The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 12/17/1996 i s CITY OF TIGARD OREGON I TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 1996 COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOT BE TELEVISED N--) i:1adm1j.%ccpkt1.doc 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 J Moog i 3 s i } i TIGARD CITY COUNCIL CITY OF TIGARD BUSINESS 14EETING DECEMBER 17, 1 °Q5 6:30 P1.4 TIGARD CITY HALL 13123 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 S PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the f Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. Times noted are get-mated: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7.30 p.m, Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). i L SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 17, 1996 - PAGE 1 ' r AGENDA i TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING - DECEMBER 17, 1996 j 6:30 p.m. ' . STUDY MEETING > Agenda Review > 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. 7:30 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 8t Local Contract Review Board i 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports ! 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items f 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 Meeting Minutes: November 12 at 19, 1996 3.2 Receive and File: a. Canvass of Votes - For the Candidates and Measures Relating to the General Election (Tigard Issues) on November 5, 1996 b. Solid Waste Efficiencies Task Force Report 3.3 Local Contract Review Board: Award Bid - 79th Avenue Traffic Signal • 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. E j COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 17, 1996 - PAGE 2 ' { G i FF I - I 4. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM COMMUNICATIONS UPDATE Assistant to the City Manager 5. VISIONING UPDATE - THINKING BEYOND TOMORROW • /assistant to the City Manager and Mary Alice Russell 6. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - TIGARD TRIANGLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0008/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96-00081ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0005 i PROPOSAL: A request for approval of legislative Comprehensive Plan Map, Rezone and Text Amendments within the area known as the i Tigard Triangle. Specifically, the request includes redesignation from Low Density Residential, High Density Residential, and Commercial ? Professional to a new designation of Mixed Use Employment. Additionally, specific implementing amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map (Ordinance No. 91-13) are proposed. A request further includes a request for approval of a zone change from C- P (Commercial Professional), R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre), and R3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units per acre) to new zoning designation of MUE (Mixed Use Employment). The request also includes amendments to the Community Development Code to add a new section entitled "Mixed Use Employment" to provide a new zoning district. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential, High Density Residential, and Commercial Professional ZONING DESIGNATION: R3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units per acre), R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre), and CP (Commercial Professional) LOCATION: Generally, east of Highway 217, west of Interstate 5, and south of State Highway 99 West APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: i Statewide Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 12 and 13; Oregon Administrative Rule Continued on Page 4 660-12; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.6, 8.1.1, 8.2.2, 9.1.1, 9.1.3, 12.1.1 and 12.2.1, and Community Development Code Chapter 18.22 and 18.32. a. Public Hearing Opened b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report (i `,,i k COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 17, 1996 - PAGE 3 • I S d. Public Testimony: Opponents, Proponents e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Deliberation/Discussion ' g. Council Consideration 7. METRO 2040 UPDATE • Community Development Director 8. IMPACTS OF MEASURE 47 ON ANNEXATION • Community Development Director 9. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: 6 I a. Briefing - Engineering Staff b. Amendments - Engineering Staff 10. COUNCIL GOALS STATUS REPORT City Manager r^~ 11. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), ex (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. 1 13. ADJOURNMENT I i i:\adm\ca1hy\cca\961217p.doc - I j i I COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 17, 1996 - PAGE 4 Agenda Item No. Meeting of I du ~<i°j ` i Q ^ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 17, 1996 • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Engineering Manager Gus Duenas; i Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Finance Director Wayne Lowry; Administrative Risk Analyst Loreen Mills; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; n Senior Planner Nadine Smith; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley. > Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:35 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. > Executive Session adjourned at 7:50 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING • Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:55 p.m. • Council Communications/Liaison Reports: Councilor Hunt commended the staff on the Christmas Tree Lighting, commenting that he heard many favorable comments about it. He also noted the success of the first mock session of the Peer Court held by the Police Department with regular sessions scheduled after the first of the year. • Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: None 3. CONSENT AGENDA Bill Monahan, City Manager, noted that Item 3.2a was a report on the Solid Waste Efficiencies Task Force, not an action item. He advised the Council that with Mr. Schultz stepping down, there was a vacancy on the Task Force for the commercial t `J customer representative. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 17, 1996 - Page I kk r; 1 L~ t ' Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve the f Consent Agenda. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: November 12 & 19, 1996 3.2 Receive and File: a. Canvass of Votes - For the Candidates and Measures Relating to the General Election (Tigard Issues) on November 5, 1996 b. Solid Waste Efficiencies Task Force Report 3.3 Local Contract Review Board: Award Bid - 79th Avenue Traffic Signal n , i 4. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM COMMUNICATIONS UPDATE Chris Counts, South CIT, reviewed the items discussed at the South C1T meeting, including Peer Court, transportation for the elderly and disabled, speed fff enforcement options, the mediation process, and the Cook Park expansion. He said that the meeting he had with the Mayor on September I I was a productive discussion. He commented that traffic and the impacts of development on _ neighborhoods would be major issues in the future. He spoke for making wise { planning decisions to lessen development impacts. !1 5. VISIONING UPDATE - THINKING BEYOND TOMORROW Loreen Mills, Administrative Risk Analyst, reported that they received 1268 ; - responses (over 10% of Tigard households or 3.5% of the population) to the visioning survey through the various channels of a phone survey, the Cityscape, the Regal Courier, and the Chamber newsletter. She compared the response to the national polls of 1000 people in a 260 million population. She expressed her confidence that this response provided staff with a good picture of the issues of concern to Tigard citizens. John Williams, Student Intern, reviewed the distribution of responses received from each of the channels. He mentioned different ways to study the data, i. including comparisons with the 1991 Tigard Talk survey. Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager, introduced Mary Alice Russell, Assistant Superintendent for the Tigard-Tualatin School District. Ms. Russell commended City staff for including students among the broad base of citizens from whom they were collecting ideas. She expressed the district's and the students' excitement at their involvement in the visioning process. She said rs Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 17, 1996 - Page 2 f" 9r ' J J mood 7r777 -I i • f ( that the district was using the visioning process as an opportunity to educate j citizens about the reforms and changes occurring in education today. Ms. Newton reported that the students at St. Anthony's were also excited about their inclusion in the visioning process. She mentioned that the district was compiling the results of the student visioning activity; the information would be included with the community wide data gathered from the survey. Ms. Newton noted that staff would present more detailed survey results to Council at the January 21 st meeting. She said that staff was also working on a community profile to educate the Task Force members on the specific issues within traffic and transportation, and six other target areas. She mentioned the two open houses r scheduled for January 3 I and February I to present the survey results to the p community. She stated that staff would also report back to the groups they addressed initially this fall. In addition the Visioning Task Force should start up after the first of the year. 6. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - TIGARD TRIANGLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA 96-0008/Zone change (ZON) 96-008/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0005 PROPOSAL: A request for approval of legislative Comprehensive Plan Map, Rezone and Text Amendments within the area known as the Tigard Triangle. Specifically, the request includes redesignation from Low Density Residential, 1 High Density Residential, and Commercial Professional to a new designation of Mixed Use Employment. Additionally, specific implementing amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map (Ordinance No, 91-13) are proposed. A request further includes a request for approval of a zone change from C-P (Commercial Professional), R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre), and R3.5 (residential, 3.5 units per acre) to new zoning designation of MUE (Mixed Use Employment). The request also includes amendments to the Community Development Code to add a new section entitled "Mixed Use Employment" to provide a new zoning district. I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential, High Density Residential, and Commercial Professional. ZONING DESIGNATION: R3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units per acre), R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre), and CP (Commercial Professional) LOCATION: Generally, east o Highway 217, west of Interstate 5, and south of t State Highway 99 West. 1 x F Fi Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 17, 1996 - Page 3 4 _mood I e ~ t APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 12 and 13; Oregon Administrative Rule 660-12; Comprehensive Plan Polices 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.6, 8.1.1, 8.2.2, 9.1.1, 9.1.3, 12. 1.1 and 12.2.1, and Community Development Code Chapter 18.22 and 18.32. a. Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges Mayor Nicoli noted for the record that he served on the Tigard Triangle Task Force. However he would participate in the hearing tonight. He confirmed to Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel, that his participation had not caused him to prejudge the application. C. Staff Report ! i f Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, reviewed the staffs accomplishment in bringing this plan to a successful conclusion, after six planning attempts in the last 15. He said that the success was due to the aid of the consultants (Elaine Coogan and John Spencer), the Task Force composed of representatives from all the interest groups, and community input. Mr. Hendryx mentioned the involvement of ODOT and Metro on the Task Force and their letters stating for the record that they did not oppose the plan. He reported receipt of a letter from the Division of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) opposing the plan for reasons related to the Transportation Planning Rule. He said that staff and the consultants met with the DLCD staff yesterday to present their case. Mr. Hendryx reviewed the Council's concerns regarding design issues that were raised at the last meeting. He said that the consultants did prepare a draft set of design standards but the Task Force has not reviewed them. He introduced into the record a letter from a Task Force member expressing concern about interim design standards. John Spencer, Spencer & Kupper, concurred that the inclusion of the various interest groups on the Task Force was an important part in bringing this plan to a successful consensus. He reviewed the process they used in working with the Task Force, beginning with identifying what was wrong with the previous efforts. He said that the Task Force concluded at the outset that the Triangle was not a residential neighborhood but a place of employment and shopping; this drove the policy development which was in accordance with Metro 2040 that designated the Triangle as an employment area, F ! t: Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 17, 1996 - Page 4 f MONA r ! i 3 ! 1 Mr. Spencer noted the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan text and to I the Plan Map and Zoning Map which dealt with mixed use employment areas. The package also included some additions to the City's e Transportation Plan of projects to support development in the Triangle. Mr. Spencer reviewed the current zoning on the existing Comprehensive Plan map: General Commercial, R-3.5, R-25, and Professional Commercial. He pointed out the location of the zoning changes from Residential and Office Commercial to Mixed Use Employment. He explained that Mixed Use Employment allowed residential (R-25). commercial and office uses as outright permitted uses. He stated that the land zoned General Commercial would not change zoning. Mr. Spencer reviewed the limitations on the Mixed Use Employment (MUE) Zone. These included a limitation of a single retail use to 60,000 sq. ft. and the allowance of 30,000 sq.ft. retail development outright to any property over 3 acres in size plus l sq. ft. of additional retail for every 4 sq.ft. of nonretail development. He explained that the intent was to focus the larger scale commercial development in the C-G zone and to encourage a mix of uses within the Triangle. Mr. Spencer said that while properties under 3 acres would not have that limitation, there was an overall cap on the intensity of development of .4 floor area ratio (FAR). He said that this was a means of managing traffic i impacts and insuring that the Triangle did not develop at the density intended for the regional centers under Metro 2040. Mr. Ramis addressed the letter received from DLCD objecting to the plan. He explained that DLCD held that no matter what Tigard did with respect to traffic planning, if the new proposal triggered as much traffic as development under the existing zoning would, then this would trigger the Transportation Planning Rule. This would mean there would be additional requirements for the City to meet. He said that during the meeting he understood Mr. Benner, the Director of DLCD, to withdraw that claim. I Mr. Ramis explained that DLCD staff s analysis of the evidence provided by the City of Tigard disagreed with Tigard's expert on the intensity of development that the existing zoning would generate. The DLCD staff did not include an explanation as to why they reached that conclusion. He suggested that Mr. Spencer explain Tigard's reasoning behind the l proposal, including the assumption of an intensity of .6 FAR development !l under the current Comprehensive Plan. t Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 17, 1996 - Page 5 r 3 i;'; 4 I • j I a Mr. Spencer reviewed the analysis and assumptions he used in projecting traffic impacts at buildout, including the existing development in the 1 Triangle and the amount of buildable land. He noted the presence of most of the major developers in the Triangle on the Task Force, He estimated that there would be approximately 1.2 million sq.ft. of office, 600,000 sq,ft. of service commercial uses, 140,000 sq.ft. of business and residential, and a little less than 1 million sq.ft. of retail at buildout under the proposed MUE zoning. Mr. Spencer explained that the Task Force developed two scenarios for buildout under the existing zoning for comparison with the MUE estimates. One assumed the same level of density as under the MUE zone and the other assumed a greater level of density. He said that they thought x it was reasonable to assume a greater density because currently there were no caps on the density of development in the Triangle, and the ' developments proposed for 1996 were at an intensity of .6 FAR. Mr. Spencer stated that their analysis showed that the MUE scenario would generate a traffic level in between the traffic levels of the minimum and maximum density scenarios under the existing zoning. He said that by adopting the MUE zoning, Tigard was not creating a situation that would result in much greater land use (hence traffic generation) than what would be developed under the existing zoning. I Mr. Spencer pointed out that the transportation analysis did assume a i j number of improvements to the transportation system. Part of the recommendation included a proposed amendment to the City's j Transportation Plan to add the "toolbox" developed by Metro and ODOT. f He stated that while the traffic problems in the region were not caused by the Triangle itself, the Triangle did contribute to them. He reviewed the toolbox improvement projects, including a six lane Highway 99W, a five lane 72nd Avenue in the Triangle, an extension of Dartmouth across 217 to Hall Blvd, and changes to the interchange configuration at 72nd and 217. He reiterated that according to their analysis, the transportation system would function adequately with those improvements at buildout of the Triangle in 2015. He mentioned that those improvements would be needed at buildout under the existing zoning also. Mr. Ramis asked if it was fair to say that Mr. Spencer's projections made for the intensity of development and trip generation for the existing zoning were based, at least in part, on interviews and input from experienced developers who owned land in the Triangle and were familiar with the market there. Mr. Spencer said yes. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 17, 1996 - Page 6: 3 Mod f 9 ! Mr. Ramis asked if someone were to claim that the conversion of J residential land to a more intense zoning would naturally create greater trip generation for the proposal than for the existing, would it be true then that that claim would be wrong because it ignores the fact that there is a cap now on FAR that did not previously exist? Mr. Spencer said yes. Mr. Spencer mentioned for the record a technical memo developed by Kittelson and Associates (July 25, 1996 - "Review of Previous Documents of Tigard Transportation Update") and asked that all other documents mentioned be included in the record by reference. He entered into the record the memo he faxed to Steve Oldham at DLCD today discussing the issues talked about at the meeting yesterday, and some additional notes he had on his assumptions in developing these three land use scenarios in the 1 transportation analysis. 1 ~ Councilor Rohlf asked if the studies and evidence used by DLCD in arguing against the proposal were in the record. Mr. Ramis said that DLCD has not provided the City with any reports or explanations of their r reasoning as to why they disagreed with the .6 FAR assumption. d. Public Testimony Mayor Nicoli reviewed the time limits for public testimony. PROPONENTS > Tony Cargill mentioned some information on bus transportation ` that was not available at the Planning Commission meeting. During rush hour there were buses going by the Triangle on the average of every minute and 45 seconds along five routes. He said that he did not know if those in Salem (i.e., DLCD representatives) had visited the Triangle area and knew the situation. He said that the solutions proposed were the normal advancement of the planning process. Mr. Cargill encouraged the Council to agree with the property owners, Metro, Planning Staff, and the Planning Commission to approve the proposal. He expressed his disappointment that the state has not substantiated its opinion. He said that the staff and Mr. Spencer did a good job of supporting their position. i > Rick Gorder, 13235 SW 72nd Ave, Triangle property owner, stated that he bought his property as an investment in residential real estate. He asked that the zoning be changed so that he and others could sell their property at a reasonable profit. He said that no t Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 17, 1996 - Page 7 { i t i I matter where one went in the Metro area, traffic was a problem. He urged the Council to vote in favor of the mixed use zoning. > Kathy Godfrey, 7435 SW Hermosa Way, Triangle property owner, expressed her disappointment that DLCD did not send a representative to tonight's meeting as a courtesy after expressing objection to the plan. She spoke to the amount of time the Task Force spent on creating the MUE zone within the context of the transportation system in the Triangle and considering the street system across 217 and I-5. She said that they discussed a pedestrian friendly traffic environment, the design standards, and the toolbox. She said that they made some good, educated decisions on the mixed use zoning. I i Ms. Godfrey stated that the Task Force put the needs and rights of the people first, from the business owner to the property owner. She mentioned that DLCD staff did not attend the Task Force meetings as the other agencies did. She expressed her support for the plan. i > Evelyn Beach read a statement on behalf of Irv Larsen, 11720 SW Parkway. Mr. Larsen said that he has lived 50+ years in the - Triangle. He commented that developing a consensus was a long tedious process. He said that if the Council denied this proposal, Tigard would be forced back to square one, and that he did not foresee another plan being adopted in his lifetime. He stated that while the MUE plan was not perfect, it was the best plan he has seen to date, one designed to accommodate the interest of all involved parties. He urged adoption of the plan. > Vi Chase, 11580 SW 72nd, Triangle property owner, stated that she supported the proposed zoning plan and asked the Council to adopt it. > Dayle Beach, 11530 SW 72nd, Triangle property owner, stated that the Planning staff, the Task Force, and the consultants had achieved a plan that allowed flexibility and did not impose hardship on Triangle property owners. He reviewed the process used to develop the plan, commenting that it was open and democratic, taking over a year. He said that everyone had an equal l chance to air his/her opinion, and if someone did not, then it was entirely that person's fault for not doing so. He said that he did not understand why Mr. Oldham chose to wait to criticize the plan until after it was finished. He stated that Mr. Oldham's job was to i know about pending zoning plans around the state, and ignorance p`p b. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 17, 1996 - Page 8 a e.. i 1 E i of the plan was not an excuse. Mr. Beach said that he thought it imperative that Council approve the proposed plan; otherwise, the ensuing state of limbo would be disastrous for Triangle property owners and have an adverse effect on the whole community. > Gordon Martin, 12265 SW 72nd, Triangle property owner, developer, and Task Force member, reviewed the process, commenting that it worked. He said that in 20 years, this was the best plan he has seen. He stated that he recommended approval of the plan, and did not know of anyone opposing it. He noted that one of the elements of the road improvements was for road connections; he outlined how this would be configured mentioning 72nd, 99W, Greenburg and Dartmouth. r > Bill Chase, 11580 SW 72nd, thanked the staff, consultants, and citizens for the work and job well done. He said that he was very pleased with the plan and with the improvement in City staff. He encouraged the Council to approve the proposal. OPPONENTS: None Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 9:04 p.m. - Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 9:13 p.m. l' e. Council Comments j Councilor Rohlf commented that Mr. Hendryx had mentioned that the design standards had not been totally reviewed by the Task Force yet they were discussed at the Task Force. He asked if the design standards were incorporated as part of the final project. Mr. Hendryx said that they were not included. He explained that the draft design standards pulled together elements discussed at the Task Force on how buildings should be designed and constructed (pages 8-9). i Mr. Hendryx said that Council could direct staff to work with the Task Force to refine the interim standards and return with a set of permanent standards within 60 to 90 days. Mr. Spencer pointed out that these interim standards (as written) applied to certain streets only: 72nd, Dartmouth, 78th, the 217 overcrossing, and I Hampton. These were the primary streets identified for pedestrian and I transit use. He said that the standards dealt with general site design elements, such as where the buildings were placed along these streets, connections between the street and sidewalks and entrances to the buildings, vehicle parking areas, and other common design elements. He t I 1 Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 17, 1996 - Page 9 i I j j ! ~ 1 s _ I r clarified that these standards were discussed conceptually by the Task Force but not to the level of detail listed in the outline. Councilor Rohlf expressed his concern that Tigard had no regulations in place to insure quality development in the Triangle. Mr. Hendryx said that that was true. Councilor Hunt asked if the Council could adopt the draft standards on an interim basis with the understanding that they would be modified in 60 to 90 days. Mr. Hendryx said yes, he believed Council could do so. Mr. Ramis concurred with Mr. Hendryx but advised Council to allow public testimony tonight on the standards. I , e ~ j Mayor Nicoli asked for testimony from the audience regarding adoption of f these standards on an interim basis. t > A gentlemen who gave his address as 4650 SW Macadam, Portland, spoke for the company that purchased the Farmers Insurance building in the j Triangle. He said that they received the draft design guidelines two days ago. While his company supported draft guidelines to insure a quality development, he said that they wanted to see the same thought and process go into the guidelines as went into the plan. He said that, based on a preliminary review of the guidelines, they saw some inconsistencies and some standards that applied more to small scale development. He urged more consideration of the standards prior to adopting them. I Councilor Hunt asked if the speaker if he had any objection to adopting the standards as an interim measure with the proviso that they would be reviewed and modified within a set period of time. The speaker said that their concern was that adopting these interim standards would adversely stop whatever applications were in process now because no one could do anything until the permanent guidelines were adopted. He expressed concern that a delay in the process could result in the interim guidelines being in place for years. He cited examples around Portland of his company's developments, such as the Waterfront, and John's Landing. He reiterated that his company supported design guidelines but spoke against i doing them hastily, without forethought, and with the risk of putting something into place that could hurt quality development in the long term. > Ron Timmerman, Coldwell Real Estate, representing the Hunziker family (property owners in the Triangle), concurred with the previous speaker's i remarks. He supported having design guidelines and taking enough time to do them correctly the first time. He commented that things often didn't I get changed that much once they were adopted. He spoke for more input and involvement from the community. 4y ' E. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes -December 17, 1996 -Page IO i ' if • i J i t > Gordon Martin said that he needed time to review the draft guidelines with an engineer and an architect. He commented that he had several schemes in progress and needed to see how these would apply to those projects. He concurred with the previous speakers' that they should go through the same public process with the community in developing the design standards to apply to the entire Triangle as the Task Force did with the plan. He spoke for postponing adoption of the standards and stating in the record that there would be design guidelines. Councilor Rohlf asked how the City could protect the kinds of development they wanted to see in the Triangle in the interim. He i expressed concern that development would move so quickly into the Triangle once the plan was adopted. Mr. Martin said that he did not think things would move that quickly. He recommended giving the committee 1 60 days to review and discuss the standards. He expressed his discomfort with moving hastily at the last minute when they have had such a good process so far. He commented that the Task Force might approve the guidelines as they stood but he wanted to read them and think them through first. > Tony Cargill cited his experience as a developer and real estate broker in dealing with rezones and annexations. He said that while he would like to see interim standards adopted, he concurred with the prior testimony that postponing their adoption would be in the best interests of the community. He pointed out that the draft standards contained no landscaping requirements or signage guidelines. I, Mayor Nicoli asked if DLCD expressed concern about design standards in any of their letters. Mr. Hendryx said that DLCD suggested adopting draft design standards on an interim basis. f. Staff Recommendation Mr. Hendryx encouraged the Council to approve the package of ; I amendments as presented. He said it was well documented in the record that staff held that there was substantial evidence to support the plan and zoning amendments. He pointed out that ODOT, the experts in the field, reviewed the consultant's traffic analysis and exceptions, and found that there was adequate information to support the request. ODOT found that the plan would not trigger the Transportation Planning Rule nor would it j exceed the anticipated capacity of development impacts allowed under the current regulations. He recommended approval. 9- Additional Council Comments Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 17, 1996 - Page I I rr~ t. f Councilor Rohlf said that he took responsibility for getting the design standards in at the last minute. He explained his concern that the beautiful resource of the Triangle would be destroyed without design standards. He said that he has been pushing staff to develop design standards for the long term but was concerned about the interim, noting how long it has taken to get to this point. He said that he would withdraw his request to include the design standards but urged staff to work with the Task Force on standards as quickly as possible. h. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. i. Council Consideration Mr. Hendryx said that Council could adopt the plan tonight (and the findings in a couple of weeks) but continue the public hearing on the design standards for 60 to 90 days and have staff report back on the progress of working with the Task Force. Mr. Monahan suggested continuing the hearing to February 25. Mayor Nicoli stated that he would like to trigger the "appeal clock" for DLCD to file an appeal. He asked if continuing the hearing extended that j time frame. Mr. Ramis said no. Adopting the findings, conclusion, and f) order on the zoning and Comprehensive Plan part would trigger the 21 days DLCD had to file an appeal. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve the proposal for the Comprehensive Plan amendments and the zoning ordinance amendments, as described in Item 6 on the agenda, to direct staff to return with an ordinance and supporting findings by December 30, 1996, and to continue the hearing for consideration of the design proposal to February 25, 1997. Mayor Nicoli asked if new information could be entered into the record. Mr. Ramis explained that no new evidence could be submitted regarding the zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan but that new evidence could be submitted on the design standards. Councilor Rohlf asked that the Task Force discussion of the design standards include applying them to the entire Triangle. Councilor Scheckla asked if indirect lighting was part of the design standards. Mr. Hendryx said that they could consider it. i 1 Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 17, 1996 - Page 12 w i I i i Councilor Rohlf congratulated all those who worked on this and "hung in k ~ there." He thanked them for their effort. Councilor Hunt concurred. He pointed out the turnover in staff since he came on the Council four years ago, and expressed his appreciation for staffs fresh approach to the Triangle and willingness to work with the citizens. He complimented the people in the Triangle and the staff on a job well done. Councilor Scheckla commented on the community interest in this issue, as evidenced by the large turnout tonight during the holiday season. He thanked the citizens for their efforts. { Councilor Moore commented that he was on the Planning Commission , from 1990-1996 and had felt uncomfortable with the original process. He expressed his delight in the end product and thanked staff, the Task Force, and the present City Council for a great job. i. Councilor Rohlf mentioned that DLCD hadn't given the City anything to consider with regards to the traffic situation. He commented that the City was well aware of the situation through its study and analysis of it. He expressed confidence that they would find the funding to meet the traffic needs over time as the property developed. i • ~ Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. k - a (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") i 7. METRO 2040 UPDATE f i Mr. Hendryx informed the Council that Nadine Smith was working on evaluating the Functional Plan as it was finally adopted. He noted the recent press about the urban reserves and the Metro Council's finalization of their recommendations. He said that Tigard was on record as supporting inclusion of the urban reserves on their western boundary. He reported that Metro did contact all jurisdictions, including Tigard, on the master planning process for urban reserves. 8. IMPACTS OF MEASURE 47 ON ANNEXATION Mr. Hendryx reviewed the annexation issues of Measure 47: when can a city levy taxes on annexed territory, and was that subject to a vote of only the residents who lived on that property. He reported that Tigard had several pieces of recently annexed property on which the City has not yet levied taxes. Mr. Hendryx asked for policy direction from Council on how staff should deal 1 with annexations. They had three to four individual property owners interested in Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 17, 1996 - Page 13.` c I i F { annexing. He mentioned that there was a great deal of information to be worked out on Measure 47 by the Legislature. Laurie Nicholson, Planner, reviewed the seven properties annexed since March 31, 1996, which fell under Measure 47. She noted the possibility that the City could not levy taxes on those properties without an election. She explained the Measure 47 was not clear on whether only the affected property owners voted or whether the entire city voted. Another consideration was there are often property owners who do not live in the City and, therefore, would not be registered to vote in such an election She mentioned that the Governor and Legislature appointed a Task Force to put together implementing legislation for Measure 47 and the annexation process. Ms. Nicholson said that the two current applications for annexation have been processed only for completeness; no hearings have been scheduled. She recommended that the City delay processing those applications as an interim measure until they received further guidance from the Legislature. Bill McMonagle, an engineer representing two clients with annexations before the City, commended all who worked on the Triangle zone change and amendments. He asked at what point did the applications for annexation achieve an active status. He pointed out that they were submitted prior to the vote on Measure 47; other land use applications would be judged as being in the process. Mr. McMonagle referenced a question in the voter's pamphlet asking who voted t in annexations. He cited the Attorney General's opinion (as printed in the voter's I pamphlet); those who reside in the area to be annexed vote. He explained his interpretation that when someone signed a petition to annex, their signature on that petition was their vote. Annexations did not require an area wide vote of the city. He used the analogy of joining a club and paying dues to illustrate annexing to a City and paying taxes. MayorNicoli asked for Mr. Ramis' opinion. Mr. Ramis said that City Attorneys hoped that the Attorney General's opinion was correct, and that their ; representative on the Task Force, Matt Baines of Gresham, has taken that position. He pointed out that there were differing interpretations, ranging from Mr. McMonagle's to the opinion that everyone in the state should vote on annexations. Mayor Nicoli asked what role the county assessor played in annexations and Measure 47. Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, said that the county assessor i played a key role. He reviewed the current procedure to add recently annexed lands to the tax base levy form used by the county assessor to assess taxes. He said that he thought that now the tax assessor would be looking for a vote count also to determine which properties were included in the City's tax base. 1 k Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 17, 1996 - Page 14 - I 9 4 Mr. Lowry commented that there were a lot of issues because Measure 47 was a dollar limit. The current calculation based on rates and values was now detached from the taxes people would pay under Measure 47. He said that he did not think Mr. McMonagle's interpretation of a signature on a petition to annex would qualify as a vote would hold up because the same type of election language was used in the annexation section as was used under debt service: an election with 50% voter turnout. He pointed out that the measure also didn't mention who the electors were, although the Attorney General's opinion that it was those being annexed was logical. Councilor Hunt commented that he thought it would be foolish to allow j annexations until they received more interpretation on whether or not the City could tax the property. He said that he favored the staff recommendation. 