The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 01/26/2010 N TIGARD City of Tigard TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING January 26, 2010 COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED I: \Ofs \Donna \Ccpkt3 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 • www.tigard- or.gov Revised 1/22/10 —Added Study Session A y: Topic — Discuss Mayor /Council Proposed Budget L i City of Tigard Tigard Business Meeting - Agenda OVA: ig TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 26, 2010 — 6:30 p.m. Study'Session; 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING. LOCATION: City of Tigard — Town 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 recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign -in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in an order after 7:30 ..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 ODD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL— January 26, 2010 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 6394171 I www.tigard- or.gov I Page 1 of 4 Il City of Tigard Tigard Business Meeting - Agenda vI GAAR ' TIGARD CITY COUNCIL LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CCDA) MEETING DATE /TIME: January 26, 2010 — 6:30 p.m. Study Session; 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard — Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION o Discuss Proposed Mayor and Council Budget for 2010 -11 o Administrative Items • E.XECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss real property transaction negotiations under ORS 192.660(2) (e). 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), 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. 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1:1 Call to Order - City Council &Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 14 Council Communications & Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non - Agenda Items 7:35 1'61 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) • Follow -up to Previous Citizen Communication • Citizen Communications Sign Up Sheet TIGARD, CITY COUNCIL— January 26, 2010 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 -639 -4171 I www.tigard- or.gov I Page 2 of 4 • 7:45 PM • 3. CONSENT AGENDA: (Tigard City Council and City Center Development Agency) These items are considered routine and may be.enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an itern.be:femoved by motion for discussion and separate- action.. Motion to: 3:1 Approve Council Minutes from October 27, 2009 3.2 Amend a Portion of Resolution. No. 09 -44 — Master Fees and Charges Schedule pertaining to the Park System Development Charge (SDC) and Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee — Resolution No. 10- 3.3 Deactivate the Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force, Thanking the Members for Their Service, and Commending Them for a Job Well Done — Resolution No. 10- 3.4 Consider a Resolution Appointing Holly Polivka and Hong Dao as Members, and Charlotte Corelle as an Alternate Member to the Park and Recreation Advisory Board — Resolution No. 10 - 3:5 Consider a Resolution Authorizing the Withdrawal Agreement with the Joint Water Commission — Resolution No. 10- 3.6 Consider an Addendum to Intergovernmental Agreement with Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Relating to the Joint Developmen•of the Walnut Street Fire Station and Expansion and Improvement of Jack Park Recognizing the Reduction in Cost 3.7 Authorize the Mayor to Sign an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation Regarding the City of Tigard Maintaining Landscaping Along Pacific Highway /99W from Gaarde Street to Canterbury Lane • ConsentAgenda.- Item Removed for•Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda • for separate discussion •will he considered immediately after the Cowicil /City Center Development Agency has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 7:55 PM 4. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING — CONSIDER ORDINANCE FOR DOWNTOWN CODE AMENDMENTS AND DESIGN STANDARDS (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA2009- 00003, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2009- 00005, AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ZON20009- 00001) a. Open Public Hearing b. Summation by Community Development Department c. Public Testimony d. Staff Recommendation e. Council.Discussion E Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 10- TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- January 26, 2010 City of Tigard I 131251 Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503- 639 -4171 tvww.tigard- or.gov I Page 3 of 4 8:45 I'M 5. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING — CONSIDER AN.ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REPLACING TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE (TMC) 7.74, EMERGENCY OPERATIONS, TO ESTABLISH AN`EMERGENCY DECLARATION PROCESS, TO ENABLE THE CITY TO ENACT TEMPORA RY EMERGENCY MEASURES, AND TO FORMALIZE THE SUCCESSION PLAN a. 'Open Public Hearing b. 'Stith by Public Works Department c. Public Testimony d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Discussion f Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 10- 9.0 PM 6. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 7. NON_AGENDA ITEMS 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go utto Executive Session. If an Executive Session is, called to. order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. 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), 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. 9:15 PM 9. ADJOURNMENT C \ADM \CATH Y\CCA\2010\ 100126.doc TIGARD CITY COUNCIL— January 26, 2010 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503- 639 -4171 I w\zw.tigard- or.gov I Page 4 of 4 ' y a .- > City ofTigard 3 v IN Study Session ❑ Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL & LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) MEETING DATE /TIME: January 26, 2010/6:30 p.m. Study Session and 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard — Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION o Discuss Proposed Mayor and Council Budget for 2010 - 11 o Administrative Items ✓ Mayor and Council Coffee; Saturday, February 6, 9 a.m. Tigard Public Library Lobby ✓ Meeting Cancellations in March: March 9 and 16 ✓ Election Day... Deputy Recorder Krager will help Washington County election officials final out election activity at City Hall voting location this evening. She'll check the Internet and share first numbers on the two state ballot measures shortly after 8 p.m. • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss real property transaction negotiations under ORS 192 :660(2) (e). 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), but must:not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held fof purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. Council Calendar: February 6 Saturday Council Coffee — 9:00 am, Tigard Public Library Lobby 9* Tuesday Council Business Meeting — 6:30 pm, Town Hall 15 Monday Presidents Day Holiday— City Hall Closed 16* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting — 6.30 pm, Town I -Iall 23* Tuesday Council Business Meeting —.6:30 pm, Town Hall March 9* Tuesday Council Business Meeting — Cancelled 16* Tuesdy Council Workshop Meeting — Cancelled 23* Tuesday Coundil,Business Meeting — 6:30 pm, Town Hall 30 Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting -6:30 pm, Town Hall TIGARD CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA — January 26, 2010 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.; Tigard, OR 97223 1 503- 639 -4171 I www. tigard- or.gov Executive Session — The Public Meetings Law authorizes governing - bodies to :meet in executive session iri certain limited situations (ORS 192.660): An' "executivesession" is defrned:as "any'meeting or part of a meeting of a governing body, which is closed to- certain persons for deliberation on certain matters." Permissible Purposes for Executive Sessions: 192.660 (2) (a) - Employment of public officers, employees and agents, If the body has satisfied certain prerequisites. 192.660 (2) (b) - Discipline of public officers and employees (unless affected person requests to have.an open hearing). 192.660 (2) (c) - To consider matters pertaining to medical staff of a public hospital. • 192.660 (2) (d) - Labor negotiations: (News media can be excluded in this instance.) 192.660 (2) (e) - Real property transaction negotiations. 192.660 (2) (f) - Exempt public records- to consider records that are "exempt by law from public inspection." These records are :specifically identified in the Oregon Revised Statutes. 192 -660 (2) (g) - Trade negotiations — inSolving matters of trade or commerce in which the governing body is competing with other governing bodies. 192.660 (2). (h) - Legal counsel — fbeconsultation with counsel concerning legal rights and duties regarding current litigation. or litigation likely to be filed. 192.660 (2) (i) - To review and evaluate,'pursuant to standards, and policy directives adopted by the governing body, the employment- related performance of the chief executive officer, a public officer, employee or staff member unless the affected person requests an open hearing. The standards; criteria and policy directives to.be used in evaluating chief executive officers shall be adopted by the governing body in meetings open to the public in which there has been an opportunity for public comment. 192.660 (2) (j) - Public investments.— to carry on negotiations under.ORS Chapter 293 with private persons or businesses regarding proposed acquisition, exchange or liquidation of public investments. 192.660 (2) (k)- Relates to health professional regulatory board. 1921660 (2) (1)- Relates to State Landscape Architect Board. • 192.660 (2) (m)- Relates to'the review and approval of programs relating to security. I:\ADM\CATHY \CCA' SS' - - P INKSHEET\20 IOU 00126.doc - TIGARD CITY COUNCIL STUDY , SESSION AGENDA — January 26, 2010 City of Tigard I 13125' SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 ] 503- 639 -4171 l www.tigard- or.gov • , �1�' Ses,Ce �- CM G CC t' IIauI1O Department: City of Tigard, Oregon if Mayor'andCouncil YfD Adopted Requested Proposed Approved Adopted Variance to FY 2008 FY 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 Adopted 138,146 188,175 56,533 321,237 Mayor and Council 232,448 0 0 0 - 88,789 -27.6% 138,146 188,175 56,533 321,237 Mayor and Council 232,448 0 0 0 - 88,789 -27.6% • Run 1/26/2010 Page 1 of 1 Mayor and Council Department: City of Tigard, Oregon Mayor and Council VTD Adopted - Requested Proposed Approved Adopted Variance to FY 2008 F[ 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 Adopted 22;500 51,664 12,762 58,800 51001 - Salaries- Management 58,800 0 0 0 0 0.0% 22,500 51,664 12,762 58,800 Total Personal Services - Salaries 58,800 0 0 , 0 0 0.0% 45 52 13 59 52001 - Unemployment 58 0 0 0 -1 -1.7% 116 207 46 136 52002 - Worker's Compensation 116 0 0 0 -20 -14.7% 1,721 3,952 976 4,498 52003 - Social Security/Medicare 4,497 0 0 0 -1 0.0% 148 345 86 395 52004 -Td -Met Tax 402 0 0 0 7 18% 0 0 0 0 52005 - Retirement 0 0 0 0 0 100.0% 0 0 0 0 52006- Retirement -3 %ER Match 0 0 0 0 0 100.0% O 0 0 0 52007 - VEBA -ER 0 0 0 0 0 100:0% O 0 0 0 52005- Life lns /ADD /LTD 0 0 0 0 0 100.0% 32,509 38,911 11,882 54373 52010 - Medical /Dental 54975 0 0 0 6 1'.1% O 0 1;096 0 52011 - Dental Benefits 0 0 0 0 0 100.0% 34,539 43,466 14,098 59,461 Total Personal Services - Benefits 60,048 0 0 0 587 1.0% 5,655 2,055 1,315 1,400 53001 - Office Supplies 5,900 0 0 0 4,500 321.4% 5,655 2,055 1,315 1,400 Total Supplies 5,900 0 0 0 4,500 321.4% 3,950 30,427 4,575 61,500 54001 - Professional /Contractual Service 10,900 0 0 0 - 50,600 -82.3% O 0 4,411 0 54003 - Legal Fees 12,000 . 0 0 0 12,000 100.0% 1,903 0 0 0 54300 - Advertising &Publicity 0 0 0 0 0 100.0% 51,180' 40,939 589 44,040 54302- Dues &Subscriptions 44,000 0 0 0 -40 -0.1% 15;693 18,759 2,451 27,700 54303 - Travel and Training 31,900 0 0 0 4,200 15.2% 2,726 865 . 0 3,000 54311 - Special Department Expenses 8,900 0 0 0 5,900 1963% 75,452 90,990 . 12,026 136,240 Total Services 107,700 0 0 0 - 28,540 -20.9% O 0 0 65,336 58000 = Interdepartmental Costs 0 0 0 0 - 65,336 - 100.0% O 0 2,025 0 58100 - Indirect Charges -Clty Managem 0 0 0 0 0 1000% O 0 5,517 0 58150 - Indirect Charges- Records 0 0 0 0 0 100.0% 0 0 2,283 0 58200 - Indirect Charges- Finance Admini 0 0 0 0 0 100.0% O 0 6,507 0_ 58230 - Indirect Charges- Technology 0 0 0 0 0 100.0% O 0 16,332 , 65;336. Total Internal Services 0 0 0 0 - 65,336 - 100.0% 138,146 188,175 56,533 321,237 Total Mayor and Council 232,448 0 0 0 - 88,789 -27.6% • • Run 1/26/2010 Page 1 of 1 Mayor and Council FUND: 100 City of Tigard, Oregon DIVISION: 0500 General Fund Mayor and Council YTD Adopted Budget Resource Summary Requested Proposed Approved Adopted Variance to FY 2008 FY 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 Adopted Total Fit 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 22,500 51,664 12,762 58,800 51001 - Salaries- Management 58,800 0 0 0 0 0.0% 22,500 51,664 - 12,762 58,800 Total Personal Services - Salaries 58,800 0 0 0 0 0.0% 45 52 13 59 52001- Unemployment 58 0 0 0 -1 -1.7% 116 207 46 136. 52002- Worker's Compensation 116 0 0 0 -20 -14.7% 1,721 '3,952 976 4,498 52003 - Sdcial Security/Medicare 4,497 0 0 0 -1 0.0% 148 345 86 395 •52004 -Tri-Met Tax 402 0 0 0 7 1.8% O 0 0 0 52005 - Retirement 0 0 0 0 0 100.0% O 0 0 0 52006 - Retirement - 3% ER Match 0 0 0 0 0 100.0% 0 0 0 0 52007 - VEBA -ER 0 0 0 0 0 100.0% 0 0 0 0 52008- life Ins /ADD /LTD 0 0 0 0 0 100.0% 32,509 38,911 11;882 54,373 52010 - Medical /Dental 54,975 0 0 0 602 1.1% O 0 1,096 0 52011- Dental Benefits 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 % 34,539 43,466 14,098 59,461 Total Personal Services - Benefits 60,048 0 0 0 587 1.0% 5,655 2,055 1,315 1,400 53001 - Office Supplies 5;900 0 0 0 4,500 321.4% 5;655 2,055 1,315 1,400 Total Supplies 5,900 0 0 0 4,500 321.4% 3,950 30,427 4,575 61,500 54001 - Professional /Contractual Services 10,900 0 0 0 - 50,600 -82.3% O 0 4,411 0 54003 - LegalF-ees 12,000 0 0 0 12,000 100.0% 1,903 0 0 0 54300 - ,. Advertising &Publicity 0 0 0 0 0 100.0% 51,180 40,939 589 44,040 54302 - Dues &Subscriptions 44,000 0 0 0 -40 -0.1% 15,693 18,759 2,451 27,700 •54303 - Travel and Training 31,900 0 0 0 4,200 15.2% 2,726 865 0 3,000 54311 7 Special Department Expenses 8,900 0 0 0 5,900 196.7 %• 75,452 90,990 12,026 136,240 Total Services 107,700 0 0 0 - 28,540 - 20.9 % O 0 0 65,336 58000 - Interdepartmental Costs 0 0 0 0 - 65,336 - 100.0% 0 0 2,025 0 58100 - Indirect Charges- City Manageme 0 0 0 0 0 100.0% 0 0 5,517 0 58150 - Indirect Charges- Records 0 0 0 0 0 100.0% 0 0 2,283 0 58200 - Indirect Charges- Finance Ad minis 0 0 0 0 0 100.0% O 0 6;507 0 58230- IndlrectCharges- Technology 0 0 0 0 0' 100.0 % 0 0 '16,332 65,336 Total Internal Services 0 0 0 0 - 65,336 - 100.0% 138,146 188,175 56,533 321,237 Total Mayor and Council 232,448 0 0 0 - 88,789 -27.6% Run 1/26/2010 Page 1 of 1 1000500 Mayor and Council • FUND: 100 City of Ti g ard, Oregon. DIVISION: 0500 General Fund City Mayor and Council no Adopted Requested Chg Pkg Units Rate FY 2008 FY 2009 2010 - 201d Budget Resource Summary 2011 Assumptions 58;800 Existing Staff Alloc 22,500 51,664 12,762 58;800 51001 - Salaries - Management 58,800 22,500 51,664' 12,762 58,800. Total Personal Services - Salaries 58,800 58 - Existing Staff Alloc 45 52 13 59 52001 - Unemployment 58 • 116 Existing Staff Alloc 116 207 46 136 52002 - Worker's Compensation 116 4,497 Existing Staff Alloc 1,721 3,952 976 4,498 52003 - Social Security/Medicare 4,497 402 Existing Staff Alloc 148 345 86 395 52004 - Tri-Met Tax 402 54,975 Existing Staff Alloc 32,509 38,911 11,882 54,373 52010 - Medical /Dental 54,975 0 0 0 1,096 0 52011- Dental Benefits 0 34,539 43,466 14,098 59,461 Total Personal Services - Benefits 60,048 • 800 meeting supplies (cups, coffee filters, Clorox wipes, . plates; etc:(, paper, pens, etc. 5,100 Copy charges based on history 5,655 2,055 1,315 1,400 53001 -Office Supplies 5 5,655 2,055 1,315 1,400 Total Supplies 5,900 Run 1/26/2010 Page 1 of 3 1000500 Mayor and Council • FUND: 100 City of Tigard, Oregon DIVISION: 0500 General Fund y Mayor and Council YTD Adopted FY 2008 FY 2009 2010 2010 Budget : Resource Summary Re Assumptions Chg.Pkg Units Rate 2011 400 'Interpreter for hearing impaired at Council meetings (upon request) 2,500 TVC1V taping of Council Workshop meetings 8,000 Consultant's Fee for coaching and two (2)•meetings for Council team building 3,950 30,427 4,575 61,500 54001 - Professional /Contractual Services 10,900 12,000 Legal Counsel regarding Council items 0 0 4,411 0 54003 - Legal Fees 12,000 0 • 1,903 0 0 0 54300 - Advertising & Publicity 0 100 Other.publications for Councilors 150 Oregon Mayor's Association for Mayor Dirksen 2,500 Vision Action Network 3,900 National League of Cities membership (pd $3813 on 11/17/09) 4,850 Westside Economic Alliance membership 32,500 League of Oregon Cities membership 51,180 40,939 589 44,040 54302 - Dues & Subscriptions 44,000 1,400 Council.meals before regularly scheduled Council - meetings 1,500 Business meals that are outside regular council meetings (WEA forum breakfasts, 1:1 meetings with Metro and other jurisdictions, regional Mayor's dinner) 9,000 Mayor's training budget for conferences and meetings 20,000 $5,000 per Councilor to cover training of their choice. 15,693 18,759 2,451 27,700 54303 - Travel and Training 31,900 1,500 2 -color enamel City Pins with logo 2,400 Recognition, awards, florist (funeral, illness) from Council City Promotional Items for visiting dignitaries and school age visitors. 5,000 Contribution to,October 2010 RailVolution National Conference as a host city. Run 1/26/2010 Page 2 of 3 - 1000500 Mayor and Council FUND: 100 City of Tigard Oregon DIVISION: 0500 General Fund Mayor and Council YTD Adopted Requested Chg Pkg Units Rate FY 2008 FY 2009 2010 2010 Budget Resource Summary 2011 Assumptions 2,726 865 0 3,000 54311 - Special Department Expenses 8,900 75,452 90,990 12,026 136,240 Total Services 107,700 0 - 0 0 0 65,336 58000 - interdepartmental Costs 0 0 0 0 2,025 0 58100 - Indirect Charges- City Management 0 0 0 0 5,517 0 58150 - Indirect Charges- Records 0 0 0 0 2,283 0 58200 - indirect Charges- Finance Adminlstr 0 • 0 0. 0 6,507 0 58230 - Indirect Charges- Technology 0 0 0 16,332 65,336 Total Internal Services 0 138,146 188,175 56,533 321,237 Total Mayor and Council 232,448 Run 1/26/2010 Page 3 of 3 1000500 Mayor and Council n Ctfus■1 In the matter of State of Oregon versus Patrick Dinan Case number 151204 In the Tigard Municipal Court REQUEST FOR WRITTEN FINDINGS ORCP 62 When requested prior to commencement of proceedings, the Court SHALL make written findings, in this case the Court SHALL find that Officer Cameron Odam did or did not comport himself in accord with his oath of office AND: Present defendant with the Session Law, Year and Chapter number, which provides a defense to the PRIMA FACIE evidence of each and every crime committed by Officer Odam, as such crimes are set forth in Patrick Dinan's DECLARATION, entered in this matter on December 2, 2009; AND If Officer Odam did not invoke his 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination, what proof did he offer that, at the time of the stop, he was delusional when he recorded himself noting that Patrick Dinars is "a member of the general public ". If Officer Odam was able to convince the court that he was "merely" delusional, as in a temporary condition, what proof did he offer of his return to "normal consciousness ", such that he became a credible witness for purposes of the hearing on grounds constituting demurrer (ORS 135.630(4))? Did Officer Odam "establish the conditions precedent" (ORCP 20 A), to wit, that Patrick Dinan was actually a "person" under ORS 153.039 in his argument advanced under ORS 153.083(1)? Does the evidence establish that Tigard Police Officers issue summons to "traffic" court to members of "the general public" in the course of their day to day law enforcement activities, outside the scope of their official duty established by the parameters encoded at ORS 153.039 and ORS 181.400? Respectfully submitted by Patrick Dinan 12085 SW 135th Ave #25, Tigard, OR 97223 Date: December 28, 2009 To: Michael O'Brien, Muni Court "Judge" for City of Tigard From: Patrick Dinan, member of the general public under ORS 801.305 In Re: I will accept your representations upon proof of claim Dear Mr O'Brien: As a public servant, you have "... duty[s] clearly inherent in your office" (see ORS 162.415, the crime of "Official misconduct in the first degree defined "). Relevant to our public master, public servant relationship, your duty is first to establish your authority to stick your hand in my pocket and pull out cash that "trafficking" procedure authorizes you to collect from "any person" as long as he or she is particularly listed in ORS 153.039 (see ORS 174.020(2)), but only when the citing "[traffic] officer has reasonable grounds to believe that [a] firm, corporation or other organization has committed a violation" ( See Fourth Amendment to the federal Constitution, no search or seizure..., Fifth Amendment, absent due process of law..., Sixth Amendment, in the manner set forth therein. Also see the single subject clause you swore under penalty of perjury to support, Article IV, Section 20, Oregon Constitution). On December 7, 2009, you created a fanciful statutory scheme, asserting that the people have to get the privilege before they can have the right.to use the highway. Consider the absurdity of your assertion in view of the first sentence of the Oregon Constitution you swore 'to support: All men (and women) are equal in right AND all power is inherent in the people (men and women). That being the case, to whom might one go, or where, to obtain a "privilege" which would then make one of the all powerful people eligible for rights? Consider the third clause of the first sentence of the Oregon Constitution: all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. Your assertion suggests that instead of providing for the peace, safety and happiness of the people, the framers intended to create a mechanism having the capacity to withhold these things, until by sufficient groveling on the part of the people, an arbitrary decision might be arrived at to give them a privilege to possess rights. Your assertion casts doubt on your mental acuity. A most simple and straightforward analysis of Statutory Construction (see ORS chapter 174) casts further doubt on your intellectual faculties. Under ORS 801.050 the language is without ambiguity: "Subject to compliance with the motor vehicle laws of this state, owners and operators of motor vehicles are granted the privilege to use the highways of this state ". In other words, pay the privilege taxes, including for registration, and conform with the regulations governing the conduct of a commercial operation and we, the people of the body politic of Oregon, will allow use of our infrastructure by those who wish to use our highways as a place of private gain (see Kurtz v So. Pac. Co., 80 Or 218 -219). Under ORS 801.245, while the definition of "Driver license" is clear only if one possesses prior knowledge of the term "driving ", the definition does include reference to the "interchangeable" term, "License" (1985 amendment proposed by Attorney General Dave Frohnmayer, under SB 118). In the section of the ODOT authorized Vehicle Code under "Related Laws ", the "Administrative Procedures Act" at ORS 183.310(5), "License" means various forms of "permission required by law to engage in ANY commercial activity, trade, • occupation or profession ". One of the several forms of agency permission specifically listed is "registration ". Under ORS 801.255(1) we find that "Driving privilege" is defined as something that may be granted under "A license as defined under ORS 801.245 ". Under ORS 807.010 we find the language that ties each of the above listed definitions together: "A person commits the offense of vehicle operating without driving privileges if the person operates a motor vehicle upon a highway or premises open to the public in this state and the person does not have an appropriate grant of driving privilege from this state in the form of a license... allowing the person to to engage in the particular type of operation." Under ORS 807.031 we find the "Classes of license" that allow the "particular type of operation ": the "Class A COMMERCIAL driver license "; the "Class B COMMERCIAL driver license "; and the "Class C COMMERCIAL driver license ". A professional con man well rehearsed in his script may reflexively assert that there are two additional subsections defining "Class C driver licenses ". You may get away with your fraudulent representations when stealing from a non English speaking victim, but I call your attention to the term "Class ", preceding the letter "C" in each of those subsections, 4 and 5 respectively. "Classes of license" is the subject of the section. There can be only ONE "Class C license" in a alphabetized listing of "Classes ". The disparity in formatting between the first two "Classes" and the "Class C "s of subsections 3, 4 and 5 is evidence of drafter's "incompetence ", at best, but we know that drafter, Bradd Swank was a seasoned legislative counsel who was specially selected for the sensitive job of "revising" the vehicle code to it's current status. There is no possibility that you can rationally argue in a manner that will support the FRAUDULENT representation made by the ODOT folks in their handout "Driver Manual ", that somewhere in the Vehicle Code there is a "non commercial Class C license ". There is ONE "C Class of driver's license ", although it has a version with and a version without endorsements, an apprentice level license and a restricted version. After reading ORS 807.031, it takes no imagination to figure out that "licensed drivers" are employed to "operate motor vehicles ". People who actually read the motor vehicle laws will not, then, be surprised to find the language: "Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, a vehicle operated over the highways of this state for compensation or profit must comply with the titling requirement [in ORS 803.030(14)(c) and] the registration requirement" in ORS 803.305(14)(c) respectively. Titling the implement of business is analogous to the "licensing of the driver" who operates the implement Compare ORS 803.040, "if this state has issued title, the vehicle [shall become] subject to all of the provisions of the vehicle code." with ORS 801.050 "Subject to compliance with the motor vehicle laws of this state, owners and operators of motor vehicles are granted the privilege... ". No surprise, the term "certificate ", as in "certificate of title" is one of the specifically listed examples of "... similar form of permission required by law to engage in any commercial activity..." (ORS 183.310(5)). However, just as ORt801.305 makes it perfectly clear that not everybody is granted the privilege: "Highways [are]... open to the general public for vehicles... as a matter of right ", ORS 803.030(2) does the same for vehicle titling and registration: "Title from this state is not required unless a vehicle is operated under a registration number of this state." The other possibility is that you, in collusion with others, expect to take advantage of the general illiteracy of the people, who have literally had their education required by ORS 336.057 and ORS 336.067 STOLEN from them by an organized crime ring operating under the guise of Public School administrators. While these statutes were enacted in 1923, there is no evidence currently available that anyone, in any district of Oregon, in any generation, has ever received what schools are REQUIRED to provide, courses in the United States Constitution AND US history AND the Oregon Constitution each year commencing no later than the eighth grade and continuing through a four year college program. You, and those you collude with, rely on this theft to have precluded knowledge that "liberty of locomotion" or "right to travel" has long been held to be a fundamental, unalienable right protected under Oregon's Constitution at Article I, Section 33 and the federal Constitution under the Ninth Amendment (protected under numerous other authorities as well). On December 7, 2009, your absurd assertions (by which I mean those that cannot withstand even superficial scrutiny) included that the definition of "license" at ORS 183.310(5), is not relevant to the charge, or defense of charge, that I was in violation of "registration" requirements. Immediately prior to your assertion, you were explicitly told that the most important page in the particular volume that you were using as a reference, was the page between the end of ORS Chapter 826 and the next section on "traffic" procedure, page 519, on which the only printed words are, "Related Laws ", in a font that is at least half an inch tall. I will concede that you bolstered your mental state defense when you looked for the "Administrative Procedures Act ", ORS Chapter 183, and initially claimed that your book didn't have that chapter in it (chapter 183 follows Chapter 153). The Administrative Procedures Act has universal application in virtually all American jurisdictions and has been a part of the Oregon Revised Statutes for as many decades as the ORS format has been printed. Furthermore, it has been in the same place in the authorized ODOT compilation known as the "Oregon Vehicle Code" that you were using for reference, biennium after biennium. Your assertion that 183.310(5), "License includes the whole or part of any agency permit, certificate, approval, registration or similar form of permission required by law to engage in any commercial activity, trade, occupation or profession ", is "irrelevant ", might have been written off as simple illiteracy, except that you were so rudely adamant and preemptive about advancing your ludicrous proposition. You may be a senile old man, but your attitude convicts you as a criminal as well. You are a vicious thief, ripping at the fabric of your society, yet without the guts to personally strong arm your victims. On December 7, you left that up to half a dozen illiterate doberman pinschers posing as law enforcement officers. The very fact of their coercive presence is evidence of your culpable state of mind. I invite you to add counts of criminal conduct to the charges a jury will convict you on. However, I don't need to see you in jail for my own edification. Your alternative is to recant. You must void the judgment you falsely simulated (ORS 162.355) on December 7, 2009 and dismiss the absurd allegations that I am one of the "persons" an officer may cite with a trafficking violation under ORS 153.039, "... any employee agent or representative of a firm, corporation or other organization... ". In order to provide you incentive to do the right thing and, at the same time impose undeniable culpability upon your wrongful acts, you are herewith given notice of the current binding case law on vehicle registration from the Oregon Supreme Court: Camas Stage Co. Inc. v Kozer, 104 Or 600. Once again, you are invited to place countervailing authority on the record justifying the assault of Tigard Police Officers on the public in defiance of ORS 181.400 (see ORS 181.030), and contrary to their oaths of office. However, it is now clear that such authority doesn't exist in the Vehicle Code or the Trafficking Procedure sections of the Oregon Revised Statutes. When I demand, your willful failure to produce authority to stick your hand in my pocket, pursuant to the Oregon Evidence Code, Rule 305, is legally presumed to be adverse to your interests, pursuant to OEC 311(c). In other words, when you assert that authority exists to find persons guilty of licensing agreement violations (ORS 801.050 and 803.040), but you withhold it, you will be presumed guilty of fraudulently misconstruing that authority when it comes to taking my cash. Void your previous simulated legal process, dismiss the current action against me and take your leave from office as a doddering old man while you can. Happy 4 elf Apply Patrick Dinan Post Office Box 1031 Sherwood, OR 97140 patdinan(Wcomcast.net 503 - 330 -4661 cc; Washington Co. District Attorney, "Investigative agency ", ORS 166.720 of, ORS 162.355; ORS 164.075(1)(h); Date: January 6 2010 To: Tigard Municipal Court Clerk From: Patrick Dinan, member of the general public under ORS 801.305 In Re: Case number 151204 Dear Clerk of the Court: Because I have not seen anything in writing, I can only proceed on the legal presumption that the above case number is NOT associated with any authentic cause of action. If there is NO authentic complaint, supported by a responsive pleading to my specific demand (your establishment did receive a copy of my demand pursuant to ORCP 20 A) to have a copy of the NATURE of some charge, I now must surmise that nothing more than "SIMULATED LEGAL PROCESS" (ORS 162.355) was served on me by an individual impersonating a Tigard Police Officer (the individual was DEFINITELY NOT operating within the scope of official duty as circumscribed by ORS 181.030 & 181.400 and "particularly" authorized by the list of appropriate parties to a "traffic" court proceeding under ORS 153.039). Please check your records again and forward the file in this matter to the Washington County Circuit Court for processing as a VOID JUDGMENT. In the event that you find a complaint authenticated by a statement of NATURE, or even an answer to my DEMAND FOR WRITTEN FINDINGS pursuant to ORCP 62, which might be an indication that an ACTUAL HEARING took place in your Municipal Court, please send me copies. Under the circumstances of our conversation earlier today, I am sure that you do not expect fees for an appeal de novo. I am certainly NOT asking for one. Sincerely, C -k3-en -6rn Kruix0 catd 1 tp IC BEFORE TIGARD'S CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 26, 2010 My name is Richard L. Koenig. I am a member of the Committee for Appropriate Enforcement of Motor Vehicle Laws. Phone 503 287 -1240 I have encountered Tigard Police Chief Orr in regard to the generally asserted claim of the Tigard Police Department, that it, and the officers thereof, have authority to stop and issue citations to "the general public" for trafficking violations. I explained to Chief Orr that in our system of law, as set forth in the Oregon Evidence Code at Rule 305, the party asserting any claim has the burden of persuasion. Although, I may not have had an adequate opportunity to explain that under OEC at 311(c), when a party is required to produce evidence and does not, the evidence withheld is considered adverse to the party withholding, the fact remains that this is a currently operative principle in our society's system of laws. Chief Orr called me at my office and repeatedly asserted an unsubstantiated claim that his Officers had authority to interfere with the people's personal or property rights on the pretext of a traffic stop (ORS 181.030(3), .400). I began to recite the Miranda warning to Chief Orr but was cut off at about "... you have a right to counsel... ". Within minutes Chief Orr called me back. I expressed my pleasure at the thought of him actually being willing to communicate the proof of his claim. He had no intention of doing so, but began to interrogate me about pursuing this business with the Attorney General's Office. When I began to respond substantively to his question, he rudely asserted that I was "talking in circles ". I pointed out that I had no interest in anything except the language of the law as it bore on substantiating his claim. When it became clear that he had no intention of bearing the burden of persuasion, I cursed him as vehemently as I could, under the circumstances, and told him not to bother me again. Within minutes Chief Orr called again. He had been Mirandized. He had made it clear that he had no intention of conforming himself with law. He had been told not to bother me again. By calling the third time with no other intent but to harass or annoy, Chief Orr violated the criminal laws of Oregon at ORS 166.090, "Telephonic harassment ". I ordered a digital recording of the calls Chief Orr made to me. I paid ten dollars for a CD upon which only one of the conversations is recorded. I am an abused consumer of digital recordings. I want the other two conversations or an admission from Chief Orr that they occurred. I want the City Council to be responsible for the delinquent behavior of City Officers. See also Oregon Const. at Art. I, Sec. 1; Art. IV , sec. 20 and 21; ORS 174.010, .020, .030, .100; ORS 183.310(1)(5)(8); ORS 153.039; ORS 162.065; ORS 162.415; ORS 162.367; ORS 164.075(1)(h) AGENDA ITEM NO.2 - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: January 26, 2010 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony becomes part of the public record. The names and addresses ofpersons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF Please Print CONTACTED Name: i c,•v�C L . tea - t f 7 (>/ �►c�V i rQ,..� c.� ct 1--o O Wt Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will CO.ie 4 �p 3 help the presiding officer pronounce: JF Address ,Qr t o lrC' City Vim. J c .L La 4.3 S State 00 0 0— Zip Phone No. S 2 Z$ 7—~12 ( Name: T3' 1 N AW Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will , help the presiding officer pronounce: / YT (4 III Address P , r S€, X I b 1 j1 \ L s } J �. �-h 1 City V '� '' State D (2 Zip C) / ) Phone No. / 336)- 1-444 Name: AIso, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION Agenda Item # - a Meeting Date January 26, 2010 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Tide A Resolution to amend a .onion of Resolution 09 -44 -- the Master Fees and Char_es - Schedule pertaining to thePark System Development Charge(SDC) and Sanitay. Sewer Connection Fee. Prepared By: Albert Shields Dept Head Approval: 4 i% City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall City Council adopt a Resolution to update the entries in the Master Fees and Charges Schedule for the Park System Development Charge and the Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the proposed Resolution. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Parks SDC: 1. Resolution 04 -97 establishes the methodology for determining the amount of the Parks SDC fee, relating it to changes in indices for land and construction costs. 2. Both indices have declined this year due to the economy. 3. Calculations following the methodology call for an adjustment to be made in the amount of that fee for calendar 2010 as follows: 2009 2010 % Change Single Family $5,310 $4,811 (9.4 %) Multi - family $4,269 $3,867 (9.4 %) Mfg Home Park Space $4,210 $3,814 (9.4 %) Comm. /Indust per Employee $360 5327 (9.2 %) Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee: 1. Pursuant to the Intergovernmental Agreement with CleanWater Services (CWS) the amount of the Sewer Connection Fee is set by CWS as is the amount of that fee retained by the City. 2. The amount of the fee and the percentage retention have been changed by CWS. The fee has been increased from $3,100 to $3,600 (a 16% increase) and the City will receive 3.99% or $143.64. .3. Please note that Exhibit B shows :a previous fee level of $2,700. Even though the Master Fees and Charges Schedule showed that outdated figure the City has collected the correct amounts as required by the IGA with CWS. The proposed Resolution amends the Master Fees and Charges Schedule to update the amount of the -Parks SDC fee and correct the amounts shown! for the Sewer Connection Fee and the retention percentage. • 1:A1.RI'1,NVCouncil Materials V2010V1 -26 -10 AN Parks Scwer SDCsdoc 1 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A CITY COUNCIL GOALS N/A ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Proposed Resolution. 2. Exhibit A, Park System Development Charge. 3. Exhibit B, Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee. FISCAL NOTES No cost. Proposed Resolution updates existing fees for existing programs. 1 V1 API ANT VCouncil Materials A2010Vt 26 -10 AIS Parks Sewer SDCs.doc 2 Agenda Item # 3 ^ 3 Meeting Date January 26, 2010 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Tide A Resolution Deactivatin_ the Trans ortation Financint Strate_ es Task Force Thankin_ the Members for Their Service,. and Commending Them fo a Job Well Done Prepared By: A. P. Duenas Dept Head Approval: Y l i City Mgr Approval: tog ( CV c1 ISSUE BEFORETHE COUNCIL Council will-be requested to approve a resolution deactivating the Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force, thanking the Task Force members for their service, and commending them for a job well done. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That Council pass the attached resolution. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • The Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force was reconstituted by Council Resolution No. 09 -01 to continue the mission of exploring feasible funding strategies, for design and construction of major transportation 'improvements, construction and maintenance of sidewalks, and maintenance and operation of the City's streets, signal light and traffic signal systems. • The Task Force was actively involved in the public process developed for the proposed Street Maintenance Fee rate increases. Some of the members attended the public meetings scheduled to receive public comments on the proposed increases. The Task Force subsequently recommended 'adoption of the proposed rates to City Council. • The Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) was formed by Council Resolution No. 09 -14 to act as an advisory body to the City Council and staff and to provide a venue for citizen input and awareness of transportation issues. The bylaws were amended by Council Resolution No. 09 -47 to increase the membership and to add to the mission of the TAC. • The intent :of the TAC formation is to consolidate the efforts of various ad hoc committees and task forces under a permanent committee organized to address transportation- related matters. The formation of the TAC allows the 'Task Force to be deactivated. A subcommittee of the TAC will be formed to address financing strategies and issues. • The attached resolution acknowledges the accomplishments of the current members of the Task Force, deactivates die Task Force, thanks the Task Force members for their service, and commends them for a job well done. • The attached resolution acknowledges the accomplishments of the current members of the Task Force, deactivates the Task Force, thanks the Task Force members for their service, and commends them for a job well done. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A Cm' COUNCIL GOALS Comprehensive Plan Goals: Goal 1.1 — Provide citizens, affected agencies, and jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process; and Goal 1.2 — Ensure own citizens have access to: A) Opportunities to communicate directly to the City. Council Goals: Develop long -term financial strategy (Five -Year Council Goal) Continue pursuing opportunities to reduce traffic congestion (Long -Term Council Goal) ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Resolution deach'ating the Task Force 2. Exhibit "A" to the Resolution listing the Task Force members that served during the period of service. FISCAL NOTES There is no fiscal impact resulting from the deactivation of the Task Force. The Task Force mission to explore financial strategies for funding transportation- related improvements, maintenance, and operation of the street system will presumably be'assumed by -a subcommittee of the newly- formed TAC. vAcn \ %n ndn,wrvnams \2(X)AL2fHO docnvnnnn of die nunpananon tmandng Irau{vv cask F¢cux.dea Agenda Item # 3 L' Meeting Date January 26, 2010 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Tide Consider a Resolution Appointing Holly Polivka and Hong Dao as Members, and Charlotte Corelle as an Alternate Member, to the Park and Recreation Advisory Board Prepared By: Dennis Koellermcier Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: a Cu-) ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Council adopt a resolution appointing Holly Polivka and Hong Dao as members, and Charlotte Corelle as an alternate member, to the Park and Recreation Advisory Board? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Council adopt the.resolution. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • There are currently two.member and one alternate member vacancies on the Park and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB). • On December 15, 2009 the Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee interviewed the two member candidates who had expressed an interest in serving on the PRAB. • On January 12, 2009 the Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee interviewed the alternate member candidate who had expressed an interest in serving on the PRAB. • Based on the Committee's recommendations, the resolution before the City Council would accomplish the following appointments: - Appoint Holly Polivka and I-Iong Dao to fill the expired terms of Michael Freudenthal and Trisha Swanson. These terms will expire on June 30, 2013. - Appoint Charlotte Corelle to her first term as an alternate member to fill the vacant alternate position. This term will expire on June 30, 2011. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not approve the resolution and provide staff with direction on some other course of action. CITY COUNCIL GOALS Draft 2010 Council Goal 3 - Strategize with PRAB on a 2010 Parks Bond The PRAB advises the Council on matters relating to the goal mentioned above. Agenda Item # 3 5 Meeting Date January 26, 2010 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Consider a Resolution Authorizim the Withdrawal A cement with the oint Water Commission �II Prepared By: Dennis Koellermeier Dept Head Approval: I City Mgr Approval: l /� k ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City of Tigard (COT) to withdraw from the Joint Water Commission (JWC) authorizing the City Manager to sign the Withdrawal Agreement? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Council adopt the resolution authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • On March 1, 2004, COT and JWC executed a Joiner Agreement whereby COT became a member of the JWC and agreed to be bound by all the terms and conditions of the JWC - Hillsboro, Forest Grove, Beaverton, Tigard and Tualatin Valley Water District Water Service Agreement dated April 9, 2004. • In August 2008, the City executed a partnership agreement with the City of Lake Oswego to jointly develop municipal water supply, thus selecting a future source. • The City consequently, notified its partners in the Tualatin Basin Water Supply Project (Project) that the City of Tigard was withdrawing from future investment into the Project. • Partnership in the Project is a requirement for continued membership in the JWC. • In May 2009, COT provided notice to JWC of its intent to withdraw from the JWC and the parties agreed that COT's membership would terminate upon payment of all sums due COT under the Water Service Agreement no later than June 30, 2010. • Pursuant to Article 11 of the Water Service Agreement, JWC and COT have agreed on the terms and payment of $134,000 from the JWC for COT's interest in JWC assets. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Council could choose to approve the resolution and provide staff with direction on how to proceed. CITY COUNCIL GOALS None ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Resolution 2. 'Withdrawal Agreement FISCAL NOTES Tigard will receive a $134,000 check upon withdrawal which will be deposited into the Water Capital Account. Agenda Item # Meeting. Date January 26, 2010 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Consider an Addendum to Intergovernmental Agreement with Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Relating to the Joint Development of the Walnut Street Fire Station and Expansion and Improvement of Jack Park Recognizing the Reduction iii Cost (►�J Prepared By: Dennis Koellermeier Dept Head Approval: ) IK City Mgr Approval: ei LW ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Council authorize the Mayor to sign.an Addendum to Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (I'VF&R) regarding thejoint development of the Walnut Street fire station and the expansion and improvement of Jack Park that accurately reflects the open space square footage? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recomniendsCouncil authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. KEY FACTS ANDTNFORMATION SUMMARY • The Council approved an IGA relating to the joint development of Walnut Street fire station and expansion and improvement of Jack Park at their June 23, 2009 meeting. • TVF &R purchased property at 12585 SW Walnut Street in Tigard and constructed a new fire station on the site. The station includes an enhanced community room. The City agreed to pay for a portion of the community room and associated parking. The community room is available for City use at no cost for city- sponsored meetings, community events and recreational activities, subject to availability. • The purchased property is adjacent to the City's Jack Park. TVF &R does not need the entire property for the new fire station and is selling the remaining property to the City. • The City is purchasing the excess property in order to expand and improve Jack Park by providing public access to the park via Walnut Street, a parking area and park signage. • The open space land was estimated to be 67,953 square feet in the signed IGA. The survey revealed it is actually 55,000 square feet reducing the cost from $437,507 to $398,907. • The Addendum to IGA reflects the actual square footage and accurate cost of the property. • The City attorney has reviewed and approved the Addendum to IGA. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None CITY COUNCIL GOALS None ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Addendum to the IGA Relating to the Joint Development of Walnut Street Fire Station and Expansion and Improvement of Jack Park a. Revised Exhibit B Actual Costs FISCAL NOTES Based on System Development Charges methodology, the property will cost the City $238,250. Improvements are expected to add another $160,657 to the project for a total project cost of $398,907. ADDENDUM TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF WALNUT STREET FIRE:STATION AND EXPANSION..AND IMPROVEMENTOF JACK PARK THIS ADDENDUM ("Addendum ") is made and,entered into by and between the City of "I igard, an Oregon municipal corporation, acting under authority of its City Charter ( "City "), and Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, A.Rural Fire Protection District ("TVF &R "). WHEREAS, on or about June23, 2009, the parties; entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement :Relating to the. Joint Development of Walnut Streef.Fire Station and Expansion and Improvement of Jack Park ( "IGA ")regarding the joint development of the Walnut Street Fire Station. A copy of the executed IGA is attached hereto as Exhibit A. WHEREAS, an error' in the calculation of the purchase price has been discovered and the parties desire to memorialize the change to correct the previous error and facilitate final payment and property transfer under the IGA as set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE; if is agreed between the parties under authority of •ORS Chapter 190 as follows: I. 'Purchase of Land. Section 1 of-the IGA is,hereby amended to correct the purchase price to be paid by the City to TVF &R for the.landidentified in the land use application for adjustment of the property line from $276,850 to $238;250. A revised Exhibit B is attached hereto marked "Revised Exhibit -B" which the parties•agreeaccurately reflects the actual costs of the land and project development. Revised Exhibit :B supercedes the original Exhibit B attached to the IGA. 2. Payment Terms. Section 5 of the IGA is hereby amended to provide that the interest:accruing on the land purchase price be calculated on the revised•amount of $398,907 as shown on Revised Exhibit B from August 14, 2009 through. December 31, 2009, in an amount equal to $ . So long as payment of the $398,907 plus accrued interest is paid by City'to•TVF &R within 14 days after TVF&Rprovides the City With the amount to be paid, no further interest will accrue after January 1, 2010. If not paid in full within such 'period, the interestshall, accrue from January 1, 2010, until the principal and interest is paid in full. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] .. Page I - ADDENDUM . TO'INTERGOVERNMENTAL,AGREGMENT RELATING TO =JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF WALNUT STREET FIRE STATION AND EXPANSION IMPROVEMENT.OF JACK PARK 4 6796 - 351157 dilderdwn !G4 - Walnut St Jack Parkdnc f fSOJice 1 /15/2010 3. Full Force and. Effect. Except as specifieally`modified herein, all other terms and provisions of the IGA remain in full force and effect.. IN WITNESS WI- IEREOF, this Addendum has been approved by the respective governing authorityof each party as of the dates set forth below, to be effective on the date of last execution. • TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE, A CITY OF TIGARD, an Oregon municipal Rural Fire:Protection District corporation, acting under authority of its City Charter By: - By: (Signature) (Signature) Title: Title: Date: , 2010 Date: , 2010 RESOLUTION AND DATE OF APPROVAL: RESOLUTION AND DATE OF APPROVAL: • Page:2 - ADDENDUM TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF WALNUT STREET FIRE STATION AND EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENT OF JACK PARK - - - 46 796 -35057 Addendum IGA -Vahan Si Jack Parkdnc A(SOped! /l5 /1010 REVISED EXHIBIT B Actual Costs Land 12;953 sq. ft. developable @ $5.74/sq. ft. $74,350 55,000 sq. ft. 'open space Qa $298 /sq. ft $163,900 Subtotal $238,250 Development Project Costs $3,288,147 Energy Tax Credit $75,0 $3,213,147 @ 5% $160,657 Total Cost $398,907 Agenda Item # 3 .1 Meeting Date January 26, 2010 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Authorize the Mayor to Sign an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation Regarding the City of Tigard Maintaining Landscaping along Pacific Highway /99W from Gaarde Street to Canterbury Lane Prepared By: Kim McMillan Dept Head Approval: 0 Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Council authorize the Mayor to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Oregon Depainuent of Transportation (ODOT) regarding the City of Tigard (COT) maintaining landscaping and hardscaping along Pacific Highway, from Gaarde Street to Canterbury Lane? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Agreement. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • ODOT was working on a sidewalk infill project in Tigard. COT staff worked with ODOT to have the sidewalk meander • COT acquired ODOT's approval for benches, trees and landscaping to make this a highly visible green space. • The City will be completing landscape improvements, adding artwork, and /or benches within the ODOT right - of -way to improve a main gateway route into the City. • The landscaping material, i.e. shrubs and perennials, will be installed in a later phase as budgeted. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The Council could choose not to enter into the Agreement and have ODOT construct a curb -tight sidewalk with no trees, landscaping or benches. CITY COUNCIL GOALS N/A ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Intergovernmental Agreement between ODOT and COT for Landscaping along Pacific Highway /99W from Gaarde Street to Canterbury Lane FISCAL NOTES The estimated cost to maintain the grounds is $4,000 per year which is budgeted in FY `09 -`10 General Fund. The estimated cost to maintain the trees is $2,000 per year which is budgeted in the Tree Replacement Fund. Misc. Contracts and Agreements No. 24,881 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Pacific Highway /99W Sidewalk Improvement Landscaping Gaarde Street to Canterbury Lane THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through its Departnient of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "ODOT "; and the City of Tigard, acting by and through its elected officials, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," collectively hereinafter referred to as the "PARTIES." RECITALS 1. Pacific Highway West /OR 99W, hereinafter referred to as 99W, is a part of the state highway system under the jurisdiction and control of the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC). Gaarde 'Street and Canterbury Lane are part of the city street system under the jurisdiction and control of CITY. 2. By the authority granted in Oregon Revised Statue (ORS) 190.110, 366.572 and 366.576, ODOT may enter into cooperative agreements with counties, cities and units of local governments for the performance of work on certain types of improvement projects with the allocation of costs on terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the contracting parties. 3. ODOT will be constructing a Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) project for sidewalk improvements on 99W within the Tigard city limits from Gaarde Street (MP 10.36) to Canterbury Lane (MP 10.55). Concurrently and contiguous to the ODOT project to improve a main gateway route, the CITY will be constructing landscape improvements and adding artwork or gateway features behind the edge of curb, of the highway within the Project limits. The CITY's Project shall be constructed on ODOT right of way. NOW THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing recitals, it is agreed by and between the PARTIES hereto as follows: TERMS OF AGREEMENT 1. Under such authority, ODOT and CITY agree to the CITY's construction of landscaping improvements on 99W from Gaarde Street to Canterbury Lane. Said landscaping improvements shall include trees and other plantings, irrigation facilities, and artwork or gateway features, hereinafter referred to as "Project ". The location of the Project is approximately as shown on the sketch map attached hereto, marked Exhibit A, and by this reference made a part hereof. Agreement No. 24,881 City of Tigard 2. The CITY's estimated cost for the Project is $15,000. The estimate for the total Project cost is subject to change. The CITY shall be responsible for all construction, maintenance, water and electrical costs for the Project. 3. This Agreement shall become effective on the date all required signatures are obtained and shall remain in effect for the purpose of ongoing maintenance responsibilities for the useful life of the facilities constructed as part of the Project. The useful life is defined as twenty (20) calendar years. The Project shall be completed within five (5) calendar years following the date of final execution of this Agreement by both Parties. CITY OBLIGATIONS 1. Upon obtaining a permit to "Occupy or Perform Operations upon a State Highway" from assigned ODOT District 2A Project Manager, the CITY shall, at no cost to ODOT, be responsible for construction, maintenance, electrical costs and water for any landscape improvements and art or gateway features within the Project limits on ODOT right of way. CITY shall submit a list of all plantings CITY intends to be planted for the Project for ODOT approval. The Project's construction shall be within the same schedule as the ODOT's STIP Sidewalk Improvement project. 2. CITY agrees to comply with all provisions of ODOT issued permits and shall require its contractors, subcontractors, or consultants performing work on the Project within state right of way to comply with such provisions. 3. CITY shall, upon ODOT's written review and concurrence of final plans, prepare the contract and bidding documents, advertise for construction bid proposals, award all contracts, pay all contractor costs, furnish all construction engineering, field testing of materials, technical inspection, and Project manager services for administration of the contract. 4. The Project shall be maintained at the same level of service as are similar CITY facilities, with the following exceptions as applicable to the Project: a. Water quality improvements affecting 99W within the Project area shall be maintained as follows: ditches must maintain adequate flow; vegetation, if present, shall serve as a sediment filter; vegetation shall be no more than 6" (inches) -10" (inches) high; there shall be only minor unintended pooling; b. To meet the sight distance needs on 99W the following shall be maintained as follows: roadside vegetation shall be no higher than 18 "(inches); there shall be few obstructions in the clear zone; and vegetation shall not impede traffic movement and operation along the Highways. 2 Agreement No. 24,881 City of Tigard c. Maintenance of landscaping shall include replacement of dead or dying plants and trees, removal of litter, removal of weeds or weed control, removal of plants ODOT has determined to be invasive species, and tree trimming to maintain a 17' (foot) clear zone in the travel lane, leaf removal, and irrigation for healthy sustainability of landscaping. d. To ensure safety of the traveling public, the trees planted and maintained by CITY within the Project boundaries shall not block, impede or unreasonably limit the peripheral vantage point of the driving public. 5. CITY shall, at no cost to ODOT, be responsible for 100 percent of maintenance, water, and electrical costs associated with the Project. CITY shall ensure that the water and power companies send water and electrical bills directly to CITY. All water and electrical systems necessary to maintain the Project shall be separate from ODOT systems. 6. CITY shall, upon successful completion and acceptance of each portion of Project by ODOT, relinquish all physical improvements made as part of Project within ODOT jurisdiction to ODOT, except CITY purchased portable items such as artwork or removable benches. 7. CITY shall, to the extent permitted by the Oregon Constitution and the Oregon Tort Claims Act, indemnify, defend, save, and hold harmless the State of Oregon, Oregon Transportation Commission and its members, Department of Transportation, its officers and employees from any and all claims, suits, and liabilities which may occur in the performance of the Project Improvements. CITY shall require the same of its designees chosen to fulfill the maintenance requirements of this Agreement, as well as the following paragraph. 8. Notwithstanding the foregoing defense obligations under the paragraph above, neither CITY nor any attorney engaged by CITY shall defend any claim in the name of the State of Oregon or any agency of the State of Oregon, nor purport to act as legal representative of the State of Oregon or any of its agencies, without the prior written consent of the Oregon Attorney General. The State of Oregon may, at anytime at its election assume its own defense and settlement in the event that it determines that CITY is prohibited from defending the State of Oregon, or that CITY is not adequately defending the State of Oregon's interests, or that an important governmental principle is at issue or that it is in the best interests of the State of Oregon to do so. The State of Oregon reserves all rights to pursue any claims it may have against CITY if the State of Oregon elects to assume its own defense. 9. CITY shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, regulations, executive orders and ordinances applicable to the work under this Agreement, including, without limitation, the provisions of ORS 279C.505, 279C.515, 279C.520, 279C.530 and 279B.270 incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof; Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, CITY expressly,agrees to comply with (i) Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964; (ii) Title V and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (iii) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 3 • Agreement No. 24,881 City of Tigard and ORS 659A.142; (iv) all regulations and administrative rules established pursuant to the foregoing laws; and (v) all other applicable requirements of federal and state civil rights and rehabilitation statutes, rules and regulations. 10. CITY shall construct the Project in accordance with the requirements of ORS 276.071 including the public contracting laws within ORS Chapters 279A, 279B and 279C. I I. If CITY chooses to assign its contracting responsibilities to a consultant or contractor, CITY shall inform the consultant or contractor of the requirements of ORS 276.071, to ensure that the public contracting laws within ORS Chapters 279A, 279B and 279C are followed. 12. CITY shall, without expense to ODOT, take all steps necessary to effectively protect the adjacent ODOT transportation facilities from any damage or incident from CITY activities within the Project area. CITY shallbe liable to and shall reimburse ODOT for any damage to ODOT's facilities resulting from or reasonably attributed to CITY's installation, repair or landscape maintenance for the Project. 13. The CITY shall include the following Special Provisions in all contracts for contractor work for this Project: : a. Contractor shall indemnify ODOT and CITY and name ODOT and CITYas third party beneficiaries of the resulting contract. b. Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, ODOT and their officers, employees and agents from and against all claims, suits, actions, losses, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses of any nature whatsoever resulting from, arising out of, or relating to the activities of Contractor or its officers, employees, sub - contractors, or agents under this Contract. c. Commercial General Liability. Contractor shall obtain, at Contractor's expense, and keep in effect during the term of this Contract, Commercial General Liability Insurance covering bodily injury and property damage in a form and with coverages that are satisfactory to ODOT and CITY. This insurance shall include personal and advertising injury liability, products and completed operations. Coverage may be written in combination with Automobile Liability Insurance (with separate limits). Coverage shall be written on an occurrence basis. If written in conjunction with Automobile Liability the combined single limit per occurrence shall not be less than $ 1,000,000 for each job site or location. Each annual aggregate limit shall not be less than $ 2,000,000. d. Automobile Liability. Contractor shall obtain, at Contractor's expense, and keep in effect during the term of this Contract, Commercial Business Automobile Liability Insurance covering all owned, non - owned, or hired vehicles. This coverage may be written in 4 • Agreement No. 24,881 City of Tigard combination with the Commercial General Liability Insurance (with separate limits). Combined single limit per occurrence shall not be less than $1,000,000. e. Additional Insured. The liability insurance coverage, except Professional Liability, Errors and Omissions, or Workers' Compensation, if included, required for performance of the Contract shall include ODOT and CITY and its divisions, officers and employees as Additional Insured but only with respect to the Contractor's activities to be performed under this Contract. Coverage shall be primary and non - contributory with any other insurance and self - insurance. f. Notice of Cancellation or Change. There shall be no cancellation, material change, potential exhaustion of aggregate limits or non- renewal of insurance coverage(s) without thirty (30) days written notice from the Contractor or its insurer(s) to ODOT and CITY. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of this clause shall constitute a material breach of Contract and shall be grounds for immediate termination of this Contract. 14. CITY certifies, at the time this Agreement is executed, that sufficient funds are available and authorized for expenditure to finance costs of this Agreement within CITY's current appropriation or limitation of current biennial budget. 15. CITY certifies and represents that the individual(s) signing this Agreement has been authorized to enter into and execute this Agreement on behalf of CITY, under the direction or approval of its governing body, commission, board, officers, members or representatives, and to legally bind CITY. 16. CITY shall perform the service under this Agreement as an independent contractor and shall be exclusively responsible for all costs and expenses related to its employment of individuals to perform the work under this Agreement including, but not limited to, retirement contributions, workers compensation, unemployment taxes, and state and federal income tax withholdings. Nothing herein is intended, nor shall it be construed, to create between the PARTIES any relationship of principal and agent, partnership, joint venture or any similar relationship, and each PARTY hereby specifically disclaims any such relationship. 17. All employers, including CITY, that employ subject workers who work under this Agreement in the State of Oregon shall comply with ORS 656.017 and provide the required Workers' Compensation coverage unless such employers are exempt under ORS 656.126. CITY shall ensure that each of its subcontractors complies with these requirements. 18. CITY acknowledges and agrees that ODOT,. the Oregon Secretary of State's Office, the federal government, and their duly authorized representatives shall have access to the books, documents, papers, and records of CITY which are directly pertinent to the specific Agreement 5 • Agreement No. 24,881 City of Tigard for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcripts for a period of six (6) years after final payment (or completion of Project -- if applicable.) Copies of applicable records shall be made available upon request. Payment for costs of copies is reimbursable by ODOT. 19. CITY certifies that no right of way acquisition for the state highway is required for this Project. 20. CITY reserves all rights to pursue any claims it may have against ODOT or the State of Oregon. 21. CITY's Project Manager for this Project is Kim McMillan, City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223; Phone: 503- 718 -2642; email:. kim @tigard -or, or assigned designee upon individuals absence. ODOT OBLIGATIONS 1. ODOT hereby grants CITY, and /or contractors, the right to enter onto and occupy ODOT right of way upon issuance of ODOT required permits, for the performance of necessary preliminary engineering, construction, and maintenance of the Project. 2. ODOT's District 2A Project Manager, or designee, shall issue the required permits and, at Project expense, review and concur with any proposed landscaping activities within the Project area. 3. ODOT shall, without expense to CITY, take all steps necessary to effectively protect the adjacent CITY landscape facilities from any damage or incident from ODOT activities within the Project area. ODOT shall be liable to and shall reimburse CITY for any damage to CITY's facilities resulting from or attributed to ODOT activities in the Project area. 4. ODOT shall continue to provide ongoing roadway maintenance on 99W from face of curb to face of curb within Project area identified in Exhibit A. 5. ODOT's Project Manager for this Project is Sam Hunaidi, 6000 SW Raab Rd, Portland, OR 97221; phone: 503 -503 -731- 8472, email: sam.h.hunaidi @odot.state.or.us, or assigned designee upon individuals absence. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual written consent of both PARTIES. 2. ODOT may terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to CITY, or at such later date as may be established by ODOT, under any of the following conditions: 6 Agreement No. 24,881 City of Tigard a. If CITY fails to provide services called for by this Agreement within the time specified herein or any extension thereof. b. If CITY fails to perform any of the other provisions of this Agreement, or so fails to pursue the work as to endanger performance of this Agreement in accordance with its terms, and after receipt of written notice from ODOT fails to correct such failures within ten (10) days or such longer period as ODOT may authorize. c. If CITY fails to provide payment of its share of the cost of the Project. d. If federal or State laws, regulations or guidelines are modified or interpreted in such a way that either the -work under this Agreement is prohibited or ODOT is prohibited from paying for such work from the planned funding source. 3. Any termination of this Agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued to the Parties prior to termination. 4. Both parties shall, to the extent permitted by the Oregon Constitution and the Oregon Tort Claims Act, indemnify, defend, save, and hold harmless each other, their officers and employees from any and all claims, suits, and liabilities which may occur in their respective performance of this Project. 5. Notwithstanding the foregoing defense obligations under the paragraph above, neither party nor any attorney engaged by either party shall defend any claim in the name of the other party or any agency /department /division of such other party, nor purport to at as legal representative of the other party or any of its agencies /departments /divisions, without the prior written consent of the legal counsel of such other party. Each party may, at anytime at its election assume its own defense and settlement in the event that it determines that the other party is prohibited from defending it, or that other party is not adequately defending it's interests, or that an important governmental principle is at issue or that it is in the best interests of the party to do so. Each party reserves all rights to pursue any claims it may have against the other if it elects to assume its own defense. 6. If CITY fails to maintain facilities in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, ODOT, at its option, may maintain the facility and bill CITY, seek an injunction to enforce the duties and obligations of this Agreement or take any other action allowed by law. 7. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts (facsimile or otherwise) all of which when taken 'together shall constitute one Agreement binding on all Parties, notwithstanding that all Parties are not signatories to the same counterpart. Each copy of this Agreement so executed shall: constitute an original. 7 Agreement No. 24,881 City of Tigard 8. This Agreement and attached exhibits constitute the entire Agreement between the Parties on the subject matter hereof There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement. No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both Parties and all necessary approvals have been obtained. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure of ODOT to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by ODOT of that or any other provision. The Parties, by execution of this Agreement, hereby acknowledge that each Party has read this Agreement, understands it, and agrees to be bound by its terms and conditions. The Oregon Transportation Commission on December 29, 2008, approved Delegation Order No. 2, which authorizes the Director to approve and execute agreements for day -to -day operations. Day -to -day operations include those activities required to implement the biennial budget approved by the Legislature, including activities to execute a project in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. On September 15, 2006, the Director of the Oregon Department of Transportation approved Subdelegation Order No. 2, Paragraph 2, in which day -to -day authority is delegated to the Region Managers for their respective Regions, which includes the authority to approve and sign agreements up to $75,000 when the work is related to a project included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, other system plans approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission such as the Traffic Safety Performance Plan, or in a line item in the biennial budget approved by the Director. SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW 8 Agreement No. 24,881 City'of Tigard CITY OF Tigard, by and through elected STATE OF OREGON, by and through officials its Department of Transportation By By Mayor Region 1 Manager Date Date APPROVAL RECOMMENDED APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY By District 2A Manager By CITY Attorney Date Date ODOT Contact: Sam Hunaidi CITY Contact: 6000 SW Raab Rd Kim McMillan Portland, OR 97221 City of Tigard phone: 503 -731- 8472 13125 SW Hall Blvd. email: sam.h.hunaidi @odot:state.or.us Tigard, OR 97223 Phone:503- 718 -2642 email: kim @tigard -or 9 EXHIBT A Project Location M C & A No. 24,881 99W Sidewalk Improvement Landscaping Gaarde Street to Canterbury Lane • 4'' 1 111. I Ibll IV I l , y 'I :M_ a� r, tr. iprilisif 1iI�l�i ltlllr I'. i l ir I ��q' a 41, 5 arlp r . 2 _ . I M • ,, '.li,,. '. .,7 II, ! 6 TI "� ll. t P II I IF a I I � ; li Exhibit A: - P ' . ' , v ,, ' , "�L( b �:}'I,inl1 V 99W Sidewalk Improvement Landscaping Project ,b a l l Ioi` % Gaarde Street to C antel buI } Lane w 4 0 I ,; t/I , / . 4 lgi l „u �rI I 'r Ir leg In m x71'12 1 /p Ilr • 1 '1 ! i` ws Fj� p, . ' rJ I ,r: 4 1 1 i 111 { ��"�GI� , , 1 t l I� i � I M ' "r; ' Ih� Ii it ��!4111 11 I ,� ��,, I 61 f� I h II t (I I : . 9 I I mill ui ! , ll. I . "6 4 'T6 i1 � 1 l C -- 6 :II '4 1 IPI, 1 I , III a u I 1 n� 1 h lff f� I rlr li �t h PPP''' I �nl+ I dl`% % 4 cr • I ' � � p ' I i e . 11 wl I li 4.1'.'11 r'' i1 , ,I l ''i iI 1 I I ' I1 t i. � . t L+ I 1 i tli , I �to 'lu .. 111 , 111 1' I II I I I IIf f''I , j#I I� I , ‘ In 1 rnl ]o 1 !(gj(I rdl ,1 , Mfr al�! + Ilnfr ,II tl ,4 N4 . III ry �yII 1 1 1 i ! (� j j�� ` A , ;rl ,, ' L 1 �I + I I �I I I,I A I i +i P 1 1 444 4 1111 I,-. � 1 '�I 11 R IXh � . ! II'1'll lb'i l l l ll ; �� I17flijg l i qt.., � i I I� I, Xr�1Nkrii (iiii I ui k I ; , III fl 4 , ,1( ? I , 11 1 1 {I I NT!! 1 . ;I u' 'I4 +n m- 'Pi! r IL : sT 4Illti +' Vf ii 'I+ 0 ,11FAr»N .+sill all r!.!1(1P4lcd a3" ' I r n a ,i hl t q „,, e t 1 I`LL) t II1 �, i'" 9 Jl lll� 1 �T � � W 1M � ! II n � � W" � 4 i Y '' . I �� 1 erT'i 17 "Ib I� WIi 1�III � ' • (�� I� Pit?'" �l �illl'p� i 4 i II I r i I q i II 1 �r ' I I „( Ili 1:., Ir L 1 I I Ir 112r'�',JII , I 1� I In " III ' Pb4 I " lh'� d 1 IlI 'l o�I -4:4161151r,„ ,. II p I B n J 11 l 1. sift I 1 '�u n v1 w 11 ill 1 �i }ry H I pfu l' a MCUwrcr 71 a .'el w PL U' IiiIII , I n n m 91 ,� I a K' 1. II',I +illl 111,, I :h9 , 1 ; IIN p I n � p 'l T )I✓7 , r f l I ,::1". t '� � n1 .., - �LIIIU 1_ 'a . "� 111 � I u, q' �I4 �` �III � 1 � I ii 1 ,.,o µ 9 1p +' ! 4.14m. 1 i W1 , I j I l lll , , i s n ' 1 0 !tilt -,' ' I I Nr ° sr 1 1 I I I D I li• • 1, r r f !117 ri I is ,,, i� ', fl Beginning of Pro ect �I . 1 $ °! 6`�yl w t ( I Il lll l4 J1'41 N1 b1 111, ' 1 �I 11 .h " d_ Beginning al Ill al rC1 I I l ' � , p n 4.w wM l t 'L i „ lop. 1* ' ,, i # , 1 7t G a ar de Str eet II 1 q 1 1 1 W r01.4 ) I 1 11 • � Ir l p_ l i N � h L - 1 l!il l � � hit ; � I }! ki t l l d II rA y t Qal j 9 r , �19 1 d ,,,iii �{I i , 4 •�4 if i 1 I t l' 1 - 1 APL. U it r Jl 0 11 141 1 1l11 1 1 11 , ,� �1 , 1u 1 II, � � hll Ilftiml JN ye iII1 M I �' L i + , �s��li �'" 'd ae rr '�I �i: h11 INt, r i I I� y ". i �Ielr 9r d n 1 11 , , I I � 1'1 � '. � I -lu I � c nd�uu sT 1k vk 1 1 1 Ib 1Q �! t, r, u I X , hcNn VI` i ill I ° :,,I, yy I r 1A IH. 4AIIt rr I,' , F n 1 eq 1 I r 111� p } rb '�a�' :if "a 1� PI #I(' j ( ry� 1 II t�lt� � 1 A " I d (1 r i h I Ar i� � � x � �, II � 'I2 1 J I:� IN, 1 yi .. �. ' I 1 I'T 1� I ?1 16 i fl 1 n,, W � 1 1111 G yI s 1 i 7 I'1, 451 I I ,V Xlllri �14'' to I t ,„‘ 1 u l 1 ii1 Ar I DI I S;1 A- G I 1P w1 ffb 7� it'll. I.1 >I1 IPCr 1 11 711 41� iN� 11 I n .� J11, 7 m I I o �W9d I '1., t €P ,p. _ 1 I,1; rrr 1 1 J Q I n r II',I�II I +I 1 . 411 dl i t 1 fl"} 1 I a•' 111 .1. � u�' cb I I I ll I I 1P �� n'I d ( n 1� � 3 1 s_ II 1 11 p Ti,Ii - r q I 11 1 iwi Ti and fiL ;� 1�0,� 1 1gd ! 7fl , � I u41 i � I f1 7 ✓✓ I 'Blb�o ` 'iillhi I' � n 4 � ' r � it yrlg g 1i '1111,11; I, h , 1!tr , �" r�VI I lido � r l . , -• • i � ` . . i 1 I t l p( P uuIII , r �� I I I � T Jig' ,1 n �'1$ l I A il] II " v I 'I i 1 4'II��.I 1 l End of Pro ect �I/�I ' 9' x lh �nv II �I� In 1 11 . ,7 1+171 Ip 7 a Ge, n iI ',4 ,16llli 4l ,1 7 .n,A • Ir a ai n ..7. 1 l /I`� li,1 lr ,;;• �F`F , I n ,,, I9 '� ,th ll 4 11:ele• at Canterbury Lane 1' P+ 1 I� 1 I J 1hh , �{I! } I. I fi , In Il$N 4J' Ii 1 t i yVq u I "I`I n � u ,. 1 + 1 1 , ' , 1 +1 I s B 1M I p'c r y, A I �I � 1 • ^I 4 + 1 1 11 + Loc 1. t + I "ff P1 1 1 1! a:u k , i N • �, ^ 1flIV' i,l ere, �11 {flIW I� ' � i�l ll Il � e1� � � h n � 1 ' 7 ' 1 , Ivl "g N . fl 111 ,. ...�.. v�PtY.tea ( I I� ,ii 1 `,,, 1 11I d ri p I I' [[ l ! I1�I ql l l (� 1 nil. I 6. 111d qii 1 }f 11� i II 1t� 1 ' II'eN� 1l' r( I p1P it �'I �� fl x #I l�I II Ifll 1 F �XIA I �I3 � pp�I ] l� A A� 7 11♦f v U I� i�l 1 I �� 11:1004. b NI et MIN II {i d�ll °II 13'111 LrI> II �1t �4 u I � 1 ll �P �WIII� 7 i N 1 1 1 116 . 'rl i ry ( I �l ry ' 1 I ! I I I 14 I it I I 1 1 II f 1.1 'll I i 11 I :•:. 1 II d f 1 � ' I ), l ' I IiI x.11 5lauln .�q I} lrlUiELeL MGT FI I 1 I ; i`�� X 111 pplPl . !I y I v I II! 1 �1F, , �I I . I n.J r 1 IOl6. �fl. 1 I ,,. _.-.., l Ili n 11 1 IL400n' , I ) 4( 1 { 9' ' II I 4 II U ' ��I ' ({� 1 • firi 2 I , a - '.III 1' 4 e ' 1 l'�I I t 11 1MUP000P:P0- u I A1 lI fl ,. 1, q l�y , , ( j t 1 I I p I k11 i i r - "' ` .x 0 11w Ry 1 ¢i 11 °I o ( 17,'il I ' fl . t I � r 1 ii l � I l + III API 1 li x , I,y I_9 I °o t 1 I I!I 'lI y I I 1ll 11 p 4! I, n l r r Y ' 71 d Y ' Ii„ 111 n (. s. L f�d' p 1 I!f 1 u 1 II, . I, I ,'6 ! , fl �1 ;, , li p I �I I� Sul oiill Iti�li I Ji N °I �pIin41ii, r �� FAIN I I 1r r u', I1 a I al 11 it I 1� d . $i till til W ` � � ' ''' I llll,f 46 IIrU �. l l'�' , 1 I II i'Iilll l juil �� ,Ipol �'I ) I� II I,, ;jfli �? {. 5_. "i a_bl4 41 Ih� . , Jle 'sat-, f 1 �A I II I �I l jllll r l1l � IIII'� [ ' :r ' I lil ill 1 71 i . � , 'V � ' JIJII � 1 1 w o I I Ili P °gy 6 a Y l I ry 41 .�p1 111 "Ili 1 1411 1 l ��, b f � 1 i t i ii; Ifl i {1, !w I I 1 Il '1 M I [� ! I� r I 11' I +, tI111 € ill I 1 Wf! .9, I. n & r4 1 ° 1 1 nn I. v 0 II H giii II N • , 8 � C � 1'00 1 Ill ' r I 1, i�II� iiJ Y 1 500 250 0 500 Feel I C al +.' x � , Bap •d m • ,,: ii , i I✓ 1 � 7 9 1 1 1111'4' L i h I 9 rtY 97 1 I ,i11.1:1, I 1 I I l a _ it N I p i I $ � N �1 JI I '1 1 I I I I� 4' , 1 1 1 , 1 ' 1 r i'� I1 �IfRO'M • A10 1 1bIhIq�WWIIID ��. a Kin C B ` 1 4 11 uYPR p1 � Ur. .. V_ „,! .iII - - 1 - .['xlhl �• Department artment of Transportation y, eery ° Ore P Region 1 r n Handers w! ' _ Theodore R. Kulongoslu, Governor \I Portlandd, , OR R 97209-4019 \r859 / `\ (503) 731 -8200 FAX: (503) 731 -8259 pFC 03 2 1p9 TO: Kim McMillan GAD City of Tigard QG ` I` 13125 SW Hall Blvd. )t File Code: Tigard, OR 97223 FROM: Devorah Hannah, Agreement Specialist, R1 CAU DATE: December 2, 2009 SUBJECT: ODOT Misc. Contracts & Agreement No. Section name Attached are 2 bound copies and 1 informational copy of the subject proposed agreement. Please sign and return all bound copies to me at 123 NW Flanders, Portland, OR 97209. (Please Note: It's legally required that you sign AND date the attached documents or the execution :of the agreement cannot be completed and the documents may be returned to you for resigning.) The unbound copy may be retained for your reference until Salem Contracts Unit sends you an original signed, executed agreement. (Please, note: the blue coverings are not to be removed; they indicate that each bound contract is complete and identical.) If you have any questions, I can be reached at (503) 731 -8277. Thank you. VarCkli Devorah Hannah Agreement Specialist Region 1, Contracts and Agreements Unit • Form 734 -1850 (2 -06) •{+ . ir:\ ' Agenda Item # Meeting Date January 26, 2010 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda' Titlehegislative Public Hearing - Consider Ordinance for Downtown Code Amendments and Design Standards (Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA2009- 00003, Development Code Amendment DCA2009- 00005, and ZoningMap Amendment ZON2009 00001) (Council Goals 1 and 2) Prepared By: Sean' Farrelly Dept Head Approval: N "�/7, — City Mgr Approval: eg ISSUE BEFORE'THE'COUNCIL Shall Council approve the Planning. Commission's recommendation to adopt the Downtown Code Amendments and Design Standards (Cotnpreliensive Plan, Development Code and Zoning Map Amendments). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approving the requested Comprehensive Plan, Development Code and Zoning Map Amendments by adopting the attached ordinance and text amendments (Attachment. 1), as recommended by motion of the City of Tigard Planning Commission. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY One of the recommendations of the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan was to revise and update the land use regulations for Downtown. The proposal would also implement several policies of Comprehensive Plan Chapter 15: Special Planning A Areas - Downtown, which was adopted in 2007. In the summer of 2007, staff, working with a joint subcommittee of the Planning Commission and the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC), began work on the draft code and map amendments. A State Transportation Growth Management Code Assistance grant provided funds for the draft code to be reviewed by land use and architecture consultants. Graphic :illustrations were created for.many of the design standards. "These consultants also :did an innovative exerciSe :applying the draft development standards (height limits,,setbacks, etc.) to three Downtown sites. This led to several revisions and subsequent confirmation of development feasibility under the new code. The full CCAC reviewed the draft code and after making several revisions, endorsed the draft code. The Planning Commission held two workshops reviewing the draftand held a.pubhc hearing oh October 19, 2009. The Planning Commission unanimouslyteconimended approval of the amendments to :Council. Asa resultof ODOT feedback on the Transportation Planning Rule, the draft code language was revised, reducing the .maximum permitted heights. in`the Hall /99W sub -area to what is permitted under existing zoning. On December 7, 2009, a new public healing was held before the Planning Commission. The Commission once again unanimously �r ecotrunended approval of the code amendments to Council. _ _ Open Houses were held in July 2008 and"J 2009, attended by a total of 80 property owners, business owners and other stakeholders. Notices of public hearing with a summary of the proposed changes have been sent to the 237 affected property - owners. Staff,presented overviews of the proposed' Downtown Land Use and Design Guidelines Code Amendments at Council workshops on October.20, 2009, December 15, 2009, and January 19, 2010. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Modify the Planning Commission recommendation and adopt CPA2009- 00003, DCA2009- 00005, ZON2009- 00001. 2. Remand to the Planning Commission to hold additional hearings and deliberations for future consideration at City Council. CITY COUNCIL GOALS Council Goal 1: Implement Comprehensive.Plan Council Goal 2: Implement Downtown Urban Renewal Long Term Council Goal: Continue implementing Downtown Urban Renewal Plan ATTACHMENTLIST Attachment 1: Ordinance approving Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2009- 00003, Development Codc Amendment 2009- 00005, and Zoning Map Amendment 2009 -00001 Exhibit A: Proposed Amendment Language for CPA2009- 00003,. DCA2009- 00005, ZON2009 -00001 Exhibit B: Proposed Zoning Classifications and Comprehensive Plan Map Attachment 2: Staff Report to the Tigard City Council Attachment 3: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (public hearing #2) — December 7, 2009 Attachment 4: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (public hearing #1) — October 19, 2009 FISCAL NOTES Not Applicable o. City of Tigard TI Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Sean Fancily, Redevelopment Project Manager Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder Re: Clarification on Motion Adopting Downtown Development Code Ordinance Date: January 28, 2010 NOTE TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: AFTER YOUR REVIEW, PLEASE ADVISE SEAN FARRELLY OR CATHY WHEATLEY BY NOON ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, IF YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVAL IS CORRECTLY SHOWN IN THE ATTACHED ORDINANCE NO. 10 -02 Contact Sean by calling 503 - 718 -2420 or email Sean(atigard- or.gov Contact Cathy by calling 503 - 718- 2410'or email cathy�a tigard- or.gov At the.January 26, 2010 public hearing a motion was made to adopt the Downtown Development Code (CPA2009 -0003) with some modifications. Capturing the revised language with regard to the provision of private open space has required reviewing the audiotape and consulting staff notes. The wording.of a:2 was slightly edited for clarity. The Mayor requested that you review the language and confirm with staff that the intent of Council has been captured. 2 Open Space Option B (language as amended by City Council) 18.610.030:F2. Mixed Use Buildings with Residential Units and Residential Only Multi- Family Developments a. Private Outdoor Space: For all residential -only buildings and mixed -use buildings with more than four residential units, private open space such asa private porch, a deck a balcony, a patio, an atrium, or other outdoor private area, shall be provided. 1. Total required private open space shall be based on an average of 28 square feet per unit inta.development. 2. In order to be counted into the open space average, the private open space provided to a.unit shall have a:minimum of 32 square feet, with a minimum depth of 4 feet. 3. The private open space provided shall be contiguous with the unit. 4. Balconies •used for entrances or exits shall not be considered as open space except where such exits or entrances are for the sole use of the unit.. 5. Balcoriies•may project up to a maximum of four feet into the public right -of -way. Attached is the ordinance showing all of the changes made by the Council. Ordinance No. 10= 01.(with an attachment and exhibits) • Attachment 1 showing the motion by Council and listing the amendments to the proposed.Ordinance. • Exhibit A with changes marked shown by handwritten notations on the following pages: Page 13: Errata Page 16: Errata Page 22: Errata Page 23: Deleting Landscaping and Screening Section Page 27 Two errata changes Page 32 Noting section to be added for Open Space "Mixed Use Buildings with Residential Units and Residential Only Multi - Family Developments Page 35 Errata • Exhibit B — Map — Proposed Land Use Designations (No changes) If the City Council agrees the changes are shown correctly, we can proceed with the ordinance with the steps required to amend the Code. If there is disagreement, we will need to return to City Council before the ordinance can be finalized. I'.ACitywideACoucil Packets V Packet '10V100126 \code memo) 28.docx CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 10- O2 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA2009- 00003, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2009- 00005, AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ZON2009 -00001 TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING MAP AND DEVELOPMENT CODE LANGUAGE FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE TIGARD DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL AREA AND PROPERTIES WITH THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION '-45 - bC D //J 6-46:qcJi WHEREAS, the applicant, the City of Tigard, has requested approval of amendments to the Tigard Community Development Code, the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and the Tigard Zoning Map, based on a recommendation of the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan to implement new zoning in Downtown Tigard; and WHEREAS, notice was provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development 45 days prior to the first scheduled public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 7, 2009 which was noticed in accordance with City standards, and recommended approval of the proposed CPA2009- 00003, DCA2009- 0005, and ZON2009- 00001, by motion and with unanimous vote; and WHEREAS, on January 26, 2010 the Tigard City Council held a public hearing, which was noticed in accordance with City standards, to consider the Commission's recommendation on CPA2009- 00003, DCA2009 -0005, and ZON2009- 00001; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has considered applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; any applicable Metro regulations; any applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies; and any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has found the following to be the only applicable review criteria: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Chapters: Goal 1- Citizen Involvement; Goal 2- Land Use Planning; Goal 5- Natural Resources and Historic Areas; Goal 6 -Air, Water and Land Resources; Goal 7- Hazards; Goal 8- Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space; Goal 9- Economic Development; Goal 10- Housing; Goal 11 -Public Facilities and Services; Goal 12- Transportation; Goal 13- Energy Conservation; Goal 14- Urbanization; and Goal 15- Special Planning Areas - Downtown; Metro Functional Plan Tides 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. WHEREAS, on January 26, 2010 the Tigard City Council adopted CPA2009- 00003, DCA2009 -0005, and ZON2009 -00001 by motion, pursuant to the public hearing and its deliberations; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council's decision to adopt CPA2009- 00003, DCA2009 -0005, and ZON2009- 00001 is based on the findings and conclusions found in the City of Tigard staff report dated January 11, 2010, and the associated record, which are incorporated herein by reference and are contained in land -use file CPA2009- 00003. ORDINANCE No. 10- O Page 1 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA2009- 00003, Development Code Amendment DCA2009- 00005, and Zoning Map Amendment ZON 2009 -00001 are hereby approved by City Council. SECTION 2: The Tigard Development Code is amended to include new text and to rescind existing text as shown in "EXHIBIT A." SECTION 3: The Comprehensive Map and Zoning Map shall be amended to represent the approved changes as shown in "EXHIBIT B." SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: B r I rl ows vote of Council members present after being read by number and title only, thislay of , 2010. i P 1, Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this (Q day of _/ ,i , ..� A. 0 '. :I • Craig irksen, Mayor Appr•ved as to form: aim w Attorney _I Ili AILL l.i _ / OW • Cr t e d ORDINANCE No. 10- Oa_ L Page 2 OrdinanteANo. 10-02 Motion by Councilor Buehner, seconded by Councilor Webb, to adopt Ordinance No. 10 -02, selecting 'Option B language in the Hall /99W Subarea, selecting an 2 amended Option B on the Option Space Option, 3 including the errata changes (distributed by staff to the City Council), and deleting provisions relating to landscaping. ORDINANCE NO. 10-02 — AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 2009 - 00003, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA 2009 - 00005, AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ZON 2009- 00001, TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING MAP, AND DEVRT OPMENT CODE LANGUAGE FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE TIGARD DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL AREA AND PROPERTIES S WITHIN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION AS AMENDEDVS0 DE MODIFIED WITH'OPTION B ON THE HALL /99W SUB -AREA, AND 2 OPTION B SO THAT PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED TO A UNIT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 32 SQUARE FEET AND A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 4 FEET; TOTAL PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED SHALL BE BASED ON 28 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT IN THE DEVELOPMENT; FURTHER THE ORDINANCE IS AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE CHANGES IN THE 3 ET RATA SHEET, AND THE 4 LANDSCAPE LANGUAGE (Section 18.610.020.B.5) IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE SHALL BE DF.T.F,TED. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of City Council present. Mayor Dirksen Yes Council President Wilson Yes Councilor Buehner Yes Councilor Henderson Yes Councilor Webb Yes 1 Option B — Hall 99W /Stab -Areal Adopt the proposed code, including the compromise worked out with ODOT, and direct staff to develop code language to allow higher scale development in the 99W /Hall sub -area by instituting a trip cap, or other methods. • The City will coordinate with its regional partners. Staff /consultant time will be needed for a traffic impact study. The goal would be to bring the language back to Council in 6 -8 months. 2 Open Space Option B (language as amended by City Council) e a (T i rl sec*, d O r? 18.610.030.F.2. Mixed Use Buildings with Residential Units and Residential Only Multi - Family Developments a. Private Outdoor Space: For all residential -only buildings and mixed -use buildings with more than four residential units, private open space such as a private porch, a deck a balcony, a patio, an atrium, or other outdoor private area, shall be provided. 1. Total required private open space shall be based on an average of 28 square feet per unit in a development. 2. In order to be counted into the open space average, the private open space provided to a unit shall have a minimum of 32 square feet with a minimum depth of 4 feet 3. The private open space provided shall be contiguous with the unit 4. Balconies used for entrances or exits shall not be considered as open space except where such exits or entrances are for the sole use of the unit. 5. Balconies may project up to a maximum of four feet into the public right -of -way. Attachment 1— Ordinance No. 10 -02 . 4 tifii Sheet Chang • Downtown Code Errata: Section C.2 An addition, expansion, enlargement, modification, and /or site improvements associated with such lawfully preexisting uses and structures shall be allowed provided the applicant application for such proposed project moves toward compliance with the applicable development code standards. '4 6, Section 4.b — "For applications using Track 3, variances and adjustments may be only be granted....." 1.. " Figure B.3, should read "Equipment set back min. 5 feet." lei*, Figure A.2 -4 Residential (only) Building, c. should read "Max 4' balcony /deck projection" and Figure A.2 -4 Commercial /mixed Use Building, d. should read "Max 4' balcony /deck projection." p.36, Number 3 — "Intent. Build upon and improve Downtown Tigard's architecture by creating an attractive and unified building facade that encourages ground floor activities, and creates *-visually interesting facades and roofs." 4 LANDSCAPE LANGUAGE (Section 18.610.020.B.5) IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE SHALL BE DELETED C b. Landacapc i3lands shall provide a minimum of 1000 cubic fcct of soil volume per tree. This may he achieved a liccnacd land3capc architect. . I: \Citywide \Council Packets \ Packet '10 \ 100126 \ Ordinance No. 10 -02 - Council Motion.docx 2 Attachment 1— Ordinance No. 10 -02 EXHIBIT "A" Proposed Downtown Tigard TIGARD Code Amendments t irk vrioaor ,,._ .._. ,o p _. otii...,,,4.4..., , 4 • . I 4 4 . . ' ". 11111111111 1101°.' 0,110ilmft - . - ---k„, • . • ---- T't kto IIIIIIIII% 1. . Illi L — LT INIIPPIPIREA ' - . I not ------.. „J....1 ----- 4 0 E 0 ffi (a 2v±,14m11.1. ,. . ,,, /7-: In" MilrniilNiiii.P.,,I, , _ a wii\ , ......,•,.....iti,„..„, , II . _ ovillwar IF! ,.;.h.,111 -,----- orneiNvi_ ipti,..... , p __________,,, . ovr ,...-- I ._.-pffiliriii ,.. IF 11. oval • 0 4 • 111 I III 1 III st Int — dm — 1 'VAllti i ra,...rmigmroowma i mum ______„.1.1*.-.-------- \ 1 ,,,.....4.1;....,.rdligi ,-_- ---....;'''',0.7 ?AN vprApP• N , v illy 1 l infkoi N , .A ic , , ,, ,„ wow squial -c& . - ::-- --- ' 4- ‘ \ . , , \ VI P \Ili 4* t e le l owv\twvoits-- :If. . .. 0 ..- - "".i .4.... - \ - - ---- . w ok \Vilifill----*••• _ ,, b . 4 .:•:\ ,...0 0,-- 0 ,, ii i 0 IF -............. ....r., Ad 11%0 --- ' i k i • ,1/4 1.1 \\,\ .■''- ,...- ../ -.142---- - 4 _ 7 e . 4„,....:''. c ', 9. .............. -4-` ®Introduction • The proposed Cede'Aitiendments are intended to implement the Tigar•Downtewn,bnprovement Plan. The Special Planning Areas - Downtown chapter the, Comprehensive Plan establishes the pohcy framework for necessary code amendments. Plan policies and concepts will beimplemented by amendmetitsto the Community Development Code. Development code.adendinents fall into two basic categories: d. Amendments to the existing code section: Decision- Making;Procedures'(18.390) The proposedamendinents establishe3 new decision making procedures::Design Review Compliance Letter (Type I), Downtown Design Administrative Review (Type II) and Downtown Design Review ( Ill -C). Commercial Zoning:Districts (18.520) Theproposed : amendments modify Commercial' Districts (Chapter .18.520). These changes establish a Mixed Use - Central Business•District (MU-CBD ),It would•replace the Central Business District (CBD) •ione and expand the zone boundaries to.include all properties in the Urban•Renewal District.