Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Packet - 12/11/2012
TIGARD City of Tigard TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING December 11, 2012 COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED I: \Design & Communications \Donna \City Council \ccpkt1 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 • www.tigard- or.gov I N ■ • City of Tigard Tigard Business Meeting — Agenda TIGARD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MEETING DATE AND TIME: December 11, 2012 - 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 any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503 -639 -4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503 -684 -2772 (I'DD - 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 (I'DD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA VIEW LIVE VIDEO STREAMING ONLINE: http:/ /www.tvctv.org/ government - programming /government - meetings /tigard CABLE VIEWERS: The regular City Council meeting is shown live on Channel 28 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Thursday 6:00 p.m. Sunday 11:00 a.m. Friday 10:00 p.m. Monday 6:00 a.m. ■ • City of Tigard Tigard Business Meeting — Agenda TIGARD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING DATE AND TIME: December 11, 2012 - 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 A. Administrative Items Reviewed - Councilor Wilson - Non - Agenda Item Council Calendar: December 18 Farewell Meeting - Mayor Dirksen and Councilor Wilson; 6:30 reception; 7:30 special meeting. 25 Christmas Holiday - No meeting - City offices closed. January 1 New Year's Holiday - No CCDA meeting - City Hall offices closed. 8 Special Meeting - 6:30 reception, 7:30 swearing -in ceremonies, inaugural Remarks, election of council president. 10 Special Meeting - 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at Fanno Creek House; council groundrules, council liaison appointments, 2013 council goal setting. 15 Workshop Meeting - 6:30 p.m. 21 Martin Luther King Jr. Day - City Hall offices closed. 22 Business Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Study Session; 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting. February 12 Special Meeting, Tigard to host a joint meeting with the City of Beaverton (time to be determined). 18 Presidents Day - City Hall offices closed. 19 Workshop Meetting, 6:30 p.m. 26 Business Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Study Session; 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting. • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into 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. 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING - DECEMBER 11, 2012 A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Pledge of Allegiance D. Council Communications & Liaison Reports Council President Buehner - i.iaison Report E. Call to Council and Staff for Non - Agenda Items 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 7:35 p.m. - time is estimated A. Follow -up to Previous Citizen Communication B. Tigard High School Student Envoy (Note to Council President: Megan Risinger (rice -n -grrr) might be unable to attend; if not, she will attempt to find a substitute.) C. Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce - (Note to Council President: No report this evening; CEO Debi Mollahan will give a report at the next available business meeting, which will be January 22, 2013.) D. Citizen Communication — Sign Up Sheet 3. PROCLAIM DECEMBER 9 -15 AS HUMAN RIGHTS WEEK 7:45 p.m. - time is estimated (Note to Council President: Tigard's Assistant Police Chief Jim de Sully will be present for this proclamation representing the Human Rights Council of Washington County) 4. 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 item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 7:50 p.m. - time is estimated A. Approve City Council Meeting /City Center Development Agency Meeting Minutes for: 1. September 25, 2012 2. October 2, 2012 B. Receive and File: 1. Official November 6, 2012 Election Results - Electing a Mayor, Two City Councilors, and a Charter Amendment "Vote Required to Use Certain Funds for Light Rail Construction." 2. Council Calendar 3. Council Tentative Agenda for Future Meeting Topics C. Appoint Melody Graeber, Don Fisher and Cathy Hearn to the Budget Committee and Appoint Melanie Boekee as an Alternate Member - Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 12 -46 - A RESOLUTION APPOINTING MELODY GRAEBER, DON FISHER AND CATHY HEARN TO THE BUDGET COMMITTEE AND APPOINTING MELANIE BOEKEE AS AN ALTERNATE MEMBER. D. Appoint Peter Hedgecock to the Audit Committee - Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 12 -47 - A RESOLUTION APPOINTING PETER HEDGECOCK TO THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, BEGINNING ON JANUARY 1, 2013 E. Reappoint Matthew Muldoon and Appoint Timothy L. Gaschke and Brian K Feeney as Voting Members to the Planning Commission - Resolution RESOLUITON 12 -48 - A RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING MATTHEW MULDOON AND APPOINTING TIMOTHY L. GASCHKE AND BRIAN K FEENEY AS VOTING MEMBERS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION F. Appoint Laura Fisher, Tamera Slack and Paul Miller as Voting Members and Carine Arendes and Hemendra Mathur as Alternates to the City Center Advisory Commission - Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 12 -49 - A RESOLUTION APPOINTING LAURA FISHER, TAMERA SLACK AND PAUL MILLER AS VOTING MEMBERS OF THE CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AND APPOINTING CARINE ARENDES AND HEMENDRA MATHUR AS ALTERNATES TO THE CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION G. Appoint Jennifer Stanfield, Donald Schmidt, Evelyn Murphy Mark Bogert and George Hetu as Voting Members to the Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee - Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 12 -50 - A RESOLUTION APPOINTING JENNIFER STANFIELD, DONALD SCHMIDT, EVELYN MURPHY, MARK BOGERT, AND GEORGE HETU AS VOTING MEMBERS OF THE TIGARD TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TTAC) H. Approve the Purchase of the Rankin Property and Authorize the City Manager to Complete the Property Purchase - Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 12 -51 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF THE RANKIN PROPERTY, (TAX LOT 2S1 04DA 03500) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO TAKE ALL NECESSARY ACTION TO COMPLETE THE PROPERTY PURCHASE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY Amend City Manager's Employment Agreement • Consent A2enda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council / City Center Development Agency has voted on those items which do not need discussion. • 5. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING - TIGARD CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 2012 -00002 TO AMEND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP TO INCLUDE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR THE RIVER TERRACE COMMUNITY PLAN AREA BASED ON RECOMMENDED LAND USES FOUND IN WASHINGTON COUNTY'S WEST BULL MOUNTAIN CONCEPT PLAN AND AMEND THE CURRENT TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOAL 14: URBANIZATION POLICIES 7:55 p.m. - time is estimated Proposal: To amend the current Tigard Comprehensive Plan Map to include map designations for the River Terrace Community Plan area based on recommended land uses found in Washington County's West Bull Mountain Concept Plan; to amend current Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 14; Urbanization goals, polices, and recommendation actions. Applicant: City of Tigard, Oregon, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223 Location: River Terrace Community Plan Area Applicable Review Criteria: Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14; Metro Functional Plan Title 11; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5,6,7,8,9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. • Open Public Hearing • Review Hearing Procedures: City Attorney • Declarations or Challenges: Does any Council member wish to declare or discuss a conflict of interest or abstention. • Staff Report: Community Development Department • Public Testimony • Proponents • Opponents • Rebuttal • Staff Recommendation • Council Questions • Close Public Hearing • Council Consideration: Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 12 -12 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 2012 -00002 TO AMEND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP TO INCLUDE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR THE RIVER TERRACE COMMUNITY PLAN AREA BASED ON RECOMMENDED LAND USES FOUND IN WASHINGTON COUNTY'S WEST BULL MT. CONCEPT PLAN AND AMEND THE CURRENT TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOAL 14: URBANIZATION POLICIES 6. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING FOR TIGARD CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 2012 -00001 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA 2012 -00002 TO AMEND THE CITY OF TIGARD 2035 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN AND TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTERS 18.370, 18.610, AND 18.810 TO IMPLEMENT STREET CONNECTIVITY AND DESIGN STANDARDS FROM THE DOWNTOWN TIGARD CONCEPTUAL CONNECTIVITY PLAN 8:30 p.m. - time is estimated Proposal: To amend the City of Tigard 2035 Transportation System Plan and Tigard Development Code (Title 18) Chapters 18.370, 18.610 and 18.810 to implement the street connectivity and design standards recommended to the Downtown Tigard Conceptual Connectivity Plan. Applicant City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223 Location: Downtown Mixed Use Central Business District Zoning: MU -CBD Comp Plan: Mixed Use Central Business District Applicable Review Criteria: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, Citizen Involvement; 2, Land Use Planning, 9, Economic Development; 11, Public Facilities and Services; 12, Transportation; 13, Energy Conservation; and 15, Special Planning Areas: Downtown; Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 6, Metro Regional Transportation Functional Plan Titles 1, 2 and 5; Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 12; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 11, 12 and 13. • Open Public Hearing • Review Hearing Procedures: City Attorney • Declarations or Challenges: Does any Council member wish to declare or discuss a conflict of interest or abstention. • Staff Report: Community Development Department • Public Testimony • Proponents • Opponents • Rebuttal • Staff Recommendation • Council Questions • Close Public Hearing • Council Consideration: Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 12 -13 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 2012 -00001 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA 2012 -00002 TO AMEND THE CITY OF TIGARD 2035 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN AND TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTERS 18.370, 18.610, AND 18.810 TO IMPLEMENT STREET CONNECTIVITY AND DESIGN STANDARDS FROM THE DOWNTOWNTIGARD CONCEPTUAL CONNECTIVITY PLAN 7. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 8. NON AGENDA ITEMS A. NAME THE SUMMER CREEK PROPERTY THE " DIRKSEN NATURE PARK" IN HONOR OF TIGARD MAYOR CRAIG DIRKSEN. 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into 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 disdose 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. 10. ADJOURNMENT 9:30 p.m. - time is estimated AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 -D CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: December 11, 2012 (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 of persons 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: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: V( -4\"(\1 5 Address S City State Zip Phone No. Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION AIS -1067 3 Business Meeting Meeting Date: 12/11/2012 ((in minutes): Minutes min tes): 5 Min s e Agenda Title: Proclaim Human Rights Week Prepared For: Joanne Bengtson Submitted By: Joanne Bengtson, City Management Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Proclamation Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Should Mayor Dirksen proclaim December 9 -15 as Human Rights Week? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Mayor Dirksen received a request from the Washington County Human Rights Council to issue a proclamation from the City of Tigard in honor of Human Rights Week 2012. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The General Assembly of the United Nations approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948, declaring the "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." Each year, the international community recommits to the broader achievement of human rights. Numerous community, civic, religious and non - profit organizations and individuals work to ensure equal rights and protections for all residents. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Not issue the proclamation. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Mayor Dirksen issued a proclamation for Human Rights in December 2011. Attachments Human Rights Week - --4 .enc4a Z�d-en - i ' Iv tNTA L PACKET roger-r-ed �� a lla0l - �i� deS�Cl. � r TE OF MEETING) IP 11 1111 t IOW S , W INA V '' 1 � ` ar 4 ".911114,11111/ .4 Iv 111. applot. 01,, ,..,416• 41 , , ii Allif 1 161 0 t '‘ 111 Ala 11111 111 _., s 7 It .11111..../t. A ■ itso , ,,vit , . , „, , .., a p'a p ,, i �a I 'k, A \\ '1 ' .„ . .. .. i R I .... ,. _ _ , , . ., ,,,, .. - S 2012 Grand Prize Winner • • • Rohit Vedam, Jacob Wsmer Elementary School, Grade 5 Human Rights Council of Washington County Poster Contest www.humanrightswashco.org Human Rights ouncil el Ilsklmer, Cower AIS -1112 4. A. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 12/11/2012 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Approve City Council Meeting Minutes Submitted By: Cathy Wheatley, Administrative Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Consent Agenda Public Hearing: Publication Date: Information ISSUE Approve City Council meeting minutes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Approve minutes as submitted. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Minutes for the September 25, 2012 council meeting and the October 2, 2012 council/ CCDA meetings are attached. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N /A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A Attachments Council Minutes for September 25, 2012 Council-CCDA Minutes for October 2, 2012 AIS -1110 4. B.1, Business Meeting Meeting Date: 12/11/2012 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Receive and File: Election Results, Council Calendar and Council Tentative Agenda Submitted By: Cathy Wheatley, Administrative Services Consent - Receive Item Type: Receive and File Meeting Type: and File Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Receive and file the official election results for the November 6, 2012, City of Tigard election for a Mayor and two City Councilors and for a Charter Amendment "Vote Required to Use Certain Funds for Light Rail Construction." Receive and file the Council Calendar and the Tentative Agenda for future Council meetings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST No action requested; this is a receive and file summary for information purposes. BEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • When the City Recorder canvasses the votes as required by the Washington County Elections Division, a copy is filed with the City Council to officially "receive and file" the information. • As detailed in the Abstract of Votes, the following are the results of the election for the City of Tigard: • Mayor: John Cook (January 1, 2013 - December 31, 2014) • City Councilors (top two): Marland Howard Henderson and Jason Snider (January 1, 2013 - December 31, 2016) • Ballot Measure 34-203 Vote Required to Use Certain Funds for Light Rail Construction - Approved (82% yes; 18% no) • Attached are election results by precinct and a City of Tigard Precinct Map. Voter turnout for Washington County was 82 %; voter turnout for the City of Tigard was 83 %. • Also attached are the Council Calendar and the Tentative agenda for future Council meetings. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS Long - Term Council Goals: Continue pursuing opportunities to reduce traffic congestion. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A - Receive and File Items Attachments November 6, 2012, City of Tigard General Election Results Report and Precinct Map Three -Month Council Calendar Tentative Agenda WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON November 27, 2012 City Recorder City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard OR 97223 Enclosed you will find a copy of the Abstract of Votes for City of Tigard relating to the General Election held on November 6, 2012. In accordance with ORS 255.295, please canvass the votes and notify the Washington County Elections Division within thirty (30) days of receipt by signing and returning the bottom portion of this letter to: Washington County Elections Division 3700 SW Murray Blvd. Suite 101 Beaverton OR 97005 Thank you very much. Sincerely, Mickie Kawai Elections Manager MK/tk I have canvassed the votes for City of Tigard, relating to the General Election on November 6, 2012. By signing this canvass letter, I concur with the final results. 'a/Ls/ AUTHORIZING SIG ATUR DATE Department of Assessment & Taxation, Elections Division 3700 SW Murrray Blvd. Suite 101 Beaverton OR 97005 Phone: 503/846 -5800 Fax: 503/846 -5810 NUMBERED KEY CANVASS Washington County, Oregon Official Final General Election RUN DATE:11 /26/12 12:58 PM November 6. 2012 REPORT -EL52 PAGE 0086 VOTES PERCENT VOTES PERCENT City of Tigard Mayor Vote for 1 01 - Nick Wilson 8.490 46.05 02 - John Cook 9,831 53.32 04 = OVER VOTES 29 03 - WRITE-IN 117 .63 05 - UNDER VOTES 4,632 01 02 03 04 05 0400 400 794 964 16 4 544 0402 402 311 393 6 0 170 0403 403 1250 1513 17 6 574 0404 404 759 1054 10 3 443 0405 405 1461 1591 21 3 746 0406 406 926 1063 18 4 493 0408 408 1400 1665 12 5 722 0409 409 861 806 9 3 465 0416 416 532 555 6 1 335 0427 427 9 7 0 0 5 0450 450 5 14 0 0 9 0454 454 182 206 2 0 126 fe Qy ' ia Gl NUMBERED KEY CANVASS Washington County. Oregon Official Final General Election RUN DATE:11 /26/12 12:58 PM November 6. 2012 REPORT -EL52 PAGE 0087 VOTES PERCENT VOTES PERCENT City of Tigard Council Vote for 2 01 - Jason Snider 12.026 54.66 02 = Marland Howard Henderson 9,624 43.74 04 . OVER VOTES 0 03 = WRITE-IN 353 1.60 05 = UNDER VOTES 24.195 01 02 03 04 05 0400 400 1190 916 32 0 2506 0402 402 445 358 26 0 931 0403 403 1750 1431 51 0 3488 0404 404 1119 969 47 0 2403 0405 405 2001 1589 62 0 3992 0406 406 1313 1104 51 0 2540 0408 408 2043 1577 42 0 3946 0409 409 1149 868 20 0 2251 0416 416 738 584 14 0 1522 0427 427 9 8 0 0 25 0450 450 8 8 0 0 40 0454 454 261 212 8 0 551 0 � :, Furl ry. / r /0 qa t / J\ a .7 a r� dil �L NUMBERED KEY CANVASS Washington County, Oregon Official Final General Election RUN DATE:11 /26/12 12:58 PM November 6, 2012 REPORT -EL52 PAGE 0137 VOTES PERCENT VOTES PERCENT 34 -203 CITY OF TIGARD Vote for 1 01 = Yes 18.039 82.34 03 - OVER VOTES g 02 - No 3,869 17.66 04 = UNDER VOTES 1,182 01 02 03 04 0400 400 1782 402 1 137 0402 402 696 153 0 31 0403 403 2674 536 2 148 0404 404 1824 347 1 97 0405 405 2894 699 2 227 0406 406 2004 390 0 110 0408 408 2946 673 0 185 0409 409 1675 339 0 130 0416 416 1093 241 3 92 0427 427 10 10 0 1 0450 450 26 1 0 1 0454 454 415 78 0 23 am' u4. �OO hN .r SUMMARY REPORT Washington County. Oregon Official Final General Election November 6. 2012 Run Date:11 /26/12 01:07 PM Report EL45 Page 001 VOTES PERCENT VOTES PERCENT PRECINCTS COUNTED (OF 160) 160 100.00 Attorney General REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL 291.646 Vote for 1 BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL 238.969 Chris Henry (PRO) 3.011 1.39 VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL 81.94 James L Buchal (REP) 82 182 38.07 James E Leuenberger (CON) 5.460 2.53 United States President and Vice President Ellen Rosenblum (DEM) 124.761 57.80 Vote for 1 WRITE -IN 432 .20 Barack Obama (DEM) 135,291 57.08 Over Votes 20 Jill Stein (PAC) 1,817 .77 Under Votes 22,764 Ross C (Rocky) Anderson (PRO). . . . 379 .16 Gary Johnson (LBT) 3,543 1.49 Mitt Romney (REP) 93.974 39.65 State Senator. 12th District Will Christensen (CON) 416 .18 Vote for 1 WRITE -IN 1.603 .68 Annette Frank (DEM) 2 310 43.35 Over Votes 146 Brian J Boquist (REP) 3,013 56.54 Under Votes 1.800 WRITE -IN 6 .11 Over Votes 0 Under Votes 721 Representative in Congress. 1st District Vote for 1 Bob Ekstrom (CON) 4,495 2.03 State Senator, 14th District Delinda Morgan (REP) 74,562 33.62 Vote for 1 Suzanne Bonamici (DEM) 132,119 59.58 Mark Hass (DEM) 31,569 60.26 Steven Reynolds (PRO) 10.231 4.61 Mark Vetanen (LBT) 1,451 2.77 WRITE -IN 358 .16 Gary Coe (REP) 19.274 36.79 Over Votes 21 WRITE -IN 93 .18 Under Votes 17,183 Over Votes 5 Under Votes 5.528 Secretary of State Vote for 1 State Senator. 17th District Seth Woolley (PAC) 4.748 2.14 Vote for 1 Robert Wolfe (PRO) 2.776 1.25 Elizabeth Steiner Hayward (DEM) . . . 29,055 63.21 Bruce Alexander Knight (LBT) . . . 3,164 1.43 John Verbeek (REP) 16.821 36.60 Kate Brown (DEM) 115,639 52.13 WRITE -IN 89 .19 Knute Buehler (REP) 95.202 42.91 Over Votes 5 WRITE -IN 315 .14 Under Votes 6,154 Over Votes 25 Under Votes 16.761 State Senator, 18th District Vote for 1 State Treasurer Ginny Burdick (DEM) 13.340 54.73 Vote for 1 Suzanne Gallagher (REP) 10,964 44.98 Ted Wheeler (DEM) 130,584 59.88 WRITE -IN 70 .29 Cameron Whitten (PRO) 4.431 2.03 Over Votes 0 John F Mahler (LBT) 3.758 1.72 Under Votes 2,925 Michael Paul Marsh (CON) 1,666 .76 Tom Cox (REP) 77,341 35.47 WRITE -IN 283 .13 State Representative, 24th District Over Votes 22 Vote for 1 Under Votes 20 545 Jim Weidner (REP) 2.839 52.80 Kohler Johnson (LBT) 140 2.60 Kathy Campbell (DEM) 2.393 44.50 WRITE -IN 5 .09 Over Votes 0 Under Votes 673 SUMMARY REPORT Washington County. Oregon Official Final General Election November 6, 2012 Run Date:11 /26/12 01:07 PM Report EL45 Page 002 VOTES PERCENT VOTES PERCENT State Representative. 25th District State Representative, 31st District Vote for 1 Vote for 1 Paul Holman (DEM) 0 Brad Witt (DEM) 1,993 49.19 Ryan Haffner (LBT) 0 Robert Miller (LBT) 88 2.17 Kim Thatcher (REP) 1 100.00 Ray Biggs (CON) 51 1.26 WRITE -IN 0 Lew Barnes (REP) 1,912 47.19 Over Votes 0 WRITE -IN 8 .20 Under Votes 0 Over Votes 0 Under Votes 524 State Representative. 26th District Vote for 1 State Representative. 32nd District Wynne Wakkila (DEM) 9.034 44.39 Vote for 1 John Davis (REP) 11.267 55.36 Jim Welsh (CON) 1.429 33.79 WRITE -IN 51 .25 Deborah Boone (DEM) 2 415 57.11 Over Votes 1 Perry Roll (LBT) 349 8.25 Under Votes 3.013 WRITE -IN 36 .85 Over Votes 1 Under Votes 1,058 State Representative, 27th District Vote for 1 Burton Keeble (REP) 8,625 31.86 State Representative, 33rd District Tobias Read (DEM) 18,373 67.87 Vote for 1 WRITE -IN • 74 .27 Stevan Kirkpatrick (REP) 7.582 37.27 Over Votes 1 Mitch Greenlick (DEM) 12,718 62.51 Under Votes 3,588 WRITE -IN 44 .22 Over Votes 3 Under Votes 3.066 State Representative, 28th District Vote for 1 Jeff Barker (DEM) 14.841 60.57 State Representative, 34th District Manuel Castaneda (REP) 9.605 39.20 Vote for 1 WRITE -IN 55 .22 Chris Harker (DEM) 16,035 63.80 Over Votes 1 Dan Mason (REP) 9,023 35.90 Under Votes 2,757 WRITE -IN 75 .30 Over Votes 1 Under Votes 3,577 State Representative, 29th District Vote for 1 Katie Eyre (REP) 9.788 46.26 State Representative. 35th District Ben Unger (DEM) 11.312 53.46 Vote for 1 WRITE -IN 60 .28 Margaret Doherty (DEM) 14,035 57.49 Over Votes 2 John Goodhouse (REP) 10.335 42.33 Under Votes 1,248 WRITE•IN 45 .18 Over Votes 1 Under Votes 2.883 State Representative. 30th District Vote for 1 Kyle Markley (LBT) 1.441 5.79 State Representative. 37th District Shawn Lindsay (REP) 11,096 44.60 Vote for 1 Joe Gallegos (DEM) 12.299 49.44 Julie Parrish (REP) 5,489 49.05 WRITE -IN 43 .17 Carl Hosticka (DEM) 5,401 48.26 Over Votes 4 Meredith Love Taggart (LBT) . . . . 291 2.60 Under Votes 2,451 WRITE -IN 10 .09 Over Votes 2 Under Votes 1,069 SUMMARY REPORT Washington County, Oregon Official Final General Election November 6. 2012 Run Date:11 /26/12 01:07 PM Report EL45 Page 003 VOTES PERCENT VOTES PERCENT Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Ind. City of Banks Council - Position 4 Vote for 1 Vote for 1 Bruce Starr 83,757 46.16 Brian Biehl 446 97.38 Brad Avakian 96.653 53.26 WRITE -IN 12 2.62 WRITE -IN 1.051 .58 Over Votes 0 Over Votes 29 Under Votes 258 Under Votes 57,140 City of Banks Council - Position 6 Judge of the Supreme Court, Position 3 Vote for 1 Vote for 1 Christina Greagor 448 97.39 Richard C Baldwin 80.904 48.64 WRITE -IN 12 2.61 Nena Cook 84.235 50.64 Over Votes 0 WRITE -IN 1,203 .72 Under Votes 256 Over Votes 32 Under Votes 72,256 City of Beaverton Mayor Vote for 1 Judge of the Court of Appeals, Position 6 Denny Doyle 24,796 96.26 Vote for 1 WRITE -IN 964 3.74 James C Egan 87.470 55.91 Over Votes 2 Tim Volpert 67.876 43.38 Under Votes 12,852 WRITE -IN 1,106 .71 Over Votes 23 Under Votes 82,155 City of Beaverton Council Pos 3 Vote for 1 Mark Fagin 21,451 98.20 Judge of the Circuit Court. 20th District WRITE -IN 393 1.80 Vote for 1 Over Votes 3 Oscar Garcia 125.861 98.27 Under Votes 16.767 WRITE -IN 2,210 1.73 Over Votes 8 Under Votes 110,551 City of Beaverton Council Pos 4 Vote for 1 Catherine Arnold 21,523 98.40 Judge of the Circuit Court, 20th District WRITE -IN 350 1.60 Vote for 1 Over Votes 2 Janelle Factora Wipper 117,188 98.26 Under Votes 16,739 WRITE -IN 2,073 1.74 Over Votes 4 Under Votes 119.365 City of Cornelius Mayor Vote for 1 Jeffrey Dalin 2,133 94.09 City of Banks Mayor WRITE -IN 134 5.91 Vote for 1 Over Votes 0 John Kinsky 459 93.10 Under Votes 1,032 WRITE -IN 34 6.90 Over Votes 0 Under Votes 223 City of Cornelius Council Vote for 2 Dave Schamp 1,708 46.65 City of Banks Council - Position 2 Steven Heinrich 1,820 49.71 Vote for 1 WRITE -IN 133 3.63 Craig Stewart 454 97.01 Over Votes 0 WRITE -IN 14 2.99 Under Votes 2,937 Over Votes 1 Under Votes 247 • SUMMARY REPORT Washington County, Oregon Official Final General Election November 6, 2012 Run Date:11 /26/12 01:07 PM Report EL45 Page 004 VOTES PERCENT VOTES PERCENT City of Durham Council City of Hillsboro Council Ward 1 Pos B Vote for 3 Vote for 1 Keith Jehnke 447 33.09 NO CANDIDATE FILED 0 Chuck Van Meter 426 31.53 WRITE -IN 3.190 100.00 Leslie Gifford 451 33.38 Over Votes 0 WRITE -IN 27 2.00 Under Votes 32,164 Over Votes 0 Under Votes 653 City of Hillsboro Council Ward 2 Pos B Vote for 1 City of Forest Grove Council Olga Acuna 19,082 98.11 Vote for 3 WRITE -IN 367 1.89 Richard Kidd 3.900 22.32 Over Votes 4 Aldie Howard 3.094 17.71 Under Votes 15.901 Victoria Johnson 2,631 15.06 Victoria Lowe 3.669 21.00 Elena Uhing 3.862 22.10 City of Hillsboro Council Ward 3 Pos B WRITE -IN 319 1.83 Vote for 1 Over Votes 30 Fred Nachtigal 19.390 98.33 Under Votes 7.506 WRITE -IN 330 1.67 Over Votes 0 Under Votes 15.634 City of Gaston Council Pos 1 Vote for 1 Rick L Kloock Sr 120 90.23 City of King City Council WRITE -IN 13 9.77 Vote for 3 Over Votes 0 Dick Winn • 1.092 42.74 Under Votes 83 Suzan D Turley 1.152 45.09 WRITE -IN 311 12.17 Over Votes 0 City of Gaston Council Pos 2 Under Votes 3,733 Vote for 1 NO CANDIDATE FILED 0 WRITE -IN 48 100.00 Mayor LAKE OSWEGO CITY Over Votes 0 Vote for 1 Under Votes 168 Kent Studebaker 2 100.00 Greg Macpherson 0 WRITE -IN 0 City of Gaston Council Pos 3 Over Votes 0 Vote for 1 Under Votes 0 Richard T Sager 119 91.54 WRITE -IN 11 8.46 Over Votes 0 City Councilor LAKE OSWEGO CITY Under Votes 86 Vote for 3 Skip O'Neill 0 Dan Williams 0 City of Hillsboro Mayor Terry Jordan 0 Vote for 1 Bill Tierney 2 33.33 Jerry Willey 21.210 96.57 Karen Bowerman 2 33.33 WRITE -IN 754 3.43 Jon Gustafson 2 33.33 Over Votes 0 WRITE -IN 0 Under Votes 13,390 Over Votes 0 Under Votes 0 SUMMARY REPORT Washington County, Oregon Official Final General Election November 6. 2012 Run Date:11 /26/12 01:07 PM Report EL45 Page 005 VOTES PERCENT VOTES PERCENT City of North Plains Mayor City of Sherwood Council Pos 4 Vote for 1 Vote for 1 David Hatcher 675 93.36 Linda Henderson 5.110 96.98 WRITE -IN 48 6.64 WRITE -IN 159 3.02 Over Votes 0 Over Votes 0 Under Votes 231 Under Votes 3.297 City of North Plains Council City of Sherwood Council Pos 5 Vote for 3 Vote for 1 Charlynn Newton 505 29.50 Krisanna Clark 5.204 97.40 Robert Kindel 604 35.28 WRITE -IN 139 2.60 Teri Lenahan 528 30.84 Over Votes 0 WRITE -IN 75 4.38 Under Votes 3,223 Over Votes 3 Under Votes 1,147 City of Sherwood Council Pos 6 Vote for 1 Mayor PORTLAND CITY Robyn Thompson Folsom 5,158 97.45 Vote for 1 WRITE -IN 135 2.55 Jefferson Smith 185 29.60 Over Votes 0 Charlie Hales 395 63.20 Under Votes 3,273 WRITE -IN 45 7.20 Over Votes 1 Under Votes 125 City of Tigard Mayor Vote for 1 Nick Wilson 8,490 46.05 Commissioner. Pos. 1 PORTLAND CITY John Cook 9.831 53.32 Vote for 1 WRITE -IN 117 .63 Mary Nolan 239 46.68 Over Votes 29 Amanda Fritz 269 52.54 Under Votes 4,632 WRITE -IN 4 .78 Over Votes 2 Under Votes 237 City of Tigard Council Vote for 2 Jason Snider 12,026 54.66 City Councilor RIVERGROVE CITY Marland Howard Henderson 9,624 43.74 Vote for 3 WRITE -IN 353 1.60 Arne Nyberg 16 32.00 Over Votes 0 David Dull 17 34.00 Under Votes 24.195 William (Bill) Tuttle 13 26.00 WRITE -IN 4 8.00 Over Votes 0 City of Tualatin Council Pos 2 Under Votes 25 Vote for 1 Monique Beikman 4.385 55.34 Jan Giunta 3,473 43.83 City of Sherwood Mayor WRITE -IN 66 .83 Vote for 1 Over Votes 1 Bill Middleton 4,465 56.42 Under Votes 2.350 Keith Mays 3,418 43.19 WRITE -IN 31 .39 Over Votes 1 City of Tualatin Council Pos 4 Under Votes 651 Vote for 1 Ed Truax 5,987 97.65 WRITE -IN 144 2.35 Over Votes 0 Under Votes 4,144 SUMMARY REPORT Washington County. Oregon Official Final General Election November 6. 2012 Run Date:11 /26/12 01:07 PM Report EL45 Page 006 VOTES PERCENT VOTES PERCENT City of Tualatin Council Pos 5 Soil & Water Director Zone 3 Vote for 1 TUALATIN SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DIS Nancy Grimes 5,721 97.85 Vote for 1 WRITE -IN 126 2.15 Thomas Dierickx 120,727 98.55 Over Votes 0 WRITE -IN 1,772 1.45 Under Votes 4.428 Over Votes 6 Under Votes 116,125 City of Tualatin Council Pos 6 Vote for 1 Soil & Water Director At Large 1 Joelle Davis 5,826 97.83 TUALATIN SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DIS WRITE -IN 129 2.17 Vote for 1 Over Votes 0 Anthony Mills 50.736 42.42 Under Votes 4,320 Steven VanGrunsven 67 213 56.19 WRITE -IN 1.661 1.39 Over Votes 33 Mayor WILSONVILLE CITY Under Votes 118,987 Vote for 1 Stanley Wallulis 8 4.32 Tim Knapp 150 81.08 State Measure 77 Richard Goddard 27 14.59 Vote for 1 WRITE -IN 0 Yes 130,482 60.75 Over Votes 0 No 84.291 39.25 Under Votes 52 Over Votes 18 Under Votes 23,839 City Councilor WILSONVILLE CITY Vote for 2 State Measure 78 Susie Stevens 77 28.95 Vote for 1 Monica Keenan 35 13.16 Yes 162,269 75.27 Eric Postma 48 18.05 No 53,320 24.73 . Julie Fitzgerald 104 39.10 Over Votes 14 WRITE -IN 2 .75 Under Votes 23.027 Over Votes 0 Under Votes 208 State Measure 79 Vote for 1 Soil & Water Director Zone 1 Yes 129,333 59.09 TUALATIN SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DIS No 89,534 40.91 Vote for 1 Over Votes 74 Jerry Ward 121.355 98.43 Under Votes 19.689 WRITE -IN 1,933 1.57 Over Votes 7 Under Votes 115.335 State Measure 80 Vote for 1 Yes 100,518 43.91 Soil & Water Director Zone 2 No 128,376 56.09 TUALATIN SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DIS Over Votes 33 Vote for 1 Under Votes 9.703 Eldon Jossi 120.358 98.56 WRITE -IN 1,753 1.44 Over Votes 5 State Measure 81 Under Votes 116,514 Vote for 1 Yes 75,885 35.21 No 139,628 64.79 Over Votes 66 Under Votes 23.051 i I SUMMARY REPORT Washington County, Oregon Official Final General Election November 6, 2012 Run Date:11 /26/12 01:07 PM Report EL45 Page 007 VOTES PERCENT VOTES PERCENT State Measure 82 34 -203 CITY OF TIGARD Vote for 1 Vote for 1 Yes 62.858 27.74 Yes 18,039 82.34 No 163,717 72.26 No 3.869 17.66 Over Votes 39 Over Votes 9 Under Votes 12.016 Under Votes 1.182 State Measure 83 3 -405 LAKE OSWEGO CITY Vote for 1 Vote for 1 Yes 65,553 28.94 Yes 0 No 160,951 71.06 No 2 100.00 Over Votes 30 Over Votes 0 Under Votes 12,096 Under Votes 0 State Measure 84 3 -406 LAKE OSWEGO CITY Vote for 1 Vote for 1 Yes 101,409 45.48 Yes 0 No 121,562 54.52 No 2 100.00 •Over Votes 62 Over Votes 0 Under Votes 15.597 Under Votes 0 State Measure 85 26 -145 PORTLAND CITY Vote for 1 Vote for 1 Yes 136,254 61.02 Yes 411 67.60 No 87.042 38.98 No 197 32.40 Over Votes 30 Over Votes 0 Under Votes 15,304 Under Votes 143 34 -200 CITY OF CORNELIUS 26-146 PORTLAND CITY Vote for 1 Vote for 1 Yes 1.644 53.95 Yes 445 63.48 No 1.403 46.05 No 256 36.52 Over Votes 0 Over Votes 1 Under Votes 252 Under Votes 49 34 -201 CITY OF CORNELIUS 34 -202A TONQUIN ANNEX TO SHERWOOD Vote for 1 Vote for 1 Yes 1.462 46.86 Yes 6 42.86 No 1,658 53.14 No 8 57.14 Over Votes 2 Over Votes 0 Under Votes 177 Under Votes 3 34 -202 CITY OF SHERWOOD 26 -144 PORTLAND SCHOOL Vote for 1 Vote for 1 Yes 5,158 67.65 Yes 1.017 62.01 No 2,467 32.35 No 623 37.99 Over Votes 0 Over Votes 0 Under Votes 941 Under Votes 131 SUMMARY REPORT Washington County. Oregon Official Final General Election November 6, 2012 Run Date:11 /26/12 01:07 PM Report EL45 Page 008 VOTES PERCENT 34-198 ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT Vote for 1 Yes 41,407 51.12 No 39.600 48.88 v - 4 CUM!y /S {. Over Votes 10 �� /p Under Votes 7.652 o tr ' F � y Cj o Y o� � v COUP • CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE ANC) CORRECT C PY OF THE ORIGINAL Onto J /_ WASHINGTON COUNTY � .,r � TO DIVISION NUMBERED KEY CANVASS Washington County, Oregon Official Final General Election RUN DATE:11 /26/12 12:58 PM November 6. 2012 REPORT -EL52 PAGE 0001 TOTAL PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT 01 = REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL 291,646 03 = VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL 81.94 02 = BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL 238.969 01 02 03 0301 301 1679 1437 85.59 0302 302 2150 1679 78.09 0303 303 945 . 743 78.62 0304 304 2861 2297 80.29 0305 305 913 . 716 78.42 0306 306 605 . 487 80.50 0307 307 1670 1354 81.08 0308 308 201 . 165 82.09 0309 309 4400 3648 82.91 0310 310 1611 1376 85.41 0311 311 653 . 535 81.93 0312 312 763 . 656 85.98 0313 313 53 . 42 79.25 0314 314 345 . 303 87.83 0315 315 957 . 824 86.10 0316 316 788 . 688 87.31 0317 317 960 . 820 85.42 0318 318 2496 2014 80.69 0319 319 1117 . 876 78.42 0320 320 2700 2143 79.37 0321 321 301 . 216 71.76 0322 322 368 . 293 79.62 0323 323 2986 2344 78.50 0324 324 454 . 357 78.63 0325 325 3 . . 2 66.67 0326 326 1730 1487 85.95 0327 327 3333 2624 78.73 0328 328 1269 1057 83.29 0329 329 3623 2939 81.12 0330 330 1198 . 955 79.72 0331 331 2269 1814 79.95 0332 332 2128 1762 82.80 0333 333 3474 2504 72.08 0334 334 123 . 116 94.31 0335 335 4531 3801 83.89 0336 336 2791 2250 80.62 0337 337 3900 2956 75.79 0338 338 4393 3301 75.14 0339 339 2115 1462 69.13 0340 340 3022 2452 81.14 0341 341 323 . 282 87.31 0342 342 116 . 100 86.21 0343 343 4442 3563 80.21 0344 344 4139 3168 76.54 0345 345 28 -. 24 85.71 0346 346 292 . 246 84.25 0347 347 62 . 49 79.03 0348 348 30 . 28 93.33 0349 349 2620 1991 75.99 0350 350 3148 2438 77.45 0351 351 2507 1866 74.43 0352 352 872 . 600 68.81 0353 353 2020 1673 82.82 0354 354 3891 3305 84.94 0355 355 3106 2487 80.07 0356 356 1908 1502 78.72 • NUMBERED KEY CANVASS Washington County. Oregon Official Final General Election RUN DATE:11 /26/12 12:58 PM November 6. 2012 REPORT•EL52 PAGE 0002 TOTAL PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT 01 = REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL 291.646 03 = VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL 81.94 02 = BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL 238,969 (CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) 01 02 03 0357 357 1569 1185 75.53 0358 358 1896 1508 79.54 0359 359 2073 1600 77.18 0360 360 2816 2232 79.26 0361 361 1801 1285 71.35 0362 362 3684 3168 85.99 0363 363 3387 2837 83.76 0364 364 4407 3859 87.57 0365 365 2838 2545 89.68 0366 366 2117 1770 83.61 0367 367 3755 3152 83.94 0368 368 3974 3296 82.94 0369 369 1873 1557 83.13 0370 370 2249 1930 85.82 0371 371 2297 1945 84.68 0372 372 1731 1522 87.93 0373 373 324 . 283 87.35 0374 374 11 . 10 90.91 0375 375 276 . 252 91.30 0376 376 1979 1668 84.28 0377 377 2338 2030 86.83 0378 378 1725 1458 84.52 0379 379 3569 2852 79.91 0380 380 2300 1985 86.30 0381 381 764 . 590 77.23 0382 382 3221 2497 77.52 0383 383 1441 1224 84.94 0384 384 2399 2100 87.54 0385 385 3042 2609 85.77 0386 386 2896 2536 87.57 0387 387 698 . 585 83.81 0388 388 276 . 200 72.46 0389 389 2423 2015 83.16 0390 390 3811 3179 83.42 0391 391 354 . 276 77.97 0392 392 195 . 160 82.05 0393 393 623 . 546 87.64 0394 394 146 . 112 76.71 0395 395 2581 2105 81.56 0396 396 793 . 668 84.24 0397 397 2479 2130 85.92 0398 398 841 . 725 86.21 0399 399 2264 1879 82.99 1'0400 400 2854 2322 81.36 0401 401 1760 1531 86.99 T0402 402 1046 . 884 84.51 7'0403403 3955 3368 85.16 7 '0404 404 2656 2270 85.47 r0405 405 4643 3831 82.51 +`0406 406 3236 2508 77.50 0407 407 1661 1469 88.44 7 0408 408 4455 3808 85.48 1N- 0409 409 2626 2147 81.76 0410 410 2953 2480 83.98 0411 411 2721 2114 77.69 0412 412 1889 1636 86.61 0413 413 719 . 593 82.48 1 NUMBERED KEY CANVASS Washington County. Oregon Official Final General Election RUN DATE:11 /26/12 12:58 PM November 6. 2012 REPORT -EL52 PAGE 0003 TOTAL PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT 01 = REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL 291,646 03 - VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL 81.94 02 = BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL 238,969 (CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) 01 02 03 0414 414 585 . 490 83.76 0415 415 471 . 432 91.72 PO416 416 1729 1430 82.71 0417 417 1285 1010 78.60 0418 418 1955 1642 83.99 0419 419 1653 1486 89.90 0420 420 3312 2800 84.54 0421 421 294 . 253 86.05 0422 422 116 . 89 76.72 0423 423 3180 2491 78.33 0424 424 4258 3584 84.17 0425 425 1004 . 869 86.55 0426 426 317 . 281 88.64 X0427 427 26 . 21 80.77 0428 428 1463 1150 78.61 0429 429 1943 1543 79.41 0430 430 2045 1758 85.97 0431 431 1294 1148 88.72 0432 432 327 . 237 72.48 0433 433 2233 1903 85.22 0434 434 3632 2992 82.38 0435 435 3741 3161 84.50 0436 436 2110 1850 87.68 0437 437 62 . 55 88.71 OF COMM/J:5, 0438 438 245 . 206 84.08 �O 0439 439 235 . 195 82.98 �p .,. �' 0440 440 1386 1059 76.41 * �' a 0441 441 71 . 60 84.51 0442 442 839 . 711 84.74 r.�;x^: ' ' Z 0443 443 20 . 18 90.00 y r `, 0444 444 1334 1143 85.68 � � � 0445 445 703 . 603 85.78 1941 C OU4 0446 446 3786 3146 83.10 0447 447 2156 1810 83.95 0448 448 438 . 328 74.89 0449 449 109 . 73 66.97 70450 450 31 . 28 90.32 canna) TO SE A TRUE AND 0451 451 800 . 627 78.38 CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL 0452 452 2189 1627 74.33 hate A/2 .-g /-. 0453 453 50 . 33 66.00 7-0454 454 624 . 518 83.01 WASHINGTON COUNTY 0455 455 20 . 17 85.00 EI.E DIVISION 0457 457 2177 1827 83.92 ey 0458 458 2540 2204 86.77 � • 0459 459 2817 2228 79.09 0460 460 2373 1711 72.10 0461 461 2876 2279 79.24 , ,_________ 209._ , .i_____Ipti.,.. „,I..., f . , , _____, ,. , ,- I. r :„. I .._:, - - ' J' ' 'i 4,.. • "-i • ,-..., I i '''7-9 ROW 1/4- ."-- ' ,._ _1 .,.-,' ,, -. ' -- i C G. g . - - -3 I .:_ ---- i , 2_. ( r - t __:_.? ." , I--- __, ,, --- - If . -7 - i ..... . ■ . /1' ..' 1 1)‘ - \ tili2 ---2- It \ -' - '1 . . .., , . - - . .... ,' Al 1_,....( ' L ',', -,.... . ,1_,-- -- ----_, --/ f \ • - ,. -- 1 1 388 .. I 's , - 7 , 140:15_ L T ._ I Voting ._,444; f-___.-,,,' ) i----.' ; i t ,, -- - , , ----, L,.9.4ies<, # i iz,°,; p - I r f - ' ,.":7 1,t - - 1 - -I- ;. .. /- L. relsta'All' . '. . ---- , -- -......„ _— • 4 "r” ' . i-- j— I _ ., I f - . , --' .....-- .,, _ 1 , LI ,I I i Z 8- -.: - ---- . , s.., ''''-- --c - -- I -- ' 1 **awl" f 1 I - Precincts L _ - . - _f___, . ---, - ' , ! fr-N - . --- ---\,' ',, i NMI - ' 59Z NM* I II/ i , 0-3 - -LL _ __L , ,,._.4___ , - .,,,,,-- I ...bine.. ,„.., ,,, _ ...,_ I \ a V ,,..` 7 • -- ' ' ' E , ; , Square Mo A lt ow ',h.; ,,, I _____., ' ‘-4 1 1 J I , -1 • L i . H -n -1 -- t , ? , .. \ ' T : s - \ ' 4 ._„...;_i , i , • .. _ ,_ - . _ - ex , . - ._ ■_ - i _ j i . E._,_.L. , :. - 7-__,, 4 -., ( boo --InCt 1 ' Iii,,,,Ic'‘.411111W:1-- 7 inirlI:T 1 IV.' Ili III- 111‘ ' 41111111 , , ■ It - 21-1 ANIL –____ ,. _r i ..,, ., ,..; WaTr 4 Fr..... ,./ ■,.7 * 1‘..-L_M__, \ ral - ! ) -- 4.- ' 7 ,,,I., City of Tigard Oregon it (z - --I— I__ : I . !I ...>• . , .. !_l_.....2_, x .. ...,,__ ,....‹... -...„,,,..., i , .., *- -- - -A \-.-. "n',•: \.. - 1 , - --1- --) j , (,---- - '' . ' 'Z. j - r ---- rt---- -,_.> t --. - . , - — --c.2---. - a ,.. - ,,-.....-- ir. s Awl „,. --'` _Fit , t 395 .. :7,7," . -).___ defillil , , altria4. I . S r' 16 IN , ass1111 __ -- ----- "" C-1-` 'EP% -_ - , 10 e II , r , I ,. . ..... t... , Ate _iit,• m • n r g r - - F i • , . , 1 ,., , , , , i N, : .,,, ^-,.. — 1 ' i t J 41P i 1 . , . . , _ . ' it Precincts 1 0 L--- ---- s - -, --% ----- - $1 Nellipmi Li ., _....., i___,398, ___ .- 1 ------ -- — - rl Tigard City Boundary __, , ---- •-„ /Alit, , . ...... OS . ...., ( ... , .... . . .. • i -4 - 1.1 ..::_ ",— .......... _. ,.,. \ 1 : 1411 °W.H.s. - r- ,; -: 4 • ---4: [ - E- 7- ~ ; V ; q c q,-,' . I :, Er _,F.:.: . - 16 ` ` - ' , iii i i m. ,,, ..",,,, rp .,- ,, 1 // 1 ,ro Amok I l i . . 11 ift--- - . , k. / Crescent ' Hie - I , ', .." Grove ; ,-.'" - t , ,1 ,. 1111RIXT0y.0 1 1,,, , 411111111 gi -4 , J ,;_:. ONIPP_ .7:• 111.161111r 411 -, ' : - _ , , etery - 7 I , 1 , ii..4 _ k& 1 . , V , 7- ' . I -- , m il i , . i mil , - s in - .-- r ._._ - t r - ...At i i ‘ ' I I.- if ,,,, - - a , \-406 '--- -- , L I 1... IIIII I - ail . ( • i — WPM - ., - -,1: . 11 ..„ '---\)-/ : ' :- '. III _ ,..., * i I , 1 TT • I-1 5 --L- '._1 ?, 1 iii4 vi Ao s luta c 402 I pi, 4 ,,,,, s .„ .. RD , \ _ 11 ili 110 v''( I - '- ) I ..,..., Li.l./, - ,:.• . - own. 7 0. - '7' ,,, 1117 4 .4 iiir . . ,, . _ k,... . ,.. ,,mmoogs _,. ..... I I .,.. - 'y-' --,, 1 .. . . „. 1 _ ,. 1 lir ,is.Lseoao P.RRA,iy,. , "• 1 7- --1' ' 1 - f4 1 ■us. ,,,z,„ ME v... , \‘ - ir 1 f 'GRESHAM L -..- — ., --' -'..- - - -4. ,.. -: , 7 Gee , ,,, = -_ - -A-'.% '1( '. 4: sE411*/ ,,..., / I - L_. ..„. — i , ,____.! ., i - I • 414 P -. a I MEM . i I i „, Ar ME lb 011esap , ,0 - 1 1 i -- ,-- I ,. ' .,'', 1 27 - ' j - — _ _ l '„v - * .., .. . . . - - ,-,-/ -1 ,' ..' -: ___1- - i ___ , tibipivie i , 4 • . - In *AM '' ' , . g INIIiii...7i MIEWALMIE ' :`, 4 ,4: .,' ,', 1 i mr fon.■. , ; ' -- ------ BONIW '' — -- - .../ , %:.. - I.,705INEGO \, J ....... ‘,,.l. war ....... .....4 IC - w. , : F mili , , 1 , ,., - - . - " ,.. 1— - {: ( FitU - ---- j (...; I ' ' - 0 ---t L -- - i k / ' 14 z 111 Ikt 4isl . i __ 1.._k_i_ __, - p j......4! . illL. II - sox 405 - --. -,• -, : -t...t4`;1„. ....;-: -.^' Aliir. ,...-- .# ....- !) 1 re ,--' La co , :i --- , 71 iiiii , ii • _ Tiff , . ,- 1 .. . , ,..,=, ." ■ I , V .; i ' Ml s l 11166....*. I t.,./ 1 i , . / . i ..._ , ..., --, , ,\_1_7,..,„,,, , , K i i Li 4_, i i Y '/,' '-' , it r. I ''' ‘• , '. h.: - Ma - , ! ,./ 410 i i l l L -1 es osc-44‘ , 4--l 4 9 --,--,,_ / -, _ , • ,..,-, .. . , . . ., . , 1_ , e , e 4, r-----; -.- „, ,, 11, - M : . 1 . p : (4c5 r r g . „/ ' wi de _______ _i , \ s 1 --- , - 7 ""' ,... , . . • 12/1/2012 Map Created. . i i ' I / -- ref tromffiall MI ir 408 , ---- r 14-4 - - illf • 7 f AO 111 - rt.* , - ; — I- ..., • 1 -. -- pir.i4 fFi , fil _' 1. _LI-C P. ----- - -''';`:'''''''',, , %. 0 - -: :' * on , ' ,::-.;,,,, L._. ,r ,t,.. L_ • e 11111 I F , a ....- - -- 1 , si we pope 7 i . _ f , _ . .. f '' --, r- 41.3' .4.- dilial .,, ,,,.._. . ,.._. 4,.. "A Place to Call Home" . ,-- k, 1 \ L-t- L-1 ,..-,ir _,.. . ---7--- - TM, E if i - . ( 62- . 1 pi 437 I I l , .. . i *4 __•.(/ .- - N, ,t \-- --- \\ r j - - - 1- ,_. J. : j _ , T.1:._ ,,44 .,,,„,,,H,„,,,,,f„, . , - 396 ...,,,,,, z ,‘„, . „ ,/ 2 ., , . -,- a ua ,,,L. .. 44,-,-.: I ,...? _t........__LL.LT7' 3 • Il. ' / 1 ---... II City of Tigard, Oregon 1 113 - 4 ,__ 431 .---.1) Tlailr —1 — - River Natowl 0 Wildlife Refuge . 1 . 41-7 1 ) 1 ' - CA. , 428 , r i - _____. --- - 1 - 1 -- ) C L , ____ . .L. - .. r , -,.._ . f , i araleaa c , '1 1 OWnerraib D wriaiiii . 1 1 N 1 II /-4, '_ ' M A i i i _____. _ a! a a- z , - I O \ i..-i ,e-_,I ..L. J . . 5 ) 1 4 ' --; ' 4 : --Jenseaas g , r ow Amer .---..a 4.4 13125 SW Hall Blvd i Tiga 0 _ , www tigard-or gov Ti(jARL\ 425 I S' a ■ - ' . Path' WiggisdbtlevlIGeoprocessinglklapGallery_MXDs\b_admin_bndrof_pfecinctstprecincts1117.myt Agenda Item No. Ba lig For Agenda of December 11. 2012 1111 MEMORANDUM T I GARD TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council /City Center Development Agency Board FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder RE: Three -Month Council /CCDA Meeting Calendar DATE: December 3, 2012 December 4 Tuesday Council Meeting and City Center Development Agency Meeting – Town Hall – 6:30 p.m. 11* Tuesday Council Business Meeting –6:30 p.m., Town Hall 18* Tuesday Council Meeting – Mayor's Farewell Reception, Remarks and Blue Ribbon Task Force Report – 6:30 p.m., Town Hall 25* Tuesday Christmas – City Hall offices closed January 1 Tuesday New Year's Day – City Hall offices closed 8* Tuesday Council Meeting - Reception, Oath of Office Ceremony, State of the City, Elect Council President – 6:30 p.m., Town Hall 10 Thursday Council Groundrules Review; Goal Setting Meeting – Fanno Creek House, 9 a.m. – 5 p.m. 15* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting -6:30 p.m., Town Hall 21 Monday Martin Luther King, Jr. Day – City Hall offices closed 22 Tuesday Council Business Meeting –6:30 p.m., Town Hall February 5 Tuesday City Center Development Agency – 6:30 p.m., Red Rock Creek Conference Room 12* Tuesday Special Meeting- Joint Meeting with City of Beaverton City Council – 6:30 p.m., . Town Hall l ' 18 Monday President's Day – City Hall offices closed. 19* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting – 6:30 p.m., Town Hall 26* Tuesday Council Business Meeting – 6:30 p.m., Town Hall Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk ( *). I: \adm \city council \council calendar \3 -month calendar for c mtg 121211.doc Key: .A end a 1- - em Al e. Meeting Banner ❑ Business Meeting ❑ N . I a I 1 1 Idc I Study Session ❑ Special Meeting ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ Meeting is Full . Workshop Meeting ❑ City Council Tentative Agenda 12/3/2012 10:40 AM - Updated Form Meeting Submitted Meeting Inbox or # Date _By Type Title Department Finalized 827 12/11/2012 Carol Krager AAA Meeting Date: 12/11/2012 1 Absences to Note: Councilor oodard i -I 1001 12/11/2012 iz Lutz ACONSENT Consent Item - Appoint Budget Committee Members Financial and Newton L, Information Assistant City Services Manager 1080 12/11/2012 Doreen ACONSENT Consent Item - Appoint Three Voting Members to the Community 11/20/2012 Laughlin Planning Commission Development 1081 12/11/2012 Sean ACONSENT Consent Item - Appoint members to City Center Advisory Community Newton L, Farrelly Commission Development Assistant City Manager 1096 12/11/2012 Liz Lutz ACONSENT Consent Item - Appoint Audit Committee Member Financial and Newton L, Information Assistant City Services Manager 1100 12/11/2012 Judith Gray ACONSENT Consent Item - Appoint Members to the Tigard Community Newton L, Transportation Advisory Committee - Resolution Development Assistant City Manager 1105 12/11/2012 Loreen Mills ACONSENT Consent Item - Consider Approving the Purchase of the City Management Mills L, Asst to Rankin Property and Authorizing the City Manager to City Manager Complete the Property Purchase 1106 12/11/2012 Sandy ACONSENT Consent Item - Amendment to City Manager Employment City Management Newton L, Zodrow Agreement Assistant City Manager i:\adm\carol\tentatv ag \2012 \december 3 2012.docx Key: Meeting Banner ❑ Business Meeting ❑ Study Session ❑ Special Meeting ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ Meeting is Full . Workshop Meeting ❑ City Council Tentative Agenda 12/3/2012 10:40 AM - Updated I ----- --HI 1067 12/11/2012 Joanne CCBSNS 1 5 Minutes - Proclaim Human Rights Week City Management 10/29/2012 I Bengtson 1063 12/11/2012 Darren Wyss CCBSNS 2 40 Minutes - Public Hearing - River Terrace Community Newton L, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Development Assistant City Manager 1022 12/11/2012 Sean CCBSNS 3 60 Minutes - Legislative public hearing for Downtown Community Newton L, Farrelly Connectivity Plan Code Amendments Development Assistant City Manager I If Total Time: 105 of 110 minutes have been scheduled F II 1 :_ :- 11 1031 12/18/2012 Liz Newton CCWKSHOP 60 Minutes - Farewell reception for Mayor Dirksen City Management 1032 12/18/2012 Liz Newton CCWKSHOP 45 Minutes - Mayor's Blue Ribbon Task Force Report City Management I followed by 20 minutes - Farewell Speech - Mayor Dirksen _ _ inutes have been scheduled - I II 1037 01/08/2013 Cathy AAA January 8, 2013 - Inaugural Remarks; Oaths; Photos, I Wheatley Elect Council President I 11 1066 01/10/2013 Cathy CCSPEC City Council Groundrules Discussion and 2013 Goal Setting Administrative I Wheatley , ;;k Meeting.ille a.m. to 5 p.m. - Fanno Creek House ,Services .__ 11 is \ adm \carol \tentatv ag \2012 \december 3 2012.docx Key: Meeting Banner ❑ Business Meeting ❑ Study Session ❑ Special Meeting ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ Meeting is Full 1 Workshop Meeting ❑ City Council Tentative Agenda 12/3/2012 10:40 AM - Updated 1038 01/15/2013 Cathy AAA January 15, 2013 - Council Workshop Meeting Wheatley F.____.