The URL can be used to link to this page

CCDA Packet - 02/02/2016 City of Tigard City Center Development Agency Board CCDAand Tigard City Council - Agenda TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE AND TIME: February 2,2016 -6:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard-Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Times noted are estimated. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for City Center Development Agency Board meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the City Center Development Agency Board meeting. Please call 503-718-2419 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD -Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments;and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers,it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503-639-4171,ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD -Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA VIEW LIVE VIDEO STREAMING ONLINE: httt)://live.tiLard-or.,Qov This meeting will be cablecast on Tualatin Valley Community TV as follows: Replay Schedule-Channel 28 'Every Sunday at 11 a.m. 'Every Monday at 6 a.m. Every Thursday at 6 p.m. 'Every Friday at 10:00 p.m. ld City of Tigard CCDA City Center Development Agency Board - Agenda TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE AND TIME: February 2,2016 - 6:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard -Town Hall- 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 6:30 PM 1. CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD MEETING AND CITY COUNCIL A. Call to Order- City Center Development Agency and City Council B. Roll Call C. Pledge of Allegiance D. Call to Board and Staff for Non-Agenda Items CITY COUNCIL 2. EXECUTIVE SESSION:The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss exempt public records under ORS 192.660(2)(0.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. -6:35 p.m. estimated time CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY 3. JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION-6:50 p.m. estimated time 4. UPDATE ON THE MAIN STREET/FANNO CREEK SITE (SAXONY) REDEVELOPMENT STUDY-7:35 p.m. estimated time CITY COUNCIL 5. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ZONING CHANGES TO PRESERVE MEDIUM DENSITY(R-12) RESIDENTIAL LAND— 7:55 p.m.estimated time Note: Council may decide to conduct the hearing as a quasi-judicial proceeding,including addressing the following additional standards: Tigard Development Code: 12.380.030.B. 1.Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; 2.Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance;and 3.Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. 6. CONTINUED DELIBERATION:APPROVING AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING TMC 3.75 PARKS MAINTENANCE FEE AND APPROVING A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE MASTER FEES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE- 8:25 p.m. estimated time 7. DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSED FY 2017 CITY COUNCIL BUDGET -9:25 p.m. estimated time 8. NON AGENDA ITEMS 9. ADJOURNMENT - 9:40 p.m. estimated time AIS-2503 3. CCDA Agenda Meeting Date: 02/02/2016 Length (in minutes):45 Minutes Agenda Title: Joint Meeting with the City Center Advisory Commission Submitted By: Sean Farrelly, Community Development Item Type: Joint Meeting-Board or Other Juris. Meeting Type: City Center Development Agency Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Joint Meeting with City Center Advisory Commission STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Review and discuss with the City Center Advisory Commission their 2015 Annual Report and draft 2016 Goals. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) makes recommendations to the Board of the City Center Development Agency (CCDA) on urban renewal policy, budget and implementation measures to improve Tigard's Downtown area. Two documents will inform the joint meeting discussion. The first is the CCAC's 2015 Annual Report, describing the key activities of the commission (required by CCAC by-laws); it was previously provided in the December 3, 2015 Council Newsletter. Among the projects that the CCAC advised on that had significant milestones in 2015 were the Ash/Burnham development, Saxony property purchase, strolling street project, and gateway art. The second document is the CCAC's draft goals for 2016. The CCAC developed these draft goals (see attached) at their January 13th meeting. The CCAC will review these draft goals with the CCDA Board before finalizing them at their February meeting. Their four draft goals are: 1. Support URA project infrastructure and development 2. Identify and discuss long-term impacts of future development projects in the downtown area 3. Communications and engagement 4. Gather more information to educate ourselves about topics of interest to downtown, such as marketing opportunities to developers, and affordable housing. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS Tigard City Council 2015-17 Goals and Milestones: Goal #2. Make Downtown Tigard a Place Where People Want to Be Tigard Comprehensive Plan Special Planning Areas- Downtown: Goal 15.2 Facilitate the development of an urban village. Tigard Strategic Plan Goal 3: Engage the community through dynamic communication. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION October 6, 2015 Joint meeting with CCAC Attachments 2015 CCAC Annual Report CCAC Draft 2016 Goals 2015 Annual Report of the City Center Advisory Commission to the Board of the City Center Development Agency December 1, 2015 The City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) adopted annual goals and objectives for calendar year 2015. The annual agenda for the CCAC was largely devoted to developing and implementing the goals. This report is organized around the adopted 2015 CCAC Goals and Objectives. Goal 1, Support implementation of current City Center Urban Renewal projects and programs Projects: •Ash/Burnham redevelopment • Public space (Tigard St. Trail, Fanno Creek Park improvements, etc.) • Gateway art Attract additional development: • Development incentives Outcomes: Staff provided the CCAC with regular updates on the progress of the Ash/Burnham redevelopment project to add 165 housing units downtown.At the April 8t'meeting the commission found that the proposed development agreement met the criteria for public/private partnerships developed by the CCAC in 2014. They recommended approval of the development agreement and urban renewal plan amendments to the CCDA. A letter expressing the endorsement was provided to the CCDA Board prior to Board approval of the Ash/Burnham Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA). CCAC commissioners also attended the public open house for this project. CCAC members actively participated in the public Tigard Street Heritage Trail concept design sessions. Additionally, the CCAC reviewed the Tigard Street Heritage Trail concept at regular business meetings, making suggestions that were incorporated into the presentation to Council. After the city closed on the Saxony properties in July,members of the CCAC participated in the interview panel to select the team led by Resolve Architecture to study site suitability for public space and mixed- use development. A member of the CCAC provided input on the Saxony project goals at the kick-off meeting for the study. The CCAC endorsed the installation of the Gateway art and implementation of the finalized Gateway plans at the March 3,2015 CCDA meeting. Construction of the stone walls,landscaping, artwork installation and lighting were completed in the fourth quarter of the year. In 2014 the CCAC investigated the effectiveness of development incentives and developed an incentive matrix. The Ash/Burnham DDA incorporated incentives from the matrix,including property tax abatement (VHDZ zone) and a SDC subsidy.A downtown Transit Oriented Development rate is proposed for the new city-wide transportation SDC. Recommendations to adopt development incentives were also incorporated into the commission's review of the Urban Renewal Plan (see Goal 3). Goal 2 Support planning for Medium/Long Term projects Main St/ Green St Phase 2 Outcomes: Phase 2 of the Main Street Green Street is in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for FY 17-18. The Commission continues to support the inclusion of the Main Street Green on the CIP and has recommended that staff identify additional funding for this project.The estimated cost is $2.4 million.A Metro grant will fund half,the source of other half needs to be identified. The CCAC incorporated direction received from the CCDA at the joint meeting in February 2015 regarding improving the view from Highway 99 into this goal. Ideas generated to encourage improvements through voluntary measures and visual examples of potential improvements were presented to CCDA at the joint meeting in October. Goal 3 Urban Renewal Plan review Review City Center Urban Renewal Plan and prioritize future projects. Outcomes: The CCAC reviewed the City Center Urban Renewal Plan (URP) and URP projects over the course of multiple meetings The Commission examined the progress of the plan and considered the implementation of projects already completed. CCAC members participated in a prioritization exercise for projects "not yet completed",and developed policy and project recommendations for council consideration. This review was formally presented in the report"Ten Years On" to the CCDA at the joint meeting in October. Goal 4. Communications Continue to liaise with other city boards and committees, as well as other groups (i.e. Tigard Downtown Alliance, SW Corridor Plan, etc.), on issues related to Downtown Consider a communications plan to proactively engage with the community on Downtown issues Outcomes: The CCAC continued to maintain and improve its communications with other boards and commissions. One or more commissioners routinely attended meetings and/or monitored the agendas of the Park and Recreation Advisory Board (DRAB),Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC) and the TTAC Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee.The CCAC had two joint meetings with the Board of the CCDA in 2015.The chair of the CCAC regularly attended CCDA Board meetings,including executive sessions, and Council/CCDA's liaison regularly attends CCAC meetings. The CCAC hosted members of the SW Corridor outreach team at the May 13'''business meeting and offered comments regarding potential transit corridor alignments. The city's Communications Strategist attended the CCAC business meeting in September.Target audiences were identified and initial communication messages were proposed. Tasks to continue to formalize communications are likely to continue in 2016. 2 The City Center Advisory Commission looks forward to further progress in the year to come. On behalf of the City Center Advisory Commission, Canine Arendes L-Tinh Pao Chair Vice-Chair 3 DRAFT CCAC 2016 Goals GOALS IMPLEMENTATION 1. Support URA Project Infrastructure& a. Key Projects Development i. Ash/Burnham Redevelopment a. Monitor, review,and provide input on ii. Public space (Tigard Street Trail, Fanno the following key projects Creek Park Improvements) b. Monitor progress of prioritized Urban iii. Fanno&Main project tracking Renewal Plan Projects iv. New Metro CET grant(Main Street Lofts)- scope of work v. Parking management b. i.fill-in gaps of Hall Blvd sidewalks ii.plaza(s) development iii.the Tigard Street Trail&Tigard Street on- street bicycle lane iv.public restrooms 2. Identify and Discuss Long-term a. Affordable Housing-discussing impacts of future development preservation of such housing. projects to the downtown area b. High Capacity Transit Corridor(SW a. Housing availability Corridor Plan) b. Transportation C. Skyline Improvement Program (SIP) C. Improvement Programs d. Main Street Green Street Phase 1I 3. Communications&Engagement a. Liaisons a. Liaisons i. Only attend meetings where Agenda lists i. Define the role of liaison and implications for downtown;appoint main scope of representation liaison and a second. ii. Identify and assign CCAC ii. ID for TTAC,SW Corridor Plan Meetings, members to liaise with other TDA, Budget, PRAB boards and committees b. Engagement b. Engagement i. Advocate for potential funding options to i. Support expansion and/or keep TDA momentum going; formalization of partnership ii. For example,how do we talk about HCT? with Tigard Downtown iii. Advocating for bilingual outreach as a Alliance policy ii. Develop communications plan c. Refine communication with Council/CCDA for CCAC member engagement Board,update Council/CCDA Board on prior with public for upcoming goal issues and outcomes,and request projects Council give more details when charging iii. Communication appropriate CCAC to examine issues. for all Tigard communities C. Communication with Council CCDA Board 4. Gather more information to educate Identify staff resources and other ourselves about topics of interest to information sources related to particular downtown,such as marketing topics opportunities to developers,and affordable housing. Updated from January 13 CCAC meeting SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET � FOR Tigard City Center Development Agency (DATE F MEETING) The City of Tigard's Urban Renewal Agency MCCDAE M O R A N D U M TO: Chair Cook and the Directors of the City Center Development Agency Board FROM: Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager RE: CCDA/ CCAC Joint Meeting DATE: January 26, 2016 In preparation for the joint City Center Development Agency Board/ City Center Advisory Commission meeting, CCAC Chair Canine Arendes prepared two memos. The memo on "Downtown Branding and Marketing for the Tigard City Center"is a response to the CCDA Board's request at the October 6`h CCDA meeting for the CCAC to investigate downtown branding and marketing. The CCAC included in their 2016 Draft Goals "Advocate for potential funding options to keep TDA momentum going." Staff has proposed an add package for the FY 2016-17 city budget that would provide $40,000 from the general fund to support downtown revitalization through marketing and event planning and implementation. The proposal will be discussed at upcoming Budget Committee meetings. The second memo, "Follow Up on Recommendations from the 10 Years On Report"reviews the recommendations of the report presented at the October 6"' CCDA Board meeting. The CCAC recommendations are presented below,with staff comment in parentheses and bold: • Identibi.Fundin,g Sources and Apply for Grants to fund the following CCAC prrorrtitied project a) fill-in gaps of Hall Blvd sidewalks (A proposed project for Hall Blvd sidewalk infill has been proposed for the FY17-22 Capital Improvement Plan. This could include the portions of the eastern side of Hall Blvd in the urban renewal district.) b) plaza(s) development (A concept for a larger public space in the vicinity of the Main Street bridge over Fanno Creek will be studied in Fiscal Year 2016-17. This would build on the smaller public spaces currently planned as part of the Fanno Creek/Main Street redevelopment. The Main Street bridge public space concept would provide gathering and activity space,with occasional street closures for larger community events. The project could involve converting some of the road right-of- way into wider sidewalks, and installing decorative railings and art. In addition, a public space is included in the Tigard Street Trail concept.) c) the Tigard Street Trail&Tigard Street on-street bicycle lane (A Connect Oregon VI program grant application to improve the Tigard Street Trail was made in December. The awards will be announced in August 2016.) d) public restrooms (Opportunities to include public restrooms as part of the public space at the Tigard Street Trail will be considered when the project reaches the design phase.) • Develop a Citywide Infill Development Policy(Incentives for infill mixed use development are currently part of the urban renewal toolbox. The city also implemented a Vertical Housing Development Zone in areas that are well served by transit. This year, staff will be starting a citywide Housing Policy update which will look to provide for a variety of housing types to meet the diverse housing needs of present and future residents.) • Incorporate Urban Renewal Projects into Other Projects(Where feasible, opportunities to incorporate multiple urban renewal projects, such as public restrooms into public spaces will be explored.) • Option for Expedited Permitting for a fee (The city does not currently have expedited permitting. However, the Community Development Department has implemented a multi-tiered project to systematically improve its operations, focusing on efficiency gains that could be achieved through business process modifications including online permitting, streamlined permit intake, digitizing records and improved interdepartmental coordination for permit review.) • Consider Installment Payments for SDC's (The Municipal Code currently allows installment payments for city SDC's. Additional incentives that could reduce initial costs for SDC's will be explored.) • Amend the City Center Urban Renewal Plan(URP)to increase the time period and addl moth projects:Reassess URP identified public facilities [Performing Arts Center,Public Parking Facilities, Public Market Area, Public Plaza (large), and Public Restrooms] in the upcoming Facilities Planning for the city. (Extending the duration of the City Center Urban Renewal Plan will be proposed in the future as a Council approved amendment to allow for the collection of$22 million in tax increment. Public facilities in the Urban Renewal District will be studied as part of the Facilities Plan and Visioning Study to be undertaken this year.) Staff will work with the CCAC on many of these recommendations in the upcoming months,including in the development of the CCDA budget proposal and work plan for Fiscal Year 2016-17. 2 SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR Memorandum (DATE OF MEETING) To: Tigard City Center Development Agency Board From: City Center Advisory Commission Re: Downtown Branding & Marketing for the Tigard City Center Date: January 28, 2016 The City Center Commission, which is charged with advising on policy and projects related to the City Center Urban Renewal Plan and Area, was requested by the CCDA Board to consider Downtown Branding& Marketing at the October 6, 2015 Joint CCDA\CCAC Meeting. At the January 2016 CCAC meeting, the Commission agreed to share past CCAC goals and outcomes related to this issue with the CCDA Board, and confirmed the following related draft goal for 2016: "Advocate for potential funding options to keep TDA momentum going." Downtown Branding & Marketing for the Tigard City Center has been considered by the CCAC and the city previously.The 2005 Urban Renewal Plan identifies the City role as developing infrastructure improvements and public facilities, assemble land, and provide Planning and Development Assistance programs.The 2007 Leland report on implementing the Urban Renewal Plan recommended the City also consider funding a joint undertaking between the City and the private sector for a "Brand Tigard" campaign. The CCAC and the City actively engaged in assessing the role of the citv in a Downtown Marketing Strategy between 2010 and 2012. In 2010 the CCAC goals included "Branding/Marketing of Downtown:encourage branding identification, determine CCAC role in promotion/branding of downtown. "The annual report concluded that there was a need to clarify the city's role in marketing issues.The following year, the CCAC and other parties engaged with Michelle Reeves of Civilis at multiple public workshops and forums on Downtown Marketing Strategy. • At the July 2011 Downtown Marketing Strategy Presentation by Michelle Reeves to City Council, her#1 Recommendation was to form a downtown development organization, further stating that the City could provide support, including initial funding to retain marketing, promotion and organizational assistance. • Also in 2011,the Leland Report prepared for the CCDA Board included the recommendation to Develop Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown and provide financial support to a Downtown Organization that will support Downtown business growth, marketing, and events. Following the Civilis& Leland reports the City agreed to fund event coordination for Downtown events. In 2012 and 2013,the CCAC Goals included:Supporting downtown business owners and property owners through receiving reports and monitoring the work of the contracted facilitator in downtown,"and in 2012,the CCAC recommended extension of event coordinator contract. In 2014,the CCAC endorsed the concept of the TDA taking the lead on conduct any branding or marketing campaign. The CCAC adopted the following goal in 2014, "Assess options for engaging in a marketing and/or branding campaign" and considered Downtown marketing,focusing specifically on place branding.The CCAC found that place branding partnerships commonly include both public and private sector actors,while consultants may also be hired to manage a project or perform specific technical tasks, and that those who will be utilizing the brand in their marketing strategies, i.e. the business owners and merchants, need to play a principal role in the branding project. The TDA representative present at the October 8, 2014 CCAC meeting confirmed the importance of TDA involvement in a downtown branding or marketing effort, and further shared that increasing the TDA's organizational capacity would facilitate their ability to take on such a task.The CCAC agreed to provide support when the TDA has specific marketing or branding requests. Multiple investigations into the topic of branding and marketing have concluded that a private sector downtown association would be the appropriate organization to take the lead on Downtown Branding and Marketing in Tigard. Increasing the TDA's organizational capacity supports the long term objective to partner with a private sector downtown association with the capacity to lead coordinated marketing activities Downtown.Therefore, the CCAC has proposed to adopt the following goal for 2016: "Advocate for potential funding options to keep TDA momentum going." Timeline • 2005 o Urban Renewal Plan proposed the city take the following implementing activities: develop infrastructure improvements and public facilities, assemble land, and provide Planning and Development Assistance programs. Marketing and promotions is not a city-identified role. • 2007 o The Tigard Development Strategy(the Leland report) included a recommendation that the City consider funding a joint undertaking between the City and the private sector for a "Brand Tigard" campaign. • 2010 o CCAC Goal- Branding/Marketing of Downtown: encourage branding identification, determine CCAC role in promotion/branding of downtown 0 2010 CCAC Annual Report concludes the city' s role in marketing issues needs to be clarified • 2011 o CCAC Goal-work with Metro consultant to develop marketing plan for downtown CCAC briefings and participation in various public events with Michelle Reeves o July 2011 Presentation by Michelle Reeves of Civilis on Downtown Marketing Strategy #1 Recommendation: Form a downtown development organization ■ To pursue marketing, promotion and organizational activities o 2011 Leland Report recommendation: o Develop Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown: provide financial support to a Downtown Organization that will support Downtown business growth, marketing, and events Following the Civilis & Leland reports the City funds event coordination for Downtown events • 2012 o CCAC Goal-Supporting downtown business owners and property owners through receiving reports and monitoring the work of the contracted facilitator in downtown o CCAC recommended extension of event coordinator contract • 2013 o CCAC Goal-Supporting downtown business owners and property owners through receiving reports and monitoring the work of the contracted facilitator in downtown • 2014 o CCAC Goal-assess options for engaging in a marketing and/or branding campaign o CCAC findings regarding place branding: places with successful brands have identifiable assets; partnerships including both public and private sector are common; consultants may also be hired to manage a project or perform specific technical tasks; and implementing parties-those who will be utilizing the brand in their marketing strategies-need to play a principal role in a branding project o TDA representative present at the October 8 meeting stated that TDA wants partner on any branding or marketing effort, and further would like to take the lead in a branding campaign, once they have the capacity to do so o CCAC consensus to wait until TDA came back with specific marketing or branding requests • 2015 o Joint CCDA\CCAC Meeting- Request by Board to consider branding and marketing • 2016 o CCAC Draft Goal: Advocate for potential funding options to keep TDA momentum going o CCAC prepares memo summarizing previous CCAC goals and outcomes related to Downtown Branding and Marketing SUPPLE -,ACKET FOR � a0--�- (DATE . :..FETING) Memorandum To: Tigard City Center Development Agency Board From: City Center Advisory Commission Re: Follow Up on Recommendations from the 10 Years On Report Date: January 28, 2016 In October 2015,the City Center Commission,which is charged with advising on policy and projects related to the City Center Urban Renewal Plan and Area, presented a report reviewing progress to date in the City Center Urban Renewal Area.The report, Ten Years On: Tigard Urban Renewal District 2015 City Center Urban Renewal Plan Review and Recommendations, also included recommendations for the CCDA Board to consider. Recommendations included the following: Identify Funding Sources and Apply for Grants to fund the following CCAC prioritized projects: a) fill-in gaps of Hall Blvd sidewalks b) plaza(s) development c) the Tigard Street Trail &Tigard Street on-street bicycle lane d) public restrooms • Develop a City Wide Infill Development Policy • Incorporate Urban Renewal Plan Identified Projects into Other Projects • Option for Expedited Permitting for a fee • Consider Installment Payments for SDC's • Amend the City Center Urban Renewal Plan (URP) to increase the time period and add modify projects: Reassess URP identified public facilities [Performing Arts Center, Public Parking Facilities, Public Market Area, Public Plaza (large), and Public Restrooms] in the upcoming Facilities Planning for the city. The CCAC recognizes that implementing some of the above recommendations involve policy changes that CCDA and the Tigard City Council would need to consider or adoption of new policy before action can be taken. In the interim, redevelopment tools and programs that may also benefit the City Center URA could be taken into consideration when developing a program of incentives for the Tigard Triangle. At this time,the CCAC encourages the CCDA Board to consider the above prioritized projects in this year's CCDA and City budget and the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) discussions. Additionally,the CCAC strongly supports the inclusion of URP identified public facilities in the upcoming city-wide Facilities Planning effort. AIS-2536 4. CCDA Agenda Meeting Date: 02/02/2016 Length (in minutes): 20 Minutes Agenda Title: Update on Main Street/Fanno Creek (Saxony) Site Redevelopment Study Submitted By: Sean Farrelly, Community Development Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: City Center Development Agency Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Update on Main Street/Fanno Creek (Saxony) site redevelopment study STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST The Board of the CCDA is requested to share their opinions and ideas on the design plans. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The CCDA has engaged Resolve Architecture and Planning to prepare the Main Street/Fanno Creek (Saxony) site for redevelopment. Their scope of work includes site and building design, economic feasibility, taking the design through land use approval, and public involvement. The project is nearing completion of the first phase- determining what type of development can be built on the site, and entering the second phase- the land use approval process. Resolve has produced a design that will initiate the land use review process. A pre-application conference was held on January 28. Comments received at this conference will be used to refine the design that will be taken through the land use process, Once approved, the entitled project (and site) would then be made available for sale. Staff are starting to market the project to area developers. The design calls for a mixed use building, with a commercial ground floor and creative office space on the upper floors, with approximately 50,000 square feet of space. The design shows a six story building. Currently new building height in the Main Street sub-area is permitted to be 45 feet. If the proposed building is over that height, a Development Code amendment will be requested, requiring the approval of the Planning Commission and Council. The building will be prominent, particularly from the Pacific Highway side. The ground floor is proposed to be approximately 8,950 gross square feet. One potential ground floor use concept is for a "food business incubator" with shared kitchen space and micro-restaurant space facing Main Street. This would allow food entrepreneurs a low cost way to start and grow their businesses,while activating Main Street and the adjacent public space. This public private partnership idea will be fleshed out by the city's Economic Development Manager with a team of local food entrepreneurs. The public space design shows a 1,740 square foot area. The proposal would preserve one of the building piers so that it would be built to the same level of the Main Street sidewalk without being structurally dependent on the bridge. Discussions with Clean Water Services indicate the design is likely approvable under their regulations. Due to site constraints, a major challenge for the project is parking. The current design has only 10 on-site spaces. This is one factor that makes residential development a challenge, as an apartment development without dedicated parking spaces might be difficult to finance in the Tigard market. Off-site space leasing is being investigated which could serve the employees of the office uses, with the on-site surface parking lot reserved for customers of the ground floor businesses. A geotechnical firm will be engaged to perform testing a report with findings on the site. This report will be available in the next few weeks. The project is predicated on obtaining an EPA Cleanup Grant from the EPA. The application was submitted in December and the EPA will notify successful grant applicants in May 2016. Because the property was purchased with Park Bond funds, there is a fixed timeline to determine the best use of the site. Within 20 months of closing (by January 2017), the city must designate which portion of the property will be public space, selling the remaining portion for private redevelopment. Sale proceeds will reimburse the Parks Bond. OTHER ALTERNATIVES No alternatives for consideration at this time. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS Tigard City Council 2015-17 Goals and Milestones Goal #2. Make Downtown Tigard a Place Where People Want to Be City Center Urban Renewal Plan Goal 1: Revitalization of the Downtown should recognize the value of natural resources as amenities and as contributing to the special sense of place. Goal 5: Promote high quality development of retail, office and residential uses that support and are supported by public streetscape, transportation, recreation and open space investments. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Special Planning Areas- Downtown Goal 15.2 Facilitate the development of an urban village. Tigard Strategic Plan Goal 2: Ensure development advances the vision DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION December 1, 2015: Future of Saxony Site - Update August 18, 2015: Discussion on Saxony Property Redevelopment Study May 26, 2015,Authorize Purchase of Saxony Pacific Site May 5, 2015, Discussion of Prospective Purchaser Agreement April 8, 2014, Authorize CCDA Executive Director to negotiate voluntary property acquisitions Attachments Main Street Development Progress \ / \ SAXONY PROPERTIES CITY OF TIGARD / \ DEVELOPMENTSTUDY \ PROPOSED EASEMENT MOQI�CAfIONS / / \ JANUARY 21, 2 6� 169 / 60"DIA SANITARY � \ 10 \\ V-SEWER PERSURVEY \\ ` SRVC `` \ V---P POSED NEW \ _VN Art EA MENT LINE qq ooQV / / \ \ ' EXISTiNG` SEMENT SJ \ INES GROUND FLOOR / COMMERCIAL SPACE / / (elev._+151') / RE-VE A 'o AREA / TREE CA O LK ,/ / IPARKING) o / / / 151 / ORDIN Y \ / (ON-STREET / HIGH WA \ // \ LOADING) / PROPOSED ALTERED J \ / CURB CUTS / TOP OF c BANK @ COLUM \OVED \ IC LINE OF FLOODWAY a y BUILDINGREMO E OF D Aos STANDARD VEGETATE RRIDOR / BOUNDARY(50') s ^• PROPO EW\ Q \0 PRO Y LINE Lu DECK GRATING w/ S R E S O L V E E 75%OPEN AREA(615 sf) O \/ ARCHITEC R + L NNING w 151 + / oI I II 11 N / ® /0 5' 10' 20' SAXONY PROPERTIES -CITY OF TIGARD J MAIN ST DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STUDY �5 JANUARY 28, 2016 �"T Q� 9ZA Q �I I O/ - :' yc I i i i w ElQ BIKE ROOM OCS I L & BACK OF HOUSE w/ LOCKERS SHOWERS 2560 sf i r LOBBY I 490 sf � I COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL M COMMERCIAL I COMM. II -I-- SPACE-k-- _ _ SPACE-B SPACE C _ - -_ - 1--1fI0S - -1-- 900 sf 1010 sf 1010 sf I 300 sf I I M I I I I I +- L - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - -� a PLAN - GROUND FLOOR 1 8,950 GSF Q FIN. FL. = 151.0' R E S O L V E j ARCHITECTURE+PLANNING J O co ui ® IIII IIIII III � N I II I I I I IIII I I 0 0 8' 16' 32' N O SAXONY PROPERTIES-CITY OF TIGARD C MAIN ST DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STUDY �S JANUARY 28, 2016 Q� TENANT SPACE 8 3960 sf r i I L TENANT SPA i E A 38715 sf L7U J C C C t0 d PLAN - SECOND FLOOR 1 9,520 GSF FIN. FL. - 166.0' R E S O L V E a w ARCHITECTURE+PLANNING O U) Lu II 1114 CO N 0 0 8' 16' 32' (V O SAXONY PROPERTIES-CITY OF TIGARD C MAIN ST DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STUDY JANUARY 28, 2016 Q� TEN NT TENANT SPA E B = SPACE C 1840 sf 2120 sf i TEN NT TENANT SPACE A SPACE D 1975 sf 1900 sf cl I II U � i J J C .0 C (C d PLAN - THIRD FLOOR 1 9,520 GSF a FIN. FL. = 178.5' R E S O L V E > ARCHITECTURE+PLANNING J O pmmm 1111111111 I 111111111111111 o N 0 8' 16' 3T O SAXONY PROPERTIES-CITY OF TIGARD MAIN ST DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STUDY JANUARY 28, 2016 i I I i I TEN NT SPA E B I 388 sf i I II I I ——————— TENANT S 2106 sf I 210. sf I - - ----,GREENI-R00E- - - - -- - - - I I I i � - U I � J J O7 C .0 C f0 a PLAN - FOURTH FLOOR 1 7,725 GSF FIN. FL. - 191.0' RESOLVE a > ARCHITECTURE+PLANNING O cn w II I o N 0 8' 16' 32' N O SAXONY PROPERTIES -CITY OF TIGARD C MAIN ST DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STUDY JANUARY 28, 2016 Q0 I I i TEN' NT TENANT SPACE B SPACE C 1840 sf 2030 f p4m M � - ----EmA------ i --�— -- ---- --- -- - -- TENANT SPACE A 210Q sf U i i J J C C C d PLAN - FIFTH FLOOR 1 7,725 GSF a FIN. FL. = 203.5' R E S O L V E j ARCHITECTURE+PLANNING J O N uiN (V O SAXONY PROPERTIES -CITY OF TIGARD C MAIN ST DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STUDY �S JANUARY 28, 2016 0 I I I I I FULL-FLOOR TENANT 4800 sf I ca ID I I O O I I I i I I I I i _- -I - -GREEN I -- -- -- _. - - - - -f R -�60F I I I i I I I I I U I I I m c C C a 1 PLAN SIXTH FLOOR U 1 5,790 GSF Q FIN. FL. = 216.0' R E S O L V E > ARCHITECTURE +PLANNING J O LL 1111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �� 0 8' IG' 32' SAXONY PROPERTIES-CITY OF TIGARD c MAIN ST DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STUDY JANUARY 28, 2016 Q� I -I - - - --- - -I-- - -- PV PANELS 3000 sf I I I � I I I i i i i J � J PLAN - ROOF 1 a FIN. FL. = 228.5' RESOLVE uj ARCHITECTURE+PLANNING J U U) of N 0 8' 16' 32' AFf' tt y� �� - � � - ►il(II(II I IIII 1 II 1 ill 11111111111111 --. .. . — `:;r J �slln Sin SAX • i�N } a �` moi+ -i `-"'•- r. �jis � ,,ao� • PROPERTY CONTEXT SAXONY PROPERTIES - CITY OF TIGARD �C) MAIN ST DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STUDY JANUARY 28, 2016 QO Ffl Yom. t { I i- �_ �.: ��. � "� �i ,� •�� , A;:: �/'moiV, :-�, ;.�/'. ,Vii:� ��: �::�:A.'�%�,;: :�. �. .�\.�,`�i � �,:�V�.-: �% \ / c co a SOUTH ELEVATION 1 Q RESOLVE j ARCHITECTURE +PLANNING J O W II II11 IIII I II I II I I I D 8' 16' 32' SAXONY PROPERTIES - CITY OF TIGARD c MAIN ST DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STUDY JANUARY 28, 2016 0 77'-6" UPPER ROOF 65'-0" 6th FL a 52 -6.. V 5th FL Z 40'-0" --- - - - 4th FL ti< Yft 3rd FL 15'-0" 2nd FL o q I C �C C �O a WEST ELEVATION � 1 Q RESOLVE W ARCHITECTURE +PLANNING J 0 W I IIII RIII IIIII1111 co II III N O SAXONY PROPERTIES - CITY OF TIGARD c MAIN ST DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STUDY GcJ JANUARY 28, 2016 V� Q� 77'-s,. UPPER ROOF i 65'-0.. -- --; - 6th FL 52'-6' 5th FIL Am 40'-0' 4th FL40 ' 27'-s" � �- 3rd FL _ HIGHWAY 99W 2nd FL ,.i U J J C C C !G a T 1 NORTH ELEVATION RESOLVE j ARCHITECTURE+PLANNING J 0 N W f0 N 0 K' 16' 32' SAXONY PROPERTIES - CITY OF TIGARD MAIN ST DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STUDY Q� JANUARY 28, 2016 Q 77'-6" UPPER ROOF 65'-0" Y4 6th FL --- a 52'-6" 5th FL 40'-0" 4th FL 3rd FL e 15-0" 2nd FL . U J J 01 C C C f4 EAST ELEVATION 1 Q RESOLVE w J ARCHITECTURE +PLANNING O W mal-in pug� tD O N 0 K 16 O AIS-2538 5. CCDA Agenda Meeting Date: 02/02/2016 Length (in minutes): 30 Minutes Agenda Title: Medium Density Residential (R-12) Preservation Prepared For: Gary Pagenstecher, Community Development Submitted By: Carol Krager, Central Services Item Type: Ordinance Meeting Type: Council Public Hearing -Legislative Business Meeting- Main Public Hearing: Yes Publication Date: Information ISSUE Shall Council adopt an ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Districts Map to facilitate preservation of R-12 zoned land and ensure it is applied in a location that supports residential use? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff, and the Planning Commission, by a vote of 6 to 1 in favor, recommend that City Council approve the proposed amendments. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The city has initiated this legislative Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment to facilitate preservation of R-12 zoned land and ensure it is applied in a location that supports residential use in support of the City's Housing Goal. The Planning Commission voted 6-1 in favor of the proposal. In response to public testimony at its January 12th hearing, Council continued the hearing and directed staff to respond to public testimony to clarify issues related to land use process and to neighborhood livability at Site A. Staff responses are in the attached Memo to Council. The City is initiating the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments to facilitate preservation of R-12 zoned land and ensure it is applied in a location that supports residential use. Staff proposes the change in response to separate development applications for two sites involving R-12 zoning. Two pre-application conferences were held in March and August of 2015 for proposals to rezone from C-P to R-12 (or R-25) several contiguous parcels located on SW Spruce and 72nd Avenue $ite A). The owners and interested parties are supportive of the City's legislative proposal to accomplish this. In April 2015 the City received an application for a Comp Plan and Zone Change (CPA2015-00003/ZON2015-00004) for a parcel owned by the Tigard-Tualatin school district zoned R-12 with frontage on Pacific Hwy (Site B). The applicant proposed to change the plan and zoning designation of the site to General Commercial (C-G). In addition to this comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment request, the Applicant requested concurrent Site Development Review approval from the City to allow a 15,085 square foot specialty retail store with associated parking, circulation, landscaping and site improvements. These applications have been withdrawn in favor of the City's legislative action to rezone the subject parcel, as proposed. Pursuant to the City's housing goal to provide opportunities for a variety of housing types to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents, preservation of R-12 zoned lands is warranted because it allows a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. The zone provides flexibility for both attached and detached ownership and multifamily rental type housing which supports affordable housing options in the city. Attached single-family residential or detached single-family residential on small lots are an important component of the city's strategy to provide for a range of housing types and for providing a more affordable housing type. This is not low-income housing but a level of affordability for first time home buyers, singles, retirees, and other groups that are having a difficult time finding affordable single-family residential options in Tigard's neighborhoods. The timing of the applications identified above is such that the City staff would have likely recommended denial of the proposed R-12 to C-G zone change to avoid loss of R-12 zoned land. However, the City's proposal combines the two zone change proposals so that a finding of no net loss of R-12 can be made through the legislative process The locational characteristics of the subject parcels otherwise support the comp plan amendments and zone changes. The property zoned C-P (Site A) fronts on a local and a neighborhood street and is adjacent to property zoned R-4.5 and low-density unincorporated Washington County. The adjacent lower class streets and low density residential use zone makes the property more suitable for medium residential use that forms a transition from the C-G zone to the south and the R-12 zone to the north. Residential-zoned land adjacent to Pacific Hwy is rare in Tigard and is primarily associated with private and public school ownership and use,which is allowed conditionally in residential zones. The Tigard-Tualatin School District has identified the subject property $ite B) as surplus and intends to sell it for the highest best use. The proposed C-G zone is the dominant zone along Pacific Hwy (classified as Primary Arterial) and the existing zone of the adjacent parcels. This action would result in a net increase of 0.17 acres zoned R-12. OTHER ALTERNATIVES COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS NA DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION January 12, 2016 Attachments Ordinance Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C PC Minutes Memo to Council CITY OF TIGARD,OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 16- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 2015-00005 AND ZONE CHANGE ZON 2015-00007 TO AMEND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING DISTRICTS MAP AT TWO SITES. WHEREAS, Section 18.380.020 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code requires legislative amendments to be undertaken by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.060;and WHEREAS, the city has proposed an amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Map to facilitate preservation of R-12 zoned land and ensure it is applied in a location that supports residential use;and WHEREAS, on December 14, 2015, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing, which was noticed in accordance with city standards, and recommended approval of the proposed CPA 2015-00005/ ZON 2015-00007 by motion with a 6-1 vote in favor;and WHEREAS, on January 12, 2016, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing, which was noticed in accordance with city standards, to consider the Commission's recommendation on CPA 2015-00005/ZON2015-00007,hear public testimony,and apply applicable decision-making criteria;and WHEREAS,on January 12,2016,the Tigard City Council approved CPA 2015-00005/ZON 2015- 00007 pursuant to the public hearing and its deliberations;and WHEREAS, Council's decision to approve CPA 2015-00005/ZON 2015-00007 and adopt this ordinance was based on the findings and conclusions found in Exhibit "C" and the associated land use record which is incorporated herein by reference and is contained in land use file CPA 2015- 00005/ZON 2015-00007. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Tigard City Council amends the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Map to change the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Districts as shown in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit`B." SECTION 2 Tigard City Council adopts the findings and conclusions contained in Exhibit "C" in support of the Council's action and to be the legislative basis for this ordinance. SECTION 3: The City Council finds that the immediate applicability of the new zones to the subject properties provided in this Ordinance is necessary to protect the public welfare by preserving affordable housing options contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan while at the same time facilitating development. ORDINANCE No. 16- Page 1 SECTION 4: For the reasons set forth in Section 3, an emergency is declared to exist and this Ordinance takes effect upon adoption by the City Council and signature of the Mayor. By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only,this day of 32016. Carol A.Krager,City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of 32016. John L.Cook,Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney ORDINANCE No. 16- Page 2 VICINITY MAP _ .J A > CPA 2015-00005 PINE S T < ZON 2015-00007 Medium Residential (R-12) Preservation LU SITE A t Subject Site SPRUGEST C-P to R-1=(1.54 acres) R-25 W > R-4.5 Q Information on this map is for general location f� onhe Deve opmand entSrServices Divisibe verified on. `� Approx.Scale 12.000-1 In=16/it T r Map printed at 09'19 AM on 05-Nov-15 DATA IS DERIVED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES.THE CITY OF TIGARD MAKES NO WARRANTY.REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE CONTENT,ACCURACY.TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF THE DATA PROVIDED HEREIN.THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS.OMISSIONS OR INACCURACIES IN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSED. City of Tigard Feet13125 SW Hall Blvd O 250SCA MAPS Tigard,OR 97223 5036394171 �� (P DWWW.tigard-or.gov Jk• VICINITY MAP ti C-N CPA 2015-00005 P ZON 2015-00007 Medium Residential (R-12) Preservation SITE B R-12 Tigard Subject Site Elementary R-12 to C-G(1.3?acres) 717 Cyd T G R-4.5 sr i - _ Information on this map is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. ZApprox.Seale 1:2,000-1 In=167 it 'A Map printed at 09:11 AM on 05-Nov-15 9 G DATA IS DERIVED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES.THE CITY OF TIGARD Y MAKES NO WARRANTY.REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE CONTENT.ACCURACY TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF THE DATA PROVIDED HEREIN.THE CRY OF TIGARD SHALL ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS.OMISSIONS.OR INACCURACIES IN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSED. �VIA City of Tigard_. �' D 13125 SW Hall Blvd Feet n TIGAR APS Tigard,OR 97223 25� N' / li _ 503 639-4171 t) a- .�� ` _ f www.tigardor.gov r PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL C FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 120 DAYS = N/A SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NO.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment(CPA)2015-00005 Zone Change (ZON)2015-00007 FILE TITLE: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(R-12) PRESERVATION APPLICANT: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard,OR 97223 REQUEST: The city is initiating this Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment to facilitate preservation of R-12 zoned land and ensure it is applied in a location that supports residential use. The City proposes changing the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning District Classifications of the subject parcels in SITE A (3 parcels totaling 1.54 acres) from Professional Commercial (C-P) to Medium Density Residential (R-12); and changing the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Map Classifications of the subject parcel in SITE B (1 parcel of 1.37 acres) from Medium Density Residential (R-12) to General Commercial (C-G). LOCATION: SITE A: 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72nd Ave., 10735 SW 72nd Ave;TAX MAP/LOT#'s: 1S136ACO2200, 1S136ACO2400, 1S136ACO2500;and SITE B: 13125 SW Pacific Hwy TAX MAP/LOT#2S102CB00200 COMP PLAN DESIGNATION/ ZONING DISTRICT: FROM:Medium Density Residential(R-12) and Professional Commercial (C-P) TO: General Commercial (C-G) and Medium Density Residential (R-12) APPLICABLE Community Development Code Chapters 18.380.020 and 18.390.060.G; REVIEW Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2, 10; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10; and CRITERIA: Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 1. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2015-00005/ZON2015-00007 Medium Density Residential(R-12)Preservation PAGE 1 OF 15 SECTION II PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt by ordinance the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments,as determined through the public hearing process. SECTION III BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project History The city is initiating this Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment to facilitate preservation of R- 12 zoned land and ensure it is applied in a location that supports residential use. Staff proposes the change in response to two development applications,both of which involve R-12 zoning. Two pre-application conferences were held in March and August of 2015 for proposals to rezone from C-P to R-12 or R-25 several contiguous parcels located on SW Spruce and 72nd Avenue (Site A). The owners and interested parties are supportive of the city's legislative proposal to accomplish this. In April 2015 the city received an application for a Comp Plan and Zone Change (CPA2015- 0003/ZON2015-00004) for a parcel owned by the school district zoned R-12 with frontage on Pacific Hwy (Site B). The Applicant proposed to change the plan and zoning designation of the site to General Commercial (C-G). In addition to this comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment request, the Applicant requested concurrent Site Development Review approval from the City to allow a 15,085 square foot (SF) specialty retail store with associated parking, circulation, landscaping and site improvements. These applications have been withdrawn,in favor of the city's legislative action to rezone the subject parcel, as proposed. Pursuant to the City's housing goal to provide opportunities for a variety of housing types to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents, the affordable housing types allowed in the R-12 zone warrant the need to preserve R-12 zoned lands. The timing of the applications identified above is such that the city staff would have likely recommended denial of the proposed R-12 to C-G zone change to avoid loss of R-12 zoned land. However, the city's proposal combines the two zone change proposals so that a finding of no net loss of R-12 can be made through the legislative process. The locational characteristics of the subject parcels otherwise support the comp plan amendments and zone changes. The property zoned C-P (Site A) fronts on a local and a neighborhood street and is adjacent to property zoned R-4.5 and low-density unincorporated Washington County. The adjacent lower class streets and low density residential use zone makes the property more suitable for medium residential use that forms a transition from the C-G zone to the south and the R-12 zone to the north. Residential-zoned land adjacent to Pacific Hwy is rare in Tigard and is primarily associated with private and public school ownership and use, which is allowed conditionally in residential zones. The Tigard-Tualatin School District has identified the subject property (Site B) as surplus and intends to sell it for the highest best use. The proposed C-G zone is the dominant zone along Pacific Hwy (classified as Primary Arterial) and the existing zone of the adjacent parcels. This action would result in a net increase of 0.17 acres zoned R-12. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2015-00005/ZON2015-00007 Medium Density Residential(R-12)Preservation PAGE 2 OF 15 Site Description Site A (3 parcels totaling 1.54 acres) is developed with single-family residences and was annexed in 2006 (ZCA2006-00003),which changed the county zone from Commercial Office (OC) to the City's Professional Commercial (C-P) zone, the zone most closely implementing the County's plan map designation. The current zone does not allow residential use, which the market has identified as its highest best use as evidenced by the pre-application conference applications cited above. The subject site is located across Spruce Street from Fred Meyers and within 1,000 feet of Pacific Hwy. Site B (1 parcel of 1.37 acres) is currently a vacant lot owned by the Tigard—Tualatin School District. The site abuts the south side of the Charles F. Tigard Elementary School. The subject property abuts SW Pacific Highway, a Principal Arterial that is designated in the Metro Urban Growth Functional Plan as a High Capacity Transit Corridor. The highway is also maintained and under jurisdictional ownership of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The site is bordered to the east and west by commercial development. The property is the only parcel located along the highway between McKenzie Street and Canterbury Lane, an approximately 1.12 mile segment that is not currently designated for commercial use. The subject site is approximately .25 miles from the Metro Town Center adopted boundary. Proposal Description The city is initiating this Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment to facilitate preservation of R- 12 zoned land and ensure it is applied in a location that supports residential use. The City proposes changing the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning District Classifications of the subject parcels in SITE A (3 parcels totaling 1.54 acres) from Professional Commercial (C-P) to Medium Density Residential (R-12); and changing the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Map Classifications of the subject parcel in SITE B (1 parcel of 1.37 acres) from Medium Density Residential (R-12) to General Commercial(C-G). Planning Commission Recommendation On December 14, 2015 the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposal and make a recommendation to Council. As discussed in greater detail in Section VIII of this report and in the minutes of the hearing, public testimony was received and considered by the Planning Commission as part of their deliberations. At the conclusion of their deliberations, the Planning Commission voted 6 to 1 in favor of a motion recommending City Council adopt the proposed amendments. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE CRITERIA, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS This section contains all the applicable city, state and metro policies, provisions, and criteria that apply to the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change. Each section is addressed demonstrating how each requirement is met. APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 18) Chapter 18.380: Chapter 18.380.020 Legislative Amendments to the Title and Map Zoning Map A. Legislative amendments. Legislative zoning map and text and Text amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type IV procedure, as Amendments governed by Section 18.309.060G PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2015-00005/ZON2015-00007 Medium Density Residential(R-12)Preservation PAGE 3 OI'15 FINDING: The proposed legislative amendments are being reviewed under the Type IV legislative procedure as set forth in the chapter.This procedure requires public hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council. Chapter 18.390: Chapter 18.390.020. Description of Decision-Making Procedures Decision- B.4. Type IV Procedure. Type IV procedures apply to legislative Making matters. Legislative matters involve the creation, revision, or large-scale Procedures implementation of public policy. Type IV matters are considered initially by the Planning Commission with final decisions made by the City Council. FINDING: This Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Districts map involves implementation of city policies as applied generally throughout the City of Tigard. Therefore it will be reviewed under the Type IV procedure as detailed in Section 18.390.060.G. In accordance with this section, the amendment is initially being considered by the Planning Commission with City Council making the final decision. Chapter 18.390: Chapter 18.390.060.G. Decision-making considerations.The Decision- recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council Making shall be based on consideration of the following factors: Procedures 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. FINDING: Findings and conclusions are provided within this report for the applicable listed factors on which the recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above and below,these provisions are met. APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES Chapter 1: Citizen Involvement Goal 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. Policy 2 The City shall define and publicize an appropriate role for citizens in each phase of the land use planning process. Policy 5 The opportunities for citizen involvement provided by the City shall be appropriate to the scale of the planning effort and shall involve a broad cross-section of the community. FINDING: Citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions were given the "opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process." Several opportunities for PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2015-00005/ZON2015-00007 Medium Density Residential(R-12)Preservation PAGE 4 Ole 15 participation are built into the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, including: • Public Hearing notification requirements pursuant to Chapter 18.390.060 of the Tigard Community Development Code and Measure 56. Public hearing notice of the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings was sent to the interested parties list (11- 5-15) and all property owners within 500 feet of the subject parcels (11-19-15). Measure 56 Notice was mailed to subject property owners. • A notice was published in the November 19, 2015 issue of The Tigard Times (in accordance with Tigard Development Code Chapter 18.390). The notice invited public input and included the phone number of a contact person to answer questions. The notice also included the address of the City's webpage where the Staff Report to the Planning Commission could be viewed. • Both Sites A and B were posted with a notice board on November 23, 2015. • Posting on the City's web site (11-24-15) CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 1.1 Policies 2 and 5 are met. Chapter 2: Land Use Planning Goal 2.1 Maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action plans as the legislative basis of Tigard's land use planning program. Policy 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. The goals and policies contained in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan provide the basis for the city's land use planning program.This policy is met. Policy 2 The City's land use regulations, related plans, and implementing actions shall be consistent with and implement its Comprehensive Plan. As described in this staff report, the amendment complies with all applicable statewide planning goals, regional regulations, comprehensive plan policies, and serves the interest of the citizens.This policy is met. Policy 3 The City shall coordinate the adoption, amendment, and implementation of its land use program with other potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies. Potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies were given an opportunity to comment. Any comments that were received are addressed in Section VI: Outside Agency Comments. This policy is met. 13I..