3 Councilor Moore asked why the two annexations couldn't be considered under the old system since they were filed under that system. Mayor Nicoli pointed out the list of 13-15 properties already annexed for which it appears that taxes cannot be collected. Mr. Monahan commented that allowing the applications to move forward was a disservice to the applicant because staff would recommend denial based on the question of whether or not the City could provide services to them or not. He said that while they did not know if they could service those properties, they did know that they would be servicing the entire community with less under Measure 47. r ~ Mr. Ramis verified for Mayor Nicoli that the proposed properties for annexation did not have land use actions pending. Mayor Nicoli asked if Mr. McMonagle's clients intended to subdivide their large properties for single family housing . Mr. McMonagle said yes. ~ Mayor Nicoli mentioned the Tigard negotiations with Washington County to control all the area within its urban growth boundary and to process all developments. He said that they were close to that agreement taking effect. He commented that Mr. McMonagle could apply for that process and work with Tigard staff instead of County staff. Mr. Hendryx advised the City asked that this transfer of responsibility occur on May 1. Mr. Hendryx reviewed the four options before the Council. The City could continue to annex properties as usual but that meant taking a financial risk. The City could slow down or stop processing annexation requests until Measure 47 was sorted out. t I Mr. Lowry explained that with the Measure 47 provision that properties should be U taxed similarly, the City faced a possible interpretation that those who bought; Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 17, 1996 - Page 15 7 l~ 1 j properties improved after they were annexed to the City were not allowed a E „ chance to vote on the annexation. Mr. McMonagle commented that those who bought a home after it was annexed did so knowing that the property was in the City. They made their decision after the fact. Mr. Lowry stated that the intent of Measure 47, whether levying a tax on newly annexed property today or in the future, was to give the property owner the ability to approve new taxes. Mr. McMonagle asked if there was a patent ambiguity in Measure 47 relative to annexation. Mr. Ramis said that there were uncertainties and parts in need of further interpretation. He stated that he thought that the uncertainties could be resolved from within the document, without applying outside intrinsic evidence. ` F. However, that was not a universally held position. t Mr. Hendryx reviewed the two remaining options. He mentioned that currently the City required annexation to provide sewer services in certain areas, like the Walnut Island. He said that at Council's direction, staff could reevaluate that decision and allow connection without the mandatory requirement for annexation or staff could require nonremonstrance agreements. Mayor Nicoli asked if a property owner could agree to pay the City's property assessment outside of the City's taxing authority. Mr. Hendryx said that currently the City of Lincoln City was pursuing with the Tribcs that sort of contract j payment for services. He mentioned that the problem was that the agreement was not binding on future property owners. Mr. McMonagle reviewed the location of his clients' parcels. He commented that he didn't know how to get around the annexation problem to allow development to proceed because his clients needed to tap into the sewer at Hillshire Creek ; Estates. He said that if the City were interested, he would ask the County about relinquishing rights for that specific piece of property prior to development. Councilor Rohlf commented that if the City did not annex these properties, they would develop as islands within the City. Motion by Councilor Hunt to support the staff recommendation with the exception of allowing sewer hookup with nonremonstrances. Councilor Hunt cited the Walnut Island people who needed to hook up to sewer for health reasons. f Mr. Monahan pointed out that in the future a nonremonstrance agreement did not f allow the City to force both annexation and taxation. Councilor Hunt said that the - City did not have to annex the property. i y Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 17, 1996 - Page 16 i 1 . I ~ I Mayor Nicoli suggested taking these properties to a vote of the people at the next election to at least get through the process. Mr. Monahan said that the election provision was not clear yet on who voted. Another issue was how did absentee property owners vote. Mayor Nicoli suggested holding two votes, one for the legal property owners and one for the residents. Mr. Monahan pointed out that the statute did not provide for the legal owner to vote. Councilor Scheckla commented that the Council's discussion would not go anywhere until they received clarification on Measure 47. Mayor Nicoli said that he thought the courts would throw out Measure 47 because of ambiguities and other legal reasons. i i j Mr. Monahan said that staff needed direction for the Thursday night meeting with l the James and Marion Streets residents in Walnut Island who needed sewer for _ health reasons. Councilor Rohlf asked how the people intended to pay for sewer. Mr. Hendryx i reviewed the options. He said that staff recommended an LID. They did not advocate using the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program funds. Mr. Monahan pointed out that the way the Neighborhood Program regulations were written, the program wasn't available to those outside the City of Tigard. He said that he believed the LID would need to be a combination of a County and City LID because county property was involved. a j Mr. Hendryx said that he thought the direction would be to wait until Measure 47 sorted out. Once that happened, there would probably be a vote of those requesting annexation before the annexation and the sewer extension. He said that the downside of connecting the people to the sewer without annexing them and with a nonremonstrance agreement was the questionable ability to tax them once they were annexed. Mayor Nicoli mentioned that the City's agreement with USA was that USA would not allow people on property adjacent to the City to hook to their county-wide j system. He questioned how binding that agreement was now in light of Measure i 47. He said that he did not think the City could say any longer that properties could not receive sewer unless they annexed to the City. Councilor Hunt said that a nonremonstrance agreement would still give the City leverage to annex properties when and if the City decided to annex. Mr. Hendryx said that his understanding of the intergovernmental agreement with j USA was that Walnut Island could not get sewer without annexation. Other areas such as Bull Mountain could get sewer with a nonremonstrance to annexation. \J E F, Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 17, 1996 - Page 17 i ~ r Mr. McMonagle asked if it was acceptable for him to talk to the County about letting the developments proceed under the City during this interim period before the IGA was implemented. Mr. Monahan said that he did not think it would hurt for Mr. McMonagle to start that conversation since the agreement has not yet been drafted. He pointed out that it was likely that project would be transferred to the City at some point in time and that it made sense for the City to be involved from the beginning. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that there was risk to the developers that they could go through the process and then see the City walk away from the work once Measure 47 was resolved. Motion by Councilor Scheckla to move ahead with Option 2. Councilor Hunt asked for further clarification on why the City should not get a nonremonstrance. He said that he did not want to freeze out the Walnut Island people, and asked that giving them an opportunity to get sewer be made part of the motion. Councilor Moore said that while he was sympathetic to the people wanting to annex, the City would be "sticking its neck out" if it annexed properties prior to a Measure 47 decision. Councilor Hunt asked what the risk was if they got a nonremonstrance. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that a nonremonstrance did not guarantee the City's ability to tax. Councilor Hunt said that the City did not have to annex either. r Mr. Hendryx suggested giving staff direction to delay annexations for 60 days and to return with an update on the Measure 47 situation. ! The Council agreed by consensus to delay for 60 days and then re-evaluate the situation. 9. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM i Gus Duenas, Engineering Manager, reviewed the CIP ongoing projects, the CIP amendments submitted for Council action, the CIP project schedule and an update on MSTIP 3 funding for upcoming projects. He distributed a revised copy of his report. Mr. Duenas reported that the Summerlake bridge was basically completed except s for a small portion the contractor needed to finish. Once that was done, they would open the bridge. 130th Avenue was finished except for installation of the { final lift; if the contractor could not install that final lift, they would wait to ! complete the project in the spring. S. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 17, 1996 - Page I8 I t He noted the streets paved as part of the Pavement of Major Maintenance j Program: 135th, 74th, Alfred Street, and Cascade Blvd. Greenburg Road also received some repairs. Mr. Duenas said that it was a matter of getting good weather for the contractor to finish Main and Commercial streets; hopefully they could finish some items which were of concern to the residents by the end of the week. He reported that 75% of the street striping work was finished. If they did not get good weather to finish the work, it would be completed in the spring. Councilor Moore mentioned the problems at the new intersection at Durham and Hall Blvd due to the misalignment with the existing Durham Road. He asked if the City could do anything on that County project. Mr. Monahan said the City could institute some corrective measures once the'urisdiction was transferred to v i Mr. Duenas reviewed the CIP amendments. He explained that the funding for the Greenburg Road right of way did not come from the gas tax funds but from TIF money. He reported that Tigard has used 70% of its TIF money for non-arterial streets; part of the agreement was that jurisdictions would use 50% of their TIF money for arterials. He said that Tigard was behind on funding arterials because Tigard had so few arterials. However the County was looking for them to fund j arterial improvements. 1 ~ Mr. Duenas said that they could look at doing improvements on Hall Blvd, since it ran right through Tigard, even though it was not a City street. He mentioned that Tigard might need to reclassify some of its roads, since most were major or minor collectors. He stated that they had to turn the Greenburg Road funding I% back. i Mr. Duenas presented staffs desire to create two funding sources to solve some of the problems right now through adding a storm drainage major maintenance { program and a sanitary sewer program. These sources were the unrestricted funds ; - in the storm drainage and sewer funds respectively. He said that Mr. Lowry informed him that while the sanitary sewer fund did have unrestricted funds available, the storm drainage fund did not; he would draft a resolution to create unrestricted funds in the storm drainage fund. Councilor Moore asked why the storm maintenance program had been removed from the budget. Mr. Lowry said that it wasn't removed, it simply wasn't listed in the CIP for the current year. Mr. Duenas said that staff had not been sure that there would be enough funding for it, and the Acting City Engineer decided to leave it out. s Y Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 17, 1996 - Page 19 z 1! r i 3 f i i Mr. Lowry explained that unrestricted funds were used mainly for operation; rarely were any of those funds left over for CIP work. He said that staff did an analysis recently and concluded that there would be some unrestricted funds available but they needed a resolution to appropriate them as a budget amendment to the current budget. Councilor Scheckla asked when the work would be done. Mr. Duenas said that they planned to complete the design process during the winter and construct them as soon as possible. Mr. Duenas reviewed the CIP project schedule on file with the Council packet meeting material. He noted that next year they wanted to avoid doing projects during November/December. He said that they were able to get most projects I done this year but some had to wait until spring. He explained that staff would do the preliminary design work on one of the key projects, 79th Avenue, and hire a consultant to do the remaining 40% because they did not have the Greenburg Road money available as originally thought. Councilor Hunt noted the discussion over funding the construction with LID or City money or a combination. He asked what staffs thinking was on that now. Mr. Duenas said that staff did not know at this point what the cost of that project would be but doing 60% of the design work in-house would give them a good - estimate on the cost. 1 Mr. Duenas commented that 79th connected Bonita and Durham and would probably become a major thoroughfare. He reported that, since the railroad company was not eliminating one of the tracks on Bonita Road, the City would complete the design and pay for it using Federal safety funds. He explained that under PUC rules the City paid for most of the project, which included a track signal and road improvements. ` Mr. Duenas reported that staff was currently analyzing which streets to pave next year as part of the Pavement Major Maintenance program. Their intent was to have the projects ready for bid by March or April for construction in the summer. Mr. Duenas said that the contractor would not be able to construct the signal at 79th Avenue and Durham Road until he had all the materials, which could take up to 12 weeks. This project is scheduled for April. Mr. Duenas reported that construction on the Greenburg Road improvements by Washington Square would not begin until next winter and would take a year to complete, leaving a projected completion date of Thanksgiving 1998. 4 Y Councilor Hunt asked if a decision had been made on widening Greenburg Road U at the cemetery. Mr. Duenas said that that was a separate project but advised that i Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 17, 1996 - Page 20 t. ~ f< P~. f Mood 1 ? the decision was to realign the road to the other side. He said that the choice was 4 between disturbing the graves on one side and cutting down trees on the other. Councilor Hunt asked about Mr. Duenas' suggestion to reclassify roads. Mr. Duenas said that he thought the City needed to consider upgrading some of their roads. They have overused their TIF funding for collectors and reclassifying their roads could help with that situation. Councilor Rohlf commented that while certain roads worked acceptably when Tigard was a small town, now that it has grown, the street system needed rethinking. He cited North Dakota, Tiedeman, and Greenburg as examples. Mr. Monahan said that rethinking the street system was part of the periodic review. Councilor Rohlf commented that the visioning process was likely to identify the 1 street system as an issue. I f Councilor Moore suggested creating a Task Force to review city transportation j issues and to identify a list of roads in need of repair. The City could then pass a bond measure to fix those roads, similar to the bond measure passed several years ago to repair certain roads. Mr. Hendryx said that they still had two and a half years left on paying the bonds. Councilor Hunt commented that it could take two years to develop a list. Mayor Nicoli asked if it might be better to go to the County and plead their case 1 regarding their lack of arterial roads for TIF funding rather than reclassifying their y ! street system Mr. Duenas said that he believed the County would tell the City to spend the money on arterials, whether or not the City owned them. Mayor Nicoli concurred but pointed out that Tigard has already allowed the S ` County to direct some of their MSTIP money to the county wide or state road system. He spoke to the County working with Tigard and the TIF funding. He noted the excellent working relationship between the City and the County. He stated that he would talk to Roy Rogers about the situation. Mr. Monahan commented that the County has been conservative in implementing the TIF ordinance since it had been adopted by the voters. } Mr. Duenas reported that MSTIP 1 and 2 were completed, leaving only MSTIP 3 in question with regard to funding. He said that the County was taking a conservative approach and allocating only $20 million for the first year. They would not plan beyond that unless more money became available. He mentioned a list of projects proposed by the County for the $11 million left out of the $20 million; the Transportation Advisory Committee recommended only two of them so far. They were Cornelius Pass Road from Baseline to Comell Road ($1 million E with project reimbursement after the sale of abandoned right of way) and Cornelius Pass Road from Johnson Road to TV Highway (or 219th), a $2.1 1 F a t Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 17, 1996 - Page 21 i I 1 ' J -A { i f ( million project to accommodate the new high school. The rest were still up for 1 discussion. Mr. Lowry explained that Council could adopt the modifications to the existing CIP program tonight. Staff would return later with the budget adjustment resolution. (Recorder's note: It was determined at a later date that a budget resolution was not necessary.) Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Rohlf to modify the existing CIP program. j Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") - rr ! 10. COUNCIL GOALS STATUS REPORT , i Mr. Monahan said that they could cant' this item over unless Council had questions. 11. NON AGENDA ITEMS > Mr. Monahan asked if Council wanted David Ernst present for the December 30 meeting. Council indicated that they did. Mr. Monahan said { . J that with no items on the agenda, the January 7 meeting would be 1 canceled, unless TPOA came forward with an agreement. > Ron Goodpaster, Chief of Police, reviewed the impact of Measure 47 on _ the police department and its programs. He said that they have not filled s the three positions allocated for this fiscal year. They also decided not to fill vacancies in the department in order to offset potential problems later. He said that he was very concerned right now because he did not know what would happen in six to nine months. Chief Goodpaster explained that a potential difficulty for his department j was the two to three retirements per year which would occur for the four to ! six years. He reviewed the four retirements occurring by January 1, 1998 plus one officer leaving to take another position. He said that his staff looked carefully at each of these positions to identify the functions that were critical to the organization and those they could live without. He reiterated that they took a conservative approach to filling vacancies because they did not know what might happen in the future. Chief Goodpaster said that under analysis right now was the Public Information Officer/Crime Prevention position vacated by Kelley f Jennings' retirement this month. He said that the public information i Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 17, 1996 - Page 22 t , L~ J officer portion had to continue as well as some community policing projects, such as Tiffany Court. He said that at some point in the future he would like to fill the position with a full time employee but in the meantime he intended to incorporate the vital functions into the Youth Service Officer position. Chief Goodpaster said that after discussions with the Youth Service Officer Rick Boothby, they decided to discontinue temporarily the GREAT program at the schools but keep the new Peer Court program going. He explained that the GREAT program could be turned on and off with ease but that the Peer Court program took a great deal of work to start up; he did not want to lose what had already been accomplished. Officer Boothby would take on the public information function as part of his position; the Public Information Officer position would be considered 1 vacant but not eliminated. Chief Goodpaster said that within their organization they could accommodate the patrol lieutenant retirement and one detective leaving. After that, they had only core positions remaining which could not be moved around without affecting core and special programs, such as patrol, detectives, School Resource Officers and Youth Service Officer. He said that after August, they would take an in-depth look at core programs _ r~ versus special programs. } I Councilor Rohlf asked if the Youth Service Officer was funded with COPS money. Chief Goodpaster said no, the COPS money funded the Washington Square position. He reported on the response received by the Chiefs Association of Oregon from the Department of Justice to their request for clarification on the COPS program (Oregon was a heavy recipient of COPS money and officers). Being well aware of the situation I in Oregon, the Justice Department has come up with a criteria of nine elements for the COPS program that allowed cities to relax their three-year commitment if they met the criteria. He explained that the first element was laying off a sworn officer. If a jurisdiction had to do that, then they could get out of their commitment to the COPS program. i Councilor Rohlf commented that it was distressing to dismantle programs the City worked so hard to get. Mr. Monahan said that this was the discussion staff has been having. He stated that he wanted Council to know that they were keeping the Youth Service Officer position and blending it with public information functions as the best alternative. He commented that they also wanted to keep Rick Boothby in that position as he was well suited to it. ~ I i Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 17, 1996 - Page 23 k I i i 1 Mr. Monahan mentioned that if the City did not get relief but the School District did, the City might need to discuss the District participating in funding the School Resource Officers. He said that Mr. Lowry was doing an analysis on the savings Washington Square received as a result of Measure 47, and suggested talking with the management company after Measure 47 is sorted out, to discuss Washington Square funding the safety officer there. He commented that he and Chief Goodpaster also discussed the Citizen's Academy and possibly blending it with training programs through the Chamber. Councilor Hunt asked that a written summary of the situation be published in the Cityscape to inform the citizens of the impacts of Measure 47 on the City. He commented that they needed to be careful that it did not sound like the City was punishing the citizens for reducing the property tax. Mr. e. Monahan concurred and said that he has discussed with Ms. Wheatley ways to get the information out to the public. Mayor Nicoli commented that re-evaluating the police department situation in August was good timing because they should have some direction from the Legislature by then and possibly some court decisions. Councilor Rohlf spoke for the schools participating in the funding of the " School Resource Officers regardless of how Measure 47 came down. He said that the School Board needed to take more responsibility for security ~ i - at the schools. i + Councilor Hunt expressed his discomfort with a hiring freeze. He spoke for a hiring evaluation of vacant positions because some positions had to be filled. Mr. Monahan concurred. He explained that they used the term I "hiring freeze" but really meant evaluating the programs and the vacated positions on a case-by-case basis in light of what functions had to continue. He noted that he and Chief Goodpaster have discussed bringing in a Community Service Officer to do work close to a uniformed officer's work; Chief Goodpaster decided not to do that at this time. Chief Goodpaster concurred that he and Mr. Monahan would thoroughly discuss any position vacated to determine what functions were critical to the organization or could be provided for in another way. He said that if the bottom line was that if they had to have that position filled, it would be filled. Chief Goodpaster said that "reactive law enforcement" was not good. He noted the hard work over the past several years to develop a proactive . program. He mentioned that while the reality of the situation was ~J difficult, they accepted it and intended to provide the best service they Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 17, 1996 - Page 24 J i could with the resources they had during this interim period. He mentioned that if they did not fill any positions in the police department in the next year and a half, they would be down I 1 positions. Councilor Rohlf commented that he thought the Visioning Task Force would identify public safety and transportation as safety issues. He urged sharing this information with the Task Force to see if they had any answers and to spread the news. > Mr. Monahan noted the list distributed by Ms. Newton of people identified as potential members for the Visioning Task Force. He asked the Council - for suggestions on additional people to put on this list for consideration. He mentioned staffs desire for a broad representation of the community. i He reported an idea from a session at the National League of Cities t Conference to ask each Councilor to nominate a few people. Ms. Newton asked the Council to provide three names each, either from the list or in addition to the list, and to get them in to her by Friday. Councilor Hunt asked if there was any objection to Councilors contacting ( their nominees beforehand. Mr. Monahan said that there was no objection. I. i > Mr. Monahan asked for suggestions for Boundary Commissioners to represent this area. i 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: None I , 13. ADJOURNMENT: 11:32 p.m. ~l1.Lrl.Q ,1 Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder Attest: or, City of Tigard Date: j , i Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 17, 1996 - Page 25 F: COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal " Notice TT 8694 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 6a4.0360 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 j Legal Notice Advertising • City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit •Attn:Accounts Payable • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION ¢ I STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. l Kathy Snyder f~* iii being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising 1 k Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard-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 Meeting 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 December 12,1996 I J ( Subscribed and sworn to efore me this 12th day of December 49 96 OFFICIAL SEAL , GaY~ G ; y ROBIN A. BURGESS i NOTAR'r = 9 LIC -OREGON i Notary lic or Oregon COMM . :rl NO. 024552 MY C013MISSION E,\PIRES MAY 16.199 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT _ 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. l CITY COUNCIL MEETING - December 17,1996 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON Study Meeting (Red Rock Creek Room) (6:30 P.M.) • Executive Session & Agenda Review Business Meeting (Town Hall) (7:30 P.M.) • T it911tdTriarigle Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Zone Ordinance Amendment • Visioning Update - • Report on Status of Council Goals • Capital Improvement Project Amendments and Update • Citizen Involvement Team Communications S: i Metro 2040 Update ~i j • Update impacts of Measure 47 on Annexation P. TT 694-Publish December 12, 1996. i Y' COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 8691 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 - j Legal Notice Advertising 'City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice p 13125 SW Hall Blvd. E •Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit 'Accounts Payable • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION r• f STATE OF OREGON, ) y COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, as. Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say, that I am the Advertising r. Director, or his principal clerk, of theTlgard-Tualatin Times a newspaper of general circulation, as de med in ORS 193.010 _ and 193.020; published at Tigar~ in the aforesaid county and state; that the City Council CPA96-0008 Tigard Triangle a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the g. - entire issue of said newspaper for ntat successive and consecutive in the following issues: December 5,1996 Subscribed and sworn 7ob re me this 5th day of Decembe , OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A. BURGESS NOTAR', ?ti6LIC - OREGON , Notaryblic for Oregon COMM' C'1 NO. 024552 MY COtOTSSION EXPIRES MAY 16,199' My Commission Expires: - AFFIDAVIT _ rv?. J - li iii The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on WE Rn er 17, 1996, at 7:30 P.M., at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 S. W. Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the City Council. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the request or fzilure 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 Appeals based on that issue. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd., Tigard, r Oregon 97223, or by calling (503) 639-4171. PUBLIC HEARINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96.0008/ ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 96.0008/ ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96.0005 TIGARD TRIANGLE PROPOSAL: A request for approval of legislative Comprehensive Plan Map, Rezone and Text Amendments within the area known as the Tigard Triangle. Specifically, the request includes redesignation from Low Density Residential, High Density Residential, and Commercial Professional to a new designation of Mixed Use Employment. Additionally, specific implementing amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map (Ordinance No. 91-13) are proposed. A request further includes a request for approval of a zone change from C-P (Commercial Professional), R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre), and R3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units per acre) to new zoning designation of MUE (Mixed Use Employment). The request also includes amendments to the Community Development Code to add a new section entitled "Mixed Use Employment" to provide a new - zoning district. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential, High Density Residential, and Commercial Professional. ZONING DESIGNATION: R3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units per acre), R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre), and CP (Commercial r Professional). LOCATION: Generally, east of Highway 217, west of Interstate 5, and south of State Highway 99 West. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 12 and 13; Oregon Administrative Rule 660-12; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 6.6.6, 8.1.1, 8.2.2, 9.1.1, 9.1.3, 12.1.1 and 12.2.1, and Community Development Code Chapters 18.22 and 18.32. ~LP i 1 ~ f f i C - 1' TT8691 -Publish December 5, 1996, ~ I J 1 AGENDA ITEM NO. ' 2 -VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE:-December December 17.1996 3 1 # (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) 3 ! 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 1 concerns through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the I meeting. Thank you. I _ ? STAFF 1 NAME, ADDRJ~ESS3& PHONE TOP~IIC- CONTACTED 21 C / ~ ?may tl~ ~i =1 J y / c~~- ' r /Gf ffp_~/ ~1/ f Chr S Col -St73~( S, u F T L~ z G39 `I (cob St„1 R..,-eTw a•., ' c-e or-f- - r~ { %O 4t4t.. I i I~ I I 1 I ~ I 1 Elndm\jo%viaitsht.doc - ,r S-4 l , -sFSS, o-, VISION TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP t1 n, OBJECTIVE: (30 to 35 members in size) - A broad-based representation of the interests and diversities within our community. Following are suggested names of people either interested in serving or names of people who staff believes may be interested. Please submit any suggestions to LIZ NEWTON no later than FRIDAY, 12/90/96. LCD • Pat Biggs & Cadence Scherer, Tigard/Tualatin School District representatives • Colleen Willis, Chamber of Commerce Board Chair Bob Rohlf, Council Liaison Mary Case Bev Froude t Pam Moyers i Brett Eichenberger Ron Holland Paulette Klepper Bill Sheiderich Paul Menig Pam Benson Chuck Woodard Ken Rosenfeld Jim Corliss Pam Herrold _ Mark Mahon Steve Slabaugh Ed Halberg Bruce Ellis Mrs. Tibbetts Bob Bledsoe Sheilah Greenlaw-Fink Leon Hartvickson Jeff Sackett Sue Carver Christie Herr Susan Vossler Jane Herron Amo deBernardis Craig Dirksen Mike Marsden Sue Kasson Dave Austin Bob Wyffels Gary Lass Pat Reilly Mike Marr John Cook (the senior) John Cook (the younger) Naomi Gallucci Pat Whiting Gretchen Buehner Pam Cook David Anderson • Indicates persons already confirmed to serve on the task force Indicates persons expressing interest in serving on the task force Im1h/vsntf.doc 7 L~ . _ I 1 - ^LI TM Ash, i WASHINGTON r u t t COUNTY, 10 OREGON IJuL~~it_~"iIU! November 26, 1996 Agenda Item No. 3, a a Meeting of I h IG U Tigard City i 13125 Sw Hall Blvd Tigard Or 97223 Enclosed you will find a copy of the Abstract of Votes for TIGARD CITY relating to the i Poll election held on November 5, 1996. In accordance with ORS 255.295, please k canvass the votes and notify the Washington County Elections Division within thirty (30) days of receipt by signing and returning the bottom portion of this letter to: i _ Washington County Elections Division 155 N 1st Avenue, Suite B-10 Hillsboro OR 97124 I i Thank you very much. Sincerely Ginny Kingsley Elections Manager ' GMd i 1 , I have canvassed the votes for TIGARD CITY, relating to the Poll election on November 5, 1996. By signing this canvass letter, I concur with the final results. JCL ~G u.~ cyPC~e1-~ b213/~tLr AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE DATE } Department of Assessment & Taxation, Elections Division 155 N. First Avenue, Suite B10 Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 Phone: 503/648-8670 i 1 - Page 1 GENERAL ELECTION Date 11/22/96 DABCDI TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1996 Time 14:51:00 S U M M A R Y R E P O R T US PRESIDENT 8 VP (#/PCT 265) SECRETARY OF STATE (#/PCT 265) REPRESENTATIVE DIST 2 (#/PCT 4) REPRESENTATIVE DIST 7 (#/PCT 37) (#/RPT 265) (#/RPT 265) (#/RPT 4) (#/RPT 37) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) WR1tt•.4 w 4--.,J HAGELIN 8 TOMPKINS 322 0.2 STAN ASH SbZ-0 53199 36.3 SCOTT R BUSHNELL 533 45.5 BOB SHOOK 8752 40.9 HOLLIS 8 CHESTER 161 0.1 ELIZABETH ASHBROOK 3308 2.2 TIM JOSI 637 54.4 CHUCK CARPENTER 12626 59.0 DOLE 8 KEMP 45Z 11 65208 40.8 JON E ZIMMER 1990 1.3 CLINTON 8 GORE 741.14 76600 48.0 PHIL KEISLING 85740 58.5 Blank voted (ballots) 263 18.3 Blank voted (ballots) 3349 13.5 BROWNE 8 JORGENSEN 958 0.6 MARK FURMAN 2077 1.4 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.0 Over voted (ballots) 23 0.0 PHILLIPS 8 TITUS 324 0.2 PEROT 8 CAMPBELL 1.44 t. 11445 7.1 Blank voted (ballots) 15429 9.4 NADER 8 LADUKE 4 755 4551 2.8 Over voted (ballots) 1249 0.7 REPRESENTATIVE DIST 3 (#/PCT 47) REPRESENTATIVE DIST 8 (#/PCT 37) (#/RPT 47) (#/RPT 37) Blank voted (ballots) 3108 1.9 (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) (No, to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) Over voted (ballots) 315 0.1 STATE TREASURER (#/PCT 265) (#/RPT 265) CHARLES STARR 12148 54.2 RYAN DECKERT 11744 52.8 (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) MARCUS SIMANTEL 10265 45.7 BILL MOSHOFSKY 10479 47.1 US SENATOR (#/PCT 265) WC,TC-•.4 (#/RPT 265) JIM HILL 14 9 9 o 74839 51.5 Blank voted (ballots) 2107 8.5 Blank voted (ballots) 2353 9.5 (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) BEV CLARNO 65990 45.4 Over voted (ballots) 13 0.0 Over voted (ballots) 27 0.1 WN.TL - JOHN VINCENT MEYERS 1812 1.2 MICHAEL L HOYES 369 0.2 MARSHALL MONTCHALIN 1756 1.2 BRENT THOMPSON 1924 1.2 NAN PERIGO 672 0.4 REPRESENTATIVE DIST 5 (#/PCT 32) REPRESENTATIVE DIST 9 (#/PCT 45) GORDON SMITH 79799 79798 51.0 (#/RPT 32) (#/RPT 45) GARY KUTCHER 1417 0.9 Blank voted (ballots) 17030 10.4 (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) PAUL (STORMY) MOHN 1253 0.8 Over voted (ballots) 893 0.5 TOM BRUGGERE 71014 71013 45.4 JIM HILL 8417 51.4 TOM BRIAN 13815 53.4 CHRISTOPHER PHELPS 447 0.2 VICTORIA JOHNSON 7945 48.5 808 BLEDSOE 1237 4.7 ATTORNEY GENERAL (#/PCT 265) JOANNE NORDLING 10800 41.7 Blank voted (ballots) 6601 4.0 (#/RPT 265) Blank voted (ballots) 2388 12.7 Over voted (ballots) 170 0.1 (No, to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) Over voted (ballots) 13 0.0 Blank voted (ballots) 3149 10.8 Over voted (ballots) 19 0.0 VICTOR HOFFER 62583 44.2 US REPRESENTATIVE IN (#/PCT 265) KARL SORG 1769 1.2 REPRESENTATIVE DIST 6 (#/PCT 30) CONGRESS, FIRST DIST (#/RPT 265) MICHAEL ALLAN CAMPBELL 1683 1.1 (#/RPT 30) REPRESENTATIVE DIST 24 (#/PCT 10) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) THOMAS B COK 3412 2.4 (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) (#/RPT 10) WA1TI.'14 HARDY MYERS 72089 50.9 (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) ELIZABETH FURSE 71816 48.6 JONATHAN R ART 204 1.0 DAVID PRINC 565 0.3 Blank voted (ballots) 20704 12.7 KAREN E STRATTON 8261 44.2 608 TIERNAN 1924 47.0 RICHARD JOHNSON 3249 2.1 Over voted (ballots) 752 0.4 KEN STROBECK 10185 54.6 RICHARD DEVLIN 1930 47.2 BILL MITT 72047 72096 48.8 ANN LACKEY 184 4.5 Blank voted (ballots) 2722 12.7 JUDITH LABADIE 47 1.1 Blank voted (ballots) 15112 9.2 SENATE DISTRICT 4 (#/PCT 82) Over voted (ballots) 19 0.0 Over voted (ballots) 154 0.0 (#/RPT 82) Blank voted (ballots) 398 8.8 (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) Over voted (ballots) 11 0.2 .)Q1n-..1 EILEEN GUTUB 15449 25447 53.1 PATRICIA N BIGGS 22389 46.8 .r Blank voted (ballots) 5661 10.5 OF CJ~'.1''//J~~ Over voted (ballots) 126 0.2 > v r CERTIFIED TO EE A TRUE AND ..