___ -II 1053 01/15/2013 CCWKSHOP 1 15 Minutes - Annual Police Department Temporary Holding Police 11/08/2012 Facility Tour and Inspection 1097 01/15/2013 Liz Lutz CCWKSHOP 2 60 Minutes - Joint Meeting- Budget Committee and City Financial and Council Information Services 1086 01/15/2013 Greer CCWKSHOP 3 10 Minutes - Briefing on a Local Agency Agreement to Public Works McMillan K, Gaston Partially Fund Main Street Improvements between the Railroad Engineering Corridor and Scoffins Street Manager 1088 01/15/2013 Greer CCWKSHOP 4 10 Minutes - Briefing on a Local Agency Agreement Public Works McMillan K, Gaston Amendment with ODOT to Partially Fund Main Street Engineering Improvements from Pacific Highway to the Railroad Corridor Manager 1094 01/15/2013 Greer CCWKSHOP 5 15 Minutes - Briefing on the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Public Works Gaston G, Conf I Gaston Prioritization Process Executive Asst 1102 01/15/2013 Greer CCWKSHOP 6 10 Minutes - A Briefing on a Cooperative Improvement Public Works Gaston G, Conf Gaston Agreement Regarding the Pacific Highway /Gaarde Executive Asst Street /McDonald Street Intersection Improvements 1104 01/15/2013 Loreen CCWKSHOP 7 60 Minutes - Executive Session 11/28/2012 Mills I is \adm \carol \tentaty ag \2012 \december 3 2012.docx Key: Meeting Banner ❑ Business Meeting ❑ Study Session ❑ Special Meeting ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ Meeting is Full . Workshop Meeting ❑ City Council Tentative Agenda 12/3/2012 10:40 AM - Updated 1039 01/22/2013 Cathy AAA January 22, 2013 Council Business Meeting Wheatley 1084 01/22/2013 Greer ACCSTUDY 10 Minutes - Executive Session on Real Property Transactions 11/28/2012 Gaston 1101 01/22/2013 John ACCSTUDY 10 Minutes - Providing New Type of Service to Residential Customers - Public Gaston G, Conf Goodrich Backflow Assembly Testing Works Executive Asst 1107 01/22/2013 Sandy ACCSTUDY 25 Minutes - Executive Session - Labor Relations Wheatley C, City I Zodrow Recorder 1087 01/22/2013 Greer ACONSENT Consent Item - Approve a Local Agency Agreement with ODOT to Public Gaston G, Conf Gaston Partially Fund Main Street Improvements between the Railroad Corridor Works Executive Asst and Scoffins Street 1089 01/22/2013 Greer ACONSENT Consent Item - Approve a Local Agency Agreement Amendment with Public Gaston G, Conf Gaston ODOT to Partially Fund Main Street Improvements from Pacific Highway Works Executive Asst to Scoffins Street 1091 01/22/2013 Kristie ACONSENT Consent Item - Approve a Cooperative Improvement Agreement Public Gaston G, Conf Peerman Regarding the Pacific Highway /Gaarde Street /McDonald Street Works Executive Asst Intersection Improvements is \adm \ carol \tentatv ag \2012 \december 3 2012.docx Key: Meeting Banner ❑ Business Meeting ❑ Study Session ❑ Special Meeting ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ Meeting is Full . Workshop Meeting ❑ City Council Tentative Agenda 12/3/2012 10:40 AM - Updated 705 01/22/2013 Cheryl CCBSNS 20 Minutes - Annexation Hearing for River Terrace Community Caines C, Assoc I Caines Phase II (UGB Area 63 & Roy Rogers West) Development Planner 1090 01/22/2013 Greer CCBSNS 10 Minutes - Consider a Resolution Approving the Public Works Gaston G, Conf Gaston Purchase of the Bagan Property and Authorizing the Executive Asst City Manager to Complete the Property Purchase 1093 01/22/2013 Cathy IACCSTUDY 20 Minutes - Clean Water Services District Plan Community Floyd 3, Associate I Wheatley Update Development Planner 1103 01/22/2013 Carissa ' CCBSNS 15 Minutes - Public Hearing - Supplemental Budget Financial and Collins C, Sr MgmtI Collins Amendment to FY 2013 Adopted Budget Information Services Analyst (Fin Adm) Total Time: 45 of 110 minutes have been scheduled 1 11 1040 02/05/2013 Cathy AAA February 5, 2013 City Center Development Agency Wheatley Meeting I - - 1076 02/05/2013 Sean CCDA 60 Minutes - Report on Developer Interviews Community Farrelly S, Redev I Farrelly Development Project Manager Total Time: 60 of 110 minutes have been scheduled 11 02/12/2013 Cathy A AA ebruary 12, 2013 Joint Meeting with Beaverton Watley ity Council I 11 is \adm \ carol \tentaty ag \2012 \december 3 2012.docx Key: Meeting Banner ❑ Business Meeting ❑ Study Session ❑ Special Meeting ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ Meeting is Full . Workshop Meeting ❑ City Council Tentative Agenda 12/3/2012 10:40 AM - Updated 1042102/19/2013 C Wheatley AAA February 19, 2013 Council Workshop Meeting __-_ _ --- -- II 1083 02/19/2013 Kent Wyatt CCWKSHOP,45 Minutes - Social Gaming Discussion City Management Mills L, Asst to City Manager 1085 02/19/2013 Greer Gaston CCWKSHOP 15 Minutes - Review Draft Sustainability Plan Public Works Wright, M., PW Business Manager 1098 02/19/2013 Nadine CCWKSHOP 20 Minutes - Tigard Municipal Court Annual Administrative Robinson N, Admin. Svcs. Robinson Report Services Manager Total Time: 80 of 180 minutes have been scheduled I _ - II 1043 02/26/2013 Cathy AAA February 26, 2013 City Council Business I Wheatley Meeting I _____ ._W I 1108 02/26/2013 Sandy Zodrow ACCSTUDY 30 Minutes - Executive Session - Labor Neg Wheatley C, City Recorder Total Time: 30 of 45 minutes have been scheduled I II 1044 03/05/2013 Cathy AAA March 5, 2013 City Center Development I Wheatley Agency Meeting I _ , 11 1045 03/12/2013 Cathy AAA March 12, 2013 City Council Business Meeting I Wheatley I II 1046 03/19/2013 C Wheatley AAA March 19, 2013 Council Workshop Meeting 1 11 I II 1047 03/26/2013 Cathy AAA March 26, 2013 City Council Business Meeting I Wheatley is \adm \ carol \tentaty ag \2012 \december 3 2012.docx AIS -1001 4• C. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 12/11/2012 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Appoint Budget Committee Members Prepared For: Toby LaFrance Submitted By: Liz Lutz, Financial and Information Services Item Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Consent Agenda Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE There are three vacancies on the budget committee, beginning January 1, 2013 and one vacancy for an alternate member of the budget committee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Approve the recommended appointments to the Budget Committee. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Dan Goodrich and Melody Graeber's Budget Committee term expires on December 31, 2012. Christopher Henn's Budget Committee term expires on December 31, 2013, but he has moved out of the City of Tigard. As a result, the Appointments Advisory Committee recently conducted interviews with several citizens who applied to become members of the Budget Committee. The Appointments Advisory Committee interviewed 7 citizen candidates. Incumbents Melody Graeber applied for another term whereas Dan Goodrich did not reapply. The committee is recommending that the City Council appoint Melody Graeber and Cathy Hearn each to a three -year term beginning January 1, 2013. Additionally, the committee recommends the appointment of Don Fisher to carry out the remaining term of Christopher Henn, ending on December 31, 2013. Lastly, the committee recommends that the City Council appoint Melanie Boekee as an alternate for a one -year term beginning January 1, 2013. OTHER ALTERNATIVES None COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS City will maximize the effectiveness of the volunteer spirit to accomplish the greatest good for our community. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION NA Attachments Resolution Committee bios BUDGET COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS CATHY HEARN: Ms. Hearn has a Bachelor's degree in Business Administration - Finance. She has worked in Administration for many years, mainly in the high tech industry. She is fairly new to Tigard, but plans to make the city her Tong -term residence. MELANIE BOEKEE: Ms. Boekee has a BS in Business Finance from PSU. She is the Vice President of Accounting at AngelVision Technologies. She is a newcomer to Tigard, having only lived here for 6 months. Additionally, she volunteers at the City of Tigard Library. DON FISHER: Mr. Fisher has a degree in Economics and Political Science from Linfield College. He is the Technology Director for the Democratic Party of Oregon. He has been a Tigard resident for five years and feels Tigard is a unique community. AIS -1096 4. D. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 12/11/2012 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Appoint Audit Committee Member Prepared For: Liz Lutz Submitted By: Liz Lutz, Financial and Information Services Consent Agenda - Approve Item Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Minutes Public Hearing: No Publication Date: 4 Information ISSUE City Council passed Resolution 12 -26 on June 26, 2012, to establish an Audit Committee, made up of one Councilor or Mayor, one or two current or prior members of the Budget Committee, and, if only one member is from the Budget Committee, a citizen at large should serve as well. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Approve the recommended appointment to the Audit Committee. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The Appointments Advisory Committee met on November 19, 2012 to recommend new members for the Budget Committee. They selected one candidate from the budget committee interviews that they deemed a good match for the newly formed Audit Committee. Peter Hedgecock would serve beginning on January 1, 2013 and serve for three years. OTHER ALTERNATIVES None COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS City will maximize the effectiveness of the volunteer spirit to accomplish the greatest good for our community. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION NA Attachments Resolution Audit Committee Bio AUDIT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS PETER HEDGECOCK: Mr. Hedgecock received his BS in Actuarial Science from Brigham Young University and works as an Actuary at Cambia Health Solutions. He has lived in Tigard for three years. He has been active in his professional organization, Portland Actuarial Club, as President, Vice President and Treasurer. AIS -1080 4. E. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 12/11/2012 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Reappoint Matthew Muldoon and Appoint Timothy L. Gaschke and Brian K Feeney as Voting Members to the Planning Commission Prepared For: Doreen Laughlin Submitted By: Doreen Laughlin, Community Development Item Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Consent Agenda Public Hearing Newspaper Legal Ad Required ?: No Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Should Council reappoint Matthew Muldoon and appoint Timothy L. Gaschke and Brian K. Feeney as voting members of the Tigard Planning Commission? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Approve a resolution reappointing Matthew Muldoon and appointing Timothy L. Gaschke and Brian K. Feeney as voting members of the planning commission for terms that expire on December 31, 2016. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY There are currently three voting positions on the Planning Commission that will expire on December 31, 2012. Incumbent Matthew Muldoon fills one of the voting positions and was appointed to the Planning Commission in December, 2008. His first full term expires December 31, 2012. Matthew Muldoon, Timothy L. Gaschke, and Brian K. Feeney applied for Planning Commission seats. The Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee interviewed applicants and recommended Matthew Muldoon be reappointed and Timothy L. Gaschke and Brian K. Feeney be appointed to fill the current voting member vacancies on the Tigard Planning Commission. Attachment 1 is a Resolution implementing these recommended appointments. See Attachment 2 for biographical information on all three recommended appointees. OTHER ALTERNATIVES None COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS Tigard City Council Long Range Objectives: Tigard citizens are involved in the community and participate effectively. DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION N/A Attachments Resolution PC Biographical Information Attachment 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPOINTEES BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION On December 11, 2012, Tigard City Council will consider a Resolution to appoint Timothy L. Gaschke and Brian K. Feeney, and to reappoint Matthew Muldoon, as voting members of the Tigard Planning Commission. Timothy L. Gaschke has been a Tigard resident for 16 years. He was initially appointed to the Planning Commission as an alternate beginning in January 2009. He was appointed to a voting position beginning in January 2010 and served 9 months in good standing before leaving the Commission, and the country, to work in Australia for approximately 2 years. Tim has a degree (BSE) in Civil Engineering from Arizona State University, and a professional background as a principal civil engineer. Brian K. Feeney has been a resident of Tigard for nine years. He is a licensed Civil Engineering Project Manager and has over 14 years of experience with multi- discipline consulting and development expertise. Brian has volunteered in the Tigard Community for the past six years coaching youth sports for his children — having been involved with Tigard Basketball Associated (FBA), Tigard Little League (TLL), and Southside Soccer (SSC). He also volunteers at his children's schools — Mary Woodward and Fowler Middle School. He holds a Bachelors of Science Degree in Civil Engineering (BSCE) from Portland State University. Matthew Muldoon has been a Tigard resident for 22 years. He has an MBA in Finance from Portland State University and a BA from the University of Chicago. He has been on the Tigard Planning Commission for the past 4 years. Matt is a small business owner (President of Muldoon Enterprises, Inc.) as well as a Senior Economist for the Public Utility Commission of Oregon in Salem. In addition, he works as Executive Director of Acceleration Transportation Rate Bureau, Inc. in Tigard. AIS -1081 4. F. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 12/11/2012 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Appoint Laura Fisher, Tamera Slack and Paul Miller as Voting Members and Carine Arendes and Hemendra Mathur as Alternates to the CCAC Submitted By: Sean Farrelly, Community Development Item Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Consent Agenda Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Should Council appoint Laura Fisher, Paul Miller and Tamera Slack to the City Center Advisory Commission as voting members and appoint Carine Arendes and Hemendra Mathur as alternate members of the City Center Advisory Commission? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Adopt the attached resolution appointing Laura Fisher, Paul Miller and Tamera Slack to the City Center Advisory Commission as voting members and appointing Carine Arendes and Hemendra Mathur as alternate members of the City Center Advisory Commission. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) is the advisory body to the City Center Development Agency on urban renewal issues. As of January 1, 2013 there will be three vacancies for voting members and two vacancies for alternate members. The Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee interviewed candidates and recommended appointing Laura Fisher, Paul Miller and Tamera Slack to the City Center Advisory Commission as voting members and appointing Carine Arendes and Hemendra Mathur as alternate members. The terms of Laura Fisher, Paul Miller and Tamera Slack will expire December 31, 2015. The terms of Carine Arendes and Hemendra Mathur will expire December 31, 2013. Attachment 1 is a Resolution implementing these recommended appointments. See Attachment 2 for biographical information on the recommended appointees. OTHER ALTERNATIVES COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS Tigard City Council Long Range Objectives: Tigard citizens are involved in the community and participate effectively. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A Attachments Resolution CCAC Biographies • 3 Attachment 2 CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPOINTEES BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION On December 11, 2012, Tigard City Council will consider a Resolution to appoint Laura Fisher, Paul Miller and Tamera Slack as voting members of the City Center Advisory Commission(CCAC) and to appoint Carine Arendes and Hemendra Mathur as alternate members of the CCAC. Laura Fisher has been a Tigard resident for five years. She is currently a social studies teacher at Inez R. Wood Middle School. She has volunteer experience with the Tualatin Library. Paul Miller has been a Tigard resident for sixteen years. He owns the property that is home to the Tigard Main Street Cleaners. He is a board member of the Rotary Club of Tigard, where he has been a member for thirty-five years Tamera Slack has been a Tigard resident for twelve years. She has a background professional sales and hospitality. She has volunteer experience with family law issues. Carine Andres has been a Tigard resident for seven years. She is currently obtaining her Masters in Urban and Regional Planning at Portland State University. She has extensive community volunteer experience with SOLV, Friends of Trees, Tualatin Valley Gleaner and the Friends of Spring Garden Park Committee. Hemendra Mathur has been a Tigard resident for twenty-one years. He worked as an engineer and project leader for over thirty years. His community experience includes being a member of the architectural committee for Benchview Home Owners association and a volunteer with East Bull Mountain Park. AIS -1100 4• G. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 12/11/2012 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Tide: Appoint Jennifer Stanfield, Donald Schmidt, Evelyn Murphy Mark Bogert and George Hetu to the Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee Submitted By: Judith Gray, Community Development Item Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Consent Agenda Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Should Council reappoint Jennifer Stanfield, Donald Schmidt, and Evelyn Murphy; and appoint George Hetu and Mark Bogert as voting members of the Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Approve a resolution reappointing Jennifer Stanfield, Donald Schmidt, and Evelyn Murphy; and appointing George Hetu and Mark Bogert as voting members of the Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee for terms that expire on December 31, 2015. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC) is comprised of 11 voting positions, including eight citizen representatives and three business representatives. Three current TTAC members are serving terms expiring December 31, 2012. Three of those members (Jennifer Stanfield, Donald Schmidt, and Evelyn Murphy) have applied for another term. All are eligible. One current member (Basil Christopher) is completing a term expiring December 31, 2012 and did not apply for an additional term, leaving one vacancy for a citizen representative. Mark Bogert has served as a TTAC alternate through 2012; he is also a member of the Pedestrian Bicycle Subcommittee. Mark has applied to serve as a citizen representative on TTAC and is eligible. Two of the three business representative positions were vacant through 2012. George Hetu, general manager of Tigard Fred Meyer, has applied to serve as a business representaitve on TTAC and is eligible. The Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee interviewed applicants and recommended that Council reappoint Jennifer Stanfield, Donald Schmidt, and Evelyn Murphy; and appoint Mark Bogert, and George Hetu to full terms expiring December 31, 2015. OTHER ALTERNATIVES n/a COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS City Council Long Range Objectives: Tigard citizens are involved in the community and participate effectively. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION n/a Attachments Resolution Bios Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee Biographies of Recommended Appointees On December 11, 2012 the Tigard City Council will consider a resolution appointing voting members to the Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC). Following are brief biographies for the individuals recommended for appointment: Jennifer Stanfield is an incumbent on TTAC and has been on the committee since its inception in 2009. She has lived in Tigard since 2008 after moving here from Portland's Bethany area. Jennifer has a Master's Degree in Industrial Engineering and has been employed with Intel in Hillsboro for 11 years. Donald Schmidt was appointed to the TTAC in January 2011. He also serves as a member of the Planning Commission. Don graduated from the University of Arkansas with a B.A. in Architecture. He has been working in the Portland area for the past 14 years. He is a member of the American Institute of Architects and Cascadia Green Building Council. Evelyn Murphy has been a Tigard resident for 17 years and previously lived in the Metzger area. Her past community volunteer activities include the Community Partners for Affordable Housing. Evelyn is a medical professional in the field of ICU and Maternal /Child nursing and has worked for her current employer for 24 years. Evelyn is also a current member of the TTAC. Mark Bogert has lived in Tigard for 50 years. Mark has a Bachelor of Science Degree from Oregon State University. He has served as a volunteer for the Tigard Chapter of St Vincent de Paul. Mark is a retired UPS driver. Mark has served as an alternate on the TTAC since fall 2011 and is currently a member of the Pedestrian Bicycle Subcommittee. He has applied to become a permanent voting member for the term beginning in 2013. George Hetu is store director for the Tigard Fred Meyer and has applied to fill one of the voting business representative positions on TTAC. George has a B.A. in Business /HR and has been employed with Fred Meyer for 14 years. He is a member of the non -profit community choir, Voice of Hope from Tualatin. AIS -1105 4. H. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 12/11/2012 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Tide: Consider Approving the Purchase of the Rankin Property and Authorizing the City Manager to Complete the Property Purchase Prepared For: Loreen Mills Submitted By: Loreen Mills, City Management Item Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Consent Agenda Public Hearing Newspaper Legal Ad Required ?: No Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall the council consider a resolution: • Approving the purchase of the Rankin property as outlined in the purchase and sale agreement with a post - closing occupancy agreement? • Authorize the city manager to take all necessary action to complete the property purchase on behalf of the city? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends council approve the resolution. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The city owns and maintains a sanitary sewer line along Summer Creek in the area of SW Gallin Court. Between 2002 and 2004, the City undertook slope stabilization measures to protect the sewer line. The city has identified a problem in this same area where the sanitary sewer line may be exposed again unless soil stabilization and related work is completed. A city capital improvement construction project is planned to repair the slopes, protect the sewer line and make other improvements, however, in order to complete the project, it is necessary for the City to acquire the property at 13001 SW Gallin Court. The city and the property owner have now reached an agreement on the purchase /sale of the property and the agreement is subject to City Council approval no later than December 14, 2012. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The council could chose to not approve the resolution and could provide staff with direction on some other course of action to preserve the City's sewer line along Summer Creek. However, the council has given direction to staff to proceed with this property purchase over the last few months. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS Preserving the public infrastructure is a basic core of business which council supports. DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION Council discussed this and related pending litigation in executive session on the following dates: • November 22, 2011 • December 13, 2011 • March 27, 2012 • July 24, 2012 • November 13, 2012 Fiscal Impact Cost: $515,000 Budgeted (yes or no): Yes* Where Budgeted (department /program): Sanitary Sewer and Water Quality/Quantity funds Additional Fiscal Notes: * The 2012 -17 Capital Improvement Plan and adopted FY 2012 -13 Budget contain $1.8 million in project costs, including property purchase. The purchase must be made before the project can occur. Attachments Resolution Rankin Property Purchase Agreement & Post - Closing Occupancy Agreement AIS -1106 4. I. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 12/11/2012 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement Submitted By: Sandy Zodrow, City Management Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Special Meeting Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Should the City Council amend Section 10, Severance, of the City Manager's current Employment Agreement regarding "six(6) months" to "seven(7) months "? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Recommend approval of the amendment of the City Manager's Employment Agreement from six (6) months to seven (7) months KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY At the Tigard City Council meeting of November 27, 2012, Executive Session, Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to the City Manager's current Employment Agreement for its approval. This amendment to the language in Section 10, Severance, of the current agreement changes the both the lump sum cash payment and the health, welfare and life insurance benefits from six (6) months to seven (7) months. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION The City Council discussed this matter at its November 27, 2012 meeting in Executive Session Attachments CM EA Amendment #3 1 i Amendment #3 6 To City Manager Employment Agreement � y Q/ Effective Date: December 11, 2012 �/ 1 �rY Between: City of Tigard (the "City ") And: Marty Wine ( "Employee ") Section 10, Severance, of the Employment Agreement between the City of Tigard and Marty Wine is hereby amended and replaced to read as follows: All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in effect. Section 10: Severance In the event Employee is terminated by the City Council during such a time that Employee is willing and able to perform Employee's duties under this Agreement, then in that event Employer agrees to 1 pay Employee a lump sum cash payment equal to six—(4)-seven (7) months aggregate salary. Employer will also continue, at its expense, Employee's health and welfare and life insurance benefits for 6 7 months, or until Employee is professionally reemployed, whichever comes first. In the event Employee is terminated for gross negligence or misconduct that is deemed detrimental to the best interests of the City, Employer shall have no obligation to pay any of the severance payments or benefits provided in this paragraph. Marty Wine, City Manager Gretchen E. Buehner, Council President Date Date 1 AIS-1063 5. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 12/11/2012 Length (in minutes): 40 Minutes Agenda Title: Legislative Public Hearing - River Terrace Comprehensive Plan Amendment Submitted By: Darren Wyss, Community Development Council Business Ordinance Meeting - Item Type: Public Hearing - Legislative Meeting Type: Main Public Hearing Newspaper Legal Ad Required ?: Yes Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: 11/15/2012 Information ISSUE Shall city council approve the planning commission's recommendation (CPA2012- 00002) to amend the Tigard Comprehensive Plan map with land use designations for River Terrace and amend Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 14: Urbanization policies? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends approval of the planning commission's recommendation (CPA2012- 00002) to amend the Tigard Comprehensive Plan map and Goal 14: Urbanization policies. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The city has agreed via an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Washington County to refine its West Bull Mt. Concept Plan into the River Terrace Community Plan. The community plan will put into place a means to implement the vision of the concept plan through zoning, development code regulations and other measures that will make urban development possible. The process will also include updates to utility, parks and transportation master plans, including the financial strategies necessary to fund and maintain required infrastructure improvements. The concept plan was created over the course of three years with the help of a stakeholder working group (SWG) and a technical advisory committee (TAC). Project goals and principles guided the development of the land use, transportation and parks framework maps. These maps represented the vision stakeholders agreed upon for the future development of the area. They provide a variety of residential densities and housing types; disperse densities throughout the community; provide appropriate amounts of commercial uses, parks, trails and open space; and outline a multi -modal network of connected streets and walkable blocks. The SWG and TAC both voted to forward the concept plan to the Washington County Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners for consideration and adoption. In November 2010, the Planning Commission voted to recommend the Board adopt the concept plan (see Attachment 1). In December 2010, the Board adopted the concept plan by Resolution and Order (see Attachment 2). Since the conclusion of the concept plan, the city has annexed a portion of the area (Area 64) and petitions have been filed by property owners to annex the remainder of the area within the urban growth boundary (Areas 63 and Roy Rogers West). The city will complete the River Terrace Community Plan for all of these areas. City staff has developed a work program to guide the project through completion. This will include a lot of technical work to ensure the community plan meets the state and regional planning requirements, as well as a public involvement plan to engage stakeholders in any necessary refinements to the concept plan as the process moves forward. Staff anticipates completion of the River Terrace Community Plan in summer 2014. The first recommendation is to adopt the concept plan recommended land uses (Exhibit A) into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. This action will set expectations for the community planning process, as well as allowing the city to access a portion of the CET funds from Metro that were given to the city through the IGA with Washington County. A number of policies will also be recommended for adoption to guide regulation of the River Terrace area during and after completion of the community planning process (Exhibit B). These recommended land uses will be further analyzed as part of the community planning process and if there are needed refinements, recommendations will be brought back to planning commission and city council for adoption at the end of the process. OTHER ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt planning commission recommendation with changes 2. Not adopt planning commission recommendation and remand back to planning commission for additional work 3. Not adopt planning commission recommendation and direct staff accordingly COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS 1. Take the Next Step on Major Projects DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION Project Briefing - May 15, 2012 Project Briefing - September 18, 2012 Project Briefing - November 20, 2012 Fiscal Impact Cost: $134,100 Budgeted (yes or no): Yes Where Budgeted (department /program): CD Additional Fiscal Notes: Washington County transferred CET funds to the city for completing the community plan. Metro administers these funds and will require the completion of tasks before releasing funds. Attachments Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 - CPA2012 -00002 Ordinance Exhibit A - CPA2012 -00002 Land Uses Exhibit B - CPA2012 -00002 Policies Exhibit C - CPA2012 -00002 Findings IQ fit fao e AN • WASHINGTON COUNTY • OREGON WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2010 • ALL PUBLIC MEETINGS ARE RECORDED I. CALL TO ORDER: 1:02 P.M. Room 140, Public Services Building The meeting was called to order by Chair San Soucie 11. ROLL CALL Planning Commission (PC) members present: Herb Hirst, Liles Garcia, Rick Lesniak, Veta Holscher, Mary Manseau, Marc San Soucie, and Matthew Larrabee. Commissioner Scott Rickard's absence was excused. Staff present: Joanne Rice, Paul Schaefer, Traci Shirley, Steve L. Kelley, Steve D. Kelley, Connie McCracken, and Gretchen Olson, Long Range Planning; Chris Gilmore, County Counsel. III. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Joanne Rice gave the Director's Report. She informed the Planning Commission (PC) that Ordinance No. 730 and No. 732 were engrossed and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on October 26, 2010. The supplemental transportation SDC and transportation funding strategy for North Bethany and the 2011 Work Program for North Bethany were also adopted. Chair San Soucie asked if the North Bethany Work Program for 2011 consisted of the placeholders. Ms. Rice answered yes. IV. WORK SESSION Ms. Rice informed the PC that there would be no business to conduct in December. The PC voted to cancel the December 1, 2010 and December 15, 2010 meetings. Chair San Soucie asked what items the PC could expect to see on the Work Program for 2011. Ms. Rice answered that 2011 would be busy with carry over from the 2010 Work Program. Staff would focus on Aloha /Reedville planning work, North Bethany, West Bull Mountain (WBM), and Urban and Rural Reserves. The Urban and Rural Reserves were remanded by the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) on October 29, 2010. There was a brief discussion about the Reserves process and next steps to address the recent LCDC removal of a portion of the Urban Reserves in Washington County. Ms. Rice said she would have more information after the county received the written order from LCDC, expected in six to , eight weeks. Chair San Soucie asked if there would be an opportunity for the PC to review and make comments on the proposed 2011 Work Program before it goes before the BCC. Ms. Rice replied the draft Work Program is always made available to the PC for comment. Department of Land Use es Transportation • Long Range Planning Division 155 N. First Avenue, Suite 350 -14, Hillsboro, OR 97124 -3072 phone: (503) 846 -3519 • fax: (503) 846 -4412 • • Planning Commission Minutes November 3; 2010 Page 2 Commissioner Hirst suggested a Joint Dinner with the BCC as there are many new members on both the BCC and the PC. Ms. Rice said this request would be forwarded to the BCC. Chair San Soucie wanted to know if the City of Tigard had provided written comments before the letter dated November 3, 2010. Ms. Rice noted the City of Tigard had been involved in the WBM planning process and had submitted comments on multiple occasions. She added staff intended to comment on the letter. Ms. Rice reminded the PC that this was just a Concept Plan, a precursor to the final plan. At the direction of the BCC, staff was directed to deal with only land use issues and not the govemance and service provider issues through the Concept Plan. Those issues will be dealt with when the Concept Plan was developed into a Community Plan. Commissioner Manseau stated the PC typically hears ordinances and plan amendments and asked "why WBM was a Resolution & Order (R & 0). Ms. Rice replied staff wanted a way to • memorialize all the work that the Stakeholders Work Group (SWG) and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) had done on this project. They worked hard to get to an agreement of this size. The Principals and Goals, Implementing Strategies, and the Concept Plan maps all provide a mechanism from which the Community Plan .can be developed. Commissioner Manseau clarified that the Concept Plan was more of an intermediate plan. Ms. Rice answered • yes, a. partial or precursor plan. The work session was adjoumed at 1:25 p.m. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There was no one present who wished to testify on a non agenda item. VI. WEST BULL MOUNTAIN CONCEPT PLAN • Ms. Rice made brief opening remarks. She noted the County began the planning process for WBM in 2007 to prepare the Concept Plan. At the direction of the BCC, governance and service provider issues were not addressed in the Concept Plan. The BCC wanted staff to strictly focus on the land use aspects of WBM. The purpose of the R & 0 was to memorialize the work done by the SWG, TAC, and staff during the three year process. The R & 0 would guide the next phase of work, the creation of the Community Plan. Ms. Rice concluded by _ saying the Concept Plan is in no way meant to be a final product, just the precursor to the Community Plan. Mr. Schaefer presented the staff report and gave a PowerPoint presentation that outlined the entire WBM planning process, including maps of the area and an overlay of the Concept Plan onto an aerial map from Google Earth. A printed version of the PowerPoint presentation was in the PC file and is available upon request. Mr. Schaefer responded to the letters of comment received from the cities of Tigard and Beaverton. He said it would be more appropriate if the letters were addressed at the next phase of the planning process, rather than the Concept Plan phase. The letters focused on the governance and service provider aspects of WBM and those issues are not addressed by the Concept Plan. Mr. Schaefer reiterated that it would be better to address the letters when the work is started on the Community Plans. • Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 2010 Page 3 Chair San Soucie wanted to confirm the Concept Plan was not intended to be compliant with Title 11. If it was not, he suggested it should it be called something other than "Concept Plan ". Ms. Rice replied staff had considered it to be a precursor to what Metro considers a Concept Plan. She added staff could work to make the use of Concept Plan more clear. Commissioner Manseau questioned if there were documents associated with the Concept Plan that laid out the next steps of the planning process, for example, Community Plan and Code. She also questioned if there was an intermediary step between the Concept Plan and Community Plan that would be Title 11 compliant. Ms. Rice answered the BCC would decide the steps in the planning process. The BCC directed staff to concentrate on the land use issues of WBM and to not address the governance, code, or Plan. There was no interim step that would be Title 11 compliant. Staff was also working diligently to make sure the contract with Metro for the scope of the work was satisfied. Chair San Soucie asked if the plan meets the contract requirements with Metro. Ms. Rice answered that it did•satisfy the contract. Chair San Soucie asked if the R & 0 constituted a legally binding document. Ms. Rice said no, it was not intended to be a legal document. As there were no more questions for staff, Chair San Soucie began the public testimony phase of the hearing. Ken Dixon, 1195 NE 240th, Yamhill OR, Mr. Dixon voiced his concerns regarding the location of parks. He said the current Concept Plan had about 12 acres of his property designated for a Community Park. He was concerned that the process was going to take a long time, as there was no identified parks provider. Mr. Dixon wanted to stress his desire that the planning for WBM be handled in a reasonable time frame and the parks provider's acquisitions be equitable. Dan Grirrnberg, West Hills Development, 735 SW 158th Avenue, Beaverton OR, Mr. Grimberg submitted a letter from Mike Robinson, legal counsel for West Hills Development. Mr. Grimberg said that the Concept Plan in general was good, but that it lacked the flexibility that the development community would like to see. He suggested that the text that accompanies the Concept Plan should indicate that the road alignments and the parks and open spaces could be changed once the community plan was being developed. Mr. Grimberg also suggested that the use of a facilitator would be extremely helpful when work was being done for the code and community plan. John Rankin, 26715 SW Baker Road, Sherwood Or, Mr. Rankin noted that he represented eight land owners in the area. He submitted an alternate Concept Plan to the PC. He also stressed the importance of the need for flexibility that Mr. Grimberg had discussed. Mr. Rankin suggested that the parks issue be dealt with first in the next phase, as it seems to be the most prevalent issue. He also raised issues with the "hard lines" shown on the maps for roads. Chair San Soucie asked Mr. Rankin if he had submitted his alternative Concept Plan to the •SWG or TAC. Mr. Rankin replied that he had, but it was difficult to do so. There was only a limited amount of time for people to make comments at the beginning of the meetings and the maps had to be made up for each meeting. It would have been more helpful if staff could have made the maps'or provided more maps so the Concept Plan would have been more clear. • • Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 2010 Page 4 Commissioner Manseau asked if it was possible for Mr. Rankin's suggestions to be incorporated into the Concept Plan. Mr. Schaefer interjected that when the alternative plans were presented to the TAC and SWG, they reviewed the suggested changes, and many of the changes were incorporated into the Concept Plan. Gretchen Buehner, 13249 SW 136th Place, Tigard OR, Ms. Buhner stated she was not representing the City of Tigard, but was a lawyer representing a client. The property owner she represented was actually outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). She was not sure why the property was left out of Area 64, as the parcel of land would have been a great addition to Area 64 for transportation reasons. A private road on the parcel would work extremely well as a connector and it could serve as an alternate route for traffic on Roy Rogers Road. Ron Bunch, Community Development Director, City of Tigard, Mr. Bunch stated his appreciation for all the hard work staff had done for WBM. The City of Tigard had been actively following the process for the last three years. The issue the City of Tigard saw with the Concept Plan was the lack of information regarding governance. This issue came up time and time again through out the process and the Concept Plan does not address governance. The City of Tigard believed the Concept Plan should be sent back to address the governance issues and to be complaint with Metro and State laws. There was a brief discussion regarding changing the name Concept Plan to something else and also making it legally binding. Annexation issues were also discussed. The City of Tigard said they were working on annexation issues and annexation was a possibility for WBM. John Weathers, 16399 SW Tubes Court, Tigard OR, Mr. Weathers lives next to Area 64. He said two years ago, Washington County had a public involvement opportunity in their neighborhood to discuss the upcoming project for Areas 63 and 64. The neighborhood he lives in became very active in following the process. As the project became more concrete, his neighborhood came up with a five point petition that was submitted to the SWG and •TAC. The five points dealt with additional buffers, traffic concerns, mass transit, where the centers would be located and park locations. He stated the planning staff did a wonderful job listening to the residents and incorporating some of the changes into the Concept Plan. As the PC was - considering their recommendation, Mr. Weathers asked the commissioners to please keep in mind the Concept Plan before them was what the community wanted. This was a perfect representation of input from the community. The PC deliberated on the R &.O. Items discussed included not having enough time to delve into the Concept Plan with one PC meeting and the issue of not having governance and service providers addressed. Chair San Soucie summed up the PC deliberations by saying: the PC acknowledged the work memorialized a portion of the work that the County had done with the SWG and TAC to develop components of a plan. He stated that it should not be called a Concept Plan and detailed text that builds in great flexibility should be used. It should also be stated somewhere in the text that is the document is not a legally binding. • Commissioner Hirst made a motion to have the summary serve as the PC recommendation to the BCC, Commissioner Garcia seconded. • . • Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 2010 Page 5 Commissioner Larrabee presented an amendment to the motion that included a recommendation that parks and roads be flexible and explore the option to have the main commercial area have direct frontage on Roy Rogers. He wanted it to be assured that the property owners would be equitably compensated for their lands. Vote on amendment: 5 - 2, Commissioners Manseau and San Soucie voted no. Chair San Soucie read the amended motion: The PC acknowledged the work memorialized a portion of the work that the County had done with the SWG and TAC to develop components of a plan. He continued that it should not be called a Concept Plan and it should go into more detail with text that builds in great flexibility. It should also be stated that it is not a legally binding document somewhere in the text as well as, ensuring that the property owners get equitable compensation for their property. The PC also recommended that commercial area be explored to allow direct frontage to Roy Rogers Road and that the Parks and Roads system be more flexible. Vote on amended motion: 6 -1, Commissioner Manseau voted no. VII. ADJOURN: 3:59 P.M. There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned. /1/1160CQ,(:,-6 t I Marc San Soucie n•rew Sing:? Chairman, Washington County Secretary, Wa ington County Planning Commission Planning Commission Minutes approved this Z day of Mnact4 , 2010 Submitted by Gretchen Olson S: \PLNG \WPSHARE \Planning Commission\2010\2010 Minutes \11032010DraftMinutes_doc \A St-co-wi utt-cc MINUTES WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS NOVEMBER 23, 2010 CONVENED: 6:33 p.m. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Tom Brian (participated by telephone) Vice Chair Desari Strader Commissioner Dick Schouten Commissioner Roy Rogers Commissioner Andy Duyck STAFF: Robert Davis, County Administrator Paul Hathaway, Sr. Assistant County Counsel Andrew Singelakis, Director, LUT Brent Curtis, Planning Division Manager, LUT Joanne Rice, Principal Planner, LUT Paul Schaefer, Senior Planner, LUT Mike Dahlstrom, Program Educator, LUT Greg Miller, County Engineer, LUT Traci Shirley, Planning Assistant, LUT Chuck Schable, Audiovisual Technician Barbara Hejtmanek, Recording Secretary PRESS: Dana Tims, The Oregonian APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 2, 2010 1. CONSENT AGENDA The Board moved item 1.i. from the Consent to the Regular Agenda. It was moved to adopt the Consent Agenda, as modified. Motion — Rogers 2" — Duyck Vote — 5 -0 CLEAN WATER SERVICES 1.a. CWS MO 10 -91 Award a Two -Year Contract to OLIN Corporation for the Purchase of Sodium Hypochlorite (Approved Under Consent Agenda) 1.b. CWS MO 10 -92 Award a Two -year Contract to Thatcher Company of Montana, Inc. for the Purchase of Sodium Bisulfite (Approved Under Consent Agenda) 1.c. CWS MO 10 -93 Approve Fifth Amendment to Master Contract for Professional Services with Brown and Caldwell, Inc. for the Rock Creek Facility Stormwater Improvements Project No. 6392 (CPO 9) (Approved Under Consent Agenda) 1.d. CWS MO 10 -94 Approve a 36 -Month Contract with Polydyne Inc. for the Purchase of Polymers and a Back -Up Contract with BASF Corporation (Approved Under Consent Agenda) 1.e. CWS MO 10 -95 Approve Second Modification to Third Amendment to Master Contract with Stoel Rives, LLP for Legal Representation on the Contractors, Inc. Claim Involving the Durham Phase IV Project (Approved Under Consent Agenda) 1.f. CWS MO 10 -96 Accept Construction of the Lower Tualatin Pump Station Project No. 6187 as Complete and Authorize Release of the Retainage Bond (Approved Under Consent Agenda) LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION 1.g. MO 10 -363 Approve Agreement with Beaverton for Transfer of Jurisdiction of a Section of 160 Avenue (Baseline Road to Jay Street) (CPO 6 & 7) (Approved Under Consent Agenda) 1.h. RO 10 -106 Adopt U.S. 26: Glencoe Road Interchange Area Management Plan as Part of the Technical Appendix of the 2020 Transportation Plan (CPO 8) (Approved Under Consent Agenda) BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1.i. MO 10-354 Establish December Board of Commissioners Meeting Schedule (All CPOs) (Moved From Consent to Regular Agenda) COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 1.j. MO 10 -355 Authorize Omnibus International Agreement with Several Oregon Counties for Disaster - Related Emergency Assistance (Approved Under Consent Agenda) HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 1.k. MO 10 -356 Approve Agreement with Tigard - Tualatin School District and Authorize Contract to Provide Services (Approved Under Consent Agenda) 1.1. MO 10 -357 Grant Waiver From Request for Proposals Process and Approve Contracts to Provide Adult Mental Health Services (Approved Under Consent Agenda) 1.m. MO 10 -358 Award Contract with CODA to Provide Outpatient Drug Court Substance Abuse Treatment Services for Adults and Families (Approved Under Consent Agenda) JUVENILE DEPARTMENT 1.n. MO 10 -359 Authorize Grant Funding and Agreement with the State of Oregon for Juvenile Drug Court (Approved Under Consent Agenda) SHERIFF'S OFFICE 1.o. MO 10 -360 Authorize Acceptance of Emergency Management Performance Grant (Approved Under Consent Agenda) SUPPORT SERVICES 1.p. MO 10 -361 Accept Bid/Award Contract for Boiler and Chiller Replacement — ARRA Project (Approved Under Consent Agenda) 1.q. MO 10 -362 Award Contract/Environmental Engineering Consulting Services (Approved Under Consent Agenda) SERVICE DISTRICT FOR LIGHTING NO. 1 -A COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 1.r. SDL RO 10 -7 Form Assessment Area, Authorize Maximum Annual Assessment and Impose a First Year Assessment for Washington Gardens Memory Care (CPO 4M) (Approved Under Consent Agenda) 2. ORAL COMMUNICATION (2 MINUTE OPPORTUNITY) Fran Bates, 14880 NW Ridgetop Court, Beaverton, Oregon, stated that former Commissioner John Leeper has said that he was told (when on the Board) that there was adequate right -of -way along Bethany Boulevard to make a five -lane road without having to condemn or acquire any property. He said that this evidently is inaccurate because current plans call for taking up to 30 properties or parts thereof to make this road happen. Mr. Bates then showed the Board a PowerPoint that depicted properties and how far back the right -of -way goes in various yards. Commissioner Duyck clarified that there is no current plan. He assumed that Mr. Bates' photographs show the maximum with the five lane scenario. Mr. Bates replied that three of the four options require taking the house depicted on one of the slides. Commissioner Schouten asked if all that is being shown will be taken. Mr. Bates responded in the affirmative, assuming that they have to take the right -of -way from the east side of the road. Vice Chair Strader asked if these pictures assume that there will be five lanes. Mr. Bates said that this assumes that three of the four options are implemented. Eudora Goganian, age 11, 2720 NW Forest Avenue, stated that children are glad that Bethany Boulevard will be improved but worry about the five lanes because it puts the needs of cars before the needs of people. She said that children need to cross Bethany Boulevard to get to school and friends' houses. Ms. Goganian stated that a crosswalk with signal would be great but maintained that five lanes are not safe. She remarked that three lanes are easier and present a shorter distance to cross. Ms. Goganian said that three lanes would allow children to ride bikes and walk to school safely. Ms. Goganian stated that constructing five lanes would take land from peoples' homes and back yards would be destroyed. She was accompanied by a friend, Sydney, whose grandparents would lose grass, trees and the yard where she plays if the five lanes are built. Ms. Goganian loves trees and said that building five lanes would destroy lots of large trees and replace them with noise and pollution. She did not think it is fair to harm the lives and property of people who live in older, great neighborhoods. Ms. Goganian said that it does not make sense to take away from peoples' back yards to help neighborhoods that do not exist yet and to help cars get to the freeway one or two minutes faster. She favored using the money that would have been spent on land for the five lanes on planting more trees with the three -lane plan. Ms. Goganian reported that her Mom will not let her ride her bike on a five lane road with painted bike lanes. She suggested that with three lanes, trees could be planted between the bike lanes and the rest of the road — separating bikes, sidewalks and cars. Ms. Goganian said that people could then do errands without even having to drive. She stated that she could walk with her Grandmother and Grandfather to restaurants on a safe three -lane road. Ms. Goganian concluded that five lanes are great for cars but not people. She questioned whether cars or people should come first. Ms. Goganian said that this is a chance to make a place better for people. She submitted testimony, which may be found in the Meeting File. Audience applause was given to the speaker. Vice Chair Strader said that she would not let her 4- year -old daughter ride her bike on that segment of Bethany Boulevard now due to current public safety issues. She agreed that there needs to be pedestrian/bike /car safety for all who travel the entirety of Bethany Boulevard. Vice Chair Strader shared that she, too, likes trees. Darla Castagno, 15175 NW Perimeter Drive, Beaverton, Oregon, submitted written testimony, which may be found in the Meeting File. She said that she has lived in Oak Hills for 40 years. Ms. Castagno invited the Board to tour Oak Hills in order to come to the understanding that this is not a typical subdivision but rather a totally planned community. She indicated that her submittal is from the State Historic Preservation Office regarding the National Register eligibility for Oak Hills. Ms. Castagno indicated that her phone number is at the bottom of the page so that Board members can call her to schedule a tour. 3. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION 3.a. RO 10 -105 Consider the Recommended West Bull Mountain Concept Plan (CPO 4B, 4K) Joanne Rice stated that the purpose of the proposed Resolution and Order for West Bull Mountain is to adopt and memorialize the general land use and transportation framework for Area 63 and 64. She reviewed that both of those areas were added to the Urban Growth Boundary in 2002. Ms. Rice said that the Resolution and Order completes Phase I of the West Bull Mountain work plan and that the second phase to come is development of the Community Plan, its implementing regulations and the funding strategy. She stated that part of that work will include identifying who will be the long -term water and parks provider and remarked that a great deal of work remains to be done. Ms. Rice said that there will also be a great deal of additional transportation analysis that needs to be done to determine which improvements are funded. She noted that in part of the concept plan documents, there is a list of the top ten needed improvements; she added that staff also acknowledges that there needs to be a full analysis of the other identified improvements to determine which actually get funded in the funding strategy. Ms. Rice informed the Board that this is a generalized concept plan and is not intended to ensure complete compliance with Metro's functional plan and all of the statewide planning goals; this is the generalized framework for the land use and transportation components. She clarified that the detailed level of findings and compliance will be made when the community plan is done in the next phase. Ms. Rice stated that the Resolution and Order has been written in a way to make it very clear that this is not a legally binding document but rather is intended to guide the next phase of development. She said that relative to the maps and implementing strategies, there is a great deal of flexibility that needs to be provided in implementing the next stage — particularly with regard to parks and roads. Ms. Rice stated that, for example, once a parks provider is identified, a parks master plan will have to be developed and this will provide more specificity in terms of where parks are located. Ms. Rice reported that changes have been made to the document since the Planning Commission hearing, such as to: • Note all of the parks in a hash pattern to indicate that those are not fixed locations • Note that implementation of the three maps (transportation, land use, and parks) is subject to all of the implementing strategies. Information in the implementing strategies calls for further refinement of roads and parks with additional engineering. Quite a bit of work will still be done in the next phase. • Ms. Rice acknowledged receipt of one additional letter since the Board received its packet from John Botaitis, who is unable to be here tonight � ght due to the weather. She summarized his letter, which may be found in the Meeting File. • Mr. Botaitis lives in Meyers Farm. 161' Avenue goes through that development and connects into Area 63. That is a street that will be extended down into the area. Part of the concept plan includes draft language directing additional engineering in terms of how to deal with traffic control issues. There is still more to come on that issue. Ms. Rice said that with respect to the next phase of work, staff has proposed that the County's role in that work be sorted out in the 2011 work program for the Long Range Planning Division. Commissioner Schouten observed that the letter from John Botaitis talks about a petition, which is not attached. Paul Schaefer responded that several letters were submitted in the May timeframe to committees to address concerns of the road connections and density. He clarified that it was not a formal petition with a lot of signatures but rather there were several letters. Mr. Schaefer explained that Mr. Botaitis' letter is a summary of those concerns with traffic and density. Commissioner Schouten recalled reading that the density proposed in this concept plan is just a little bit over the minimums required by Metro by just a couple of households per acre. Joanne Rice said that this is correct. However, she stated that in Area 63, the actual density is affected by the steeper slopes there. Ms. Rice said that this has a density of just under eight units an acre. She stated that when you get into the flatter lands of Area 64, you pick up a little more density, which gives you an overall density range of a little more than 10 units per acre for both. Ms. Rice explained that part of what the concept plan does in response to concerns raised by residents is much low density residential is provided all along the existing single family development in Bull Mountain. She said that some of the area directly south of Meyers Farm is some of the steeper slope area. Ms. Rice stated that once the community plan is done, you could be looking at densities that might even be less than the six units an acre of Meyers Farm. She reviewed that that is one of the things that the concept plan calls for, namely, to look at these steeper slope areas that possibly come in at lower densities than are currently in the area. Commissioner Schouten stated that these are average figures. He said he has seen on the maps that slightly higher densities are away from established neighborhoods. Joanne Rice affirmed that this is correct. The public hearing was opened. Liz Newton, Assistant City Manager, City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon, told the Board that Mayor Dirksen would have liked to be here this evening but he is convening Tigard City Council tonight. She submitted a letter and a red -lined Resolution and Order, both of which may be found in the Meeting File. Ms. Newton stated that the City of Tigard participated on the West Bull Mountain concept plan TAC and has commented to staff throughout this process. She said that a lot of issues that Tigard has raised concerns about have been addressed. Ms. Newton was not sure if the Board saw the letter which the City of Tigard submitted to the Planning Commission. She related that some of Tigard's concerns are around issues such as water, parks, traffic and governance —who will provide those services and funding for those services. Ms. Newton now understood that that will be addressed in Phase II. She stated that Tigard, along with the City of Beaverton, has raised issues throughout the process as to whether the plan is in compliance with Metro codes and statewide planning goals as a concept plan. Ms. Newton reported that the two issues that Tigard was really concerned about were that those goals and requirements are met and also what the future expectations of the public are around a concept plan. She recalled that the Planning Commission recommended that the concept plan not be called a concept plan and that it clearly state that it is not legally binding. Ms. Newton stated that the City of Tigard prepared a draft, red -lined version of the Resolution and Order that would suggest that the concept plan name be changed to the Urban Growth Plan Diagram, which was one of the terms used by County staff to help describe how the document actually would be served. She referenced page 7 of the October 20, 2010 concept plan report and took exception to the statement that "A process was created by the County and the consultant team to develop the Community Plan. This plan is being crafted in two phases: Phase I (West Bull Mountain Concept Plan) and Phase II (Community Plan and implementing ordinances, including a finance plan developing both a land use plan and a funding plan) concurrently represent a new approach to planning for future urban development in unincorporated Washington County ". Ms. Newton said that the phrase "for future urban development in unincorporated Washington County" seems contrary to Tigard with what was confirmed in the urban reserves process about the city's role in providing services to those areas. She recommended that that be fleshed out as we move forward. Ms. Newton referenced page 14 under the Title XI requirements, where the report states "Title references are in italics. Type I plan annexation to appropriate service provider districts for required urban services." She stated that Tigard believes it should read "Pursuant to 2007 Title XI document is provision for annexation to the district and to a city or any necessary service district to provide all required services." Commissioner Rogers thanked Liz Newton for attending this afternoon's Workesssion and tonight's Board Meeting. He shared that he had some concerns about how concrete these concepts were and was all for slowing the process down and trying to get some resolution among the various parties. Commissioner Rogers said that based upon the way it is funded through Metro and based upon the Board having to pass some kind of Resolution and understanding that this is a very preliminary concept plan that can be amended, he is now comfortable with it. He liked what Ms. Newton said tonight but noted that it is hard to modify things at the eleventh hour. Commissioner Rogers hoped that Tigard would continue to participate in Phase II and that some things can then be corrected. Ms. Newton thanked Commissioner Rogers. She reiterated that the letter to the Planning Commission provides a little more specificity about Tigard's concerns as we move forward. Commissioner Schouten assumed that staff will respond to comments made by the City of Tigard. He hoped that the Resolution and Order can specify that it is not a legally binding document and perhaps include some of the other suggested language. Joanne Rice replied that on advice of Counsel, the attachments to the Resolution and Order do make clear that the R &O is not legally binding. She added that Counsel recommended that that not be stated in the Resolution and Order itself. Ms. Rice said that relative to the term "document concept plan ", because that has been used throughout the planning process, staff decided not to rename it as the Planning Commission recommended. She stated that staff made clear in the attached materials that it is a concept plan and explained that there is further work to be done. Ms. Rice said that some of the statements referenced in the report with regard to the level of planning that the County is doing being above and beyond does not intend to say that this is the level of planning that the County will do in future urban reserves areas. She noted that the Board has made this clear through the Urbanization Forum. Ms. Rice clarified that that statement intends to refer only to Area 63 and 64 as well as North Bethany. She said that the service district reference is to Clean Water Services and Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue — indicating that they need to be annexed there. Ms. Rice stated that in terms of who is going to be the ultimate service provider for water and parks, it may be the City of Tigard, and if that is the case, that is the direction that we will take in Phase II of the implementation. John Rankin, Attorney at Law, 26715 SW Baker Road, Sherwood, Oregon, represented eight property owners. (Letter from Mr. Rankin may be found in the Meeting File.) He represented approximately 100 acres of land inside Area 63— nearly half of the area in Area 63. Mr. Rankin has been involved since near the beginning of the process and has submitted all kinds of iterations of plans because staff allegedly was not creating plans. He said that every time there was some discussion at TAC and SWG, he felt it was important to try to distill it into a drawing. Mr. Rankin stated that a map he submitted is in the Planning Commission packet which is the final Neighbors of West Bull Mountain alternative concept plan. He said that this was developed over a long period of time and with a lot of cooperation — particularly in the last half of the process from County staff. Mr. Rankin thanked Paul Schaefer, both Steve Kelleys, and Greg Miller for listening carefully to what he presented and for the work they did to try to implement that. He encouraged the Board to encourage staff to get out on the ground every time they go through a process like this. Mr. Rankin believed that when staff fmally did this, they began to pick up some of his suggestions and concepts. He asked the Board to look at the suggestions in his letter before approving the Resolution and Order tonight. Mr. Rankin emphasized that flexibility is a big issue for his clients: flexibility as it relates to transportation and to location of parks. He said that when you do a concept plan, it begins to solidify those elements. Mr. Rankin stated that as those elements go forward in a community plan, things get further solidified. He wanted to make sure that there is plenty of flexibility in the process. Mr. Rankin had some ideas that he was not prepared to present tonight but said these will be helpful through the community planning process. He asked that the Board include two more statements in the Resolution and Order: 1. "It appearing to the Board that flexibility, particularly in the location and implementation of transportation and park facilities and areas of special concern, is necessary in implementing the Concept Plan during the community planning stage of the West Bull Mountain Community Planning process; and" Mr. Rankin was now informed that he was out of testimony time. He asked the Board to ensure that flexibility will be part of this process. (Refer to Meeting File for remainder of suggestions.) Vice Chair Strader was not sure where Mr. Rankin stands on this matter. Mr. Rankin replied that he supports this with the caveat that there be flexibility in the transportation and park locations setting. He said that most of what he and his clients have suggested has been adopted. However, Mr. Rankin stated that there are still areas where there are difficulties. Vice Chair Strader's understanding was that this Resolution and Order provides the greatest flexibility that we could possibly have. Joanne Rice affirmed that this is correct. She said that with streets, for example, staff refers to them as preferred route locations and that alignments would need to be changed r to respond to environmental, topographical and geological restraints or additional engineering analysis. Ms. Rice stated that the next phase will deal with what the actual zoning is and staff will look at where property lines are and topographical issues for some of those roads. She believed that enough flexibility is written in such that we do not need to make any adjustments to the Resolution and Order. Ms. Rice stated that several of Mr. Rankin's recommendations are the types of things that would be addressed in the upcoming work program and not in the Resolution and Order. John Rankin asked Ms. Rice to provide him with notice of the work program when it goes before the Board because he would like to participate in that process. Commissioner Rogers commented that John Rankin's Dad, Howard Rankin, was probably one of the premier bond counsels in the State of Oregon. He spotted three things in John Rankin's letter that have to do with process. Commissioner Rogers asked him to elaborate. Mr. Rankin said that the process was difficult because there was one property owner on the SWG; he could not remember if a property owner was on the TAC. He stated that he and his eight property owners spent thousands of dollars on engineering, planning, re- mapping, etc to show that pretty pictures of curvy or linear roads would not work. Mr. Rankin said that when he tried to present that information to the TAC or SWG, there was too short a time to testify. He went on to say that the times to talk were at the beginning and end of the meeting. Mr. Rankin said speakers would have to anticipate what was going to happen at the beginning of the meeting to present a plan that had significant elements different from the preferred plan. He complained that they got to speak at the end, after a decision had been made. Mr. Rankin wanted public comment to be allowed right after the agenda item is presented, followed by deliberation and the decision. Commissioner Rogers hoped that staff would look at the process to make sure it is very open and that there is the ability to challenge before decisions are made. Vice Chair Strader asked staff about TAC composition. Ms. Rice responded that there were two property owners on the SWG —one from Area 63 and one from Area 64. She said that staff will look at the process used and how adjustments can be made to it. John Weathers, 16399 SW Hoops Court, Tigard, Oregon, submitted a printout of a PowerPoint presentation, which may be found in the Meeting File. He informed the Board that he lives in Scholls Country Estates, which is located right next to Area 64 and is composed of approximately 152 families. Mr. Weathers said that after Planning staff told the neighborhood what was going on, neighbors put together a petition that 126 families signed. He stated that this petition led to key changes to the concept plan. Mr. Weathers focused on the community park, which the preferred plan wished to place west of Roy Rogers Road. He reported that after talking with the neighborhood, staff moved the park to a different location. Mr. Weathers wanted the plan to contain flexibility. He believed that the concept plan, as drafted, is clear that there is plenty of flexibility to move park locations. Mr. Weathers referenced a letter from Perkins Coie on behalf of West Hills, asking to change the wording from "limited adjustments" to "reasonable adjustments ". He was perplexed by this proposed change and not sure what problem it is trying to solve. Mr. Weathers was aware that the community park is on West Hills property and that West Hills voted against this location as a SWG member. He thought that the park is where it should be. Mr. Weathers favored changing location of parks for only the right reasons. He did not want compromises to result in another Bull Mountain development that does not have an adequate park system or park. Steve McCracken, 16412 SW Luke Lane, Tigard, Oregon, said that his family has lived here for over 16 years. His concern regarding Luke Lane is that it not be a preferred pass through street as part of this proposal. Mr. McCracken said that he has little sympathy for people who move into a neighborhood containing an airport and then complain about the noise. Alternately, he has tremendous sympathy for people who move to quiet neighborhoods and then jurisdictions change the quietness and cul -de -sac features of the neighborhood. Mr. McCracken said that he moved from another cul -de -sac to Luke Lane, expecting that it would remain the same while his family lived there. He stated that every feature of Luke Lane suggests that it is a cul -de -sac but the plan is to punch through that street to access this new area. Mr. McCracken said that certain roads in Scholls Country Estates are pending pass - through but they are straight. He stated that his street has never had a sign indicating that it was pending pass - through. Mr. McCracken requested that the Board drive to Luke Lane to see that it is a serene quiet neighborhood and that residents want to keep it that way. It was moved to adopt the concept plan and to authorize the Chair to sign the Resolution and Order to memorialize the action. Motion — Rogers 2 — Brian Vote — 5 -0 Commissioner Rogers came to tonight's meeting really wanting to hear testimony because he was on the fence as to whether or not to move forward with this item. Based upon the Worksession discussion and testimony tonight, he was prepared to move forward. Chairman Brian expressed appreciation for all of the comments offered tonight by the residents and property owners in the area. He noted that a concern was expressed about how things tend to solidify over time and get very difficult to change. In general, Chairman Brian agreed with that from his experience. However, he said that when you look at the larger context of how we have operated in North Bethany after the concept was adopted, there have been a number of changes to the plan. Chairman Brian stated that when you get into the details of the infrastructure; the size, scope and location; the financing and who is responsible —these things move around. He underscored the staff report in that the concept plan is a concept and is further subject to a lot of work and a lot of citizen/owner participation, Chairman Brian thought flexibility is good and pointed out that it must be based upon reasonable findings rather than whims. He recalled that this is similar to where we were a year ago with North Bethany and defines what the work is from here on out. Chairman Brian disagreed with the idea of calling it a diagram because after thousands of dollars and two to three years of work, this is not just a diagram. He observed that there are volumes of data, research, findings and analysis that have gotten us this far. Chairman Brian recognized that it is not perfect or final but reiterated that it would be demeaning to the process to call it a diagram when everyone thought they were working on a concept. He supported leaving it as a concept plan, with various references in the report and record as to its non - binding nature. Commissioner Rogers, too, appreciated the testimony tonight. He emphasized that this is a concept plan that we can change. Commissioner Rogers said that we need to do some work with Tigard and Beaverton to make certain that we understand their concerns and implement as many of those as we can. He stated that it is important to make sure that our process is very transparent and allows anyone to participate /testify. Commissioner Rogers found it compelling that we do not move the park around like an afterthought when we have thoughtfully sited it. He was not certain we can always not go down somebody's street to open up new areas but favored taking a look at that situation. Commissioner Rogers said that if there are other avenues to access these new areas without going through what appears to be a cul -de -sac, that makes sense. He was not saying we can do that but wanted to be open to that possibility. Commissioner Rogers thanked all of the people who participated in this long process. He noted that the Board has had both Bethany and Bull Mountain to work on and said that these were only a piece of this year's work plan. Commissioner Rogers hoped everyone would continue to participate as we go into Phase II. Commissioner Schouten wanted to hear from staff now. Joanne Rice informed the Board that relative to Luke Lane and the connections into the neighborhood to the east, access to Scholls Ferry Road has been proposed as a way to ensure that there will not be a lot of cut - through traffic going through that area. She sympathized with Mr. McCracken because the street was built as a cul -de -sac but on paper when it was designed, it was to go through. Ms. Rice said that this is something that staff will have to look at very carefully. She stated that as part of the work program for the work that is coming up, staff will take to heart all of the comments that have been made — particularly about the public involvement process. Ms. Rice said that staff will package all this information so that it is readily available to everyone so that when the next phase of work happens, all this work will be there as well as the record from this hearing to indicate the testimony that was provided and also comments from the Board. Commissioner Schouten recognized that people who live in existing neighborhoods have very specific concerns and appreciated them. He said that we are at a very preliminary stage at this point. In terms of cul -de -sacs, Commissioner Schouten commented that we have been getting away from those and do not want to build any more of them. He stated that in some circumstances, we may want to eliminate some of them because they make it very difficult for people to be able to access places. Commissioner Schouten pointed out that not everyone will be driving and cul -de -sacs make it much more difficult to get to places on foot or on bike. He said that cul -de -sacs have caused situations where people have to drive a half mile to get a few hundred yards to some other point. Commissioner Schouten stated that regarding mass transit, there are a lot of parts of the county where we would like to see better bus service because not everybody can afford to own a car, not everyone is old enough to drive a car, and some seniors cannot drive a car. He spoke of the need for transit in our county and added that the county is actually underserved. Commissioner Schouten said that it is fairly doubtful that there will be any kind of transit in this neighborhood because there are a lot of other places with a pressing need but he did not want to preclude that at some point in time there could be bus service in this area. He understood that people living in existing neighborhoods have very specific needs and those will have to be addressed over time as we get into greater detail going beyond the concept plan. Chairman Brian stated that things have changed regionally over the last 10 or 20 years. He said that topics have been exhaustively discussed with lots of citizen participation discussions about what we want this region to look like over the next several decades. Chairman Brian stated that there is a general agreement that we have to use the land that is inside the Urban Growth Boundary to get more performance and density out of it. He explained that we have to be sure that as we receive our growth, it does not push or force sprawl out into the farm and forest land. Chairman Brian said that those who have been on the Board for many years have seen many fields developed. He noted that it is not just the developers but governmental policies to get better land use performance out of our land to accommodate the growth without sprawling into farm and forest areas. Chairman Brian said that it is always difficult when people face increased density, which is what happens when you live close in to an urban area. He stated that it is difficult but is the reality; he did not think it is going away as a regional policy. Vice Chair Strader agreed with the Chairman's comments regarding the similarities to North Bethany. However, her caveat is that North Bethany did not have nearly the options that Bull Mountain has. Having worked on North Bethany for the past five years, Vice Chair Strader would not wish a development on any of her colleagues in the region. She recognized that it is a very difficult process in this region to develop any kind of neighborhood because those people who have supported you for years feel that you should be with them, even when you have to make very tough decisions under very different criteria than those who live in the neighborhoods would have for themselves. Vice Chair Strader stated that for elected officials who develop healthy and sustainable neighborhoods, criteria are public safety, how to fmance, how to develop a complete community with parks, good schools, access to transportation, public transportation, etc. She did not blame people who tell the Board that they do not want development in their neighborhoods. Vice Chair Strader grew up in Hillsboro when its population was less than 10,000 and would love to go back to those days. However, she pointed out that those days are long gone. Vice Chair Strader clarified that this does not mean that she does not love what Hillsboro has become because it is a wonderful, vibrant community that has kept its agricultural community. She foresaw a lot of change on the horizon: she did not think North Bethany is done and Bull Mountain is a long way from being done. Vice Chair Strader said that it will take a lot of heavy lifting from community members and an understanding that this is not personal but rather that this is very much how public policy is developed. She acknowledged that it is very messy but felt that as long as we keep it aboveboard and not so personalized, we can do what we did in North Bethany, namely, create another really good community in Bull Mountain. Vice Chair Strader, who will leave the Board in January, wished her colleagues well in both of those neighborhoods because they are very important to the future of Washington County. 3.b. RO 10 -107 Approve Policy for Mid -Block Pedestrian and Trail Crossings (All CPOs) Greg Miller stated that the purpose of this policy is to adopt a procedure to allow new pedestrian crossings to be established at mid -block locations in uncontrolled intersections on roads under county jurisdiction based upon an engineering study by the applicant and review and approval by the County Engineer. He said that in the past, Washington County has approved pedestrian crossings only at road intersections with few exceptions. Mr. Miller explained that this was based on the belief that this was the only safe and practical system for drivers and pedestrians. He said that now, conditions and public attitudes are changing: new trails are being planned in many locations and pedestrian and bicycle facilities (including those trails) are essential to provide multi -modal access and mobility within a transportation system. Mr. Miller stated that ideally, pedestrian and trail crossings would occur at road intersections having traffic signals so that road crossings could be made safely with minimal additional improvements. He recognized that many proposed trail crossings are in the middle of blocks between road intersections and significant crossing improvements may be needed for adequate safety. Mr. Miller said that many existing roads have been designed primarily for vehicle movement and parallel pedestrian travel but not for substantial pedestrian crossings apart from road intersections. He stated that as a result, some of these new pedestrian crossings will require major capital improvements, given road width, high speeds and large volumes of traffic. Mr. Miller remarked that each one is unique. Mr. Miller said that this policy authorizes the County Engineer to approve a modification or design exception under County Code Chapter 15.08 for the crossing, which would allow it to be constructed through an appropriate permit. He stated that this procedure attempts to balance the needs of vehicles and pedestrian travel to allow new crossings to be established where all listed factors bearing on the safety of the crossing have been analyzed and where the crossing incorporates all reasonable, practicable and appropriate safety provisions. Mr. Miller summarized that safety is number one. Commissioner Schouten acknowledged receipt of letters, such as from Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District, and that staff made additional revisions. He asked staff to elaborate on these. Greg Miller indicated that there were two significant changes: • One paragraph requires that if a crossing is proposed within 300 feet of a controlled intersection, the trail users would have to be diverted to the road intersection and use the signals there to cross the street. THPRD said we needed to be a little bit more flexible about that rather than an absolute prohibition. We added language where if the County Engineer decided that that crossing was not appropriate where proposed and needed to go to the nearest intersection, then the applicant could come back in with further information. There would be a discussion and they could attempt to change the County Engineer's mind. Failing that, they could propose a grade crossing, which is much more expensive but also safe. • The other significant change is in the last paragraph, where it talked about the possibility of an applicant wanting to appeal the decision of the County Engineer. First step would be to discuss things with the County Engineer and attempt to reach a negotiated agreement. If that failed, they would use the policy that is in County Code Chapter 15.08, which is part of the road standards to appeal a design exception to the road standards. Chairman Brian asked who, typically, would be the applicant. He wondered if it would be the city, the park district, or some other entity. Mr. Miller responded that it could be any. He said that most of the road crossings identified so far are THPRD trails but he added that there are a couple of real significant ones that will belong to the City of Hillsboro. Mr. Miller suspected that other cities, as they develop their local community trails, will have similar issues and requests. Chairman Brian asked if private parties or private non - profits would be able to initiate the review also. Mr. Miller replied that anyone could initiate the application. It was moved to approve the revised Washington County Mid -Block Pedestrian Crossing Approval Process. Motion — Rogers 2 — Schouten Vote — 5 -0 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MO 10 -354 Establish December Board of Commissioners Meeting Schedule This item was removed from the Consent Agenda and is now taken up for consideration. Commissioner Duyck proposed that the December 21, 2010 meeting —which was recommended to be cancelled —be changed to "pending ". He explained that the Board does not know what is going to happen with any action that may need to be taken regarding reserves. Commissioner Duyck said that if the Board needs to do something before the end of the year, he would like to have maximum flexibility to do that. He indicated that there will be revised wording in the agenda item, as follows: December 7, 2010: 8:30 a.m. Worksession; 10:00 a.m. Board Meeting December 14, 2010: 4:00 p.m. Worksession; 6:30 p.m. Board Meeting December 21, 2010: Reserved as needed. December 28, 2010: Cancelled. Commissioner Duyck reiterated that this is for maximum flexibility and does not necessarily mean that we will have a meeting. He said that this keeps the option open. Chairman Brian stated that this could even be a telephonic meeting. It was moved to approve the proposed changes to the December Board of Commissioners meeting schedule. Motion – Duyck 2na – Rogers Vote – 5 -0 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (5 MINUTE OPPORTUNITY) None. 5. BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Brian wished everyone a happy and safe Thanksgiving. Vice Chair Strader sent "Happy Thanksgiving" wishes to everyone in Washington County and the State of Oregon. Commissioner Schouten echoed the Thanksgiving wishes and reminded everyone that there will be no Board Meeting next Tuesday since it is a fifth Tuesday. 6. ADJOURNMENT: 7:55 p.m. Motion — Rogers 2n — Schouten Vote — 5 -0 MINUTES APPROVED THIS DAY 2010 RECORDING SECRETARY CHAIRMAN AGENDA ITEM No. 5 December 11, 2012 TESTIMONY SIGN -UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING TIGARD CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 2012 -00002 TO AMEND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP TO INCLUDE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR THE RIVER TERRACE COMMUNITY PLAN AREA BASED ON RECOMMENDED LAND USES FOUND IN WASHINGTON COUNTY'S WEST BULL MOUNTAIN CONCEPT PLAN AND AMEND THE CURRENT TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOAL 14: URBANIZATION POLICIES Proposal: To amend the current Tigard Comprehensive Plan Map to include map designations for the River Terrace Community Plan area based on recommended land uses found in Washington County's West Bull Mountain Concept Plan; to amend current Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 14; Urbanization goals, polices, and recommendation actions. Applicant: City of Tigard, Oregon, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223 Location: River Terrace Community Plan Area Applicable Review Criteria: Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14; Metro Functional Plan Title 11; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. 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 of persons 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 Three - Minute Time Limit on Testimony AGENDA ITEM No. 5 December 11, 2012 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 of persons 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. NO NW COUCH S T NTH SIP- "l+.4N2 e o q1 (v3) 727 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. Perkins Coie ` . a C 1120 N.W. Couch Street,Tenth Floor Portland, OR 97209 -4128 Michael C. Robinson (DATE PHONE: 503.727.2000 PHONE: (503) 727-2264 / FAX: 503.727.2222 FAX (503) 346 -2264 www.perkinscoie.com EMAIL: MRobinson @perkinscoie.com i rv\Ofj b tA k d December 10, 2012 r\ 4 11 � VIA E -MAIL Mayor Craig E. Dirksen City of Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: City of Tigard File Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2012 -0002 Dear Major Dirksen and Members of the Tigard City Council: This office represents West Hills Development Company ( "West Hills "). I am writing on behalf of West Hills to support the Planning Commission recommendation that the City Council adopt map and text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to begin the process of urban development for the River Terrace Community Plan area. The proposed amendments are an important first step in the development of the River Terrace Community Plan area. While the Concept Plan will obviously need to be refined, as provided for in proposed Goal 14.3, Policy 6, adopting the map and text amendments now begins the process of the community planning effort. Further, the proposed text amendments to Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 14, "Urbanization," will support the City's efforts to adopt the River Terrace Community Plan. Especially important in this effort will be the satisfaction of the Transportation Planning Rule, as described in proposed Goal 14.3, Policy 12. West Hills requests that the City Council follow the Planning Commission recommendation and adopt the proposed Comprehensive Plan map and text amendments. Very truly yours, p Michael C. Robinson MCR:cfr Cc: Mr. Wally Remmers (via email) Mr. Dan Grimberg (via email) Mr. Tom Brian (via email) Mr. Darren Wyss (via email) ANCHORAGE • BEIJING • BELLEVUE • BOISE . CHICAGO • DALLAS • DENVER • LOS ANGELES • MADISON • MENLO PARK PHOENIX • PORTLAND • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • SEATTLE • SHANGHAI • WASHINGTON, D.C. 37165- 0020/LEGAL25321498.1 Perkins Coie LLP Perkins Coie 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor Portland, OR 97209 -4128 Michael C. Robinson PHONE: 503.727.2000 PHONE: (503) 727-2264 FAX (503) 346 -2264 FAX.503•727.2222 www.perkinscoie.com EMAIL: MRobinson@perkinscoie.com December 3, 2012 VIA E -MAIL Mr. Tom Anderson, President City of Tigard Planning Commission City of Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: City of Tigard File No. CPA 2012 - 00002; River Terrace Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments Dear President Anderson and Members of the Tigard Planning Commission: I represent West Hills Development Company ( "West Hills "). I am writing on behalf of West Hills concerning the proposed River Terrace Comprehensive Plan map and text amendments. By adopting these comprehensive plan amendments now, the City of Tigard is setting the stage for the adoption of the River Terrace Community Plan and implementing land use regulations. West Hills very much appreciates the City's work on these amendments because West Hills is ready to develop its properties in the River Terrace area. The proposed map and text amendments, while setting the stage for the River Terrace Community Plan and implementing land use regulations, will not allow urban development in the River Terrace area until such time as the Community Plan, including land use regulations, is adopted. Therefore, while proposed Comprehensive Plan Goal 14.3, Policy 6, provides that the proposed land use designations will be the basis for the Community Plan and that refinements to the map amendments "shall be considered during the public planning process for the River Terrace Community Plan," West Hills would like the Planning Commission to know that it will be important to adopt some refinements. to the land use designation. While there may be other refinements, a significant refinement will be the location and size of the proposed open space designation in River Terrace. 37165- 0000 /LE0AL25281644.1 ANCHORAGE • BEIJING • BELLEVUE • BOISE • CHICAGO DALLAS • DENVER • LOS ANGELES • MADISON • NEW YORK PALO ALTO • PHOENIX • PORTLAND • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • SEATTLE • SHANGHAI • WASHINGTON, D.C. Perkins Coie LLP Mr. Tom Anderson, President City of Tigard Planning Commission December 3, 2012 Page 2 I have asked Senior Planner Darren Wyss to place this letter before you at tonight's public hearing and to provide me with written notice of the City Council's decision on these amendments. Very truly yours, maa Michael C. Robinson MCR:cfr Cc: Mr. Wally Remmers (via email) Mr. Dan Grimberg (via email) Mr. Tom Brian (via email) Mr. Darren Wyss (via email) 37165- 0000/LEGAL25281644.1 AIS -1022 6 • Business Meeting Meeting Date: 12/11/2012 Length (in minutes): 60 Minutes Agenda Title: Legislative Public Hearing for Downtown Connectivity Plan Code Amendments Submitted By: Sean Farrelly, Community Development Item Type: Public Hearing - Legislative Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing: Yes Publication Date: 11/22/2012 Information ISSUE The purpose of the legislative public hearing is to receive a brief staff report, listen to public testimony and consider the Downtown Connectivity Plan Code Amendments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends Council support the Planning Commission's recommendation to adopt the proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments, as amended. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (TDIP) found one of the major constraints for the development of Downtown to be the lack of connectivity which impedes pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle circulation in the Downtown. To address this, the city produced, with stakeholder input, the Tigard Downtown Conceptual Connectivity Plan (Connectivity Plan). The intent of the Connectivity Plan is to establish a framework for improved multi -modal connectivity and circulation in Downtown Tigard. There are three objectives in the proposals for new downtown connections: • Connectivity: Foster the creation of smaller block structures, consistent with the walkable urban village envisioned by the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. • Circulation: Create efficient routes into and around the Downtown. • Capacity: Create parallel streets to accommodate the demand created by new Downtown development. The Plan was originally developed by a consultant team who worked with city staff and a technical advisory team of public agency representatives. Tigard City Council, Planning Commission, the City Center Advisory Commission, and the Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee reviewed and provided input to the plan. Implementation The Connectivity Plan will be implemented through amendments to the Tigard Development Code (1'DC) and the City of Tigard 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP). The proposed amendments address the future connectivity improvements and the new downtown street cross sections called for in the Connectivity Plan. The intent of these proposed amendments is to provide the city with some tools for implementing its vision for downtown Tigard while recognizing that improvements will likely be done incrementally over 10 to 20 years or longer as individual properties redevelop. The Staff Report to the City Council includes Exhibits A -D with the proposed amendments to the Transportation System Plan (part of the Comprehensive Plan) and three chapters of the Tigard Development Code. • Exhibit A: Amendments to the Transportation System Plan The TSP amendments consist of maps of the proposed locations of new streets superimposed on an aerial map of Downtown so that it is clear where future streets are expected to go and a new street classification map to show how much right -of -way is needed. The future street connection alignments of the Connectivity Plan were refined after meetings with property owners and other stakeholders. Wherever possible, alignments were adjusted to minimize the impacts to property owners, while still achieving the desired connections. • Exhibit B: Amendments to 18.370 Variances and Adjustments These amendments address adjustments to the connectivity requirements. The process provides some flexibility for property owners and the city, for example, when application of the connectivity standards would preclude reasonable economic use of the site or would result in an adverse impact on natural features such as wetlands, bodies of water, significant habitat areas, steep slopes, or existing mature trees. • Exhibit C: Amendments to 18.610 610 Tigard Downtown District Development and Design Standards These amendments consist of a purpose, and applicability and connectivity standards. Unless a future street is also added to the city's Capital Improvement Program, it will likely only get built when there is new development or major redevelopment (e.g., redevelopment valued at more than 60% of total current value) on an affected property. At the time of development, applicants will be required to dedicate right -of -way and construct the portion of the street that is on their property. In some circumstances, a public easement, instead of right -of -way could be dedicated. In all cases, the city will work to ensure that the required improvements are "roughly proportional" to the impacts of the development. For smaller projects (e.g. redevelopment valued at less than 60% of total current value), the applicant will only be required to keep the future alignment clear of buildings. Surface parking, landscaping, temporary structures, driveways and similar types of development could be allowed within the areas where new connections are planned. The applicant could also be asked to sign a non - remonstrance to any future Local Improvement District (LID) to help pay for the identified street or alley improvement. • Exhibit D: Amendments to 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards These amendments add special downtown street cross sections which provide an enhanced pedestrian environment. These cross sections apply to existing streets as well as future street connections and will be applied when the city improves a street or when a private developer has to make full- or half - street improvements as a part of their development. The new street classifications and cross sections with the recommended right -of -way widths, sidewalk, vehicle and bike lanes were developed based on the present and potential contexts of the streets, i.e. the narrowest streets are proposed for areas that are likely to develop with primarily residential uses. Public Involvement Since the original development of the Connectivity Plan, the City Center Advisory Commission reviewed the plan over several months, endorsing it in fall 2010. Starting in November 2011, Angelo Planning Group was engaged to develop proposed development and comprehensive plan code language. Small group meetings were held with potentially affected property owners in March 2012. Work sessions were held with the City Center Advisory Commission and Planning Commission. A public open house was held on July 19, 2012. Feedback from these meetings was incorporated into the code language and proposed street map. Council was briefed on the proposed amendments on September 18, 2012. At the meeting four changes to the proposed maps /code were suggested that were carried forward to the Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendments on October 15, 2012. All property owners in the downtown MU -CBD district were notified by mail. Three property owners (or their representative) testified at the meeting: Alexander Craghead, chair of the City Center Advisory Commission and a representative of owners of 12205 SW Hall, testified in favor of the amendments. Cecilia Thompson, owner of 8610 SW Scoffins St. (an apartment complex) testified in opposition to the amendments because the proposed connectivity map shows a pedestrian path could be required if her property were to redevelop. Russ Little, owner of 12020 SW Main (Woodcraft), testified in opposition to the amendments. He expressed concern about the proposed connectivity map because he felt his property would be overly impacted by two proposed connections. The Planning Commission recommended three changes to the proposed amendments: - Additional code language that specifies if an existing development is destroyed as a result of fire or other cause beyond the control of the owner, the rebuilding of it shall not be considered a major redevelopment for the purposes of street connectivity. - Revising Figure 5 -14B. Connectivity Projects Detail Sheet: Map 1 to realign one of the proposed connections across the Woodcraft property. -One change to the language about the ADA accessibility of pedestrian paths was also suggested. Staff proposes to make a reference to an existing standard in the development code. The Commission also supported the four changes carried forward from the Council workshop. With these changes, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the proposed code amendments be approved. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The Council may approve, approve with modifications, deny or adopt an alternative to an application for the legislative change or remand to the Commission for rehearing and reconsideration. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION September 18, 2012 Attachments Ordinance with Exhibit A Staff Report to the City Council Staff Report - EXHIBIT A Staff Report - EXHIBIT Al.: Planning Commission recommended changes to Exhibit A Staff Report - EXHIBIT B Staff Report - EXHIBIT C Staff Report - EXHIBIT D Staff Report - EXHIBIT E.: Traffic Analysis Staff Report - EXHIBIT F.: Citizen Comments Staff Report - EXHIBIT G.: Agency Comments Staff Report - EXHIBIT H: October 15, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes Presentation Slides Pr),Qy 2_ Agenda Item: W Hearing Date: December 11, 2012 STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL i FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD 120 DAYS = N/A SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT CASE NOS: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) CPA 2012 -00001 Development Code Amendment (DCA) DCA 2012 -00002 APPLICANT: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 PROPOSAL: To amend the City of Tigard 2035 Transportation System Plan and Tigard Development Code (Title 18) Chapters 18.370, 18.610 and 18.810 to implement the street connectivity and design standards recommended in the Dmvntown Tigard Conceptual Connect,vityy Plan. LOCATION: Downtown Mixed Use Central Business District ZONING: MU -CBD COMP PLAN: Mixed Use Central Business District APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, Citizen Involvement; 2, Land Use Planning; 9, Economic Development; 11, Public Facilities and Services; 12, Transportation; 13, Energy Conservation; and 15, Special Planning Areas: Downtown; Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 6; Metro Regional Transportation Functional Plan Titles 1, 2, and 5; Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 12; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 11, 12, and 13; SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission and find that this request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Development Code Amendments meets the necessary approval criteria according to the findings found in Section IV of this report. Therefore, staff recommends City Council APPROVE CPA 2012 -00001 and DCA 2012 - 000(12. DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT — Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 1 OF 29 CPA 2012-00001,' DC) 2012 -00002 SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project History In 1996, the Metro 2040 Plan included Downtown Tigard, the historic center of 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. The result of the planning process was the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (1'DIP). 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 Chapter Chapter 15 of the Comprehensive Plan identifies Downtown Tigard as a "Special Planning Area" needing additional planning attention due to its unique circumstances and value to the community. It was adopted specifically to provide the goals, policies, and action measures to implement the vision of the TDIP and its goal of creating a vibrant and active urban village. The City has taken a number of steps toward that goal including the adoption of the Tigard Downtown District Development and Design Standards (Chapter 18.610). Key Comprehensive Plan findings related to transportation and connectivity include: • Block sizes are large for a downtown. • The Area is served by two major transportation corridors (Hwy 99W and Hall Blvd.) with heavy traffic levels. Many of the other Downtown streets lack complete sidewalks. In general, there are poor linkages to and within the Downtown. Addressing the connectivity and transportation issues is an important part of achieving that goal. More specifically, Goal 15.4 for Downtown is to "Develop comprehensive street and circulation improvements for pedestrians, automobiles, bicycles, and transit." Through a series of planning projects, the City has been working to implement the goals, policies and recommended action measures identified in Chapter 15. The Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan, the Downtown Streetscape Design Plan and Tigard Downtown Future l 'ision all further these goals and policies, recognizing the need to improve connectivity and circulation within Downtown Tigard. DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT— Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 2 OF 29 CPA 2012 -00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 Downtown Tigard Conceptual Connectivity Plan The Downtown Tigard Conceptual Connectivity Plan (Connectivity Plan) seeks to actualize the concepts included in these plans, and is meant to complement the recently adopted Downtown Tigard Code Amendments. It has been informed further by the recently designed improvements to both Main and Burnham Streets. The Connectivity Plan was developed by a consultant team, led by SERA Architects, who collaborated with City staff and a technical advisory team of public agency representatives. The City Center Advisory Commission reviewed and provided input to the Plan. The intent of the Connectivity Plan is to establish a framework for improved multi -modal connectivity and circulation in Downtown Tigard. Objectives include: • Connectivity: Foster the creation of smaller block structures, consistent with the walkable urban village envisioned by the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. • Circulation: Create efficient routes into and around the Downtown. • Capacity: Create parallel streets to accommodate the demand created by new Downtown development. The Connectivity Plan, which was completed in 2010, identified a number of future street connections through Downtown. However, the location of the alignments was left relatively general. In order to be implemented, the alignments have been further refined and detailed maps have been prepared. Wherever possible, alignments have been adjusted to minimiz the impacts to property owners, while still achieving the desired connections. The width of the proposed future streets is based on the new downtown cross section designs. Most of the connectivity and circulation improvements envisioned are expected to be implemented over time as property owners seek to redevelop their land. A smaller number of key projects could be initiated by the city if they are needed to meet essential connectivity or other objectives. Amendments to the Tigard Development Code and Ci y of Tigard 2035 Tramportation System Plan are needed to implement these improvements in the future. City of Tigard High Capacity Transit Land Use Plan The City of Tigard High Capacity Transit Land Use Plan was completed in May 2012 and approved by the City Council in August 2012. The plan identifies changes that would make possible station areas more supportive of high capacity transit. The concept plan for Downtown Tigard notes: "Given the heavy demand for traffic flow on OR Highway 99W /Pacific Highway and SW Hall Boulevard, the major transportation improvements for Downtown are focused on improving opportunities for local circulation. This includes smaller block sizes serving automobiles, pedestrians and bicycles..." The concept plan identified desired future street connections, which are similar to those identified in the Connectivity Plan, and recommends development of a circulation plan as a first implementation step. Process and Outreach The city has been working with downtown property and business owners to ensure that proposed implementation measures are fair and equitable for property owners in the planning area and the community overall. Over the last six months, city staff and consultants have conducted the following activities to develop strategies to implement the connectivity improvements: Connectivity Plan • Open House • City Center Advisory Commission review over several meetings • City Council, Planning Commission, and Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee workshops Implementation Project • Identified preliminary implementation strategies and refined proposed connectivity projects. DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT — Staff Report to tine City Council PAGE 3 OF 29 CPA 2012 -00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 • Met with study area property and business owners in March 2012 to review draft plans and implementation strategies for connectivity improvements and refined the proposed plans in response to meeting participants' comments and concerns. • Prepared a preliminary set of proposed amendments to the city's development code and Transportation System Plan (TSP) that will help the city implement the improvements in partnership with property owners and developers in the future. Proposed amendments to the TSP and development code included updated standards related to variances, downtown design and development standards, and street and utility standards. • Conducted a work session with the Tigard Planning Commission on June 4 to review a summary of proposed code amendment concepts. • Held a community open house on July 17, 2012 to review a summary of proposed code amendment concepts. • Conducted a work session with the Tigard City Council on September 18, 2012to review a summary of proposed code amendment concepts. In addition, the city has continued to provide information to downtown property owners and other interested parties via the city's Web site, e-mail announcements to interested parties, and articles in local newsletters. The draft code amendments were presented to the Planning Commission at a public hearing on October 15, 2012. The Commission received public testimony and deliberated on the amendments. The Planning Commission recommended three changes to the proposed amendments: • Additional code language that specifies if an existing development is destroyed as a result of fire or other cause beyond the control of the owner, the rebuilding of it shall not be considered a major redevelopment for the purposes of street connectivity. • Revising Figure 5 -14B. Connectivity Projects Detail Sheet: Map 1 to realign one of the proposed connection across the Woodcraft property. • One change to the language about the ADA accessibility of pedestrian paths was also suggested. Staff proposes to make a reference to an existing standard in the development code. • The Commission also supported the four changes carried forward from the Council workshop. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the CPA and DCA with amended language to the City Council. These amendments will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration at a public hearing on December 11, 2012. Summary of the Draft Plan and Code Amendments This project includes amendments to both the Tigard Development Code (1'DC) and City of Tigard 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP). The amendments address both future connectivity improvements and new downtown street cross sections. The intent of these proposed amendments is to provide the city with some tools for implementing the vision for downtown Tigard. The proposed code amendments also provide some flexibility for the city and property owners in terms of when and where the cross sections and connectivity improvements apply. Connectivity Improvements — these are future streets or bicycle / pedestrian facilities designed to provide more access through blocks. • Unless a future street is also added to the City's Capital Improvement Program, it will likely only get built when there is new development or major redevelopment (e.g., redevelopment valued at more than 60% of total current value) on an affected property. • Proposed code requirements for New Development and Major Redevelopment: o At the time of development, applicants are required to dedicate right -of -way and construct the portion of the street that is on their property. DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT — Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 4 OF 29 CPA 2012-00001/DCA 2012 -00002 o In some circumstances, applicants can dedicate a public easement instead of right -of -way. • Proposed code requirements for Smaller Projects (redevelopment projects valued at less than 60% of total current value): o Applicants are only required to keep the future alignment clear of buildings. o Surface parking, landscaping, temporary structures, driveways and similar types of development are allowed within the areas where new connections are planned. o Applicants are asked to sign a non - remonstrance to a n y future Local Improvement District (LID) to help pay for the identified street or alley improvement. • In all cases, the city will work to ensure that the required improvements are "roughly proportional" to the impacts of the development. • Alternative alignments or designs are allowed in some cases: o Because these future streets aren't fully designed as yet, an adjustment process provides some flexibility for property owners and the city. o For example, when application of the connectivity standards would preclude reasonable economic use of the site or would result in an adverse impact on natural features such as wetlands, bodies of water, significant habitat areas, steep slopes, or existing mature trees. • Detailed maps showing the future streets are being added to the TSP so that it is clear where future streets are expected to go and how much right -of -way is needed. New Downtown Street Cross Sections — these are drawings showing the required width of right -of -way, travel lanes. parkin sidewalks, landscaping, etc. for each street type or classification. • Currently the TSP includes a map showing the street classification (e.g., arterial, collector, etc.) and TDC Chapter 18.810 describes all of the cross sections, showing the required width of travel lanes, on- street parking, sidewalks, etc. • As part of the Conceptual Connectivity Plan project, special street cross sections which provide an enhanced pedestrian environment were designed for the downtown. • To implement these special cross sections, a new street classification map for the downtown is being added to the TSP and the new cross sections are being added to Chapter 18.810. • These cross sections apply to existing streets as well as future street connections and will be used when the city improves a street or when a private developer has to make full- or half -street improvements as a part of their development. The proposed amendments will affect the TSP as well as a number of chapters in the TDC: • Amendments to the Transportation System Plan to add background and figures (amendments to TSP included as Exhibit A). • Amendments to 18.370 to address adjustments to the connectivity requirements (amendments to TDC Chapter 18.370 included as Exhibit B). • Amendments to 18.610 to add purpose, applicability and connectivity standards amendments to TDC Chapter 18.610 included as Exhibit C). • Amendments to 18.810 to add new downtown cross - sections amendments to TDC Chapter 18.810 included as Exhibit D). SECTION IV. APPLICABLE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS APPLICABLE CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 18) Chapter 18.380. ZONING MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS "18.380.020 Legislative Amendments to this Title and Map A. Legislative amendments. Legislative zoning map and text amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.060G." DOWNTOWN CONNECTI \'ITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT— Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 5 OF 29 CPA 2012 -00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 The CPA and DCA would establish rules and regulations to be applied generally to all similarly affected properties throughout the City of Tigard. Therefore, the application is being processed as a Type IV procedure, which is a legislative amendment, as governed by Section 18.390.060.G. Chapter 18.390. DECISION - MAKING PROCEDURES "18.390.B.4. Types defined. There are four types of decision - making procedures, as follows:... 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." The CPA and DCA would result in the large -scale implementation of the city's connectivity goals and policies for downtown as detailed in the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the application will be reviewed under the Type IV procedure as detailed in the Section 18.390.060.G. In accordance with this section, the CPA and DCA were initially considered by the Planning Commission with the final decision made by the City Council. "18.390.060.G. Decision - making considerations. 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 City's implementing ordinances." The applicable decision - making considerations include the following: • Applicable Statewide Planning Goals - Goals 1, 2, 9, 11, 12, and 13. • Applicable federal and state of Oregon statutes — Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 12. • Applicable Metro regulations — Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 6 and Regional Transportation Functional Plan Titles 1, 2, and 5. • Applicable Comprehensive Plan policies - Goals 1, Citizen Involvement; 2, Land Use Planning; 9, Economic Development; 11, Public Facilities and Services; 12, Transportation; 13, Energy Conservation; and 15, Downtown. • Applicable city ordinances — TMC Chapters 18.380 and 18.390. CONCLUSION: The review criteria listed above are applicable to the CPA and DCA. The CPA and DCA are reviewed through the Type IV legislative procedure. The Planning Commission and Council will base their decisions on applicable federal, state, Metro, and local policies and regulations, which are enumerated and addressed in this staff report. Therefore, the applicable Tigard Development Code provisions are met. APPLICABLE CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT "GOAL: 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process." DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT — Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 6 OF 29 CPA 2012-00001/DCA 2012 -00002 The Connectivity Plan was developed by urban designers from SERA Architects, with technical assistance by Kittelson & Associates (traffic and transportation analysis) and Johnson Reid (market and real estate analysis), under contract with the City of Tigard. Guidance was provided by the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) and a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comprised of staff from the City of Tigard, TriMet, Metro, and the Oregon Department of Transportation. Public input was gathered on draft alternatives of the plan at a public open house in July 2009. Following completion of the Connectivity Plan in 2010, the City began evaluating implementation alternatives. This effort included meetings with study area property and business owners in March 2012 to review draft plans and implementation strategies for connectivity improvements, a work session with the Tigard Planning Commission on June 4, 2012 to review a summary of proposed code amendment concepts, and a community open house on July 17, 2012 to review a summary of proposed code amendment concepts. Public hearing notices, consistent with Measure 56 requirements, were sent to 127 Downtown Tigard property owners on September 13, 2012 for the Planning Commission hearing and on November 21, 2012 for the City Council hearing. A request for comments was also provided to property owners, interested parties and affected agencies on September 10, 2012. The Planning Commission public hearing notice was published in the Tigard Times on September 27, 2012 and the City Council public hearing notice was published on November 22, 2012. A public hearing notice was provided to interested parties and affected agencies on October 4, 2012 for the Planning Commission public hearing and on November 21, 2012 for the City Council public hearing. The Planning Commission considered the CPA and DCA through the public hearing process on October 15, 2012. The Commission unanimously recommended approval of the CPA and DCA with amendments to the City Council. The council public hearing is scheduled for December 11, 2012. The Downtown Connectivity Plan Code Amendments process demonstrates that citizens, affected agencies and other jurisdictions have been provided the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process consistent with this policy. "GOAL: 1.2 Ensure all citizens have access to: A. opportunities to communicate directly to the City; and B. information on issues in an understandable form." "POLICIES: 5. The City shall seek citizen participation and input through collaboration with community organizations, interest groups, and individuals in addition to City sponsored boards and committees." In addition to public meetings with the City Center Advisory Commission, Planning Commission, Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee, and City Council, where public feedback was welcomed, the city conducted two open houses and held five small group meetings with downtown property owners. Information about the project was posted on the city's website, which was regularly updated. Project information was also posted at community events. "6. The City shall provide opportunities for citizens to communicate to Council, boards and commissions, and staff regarding issues that concern them." The City Center Advisory Commission provided input and reviewed the Downtown Connectivity Plan over thirteen meetings. Citizen input was also requested at two Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee meetings and two Planning Commission workshops. In addition, two public open houses and five small group meetings with property owners were held. LAND USE PLANNING DO 'NTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT— Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 7 OF 29 CPA 2012- 00001,1DCA 2012 -00002 "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." "POLICIES: 1. The City's land use program shall establish a clear policy direction, comply with state and regional requirements, and serve its citizens' own interests." In 2008 the city completed its periodic review and update of its Comprehensive Plan, which has been acknowledged by Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development DLCD as consistent with Statewide Planning Goals. Chapter 15 of the Comprehensive Plan, which was initially adopted on April 24, 2007, identifies Downtown Tigard as a "Special Planning Area" needing additional planning attention due to its unique circumstances and value to the community. Through a series of planning projects, the City has been working to implement the goals, policies and recommended action measures identified in Chapter 15. The Downtown Tigard Conceptual Connectivity Plan, Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan, and Tigard Downtown Future Vision all further these goals and policies, recognizing the need to improve connectivity and circulation within Downtown Tigard. The CPA and DCA have been guided by these planning processes, which have established clear policy direction in compliance with state and regional requirements and serve citizens' interests, consistent with this policy. "2. The City's land use regulations, related plans, and implementing actions shall be consistent with and implement its Comprehensive Plan." As noted above, the Downtown Tigard Conceptual Connectivity Plan, Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan, and Tigard Downtown Future Vision all further goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan in recognizing the need to improve connectivity and circulation within Downtown Tigard. The CPA and DCA implement the recommendations of these plans. Therefore, they are consistent with related plans and implement the Comprehensive Plan, as required by this policy. "3. The City shall coordinate the adoption, amendment, and implementation of its land use program with other potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies." Request for comments on the proposed CPA and DCA were sent to Metro — Land Use and Planning, Washington County Department of Land Use & Transportation, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, Clean Water Services, ODOT Rail Division, Portland & Western Railroad, Southern Pacific Railroad and TriMet Transit Development. Representatives of the Oregon Department of Transportation, Metro, and TriMet were also members of the Technical Advisory Committee. DLCD was provided the opportunity to comment and coordinate the application for the Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment process per ORS 197.610. Therefore, the city has coordinated the adoption, amendment and implementation of the CPA and DCA with potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies consistent with this policy. "4. The City's land use program shall promote the efficient use of land through the creation of incentives and redevelopment programs." The amendments rely largely on redevelopment to implement the desired connectivity improvements. The City's downtown is within an urban renewal area, which provides incentives for redevelopment; the amendments ensure that as redevelopment takes place, the needed connections are provided for. "5. The City shall promote intense urban level development in Metro - designated Centers and Corridors, and employment and industrial areas." DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT — Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 8 OF 29 CPA 2012 - 00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 Downtown Tigard is a Metro - designated "Town Center ". The Connectivity Plan describes a vision for a complete system of streets and pathways that would significantly improve multi -modal access to, from, and within Downtown and organize development within a block structure better suited to intensive urban development. The proposed street and pathway network would create a fine- grained block structure that is characteristic of other successful downtowns throughout the region and the nation. The new grid will be pedestrian - friendly, universally accessible, and supportive of both the existing downtown - appropriate businesses and the type and scale of development the community desires to see here in the future. In addition, the street character classifications have been tailored to meet the future context of individual street segments. "7. The City's regulatory land use maps and development code shall implement the Comprehensive Plan by providing for needed urban land uses including:... E) Overlay districts where natural resource protections or special planning and regulatory tools are warranted." The DCA includes amendments to Chapter 18.610: Tigard Downtown District Development and Design Standards, an existing overlay district applicable to the downtown area. The amendments to this overlay district recognize the special nature of the downtown area and the need to provide for smaller block sizes and an enhanced pedestrian environment in this area. In addition, the CPA includes special street standards applicable only to the downtown area in recognition of the particular needs of this area. "8. The City shall require that appropriate public facilities are made available, or committed, prior to development approval and are constructed prior to, or concurrently with, development occupancy." The amendments to the DCA require that affected property owners dedicate right -of -way (or a public easement) and construct the portion of the street that is on their property when undertaking New Development or Major Redevelopment (e.g., redevelopment valued at more than 60% of total current value). For Smaller Projects (redevelopment projects valued at less than 60% of total current value), applicants are not required to construct the streets, but are required to design their site to allow for the future construction of the street by keeping the future alignment free of buildings and to sign a non - remonstrance to any future Local Improvement District (LID) to help pay for the identified street or alley improvement. These amendments help ensure that the appropriate public facilities are provided, while ensuring that the required improvements are "roughly proportional" to the impacts of the development. "9. The City may, upon determining it is in the public interest, enter into development agreements to phase the provision of required public facilities and services and /or payment of impact fees and /or other arrangements that assure the integrity of the infrastructure system and public safety." The City will continue to have the option of entering into development agreements to allow the phasing of required improvements specified in the CPA and DCA. "10. The City shall institute fees and charges to ensure development pays for development related services and assumes the appropriate costs for impacts on the transportation and other public facility systems." The DCA requires that applicants for Smaller Projects sign a non - remonstrance agreement for formation of a future LID to pay for the identified street or alley improvement, which will facilitate the City's existing ability to form LIDs to ensure that development pays for development related services and appropriate costs for impacts on the transportation system. "12. The City shall provide a wide range of tools, such as planned development, design DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT— Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 9 OF 29 CPA 2012 -00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 standards, and conservation easements that encourage results such as:... B. Land use compatibility; E. Regulatory flexibility necessary for projects to adapt to site conditions." The proposal is compatible with the recently adopted zoning for Downtown. As noted in the Connectivity Plan, a complete system of streets and pathways would significantly improve multi -modal access to, from, and within Downtown and organize development within a block structure better suited to the desired level of urban development. In addition, the street character classifications have been tailored to meet the future context of individual street segments. Regulatory flexibility necessary for connectivity projects to adapt to site conditions is provided for in Section 18.370.020.C.12 (Adjustments to Downtown Connectivity Standards), included in Exhibit B. This section allows applicants to seek an adjustment to the Downtown Connectivity Standards (e.g., to modify a proposed alignment) if application of the Downtown Connectivity Standards would preclude all reasonable economic use of the site. "15. In addition to other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies deemed applicable, amendments to Tigard's Comprehensive Plan /Zone Map shall 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;" The CPA and DCA do not amend allowed land uses, but are intended to help ensure that adequate transportation facilities are provided to serve the land uses currently allowed in the downtown area. "18. The Council may at any time, upon finding it is in the overall public interest, initiate legislative amendments to change the Comprehensive Plan text, Plan /Zoning Map(s) and /or the Community Development Code." In January 2010 City Council directed staff to implement the Downtown chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and the Connectivity Plan by undertaking an update of Tigard's downtown connectivity related code provisions. The CPA and DCA reflect City Council direction for implementation of the Connectivity Plan and Comprehensive Plan, which they have found to be in the overall public interest consistent with this policy. "20. The City shall periodically review and, if necessary, update its Comprehensive Plan and regulatory maps and implementing measures to ensure they are current and responsive to community needs, provide reliable information, and conform to applicable state law, administrative rules, and regional requirements." The CPA and DCA amendments were developed in response to community needs identified through the Connectivity Plan and downtown planning efforts. The City Center Advisory Commission reviewed and provided input to the Connectivity Plan and many other mechanisms for public input were provided throughout the downtown planning process (as described in Section III) to ensure community needs were well represented. The CPA and DCA are also intended to provide reliable information to property owners, developers, and the general public related to development and redevelopment within the downtown. The CPA and DCA conform to applicable state, administrative rules, and regional requirements as identified in the findings for this staff report. Therefore, the CPA and DCA are consistent with this policy. "21. The City shall require all development to conform to site design /development regulations." DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT— Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 10 OF 29 CPA 2012 -00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 The DCA and CPA establish new development regulations for future connectivity improvements in Downtown Tigard. These regulations apply to development as follows: • New Development and Major Redevelopment: o At the time of development, applicants are required to dedicate right -of -way and construct the portion of the street that is on their property. • Smaller Projects (redevelopment projects valued at less than 60% of total current value): o Applicants are only required to keep the future alignment clear of buildings. o Surface parking, landscaping, temporary structures, driveways and similar types of development are allowed within the areas where new connections are planned. o Applicants are asked to sign a non - remonstrance to a n y future Local Improvement District (LID) to help pay for the identified street or alley improvement. • In all cases, the city will work to ensure that the required improvements are "roughly proportional" to the impacts of the development. • Alternative alignments or designs are allowed in some cases: o Because these future streets aren't fully designed as yet, an adjustment process provides some flexibility for property owners and the city. o For example, when application of the connectivity standards would preclude reasonable economic use of the site or would result in an adverse impact on natural features such as wetlands, bodies of water, significant habitat areas, steep slopes, or existing mature trees. • Detailed maps showing the future streets are being added to the TSP so that it is clear where future streets are expected to go and how much right -of -way is needed. The proposed new street cross - sections will replace the existing street cross - sections within Downtown. New Downtown Street Cross Sections • Currently the TSP includes a map showing the street classification (e.g., arterial, collector, etc.) and TDC Chapter 18.810 describes all of the cross sections, showing the required width of travel lanes, on- street parking, sidewalks, etc. • As part of the Conceptual Connectivity Plan project, special street cross sections which provide an enhanced pedestrian environment were designed for the downtown. • To implement these special cross sections, a new street classification map for the downtown is being added to the TSP and the new cross sections are being added to Chapter 18.810. • These cross sections apply to existing streets as well as future street connections and will be used when the city improves a street or when a private developer has to make full- or half -street improvements as a part of their development. Therefore, the CPA and DCA are consistent with this policy. "23. The City shall require new development, including public infrastructure, to minimize conflicts by addressing the need for compatibility between it and adjacent existing and future land uses." The future alignments and designated cross - sections of the planned streets have been selected to minimize conflicts with existing and planned future land uses in Downtown Tigard and to provide for compatibility of the street network with the walkable, urban neighborhood envisioned in the various plans for the downtown. Therefore, the CPA and DCA are consistent with this policy. "24. The City shall establish design standards to promote quality urban development and to enhance the community's value, livability, and attractiveness." The CPA and DCA in Chapter 18.810 establish design standards for new streets and street improvements in Downtown Tigard. These standards are intended to enhance the downtown's value, livability, and attractiveness, consistent with this policy. DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT — Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 11 OF 29 CPA 2012 -00001 /DC A 2012 -00002 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT "GOAL: 9.1 Develop and maintain a strong, diversified, and sustainable local economy." "POLICIES: 3. The City's land use and other regulatory practices shall be flexible and adaptive to promote economic development opportunities, provided that required infrastructure is made available." The DCA in Chapter 18.370 includes provisions to allow adjustments to the connectivity requirements. For example, when application of the connectivity standards would preclude all reasonable economic use of the site. Therefore, the CPA and DCA have been designed to be flexible and adaptive to promote economic development opportunities and allow the provision of required infrastructure, consistent with this policy, while concurrently supporting the city's goals and policies for Downtown Tigard. "4. The City shall address the public facility needs of business and economic development through identifying and programming needed public facilities and services within the Public Facility and Community Investment Plans." As part of implementation of the Connectivity Plan, the City will add certain key roadway connections to the CIP in order to address the public facility needs of Downtown businesses and community economic development, consistent with this policy. "5. The City shall promote well - designed and efficient development and redevelopment of vacant and underutilized industrial and commercial lands." The CPA and DCA are intended to produce smaller block sizes and enhanced connectivity in Downtown Tigard in order to support efficient development and redevelopment of commercial lands in the Downtown. Therefore, the CPA and DCA are consistent with this policy. "10. The City shall strongly support, as essential to the region's economic future, the development of efficient regional multi-modal transportation systems throughout the Portland Metropolitan area." The DCA and CPA are intended to enhance connectivity for all modes of transportation within and through Downtown Tigard. The planned connections will help provide an efficient multi-modal transportation system for the community, consistent with this policy. "GOAL: 9.3 Make Tigard a prosperous and desirable place to live and do business." "POLICIES: 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 CPA and DCA in Chapter 18.810 establish design standards for new streets and street improvements in Downtown Tigard. These standards are intended to ensure a well - designed and attractive urban environment that supports /protects public and private sector investments, consistent with this policy. DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT — Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 12 OF 29 CPA 2012 -00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 "3. The City shall commit to improving and maintaining the quality of community life (public safety, education, transportation, community design, housing, parks and recreation, etc.) to promote a vibrant and sustainable economy." During planning for Downtown Tigard and throughout the Connectivity Plan process, the community identified connectivity and walkability enhancements in the Downtown as a key component to improving and maintaining quality of community life and promoting a vibrant and sustainable economy in the Downtown. The CPA and DCA implement these goals to provide enhanced walkability and multi-modal connectivity as a way to improve and maintain the quality of community life and to promote a vibrant and sustainable economy, consistent with this policy. PUBLIC FACILITIES "GOAL: 11.1 Develop and maintain a stormwater system that protects development, water resources, and wildlife habitat." "POLICIES: 7. The City shall encourage low impact development practices and other measures that reduce the amount of, and /or treat, stormwater runoff at the source." The CPA and DCA include new street cross - section standards for Downtown Tigard. These new streets will meet Public Works and Clean Water Services standards for stormwater treatment. Therefore, the CPA and DCA encourage low impact development practices and other measures that reduce the amount of and /or treat stormwater at the source, consistent with this policy. TRANSPORTATION "GOAL: 12.1: Develop mutually supportive land use and transportation plans to enhance the livability of the community." "POLICIES: 1. The City shall plan for a transportation system that meets current community needs and anticipated growth and development." The new transportation connections planned for Downtown Tigard were identified during the Connectivity Plan process based on analysis of current community needs as well as the ability of the transportation system to serve anticipated growth and development. An analysis of projected future traffic volumes on existing and planned roadways was conducted as part of development of the Connectivity Plan (Exhibit E). This analysis showed that the planned connections will enable the transportation system Downtown to continue to meet the community's needs, consistent with this policy. "2. The City shall prioritize transportation projects according to community benefit, such as safety, performance, and accessibility, as well as the associated costs and impacts." The planned transportation connections identified in the Connectivity Plan were prioritized as part of the implementation effort that resulted in the CPA and DCA. The desired connections were prioritized based on the safety, performance, and /or accessibility benefits to the community relative to their impacts on Downtown property owners. The high priority projects have been identified for inclusion in the City's DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT — Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 13 OF 29 CPA 2012 -00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 CIP; other projects will be built as development and redevelopment allow. Therefore, the CPA and DCA are consistent with this policy. "3. The City shall maintain and enhance transportation functionality by emphasizing multi- modal travel options for all types of land uses." The Connectivity Plan identified the need to reduce block sizes and provide enhanced connectivity throughout Downtown Tigard as a way to enhance transportation functionality for all modes of travel. The CPA and DCA implement this change by requiring new connections be constructed or, at a minimum, not obstructed upon redevelopment. The CPA and DCA also designate an area for provision of multi -use pathways to provide better non - motorized connectivity. Therefore, the CPA and DCA are consistent with this policy. "4. The City shall promote land uses and transportation investments that promote balanced transportation options." The CPA and DCA will promote transportation investments that benefit motorized and non- motorized modes, promoting balanced transportation options consistent with this policy. While the CPA and DCA do not affect the allowed land uses within Downtown Tigard, the smaller block sizes that are encouraged by the CPA and DCA will promote pedestrian - friendly land uses that are also highly accessible by other modes, consistent with this policy. "6. The City shall support land use patterns that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and preserve the function of the transportation system." By promoting development of a more walkable downtown through smaller block sizes and increased bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, the CPA and DCA support land use patterns that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and preserve the function of the transportation system, consistent with this policy. "7. The City shall strive to protect the natural environment from impacts derived from transportation facilities." The DCA in Chapter 18.370 includes provisions to allow adjustments to the connectivity requirements when their application would result in an adverse impact on natural features such as wetlands, bodies of water, significant habitat areas, steep slopes, or existing mature trees, in order to protect the natural environment from impacts of new roadways, consistent with this policy. "8. The City shall mitigate impacts to the natural environment associated with proposed transportation construction or reconstruction projects." The DCA in Chapter 18.370 includes provisions precluding adjustments that would result in an adverse impact on natural features such as wetlands, bodies of water, significant habitat areas, steep slopes, or existing mature trees. Where impacts are unavoidable, the City's existing mitigation requirements would apply, consistent with this policy. "9. The City shall coordinate with private and public developers to provide access via a safe, efficient, and balanced transportation system." The CPA and DCA would provide a mechanism for the City to work with developers to provide additional access roads and multi -use paths within the Downtown in order to promote a safer, more efficient, and better balanced transportation system, consistent with this policy. "10. The City shall require all development to meet adopted transportation standards or provide DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT— Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 14 OF 29 CPA 2012-00001/DCA 2012 -00002 appropriate mitigations." The CPA and DCA would establish new transportation standards within the Downtown that will need to be met at the time of development. Establishing transportation standards is consistent with this policy. "GOAL: 12.2 Develop and maintain a transportation system for the efficient movement of people and goods." "POLICIES: "2. The City shall manage the transportation system to support desired economic development activities." The CPA and DCA provide a mechanism for the City to manage the transportation system Downtown to encourage development of new roadway and multi -modal connections, enhanced streetscapes, improved walkability, and more efficient traffic flow, which support the economic development of the Downtown, consistent with this policy. "3. The City shall design streets to encourage a reduction in trip length by improving arterial, collector, and local street connections." The Connectivity Plan identified the need to improve local and collector street connections within the downtown. The CPA and DCA implement this plan by requiring construction of new connections upon New Development or Major Redevelopment, and protect the ability to build the connections in the future for Smaller Projects. The planned street connections contained in the CPA and DCA will encourage a reduction in trip length for drivers going to or through the Downtown, consistent with this policy. "4. The City shall design arterial routes, highway access, and adjacent land uses in ways that facilitate the efficient movement of people, goods and services." The CPA and DCA include a proposed cross - section for Upper Hall Boulevard, an arterial route, which provides two travel lanes for vehicles, a center turn lane, bicycle lanes, sidewalks buffered from traffic by a landscape strip, and on- street parking. This cross - section facilitates the efficient movement of people, goods, and services, while maintaining an attractive and pedestrian - friendly streetscape appropriate to the Downtown, consistent with this policy. "6. The City shall develop and maintain an efficient arterial grid system that provides access within the City, and serves through traffic in the City." The CPA and DCA do not include any modifications to the existing arterial grid system other than a new cross - section for Upper Hall Boulevard. However, the proposed new connections in the local and collector street grids contained in the CPA and DCA will improve the efficiency of the arterial grid system by providing alternate routes for local traffic and freeing up capacity on the arterial grid system for access to the City and through traffic. "8. The City recognizes freight movement as being a priority of the transportation system." The CPA and DCA do not include any modifications to the existing truck routes other than a new cross - section for Upper Hall Boulevard. However, the proposed new connections in the local and collector street grids contained in the CPA and DCA will improve the efficiency of the arterial grid system by providing alternate routes for local traffic and freeing up capacity on the arterial grid system for freight access to the City and through traffic. DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT — Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 15 OF 29 CPA 2012 -00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 "9. The City shall require the provision of appropriate parking in balance with other transportation modes." The CPA and DCA do not affect required private off - street parking; however, by providing for the construction of new streets, all of which provide on- street parking, and by including on- street parking in many of the new street cross - sections for the Downtown, the CPA and DCA support the provision of public on- street parking appropriate to a downtown setting, while still maintaining a pedestrian - friendly environment. "10. The City shall strive to increase non- single occupant vehicle mode shares through vehicle trip reduction strategies, such as those outlined in the Regional Transportation Plan." The Regional Transportation Plan and Regional Transportation Framework Plan are addressed under the METRO policies section of this report. "11. The City shall design the transportation system to provide connectivity between Metro designated centers, corridors, employment and industrial areas." Downtown Tigard is a Metro - designated "Town Center ". The Connectivity Plan describes a vision for a complete system of streets and pathways that would significantly improve multi -modal access to, from, and within Downtown. The CPA and DCA implement this vision, consistent with this policy. "GOAL: 12.3 Provide an accessible, multi -modal transportation system that meets the mobility needs of the community." "POLICIES: 3. The City shall design and construct transportation facilities to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act." The CPA and DCA include new cross - sections for streets in the Downtown. These cross - sections, with the exception of the alley, provide for sidewalks that exceed the minimum standards set by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). ADA compliant ramps are also planned for all intersections. "4. The City shall support and prioritize bicycle, pedestrian, and transit improvements for transportation disadvantaged populations who may be dependent on travel modes other than private automobile." The CPA and DCA implement the City's vision for a complete system of streets and pathways that would significantly improve multi -modal access to, from, and within Downtown. With the Tigard Transit Center located Downtown, central to the proposed new street and pathway connections, improvements in walkability will improve the convenience of accessing the Downtown by transit. The reduced block sizes will make walking more appealing, and new multi -use paths will provide safe connections for pedestrians and bicyclists. Therefore, the CPA and DCA support pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvements for transportation disadvantaged populations, consistent with this policy. 