\NNING COMMISSION RIsCOMMF_,NDATION TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2015-00005/%ON2015-00007 Medium Density Residential(R-12)Preservation PAGE,5 OF 15 Policy 5 The City shall promote intense urban level development in Metro designated Centers and Corridors, and employment and industrial areas." The Metro 2040 Growth Concept Map shows that Pacific Hwy, through Tigard, is designated as a "Corridor." The proposal to up-zone Site B from residential to commercial would increase development intensity consistent with the "intense urban level development" envisioned for Metro designated corridors. This policy is met. Policy 6 The City shall promote the development and maintenance of a range of land use types which are of sufficient economic value to fund needed services and advance the community's social and fiscal stability. In a February 22, 2011 Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) conducted by Cogan Owens Cogan, LLC and FCS Group the forecasted 20-year vacant land need for commercial, mixed use and industrial lands in the City over the 2011 to 2031 time period was prepared. As noted in Table 7, Page 9 of the EOA, it was determined that the City would need a minimum of 51-acres of vacant commercial land to satisfy its commercial land needs over that 20-year growth period. A moderate estimate of commercial land need of 68-acres was identified and a high forecasted need of 85-acres was projected. As noted in the January 1, 2014 BLI prepared by the City, the City's most recent vacant lands inventory identified an existing vacant commercial inventory of 46.55-acres. The proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment will help fill this projected deficit of available commercial land by adding 1.37-acres of commercial land to the City's vacant commercial land inventory, thereby improving the City's available commercial development capacity. Furthermore, consistent with this plan policy, the proposed project will enable the transition of the site from school to private commercial use, thereby placing the property back on the public tax rolls and enabling the generation of property taxes from the newly created development. These projected public revenues will enable the funding of needed City services and advance the community's social and fiscal stability as desired. This Policy is met. Policy 7 The City's regulatory land use maps and development code shall implement the Comprehensive Plan by providing for needed urban land uses including: A. Residential; B. Commercial and office employment including business parks; C. Mixed use; D. Industrial; E. Overlay districts where natural resource protections or special planning and regulatory tools are warranted; and F. Public services According to Chapter 9, Economic Development of the City of Tigard comprehensive plan, approximately 85 percent of Tigard residents work PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMF.NDN11ON TO CX1'Y COUNCIL, CPA 2015-00005/ZON2015-00007 Medium Density Residoitial(1-12)Preservation PAGE 6 OF 15 outside of the City limits. Additionally, approximately 69 percent of the existing land in the City is zoned for residential use,while 31 percent is zoned for commercial, industrial, and mixed use development. The proposed zone change will ensure that this balance of residential and employment uses in the City is maintained with a loss of 1.57 acres of land zoned C-P,balanced with a gain of 1.37 acres of C-G (Site B), and 1.37 acres of land zoned R-12 is replaced with 1.57 acres of R-12 (Site A).This policy is met. Policy 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; B. Development of land uses allowed by the new designation shall not negatively affect existing or planned transportation or other public facilities and services; ODOT's trip generation analysis for Site A (ODOT Comment letter, dated 12- 2-2015) showed a reduction of trips, from 220 PM trips under the current C-P zone to 43 PM trips under the proposed R-12 zone.Therefore,a determination of no significant adverse effect on the transportation system can be made for Site A. The transportation impacts for Site B have been detailed in the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc., dated July 15th, 2015. As described in the report, the project site can be developed while maintaining acceptable levels of service and safety on the existing transportation system. No changes in street classifications are necessary. However, the report recommends limiting movements at the SW School Road intersection with SW Pacific Highway to right-in, right-out, and left-in. The northeastern driveway access to the site from SW Pacific Highway will also be restricted and will be limited to a right-in and right-out to ensure safe access from SW Pacific Highway. The TPR `Future Conditions Analysis' on page 9 of the report identifies the potential impacts that the existing zoning and proposed zone change could have on the surrounding transportation system using reasonable worst-case development conditions. A detailed review of how the proposed zone change complies with the TPR begins on page 24 of the analysis. Proposed recommended mitigation measures are found on Page 25. Future development of the site will be required to implement these mitigation measures. In both Sites A and B,additional public services such as stormwater,water and sanitary sewer will connect to existing infrastructure and it is not anticipated that the proposed designation changes to R-12 for Site A and to G-C for Site B will result in additional demands on public services. This policy is met. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CP['Y COUNCIL. CPA 2015-00005/GON2015-00007 Medium Density Residential(R-12)Preservation PAGE 7 OF 15 C. The new land use designation shall fulfill a proven community need such as provision of needed commercial goods and services, employment, housing, public and community services, etc. in the particular location, versus other appropriately designated and developable properties; Site A's conversion from C-P to R-12 would compensate for the loss of R-12 in Site B. R-12 zoned land permits attached single-family and multi-family housing types, which contribute to the city's variety of more affordable housing stock. Site A is located at 72nd Avenue and Spruce Street, a neighborhood and local street, respectively, and is between land zoned low density residential on the north and general commercial to the south. This site is more suitable to residential use over that of Site B,which fronts Pacific Hwy, an arterial. Site B's conversion to C-G from R-12 would fulfill a proven community need for employment and provision of goods in that location. The City's 2011 Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) forecast a 20-year vacant land need for commercial, mixed use and industrial lands in the City over the 2011 to 2031 time period was prepared. As noted in Table 7, Page 9 of the EOA, it was determined that the City would need a minimum of 51- acres of vacant commercial land to satisfy its commercial land needs over that 20-year growth period. A moderate estimate of commercial land need of 68- acres was identified and a high forecasted need of 85-acres was projected. As noted in the January 1, 2014 BLl prepared by the City, the City's most recent vacant lands inventory identified an existing vacant commercial inventory of 46.55-acres. The proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment will help fill this projected deficit of available commercial land by adding 1.37-acres of commercial land to the City's vacant commercial land inventory, thereby improving the City's available commercial development capacity. Furthermore, consistent with this plan policy, the proposed project will enable the transaction of the site from school to private commercial use, thereby placing the property back on the public tax rolls and enabling the generation of property taxes from the newly created development. These projected public revenues will enable the funding of needed City services and advance the community's social and fiscal stability as desired. Lastly, the proposed comprehensive plan amendment will help create employment opportunities for residents of Tigard, which currently sees approximately 85 percent of its employees work in other communities, according to Chapter 9, Economic Development of the City of Tigard comprehensive plan. This Policy is met. D. Demonstration that there is an inadequate amount of developable, appropriately designated, land for the land uses that would be allowed by the new designation; PLANNING COMMISSION RI?C;OMMI?NDATION TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2015-00005%/.ON2015-00007 Medium Density Residential(R-12)Preservation PAGE'8 OIC 15 Rezoning Site A maintains existing R-12 zone capacity. As noted above for Site B, there is a projected minimum deficit of vacant commercial land of approximately 4.45-acres. The proposed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment will reduce this projected deficit by approximately 1.37-acres. E. Demonstration that land uses allowed in the proposed designation could be developed in compliance with all applicable regulations and the purposes of any overlay district would be fulfilled; F. Land uses permitted by the proposed designation would be compatible, or capable of being made compatible, with environmental conditions and surrounding land uses; and The proposed zones in Sites A and B would allow uses compatible with adjacent uses; there is no reason to believe the property could not be developed in conformance with R-12 and C-G standards. There is no overlay district on the subject properties. This policy is met. G. Demonstration that the amendment does not detract from the viability of the City's natural systems. The subject properties have been previously developed and are predominantly flat land without any sensitive natural resources. The proposed rezone would not detract from the viability of the City's natural systems. This policy is met. 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 city is initiating this Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment to facilitate preservation of R-12 zoned land and ensure it is applied in a location that supports residential use. Staff proposes the change in response to disparate development community applications (Sites A and B), both involving R-12 zoning. The City's determination to update its Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map through this legislative process will ensure it is current and responsive to community needs and will conform to applicable state law, administrative rules,and regional requirements. This policy is met. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 2.1 Policies 1, 2,3, 6, 7, 14, 15 and 20 are met. Chapter 10: Housing Goal 10.1 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types at a range of price levels to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents. PLANNING C(>MMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2015-00005/ZON2015-00007 Medium Density Residential(R-12)Preservation PAGE 9 OF 15 Policy 1 The City shall adopt and maintain land use policies, codes, and standards that provide opportunities to develop a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents. Currently, approximately 69% of land is zoned for residential land uses. As noted in the January 1, 2014 BLI conducted by the City, there are a total of 34.26 acres of land zoned R-12 that are vacant. As identified in the City's most recent BLI map, dated January 1, 2014, the project site has not been identified as a buildable, likely due to its ownership by the school district and aggregation with adjoining school properties. Therefore, the conversion of the site's zoning district to C-G will not have a demonstrable effect on the planned residential capacity of the City. In 2013 the Council adopted a Housing Strategies report prepared by Angelo Planning Group and Johnson & Reid in support of the Periodic Review update to Goal 10, Housing. This report illustrated that at that time the city had about twice as much buildable land in areas zoned R-7 (72.1 net buildable acres) than in areas zoned R-12 (36.7 net buildable acres).The report analyzed the city's current and future housing needs, which included the following conclusions of relevance to the application: ➢ "In general, there is a need for some less expensive ownership units and rental units." ➢ "Single family attached units are projected to meet nearly 20% of future housing need." ➢ "It is projected that in coming decades a greater share of housing will be attached types,including attached single family." This type of housing is possible in the R-12 zone,which allows attached and multi-family housing on 3,050 square-foot lots. With this legislative action, the loss of R-12 zoning in Site B is replaced by the increase R-12 zoning in Site A, preserving a versatile residential zone to meet the preferences and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents. This policy is met. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 10.1 Policy 1 is met. APPLICABLE METRO REGULATIONS Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 1: Housing Capacity The Regional Framework Plan calls for a compact urban form and a "fair-share" approach to meeting regional housing needs. It is the purpose of Title 1 to accomplish these policies by requiring each city and county to maintain or increase its housing capacity. 3.07.120 Housing Capacity PLANNING COMMISSION RECONIMENDATION TO CITY COUNCII. CPA 2015-00005/%ON2015-00007 Medium Density Residential(R-12)Preservation PAGE 10 Or 15 A. A city or county may reduce the minimum zoned capacity of the Central City or a Regional Center, Town Center, Corridor, Station Community or Main Street under subsection D or E. A city or county may reduce its minimum zoned capacity in other locations under subsections C,D or E. Site B is located on Pacific Hwy, designated a "Corridor" in the Regional Framework Plan. Therefore, the proposed rezone of Site B from R-12 to C-G,reducing the minimum zoned capacity of R-12 zoned land,is subject to subsection D or E. E. A city or county may reduce the minimum zoned capacity of a single lot or parcel so long as the reduction has a negligible effect on the city's or county's overall minimum zoned residential capacity. As identified in the City's most recent BLI map, dated January 1, 2014, the project site has not been identified as buildable, likely due to its ownership by the school district and aggregation with adjoining school properties. Therefore, the conversion of the site's zoning district to C-G will not have a demonstrable effect on the planned residential capacity of the City. The City's Housing Strategies Report indicates that "in general, there is a need for some less expensive ownership units and rental units." This type of housing is possible in the R-12 zone,which allows attached and multi-family housing on 3,050 square-foot lots. With this legislative action, the loss of R-12 in Site B is replaced by the increase in R-12 in Site A, resulting in a marginal net increase of R-12 zoned land and preserving a versatile residential zone to meet the preferences and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents. This policy is met. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 1 is met. THE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES ADOPTED UNDER OREGON REVISED STATUTES CHAPTER 197 The City's Comprehensive Plan incorporated the Statewide Planning Goals and was acknowledged by the state as being in compliance with state law; therefore, the Statewide Goals are addressed under the Comprehensive Plan Policies Sections. The following Statewide Planning Goals are applicable: Goal 1: Citizen Involvement;Goal 2:Land Use Planning;Goal 10: Housing. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE COMPLIANCE OAR Section 660-12-0060 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); The proposed R-12 zone for Site A and C-G zone for Site B will not require or result in any changes to the functional classification of any transportation facility in the vicinity of the site. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. CPA 2015-00005/ZON2015-00007 Medium Density Residential(R-12)Preservation PAGE 11 OF 15 (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system;or The proposed C-G zoning will not require or result in any changes to the standards that implement the functional classification system. (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; The proposed R-12 zone for Site A will result in future traffic volumes and access in a manner consistent with the functional classification of SW 72"a Avenue, a local street, and Spruce Street, a neighborhood route. ODOT's trip generation analysis for Site A (ODOT Comment letter, dated 12-2-2015) showed a reduction of trips, from 220 PM trips under the current C-P zone to 43 PM trips under the proposed R-12 zone. Therefore, with the reduction of trips under the new zone, the type and level of travel and access would be consistent with the existing functional classification of the transportation facilities. The proposed C-G zoning for Site B will result in future traffic volumes and access in a manner consistent with the functional classification of OR 99W in the study area. Although a component of the C-G zoning site trips are expected to travel behind the subject property along SW School Road and SW Grant Avenue, due to a proposed left turn egress restriction at the OR 99W/SW School Road intersection, the amount is minor and should not be any more significant than the buses that frequented this route when the subject site property was a bus storage facility for the Tigard-Tualatin School District. (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 The proposed C-G zoning for Site B will degrade the operational performance of the SW School Road/SW Garrett Street/OR 99W intersection with a v/c ratio of greater than 3.0 for the SW School Road approach under year 2035 weekday p.m. peak hour conditions (Appendix H, Kittelson July 15, 2015 TIA). This finding results in a "significant affect" determination, but is remedied by the site access control measures recomtnended in this report. (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 OR 99W/SW Walnut Street intersection is projected to fail with a v/c ratio of 1.03 under year 2035 weekday p.m. peak hour conditions assuming development under the current R-12 zoning. However, because the v/c ratio remains the same at 1.03 under the proposed C-G zoning development scenario, the performance of this intersection is not degraded further. Therefore, a finding of"significant affect" is not triggered by this section of the TPR. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION RISCOMMI�,NDA'1'ION'I'O CITY COUNCIL. CPA 2015-00005/%ON2015-00007 Medium Doisity Residential(R-12)Preservatim PAGf's 12 Of7.15 The proposed C-G zoning for the subject site has the potential to create a significant affect at an aligned OR 99W/SW School Road/SW Garrett Street intersection. This significant affect can be remedied by the following mitigation measures, which are recommended to be applied to any future commercial development of the site through Site Development Review: • Maintain the current SW School Road alignment and access to OR 99W, but restrict turn movements to right-in/right-out/left-in only by constructing a raised concrete island and traffic separator in the center median lane of the highway. • Close the current site access to OR 99W across from SW Garrett Street,and construct a new site driveway near the northern property limits. The new driveway would be effectively restricted to right-in/right-out only movements due to the raised traffic separator that already exists in the median lane of the highway SECTION V. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard's Current Planning Division,Development Services Division (Engineering), and Public Works Department had an opportunity to review this proposal and had no objections. SECTION Vl. OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS The following agencies/jurisdictions had an opportunity to review this proposal and did not respond: Metro Land Use and Planning, Clean Water Services, Tigard Tualatin School District #23J, Washington County, Department of Land Use and Transportation, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. Oregon Department of Transportation, Region 1 reviewed this proposal and provided a comment letter dated December 2,2015 from Marah Danielson, ODOT Development Review Planner. ODOT determined that for Site A (7303 SW Spruce St), vehicle trips to OR 99W intersections will likely be reduced and that the proposed zone change from C-P to R-12 does not significantly affect a state highway facility. ODOT determined that for Site B (13135 SW Pacific Highway), vehicle trips to OR 99W intersections at Walnut and Park under the proposed zone change from R-12 to C-G would not significantly affect a state highway facility. ODOT supports proposed mitigations to address the safety concern of introducing more vehicle turning conflicts at School Street onto OR 99W and recommends the following conditions on subsequent development of the site: 1. Restrict turn movements at the SW School Rd/OR 99W intersection to right-in/right-out/left-in only by constructing a raised concrete island (traffic separator) in the center of OR 99W to prevent vehicles from turning left onto the highway. 2. Close the existing site driveway to OR 99W across from SW Garret St and construction of a new site driveway near the northern property limits (the new driveway location would be restricted to right- in/right-out only movements due to the existing raised traffic separator on the highway). Future applications for development on the property at 13135 SW Pacific Hwy will be required to implement these mitigation measures through Site Development Review. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2015-00005/ZON2015-00007 Medium Density Residential(R-12)Preservation PAGE 13 OF 15 SECTION VII. INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENTS The Planning Commission received and considered both written and oral comments from residents and stakeholders as part of their deliberations on December 14, 2015. Written comments were submitted by the following interested parties: • Jim Long, 10730 SW 72nd Avenue,Tigard, OR 97223, comments submitted at hearing Oral comments were submitted by the following individuals: • Kelly Houssaini,Miller Nash,LLP (Site B representative) • Mathew Zinzer,DOWEL (Site A representative) • Noreen Gibbons 10730 SW 72nd Ave,Portland, OR 97223 • Nancy Tracy, 7310 SW Pine Street,Tigard OR 97223 • Ann and Nathan Murdock, 7415 SW Spruce Street,Tigard OR 97223 Listed below are the main highlights from the oral and written comments received. The full text of all comments can be found in the project file and Planning Commission minutes of December 14, 2015. Testimony in favor, received from representatives of the school property, is appreciative of the city being pro-active in amending its comp plan and zoning map to better reflect locational characteristics of Site B. Testimony in opposition, received from neighbors, identify the following concerns with respect to future development under the proposed R-12 zone for Site A: Increased traffic and on-street parking, Loss of open space and potentially,blocked views Lot size not in keeping with neighborhood character Preference for retaining the existing C-P zone Objection with the legislative process and notice procedures The Planning Commission was presented copies of all written comments and heard all oral testimony before a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendments. Overall, the Planning Commission found the project to meet all relevant approval criteria pertaining to the issues raised by the public. SECTION VIII. CONCLUSION As demonstrated by the findings above, the proposed changes comply with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals, applicable regional, state and federal regulations, the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt by ordinance the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change,as determined through the public hearing process. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2015-00005/ZON2015-00007 Medium Density Residcutial(R-12)Preservation PAG E,14 OF 15 • a QG/ December 7,2015 PREPARED BY: G ry Pagenstecher DATE Associate Planner Wf December 7,2015 APPROVED BY: Kenny Asher DATE Community Development Director PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2015-00005/ZON2015-00007 Medium Density Residential(R-12)Preservation PAGE 15 OF 15 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Meeting Minutes December 14,2015 CALL TO ORDER President Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center,Town Hall,at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ROLL CALL Present: President Rogers Vice President Fitzgerald Alt. Commissioner Enloe Commissioner Feeney Commissioner Lieuallen Commissioner Middaugh Alt. Commissioner Mooney Commissioner Muldoon Cominissioner Schmidt Absent: None Staff Present: John Floyd, Associate Planner; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner;John Floyd, Associate Planner COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSIDER MINUTES December 7 Meeting Minutes: President Rogers asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the December 7 minutes; there being none, Rogers declared the minutes approved as submitted. Before opening the public hearing,President Rogers addressed the commission about the order of the agenda. The commission agreed to change the order of the agenda to complete old business first; so it was decided to begin with the continued public hearing rather than the originally scheduled item. The Comprehensive Plan item "MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-12) PRESERVATION Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2015-00005"would be heard afterward. REOPEN CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING President Rogers reopened the continued public hearing. HERITAGE CROSSING ZONE CHANGE AND SUBDIVISION (ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL- CONTINUED: ZON2015-00006/SUB2015-00015/AD12015-00003 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a concurrent Zoning Map Amendment, Subdivision, and Special Adjustment to street standards to develop approximately 9.10 acres located at 15435 SW Hall Boulevard. The quasi-judicial zoning map amendment would change 6.05 acres of the project site from R-12 to R-7, with no change in zoning to the remaining 3.05 acres.Associated with the application is a concurrent December 14, 2015 Page 1 of 14 request for subdivision of the site into 62 single-family lots,and a special adjustment to street standards to allow new local streets to match existing streets that adjoin the property. The applicant submitted a similar proposal earlier this year, which was indefinitely suspended by the City Council on October 20, 2015 (see file ZON2015-00002, SUB2015-00001, VAR2015-00001). APPLICANT: Venture Properties LOCATION: 15435 SW Hall Blvd ZONES: R-12 to R-7 APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370.020.C.9, 18.380.030.C,and 18.430.040.A; and Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 1 STAFF REPORT Associate Planner John Floyd read into the record the six items/letters that came in since the last hearing and gave his response to each one: • An email from Vice President Fitzgerald dated 12/8/15 in which she requested updated letters from Metro (regarding Title 1) and the Tigard Housing Planner (both letters were provided for their information.) • Two letters—one from TVF&R and one from ODOT—stating that neither agency had objections to the project. ODOT had a list of recommended conditions of approval should the Planning Commission decide to approve the project. • Joint letter from the Fair Housing Council of Oregon and the Land Housing Advocates— This is significant because: o It supports staff recommendation of denial citing: ■ Policy 2.1.15.0-D ■ Policy 10.1.1 o Project would "negatively impact housing choice, diversity, and affordability within Tigard." o It would endanger Washington County's ability to affirmatively further fair housing under the federal Fair Housing Act. ■ Tigard is held to this same requirement as the City receives federal money. o Cited the Washington County Consolidate Plan 2015-2020 regarding housing conditions. ■ Dramatic changes in poverty and vacancy rates in the last ten years due to suburbanization of poverty. ■ Incredibly tight rental market ■ Increased demand for affordable housing—both renters and homebuyers. • Letter from Brian Harper of Metro o States they have withdrawn their previous objection based on Title 1 o Also said that their change of position should not should not be used to settle the issue, as there remain other code and policy issues for the PC to consider. • Updated letter from Tigard Housing Planner—Marissa Grass o Main Points: ■ Cited two studies that concluded affordable ownership and rental housing is of particular importance at this time. ■ Tigard has over 2.6 times the amount of buildable land zoned R-7 as compared to R-12 ■ Proximity to services is relevant factors in multiple comp plan policies. ■ Issues of compatibility are false—multiple parts of the city where R-7 adjoins R-12 December 14, 2015 Page 2 of 14 ■ Recommends project should be denied to preserve existing opportunities for needed housing with R-12 zoning. At this point,John addressed the 76 page document package the applicant had turned in the previous week, noting that the staff report addresses most of the issues that had been raised in those documents. He said there were two parts of the recommended "Draft Findings of Fact" proposed by the applicant and presented to the City Council—specifically on page 3 of the "Draft Findings of Fact" regarding 18.390.030-B.3 —Evidence of Change in the Neighborhood that he believes are relevant: "The area has become increasingly less dense since 1983." • Staff does not concur with this proposed finding (detailed on page 18 of the Staff Report) o Land immediately to the west was up-zoned from R-4.5 to R-7. o Cumulative density along northern and western boundaries actually increased in 1996 as part of Applewood Subdivision Approval "The area that has developed around the Site has developed under low-density residential standards." • Both Comp Plan and TDC would define adjoining properties as "Medium-Density Residential" • Existing zoning is similar in intensity than adjacent properties STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission DENY the proposed zone change based on findings and evidence contained in Section V of the Staff Report. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Attorney Mike Robinson spoke on behalf of the applicant and said rather than go over the applicant presentation again that they would like to hear what the public has to say and then they would rebut both the documents that had come into the record and whatever might be said during the testimony time. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR-None TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION -None APPLICANTS REBUTTAL Attorney Mike Robinson came up again and reminded the commissioners that when you look at it, what you're really looking at is a difference of twelve units; that's the difference between what was submitted before -which requested the entire site be zoned R-7 -versus the compromise application which is asking to be partly zoned R-7 with R-12 remaining adjacent to Hall Blvd. Regarding the Metro letter—the reason the Metro letter is in the record is that Commissioner Fitzgerald asked staff to obtain a letter from Metro. In the prior application Metro had said "We don't think the application meets Title 1." In shorthand, the Title 1 standard is—you can change a December 14, 2015 Page 3 of 14 zoning map designation so long as it has what Tide 1 refers to as a "negligible effect." There's no definition of that except what you would think of as the ordinary dictionary definition—"small." So having the letter we have from Metro in the record now is helpful for this body -it now says in the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph is "We've reviewed the new proposal from the applicant and have decided to withdraw our previous objection." That's an appropriate position on Metro's part. We're talking about just 12 units—a negligible effect. So Metro's concluded that this application satisfies Title 1. That's a significant change from their position last time, and I think that's due to the applicant's willingness to compromise—leaving the R-12 up on Hall Blvd and putting R-7 where it belongs—adjacent to all of those single family homes with the wide lots. Please remember we're talking about a loss of 12 dwelling units out of a total of 6,308. I think Metro is correct that it's a negligible effect. I think this commission can make that same finding and we'd like you to make that finding. Regarding the Fair Housing Council letter. Let me divide that letter into two parts. There's a reference to Tigard Comp Plan Policies and I can tell you that as late as today, Ms. Bragar,who's an attorney at Garvey Schubert, and who is one of the two authors of the letter. had not read the application. I emailed her Metro's letter and she said to us "Would you send us the application?" So they wrote the letter without having read the application. Clearly they read the staff report, but I think before you write a letter,you really should read the application. The letter is really divided in two parts—the plan policies that one could find by looking in the staff report—and this Washington County Consolidated Plan. That plan is not an approval criteria. It's important for us to understand housing needs in this county, but it's not a land use regulation, it's not a Comprehensive Plan provision—it's not relevant—it's not approval criteria that you would find relevant to this kind of application. Moreover, the plan covers the entire county. Think about the big UGB expansion areas—River Terrace in this city—South Cooper Mountain in Beaverton,North Bethany in Washington County... there are literally thousands of multi-family and attached units. So to the extent that someone wants to argue, as the Fair Housing Council has done, that losing a mere 12 units by rezoning R-12 to R-7 on a portion of this site, somehow violates that plan... I think is just wrong because there are many 100's if not 1000's of units in these three large UGB areas that provide for multi-family and attached single-family dwelling opportunities. So even if the plan were an approval criterion,we've had these large expansion areas that Metro brought into the boundary in 2002 that are now being developed. Look at River Terrace. Those areas have more than added to the small lot, attached single-family and multi-family development far, far excess of the 12 units we're talking about. Mr. Robinson addressed the three plan policies that the Fair Housing letter referred to that were in the staff report: Comp Plan Policy 2.1.15.0 is met by the applicant because there is a need for housing in the R-7 zone. In the words of the plan policy "In this particular location." That's the operative factor in that plan policy. That policy is not concerned with city-wide conditions —it's concerned with "in this particular location." Comp Plan Policy 2.1.15.D is met by the applicant because there's an inadequate amount of R-7 land. Ms. Doukas' slide presentation and the narrative demonstrates the fact that there's more need for R-7 land here than R-12. December 14, 2015 Page 4 of 14 Comp Plan Policy 10.1.1 is frankly not an applicable standard in any kind of a development application. It is direction to the city to adopt certain kinds of codes - it's the plan's guidance for the city saying "Implement this plan a certain way." Not only does it not apply to development applications, even if it did—it doesn't refer to map amendments—and that's what's before you tonight; the map amendment. So while we respect the good work the Fair Housing Council does, this letter doesn't offer you any reason to deny this application. The Washington County Consolidated Plan is neither an approval criterion, nor is it particularly relevant to the outcome, because it ignores the fact that we have literally hundreds of acres of new land that have come into the boundary and that are being developed with different kinds of non-large lot single family homes. The only zones that touch and abut this site are R-5 and R-7 —not R-12. Our point is that if you look at the map, this site is abutted by R-5,which is low density. Most of the neighbors who live in R-7 would believe they're low density as well—not medium density. The only reason this piece is still R-12 is the ownership. It's only with the passing of the owner that this property came on the market. Had this property been actively developed, I think you could safely conclude that it wouldn't be R-12 today. It's the only R-12 on that side of the street—it's surrounded by either R-7 or R-5 zones. When you voted last time, a number of you made comments about wishing the applicant had done something different and tried something else. That's why we came back—we thought this was a worthy effort to make—we don't think it's appropriate, nor is it required by the code, to put R-12 next to existing R-7 and R-.5 single family zoning district developments—we think if the compromise should be made—leave the R-12 adjacent to Hall Blvd. That supports,in staff's view, the transit line on Hall—but change the rest to R-7 which results in a compatible, similar development. Your code is flexible enough to allow that. The evidence in the record supports the necessary findings that this body would need to make to approve this. We think this is an application that's well supported by the evidence, and that you can approve. QUESTIONS There are many places in the staff report where staff points out a policy and then feels that policy isn't met and then additionally that it couldn't be conditioned to be met. What is your reaction to that? I could go through each policy but I can divide my responses in general into two groups. One: A number of the plan policies cited in the staff report are not applicable for one of two reasons— either they're aspirational—they use language like "should" rather than mandatory language like "shall" or, more importantly, as I cited earlier to one of the plan policies in chapter 10, they're really direction to the city about how to implement the plan. They don't have a good role in applying to development applications. In some cases,in my opinion, they simply don't apply in the way staff suggested they do. You can find, as our findings document did, that many of those plan policies simply aren't applicable, shouldn't be applicable because they're not mandatory, or simply don't apply to development applications. The second general reason is in the case of those plan policies that do apply—you have to judge about which set of evidence that you think better implements the plan policy. We think Ms. Doukas did a very good job showing the history and why those important criteria providing for a December 14, 2015 Page 5 of 14 zone change are met. Those plan policies are satisfied by substantial evidence submitted by the applicant and that gives the Planning Commission a basis to approve the application. You mentioned that the twelve lots are negligible—was there any thought of changing it around to actually meet the minimum lot requirement? Mimi Doukas AKS Engineering, representing Venture, came up to address that question. The response to that has to do with how we transition those densities and how we create the community internal to the property, and what is the right way to transition that density? If we put that much of the smaller product in,it begins to change the entire character of the neighborhood— it changes the streetscape. So it really has to do with the community building within the neighborhood and the right way to transition from a market standpoint. Mike Robinson came up and noted that if the Justice Department or a court were to look at whether the city or the county is complying with the Fair Housing Law, both state and federal, they're going to look at the totality of the situation. They'd look at whether the city has a pattern of discriminating against low-income individuals through their zoning actions. "First of all," he said, "federal law is not an approval criterion for this application,but more importantly, the totality of the circumstances in the city and county is that with all of those UGB areas, there's no possibility, in my view, that the Fair Housing Law is not satisfied in this application because it has such a de minimis effect on your zoning capacity. It wouldn't rise to the level that any responsible attorney would suggest to their governing body that a case should be brought against the city." FINAL COMMENTS OF STAFF Associate Planner John Floyd: Page 3 of the staff report comes down to a lot of the staff's recommendations on this. There are two tables on page three. The first is a density comparison and the second is a comparison of allowed housing types. The applicant's argument is that this is just a loss of 12 units. It's not just a matter of numbers, I could site some specific policies if you'd like but it's also a matter of location. There's a cumulative amount of services in this area that we think's also appropriate that relates to the number. That's the adjacency and proximity of schools with sidewalk connections to all the schools;it's the proximity of a small neighborhood commercial center nearby, the city library. Cumulatively these things are important. All these factors were a reason why this area was assigned to R-12 zoning back in 1983 and these locational factors haven't changed. Staff s position is that the reason the City Council applied the zoning back then is still relevant today. The applicant has also talked about a need for R-7 zoned land,without analysis of impact to housing types allowed under R-12. The analysis has been pretty one-sided in terms of the numbers. I think the application is incomplete in that regard too. APPLICANT REBUTTAL Mike Robinson came up and said "I could certainly go through this again, but I think we've said enough and I think you all are probably thinking you've heard enough, so I thank you for your time." PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED December 14, 2015 Page 6 of 14 DELIBERATION ON ZONING CHANGE There was some discussion about how difficult this decision is due to a very strong staff report but also a very strong application. They decided to focus on the zone change only at this point. The question was whether they would support the R-12 or whether they would support the application as proposed. Some of the responses from the commissioners: • The relatively"soft" responses from the agencies such as Metro don't make it easy to make the decision. It's back to the commission to decide. • I'm torn as well,it seems like the appropriate thing to do is to maintain the current zoning based on where it is and the supply in the city for that zone. I'm leaning towards maintaining the R-12 zone. • I'd probably agree with that. As far as River Terrace and other locations in the city being brought into the conversation... this area is for housing for people who can't afford more expensive homes or economic values. River Terrace in my opinion as a development... there are a few little locations that are affordable but beyond that I don't think we have enough affordable housing in Tigard and I think to change that zoning in this specific area - while some may view that the city facilities are not in proximity, but for our city they're in good proximity to that neighborhood. I think we should remain the same zoning to help out more people. • I'm leaning the other way. I like the idea of having the boundaries at the street and I like what's being proposed. It's got the lower and the higher density. I think that 12 lots is de minimis. • I was one of the one's that said I'd like to see something in the middle and now the applicant came back with something. The question does open up as other commissioners have mentioned is—it isn't going to count—it's minimal to me. But losing enough housing count—I'm really looking at that criteria as well—everyone's referencing River Terrace. It's also stating in there about "in a particular location"—are we talking citywide? Or are we talking in this neighborhood?That's where I'm having a little harder time right now. Yes, the whole area was (inaudible) and rezoned, or redeveloped—now it's a little piece. I'm definitely on the fence. • A couple things stood out in my mind for that area. Is the bussing and walkability and diversity of housing,in that area—which is relatively exclusive. In support of this change— I don't like thinking that the neighbors come and think they're not heard. I do think it's important and in our Comprehensive Plan—I believe it's 1.1 that says there's supposed to be public input. I think we're supposed to take that into account and should weigh very strongly. I like this plan that came back with a compromise. Would I want my property to back up against two row-houses? Not so much. I'd want it to be a single house like mine. Also—Metro's comment pushed me a long way to believing this is a negligible change to the inventory at this point and that they're not opposed. That helped me get a long way towards what the neighbors and the developers are wanting. At this point there were some questions about the two islands. One of the commissioners noted that in Mimi Doukas' presentation, she had one of the alternates having R-12 for both islands. It was decided to reopen the hearing and ask Mimi Doukas some questions. December 14, 2015 Page 7 of 14 REOPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING President Rogers spoke to Mimi Doukas—"So the Commission itself is looking at R-12 for both islands. Has that been a consideration or something that has been looked at before? Does this pencil out?" Doukas—It's more than just penciling out. It's how the community functions and how you can bring those houses to market but from a purely logistical and density standpoint, you can't just mirror that island over. You won't hit the right densities with the R-12. There's land within that right of way and the storm water facility. You can't hit the right numbers with that exact type of product. It would push it to smaller lots or attached products. It all sort of unravels at that point. One of the commissioners showed Ms. Doukas a drawing that showed both islands with R-12. Ms. Doukas pointed out that there was also a big red box in the corner of the plan stating, "This does not meet minimum density." STAFF COMMENT John Floyd said he believes there are ways the applicant could possibly modify the site plan to meet minimum density should the Planning Commission want to go with the additional island option as was being discussed. He said staff could work with the applicant to find ways to meet minimum density if that's the route they would like to take. Commissioner Muldoon asked if they could condition the application. Ms. Doukas stated "If I'm hearing you right,you're concerned about diversity of housing and adding another island is not going to add to the diversity of housing, it's going to add a few more of a product type that we've already got within the community. We are providing smaller lots and we're providing larger lots and all you're talking about doing is changing the proportion of those. It's still diversity of housing and you're still providing opportunity within the region so I feel like the way that it's currently designed,we really are already there. It's talking about degrees. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING DELIBERATION There was more discussion as to who was for and who was against the application. It didn't appear there was a majority. Some were for, some against. At this point, Mike Robinson asked if he could come back on behalf of the applicant. President Rogers said he could and he reopened the public hearing. REOPENED PUBLIC HEARING Attorney Robinson said, "If we could be sure that staff says there are ways to meet the minimum density,we'd be happy to work with staff and I think we'd consider what you've been tossing around which is R-7 on the perimeter, R-12 on the islands with the condition of that. So I'm thinking if you wanted to do a motion that proposed that—provided we can do the minimum density without too difficult gymnastics to get there, that might work. I simply don't know your code well enough— I'd have to look at it to determine what you'd need to do, but I think we're December 14, 2015 Page 8 of 14 willing to consider. But we're talking about detached single-family lots. We don't want to do attached here. We don't think the neighbors want to see attached here. So if the motion could provide for R-7 on the perimeter,R-12 in the interior islands that you've been referring to,with the proviso that there's got to be a way to meet minimum density—because you'll get a different letter from Metro if we don't meet minimum density - I think we could be comfortable with that. But it's got to be detached lots;we're not offering attached. John Floyd said staff would be willing to work with the applicant if the Planning Commission wants to give direction. He said he would recommend against specifying a specific number of lots —providing the applicant meets the minimum density. President Rogers closed the public hearing. CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION ON ZONING CHANGE Commissioner Muldoon made the following motion— "Motion is for ZON2015-00006 as proposed but with R-12 for the second island meeting minimum density -working with staff-with detached lots. Seconded by Commission Middaugh A vote was taken. In Favor: Commissioners Muldoon,Middaugh, and Feeney Opposed: Commissioners Lieuallen,Fitzgerald, and Schmidt Abstain—President Rogers Count is 3 for, 3 against, 1 abstention VOTE RESULTS IN A 3 -3 TIE When questioned, the commissioners said they needed to see more before deciding. At this point,it was decided to continue the hearing to get a revised plan which hopefully the commission would be in favor of. After looking at the calendar it was decided to continue to January 25. President Rogers gave a summary to the applicant of what's wanted: "The commission desires to see that R-12 zoning applied to that second island—and again, minimum density requirements applied to the entire development itself" Is that correct, Commissioners? All the commissioners agreed. HEARING IS CONTINUED TO JANUARY 25, 2016 FIVE MINUTE RECESS PUBLIC HEARING MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-12) PRESERVATION Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2015-00005;Zone Change (ZON) 2015-00007 December 14, 2015 Page 9 of 14 REQUEST: The city is initiating this Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment to facilitate preservation of R-12 zoned land and ensure it is applied in a location that supports residential use. The City proposes changing the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning District Classifications of the subject parcels in SITE A (3 parcels totaling 1.54 acres) from Professional Commercial (C-P) to Medium Density Residential (R-12);and changing the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Map Classifications of the subject parcel in SITE B (1 parcel of 1.37 acres) from Medium Density Residential (R-12) to General Commercial (C-G). APPLICANT: City of Tigard LOCATION: SITE A: 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72nd Ave., 10735 SW 72nd Ave;TAX MAP/ LOT#'s: 1S136ACO2200, 1S136ACO2400, 1S136ACO2500; and SITE B: 13125 SW Pacific Hwy TAX MAP/ LOT # 2S102CB00200 ZONES: FROM: Medium Density Residential (R-12) and Professional Commercial (C-P) TO: General Commercial (C-G) and Medium Density Residential (R-12) APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380.020 and 18.390.060.G; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1,2, 10;Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10; and Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 1. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner, Gary Pagenstecher went over the staff report (the staff report is available for viewing and downloading on-line one week before each hearing.) Pursuant to the City's housing goal to provide opportunities for a variety of housing types to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents, the affordable housing types allowed in the R-12 zone warrant the need to preserve R-12 zoned lands. The timing of the applications identified above is such that the city staff would have likely recommended denial of the proposed R-12 to C-G zone change to avoid loss of R-12 zoned land. However, the city's proposal combines the two zone change proposals so that a finding of no net loss of R-12 can be made through the legislative process. The locational characteristics of the subject parcels otherwise support the comp plan amendments and zone changes. The property zoned C-P (Site A) fronts on a local and a neighborhood street and is adjacent to property zoned R-4.5 and low-density unincorporated Washington County. The adjacent lower class streets and low density residential use zone makes the property more suitable for medium residential use that forms a transition from the C-G zone to the south and the R-12 zone to the north. Residential-zoned land adjacent to Pacific Hwy is rare in Tigard and is primarily associated with private and public school ownership and use,which is allowed conditionally in residential zones. The Tigard-Tualatin School District has identified the subject property (Site B) as surplus and intends to sell it for the highest best use. The proposed C-G zone is the dominant zone along Pacific Hwy (classified as Primary Arterial) and the existing zone of the adjacent parcels. This action would result in a net increase of 0.17 acres zoned R-12. Tom McGuire,Assistant Community Development Director, came up and explained in a bit more detail as to why the city is recommending this swap of zoning. "We've had a pre-app and applicant interested in this school district property,wanting to change that zone to C-G and, according to their market research, that was the best use that they were proposing for that property. We've also had two pre-application conferences for the other property—the commercially zoned property- to change that to R-12;but no application has come in. Given the December 14, 2015 Page 10 of 14 other applications that we've had with R-12 zone changes,we wanted to make sure that we are consistent in the findings that we're making on these quasi-judicial cases. Looking at the two sites - we saw that they are just about the same size. The neighborhood commercial is slightly larger and so,given we had interest from both property owners - we had development interests—we looked at that and we thought that it made the most sense to actually step in as a city and legislatively swap those zones. We've got the R-12 residential in a better place for residential zoning off of Hwy 99W and we've got commercial development on Hwy 99W,which makes more sense. Again, as Gary explained, there are two places on 99W zoned residential—the rest of it is all commercial. And those are in areas where there are schools, or were school property - and it was placed there through the conditional use process. So that's just a little more background as to why this decision was made, and why this is before you. STAFF RECOMMENDATION In Section VIII CONCLUSION, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the Tigard City Council as determined through the public hearing process. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR Kelley Hossaini with Miller Nash 111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3400, Portland 97204—representing the Tigard Tualatin School District— said they are very pleased with staff being pro-active and taking this opportunity to put both of these pieces of property into zones that make more sense given where they are. The property on Hwy 99 has been owned by the School District since the 1940's —maybe even earlier. It was zoned residential to accommodate the district's use of the property. The property was declared as surplus in 2005 and put it on the market in 2006. There was some interest in the property from Commercial uses—no interest whatsoever from anyone wanting to do residential. The property was taken off the market due to the economic downturn. It was put back on the market a couple of years ago and a year ago to Leadership Circle interested in the property and actually wants to put a "Natural Grocer" there which I think would be great to have there and near the elementary school. If the zone change fails there will just be an incorrectly zoned piece of property that will sit there—not on the tax rolls, not providing jobs, taxes for the city—it would just sit there because we've never had any interest whatsoever in a residential use right there on 99. She thinks the zone change makes sense. As a reminder, this is a zone change only—there are no development applications before you. Any concern about the actual workings of what might go on the site—those would best be tackled when applications actually come in. Matthew Zinzer—720 SW Washington St., Suite 750, Portland 97205 works for Dowell, the planning and civil engineers for Leadership Circle, said they have been looking at this "Natural Grocer" and working well with the City of Tigard and ODOT to make sure the site is feasible and we are working diligently for that and we see no issues with the design continuing forward. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION Noreen Gibbons—10730 SW 72nd Ave., Portland 97223 —said her property is just across the street from Site A. She bought her property because it was commercially zoned across the street and she didn't believe there would ever be a bunch of houses located there. That was her impetus to buy the property in the first place. She received a letter (notice) in the mail and also saw the sign that was put up on the corner advertising this meeting. She wanted to make a point to say that she December 14, 2015 Page 11 of 14 believes that is very inadequate notification. A day or two after the sign was put up it was curled and now, because of the rain and wind,it's down on the ground. She believes community input is important and she is interested in quality of life. She is concerned about additional traffic and believes this would cause more cars, more congestion. The character of the neighborhood does not match R-12;it will change the character of the neighborhood—and not for the better. Two and three story houses there will cause her to lose her view of Parrot Mountain and it will impact her quality of life. Nancy Tracy—7310 SW Pine St.,Tigard 97223 —has lived there for 53 years. Her focus is the value of open space. She believes kids need physical exercise and could be playing out in that area. She believes the city is calling this a done deal. Tigard should make this land available for kids and parents and for walking. She thinks this is being rushed. There should be a moratorium. She would like the city to stop looking at open space as waste land. Nathan Murdock—7415 SW Spruce St. Tigard 97223 —had also submitted a letter which was an exhibit in the staff report. He said most of what he and his wife have to say are on the back of that letter. He is concerned about traffic with safety as the main concern. Parking is a problem now —it would only get worse. He is not opposed to residential but make it residential for what's there and '/4 acre lots should be a very minimum. Ann Murdock—7415 SW Pine St.,Tigard 97223—People are parking in front of her home now because of the property at the end of 7401 where there are a lot of little homes— four feet apart— with families that have at least 2 cars apiece. It's a mess already; more houses would only add to that mess. She said she may not even be able to get into her driveway. She likes the idea of a park being there instead. Jim Long—10730 SW 72nd Ave.,Tigard—spoke on behalf of at least four people so was allowed 15 minutes for testimony- he distributed written testimony. He said that he'd hit heavy traffic getting back and was sorry to have to submit a draft (Exhibit A). He noted that he is the elected chair of CPO-4M, the Citizens Participation Organization serving East Tigard —Metzger and Durham. He said the CPO had voted unanimously to endorse retaining the Commercial- Professional zoning for Site A (the property at the corner of 72nd Ave & SW Spruce Streets. He didn't like the file title— stating that it is a misnomer and really is misleading to citizens. It's not "Residential Preservation"—it's not commercial professional preservation—it's a swap. He hopes it's not a done deal. He stated that the staff report incorrectly states that the current zone does not allow residential use. He tried calling the number listed on the notice to get more information—it was supposed to be Gary Pagenstecher's number but it was somebody else and he said he never got a response back (Monday, December 7). He noted that Code 18.390.053 C2A—Goal 1 of the Comprehensive Plan states that citizens should be involved in every part of the process. He stated that he came in to the city on November 20 to ask to look at the documents and Gary said there weren't any. He doesn't believe that's transparency. Public notices didn't hold up to the weather. He had photos (shown on the written testimony) showing they had blown down on the ground— ineffective—unreadable. He believes this is a violation of due process 197.763. He said this hearing doesn't have the effect it should have. He doesn't like the zone swap being heard as a legislative process instead of a quasi-judicial process. He strongly believes this should be a quasi-judicial proceeding—it allows more citizen involvement and appeal that way. This seems to be highly irregular—it's like the fox watching the henhouse. He noted that he saw a "for sale" sign up on the property and wonders if this a done deal. He spoke about the land not being level—contrary to the staff report. He would like the city to leave this area as commercial. December 14, 2015 Page 12 of 14 Mr. Long stated that the staff report incorrectly states the site description of Site A stating that the current zone does not allow residential use. He said that is wrong because there are two houses on Site A now that have been lived in as residences for decades and that across 72nd there are residences that are zoned Commercial. He noted several things that the CPO would like to see: All documents that prompted the city to (inaudible) applicant for Comprehensive Plan Amendment in 2015-00005 zone change;the date the application was deemed complete;the affidavit of record; the staff report related to ordinance documents for 2006 annexation of what is now Site A; the housing strategies report by Angelo Planning Group that's referred to;2010 Cogan Owens Cogan Economic Opportunities Analysis of 2011;the commercial inventory of the city; the residential inventory of the city;population projections;jobs projections;language in the 2006 annexation ordinance that justified the importance of Site A to be commercial-professional. Because of so many outstanding questions, they ask for a continuance for an opportunity to provide more evidence or for the Planning Commission to deny this. They would like the Planning Commission to deny the city Planning's Department request and maintain the existing zoning for Site A. QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS So are you asking to leave Site A the way it is? Commercial? Yes, leave it commercial. It's been for sale for years—maybe they're asking too much. I don't know, but it doesn't seem like there's justification to change it to 3-story high attached houses or whatever it would be—but R-12 would allow something like that, from what I understand. REBUTTAL Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner,said his comments (Exhibit A) were distributed to the Planning Commissioners and he doesn't have a copy. He said he doesn't have a rebuttal except that he'd heard issues with process and substance and that there are definite ideas the neighborhood has for this property. "The city has a different idea which we've adequately set forth in the staff report and it's consistent with the current property owner's interest. If the Planning Commission decides to continue, I'm sure I'll have a very specific rebuttal at that point." PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED No further testimony or questions from the audience are allowed. DELIBERATION There was some deliberation over who is for this swap of zones and who is not. The School District is wanting the swap as testified about earlier. Gary pointed out that the city had made a point of including the owners of Site A in the proposal and that they'd agreed with it. The owner is interested in having a residential zone there—they're interested in that because they realize the market is there for residential use but they hadn't found (that market) since it'd been annexed for commercial use. So the city and the current property owners have a consistent goal here—rezoning to a residential use. December 14, 2015 Page 13 of 14 MOTION Commissioner Fitzgerald made the following motion: "I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council of application CPA2015-00005 and Zone Change ZON2015-00007 and adoption of the findings that have been received." Commissioner Feeney seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6—1;with Commissioner Lieuallen opposing. MOTION PASSES - 6-1 President Rogers noted that the City Council makes the final decision and that this will go to City Council on January 12th. OTHER BUSINESS Tom McGuire reminded the commission that the next Planning Commission meeting will be held on January 11th and that it will be a training session. ADJOURNMENT President Rogers adjourned the meeting at 9:34 p.m. Doreen Laughlin,Planning Commission Secretary ATTEST: President Rogers December 14, 2015 Page 14 of 14 - " City of Tigard . , Memorandum To: Mayor John L. Cook, City Councilors From: Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner Re: Response to Public Testimony and Council Questions from the January 12, 2016 Council Hearing regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2015- 00005/Zone Change (ZOM 2015-00007 Date: January 26,2016 Background The city has initiated this legislative Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment to facilitate preservation of R-12 zoned land and ensure it is applied in a location that supports residential use in support of the City's Housing Goal. The Planning Commission voted 6-1 in favor of the proposal. In response to public testimony at its January 12`'hearing,Council continued the hearing and directed staff to respond to public testimony to clarify issues related to land use process and to neighborhood livability at Site A. Public Testimony The property owners and development representatives for Sites A and B testified in favor of the proposed zone changes at Sites A and B. Staff Response: While the City's proposal furthers owners' interests, the city's legislative proposal also implements Comprehensive Plan Goal 10.1 to"provide opportunities for a variety of housing types at a range of price levels to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents." The public interest component of the proposal and the unique opportunity to swap zones in two different locations is the reason the city is processing this as a legislative matter. The City's activism in this matter opportunistically takes advantage of the timing of development applications to pursue its housing policy through preservation of R 12 zoned land and ensuring it is applied in a location that supports residential use. Neighborhood residents in the vicinity of Site A testified in opposition to the proposed zone change at Site A. Seven neighbors testified that the zone should either remain Professional Commercial, or be changed to Low-Density Residential or to a zone that would preserve open space (Parks and Recreation). General concerns were raised about potential development impacts associated with future development of Site A under the R-12 zone, including loss of character and livability, increased traffic, height, density, and parking, and loss of open space. Neighbor testimony was not opposed to the proposed zone change at Site B. Staff Response: Future development of Site A would be subject to the use and development standards in the Tigard Development Code. It is important to note that both use and development intensity are greater under the existing GP zone versus the proposed R 12 zone. A brief comparison between the G P and R-12 zones indicates that a variety of institutional and commercial uses which are permitted outright in the existing GP zone,are permitted conditionally in the R 12 zone.Some uses such as office and personal service are permitted outright in the GP zone but are prohibited in the R-12 zone. In addition, several neighbors mentioned objections to the potential height of residential development in the R12. The development standards in the existing GG zone actually allow more intense development including greater maximum height (GP: 45'vs R 12: 35') and greater site coverage (GP: 85% vs R 12: 80%). Jim Long, Chair of CPa4M (serving East Tigard, Metzger and Durham) submitted written testimony on a number of specific issues,which are addressed here: Testimony asserts that the Type III quasi-judicial process is applicable, not Type IV, and is a detriment to citizen involvement,in this case. Staff Response: In general,legislative actions involve the adoption of law or policy applicable Citywide or to a broad geographical area of the City. Quasi-judicial actions involve the application of existing law or policy to a small area or a specific factual situation. There are different legal requirements for the processing of these two types of actions. In general, quasi-judicial actions require greater notice and procedural protections than do legislative actions. In the Tigard Development Code, Legislative is defined as a land use decision that applies to a large number of individuals or properties (18.120.030.105);Quasi-Judicial is defined as an action that involves the application of adopted policy to a specific development application or amendments (18.120.030.143). The city decided to use the Type IV process in support of the city's housing policy because the proposed commercial-to-residential zone swap involved two separate sites and potential modification of important policy issues that would not be possible under a quasi-judicial action. Type III notice requirements that are not required under the Type IV process include notice to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and posting of a notice on the subject property. The city, however, went beyond the minimum required under the Type IV procedure and instead followed the Type III notice procedures in this case to ensure broader citizen input on an import issue for which the city is an advocate. Testimony asserts a violation of due process, which denies interested parties full and fair opportunity for citizen involvement. Specifically, 1) the posted notices have the wrong date and time for the City Council hearing, had blown down and were not re-erected, 2) the mailed notice included an ineffective phone number, 3) notices were not received by five neighbors within 200 feet, and 4) documents cited in the notice were not available for timely review. Staff Response: 1) All notices included a City Council hearing date of "Tuesday, January 12, 2015," which should have read "201hE;" While this error is regrettable, it is an obvious error given the time of year. Regardless,if a person were to be confused by the error they had multiple other sources to consult to confirm the date including by contacting staff directly. 2) Four different types of notices were sent out. The published and posted notices included the correct planner's phone number, but the mailed notice included a typo with one digit incorrect in the planner's phone number. Again, while the error is regrettable, the planners name was clearly spelled out so that they could have been contacted by calling the city and asking for him by name; 3) Notice is sent to property owners, which may partially explain this outcome if the referenced neighbors are not owners. Again, the Type IV procedure does require a notice to specific neighbors. The ® department provided the mailed notice to all property owners within 500 feet as a courtesy to allow them to be part of the process. All neighbors who signed up to testify are owners and are included in the mailed notification list;4) Notices refer to documents available on file for review by the public. At the time of the request, the staff report and supporting documents had not yet been generated,but were available seven days prior to the Planning Commission hearing, as required. However, at that time Mr. Long met with both John Floyd and Gary Pagenstecher and the details of the proposal were explained to him. Additionally, CD staff have repeatedly offered to answer questions or provide any information that might be requested. Testimony identifies a commercial real estate sign at Site B that does not meet city code and is misleading. Staff Response: While this sign is notable in the context of the proceeding, it is not a material part of the subject land use process. The city is empowered to authorize temporary signs (18.780.100) which are identified as balloons, banners and lawn signs in the code. Commercial real estate signs such as the one identified, are neither prohibited nor authorized and are therefore not regulated in Tigard.Advertising a property currently zoned residential as a commercial property is misleading,which comes at some risk to the realtor. Testimony asserts that the application title "R-12 Preservation" is misleading, that both commercial zoned property and R 12 zoned property are in deficit, that the annexation report creating Site A's GP zone may support leaving it zoned commercial. Response: The project description accompanying the title helps to clarify the city's intention.The intent of the proposal is to preserve opportunities for R12 zoning. The report does find that both commercial and R-12 zoned lands are in deficit, but the city has specific policies regarding preserving opportunities for housing affordability and diversity that the proposal is focused on. The original annexation application ZCA2006-00003 for Site A approved the zone that was closest to the Washington County zone it replaced, consistent with the standards for annexations in 18.320.020.0. There was no more consideration given to the chosen GP zone than that. Council Questions Mayor Cook inquired about the notice date error raised in public testimony and requested the site be reposted. Staff Response: The notice date error is addressed above in the staff response to public testimony. Staff reposted both Sites A and B on January 19`'for the February 2,2016 hearing. Councilor Snider inquired about the process issues raised in public testimony, including appeal of a legislative decision,and whether Site A had ever been considered by the city for use as a park. Staff Response: The process issues are addressed above in the staff response to public testimony. An appeal of a Council legislative decision is heard by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). The city's Parks and Facilities manager does not recall Site A ever being brought to the city's attention and specifically,that is was not considered during the Park Bond acquisition process. Councilor Woodard asked what zone applies to the residences along 74`' avenue at Spruce Street,what the parking issue is referred to in the public testimony, and whether other zones, e.g. R-7 were considered in addition to the proposed R 12 zone. Staff Response: The R-4.5 zone flanks SW 74`'' Avenue south from Spruce Street until it turns and becomes SW Torchwood Street where the zone becomes R-12(PD) at White Oak Village. Neighbors contend that parking spill over from White Oak Village contributes to cars parking along 74`''. The city's proposal did not consider any zone other than R 12 zoning both because the property owner expressed interest in that zone as an alternative to the existing GP zone and the city wanted the R 12 zone to avoid its loss on Pacific Hwy. Staff believes that a lower density residential zone would not provide a significant buffer between the commercially zoned property to the south and east and the low-density residential zone to the north, which is an express function of the GP zone. The site is ideal for R12 zoning given its location near transit and abundant services and there are several similarly zoned R12 areas nearby. Councilor Henderson inquired about the commercial real estate sign identified in public testimony. Staff Response: The commercial real estate sign issue is addressed above in the staff response to public testimony. Staff Recommendation Support the city's housing goal to ensure housing choice and affordability by preserving the R12 zoning and approve the proposed zone changes on Sites A and B (Ordinance A). Alternatively, deny the proposed zone change on Site A and approve the proposed zone change on Site B (Ordinance B) in support of the MD's rezone proposal. SUPPLEMENIAL PACKET _ City of Tigard FOR (DATE OF MEETING) M Am � Memorandum 5 To: Mayor John L. Cook, City Councilors From: Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner Re: Quasi-judicial Findings in Support of Ordinance A and/or B for Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2015-00005/Zone Change (ZON) 2015-00007 Date: February 2, 2016 Background The city has initiated a legislative Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment to facilitate preservation of R-12 zoned land and ensure it is applied in a location that supports residential use in support of the City's Housing Goal. At its January 12`" hearing, Council continued the hearing to clarify procedural issues raised in public testimony. The City Attorney has determined that the R-12 Preservation application should be processed quasi- judiciously rather than legislatively. Although staff already took the extra step of providing quasi-judicial notice of the hearings, there must be additional findings on the substantive standards provided in the Tigard Development Code for review of quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendments and zone changes. Findings for quasi-judicial zone changes in TDC 18.380.030.B applicable to the proposal are provided below: 12.380.030.B. Standards for making quasi-judicial decisions. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 1. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; The Planning Commission Recommendation to Council addresses all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations. This standard is met. 2. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance; and The Planning Commission Recommendation to Council and this Memorandum describe how the proposal complies with all applicable Tigard Development Code (Title 18) standards. 3. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. Site A was annexed into the city in 2006 (ZCA2006-00003) automatically adopting the City zone (Professional Commercial (C-P)) that was closest to the Washington County zone (Community Office (CO)) it replaced, consistent with the standards for annexations in 18.320.020.0. The property owners hoped to open a daycare on the site, a permitted use in the C-P zone. Accordingly, the City did not conduct a separate specific analysis of the zoning of the property at that time. Now,nearly 10 years later, without success developing a day care facility, the owners are considering a zone change to Medium Density Residential anticipating market support for residential development. This prompted the City to evaluate the appropriate plan and zone designations for the property. The city's initiative to preserve R-12 zoned is in alignment with Site A owners'interest in developing the property for residential use. In this case,implementation of city housing policy is synergistic with market forces in support of preserving the versatile R-12 zone to meet the housing type preferences and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents. In 2013 the Council adopted a Housing Strategies report prepared by Angelo Planning Group and Johnson & Reid in support of the Periodic Review update to Goal 10, Housing. This report illustrated that approximately 69% of the city's land is zoned for residential land uses and that there is about twice as much buildable land in areas zoned R-7 (72.1 net buildable acres) than in areas zoned R-12 (36.7 net buildable acres). The report analyzed the city's current and future housing needs, which included the following conclusions of relevance to the application: o "In general,there is a need for some less expensive ownership units and rental units." o "Single family attached units are projected to meet nearly 20% of future housing need." o "It is projected that in coming decades a greater share of housing will be attached types, including attached single family." This type of housing is possible in the R-12 zone, which allows attached and multi-family housing on 3,050 square-foot lots. Although R-25 also allows the full range of housing types, the medium-high density zone is less compatible with the neighboring low-density residential property to the north. Although the Housing Strategies report also identified a shortfall of commercial property within the city, the proposed swap between Sites A and B would result in a minimal loss of commercial zoned property (.17 acres). The increasing importance of ensuring availability of affordable housing is evidence of change in the community that supports the proposed zone change from C-G to R-12 on Site A. This standard is met for Site A. Site B is in the ownership of the Tigard —Tualatin School District, who had intended to utilize the site for school facilities to serve the community. However, the school district has determined that the site is no longer necessary for its long term capital facilities planning and has elected to surplus the lot. Given this change in the school district's capital facilities planning and considering the fact that the subject site is the only parcel on SW Pacific Highway in the immediate vicinity that is not zoned General Commercial, a proposal to rezone Site B from R-12 to C-G represents a reasonable adjustment of the comprehensive plan and zoning map. The city supports the land owner's interest in a rezone to commercial property because of the deficit of commercially zoned property identified in the Housing Strategies report and because the site, located on a Major Arterial,is more suitable for commercial uses. ,1 As identified in the City's most recent BLI map, dated January 1, 2014, the project site has not been identified as buildable, likely due to its ownership by the school district and aggregation with adjoining school properties. Therefore, the conversion of the site's zoning district to C-G will not have a demonstrable effect on the planned residential capacity of the City. However, the planned capacity is shown to be in deficit. Therefore, an increase in the actual capacity of R-12 zoned land underwritten by the proposed swap better meets the city's affordable housing policy. On balance, Council can fund that the change in the status of the subject TTSD property to surplus represents a change in the neighborhood and that the proposed C-G zone will allow more suitable commercial development along a Major arterial. This standard is met for Site B. The proposed swap between Sites A and B would result in a minimal loss of commercial zoned property (.17 acres) and help ensure availability of land to support a full range of housing types and affordable housing options for City residents. This standard is met for Sites A and B. Carol Krager From: Joanne Bengtson Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 5:10 PM SUPPLEMENT ..��,� ��,- � To: Carol Krager; Norma Alley FOR Z L Subject: FW: 72nd &Spruce GATE OF MEETING) ,4etM,-, Hem S_ From: Norma Harris Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 10:37:26 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: John Cook Subject: 72nd & Spruce I have lived at 10700 SW 72nd for +/- 25 years. This area has slowly but surely turned into a thoroughfare, especially mornings & afternoons. No one seems to pay attention to the speed limit signs or the stop signs. The latest remodel of the Fred Meyer store is bad enough but to allow the property at 72nd & Spruce to become another small town is, to me, unacceptable. If you vote for the change, I will haunt you the rest of my life — but since I'm 81 years old that isn't much of a threat, is it? PLEASE?P! Norma Harris 503-244-6646 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." 1 I 12 L-:-- v ►S' AGENDA ITEM No. 5 Date: February 2, 2016 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on: CONSIDER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ZONING CHANGES TO PRESERVE MEDIUM DENSITY (R-12) RESIDENTIAL LAND PROPOSAL: A request to facilitate preservation of R-12 zoned land and ensure it is applied in a location that supports residential use. The City proposes changing the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning District Classifications of the subject parcels in Site A from Professional Commercial(C-P) to Medium Density Residential(R-12);and changing the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Map Classifications of the subject parcel in Site B from Medium Density Residential(R-12) to General Commercial(C-G). APPLICANT: City of Tigard 13125 SE Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 SITE A OWNER: Richard Topping SITE B OWNER: Tigard Tualatin School District 19765 Derby Street 6970 SW Sandburg Street West Linn,OR 97068 Tigard, OR 97223 LOCATION: Site A: 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72°d Avenue, 10735 SW 72nd Avenue,Tax map/lot#'s 1S136ACO2200, 1S136ACO2400, 1S136ACO2500,and Site B: 13125 SW Pacific Highway,Tax map/lot# 2S102CB00200 APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380.020 and 18.390.060.G;Comprehensive Plan Goals 1,2 10: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10;and Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 1. Due to time Constraints City Council May Impose a Time Limit on Testimony IL AGENDA ITEM No. 5 Date: February 2, 2016 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. I'ro onent—(Speaking In Favor) Opponent—(Speaking Against) Neutral Name,Address&Phone No. Name,.Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. �aa1E Sow nnaN `13►1 P1 Na Tk bPc2C-) OTz cl-77Z 3 X03- ��tZ -81}foc� Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Pl n n�/ .�r►4 r� 7 3 30 s w &,,,� LQ T 7 943 x"03 -�11y -39-1t� Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. G Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Cis C) c Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. L—evi L"1/F,.%A- �FD2U L�7•C AGENDA ITEM No. 5 Date: February 2, 2016 ' 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. Pro onent—(Speaking In Favor) Opponent—(Speaking Against) Neutral Name,Address&Phone No. Name,- 1dd ess& ho N Name,Address&Phone No. X70 i ins~dam':�i 20 Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Zr6rel 1066) 5W 7.1 1q0'e- I)md, Svc -Zys�S y4� Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. -7 Name,Address& Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. ,""V� , 0R- 97Fa3 tq4, -6 c 16 Name,Address&Phone No. [ame,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. 