•I<' t CORRECT COPY OF THE OFUG:.NAL Date !!i~/~i,.liu a?2. ~94G- {~r..; ; . Jr: WASHINGTON COUNTY ( C;1'J ELECTI NS DIVISION t BY Page 2 GENERAL ELECTION Date 11/22/96 DABCOI TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1996 Time 14:52:52 SUMMARY REPORT REPRESENTATIVE DIST 27 (#/PCT 23) SHERIFF (#/PCT 265) BANKS CITY COUNCIL - (#/PCT 1) CORNELIUS CITY COUNCIL (#/PCT 3) (#/RPT 23) (#/RPT 265) VOTE FOR 3 (#/RPT 1) VOTE FOR 2 (#/RPT 3) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) (No. to votewfoo Tf 1)a (%/RP 100.0) (No. to vote for 3) (%/RP 100.0) (No. to vote for 2) (%/RP 100.0) RON ADAMS 6011 58.6 JIM SPINDEN 91141 91468 100.0 NORMA STEWART 103 23.5 STEVEN A HEINRICH 877 32.4 JEFF KELLEHER 4232 41.3 CLARENCE SWEERE 95 21.6 SCOTT L RICE 1042 38.5 Blank voted (ballots) 69894 43.3 EVELYN MALLER 132 30.1 JONATHAN EDISON BURLEY 787 29.0 Blank voted (ballots) 2121 17.1 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.0 ROBERT ORLOWSKI 108 24.6 Over voted (ballots) 11 0.0 Blank voted (ballots) 546 24.5 Blank voted (ballots) 4 2.2 Over voted (ballots) 11 0.4 SOIL AND WATER DIRECTOR (#/PCT 265) Over voted (ballots) 1 0.5 JUDGE OF THE DIST CT (#/PCT 265) ZONE 1 (#/RPT 265) DEPARTMENT ONE (#/RPT 265) (No. to vote for 1) (%IRP 100.0) CORNELIUS CITY COUNCIL (#/PCT 3) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) BEAVERTON CITY MAYOR (#/PCT 39) VOTE FOR 1 (#/RPT 3) HOWARD P GRASHORN 73215 100.0 (#/RPT 39) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) STEVEN L PRICE 85439 100.0 (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) Blank voted (ballots) 88147 54.6 TERRA DICKENSON DELORA 683 43.2 Blank voted (ballots) 75923 47.0 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.0 ROB DRAKE 16166 100.0 NEIL R CLOUGH 897 56.7 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.0 Blank voted (ballots) 9402 36.7 Blank voted (ballots) 620 27.9 SOIL AND WATER DIRECTOR (#/PCT 265) Over voted (ballots) 0 0.0 Over voted (ballots) 21 0.9 JUDGE OF THE DIST CT (#/PCT 265) ZONE 2 (#/RPT 265) DEPARTMENT THREE (#/RPT 265) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) BEAVERTON CITY COUNCIL (#/PCT 39) DURHAM CITY COUNCIL (#/PCT 2) ELDON JOSSI 73875 100.0 POSITION 3 (#/RPT 39) VOTE FOR 2 (#/RPT 2) MARCO A HERNANDEZ 81117 100.0 (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) (No. to vote for 2) (%/RP 100.0) Blank voted (ballots) 87487 54.2 Stank voted (ballots) 80245 49.7 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.0 CATHY STANTON 13540 100.0 H DEAN GIBBS 346 50.2 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.0 LESLIE (LEA) GIFFORD 343 49.7 Blank voted (ballots) 12028 47.0 SOIL AND WATER DIRECTOR (#/PCT 265) Over voted (ballots) 0 0.0 Blank voted (ballots) 173 30.1 COUNTY COMMISSIONER (#/PCT 53) AT LARGE (#/RPT 265) Over voted (ballots) 0 0.0 DISTRICT 1 (#/RPT 53) (No, to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) BEAVERTON CITY COUNCIL (#/PCT 39) RICHARD W (DICK) KOVER 71596 100.0 POSITION 4 (#/RPT 39) FOREST GROVE CITY (#/PCT 7) DICK SCHOUTEN 11790 47.1 (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) COUNCIL • VOTE FOR 3 (#/RPT 7) KIM KATSION 13213 52.8 Blank voted (ballots) 89766 55.6 (No. to vote for 3) (%/RP 100.0) Over voted (ballots) 0 0.0 FORREST C SOTH 13128 100.0 Blank voted (ballots) 11748 31.8 ALDIE HOWARD 1534 14.2 Over voted (ballots) 161 0.4 Blank voted (ballots) 12440 48.6 RICHARD G KIDD 111 2312 21.5 BANKS MAYOR (#/PCT 1) Over voted (ballots) 0 0.0 MEREDITH BLISS 2279 21.2 (#/RPT 1) ROD FUITEN 2741 25.5 COUNTY COMMISSIONER (#/PCT 79) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) MARK OBERZIL 1868 17.4 DISTRICT 3 (#/RPT 79) CORNELIUS MAYOR (#/PCT 3) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) RAYMOND E DEETH 71 42.0 (#/RPT 3) Blank voted (ballots) 932 17.4 MICHAEL CRIPPEN 98 57.9 (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) Over voted (ballots) 36 0.6 ROY R ROGERS 24630 100.0 Blank voted (ballots) 11 6.1 RALPH D BROWN 1429 100.0 Blank voted (ballots) 20868 45.8 Over voted (ballets) 0 0.0 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.0 Blank voted (ballots) 792 35.6 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.0 woo* Date 16x52 52 time 5) GEHEROWASER 5.I136T (#/PC, 4) - - u lDA+ A R Y R E P O R GO 11 PORTLAND CITY p05 1 (%1 RP 100. S COUNCIL (#lPCF 1) CayNl to vote for t) ( 149 49.1 E OSUE CITY (#!RP (NO' 50.8 (XlRP 100.0) LIX (#/PGt 29) VO E FO iQ vote for 3) GAIL SHlBLEY 154 page 3 HCII #lRPF (No. 2 25'0 JIM FRPNCESCONt 120 27.9 C00 p 100.0) 4 50.0 7 1.6 DABG01 CI)Y ( KiLLSS00.0 for 1) (%IR ANDERSON 2 25.0 voted (ballots) ckvoted COUNCIL 00PT 1) I) NA(Na• t0 vote 6621 100.0 6 8E CNIZUN 0 4.0 51 (ballets) C1TY tXJRP 100.0) 1~p}f04REY E p 51 GASTON 1 52.7 ° p0 pOStl lO io vote for 1) ,SOHR N GppSEY J0. 9640 LL C l POS 2 (#1NPT1005) ER . 97 100.0 llots) 4.4 hots) 0 PORTLAND (XIRP 0) tNO' voted (ballets) a voted tballots) Cool$ ION ) gtank [ ENPYL 65 40.1 SlanAverk voted Over voted tba (No• to vote for 116 39•Z 67 60. LpURiHE L HOOD flocs) 0 0.0 (01po 2B) (#jPCT 1) 1 Blank voted (ballots) City CgiNCi4 (#lRP1 20) 1(AYOR #l RPT 1) CHUCK DUffY Over voted tba HtLL580R0 (%!Rp 100• NDR1H PLAINS (Rp 100.0) ERIK STELA 146 3 -6 t#IPCT it OARD 3 y) for 1) ba lots) to vote for 524T 44•Z go. to vote 302 100.0 8lankV ted t (tots) 7 GpSTON CITY CWNCIL (00, 100.0) lNo• LADEN 6470 55. 1) cuRP VANOERZA CY (BARK) DREKEL 170 36.0 Over (01K, 5) POS1110t0 vote for 100 100A LUR1 S li E LEY 6489 35,5 HEN. 0 0,0 (NO• SERRY 17[L p,3 voted (bat[°ta) CItY (#l RPT 2 hots) 56 Blank (ballots) pORILANO POS 4 (%/RP 100.0) vote for JAMES S PRINCE Blank voted tballots) Over voted (ba 1) COMMtSStoN 1? 62 38. 209 100.4 hots) p 0.0 Over voted 2) (#/PCT 1) (No. Stank 221 51.3 Vat ed (allots) ( NGIL (#IRPT 2) NORTH PLATPRIE FOR 2 ( %IRP 100.0) CHARLIE l105 Over 1) Ct11 COU R) 100.0) 2) (ballots) p 0.0 hots) (#/W 1) KING 1(71 5) (%/RP CryJNCIL 21 CpUNCII (#1flPT 00.0) 3(4YR),todate t°r 8.1 (RO. to Vote far 9 LS [Y 7 Blank oted (ba GAStON LI t%1RP 1 (NO• 447 13 54-Tover v POSITION 'S 1) 875 16.4 HERB NIRST KINOEL to vote for 79 100.0 ANOECAE y61 8.4 0.00ERT (BUTCH) 107 22.6 CITY COUNCIL -0 g 1(Z 3') ~#1RP1100.0) (NO• CLAUDIAP Ofl6CNflN6S 13• o p E 737 (ballots) RIVERGROV %1R SEGERT 53 61.2 ALOg0.5nosy, 445 8.1 Stank voted (ballots) 2(4 YR TERMS) for 10 52,6 "ARIL YN 0.0 CARL 756 13.5 over voted 5) (No. to vote q 47- Ov Ilots) 0 Cal 2ACOKLel 16.2 OYTINGHAM Slunk voted ~~lt°ts) VAI(IN£ 885 15.6 (#/PC' 51 ~ 11 28) iSON 52.3 1D0.O) M MpRR PORTLAND CITY MAYOR t#l RPT B1LLtE over voted (#IPCT f0 OA VOECKEH 854 p YOR 28) KlNS4 18.1 or yy tX! LAWRENC£ ballots) p .4 SgORO CITY (#l RPT 100.0) 8U0 Nll (lots) 22T 1.7 tNo, to vote f 276 100.0 Blank voted t dots) lba Htll vote for 1) (1111P 5 Blank voted tballots) 8 Over voted 964 29• voted VERA KAtz 154 35• (No. 3 to 9 70.4 Over 1) hots) 0 0.0 9466 P#1RPT Blank voted tye t(ots) GOROON SHERNAN f1AY0R voted GDRDDN FABER 4786 20 2 .2 OSN£GO Over LPKE 1} (x1Rp yp0.0} allots) 46 to vote for 1 25.0 Blank voted (b(tlots) (No. over voted 2 50.0 28) 61LL gOLSTEIN y 25.0 Cl1Y CCUNCII (#/PC' 28) BAER 0 0,0 (#!RP y00.0) "Li. HILLS80R0 vote 1) (%1 JOHN 0 0,0 (ballots) VARD 1 for 5 (No. to 54.4 Dyer OR ted (ballots) CO „C%INNEY SOB EN 4859 26 2 Slankvoted (bakkOts) 50 0.~ ( ti over 1 - t Page 4 GENERAL ELECTION Date 11/22/96 DABC01 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1996 Time 14:52:52 S U M M A R Y R E P O R T SHERWOOD CITY MAYOR (#/PCT 4) TUALATIN CITY COUNCIL (#/PCT 12) WILSONVILLE CITY COUNCIL (#/PCT 1) STATE MEASURE 29 (#/PCT 265) (#/RPT 4) POSITION 2 (#/RPT 12) VOTE FOR 3 (#/RP1 1) (#/RPT 265) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) (No. to vote for 3) (%/RP 100.0) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) RICK A HOHNSAUM 188 7.3 STEVEN DODSON 1546 35.7 JOHN HELSER 3 37.5 YES 35586 24.3 RON TOBIAS 1065 41.8 STEVE CHRISMAN 2781 64.2 LOUIS N MACDONALD 2 25.0 NO 110550 75.6 LANCE SESSIONS 336 13.2 CLAY LUPER 0 0.0 BARRY W KENNEDY 197 7.7 Blank voted (ballots) 2580 37.0 BRUCE BARTON 3 37.5 Blank voted (ballots) 16345 10.0 BILL BOYLE 758 29.7 Over voted (ballots) 50 0.7 Over voted (ballots) 511 0.3 Blank voted (ballots) 1 20.0 Blank voted (ballots) 455 15.1 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.0 Over voted (ballots) 3 0.0 TUALATIN CITY COUNCIL (#/PCT 12) STATE MEASURE 30 (#/PCT 265) POSITION 4 (#/RPT 12) (#/RPT 265) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) STATE MEASURE 26 (#/PCT 265) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) SHERWOOD CITY COUNCIL (#/PCT 4) (#/RPT 265) VOTE FOR 2 (#/RPT 4) SUE LAMB 3771 100.0 (No. to vote for 1) (X/RP 100.0) YES 79574 54.3 (No. to vote for 2) (%/RP 100.0) NO 66732 45.6 Blank voted (ballots) 3186 45.7 YES 112888 74.6 MICHAEL J SCHOEN 839 25.1 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.0 NO 38261 25.3 Blank voted (ballots) 16482 10.1 MARK COTTLE 1383 41.4 Over voted (ballots) 204 0.1 THOMAS E KRAUSE 1113 33.3 Blank voted (ballots) 11563 7.0 - TUALATIN CITY COUNCIL (#/PCT 12) Over voted (ballots) 280 0.1 Blank voted (ballots) 776 25.8 POSITION 6 (#/RPT 12) STATE MEASURE 31 (#/PCT 265) Over voted (ballots) 1 0.0 (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) (#/APT 265) StAIE MEASURE 27 (#/PCI 265) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) LARRY HARVEY 2212 43.6 (#/RPT 265) TIGARD CITY COUNCIL (#/PCT 23) KATHY FORREST 2857 56.3 (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) YES 80784 52.7 POSITION 1 (#/RPT 23) NO 72374 47.2 (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) Blank voted (ballots) 1854 26.6 YES 38643 26.2 Over voted (ballots) 34 0.4 NO 108478 73.7 Blank voted (ballots) 9577 5.8 PAUL HUNT 8478 100.0 Over voted (ballots) 257 0.1 Blank voted (ballots) 15574 9.5 Blank voted (ballots) 7775 47.8 WILSONVILLE CITY MAYOR (#/PCT 1) Over voted (ballots) 297 0.1 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.0 (#/RPT 1) STATE MEASURE 32 (#/PCT 265) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) (Y/RPT 265) STATE MEASURE 28 (#/PCT 265) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) TIGARD CITY COUNCIL (#/PCT 23) CHARLOTTE LEHAN 2 40.0 (#/RPT 265) POSITION 2 (#/RPT 23) JIM PATTERSON 3 60.0 (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) YES 79880 51.9 (No, to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) NO 73801 48.0 Blank voted (ballots) 0 0.0 YES 87323 58.6 BRIAN MOORE 7343 72.6 Over voted (ballots) 0 0.0 NO 61643 41.3 Blank voted (ballots) 8968 5.5 JOHN WILLIAMS 2768 27.3 Over voted (ballots) 343 0.2 Blank voted (ballots) 13778 a.4 Blank voted (ballots) 5886 36.2 Over voted (ballots) 248 0.1 Over voted (ballots) 256 1.5 . .it - - ' .w Page 5 GENERAL ELECTION Date 11/22/96 DABC01 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1996 Time 14:52:52 S U M M A R Y R E P O R T STATE MEASURE 33 (#/PCT 265) STATE MEASURE 37 (#/PCT 265) STATE MEASURE 41 (#/PCT 265) STATE MEASURE 45 (#/PCT 265) (#/RPT 265) (#/RPT 265) (#/RPT 265) (#/RPT 265) (NO. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) (No, to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) YES 75720 51.2 YES 69643 44.6 YES 52815 36.4 YES 61727 40.7 NO 72098 48.7 NO 86399 55.3 NO 92033 63.5 NO 89824 59.2 Blank voted (ballots) 14936 9.1 Blank voted (ballots) 6661 4.0 Blank voted (ballots) 17786 10.9 Blank voted Cballots) 11250 6.9 Over voted (ballots) 238 0.1 Over voted (ballots) 209 0.1 Over voted (ballots) 358 0.2 Over voted (ballots) 191 0.1 STATE MEASURE 34 (#/PCT 265) STATE MEASURE 38 (#/PCT 265) STATE MEASURE 42 (#/PCT 265) STATE MEASURE 46 (#/PCT 265) (#/RPT 265) (#/RPT 265) (#/RPT 265) (#/RPT 265) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) YES 57635 38.1 YES 60508 39.9 YES 51253 34.1 YES 19863 12.9 NO 93522 61.8 NO 90800 60.0 NO 98947 65.8 NO 133947 87.0 Blank voted (ballots) 11564 7.0 Blank voted (ballots) 11423 7.0 Blank voted (ballots) 12555 7.7 Blank voted (ballots) 9050 5,5 Over voted (ballots) 271 0.1 Over voted (ballots) 261 0.1 Over voted (ballots) 237 0.1 Over voted (ballots) 132 0,0 STATE MEASURE 35 (#/PCT 265) STATE MEASURE 39 (#/PCT 265) STATE MEASURE 43 (#/PCT 265) STATE MEASURE 47 (#/PCT 265) (#/RPT 265) (#/RPT 265) (#/RPT 265) (#/RPT 265) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) YES 53858 38.0 YES 62382 42.4 YES 61851 43.7 YES 79662 51.8 NO 87762 61.9 NO 84730 57.5 NO 79631 56.2 NO 74075 48.1 Blank voted (ballots) 21070 12.9 Blank voted (ballots) 15322 9.4 Blank voted (ballots) 21315 13.0 Blank voted (ballots) 9032 5.5 Over voted (ballots) 302 0.1 Over voted (ballots) 558 0.3 Over voted (ballots) 195 0.1 Over voted (ballots) 223 0.1 STATE MEASURE 36 (#/PCT 265) STATE MEASURE 40 (#/PCT 265) STATE MEASURE 44 (#/PCT 265) STATE MEASURE 48 (#/PCT 265) (#/RPT 265) (#/RPT 265) (#/RPT 265) (#/RPT 265) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) (No. to vote for 1) (%/RP 100.0) YES 82041 52.9 YES 92336 60.9 YES 97384 62.6 YES 72830 49.6 NO 73031 47.0 NO 59240 39.0 NO 57947 37.3 NO 73810 50.3 Blank voted (ballots) 7653 4.6 Blank voted (ballots) 11171 6.8 Blank voted (ballots) 7432 4.5 Blank voted (ballots) 16194 9.9 Over voted (ballots) 267 0.1 Over voted (ballots) 245 0.1 Over voted (ballots) 229 0.1 over voted (ballots) 158 0.0 edl Date 11/22!96 " S U M GENERALNOVENBEBR 5P TUESDAY O R6T (#IPCT 1? A R Y LAKE OSNEGO SCHOOL (~RpT100.0) 6 14 (#lPGT 4) MEASURE tnote for 1) 1 CITY OF SH£RWm (#JRPT 100.0) (o. 0 0.0 Page (#/PC' 1) 1 100.0 DASCOI LAKE 05uEG0 (#JRPT 1) MEASURE to 34-55 vote for S) t%/RP YES 100.0) (No. t° 1781 6' ''8 N0 1 50 0 (#/PCS 1) µEASURE 3.78 T) t%/RF 964 35.1 1 1) vote for YES voted (ballots) 0 BANK5 (#/RPt100 .0) (N0' to 2 5050.0 .0 RO 255 8A Over Blank voted (ballots) CITY Of 1 (XlRP MEASURE 34-59 ballots) 2 0.0 265) (No. to vote for ) 132 61.4 'I'S 2 O p Blank voted (blkO ts) (#1pCT .5 NO 0 O er voted STATISTICS (#IRPT 265) 30 18 ballo<s) p 0.0 TOTAL POSER (XJRp 100.0) YES Blank voted (batLots) (#/PCT 4) (#/RPS 4) NO 18 10.0 Over voted p SHERNOOO !lots) 0 0.0 CITY 0 X Rp 109.0) 216015 over kv L (L(ots) (#/PCT » MEASURE 34.56 t / RAITOR S 161ti630 7L LAKE OSNEGO (#JRPS100 (N°• to vote for 1708 62.1 VOTER REGISTURNOU 4 1) RP 1038 37.B FAIL SAFE 162992 75• (#1PCT 39) CITY OF 3 83 .0) MEASURE (X1 39) vote for YES GRAND TOTAL CITY OF BEAVERION (#JRPT 100.0) (No. to y 109.0 NO 254 8.4 MEASURE 34.52 1) (%/RP O 0'0 (ballots) 2 0.0 (No. to vote for 57.6 YES 0.0 Blank voted (bballots) 12428 42.3 NO 0 Over voted YES 9446 blank voted t(ots) (ballots) 0 0 .0 (#/PCT 23) RO 3110 12 1 Over voted RD (MJRPT 23) .34 O.S CITYEASURE DF iIGA IOD.O) voted (ballots) (#/PCT Blank voted (ballots) M 54'57 ever OF LAKE OSNEGO (0101 (%a. to vote for 1) (%IRP 1OB65 81.5 (#IPCT 3) M CITYEASURE 3'94 1) (%/RP 100.0) 2454 18.4 IUS (#JRPT 3) (NO, to vote for 4 100.0 YES City OF Co EL (XJRP 100.0) 0.0 NO 17.4 0 242b 0.0 MEASURE 34% 1) vote for YES voted (ballots) (No. to g65 42.7 E 0,p Blank (ballots) 1158 57.2 0 0 0 over voted B;ank hots) 23> YES voted 8 NO 196 8.8 (ballots) (#lPCT 0.0 Ovet voted CITY OF SS 56 (#JRPT Blank voted (ballots) 2 1) MEASURE 34 1) (%/RP 100.0) (ballots) TN PLA1Ns PCS 1) (No. to vote for over voted CITY OF N00. (#JRPT 100.0) 10226 76.8 (#/PCT Z) MEASURE 34vote for 1) (X1RP 3072 23.1 F KING C11Y (#/RPT 09.0) (YO. c° 149 45.6 E 2452 T$.t C"I 0 235 54.1 MEASURE Eto v to for 11 (XJ 44.0 YES voted (ballots) 3 p.0 (ballots) 7.8 pier voted 652 677 $0.9 NO 37 .2 YES Blank voted (ballots) 1 0 NO 252 10.2 over voted (ballots) voted (ballots) y pYerkvoted (ballots) OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER TIGARD LITY COUNCIL - POSITION 1 age Nunber 104.054.001 R T T T P G R R GUI i S 0 I NO j R L ,1 T U U D H . E T I T' I U , j j I E P I I T D E+ ! T V C Y~I O E j C I 1 E T R A I I N I j 11 S' G I C - E LI I 7 I it II i j :I WATER DIST 970 673 69.3Y. li 354 ' ' . . WATER DIST 5 1051 _ 72.__2! 551' rSUMMERWARD ARMORY 1038 8211 79.0 393 1'i 114210 950 78_5_ 46d t-3 , IGARD ELEM SCH WARD ELEM SCH 577 751Y, 2q LETON SCH 00Z 77-JT 523 IEWIS SCH TY MID SCN 1284 960 47 TA 23 FLD CLUB HOUS 1173 10151 86.5'-1 -60d 46 OUR REDEEMER LUTH C 824 6311 76.5 -1 31q 780 SUMMERFLD LLUB 933 801L45588 47 F_ 183 OUR REDEEMER LUTH C _818 593 72.4 290 I ! L-_ - 192 METZGER SCHOOL T311 464 64.1 24(] 194 PHIL LEWIS SCH 779 497 63. 27q i - ' 195 FRIENDS CHURCH 786 634 81_2_ 336-I I , 15 C F TIGARD SCH 1303 1024 78.5 49q i j i I 17 VBM 4q 24 60.0 17~ 21 TRINITY EVAN CHURCH 768 5p 76.6% 24 FOWLER MID SCH 717, 568 79.2 28S~ j j 25 CHUR OF CHRIST 1404 1092 77. I 554 i 26 M WOODWARD ELEM SCH 942711! 75.4% 326 I I ! I i 50 FRIENDS CHURCH 70 57CI 80. 276 I . 51 M WOODWARD ELEM SCH 74Z 5761 77.6 2941 I I I I I ~-I I I I • T 0 T A L S' 2150 76418i 76.3Y ' 8478 j I 1 I I I ' i i I I I I I - - ' ~ I I I I • i i I ~ I- - I III 'II I 'I I 1' I li ~I I ! I I I I I- ~I , i t. P , L~ 3 _ d ' • OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER , 1996 111 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL POSITION 2 Page NLvd>er 105.055.001 R I T T T 8 1 T J 1 1 J E U U 1 R 3 0 = G' R R G I I G N I H N I A A A N S 0 0 R N R T U U D DWI E T T M I ! ! R C O C L ! D E T R T! V C Y E Y M 1 li 0 E C C S 1 T U E R A N N j S E I I 1 L L 16 MAISON ARMORY 1038 8211 79.0 343 162 _ 30 TIGARD WATER DIST 970 673 69.3% 307,, 128 t i 31 TIGARD WATER DIST 14541 1051; 72_.23~_ 484 174: - I 32 C F TIGARD ELEM SCH 1210 950 78.5% 4511 177 ! .'F.. 33 M WOODWARD ELEH SCH 768 5 75.1% 2651 103 4 . 34 J TEMPLETON SCH 1288 1002 77.7% 1 45G 182 . 35 PHIL LEWIS SCH 826 585 70.8% 1 230 135 ' 1 40 TWALITY MID SCH 12 960 74. 445 161: T~ 1 1 I 41 SUMMERFLD CLUB HOUSE 1173 101 86.5% ! 442 148 I I i I I f 46 OUR REDEEMER LUTH C 82 631 76.5% 286 105 180 SUMMERFLD CLUB 933 8011 85.8% 37CI 119 I ! 1 183 OUR REDEEMER LUTH C 818 59. 72.4% 245 88r ! 192 METZGER SCHOOL 731' 46 64.177 80 1 1 194 PHIL LEWIS SCH 779 4971 63.7% 22098 --1 - 195 FRIENDS CHURCH 786 639 81.2% 1 2891 112 15 C F TIGARD SCN 1303 102 78.SY1 470 1511 1 ! . 17 VBM 4Q 24 60.0% 5 5 _ 21 TRINITY EVAN CHURCH 768 5851 76.6% 268 871 1 1 24 FOWLER MID SCH 71 568 79.2% 1-250 83 ! 1 25 CHUR OF CHRIST 140 1092 77.7% 1 509 16" ! I ! 26 M WOODWARD ELE14 SCN 94 711 75.4% 293 114 1 1 1 1 ' 50 FRIENDS CHURCH 7061 57Q 80. 1 248 108 51 M WOODWARD ELEH SCH 742 576 77.6-'-% 287, 86 I - T 0 T A L 5 21504 1641 76.3% 734 , 276EI I r- - I ' I - ' I I I I I I I I-L I . I i I 1 i I 1~-' 1 I I I ~ I - i 1 I i?` • OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER ` TIGARD CITY 34-57 - CHARTER AMENDMENT - age Number 236.134.001 R I T I T C Y C N 1 E I U U j I E I 10 ,~1 S O O Y S Y I j 1 E T I T I O O R D I E I I i i R G G V C A A E I T D D - S G I 1' lil I I i i I i i I i I I E 16 MAISON ARMORY 1038 8211 79.0 54q 12_9 1 1 . 30 TIGARD WATER DIST 970 6731 69.3N j 467700 1 1 31 TIGARD WATER DIST 145y 10511 72.2-68 184 I 32 C F TIGARD ELEM SCH 1210 95q 78.5 - 64 1611 33 M WOODWARD ELEN SCH 768 5 75.7 3 1 1 li" 34 J TEMPLETON SCN 12 7002 77.7 _ 16 35 PHIL LEWIS SCH 82 585 70 3531 110 40 TWALITY MID SCH 1284 96q 74. 66 14 I • 41 SUMMERFLD CLUB HOUSE 11 101 86.5 6171 138 1 ` 46 OUR REDEEMER LUTH C 02 6311 16.11, 1 422 93 f " 180 SUMMERFLD CLUB 93 801 85.8 54 104 1 183 OUR REDEEMER LUTH C 878 59 72.4% 1 3751 86 192 MET2GER SCHOOL 731 46 64.1 29 6 1 194 PHIL LEWIS SCH 77 49 63. 340 b 195 FRIENDS CHURCH 78d 63 81.2 436 86 1 15 C F TIGARD SCH 130 102 78.5 68T 135 -I 17 VBM 4 2 60 % _ 21 TRINITY EVAN CHURCH 7 58 76.6% 1 3 98 1 24 FOWLER MID SCH 71 568 79.2 382 79 I.. - _ 25 CHUR OF CHRIST 140 1092 77. 71 16 26 M WOODWARD ELEM EH 942 7111 75.4 44 1011 50 FRIENDS CHURCH 706 570 80. 1 4271 6 51 M WOODWARD ELEM SCH 74 57 77.6% 419 69 1 ` 7 0 T A L 5• 2150 7641 76.3 1086 2451 1 I I , I i I I I I 1 1 I i I I i I I I I I II - j - - I I I I I 1 I I ~-i 1 i I I ! 1 I I I i I I TI I I I ! 1 _ I i ' t 1 1 I I ; I - - I - I t ~ I I 1 I ~ I rt-( t I, ~ r - - - r 1 - e f - OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER, 1996 TIGARD CITY 34-58 - CHARTER UPDATE AMENDMENT Page Nnber 237.135.001 R T T C Y C N E U U I E [ 0 G R R T S T i 1 N N I Y Y ! T U U I O 0 E T T F F j R D R I G G 0 E R R / E i T O D I R Ai S E I ~I i i i i I I I ' j 16 MAISON ARMORY 1038 821 79.0% 1 514 156 30 TIGARD WATER DIST 970 6 69.3X 1 408 1551 I ' 624 2371 1 j I 31 TIGARD WATER DIST 145 1051 72.2% 32 C F TIGARD ELEM SCH 121 9501 78.5% 58 211' 1 I I 33 M WOODWARD ELEM SCH 768 5771 75.1% 3431 13T 34 J TEMPLETON SCH 1288 100 77.7% 66 172 ! I 35 PHIL LEWIS SCH 82 585 70.8% 334 128 I ! 40 TWALITY MID SCH 12 96 74. 63535 173- f 41 SUMMERFLD CLUB HODS 11731 101 a6.5% 62 130 ~~I, 46 OUR REDEEMER LUTH C 82 63176.5 40 1061 1 I I 180 SUMMERFLD CLUB 939 8.111 85.8 545 10 t 183 OUR REDEEMER LUTH C 818 5931 72.4% 33 11 _ 192 METZGER SCHOOL 731 46 64.1 27 1 194 PHIL LEWIS SCH 77 49 63. 30 10 I 195 FRIENDS CHURCH 7 63 81.2 42 10 ! 15 C F TIGARD SCH 1303 102 78.5% j 64T 171 17 VBM 40 2 60.0 8 2 - 21 TRINITY EVAN CHURCH 76EI 58 76.6 346§ 12 24 FOWLER MID SCH 71 568 79.2% 33e 12 _ 25 CHUR OF CHRIST 1404 109 77. 7031 170 _ 26 M WOODWARD ELEM SCH 942 711 75.41%4 42 12 50 FRIENDS CHURCH 70 57 80. 38 113 _ 51 M WOODWARD ELEM SCH 742 576 77.6% 365 12 I ' i I I I I T 0 T A L S• 2150 16418 76.3 102261 3072 - I i I I I i I I I I I li I I I I ! I i . I I I i I I I I I I I I I I t - I I I I I I ! " I ! I i I I I I I I 1-. 1 ! I I I I . I I ~ I I I I I 1 I I ,I I I I I t I I I - I I I ! I I ~ I i ' I I 9 C I I i i 1 f I I I I I I F S F• Agenda Item No. Meeting of tQ I t-71 el tp MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Mayor & City Councili FROM: Loreen Mills DATE: December 9, 1996 f SUBJECT: Solid Waste Efficiencies Task Force Update Council created a Solid Waste Efficiencies Task Force to review efficiency suggestions submitted by the haulers. The Task Force scope of review was then broadened by Council and G two more members were added. One new member was to represent commercial customers • and one was to represent residential customers. It has been difficult to find an interested commercial customer that could commit to the time for serving on the task force. But, we finally have a full roster. The members of the task force are: i ~ VOTING MEMBERS: Councilor Bob Rohlf, Council liaison to the task force John L Cook, Community business leader Steve Bried, Residential customer representative Charlie Shultz, Commercial customer representative Mike Leichner, Pride Disposal Company & franchised haulers' voting representative I NON-VOTING MEMBERS: l i Tom Miller, Miller's Sanitary Service Larry Schmidt, Schmidt's Sanitary Service (i Wayne Lowry, Finance Director & task force coordinator Loreen Mills, Senior Analyst i t i As an update, following is the anticipated schedule for meetings and issue review after the first of the year. JANUARY, 1996 FEBRUARY, 1996 Task Force Education Issues Review * Local issues & rules * Franchised hauler efficiency suggestions III * Regional issues & players roles * Service Standards Many Council members expressed interest in attending the task force education sessions. You will be receiving a copy of the agenda for the meeting within the next couple of weeks. The meetings are tentatively planned for Friday mornings (1110/97 and 1/24/97). We will be meeting in the Red Rock Creek Conference Room from 7:30 AM to 9:30 AM. Continental breakfast will be served. g w./ Im/swetfmtg.doc k j= { 3 ~ 1 - I j Agenda Item No. 3.3 Meeting of December 17, 1996 December 10, 1996 r Honorable Mayor and Council, Please note that the following item is scheduled for bid opening on Wednesday, December 11. Council packet material will be prepared and forwarded in your newsletter packet later this week. f 3.3 Local Contract Review Board: Award Bid - 79th Avenue Traffic Signal + I Catherine Wheatley j City Recorder i i AGENDA ITEM # 3.3 For Agenda of December 17. 1996 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY j ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Award the Contract for Traffic Signalization of 79th Avenue/Durham Road Intersection PREPARED BY: Gus Duey as DEPT HEAD OK Z1'3"44,* CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BFFORF THE COUNCIL f Award the construction contract for Traffic Signalization of 79th Avenue/Durham Road Intersection to Linnco 1 Electric Company, the low bidder, and authorize the City Administrator to sign the contract documents. ;ttt u STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the City Council approve by motion award of the contract for the traffic signalization project to Linnco Electric Company. INFORMATION SUMMARY 'fhe Traffic Signalization of 79th Avenue/Durham Road Intersection is a committed project carried over to FY 1996-97 and funded from gas tax revenues. The overall project is funded with 50% of the cost to be bome by the City and 50% (up to a maximum of $50,000) from the Tigard-Tualatin School District. The project was advertised for bids on November 14, 1996. The bid opening was conducted on December 10 with _ the following bid results: Linnco Electric Company, Albany, Oregon $75,287.00 Cherry City Electric, Salem, Oregon $87,386.00 j The engineer's estimate is $71,524.00. The low bid of $75,287 is within the budgeted amount for the project. I f It is important that contract award be made as soon as possible since the poles and mast amens, once ordered, could take from 10-12 weeks to arrive, presumably because only a few manufacturers are able to provide these items nationwide. Assuming the poles and mast arms come in at around 12 weeks, the actual installation of the signal system will be in May 1997. The actual work cannot be started until the Durham Road Improvements are completed and that section of road is turned over to the City. However, we have already spent approximately $23,000 to install conduits, loops and other appurtenances together with the current road construction project to ensure that the completed road will not be cut to accommodate the signal system installation. These items of work j were performed by Mowat's subcontractor on the project. Mowat is currently working to correct deficiencies listed the punch list, and we anticipate that Durham Road will be completed and turned over to the City sometime in 1 - dnuary 1997. c k. " { OTHER AIJF NATIVES CONSIDFRFD Wait until Durham Road is completed before advertising the project for bids. FISCAL NOTES Funding is designated in the 1996-97 Capital Improvement Program from Gas Tax revenues in the combined amount of $49,289. The Tigard-Tualatin School District has pledged to pay for half of the cost of the project up to a maximum cost to them of $50,000. Total project finding is therefore $98,578, of which $22,750 has already been expended on the project to install conduit, loops and other appurtenances. The balance of $75,828 is sufficient to award the cont.-act amount of $75,287. ' I ~ j r i i i i f t 1 I . 1:\cit}wide\sum\79thawrd.doc I ~genc~a i s Update on the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow survey i • Both the telephone and mail surveys have finished collecting data. We are now in the process of compiling and analyzing the results. • The phone survey, conducted by a consultant, contacted 400 randomly chosen Tigard residents. The results from this survey thus give us statistically valid data. • Mail-in surveys were distributed in the Cityscape newsletter, in the King City Regal Courier, !j and in the Chamber of Commerce's newsletter. Some of the questions were also published in the I F. Tigard Times as well, but the article did not include a form for submittals. The mail-in surveys gave every citizen a chance to participate in our information-gathering process. These results will tend to tell us what more "involved" citizens think. • We received 745 responses to the Cityscape survey, 103 from the Regal Courier, and 20 from the Chamber's newsletter, for a total of 868. 73 • We have begun analysis with the demographic data, which is summarized on the other side of this sheet (including a comparison with the Tigard Talks survey of 1991) i I • Further analysis will include cross-tabulating results to the "content" questions with the demographic data. For example, we can see how the responses of those over 65 compare with those under 30, and what issues these groups are most concerned about, etc. We will also be comparing the results of the telephone survey (random) with the mail-in surveys (self-selected). Finally, we will be making comparisons between these surveys and Tigard Talks to see what has changed in the last 5 years. • Our next report will be at the January 21 City Council meeting. i i JRW 2/17/96 h:/dots/survey/councsum.doc g a t. S: a: ` I Ids- Comparison of Tigard Survey Results Tigard Talks, Cjtyscape Regal Caurieir Telephone 1991 Survey, 1996` Survey, 1996 Survey, 1996 Type of survey random, s-s mail self-selected mail self-selected mail random phone # of responses 483 745 103 400 How long have you lived in Tigard? 10.2 yrs 11 yrs 13 years 4.5 years What is your age? 48.2 yrs 49 yrs 72 years 40 years Do you own or rent your residence? 88% Own 86% Own 84% Own 71 % Own Gender 56% Female 61% Female 53% Female 51 % Female Total Household Income $50,300 $50,000 $39,000 $55,000 What Public School District do you live in? - 91% 23J 100% 23J 83% 23J Do you currently have children in that district? 26% Yes 1% yes 32% Yes [lave you ever had children in that district? 44% Yes 14% yes 40% Yes How would you rate the community from I to 10? 7.7 6.7 6.9 7,3 JRW 12/10/96 hldocs/survey/surcompa.doc 7 6D AGENDA ITEM # 1 ! FOR AGENDA OF December 17. 1996 a "i CITY OF T'IGARD, OREGON 4 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE CPA 96-00081ZON 96-0008/70A 96-0/005 PREPARED BY: Nadine Smith DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ~!G ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the city amend the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element and the I Development Code to implement a new Mixed Use Employment zone within the Tigard Triangle. j STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve CPA 96-0008/ZON 96-0008/ZOA 96-0005. INFORMATION SUMMARY Ae Tigard Triangle has been the subject of various past planning efforts. In February of this year, the City Council authorized staff to proceed with hiring a consultant to assist in an effort to bring resolution to the issues l associated with transportation and land use in the Triangle. At that time, a resolution was passed by Council not to accept comprehensive plan amendments within the Triangle until after December 31, 1996. } With the assistance of the consulting team, a task force was fonned made up representatives of area residents, business owners, developers, ODOT and Metro. A series of meetings have been held throughout the summer to come up with recommendations that are detailed in the attached staff report. Two open houses have been held and the proposals have been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Retain existing zoning in the Triangle. FISCAL. NOTES No fiscal impacts associated with this request. fITYWI0ETPA96-08.SUM - - OW 1 3 4 I Agenda Item: ' g Hearing Date: December 17, 1996 STAFF REPORT TO THE [ITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON i e SECTION I: APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: FILE NAME: TIGARD TRIANGLE Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 96-00081ZON 96-0008 ZOA 96-0005 PROPOSAL: A request for approval of legislative Comprehensive Plan i Map, Rezone and Text Amendments within the area known as the Tigard Triangle. Specifically, the request includes redesignation from Low Density Residential, High Density Residential, and Commercial Professional to a new designation of Mixed Use Employment. Additionally, specific implementing amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map (Ordinance No. 91-13) are proposed. The request further includes a request for approval of a zone change from C-P (Commercial Professional), R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre), and R3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units per acre) to new zoning designation of MUE (Mixed Use Employment). The request also includes amendments to the Community Development Code to add a new section entitled "Mixed Use Employment" to provide a new zoning district. APPLICANT: City of Tigard iM j I 1 . l~ i i ! i 13121 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 i OWNER: Various COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential, High Density Residential, " Commercial Professional, and General Commercial j ZONING DESIGNATION: R3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units per acre), R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre) CP (Commercial Professional), and CG (General Commercial) LOCATION: Generally, east of Highway 217, west of Interstate 5, and south of State Highway 99 West APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Goals 1, 2, 9 10 and 12 and 13; Oregon - Administrative Rule 660-12; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1 and 6.1.1 6.6.6, 8.1.1, 8.2.2, 9.1.1, 9.1.3, 12.1.1 and 12.2.1, and Community Development Code Chapter 18.22 and 18.32. i $ECTION 11: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: i t Staff recommends that the City Council finds that the proposed amendments ' satisfy all relevant criteria and approve of the proposed amendments. a SECTION 111: BACKGROUND INFORMATION _ Site History: The Tigard Triangle has been the subject of various past planning efforts. The Tigard Triangle Master Plan was completed in 1992 and provided a land analysis, assessments of development trends and development potential of the Triangle. After over a year of study and public input, the Planning Commission approved and the City Council accepted a master plan map for the Triangle in November of 1992 (Resolution 92-54). The master plan map showed generalized areas of land use categories which reflected the decision. In early M 1993, the City was awarded a grant from the Department of Land Conservation i and Development (DLCD) to conduct a more detailed planning study of the area. E The study, which covered land use, transportation, urban design and open space issues resulted in the Tigard Triangle Specific Area Plan, dated January of 1994. r f J 1 ~ i t5 i The Planning Commission held a hearing on the proposed amendment and zone change on June 20, 1994. After further discussion on July 18, 1994, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend against approval of the plan. After a public hearing on the proposal on January 24, 1995, the City Council withdrew CPA 94-0002 and ZON 94-0002 from consideration. In February of this year, the City Council authorized staff to proceed with hiring a consultant to assist in a new effort to bring resolution to issues associated with transportation, land use and design in the Triangle. At that time, a resolution was passed by Council to not accept Comprehensive Plan Amendments within the Triangle until after December 31, 1996. With the assistance of the consulting team, a task force was formed made up of representatives of area residents, business owners, developers, ODOT, and { Metro. A series of meetings have been held throughout the summer to come up with recommendations that are detailed in this report. An open house was held in August to solicit public input and a second public work shop was held in ! October to allow public input into the recommendations provided by the Task Force. Vicinity Information: The affected parcels and street system is within the area known as the Tigard Triangle. The area is generally bordered by Interstate 5 to the east, Highway 217 to the west and Highway 99W to the north. Site Information and Proposal Description: The site is approximately 340 acres in j size. The proposed land use actions include amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to update references to the Tigard Triangle and include a description of the „ Mixed Use Employment zone, update the adopted transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan and amend the Development Code to include a new zoning designation of Mixed Use Employment. SECTION IV: APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Both the requested Comprehensive Plan amendments and Development Code amendments are subject to the same criteria within Tigard Municipal Code (see Section 18.30.120). The following staff evaluation and findings are therefore intended to address both the requested amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and amendments to the Development Code. STATEWIDE GOALS Citizen Involvement: Goal 1 requires a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in the planning process, Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 and Tigard Community Development A E; 4. I L~ J f i 7 Code Chapter 18 provide for citizen participation and notice. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing and opportunity for response was advertised in the local newspaper and request for comments were sent to all CITs and the j Department of Land Conservation and Development. Information was mailed out to all property owners within the Triangle as it was available regarding workshops and other actions being considered. In addition, the proposal was presented to the CITs. Additionally, two public open houses were held, one in August and one in October of 1996. This goal is satisfied. Land Use Planning: Goal 2 requires, in part, that adopted comprehensive plans be revised to take into account cha-ging public policies and circumstances. This goal is met because . ie City has applied all relevant i Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan policies and Community k Development Code requirements in the review of this proposal. Economic Development: Goal 9 requires the provision of adequate opportunities for a variety of economic activities. This goal has been met because the plan continues to promote opportunities for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare and prosperity of Tigard citizens. The mix of uses will encourage a diversity of development with emphasis on employment based uses. - Housing: Goal 10 requires that plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at various price ranges and rent levels and allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density. The new Mixed Use Employment zone will encourage high density housing development by allowing multi-family development to occur at the rate of 40 units to the acre. It will i also provide the opportunity for the existing single-family houses to remain in that existing single family units will become listed as an allowed use. Currently, single family homes are not allowed in the CP zone and are restricted in the CG zone which makes it difficult to refinance or obtain financing for remodeling in the Triangle. The new zoning will provide provisions that allow retention of existing residences thereby preserving affordable housing, while still providing the opportunity for high density housing. Goal 10, Housing, is, therefore, met because the proposal provides for additional housing opportunities as called for both in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Housing Rule. Transportation: Goal 12 requires a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The Tigard Triangle transportation update has been extensively analyzed to evaluate the impacts that the proposed mixed use employment zoning would have on transportation systems. As documented below under the discussion of the i plan's compliance with Oregon Administrative Rule Section 660-12-060, findings can be made that the plan can be accomplished with the planned provision of a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. C C t. t~ f COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTES OR GUIDELINES Oregon Administrative Rule: Section 660-12-060 states that plan amendments which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level of service of the facility. Section 660-12-060 of the Transportation Planning Rule requires that amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations which may significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are I consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of the facility. Plan or regulation amendments significantly affect a transportation facility if it i changes the functional classification of a transportation facility; changes facility ' standards, creates levels of service which are inconsistent with the functional classification of the facility, or would reduce the level of service below the minimum 1 acceptable. i Summary of Findings The project team has worked closely with the Tigard Triangle Steering Committee, has reviewed past transportation and land use studies for the triangle, and have - conducted sketch planning analysis of the 2015 traffic volume forecasts for the area-wide roadway system. The results of this analysis indicate that the proposed comprehensive plan and development regulation amendments do not result in significant changes to trip generation than is currently allowed by existing plan and code regulations. Therefore, the plan amendment does not represent a change i. that would significantly impact transportation facilities. The "toolbox" projects prescribed for the Tigard Triangle roadway system necessary to serve development under existing plan and zoning will accommodate the proposed mixed use land uses at acceptable service levels. It is the conclusion of the transportation analysis that an additional connection to northbound Highway 217 may be needed to accommodate development under existing plan and code - requirements and may be required for the proposed plan and code amendments. The sections below compare land use development possible under existing plan and code regulations with development estimated to result with the proposed Employment Mixed Use designation. In addition to describing the transportation network needed to accommodate projected 20-year growth, transportation projects are discussed that should be planned for to accommodate growth beyond this planning horizon. i Mixed Use Employment District j r; i 0 ' A land use development concept has been prepared for the Tigard Triangle by the City as directed by a project Task Force. The Task Force met throughout the summer and was made up of area residents, business owners and developers, ' and representatives of the Planning Commission, Metro and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The recommendations for the Triangle were intended to not only meet the Metro Design Concept for the Triangle, but also to meet the Transportation Rule and neighborhood goals for the area. The vision for the Triangle, as developed with the assistance of the Task Force, is guided by the following: Primary Goal: To create a mixed use employment district that is complementary to the rest of the community and the region. Guiding Principles-Land Use and Transportation: c • Support the Tigard Triangle's position as a significant location for a variety of commercial, office, business park and research uses. S Capitalize on and improve the Tigard Triangle's accessibility from Pacific - Highway, Highway 217 and 1-5 by creating a mixed use employment district which serves the entire region. • Recognize that accessibility is the key to a successful mixed use employment area, and that the automobile will accommodate the vast majority of trips to the Triangle. I i • Support transit and other modes in order to maximize their potential. Create a complementary land use pattern that allows for a number of trip purposes to be satisfied during a single visit to the Tigard Triangle, and ! distributes those trips over a broad period of the day. l • Add roadways and utilities to existing infrastructure to accommodate future j growth. I ~ - Guiding Principles-Urban Design and Environment. i • Include a safe, secure and convenient pedestrian system within the Tigard Triangle that links internal uses, and connects to the city-wide system. • Integrate within new development the significant natural features found within the Triangle. ` • Use streetscape as a key element to create a high quality image for the Triangle and to establish people-friendly spaces. z 1 Assure that transitions from existing low density residential uses to mixed use employment uses occur in ways that respect the livability of the residential areas. • Allow for the opportunity for residential uses within compatible employment areas. The land use development concept, based on these goals and principles, is summarized in Table 1. The table shows existing development within the Tigard Triangle, and forecast fuiure development at buildout. The buildout development concept for a mixed use employment district is characterized by retail, office and service commercial uses, together with business park and research facilities throughout the Tigard Triangle. High density residential development is integrated a with employment uses, with some as apartment/townhouse developments. Larger i scaled commercial uses are located west of 72"d Avenue in the area that is largely already committed to large commercial facilities. This new land use concept is proposed in the form of a new Mixed Use Employment Zoning District (MUE) for the Tigard Triangle. Attachment A at the end of this report indicate uses permitted, not permitted and permitted with restrictions for the MUE District. The proposed MUE district will include a - maximum density limitation for retail and office uses. I i a . 