The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 09/20/2005 i~r1 'l1 Ci., Tl ,',',G "RD CITY COUNCIL 3. W MI, September.=t0, 2005 CO U~N~C IL M E,'ETING`--ILL NOT BE TELEN t iLSED I:\OfslDonna's\ccpkt2 Agenda' Item No. 3. For Agenda of nlov, 8 ZGnS COUNCIL MINUTES TIGARD CITY COUNCIL,MEETING SEPTEMBER.20; 2005 Mayor Dirksen called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. -Council Present: Mayor Dirksen; Councilors Sherwood, Wilson, and Woodruff. 1. WORKSHOP MEETING " 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports Mayor Dirksen announced he.lhad attended an MPAC meeting last Friday and stated he would .report on the discussions at a future Council meeting. 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items City Manager Prosser introduced Tom. Coffee who will be serving as Interim Community. Development Director. Note: The Council heard agenda item #3 at this time. 3. BRIEFING ON AN 1-5/HIGHWAY 99W CONNECTOR, Dan Brown, Capital Projects Manager for Washington County, introduced himself and Barry Hennelly, Senior Project Manager assigned to the -5/Highway 99W Connector Project. Mr.. Brown intended to give a PowerPoint presentation, but technical difficulties ensued and only a few slides were shown. Mr. Brown .explained he intended to discuss the -5/Highway 99W Connector within the context of the Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program (MSTIP). He informed the Council the county was extending their planning for-the MSTIP through 2012 and it is anticipated $138 million would be available,.' based on existing funding levels. The county board had decided MSTIP funds would be- used for the countywide system: Two bridge replacements are planned and the county will be considering projects which compliment other MSTIP projects and improve north/south connectivity. COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 page 1 Mr. Brown noted two projects related to the 1-5/Highway 99W Connector: a. Engineering analysis of Tualatin-Sherwood Road to. identify future projects. b. Five million dollar undefined-limited access arterial that would be critical to the functionality of the connector. The geographic distribution of the proposed projects was discussed. Mr.. Brown explained project priority was,. "determined by staff and community input. Councilor Wilson commented congestion at Scholls Ferry and Highway 217 seemed to be a more serious" problem than the county's proposed Scholls . Ferry project. Mr. Brown responded that project affordability also affected which projects were selected. He explained there were many substantial, high-priority projects which were simply too expensive to be implemented. Mr. Brown noted the county was in the "public comment" phase of determining projects and the current list of projects met the general guidelines. and goals of the Washington County Board of Commissioners. Mr. Brown advised the preliminary engineering and environmental impact study' for the 1-5/Highway 99W Connector, is estimated to cost $10 million,:,.. and will set the stage for further funding. Total project cost is thought to be between $250 and $280 million, so the project cannot be. accomplished without federal funding. Mr. Hennelly described the study area bordered by the Stafford Road exit on the east, Bell Road on the west and the Tualatin River on the north. He recounted the history of the bypass/connector. Mr. Hennelly relayed expansion of Tualatin-Sherwood Road would not allow for enough traffic volume to meet long-term needs. He reported the county, ODOT and Metro were all involved in the connector project. Mr.- Hennelly . discussed a north/south arterial which would bisect the connector and reduce industrial traffic on local streets. Mayor Dirksen stated the city would support the connector concept because the 'connector could attract flow-through traffic currently using Highway 99W. However, the Mayor added the further south the connector extends, the less likely it is to reduce traffic on Highway 99W. The city may not support such a connector 'if the corridor is pushed too far south' and, fails to relieve congestion on Highway 99W. Mr. Hennelly concurred with .this assessment, adding the further south the connector goes, the less it will benefit Washington. County roads. Mayor'Dirksen noted it was good news the connector had been identified as. a significant, statewide project. Mr. Hennelly recounted the limited-access, high-capacity facility would be designed to 'reduce flow-through trips from local streets. COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER. 20, 2005 page 2 } The. Mayor. inquired about the process and timeline for the project. 'Mr. Hennelly provided the following information regarding the steps. of 'the process: a. Review Region aLTransportation. Plan amendment process b., Solicit input on the plan from jurisdictions involved c. Seek Metro approval of the Regional Transportation Plan d. Issue' a notice of intent . e. Move'through an environmental impact statement process Mr. Hennelly anticipated a 2 to 2 1/2 year timeline'to complete the, Regional Transportation Plan. amendment. He added the environmental impact statement was expected to take another year, and a half. Mr. Hennelly, reported-,he expected to. have a' 30 percent level of design completed within - four years. This would include the layout plan, but bid-ready .documents would probably require another year's worth of engineering work. Mayor Dirksen recounted that even with funding in -place, it would be about six years before the project would break ground. Mr. Brown and Mr. Hennelly offe'r'ed-to meet with the Council again.. The Mayor requested documents related'to the process be"forwarded to the Council. Note: The Council heard agenda item # 2 following:agenda item # 3 2. JOINT MEETING WITH THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER 'BOARD (IWB) TO DISCUSS TIGARD'S WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS Public Works Director Koellermeier . introduced this' item and g ave a, PowerPoint presentation entitled "Tigard's Water: A Supply Update." The presentation is on file in the City Recorder's Office. The following members . of the Intergovernmental Water Board Were present: Dick Winn; Bev Froude and Bill SC'heiderich. Mayor - Dirksen inquired about the status of the various long-term water.; supply options and-their respective costs.. Mr. Koellermeier responded, with an optimum group of partners, the options from least expensive to most expensive would be asfollows: u a. Lake'Oswego option b. Willamette River option, y' c. Joint.Water Commission (JWC)/dam raising, option d. Portland water option COUNCIL MINUTES.- SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 page 3 Mr. Koellermeier confirmed the Lake Oswego option; with the Clackamas River as the source, has the potential to be a stand=alone supplier. He added the planning timeline being considered is 2050. Councilor Woodruff added he was enthused about the Lake Oswego option. It is the.least expensive and least politically charged option. He noted Lake Oswego needed to upgrade its equipment and could benefit from a, partnership with Tigard. _ The expense of the Portland water option as it relates to rate structuring was discussed. Mr. Koellermeier commented that several partners, including Tigard, would be removed from the JWC.water supply,- should the height of the proposed dam be reduced. Mr. 'Koellermeier addressed the timeline--of the, various. options,. noting- the Lake Oswego and Willamette options could, be operational. in the shortest amount of time. However,* the city will. need to identify an interim water supply since none of the options under., consideration, except the Portland water option, would. be operational by the .end of the current Portland contract. / Mr. Koellermeier, . explained that should' the Lake Oswego option be selected, he anticipated Tigard and Lake Oswego would form a holding company or agency, giving water rights to both partners. Mr. Scheiderich commented the 'Portland water option would require, Tigard to pay for a specified- amount of water, even if that water is' not used. Concern was expressed over the, level of progress and costs associated with exploring the. JWC option. 4. BRIEFING ON THE APPLICATION OF PUBLIC FACILITY STANDARDS IN. PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS City Engineer Duenas introduced Kim McMillan, the city's Development Review Engineer, ..whose job it is to apply 'standards to development projects. He also introduced Dick 'Bewersdorff, the, city's Current Planning Manager, who, is responsible for policy-related decisions/adjustments. Mr. -Duenas gave the staff repotand PowerPoint presentation entitled "Public Facility Standards," which is on file in the,City Recorder's Office. 'COUNCIL MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 page 4 Relating to the application, of standards in the pre-application process, Ms. McMillan relayed she considers the following: a. Functional classification; -or type of street, such as local,. arterial, neighborhood route or collector. b. Bike,Master Plan to see if it is designated as a facility now or in the future.' c. Multiple Lanes Map- Ms': McMillan explained there is little flexibility. when applying the standards, with the exception of the local street, where some options are available, based. on trips generated. Planter strips and logic behind their use was -discussed: Mr. Bewersdorff commented that-adjustments to the standards are limited-to circumstances where the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits. Mr., Bewersdorff recommended the Council change, rather than waive standards, if the Council did not support the application of certain standards. He noted, such a ` change would : require.. both a Planning Commission and City Council hearing. He also noted current standards ' . were based. on statewide planning goals, federal and state regulations, . Metro policies and other requirements. Mr. Bewersdorff advised standards must be justifed,..applied consistently, and show no favoritism.. i In response to a question', Mr. Duenas replied state law requires that all collectors and arterials have bike paths. The city has adopted a Master Bike Plan .which details bike lanes and bike' connectivity throughout the city. Mr. Duenas explained, if the Master Bike, Plan was not followed, the city would lose this connectivity: Councilor Wilson noted a citizen had presented information which indicated the state required a bike plan,`but did not require bike lanes on collectors and arterials. Councilor Wilson remarked bike lanes didn'.t seem to get much use -and suggested the cost to create bike lanes may not be justified. Mr: Duenas stated bike lanes were needed on collectors and arterials for . cyclist safety., He also said bike lanes were important to local and neighborhood streets since this is how cyclists gain access to, major roads. Mayor Dirksen clarified-the state requires the city to have a logical bike route' plan, but it's the city code which specifies arterials and collectors must have bike lanes: If was noted the 'bike lane question has come to light in connection' with proposed improvements to 79th Avenue. Although developers typically fund COUNCIL MINUTES-. SEPTEMBER20,2005 page 5 street improvements, in this case, some property owners maybe required to pay for such improvements. Meeting recessed at 8:13 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 8:18 p.m. 5.. DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS FOR THE PROP..OSED 79TH AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) City Engineer Duenas gave the staff report and PowerPoint 'presentation entitled "79th Avenue Improvements - Discussion of Options," which is on file in the City Recorder's Office:. Development Review. Engineer McMillan was also present for this item. Mr. Duenas advised some residents along 79th Avenue have expressed ; concern over planter strips and bike lanes. Mayor 'Dirksen summarized two issues the Council needed to provide direction on: . a. How does the Council wish to proceed. regarding formation of the LID? b. What are .the preferred options related to residential cross sections I and right-of-way. The, Mayor proposed the,city not require planter strips in front of, existing homes. He also suggested the right-of-way be developed for bike lanes, but such lanes.should not bestriped and could beused for parking until such time as they are -needed. 'The -Mayor. also advocated for traffic-calming devices, such as curb-outs; to bEk built into the plan. Councilor Wilson expressed, concern about allowing parking now and taking it away later. The Council engaged in further. dialogue regarding parking, traffic-calming 'issues, and use.of the Street Maintenance Fee: Councilor Woodruff spoke 'for the. Council, giving direction to allow developers to perform.street improveents without the formation of an LID. The Council asked for an estimate of the cost to complete the remaining street, improvements, factoring'.in the work likely to. be performed by developers. Mr. Duenas said he would' return in October with the:, cost estimate and a resolution to terminate'the LID. COUNCIL'MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 20,°2005. page 6 '6. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF WASHINGTON COUNTY ISSUE PAPERS RELATING TO BULL MOUNTAIN'.' Community Development Director Hendryx provided the staff-report for" this item. Mr. Hendryx relayed the county, through series of requests from the Board of Commissioners and citizens, evaluated a number of issues related,to unincorporated Bull Mountain., He briefly described each Bull Mountain issue paper and explained the county board had not taken action on the issue papers. The board is slated to hear the item later this month. Mr. Hendryx advised the primary issue is who will ultimately have responsibility for the planning and growth of the unincorporated area and -Area 63 and 64. The county's comprehensive plan has designated Tigard as the ultimate provider of urban services for the Bull Mountain area. Since 1983, the City of Tigard's comprehensive plan also designated Tigard as the long-term service provider for parks, planning and municipal services., The issue is, does the Council support'the existing policies which identify Tigard .as the ultimate service provider? Mr. Hendryx declared city staff intends to present the Council's. position, on,the Bull Mountain issue papers to the county next week. City Manager Prosser noted staff thought the information contained in the papers, was factual and accurately represented the history of the issue`. He asked-the Council if they would like to relay any comments to the county regarding the city's willingness to address the issues of parks, density, traffic, and planning for the unincorporated area. He stated it may be worthwhile to tell County Commissioners that Tigard is attempting to work with Bull Mountain citizens and address their concerns.- Several Councilors expressed -concern the county has identified the city as the ultimate service provider, .yet the county's actions are; inconsistent and don't always support this message: Mayor Dirksen asserted the county is going to have to address how the city actually becomes the ultimate service provider for the Bull Mountain unincorporated area.. Councilor Woodruff expressed disappointment that the informal process related to the Bull. Mountain issue papers did not seem very inclusive. He noted the county was not actively seeking the city's input. He asserted the city had made its position clear, and, it was,up to the county to take action. Councilor Wilson concurred by saying the county ought to create some mechanism for annexation, or get in the business of providing urban services. Addressing the tax inequities, he noted if the county raised taxes to supply the same level of service provided' by cities, annexation would COUNCIL MINUTES -.SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 page 7 a not be controversial-Councilor Wilson questioned whether the county had the political:will to do this, and suggested the county needed to decide whether it was going to facilitate the annexation of unincorporated areas. Mr. Hendryx proposed the Council meet with County Commissioners. Several Councilors noted the ball was in the.county's court and the Commissioners ,needed to make a decision. It was rioted no county representative was attending the meeting. Councilor Sherwood expressed her frustration over the mixed messages. the county had provided to the city, Bull Mountain residents and the media. Several-Councilors commented the city was fighting the county's battle and the Councilors were,tired of conflict. created by the situation. They added the city has repeatedly'stated it was willing and able to take on the responsibility of the Bull Mountain area, but. the county needs to create a mechanism to make this happen. The Councilors declared they were not willing to continue with the current-arrangement indefinitely. 17. DISCUSSION OF GRAPHIC IDENTITY/BRANDING.DESIGN.CONCEPT Assistant to the City Manager Newton introduced this item. Mr. Marcusen, of Marcusen Design, had contracted.to work with the Council to develop a new, graphic identity for the city. Mr. Marcusen presented the Council with pages of design options. Features such as the number of colors, readability, shape,. abstractions, tag lines, font,. and legibility were discussed and critiqued. Council members identified several sample logos they liked and asked Mr. Marcusen to refine these selections. 8'. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None .9. NON AGENDA ITEMS The following administrative items were discussed: a. October 17 - Joint Meeting with Tualatin City Council and the Tigard- Tualatin School District The.Council discussed including the cities of King City and Durham in to this. meeting. The Council agreed it was appropriate to invite both King City and Durham. b. October 18 - Joint Meeting with the Senior Center Board Loaves and Fishes will provide the Council's dinner at 6 p.m., with the meeting starting at 6:30 p.m. c. September 22 - Citizen Leadership Series begins COUNCIL MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 page 8. d. September'24 - Dinner with, Indonesian delegation at Hunan Pearl, 6:30 p.m. e. September 27 - Indonesian delegation reception at the Tigard Public Library, 5:30 p.m. f. September 27 - Council meeting g. September 30 - Council Training Session at Councilor Sherwood's home, noon. This may need to be rescheduled if Councilor Harding " cannot attend. 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION:' The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 9:35 p.m. to, consult with counsel.about current or-potential litigation under ORS 192.660(2)(h). Executive Session concluded at 9:46 p..m .11. ADJOURNMENT:' Motion by Councilor Wilson, seconded by Councilor Sherwood, to adjourn the meeting.' The motion was, approved. by a unanimous-vote: Mayor Diirksen - Yes Councilor Sherwood - - Yes. Councilor Wilson - Yes Councilor Woodruff - Yes The_.meeting adjourned at 9; 47 p.m. Greer A. Gaston, Deputy'City Recorder Attest: or Off y of Tigar Date: COUNCIL MINUTES -,SEPTEMBER 20; 2005 .page 9 Revised 9/ 16/05 - Added Executive Session Topicat end of meeting: TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 6:30 p.m. CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD, OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda. item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s): If no , sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Citizen Communication 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 Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommendedthat persons_ interested in testifying be present. by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-n 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 503-639=4171, ext. 2410 (voice) ' or', 503-684-2772 (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 by calling: 503-639-4171, . ext. 2410 (voice) or 503, .684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - S.EPTEMBER.20, 2005, page 1 A.G E N A EEI NG :C1 CouNCtL 05 ; . TtGP`RDEpTEMBER 20, 20 S ,r Local,Contract Review Board.. 30 PM OP t,,IETING Council 1. WORKS Order -City , I•~ Gall 1.2 Roll Call Ilegianc? Liaison R ndM ems ,Pledge of` A ons Age I.3 municasff for Non- 1.4 Counci.C u cil and ADD tl~►g~ 1.5 Call to t.1TAL W ATER BO OvERNr1E ' NG E INTE PPLY OpT1ONs V~ITH TH METI SU 6,35 PM JONT USS TIGPV) - 'Vs 'Vs Staff 2. W or TO DISC ort, Public Staff "-!Pa B Discussion a• Council nd IW CO~NECTOR . r 1-5t,H►GEVP"( 99V4 6:55 PM ON A rt. End neerin$ Staff 3• gR1EF1 Staff Rep° a. Council Discussion RDS IN . b • CIUTY ST AN-R GRAM T ON OF PUBLIC FA OVEJ404T Cp,,P1T AL IMP, . . . • : ~ 5 BRIEFING EV THE App►,ICA ND 7 PM pN ELOp1~ENT 4. pRIV A,TE . PROJECTS ort: Engineering'5ff Staff Re iscussi council join. a, LOCAL b• SED 79T" ?`VENUE . NS FOR .THE .pROPO ' OF OpT1O 7:35 PMt, D1SGU5SlO14 DIST PICT 5. riPROVE1,,,; Engineering Staff 1 Staff Repo a• cil Discussion page 2 . b• 'Coun ,EMBER 2005 ljTjCIL P•GENDp` SEP CO 8:00 PM . 6. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION ' OF WASHINGTON COUNTY ISSUE PAPERS RELATING TO BULL MOUNTAIN a. Staff Report: Community Development Staff b. Council Discussion 8:30 PM ; 7. DISCUSSION OF GRAPHIC IDENTITY/BRANDING DESIGN CONCEPT a. Staff Report: Administration Staff b.' Council Discussion, 9:30 PM 8. COUNCIL LIAISON. REPORTS 9... NON AGENDA ITEMS 10.: , EXECUTIVE 'S.ESSION: The Tigard City Council will go'into Executive Session to consult with counsel about current or potential litigation under ORS 192.660(2) (h). All 'discussions are confidential and those present may disclose- nothing from the Session: Representatives -of the.. news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4)1 but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may. be, held 'for the purpose of taking any final ' action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 9:45 PM 11. ADJOURNMENT A CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY - AN URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY MEETING WILL FOLLOW THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL AGENDA -SEPTEMBER 20,2005 page 3 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF September 20, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Ti ard's Water Su 1 Options PREPARED BY: Dennis Koellermeier DEPT HEAD`OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Tigard continues to be faced with decisions pertaining to securing a long term water supply. Staff will brief the Council and IWB on the most current information available regarding our relationship with the City of Portland, our membership with the Joint Water Commission (JWC), progress of the Aquifer Storage Recovery (ASR) program expansion, Lake Oswego options, activities in the Willamette River Water Coalition, and other water supply issues. STAFF RECOMENDATION Information only, no action is necessary tonight. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City has been actively pursuing ownership in long term water sources. Past and current Council goals and the visioning process have consistently directed the City to this goal. Tigard has worked on projects to achieve this goal by pursuing the regionalization of the Bull Run System and also by seeking membership in the Joint Water Commission. The City of Portland withdrew their support of a regional agency, therefore, Tigard and other suburban wholesalers have been involved in negotiations for a new wholesale water contract with the City of Portland. The culmination of those negotiation efforts will be reported on by staff. Tigard has successfully gained membership in the Joint Water Commission (JWC). Membership is based on the ability to obtain a supply of 4 million gallons per day (mgd) from the JWC. Staff will report on projects relating to the JWC. Tigard will soon be faced with making major decisions regarding some potential supply sources. Staff has been negotiating with the City of Portland for changes to the long term wholesale contract and will update Council. Tigard must soon make a decision on'continuing our financial involvement in the Hagg Lake project with our JWC partners. Tigard has also revisited our supply contract with the City of Lake Oswego and staff will brief the Council on our water source options with them and review the potential for partnering with them on a future supply project. Tigard also continues to work with our partners in the Willamette River Water. Coalition to protect our water rights and monitor water quality issues in the river. S Staff will also report on the continuing pursuit for increasing current capacity through our Aquifer Storage Recovery (ASR) Program and will update Council of the progress on current well construction, testing, and injection, and other water source options. Staff will also present current information regarding the status of our summer water usage. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Current Council Goals and the Visioning document identify the desire to obtain a long term water supply as well as to increase capacity as stated under Urban and Public Services, Water and Stormwater, Goal #1: "Actively participate in regional development of drinking water sources and adequate innovative funding mechanisms to develop those sources for Tigard users, while exploring local options for water reuse and groundwater source. " In addition, the current visioning process is recommending a more definitive goal: "Equity position in a regional water system by 2007." ATTACHMENT LIST N/A FISCAL NOTES N/A Presentation: Tigard's Water Supply Update _ _.....j_._... Tigard s Water Source water • Current Status A Supply Update • Future Issues • Aquifer Storage Recovery Project Joint City Council & IWB Meeting i • Willamette River Water Coalition September 20, 2005 Mr. Dennis Koellermeier, PW Director CIP Status • Discussion &Next Steps Source: Source: Portland Water Bureau Portland Water Bureau.. • Current Status Future Items W • Tigard Purchases Approximately 4.2 MGD Proposed Contract Open for Public Review., ' • October 3'a; 2005 • Provides Nearly 50% of Tigard's Supply t Educational Meeting in Tigard • Current Contract to Expire' ' • Portland Representatives to Attend & Present • Finalized Costs Not Available June 40, 2007 - ............,,,Estin atesTrovided.. • Finalized Costs will be Available March P1, 2006 • Likely Decision Period -'April to September 2006 i , j r , Source Source: Joint Water Commission` , Joint Water Commission Current Status Future Items • Purchasing Nearly 1.5 NIGD BOR requiring 2nd alternative • Provides 11% of Current Suphlc • Partners Suggestion Include • Leased 1,000 Acre-Feet • 25'Dam'Raise Tigard, Tualatin & TVWD Shift to the Willamette • 6(YX of Lease Amount Used • Draft,FIS due April 2006 Pending Decisions to Commie iO 1 tmdin TVWD likely to vote on Willamette May 2006 Amendment 4 •'Affinn.iir.e Vole Effects on TVWD's Decision l t Source: Source: Lake Oswego Lake Oswego • Current Status ■ Future Items' • Purchasing Approximately 1.1, MGD, • Feasibility Study • Provides 19% of Current Supply • IWB has Received Report • Amended Intergovernmental Agreement i • Await Lake Oswego Commitment to Proceed • Comments havebeen Submitted to Lake Oswego Next Phase has been Budgeted • Feasibility Study has Concluded Estimate .Y"sntonrh'Effort I Completion in Apnl'-2006 • Technically Feasible • i ' • Financially Promising J Source: Source: Aquifer Storage Recovery Aquifer Storage Recovery • Current Status • 'Future Activities: • ASR #1 in Recovery j " • Anticipate Drilling 2-3 Test Wells in FY 06-07 . Producing, I nIGD f ' • Havc pumped 90.87 MG to date thissumr,,,., Determine Total Anticipated ASR Capacity Anticipate recovering, I 10.8 ntc this year.' • Develop Wells Accordingly in Future Years - • ASR #2 In construction - Anticipated Completion by Januar}2006 ' Status. Status: Willamette River Willamette River, Current Status Future Activities: • Tigard Obtains NO Water from the Willamette City of Sherwood • Recent Legislation 'is Favorable • WRWC Partner • SB3038 Favors TigardS Water Rights on Willamette Will Vote on'Useof Willamette November 2005 • Willamette River Water Coalition Update • Tualatin Valley Water District • 1VR1YChas L<mnchcd Public FducationC.impaig,n WRWC Partner • Poised to Vote on Use of Willamette May 2006 • WRWC Charter • Offering CIPPartnership for 90 Days .2 Status: Capital Improvement Projects' Discussion & Next Steps .M • Reservoir Sites: • In negotiations with willing sellers • Walnut Street Regional projects (already discussed) ' • SCADA i 1 AGENDA ITEM # .3 FOR AGENDA OF September 20, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE 1-5 Connector between Highway 99W and I-5' PREPARED BY: A.P. Duends DEPT HEAD OK Olo-L CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Informational briefing to Council on the proposed projects to connect I-5 and Highway 99W south of Tigard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council ask, questions as necessary to develop a full understanding of the proposed projects, their current status, and future timing for design and construction. INFORMATION SUMMARY There are two connector projects being developed to connect 1-5 and Highway 99W. One project is a limited access expressway and the other is an arterial connection being pursued by Washington County to provide an alternative to Tualatin-Sherwood Road while the expressway project is being developed. The projects are further described as follows: I-5 to Hwy 99W Connector The purpose of the project is to address the problem of inadequate transportation facilities in the outer southwest quadrant of the Portland metropolitan area to serve the growing demandTor regional and intrastate travel access to the area's federal and state highways (I-5 and 99W). The I-5/Hwy 99W Connector project recognizes the need for additional roadway capacity in the Tualatin/Sherwood/North Wilsonville areas to address regional and intrastate travel and goods movement needs. Currently this traffic uses the local street and arterial network to traverse this area. The effort to develop a high capacity, limited access corridor that addresses the problem of regional and statewide traffic flows impacting the study that can be amended into the Regional Transportation Plan has begun. SE County Arterial This project will consider arterial alternatives to serve the industrial areas recently added to the UGB in the north Wilsonville/Tualatin/Sherwood area. Alternatives will also consider local access to the 1-5 to Hwy 99W Connector alignment, once one is identified. Washington County.staff are expected to be present at the meeting to provide the informational briefing to Council. r OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Figure 1- Project Area -Project Process Chart (Corridor-Alternatives Analysis and RTP Amendment Process) FISCAL NOTES N/A I:\Eng\Gus\Council Agenda Summades\9-20.05 1-5 Connector Between 99W and 1-5 AIS.doc ' NALD ST WAY - - 7 )3 t, .-x J ! 1~ ttirM©UIJTAIN.~R ? Y,r Q: < Kift- e pu V? Of V) .......VOpp{ 0 ~Q Durham EANi SCHOLLS SHERWOOD RD ~ ' • . t : - ' a;'- 4pr!\;::,:: ac.: q; _ ~'r; a~ , . LEBEAU RD ,a'_ HIL_8~ ~r;;~.~A ~';~e= .ate -r A° Rivera ~ove_ ' .JL 10 _ } PyVERY 8T-...,. ~ ~:sa•✓''".. r . ¢ DY RD '=t a ~e` (i~ - w'-- ~.°t~ _ i ~ .~~=j:..;.;y [ f.. e x i C~ t ! _ 0 I:z . IN 1( \ % "Sh@rWOOdc.i ,ten O..O KRUGER RO - :".°.s r"..:. .....i~d.::(,.jj_•`•€,' , \ £~3 4 r SUNSET: BLV O Q 1 t~ }j p p 67 zl ODKMAN RD... `~•eh ;:p?::,',; • .<%j, a'2 . r' 1 I -J ~5 TJ a A V, I. -i EN RD~ r" I; k S~S ELLI .c'.»....:.._✓..,w..~...,,^m_`~ • L. - RaIDDER,RDj i • : g / Y~' HOMESTEADER RD < J I Zi . cm, oil TOOZE RD ~ - ..a r 4............_ j T_~ ^ O . r ; - - - - j-- i - WASHINGTON CO. , of \ J . An zWESTF,PLLRD z J I i...•.. • BOECKMAN_ RD I ADVANCERD ` m Gi I ter. g t y / ¢ , iII 4 a~ Wilsbd. Ile _ I V..>~ _~L.... ¢4 O l ~ C -i.l ; BELL 'V ,l 1LS- U % W1 E 1 1 ci n ~ - 1 F- S C, 0 3,000 6,000 12,000 Feet o " 1 inch equals 6,000 feet ~ Legend: FIGURE 1 # L Project Area - Q Urban Growth Boundary (Metro) `A'S:..To'99w Project Area County Line :Connecto • >Project Source Info: G/S data from Metro - Portland, Oregon, 2005. - DRAFT August 2005 P:I0IODOT00000526106001NFOIGSIarcmaplFigl ProjAroa 8x11 082305.mxd . I-5 to 99W Connector CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND RTP AMENDMENT PROCESS ConductCorndoi C Level"Scopmg": k * a ` P Develo YY 4, ;1 ran ec.of corridor, Establish Project ' Develop aiter &natives ves'H x~ D t i P rp , , u ose to need , ecision 8` Managemen $tructu0 e7 cst 3 Vtfl tr~l qa1 e Develo Dais rat committees DeveloptlYansportatlon 3 Pig # } m & objectives Baseline ~2030ra$~ I `wy ~ f` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Develo > corridors 4~fA,•~ ' • ahth~Nr n n Needs Assessment Comm rtteess Conflrmevaluatlon~ r 7' ~~t D~efne genncyzrolesk tta avRS Y;r y a Develop r D F to screenirig E Develop Environmental, rBaselineInfo~matton&' - ^ ConstralntsAssessment ttIor" rrdort ~ , C Perform Alternatives Analysis i~T'ty fr~ti ~ Evaiuawfessiginty, ^,'a 0 oficoncepts N~ Conduct RTP t Ro-'.COnlm-rid r• a"~ d- }i ~s Conduct public amendments Corridor z a+ v Performr[ompa!atio, ~heanng on range p'~oteSSSi~'goal a,ncept lorRTP r n x n raalyst`s of'corndor exceptrons„eti 2 rr e amendmentNeedetl • ~ Demlop ,upportir U infornwtlonTfoi IandRUSe~adlons ' ~''"a~ua g> r vRT 1.5 years 2 - 2.5 years DESIGN - LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) PROCESS • Refine project Prepare Draft EIS Project $coping purpose is need • Evaluate how each design Receive input from Develop' alternative Impacts the public Ee a enc • Refine goals range of design g y & objectives natural and built environment stakeholders alternatives s • Confirm project • Compare the effectiveness study area of each design alternative Develop design in meeting the project's evaluation purpose, goals, and criteria objectives !a Conduct public Complete local hearing on DEIS . Select design governmerit Prepare-final EIS' Issue recold• . . "alternative resolutions and of decisionr, "amendments R~ 3.5 - 4 years ~C Project Steering Committee (PSC) & CETAS concurrence points 0 Estimated tlmellnes are target dates for planning purposes IaC4'~r~~~ Next Steps in MSTIP TVCTV Program September 15, 2005 ' Fi l C6 _ C71~ i ~ Glencoe Road Bridge V%r C Cap vl T7 71.,- iz, riurd i e rs zoos I IIa is:aoos Glencoe Road Bridge Supports Jackson School Road Bridge i r y~ t x Cornelius Pass Road Bridge # 1325 Cornelius Pass Road Bridge # 1326 % a. K~"r p r v v 11 'Y i~ r River Road Bride 229th Avenue Brid e w - T 1-0 a1 Scholls Ferry Road Bridge Supports 229th Avenue Bridge Supports y i'~ yl►, ~ c j Nk 162005 92nd Avenue Bride 92nd Avenue Bridge Supports • r~i~ ~ &e `''>s" ~ i i~.-ad P' ~a ~ ~~.s ~2 x$ :s w. Ytl3'r' ~ t 4 rk~y ,sk i° ~ 4 t:: ~'.l. eb y 1rr V a ^ .g _ .t. "«»,r• ~{tea , .r s y ,~,',°'`•~SS~i`~'~•. DWIt°.5^h ~q'~i a.q~l• f..,,. ~ ~YVR~, ~ .3Yp .:em,+Ig: +~Y'r' .ee. ,f~•,Y,,' ,~~~s~°", prr'd ' ti ~:.v 8: 19:2005`,x West Union at Helvetia Road Intersection 185th Ave,. from Westview High School to West Union 1 . Yy a e Q • `:LAS CxagW° : ..q'1~~t~ T,~'~'i?~:,:;".:.'r..,.:• ~ ;wt~e,, :•i° f"< ~A~ $,4F ~0::., rods • ~~~y~~-"•d.q '4Pnlfy,1' `,.#Y~& .t':. ^r. `~•ic+.':.,f~.~'-' ~ 8--,19: Zoos .r . Brookwood Ave. from T.V. Highway to East Main • Bethany Blvd. from Bronson to West Union I t.~ - _.1 +r ra ° ,..4^~.' ' :ice -'V.,.. 9: 6:12005 _ " 9.. a19'. 2005 Walker Road west of Murra Boulevard Murray Boulevard from Highway 26 to Cornell Road e~ L ,.~•.r ; t e• " ~$C ;~"~w'~r "v Y = k fi ~ • .,sear f ~ .r'r't r, i'~.w ~~~8. ~9:~2005 •§''T' q,,"~ . f Saltzman Road from Cornell to Burton 185th Avenue from Kinnaman to T.V. Hi hwa ear f, ~r':'j„ivy ,z~M~~ z~,,,~ b''_ -'b sd~v .fin ' ~ = . psi n~ A . kF ~ 9 ~..6 2005 Farmington Road from 170th Avenue to Kinnaman Beaverton-Hillsdale at Oleson and Scholls Intersection Pg'i `a'S •3.kC;7 ~r, d. ~+f~: r?wS;'a~,: { _ F ' ^<G '<r,` riu, %;b. 9. 6. 2005 ~'i•-' f Scholls Ferry Road from Barrows to Teat AGENDA ITEM # 4 FOR AGENDA OF September 20, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY IS TITLE Application of Public Facility Standards in Private Development and Capital Improvement Proam Protects PREPARED BY: A.P. Due as DEPT HEAD OK L~ CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL . This is an informational briefing to Council on-the current Public Facility Standards and how they are applied to private development and City Capital Improvement Program projects. ` STAFF RECOMMENDATION The informational briefing is provided to ensure that Council is fully aware of the current standards and how they are applied through the land use application process and in the design and construction of the City's Capital Improvement Program Projects. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP). was adopted in 2002. The various elements of - the TSP were incorporated into the Community Development Code Chapter 18.810."Street and Utility Improvement. Standards." The standards established in this chapter of the Development Code. provide minimum widths for street improvements depending upon the fiinctional classification of the street and on the elements that are incorporated into the street (i.e., bike lanes, parking, etc.). The TSP developed four basic functional classes for City streets: arterials, collectors, neighborhood routes, and local streets.. Minimum widths are established for each of the classifications depending upon whether or not parking is allowed or bike lanes are required. The Bicycle Master Plan in the TSP provides an overall plan for connecting bike routes throughout the City. Streets that require bike lanes upon widening to ultimate width are shown on the Bicycle Master Plan. City- staff refer to the requirements of the Development Code in the. review of public improvements on. private development projects. The public improvements are typically those facilities (streets, water quality, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, etc.) that would eventually be turned over to the City for maintenance after completion and acceptance. The street capital improvement projects likewise must be consistent with the requirements of the code so that public streets throughout the. City have generally consistent. cross-sections that are appropriate for the functional classifications of the streets. The process to make changes to the Development Code is not an easy one, by design. This is to ensure that the standards and street cross-sections are applied consistently -for each type and segment of street throughout the City. Developers"planning their developments sometimes take years to get their projects to the stage where construction can begin. City street improvement projects likewise take several years from design to construction assuming funding sources are available. Both developers and City projects need the certainty that comes with consistent` standards that do not substantially change without compelling reasons for the changes. City staff will describe how the street and utility standards are applied in the land-use application process and in the design and construction of public improvement street projects. Table 18.810.1 provides the basis'for establishment of street widths. consistent with the functional street classifications. Sample cross-sections for each functional classification are shown in Chapter 18.810. These sample cross-sections are intended to illustrate application of the minimum widths described in Table 18.810.1. City staff will also discuss how.changes to the Development Code can be made and the process necessary -to effect those changes. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Figure 8-3 Street Functional Classification System (TSP) Figure 6-2 Bicycle Master Plan (TSP) Figure 8-11 Future Streets Where ROW is Planned for More Than Two Lanes (TSP) Table 18.810.1 from Chapter 18.810 (Community Development Code) Figures 18.810.1 through 18.810.5 (Community Development Code) FISCAL NOTES N/A i.,\eng\gus\council agenda summades\9-20-05 public facility standards als.doc IDKSAssociates 13 OREGON v Transportation I Systems Plan Legend ac,.s :y I f en .uJia, ::9s3,Sit441 u5 t : St. i~. WX 4 I - ,m J , ~p~ ~mV*cr,hram+av J. ~ d°'~~ Y ~ ~ JSY V.t„uvl lkAetd i r,( 1 f N' _ ,,~~;..a x ~ - +AL4 ~"``-'r' 9: ~ - ~x ~ t^.x+,.en uoizdmorw.,a aou+e fi yy~ ggg jj$j~.+ Y , _ I ~~v RT::~ nfx ~ ~ 1 ~ I#p' %IY+.•A.Y(u~L:,,r v ~ L Uk. t _ W., cS Ne,ji'UUrtxWJ 2,v:v, r e _ a~ urea - :^.3~ w#P" v 4`.`4a#, 1 ? F°a'f u ul tp. j"ann T p,arrr,:rn~ g waw na have anc+ wasn„ss"1y9tar, nr. :3rX..laSe a:sas ive I - - , l _ _ - _ _ _ ' ` l l spacft des,yn re ulailax ane cia,sd Y:ai;urx that ::raysi:ght!y 3,flecimm. Jtrzsa ut the T<R'.r 'v - - sp 't _ - .xrne sia ict?urp;rae5 nV,ese',ve^favaram, thc;a are spec'4c planwrrr nvelay 3tIurta, s ut c.ansi,orta.,n,. !e=_ yn regularlcn_ Y e _ a _ _ '•''.^f.:R...x,x .i&$~9.h'"3 ~u.d's,..,;~,ah 5}V, y nc:tY,(14..~ yn r _ "m. ;M via 2n itmr, 59h:lnesto s: „ww. aOtuNiw+ rr _ a :es= pMYSco = 9At of way 4Qr6s ss . t5t":3:r:45 ~n 9II~,.rag:T S'.v EUt bMlity'~>Ilr _ .~'-Wa., Y y¢ - i._ - - Cn51NY tyJ ."16fa•O` ':1FShY l S 01 4 -AU 61 - Figure - 7 Proposed Functional a Classification System I I a ~ _w DKS Associates - i -.i OF 1't t OT w, *estE x i 10 Transportation a nx Systems r z; . - a Y' _ t Legend ~ Feu ~ 'u 8, ~ f y ~ 1 S^ {'+'b h i I # PPn+':F~F> I TS9nzG ~J14 H 9A~U t2e.'sMrs : 'u• t- C I Wn2p 1 t C } 'tom i/ g,.r~ 1 1 ~ rusNq i t..y +Ee ~ Se 1 k a 'fLN'~ _ I rvs x m sa r t " ~ ~ . { I E"atAtAW~ ~ ~ x i F z ~ h are ¢leaa 4p¢ eav 5h ans i n y za ` ti } S 4Ik1 AY na.`4$N3, a, $ y J TAM 1W six F I i a j as 4-P J, L-,- Figure d2 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN M 3 (Framework Option) CnY O OFVGARD 0 SCAB c ORWON 7 Transportation 7-1 Systems Plan F7 i; F T-_ Legend Platelets Plyiu of Way s•enee is - f s - fit . Added N11.11 CaPWTV 9.~?xs 7 I-1 Lanes NY2 , t &'Y 'a r f t ~ ~ &q~ ~ ~ 'rt"~ ~r $.Arare i ' r w..,„ a"2fr'it' cFhM @" S 5; apes a r 5 d jt r t T`wyt kFi'` v # y 7- ! d`%s„x 4/5 4an6s i x - ~'t I ggg T, ~ } .~L ,~6' _ f~ ttl / t Y T _ *t' sy 'e 1 s i ..ka d j s t+ -vW a t m sw T +ar Csrrrldo, fitin9maxC &iudy Area Y m t ~ Y q,g ~ 'Assam eight tarter. tar ss4hncxs s t t , a - t t u. J a _ id a. Preserve, Raw fiur5 terms in Future ian#e At! Aft atrArtena Arta falColautu f L y - '"i and Coliac4orr rtitechirdleseraans stpvud gn. nsxslts... _srt, ade, foraeaded POW far£ura!miss widen 1-j I L, a "i t + a _ v " 500feet of td- rser$ectton. 23ana4,5r four aeos my be redid tai setifnents a 7 { ; vb&,earrr r<rnA Cale nat*a(nts airniE rr.~dtuay, _ t aid access as mntIb ed m e34•rarsate left tarn If t - 1-,. t 'a.FN ! sf i I Itm, need ! V t I f _ ~,45 r tl I I I I t ! v y sst 5 Figure 8-11 k Future Street Where i r Mir 'fir-r 3 ° t ROW Planned for r , , More Than T Lanes Table 18.810.1 Minimum Widths for Street Characteristics - x.<<>..<>..... _ 4, ~2t i •e y J'S , x.~z tixti'ua .a~.-x<a.,rrr x,Si+ h k~ L. i i~ ~z 'J - 3 -a" yds. ~ C V- Rik A « g' fix. ~ t,"oA n 6 `••x+:?=::i: ~ i` ,r3 r ~v E <V ~ Y _ Q. Arterial- 64'-128' Varies 2 - 7 (Refer to 12' N/A 6' (New Streets) 8' (Res. & Ind. Zones) 5' 12'(1) TSP) 5'-6' (Existing Streets 10' Comm. Zones Collector 58'-96' Varies. 2 - 5 (Refer to 11' N/A 6' (New Streets) 6' (Res. & Ind. Zones) y 'S' 12'(1) TSP) 5'-6' (Existing Streets 8' Comm. Zones -Nei hborhood Route 50'-58' 28'-36' 2 10' 8' 5'-6" 5'-6'(2) 5' N/A Local: Indusirial/Commercial .50' _ 36' 2 N/A 5'x'(2) 5' N/A Local: Residential N/A . Under 1500 ADT 54'/50'(3) 32'/28'(3) 2 8' (both sides) N/A 5'-6'(2) 5' • Under 500 ADT 50'/46'(3) 28'/24'(3) 2 8' (one side) N/A - • Under 200 ADT 46'/42'(3) 24'/20'(3) 2 o Parkin N/A Cul-de-sac bulbs in 50' 42' radius N/A N/A N/A N/A Industrial and radius Commercial zones Cul-de-sac bulbs in 47' 40' radius N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Residential zones radius Alle : Residential 16' 16' N/A t N/A N/A N/A N/A Alle : Business 20' 20' N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (Ord. 02-33) ' Medians required for 5 and 7 lane roadways. They are optional for 3 lane roadways. 2 Sidewalk widths for these streets shall be 5 ft with landscape strip; 6 ft if against curb (if permitted in accordance with 18.810.070.C). . 3 "Skinny Street" roadway widths are permitted where cross section and review. criteria are met. Refer to corresponding cross sections (Figures 18.810.3, 18.810.4 and 18:810.5). for details and conditions. Street Utility Improvement Standards 18.810-6 Code Update: 10102 Figure 18.810.1 Arterials Sample Cross Sections . (Ord. 02-33) . S' f 8 6* 32 8 5 5 -10 5 5 Bate : ne64- La 68 R/W: a = 2' t> -Q ~ y { RAM Slane 76.80 RNV, list to"" wo l A WAS A. 12'.MedtaN :5', 5..:1.0_,.~._.b 66 8k__~ 12 ,~utn.LQn 12 12 6 Bake'- " 5 18 10' 04. 5•Lane100 1o4 R/W : . ATA E" 4N. 11, T;i~i s.: b'Be1.2- Q110 - 5' 12 12 5 12_,..:.,.,_, _I2':~~ke100L Owl ?V 7lane°t24128'W4V Street Utility Improvement Standards 18.810-7 Code Update: 10102 Figure 18.8 10.2 Collector Sample Cross Sections (Ord 02 33) r 5 68'.5.5' 6&ke 1`t F 1l ¢&ke'S5 58' 1 Lane58' 62' RM!. i Ft'Ft~Y vlf. ~ tF` 2 MedlQn( 5; 6 b 5 6 Bdcee t 1 1'~; Turn Lane _11' 6%e 5,5' . 6-8'_ _'5' 3 Lane 10`44' C~ fir . 6-8' 5.5' _ 6'Bike 1 1' 11' Mr.,- he l t' 11' b Bke 5.5' 6-8' S J, t i E. } i; RM+;92'-96• - - 5 Lane 92:96" RW. . Street Utility Improvement Standards,, . .18.810-8 Code Update: 10102 Figure 18.810.3 Neighborhood Routes Sample Cross Sections (Ord. 02-33) 1 j. 5 5:;r.:z; 5 5,.:: ._:,.:::.;...;2$::°-;s::55'__5_1;;.~..:..:-..:.,.:...::i._....•.._..........._~_._.. --._5_ 5._..: • ,;~?;_F":.??::. ice......:..;.:.....::.::,.-. i O::'1.:,:.:,..,.f-...-t-1 Of noion One Sl ntParkrng on Botti;Sides . . . 