _ } 71 4 I October 21, 1996 City of Tigard ' 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97228 Respectfully submitted for the record to the City Counsel members at their meeting of October 22, 1996. Re: Zone change application CPA 96-0006, Zone change ZON 98-0001. The Planning commission DENIED this zone change on 10-7-96, a large number of neighbors testified of their opposition to the zone change. The City of Tigard staff report dated 9-30-96 recommended DENIAL. a. At the City Planning Commission meeting, Gene Davis asked the City to consider approving this zone change with a deed restriction placed upon the subject property. We strongly caution the City NOT to grant a zone change with a deed restriction. ® Davis' lack of compliance to existing City of Tigard's deed restrictions and the fact that the City cannot enforce his compliance, we ask the City to deny a deed restriction as a method to restrict use of the property. Please accept this as a formal complaint that Gene Davis has not complied with the commitments of his deed restrictions placed on habitat areas on his propert y. These restrictions are required by the City of Tigard to protect the no impact habitat areas. The following are direct violations of his deed restrictions: • Habitat grass, brush and trees have been cut down. `^a • An additional 12 ft. culvert has been placed to prepare for a road which is intended to go through the habitat area. It has now been extended to 24 ft. • Thousands of yards of lumber by products consisting of wood chips, logs, branches, and yard debris has been dumped onto the habitat area property which may cause toxic leaching into the habitat area and into the adjacent creek. The above waste has been dumped within 3 ft of the creek. Debris has flowed downstream during high water damaging the creek bed. { • Cows are allowed to graze in the habitat area. His cows have on several occasions wandered onto State Highway 217. ~.d r . k 1 o Cows are allowed free access into Ashcreek and the two habitat ponds. I Disregard of Davis's previous deed restrictions has resulted in the above violations and therefore must be considered when granting a zone change with a deed restriction. We respectfully request the City to follow up with Codes Enforcement and initiate the 1 Sensitive Lands review process before the habitat area will be further destroyed by non compliance. A noise study should be provided and lighting impacts addressed. Clearly, hotels and restaurants would have serious impacts to surrounding areas. The surrounding residential areas and night time users of State highway 217 would be impacted. Traffic is an extreme concern. Before the City approves a zone change, Davis should be required to provide a site development plan and identify site specific users which would clearly define Davis' intended use on the entire property. Until site development is addressed and identified we cannot clearly determine what the traffic impact will be. At the current traffic level F, ANY impacts to traffic is extremely serious and unsafe. ® Because this is a first step of a large regional impact, notice should be given to area residents beyond 250 ft. In the past, as was Presidents Parkway, this issue should become a vote of the Citizens of Tigard. Respectfully Submitted, The Concerned Citize C~j cc: 1000 Friends of Oregon Fans of Fanno Creek l l ~Cti ~ G~~< r 7 z z f OR Dept. of State Lands Metro r: Washington Square Lincoln Center Oregon DOT CON Unified Sewerage Agency . n~ !{jam.-. , i October 21, 1996 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97228 Respectfully submitted for the record to the City Counsel members at their meeting of October 22, 1996. J~i Re: Zone change application CPA 96-0006, Zone change ZON 98-0001, a The Planning commission DENIED this zone change on 10-7-96, a large number of neighbors testified of their opposition to the zone change. The City of Tigard staff report dated 9-30-96 recommended DENIAL. At the City Planning Commission meeting, Gene Davis asked the City to consider approving this zone change with a deed restriction placed upon the subject property. We strongly caution the City NOT to grant a zone change with a deed restriction. _ Davis' lack of compliance to existing City of Tigard's deed restrictions and the fact that the City nor any agency enforcement of his compliance, we ask the City to not consider a deed restriction as a method to restrict use of the property. Please accept this as a formal complaint that Gene Davis has not complied with the commitments of his deed restrictions placed on habitat areas on his property. These restrictions are required by the City of Tigard to protect the no impact habitat areas. The following are direct violations of his deed restrictions: • Habitat grass, brush and trees have been cut down. • An additional 12 ft. culvert has been placed to prepare for a road