1 d s j 1 Table 1: Tigard Triangle Development Concept Summary Employment Mixed Use Buildout Estimate Residential Retail Office Service Business Other Uses DU SF SF SF SF SF MF 1996 135 77 31870 577493 158400 14 Bowling Developmen 0 Lanes t 117 Hotel Rooms i 11 Thea. t p. Screens i Buildout 0 302 93735 120243 592000 140600 300 Hotel Developmen 0 3 Rooms t (Plus 1996 Uses) Increase 0 225 61865 624940 433600 140600 300 Hotel over 1996 0 Rooms Levels w3 Table 1 also indicates the increase in land use development within the Tigard i Triangle that is expected to occur between now and 2015. Retail uses, both "big i' j box" uses west of 72"d Avenue and smaller scale retail and service uses east of ; 72"d are forecast to increase two fold over existing development levels. Office uses are expected to double. New business park and research uses and ! additional hotel rooms are expected to be constructed within the Triangle. It is anticipated that the existing single family residential areas will be redeveloped for mixed use employment uses. Infill housing throughout the Triangle is expected to add 225 new housing units. These assumptions recognize that the area is increasingly not appropriate for single-family neighborhoods. This is due to the encroachment of large commercial uses east of SW 72nd with associated lights, activity and traffic, the loss of the Phil Lewis School to serve families in the area and the increased impacts of traffic on Highway 99W, 217 and Interstate 5. Table 2 shows a comparison of buildout of the Tigard Triangle under existing plan and zoning code regulations compared to buildout utilizing the proposed Mixed Use Employment designation. h t;. r i. Table 2: Tigard Triangle Development Comparison Existing Zoning and Mixed Use Employment Buildout Estimate Residential Retail Office Service Business Other Uses ! DU SF SF SF SF SF MF 1996 135 77 31870 577493 158400 14 Bowling - Developmen 0 Lanes t 117 Hotel Rooms 11 Thea. Screens MUE 0 302 93735 120243 592000 140600 300 Hotel Buildout 0 3 Rooms Developmen (Plus 1996 t Uses) Existing C- 202 77 90839 983393 448550 150 Hotel 1 G, C-P and 0 Rooms R3.5 (Plus 1996 Uses) I Chanae -202 225 28960 219ne0 14gd5n 140600 % Change -202 75 3 18 24 100 Both development scenarios assume the same development density for commercial, office and service commercial development, approximating typical j suburban development density achieved today. Large scale retail is assumed to ~J develop at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.25, and office, service commercial and I small scale retail at an FAR of 0.35. Estimated levels of retail development within the Tigard Triangle are about the same for both development scenarios. Office, service commercial and business park development for the MUE scenario will result in a higher amount of development at buildout than for existing zoning. This is primarily due to assumed redevelopment of existing single family areas now zoned R-3.5 to mixed rises for the MUE scenario. As was noted earlier, both scenarios assume the same level of development density. Under existing zoning, there are no density limitations for C-G and C-P zones. Development at considerably higher density, resulting in significantly more development than shown on table 2, could be approved by the city under existing zoning. The proposed MUE zone has a maximum FAR (floor to area ratio) for t retail and office development of 0.40. Attachment A contains detailed estimates of development by subdistricts for 1996, Existing Zoning and Employment Mixed Use Zoning. Transportation Analysis of 2015 (Buildout) Development Concept A transportation analysis of the Development Concept shown in Table 1 was undertaken utilizing the Metro forecasting model. The analysis assumed a "worst case" condition that full buildout would be achieved by 2015. A revised - transportation network was also developed for two scenarios and included only roadways of a regional nature. The Base Case transportation network included the items identified as "toolbox" items in the 1-5/Highway 217 project. The I "toolbox" is a set of recommendations that were developed by a large regional committee that examined ways to improve the function and capacity of the I- 5/Highway 217 interchange. The recommended list of projects are commonly called the "toolbox" and were accepted by the Oregon Transportation Committee. Included in those recommendations are: • 6 lanes on Highway 99W between 1-5 and the Highway 99W/Highway 217 interchange; i • 4 lanes (with left turn pockets at intersections) on 72nd between Highway 217 and Highway 99W; • the proposed improvements to the 1-5/Highway 217 and Highway 217f72nd Avenue interchanges; the proposed bridge connection across Highway 217 between Hampton and Hunziker Streets; and The second scenario (Dartmouth Extension scenario) considered included the above improvements and: I • the Dartmouth overcrossing of Highway 217 to Hunziker (which is also included in the "toolbox") ; and; is 7 i j 1 extension of collector-distributor roads from the Highway 217/72nd Avenue r interchange intersecting with the Dartmouth Avenue overcrossing and extending through to the Highway 217/Highway 99W interchange. 1 2015 p.m. peak hour traffic volume forecasts were developed for each of the I transportation networks. Under the Base Case scenario, (Figures 1 and 2 describe Base Case traffic volumes and V/C ratios) it is forecast that with construction of the Hunziker to Hampton over-crossing approximately 500 vehicles will use this structure during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Further approximately 750 motorists will use Dartmouth Street west of 72nd Avenue. East of 72nd Avenue traffic volumes on Dartmouth Street will vary as a function of the location jlll of development. In the vicinity of Highway 99W approximately 1,000 motorists will i travel on Dartmouth Street; closer to 72nd Avenue this volume decreases to approximately 350 p.m. peak hour motorists. I i As compared to the Base Case scenario, the second scenario included constructing the Dartmouth Extension overcrossing of Highway 217 (See figures 3 and 4 for traffic volumes and V/C ratios). This scenario also included extending the collector-distributor road system from the 72nd Avenue interchange through to the Highway 99W interchange. Approximately 1,700 vehicles will use the Dartmouth Extension overcrossing north of Highway 217; and approximately 850 _ motorists will use this interchange west of Highway 217. The forecasts indicate that approximately 500 motorists would use the Dartmouth Extension overcrossing to gain access to the collector-distributor road intersecting with Highway 99W. In I this way motorists could avoid congestion at the Highway 99W/Highway 217 interchange. E j With construction of the Dartmouth Extension overcrossing, traffic volumes on Dartmouth Street are forecast to increase relative to the Base Case. West of 72nd Avenue, approximately 1,500 motorists will travel on Dartmouth Street. Immediately east of 72nd Avenue, the traffic volumes grow to approximately 1,200 p.m. peak hour trips. In both the Base Case and the Dartmouth extension scenario, traffic volumes on Highway 99W will be approximately 3,000-3,300 vehicles by direction during the forecast 2015 weekday p.m. peak hour. The Dartmouth Extension would divert approximately 300 vehicles per hour from Highway 99W in the peak direction during the peak hour. It has been assumed as a part of this analysis that Highway 99W would be widened to six lanes (as described in the "tool box"). This widening would likely result in significant disruption to many businesses along Highway 99W. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the effectiveness of the Dartmouth Extension to eliminate the need for this widening. Accordingly, this analysis t indicated that, with a four-lane Dartmouth Extension, Highway 99W could potentially operate marginally acceptably in its current configuration. Without the r Y+' i. G I~ i i ! widening of Highway 99W, the Dartmouth Extension would carry as much as i 2,000 vph in the peak direction. Therefore, if physical constraints prohibit the widening of Highway 99W to six lanes as assumed in this analysis, the Dartmouth Extension would play a substantially more significant role in relieving future traffic congestion through Tigard. Findings Based on the assumed buildout of the Tigard Triangle with a Mixed Use Employment designation, analysis of 2015 (buildout) conditions indicate the following findings: I 1. Six lanes on Highway 99W are necessary, and best serves east/west travel demand (already assumed in the tool box). Even so, Highway 99W will still operate over capacity. The demand in this corridor will exceed the capacity even at 6 lanes. If widening of Highway 99W is prohibited due to physical constraints, there would be a substantially greater need for the Dartmouth extension. 2. 72nd Avenue within the Tigard Triangle needs to be four lanes with turn lanes (already assumed in the "tool box"). 4 3. The Tigard Triangle is most deficient in its northbound access to Highway ^ 217 at the Highway 99W interchange. i 4. The Dartmouth connection to Highway 217 would directly divert 400-500 vehicles per hour (vph) from Highway 99W and from the Highway 99W/217 interchange to the Dartmouth extension access to the collector-distributor ; road and access to Highway 217. j 5. The Dartmouth extension would carry about 1,000 vph westbound (east of Highway 217), and about 700 vehicles eastbound (east of Highway 217). 6. Model estimates indicate that about 225 vph would travel through on Dartmouth from Interstate 5 to Hall Boulevard (each direction during the peak hour). 7. With the Dartmouth extension, Hall Boulevard south of Hunziker would need to be widened to 4 lanes. Alternatively, additional north-south capacity would need to be provided in another alignment. Without this additional north-south capacity, the effectiveness of the Dartmouth extension would i be diminished. E i 8. Including the Dartmouth Extension, the Hampton/Hunziker connection would carry about 250 vph in the southbound direction, which is probably C' F.- J I i 4 a i , ~y insufficient to justify the relatively high cost of this connection. However, 1 this connection will relieve operational and geometric deficiencies at the 72nd/Highway 217 interchange. Further study should be conducted to determine whether Hampton could be extended further southwestward to connect with Hall Boulevard in the vicinity of McDonald Street. This connection would likely make greater use of the Hampton/Hunziker connection; moreover, this connection would likely divert a portion of through volumes from Highway 99, relieving capacity constraints in that critical corridor. The following findings address the Transportation Planning Rule: l 1. The results of this analysis indicate that the proposed comprehensive plan and development regulation amendments do not result in significant changes to trip generation currently allowed by existing plan and code regulations which they replace which would significantly affect planned transportation facilities. 2. The "toolbox" projects prescribed for the Tigard Triangle roadway system necessary to serve development under existing plan and zoning will accommodate the proposed mixed use land uses at acceptable service levels. 3. It is the conclusion of the transportation analysis that an additional connection to northbound Highway 217 may be needed to accommodate development under existing plan and code requirements and may be required for the proposed plan and code amendments and should be the subject of further study. Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the findings described in the preceding section, the following conclusions and recommendations can be drawn with respect to 2015 transportation network needs to accommodate planned land uses in the Tigard 1 Triangle: 1. Highway 99W should be widened to 6 lanes throughout the study area (as proposed tool box). This improvement should be constructed in the short term. In the event that widening Highway 99 to six lanes is prohibitive, the Dartmouth extension could potentially provide needed northeast-to- southwest travel demand. I 2. It is recommended that in the near future, 72nd Avenue be widened to four lanes with left turn lanes at major intersections and that the i 3 Hunziker/Hampton overcrossing be constructed. These two improvements will provide additional roadway capacity for circulation within the triangle and for access to and from the triangle via 72nd Avenue. Construction of the Hunziker/Hampton overcrossing would have the additional advantages of eliminating geometric deficiencies at the Highway 217172nd Avenue interchange; thereby providing further additional capacity at this interchange. For the buildout scenario (2015), these improvements will provide adequate capacity in the vicinity of the Highway 217172nd Avenue interchange. 3. The Hampton/Hunziker connection is only justified based on its operational i relief to the 72nd interchange. Further study should be conducted to examine alternative measures to relieve this situation in a more cost effective way. Further study may indicate that extending Hampton further southwesterly (to connect with Hall Boulevard in the vicinity of McDonald Street) may better accommodate projected travel demand. Short of constructing this structure, a direct ramp instead of a loop ramp from southbound 72nd Avenue to northbound Highway 217 would provide additional capacity in the vicinity of the Highway 217/72nd Avenue interchange. 4. Access from Dartmouth to northbound Highway 217 should be constructed in the intermediate term (10-15 years) pending results from the Highway 217 corridor analysis to be performed by ODOT and Metro. Under existing conditions, there is significant roadway congestion near the Highway 99W/Highway 217 interchange. Construction of the Dartmouth Extension and access to northbound Highway 217 would mitigate congestion at this interchange because motorists in this area of the Tigard Triangle would have the option to access northbound Highway 217 from Dartmouth or ! Highway 99W. 5. The analysis indicates that there is a long term (20-30 years) need for Dartmouth Road to continue over Highway 217 and potentially south to Hall Boulevard as well as for extending the collector-distributor roads from the Highway 217/72nd Avenue interchange through the Highway 217/Highway 99W interchange. The Highway 217 corridor analysis to be performed by Metro and ODOT should consider the advantages and disadvantages of these improvements. The Dartmouth extension to Hall Boulevard should be constructed only if further system improvements to Hall Boulevard are made concurrently. If additional capacity is not added to Hall Boulevard south of where the Dartmouth extension would be connected, the effectiveness of this connection would be diminished. Alternatively, another roadway could be constructed that provides a connection from the Dartmouth extension to Hall Boulevard in the vicinity of McDonald Street. ) _ D 6. These projects should be added to the City of Tigard's Transportation System Plan. The City, ODOT and Metro should work to include these improvements in regional and state implementation programs. Tigard Triangle Internal Circulation Within the Tigard Triangle, it has been assumed that a roadway system would be developed to accommodate the proposed land use patterns. This transportation network is schematically represented in an attached figure 5. As shown in this figure, the internal roadway system would provide sufficient capacity and i. connectivity to facilitate safe and efficient movement within, to, and through the Tigard. Additionally, the Metro recommended provision of vehicular local access ways spaced at 660 feet with pedestrian/bikeway access provided at 330 feet is included in the street plan. Staff will recommend that these provisions as outlined above be adopted to be f incorporated into the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. j I i i ~.1 J i i TIGARD TRIANGLE Development Scenario Existing 1996 Estimate Traffic Proposed Residential Retail SF Office SF Service Busine Other Uses Zone Designati DU SF ss SF on SF MF 1 01 1 122400 1000 0 2 1 29000 0 21400 14 Bowling ` Lanes 3 2 32200 2400 64700 j 4 8 15700 0 0 117 Hotel Rooms 5 0 0 87000 0 6 47 1500 26000 0 7 1 117000 0 0 11 Theater Screens = 8 29 0 0 0 9 33 75 0 15475 2200 10 6 2 0 17200 70100 5700 SF Church 11 6 900 57800 0 22280 SF Seminary 12 0 0 69000 0 13 2 0 191618 0 14 0 0 110000 0 Total 135 77 318700 577493 15840 0 F{ h, • r i i 1 ,ate TIGARD TRIANGLE i Development Scenario I Buildout Estimate for Existing Zoning i Traffic Zoning Residential Retail SF Office SF Service Busine Other Uses I Zone Designati DU SF ss SF on SF MF 1 C-G 0 122400 1000 0 I 2 C-G 1 29000 0 21400 14 Bowling Lanes b_. 3 C-G 3 32200 2400 64700 4 C-G 12 15700 0 0 117 Hotel Rooms 5 C-P 0 14000 129000 14000 4.6 ac. Vacant 6 CG,CP,R 71 69340 26000 0 4.45 ac. 3.5 Vac.CG 4 _ 7 C-G 1 158500 0 0 11 Theater I Screens 8/15 C-G, R- 44 400000' 0 10000 t j 3.5 0 9 CG,CP,R 50 75 48800 161835 51000 16 ac. Vac. 3.5 E . 10 C-P 9 2 8400 42300 78500 2.75 ac. Vac. 11 C-G, C-P 9 10050 85240 9150 3 ac. Vac. 12 C-P 0 0 124000 36600 150 Hotel Rooms i 6 ac. Vac. 13 C-P 3 0 246618 36600 6 ac. Vac 14 C-P 0 0 165000 36600 6 ac. Vac Total 202 77 908390 983393 44855 0 U 'Permitted by City approval. j i i 4 - i C-G Assume new development is 100% retail. f C-P Assume new development is 60% office, 20% retail, 20% service. R-3.5 Assume infill to increase housing units by 50%. i - i 1 i , r~ t TIGARD TRIANGLE 1 Employment Mixed Use Development Scenario Buildout Estimate Traffic Proposed Residential Retail SF Office SF Service Busine Other Uses Zone2 Designati DU SF ss SF on SF MF 1 MUE 122400 1000 0 I i 2 MUE 29000 0 21400 1413owling i Lanes k. 3 MUE 32200 2400 64700 I 4 MUE 15700 0 0 117 Hotel Rooms 5 MUE 50000 87000 0 6 MUE 75 28650 165700 66000 7 MUE 158500 0 0 11 Theater Screens ~Kf 8 MUE 500000 0 20000 0 9 MUE 150 0 260835 51000 11480 150 Hotel 0 Rooms! E 10 MUE 2 0 42400 70100 16800 5700 SF f Church 11 MUE 75 900 107480 9000 9000 12 MUE 0 124000 36600 150 Hotel Rooms 13 MUE 0 246618 36600 14 MUE 0 165000 36600 Total 302 937350 1202433 59200 14060 0 0 i See Figure attached. Note TAZ 8 and 15 shown on figure summarized by TAZ 8 in table. U' ti r: r_ 3 i i Energy Conservation: Goal 13 requires that land and uses be developed to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy. The theory of providing a mix of uses within one geographic area and connecting those areas both internally and externally with street systems, pedestrian facilities and bicycle paths is that automobile trips will be fewer and there will be more opportunity for alternative modes of travel. Ultimately, this will reduce the number of auto trips necessary and will result in increased energy conservation. i COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES General Policies: Policy 1.1.1(a) requires that legislative changes are f consistent with statewide planning goals and the regional development plan. The proposal is consistent with statewide planning goals as addressed above under 'Statewide Goals'. The proposal conforms with the applicable portions of the Metro "Urban Growth Management Functional Plan" that was approved for the adoption on October 24, 1996 by the Metro Council. The "Growth Concept" map associated with the Functional Plan indicates this area as "Mixed Use Employment". The adopted "Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives" that are implemented by the Functional Plan discuss Employment Areas as: "Other employment center would be designated as employment areas, mixing various types of employment and including some residential development as well. These employment areas would provide for about 5 percent of new households and 14 percent of new employment within the region. Densities would rise substantially from 1990 levels of about 11 people per acre to about 20 people per acre. Employment areas would be expected to include some limited retail commercial uses primarily to serve the needs of people working or living 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." (Page 32, Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives, adopted December 14, 1995). By rezoning the Triangle to a Mixed Use Employment zone with an emphasis on employment uses the City is moving toward implementing this design concept. We will be providing the opportunity for an area where high density residential will { be allowed along with commercial and office/employment uses. Originally, the Task Force had proposed to rezone the entire Triangle to Mixed Use Employment. As noted in the above language and further amplified within the adopted i w: Mai 1 I Functional Plan, Title 4, the intent of Metro's design concept for Mixed Use Employment zones is to limit the amount of retail. Within the adopted standards for Title 4, is a requirement that limits retail uses larger than 60,000 sq.ft. per business or building in Mixed Use Employment areas. The final adoption of the Functional Plan exempts the Commercial General and Commercial Professional zones from this allowance if the zoning districts currently allow retaill uses with a greater area than 60,000 sq.ft. The city's Commercial General zoning districts currently allows retail uses over 60,000 sq.ft. and to assure preservation of that allowance it was determined that areas of the Triangle currently zoned Commercial General not be rezoned to Mixed Use Employment. The areas that are currently zoned Commercial Professional, R-25 and R3.5 would be rezoned to Mixed Use Employment, with I limitations on the ability to place retail uses. 5 r Retail uses in the Mixed Use Employment zone would be limited to 60,000 sq.ft. with the additional provision that on sites over three acres in size, retail use is limited to 30,000 sq.ft. of gross lesable area plus one additional square foot of gross leasable area of general retail sales for each additional four square feet of non-general retail sales use. In addition to this requirement, with the exception of residential and transient housing, the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for all commercial and industrial uses will not exceed .40. The limitations are intended to provide assurance that a mix of uses will occur in the Mixed Use Employment zone, and that the entire zone will not become retail. It is also intended to assure that transportation impacts are limited and that the area does not detract from the future development of the Regional Center at Washington Square. This policy is satisfied. Citizen Involvement: 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. A request for comments was sent to all City CITs and the Planning Commission hearing was legally advertised. In addition, the proposal was presented at all CIT meetings during November, and two work shops were held and exten!;ive mailings were made to property owners within the Triangle. This pow,y w satisfied. Housing: Policy 6.1.1 requires the city shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This policy is primarily implemented through OAR 660-07, the Metropolitan Housing Rule. The rule requires that the city maintain sufficient t. F L- 1 t~ a ~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 City is currently in compliance with this rule. The proposal for a Mixed Use Employment zone will allow further development of high density residential in the Triangle. PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL OR REVISED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LANGUAGE Certain Comprehensive Plan language will require amendment or additional i . language to address the proposed Triangle Master Plan. Attachment B includes i the specific language from the Comprehensive Plan that requires amendment. COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: ' Procedures for Decision Making: Legislative: Chapter 18.30 establishes procedures for consideration of legislative changes to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, implementing ordinances and maps. Section 18.30.120 lists the factors upon which the Planning Commission and City Council shall base their decisions. The factors and responses are as follows: 1. The statewide planning goals and guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197. These standards are addressed in Section IV under 'Statewide Goals' in this staff report. 2. Any federal or state statutes or guidelines found applicable. The state's Transportation Planning Rule is addressed in Section IV under 'Compliance with Federal and State Statutes or Guidelines'. 3. Applicable plans and guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Service District. The applicable plans and guidelines adopted by Metro are discussed under General Policies, 1.1a, above. 4. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and map. These standards are addressed in Section IV under 'Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policies'. 5. The applicable provisions of the implementing ordinances. The implementing ordinances are contained in the Tigard Community Development Code, which are addressed in this section of the staff report. i 6. Consideration may also be given to proof of a change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the u e; I ' G r comprehensive plan or implementing ordinance which is the subject of the application. This criteria is optional for consideration. Clearly, the area has changed from the time that the existing single-family homes were developed. Traffic has increased dramatically in and around the area and much of the once single family area has redeveloped to commercial. The resulting noise and automobile impacts have made much of the area unsuitable for ; single-family residential. JECTION V. AGENCY COMMENTS i i { Metro reviewed this proposal and the attached letter dated November 18, 1996 was entered into the record at the Planning Commission public hearing. It G f should be noted that the letter from Metro recommends that transient housing f not be exempted from the .40 FAR as is proposed by the Task Force and staff. The reason that an exemption is proposed for transient housing is the recognition that it is appropriate to provide hotel facilities that could service the area as it develops as an employment center. These hotels should have the ability to provide conference facilities and business suites and should not be limited to what would result from the .40 FAR limitation. These facilities are seen as providing restaurant, conference facilities and lodging surrounding employment centers and we see no evidence that their inclusion in the zone would detract from the regional center. f Washington County reviewed this proposal and has the following concerns: [None received as of this writing.] l ODOT has reviewed this proposal and has submitted a letter dated November 18, 1996 that was entered into the public record at the Planning Commission. ; The letter recommends that the area be identified as an employment center, that the city adopt the "tool box" strategies and that specific language be adopted in the Comprehensive Plan as it related to the need to increase access to Highway 217 from the Triangle. Specifically, ODOT requested that access from Dartmouth be stated as being critical "to the property owners in the Triangle". The Planning Commission, in discussing this issue, detemined that access was not only critical to property owners in the Triangle, but to anyone using the tranportation system, and declined to add the proposed language. A letter was received from DLCD on December 2, 1996. That letter is attached. 1 f ' u i y. 4) ATTACHMENT I: Letter dated November 18, 1996 from ODOT ATTACHMENT J: Letter dated December 2, 1996 from DLCD ATTACHMENT K: Letter dated November 18, 1996 from Miller, Nash, Wiener, Gager & Carlsen ATTACHMENT M Letter dated October 27, 1996 from Anne Leiser December 10 1996 PREPARED BY: Nadine Smith, Planning Supervisor a 1 John Spencer, Planning Consultant { /APPROVED BY: Jim endryx, DATE Community Development Director I ~ I i f i 1 Attachment A Following are the specific changes to the Comprehensive Plan to update the document as related to the "Tigard Triangle", and to include language to allow implementation of the Mixed Use Employment zone. Recommended deletions are indicated by stFike aut with new language shown in bold. Volume 1, Economy, Section 1 -152 - 6 Delete: r- _ -F r-e- eFGial use s Gf thFee p4naFy trnffln nnrriRcr T-146; tPRUAVA ;A GFk PFeqFaFA fGF the study Galls fGF a detailed 4 . ----t ef the plaRned FeGOAfigWatieR of the 24741 l Staff Comment: With the revisions proposed to the Comprehensive Plan, this section of the Plan will be implemented and the need for a study of the Triangle will no longer be necessary to be expressed in the plan. Volume II, Implementation Strategies, II - 7 ADD: j i 6 i. Mixed Use Employment District - Areas with a development concept that is characterized by retail, office and service commercial uses, with 4 i 1 j business park and research facilities. High density residential development will be encouraged. j Staff Comment: This general language is necessary to allow the addition of a i ± new zoning district to be included in the Development Code. j Volume II, Economy, II - 30, { ! 5.5 THE CITY SHALL PROHIBIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN { COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS EXCEPT: COMPLIMENTARY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PERMITTED ABOVE THE FIRST FLOOR W THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND ABOVE THE SECOND FLOOR IN COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL DISTRICTS. (THE DENSITY OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE R-40 DISTRICTS), AND; f j EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITHIN THE MIXED USE EMPLOYMENT I ZONE SHALL BE CONSIDERED PERMITTED USES AND NEW MULTI- FAMILY DENSITY DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PERMITTED AND ENCOURAGED TO DEVELOP AT R-40 DENSITIES. - Staff Comment: This language will clarify that the existing single-family homes _ within the Triangle will be considered permitted uses and therefore can be i refinanced, remodeled, rebuilt, etc. It also clarifies that new high density residential development is permitted within the Triangle. ~r Volume 11, Urbanization, It - 73 11.4.1 IN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE (I.E. THAT AREA BOUNDED BY PACIFIC HIGHVA(AY, HIGHWAY 217, AND THE INTERSTATE 5 FREEWAY), IN THE MIXED USE EMPLOYMENT ZONE TunGF oARGEI c PESIGISPIXF )'ro HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (I.E., 20 TO 40 UNITS PER ACRE) SHALL BE A USE ALLOWED OUTRIGHT i Staff Comment: Previously this standard was intended to allow multi-family uses only in conjunction with commercial professional uses within the Commercial Professional zone. The new standard would allow multi-family residential within j any part of the Mixed Use Employment zoning area. q i a , j - 2 t mod 1 I i Volume 11. Urbanization II - 74 11.4.2 IN THE- HIGHWAY AT ARRR/' XIMATE1 V 74TH AV All IC AAI(1 TV Cs 1A/E ~ ` (ATARPROXIMATELY 69TH AT 9ARTMOUTH BE GGAISTRUGTEID, BE j 4 GUARANTEED WITHIN GNS YEAR FGR- 60GAI= IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AFTER THE REMONSTRANG ~v tv ~~r ! 13 ROVIEW PER199- WAVE EXPIRED. i a. 1=16 SOUTH QFl44Ml2TGN!;TRr=r=T AND HAVE RGAIDAGGESS BUILT , b, i INTERSTATE C EREEIA/AV ARID QV BEING LESS THAN 1900'FROM T49 i P,AMPR op uI6HV11~4Y-217-t~f? INT€RSTJIT€5 FRE€V1dAa'j HAMPTON STREET RV AN AGGESS RGAID BUILT TO , GQMPREHENSIVE PLAN ROAD ST.ANDARDS. i Staff Comment: This can be deleted as an update of the Comprehensive Plan. This referred to a requirement that Dartmouth be completed prior to any further commercial development. This the time that this was written, Dartmouth has f been completed. q{P pOC _ w . i a I 1 n Proposed Amendment to Chapter 8. Transportation Add a new Policy: 8.1.8 THE CITY SHALL ADOPT THE FOLLOWING TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE PLANNED LAND USES IN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE: a. Highway 99W should be widened to 6 lanes throughout the study area (tool box). This improvement should be constructed in the short term. In the event that widening Highway 99 to six lanes is prohibitive due to physical constraints, the Dartmouth extension f could potentially provide needed northeast-to-southwest travel demand. 'i b. 72nd Avenue should be widened to four lanes with left turn lanes at major intersections and the Hunziker/Hampton overcrossing should be constructed. These two improvements will provide additional roadway capacity for circulation within the Triangle and for access to and from the triangle via 72nd Avenue. Construction of the - Hunziker/Hampton overcrossing would have the additional advantages of eliminating geometric deficiencies at the Highway 217172nd Avenue interchange; thereby providing further additional capacity at this interchange. For the buildout scenario (2015), these improvements will provide adequate capacity in the vicinity of the Highway 217/72nd Avenue interchange. j C. The Hampton/Hunziker connection is only justified based on its operational relief to the 72nd interchange. Further study should be conducted to examine alternative measures to relieve this situation in a more cost effective way. Further study may indicate that extending Hampton further southwesterly (to connect with Hall Boulevard in the vicinity of McDonald Street) may better accommodate projected travel demand. Short of constructing this structure, a direct ramp instead of a loop ramp from southbound 72nd Avenue to northbound Highway 217 would provide additional capacity in the vicinity of the Highway 217172nd Avenue interchange. d. Access from Dartmouth to northbound Highway 217 eheuld-be from the is critical to Tigard Triangle traffic circulation, therefore, it should be studied as part of the Highway 217 corridor analysis to be performed by ODOT and Metro. Under existing conditions, there is I SECTION VI: OTHER COMMENTS All CIT's were offered the opportunity to provide comments on the proposal. At the East CIT meeting of September 11th, the consensus of the fourteen members present was to express concerns about pedestrian and bikeway improvements in the Triangle and to request that wherever possible, improvements for pedestrians and bikes should be planned for and built. SECTION VII: STAFF COMMENTS In conclusion, after years of considering various options for the Triangle, the City is proposing a plan that complies with Metro's concept for the area, allows options for the residents of the Triangle, and provides for a workable transportation system to allow future development Staff recommends the following action by City Council: 1. The Comprehensive Plan be amended to allow provision of a new Mixed Use Employment district and updated to delete language within the Plan regarding the Triangle that is no longer applicable as proposed in Attachment A. 2. The Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan be updated to include new recommendations for the Tigard Triangle as shown in Attachment C. i 3. The Development Code be amended to include a new Mixed Use Employment zone as proposed in Attachment B. ATTACHMENTS: ATTACHMENT A: Proposed amended Comprehensive Plan Language ATTACHMENT B: Draft Chapter 18 MIXED USE EMPLOYMENT ZONE ATTACHMENT C: Proposed Amendments and Refinements to Transportation Plan Element ATTACHMENT D: Map showing Existing Zoning Classifications ATTACHMENT E: Map showing Proposed Zoning Classifications ATTACHMENT F: Transportation Analysis ATTACHMENT G Additional information submitted for Planning Commission review ATTACHMENT H Letter dated November 18, 1996 from METRO F F' • significant roadway congestion near the Highway 99W/Highway 217 interchange. Construction of the Dartmouth Extension and access to northbound Highway 217 would mitigate congestion at this interchange because motorists in this area of the Tigard Triangle would have the option to access northbound Highway 217 from Dartmouth or Highway 99W. e. Analysis indicates that there is a long term (20-30 years) need for Dartmouth Road to continue over Highway 217 and potentially south to Hall Boulevard as well as for extending the collector- distributor roads from the Highway 217172nd Avenue interchange through the Highway 217/Highway 99W interchange. The Highway 217 corridor analysis to be performed by Metro and ODOT should 1 consider the advantages and disadvantages of these improvements. j The Dartmouth extension to Hall Boulevard should be constructed i only if further system improvements to Hall Boulevard are made concurrently. If additional capacity is not added to Hall Boulevard south of where the Dartmouth extension would be connected, the effectiveness of this connection would be diminished. Alternatively, another roadway could be constructed that provides a connection from the Dartmouth extension to Hall Boulevard in the vicinity of McDonald Street. - f. Adopt the functional classification plan for streets internal to the Tigard Triangle as shown on Figure 1. The following policies apply to local streets within the Tigard Triangle: 1. Local street spacing shall be a maximum of 660 i feet. j 2. Access way spacing shall be a maximum of 330 feet. 3. Spacing of signalized intersections on Major Arterials shall be a minimum of 600 feet. 4. Existing rights of way will, to the greatest extent possible, be utilized for a local street system. Right of way vacations will considered only when all other policies in this subsection are met. g. The transportation projects described in this section should be added to the City of Tigard's Transportation System Plan. The City, ODOT and Metro should work to include these improvements in ; regional and state implementation programs. U I I i I I Staff Comment: These changes to the Comprehensive Plan will implement the transportation revisions recommended in the attached staff report. I I r S. I { 1 I I 1 DRAFT Chapter 18.