— which are currently zoned Central" Business District (CBD), General Commercial (C =G) Commercial and Professional Commercial (C -P), R- 12(PD), 3 MUR -1, and R -4.5. The zone will also encompass seven properties.adjacent to, but-outside the.URD - zoned CBD (PD) and R -12 (Pa) The following chapters will be updated as they. apply to the new zone: 18.120 ,Definitions 18.130 UseClassifications 18.310 Summary of.Land UsePerinits 18.745 Landscaping & Screening 18.765 'Off-street Parking and Loading :Requirements 18.780 Signs 18.795 Vi Clearance Areas 18 ;810 Steeet and Utility.lntprovement'Standards 2. New code:section: Tigard Downtown Di Site and Building Design Standards and Objectives (18.610) The TigardDowntown District Siteand Building Design'Standards Chapter isa.new •section of the development code. The chapter includes.•a •map;designatihgthe four design sub -areas of the larger.MU-CBDieneand their corresponding development standards (huildingheigh(setbacks, density, etc.) The chapter also includes building and sitedesign standards; requirements for special areas andsites, and for adjustmentsfor specific conditions. The site and.design standards are triggered when application for new•develop is made. • Deleted section indicated byL.0 .s-uuta. Sections added toexisting chapters indicated by underlinedandbold. Staffcommeiztary;appea'rsiii ded,bdx,thi;H htilde. DRAFT #52. I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments I 1 I* Part :1,:, Amendments to thel Exl'stin Se`ctions__ • Chapter 18.390 DECISION- MAIGNG PROCEDURES SECTIONS: 18:390. Purpose 18:390.020' Description of Decision - Making Procedures 18.390 :030 Type ,1 Procedure 18390.040 Type,II Procedure 181390.050 Type III Procedure 18.390.060 ,Type IV Procedure 18:390.070 Special Procedures 18390.080 General Provisions 18.390.010 'Purpose A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish a series of standard decision - making procedures that will enable the City, the applicant, and aftinterested parties to reasonably review,applications and participate iri' :the local .decision- making process in a timely and effective way Each permit or action set forth in Chapters 18.320 — 18.385 has been assigned a specific procedure type. 18.390M20 'Description of Decision - Making Procedures A. General. MI development permit applications shall be decided by using one of the following procedure types. The procedure type assigned to each action governs the decision - making process .for that permit, except to;ihe :Scent otherwise required by applicable state or federal law.' The Director shall be responsible for assigning - specific procedure types.to individual permit or action requests, as requested. Special alternative decision - making procedures have been developed by the City'in- accordance with existing state law, and are codified in Section 18.390.070. B. Types defined. There are four types of decision- making procedures, as follows: 1. Type,I Procedure. Type I procedures apply to ministerial permits and actions containing clear and objective approval criteria. Type I actions are.decided by theDirector with notice and without a public hearing; 2. Type II Procedure. Type II procedures apply to quasi - judicial permits and actions that contain some discretionary criteria. Type II actions are decidedby the Director with public notice and an opportunity for a hearing. If any party with standing appeals a Director's Type II decision,.ihe appeal of such decision will,be heard by the Hearings Officer; 3: Type III Procedure, Type III procedures apply to quasi - judicial permits and actions that predominantly contain discretionary approval criteria. Type III actions are decided by either.the Hearings Office (Type,1IGH0)Tor.the Planning Commission (Type III -PC), or Design Review -Board (Type III- C) with appeals to or review by the City Council; 4. Type IV Procedure. Type IV procedures apply to legislative matters. Legislative matters involve the creation, revision, or large - scale implementation of public policy. :Type IV matters are considered initially by the Planning Commission with final decisions made by the City Council. C. Summary of permits by decision: making procedure type. Table 18.390.1 summarizes the various land use permits by the type of decision -making procedure: 2 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30 /09 Table,- 18.390.1 - SUMMARY'OF.PERMITS _BY TYPE OF STAFF (C O,M;M E N TA R Y DECISION - MAKING PROCEDURE TYPE PERMIT /LAND CROSS - REFERENCE(S) I (18:390.030) .Accessory Residential Units 18.710 'Development Adjustments 18.370.020 B2 De_ sign Review Compliance Letter (Track 1) 18.610 Home Occupation/type I 18.742 Landscaping Adjustments • Existing Street Trees 18:370.020 C4a; 18.745 • New Street Trees 18.370.020 C4b; 18.745 Lot Line Adjustment 18.410.040 Minimum Residential Density Adjustment 18.370.020 C2; 18.430; 18.715 Nonconforming Use Confirmation 18.385.030A; 18.760 Parking Adjustments • Reduction of Minimum Parking Ratios 18.370.020 C5c; 18.765 in Existing Developments/Transit Imp. • Reduction in Stacking Lane Length 18.370.020 C5g; 18.765 Signs • New 18.780 • Existing 18.780 Site Development/Minor Modification 18.360.090 Temporary Uses • Emergency Uses 18.785 • Seasonal/Special Uses 18.785 • Temporary Building 18.785 • Temporary Sales Office/Home 18.765 Tree Removal • Removal Adjustment 18.370.020 C7; 18.790 • Removal Permit 18.790 Wireless Communications Facilities — Setback 18.370.040 C8b; 18798 from Other Towers Il (18.390.040) Access/Egress Adjustment 18.370.020 C3b Conditional Use/Minor Modification 18.330.030 Downtown Design Administrative Review 18.610 (Track 2) Historic Overlay • Exterior Alternation 18.740 • New Construction 18.740 • Demolition 18.740 Home Occupationflype D 18.742 DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 13 • TYPE PERMIT /LAND CROSS- REFERENCE(S) Land Partitions' 18.420.050 STAFF COMMENTARY Parking Adjustments • Reduction in Minimum Parking Ratios 18.370.020 C5a; 18.765 • Reduction of Minimum Parking Ratios 18.370.020 C5b; 18.765 in New Developments/Pransit Imp • Increase in Maximum Parking Ratios 18.370.020 C5d; 18.765 •.Reduction in Bicycle Parking 18.370.020 C5e; 18.765 • Alternate Parking Garage Layout 18.370.020 CSf; 18.765 Sensitive Lands Permits • In 25% +:Slope 18.775 • Within Drainageways 18.775 • Within Wetlands' 18.775 Sign Code Adjustment 18.370.020 C6; 18.780 SiteDevelopment Review • New Construction .18.360.090 Major Modification 18.360.090 Subdivision Without Planned Development' 18.430.070 Variances 18.370.0100 Wireless Communication Facilities — 18.370.020 CBa; 18.798 Adjustment to Setback from Residences Appeals to Hearings Officer 18.390.0406 IRA Conditional Use (18.390.050) • Initial 18.330.030 Hearings Officer • Major. Modification 18.330.030 Sensitive Lands — Within 100 -Year Floodplain 18.775 • In 25 %+ Slope' 18.775 • Within Drainageways' 18.775 • Within Wetlands' 18.775 IIIB Historic Overlay — District Overlay — 18.385.010k 18.740 (18390.050) Removal of District Overlay 18.385.O10B; 18.740 (Planning Planned Development — With Subdivision — 18.350.100; 18.430 Commission) Without Subdivision 18.350.100 Zone Map/Text Change/Quasi- Judicial 18.380.030B IIIC (Design Downtown Design Review (Track 31 18.610 Review. Board' (18.390.050). IV Annexation 18.320 (18.390.060) Zone Map/Text Change/Legislative 18.380.020 'These may be processed as either Type-I1 or- fILprocedures, pursuant to Section 18.775.020 D and E. [The rest of Chapter 18.390 is unchanged] 4 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30 /09 Chapter 18.520 COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS STAFF C:O MM EN TA R.Y SECTIONS: 18.520.010 Purpose • 18.520.020 List Of Zoning Districts 18.520:030 Uses 18320:040 Development Standards 18.520.050 Special Limitations on Uses 18.520.060 Additional Development and Design Guidelines 18.520:020 List of Zoning Districts A. C -N: Neighborhood Commercial District. The C -N zoning district is designed to provide convenience goods and services within a small cluster of stores adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Convenience goods and services are those which are purchased frequently, i.e.,,at least weekly; for which 'comparison buying is not required; and which can be sustained in a limited trade area.. Such uses include convenience markers, personal services and repair shops. A Minted number of other uses, including but not limited to restaurants,; gas stations, medical centers, religious institutions, transit - related park -and- ride lots and facilities ,with drive -up windows,are permitted conditionally. B. C -C: Community Commercial District The C -C zoning district is designed to provide convenience shopping facilities Which Meet the regular needs of nearby residential neighborhoods. With a service area of about 1.5 miles, such commercial centers typically range in size from 30,000 - 100,000 gross square feet on sites ranging from 2 - 8 acres. Separated from other commercially -zoned areas by at least one -half mile, community commercial centers are intended to serve several residential neighborhoods, ideally at the intersection of two or more collector streets or at the intersection of an arterial and collector street. Housing is permitted on or above the second floor of commercial structures at a density not to exceed 12 units/net acre, e.g., the'maximum density permitted in the R -12 zone. A limited number of other uses, including but not limited to car washes, gas stations, religious institutions, and transit- related park- and -ride lots, are permitted conditionally. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standardsin the C -C zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well - integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian- friendly. C. C -G: General Commercial District.. The C -G zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade. area. Except where non - conforming, residential uses are limited to single -family residences which are located on the same, site as a permitted use. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to adult entertainment, automotive equipment repair and storage, mini - warehouses, utilities, heliports, medical centers, major event entertainment, and gasoline stations, are permitted conditionally. D. C -P: Professional/Administrative Commercial District. The C -P zoning district is designed to accommodate civic and business/professional services and compatible support services, e.g., convenience retail and personal services, restaurants, in close proximity to residential areas and major transportation facilities. Within the Tigard Triangle' and Bull Mountain Road District, residential uses at a minimum density of 32 units/net acre, i.e., equivalent to the R -40 zoning district, are permitted in conjunction with a commercial development. Heliports, medical centers, religious institutions and utilities are permitted conditionally. Developments in the C -P zoning district are intended to serve as a buffer between residential areas more - intensive commercial and industrial areas. District. The -EBi3 wnii clohn.t is desi to piuvide a ttnwwhattd Luthal habit-0o dishRt, cent i d City 1LJIUII6 dowutvwu, Wading • DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 15 a .i.ix of L ick., . etail,mtd office uses, SiOglo-family aurched- hoU3ins, at a-ma trminrdCnJ7tq i ,l•.. . ,, • :, i r i;' ,,,, „ „ n. - ,,. - STAF;F COMMENTARY wtii A wide i an r u5L5, indudius bat uut ti Hilted W adult Lilly tabuueut, utilities, E. MU -CBD: Mixed Use - Central Business District The MIJ -CBD zoning district is Section •Er designed to provide a pedestrian friendly urban village in Downtown Tigard- The Central Business District ((BD) A wide variety of commercial, civic, employment, mixed -use, multi- family zoning disfrict 'Milk replaced by and. attached single family residences are permitted. New development and theMixed-UseCentralBusiness , `redevelopment is required to conform to the standards of Chapter 18610, District;(MU-CBD): The nett, land F. MUE: Mixed -Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a use categories for the MT= cop will majority of, the land within the Tigard Triangle, a,regional mixed -use employmedtdistrict lie inserted into Table18.52O1, bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and 1 -5. This zoning district permits a the: ” Use Table." For,: Table.18.52O.2 wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, Corn merc ial Develop men! Stan - civic uses'and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density. of 25 dards, the CBD column Wilt be units/acre, equivalent to the R -25 zoning district. A wide range of uses; including but not replaced a column for MU -CBD limited to community recreation facilities, religious institutions, medical centers, schools, teith'an'astertsk- directing the.user utilities and transit- related pant- and -ride lots, are permitted conditionally-Although it is to the Downtown Design Standards recognized that the automobile will accommodate the vast majority of trips to and within the chapter, for specific development Triangle, it is still important to 1) support alternative modes of transportationto the greatest standards for the sub -areas of the extent possible;, and 2) encourage a mix of uses to facilitate intra- district pedestrian and zone. transit trips even for those who drive. The zone may be applied elsewhere in the City through the legislative process. G. MUE -1 and MUE -2: Mixed Use Employment - Districts. The MUE -1 and 2 zoning district is designed to apply to areas where employment uses such as office,, research and development and light manufacturing are concentrated. Commercial and retail support uses are allowed but are limited, and residential - uses -are permitted which':are compatible with employment character of the area. Lincoln Center is an example of an area designated MUE- 1, the high - density mixed use employment - district. The Nimbus area is an example of an area designated MUE -2 requiring more moderate densities. H. MUC: Mixed' Use Commercial District. The MUC zoning district includes land around the Washington Square Mall and land immediately west of Highway 217. Primary uses permitted include office buildings, retail, atidservice uses. Also permitted are mixed -use developments and housing at densities of 50 units per acre. Larger buildings are encouraged in this area with parking under, behind or to the sides of buildings. I. MUC- 1:.Mixed Use Commercial — 1. The MUC -1 zoning district, which is designed to apply to that-portion of the Durham Quarry site within the City of Tigard, is a mixed -use commercial district hounded by 72nd Avenue, Findlay Street and the Tigard, Tualatin and Durham`city limits. This site is the subject of an intergovernmental agreement between the cities of Tigard and Tualatin. Pursuant to that agreement the City of Tualatin shall furnish all planning, building and associated development review /permit services for the property. This zoning district is intended to mirror the City of Tualatin's Mixed Use Commercial Overlay District (TDC, Chapter - 57). It permits a wide range of uses including commercial lodging, general 'retail,.(flees and housing;-the latter includes multi- family housing at a minimum density of .25. units/acre:4nd a- maximum-of 50 units/acre. Additional uses, including but not limitedto major, event entertainment and motor vehicle retail fuel sales, are permitted conditionally: In addition to the standards of this chapter, development within this zone is subject to the standards of Chapter 18.640: J. MUlL: Mi x e d Use Reside Districts. The MUR zoning district is designed to apply to predominantly residential areas where mixed -uses are permitted when -compatible with the residential use. A high density (MIJR41) and moderate density (MUR -2) designation is available within the Milk zoning district. (02 -33) 6 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISE012/30 /09 18.520:060 Additional Development and Design Guidelines t - - ... .. F A. Developmentldesi ng__guidelines in the f, -C zone. STAFF COMME [VIE 1. The following designguidelines are strongly encouraged for developments within the C -C district. Conditions of approval of the development plan may include, but are not limited to, any of the site and building design guidelines deemed appropriate to be mandatory. Existing Code. a. Building design guidelines: (1) The design of 'buildings within a community commercial development should incorporate elements such as special architectural details, distinctive color schemes :special art and other features, which are sensitive to and enhance the surrounding area and serve to distinguish the complex from other retail complexes in the city; (2) All 'buildings within a multi-building 'complex should achieve a unity of design through the use of similar architectural elements, such as roof form, exterior building materials, colors and window pattern; (3) Individual buildings should incorporate similar design elements, such as surface materials, color, roof treatment, windows and doors „on all sides of the building to achieve a unity of design. The sides of a building which face toward a public street should include public entrances to the building and windows to piovide visual'access to the activity within the building. The sides of, a building which face toward an adjoining property , but not toward a public street, should include elements such as windows, doors color, texture, landscaping or wall treatment to ,provide visual interest and prevent the development of a long continuous blank,wall. b. General site design guidelines: Loading areas should not be located on the side of a building which faces toward a'residential use. Loading areas, if located between the building and the street, should be "Oriented away from the street and should be screened to minimize views of the loading area from the street and sidewalk. 2. Design standards: The following mandatory design standards apply within the community commercial district: a. Internal Walkways. (1) Walkways, eight feet minimum width, shall be provided from the public sidewalk or right -of -way to the building(s). At a minimum, walkways shall be located to connect focus points of pedestrian activity such as transit stops and street crossings to the major building entry points; (2) Walkways, five feet minimum width, shall be provided to connect with walkways or potential walkway locations on adjoining properties to create an integrated internal walkway system along the desired lines of pedestrian travel. The width of the walkway should be commensurate with the anticipated level of pedestrian activity along the connecting walkway. (a) Walkways shall be provided along'the full length of the building on any side which provides building access to the public or where public parking is available, to provide safe and comfortable pedestrian access to the building; (b) On the sides of the, building which provide public access into the building, the walkway should ,be wide enough to allow for sidewalk seating areas as well as pedestrian - travel. Weather protection of the walkway should be provided at a minimum at the entrance area and, if appropriate, along the entire walkway. (3) Walkway surfaces for walkways crossing parking areas shall be designed to be visually distinguishable from driving surfaces through the use of durable, low- maintenance. surface materials such as pavers, bricks or scored concrete to enhance pedestrian ' safety and comfort. b. Other site development standards: (1) All lighting fixtures shall incorporate cut -off shields to prevent the spillover of light to adjoining properties; DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 • (2) Mechanical equipment, if located on the building, shall be located within the roof form of the building or enclosed within a screening structure, the design S TA F F C,0 M MEN TA R Y of which is consistent with the design of the building; (3) Mechanical equipment, not located on the building, shall be screened from views from the public street, sidewalk and properties outside the district with a durable; solid wall or fence, or an evergreen hedge or a combination of the above;. (4) All refuse and recycling containers within the district shall be contained within structures, enclosed on all four sides and which are at least as high as the tallest container within the structure; (5) Bicycle racks shall be provided on site. Facilities for a minimum of ten bicycles shall be provided for developments' having 100 or fewer parking stalls, notwithstanding Section 18.765.050. For each 100 additional.stalls, facilities for five additional bicycles shall be provided. Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas or pedestrian ways. It is Strongly encouraged that bicycle parking areas be covered; (6) The site development plan shall incorporate a special feature at the comer of the site. A special comer feature can be a landscape feature, seasonal color planting area, sculpture or water feature. The feature shall provide a visual landmark and some amount of seating area; (7) Parking areas shall be designed to minimize conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular movements. Parking area. landscaping shall be used to define and separate parking, access and pedestrian areas within parking lots; (8) The landscape design for the site shall include plantings which emphasize the major points of pedestrian and vehicular access to and within the site; (9) Site features such as fences, walls, refuse and recycling facility enclosures, and light fixtures shall be designed to be consistent with the scale and architectural design of the primary structure(s). Such site features shall be designed and located to contribute to the pedestrian environment of the site development; (10) In multiple building complexes, buildings shall be located to facilitate safe and comfortable pedestrian movement between buildings. On sites which are adjacent to other properties within the community commercial district, building location shall be chosen to facilitate pedestrian and vehicular connections to buildings on those adjacent properties. Consideration should be given to locating buildings closer to the public street with entrances to the buildings from the public sidewalk, with no intervening parking or driving area. Corner locations are particularly appropriate for this treatment; (11) Opportunities shall be found, for safe, convenient, and pleasant pedestrian connections to existing or proposed transit facilities. Where needed, shelters and layover areas for transit vehicles shall be incorporated into the site development. c. Sign design standards: All signage shall be an integral part of the architectural design. I. the nb,u.I.e of an adopted de ,ig.. plan, ti.c fulluwu. i „dc, undo Subs&tiiuu B.1.c. piojicteil I n,bliL faLility l•LLds of the coca, pu. ,ua..t to Cl.apt•a 18.810 a, deft ffei@ 1 by tilt Dii R.tul. ., - •I . . n - • it . • .. • i . i . - •' 1 .1 . - -(1) The develop shall addies, I.ansit u,agc b .c,idu.ts, .aupluy[.w a,.d Specific items to be add, essed are as follows. • 8 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30 /09 di,ctrpcdc,triarractr5S into t building(a) _ I ;. • 'ST ST AFF hito th huddu, with liu,ittd W uo#insa ll, apti thtulatnndpa, .GQ M M E, N,T A - R Y ,I;: , path i ma,ked ptdcat.ia,,, Section B.1: . (t) uwmag„ .6amit ,uppo,6vc IWt1J b y The.langnage OfSeCtioi18.1 Sci vi..c, to w1 L ttu, and a, tnial,5ticeb, and deleted aS the new Chapter 18.610 •:'.6: ;�: - :., -- - :.;,;, •; - ;.••,,:• replacesit: dt vtlkpuanb tu u5t al,a C&aurfatt pa, kin pa, lung St, utnu05,m main- . shnetmel„eking, Section 8.2: {2) The dc.clup.nc„t,,hall fa,.ilit p,., •... In the current Development Code, • , . . - , . .. , . : • , . - : • e5ig,mted gz rtn- Six properties are Specified to beat ++ lowedio continue : to:be utilized {a) P,uvisiu„ if tffititnt, tm,vtuud and wntinuvua . --, by •. I 1-P Industrial [Ss after the .noticon + , : w • forminguselitnit six months: this dL,Ilcatiw,,aud t "I3t,nt6UII of ptdtatiia, and bikt paha idtutiftd iu the willcontinue, with the exception .. d• r ; of 2S.1 2AA tax lot 4700, wbich has funds in dm auvunt of the tun b uCtiuu tuat be dtpuaited 'into an atwunt changed Use's :Binh I- P Indu.strial , to f , thc.pu, commercial ;(cu>,ently a ballrbom (h) S4 of atilt/ and t,u,,k tutulauou acbviucs-G VIII Pcd,,3tIT8n , dance•ail.) rtieiep repetties tl - • - • _ : •, • • retain their' status and ihisseCtiOn -and st,cet 1tgi:1.widuw,.alvng all sidc, with y uLit attess into the wilt be Moved to:Chapter18.610. • • : • ' - • , •. .. ; w • . , • . . . • .: • '. i , The tax lots are thehome of Yerizon, aft Magno- Humphries, B & &Printing, (e) Ensure adequate-outdom hgh6„ and-auto Ferguson Enterprises, and 1CL'1 tutulaC,uII a eaa. Embroidering. Act, w,td at a, ft,fluw,. be slaicd attess while appmp, P, uhihit , - . - : , • - I erarradnitted-pla „1Vadng Mt • n , . .. , Stitcu tumuli and u,dustiial ue Ginn Single- family and inidndial du ',ugh landatapiug, and B. MU -CBD (Downtown) See Chapter 18.610.for additional development and design objectives. 2. Existin : um,tunfw hung induct, ial ,h uttu,es at th.. fullvwil% lutatimm, wa t ,u uutuc.to lei utili ed fm I P;Industiial uses aftc, the nuutunful min mac lu,iit of sL month,. May 2S -1 2*A- arlot 4700, Map 2S 1.2AC tax lnt 100 and 202, Ma 2S 1 2A tax lot 1203,-Map 2S 1 2DD to Int 100, and Map 2S 1 20A x-lut300. C. WashingtonSquareRegional Center. See Chapter 18:630 for additional development and design guidelines. DRAFT #5.2- I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments I 9 °fir l U � ' a .) f a: � i _!pro. r . . M I n io -- r - � s ! I , � � � STAFF C O M M E N T A R Y � -7 . = .A V f i, � �. • `� i - U ! ' The zone encompasses all of the •«. `' ' • ► - �, Urban Renewal District, plus those J # �► _ other properties that are currently d . `ti; liS � zoned CBD -PD and the two V ` \,� ` � � properties of the City owned Fanno �"' • '�/ 0 � �* * ` ��' %r s 1- Creek House. /4 . NI. , ,, � � .., , / 4 The zone change will require the � , , ,`., ceo , VI adoption of a new map with the new - • Comprehensive Plan designation 0 41i. Mixed Use Central Business District. #1, /4 Illo INN' \ � # *t e � 1 ■'V s � l `'== .:JI B,. 4 :► 111 =MINI _ -- — 11. Zoning Classifications p Urban Ftae.raBoundary 1=2 Zoning goondonos Cm' of Tigard Oregu a « - Existing Zoning . ..._.: 4. .-- - _ it . . _ A l ... , . . ..,;,, _....:- ‘9 ... • .i.,. .,,- 1 ..... \ . r -- , ,4 U r y f r \so,' !l. ` l ,. „..,, *A . 10.2tir Proposed Zone 10 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30 /09 • Proposed Land Use Table — MU -CBD ZONE ' (to he integrated with,Table 1s:52o.l) STAFF COMMENTARY Use Category Present Present Present Proposed The ;table;:;lisplays the tun e CBD Zone C -G Zone C -P• Zone MU -CBD Zone* existzngcommerclnlzoneswitbin the:tUrbii100newal`Distriat and Residential compares their permitted use's Household Living R ° i / R 01) R (IS) p witb:the,newMiJCBDzone. Group Living P C N P Transitional Housing C C N C Home Occupation R R R R Housing pes Single Units Attached P N/A N/A P Multi-family Units P N/A N/A P Manufactured Units P N/A N/A _ P Mobile Home Parks; Subdivisions' P N/A N/A R''xi Civic (Institutional) Basic Utilities C N C C Colleges N N N P Community Recreation P N N P Cultural li UtliUons P P P P Day. Care P P P - P Emergency Services P P P P Medical Centers C C C C Postal Service P P P P Public Support Facilities P P P P Religious Institutions P P C P. . Schools N N N P SociaVFratemal Clubs/Lodges P P P P A new use category, Custom Arts and Commercial Craft work, was added .. because. the Custom Arts and Crafts - - - P Tigard Development Code 'includes Commercial Lodging P P R f P production of artwork and9nusieal Eating /.Drinking Establishments P P R fi51 P instruments in the definition oflight Entertainment Oriented Industrial use. This new, use category Major Event Entertainment C C N C distinguishes small scale. art and Outdoor entertainment P P R os) C craft production from large scale Indoor Entertainment P P p P industrial type production. Adult Entertainment. C C N N General Retail Sales Oriented P P R (16) P/Rr • Personal Services P P P P Repair Oriented P P N P . Bulk Sales N P N R al Outdoor Sales N P N N Animal - related N N N N Motor Vehicle Related Motor Vehicle Sales/Rental C P/C 0 ' N R U Motor Vehicle Servicing/Repair R 1181 P/C 071 N C Vehicle Fuel Sales C C N R U Office P P P P DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 111 UseiCategory Present Present Present New MU CBD 1 Zoning CBD Zoning C -G Zoning C -P Zone* STAFF COMMENTARY • Self- service Storage; N C N R !u Non - Accessory' Parking P P P p Industrial Industrial Services N . N N N Manufacturing and Production Lightlndustrial N' N N N :GeneralIndustrial N N N N Heavy Industrial N N N N • RailioadNardi N N N N Research and'Development N. N . N C Warehouse/Freight Movement N. N N N Waste - Related N N N N Wholesale Sales C N N N Other Agriculture /Horticulture N N N N Cemeteries N N N N Detention Facilities C C N C • Heliports C' C C N Mining N N N N Wireless Corn. Facilities P/R 131 p/R 131 P/R 13i P/RL3l Rail Lines/Utility•Corridors P P P P Other C 091 C NA Rini Footnotes: , *All development subject to Chapter 18.610 Downtown Urban Renewal Standards and Map 18.610X - 131 See Chaptet.18.798 Wireless Communication facilities [Ill Asingle- family unit providing that it is located on' the same site with a permitted or conditional use in and is occupied exclusively by a caretaker or superintendent of the permitted or conditional use. Multi- family Knish permitted as part of a PD [121 Cleaning; sales and repair of motor vehicles and lightequipment is permitted outright; sales and rental of heavy vehicles and farm equipment and/or storage of recreational vehicles and boats permitted conditionally. (l3] Multi- family residential units;.developed at R -40 standards; only in the C -P District within the Tigard Triangle and BuiMountain Road 1141 Restaurant permitted with restriction in size, in conjunction with and on the same parcel as a commercial lodging.use. (151 As accessory to offices or other permitted uses,, the total space devoted to a combination of retail sales and eating/drinking establishments may not exceed more than 20% of the entire square footage within the devel- opment complex. [16] May not exceed`10% of the total square footage within an office complex. [171 Single - family attachedand multi- family residential units; developed at 12=40 standards, except (2-I2 PD) 118]" - Motor vehicle cleaning only (191 Drive -uo- windows are.permitted to continue it the property had one lawfully inexistence Drior • to the adoption of the MU -CBD desigtation. Otherwise. not permitted ' fx] Only for properties that were lawfully in ex stence (as permitted conditional or Planned Development) prior to the adoption df the MU -CBD designation.. [xx] New retaid n an sales uses may not exceed 60 000 square :feet of gross leasable area per budding in all subareas except 99W/flali Corridor sub -area. (See Map 18.610.S) Table 18:520.2 COMMERCIAL. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MU -CBD zone will have footnote "see "Table 18.610,1 'and Map 18.610.A for development standards" • 12 I Proposed Downtown Tiigard•Code Amendments DRAFT 45.2 I REVISED12/30 /09 P Part 2 ,, New' , , i ° a¢ v . t . S TA C O,�M,NI E N T , A R ; Y Tbis is:a;"tieiu:sectlon: For readability, text is not underlined. . Chapter 18.610 TIGARD DOWNTOWN DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN DeuelojinzentandDesi `Standards, STANDARDS akiritended to provi'degreater, flexibility 'in the types , ofiusesthat; . • 18:610:010 Purpose, and Procedures may beiillowedthroughthetradi- 4 n r A. Purpose., ,The objectives o£ the Tigard Downtown Development and Design Standards are tionalzoning code. The reasons : taimplemeht th Comprehensive Plan, Tigard Downtown Improvement'Plan, and Urban to: Renewal Plan and ensure the, quality, attractiveness, and special character of the Downtown. • Provte'a greater range,of lan The regulations Me intended to: useb` a pportunctces nyw °an • 1. Facilitate the development of an urban village; by promoting the development of a higher the - downtown.. Tigard'st�dbjec+ density, economically viable, ,and :aesthetically pleasing pedestrian oriented downtown tiveistopromoteredevelopment • „• where peoplecan live, work, play andishop for their daily needs without relying on the • of =the downto" "ion -and : uiishes f automobile. The quality and scale of the downtown urban environment shall foster social to ensure' that a wide ;range °• interaction and community celebration, o °com tible uses, can locate; .f�_ pa r. 2. Encourage the integration of natural features and the open space system intoDowntown • 'anywhere: within the -Mti bhb by promoting development sensitive to natural resource protection and enhancement; . distric ' addressing the :relationship to Fanno Creek Park; and promoting opportunities for the • Beindreresponsme tell o tbe,real creation of public art and use of sustainable design, estate market. 3. Enhance the street level as an inviting placefor pedestrians by guidingthe design of the • Create a functional,' well- c_ • building "walls' that frame the right -of -way (the "public realm ") to contribute to a safe, •designed a nd' econom _ ¢cally, high quality pedestrian- oriented streetscape. Building features will be visually interesting viable'Downtown'district.. and human scaled, such as storefront windows, detailed facades, art and landscaping. • Bstablishzunafiedandcoliesive The impact of parking, on the pedestrian system will also be limited. The downtown design character streetscape shall be developed at a human scale and closely connected to the natural • Provide 'options t develop environment through linkages to Fanno Creek open space and design attention to trees a .wide range of 'business and landscapes. .enterprises and 'Housing 4. Promote Tigard's Downtown as a desirable place to live and do business. Promote opportunities: . development of high -quality high density housing and employment opportunities in the Downtown. 5. Provide clear -and concise guide for developers and builders by employing greater use of,graphics to explain community goals and desired urban form to applicants, residents and adininistrators. B. Conflicting Standards: The following standards and land use regulations apply to all development within the Downtown Mixed Use'Centfal Business District. With the exception of public facility, and street requirements, if a design standard found in this section conflicts with another: standard iniheDevelopment Code, the standards in this section shall govern, even if less restrictive than other areas of the code. C. Applicability, 1. New Buildings andltedevelopment: All applicable Design :Standards.apply to new buildings and related site improvements. • -2. Expansion, modification and site improvements to existing development: An addition; expansion, enlargement, modification, and/orsite improvements associated . with such lawfully preexisting uses and structures shall be allowed provided the applicant app I C for such proposed, project moves toward• compliance with the applicable development 4 ,. � , � , � code standards. Only those Downtown Building and Site Design. Standards : applicable to (2t^ i t "i r' P d the proposed expansion, modification or site improvements to the existing d a Tog & ' ' - • shall be applicable. Cct Mo'( i /cap ),6)O DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 3. Design; standards do not apply to the following projects: • Maintenance and repair of a building, structure, or site in a manner that is consistent STAFF C O M _MEN TA R Y with previous approvals and/or necessary for safety; Sect %r%'D: • Projects undertaken to bring an existing development into compliance with the There arethreepotenti • Americans with Disabilities Act rocesses or ?tracks or an/ ' 'a lica • Exterior painting; P d h • Any exterior project that doesn't require a building permit; tion:toget reviewed. Track 1'and2. use • Interior remodeling; the 'clear and objective Design Standards as the approval trite- • Temporary structures/uses (as defined in Chapter 18.785); rta. Track 3 uses the. discretionary Any projectinvolving,a pre- existing•single family residential building or duplex (that Design Objectives as the approval is not being or already been converted to a non - residential use). D. Downtown Design Review Approval Process criteria. 1. To achieve the .purpose of the Downtown Site and Building Design Standards, there are Specified renovation projects may threemethods or "tracks" to apply for approval : use Track 1, an Administrative a: Track I: Design Compliance Letter provides for a Type I review process, using the clear 7ev£ew which is similar to the and objective Design Standards. It is intended for smaller building and site renovation existing Minor Modificationorocess. projects, which meet the threshold of 18.610.010.E.I. • b. Track 2. The Administrative Review track provides for a more complex process (Type Larger renovation projects a n d new II) that.requires•staff review utilizing clear /quantifiable standards. It atiphes to new building construction miry use Track development and renovation/remodeling.projects listed in 18.610.010.E.2. 2, an Administrative reviewsimilar c. Track 3. The Design Review Board Track provides for a Type III review process lathe MkjorMod through which a Design Review Board determines compliance with. the Design Objectives. After or concurrently with receiving design approval, a project will be The Track3process mvides.the administratively reviewed as a Type II decision for all other applicable standards' (Type III if a Conditional Use) opportzinity can l-d t me eed 2. Designing a project to the Design and Development Standards would result in an Projects, which cannot nneetthe administrative review process. However, the applicant at their option, may choose to clear and objective standards •use Track 3 with the Design Review Board. An applicant can address design review for r ary d e site design. The requirements through . a combination of satisfying certain Design Standards, and in discretionary desigmo ve nts. are as instances where they elect not to utilize Design Standards, satisfy applicable Design written he qualitative statements. Objectives. In such a case, the public hearing and decision will focus on whether or not Unlike the that and objective design standards, there are typically, many. the project satisfies the requirements of the applicable Design Objectives only. acceptable'ways'to meet each design E. Procedures objective. Projects would need to 1. Track 1: Design Review Compliance Letter using Design Standards meet the Development Standards. a. Applicability: • (1) Addition, elimination, or change location of windows that does not decrease Tile decision mk A t " %s =the the nin mum required window coverage, Design Review Board. After Design Review Board approval or with a (2) Addition, elimination, or change in location of entry doors and loading doors. concurrent application, 'type!/ (3) Addition of new and change to existing awnings, canopies, and other mounted review is necessary for compliance structures to an existing facade (4) For commercial and niixeduse developments, modification of up to 1 -5 percent with additional chapters listed'in on -site landscaping with ndireduction in required landscaping. Modification 18.610.025. refers to changing the hardscape elements and the location of required landscape An applicant 'can address design areas and/or trees. review requirements through''. (5) Modification of off- street parking with no reduction in required parking spaces or increase in paved area. combination of satisfying certain (6) Addition of new fences, retaining walls,. or both. Design Standards, t o u instances (7) Changing of existing- grade. where if elects not to u,`,talizeDesign' (8) An increase in the height of the building(s) less than 20 %; Standards, satisfy applicable Design' (9) A change in the type and location of access ways and parking areas where off -site Objectives In such a'c ill ocu o l %c traffic would not be affected; hearing and decision iuill focu on (10) An increase in the floor area proposed for a nonresidential use by,less than 10% t hetlfer.or not the project'sgtisfil or under 5,000 sq; the regnireMents of the applieable (11) A reduction in the area reserved for common open space and/or usable open Design' Objectives only. 14 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30 /09 space which does not reduce the open space area below the minimum required by this :Code or-reduces the open space area by less than 10 %; STAFF COMMENTARY b. Process and Procedure Type: The Type:Dprocedure, as described in Section 18.390.030 of this Code, shall apply Section E:1 and E.2 to an application 'for Design Compliance Letter. The decision making authority is Adopted from Site l)evelopznent the Director. iihe applicant must show compliance to the Design Standards prior to Re Chapter ma issuance .ofthe Design Review Compliance Letter. c. Process and Approval Criteria: modifieation evaluation criteria. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application based on Removed the following types of finding that the following criteria are satisfied: the applicable Building and Site Design projects: 1. An'increase in dwelling,unit Standard(s) for the project (Section 18.610.30) and/or the applicable Additional density, ,or lot coverage jar Standards (Section 18.610.035J residential development; 2. Track 2: Administrative Review with Design Standards 2. A change in the ratio or number a. Applicability: A Track 2 review will be required for one of more of the following: of different types of dwelling (1) All new Development except those listed in Section 18.61O.010.E.1 units (2) A change that requires additional on -site parking in accordance with Chapter An increase in vehicu/arjraffic 7. 18.765; (3) A change in the type of commercial or industrial structures as defined by the State to and from the'site'aztd the: Building Code; increase can be &peeled to exceed 100 vehicles per. day; (3) An increase in the height of thebhilding(s) by more than 20 %; 10. A reduction o f project ame nita'es (5) A change in the type and location of access ways and parking areas where off -site below the traffic would be affected; niin'inzutn established (6) An increase in the floor area proposed for a nonresidential use by more than 10 % by this code or by more than excluding expansions under 5,000 square feet; 10% where specified in thesite (7) A reduction in the area reserved for common open space and/or usable open plan: space which reduces the open space area below the minimum required by this a. Recreational facilities, code'or reduces the open space : area by more than 10 %; b: Screening, and/or b. Procedure Type: c. Landscaping provisions. The Type II procedure, as described in Section 13.390.040, shall apply to an application using the Building and Site Design and Development Standards. The decision making authority is the Director. Applicants are required to identify how their proposed site/building plan meets the design standards, through architectural drawings, illustrations, graphics; photographs, a narrative with findings and other materials that demonstrate how the proposed development implements the - intent of the design standards. c. Process and Approval Criteria: The Director shall approve, approve withconditions, or deny an applicationbased on finding that the following criteria are satisfied: 18.610.030 Building.and Site Design Standards and Additional Standards 18.610.035. 3. Track 3 Discretionary Design Review Using Design Objectives a.. Applicability: (1) Any project, at. the applicant's'option. The applicant may also choose this track if a pr"oject'is unable to meet a clear and objective standard. b. Procedure. Type: Applicants are required to identify how their proposed site/building plan meets the intent statements of the design objectives, through architectural drawings, illustrations, graphics, photographs, a narrative with findings and other materials that demonstrate how the proposed development-implements the intent of the design standards. The Type DI procedure, as described in Section 13:390.050, shall apply to an application using Discretionary Design Objectives. The decision making authority is the Design Review Board: Projects receiving approval must also undergo review for land use, engineering, arid building approval. c. Process and Approval Criteria: The Design Review Board shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments I 15 application based 011 that the following criteria are satisfied: 18. 610.050 , Y , uwsuruu'aasr 90 # 7 ="= Building and Site Design Objectives. S T A E F C 0 MME E N T,A:R Y 4. Adjustments and Variances a. `Variances and adjustments as outlined in Chapter 18.370 may be granted for the provisions and regulations of the underlying zone, the Development Standards 18.610.020,, and for the Additional Standards (18.610.035) Variances cannot be granted for building and site design standards in Section 18.610.030. Instead, A limited number of exceptions to applications linable.to meet a standard should use the Track 3 Discretionary Design the standards thatmay'begranted Review using Design Objectives. ' are listed in 18.610045. b. For applications:using Track 3, variances and adjustments maybe only be- granted for the.provisions and regulations of the underlying zone, the Development Standards 4,, e, (18.610.020), and for the Additional Standards (18.610.035), not 'for'the Design / r) & et don cf Objectives themselves. 1 F. Downtown Design Review Submittal Requirements: -1"Tpa , A cl Ci. 1. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application containing /� C a V f ` I all of the general information required for a Type II procedure, as governed by Section t — 1 l a (p 1 j (D ) 18.390:040, or for a Type III procedure , asgoverned by Section 18.390.05,0. 2. Additional information. In addition to the submission requirements required in Section Sections F through Kaddpted from 18.390, Decision-Making Procedures, an applicationmustinclude thefollowingadditional Section 18360 Site Development information in graphic, tabular and/or narrative form. The Director shall provide a list of Review. Currently projects in; the the specific information to be included -in each of the following: TigardTriangle andWasbingtbn a. An existing site conditions analysis; Square undergo Site Development b. A site plan; Review and retied) with the design c. A grading plan; overlay standards, Projects in d. A landscape plan; Downtown will meet the standards e. Architectural elevations of all structures; and • of this' Section (and the'additional f. A copy of all existing and proposed restrictions or covenants. chapters listed in 18.610.025, but 3. All drawings submitted with applications for development using Tracks 2 and 3 shall be need not undergo SiteDove' lopment stamped ,by a registered architect. Applications for landscaping projects only may be Review. stamped by a registered landscape architect. Applications that require engineering or transportation - reports must-be stamped by the'appropriate specialist. it G. Approval period. Approval by the Director or Design Review Board shall be!effective for a period oft -172 years'from'the'date'of approval. The approval shall lapse if: I. Substantial construction of the approved plan 'has not begun within a one -and- one -half years period; or 2. Construction on the site is a departure from the approved plan. H. Extension. The Director shall, upon - written 'request by the applicant and, payment of the required fee, grant an extension of the approvalperiod not to exceed one year; provided that: 1. No changes are, made'on the plan as approved by the Director or Design Review Board; 2. The applicant can show intent of initiating construction on the site within' the one year extensionperiod; arid 3. There have been no changes to the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions,on which the approval was based. I. Phased development 1. If the development of a site takes more than one year, the applicant shall submit a phased development time schedule for approval by the Director. In no case shall the total time period for all phases be greater than seven years without reapplying for design review. 2. The criteria for approving a phased development proposal is that all of the following are satisfied: a. The public facilities are constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase; b. The development and occupancy of. any phase is not dependent on the use of temporary public facilities. A temporary public facility is any facility not constructed to the applicable.City or district standard; c. The phased development shall not result in requiring the City or other property owners 16 I Proposed DowntownTigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30 /09 • .to construct public facilities that were required as part of the approved development proposal; and STAFF COMMENTARY d. The Director's decision may be appealed as provided by Section 18.390.040.G. No notice need be given of the Director's decision. J. Bonding and Assurances 1. Performance bonds for public improvements. On all projects where public improvements are required;the;Directorshall require a bond in an amount not greater than 100% or other adequate assurarices as a condition of approval of the plan in order to ensure the completed isin conformance with the approved plan;.and Section. 18.610.015: 2.. Release of performance bends. The bond shall be released when the Director finds the Section A is based on the Washington completedproject conforms to the approved plan and all conditions of approval are Square Regional Center Design satisfied. Standards (Section 188634030). The 3. Completion of landscape installation. Landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of section addresses nonconforming occupancy permits, unless security equal tothe cost of the landscaping as determined by uses and structuresintheDown- the Director is filed with the City Recorder, assuring such installation within six months town district: Itt has some differences after occupancy: with Section"18.760, Noncbnforin - a. Security may consist of a faithful performance bond payable to the City, cash, certified ing Situations. Additions and check or such other assurance of completion approved by the City Attorney; and mod fcations ofexistingnoncon b. B the installation of the landscaping is licit completed within the six-month period, the forming sifts Mitres are permitted As security may be used by the City to complete the installation. the proposed development standards K. Business Tax Filing would 'create many, nonconforming The applicant shall ensure that all occupants of the completed project, whether permanent developments;: theproposed code or temporary, shall apply for and receive a City of Tigard business tax prior to initiating requires the addition or moth- business. ficatioW to the:Structure,confoith to the new code requirements. For 18.610:015 Pre Existine Uses and Developments within the example, for an application 1041 Downtown District windows to.thefa adeofanexisting A. Applicability. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 18.760.040 (Criteria for. buildingwould oniyhane to meet • Nonconforming Situations),.land uses and associated development in the MU - CBD District thewindow standards :(Window Coy- that were lawfully in existence at the time of adoption of these standards may continue as erase, trim, etc) and not the other lawful uses and developments. facade standards (awnings etc.) 1. Landuses.and associated development that were in existence at the time of the adoption of the MULCBD district and Chapter 18.610 may continue on the property. Additions, The proposed code also permits expansions, or enlargements to such uses or developments, shall be limited: to the nonconforming uses and structures property area of said use or development lawfully in existence at the time of adoption of to continue: f destroyed, aslo'ng this ordinance, , 2009. alit is reestablished within one 2. If a pre- existing structure or use is destroyed by fire, earthquake or other act of God, or year. Section M60 perMits only otherwise abandoned then the use will retain its pre - existing status under this provision 6 months. Washington Sq. specifies so long as it is substantially reestablished within one (1) year of the date of the loss. The 3 years to'reestablish, but only new structure would have to conform to the code. if destroyed .by fire, earthquake; B. Standards for Projects Involving Existing Single Family and Duplex Dwellings or other act of god. The 1. Existing single family buildings and duplexes used for residential purposes are exempt language. would allo up to ayear from the standards. to reestablish an abanddrie 2. For projects involving preexisting housing units used for non - residential uses the The reason for the inorepermissive applicable standards are 18. 610. 020. Building and Site Development Standards, including standard is to lessenithe ?lik'e "lihood the applicable sub -area from Map 610.A, 18.610.030. Building Design Standards for that buildings would stand empty . non - Residential Buildings and 18.610.035 Additional Standards. and during" the`expe'cted, C. Existing , nonconfurming industrial structures trahs:11 riofd ouhntoum: Existing nonconforming industrial structures at the following locations may continue to be utilired for.I -P Industrial uses after the nonconforming use limit of six months: Map 25 1 Section'C carries over from the . 2AA'tax lot 4700, Map 2S 1 2AC,tax lot 100 and 202, Map 2S 1 2AD tax lot 1203, Map 2S 1 existing CBD regulations with one_% 2DB tax lot 100, and Map 2S 1 2DA tax lot 300. previously_ listed property removed (the property where the Ballroom Dance'Facility is how located.) DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 117 • 18.610.020 Building:and Site Development Standards Eamasznataminaznimmitam A. Sub - Areas: The foursub,areas located on Map 610.A and described below have different S TA F F COMMENTARY setback and height limits in order to create a feeling of distinct districts within the larger zone. 1.. Highway 99W and Hall Boulevard Corridor sub -area is intended to create a "pulse - point" along the Highway 99W corridor. Located at the intersection of 99W and Hall Blvd., the area hasthe -high traffic and visibility to draw potential retail customers from the region It will also serve the potential for future high capacity transit in the corridor. The area will accommodate higher levels of vehicular circulation, while • maintaining a pedestrian scale at the ground-floor level of buildings. It would alto% development of mixed use and retail buildings that could vary in scale from one -story retail-only buildings, to mixed.use buildings up to eight stories tall with retail on the ground floor and residential and/or office uses above. 2. Main St.— Center St.: The sub -area is centered on the City's historic downtown Main Street. It is intended to be pedestrian oriented with smaller scale development that would function like a "traditional Main Street." A pedestrian environment would be improved with a continuous building wall broken only intermittently. New buildings in the sub- area must include ground floors with commercial storefront features. Residential and commercial uses are permitted on upper floors. 3. The SCOffias.. Commercial St.. sub -area is intended to provide an opportunity for higher density residential as well as an employment base comprised of civic, office and commercial usesin the areas of Commercial Street and Scoffins. Residential only buildings,: office/commercial buildings, and mixed use developments are all permitted. 4. The Fanno— Burnham St. sub -area provides an opportunity for medium, scale residential or mixed use development,, Compatible mixed -uses (live -work, convenience retail,. office and civic uses) are encouraged on the frontage of Burnham Street. The area in proximity to Fanno Creek Park will be an opportunity to create a high quality residential environment with views and access` to the natural amenity of Fanno Creek Park. Building heights will step dowmto. three stories so as not to overwhelm. or cast shadows on the park. 18 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12130 /09 Map 18.610.A me ••1111 ! y.24^, JM. ► STAFF COMMENTARY ..1""11 MIMI -- — lir i ..- ir • ■ �� ;� Map 18.610A shows the location of "' ■a the sub - areas. Each sub -area has ;4,4):, 41. 1111F imp in w distinct height limits and setbacks. � �� 5 r ►t �° 1 °7 .> - r o , ' - The development standards are •� �� r ,,� ` p \� +� �► '��'` �� ti � A rf �, �� listed in Table 18.610.1 below. The t -+ I /,s ∎.• -., : I sub areas are centered on existing ie , . : } i %,,r.,,< 40 D F -- streets, but also account for the i ., ,4 I potential development of future 46., � f ,•• streets. ' S I . i ► ', , .• s '• Ill . • All of the uses displayed in the 4 1 ' ♦ � \ • ❖•• '''4:,;:::::: i F a ;Wit 18.520.1 land use table are ' . .• ❖;. :•:•:== .: %i:�, , � I ermitted in all o the sub- areas. f p f f 3\ Pra�osed We ; Sub -Areas ' 70:411'\ � - #` � p,kb.,, pest ET i iipte •,' .41r►'r, 41% H , :: :t a ay # • 4 . *7 " , ; I n.0 al WTI / 401,)'► ' • r �� • � � � �� 1r 71GARD OREGON Note: for standards for development surrounding the future public plaza see Section 18.610.040. Special Requirements for Development Bordering Urban Plaza B. Development Standards. Development Standards apply to all new development in the MU -CBD zone, including developments utilizing the Track 3 approval process. Variances or Adjustments may be granted if the criteria found in Chapter 18.370 is satisfied. 1. Development standards matrix. See Table 18.610.1 and Map 18.610.A DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 119 Table ».18.610.1 MU -CBD Development.Standards Matrix" 2, 3 STAFF C,O.M.M.E N TA.RY STANDARD SUB -AREAS Main Street 99W /Hall Scoffins/ Fanno/ (MS) Corridor Commercial _Burnham (99H) (SC) (FB) Front Setback • • Minimum 0 ft. 0/5B. 0 ft. 0 ft. (5 ft. forfrontage on 99W) Maximum 10 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Side facing street on corner & through lots Min mum 0 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. Maximum 10 ft. N/A N/A N/A Sideyard • Minimum/Maximum N/A N/A N/A N/A Rear Setback Minimum 0 ft.. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. Maximum N/A N/A N/A N/A • Building height Maximum height is provided in Minimum 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. stories and feet. The lirnit shall Maximum (stories/feet) 3 stories 3 stories 6 stories 6 stories be in stories, however having the (45 ft.) '(45 ft.) (80 ft.) (80ft:) maximum expressed in. feet 'allows (3 stories/45 ft. for flexibility in actualstoty heights, within ft. of while providing a hard cap. Creek Creek Park boundary (see Map 610.A) or within 50 fief !ow or med_,density residential district.) Ground Floor Height Minimum 15 ft. 15 ft. none none Site Coverage Maximum 100% 90% 90% 80% Minimum Landscaping 4 0 % 10% 10% 20 %. Minimum'BoildingFrontage 50% 50% 50% .50% Residential Density (units,per acre) Minimum Densityy applies to development (not mixed use) Minimum .25 25 25 15 Maximum 50 50 50 50 /This table does: hot apply to existing development. All New Buildings in the district must mee•these development standards; including projects using the Track 3 approval process. 'For standards for. development surrounding the future public plaza see Section 18.610.040. Special Require ments for Development Bordering Urban Plaza. See also•18.610.045 Exceptions io Standards in the MU-C1311 zone. ° In the MU -CBD zone, required landscaping can be provided on roofs. tandscaing/screening requirements for. parking lots must be met. 'Station Area Overlay permits a maximum of 80 units per acre (See Map 18 :610A) 20 I . Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30 /09 • STAFF C 0 M_M;EN'TA;RY 2. Parking Location; a Parking is allowed on the side or rear of newly constructed buildings: If located on the • side,. the:park ing area shall not exceed 50% of the total frontage of. the site. b. Parking is set back a minimum of 10' from the front property line. c. When abutting public street, parking areas must be behind a landscaped area constructed to an standard. d. Where a parkdpg lot shares a property line with an adjacent parking lot, the landscape requirement along the shared property line is not required. �OtOe 001e , 04.0 ' 010:0 01021111.0.0E01010 0100:0 000110.0 tact* 010i01/ — • a 0 u t p, .. p �r T r0 • O 14 :.: — " H o 2t° � °' I d t+' �`` -Y41 ifil a � .O a y d' d �F i i - � � 4 6� :c # w Elsa :P I r0 • aI �� 0 i-Ar p � A p µ • M I �� a .. ® i� . I . ' rf r . o Building_ Buildin H. t� as y ti l T f , lT a' 0 • • r i ..110- AO - . O- ® O ® sA � , , o ti keg m �. f ; d ,^r r° #''R 1" rl '4f: `-k� e Parking on the side or rear of buildings 0 L-1 landscape standard 0 Max. 50% of site frontage 0 Landscape not required along shared prop. line 0 Min. 10' setback 0 See Ch.18.745 for screening and landscaping requirements B.2 Parking Location • • • • • DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 21 3.- Rooftop Features/Equipment Screening . _ ,a: The following rooftop equipment does not require screening: (Ii Solar,panels „wind generators,. and green roof features STAFF C Q,MM E N TA,R`Y (2) Equipment under two feet in height .b. Elevator mechanical equipment may extend above the height limit a maximum of 16 feet provided that the mechanical shaft is into the architecture of the building. . . c Satellite:dishes, and other communications equipment be shall be hmitedto,10Jfeet in height, ' shall be setback a- minimum of 5 feet from the roof edge and screened from public view to the extent possible. d. All other.roof- mounted mechanicalequipment shall be shall be limited to 10 feet in height, shall be setback a minimum of 5 feet from the roof edge and be screened from public view and , from views from adjacent buildings by one of the following methods: i (1) A screen around the equipthent that islitade of a primary exterior finish material used on other portions of the building or architectural grade woodfencing or masonry; (2) Green • roof features or regularly'maintained dense evergreen foliage that forms an • opaque barrier when planted. • e: Required screening shall notbe included in the building's maximum height calculation. - . IIIIIH . 0 .. t4 c f� o � • __ . ..., . - _: • . .. , . .. ., • . .[ , . Y d l 10 feet mao epuipmem oei8n�� 5 4 I .rTt � 6 � ' O Eaaip set back min: West / a 10I /0, 6.3 Rooftop Features /Equipment Screening • • 1 � r^ i . . tip / 1 © Steen made of primary enedor tinier materal, wood. or masonry • 6.3.d.(1) Rooftop Features /Equipment Screening (architectural screen) 22 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30 /09 l,.yti I I P 1 1 /� t S TAFF C0MMENTA'RY "r rr- -' © Green reef features wth evergreen renege B.3.d.(2) Rooftop Features /Equipment Screening (vegitative screen) 4. Other Exterior Mechanical Equipment. Other exterior mechanical equipment on the site • (electrical boxes, etc.) shall be screened from view from adjacent ROW, public spaces, and parking areas by one or a combination of the following: a. A Screen around the equipment that is made of a primary exterior finish material , used on other portions of the building or architectural grade wood fencing or masonry; or b. Setback from the street facing elevation so it is not visible from the public_ ROW; or c. Dense evergreen foliage that forms an opaque barrier when planted that will be regularly maintained. • . owing shall also apply to the screening and landscaping of parking and loading On, C.0 2-fC.Cf areas. �)c� Cow- 6 L a. The r' um dimension of the landscape islands shall be four feet and the landscaping shall be.p • •cted from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or. curb. YY) u-I') an b. Landscape isl. • shall provide a minimum of 1000 cubic feet of soll,volume' per 1 / IJC tree. This may he ; sieved through open soil (see definition) area, root piths (see definition) to open soil . -as, or covered soil areas (see definition) specially designed to support root growth. So' : • • th will be assumed to be three feet. c. Tree species shall be large sta • road spreading at maturity and chosen from the Tigard Street Tree List unless othe r. • approved by the City. If the use of large stature trees/broad spreading trees is preclude s building lines, trees shall be the largest size possible given the available space. d. Irrigation shall be provided for all parking lot we.- and landscaping via an automatic irrigation system. e. Soil volume. calculations (see definition) shall be pr• 'ded for each tree. Soil specifications (including amendments and composition o 'mported soils) and irrigation details shall be provided on plans prepared by a i ensed landscape architect. f. Prior! to approval, the project:landscape.architect shall certify that p. ing and loading areas have been planted per the approved landscape plan and the pro •Mons - of- this-Section. DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 123 STAF „F .COMMENTA • 18 :610.025 Street Connectivity Section +18;610 =025, ADowntown'Circulation°Plan iui 1be Section to be held until completion of Downtown Circulation Plan. adopted together With the TSP update (in progress.) Circulation . Plan will include g map with designated.new:streets and bicyelg/ pedestrian +connections, whu b new development will be required toprovidefor. T1iePlaniiiill&SO include special street sections for the MU -6312 zone. 18.610.030 Building and.Site Design Standards A. Create Vibrant Ground Floors;;Streetscapes and Rights - - Way; Provide Weather Protection; and Promote;Safetyand Secdrity. Intent. Design standards in this section are intended to foster vibrant, invitingstreetscapes and sidewalk- facing ground floors and entryways. They are also intended to create buildings that are easily accessible to arid provide protection from the elements for pedestrians. They also will help ensure that the ground•floor promotes a sense of interaction between activities in; the building and activities in the public realm. Building and site design should also address crime prevention through defensible spaces lighting, and features that allow observation and "eyes on the street.” • 24 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30 /09 1. Street Facade I - 1 a. Street - facing facades shall be built in proximity to the street. This standard is met when S T A' F ex) M- M E NIA AA at least 50 percent of the ground floor front building elevation (s) is located no further -- froin the front property line than the maximum front setback standard established in Table 18.610i;;and „where maximum street- facing side setbacks are, required within the Main Street Subarea, at least 50 percent of the ground Floor: street- facing side budding elevation() is located no further from the street - facing side property line than, the, maiitiumistreet-facing side setback standard established in Table 18.610. - 0piO:0I0010;0 OLUjVo 0LVIQ01010 . - d. d• 8 wti- 4 5.1 - _ - p n r 'nt FOB ' 0r - a � , (' • P 0 Y” W ' O O , - t ��s b, . • � b .4,x,,;9 0 • c , "p " 8. Y . - . . ,. :ra..� i0 • i a' " s;r. 0 ' ;0 - , i ' Building o _ ; ' ! I -'. . ` - - - - - . • . % '' rl -.. ' • ` , - 4. o • o O/ • • • _, . ® 0 ® ; eta , . y _ 1 f .ID t' t : ,A.,„„ ', L : -: 7 u . u . , F ry .c "Ap.. 'S', . Y . 0.0: (I Mmfmum setback ant • • min.5ea afore at ER frentoge m+4is Wbuidiigt®de0tseGSk we 111(a) Sheet Facade + • b. Buildings more than 3 stories are required to step back six (6) feet from the building facade at the beginning of the fourth (4") story. • 3 o . / 1 .0 . yA O Mill 6'seNwck • A.1413) StreetFalale DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 125 2.. Primary Entry 'a. For Commercial/Mixed.Use Buildings STAFF C O MM E.,N T ASR Y (1) At least one entry door is required for each business, with a ground floor frontage. (2) Each ,entrance shall be covered, recessed, or treated with .a permanent architectural feature iti'such a way that.weather protection is provided. (3) All primary ground-floor common entries shall be oriented to the street or a public space directly facing the street, not to the interior or to a parking lot. b. For. Residential Buildings (1) Entry Door: The primary public entrance to each building unit shall he covered, recessed, or treated with a permanent architectural feature in such a way that weather protection is provided. (2) All primary ground -floor common entries of multi-family buildings and individual unit entries of attached single family units that front the street shall be oriented to the street or public right -of -way, not to the interior or to a parking lot. 3. Windows a. Ground Floor Windows for Non- Residential and Mixed Use Buildings: (1) 60% minimum ground floor window coverage for street - facing wall (Minimum window coverage includes any glazed portions of doors) (2) Ground Floor Window Transparency. All buildings with non - residential ground floor windows must have a Visible Transmittance (VT) of 0.6 or higher, with the • exception of medical and dental offices which may have tinted windows. b. Ground Floor- Windows for Residential Buildings: (1) 30% minimum ground floor window coverage for street - facing wall (Minimum window coverage includes any glazed portions of doors) c. Upper Floor Windows/Doors for All Buildings: (1) 30% minimum upper floor window coverage for each floor of the street- facing wall. (Minimum windowcoverage includes any glazed portions of doors) (2) The required upper floor window /balcony door percentage does' not apply to floors where sloped roofs and dormer windows are used. (3) Upper floor window`s shall be vertically oriented (a minimum vertical to horizontal dimension ratio of:1.5:1 J d. Window•Shadowing for All Buildings: Windows shall be designed to provide shadowing. This can be accomplished by: recessing 3 inches into the facade and/or incorporating trim of a contrasting material of 'Color. . 4. Weather Protection For Non - residential and Mixed Use Buildings: a. A Projecting Facade Element (awning, canopy, arcade, or marquee) is required, on the street facing facade .of.the street with the highest functional classification. b. Awnings/Marquees/Canopies may, project, a minimum of 3 feet and maximum of 6 feet from the facade (a maximum of 4 feet into the public right of way) c. The element shall have a minimum 10 feet cleMincefrom the bottom of the element • to the sidewalk. d. Awnings must match the width of storefronts or window openings. e. Internally lit awnings are not permitted f. •Awnings must be made of glass, metal, or exterior grade fabric (or a combination of these materials) • 26 I Proposed Downtown ligard : Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12/30 /09 rworo w isc rnaFV . , •�. s,,,+ -- •3,1_":...5,::_: IlL ! 7 i STAFF COMMENTARY , III 1 41 ' sir Pr , t l r e iiii -.'- 11E4 , .=111111•1 • R i ____ _ . ® Primary entry doors oriented to street or public space ® Primary entry door oriented to street or public space 0 Entrance is covered and /or recessed behind facade 0 Entrance is covered and/or recessed behind facade 0 Max (cony /deck projection • Min 3* projection > 4 4 ' 0 Min 10' clearance 0 Maxffbalcony /deck projection 0 Min 30% windows 0 Min 10' clearance 0 Upper windows vertically oriented 0 Min 60% windows ( 1-rd-cc. / }ii /3- }, A.2 -4 Residential (Only) Building 0 Mm 30% windows "�"`kk'!SS�JJ ' 0 Upper windows vertically oriented A.2-4 Commercial /Mixed -Use Building ' 1 L j ' eckj Ct_ c(_ (€.r te d \), �)t tbt -- nr - ja ,, c d_ C- j ayunci L )0110) DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments I 27 B. Cohesive architectural facade standards. Intent: Build and expand upon Downtown Tigard's architectural character by incorporating S TA. F F 66 m.'M E N TA R;V cohesive and repetitive architectural elements into the ground floor of street facing facades. 1. Architectural Bays for Non - Residential and Mixed Use Buildings Divide the street facing - ground floor of commercial/mixed .use storefronts_into distinct architectural bays that are no more. than 30 feet on center. For the purpose of this standard, an .krchitedtiral bay is defined • as the zone between the outside edges of an engaged column, pilaster, post, or vertical wall area. iLi - i _hJ I II �II - 1 h ©E I , . � , - - . . yl_ ' _ t • 1 - _C1- 1 �❑ o amnecu,al baytio ma, on cooler 0 Budding Lighti 0na0om windows 0 Ground floor .10o*silt m eowmvwwser /mr m moan sign 0 sign bane /siorevonunete 8.1 Architectural Bays • 28 I Proposed Downtown Tigaid Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12130 /09 C. Integrated building facade standards. _ Intent:, Build upon:and improve Downtown Tigard's architecture by creating an attractive S TA F F .C _, 0 M•M E N TA, and unified building facade that encourages ground floor activities, and creates visually interesting facades and roofs. . 1. Non = residential and mixed use building facades, , a. Non - residential and nixed use buildings Tri- Partite Facades Non- residential and mixed use buildings two stories and above shall have three clearly defined elements on the 'street- facing facade(s); a base (extends from the sidewalk to the bottom:of the, second story or belt course/string course that separates the ground floor from the middle of the building).; a middle (distinguished from the top and base of thebuilding by use of building elements); and.a top (roof form/ element • at the uppermost portion of the facade that visually terminates the facade). A tripartite facade creates a unified facade and breaks up vertical mass. L • • E. E C J '' Ili LI I 1 _I ill J J _l 1 t , 1r; rrr!rl Ji_JJI i J J n] J 1 d 1 1' 1 t II i �:- � M .., I . uw '_J � I ,- - r1 ♦ � Id Il R � . , _ l J J I'� ti �_1 Y,. J o 7 T 1 Tj( A, i. o ease e / 0 aeltcou'bstrnicourse ' o MMIe 0 Wo,econgownite /paiDet O - Ton' C.1 Integrated Building Facade (Commercial /Mixed-Use Buildin0 •u. . 47. • , • DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 2_ . Re sidential;Building Facades a. Unit definition. Each street facing dwelling unit shall be emphasized by including a - 8fi A,EF uC 0 M,M E N FAIR Y - roof dormer: or bay windows on the street - facing elevation, or by providing a roof _ _ - - . gable or porch or balcony that facesthe street. b) Trim detail. Trim shall be used . to mark all building roof lines, porches, windows and doors that are on a primary structure's elevation(s). • I e — —I . mho - imllalae. ` Ix IGlfO it 1J itTIVE rr. J I 0 D -g !itt SO 0 Ilw' n.G<: 01 1JI Izc__ v. —_ a � .. '� bffallr� ° , lelcillb C! I IrJlll©It� i ii I p _ y il ,'' ;:auti.latti r.41: 11 t� Elio : ,I llwn.11 �� . 0 O 'ICI': 0 . i o Met-hang tmn,nY+v • o FreattcanawN' O strew :taring mean tJ mm:parce -Trott Inns exit. wsnn.z anIceart C.2 Integrated Building Facade (Residential Only Buildin 3. Roof Forms a. The roof form of a building shall follow one (or a combination) of the following forms: (I) Flat Roof with Parapet or Cornice (2) Flip Roof (3) Gabled Roof (4) Full Mansard Roof (5) Dormers (6) Shed Roof b. All sloped roofs (other than full mansard roofs) exposed to view from adjacent public or private streets and properties shall have a minimum 5/12 pitch. c. Sloped roofs, shall have eaves, exclusive of rain gutters, that must project' from the budding wall at least twelve inches. d. Al]: Flat roofs or those with a pitch of less than 5/12 shall be or articulated with a parapet wall that must project vertically above the roof line at least twelve inches and /or a cornice that must project from the building face at least 6 inches. e. When an addition to an existing structure or a new structure is proposed in an existing "development, the ' roof forms for the new structures shall have similar slope -and be , . constructed of the same materials as the.existing roof. ' f. Green roof features and/or rooftop gardens are encouraged: As part of the development • permit, applicant shall execute a covenant ensuring the maintenance of any green • roof. The covenant shall be approved by the Director on City provided forms. • 30 I Proposed Downtown: Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT 45.2 I REVISED12/30 /09 Flat roof Hlprool Gabled roof Full mansard roof Dormers Shed_ roof IS f �� p 1 IF S T,AFF CO M.MENIA,RtY ' 1 i • J �� ' ii 8 RV= ) ) ° ..-- • m ' Id d o J d ® Pasarevcorntee must preect min. 12' 'vertically ° cares must protect min. 12 hum face of bwmng ° Para pet om¢e must . h r1 from face of building ° Min- 5/12 pitch on sloped re0l C.3 Roof Forms D. Create Street Corners with Strong Identity Intent. Create .a strong architectural statement at street corners. Establish visual landmarks . and enhance visual variety. _ ' 1: For non - residential or mixeduse buildings at the corner of two public streets or a street • and public area, park or plaza (for the purposes of this standard an alley is not considered a publcstreet) incorporate one of the following features: a. Locate the primary, entry to the building at the corner. b. A prominent architectural element such as increased building height-or massing; a cupola, a turret or a pitched roof at the corner of the building or within 20 feet of the corner of the building; c. The corner of the building cut at a 45 degree angle, or a similar dimension "rounded" COMM d. A combination of special paving materials, street furnishings and, where appropriate,. plantings, in addition io the front door. f f 4 D .�' .Q LFY il� GV] L ice` r _ � __! � u r :' � • , _ 1P 4 1 � . , � .' �' s 1 L ,f t � • , � 'f El aar_ 1 . 70 .1 , e ® Primary e ntry door to the building located at c orner T� µµ�,II P {r t' Q Promine architectural element within 20' of the O , PlA ' �fal s � v. corner of the building r a ® r �, _ 9 Corner min 10' from street corner and cut at s { � tt i 45 degree angle ,..iii, , l I lr ` t t ■ , ' 9 Special paving patterns, street furnishings. antl , • ftt III a i I plantings near front door • A.2-4 Commercial /Mixed =Use Building DRAFT#5.2 I REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 131 E: - Assure Building :Quality, Permanence and Durability Intent. Use; building materials„ that evoke a sense of permanence and are compatible with STAFF CO M M E N'TA R?Y Downtown=Tigard'and the.surrounding built and natural environment. 1. ihrilding Materials' a. The followingexterior building materials,orfinishes are prohibited: • (I) Vnyl'sding (2) T- 111lor similar sheet materials (3) Plain concrete block (not including split faced, colored, brother block designs that mimic stone; brick, or other. masonry.) Foundation material may be skim coated concrete block where the foundation material is not revealed for more than 2 feet. (4) Mirrored, glass F. Open Space%.PublicPiaza Intent: Assure adequate public, private and shared outdoor space . Section F 1. Mixed use and Commercial Developments greater than 60,000 sf. The required open space for multi - a. Development projects with site areas greater. than 60,000 sf shall include at least one family preiects have; been changed' public space with a minimum size of 600 sf. from the existing SDR b. Public :spaces shall be abutted, on at least; two sides by retail shops, restaurants or (Chapter 18.360) to allow a more services' windows entrances' fronting on the space. urban form ofdevelopnaent. 2. Mixed Use Buildings with Residential Units and Residential Only Multi-Family Developments 80% of multi family, units in a a Private Outdoor Space: For all residential only buildings and mixed use buildings with development are required toiprovide more than 4 residential units: prinate Open Space, 'Whicktilllows (1) A minimum of 80% of the dwelling units in a development shall have private more flexibility in the design of open space, such as a private porch, a deck, a balcony, a patio, an atrium, or multi family buildings other outdoor private area..The private open space shall be contiguous with the 32.84: j hofprivate open space is' unit in a single area. required'reduced from the SDR (2) Aminimurn of 32 square feet'of private open space is required. The open space reaiiirenient of48sq. fi: must have a minimum depth of4 feet. (3) Balconies may project up to a maximum of four feet into the public right -of -way. (4) Balconies used for entrances or exits shall not be considered as open space except where such exits or entrances are for the sole use of the unit. b. Shared Outdoor Space for Mixed Use Buildings with Residential Units and Multi-Family Buildings: In addition to the required private outdoor space, multi- family buildings and mixed use buildings with more than 4 residential'units shall provide shared open space.(e.g., courtyards, roof decks or garden, play areas, outdoor recreation facilities, indoor recreation room, and/or similar space) that is equal to or greater than 10% percent of the development site,: except as follows: Minimum required shared outdoor (1) Credit for Private Open Space. .Up to 50% percent of the shared open space space will be 10% of the site.area, standard be met by providing additional private open space; such as ratherthan200 ft. per balconies, porches and patios(above what is required in 18.610,030 :F2). unit as required in Chapter 18.360 (2) Credit for Proximity to a Park. A shared open space credit of 50% percent Site Development Review. maybe :granted when a multiple family development is directly adjacent to an improved public park. (3) Credit for up to.100% of the shared open space standard may be met by paying a fee- in=lieu. The fee will fund parks and/or plazas within the Downtown Urban Renewal District. (4) Shared outdoor recreation space shall be readily observable to promote crime prevention and safety". a 3.. Private Open Space for Single -Family Attached Dwelling Units: a: A minimum of 16Dsquare feet of private open space per unit such .as a private porch, • yard, a deck, ,a balcony, a patio, or other; outdoor: private area is required. P rDpen o i 0 Additional Requirements' for Single-Family:Attached Dwelling Units p� I Garage entry garages andcarports shall be accessed from alleys, or otherwise recessed ,, "! �'t''Q e l �1 �'Q '- behind the front building elevation (i.e., living area or covered front porch) a distance of �ev/ 0 j 7 feet or less or 18 feet or greater.. `-412fti la - „-I • Ded No. iD 32 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 I REVISED12130 /09 18 610.035 Adilitionai.Standards .mn1 m wr . Applications must Conform to all applicable standards in the. following chapters: S'T A',F F C 0'M,M E N TA'R Y Access •Egress.and Circulationsee Chapter 18.705 • Environmental _Performance Standards see Chapter 18.725 • Exceptions to Developtnen[ Standards •ssee Chapter 18.730 • Landscapingand Screening see Chapter 18.745 • Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage.see Chapter 18.755 • Off Street Parking andLoading Requirements see Chapter 18.765 • Sensitive Lands see Chapter 18.775 • Signs see Chapter 18.780 • TreeRemoval see Chapter 18.790 • Visual Clearance see Chapter 18.795 • Wireless Conununication Facilities see Chapter 18.798 • Street and Utility Improvement Standards see Chapter 18.810 18.610.040 Special Requirements for DevelopmentBordering Urban Plaza • The Urban Plaza -is •listed as a catalyst project in the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan and Theserequirements area fl oating Urban Renewal Plan. Developments on the;parcels that directly abut the location of the new zone that will take effect when plaza will expected to be in keeping with the character of the plaza New developmentthat is theproperty for.tbe 06an: Plaza is built concurrently or subsequent to the construction of the plaza will need to conform to the secured. following standards (in addition to the • other: pplicable standards in this code): • The building,must be minimum'of two stories and a maximum of four stories . • No_paiking lot may.abut the plaza • The buildings_shall.followthe building and site design and development standards for Commercial and Mixed Use buildings int Main Street Sub -area. 18.610:045 Exceptionsto Standards A. E xceptions to setback requirements The Director may grant an exception to the yard .setbackrequirenients in the applicable zone based on findings that the approval will result in the following: 1..Ait,exception which is not greater than •20% of the required setback; 2. No adverse effect to adjoining properties' in terms of light, noise levels and fire hazard; 18610.045adaptedfrom Chapter 3. • afe.vehicular - and pedestrian access to;the site and on -site; 18:360 Site Development Review 4. A' more efficient use of the site which would result in more landscaping; and 5. The preservation of natural features which have been incorporated into the overall design of the project. B. Exceptions to parking requirements. The Director may grant an exception or deduction to the off-street parking dimensional and mimmiun number of space requirements in the • applicable zoning district based on the followingfindings: 1 . The application isfor a use designed for a specific purpose which is intended .to be permanent,in nature, e.g., senior citizen housing, and which has a demonstrated low demand for off - street parking; 2. There is an opportunity for shared parking and there is written evidence that the property owners have entered into a binding agreement to share parking; or 3. There is community interest in the preservation.of particular natural feature(s) on the site, public transportation is available to the site, and reducing the - standards will not adversely affect adjoining uses, therefore the public interest is not adversely affected by the granting of the exception., C. Exceptions for private or shared outdoor area. The Director may grant a•exception or deduction to the private outdoor area shared outdoor recreation areas requirements, provided the application is fora us•designed fora specific purpose which is intended to be permanent in nature(for example, senior citizen housing) and which can demonstrate a reduced demand fora private outdoor recreational area based on any one or more of the DRAFT #5.2 1 REVISED.12130 /09. Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 133 following findings: 1. The development operates a motor vehicle which is available on a regular basis to STAFF COMMENTARY transport residents of the development to public open space or recreation areas; or 2. The required square footage of either the private outdoor area or the shared outdoor recreation area may be reduced if together the two areas equal or exceed the combined standard for both. D. Exceptions to landscaping requirements. The Director may grant an exception to the landscaping requirements of this code, Section 18.745, upon finding that the overall landscape plan provides for at least 20% of the gross site to be landscaped. 18.610.050 Track 3 is available as an alternative 18.610.050 Building and Site Design Objectives (to be used with way of review that ensures projects Track 3 Approval Process) that are unable to meet the design A. Applicability standards will have good design All development using the Track 3 Approval Process must demonstrate compliance with the principles. design objectives listed in 18.610.050.C. The development must also meet the development standards of Table 18.610.1. The Building and Site Design B. Approval Criteria objectives are qualitative Applicants are required to identify how their proposed site/building plan meets the intent statements, with multiple ways statements of the design objectives, through architectural drawings and a narrative. of accomplishing. They are based The design review body will make findings that the intent of the design objective has been met. on the intent statements from Applications using the Track 3 process must also show compliance with the development the Design Standards section. The standards set forth in Section 18.610.020 and Table 18.610.1 application would address each Concurrently or after Design Review Board approval, the application will be reviewed for applicable objective through a compliance with the other relevant chapter sections, as listed in 18. 610.035., narrative graphics, and architectur- C. Design Objectives al drawings The decision making Each design objective has an intent statement followed by photographs of development process is Type 111 with the Design exemplifying the objective. Review Board as the decision mak- 1. Create Vibrant Streetscapes and Rights -of -Way; Provide Weather Protection; ing authority. and Promote Safety and Security Intent. Foster vibrant, inviting streetscapes and sidewalk- facing ground floors and entry Concurrently, or after Design Review ways. Create buildings that are easily accessible to and provide protection from the Board approval, the application will elements for pedestrians. Ensure that the ground floor promotes a sense of interaction reviewed for compliance with the between activities in the building and activities in the public realm. Building and site other relevant chapter sections: land design should also address crime prevention through defensible spaces, lighting, and use, street, utility, issues, etc. features that allow observation and "eyes on the street." A Design Review Board may consist of a new volunteer board, appointed 7 by Council or a subcommittee of the r' Planning Commission. A potential R� _ , . �� configuration is five members with ; - at least three involved in architec- rr t a f; »- ture, landscape architecture, or a ' design specialty. l ' P '• The photos are included as examples , • of development that exempla the +4 , objective. left, ,, . dr IC Y , 34 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments ORAFT #s.2 1 REVISE012/30ro9 2. Create Cohesive Architectural Facades - Intent. Build and expand upon Downtown Tigard's architectural character by STAFF COMMENTARY incorporating cohesive and repetitive architectural elements into the ground floor of street facing facades. Relate to the horizontal facade articulation and massing of sur- rounding development and/or utilize building and site design elements that connect Fanno Creek Park or extend natural elements to the Downtown. — — .. — — '.j, 1 W _,.1. / 'Lei 111 III 1 `� -- ® r I� . IN a � Nam ..4' I , \ : 1111 - +�_ ;1, 1 - 111 1 Al..1 . wi • 'I ) 4 ti 4 4V ""`"""" j iL . 7, 3. Design Buildings with Integrated Facades Intent. Build upon and improve Downtown Tigard's architecture by creating an attractive and unified building facade that encourages ground floor activities, creates\ visually interesting facades and roofs. 7 (Er l &` (1, P tt �lII 1 ) d. riiiil. ` i; ! � �L ci _ ... 11.1i Iiiii"li 1. ((( Ufff N z, ...... ., I ),,,) , , ,, ..„ ,„ , . ■ 1011111 11111 g; • j jili tl { li ll l l l ` ' fill. IIII 01111 , . j f 1 I bit `s . !VI' ,,,C1, !, DRAFT #5.2 1 REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 35 '' . ". - - , TM 4p ti, ,,'►„ ,g 4 ,i STAFF COMMENTARY J lit 1 4 ., i ss.:042... . [ g - -I NO, ri --, i , ,, , ) .:\I 4. Create Street Corners with Strong Identity Intent. Create a strong architectural statement at street comers to create a strong identity and opportunities for activity. Establish visual Landmarks and enhance visual variety. P ri - 1 11 -"..:...-- Ift I li , 9 `i ,1. 'mil S s lIl ', fi ll l l s- 3a OFF t t ' :: i , ti t - a . i - ;r. - 4 -7, , ,. 6 0, , 4 , ,....,...,.._ , ,,, , 36 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT #5.2 1 REVISED12130 /09 5. Assure Building Quality, Permanence and Durability Intent. Use building materials that evoke a sense of permanence and durability and are STAFF COMMENTARY - compatible with Downtown Tigard and the surrounding built environment. Windows, doors, roofs, and weather protection shall appear to be an integral part of the building design. ' lit i it.1 40 t , ,. ., ...:, .:. - -k- 41 1111 41 1 I -„ 41 1 .1, t , : 1 il - Z ar -- - , le.. - . 1 • • l' t r .• - a • J i .F/4_ , ,,,,,.... a f • ; . - - -- .r, ' r .., ,..-%.,u~.%%=1 f ) } ■ •I i ci - s 1 1 + 1 u • 1 _A .. 6. Provide Adequate Outdoor Spaces Intent: Assure new residential units have adequate private and shared outdoor space. DRAFT #5.2 1 REVISED 72/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 37 Ill:610.04G Signs 1 A., Sign'stan In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.780 of the Development Code the following S C 0.NAIM EN T A R Y standards shill be met: I. Zoningdistrict regulations Residential only developments within the MU -CBD zone shall meet the sign requiremerits;for"the _R,40•zone 18.780:130B;.non- residential developments within the•MU -CBD 18 610.46 :Signs. zone shag: meet the sign. requirements for the commercial zones, 18.780.1300, and the•additional _. i Most exsting,CBD and C G sign requirements'below. - 2. Sign area lints — The maximum sign area limits are: regulatiOnS are retained withsome. a.4Freestanding signs: 70 square feet per sign face or a total of 140 square feet for all sign faces. exceptions. b: Wall Signs: shall not,esceed in gross area 15 percent of nay building face on which .the sign is • mounted. c. anther signs area requirements shall follow 18.780.130C. '3. Height luiiits — The maximum height limit for all signs except wall signs shall be 20 feet 4. Sign location = Freestanding signs within the MU -CBD zone shall not be permitted within required L -1 landscape areas. 5. Blade Signs are permitted. a. One blade sign (above the walkway and underweather protecting awnings, marquees, and parapets) placed at each entrance to a building is allowed. b: Vertical dimension of a blade sign shall not exceed 1.5 ft and the width may not exceed 90 percent of the.width•of the weather protection, for a maximum sign area per sign of 4.5 sq. ft. c. Height of Sign'. The distance from the sidewalk or grade.up to the bottom of the sign shall be at least eight feet. 18.610.047 Off -Street Parking d. Illumination: The blade sign maybe indirectly illuminated. Requirements 6. Projecting a. Aro e t ting sign not - p i greater than 32 square feet per face or a total of 64 square feet Development.'in •the M(1= CBD:fiave for all sign faces can project up to four feet into the public right -of -way with a 10 foot significantly reducedparking • clearance of the dghh y. of -wa miniinums,tn expectation thatother 7. Pedestrian - oriented roof /awning signs are permitted. modes will'be,increasingly used. a. Buildings with;a height of 20 feet or less are permitted to have one roof sign which extends above the upper P7VpeL in ifieAldln St arid ,Center surface of the awning structure or the roof line. - , Sub -area will have no •miniinum b. The sign may not exceed 2 feet above.the roof line and may not extend below the roofline - c. The maximum sign area is 45 square feet. required parking: to preservelhe. existing street wall on these streets: d. The sign must be oriented to the entrance of the building e. The sign may be internally or externally illuminated. f. One pedestrian oriented roof/awning sign shall be permitted per tax parcel. 1naddilion, in the existing Ctiapter • 18:370 Variances'andAdjustments 18.610.047. OR-Street Parking and Loading Requirements an additional 40 %adjustmeiE,tm the minimum'parking,requzrementmay A. Parking Standards. New development in the Downtown must conform to the requirements of Chapter 18.765 with the following exceptions. be authorized tf (1) Cse oft rans:t demand. I. Multi- family Units: In the MU -CBD zone the minimum parking requirement for all multi-family units - -` shall be 1.0/DU:•Adequate provisions for barrier free parking shall be as required by the State Building manageinent progrdnES, and/or Code. Vsitor parking spaces are not required, Bicycle parking requirements shall not be reduced. special Characteristics of the customer, elient.ein p lo ee or resident 2. All Other Uses: For all other uses the minimum off - street vehicle parking requirements shall be 75% of - y population:wtll reduce.expected • the total computed from Table 18.765.2. Bicycle parking requirements shall not be reduced. geh:cle, us i andparkmg space 3. Main Street- Center Sub -area New commercial development up to 20,000 square feet in the Main Street - demand for tfiis ; rdevelopment,' as. Center sub -area (shown on.Map 18.610.A) shall have no minimum vehicle parking requirements, - - ` compared to standards Institute' except that any multifamily units shall have a minimum of.1.ONU.. a' c v, • 4. Fractional Space :ln the MU -CBD zone, when calculating•the totalminimum number of of TraEl r . tEOn Engineers (ITE) vehicle parking spaces required in Table 18.765.2. fractional space requirements shall not be counted vehicle trip generalEOn, rates aril as a whole space. minimum•c:ty parkingrequtrenients, and . 5. Motorcycle/scooter parkingmay subspttite for up to 5 spaces or 5 percent of required (2) Areduction:inparkrng.will not automobile parking, whichever is less. For every 4 motorcycle/scooter parking spaces parking pking requirement is reduced by one space.•Eachmotorcycle space must have'anadaerse impact on adjacent be at least 4 feel wide and 8 feet deep. Existing parking may be converted to take advantage of this provision. uses. 6. Further adjustments: As provided for in Section 765.070.F., further adjustments to parking standards can be yilplied for, Si5 I ProposedDowntownTigard 'CodeAmendments DRAFT #5.2 1 nEViseotvsotos 18120 GhapterJ efinitions Design'RelatedDefinitioiis, STAFF C O M'.M E' N'TAR.Y 1%. Arcade — An exterior covered passageway along a building facade that is open to the street frontage These definitions were largelyadapted' 2. Awning —An overhead cover exten above t he sidewalk (usually above windows froth the City of Canby s design wide. and doors) as a shel and/or s unshade . They will be integrated into the 3. Band —.Ajj horizontal flat member or molding or group of moldings nro'ec) tin existing'Definationkthapter slightly.from a walfplane and usually marling a d ivision in the wall. 4. Bay — ('Within'astrueture. a regularly re eared spatial element defined by beams or ritisand theii'suppor A protruded str ucture with a bay window. 5: .BeltCourse — A horizontal band or molding satin the face of a'building as a design element`(also'called a string course). 6 Cahopy — A covered area wh e xtends from thewad of a building, protecting an entrance or loading d ock. '7. Chamfer — To cut off the edge or corner. of. 8. Column — In structures. a relativel dv onc,.slender structural compression member such as apost s IDar r r all vertical sporting a load which acts in (or near) the direction of its longitudinal axis. 9 . Cornice — Decorative nrojectinn or crown on the to of a wall or roof 10: Eaves —The lower edge of a sloping roof: that part of a roof of a building which projects beyond the wall. 11. En• — The siacecomIrisin a oor and an flanking or transom windows associated with a building. 12 Frieze — A decorative horizontal band as a long the upper part of a wall in a r oom often used for signage in modern buildings. hut derived froth classical architectural principles 13. Marquee - - A permanent roof -like shelter over an entrance to a buildin 14. Medallion— A decorative element•set =into the unpCr portion of a bnildinglacath Periodically; typically aligning with columns:or. pilaster. 15. Parapet =.A low. soli& protective screening or decorative wall as an extension of exterior htiilding walls beyond`theroof or deck level. 16. Pilaster — Ah oinaaiental oelit ctional column'or pillar incorporatedinto'a wal 17: String Course - -A horizontal band or molding set in the face of a building S ad i n element (also called a belt course), 18. ransom— A h riz ss plane, typically encased in a wood or metal frame'that separates the storefront from the up r facade. 19. Turret — A Very small and slender tower attached to alarger building. 20.. VisibleTransmitPance— AMeasureof the amount of visible ''lin6ttrans Red through a materi al (typically glass) Information about v Bible transmittance typicall_yis or can be. provided by window manufacturers, Lands c relkted defi dpinr 21 .Open • — An u soil area ofsoll surrounding a t ree which contains easting new or amended s 22.116ot'paths — Constructed paths that use aeration or drainage strips to give roots a way to grow out of the tree's'. e • • 1 under i avemen in order • • • better i Ianting soils. Root paths can connect tree spaces and adiacentgreen spaces. 23, Covered soil area — An area of soil thatis under pavement and specially designed to a • rdate t ee r 'rowth. D• i_ methods include structural soil,..sidewalk support and soil cells. 