which is intended to go through the habitat area. It has now been extended to 24 ft. i • Thousands of yards of lumber by products consisting of wood chips, logs, branches, and yard debris has been dumped onto the habitat area property which may cause toxic leaching into the habitat area and into the adjacent creek. The above waste has been dumped within 3 ft of the creek. Debris has flowed downstream during high water damaging the creek bed. • Cows are allowed to graze in the habitat area. His cows have on several occasions L wandered onto State Highway 217. ~w - r~ • Cows are allowed free access into Ashcreek and the two habitat ponds. g, Disregard of Davis's previous deed restrictions has resulted in the above • violations and therefore must be considered when granting a zone change with a deed restriction. s I I:, We respectfully request the City to follow up with Codes Enforcement and initiate the ' • Sensitive Lands review process before the habitat area will be further destroyed by non k? compliance. t: A noise study should be provided and lighting impacts addressed. Clearly, hotels and restaurants would have serious impacts to surrounding areas. The surrounding residential areas and night time users of State highway 217 would be impacted. I: Traffic is an extreme concern. Before the City approves a zone change, Davis should be required to provide a site development plan and identify site specific users which would clearly define Davis' intended use on the entire property. k Until site development is addressed and identified we cannot clearly determine what the traffic impact will be. At the current traffic level F. ANY impacts to traffic is extremely serious and unsafe. Because this is a first step of a large regional impact, notice should be given to area residents beyond 250 ft. In the past, as was Presidents Parkway, this issue should become a vote of the Citizens of Tigard. Respe fly Submitt 1 zwllt he Concerned Citize e (,112`+ I S c~ L O fZ I lei Cti e 21 r-ZC1 cc: 1000 Friends f Oregon Fans ofFanno Creek , y yy, 5 W OR Dept. of State Lands I Metro T I~OI C~Q~ fZ I Washington Square LZ( f Lincoln Center Oregon DOT CON Unified Sewerage Agency NEW- AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 10/25/96 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Goal 5 Wetlands 1 PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK %A111-A-Cl- CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL To amend the City's work program for completing Goal 5 by replacing the Economic, Social, Environmental, N' . j Energy (ESEE) approach with the "safe harbor" planning alternative available under the new Goal 5 l) administrative rules. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the new "safe harbor" approach to Goal 5 planning for wetlands. INFORMATION SUMMARY oa15 is a statewide planning goal that covers several natural and cultural resources. The city has completed all of the requirements of Goal 5, except one. This is to complete a wetlands Goal 5 ESEE and planning program. Last year, the city was awarded a $12,000 grant by the Division of State Lands to provide funding for this work. However, because of changes in the planning process then under consideration by the Land Conservation and Development Commission, the city and consultant delayed the completion of this complex and difficult program. The new rule provisions, that have been adopted as a result of the commission's Goal 5 review, provide a streamlined alternative to the ESEE process for wetlands called "safe harbor". A memo from the city's consultant discussing the "safe harbor" option and the advantages to Tigard of this new approach is attached. Attached also is informational material prepared by DLCD summarizing the newly adopted revisions to Goal 5 and its administrative rules. ' OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not change approaches for completing Goal 5 for wetlands. FISCAL. NOTES According to the city consultant, adoption of the new, streamlined approach will save 25 weeks of full-time staff work. I ~citywide\sum.wct f _ l WPS Memorandum TO: Duane Roberts, Project Manager FROM: Greg Winterowd, Mark Roberts SUBJECT: Safe Harbor vs. ESEE DATE: September 19,1996 ~ I I i j As discussed at our meeting August 20, WPS proposes to amend its contract with the City of ' } Tigard to write a "safe harbor" ordinance using the new Goal 5 process. We believe that the "safe harbor" option offers distinct advantages to the City of Tigard over the traditional ESEE analysis approach to Goal 5. The amended Statewide Planning Goal 5 and its implementing rule (OAR 660-23) came into 1 effect on September 1. The most significant change relating to wetlands and riparian corridors is the option to adopt a "safe harbor" 1 ordinance to protect significant wetlands and streams. This option precludes the need for extensive ESEE analysis of the