- MUE: MIXED USE EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT. 18. - 010 Purpose. I8._ 020 Procedures and Approval Process. 18._ 030 Permitted and Restricted Uses ( 18. 040 Conditional Uses (See Chapter 18.130). 1 18.- 050 Dimensional Requirements. 1 18. - 060 Additional Requirements. 18.- 070 Design Standards. j f i I. 18.- 010 Purpose. . A. The purpose of the MUE zoning district is: 4. 1. To create a mixed use employment district that is complementary to the rest of the community and the region; 2. To provide opportunities for employment and for new business and professional services in close proximity to retail centers and major transportation facilities; 3. To provide for major retail goods and services accessible to the general public, and minor retail goods and services accessible to the public which works and lives within the MUE district; 4. To provide for ` groups and businesses in centers; r 5. To provide for residential uses which are compatible with and supportive of retail and employment uses. i I B. Guiding principles for the Tigard Triangle: 1. To support the Tigard Triangle's position as a regienally significant location for a _ variety of commercial, office, business park and research uses; 2. To capitalize on and improve the Tigard Triangle's accessibility from Pacific Highway, Highway 217 and I-5 by creating a mixed use employment district which serves the entire regiea community: i 3. To recognize that accessibility is the key to a successful mixed use employment area, and that the automobile will accommodate the vase majority of trips to the Triangle; 1 1 4. To support transit and other modes in order to maximize their potential, 5. To create a complementary land use pattern that allows for a number of trip purposes to be satisfied during a single visit to the Tigard Triangle, and distributes those trips over a broad period of the day; 6. To add roadways and utilities to existing infrastructure to accommodate future growth; . To include a safe, secure and convenient pedestrian and bikeway system within the i Tigard Triangle that links internal uses, and connects to the city-wide system; , 8. To integrate within new development the significant natural features found within the { r: I Triangle; 9. To use streetscape as a key element to create a high quality image for the Triangle and to establish people-friendly spaces; 10. To assure that transitions from existing low density residential uses to mixed use employment uses occur in ways that respect the livability of the residential areas; 11. To allow for the opportunity for residential uses within compatible employment areas. 18._ 020 Procedures and Approval Process. A. A permitted use, Section 18._.030, is a use which is allowed outright, but is subject to all applicable provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a permitted use outright, it may be held to be similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43, Unlisted Use. B. A restricted use, Section 18._.030, is a use which is allowed outright, but is subject to t specific restrictions and all applicable provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a restricted use outright, it may be held to be similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43, i . Unlisted Use. C. A conditional use, Section 18.64.040, is a use the approval of which is discretionary with the Hearings Officer. The approval process and criteria for approval are set forth in Chapter 18.130, Conditional Use. If a use is not listed as a conditional use, it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Chapter 18.43, Unlisted Use. 18._ 030 Permitted and Restricted Uses 2 V 1 1 J WO, - III I A. Permitted and Restricted Uses in the MUE district are as follows: (P-permitted; R-permitted with restrictions) Use Categories Commercial Use Types Amusement enterprises including cinemas P Animal sales and services R(1) t' I Automotive and equipment R(1). Building maintenance services P<,, Business equipment sales and services :~R(1) r.`. Building support services s r I Communication services P I I Convenience sales and personal services { Children's day care t P, 44. 1 Eating and drinking establishments Financial, insurance and real estate services Food and beverage retail sales Funeral and internment services j$ 5 P~23'r;: General retail sales t - Medical and dental services c7rP Participation sports and recreation P Personal services, general P ' Professional and administrative services P r Consumer repair services P Religious assembly P Research services P Transient lodging P 3 i _ % '7 g Use Categories . _ ' civic use Types Public agency administrative services P Cultural exhibits'and library services P Public. support facilities P. Lodges, frat`einal:and civic assembly . p r, Yackin$faciL6esk1~~r p ad : c~ I PF. COSIDIJeiVleC4t. \ 1 T4 a5 W :t P I - --tT-tea--.x-•-,`.~.+iu,~-. - - -PIIbIiCtySCICCSS,°..r •-r~ jY' - ....-P~x:' z~ Residential Use Types ^Sing"lo-laintltT'aftacbgd,,:,. .c n~„ r:P 'xi +v...na~t:liot~ ~•aa;i s ~-sx ~:c y a n r.rsr.:": lvt"ulhpicfaaulymid~nbal~_,=,`""~ y ~ cseP i Stn glcfamilf.rreeiidential R(2)' amtly dayrxga i~ 44 +tti~ i ~P L Industrial Use Types ~Ivtahiifsctiiring of finished products-: R3)r: Tackagriigandprocesiing R(3 Iiiglitr r<° R(3 Wholesale; storage grid distnbution R(4) I B. Use restrictions referenced in the table above are as follows: I j . 1. Retail and sales uses larger than 60,000 square feet of gross leasable area per building or business shall be prohibited east 72 -,ANeaue within the Tigard Triangle except for those ar~as_zoned C-G at the time this Chapter it adopt. 2. Pre-existing housing units permitted. 4 5 F71 l ( 3. All activities associated with this use, except employee and customer parking, shall be } contained within building(s). 4. Permitted as an accessory to a permitted use as long as this use is contained within the same building as the permitted use, and does not exceed the floor area of the permitted use. 18._ 040 Conditional Uses (See Chapter 18.130). A. Conditional uses in the MUE district are as follows: 1. Community recreation including structures; 2. Religious assembly; n 3. Schools and related facilities; I 4. Hospitals; 5. Parking facilities; 6. Utilities; and ! f , 7. Construction Contractor's Professional Offices. j 18._ 050 Dimensional Requirements. A. Dimensional requirements for all commercial is types. civic use types industrial ice Ines and mixed use developments including th -s . use type shall be the same as the district. j B, Dimensional requirements for residential is types shall be the same as the R-25 district 18._ 060 Additional Requirements. A. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for all commercial and industrial use types shall not exceed 0.40. Residential use types. including transient housing shall net be subject tothis requiremeIlt, B. On lots greater than three acres. general retail sales uses are limited to 30.000 square feet of gross leasabh: area plus one additional square foot of gros leasable area of general retail sales use for each additional four square feet of non-general retail sales use. 5 t<_. 1 1 18._ 070 Design Standards. I i ~e j, I C ~~E 6 r! ir-- I, a7 ~ J < t i C r f ~ ~ 1 or ~ ; t ~ t i art ~A < r~ ~r d• n A A I* i. rr O sA Aa rly~urs e~j1O. ~ ♦a~ h f ♦ Y A t 1` A A T( A [ A~ . . p S 0 J Draft 2 ~ 'COCi.ti l~t~Gr J/A Ll✓y /~/IIIKVM Gy0 FEE` ` ~ , A.-Ir 5 WAY r/.(/Yp MA.,MUM jjo fC.~r A «f of L IA-, oM O. Ar.V OUTI. - 72 _0 . MIN7HUH :+ao FC LT POR SIpAAU 2C0 i /r rER9A..-c rrolJ S. s Tigard Triangle Street Plan -sir-Zr~ City ofTigsrd root- i u... z ~:..i.. u1.~ i i i ~ Th e Ti and Trian le g g . City of Tigard, Washington County G\F\G~ i QP ~ ~a w. pox r~+ aa~r G O f c n .+pv a ~ N SP r a s3,r~. - L.. ~ _ e c ~ ° W E ~ .Jf ~i~ i O i O y) N ~ G~ r~Oq f0' - ~ . :::..,E i, ~ 1 t . ,~;i.l p.S:4:Si:•" r:.aww.n;<•;' ..::::::::::•:.•r> <ni:y°3:a:5i:' ~ ~ ~ a:.y:~ i t J] ~•e'ri' o~ i 1 _ - N}-!I V .I . _ . ~1 "",I c~~ ~i' ,-a. ~,i :r .'~F< .N ~ !!1. ' j ~l c: C ` ~ s ~ .E1.M R~T c I {I;. . F~ •jZ wr ' ,t,.: ~ H rA ~ ~ n . s cr a T , ~i ~ t, i s B N &T d~ r~ ~ , s ~ ~ ~ ~ a st J~~4~~i ~ ¢ ~i . ~g ~ ~I P ~~3'. i I-~I-+ f{{f C,~cl 1 - C~ '~i - . ~ Existing Zoning Classifications ,I ' R-25. ~ -Q--Residential (1,480 sq ft) . ~ R -3.5 _ _ ~ _ _ Residential (90,000 sq ft) ~ _ ' ~ C-P . -~w ~ ~ ~ :Professional Comrrieroral . ~ - ' C-G _ ~ : General Commeroial -s ~ . , _'soaaoes. 0 , :500.. ~ 1000 Feet . -=PUpiaaunAUecWoW~pmnGourdy.. _ - ~ :.r = c- ==~CITYOFYIOARD- ~o-o.scaYarroua _ . ~ 12/17/96 - - _ ' ,.r „ _ - - Agenda # 6 ~ - - - - - , , _w _ I i~ . 4~' - i i TIGARD TRIANGLE - PROPOSED ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS A P, \ \ q • ~ , , ~ A\ ~ \A ~ v~ . ~1 3 y = r ~ ~ ~ \ \ ~ ~ ~ \ \ \ < ATLANTA :lip = , o =jj it \ ~ \ \ 3 ~t L~ ~ ELMH T otDO - ~ ^ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ sr, mil ' ~ \ \ ~ ~ 4 ' GONZA ST ti-\~~ \ \ ti~ \ , ~ MIXED USE EMPLOYMENT '9\ m ~ ~ ~ ~ +t TOH ~ \ ~ ~ ~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL ~ \ ~ v } -~li ~ ~~~s ~ ,III ~ \ ~ i~~ ~ \ ~i j~ ~ ~ r, ~ W E ~ ~ / i~ s ~ ~ _ • ~ - ~ ® 0 500 1000 1500 Feet ctnra~ 12117196 - .Agenda#6 _ - 2of2 _ /~n~IM~I E I li - I' a sob, ~i ♦ S ~ 'r .r JYSY C• ! r + ~F silt • ~ oe „ k NOU-01-1996 09:53RM FROM SPENCER & KUPPER TO 6847297 P.06 PM Pia!` L I N K-- YlG ty0. (vs zoos g ash . . • 96 i y .C3 i i - i j tv, j i f ~-r~ r , _ - y r" o~ . ~ moo, c,~ • ~ ~ ~ " a ~ t ~ ~ ~ _ \ ~G i1 rO1G /dry / ~ b ♦ ~tS' / . . ~ car ~ ~ a 7. r J'' , n~ L b 6 + f m°~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ tD ~sb o i ~~~~P ✓ ~C= ~ ~ . -__._Y _ _ - 1 1 NOV-01-1996 09:54RM FROM SPENCER & KUPPER TO 6847297 P.08 Fr- - FI r4 r WA-fz- F{-od fz.- K/G e4. r bo s ?.4 «s' DC~TM aJTt+ pY~eG2v~5t►~G - ~ N ~ r r - .26 Q m M ~ .b 1119 i F o 'per i i d 1. X7 I { ~ i wcnn r G A DEFINITIONS The following definitions shall be added those found in Section 18.26 (Definitions). A. "Floor Area Ratio (FAR)" - the amount of gross floor area in relation to the amount of site area. expressed in square feet. Required maximum FAR shall be calculated on a gross acre basis. Required minimum FAR shall be calculated on a net acre basis. Unbuildable wetlands, and other protected or regulated natural drainage areas, or other natural resource areas, or buildable lands devoted to public or private streets or street right-of-way shall be excluded from the minimum FAR calculations. II _ B. "Mixed or Multiple Use Development" - a building or groups of buildings under one ownership designed to encourage a diversity of compatible land uses, which may include a mixture of residential, office, retail, recreational, light industrial, and other miscellaneous uses. i " i 1, 1 • ~ i 1 F ~yy 1. -I { November 15, 1996 j F Additional Discussion for the Tigard Triangle Staff Report Maximum Buildout of Existing Zoning without density constraints t Table 2 shows a comparison of buildout of the Tigard Triangle under existing plan and zoning code regulations compared to buildout utilizing the proposed Employment Mixed Use designation. i Table 2: Tigard Triangle Development Comparison Existing Zoning and Employment Mixed Use Buildout Estimate f F Residential DU Retail SF Office Sl Service SF Business SF Other Uses i SF MF 1996 135 77 318700 577493 158400 14 Bowling Lanes Development 117 Hotel Rooms 11 Then. Screens EMU Buildout 0 302 937350 1202433 592000 140600 300 Hotel Rooms Development (Plus 1996 Uses) Existing Zoning 202 77 1014200 1272993 584200 150 Hotel Rooms Plus ses 19'16 U (Unconstrained) ( ) Existing Zoning 202 77 908390 983393 448550 150 Hotel Rooms (Constrained) (Plus 1996 Uses) t The existing zoning (constrained) and the EMU development scenarios assume the same development density for commercial, office and service commercial development, approximating typical suburban development density achieved today. Large scale retail is assumed to develop at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.25, and office, service commercial and small scale retail at an FAR of 0.35. Estimated levels of retail development within the Tigard Triangle are about the same for both development scenarios. Office, service commercial and business park development for the EMU scenario will result in a higher amount of development at buildout than for existing zoning. This is primarily due to assumed redevelopment of existing single family areas now zoned R-3.5 E to mixed uses for the EMU scenario. I The existing zoning (unconstrained) scenario represents a maximum buildout scenario for existing I zoning within the Tigard Triangle. This scenario assumes that vacant land would develop at an FAR of 0.60. Development at this FAR is now found along Kruse Way, and represents the maximum FAR possible utilizing surface parking. The unconstrained existing zoning scenario results in more retail and office development than the EMU scenario, and the same level of commercial service development. The EMU buildout scenario and unconstrained existing zoning scenario would result in about the same overall levels of development within the Tigard Triangle. ? Attachment A contains detailed estimates of development by subdistricts for 1996, Existing i Zoning (Constrained and Unconstrained) and Employment Mixed Use Zoning. 6 1 4 k i E r I L~ ~ I I rM j ' TIGARD TRIANGLE Employment Mixed Use Development Scenario Buildout Estimate I ra0ic Proposed Residential DU Retail SP Office SF Service Businc5; Other Uses Zone' Designation SF S3 SF MI' I 1 MUE 122400 1000 0 2 MUE 29000 0 21400 1413owling lanes 3 MUE 32200 2400 64700 4 MUE 15700 0 0 117 Hotel Rooms 5 MUL 50000 87000 0 6 MUG 75 28650 165700 66000 7 MUE 158500 0 0 11 Theater Screens 8 WE 500000 0 200000 9 MUE 150 0 260835 51000 114800 150 Hotel Rooms 10 MUE 2 0 42400 70100 16800 5700 SF Church I1 MUG 75 900 107480 9000 9000 12 WE 0 124000 36600 1501lotel Rooms 13 MUE 0 246618 36600 14 MUE 0 165000 36600 Total 302 937350 1202433 592000 140600 Assumes average FAR of 0.35. i y l See Figure attached. Note TAZ 8 and 15 shown on figure summarized by TAZ 8 in table. i 4. N I TIGARD TRIANGLE Development Scenario Constrained Buildout Estimate for Existing Zoning Traffic Zoning Residential DU Retail SF Office SP Service Business Other Uses Z.rnte Designation SF SF SF MP I C-G 0 122400 1000 0 ` f' 2 C-G 1 29000 0 21400 14 Bowling Lanes ' 3 C-G 3 32200 2400 64700 4 C-G 12 15700 0 0 117 Hotel Rooms f 5 C-11 0 14000 129000 14000 4.6ae. Vacant I 6 CG,C1',R3.5 71 69340 26000 0 4.45 ac. Vac.CG 7 C-G 1 158500 0 0 11 Theater Screens 8/15 C-G, R-3.5 44 400000' 0 100000 9 CG,CP,R3.5 50 75 48800 161835 51000 16 ac. Vac. 10 C-11 9 2 8400 42300 78500 2.75 ac. Vac. I I C-G, C-11 9 10050 85240 9150 3 ac. Vac. 12 C-P 0 0 124000 36600 1501lotel Rooms 6.c. Vile. 13 C-P 3 0 246618 36600 6 ac. Vac 14 C-P 0 0 165000 36600 6 ac. Vac Total 202 77 908390 983393 448550 C-G Assume new development is 100% retail. C-P Assume new development is 60% office, 20% retail, 20% service. R-3.5 Assume infill to increase housing units by 50%. Assumes vacant land developed to FAR 0.35. 'Permitted by City approval. IF ;Y t ] f i TIGARD TRIANGLE sow) Development Scenario 9 Unconstrained Buildout Estimate for Existing Zoning t j '{'rallic toning Residential DU Retail SP Office SF Service Business Otlur Uses Zone Designation MP SF SP P SI' I C-G 0 122400 1000 0 2 C-G 1 29000 0 21400 14 I3ovvling lanes 3 C-G 3 32200 2400 64700 t 4 C-G 12 15700 0 0 l 17 I{otel R(X)ms 5 C-P 0 2,1000 159100 24000 4.6 ac. Vacant 6 CG,CP,R3.5 71 117800 26000 0 4.45 ac. Vac.CG 7 C-G 1 158500 0 0 11 'Hreatcr Scrams 8/15 C-G, R-3.5 44 400000' 0 100000 ' 9 CG,CPA3.5 50 75 83600 266475 85800 16 ac. Vac. 10 C-P 9 2 14400 60300 84500 2.75 ac. Vac. I I C-G, C-P 9 16600 104800 15700 3 ac. Vac. 12 C-1, 0 0 163100 62700 150 Hotel Rooms 6 ac. Vac. - / 13 C-P 3 0 285718 62700 6 ac. Vac 14 C-1, 0 0 204100 62700 6 ac. Vac Total 202 77 1014200 1272993 584200 C-G Assume new development is 100% retail. f C-P Assume new development is 60% office, 20% retail, 20% service. R-3.5 Assume infill to increase housing units by 50%. Assumes all vacant land developed to FAR 0.60. This FAR is now found along Kruse Way, and is the maximum FAR possible without structured parking. s I - 'Permitted by City approval. t. L~ IIL II\UVI\uWill IIPIIY JVJ IJI 1711 IYUV 1V 17V LI 1J IVUVVI rVL . u. .o.r.rnsr au.o nrrl.u. ( •oxr. n. o, o.roo. .rr,r rr.. - rr~ Ya, rsr Irea rnx .xr rYr rrY> M ETRO November 18, 1996 Mr. Nick Wilson, Chair \ Tigard Planning Commission 1 c/o City of Tigard 13121 S. W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 I c . I Dear Mr. Wilson and the Members of the Tigard Planning Commission: Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Text Amendment - Tigard Tdangle Thank you for including Metro in the advisory committee that drafted the City's proposed Mixed Use Employment Zone for use in the Tigard Triangle. The Tigard Triangle is located at the confluence of three regionally significant transportation corridors. During different times of the ,Jday these facilities, 1-5, Highway 217 and Highway 99, operate at level of service F. The 1-5/ Highway 217 planning process identified a series of improvements, know as the 'Tool Box,' which is designed to help facilitate the movement of traffic through the Triangle and through the interchanges along 1-5 and Highway 217. The 'Tool Box"is not included in the Regional f Transportation Plan and funding is not currently available. Implementation of these improvements € have not been prioritized regionally and we know already that there will be a lot competition for limited funds. Proposed changes in land uses that would generate even more trips than those ! under the existing comprehensive plan would exacerbate a system that is already crippled during many times of the day. Under Section 660-12-060 of the Transportation Planning Rule, an amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan which significantly affects a transportation ` n facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of the facility. i The Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives, adopted in December 1995, includes the 2040 i Growth Concept description of employment areas as mixing various types of employment and including some residential development. These areas are expected to include some limited retail commercial uses primarily to serve the needs of people working or living in the immediate employment areas, not larger market areas outside the employment area. Metro appreciates the complexity and challenges local governments face when changing comprehensive plans. Because of the magnitude of the existing retail activity, the Triangle does not fit the optimum definition of an employment area, however, there is some flexibility in how the 2040 design types are applied. With this in mind. I would not oppose the comprehensive land use change and text changes proposed for the Tigard Triangle if the following suggested changes are made: I ; i I "UV 10 )U 11 1J 14U VUI r VJ - I l t 1 S ,Mr. Nick Wilson, Chair { Tigard Planning Commission City of Tigard November 18, 1996 Page 2 • Strike references to the area as a regionally significant location; • Strike references to major retail goods; • Add a good internal circulation system for all modes as the key to a successful mixed use employment area; • Under permitted uses: amusement enterprises including cinemas should be a R(1) use not a P use; and participation sports and recreation should be an R(1J use not a Puse; i • For consistency with the text, parking facilities should be listed as a conditional use; • Adopt the 'Tool Bcx'strategies identified through the 1-51217 planning process; • Strike reference to retail under characteristics in text amendment, Volume 11, Implementation Strategies 11-7: • Strike reference to a direct ramp to Highway 217 in proposed amendment to Chapter 8, Transportation, Part C; and Develop and codify design guidelines requiring developers to design and build projects which maximize pedestrian, bicycle and transit use in the Triangle. Another important issue is that the land uses under the proposed plan amendment do not generate trips greater than those generated by the land uses under the acknowledge comprehensive plan. Your staff is proposing language to limit the amount of retail in the new zone through FAR, ratio of retail to commercial and a ban on buildings greater than 60,000 ef. Together these sections, Additional Requirements and Use Restrictions, with the exception of the new language under point A of Additional Requirements, help to address our concerns. Section 6.1, under Use Restrictions as proposed by City staff on the November 18: Retail and sales uses larger than 60,000 square feet of gross leaseable area per building or business shall be prohibited within the Tigard Triangle except for those areas zoned C-G at the time this Chapter is adopted. Under the Metro Council Functional Plan, Tigard's C-G zone in the employment area is grandfathered and need not comply with restrictions on the size of retail development. 1 Under Additional Requirements: A) For the Tigard Triangle, the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for all commercial and industrial use types shall not exceed 0.40. Residential use types, including transient housing shall not be subject to this requirement, B) For the Tigard Triangle, on lots greater than three acres, general retail sales uses are limited to 30,000 square feet of gross leasable area. plus one additional square foot of gross leasable area of general retail sales use for each additional four square feet of non-general retail sales use except for those areas zoned C-G at the time this section is adopted. However, under point A of Additional Requirements, there is new language which exempts transient housing from the maximum FAR. This does not meet the intent of the hierarchy i of centers, with the highest densities located at•the Regional Center and the lowest densities in the Employment Area. It is unclear what the intent is in adding this language. j S. r s:-':.::..•'1i.rr r... -._.Jn.. u.'r :r"Y~'n. °:.'"1'ii i ii _r~u"V iV. "I i' 1~ 14U VVI "r':.U`L Mr. Nick Wilson, Chair Tigard Planning Commission City of Tigard November 18, 1996 Page 3 hope that the city will continue its working relationship with its regional partners, Metro and ODOT on projects of regional significance such as the 217 Corridor analysis and a Regional Center Plan for Washington Square. S' cerely. ~ III d~~~Y6~'V~ - ~ Mike Burton Executive Officer 5031797.1502 MB/MWhrb 1:1GMV~TIGAR03.000 4 cc: Mayor Jim Nicoll Metro Council i I I _ • I~ S Uregon 18 November, 1996 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Nadine Smith Region I City of Tigard, Planning Department 31325 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, Oregon 97223 PILE CODE: Subject: Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone j Change, and Zone Ordinance Amendment for the Tigard Triangle j The primary concern of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) in the Tigard Triangle area is the function of the freeway system, 1-5 and Highway 217; and secondarily the rest of the regional system which includes Highway 99W. The Metro 2040 Growth Concept identifies the development of the Central City, Regional Centers, Industrial areas, and intermodal facilities as the highest priority for i providing access to the regional system. ODOT, after reviewing the proposal and having discussed its implications with officials representing the City of Tigard, will not object to the proposed land use action provided the following measures are included in the decision. These measures are intended to help alleviate any negative consequences the proposed changes might have on the i~ surrounding State facilities. These measures include: • Identify the Tigard Triangle as an area of local activity, not as an area of regional activity. The highest priorities for major investments in transportation infrastructure will support Metro 2040 Regional Centers in the corridor. Metro 2040 does not identify the Triangle as a Regional Center. • Identify the Tigard Triangle as an employment center, as opposed to a retail center. Because major transportation infrastructure investments that increase access to the Triangle will not have a high priority, high traffic generators are to be discouraged. • Adopt the "Tool Box" strategies identified through the 1-5/217 planning process. The "Tool Box" strategies were designed to help facilitate the movement of traffic 9 through the Triangle and through the interchanges along 1-5 and Highway 217 It is important to note that although the "Tool Box has been adopted by the OTC, funding Se° j is not available and implementation of the strategies is not a high regional prio Nw Flanders Portland, OR 972094037 (9113) 731-8200 r„rn a"IS iin uu FAX (503) 731-8259 1 i. i n Delete reference to the need for increased access to Highway 217 from the Triangle, other than the "Tool Box". Highway 217 is identified in the Metro 2040 Plan and in ODOT's Highway Plan as a through route. The purpose of a through route is to facilitate movement between Regional Centers and to facilitate the movement of through traffic. Increasing access to such a facility does not support its identified function. While ODOT prefers the original text in this bullet, we are willing to accept the comprimise put forth by Mr. Martin as long as the policy identifies that the access I from Dartmouth is critical to the property owners in the Triangle and not to ODOT. With this in mind, the policy should read: Access from Dartmouth to northbound " + Highway 217 is critical to the property owners in the Triangle and should be j studied as part of the Highway 217 corridor analysis to be performed by ODOT and i Metro." • Adopt land-use "caps" that will reduce traffic generation to a level that does not exceed the traffic generation level of the current zoning in the Triangle. • Develop and adopt design guidelines that will require developers to design and build projects to maximize bicycle, pedestrian and transit use in the Triangle. Design guidelines will help foster alternative methods to move people and goods within the Triangle. ODOT looks forward to a continued working relationship with Tigard to resolve transportation issues with Highway 99W and the Washington Square Regional Center. 4 _ /17 (7,o i Leo Huff, Planning Unit anager f • cc: Bruce Warner, ODOT Michael Ray, ODOT Fred Eberle, ODOT Mary Weber, Metro Dan Seeman, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. John Spencer, Spencer Kupper i c:\corr1dor\99VV\rspnse2t.grd E- r; z h 1 ~TTPtt-t MST ~I Di~~On n December 2, 1996 1 DEPARTMENT OF LAND Nadine Smith CONSERVATION Senior Planner AND Tigard Community Development Department DEVELOPMENT 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Nadine: y j The department has reviewed Tigard's proposed plan text, plan map, and land use regulation changes for the area known as the Tigard Triangle. The proposal changes current residential and commercial designations to a new mixed use employment district, and suggests road improvements to help ease congestion. Y We oppose the amendments in their present form. The proposal violates I Statewide Planning Goals 12 and 2, and fails to adequately address the J E relationship between transportation planning and land use planning. Our comments begin with the observation that development in the Triangle is outrunning the ability of public service providers to keep pace. This growth is not an anomaly; development is occurring precisely as allowed by the acknowledged { comprehensive plan and land use regulations. We assert more of the same is an imperfect response to the problem. The city's findings recognize that desired road improvements still will not handle demand created by existing and future lard uses in the Triangle. Therefore, because the land use pattern contemplated by the proposal has the same ' overwhelming effect on road capacity as the status quo, the amendment does I significantly affect the transportation system. The city must address the requirements of Goal 12 and the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). Transportation Planning 1,,M X KiuhM,•, ..-,Lk , Goal 12 and the TPR direct reduced reliance on any one mode of - transportation. Because this proposal features building more capacity 1175 Court Street NE Sale) m, OR 97310-0590373-0050 FAX (503) 362-6705 { 1 Nadine Smith -2- December 2, 1996 i to accommodate yet more automobiles, it falls short of the Goal. Furthermore, to the extent that the city adopts the "toolbox" and directs other entities to add the s contents of the box to their plans, the action violates Goal 2's requirement that plans serve as the basis for specific implementation measures, that the i implementation measures are adequate, and the measures are coordinated with plans of affected governmental units. Comments from Metro and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) say the "toolbox" is not in the regional transportation plan, the projects in the box are not a regional priority, and that money does not exist for their construction. Given 1 these constraints, we assert the "toolbox" is not a specific, adequate f h implementation measure satisfactorily coordinated with other regional entities. More to the point, the plan's strategy of encouraging Metro and ODOT to include t the projects in the regional and state implementation programs provides no i ultimate policy choice--a violation of Goal 2. The TPR says local governments can assure land uses are consistent with transportation facilities by amending plans to assure adequate facilities (see OAR 660-12-060(1)(b)). Adopting the "toolbox" may provide some additional F a r,<~ capacity to support planned land uses. However, adopting the "toolbox" now results in a local plan uncoordinated with regional and statewide transportation s plans that do not include these projects. This violates Goals 12 and 2. Land Use Planning Another way the city can assure land uses are consistent with transportation k facilities is to address demand through land use planning. The city can limit land uses to be consistent with the planned function of transportation facilities (see OAR 660-12-060(1)(a)). It also can change land use designations, densities, and design standards to reduce demand for automobile travel (see OAR 660-12- E 060(1)(c)). We believe the current proposal should do much more to address the } land use and demand management alternatives. Here are comments about the proposed land use regulations. ! i ❑ The mixed use employment (MUE) zoning district needs focus. Taken together, its sixteen purpose and guiding principle statements create s expectations the regulations can't meet. For example, automobiles are said to accommodate the vast majority of trips, but the Triangle also will include a i I ! Nadine Smith -3- December 2, 1996 I safe, secure and convenient pedestrian system with "people-friendly spaces." Under the best circumstances, this is a delicate balance. Here, without good design standards, achieving the purposes seems nearly unattainable. We realize Tigard is carrying out Metro's growth concept for an employment area, and their definition of an employment area lacks a strong residential component. However, since reducing transportation demand in part means getting more people closer to jobs, we believe more housing in the Triangle is a good thing. A minimum requirement for housing in the mixed use district is a good place to start. f q The MUE district "provides" for residential uses. It does not require the residential uses, nor does it require enough residential uses. Table 2 of the proposal shows a potential of 302 residential units under MUE zoning. Buildout also results in over 2.8 million square feet of commercial floor area. Assuming each 200 square feet of commercial floor area translates to one job, MUE buildout promises 14,000 jobs. The resulting housing-jobs ratio for the i ! Triangle area is an abysmal 1:46. A minimum requirement for housing can - help reduce this discrepancy between housing and jobs. j i a The proposed floor area ratio (FAR) cap of 0.40 doesn't match growth } ' assumptions, and works against encouraging compact, pedestrian or transit- f friendly development. If building in the Triangle takes on typical suburban f density (FAR no more than 0.35), a FAR cap of 0.40 only perpetuates a land use pattern dependent on automobiles. Plenty of evidence shows the typical low-density suburban commercial development is neither pedestrian nor transit-friendly. To support transit and other modes, the city must encourage more compact development. Raise or don't restrict the floor area ratio, lower onsite parking requirements, encourage mixed uses of individual sites, offer density bonuses to encourage compact j building forms. ! 1 i f ❑ As noted above, this proposal needs good design standards. This omission severely hurts attempts to make the Triangle a place people want to be rather than just a place to drive through. OAR 660-12-045(4)(a)-(e) and -045(5)(d) require local governments to adopt land use regulations allowing and supporting pedestrian and transit-friendly development. I L ~j 7 ~ - fb Nadine Smith -4- December 2, 1996 a 3 1 Many sources can help with design issues. Tri-Met has an excellent handbook "Planning and Designing for Transit." Also, several years ago, the department funded a detail planning study of the Triangle. The resulting report contained design guidelines and standards. The city should reexamine that report. Finally, our Quick Response program has resources to help the city craft appropriate design standards. In summary, the department objects to the current proposal rezoning the Tigard Triangle and adopting new transportation policies. We are concerned that this action does little to improve major transportation deficiencies. e. Adding some capacity may be part of a solution. However, the city's adoption of j the "toolbox" without the same projects being in regional and statewide I transportation plans violates Goal 2 and Goal 12. A commitment to fund and 1 build the projects must be coordinated among all interests. " We believe a land use alternative exists. The city's proposed MUE district doesn't 1 do enough to effect land use changes that reduce demand for transportation t i facilities. Adding residential uses can reduce automobile trips into and within the area; reconfiguring commercial development can support increased transit use. 1 The department can help improve proposed land use regulations to foster pedestrian and transit-friendly development. Please include this letter in the record of the City Council's hearing on this matter. i The department is ready to help the city address transportation and land use planning issues in the Triangle. Please call on me. j i Sincerely, Steve Oulman, AICP Community Assistance & Review Division i t c: Mary Weber, Metro C Leo Huff, ODOT Region John Spencer, Spencer & Kupper DLCD (1S, EJ, pa file 009-96) r. i 1 i MILLER, NASH, WIENER, RECD NOV 1$ 1996 HAGER & CARLSEN LLP ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 3500 U.S. BANCORP TOWER 111 S.W. FIFTH AVENUE SEATTLE OFFICE PORTLAND. OREGON 97204-3699 4400 TWO UNION SQUARE TELEPHONE (503) 224.5858 60L UNION STREET TELEX 364462 KINGMAR PiL SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101.2352 ' TELEPHONE (206) 622.8484 RECE BLY. P. C. - DIRECT-DIAL: (503) 205.2510 FACSIMILE(503) 224.0137 FACSIMILE (206)622-7465 November 18, 1996 " i Mr. Nick Wilson, President HAND-DELIVERED City of Tigard Planning Commission b 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Subject: Comprehensive Plan Amendment 96-0008, Zone ! Change 96-0008, and Zone Ordinance Amendment 96-0005 Tigard Triangle Dear Mr. Wilson: This firm represents Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J ("the District") which owns the Phil Lewis School ~J property in the Tigard Triangle. The District is very concerned about the comprehensive plan amendment, zone change, and zone 1 ordinance amendment proposed for the Tigard Triangle, which is to be heard at the Planning commission meeting this evening. i - As you know, the District is in the process of pursuing buyers and ground lessees for the Phil Lewis School property. The District has determined that this outdated school no longer serves the best interests of the citizens of the District. The school will be closed, and the underlying property will be sold and/or ground leased to raise money for the District's capital and operating needs. The proposal before the Planning Commission may have a negative impact on the value of the Phil Lewis School a property and its development potential. We understand that the task force formed to review the existing and future development in the Tigard Triangle has recommended rezoning the entire Triangle as a mixed use ! employment ("MUE") zone. We also understand that this proposal is intended to respond to Metro's 2040 growth concept plan and i the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. The District's concern is that the City of Tigard is j premature in seeking to make the proposed changes in the Triangle. It is our understanding that Metro adopted the Urban f r p: ! r. t L_ G~ MILLER, NASH, WIENER, HAGER & CARLSEN ALP Mr. Nick Wilson, President - 2 - November 18, 1996 Growth Management Functional Plan ("Metro's Functional Plan") on November 14, 1996, which will not be effective for at least 90 days. In the interim, there is a possibility that the provisions regarding employment areas will be modified, which could affect the City's proposal. I In addition, Metro's Functional Plan only requires ' local jurisdictions to bring their comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances into compliance with Metro's Functional Plan within 24 months after its effective date. The City is clearly "jumping the gun" when that is unnecessary and may be h detrimental to development in the City. It would be more prudent to wait until Metro's Functional Plan becomes final before pursuing comprehensive plan and zoning changes for the Triangle. A contrary course of conduct by the City could result in its premature actions actually coming into conflict with Metro's final plan. s Title 4 of Metro's Functional Plan deals with retail { development in employment and industrial areas. This title prohibits retail uses larger than 60,000 square feet of gross I _ leasable area per building or business in employment areas. Metro's Functional Plan adopted on November 14, 1996, however, f provides an exemption from this limitation for certain specific zones in certain jurisdictions. For the City of Tigard, the two zones that are specifically exempted from the retail size limitation are commercial general and commercial professional , zones. I~ Based on the City's proposal, it is clear that it intends to exempt the commercially zoned properties to the west of 72nd Avenue from any size restrictions for retail development. If, however, the City adopts the MUE zone for the entire z Triangle, the City will potentially lose the specified exemption in Title 4 of Metro's Functional Plan because the MUE zone is not specifically identified in Metro's Functional Plan as an exempted zone. Taking this risk is unnecessary! i Because of this risk, the City should avoid changing the zoning for the commercial areas to the west of 72nd Avenue. i Nothing in Metro's Functional Plan requires the City to rezone the entire Triangle to MUE. The City can maintain the current commercial general zoning for the property west of 72nd Avenue and adopt the MUE zone in other areas in the Triangle and still be in compliance with Metro's Functional Plan. This would ensure that the City's intended purpose of focusing large-scale retail j development to the west of 72nd Avenue is achieved without ~j risking Metro's disapproval. f l~ MILLER, NASH, WIENER, g HAGER & CARLSEN LAP 3 l 1 Mr. Nick Wilson, President - 3 - November is, 1996 i i The District is also concerned that the city is proposing to make a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change for a zone type that has yet to be finally adopted. Isn't this getting the cart before the horse? How can the City expect a landowner or developer that is evaluating development in the Triangle to determine how this zone change might affect its plans when the design standard and procedural requirements have yet to be finalized? i The first step should be to adopt the procedures and standards for the MUE zone and then pursue the comprehensive plan amendment and zone change once the affected parties can evaluate r how the new zone designation might impact development in the Triangle. Therefore, the District requests that the Planning Commission table the comprehensive plan amendment and zone change until after the zone ordinance amendment is finalized. There is no rational reason why the City should rush into these proposed changes. The City should wait for Metro's Functional Plan to become effective before evaluating and proposing sweeping changes in the Triangle. Metro's Functional Plan provides local jurisdictions with 24 months in which to i _ bring their comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances into compliance with Metro's Functional Plan. The City is under no urgency to take the action proposed for the Triangle. If the Planning Commission, however, believes it is appropriate to move forward with the MUE zone for the Triangle, it should scale back its plans and remove the commercial areas on the west side of 72nd Avenue from the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change. The specific exemptions in Title 4 of Metro's Functional Plan for property currently zoned commercial general in Tigard would ensure that all large-scale retail development in the Triangle will occur west of 72nd Avenue. We appreciate the opportunity to comment regarding the - City's proposal and would be available to discuss the District's concerns at any time. very truly )tours, I Rece Hly t ' NZ lz. IN, w rNI•~ ooo~ e. A~ ' 9:CC- ~ C r' ~ "t-' ~ tic. yr./ • ~ ,C.... /i ~✓`t`L~ . i SAL rn - 1 y iriWIF 14 TO IZ 3 S _o v ,Z 3 F 4`1 71 l~llu~l~l~l~~u~nl~l ul~llunlul~ll~~l~lul~luln~ln loll bb is /r_77Ls ~c L7C L~'~3'~ izzL6~7 A Cl i i i i 1 r-- 12 17 96 16:53 $SUJ 362 6705 DLCD SAtsi ZOO: December 17, 1996 Y"~ _!I Y1'1 7'rC 1 DEPAR!'S:EVT OF LAND Nadine Smith CONSERVATION Senior Planner AND Tigard Communit,, Development Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. DSVcLi Pv1ENT Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Nadine: The department appreciates you and other members of city staff Inking time in recent weeks to discuss proposed plan and ordinance changes for the Ti?ard'friangle. While eve have a better understanding of the proposal, we are not yet able to 1 support the changes. This letter suggests actions the city can take that would bring the proposal into compliance with the transportation planning rule (17PR). We respectfully disagree with the city's conclusion that the propc:!:al does not significantly affect a transportation facility, and that the provision:: of section 060 of the TPR do not apply. We disagree with the assumption that existing: zoning will result in buildout averaging 0.60 floor area ratio (FAR). We believe sectio : 060 applies, and that the city must show proposed allowed land uses are consistent witi the function, capacity and level of service of the xansportation system. The city can sh..i w consistency by providing additional facilities (OAR 660-12-060(1)(b)), limiting. imd uses (-060(1)(6)), or reducing demand (-060(1)(c)). In This action, the city needs to focus on land use and demand reduction measures described below. Because of unresolved issues surrounding projc:r:ts in the "toolbox," the city cannot relv on additional capacity to show compliance with tie TPR. Both the Metro council resolution and the city's findings raise doubts about whet Ler building the "toolbox" is feasible or will be adequate to support proposed land lses. For example, the Metro document says "the cost, in terms of right-of--way acquisition and loss of businesses, could make [widening Highway 99W] cost-prohibitive and politically unfeasible." The city's findings on pages 10 and 11 of the staff re.hort say demand in the 99W corridor will exceed capacity even at six lane> but the la. A. K;vl.N* "toolbox" will accommodate proposed mixed land uses at acceptZ Ule cA~u M service levels. These statements raise concerns that the "toolbox" night not be built, and even if built, would be inadequate to serve planned l:t•1d uses. I I ON The alternative, therefore, is to alter land uses or reduce demand to assure 1175 Court street NE Salem. OR 97310-0.590 (503) 373.M.50 FAX (503) 362-6705 - _l r- 17 30 16: 5.3 $503 36: 0705 DLCD SALEM ~UU3 Nadine Smiuh -2- December 17. 