5. The City shall develop and maintain neighborhood and local connections to provide efficient circulation in and out of the neighborhoods. The CPA and DCA are intended to provide a more robust network of neighborhood and local street connections within the Downtown neighborhood to provide more efficient circulation within and around the Downtown, consistent with this policy. DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT— Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 16 OF 29 CPA 2012-00001/DCA 2012 -00002 6. The City shall require development adjacent to transit routes to provide direct pedestrian accessibility. The CPA and DCA would establish new transportation standards within the Downtown that will need to be met at the time of development. The new standards provide for greater pedestrian accessibility, consistent with this policy. 7. The City shall develop and implement public street standards that recognize the multi- purpose nature of the street right -of -way. The CPA and DCA include updated street cross - section designs for Downtown streets. These cross - sections (with the exception of the alley) provide many uses for the street right -of -way, with space for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles, including on -street parking to serve Downtown businesses. Therefore, the CPA and DCA are consistent with this policy. 8. The City shall design all projects on Tigard city streets to encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel. The CPA and DCA implement plans for a Downtown with pedestrian - friendly block sizes, additional off- street pathway connections, and street cross - sections that are safe and attractive for pedestrians and bicyclists, all of which will encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel, consistent with this policy. 9. The City s h a l l require s i d e w a l k s to be constructed i n conjunction with private development and consistent with adopted plans. The CPA and DCA require that the new street and pathway connections, including sidewalks where applicable, be constructed in conjunction with private development for New Development and Major Redevelopment (e.g., redevelopment valued at more than 60% of total current value). For Smaller Projects (redevelopment projects valued at less than 60% of total current value), applicants are not required to construct the streets, but are required to design their site to allow for the future construction of the street by keeping the future alignment free of buildings. Therefore, the CPA and DCA are consistent with this policy. 10. The City shall require and /or facilitate the construction of off - street trails to develop pedestrian and bicycle connections that cannot be provided by a street. The DCA in Section 18.610.025.D includes requirements for New Development and Major Redevelopment (e.g., redevelopment valued at more than 60% of total current value) within a designated area to provide off -street trails at designated intervals due to the difficulty of constructing new streets through the area. Therefore, the DCA is consistent with this policy. 11. The City shall require appropriate access to bicycle and pedestrian facilities for all schools, parks, public facilities, and commercial areas. The CPA and DCA are intended to provide a more robust network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, within the Downtown, providing improved circulation and access to schools, public facilities and commercial areas, consistent with this policy. "GOAL: 12.4 Maintain and improve transportation system safety." "POLICIES: 1. The City shall consider the intended uses of a street during the design to promote safety, DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT— Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 17 OF 29 CPA 2012-00001/DC.--k 2012 -00002 efficiency, and multi -modal needs." The CPA and DCA include new street cross - sections for the Downtown that were developed in consideration of the intended uses of the existing and proposed new streets. The cross - sections and proposed new alignments are designed to promote safety and efficiency for all modes, consistent with this policy. "2. The City shall coordinate with appropriate agencies to provide safe, secure, connected, and desirable pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit facilities." Request for comments on the proposed CPA and DCA were sent to Metro – Land Use and Planning, .Washington County Department of Land Use & Transportation, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, Clean Water Services, ODOT Rail Division, Portland & Western Railroad, Southern Pacific Railroad and TriMet Transit Development. Representatives of the Oregon Department of Transportation, Metro, and TriMet were also members of the Technical Advisory Committee. DLCD was provided the opportunity to comment and coordinate the application for the Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment process per ORS 197.610. Therefore, the city has coordinated with appropriate agencies to implement the planned transportation facilities, consistent with this policy. 9. The City shall require new transportation facilities to meet adopted lighting standards. The CPA and DCA include new street cross - sections for the Downtown were developed in consideration of the intended uses of the existing and proposed new streets. The cross - sections provide ample space to locate street lights in accordance with the adopted lighting standards, consistent with this policy. "GOAL: 12.5 Coordinate planning, development, operation, and maintenance of the transportation system with appropriate agencies." "POLICIES: 1. The City shall coordinate and cooperate with adjacent agencies and service providers — including Metro, TriMet, ODOT, Washington County, and neighboring cities —when appropriate, to develop transportation projects which benefit the region as a whole, in addition to the City of Tigard." Request for comments on the proposed CPA and DCA were sent to Metro – Land Use and Planning, Washington County Department of Land Use & Transportation, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, Clean Water Services, ODOT Rail Division, Portland & Western Railroad, Southern Pacific Railroad and TriMet Transit Development. Representatives of the Oregon Department of Transportation, Metro, and TriMet were also members of the Technical Advisory Committee. Therefore, the city has coordinated with appropriate agencies and service providers to implement the planned transportation facilities, which will provide benefits for through traffic as well as local travel, consistent with this policy. "GOAL: 12.6 Fund an equitable, balanced, and sustainable transportation system that promotes the well -being of the community." "POLICIES: DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT— Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 18 OF 29 CPA 2012 -00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 3. The City shall seek opportunities for transportation investments that support transportation goals of efficiency, multi -modal access, and safety." The City has identified key connections from the Connectivity Plan for inclusion in the City's CIP. These key connections represent opportunities for transportation investments that support efficiency, multi - modal access, and safety, consistent with this policy. ENERGY "GOAL: 13.1: Reduce energy consumption." "POLICIES: 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." By promoting development of a more walkable downtown through smaller block sizes and increased bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, the CPA and DCA support land use patterns that reduce dependency on the automobile and provide bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure that is safe and well connected. The connectivity improvements in the vicinity of the Tigard Transit Center also support public transit that is reliable, connected and efficient. Therefore, the CPA and DCA are consistent with this policy. 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 CPA and DCA support a more walkable downtown through smaller block sizes and increased bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. The connectivity improvements in the vicinity of the Tigard Transit Center also support public transit that is reliable, connected and efficient. By doing so, the CPA and DCA support the goal of creating a vibrant and active urban village that is pedestrian oriented and accessible by many modes of transportation. Therefore, the CPA and DCA are consistent with this goal. "GOAL: 15.2 Facilitate the development of an urban village." "Policies: 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 CPA and DCA establish design standards for new streets and street improvements in Downtown Tigard. These standards are intended to ensure the quality and attractiveness of the Downtown. The DCA in Chapter 18.370 includes provisions to allow adjustments to the connectivity requirements in certain circumstances in order to be flexible enough to encourage development, consistent with this policy. DOWNTO \VN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT— Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 19 OF 29 CPA 2012-00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 "4. Existing nonconforming uses shall be allowed to continue, subject to a threshold of allowed expansion." The CPA and DCA will not create any non - conforming uses; however, they will create non - conforming sites that will be allowed to continue, subject to a threshold of allowed expansion (redevelopment valued at more than 60% of total current value), consistent with this policy. "5. Downtown design, development and provision of service shall emphasize public safety, accessibility, and attractiveness as primary objectives." The new street cross- sections and proposed street and pathway connections implemented by the CPA and DCA emphasize accessibility, safety, and attractiveness, consistent with this policy. "7. New zoning and design guidelines on Main Street will emphasize a "traditional Main Street" character." The CPA and DCA include a placeholder for the Main Street street design, since this design is being developed through other planning processes and will be adopted separately. "GOAL: 15.3 Develop and Improve the Open Space System and Integrate Natural Features into downtown." "POLICIES: 1. Natural resource functions and values shall be integrated into downtown urban design." The new street cross - sections contained in the CPA and DCA include street trees on all street types except for the alley, and will meet Public Works and Clean Water Services standards for stormwater treatment, integrating the natural resource functions of tree cover and stormwater management into Downtown urban design, consistent with this policy. "GOAL: 15.4 Develop comprehensive street and circulation improvements for pedestrians, automobiles, bicycles, and transit." "POLICIES: 1. The downtown shall be served by a complete array of multi -modal transportation services including auto, transit, bike, and pedestrian facilities." The CPA and DCA implement the City's vision for a complete system of streets and pathways that would significantly improve multi -modal access to, from, and within Downtown. With the Tigard Transit Center located Downtown, central to the proposed new street and pathway connections, improvements in walkability will improve the convenience of accessing the Downtown by transit. The reduced block sizes will make walking more appealing, and new multi -use paths will provide safe connections for pedestrians and bicyclists. Therefore, the CPA and DCA support development of a complete array of multi -modal transportation services including auto, transit, bike, and pedestrian facilities, consistent with this policy. "4. Recognizing the critical transportation relationships between the downtown and surrounding transportation system, especially bus and Commuter Rail, Highway 99W, Highway 217 and Interstate 5, the City shall address the downtown's transportation needs DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY Y PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT — Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 20 OF 29 CPA 2012-00001/DCA 2012 -00002 in its Transportation System Plan and identify relevant capital projects and transportation management efforts." The CPA modifies the City's TSP to include the new proposed street connections and the updated street cross - sections. In addition, the City will identify priority street connections for inclusion on the CIP. 5. Streetscape and public area design shall focus on creating a pedestrian friendly environment without the visual dominance by automobile- oriented uses." The CPA and DCA include new street and pathway connections that will reduce block sizes to improve walkability, and new cross - sections to create a pedestrian - friendly streetscape, consistent with this policy. "6. The City shall require a sufficient, but not excessive, amount of parking to provide for downtown land uses. Joint parking arrangements shall be encouraged." The CPA and DCA do not affect required private off -street parking; however, by providing for the construction of new streets, all of which provide on -street parking, and by including on -street parking in many of the new street cross- sections for the Downtown, the CPA and DCA support the provision of public on -street parking appropriate to a downtown setting, while still maintaining a pedestrian- friendly environment. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the CPA and DCA are consistent with the applicable goals and policies contained in the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan. APPLICABLE METRO URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN TITLES Title 6: Central City, Regional Centers, Town Centers and Station Communities 3.07.610 Purpose The Regional Framework Plan identifies Centers, Corridors, Main Streets and Station Communities throughout the region and recognizes them as the principal centers of urban life in the region. Title 6 calls for actions and investments by cities and counties, complemented by regional investments, to enhance this role. A regional investment is an investment in a new high - capacity transit line or designated a regional investment in a grant or funding program administered by Metro or subject to Metro's approval. Downtown Tigard is a designated Town Center. The CPA and DCA would support the Town Center by enhancing multi -modal connectivity, walkability, and access to transit. The planned transportation facilities included in the CPA and DCA would be financed locally or through development, and are not regional investments subject to the requirements of Title 6. APPLICABLE METRO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FUNCTIONAL PLAN (RTFP) TITLES Title 5: Amendment of Comprehensive Plans 3.08.510 Amendments of City and County Comprehensive and Transportation System Plans A. When a city or county proposes to amend its comprehensive plan or its components, it shall consider the strategies in subsection 3.08.220A as part of the analysis required by OAR 660- 012 -0060. DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT — Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 21 OF 29 CPA 2012 -00001 !DCA 2012 -00002 The prior planning processes that led to the development of the CPA and DCA included consideration of a variety of alternatives to meet the transportation needs identified above. All of the strategies listed in subsection 3.08.220A have been considered through these processes, consistent with this policy. The CPA and DCA primarily implement "5. Connectivity improvements to provide parallel arterials, collectors or local streets that include pedestrian and bicycle facilities.., in order to provide alternative routes and encourage walking, biking and access to transit ". However, other strategies including safety improvements are recommended at the intersection of Hall and Scoffins /Hunziker to realign an off- set intersection, bicycle and pedestrian system improvements on all new streets as well as for a block where new street connections are not appropriate, and traffic calming street designs including narrow travel lanes, on- street parking, and street trees. C. If a city or county proposes a transportation project that is not included in the RTP and will result in a significant increase in SOV capacity or exceeds the planned function or capacity of a facility designated in the RTP, it shall demonstrate consistency with the following in its project analysis: 1. The strategies set forth in subsection 3.08.220A (1) through (5); 2. Complete street designs adopted pursuant to subsection 3.08.110A and as set forth in Creating Livable Streets: Street Design Guidelines for 2040 (2nd Edition, 2002) or similar resources consistent with regional street design policies; and 3. Green street designs adopted pursuant to subsection 3.08.110A and as set forth in Green Streets: Innovative Solutions for Stormwater and Street Crossings (2002) and Trees for Green Streets: An Illustrated Guide (2002) or similar resources consistent with federal regulations for stream protection. The CPA and DCA include new planned streets in Downtown Tigard, which is a designated regional pedestrian district in the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The new streets would create a modest increase in SOV capacity, but would also support RTP policies related to the Regional Pedestrian Network Vision, including: "2. Build a well -•- connected network of pedestrian facilities that serves all ages and abilities "3. Create walkable downtowns, centers, main streets and station communities "4. Improve pedestrian access to transit" The connectivity improvements and enhanced street designs will make the pedestrian district more walkable and support pedestrian access to the Tigard Transit Center. In addition, as noted above, consideration of the strategies set forth in subsection 3.08.220A has occurred as part of the planning processes that preceded the CPA and DCA, and the majority of the strategies have been incorporated into the CPA and DCA. The new streets designs are complete streets and will meet Public Works and Clean Water Services standards for stormwater treatment, consistent with this policy. E. This section does not apply to city or county transportation projects that are financed locally and would be undertaken on local facilities. The new planned streets would be local facilities and would be financed locally, either through the City's CIP or through development. The new street designs are all on local facilities, with the exception of Hall Boulevard, which is an ODOT facility. Any improvements on Hall Boulevard will be carefully coordinated with ODOT. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the CPA and DCA are consistent with the applicable Metro regulations. STATE STATUTES OR REGULATIONS Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 660, Division 12 (Transportation Planning) DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT— Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 22 OF 29 CPA 2012-00001/DCA 2012 -00002 660- 012 -0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments (1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would: (a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or (c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment. (A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or (C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. The CPA and DCA establish new functional classifications specific to Downtown Tigard that apply to both existing and planned transportation facilities; therefore, the CPA and DCA would significantly affect existing and planned transportation facilities under subsections (a) and (b) above. (2) If a local government determines that there would be a significant effect, then the local government must ensure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards of the facility measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP through one or a combination of the remedies listed in (a) through (e) below, unless the amendment meets the balancing test in subsection (2)(e) of this section or qualifies for partial mitigation in section (11) of this rule. A local government using subsection (2)(e), section (3), section (10) or section (11) to approve an amendment recognizes that additional motor vehicle traffic congestion may result and that other facility providers would not be expected to provide additional capacity for motor vehicles in response to this congestion. (a) Adopting measures that demonstrate allowed land uses are consistent with the planned function, capacity, and performance standards of the transportation facility. (b) Amending the TSP or comprehensive plan to provide transportation facilities, improvements or services adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division; such amendments shall include a funding plan or mechanism consistent with section (4) or include an amendment to the transportation finance plan so that the facility, improvement, or service will be provided by the end of the planning period. (c) Amending the TSP to modify the planned function, capacity or performance standards of the transportation facility. DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT— Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 23 OF 29 CPA 2012 -00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 (d) Providing other measures as a condition of development or through a development agreement or similar funding method, including, but not limited to, transportation system management measures or minor transportation improvements. Local governments shall, as part of the amendment, specify when measures or improvements provided pursuant to this subsection will be provided. (e) Providing improvements that would benefit modes other than the significantly affected mode, improvements to facilities other than the significantly affected facility, or improvements at other locations, if the provider of the significantly affected facility provides a written statement that the system -wide benefits are sufficient to balance the significant effect, even though the improvements would not result in consistency for all performance standards. A traffic analysis was conducted by Kittelson and Associates as part of the development of a Circulation Plan. The future year for the available traffic analysis is beyond the horizon of the City's adopted TSP (which uses 2035 as the future year); however, the analysis found that the character classifications for the downtown street network are appropriate to handle the anticipated traffic volumes in Downtown Tigard through 2050. The traffic analysis identified one potential capacity issue with the proposed local street network, where a planned local street would intersect Hall Boulevard, becoming an extension of the existing Garden Place. The analysis found that traffic operations at this intersection would exceed the available planning -level capacity by approximately 15% in 2050. However, the planned local street alignments were refined slightly in preparation for adoption; one of the refinements addressed the potentially problematic intersection. The proposed alignment would now be offset from the existing Garden Place intersection with Hall Boulevard. It is assumed that the new local street would have limited (likely right -in /right -out) access onto Hall. This would remove the congestion issue at the intersection. Therefore, the allowed land uses are consistent with the planned function, capacity, and performance standards of the affected transportation facilities. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, staff fords that the CPA and DCA support (or do not conflict) with state or federal regulations. All affected agencies have been notified of the recommended amendments and have been given the opportunity to comment. STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS Statewide Planning Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, outlines the citizen involvement requirements for adoption of, and changes to the Comprehensive Plans and implementing documents. As described in the Background Information, the city has provided Tigard citizens, affected agencies and other jurisdictions multiple and varied opportunities to participate in all phases of the planning process to enhance connectivity in Downtown Tigard. Over the last six months, city staff and consultants have conducted the following activities to develop strategies to implement the connectivity improvements: Connectivity Plan • Open House • City Center Advisory Commission review over several meetings • City Council, Planning Commission, and Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee workshops Implementation Project • Identified preliminary implementation strategies and refined proposed connectivity projects. • Met with study area property and business owners in March 2012 to review draft plans and implementation strategies for connectivity improvements and refined the proposed plans in response to meeting participants' comments and concerns. DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT— Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 24 OF 29 CPA 2012 -00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 • Prepared a preliminary set of proposed amendments to the city's development code and Transportation System Plan (TSP) that will help the city implement the improvements in partnership with property owners and developers in the future. Proposed amendments to the TSP and development code included updated standards related to variances, downtown design and development standards, and street and utility standards. • Conducted a work session with the Tigard Planning Commission on June 4 to review a summary of proposed code amendment concepts. • Held a community open house on July 17, 2012 to review a summary of proposed code amendment concepts. In addition, the city has continued to provide information to downtown property owners and other interested parties via the city's Web site, e-mail announcements to interested parties, and articles in local newsletters. The recommended amendments were further considered through the public hearing process at the Planning Commission and will be considered by City Council prior to adoption. Citizen involvement opportunities utilized to create the CPA and DCA have been consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 1. Statewide Planning Goal 2, Land Use Planning, establishes a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. In 2008 the city completed its periodic review and update of its Comprehensive Plan, which has been acknowledged by Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development DLCD as consistent with Statewide Planning Goals. Chapter 15 of the Comprehensive Plan, which was initially adopted in April 24, 2007, identifies Downtown Tigard as a "Special Planning Area" needing additional planning attention due to its unique circumstances and value to the community. Through a series of planning projects, the City has been working to implement the goals, policies and recommended action measures identified in Chapter 15. The Downtown Tigard Conceptual Connectivity Plan, Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan, and Tigard Downtown Future Vision all further these goals and policies, recognizing the need to improve connectivity and circulation within Downtown Tigard. The CPA and DCA have been guided by these planning processes, which have established clear policy direction in compliance with state and regional requirements and serve citizen's interests. The CPA and DCA are 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. All applicable review criteria have been addressed within this staff report. Therefore, the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 2 have been met. Statewide Planning Goal 9, Economic Development, requires provision of adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to public health, welfare and prosperity. During planning for Downtown Tigard and throughout the Connectivity Plan process, the community identified connectivity and walkability enhancements in the Downtown as a key component to promoting a vibrant and sustainable economy in the Downtown. The CPA and DCA have been designed to implement these objectives while being flexible and adaptive to promote economic development opportunities, consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9. Statewide Planning Goal 11, Public Facilities /Services, requires planning and development of a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. DO' NTOV6N CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT — Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 25 OF 29 CPA 2012 - 00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 The CPA and DCA provide a framework for the extension of new streets through Downtown Tigard, providing an orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services. Therefore, the CPA and DCA are consistent with and supportive of Statewide Planning Goal 11. Statewide Planning Goal 12, Transportation, requires provision of a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The City's existing TSP complies with Goal 12. The CPA and DCA implement plans for additional access roads and multi -use paths within the Downtown in order to promote a safer, more efficient, and better balanced transportation system, consistent with, and supportive of Statewide Planning Goal 12. Goal 12 is implemented by OAR Chapter 660, Division 12, which is addressed above. Statewide Planning Goal 13, Energy Conservation, requires land and uses developed on the land to be managed and controlled to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles. By promoting development of a more walkable downtown through smaller block sizes and increased bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, the CPA and DCA support land use patterns that reduce energy consumption due to vehicle travel. In addition, the planned street connections contained in the CPA and DCA will encourage a reduction in trip length for drivers going to or through the Downtown, further reducing energy consumption from automobiles traveling within and through Tigard. Therefore, the CPA and DCA are consistent with, and supportive of Statewide Planning Goal 13. Inapplicable Statewide Planning Goals include Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) and Goal 4 (Forest Lands) because they address rural land outside the Metro Urban Growth Boundary; Goals 5 (Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces), 6 (Air, Water and Land Resources Quality, and 7 (Areas Subject to Natural Hazards) because the amendments do not affect existing resource lists or protections for identified resources; Goal 8 (Recreational Needs), because the amendments do not address recreational resources; Goal 10 (Housing), because the amendments do not affect housing policy; Goal 14 (Urbanization) because the Downtown is entirely within the Urban Growth Boundary; Goal 15 (Willamette River Greenway), because the Willamette River does not flow through Tigard; and Goals 16 (Estuarine Resources), 17 (Coastal Shorelines), 18 (Beaches and Dunes), and 19 (Ocean Resources), because they relate to Oregon's coastal resources. CONCLUSION_ Based on the analysis above, staff finds that the recommended amendments are consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals. SECTION V. CITIZEN COMMENTS Five comments were received in response to the Measure 56 notice and request for comments to property owners. One was strongly supportive, two were neutral, and two stated concerns. These comments were provided to the Planning Commission when received during their portion of the legislative adoption process and will be provided to City Council when received during their portion of the legislative adoption process. Citizen comments are available in the project record in Exhibit F. In addition, eight citizens contacted staff by phone or in person regarding the code amendments. The comments consisted of clarifying questions in regard to how the amendments would affect their property. At the Planning Commission public hearing, three property owners (or their representative) testified at the meeting: • Alexander Craghead, chair of the City Center Advisory Commission and a representative of owners of 12205 SW Hall, testified in favor of the amendments. • Cecilia Thompson, owner of 8610 SW Scoffins St. (an apartment complex) testified in opposition to the amendments because the proposed connectivity map shows a pedestrian path could be DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT — Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 26 OF 29 CPA 2012-00001/DCA 2012 -00002 required if her property were to redevelop. • Russ Little, owner of 12020 SW Main (Woodcraft), testified in opposition to the amendments. He expressed concern about the proposed connectivity map because he felt his property would be overly impacted by two proposed connections. Their testimony is summarized in the Planning Commission minutes. SECTION VI. AGENCY COMMENTS Metro — Land Use and Planning, Washington County Department of Land Use & Transportation, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Clean Water Services, ODOT Rail Division, and Southern Pacific Transportation were given the opportunity to review this proposal and submitted no comments or objections. Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue and TriMet reviewed the proposal and provided comments supporting the amendments, which are attached in Exhibit F and are available in the project record. Oregon Department of Transportation reviewed the proposal and provided comments which are discussed below: 1. The TSP and amendments show that a corridor plan is needed for Hall Blvd to determine the final cross section. While ODOT supports the need for the corridor plan, due to limited resources there is unlikely to be State funding available for the corridor plan. We recommend that if this is a city priority that the city identify a funding source for this planning effort. Staff Response: The city may prioritize this study in the future with the city's next TSP Update. 2. The Tigard HCT Land Use Plan developed a Downtown Concept Plan. The TSP amendments should reflect the recommendations from the HCT plan and explain how the two efforts are related. Particularly how this should include showing the connections between the old downtown and the expanded downtown that is included in the HCT plan i.e. Tigard Triangle. Staff Response: The HCT Land Use Plan includes concepts which don't directly result in any policy changes such as amendments to the TSP or Development Code. The HCT Land Use Plan concepts (including transportation projects) are being integrated into the SW Corridor Plan effort; these are being evaluated at several varying levels of detail to make up the Corridor Plan, including Transportation Plan and Transit Alternatives Analysis. Ultimately the final SW Corridor Plan elements will go back to agencies for formal amendments. 3. The TSP amendments focus on downtown street character types and planned street connections. We recommend that the City show connectivity planned for all modes, for example including the trail alignments that are planned these should be included on the Connectivity Projects Detail Sheets and it is recommended to have a map showing all the planned connections for all modes on a single map. This will help clarify all the connectivity that is planned for. Staff Response: The proposed amendments will implement the street connectivity plan as it relates to development. Trail alignments have been outlined in the Trail System Master Plan. An integrated map showing connectivity for all modes will be produced in the future, but it is not essential to be included in these code amendments. DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT — Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 27 OF 29 CPA 2012 - 00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 4. As discussed on the phone earlier this week, we recommend that Figure 5 -14 Connectivity Projects I)etail Sheet Map 3 include a note explaining that the realignment of Tigard St to connect to Burnham St u ould be a city responsibility in coordination with a future OR 99W viaduct replacement project that requires ODOT approval. Although I haven't had an opportunity to check with the ODOT Bridge Section, it is unlikely that ODOT would be replacing the viaduct any time in the plan horizon unless there are structural issues that develop. From our conversation it sounded like you will be working on a new detail sheet for this project, please forward that to me for ODOT review and comment. Also, does the city plan to keep the planned trail alignment along Tigard St? Showing the trails on these detail sheets will help understanding the connectivity projects. Staff Response: The Burnham Street to Tigard Street connection will be reclassified on Map 3 as a concept, distinct from the other proposed streets, that is dependent on the speculative construction of a new OR 99W viaduct which is not expected within the plan year horizon. The Tigard Street trail is identified in the Trail System Master Plan. Portland and Western Railroad reviewed the proposal and provided comments recommending that the Ash Avenue crossing of the rail tracks be grade separated. Staff response: The Ash Avenue crossing has appeared as a project in the TSP for several years. The city envisions an at -grade crossing, but recognizes this will only be accomplished with the agreement of ODOT Rail Division and the railroad. ( / /26/f P' PARED : : ' Farrelly DATE • evelopment Project Manager REVIEX'E B Y: Tom McGuire DATE' Acting Community Development Director EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A - DRAFT Amendments to 2035 Transportation System Plan Volume 1 EXHIBIT Al -Planning Commission's recommended changes to maps EXHIBIT B - DRAFT Amendments to the TDC Chapter 18.370 Variances and Adjustments EXHIBIT C - DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.610 Tigard Downtown District Development and Design Standards EXHIBIT D - DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards EXHIBIT E - Kittelson and Associates traffic analysis conducted as part of the development of the Downtown Conceptual Circulation Plan EXXHIBIT F: Citizen comments F.1. Gary and Judy Craghead DOWNTOWN CONNECI'I \TIT PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT — Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 28OF29 CPA 2012 0000 ] ; DCA 2012 -00002 F.2. Fraternal Order of Eagles F.3 J. Ronald and Cecilia Thompson F.4. Abbas Nikzad F.5. Luella Paddack (e -mail) EXHIBIT G: Agency comments GA.ODOT (e -mail) G.2. Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue G.3. Portland & Western Railroad G.4. TriMet (e -mail) EXHIBIT H: October 15, 2012 Planning Commission minutes DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT — Staff Report to the City Council PAGE 29 OF 29 CPA 2012 -00001 /DCA2012 -00002 EXHIBIT A DRAFT Amendments to 2035 Transportation System Plan Volume 1 of 3 Proposed amendments are shown as follows: • Proposed new text is shown in double - underline. • Existing text proposed to be deleted is shown in strike through. Functional Classifications (page 48) The functional classification of a roadway defines the primary role in terms of providing mobility and access. An individual street's classification directs the design and management of the roadway, including right of way needs, the number of travel lanes and other cross - section elements, and access management standards. Figure 5 -2 shows the functional classification for each roadway in Tigard. Within the Downtown Mixed Use Central Business District, the functional classification is further refined by the street character types shown on Figure 5 -2A. The character types are implemented through special street design standards, In addition, Figure 5 -2A identifies future roadways which are intended to provide an enhanced network of pedestrian- friendly streets in the Downtown area. DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to 2035 Transportation System Plan Volume 1 of 3 PAGE 1 OF 4 CPA 2012-00001/DCA 2012 -00002 Figure 5 -2a t Downtown Street Character 4 " °,, Types .�F�0 4-I 47.._s `' P0 Q P C• J r' MFR 44t , Cr . • • . w 37. d►'� f o i a f OT i • It ee • • ...-. No , ,.‘64 •. ..). 6 • k` ^r I . ,r yes. P� .� P s . 1' • l b � ' • e Downtown Street Character Types* 9 s. � , y 2 • Upper Hall Boulevard** * { s s • Main Street Green Street • Downtown Mixed Use 1 (Collector) f f c Downtown Mixed Use 2 (Neighborhood) e • • Downtown Mixed Use 3 (Upper Bumham) ..a • Downtown Mixed Use 4 (Lower Bumham) Urban Residential Alley: Business 0 250 500 1,000 Feet I I I I I I I 1 I • Dashed lines indicate proposed streets Other Streets " Hall Boulevard is currently an ODOT facility. ODOT's design standards may supersede these standards as long � v Railroads as it is an ODOT facility. N DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to 2035 Transportation System Plan Volume 1 of 3 PAGE 2 OF 4 CPA 2012- 00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 Street Design Standards (Cross Sections) (page 52) Roadways in Tigard are the primary means of mobility for residents, serving the majority of trips over multiple modes. Pedestrians, bicyclists, public transit, and motorists all use public roads for the vast majority of trips. Therefore, it is increasingly important to plan, design, and build new roadways in a manner that improves multi -modal access and mobility. The City of Tigard street design standards ensure that all new streets are constructed as "complete streets" and include facilities for pedestrians and bicycles and also provide drainage and landscaping where appropriate. Because they are reviewed and updated periodically, the City of Tigard's street design standards are located in the city's Community Development Code seetien 18.800 Chapter 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards. Special Areas: Downtown (page 95) The City of Tigard is committed to creating a downtown that is active, has a compact urban form, and provides multi -modal access and circulation. Public investments and planning activities for downtown are intended to provide a catalyst for economic development. Significant growth in downtown is planned for both employment and housing uses. Downtown is primarily located south of Pacific Highway between Hall Boulevard and Fanno Creek but also extends north of the Pacific Highway near Greenburg Road and Hall Boulevard. Pacific Highway and Hall Boulevard are the primary access routes to the downtown area. Pacific Highway currently experiences significant peak hour congestion and queuing which also impacts travel on Hall Boulevard. The Pacific Highway viaduct over the railroad tracks creates a grade separation between Pacific Highway and Main Street and limits both access and visibility to the Downtown from the highway. Downtown Tigard has a transit center which is served by TriMet Routes 12, 45, 64, 76, and 78 connecting it to the Beaverton Transit Center, Sherwood, Lake Oswego, Tualatin, and downtown Portland. The Tigard Transit Center is also served by WES Commuter Rail. The existing transit service available to Downtown Tigard, combined with future plans to enhance WES service and provide high capacity transit along the Pacific Highway corridor, position Downtown to have transit service that can support increased employment and residential growth in the area despite existing congestion along Pacific Highway. Although Pacific Highway and Hall Boulevard have sidewalks and bicycle lanes (with the exception of a few gaps in the sidewalk system on Hall Boulevard), the lack of local and collector street connectivity and existing roadway geometry within the downtown area do not create a very desirable environment for pedestrians and bicyclists to travel within the downtown. At the broadest level, options for improving access to the downtown area fall into the following categories: • Improve local and collector roadway connectivity to and within Downtown. • Provide better facilities for alternative modes (transit, bicycles, pedestrians, etc.). • Enhance intersection capacity on Pacific Highway to increase the ability to cross and access Pacific Highway from Walnut Street, Greenburg Road, and Hall Boulevard. In order to address these issues the City prepared a Downtown Connectivity and Circulation Plan which identified a more complete system of streets and pathways to improve multi -modal access to, from and DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to 2035 Transportation System Plan Volume 1 of 3 PAGE 3 OF 4 CPA 2012 - 00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 wit hin the Downtown Mixed Use Central 1. s District. Through this effort the followin transportation facility design principles were recognized as being of particular importance within the downtown: • Maximize efficiency and ease of access for all transportation modes and for emergency services. (This principle can be realized, in part, by determining appropriate access spacing and by avoiding off -set intersections.) • Enhance accessibility for . eo .le of .11 a. - . n... iii i- trate lies for a ievin . this ob' ec iv - include keeping block sizes relatively small and providing bike and pedestrian facilities.) • Create a network with a diversity of buman- scaled street types that support urban places and integrate with blocks/buildings. • Link with city, regional, and national transportation networks. (Achieving this end requires careful integration of this plan with Tigard's TSP and with other local and regional planning efforts.) • Ensure the economic viability of the blocks that result from the implementation of the new street 1 In addition, a number of connectivity and circulation improvements, including new road and pathway connections within and adjacent to the downtown area were identified. These improvements are intended to foster creation of smaller block sizes, efficient routes into and within downtown, and new streets to accommodate and encourage downtown development as well as to solve some existing connectivity issues, such as access across railroad tracks Infrastructure Investment Figure 5 -14 shows the additional multi -modal improvement projects related to the Downtown area which include Main Street streetscape improvements, a mixed -use trail along the rail corridor, and Ash Street extensions east across the railroad tracks and west and north to Pacific Highway. Specific project considerations can be found in Technical Memorandum #5 in the Volume 3 Technical Appendix. Connectivity Requirements In addition to the projects shown on Figure 5 -14, the Downtown Connectivity and Circulation Plan identified a more complete system of streets and pathways to improve multi -modal access to, from and within the Downtown Mixed Use Central Business District. These improvements are shown on Figures 5 -14A through 5 -14I and are subject to the connectivity requirements below. If an alternate alignment is subsequently been approved by the City, the alternate ali • iu - .