3 b 5' 6 &ke. 12 12 ¢ 8tce~5 5 S = N- RjVV 58 Wth Bike Lanes /No Paddng . Figure 18.810.4 Local Residential Streets - <1,500 vpd (Ord. 02-33) A. Standard (sample) B. Skinny Street Option (criteria) 1/777 t 1 5.51 " eu..m s On-street;Parkln Ifpaiidng.on.bottf,srdes block length rrot to'ezoeetl 600. feet ; Criteria: • Traffic Flow Plan must be submitted and approved. • Not'appropriate for streets serving more than 1,000 vpd. • No parking permitted within 30 feet of an intersection. • Appropriate adjacent to single family detached development only. Street Utility Improvement Standards 18.810-9 Code Update: 10102 Figure 18.810.5 Local Residential Streets < 500 vpd (Ord. 02-33) A. Standard (sample) B. Skinny Street Option (criteria) ra{! t. I • v s f5•~ • 5 _ 551 O. 28 l g 5' S~ 5 R/W 50 { rr ie rr Residential Local t'reeUCUI-d e, street Ft~ridng i°.: One SO iI Criteria:. Traffic Flow Plan must be submitted and approved. • Not appropriate for streets serving more than 500 vpd. • No parking permitted within 30 feet of an intersection. • Appropriate adjacent to single family detached- development only. ' • Must provide a minimum of (1) off-street parking space for every 20 feet of restricted street frontage. Figure 18.810.6 Local Residential Street < 200 vpd (Ord.02-33) A. • Standard (sample) B. Skinny Street Option (criteria). ar sa • 5: 5 55 24' S 4 5 5. . n•y "mow Cul-de-sac/.Residentlai -de-*saclResidentlAUL66A 1: Street' i . • Criteria: , • 'Must provide a minimum of (1) off-street parking space for every 20 feet of restricted street frontage. • No parking permitted within 30 feet of an intersection. Street Utility Improvement Standards 18.810-10 Code Update: 10102 Basis for Existing Policy Public Facility Standards ❖ State Transportation Planning Rule ' Metro Functional Plan September 20, 2005 %Z- City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan s• Tigard Transportation System Plan s• Community Vision-Tigard Beyond Tomorrow City of Tigard I Basis for Existing Policy Policy. Statements ❖ Policy calls for: Relate to A more comprehensive and balanced approach to transportation policy Balanced, transportation S• Multi-modal approach (address pedestrians, ❖ Safety bicycles, transit,. rail, truck and.other transportion e Performance modes) , Resulted from technical work of consultants, ❖ Accessibility staff, Technical Advisory Committees, and Goods movement Planning Commission ❖ Coordination ❖ Adopted by Ordinance as part of the Comprehensive Plan and Transportation . _System Plan Street Improvement Standards Street Improvement Standards Tigard Transportation System Plan Comm unity,Development Code (TSP) ❖ Chapter 18.810 incorporates various elements of the TSP Adopted in 2002 ❖ Establishes the "Street and Utility Developed four basic functional Improvement Standards" for Citywide classifications for streets application Establishes minimum widths for various Established minimum widths for streets elements depending upon the classification base'' on classification and`elements and elements included incorporated into the street Table 18.810.1 provides those minimum widths • r I l Street Improvement Standards Bicycle Master Plan Transportation Planning Rule requires 6} development of balanced transportation systems - Rule requires local TSP's to establish a network of biking and walking facilities .throughout the planning area - . Tigard's TSP established a network of bike may- - lanes in compliance w The Bicycle Master Plan depicts that. - - network Bicycle Master Plan' Bicycle Master Plan onsatian Bike lanes are required along all Arterial Transportation and Collector Routes t Systems Plan Bike lanes are also required where f'Y identified on the City's adopted bicycle plan;'', E - in the TSP The Bicycle Master Plan is used to determine when bike lanes must be included in a proposed street improvement l 7° err,;. 4 ❖ Street improvement projects must include I S° A. bike lanes where identified in the adopted. Bicycle Master Plan 113 Application of Standards Application of Standards The requirements of the Development ;.public improvements on private development Code: projects E• Are followed in public improvements on private •:.New streets must meet standards development projects ❖ Widening of existing streets must also meet Public facilities include'streets, water quality standards structures, storm drainage, sanitary se wer, etc. ❖ Many developments consolidate lots and remove f• Are applied to street capital. Improvements existing structures making compliance with projects standards easier , Result in generally consistent cross-sections : Deviations must be based on meeting criteria for appropriate for the functiona I. classifications of adjustments to standards as outlined in . the streets Community Development Code 18.370.020.C.11 2 Application of Standards'-.-'. ` ,Criteria for-.Adjustments.' 4• Type II procedure (Section 18.390.040) ❖Capital Improvement Program Projects Criteria include unacceptably adverse -*Typically retrofit standard cross-sections impact: ' through existing neighborhoods ❖ On existing development •:•Every street project must ensure adequate On the proposed development access to adjacent lots and homes. e• On natural features. such as wetlands, steep slopes'or existing mature'trees -*-Generally able to meet standards Approval requires a determination that the : ' . ❖Deviations also must be based`on'meeting potential adverse impacts exceed the, public criteria for adjustments to standards benefits of strict application of the standards Changing.Policy Changing Policy Changes that go beyond adjustments to Following policychanges, ordinance standards require,change in policy standards that aPPIY policy are'then ❖ Policy changes require'public-hearings by changed by Planning,Commissiori and City both Planning Commission and City Council Council hearings'' -.-'Decisions, must be,-.,based on:. - -e Failure to follow adopted ordinances create ❖ Statewide Planning Goals and,Policies under potential for:. ORS 197 Applicable Federal or State Regulation ❖ ' Liability' ; ❖ Applicable Metro Policies 4•:Appeals, ❖ Applicable Comprehensive Plan' Policies ` Legal costs ❖ Applicable Provision of City Implementing ee Ad hoc decision making Ordinances S . AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF September 20, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUN54ARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Proposed 79`h Avenue Local Improvement District - Discussion of Options PREPARED BY: A.P. Duenas DEPT HEAD OK ~TY MGR OK Vl ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Council discussion, input and direction to staff is requested regarding the options submitted by memorandum dated June 16, 2005 on the proposed 79"' Avenue Local Improvement District (LID). STAFF RECOMMENDATION That Council provide input on the options and provide direction to staff on which option, if any, to pursue. INFORMATION SUMMARY Council authorized the preparation of a Preliminary Engineer's Report on the proposed 791h Avenue LID (Resolution No. 05-24). Based on the current Development Code and the requirements of the Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP), a street cross-section was selected that complies with the requirements of the Development Code and the TSP. 79th Avenue is classified as a neighborhood route and is on the Bicycle Master Plan in the TSP. New developments along the street will have interior access to the lots and will have limited access points to the street. As a result, on-street parking is not included in the street cross-section. The cross- section therefore consists of two eleven-foot travel lanes, bike lanes on each side of the street, as well as planter strips and sidewalk on both sides of the street. Attached is a drawing showing the TSP sample, cross-section for a neighborhood route with bike lanes and the'street cross-section developed for the street based on the sample cross-section and Table 8-810 in the Development Code. Using the cross-section developed, a preliminary, street design was developed to determine costs for improving the street from Bonita Road to Gentle Woods Drive. The preliminary project costs are relatively. high. Because most of the lots in the proposed LID boundary are relatively large, the estimated assessments are likewise high. For those property owners that are not contemplating development of their lots, or for those on a fixed income, the large assessments would be a huge issue. Because of the high estimated costs and the potentially large assessments to the property owners, Council may not wish to form the LID for.construction of the improvements. A preliminary progress report was submitted to Council via memorandum dated June 16, 2005 (attached). The. memorandum provided some options that may be considered for improvements to the street. The following are some options that may be considered for SW 79`h Avenue: Option 1: Continue with the LID as proposed. The preliminary assessment report submitted to Council with the memorandum provides all the relevant information for this option. Option 2: Revise the LID boundary to full street improvements in front of the developing, properties. The developer is concerned that the lack of cooperation from property owners across the street may continue to present an obstacle to the improvements. This option may be considered to ensure that the street is properly constructed with land acquisition as needed to construct proper slopes and driveway transitions to the properties on the crest of the hill. The two lots that are at the crest of the hill have both signed non-remonstrance agreements, which presumably was required when the larger property was subdivided. Option 3: Let the developer perform full-street and three-quarter street improvements sufficient to resolve some of the vertical alignment problems on the street. This maybe the way to address some of the deficiencies in the street without going through the relatively, expensive LID formation process. A proposed development has one large lot on the west side of the street and two large lots on the east side of the street. The development appears large enough to justify vertical alignment . of the street along the frontage of the development. The Engineering staff has performed sufficient design work to realign the street such that it can be constructed to full-street improvements along a portion of the. street'and three-quarter street improvements over the rest of that frontage. J As developments proceed south towards Gentle Woods Drive,,with right-of-way acquisition,at key locations by the City, those developments could widen the street to at least three-quarters width or possibly fall-width. In addition, the two large lots northeast of the Leiser Park Subdivision adjacent to Bonita Road are undeveloped residential lots zoned R-12. The east side of 79th Avenue and the intersection of the street with Bonita, Road can be addressed if those two lots come in for development.. Therefore, over time, the street from Bonita Road to Gentle Woods can be significantly realigned and reconstructed to resolve the more serious issues on the north half of 79th Avenue. The attached memorandum -to Council dated August 25, 2005 provided an update report and included a strategy to address the deterioration of the street by providing, over time, a basic street section (short of the ultimate width) consisting of two travel lanes and paved shoulders. Segments of 79th can be reconstructed and widened to provide that basic section as early as FY 2006-07. Through improvements by the City and. by developers as they construct their developments in the future, a basic section consisting of two travel lanes and paved shoulders can be provided over the south half of 79th Avenue, widening out to sidewalks and bike lanes on the •north half as developers construct street improvements as part of their development. A meeting with some residents of the neighborhood was held on August 29, 2005. The input from some of the citizens is as follows: • The planter strip is unnecessary and would be an eyesore if not maintained properly. The TSP does require planter strips, 'and-the street design developed can include the planter strips within the existing right-of-way with deviations (curb-tight sidewalk) at areas where steep slopes to existing homes require curb-tight sidewalk. Lack of maintenance wherever these planter strips are installed Citywide is a cause for concern. • The bike lanes are not needed and should be eliminated or relocated to 74`" Avenue. 79th Avenue is on the Bicycle Master Plan because it is near the midpoint between 72nd Avenue and Hall Boulevard, provides a direct connection between Bonita Road and Durham Road, provides access to and from the { residential neighborhoods, and does not need, parking along the street. Bike lanes would become even more desirable as development occurs along the'relatively. .undeveloped north half of the street. 74cn Avenue serves an industrial area, is relatively close to 72 Avenue, and.parking would be needed on the west side of the street adjacent to the businesses along there. Although it does.provide a.direct connection between Bonita and Durham Roads, it does not connect to any residential neighborhoods. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY . N/A ATTACHMENT LIST . I.- Resolution No. 05-24 2.. Memorandum to Council dated June 16, 2005 3. Memorandum to Council dated August 25, 2005 4. Street Cross-Sections (TSP Requirements , 79th Avenue design section, reduced basic section) 5. Figure 6-2 Bicycle Master Plan (TSP) 6. Table 18.810.1 from Chapter 18.810 (Community Development Code) FISCAL NOTES N/A 11En0\Gus%Cound1 Agenda SummaAes\9-20-05 Proposed 7? Avenue LID-Discussion of Options AIS . CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON r RESOLUTION NO. 05- 24- A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE ENGINEERING STAFF TO PREPARE A. PRELIMIINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED SW 79~" AVENUE LOCAL. IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND DIRECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FUNDING MECHANISM FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE REPORT. WHEREAS,.SW 79' Avenue, from SW Bonita Road to SW.Durham Road; is designated as a neighborhood route in Tigard's Transportation System Plan; and WHEREAS, a significant portion of the street is in substandard condition and requires reconstruction and vertical realignment to meet current geometric standards; and WHEREAS, the owners of five lots along SW 79th Avenue representing -forty-eight percent of the total area of the proposed local improvement district (LID),, have requested that a LID be formed to improve the street to meet current standards; and WHEREAS, the Engineering staff prepared a Preliminary. Evaluation Report (attached), which was submitted to the City, Council for discussion and direction during its March 8, 2005 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Preliminary Evaluation Report determined that the proposed LID appears feasible and recommended that the City Council take the next step in the LID formation .process by authorizing the preparation of a Preliminary Engineer's Report; and WHEREAS, the Preliminary Evaluation Report recognized that there is no funding currently available to proceed, with the project and recommended that the City Council direct the establishment of that fimding mechanism by designating the Gas Tax Fund as the fimding source; and WHEREAS, the City Council discussed the proposed LID and indicated that the LID boundary and improvements to be constructed by the LID are satisfactory as submitted; and WHEREAS, the City Council has directed staff to prepare a resolution authorizing preparation of a Preliminary Engineer's Report and submit that resolution for adoption at a City Council business meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The. Engineering staff is directed to proceed with preparation of a. Preliminary . Engineer's Report for the proposed LID in accordance with the proposed LID boundary and improvements as described in Alternative 1 of the Preliminary Evaluation Report. SECTION 2: The Preliminary Engineer's Report. should include the scope of work, location of the proposed 'improvements, proposed district boundaries, estimated cost, proposed assessment methods, and other information that may be relevant to the feasibility of the improvements and district. The report should recommend approval, . approval with . conditions, or denial-. RESOLUTION NO. 05 - Z¢ Pagel : SECTION 3: The City of Tigard shall. provide the funding for preparation of the Preliminary Engineer's Report. The amount needed for FY 200405 to prepare the report is approximately $60,000. SECTION 4: The City staff is directed to establish the funding mechanism in that amount for the engineering work using the Gas Tax as a funding source. Any, budget adjustments requiring Council action and necessary for the establishment of the project funding shall be brought to Council for appropriate action. l SECTION 5: All costs incurred after the date of this resolution to prepare the Preliminary Engineer's Report and form the district shall be included as part of the LID costs and shall be reimbursed to the 'City if the LID is formed and the improvements are constructed. SECTION 6: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This /L' ' day of n 2005. Mayor City of Tigard ATTEST: Greer A. Gaston, Deputy City Recorder rWnplpr¢gUftw Vkh evWm TM pro report =Aoc , l RESOLUTION NO. 05 Page 2. CITY OF TIGARD Engineering Department Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. i Tigard, OR 97223 Phone 503-639-4171 Fax: 503-624-0752 TO: Mayor and City Councilors Craig Prosser, Interim City Manager. FROM: Gus Duenas City Engineer DATE% June 16, 2005 . SUBJECT: Progress Report on the Proposed 79th Avenue Local Improvement District Background Staff requested Council approval to prepare a Preliminary Engineer's Report for the proposed SW 79th Avenue Local Improvement District (LID). This request came as a result of requests from local property owners/developers who were interested in improving the street: A Preliminary Evaluation of the proposed LID was presented to Council at the March 8, 2005 meeting. The Preliminary Evaluation Report found that an LID is feasible, but that additional work was needed to establish the LID boundary and determine the level of support for the LID. Unless a developer consolidates lots sufficient to justify full street improvements, no one development can completely resolve the vertical alignment problems along that street. The lack of cooperation from those not developing was stymieing the efforts of those interested in improving the .street as part of their developments. This is the primary reason the lot owners/developers approached the City regarding formation of an LID to perform the improvements. The proposed LID presents an opportunity to comprehensively address the deficiencies of the existing street by widening it, reconstructing it to correct the severe vertical alignments problems, and by providing sidewalks and bike lanes along the street. The LID was proposed to extend from Bonita Road south to just north of Gentle Woods Drive. Council approved the next step in the LID formation process through Resolution No. 05-24 authorizing the preparation of a Preliminary Engineer's Report. Preliminary Progress Report Attached is a preliminary progress report prepared by the Engineering Department staff outlining the recommended LID boundary, the properties that support the LID, the properties that have signed non-remonstrance agreements when they developed, and those properties that potentially support the formation of an LID to perform the improvements. The property owners that have signed a non-remonstrance agreement against formation of an LID cannot formally remonstrate against an LID and their, lots count as "yes" votes. However, this does not mean they would actually support the LID-they just cannot remonstrate against it. Council cannot proceed with the LID formation if two=thirds of the property owners by area remonstrate against the LID. It is clear that the overall percentages (46% without the potential support and 76% with all the potential support shown) show that an LID maybe formed. The City has successfully used the LID process to improve certain streets' during the past 20 years. The improvements to 135th Avenue (from Walnut Street to Scholls Ferry.Road) in 1987 is an example of an LID that passes through a residential area. Other LIDS include- 72°d Avenue, 69th Avenue, 68th parkway, and Sequoia Parkway, which pass through areas primarily commercial or industrial in nature. The attached preliminary document shows the preliminary project costs, the. potential credits that the City could provide to the 79th Avenue LID, the net cost that would be borne by the property owners, and the assessment breakdown for each of the properties. Contribution from the Street Maintenance Fee is, shown as a potential credit primarily because the existing 79th Avenue badly needs reconstruction and maintenance. The amount shown represents what•would theoretically be spent to reconstruct just the existing street without vertical realignment. However, use of those Street Maintenance Fee funds on the street improvements is probably not a wise thing to do because it is likely to create the perception that it is.being used for new construction. It is really crucial for the City's credibility to ensure that those funds are used strictly for street maintenance purposes.I would therefore not factor that amount into the credits to be applied to the LID, which would raise the LID costs by that amount. Because most of the lots are relatively large, even with all the potential credits applied, the amounts to be assessed remain quite high. For those property owners that are not contemplating development of their lots, or for those on a fixed income, the large assessments would be a huge issue. When an LID is formed, under state law, the City is able to offer financing assistance. to property owners. This assistance is in the form of assessment contracts allowing payment over time (usually 10 years),at,low interest rates. Even with this assistance,, large assessments could be a problem for some property owners: We do not want to present the information developed so far to the neighborhood until Council has had an opportunity to receive this progress report and see the preliminary information that has been developed. Because the proposed assessments are certain to Memo to City Council-Proposed Nh Avenue LID Page 2 of 4 arouse strong opposition among certain property owners. (albeit a minority of the property owners in that area), it is prudent at this time to examine alternatives to formation of the LID for construction of the improvements before the Preliminary Engineer's Report is finalized. Options for Consideration The preliminary work.done so far indicates that an LID may be formed, but that assessments would be relatively large for certain property owners that are apparently not interested in developing at this time. We met'with potential developers along that street on Thursday, June 16, 2005 to let them know of the current status of the Preliminary Engineer's Report and to discuss potential options that may be considered for the street improvements either through a revised LID boundary or without formation of the LID. The following are, some options that may be considered for SW 791h Avenue: Option 1: Continue with the LID as proposed. The attached preliminary assessment provides all the relevant information for this option. Option 2: Revise the LID boundary to full street improvements in front of the developing: , properties. The developer is concerned that the lack of cooperation from property owners across the street may continue to present an obstacle to the improvements. This option may be considered to ensure that the street is properly constructed with land acquisition as needed to construct proper slopes and driveway transitions.to the properties on the crest of the hill. The two lots that are at the crest of the hill have both signed non-remonstrance agreements, which presumably. was required when the larger property was subdivided. Option 3: Let the developer perform full street and three-quarter street improvements sufficient to resolve some of the vertical alignment problems on the street. This maybe the way to address'some of the deficiencies in the street without going through the relatively expensive LID formation process. A proposed development has one large lot on the west side of the street and two large lots on the east side of the street. The development appears large enough to justify vertical alignment of the street along the frontage of the development. We have performed sufficient design work to realign the street such that it can be constructed to full street improvements along a portion of the street and three-quarter street improvements over the rest of that frontage. Although no additional right-of-way appears to be 'needed along this segment using the vertical and horizontal alignments we have developed; the. cooperation of two property owners along the crest of the hill may, be needed for proper transitions from the streets to the driveways and for the slopes to'be.reshaped. The new alignments match up with the existing street at a natural transition point located on the south" end of the proposed development. Allowing the developer to construct the street improvements would resolve some of the more difficult vertical alignment problems. Keeping the LID formation as an option may elicit the cooperation the developer. needs to complete the improvements. Proper disposal of storm drainage that could be readily resolved with the full street Memo to City Council-Proposed 79`h Avenue LID Page 3 of 4 improvements from Bonita to Gentle Woods may bean issue with the reduced scope. However, at this point, that issue appears to be resolvable. As developments proceed,south towards Gentle Woods Drive, with right-of-way acquisition at key locations by the City, those developments could'widen the street to at least three-quarters width or possibly full width. In addition, the two large lots northeast of the Leiser Park Subdivision adjacent to Bonita Road are undeveloped, residential lots zoned R-12: The east side of 791h Avenue and the intersection of the street with Bonita-Road can be addressed if those two lots come in for development. Therefore; over time, the street from Bonita Road to Gentle Woods can be significantly realigned and reconstructed to resolve the more serious issues on the north half of 79' Avenue. Council Input Council input on the three options is needed at this point: If the preference is to move ahead with the LID as proposed (Option 1), staff will continue towards completion of the Preliminary Engineer's Report with the boundary and improvements as attached. If a reduction in scope and limits of the LID is the direction (Option 2), staff will adjust the report to limit the LID. If the preference at this point is not to: form the LID (Option 3), staff will work with the potential developers to provide as much of the street improvements . as can be justified with the proposed developments. Attachment c: Vannie Nguyen, CIP Division Manager Marco Cabanillas, Project Engineer Karleen Aichele, Acting Engineering Technician III IlengtgusVnemomndu=Vnemmandum to council-78th avenue Id.doc ' Memo to City Council-Proposed 79th Avenue LID Page 4 of 4 PITY OF TIGARD' Engineering Department Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM ' CITY OF _TIGARD. 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Phone 503-639-4171. Fax: 503-624-0752 TO: Mayor and City Councilors Craig Prosser, City Manager FROM: Gus Duenas City Engineer DATE: August 25, 2005 SUBJECT: 79th Avenue Update.,., Because the proposed 79th Avenue Local Improvement District (LID) was a previous Fifth Tuesday issue, this memorandum is to provide you with a status update prior to the upcoming Fifth Tuesday meeting on August 30, 2005. I had transmitted a progress report via memorandum to Council (dated June 16, 2005) on the.proposed LID. The memorandum (attached) provided some options that may be considered for .SW 79th Avenue. Council discussion of the options is scheduled for the workshop meeting on September 20, 2005. A discussion of the Public Facility Improvement standards required by the Development. Code for private development and for the City's street projects will precede the 79th Avenue agenda item. City staff from the Engineering and Community Development Departments will be participating in that discussion. The street section that we are proposing for 79th Avenue is derived from those standards, with some deviation to provide curb-tight sidewalk in those areas where the existing homes are much higher than the street. The meandering of the sidewalk to eliminate the planter strips.in those areas would allow for better driveway access, (less steep slopes) to the homes from the street. To ensure that the residents of the 79th Avenue neighborhood are aware of the current street standards, and of the various options .that have been presented to Council for discussion, I have scheduled a meeting with neighborhood residents on August 29, 2005. I asked Kristin Preston to organize the meeting and she agreed. In preparation for the meeting, I met with Kristin and went over the current standards in the Development Code, the development of the design for the street based on those standards, as well as the options" that I presented-to Council for discussion on September 20th. The meeting with Kristin went well. I will be going over the same material with the neighborhood residents at the meeting on August 29th. I will include the resident input in the Council agenda summary for the workshop meeting on September 20, 2005. 79th Avenue is in poor condition throughout most of the street, and some level of improvement is needed to enhance safety and provide a.good riding surface. Although the street is high on our list for maintenance, the need for significant vertical realignment along several long sections on the street holds us back from scheduling that needed maintenance. We are reluctant to spend those maintenance dollars on improvements that would be eventually discarded to correct vertical alignment problems in the future. However, like everyone else in the City, the residents along that street are' contributing to the Street Maintenance Fee.revenue and deserve to see some improvements on that deteriorated street. We are currently exploring the possibility of upgrading sections of 79th Avenue that do not need significant vertical realignment. The segment between Ashford Street and Durham Road looks promising for phased construction (something less than the ultimate section), and could be proposed for Fiscal Year 2006-07. We would reconstruct the two travel lanes using Street Maintenance Fee funding and add paved shoulders for pedestrians and bicyclists.. The elements outside the two travel lanes (paved shoulders, drainage and grading work) would be through gas tax funding: The street section would be designed and constructed such that developers along the street would just need to extend their improvements (sidewalk, planter strip, storm drainage and additional pavement) to match the street section constructed. The street segments that need vertical realignment could be addressed in subsequent fiscal years using gas tax funding to the extent possible. Over time, through developer-initiated improvements coupled'with City dollars, the street could be upgraded to provide at least two travel lanes and paved shoulders through its entire length. The areas that develop would have sidewalk and planter strips along their frontages.. Other areas would just have the basic section described. I plan to also discuss the possibility of including the upgrading of the street in future fiscal years with the residents at the meeting on August 29th. I shared our thoughts regarding those proposed improvements with Kristin. She was receptive to the idea and felt there would not be any controversy about improving the street in that manner. Attachment c:• Vannie Nguyen, CIP Division Manager Marco Cabanillas, Project Engineer .Karleen Aichele, Acting Engineering Technician III, is\en9\qus\memomndumsVnemomndum to council-79th avenue update.doe ' i Memo to City Council-79 h Avenue Update Page; 2 of 2 Neighborhood Route Transportation System.Plan Standard 36 j 6.5'5.6 6' Bke 12' 12` b' BiYe 5,5'~ 6.5' R,IW 6 ' Bike lanes/No' parking Note: 79`h Avenue has been reclassified by the TSP from a Minor. Collector to a Neighborhood Route Current Design -Reduced Section derived from TSP mrmpmn; 79, ykftam 29' ' 5- _ _ ~J I SJd Planter B AC! i....._.._~_~ Trav~l.Jarre Travel long 8rkt j Ranter SJd-we{k & curb & cu,b , grade :L vi~ Typical Section Note: Travel lane reduced to 11 feet, bike lane maintained at 6 feet from face of curb. Gutter section reduced from typical 18 inches to 12 inches. Net bike lane outside gutter is 5 feet wide. Planter strip added in line with TSP-requirement where feasible (away from the steep driveway areas). 791h Avenue is on the bike route and bike lanes are needed. T' S+ TT' J1' S' T' Pared Trovel lone Travel lane Paved 5houldor 4" Mlle, Shouldor shoulder stripe 4" Mile Profile. shoulder stripe grade ' Phased-C.onstruction• Reduced Limits sociates i i " CITY TIGARD Transportation Systems Plan #_pa~;,n is _ ~ro'~~ k 4"s" - I t p ahryrc: ~ r l , It - Figure 6-21 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN fframework Option) Table 18.810.1 Minimum Widths for Street Characteristics. G~ C d +'L.r Type of Street o s o. [ma[yy ~.1 ' a. 3 r+ b y Cd G ~.;b CG G M ~T,~ W bA 3 C y Arterial '"64'-128' Varies 2 - 7 (Refer to 12' N/A 6'-'(New Streets) .8'. (Res. & Ind. Zones) 5' 1210) TSP) 51-6' (Existing Streets 10' Comm. Zones) Collector 58'-96' Varies 2 - 5 (Refer to 11' N/A 6' (New Streets) .6' (Res. & Ind. Zones) 5' TSP) 5'4' (Existing Streets - 8' Comm. Zones Neighborhood Route 50'-58' 28'.-36' 2 10' 8' 5'-6' 5'-6'(2) 5' N/A Local: Industrial/Commercial. 50' 36' 2- N/A 5'-6'(2) 5' N/A Local: Residential N/A Under 1500 ADT 54'/50'(') 32'/28'(') 2 8' (both sides) N/A •5'-02) 5' • Under 500 ADT 50V-40') 28'/24'(') 2 8' (one side) N/A • Under 200 ADT 46'/42'(3) 24'/20'(3) 2 o Parkin N/A. Cul-de-sac bulbs in 50' 42' radius N/A N/A N/A N/A Industrial-and radius Commercial zones Cul-de-sac bulbs in 47' 40' radius N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Residential zones radius Alle : Residential 1616' N/A _ N/A N/A N/A N/A Alley: Business 20' 20' N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (Ord. 02-33) Medians required for 5 and7 lane roadways.. They are optional for. 3 lane roadways. . 2 Sidewalk widths for these streets shall be 5 ft with landscape strip; 6 ft if against curb (if permitted in accordance with 18.810.070.C). 3 "Skinny Street" roadway widths are permitted where cross section and-review c_ riteria are met. Refer to corresponding cross sections (Figures 18.810.3, 18.810.4 and 18:810.5) for details and conditions. _ Street Utility Improvement Standards 18.810-6 Code Update: 10102 City of Tigard 79th Avenue Improvements, 791" Avenue i Discussion of Options ❖ Neighborhood route ❖ Connects Bonita Road and Durham Road Sags and crests on the north half require vertical realignment ❖ Existing street is extremely September 20, 2005 = deteriorated-needs .reconstruction ❖ Lacks sidewalks and shoulders Vicinity Map.. Proposed LID; Proposed development requested an LID 4~ ❖ An LID would construct full street _ improvements to: E Resolve vertical alignment problems ' ■ 'Accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists ■ Permit land acquisition for widening a 3 t LID Process Street Cross-Section ❖ Preliminary Evaluation Report Bicycle Master ❖ Preliminary Engineer's Report Plan calls for bike :lanes on 790 f6>"~' ❖ Declaration of intention to form. , avenue the district . District formation street cross- r;_ ~a`~ ' section based on ,,.,o_,,,°,,,,,,,,,,•,,,,„~,,, Construction of Improvements a Neighborhood _ ❖ Spreading of assessments b Route with bike y lanes and no ordinance Parking' _ • ti 3 6 Preliminary, Project Design: ` LID Boundary Proposed Improvements " I t~ t T f T'i1 l •Bonita Road to Gentle Wood~3-- 1 ? 74 ~a L - rrl Tr tl ~{'1-'}(IffT{jfr +{-f k ,~rMt tjj~~i'~{+hh'nff x~ {llalfi F+~-+i-i~ 4'. ~M F T` I r ~y ~ t} O 9 'Current Status Options Preliminary Engineer's Report' ❖ Option 1 - Continue with the LID as preparation initiated but-not proposed completed S• Option 2 - Reduce the length of ❖ Progress Report submitted to Council street improvements June 16, 2005 •3. Option 3 - Let developers perform • No•further'work has been performed .full-street or three-quarter street since then i`mprovemen'ts without an LID Council direction needed 1 9 1o ' No LID Option Developer Frontage ❖ Segment from Bonita Road to Gentle s ktt R 3~\\` Za'IYPf7- 1. f Woods Drive ■ Proposed development can address the most serious vertical alignment problem ■ Future development immediately south of the proposed development can extend i, the improvements along that frontage = 1. t l IRE :111MCIT rEICL X i F cult 12 ' ` 2 Next Segment to Gentle Woods Meeting with Neighborhood , •5 Met with some neighborhood 'representatives on August 29, 2005 - ❖ Input from.the residents at the C~~ meeting ■ Planter strips could be an eyesore if not _ maintained ■ Some did not want the bike lanes 13 1• Upgrade Strategy - Basic Street Section. ❖ Segments of 79th can be upgraded ( over time to provide a basic section ■ Two travel lanes and paved shoulders e ■ 1st Step.- Durham Road to Ashford could be considered for FY 2006-07 ■ Street Maintenance Fee could pay for existing pavement reconstruction ■ Gas tax and.storm drain fund can pay for the vertical realignment, paved Phased construction - Reduced LMts shoulders and drainage improvements 15 r 16 Summary ❖ Council direction is needed on options for improvements For a no-LID option: ■ Resolution would be prepared for Council consideration terminating the LID effort ■ Improvements required of developers would be determined through the land use approval process ■ Future upgrades would consist of developer- initiated and City funded improvements 17 AGENDA ITEM # ~D. FOR AGENDA OF 9/20/05 CITY'OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Presentation of Washington County Issue Papers on Bull Mountain PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts' DEPT HEAD OK Q CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL City Staff will 'make a presentation on the recently released series of seven County Issue Papers dealing with Bull Mountain park and planning-related issues. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive information on the Bull Mountain Issue Papers, discuss, and provide direction to staff on comments and feedback to carry to Washington County. INFORMATION SUMMARY' In total, seven Bull Mountain Issue Papers were prepared by County staff and presented to the Board of County Commissioners at a workshop. These papers were prepared in"response to a series of issues raised by CPO 413-and area residents. The County Commission is scheduled to hear public comments and take action on the Issue Papers on September 27, 2005. Issue Paper #14 responds. to a resolution adopted by CPO 4B requesting the County to implement a Public Facilities Strategy (PFS) to address growth in unincorporated Bull Mountain, as well as consideration of a development moratorium. County staff has concluded that neither the PFS nor the moratorium would comply with State statutes. Issue Papers #15 and #16 address the issue of park planning and funding of the same for unincorporated Bull Mountain. In Issue Paper #15, County staff is recommending that park planning continue to be conducted by the Cityof Tigard. Issue Paper #16, while not making specific recommendations, identifies that a park local improvement district is an option for citizens to consider. Issue Paper #17 evaluates decreasing development densities in unincorporated Bull Mountain. The paper concludes that the County does not have an alternative to lower.densities for the area by shifting the density to other unincorporated urbanized areas within the County.. The best alternative to address this issue is for the planning of unincorporated Bull Mountain and Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Areas 63 and 64 to be conducted by the City of Tigard as part'of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Densities could be considered as part of that process. Issue Papers #18 and #21 address updating the Bull Mountain Community Plan"and the planning for Areas 63 and 64. County staff is recommending, at the City's request, that unincorporated Bull Mountain and Areas 63 and 64' be included in the City's updated its Comprehensive Plan. County participation would occurthroughout the planning process. Issue Paper #22 addresses the need.to update the Washington County-Tigard Urban Service Agreementlo assign Tigard planning responsibilities for unincorporated Bull Mountain and Areas 63 and 64. County staff is recommending that an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) be executed assigning this responsibility. At the County's August 23, 2005 Board of Commissioner's meeting, County Administrator Charlie Cameron . recommended that the County retain responsibility for.planning UGB expansion Areas 64 and 64. This recommendation is not consistent with the recommendation of several of these issue papers. It is not yet known what implications this latest recommendation will have on final approval of the County issue papers. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND•ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: County Issue Papers' FISCAL NOTES . N/A - This is an information- only item. WASHINGTON COUNTY :OROGON - July 20, 2005 RECD . J U L 2 2'2005. To: Washington County Planning Commission, Land Use Ordinance Advisory, Commission, Community Participation Organizations, and Committee for Citizen Involvement; City of Tigard; Citybf King City; and other Interested Parties From: Brent Curtis, Planning ,Manager Subject: Revised Meeting,Date to Consider the Draft Issue Papers about Planning and Park Issues in-the Bull ML Area In response to a request by CPO.4B, the Washington County Board of Commissioners (Board)' decided'it will'consider and take public comments about the draft Bull Mt. issue papers on September 27, 2005 rather than August 16th. The CPO. asked for the extension to provide the CPO with additional time to review and comment on the issue papers. The meeting will beheld in the auditorium ofthe Public Services Building located at 155 N. 1st Avenue, Hillsboro, Oregon. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m: Comments about the issue papers may be provided at the September 27th meeting in writing or in person. Written continents received by the Planning Division on or before September 15, 2005 will be provided to the Board,in advance of the-meeting. Written comments must be mailed or.faxed to the Planning Division at'the address or phone number shown below. At this time, we are unable to'accept e-mail comments. . The issue papers-are also located on the.Planning Division's web page'urider "2005 Work Program." The web page address is: http`//w-•w.co. washifigton.or.us/deptmts/lut/platinin>;/docslVi!orkP,m.htnr If.you have any questions about the issue papers, or if you would like additional information; please contact the following Planning Division staff: " • Issue Paper 14: Aisha Willits 503-846-3961 • • Issue Papers 15 and •16: Suzanne Savin. 503-846-3966 • Issue Papers 17, 18, 21 and 22: Joanne Rice or Linda Schroeder. 503-846-3965 . ; c. Phil Decker Lisa Hamilton-Treick, wpshare\2005ord\Work Program%sue Papecs\Bull MOublic Transmittal Itr_7.20.05.doc Department of Land Use & Transportation • Planning Division' 155 N. First Avenue, Suite 35d.-14, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 phone: (503) 9463519:• fax.: (503) 846-4412 ..WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON' . June 28; 2005 ; DRAFT PLANNING DIVISION ; ISSUE PAPERNO. 14 . Response to Citizen Participation Organization 411's Resolution No. 04-05 Issue t. ; 'On October 26, 2004, Citizen- Participation Organization (CPO) 4B provided the Board of County Commissioners with Resolution 04-05. The resolution, adopted by CPO 4B on September 2, 2004, urged the.Board to implement a_ Public Facilities Strategy. to address several ''issues related to growth in the unincorporated urban,area-of Bull Mountain..This issue paper addresses the concerns raised by CPO 4B, as well as a discussion of development moratoria. This' issue paper also responds to: questions regarding the creation of a refinement plan as . ,proposed by, Richard Franzke in his letters dated March ` 17. and Apri17, 2005... . County staff was asked to respond to the fundamental feasibility of using a ,Public Facilities Strategy; a development moratorium, or a refinement plan to, address the CPO's and citizen's. concerns in the Bull Mountain area. The intent of each tool is described below. A general discussion of the statutory provisions governing Public'Facilities Strategies. and development moratoria is in a separate memorandum (incorporated.as Attachment A) provided by County 'Counsel staff. Refinement plan provisions are addressed in Attachment B. Issues related to'developing a park master plan, decreasing existing.densities, planning for new . urban growth boundary' lands, and updating the Bull, Mountain--Community Plan are.addressed in additional issue papers... Recommendation Based on the statutory provisions described in Attachments A and B, relevant comprehensive plans, public facilities,plans, and current available information, the Planning Division concludes that a Public Facilities, Strategy or a development" moratorium for•the Bull Mountain area would not comply with the statute. Therefore, staff recommends that no further analyses of those . requests occur. Staff also recommends that a refinement plan.not. be created for th&Bull ; . Mountain area, as discussed: below, in the `'Refinement Plan" section of this issue paper. The Planning Division recommends continued discussions between.Washington County and the City of Tigard to address planning issues in the unincorporated urban area-of Bull Mountain. Background ; CPO 4B's request for a Public Facilities Strategy (PFS), moratorium or refinement plan relates to six specific concerns: 1). high.density housing construction on Bull Mountain'is contrary.to the. Bull Mountain Community. Plan;., 2.) inconsistencies between the Tigard Community Development Code (CDC) and the Bull Mountain Community Plan; h. DRAFT, ISSUE PAPER NO. 14 t CPO'4B•Resolution Response.; -.June 28 2005 Page 2 3)' transportation facilities in the Tigard area are nadeduate to support growth omB'ull ; Mountain; 4) unresolved water supply issues;' i 5 inadequate park and•openspace plan' g; nin and 6) overcrowded schools:' Analysis " 1. Implementing a Public Facilities.Strategy Oregon Revised Statute 197.768 descri bes the process for'implementing a Public'Facilities Strategy,(PFS): After providing 45-day notice to the Department of Land Conserv ation and Development; the County would have;to'hold a'hearing and make finding's'to..'justify the PFS. The key findings that must beldemonstrated are as follows: ` ORS 197.768 .'(4)(a) . There'is'a.rapid increase in the rate or intensity of-land' development inha specific geographic area that was unanticipated'at the time the originaCplanning for'that area was adopted or there has been a'naturat disaster. or'Other catastrophic:event.in a specific . geographic area (emphasis' added),' and. (4)(b) The'tl'larid. developmentexpected within the specific eo ra hic4area will 'exceed tfie lanned;orezistin ca acit of public g g P P g P Y -facilities. . ORS.197.768(4)(b) ORS 197.768(4)(6); whicfi refers to 'land development expected toFexceed the planned orezisting: capacity of public facilities is-critical for justifying 'a PFS. The overall intent of a PFS is.to'slow development in an area where._public facilities are not suflicient'to'meet the demand for development. As"noted'in the legal opinion provided in Attachment A. to this issue paper, public ' facilities include,water,-'sewer; and transportation facilities ' The county's growth management strategy requires that necessary public facilities and services be required,before.development cari occur: The strategy classifies ser'vices' into three categories: " . critical, essential,'and desirable: Water:'and sewer are considered critical services and"must be ' available"to serve the'pioposed development. Applicants for developrrient approval'are required to submit service; provider letters from water•and sewer pr'ovideis to indicate whether a"subject property can be sufficiently _served-by the`respective provider.,'Parks are designated-as a'desirable service. Consequently; they arenot a required service that'must be-in,place before development • can occur. This policy, and its implementing: requirements have been iri'place since the time the; ' community plan was adopted. ' Based on the information above, and as described in more detail 'in subsequent, sections of'this issue paper; transportation and water issues'on Bull Mountain do not meetthe criteria f6i the institution of a PFS.. !Vt DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 14 CPO 413 Resolution. Response June.28, 2005 Page 3 ORS 197.768(4)(a) ORS 197.768(4)(a) would allow a PFS in areas"where public facilities are'not available to serve an area that was being developed at.a rate•.or intensity unanticipated at the time of original planning. The intensity and rate of development of land on Bull Mountain is specifically :.discussed below. Intensit The intensity of development on Bull Mountain, was prescribed through the adoption of the % county's new Comprehensive Plan, which included the 198100' ll Mountain Community Plan. The plan illustrated the level of development and. the eventual density of the area.expecied by the year 2000 through the eventual build-out of R-6 district lands (six units per acre). As described in more detail in Issue Paper 17,,development in the Bull Mountain area is reviewed by the City of Tigard. Under Tigard's R-7 District, the actual density that has been approved since 2002 is . 