1996 compatibility with transportation facilities. Here are things the cdy can do to bring the proposed amendments into compliance with the TPR. Incorporate changes to the nixed use employment district sul;,;ested in the department's previous letter. O Eliminate the FAR cap of 0.40 within 1/4 mile of transit routes! • Adopt a program for transportation demand management equi,. alent to that recommended in the Metro Council resolution adopting the - oolbox." Such a program would include alternate work hours, telecommuting, ;iltemate transportation modes, and worksite amenities and incentives to encourage ui,: of travel modes other than single occupancy vehicles. 0 Adopt the set of guidelines and standards for the Triangle pre: °nted to us at our last meeting. Adoption of the standards on an interim basis provi its an opportunity to make improvements to this initial effort. Finally, OAR 660-12-055(3) calls for direct application of stand<Jds for land uses and subdivisions from OAR 660-12-045(3), (4)(a)-(f) and (5)(d) when: local govemments have not adopted the standards by November 8, 1993. In 1995, the city amended its land use regulations to incorporate most, but not all, of the required ctic.nges. Our review of the city's land use regulations shows the city has not yet adopted standards for building orientation as required by OAR 660-12-045(4)(b). It needs to do ;io as part of this action. Please include this letter in the record of the city council's hearinE on this matter. Call me at 503.378.51441 if you have questions. Sincerely, Steve Oulman, Amp Community Assistance & Review Division c: State Representative Tom Brian Mary Weber, Metro Leo Huff, ODOT Region 1 John Spencer, Spencer & Kuper DLCD (RPB, JS, EJ, pa file 009-96) u l Q J L ZLe 4 c - h~ G'-) rd 666 A c~ KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 610 S'N. ALDER. SUITE 7C0 PORTLAND. OR 37205 • (503) 226 5230 FAX (503) 273 8169 I I I MEMORANDUM I Date: July 25, 1996 Project n: 2056 To: Nadine Smith, City of Tigard From: Elizabeth Wemple, P.E. Project: Tigard Transportation Update Project k. . Subject: Review of Previous Documents This technical memorandum summarizes our review of recent transportation planning documents that were prepared specifically for the Tigard Triangle or that have conclusions or recommendations that relate to the Tigard Triangle. Generally, the documents contained information that could be divided into three categories: recent transportation conditions; existing policy framework, and generalized future transportation needs. Most documents contained information that related to more I than one category. The following lists the categories, and which documents contained information I . relating to the category: Recent Transportation Conditions • Highway 99W Transportation System and Access Management Plan, David Evans & I Associates, Inc., August, 1995; • Tigard Transportation Update Study Traffic Analysis, DKS, May 1995; I-5/Highway 217 Subarea Transportation Plan, W&H Pacific and Kittelson & Associates, • Inc., February 1995; and Tigard Triangle Area Specific Area Study, DKS, July 1993. Existing Policy Framework Regional Transportation Plan, Metro, July, 1995; and • The Oregon Highway Plan, Oregon Department of Transportation, June 1991. Generalized Future Transportation Needs • Tigard Transportation Update Study Traffic Analysis, DKS, May 1995; • I-5/Highway 217 Subarea Transportation Plan, W&H Pacific and Kittelson & Associates, Inc., February 1995; and • Tigard Triangle Area Specific Area Study. DKS, July 1993. j The followinc memorandum summarizes the findings from our review of this work. r~ FILE- NAMES H9.PROJFILE-2056,DOCS'SGRDREV WPD t. . I 4 :7 Ms. Nadine Smith Project 2056 { ✓NV 25 1996 Pa 7&. 2 •1 i i Recent Transportation Conditions The adopted road classification system in the Tigard Triangle is shown in Figure 1. As shown in this fi gure, Dartmouth and Hampton Streets are the only east/west major collectors in the Triangle. The other major collectors in the triangle are all north/south streets: 72nd Avenue, and 68th Avenue. All other roads within the triangle are local roads. The Triangle is bounded by 1-5, Highway 99W (major arterial), and Highway 217. All three of these roadways are highly traveled and provide a great deal of access benveen the Triangle area and the greater metropolitan region. Figure 1 also shows the existing and planned number of lanes on the roadways. As shown. Highway 99W throughout the Triangle is four lanes wide with a two-way left-turn lane; 72nd and 68th Avenues are two lanes wide; and Dartmouth Street is four lanes wide west of 72nd Street and two lanes wide east of 72nd Street. With one exception, under current plans and policies, all of the major collectors within the Trianflle could be widened to four lanes. Only Dartmouth Street, east of 72nd q Street, is planned to remain two lanes wide. Figure 2, shows recent average daily traffic volume counts in the Triangle area. These traffic volumes were estimated from p.m. peak hour turning movement counts performed by DKS in May 1995. As shown in this figure, the highest two way traffic volumes in the study area occurs on Highway 99W in the vicinity of the Highway 217 ramps (approximately 41,000 vehicles per day). Approximately 36,000 vehicles per day travel on Highway 99W in the vicinity of Interstate 5. Of the north/south streets in the Triangle, 72nd Avenue carries approximately 6,500 vehicles per day at the south end, and 4,400 vehicles per day at the north end. In contrast, 68th Avenue carries i J . approximately 6,300 vehicles per day at the north end of the street, and 2,100 vehicles per day at the south end of the street. Finally, between 8,000 and 9,000 vehicles per day travel on Dartmouth Street within the triangle. The DKS Tigard Triangle Update Study (Nlay 1995) also analyzed p.m. peak hour traffic operating conditions in the study area. The analysis was based on the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual Procedures for signalized intersection level of service (LOS) calculations. This procedure is based on average delay per vehicle. If motorists experience less then XX seconds of delay on average at an intersection, the intersection operates at LOS A. If the average vehicle delay is greater than 60 seconds then it is defined that the intersection operates at LOS F. The results of this analysis are summarized in Figure 3. As shown in Figure 3, all of the study intersections in the Triangle are operating at LOS D or better. At the intersections of 64th/Highway 99W and Vams Street/72nd, the intersection LOS is acceptable (LOS D); however the volume to capacity ratio exceeds 0.90. This indicates that under existing conditions, both of these intersections are operating at or near capacity conditions. Finally, David Evans and Associates (DEA), Inc prepared the Highivav 99TV Transportation System and.dccess Management Plan for Hightivay 99JV within the City of Tigard (August, 1995). The results of this analysis showed that under existing conditions, there are approximately 17 driveways per mile in the northbound direction of Highway 99W between 64th Avenue and Hall Boulevard, and approximately 26 driveways per mile southbound on Hiehw•av 99W between 64th Avenue and Hall Boulevard. This is a relatively high concentration of driveways for a 1.26 mile segment of roadway. The study concluded that access manauement techniques such as driveway consolidation. j shared access. internal circulation roadways, turn restrictions. striped medians. and/or physical barriers be implemented alone the roadway. These type of improvements would most likely occur i r P. Kitfe/sen 3 Assccrates, /ra Pert/and, OreScn 'i i - I i -mss Ms. Nadine Smith Project: 2056 1 ✓u/v 25, 1996 Page: 3 j ^ upon redevelopment of the properties abutting the roadway. The study also recommended that the three independent traffic signal systems be coordinated into one system for the entire Tigard Higway 99W corridor. i Existing Policy Framework The Interim Federal Regional Transportation Plan, July 1995 The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), developed by Metro, provides the region with a program of transportation improvements consistent with a unified policy direction for transit and multi-modal roadway investments and demand management programs. The RTP is required to develop a financial plan based on a reasonable estimate of the funding sources that will be available with in the 20 year planning horizon. The total cost to construct, operate, and maintain projects programmed into the RTP cannot exceed the estimate of available funding. The list of projects is called a financially constrained network. In the Tigard Triangle area, the following projects were k included in the July, 1995 RTP: • Hall/99W Intersection Improvements, • Highway 99W Signal Interconnect (interconnect the existing three independent systems), and • Interstate 5 Ramp Reconstruction at Highway 217. i i I The Oregon Highway Plan, June 1991 The Oregon Highway Plan contains four guiding policies relating to the maintenance and development of the State Highway System. These policies are called: Level of Importance Policy, Access Management Policy, Policy on Improving and Maintaining the Access Oregon Highway System, and Truck Load Restriction Policy. The Level of Importance Policy is used to prioritize highway improvement needs and define operational objectives. There are four levels of importance: Interstate, Statewide, Regional, and District. For each level of importance, level of service standards have been developed which define target roadway operating conditions. Highway 99W and Highway 217 through the Tigard Triangle are defined as a roadwavs of Statewide importance. As such, the target design hour operating conditions for these roadways through a 20 year horizon is Level of Service (LOS) D. Interstate 5 through the Tigard Triangle area is identified as a roadway of Interstate Importance. This i designation also has a level of service standard of LOS D though a 20 year horizon. Since the number of access points onto a roadway affects the operating condition of the roadway, the Access Management Policy provides a framework for making access decisions that will be consistent Nvith the function and operating levels of service identified in the Level of Importance Policy. To implement this policy, the State has developed Access Management categories which, . based on the level of importance of the roadway and the operating environment (urban vs. rural), defines the standards for public road, private drive and traffic signal spacing on the roadway. The existing connections, median openings and traffic signal spacings of a highway segment are not required to meet spacing standards of the assigned category at the time of assignment. Rather the assigned category provides a mechanism for improving a highway to its eventual functional purpose. In the Highway 991V Transportation Svstein and :Iccess Management Plan (August 1995) David Evans & Associates, identified that Highway 99W through the Tigard Triangle area is a Category J 3 Roadway. As such, the Access Management Policy states that the roadway should have public 1 i roads at one-half to one mile spacing: private drives spaced at 300 feet: and traffic signals spaced Kitteison 3 Associates, Inc. Port/and. Oregon . 9 Ids- Proje 2056 Ms. Nadine Smith P Jufv 25. 1996 Page. 4 7 one-half to one mile apart. j The goal of the Policy on Improving and Maintaining the Access Oregon Highway System (AOH) is to provide for the economic growth of Oregon by moving through traffic safely and efficiently through and between geographic and major economic areas. The AOH will receive top priority for funding roadway improvements. The objectives of this policy include: designing facilities to achieve the highest safe operating speed; protecting the integrity of the routes; and strengthening partnerships between ODOT and local governments to achieve mutual highway and community goals. Highway 99W through the Tigard Triangle area is identified as an Access Oregon Highway, as such planning efforts on this roadway should be sensitive to the goals of this policy. Finally the Policy for Truck Load Restrictions on the State Highway System commits additional funding to increase the percentage of highway system mileage approved for continuous hauling of heavy loads of 80,000 pounds or less. Highway 99W is one of many roadways in the State which would be subject to this policy, Conforming to this policy may be one of the reasons listed for advancing projects through the funding process. Generalized Future Transportation Needs The Tigard Triangle Area Specific Area Study (DKS, July 1993), and the Tigard Triangle Update Study Traffic Analysis (DKS, May 1995) identified future transportation system needs in the study area based on two different types of land use development patterns. In the Specific Area Study, the analysis assumed that the Triangle would develop with a fairly balanced mix of retail, residential - and office space. In contrast, the Update Study assumed that the triangle would develop as mostly a retail and office space area with (relatively) little residential development. Table 1 summarizes existing land use assumptions, and the land use assumptions developed for the traffic analysis in each studies. Table 1: Land Use Assumptions Land Use Esistine Conditions Specific Area Study Update Study (1993) (1995) Retail 492 KSF 623.8 KSF 2,252.9 KSF Office 581 KSF 896.0 KSF 581 KSF Residential 140 DU 950 DU 108 DU i j Special Generators various various various Figure 4 shows the transportation system required if the land within the Tigard Triangle was developed according to the Specific Area Study land use assumptions. As shown in this figure, under this land use scenario, Highway 99W would have to be widened from four to seven lanes. and all other roads within the triangle could remain two lanes wide. The existing roadway width of Dartmouth Street west of 72nd Avenue would remain. In addition a traffic signal would be required at the intersection of Dartmouth Street/68th Parkway. The required roadway widths identified in 1 this study are consistent with the roadway width requirements identified in the existing planning i documents (see again Figure 1). i t Kitte/sen & Assoaates, Inc. Fenfand, Cregen 'f I I 5 Ms. Nzdma Smith Project; 2056 July 25. 1996 Pace. 5 Figure 5 shows the future roadway needs if the land within the Tigard Triangle was developed according to the DKS Update Study. In this land use scenario, which relied heavily on retail and office development, the following transportation system improvements would be required: • 72nd Avenue would have to be widened to from two to five lanes (current plans call for four lanes); • A new three lane roadway connecting Atlanta Street to 72nd Avenue would be required (not identified in current planning documents); - • Dartmouth Street east of 72nd Avenue would have to be widened from a two lane to a five lane roadway (current plans identify this as a two lane roadway); • Highway 99W would have to be widened from a five lane roadway to a seven lane roadway (consistent with the current planning documents and the previous land use scenario); and • Traffic signals would be required at Atlanta Street/68th avenue, Dartmouth Street/72nd Avenue, and 68th Avenue/Dartmouth Street. . Finally as part of the 1-51Highivay 217 Subarea Transportation Plan, (W&H Pacific, and Kittelson & Associates, February, 1995) improvements called "Toolbox" Improvements were identified. These improvements, shown in Figure 6, would complement the proposed I-5/Highway 217 interchange improvement shown in Figure 7. As "Toolbox" improvements, the City of Tigard has agreed to consider these improvements as part of the their future planning efforts. In Tigard, the ! "Toolbox" improvements include: • Widening Highway 99W from four to six lanes plus intersection turning lanes; • Widening 72nd Avenue from two lanes to four lanes plus turning lanes at intersections; _ r ; Constructing a structure connecting Hampton Street on the north side of Highway 217 with Hunziker Street on the south side of Highway 217. There would be no access between this 1 structure and Highway 217; and • Constructing a new diamond interchange at 72nd Avenue. o Summary Based on this review of recent planning and policy documents that relate to the Tigard Triangle 11 Area, it has been found that: f Recent Traffic Conditions • Average daily traffic volumes on Highway 99W range between 36,000 and 41,000 vehicles per day. • Within the Triangle, average daily traffic volumes are highest on Dartmouth Street (daily traffic volumes between 8,000 and 9,000 vehicles). Average daily traffic volumes on 72nd Avenue and 68th Avenue are as high as 6,500 vehicles per day. Daily traffic volumes on 72nd Avenue are highest at the south end of the roadway near Highway 217, and on 68th Avenue are highest at the north end of the roadway near Highway 99W. • Under existing p.m. peak hour traffic operating conditions, the intersections of 64th Avenue/Highway 99W and Vams Street/72nd Avenue are operating near capacity (volume to capacity ratios exceeding 0.90). All other intersections within the Tigard Triangle area are operating at acceptable levels of service during the p.m. peak hour. I t i j G Kitte/son & Associates, Inc. Ponland, Oregcn C2 s: I i L~ J 1 Ms. Nadine Smith Project: 2056 ✓uly25. 1996 Paee:6 Existing Policy Framework The Inerim Regional Transportation Plan (July 1995) identifies includes improvements to the intersection of Highway 99W/Hall Boulevard, Highway 99W Signal Interconnect (interconnect the existing three independent systems), and Interstate 5 Ramp Reconstruction at Highway 217. The Oregon Highway Plan identifies Highway 99W, Highway 217, and Interstate 5 as important roadways in the state. Highway 99W and Highway 217 have statewide levels of importance, and Interstate 5 has an interstate level of importance. In addition, Highway 99W is an Access Oregon Highway; therefore it ranks highly in ODOT planning efforts. Generalized Future Transportation Needs Table 2 summarizes the comparison of roadway needs under the different land use developement i scenarios. Notably: • Of the studies reviewed, all concluded that Highway 99W will need to be widened to meet K future transportation demand in the study area. At a minimum the roadway will need to be widened from four to six lanes with either turning lanes at intersections or a two-way left- turn lane over the length of the corridor. • If the Triangle area develops with a balance of residential, retail, and commercial land uses uses, the roadways within the Triangle will not require as significant improvements as if the Triangle were developed with mostly retail land uses. ` I hope that this memorandum adequately addresses your questions. Please feel free to call me with any questions or comments. I i v f _ Kitte/son & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon . - i i { Ms. Nadine Smith Project: 2056 Juiv 25. 1996 pace: 7 Table 2: Comparison of Generalized Transportation S stem Improvements Roadway Existing Plans Specific Area Update Study I-5/Highway 217 Studv (May 1995) (Feb. 1995) (July 1993) Highway 99W 7 Lanes 7 Lanes 7 Lanes 6 Lanes + Turn Lanes 72nd Avenue 2 to 4 Lanes 2 Lanes 5 Lanes 4 Lanes + Turn Lanes 68th Avenue 2 to 4 Lanes 2 Lanes Not Identified Not Identified Dartmouth 2 to 4 Lanes 2 Lanes 5 Lanes east of 72nd Not Identified a Street west of 72nd, and 2 Lanes east of 72nd Atlanta Street Not Identified Not Identified Extend from 69th Not Identified Ave. to 72nd Ave. - 3 Lanes Various 1) Widen 72nd to Add Traffic Signals 1) New Diamond I ` 4 Lanes from at: Interchange at ! _ Hampton to Vams 1) 72nd/Dartmouth, 72nd, and 2) Add Traffic 2) 68th/Dartmouth 2) New east/west Signal at 3) 68th/Atlanta structure 68th./Dartmouth connecting Hunziker and Hampton Streets f; f I Kitte/scn d Associates, Inc. Per/and, Oregon - 7 J > > NORTH j (NOT TO SCALE) gc;li _ PITCL x N TLA, T - ^IES ST I I N j - N N < (F N JNTON Si SScQ A > z~z < E MHU'RST Si > j HER610SD < i 217 F RAN L1N _ BEVELPND 1 l hJ^~IiF-Fa S' N - Sr GONZAGA N 1 - i HA!APT N ST < 2/2- m m FAddEa S 1 ~ 1 YARNS ST J ^ i ~ C • ~ r C ~ 1 I SOURCE: 1-5/HIGHWAY 217 SUBAREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN. W&H PACIFIC. FEBRUARY 1995 j LEG ND ` j ■ ■ s - MAJOR ARTERIAL • - MAJOR COLLECTOR ADOPTED ROAD CLASSIFICATION i1 i X~X - EXISTING NUMBER OF LANES/ NUMBER OF LANES IN TIGARD TRANSPORTATION PROJECT FIGURE ADOPTED STANDARD TIGARD OREGON ,'f JULY 1996 a..-orgy' r- i I r NORTH - c (NOT TO SCALE) > > 3g,OQQ _ c 7C, i y1 OQO ~w00 0 .r > - I QQ C ATLANTA HPIycS S' Zc ~cAYLCR c' O O a v CUNTCN Si C O`A "O L G^Atcyp Jiy 7900- O < J O ' ELVHURST ST HE-!,!OSO l - 2.7 FRA X IN I /J/, ccVE eNC ST > ST C) GONZAGA C { ~ o 5 I HAVPTON cT - 5600 = o _ PAM=LA S7 C14 VARN-Q ST i C I I i ff I t SOURCE: ESTIMATED FROM TIGARD TRIANGLE UPDATE STUDY. OKS, MAY 1995 LEGEN XX,XXX - AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COUNTS (1992-1995) RECENT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES { TIGARD TRANSPORTATION PROJECT FIGURE TIGARD, OREGON JULY 1996 K ac_a~oc_ i 7 1 LOS =C _ o NORTH ,L (NOT TO SCALE) CAPITOL x LOS=C V/C=0.94 LOS=C orb,. V/C=0.94 LOS=C* - LOS=B 4 V/C=0.9 V C=0.72 / ..~LAN-F IT 11 FINES ST LOS=C ?AYLOR ST V/C=0.84 > CUNTON Si c SFo LOS=B Daar~liGUrH V/C=0.33 s LOS=B* E ur.uRS =T LOS=C V/C=0.37 V/C=0.78 ~E.Y!.fOSO . 217771 ;RA IKLIN , EYELAND LOS=B ¢ a V/C=0.45 T _ <a ST GONZAGA m K LOS=B 5 C=0.6 ~AmPTCN ST c PFD+E'..4 SS L LOS=C LOS=B V/C=0.78 V/C=0.28 E DARNS Si _ I - LOS=D W c `r SOURCE: TIGARD TRIANGLE UPDATE STUDY. DKS, MAY 1995 \ LEGEND # = CURRENTLY UNSIGNAUZED: ANALYZED AS SIGNALIZED PM PEAK TRAFFIC OPERATIONS MAY 1995) € LOS = LEVEL OF SERVICE TIGARD T,°„1,"dSPORTATION PROJECT FIGURE fir/ V/C = VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO TIGARD OREGON Z 0 = V/C > 0.90 JULY 1996 J p noe ces _J NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) > rN~z 7 LANES 2 LANES IAF~LE -TS< BAYLCR ST 2 LANES CLINTON a ST c -Spp , C ry _T LANES ~ f - 2 LANES ELMHURST ST I2 i HE.RL+cso LANES 217 =RA 1KLIN cEVELANO _ LANES Gn/j~kFa _ _ Sr GONZAGA HAMPTON ST - - 2 LANES = _ P 1JELA S, 4 LANES .'/FPNS c7 I t I c ~ i I I I . NOTE: ROADWAYS WOULD BE STRIPED AT INTERSECTIONS TO ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL TURNING LANES. SOURCE: TIGARD TRIANGLE AREA SPECIFIC AREA STUDY, OKS, JULY 1993 L G ND GENERALIZED FUTURE ROADWAY NEEDS LAND USE SCENARIO: i ® A00 TRAFFIC SIGNAL EMPHASIZING MIXED USE, HIGH RESIDENTIAL I TIGARD TRANSPORTATION PROJECT FIGURE TIGARD OREGON A C II JULY 1996 4 ■L~~ ' mo. cc~ 1 G G NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) is c CAPITOL - 7 LANES I aF.:FF. c cT ROADWAY 3 EXTENSION LANES TO 72ND ~I LANTA Si rA;?:FC cr < BA LCR< ST 4.'.. > G CL!.^iTCN ST T F~Sa Z A CQprs'-fOUFN LANES `o 5 LANES > E! :'HURS7 ST . < i _ HER,NCSO F _ 2!7 FRA 1KLIN CEVELCND ST Sp GCNZAGA 5 > HAMPTON ~T G 0 c PA'.IELa Si m` VARNS Si C t _ - C t I I NOTE: ROADWAYS WOULD SE STRIPED AT INTERSECTIONS TO ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL TURNING LANES. SOURCE: TIGARD TRIANGLE AREA SPECIFIC AREA STUDY, OKS, MAY 1995 L c No GENERALIZED FUTURE ROADWAY NEEDS LAND USE SCENARIO: I ADD TRAFFIC SIGNAL _ EMPHASIZING RETAIL USES TIGARD TRANSPORTATION PROJECT FIGURE TIGARD OREGON JULY 1996 5 L J i j NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) > TC' f 6 LANES PLUS x TURN LANES AT INTERSECTIONS a > SAYLCR ST R i - i i - < I CLINiC`d S'• c . z `'a of a DAR71 4 4 LANES PLUS H `i I TURN LANES AT INTERSECTIONS ELMHURST ST PE.R.mo SO a i 7 7RA JKLN cEVELAKD - ,qp GONZAGA - HAMPTON ST I NEW STRUCTURE-/ I s HUNZIKOERN& THAMPTON VAR:` S ST kp NEW DIAMOND INTERCHANGE i SOURCE: 1-5/HIGHWAY 217 SUBAREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN, W&H PACIFIC, FEBRUARY 1995 GENERALIZED FUTURE ROADWAY/NEEDS "TOOLBOX" IMPROVEMENTS TO INCLUDE IN TIGARD PLANNING PROCESS d TIGARD TRANSPORTATION PROJECT FIGURE TIGARD OREGON I 1 JULY 1996 C i? E NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) 0 9r I r • i ~ A I r r a ^ 1 I i KR~dE WAY t I - 0 o (ff _ 90NRA RD 9 INTERSTATE 51HWY 217 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ~I TIGARD TRANSPORTATION PROJECT FIGURE C 7: TIGARD OREGON 7 JULY 1996 / zc_o~c..- , G 1 L - It L S7' i b December 16, 1996 Tigard City Council Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 96-0008/Zone Change (ON) 96-0008/zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) 96-0005 Tigard Triangle k. i Members of Gerding/Edlen Development Company and its design consultants, Group Mackenzie, have participated in the planning efforts for the Tigard Triangle through involvement with the Tigard Triangle Task Force during the past months. We are also actively involved in the development of portions of the Tigard Triangle in areas o that are proposed to be changed to the mixed-use/employment MUE zone. These e areas were formerly properties held for development by Farmers Insurance and are g E located at the southeasterly tip of the Triangle. As a result of our involvement with the Task Force and with the development of properties within the Triangle, we are very concerned with the final recommendations proposed to the Council with regard a" j to the Triangle's rezoning. H Our concerns are further described as follows: I I o 1. As we understand the current proposal by the Planning Staff, FAR maximums of 0.4 will be utilized in the new MUE zone. We further _ understand that the Staff proposes to exclude hotel uses from the .4 FAR limitation" We concur with the Staffs recommendation that the hotel uses be excluded from the maximum FAR's and would oppose anv deviation that would include such uses in the maximum FAR j Group calculations. Mackenzie. , Incorporated 2. We have had discussions with the Planning Staff regarding the methodology that will be used to determine this ratio. It is our understanding that the Staff will further describe a methodology for Group determining the floor area ratio by utilizing Lross land area (inclusive Mackenzie of open space, wetlands, sensitive lands, flood plains, etc.). For Engineering. purposes of determining the floor area ratio, we concur with this Incorporated methodology and would not support a deviation which would alter the methodology to exclude portions of the site area for purpose of determining the maximum floor area ratio. FAWP0ATA%96-12%96041161.1.JB -r7 77z c-." l i Tigard City Council Tigard Triangle ! Project Number 96044 December 16, 1996 Page 2 3. Preliminary information with regard to the Staffs recommendations for zone change did not address maximum heights in the MUE zone. Further discussions with the staff indicate that the maximum heights in these zones is proposed to remain as stipulated in the current CP zone. (Presently this height regulation stipulates a maximum height of 45 feet with a 75-foot height maximum achievable for projects meeting specific criteria as outlined in the CP zone.) We concur with k' the Staffs recommendation with regard to height and would not support a deviation of these height requirements as part of the rezoning. In addition to the concerns listed above, it has just been brought to our attention (December 16, 1996) that there may be consideration as part of the Council decision process to address and potentially include Design Standards for the Triangle. We were given a copy of the Draft Standards dated December 14, 1996 at 4:00 p.m. on _ December 16, 1996. The following are comments from a very preliminary review of this document: 1 j a. Many suggested standards appear to be in conflict with the goal to restrict density of development (maximum 0.4 FAR in the MUE zone.) b. Many suggested standards appear to work for smaller parcels such as 1 10,000 - 20,000 square foot lots but may not be feasible for larger parcels (200,000 - 300,000 square foot lots.) C. Many suggested standards appear to respond to and enforce a desired street scape that may not be appropriate for specific areas of the Triangle, such as the southeast tip where existing development is underway, added street grid is not feasible and larger parcels are prevalent. d. Most important is our concern that these proposed design standards have not been discussed with or reviewed by the Tigard Triangle Task Force. To our knowledge, the Task Force has not been given the opportunity to provide input to the standard's authors and we feel it is premature to establish such standards without the prior participation of the Task Force and the determination of exactly how the standards will be applied from a procedural standpoint. F9WPOATA%9&12%96041\16L1 JB - j 1~ \ Ij j Tigard City Council Tigard Triangle "l Project Number 96044 December 16, 1990 Page 3 If the City Council and the City of Tigard Planning Staff will allow the consideration of street development and guideline standards to be further developed as part of an ongoing mission of the Triangle Task Force, and if the Council and the Planning Staff continue to address the concerns (Items 1 - 3) stated above in a manner described, then both Gerding/Edlen Development Company and Group Mackenzie supports the proposal. Please review these modifications as an integral step in establishing updated land use regulations to improve not only the quality of development within the Tigard Triangle, but also the relationship to the remainder of the region. We look forward to continuing to work with the City Staff and the further development within the Tigard Triangle. Yours very truly, 1 ~ Ma • Edlen, Principal Gerding/Edlen Development Company Eric T. Saito, President Group Mackenzie Incorporated f i , F:%WPOATA\96.1 Z96 \l6LUB I j t. LEC-17-1996 010.,ZFft FRCi 1 SFEr.CE.. FFE., 003^~9? F. J- s Ck.ln ~ b ~ `~E vlC'l December 17, 1996 ~f c e l N F2~a- MEMORANDUM ~ fl . a'22~~ C 2~~ o~~ l -%5~Z U v • To: Steve Ouhnan, DLCD /jam ' From: John Spencer, Spencer & Kupper L Copy: Jim Hendryx, Nadine Smith, Tim Ramis, City of Tigard ~U wwVl C1 l " 1 G Re: Tigard Triangle ` Attached is some additional information to follow up on our discussions yesterday. f E Development Examples at 0.6 FAR f I have attached two case studies included in Tri Met's PIwvdng and Design for Trmuh j Handbook, showing both a retail only and office only developed at a 0.5 FAR In addition, i Beaverton recently adopted a 0.6 FAR minimum density for the Beaverton Creek Multiple Use District station area. This FAR was negotiated among the City, NIKE, Specht Development, and i~ - } Tri Met to assure minimum development could occur without having to construct structured I parking. 1 have calls in to Metro staff to provide specific examples of Kruse Way developments IIII at 0.6 FAR, and will provide you that information when I receive it. We believe that a 0.6 FAR assumption is a realistic "maximum" for the Triangle during the next E 20 years. This FAR is achievable without building parking structures- This FAR was used in the Unconstrained Existing Zoning Forecast. Because most of the vacant land area is in parcels greater than three acres, we believe that a mix of uses could be developed, and that the averaste FAR of 0.6 for the mixed uses we have estimated are supportable and justifiable. i Assumptions for Buildout Scenarios Attached are some working notes on conditions within each TAZ used as the basis for estimating i . buildout of the three scenarios. Also attached are tables showing each scenario and notes i _ indicating the overall assumptions for the five TAZ's that vary the most among the scenarios. The reasons why the EMU Scenario shows differences are: E 1 1. Many of the development assumptions resulted from conversations with property owners and i developers who are working in these areas. In some cases, plans have been prepared, but for these TAZ's not filed or approved by the city. The other scenarios assumed a fixed FAR and mixed land uses for all undeveloped property. 1 i 2. This scenario assumed the redevelopment of land now used as single family residential. The ; other scenarios did not. y J1:31FM FROM SFENCER S nUFFER _ - 1 3. This scenario assumed the redevelopment of the School property in TAZ 8: 100,000 sf retail and 100,000 sf service commercial. The other scenarios assumed no redevelopment, which represents perhaps an error on our part under-representing buildout of both existing zoning scenarios. As you know, the school is zoned C-G. I've included revisions to table 2 from the Nov. 15 update of the transportation analysis which incorporates these corrections. i We are very confident that all of these assumptions are reasonable and are justified. The i proposed EN2 zone will result in development levels somewhere between development resulting from both the constrained and unconstrained versions of existing zoning. Both Metro and ODOT have reviewed the assumptions and analysis, and have concurred. Based on the comparison of the I proposal with existing zoning, we made findings regarding the TPR which arc repeated below: f 1. The results of this analysis indicate that the proposed comprehensive plan and ! development regulation amendments do not result in significant changes to trip generation r: j currently allowed by existing plan and code regulations which they replace which would significantly affect planned transportation facilities. 2. The "toolbox" projects prescribed for the Tigard Triangle roadway system necessary to serve development under existing plan and zoning will accommodate the proposed mixed i use land uses at acceptable service levels. r . 3. It is the conclusion of the transportation analysis that an additional connection to northbound Highway 217 may be needed to accommodate development under existing j v plan and code requirements and may be required for the proposed plan and code amendments. j i i Please give me a call at 282-9853 if you have questions regarding these materials. ' John }f I l i i j DEC-17-1556 01:32F'M FROM SFENCER 3 KUPPEt2 TO 684?29 P.04 2 Seeaon 2-Gufdelifijr Site and Building Daian 2.23 Case 3: Retail Shopping Center-Revised Plan i Fig.m 2-36 Reeidant;al ReaiGantial t! Grcccry a DiNOrac - - - - - i Oil.