• hall • - - , - , - . li . men . /. . on Maps 5 -14B — Figure 5 -14I. DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to 2035 Transportation System Plan Volume 1 of 3 PAGE 4 OF 4 CPA 2012- 00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 Figure 5-14A. .........:=71w, Aillir Connectivity Projects Index Map 1 4444444+4 Railroads ..... 1 r i 4 44 - 14404**7 pr 4\\ •I 11 44 / , il‘t' --- -----; A so, 4.4.,41■4 v 11141111 1 ' d r ` .4 ' -- %' A4k4ti& '' Afil i ' MkIll1111 W 0 < N.,, k■... ilwirda <4" t 11110A it p _ 4 ,4 AL - I, : . a ..,,- . ' " amig . 4 •iliPN:Nr■At mr Al it/ pli 1 or / IA to k .,,,,,,_*..... .--,,-,..,.....„..„ rrly■Pm, g ,,,i 7.-, 4 1/4.1S 4i II, .,.., ‘'"4 A MEI 1 ,.., ., * 414"r Ilike \ I*114/\# 0 250 500 ,000 Feet Figure 5 -14B. Connectivity Projects Detail Sheet: Map 1 Street Character Type Future Connectivity Alignment Area Downtown Mixed Use 1 (Collector) �i� Required bike /pedestrian connections Downtown Mixed Use 2 (Local) Existing Streets Urban Residential (52' -56') Taxlots Alley (20') Note: The width of the Future Connectivity Alignment Area is equal to the upper end of the right -of -way range listed for the street character type. n I !X . • t a ; , N ST f . , 1 it PO _iy ' , i klii• . J Q ' t 'i - 0 • • . Y ' ikt. # a , ,,,_, 4 J T S, Q ot ■ 1 !or % a f a yr , , --. '' - Figure 5 -14C. Connectivity Projects Detail Sheet: Map 2 Street Character Type Future Connectivity Alignment Area it Downtown Mixed Use 1 (Collector) �i�:, Required bike /pedestrian connections MI Downtown Mixed Use 2 (Local) Existing Streets Urban Residential (52' -56') Taxlots - Alley (20') Note: The width of the Future Connectivity Alignment Area is equal to the upper end of the right -of -way range listed for the street character type. N s 00r ♦I` S 0 ,q r N. • 0 , c ♦ I - , \ • a ' I s • • ill N `+ ` III h e • ♦ ✓ s ,, , r \ V I . ' , A ;''' - ".'. ' . / `` , ♦ �iV" o 7 ¢ ♦ 'IS 0 \ 9C s 1 - 140. e,- ,--.. .. it, ,\ , _,,,, . \\\\ . , -, ,,. 0 1111_ ir .o ": i Oi;* ' ;:_. - . - ,...411 7 \ 7 - ' , ' 404,.. ' \ \ 4 ) ( .41,\ \ ..4. . .41 Figure 5 -14D. Connectivity Projects Detail Sheet: Map 3 Street Character Type Future onnectivity Alignment Area Downtown Mixed Use 1 (Collector) : Required bike /pedestrian connections Downtown Mixed Use 2 (Local) Existing Streets Urban Residential (52' -56') Taxlots 0 Alley s' Note: The width of the Future Connectivity Alignment Area is equal to the upper end of the right -of -way range listed for the street character type. °, , Si • 44 * ,., - , 1 .'R / °I'r .,i l G ' \S' . - z / .. f f . Pc 9 % °ce � S� i 4 s T P \�5� \ U � a V i G c 0 100 :i6.1 . Figure 5 -14E. Connectivity Projects Detail Sheet: Map 4 Street Character Type Future Connectivity Alignment Area Downtown Mixed Use 1 (Collector) :i Required bike /pedestrian connections Downtown Mixed Use 2 (Local) Existing Streets Urban Residential (52' -56') Taxlots Alley (20') Note: The width of the Future Connectivity Alignment Area is equal to the upper end of the right -of -way range listed for the street character type. r • .. \IP.' , ; !- ♦ * ti s ir 1 11"..........: '♦ ♦ / sT NO li r ?Pi 0 6 ,.... ■ BAs • ��, s ;No * 4, -.1' , , , na' • o r ., • ����5. ' t vsS. 4 'V V 's * t ♦a * • ♦� 4 A � �. < G k'► 1,, • • �\, �• 4 i J �; ..,, '',. 9, .4- \ � ` O T i 4 \,\ - Figure 5 -14F. Connectivity Projects Detail Sheet: Map 5 Street Character Type Future Connectivity Alignment Area Downtown Mixed Use 1 (Collector) ;ice Required bike /pedestrian connections Downtown Mixed Use 2 (Local) Existing Streets Urban Residential (52' -56') Taxlots Alley (20') Note: The width of the Future Connectivity Alignment Area is equal to the upper end of the right -of -way range listed for the street character type. + • I .4> . A e.. • ' 44 \ * I w / 411 4 h," - . 1 0 .. / f.%4° II 4°1 ' li rot t CI 4 t t - s *1- - " • l:44 '1/4, . . 8 t P R , l ook r • • lifr `t N aj � . t ` R r a ` * TM ., c h = 1 50 f a t k s Figure 5 -14G. Connectivity Projects Detail Sheet: Map 6 Street Character , • Future Connectivity Alignment Area Downtown Mixed Use 1 (Collector) � i � i', Required bike /pedestrian connections Downtown Mixed Use 2 (Local) Existing Streets Urban Residential (52' -56') Taxlots - - Alley (20') Note: The width of the Future Connectivity Alignment Area is equal to the upper end of the right -of -way range listed for the street character type. . c( i r • 'firms V W .4 N., *„,, \ .40-; 4 ,,,, fy r- '♦ y ir . \ NI ' .Np.., 4\ , % 4111 ..,. •.. ♦ - `i R„ it, �1 / ... ` - a �� y � e / \\ ■ ra Figure 5 -14H. Connectivity Projects Detail Sheet: Map 7 Street Character Typ,, Future Connectivity Alignmen area Downtown Mixed Use 1 (Collector) ;i Required bike /pedestrian connections Downtown Mixed Use 2 (Local) Existing Streets Urban Residential (52' -56') Taxlots Alley (20') Note: The width of the Future Connectivity Alignment Area is equal to the upper end of the right -of -way range listed for the street character type. lip . if \ ' \ - ii . ,,,, . _ .. Ad, .,... .s..4.,\L .,. , „ Y S li Yr . ., . r . S � ;,, a a` i a er r r ' r r r S do # , j rA` q ' i.,' - � "4 1 .11111116 • s f ' • r • • • 50 goo n. w 1$111 ,11 1l i1! r 1 'r W :0'. ' - . _ Figure 5 -141. Connectivity Projects Detail Sheet: Map 8 treet Character Typ ; ' Future Connectivity Alig Area Downtown Mixed Use 1 (Collector) :: Required bike /pedestrian connection Downtown Mixed Use 2 (Local) Existing Streets Urban Residential (5Z-56') Taxlots Note: The width of the Future Connectivity Alignment Area is equal to the upper end of the right -of -way range listed for the street character type. .p 0 li, / ...* S ,-- c ‘ -,. , , 4,,,, , ,-, 4 :., „...„.. . ,,2.-„,.,, ,,, „ . . v • �,��` d, . \ i.--# a ` G r,' �4`.. , i, M • 1 ` R A T .. ♦ 1 H 1 1 + 1 ° r h !_ 1 d / i . ; .,. 1 ...- . -K .. .. ..i I, 111,11 PI ill P ■ 1 Ill! ;t eFr ....� .,s w s� o ca , 1 inch - 15d-fe:t Td,, ; .M I • . ` ' Q 1 I s± g a l F'` e 0 50 1001 204 AA ' 111 • Changes , , i ` f g . , �, , . 9 00 1,000 Feet recommended at October 15, 2012 --A ., _- - ,.... . , Planning Commission public hearing �; ' •60-,0 y' _}� . ',r i f o , r See change 5 .. �' stir! ' 1 ‘ `'-' , " - 4 4k* : ,,, - , - ' ,.. . (lc _. C •. 3 , , S �� � �I� IIPI I - . - - -, IV # - • • See change 1 4 # .�� See change 2 • • ` \ e ! R' j ° i r i ,` Downtown Street Character Types* 4 t t, I • Upper Hall Boulevard * * W ` y f • Main Street Green Street See change 4 ♦ -' -- Downtown Mixed Use 1 (Collector) :lrl ; ; • I � • / - Downtown Mixed Use 2 (Neighborhood) /AL. • Downtown Mixed Use 3 (Upper Burnham) * " � 01 a „ . ar•' • Downtown Mixed Use 4 (Lower Burnham) a_�� �� �' Urban Residential I See change 3 • Alley: Business - - * Dashed lines indicate proposed streets 1 , ' Block subject to bike /ped connectivity requirements I r -____ MU -CBD Zone Boundary , 70 '* Hall Boulevard is currently an ODOT facility. ODOT's design standards Taxlots may supersede these standards as long as it is an ODOTfacility. IP '` Figure 5 -14D. Connectivity Projects Detail Sheet: Map 3 Change StreetCharecter Type Fire C©nnectriity Atiignmdht Area •• Downtown Mixed Use Co Sector .. 1 i< } ®:s Reidbic+e/pedEStrterif c©nriections .iixi l n Mixed Use 2 (Locat) Existing Streets • tU.ta Resident (,52=56) Tex ets . MITI .( Note: The width of the Future Connectivity Alignment Area is equal to the upper end of the right - of-way range listed for the street character type. ' -YAW/ y<‘/ Conceptual connection to be coordinated if significant changes to viaduct are proposed. ., ," . f .c64 r;�� ��. �. �s,. s. s N . 6 \- , '''''''\‘'...- 0 PA 4 4 ,..,„ .... ...... , . ._,, . -- olli _ , i .... , . • �, +_- `'` . . Z4,1R.,• qr .. `" . . • • ii i • . .0 `r S \ Y . %` 4 40.r 4 1∎:11 ' ii . � a n , / Z \ K ,. 4. y }„ ,, am { ' ,/ no � '' � � ,, e f { s Vol S / �� r r • ' � �` f v r y d i • 9 fi ,r,+J \ , :. „4„ N. , 4: , ,, A a , / � � dam' � ■ I �� L, ' ) -- A Figure 5 -141. Connectivity Projects Detail Sheet: Map 8 Change 3 Street Character Type Future Connectivity Alignment Area . el Downtown Mixed Use 1 (Collector) i :. :: Required bike /pedestrian connections Downtown Mixed Use 2 (Local) Existing Streets Urban Residential (52' -56') Taxlots -- Alley (20') Note: The width of the Future Connectivity Alignment Area is equal to the upper end of the right-of-way range listed for the street character type. 'W \ lir — : ‘ . . \ \ 4 y t.. . . .. ge \ ..4„,..,,,, e „s. .11.,, h . / VII4Svr, .. — j \ / 11 r • • j is Ii 17 ill •w - ) 41"146414* i Q 4 0 50 t " _ it.. 'iii... .%. • _71 s .. \ Alp , .7-*/ Change 4 ' - ,"\\ % .,‘,,,, , • , ..0, , As. . . y ilit ..,,,,, . ; - ,,,* . . • V..., ...., , .. - - . z . • ' s .. , . 1 , ' 1 % L # .i. . Allow flexible 0" / , ' .,*. , - / .*.ii1 design standards k ,- 41 • .. • - # . ., ..., ... I 'II, near Fanno - Vli 4.. ,, Creek park. - .. -- 411! . 1 Reduced ROW, 40t . .. ,.. 4 1\ , pervious payers. 1. ' - It. (addressed in 18.370) ItI• .. , , , ,. \\:* , • 4p 6.6_. \I 11 ' • , P \ a I, ,4, • \ ' ' 4 1 , ,, ..„.... . . lillilm' , .. , ,' 1 V filifill.ril Figure 5 -14B. Connectivity Projects Detail Sheet: Map 1 Street racter Type Faille . t ectiviiyNignniant Change 5 . use 1(0 ) ►.. :. R b ike /pedestrian co wr ctions er. r Dis t+a nrnAix,4Use 2 (Local) Existing Streets ; . Re sk #5'ets s AihwY (2 Note: The width of the Future Connectivity Alignment Area is equal to the upper end of the right -of -way range listed for the street character type r . ' ! \ � � I ect dooki / 1 r y - 4 , • . fr' *,, ,''''': -', i ',,,,.. ''''-. .' ,") 4..fr 111 ' ,,-, 1 \ I II � , - m S r kNC)i , 1 , ' i a ( • ill '..; EXHIBIT B DRAFT Amendments to the TDC Chapter 18.370 Variances and Adjustments Proposed amendments are shown as follows: • Proposed new text is shown in double - underline. • Existing text proposed to be deleted is shown in strike through. • Proposed language added at Planning Commission hearing in underline 18.370.020 Adjustments A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish two classes of special variances: 1. "Development adjustments" which allow modest variation from required development standards within proscribed limits. Because such adjustments are granted using "clear and objective standards," these can be granted by means of a Type I procedure, as opposed to the more stringent standards of approval and procedure for variances. 2. "Special adjustments" which are variances from development standards which have their own approval criteria as opposed to the standard approval criteria for variances contained in Section 18.370.020.C. B. Development adjustments. 1. The following development adjustments will be granted by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria contained in Subsection B2 below: a. Front yard setbacks. Up to a 25% reduction of the dimensional standards for the front yard setback required in the base zone. Setback of garages may not be reduced by this provision. b. Interior setbacks. Up to a 20% reduction of the dimensional standards for the side and rear yard setbacks required in the base zone. c. Lot coverage. Up to 5% increase of the maximum lot coverage required in the base zone. 2. Approval criteria. A development adjustment shall be granted if there is a demonstration of compliance with all of the applicable standards: a. A demonstration that the adjustment requested is the least required to achieve the desired effect; b. The adjustment will result in the preservation of trees, if trees are present in the development area; c. The adjustment will not impede adequate emergency access to the site; d. There is not a reasonable alternative to the adjustment which achieves the desired effect. DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to the TDC Chapter 18370 Variances and Adjustments PAGE 1 OF 6 CPA 2012 -00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 C. Special adjustments. 1. Adjustments to development standards within subdivisions (Chapter 18.430). The Director shall consider the application for adjustment at the same time he /she considers the preliminary plat. An adjustment may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied provided the Director finds: a. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated; b. The adjustment is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision; c. The granting of the adjustment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of property; and d. The adjustment is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations of this title. 2. Adjustment to minimum residential density requirements (Chapter 18.510). The Director is authorized to grant an adjustment to the minimum residential density requirements in Section 18.510.040, by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030 as follows: a. For development on an infill site as follows: (1) In the R -25 zone, sites of .75 acre or smaller. (2) In the R-40 zone, sites of .75 acre or smaller. b. For development on sites larger than those contained in 1 above, if the applicant can demonstrate by means of detailed site plan that the site is so constrained that the proportional share of the required minimum density cannot be provided and still meet all of the development standards in the underlying zone. c. To be granted an adjustment in either Subsections a orb above, the applicant must demonstrate that the maximum number of residential units are being provided while complying with all applicable development standards in the underlying zone. There is nothing in this section which precludes an applicant for applying to a variance to these standards, as governed by Section 18.370.010. 3. For adjustments to density requirements in Washington Square Regional Center, the standards of Section 18.630.020.E apply. 4. For Modifications to dimensional and minimum density requirements for developments within the Washington Square Regional Center that include or abut designated Water Resource overlay areas, the standards of Section 18.630.020.F apply. 5. Adjustment to access and egress standards (Chapter 18.705). a. In all zoning districts where access and egress drives cannot be readily designed to conform to Code standards within a particular parcel, access with an adjoining property shall be considered. If access in conjunction with another parcel cannot reasonably be achieved, the Director may grant an adjustment to the access requirements of Chapter 18.705 through a Type II procedure, as governed in Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria contained in Subsection 2b below. b. The Director may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment from the access requirements contained in Chapter 18.705, based on the following criteria: (1) It is not possible to share access; DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to the TDC Chapter 18.370 Variances and Adjustments PAGE 2 OF 6 CPA 2012 -00001 /DCA 2012 - 00002 (2) There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or from another street; (3) The access separation requirements cannot be met; (4) The request is the minimum adjustment required to provide adequate access; (5) The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe access; and (6) The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.795 will be met. 6. Adjustments to landscaping requirements (Chapter 18.745). a. Adjustment to use of existing trees as street trees. By means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for the use of existing trees to meet the street tree requirements in Section 18.745.030 providing there has been no cutting and filling around the tree during construction which may lead to its loss, unless the following can be demonstrated: (1) The ground within the drip -line is altered merely for drainage purposes; and (2) It can be shown that the cut or fill will not damage the roots and will not cause the tree to die. b. Adjustment for street tree requirements. By means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for the adjustments to the street tree requirements in Section 18.745.030, based on the following approval criteria: (1) If the location of a proposed tree would cause potential problems with existing utility lines; (2) If the tree would cause visual clearance problems; or (3) If there is not adequate space in which to plant street trees. 7. Adjustments to parking standards (Chapter 18.765). a. Reduction from minimum parking requirements. By means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, the Director may authorize up to a 20% reduction in the total minimum vehicle parking spaces required in Section 18.765.070.H when an applicant for a development permit can demonstrate in a parking study prepared by a traffic consultant or in parking data from comparable sites that: (1) Use of transit, demand management programs, and/or special characteristics of the customer, client employee or resident population will reduce expected vehicle use and parking space demand for this development, as compared to standards Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) vehicle trip generation rates and minimum city parking requirements, and (2) A reduction in parking will not have an adverse impact on adjacent uses. b. Reductions in minimum parking requirements in new developments for transit improvements. The Director may authorize up to a 20% reduction in the total minimum vehicle parking spaces required in Section 18.765.070.H by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, when the applicant: (1) Incorporates transit- related facilities such as bus stops and pull -outs, bus shelters, transit- oriented developments and other transit- related development; and (2) Documents operational characteristics indicating the number of transit users, or number of non -auto users for a particular facility. c. Reductions in minimum parking requirements in existing developments for transit improvements. The Director may authorize up to a 10% reduction in the total minimum vehicle parking spaces required in Section 18.765.070.H at a conversion ratio of one DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to the TDC Chapter 18.370 Variances and Adjustments PAGE 3 OF 6 CPA 2012 -00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 . space per 100 square feet of transit facility by means of a Type I procedure as governed by Section 18.390.030, when the applicant: (1) Incorporates transit- related facilities such as bus stops and pull -outs, bus shelters, transit- oriented developments and other transit- related development; and (2) Meets the following requirements: (a) A transit facility must be located adjacent to a street with transit service. The facility should be located between the building and front property line, within 20 feet of an existing transit stop, or the facility may include a new transit stop if approved by Tri-Met. (b) A transit facility shall include a covered waiting or sitting area. d. Increases in the maximum parking requirements. The Director may approve off -street parking in excess of the maximum allowed parking spaces in Section 18.765.070G by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, when the applicant can demonstrate that all of the following criteria are met: (1) The individual characteristics of the use at that location requires more parking than is generally required for a use of this type and intensity; (2) The need for additional parking cannot be reasonably met through provision of on- street parking or shared parking with adjacent or nearby uses; and (3) The site plan shall indicate how the additional parking can be redeveloped to more intensive transit - supportive use in the future. e. Reduction in required bicycle parking. The Director may approve a reduction of required bicycle parking per Section 18.765.050.E by means of Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use by its nature would be reasonably anticipated to generate a lesser need for bicycle parking. f. Use of alternative parking garage layout. By means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, the Director may approve an alternative design of parking garage which differs from the dimensional standards contained in Figure 18.765.2 when it can be shown that 1) the proposed structure meets design guidelines of the Urban Land Institute's (ULI) Dimension of Parking, Current Edition; or 2) a similar structure functions efficiently using proposed modified layout, circulation and dimensions. g. Reduction in length of stacking lane. By means of a Type I procedure, as governed by 18.390.030, the Director may allow a reduction in the amount of vehicle stacking area required in Section 18.765.040.D.2 if such a reduction is deemed appropriate after analysis of the size and location of the development, limited services available and other pertinent factors. 8. Adjustments to sign code (Chapter 18.780). a. By means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the sign code based on findings that at least one of the following criteria are satisfied: (1) The proposed adjustment to the height limits in the sign code is necessary to make the sign visible from the street because of the topography of the site, and/or a conforming building or sign on an adjacent property would limit the view of a sign erected on the site in conformance with Chapter 18.780, Signs; (2) A second freestanding sign is necessary to adequately identify a second entrance to a business or premises that is oriented towards a different street frontage; (3) Up to an additional 25% of sign area or height may be permitted when it is determined that the increase will not deter from the purpose of Chapter 18.780, DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to the TDC Chapter 18.370 Variances and Adjustments PAGE 4 OF 6 CPA 2012 - 00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 Signs. This increase should be judged according to specific needs and circumstances which necessitate additional area to make the sign sufficiently legible. The increase(s) shall not conflict with any other non - dimensional standards or restrictions of this chapter; (4) The proposed sign is consistent with the criteria set forth in Section 18.780.130.G; (5) The proposed exception for a second freestanding sign on an interior lot which is zoned commercial or industrial is appropriate because all of the following apply: (a) The combined height of both signs shall not exceed 150% of the sign height normally allowed for one freestanding sign in the same zoning district; however, neither shall exceed the height normally allowed in the same zoning district; (b) Neither sign will pose a vision clearance problem or will project into the public right -of -way; and (c) Total combined sign area for both signs shall not exceed 150% of what is normally allowed for one freestanding sign in the same zoning district; however, neither shall exceed the height normally allowed in the same zoning district. b. In addition to the criteria in Subsection a above, the Director shall review all of the existing or proposed signage for the development and its relationship to the intent and purpose of Chapter 18.780, Signs. As a condition of approval of the adjustment, the Director may require: (1) Removal or alteration of nonconforming signs to achieve compliance with the standards contained in Chapter 18.780, Signs; (2) Removal or alteration of conforming signs to establish a consistent sign design throughout the development; and (3) Application for sign permits for signs erected without permits or removal of such illegal signs. 9. Adjustments to setbacks to reduce tree removal (Chapter 18.790). By means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, the Director may grant a modification from applicable setback requirements of this Code for the purpose of preserving a tree or trees on the site of proposed development. Such modification may reduce the required setback by up to 50 %, but shall not be more than is necessary for the preservation of trees on the site. The setback modification described in this section shall supersede any special setback requirements or exceptions set out elsewhere in this title, including but not limited to Chapter 18.730, except Section 18.730.040. 10. Adjustments to wireless communication facilities (Chapter 18.798). a. By means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the requirement that a wireless communication tower be set back at least the height of the tower from any off -site residence based on findings that at the following criteria are satisfied: (1) The proposed location of the tower complies with the setback requirements for the underlying zone in which the property is located; DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to the TDC Chapter 18.370 Variances and Adjustments PAGE 5 OF 6 CPA 2012 - 00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 (2) A structural engineer certifies that the tower is designed to collapse within itself; (3) Because of topography, vegetation, building orientation and/or other factor, a site closer to an off -site residence will equally or better reduce the visual impacts associated with the tower upon the off -site residence. b. By means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the requirement that a wireless communication tower be located 2,000 feet from another tower in a residential zone or 500 feet from another tower in a non - residential zone based on findings that the following criteria are satisfied: (1) The applicant has fully complied with the collocation protocol as provided in Section 18.798.080; and (2) A registered radio engineer certifies that a more distant location is not technically feasible and/or sites at a more appropriate location are not available; or (3) A location closer than the required separation will reduce visual or other impacts on surrounding uses better than sites beyond the required separation. 11. Adjustments for street improvement requirements (Chapter 18.810). By means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the street improvement requirements, based on findings that the following criterion is satisfied: Strict application of the standards will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on existing development, on the proposed development, or on natural features such as wetlands, bodies of water, significant habitat areas, steep slopes or existing mature trees. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the Director shall determine that the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards. (Ord. 06 -20) 12, Adjustments to Downtown Connectivity Standards (Chanter 18.610.0251. This adjustment applies to the location of required connections; adjustments to the design of the required improvement are subject to I8.370.020.C.11. By means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, the D - • • . . • • • - . • • conditions, or deny a request for an adjustment to the connectivity standards, based on findings that the following criteria are satisfied: a. Granting the adjustment will equally or better meet downtown desi to •rin i - outlined in the Transportation System Plan; b. Application of the Downtown Connectivity Standards would preclude all reasonable economic use of the site; c. Any adjustment of the street and pedestrian connectivity improvement designations will, at a minimum, preserve the potentia • . i. t r- • • • - 'v' • r • v - nts and d. Granting the adjustment would not result in an adverse impact on natural features such as wetlands, bodies of water, significant habitat areas, steep slopes, or existing mature trees. DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to the TDC Chapter 18.370 Variances and Adjustments PAGE 6 OF 6 CPA 2012 - 00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 EXHIBIT C DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.610 Tigard Downtown District Development and Design Standards Proposed amendments are shown as follows: • Proposed new text is shown in double - underline. • Existing text proposed to be deleted is shown in strikc through. • Proposed language added at Planning Commission hearing in Sections: 18.610.010 Purpose and Procedures 18.610.015 Pre - Existing Uses and Developments within the Downtown District 18.610.020 Building and Site Development Standards 18.610.025 Street Connectivity 18.610.030 Building and Site Design Standards 18.610.035 Additional Standards 18.610.040 Special Requirements for Development Bordering Urban Plaza 18.610.045 Exceptions to Standards 18.610.050 Building and Site Design Objectives (to be used with Track 3 Approval Process) 18.610.055 Signs 18.610.060 Off - Street Parking and Loading Requirements 18.610.010 Purpose and Procedures A. Purpose. The objectives of the Tigard Downtown Development and Design Standards are to implement the Comprehensive Plan, Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan, and Urban Renewal Plan and ensure the quality, attractiveness, and special character of the Downtown. The regulations are intended to: 1. Facilitate the development of an urban village by promoting the development of a higher density, economically viable, and aesthetically pleasing pedestrian - oriented downtown where people can live, work, play and shop for their daily needs without relying on the automobile. The quality and scale of the downtown urban environment shall foster social interaction and community celebration. 2. Encourage the integration of natural features and the open space system into Downtown by promoting development sensitive to natural resource protection and enhancement; addressing the relationship to Fanno Creek Park; and promoting opportunities for the creation of public art and use of sustainable design. DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.610 Tigard Downtown District Dev. & Design Stds PAGE 1 OF 7 CPA 2012 -00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 3. Enhance the street level as an inviting place for pedestrians by guiding the design of the building "walls" that frame the right -of -way (the "public realm ") to contribute to a safe, high quality pedestrian- oriented streetscape. Building features will be visually interesting and human- scaled, such as storefront windows, detailed facades, art and landscaping. The impact of parking on the pedestrian system will also be limited. The downtown streetscape shall be developed at a human scale and closely connected to the natural environment through linkages to Fanno Creek open space and design attention to trees and landscapes. 4. Promote Tigard's Downtown as a desirable place to live and do business. Promote development of high - quality high density housing and employment opportunities in the Downtown. 5. Provide a 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 administrators. B. Conflicting standards. The following standards and land use regulations apply to all development within the Downtown Mixed Use Central Business District. With the exception of public facility arid street requirements, if a design standard found in this section conflicts with another standard in the Development Code, the standards in this section shall govern, even if less restrictive than other areas of the code. C. Applicability. 1. New buildings and redevelopment: 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/or site improvements associated with such lawfully preexisting uses and structures shall be allowed, provided the application for such proposed project moves toward compliance with the applicable Development Code standards. Only those Downtown Building and Site Design Standards applicable to the proposed expansion, modification or site improvements to the existing development shall be applicable. 3. Design standards do not apply to the following projects: a. Maintenance and repair of a building, structure, or site in a manner that is consistent with previous approvals and/or necessary for safety; b. Projects undertaken to bring an existing development into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act; c. Exterior painting; d. Any exterior project that doesn't require a building permit; e. Interior remodeling; f. Temporary structures /uses (as defined in Chapter 18.785); DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.610 Tigard Downtown District Dev. & Design Stds PAGE 2 OF 7 CPA 2012 -00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 g. Any project involving a pre - existing single - family residential building or duplex (that is not being or already been converted to a nonresidential use). D. Downtown design review approval process. E. Procedures. F. Downtown design review submittal requirements. G. Approval period. H. Extension. 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 to construct public facilities that were required as part of the approved development proposal; and 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 Director shall require a bond in an amount not greater than 100% or other adequate assurances as a condition of approval of the plan in order to ensure the completed project is in conformance with the approved plan; and 2. Release of Performance Bonds. The bond shall be released when the Director fmds the completed project conforms to the approved plan and all conditions of approval are satisfied. 3. Completion of Landscape Installation. Landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of occupancy permits, unless security equal to the cost of the landscaping as determined by the DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.610 Tigard Downtown District Dev. & Design Stds PAGE 3 OF 7 CPA 2012 - 00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 Director is filed with the City Recorder assuring such installation within six months after occupancy: a. Security may consist of a faithful performance bond payable to the City, cash, certified check or such other assurance of completion approved by the City Attorney; and b. If the installation of the landscaping is not completed within the six-month period, the security may be used by the City to complete the installation. K. Business tax filing. 18.610.015 Pre - Existing Uses and Developments within the Downtown District A. Applicability. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 18.760.040 (Criteria for Nonconforming Situations), land uses and associated development in the MU -CBD District that were lawfully in existence at the time of adoption of these standards may continue as lawful uses and developments. 1. Land uses and associated development that were in existence at the time of the adoption of the MU -CBD District and Chapter 18.610 may continue on the property. Additions, expansions, or enlargements to such uses or developments, shall be limited to the property area of said use or development lawfully in existence at the time of adoption of this ordinance, January 26, 2010. 2. If a pre- existing structure or use is destroyed by fire, earthquake or other act of God, or otherwise abandoned then the use will retain its pre - existing status under this provision so long as it is substantially reestablished within one year of the date of the loss. The new structure would have to conform to the code. B. Standards for projects involving existing single- family and duplex dwellings. 1. Existing single - family buildings and duplexes used for residential purposes are exempt from the standards. 2. For projects involving preexisting housing units used for nonresidential uses the applicable standards are: Section 18.610.020, Building and Site Development Standards, including the applicable sub -area from Map 610.A; Section 18.610.030, Building Design Standards for Nonresidential Buildings and Section 18.610.035, Additional Standards. C. Existing nonconforming industrial structures. Existing nonconforming industrial structures at the following locations may continue to be utilized for I -P Industrial uses after the nonconforming use limit of six months: Map 2S 1 2AA tax lot 4700, Map 2S 1 2AC tax lots 100 and 202, Map 2 1 2AD tax lot 1203, Map 2S 1 2DB tax lot 100, and Map 2S 1 2DA tax lot 300. (Ord. 10 -02 § 2) 18.610.020 Building and Site Development Standards A. Sub - areas. DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.610 Tigard Downtown District Dev. & Design Stds PAGE 4 OF 7 CPA 2012 - 00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 _ .d 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. Table 18.610.1 MU -CBD Development Standards Matrix 1, 2 3 STANDARD SUB -AREAS Main Street 99W/Hall Corridor Scoffins /Commercial Fanno/Bumham (MS) (99H) (SC) (FB) Front setback Minimum 0 ft. 0/5 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. (5 ft. for frontage on 99W) Maximum 10 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Side facing street on corner and through lots Minimum 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 Minimum 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Maximum (stories /feet) 3 stories (45 ft.) 3 stories (45 ft.) 6 stories (80 ft.) 6 stories (80 ft.) Ground floor height minimum 15 ft. 15 ft. None None Site coverage maximum 100% 90% 90% 80% Minimum landscaping 0 % 10% 10% 20% Minimum building frontage 50% 50% 50% 50% Residential density (units per acre) Minimum 25 25 25 15 Maximum 50 50 50 50 I This table does not apply to existing development. All new buildings in the district must meet these development standards, including projects using the Track 3 approval process. 2 For standards for development surrounding the future public plaza see Section 18.610.040, Special Requirements for Development Bordering Urban Plaza. 3 See also Section 18.610.045, Exceptions to Standards in the MU -CBD zone. 4 In the MU -CBD zone, required landscaping can be provided on roofs or within the ri • ht -of -w. where the a• • licant is required to provide landscaping as part of a street improvement in accordance with Section 18.610.075. 5 Landscaping/screening requirements for parking lots must be met. 6 Station Area Overlay permits a maximum of 80 units per acre (see Map 18.610A). 7 3 stories /45 feet within 200 feet of Fanno Creek Park boundary (see Map 610.A) or within 50 feet of low or medium density residential district. 8 Minimum density applies to residential -only development (not mixed use). 2. Parking Location.... 3. Rooftop Features /Equipment Screening.... DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.610 Tigard Downtown District Dev. & Design Stds PAGE 5 OF 7 CPA 2012 - 00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 4. Other Exterior Mechanical Equipment.... 18.610.025 Street Connectivity • . A. Purpose Statement. The purpose of this section is to implement the City of Tigard 2035 Transportation System Plan which describes a more complete system of streets and pathways to improve multi -modal access to, from and within the Downtown Mixed Use Central Business District. The standards in this section are intended to execute connectivity improvement • •' - that will foster creation of smaller block sizes, efficient routes into and within downtown, and new streets to accommodate and encourage downtown development. The standards are also intended to solve some existing connectivity issues, such as access across railroad tracks. B. Applicability. The connectivity standards in this section apply on y to those properties with designated streets or alleys as shown on Figures 5 -14A through 5 -14I of the City o • • • Transportation System Plan. Development on properties with designated streets or alleys is subject to the co ectivity requirements below. Required New Street and Alley Connections. Required new street and alley connections shall be provided as follows. 1. New development and m.jor redevelopment. For new development and for major redevelopment valued at more than 60% of its total current value as assessed by the Washington County assessor, the applicant shall comply with subsections (a) and (h), below. (a) Dedicate the required right -of -way. The applicant shall dedicate the amount of right -of- way necessary to construct the required street or alley consistent with the desi . - street cross- section. i. As an alternative, the City Engineer may approve the dedication of a public easement in lieu of a portion of the public right -of -way in accordance with TDC 18.810.030.C. (b) Construct the required improvements. The applicant shall construct the full street or alley improvements as shown in the designated street cross- section. L All other projects. For projects other than new development and major redevelopment, the applicant shall comply with sections a and b below: (a) Preserve the potential for a future connectivity improvement. No new buildings shall be located within the area identified as future street or alley alignment. Surface parki g, landscaping, temporary structures, driveways and similar types of development are allowed within the future alignment. (b) 5 a non - remonstrance to future Local Improvement District (LID). The property owner h sign a non - remonstrance a a - - -n f. r f. i . 'GI • .11 _ - .. • the identified street or alley improvement. D. Required New Pedestrian Pathway. For new development and for major redevelopment valued at more than 60% of its total current value as assessed by the Washington County assessor that is DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.610 Tigard Downtown District Dev. & Design Stds PAGE 6 OF 7 CPA 2012 -00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 within the area designated for required multi -use pathway, the applicant shall comply with subsection (1) below: 1. Provide multi -use . athwa on • ublic e. sements or ri O ht -of -wa s throu q h the block in a manner which ensures that connections through the block are provided at least every 330 feet. The required pathway shall provide direct connection throu • - . . ._s • • • .e subject to the requirements of 18.810.110. E. Adjustments to the connectivity standards are subject to TDC 18.370.020. F. Replacement of a pre - existing structure that is destroyed by fire, earthquake or other cause beyond the control of the owner, shall not be considered a major redevelopment for the purposes of 18.610.025.0 and of 18.610.025.D. 18.610.030 Building and Site Design Standards 18.610.035 Additional Standards 18.610.040 Special Requirements for Development Bordering Urban Plaza • 18.610.045 Exceptions to Standards A. Exceptions to setback requirements.... B. Exceptions to parking requirements.... C. Exceptions for private or shared outdoor area.... D. Exceptions to landscaping requirements.... 18.610.050 Building and Site Design Objectives (to be used with Track 3 Approval Process) 18.610.055 Signs 18.610.060 Off - Street Parking and Loading Requirements DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.610 Tigard Downtown District Dev. & Design Stds PAGE 7 OF 7 CPA 2012-00001/DCA 2012 -00002 EXHIBIT D DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards Proposed amendments are shown as follows: • Proposed new text is shown in double- underline. • Existing text proposed to be deleted is shown in_e +Ti t "rou Sections: 18.810.010 Purpose 18.810.020 General Provisions 18.810.030 Streets 18.810.040 Blocks 18.810.050 Easements 18.810.060 Lots 18.810.070 Sidewalks 18.810.080 Public Use Areas 18.810.090 Sanitary Sewers 18.810.100 Storm Drainage 18.810.110 Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways 18.810.120 Utilities 18.810.130 Cash or Bond Required 18.810.140 Monuments — Replacement Required. 18.810.150 Installation Prerequisite 18.810.160 Installation Conformation 18.810.170 Plan Check 18.810.180 Notice to City 18.810.190 City Inspection of Improvements 18.810.200 Engineer's Written Certification Required 18.810.210 Completion Requirements 18.810.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. 18.810.020 General Provisions A. When standards apply. Unless otherwise provided, construction, reconstruction or repair of streets, sidewalks, curbs and other public improvements shall occur in accordance with the standards of this title. No development may occur and no land use application may be approved unless the public facilities related to development comply with the public facility requirements established in this section and adequate public facilities are available. Applicants may be required to dedicate land and build required public improvements only when the required exaction is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards PAGE 1 OF 19 CPA 2012-00001/DCA 2012 -00002 B. Standard specifications. The city engineer shall establish standard specifications consistent with the application of engineering principles. C. Chapter 7.40 applies. The provision of Chapter 7.40 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply to this chapter. D. Adjustments. Adjustments to the provisions in this chapter related to street improvements may be granted by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.020.C.11 18.370.030.C.9. (Ord. 99 -22) E. Except as provided in Section 18.810.030.S, as used in this chapter, the term "streets" shall mean "public streets" unless an adjustment under Section 18.810.020.D is allowed. (Ord. 99 -22) 18.810.030 Streets A. Improvements. 1. No development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access to a public street. 2. No development shall occur unless streets within the development meet the standards of this chapter. 3. No development shall occur unless the streets adjacent to the development meet the standards of this chapter, provided, however, that a development may be approved if the adjacent street does not meet the standards but half -street improvements meeting the standards of this title are constructed adjacent to the development. 4 Any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall meet the standards of this chapter. 5. If the city could and would otherwise require the applicant to provide street improvements, the city engineer may accept a future improvements guarantee in lieu of street improvements if one or more of the following conditions exist: a. A partial improvement is not feasible due to the inability to achieve proper design standards; b. A partial improvement may create a potential safety hazard to motorists or pedestrians; c. Due to the nature of existing development on adjacent properties it is unlikely that street improvements would be extended in the foreseeable future and the improvement associated with the project under review does not, by itself, provide a significant improvement to street safety or capacity; d. The improvement would be in conflict with an adopted capital improvement plan; e. The improvement is associated with an approved land partition on property zoned residential and the proposed land partition does not create any new streets; or f. Additional planning work is required to define the appropriate design standards for the street and the application is for a project which would contribute only a minor portion of the anticipated future traffic on the street. 6. The standards of this chapter include the standard specifications adopted by the city engineer pursuant DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards PAGE 2 OF 19 CPA 2012-00001/DCA 2012 -00002 to Section 18.810.020.B. 7. The approval authority may approve adjustments to the standards of this chapter if compliance with the standards would result in an adverse impact on natural features such as wetlands, bodies of water, significant habitat areas, steep slopes, or existing mature trees. The approval authority may also approve adjustments to the standards of this chapter if compliance with the standards would have a substantial adverse impact on existing development or would preclude development on the property where the development is proposed. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the approval authority shall balance the benefit of the adjustment with the impact on the public interest represented by the standards. In evaluating the impact on the public interest, the approval authority shall consider the criteria listed in Section 18.810.030.E.1. An adjustment to the standards may not be granted if the adjustment would risk public safety. B. Creation of rights -of -way for streets and related purposes. Rights -of -way shall be created through the approval of a final subdivision plat or major partition; however, the council may approve the creation of a street by acceptance of a deed, provided that such street is deemed essential by the council for the purpose of general traffic circulation. 1. The council may approve the creation of a street by deed of dedication without full compliance with the regulations applicable to subdivisions or major partitions if any one or more of the following conditions are found by the council to be present: a. Establishment of a street is initiated by the council and is found to be essential for the purpose of general traffic circulation, and partitioning or subdivision of land has an incidental effect rather than being the primary objective in establishing the road or street for public use; or b. The tract in which the road or street is to be dedicated is an isolated ownership of one acre or less and such dedication is recommended by the commission to the council based on a finding that the proposal is not an attempt to evade the provisions of this title governing the control of subdivisions or major partitions. c. The street is located within the Downtown Mixed Use Central Business District and has been identified on Figures 5 -14A through 5 -14I of the City of Tig. re I .r se . 'ti _ stem Plan as a required connectivity improvement. 2. With each application for approval of a road or street right -of -way not in full compliance with the regulations applicable to the standards, the proposed dedication shall be made a condition of subdivision and major partition approval. a. The applicant shall submit such additional information and justification as may be necessary to enable the commission in its review to determine whether or not a recommendation for approval by the council shall be made. b. The recommendation, if any, shall be based upon a finding that the proposal is not in conflict with the purpose of this title. c. The commission in submitting the proposal with a recommendation to the council may attach conditions which are necessary to preserve the standards of this title. 