24. Soil volume calculations — Sum total of soil volumes.from each design method used for a tree. A soil depth of 3' feet is assurned..Soil Volume (cubic feet) = Open soil area (length x width x depth) (feet) +- Covered soil area ( length x width x depth) (feet) + Root path Length (feet) x 0:25'+ Green space area (length x.width x depth) (feet). *Include only applicable soil areas and design methods for eaditree. DRAET#5.2 1 REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 39 Use related 25 .Custoin•arts-and craft work -- Manufacture of crafts, art, sculpture, pottery . stained STAFF COMMENTARY musical' instruments arid`similar'items produced without the use of a mechanized assembly line. 40 I Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT 445.2 1 REVISED12/30 /09 Chapter 18.745 LANDS GLAND. SCREENING S TA FF G,0 M M TA Table 18.745.1 BUFFER MATRIX -1/4 /n keeping with a 44x111 se; downtown, different uses • 'ill o generally not need to buffe tie red fro4eaeh other nitti the exception of parking lots, J K:h 12.1 , a \ _ Z . E E • m �� m Q g c " r :cam C U 4'` A h r 41 m m CS' e ° m "tc c c 8 ,L' ` o N >> C C.) 7, N c, m o -Q.) CO m c y y F 'e o m is j a i ` g, h D '&° J J -m r r E r aJ o, ny EXISTING /ABU FING USE 4 co Q Q v = g - 2 4 `O 2 Detached SingleUnits, Manufactured Units — A C C D C CE F C D Attached Single Units and Multifamily, .1 - 5 Units, Duplexes A — IA C D C C E F C D Attached Single Units and Multifamily,5+ Units A A C D C C E F C D Mobile Home Parks A A. B- D C C E F C D CommercialZones (CC, CG, CP, C - B B ) C C C C— A A D D —— Neighborhood Commercial Zone (CN) C C. C C .A — A D D — — Mixed Use Employinent Zone (MUE) C C C C A :A — D D — — Light Industrial Zones (IP IL) D D D D A A A — D —— HeavyIndustrial Zone (IH) DD b D D. D D D — — — Parking.Lots C C C C Arterial Streets A A. A A — — .— A D — — Note .1: See Table18.745.2 for alternative combinations for meeting these screening requirements. Note 2: For projects•within the MU-f,111) zone•the following buffering is required: Al Pronosed Darkinalots must have a buffer to level "C" (Parking lots a utti .narking lots -do not need a buffer). 8) Pro posed.uses in the MU- CBD • tone;that abut a residential zone must have a buffer to "C." • DRAFT #5.2 1 REVISED 12/30/D9 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 41 Ch 18.765 OFF- STREET`PARKING A N D LQADING REQUIREMENTS STAFF C O M M E N T A R Y Table 18.765.2 - MAXIMUMin Inaddition , 78370 Variances andAdMitments, MINIMUM Zone A Zone B ,Bicycle an add:tionl 40% adgtThtmcnt in the Multifamily Units DU <500 sq ft: none none 1.0/2 DUs except minimum parking requirement may 1.0/DU (M) elderly, which is be autb0rtied' f 1 bedroom: 1.25/DU (M) 1.0/20 DUs 2 bedroom: 1.5/DU (M) (1) Use ofirannit,'demand 3 bedroom 1..75/DU (M) management programs, and!or [X] special'charactensiics,'of the customer,;cl ertt employee or resident pOpitlatiOn will reduce, j7] Please see Chapter 18.610.047 off - street vehicle parking minimum requirents expected vehicle use andparking in'the in the MU -CBD zone. space demand for this development, as "conipared to standards Institute „ ; „ ::. , • , ., of Transportation Engineers . t ), vehicle tnp generation (IT tliat d,,s„.L.,,uddinsp,bvidcdil.ctoi final' Apia. L. f,,,; tas.0fthebUi1dh w,,,. rates and minimum city parking ;.- ; :,:::,::' :,. .., , requirements, .and 18.76.2. (2) A reduction in parking,¢dill not, have an adverse _impact on adjacent Jx] IntheMU- CBDzonet heminimumparkingrequirementsforallmulfi- familvunitsis uses. 1.0/DU. 18.765.070.1..Developinents in the MU -CBD Zone Please see Section 18.610.047 off - street vehicle parking minimum requirements in the in the MU CBD. zone. • 42 1 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments DRAFT 45.2 1 REVISE012/30 /09 • f STAFF O:OMM'ENTARY Chapter 18'780 SIGNS. Change reference from CBD;toMU -CBD DRAFT #5.2 1 REVISED 12/30/09 Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments 1 43 �� 9 1 ! !I IP l i iFi E; L _1 � � =v %2! ii . L'i i ! ' 10 is - i Land Use �� ■ _ !� �� M Designations 00 . - •_: 11 , � L� I -P � 0�� , City Tard �� . !a �� , � ^ ff''►► • •' i �� C -V . dC Cammunily Lamm «dd Cl0 General comet «del .. IN — - Y `7— ` � � . . 4k.--, c•ro ud,yne«leoe Commadd ♦ . C4+ Pmtecaond Commerdal . m= I ■ , ,►S" �� ' � �.�� , ip �' � ` 35 36 Mt1 cB0 Maed txa cereal BuYnessD ebkl • r. \ : / 41p ' _ A �� Of ■■ l i _ l•H FNm'Y lndnMel ! 'I _— ^ <,- 0 61 l-L InsminmmnHt kii Industrial Pent M1C Mxed Use Commercial I • M1C•1 Mzed Use Commercial 1 �, _ ,:: -� ,, �C� - _ MUE Magid Use Employment �, ' ,�� l' y � � �� MUE•l Magid Use Employment 1 1..L _ 1 �.. � ."- /�\ .& , MJE -2 hived Uea Employment 2 .� .: / `C �� j'\` _ _ .., M1R -1 Mixed Use Residential 1 , • . � \< y «.y 4 R.1R -2 3500 Use Reeidedid2 ' \ / R•1 30.000 Sq Ft Mn Ld She '. �,1 \ 1 # R•2 20000 Sq Ft Mn Lot Size • R-3.5 10.000 Sin Mn Let Size •, :•• •. • �. * /� r ' - R4.5 7.500 Sq Ft Mn Lot Size -7 5,000 Sq Ft f 4 . R Mn Lot Size a! . .� . � � *� -` , \ v' V \ I 4 ' 1. . , R-12 3.050 Sq Ft 16111-44 16111-44 Size r4. �. S, . � � / / / R•26 1.480 Sq F1 Mn Lot Size ,© "� _ �` • � / iii F , 1 4 � ��`y" / ,r y ♦ X1,0, lfeb o0etddOvelay �,� '. �Q \ / \ Cmmnrehensive Plan Designations ,- • " r / : I 11111 MxM U se Central Btlelness Dis§icl • . �', � : � 4 `� \ ,: s ' CanmunRy Comm «tlal .�. Valley = Nei eornoed Commera Gerard Commercial d MU - CBD `� Professional Commercial �� 7 I - L _ j ! ` ResC mduetai r •� C -N (�) / �� Ugid G ( �. ^' \ _ i, /` Low Dan' Residential �`� / j:, \ Medum Density Residen6a: ' r� �� iv. %/ \ to •:- l / M•u.m+tipnDaneM Re�a�nei l High Density Residential l . e` / / Nixed Use Commensal *Ti �l,� . i brawl Use Employment '•'� 40,"' 2 \ \ \I / �.__ // Wed Usa Empoymed t - • �,�I�,, ! p I. \ �l Tigard 1 EEEE2 ` o Hall ' SS I fi r • 4, t 1 J �i lty \ -.\\ / , , .' � Open Space �.� d A ,.,�.� Pubic Institution �� , ' ' . / �� / . Tip «d City Limits Limits 11= • • Told Boundary �� .s l o .•.L; u - - �Ti.a . — — a Ohl"' .i . ; . • . �.��, `� enior .., ..ra .,- " ` �+! Tigard wiaee m.e "..n .. ...II! � � � ■ i Center g � - �m�.�.b.e- �.mmm,,,reKm. MNII . �. % •• ,�� . �w i. _ 1-L 4 , - ' Il l . y..� �..:.:.. 11111. IN ► CPA 2009- 00003, DCA 2009 - 00005, ZON 2009 -00001 di S/» i &tC Gca cl e ucF Cam, Q Downtown Code Errata: p.13, Section C.2 An addition, expansion, enlargement, modification, and /or site improvements associated with such lawfully preexisting uses and structures shall be allowed provided the applicant application for such proposed project moves toward compliance with the applicable development code standards. p. 16, Section 4.h — "For applications using Track 3, variances and adjustments may be only be granted....." p. 22, Figure B.3, should read "Equipment set back min. 5 feet." p. 27, Figure A.2 -4 Residential (only) Building, c. should read "Max 4' balcony /deck projection" and Figure A.2 -4 Commercial /mixed Use Building, d. should read "Max 4' balcony /deck projection." p. 35, Number 3 — "Intent. Build upon and improve Downtown Tigard's architecture by creating an attractive and unified building facade that encourages ground floor activities, and creates a- visually interesting facades and roofs." Downtown Code Options 2. Open Space Options The current Tigard Development Code requires multi- family development to provide a minimum of 48 square feet of private open space. The Development Examples work that was provided as part of Code Assistance, showed that the higher residential densities--proposed iin the new Downtown zone made it challenging to develop viable development projects where buildings could accommodate 48 square feet of private open space for each planned residential unit. Often, more urban residential developments do not have large patios off of the ground floor units and have much smaller balconies. Because of this, the proposed Downtown code has a minimum of 32 square feet. It is also proposed that 80% of units be required to provide private open space,rather than all. This flexible standard recognizes the challenge of providing open space to every unit on infill sites and also could respond to a market demand for lower cost apartments without a balcony (and that not everyone wants a balcony). Option A: Current proposal: 80% of units have a minimum of 32 square feet of private open space 18.610.030.F. 2. Mixed Use Buildings with Residential Units and Residential Only Multi- Family Developments a. Private Outdoor Space: For all residential only buildings and mixed use buildings with more than 4 residential units: (1) A minimum of 80% of the dwelling units in a development shall have private open space, such as a private porch, a deck, a balcony, t patio, an atrium, or other outdoor private area. The private open space shall be contiguous with the unit in a single area. (2) A minimum of 32 square feet of private open space is required. The open space must have a minimum depth of 4 feet. (3) Balconies may project up to a maximum of four feet into the public right -of -way. (4) Balconies used for entrances or exits shall not be considered as open space except where such exits or entrances are for the sole use of the unit. j Option B: Averages of 32 square feet of private open space for the development Alternative language 2. Mixed Use Buildings with Residential Units and Residential Only Multi- Family Developments a. Private Outdoor Space: For all residential only buildings and mixed use buildings with more than 4 residential units, private open space such as a private porch, a deck, a balcony, ai n atrium, or other outdoor private area, shall be .rovi.ed that averages out to h.tninihwm e feet per unit in the development. The !ovate space may be gneater or less than 32 square fee (o r no Q ' provided for some units), oweder: - -. �� C4^ .o ty t.cc4 (` J (1)The private open spate shall be contiguous with the unit in a single area. U (2) The open space mus have a minimum depth of 4 feet. "t (3) Balconies used for e trances or exits shall not be considered as open space except where such exits or entrances are for e sole use of the unit. �‘" kg (4) Balconies may project u to a maximum of four feet into the public right -of -way. /' I 00 otXd -S 9:0 2 Downtown Code Options LI qaufoo 1. Hall /99W Sub -area �/--eAAJv -co;tom - -i-----i r_,..., „, 1 c,_,(7,4..,„6,,,,,_. i ,\ ---------ft-e.A-A-Ple-12..rel_e--y-a— t \ \ r ,_..7 rr c _ yt 41 • . ' ' . \ - ir N l /�,' Y ` '` -C 8 D i - - - r Atki Option A: Adopt the proposed code, including the compromise worked out with ODOT. • Existing 45 ft. height limit preserved. • New mixed use comprehensive plan and zoning designation with design standards for the area. • As the intersection is a potential station area, it would be re- visited with High Capacity Transit Land Use plan (which is now underway). The HCT Plan will be completed in the next 18 months. An outcome of the Plan will be proposed Development Code language that would enable larger scale development around station communities. Option B: Adopt the proposed code, including the compromise worked out with ODOT, and direct staff to develop code language to allow higher scale development in the 99W /Hall sub -area by instituting a trip cap, or other methods. • The City will coordinate with its regional partners. Staff /consultant time will be needed for a traffic impact study. The goal would be to bring the language back to Council in 6 -8 months. Option C.1: Remove the Hall /99W sub -area from the current proposal. Adopt the rest of the proposed code. Direct staff to develop code language to allow higher scale development in the 99W /Hall sub -area by instituting a trip cap, or other methods. • The City will coordinate with its regional partners. Staff /consultant time will be needed for a traffic impact study. The goal would be to bring the language back to Council in 6 -8 months. Option C.2: Same as above, but approve the comprehensive plan designation of Mixed Use Central Business District on Hall /99W sub -area and direct staff to develop zoning /code language to allow higher scale development in the 99W /Hall sub -area by instituting a trip cap, or other methods. 1 )40, - K_,v„ ivod S Downtown Code Amendments Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA2009 -00003 Development Code Amendment DCA2009 -00005 Zoning Map Amendment Z0N2009-00001 Staff Report to the Tigard City Council Public Hearing January 26, 2010 = q TIGARD _ Existing Comprehensive Plan and Zoning 14 ,.• - I r 1 k - A-L ani- arm. g/111 11 =2 ME% 4 g 1111WIV • .. z,. Existing Comp Plan ..„,... . i p dii- 4 i_ h . ..... . ii., 4 D esignation: • . • , • ir C-G Central Business Distnct ''' ''',,,,, WW1 LZ I -- • -1 / • 4 7 wi tit. ,p 4ISP 4 ` _ Existing Zoning / %,, ' - -` -,. , , , Classifications: • , - / / . •CBD and CBD (PD) : • 4/000. IP / k „,,, Mixed use zone allows • ' v'il 'N- CBD 1-P com., res. up to 4o TuatAtin valley \ ' , __ ( a ) Faire units/acre CBD \ I-L (PD) A Res cu. \ •C-G: Commercial only •C-P , R- , R-12 (PD) N \ \\\\ ‘ •R-12 (PD) „ • 44,40 \ \ 0° ' .4 , * t• ‘,„ •R-4.5 . \ 4 •ii• , 'lb . '• T 1-cf •MUR-1 (CPAH project) iga • ,.. , OR CV 611 Senior Tigard 0 ' 5 • i , A ? ' _ ' ' ' - rr"e7 Center .4IP— ' - 1 1 pp) r iwpir • 1 (1 'A A Y \ / 1 HT ctt,, Library , Li O•J ,. r. .. .'fi Proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment C : i 1 : -- R -25 Proposed ■� IL "' Comprehensive Plan u I J i � �� ' Designations: _,.. i �� \ R. = {, . - ' � • "Mixed Use Central 44i , - c -G Business District" /� / ` ' ♦ s 3$ 36 replaces "Central i _ . Business District. :. - Existing Open Space / k / : ` . _- designation remains the TT \ 4 r same. ; , ,; �' MU CBD /- , ® ~` 1 * Proposed Zoning ., it Tualatin Valley \ ` � Classifications: % Fire a . MU -CBD ` ' � `. K. MU -CBD and MU -CBD 41) Rescue \ (PD) ,�� - All properties within the R i * ,, R-12 `' \`� Downtown Urban 1PD) Tigard .: •, . - < Hall \\� Renewal District, plus 7 rat City \ .,s. :, • : � � additional adjacent 000 `, 9/140. t n properties. � :� .. . _5 • *. • • ` r Cnmi- 1 (Tigard v \A. IP 1 , • ` +4 - eft) , - \ \ II Proposed Development Code Amendments o New Chapter 18.610 Downtown Development and Design Standards o Amendments to additional chapters 18.120 Definitions 1.8.390 Decision Making Procedures 18.52o Commercial Zoning Districts 18.745 Landscaping & Screening 18.765 Off Street. Parking & Loading Requirements 18.780 Signs . ...... ... . _...... one Zone with 4 Sub -areas .,....,_ . 7 • a -.... 1 . . it_ in I. ___ , - 1 :1 1 .4 1 7= 7 :1411 6 1 = l a • MU -CBD zone includes =�R� :�� ► .7, \ . 4 ,, sub -areas with ii -O lt , ♦• different developmen �.,.. Ar ' T . standards .? :::.„,-.:., , IN ii i Vj I I R • N... .1.1 IP/ '� tii w. lie ' �, ii& klt Proposed MU-CBD + s , • • IP ♦,, =Urban nene.a■ tiara r :$0 4 * 4 ' \ ‘•7 . 7.1E, A C ,,,,, / NE x.a-9u,r,an �� A 2 ` e ia S 7XiARD OREGON i�%�r dsllhI ; -`ii Eno Building and Site Design Standards Organization of Standards A. Create Vibrant. Ground Floors, Streetscapes and Rights - of -Way; Provide Weather Protection; and Promote Safety and Security. B. Cohesive architectural facade standards C. Integrated building facade standards D. Create Street Corners with Strong Identity E. Assure Building Quality, Permanence and Durability F. Open Space /Public Plaza .1€) Clear and objective Standards • Different level of detail depending on commercial/ mixed use or a residential = 11 i i— \-- development. r J. ; i I `— Ufa 2‘‘ 0 JJ • Most standards are - illustrated • Used for Type I and II e Sreen made of pnmary exlerior finishinatenel, woo a: masonry B.3 d.(1) Rooftop Features /Equipment Screening (architectural screen) reviews Design Objectives cr D� t�onar s e y • Used for Type III review 0$ 0011 1 P7.,, • Discretionary design objectives provide asafety -- ! V valve t , t: I II • Review criteria are broad d statements that could be �� ; ~, !' achieved in multiple ways by p Y design review body. • Photos show development that exemplifies the design objective. i fig Review Procedures ® Downtown Design Review • Track 1— Type I administrative review for facade renovations and "minor modifications." • Track 2 - Type II administrative review using dear and objective standards and graphics. New buildings and "major .modifications." • Track 3 — Type III discretionary review. Decision by design review body. f (* 9 I TGM Co Assistance `�` bl T RA NSPORTATION AND ' ROWTH MANAGEMENT • The City of Tigard was awarded a Code Assistance grant from the State of Oregon's Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Program • The Smart Development Code Assistance project scope of work includes: ▪ Peer review of the City's draft code language • Code illustrations • Development examples • Assistance with. outreach ▪ Presentations to CCAC, Planning Commission, and City, Council pit] nr ri V�•0® SERA ,. I Smart levetopment Principles • The TGM Code Assistance program promotes Smart Development .Principles that enable communities to meet transportation needs while retaining their livability and economic vitality ▪ Integrating land use and transportation planning ▪ Making efficient use of land and resources Designing human- scaled, walkable communities ▪ Assuring good connections between local destinations Promoting pedestrian, bicycle, and transit- oriented development • These principles are consistent with the City's desire to create a. pedestrian - oriented urban village JI Form-Based Codes • Design Standards utilize Form - Based Code (FBC) techniques • FBC techniques focus on form, not use • Design buildings, streets, open spaces in coordination • Uses illustrations to support regulation text ':" F orm-Based D evelopment standards :1:: a * .....- ;: ; i t \ .. .. 11. ` ,�: i ■ �_ a / .L . - R„ .Rp vary by sub -area L ,: '':. IN •11i ililr i ,i'` K. ,_ -+ti Each district has = .�y�:: 2 ...• ... , „....., . different setbacks and -- -,,.. �� „• �- / , ` -`-' - •. 4' , ,,;” �� M -CBD i height hmits., . - _ our Creates more consistent > • ., -_�� /'' public „:„.,,,;::::::, ., ipi:77 ,. , ....,..........„........ realm within • • •,, / ......, ‘ ".. 1 \ . each sub -area .., A / . . .. Proposed MU -CBD � Sub -Areas pt . ...A/ . U!OT Peseeol orro gm,ar 0 0 1" - .1.♦* ` ✓ 1 1 Q , :a ,, rcorrrerc 4 * 44 IX : ', ncnFrD a Cori li, _ • I , P .. . _ 1 re I Form B c o i ses e Building Design Standards 01 �' BE i -Fin° Hh Jlia g g Ed bin old [�iidu �f -d • Site design: focus on location � ® ®� r of parking, parking screening �a `'a' .` al uuid� 3� �!1= p g, p g g WI , ; and building frontage � , �' j 11 t 6 �r - - o g r ` • • • • e - - -- I L� CJ -¢ If ; — atr . 6 n ac, • Focus on building orientation N � � � I � j L I' � � � street - facing facade— iii5 0 'easr 0 Belt course/shot Cwse especially ground floor °Tar'k °°v°n 0 Tar C.1Intepated Building Facade (Commerdal /Mixed -Use Building) _.00.000 oe :, µ - ee .eaa.oa a.eerae V^'O'' ' p all. . - i B �" ry ;k„ l a7. -a _ - a F 1 e a �' { �Ia :aria S _ r ' '>t rN 1, a � �. y am • I e ./ 3 C L�y�q� 5 J v u e , 'A ° - F. III ' oe h I._ _ I v - r • '14. m it °a s 3. _ •do+� l� r i m • I , - ; � g rib - .' e e .I,.. r a , r r . z � a e�,. i 0'. ' ,.. I " ' L = row 3 r ;. ® e %4-i'- , 4101r "q - dx .p,-_''rii n'''1 0 •a'MS nn the seta re nag e uaYmes 0 L1 I asw aa—Id 0 Mao. sov msae frontage 0 Laratave ,w la+am.wswa<w 0(09 Ire O vo 10' sass..,. 0 se o.ss us a sc a,sg x 123e:<a9/amawsmaro B 2 Parking Location 4 St 1 ment Examples D eve o p , „. _s �_ IN/ ___ _..____ _ _ f--- . 4 \_. 'A• .._ _ __ _ -- - - __ � v � _,.._ _, . ift ,. _.._ ..._ ....,_ ....._,,, __ . ,..... ...... . -4 , 44-i:,-__ , .., ._..__..... „ ,. 1.„. ,....,‘„ ,...... ...., ... _.,___ __/„__ __,......,_ ,,„,....- . .. ..._____•....2, ..„ ,....,..:.: . ..._...._ „....,......„,..._ ............_ ,.... ,,,.., .. ._ __ • ....._, ._ , ‘-._:-. _ -,--.:.-. --_,. _.. . .,_. ... __ .._____ . . ____ , ,...--- *,.... .. ,.- - M \ - " "� _� • ~`'tip \, .. �( 1 `( . ct N---,.. lam . f - - �� a ��. Y - ''''Q, ' il":4 , 4 1 ,a.... .,.... ..... ....... . / , ..., . . ,.., . -,, ......., . IN., ............ „.....,,,. , Opnar k kur-sexy resIdentlai bulling withtownhomes unl3 on theground floor. Surface and tuck-under parking In nom ofshe. 0 v im; 2 (ID • < ,- , - / . -, fitip:,:. al rD 8 , - _,.,;_„0..v- / . 40 0 _ r ' i / .. - ---#./ ,p/ A ' r 3 A/ y , 7 / ./ , a.' .;4. lir `./ i\ rip 44 #. • 7/ r \ / /! 77 rut r: rn ,,,,/ / `,... / /7/ / \ / % 1 % \ X / 01, ' / / ///// E / , 1 y a) , ,.„... / / / 5 / . / \ / /,. , \ 4 3 _. „„/ , \.,. \\\\ ,/ I 73 \., \\ \ al , \,\ . r ` /------------ l i f .,.,_ ,.....•_.. I .:, ., __ ________ __ Examples Development 10 -foot setback 6 -foot setback :, \ : , ; , , 14. � j -� 1' it � .--_ • i` ° ., X L l'.7',`•. t t . f L r ' 1-_ i libl■ _ . _ . Note 10'and 5'setbatks ate s hovni above are Illustrated on OPTION A Citizen Engagement in Developing Code • Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan • Joint subcommittee of the City Center Advisory Commission and Planning Commission worked on draft code • Open Houses in July 2008 and July 2009 • Community events • CCAC meetings and endorsement • Property owner notification • Planning Commission workshops and public hearings • Three Council workshops s W Meets Tigard Code Requirements • Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; • Comprehensive Plan Chapters: Goal 1- Citizen Involvement Goal 2- Land Use Planning Goal 5- Natural Resources and Historic Areas Goal 6 -Air, Water and Land Resources Goal 7- Hazards Goal 8- Parks, Recreation, Trails, and. Open Space Goal 9- Economic Development Goal 10- Housing Goal ii- Public Facilities and Services Goal 12- Transportation Goal 13- Energy Conservation Goal 14- Urbanization Goal 15- Special Planning Areas- Downtown LIMI11111111111111111111■1111=111111! Meets Metro and State Requirements • Metro Functional Plan Titles 1, 2, 6, and 7; • Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. • Transportation Planning Rule December 7, 2009 Planning Commission Public Hearing • Planning Commission recommended Approval to the City Council of the proposed Comprehensive plan Amendment, Development Code Amendment,. and Zoning Map Amendment Discussion items • Height and scale of development in Hall /99W intersection • Private open space AGENDA ITEM No. 4 Date: January 26, 2010 TESTIMONY SIGN -UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING: DOWNTOWN CODE AMENDMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA2009- 00003, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA 2009 - 00005) AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ZON2009- 00001) This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses ofpersons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony I /Adm /Cathy /CCSignup /Leg. PH — Downtown Code Amendments and Design Standards AGENDA ITEM No. 4 January 26, 2010 PLEASE PRINT This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses ofpersons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Proponent — (Speaking In Favor) Opponent — (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. /lei 1ZZ &/ ./v Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Attachment 2 Agenda Item: Hearing Date: _January 262010 Time: 7:30 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE q CITY COUNCIL II a • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD 120 DAYS = N/A SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENTS FILE NOS.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA2009 -00003 Development Code Amendment DCA2009 -00005 Zoning Map Amendment ZON2009 -00001 APPLICANT: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 PROPOSAL: The proposal is for Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Development Code Amendments, and Zoning Map Amendments related to the Downtown Urban Renewal District and the Central Business District Comprehensive Plan designation. • The proposal includes changing the Comprehensive Plan Designations of the subject parcels from Central Business District, General Commercial, Commercial Professional, Medium -High Density Residential, Low Density Residential, and Mixed Use Residential 1 to Mixed Use Central Business District. • The proposal also includes changing the Zoning Map Classifications of the subject parcels from CBD (Central Business District), CBD (PD) (Central Business District - Planned Development Overlay), C -G (General Commercial), C -P (Commercial Professional), R -25 (Residential, 25 units per acre), R -4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre), MUR -1 (Mixed Use Residential 1), R -12 (PD) (Residential, 12 units per acre- Planned Development Overlay) to MU -CBD (Mixed Use Central Business District) and MU -CBD (PD) (Mixed Use Central Business District - Planned Development Overlay). • The proposed MU -CBD zone will permit a wide mix of uses. The zone is proposed to be further divided into sub -areas which regulate height and setbacks. • Maximum density is proposed to be increased from the currently allowed 40 units an acre to 50 units an acre, plus a station area overlay permitting 80 units per acre. • Proposed Development Code Amendments include design and site standards for new development and changes to Sections 18.120, 18.390, 18.520., 18.745, and 18.765. • These proposed changes would implement the Comprehensive Plan Text amendments for the Downtown adopted in 2007. DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENTS CPA2009- 00003 /DCA2009- 00005 /ZON2009 -00001 STAFF REPORT TO THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PAGE 1 OF 21 LOCATION: Properties within the Tigard Downtown Urban Renewal District and properties with the Central Business District Comprehensive Plan designation. CURRENT ZONING/ COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Zoning Designation: CBD (Central Business District), CBD (PD) (Central Business District- Planned Development Overlay), C -G (General Commercial), C -P (Commercial Professional), R -25 (Residential, 25 units per acre), R -4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre), MUR -1 (Mixed Use Residential 1), R -12 (PD) (Residential, 12 units per acre- Planned Development Overlay). Comp Plan Designation: Central Business District, General Commercial, Commercial Professional, Mixed Use Residential 1, Low Density Residential, Open Space. PROPOSED ZONING/ COMP. PLAN • DESIGNATION: Proposed Zoning Classification: MU -CBD (Mixed Use Central Business District) and MU -CBD (PD) (Mixed Use Central Business District with Planned Development. Overlay), R -12 (PD) (Residential, 12 units per acre with Planned Development Overlay). Proposed Comp Plan Designation: Mixed Use Central Business District and Open Space. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Chapters: Goal 1- Citizen Involvement; Goal 2- Land Use Planning; Goal 5- Natural Resources and I- Iistoric Areas; Goal 6 -Air, Water and Land Resources; Goal 7- Hazards; Goal 8- Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space; Goal 9- Economic Development; Goal 10- Housing; Goal 11- Public Facilities and Services; Goal 12- Transportation; Goal 13- Energy Conservation; Goal 14- Urbanization; and Goal 15- Special Planning Areas- Downtown; Metro.Functional Plan Tides 1, 2, 6, and 7; and StateWide,Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION T1ie, Directdr,rec omrrierids'that , the Trgard Litt Council Ends "this request to r_neet the :nece cnteria..Therefore the Director recommends that' the Council.ADOPT the proposed:Comprehensive.Plan Ain'e`pdnienE Development p Code ,men'dment aandf Zoning Map, }nendinent as determined!throughidie public hearing',process: SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History Tigard's historic center is Main 'Street. The arrival of the Oregon Electric Railroad in 1910 with a stop off Main Street helped spur commercial development around the mostly agricultural area. The area DOWNTOWN URBAN RISNEWA]. DISI'RICI CODE AMENDMENTS CPA2009- 00003/DCA2009- 00005/70N2009 -00001 STAFF 12E1'012'1'10 THE TIGARD CI'11' COlNCII. PAGE 201' 21 developed into the mixed use area of retail shops light industrial uses, and multi- family housing that it is today. In 1996, the Metro 2040 Plan included Downtown Tigard as a Town Center, one of 37 areas in the Portland Region identified as a focus for redevelopment, multi-modal transportation and concentrations of households and employment. The current local Downtown Tigard planning effort dates back to 2002. A group of citizens and business owners were inspired to work on ideas for Downtown to capitalize on the planned Commuter Rail station in Downtown. A more extensive planning process was made possible with a state Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) grant. Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (TDIP) A Task Force of 24 citizens was formed to guide the plan's development. The planning process incorporated high levels of citizen involvement, including community dialogues, workshops, open house, and a public survey. Because of this citizen involvement process, the City of Tigard was awarded the 2005 Good Governance Award from the League of Oregon Cities. The award recognizes exceptional city programs that citizens within a community. The result of the planning process was the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (TDIP). The TDIP set forth a vision to create "a vibrant and active urban village at the heart of the community that is pedestrian oriented, accessible by many modes of transportation, recognizes and uses natural resources as an asset, and features a combination of uses that enable people to live, work, play and shop in an environment that is uniquely Tigard." Urban Renewal Plan An Urban Renewal Plan was developed to implement the TDIP. The tools provided by urban renewal, including Tax Increment Financing are intended to attract private investment and facilitate the area's redevelopment. Tigard voters approved the use of Tax Increment Financing for the Urban Renewal District in the May 2006 election. Downtown Comprehensive Plan In 2007, a new Comprehensive Plan chapter for the Downtown was adopted specifically to provide the goals, policies, and action measures to implement the vision of the TDIP. Vicinity Information In general, the area is bounded by FannoCreek to the southwest, Hall Boulevard to east, and Hwy 99W to the northwest: The Downtown Urban Renewal District encompasses 193.71 acres. In addition to these properties, approximately acreslhave theiCotnprehensive Plan designation of Central Business District. Adjacent properties are zoned Commercial General (C -G), Commercial Professional (C -P), Light Industrial (I -L), Industrial Park (I -P), Medium High Density Residential (R -25), Medium Density Residential (R -12 and R -7), Low Density Residential (R -4:5), and Low Density Residential with Planned Development Overlay (R- 4.5(PD)). Proposal Description The Community Development Director requests Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Development Code Amendments, and Zoning Map Amendments for properties in the Downtown Urban Renewal District 'DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT CODE AMILNDMIENTS CPA2009- 00003 /DCA2009- 00005 /ZON2009 -00001 STAFF REPORT' TO TI -ITS TIGARD CITY COUNCIL. PAGI? 3 OF 21 and properties with the Central Business District•Comprehensive Plan designation. All of the properties within the Urban Renewal District and all properties: currently with the .Comprehensive Plan designation of Central Business`District are proposed to be designated with the.new Comprehensive Plan designation of Mixed Use Central Business District. All of the properties within the Urban Renewal District are proposed to be designated with the new zoning classification of. Mixed Use — Central Business District (MU -CBD). Five properties with the current zoning CBD (PD) are proposed to be designated with the new zoning classification Mixed Use — Central Business District with Planned Development Overlay (MU- CBD (PD)). Two additional properties (the Fanno Creek House) currently zoned R -12 (PD) would also receive' the designation MU -CBD (PD). The Fanno Creek area would retain its current Comprehensive Plan designation of Open Space. SECTION IV. SUMMARY OF REPORT Applicable criteria, findings and conclusions Tigard Community Development Code o Chapter 18.380 o Chapter 18.390 Applicable Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies o Policies 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 Applicable Metro Standards o Tides 1, 2, 6, and 7 Statewide Planning Goals o Goals 1, 2, 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, and 14 City Department and outside agency comments SECTION V. APPLICABLE CRITERIA, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.380: Chapter 18.380. states that legislative text amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Typc IV procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.060.G. TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.390: Chapter 18.390.060.G states that the recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: 1. The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; 2. Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; 3. Any applicable Metro regulations; 4. Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and 5. Any applicable provisions of the Citv's implementing ordinances. These factors will be addressed in this staff report. APPLICABLE CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: A review of the comprehensive plan identified the following relevant policies for the proposed amendments: DOWN'1'OIXN URBAN RIL:NEWAE. DISTRICT CODE /AMENDMENTS CPA2009 -00003 /DCA2009 -00005 /ZON2009 -00001 STAFF REPORT TO THE, TIGARD CITY COUNCIL, PACE 4 OF 21 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — GOAL 1: CITIZEN:INVOLVEMENT Goal 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. The code amendments are intended to implement the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan, which included extensive public involvement in the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan, (citizen Task Force, community dialogues, workshops, an open house, and a public survey.) A subcommittee of the City Center Advisory Commission and Planning Commission, two citizen groups, met in public meetings for over a year to develop the proposed Code amendments. The City Center Advisory Commission has reviewed, provided additional input to, and endorsed the proposed amendments. In addition, two public open houses were held to provide opportunity for citizen comment. Information on the proposed code changes was also distributed at several community meetings and events. This goal has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Section 18.390. A notice was mailed to all affected property owners and individuals on the citywide interested parties list. The notice of the Planning Commission and City Council hearings was additionally published in the Tigard Times on November 19, 2009. The notice invited public input and included the phone number of a contact person to answer questions. The notice also included the address of the City's webpage where the entire draft of the text changes could be viewed. Requests for comments were also sent to ODOT, Metro and surrounding jurisdictions. At the December 7, 2009 public hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously recomrnended approval of the proposed code amendments to Council. With these public involvement provisions, the proposed code amendments are consistent with applicable Citizen Involvement policies. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING Goal 2:1: Maintain an up -to -date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action plans as the legislative foundation of Tigard's land use planning program. Policy 2. The City's land use regulations, related plans, and implementing actions shall be consistent with and implement its Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan includes.achapter on the Downtown. The goal of this chapter is to "promote the creation of a vibrant and active urban village at the heart of the community that is pedestrian oriented, accessible by many modes of transportation, recognizes natural resources_as an asset, and features a combination of uses that enable people to live, work, play, and shop in an environment that is uniquely Tigard." The proposed code amendments are consistent with this chapter. Policy 4. The, City's land.use program shall promote the efficient use of land through the creation of incentives and redevelopment programs. Policy 5. The City shall promote intense urban level development in Metro- designated Centers and Corridors, arid employment and industrial areas. The proposed amendments are consistent with these policies. The proposed increase in maximum density will encourage, the redevelopment of underutilized parcels that are close to services and well- served by 'transit. Downtown Tigard is a Metro designated Town Center and the proposal will encourage more intensive residential and employment development than is currently permitted. DOWNTOWN URBAN R73NEWA1. DISIRIC'I' CORD. A MI:NDMIIzNIS CPA2009- 00003 /DCA2009- 00005 /ZON2009 -00001 STAFF 12E:1 1'0'CI -16' I'IGARD;CI'I'1' COUNCI7. PAGE 501 21 Policy 6. The City shall promote the development= and•maintenance of a range of land use types which are of sufficient economic value to fund needed services and advance the community's social and fiscal stability. The proposed code amendments would create a new mixed use zone MU-CBD that would allow a wide range of residential and commercial uses. The proposed zoning is important to the success of the Urban Renewal District, which was enacted . by Tigard voters in 2006. The proposed zoning will encourage new development which will have a positive impact on the Tax Increment Financing that is necessary for the completion of the identified projects of the City Center Urban Renewal Plan. The success of the Urban Renewal District is vital to the community's social and fiscal stability. Policy 7. The City's regulatory land use maps. and development code shall implement the Comprehensive Plan by providing for needed urban land uses including: A. Residential; B. Commercial and office employment including business parks; C. Mixed use; D. Industrial; E. Overlay districts where natural resource protections or special planning and regulatory tools are warranted; and F. Public services. The proposed new zone MU -CBD allows a mix of needed urban land uses: residential, commercial, office employment, and public services. The proposed zone also includes a Station Area overlay zoning which has a higher maximum density to encourage residential development in close proximity to bus and commuter rail service. Policy 12. The City shall provide a wide range of tools, such as planned development, design standards, and conservation easements, that encourage results such as: A. High qualityand innovative design and construction; B. Land use compatibility; C. Protection of natural resources; D. Preservation of open space; and E. Regulatory flexibility necessary for projects to adapt to siteconditions. Policy 24. The City shall establish design standards to promote quality urban development and to enhance the community's value, livability, and attractiveness. The proposed code amendments include comprehensive design standards for new development within the MU -CBD zone. The design standards require new development to be high quality and pedestrian- oriented. The zone is further divided into four sub -areas which regulate height and maximum setbacks in a way that is context sensitive. The proposed Fanno- Burnham sub -area has a higher landscaping percentage requirement for development than the other sub -areas and has a height limit of three stories for development within 200 feet of Fanno Creek Park. This will result in less intensive development which is compatible to an open space area and will protect natural resources. There is a three story height maximum for development within 50 feet of a low and medium residential district which assures land use compatibility. DOWNTOWN URBAN.;I(ENEWAI. DIS'TRICI' CODIS AMENDMENTS CPA 2009 -00003 /DE:A2009- 00005 /ZON2009- 00001 STAFF 12 I :PORT TO THE TIGARD CM' COUNCII. PAGE 6 OF 21 Policy 15. In addition to other Comprehensive :Plangoals and;policies deemed applicable, amendments to Tigard's Comprehensive Plan /ZoiieNMapshall be- subject to the following specific criteria: A. Transportation and other public facilities and services shall be available, or committed to be made available, and of sufficient capacity to serve the land uses allowed by the proposed map designation; B. Development of land uses allowed by the new designation shall not negatively affect existing or planned transportation or other public facilities and services; The district is served by transportation facilities, designated arterials: Hwy 99W and Hall Blvd., collectors (Main Street, Burnham Street, Ash Street, and Hunziker Street). Several street improvement projects will be underway within the next two years: intersection improvements and Hwy 99W and Greenburg /Main and Hwy 99W/ Hall Blvd.; reconstruction of Burnham Street and Ash Street connection to the park and ride lot; and the Main Street Green Street. The district is well served by public transit It is the location of the Tigard Transit Center and the WES Commuter Rail station. A Downtown Circulation Plan is in progress that will identify the location of new streets and pedestrian /bicycle connections, arid street functional classifications. A section of the proposed code has been reserved so these standards and location of new streets can be adopted. Sanitary and water lines and stormwater. facilities are generally available in the district. As properties redevelop in the district, applicants will have to upgrade to cufrent standards. C. The new land use designation.shall fulfill a proven community need such as provision of needed commercial goods and services, employment, housing, public and community services, etc. in the particular location, versus other appropriately designated and developable properties; D. Demonstration that there is an inadequate amount of developable, appropriately designated, land for the land uses that would be allowed by the new designation; As a.flexible zone, the proposed MU -CBD zone will allow opportunities for a wide variety of commercial goods and services, employment, housing, public and community services. The CBD zone is:a,de facto Mixed Use district; however the new designation will make it more explicit. According to'the City's .Buildable Land Inventory, there are 86.32 acres of buildable properties with Commercial zoning (48.17acres of Commercial -only and 38.15 acres of Mixed Use). For the properties zoned C -C, included in this zone, the new designation will increase the range of types of permitted development..As a :place where high density housing can be built, it will help address the shortage of appropriately zoned High Density residential buildable land (there is currently 0 acres available). E. Demonstration that land uses. allowed in the proposed designation could be developed in compliance- with.all applicable regulations and the purposes of any overlay district would be fulfilled; DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL.DISIRICI' CODE ANI ENDM EMS CP:A 2009 -00003/DCA2009- 00005/ZON2009 -00001 STAFF REPOR'I"1'O'11-111 TICARD CITY COUNCIL. PAUI'.7 OF 21 As part of the review of the draft code through TGM Code Assistance, architectural consultants designed site plans for three locations in the district, using the draft code. The studies demonstrated that the type of desired development was feasible. Several properties included in this proposed re -zone have a Planned Development overlay. These designations will be retained. F. Land uses permitted by the proposed designation would be compatible, or capable of being made compatible, with environmental conditions and surrounding land uses; and G. Demonstration that the amendment does not detract from the viability of the City's natural systems. The proposed zoning has sub -areas with development standards that are sensitive to context. Fanno Burnham sub -area has a higher landscaping percentage requirement for development than the other sub- areas due to the proximity to Fanno Creek. In addition new buildings are limited in height to 3 stories within 200 feet of Fanno Creek Park. This will result in less intensive development compatible to an open space area with natural resources. There are also lower height limits for development that is within 50 feet of a Low Density Residential zone. In addition, the existing Planned Development Overlay designations will be retained. The requirement of an additional layer of review can ensure the preservation of natural features. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — GOAL 5 NATURAL FEATURES AND OPEN SPACE Goal 5.1 Protect natural resources and the environmental and ecological functions they provide and, to the extent feasible, restore natural resources to create naturally functioning systems and high levels of biodiversity. In the proposed Fanno-Burnham sub-area there is a lower height limit for development within 200 feet of Fanno Creek Park. In addition there is higher landscaping requirements for development than the other sub - areas. This will result in less intensive development compatible to an open space area with natural resources. In addition, the retention of existing Planned Development Overlay designations will entail an additional laver of review to ensure the preservation of natural features. Overall, the district's higher permitted density and more intensive land uses will help preserve open space in other areas of the City and region. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — GOAL 6 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Goal 6.1 Reduce air pollution and improve air quality in the community and region. The proposed code amendment will encourage a more efficient development pattern in the Downtown. Development that is oriented to the street and the provision of the pedestrian and bicycle facilities listed in the Urban Renewal Plan will make other modes of transportation more attractive. This will reduce reliance on the automobile (the use of which is a major source of air pollution). In particular, in allowing higher density residential development in close proximity to transit service will make this a more plausible option for everyday transportation needs. Goal 6.2" Ensure land use activities protect and enhance the community's water quality. DOWN'T'OWN URBAN In NIiWAl. DISTRICT CODE A7\11 NDLIIr:NIS CPA2009- 00003 /DCA2009 -00005 /zoN2009 -0000l STAFF REPOR'P "10'VHF I'IGARD CPIY COUNCII. PAGE 8 (W 21 Igard's existing Development Code includes several provisions aimed at protecting the community's water supply. The proposed development code provisions include additional requirements for trees in parking lots (minimum island dimensions with soil volume requirements, and irrigation requirements). These changes are intended to improve the viability of trees in parking lots and enable a healthy tree canopy to develop that will mitigate negative impacts of parking lot stormwater runoff. The proposed code also permits the landscaping requirements to be provided on a building's roof, which is an incentive to develop green roofs, which manages stormwater on the site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — GOAL 7 HAZARDS The proposed amendments will not affect the City of Tigard's existing regulations that address natural disasters and hazards. The floodplain of Fanno Creek will maintain its Comprehensive Plan designation of Open Space, as well as be subject to existing City code restrictions on building within 100 year floodplains. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — GOAL 8 PARKS, RECREATION, TRAILS, AND OPEN SPACE Goal 8.1 Provide a wide variety of high quality park and open spaces for all residents, including both: A. developed areas with facilities for active recreation; and B. undeveloped areas.for nature- oriented recreation and.theprotection and enhancement of valuable natural resources within the parks and open space system. Goal 8.2 Create a Citywide network of interconnected on -.and off -road pedestrian and bicycle trails. The existing Comprehensive Plan designation of Open Space on the Fanno Creek floodplain will be retained. This Open Space serves an important dual purpose of 'recreation for residents and enhancement of natural resources. The proposed code addresses the provision of open space by including code provisions for development adjacent to a Public Plaza, which is an identified Urban Renewal project. The proposed code does not require the development of trails (this is being addressed in the Downtown Circulation Plan). However, the proposed zoning will have a positive impact on the Urban Renewal District, which includes projects the conversion of unused rail right of way to a multi - use pedestrian path. The Urban RenewalPlan also includes recreation facilities projects such as a public plaza. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — GOAL 9 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Goal 9.1 Develop and maintain a strong, diversified, and sustainable local economy. Policy 5. The City shallpromote well-designed and efficient development and redevelopment of vacant and .underutilized.industrial and commercial lands. The proposed code 'amendments will increase opportunities for higher density housing and employment development in the Downtown Urban Renewal District and enable more intense housing and employment uses to be located in close proximity to transit and other urban uses. Goal 9.3 Make Tigard a. prosperous and desirable place to live and do business. DOWNTOWN URBAN RI:NILWAI, DISTRICT CODE AJII',N DNtINTS CPA2009-00003 /DCA2009- 00005 /ZON2009 -00001 STAFF R13POR'P'10 THE 'PIGARD Cl'IY COUNCI]. PAUL 9 OF 21 Policy 1. The:City shall focus.a significant portion of Make employmentgrowth and high - density housing development in its Metro- designated Town Center (Downtown); Regional Center (Washington Square); High Capacity Transit Corridor (Hwy 99W); and the Tigard Triangle. Policy 2. The City shall adopt land use regulations and standards to ensure a well designed and attractive urban environment that supports /protects public and private sector. investments. The proposed code amendments include detailed design standards for new development in the Downtown. The regulations will ensure high quality pedestrian scale development. Phis, along with public investments in streets and parks will attract desirable development in the Downtown Urban Renewal District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — GOAL 10 HOUSING Goal 10.1 Provide opportunities :for a variety of housing types to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents. Policy 1. The City shall adopt and maintain land use policies, codes, and standards that provide opportunities to develop a varietyof housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Tigard's present:and future residents. Increasing,the permitted density to a maximum of 50 units per acre (80 units in the station area overlay) in an area with a high level of transit service will encourage a compact district and more efficient use of land. High density provides the developer lower land costs per unit than does low density, and combined with the proposed code's,reduction of required private and shared open space requirements and minimum parking requirements in the Downtown, should result in additional affordable housing opportunities. Policy 5. The City shall provide for high and medium housing in the areas such as town centers (Downtown) , regional centers (Washington Square) and along transit corridors where employment opportunities, commercial services, transit, and other public services necessary to support higher population densities are either present or planned for in the future. The proposed code amendments increase opportunities for higher density :nixed use development in the Downtown Urban Renewal District and enable residential uses to be located in close proximity to retail, employment, and public facilities, such as transit and parks. The proposed code provides incentives to encourage the development of a range of housing.choices at transit- supportive densities near existing and' planned transit routes, by allowing up to 80 units an acre on properties that are within approximately 750 feet of the existing Transit Center /Commuter Rail Station. The district,is also in proximity to activity centers such as employment, commercial areas, public library, government services, and a public park. The adjacent Hwy: 99W Corridor is also under consideration for future investment in High Capacity Transit. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — GOAL 11 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES Goal 11.4 Maintain adequate public facilities and services to meet the health, safety, education, and leisure needs ofall Tigard residents. DOWN'POWN URBAN RENE.WAI. DIS "1'121C'I' CODA ANIENDMEN'IS CPA 2009 - 00003 /DCA2009- 00005 /ZON2009 -00001 S'T'AFF RGPOR'r 1(1) l'I -IF I'1GARD C1IA COLNCII. PAGE. W OF 21 Policy 8. The:City.shall locate appropriate municipal administration offices and services in downtown Tigard. Adequate public facilities are present in the Downtown area. The Urban Renewal Plan includes projects that Will build on these services and improve streets and other infrastructure in the district. The Downtown is also the location of several municipal offices and services, such as Tigard City Hall, Public Works, Tigard Senior Center, and Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. The proposed zoning will continue to permit the location of appropriate governmental buildings in the Downtown. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — GOAL 12 TRANSPORTATION Goal 12.3 Public Transportation Policy 2. The City shall encourage the expansion and use of public transit by: A. Locating land intensive uses in close proximity to transit ways; B. Incorporating provisions into the community development code which require development proposals to provide transit facilities; and C. Supporting efforts by TriMet and other groups to provide for the needs of the transportation disadvantaged. The current planning process started with the announcement that a new Washington County commuter rail line would have a stop in Downtown Tigard. The proposed amendments would permit more intensive land uses in close proximity to transit. Increased residential densities in this transit oriented district will likely lead to expanded use of public transportation service. The proposed overlay zone would allow an even higher maximum density within a short walk to the central Tigard Transit Center and WES Commuter Rail Station. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — GOAL 13 ENERGY CONSERVATION Goal 13.1 Reduce energy consumption. Policy 1. The City shall promote the reduction of energy consumption associated with vehicle miles traveled through: A. land use patterns that reduce dependency on the automobile; B. public transit that is reliable „connected, and efficient; and C. bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure that is safe and well connected. Increasing density in an area with a high level of transit service (a bus Transit Center and a new Commuter Rail station) should achieve greater energy efficiency by reducing reliance on the automobile . The regulations will require a pedestrian orientation for new development and have reduced off - street parking minimum requirements which should encourage alternatives modes of transportation. The code amendments also will allow a mix of residential, retail, and employment uses to create the opportunity for people to live in close proximity to work, shopping and governmental services. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — GOAL 14 URBANIZATION Goal 14.3..Promote Tigard citizens' interests in urban growth boundary expansion and other regional and state. growth management decision. DOWNTOWN URBAN RII DIS'IRICi CODE, ANII.:NDNIILNTS CPA2009 -00003/DCA2009- 00005/70N2009 -00001 S'1'AEE REPORT TOTI- II ?:TIGARD CI TY COUNCIL PAGE, 11 01' 21 Policy 2. The,City shall support regional Urban.Growth Boundary management decisions that promote the :development of an efficient and compact urban form, prevent future unincorporated urban development, and prevent urban sprawl. Urban growth boundaries are not specifically involved in this proposal; however the proposed amendments will allow for the more efficient and compact use of land in a designated Town Center and could help reduce the need for future expansion of the urban growth boundary. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — GOAL 15 SPECIAL PLANNING AREAS: DOWNTOWN Goal 15.1 The City will promote the creation of a vibrant and active urban village at the heart of the community that is pedestrian oriented, accessible by many modes of transportation, recognizes natural resources as an asset, and features a combination of uses that enable people to live, work, play, and,shop in an environment that is uniquely Tigard. The explicit purpose this proposal is to fulfill the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan's goal of creating a vibrant and active urban village. The. proposed zoning will create the opportunity for high quality pedestrian and transit oriented development which will complement retail, services, employment and recreational opportunities in the district. Goal 15.2 Facilitate the development of an urban village. Policy 1. New zoning, design standards, and design guidelines shall be developed and used to ensure the quality, attractiveness, and special character of the Downtown as the "heart" of Tigard, while being flexible.enough to encourage development. The proposed•code amendments seek to be flexible while requiring high quality development. Rather than specifying the location of uses, the zone includes a single list ofpermitted uses, and will let the real estate market determine the best use for each property. However, the new development must meet comprehensive architectural design standards. This is based on "form based code" concepts, where the design of the building and how it "interacts" with the public realm is more important than the use contained in the building. The proposed design standards axe clear and objective standards and include illustrations of many of the provisions. In addition, there is a provision for the applicant to apply under a discretionary review process. Discretionary design standards provide a "safety valve" for well- designed projects that can't meet the clear and objective standards. The review criteria are broad statements that could be achieved in multiple ways. Photos are provided that show development that exemplifies the design objective. This process allows a design review body discretion in deciding whether an application met them. Policy 2. The. downtown's`land use plan shall provide for a mix of complementary land uses such as: A. retail, restaurants, entertainment and,personal services; B. medium and high - density residential uses, including rental and ownership housing; C. civic functions (government offices, community services, public plazas, public transit centers, etc); D. professional employment and related office uses; and E. natural resource protection, open spaces and public parks. DOWNTOWN URBAN RIIN I':WAI. DISfR1C:'I' CODE AMENDMENTS CPA2009- 00003 /DCA2009 -00005/70N2009 -00001 STAFF RILPOR'I' [0 li IE TIGARD crrY COUNCIL. I'AGH 12 OI; 21 • Policy 3: The Cityshall not permit new land uses such as warehousing; auto dependant uses; industrial manufacturing; and industrial service uses that would detract from the goal of a vibrant urban village. The proposed land use table for the MU -CBD zone is consistent with these policies. A wide variety of commercial, residential, civic, employment, and park uses are permitted. Uses that would detract from the goal of a vibrant urban village, such as new warehousing, industrial uses, are not permitted. New auto - oriented uses are limited. The code amendments are inrended,to maximize flexibility in the location of land uses while requiring high quality architectural design. Sites in the zone are generally left open to commercial, residential, or mixed use development. Policy 4.. Existing nonconforming uses shall be allowed to continue, subject to a threshold of allowed expansion. The proposed code allows for the continuation of nonconforming uses. For uses that are already non- conforming (such as light industrial provisions call out that all existing development may continue (and, if destroyed, be re- establihed to current standards within one year). This differs from the existing Development Code which in most cases requires a discontinued non - conforming use to be reestablished within six months. If a renovation is planned for an existing building, only the renovated portion would be required fo meet the new design requirements. The proposed code seeks to reduce the creation of additional non-conforming uses as they can create difficulty for businesses in financing, insurance, etc. Land uses that are no longer permitted outright have been in most cases classified as "Restricted" specifying that if the use existed on a property before the adoption of the new code, it can continue. as a conforming use, but new uses of this kind elsewhere in the district could not be established. For example, Vehicle.Sales will be a Restricted use. A property in the zone that currently has this use can continue it, even if the business changes hands. If this business desired to build a new building, they could develop one consistent with the design standards. However,.if a new use was established on the property, then the old Vehicle Sales use could not be reestablished at a later date. Policy 5. Downtown design, development and provision of service shall emphasize public safety, accessibility, and attractiveness as primary objectives. The policy is consistent with the proposed design standards which regulate the character of new development. '1 he standardswill result in attractive, high quality, and accessible development. Minimum ground floor window requirements will support the concept of "eyes on the street" which is a recognized urban design factor in public.safety. Policy 6. New housing in the downtown shall provide for a range of housing types, including ownership,,workforce, and affordable housing in a high quality living environment. The proposed code :permits a wide variety of housing types, including multi- family and single - family attached development. An increase in the permitted density in an .area with a high level of transit service will encourage compaer,comthunities and more efficient use -of land. High density housing, along with the proposed :code's reduced requirements for private open space requirements and minimum off - street parking, will resultin lower land costs per unit for developers and should result in additional affordable and workforce housing,oppciftunities in the Downtown. DOWNTOWN URBAN RENILvim, DisTitiCT CODE ANI NDMIEN'fS CPA2009- 00003 /DCA2009- 00005 /ZON2009 -00001 STAFF RIZPOR'I"110 THE TIGARD C1"IY MUNCH, PAGE 13 OF 21 Policy 7. :New zoning and design guidelines on Main Street will emphasize a "traditional Main Street" character. The proposed Main Street sub -area includes several provisions to promote a "traditional Main Street" character. The height of new development is limited to a maximum of three stories, which will prevent out of character development to overwhelm the street. Zero foot front setbacks are permitted and no landscaping is required (except in parking lots) which will preserve the street wall of a pedestrian oriented commercial street. In addition, development under 20,000 square feet would not be required to provide off - street parking, as parking lots and the required curb cuts would interfere with the desired pedestrian atmosphere. Goal 15.3 Develop and Improve the.Open Space System and Integrate Natural Features into downtown. The proposal would retain the existing Comprehensive Plan designation of Open Space for the Fanno Creek floodplain. The proposed development code requires less intensive uses than is allowed elsewhere in the district in the area adjacent to Fanno Creek Park. Code provisions that will have the effect of integrating Natural Features include the requirements for trees in parking lots (which make their survival more likely) and the allowing of landscaping requirements on roofs. Natural features will also be integrated into Downtown through the design and development of public improvement projects identified in the Urban Renewal Plan, such as the reconstruction of Burnham Street and the Main Street Green Street project. Goal 15.4 Develop comprehensive:street and circulation improvements for pedestrians, automobiles, bicycles, and transit. A Downtown Circulation Plan is, currently in progress and the proposed code has a reserved section for circulation improvements, which will include new multi -modal streets to increase connectivity and pedestrian and bicycle connections. The requirement for commercial and mixed use development to have such features as weather protection, minimum window coverage standards, and requiring parking lots to be in the rear or on the side of new development will encourage a pedestrian scale environment. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the proposed code and zoning map amendments are consistent with the applicable goals and policies contained in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. APPLICABLE METRO, STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS Pursuant to 18.390 :060:G, review of the following Metro, State and Federal regulations are applicable to Type IV procedures which apply generally to legislative matters such as the creation, revision, or large - scale implementation of public policy. DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT CODE A,NIENDNIFN'CS CPA 2009 -00003 /DCA2009- 00005/ZON2009 -00001 S]>APF REPORT 'II)'[ I- ID'I1GARD CM' COUNCIL. PAGE 1 OF 21 APPLICABLE METRO REGULATIONS: Metro Urban Growth Functional Plan Title 1: Requirements for Housing and Employment Accommodation Requires local jurisdictions to establish its capacity to accommodate housing and employment. The proposed code amendments would increase the permitted residential density in Downtown. The zoning will be flexible in the kinds of employment uses permitted. 86 the proposed amendments will improve the.ability of Tigard to meet its Dwelling Unit Capacity of 6,308 and Job Capacity of 17, 801 as listed on Table 3.07 -1 of the Metro Urban Growth Functional Plan. The changes would also help implement the Downtown's designation as a 2040 Growth Concept Town Center. Metro Urban Growth Functional Plan Title 2: Regional Parking Policy Requires local jurisdictions to establish parking minimums and maximums to encourage compact urban form. The proposed code amendments' Would reduce minimum required off - street parking in the Downtown, below the "maximum" minimums that are listed in Table 3.07 -2 of the Metro Urban Growth Functional Plan. Multi- family units would provide a flat 1 space per unit, decreased from the ratio based on the size of the unit. For all other uses, the minimum required off - street parking would be reduced 25% from what is required in the existing Development Code. This will reduce the amount of land that must he devoted to parking and encourage a more compact development form. Metro Urban Growth Functional Plan Title 6: Central City, Regional Centers, Town Centers and Station Communities Requires local jurisdictions to adopt land use and transportation plans that are consistent with Metro guidelines for designated Town Centers. The Metro 2040 Growth Conceptand.Framework Plan designates Downtown Tigard as a Town Center. Centers are defined as "compact, infixed -use neighborhoods of high - density housing, employment and retail that are pedestrian- oriented. and Well served by public transportation and roads:" The Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan, fulfilled the requirement to adopt land use and transportation plans that are consistent with Metro guidelines for designated Town Centers. The proposed amendments would institute the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan's and the Tigard Comprehensive Plan's goal of "creating a vibrant and active urban village at the heart of the community that is pedestrian- oriented, . accessible by many modes of transportation, recognizes natural resources as an asset, and features a combination of uses that enable people to "live, work, play and shop in an environment that is uniquely Tigard." Metro Urban Growth Functional Plan Tide 7: Affordable Housing Requires local jurisdictions to address the need for affordable housing. The proposals allow fora wide range of medium and high density housing types. Higher density housing in an area with a high level of transit service, and provisions that will have the effect of reducing land costs per unit should provide for additional affordable housing opportunities. It should be noted thatthe City has :already prospectively increased the maximum density from 4.5 units /acre to 50 units /acre on a .98 acre site within this subject area for a proposed affordable senior housing project. DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT CODE Ai1ENDNI CI'A2009 -00003 /DCA2009- 00005 /ZON2009 -00001 SPAFI: REPORT "PO THE TIGARD cr1T COUNCII. PACK: 15 OF 21 FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff. fords that the proposed project has addressed the relevant Metro policies. THE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES ADOPTED UNDER OREGON REVISED STATUTES CHAPTER 197 Statewide Planning Goals Statewide Planning Goal 1— Citizen Involvement: This goal outlines the citizen. involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and changes' to the Comprehensive'Plan and implementing documents. The code amendments are intended to implement the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan, which included extensive public involi>ernent in the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. A subcommittee of the City Center Advisor, Commission and Planning Commission, two citizen groups, met in public meetings for over a year to develop the proposed Code amendments. The City Center Advisory Commission has reviewed, provided_additional input to, and endorsed the proposed amendments. Two Open Houses were held in. July 2008 and July 2009 where a summary of the proposed code amendments was presented. Information on the proposed code changes was also distributed at several community meetings and events. This goal has also been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Section 18.390. Two public hearings will be held (one before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) .at which an opportunity, for public input is provided. Notice in accordance with ORS 227.186, which implements Ballot Measure 56, was mailed to all affected property owners 20 days prior to the first hearing on the ordinance. Additionally, notice of the Planning Commission and City Council hearings was published in the November 19, 2009 issue of the Tigard Times. At the December 7, 2009 public hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed code amendments to Council. Statewide Planning Goal 2.— Land Use Planning: This goal outlines the land use planning :process and policy framework. The City's Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged by DLCD as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. The Developinent.Code implements the Comprehensive Plan. the Development Code establishes a process and standards to review changes to the Comprehensive Plan. As discussed within this report, the proposed amendments comply with the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan criteria. The proposed amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan is being processed as a "Type IV procedure, which requires any applicable statewide planning goals, federal or state statutes or regulations, Metro regulations, comprehensive plan policies, and City's implementing ordinances, be addressed as part of the decision- making process. Notice was provided to DLCD 45 days prior to the •first scheduled public hearing as required. DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENTS CPA2009 -00003 /DCA2009- 00005 /70N2009 -00001 STAFF REPORT TO THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL. PAGE. 16 OF 21 Statewide - Planning Goal 5 — Natural Resources This goal requires the inventory and protection of natural resources, open spaces, historic areas and sites suitable for removal and processing of mineral'and aggregate resources. The proposed amendments are consistent with this goal because the proposed changes retain protection for natural resources in the Urban Renewal District, particularly the Fanno Creek wetland and riparian area. Statewide Planning Goal 6- Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality This goal aims to maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. Air quality will be maintained and improved through the more efficient development pattern in the Downtown which will make other Modes of transportation more attractive. This will reduce a major source of air pollution (reliance on the automobile). In particular, in allowing higher density residential development in close prokiiniry to transit service will make this a more plausible option for everyday transportation needs. Code provisions with higher standards for trees in parking Lots will also improve water quality. Statewide Planning Goal 7-Areas Subject to Natural Hazards This goal aims to protect people and property from natural hazards. The City of Tigard has existing regulations that address natural disasters and hazards. The proposed amendments will not affect these provisions. The floodplain of Fanno Creek will maintain its Comprehensive Plan designation of Open Space as well as be subject to existing City code restrictions on building within 100 -year floodplains. Statewide Planning Goal 8- Recreational Needs This goal aims to provide for the siting of facilities for the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors. The code amendments address recreational needs, through the inclusion of design standards for development that is adjacent to the planned Public Plaza (when it is eventually constructed). This public, area is envisioned to provide a range of recreation activities such as farmers markets and performances and become a central gathering place for the community and increase•recreational opportunities for residents. Statewide Planning Goal 9- Economic Development This goal aims to provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. The proposed code:amendments are consistent with Goal 9 as they will facilitate the development of a vibrant and economically sound city core. The zoning changes will create opportunities for new housing, commercial, and employment development which would create a thriving urban village. Statewide Planning-Goal 10- Housing This goal aims'-to provide adequate housing for the needs of the community, region and state. DOWNTOWN URNAN .. RIiN EAXMAI. DISTRICT COD I7 AAMF.NDRILN'I'S CPA2009- 00003 /DCA2009- 00005 /ZON2009 -00001 S 1'A FF REPORT 10 1'I- IE'I1G\RD CITY COUNCIL PAGE 17 OF 21 One of the recommended catalyst projects in the TDIP is to increase the number of housing units in the Downtown. These code amendments increase the maximum density for housing from 40 units an acre to 50 units an acre and 80 units an acre in the Station Area Overlay. This should provide opportunities for a wide variety of housing types in the district. Statewide Planning Goal 11- Public Facilities and Services This goal aims to "plan and develop a timely, orderly_and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. As an area with a significant amount of established development, sufficient public facilities and services are present, including streets, water; sewer utilities, and open space. The code amendments require that new development meet the requirements for street and utility improvements, as well as the standards that are adopted as part of the Downtown Circulation Plan. Statewide Planning Goa112- Transportation The goal aims to provide "a safe, convenient and economic transportation system." The proposal would allow a more intensive form of development in an area with excellent transit service. The proposed code would result in a compact mixed use development pattern that would encourage walking and bicycling as a realistic transportation alternative to automobile use. Required minimum off - street parking ratios have been reduced in the district and most new automobile dependent uses will not be permitted. This goal will be discussed further in the section addressing the Transportation Planning Rule. A Downtown Circulation Plan is in progress that will identify the location of new streets and pedestrian /bicycle connections,.and street functional classifications. A section of the proposed code has been reserved so these standards andlocation of new streets can be adopted. Statewide Planning Goal 13 :Energy Conservation The goal aims to "maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles." Increasing density in an area with a high level of transit service (Transit Center served by five TriMet bus lines and a new WES Commuter Rail service) should achieve greater energy efficiency by reducing reliance on the automobile. The regulations will require new development to have pedestrian friendly features such as weather protection to encourage walking. Reduced off - street parking minimum requirements may also encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation. The code amendments will also allow a mix of residential, retail, and employment uses which will create the opportunity for people to live in close proximity to work, shopping and governmental services. Statewide Planning Goal 14-- Urbanization The goal aims to "ace accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. The proposed amendments will allow for the more efficient use of land in a designated Town Center and could help reduce the need to expand the urban growth boundary. DOWNPOUN URBAN RII Ni'A1. DIS'I'RIC'P CODE ANIILNDNIII NFS CPA2009 -0 0003 /DCA2009 -00005/ZON2009 -00001 SI'A PP RI TORT TO l'1 -I I: TIGARD CI'T'Y COUNCIL, PAC II 18 UP 21 • FINDING: Based on the analysis above, staff finds .that the proposed amendments are consistent with applicable Statewide Planning Goals. State and Federal Regulations Transportation Planning Rule Oregon Administrative Rule: Section 660 -12 -060 1) Where an amendment to a It nctional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, the local government shall put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule to assure thatallowed land uses are consistent with the:identi_/ied jitnction, capacity, and performance standards (e.g. level of service, volume:to capazty ratio, etc.) of tbe fa cility. The Transportation Planning Rule requires that amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations which may significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified.function, capacity, and level of service of the facility. The subject area is an existing 'central business district that is a designated Town Center under Metro's 2040 Growth Concept. Two ODOT facilities, Hwy 99W and Hall Boulevard, form the northern and eastern boundaries of the district. Under the existing Development Code, a maximum of 40 units an acre is permitted in the CBD zone which encompasses 75% of the proposed new zoning area. The proposed code would raise the maximum density to 50 units an acre. This is a 25% increase in the maximum allowed density. A Station Area overlay zone, which, allows up to 80 units an acre, comprises 10% of the area of the new zone. This overlay zone consists of properties that are generally within 750 feet of the transit hub of the Tigard TransitCenter and the WES Commuter Rail Station. This is expected to result in transit oriented development which would attract a population that would be more likely to use transit for their everyday transportation needs. The height limits are not proposed to be increased from what is, permitted under existing code. The existing CBD zone allows commercial buildings up to 80 feet (60 feet for residential). This height limit will be retained, except in the Main Street- Center Street Sub -area, where the height will be limited to 45 feet. Development within 200 feet of Fanno Creek Park will also be limited to 45 feet. For properties 'that are currently zoned Commercial General and Commercial Professional, the height limit will retain their current maximum height limit of 45 feet. As the land uses and residential maximum density of the proposed code are substantially in keeping with Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan's Preferred Design Alternative, a new Traffic Impact Analysis has not been performed. A Future Transportation. System Analysis and Recommendations memorandum was performed,by Kittelson & Associates as part of the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. The memorandum (attached) reports the travel demand model analysis that was done based on the land uses assumptions of the 1 DIP Preferred Design Alternative. The travel demand model assumed 2,233 households and 4,077 employees. The analysis addressed the question of whether the TDIP Preferred Design Alternative causes. significant negative traffic volume impacts to the regional facilities of Hall Boulevard,'Greenburg Road, Walnut Street, Hunziker Street, and OR 99W. The analysis concluded that the. Preferred Design Alternative does not cause impacts to the surrounding transportation system that cannot be accommodated by improvements already identified in the adopted Transportation System Plan. The memo also addressed the forecast volume- to- capacityratios assuming implementation of the TDIP. DO'x'N'I'OA<N URBAN RENEWAI. DISTRICT COD13 AAMFNDMENTS UPA 2009 -00003 /DCA2009 -00005 /ZON2009 -00001 STAFF REPORT TO'1'1 -1 E T IGARD CITY COUNCII PAGE 19 OF 21 The model analysis concluded that the Preferred Design Alternative Was not forecast to have significant impacts on the surrounding street system. • The proposed zone does encompass a larger arca (210 Acres) than the TDIP study area (157 acres), so some impact may not be accounted for. However, the . proposed code would implement a pedestrian - friendly, mixed -use center with land uses that are consistent with the definition of listed in Section 660 -12- 060 (6) A- 1 -I. Centers that meet this definition are eligible for credits for reductions in vehicle trips. The permitted land uses prohibit or limit uses that rely on auto trips: new Self- Service Storage, Motor Vehicle Sales /Rental, Vehicle Fuel Sales, Bulk Sales, Outdoor Sales and Drive -up Windows are not permitted. Motor Vehicle Servicing /Repair is permitted as a Conditional Use. In three of the proposed sub - areas, new retail and sales uses may not exceed 60,000 gross leasable area per building. The Hall /99 \V sub -area does not have this particular limit, due to pre - existing retail development in excess of this limit. r\ brief analysis was done comparing the maximum build outs that would be permitted under existing zoning and the proposed. zoning. Automobile trip generation was estimated by using the gross square footage of development, with an assumed land use mix and the -Institute of Transportation Engineers Trzp Generation, 8 edition publication. The automobile trips that could be generated under the maximum build out of the new zoning were estimated to be -5% less than what could be generated under a maximum build our under existing zoning. For the above reasons the proposed zoning is likely consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level of service of the state facilities of Highway 99W and Hall Blvd. In addition, the Downtown Circulation Plan, currently in progress, will implement a network of local streets, collectors, and arterials to relieve traffic demand on state highways and provide convenient pedestrian and bicycle ways. It is also expected that street improvements at two intersections, Hwy 99W and Hall Blvd. and I -Iwy 99W and Greenburg /Main, will improve capacity and level of service of the facilities. These projects are scheduled to go to construction in 2010. SECTION VI. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF AND OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS The Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to it. The City of Tigard's Development Services Division, Public Works Department, Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, Tualatin Valley Water District, Clean Water Services, the City of•Beaverton, the City of Durham, the City of King City, the City of Lake Oswego, the City of Tualatin, Metro Land Use and Planning, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, ODOT Rail Division, Washington County, Portland & Western Railroad and TriMet Transit Development were mailed a copy of the proposal but provided no comment. ODOT Region 1.staff provided feedback regarding the Transportation Planning Rule. SECTION VIII. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing findings and analysis, staff finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan, Development Code, and Zoning Map Amendments are consistent with applicable pro of the Tigard DOWNTOWN URBAN .REN EWA I„ DISTRICT CODF. AMILNDtv1I3N1S CPA 2009- 00003/DCA2009- 00005/ZON2009 -00001 STAFF REPORT '1'0 THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL, PAGE 20 01: 21 Development Code, Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Metro Regional Functional Plan, Statewide Planning Goals and State and Federal Regulations. ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT 2A: MEMO FROM ANGELO PLANNING DATED MARCH 20, 2009 EXHIBIT 2B: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ANALYSIS DATED JULY 24, 2005 EXHIBIT 2C: E -MAIL COMMENTS FROM JOHN FREWING (OCTOBER 2, 2009) WITH STAFF RESPONSE 5 444/ � 4 January 11, 2010 PREPARED BY: Sean F : y DATE Red opment Project Manager Lag P7c-- 0 .,t/vcikl January 11, 2010 RE WED BY: Ron unch DATE Community Development Director DOWNTOWN URI3AN R1 NEWAL DISTRICT CODE AM NDMINTS CPA2009- 00003 /DCA2009- 00005/"ZON2009 -00001 STAFF REPORT '1'0 THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PAGE 21 OF 21 Exhibit 2A A 'o LAND USE PLANNING • • TRANSPORTATION PLANNING • • PRO MANAGEMENT planning iggroup Memorandum Date: March 20, 2009 To: Sean Farrelly, City of Tigard Planning Department cc: Matt Crall, DLCD From: Cathy Corliss and Darci Rudzinski, APG Marcy Mclnelly and Michelle Marx, SERA Architects Re: City of Tigard Downtown Code Amendments Code Assistance Project Task 2.2 Final Evaluation Memorandum Background The Transportation and Growth Management (TOM) Program promotes smart development principles that enable communities to meet transportation needs while retaining their livability and economic vitality. These principles include: • Integrating land use and transportation planning; • Making 'efficient use of land and resources; • Designing human - scaled, walkable communities; • Ensuring good connections between local destinations; and • Promoting pedestrian, bicycle and transit - oriented development. In support of these principles, the City of Tigard has requested and received a Smart Developtnent Code Assistance grant to assist with the preparation of a new Mixed Use — Central Business District (MU -CBD) zoning district and new Site and Downtown l3uildingDesign Standards and Guidelines. City staff prepared a draft of the Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments (Draft #1 Amendments dated December 10, 2008). The consultant team (APG and SERA) reviewed the Draft #1 Amendments using the TGM Smart Development Code Handbook, Model Development Code and User Guide for Small Cities — Edition, the TGM Commercial and Mixed-Use Development Code Handbook, and the TGM Infi/ / and Redevelopment Code Handbook as the basis for the evaluation. The resulting Evaluation Memorandum Draft #1 (dated January 21, 2009) provided input to staff regarding the following issues: a. The potential for aspects of the proposed code to become a barrier to smart development. Code elements explored include: 1. The general clarity and ease of use of the Draft Downtown Tigard Code Amendments. 2. Organizing the code and regulating development by building type. (Example: should required setbacks be based on design area or building type ?) 3. Instituting one zone (MU -CBD) with a single list of permitted uses versus design sub - districts, each with allowed a range of building types and development standards. rather than multiple separate zoning districts. 4. The method of regulating existing and non- confonning buildings. b. Possible inconsistencies with Oregon State law requirements and Metro regulations. 921 SW Washington Street, Suite 468, Portland, OR 97205 • lel 503.224.6974 • fax 503.227.3679 • www.angeloplanning.com March 20, 2009 City of Tigard Code Assistance Memorandum 2 c. The potential for proposed code language that is intended to provide clear and objective standards to be construed as discretionary. d. The adequacy of the discretionary design guidelines to provide enough basis to make a recommendation to a design review body. The project team reviewed the recommendations in Evaluation Memorandum Draft #1 at a meeting on January 28, 2009. Based in part on this discussion, city staff then prepared a revised version of the MU -CBD zoning district and.Site and Downtown Building Design Standards and Guidelines (Draft #2 Amendments). The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a review of the Draft #2 Amendments, including an evaluation of how the revised code language meets the principles of the TGM program and how the initial recommendations have been addressed. Promoting Smart Development Principles The consultant team's assessment was that the objectives of that the Draft #1 Amendments were consistent with the Stuart Development principles. This remains true for the Draft #2 Amendments. The proposed new Mixed Use — Central Business District (MU -CI3D) zoning district allows a wide range of uses in downtown Tigard which will offer citizens the opportunity to live, work and shop all within walking distance. The new Site and Downtown Building Design Standards and Guidelines make efficient use of land and transportation facilities by encouraging a higher intensity development in close proximity to transit. By requiring that new building be designed to enhance the public realm, the Design Standards and Guidelines will help create a human- scaled, walkable community. Additionally, with recent amendments made by staff and discussed below, the proposed structure and general usability of the code is also much improved. Overall Approach In a form -based code (FBC), the development standards that dictate urban form are linked to a RegulatingPlan. A Regulating Plan is similar to a zoning map, but with less emphasis on land uses and more emphasis on the building shape, street type, and neighborhood character in each zone. Draft #1 used an approach that regulated development through "Building Types" wherein the Regulating Plan controlled the locations of six pre - defined building types. The consultant team commented that this approaclrwas sotnewhat complicated by the similarities between building types. The team also noted that.linking building types to sub - districts de- emphasizes the public realm created by the street and could result in disparate building types or heights facing each other along the street. The approach to the Development Standards in Draft #2 uses "sub - areas" which are similar to the building -type districts-in Draft #1. The development standards (such as building height and setbacks) are defined by the sub -areas and building design standards vary for residential and non- residential buildings. This approach is Tess coiplicated and more user- friendly. Non - Conforming Uses and Development The proposed new Mixed Use — Central Business District (MU -CBD) zoning district will replace the present CBD, C -G, and C -P zones in Downtown Tigard. As noted above, the proposed new zoning district allows a wide range of uses in downtown Tigard which will offer citizens the March 20, 2009 City of Tigard Code Assistance.Memorandum 3 opportunity to live, work and shop all within walking distance. The proposed MU -CBD zone will be more inclusive in terms of uses than existing zoning; however, there are.some uses that are currently permitted that will no longer be allowed in the new zone. The city has anticipated the possibility that this could create non- conforming uses and has included a footnote to the use table that will allow for the continuance of uses that were conforming prior to the adoption of the new zone. The intent of the new Downtown Building Design Standards and Guidelines is to implement the Tigard Downtown Inaprovement.Plan, the Urban Renewal Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan objectives for the.downtown. However, in meeting these objectives through new development, it is not the city's intent to make existing development non - conforming. Therefore, city staff developed, and further revised with the consultant team's assistance, language to allow existing developments to continue without being made non- conforming by the new development or building design standards. In addition, specific language is now included in Draft #2 that specifies that, while all new buildings are subject to all applicable standards, only those standards applicable to the proposed expansion apply. Review Procedures There.are three.approval processes or "tracks" for application review. Track 1 and Track 2 use clear and objective Design Standards as the approval criteria. The approval criteria for Track 3 review are the discretionary Design Objectives. Specific types of changes to existing buildings, landscaping or parking will be reviewed using a Track 1 administrative review. Proposed changes that would potentially impact the existing strectscape to a greater degree, such as increased building height or decreased common open space, would be reviewed through a Track 2, Administrative Review with Design Standards, process. The Track 3 discretionary process provides the opportunity for approval of well - designed projects that cannorothenvise meet the clear and objective standards for building and site design. The Track 3 process is a Type III review procedure.and the decision making authority is the Design Review Board. In contrast to the clear and objective design standards, the Track 3 discretionary design objectives are written as qualitative statements. In this way, the proposed Draft #2 Amendments provide for flexibility in how an application achieves each design objective. Clear and Objective Standards It can be very challenging to craft truly clear and objective standards that faithfully express the desired outcome of a high quality urban environment. Determining what is, and isn't, a standard is important to clearly'communicate through code language so that developers and decision - makers are fully aware of,the.requiiements that need to be met. In discussing the Draft #1 Amendments, the consultant team and city staff explored potential inconsistencies between the proposed code requirements and the intent for development in the central business district. Draft #2 clearly differentiates between the intent of the standards and the requirements themselves. The description of the four "sub-areas" arid the expectations for the future urban environment for each is contained in a separate section from the Development Standards that govern development. • March 20, 2009 City of Tigard Code Assistance Memorandum 4 The requirements in the Building and Site Design Standards are also presented as clear and objective requirements and each category of requirements are prefaced by an intent statement to provide background on what the city is trying to achieve through the standards. While the format and presentation of the proposed code language meets the project objectives regarding clear and objective code requirements, there arc a number of specific design standards that where additional community input is needed to ensure the desired urban design outcomes for downtown Tigard. In particular, additional input and recommendations would be helpful on the following items: • Private Outdoor Space (18.610.030.F.1) Proposed code requirements: All residential buildings and mixed -use buildings with more than four residential units must provide for private outdoor space (e.g., deck, balcony, porch, etc.). Consistent with existing code language, the proposed minimum 48 square feet requirement for each dwelling unit would apply to any of the built elements that could satisfy the private outdoor space requirement. Issues: As outlined in the Development Examples, the higher residential densities proposed in the new zone may make it challenging to develop viable development projects where buildings can accommodate 48 square feet of private open space for each planned residential unit. Often, more urban residential developments do not have large patios off of the ground floor units and have much smaller balconies (e.g., 4' x 8' or smaller). For Discussion: 0 Should all residential and mixed -use buildings be required to have private outdoor space for each unit? 0 Can the required size of the private outdoor area be reduced or modified, either for a percentage of the units, or based on •the type (e.g., balconies) of space provided? Would a requirement based on.minimurn dimensions work better in this section? e Public Outdoor Space (18.610.030.F.2.) Proposed code requirements: Multi - family buildings and mixed -use buildings with residential units tnust provide shared open space that is at least 10% of the development site. Issues: The proposed requirement provides some flexibility to decrease the amount of outdoor shared space provided on site if the proposed development includes additional private open space or if it is located directly adjacent to an improve public park. Where reductions are allowed, and for smaller developments, the planned shared outdoor space will be relatively small. Smaller outdoor space "pockets" may have minimal utility and the district as a whole may benefit more from larger public spaces. In addition, the code does not provide any guidance in terms of how (and where within the site) the open space should be designed. As an alternative, a "fee in lieu" provision in the code could allow developers to pay a fee commensurate with the amount of public outdoor space required instead of actually providing it on site Funds banked by the city could be used for land procurement and development of active March 20, 2009 City of Tigard Code Assistance Memorandum 5 public outdoor space. The fee in Lieu option could allow more flexibility for developers and would give the city an opportunity to provide public outdoor spaces, such as the Public Plaza, that are appropriately sized and located to best serve the district. For Discussion: 0 Is the public outdoor space requirement appropriate for all, especially small, mixed -use and multi -family developments? 