- ¢Y m 14 , O l Banks -6, 01 1. E j l l F - Arrorial - FururC tad _ -18uilAing . I zoning Phased plan allows developer co meet long-term planning goals while accom- modating short-term maker demands (dotted lines indicate future phases) Intensity Ultimately .25 to .5 floor area ratio: Phase I built at .25 floor area ratio Off-Site Destinations • Pedestrian connections to nearby businesses and destinations • Enhanced pedestrian crossings at arterials I i Continuous Pedestrian Routes • primary driveway grid creates dearly delineated pedestrian network • Pedestrian/auto crossings concentrated to key intersections j Walkable Blocks • Avenge 1,400 to 1,800 foot block perimeter; maximum 2,000 fret for main building • Main block of buildings broken by pedestrian path, connected to neighbors Orient Buildings to Pedestrians • All building entrances open onto pedestrian network • Drivc-through businesses designed to link to pedestrian network Interactive Walls AU building facades along pedestrian network have windows or displays Weather Protection -Awnings, trees, or arndu shelter all adjacent pedestrian walkways i - • Awnings or arcades extend from buildings to edge of property Modulated Walkway Surfaces • Modulated paving materials at driveway crossings Continuous Pathway Surface • Raised plateaus at primary pedestrian crossings slow traffic • Secondary pedestrian crossings marked by a change in.paving materials Variety of Landscaping • Varied plant colors, textures, and blooming patterns on pcdesrriaa network Buffer Pedestrians • Landsnping buffer between sidewalk and driveways Ornamental Lighting • Along pedestrian network Other Considerations • 'Transit ridership promoted with employees • Future buildings (dotted lines) locate along main pedestrian route • Parallel and angled parking along driveway causes slower through traffic F 4 I' L~ - DEC.-17-1996 01:33FM FROM SFENCER 3 (.UPPER TO c83729^ P.OS $mon 2-CiuiGe[ina for Site and dui(dina Dargn 2-29 1 I Case S: Office Building-Revised Plan fig.., 2-43 r r; i' )ix - ; L. I , < I { ! - F Janson I E` r T 7ti I. i L ~ oti~ ev;a"ne 1 igr ~-'-4 cam, ~ ? Z Zoning - Neighborhood commercial. employment, mixed use zones Intensity - Built at.25 floor area ratio, site layout allows for future intens3ficadon to.5 floor area ratio - Parking ratio of 3 to 4 spaces per 1.000 square feet - Could include limited ground-level retail space at sidewalk 05 Site Descinacions - Employees can easily walk to nearby destinarions Continuous Pedestrian Routes - Walkways extend to property boundaries - Perimacr sidewalk is primary pedestrian route ! Walkable Blocks - Easily firs within walkable perimc= block size ! Orient Buildings to Pedestrians Buildings oriented to parking field Interactive Walls . Non-tinted windows, overlook street, parking area j - Interior window cm-crings provide oppommity for views, if desired - Single building entry orients to both street and parking, single control point ! a - Building located as dose as possible to the street Weather Protection - Awnings along street frontage ` - Canopy trees provide shade in perimeter and interior landscaping Modulated Walkway Surfaces - Pcrimccer sidewalks per local standards - Pedestrian travel lane articulated across driveway aprons Variety of Landscaping - Landscaping provides a variety of blooming patterns, textures, and sizes Buffer Pedesmans - Landscaping buffo along strccc between sidewalk and travel lane Ornamental Lighting - Along all pedestrian routes ! Other Considerations - Transit ridership promoted with employees i t, 1 f J DEC.-17-1996 01:'4FM FROM EFENLER 3 KLPPER TO 6847297 P.06 i s ~ Table 1: Tigard Triangle Development Concept Summary Em to ment Mixed Use Buildout Estimate Residential DU Retail SF 0fce SF Service SF Business SF Other Uses 1 SF NE 1996 135 77 318700 577493 158400 14 Bowling Lanes Development 117 Hotd Rooms i , 11 Then. Screens j Bttildaut 0 302 937350 1202433 592000 140600 300 Hotel Roams Development (Phu 1996 Uses) Inc[caae ma 0 225 618650 67.3910 433600 140600 300 Hotel Rooms 1996 Levels t f Table 1 also indicates the increase in land use development within the Tigard Triangle that is expected to occur between now and 2015. Retail uses, both "big box" uses west of 721 Avenue and smaller scaled retail and service uses east of 72nd are forecast to increase two fold over e+asting development levels. Office uses are expected to double. New business park and research uses and additional hotel } rooms are expected to be constructed within the Triangle. It is anticipated that the existing single family residential areas will be redeveloped for mixed use employment uses. Infill housing throughout t the Triangle is expected to add 225 new housing units. Table 2 shows a comparison of buildout of the Tigard Triangle under existing plan and zoning code regulations compared to buildout utilizing the proposed Employment Mixed Use designation. Table 2: Tigard Triangle Development Comparison Existing Zoning and Em io ment iyiized Use Buildout Estimate ` Rouidedtial DU Retail SF Office SF Service SF Business SF Other Uses . SF Iv1P I 1996 135 77 318700 577493 158400 14 BowlingLancs Development 117 Hotel Roams 1 11 Thea. Screens EMU Buildout 0 302 937350 1202433 592000 140600 300 Hotel Rooms r$7Zt3r i Dcvctopm-1 (Plus 19% Uses) E Existing Zoning 202 77 1014200 1272993 $3200 150 Hotel Rooms Z I j fed, (Lneoastsuae~ ° (Phis 1996 Us") i eol • ~ e. G4 2w e Existing "Zoning 202 E77 9083 983393 448550 150 Hotel Rooms Z t~l?)1>~ 113 006 e1 (Constuine d) (phu 1996 Uses) I c The existing zoning (constrained) and the EMU development scenarios assume the same development density for commercial, office and service commercial development, approximating typical suburban development density achieved today. Large scale retail is assumed to develop at a floor area ratio 3 ZEC-17-15.o J1:23Fh1 FRCM SFSiCER KUPFER TO 6134725-1 F. 07 1 I t TIGARD TRIANGLE Employment Mixed Use Development Scenario Buildout Estimate i i Traffic Proposed Rcsidential DU Reutail SF Office SF servicc Businrss Chher Uses i Zone' Designation SF SF i i ~ MF 1 MUM 122400 1000 0 i 1 MUE 29000 0 21400 14Bowling lancs . 3 MUE 32200 2400 64700 4 NNE 15700 0 0 117 Hotel Rooms 5.-" MUE 50000 87000 0 B . W'r 6 ✓ MUE 75 28650 165700 66000 r 5.Ilcr1rf 7 MUE 158500 0 0 11 Theater Sacsas s MUM sooooo 0 200000 rzes~asgwt~l 9 ✓ MUE 150 0 260835 51000 114900 150 Hotel Rooms I a 10 MUE 2 0 42400 70100 16800 5700 SF Church fti I1 ✓ MUE 75 900 107480 9000 9000 u~yf 12 MUE 0 124000 36600 150 Hotel Rooms 13 MUE 0 24,5618 36600 I 14 MM 0 165000 366M Todl7y, 302 937350 1202433 592000 140600 Assumes average FAR of 0.35. f ! i See Figure attached. Note TAZ 8 and 15 shown on figure summarized by TAZ 8 in table. tn, L~ DEC-17-1556 01:?=FM FROM SPENCER i kUFFER TO 684749^ P. is i i i TIGARD TRIANGLE Development Scenario Unconstrained Buildout Estimate for Existing Zoning I Traffic Zoning Residential DU Retail SF OIHoc SF Service Business Othcr Uses Z®c Designation SF SF SF N { I C-G 0 (2400 1000 0 j " i 2 C-G 1 29000 0 21400 14 Bowling Lanes 3 C-G 3 32200 2400 64700 4 C-0 12 15700 0 0 117 Hotel Rooms PGv(a~ 5 ✓ C-P 0 24000 159100 24000 4.6 ac. Vacant i 61/ CG,CP,R3.5 71 117800 26000 0 4.45 ac. Vac.CG 100reC B.l. 7 C-G 1 158500 0 0 11 Theater Savors 8115 C-G, R-3.5 44 s ' 0 9V CG,CPR3.5 50 75 83600 266475 85800 16 ac. Vsc. (W(a) I 10 C-P 9 2 14400 60300 84500 2.75 ac. Vac. i 11 f C-0, C-P 9 16600 104800 15700 3 ac. Vero. 12 C-P 0 0 163100 62700 150 Hotel Rooms j 6 ac. Vac. 13 C-P 3 0 285718 62700 6 era Vac 14 C-P 0 0 20;100 627M 6 sc. V { TOW 202 77 1014200 1272993 564208 ~ 12ta 1 C-G Assume new development is 100% retail74Z0rr (A) C-P Assume new development is 60% office, 201/6 retail, 20% service. { R-3.5 Assume infill to increase housing units by 50%. f Assumes all vacant land developed to FAR 0.60. This FAR is now found along Kruse Way, and is the I maximum FAR possible without structured parking. i ~ I 1 1 j 'Permitted by City approval. 1 j i F I I t~s~r 1 DEC-17-1990 01:35FM FROM SPENCER s KLPPER TO 6847297 P.09 i TIGARD TRIANGLE i Development Scenario j Constrained Buildout Estimate for Existing Zoning Traffic Zoning Residential DU Retail SF Office SF Service Business Othcr Uses 7one Designation SF SF SF MF I C-G 0 122400 1000 0 I i 2 C-G l 29000 0 21400 14 Bowling Lanes J 3 C-G 3 32200 2400 64700 i 4 Cdr 12 15700 0 0 117 Hotel Rooms U 5 ✓ C-Y 0 14000 129000 14000 4.6 ac. Vacant C•, I 6 CG,CP.R3.5 71 69340 26000 0 4.45 ac. Vac.CG Is0% 1 1'LRiIL 7 C-G 1 158500 0 0 11 Theater Screens 8J15/ C-0, R-3.5 44 4 0 100000 i r 9 ✓ CG,CP R3.5 50 75 48800 161835 51000 16 ac. Vac. Kf60 ip ' 10 C-P 9 2 9400 42300 78500 1.75 ac. Vac. 11~ C•G, C-P 9 10050 85240 9150 3 ac. Vac. 12 C-Y 0 0 124000 36600 150 Hntcl Rooms 6 ac. Vac. i 13 C-P 3 0 246618 36600 6 ac. Vac 14 C4 0 0 165000 36600 6 ac. Vac Total 302 77 908390 963393 445550 i 1' a ~ C-G Assume new development is 100% retail, f (p) C-P Assume new development is 60% office, 20% retail, 20% service. R-3.5 Assume infill to increase housing units by 50%. . Assumes vacant land developed to FAR 0.35. i i I , 'Permitted by City approval. I fl2 7, TIOAIID Inl). 11.E sf EOIFICPLAN )01 -Jul- 93 (lualdeilllal•- ilatoll ~a93lallanl Commercial Special enuJOlor'e m Zone SF MF General Restaurant Fast Food OINca Sandcrl ej? (IJyU) - (IJII~__ _(SF)__.AU (Count) (SFL_(SFI (In Tdps) (OulTilps)_ (Unlla► Deaalpllon _ I~94 r Exislhlp 44"0 n m I +WO 0 Itolaoo 2,400 0 1,000 0 0 0 0 m 2 1 0 24,400 4,500 3 0 21,400 17 32 14 Dowling Lanes (11 3 2 0 12,000 20,200 0 2,400 64,700 0 0 0 cn U 4 a 0 6,500 7,200 1 0 0 40 30 117 1total Rooms a 6 a o 0 o a 67,000 0 0 0 0 1: ~Y+tclw*1 6 47 0 1,500 0 026-000 0 0 0 0 YAtq 7 1 0 1171600 0 0 0 0 216 200 11 Movie lhsaWScraens- 41,Wgfpp~u 0 am 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 44 404 ~F7h Is 9 33 0 0 0 0 15,475 0 0 0 0 1 VU(ltlt 10 G 2 0 0 6 17,2D0 2,200 2 2 5,700 t z fl~ 11 6 0 900 0 0 67,800 70,100 B 7 22,200 3FSemina~y A 12 0 0 0 0 0 69,000 0 0 0 0 b 1&- by "A%a 13 2 0 0 0 0 191,616 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 110,000 0 0 0 0 gVA%%t x i0TAI. 2 ,Z 34,300 4 577,493 150,400 341 316 b OW WfAW 7J IfilAl ----_7101 ; 0 104 " plA1No-o~T taro-~o MW (1ZLIift 313,400 1'M POO 110111 laps In: 100 1 155 184 223 185 19 341 0 1,215 i Oul: 57 0 155 79 208 953 136 0 316 1,803 0 Tolal: 165 1 310 263 429 1,138 155 341 316 3,118 flrMf7unrU( I'?~if~Ga)1a4~.c, ~ltts,twl • D ne 661. ",UMS, },Z,3,4, 7~1 b) (IAU~-R4'0('~1~ 1.rG/°I Od((IZil3()$) plil1ti11 ~t10(i - 4+4i r5~ SFt(1(nGnc~.i 15ACV&/ ~A4t~te.o.2,6" _ 500 9F ROW166w,11 adAl O8 bpi wi re o:T of = 744,bto se co to M 1btw1 i }14YIrt,( VA ~1 = i5,~l~io ~P PAA41 ~{l~tilHllZ4 1 4 o. cu 4 F>ann . o'y6 G 300 TOUI MBE-1240 i(o731~~ ~ God a~(ce 6ea e o OKS Associates ' paget landusa.wO ii'1C 'r,".j'11~~.1"'"', ~.i~ iii. vw+• 1. I DEC-17-1996 01:26PM FROM SPENCER 3 KUPFER TO 6647297 P.11 r i ' 1 II DKS A$sociaL---S z Z, j - 3 C I C 2 ~ = AijANTA n NA,NtS Ytca \ 7 6~ O _ S 1 I ' WNUKT ST iI S i - I Ni 1 _ 9 `2fi~ .Nr M 1 _ J i I ~ \ ^v I ~1 1I 1 13 1 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES r i i i TIGARIJ IRIANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN 01-Jut-83 0 M i Rosldenllal Ralall Gass Station) Commercial Special r IuneSUool - -Address -V Nano SF MF Oenerel Roeleuranl feu Food Office Sewlce Use DU-(DiJs) (SF) (SF)_ (Count) )SF) Q ` 1 191h Avenue SW 11630- t 1965 .81s<ylrr Fap►Yy Raehea+Nel• -490 ° I 99W-Pacllic I llghway 11744 Vutodnary, liospital $,000 w I 99W-Paclllclllghway 1177? ~&AcreaVaeanl6ar 4 1201OW U I 99W-Pacillc Highway 11100 Alexandors Restaurant 2,400 s Subtolol: +-t 0 0 2,400 0 1,000 0 -n 3 2 99W-Paclflc 111ghway 11646 TlgardTransmisslon 3,600 2 99W-Paclllc 1,1191woy 116013 Spunkys Hamburgers 2 99W-Pacific Ilighway 11617, Vacant Building 2 99W-PacillcHighway 11674-11678 Doughty Appliances 5,900 r" 2 99W-Pacific Highway 11660 Tigard Bowling 14 Lanes 2 99W-Pacllic I Ihgltway 11632 Weslsida Gymnastic 20,300 w 2 99W-Pacitic Ilighway $1606 Appliance Connecllon 4,100 C 2 99W-Pacllic Illghway 11634 Subway 6 Taco Boll 2 m 2 99W-Psclffclllghway 11670 Pizza Caboose 4,500 ;u 2 99W-Pacific Ilighway 11596 Tigard Automotive Detall 4,200 2 99W -Pacllic 1110llway 11590 Single Family Rosldenlal 2 99W-Pacific Highway 11640 - 11642 Cartonlcs, Rlbbons and Trophies 4,100 2 99W-PacillcHighway 11650-11654 Service-LlghlIndustrial Building 7,200 Subtotal: 1 - 0 ` 24,400 4,500 3 0 21r400---- 3 68th Parkway SW 10935 Seafood BIOIIer 9,000 0 3 72nd Avenue SW 1117? Single Family Residential 2 3 99W-Pacllic Highway 11552 Uhaul plus 4 mini 111018ge units 12,000 36,000 3 99W-Pacitic Highway 11564 US Vans 9,400 3 99W-Pacllic Highway 11530 till 1101 Restaurant 11,200 3 99W-Paclflc Highway 11540 Tigard Auto Repair/Service 2,100 3 99W-Paclflc I llghway 11576 Lawn Care Center . 3,100 3 99W-Pacl(Ictllghway 11570-11572 Post Cards, J/H Sales, Auto Body 14,100 3 99W-PaciflcIlighway 11518 Amedcan Legion Post 158 2,400 d Subtotal: 2 '.-__O-`.%.12,000 20,200 0' 2,400 64,700 W oKS AssecMle! Pege 1 _ - ----landasu v.M3 11GAR0 I MANGLE SPECIFIC PLAN 01-Jut-93 m fi - Ilesidontlal Renelall 'Gas Slri0onl Colnmoical - Spe'clai 3 ' LmluSUOOt Address Name 1 SF MF Generalnaslamant Fast Food Ollics Service 1134 i1 USI (0113) (SF) (SFf Count (Sr.IsFI n 11 G41hAvenuoSW 11?77-11777 Single Famiiynosidenllal 6 r 4 (5011) Parkway SW 11777 Single Family Rosidonlial 2 4 6911) Avurtuo SW 10900 Carrrnvs Restaurant 7,200 r r 4 99W-Pacilrc Highway 11460 Wayside Motor Inn i i 7 Rooms -n 4 99W-Pacific I09hway 11420 Adams Lumber 2,500 4 99W-PecIllC1119hway 11477 Fantasy Adult Video 6,000 4 09W-PaCHIC lilghwoy 11440 OP Gag Statlon 1 Sublolal: 8 0.- 8,500 7,200 I 0 0 5 601h Parkway SW 11306 ►(ey Servlcos Corp 67,000 Z 5 66111 Parkway SW 11377 2.13 Acres Vacant Cornmerclal au S b ota vat"T Z •I~iGLli f ~ k s 1.60 0 0 0 0 67000 o w G Gollt Parkway SW 11705 Mtn P a c Mach Inc 1,000 m 6 68th Parkway SW 11577-1177? Singlo Family Residential 3 9i 6 681h Parkway SW 113?7 ✓.45 Acres Vacant Commoicial 6 6alh Parkway SW 11677 12 KSF Vacant 0111CeICemrnaldal 6 69111 Avenuo SW 11795-11905 Single Family nealdenllal 10 6 691h Avonuo SW 11677 Commelclal Foi Lease 6 70111 Avemie SW 11515 - 11930 Single Fam6y Residential 5 G 72nd Avenue 11540 --11990 Single Family Residential 7 6 72nd Avenue 11530 I.9amIng Skills Resource Cantor 1,500 0 G Oaylot SW 6940-7175 Singlo Family nesldenliat 11 6 Cllnlorl SW 6775-7140 Singie Family 11e3ldentlal 11 6 1lalnos Iluad SW 6900 OEA Plaza 25,000 Subtotal' < 47..- 0!' 1500 0 0 26,000 0 7.. 72nd AVOI110 Future 1`1e191149" 10~a 12rWMM~ 1 72nd Avenue future Retail lol4 ~~tfjW~~VMttr cri 7 72nd Avenue 11795 Single Femll y Residential 1 7 72nd Avenue Movie Theater 2,700 Seats 7 72nd Avenue >*twrCub Foods 6 1D juierraRole llaF! Y1 I t 7 72nd Avenue 7 72nd Avenue Frrlwa Rele1H8' ORIZE VAM fiat v: sublmal_ ::r.(41 1ti'~ , v, '•-i, 0,9-1- S Wo. 0 ' 110!'. , ;f' n : o DKS Assoclalas_ _ Page 2 ~ landuse.wk3~ I O TIGAIID IItt-.61.1: SPECIFIC PLAN 07-Jul-97 n rn Resldenliel Retail Gas Slatlonl Commelclal Spaclel ZonoStroel Addrass Namo , SF MF GeneralResleuranl Fast Food Office Service Us• OU3 (DUs) (SF) (SF) (Count) (SF) Of)I B 72nd Avenue 12615 Phil I-uwla Elementary School \ 404 Students ~ r 0 flevuland iluad SW 7277-7505 Single Family flesldenlial 14 i I°NAf(r I i11Gk ~ Idao ) 3 0 I leunasu Way SW 7270-7565 Single Family Resldenltal 15 - Sublolal: 40D 24 't loco 4* 0 0. 0 0 0 0 9 68th Parkway SW 12077 •-12700 Single Family Resldenltal 2 9 68th Parkway SW 12525 Doclor's Office 2,500 C, 9 691h Avenue SW 12117-12677 Single Family Residential FTI 9 691h Avenue SW 12377 45 KSF Vacant Office/Commercial 9 72nd Avonua 12260 -12360 Single Family Residential 3 c 9 72nd Avenue 12577 ✓S. I Acfeas Vacant Ollico/MF v 9 72nd Avanuo 12577 Vf.97 Vacant Acres MF m 9 12nd Avenue 12700 CPA Offices 1,700 9 72nd Avenue 12600 Cily Univetatiy 11,275 9 Bevuland Road SW 70Gn-7175 Single Family Residential 7 9 Elmhurst SW 7040-7155 Single Family Residential 7 9 GR nraga SW 7020-71 0 S~l o Family Residential 6 i'VM'~fi II YZo d C40►000 i() "IdClo Me4 Sublolal' .OaL, 33 0 0 0 0 15 ,475 0 10 6GIh Avenue SW I IG25-11685 Cooper Consullanls 13,000 0 10 GGIh Avonuo SW 11565 Single Family 1`11931denllal 1 10 67M Avunuo SW 11670 Cline Commercial Brokerage 1.500 10 67th Avenue SW 11535 1leallh Physics NW 2,700 10 G11h Avenue SW 11725 Single Family Residential 1 10 611h Avenue SW 11700 Wolff Syalems-Tanning Bede 2,200 10 611h Avenue SW 11565-11565 Church 5,700 SF 10 6101 Avenue SW 11500 Duplex Apartment 2 10 6111% Avenue SW 11550 Jays Landscpng (Home Occ. Use I U. 10 60th Parkway SW 11720 Single Family Residential I 10 Naylor SW 6777 Single Family Residential I In 10 Cun1Un SW 6777 Single Family Residential 270" Y6t 4ht• L kG. Sublolal;;`. }:'6 • 2. 0: 0. t 0:: 17;200 - 2.200 v OKS Associates page 3 landuse wk3 l TIGAIIU 1~_ XGLf SPI:CIFICPLAN t'' 07-Jul-93 n M Residential Relall Gas Stallonl Commercial - SPucial ZonuSlraat Addrusa Name SF MF Genet al Reslautaal Fast Food Optics Service Use (DUO (01.13) (SF) (SF) (Counl) (SF) (SF)___ 11 66111 Avenue SW 12000 Ford Landmark , 20,100 u 11 6611 Avonuo SW 12323 Fone America 17,500 I I 66,1, Avenuo SW 12725 Executive Center 30,500 11 61111 Avollue SW 12405-12705 Single Family Residential, 3 a . 11 6711 Avenue SW 12177 Under construction ' 11 68111 Parkway SW 12700 Alkldo Tialning Cantor 900 -n 11 601h Parkway SW 125??-127?? Single FamilyRnsldonllal 3 0 ii 6011 Parkway SW 125?? Under construction a 11 681h Parkway SW 12540 -12670 Landmark Ford Soivico and Pails 50,000 (1) 11 Hamplon SW 6655-6665 Ilamplon Oaks - Seminary 22,200 SF 7 I I Ilamplon SW 6745 1%Pd"4 Sala 9,800 ill V1~Y Sublolal: y 6 0 000 0 0 57,600 70,100 0 r. ' 12 ilamplonSV1 GGOO MedLab 69,000 Ill aDPX 6Poo wlGarit U Subtotal: 0 0 0 0 0 69,000 0 13 G811% Parkway SW 12770 Ilamplon Plaza 47,800 13 690h Meow SW 12G45-12665 Slagle Family nosideolial 2 13 1(anlplorl SW 7035 Ilamplon Commons 3,000 13 I lamplon SW 7125 Kingsman Piolezslonal Building 10,923 13 Hamplon SW 7105 Kalsei Daniel Olrico 7,700 13 Ilamplon SW 7000-7150 Commerce Plaza 71,045 ~ 0 13 I lamplon SW 6956 Shaper R Nelson 1,500 13 Ilang11rn1 SW 4950 4liait'11~on Square 42,050 SoblPlotal:~Qlr 2 0 0 0 0 191,610 0 1.1 61111 Parkway SW 133 LFain10is Insolence 110,000 Subtotal: 0~ 0 0 0 0 110000 0 0. TOTAL FOR STUDY AREA; 163 2 47,300 34,300 4 577,493 158,400 ~D v t OKS ASSOCial9! page 4 lanuuse wk3 1 ~J Tigard Triangle Deceatbcr 14, 1996 t Draft Street Development Guidelines and Design Stcardards a , (J r) i The following table outlines the preliminary street classiticatioa, street iuactioq land ttseJdesigts u/L. I priority and the right-0f--way dimension. It also provides opportunities for cvca trsiTic distribution within the Triangle. The table also includes draft design standards which apply to new l development constructed along specific strccm within the Tigard Triangle. These standards apply to develop trttart within both the C-G and the ENE zones, and are applicable to development along streets marked with I Street Classification and Function Table: Streets I Street Poliry Cfacsifi euion Street Function Land Usd Right-of--Way Design Priori 72" Sircet- --f-"P, :serial Provide access Mixed Usc 92 feet Transit Access Shat to Triangle Employment Pedestrum•Trs=t Stmt destinations Biicewzy Limited access to a11- Desip Standards Apply Distribute traffic stet FAY 66 feet (See cgm=cnts below) within the curb-co-curb [o~ttrlr (ODOT Tool Box) Emhanrnd paesttisa Triangle cVuvnmmt j Provide Boulcyard design with j connections two-way traffic - - betwtea districts f Tnnsit-cri Distribute traffic f ntra rated suer from regional arterials and Brice lanes i u*or collators w local =vi= Continuit; of sneers alit and design hroughaut Triangle Local transit Service Biatle mobility I. . j ~ i Spencer g Kupper 1 City of Tigard Lloyd. D. Lindley, ASIA Kittelson & Associates Cogan Oams Cogan j ! V Tigard TI13IIglC December 13. 1996 Daft Sweet Development Guidelines and Design Standards Street Policy Classification Street Function Land Use/ Soaiott Design Priorityj Dartmouth* Maior Arterial Provide access Mixed Use 80 feet k 1 Transit Access Street to Triangle Employment with Pedestrian-Transit street destinations Neighborhood and 66 foot Bt7cewty ;iepomj rcma curb-to-curb i Design Standards Apply Distribute tt-iffie (See requirements below) Within Trianglo f.imited access to off- street puidng Provide - - . cOIII1eeC06S Fnh-ced pedestrian mviroument between districts j Distribute traffic from regional arterials and major collectors to load service I streets local transit service Bicycle mobility is 1 6e Ave. Nlinor Arterial Provide access to Mixed Use 70 feet P .)atria-Ttsdt St-«t local services Emplo)-t Design Standards Apply 36 feet (Ste e~aire9mts bdow) Distribute lo=l Enhanced pedestrian c*_,b tom? traffic mvimnmmt Bicycle lanes Bicycle access I j i 1 i i I " I I, i Spencnr 8. Kuppcr ? City of Tigard Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLA Kittelson & Associates Cogaa Ch- Cog- 1 j j Tigard Triangle Da=bs ter. 19% i Deaf? Sveet Development Guidelines and Design Slandmds Strut Policy Clawdfieation Strut Function Land Use! Right-d Way Des= Priority i 217 Over- Minor Arterial Provide occcaa to Mixed Use 70 feet • Tmutt Ace= Street Tnangle Employment CT033iIIs i Pedestrian-Transit Street dcs=tions 46 feet (West of Doren Standards Apply Frl-ccd pctles- Dartmouth) (See rcyuitcmmts below) Distribute traffic environment curt.,m curb (ODOT Tool Box) within the Triangle Tssaritcrimted street feamtss ! Bicycic lazes Bicycle access F Provide eeanections betweea dimiets Distribute ttt$ic from arterials and collector streets to Local transit ~ service i 1. ~ t i I - Spencer $ Kupper 3 City of Tigard Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLA Kiuclson $ Associates Cagan Owcas Cogan R C~ Tigard Triangle Dccembcr 14, 1996 I Draft Street Development Guidelines and Design Standards Sues Policy Classification Strut Function Land Usd Scction Design Priority Hampton ytincrArtctiai Providc access to Mixed Use 70 feet $L' TtansitAccrosir et Triangle Fmplo)ment Pedes¢uia-Ttsadt SCtxt destinations i6 feet Deign Staada ds Apply Enhanced pcdcstrian curb ties-curb (S¢ mquiremmts below) Distribute traffic cvironment j (ODOrl Tool Box) within the i Triangle Tnmaitorientcd street :tattttes . Brrycle lanes f c,. Bic)r1e access Provide connections bemmea dtstncta DistnMLe traffic j - - from artcrials and collector M M13 to local service j stroecs j Local transit ~ serna B ckage Local Collector Provide as ess to Mixed Use 60 feet Road local savices Commercial and I Retail along 99W Distribute local 3ct]rb t f-c ocrub f _ t traffic A== to off-street Perking acxss sand Enhanced pedestrim c 6rarttnent Sp=cer & Kupper 4 City of Tigard Lloyd D. Lindley. ASIA Kimelson & Associates j C--pn Owens Cogan { l 'J_ i _ Tigard Triangle December 14, 1996 Draft So eet Development Guidelines and Design Ranrlmdr Street Policy Clasiifi atiaa Street Function Land Use! Right-0f-Way Design Priority i EAst-west Local Service Street Provide access to Mixed Use 60 feet Streets local services Commercial and Retail along 99W 34 fwt Distribute local I j traffic ,access to oft strut parking i puking MU stmet Eaftaaccd pedestrian envrronmett j North-South Local Service Street Provide saw to Mixed Use 60 feet Streets heal aavices Commercial and Retail along 99W 34 feet Distribute local cmt-to-aub traffic Acc= to of -sCtct - parking Parking access street Enbanccd Pedestrian _ eavironmmf ~ _ i ~ i I i i Spencer R Kuppcr 3 City of Tigard Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLA Kitt bon & A-%cciates Cogan Qwm Cogan p a,,:4zFM =tCM iFE.^K: nl,FPER 70 00'.1 ~c7 P.d^ Tigard Triangle December 14. 1996 _ Draft Street Development Guidelines and Design St wdmds Access Ways CLASS I ACCESS WAY i i Function Auto and parking (at least on one side) Access to parking (optional) Bicycles (in roadway) Pedestrian lmprovemeats T+; . i Right-of-way.- 52'- 60' j • Ownership: Public dedication Application: Fast-west strczts to parting access CLASS it • Function: Pedestrian and Bicycle Right-of-w-ay- 40'0 Ownership: Public or Private with a Public Access Easement • Applications: East-west access ways Fite Acccas• i Critical pexlestrian access routes. *If emergeacv vehicle aces is provided by alternative locations, a lessor dimension to a min;rm,m of 30 feet in width may be allowed with approval of City Engineer. Spencer & Kupper 6 City of Tigard Lloyd D. Lindley, ASLA Kimdson & Associates !i Cogan Owens Cagan L Tigard Triangle December 14. 1996 j Draft Street Development Guidelines and Design Standards + CLASS M Function: Pedestrian Right-of-way: 10' - 2i' cue-by-mse • Ownership: Private with a Public .cuss Easement I • Applications: East-west and north-south accessways I f Connections to meet accessibility standards f 5= CLASS TV • Function: Pedestrian • Ri&-of-way 10' - 25' cue by case • Ownership: Private - 1 i , . t City afTgard I 5putcr & Kuppa 7 . Lloyd D. Lindley. ASLA Kittelson & Associates Cogan Owens Cogan I E I EC-t- _..o ,FM Z. RCM ~=R ~lrP_= J od P. J9 l' Tigard Triangle December 14, 1996 Draft Street DetivIopment Guidelines and Design Standards Draft Design Standards The following development standards apply to all development located oa a site adjoining a street designated in the table above. A Site Design Standards. All development must meet the folowing site design standards: i 1. Building setback - Not withstanding other standards in this Ordinance, the minimum building setback from designated streets shall be 0 fat the may inuun building setback from designated streets shall be 10 feet. i r , 2. Building placement and the street - Landscaping, an arcade, or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path must be provided between a struenuc and a j public street. If a building abuts more than occ street, the requited improvements shall be provided on at least oac street. 3. Walkway connection to building entrances - A walkway connection is required I between a building's =u-a= (Section B 1) and a public street This walkway must be ar least six (6) feet wide and be paved with a different material and i texture than the material used to pave any parking or factor maneuvering areas on i the site. 4. Vehicle areas - Parking, loading and maneuvering areas may not be located betucn the building's main entrance and an adjacent public street or pedestrian f way. Where parking is allowed between the building and a public strut no more j than one double loaded aisle of parking is allowed between the building and the street I i 5. Parking location - Parking must be located to the side or tear of newly constructed buildings. If located on the side, pariong is Histited to 50 percent of the street ! frontage, and must be behind a landscaped buffer with a minimum depth of eight ! 1 fat between the street and the parking lot 1 ; I Spencer 8 tapper 3 City afTigard Lloyd D. Lindley. ASIA Kittelson do Associates Cogan Owcns Cogan r. kt: ~E•~-. -,.'o 7: =_cprr _PE. CZ:;' L L -ER _J c24Z~F7 P. 1J Tigard Triangle December 14. 1996 Draft Street Development GuideRnes and Design Stand-cls 1 B. Building Design Standards. Primary buildings shall comply with the following design standards: 1. Building entrances - Entrances must be oriented toward public streets. If a building abuts more than ane street, the required tmtrance shall orient to an internal street or to the corner at the intersection. i 2. Ground floor windows - All street-facing elevations containing permitted uses i shall include no less than 50 percent of the ground floor wall atta without windows, display areas or doorway openings. ~ N j 3. Building facades - Facades that face a public setae shall oacad no more than 30 . fees without providing a variation in building materials, a building off-set of at j least 2 fat, or a wall area this is entirely separated from other wall areas by a i _ projection, such as a porch or a roof over a porch- No building facade shall extend fnr more thaw 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building. 4. Awnings - Awnings, canopies, or arcades shall be tent shaped and sball be provided along building storefronts abutting a public sidewalk. Awnings and canopies shall be constructed of canvass, vinyl, or similar standard awning j ` material. Awnings and canopies shall not be back lit. 5. Building Materials - Plain concrete block, plain concern, corrugated metal, j plc wood and sheet press board may not be used as exterior finish materials. Foundation material may be plain concrete or plain concrete block where the ii foundation material is not revealed for more than 3 fed. 3 6. Roof Lines -Roof lines shall establish a distinctive 'top„ to a building. Whey flat roofs are proposed, a cornice a mkirmrm 12 inches high projecting a minimum 6 's inches from the wall at the top of the wall or parapet shall be provided. 9 7. Roof-mound equipment - All roof-mounted egtdpment including satellite dishes j and other communication equipment, must be screened from view from adjacent i public streets. Solar heating panels are exempt from this standard. I i f Spencer & Knpper 9 City of Tigard Lloyd D. Lindley, ASL4 Kinelson R Associates I Cogan Cravens Cogan ` L~ now woos % to - 1 L 4 ~ r• h 64 ®~a in 141 Pk III r 7 6 R ► A, O At 0 ' ` ODOT tO it J ® A J~ zl V 11' V ~ 1;11 C ® Q 4 ~ a Draft N ~w taet AFTA11tir s►Nr MA►►Mun~ c ,ear N~Q tfAdiNb MAC►MuD pNO72 'A"Sis 'AeAaINa ON P^ePTM Aacia~ u 1 ~ro0 PBaT MArt ii ► MvM d ~rian~le street Plan 'c'igar City of Tigard g acct.°`rASu .~""rp 'Mo Floyd 0. l3n~d Y•G~a r utOC 1U^u.tuan WM QMt11t C,p11♦n .rte ~ - 'f , ~ _ _ _ • t wpm %op e ~ © yea n: h y ? a o r ~ e M~ W by d q i_ yi ~e .~y ~ -lII~ j FOR PHOTO'S { I SEE f COUNCIL MEETING , i PHOTO FILE 1996 i DATE: I~,` 11 lAGENDA ITEM NUMBER OF PHOTOS: a L~ J i I f y AGENDA ITEM # u For Agenda of December 17. 1996 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY •I ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Annexation and the impacts of Measure 47 j PREPARED BY: Laurie Nicholson DEPT HEAD OK C-1TY ADMIN OK } r S E BEFORE THE COUNCIL i City Council needs to provide policy direction to the Planning Division on i k. the appropriate procedure for annexation requests right now, given the uncertainties created by Measure 47. y STAFF RECOMMENDATION j The Planning Division recommends that the City put annexation requests on hold until the issue is addressed by the Legislature and the Courts. ~ INFORMATION SUMMARY j she City has processed seven annexation requests that have not been added to i the tax roles and therefore fall under Measure 47 limits (a map of I these annexations will be provided at the City Council meeting). The fi Planning Divisicn currently has two annexation applications that are awaiting processing. Staff wants and needs policy direction from City j Council before going any further with them. There are four approaches to take: 1.) Continue to process annexations, as we have done previous to Measure 47. The problem with this alternative is that it will probably cost the City to service annexed properties without the ability to levy the City's tax rate. I 2.) City halts annexations until further direction is received from the courts and the legislature. Property owners and developers would have a problem with this approach, however, the city is not required to annex properties. 3.) City allows annexations only for vacant properties. There is no certainty that the City will be able to levy its tax rate on vacant properties without an election. An election will probably be required. 4.) Allow unincorporated properties to receive sewer services with the City waiving annexations at the present time. This approach may help property owners in the short term, however, it may be politically difficult for the City to try come back and annex these properties later. ` 1 MIA OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL NOTES P I f ~ I " I l i _ i M E M O R A N D U M DATE: December 9, 1996 i TO: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director ~ Bill Monahan, City Administrator FROM: Laurie Nicholson, Associate Planner RE: Annexations and the effects of Measure 47 CC: Nadine Smith, Senior Planner - 'r There are seven properties that have been annexed to the City of Tigard since March 31, 1996. This date represents the cut-off for properties that will be affected by Measure 47. Based on the information we currently have and also using a "worst-case scenario", the City cannot levy its tax onto these seven properties and other properties annexed after March 31, 1996. Starting with these seven properties, the Washington County tax rate will continue to be levied and, on individual properties, taxes will be lowered by ten percent. The properties involved in the annexation would have an election to levy the City tax rate on annexed properties. This election would have to be separate from the annexation process. The individual assessed values for the recently annexed properties are as follows: i Annexation numbers Assessed Values Amount of City Revenue Pre-Measure 47 1.) ZCA 95-0008 $222,400 $489.28 is i $210,440 $462,97 $49,680 $109.30 2.) ZCA 95-0007 $49,680 $109.30 I $210,440 $462.97 3.) ZCA 96-0001 $160,910 $354.00 ' 4.) ZCA 96-0003 $720,890 $1585.96 5.) ZCA 96-0002 $65,960 $145.11 6.) ZCA 96-0006 $241,820 $532.00 7.) ZCA 96-0005 $155,400 $341.88 j Pre-measure 47, the city would receive $4592.77 per year in property tax revenues from these properties. This revenue would cover the cost of providing city services to these newly annexed properties. The City is obligated to provide services to these newly I r j i annexed properties without having the ability to levy the City tax rate to cover the costs of providing these services. Planning currently has two applications in-process for annexation. No hearing dates have been scheduled for these properties. Staff has only reviewed the applications for their completeness. The in process annexations each include at least three parcels. Some of the parcels in each case are vacant and some are already developed. The annexed values and potential City revenues are as follows: Total Assessed Value Amount of City Revenue. Pre-Measure 47 1.) $654, 030 $1438.87 2.) $477,780 $1051.12 The City cannot levy the City tax rate onto these properties without a vote. The amount of $2489.99 represents how much the City would lose per year, without a vote, to service these annexed properties. The problem with annexations and taxation rates is that the current annexation methodologies do not require a vote on the annexations, unless the annexees remonstrate. City staff could not influence the annexees to remonstrate without violating election laws. According to John Bonn of the City of Portland, local jurisdictions will be asking the legislature to revise annexation procedures so that elections would be automatic, depending upon the annexation methodology used. Annexation of vacant properties may represent less of a problem than annexing already developed properties, according to Ken Martin of the Boundary Commission. It would cost the City a relatively small amount to annex vacant pfoperties because they require no services. An election, however, may be required to levy the City taxes once the property is developed. The courts and the legislature have not yet interpreted Measure i 47; therefore, an interpretation of annexations of vacant properties may be premature. The Courts and the legislature may interpret annexations of vacant property differently 1 than the conclusion presented in this memorandum. a 1 Conclusion j The conservative approach regarding annexations and the effects of Measure 47 is to 1 not process any annexations until the courts and the legislature provide guidance. The 1 City of Portland is using this approach and is not processing any annexations right now. j One approach could be to allow sewer services to be extended to unincorporated properEZs with the City waving annexation for now or acquiring a signed petition waving the annexation. The City does have an agreement with USA to provide sewer services. j A problem with allowing the sewer service extension to proceed without annexation is that it may be politically difficult for the City to retroactively attempt to annex the properties, if Measure 47 is overturned or the legislature changes the annexation process. I 2 f 1 Staff seeks policy guidance from City Council on annexations. There are four approaches to take: 1.) Continue to process annexations, as we have done previous to Measure 47. The problem with this alternative is that it will probably cost the City to service annexed properties without the ability to levy the City's tax rate. 2.) City halts annexations until further direction is received from the courts and the legislature. Property owners and developers would have a problem with this approach, however, the City is not required to annex properties. j 3.) City allows annexations only for vacant properties. There is no certainty that the City will be able to levy its tax rate on vacant properties without an election. An election will probably be required. 4.) Allow unincorporated properties to receive sewer services with the City waiving annexations at the present time. This approach may help property owners in the short term, however, it may be politically difficult for the City to try come back and annex these properties later. Staff recommends the second approach which is to put annexations on hold until further direction is received from the courts and the legislature. _ I ' I - j i i k 3 a M' i 3 ~ - tea. ~~s ~ w.- W+~<*f{T-~ r- r + f rc ~aa^ * ~r -«+rr1r < - : t... a.'SYf: 7ti`CF~'~• 5 F'R.S'4 ~ ~C!"< 2' r A*"vr ry ;4R i< <t txrr uLw rt fr` -aims az_ ~ ~.4. a,~. ::ie~`C:_Mr. _ G'~'-~£'e a ..t.1I~kc'8 a v s n... c~; y'.. l _ 41 • try _ OLiw~.aC'~.1 .q~ai. .~L ~4`C .ST`",a.:L`_'.."~Y. .'jir.~~-.•`..~4'.~::: D*:~'.i~'A ; 1 711 •c 'a au n ..ws:. J rd ~F~..•+2~" ~ ~~~~r"i ~Er~3Af.Y. ~?.ify.wfQ lr~k. _-y. S _ " L I ca. I-=- ri) m Z Z U _ ciiroFOO~n~ NaAP N • gull Mt p~rea ~(A NNE ~ A ~ p OQ 00 a 2 0, D- 2 2 2 p 0 CD ~..~.r; Tigard 5104 1704 t. W~c 2S 09Ae 06100 5 S10 Ag p0200 r r ANNEXATIONS: wa?~,-~~ 'I C~~~Lr - l ~'I I I z 1 ~ti~ i .039 0 ~ T ~ 04300 ~T 1 0 N S • , MAP Metzger Perk Area `1 ~ N EX r 0 rn b qqq tV ST C RAL S 26 3 Tigard ST r Q m w Q MAPLELEAF ST > ~ Q J x K N S 3 5 • r J , t i AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of December 17. 1996 1 CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Capital Improvement Program Briefing Gus Due DEPT HEAD OK- CITY ADMIN OK PREPARED BY ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL. Information briefing on the status of the approved 1996-97 Capital Improvement Program and on the schedule for implementation of approved projects during the remainder of 1996 and calendar year 1997. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No action required. - I INFORMATION SUMMARY j l { I --The summer and fall have been extremely busy with the implemention and near completion of several major street I _ ..~ojects and the construction of numerous minor drainage, sewer, and miscellaneous other projects. The Engineering Department has established a schedule for the coming months that would ensure timely implementation of projects during the heart of ;Lc comituction season next spring and summer. The purpose of the _ i briefing is to update the Council on the plan to design and construct the projects that have been approved, but have not yet been constructed. The attached bar chart shows the projects and the schedule for each. a a OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED „ None. a FISCAL NOTES i None. i I ^i 7 j 1:\citywide\sum\cipbrief I P _ L l~ G P U E fa ~ ~ i J 1996 1997..., T November December January February March Apri4 May June ' Jul - Au ust Se tember ctober PROJEC y g p o STREET PROJECTS Bonita Road from Railroad Tracks to the Bridge Design Phase ROW Acquisition Permits and Other Requirements Consuhant Selection and Contract Award Bid and Award Phase Construction Phase Reconstruction and Widening of 79th Avenue from Durham Road to Bonita Road Design Phase ROW Acquisition Permits and Other Requirements Consultant Sclcclion and Contract Award Bid and Award Phase Conswetion Phase Speed Hump Program Design Phase ROW Acquisition Permits and Other Requirements Solicit Input for Prmjcct Locations Bid Phase Construction Phase North Dakota Bridge Design Phue ROIV Acquisition Permits and Other Requiremens Consultant Selenion and Contmct Award Bid Phase Construction Phase Pedestrian Improvements - Park & Watkins Streets Design Phase R01V Acquisition Permits and Other Requirements Consultant Sclcclion and Contract Award Bid Phase Revised 12/16/96 17/17196 Agenda # 9a 7of5 r? ~ s ~ - _ - i. ' ~ If this notice appears.clcaret• thlm the ` ~ AUG 2 41998 ~ document, the docum6o: is of marginal quaiiq~. MICROFILMED " . ) INCIi 'MADE M IXI ox _ar s_. _ s - • . .;c,e, - , . - r- i:° --I -at.