individual resource sites and represents huge savings in time and resources to comply with the Goal. The safe harbor option protects significant wetlands and prescribes standard protective buffers around fish-bearing riparian corridors and adjacent wetlands. Where wetlands are located within the riparian buffer _ zone, the buffer "balloons" around the wetland, incorporating it, i, The table below shows the standard of protection that would be achieved in Tigard under safe s harbor: 1 ' i ' RESOURCE Hi3RhFR Fish-bearing streams 1000 cfs) and 50 feet (may be reduced up to 50% if no associated wetlands adverse impact on resource) f Isolated wetlands and non fish-bearing streams 25 feet (existing USA setback) At first glance, the safe harbor approach seems inflexible. However, there is reasonable latitude within the rule to allow limited development and protect the resource. An ordinance can allow up to 50% of the riparian area to be developed, providing that the developer can demonstrate oll equal or better protection of the resource by restoration of riparian elements and vegetation. Currently in Tigard, 25 foot setbacks are in place for protected wetlands and streams due to Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) regulations. "Safe harbor" would maintain the current USA setbacks (25 feet) as a minimum standard, while increasing the maximum buffer to 50 feet for LCDC uses the term "safe harbor" to mean safe from the rigorous and time-consuming requirements, and the uncertainties, of the ESEE process. Land Use and Resource Planning - Growth Management - Site Development Suite 385, Hayden Island Plaza - 700 North Hayden Island Drive - Portland, OR 97217 Tel: (503) 735.0853 Fax; (503) 735-4622 e-mail. wpslanduse@aol.com a J 7,. . s WPS Memorandum Page 2 fish-bearing streams in undisturbed areas. The flexibility of safe harbor means that a developer may "win back" developable land in disturbed areas (up to the 25 foot minimum setback) by enhancing the resource. Existing development would be made exempt from the setback requirements of the "safe harbor'. By incorporating clear and objective standards and mapping significant wetlands and streams, developers, neighborhood groups and the City would know in advance, and with certainty, which wetlands and streams would be protected, and to what extent. The main advantage of the safe harbor option is in reduced cost. The new rule will enable WPS to produce a final product (a new ordinance) incorporating clear and objective standards rather i than volumes of analysis. The proposed budget allows for participation in the process right up to Council adoption. We estimate that this will save approximately 1000 2 hours of staff time. k Option 1 Under the current contract, the ESEE analysis option, WPS would produce a generic analysis of the ESEE consequences for each general type of land use (e.g. industrial, commercial, residential, public) and one model site-specific ESEE analysis. City staff a would then have to follow this model and complete separate, site-specific ESEE analyses for all of the other significant resource sites. Option 2 Within the same budget, WPS can write a "safe harbor" ordinance that contains clear and objective standards, that increases the level of resource protection with minimal depletion i of buildable lands, and that is easy to administer. In addition, WFS will work with the j City through the hearing process, or conduct site-specific ESEE analyses, if required, for more contentious resource areas. As the table below illustrates, the ESEE route is far more labor intensive. With Option 2, WPS can use the existing budget to produce a state of the art ordinance. With Option 1, the City would have to invest considerable staff time to finish the ESEE analysis process. Even after the analysis stage is complete, more time and resources would be needed to respond to public comment on the ESEE process, to make necessary changes, and then to produce and adopt a resource protection ordinance. I , I 2 The amount of staff time required to complete the ESEE proem Is based on 100 hours for each of the additional 1 10 resource sites. 1000 hours is equivalent to 25 weeks of full-time staff work. k. k • 1 . WPS Memorandum Page 3 y: 1. Resource inventory Completed Completed 2. Identify significant Criteria to be determined and Follow DSL significance i resources adopted. criteria 3. Identify conflicting uses Consultant, in coordination with City. 4. Conduct ESEE analysis for Consultant provides generic each resource site. ESEE analyses aid I site specific model ESEE analysis. City staff complete ESEE analyses for 10 remaining resource sites based on consultant model. 5. Develop program to City writes resource Consultant drafts "safe achieve the goal -adopt protection ordinance. harbor" resource protection new resource protection ordinance• ordinance. 