4:8 dwellings per acre. The 4.8 dwellings per acre under Tigards standards. is slightly less than the minimum number of dwellings required under the county's R-6 plan designation-The intensity of development now occurring on Bull Mountain is similar to what was described in the Bull Mountain Co'munity.Plan, and therefore does not warrant a PFS. Rate The Bull Mountain Community Plan identified the patternfor growth 'in the Bull Mountain area:; , The Bull Mountain area was added to the urban growth boundary to serve housing needs to the year 2000. At the time, county, planners anticipated that the land.would be developed at a.rate driven by market forces, t e rate of development of land on Bull Mountain was not ,Th unanticipated at the iime of original. planning and therefore does not warrant a PFS. Based on an analysis of ORS, 197.768(4)(a),and (b), the rate and intensity of development.on Bull Mountain, was not unanticipated during the.development of the long=range plans for the area and sufficient water and sewer service is. available to support new development. Therefore, ' conditions in the Bull Mountain area•do not meet the criteria for, the institution of a PFS: Described below are the GPO's specific concerns in_the Bull Mountain area. and how each growth management tool relates to the specific issue. High Density Construction on Bull Mountain CPO 4B is concemed about the density of housing currently being built on Bull , Mountain. As mentioned above, the intensity of development in the Bull Mountain area was originally'determined in the early 1980s through the adoption of the Bull Mountain Community Plan. The Bull Mountain.Community Plan assumed the Bull Mountain area would be built out by the year 2000 at the densities of the adopted land use districts; primarily R-6 with a, density of six units per acre. Therefore, the intensity of development • on Bull Mountain was not unanticipated at the time of planning, and does not warrant a PFS. Additionally, the county's, growth management strategy requires critical public services and.facilities to be provided before development can occur (sewer, water, fire and roads). This policy and its implementing requirements have been in place since the time the plan was adopted. DRAFT-ISSUE PAPER NO. 14` tiy. • CPO 4B' Resolution Response June 28, 2005 Page 4 Potential Inconsistencies Between the Communi Development Code and the Community Plan an, CPO 4B identified inconsistencies between the- community,plan; and T'igard's CDC with regard to tree preservation and.removal. The, CPO pointed 'o"ut 'that `the community plan ' considers mature'trees to be all those over six inches m diameter: Within the Summit and ; Slopes subarea, the plan directs that no more,than 50% of the mature trees maybe removed from a parcel at the time of development. The CPO states that the City of Tigard's Community Development Code identifies specificregulations for removal'of, 4 only those tred$~over'llmches in'diameter: Issue. Paper, I8 includes;a de.scriptiori'orthe current standards applicable for: tree removal:in the urban unincorporated Bull`Ivloun, n ' . area, including. areas'designated.as a,Significant Natural Resoiiice by the community, plan. Currently, the county is not aware of any, developifient tliat does not comply with. those standards:.However, inconsistencies.in'the:implementation of tree removal , , standards do not meet the criteria':for a PFS:-County, staff and City of.Tigard staff have ` indicated a desire to resolve planning issues within the Bull Mountain area. Inconsistencies in applying the applicable-development standar& would, be more appropriately addressed.during'those discussions. Transportation ; CPO 4B, states that transportation planning on Bull Mountain is inadequate and; that new roads are constructed for the benefit of a particular development, rather"than to serve local conriectivity' . .,..needs in the:area. Local connectivity needs are prescribedin the'Bull Mountain Commaity Plan;, which identifies areas on'Bull Mountain where connections will be required'ttirough the''larid. ; adopted_in development' process: The community plan 1983 'outlined the development pattern . for Bull Mountain and'was the'product of:intense public involvement. Transportation issues on Bull Mountain were given, additional scrutiny through the;development•of the 1988 Transportation Plan, andagain -2002 prior. to'the:adoption of the',2020 Transportation',Plan. The Washington County, 2020 Transportation Plan id'entifies_proposed arterial" arid' collector. , roadways. New local f6ad' construction standards are identified within the Washington".County, Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards An analysis of the most recent traffic counts for'Bull Mountain and Beef Bend Roads indicate -that both roads exhibit-acceptable trip levels for-their functional classification'. Daily trips on Bull Mountain, a collector roadway, total approximately 4,600: Average daily'' trips on collectors range between 2,000 and 10,000; trips. Beef Bend Road accommodates approximately 4;000 trips. As an arterial, roadway, BeefBend'is intended to°accoinmodate 10;000 to 40,000 trips per ; : - day. Basedon these.numbers, the traffic.-that is occurring•on Bull'Mountain currently`is well within the expected trip rates-for arterial and.'collector roadways:, The Washington County 2020 Transportation "Plan also identifies Highway 99. Wand the easterly portion o f the Bull 'Mountain area' between' Scholls Ferry.. Road.and Highway 99W as "def ciency areas Deficiency areas are.roadways or geographic, ar'eas;that are expected to exceed acceptable ' performance measures by 2020 even, with. planned improvements: A`summary of the deficiencies and their applicability to a PFS are described belo'w:• 7, I.. Walnut and Gaari& Streets between Barrows Road and Hiahway 99W.' • DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 14 ; CPO 413 Resolution Response June 28, 2005 Page ,5 . An east/west capacity deficiency has been identified for this area;'which is.mostly in the City of Tigard. The deficiency is primarily along Walnut'and Gaarde Streets. Due to existing development along these roads and the lack of vacant land in the area to provide,a new east/west route, the Transportation .Plan finds that there are no easy solutions to resolve this problem. The urban unincorporated areas of Bull Mountain.are largely located outside of this deficiency area and Bull Mountain and Beef Bend Roads serve as the east/west circulation routes for those areas. Consequently, the Planning Division-concludes that a PFS for the westerly and southerly'portions of the Bull Mountain planning area is not an acceptable " method to resolve this particular deficiency.. 2. Highwayr99W, between I-5 and Durham Road, _ ; . No solutions to the congestion along this section of the highway have been identified due to development patierns in the area and the use of Highway 99W for trips to localbusinesses and for through trips to areas beyond this section of the highway..This area, which has been studied extensively, is identified as an' Area:of Special. Concern in Metro's Regional Transportation Plan. Some minor improvements along the highway. arelikely to be-made in. the future but there are no planned improvements that will "solve'the congestion'on the highway. Due to the lack of solutions to resolve thezongesiion; staff does not.believe a PFS ' can be used because there are no short term-solutions. to resolve the problem. Staff notes that any effort to establish a PFS for Highway 99W. requires the cooperation and coordination of the Oregon Department of Transportation; which is. responsible for this highway. Staff believes the cities of Durham, King City, Sherwood, Tigard; and Tualatin would also have to participate in a PFS due to. businesses and residents in their jurisdictions using Highway 99W. ; In its Cityscape Newsletter (March/April 2005 edition); the City of Tigard lists improvement of Highway. 99W as a City Council goal for 2005: Tigard intends to identify projects to relieve congestion along Highway 99W, prioritize'projects and.fiinding, and to leverage additional funding to meet this -goal. Given the fact that recent transportation planning efforts.by Metro, the Oregon Department of Transportation, Washington County and`cities along Highway 99W, have identified and acknowledged these,deficiencies and that solutions, are-long-term in nature, staff believes it would be difficult to justify a PFS based on transportation concerns.. Water Supply The resolution forwarded by CPO 4B indicated a concern about "viable; long-term and affordable" water sources. Specifically, the concern about' a water source was related to the . increased growth in the Bull Mountain area, potentially worsening the water supply. County staff spoke with Rich Satiler with the Tigard Water,Districi regarding the water supply issues mentioned by CPO 4B and was assured that.there is no current shortage of water. Mr. Sattler indicated that though .a lack.of infrastructure. in the:Bull.Mountain.area could pose a challenge, most of.such infrastructure is constructed thioughAhe development process.. -DRAFT ISSUE PAPER-NO. 14 J CPO 4B'Resolution,. Response June 28; 2005 Page 6_ In addition,atate law does not allow the'implementation of a, public facilities plan for issues such as water supply-without, at,a minimum; coordination with the water,provider. Given that the Tigard Water District has not identified-a problem with their water-supply, . it is unlikely the agency would undertake a'PFS.-planning process. Parks a?id Open Space Planning In their, resolution, CPO 49.ihdicated thata lack of parks planning and increased'development'on Bull Mountain is eliminating, available land for parks acid open,space. Last year,'county staff, began developing a system development charge:.(SDC) to,p ovide funding for interim.paik and,-* recreation'capital improvements to serve the-unincoiporated properties on Bull Mountain. The county. SDC would serve as,.a. funding bridge until the properties annexed to Tigard: The Tigard o Urban Service Agreemeit'designated Tigard' as the. long term park,and.recreation provider to the Bull. Mountain area. At their March 1, work session, the -Boardof County Commissioners said it wanted'to continue ' the public hearing on the Bull.Mountain SDC for120 days'to await the, outcome-of discussions.. . with the CityofTigard about planning.issues inahe.'Bull.Mountain area: This discussion would': include both areas inside.and outside,.of Tigard's city limits: It appears that, a.PFS isn't, allowed to be adopted- for, Parks, Planning. ,Althoughahe definition of ' "public. facilities".is not provided for under, the provisions governing..a PFS,'the statutory provisions relating to public' facilities planning define,,this'.term as including only water,' sewer and transportation.' Additionally, the county's growth4nanagement strategy identifies parks as a desirable service, which are therefore not re' uired,as a condition of development. The county q, is' not a provider of park facilities or services, which is a municipal service more,appropriately' offered by cities or, special;. service' districts.:. ' ' School Overcrowding G CPO 4B's resolution 'stated that al l of the schools that serv'Bull Mountain are currently at or above capacity. The resolution further states that construction' of Alberta Rider Elementary has , been delayed due to land use=disputes, which ezacerbated'the'school capacity issues on,Bull Mountain. The CPO has. requested that the City of Tigard and Was hington County develops' . solution for the problem; as, the continuing, issuance of building permits is creating more overcrowding in area schools. The county 's response to thetschool capacity issue is limited by Oregon- Revised Statute' 195.110(1.1), which states "that school capacity shall not be the sole basis= of approval or denial of;a residential development application. In. addition, school capacity issues' . , . do not fall under the definition of public faciiities; so; a ' cannot be justified .on these grounds: Development Moratorium. Attachment A to this issue paper discusses two,types.of•development•moratociumsahat maybe ' -used to, halt or slow development; the.public facilities moratorium and the compelling need, ..,moratorium. The.public -facilities moratorium may. be applied in specific. geographic areas where ' public facilities are curreiitly:operating beyond capacity: The compelling need moratorium'.may d be. utilized when existing standards and regulations are inadequate to prevent. irrevocable public - harm in affected geographic„areas. Both moratoria require public notice and a hearing. A public 1 DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 14 CPO 4B Resolution Response June 28, 2005 , Page 7 , facilities moratorium must be followed up with a corrective action plan within 60 days of.the moratorium's adoption. A legal analysis of both moratoria is provided in Attachment A to this issue paper. High Density Construction on Bull Mountain r As mentioned on page 3, the current rate and intensity of development on Bull Mountain is not inconsistent with the level of development intended for the area as shown.in the Bull Mountain Community Plan. The densities on Bull Mountain.were intended to. serve residential growth through theyear 2000 and assumed a build out,to.existing densities, typically six units per acre in the k-6 district which covers most of the Bull Mountain area. Services such as water, sewer, and roads are intended to be provided through the development of land in, the area, in keeping with the county's policy and strategies for growth' management. Therefore, the planned'development of Bull Mountain does not warrant;either a public facilities or compelling need moratorium. Potential Inconsistencies Between the Community Development Code and the Communi Plan Potential inconsistencies regarding the implementation of applicable tree removal standards are not grounds for either 'type of development moratorium: 'Public facilities moratoriums are limited to situations in,which public facilities such as ;transportation, sewer, and water are operating beyond capacity, or when existing regulations cannot prevent a public harm.. Discussions between county staff and City of Tigard,staff provide, a more appropriate option for' resolving - any inconsistencies. . . Transportation ; CPO 4B indicates that.roadways within the Bull Mountain'area are currently operating beyond capacity. The county, City of Tigard;-and the Oregon Department of Transportation agree that Highway 99W is a deficiency area for which asolution has yet to be-determined. 'Either type of moratorium would require that a corrective action plan be developed within 60 days following ` the institution of a moratorium. The three agencies listed above have studied Highway 99W and have been unable to develop plans or projects to.mitigate- the area's congestion or circulation problems. ` Metro's Regional Transportation Plan,.the Washington .County'2020 Transportation and recent changes.to the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan all indicate that a solution has-yet to be determined ' for the Highway 99W corridor. The Oregon Highway Plan states that Highway 99W,has "physical, environmental, or other constraints that limit the range,of acceptable transportation solutions". According to county transportation planners, circulation.on roads within the vicinity of Highway 99W should be developed in addition to capacity improvements on the highway. If the highway were to,be improved to accommodate greater capacity; new highway lanes would fill up if the adjacent street•iniprovements were not also made:'':' Water Supply. , Uncertainty regarding future water supplies'.maymerit,a public facilities. moratorium: However, the City of Tigard's water department does not indicate that.Tigard's water source is threatened or unable to serve current or future residents in and around the City of Tigard: Therefore, it is unlikely that a moratorium could be instituted based on a lack of water supplies. , . - t _ - " . DRAFT.ISSUE PAPER NO., 14 CPO.4B. Resolution -Response June X28, 2005 Page 8 Parks and Open Space Planning As noted in the'legal opinion piovided by County Counsel staff, a public facilities moratorium, may not be granted for parks'planning. A compelling need moratorium for parks could not be, instituted based on the county's current hierarchy of services., Oregon's Statewide Planning Program does not require•local governments to have an adopted parks plan. Additionally,. the county's, growth management policy stratifies public ;facilities and services into three categories: critical, essential; and desirable. -Parks are classified a& a desirable, service and are therefore not required to be•provided through the land development process. School Overcrowding . ; , As discussed above under the "Implementing a Public Facilities Strategy", section, the county's response to the school capacity issue is limited by Oregon Revised Statute 195.110(11), which states that school,capacity shall not be the sole basis of approval or denial of a residential development application..The County Counsel opinion (Attachment A to this issue paper) also states that ORS 195,111(8)-(9) does not allow'a local government to adopt a. moratorium based on deficiencies in the school system.. Refinement Plan- , The process for adoption of a refinement plan is described in Oregon. Revised Statute, Chapter 197.200. A refinement plan is more detailed than a community .plan and is only applicable in. the urban area. A refinement plan establishes minimum and.mazimum density ranges, floor area ratios, and includes land use regulations to implement.the plan. Within areas.subject to a refinement plan, most development applications are required to use the' procedures for expedited land divisions in ORS 197360.to 197.380. Due.to'the'detailed nature of a refinement-plan, the' review procedures. for new development limit citizen participation and".require a decision to,be made within.63 days rather than 120 days. , A refinement plan,is'not a development moratorium; it is another. planning tool.available to. counties and cities to adopt land use regulations and an expedited review process for a defined 'urban area. It is not similar to a PFS or a development moratorium, tools to'be used to remedy a very specific deficiency for transportation, sewer, or water service. Consequently, staff does not believe a refinement plan would suitably address the concerns of CPO.4B and Mr. Franzke. A refinement plan's;effects •on each of the issues identified by the CPO and Mr. Franzke are ' described below. High Density Construction on Bull Mountain ; A refinement plan is not intended to slow or stop growth in the manner that aPublic Facilities 'Strategy or moratorium would allow. Refinement plans:are a comprehensive. plan element:, similar to a community plan, but with far greater detail. Rather than curb development within a specific geographic area, *a refinement plan allows for detailed- planning at the beginning of a project in exchange for an expedited- land use review process. An expedited land use review would require a much lower level of involvement from the community and is therefore unlikely to address the concerns voiced by the CPO'and Mr. Franzke., DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 14 CPO 4B Resolution Response. , June 28, 2005 Page 9 'Potential Inconsistencies Between the Community Development Code and the Community Plan- . As mentioned in the discussion above in the "Implementing a Public Facilities Strategy" and . ' "Development Moratorium" sections, if there are inconsistencies regarding the implementation of applicable tree removal standards, they may be resolved through communication' between the two agencies. Both agencies have indicated an interest in resolving any inconsistencies in the interpretation and implementation of county.and city standards: A refinement plan is .intended to provide a detailed plan for a specific area, and would not provide the best approach for .addressing the varibus-inconsistencies between the city's Code and the Bull Mountain r Community Plan. Transportation Transportation issues on arterials and collectors in the Bull Mountain area are unlikely to be sufficiently addressed by a refinement plan. A refinement plan,relates to .a specific area of ` development and defines the eventual density ranges, floor area ratios, and land use regulations applicable to the development. At most, a refinement•plan may indicate the location, of proposed local roadways within a specific development.... Water Sunpl V Refinement plans do not apply to or address,water supply issues.' Parks and Open Space Planning ' Refinement plans may include areas intended for park or open space land in conjunction with the development of a specific geographic area. A., refinement plan would not institute a moratorium on development in order to allow for the purchase of park land, and therefore -would not address the concerns regarding a dwindling land supply for parks as described by the CPO. School Overcrowding Refinement plans do not apply, to, or address school. overcrowding issues. wpshare\2005ord\work program6ssue paper ull Mt\[P 14\IPl4_Moratorium_Final _Draft 062805 . ATTACHMENT A W ashln toll Cotnty Inter-Department Correspondence: " DATE: March 1, 2005 TO: Chair Brian and Members of the Board FROM. Chris Gilmore; Assistant County Counsel SUBJECT: Bull Mountain Moratorium In response to .the request by CPO 4B. the following memorandum is a. general discussion of the statutory provisions governing moratoria and a public facilities strategy.. . SHORT ANSWER: There are three mechanisms permitted by state law to halt or slow' development that is,otherwise permitted under the comprehensive plan and development 1 code: a "public facilities strategy", a public facilities moratorium or a'compelling-need, moratorium: They are limited to, issues involving transportation, sewer And'wate'r facilities. (i.e. not schools; parks). Each requires specific findings; including that the rate or intensity was not anticipated at the time the original plan was adopted. Finally, it should be noted that it is likely that persons owning property prior to imposition of a moratorium would be eligible to file Measure 37 claims. j v A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION. As you may recall CPO 4B submitted materials to the Board discussing the adequacy of public services in the Bull Mountain area. See Letter from Julie Russell to the Board of Commissioners dated Ociober 26, 2004 with attachments. CPO 4B requests this Board implement a public facilities strategy or perhaps a moratorium,, apparently to a reduce, slow or prohibit development for some period of time. Included with the proposed resolution are a number of documents discussing the adequacy of public services. In addition to concerns regarding the capacity of school system and the availability of a long-term water source, the materials also raise•concerns regarding the adequacy of existing transportation facilities; in.particular the intersection of Highway 99W and Beef Bend Road as well as Highway 99W and Bull Mountain Road. The resolution identifies a need for additional planning and identifying inadequacies with regard to water, schools, parks and transportation. ISSUE PAPER NO. 14 ATTACHMENT A Page 2 Nothing in the materials actually proposes a Public Facilities Strategy, or addresses the standards for adopting the same as provided, under ORS 197.768. B. APPLICABLE LAW. ' There are three basic tools that empower local government to limit,or stop the issuance of development permits while catching up with development, by enacting new regulations or construction new public facilities: (1) public facilities strategy, (2) moratorium based on a shortage of public facilities, and (3)-moratorium;based.on a compelling need. .1. Public Facilities Strategy. = Implementing a public facilities strategy under ORS 197.768 to manage growth is a . relatively new concept. The legislature first adopted these statutory provisions. in 1995. A public facilities strategy is somewhat more flexible,than a moratorium both in -terms of adopting and implementing an overall plan. There are. no cases to date concerning adoption of a public facilities,strategy. Under ORS 197.768(4), in adopting a public facilities=strategy the countymust . demonstrate the following: , "(a) There is a• rapid increase in the' rate or intensity of land.. development in a specific geographic area that was unanticipated. at the time the original planning for that area was adopted or there has been a natural disaster or other catastrophic event in a speci f c; geographic area; (b) The•total land development, expected within •the.specific geographic area will exceed the planned.or. existing capacity of public facilities; and (c) The public facilities strategy is structured to-ensure that *,the necessary supply of housing and commercial,and industrial facilities, that will be impacted within'the relevant geographic-area is not unreasonably, • restricted by-the adoption of the-.public facilities strategy.," These findings'must be adopted at a public hearing after providing notice to the state consistent with ORS 197.768(3). If these findings are made, the Public Facilities Strategy-must include a 'clear, objective and detailed plan for controlling the timing and sequence of development approvals to accommodate the identified capacity problems. ORS. 197:768(5). This-is effective for up ; to 24 months, but may be extended in one year increments up to three times. • Although there"are,no specific•require'ents regarding the contents of an'overall.plan; the M1 statutes contemplate that a public facilities strategywi.ll resolve the existing ~capacity problems within the two-year period. ORS 197.768(6). ISSUE PAPER NO. 14 . ATTACIWENT. A, Page 3 ` In summary creating a Public Facilities Strategy has at,least three components:' (1) adoption of a final order including f ndings;consistent with ORS 197.768(4)(x)=(c),'(2) " adoption of a Public Facilities Strategy for resolving identified deficiencies within a two year time frame, and (3) a clear, objective, and detailed plan for issuing permits: 4 2.'- Moratorium -Based on Shortage of Public Facilities A moratorium based on -a shortage of public'facilities is provided for under ORS 197:520(2). This type of moratoriu' is limited to areas that arewithin an urban'growth boundary. ; To create this type of moratorium the local government must adopt findings addressing: 41 (a) Showing the extent'of need beyond the estimated capacity of existing public'facilities expected'to.result .from, new land'development, including identification of any public'facilities currently operating beyond capacity, and the portion;of such capacity already committed to development; (b) That the moratorium is reasonably limited. to those areas`of the city, county or special district where a shortage of key public facilities would otherwise occur; and. (c).That the housing and economicdevelopmentneeds of the area ' affected have been accommodated as much as-possible iin any program for allocating any remaining public facility capacity."' It maybe adopted only after',P I roviding;notice and conducting , ublic,hearin g'as . a P provided under ORS 197.520(1): ' Unlike a Public. Facilities Strategy this type`of moratorium must also adopt a" ` . correction program within-,sixty (60) days from the dafe'the moratorium is adopted. ORS 19.1.530- The correction program must"' out a plan for resolving the identified deficiencies'.within-six (6) months: - A'local government may not, adopt 4 motdtorium`based'on-deficiencies in. the school system. ORS 195.110(8)-(9)... 3. Moratorium Based on a Compelling Need. An urban.-compelling need moratorium niust'address'the following: "(A) That application of-existing development ordinances or: regulations and other applicable ;law,is`inadequate to prevent irrevocable ;public harm from development in affected geographical "areas, (B) That the moratorium is sufficiently. jimited to'ensure that-a needed' supply of affected housing types and the.supply of commercial and•.. Industrial facilities within or.in proximity to the city; county, or special ISSUE PAPER NO. 14 - ATTACHMENT. A \ Page 4 'district are not unreasonably restricted by-the adoption of the moratorium; (C) Stating the reasons alternative methods of achieving the objectives of the:moratorium are unsatisfactory;: (D) That the city, county or special district has determined that the , public harm. which would be caused by failure to impose a moratorium outweighs.the adverse ,effects on other affected local governments, . including shifts in demand for housing or.economic development, public ' facilities and services and buildable;lands, and the overall impact of the moratorium on population distribution; and (E) That the city, county.or special. district proposing the moratorium y has determined that sufficient resources are available to complete the • development of needed interim or permanent changes in plans, regulations or procedures. Within the penod'of effectiveness of the moratorium." Notice and hearing are also required. ORS 197.520(1), ,The time period for a compelling need moratorium, is limited to 120 days. , 4. De Facto Moratorium: ORS 197.524 essentially provides that the county may not engage in a pattern or practice of denying or delaying permit's that are consistent with the acknowledged plan and land use regulations unless the county goes through the statutory provisions discussed above. 'This is sometimes referred to as a 'de facto, moratorium., C. FEASIBILITY OF ADOPTING A PUBLIC FACILITIES STRATEGY. Although the request submitted by CPO 413,is somewhat-antbiguous, this memorandum assumes the request is"focused on. the provisions, fora Public Facilities Strategy provided . for'under ORS 197.768. ; . As discussed above there are three primary'components to adopting a Public Facilities' ' Strategy; (1) adopting findings consistent with 'ORS 197J68(4)(a)-(c), (2).implenienting an overall plan to address the identified deficiencies within a two-year period, and (3) limiting the timing and sequencing of permits to.accommodate the identified capacity . . problems.. 1. :Adopting findings consistent. with ORS 197.768(4)(a)-(c):. . (a) There is•a rapid increase in the'rate drintensity of land , development in a specific geographic.:area that was unanticipated at the time the, original planning for.that area was adopted or there has been a natural disaster or.other catastrophic event in a 'specific geographic area. ! ISSUE PAPER NO..14 ATTACHMENT A • Page 5 This provision requires findings demonstrating'whether the rate or intensity of development was anticipated at-the time the original plan was adopted. As;ari initial matter this standard requires consideration of the original plan' adopted,by. ; ; the county I governing development: Although there are no specific dates'provided; this'' standard does. contemplate at least, some, historical review of the underlying plan. ' . Absent a review of,the issuance of development permits (both frequency and scope) relative'to the extent of development authorized'under the plan (and'possibly, • consideration of the sequencing of public facilities improvements relative'to development', intensity) there is no evidence presented to satisfy this requirement: The few anecdotal comments in the submitted materials are not likely to provide , substantial evidence that would support imposition of a Public Facilities Strategy. ; The Planning Division is taking a.closer look at the original plan.to determine•whether the scope and timing of development in this area was contemplated. (b) The total land development expected within the specifc geographic area will exceed -the planned or existing capacity of public facilities. While the first standard considers impacts'from existing development, this standard requires a prospective consideration of whether existing and future development will exceed planned capacity. There is no discussion in the materials regarding planned capacity based on the county's acknowledged plan and land use"regulations. The materials do raise. . concerns regarding the capacity.of facilities'but absent some discussion of these concerns relative to'planned capacity this standard cannot be satisfied., (c) The public facilities strategy is'structured to ensure that the necessary supply of housing and commercial and industrial facilities that will be impacted within the relevant geographic area is not unreasonably. ' restricted'by the adoption of the public facilities strategy. The submitted materials'do not address the need to accommodate development. Until such time as an overall Public Facilities Strategy,is proposed (see below)•and a plan is provided.that will ensure development is not unreasonably restricted the county.is foreclosed from pursuing this approach. '2. . Implementing' an overall plari.to address the-identified deficiencies within a' two-year period: The materials submitted do'not include a Public.Facilities-Strategy or any discussion of- what would be.included in the event the county chose to pursue the same. ISSUE PAPER NO. 14 . ATTACHMENT A Page 6 While the statutes do not provide any guidance on what must be included in a Public Facilities Strategy there are significant jurisdictional issues to consider with regard to the capacity issues raised in the submitted materials. (a)- School Capacity. ' School facility capacity may not be the basis for imposing'a•moratorium. ORS'. 1.95.110(9). In addition notwithstanding the provisions for a Public Facilities Strategy, school capacity may not be the sole basis for denying residential development applications. Consequently there are some significant limitations in state law with regard to whether the county can impose limitations on the issuance of permits based on a school capacity problem at all.,' In addition to these statutory limitations, clearly the county does, not have, the authority.to .plan for school capacity. Consequently the county will heed to coordinate with the school district to determine whether a Public. Facilities Strategy is feasible. A good portion of the materials includes a-mails and newspaper articles regarding school. capacity.' However the School District Superintendent based on an e-mail dated September 20, 2004 indicates that the Districtsivould not be in favor of a resolution supporting limitations on growth'' Without.the support of theiDistrict the county will be unable to carry out a Public. Facilities Strategy to address school capacity. (b) Water Capacity. Similar to school capacity problems, the materials include,an article and e-mail regarding capacity problems with regard to water service. As with the School District,.the correspondence with indicates an overall concurrency policy with regard to the water distribution system that;assures new capacity is provided as development occurs. In any event, absent a coordinated strategy with the jurisdiction responsible for water in. this area, the county has not, authority to impose' a Public Facilities Strategy. There is nothing in the record that clearly,establishes an existing capacity problem or whether the responsible jurisdiction is interested in participating in growth.limitations to address those concerns. (c) Transportation, Capacity.. . Transportation deficiencies are.the only identified public, facilities under the county's authority.. However, the capacity problems are in large measure intersections with Highway 99W with Beef Bend Road and Bull Mountain Road.. Without the participation of the 'Oiregon Department of Transportation the, county is again foreclosed from pursuing a Public Facilities Strategy. , t ISSUE PAPER NO. 14 ATTACHMENT A Page 7 Clearly identifying the overall capacity issues using objective.planning data and coordinating.with the'affected jurisdictions is.a fundamental'pre-requisite to moving forward with a.Public Facilities. Strategy. From the materials submitted it is not clear that the necessary intedurisdictional cooperation will be available for purposes of pursuing aPublic, Facilities Strategy. 3. Limiting the timing and sequencing of permits to accommodate the identified capacity problems. The final piece.in the overall public facilities strategy requires a very specific plan with regard to the timing and sequence of development-permits: There is no preliminary proposal addressing this concern. D. MEASURE 37 , Measure 37 is implicated in at least two-ways. First, the act of limiting development under a,moratorium may bean adoption or enforcement of a land use regulation giving . rise to a claim. In other words, current owners of.property may be entitled to " compensation.or a "waiver" of the restrictiodon development'imposed by the moratorium. Second,, "down-zoning" or additional restrictions on development implemented to address the facilities issues also likely would give rise to claims. Therefore, the effectiveness of these statutes is called into, question by adoption of Measure 37. E. CONCLUSION' Serious consideration of any form of moratorium or liriut on development otherwise provided for by current ordinances would require substantial effort to address numerous issues including::.' " -L. Establishing substantial evidence in'the'record regarding an increase in 'development'beyond that which is anticipated by the onginal.plan; 2. Establishing substantial evidence in the record regarding a capacity problem relative to the facilities identified in the existing plan;, 3: Assuming a capacity problem exists evaluating whether affected jurisdictions are willing to participate in a Public Facilities Strategy; 4. -Developing a plan to accommodate development; and 5. Determining the impact of Measure 37 one a proposedPublic Facilities-., Strategy: „ Until such•time as these issues are'addressed.adoption ofa Public Facilities Strategy would be premature. ATTACHMENT B ' COUNTY WASHINGTON `Inter-Department Correspondence DATE: April 21, 2005 TO: Aisha Willits, Associate Planner . FROM: Chris Gilmore; Assistant County Counsel. SUBJECT: Bull Mountain Refinement Plan ; Per your request this memorandum provides a brief summary of the statutory provisions regarding refinement plans and some of the legal issues that may arise in adopting the same for purposes of addressing impacts from development on Bull Mountain. Refinement Plans In addition to a public. facilities strategy and moratoria discussed m my prior memorandum dated arch 1; 2005, state law also authorizes the county to adopt a refinement plan. < 1. Area Specific Plan for Density A refinement plan is provided for under ORS 197.200 and includes the authority to adopt a density range for residential housing within a specific geographic area. • While a ' refinement plan is not necessarily limited.Wdensity.issues, establishing a density range is mandatory., The plan must bOmplemented by,.adopt ' land. use'regulations., Because land. use regulations niust' be"adopted imposing a density range, this approach will likely create a right to compensation under Measure 37 for any regulations restricting existing development rights. 2. Expedited Land Divisions . ' Once the plan is in place, state law requires any'applications for the division of land to be processed as an expedited land'division. • . (a) Limited Citizen Participation An expedited land division provides a truncated review process that requires a final: . . decision in 63, days from the date it 'is complete'rather than the typical,120 days: Although there is a 14-day comment period there is no hearing on the application. Consequently, there is less citizen participation during the local review process. ISSUE PAPER NO. 14 ATTACI MENT'B Page 2 (b)..Limited -Issues on Appeal. Appeals from decisions issued by the county are also limited. SAn appeal must be to..a referee designated by the county rather than t6 the Land''Use Board of Appeals. The decision of the referee is then appealable to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals may"overturn' only if (1) the decision was not actually an expedited land decision, (2) there was misconduct, corruption or the hearings 'officer exceeded his authority as described in ORS 36.705 (1)(a) to (d) or (3) the decision was unconstitutional. In summary.although the refinement plan permits more, detailed planning including a specific density range, the ultimate decision requires adoption of land use. regulations regarding density that will likely.fall within the scope of Measure 37. In addition once the plan is in.place there is less citizen participation during the development review and a very limited basis for overturning the. final decision on, appeal. B. INTERJURISDIC nONAL COORDINATION?AND THE IMPACT'S OF MEASURE 37 1. Interjurisdictional Coordination . With regard to capacity,issues for services not provided by the county it is clear any action must be, coordinated with those entities including water, sewer, school facilities and transportation issues relating to 99W. To the extent a refinement planning process is utilized,' under ORS 197.015 the county is required, to accommodate the concerns of other affected jurisdictions "as much as possible" in developing a comprehensive plan. As provided in my prior memorandum the county is expressly precluded under. ORS 195.110(9) from imposing a moratorium based on school"capacity. Any Moratorium based on water, sewer or transportation issues relating to 99W must be coordinated with the affected service providers to assure the county's basis for imposing the moratorium is reasonable and, to assure the affected service provider is willing.to participate in long- term planning solutions to the extent the "construction-and financing of additional facilities are necessary to mitigate impacts from development. 2. Limitations of Measure 3T ; Assuming the, county and the affected' services districts agree'on the basis for imposing . . interim development constraints property owners rnayhave a claim under Measure 37 for those temporary restrictions. Section 1 of Measure 37 entitles an owner to compensation- for the enactment of any'land use regulation that both restricts the use of property' and reduce§.its value. Under Section, 8 local government may decide to not apply(often referred to as a waiver) the regulation in lieu of compensation. ISSUE PAPER NO. 14 .'ATTACHMENT B. ` Page 3 . Measure 37 applies to both "statutes limiting the use of land or any interest therein" as well as "local government * * * zoning ordinances." Although the statutes governing moratoria and public facilities strategies are not specifically listed there is at least a. reasonableargument that implementing a moratorium would fall within the scope of Measure 37. Ultimately if a lower density'is adopted as part of a refinement_plan (ORS 197.200) a corrective action plan adopted under a moratorium (ORS 197.530) or a public facilities strategy (ORS 197.768), property:owners will likely be'entitled to compensation under . Measure 37. The county may of course pay compensation to assure enforcement of the . new regulations. Ultimately the decision of whether to impose limitations on and reduce the scope•of existing development rights to prevent further capacity problems rests.with the Board. This decision must of course.consider the limitations imposed by Measure 37, the importance of coordinating with the responsible service providers, and the pros and cons of the, various. growth management tools available under state law. = r + WASHINGTON COUNTY" OREGON Tune 28, 2005 'DRAFT PLANNING DIVISION . ''ISSUE PAPER NO: 5 . Park Planning for the Bull Mountain Area Issue Through.the Planning Division's 2005 work program, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) directed staff to prepare seven issue papers about planning and park issues in the urban unincorporated Bull Mountain area. This paper examines how to address park planning for the urban unincorporated Bull Mountain area in conjunction with Tigard's* update of its'Park System Master Plan. Recommendation ; Staff recommends that park planning for the Bull Mountain area.should'continue to be conducted by the City of Tigard through its update of the.Tigard Park-System Master Plan in 2006. Background At the Board's request, the, Planning Division has prepared.seven issue papers that address different planning and park issues associated with the-urban unincorporated Bu11,Mountain area. Five of the other issue papers address density, parks funding alternatives, updating the Bull' Mountain Community Plan, planning for the Bull Mountain UGB expansion areas, and amendments to the Washington County / Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement. .The seventh" 'issue paper (IP 14) addresses, CPO 413's request for a public facility strategy development . moratorium for the Bull Mountain"area. In December 2004, the Board and the Tigard City Council held a joint meeting to discuss a number of issues about the Bu11.Mountain area that had been raised by residents in the area. The Board and Council expressed a desire to work together to develop a. planning program that could address residents' concern s, primarily through the upcoming planning efforts of the city. The •Board directed the-county Planning Division 'to prepare Issue. Papers 15, 16, 17, 18 and 21 in consultation with Tigard. The Board asked staff to include•in these issue papers an assessment, " about how to address identified. issues in conjunction with"Tigard's update of its Comprehensive Plan and park master plan, and planning for the Bull Mountain UGB expansion areas. ,The focus.of this issue paper is park planning•for the urban unincorporated Bull Mountain area, The following paragraphs present'a chronology of events regardingpark planning•forrthe Bull . Mountain area., IP 16.addresses park funding"alternatives; IP 17:addresses',decreasing densities; IP 18 addresses•planning=for the' UGB expansion areas; IP 21 addresses updating the Bull Mountain Community Plan; IP 22 addresses Tigard's request to amend the UPAA for the UGB expansion areas. Department of Land Use 8a Transportation • Planning Division 155 N First Avenue, Suite 350-14, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 Phone: (503) 846-3519 • Fax: (503) 846-4412 • www.co.washington.6r.us, w DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO 15 Park'Plannmg for the Bull Mountain Area • June.28; 2005, ' Page 2 . In 1,983, the Board adopted the Bull, Mountain. Community,Plan (BMCP). Urban unincorporated Bull Mountain, whi& is identified as.the.."Summit`and Slopes Subarea" in " the BMCP, is identified as, being paik deficient.." At the,time the,. BMCP was adopted, , ; uorporated.Bull Mountain-was not. within the jurisdictional boundaries of a'parks provider.. However, General Design tElement 15, of the BMCP required'the county to, coordinate with the.City of Tigard;,for park-planning and the-provision of park and recreation services in urbamunincorporated:Bull Mountain.. Also in 1983, the first-Washington County / Tigard Urban Planning Area. Agreement (UPAA) was adopted. Per the. adopted UPAA, urban unincorporated! Bu11Moun'tain was identified,as an Area of- Interest:within the Tigard Urban Planning Area- In 1995; the ebunty, along with-Tualatin Hills~Park and Recreation Departmehf (THPRD) and the cities of Hillsboro and Tigard (the 'park 'providers for the majority of the urban area), ' began to study how_best to provide park, recreation and open space-services-to urban Washington County through, the work.;to implement the provisions`of ORS' 195; commonly referred to as Senate Bill 122.: That work designMed;which local governrnents would be the long-term providers of park, recreation and open space.services, and defined each provider's ' long-term service' boundary and park/recreation service principles. The,designated park providers are THPRD and the cities 'of Hillsboro and Tigard. In 2002, through the Tigard. Urban Service.Agreement (TUSAthe City of Tigard'was designated as the parks provider` for the area within the Tigard Urban Service'•Area' (the same boundary as Tigard.'s Urban , Planning Area-in,the UPAA); which. includes, urban. unincorporated Bull-Mountain. Elements of the countywide park strategy are 1 : ',,Properties will be served by the' designated service providerwhen they are located•withiw the jurisdictional boundary of Tigard, Hillsboro or THPRD.. , 2. `In THPRD's long term service area, properties, subject toidevelopment are required to annex to T,HPRD, prior,to final land use,approval..or issuance of-building permits - 3. Washington County may serve-as" an interim provider of parkland and recreation ' facilities for urban unincorporated properties when specific requirements.are,met. An interim funding source for the county-to, acquire park, and open space land could include a . ' ' , county"park systetn,development charge (SDC).' The purpose of theicotinty's interim'role is to serve as 'a bridge,. so that imrriediate funding can be provided forneeded.park and recreation facilities,in' areas under development; until the unincorporated properties are annexed to the applicable. park provider.'' . 