-- a ~uu?~ u cts-.~ tt t a to to:,'~. _ . . _ _ w dm~m~[<iiM~il~iiiliiidiitll~lf~i[~flfll~iillii iil[ i~illiti3it~tluu{fti<<1i110i[~»I~litumliiiil{m~Iiiluulili~uttliiii iuGaulpiiluu7uiil ihiNu~hut U~- u~u11uu1~iulun ml~ 6 iii ~ PROJECT ED E SCH UL S r, , v r j u , S f -c» w' j, n : ~ ~r r # i } ~y ' ~.r . tr i~ € ;;i 4 t v ~ s, 1996 x~~ . ~ ~*~1~9~7 n ~ ~ .tti<rJ .4 +t V,r p d ~ 1 r ~ m$~ w~ iy~. f., ~ .~.,°~~z ~ ~ ~ ~,:r r ~ wad -^rrw Y2..:, ~ , _ ~r~ ' r ! ~~p~ November December El"snuary~~'li a. h y, one.• ~ ng'" ~ e hm er~~0 obe rive r STREET PROJECTS K~ Bonita Road from Railroad Tracks to the Brid e ae Design Phase ROW Acquisiaan Permits and Other Requirements s Consultant Selection and Conwn Awmd Bid and Award Phase Conswction Phase Reconstruction and Widening of 79th Avenue from Durham Road to Bonita Road ri Dazign Phase ROW Acquisition C Permits and Other Requirements f Cort~ultant Selection and Contract Award ` Bid and Award Phase ConswcGon Phae ~ Speed Hump Program j $ • Design Phae ~ b' ROW Acquisition E'x Permits and Other Acquirements ~ Solicit Input for Project Locations ~ ~ Bid Phazc Conswclion Phase North Dakota Bridge Design Phase ROW Acquisition ~ ~ Pcmrits and Other Requirements Consultant Selection and Contract Award Bid Phae Conswction Phase a Pedestrian Improvements- , t Park & Watkins Streets 3. Design Phase a ROW AcquaiGan Permits and Other Requirements g Comultant Selection and Contract Award ~ Bid Phase Constnrction Phne r E 1997 Pavement Major Maintenance Program Design Phase ROW Acquisition Permits and Dlher Requirements Solicit Input on Projects Bid Phase Conswclien Phase 1917196 nr Agenda # 9a 2of5 _ . .--...a. - n . ~ i • - ~ I ~ ~ ~ it _ If this notice appaars clearer ;han fhe ~ AUG 2 41998 ~ document, the document is of msrginal ,nafity. i MICROFILMED '6. . INCH ~ MaOE W fit - _.rr_:_ , e- . . i > _ _ _ . 1 44i ..-i_~. .:J~:= "1 ~:1 It 'tt?35 tt ; 15~'-.: I( 1.;,r>^11 IC.-:~~ Zf':.'=4.. 34.::..'- dm~uuuummluuiuidiiiif~[-i~full<<~(lluluil~ull~~iiluu I~ih(ul((iiGul(lil~i u(ilull~uuli(uluuillilluiilultlu~~ifu~upu~ulluuluuluuCiul(uiiltiiitl ~l m i >ll,~iuiG~uullu ~~ml~ - ~ . , t t PROJECT U S HED LES C 1996 ~-r . ~ ~ , ~ , _ ~ ~,a3z#` 5~ ,x?' rT Rj + ~ ~~M s and ~ ~ yx " :,rid C v "".~4 Ir~:j~~ s'R 'x f~~ ~~`.r !S~ o 'd T s t Ara ; November December ~uua arch ,4„lp~_, ~ Ju e; u u '.tSepiam e U 6t o 1997 Street Stri in Pro ram Design Phase r', 4 ROW Acquisition Pennils and Other Requircmenu Consultant Selecion and Contract Award ~ g Bid Phase ConsWCdon Phase z 3 Streetli ht Replacement Pro ram ~ ~i Investigation and Design Phase '1~ rt ROW Acquisition Permiu and Othtt Requirements _ Consultant Selection and Contract Award Bid Phase d Construction Phase a `i Traffic Si nalir~tion of 79th Avenue/ Durham Raad Intersection r; k Design Phaze ROW Acquisition 5 F Pennies and Other Requirements Consulant Selecion and Contract Award Bid Phase Cons W coon Phase : tt Grani(fiedeman Bridges Design Phase ROW Acquisiton Permits and Other Requirements Consultant Selection and Contract Award Bid phaze Canswction Phase 3 r Greenburg Road/Mapleleaf Improvementr Design Phase , § ROW Acquisition 6 i Permits and Other Requirements Y Consultant Selection and Contract Award .:4 Bid Phaze ConsWCtion Phase STORM ARAINAGE PROJECTS ;t Storm Draina a Major Maintenance Design Phase ROW Acquisition Pamirs and Other Rcquircmenis Consuhant Selection and Cantracl Award Bid Phuc ' Canswetion Phase 12117/95 Agenda # 9a 3of5 ~ '>~R i ~ ~ If this notice appears clearer th;+n the ' .I AUG 2 41998 ;document the document is oC marginal ,ttahh•• ICROFILMED ~ ~ ° a 1 _ . - INCH 1 MME fN l71 ss~µ'r"' t ~r ; _ - ~t r n i ie Y u ~ts u l to - n ' 4CIllUiIU fU{Illllil 4 ~1iluilil uuuitmluu"ivulumiudumin{V{uqu~uuiimluuillulu~►uulmiri ~i ~i{mu{~intTiiu+u~u , Illlillllll~ilf(111{{INl1I1fI~I(II{li(I~[ftli(11 flll[ttl~l ll{IU4tlllli{IIOIIIIIIIIIIirlli I {i t. P ROJ ECT S EDUL CH ES ~ ::~t ~ ~ pan n'i 1776 ...r Sk-?Dr x CD ~ `r.+""`"#"+"'e"'`` Y . r u.p ~v .L qr. sir _,c ~ rt. ~ a;~~~-~ „~q, ~u, r , xy r ` N her be ~~~ys~~ O ovem Decem r qu arc ~ h , New Storm Draina a Projects „ t. ~ ~ .~c"J3: Project Identification Project Evaluation J~ f Design Phase Consultant Selection and Convect Award - Bid Phase i.. Conswctien Phae @, PARKS PROJECTS North Dakota-Tigard Trail Appmisal Phase _ ROW Acquisition Permits and Ocher Requirements Consultant Selection and Contract Award Bid Phase Conswction Phase Creenspace Projects Appraisal Phase ROW Acquisition Permits and Other Requirements Consubant Selection and Convect AwaN ~ h Bid Phase Conswctien Phae Englewood-Fenno Creek Park Connection (Flart Property) Appraisal Phae ROW Acquisition ~ Permits and Other Requirements is Consuluml Selection and Convect Award 3~ Bid Phae Conswction Phae Fenno Creek Trail (Land Ac uisition) p Appraisal Phae _ ROW Acquisition Permits and Other Requirements Consultant Selection and Convect Award Bid Phase Conswction Phase SANITARY SEWER PRp_rECTS r: Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program Design Phase RON Acquisition Permits and Other Requirements Consultant Selection and Convect Award bid Phase and Council Approval Conswction Phase 1p/17/96 Agenda # 9a 4 015 ' - ~ _ ri _ If this notice appears clearer :hen the AUG 1998 - ' 24 ,l' idocument, the dacumen, is of marginal ,naith. { MICROFILMED 1~I~[ ~ off ~ f , t i ~ I I(l M~ INCR I MACE al dl ~ - mar'-.--. ° ~ _ _ -_y _ r ter- ;r ,r- ~ ! r ~ n . Ir . ,tr=~ w asp:- , tr i to n.~_~ _ w:.. I~IIIIlIII1~II~lII~HIlII111~I11tl~lfl~f[(IIIfIIIiltl~ifl~l(il~~ilTll(IIUtCIUNitIll~lfllltitluuluTiCllulkillhuiftllllm~IIIII~iIlOilil(ltlIlill~lulilu~(Illluil7lu~fuil~~ll ~ 1 I al[G~I~ Iltl[l~lllll - lliu~lilil _ _ ~ P OJECT DULES R S E CH ~ ~ , a7 tt tr a TS ~ r _ a ~ t3 : "i' ~ 9"7'• {a '1' ' r _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~f-~~~~~~r,~ 1996 ~s , :K ~1~9=.7 y7 y ~M~ at i th ~ + b 1 r•-~?.~`~: t 4 • v''a>~'~ ~YSr4 ~'p a'~r'~~` "knr~i..... r D ember rch.~.a~~~MA Y ~'T}August',~v~, ep er 0 ,t I e e R /~~-r~ rv I Novembe et a M1 Y -rl~~~ V~{a `'t i ~ +P'>•~',~x, .@''" e . " h?~t, r :7!`-ga .,:-,vi.v:.- - - Sewer Up rade Projects ' Pidd Verification of Plow Dam n $ Evaluadon and Prioritization of Projects c i Design Phaze ~'1' Consultant Selection and Contract Award v 1' Bid Phaze 4 Conswction Phaze ° a» Sanitary Sewer Repair Program ) - Design Phaze ROW Acquisition y Permits and Other Requirements Consulanl Selccfion and Conwct Award =5 x, Bid Phase and Council Approval Conswction Phase ;~.i NIISCELLANEOUSPROJECTS Police Department Expansion Project Design Phase ROW Acquisition Permits and Other Requirements i :T. Consultant Selccfion and Contract Award - Bid Phase and Council Approval Conswction Phase 5 is Tigard Senor Center Ezteriar Improvements Design Phase (Repackage into hva projects) ROW Acquisition Permits and Other Requircmenm Cansuhant Selection and Contrnd Awad Bid Phase and Council Approval Conswction Phase s Walnut Island Sewer installations (Tentative) Design Phase Identification and Prioridzafian of Projects Creation of Loral Improvement District Consultant Selection and Conwct Award ~l!' Bid Phase and Council Approval Conswction Phase = A 12717196 Agenda # 9a 5of5 L i _ - ~ a It' this notice nppaars.clcarer tht+n the - 'i AUG 2 41998 ~ ''document, the document is of msrginnl hustGty. ! _ MICROFILMED • j _ Y I ~ ~ ~ rte, _ _f~ a ~ ~~t ~ . _ - ffi~ „ ' ~ ' tNCN MADE aN l7f . a~.r-~,zc,- ~ ' t Qyt _ r , r ~ q u IEr u 75 Ir, tv is -t4, F I(nifll i 11~1llllQil lrUlllllT iUlli~~ ' • t{{itlllpihltlflllllNtfSiill~Illtlilll~it1111111(iiilll~iill~itilililliiilllll~IN(~lil[liii)iilllilil{11IiIIillliillllitl~Illliilit~i111111iItiAq#ii{illrlilli{lllilifil{ililifi(]It1Nfi f ifi 6IT~ ' i.~ _ ' . ~ r. , ; M ' 9 t i t } AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of December 17. 1996 CITY Of- TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY j ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Capital Improvement Program Amendments Duei a DEPT HEAD OK'!~ CITY ADMIN OK 's PREPARED BY: fg-i ISSUE BEFORE, THE COUNCIL i Should the City Council approve the following amendments to the 1996-1997 Capital Improvement Program [ ;.a j budget? P s 1. Return of the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) funded Greenburg Road rights of way acquisition funds to the TIF Fund for use in future TIF-eligible projects. j 2. Establishment of a Storm Drainage Major Maintenance Program with an initial amount of $40,000 to allow the design and construction of minor drainage projects that would resolve existing drainage problems throughout the City. Establishment of a Sanitary Sewer Repair Program with an initial amount of $30,000 to design and construct via contract those sewer repairs that are best performed by fully equipped licensed contractors. STMT RECOMMENDATION i That the City Council approve by motion the proposed amendments to the 1996-1997 Capital Improvement Program budget. INFORMATION SUMMARY 1. The Greenburg Road land acquisition project originally proposed to obtain land on both sides of Greenburg Road in the area between Washington Square Road and Hall Boulevard. The intention was to acquire required land in the cemetery before new graves filled the area. The findings after more detailed studies are that certain graves are already within the proposed roadway expansion and that it would be extremely difficult to expand the road into the cemetery. Further analysis determined that expansion could be l accommodated by minor realignment of the road to the east, and that the right-of-way acquisition could hence be postponed until the project is required by the traffic demands. The City Council was briefed of the } findings on October 8, 1996 and approved redistribution of the $200,000 for Main and Commercial Streets, s and for other projects that may need to be supplemented. The proposed redistribution to other projects was to be submitted to'Council for approval. However, the approved 1996-97 Capital Improvement Program budget allocated TIF funds for the rights of way acquisition, not Gas Tax funds as presented during the j 'aJ October 8 session. 'I'll' funds can only be used for roadway expansion to meet demands of new development, and are subject to the expenditure limitations set forth in the TIF ordinance. Since there are no TIF-eligible projects that require additional funding for FY 1996-97, our recommendation is to return the entire $200,000 to the TIF Fund for use in future projects. 2. Establishment of a Storm Drainage Major Maintenance Program. We have identified several minor drainage problems that need resolution soon. In addition, during the next 6 months we anticipate that other minor problems will surface requiring more than normal maintenance effort. We request the establishment of this program in the amount of $40,000 to design and contract the construction of the projects that already require action, and to ensure that there is a mechanism in place with finding to address problems that we anticipate will surface during the remainder of the fiscal year. The source of this funding is the User Fees (unrestricted) in the Storm Drain Fund. j 3. Establishment of a Sanitary Sewer Repair Program. The Public Works Department has identified several c i repair projects that are beyond their repair capabilities. The establishment of this program with an initial amount of $30,000 will allow us to contract out these repairs to fully equipped licensed contractors. This amount will enable us to address the existing problems and provide the mechanism to resolve sewer repair problems that may surface in the remainder of the fiscal year. The source of this funding is the User Fees (unrestricted) in the Sanitary Sewer Fund. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED I Use of the TIT funds for Main and Commercial Streets. 2 Delay the establishment of the Storm Drainage Major Maintenance Program and the Sanitary Sewer Repair j Program until next fiscal year. FISCAL NOTES The amount of $200,000 from Traffic Impact Fees (TIF) Fund was approved in the Fiscal Year 1996-1997 Capital Improvement Program Budget for the Greenburg Road rights-of-way acquisition. Council authorized redistribution of this amount to Main and Commercial Streets and other projects based on the supposition that the funding was from the Gas Tax. Since the actual funding source is the TIF Fund, the $200,000 can only be used for TIF-eligible projects. Return of the allocated funds to the TIF Fund for use in future projects is the only feasible alternative at this time. The Storm Drainage Major Maintenance Program is a program that has been authorized in the past, but was not implemented this fiscal year. Funding in the amount of $40,000 for the establishment of this program will be from i the unrestricted funds in the Storm Drain Fund. I i The Sanitary Sewer Repair Program is a program that likewise has been authorized in the past, but was not implemented this fiscal year. Funding in the amount of $30,000 for the establishment of this program will be from f e unrestricted funds in the Sanitary Sewer Fund. t i 1:\cit}'wide\sum\cipupdsm.doc e: t~ I 1 a I n AGENDA ITEM # 1 D t FOR AGENDA OF December 17. 1996 i - CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON f COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ! j ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Status of City Council Goals PREPARED BY: Cathy Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE FOR THE O JN 1 Council review of the third quarterly update of City Council goals. k . . { STAFF RFCOMMFNDATION j Review and discuss the 1996/97 goals. Advise staff if Council has concerns about progress or direction of any of the goals. INFORMATION SUMMARY ~t!a(;hed is a status report for the 1996/97 Council goals as of December 9, 1996. Each department reviewed Bch of the goal's status for their areas of responsibility and supplied the information contained in this report. 11 i9admlrathytgoal3sum.Joc I I I j ! I I I i i 4 j ~ Council Goals -1996/97 Status Report - December 1996 Council Policy Areas April 1996: Participate in Youth Center Study (of private interest groups), consider the results, and determine City G position on developing a youth center. Update (June 1996): The Youth Committee is in the process of forming community focus groups to get more information from the ` community. They are considering a pilot project. i Update (September 9996): Youth Committee members, Russ Joki, _ Jerry Glover, and Jan Cole met with the Council on April 16, 1996 and reported on the Portland State University Study on the Youth Center. The ? Committee examined the possibilities of creating recreational programs for teens, ages 13 to-183 The Committee asked for approval to take a "straw{ man" proposal tocommunity - 1--ad°r's for disculssio rime. this tl'4ruSR nn F - the Committee Chairperson, Jack Schwab, has moved away. The group did not meet this summer. Chief Goodpaster will have an update once he has contacted the remaining committee members. Update (December 1996): A meeting of the Youth Task Force Committee members has been set for December 17, 1996, to determine i further course of action. i i t City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 1 1 .Odd r-- April 1996: Improve media relations. Update (June 9996): Plan is to meet with the newspapers, television and radio stations to determine the type of stories they would be interested I r j in covering. After those meetings, Liz Newton will develop a calendar of story ideas for the next year. The goal is to have the calendar developed by July 1. Update (September 1996): Assistant to the City Administrator Newton met with the Tigard Times reporter and a representative of KOIN TV (Channel 6) to discuss the type of stories they would be interested in covering. KOIN TV (Channel 6) will attend the South CIT meeting on October 2 as part of their KOIN TV Listens program to ask Tigard citizens what issues interest them, Then, KOIN will select some issues for follow G up. Update (December 9996): KOIN TV (Channel 6) attended the October 2 South CIT meeting to ask Tigard citizens what issues are of interest. A report will be presented to the South CIT members at their December 4 I meeting as to what issues Channel 6 will follow up. The Assistant to the f City Manager is meeting with the Tigard Times reporter once a week and the Oregonian reporter once a month. 1 _ i ~l May 1996: Resolve the issue of authority and areas of i responsibility for the Planning Commission and Citizen i Involvement Teams. i Update (June 9996): Policy was submitted for Council review. The Planning Commission and CITs are currently reviewing the policy. t Update (September 1996): CITs reviewed and accepted the policy. The Planning Commission by-laws are being drafted and will be reviewed by the Council on September 24. Update (December 1996): The Planning Commission by-laws were reviewed and adopted by the City Council on September 24. T: -,e Planning Commission will review the CIT and Planning Commission roles at their meeting on February 3, 1997. i City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 2 t .INA June 1996: Develop long-range and short-range space plans and ~ evaluate funding alternatives. Update (June 9996):The space committee is in the process of evaluating whether or not our current site can accommodate facility growth over the next 20 years. We have reviewed dept.s' initial estimates on future parking needs and determined that it is necessary to reduce parking needs. The next step is for departments to reevaluate their parking needs and meet within the next two weeks to make a final decision on what growth can be accommodated on site. In the short term, Jim Hendryx is developing a plan for city hall to accommodate the new hires anticipated after July 1. Update (September 9996): Staff has determined that long-term parking needs cannot be accommodated on site. Tigard Christian Church will allow City employees to use a portion of their lot on week days. A written agreement will be prepared granting permission for the City to use " the Church parking lot. A plan has been developed and parking implemented to accommodate new hires. The City is pursuing use of additional property for expansion. Update (December 9996): City staff is still in discussions with representatives of the Schramm property to lease/purchase. The proposed ! expansion of the Police Department is under review pending Measure 47. Use of the Tigard Christian Church for employee parking on weekdays is still an option; although, no written agreement has been prepared. -d- 1°9S: Conduct Charier review for November 1996 election. Update: (June 9996): Scheduled for Council discussion on June 18 to consider if Charter amendments should be placed on November ballot. i Update (September 9996); Council discussed areas of the Charter for update. A public hearing was conducted and two ballot titles were forwarded to the voters for their consideration on November 5. Ballot Measure No. 34-57 proposes a change in the process for electing Council members. Ballot Measure No. 34-58 proposes a change to place the office of City Manager in the Charter, update the oath of office language and update the language throughout the charter with gender-neutral language. Update (December 1996): Charter Amendments approved by the voters on November 5, 1996. City Council Goals 1996197 - Page 3 L~ September 1996: Develop long-term computer system (hardware, software). Provide public access to information. Update: (June 9996): Comprehensive Plan is being written and will be presented to City Council in September. Update (September 9996): Computer Systems Manager is scheduled to present this item to City Council on September 17. Update (December 9996): Staff is exploring cost savings if we extend useful life of PC's from three years to four keeping in mind the need to balance maintenance costs vs. replacement costs. Tigard is established as a key member of the Washington County Broadband Group together with Hillsboro, Lake Oswego and Washington County. Telephone and data network was established for the Emergency Operating Center (located at the Tigard Water Building). i Staff is installing Internet mail system for designated personnel. f One PC is running in the City Hall for use by the public. There are three Internet machines in the library and staff is in the process of installing one more. The City of Tigard Web page is operational and on the Internet. f i ~l September 1996: Develop a plan to address the problems of ' Tigard's homeless. Update (June 1996): Council update and discussion scheduled for the workshop meeting of July 16, 1996. Update (September 9996): At the Council meeting of August 27, 1996, City Administrator Monahan reviewed the status report recommendations of the 1994 Task Force: 1. Severe Weather Policy: Interfaith Outreach Services (IOS) operated a shelter the last two years. It is possible the IOS will not continue this service because of funding priorities the IOS Board needs to determined. The City Administrator has met with the IOS Director; ! they are reviewing the various options and sites. 1 City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 4 i L~ OWN" 2. Educate public about the problems of the homeless: City has ' worked with IOS, disseminated information at CIT meetings and placed articles in the Cityscape. These efforts will continue. i i 3. Establish and Eastern Washington County Task Force: This effort was superseded by the formation of a Steering Committee to build the RITE Center, a 30-bed facility to be located in Tigard. 4. Institute Other Programs: Staff suggests that the Community Development Needs Assessment under CDBG include homelessness as a "need" that should be addressed. Update (December 1996): Council was advised that IOS does not have sufficient resources to operate a severe weather shelter while conducting a capital campaign for the RITE Center. Council evaluated options and determined that due to IOS's decision, the severe weather shelter will not be offered in a City building during the winter months. IOS is continuing to pursue construction of the RITE Center, a combination office and shelter, utilizing CDBG funds from Washington County. In order to secure the funding, IOS must raise matching funds by February 1997. f . 1I September 1996: Finalize long-range plans for Cook Park. [ = Update (June 1996): Consultant selection process is t underway and Public Involvement and Task Force meeting will be r scheduled over the coming months. Update (September 1996): A consultant has been selected and the Task Force is meeting regularly. The Master Plan is scheduled for Council consideration in November/December. Update (December 1996): The Task Force decided in September that all work by the consultant should be placed on hold pending meetings with USA and Metro to discuss their respective interest in allowing the City to either purchase or use portions of the Thomas Dairy property that USA and Metro have agreed to purchase. The Mayor, Council President and staff met with USA in late October. A meeting with Metro is scheduled for early January. City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 5 i _d ~l November 1996: Explore the development of an Employee Wellness Program. Update (June 9996): Staff has been gathering information on other wellness programs to assess what are the more useful and popular elements generally being made available to employees. Staff is evaluating employee newsletters and developing questions to survey our employees on what program services or elements they would find most beneficial. Update (September 9996): Human Resources is preparing a survey for employees to be distributed in September. This survey will ask employees what services or components of a Wellness Program they would most likely be interested in and use. That data will be used, along with other information gathered, to develop a proposed Wellness Program. Human Resources has also located a good quality Employee Newsletter (published by an outside company) and are exploring the costs of providing the monthly publication to all employees. Update (December 9996): Further research into the feasibility and content of an Employee Wellness Program has been suspended, pending a Citywide review of financial planning issues and program services relative to the impact of recent legislation. January 1997: Integrate Council into City Computer system. I - Update (June 1996): Purchase of computers for Council was placed in the proposed 96/97 Budget. Staff will contact the Council to I determine where to begin with the computer installations and to coordinate training where desired. Update (September 9996): Computer Manager met with Council and i demonstrated several computers. The Manager is preparing a second questionnaire for Councilors to complete so that the first computers can be purchased. Update (December 1996): Per the Measure 47 discussion by Council on November 19, 1996, the Computer Manager will proceed with connections for Mayor Nicoli and Councilor Rohlf to the City Hall using their personal computers. City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 6 L~ Ida- June 1997: Conduct Visioning process. Update (.tune 9996): Council approved proceeding with l Visioning on May 28. Staff contacted Lewis and Clark and Portland State University regarding intems and expects to hear from these institutions by June 17. Staff also contacted DLCD and Metro regarding possible grant money for the citizen involvement portion of the process. The Tigard- Tualatin School District will also be involved. Staff will meet on June 11 to discuss the consultant - what we need and the selection process. Update (September 1996): Staff interviewed consultants and expects to hire one by September 10. In addition, staff held numerous meetings with the School District to develop a partnership for the visioning process. A contest will be held in the schools to develop the logo. Meetings with community groups to introduce the visioning process will begin September 11. Update (December 1996): A consultant was hired to conduct the phone survey which was scheduled for completion November 22. Over 850 ! written surveys were received. All of the community groups have heard the f introduction to the visioning process. The elementary students participated i in a visioning activity. Work on the logo is underway with a Tigard High i School student. - ;I Ongoing: Consider issues of affordable housing. ~ F Update (June 1996): Council and staff have supported the efforts of the Community Partners for Affordable Housing. The Community Development Department is compiling information on community housing codes for review with City Council at the July 16, 1996 workshop meeting. v Update (September 1996): Council met with representatives of the Community Partners for Affordable Housing. Council expressed an intent to allow for a tax abatement which, at this writing, is on the Council agenda for September 10, 1996_ Update (December 1996): At the September 10, 1996 Council meeting, Council approved CPAH's proposal for tax abatement by Tigard. CPAH is proceeding with plans to acquire and manage the Villa La Paz Apartments. City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 7 F j i i ~J Transportation/Planning/Development I July 1996: Develop Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County for areas in Tigard's Urban Growth Boundary. Update (June 1996): Discussions continue on levels and types of services. Attorney's office is drafting Intergovernmental Agreement. Citizen involvement under discussion. Update (September 1996): Washington County is preparing to file an ordinance amending the County's Comprehensive Plan and Development Code by adopting certain portions of Tigard's applicable codes and regulations. This will establish the regulatory framework for the IGA. County action is anticipated by October 31, 1996. i Discussions are still taking place between staff and the County about maintenance of streets, sanitary and storm sewer facilities. I i Update (December 1996): Washington County Board of Commissioners adopted land use regulations that are compatible to { - Tigard's. The County is proceeding with the IGA. Discussions continue 1I between staff and the County about specific services, revenue projections, i etc. , i c-_pt-W L,... '41 9% r. C~.11C111UC1 1 ~~o. Develop a neighborhood traffic management program.. Update (Jane 19991: Citizen's Traffic Calming Committee is expected to complete their initial work in September. Staff plans to update Council in October. Update (September 1996): The Citizen's Committee process is i running longer than they anticipated. Staff plans to update the Council in j November. i Update (December 1996): Citizen Committee will present a report to the City Council on January 21,1997. i City Council Goals 1996197 - Page 8 E I ~l November 1996: Complete Triangle rezoning & transportation elements. (Includes Toolbox, design, transportation system, multi (mixed) use zoning. etc.) Update (June 1996): Consultants have been hired. Task Force is being appointed. Public involvement process will occur through summer and fall. Update (September 1996): The Task Force continues to meet. Community meetings have also been held. The project is on schedule. for { action in November/December 1996. Update (December 1996): The Planning Commission recommended approval of the creation of a new Mixed-Use Employment zone in the Triangle and adoption of an update to the Transportation Plan. A work session was conducted on December 3 before the City Council. The i Council Public Hearing will occur on December 17. I November 1996: (was May 1996; but moved timeline back in anticipation of new City Engineer) Update Engineering Fees 1 to recover staff time spent in development review process. Update (June 1996): A fee increase has been proposed. Staff is working on the revision to the Community Development Code to implement the fee change. This will require Council review and approval. i Update (September 1996): Council will review a proposed amendment in November. Update (December 1996): Council's review will be delayed while the effects of Measure 47 are determined. i City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 9 4 V e i L~ L~ f! i i December 1996: Complete 99W analysis, adopt findings and j r-) design standards. Update (June 7996): ODOT is nearing completion of the 99W/1-5 corridor plan. Work on 99W access management plan has been delayed. Timeline should be shifted to June 1997. Update (September 9996): The Tigard Triangle project includes specific standards called for in the 99W access management plan. Otherwise, the timeline has been shifted to June 1997. Update (December 7996): Progress continues toward adoption of the 1-5/217 tool box recommendations. Improvements are also included for 99W. ~l January 1997: Develop Annexation policy; especially for island areas. I i Update (June 7996): Staff has begun to formulate policy to be i _ presented to the City Council per timeline. Update (September 9996): Staff completed the initial evaluation of the island annexation policy. This item will be presented to Council on 4 September 24, 1996. { i i Update (December 7996): The City Council was presented a series of j options toward an annexation policy. Based upon Council direction, staff i will be conducting an open house on December 19, 1996 with residents i along SW 121st in the Walnut Island. Measure 47 has created uncertainty in the overall annexation process. Staff will update Council in coming months. i ti i City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 10 s P wood i i ' ~l June 1997: Evaluate use of traffic calming devices for SW North Dakota Update (June 1996): Plan is to collect additional data to add to traffic information previously collected. ,I Update (September 1996): Data collection of traffic information (noted above) is scheduled for this winter. I Update (December 1996): Additional data collection of traffic information continues to be scheduled for this winter. ~l June 1997: Rewrite Tigard Development Code. Update (June 1996): 1996-97 budget includes funds to complete this work. Work will be initiated this summer. 1 Update (September 1996): Staff and representatives from the Planning Commission, Council and Homebuilders Association are reviewing consultant proposals. Staff will soon forward a recommendation on selection of the consultant. i Update (December 1996): Council approved consultant contract in October. The Steering Committee and Technical Advisory Group are now at work. A new format and definitions have been developed. The process I for review is now being developed. i I City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 11 l L? Ongoing: Define and develop Tigard's approach to working/dealing with Metro. ^l Update (June 1996)): This is an ongoing process that is being developed through the 2040 process. Update (September 1996): Staff met with Metro Presiding Officer Jon Kvistad to discuss the most effective way for Tigard to express its concerns for the 2040 process. Mr. Kvistad will meet with the City Council on September 10. Update (December 1996): The City provided input throughout Metro's 2040 process. In addition, a proposal has been made to Metro for funding to assist the City's Visioning Program. A December decision is expected from Metro. Metro adopted the Functional Plan in late November. Staff will develop a work program to respond to the City's requirements for the Functional Plan in January and February of 1997 and return to Council for discussion. Long-Range City Service Areas June 1996: Develop City's direction for the Downtown Area. I - / Update (June 1996): Staff needs to push this timeline back. A meeting has been scheduled during June for staff to meet with a representative of the Downtown Merchant's Association. Update (September 1996): This will be reviewed during the Visioning Program. Also, the City Council agreed to accept Mike Marr's offer to take a tour of other downtown areas that have undergone revitalization. This i tour will be scheduled sometime in October or November. i Update (December 1996): The City Council went on a tour of several areas in the metro area to see how design, parking, etc., is handled. Metro adopted the Functional Plan. The downtown is identified as a town center. The City will be required to update its Plan and land use regulations to conform to Metro's designation. City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 12 I ~ t I 1 . 1 9 j i i October 1996: Develop a long-range plan for development and maintenance of city streets. Update (June 1996): Staff plans to begin work on this goal in mid- j summer. i - i Update (September 1996): This has been delayed until fall as a result of staff vacancies in Public Works and Engineering. i Update (December 1996): Engineering and Public Works staff will be } working during the next quarter to prepare a presentation to the CITs prior j to their consideration of the Capital Improvement Program. ~l December 1996: Investigate feasibility of contracting for water meter reading (as model for comparing internal cost and contracting out). Update (June 9996): Staff will gather information during the summer _ months. Update (September 1996): Finance Director and Public Works Director have had discussions on how to begin the modeling project. r Update (December 1996): Public Works staff is meeting with various cities that contract for meter reading. In December, staff will meet to review and analyze the information gathered. A report will be subemitted to the City Manager in January. i i u City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 13 i k x r i January 1997: Secure long-term water supply (contractual i arrangements with Lake Oswego, Portland, Tualatin Valley ? Water District, Willamette River partners. (Note: by April 15, decide where to buy water in short term.) Update (June 1996): Tigard entered into an agreement to buy 1 mgd of water from Portland; staff continues to participate in the regional study to look at other options such as the Willamette River. Staff and Murray Smith & Associates will present options to Council at the Work Session of July 16. Update (September 1996: > Demand for water this summer forced us to purchase more water from Portland 2 mgd. > Staff is reviewing a draft of a contract submitted by Lake Oswego to purchase surplus water. > Staff is working with the Tualatin Valley Water District on an intertie to purchase additional water (increase from 2 mgd to 6 mgd). Update (December 1996): Discussions continue to take place with Lake Oswego, Portland, TVWD, and the Willamette River group. All options are being evaluated. A recent meeting of the Willamette River group was the first in the last several months. The group is now moving ahead to develop options. The City's application for a water right on the Willamette is proceeding toward a decision by the WRB. i i January 1997: Review the City's Street light policy. Update (June 1996): A map showing all street lights has been prepared; areas with deficient lighting will be identified. Update (September 1996): A map showing inadequately lit areas i has been prepared and a prioritized list of proposed light installations is being prepared. I i i City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 14 j I s 1 Update (December 9996): Staff is preparing to survey the condition of City-owned wooden light poles; some replacement of poles is expected this year. Staff recommends that this goal be combined with Council's current n review of the City's private street policy and will request direction from Council in January. ~l June 1997: Create a sewer extension program. Update (June 1996): As a result of responses to the announcement of this program from the owners in unsewered areas, about three high- priority project have been identified and detail project plans are being developed. Construction of at least one of these projects is expected by early fall. Update (September 9996): The first application for a reimbursement 4 district for this program is being prepared. At least two others are expected to follow. S Update (December 1996): The first project has been completed and service is available. Work on two other projects has begun. x Ongoing: Promote use of Metro Greenspaces funds for the i , Tualatin River and Fanno Creek. f Update (June & September 1996): Staff is actively involved in Metro's selection process for properties of regional significance. Update (December 9996): City and Metro staff have negotiated an agreement that provides for the joint funding of land acquisitions along Fanno Creek inside the city. Its main feature is that Metro Regional Trail Corridor funds would be used to match Tigard funds at a ratio of two Metro dollars to one City dollar. The city monetary contribution to the partnership would include $170,000 in local component Greenspaces funds plus $400,000 in City park SDCs. Metro would contribute twice this amount of $1,140,000 in regional component funds. The City Attorney has prepared a draft 1GA which will be presented to the City and Metro Councils for approval. ~J City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 15 i I i ~ i 1 i ` i J Wood F r Ongoing: Support passenger rail service planning through Tigard. Update (June 1996): Washington County is in the process of " gathering and disseminating information. Staff is monitoring. Update (September 1996): Mayor Nicoli has participated in planning a regional study. Council authorized City participation and funding totaling $6,262 to have a consultant prepare a study. Update (December 9996): The consultant study is underway. is\adm\cathy\fnlgoa13.doc i ' 1 _ . I i 1 ~.l i i I i 1 i City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 16 ~ I I