3. All deedstof dedication shall be in a form prescribed by the city and shall name "the public" as grantee. C. Creation of access easements.... DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards PAGE 3 OF 19 CPA 2012- 00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 D. Street location, width and grade. Except as noted below, the location, width and grade of all streets shall conform to an approved street plan and shall be considered in their relation to existing and planned streets, to topographic conditions, to public convenience and safety, and in their appropriate relation to the proposed use of the land to be served by such streets: 1. Street grades shall be approved by the city engineer in accordance with subsection N below; and 2. Where the location of a street is not shown in an approved street plan, the arrangement of streets in a development shall either: a. Provide for the continuation or appropriate projection of existing streets in the surrounding areas, or b. Conform to a plan adopted by the commission, if it is impractical to conform to existing street patterns because of particular topographical or other existing conditions of the land. Such a plan shall be based on the type of land use to be served, the volume of traffic, the capacity of adjoining streets and the need for public convenience and safety. E. Minimum rights- of -wav and street widths. Unless otherwise indicated on an approved street plan, or as needed to continue an existing improved street or within the Downtown District, street right -of -way and roadway widths shall not be less than the minimum width described below. Where a range is indicated, the width shall be determined by the decision - making authority based upon anticipated average daily traffic (ADT) on the new street segment. (The City Council may adopt by resolution, design standards for street construction and other public improvements. The design standards will provide guidance for determining improvement requirements within the specified ranges.) These are presented in Table 18.810.1. 1. The decision - making body shall make its decision about desired right -of -way width and pavement width of the various street types within the subdivision or development after consideration of the following: a. The type of road as set forth in the comprehensive plan transportation chapter - functional street classification. b. Anticipated traffic generation. c. On -street parking needs. d. Sidewalk and bikeway requirements. e. Requirements for placement of utilities. f. Street lighting. g. Drainage and slope impacts. h. Street tree location. i. Planting and landscape areas. j. Safety and comfort for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. k. Access needs for emergency vehicles. DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards PAGE 4 OF 19 CPA 2012- 00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 Table 18.810.1 Minimum Widths for Street Characteristics and Downtown Street Character Types Right -of- Min. Landscape Type of Street Way Paved Number of Lane On- street Bike Lane Width Sidewalk Width Strip Width Median Width Width Lanes Width Parking Width (exclusive of Width curb) 2 -7 6' (New Streets) 8' (Res. & Ind. Zones) Arterial 64' - 128' Varies (Refer to 12' N/A 5' 12' (I) TSP) 5' -6' (Existing Streets) 10' (Comm. Zones) 2 -5 6' (New Streets) (5) 6' (Res. &Ind. Zones) Collector 58' - 96' Varies (Refer to 11' 8' (4) 5'-6' (Existing Streets) 8' (Comm. Zones) 5' 12 Neighborhood Route 50' - 58' 28' -36' 2 10' 8' 5'-6' 5'--6' (2) 5' N/A Local: Industrial/Commercial 50' 36' 2 N/A 5'-6' (2) 5' N/A Local: Residential N/A • Under 1500 ADT 54750' (3) 32'/28' (3) 2 8' (both sides) N/A 5' -6' (2) 5' • Under 500 ADT 50'/46' (3) 28'/24' (3) 2 8' (one side) N/A • Under 200 ADT 46'/42' (3) 24'/20' (3) 2 (No Parking) N/A Cul -de -sac bulbs in Industrial and 50' radius 42' radius N/A N/A N/A N/A Commercial Zones Cul -de -sac bulbs in 47' radius 40' radius N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Residential Zones Upper Hall Boulevardt 941 641 a L 81 6' 10.5' 4' 141 Main Street Green Street TBD ) TBD ) TBD ) TBD TBD ) TBD ) TBD ) TBD ) TBD Downtown Mixed Use 1 66' -70' 4451 2 IQ' 81 51 6�' 4' NNLA – Downtown Collector = _ Downtown Mixed Use 2 – Downtown 58' -62' 181 2 111 11 NLA 6 -8' 41 N/A Neighborhood Downtown Mixed Use 3 62' -74' 3.81 2 11' 81 N/A 6 -8' 5.5 -9.5' N/A – Upper Burnham — – — — Downtown Mixed Use 4 68' -72' 411 2 12 11' WA 5_:81 41 121 – Lower Burnham DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards PAGE 5 OF 19 CPA 2012 - 00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 Downtown —Urban 52' -56' 32' 1 18' 7' N/A �$ jyZA Residential Alley: Residential 16' 16' N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Alley: Business 20' 20' N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ' Medians required for five - and seven -lane roadways. They are optional for three -lane roadways. 2 Sidewalk widths for these streets shall be five feet with landscape strip; six feet if against curb (if permitted in accordance with Section 18.810.070.C). 3 "Skinny street" roadway widths are permitted where cross section and review criteria are met. Refer to corresponding cross sections (Figures 18.810.3, 18.810.4 and 18.810.5) for details and conditions. 4 Parking is allowed on collectors within the Downtown Urban Renewal District. 5 Bicycle lane requirements on collectors within the Downtown Urban Renewal District shall be determined by the city engineer. 6 SW Hall Boulevard is currently an ODOT facility The 2035 Tigard Transportation System Plan recommends that a corridor plan be completed for the SW Hall Boulevard Corridor The street character standards for Upper Hall Boulevard shall not be considered final until the corridor plan is complete, 7 Main Street Green Street standards are currently being developed through a separate process DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT • DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards PAGE 6 OF 19 CPA 2012-00001/DCA 2012 -00002 Figure 18.810.1 Arterials Sample Cross Sections r , 44/=4P:i. " 8.10' 5.5' 6'Bike 12' 12' Mike 5.5' 8-10 z_ WW 2 Lane 64=68' RAN 12' MedoN 5' 8 -10' 5.5' 12' Turn Lane 12' 6'Bike, 5.5' .8- 10',' RIW 76-80' 3 Lane 76'40' RAN .7 AIM • 12' MediaN .5' 8 -10' 6' .6'B&e 12' 12' . Turn Lane 12' 12' 6'1311e. 5.5' .5-10' •5, R/W 100' -104' 5 Lane 100 RAN ■S 12' MediaN 5' 8- 10'__ 5 5' , 6'Bike 12' 12' 12' Turn Lane 12' 12' 12' Bye 6'. 5,5'_ _. y �l(x-� R/W 124' -128' 7 Lane 124 kW (Ord. 02 -33) DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.610 Tigard Downtown District Dev. & Design Stds PAGE 7 OF 19 CPA 2012- 00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 Figure 18.810.2 Collector Sample Cross Sections (1) F 1 C 6 -8' 5.5' f 6'8 ce_, 11' 11' + 6' Bke 5.5' „6 -8 R/W 58 %62' 2 Lane 58 RIW gamii 12' Median/ 6-8' 5.5' 1 6'81e 1 1 ' y Turn Lane _ 11' - -- - ,6'Bke 5.5'_ RJYV 7074' • 3 Lane 70' -74' R/W g. • 12' Medan ;m �. ace 11' 1 - Iron Lane + 1 l + 11. „bike, 5Lana 92 -91 RN/ ' Parking is allowed on collectors within the Downtown Urban Renewal District. Bike lane requirements on these same collecters shall be determined by the city engineer. (Ord. 09 -09 § 3 (Exh. B); Ord. 02 -33) DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.610 Tigard Downtown District Dev. & Design Stds PAGE 8 OF 19 CPA 2012-00001/DCA 2012 -00002 Figure 18.810.3 Neighborhood Routes Sample Cross Sections ' r • 5' 5 5 O � �' — - }..., . 5' 5.5' O a2. Rr\5 5 "r , - � 5 �. No Parking on Ono Side With Parking on Both Sides int H rri_ ,SY 5 x G � 1 6' Me ' 1J7 3C 5. �' tJ WMh Nip Lanes/No Parking (Ord. 02 -33) Figure 18.810.4 Local Residential Streets - <1,500 vpd A. Standard (sample) B. Skinny Street Option (criteria) -ma ^a • • ff ! ; 'e...r S' S' 5 5' O 32' O 5.5' 5 5.' a r m .. r..,+iem mry . (0.15e) 15.5.; ,. WA 54' . ,d .» °" r Ur • 5., • • ftworet On-street Parking - - <1500 vpd * If parking on both sides. Criteria: block length not to exceed 600 feet • Traffic flow plan must be submitted and approved. • Not appropriate for streets serving more than 1,000 vpd. • No parking permitted within 30 feet of an intersection. • Appropriate adjacent to single - family detached development only. DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.610 Tigard Downtown District Dev. & Design Stds PAGE 9 OF 19 CPA 2012- 00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 (Ord. 02 -33) Figure 18.810.5 Local Residential Streets < 500 vpd A. Standard (sample) B. Skinny Street Option (criteria) 16 5' 5' 5.5' 0 - R 28' 1 5.5' 5 R •' 50' TJ 5_5 ti�'N 1..1 Ulm tu r Residential Local Street/Cul - de-sac Y -' '" max shwa One Side On- street Parldng "�^•° <500 vpd Criteria: • Traffic flow plan must be submitted and approved. • Not appropriate for streets serving more than 500 vpd. • No parking permitted within 30 feet of an intersection. • Appropriate adjacent to single - family detached development only. • Must provide a minimum of one off - street parking space for every 20 feet of restricted street frontage. (Ord. 02 -33) Figure 18.810.6 Local Residential Street < 200 vpd DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.610 Tigard Downtown District Dev. & Design Stds PAGE 10 OF 19 CPA 2012 - 00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 A. Standard (sample) B. Skinny Street Option (criteria) 5 5' 5.5' _ 24' 5.5 + 5 ,5 { r rw . Cul - de - sac /Residential Local Street <200 vpd (No parking) Criteria: • Must provide a minimum of one off - street parking space for every 20 feet of restricted street frontage. • No parking permitted within 30 feet of an intersection. (Ord.02 -33) Figure 18.810.7 Upper Hall Boulevard „li t i fIr t--1-- ”, I — V* 14 Note: SW Hall Boulevard is currently an ODOT facility. The 2035 Tigard Transportation System Plan recommends tha • s rri. r . lan be corn & l - - a fs h- H.11 B • ul var. sin. s r - . - - t haracter standards for I Jpper Hall Boulevard shall not be considered final until the corridor plan is complete. DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.610 Tigard Downtown District Dev. & Design Stds PAGE 11 OF 19 CPA 2012 - 00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 FipT 18.810.8 Downtown Mixed Use 1— Downtown Collector i1 PP" • ■ al ,•""' ? - 12 6 S' In S' S' 10 I 66-70 ROW Figure 18.810.9 Downtown Mixed IJse 2 — Downtown Neipjiborhood .: IlL, ■ i li a . _ . _ •• i . \\ 1 Al■ mixed use residential mixed use residential DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.610 Tigard Downtown District Dev. & Design Stds PAGE 12 OF 19 CPA 2012 - 00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 Figure 18.810.10 Downtown Mixed Use 3 — Upper Burnham LI go Off 0 0 . mom I 51 it ill 16, ill' t 12'- 18 8' I 11' 1I' 8' I2'- 18" 62' -74 ROW Figure 18.810.11 Downtown Mixed Use 4 — Lower Burnham Ali ■ _ ~l ■ All r it ill • • 4 F.- " - - 0 *I C. 1,i. ,.�` '0" - 12' 8' IA 12 I U 8' 10' - 17' 72 ROW DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.610 Tigard Downtown District Dev. & Design Stds PAGE 13 OF 19 CPA 2012-00001/DCA 2012 -00002 FiFpre 18.810.12 Downtown — Urban Residential P{ } • wig bt reflderItu 10" -I2 7 18' 7 14' -I2 resld2rfidl 52' 56' HON Figure 18.810.12 Alley: Business v+vcs Note: Permeable pavers are optional. F. Future street plan and extension of streets. G. Street spacing and access management. H. Street alignment and connections. 1. Full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as topography, railroads, freeways, pre - existing developments, lease provisions, easements, covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which preclude street connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.610 Tigard Downtown District Dev. & Design Stds PAGE 14 OF 19 CPA 2012 - 00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 a regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction. 2. All local, neighborhood routes and collector streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is considered precluded when it is not possible to redesign or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. Land is considered topographically constrained if the slope is greater than 15% for a distance of 250 feet or more. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. 3. Proposed street or street extensions shall be located to provide direct access to existing or planned transit stops, commercial services, and other neighborhood facilities, such as schools, shopping areas and parks. 4. All developments should provide an internal network of connecting streets that provide short, direct travel routes and minimize travel distances within the development. I. Intersection angles.... J. Existing rights -of -way. Whenever existing rights -of -way adjacent to or within a tract are of less than standard width, additional rights -of -way shall be provided at the time of subdivision or development. K. Partial street improvements. Partial street improvements resulting in a pavement width of less than 20 feet, while generally not acceptable, may be approved where essential to reasonable development when in conformity with the other requirements of these regulations, and when it will be practical to require the improvement of the other half when the adjoining property developed. L. Culs-de-sacs. Street names.... N. Grades and curves. O. Curbs, curb cuts, ramps, and driveway approaches.... P. Streets adjacent to railroad right -of -way. ... Q. Access to arterials and collectors.... R. Alleys, public or private. 1. Alleys shall be no less than 20 feet in width. In commercial and industrial districts, alleys shall be provided unless other permanent provisions for access to off - street parking and loading facilities are made. 2. While alley intersections and sharp changes in alignment shall be avoided, the corners of necessary alley intersections shall have a radius of not less than 12 feet. DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.610 Tigard Downtown District Dev. & Design Stds PAGE 15 OF 19 CPA 2012- 00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 S. Survey monuments.... T. Private streets. U. Railroad crossings_ Where an adjacent development results in a need to install or improve a railroad crossing, the cost for such improvements may be a condition of development approval, or another equitable means of cost distribution shall be determined by the public works director and approved by the commission. V. Street signs.... W. Mailboxes.... X. Traffic signals.... Y. Street light standards.... Z. Street name signs.... AA. Street cross - sections.... BB. Traffic calming.... CC. Traffic study.... 18.810.040 Blocks A. Block design. The length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. B. Sizes. 1. The perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 2,000 feet measured along the centerline of the streets except: a. Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands, significant habitat areas or bodies of water, or pre- existing development; or b. For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, collectors or railroads. c. For nonresidential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. 2. Bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or right -of -ways shall be provided when full street connection is exempted by subsection B.1 of this section. Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet, except where precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or strict adherence to other standards in the code. (Ord. 06 -20; Ord. 02 -33) DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.610 Tigard Downtown District Dev. & Design Stds PAGE 16 OF 19 CPA 2012 - 00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 18.810.050 Easements 18.810.060 Lots 18.810.070 Sidewalks A. Sidewalks. All industrial streets and private streets shall have sidewalks meeting city standards along at least one side of the street. All other streets shall have sidewalks meeting city standards along both sides of the street. A development may be approved if an adjoining street has sidewalks on the side adjoining the development, even if no sidewalk exists on the other side of the street. B. Requirement of developers. 1. As part of any development proposal, or change in use resulting in an additional 1,000 vehicle trips or more per day, an applicant shall be required to identify direct, safe (1.25 x the straight line distance) pedestrian routes within 1/2 mile of their site to all transit facilities and neighborhood activity centers (schools, parks, libraries, etc.). In addition, the developer may be required to participate in the removal of any gaps in the pedestrian system off -site if justified by the development. 2. If there is an existing sidewalk on the same side of the street as the development within 300 feet of a development site in either direction, the sidewalk shall be extended from the site to meet the existing sidewalk, subject to rough proportionality (even if the sidewalk does not serve a neighborhood activity center). C. Planter strip requirements. A planter strip separation of at least five feet between the curb and the sidewalk shall be required in the design of streets, except where the following conditions exist: there is inadequate right -of -way; the curbside sidewalks already exist on predominant portions of the street; it would conflict with the utilities; there are significant natural features (large trees, water features, significant habitat areas, etc.) that would be destroyed if the sidewalk were located as required; of where there are existing structures in close proximity to the street (15 feet or less); or where the standards in Table 18.810.1 specify otherwise. Additional consideration for exempting the planter strip requirement may be given on a case -by -case basis if a property abuts more than one street frontage. E. Maintenance.... F. Application for permit and inspection.... G. Council initiation of construction. ... (Ord. 06 -20; Ord. 02 -33; Ord. 99 -22) DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.610 Tigard Downtown District Dev. & Design Stds PAGE 17 OF 19 CPA 2012 - 00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 18.810.080 Public Use Areas 18.810.090 Sanitary Sewers 18.810.100 Storm Drainage 18.810.110 Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways A. Bikeway extension. 1. As a standard, bike lanes shall be required along all arterial and collector routes and where identified on the city's adopted bicycle plan in the transportation system plan (TSP). Bike lane requirements along collectors within the Downtown Urban Renewal District shall be determined by the city engineer unless specified in Table 18.810.1. 2. Developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the city's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or rights -of -way, provided such dedication is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. 3. Any new street improvement project shall include bicycle lanes as required in this document and on the adopted bicycle plan. B. Cost of construction. Development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements in an amount roughly proportional to the impact of the development. C. Minimum width. 1. The minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. 2. The minimum width for multi -use paths separated from the road and classified as regional or community trails in the Greenway Trail System Master Plan is 10 feet. The width may be reduced to eight feet if there are environmental or other constraints. 3. The minimum width for off- street paths classified as neighborhood trails, according to the Greenway Trail System Master Plan, is three feet. 4. Design standards for bike and pedestrian-ways shall be determined by the city engineer. (Ord. 11 -04 §2; Ord. 09 -09 § 3; Ord. 02 -33; Ord. 99 -22) 18.810.120 Utilities 18.810.130 Cash or Bond Required DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.610 Tigard Downtown District Dev. & Design Stds PAGE 18 OF 19 CPA 2012 - 00001 /DCA 2012 -00002 18.810.140 Monuments — Replacement Required. 18.810.150 Installation Prerequisite 18.810.160 Installation Conformation 18.810.170 Plan Check 18.810.180 Notice to City 18.810.190 City Inspection of Improvements 18.810.200 Engineer's Written Certification Required 18.810.210 Completion Requirements (To be completed.) • DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS PROJECT DRAFT Amendments to TDC Chapter 18.610 Tigard Downtown District Dev. & Design Stds PAGE 19 OF 19 CPA 2012-00001/DCA 2012 -00002 EXHIBIT E - Kittelson and Associates traffic analysis conducted as part of the development of the Downtown Conceptual Circulation Plan APPENDIX B: TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT �` %j K ITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. i 1, T R A N S P O R T A T I O N ENGINEERING / P L A N N I N G 610 SW Alder Street, Suite 700, Portland, OR 97205 503.228.5230 503.273.8169 MEMORANDUM Date: December 22, 2009 Project #: 10170.0 To: Matt Arnold SERA Architects From: Elizabeth Wemple, PE, Jamie Parks and Michael Houston Project: Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan Subject: Horizon Year Transportation Circulation As requested by SERA Architects, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (KAI) has performed a year 2050 estimate of trip generation, distribution and traffic analysis for Tigard, Oregon. This analysis was conducted to support the City of Tigard Downtown Circulation Plan. The study area is roughly bounded by Highway 99W to the northwest, Hall Boulevard to the east, and Fanno Creek to the south and west. The area approximately corresponds to Metro's Town Center designation. METHODOLOGY Year 2050 estimates for the total development areas in downtown Tigard were provided by City staff. Downtown Tigard is expected to experience high residential, retail, and office growth between now and the horizon year of 2050. Table 1 summarizes the expected extent of total development in downtown Tigard in 2050. As shown, over 1 million square feet of retail, 532,000 square feet of office, and roughly 3,260 dwelling units are anticipated for downtown Tigard. Table 1 Year 2050 Total Downtown Build -Out Sub -Area Highway 99W- Main Street- Scoffins Street- Fanno Creek- Station Area Totals Summary Hall Boulevard Center Street Commercial Burnham Overlay Street Street Retail Area (sf) 376,500 366,625 305,250 271,700 none 1,320,075 Office Area (sf) 230,000 52,000 50,000 200,000 none 532,000 Dwelling Units 667 117 958 824 695 3,260 Trip Generation and Mode Reduction Based on the anticipated development in the study area, future person trips were estimated using the Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition. This standard resource was published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). In the year 2050, it is expected that a significant portion of the travel in and out of downtown Tigard will occur using non -auto modes. The Metro Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) includes DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - APPENDIX - 3 AUGUST2010 33 Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan Project #: 10170.0 December 22, 2009 Page 2 a target for the maximum percentage of single- occupant vehicle (SOV) trips for downtown Tigard. The target is between 45 and 55 percent. Similarly, the City of Tigard has a desirable maximum SOV of 40 percent in this part of town. Both are year 2035 targets. For this analysis, we estimated that thirty percent of the person trips in and out of downtown will use non - automobile transportation (i.e., transit, bicycle, or walk) in 2050. This anticipates that in addition to the non- automobile trips, approximately 20 to 30 percent of all trips will occur by carpooling. Table 2 summarizes the estimated trip generation of the expected development in downtown Tigard, taking into consideration the anticipated reduction in vehicle trips. Table 2 Year 2050 Downtown Trip Generation Summary Daily Weekday PM Peak Hour ITE Land Use Code Size Weekday Trips Total In Out Retail Area (sf) 820 1,320,075 sf 58,640 5,510 2,650 2,860 Office Area (sf) 710 532,000 sf 5,855 795 135 660 Dwelling Units 230 3,259 units 18,935 1,695 1,135 560 Subtotal 83,430 8,000 3,920 4,080 30% Non -Auto Mode Reduction (25,030) (2,400) (1,175) (1,225) Total 58,400 5,600 2,745 2,855 As shown in the table, downtown Tigard is expected to generate 58,400 daily trips, where 5,600 will occur during the p.m. peak hour. Of the peak hour trips, 2,745 are anticipated to be entering the downtown while 2,855 are expected to be exiting. The anticipated retail development in downtown is expected to have the largest portion of trips between the three land uses. Trip Distribution To estimate the number of vehicle trips on the proposed downtown Tigard transportation network developed by SERA Architects, the trips shown in Table 2 were assigned to the future roadway network. The trip distribution for each of the arterials in the immediate area was based on estimates developed using Metro's regional travel demand model. Table 3 shows the estimated trip distribution to the arterials. 34 TIGARD, OREGON APPENDIX B: TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan Project #: 10170.0 December 22, 2009 Page 3 Table 3 Downtown Trip Distribution Roadway Direction Total Percent In 140 Hall Boulevard —North 5% Out 145 In 550 Highway 99W —East 20% Out 570 In 550 Hunziker Boulevard 20% Out 570 In 270 Hall Boulevard —South 10% Out 285 In 275 Highway 99W —West 10% Out 285 In 140 Ash Avenue —South 5% Out 145 In 550 Greenburg Road 20% Out 570 In 270 Garden Place 10% Out 285 In 2,745 Total 100% Out 2,855 As shown in the table, the roadways that are expected to carry the highest proportion of downtown trips are Highway 99W to the east, Hunziker Boulevard, and Greenburg Road. Vehicle trips were assigned onto the future roadway network according to the distributions shown in Table 3. In addition, background traffic (i.e. regional traffic without an origin or destination within downtown) was included in the estimate. Background traffic was estimated using demand estimates from Metro's 2035 regional travel model. It was assumed that the areas adjacent to downtown Tigard would be primarily built -out by 2035 and that little growth would occur in these areas between 2035 and 2050. For this reason, no adjustment factor was added to the 2035 background volumes. Figure 1 shows the assigned 2050 peak -hour trips (background plus trips originating /destined for downtown Tigard) on each link of the roadway network. Average daily volumes would be approximately 10 times the peak -hour volumes shown in Figure 1. DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - APPENDIX - 3 AUGUST2010 35 Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan December 2009 »\ ©& 4 : . &, ?A . �/ ¥ / . + - . © , >� A. . \ r ,� \\ � s } \ s� �° » ! . 4, § � & Al � 00,,, ®® 4 & + N. ®�� if 45' ® \ , \ \� 2 \ g{ 'IL \ > ,/ %� z \ « \ . . : . d. A \. { , \f.\ « ! g. 2050 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES \ mARpm K I K R i LT 0L AO, " 222 \2 y ,Qy.OREGON APPENDIX B: TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan Project #: 10170.0 December 22, 2009 Page 5 ROADWAY CHARACTER SERA Architects provided a street character classification map for the future roadway network. The following roadway characteristics correspond to the character classifications provided by SERA: • Upper Hall Boulevard: Three -lane cross - section, with bike lanes for cyclists. Assumed planning -level capacity is 20,000 vehicles per day. • Downtown Mixed Use 1 - Downtown Collector with median: Two -lane cross - section with a median for turn lanes at intersections, and bike lanes. Assumed planning -level capacity is 15,000 vehicles per day. • Downtown Mixed Use 2 - Downtown Collector: Two -lane cross - section with bike lanes for cyclists. Assumed planning -level capacity is 8,000 vehicles per day. • Downtown Mixed Use 3 - Downtown Local: Two -lane cross - section with no bike lanes. Assumed planning -level capacity is 7,000 vehicles per day. • Downtown Mixed Use 4 - Upper Burnham: Two -lane cross - section with no bike lanes similar to the Downtown Mixed Use 3, but wider sidewalks are provided. Assumed planning -level capacity is 7,000 vehicles per day. • Downtown Mixed Use 5 - Lower Burnham: Two -lane cross - section with a continuous left -turn lane and no bike lanes. Assumed planning -level capacity is 12,000 vehicles per day. • Urban Green Street 1: Two -lane cross - section similar to the Downtown Mixed Use 2, but with permeable pavers for parking. No bike lanes are provided. Assumed planning -level capacity is 7,000 vehicles per day. • Urban Green Street 2: Narrow two -lane cross - section with permeable pavers for parking. Assumed planning -level capacity is 2,000 vehicles per day. • Urban Residential: Narrow two -lane cross - section. Assumed planning -level capacity is 2,000 vehicles per day. • Alley: Narrow roadway, usually with several access points. Alleys are assumed to provide local access only and have no specific planning -level capacity. In addition, bike lanes are recommended if traffic volumes exceed 3,000 vehicles per day on roadways, particularly those with bicycle and multi use pathway connections. Based on the characteristics described above, the volumes shown in Figure 1 were compared to the thresholds for each of the character classifications shown in the proposed downtown street network provided by SERA. The projected volumes and roadway cross - sections were found to match the characteristic of the proposed street network. DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN - APPENDIX - 3 AUGUST 2010 37 Downtown Tigard Circulation Plan Project #: 10170.0 December 22, 2009 Page 6 HALL BOULEVARD /GARDEN PLACE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS The traffic operations at the Hall Boulevard /Garden Place intersection were estimated under year 2050 p.m. peak hour traffic conditions. Turning movements at the intersection were based upon the link volumes shown in Figure 1. The graphic on the next page illustrates the turning volumes and lane configurations assumed at the intersection. 4 t* 100 1,050 50 50 50 ÷ 150 Hall Boulevard/ Garden Place 200 250 100 200 950 150 i t The intersection was evaluated using critical movement analysis (CMA), a standard procedure for estimating planning -level intersection operations. The lane configurations shown above result in intersection operations that are estimated to exceed the available capacity by roughly 15 percent in the year 2050. It was found that the primary capacity constraint is the through volumes on Hall Boulevard, and additional lanes on Garden Place, such as exclusive turn lanes, result in only a slight improvement to intersection operations. Additional north and southbound lanes on Hall Boulevard bring the intersection significantly under capacity. However, while the forecasted traffic volumes at the intersection are expected to slightly exceed the available capacity with the lane configurations shown above, it results in the future congestion expected in a downtown setting. CONCLUSION Based on the findings described above, each of the character classifications shown in the proposed downtown street network provided by SERA match closely to the anticipated traffic volumes in downtown Tigard. While the traffic operations at the Hall Boulevard /Garden Place intersection were estimated to exceed the available planning -level capacity in the future year, no additional changes are recommended to the roadway character classification of either roadway. Therefore it is likely that there will be peak period congestion and /or queuing in the vicinity of this intersection. The likelihood is that the congestion will be limited to peak commuting or shopping periods, and that off peak the intersection would operate with limited congestion. We trust this memorandum summarizes the analysis and results for the future traffic circulation in Downtown Tigard. Please don't hesitate to contact us at (503) 228 -5230 if you have any questions. 38 TIGARD, OREGON EXHIBIT F: Citizen Comments F.1. Gary and Judy Craghead F.2. Fraternal Order of Eagles F.3 J. Ronald and Cecilia Thompson F.4. Abbas Nikzad F.5. Luella Paddack (e -mail) F.1. Johann's Upholstery Custom Sewing Commercial Sewing Gary A Craghead, Principal Consultant 1 gary@johannsoline.com 1 503 620 1699 12205 SW Hall Blvd, Tigard OR 97223 -6210 1 www.johannsonline.com September 25, 2012 TO: Sean Farrelly City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard OR 97223 RE: Comments for the record regarding the Downtown Connectivity Plan Mr. Farrelly: The following comprise of our official comments on the proposed Downtown Connectivity Plan. As you know, we own property and conduct business at 12205 SW Hall Blvd., within the urban renewal district and in the area this plan addresses. We brought our business to downtown 36 years ago from Multnomah, and we view our commitment to Tigard as a long -term one. We are very supportive of any efforts that will make downtown a place that is easier to do business, prosper, and thrive. Overall, we are pleased with the general direction and the way that this plan has developed. Earlier in the process, we had significant concerns that the plan was being designed for an ideal world where downtown was a blank slate. This was troubling. However, in the last year or so, the city has shown a clear effort to work with ourselves, our neighbors, and other property and business owners downtown to refine this plan. We are impressed at the city's efforts to maximize the new street grid while also keeping impacts to property use and redevelopment at a minimum. That's not just good for us it's good for everyone in the city. A few specific changes now in the plan strike us as good. For one, roads intersecting the Rite AidNalue Village shopping center, adjacent to us, in the new map are placed in parking lot areas where they could more easily be built, and hopefully spur improvements to the existing structures and possibly create new ones in the existing, underutilized parking lots. We also believe that the creation of this new street from Hall to Scoffins, and then through the Post Office property to Commercial, will be a significant improvement to local circulation. We also applaud the continued inclusion of a new road from an intersection with Scoffins and Ash, along the back of the Hall Boulevard properties, and then to the aforementioned new road. We are keenly aware of the heavy traffic on Hall Boulevard. Although the recent intersection improvements at Hall Boulevard and OR 99 -W have improved things somewhat, we think it likely that, at some point in the not to distant future, driveways along Hall will become impractical. A coordinated effort to relocate access for properties along Hall to a combination of Scoffins and this new road would be of great benefit. While this plan does not mean that this will be happening right away, it does lay the groundwork for this future improvement. In summary, we believe that the plan reflects a sensible approach that combines the needs of the community with the practical realities of the needs of both existing business and redevelopment. We applaud the city for pursuing common sense solutions; it is exactly these sorts of win -win scenarios that will make our downtown more successful in the years to come. We strongly recommend that the Planning Commission and the City Council support and adopt the amendments necessary to make this plan an official part of the city's future. Best Regards i daA)1 0 ? . CA.-4- ttUe t C. Gary A. Craghead Judy . Craghead Owner Owner Johann's Johann's F.2. Fraternal Order of Eagles PORTLAND AERIE No. 4 8845 SW Commercial St Mailing address P.O. Box 230576 Tigard, OR 97281 503- 639 -4480 aerie4 @gmail.com September 19, 2012 Mr. Sean Farrelly Redevelopment Project Manager City of Tigard Community Development 12125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97225 Dear Mr. Farrelly, On behalf of the Fraternal Order of Eagles Portland Aerie No. 4 (the "Eagles ") located at 8845 SW Commercial Street, Tigard, OR, we are in receipt of your September 10, 2012 "Request for Comments" on the subject of The City of Tigard's (the "City") Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2012 -00001 and Development Code (DCA) 2012- 00002. In 2001 the Eagles relocated from Portland to Tigard's downtown after a four (4) year search for zoned property with ample off street parking and nearby public transportation to sustain its approximate 400 members. Our current location does not burden street alignments, disrupt other merchants or residences and helps anchor the community with our philanthropy. Any disruption in its use shall have catastrophic financial consequence to the Eagles. In review of the aforementioned plan amendment the connectivity improvements suggest a minimum of 13 parking stalls abutting Ash Street and Commercial Street could be lost to street improvements. This is not acceptable. Our membership consists of retired taxpayers many of which are on fixed incomes. Taking any portion of the property will reduce membership and effectively bankrupt the Eagles Aerie #4. Perhaps this sounds extreme but our annual budget, unlike the City, is funded without ODOT, State and /or Local taxpayer monies, does not receive government subsidy, and can not sustain deficit spending. Clearly we have interest in more details on the above subject plan specifically how the City of Tigard or Oregon Department of Transportation plan to create street improvements along Ash Street and Commercial Street without an impact to the Eagles. The Fraternal Order of Eagles is a membership driven, 501 - C8 organization in compliance with City Commercial Zoning District Code 18.520.1 wherein Civic (Institutional) Religious, Social, Fraternal Clubs /Lodges are permitted uses. Should you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Dean Johnston Aerie No. 4 Secretary F.3. We are the owners /operators of Manchester Square Apartments. Manchester Square Apartments have frontage along both Scoffins Street and Hall Boulevard. We have objections to the enclosed application, especially with the hash lines across the block contained Manchester Square Apartments, which are labeled "Block subject to bike /ped connectivity requirements." We request that Manchester Square Apartments be exempted from The Downtown Tigard Conceptual Connectivity Plan, Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan and Tigard Downtown Future Vision, especially as pertains to the "Block subject to bike /ped connectivity requirements." We are small business owners with six employees and own (or rather owe to the bank) the above mentioned apartments as well as two other apartment complexes in Beaverton. The various, and increasingly demanding, rules and regulations make it very difficult for us to continue our business. We are getting hit with demands at all levels of government from city, to county, to state, and to federal. All of these rules and regulations take their toll on our ability to manage and provide affordable, quality housing that is desired by our tenants. Specifically, our tenants do not want non - tenants walking or riding through our complex. We have had tenants tell us that they value security and privacy, and they like the way Manchester Square is arranged. These apartments are their homes. They wish to feel secure and only want their neighbors (the other tenants) to feel free to amble through the complex. They do not want their homes to be considered to be an urban village. One of our resident managers goes to great lengths to make certain that people who do not live at the complex (or are not guests of the residents), do not linger or pose any type of threat to our tenants' homes. As it is, our tenants and their guests are able to access the apartment complex by way of Scoffins Street or Hall Boulevard. They have expressed that they have easy access to the Library, City Hall, shopping, and dining. We know that the attached information says that Connectivity Improvements will likely only get built when there is a new development or major redevelopment (e.g., redevelopment valued at more than 60 percent of the total current value). However, it has been our experience that once a plan gets locked in and approved, then the so called "will likely only get built" becomes dictatorial. Which means, that based on our prior experience we do not trust future bureaucrats to honor "likely only ". Furthermore, we have unfortunately experienced fires at our complexes. We have no confidence that if the cost of rebuilding damaged apartments exceeds 60% of the value, then we will not have to put bike /ped lanes through our complex. Previously, in the rare instances where we have had to rebuild damaged apartments, in spite of having fire insurance, the mere costs of upgrading to the current building code has cost us tens of thousands of dollars. This is an example of where good and well intentioned government action (i.e. upgrading the building code, which is done regularly), has made it expensive (and burdensome) when operating a business with property that is decades old. We do not want, nor do we wish, to be part of more burdensome plans. Additionally, we see the city making a proposition that it is desirable to create a "walkable urban village" as envisioned by the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. This is an example of a solution in search of a problem. There is no evidence that Downtown Tigard would be better off by becoming a walkable urban village. It is merely some conjecture that somehow all of the money spent to become a walkable urban village is worth it. We do not want our property to become part of a walkable urban village, nor will we "sign a non - remonstrance to future Local Improvement District to help pay for the identified street or alley improvement ". Sincerely, 27rer'14)--.'1 , J. Ronald Thompson Cecilia I. Thompson �� F.4. III q TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: September 10, 2012 FROM: City of Tigard Community Development STAFF CONTACT: Sean Family, Redevelopment Project Manager Phone: (503) 718 -2420 Fax: (503) 718 -2748 Email: sean or.gov Downtown Tigard Connectivity Plan Code Amendments COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2012- 00001, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2012 -00002 REQUEST: To amend the City of Tigard 2035 Transportation System Plan to add background and figures and to amend the Tigard Development Code (Title 18) Chapters 18.370, 18.610 and 18.810. The complete text of the currently proposed amendments can be viewed on the city's website at http://www.tigard-or.gov/connectivity. LOCATION: The boundaries of the Mixed Use- Central Business District zone ZONE: MU -CBD (Mixed Use Central Business District) APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, Citizen Involvement; 2, Land Use Planning; 9, Economic Development; 11, Public Facilities and Services; 12, Transportation; 13, Energy Conservation; and 15, Special Planning Areas: Downtown; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 11, 12, and 13; METRO's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 6; METRO's Regional Transportation Functional Plan Titles 1, 2, and 5. Attached are the Applicant's Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be pre-pared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: September 28, 2012. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Community Development, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. 1 PL C . ' " 0. "i k latTH$T APPLY:' v4 k, We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. _ Please refer to the enclosed letter or email. Written comments provided below: Name &Number of Person Commenting: ? d IV�,f1��� ` F.5. Sean Farrelly Subject: FW: Connectivity Plan From: Sean Farrelly Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 4:33 PM To: 'Luella Paddack' Subject: RE: Connectivity Plan Luella - If by project, you mean "when will the streets be built ?" They will be built mostly when a property owner chooses to redevelop their property. The city could put improving Ash Avenue into its Capital Improvement Plan, but there are no current plans to do that. Thanks, Sean From: Luella Paddack jmailto :Iueluepad0frontier.coml Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 4:27 PM To: Sean Farrelly Subject: Re: Connectivity Plan Sean, thanks for your quick reply. The only remaining question I have at this time is what is the implementation timeline to begin this project? Thanks. Luella Paddack On 9/12/12 2:52 PM, "Sean Farrelly" <Sean @tigard - or.gov> wrote: Hi Luella, It was good meeting with you in March. A Collector is a designation for a road that has a low -to- moderate - capacity and serves to move traffic from local streets to arterial roads. The proposed width for this type of road in Downtown Tigard is 65- 70 feet of right of way . Technically Ash Avenue has been designated a Collector quite some time in the city's Transportation System Plan. The code amendments we are proposing will adopt the location of new roads and the development code language. Unless a future street is also added to the city's Capital Improvement Program, it will likely only get built when there is new development or major redevelopment (e.g., redevelopment valued at more than 60 percent of total current value) on an affected property. So the implementation goal hasn't changed. 1 The code amendments will be discussed at a City Council workshop next Tuesday , Sept. 18 at 6:30 pm. The Planning Commission public hearing will be October 15, at 7:00 at Tigard City Hall. Public comment can be made at this hearing. The City Council have a public hearing to adopt the amendments on December 11. Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks, Sean From: Luella Paddock (mailto :lueluepad @frontier.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 12:54 PM To: Sean Farrelly Subject: Connectivity Plan Sean, I am the owner of a 4 -plex on Ash Avenue - 12455,65,75,85 Ash Ave. I attended the March 15th meeting but was unable to attend the July meeting. With regard to your Request for Comments, I would like to know what the term Collector means. Ash Avenue is designated a Downtown Mixed Use 1 (Collector). It was discussed in the March meeting that you were looking at 2018 as a goal for adopting the plan. Has the implementation goal timeline changed? Are there any future meetings that I might attend to keep knowledgeable about what is happening and how it might affect my property? Thanks for your help in this regard, Luella Paddack DISCLAIMER: E -mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E -mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule." 2 EXHIBIT G: Agency Comments G.1. ODOT (e -mail) G.2. Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue G.3. Portland & Western Railroad G.4. TriMet (e -mail) G.1 Sean Farrelly From: DANIELSON Marah B <Marah.B.DANIELSON @odot.state.or.us> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 5:03 PM To: Sean Farrelly Cc: RAHMAN Lidwien; JOHNSON Andrew * Andy Subject: Tigard Downtown Circulation and Connectivity Plan Hi Sean, I have a few comments regarding the Downtown Circulation Plan TSP Amendments and Code Amendments. 1. The TSP and amendments show that a corridor plan is needed for Hall Blvd to determine the final cross section. While ODOT supports the need for the corridor plan, due to limited resources there is unlikely to be State funding available for the corridor plan. We recommend that if this is a city priority that the city identify a funding source for this planning effort. 2. The Tigard HCT Land Use Plan developed a Downtown Concept Plan. The TSP amendments should reflect the recommendations from the HCT plan and explain how the two efforts are related. Particularly how this should include showing the connections between the old downtown and the expanded downtown that is included in the HCT plan i.e. Tigard Triangle. 3. The TSP amendments focus on downtown street character types and planned street connections. We recommend that the City show connectivity planned for all modes for example including the trail alignments that are planned these should be included on the Connectivity Projects Detail Sheets and it is recommended to have a map showing all the planned connections for all modes on a single map this will help to understand all the connectivity that is planned for. 4. As discussed on the phone earlier this week, we recommend that Figure 5 -14 Connectivity Projects Detail Sheet Map 3 include a note explaining that the realignment of Tigard St to connect to Burnham St would be a city responsibility in coordination with a future OR 99W viaduct replacement project that requires ODOT approval. Although I haven't had an opportunity to check with the ODOT Bridge Section, it is unlikely that ODOT would be replacing the viaduct any time in the plan horizon unless there are structural issues that develop. From our conversation it sounded like you will be working on a new detail sheet for this project, please forward that to me for ODOT review and comment. Also, does the city plan to keep the planned trail alignment along Tigard St? Showing the trails on these detail sheets will help understanding the connectivity projects. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. March Danielson Senior Planner ODOT Region 1 Planning (503)731 -8258 fax (503)731 -8259 1 G.2. • rr • • www.tvfr.com Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Date: September 26, 2012 To: City of Tigard Re: Request for comments dated September 10, 2012, for the Downtown Tigard Connectivity Plan Code Amendments After reviewing the materials provided to us by the City of Tigard, TVF &R acknowledges the city's efforts to engage property owners in the above -named process and have no objections to the proposal. We recognize the importance of connectivity in the Downtown Tigard area and request that the City continue to partner with TVF &R when the proposed projects move to the design phase. If you have any questions or concerns regarding TVF &R traffic and transportation planning, please contact DFM Karen Mohling at (503)259 -1512. Thank you, Af en Division Chief Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Central Integrated Operations Division (503) 649 -8577 North Operating Center Command & Business Operations Center South Operating Center Training Center 20665 SW Blanton Street and Central Operating Center 7401 SW Washo Court 12400 SW Tonquin Road Aloha, Oregon 97007 -1042 11945 SW 70'" Avenue Tualatin, Oregon Sherwood, Oregon 503 -649 -8577 Tigard, Oregon 97223 -9196 97062 -8350 97140-9734 503 -649 -8577 503 - 649 -8577 503- 259 -1600 09/27/2012 10:51 FAX 503365" 7 PW SALEM G.3. 1J 001 74 11 po e 114 1 fi We p Tt``ARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: September 10. 2012 FROM: Ci ' of T' • - d Co -� elo • m.•. t STAFF CONTACT: Sean Farreliy. Redevelopment Project Manage; Phone: (503) 718 -2420 Fax: (503) 718 -2748 Email: sean ( tigard - or.gov Downtown Tigard Connectivity Plan Code Amendments COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2012 -00001, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2012 -00002 REQUEST: To amend the City of Tigard 2035 Transportation System Plan to add background and figures and to amend the Tigard Development Code (Title 18) Chapters 18.370, 18.610 and 18.810__ , _ . The complete text of the currently proposed amendments can be viewed on the city's website at http://wwvv.tigard-or.gov/connectivity. LOCATION: The boundaries of the Mixed Use- Central Business District zone ZONE: MU -CBD (Mixed Use Central Business District) APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code • Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, Citizen Involvement; 2, Land Use Planning; 9, Economic Development; 11, Public Facilities and Services; 12, Transportation; 13, Energy Conservation; and 15, Special Planning Areas: Downtown; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 11, 12, and 13; METRO's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 6; METRO's Regional Transportation Functional Plan Titles 1, 2, and 5. . • Attached are the Applicant's Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: September 28, 2012. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Community Development, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. �L,:as .,:tsy�.�.�.�'r`.sfi..� ��..a-::.; . u� ��c �. �3':..: S�Yaa .�:.u.r.a.�:a3e.�.�tvl.a�sYs. n�`.I' t�. ■c•.,. . We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter or email. Written comments provided below: / di• 1 ►ate / . i A. if / ,. . V• I,. • _ s„ 14 4 ._ li. ./ .. - k t dd 1 .( 174:0' GDS IMO - Name & Num er of Person Commenting. G.4. Sean Farrelly From: Lehto, Alan <LehtoA @trimet.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 12:48 PM To: Sean Farrelly Cc: Batty, Sean; Recker, Joseph D; Betteridge, Kelly (CRC); Mills, Tom; Kautz, Steve Subject: Downtown Tigard Connectivity Plan Code Amendments Comments Attachments: 20120911230112778.pdf Sean, Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Comp Plan and Development Code Amendments regarding downtown connectivity and street character types. TriMet supports the proposed changes because we believe these will substantially enhance access to and from existing transit and facilitate development that can support the City's desire for future transit improvements. Better walking and biking access to and from transit stops and stations allows more people to access transit; more demand makes improvements to transit more cost - effective, forming the potential for a virtuous cycle. Thank you, Alan Alan Lehto Director of Planning & Policy TriMet 4012 SE 17th Ave Portland, OR 97202 503- 962 -2136 FAX: 503-962-6451 1 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes October 15, 2012 CALL TO ORDER President Walsh called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ROLL CALL Present: President Walsh Vice President Anderson Commissioner Doherty Commissioner Fitzgerald Commissioner Muldoon Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Schmidt Commissioner Shavey Absent: Commissioner Ryan; Alt. Commissioner Miller; Alt. Commissioner Armstrong Staff Present: Tom McGuire, Interim Community Development Director; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager; Marissa Daniels, Associate Planner; Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner COMMUNICATIONS This agenda item was moved by President Walsh to the end of the meeting. CONSIDER MINUTES June 4, 2012 Meeting Minutes: President Walsh asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the June 4 minutes; there being none, Walsh declared the minutes approved as submitted. WORKSHOP — RIVER TERRACE COMMUNITY PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN Associate Planner Marissa Daniels gave an update on the public involvement plan for River Terrace. She covered the following three items and then opened it up for discussion: • The Planning Commission's role as Tigard's state recognized Committee for Citizen Involvement. • Details about the River Terrace Community Plan. I:'IRPtN\Planning Comm uIon'.2012 PacketA101512 - Briefing RT - PH DCA2012- 00001 & PH CPA2012. 00001 \tpc 101512 minutes.docx Page 1 of 10 • Described the contents of the public involvement plan. She advised the commissioners that Sr. Planner, Darren Wyss, would be back in November to give a comprehensive overview of the project. She noted that there would be Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) meetings and that a Planning Commission member would be invited to participate in that. The committee will act as an advisory body to staff and provide a venue for citizen involvement opportunities in planning for River Terrace. The first message was sent through the "listserv" the previous week. Daniels noted that one of the benefits of following from Washington County is that they passed to Tigard a list of over a 100 contacts for this project. She added that the commissioners were welcome to join that listsery online at the City website and noted that the first kick -off meeting for the project would be held Wednesday, October 24th near the general River Terrace area — at Deer Creek Elementary School. She invited the Commissioners to attend and left postcards at the podium for them to pick up if they wanted more information on that and wanted to attend. Questions from the Commissioners of Daniels What is the role of the River Terrace Community Plan as a whole? You'll review items of the plan as they come through the legislative adoption process. There's a schedule on the draft (Exhibit A). You can see there that different topics will come through at different times to the Commission before the final adoption of the plan. Staff will keep the Commission updated and engaged throughout so that they will be prepared for that process at those different points. Questions of Interim CD Director, Tom McGuire Referring to the current staff issues - where does this project fit in your priorities — with everything else you have going on with planning staff right now? This project is one of the Council's goals for this year and one of their top priorities. We have Darren Wyss as the project manager and he will be moving this forward. In addition, we hired a local land use consultant, John Spencer, who will primarily help to manage the long range projects and assist me. So this project will move forward. Darren will be here in November to update the Commission on the processes and where this is going. At this point, President Walsh took a quick poll of the audience and noted that a majority of the people present were there for the Connectivity Agenda item. He decided to change the agenda order and moved the public hearing on connectivity to the next order of business. President Walsh opened the public hearing: PUBLIC HEARING - CPA2012- 00001 /DCA2012 -00002 TIGARD DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENTS REQUEST: To amend the City of Tigard 2035 Transportation System Plan to add background and figures and to amend the Tigard Development Code (Title 18) Chapters 18.370, 18.610 and 18.810 to implement new street connections. The complete text of the currently proposed amendments can be viewed on the city's website at hhup: / /www.tigard_ or.gov /connectivity LOCATION: Downtown District. ZONE: MU -CBD. I:\LRPLH \Planning Commission \ 2012 Packeb\101512 - Briefing RT - PH DCA2012-00001 & PH CPA2012- 00001 \tpc 101512 minutes.docx Page 2 of 10 STAFF REPORT Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager introduced himself and also introduced Cathy Corliss who was there as a consultant with Angelo Planning Group and had worked on developing some of the code language for this amendment. Farrelly went over a PowerPoint presentation regarding the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (Exhibit B). He turned the presentation regarding the proposed amendments to Chapter 18.610 over to Ms. Corliss. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that this request for a Comp Plan Amendment and Development Code Amendments meets the necessary approval criteria according to the findings found in Section IV of the staff report. Staff recommends approval of CPA2012 -00001 and DCA2012- 00002. PUBLIC COMMENT TESTIMONY IN FAVOR — Alexander Craghead — 12205 SW Hall Blvd Tigard 97223 Mr. Craghead is the chair of the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) and present on behalf of the CCAC. He noted they had reviewed this quite thoroughly over several meetings (and stated that that was an understatement). He said tonight's amendments represent an accumulation of over five years of effort on behalf of the CCAC to carve the future transportation systems for downtown Tigard. The CCAC believes this plan achieves connectivity goals and that the right amount of flexibility is built into the plan. He had participated in the outreach of the property owners and heard the various concerns. He said he saw response from staff addressing those concerns while still achieving the goals. In closing, Craghead said the CCAC recommends the Planning Commission approve these amendments. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION Cecilia Thompson — 1847 N. 150 E Centerville, UT She and her husband own a 67 unit apartment building in the area. They are concerned about the safety and security of the tenants if they have to have paths going through the area. They do not want to provide pedestrian and bike paths through the property. She said this is private property. If the plan goes through, she believes the property would be worth less. She said she's not heard any complaints from the tenants regarding connectivity and requests that her whole lot be exempt from this. She's against paying for someone else's pipe dream. Russ Little — PO Box 1006 Tualatin, OR 97062 He is one of the property owners in the Rite Aid center. His property currently houses 'Woodcraft." He said he bought the property because he'd decided to stay in Tigard and support the community. He's concerned that dividing his property into three pieces would decrease the value of his property. 1: \LRPLN \Planning Commission \2012 Packets \101512 - Briefing RT- PH DCA2012-00001 & PH CPA2012- 00001 \tpc 101512 minutes.docx Page 3 of 10 David Wilson 12375 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard 97223 — Spoke in favor of the Scoffins collector. He said you should actually call it the Hunziker collector because it would be part of Hunziker. He believes it would reduce some of the cross traffic in front of Rite Aid and Woodcrafters. Owen Snyder 15400 SW Alderbrook Drive, Tigard Mr. Snyder stated he owns some properties in the Scoffins realignment in area map #4 where it shows the connector being made with Hunziker. He had the following clarification question: During that realignment, you're abandoning the previous intersection - what is the intended use of the existing street? Farrelly answered him. "No final decision has been made because we haven't "pulled the trigger" on that street - but a possible idea is that when that property is purchased from the owner of that apartment building — we'd essentially have to purchase the entire property and that abandoned ROW could be consolidated with the remaining property to present a parcel big enough to redevelop. So there's no other particular usage intended at this time? Nothing definite has been decided, but a good viable option would be to swap that ROW with that property owner to have a parcel that can be redeveloped. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY President Walsh then opened the meeting up for questions by the commissioners. One of the commissioners commented that, if it goes through, she would like to see that there will be some sort of help from the City for the owners of businesses to plan for redevelopment. She believes the owners have some legitimate concerns. Cathy Corliss said that all property owners would have to agree on whether the connections through the Rite - Aid block takes place. She thinks there's a way to designate those that are not quite the same as the way we would do in the viaduct. There were some questions regarding the near term redevelopment problems that could be created. The hope was that flexibility is built in of what could be done. Farrelly noted this is a discretionary process and that there is flexibility for line adjustments. There was a question of CCAC Chair Craghead as to whether he believes there is flexibility built into the plan. Craghead said what the CCAC is looking for is clarity because a lot of developers are not going to want to come in and develop if there's not a transportation plan in place — because they'd not know where those roads would be — and that's a problem — not a benefit. In this case, he can see the property owner's concern and he noted there appears to be no concern about having flexibility. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DELIBERATIONS President Walsh asked the commissioners their thoughts on this. Commissioner Doherty noted that this is not a connectivity plan that has just been thrown together. She mentioned that Chair Craghead had noted the five years of planning and discussions that had gone on. She is confident the City would work with the people who I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\ 2012 Packets\ 101512 - Briefing RT - PH DCA2012-00001 & PH CPA2012- 00001 \tpc 101512 minutes docx Page 4 of 10 brought up concerns down the road if, indeed, it gets to the point that the connectivity would affect the apartment building or others. She said "I would support this because it has had a tremendous amount of input. But again... I would want the City to work with people who have issues." Commissioner Shavey believes this vision is a pretty strong picture of what can and may very well happen in downtown and thinks the Commission should make this recommendation to Council. Commissioner Muldoon recommends a change on the Rite -Aid block — simply list the end points and let that connectivity be determined as the redevelopment happens. Commissioner Anderson believes this is a good plan overall. There are no priorities listed on the streets and, if there were, he believes the two pieces that were talked about tonight would be low priority and probably among the last to be implemented. He believes that certainly the ones on Main Street and connecting some of the alleys are obvious and should be written in stone. He thinks putting end points would be good — let the developer work with the City to determine the street lines. Commissioner Rogers is generally happy with this but is a bit concerned about the Woodcraft building. He thinks it affects that particular owner on two sides of their building — it seems like we're picking on one particular landowner. Commissioner Schmidt would hate to burden any property owner with a condition like that that would affect their current value — much less what it would be 20 or 30 years down the road. Commissioner Fitzgerald appreciates the 5 years of work getting to this point. She thinks this could energize Tigard and put it on the path to having a really livable downtown community. She has two exceptions: she would like a piece of language to be readjusted a little differently. She would also like Tom McGuire to be a little more specific on how the code language could be addressed. That code language piece would help the Woodcraft property and Mrs. Thompson's (apartment) property pretty easily without affecting the overall draft. President Walsh likes the plan overall but has near term concerns. Are we creating a burden for the existing landowners? He hopes there is flexibility and thinks there is. He would like to see a softer line across the Rite Aid area and not having as defined a pathway as now and he also has concerns in that large block where the Thompson property is. President Walsh said he would reopen the hearing so he can hear from Tom McGuire and get some guidance on how to do that. PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED President Walsh asked Tom McGuire `7s it possible to amend the language and pass this tonight — move it forward? That's the wish of the group." McGuire said it's going to be a challenge to have the exact language as an amendment tonight. President Walsh suggested that they take a recess from this hearing so McGuire and Cathy Corliss can get together and talk about this while the next public hearing takes place. They would then bring it back to the Commissioners — at which time they would reopen the I: \LRPLN \Planning Corn mission \2012 Packets \101512 - Briefing RT - P11 DCA2012 -00001 & PH CPA2012- 00001 \tpc 101512 minutes.docx Page 5 of 10 hearing. McGuire and the Commissioners agreed this was a good idea. President Walsh also decided that they would take a six minute break before the next public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED (to be reopened following the next public hearing.) SIX MINUTE RECESS PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROJECTIONS OPENED PUBLIC HEARING — DCA2012 -00001 PROJECTIONS INTO REQUIRED YARDS REQUEST: Amend Chapter 18.730.050.D of the Community Development Code to allow, in the R -12 Zone, bay windows and pop outs with floor area to project into required side yards by one foot provided they do not: a) exceed 12 feet in length, b) contain over 30% of the dwelling unit side elevation square footage, and c) the width of the approved side yard is not reduced to less than 3 feet. LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: R -12. QUASI HEARING STATEMENTS President Walsh read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi - judicial hearing guide. There were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict of interest. Ex -parte contacts: None. Site visitations: None; No challenges of the jurisdiction of the commission; no conflicts of interest. STAFF REPORT Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. [The staff report is available one week before the hearing.] STAFF ANALYSIS: As demonstrated in the application and the findings in the staff report, the proposed amendment complies with the applicable state planning goals, City Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, and the city's implementing ordinances. The code amendment anticipates narrow lot subdivisions in the R -12 zone while maintaining the detached character of the majority of Tigard's neighborhoods. According to the 2011 BLI there are 30 lots over 10,000 square feet in size totaling 35.46 acres. The West Bull Mt. Community Plan designates approximately 70 gross acres as medium density residential, which includes the R -7, 12, and 25 zones, some portion of which will likely be zoned R -12 under the River Terrace planning process. The Exceptions to Development Standards chapter already allows projections into required yards. However, the proposed amendment would dramatically expand the potential impact of those projections from minor architectural features to up to 30% of the side elevation. Whereas these impacts may be acceptable to buyers of new homes on narrow lots, the impact to existing residents on adjacent properties may be perceived as more adverse. To limit potential adverse impacts, staff recommends projections be limited to yards interior to the subdivision. I: \LRPLN \Planning Commission \2012 Packets \101512 - Briefing RT - PH DCA2012.00001 & PH CPA2012- 00001 \tpc 101512 minutes.docx Page 6 of 10 The purpose of the Exceptions to Development Standards is to provide more flexible setback standards designed to allow for the maximum use of land and to allow for a varied building layout pattern while ensuring there will be adequate open space, light, air and distance between buildings to protect public health and safety. The 2011 Oregon Residential Specialty Code requires a minimum fire separation distance of three feet from the property line. The proposed code amendment would limit projections with floor area into required yards to this minimum. Staff recommends the following amended language (page 6, staff report): 5. In the R -12 Zone, bay windows and pep -outs projections with floor area may project into required interior side and street side yards by one foot provided they do not: a) exceed 12 feet in length, b) contain over 30% of the dwelling unit side elevation square footage, and c) the width of the approved interior side yard is not reduced to less than 3 feet. APPLICANT TESTIMONY — Ryan O'Brien —1862 NE Estate Drive, Hillsboro, OR believes R12 is the zone where it's really needed; however, he said the City of Hillsboro allows it in all zones. It helps the interior of the houses look much better. Also — the elevations of street side corner lots look a lot better with the pop -outs and bay windows. O'Brien mentioned that Mark Dane was planning on being there to testify on behalf of this, but his wife became ill and he couldn't make it. He will submit his testimony of support in writing at a later time. QUESTIONS /COMMENTS Would this add sales value to these designs? $10 or $15 thousand I'd imagine. President Walsh added that he believed the application package was outstanding and that it was very helpful to the commissioners. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR Katie Patterson, 2005 NW 119th, Portland 97029 — represents two different builders, Sage Built Homes and Greenwood Homes. Ms. Patterson stated that Sage Built has an ownership at the Everett Terrace Subdivision which is 14 lots on 96th and Greenburg — right across from the Everett Homes Subdivision of Solera, and that Solera did build with these popouts even though they were not technically approved - and all of those houses were approved by the City of Tigard. She stated that she thinks the standard has already been set and that this is something that aesthetically looked fine. Ms. Patterson is in favor in large part because she believes that what looks to be a very small change (1 foot) on the outside of the house, can make a huge difference with regard to livability on the inside. She stated that areas like dining rooms may have a 6 — 8 foot table that can't typically fit a smaller room - so the pop outs can make a big difference in that regard. The interior really makes a difference. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION - None TESTIMONY CLOSED I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Pidrets\101512 - Briefing RT - PH DCA2012-00001 & PH CPA2012- 00001 \tpc 101512 minutes.docx Page 7 of 10 MOTION The following motion was made by Commissioner Muldoon, seconded by Commissioner Shavey. "I move that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council for application DCA2012 -00001 and adoption of the findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report and based on the testimony received tonight." The motion CARRIED on a recorded vote; the Commission voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson; Commissioner Doherty; Commissioner Fitzgerald; Commissioner Muldoon; Commissioner Rogers; Commissioner Schmidt; Commissioner Shavey, and President Walsh NAYS: None. ABSTAINERS: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Ryan PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED AT 9:37pm Tom McGuire, Sean Farrelly, and Cathy Corliss had been discussing possible solutions to the issues the Commission had wanted them to talk about. Farrelly addressed the Rite -Aid property solution; the solution being a redrawing of the line to be more curved so the property would be affected on one side only. There was lengthy discussion about the other issues which President Walsh summarized at the end as follows: • The ADA issue... a no brainer — needs to be addressed as specified by staff. • Come up with a different concept for the line in front of Rite -Aid and how it finishes off on the far side around the Woodcraft property. • Staff will draft some language and add it so that it would handle any catastrophic event without creating a need for automatically enacting the "over 60 %" threshold. • Leave the pedestrian /bicycle access alone. Leave as is. The commissioners agreed and President Walsh said "So now we need a motion." At this point, Sean Farrelly reminded the Commission that they would also need to address the things that had come up at the Council workshop that had been outlined in his PowerPoint presentation. Farrelly reminded them of the four suggestions: • An alley along the park and ride that connects to new street through Public Works (don't connect to Hall) • For Tigard /Burnham connection, straighten out. Put into a different classification (desired connection if the viaduct is reconstructed). I: \LRPLN \Planning Commission \2012 Packets \101512 - Briefing RT - PH DCA2012-00001 & PH CPA2012- 00001 \tpc 101512 minutes.docx Page 8 of 10 • Footnote to allow flexible design standards for the street near Fanno Creek park. Reduced ROW, pervious pavers. (This would have to be fleshed out at Council — the question would be are you, in concept, okay with that suggestion.) • Curve new street that goes through City Hall and Verizon. Farrelly said — in concept — if the Commission is comfortable with those suggestions — they would be fleshed out at Council. None of the Commissioners had issue with those suggestions so they were ready to make a motion. MOTION The following motion was made by Commissioner Muldoon, seconded by Commissioner Fitzgerald: "I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council of application CPA2012 -00001 & DCA2012 -00002 as amended with four amendments: first, where staff will add catastrophic event language addressing fire and similar issues; second, that the line in the designated property [Woodcraft] be adjusted as projected by staff; third, that the ADA language be addressed as specified by staff; and last, that four adjustments be fleshed out with staff with the Council and that would otherwise be approved as contained in the staff report and based on the testimony provided tonight." The motion CARRIED on a recorded vote; the Commission voted as follows: AYES: Commissioner Anderson; Commissioner Doherty; Commissioner Fitzgerald; Commissioner Muldoon; Commissioner Rogers; Commissioner Schmidt; Commissioner Shavey, and President Walsh NAYS: None. ABSTAINERS: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Ryan President Walsh asked staff to send an email out to the Commission when the language is drafted. This will go to City Council on December 11th. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING ON DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY PLAN CODE AMENDMENT PROJECT COMMUNICATIONS There was a brief report by Vice President Anderson on his meeting with the Tigard Population and Housing Review committee. The first meeting included a consultant who talked about what our housing is today in Tigard and what we need to do and address. I:\LRPLN \Planning Commission\ 2012 Pickets \101512 - Briefing RT - PH DCA2012-00001 & PH CPA2012- 00001 \tpc 101512 minutes.docx Page 9 of 10 Basically, he said "we're in pretty good shape with zoning and land. We just need to address maybe some lower income housing. We'll talk about this at the next meeting." Commissioner Muldoon had come up with a presentation that he would like to present to Council regarding business clusters and economic development. He asked the Commission to take a look at it. (He'd distributed it to them earlier.) President Walsh said the Planning Commission would need to take a look at it before Commissioner Muldoon presented it — so they could give feedback to him. Muldoon would eventually like to engage council in a workshop format so they can have discussion on it. President Walsh would like to invite Councilor Woodard, as the Planning Commission's Council liaison, to come in to talk to the Commission about economic development and then have a discussion with Council — perhaps at the meeting when Greater Portland Inc. (the consultant who had to cancel at the last minute but would reschedule to another date) would be there. President Walsh asked that whoever attends the joint Council workshop the next evening would bring back information for the Planning Commission as to what had transpired. OTHER BUSINESS Tom McGuire reminded the commissioners that November would be the annual revisiting of development of Council Goals for next year. He reminded the Commissioners to start thinking about that now. It's on the agenda for the November 5th meeting. He asked that they think about what they'd like to recommend to Council for their suggestions for Council Goals for 2013 and then talk about it at the next meeting in November. President Walsh asked Doreen Laughlin if she would be responsible to get a simple matrix out to everybody before the next meeting so they'd have something to think about. He wanted the matrix to list the Council's goals, the Planning Commission's suggested goals, and show what the progress is on them. She agreed to do that. ADJOURNMENT President Walsh adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Doreen Laughlin, Planning Co 42 . sion Secretary A'1"1'EST: Acting President Tom Anderson I: \LRPLN\PIonnin` Commission \2012 Packets \101512 - Brletin` RT - PH DCA2012- 00001 & PH CPA2012- 00001 \tpc 101512 minutes.docx Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT A DRAFT 10/8/12 community. This includes a series of community open houses throughout the process, as well as a citizen advisory committee and technical advisory committee. In addition to land use, the City Council will need to approve a River Terrace financial plan which will help pay for the construction of required new infrastructure and its operations and maintenance. This may include changes to development charges for parks, storm water management, sanitary sewers, water, and transportation improvements. It will also be important to address whether or not other special assessments will be needed for land use and building permits, as well as utility rates to ultimately recoup the investment the city makes in completing the community plan. Schedule General Ti meframe - River Terrace Community Plan 2012 2013 2014 Task 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr man 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr MM. Public lnvolvement/TAC/SWG IMMO Adopt WBMCP 1111 Goal 5 Natural Resources Parks Master Plan & SDC Update Water Master Plan Update Sanitary Sewer Plan Update Stormwater Master Plan Update Comp Plan /Zoning Maps and Regulations Transportation System Nan Update Public Facility Plan Update .. -_ 1 Infrastructure Financing Strategy Community Meeting CI Stakeholder Working Group Meeting } City Council Hearing iI Technical Advisory Committee Meeting '* Planning Commission Hearing Project Phases ❖ Project Kickoff • Council acceptance /adoption of the WBMCP • CCI approval of the Public Involvement Plan • Get the word out • Launch Stakeholder Working Group and Technical Advisory Committee + Launch Tasks • • Assessment and Collaboration • Plan Preparation • Adoption Process C I T Y O F T I G A R D Respect and Care I Do the Right Thing 1 Get it Done TIGARD Downtown Connectivity Plan Code Amendments CPA 2012 -00001 DCA2O12-00002 FOR EIS City Council Public Hearing December 11 2012 FOR !_ i i a oi a Y g (DATE OF r e k •i irk: LernS Y 7 E xist ing '"'" - 4 • • It - , fps z �,,r � �: Conditions , ,,, q, ,,,„ ....... , „,„, - . , ... / ....„ ..,,, .,.. -� if, -- Area: �ti Tigard Downtown k `P Urban Renewal District °"' I °,, �� �. (193 acres) r. #ms �� "`�,; a �" of ^ *' � i F * . } „t„,..., �. '' , 1 , , : Existing conditions ,� L � , ,r- Limited conn . i and connectivity ,....) / kdi , mil A0(' �t�v e. E;,, 4. j r { � " "41 r M A " x ■ K t- * f ZZ W.� „... mss: Downtown Study Area Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan `` Foundation Documents i '^ 'P 1r 1 1 3" ,. 41'•.;; 'r as f��ll TRAIL 4 ., r fi S ?t • t N \ 1 � * ,y fir A \ Tigard Downtown W ‘k,. ' . -t Future Vision: — a visual refinement ^ � of the TDIP N, \\\\tt'' • ''' ' ,,,.. I tt.• I li (04%..--„, - '',› , °,;,'\ \\ .. Roadway . � r -11111111- oRiaN OOee00R � URMMGRiiK 1 . AN 11 It S F lllll 1111111 (Railroad - . c K \A- '' ", Sheba Hig hway • W � mcciacw�c "Tier o� � i�i�v ..411k, �i ciir�ori�}cKrx � in. 04111141019 3 Conceptual Connectivity Plan Objectives • Connectivity: Foster the creation of smaller block structures, consistent with the walkable urban village envisioned by the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. • Circulation: Create efficient routes into and around the Downtown. • Capacity: Create parallel streets to accommodate the demand created by new Downtown development. 1 Implementation of the Plan • Proposed code requirements to implement vision: — Recognize that improvements will likely be done incrementally over 50 years or longer as individual properties redevelop — Provide as much flexibility as possible while still ensuring that connections get made • Two elements — new connections and new cross - sections Proposed Amendments: CPA 2012 -00001 DCA2012 -00002 — Transportation System Plan to add background and figures — TDC 18.370 to add adjustments to the connectivity requirements — TDC 18.610 to add purpose, applicability and connectivity standards — TDC 18.810 to add new downtown cross - sections t r TSP Amendments . < - -, w • ,� '' , - 444,Ik :: . ... • Proposed New Streets . � - . , _ .4 ' . • • '. a . _ ,. 4 ...- . ....,.. ' Detailed maps showing �" •.. '. v ,,,, , , 6;--) the future streets are ,,•: . proposedtobeaddedto 4, = -- : - ,, the TSP so that it is clear ' 4 �` �� where future streets are * ,.. # �'° expected to go and how , much right-of-way is N. „- ' ' :.• • , needed t ' h r H. ` .. � / —;. ' •tea e C Chorea*, *. 11 . r • wn • Downto Lined Use t (collector) • • ' - ei.. ti e • • Downtown Mated Use 2 (Locetl ” =.J^ - Urban RBSr0etwet 157 -56'1 .1, / I • "' Mee 1201 el ' W •e , '‘\ Approe ROW write Proposed streets " \QQQIII�����1,,, - E•tserq Steels °'s \ ,. E.Mnp dte • ped tads ,� _ • 'ratio's I Ea Blocs sootcct to bee ped con...wily regrrement; ` . . I TSP Amendments Figure 5 -14A. Connectivity Projects Index Map 71 Project Maps Index ppo N Existing Streets * Railroads Taxlots �. ,' " x " 11► %sk 0 ..„ • g k l1/4 II 4 1k, NI o 1111 • 16„ M1 • )4) Si 8 / (0), 0 250 500 1,000 Feet \ I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Figure 5 -14B. Connectivity Projects Detail Sheet: Map 1 TSP Amendments Sheet Character Type Future Connectivity Alignment Area •• Dowrtfown Mixed Use 1 (Collector) *V Required bike /pedestrian connections *my DawritaWn Mixed Use 2 (Local) Existing Streets Urban Residential (52' -56') Taxlots -- Me x Note: The wfath or the Future Connectivity Alignment Area is equal to the upper end of the rrgnt -of -way range listed for the street character type ............... .....) . ti 00 . Iwo 1MM am 1 r '' ' X 4' ' . ' 1L____--1 , o r- • 'e-.4c � vril 7 "4- \- A yF, ,\,- 'e •;F Y i e. -1 / . i ' __ '_ _ : ->. $., P,tr.'kt. -. i. ' II _ � , < , ,,, ii _ to " .c. [ , •i ,j" 3 = , \ j ,. / -... „ / 2 - . „ . • .., „,, /„.,: • , . a • a t * .: ,4- / ! F � y p . ./ 9 Figure 5 -14C. Connectivity Projects Detail Sheet: Map 2 TS P Amendments Street Character Type Future Connectivity Alignment Area a. Downtown Mixed Use 1 (Collector) ►.f:. • Required bike /pedestrian connections •1 Downtown Mixed Use 2 (Local) Existing Streets Urban Residential (52' -56') Taxlots - - Alley (20') Note: The width of the Future Connectivity Alignment Area is equal to the upper end of the right -ol-way range listed tor the street character type. '-'./, 11 r ''. '/\ \ 7 1 \ 7- -" ., 5 ," ,, 7 / 43 7 ,..._ .,,',,,,•:\ ., • ,..,..i- ••,,It?' r / \ "" / t / / / - \ . ,, . , ,_ , ,,, \ .,„,, _ • ..... .-7"-. \ v s - - .4r - Sit - ' OP: .. ;a ✓ - 4. ♦ \ -. ..." , 1 . ", -\\ / \ * 0 ..- \ .4\ \ \ \ c tea. 10 Figure 5 -14D. Connectivity Projects Detail Sheet: Map 3 TS P Amendments steeetChewierType Future Connectivity Alignment Area - • DOwilkesti laced the 1 (Collector) . :+ Required We/pedestrian Daoniterm Mxed Use 2 (Local) Bdsling Streets U1ben Residential (52-58') Taxicab -- AYeyPO) Note. The wall of the Future Connectively Alignr»ent Area n equal to the upper end nl the ngMot -wr►y rouge listed for Use sheet clWrxter type Conceptual connection to be coordinated if significant changes to viaduct are proposed. --- , •: . o s . c 11 Figure 5 -14E. Connectivity Projects Detail Sheet: Map 4 S treet Character Type Future Connectivity Alignment Area TS P Amendments Downtown Mixed Use 1 (Collector) « Required bike /pedestrian connections - Downtown Mixed Use 2 (Local) Existing Streets Urban Residential (52' -56') Taxlots - - Alley (20') Now: The width of the Future Connectivity Alignment Area is equal to the upper end of the right -of-way range listed for the street character type. — ■ �t f - .� •� .. ' i -'. 2 ) "I ! ,. - i ' . _ 1 1 ' �. • p.„,. , .... / W �w . ,, / , , • b., s v !l. s e, . ,\\\ All X ....- 4%; 12 Figure 5 -14F. Connectivity Projects Detail Sheet: Map 5 TSP Amendments Street Character Type Future Connectivity Alignment Area Downtown Mixed Use 1 (Collector) , :] Required bike /pedestrian connections Downtown Mixed Use 2 (Local) Existing Streets Urban Residential (52' -56') Taxlots Alley (20') .. '''''' ", "' • IP... 40111r4 , - Nisk ! .•.., v ,„,..., _ t k eft e - r , *-..-„, . 111 ,-.0 , . s . " . ..... t a ,_ 40 , 4 ",\,..- - - ."„4!.. , ii., ,. 41'. , ,, , 1 1 ♦ ' j ib'" '''' ` ,Ike • '. ' _. z . ■ :'. 4% N \ .,,,, 0 • , �♦ � �� T ♦ te r - 4 4::: �i w� t "" • • • 3 / • • • •. A •4 \ ♦ ♦1 �• • •♦ 4,, �1? % .- I sT �� ♦ � S SA ♦P ♦ p � ♦♦ ♦ + •, • a • ♦ s •♦ ♦4.4, • .. . ..,‘ * tv ,N/e 1 , \'' ' ki q _ •...., A fr e .. , . . . V.4 Ob. -♦ ��? ,� • ' ' • 4 04 4 , ,4 ... , „.. * ,..4.. . __, ..... . - . .. .._. ... , . / � \ . 7 61" A i *;k; L T ti 13 Figure 5 -14G. Connectivity Projects Detail Sheet: Map 6 TSP Amendments Street Character Type Future Connectivity Alignment Area Downtown Mixed Use 1 (Collector) Required bike/pedestrian connections • w Downtown Mixed Use 2 (Local) Existing Streets Urban Residential (52' -56) Taxlots - - Alley (20 Note: The width of the Future Connectivity Alignment Area is equal to the upper end of the right -of -way range listed for the street character type. - .,' ' .:- .- r it l'.. ' . ik, 419r /2 /\\ `, , i . 4 ' . . , . .., 1 e �1 t,. J /// i�x , • .. • . z 4 , / 40 ; 44 /4 * „, , , • 14 Figure 5 -14H. Connectivity Projects Detail Sheet: Map 7 TSP Amendments Street Character Type Future Connectivity Alignment Area a Downtown Mixed Use 1 (Collector) ►:•• Required bike/pedestrian connections Downtown Mixed Use 2 (Local) Existing Streets Urban Residential (52' -56') Taxlots - - Alley (20') Note: The width of the Future Connectivity Alignment Area is equal to the upper end of the rght -d -way range asted for the street character type. \'' \/‘ v it i r r ; ' ' lib. \\' 4 ' \ ..., vii 411110t \ . „ , 1 a .P; 1 ,4k . , , . * X .*- / / I* • ' 4## 1 4 \ N... _ . ... :` 11 !I 111 1 1 'ttl :s e. - i ' ` - 15 Figure 5.141. Connectivity Projects Detail Sheet: Map 8 TSP Amendment Street Cry Type Future Connectivity Alignment area .. Downtown Mixed Use 1 (Collector) • :• Required bin connections .. D©vmtown Mixed Use 2 (Local) Existing Streets Urban Reeidentia (52' -56') Taxlole -- Alley (20') Note. The width of the future Connecti sty Alignment Area is equal to the upper end of the right-d -way range listed tor the street character type. 1 4 ' lir i , _ \ \ ' , rt I e"//s . ..:,,..v.1 ., ,„,. . ,,,, .‘k,. , ,,_., _‘ ...N.., r NL x , ....� _. II , ; f t .. 4 1 'r . _ ' V3 iL I rely 140 f. 0 03 too) ,'dd. 1. „ 1 16 Figure 5 -2a g P roposed Street Downtown Street Character = �N, 4/0 Character Types �' ` • • y� • • ' 1 • e • . 6 • r 3 , . _ , ..-„, ' �s vir t` ... 0 , e • . Downtown Street Character Types' \ti 4 .1w. Upper Had Boulevard" — Maio Street Green Street + Downtown Mixed Use 1 (Collector) .■■ Downtown Mixed Use 2 (Neighborhood) — Downtown Mixed Use 3 (Upper Burnham) ■ Downtown Mixed Use 4 (Lower Burnham) Urban Residential 17 Proposed Amendments to Chapter 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards) • Special street character and cross sections with enhanced streetscape design — For existing streets as well as future street connections — Applied when the city improves a street or when a private developer has to make full- or half- street improvements as a part of their development iC Proposed Amendments to Chapter 18.810: New Cross - Sections Current Future • Scoffins Street is a Collector • Scoffins Street is with Downtown Mixed Use 1 Character Type :, Al ° As ti �61°S0‘4 try, - 44ez„, del Figure 111.1110.2 ' aP � ,. Collector Sample Cross Section m • Ijillil s! e *5 sire P n t'6° !.!' ea S Ifw!9 ea 21.as WO RIY ' 1 _� -- — �! a, L' . !�. r `5" 64 .' ra , i T.. Law . 1 I' ti &4r ...OM RV/ ?CI -7x Y Ai a Lao m -trRw i a •, Inn ',.`. C .- r A A i s hrr.�r 5 10 12 !r s • to i io i s 8. I ro u - od ^S 0•1101 1 ? 'I' lun: TA 11 ' I' :2M ! M. f Rw V246 M• - rx OM fine Will' RAY Street Character , 1 1 . , ...„, ,,, „J.,. .,. u _ t 1.5 _ I 14 1 r 6' 8' 15' 1 94' RCW Hall Boulevard - Downtown — Upper SW Hall Blvd. is currently an ODOT facility. The 2035 Tigard Transportation System Plan recommends that a corridor plan be completed for the SW Hall Blvd. Corridor The street character standards for Upper Hall Boulevard shall not be considered final until the corridor plan is complete. Street Character ii i, . . '';.. ' .. „.,. , .., ,. _, , ,:t. . .. : F" dikke 21 i SU - ill li i ab ,, i WV 11, IV: - t , .: 1141 , _ .,.. , w . ��Y "hi 10 -12 1r S' 10' lo S' 8' 10' -12' 66-70'110W Downtown Mixed Use 1— Downtown Collector 21 Street Character ,, 1 _Ad_ . P'ipirk- 9t 1 i ■ II ■ ....e air, e v i i . - 1 - ! - - ...... . ,,:ic- , a. i I i mil . `\�. .• 4 0.81araa t ,„ mixed use residential 10" -12 8" 11' 1 1' 8' 10' - 12 mixed use residential SA' -67 ROW Downtown Mixed Use 2 — Downtown Neighborhood Street Character 41 - - } i. I . _ ..., sit z.. • •• .,,,,,,. f .t.,,, ,_ ,,, , , „ „ ,c Downtown Mixed Use 3 — Upper Burnham ,F lit ' . , illp ilIM . - , ,, 1 V 10 -12• B 10' 1 2 ' 1 0 8 10' - 12' 6d- 72'RCVv Downtown Mixed Use 4 — Lower Burnham Street Character 4-4 _ ;i` .ice' I � . ', p rG5Idel1t1. 10' -12 1' 18' Y 10 -t2' restlerxtal 57' -56 RON }. it Downtown — Urban Residential I FfPNIE.ftE Y•Yte, 20' ROW Downtown - Alley Proposed Amendments to Chapter 18.610 (Tigard Downtown District Development & Design Standards) • New Section 18.610.025 (Connectivity) • References TSP connectivity maps • Establishes three sets of standards: — New Development and Major Redevelopment — All other projects — Pedestrian Pathways a7 Proposed Amendments to Chapter 18.610 New Development and Major Redevelopment — Major Redevelopment = valued at more than 60% of its total current value as assessed by the Washington County assessor • Dedicate the required right -of -way (or dedicate a public easement if approved by City Engineer) • Construct the required improvements • Changes to landscaping requirement in Table 18.610.1 to allow applicant to count landscaping that was part of a required street improvement ac, Proposed Amendments to Chapter 18.610 All Other Projects — Redevelopment = project valued at 60% or Tess than its total current value as assessed by the Washington County assessor • Preserve the potential for a future connectivity improvement — No new buildings within future alignment — Surface parking, landscaping, temporary structures, driveways and similar types of development are allowed • Sign a non - remonstrance to future Local Improvement District (LID) Proposed Amendments to Chapter 18.610 Required New Pedestrian Pathway , K • For new development and major + " e 'r, ' redevelopment within the area j designated for required multi -use d ¢ .- pathway • Provide multi -use pathway on public :..: f 4 1 • f: `1 t� s , easements or right -of -ways which , ° °° fi ensures connections through the -. ' v block at least every 330 feet \ -9. • Pathways: j — Direct connection _,, a?- Proposed Amendments to Chapter 18.370 Adjustments to Connectivity Standards • Type 11 procedure • Criteria: — Equally or better meet downtown design principles outlined in the TSP — Applying the standards would preclude all reasonable economic use of the site — Potential for a future connection is preserved — No adverse impact on natural features such as wetlands, bodies of water, significant habitat areas, steep slopes, or existing mature trees Rough Proportionality 18.810.020 General Provisions A. When standards apply. Unless otherwise provided, construction, reconstruction or repair of streets, sidewalks, curbs and other public improvements shall occur in accordance with the standards of this title. No development may occur and no land use application may be approved unless the public facilities related to development comply with the public facility requirements established in this section and adequate public facilities are available. Applicants may be required to dedicate land and build required public improvements only when the required exaction is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. 3u Public Involvement • Project Website • CCAC Principles • Technical Advisory Committee • Open House • CCAC review over several meetings • City Council, Planning Commission, and Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee workshops • Property owners meetings • 2 nd Open House Citizen Comments • Five written comments: One supportive, two neutral, two opposed • Eight phone / in person contacts- asked questions about how it would effect them. One made a specific suggestion to delete a proposed connection. Agency Comments • TVF&R and TriMet supportive • ODOT comments response in staff report Planning Commissions Hearing October 15, 2012 • Three citizens testified (one in support, two opposed) • PC recommended changes in response to hearing and citizen testimony • Unanimously recommended approval to Council approval Planning Commission Recommended Changes • Additional code language that specifies if an existing development is destroyed as a result of fire or other cause beyond the control of the owner, the rebuilding of it shall not be considered a major redevelopment for the purposes of street connectivity. _ i Planning Commission recommended changes , * - vlpf, -,. - '' ' , 4* 1111 *). - 1t/ • - : \ " .Y e ii 1 . . a k / r ' ` • ti p #.:, �� ../ Allow flexible . . i ` • design standards ''' for the street �� near Fanno ' "�� ' " • Creek park. / / 4t. 4. Reduced ROW, pervious pavers. ! , •. ,' ,. \\.,. . (addressed in 18.370) ' . ' ' . - � 41/ 1IN ‘1. ± . - . '..,." 4 A111 j' lii t Ind. : .1 ;. Findings: As found in the staff report, the proposed amendments meet the necessary approval criteria from the: • Tigard Development Code • Tigard Comprehensive Plan • Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan • Metro Regional Transportation Functional Plan • Oregon Administrative Rules • Statewide Planning Goals Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission and approve the code amendments. v ' AGENDA ITEM No. 6 December 11, 2012 TESTIMONY SIGN -UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN . ORDINANCE ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 2012 -00001 AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA 2012 -00002 TO AMEND THE CITY OF TIGARD 2035 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN AND TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTERS 18.370,18.610, AND 18.810 TO IMPLEMENT STREET CONNECTIVITY AND DESIGN STANDARDS FROM THE DOWNTOWN TIGARD CONCEPTUAL CONNECTIVITY PLAN Proposal: To amend the City of Tigard 2035 Transportation System Plan and Tigard Development Code (Title 18) Chapters 18.370, 18.610 and 18.810 to implement the street connectivity and design standards recommended to the Downtown Tigard Conceptual Connectivity Plan. Applicant: City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223 Location: Downtown Mixed Use Central Business District Zoning: MU -CBD Comp Plan: Mixed Use Central Business District Applicable Review Criteria: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, Citizen Involvement; 2, Land Use Planning, 9, Economic Development; 11, Public Facilities and Services; 12, Transportation; 13, Energy Conservation; and 15, Special Planning Areas: Downtown; Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 6, Metro Regional Transportation Functional Plan Titles 1, 2 and 5; Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 12; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 11, 12 and 13. Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Three - Minute Time Limit on Testimony AGENDA ITEM No. 6 December 11, 2012 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 of persons 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. A * A-►JogL (rise. ' 1 l (Ae 223 3 2(1} Has `c Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. 12/CN.ttJZL 5, /i4vx 1 137l SW 5?4timo E 7741W 0,2 9;r2zz 5 5f6 7077 / dame, Address & Phone . Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. 1/ e e 106,4;41e,v 5 611? - 50 V Name, Address , one No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. e 5 /1/0,24- i, Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. AJoN - /� n�cL CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Z-4.orr) TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION NAMING THE SUMMER CREEK PRPPERTY AS " DIRKSEN NATURE PARK" IN HONOR OF TIGARD MAYOR CRAIG DIRKSEN WHEREAS, the City through Resolution No. 99 -37 (Exhibit A), established a policy on placing memorials in city park facilities, city-owned property, and for the naming of buildings and park properties; and WHEREAS, Craig Dirksen has served as the mayor of the City of Tigard since January 2004 and his City of Tigard service will conclude December 31, 2012; and WHEREAS, Mayor Dirksen has been a very active proponent for the acquisition of city parks and open spaces for Tigard citizens; and WHEREAS, Mayor Dirksen was a member of the Parks Boatel from April 1992 — June 1993; and WHEREAS, the city's park and open space acreage grew from 301 acres to 460 acres, a 53- percent increase, during the time he served on the council and as mayor; and WHEREAS, Mayor Dirksen supported and advocated for the 2010 park and open space bond measure; and WHEREAS, the bond measure was successful and has enabled the city to purchase nearly 110 acres of parks and open space since November 2010; and WHEREAS, the city acquired Summer Creek property, also known as the Fowler property, using the park bond funds and other funding sources; and WHEREAS, the 48 -acre property, bordered by Fowler Middle School, Tiedeman Avenue and Tigard Street, will soon become Tigard's largest nature park and second largest city park; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to honor Mayor Dirksen's contributions to the City of Tigard; and WHEREAS, the naming of this park would be a fitting tribute to Mayor Dirksen and his efforts to make Tigard "A Place to Call Home." NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that•. SECTION 1: The Summer Creek property shall be named Dirksen Nature Park in honor of Tigard Mayor Craig Dirksen. SECTION 2: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This 1/ — day of d P?1 &I) 20 2. / A T: Council President - City of Tigar. City Recorder - City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 12- 3 l.1 �'F' LE �) EI�iTf���. PACKET _ Page 1 a- FOR i a (i t (d o (DATE OF MEETING)