4. Before the county could serve as an interim.provider.to unincorporated properties, in the Tigard, and Hillsboro Urban:Ser6ce Areas, the f6llowing.requirements must be met.1)' there be a commitment by the,city to serve its-long. teim:seivice.area,~2) The city's Park DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 15 Park Planning for the Bull Mountain Area June 28, 2005 Page 3 Master Plan would address the unincorporated areas in its long-term service area; 3) The standards for park, recreation and open space services to,the'unincorporated areas would . be those contained in the city's Park Master Plan; and 4) There be a commitment by the _ city-to plac'an annexation plan on the ballot. In 1998, the Cache Creek Nature Park site (locatedwithin the urban unincorporated Bull Mountain area), was purchased by the city and.county through their allocation'of Metro's " Greenspaces funds. The. site, under the city's ownership, will be developed in the future by the city. • In 1999, the City of Tigard updated its Park System Master.Plan.' The updated master plan' addressed the unincorporated Bull Mountain area and lands within Tigard's city limits. • . In 2000, the proposal for the Atfalati Recreation. Partnership District (Measure 34-23) was placed on the ballot. The measure proposed to provide recreation facilifies.and park improvements in the Tigard, and.Tualatin areas, and t6provide recreation'programs..The measure failed in the November 2000 election. The unincorporated Bull Mountain area, 'which is comprised of three precincts, opposed the measure by a range of 58% to 66% of the voters. • In 2002, the Tigard Urban Service Agr6e.inent (TUSA) was adopted and became effective. In- this'agreement, the unincorporated Bull Mountain area was identified as part of the City of Tigard's urban service-area;-and the city was designated as the parks provider'for the entire. . Tigard urban service area. The agreement's park and recreation service principles include: 1) The standards for parks', open space and recreational facilities will be the standards in Tigard's Park System Master Plan; 2) Updates to Tigard.'s -Park System Master Plan shall' address all properties in the'' Tigard Urban Service Area. • In November 2004, the City of Tigard placed a double majority annexation measure on the ballot foethe annexation of Bull Mountain. The Tigard City Council established the Bull Mountain Annexation Parks and Open Space Task Force in January 2004; the purpose of the Task Force was to provide, additional time for public discussion and review of key benefits of annexation as it pertained to parks and open spaces. The Task Force developed a Bull \ Mountain Parks Concept Plan, which identified potential park sites on Bull Mountain and provided cost estimates of acquiring and developing•the sites.. The annexation measure failed in the November-,2004 election. • In December 2004, the City of Tigard updated its.parks SDC.methodology and rate. The . SDC update incorporated proposed'parks identified in the Bull Mountain Parks Concept Plan. The city increased its park SDC for a single family dwelling from $1,580 to $3,753, which is only applicable to new development in the-city. The park SDC was increased DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO.-'I 5 Park Planning for the Bull,Mountain Area } June' 28, 2005 ' ?t Page .4 'substantially .in,order topay.for the full expected` cost, of providing: parkland, and recreational facilities for. new development in the city and urban unincorporated Bull Mountain: The:. analysis. for, 'Issue Paper'16, which addresses,park funding alternatives, indicates,that the majority (approximately 69%) of the park deficiency.on.Bull Mountain 'is due to existing residential development. In 2004,,the county began, evaluating a proposal; (ordinance -632) that. `would-allow'the county „ to become an interim provider of park land in. unincoiporated Bull Mountain. The next scheduled hearing for Ordinance 632.is July 19'2005. In 2005; the city funded an update of its Park'System Master Plan and Capital Improvement.' Plan, which;will address the entir6Jigard Urban,Service Area, including the,unincorporated Bull Mountain area.. The update will begin in 2006. In April 2005, the City of Tigard's. Parks and Recreation Department issued a draft List of ' Land Acquisition Projects for Fiscal Year 2005 = 2006. 'This'draft list includes the acquisitionof neighborhood parks, an open,space area,' and pocket~parks that .would- serve the urban unincorporated Bull Mountain area. ; Analysis t As noted atahe beginning of the Background section, the'Board directed.the county Planning A` Division to prepare: this issue paper about park planning for the, iirban:unincoiporated Bull Mountain area. The Board asked'staff to, include inch s issue paper, an assessment about how to address'the park-planning issue in conjunction with Tigard's update.of its Park System Master. ,:Plan. To address "the: above issue, staff examined several -factors. First,, staff reviewed tire.. Comprehensive Framework Plan for the;Urban Area and the TUSA; which identify the parks provider. for, Bull Mountain. Second, staff compared the. county' and the city:in terms,of their.: ' respective park planning expertise and availability-cf funding for;paik planning. Third, staff , examined the project scope. Fourth, staff examined the'issues of efficiency and economies of scale in conducting the park planning. Fifth, staff reviewed `the.park •planning efforts ~that the city has already undertaken with respect to Bull Mountain: Based,on these factors, described in more 'r t detail below, staff concludes that the,City'of.Tigard should continue to conduct the park planning for the Bull Mountain area through its- update of the Tigard Park System Master Plan' in 2006: , 1) Consistency With the Comprehensive Framework"Plan and TUSA_ Washington, County's . Comprehensive Framework n.. or the.Urban Area, and the adopted Tigard Urban Service Agreement (TUSA), a 'binding agreement; both specify that the city is the parks provider for Bull Mountain. In order for.the county to conduct park-planning for unincorporated Bull Mountain, amendmentsto the,TUSA.and the Framework Plan; specifying the countyas a parks provider, "would need to be`approyed.by the City of Tigard and. by the. Board;: .respectively:. = DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 15 Park Planning for the Bull Mountain Area June 28, 2005 Page 5 2) Expertise. The City of Tigard has a parks department, and has a Park. System Master. Plan and Park Capital Improvement Plan for its-entire urban service area, which includes unincorporated Bull Mountain. The county has not historically been-a parks provider and has neither a parks department nor expertise in parks planning and development. 3) Funding. ' The county does riot have the revenue to undertake park planning, Existing homeowners and new development, in unincorporated Bull Mountain don't provide funding for park planning and park provision through a parks SDC or property taxes as city residents do. Conversely, the city has recently updated its `parks SDC methodology and rate and has funded a Parks System Master Plan update, which is scheduled to begin in 2006. The Parks , Systent'Master Plan update will include parks planning for the Bull Mountain area. 4) Project Scope. The park needs of the entire community, in the Tigard Urban Service 'Area, not just a pad-of it, need to be examined as part of the'.park planning process.for Bull Mountain. This is particularly true since some neighborhood and community parks and recreational trails that will serve unincorporated Bull Mountain will be located in theCity of Tigard - and vice versa. For example, Tigard's:Cache Creek Nature Park site,.which is within urban unincorporated Bull Mountain, will be a park serving both Bull.Mountain and City of Tigard residents. The city, which has already developed a Park System Master Plan for the Tigard Urban Service Area as mentioned above; is the logical entity to conduct park. planning at the level of the entire urban service area. 5) Efficiency. It is more efficient for the city to conduct the park planning for the Bull Mountain area as part of the Tigard Park System Master Plan update, which has-been recently funded and is scheduled to move forward in 2006.. A proposal for the county to create a separate parks plan for unincorporated Bull Mountain would constitute a duplication. of effort. In addition, due to the county's lack of expertise in park planning, if the county were to undertake park planning for Bull Mountain, the"City of Tigard or a consulting firm would need to provide assistance and guidance to the county. The county and city's efforts would also have to be coordinated because much of Bull Mountain is now within the city. 6) Economies of scale. The greatest cost savings is obtained by updating the whole of the existing master. plan for the Tigard Urban Service; Area through one process rather than two . separate processes, which would have to be coordinated. 7) City's park planning efforts on behalf of Bull Mountain. The city has'invested effort and funds in parks planning for Bull Mountain, as evidenced by: . • The city's 1999 Park System Master Plan, which,includes the Bull Mountain area; the city's 2004 park SDC `methodology update, which'. incorporates proposed parks identified through the Bull Mountain Parks Concept Plan; The city's acquisition of the Cache Creek,Naiure Park site;. ' ; DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 15. Park Planning for the Bu11 •Mouriiain Area a June 28; 2005 Page 6 ' ,The cit • will, be startin work on''an u daie'of rts Park S stem Master Plan in 2006; the ` Y g p Y scope of which will includ&unincorporated'Bull Mountain • The city is currently working to acquirer park land:and open space in unincorporated Bull ' Mountain, as indicated in the Tigard Parks and Recreation draft List of Land Acquisition , . Projects for Fiscal Year 2005 -1006. Therefore, based 'on the above factors, staff concludes that it is appropriate forthe City of Tigard, ; rather than the county, to continue to 'conduct the park. planning for Bull Mountain: Given the city's past and ongoing planning activities on behalf of Bull Mountain, it'is unlikely that the. city: would wish to amend the'park provider provision of the TUSA. wpshare~2005ord~work programVssue papers\Bull MtUP (SUP 15 paiicplacuiing final'dtaft 6-28-04 " -•r 1. j,'• , WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON June 28, 2005 DRAFT PLANNING` DIVISION ISSUE PAPER NO.- 16 Potential Funding Alternatives to Provide Parks and Open Space In the Bull-Mountain Area Issue Through the Planning Division's 2005 work program,,the,Board•of County Commissioners (Board).directed staff to prepare seven issue papers about planning and`park issues in the urban unincorporated Bull Mountain area. Issue Paper'15 examined park planning-for the Bull Mountain area. While drafting that paper, staff realized that'rnore analysis was needed on the issue of providing parks. Issue Paper 16 provides an overview of different funding alternatives for providing parks and open. spat' & in.the Bull Mountain area.' Recommendation The purpose of Issue Paper 16 is to provide information about potential funding alternatives'to provide parks and'open space in the Bull Mountain area. Consequently, this paper does not make any recommendations about the altematives..However, staff does recommend that future . consideration of a park LID, county park service district or.a park. and recreation special service district be contingent upon the submission of a citizen petition requesting the formation' of orie of these alternatives. Background Urban unincorporated Bull Mountain is identified as the "Summit and Slopes Subarea" in the Bull Mountain Community Plan (BMCP). The BMCP, identifies the subarea-as being park deficient. When the BMCP was adopted in 1983, unincorporated Bull Mountain was not within the jurisdictional,.boundaries of a parks provider. However; General Design Element 15 of the'- BMCP required the county to coordinate with the City of Tigard for park planning and the provision of park and recreation services in urban unincorporated Bull Mountain. In 2002 and 2003, respectively, the Tigard Urban Service, Agreement (TUSA) was adopted and the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area (Framework Plan) was amended, both of which designated the City of Tigard as the parks provider for urban unincorporated Bull ' Mountain. The background section of Issue Paper 15 (Park Planning•for the Bull Mountain Area) provides a chronology of events from 1983 to the present,.regarding parkplanning for the Bull Mountain area. At the Board's request, the Planning Division has prepared seven issue papers:that address different planning and park issues associated, with the urban unincorporated Bull.Mountain area. " Five of the other issue papers address density, park planning, updating the.Bull Mountain Depaitment 'of Land Use & Transportation • Planning Division, 155 N First Avenue, Suite 350-14, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 Phone: (503) 846-3519 Fax: (503).846-4412 • www.co.washington.or.us. DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16.' . Y Potential Park and Open Space Fundng'Alternatives June 28, 2005' ' Page 2 Community Plan, planning for the'Bull Mountain UGB expansion areas, and'amendments to the Washington County / Tigard Urban Planning Ar6a,Agreement.' The seventh issue paper.(IP 14) addresses CPO: 413's request for a"public facility strategy /'development. moratorium for the Bull Mountain area: ; In December 2004, the Board and the Tigard City Council held a joint meeting to discuss -a'.',. number of issues about the Bull- Mountain area'. that had.been raised by residents in the area." The Board and Council 'expressed a desire to work'together to develop a planning program that could address residents' concerns, primarily through the upcoming planning efforts of the city. 'The Board directed the county Planning'Division to Prepare Issue Papers 15, 16,117,118, 21 and 22 in consultation with Tigard staff. The "Board asked staff to include in these issue papers an assessment about how to address identified issues in conjunction with Tigard's update of its, Comprehensive, Plan and park master plan, and planning for the-Bull Mountain UGB expansion areas. Lack of parks on.:Bull Mountain was'identified. Asa key, citizen issue. In jaddition, Bull Mountain . residents raised the possibility'of a local improvement district (LID) to.provide'parks. Staff recognizes that at.least seven alternatives exist for funding parkland acquisition; development, and/or operations and maintenance for the park-deficient Bull Mountain area. These alternatives are: 1) County_parkLID:'•A LID is a•means of funding construction, operation and maintenance of a ' public improvement- 2) 2) County special service district (ORS Ch. 451): A.county special.service district (count service district) is a district established to provide.service facilities in a county or counties. Examples, of county service districts inWashington, County are the Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol. District'(ESPD);'the Urban Road Maintenance District (URMD), the Service District for Street Lighting (SDL), and Clean Water Services (CWS): - 3) Park and recreation special service district (ORS Ch. 266): Park and recreation districts (park and, recreation districts), are municipal corporations formed by communities' to provide park and recreation facilities for the inhabitants. An example of a park district in Washington County is the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District.(THPRD).. . 4) County park system development charge (SDC): A. system development charge (SDC) is a method by which new development -is charged to fund the•ciapital improvements needed•to. serve that development. In, 2004, the county proposed an interim-park.and recreation SDC. for urban unincorporated Bull Mountain.in conjunction, with proposed Ordinance 632. The , next scheduled public hearing for Ordinance 632 is.on.July 19, 2005. The 2004 proposed park SDC was rejected because it did not reflect the ,City of Tigard's.new•park'•SDC IP 15 addresses park planning issues; IP I addresses decreasing densities; IT 18 addresses planning for the UGB , expansion areas; IP,21 addresses updating the Bull'Mountain Community Plan; IP 22 addresses Tigard's request to amend the UPAA=for the UGB' expansion-areas. ; DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16 t Potential Park and'Open Space Funding Alternatives June 28, 2005 Page 3 methodology report and rates for the Bull Mt: area. Please, see pages 22 and 23 for more information about a county park SDC. 5) Park provision by the City of Tigard: Parkland acquisition, development and maintenance funded and conducted by the City of Tigard.-.., 6) :Joint park provision by the county and the City of Tigard:. Parkland acquisition, development and maintenance jointly funded and conducted by the City of Tigard and. Washington County. 7) Private funding: Private funding mechanisms for parks could include the formation, of a non- " profit organization, private corporation, or homeowners association for the purpose of raising funds for parkland acquisition, development and maintenance. Staff notes that all of the above park funding alternatives' would need to be consistent with local planning related requirements prior to implementation. In this case, the local planning related requirements are the county's Comprehensive Framework'Plan for the Urban Area (Framework Plan), the Bull Mountain Community Plan (BMCP), and the Tigard Urban Service Area Agreement (TUSA). Only the private funding alternative was consistent with all three of the local requirements. The remaining alternatives were inconsistent with one or more of the three . local requirements, and would'require amendments to the Framework Plan, the"TUSA, or both ' -prior to implementation.' See Table A, Park Funding Options -Consistency with Planning Related Requirements, for details about the -consistency of each altema'tive.with the planning related requirements: 1 , Alternatives #1 through #4 (county park LID, county service district, park and recreation special service district, and county park SDC) involve park, funding at the county level, and will' be examined in more detail in this issuepaper. Park funding alternatives #5 and #6, which involve park funding by the City of Tigard, were not further examined because staff is assuming that the city would spend its revenue to serve areas within the city limits. Staff is unaware of any city or park district that spends its revenue to construct facilities outside of its boundary to serve residents and-employees outside its boundary. Staff did not examine private funding alternatives because they would not involve the county. Analysis PARK NEEDS. y , Before comparing the four park funding alternatives, it is first necessary to present an assessment of Bull Mountain's park needs,.and'the estimated costs associated with those needs: It is important to point out that the park needs assessment in this issue paper is not an independent assessment. Because the county is not a parks provider and does not have expertise in park planning, staff has relied upon .the parks provider's plans, as we.did in 2004 for THPRD's ultimate service area. NO. ISSUE PAPER 16 Potential Park and Open Spa&e unding Alternatives June 28, 2005. Page 4 Table'A gyp. Park Ftindin O dons -Consistenc With, Plannin -Related: Re uir'em~ents Alternatives :'Comp. Framework'Plan,", Bull-Mt.,Communi Plan.'' JUS.A . Tigard:.. OK,. OK county must coordinate with Tigard for NO - Service by • park planning and provision of facilities ; Tigard is limited to its city limits Countypark SDC , NOT CONSISTENT A , OK-, county, must coordinate`with:Tigard foi " OK " (SDCs may onlyprovide- county can't be a provider due•to : park;planning and,provision of facilities . capital imrovements Zack of an annexation plane 7' . County LID r NOT.CONSISTENT. OK: county;must:coordinate with Tigard for NOT • county can't be a -provider due park planning and provision of facilities., CONSISTENT 'to lack of an annexation plane "e '•Tigard is the Plari.only.permits interim. r designated capital •improvements by° ' provider,-not the count • 3 county,',` ' County 451 service NOT CONSISTENT „ :OK•= county,must coordinate. with Tigard'for Should;study • distrlCt ' • county can't be a provider, due park planning and provision of facilities. feasibility, must (This option was. to lack of an annexation plant _ serve entire. - previously rejected by, 'Tigard is the designated . 1t TUSA6 voters) provider' 1 - Plan only'permits'interim" capital improvements by , coup s N ILI Park and NOT CONSISTENT OK` county.must'coordinate with Tigard for '::Should study • Tigardis the designated' " . park'plarining and-provision of facilities' feasibility, must recreation service provider'serve entire : district TUSAB ' a ' Joint funding by NOT CONSISTENT OK NOT, ' county &;Tigard county can t be a provider-due , 'CONSISTENT the"lack'of an annexation plane J `Service by • ` , Plan, only permits interim Tigard is'limited • capital iffiprovem 'limit county9 N R 2 If adopted, Ordinance 632 would eliminate this issue. 3 Must amend the Comp Plan to; a) designate the county as a service,provider; '..b) allow the county to provide -,',maintenance and operation services and .,c) allow;the countyao bea,long term service provider'or'defne an LID,as an interim provision 6f,serv~ce H: 1,4 r ; 4'Must amend the Tigard Urban Service Agreement .(TUSA)to make the county a designated service provider.' . i r5 Must amend, the Comp Plan to_dei gnate a county park service'distnct as the long tern- service•provider of all park yi . "and rec.se*rvices: 6 Must aniend the TUSA•to designate a county,park service district as the `service:provider:, Must amend,the Comp Plariao: designate a park service distnc't as the service provider. "Must amerid the~TUSA to designate a :park service district as.the service provider.. 9 Must amend the Comp Plan to designate the, county;as'a service , Provider & allow the county-to provide" ' . , maintenance and operation'services. , DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16 Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives June 28, 2005 Page 5 Because the City.of Tigard is the designated parks provider for urban unincorporated Bull. Mountain, staff has relied upon the park planning documents prepared by the city. -These documents are discussed in more detail. below. The park needs assessment'below identifies the study area; the quantity, type, and size ofneeded parks within the study area; and potential park locations within the studyarea. The subsequent section; "Park Costs", provides an estimate of the costs associated with the identified park'needs. Identification of the boundary of the Bull Mountain park study area. The present limits of urban unincorporated Bull Mountain. were the starting point for the identification of the study area. However, urban unincorporated Bull Mountain is not an entirely contiguous'area. A small number of urban unincorporated Bull Mountain properties.,are• "islands", surrounded on all sides by properties within the City.of Tigard. Two of these "island" areas were excluded"from the proposed study area duel to:their significant spatial separation from, the proposed Bull Mountain parks locations, which'are described in more detail in the following. section.., The excluded-"island properties are those urban unincorporated properties located. east of the BPA easement and abutting SW Fern Street, and those urban unincorporated properties located east of SW 133`d. Avenue and north of, and'abutting, SW Hood Vista Lane. -The resulting proposed'study area is shown in Map. A, Bull Mountain Park Study Area. Identification of the quantity, size an d type of Bull Mountain parks to be funded. In order to identify the appropriate quantity; size; and'types of parks'that should be funded, staff, has relied in large part on park planning documents prepared by'the City.of Tigard and the city's Bull Mountain Annexation Parks and Open Space Task Force. Tigard is the identified park provider to the area, and its Park System Master Plan and park SDC address the area. Therefore, staff has relied upon the following documents: the 1999 Tigard Park System Master Plan (TPSMP), the. 2004 Tigard Parks and Recreation System Development Charges Methodology'. Update (SDC Methodology Update); the 2004 Bull Mountain Parks Concept Plan (BMPCP). In addition, the county is aware that a parcel currently owned by the Trust for Public Lands (TPL) exists within urban unincorporated Bull Mountain,, located west of the Cache Creek' Nature Park site.. Staff is aware of the community's desire to preserve the TPL site as a Bull 'Mountain greenspace. Lastly, staff concluded that a park funding alternative should fund the development of Tigard's,Cache Creek Nature Park site, which was acquired through the Metro Greeilspaces Program by funds designated to Tigard and Washington County for the purchase of greenspaces. Identified Park and Recreation Improvements Based on the above information, staff concluded that each of the four park funding alternatives would need to fund. the acquisition and-development of the park.and recreation improvements described below. Approximately 77,%0 of the improvements are needed to serve existing development in the area. a) ' Four'neighborhood parks, each approximately2-- 3 acres in size; b) BPA powerline linear park trail, approximately 5.4 acres in total area; c) Powerline pocket parks, totaling'approximately 2:.5 acres in size; t. v 1, t DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16 a - Poten' iW,Park_ and.Open Space Funding Altematives June 28, 200 Page 6 -rd) TPL'greenspace . approximatelvA. acres in: size; e) Development'' -of the 12.1.5 acre Cache Creek Nature Park site. xA r Figure 1 is the BMPCP, developed in 2004 by the:city's Bull Mountain.Annexation Parks'and• Opetr Space Task Force. The.BMP.CP illustrat&proposed locations for the; four-neighborhood parks, the BRA powerhne linear park trail, and the pow.erhne pocketparks; 'as ;well as the - ' extstinglocation of the Cache Creek-Nature Park `site.' Consistent With the Framework Plan,and ihe.TUSA, the.character~and proposed improvements"of - tl e above park facilities would be'consistent with the;Tigard Park;System:Master Plan (TPSMP). ° For,example,•the TPSMP defines'gr`eenspaces as-areas-of natural -quality that protect valuable natural resources and provide wt.ldlife habitat'... the TPSMP; green ' ce improvements would spa be limited to features.such a's trail§,,picnic areas,.and interpretive signs ,',Similarly, although nature parks are not. listed as. a- separate category; in the TPSMP,•staff has assumed that. the Cache: " Creek Nature Park site would;retain: its wooded character, and wouldl.ulttmately be improved with trails.and,perhaps:a small-scale inte'rprettve.center:., ' . On the other hand, the TPSMP.states that the purposi :of•neighborhood parks and,pocket.parks is to-pr6ide'recr'eation opportunities. Per the TPSMP and the BMPCP; these types-of parks would feature children's play areas' picnic'area s and sports facihttes•,.:that is, they would be developed to'a.greater,_or lesser degree; rather. than beingretatned.in their current natural condition, as an ; _ open space area would be retained. Figures 2, 3;4, and 5 are;the-BMPCP-illustrative, plans for., neighborhood and pocket parks, showing the more developed character: of these parks containing,,• sports courts and playground areas: i Identification of potential Bull.Mountain:park.sites The next step'was determihing,potential locations for the:above facilities.-!.The TPSMP and" BMPCP identified generalized neighborhood-park locations~imthe riorthsouth,,east and, West ' quadrants of unincorporated Bull Mountain, but dtd.not identifyspecifc lots as 'park sites. However, the.'city, is currently in negotiations to acquire, approximately 2. acres-of a property. - abutting the Cache Creek Nature Park to the north,`for'a-north neighborhood park. The location, of the, Cache Creek Nature Park••and the potential north neighborhood park site.are,shown on -Map B,. Generalized Potential Park Locations `The Gerteralizeil'P, otential Park.Locations.map also show's the generalized locations of-the south, east, and`.west neighborhood parks,.as per the... TPSMP and BMPCP and the,,proposed.powerline linear park; which, will'b'e'coterminous with the existingBPA easement: Lastly; the map shows the,TPL'site, located west of he Cache Creek Nature Park. r As noted above, specific park sites-for the:proposed south, east.and west neighborhood,parks were not identified in.the TPSMP'_and.BMPCP; those.-plans identified'only generalize'&, neighborhood park locations. To,detertnine, whether, potential park sites "currently exist in the ;:.generalized locations identified in those plans; staff."compared'the.generalize d:' k"locations in 'the TPSMP and BMPCP witha"current map of'vacaht and'redevelopable lands'for the Bull` J, Mountain'area; as,well as.aerial photos:.ofthe Bull'Wuntai "area. Properties were identified, as. III :potential neighborhood park. sites";if th6niet the following" criteria: a o m ~ ~ aarTAf, a 1 < ml ® ® eruct ME ® ~ir~u1 R h AY ~ a ~ KY RD J E ~ RED t w a ' ST !i b 2 + LT Z a J > d. a a Q a N - aC !w DEMbGROVF. ROYAL in w (h ® SCNEF R RD 700- 0 700 140 Feet o BE rrrTi- T~;'ax;'°'aoas MAP A: il,Bull Mt. Park Study, Area~...,~~. Stud Area W. -C." ' Study .r F4rvbp 1 F~'q Aw. J50.U li°aCOpo,~ 1N ~(u~J)M675fY EmN: ~.s ' - . 'sirpxlwa1100SnyWMyrp~yypwP++~_Y uea ohil sl.apr OY 611Q03 ' Unincorporated properties ,a cis ® excluded from the study are May 9, 2005 FIGURE .1 ,vfrN~, _ Mill ' • lfUiillMiW 4 Bull Mountain. Pr ~x sPn Palk Coneepl.Plan" a c rPAfit~;'`'"'"`tirr~.n>-..•:i cr4s`' - Hl'SF NVIY. n i Hn 'ZF 1~m - PAAK CJF'N l CREFK _ ' IiAi~AE _ ' oeAK `ATTACHMENT 6 x ~ ~rreo • r`~9 PARK _ 4 t.- ~ PARK ® ~ CCrJ C it) of Tigard 7 a vw a 4+0 dq d t FS t - , - - -.,y 00 3' z " tU°o c _O ' DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16 Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives June 28, 2005 Page 9 Jt 7•: ~i W - 1 t a M, DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO' 1G k y Potential Park and Open Space Fundmg'Altematives June 28, 2005' f Page 10 _ ~i 1. ,i ~ . . • • . k • i • S • DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16 - Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives June 28, 2005 Page 11, . t V \ a ` Ca i p; H a 4:': ~ r~Y~ . S ly t •p.. s DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16. Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives - June 28, 2005 Page 12 , , ~ti. , ~ Mme/ 1. ~ ' ~ ~ ~ .J:. .4 - . , , y , Ell ' , ~I x,11' •I,N ~'~p~M~~ ~ ~ v ~a~~®~ • aiH ~ ~ ewmw ® ® c xvRO ~ NORTH ' Neighborhood Park Cache Creek Nature Park 4 Llddk" T , WEST w Neighborhood Park EW ® \ E 1 3r < 4 aRr Neighborhood Park !7 w / `k SOUTH Neighborhood Park c. z E . O ~ PEACIIV F \ d S / Nw '30 ` , ac ~ la, DEERGROVE Horn ' ' C1I RD J ' RI M ® F SCHEF cr RD cT R o :y W ~ o 700 0 700 140 Feet • o s _~JI T n, rt- MAP B: Generalized Potential Park Locations Tw Study Area Potential Park/Open Space _ SmFewas,a E,wrn.~gco..~sn,,,ym~.a.~s - Future Ci of Tigard Potential Powerline Trail G S Nature Park w/Pocket Parks May 9, 2005 , • • ' f , DRAFT=ISSUE PAPER NO. T6. Potential Park and'Open Spa"ce Fund atives ing Altern 4 June 28; 2005 r r r Page.14 1),, The properties werevacant per"the Metro' 2004 Vacant Lands" Inventory;'. 2) .The properties'.were at least 3,;acres in'size or; if less.than;3<acres in size, were'parCof a ,cluster of vacant properties totaling at' least3 acres in size: 3) For. properties'with atleast- 'h acre of vacant'1`and, tlie.existing improvements (dwellings and other structures) were located'on the parcel: in'a:inanner that would allo retention"of those improvements if;pait of;the and were;partitioned to create.a.park: Properties in which the location -of existin irri rovements recluded ark develo ' ment :e., aerial- hotos Vindicated; F : • g imp P P P (i p. "that the structures-were in the` center` of the parcel) were-,eliminated -from consideration r 4) The properties were not identified as being, steeply sloped'on the City of Tigard's rpap,for the area: More level sites were, deemed' desirable 'for' neighborh_ ood parks, :which would be ; improved with playgrounds and/or ball fields: 5 The lands did n6t have • ending ' develo meet a ' hcations'or Pendin 4aririexations before the - P P PP g City of Tigard. x . -Vacant properties that were identified as potential.park4sites are shown on Map C, Potential, Park' and Open Space Sites. Properties that are;not completely vacant generally contain single family„ residences. They were designated as redevelopable:due'wth`eir larger "size and-potential for ` further subdivision.However„staff recognizes that:ownersrof the vacant lots.identified.on thi's map maybe unwilling to sell all or any'othei ' r'property for park use. In addition; accordirigao Tigard's Community Development staff, developers have requeste&pre ,application meetings•to' _d iscuss ahe proposed'developmerit 'of several :f tlie• sites identified on the Potential Park and ; Open Space Sites map: Therefore, the actual number`'of potential`park sites may':be lessthan that. a shown on the Potential Park' and Open Space Sites"map: "-Staff notes that there are-a-limited number of vacant srtes'suitable for neighborhood parks; particularly in the ;southern quadrant of unincorporated Bull Mountain. In the southern quadrant; _ = Only'two part ially'vacant:parcels ,were'identified. Thclocation .of these parcels: is less than ideal.. ' , . from a neighborhoodpark site perspective because the parcels are located at a peripheryof the.: Bull -Mountain urban,unmcorporated area'and are,adjacent to the intersection of a collector and an arterial (iritersection:of SW,150th.Avenue and`SW Beef.Bend"Road). A park location more central.to the southern neighborhood area and on a neighborhood street would be; preferable The-number o v'acanf'sites.was,.also limited it! the western and.eastern quadrants 'of unincorporated B A Mountai' The western :quadrant (area south of Bull Mountain Road and. west'of the BPA easement) has approximately six wholly or partially,vacant parcels of sufficient size .for neighborhood park'sites:.The'vacant parcels are -located at the western.edge'of the urban ; ou of unincorporated area,,abuttmg the new UGB expansionarea. The eastern quadrant (areas th Bull"Mountain' Road and,east of thetl?A ;casement) hasapproximately eight wholly , partially vacant.parcels'of sufficientsize forl'neighborhood park sites: As noted above; steeply sloped ` - sites were excluded'from consideration as potential park sites. However, even.when.st&Wv. . sloped:sites were excluded; most'of the "remaining -vacant sites are sloping and therefore would. require a degree of .9ra- g'to b' appropriate for locating a neighboih 'odpark whh-sports -fie .r , r ~ . t err • :f t ,.c 4 , ~'k :i 5 - r. r M£ LT t • -cr t yurTM, 4 - pR y x7TR TE r rxx • x , x ~ ' StA X113 a ' o ® r. ~ 1 1 h1DLY RD - v ~ f (l~ J ST r ct o PE-W ~ p~RCRO.rt SC4C w IC1 ce) A ~ ® R 9 ' R O Pv {}M~ TNs '~Ntxd~°m0varo MY~K"S rd be y ;T O vit2x DU 1400 Feet, 7oa 0 aC Sites pw~v Open Sp a May 9.200 otential Park and MAP C' P._ ~ 4 . , © SwdH - Va~Dtla~ ' • -RydyvelDPa~~and- • ' DRAFT-ISSUE PAPER NOA 6 PotentialPark and Open Space Fund*ng Alternatives ' ' x June •28; 2005 r ` " r Page 16 ' `''PARK. COSTS.. Given the ,park needs identified in the'above section; an estimate, of park costs is provtd6&N low.' Park costs'hAve been divided into two:parts capital costs (acquisition and development)=.and. ongoing costs_(operations,'program administration and maintenance)., j Estimate of Capital,Costs (Park;'Plammn , f1cq P uisrtton,'Develo merit , 4Table B depicts the`land.acquisition cost and development cost, for',each proposed park project. The'toia1,project cost -for all parks.consisted of the sum'of updating tfie existing park master plan' for the Bull Mt: area;=the.projecf cost (land acquisition cost and development cos ' for each'of.the listed projects),`pl6 ,the cost for designing of all projects, plus overhead costs10;.which'were . `y.' '...assumed to.be.fifteen percent of the total p"roject cost.,''.' In addition the'capital cost includes fiance costs which were calculated by,the County's Chief Financial:Officer 1As shown'in Table B, the estimated total capital cost is S 10,'581,869.,!! Estimate,of On= oing " Costs (Operations & Maintenance) y,. estimated.co'sts `t o main tain and, operafe the" propo park and Currentl staff is developing recreation facilities and-open space area identified:onpage 5. 'Since the-county'is not a,park°and : recreation provider, the county does not have an.exi'ting program from which to calculate these costs' County staff is-working with4other. area park and recreation provtde'rs to'develop these estimated costs: These costs` will be provided in the future through an update of this paper:, . Measure 5/50 Issues ` 'County Counsel has noted that Measure:,5/50 has impheatioris Tor how both, capital improvement costs and ongoing costs can be.assessed.via a'county parks LID, county service•district, or park and recreation district: Measure 5%50 capped total tax assessment for local -government services other than schools .'Under.Measure 5/50, if:capital improvements are assessed.before their completion, the assessment is treated'as' a property tax. However, if•.the'capital improvements assessment;may lie: financed ove"r..at;least 10 years and'is"assessed afterthe; capital improvements, ; are ,completed; it,is not ireaied asp' f' operty tax,and is-not subject to the Measure•5/50'. a4 limits. For purposes of this paper, staff is.,assuming interim"financing•for two years would be.'nee_ded to come up with the capital for land.acqutsition and construction of mprovements. The cost of,;: interim financing wouldbe•exemptfronl;the Measure'5/50 cap per 0 S.310.140(4), so long as it is iticluded''in- the single post-completion assessment. ,The capital improvements woiild be constructed during the two '-year interim f nancing:period.: The cost of the capital improvements wouldrbe assessed, after their construction and may be financed over a 10=year period. These. assessments vi!ould be levied and collected outside the-property'tax system, and would,not,be : subjecfto the limit on property taxes' 10 Overhead costs include management.of construction and legal fees This rate is"an estimate provided bythe City ofTigard,and THPRD Vr Y., ~ va fii,. t b• t i t.` . t • 1, DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16 Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives June 28, 2005' ` Page 17, Table B - Bull Mountain Park Costs : Land `TotairLan Total' roject' Acquisition Acquisition . Development Development T6011:0 Project Acres:. Cost./ Acre Cost Cost;/:Acre, ,,..;Cost>. Cost. - North Neighborhood Park Water Reservoir site 3 $95,000 $285,000 $160,000 $480,000 $765,000 East Neighborhood Park 3 $320,000 $960,000 $160,000 $480,000 $1,440,000- . ~ _ - - - - West Neighborhood Park 3 $320,000 $960,000 $160,000 - $480,000 " $1,440,000 South Neighborhood Park 3 $320,000 $960,000 $160,000. $480,000 $1,440,000_. City of Tigard - Cache Creek Nature Park- 12.15 $0. ownership. $52,675 $640,000 . $640,000 . Powerline Linear'Park Trail 5.36 ' $0 $1,050,000 $1•1050,000. Powerline Pocket Parks 2.5 $300,000 $750,000- $150,000 $375,000 $1,125,000 Greens ace Areas 4 $320,000 $1,280,000 $260 per Lf. $1,625. $1,281,625 $9,181,625 Cost.to update Bull Mt. Park Plan $20,000 $9201;625 Construction Admin Costs (15%) $1,380,244 - TOTAL CAPITAL COST $10,581,869 ''DRAFT.. ISSUE PAPERNO. 16 f; PotentiAlTark and Open Space Funding Alternatives ' . June 282005' Page IS . County Counsel has noted that if a Local improvement District assessment includes charges for operations and,maintenance(O & M), then'those' assessments would fall:within the Measure 5/50 definition: of a tax and would. be 'subject to,'the constitutional limit of $1 O per year per thou'sand': for local governmentservices other,than schools: ' The;existing tax'rate for:+urban -:unincorporated •Bull/Mountain is $5.97 per year per;$1000 of assessed valuation.. Therefore, n i order for an. LID .:assessment for park O & to comply with theMe<asure50 cait would be limited to a maximum of $4.03 per year per thousand of assessed valuation. A County, Counsel memo (Attachment,):discussing the legal issues associated with LIDs is mcluded,as an attachment to „ this issue paper. ; COMPARISON OF FUNDING ALTERNATNES - ' Four park funding alternatives (County,park.LID;,-county service district;'P'ark and recreation special service district; and interim county park' SJJQ are outlined below The capital and maintenance`co`st estimates in. Table B,were applied to each funding alternative to arrive at an' assessment' estimate"for the development of the,parks:atid open space area described inahe "Park Needs".section'.of this'paper. Annual mai , bi.iance;and:operation costs will be provided at a' .future date. County Park LID ,.local improvement district (LID).is a means of funding construction, operation' and , maintenance of a public improvement. `.:Presently; only_one;park LID'- the-Metzger'Park LID exists in Washington County.:The Metzger Park,LID was fbrined in the mid-1970s at the,; request of the citizens of the Metzger area, to~fu'nd &"maintenance of the then` existing'IVletzger ^ . ' , . Park., The 2004/2005 LID 'assessment is $90;500. Fifty,-f vepercent of the LID',is funded by residential development and the'remaming'45 % is .funded by con lmercial'development (e:g Washington Square). t Chapter 3.20 of the County 6deaets forth` the standards for LI :Tormatiori.':The County Counsel memo (Attachment. A)'descnlies;the process for initiating and approving a county LID.`. As discussed. in the CountKounsel memo, a public hearing for the'LID must-be held, and .'sufficient remonstrance (remonstrance by two-,thirds of the property. owners Within. the LID), can halt an LIDformation proposal:'. An LID:may'only be,used to fund. public,impiovemehts. The,expenses that may be funded by, 41 parks.LIID. include park planning,-land acgwsztion, capital improvements,.~ope'ration and` , maintenannce'. of park facilities,:and LID administration. (staff:costs for.processing assessments, etc.)' Per Chapter 3.20 of the .County,Code,' expenses that cannot be funded by a county park LID include recreation,programs,.park rangers for"patrols; and privately.ownedparks;. - In:County.Counsel's.opinion, if a'eounty LID,:is used asahe'funding approach for parks'on, Bull ;Mountain; the County.Code would probably require two separate park LIDS: an LID for park -,planning, land acquisition; and_park' development; and; an LID'for'the annual; operations, and ; , -maintenance of the constructed parks. r i DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO.' 16 l :1 Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives J June 28; 2005 . Page, 19 For the purposes -of this issue paper, staff has assumed that'.each of the total number of potential future dwellings within,, 6.LID,boundary would be assessed for capital,and maintenance costs. .The total number ofrpotential future dwellings is defined as the'number"of existing dwellings- plus, the total number of parcels "that could be created from the,.existing inventory of vacant, land at the minimum required density per acre. r This assessment, method is the typical method of ` ' assessment,that the'County and CWS have used for other LIDS, such`as road. and sewer. LIDs This assessment method is based'on benefifand is assuming that future dwellings, as well as ; existing dwellings, will'be obtaining benefit from the proposed local. improvement. Map D, Bull ` Mountain "Vacant. Ldnds, shows the' current vacant lands within the Bull Mountain study Area. .'Under the assessment, method described above,.the owners of, the vacant lands would be assessed for the potential future dwellings thafcould be placed on the property if it was divided-into the number of parcels allowable under, the minimum. required density'per acre: ,.For the purposes.of . this paper,.the•assumed minimum density is five dwellings per vacant acre. Based on the park cost estimates in'the'previous section; the County's Chief Financial Officer has calculated that the LID capital,cost per,parcel would be $2,733; if the capital costs were levied equally io each ,of the totalpotential future dwellings within-the study area - County Counsel has noted that in order.for an LII' to'be legally-feasible, there must be demonstrated benefit to each of the residents within-the proposed LID boundary. `For,purposes,,*' of this issue paper, staff has assumed that there-would`be one LID for the eapital improvements to provide the parks and open space in ' einents identified on page.