14 A 119 J <77Z23 `• AGENDA ITEM No. 5 p4cia Date: February 2, 2016 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,Ad s&Phone Name,.Address&Phone No. I �� Co titi�✓N o Yl rn tS oo S� Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Addre h e o. Name,Address&Phone No. tIq Si��Ts-✓ inn X11 rdU�,k S Tso 7415 SW Sim 7.2-o SK/�✓ �rv6 roe+ �'1` i G� d U� �t"1223 7aeTZ-A/W) o/L ��2°S SU3 �)0 OX M Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Naive,Address&Phone No. L (� Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. SUPPLEMENTAL PAC T FOR � C�2 or VL (IDATE OF MEETING) FFICE AieodA_ Dorothy S.Cofield, Attorney at Law Via Hand Delivery To: Mayor Cook and the Tigard City Council i C Dorothy S. Cofield, Cofield Law Office r`"1 '1 Re: Agenda Item 5; Medium Density Residential (R-12) Preservation Zone Change Swap Dt: February 2, 2016 Written Testimony By Dorothy Cofield for Nancy Tracy and Jim Long Procedural Errors: The proposed zone change and comprehensive plan amendment for Site A and Site B is quasi-judicial. "A legislative proceeding is typically not instigated by an application; is not necessarily bound to result in a final or particular decision, and if it does,will adopt new or amended standards or requirements of general applicability to a larger number of properties or people." CLE Land Use,Volume 1, 14.65. CPA 2015-00005 &ZON 2015-00007 were instigated by applications; will result in an ordinance adopting the zone change and plan amendment and only applies to two sites,totally less than 3 acres. Planning Commission Recommendation, p. 1. This proceeding is quasi-judicial and must be processed pursuant to Tigard Development Code (TDC) 18.390.030(B) and 18.390.050 (Type III Procedures). Staff's reasoning that theswap' is policy to support R-12 housing is not supported by substantial 8,Zone Change from R-12 to R-7 and ZON 2015-00006. evidence in the record. See Attachment 1, p. g There is conflicting evidence in the record that the subject applications were both started as individual 6 and Planning quasi-judicial applications. See Attachment g Commission Recommendation. The City cannot legally adopt the proposed ordinance as a legislative matter. This matter is quasi-judicial and must meet the zone change criteria at 18.380.030(B) (1-3). There is no evidence of a change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to Site A. There is conflicting evidence in the record that the current C-P zoning acts as a buffer to the adjacent R 4.5 zoning and the C-G zoning. 1 Creekside 5, Suite 380 18705 SW Nimbus Avenue I Beaverton, Oregon ..: . . Even if the city council determines the subject applications are legislative,the city has not followed its code in processing them. TDC 18.390.060(B). The director may only receive such Type IV actions in April and October. These applications were received in September, 2015 and heard by the planning commission in December,2015. There is no identified evidence in the record that the planning director waived any time periods or that the April and October submission deadlines could be waived. The subject applications must be given the protections of a quasi-judicial proceeding as set out in ORS 197.763 and the Tigard Development Code. The published notice and the mailed notice both show the wrong standards and criteria. See Attachments 4 and 5. The mailed and newspaper notice were not given 20 days before the hearing as required under the quasi-judicial provisions at 18.390.060(D). The posted notice blew down several times as documented in the record. The commercial realtor sign gives the impression the Site B property is already zoned commercial. See Jim Long Photographs in Record. Conditions of Approval can be imposed on a quasi-judicial decision to protect the surrounding properties. TDC 18.380.030(C). The notice and process errors prejudiced my clients and the public's right to a full and fair opportunity to be heard. Converting this continued hearing into a quasi-judicial proceeding will further prejudice hearing rights because the notice does not reflect the quasi-judicial zone change standards. See Written Testimony of Jim Long, dated February 2, 2016. Even if the applications could be processed as legislative in nature,the description of the zone swap to preserve R-12 zoning does not reflect the substance of the proposal. The rezoning from CP to R-12 is not preserving R-12 zoning where none has existed: Nor does it explain why the City is the instigating the action rather than the two property owners. See Attachment 6. Read together with the commercial real estate sign on the Site B property, my clients and the citizens of Tigard have not had a full and fair opportunity to participate in the zone change. Substantive Errors There is conflicting evidence in the record that the City is deficient in commercial land. See Attachment 2, p. 22 (Deficiency of 19-45 Acres of Commercial and Mixed Use 20-Year Supply). The fact that the City just approved a 6-acre R-12 zone change to R-7 on Hall Street is further evidence the City has no need for"preserving R-12" land. See Attachment 1, p. 8. There is no evidence in the record that there is a need for additional R-12 land. See Attachment 7, p.4, 30. One of the alleged reasons for the zone change swap as supported by the Housing Strategies report is the need for some less expensive ownership and rental units. There is nothing in the record on whether Site A will have "less expensive ownership and rental units" which appears to be housing between $250,000 to$350,000. Nor is there any indication the attached housing on Site A will be rental units with rents between$1770-$3,530. Attachment 7 on p. 30 cites a need for mixed use land in the Highway 99 area. Site A as presently zoning CP, along with the adjacent retail use (Fred Meyer) and the neighboring R 4.5 is already a mixed use area. The R-12 is not a mixed use zone but a pure residential zone (except for the allowance of some civic uses). There is no support in Attachment 7 that the City is deficient in R-12 zoning and needs to add more, especially with the Hall St.6 acre zone change from R-12 to R-7. The reason the staff has given for the "swap" is to have no net loss of R-12 land but Site B has never been counted in the housing inventory so that finding is not credible. See Staff Memorandum to City Council. 2 Rezoning Site A to R-12 will result in spot zoning which is contrary to Oregon's land use planning goals. The surrounding properties are R-4.5 and CG. The City's reasons for the zone change swap are not supported by the record in terms of a lack of public facilities. See Attachment 3 (streets are adequate for CP zoning). The City cannot demonstrate there was a mistake in zoning Site A since after the annexation the City has gone through periodic review and did not change Site A's zoning. Conclusion: We support the City Council adopting the alternative action proposed in the Staff Memorandum: "Deny the proposed zone change on Site A and approve the proposed zone change on Site B (Ordinance B) in support of the TTSD's rezone proposal." Although we support the alternative and the school district's wish to sell surplus property to support the schools,we question whether the City can legally adopt the Site B zone change in a legislative proceeding and with the notice errors we have identified. Submitted Attachments for the Record: 1. DLCD Plan Amendment Notice to Subscribers, November 9, 2015 2. City of Tigard 2011 Economic Opportunities Analysis, Cogan Owens Cogan LLC 3. Zone Change Annexation Staff Report,Topping Kemp Annexation ZCA 2006-00003 4. Affidavit of Publication for CPA 2015-00005 &ZON 2015-00007 5. Notice of Public Hearing, November 9, 2015 for CPA 2015-00005 &ZON 2015-00007 6. Topping Zone Change Pre-Application Conference Notes, March 10, 2015 (Site A) and September 10, 2015 7. Housing Strategies Report,Angelo Planning Group, February, 2013. 3 Tuesday, February 2, 2016 Tigard City Council c/o City of Tigard SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET 13125 SW Hall Boulevard FOR 21-; / 4/4/, Tigard Oregon 97223 (DATE OF MEETING) -�9��✓�`-f�rn s_ Dear Tigard City Council, I am writing in regards to the Public Hearing Notice I received for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change.After reading the notice I do have concerns about the re designation of the land swap of the site on Site A: 7303 SW Spruce Street, 10705 SW 72nd Ave, and 10735 SW 72nd Ave.This land is 1.54 acres and the owner is wanting to rezone as Medium Density Residential R-12 Preservation. It is my understanding this to mean that the owner can place 12 units per acre or 18 unites on the 1.54 acres of land. With an average family of 4 this can bring 48 to 72 additional residents. Whether the owner places 12 or 18 unites on this 1.54 acres of land the concerns I have are increase water runoff, increase traffic and inadequate parking in which is already a problem. If 12 or 18 units are placed on this 1.54 acres, I could also lose part of my front yard and part of my side yard, due to potential road improvements. I am in the process of revamping our front yard for a water fountain and/or flag pole. If sidewalks go in and I lose part of my yard, how do I prepare our front yard projects?The additional issue is water runoff.The West side of the 1.54 acres is a wetland. Knowing that water runs down,that means this water runs into my yard and will do damage to my property.Who will pay to correct this damage? I have lived on Spruce Street for over 23 years, in the neighborhood my entire life (46 years)and water run off seems to cause more problems for the neighborhood every time some new construction happens. This neighborhood,Spruce and 72nd, is a quiet residential neighborhood. In the past few years this area has under gone many changes with Costco,Walmart, new houses on 78th and Spruce,Tigard Woods Condos, wetlands on Spruce, 781''and on 77th, and new detached condos on 74th.These changes have brought an increase in water runoff problems, increase of traffic and parking problems.Our entrances and exits to our area of Metzger do not have adequate flow for traffic at any stop sign or stop light or lack of. When these changes happened to the area, many residents came to the City of Tigard and expressed concerns over already existing problems,such as, increase of traffic, increase of car speed, and additional residents.The city at the time indicated this area of Spruce didn't have those problems. I am here to express that the issue has only increased. I have people parking in front of my house and across the street that are going to the new homes at the end of 74th and from Tigard Woods Condos on 76th Place. I have talked to those residents and they have told me that there isn't enough parking in those two locations.With these residents parking in front of my house I don't get my mail delivered. Now with more similar buildings being planned for Site A,where are they to park?On the street or Fred Meyers parking lot? It also concerns me that delivery trucks trying to get into the delivery area at Fred Meyers will have problems due to more cars parking on Spruce Street so the delivery drivers can't make 1 Tuesday, February 2, 2016 that turn.We also have mentally handicap living in Luke Dorf Homes, school children, the physically disabled on scooters,seniors,children riding bikes and families having to walk in the streets and or play in the streets that are not well lite.With more traffic and more people these issues get more complex. I know Metro wrote a statement indicating that there is no traffic problem in this area. I have seen car counters on Pine and 80'(presumed for poorly labeled stop signs and increase of residents and an increase in car accidents at that intersection), I have not car counters on 72"d,Spruce, and 78th.So i am not sure how Metro comes up with their statement.When the original speed humps went in on Spruce this detoured many cars from using this area as a short cut and also helped reduce the speed that cars were traveling at. I have a friend who works for Tigard PD, he ticketed a driver going 65 mph down Spruce.The new speed humps are flatter than the old speed humps and do not slow drivers down.With the new developments being built, people moving in with the additional cars this has caused an increase in traffic and speed.The new speed humps I understand are code but they do not slow the traffic down as much as the old ones did.The new developments that have gone in recently have not provided ample parking for those residents and as a consequence those residents are parking on Spruce and having to walk a block or two in distance to their homes.Adding in a potential of 12 to 18 units with 48 to 72 additional residents with an average of 2 cars per residence plus teenage drivers within the family,that's an additional 24 to 36+cars on the 1.54 acres. It is really hard for me to visualize that many cars on an acre of land plus residents and housing.Tigard PD recently wrote many tickets to drivers not stopping on the corner of 72nd and Spruce. I appreciate this but that is only the tip of our traffic problem.With additional cars in this small area,are these residents going to park on the streets or in Fred Meyer's parking lot and walk home? I have lived in the Metzger area for 46 years,crime has continued to rise as fast as people move in to this small quiet neighborhood. I am not saying that the people buying the units are criminals no, but an increase in residents does equal and increase in crime. According to Homefacts.com, which is a resource used by many realtors,our zip code of 97223 for 2010 has a 76.78%higher crime rate than the national average, 2012 has an 87.89%higher crime rate than national average, in 2014 has a 98.73%higher crime rate than the national average.Which can be broken down into vehicle theft, larceny theft, property crime,and robbery.Violent crimes such as aggressive assaults are 24%higher than the national average. I know what you're thinking, even with a margin for error,these statics do show that crime in our area has increased with the only thing changing is the increase of residential housing like,apartments,condos and townhouses. This small neighborhood is full of retired residents, middle class families and young families. I want this area to remain as such.Yes,this area has issues but why complicate it and add to the issues,this only creates a larger problem. If I wanted to live in the likes of Portland I would have bought in Portland. 2 Tuesday, February 2, 2016 My idea or thought would be to match the rest of the properties in the area that surrounds the 1.54 acres. Subdividing into four 0.25 divisions with 4 single level ranch homes would match the area. Yes this leaves approximately 0.54 acres.This area could be the wetland area leaving enough land to correct the water runoff problem on the west end of the property. This area could be made into a small park like setting for families, children, and family pets to enjoy. My other idea, if I could find the financing, I would build a quiet single level 20 room end of life hospice center that was in a home like setting still keeping it commercial. I am a Critical Care Registered Nurse and end of life is a passion of mine. I hope you have heard my concerns and understand them. As you discuss, contemplate, and vote tonight please place yourself as a resident that lives next door to this property and experiences our problems. Respectfully, Ann Murdock 7415 SW Spruce Street Tigard Oregon 97223 503-810-0801 3 SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET February 2, 2016 FOR _ C.� 4 (DATE OF ME TING) nek TO: Tigard City Council 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, Oregon 97223 l-leM FROM: Jim Long 10730 SW 72nd Ave., Tigard, OR 97223. 503-647-0021 FILE NUMBERS: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2015-00005 and Zone Change (ZON) 2015-00007 FILE TITLE: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (1112) PRESERVATION APPLICANT: CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 My name is Jim Long. I reside at 10730 SW 72"d Avenue. I am chair of the local Citizen Participation Organization 4-M and also will mostly provide my personal testimony. As chair of CPO-4M, on Monday December 7th, CPO-4M discussed the city planning department's request and voted unanimously to endorse retaining the Commercial-Professional district zoning for "Site A" and deny the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zone swap. Personally speaking, if the city moves forward or approves this application with staffs first recommendation, the decision will be vulnerable to appeal, and you will lose. Last month I told you that the city needs to "start over", particularly if this proceeding goes forward as "quasi-judicial". The city did not start over. (My telling the city it could be vulnerable to an appeal, serves mostly to save the city money on litigation.) Legislative vs. quasi-judicial This "legislative proceeding" is a major "public policy statement." The city is also quite limited in its ability to proceed with this file as a legislative proceeding at this time. Why is creation of public policy applying to just two properties? This is a dangerous precedent. Other recent City Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPAs) have been done as 'quasi-judicial', but having this one as a "Legislative proceeding", not quasi-judicial, minimizes possible citizen involvement. According to Code Chapter 18.390.050, Zoning Map and Text Amendments should be quasi-judicial proceedings. 1 February 2, 2016 f Why is the city trying this zone swap as a legislative process instead of a quasi- judicial process? It seems to be highly irregular. The legislative proceeding does not allow much citizen involvement (like the fox watching the hen house). To put it another way, maybe the city is (you are) not neutral. Public Notices: Goal # 1 of Oregon land use laws (1971) is that citizens be involved in every phase of the planning process. Dict all people residing with 500 feet receive public notice? No. Could people see the public notice sign posted on-site? No. Did it have all the details of the hearing, time, place, phone, etc.? No. All the public notices in the newspapers, those public notices mailed to local residents, and the public notice signs put up at both sites all had the wrong date and time for this hearing. 2. Public Notice Mailing: Many (at least five neighbors/households) within 200 feet of "Site A" say they did not get any notice of this proceeding. The November 9th Public Hearing Notice states that documents and applications can be reviewed at City Hall for free and to call this # (503-718-2432). 3. Public Notice Phone: On Dec. 7th I tried the telephone number published in the Public Notice (503-718-2432) and left two messages. I didn't get a response to my voice-mails. So I had to drive to City Hall and the planning department with my questions. I tried the # published in the public notices in mid-January and after a few days received a response from someone in the public works department on January 27th. (violation of 18.390.050 C2A). 4. Public Notice Signs (see pics): The City put up some flimsy "Public Notice signs" at both sites but they were unreadable by the first week of December. See pics attached for lack of required readable signs at both sites. 2 February 2, 2016 On Dec. 4th this pic below was taken of the Site A "Public Notice" which was blown down, unreadable and ineffective. In the foreground the City of Tigard public notice sign on the ground. In the background, behind the fence at "Site B" we see a sign approved by the City of Tigard that does not comply with city codes. Public notice signs are critical, especially for renters. Neither of these sites was properly noticed. This is a violation of due process (197.763.8) and does not allow full and fair opportunity for citizens to provide input. 5. The Public Notice Website: It wasn't posted on the city's website for at least three days from December 4 to December 6. Some neighbors just recently heard about this CPA Zone Swap and didn't have time to prepare. These procedural violations affect our substantial rights. • This is a violation of due process 197.763. • At Site B -In the background, behind the barbed-wire fence we see that perhaps it's a done deal, because it already looks "Commercial". So, there has been no readable, effective public notice at either "Site A" or "Site B" since a week before the Planning Commission decision last month, and in the four weeks since then even though the city's Planning Commission and Planning Department was notified with pictures. This is a violation of city Code 183.90. The average citizen not being able to see the city public notice at "Site B", and because the other "Commercial" sign is 10 times larger, the average citizen would most likely assume it's already zoned Commercial. This is a violation of due process 197.763. So, this public hearing has no real effect. Because of the errors in Public Notice, there are people who did not know and are not here tonight in the back of the room. 3 February 2, 2016 Cit y Comprehensive Plan Goal 2 Land Use Planning File Title: First of all, the City's File Title: "Medium Density Residential (R-12) Preservation" is a misnomer and is misleading to citizens. It is not "Residential Preservation." Preservation does not explain the nature of the application, but rather it hides the nature of the application that is to change Commercial and increase Residential zoning. A File Title should be understandable to citizens and residents near both sites, not just the planning commission, city council or some planning department employees. This zone swap would increase the inventory of residential acreage and slightly decrease amount of Commercial-Professional, but not preserve the status quo. Why is the city doing this zone swap? You (the city) do not have enough Commercial properties. There is a deficiency of Commercial as shown in Cogan, Owens, Cogan report. According to the Cogan, Owens, Cogan Report "City needs a minimum of 51 acres of vacant commercial to satisfy its commercial long-range planning needs for 2011-2031. So, don't take site "Site A" out of commercial zoning. Yesterday, I went to the Planning Department seeking the Cogan, Owens, Cogan report and was told it was too late to copy it, and they couldn't find the digital link. So I want to reaffirm that I was told that the Cogan, Owens, Cogan report is part of the City's Comprehensive Plan and is "on the record". Is it? It is_i_mporta_nt_to_note that there is loss of residential.zoning the city changes "Site B"to commercial _because that school propertyw_as not included in your inventory of properties zoned residential. Yes, making site "B" residential would place that property back on public tax rolls. We see that "Site B" had a neighborhood meeting in March 2015 for a commercial application even though that property is still zoned residential. There was not a neighborhood meeting for "Site A". This language in the 2006 City of Tigard annexation ordinance justified the importance of"Site A" to be "Commercial-General" (or exact wording). This proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is not a `periodic review', but a periodic review has occurred in recent years and the zoning remained the same at both sites. 4 February 2, 2016 "Site B" abuts the Charles F. Tigard Elementary School and is a perfect location for residential houses (especially "affordable housing"), because having the site remaining "Residential" would allow students to safely walk to school, as well as allowing residents and visitors to hop on Tri-Met public transportation's many buses. The City staff report incorrectly states in the description of Site A: "the current zone does not allow residential use". There were three houses for decades and currently two residential houses on "Site A" have been lived in as residences. So actually there is an out-of-date map in the pre-application conference that shows a house hasn't been there for years. The city says it's doing this Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment to facilitate preservation of R- 12 zoned land and ensure it is applied in a location that supports residential use. We the citizens do not support residential use, particularly R-25 or R-12 zoning and three-story buildings. Since there is a deficit of commercial properties in Tigard, why take "Site A" out of commercial zoning? The City should not be taking "Site A" out of commercial. Why not rezone the excess R-7 property? As per the Angelo Housing study, rezone R-7, the City has twice as much as it needs. Why doesn't the city simply convert "Site B" from residential to commercial? The city can allow the school district to change "Site B" to commercial. It appears the city has concocted this zone swap forgetting their findings and evidence. The City's had reasons for keeping it Commercial-Professional zoned during the annexation in 2006 and periodic review. The city has not projected the population need for R-12. We ask you (the city) to deny the Applicant's (the city's) request for this Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) and Zone Change (ZON). 5 February 2, 2016 r Sign Permits: The "Commercial" sign at "Site B" is in violation of the city Code Chapter 18.780.130B. For R-12, non-residential use, one illuminated or non-illuminated sign not exceeding six feet in height and 32 square feet in area per sign face for uses approved under the site development review or conditional use process will be permitted. So, the sign at "Site B" is way too large according to city code. Nor is "Site B" zoned "Commercial".at this time. See photos below of missing public notices and "Commercial" sign in violations of city codes at"Site B" and"Site A". At the January 12th public hearing Councilor Marland Henderson advised that the "Commercial Real Estate" sign be taken down until it is zoned correctly, and that it is definitely not right. PIC "Site A": Public Notice signs were not readable in December 2015 and most of January and in February, 2016, including over seven weeks after City of Tigard Planning Commission and Planning Department were notified. That is the "Town of Metzger" in the background. "fir F - � i3 tr3i' j� � �•11 2 d y. J i 'i�"�w sAj� i. �,'4x•'�".# ! .v s f-ht •tS,�' i C 9:•�� N "� r, �v 7 fir(4 - _ ', / 1+`46. ., .r-l. S ?�•+'ti-d �' i�e "v`+i ,g! �,.�'n,�d•t'� � '�1y f L i 6 February 2, 2016 t Pic "Site B": =1 Co 1 669�1J � r \ I rt r The City's Public Notice sign was not readable in December 2015, most of January and February, 2016 prior to Planning Commission and City Council public hearings. This property is not zoned "Commercial" at this time. The sign is misleading. The large Available "Commercial" Real Estate sign, does not comply with city codes for height or size. It also makes it (this legislative option) to look like a "done deal" which prejudices neighbors who don't want to waste their time, because it looks like it's a "done deal". Again, in conclusion, we ask you (the city) to deny the Applicant's (the city's) request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) and Zone Change (ZON). Thank you. 7 i t y Fy • • ,"'.. • � v w ' � ��., ,�„ � 'fir �{�3Ai• ��*�f.i��•,„y r.. �a ; �tg aYd C�Fy caur►�'� I 13125 S. W .V10 i %I-Vcl- Tipra OR re: CPA 2015- 00005 ona ZON 2015' -- 0000 7 1 support our CP04 '3 unvian'fmaa-5 voP6 6 endoy-se r2.4-airning SS's, A 7Z""Ao.nd Spnice,sN, roper� a5 �Immerc'io l .- Prof'essional one - bfo r-1 20 n i ngN Cyt u r►�C �'n� a Z4m-Q- i 5 -n 04- a Fri v 13, 104-5 �1►�n9 . 1YIk C?4!j OV tr 'wcls action +o tC-f-ecl- o�-'fipick. r-er-onln5 of,)j R- 12 Glz�rzlo��rn�r� O7 VA5 -Sp7'L?u Sj-rtA}- 1&ncl 6t) kxPJi of- ck Y105�7`� 2 � 0.�<Q- PSV2f S 1-53 Ceres anh cA TIJ * d i n a6 � sAs w: �hir) -1 1x, M-Qj-1 z��r �omrr�CAI)II� . `xJ /Vi e_I ��C�r was ke p-V in 4.z- d irk, Link- _a_w-e-e.k642, ore, 4-11e Deo, 1 i- ��ctnn►n-9 �omm►ss�o� h.ea.�,n� . A mpamm,s of 5(7;r,T hcis c4&r6to-e-ri2-ed +lu C; 1-9's rale, f dm4).e, 649,n4,)Ir) b-5 ind i�}"erz(xet, 4-D jncre&-- e, o!-=Ira c or) Sir"C-p- wkey-e- �� r-e.n�s ajrewA�1 �Qc�r �y Meir -t," _5 S (Apor) 'b 00,rA I'Y1 -e SCIYOD) :6k5,, -f'S C�10ic-EJ for et d.e-�.-z,1orn-w-m- model .is �-ke Mob}- Xjrp�i\0a's <)f AY (A5in-g dgs1jn-5 - �3:g�� touses� Close Mcg do►n�noes rrccl,y rnr a 1( J� al/l r�main�n I av d �-O b- C�u��e��. as pk a u 4- -- is fo vx,12 i J` y nGy�ro�r;a�. ��- f� 5~I�-2-. IF 4-6 G-.�-j 9RA5 --wkaJ '�� wcu�1-s� '�� yv'�11 b-e_ o n.e._ Ut 16 s er- wln G�n 1�t e anl� ex�`51-in� 1&nca fo-r Ci -WaII<40 �aar)� v1-j burYe4 und-or- �ow5- 0(- a5pkA, J - A,nA emcrel-. Ofadde-d valkc,J Preserved olam sPaee- lincrea,)v5 Pro leer velue� is�rn�3 - atud all k4fAre- d�velo�inenl a5 ►19'ard adds Hous ing devts) -}-o �r.etl Sort�{1, o� cSprUC�r S'�neerel� ; ;7 3 10 SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET q'777-3 FOR '--1 (GATE OF EETING) Witt TIGARD � co"I in tw be a Placc, � homy pub a� of TIGARDOS SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET pledle, z /a 30/�FOR (PATF OF MEETING) L0e6J-),o-o : 7303 6,W, S. rIAca I ,!54 rxrp—S bek;nd f-k, f 19'&rel F-rzcl Me3e-rs SLAppori- use_ OF W, farueL � Sou WaW 4o be Wai1<- fo r i c-� ta( r�r k CSiyna4ure, of Pe-h+iuner 'n pouch ; 2n-)& ro i o . t �QIb'lE 5N� t1 di-e � �¢ YT1YYi�R1+S C��1 C h�r� iIGls��d vJ ', +�� o � H6j n Ski i 1P Y`Gr►� Y� 1rJ� ©% &.cc) ' Co I " �SV `7 A 6 E Ina , MI �cC`' Y �7�Y n l I z� I �ro,Yl hl� iII7a SW lqo- e elk _ �o �c�r�r� Imo- �6 c� 1•�� °S' ��' � +� � � --- II '714/-(-' 9.W' S.f`uc e 5 r M� 0boCK 771900 00ICa5r 03 37� k �� t�►a�c��L'" kzr` i PACIFkt- HVU7 �O'STNET S S� � ►'8-side; 4� LOC'6-4o-n ; `7BC)3 �,N(. , ruse l ,54 a-er,6 lot,kind -Fke f ig&rcl FrZd Me e-r-5 PC—'i"1 'ri0N �n�y Ii'garel Su, r�rl rt e Ei�' }(pis rurvet e� If gounra 4 ►e IA 'P'I �3 �y�8' y l, m Addee-5 i� &a-mmemr4-s del) NO /0700 Su! 72 ,u4 90,4-.,,4ifna,,2,' v Lrde. eelf k Wtk, �1 cfwS Or e, F12 Fps J �qLnc M A 0 orn L M CW, M (I 5;44-a.�Z,, 1 St, 76A It vc ., a rLts -7303 $,w, 5 . riA c0, ( ,!54 cL.e.,r.-5 (-jt h i n d f�, fi lI aY^ l cFrn c ' g � �1e,e-rs PC-' 'j 'r t ON 4--o Cl 4-j & fig U-r e� ; � SlAppor,l u Wt,6 CcLrteL {�,� a- go u ward 3 &lk- "Fo r-estUt 446,1 2r,;k. C,csrnme�►�s y t (' GY NJ 5 t C�� , 1� I i p lam Qt a w e S63-)A- 0-le Q� 309 •� �ti i �Z r1 iv 0) ,2 �J 5�1( 1�iYtAVC- clotrot /0('L' 9*'7 Z2Z kc prT- Cy. 1 `t Z, z pq r+ r Z ✓N `7303 6,W, Spr-uce, ( ,!5-4a-c.r-e.5 k)zk;nd Frz4 AAeqe-r-5' you yvarr (Swpa4ure, oF Pe-h+i'oier, 4o be, 2r] 4-otkek `pi rct, Gy AAA NO 4Y. 21, -7 1511,1)icirc-) Lai C-5-1 st 7/,f nq J I 'k, L,-J 6e, /,I C/t o 13�'��1 A\1 ------------ -LE-q T- by -pa VY co-uu(4 563 0' Jeo m a Je* SLU �qZ)-) alK Ao 150-3— I �o 33 fle-,AJ,AJ 7 f0eed-;oIn : '73C)3 �.w, S. rjAc.g l ,54 ct.ere5 ku=hind e 'Fj Sand Frzd Mege-rs i✓'i i t 10 N 4-u 4 t i r g our el SLA p Or l CA 5Z- bP �kl 6 Curb r � yo u rvcirO S0 .be. �ri 4-attck �� Gy�A1 Cd V mLeru !r "1`?j16 c51'� Thi no- cut,- OjT►~ �I�CQ rQ-E�) a F �vsm J [ -04, A- A.QMS 41 . w� SC' �.v. s��.�l �ti1�.