6. Adopt program to achieve City works through hearings Consultant works with City the Goal. process, through hearings process. r; { i ++i I i j, i t~,1 Amendments,to LCDC's Goal 5 and Related Rules on Planning for. Natural and Historic Resources -A Summary from Oregon's - Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) ' ,..;September 1996 i _ ■ j On June 14, 1996, Oregon's Land Conservation and Why amend Goa( 5 and its rules? Development Commission (LCDC) completed a LCDC amended Goal 5 and its rules in response to major revision of Goal 5 and its administrative rules. three main complaints: ! The project took over two years and was the subject a It was too costly and time-consuming for local of many public hearings. This bulletin summarizes governments to apply the goal and rules; ti the main features of the revised goal and rules. • Certain resources were not adequately protected by local plans; What is Goal 5? • The goal and rules had not kept up with changes Goal 5 is a broad statewide planning goal that covers in various state laws and programs. more than a dozen resources, including wildlife LCDC therefore took action to make the task of t habitats, historic places, and aggregate (gravel). It applying Goal 5 more streamlined and to provide f was originally adopted by LCDC in 1974. Goal 5 better protection for key resources. I and related Oregon Administrative Rules (Chapter 660, Divisions 16 and 23) describe how cities and What will be the main effects of the new counties are to plan and zone land to conserve provisions? resources listed in the goal. The biggest benefit from the new goal and rule provisions will be ease of use. They will simplify the Goal 5 and its rules establish a five-step planning Goal5 process for landowners, permit applicants, and process for Oregon's cities and counties: local planners. They are expected to save time and 1. Inventory local occurrences of resources listed in money and reduce litigation. Note that LCDC's Goal 5 and decide which ones are important. revisions do not establish a new state program. Quite 2. Identify potential land uses on or near each the contrary: they refine and streamline a program resource site and any conflicts that might result. that has been in place for 20 years. 3. Analyze economic, social, environmental, and energy (ESEE) consequences of such conflicts. An important element of the new Goal 5 rules is the 4. Choose one of three policies toward conflicting "safe harbor" for local governments. A safe harbor is uses at each site: prohibit the conflicting use, a special provision that ensures compliance with allow the use fully, or put some limits on it. Goal 5. For riparian areas, wetlands, and wildlife I 5. Adopt measures such as zoning to put that policy habitats, a city or county can choose the safe harbor into effect. or follow the five-step process. The standard process gives a local government more flexibility, but also j This five-step Goal 5 process was established by takes more work and heightens the risk of litigation. rules adopted in 1982, and LCDC's recent revisions don't alter its basic steps. Rather, the 1996 revisions An example of a safe harbor is found in the rule tailor the process to the individual resources covered provisions for riparian corridors. The rules specify by the goal. For some resources, the revisions give that along a major waterway, a local government may local governments a choice: use new expedited adopt a setback that prohibits development within 75 procedures, or follow the standard five-step process. feet of the waterway's bank. If it does that, the local The rules for the new procedures (OAR 660, Division government will automatically comply with Goal 5's I 23) replace the old rules in Division 16 except for cultural (archeological) resources. (more on next page... Q) i i I L~ D requirement for protection of that particular resource. riparian zones, and wildlife habitats. The government doesn't need to do any elaborate • The rules reduce duplication by letting local studies to justify its decision, and its risk of litigation governments rely on current state or federal is lessened. If the local government wants to use programs for several resources, including something other than a 75-foot setback, it may. But wilderness areas, Oregon recreation trails. in developing an alternative to the safe harbor, it groundwater, and wild and scenic rivers. In would have to complete the standard Goal 5 process, effect, the new rules say that if such resources which would take more work. are protected under other programs, that's enough to satisfy Goal 5. What about the Goal 5 work already done by • The rules clarify terms and procedures in the local governments? Goal 5 process that have caused confusion and LCDC's action on June 14 does not require cities and litigation. For example, OAR 660-23-040 spells counties to go back and start over in planning