-5. However`, as discussed prov in the "Park Needs" section ofahis paper, sites that are suitable for parks are hinited 'in some' sections of the Bull'Mountain'stt dy area. Thereform, if the development of parks; is,precluded in some sections of the Bull Mountain'study area; it may not be possible to demonstrate that residents of those sections are benefited by the development of parks in other'sections of the Bull Mountain area. Asa result, •deperiding, on what lands are available for park development, ae series ` ofsmaller LIDs may be needed for each of the proposed parks, rather.than one LID for development of all parks within the study area. County Special Service District County special. service districts (county service:districts) are regulated by the requirements of ORS 451. They are county service districts established to,provide'service facilities in a county or counties. Formation of a county service district is initiated by petition.', County service districts include Clean-Water Services,'ESPD, URMD, and SDL. The proposed Atfalati ' Recreation District, which was not :approved by the voters in 2000, was proposed, as-.,a- county service district. Unlike a park,and recreation district"Aescribed below,'a county service' district does not have a separate board; it is, governed -by the elected board. of the county that, establishes' the, county service district.' A county service district for parks can -fund public parks and recreationfacilities and recreation` programs, including land acquisition, park,_and recreation facility de'velopmeiit,' maintenance and. operation of facilities, and administration of a recreation services program. A County Counsel . ' memorandum which discusses legal issues associated with the county formation of a county - service district for parks will.be provided through an update of this paper. Map Bull -Mtn. Vacant Lands une s - Vacant Land* e. ® Study Area 0 1 800 Feef^ *Vacant Lands are from Metro's 2004 Vacant Lands>Inventoryy .with .the following areas removed sub,mitted development aPplication „ - common ownership, [tract owned by public:agency orutility F+ 4~H V.U EN RD - r s, . t.' - 'DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO., 16 , " Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives June 28, 2005: Page 21' i P. A county service district has several potential means to raise funds, including selling bonds; . setting tax ratesforming LIDs,.establishing SDCs, or using a combination of these funding approaches to achieve its funding. objectives. However; for the purposes,of this issue paper' 'staff ,has assumed the following: a) that a county service district would achieve its funding objectives by an initial sale of bonds and the setting of tax rates to pay off that debt; and b) that the funding objectives would be park acquisition and maintenance, and would not include recreation programs. Based on these'assumptions, and using the estimated capital improvement costs and . operations/maintenance costs described in the previous section, the County's Chief Financial Officer calculated the tax rates that, would have to'be levied on assessed value to cover the annual debt service for both a 107year and a•20-year bond. For a 10 year bond, a tax rate of $1.65 per` year per $1000 per year would be required to,f ind Bull Mountain's'' A needs; fof a 20-year bond, a tax rate of $1.02 per year per $1000 would be required. Both, of the above tax ' rate scenarios would be beneath the Measure 5/50 limit of $10 per year p&$1000 of assessed valuation when added to the existing tax rate of $5:97 per year per $1000. Staff compared the above tax rate with the proposed tax rate, for the Atfalati'Recreatiori District, a county service district posed in 2000 but not approved by voters. The Atfalati Recreation District proposed the funding of park facility construction, maintenance; and recreational . programs in the Tigard and Tualatin area. The proposed tax 'rate was $0.75 per,$1000 of assessed value., However; approximately 1 /3 of the' Atfalati expenditures 'in the'proposed budget were to fund'recreational'programs, Correspondingly; reducing the tax rate by 1/3 to omit the recreational•program.component would result in a proposed tax rate of,$0.50 per $1000 of ' ,assessed value. A Bull Mountain county service district for parks;'`if formed, would-differ from the Atfalati Recreation District in •a couple"of respects.' One key difference would be the size of the district = the Bull.Mountain area is significantly smaller than the area that was covered under the Atfalati Recreation District. The proposed Atfalati District also included commercial and industrial development, similar to the Metzger Park LID. The other key difference is that staff is assuming that aBull Mountain county service district for parks would fund.park•'acquisition, development, and'maintenance only, and would not fund recreation programs:. Park and Recreation Special Service District Park and recreation special service districts (park districts) are'regulated by the.•requirements of. ORS 266. Districts are municipal corporations formed'by communities to provide park"arid recreation facilities for the inhabitant's: • Formation of a park district is initiated by petition. An -example of such a.D'istrict is the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District. While the Board of County Commissioners would be.the'governing board for a,courity parks ' LID or a county 451 service,, district. 'a park district would be governed'by a separate board, independent of the county, and would typically,have its own director or general manager. A park district can also fund parkland acquisition; park' development; park operations and maintenance, and recreation'programs. . r DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16- Potential Park and Open Space Funding ,Alternatives s l June 28, 2005 . Page 22 Like a county service district, a park district has several potential, means to raise 'funds, including selling bonds; setting.tax rates, forming LP's, establishing SDCs; or using a combination of these funding approaches: However, for the.purposes of this issue paper, staff also•has assumed., that a park district would achieve its. funding objectives by an initial sale of bonds and the setting of tax- rates -proposed for. county service .district..In,addition, staff has assumed that the, funding, objectives ,would be.park acquisition and maintenance, and would,not include recreation programs. Based on these assumptions, and using'the estimated capital improvement costs and operations/maintenance-costs described in the previous section; the County's"Chief Financial, Officer. calculated the tax.rates* that would have to be levied on assessed value to cover the annual debt service ..for both. a1 0-year and a 20-year bond. For a ,10-year bond, a-tax rate of , $1:65 per year per $1000 per year would be required to. fund Bull Mountain's park needs; for a 20=year bond; a, tax rate; of $1.02 per year per $1000 would-be required. Both of the above. tax rate scenarios would'be beneath the Measure 5/50 limit of $10 per year per $1000 of assessed 'valuation when•added to the'existing tax rate of $5.97 per year per $1000.; Interim County Park' SDC - A park and, recreation system' development. charge (SDC) is'a method by which new development is charged a fee to fund the. acquisition and construction of park and.open space land and recreational facilities needed to serv e new'development. A park SDC cannot pay for the operation and maintenance of.facilities, recreation programs and capital improvements to correct existing deficiencies for.existing development: In the spring-of 2004, Washington County proposed-an interim park SDC for.the urban unincorporated Bull,Mt.•area. The park SDC was based upon the ,City of Tigard's Park•Master• Plan and the city''s park SDC methodology report and SDC rates. Tigard's Park Master Plan, and SDC report both addressed the",Bull Mt. area. In March 2005, the Board rejected the, proposed park`SDC because it no longer reflected Tigard's current park:SDC methodology report and rates. Tigard updated both in December 2004 to address increased land*acquisition,and construction costs. The.county-also proposes to amend Policies 15 and 33 of the Framework Plan to make it possible for the county to adopt an interim park SDC in the Tigard and.Hillsboro Urban Service. Areas., Policy 33 currently requires the. designated park provider (Tigard in the Bull Mt.' area) to place an annexation plan on the ballot before a county park SDC could. be adopted...Ordinance'632 proposes to amend Policy 33, to allow the county to adopt an interim park SDC for urban + unincorporated territory when the identified suture park-provider has placed or committed to place an annexation measure on. the ballot: The public hearing was continued to July 19, 2005 due to ongoing' discussions about the Bull, Mt: area, and pending legislation. If Ordinance 632, is . adopted by the Board; a new interim county, park SDC, based upon Tigard's new park SDC methodology report. and SDC rates, could be considered in the future. As a practical matter, if an interim county park SDC is approved for the'Bull'Mountain.area,.the' county won't.be able to,- immediately move -forward on park land acquisition, planning or development until such time as sufficient funds for the acquisition,_planning and development are collected via the SDC.' If f-a park SDC is approved, it is not clear how"quickly funds would . ERNp.Ib, , ° FT ISS!JE PAI', ltern?tives pRA ace Fading A e 2g, 2p05 - d Open SP 3xm . potenrsal park an page-23 , , noted that the v,ever, it shouldbe county t from an interim report and ccurs. Ho ment'o. developmen rep all new . , C methodoloew to that develop from e ends on the ra, d be ~Ollected fro 's updated SD result of n accnre:as this d p e drat coin u on the use of n total gha are needed as a ` . potential re "V 53,400, bflazr►a pa k improY eme ark service. SDC would be e would gull -1 p ey of T1iis revenu. roposed . 12, the total numb rates. eyes in the p : per acre , . gle aeveloprnent• °24p vacant a units p ard',S, eXisting sin SDC at this atelY density of 5 . , ark are appTo in res idential be 1 ~Op4, Aj stn%T.ig countY. p out) Cuently there u full build- . Assuming ountain dwelhngeacli new res;denCe' assuming boundary- e uU a M 153 for over time futur$ ~3, . '753,004 , nal the area additio or ' gljc rate f enerate `~3 time could potentially g . , family 1 ' int 1Yt al dip 6-2g-~5 pp • G ' ~,funding_f'n , • »mssue papecs~ull Mt\'IR 16\P 1-;p',' \i ~ , 1 ~s6ace\2~Sord\woik PrO~ , ' , • guU M{. area is 4.8,unitslacie• . • . ~ the • of new developn1ent.~?~t . - . 12• The aVe~ge dense . , , • ~ . . i j :'ATTACHMENTA . W'' hi- lhter7DepartmentCorrespondence DATE: J e 22' ,2605..'. TO: o Ric , 'or Planner. r ; TROW , retta Skur 1; Sr. Assistant County;Counsel " k~SUBJECT: PARK LID LEGAL QUESTIONS , ' This memo responds to` legal, questions:posed iiyour°memo:of April 6,.supplemented by issues we have discussed since then. I understand you will use this as. an attachment to'your white paper to the Board of County Commissioners on Bull-Mountain park furiding options. Please note this is a general summary, based oncurrent-statutes and.county code, but does not'include, full legal discussion or complete citations to authority: Tunderstand that,you will' address . ' separately the estimated,cost of various options, and that Chris: Gilmore will review limits' to the . County's role-regarding parks as expressed in planning ordinances, policie's,: or other,documents. ` . .1. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND PERMISSIBLE SCOPE o AN LID. Local-Improvement• Districts ("LIDS") may be.formed under County Code chapter 3.20,,for'the coristruction,'and maintenance of public improvements. Under county code; the-L:ID mechanism is not-available to fund other costs that might be necessary, or desirable to-provide . ompl'ete program relating to' parks, such as recreation programs, and park staff..other than as'needed for operation and maintenance ("O&M") of public improvements: LIDs may not be used to fund private parks, as. they are available only for public'improvements.. . LID Procedure: UDs'may be initiated upon the Board's own motion or by petition by (51%) of property owners. Upon initiation, 'the Board directs. staff to prepare and file a report on-' the proposed public improvement, `including =Ssmdnt..'Notice description of the improvement; costs, benefited properties, and a proposed method is then provided tq,all ' affected property' owners, and the-Board conducts a hearing and determines whether or not to proceed with improvements. If remonstrances are received,:from two-thirds-of the affected properties, further proceedings must be'suspended.or terminated. Under county code, an LID for ' O&M probably would have to be separate from the capital improvement LID:. Similar - - procedures apply to formation of.both types of LIDS. " LID Assessments and Benefits. The legal basis for,assessriments is a determination of benefifto private roperry r p , due to construction or O&M of a local public improvement' .,In " ;'general, all private property withinthe Bull Mountain area ' both improved and unimproved'- could be determined to benefit from new park facilities.. If facilities•weire built; ;arid determined ' to benefit all properties in the area, it would be legally feasible.to charge the entire cost to r Joanne. Rice, Senior Planner June 21, 2005 Page 2. f benefited properties.. Depending.on the circumstances, the Board could choose to create multiple LIDs;and assess onlythe property located close to a,particular neighborhood park.; A System Development Charge("'SDC")'funding' ethodwould have to operate differently; in that it could not charge. all benefited-property'.. The SDCs discussed to date'-for the Bull' Mountain area are "improveinent".charges, or.'charges for park facilities, to be built. Improvement SDCs may be charged only for the "impact'of growth," that is; charged to new development following adoption-of an SDC ordinance,,not.to existing. development. The•SD.C. improvement charge may not be used to fully,'reriiedy an existing deficiency in parks of the entire - area. In contrast'to LID funding, however, SDCs could be collected prior to acquisition or construction of park improvements, and would not require interim financing. 2. LID FINANCING/ M5/50 IssuEs. The legislation implementing Measures 5. and 50 - (section 1.1b;.Article XI of the Oregon Constitution); affects LIDS as, traditionally used by • Washington County. A single, assessment-for a completed public,iinprovement, which can be repaid over ten or more years, is exempt from the definition ofa property tax and thereby exempt from-M5/50 to ,Jimits.' LID assessments for public park acquisition and improvements could be levied outside the M5/50 limit.. However, an LID. for.purposes of'maintaining the facilities {Le.;; annual assessments) would not meet the above tests, and would be subject'to-the M5/50 limit:on taxes. To the extent a park LID assessment, plus non-school taxes exceeds $10.00 per thousand assessed value; taxes in the area would be subject to compression. The County. historically has collected assessments for road maintenance LIDS through the tax rolls. (Delinquent installment payments also can be collected in this mariner.) While additional` legal and financial analysis ` would be needed to determine the feasibility'of an LID for park O&M purposes, this funding method probably is available to,the extent, it is used solely for 'operation and maintenance of the r public improvement. .If an LID. is formed for public park acquisition or capital improvement, I assume'ihe Board would choose to•structure the'assessments-to be within the M5/50 exemption-from property taxes." To be: exempt,-, the assessment must occur after the public improvement- is completed. t. This means that interim financing Would have to be secured for the cost of acquisition, design, and construction, to be repaid by assessments upon completion of the work. While the cost of interim financing can be recovered through assessments, an initial source of funds would have to be identified. This could be through an,internal:county loan, or possibly market financing. 3. ' IMkCT•OF ANNEXATION. Assuming that the Local Improvement District public improvement project is complete and assessed as of the date of annexation, the assessments' would be liens on the property or assessment;contracts in.'favor of the County... Either type of "obligation would be binding on the property owner and'would survive annexation. The answer is . less clear in the case of an annual assessment for maintennance. ' The rationale for levying annual O&M assessments is, that the County would maintain responsibility for O&M of.the park. Once an area is annexed to a city or district; responsibility for local parks is_generally.understood to transfer to the city or.district. County code contains no Joanne Rice; Senior Planner a Jurie.21, 2005 ; . : Page 3: : j 3 4 ' provision to transfer assessments to a 6ty`upon annexation Jhe.O&M funding decision could, be complex ifpart '.but riot all:';, of the',affected area is annexed; and the remaining area is:not. sufficient to support the original..level of'O&M. through~_assessments.,: Af the County intends to, proceed with an; LID=for, park m aintenance it is recommended that this~issue b' addressed,with ' t the City: In the most analogous situation, in which'the:County maintains`local roads through ' MLIDs or the- URMD ,neither-assessments nor'property :taxes.f6f local roads.have'been,levied by the County followmgannexation:' Under'currentstatutes`and county'code; maintenance ' assessments would not transfer from the. County; to the City upon-annexation. . If the park itself.: was, transferredto -the City, the County would be; relieved of maintenance responsibility, and would not continue annual assessments for that purpo 4. OTHER FUNDING MECHANISMS. TheCity-of Tigard, an ORS Chapter 451 -county service district; and an ORS'Chapter 266 park and,recreation district; could provide:funding for . ' park acquisition and operatio ` der certainicircumstances'` The:.Gity doesnot include :the entire Bu11 Mountain area,within'its territory. It..is beyond-th'e,sp'ope of this. analysis to detail the'.extent.. aii,d -limit - pi%op6rty 1 . s of the,city's,authority, to act,regarding parks <outside ;its boundaries. If s %annexed to the city; Tigard would have the, full range;of fundmg.options; ;including-property tax; SDC LID, and user'charges. A county'service district and park and recreation. districtwould. ; ' have: simildr.authority,-' but•no`'such district;now exists' in the,Bull Mountain'area.. c: Suzanne Savm' Chris Gilmore .05-1189 s . y 7.1 WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON , June 28, 2005 DRAFT PLANNING DIVISION-,... ISSUE PAPER NO. 1.7, Decreasing Residential Densities in the Urban Unincorporated Bull Mountain Area Issue • ` • „ , . ~ • , - ' - . • Through the Planning Division's 2005,work program; the Board.of County Commissioners (Board) directed staff to prepare, seven issue papers about planning and park issues in the'urban unincorporated Bull Mt. area. Issue Paper 17 examines the'possibility of reducing the_existing planned density in the urban unincorporated Bull Mt, area. This issue paper, also addresses recent comments from Bull Mt. residents relating to density.. Recommendation ti Vs'e planning Alternative 44o address Bull Mt. residents' request to reduce the current planned densities in the Bull MI. Community Plan (BMCP). Alternative -4 would update the community plan in conjunction with Tigard's comprehensive plan update and Tigard's planning of the UGB . expansion areas. r. Staff recommends Alternative 4 because it provides the greatest opportunity to reallocate density from the Bull Mi. area. Summary This paper looks at a number of issues associated with density in order to examine how.density from urban unincorporated Bull Mt.. might be reallocated to another urban area. The areas this paper consider to be potentially available to transfer density to.are the .City of Tigard and the Bull Mt. UGB Expansion Areas 63 and 64. Tigardsaid•it would consider the possibility of . reallocating density to its downtown area, by updating the Bull Mt. Community Plan in conjunction with its update of its comprehensive plan. A review of Washington County's'Coinprehensive Plan, including the-Bull Mt. Community Plan; shows the urban unincorporated area north of Beef Bend Road this is now zoned R-7, was explicitly designated and intended to develop to R-6 densities, five to six units an acre: A review of subdivision applications in the area shows that the average density of these developments to , be 4.8 units an "acre. Staff identified four. possible alternatives to reduce the existing planned density." the Bull,Mt. ' area.The only county led planning process, Alternative 3, that could potentially lead toxeduced ; densities includes the planning of Areas 63. and 64 where density from Bull Mt., is proposed to be reallocated: However, staff found that if the Bull Mt. area was rezoned to the county's least dense single family land use district, the R-5 District, there could only be a slight reduction-in ; density compared to what is currently, permitted under Tigard's R-7 District. Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning Division 155 N First Avenue','Suite 350714, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 Phone: (503) 846-3519 • Fax: (503) 846-4412'- www.co.washington.or.us. / DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17 ' Bu11.Mountain-Density "june.282005 Page'2 The two city led planning processes, Alternatives 2 and 4, provide theopportunity."•to.transfer.'• density from the Bull Mt. area. Alternative 2 provides the potential to. transfer density to Tigard through a combined planning program-to update ihe)Bull Mt. Community'Plan with the city update, of its comprehensive,plan. Alternative 4 - which also includes the city 'planning Areas, 63 and 64, provides the best opportunity to transfer density from Bull Mt. because there are two potential, areas,to reallocate densityto' with' Areas 63 alld 64 likely being able to accept more density than areas in the existing city" limits,-Each alternative requires; the replacement of ` Tigard's R=7 District with one.or more of Tigar's four low density single family districts `'the R- 1', R-2; R-3.5 and R-4.5 Districts. The density requirements of each of the districts is less than the, R-7 District.and''the county's`single fainily`districfs, the R-6 andR-S Districts,:. Through staffs<analysis'of the city and county's density`requirements,, staff found that the key -factor that would determine how much density could. ~be transferred ffom Bull Mt • s the larid• use districts that would take the place of Tigard's current R=7 Distinct: The city and county'. use different methods to calculate density. Tigards method, which'is based upon net buildable area, allows less density than the county's comparable land use•districts allow. Consequently,j a use . of the county's R-6 District would not reduce`de'nsity and the use ofithe county's R=5 District , would only slightly lower the'density. , Ariother important' faci or" that must be.considered is Measure 37. M-37 requires compensation for ; land use regulations that educe the valueof propertywhen the land use regulation was adopted after the current property owner or'family member acquire d'the property. In.lieu of compensation, the government agency that adopted the, regulation may waive the, regulation and permit development under the prior land use. requirement.: ' Due, to M-37,: there is no certainty that all properties will develop according to existing or future planned densities. For example, if the density of sorne-Owcels, in Bull M- t. are reduced, throw one of the alternatives identified in this paper, the currentpproperty owners,may Have the'right to, file a M-37 claim under the prior.R77 designation: Citizen-•desires.for lower"densitymight conflict with some propertyowners`desires to maximize their property value. Any planning process to reduce current planned densities,should carefully address this. issue and involve' „ owners of. vacant. property,'early in the process M-`37 makes the density issues,on Bull.Mt. much ; more complicated: Background At the Board's- request, the Planning Division has prepared seven issue papers that address planning and park issues associated with the urban. unincorporated Bull Mt. area. Five issue papers address density , parks; planning the Bull Mt.'UGB expansion areas, and, amendments to the Washington County-/,Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement, The seventh issue paper'(1P. 14) addresses CP.O 4B's request fora public, facility strategy / ;development, moratorium for the Bull Mc area ][r December 2004, the'Board and-:the Tigard City Council (Council) held a joint-meehngto discuss a, number, .of issues about the Bull Nit. `area -that had been raised by. area re'sident's: The'. DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17 Bull Mountain Density June 28, 2005 Page 3 Board and the Council expressed a desire to work together to develop a planning program that . could address residents' -concerns, primarily through the upcoming planning efforts of the city. The Council indicated the city would in the near future begin the following planning activities: ' 1) update the' comprehensive plan for its downtown area [underway], 2) update its park master plan, and 3) update its comprehensive plan. At that time' the* Council also said it may be interested in examining if Bull. Mt.'density could be transferred to.'the•city through its comprehensive plan update: At the conclusion of the meeting,,the Board directed. the county Planning Division to prepare, in consultation with Tigard, issue papers on park planning.and funding (Issue Papers 15 and 16), the potential to'decrease density in the Bull Mt. area (Issue Paper 17), updating the Bull Mt. Community Plan (Issue.Paper. 18) and planning the Bull Mt. UGB-expansion areas (Issue Paper, 21). The Board also asked staff to include-an assessment about how to address these issues in conjunction with Tigard's,update'of its comprehensive plan and park master plan, and planning the Bull Mt. UGB' expansion+Areas 63 and 64.' ' Jim Hendryx, Tigard's Community Development Director, said recently.that the Council is as well as updating -interested in doing the'comprehensive planning for-the"UGB expansion areas the Bull Mt. Community Plan., This work would include an examination of transferring density from gull Mt. to thq city'and the UGB expansion areas. If approved, the city would do this work in conjunction with the city's upcoming update of its comprehensive plan. The request by many Bull Mt. residents' to reduce planned density in the Bull Mt. area is, different than the request by Washington County's Committee for~Citizen Involvement,(CCI) to allow Washington County's review authority to restrict the density of proposed development between the minimum and maximum.allowed densities.t For a number of reasons, staff recommended to the Board in Issue Paper.4 that such a restriction-should not be incorporated in the Community Development Code (CDC).2 The Board concurredwith;staff's recommendation . and consequently the proposed change is not considered at, this time. Please see Issue Paper 4 for further information about this particular CCI request. 'Planning History The first zoning for. the Bull Mt.' area was adopted by Washington County in .1959 (northern area) and 1961 (southern area). These areas included what is now the city, of Tigard. The first t Beginning in 2003, the CCI identified a number of proposed amendments to the Community Development Code through the Community Participation. Organizations (CPO). In early 2005, staff prepared. 10 issue papers that, addressed the top priorities of the CPOs identified in the CCI's Code Task Report. 2 The CDC contains Washington, County's development.standards and review procedures for new development. DRAT f 1SSIIE PAPER.NO_.17 , Bull Mountain Density . 'June 28;,2005 ^ Page 4 land use districts in the area were F- I' (Agricultural),. R;30,(Residential ;with a minimum Jot size of 30,000 square feet) and k-20;(Residential' with a mtnimum lot size of 20;OOO,square feet). In 1973, Washington County, adopted.its'first comprehensive plea, :The•compre, ensive plan designation for the Bull Mt., area was Urban,Intermediate3. The:accompanying zoning' designation was RS-1 - suburban residential. , The minimum lot size,of.the RS-1; District was ; 40,000 square•feet: However,'20,000 square lots could be created when public water was available with sewer or an approved septic system In 1983, Washington County. adopted a new comprehensive plan; which applied t1ie.'first urban,comprehensive plan'and land use designations . to the Bull Mt. area. The. county's current land use designations, community plans and the CDC were adopted through the 1983..Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). Washington County Comprehensive Plan , In 1983, the county adopted a new comprehensive plan m order to comply with the Statewide Planning Goals and their iniplem, enting,administrative roles (OARs)..Washington County's Comprehensive Plan was. acknowledged by the Oregon Land Conservation and,Development Commission (LCDC) to be in compliance with.the Statewide Planning*Goalsand.OARs on October 7, 1983. LCDC also found the Comp Plan,to be in compliance with these, requirements, when.LCDC's completed its periodic review of it in.theearly 1990s. The Comp Plan'continues to apply. today to unincorporated Washington County, except in the -Bull Mt. area` where Washington County adopted Tiga's comprehensive plan: The Comp Plan addresses all of unincorporated Washington County, including"the rural and`' urban unincorporated areas. 'The Comp Plan includes eleven:community,plans; including:the'.., BMCP, covering urban unincorporated Washington,County. For many areas of the county; including the Bull Mt. area,'the:Comp Plan,applied'the first urban land. use, designations to those areas: Key elements of the Comp Plan are: • Comprehensive Framework Plan for the•Urban Area'(Framework Plan) " • Community Plans, , • :H' . • :Rural/Natural Resource Plan • Community Development Code (CDC} _ Transportation Plan 1 The Framework Plaa.addresses'the present and future needs, of.urban unm.co'porated' Washington CountyAt established the countywide, policies and strategies that are the framework of the county's urban land use program. The community plans carryout the Framework'Plan's countywide policies and strategies to specific geographic' areas. Tile CDC' implements the Framework Plan;' the Transportation Plan and certain community plan'requirements;through the, . creation of development standards and.review procedures that are designed:-to apply countywide., s The Urban Intermediate Comprehensive Plan'designation was applied'to areas of the county designated to be developed to urban densities over a 20 to 40 year time frame. DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17 Bull Mountain Density June 28, 2005 Page 5 Bull Mountain Community Plan The BMCP plan addresses the urban unincorporated areas between Barrows Road and the Tualatin River. Although the title of the community plan is Bull Mt., it also addresses the ' unincorporated" area south of Beef Bend Road more commonly referred to as the King City area., The estimated 1980 population of the"plan area was 2;158 and'the original_community'plan• boundary contained 2,047 acres. More than half of the area was determined to be buildable 1,290 acres4: At the time the BMCP was adopted, the'Bull Mt. Community Planning Area was considered to be largely undeveloped.'The.BMCP.characterized the area as: "The Bull Mountain Community Planning.Area is largely undeveloped at this time. Some large lot• residential subdivisions are scattered along the crest of the mountain off" Bull Mountain Road; a few more exist along SW 1 SOth'Avenue and at the foot of the north slope around Fern Street. Mobile homes and "multi family dwellings are located south of Fischer Road. The only.commercial activity in the Planning Area is.located along Pacific Highway southeast of King City. There is no industrial- aOivity.'Mosrof the area - almost, 90 percent of ' the buildable land consists of farms, forests, vacant land and rural homes. " The urban unincorporated Bull Mt. area is identified by the BMCP as the Summit and Slopes, . Subarea. Most of the,area north of Beef 'Bend. Road was designated. R-6. However, higher densities were placed along the arterial corridors in, the, area to:take'.advantage of these roads and: possibly future bus service. The corridor south of Barrows Road was designated R-24; R715 and R-9 and.a small area on the north side"of Beef Bend Road was designated R-15. The Summit and Slope's, states: "the land form between SW Beef Bend Road and Scholls Ferry Road is designated primarily for low density residential, use'at a maximum of 6:units per-acre. " The land use. designations in the area south of Beef Bend Road;• identified as the Southem Lowlands"Subar ea, were all higher, residential districts-R-9; R- 1'5,, R-245.. Table A (page 6) shows the distribution of the land use designations, in the original community pladboundary. A. copy of the original community plan map. is shown on page 7. Since. 1983, the land use designation-of only one, property in the original BMCP boundary has been changed., The Neighborhood Commercial site at the southeast comer of the Beef Bend/131st intersection was changed to R-15. Since 1983, a. significant number of properties -have annexed.to Tigard and King City. Beginning in 1986, 589 acres north of Beef Bend Road have annexed to.Tigard .and 364 acres south of Beef Bend Road have annexed to King City. Since. 1983, the BMCP was amended to incorporate land that Metro added to the Urban Growth Boundary' (UGB). Currently, in the area north of Beef Bend Road there are approximately only 200 vacant acres6, compared to more than 1000 acres 1111986. 4 gxcluded'power line easements, drainage areas and steep slopes... 5•The 1983 Comp Plan created four multi-family land use districts. The density requirements of each district are: R-9 (7 - 9 units/acre); R-15 (12 - 15 unitstacre); R-24 (19 - 24 units/acre); R-25 (20 - + 100 units/acre 6 Properties with an approved or pending development application were not considered to be vacant. , 155vE P AYE ei ' - gull Mou"tam D Q5 . • ' Lune 2g, ZO 6 page • . ' ~ .I it - '~(•r'S. , ~'•A• Table A ations o und- Use Des n:n Ptun Distril - , Of LCe,n,nu rY 19s3 guts in the • - 18.3 • ' 18.3 \ ss 7 -1426.7 92.0 1426 A65-5 ' - .257.8 64.3 - . ' ...194.8. 130.6 -34.0 ~ . .1 • - ~ 118.1 ~ " • •-.18.5 ` • .5 .2.5 2 4.' ~ .1827.9• 219'1 , _ - 29A 7'0 Total Acres f. t Bull Mt. Community. Plan 1983 Land Use Designations. p roll, BULL MOUNTAIN a; COMMUNITY PLAN - _ - _ -j FOIST.. - - = .:R . ~ ' ~ Ass ~ . _~`w:;".... - • . 96 J, rf ' r{ TL - - ?t6 i F r ~R6 arr au - ~t a e%e i . • TgM6POM,%TONCLASSMADOM LRe.w O[O,Yr,+B0.N.lAR,' t LAND USE DISTRICTS i DRAFT ISSUETAPER NO. 17 t BulliWuntain Density, June 28, 2005. :'Page 8 Twice land was,added west of 131st Avenue and sou6of Beef Bend Road: The majority of this { area has.sitice annexed to King City. Most recently, in 2002, Metro added-484'acres west:.of the original boundary of the BMCP, between Scholls Ferry and Beef Bend Roads: This area:is' currently designated FD-20 - Future Development 20 acres. The future planning'of this area-is discussed in Issue Paper 18. A map of the current status of the BMCP is on the following page. State and, RegtonA Planning Requirements' The comprehensive plans of all of Oregon's counties and'cities must comply with the'State,wide Planning Goal s,; including Goal 10 - Housing and Goal 14 - Urbanization.; They require j- ` constrained urban growth boun_ daries, moreftcient use of urban land in order to protect farm and forest land, and more cost effective and efficient•use, of public, facilities rand services. 'The• result ,includes smaller lots, more attached dwellings: and more compact development. 'a must also`comply with'the Metropolitan Housing In the'Portland.Metro Area, counties and cities, Rule? and Metro§'Urban•Growth Managemet Functional,Plan;(Functional;Plan). The Metro Housing Rule contains specific Goal,.,;implementation requirements for•the Portland Metro area. Title l .of the Functional Plan includes housing requirements,-for the:acco'mmodation of future housing unti12017. Key requirements of the lvletro-Housng`Rule and Title 1 are described : below: s Metropolitan Housing Rule,, Key requirements for Washington County and cities with a. population of 2;500 or more ,persons: . . • Washington County and its cities must orovide the opportunity for of least 50Wof new residential dwellings to be attached single family (town house) or multi=family housing, . . (apartments). This requirement Jwill be referred to-the `50:50 split"in this paper. • The overall., minimum density requirements for vacant land,that Washington County_and its cities must provide for: - -Tigard, Hillsboro and Beaverton -ten, dwellings units per net buildable, acre - Urban unincorporated Washington County eight dwellings units per net buildable' acre - , Forest Grove, Tualatin and Wilsonville = eight' _dwellings units per ,net acre. - ' Cornelius,. Durham and, Sherwood - six dwellings units.per net acre The geographic areas within which the county aiid each city had to meet the rule's required ; overall minimum density requirements were defined in,1980. The rule requires that as properties are annexed to a city over time, the county's minimum density requirement forthose properties ' must be maintained by the'city: The. rule does not require Beaverton, Hillsboro and Tigard to add two.additional dwelling;untts pet acre of annexed property:.'Convetsely, as properties annex'to"a city with a.density requirement'less than eightunits/acre; such as.King .City ,"the city must maintain the county's minimum'density..so, that`the're will not be an`overall loss of planned density in'the county: ' Oregon Administrative Rule 6607007 u r Bull Mt. Community Plan Existing Land Use. Deisgnations !3. • j lam Vitlf® 1 , 700 0 700 1400 Feet 1A. Yilbrm.0un a /tl1 w~.p brlr00ow Mw.1 R51R4.5 R24 ® ' FD20 ° 'a~.n R6/R7 - ' ..POD Cities ® /Mq bJMa 73F1~ OR 1 . R9/R12 . INST . Cortimunily Plan 19airxdm or wain R15M5 GIs VS u DRAFT•ISSUE PAPER NO. 17 Bull Mountain Density June 28; 2005 Page. 10 y The 1983 Comp Plan was developed to comply, With fhe Metro.Housing Rule. To provide an'` average density of eight dwelling units per,net vacant:acre, the`overall•planned densityof urban : unincorporated Washington County had t4 be increased-To.do this, the county increased the' overall density of its single family land, use districts and increased the dersity, of many areas, of . the unincorporated area. Comp Plan Growth, Allocations Based upon the fequirements of the Metro Housing Rule.and future needs for commercial and industrial uses; the'county developed a countywide-growtb'Alocation for residential,. commercial f and industrial uses based upon the initial planning an alysis:prepared• by staff and,then approved by the Board of County Commissioners:.The allocations~were applied to',the'various communities in the urban unincorporated area, now known as community plammng.areas ; The. county used a deliberate and comprehensive public process to develop the growth allocatroif and ` then again when it was . carried; out. through• the development-of individual community plans. The , analysis to develop the growth allocation considered a number, ,of.factors, including the amount and location of existing vacant land;' the general natural character of •areas (topography, flood' ' plain, drainage hazard areas); transpor t ation accessibility, and-the prevailing' character of each area and surrounding communities::'' . ; r.• 'The community planning areas thaf were allocated the most density were .areas: • with large amounts of vacant land • ' 16cated within -close proximity' to: C major transportation corridors (e.g.,-Hwy. 26, TV.Hw.y, ;185th Ave:, Scholl§ Ferry"Road) corridors with the best opportunity.for'transit service (bus and light ,rail).'y. - • employment and'shopping areas • with:limited".constrained; lands (dood'plain, drainage hazard`ar`eas, slopes of 25%°.or more) . • areas generally'with'flat"or moderate,slopes: ' ' The community plane' ing'areas "with:the most.vacant land were Aloha-Reedville-Cooper ML. With 3,012 acres, Sunset West with 4;j' cres and Cedar Hills-Cedar•Mill;with 2,055 acre's: They were also the planning areas that were allocated the most residential dwellings units' Sunset ' West with 20,634 units; Aloha-Reedville-Cooper Mt. with 19,648 unitsand'Cedar. Hills-Cedar Mill with 12,74 1 units. , A . The community planning'areas with the highest multi-family dwelling unit allocation were the, j. Sunset West; Aloha-Reedville-Cooper'Mt., and-Cedar Hills=Cedar Mill planning areas. They, accounted for 80%, of the. total multi-family units in the urban uriincorporated-area and 42% of all dwellings units in the urban unincorporated area. Although the Bull Mt. planning area had a•significant amount of vacant land;-its overall , allocation-was.relatively small due to-the steep slopes north of Beef Bend Road:•With a totatof 1,285 vacant acres of residential'land, the final allocation to this planning area was 10;652 dwelling units. The density-distribution in the'Bull Mt:~planning area, placed; the majority'„of the ' . dwellings iri.the two arterial corridors in the area; Barrows'=wind Beef. Bend'Road, and in the, flat DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17 Bull Mountain Density . June 28, 2005 1 Page 11 lands south of Beef Bend Road through the designation of multi-family units in these less steep areas. The steepest areas in the planning area were designated low density residential with development at no more than 6.units per acre. The residentiatallocation to the planning area is: Area North of Beef Bend Road Low density residential-,(R=6) 708 vacant acres 2,658 dwelling units . • ' Multi-faliiily residential --.381 vacant acres 5,334 dwelling units' (R-9, R-15, R-24). y Subtotals 1,089 vacant'acres, 7,992 dwelling units Area South"of Beef Bend Road • Low density residential O.vacant'acres 0 dwelling units • Multi-family residential 190 vacant acres 2,660 dwelling units Subtotals 190 vacant acres 2,660 dwelling units. TOTALS 1,279 vacant acres 10,652 dwelling units The.allocation breakdown in the Bull Mt. planning area is: North area • Low density residential: 33% of units,in the north area; 25% of total units in planning are • Medium density, - 67%0 of units in the north area, 50%0 of total units in planning area South area • Low'density residential: no allocation • Medium density 100%0 of units. in the south area, 25% of total units in planning area The land use designations north of Beef Bend Road resulted in an overall planned density of vacant lands in the area at,approximately six units/acre. These designations also did not provide the opportunity for 50% of new, dwellings in the to be-town houses, condominium or multi- family dwellings. The higher densities on vacant land south of Beef Bend Road resulted in an overall density of approximately 12 units/acre in the area and provided the opportunity for all t new dwellings to be attached units , 1983 Comp:Plan Residential Land Use Designations The Comp Plan created six :urban residential land use districts to take the place bf its previous 11 residential districts. The districts,created by the Framework Plan, which are applicable today, are:. • . R-5 -residential with no more than-five dwellings per ac're' • R-6 - residential with no more than six dwellings per acre' R-9 - residential with no more than nine dwellings per acre, o R-15. - residential with no more than 15 dwellings per acre , • R-24 - residential with no more than 24 dwellings per acre • R-25+ - residential with no more than 100 dwellings per acre % DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NOJ7 Bull Mountain Density June 28, 2005 Page 12 The R-5 and R=6'Districts are commonly referred to as single family districts'and the four other districts were referred to as multi-family districts until the advent of "small lot" single family dwellings. Today, the R-9 and R-1.5 Districts,include a large number of this-housing type. f The R-5 District was created fo-apply to existing single family neighborhoods"that were selected for low residential densities and were previously zoned RU-2, RUA or P-R8. These neighborhoods are located predominantly in Cedar Hills, Cedar Mill, Raleigh Hills, Garden, Home, Metzger, Rock Creek and parts of Aloha and Reedville. One existing subdivision in the original boundary of the BMCP was designated R-5.9 The maximum density in the R-5 District is five dwellings per acre. Its minimum lot size was 7,000 square feet prior to the- establishment of minimum densities: The R-5 District's current minimum lot size is 5,500 square' feet: The R-6 District was created to be applied to areas selected for the lowest residential densities that were not previously zoned RU-2, RU-3, R04 or P-R and that had been designated Urban Intermediate by the 1973 Comprehensive Plan'. The Framework Plan characterizes the purpose of the R-6 District as providing new residential density at "relatively low densities in developing residential areas in which no predominant urban character has been developed. Residences in this district shall occur at a density off ve to six units per acre. " References to "low density residential in the Framework Plan,and the community plans are . made in the context of the six residential districts created in `1983, with low residential density ' meaning densities-at five and six units per acre. In the community plans, the R-5 and R-6' Districts are both referred to as "low density-residential." As noted above, the majority of the increase in-density in unincorporated Washington County came about through the designation of large areas of the county as R-9, R-15, k-24 and R-25+. In some areas, such as parts of Aloha, Reedville, Cedar Mill and Cedar Hills, the county increased the residential density of previous residential areas to provide for more, housing . . (increased to R-9,.R-15,. R-24 and R-25+). In other areas of the county that-had not, been previously designated as urban due to the lack of sewer and water, the R-9, R-15, R-24 and R- 25+ Districts were applied. These. designations were generally located along existing and future transit routes, including'thc first proposed light rail corridor, and along collectors and arterials. These areas are located primarily in Bethany, Bull Mt.,'King City, East Hillsboro and Sunset West. Areas'that were-designated with higher densities included, areas with steeper slopes. For example, in the Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Co'mmunity•Plan, the area east of Leahy Road; between Highway 26 and the county.boundary,. was designated R-9, R-15 and -R-24. Areas of the county that were planned as new single family neighborhoods were'designated primarily as.R-6. These areas are.located in the Bethany, Bull Mt., and Sunset-West Community Plans. New R-6 areas.included areas with.steeper slopes - Bull Mt., Cooper•Mt. and the north $ RU-2 = Urban Residential District - low density, minimum lot size'of 15,000 sq: ft.; RU -3 =Urban Residential District = medium - low density, minimum lot size of 16,000 sq. ft.; RU-4 = Urban Residential District - high-low density, minimum lot size of 7,000 sq. ft.; P-R = Planned Residential 9 Located along SW Hawk Ridge Road; east of SW 150th Avenue „ Y DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO: 17... . " Bull Mountain Density " June 28"2005 " Page 13 east corner of the CH-CM.community plan. Slopes in'Coope'r Mt. and. the CH-CM community : plan'are similar to or steeper:than the slopes in the•Bull''Mt. area.. Table Bon page' 14 summarizes the land.use. designations of the original community plan boundaries with. residential designations • , • : The-Statewide Planning Goals and the Metro Housing Rule continue to apply today. When the county or a city considers an amendment to their comprehensive plan that, affects residential densities; each must make findings that the proposed change irconsisten"t with the housing. rule. Metro's Urban Growth Management. Functional Plan Title 1 of the Punctional Plan assigned.a future housing'target to each county _and city in'the Portland area.. Title 1 required Washington Countyto provide for 54;999 dwelling units in the urban unincorporated area. That asSigrimnent required.l the county to provide for'an additional ? 