0 Should a fee in lieu option to providing public outdoor space on -site be available to developers? If so, should it be available in all sub -areas within the MU -CBD, or just the Main Strect - Central sub -area? Under what circumstances would a proposed development be eligible to pay a fee, rather than build public open space on -site (e.g., developments with fewer than X amount of residential units, proximity to the Urban Plaza, etc.) e Height maximum on Main Street (Table 18.610.1) Proposed code requirements: The proposed maximum height in the Main Street sub -arca is 45 feet or three stories. As explored in the Development Examples (Site #3: Main Street Storefront Mixed -Use), a three story mixed -use building would require an elevator, which is an expensive feature to construct, but would only serve two residential floors. increasing the height allowance to four stories would allow more units using the same building footprint, thereby reducing the per unit cost of expensive building features. Issues: With redevelopment of the central business district as an overarching goal, it is important to provide a regulatory framework that allows desirable projects to come to fruition. Allowing for taller buildings and spreading out the per unit cost of expensive construction elements is one way of encouraging multi - storied development. The possible down side of taller buildings, particularly in- thc.shottterna, is that they maybe seen by some as architecturally inconsistent with the existing historic buildings downtown. For Discussion: 0 Should the height maximum be raised in the Main Street sub -area? If so, should this be allowed in all cases? In limited locations? Or, only as a bonus for projects which utilize specific features, such as sustainable practices? Adequacy of Discretionary Design Guidelines Section 18.610.030 establishes the Track 3 discretionary review process. The approval criteria are intended to provide the Design Review I3oard with adequate guidance to approve or deny a proposed project. The discretionary design standards, the Design Objectives, are based on the intent statements.in the clear and objective standards. Applicants would still be required to meet compliance with the Development Standards but, where the clear and objective requirements can not be met, the applicant has the opportunity to demonstrate how their proposed project meets the Design Objectives through a'l'ype III approval process An applicant.can address design review requirements through a combination of demonstrating that certain Design Standards are met and, where these standards can not be met, through satisfying March.20; 2009 City of Tigard Code Assistance Memorandum 6 applicable Design Objectives. In such cases, the public hearing and:Design Review Board decision will focus only.on whether or not the proposed development satisfies the requirements of the applicable Design Objectives. Because discretionary guidelines are intended to provide some flexibility, the Design Objectives in Section 18.610.050 are supported 'by illustrations and text explaining how the guideline can be met. This is:critical for guidelines thatmay be interpreted. in. multiple ways. In addition, each Design Objective is prefaced by an "intent " that explains why the, guideline is iinportantand provides a,context for the staff Design Review Board to refer to when making a judgment about compliance. Conclusion The proposed MU -CBD zoning.district and.new Site and Downtown Building Design Standards and Guidelines further thesmart development principles. Tigard's central business district is primed for redevelopment though the city's earlier design work and urban renewal district planning. The proposed code amendments implement the city's vision for redevelopment in this area by setting a design framework for future development. Proposed standards governing elements such as height, parkinglocation, building location,,and building design Will ultimately result in an urban environment in The central business district that is human - scaled and walkable, provides good connections between.uses, and promotes pedestrian, bicycle and public transportation. The provision of'the clear and objectiv&and discretionary approval tracks allow for more flexibility in how to vision for downtown will.be implemented through the design and approval process. The city's rationale for regulating specific standards and design objectives is explained through "intent" statements and argillustrated to assist users of the code — code elements that also promote the outcome of better built projects. Adoption of the proposed Draf•#2 Amendments will result in more efficient development and redevelopment in the central business district consistent with smart development principles. Exhibit 2B • ra KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES; INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING /TRAFFIC ENGINEERING J q � 610 SW ALDER, SUITE 700 • PORTLAND,. OR 97205 • (503) 228-5230 • FAX (503) 273-8169 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Future Transportation System Analysis and Recommendations July 24, 2005 Project # 6759 To: Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan Task Force From: Elizabeth Wemple, P.E. cc: Dave•Siegel, Parametrix Introduction This final transportation memo for the Tigard Downtown improvement Plan (TDIP) provides a summary of the transportation analysis conducted on the Preferred Design Alternative and of the project recommendations assuming implementation of the currently Preferred Design Alternative. This technical memorandum will be an appendix to the final plan document. As such it has been written without significant plan context or explanation. Specifically, the purpose of this meniorandum is to document the: o Future conditions travel demand model analysis; and o Future transportation system recommendations including: o Downtown street functional classification o Compliance. with Metro Policies o Compliance with Oregon Department of Transportation Policies o City of Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP) Amendments; and b Transportation Public Improvements. This memo is organized according to the above bullet list. I:\7RPLN\DO WNTO W Mcode amendment \PC workshops +md hearing \AAI TDIP Future Transportation Analysis.doc Forecast Land Use Traffic Analysis Project #: 6759 July 24, 2005 Page 2 Future Conditions Travel Demand Model Analysis Network and Land Use Assumptions Washington County staff provided travel forecasts for the project based on the year 2000 Adopted Metro Regional Transportation Plan emme /2 travel demand model. As shown in Table 1, the Washington County model is based on a different projection of employees and households than has been applied in the TDIP project Table 1 Land Use Assumptions Washington County TDIP Land Use Typo Year 2000 Base Year 2020 Year 2025 Households 450 466 2242 Retail Jobs 1270 2065 1384 Other Jobs 2457 3200 3668 To address the difference between the two data sources, the following facts and assumptions were applied to the model: o The 2000 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) regional travel demand model has a forecast year of 2020. The trip table developed for this forecast year was factored to 2025 using a growth rate for the purposes of comparison to the TDIP Preferred Design Alternative and plan; o The regional transportation network included in the 2000 RTP travel demand model was applied to this analysis. As part of the development of the 2025 forecasts, there were also minor network changes applied in downtown Tigard. These are: o Commercial Street and Scoffins Street were added to the transportation network as collector streets o The analysis was conducted with and without Ash Avenue connecting from Walnut Street to Hunziker Street. o The majority of Downtown Tigard is within one Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ), and a small portion of Downtown Tigard is within a second TAZ. The household and employment numbers were for these TAZs were modified to reflect the Preferred Design Alternative; household and employment assumptions were not changed for any other TAZ in the model. o The City's adopted TSP has a forecast year of 2015. The 2015 forecast was refined to include.detailed info about Tigard build -out. The relined 2015 forecast was compared to the updated 2020 Metro forecasts. Since the modified 2015 generated the most trips, it was Used for the TSP analysis. For the purposes of comparing the results of the 2025 modeling to the adopted TSP, a growth factor was developed from the baseline (1994) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Forecast Land Use Traffic Analysis Project #: 6759 July 24, 2005 Page 3 and future (2015) traffic volumes in the TSP. The growth factor was then applied to the 2015 TSP forecasts to estimate 2025 traffic volumes according to the adopted TSP. Scenarios Analyzed The travel demand modeling analysis was conducted to respond to three questions: 1) Does the Preferred Design Alternative for the TDIP cause significant negative traffic volume impacts to the regional facilities of Hall Boulevard, Greenburg Road, Walnut Street, Hunziker Street. or OR 99W? 2) Does the Preferred Design Alternative for the TDIP necessitate changes to street classifications given to Burnham Street, Commercial Street, or Scoffins Street in the City of Tigard's adopted TSP? 3) What are the forecast volume -to- capacity ratios assuming implementation of the TDIP? Therefore the following scenarios were analyzed: o Year 2000 baseline conditions assuming the regionally adopted RTP land uses and transportation network. o Year 2025 future conditions assuming the regionally adopted RTP land uses and transportation network Year 2025 without Ash Avenue. o Year 2025 future conditions assuming the regionally adopted RTP land uses and transportation network Year 2025 with Ash Avenue. o Year 2025 future conditions assuming the regionally adopted RTP land uses and the TDIP land uses and transportation network without Ash Avenue. o Year 2025 future conditions assuming the regionally adopted RTP land uses and the TDIP land uses and transportation network with Ash Avenue. This analysis includes the transportation conditions with and without Ash Avenue to provide information to the City of Tigard for future consideration and projects. The TDIP does not include the proposed Ash Avenue connection to Walnut Street as a requirement; nor does it preclude Ash Avenue from being constructed in the future, should the City pursue this. Results Regional Facility Impacts Table 2 provides a comparison of forecast 2025 traffic volumes on the regional roadways in the study area under the 2000 RTP and the Preferred Design Alternative. As shown, with implementation of the TDIP there is no significant change in p.m. peak hour traffic volumes on the surrounding regional streets when compared to the 2000 RTP. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Forecast Land Use Traffic Analysis Project # :: 6759 July 24, 2005 Page 4 Table 2 Downtown Tigard Improvement Plan Screenline Analysis WITHOUT Ash Avenue 2000 RTP 2025 Direction (forecast to Preferred Road 2025) Design Alternative Northbound 1050 985 Greent urg Road (north Southbound 995 1015 of Hwy 99W) Total 2045 2000 Northbound 625 665 Walnut Street (north of Southbound 740 770 Hwy 99W) Total 1365 1435 Westbound 2660 2645 Hwy 9 9 W Eastbound 2045 2075 (west of Walnut Street) Total 4705 4720 Northbound 550 610 Hall Blvd. (south of, Burnham Southbound 1065 1040 Street) Total 1615 1650 Northbound 525 540 Hunziker Street (east of Southbound 345 '335 Burnham Street) Total 870 875 Westbound 1995 2415 Highway 99W Eastbound 2310 1825 (east of Hall Blvd) Total 4305 4240 Northbound 645 620 Hall Boulevard (north of Southbound 605 630 Hwy. 99W) Total 1255 1250 The ,City of Tigard's currently adopted TSP forecasts traffic volumes to the year 2015. A growth factor was developed from the adopted TSP data (i.e. 1994 counts and 2015 forecast volumes) to extrapolate the adopted TSP volumes to a 2025 forecast. The adopted TSP also includes the Ash Avenue Extension. A comparison of the extrapolated TSP volumes and the Preferred Design Alternative volumes with Ash Avenue is shown in Table 3. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Forecast Land Use Traffic Analysts Project #: 6759 July 24, 2005 Page 5 Table 3 Downtown Tigard Improvement'Plan Screenline Analysis With Ash 2015 .2025 2025 Adopted Adopted Preferred Direction TSP TSP with Design Road Growth Factor Alternative Northbound 575 580 985 Greenburg Road (north Southbound 800 875 1015 of Hwy 99W) Total 1375 1425 2000 Northbound 835 865 665 Walnut Street (north of Southbound 700 715 770 Hwy 99W) Total 1535 1580 1435 Westbound 1945 1955 2645 Hwy 99W Eastbound 1350 1355 2075 (west of Walnut Street) Total 3295 3310 4720 Northbound 810 820 610 Hall Blvd. (south of Burnham Southbound 700 700 1040 Street) Total 1510 1520 1650 Northbound 545 550 540 Hunziker Street (east of Southbound 420 445 335 Burnham Street) Total 965 995 875 Westbound 2805 2860 2415 Highway 99W Eastbound 2265 2300 1825 (east of Hall Blvd). Total 5070 5160 4240 Northbound 840 860 620 Hall Boulevard (north of Southbound 840 860 630 Hwy. 99W) Total 1680 1620 1250 In summary, the most significant differences in traffic volumes occur on Greenburg Road north of Highway 99W, and on Highway 99W east of Hall Boulevard and west of Walnut Street. These are shown in italics above. In the case of Greenburg Road the difference in forecast traffic is likely due to the difference in the level of detail between the Tigard TSP model and the regional RTP model. The TSP model contains more roadways and TAZs in the vicinity of downtown Tigard than does the regional model. Even with the higher projected volumes in the TDIP on Greenburg Road, the functional classification.and number of travel lanes identified in the TSP still pertain. On. Highway 99W west of Walnut Street, the TDIP volumes are higher than predicted by the TSP; in contrast east of Hall Boulevard the TDIP forecast traffic volumes are lower than predicted by the TSP. Again, this distinction may be due to the more detailed model developed in the TSP. Nonetheless, the traffic volumes forecast through the TDIP modeling effort can still Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Forecast Land Use Traffic Analysis Project #: 6759 July 24, 2005 Page 6 be accommodated within the three travel lanes per direction cross - section for Highway 99W that is identified in the City's TSP. Therefore, the Preferred Design Alternative does not cause impacts to the surrounding transportation system that cannot be accommodated by improvements already identified in the adopted TSP. Collector Street Impacts The modeling effort conducted for the Tigard TSP included Burnham Street, but not Scoffins or Commercial Street. To estimate 2025 traffic volumes on Burnham Street under the adopted TSP scenario, a growth factor was applied to the 2015 forecast volumes. With the growth factor for the TSP, Burnham Street would carry approximately 615 vehicles (in both directions) in the 2025 p.m. peak hour. Under the TDIP, it is estimated that Burnham Street will carry approximately 675 vehicles (in both directions) during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Both sets of data are consistent with Burnham's classification as a collector street. The RTP and TDIP forecasts on Commercial Street, Scoffins Street, and Burnham Street are very similar and consistent with their classifications as collector streets. For this reason, no modifications to the TSP functional classifications are needed. Link Level Capacity Analysis Table 4 provides a comparison of forecast volume to capacity ratios on key regional links within the study area. As shown in this table, assuming implementation of the TDIP Preferred Design Alternative, the volume -to- capacity ratios on the key links remain essentially the same as the forecast p.m. peak hour volume to capacity ratios assuming the adopted regional land use plan. Again the TDIP Preferred Design Alternative is not forecast to have significant impacts on the surrounding street system. Table 4 Downtown Tigard Improvement Plan Volume to Capacity Analysis 2000 RTP Forecast to 2025 2025 TDIP Preferred Design Conditions Alternative Volume -to- Volume -to- Volume -to- Volume-to - Capacity Capacity Ratios Capacity Capacity Road Direction Ratios Ratios Ratios with Ash without Ash with Ash without Ash Greenburg Road Northbound 0.58 0.58 0.55 0.56 (north of Hwy 99W) Southbound 0.55 0.53 0.56 0.56 Walnut Street (north Northbound 0.52 0.54 0.55 0.56 of Hwy 99W) Southbound 0.62 0.65 0.64 0.65 Hwy 99W Westbound 1.27 1.25 1.26 1.24 (west of Walnut Street) Eastbound 0.97 0.97 0.99 0.98 Hall Blvd. Northbound 0.31 0.29 0.34 0.34 (south of Burnham Street) Southbound 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 Hunziker Street (east Northbound 0.75 0.75 0.77 0.77 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Forecast Land Use Traffic Analysis Project #: 6759 July 24, 2005 Page 7 Table 4 Downtown Tigard Improvement Plan Volume to Capacity Analysis 2000 RTP Forecast to 2025 2025 TDIP Preferred Design Conditions Alternative Volume -to- Volume -to- Volume -to- Volume-to - Capacity Capacity Capacity Road Direction Ratios Capacity Ratios Ratios Ratios with Ash without Ash with Ash without Ash of.Burnham Street) Southbound 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.48 Highway 99W Westbound 0.98 0.98 1.01 1.00 (east of Hall Blvd.) Eastbound 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.76 Hall Boulevard.(north Northbound 0.36 0.36 0.35 0.35 of Hwy. 99W) Southbound 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.34 Future Transportation System' Recommendations Fu nctionalClassification It is recommended that with the exception of Hall Boulevard and Hwy 99W, the proposed TDIP include the following functional street classification system (See Table 5). This is consistent with Metro guidelines for Town Centers and the adopted TSP. Figures 1 -3 shows examples of these street designs. These guidelines serve as a starting point in the discussions of the most suitable treatments on an individual street by street basis in Downtown Tigard. Table 5 Proposed Downtown Functional Classification Street From To Classification Median Type Main Street Hwy 99W Hwy 99W Collector Street Landscaped with specific Left -Turn Pockets Burnham Street Main Street Ash Avenue Collector Street Landscaped with specific Left-Turn Pockets Burnham Street Ash Avenue Hall Boulevard Collector Street Two - way -left- turn -lane Commercial Street Main Street Hall Boulevard Collector Street Landscaped with specific Left-Turn Pockets Scoffins Street Main Street Hall Boulevard Collector Street Two - way -left- turn -lane Ash Avenue Scoffins Street Commercial Local Street — with Street ROW to Collector Street Ash Avenue RailroadTracks Fanno View Local Street — with Point ROW to Collector Street Table, 6 shows the ODOT, Tigard and Metro classifications for Highway 99W and 1 -tall Boulevard. Kitlelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Forecast Land Use Traffic Analysis Project #.. 6759 July 24, 2005 Page 8 Table 6 Hall Boulevard and Highway 99W Functional Classification Street ODOT Classification Tigard Metro Classification Classification Oregon 99W Statewide Highway Arterial Regional Boulevard Potential light rail or rapid bus Regional bus Major Arterial Main Roadway Route for Freight Regional Corridor for Cyclists Transit/Mixed Use Corridor Hall Boulevard District Highway Arterial Community Boulevard Minor Arterial Regional Corridor for Cyclists Transit/Mixed Use Corridor Hall Boulevard and Highway 99W are under ODOT jurisdiction and therefore, unless design exceptions are received, must be designed according to ODOT Highway Design Manual standards. Table 7 summarizes these standards for major street cross - sectional features. Table 7 also shows these standards according to the City of Tigard TSP and Metro Street design guidelines. As shown in this table, there are differences among the design standards. As the City of Tigard moves forward with planning projects for Hall Boulevard or Highway 99W, it is recommended that the City of Tigard work with ODOT to resolve design distinctions. As appropriate, Tigard may have to acquire design exceptions from ODOT for specific elements. Kiltelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Forecast Land Use Traffic Analysis Project #: 6759 July 24, 2005 Page 9 Table 7 Design Features for Highway 99W and Hall Boulevard ODOT Highway Design City of Tigard TSP Metro Street Design Guidelines Manual Sidewalks 6 feet 10 feet 12 feet Can be exceeded without design exception Planter Strip None required; if provided 5 feet Included in above sidewalk width should be 4 to 8 feet Shoulder 6feet None None Combined shoulder /bike lane Parking None None 7 feet Combined with street tree wells Bike Lane None — dombined with 5 to 6 feet 5 feet shoulder Lane Width 12 feet 12 feet 11 feet Median 15 or 16 feet depending 12 feet 10 feet Width/TWLTL on design speed Street Trees A design exception is Yes Yes required for street trees on urban streets with a design speed greater than 35 miles per hour. Compliance with Metro Policies Table 1.3 of the 2004 adopted Metro Regional Transportation Plan shows alternative mode percentages that have been established as goals for cities and counties to work toward as they implement the 2040 Growth Concept at the local level. In Town Centers the adopted goal is that 45 -55- percent of trips to, from and within the Town Center be made by non - single occupant vehicle modes of transportation. To begin to work toward these goals, the City should consider the options outlined below. For cyclists: o To build momentum for -the TDIP, prioritize constructing bike lanes on collector streets in Downtown Tigard. Integrate this with projects to improve non - motorized access to Downtown. Bike lanes could be painted with different colors to accentuate critical areas (e.g. known points of conflict between vehicles and cyclists, school area). o Plan city bike routes to focus crossings of' major streets (e.g. Hall Boulevard or Highway 99W) at signalized intersections with sufficient signal time available for cyclists to cross the street. Consider providing additional traffic signal equipment such as loop detectors for cyclists or bicycle crossing signal call buttons. If the volume of cyclists crossing these roadways grows sufficiently, consider providing a "bike -box" to provide cyclists an advantage when crossing the street. o Provide covered bicycle lockers or racks in strategic places in Downtown (e.g. commuter rail station, bike store, popular retail, restaurant or coffee areas, future performing arts center, dr the post.office). Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Forecast Land Use Traffic Analysis Project #: 6759 July 24, 2005 Page 10 o Revise development code to integrate end -of -trip facilities (e.g. bicycle parking, shower, and /or locker rooms) into new commercial /retail developments. o In collaboration with bike shops in Tigard, develop public education campaigns providing information about cycling in Tigard and specifically cycling to, from and within Downtown. For pedestrians: o To build momentum for the TDIP, prioritize constructing sidewalks on streets in Downtown Tigard. Integrate this with projects to improve non- motorized access to Downtown. Provide a comprehensive system of sidewalks to, from and within Downtown; o Plan pedestrian routes to ensure that pedestrian crossings of major streets occur at signalized intersections with sufficient signal time for pedestrians to cross the street; o Provide streetscape treatments such as landscaping, pedestrian scale lighting, and street furniture to make pedestrians feel secure as they are walking in Downtown; o Plan for pedestrian activity in new parking areas. o Plan traffic calming devices such as curb extensions or chokers to enhance pedestrian environment but not detract from the cycling environment. For transit users: o Work with Tri -Met to provide adequate pre or post- transit trip facilities (e.g. shelter, bike storage, and parking) to simplify and facilitate the transit trip. o Encourage development in the vicinity of the commuter rail station that provides services commuter's desire at the beginning or end of their transit trip. Parking Under current conditions there is ample parking supply in downtown Tigard, and no apparent issues related to parking demand and /or management. In the near future commuter rail will begin operation that will include a station in downtown Tigard. A parking lot is planned for commuter rail passengers. As commuter rail operations and redevelopment in Downtown begins, it will be important for City of Tigard staff to monitor parking supply, demand and utilization in the Downtown area. Staff will want to monitor parking demand to ensure that short -term and long -term parking is available to residents, employees and patrons of Downtown as well as commuter rail passengers. Under most circumstances in Downtowns, on- street parking is considered full when peak hour parking utilization exceeds 85- percent. Kiltelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Forecast Land Use Traffic Analysis Project #: 6759 July 24, 2005 Page 11 In the event that on- street parking utilization begins to increase, the City of Tigard should have parking management policies in place to manage the demand and possibly provide additional parking supply. While a detailed parking supply, demand and utilization analysis will be required to establish these policies, possible parking management strategies include: • Integrating parking management considerations with multi -modal access plans for Downtown to encourage and enhance non -auto travel. • Initiating and enforcing different parking duration limits in different areas of Downtown; • Initiating shared parking policies (this complements shared access policies); • Initiating area parking permit programs; • Working with property owners to make private parking available to the public; and finally • A very long -term possibility, develop a city owned parking area. Compliance with ODOT Policies Access Management Hall Boulevard and l- lighway 99W are under the jurisdiction of ODOT. The TDIP does not call for any additional access points to either of these streets. However, the development of the TDIP would add a fourth leg to the intersection of Garden Place /l -fall Boulevard. Depending on the magnitude of development that occurs in this part of downtown Tigard, a traffic signal may become warranted at this location. If so, both ODOT Access Management Policies, and ODOT Signal Policy (outlined in OAD734- 020 -430 through 490) should be evaluated. Within downtown Tigard all of the streets are under the jurisdiction of Tigard; thus ODOT access management policies do not apply. However, the City of Tigard should pursue shared access arrangements with developers and property owners as new development occurs. This will ultimately minimize the number of access points to the City's Downtown collector system; therefore preserving and enhancing the long term mobility and safety of the streets. In addition this complements shared parking policies to minimize the amount of space devoted to parking supply. Transportation Planning Rule Recent modifications to the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule require that "where an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. the local government shall put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule to assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards (e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc) of the facility." The modifications to the rule also explain that a land use plan or regulation significantly affects a facility if it would: o "Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland. Oregon Forecast Land Use Traffic Analysis Project #: 6759 July 24, 2005 Page 12 o Change standards implementing a functional classification; o Allow land uses or levels of development'that would result in types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned facility; o Reduce the performance of an existing or planned facility below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or o Worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan." As shown in Tables 2 and 3, the Preferred Design Alternative will not significantly affect the transportation system in the vicinity of downtown Tigard. Therefore, the TDIP Preferred Design Alternative densities are consistent with the findings of previous transportation analyses and the currently adopted TSP remains applicable. Special Transportation Area and Urban Business Area Early in the project both Highway 99W and Hall Boulevard were evaluated in the context of ODOT Special Transportation Area (STA) and Urban Business. Area (UBA) policies contained in the Oregon Highway Plan. The analysis revealed that neither l- lighway 99W nor Hall Boulevard qualifies as an STA.or UBA, and that the TDIP does not. this conclusion. Transportation System Plan Amendments The TDIP Preferred Design Alternative does not include extending Ash Avenue from Walnut Street to Hall Boulevard as called for in the City's adopted TSP. The TDIP project included much discussion about the Ash Avenue extension from Walnut Street to Downtown. The main themes of these discussions were: o Many residents of Ash Avenue south of Fanno Creek do not want to see Ash Avenue extended from Walnut Street to Downtown. They are concerned about increases in traffic volumes and safety for their children in their neighborhood. o Business owners and residents along what has been shown as a conceptual alignment for Ash Avenue extension from Walnut Street to Downtown are concerned about the implications to their businesses and residences. o Citizens were concerned about the environmental impacts of a new bridge across Fanno Creek. o Potential developers of downtown Tigard did not see an Ash Avenue connection from Walnut Street to Downtown Tigard as mandatory for successful re- development in downtown Tigard. Kiuelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Forecast Land Use Traffic Analysis Project #: 6759 July 24, 2005 Page 13 o ODOT and Portland & Western Railroad indicated that an Ash Avenue at -grade crossing of the railroad tracks in downtown Tigard would be very difficult to achieve. At a minimum one other at -grade crossing and preferably two at -grade crossings would need to be closed in order to open a new Ash Avenue at -grade crossing of the railroad tracks. Because consensus about extending Ash Avenue from Walnut Street at Highway 99W to Hunziker Street was not achieved during this project, the TDIP plan was developed without including the Ash Avenue as a roadway connection from Walnut Street to Downtown Tigard. The Preferred Design Altemative however, does not preclude Ash Avenue from being constructed in its entirety as in the adopted TSP or in segments. Therefore, the proposed Ash Avenue connection does not need to be modified in the TSP. • Overall, the currently adopted TSP will accommodate the TDIP Preferred Design Alternative without any significant impacts to the regional or local transportation system in the study area. There are no modifications recommended as part of this plan. Public Improvements As the TDIP is implemented, in addition to the continuous planning that will occur to achieve the community vision, the following specific projects should be considered. o Near -Term o Continue implementing the plans and policies in the adopted TSP. o Achieve consensus on the Ash Avenue extension from Walnut to Downtown Tigard. This is clearly a difficult issue for all stakeholders in downtown Tigard and vicinity. Extending the street from Walnut to Downtown Tigard is included in the adopted TSP; however some stakeholders would prefer that the street not be constructed. To address these discrepancies, the City of Tigard plans to conduct a corridor alternatives analysis for Ash Avenue. As part of this project, it is recommended that the City conduct a public consensus - building program to evaluate whether or not the community at large would benefit from and prefer that Ash Avenue be connected from Walnut Avenue to downtown Tigard. An element of this project would be a detailed assessment of the travel demand to, from and within Downtown and intersection operations within Downtown with and without Ash Avenue. It is further recommended that a sub -area travel demand model be developed to support this process. The transportation component of such a study could cost $50,000 to $100,000. o Review City Pedestrian and Bicycle Plans. Staff should review current City pedestrian and bicycle planning efforts to ensure that these support simple and feasible access to, from and within downtown Tigard. Modify plan as necessary. o Explore design requirements for "Green Street" street treatments. The TDIP calls for integrating Fanno Creek back into downtown Tigard. As part of this, Tigard should explore developing design guidelines for green- street street Kirtelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Forecast Land Use Traffic Analysis Project #: 6759 July 24, 2005 Page 14 treatments. It may be possible to integrate green- street concepts into traffic calming treatments, intersection control, drainage, and parking areas. Initially, City of Tigard Staff could work with City of Portland Staff to evaluate successes and failures in Portland. o Hall Boulevard and Highway 99W Cross - Sections. As the City of Tigard begins additional planning work related to Highway 99W and Hall Boulevard, work with ODOT as early as possible to refine and define cross - sectional preferences and requirements for these streets. o Street Design Guidelines. The City of Tigard Staff should participate as needed in work with ODOT and Metro Staff to develop Highway Design Manual street design guidelines blending features of both ODOT and Metro Street design requirements. o Long -Term o Develop and implement a parking management plan that ensures adequate short - term and long -term parking supply for residents, employees and patrons of Downtown. Depending on the amount of data collection, public involvement, analysis, and code modification this could cost $40,000 to $75,000. This is not necessary until Downtown begins to grow and parking utilization increases. Such a parking study should be conducted prior to constructing any structured parking. o The results of the Ash Avenue evaluation and Downtown access study will provide information about short -tern and long -term transportation needs within Downtown. Begin implementing these measures as identified in the evaluation. o It is desirable that within Downtown Tigard, that a new at -grade crossing of the railroad tracks be developed along the Ash Avenue alignment. City of Tigard Staff should continue to work with Portland & Western Railroad and the ODOT Rail Division to identify options for achieving this crossing. Current policy states that to open new at -grade crossings at least one and preferably two at -grade crossings need to be closed or grade- separated. Options for closing or grade - separating at -grade crossings do exist in Tigard (e.g. Hall Boulevard, North Dakota, Tiedeman); however, significant local and regional planning efforts and engineering and constructions costs would be required to achieve consensus about these projects. We trust that this memo adequately summarizes the future conditions analysis and recommendations. Should you have any additional questions, please call me at 503- 228 -5230. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon • Exhibit 2C Sean Farrelly To: jfrewing Subject: RE: Downtown Urban Renewal Code Amendments (ZON 2009 -00001 et al) Attachments: Downtown Noticemap.pdf Hi John, Finally cleared off my desk (for the time being.) I'll answer your questions from Friday. 1. The Design Review Board's responsibilities are to determine compliance with the proposed Downtown Design Objectives for applicants that choose to go through the Type III discretionary Review process. This is only available if an applicant can't meet the clear and objective Building and Site Design Standard. It would only be available for applications in the Downtown. The eventual goal is to have a separate appointed Design Review Board. However, as such a board would not likely have much to do until redevelopment starts happening Downtown, we will probably have a subcommittee of the Planning Commission serve this function in the interim. 2. Here is how the proposed code addresses "integration of natural features and open space system into downtown." Provisions include additional requirementsifor trees in parking lots, including • 4 ft. minimum dimension of landscape islands • Landscape islands provide a minimum of 1000 cubic feet of soil volume per tree. • Automatic irrigation required. These changes are intended to improve the viability of trees in parking lots and enable a healthy tree canopy to develop. Also landscaping requirements would be allowed to be provided on a building's roof, which is an incentive to develop green roofs. And while the Downtown street sections will be adopted into the code sometime next year, the draft we are currently working on requires certain street designations to have expanded sidewalk planting areas. I I And overall, allowing denser pedestrian oriented mixed use development in an area well served by transit, can reduce the need for future UGB expansions. This in addition to such Downtown projects such as the Main - Street Green Street, Burnham St., and Fanno -Creek re- meander. 3. By listing these chapters, we are including them as the criteria that have to be addressed in the application, however the new design standards would govern if there is a conflict. In looking at page p. 13, to make this clearer, we'll add the word "design" to standards. 4. The sub -area map not including Rights of Way is a fluke of the GIS system. I will rectify that. The Open Space Comprehensive Plan designation on the Creek area will he retained as it appears on the Zoning Map and Comprehensive Plan map (see attached), which includes part of the Ash Ave ROW. The proposed code amendment wouldn't affect the Ash St crossing one way or the other. That is an issue for the in- progress Transportation System Plan and the Downtown Circulation Plan. ' Thanks for your catch on #3- that really helps. I hope this answers your questions andfeel free to call me if you'd like to discuss. 1 t I will include this e -mail in the packets going to the PC and CC public hearings. Thanks, Sean Scan Parrelly Senior Planner Downtown Urban Renewal /Long Range Planning City of Tigard 13125 SW I- Iall,Blvd. ' Fgard, OR 97223 (503) 718 -2420 From: jfrewing [mailto:jfrewing @teleport.com] Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 4:20 PM To: Sean Farrelly Subject: Downtown Urban Renewal Code Amendments (ZON 2009 -00001 et al) Sean, Thanks for letting me look over the proposed amendments (Draft 5) at City Hall. I have a couple questions and comments which 1 would hope you will include in the material going to Planning Commission and City Council. 1. Who is the Design Review Board and whatare its functions, assignments and responsibilities? 1 am guessing the Planning Commission, but 1 don't see that in the proposal. Will the Design Review Board have any criteria for review other than the proposed code amendments? 2. How will the proposed code amendments meet Purpose 2, "encourage integration of natural features and open space system into downtown ... "? 1 don't see any guidance on this important point. Perhaps include photos of other sites where this integration has been done, eg Tualatin Police Station, Lake Oswego Millenium Park, etc. As a minimum the code should provide some words of guidance to developers. I am concerned with the words on page 14 that the design standards do not apply to exterior projects that don't require a building permit -- natural features are exactly that: 3. On page 13, I believe (can't read my notes) it says that the standards of this ssection govern, even if less restrictive than other areas of the code. Yet on page 33, this section specifies that development must comply with code sections (a long list is provided). Do these code sections govern or not ?? I don't see that we can have it both ways. 4. On page 19, it appears that the Ash St right -of -way is excluded from any of the sub areas of the urban renewal area where these standards apply. This concerns me because it might be the 'foot in the door' for construction of Ash Street across Fanno Creek, an issue that has been discussed and turned down at earlier times. I think all of the Fanno Creek area should be deemed to be open space with natural features only. Sean, if there are answers to these questions, maybe you would be so kind as to send them along so that these issues get on the table before the public hearings. Thanks, John Frewing 2 a -- Attachment 3 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes December 7, 2009 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Centex, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Inman, Muldoon, Vermilyea, and Walsh Absent: Commissioner Hasman, Alternate Commissioner Gaschke Staff Present: Craig Prosser, City Manager; Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Susan Hartnett, Assistant Community Development Director; Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner; Cheryl Caines, Associate Planner; Gus Duenas, Development Engineer; Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager; Doreen Laughlin, Sr. Administrative Specialist 3. COMMUNICATIONS — In celebration of 8 years of set-vice on the Planning Commission, there was a time of recognition of and appreciation for outgoing President Jodie Inman. 4. CONSIDER MEETING MINUTES 11 -02 -09 Meeting Minutes: President Inman asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the minutes; there being none, President Inman declared the minutes • approved as submitted. President Inman opened the public hearing. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2009- 00004. SEASONAL OUTDOOR SALES CODE AMENDMENT — Cont'd from 11 -02 -09 • \LRPI.N \Doettn \PC \1'C Palen for 2009 \12.7 -09 \eye , nimuca 12-07-09.doc Page 1 of 12 • President Inman read a statement from the applicant (City of Tigard) asking for a continuance of this hearing to a date certain of January 4 ?h. Inman asked if there was anyone in the audience who had signed up to speak but could not make the January 4r meeting. Seeing and hearing none, she said she would entertain a motion to accept the continuance. The following motion was made by Commissioner Caffall, seconded by Commissioner Vermilyea: "I move that we continue the public hearing DCA2009- 00004, Seasonal Outdoor Sales Code Amendment," as requested by the applicant, to January 4, 2010." The motion CARRIED on a recorded vote, the Commission voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Inman, Commissioner Muldoon, Commissioner Vermilyea, and Commissioner Walsh (8) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAINERS: None (0) ABSENT: Hasman (1) Inman announced that, per the motion, the public hearing on DCA2009 -00004 is continued to January 4,2010. 5.2. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SONIC DRIVE -IN RESTAURANT — PDR2009- 00001, VAR2009 -00014 PUBLIC HEARING [PART I CDP] CONCEPTUALDEVELOPMENT PLAN STAFF REPORT Cheryl Caines, Associate Planner, gave the staff report on behalf of the City. [Staff reports are available to the public upon request one week in advance of any meeting.] She showed a map showing the proposed location and stated the site is located at 15300 SW Pacific Hwy. The site consists of 1.34 acres located east of Pacific I wy, south of Naeve St. and n/w of Royalty Parkway. She noted that just to the north is Mays Auto Sales and to the south is Les Schwab Tire Center. She said the applicant is requesting a concurrent review of the concept plan and detailed plan. There will be two hearings — first for the conceptual plan and, if that's approved, they would move on to the detailed plan. By doing so, the applicant assumes the risk of rejection of the detailed plan resulting from rejection of the concept plan. IALRPIN \Dorun\PC \PC 1'acacis for 2109 \I2-?- 09 \ipc 'mina 12 -07-09.doc Page 2 of 12 Gaines noted with regard to the Concept Plan: It is a two phased plan: • Phase 1 — fast food restaurant with drive through • Phase 2 — second commercial building with possible drive through component (approximately 3,000 sq ft) Caines went on to say the applicant met the conceptual plan standards with one exception. There was no clear schedule proposed for both phases showing when the phases will be initiated and when they will be completed. Staff is recommending approval of the concept plan with a couple of issues that may be discussed if the Commission feels it necessary to do so. She said the plan meets the concept and standards but, looking at the site, is the Commission satisfied with the overall design? The design seems to be driven mainly by the circulation for the site and uses, and also the access points from Pacific Hwy and Royalty Parkway (shared with Les Schwab on the south end of the site off of Pacific Hwy). She said there are some regulations that say that's pretty much where it's going to be with ODOT's standards. Caines noted there was an existing access point there, so they're sharing that with Les Schwab and there wasn't a lot of "wiggle room" on changing that access location. She said the applicant is not requesting exceptions allowed through the PD process, PD overlay was existing, not requested, the site has no natural areas to preserve and the site is quite small. QUESTIONS OF STAFF BY COMMISSIONERS: There were some questions as to the unusualness of the hearing on this project — with the two plans. Dick Bewersdorff spoke to that for a bit and wrapped it up saying "The concept — what they're proposing — does it fit the desires of the Commission and, finally, does the detailed plan meet the code requirements ?" Question was asked: So we have to speak separately? Bewersdorff: "It's all part of the same hearing but you make separate decisions on each." So we can have one deliberation — but separate...? Bewersdorff: "Yes." APPLICANTS PRESENTATION: Jess Wetsel, with the Wetsel Company, the applicant, at 2123 NW Aloclek Dr., Hillsboro 97124, introduced himself & his wife /business partner /co- owner, Andrea. He apologized for having a, conceptual as well as a detailed plan. He said it was something Caines had worked with them quite a bit on. He said he appreciated the commission's understanding and Caine's work on what could have been a bit difficult for her. Andrea Wetsel gave a presentation, giving a background and overview of what the "Sonic concept" is (Exhibit A). IA1.RPIN \Domco \PC \PC Psckcn for 2m19\ 12.7.09 \spc minutes 12-07419 doe Page 3 of 12 After Wetsel's President Inman interjected that she'd forgotten to poll the commissioners and audience regarding ex -parte contacts and jurisdiction. She apologized and said she would do it.at this point (slightly out of normal order). President Inman asked if there were any commissioners who wished to abstain or declare a conflict of interest. There were none. She asked if anyone in the audience wished to challenge any member of the Planning Commission for bias or conflict of interest. No one did 'She asked the commissioners to report any ex parte contacts. There were none. Two commissioners reported site visits (Commissioners Muldoon and Anderson). No one in the audience challenged the jurisdiction of the commission. SOME QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT / SUGGESTIONS FROM COMMISSION With regard to the Conceptual Plan: Do you . have any plans to partition the site? Most likely, yes. In fact, we anticipate that we would begin that process immediately. Would Black Rock be a drive - through? Yes. Have you looked at other sites? Yes — countless sites. This particular site is of interest to us because it's between the Wilsonville location and our I- Iillsboro location. It's on Hwy 99 which is a very heavily traveled road in a fairly dense neighborhood that is undcrserved by restaurants. We are very excited about pursuing this particular location. Has Black Rock looked at the site plan? Yes — no feedback from them. There were some questions and concern about circulation. Bryan Cole, Landscape Architecture Manager, Associate from Mackay & Sposito, Inc., spoke to those concerns. He spoke about accommodating inbound traffic, queuing traffic, drive- through stacks, etc. There were concerns regarding the location of the menu -board possibly causing a back -up of traffic. Andrea Wetsel spoke to that. She believed it wouldn't be a problem for various reasons. President Inman suggested that the location of the second lane menu -board should be moved farther north to make it.clear that it's clearly out of the path of travel. She believed people could be directed around the corner and out of the congested area. Possibly striping that clearly marks the path going around — making it very clear that this is where the travel way is. The circulation appears awkward. Coming from the south — is that a 2 way access? There are conflicting traffic movements happening. There's no reason for Les Schwab to use that.. It's not anticipated that there will be much traffic from there because it doesn't really go anywhere. IALRPLM \ Doreen \PC \PC Packet. (ar 3009 \12.3.09 \rpc minutes I2-O7-09.doc Page4ofl2 The presumption is Black Rock Coffee being there... what amount of cars would be crossing the Sonic property? l'd guess 20% at most. PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN FAVOR: • No one had signed up and no one in the audience was there to speak in favor. PUBLIC TESTIMONY — OPPOSITION: None. QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS OF STAFF There were some general questions about the width of the driveway in the front and what is required. Gaines spoke to that question. She said the detailed plan was modified to meet the requirements. PUBLIC TESTIMONY [PART I] CLOSED: DELIBERATIONS ON THE CDP [Conceptual Development Plan] President Inman entertained comments on the general site layout, circulation, and other such issues. Muldoon: This type of business seems to me to be a retail business to occupy the area — it doesn't have any particular design that it has to conform to. I don't sec any real problem with it. Caffall: I'd feel a whole lot happier if that one area was a one -way but other than that I don't see a problem with it. Which area? The drive between Les Schwab and what would be the south side of their operation. My feeling is at some point even with the stop sign up there — at some point there's going to be a point of contention with cross- traffic. Inman: That might be a fire access... Vermilyea: I concur with Commissioner Muldoon. I don't have much of an issue on the back side of the Les Schwab — my view is the two of them can work that out if the need arises down the road. I am concerned about the general flow of traffic. I understand it better now after hearing the explanations. I feel more comfortable now with regard to the south side. I'm a little bit concerned about how traffic is going to get through to the north side and then back around. I think if they move that board up, that will help. My one concern is how does moving the property 4 feet end the domino effect that impacts the traffic flow on the southern side. Maybe we could condition that for later. Beyond that, it certainly is better than what is there now. It fits in with the character of the neighborhood just (Inc. 1 know my kids will be hanging out there on Friday's. We just need to get the traffic issues nailed down. Walsh: I don't like the traffic flow. If this was strictly a concept but I know this is going back to detail. I'm not satisfied and would like to see what ODOT has to say. IVLRP1.N \�nV'c pC Natty for 2909 \I2-9- 09 \cpc minute, I2-p9- 09.doc Page 5of12 Inman list of concerns: I'm okay with the orientation of the buildings. I understand the general traffic flow on the site and why it's there. From a conceptual level I think I'm okay with it but .at this point I think I'd require at the DDP to address the traffic flow patterns coming off of the southwest. Anderson: Okay with concept plan — would like to see it redrawn with a 1000 sq ft footprint for the second building. It's a big lot — I just don't want it to be a quagmire where everyone gets stuck. I would approve the concept. MOTION: Commissioner Vermilyea made the following motion, seconded by Commissioner Muldoon: "I move we approve the concept plan for PDR2009- 00001 /VAR2009 -00014 as conditioned in the staff report, and as modified as indicated by the applicant tonight with respect to expansion of the north side traffic aisles and movement of the building footprint south 4 feet to accommodate traffic flow, and moving the menu boards to accommodate additional stacking of traffic while waiting." The motion CARRIED on a recorded vote, the Commission voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Inman, Commissioner. Muldoon, Commissioner Vermilyea, and Commissioner Walsh (8) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAINERS: None (0) ABSENT: Hasman (1) PUBLIC HEARING [DDP PART II] DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN At this point the hearing continued but this time with regard to Sonic's DDP [Detailed Development Plan]. ADDITIONAL STAFF REPORT SUPPLEMENTATION: Cheryl Caines, Associate Planner, gave the supplemental staff report. She noted the following: ➢ Only for Phase I 0 1,728 sq ft Sonic on south side of site o 990 sq ft patio dining area 1: \LRPLN \Dortcn \PCU'C packets for 2009 \12. 