and out steps that local governments are to use when zoning for Goal 5 resources. It validates the work analyzing ESEE consequences. This makes it already done, while establishing new Goal 5 easier for local governments to know what is procedures to be used in the future. Generally, it expected of them and lowers the risk of requires cities and counties to use the new procedures litigation over vague terminology. r; in the next periodic review or when they amend their • The rules make new local inventories voluntary current land use plan or ordinances. for scenic resources, historic places, and open i spaces. The rules specify how local governments When do these changes take effect? are to proceed if they choose to inventory such The June 14 amendments to Goal 5 and its rules resources in the future, but don't require them to i officially go into effect on September 1, 1996. But do such inventories. since cities and counties don't have to apply most of • The rules alter the process for dealing with the new provisions immediately, the answer to the aggregate sites. Previously, local governments question "When will all this take effect?" is "It all had to inventory and zone all existing and depends." It depends on when a local government potential quarries and gravel sites in their I enters periodic review, finds new information on jurisdictions. But it was hard to know where Goal 5 resources, or wants to plan and zone new those sites might be, which ones were important, resource sites. and when they might begin to operate. The new rules eliminate this expensive and difficult One part of the new rules has already gone into obligation for local governments. Instead, they j effect. Called the "owner-consent provision," it can now deal with such issues one site at a time, enables owners of historic places to have them whenever they receive an application for a i removed from a plan's inventory. The 1995 legisla- mining permit. cure passed a law requiring this provision. LCDC • The rules establish separate provisions for each 1 adopted a temporary rule in September 1995 to type of resource listed in Goal 5. That will make comply with that law. LCDC's adoption of the owner- it easier for local officials and others to 1 consent provision as part of the new Goal 5 rules understand and apply the rules. For a closer makes that temporary rule permanent. look at how the new rules affect individual resources, see the table on the next page. How are the new rules different from the old? The new rules bring some important changes to the How can I get more information on the new Goal 5 process. The main changes are summarized Goal 5 rules? below. In most cases, they will have their greatest To get a copy of the Goal 5 amendments and the new effect at a city or county's next periodic review, rules or to get more information about them, contact • The rules call for more emphasis on the DLCD at the address shown below. If you have inventory and conservation of three resources: questions about how Goal 5 will affect a specific wetlands ( primarily within urban areas), piece of property, contact your local planners. Cl s i U Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) 1 1175 Court Street NE, Salem OR 97310 a 503373-0050 1 f i KEY PROVISIONS OF GOAL 5 RULES ADOPTED BY LCDC IN JUNE 1996 Resource Rule Main Key Provisions Effect Riparian 660- Requires Defines "riparian corridors" and requires local inventories. Provides corridors 23- inventory "safe harbor" definition and protection provisions: a standard setback 090 and pro- for structures and certain land uses. Does not regulate grazing, tection of fences, farm or forest practices. On farm and forest lands, local riparian government may defer determination of corridor boundary until resources permit requested. Wetlands 660- Requires In urban areas, requires local governments to inventory wetlands 23- wetland based on DSL rules. Requires local governments to make decisions 100 inventories in advance about whether wetlands will be protected. In rural areas, and land use counties may rely on existing state inventories but must notify DSL decisions about proposed development affecting inventoried wetlands. All local inside UGBs governments must coordinate with DSL regarding inventories of wetlands and local decisions that affect inventoried wetlands. Wildlife 660- Requires Defines "wildlife habitat" and requires local governments to update habitat 23- updated local habitat inventories using information from state and federal agencies. 