11,000 dwelling units. The housing target of each .local: government was. based upon the 1996 jurisdictional boundaries and populations. As properties-are annexed to a city, tfie county's ; housing assignment for that area'follows it into. the„city, ttfe same;,procedure used_by the'Metro Housing Rule. Another Functional Plan requirement was the-establishment of.minimum densities in residential districts at.no less4han80%o :of each maximum density. : v In 2000, Metro.found that the county"suhstantially:complied" with^'the Title'1`requirements through_the amendinents the,county made:t6the'1983°;Comprehensive Plan. Tlie.amendments resulted in the provision of 51,751 fi '*e .dwellings. Listen below, is a descriptiop' of the changes.. i the county made to the Comp. Plan to accommodate those dwellings.:,,, • October .1997 - adopted plans for Light Rail Station Areas and the Cedar Mill-Town Center, which resulted in higher densities. New residential transit oriented-districts.(TO. Districts) were•created.with a range ofdensities between 946.120 units per acre. These areas.are. , : . located'in Aloha; Cedar Hills ;.CedarMill, East Hillsboro and Sunset West: October •1998 - established minimum densities in'the R-9; R=15, R-24 and "R-25+ Districts • -September 2000.- established.minimum densities in the R-5.and R-6 Districtsl,o: ' - 4 May 2003 -:applied the'couniy's'inost comparable TO,Dtstricts in'the Metzger Community Plan to implement the Washington. Square Regional; Center Plan 10 Tigard's minimum density requiiements_for its residential distncts Became effective on November 26, 1998. DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO.'17 Bull Mountain Density ' June "28, 2005 Page 14 _ Table B. Distribution of Land Use Designations in the 1983 'Washington -County Community Plans aSferw d unlsetr.+, Land Use' District r .,4a s^..s. .X'. ft; ..fi,. ?'•r ;:4 n{, x . Residential 5 3434.0. 80.4 18.3 1.8.3 " 2670,5 72.6 642.0 1846.6 1336.8 Residential1677.6 .1014.7 1426.7 1426.7 917;0: - 404.5 1550.8 Residential 9' 998.0 445.9 257:8 165,8 92.0 526.1 2054:9. 64.5 106:4 372.7 278.1 ' Residential 15-' 684.8 237.8 194:8 130:6 ° 64,3 349.4-.304.5 . 39.4 70.8 138.3 .597.5 Residential,24 390.7 129.8 1:18.1 84.1 34.0 = ."117.7 103.5 33.2 101;0 42:5 78.2 Residenti3125+ 61.3 - , 225.9 - 9.2 4:2 17.0:. . Office- Commercial : , "71,2 '17.7 65.1 29.7 234.1 Neighborhood Commercial , 55 0 . , 2:0 7 9 - :'7:9 .136.8 18.9 8.2 1.0 22 3 Communit :Business Distrlct 76 3 15.0 18.5 =-18,5 21.4 48:2 145.1 83.4 - 21.2 87.6 General Commercial 21.8 , , . -189:6 ' 5.1 44.0 ' -40.,9 8,3 : Industrial • 179:0 ,,352.9 1225.4 1.78.9 ` 1343:5 300:3 - 10:1 4.9 - Institutional" ,2.5 -2,5 465.1 169.4 123:8 410,11:93 8398 Iota/ Acres 1`7950.0 ..1935.7 2047.0` --1827.9 .-219.1 -.5990.1" 399:7.4 . 1135:6 ' 2697.2 - 1218.3_ .6394.0 DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17 Bull Mountain Density „ June 28, 2005 Page 15 Two unincorporated areas where the county did not increase•residential densities as it originally, planned to do were the Bull Mt. and Metzger areas. At Tigard's request, the county-did not change the existing land use designations.of vacant properties in the Bull Mt. area to•a district with a higher density (R-9, R-15) to provide she 302 additional dwellings units that had been proposed to be.- provided in the area. In..the Metzger area, Tigard assumed responsibility for 668 additional dwellings. . that had been assigned to be provided in the Washington Square Regional Center.Plan through the upzoniing of R-5, land.' - Metro's Functional Plan requirements: also. continue to apply today. Amendments to the county's or a city's comprehensive plan must be shown to comply with the Functional,Pldn,• including Title ,1. County 2000 • - In 1986' after the adoption of its; 1983 Comprehensive Plan, Washington County adopted the County 2000 Strategic Plan.' County 2000 directs how the county will provide services, including planning and land development. County 2000 changed our focus. Rather than providing both localized and countywide services; County-2000 calls for the county to provide countywide services (e.g., health; aging and veteran ,services; maintain and operate a countywide road, system) and move away from. municipal types: services (e.g., maintaining the local street system, neighborhood level planning). Consequently, the county's long term policy for the urban unincorporated areas calls•for these areas to be eventually served_by a city so.,the county can focus its limited resources to provide. countywide'. services: • ' County 2000 changed the focus of the county's. long range planning services from neighborhood level planning (e.g., updating community plans) to participating in countywide, regional and state planning activities. Updating community plans is a municipal level service and under County 2000 as a matter of course, the county does not update community plans. Consequently, the county has not updated any community plan since their adoption. Instead, the county has made limited amendments'to the community plans over the years to comply with regional and state planning requirements - Metro's Functional Plan (Light Rail Station communities, regional and town centers), theRegional Transportation Plan and the State Transportation Planning Rule. A county planning process to update a' community plan would not be consistent- with County 2000. Washington County Transfers Land Development and Building Services to Tigard Consistent with County 2000 and the Washington County / Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA)13, the county transferred responsibility for land development, building and code enforcement services for the tuban,unincorporated Bull Mt.'area to the city of Tigard on May 12, 1997.14 Washington. County maintained responsibility for comprehensive planning and transportation planning in the area. The regional center is comprised of properties in Tigard and Beaverton and unincorporated properties: Tigard was designated as the lead planning agency for this planning effort. 12 County 2000 was updated in 1990 and 1996. A third update of County 2000 is currently underway. 13 The UPAA included a requirement that the county and Tigard study the feasibility and cost effectiveness of assigning land use planning and building services to the city. 14 Implemented by the Urban Services Iniergoveinmental Agreement between City of Tigard and Washington County (Service IGA). It was aenewed.September 3, 2002. . DRAFT .ISSUE PAPER NO: 17, Bull Mountain Density June 28, 2005 Page 16 The county adopted Ordinance No,'487 in Oct6ber.`1996'to:f4cilitate'this transfer: By Ordinance, No: 487, the county replaced the-land use designations in the BMCP wth,Tigaid's comparable comprehensive plan and zoning designations: For' example; the county's 'R=6 District was' changed to Tigard's R-7 District and the,R-5 District was changed`to,Tigard's,R-4S District Ordinance 487 also-'* adopted Tigardcomprehensive plan and development code in place of the county's Framework Plan and the CDC. The text, and other map designations in the, community plan, such as the Significant Natural Resource designations,',were not changed'.and'they,coniinue to apply today. Ordinance''487, however, did,not amend the county's:regulations for Goal 5 resources. The county's:Goal•5 designations and implementing development standards' in the'CDC, continue to -apply'. Through the adoption of Ordinance 487 the county determined that, although there might,'be'slight variations in densities permitted under Tigard's zoning districts and development standards, the city and county's comprehensive-plan, land use designations and development regulations' were Wrictionally t equivalent. Therefore, development under; TigarX s, R-7 District is'lawful. County and City Density Requirements Washington County and Tigard.iise different methods to calculate minimum and maximum required, densities. The required minimum. and 'maximum densities for Tigard's residential districts, including the R=7 District,' are based-upon net acreage,: Tigard requires several types of land'area io,be excluded when calculating net acreage, including Sensitive'Lands (100-year flood plain, slopes greater than 25%; wetland ways), private streets, and public rights of way.,(e.g.; power line easements, 20% of: gross acreage for streets). Tigard's development code allows up to 25% of the'density from these imbuildable or constrained'areasto be transferred to,a-site's buildable area provided the,density of that area is not increased more than 25%. The county calculates its minimum and maximum residential densities based upon, the gross acreage of - a site. The county's CDCallows all of the density.from constrained areas to be, transferred provided'the.• ' - transferred density does not more than double the density: allowed` on`the.buildable•portion. of the site. For example, the'maximum'density of one residual net acre of developable R-6 land can be increased to 12 dwelling units through the transfer of density from constrained areas. Due to the different methods the county and Tigard use to calculate density there is no simple, direct way to compare ' permitted densities under the city - county standards, particularly since 'th_ the county:allows more density to be transferred from., constrained areas. The county's R-6 District and Tigard's R-7,,DistricYs staiidards•for'miriimum-l'ot area and-attached single family dwellings are also different. The R-6 District. allows attached, dwellings as a ,permitted use. The R-7 District only, allows up to five attached dwellings per building asa permitted use; six .or more units perbuilding-must be approved as -a conditional use (public hearing required).'in the R-6- District, the minimum lot area fora detached single family dwelling is 4,000 square feet compared to 5,000 square feet in.the'R'-7:District. The minimum lot area. for. attached single family dwellings in the R-6 District is 3,500 square feet compared.to 5,000 square feet.in the'city 's R-7 District. The county's smaller lot, sizes and allowance ofall'attached single family dwelling units as permitted, uses makes it . easier to achieve the R-6 District's m'aximum•density of six units per; acre, particularly on sites with :'steep terrain and/or drainage hazards areas: <; DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17 Bull Mountain Density June 28, 2005 Page 17 Concerns have been, expressed by citizens. that some new development in the Bull Mt. area is being built at.a density of seven units per acre, more than permitted by the original R-6 District.,In order to compare permitted densities under the •R-7 and R-6 Districts, staff reviewed the 17 subdivision applications, for detached single fainily dwellings'submitted to the city since 2002. Twelve applications have been approvedand five are currently under review. All of the approved or•proposed number of dwellings for each subdivision are. consistent with-the minimum and maximum densities requirements, of the R-6.13istrict. The total average:density of the 17-subdivisions is'4.8 units/acre, which is . consistent with the R-6 District considering the drainage hazard areas and-steep slopes that traverse part of the area. Seven subdivisions were required to have fewer dwellings than would have been permitted under county standards. Three subdivision's were. permitted to have one or two additional dwellings under the city's standards compared to what would.have been allowed by the county's ,standards., They are: Summit-Ridge Phase 4, Valley View and Trevor Ridge. Each development site . did not have steep slopes or drainage areas: Under the R-7 District, the maximum permitted densities on the Valley View and Trevor Ridge sites are less than seven units per acre. The maximum permitted density of the Summit Ridge Phase 4 is eight units 'per acre. The density of Phase-4 is higher because ;it is a continuation of Phases 1, 2 and 3, a very unique situation that rarely occurs. In all three instances, ' the developers chose not to.,build the maximum permitted number of dwellings. Due to'th&presence of drainage hazard areas and some steep slopes in the other four subdivisions, the" . county's and city's standards cannot be directly compared as the others are in the preceding paragraph. Under the county's standards, the applicants' could have transferred_ all of the density from the constrained areas to the buildable area of each sites. Consequently, the permitted minimum and . • maximum densities for these sites under the R-6 District are higher than,under the city's-R-7 District. However, the county 's standards allow an applicant to chose to build fewer units based upon these constrained areas.. A comparison of the city and county's densityrequirements for each development is shown in Table C on page 20. Staff also compared the density requirements of county's other single family district, the R-5 District. Its minimum-required density is four units an acre and its, maximum-density is five unitsper acre. As shown below, the total number of approved dwellings is less than the maximum number of dwellings that would be permitted by the R-5 District.' Tigard"s R-7 District: + Density/acre of approved/pending developments - 4.8 dwellings/acre (591 total dwellings) . • Required minimum density', 4.4 dwellings/acre,(535- total 'dwellings) • Maximum permitted density 5.5 dwellings/acre (672 total dwellings) Washington County's R-6 District: " Required minimum density. .5 dwellings/acre (611 total dwellings) • . -.Maximum permitted density 6 dwellings/acre (733 total dwellings) ri+ DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO: 17 Bull Mountain Density June 28, 2005 Page 18 Washington County's R=5 District: " Required minimum -density 4 dwellings/acre (488•total dweihngs);' ` • Maximum permitted density ;r 55 dwellings/acr&(61 l total dwellings)' Expansions to, the Urban Growth Boundary. In 2002, Metro made a.major expansion ,to the UGB. Title l l,,of the'Functional Plan'requires, that the`, future comprehensive plan designations for these 'areas result'in:an average minimum net'density of ten. dwelling units per acre.: Some of the area.that thai'wi§ added4o the UGB"has areas•with slopes similar toithose in Bull Mt.,See Issue Paper 21 for information about the Bull'Mt. UGB expansion areas. Measure-37 Measure 37 (M-37)' was'approved,by Oregon voters m November 2004. M-37 requires,compensation 'for land use regulations that reduce'the value Of.property when the land. use regulation was adopted. after the current property owner or'family member acquired ihe,property: In lieu of compensation, the government agency-that adopted the regulation, may waive the regulation'and permit development , under the prior land .use requirement. In order to determine how:current.property owners in.Bull Mt.'might respond to'cl' that.wouId reduce the current permitted residential densities of their properties,: staff examined the 'following. . indicators:,M-37 election results from,the, area;-current land values, recent development activity, and-, M-37 claims:. -Precinct Election Results'' w' Voters in-the three, precincts that cover the Bull Mt: area supported M-37 (see' map on P496 21). The election results are provided below. The average voteraum,out in the`prects 'was',84%of registered voters. A map of the,precincts is provided on page20:'M-37, had the highest approval rate in Precinct 414, which has "the most vacant land Precinct 397 Precinct'410 " Precinct 414 Yes 1421 62%o Yes 929, 61% Yes 11 708,65%:. ' ' 'No' 86238%,- " No, 591-39% No 381 39% . Current Land: Values.'..; : Land values in the •Bull.Mt. area have increased over the:past several years`as they have allover the Portland Metro area. According to the Appraisal Division of.the Washington County Department of Assessment,and Taxation, the average'value'of vacant land'in the Bull Mt., area has'increased-from : :$175,000,an acre in. January 2001to $300,000 /320,000 an,acre in June 2006, 6,71%to83% increase.~s. . Staff.from the Appraisal Division said that due.to today's mn rket.conditions', land values-are changing generally every six months. They as aid. densities permitt ed by the applicable land,use `districts affect the value of vacant land with more density resulting in.higher values 15 January 2003 average value-$229,000 acre, January 2005 average value $282,000 DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17 Bull Mountain Density June 28, 2005 Page 19 Recent Development "ActivitySince 2002' 17 subdivision applications have been submitted for development in the urban unincorporated Bull Mt. area north of Beef Bend Road' Five applications were submitted in' 21002 and 2003.. Eight.applications were submitted in 2004 and four applications, have been submitted so, far in 2005: These applications accounted for.l22 acres."In addition; Tigardhas. held,four recent pre- . application conferences with property owners or prospective applicants for'another 36 acres. . Since 1983, when &'communityplan was adopted, more than 80% of the vacant land north of Beef Bend Road has developed. Today there are approximately200 acres of vacant land in-this area16: If the total vacant acres'were adjusted based upon'recent:pre-application. conferences; there would be'" approximately 1.64,vacant acres available for development. ' M-37 Claims r . Washington County has received' more than 250 M-37 ,claims through June .17'2065.' One claim was filed to allow additional dwelling units on a property, designated R-5. The remaining claims are almost entirely for rural- properties and are mostly for the construction of additional dwellings that were, purported •to be permitted by the prior. land use designationrin effect wli6,theproperty owners.- purchased, the property. The City of Portland has received. several claims for the purported loss of . residential dwelling units due primarily to the'.citys environmental overlay regulations (e.g. tree and. habitatprotection). The absence of claims in'urban unincorporated Washington County seems to , indicate'that property owners do not .view mintmum-Aensity'.. requirements as reducing the value' of their ' property- Due to M-37, there is no certainty that all properties Will develop according to existing orTuture planned densities. For example,,if the density of some parcels in. Bull. Mt. are reduced through one of the alternatives' identifed•in`this•paper, the current property-owners may have the right to file a M-37 elaimiunder.the prior R-Ttlesignation or even-under the earlier R-6, designation., ' The four indicators that were:examined show there may be`a high" propensity. for: existing'owners of vacant property to desire, to develop or sell their, property at.existing densities.. A possible M-37 scenario that could resulfthrough, the reallocation of Bull Mt.. density to another area is the filing'of M- 37 claims by Bull. Mt: property,owneyrs, who had the density" of their properties reduced aild thus lost value. If this were to occur;. more' density might be, provided in.the community than existed before the changes. Therefore, any study to "reduce the planned density in the Bull Mt."area should include an analysis of ownership and land use-regulations to' determine potential.'iriipactsfrom M-37., In order to reduce potential future M-37 claims,"owners of vacantproperties and'properties with the potential to "redevelop should be involved very early in any:planning process to determine if the'Aesire the density of their property to be reduced,part icularly in light.of the. indicato'rs,discussed':above. 16 Based upon Metio's'2004 vacant; Lands' Inventory DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17- :Bull Mountain Density June:28; 2005 Page 20 Table C - Density. Comparison tow, - COUNTY R-6 DISTRICT' . No. of Lots Minimum No. of :Maximum No. of Lots - - approved/proposed Required Lots Permitted Tigard' - Dev. 'through Tigard's , (5 units per _ (6 units per PROJECT NAME Development File No.--- : File Status: Acres = R-7 District gross acre)_ 'gross acre) Tuscany 2002-00001 Approved 15.16 89 76 = 91 Bella Vista 2002-00007 Approved 9.29, 45 46 56 Ironwood Subdivision - -.2002-00008 . =Approved 1,22 6 6 7 -.2003=00009 (Phase I`& 2) - Summit Ridge Phases 1-3: - 2004-00003 (Phase 3) 'Approved 27.46 130 165 Meyers Farm 11 2003-00014 Approved 8.16 44 - 41 49 $L4a55`'+ t xerJO:iwMr s sZi~#a Valley View 2004-00001 ' Approved 4.91. 25 25 = 29 French Prairie Vineyards a _ . .2004-00004 ' - Approved - 5.7 - 30 29' 34 ; :200.4=00008 s it sz t s: rs Arbor-Summit 14 2- 2004-00013 < Approved . 8.83 ' 42 44' S3 Mountain View Estates. 2004-00021 _ Approved 6:94 , 19 .,-35-- 42 Trevor Ridge ' n. 2004-00022 - Approved 134' . ' 8 7,- YL1YL 8 - Alpine View '2004=00064 Pending 8.69 4.6 • 43 52 Summit'Ridge Phase 4 2005-00002 Pending 0.75 5 . 4 5 V~ u dL3s{"•I 4c ..~7g£:YlFAYCx'Y~rCti.4 Wilson Ridge 2005-00003 -Pending:. 2,68 14 - 13 16 = • .Arlington Hei 9ht6,3 = 2005-00007 _ Pending'- endin .9 16.82 . 64, :84 - 101. - - - Sierra..Park. 2005' 0008 Pending 4.19 24 TOTAL - _ - . 122.14 591 611 733 , e, r i PRECI 9414 1310 1091 Mar hm ew(MovT00 V 7 ow 83% t 3 _ r . , rton F - 01 t ; _ .ma i PRECINCT 0110 s Total RoOdered Voters 1773.. Toldl "otes in Nov 2001 1520' Voter knn and PRECOVCT 8397 Total Regslered Voters 2712 Total safes In Nov 2001 _ 2283 Voter ken out 81% sav e D. Bull Mt.', Voting Precincts ar.+vw'°sq, ' T N. A 3 a. eda rr . , Voter Precinct b.,w or as Of , # 397• f # 410. I=#'' r DRAFTISSUE, PAPER NO. 17 { ;Bull Ivtountain Density June 28, 2005 Page 22 - .One effect of M-37 is the reluctance of local governments to enact'new land use, regulations, because they may incite M-37 claims: For example, when properties annex to the City of ' Beaverton; Beaverton is'now maintaining the county's landu`se designations and development standards in order to avoid a potential M 37'fromythe adoption of the city's,most comparable land use districts and application of its development standards.-Beaverton will only adopt, its land use designations acid requirements if the.property,owner requests it. Please note•thdt: citizen desires for lower density„might conflict with some property owners desires to maximize their property value. M-37..issues on Bull'Mt. much,more . complicated. k` Possible Alternatives'to Reduce 1Jerisity in the Uiban;Unincorporated Bull Mt. Area . Anychanges to density in the Bull-Mt: ai•ea'cannotFresulfin an.overall loss of planned density due to •the requirements-of the Metro Housirik Rule and Metro's Functional Plan: Consequently; • ' only two, possible solutions, are available to address density in the Bull Mt: area,. They are: 1) ' reallocate the density withiii'the area, 'M/or 2) find another urban area with'the potential. to accept density 6om Bull Mt. , ~Currently,'there are no other areas in urban unincorporated Washington County "that' desire, more residential'density: Therefore; staff will not consider other urban unincorporated areas as .potential areas. to assign Bull' Mt; density. The city of Tigard,,however,+has stated it is interested ate of the•Bull Mt'. in examining this issue through the. update of its-comprehensive plan, an u'pd.. : Com.~riunityPlan and planning ;'or the UGB.expansion-areas.-Based upon"these parameter and the two solutions des'cribe'd in the preceding paragraph, staff has identified four. possible ' alternatives to examine a•reduction:of density iii the Bull Mt :area. They arc:, L Reallocate- the existing overall density',of:the unincorporated B01f Mt. area within, its current, of other boundary, whereby'the density, of some properties would be, reduced and-,the density „ properties would be increased to offset the density' reduction:' 2. - -Update the BMCP- in conjunction with Tigafd's update of its comprehensive plan.'A combined'comprehen'sive plan and'commui ity update would determine'if Tigard has additional capacity t6 accept density from the Bull Mt. area... 3.. Tlii ough the planning of the Bull Mt.',UGB expansion areas, study the possibility of assigning a portion of Bull Mt:'s existing•density to the-exparisioii'areas. The planning of theseareas would need to determine if they are capable of accommodating more than Metro's minimum . ' requirement of 10 dwelling units per net acre.. 4.': Update the BMCP in conjunction with Tigard's.update of its'comprehensive•plan and also'' . the planning of the Bull Mt UGB expansion areas;,This alternative combines Alternatives 2 : and, Idnd' provides two potential areas to which. density could' be transferred. DRAFT:ISSUE PAPER NO. 17 Bull Mountain Density June 29,200, Page.23 . Provided-.below is an analysis•of the'four alternatives.`Each alternative would be`camed out through a-public planning process-that would involve gull Mt. residents and.property:owners and CPO 4B. Each alternative includes a,generalized,scope of work and describes: • Potential, effectiveness to reduce density in unincorporated Bull.Mt.: Consistency with County 2000.. - ; • PotentiaHmpacts 'from M 37 Alternative 1- Reallocate the Existing' Density of Unincorporated Bull ML within this Area ti The goal of this alternative is p. find vacant unincorporated properties-in the. Bull Mt. area'tlzat could'be upzoned from R-7 to allow the density of other R=7 properties to be reduced. The areas that should be considered for an increase in density are, along.the collectors and arterial in the area in.order to accommodate the increase in traffic from denser housing. Those' roads are Bull" Mt. and Beef Bend Roads and 150th Avenue. The availability of vacant land along these , corridors would determine how.many additional-dwellings units could be located in these ` corridors.-That in turn would, determine how. many other vacant properties could have their land'- 'Use designations down zoned. . This alternative may not be satisfactory to all'Bull Mt. residents because it does not reduce the. overall' density of the.entire area and-it results in higher densities along major road{corridors. . However, by increasing the density along part of the collector, and arterial system, it.would allow' " ihe areas away from the area's major road system to have reduced densities. Washington County.is currently responsible for comprehensiveplanning-for, the Bull Mt. area. In order to'carry out this alternative; the county. would have to update the BMCP.-However, updating. the community plan is a municipal level service., As noted. in the.earlier discussion . about County'2000, a county update of.the community planlwould be contrary to County 2000: Tigard has. 1said iit would update-the BMCP in conjunction-with its*update:of its comprehensive . plan.` Therefore, Alternative 1 could be, included as part ofAlternatives 2 and 4. ; . Notwithstanding County-2000 ifafie county-were to,implement this alternative, it could`result in ' potential M-37 claims from property owners who believe they lue of their"propertyhas been diminished due' to new land`use designations: Alternative.2 - Update the BMCP In Coniunction-with Tigard's Comprehensive. Plan Update. A Tigard recently said it would consider accepting density from the Bull Mt area if the city has the capacity to.do so: In order to carry out this alternative, the city would have to'update the BMCP in conjunction with the update, of its comprehensive plan- A combined update of Tigard's comprehensive plan and.the BMCP would determine,•if Tigard,has additional, capacity-to accept density from the Bull Mt. area. In conjunction.witli Altative 2; the proposed reallocationof , en dwellings' discussed under Alternative 1 could', also be considered. ' As part'of its comprehensive plan update, Tiga'rd'will: prepare an inventory and analysis of !several factors -within the.city" including vacant land, residential development (existing.densities,::;. " DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17 Bull Mountain Density June 28, 2005 Page 24 redevelopable land), park and -open-. space needs; and significant natural resources, including associated development constraints. These analyses ace critical io'determining the.city's capacity for additional dwellings. Similar analyses 'of the Bull Mt. area are also needed and could readily be done with the city's work. If the city determines it,has the capacity to accept density from. Bull Mt., needed ordinances to amend the land use designations in the cityand the unincorporated Bull Mt. area would have to be considered. Because the county must be the'final decision maker in the unincorporated area for comprehensive plan related decisions, the county would have 'to act upon its changes to the BMCP once Tigard has changed its comprehensive plan.,The land use designations in the'Bull Mt. area,cannot be changed until the city amends its plan to accept an y density from the Bull Mt. area.. : Another advantage of Alternative 2 is. the availability of Tigard's existing low density single family land use districts (shown below) as tools to reduce density in Bull Mt. area.. The density requirements of the R-1; •R-2, R-3.5 and R-4.5. are lower than the R-7 District. The density requirements of these districts are also lower than the county's two single family districts, the R- 5 and.R-6 Districts. As shown under the analysis of densities permitted by county and city standards, the county's R-6 District often result in more dwellings than permitted by the R-7 District and the R-5 District would likely only slightly reduce the permitted densities under the ' R-7 District. Without the use of one or more of Tigard's low density single family districts there would be little opportunity to transfer density from Bull Mt. Tigard's current single family districts: • R-1: "Low Density Residential District; minimum lot size of 30,000 square feet • R-2: Low Density Residential District; minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet' • R-3.5: 'Low Density Residential District; minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet • R-4.5 Low Density Residential District; minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet • R-7: Medium Density Residential District; minimum lot size of 5,000-square feet Under this' alternative, the county would participate in a limited capacity due to its role as the final decision maker for comprehensive plan related decisions, which would be consistent with County 2000. This alternative. is consistent with County 2000 because Tigard, would update the community plan as the municipal service provider and the county would conform the community plan to Tigard's plan. Notwithstanding County 2000, if the county were'to implement this alternative,. it could result in potential M-37 claims from property owners who believe the' value of their property has been' diminished due to,new land use designations: ; Alternative 3-- Washineton•County'Addresses the Density Issue in Coniunction with Planning the UGB Expansion Areas Metro added Areas 63 and 64 to the UGB in 2002. Together; they total 483 acres. Title 11 of the' Functional Plan requires all UGB expansion areas to be planned for a minimum density, of 10,, dwelling units per net acre. Development of these areas can not occur until the planning for these areas is completed. Given-the topography of parts of Areas ,63 and 64 and stream corridors in the 1. - DRAFT ISSUE PAPERNO. 17. Bull-Mountain Density June 28, 2005 Page 25 areas, there will be limitations to the development capacity of these areas.. Currently, no planning analysis of these areas has occurred. Issue Paper 18 addresses the planning of these areas. Consistent with County 2000, the county desires the planning of the UGB expansion, areas-to'be done by cities. Currently, the county has only committed to plan one expansion area,•North . Bethany, due to its•unique circumstances. No decisions have been made yet about which local government will. do the planning for the Bull Mt., Cooper Mt. and 209th Avenue UGB expansion areas. All of the other areas are being planned by cities. : . If it is determined that the county is the appropriate jurisdiction to plan Areas 63 and 64, the county would limit its work to' the expansion areas due to. County 2000. As previously discussed is this 'paper, it would be necessary tq update"the BMCP in order to reduce the existing density in. Bull Mt., a task the county no longer,perforins. Therefore, this alternative would not address citizen concerns about reducing density in the Bull Mt. area.; However, if this alternative were available, applying the county's R-6 District to the Bull Mt. area would not result in fewer dwelling units than currently permitted by the-city's R-7 District. Applying;the county's R-5 District to the Bull Mt, area would only resultin a slight decrease of in. density compared to the R-7 District. There are no potential M-37 claims, under this alternative .because the county would not update the BMCP in conjunction with planning Areas 63 and 64. : Alternative 4 - Tigard Addresses Bull Mt. Density in Conjunction with Planning the UGB Expansion Areas and Updatine the BMCP Tigard said if also is interested in planning these areas in conjunction with, its comprehensive plan update and update of the BMCP so that all of Bull Mt. can •be. planned for through an integrated planningprocess. Therefore,this alternative would include anvpdate to the BMCP and Tigard's comprehensive; plan. Alternative 4 provides the best'opportunity to, find density capacity to-assign density from the Bull Mt. area because-there would be two potential.areas to transfer density to - the city of Tigard and the UGB expansion areas. This alternative would result in a comprehensive, . integrated replanning of the entire Bull Mt. community,that would also consider all of the residents' concerns and not just density, as discussed in Issue Paper 18. As was the case with Alternative2,-an advantage of Alternative 4 is the availability of Tigard's : ~ . existing lower density single family land use districts, the R-1, R-2, R-3.5 and R-4.5, Districts, to reduce density in Bull Mt. area.' . Under Alternative 4, the county would participate in a limited capacity due to its role as the final. decision maker for comprehensive plan related decisions, which would be'consistent with. County 2000. % DRAFT.ISSUE -PAPER.NO. 17 BuIfmountain Density' " June 28; 206' Page 26• T e`potential for M-37 claims is the greatest<iinder;thls•scenario,hecause rt providesawo'.', potential areas to transfer density 'from the `Bull Mt: area and therefore potentially down zone more properties. wpshareUOO54d\woi-k progem\issue papers\Bull Mt papers\IP 1,7 final draft (-U&05.doc i { f } f Y jIt, 1t; 'I % r; WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON June 28,,2005 . . ' . DRAFT. • ' • • PLANNING DIVISION ISSUE PAPER NO. 18 " Updating the Bull Mountain Community Plan Issue Through the Planning Division's 2005 work program, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) directed staff to prepare six issue papers about planning and park.issues in-the urban. unincorporated - Bull Mt. area. Issue;Paper 18 examines how the Bull Mt. Community _Plan could be updated. This . • .paper also addresses.recent comments from the City of Tigard and key concerns of-residents. from the Bull Mt: area.. The City,of Tigard is,interested in updating the Bull Mt. Community Plan and planning the Bull Mt: UGB expansion areas in conjunction with the city'-s upcoming-update of its Comprehensive, P'lan.~ Recommendation.. , Update the Bull Mt. Community Plan through an.integrated, comprehensive community=wide . planning process in conjunction with:. L • The City of Tigard 's update of the city's comprehensive plan (Alternative 4), or , . 2. The City of Tigard:s update of its comprehensive plan.and planning ;the Bull Mt. UGB expansion.:,, areas (Alternative 4A). Summary Staff analyzed. eight alternatives'to update the Bull Mt: Community Plan'(8MCP). Six alternatives ` would be conducted by Washington County and would make, rying degrees of changes to the . county's Comprehensive Plan, include the BMCP'and applicable development regulations. Two " alternatives would. be.conducted by Tigard in conjunction with'its•update, of the city's, - comprehensive plan. Four alternatives address the Bull.Mt. UGB expansion Areas;63 and 64 in r; conjunction with updating the BMCP and four. alternatives do not address these areas. The factors staff used to analyze the alternatives are: " How key citizen issues ate addressed • Cost effectiveness',of each alternative to,address key citizen issues. • Generalized costs.' • Potential Measure 37 impacts • Consistency with County 2000' ' 1 Issue Paper (IP) 22 addresses Mr. Hendryx's letter in greater. detail. Department of Land Use 8s Transportation • Planning Division 155 N First Avenue, Suite 350-14, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 Phone:; (503) 846-3519 • Fax: (503),846-4412 www:co.washington.or.us ' ~ .'are y.. r~ + r, ' r ,1' DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18 " Bull Mt. Community Plan Update / June 28, 2005 Page' 2 Only three alternatives; Alternatives 4, 3A and.4A,:have the potential to reduce planned.densities in the Bull Mt. area. Alternative 4A has the greatest potential to reduce density.because'1) there are two potential-Areas to reallocate density, the City of Tigard and Bull Mt. UGB'expansion Areas 63 and 64; and 2) the use of Tigard's existing single. family residential, districts that are less.dense than the county's R-6 District. Alternative 3A provides the next best opportunity to reduce density through the planning of Areas 63 and 64 by the county. However,-the bounty would have to create a new single family residential district with density lower than the county's R-5 District in order to achieve a meaningful reduction in density. Alternative-3A also requires the county't'o.updaie its Comprehensive Plan in order..to address other key citizen'issues,;a task, that would be a'massive undertaking-Consequently, Alternative 3A is the most costly and least cosveffective alternative. As discussed din lssue'Paper 17, development under Tigard's R-T District' is less*. dense than what would be required under the county's R-6 District. This is due.to the different methods the city and county use to calculate density. Consequently; reinstituting the,R-6 District will not reduce current ' built densities. Using the county's R=5.District could result in densities slightly lower than the R-7 District. However, Tigard's other single family residential districts, the R-4:5, R-3; R-2 and R- I Districts, are all less dense than the county's R-5 District. Using one or more of these districts. in the Bull Mt. area provides the opportunity to reduce density in Bull Mt. ; Another important factor that must be'considered by alt of the- alternatives is Measure 37. It makes the density issues on Bull Mt. much more complicated. M=37 requires compensation for land use regulations that reduce the value of property when the land use regulation was adopted after the current property owner or family member acquired the. property. In lieu of compensation, the government agency. that adopted the'regulation may waive the regulation and permit development under the prior land use requirement. Due to M-37, there is no certainty that all of the properties in the Bull Mt. area will develop at existing or future planned densities.' Consequently; citizen desires for lower density might conflict with some property owners desires to maximize their property value. G • , - Background At the Board's request, the Planning Division has prepared seven issue papers that'address different planning and park issues associated with the urban unincorporated Bull Mt. area. Five of the other issue papers address density, parks, planning the Bull Mt_ UGB• expansion areas, and amendments to the Washington County / Tigard•'Urban'Planning Area Agreement. .The seventh' issue paper (IP 14) addresses CPO 4B's request for a public facility strategy / development moratorium for the-Bull Mt. area. In December 2004, the Board and the.Tigard Council held a joint meeting to discuss a number of issues about the Bull Mt: area that had been raised by residents in the area: The ;Board and the' Council expressed a desire to,work together to'develop a planning program'that could address' ; residents' concerns, primarily through the upcoming planning efforts of the city. The Board directed the county Planning Division to prepare in consultation with Tigard, issue papers on park planning. and funding (Issue Papers15 and 16), the potential to decrease density in the-Bull Mt. area ('Issue Paper 17), updating the Bull Mt. Community Plan (Issue Paper 18) and planning the Bull Mt. UGB expansion areas (Issiie:Paper 21). The; Board asked staff to include in these issue. papers an " DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18 ; Bull Mt. Community Plan Update -June 28, 2005 Page' 3 assessment about how to address identified issues in.conjunction with Tigard's update of its Comprehensive Plan and park master plan; and plannitig;for the Bull Mt. UGB expansion areas. Analysis : The Bull Mt' Community PlaIi•(BMCP) and several.other community plans were adopted ja 1983 as part of the county's new Comprehensive Plan. The BMCP applied the first urban land use designations to the Bull Mt. area. Most, of the area north of Beef Bend Road was designated R-6 and the,remaining area R-15 or-R-24..The area south of, Beef Bend Road was designated R-9, R-15 and R-24 (between 9 and 24 dwellings per acre). Since 1983; significant areas in the original community plan boundary have been annexed to Tigard and, King City. After the adoption of its 1983 Comprehensive Plan, Washington County adopted the County 2000 Strategic Plan in 1986 2 County 2000 dictates how the county will provide services, including planning' and landAevelopment services. ,County, 2000 changed'the focus of the services the county should provide. Rather than providing both localized.and countywide services, County 20,00 calls for the county to provide countywide'services in the future-(e.g., health, aging and veteran services; maintain and operate a countywide road system) and move away fronf the provision of localized municipal types services (e.g., local street system, neighborhood level planning): Consequently, the county's long term policy for the urban unincorporated areas envisions that they will eventually be served by a city so the county can focus its resources to provide countywide services. County 2000 changed the focus of the.county's long range'planning services from neighborhood level planning (e.g., updating community plans) to participating in countywide, regional and state planning'activities. Consequently, the county has not updated any community plan since their' • adoption. Instead, the county has made limited'amendments to the community plans over the years to comply with regional and state planning requirements, '.Metro's 2040 Plan,'the Regional, Transportation Plan and the State Transportation Planning Rule. A county -planning processAo update a community plan'currently is not consistent.with County 2000. Consistent,wiih'County 2000 and the Washington County / Tigard UrbanrPlanning Area Agreement (UPAA);'the county assigned responsibilityfor land development, building and code enforcement services for- the urban unincorporated Bull Mt. area to the city of Tigard on May 12, 1997.3• Washington' County retained responsibility for comprehensive planning and transportation planning - in the area. To facilitate the transfer' of services to Tigard, the county adopted Ordinance No.,487. Ordinance 487 adopted Tigard's Comprehensive Plan and development code in place of the county's Urban Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area (Framework Plan) and the Community Development Code.(CDC): Ordinance No. 487 replaced the land use designations in the Bull Mt. Community Plan with Tigard's comparable comprehensive plan and zoning designations. The remaining provisions of the BMCP (e.g., text; Significant Natural Resource Designations) continue to apply today. Table 1 .provides a comparison of the county and city's land use designations that are used in areas,outside of Light Rail Station Areas and Regional and Town Centers. Z County2000 'was updated in 1990 and 1996.• A third update of County 2000 is currently underway: 3.Implemented by the Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement between City of Tigard and Washington County-., (Service IGA). It was renewed September 3' 2002'. DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18 Bull Mt..CommunityPlan Update June 28, 2005 'Page 4 In 2004, Tigard's Bull Mt. Annexation PlanningSubcommittee4 identified a number 'of planning 'related issues it said should be addressed in the Bull Mt. area and in the city of.Tigard. These issues are identified in the subcommittee's attached May 2004 Bull Mt. "White Paper on Planning. The . subcommittee found the BMCP and the Tigard Comprehensive Plan to be out of date and recommended that both plans be updated as soon'as possible.. "Through the Tigard Urban Service Agreement; the UPAA and the Service IGA, Tigard currently provides many services to urban unincorporated Bull Mt. The "city is the current service provider to this area for water, the operation and maintenance of sewer and storm water facilities, and land, development and building services. Tigard's Park Master Plan; Park Capital Improvement Plan, and park system" development charge and methodology, report also address the area. Currently, Tigard is investigating the acquisition of additional park land in the'area.- "Tigard is designated as the long ' term service" provider to the area for parks; recreation,•open'space, law enforcement, the tiansportation;system, and•long-range planning.-Tigard will provide the last three services upon annexation,because.city".property taxes and development fees fund these services (e.g.; the"city's park and recreation system development charge [SDC]). Proposed amendments to "tlie, BMCP" would have to be consistent with the city's service master plans and'other applicable service providers plans. z' State and Metro standards require with which an,update of the BMCP must comply are the state's Metropolitan Housing Rule (implements Goal, 10 - Housing _ in the Portland area) and Title 1 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan.. Key requirements of those regulations for urban unincorporated Washington County cities with a population of 2,500 or more persons are: Metropolitan Housing Rule . - " Washington County and its cities must provide the opportunity for at least 506/. of new. . residential dwellings to be attached single family (town house) or multi-family, housing' (apartments) • The minimum: density requirements that Washington: County' and its cities must provide, are: The cities of.Tigard,.Hillsboro and Beaverton -'ten dwellings units per net buildable acre Urban unincorporated Washington County. -'eight dweltirigs units per net buildable acre - -The cities of Forest Grove, Tualatin and Wilsonville : eight dwellings units per net acre The cities of Cornelius, Durham and Sherwood - six dwellings units per net acre The Subcommittee was made up of three Bull Mt: residents; three city residents, and Tigard and county planning staff , Recommendations were made by citizen committee members, staff provided technical assistance. " 5 Tigard owns a 12 acre wooded parcel outside of the city that will be developed in'the future by the city as Cache Creek Nature Park. See Issue Paper 15 for additional information. DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18 " Bull Mt. Community Plan Update June 28, 2005 Page 5 Table 1, COMPARISON OF LAND*USE DISTRICTS, Single Familynd Use Districts Couu Distracts _ ? . :C Distracts R-5 Maximum Density: 5 units/ rg~oss acre Maximum Density: 1 unit/net Acre. R-1 Minimum Lot Area 5,500 s q. ft.. Minimum Lot Area: 30,000 s q. ft.