7.09 \rpc minorer 12 Page 6ofl2 o 26 in car dining spaces ➢ Phase 2 detailed plan at a later date with possible Minor Land Partition ➢ Originally there was a request for an adjustment to exceed the maximum allowed parking standard allowance for that site, but under review it was determined that that adjustment was not necessary because if you add the square footage of the covered patio which counts towards square footage — it actually gets the applicant above the actual number of spaces they've proposed with this detailed plan so that isn't actually necessary. ➢ Staff is recommending approval with conditions: o Tree canopy for the site (soil and species) o Staff is recommending one freestanding sign because the two phases are dependent upon each other, not separate developments — only one sign. o Wheel stops — some sort of protection for people walking on the walkway. ➢ Proposed changes from Public Works. [Caines distributed.a memo and some comments (Exhibit B) that had been received from Public Works after the application packets had been mailed out to the commissioners. Because of those comments staff proposed some slight changes: o An amendment to condition 12 & condition 33 (See Exhibit B). Gus Duenas, Development Engineer, said he wanted to make sure the applicant is conditioned to extend the sidewalk south of the property on the Les Schwab frontage and SW Royalty Parkway to close that sidewalk gap. That would need to be completed before the final building inspection. That would be about 260' over the existing sidewalk. APPLICANTS PRESENTATION WITH REGARD TO THE DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN The applicant quickly went through the rest of the PowerPoint. At this point, Fred Harris, Architect with Carlson Veit, in Salem, was introduced and after him Chris Tiesler of Kittelson & Associates would. speak. The applicant said he remained hopeful that at the end of the hearing they would have an approval with conditions to make the changes and they can move forward as they'd been working for several months and have a consider amount invested in this process. He said they strongly desire to move the project forward that night if at all possible. Harris talked about the wheel stops. He said spaces on the south side do not have wheel stops primarily as safety for the employees who are on roller skates. I -Ie said the call box and the order box for ordering food is right beside the driver's window and that call box is placed a distance from the curb so when they stop there to order, they are well away from the curb. He said lithe wheel stops are needed to proceed, they can do that, but they believe that would be a safety hazard. He spoke about the access aisle and said he hopes they can I: \LRPLN \Darien \PC \PC Packets for 2109 \121.09 \spc minutes 10.07-09doc Page 7 of 12 makeit a single lane on the backside of the restaurant. They'd like to have that space. He said they would provide a minimum of 4 bike spaces. Bryan Cole, a landscape architect with MacKay & Sposito, 1325 SE Tech Center Dr., Vancouver, WA spoke in response to the condition regarding trees. He said he is working with their arborist and the City's arborist. He spoke about soil volume, irrigation, and tree canopy. Chris Teasler, from Kittelson & Associates, the applicant's traffic engineer, responded to some of the things he'd heard. He spoke about access, queuing, and the one -way driveway into their site. He spoke about the general concepts on the queuing and overall amount of traffic. In the analysis, they were fairly conservative, 110 to 115 cars coming to the site averaged out. Two menu tables would help during the peak time periods. 70% of the traffic is anticipated to come from Hwy 99W. So the concern about the queuing on the outside one for people coming in off of Royalty has been noted but because of the distribution to the site with only 30% of the vehicles coming from Royalty Parkway — the ability for someone to get into that queue will be minimized. Inman questioned the applicant about whether they'd ever considered the possibility of a using a "green roof." He answered "No." She asked if that had ever been done at any of their facilities. He answered "No ma'am. Not that I'm aware of." PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN FAVOR OF APPLICATION: None. PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION OF APPLICATION: John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, spoke against. He would like a planter strip between Hwy 99 in front of Les Schwab and the sidewalk. With regard to trees, he's interested that there is an irrigation system for the trees. He would like the applicant to come in with a 15 year canopy goal for the site - possibly permeable pavement (where roller skates don't go.) Lastly, regarding block size 330', he is concerned it is longer than the standard code. APPLICANT REBUTTAL: "Some of the concerns are outside the scope of my control. Planting strips on other people's property, namely, Les Schwab — I don't control that. Block size — I can't control that. Practically, what we're doing is extending the sidewalk where there is now just a ditch. We are improving the property and providing pedestrian crossways through the property from Royalty to Hwy 99... so I understand that perhaps from certain perspectives, we can always do more. I believe we've done what we can do here." CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY IALRPLN \Dwecn \PC \pC packets for 2009 \12- 2- 09 minutes 12-07-09 disc Page 8 of 12 DELIBERATIONS FOR THE DDP Commissioner Caffall said the "green roof' will simply not work unless you're going to build substantial pylons to hold up a roof that doesn't work in the northwest because of our volume of rain; buildings come tumbling down with green roofs. He believes the applicant has gone out of their way to make the property nice and believes they'd be a great addition to the City. Commissioner Doherty agreed regarding both the green roof and believes the landscaping and such will help the area. Commissioner Vermilyea believes they should agree to waive staff's recommendation... in other words — no wheel stops on the south side is fine. He thinks the use for a drive -in that's got carhops — wheel stops tend to make it difficult to accomplish that. Commissioner Fishel said she heartily agreed with that. At this point, President Inman gave a synopsis of the conditions that staff had recommended [that she'd been tracking: > Wheel stops — they all agree — no. Remove that condition. • 1 versus 2 free standing signs — they agree on this one. Condition remains. ➢ Tree Canopy — they'd like to leave condition #1 in as is. > Three Public Works Conditions o #12 regarding water meters will stay; o #33 regarding the maintenance of the water quality facility will stay; and o an additional condition to extend the sidewalk on SW Royalty Parkway across Les Schwab to close the sidewalk gap to the existing sidewalk - remains. So those arc the existing conditions right now; other issues? ➢ Extend and add the conditions that they work with Les Schwab to explore opportunities to minimize that access to be able to accommodate the additional floor (inaudible). MOTION: Commissioner Vermilyea made the following motion, seconded by Commissioner Doherty: "I move that we approve the application PDR2009- 00001 /VAR2009- 00014, the Detailed Development Plan and the adoption of the findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report as amended on the floor this evening, with the exception that the requirement that there be wheel stops on the south side of the building is removed; they must comply with the Development Code sited on the findings specifically to extend the sidewalk on the parkway side to provide the b \LRPIN \Dorm \PC \PC Packcn for 2009 \121.09 \tpe m 12-07-09 Page 9of12 amended and additional conditions set forth in Cheryl Caines memo dated 12/7/09; they are going to expand the travel aisle on the north side of building to 14' in width to accommodate cars entering and exiting parking stalls; and move the building footprint south 4 feet to accomplish that goal. They will move the menu - boards on the drive - through lanes to the north to allow for additional stacking and will work with Les Schwab to accommodate improved traffic flow, including the consideration of reduction of that lane and turning it into a one -way lane" The motion CARRIED on a recorded vote, the Commission voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Inman, Commissioner Muldoon, Commissioner Vcrmilyca, and Commissioner Walsh (8) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAINERS: None (0) ABSENT: Hasman (1) SHORT RECESS 5.3 DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENTS CPA2009- 00003, DCA2009- 00005, Z0N2009 -00001 STAFF REPORT Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager, explained why this was coming to the commissioners once again since there was a hearing previously held on this very thing back in October 19th. He said he'd indicated in a memo [that he'd sent to the commissioners in their packets] that they'd finally come to an understanding with ODOT that resulted in a major change in the proposed code. Also, they wanted to make sure that proper notice was provided under Measure 56. He asked that the minutes and staff report from October 19th be entered into the record. He said, for purposes of the record, this will be considered the first public hearing. He went through the proposal using a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit C). At the end of his presentation, Family went over the following changes [since the prior Planning Commission meeting of October 19 9. > Discussions with ODOT on potential impacts of 8 -story development in Hall /99W sub -area. 1: \I.RPLN \Daam \PC. \PC Packets for 2009 \I2 - 7'09 \tpc nines 12 07'09.dee Page 10 of 12 • > Due to potential increases in trip generation, new proposal will revert to the maximum building heights permitted under the properties' "existing zoning (80 feet for properties currently zoned CBD, 45 feetfor.properties currently zoned C -G and C -P. > The boundaries of the Hall /99W sub -area were re -drawn to separate out the properties currently zoned CBD and those zoned C -G and C -P. > The boundaries of the Hall /99W sub -area were re -drawn to separate out the properties currently zoned CBD and those zoned C -G and C -P. > The proposed front setback reduced from 10 feet to 5 feet. > Changes incorporated into new draft 5.2. QUESTIONS OF STAFF BY COMMISSIONERS Can you remind me of sidewalk width when redevelopment happens on Hwy 99? It is 10 feet. And then the street tree requirement will be there as well? Yes. PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN FAVOR Alexander Craghead, 12205 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 spoke in favor. He read a written statement [Exhibit D.] PUBLIC TESTIMONY — IN OPPOSITION: None. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DELIBERATIONS — Nothing further. MOTION: Commissioner Vermilyea made the following motion, seconded by Commissioner Muldoon: "I move we recommend approval of CPA2009- 00003, DCA2009- 00005, ZON2009- 00001 to City Council." The motion CARRIED on a recorded vote, the Commission voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Inman, Commissioner Muldoon, Commissioner Vermilyea, and Commissioner Walsh (8) is \LRI'LN \ Down \0L \0C Packcb for 2009 \12- 7.09 \1pc minutes 12.01- 09.doc Page 11 of 12 NAYS: None (0) ABSTAINERS: None (0) ABSENT: I-lasman (1) 6. STUDY SESSION PREPARING FOR JOINT MEETING WITH COUNCIL REGARDING TREES (SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 19TH). Associate Planner, John Floyd, on behalf of the City, led a discussion about the upcoming joint meeting. It will be a workshop — Floyd noted that generally they don't take public input at these joint meetings. Vice President Walsh suggested that basically they walk the Urban Forestry Master Plan by Council and get their thoughts on it. Commissioner Doherty said she didn't really know what they, as a body, thought about this. Commissioner Vermilyea suggested that they get together again and get on the same page — or at least understand what they all think, since they hadn't discussed this topic in 18 months or so. There were several things brought up that they, as a body, hadn't really talked about. It was decided that this study session would continue on January 4, 2010 for further discussion. 7. OTHER BUSINESS — Photographs were taken of the commissioners on the Dias for the Comprehensive Plan land -use chapter. 8. ADJOURNMENT President Inman adjourned the meeting at 10:30 pm. Doreen Laughlin, Planning o 's: ion Secretary ATTES ' . Presi • entJodi Inman aite is \LRPLN \Dnmen \I'C \PCI'ackett for 4009 \iL]pl \Ipc mimm� 120109 c S/ Page 12 of 12 .r4 � • - 'Downtown • k:iCPA2009 `,. we „ Proposal: DCA2009.00005: ' .. ' , • Re - zones the Downtown Urban Renewal District ZON2009-0000 'W:. • • new zoning classification MU -CBD and new 'N ` w `'' e l _ g' . ' . '' • :• w Comprehensive Plan designation Mixed Use "”' -• — - -- _ Central Business District Staff Report to drr• ---- — • MU -CBD zone includes sub -areas with different Tigerd Planning Commission development standards /" Public Nearing on Ordinance - • Adds design standards for new development December 7. 2009 II a g I • Increases maximum density to 50 units /acre TI1Rla and up to 80 units /acre in station area overlay fi Existing Proposed Si r% -gym ` a `^ t C i t ng Comp Plan • C L y P 1 d @ t I a' )� j . i Designation: 4 R '1!- t `yY' s Designations: Plan �� M1'� y Get IBuslm ss Dist dd y 0 '>< }� "Mind U C 1 �� .7(c)..;;/1 > ,. Business District" ' •� • isting Zoning "� '� ^ k . B l [Mont. replants � O / ? CI Oca fr "^•2 4 ,r I ti - Existing Op SP. e • (/r' %r . CBDand CBDIPD) r / X e 7 h designation am ' remains the � � 4:2, n � It ��, Mi. ed use one allows L e.d Y x 4.6 ( f i S ty r m � run eseup to 4o x tY ` :; e 1 • Proposed Z i g f� 1p\ t . 4 4 units /acre 44 ✓' t Cl n 1 - I je r fi t, C G Commercial only Y ,{•' tt'Jii. v " MU CBD d MU CBD iz. P .�P A .l s• ?R IPUI �i ? • AIIP yeC llMVhe !•;." „: s \•n \ 9, "RA5 a e `•r lfi Renewal ots On 1 : e+ ' ";'�� •MUR- I project) . vt ci 0 a'n r� T I automats C4( r0J 7:553l1711 r• - l' D Y j n .- 4L P.3-4. .�4 Citizen Engagement in Developing Meets Tigard Code Requirements Code • Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390: • Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan • Comprehensive Plan Citizen Involvement Chapters: Clvement • Joint subcommittee of the City Center Advisory Goal 2 -Land Use Planning Goal 5- Natural Resources and nista' is Areas Commission and Planning Commission worked Goal 6-Air, water and Land Resources on draft code Goal 7- 1lazards • Open Houses in Jul 2008 and Jul 2009 Goal 8- Parks. Recreation, Trails. and Open Space P July July Goal 9- Economic Development • Community events Goal10- Iihusing s and endorsement Goal 11-Public n Transportation Facilities and services • CCAC meetings Goal l 1 12- Conse • Property owner notification Goal 13- Energy Conservation Goal 14- Urbanization Goal 15- Special Planning Areas - Downtown 1 =a . - .. avuu•vvcvaa..v�.. .... Changes since prior Planning Meets Metro and State Requirements Commission meeting • Metro Functional Plan Titles 1, 2, 6, and 7: • Discussions with ODOT on potential Impacts of8 -story • Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7,9, 10, 11, development In Hal1/99W sub - area. • Due to potential increases in trip generation. new 12, 13, and 14. proposal will revert to the maximum building heights • Transportation Planning Rule permitted under the properties' existing zoning (80 feet for properties currently zoned CBD, 45 feet for properties currently zoned C -G and C -P. • The boundaries of Hal1/99W subarea were re -drawn to separate out the properties currently coned CBD and those zoned C -G and C -P. • The proposed front setback reduced from 10 feet to 5 feet. • Changes incorporated Into new draft 5.2. o ' f � ,.. . . Newv ",... gins prnpu.a ... pmpn.n I , r Recommendation: t ll I P : , „ . � 173:.°. \i • That the Planning Commission recommend .. / _ ,* '` k FiY • `; A.. M -s w Approval to the City Council of the proposed d_` t �F ` F !/ji ,V— Comprehensive plan Amendment. Development ,� ��, : _�, f''�7`, +. Code Amendment, and Zoning Map Amenchnent t�,,� Y • ,. d ( y �dbt� �` a ,t c," I I -u , V. { t,f. 6 r5 N .q. . yi 2 EXHIBIT D • B. c 12205 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD alexander.craghead @gmail.com TIGARD OR 97223.6210 503.347.4059 December 7, 2009 Tigard Planning Commission City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Draft downtown land use code. Good evening ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission, For the record, my name is Alexander Craghead. I am the vice -chair of the City Center Advisory Commission, and I also served on the joint Commission Advisory 'Team that drafted the Downtown Code amendments that are before you again tonight. Between the last time that I talked with you, in October, and now, there have been some significant changes made to the proposed Downtown Code. I am here before you tonight to speak on behalf of the CCAC members on. the Commission Advisory Team to urge you to approve this revised version of the Downtown Code. This is not to say that we have no reservations about the revised Code. In order to accommodate the Oregon Department of Transportation, areas surrounding the intersection of Highway 99W and Hall Boulevard are to be far smaller in scale than called for by the CCAC's vision and the joint Commission Advisory Team's refinement of that vision. Instead of mid -rise, eight to -ten story 4. C. structures and so- called "medium box retail, the revised code calls for zoning on three of these four corners that is little different in scale from the present conditions. This is a significant disappointment. • This said, the bulk of the proposed code remains highly relevant and vital to the redevelopment of downtown Tigard. Although the changes made to accommodate ODOT do not match our vision for downtown, we believe that the code before you tonight represents the best workable compromise available to the City of Tigard at this time. Approving this Downtown Code at this time does not mean that the zoning of the Highway 99W / Hall Boulevard sub area cannot he revisited in the future. Next year., for example, the City will begin st reexamination of the land uses and zoning in the entire Highway 99W corridor. In addition, Metro is currently studying the potential of high- capacity transit in this corridor. Both processes will offer opportunities to further dialogue with ODO'I' and revisit this issue. In closing, the CCAC members of the joint Commission Advisory Team wish to express our support for the approval of the revised Downtown Code, with the condition and understanding that the City of Tigard will continue to pursue the upzoning of the Highway 99W / Hall Boulevard sub area through other processes over the course of the next few years. On behalf of Commissioners Barkley, Shearer, and myself, I want to thank you for your time this ,evening, and with that I will close my remarks and let you get on with the business of the evening. Thank you. • Best regards, Alexander B. Craghead Vice - Chair, City Center Advisory Commission • • Attachment 4 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes October 19, 2009 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town 1-Iall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, Hasman, Inman, Muldoon, and Vcrmilyea Absent: Commissioner Walsh, Alternate Commissioner Gaschke Staff Present: Community Development Director Ron Bunch Assistant CD Director Susan Hartnett Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff Downtown Redevelopment Manager Scan Farrelly Associate Planner Gary Pagenstecher Senior Administrative Specialist Doreen Laughlin 3. COMMUNICATIONS - none 4. CONSIDER MEETING MINUTES 10 -05 -09 Meeting Minutes: President Inman asked if there were any corrections, deletions, or additions to the minutes; there was one correction (Commissioner Doherty's name had inadvertently been misspelled), President Inman declared the minutes approved with the noted correction. 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 DOWNTOWN TIGARD CODE AMENDMENTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2009- 00003, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2009- 00005, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (ZON) 2009 -00001 l: \LRPLN \IJoreen \PC \PC Packets for 2009 \10-19- 09 \tpc 10-19 -09 minutes.doc 1 STAFF REPORT Senior Planner Sean Farrelly gave the staff report. (Staff reports are available to the public one week before the scheduled meeting.) Farrelly went over a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit A). QUESTIONS OF STAFF & COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS What if the: City of Tigard and ODOT can't come wan agreement? Are we mandated by law to comply with whatever ODOT decides to throw down — how does that work? There's a risk they could appeal this to LUBA but I don't see that happening. We're working with them on multiple projects including a couple hundred thousand dollar grant that's going to be looking at the lanes on the 99W corridor. We want to keep them happy but we have our own aspirations as well. I think we'll be able to meet their concerns and prove to them that the zoning that's there now is not being utilized to its full use. Specifically, what were some of the concerns ODOT had? It's the concern that they have two facilities Hwy 99W and Hall Blvd - if there's maximum build -out under this proposed code, there could conceivably be a lot more people driving cars on their facility, making traffic worse. We argue that this is a town center and it will be pedestrian oriented. We feel a big percentage of the people who choose to live in the Downtown arca in the future will use the transit; will use the WES commuter service; and will potentially use any future light rail that might come down the 99W corridor. ODOT expresses these concerns to pretty much every community that tries to increase density. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR Alexander Craghead, 12205 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard who is also the Vice -Chair of the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC), and a member of the.body that helped draft the code, read a statement (Exhibit 13) acknowledging and thanking the people and the process that brought the draft downtown land use code to this point. TESTIMONY AGAINST Gary Haagen, 2514 SE 112 Ave., Vancouver, WA 98664 (owner, since 1989, of lot 5 - Payless Shopping Center at the corner of Pacific Hwy and Main Street). He's had the property for sale for more than a year. He said obviously the economic conditions up to this point have been challenging for commercial properties. He said two things are happening simultaneously. He noted he's not really "against" this, but had to choose — "for, or against" to sign in. He really just wanted to state a problem he has and was hoping there's a solution. Haagen testified as follows: The road is being expanded from Pacific Hwy towards my property and they're also moving in from Main Street as well. Up until just the same time I I: \LRPLN \Doreen \PC \PC Packets for 2009 \10- 19- 09 \tpc 10 -19 -09 minutes.doc 2 got the notice of this hearing, I got them practically the same clay, I'd never actually received a detailed map showing me exactly what they're doing but taking more of my land then I would have anticipated based upon the markings that I'd seen out in the street and that sort of thing. I called the City to find out what the set-back requirements are under this new zoning — and it expands the set -back requirements. If I understand it correctly, my current zoning allows me a 5' set -back - the new zoning would be a 10' set -back. My property is a little less than 15,000 sq ft and the goal of me selling this building, and with the land value and the appraisals I've had, is that my building could actually be doubled, based upon my understanding of what I owned previously. The building there now is 1,290 sq ft, my CC &R's say the building could be up to 2,800 sq ft. Based upon my appraisals and my realtor — the idea was to try to find a buyer that would want one of two things — either destroy the current building and build a new building that would meet those requirements, or add on to the; existing building and up until, maybe now, there's been sufficient ability to expand towards Pacific Hwy. I guess what I'm wondering is — is there any way I can be considered fora "grandfather" so that my set -back is maintained at the 5' and then I'd realize I''d have to deal with the state about expanding the road as a separate issue. Both of these two things happening simultaneously are resulting in an adverse economic effect on my property. Could I answer any questions? QUESTIONS OF HAAGEN TESTIMONY BY COMMISSIONERS & STAFF Sean Farrelly, Downtown Redevelopment Manager, explained what could be built under the proposed code. He said it may not he a feasible scenario now but in the not too distant future, especially if high capacity transit goes into the corridor, could make Haagen's property much more valuable. He said, as with any code, there may be some negative effects, but the positive.itnpacts would outweigh that. Haagen: It's hard for me to assess that other than... you know I only own a small piece of property and to destroy the building and then build again — at most it could be 2,800 sq ft — at most. So it'd be hard to build very high. The way I look at it, I can only see economic disadvantage — no economic advantage. Commissioner Vermilyea to staff: Is there a way a property owner can have issues addressed individually... is there a variance process? A Grandfather process? Some kind of process where we can deal with individualized issues? Farrelly: Couple things, there is a variance process that would be identical to the rest of what is permitted in our code. There's also an adjustment process in the new code. In addition, there are exceptions identified in 18.610.045 "Exceptions to Standards" [page 33 of "Proposed Downtown Tigard Code Amendments "]. Haagen questioned the right -of -way appraisal process. He wondered how to get a true value. h \LRPLN \ Doreen \PC \PC Packets for 2009 \10- 19- 09 \tpc 10 -19 -09 minutcs.doc 3 Ron Bunch, Community Development Director, spoke to the right-of-way appraisal process explaining that is.a state and county process. He said the City is working with ODOT and the county. He said the 10 foot set -back is a standard with a 20% possible exception, so that could be reduced to 8 feet. That's as much dimensional "give" that we have in the standards right now. The right -of -way appraisal process is entirely separate from the planning process. Farrelly pointed out that the proposed code allows a 90% maximum site coverage; the current code allows 85% so- you're able to cover 5% more of your lot. At this point Haagen asked what the "process" is regarding this. President Inman explained that they would take more public testimony, deliberate, have questions of staff, and then make a recommendation to City Council. She said he could also testify to City Council at the public hearing on December 8th. In the meantime, he could consult with staff to get a little better idea -of what the effective usefulness of his property might be within the code. Haagen asked if the City Council would be aware of his testimony tonight. Inman said it would be in the minutes and in the record — so long as they read it. Inman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak either for or. against. Jim Andrews, Nicoli Engineering, 9025 SW Center Street, spoke [but had not signed in]. He said his was more of a question focused towards Farrelly. I-Ie said "Center Street has been put in a sub -area with Main Street. I understand it needed to go somewhere and I guess that makes sense. My only question is — the standards on Main Street aren't always applicable to what I can see the character of Center Street being (or is). So I want to verify that the variances are still applicable to some of the zoning guidelines and the development standards that you've made and is the 20% reduction applicable to those design standards — not so much set -back but as facade issues and those kind of guidelines ?" Farrelly answered: There is a discretionary design due process which would allow an applicant to propose somethingdifferent from the standards. That's one of the tracks we have. The 20% reduction is not applicable to the design standards — just the set - backs. "What is the criterion of acceptance of modification?" Farrelly: It's very discretionary. There will be a design review board. In the interim there may be a sub - committee of the Planning Commission. There will be a designated design review body. They will judge against the design objectives towards the end of the code amendments [page 34]. They're just statements of intent of what we're looking for and the applicant would have to show how their proposal meets that. There will be multiple ways of showing that. QUESTIONS OF STAFF BY COMMISSIONERS With regard to the design review board — how are we going to make that known to the public who may wish to follow track 3 and have a discretionary design review? • I: \LRPLN \Doreen \PC \PC Packets for 2009 \10- 19- 09 \tpc 10 -19 -09 minutes.doc 4 By the time Council (hopefully) adopts these code amendments, well explicitly talk about that as well as our ideas on how a design review board would work, and the long term transition to an independent board. Ron Bunch added that Council has the authority under Municipal Code essentially to appoint a body that has land -use regulatory authority. Our proposal essentially, when we complete this, is to draw a series of proposals for Council, and the Planning Commission both, to consider. It would happen through a Council deliberation and appointment process. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DELIBERATION President Inman noted the Downtown Code Errata that Family had distributed earlier (Exhibit C) is basically updates to the code that was sent out in the earlier packet to the Commissioners. She also noted the fact that it would need to also be included in any recommendation. She said it would also be good to include in the amendment some instruction for staff to continue to develop ways to address ODOT's concern for greater density. There were no further deliberations. MOTION The following motion was made by Commissioner Muldoon, seconded by Commissioner Vermilyea, as follows: ° "I move for a recommendation to City Council, based on the findings that are in the staff report, to approve CPA2009- 00003, DCA2009- 00005, and ZON2009- 00001; cognizant of the errata for the Downtown Code; and with-a stipulation asking staff to work with ODOT to maximize towards target density as requested. The motion CARRIED on a recorded vote, the Commission voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Caffall, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner Hasman, Commissioner Inman, Commissioner Muldoon, and Commissioner Vermilyea (8) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAINERS: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioner Walsh (1) I: \LRPLN \Doreen \PC \PC Pockets for 2009 \10 - 19-09 \rpc 10 -19 -09 minures.doc 5 5.2 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2009- 00004. SEASONAL OUTDOOR SALES CODE AMENDMENT STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Gary Pagenstecher went over the staff report on behalf of the City. (Staff reports are available to the public one week before the scheduled meeting.) QUESTIONS OF STAFF & COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS Is there a..City goal of having a single "Tigard Farmer's Market ?" Pagenstecher: The Comp Plan calls for Farmer's Markets Downtown. That's a goal expressed in the Comp Plan. I think .in the staff report we find this language allowing for a Farmer's.Market consistent with that goal. Do we have a specific plan to provide a certain area in City owned property? No. Bunch interjected that a city can provide a place /opportunity for a Farmer's Market. He said it's very rare for a city to be the actual sponsor of a Farmer's Market kind of activity. Cities throughout the state in our research and experience worked with the organizations that establish a charter (inaudible) Farmer's Market. It is a City goal to provide opportunities for Farmer's Markets who operate in a community. So what I'm hearing is it's possible for several Farmer's Markets could be operating in the City at the same time? This has me concerned - so on any Saturday and Sunday — are.we talking about a Farmer's Market at the Grange, a Farmer's Market Downtown, and maybe a Farmer's Market someplace else within the confines of the City all at the same time? Bunch: This provides the opportunity for that to happen if the market will allow it to occur according to the specific criteria, yes. Commissioner Vermilyea said he had a technical question — [Re: Page 6 of 10 — 18.785.020]. What do you mean by the word "charter "? Is that meant to be a licensed, registered, non - profit with the state corporation division — is that what the intent is there? Or is there some other charter that I'm not aware of? Is the City intending to issue a charter? No. So my suggestion then would be to put in language something along the lines of a public service or non - profit organization duly and properly licensed by the State of Oregon — or something along those lines because in order for a non - profit to operate legally in Oregon you have to register and file annual reports with the state corporations' division. So something along those lines to me seems to be a more specific set of language than "charter ". Commissioner Dbherty — So, in other words, when you talk about charter your intent was an organization that has a charter, a by -laws, a constitution, that kind of thing? C \LRPLN \Doreen \PC \PC Packets for 2009 \10- 19- 09 \ipc 10 -19 -09 toinutes.doc 6 Or was your intent that they had some recognition from the state? I really think that needs to be defined — I agree with Commissioner Vermilyea. Pagenstecher - We ran this by the City Attorneys and they had no problem with this language. Neither did they didn't suggest another language. They can be chartered public service — in other words by -laws and documents that they have this organization and operate under these rules, or they can be a non - profit organization. QUESTIONS OF APPLICANT TESTIMONY IN FAVOR: Phil Yount, 11222 Cottonwood Lane, Tigard — introduced himself as the "treasurer /janitor /rental manager" of the Tigard Grange. He's also a 17 year resident of the City of Tigard. He wanted to publically thank Ron Bunch and Gary Pagenstecher for their recognition of the problem confronting the Tigard Grange last spring and summer when they wanted to,implement a Farmer's Market activity on the Tigard Grange property and were not allowed to do so for longer than 30 days. When asked how the Tigard Farmer's Market could operate for longer than 30 days, he said they didn't really have an-answer to, that question — and thus, this meeting tonight. He said the Grange needs to have a way to earn funds to support the activities at the Grange. He hopes that the Planning Commission will see fit to recommend this to the City Council and they will end up passing it so thata year from now they can implement their Farmer's Market. I -Ie said he was concerned about one thing in the staff report. The one that says they will need to enumerate how they are satisfying all these different things, like visual access, parking, so on and so on. I -Ie said he's relatively confident they can do it but whether they can write it — they don't have writers and if they have to hire an attorney to write that application for them, that might be somewhat of a disadvantage... but they might just have to overcome it. He ended saying he encourages them to recommend this to the City Council. QUESTIONS OF YOUNT: What's your take on actually calling out specific months (such as May to October) as opposed to just giving a specific duration of time? We would probably be happier if it said "April to October" but I'm satisfied with May to October. That would fulfill all the requirements that we currently have. We have a strawberry vendor that works within the 30 day requirement. We also have a Christmas tree vendor that works within the 30 day requirement. If we could have the six months — seven would be better — but I don't think that's a critical need. Do you have concerns with dealing with traffic that might be coming in and out of the grange during the market on Hwy99? No — because we have entrance and egress as it stands and we have to deal with that during the Christmas tree season and the strawberry vending season as it is and haven't had any particular complaints about that. 1: \LRPLN \ Doreen \PC \PC Pockets for 2009 \10- 19- 09 \ipc 10-19 -09 minutcs.doc 7 TESTIMONY AGAINST Mr. Stan Baumhofer, PO Box 230421, Tigard 97281, President of the Tigard Area Farmers Market at 12950 SW Pacific Hwy, said he signed up as "against" the proposals, not so much that he's against anything that is proposed in the current code, but more the concept is that the more regulations you provide, the less chance a new business has of starting. His testimony is as follows: We have no objection to the grange having a market or any other body — so far as we're concerned— the more the better. Like a gas station on 4 corners. Some of the things being considered should include a definition of what a Farmer's Market is; To make it easier on staff so that if someone comes to the counter, there should probably be a definition of what's a "bazaar," and what's a "food cart ", what's a "Farmer's Market," what's a "garage sale" — so there's a definition as to where this potential applicant falls into your codes here. Also — considering whether it's a business for profit or a business not for profit. We started ours as a civic event and a venue for other non - profits to come at no charge by the market to display whatever they had — the Boy Scouts, the Chamber, the Red Cross Blood Drive, or the City itself, when it's promoting an issue, we're glad to have you there at no charge — cause that's what we're all about. We're run by volunteers — we do hire a manager for the actual market — I'd like to introduce Pat Benson here. She is our Market Manager. Whether the organization is a profit or non - profit should be of some concern. If Landmark Ford came in and said they wanted to have a market in their parking lot on Saturdays - that might be a separate concern or issue as to whether in comparison to a non - profit such as ourselves who are here for a civic purpose. We are registered with the Oregon Corporation Commission as a tax - paying corporation and we file a tax return every year. If we were to get to specific issues here I have a couple points. Specifically: the code exempts markets and yet you're trying to put allowances for temporary uses. If you want to talk about a timeframe in the context of running a market, I think it should say something like "less than a year." That way you don't have to worry about it being May 10th or May 12th or May 20th or something that specific. So you say less than a year — are you expecting us to come in every year and pay a new fee each time we renew our license? Is this code intended just to generate some more revenue for the City and therefore run up the expense of the Market itself? Limiting the type of products to be sold is another can of worms because — where do you stop — or where do you start on the different types of items to be sold. And if we do need approval every year, would you expect a fee from us? As to a new market starting and having to do a lot of studies... a "traffic study" — obviously we want to be concerned about the traffic but if you require so many studies — they're spending 4, 5, 7, 8, $10,000 just to go into business — they're never going to go into business. That is contrary to what I think the City should be doing. We've had over 75,000 people at our markets this summer — we compete with the Balloon Festival. Signage is an important thing for a market to succeed. What we would like to have is a permanent sign that says "This is the 1-Iome of the Tigard Area Farmer's Market" so 1: \LltPLN \ Doreen \l'C \PC Pacliets for 7009 \10- 19- 09 \tpc 10-19 -09 minutes.doc 8 people could contemplate 12 months of the year where we are and where we're going to appear when the market products come into vogue. QUESTIONS OF.MR. BAUMHOFER With respect to the timeframe - is May to October as enumerated in the statute sufficient? Is it better to make it April to October as Mr. Haagen suggested, or is it best to make it a range of 6,months, or 7 months, in terms of how you're going to operate and when you're going to operate? That pretty much hinges on what your product is going to be. If you're going to sell something that's winter month oriented, you require during that time of year and that's why I say you can't guess correctly and fit all... one size doesn't fit all. We found that those six months from the middle of May to the end of October fits the kind of product that we are focusing on. That might not always be true for us or some other market. So are you suggesting that we change it to be a range of a number of months to give that kind of flexibility? With any 12 month period I think would be the flexibility that would work best. At this point, President Inman asked if anyone else was in the audience who wished to testify. There were none. QUESTIONS OF STAFF Regarding the criteria — they could tend to lean toward being onerous... such as letter "C," the traffic study. It could be a very expensive endeavor. That and "D," documentation that there isrno adverse off -site impacts etc. How do you achieve that without paying consultants, and experts, and studies? I do see that, depending on how this is.intcrpreted, you could end up spending thousands of dollars documenting something. Is there a way to soften the language so an applicant can address their plan and these .concerns and then the planning director or somebody can require further documentation if they deem it necessary - to sort of allow somebody to "get in the door "? Pagenstccher: Not every site will have the same set of problems: It's entirely appropriate to attempt to make these standards achievable by non- profits who are doing something maybe once a week. I'd like a common sense approach — a less onerous approach. We need to take another look at these 5 criteria of 18.785.040 No. 6. And come up with a way to get to what you're talking about because I don't think the language that's in there now, gets there. Can you wordsmith this so that the goal is workable — allowing permitted uses for both of these entities? Yes — we can certainly do that. We have a few months until May to work this out. I: \LRPLN \Doreen \PC \PC Packets for 2009 \10- 19- 09 \(pc 10 -19 -09 minu[es.doc 9 President Inman asked for a. general consensus from the Planning Commission. If I'm hearing,this correctly, we'd like to go back and address these approval criteria, see if we can soften them up, get more of a sliding scale — something in there that's a little more potentially "user friendly." Is that correct? The Commission concurred. Commissioner Vermilyea added one thing that he wanted to be specific criteria — and that would be a call out for hours of operation. So the way it's written right now the modification is good for one year? So would they come in every year for a modification? Yes — they would renew it each year. What are the fees associated with that? Currently non - profits have no fees for renewal. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DELIBERATION The commission decided to continue this meeting and deliberations to November 2nd. 6. OTHER BUSINESS — None. 7. ADJOURNMENT President Inman adjourned the meeting at 8:50 pm. Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commi i Secretary 'Jed`_ - ( ..- 1- ---- ATTEST: President Jodie Inman 1: \I.RPLN \ Doreen \PC \PC Packets for 2009 \10- 19- 09 \tpc 10.19 -09 minutes.doc 10 ' �. } s t �� 0. .NSai a t 1.Th . .• :kt' rc"+.a l.k ..t a. R .o �*- C ode n owntwn,C�mendments w�,• CPA2009 -00003 sg ,u Proposal: -' DCA2009- 00005; am ZON2009.' - 0001 1 ^ f a a • Re -zones the Downtown Urban Renewal District : r , 7 4 w " b: new zoning classification MU -CBD and new - `4 ; r „4 i• I d 1_ i� $ f y r{' Comprehensive Plan designation Mixed Use --.- -- 5""T Central Business District Sr. 1 1'Repot t to the • MU -CBD zone includes sub -areas with different Tigard Piunmig Commission development standards Public Heating '" • • Adds design standards for new development Ottabr1-19. 2009 Y • Increases maximum density to 50 units /acre L y and tip to 80 units/acre in station area overlay fi .I Existing Proposed r yl 'Y W \ !!! ' 5� bj P o . � 'YY '� p'�•t Classifications: y C• p E1.1 y? fl A • . 1 CBD and CBD WO) y w �{, s g a . ✓ j Ml ed use /lows +^ A I p s up to 40 # /n 4 2 , I P of dZ Ing f • { e / It rre u ,f .$#y "f xt ' MU- 0 4' ,p CG 0 om . m:r( ial only , w (Pp dNO COo i s e f GP ! ' Il rI . A 1 Ili n re' owl f •12 y4•�� t DI: PIUS9 • • P : (MU12 -1 CPAH 'S^ 't Q b I (li d1 I f D l PraJca) l e. Ir P v k I .. 109 fit( P _�� t'. l P•,,„471 ...,,[ ..:' ^. :^.:. ',4 rv.':1 z °: _ w4 a ^.'.: ».. e•. ..s, _r. -:•s4. 's > #�'r.`x Citizen Engagement in Developing Meets Tigard Code Requirements Code ( Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390: • Comprehensive Plan Chapters'. • Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan Goal 1- Citizen Involvement • Joint subcommittee of the City Center Advisory Goal 2- Land Use Planning Goal 5- Natural Resources and Historic Areas Commission'and Planning Commission worked Goal 6 -Air, Water and Land Resom cea on draft code Goal 7- Hazards • Open - Houses in Jul 2008 and Jul 2009 Goal 8- Parks, Recreation Trails, and Open Space July July Goal 9- Economic Development • Community events Goal 10- Housing • CCAC meetin sand endorsement Goal 11- Public Facilities and Services g Goal 12- Transportation • Property owner. notification Goal 3- Energy Conservation Goal 14- W6anizatlnn Goal 15- Special Planning Areas - Downtown 1 Outstanding Issue: Meets Metro and State Requirements • . Metro Functional Plan Titles I, 2, 6, and 7; • Final Maximum Density and ODOT • Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2. 5, 6, 7,9, 10, 11, 12,13. and 14. Recommendation • That the Planning Commission recommend Approval to the City Council of the proposed Comprehensive plan Amendment, Development Code Amendment, and Zoning Map Amendment 2 f 744016 B, CyLoof 12205.5.W. HALL BOULEVARD olexander.cragheadegmail.com TIGARD OR 972234210 503.347.4059 October 19, 2009 Tigard Planning Commission City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Draft downtown land sae code. Good evening ladies and gendemen of the Planning Commission, -For those of you who do not know me, I am Alexander Craghead, Vide -Chair of the City Center Advisory Commission, and a • member the body that helped to draft the code before you tonight. I want to take this opportunity not to talk about the technical details of the code, but instead to acknowledge the people and the process that brought us to this historic point. The work product that is before you tonight would not have been possible without extensive cooperation between our two commissions. This cooperation took the form of the joint Commission Advisory Team, upon •which it has been-my pleasure to serve. I would. like to acknowledge the service on this body of Planning Comtnissionefs Tom Anderson, Karen Pishel, Stu Hasman, Jodie Inman, and Jeremy Vermilyea. On behalf of the CCAC members on the joint Commission Advisory Team, it has been a pleasure to work with you on this project. I would also like to thank fellow CCAC Commissioners Carolyn Barkley and Elise Shearer, and former CCAC Commissioner Roger Pothoff. Each of these individuals contributed significantly to journey that this code has taken from a germ of an idea to the draft that is before you tonight. With that,,and in recognition of the work that is before you tonight, I will cut my statement short, adding only that I think I can safely say that I speak for the entire CCAC when I say that it has been a pleasure and an honor working on this project with you, and we look forward, to working with you again in the future. Best. regards, 4 nay- Alexander B. Craghead Vice -Chair City Center Advisory Commission • • • • • Agenda Item # Meeting Date January 26. 2010 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Consider an Ordinance Re ealin• and Re lacin• Ti. rd Munici al Code MC 7.74 Emergency O.erations to Establish an Emergency Declaration Process to Enable the Ci 7 to Enact Tem.ora Emer•en Measures, and to Formalize the Succession Plan �(/ Prepared By: Dennis Koellermeier Dept Head Approval: 1./t City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall Council adopt an ordinance repealing and replacing TI\IC 7.74, Emergency Operations, to establish an emergency declaration process, to enable the City to enact temporary emergency measures, and to formalize the succession plan? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council approve the ordinance. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • The City first established an emergency management program in the mid -1980s and adopted an Emergency Operations Plan in 1996. The City continues to refine and improve its emergency operations program. • The existing Emergency Operations chapter of the TMC is quite brief and basically acknowledges the adoption of the Emergency Management Plan. • The proposed code incorporates this acknowledgement and adds language which: - Establishes the City's emergency declaration process. - Gives the City the authority to enact temporary emergency measures. Sample emergency measures include curfews, evacuations, street closures, etc. - Formalizes the City's succession plan which was originally outlined in the Emergency Management Plan. • Without this additional language, the City is limited in its ability to declare an emergency and impose emergency measures. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The Council could choose to not adopt the ordinance and provide staff with direction on how to proceed with emergency declarations and measures. CITY COUNCIL GOALS None ATTACHMENT LIST 1) Ordinance Repealing,and Replacing Tigard Municipal Code 7.74 Emergency Operations Exhibit A.— Tigard Municipal Code 7.74 Emergency Operations showing proposed replacement FISCAL NOTES Aside from some nominal administrative and legal expenses, there is no fiscal impact to the City.