110 habitat Governments must determine significance of habitat areas, through inventory either standard Goal 5 process or "safe harbor." The safe harbor and provides objective criteria for identifying habitat significance. Local protection land use plans must include decisions about habitat areas, and must be programs coordinated with key state and federal agencies. Federa! wild 660- Simplifies Removes requirement for local inventory, since these rivers are & scenic 23- Goal 5 designated by the federal government. Local government m= rivers 120 process for designate such a river as a significant resource, identify the wild and local scenic river (WSR) corridor as the "impact area," and make the local governments plan consistent with the federal management plan for the river. f Oregon 660- Simplifies Calls for local governments to designate any Oregon scenic waterway scenic 23- Goal 5 as a significant Goal 5 resource. They need not complete the Goal 5 i waterways 130 process for process for such a waterway until the Oregon Parks and Recreation local Commission (OPRC) has adopted a management plan for it. For f governments waterways with such a plan, local governments may develop a program to achieve the goal using the standard Goal 5 process, or they may use a "safe harbor." The safe harbor is a combination of plan and implementing ordinances "necessary to carry out the plan adopted by the OPRC." After OPRC adopts a management plan, the local government must make its local plan consistent with OPRC's plan by the next periodic review. I Ground- 660- Requires Requires local governments to protect 3 types of significant water 23- protection groundwater resources: critical groundwater areas; groundwater- resources 140 for a few limited areas, as designated by the Oregon Water Resources sites; Commission; and certain large wellhead protection areas, as exempts all designated by the Oregon Health Division. Exempts all other j others groundwater resources from the provisions of Goal 5. j ~ f f ti I Oregon 660- Simplifies Provides that local governments need not inventory such trails but recreation 23- Goal 5 must designate all state approved-recreation trails as significant Goal trails 150 process for 5 resources. Local governments may rely on state programs to pro- local tect such trails or develop additional protections using the Goal 5 governments process. Natural 660- Simplifies Defines natural area as any site on the state's Register of Natural areas 23- Goal 5 Areas. Such sites are deemed "significant" under Goal 5. At periodic 160 process for review, local governments must determine whether new natural areas local have been listed. Any new area must be addressed through the governments standard Goal 5 process. Wilderness 660- Relies on Says that local governments must recognize federally designated areas 23- protection wilderness areas as significant resources in their local plans. They 170 provided by may rely on the federal protection provided to these areas. That is, federal they need not apply other provisions of Goal 5, unless they choose to programs establish additional local protections for a wilderness area. Mineral & 660- Advance Calls for local governments to determine significance of aggregate aggregate 23- inventories sites only in response to individual plan amendment requests. The resources 180 no longer rule has special prop lions to protect certain high-quality farmlands required; from aggregate mining. It contains clear, objective criteria to provides for determine significance of aggregate sites. For significant sites, local case-by-case governments determine within 180 days whether mining is to be 1 review permitted, based on criteria from rules. Sites where mining is to be j permitted must be protected from future conflicting uses. Plan must j ~ specify end-uses of mining sites. Energy 660- Simplifies Requires local plans to rely upon, and be consistent with, energy sources 23- Goal 5 facility siting decisions made by Oregon's Energy Facility Siting 190 process for Council (EFSC). For sites not covered by this process, the standard t local Goal 5 process guides local decisions. {I governments Historic 660- Carries out Allows property owners to opt out of local inventories. New inven- resources 23- statutory tones are optional for local governments. Requires a local ordinance 200 "owner to regulate demolition and major exterior alterations of designated I consent" historic sites. Ordinance must meet US government-recommended provisions standards and specify at least 120-day demolition delay. i Open space 660- Local Enables local governments to use Goal 5 process to designate open 23- governments space if they choose to do so. If they do, they must complete the 220 not required standard Goal 5 steps. Allows a list of open space sites for acquisition to inventory without having to apply Goal 5 to the sites unless the sites are new sites regulated before they are acquired. Scenic views 660- Simplifies Enables local governments to use Goal 5 process for significant new j & sites 23- Goal 5 scenic views and sites if they choose to do so, using the standard Goal 230 process for 5 steps. No new inventories of scenic views are required. I local governments 7 i f i F LL