- R-6 Maximum•Density'°6 units/ rg ooss acre Maximum Density:'2 units/net acre' R-2 Minimum Lot Area for detached single Minimum Lot Area: 20,000 s q. ft. family dwellings: 4,000 sq. ft. Maximum Density: 3 units/net'acre R-3 `Minimum Lot Area for attached single Minim- tim Lot Area: 10,000 sq..ft.• . ' family dwellings:, 3,500 s q. ft. - Maximum Density:. .5 units/net acre R- 4.5 Minimum Lot Area: 7,500 s q. ft. Maximum Density. 7 units/net acre k-7, Minimum Lot Area. (detached,an d attached , dwellings). 5,000 s q. ft. Multi-Family Land Use Districts COIIn D4 tI7C1kS _ CI DLStI7CtS ,r 'r R-9 Maximum Density: 9 units/gross acre Maximum Density: 12 units/net R-12, acre a` Minimum Lot Area• for a detached ; single family home: 2,800 sq. ft. Minimum'Lot Area' for attached and detached single family,homes: ' .3,050 s q.. ft. R-15 Maximum Densiy:.15 units/ oss Maximum. Density: 25 units/net. acre acre. Minimum Lot Area for a detached Minimum Lot Area for attached sin le•famil home: 2,100 s . it. dwellings: 1,480.s4. ft. R-24 Maximum Density::14 units/gross Maximum Density:.none R=40 acre. Minimum Lot Area: none Minimum Lot Area for a detached " single family home:.2;100 s . ft. 1 , 11-25+ Maximum Density: 2516120 _ . ' units/gross Acre Minimum Lot Area for a detached single family home: 2,100 s q. ft. 6 Tigard's' maximum densities shown in Table I are based upon the assumption that the city's' density calculation standards and each district's dimensional standards will not result in densities greater.than those shown in this table. . DRAFT ISSUE PAPER 140. l8 Bull Mt. Community Plan Update June 28, 2005 Page 6 Title 1 of Metro's Urban Growth Manag'ement-Functional Plan ' . • Assigned'urban unincorporated Washington County,a future housing target of 54,999 dwelling units, which required the county to provide ,for'an additional'-11-,U00 dwelling'unds- • , • . Established minimum densities in residential districts at'no less than 80% of each-maximum density. This paper-is premised upon the assumption that there will.be continued compliance with these. mandatory requirements. Therefore, the potential planning alternatives examined, in this paper assume consistency with state and Metro requirements: Consequently, in order to reduce density in the Bul1,Mt. area, that, density has to be reallocated to another urban area. , Significant Natural Resources, Concerns have been expressed by citizens that some new'development in the Bull Mt. area does not comply with the requirements of the BMCP for the removal of trees and vegetation. The purpose of this paper is to examine how issues could be addressed, through different planning alternatives to update the BMCP. Therefore.this paper examines this particular issue from the perspective of, how the alternatives could or; could not consider changes to the current regulations rather than how, those regulations are currently implemented. The following discussion describes the current requirements that are applicable to the'Bull Mt. area and the work currently underway to address these resources through. the countywide Goal 5 and Healthy. Streams Program. The county is not aware of any development that might not comply with current regulations. Consequently, the county does not knowif those concerns are about properties-with or without a Significant Natural Resource designation.' Current Requirements in the Bull Mt Area Through-Ordinance 487, the county's- requirements that were applicable to Significant Natural Resources in the BMCP were maintained and are in effect today. Those requirements are: . The Significant Natural Resource designations in the BMCP • General Design Elements in the BMCP related to these resources • Design Elements of the Summit and Slopes Subarea of the BMCP applicable to, these areas ' • The applicable requirements of the CDC for Significant Natural Resources, piimarily.Section 422 (Significant Natural Resources) and Subsection 407-3 (Tree Preservation and Removal). Ordinance 487 specifies that these requirements,are applicable to development applications reviewed by the city. The ordinance also specifies that these standards -will be implemented using Tigard's procedures that are applicable to areas of the citydesignated as Sensitive,Lands. The procedures for Sensitive Lands are in Chapter 18.775 (Sensitive Lands) in Tigaid's development code. Examples "of applicable city procedures include application submission requirements and.review procedures 7 Two unincorporated areas where the county did not increase residential densities as it originally proposed to do were. ' the Bull Mt. and Metzger areas- At Tigard's request, the county did not increase the density in the Bull Mt.-area, to accommodate 302 additional dwellings units. In the.Metzger area, Tigard assumed responsibility for 668 additional dwellings that had been proposed to be provided in the, Washington Square Regional Center Plan through the 'upzoning of R-5 land. DRAFT ISSUE PAPER-NO. 18 , Bull Mt: Community Plan Update June 28, 2045 Page 7 (Type II or Type IIn'to'use•to process an application..The Type II procedure is,an•admtnistrative review process with public; notice, Type IIl uses a public hearing. Because the county's Significant Natural Resource requirements for'the, Buil'Mt. area.are . maintained,: there is, no difference between the standards the.city is-currently required to use and those that were applicable'wheii Washington County•was responsible for reviewing development : applications in the area between 19831and May 1997. Finally; it should be -noted that the requirements described, above are only applicable to vegetation that is designated as a Significant'Natural Resource. These standards do not apply to areas that are " not identified by the BMCP as' a Significant Natural.Resource. Ordinance 487..makes the city's standards applicable to vegetated areas, that are not a Significant Natural Resource: The county's requirements do allow the removal of trees and vegetation from areas that are not identified, as. a- ' Significant Natural Resource. Countywide Goal_5 and, HealthyStredmi s'P,rogram Washington County, its cities and Clean Water Services are in the-process of updating the county and cities' comprehensive plans to comply with regional.requirements for addressing Statewide Planning"Goal 5g for significant'natucal resources: The countywide program, to be implemented"in 2005 'and,2006, relies upon uniform development standards for water and riparian relatedlresources ; through existing regulations applicable to water, quality sensitive•areas and vegetated corridors., Due, , to the uniformity of these. standards, there should be no difference between'county Arid city standards.' This program also eliminates the need to address these resources through an update of the ' BMCP. Areas ofthe-county that were previously ;designated as,significant upland habitat will continue to be regulated by each jurisdiction's requirements for those areas because they are not addressed by the vegetated ¢omdor standards. Although Washington County and its"cities each have different program development standards that address~. upland habitat areas, they have all been acknowledged' by the State Land Conservation and Development.Commission (LCDC),to be incompliance with-the' Goal 5. Since the current regulations -of the county and the cities are all differentthere will not'be uniform countywide standards, for upland.habitat. In the unincorporated area, significant upland habitat.areas are designated by the county as Wildlife Habitat. The county's existing requirements in the community plans and'.the CDC will.-continueto be applicable to. development in the unincorporated area; including Bull-Mt: ,If the BMCP is'updated, that planning process should compare the, county and Tigard's standards and consider whether or: not it would-be :beneficial to continue to rise the county standards -for properties in the'Bull Mt. •tliat . annex to;Tigard. 2020 Transportation Plan , In'October 2002,'Washington County, adopted.a new transportation plan; the Washington'County 2020 Transportation Plan (Transportation Plan) The transportation plan comprehensively addresses all of the requirements.of the State Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) and the-Regional a Goal 5 - Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces ' DRAFTISSUE PAPER NO. 18 " Bull Mt. Community Plan Update 4 June28, 2005 ' Page 8 . Transportation Plan' (RTP).-Key provisions of the Transportation Plan that,are applicable to the Bull , Mt: area are: 1.. Roy Rogers Road is the only road that is designated as part.of the coun. tywide`road.system' .'(Figure 10, Tiansportation'Plan). Other roads in the area are or will become the responsibility of ` . " • . Tigard as roadway'jurisdiction'is transferred from the -county to the city, '2. Beef Bend Road, between Hwy. 99 and 150th Avenue, is the only'road in the area that has an. RTP street design overlay designation. Figure 3 (Regional, Street Design .Overlay. Map) in'the ' Transportation" Plan designates ,this section 'of the road with the RTP's "'Street Design' Consideration'." Consistent with:the RTP, the Transportation Plan requires the following design elements to be considered as part of future improvements to this section of road.•9 These design, , considerations are not mandatory: • - wide sidewalks separated from the. roadway with, a landscape•p' lanter. strip where possible landscaped center median when a center turn lane'is,not needed , • marked pedestrian crossings at,intersections; special crossing improvements may be made at" in r. intersections. ' ajo 3.. Improvements to other roads to the area will be'destgned=to be consistent with'the provisions of the Washington, County Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards. Since the adoption, of the Transportation Plan, the county has begun implementing the, policies and strategies of the Plan. An early task, which county -staff have. initiated, is'to develop'a'countywide" funding plan that will define how to fund:improvements identified, in the plan.'A comprehensive-, public'involve'ment will accompany development of the funding plan for the next few years'. Transportation Funding and Improvements Improvements to the maior transportation system in Washington County are mosily'financed by the ` :Major Streets'Transportation Improvement'Program (MSTIP)•and'the Traffic 'Impact Fee'(TIF) Program. The. M, TIP and TIF programs;,and their, funding levels, were developed through a public' . process in the mid-1.980's. Based on past trends,, it'is estimated that.the,two programsflare'capable of funding approximately half of the improvements .identified in the Transportation Plan: Additionally, limited funding"from state and federal grants has also been used for some' projects., Voters approved'.MSTIP to 1986,1989 and1995. MSTIP,is a joint effort of Washington County, a`nd the cities of.Washingtoti County.,Approximately $350 million in transportation improvements have been funded through MSTIP.over the past.20 years': The MSTIP'.program was designed: to, fund a...., level of streetscape improvements in conjunction with road''improvements. For`exatriple, MSTIP does not fund the placement,of overhead utilities (power lines) underground'or provide . , "boulevard.', type landscaping. Funding `to pay. for adding these features to MSTIP projects in the. -past has come from other city. or county funds: Locally, mote than,$65 million dollars-in"MSTIP improvements have been made or are committed.fo . future improvements thatserve'the Bull Mi.,area..For example,.more than $17 iniltiori'was•spetit to 9 See also pg: 9 of the Transportatio ,i Plan and the street desigmcross~ section's in;Appendixi&8 of Vansportation'Plan - Technical Appendix c DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18 Bull Mt. Community Plan Update v June.28, 2005 Page-9 improve Beef Bend/Elsner/Roy Rogers Road and''$8 million was spent :to improve Tualatin- Sherwood Road.' The upcoming realignment rof'175th Avenue north 4 Scholls Ferry,-.at its intersection with Roy Rogers Road,'will improve'this north-south route for traffic in the area: Also,, . the upcoming extension.of Murray Blvd..between Scholls Ferry and Barrows Roads will improve ' north-south: connections in the area: The Traffic Impact Fee is a transportation tax that all new development in Washington Countypays. TIF revenue is used to fund capacity improvements to the major road'system in Washington County. Certain county" and city collecfors:and arterials are eligible to be.improved with TIF revenue: TIF' revenue cannot be, used to, improve state. highways. Due to the high cost_of road improvements; the county and cities generally~use TIF revenue to,ftmd smaller improvement projects,, such as,, intersection improvements, or to augment:MSTIP funding. of larger projects:.For example, in the ; Bull Mt. area MSTIP and TIF funding was' used to•construct 121 st Avenue and. Gaarde Street. Combined funding will also be used Ito construct-the Murray Blvd. extension: 'Due to high construction costs, the county and cities also need to accumulate TIF-revenue. over, time in,order to. fund projects. In 1990, voters approved changes to the original TIF program. that was approved in 1986 to make it ,applicable to all development in•Washington County.l0 TIE, rates .are based upon the rates voters approved in 1990. If new. development is required:to make safety•or,capacity improvements to an eligible collector or arterial: a poi lion of the-cost may be eligible?to be used`as' a, credit against a ; development's,requ red TIFrpayment .Credits for improyements'in 2004 equated about 30% of the total TIF income. In 1997, Washington. County' and the Ctty,of Tigard agreed that the city would assume responsibilities for land development and building.services in the urban unincorporated Bull. Mt. area. The, Service IGA. between-the county and city made Tigard responsible: for collecting the TIF,. Which it places in a special account: Tigard' is. responsible for identifying and making improvements to collectors and arterials that will•beneht the, Bull Mt. area.'TIF'.revenue*from urban unincorporated Bull Mt. maybe used, to; improve roads'. in'the area, including city ;roads, ,providedahey benefit the . urban unincorporated area. For example, improvements to the section's of Gaarde and Walnut Streets. and 121st Avenue that. were previously located in a unincorporated "Walnut Island area" were partially funded from TIF revenue generated in the urban unincorporated- Bull Mt. area: The r Beaverton and Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreements with' the county each required Gaarde Street, between 121 stAvenue and Hwy. 99, to be improved before or coincident with the connection r ' `of Murray Blvd. from Walnut/135th•Avenue to Gaarde Street: An upcoming projectby.Tigard will improve. the Bull Mt./Roshak Rd'. intersecttori`through TIF revenue from urban unincorporated Bull, Mt. Table 2'shows the break down of TIF revenue from the city and urbamunincorporated Bull Mt'. used to improve t hese roads..: 10 The'initial'TIF program applied only to unincorporated Washington County.'It was approved-by voters in the: unincorporated area in 1986. DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18 ` Bull Mt. Co ' fiity-Plan Update ; V. June 28, 2005 _ Page 10 t K•,f• ' fit: ` , • Table2 V• Urban Unincorporated Bull. TIF Funds' Mt.- TIF Funds • 1m rovement Wr ject City Gaarde,St. = Phase 2 (construct 3 y lane section with bike lanes'and $1,800,000'; , ' ' $500,000. : sidewalks, between Hwy. 99 and 121st Ave.; install traffic signal at 121 st/Gaarde intersection 121 st Ave. (design & ROW $300,000 $100,000' acquisition) Walnut St. (design'8i ROW $300,000. $100,000 . -acquisition) Bull MORoshak Rd. intersection , $150,000 = add turn lanes on Bull Mt.-at the intersection Totals $2,400,OOQ $850,000 The Service IGA also requires WashingtonGounty and~the WashingtonCounty Coordinating. + Committee (WCCQ to approve'_improvements proposed by'the city. All of the.improvements that have been made or are funded to date have been approved byiihe .county an& the WCCC.• To date, approximately $l0 million.in TIF improvements have beeri.made or are committed- to future improvements in the Bull Mt. area. The TIF cash balance TIF for urban unincorporated Bull Mt. as of May 31, 2205 is $663,850. r The map on the following page shows the transportation, improvements that have been made or, are funded through the.MSTIP, and•TIF programs to serve, theBull.Mt Area Through 'the development of the county's funding plan for the county's, Transportation .Plan,'the, countywide 66m'unity will.decide'how many of,the,improvements identified in the Transportation Plan it wants to hind and how to go about it.'A comprehensive, public'involvement`prograin will accompany development of the furiding plan: Key Citizen Planning Issues . Issue Paper. 1-$ considered the key-citizen issues that are described below: Staff` identified those , issues to be of greatest concern based upon staffs cevtew of the' information sources noted below.., Citizen issues addressed by Issue Paper, 18: 1. Reducing the density in unincorporated Bull Mt. 2. Compliance with the BMCP: Density'should not exceed. the maximum permitted density of the R-6 District • The removal .of trees, and vegetation shouldnot, exceed the requirements of the BMCP , 4.. New development is not in. character with' existing`development c 5. Improve the transportation system ' - .ter , • . H - - WE L r Ro - 5 > 1 A --t--ram-{ SW PI b4 1 ,a f J" L 1 T X1.SNE 1 q Road Projects in the Bull Mt. Area m„e.,.s,.eu...a nwn n c+.wan. MSTIP V ($65.623,631 TOTAL) y a,r..,y Oi,+xT ,55N FVY AV. Suk. 3X!-N ,Y,4o'4 OA DIN //50.11M6]5,9 E i p TIF expended thru 2004' and •~^-~3o05oNn.akpgmhtu. !,B!~7 aW.W W Ni505 upc timing FT roved by WCCC Hp~: c; s ($9474,91TTAAL) Commuter Rag is partially (ended by MST1P and TIF ` Trojects eIkAb rur nF credits are not stwwn and is not shown on this map DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18 Bull Mt. Community Plan Update June 28, 2005 Page 12 In order to identify and evaluate key citizen concerns, staff considered the following information: • . May 2004 White Paper on Planning prepared by Tigard's Bull Mt. Annexation Planning Subcommittee • CPO 4B Resolution and Order No. 04-05 • The chief planning concerns CPO 4B identified in the Washington County Committee for Citizen Involvement's (CCI) report recommending changes to the county's development regulations. • Key concerns identified by Bull Mt. residents, in recent correspondence to Chairman Brian • Public comments at the June 2, 2005 CPO 4B meeting. The comments below describe how the following citizen issues will be considered by the planning alternatives to update the community plan. Compliance with the BMCP 1. Density As noted earlier in this paper, development that is consistent with the density requirements of Tigard's R-7 District is consistent with the BMCP. Issue Paper 17 examined 17 subdivision applications that were submitted in the Bull Area since 2002. That analysis found the average density of those subdivisions to be 4.8 units per acre. It also found that none of the subdivisions had more density than permitted by the R-6 District. A comparison of the permitted densities under the county and the city's standards for these subdivisions is shown in Table 3 of this paper. Due to citizens' desire to replace the R-7 District with the R-6 District or another single family residential district, this paper examines whether or not the planning alternatives could replace the R-7 District. The planning alternatives described below consider the reinstitution of the R-6 District and the use of Tigard's low density single family districts. 2. The removal of trees and vegetation As noted earlier, current development in Bull Mt. must comply with the provisions of the BMCP and the county's CDC standards for areas in the community plan that are designated as a Significant Natural Resource. This issue is beyond the scope of this paper. The planning alternatives examined below consider how each alternative could or could not consider changes to the current regulations and whether or not the current requirements would continue to apply. Transportation Improvements The planning alternatives will consider whether or not each alternative could examine the provisions of the county's Transportation Plan related to the future design of roads, including Regional Street Design Overlay Map and the street design cross sections in Appendix B-8 of Transportation Plan Technical Appendix. Citizens' desires for more improvements to roads that serve the Bull Mt. area will not be addressed in this paper because the appropriate venue to address those concerns is through the development of the funding plan. DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18 Bull Mt. Community Plan Update June 28, 2005 Page 13 Table 3 - Density Comparison COUNTY R-6 DISTRICT No. of Lots Minimum No. of Maximum No. of Lots approved/proposed Required Lots Permitted Tigard Dev. through Tigard's (5 units per (6 units per PROJECT NAME Develo ment File No. File Status Acres . R-7 District gross acre) gross acre) Tuscany 2002-00001 Approved 15.16 89 76 91 Bella Vista 2002-00007 Approved 9.29 45 46 56 Ironwood Subdivision 2002-00008 Approved 1.22 6 6 7 . .•..aa!F!R.1.",M11MrsRNtla~P1'i~:$"JP$w'e~4(!I`it"✓Ji:>!C.'+:'.v1• 2003-00009 (Phase I & 2) Summit Ridge Phases 1-3 2004-00003 (Phase 3) Approved 27.46 130 137 165 Meyers Farm II 2003-00014 Approved 8.16 44 41 49 Valley View 2004-00001 Approved 4.91 25 25 29 French Prairie Vineyards 2004-00004 Approved 5.7 .30 29 34 2004-00008 Arbor Summit 1 & 2 2004-00013 A roved 8.83 42 44 53 Mountain View Estates 2004-00021 Approved 6.94 19 35 42 Trevor Ridge 2004-00022 Approved 1.34 8 7 8 Alpine View 2004-00064 Pending 8.69 46 43 52 Summit Ridge Phase 4 2005-00002 Pending 0.75 5 4 5 Wilson Ridge 2005-00003 Pending 2.68 14 13 16 xr:~v Arlington Heights 3 2005-00007 Pending 16.82 64 84 101 Sierra Park 2005-00008 Pending 4.19 24 21 25 TOTAL 122.14 591 611 733 DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18 Bull Mt. Community Plan Update June 28, 2005 Page 14 Future funding sources for transportation improvements will be identified through the development of the funding plan for the county's Transportation Plan. Therefore, funding issues will not be addressed in this paper. Measure 37 As discussed in some detail in Issue Paper 17, M-37 could impact an update of the Bull Mt. Community Plan, particularly the potential to down zone properties to reduce existing planned densities in the Bull Mt. area. The four indicators that staff examined in Issue Paper 17 to assess how owners of vacant land might respond to changes to down zone their property showed there may be a high likelihood that property owners would see the value of their property diminished. Consequently, citizen desires for lower density may conflict with some property owners' desires to maximize their property value. Due to M-37, there is no longer any certainty that all properties in the Bull Mt. area will develop at existing or future densities. For example, if densities are reduced through an update of the BMCP, current property owners could have the potential to file a M-37 claim to develop at the previous higher density in place when they owned the property. Consequently, there is no guarantee that if the existing planned density can be reassigned from the Bull Mt. area to the City of Tigard or the UGB expansion areas the "down zoned" properties will develop at the new, lower densities. As noted in Issue Paper 17, this scenario could lead to higher overall densities for the larger community through development on Bull Mt. at current densities and denser development in Tigard and/or the UGB areas through the transfer of density from Bull Mt. Alternatives to Update the Bull Mt. Community Plan Staff identified eight alternatives that could be used to update the BMCP based upon the current requirements and conditions described above. Alternatives 1 through 4 do not include the planning of the Bull Mt. UGB expansions areas. Alternatives 1 A through 4A include the 'planning of the UGB areas in conjunction with the same scope of work of the first four alternatives. Each alternative includes a generalized scope of work and describes how the following criteria are or are not addressed. • How key citizen concerns could be addressed • Consistency with County 2000 • Potential impacts from Measure 37 (M-37) • Generalized cost information • Cost effectiveness to address key citizen issues Staff ranked the eight planning alternatives using the criteria described above. Charts A and B show the ranking of the alternatives based upon cost, greatest potential to address citizen concerns, and greatest potential to amend the BMCP. The cost/benefit to update the BMCP and the cost/benefit to address citizen issues is shown in Chart C. The charts are provided at the end of the paper. DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18 Bull Mt. Community Plan Update June 28, 2005 Page 15 In order to understand some of the differences between some of the alternatives, the following background information is provided. 1. Key citizen issues: Staff ranked the key citizen planning issues that will be considered by each alternative. The issues are ranked from highest to lowest concern, with 5 as the most important and l as the least important. The ranking is: 5. Reduce the planned density of future development in unincorporated Bull Mt. 4. Density should not exceed the maximum permitted density of the R-6 District 3. The removal of trees and vegetation should not exceed the requirements of the BMCP 2. Make additional improvements to the area's transportation system, including Hwy. 99 1. New development is not in character with existing development 2. The roles of the county's Framework Plan, community plans and development standards The Framework Plan established the countywide policies and strategies that are the framework of the county's urban land use program. The policies and strategies apply to all of urban unincorporated Washington County. The Framework Plan lays out the tools that are used to implement the Framework Plan. The community plans carry out the Framework Plan's countywide policies and'strategies to specific geographic areas. The development standards in the CDC implement the Framework Plan, the Transportation Plan and certain community plan requirements. The standards and review procedures in the. CDC are also designed to apply on a countywide basis. Consequently, the most effective way to address citizen concerns through an update of the BMCP requires the capability to review and amend the underlying policies and strategies of the applicable comprehensive plan and the development standards and review procedures that implement that comprehensive plan. Because each of the eight alternatives address the underlying plan policies and implementing land use regulations in varying degrees, each alternative will describe how well they address this factor. Alternative 1 - County Updates BMCP Using Current Applicable County and City Requirements Scope of Work: Alternative 1 uses Tigard's existing comprehensive plan, including land use designations, and development regulations. This alternative is limited to only amending the community plan because Tigard's comprehensive plan and development standards apply. Alternative I would not address the city's development regulations because it would not be practical for the county to lead a planning process to consider amendments to the city's regulations, particularly since the city is going to update those regulations shortly. Key Citizen Issues: They would not be effectively addressed as described below. DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18 Bull Mt. Community Plan Update June 28, 2005 Page 16 1. Reduce the overall planned density of the BMCP: • The overall planned density of the area could not be reduced because there would be no other area to reassign the density to. As noted previously in this paper, Tigard's R-7 density requirements are less dense than the county's R-6 District. • Density could be reallocated within the area provided there was no overall loss of density. Properties that are currently zoned R-7 could be "down zoned" to one of Tigard's other less dense single family zoning districts (R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5). To offset the density decrease, the zoning of other vacant properties would have to be increased from R-7 to one of Tigard's three multi-family districts (R-12, 12 units per acre; R-25, 25 units per acre; R-40, 40 or more units per acre). 2. The density of new development should not exceed the maximum density of the R-6 District • This alternative would not change the applicability of Tigard's current land use districts to the BMCP. This concern could be addressed as described in the previous bulleted statement. 3. Standards for the removal of trees and vegetation • The county's existing regulations that are applicable to areas designated by the BMCP as a Significant Natural Resource would not be changed. The implementation of those requirements by either the city or the county should be the same. • Through the upcoming implementation of the countywide Goal 5 and Healthy Streams Program, uniform development requirements for water and riparian related resources will be developed and used by the county, and the cities. Consequently, there should be no difference between the city and county's standards for these resources. • The city's standards for the removal of trees and vegetation in areas that are not designated by the BMCP as a Significant Natural Resource would not be addressed because the county would not amend the city's development standards. 4. Development is not in character with existing surrounding development • This concern would be addressed iri a very limited manner because the county would not amend the city's land use regulations. 5. Improvements to the transportation system • This alternative would not consider amendments to the county's transportation plan and road standards. Therefore, future improvements to the collectors and the arterial in the area would be designed to be consistent with current requirements. County 2000: This alternative is not consistent with County 2000. Potential Measure 37 Impacts: This alternative would have the fewest potential M- 37 impacts because it would result in the least changes to existing land use designations and regulations. Expense ranking to update the community plan: 1st Least expensive alternative because it has the most limited scope of work. DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18 Bull Mt. Community Plan Update June 28, 2005 Page 17 Ranking of potential amendments to the community plan: 1st Alternative 1 makes the fewest changes to the BMCP. Ranking of potential to address citizen concerns: last Alternative 1 addresses the fewest citizen concerns. Cost effectiveness ranking to address citizen concerns: last It addresses the fewest citizen concerns. Alternative 2 - County Updates the BMCP by Limited Amendments to its Comprehensive Plan Scope of Work: The county would repeal Tigard's zoning districts, Comprehensive Plan and development standards. In their place, the county would apply its current land use designations (R-5, R-6, R-9, etc.) in a manner that would not reduce the overall planned density of the area and make the Framework Plan and the CDC applicable to the area again. Amendments to the Framework Plan and the CDC would be considered provided their scope is limited to the Bull Mt. area. Key Citizen Issues: There is limited potential to consider some of the key issues. 1.. Reduce the overall planned density of the BMCP • The overall planned density of the area could not be reduced because there would be no other area to transfer the density to. • Density could be reallocated within the area provided there was no overall loss of planned density as described under Alternative 1. 2. The density of new development should not exceed the maximum density of the R-6 District • This alternative could reinstitute the county's R-6 District. However, the county's R-6 District allows denser development than Tigard's R-7 District. The county's only existing single family district that is less dense than Tigard's R-7 District is the county's R-5 District. 3. Standards for the removal of trees and vegetation • The county's existing regulations that are applicable to areas designated by the BMCP as. a Significant Natural Resource would not change. The implementation of those requirements by either the city or the county should be the same. • Through the upcoming implementation of the countywide Goal 5 and Healthy Streams Program, uniform development requirements for water and riparian related resources will be developed and used by the county and the cities. Consequently, there should be no difference between the city and county's standards for these resources. • The city's standards for the removal of trees and vegetation in areas that are not designated by the BMCP as a Significant Natural Resource would be replaced by the county's standards. Changes to the county's standards would not,be considered through this alternative because they apply on a countywide basis. DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18 Bull Mt. Community Plan Update June 28, 2005 Page 18 4. Development is not in character with existing surrounding development • This concern could only be considered in a limited manner because the type of changes that could be made to the Framework Plan and the CDC would be limited to the Bull Mt. area. These documents, however, are designed to be applied countywide. Limited changes to these regulations would make it difficult to address neighborhood compatibility and design and architectural concerns. 5. Improvements to the transportation system • This alternative would not consider amendments to the county's transportation plan and road standards. Therefore, future improvements to the collectors and the arterial in the area would be designed to be consistent with current requirements. County 2000: • This alternative is not consistent with County 2000. Potential Measure 37Impacts: This alternative would have more potential M-37 impacts than Alternative 1 because it could also result in changes to the Framework Plan and the CDC. Expense ranking to update the communityplan: 3rd Ranking of potential amendments to the communityplan: 3rd Ranking of potential to address citizens' concerns: 2nd Ranking of cost effectiveness to address citizens' concerns: 2nd Alternative 3 - County Updates the BMCP Through an Update of its Comprehensive Plan Scope of Work: The county would repeal Tigard's comprehensive plan and development standards. In their place, the county could adopt county land use designations different from those in the BMCP and an amended Framework Plan and CDC. Consideration of amendments to other elements of the county's Comp Plan, such as the transportation element, could also occur under this alternative. Updating the BMCP under Alternative 3 would be a massive undertaking for the county because it would basically be an update of the county's Comp Plan for the urban area. The Framework Plan, the CDC, the other community plans, and other elements of the Comprehensive Plan that are applicable to urban unincorporated Washington County would all have to be addressed. An update of the Comp Plan would require the participation of all residents, property owners and businesses in the urban unincorporated areas and urban CPOs. This alternative would consider countywide issues and opinions and the changes to the Comprehensive Plan would be applicable countywide. Key Citizen Issues: There is the potential to consider some key issues. DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18 Bull Mt. Community Plan Update June 28, 2005 Page 19 1. Reduce the overall planned densityof the BMCP • The overall planed density of the area could not be reduced because there would be no other area to transfer the density to. • As with Alternatives 1 and 2, density could be reallocated within the area provided there was no overall loss of planned density in order to maintain compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule and Title 1. Again, any change in density that is less than the R-6 District's density would have to be reassigned to other vacant properties in the Bull Mt. area. 2. The density of new development should not exceed the maximum density of the R-6 District • Tigard's land use districts would be replaced by the county's land use districts in this alternative. However, as previously discussed, the density of Tigard's R-7 District is lower than the county's R-6 District. 3. Standards for the. removal of trees and vegetation • The county's existing regulations that are applicable to areas designated by the BMCP as a Significant Natural Resource would not change with the exception of water and riparian related resources. The standards for those resources will be developed through the countywide Goal 5 and Healthy Streams Program. • The city's standards for the removal of trees and vegetation in areas that are not designated by the BMCP as a Significant Natural Resource would be replaced by the county's standards. Changes to the county's existing standards could be considered provided they are applicable on a countywide basis. 4. Development is not in character with existing surrounding development: • Alternative 3 would allow neighborhood compatibility and design and architectural concerns to be considered. However, in order to address the type and level of compatibility and design and architectural considerations identified in the Tigard Planning White Paper, the county would have to change a fundamental underlying policy of its Comp Plan. This policy, which the Framework Plan, the community plans and the CDC are based upon is: The county will not address aesthetics and architectural design unless it is required to do so by state or regional requirements. Instead, the county will limit its regulations to basic zoning issues and rely upon the market to address aesthetics and architectural design. If this fundamental policy is not changed, many of the citizen's concerns about compatibility and design would not be addressed. For example, staff determined that the proposed CDC changes recommended by the CCI Code Report to address residential compatibility issues were not consistent with this fundamental policy". Consequently, these changes were not approved as part of the Planning Division's work program. See Issue Paper 8 DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18 Bull Mt. Community Plan Update June 28, 2005 Page 20 • A countywide update of the urban component of the county's Comp Plan may or may not result in changes that are consistent with the desires of Bull Mt. residents because the Comp Plan is applicable countywide. 5. Improvements to the transportation system • This alternative provides the potential to consider amendments to the county's transportation plan and the county's road standards. Therefore, it could be possible to consider the use of enhanced streetscapes and "green streets". • This alternative provides the potential to provide a venue to examine how to improve Hwy. 99. However, this study could not occur without ODOT leading the study. County 2000: This alternative is not consistent with County 2000. Potential Measure 37Impacts: This alternative would have far more potential M-37 impacts than Alternatives 1 and 2 because it could result in changes to the land use designations in the community plans, the Framework Plan and the CDC that would be applicable to all of urban unincorporated Washington County. Expense ranking to update the community plan: 7th It is the most expensive alternative. Ranking of potential amendments to the community plan: 4th Ranking ofpotential to address citizens' concerns: 4th Ranking of cost effectiveness to address citizens' concerns: 3rd Alternative 4 - Tigard Updates the BMCP in Conjunction with its Comprehensive Plan Update Scope of Work: Tigard would update the BMCP in conjunction with its upcoming update of its comprehensive plan. Tigard said its plan update will be a comprehensive update of its plan, including a review of its land use designations, development regulations, and procedures and public facility plan. The city will develop a public involvement program. for public outreach and participation with the help of community members. Washington County would provide limited assistance to the city since the county must adopt its own land use ordinances to implement the city's final plan for the unincorporated area. Key Citizen Issues: All key issues could be considered. • This alternative provides the opportunity to consider all citizen concerns because. 1) the community plan and the underlying plan policies and development regulations could be amended through the city's update process; 2) the potential to reassign planned density to the city of Tigard is provided; 3) Bull Mt. and Tigard residents share similar concerns about planning issues as described in the discussion about the city's White Paper on Planning, and 3) key concerns the Tigard Council identified to be addressed this year address some of the citizens' issues. They include making improvements to Hwy. 99 to make it work better and DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18 Bull Mt. Community Plan Update June 28, 2005 Page 21 look better, amending the city's development standards for planned developments, and acquiring park and open space land in the Bull Mt. area. 1. Reduce the overall planned density of the BMCP • Alternative 4 provides the opportunity to consider reassigning density from the Bull Mt. area into the city. • There is the opportunity to consider using one or more of Tigard's lower density residential districts in the area as discussed earlier in this paper. The density of Tigard's R-4.5, R-3, R-2 and R-1 are all lower than the county's R-5 District. One or more of these districts could be used to reduce density in Bull Mt. 2. The density of new development should not exceed the maximum density of the R-6 District • As noted previously, Tigard's single family residential districts are less dense than Washington County's R-6 District. 3. Standards for the removal of trees and vegetation • Through the upcoming implementation of the countywide Goal 5 and Healthy Streams Program, uniform development requirements for water and riparian related resources will be developed and used by the county and the cities. Consequently, there should be no. difference between the city and county's standards for these resources. • This alternative could examine the continued.use of the county's requirements for areas of unincorporated Bull Mt. that are designated as Wildlife Habitat. • Amendments to the city's standards for the removal of trees and vegetation in areas that are not designated by the BMCP as a Significant Natural Resource could be considered. 4. Development is not in character with existing surrounding development: Alternative 4 provides a much better opportunity than Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 to address this concern. Alternative 4 would allow neighborhood compatibility and design and architectural concerns to be considered because the underlying plan policies and development regulations could be changed. And as noted previously, concerns of city residents are similar to those of Bull Mt. area residents. For example, the city is currently examining proposed amendments to its standards for Planned Developments, which would address some of the issues identified in the White Paper on Planning. 5. Improvements to the transportation system • This alternative provides the potential to consider amendments to the county's transportation plan and the county's road standards. Therefore, it could be possible to consider the use of "green streets" designs or enhanced streetscapes. • This alternative provides the opportunity to examine how to improve Hwy. 99. A key goal of Tigard's Council is improving the highway from an operational and aesthetics point of view.12 The city can more effectively address these concerns because the adjacent properties are in the city. Consequently, the city has the opportunity to work with ODOT to study needed improvements, such as access management, enhanced streetscape standards and improvements to parking and buildings fronting the highway. 12 Cityscape Newsletter (March/April 2005 edition) DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18 Bull Mt. Community Plan Update June 28, 2005 Page 22 However, as noted in Alternative 2, issues related to improvements to the highway could not occur without ODOT leading the study. County 2000: This alternative is consistent with County 2000. Potential Measure 37 Impacts: Alternative 4 would have the potential for more M-37 impacts in the Bull Mt. area than the first three alternatives because Alternative 4 could allow the planned density of the area to be reduced. Alternative 4 would have the potential for fewer total M-37 impacts than Alternative 3 because Alternative 3 deals with a much smaller geographic area. Expense ranking to update the community plan: 5th Ranking of potential amendments to the communityplan: 7th Ranking of potential to address citizens'. concerns: 7th Ranking of cost effectiveness to address citizens' concerns: 7th. Alternatives 1 A 2A 3A and 4A - Update the BMCP in Conjunction with the Bull Mt. UGB Expansion Areas Scope of Work: Alternatives 1 A through 4A use the same scope of work as the first four alternatives but also include the planning of Areas 63 and 64. The following analysis describes how Alternatives 1 through 4, carried out in conjunction with planning Areas 63 and 64, address each factor. The combined alternatives, which are identified,as Alternatives IA, 2A, 3A, and 4A, correspond to the first four alternatives in the following manner: • Alternative I A = Alternative 1 + the planning of Areas 63 and 64. • Alternative 2A = Alternative 2 + the planning of Areas 63 and 64. • Alternative 3A = Alternative 3 + the planning of Areas 63 and 64. • Alternative 4A = Alternative 4 + the planning of Areas 63 and 64. Currently, the county has committed to plan the North Bethany UGB expansion area due to a unique set of circumstances applicable to that area. No decisions have been made yet about which local government will do the planning for the Bull Mt., Cooper Mt. and 209th Avenue UGB expansion areas. The county does not plan to update its Comprehensive Plan in order to do the planning for the North Bethany area. The county plans to use the existing Framework Plan and land use designations (R-5, R-6, etc.) to do that work. Therefore, Alternatives IA and 2A are based upon the county using the existing Framework Plan and its existing land use districts to do the planning for the Bull Mt. expansion areas. Alternatives 3A and 4A are also based upon the premise that the county or Tigard could use its existing land use districts or develop new or DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18 Bull ML Community Plan Update June 28, 2005 Page 23 modified land use districts through an update of their respective comprehensive plans as described in Alternatives 3 and 4. Key Citizen Issues 1. Reduce the overall planned density of the BMCP • Alternatives IA, 2A and 3A: updating the BMCP in conjunction with planning Areas 63 and 64 provides the opportunity to reallocate planned density from Bull Mt. to these areas. Using the county's R-5 District would provide limited potential to reduce the density because its density is slightly lower than the density of Tigard's R-7 District. Alternative 3A provides the opportunity to create a new county single family district with a lower density requirement through an update of the county's Comprehensive Plan. • Alternative 4A: This alternative provides the greatest opportunity to reduce the density in the Bull Mt. area because there would be two potential areas to assign density to. • Due to the topography and natural resources in Areas 63 and 64, the potential to accept . density from the Bull Mt. area may be limited. 2. The density of new development should not exceed the maximum density of the R-6 District • The use of the county or city's existing land use designations would not be different than , described under Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4. The R-5 District could result in slightly lower densities. Tigard's R4.5, R-3, R-2 and R-1 would result in densities lower than the county's R-5 and R-6 Districts. 3. Standards for the removal of trees and vegetation • There would be no change to the provisions for tree and vegetation removal described under Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4. 4. Development is not in character with existing surrounding development • All alternatives - updating the BMCP in conjunction with planning Areas 63 and 64 would not change how this factor would be addressed. 5. Improvements to the transportation system • All alternatives - updating the BMCP in conjunction with planning Areas 63 and 64 would not change how this factor would be addressed. County 2000: All alternatives: updating the BMCP in conjunction with planning Areas 63 and 64 would not change each alternative's consistency with County 2000. Potential Measure 37 Impacts: • Alternatives IA, 2A and 3A: the potential for M737 impacts is greater than Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 due to the potential to move density from the Bull Mt. area, which could result in the down zoning of vacant properties. • Alternative 4A: - the potential for M-37 impacts is greater than Alternative 4 due to the increased potential to move density from the Bull Mt. area, which could result in more vacant properties being down zoned. DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18 Bull Mt. Community Plan Update • June 28, 2005 Page 24 • Alternative 3A: Alternative 3A has the potential to have greatest M-37 impacts amongst all eight alternatives because it has the largest impact area. Expense: Alternatives 1 A, 2A, 3A, and 4A: Each alternative has the added expense of planning Areas 63 and 64 in comparison to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4, which do not include this planning. However, the added cost to plan Areas 63 and 64 would not be the same for Alternatives IA, 2A, 3A, and 4A due to their different scopes of work. • Alternatives IA, 2A and 3A would have the highest unit cost and the lowest cost effectiveness because Alternative 1 would not update the BMCP and Alternative 2 would only make limited amendments to it. Consequently, planning Areas 63 and 64 require the BMCP to be updated in order to consider reallocating Bull Mt. density. • Alternative 3A would be the most expensive because it implicates the planning of the North Bethany UGB expansion area. Alternative 5.4 has the least added cost because Alternative 4 would update the BMCP and consider moving density from Bull Mt. to the city. These factors also make this alternative the most cost effective The ranking of Alternatives I A, 2A and 3A are shown in the charts below. Chart A shows the ranking of the eight alternatives in order of cost from least expensive (1) to most expensive (8). Chart B shows the ranking of the alternatives for their potential to make the most amendments to the BMCP and address the most citizen concerns. The alternatives are ranked from highest (8) to lowest (1). The ranking of the alternatives' cost/benefit to update the BMCP and the cost benefit to address citizen issues are shown in Chart C. DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18 Bull Mt. Community Plan Update June 28, 2005 Chart A Page 25 Ranking of Planning Alternatives based on Cost 9--- 8 7 6 - - 5 Y 4 C co 3 2 - - 1 - - - - - 0 1 2 3 4 1A 2A 3A 4A Alternatives 0 Expense Chart B Ranking of Planning Alternatives based on the level of Potential Amendments to Update the Bull Mt. Community Plan (BMCP) and Address Citizen's Issues s ~ s - 6 5 - C 4 r 3 - - 2 0 1 2 3 4 to 2A 3A 4A Alternatives Address Citizen Issues Update the BMCP DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18 Bull Mt. Community Plan Update June 28, 2005 Page 26 Chart C Cost/Benefit to Update the Bull Mt. Community Plan (BMCP) and Address Citizen Issues s s - - s s - 4 - cc 3 - - 2 - - - - T 0 Tt I I I I --JL4 1 2 3 4 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Alternatives Cost/Benefit to Address Citizen Issues Cost/Benefit to Update the BMCP SAPing\WPSHARE\2005ord\Work ProgramUssue Papers\Bull Mt Papers\(P18\IP 18 update com plan final draft 6-28-05.doc F WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON June 28, 2005 DRAFT PLANNING DIVISION ISSUE PAPER NO. 21 Planning Bull Mt. UGB Expansion Areas 63 and 64 : Issue Through the Planning Division's 2005 work program, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) directed staff to prepare seven issue papers about planning and park issues in the urban unincorporated Bull Mt. area. Issue Paper 21 discusses issues associated with planning the expansion of the urban growth boundary (UGB) in the Bull Mt. area, commonly referred to as Areas 63 and 64. Recommendation Based upon the analyses in this Issue Paper and Issue Papers 15, 16, 17 and 18, staff recommends that the City of Tigard do the planning of Areas 63-and 64. Washington County would participate in the transportation planning to assess impacts to existing county facilities. Background At the Board's request, the Planning Division has prepared seven issue papers. that, address planning and park issues associated with the urban unincorporated Bull Mt. area. Five issue papers address density, parks, updating the Bull Mt. Community Plan, and amendments to the Washington County / Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement. The seventh issue paper (IP 14) addresses CPO 413's request for a public facility strategy I development moratorium for the Bull Mt. area. In December 2004, the Board and the Tigard City Council (Council) held a joint meeting to discuss a number of issues about the Bull Mt. area that had been raised by area residents. The Board and the Council expressed a desire to work together to develop a planning program that could address residents' concerns, primarily through the upcoming planning efforts of the city. The Council indicated the city would soon begin the following planning activities: 1) update the comprehensive plan for its downtown area [underway], 2) update its park master plan, and 3) update its comprehensive plan. At that time the Council also said it may be interested in examining if Bull Mt. density could be transferred to the city through its comprehensive plan update. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Board directed the county Planning Division to prepare, in consultation with Tigard, issue papers on park planning (Issue Papers 15 and 16), the potential to decrease density in the Bull Mt. area (Issue Paper 17), updating the Bull Mt. Community Plan (Issue Paper 18) and planning the Bull Mt. UGB expansion areas (Issue Paper 21). The Board also asked staff to include an assessment about how to address these issues in conjunction with Department of Land Use & Transportation • Planning Division 155 N First Avenue, Suite 350-14, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 Phone: (503) 846-3519 • Fait: (503) 846-4412 • www.co.washington.or.us DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 21 Planning Areas 63 and 64 June 28, 2005 Page 2 Tigard's update of its comprehensive plan and park master plan, and planning UGB expansion Areas 63 and 64. Jim Hendryx, Tigard's Community Development Director, said the Council is interested in doing the comprehensive planning for Areas 63 and 64 as well as updating the Bull Mt. Community Plan. This work would include an examination of transferring density from Bull Mt. to the city and Areas 63 and 64. If the city does this work, it would be done in conjunction with the city's upcoming update of its comprehensive plan. Analysis In 2002, Metro made a major expansion to the UGB. In the Bull Mt. area, Areas 63 and 64 were added to the UGB. Together, they total 483 acres. In response to requirements of Title 11 in Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (Functional Plan), Washington County designated these areas as FD-20 in 2004 by Ordinance 515 (map attached). The FD-20 District' provides interim protection to the UGB expansion areas from new development that could interfere with future urban uses. The FD-20 designation will be maintained until the required planning of the UGB expansion areas has been completed and adopted. Ordinance 615 added Areas 63 and 64 to the Bull Mt. Community Plan, with the exception of the area north of Scholls Ferry Road. That area was added to the Aloha-Reedville-Cooper Mt. Community Plan. The Bull Mt. Community Plan identifies these areas as the Western Slopes Subarea. Metro Planning Requirements Title 11 of the Functional Plan requires the local comprehensive plan provisions for UGB expansion areas to include at a minimum "an urban growth plan diagram and policies that demonstrate compliance with the RUGGO2, including the Metro Council adopted 2040 Growth Concept design types." This plan is commonly referred to as a "concept plan." Development of the UGB expansion areas to urban uses cannot occur until this planning is completed. Currently, no planning analysis of Areas 63 and 64 has been done. Specific minimum requirements that all concept plans must address are: • provision for annexation to appropriate service provider districts for required urban services • average residential densities of at least ten units per net acre (or as appropriate for assigned 2040 Growth Concept design type) • a diversity of housing stock, including affordable housing • sufficient commercial and industrial development for the area's needs • a conceptual transportation plan that addresses future transportation needs • a conceptual public facilities and services plan for sewer, water, storm drainage, transportation, parks, and police and fire protection • a conceptual school plan that provides for the amount of land improvement needed for school facilities to serve the expansion area • programs for the protection of water quality, natural hazard and natural resource areas; Future Development 20 Acres 2 Metro's Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 21 Planning Areas 63 and 64 June 28, 2005 Page 3 • concept maps addressing all of the above and showing general locations for mixed use and commercial areas The minimum requirements that a concept plan must include are: • general locations for single and multi-family housing, mixed use areas, and commercial and industrial lands • general locations for public open space, plazas and neighborhood centers • general locations or alternative locations for needed school, park or fire station sites • general locations of arterial, collector and essential local streets and street connections • general locations of public facilities such as sewer and water to demonstrate the area can be served • locations of steep slopes and other constrained lands such as wetland, flood plain and riparian areas The key provision of the Metropolitan Housing Rule3 that is applicable to the UGB expansion areas is providing the opportunity for at least 50% of new residential dwellings to be attached single family (town house) or multi-family housing (apartments). Compliance with the Functional Plan's density standards of an average density of 10 dwelling units per acre will satisfy the Metro Housing Rule's density requirement for urban unincorporated Washington County of eight dwellings per net acre. County 2000 County 2000 is Washington County's strategic plan which guides how the county provides services. County 2000 changed the focus of county service provision. It calls for the county to provide countywide services (e.g., health, aging and veteran services; maintain and operate a countywide road system) and move away from municipal types services (e.g., maintaining the local street system, neighborhood level planning). Fundamental changes were made to the county's long range planning program through County 2000. Rather than performing neighborhood level planning services, the county now focuses on participating in countywide, regional and state planning activities rather than updating its community plans. Consequently, the county's long term policy for the urban unincorporated areas calls for these areas to be eventually served by a city. Consistent with County 2000, the county desires the planning of the UGB expansion areas to be done by cities. Currently, the county has only committed to plan one expansion area, North Bethany, due to its unique circumstances. No decisions have been made yet about which local . government will do the planning for the Bull Mt., Cooper Mt. and 209th Avenue UGB expansion areas. However, when the UGB was expanded, it was anticipated by Washington County that Tigard would do the planning of Areas 63 and 64. All of the other expansion areas in Washington County are being planned by cities. 3 Oregon Administrative Rule 660-007 DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 21 Planning Areas 63 and 64 June 28, 2005 Page 4 Alternatives to Plan Areas 63 and 64 At a minimum, Title 11 requires the adoption of a concept plan for Areas 63 and 64. A concept plan may be a generalized plan indicating the type and general location of land uses and infrastructure or it may be a more specific plan similar to the county's community plans. A concept plan could also be as detailed as the plans adopted for the Light Rail Station Area communities and Tigard's Washington Square Regional Center Plan. The following discussion provides a generalized description of two alternative approaches to planning Areas 63 and 64. Each alternative assumes the county and city's transportation plans will be updated as part of the planning of Areas 63 and 64. Impacts to Hwy. 99 would also be considered by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Alternative 1 - Prepare a new Community Plan Alternative 1 would create a plan that is similar in detail to the county's current community plans. It would include: • specific land use designations for all properties • the location of Significant Natural Resources and other constrained areas • general and specific design elements which address generalized and specific planning issues • the general location of the transportation system (e.g., new arterials or collectors) • an analysis of impacts to the transportation system from development of Areas 63 and 64 Planning Areas 63 and 64 would be based upon the provisions of Washington County's: • Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area (Framework Plan), including the county's existing land use designations • 2020 Transportation Plan • The development standards and procedures of the county's Community Development Code (CDC). Alternative 2 - Prepare a more detailed Communi Plan This alternative would create a plan that is similar in detail to the county's plans for Light Rail Station Area communities and Tigard's Washington Square Regional Center Plan. In addition to including the elements of Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would include more detailed planning to address specific development issues and design concerns, such as the design of a Main Street. Work Tasks Staff believes the following tasks should be part of any alternative to plan Areas 63 and 64: 1. Develop and implement a public involvement program. Property owners, nearby residents and Citizen Participation Organizations (CPOs) and city planning organizations should be asked to participate. 2. Coordinate the planning with the countywide Agricultural Economy / Urban Reserve Area Study. This study, which will determine the need for long-term protection of certain specific agricultural lands and the identification of land to accommodate future urban growth, will identify potential future urban reserve areas in this part of the county. This information will DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 21 Planning Areas 63 and 64 June 28, 2005 Page 5 help shape the future development of Areas 63 and 64 and the potential location and size of public facilities to serve the area. 3. Coordination with service providers, school districts, ODOT, along with other nearby local governments that will not serve the area directly, such as King City, Tualatin and Sherwood. 4. Develop a park and recreation master plan for the area that also considers the needs of the existing urban areas of Bull Mt. A funding plan, Capital Improvement Plan, and a program to maintain and operate parks should also be developed. Comparison of Planning by Washington County and Tigard Planning Programs Using each jurisdiction's existing comprehensive plans, including land use districts and development standards, and upcoming planning initiatives, staff has prepared the following generalized description of key planning parameters and how the county and city would likely address the concerns of Bull Mt. residents that were identified in Issue Papers 17 and 18. Washington County 1. Washington County would plan Areas 63 and 64 using the policies and strategies of its existing Framework Plan, including its existing land use districts, and the county's Transportation Plan, and the existing development standards and review procedures in the county's Community Development Code (CDC). 2. The county may or may not consider assigning density from existing Bull Mt. to Areas 63 and 64. This task would require the county to update the Bull Mt. Community Plan. As discussed in Issue Papers 17 and 18, the county no longer performs updates to its community plans due to the requirements of County 2000. However, as noted in Issue Papers 17 and 18, using the county's R-6 District will not lower existing densities in the Bull Mt. area because it is denser than Tigard's R-7 District. Using the county's R-5 District, the county's lowest density residential district, could have the potential to slightly decrease the density of the area. In order to effectively lower densities, a new, less dense single family district would have to be created, which would be inconsistent with the Framework Plan. Also, the creation of new land use districts and developments does not fit the general planning parameters described in No. 1 above. 3. The county would not be able to address other key citizen concerns about neighborhood compatibility, architectural and streetscape design. As described in Issue Paper 18, the existing policies in the Framework Plan and the existing CDC standards do not address these issues in the manner suggested by Bull Mt. residents. citizen concerns about neighborhood compatibility, architectural and streetscape design.4 a 4. The county would continue to apply its existing regulations for Significant Natural Resources to existing Bull Mt. and Areas 63 and 64. 4 Also see Issue Paper 8. DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 21 Planning Areas 63 and 64 June 28, 2005 Page 6 5. Washington County would have to develop a program to fund, construct, maintain and operate parks since the county is not a parks provider. Currently, the county does not have a dedicated funding source to develop or maintain parks. 6. Tigard and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) would participate in the transportation planning to assess impacts to their existing facilities. 7. Timing of planning - due to a number of large multi-year planning programs the county has underway, the earliest the county could begin to plan Areas 63 and 64 is 2007. The county planning programs currently underway include: • the countywide Goal 5 and Healthy Streams Program, to be completed in 2006 • the countywide Agricultural Economy / Urban Reserve Area Study, which will begin later in 2005 • planning the North Bethany UGB Expansion area, which will begin later in 2005 • developing a Funding Plan for the county's new transportation plan . • continued preparation of urban service agreements for areas outside of the Tigard and Hillsboro Urban Service Areas City of Tigard 1. Tigard would plan Areas 63 and 64 in conjunction with the update of its comprehensive plan in 2006. The city has offered to carry out a comprehensive, integrated community wide planning program to plan all of Bull Mt. The city would update the Bull Mt. Community Plan and develop the plan for Areas 63 and 64 in conjunction with the update of its comprehensive plan. Since 1986, about one third (589 acres) of the community plan north of Beef Bend Road has have annexed to the City of Tigard. The city's proposed comprehensive update to all of Bull Mt., incorporated and unincorporated urban areas and Areas 63 and 64, would allow the entire Bull Mt. community to be examined. 2. Tigard said it would examine the assignment of density from existing Bull Mt. to Areas 63 and 64 if it plans those areas. The density requirements of the city's existing single family residential land use districts, the R-7, R-4.5, R-3, R-2 and R-I Districts, are lower than the county's R-6 District. The density requirements of the city's R-4.5, R-3, R-2 and R-1 Districts are also lower than the county's R-5 Districts. Using the city's lower residential districts in the existing Bull Mt. area provides greater opportunity to transfer density from Bull Mt. to Areas 63 and 64 than is permissible under county requirements. 3. Tigard's update to its comprehensive plan and land use regulations provide the city the opportunity to .develop new land use districts, policies and development standards to plan Areas 63 and 64 and address issues in existing Bull Mt. Consequently, there is the opportunity address other key citizen concerns about neighborhood compatibility, ° architectural and streetscape design. 4. Through its comprehensive plan update, the city could continue to apply the county's current standards for Significant Natural Resources to Areas 63 and 64 and existing Bull Mt. DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 21 Planning Areas 63 and 64 June 28, 2005 Page 7 5. The city will update its Park Master Plan and Capital Improvement Plan in 2006. The city could readily address Areas 63 and 64 through this update. It could also readily update its park system development charge to address these areas. When Tigard updated its park SDC methodology report and SDC rates in late 2004, it identified the need for a large community park in Areas 63 and 64, which would also serve existing Bull Mt. 6. The city could begin to plan Areas 63 and 64 and update the community plan in early 2006 when it begins to update its comprehensive plan. 7. Washington County and ODOT would participate in the transportation planning to assess impacts to their existing facilities. Measure 37 Measure 37 (M-37) was approved by Oregon voters in November 2004. M-37 requires compensation for land use regulations that reduce the value of property when the land use regulation was adopted after the current property owner or family member acquired the property. In lieu of compensation, the governmental agency that adopted the regulation may waive the regulation and permit development under the prior land use requirement. The effect of M-37 on properties recently added to the UGB will generally be different than the measure's effect on existing urban properties. The existing land use designations for properties added to the UGB are rural and do not allow development of urban uses. Consequently, the adoption of a comprehensive plan for these areas will increase the value of the properties because it will allow increased development. However, there may be particular conditions or circumstances that could implicate M-37. In order to reduce potential future M-37 claims, property owners in Areas 63 and 64 should be involved very early in any planning process. Summary and Conclusion If Washington County is designated to plan Areas 63 and 64, the county would use its existing Framework Plan, land use districts and development standards. The county's existing land use districts will not provide much opportunity to transfer density from existing Bull Mt. to Areas 63 and 64 because of their density requirements. The county's policies and development standards will not address residents concerns about with neighborhood compatibility and architectural design to the extent desired by residents in the Bull Mt. area. Tigard's proposal to plan all of the Bull Mt. area in conjunction with the update of the city's comprehensive plan provides the opportunity to transfer much more density from existing Bull Mt. to Areas 63 and 64 because its single family residential districts are less dense than the county's R-5 and R-6 Districts. An update of the city's comprehensive plan also provides the opportunity to address residents concerns about neighborhood compatibility and architectural design to the extent desired by residents in the Bull Mt. area through the creation of new or modification to existing policies and development standards. DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 21 Planning Areas 63 and 64 June 28, 2005 Page 8 If Tigard plans Areas 63 and 64, work could begin in early 2006 whereas the earliest the county could begin the work is in 2007. Planning for and providing parks in the Bull Mt. area can be accomplished more readily by Tigard because it is a park provider and the elements of its park program already address the Bull Mt. area. On the other hand, Washington County is not a parks provider and it has no funding or programs in place to provide these services. The creation of a county park program to address the Bull Mt. area would not be consistent with County 2000. Finally, assigning planning responsibility for Areas 63 and 64 to Tigard would be consistent with County 2000. The county's role would be to participate in the transportation planning and implement the final plan developed through the city, tasks that are consistent with County 2000. wpshare\2005ord\work program\issuc papers\6ull MAIP 21 Planning Areas 63 and 64 final draft 6-28-05 4 ~ tou L i~ rr T4 t s' i 3 m B IMIF LLLU 0 a s v 4 if rasa o q J 8 _ d I " SW A 700 0 700 0 Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Expansion Areas b. UGB Expansion Areas 63 & 64 q •°id . r ® PY~y t t0 Enrt75Pf1 NIaOOru OR YIfN ~Y DW GISM Bull ML Comm ity Plan Boundary C t S WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON June 28, 2005 DRAFT PLANNING DIVISION ISSUE PAPER NO. 22 Amendments to the Washington County ! Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement Issue On March 15, 2005, the Washington County Board of Commissioners (Board) directed staff to prepare an issue paper to address the City of Tigard's request to amend the Washington County.. / . Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA). The proposed amendments would allow the City of Tigard to develop the comprehensive plan for the Bull Mt. UGB expansion areas and update the Bull Mt. and Metzger Community Plans. Recommendation Authorize staff to file an ordinance to amend the County / Tigard UPAA to assign responsibility to the City of Tigard for comprehensive planning in urban unincorporated Bull Mt. and UGB expansion Areas 63 and 64. The transfer of responsibilities would be executed through an intergovernmental agreement between Washington County and the City of Tigard. Background As noted in the attached March 14, 2005 letter from Jim Hendryx, the Tigard City Council (Council) said it is interested in doing the planning of Areas 63 and 64 and updating the Bull Mt. and Metzger Community Plans. The Council indicated the city could do this work in conjunction with the city's upcoming comprehensive plan update. This paper addresses changes to the UPAA related to updating the Bull Mt. Community Plan and planning Areas 63 and 64. It does not consider amendments related to updating the Metzger Community Plan. Staff believes an update of the Metzger Plan should not be considered at this time. Please see Issue Paper 18 for information about how the Bull Mt. Community Plan could be updated. Issue Paper 21 examines the planning of Areas 63 and 64. Analysis The County / Tigard UPPA defines the areas of the Tigard Urban Service Area for which the county and Tigard are responsible for providing development review and comprehensive planning services. As part of its new 1983 Comprehensive Plan, the county and each city were required to enter into an urban planning area agreement. The UPAAs define the urban areas each city has an interest in planning. Department of Land Use & Transportation • Planning Division 155 N First Avenue, Suite 350-14, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 Phone: (503) 846-3519 • Fax: (503) 846-4412 • www.co.washington.or.us DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO.22 County/ Tigard UPAA June 28, 2005 Page 2 The County / Tigard UPAA defines the responsibilities of the county and City of Tigard, including the geographic areas they are responsible for. The current UPAA boundary does not include Areas 63 and 64. Maps of the current UPAA boundary and Areas 63 and 64 are attached. The UPAA defines two planning areas, Tigard's Active Planning Area and Tigard's Area of Interest (map attached). The UPAA defines the city's Active Planning Area as the incorporated and unincorporated areas where the city has responsibility for comprehensive planning and desires to regulate development to the greatest extent possible. The UPAA defines Tigard's Area of Interest as the unincorporated areas where the city does not have comprehensive planning responsibilities but maintains an interest in planning and development. Currently, most of Tigard's Active Planning Area is in the city due to annexations over the past two decades. On May 12, 1997, the county assigned to Tigard the responsibility for land development, building and code enforcement services in the urban unincorporated Bull Mt. area. The county maintained responsibility for comprehensive land use and transportation planning in this area. The UPAA currently assigns the following responsibilities to the county and city: City of Tigard is responsible for: • Development review: in the Active Planning Area and in the urban unincorporated areas of Bull Mt. located in Tigard's Area of Interest. • Comprehensive land use and transportation planning: in the Active Planning Area. Washington Coun is responsible for. • Development review: the Metzger area, which is located in Tigard's Area of Interest. • Comprehensive land use and transportation planning. In the Area of Interest, the Metzger and Bull Mt. areas The analysis and recommendations about park and planning issues in Issue Papers, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 21, all indicate that Tigard is best suited to do the planning to update the Bull Mt. Community Plan and plan Areas 63 and 64. Consequently, staff recommends that the UPAA be amended to assign comprehensive planning responsibility to Tigard for the Bull Mt. area and Areas 63 and 64. Washington County would participate in the transportation planning to assess impacts to existing county facilities. The county would also retain comprehensive planning responsibility for the Metzger area. Staff believes the UPAA should be amended this year so that Tigard can plan Areas 63 and 64 and update the community plan in conjunction with the update of the city's comprehensive plan, which will begin in early 2006. The transfer of responsibilities would be executed through an intergovernmental agreement between Washington County and the City of Tigard. Through Metro's process to expand the UGB in 2002, the county anticipated that cities would do the planning of the UGB expansion areas in Washington County. For Areas 63 and 64, the county anticipated that Tigard would plan these areas. As discussed in Issue Papers 17 and 18, the county desires the cities to plan the expansion areas because County 2000 limits the type of neighborhood level planning services the county provides. Currently, the county has only committed to do the planning of the North Bethany expansion area due to its unique circumstances. DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO.22 County / Tigard UPAA June 28, 2005 Page 3 By law, the Board is the final "decision maker" for changes to the county's Comprehensive Plan, including the community plans. However, the county can assign to Tigard the responsibility to do the planning of the UGB expansion areas and update the Bull Mt. Community Plan. The Board would then adopt a land use ordinance to implement the provisions applicable to unincorporated Washington County. This process was used to develop the Washington Square Regional Center Plan where Tigard was the lead planning agency. (The regional center plan is made up of properties in the cities of Tigard and Beaverton and unincorporated Metzger.) This process was also used to develop some of the Light Rail Station Area plans and do the planning for past UGB expansions. In each instance, a city was the lead planning agency. Assigning comprehensive planning responsibility to Tigard for the Areas 63 and 64 and the Bull Mt. area would be consistent with the planning model described in the previous paragraph. It would also be consistent with County 2000. Tigard would be the lead planning agency and thus be the municipal service provider as contemplated by County 2000. The county would participate in a limited manner in order to carry out its role as the final decision maker for unincorporated properties, a role that is consistent with County 2000. wpshare\2005ord\work program\issue papers\Bull Mt\[P 22\11' 22 Tigard UPAA final draft 6-2"5.doc DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO.22 County / Tigard UPAA June 28, 2005 Page 4 RECEIVED MAR 14 100 March 14, 2005. PLANNING DIVISION Land Use & Transportation G-OPFINGM Charles D. Camerok. County Administrator Washington Courty Public Services Builduig 155 N. First A•vemie . Ilillsboro, OR 07124 RE: 2005 Dr aft Planning Division and Laad Use Ordiumee and Work Program Dear Mr. Cannaron: The Tigard Council has established three goals for 2005..- One of these is. updating the City Commove Plan. In recognition of this, the City of Tigard has reviewed the 2005 Draft Planting Division and Lard Use Or&nance and Work Program and wishes . to submit the following comments. We recommend the addition of as a high pnority task, wodc on amending the Tgw&Couoty Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA~ This issue is highly important to the City; because it relates to'CoimcWs goal to update the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. Defining the scope or geographical reach of this effort is the necessary first step in the planning process. In addition to the incorporated City, the areas that potentially could be included in the comprehensive plan work scope are: the Bull Mountain unincorporated area, Urban Growth Boundary Areas 63 and 64, and tmincorpouat Metzger. Together, the incorporated City and these four distinct areas make up a plausible planning area. Under the WashbWon County-Tigard Urban Pl mu#ng Area Agreement, "the County shall be responsible for campretepsive planning within the Area of Interest.". Although. Tigard is recognized as the "ultimate governance provider„ to all the territory m. the Urban Services Area and, under the 1997 Urban Services IGA, eturently manages development within unincorporated." Mountain, Washington County continues to . have jurisdiction over comprehensive plaiming within all the uniaoorporitod areas. As lands outside the site-specific Alta of lawrest, the XJGB Areas are not subject to the UPAA agreement In. addition, Metro Ordinance No. 02-969B, Urban Growth Bowulary, states that "Washington. County or, upon annexation of the am... . the city shall complete Thiel I planting r for expansion areas 63 and 64. Until the area is annexed or the UPAA is amended, the County is responsible for the planning. Tigard intends to undertake an update of its twenty-two year-old comprehensive plan. Council has considered this issue in a series of meetings and has iced an interest in including its entire area of interest, including the UGB areas, in a broader comprehensive plan wotic effort Cotmeil's view is that in order to plan for a complete community, the comprehensive planning work scope should include all the eventual annexation areas. 13125 SW Haa Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 6842772 ISSUE PAPER-N0•22 DRAfT County 1 Tigard UPS Lune 28, 2005 page 5 for tbo broad" ~un- to m clew that its iiatmn wuuld dl3' boa AC PO& PV9T8&-.e *me: areas itsr incl Ca!mca counl~ P10 httie oP c ty for cos recovery wo~kplsn old VVY.Out two - w~ copy every ft,teview chi' ' tly, addu►8 tyye'CountY ~ ~ join ectr~ of *0 *is sisd&AA provsiM y i y mod, to " yews Cz~ or makc amY necessary oa a aumbM of issue of U*cAb Bull Iii Process forth nti?au~ to ` set have beep ~ co g j oAj_y~ g~italiaz~~~ gafi&vm , . 2to faR ~Tlpp° TiSa to to IU M. OW . on cooct y bm this same spy f UpAA d *z Acea. of 1nt FcS ~oQ~aaton ~ sq long p IN AA in wank Plan recPwSt your of*c ;ung the'Co is i mw- caw U;; owl Pow rcv>ew . r~jzwd timely maw of womo ul ~ *c ca and peniioa to *c ibc a Tbx0ti you for YOU fo, The Targasd plau>u~ tom' - - : ivo Sincerely. ernes p H opwat Ui for .Comm L w ~y L Q i~a~ Ll~LL ' Y L a a • is - PF p t s . L Ti rd L 1 9 a ; t Z ~ 5 _ t ° r La ! sw ouwwa Durham t N A 2000 0 2000 4000 Feet Tigard Urban Planning Area;..;, boE~In°~w ar Adrve M mmg Area 9' bp1 ~ =S'1~ 7 yy~ 97a CO .M~y ) Fn"[1 N Area of ~e1Wl p OM 111P06 L ; S regard UPAA Boundary 1 - ! a ~ x a s ,I ' I s 3 s ` Q f i c II in i a J a i SW A M 0 1, 00 AM t-k Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Expansion Areas UGB 6cpansion Areas 63 & 64 ~w 2R 9 24 ~O G [ S Q Bull ML Community Plan Boundary AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF September 20, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE DISCUSSION F GRAPHIC IDENTITY/BRANDING DESIGN CONCEPTS PREPARED BY: Elizabeth A. Newton6o LEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Council review of branding/graphic identity design concepts. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Review design concepts and provide direction for development of a final design. INFORMATION SUMMARY City Council has contracted with Marcusen Design to assist in the development of a new graphic identity for the City. Initial discussions on some concepts were held on July 12 and July 19 (minutes attached). Based on those discussions Mr. Marcusen will present three to four designs for Council review and feedback on September 20. A final design will then be developed. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST 1. July 12, 2005 Council Meeting Minutes 2. July 19, 2005 Council Meeting Minutes FISCAL NOTES The contract with Marcusen Design is not to exceed $10,500. iAadm\city council\council agenda item summaries\2005\ais for branding concept review 050920.doc9/9/05 havl~ one or two meetings. There will be public notices for thes mee ' Cments may also be forwarded directly "to Inter Finan ftirectocomrlmdieke. b. Council mbers supported the formation of this Task Forc in order to look at t overall financial situation of the City and to olicit ideas from the publi Councilor Woodruff suggested an articl a placed in the September ityscape to inform the City residents out the Task Force and solicit c mments. Mayor Dirksen noted t t the course the city is o is not sustainable - the City will have to do omething different a d what's to be done must be based on what cite ns suggest. C. Motion by Councilor Woodru , econde by Councilor Harding. to adopt Resolution No. 0545. A member of the audience - Roge P hoff, 11710 SW Ann Street, Tigard, OR asked if the proposed esolu n provides for staff time to assist the Task Force. Interim . Manag Prosser responded that the Finance staff will be invo ed. In additi , it's possible that a student intern could assist, ouncilor Wilson a ed he would hope the Task Force is provid d with adequate rese rch resources - technical and legal. RESOLUTION NO. -48 - A RESOLUTION TO EST LISH THE FINANCIAL STRA GY TASK FORCE AND APPOINT EMBERS TO THE TASK F CE The motion s approved by a unanimous vote of Council pres t: I Mayor Di sen: Yes Counci r Harding: Yes i Cou ilor Sherwood: Yes Co cilor Wilson: Yes ! Co ncilor Woodruff Yes 8. DISCUSSION OF BRANDING/GRAPHIC IDENTITY a. Assistant to the City Manager Newton introduced this agenda item. b. Consultant Marcusen and City Council reviewed an audit of existing print materials and the signage and identities of other cities. A PowerPoint presentation was utilized during the discussion; a copy is on file in the City Recorder's office. The presentation illustrated logos COUNCIL MINUTES -JULY 12, 2005 page 9 I r and seals used by other cities. During the review Mr. Marcusen pointed out some of the common elements of the designs. In response to Councilor Woodruff, who noted that the Council was looking for something more significant than a logo, Mr. Marcusen agreed that branding is more of an identity or an embodiment of a City's personality. He referred to building equity in the City's symbol. Following are some of the comments during the discussion as City f Council and Mr. Marcusen worked through ideas: ■ Traditional seals - many of those cities are older (150 years) whereas Tigard was incorporated in 1961. ■ Intrigued by the skill of developers for their creative names and logos, which create an image and a sense of place. Don't try to put too much, however, into the logo. Convey an image. The image could be "aspirational." ■ The logo could represent a concept or a symbol. People bring meaning to it with the rationale behind it. ■ Simplicity is being assaulted; looking for "fresh air." Many of the symbols in the logos are fairly fussy. ' ■ Assess what is germane to Tigard: "This is what Tigard is for us." ■ Don't make a past that wasn't there; or, a history can i sometime be created and this can be effective. ■ Clean type faces. ■ Keep logo simple; develop a more detailed watermark. ■ Reviewed the brainstorming ideas developed by the Vision Task Force. ■ Ideas: appreciation of nature, motion (transit, commerce), energetic lifestyle, family friendly, Fanno Creek (plans to focus on this more in the future), destination, a place to rest, home, sense of community. Again, a place to call home, as opposed to a geographic place. ■ Mr. Marcusen noted the above ideas are good inspirations for design (community, family friendly), but suggested the conveyance might lead to complexity. Mayor Dirksen suggested use of a tag line; i.e., family friendly, or a place to guideline. The statement could also be used as a guideline for decision making. ■ Remember inclusiveness when defining "family." ■ Maintain an open mind as this collaboration moves forward to develop symbols. Sometimes photographic images can support and reinforce an identity. ■ Discussed how to say family friendly without literally saying. For example, the logo for Spain looks as if a child drew it - "approachable." COUNCIL MINUTES -JULY 12, 2005 page 10 i } ■ There are all types of family structures, but Tigard is home. "Home images" - developers are good at doing this. ■ Trails ...this is the way home. ■ Mr. Marcusen advised that at the next meeting he will bring in more symbols for the City Council to view including some international design examples. He noted many are multi- colored, which would be expensive to reproduce. ■ Urban village - architecture in a stylized form. ■ Downtown efforts: preserve and recapture style of older brick buildings, 1890's to 1920's. There has been no discussion yet on design standards for Downtown. ■ Ties with the school system, a sense of community, Family Day, a strong sense of family, community values. ■ A differentiator for Tigard might be creeks. Values might be difficult to transfer to a symbol, but could use a tag line or develop a motto. • Tigard's current logo is the.only one that is triangular. ■ Many things cumulatively support the vision of the City - the symbol sets the tone. Mr. Marcusen will review the ideas discussed tonight. The Council will continue its review on this matter at its July 19, 2005, workshop meeting. 9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. to evaluate the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer under ORS 192.660(2)(i). i j 12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:10 p.m. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorde Attest: i Mayor C'ty of Tigard Date:` .1-cot- a~5 1Asft1L41bY%cc 12005N507 aoc COUNCIL MINUTES -JULY 12, 2005 page 11 > n unrelated matter, Planning Commission President Padgett sugge d the co ssion stand at Cook Park be used by organizations raising when it is t being used by the Little Lea was noted that the equipment in th and is owne eague. Mayor Dirksen said Mr. Padgett's suggestion a possible with proper coordination. Meeting re ed at 9:12 p.m. Me g reconvened at 9:19 p.m. 5. DISCUSSION OF BRANDING/GRAPHIC IDENTITY Assistant to the City Manager Newton introduced this agenda item. Consultant Marcusen and the City Council discussed identity themes that could be translated into a graphic identity. The City Council reviewed some initial concepts proposed by Mr. Marcusen and further refined preferences. Below are highlights of the discussion: a 9 Themes - continue to pursue family friendly; tributaries, trees and trails; and place to call home. Do not pursue sense of community or urban village. 21 'Continue to explore a tag line, such as "A Place to Call Home." The tag line won't necessarily be used in all instances and the tag line might not be used as part of the logo. O Council members selected several logo conceptual drawings they would like to see developed further. 0 Council agreed it would be all right for Mr. Marcusen to present concepts he might think of as he continues to work develop ideas generated from this discussion. O The best forms are often very simple. 9 Type faces were discussed; Council members agreed they preferred a serif type face. Mr. Marcusen will explore using upper case and title case. 91' Once a decision has been made on the logo, guidelines should be developed with regard to its use. For example, how can the logo be altered (colors, font, etc.) Mr. Marcusen will return with sketches for City Council review on September 20, 2005. 6. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None i 7. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None: i COUNCIL MINUTES-JULY 19, 2005 page 6 1