�' ass -iycc \1 w.,, SvJ Ise Ou i, U C C,Onw+kx 1,+_ t PAX �frcc P��-�C � c Ai-i ` I �A� F Tac) ��O � ► � � N `� YhRN 'q PAP?K5 �r SIF PMAN 9 i► 5t� ��Nrr VNr, NC--e4-) A wNV-:-ro So3— --gwwNZD a(L ct-1227-3. P,at�� `i2-4 4 Y"n 777 SCJ Spr�� 971 � '�r� 300 -Z��I t 7303 64, S. rlACa l ,574 ctere5 btk;nd f-ke ke e-rs PE i j T-10 4--i3 J Of ii•g a..rd �1��sr�- ugz- OF Wt to-ruct may- CL you rvtcn� 4o be, w�l fo r. i4vv -iod �Siynr�-ure Pe-h- ioner; 'r n �5'o�4,ac1�� a1AI�l� �P i �v ,stia8 t �, mr �rnmu-i -:s 7) grin gc�ht c.�4� 173Q -� L-L) -5fk'V` IA 0� 1LZ3 13,A VIA .1 AQ�- ,,. ILD _ i Z Z 04 R ly t1'C!C9-C/ UO 6(71-Z-3 --7303 5,,W, Spruce a-c-,r-S bo-hind +-k,- T, Rnzel -AAQq,2-r5 K-0 -cloN 4--o TI i gr, fay- If thou ward to bQ, ll I'vi qUC. Gy (octoo -76 �03 -T�G-vw ckt qlqa�) (A)D L4 ?z2j 1610 0 (171 P-a-l- � � d CL 91 ZZ5 LAS,— e,,,e 16 9,0 i5o3 e U�,K) [CqCC SW -76 `iib r4Lz&,di 9 �P,33 A tu I/c./I "Ovi 7750 5;&J A�ie MCI 1�10�� P6 1-f I dl -za CTI 0 T" , Sw '5 ' SuQ -�13 - -371-301 rrm C, � peo -gq�j t �34Z J• ,J 'J., Natural Play Area! PLAY AREA RULES u _y •This area is not monitored. , Adults are responsible to actively j' . ��ER DREq y s supervise children in their care J Oar'` ' while in the natural play area. O� •Please stay safe! o Be aware that natural elements such _ as logs,sticks, boulders,sand, r""4 and water have inherent risks. .. wa �x •Dogs,glass, ' skateboards, CO�O bicycles,smoking, . \ and alcohol are not ` B . permitted in the play area. > ( , '.,. •Have fun! a , f 'A% PORTLAND *y PARKS&RECREATION Metro �: PordandPark s.org 41 Htalthy Parks.HQaithy Porvano Stun tleM 200EAj r 121 04120 lvwnc y lexe-L, SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR `2--/ ��Z;z"aI e,�- (DATF OF MEETING) FJ ',"' •'i� � � Yi �`i�•I�rp��YV'�jet1�\Yip, wl, *np. �: .�•, K ,"'�t'�^ \ � / �y� - ' it �;yyy�...{{{,-,�^ j �` .��'; �° ��jY�•��;�.' `'� ��_ ��;�•� ahE ... i, \ Yy t . a .� r .,1�ty.' ... k ti Iitr:.^' `..r. L' q'r /Iris �a f }r "� r , �. A ` .. lOt L Y «- ` ttrt �y O �, yet !� �� I � I �r. ,� .11� • a �a � ;�, - t' e r� / >� �` .f 1. Fr �' 4 h k �, f �X r / u „i: `" b�. = �,_.,`• -Tit Jbi air AiW 5 ' � ��,F�� •a. .�v-'::Yom'• - h _ ��,i;'e-"� � `�ti�e',.g'.,{` .?/1 �I `r�.r `.'o�:i. ,.� ,'1 M�h� •r.ti!� .."- w. .. d��i � •`�`r'.��P` r,� ''�� SFE��3�'�''"�` t �� '� �'��f� ��,. i � J 7'n z � • ' _ _ =x X4/20 12104/2015 1 3 v ,� i r,� gyp'`, I��; �-;�..y4�+��►,t"". "�"" _-�"�! � I ' - ♦ . F tt i '011s ;� " 4r .,k '�.�.�•a'A� i�` � '•ytk.; �� 4 ,'�!'�DF',' "„`;' R` �.. �y `at�"'fr - I .t h r, 1r. i a �;S.,,,,T�CC'P'c` }A��Z.:ta^.�i•".o � 'A`" 'M .'k 4 YP�' �•�+� •� , t, r � �•" r _/. '^rail. t " , �'� , ►'` �°� �; a old $iU = e FOR Attachment 1-7 Index ^ N (DA'I.' Ori �V�L 1. DLCD Plan Amendment Notice to Subscribers, November 9, 2015 (8 pages) 2. City of Tigard 2011 Economic Opportunities Analysis, Cogan Owens Cogan LLC (44 pages) 3. Zone Change Annexation Staff Report, Topping Kemp Annexation ZCA 2006-00003 (11 pages) 4. Affidavit of Publication for CPA 2015-00005 &ZON 2015-00007 (1 pages) S. Notice of Public Hearing, November 9, 2015 for CPA 2015-00005 &ZON 2015-00007 (18 pages) 6. Topping Zone Change Pre-Application Conference Notes, March 10, 2015 (Site A) and September 10, 2015 ((27 pages) 7. Housing Strategies Report,Angelo Planning Group, February, 2013. (25 pages) Department of Land Conservation and Development yregon 635 Capitol Street h E,Suite 150 Or L t� Salem,Oregon 97301-2544 KateSrvwn,Gm-a= Phone:503-3i3-0050 Fax:503-378-.5,518 to=w .oregon.govfLCD November 09, 2015 -- �"1 TO: Land Conservation and Development Commission Subscribers to Notice of Proposed or Land Use Regulation Amendments FROM: DLCD Plan Amendment Specialist SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The following proposed plan amendments were received by the Department of Land Conservation and Development between 10/30/2015 and 11/05/2015. Information on the proposals are available for review at DLCD offices in Salem and the applicable field office. Concerns or questions should be referred to the local government contact before contacting the DLCD Regional Representitive. The first evidentiary hearing and final hearing dates indicated in this notice are subject to revision by local government as outlined in OAR 660,Division 18. Participants are advised to confirm the hearing date with the local government in advance of the scheduled hearing. Donald Local File#: LA 2015-04 DLCD File#: 003-15 Proposal Summary: Amend the Development Code to include: additional definitions for new terms, add commercial marijuana retailers as a conditional use to the Commercial (C) zone, add marijuana production and processing as a conditional use to the Industrial (I) zone, add food carts as a conditional use to the C zone, and allow drive-ins and drive-through facilities to the Commercial (C) zone. Locally Identified Affected Agencies: None Proposal Received: November 04, 2015 First Evidentiary Hearing: November 30, 2015 Final Hearing Date: December 08, 2015 Local Contact: Heidi Bell Phone: 503-678-5543 Regional Representative: Angela Lazarean Proposed Amendments Notice - 2 - November 09, 2015 Forest Grove Local File#: 311-15-000020-PING DLCD File#: 005-15 Proposal Summary: Amend the Development Code Articles 3 Zoning Districts, Article 4 Overlay Zones, Article 7 Miscellaneous Provisions, Article 8 General Developments Standards; and Article 12 Definitions to implement the recently updated Comprehensive Plan. Amend the Comprehensive Map from Town Center Support (TCS) to Town Center Transition (TCT), from Commercial Corridor(C-C) to Town Center Transition (TCT); the Zoning Map from General Industrial (GI) to Mixed Use (NMU), from Residential (R-10) to Mixed Use (NMU) for 84.80 acres located at various locations in the city. Locally Identified Affected Agencies: None Proposal Received: November 02, 2015 First Evidentiary Hearing: December 07, 2015 Final Hearing Date: January 25, 2016 Local Contact: Daniel Riordan Phone: 503-992-3226 Regional Representative: Anne Debbaut Jefferson Local File#: DLCD File#: 003-15 Proposal Summary: Amend the Development Code Section 12.04.080 to add definitions; Section 12.12.040 Permitted Uses; Section 12.30.050 Prohibited Uses; Section 12.84.040 Criteria; and Section 12.84.070 Criteria and conditions specific to marijuana facilities to establish definitions, and regulations for recreation and medical marijuana facilities. Locally Identified Affected Agencies: None Proposal Received: October 30, 2015 First Evidentiary Hearing: December 07, 2015 Final Hearing Date: December 17, 2015 Local Contact: Sarah Cook Phone: 541-327-2768 Regional Representative: Angela Lazarean Proposed Amendments Notice - 3 - November 09, 2015 Milton-Freewater Local File#• DLCD File#: 001-15 Proposal Summary: Amend the Development Code Title 10 Chapter 2 Definitions to add medical marijuana dispensary; Chapter 10-4-6(B), 10-4-7(B) and 10-4-8(B) to add standards regulating medical marijuana facilities. Locally Identified Affected Agencies: None Proposal Received: October 30, 2015 First Evidentiary Hearing: December 07, 2015 Final Hearing Date: December 14, 2015 Local Contact: Gina Hartzheim Phone: 541-938-8234 Regional Representative: Grant Young Walla Local File#: P 110-2015 DLCD File#: 003-15 Proposal Summary: Amend the Development Code Section 16.12.030 Definitions; 17.12.020 Land uses and development standards Central Business District (CBD), General Commercial District (C-2); Table 17.12.1 Commercial Districts - Allowed Land Uses; Table 17.12.2 Commercial Districts—Development Standards; Light Industrial District (M-1); Heavy Industrial District(M-2); Employment District; Table 17.16.1 - Land Uses Allowed in Industrial Districts and Table 17.16.2 - Development Standards for Industrial Districts to allow. identify location and restrictions of medical and recreational marijuana facilities, wholesale and processing for 50.00 acres located throughout the city. Locally Identified Affected Agencies: None Proposal Received: November 03, 2015 First Evidentiary Hearing: December 16, 2015 Final Hearing Date: January 13, 2016 Local Contact: Nicolas Lennartz Phone: 503-759-0219 Regional Representative: Jennifer Donnelly Proposed Amendments Notice - 4 - November 09, 2015 Newberg Local File#: CPTA-15-002 DLCD File#: 004-15 Proposal Summary: Amend the Transportation System Plan(TSP) to remove one of the proposed southbound through lanes on Highway 219, and remove one of the proposed southbound right turn lanes (between Springbrook Road and the Bypass) and Change the intersection design of the Highway 219/Phase 1 Bypass/Wilsonville Road intersection to a "No Thru Traffic" design. With the "No Thru Traffic" design, westbound traffic on Wilsonville Road could only turn right or left onto Highway 219. SR av 12/3. Locally Identified Affected Agencies: Department of Transportation Proposal Received: October 30, 2015 First Evidentiary Hearing: December 10, 2015 Final Hearing Date: January 19, 2016 Local Contact: Jessica Pelz Phone: 503-554-7744 Regional Representative: Angela Lazarean Newport Local File#: 2-AX-15/4-Z-15 DLCD File #: 004-15 Proposal Summary: Annex 0.23 acres into the city. Amend the Zoning Map from Rural Residential (RR-2) to Urban Light Industrial (1-1) for 0.23 acres located at 7576 N Coast Highway, 10-11-20-BB TL 400. Locally Identified Affected Agencies: Department of Transportation Proposal Received: November 04, 2015 First Evidentiary Hearing: November 23, 2015 Final Hearing Date: January 04, 2016 Local Contact: Derrick Tokos Phone: 541-574-0644 Regional Representative: Patrick Wingard Propos!--d Amendments Notice - 5 - November 09, 2015 Shady Cove Local File#: CPA 15-01 DLCD File#: 003-15 Proposal Summary: Amend the Comprehensive Plan Natural Resources and Hazards element and Development Code to include a riparian protection ordinance, defining riparian corridors, regulating activities within the corridors, and establishing development review procedures. Locally identified Affected Agencies: Department of Environmental Quality, Department of State Lands, Oregon Department of Fish And Wildlife, Jackson County, US Army Corps of Engineers Proposal Received: November 04, 2015 First Evidentiary Hearing: December 10, 2015 Final Hearing Date: February 04, 2015 Local Contact: Debby Jermain Phone: 541-878-8204 Regional Representative: Josh LeBombard Shady Cove Local File#: ZC 15-01 DLCD File#: 004-15 Proposal Summary: Amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from Public to Commercial; and the Zoning Map from Public Use to General Commercial for 1.00 acres located at 22501 Hwy 62, 34S 1 W l OCD TL 1800 & 1900. Locally Identified Affected Agencies: Department of Transportation, Jackson County, Jackson County Fire District#4 Proposal Received: November 04, 2015 First Evidentiary Hearing: December 10, 2015 Final Hearing Date: January 07, 2016 Local Contact: Debby Jermain Phone: 541-878-8204 Regional Representative: Josh LeBombard Proposed Amendments Notice - 6 - November 09, 2015 Sherwood Local File#: PA 15-05 DLCD File#: 005-15 Proposal Summary: Amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential for 3 acres located at 2S IW 31 AB TL 8000, 8100, 8200; 2S IW 31 BA TL 8200. Locally Identified Affected Agencies: Department of Transportation, Bonneville Power Administration, Metropolitan Service District, Washington County Proposal Received: November 04, 2015 First Evidentiary Hearing: December 08, 2015 Final Hearing Date: January 05, 2016 Local Contact: Michelle Miller Phone: 503-625-4242 Regional Representative: Anne Debbaut Silverton Local File#: DC-15-03 DLCD File#: 003-15 Proposal Summary: Amend the Development Code Section 2.3.180 General Commercial District Design Standards to clarify and raise the level of design required for new commercial buildings and major remodels. Locally Identified Affected Agencies: None Proposal Received: November 04, 2015 First Evidentiary Hearing: January 12, 2016 Final Hearing Date: February 01, 2016 Local Contact: Jason Gottgetreu Phone: 503-874-2212 Regional Representative: Angela Lazarean Proposed Amendments Notice - 7 - November 09, 2015 Stanfield Local File#: 11-2015 DLCD File#: 002-15 Proposal Summary: Amend the Zoning Map from Residential/Urban Holding to Residential/Multi-Family for 11.38 acres located at 3N 29E 05 TL 201. Locally Identified Affected Agencies: None Proposal Received: November 05, 2015 First Evidentiary Hearing: January 06, 2016 Final Hearing Date: February 02, 2016 Local Contact: Blair Larsen Phone: 541-449-3831 Regional Representative: Grant Young Tigard Local File#: CPA2015-00005/ZON201 DLCD File#: 007-15 Proposal Summary: Amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps from Professional Commercial District (C-P) to Medium Density Residential (R-12) for 1.54 acres located at 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72nd Ave., 10735 SW 72nd Ave; IS IW 36AC TL 02200, 02400, 02600; and from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial for 1.37 acres located at 13125 SW Pacific Hwy, 2S 1 W 02CB TL 00200. Locally Identified Affected Agencies: Metropolitan Service District Proposal Received: November 05, 2015 First Evidentiary Hearing: December 14, 2015 Final Hearing Date: January 12, 2016 Local Contact: Gary Pagenstecher Phone: 503-718-2434 Regional Representative: Anne Debbaut Proposed Amendments Notice - 8 - November 09, 2015 Tigard Local File#: ZON2015-00006 / SUB2 DLCD File#: 006-15 Proposal Summary: Amend the Zoning Map from Medium Density Residential (R-12) to Medium Density Residential (R-7) 6.05 acres at 15435 SW Hall Blvd, 2S11IDA 00400. Locally Identified Affected Agencies: Department of State Lands, Department of Transportation, Oregon Department of Fish And Wildlife, US Army Corps of Engineers Proposal Received: November 02, 2015 First Evidentiary Hearing: December 07, 2015 Final Hearing Date: December 07, 2015 Local Contact: John Floyd Phone: 503-718-2429 Regional Representative: Anne Debbaut Troutdale Local File#: 15-057 DLCD File#: 003-15 Proposal Summary: Amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential for 6.88 acres located at 1N 3E 35BC TL 700. Locally Identified Affected Agencies: Multnomah County Proposal Received: November 05, 2015 First Evidentiary Hearing: December 16, 2015 Final Hearing Date: Local Contact: Chris Damgen Phone: 503-674-7228 Regional Representative: Jennifer Donnelly City of Tigard 2011 Economic Opportunities Analysis Adopted by Tigard City Council on May 24, 20 11 Prepared By Cogan Owens Cogan, LLC FCS GROUP This report was funded by an Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Department Periodic Review Grant. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Tigard City Council Craig Dirksen,Mayor Gretchen Buehner, Council President Marland Henderson Nick Wilson Mark Woodard Tigard Planning Commission/Advisory Committee David Walsh,President Tom Anderson,Vice President Margaret Doherty Stuart Hasman Matthew Muldoon Karen Ryan Jason Rogers Donald Schmidt Richard Shavey Cogan Owens Cogan,LLC Kirstin Greene,AICP,Managing Principal Steve Faust,AICP,Senior Planner Ellie Fiore,AICP,Senior Planner FCS Group Todd Chase,AICP,Senior Economist City of Tigard Staff Ron Bunch, Community Development Director Susan Hartnett,AICP,Assistant Community Development Director Craig Prosser,City Manager Darren Wyss,Senior Planner and Project Manager Sean Farrelly,Redevelopment Project Manager TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary—i Introduction—1 Economic Development Vision and Goals—1 Economic Trends Analysis—2 Business Clusters Analysis—9 Targeted Business Clusters— 12 Site Suitability Analysis (Land Demand)—13 Inventory of Suitable Sites (Land Supply)—16 Short-Term Land Supply Determination— 18 Assessment of Potential (Reconciliation of Demand and Supply)—19 Short-Term Land Need Determination— 19 Long-Term Land Need Determination— 19 Planning,Market, Cost and Risk Factors-21 Implementation Policies and Action Measures—22 Policies—22 Recommended Action pleasures—23 Appendices A. Office Leasing Activity Summary,Mid-Year Report—26 B. Industrial Leasing Activity,Mid-Year 2010 Report—27 C. Analysis of Employment and Space Needs—28 D. Analysis of Retail Inflow/Outflow—32 E. Summary of Tigard Employment Zones and Regulations—33 F.Typical Site Requirements for Development Types—37 G. Buildable Land Inventory—38 H. Redevelopment Land Inventory—39 I. Summary of Stakeholder Interviews—40 J. Map of Buildable Lands and Redevelopment/Refill Potential—44 Executive Summary The City of Tigard has conducted an Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) as required by its Periodic Review work program to update its Comprehensive Plan. The City received grant funds from the Department of Land Conservation and Development(DLCD) for technical consultant assistance to complete this task. The EOA was developed in compliance with OAR 660 Division 9 (Statewide Planning Goal 9: Economic Development).The EOA is in-part a technically-based study that compares projected demand for land for industrial and other employment uses to the existing supply of such land. At the same time,it provides economic development policies and actions consistent with emerging economic opportunities,market trends,and local vision Vision and Goals In March 2008,as part of a robust public process,the City of Tigard updated the Economic Development chapter of its Comprehensive Plan. The chapter included the City's vision and goals for economic development to read: Vision The City shall have a strong and resilient local economy with a diverse portfolio of economic activity: retail,professional service and industrial jobs. Goals 1. Develop and maintain a strong, diversified and sustainable local economy. 2. Make Tigard a center and incubator for innovative businesses including those that focus on environmental sustainability. 3. Make Tigard a prosperous and desirable place to live and do business. Demographic and Employment Trends Tigard has been increasing in population at a slower rate (1.3%) than Washington County,but above Oregon and national growth rates.Tigard population is estimated to be 47,460 as of 2009,up from 42,260 residents in 2,000. Tigard currently is relatively"jobs rich"with a positive ratio of 2.3 jobs per household,which is well above the tri-county Metro regional average of 1.5 jobs per household.This is understandable given Tigard's concentration of regional employment centers,including Washington Square Mall, the"Tigard Triangle" employment area near the confluence of I-5/Hwy. 217,and pockets of industrial uses along the Hwy. 217 corridor. Tigard also is home to a number of large retail employers at Washington Square Mall as well as several large high-tech manufacturing, construction contractors,professional,business operations,and state and local government operations. Regional commercial and industrial real estate brokers see Tigard as a well-defined submarket within the suburban Metro region. Tigard's office market is especially competitive within the inner southwest portion of the region.Additionally,various efforts are underway to make the Downtown Tigard area a more viable place to live and work. Target Industries In line with Tigard's vision and goals,and in consultation with the City Planning Commission,the consultant team and City staff recommend that the City focus on retaining and attracting a mix of existing and emerging business clusters that pay above average wages. This includes existing, established clusters such as: • Durable goods manufacturing (includes metals and machinery) • Education (private and non-profits) 1 igard 2011 1:Cuutnttic opportunities Analy.is � • Financial services • Information (including software development) • Professional and technical services • Wholesale trade They also recommend that the City focus on emerging clusters,including health care and advanced technology (i.e.,green energy) manufacturing and research operations. Tigard's Land Demand and Supply The consulting team prepared a range of land need forecasts including: efficient,medium, and high land needs scenarios. These scenarios all take into account the Metro employment forecasts, but assume varying levels of industrial development and redevelopment. As summarized in the table below, the land efficient need scenario assumes 48 acres of net new industrial vacant land demand,which is just below the estimated vacant industrial land supply of 50 acres. If the City chooses to pursue a more aggressive economic growth strategy that is consistent with the moderate or high land need scenario,the City would need to identify another 14 to 30 acres of vacant industrial land area to meet the level of industrial demand associated with adding another 1,059 to 1,324 industrial jobs. 20 Year Industrial Demand Forecast and Vacant Land Supply, Tigard USB Efficient Land Moderate Land High Land Land Demand and Supply Need Need Scenario Need Scenario Scenario Demand for Vacant Industrial 48 64 80 Land Supply of Vacant Industrial 50 50 50 Land Land Surplus or (Deficit) 2 (14) (30) Existing Forecast of Preliminary Parcel Distribution, Unconstrained Parcel Size Surplus Efficient Land Need Forecast t Supply (tax Demand (tax lots) lots) (tax lots) Ii Less than 1 acre 12 10 2 1 to 5 acres 5 5 0 5 to 10 acres 0 0 0 10 to 20 acres 2 2 0 20+ acres 0 0 0 Total 19 17 2 Notes: I Tax lot demand forecast expected to meet or exceed supply in 20 years. Source: Based on findings included in demand and supply analysis. As sho-,vn in the table below,the land efficient needs scenario assumes 78 acres of net new commercial and mired-use vacant land demand,which is just below the estimated vacant land supply of 86 acres. As with the industrial land needs, an economic growth strategy that is consistent with the moderate or high land needs scenario would require the City to identify an additional 19 to 45 acres of vacant commercial and mixed-use land to meet the demand. Reconciliation of Long-term Land Demand and Supply Commercial and Mixed Use 20-Year Land Use Forecast (gross buildable acres), Tigard USB Efficient Land Medium High Land Land Demand and Supply Need Scenario Land Need Need Scenario Scenario Demand for Vacant Commercial 78 105 131 Land Commercial Demand 51 68 85 Mixed-Use Demand 27 36 45 Supply of Vacant Commercial 86 86 86 Land Commercial Zoned Supply 46 46 46 Mixed-Use Zoned Supply 40 40 40 Land Surplus or Deficit 8 19 45 Forecast of Surplus Preliminary Parcel Distribution, Existing Supply P Demand tax lots Efficient Need Forecast (tax lots) (tax lots) ( ) Less Than 1 acre 89 30 59 1 to 5 acres 14 14 0 5 to 10 acres 3 3 0 10 to 20 acres 0 0 0 20+ acres 0 0 0 Total 106 47 59 Source: FCS GROUP, based on findings included in demand and supply analysis. Recommendations In accordance with the proposed vision and goals,the consulting team and City staff recommends the City pursue the "efficient land need scenario'. The implications of this recommendation are that the City will focus a significant portion of future employment growth and high-density housing development in its Metro-designated Town Center (Downtown);Regional Center (Washington Square); High Capacity Transit Corridor (Hwy 99WY 1- and the Tigard Triangle. More detailed information on employment trends and pro)ections,and land needs and supply is found throughout the remainder of the document. i;t.«rd 2011 Hemi nits f)1)3x;r kill iiics A1-1l i- Sii INTRODUCTION The City of Tigard has conducted an Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) as required by its Periodic Review work program. The City received grant funds from the Department of Land Conservation and Development(DLCD) for technical consultant assistance to complete this task. The EOA was developed in compliance with OAR 660 Division 9 (Statewide Planning Goal 9: Economic Development) and is a technical study that compares projected demand for land for industrial and other employment uses to the existing supply of such land. The purpose of the EOA is to improve opportunities for Tigard to attract and maintain the type and quality of employment desired by its citizens,grow its economy,and maintain its quality of life. Goal 9 emphasizes the preservation and protection of vacant land for industrial and employment uses.This will happen by adopting policies that ensure an adequate supply of industrial and other employment lands within the City of Tigard. The Tigard Planning Commission acted as the advisory committee for the project,reviewing each task during the process to complete the EOA.The anticipated outcomes of the project are: 1. An understanding of the characteristics of Tigard's employment lands and their adequacy to accommodate future economic activity; 2. Updated economic development policies and action measures as a basis to plan for a supply of appropriately zoned land necessary for existing businesses to expand and to accommodate future economic activities. The six tasks reviewed by the Planning Commission included: 1. Economic Development Vision and Goals 2. Economic Trends Analysis 3. Site Suitability Analysis (Land Demand) 4. Inventory of Suitable Sites (Land Supply) 5. Assessment of Potential (Reconciliation of Demand and Supply) 6. Implementation Policies and Action Measures The process and findings of these tasks are outlined in detail throughout the remainder of the EOA. This includes examining key demographic and employment opportunities and trends to assess Tigard's economic development potential,projecting employment growth,and determining short- and long- term demand for employment land.This demand is compared to an inventory of suitable commercial and industrial properties (supply) to assess the sufficiency of immediate and longer term (20-year) supply of commercial and industrial employment land in the City's Urban Planning Area (UPA). Finally, economic development policies and action measures are recommended for inclusion in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT VISION AND GOALS In March 2008,as part of a robust public process,the City of Tigard updated the Economic Development chapter of its Comprehensive Plan. The chapter included the City's vision and goals for economic development: 4it�uni:'(!II f:conntnit:C)pJ=tnittstitie;:�tt�t!}sig 1 Vision The City shall have a strong and resilient local economy with a diverse portfolio of economic activity: retail,professional service and industrial jobs. Goals 1. Develop and maintain a strong,diversified and sustainable local economy. 2. Make Tigard a center and incubator for innovative businesses including those that focus on environmental sustainability. 3. Make Tigard a prosperous and desirable place to live and do business. Community Economic Development Objectives Community Economic Development Objectives were developed through interviews with City staff and a review of Tigard's economic development vision,goals and recommended action measures. These objectives were refined based on comments from the Planning Commission and the results of interviews with key stakeholders,including state and regional agencies,the Chamber of Commerce, Tigard Central Business District Association,and local employers and developers. • Encourage businesses that provide family-wage jobs to start-up,expand,or locate in Tigard. • Develop industry clusters,and preserve jobs,through the retention,expansion,and recruitment of industries that already have a presence in Tigard. • Promote well-designed and efficient development and redevelopment of vacant and underutilized industrial and commercial lands. • Ensure the City's land use and other regulatory practices are flexible and adaptive and that adequate public facilities and infrastructure exist to support a diverse and stable economic base. • Focus significant employment growth in Tigard's designated centers and corridors and support the development of efficient regional multi-modal transportation systems. • Limit the development of retail and service uses in Tigard's designated industrial areas to preserve the potential of these lands for industrial jobs. Support neighborhood commercial uses to meet smart growth goals. • Encourage businesses that are environmentally and economically sustainable. ECONOMIC TRENDS ANALYSIS The consultant team conducted an economic overview for the City of Tigard,including a review of national,state,regional,county,and local economic trend data and real estate market analysis of office, commercial retail,industrial,and public government space development for the Tigard Urban Service Boundary.The analysis focuses on the expected level of demand for new commercial,industrial,and public development and related gross buildable land needs over the next 20 years (2011-2031). Both the U.S. and Oregon economies are currently mired in the aftermath of a national economic recession that began in December 2007. The current economic slowdown is now the longest on record since the Great Depression;however,some economic expansion is beginning to occur. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis,real Gross Domestic Product (GDP is the measure of value of all goods and services in the U.S.) increased at an annual rate of 3.7 percent during the first quarter of 2010,and increased by 2.4 percent during the second quarter of 2010. figard 201 1 1;ca3+uunic(}iz(5oriwiitie%A .d ,,i! Z Consumers are still very cautious as unemployment rates remain high and high levels of home foreclosures continue. Oregon posted a year-over-year overall job loss of 16,000 jobs between June 2009 and June 2010. At the same time,the state's unemployment rate decreased to 10.5 percent in June 2010, compared to 11.6 percent in June 2009. It should be noted that Oregon's employment levels have declined over the past year in spite of the drop in unemployment rate.This trend likely reflects a decline in the number of people who are actively seeking employment. The U.S. and Oregon economies are now poised for a slow economic recovery. The July 2010 survey of the National Association of Business Economists reported expectations of slow growth in GDP during the second half of 2010 in the U.S.as industry demand,profit margins,employment, capital spending and credit conditions improve. Despite job losses,population levels continue to increase in both Oregon and Tigard due to population migration patterns,increases in immigrant population levels and natural population increases. As indicated in Table 1,according to the Portland State University Population Research Center, the population in Tigard increased to 47,460 residents in 2009,up from 42,260 residents in 2000. The average annual growth rate (AAGR) for population in Tigard was 1.3%between 2000 and 2009,which was below the level of population growth recorded for Washington County,but above the Oregon and national growth rates. Table 1. Population Trends, 2000 to 2009 Annual 2000 2009 Change 2000-2009 Tigard 42,260 47,460 1 .30 Washington County 449,250 527,140 1 .8% Oregon 3,421,399 3,823,465 1 .20 USA 282,171,957 307,006,550 1 0.90 Source: Portland State University, Population Research Center. Metro (the regional government) has prepared forecasts for households and employment for all local jurisdictions in the Metro Urban Growth Planning Area. The most recently adopted Metro growth forecasts are referred to as the Metroscope Generation 2.3 model,and include a forecast period from 2005 to 2030. FCS GROUP extrapolated the Metro forecasts to year 2035 using Metro's forecasted growth rate from the 2005-2030. While Metro is currently in the process of preparing updated growth forecasts for the region,the Metroscope Generation 2.3 forecasts are being used for this EOA since they are the only set of officially adopted forecasts at this time.As indicated in Table 2, the 2005 to 2035 forecasts anticipate that Tigard will add approximately 3,185 households and 24,167 jobs over the 25-year period. The extrapolated 2035 Metro job forecasts shown in Table 2 are provided for informational purpose only. In light of the recent national economic recession that caused severe declines in Oregon employment(from 2007 through 2010),Metro's 2030 job forecast for Tigard is assumed to be achieved by year 2035 under the "medium forecast" scenario used in the Tigard EOA. As noted in Table 2,the Metro job growth forecasts reflect the fact that Tigard currently is relatively "jobs rich"with a positive ratio of 2.3 jobs per household,which is well above the tri-county Metro regional average of 1.5 jobs per household.This is no surprise given Tigard's concentration of regional employment centers,including Washington Square Mall, the"Tigard Triangle" employment area near the confluence of I-5/Hwy. 217,and pockets of industrial uses along the Hwy. 217 corridor. C igard 2011 Economic Oppornmiiic Ai;a ly is Table 2. Metro Growth Forecasts for Households and Em to ment, 2005 to 2035 Households Projected Projected. Avg. Change Annual Change 2005 2030 2035 2005-2035 M Tigard 17,724 20,341 20,909 3,185 0.6% Clackamas County 140,415 241,821 269,594 129,179 2.2% Multnomah County 288,926 372,913 392,439 103,513 1.0% Washington County 189,925 272,998 293,545 103,620 1.5% Total 3 County E2005-2035 12 1 5� Region 619,266 887,732 955,578 Employment* . Avg. Annual Char 2005 2030 2035 Tigard 41,308 60,637 65,475 24,167 1 .5% Clackamas County 145,581 251,286 280,273 134,692 2.2% Multnomah County 493,671 705,721 758,005 264,334 1.4% Washington County 269,660 450,970 499,820 230,160 2.1% Total 3 County 629,186 1 8% Region 908,912 1,407,977 1,538,098 Projected. Projected Tigard Jobs Per Household Ratio Tigard Capture of Capture of Region Jobs 2005 2030 2035 Region HHs Tigard 2.3 3.0 3.1 0.9% 3.8% Clackamas County 1.0 1 .0 1.0 N/A N/A Multnomah County 1.7 1.9 1.9 N/A N/A Washington Count 1.4 1 .7 1.7 N/A N/A Total 3 County N/A N/A Re ion 1.5 1.6 1.6 Source:Metro adopted housing and employment growth forecasts,2007,Metroscope Gen. 2.3;extrapolated to 2035 by FCS GROUP. *The extrapolated 2035 Metro job forecasts shown in Table 2 are provided for informational purpose only. In light of the recent national economic recession that caused severe declines in Oregon employment(from 2007 through 2010), Metro's 2030 job forecast for Tigard is assumed to be achieved by year 2035 under the "medium forecast"scenario used in the Tigard EOA. Washington Square Mall already functions as a regional commercial center that draws shoppers and patrons from over a 30-mile radius.With 1,458,734 square feet (sf) of retail and entertainment space, the mall has five anchor stores including JC Penny,Macy's,Nordstrom,Sears, and Dick's Sporting Goods and 170 specialty stores. The mall added 28 new stores and restaurants in 2005, along with a new multi-level parking structure. In addition to large retail employers,Tigard is also home to several large high-tech manufacturing, construction contractors,professional,business operations and state and local government operations. Table 3 provides a list of Tigard employers with more than 250 jobs per establishment. 4 if'itrd'2011 Ecollolvili;f)1(()i(?litiilCi:111-,I`�i Table 3 Large Employers in Tigard with More Than 250 Employees, 2008 Employment Firm Name Specialty Range Retail/Gen. Nordstrom Merchandise 500- 999 Tigard-Tualatin School District Local Government 500- 999 AEROTEK, Inc. Temp. Emp. Agency 250- 499 City of Tigard Local Government 250- 499 COSTCO Corp. Retail. Merchandise 250- 499 Health Insurance Health Net Health Plan of Oregon Carrier 250- 499 JC Penny Retail Merchandise 250- 499 MACYS Retail Merchandise 250- 499 Performance Contracting, Inc. Industrial Contractors 250- 499 PERS Headquarters Pension Fund Mgmt. 250 - 499 Remedy Intelligent Staffing, Inc. Temp. Emp. Agency 250 - 499 Aero. & Tech. Part 250- 499 Rockwell Collins Aerospace Mfg. STARPLEX Corp. Temp. Emp. Agency 250- 499 Bldg. Interior Western Patricians, Inc. Contractors 250- 499 Source: Oregon Employment Department. According to regional commercial and industrial real estate brokers,Tigard is a well-defined submarket within the suburban Metro region. Tigard's office market is especially competitive within the inner southwest portion of the region,with businesses considering locations among several areas including Tigard; 217 Corridor/Beaverton;Kruse Way;Barbur Blvd/Capitol Hwy;Tualatin and Wilsonville. Recent office leasing market statistics indicate that office vacancy rates in the Metro region have been increasing since 2008 as many businesses have shed jobs and scaled back on required space needs. As indicated in Appendix A,negative absorption levels have been occurring during the first six months of the year,particularly in Class A Office space,where Tigard experienced a net loss of 13,097 sf during the first half of this year. As of July 1,2010 Tigard had total Class A vacancy rates of 151,900 sf and another 66,000 sf in vacant Class B and C space. Tigard's Class B inventory has experienced positive absorption this year,with 12,800 sf of net absorption. Since July 2010,Tigard has recorded several positive lease transactions,which rank among the largest in the region, such as Bridgewell Resources (32,088 gsf); Comsys into the Lincoln Center; State Farm Mutual Insurance (23,712 gso into Fanno Creek Place;and CAN Insurance (17,843 gso into the Pacific Parkway Center. Industrial leasing activity and vacancy rates were also significantly impacted by the recent economic recession. As indicated in Appendix B,Tigard had approximately 170,000 sf of vacant flex space (13.4%vacancy rate), and 339,000 sf of vacant warehouse space (7.7%vacancy rate) as of July 1, 2010. 1 tcard 20i E ()pporamitic,A nalv.,i.: j Overall industrial lease rates in the Tigard submarket averaged$7.68 per sf/year,and were among the highest in the Metro suburbs. The City of Tigard and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) are taking steps to enhance the Downtown Tigard area to make it a more viable place to live and work. At a cost of$12 million,intersection improvements along Pacific Highway at Hall Blvd. and Greenburg Rd. are being paid for by ODOT,Washington County and the City of Tigard. This project is slated for completion by Spring 2011 and will include a third through-lane on the highway,turn lanes on side streets,an extended median,wider sidewalks,new bike lanes,improved pedestrian crossings,and wider corners for truck turning movements.This effort will also enhance access into and from Downtown Tigard. Tigard's recently completed Downtown Plan is setting the regulatory stage and establishing a new vision for renovating downtown. The vision is intended to be a 50-year look at how the downtown could change into a"mixed-use urban village"with a wide range of housing and commercial opportunities that optimize natural features,such as Fanno Creek and Fanno Creek Park, transportation facilities,such as Pacific Hwy. and the Westside Express Commuter Rail system,and even light rail or bus rapid transit service to/from Portland. To estimate future development potential for Tigard employment,FCS GROUP evaluated the 10-year employment growth forecasts prepared by the Oregon Employment Department for the Metro Tri- County region,and Metro growth forecasts for Tigard. As shown in Figure 1,the 10-year job growth forecasts for the Metro Tri-County Region portend a positive trend towards job growth for all industry sectors,except federal government and the manufacturing sector. The sectors that are expected to grow the fastest in the Tri-County Metro Region include: educational and health services;professional and business services;leisure and hospitality;local government;retail;and wholesale trade. 6 Amahi it Figure 1 Non-Farm Employment, Tri-County Metro Region, 2008-2018 Forecast Local government 8,040 stategovernment 1,890 i Federal government (270) Other services 2,210 Leisure and hospitality ®� 10,590 23,910 Educational and health services Professional and business services 19,730 Financial activities 2,730 Information 800 Transportation.warehousing,and utilities 1,520 Retail trade 6,670 Wholesale trade 4,960 Manufacturing (2,270) Construction 1,090 Natural resources and mining 1,190 i Source:Oregon Employment Department includes Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas Counties. To estimate future development potential for Tigard,FCS GROUP evaluated the 10-year employment growth forecasts prepared by the Oregon Employment Department as well as the extrapolated employment growth forecasts from Metro.In light of the recent national economic recession that caused severe declines in Oregon employment (from 2007 through 2010),Metro's 2030 job forecast for Tigard is assumed to be achieved by year 2035 under the "medium forecast" scenario. As indicated in Appendix C, the 20-year job growth forecasts for Tigard indicate a more positive trend towards job growth for all industry sectors. According to Metro (and FCS GROUP interpretation of Metro data), the general sectors that are expected to grow the fastest in Tigard over the next 20 years include: services (+10,092 jobs);retail (+3,810 jobs),industrial/other(+1,324)obs), and government (+882 jobs). The job growth projections indicate that Tigard should expect to experience significant redevelopment opportunities over the next 20-years. A range in employment forecasts is provided to take into account current weak market conditions and national economic expectations that expect lower-rates of job growth over the next several years.As indicated in Table 4, there is a great level of uncertainty I iaard 2011 Economic Opportunities Att dysi regarding potential job growth for Tigard in light of weak regional and national employment growth predictions. Table 4. Forecasted 20-Year Employment Growth and Building Space Needs in Ti and Employment Growth Forecast Slow Moderate High Retail Trades 2,286 3,048 3,810 Services 6,055 8,073 10,092 Industrial/Other* 794 1,059 1,324 Government* 529 706 882 Total 9,665 12,886 16,108 Notes: See supporting analysis in Appendix C. *Metro employment growth forecasts for"Other" were allocated to 60% industrial/other and 40%government by FCS GROUP based on local observations and assumptions. Tigard is expected to add between 9,665 and 16,108 new jobs over the next 20 years. As indicated in Table 5, this amount of employment growth translates into approximately 4.2 to 7.1 million of new or renovated building square footage (floor area). Table 5. Forecasted 20-Year Total Buildin Space Needs in Tigard for Employment Employment Type Slow Moderate High Office 1,499,000 1,998,000 2,497,000 Institutional 170,000 227,000 285,000 Flex/Business Park 451,000 602,000 752,000 General Industrial 257,000 342,000 428,000 Warehouse 374,000 499,000 624,000 Retail 1,498,000 1,997,000 2,497,000 Total 4,249,000 5,665,000 7,083,000 Notes: See supporting analysis in Appendix C. Source: FCS GROUP. A large portion of this demand will need to be met by redevelopment and utilization of vacant buildings since large vacant undeveloped tracts of land are becoming increasingly scarce. It is estimated that redevelopment and utilization of vacant buildings is expected to accommodate 70% of the retail space demand, 509/0 of the service/office demand,40% of the industrial demand, and 40% of the government facilities demand. Table 6 shows the expected level of redevelopment and refill in the Tigard USB over the next 20 years. As the existing vacant land supply in Tigard gets developed, the level of redevelopment activity is expected to rise. Prime redevelopment locations in Tigard include Downtown and the Tigard Triangle, and future planned high capacity transit stations along Pacific I lwy. The City's Downtown Plan envisions 2,500 dwelling units and over one million square feet of commercial office and retail space being added over the next few decades. it ie.,,A Table 6. Redevelopment and Refill Assumptions 2011 to 2031 Tigard USB Employment Type Slow Moderate High Office 1,004,000 1,339,000 1,673,000 Institutional 114,000 152,000 191,000 Flex/Business Park 203,000 271,000 338,000 General Industrial 116,000 154,000 193,000 Warehouse 168,000 225,000 281,000 Retail 899,000 1,198,000 1,498,000 Total 2,504,000 3,339,000 4,174,000 Source: FCS GROUP; derived from Appendix C, based primarily on Metro 2009-2035 Urban Growth Report (December 2009 draft) and local assumptions. After accounting for the levels of redevelopment activity identified in Table 6, the amount of vacant land demand in Tigard for employment uses over the next 20-years is expected to range from 126 to 210 acres. Prelirninaiy estimates for vacant lands needs in Tigard by general building type are provided in Table 7, and supporting assumptions are reflected in Appendix D and Appendix E. Table 7. Vacant Land Needs by General Land Use Zoning Classification (2011 to 2031) Tigard USB (gross buildable acres Land Use Zoning Classifcation Slow Moderate High Commercial 51 68 85 Mixed Use 27 36 45 Industrial 48 64 80 Total 126 168 210 Source: FCS GROUP;derived from Appendix C, based primarily on Metro 2009- 2035 Urban Growth Report (December 2009 draft) and local assumptions. To help validate these assumptions,FCS GROUP conducted an additional analysis of retail sales inflow/outflow within Tigard. The retail analysis provided in Appendix D indicates that the amount of local retail trade in Tigard over the next 20 years could support an additional 1.4 million square feet of redevelopment or new development activity, even if current levels of retail sales inflow were cut by 50%. Hence,it appears that the "slow" or"land efficient"vacant land demand scenario is the best match with respect to the retail market potential for the Tigard USB. The actual amount and timing of new development will vary from year to year. The wide range in development forecasts reflects current uncertainty regarding the region's ability to retain and attract major employers, the City's desire to stimulate redevelopment in downtown, and limited ability to accommodate new commercial and industrial development on vacant lands. {iC;;Ir d 20 1 1 1 ilia Business Clusters Analysis It is a widely accepted theory among economic development professionals that"business clusters" are the primary force driving local economic currents and business location decisions. Clusters of business activity go well beyond mere concentrations of industry or employment types. They represent unique competitive market advantages with regard to employment,work force, creativity, entrepreneurship, business costs,and supporting natural resources. The clusters analysis prepared by FCS Group is intended to identify potential employment sectors that are most compatible with local economic policy objectives. The process entailed: 1. Obtaining Employment Security (ES202)wage and salary employment data from the Oregon Employment Department(OED) for the Tigard Urban Service Boundary (USB),Washington County,Multnomah County and Clackamas County (tri-county region) for the year 2008. 2. Conducting a location-quotient (LQ) analysis to evaluate business and industrial clusters in the Tigard UGB relative to the tri-county region. 3. Evaluating business clusters within the Tigard UGB with regard to the LQ,projected growth rates, economic size of each cluster,and average wage rates. 4. Classifying each business cluster with regard to one of four classifications,including: I. STARS: Businesses with large LQ (propensity to locate in the Tigard USB) and higher than average projected growth rate compared to the tri-county region. II. EMERGING:Businesses with small LQ and high average growth rate (possible pent up demand or competitive market disadvantage relative to other locations). III. MATURE; Businesses with large LQ but lower than average growth rate. IV. CHALLENGED:Businesses with small LQ and lower than average growth rate. The business cluster analysis summarized in Figure 2 identifies the business sectors within the Tigard USB by their LQ, size and growth potential. Each sector has been analyzed by their North American Industrial Classification System(NAICS) code. This code is used by the federal government to classify types of businesses for tax accounting and economic research purposes.The data was derived from the OED ES202 wage and salary employment statistics for the year ending in 2008. l i�;�rf 'til i I;a7�tic��aiic t?��+c�rituFiii� :'��tai}�i� CE) Figure 2 Existing Business Clusters in Tigard USB, 2008 ................. .......-..__.._.._.._.__..__....___.__....:. m_._.._..-____._._..__.-..__....___.__.__..-.._._......._........._......................� 27% _._-.........._._ .__-__ .__._...____ .......__.. ._._.._.._-_ Emerging _ --_,_ _.:.. __......__. Stars (High Growth! Cs_rR- ................... _ ... ...........__,_ (High Growthl - I 15% Small Custer) ___.-__ .. ref S TeamLarge Cluster- GOMM 23Y. ___._..... ..__.. �._.....—.......____—._...... _..___—.__ _..._ ._.._..__. 21`-e .. ... ........._ ... _. ..._._ ..._...._ ..... 19% __.. .__.._..... ........__... ......___..__ 9srYlCes f I .... t VbsftjbmL i 16Y. rtainilieAt- _....fooC 8 R� playas 114E .....__ _._......_ ...... _._..__ I I MTrade ... .._.._. . ........__... i;. (g ernrrreat Misc. rvicas Il Trade Average i0-year Job Growth=101% 7y gggg Information TAM w� _, 777 _...-._._ .... _ _.. ..._ ..... �p ACWIt3aa p, Lodyfng I i r _..._..-- i Computer g 1 d N 'lN Doddse Mfg Metats Mtg. ...........................____.__......____.._. .-_..._.._.__.....,.... ......... i .......... .......__..._.._......_.._........._....... } _._ ._.............. ._..__ _ .. 1 i TronsportEgvlp. ....._. ........ ! 46%' Challenged tJ- _..+gig•-- _.... ____. _ ._.._. .... .....__..._._ _ Mature. (low Growth (low Growth/ Smao Cluster) i... _.......__......_____.(_ __—_. ____. ..____._i Large Cluster) I Note:X-axis denotes the Location Quotient (LQ) average set at 1. All sectors to right of the yellow line have an LQ greater than l; all sectors to the left of the yellow line have an LQ less than 1. Source: Oregon Employment Department; data compiled by FCS GROUP. The clusters analysis classifies the existing business sectors in the Tigard USB into four general categories: Industry Sectors with Large LQ/High Growth Potential ("Stars") Educational Services (private or non-profit) • Professional and Technical Services • Professional Administration and Waste Management Services • Wholesale Trade I igard'(1I I l:ctmumic{)(1,,=,l;attlti� ;)Heel},�i< I 1 Industry Sectors with Small LQ/High Growth Potential ("Emerging") • Health Care and Social Services • Food Service and Drinking Places • Arts,Entertainment and Recreation Industry Sectors with Large LQ/Low Growth Potential ("Mature") • Retail Trade • Information Services • Financial Activities and Services • Construction • Nondurable Goods Manufacturing Industry Sectors with Small LQ/Low Growth Potential ("Challenged") Transportation,and Warehousing Miscellaneous Services Metals Manufacturing Computer Parts and Equipment Manufacturing • Lodging Transportation Equipment Manufacturing • Government In addition to evaluating existing local business clusters, the City may also consider the expected regional growth in business sectors and emerging clusters.According to the Oregon Employment Department, the job sectors with the highest potential for new growth in the greater Portland metropolitan region include: • Business administration and waste management • Finance and insurance Health care • Hotel/motel accommodations and food services • Professional • Retail trade • Scientific and technical service (computer science,engineering) • State and local government • Transportation and utilities (warehousing, distribution and energy research,private utilities) • Wholesale trade' While manufacturing of durable goods does not make the list of the top growth sectors,there are certain subsectors within manufacturing that are growing faster than others.The manufacturing sectors with the greatest net new job growth potential in the greater Portland metropolitan region include: computer-related parts manufacturing, transportation equipment,other miscellaneous durable goods (such as solar panels),and miscellaneous non-durable goods (such as apparel research and design). I These emerging business clusters are documented in the Regional Wired Workforce Innovation and Regional Economic Development, Global Development Strategy, prepared by FCS GROUP et al, 2008. I igard 201 1 LL0110111ic()pporntmiiics AnalyMi l 12 The greater Portland metropolitan region is now considered an epicenter within the United States for sustainable technology. According to Global Insight,the greater Portland metropolitan region employs 6,700 people in"green jobs"which is more than Denver,Austin, Seattle and San Jose.The number of workers in green jobs (such as solar panel manufacturing,wind energy,bio energy research and manufacturing) is expected to increase to 53,000 over the next two decades.Portland General Electric and Pacific Power are ranked in the top three among the nation's top utility companies for Green Energy sales,and the greater Portland region has more LEED-certified buildings than any other U.S. metropolitan area. With the Portland metropolitan region,recent federal and state tax policies have helped spur major investments in green technology and energy by firms such as: SolarWorld,SunEdison,Vestas and Portland General Electric—creating a major new industrial cluster in clean technology. Additional investments in advanced manufacturing are being made by Intel,Flir Systems (producer of night vision and thermal imaging systems),Precision Castparts (maker of parts used in Vestas wind turbines,Boeing aircraft and other products),Genentech,and other firms.These are examples of manufacturing companies that are finding success within the greater Portland metropolitan region, even in challenging economic times. Focused marketing and business recruitment efforts are being made by the State of Oregon and regional economic development stakeholders to attract certain established and emerging business clusters. The business and industry clusters that are currently being targeted by the Oregon Business Development Department,Portland Business Alliance and the Portland Development Commission include advanced manufacturing,clean technology (with sustainability sub-clusters in green building, solar&wind power),active wear/outdoor gear,and software. Targeted Business Clusters According to its Community Economic Development Objectives,the City of Tigard may target businesses that generally offer above average wages and provide health care and retirement benefits that support families. According to the U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics, the occupations that had the fastest growth and highest pay over the past 10 years nationally included: computer systems analysts,registered nurses, computer support specialists, teachers, social workers,college faculty,computer programmers, engineering sciences,police officers, securities and financial services,physicians,advertising,marketing, management analysts,electrical engineers,paralegals,writers/editors, commercial artists,medical and health service managers. It is interesting to note that almost two-thirds of the jobs filled in these fast growing occupations required some level of on-the-job training in addition to high school and a college degree.' In light of these findings, the consultant team and City staff recommend that Tigard focus on retaining and attracting a mix of existing and emerging business clusters that pay above average wages. This includes existing,established clusters,such as durable goods manufacturing (includes metals and machinery),education (private and non-profits), financial services,information (including software development),professional and technical services,and wholesale trade. They also recommend that the City focus on emerging clusters,including health care and advanced technology (i.e.,green energy) manufacturing and research operations. As indicated in Table 8, these recommended business clusters (with the exception of educational services) pay above average wage rates. 2 Based on findings contained in publications provided by JIST Works, including the Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-2009; and America's Fastest Growing Jobs by Michael Farr. I igars 2011 (Ippormnii IcS Analy'> Table 8. Summa of Existing Businesses in Ti and USB, 2008 Average Number Average Annual of Entities Employment Pa Total Private 2,914 41,032 $43,542 Natural resources and mining 6 21 $38,742 Construction 272 3,329 $56,080 Manufacturing 117 2,743 $54,300 Durable goods 53 1,814 $58,229 Metals and machinery manufacturing 36 897 $51,425 Computer and electronic product l5 774 $65,308 Mfg. Transportation equipment manufacturing 2, 143 $62,594 Nondurable goods 64 929 $46,628 Trade, transportation, and utilities 704 11,375 $36,742 Wholesale trade 333 2,987 $64;284 Retail trade 329 7,621 $25,407 Transportation, warehousing, and 42 767 $42,1 14 utilities Information 69 1,206 $66,469 Financial services 405 5,037 $58,459 Professional and business services 638 8,146 $45,971 Professional and technical services 449 3,858 $62,851 Administrative and waste services 189 4,288 $30,784 Educational and health services 269 5,037 $38,133 Educational services 55 2,912 $36,384 Health care and social assistance 214 2,125 $40,531 Leisure and hospitality 204 3,018 $16,579 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 23 184 $16,241 Accommodations and food services 181 2,834 $16,601 Accommodations 10 131 $20,072 Food services and drinking places 171 2,703 $16,433 Other services 230 1,120 $36,618 Government 5 390 $49,275 Total 2,919 41,422 $43,596 Notes: Shading indicates targeted business cluster. Source: Oregon Employment Department, 2008. Average payroll reflects Washington and Multnomah counties. SITE SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (LAND DEMAND The majority of the targeted businesses that consider expanding or relocating into Tigard will consist of small business operations (less than 50 employees) that can locate within existing professional office or 1 igjjru '(f 1 i j.cj):j()jt:ic oppormn tic:,Ana•:,.,, 14 industrial buildings, or within new office or flex/industrial buildings that are developed on vacant sites of less than five acres in size. It is also likely that there will be larger potential business and high-tech industrial operations that consider Tigard as a potential location for new campus-style developments. Certain opportunities may emerge as regional businesses expand and desire to remain within the tri-county region. Other opportunities may occur as global and national businesses desire to establish a presence in the Pacific Northwest. In any event,it is likely that Tigard could attract three to four large professional service, health care, education,and/or high tech industrial businesses over the next 20 years. As indicated in Table 9,Tigard is already home to 41 large private business operations (with between 70-250 employees). Tigard could continue to retain and attract large businesses if adequate sites are available. These types of large private operations usually require surplus adjacent land areas to accommodate future business expansion. Table 9. Existing Private Businesses by Size Class, Ti and USB, 2008 Total Large Small/Medium Sector Establishments Establishments Establishments Number Jobs Number Jobs Number Jobs Natural resources and mining 6 21 -- -- 6 21 Construction 272 3,329 4 571 268 2,758 Manufacturing 117 2,743 10 1,300 107 1,443 Durable goods 53 1,814, 10 1,300 43 514 Nondurable goods 64 929 -- -- 64 929 Trade, transport., utilities & 704 11,375 20 3,997 684 7,378 communications Wholesale trade 333 2,987 i 125 332 2,862 Retail trade 329 7,621 16 3,517 313 4,104 Transport., warehousing and 42 767 3 355 39 412 communications Information 69 1,206 2 376 67 830 Financial, professional & tech. 1,043 13,183 4 1,426 1,039 11,757 services Educational and health services 269 5,037 -- -- 269 5,037 Educational services 55 2,912 -- - 55 2,912 Health care and social 214 2,125 - 214 2,125 assistance -- -_ 204 3,018 Leisure and hospitality 204 3,018 Arts, entertainment, and 23 184 - - 23 184 recreation Accommodations and food 181 2,834 -- 181 2,834 services Other services 230 1,120 1 99 229 1,021 2,914 4132,041 7,769 2,873 33,263 Total Notes: green shading indicates targeted business cluster. Source:Oregon Employment Depmlment,2008. Note:large establishments am 11ose with at least 70 employees. ii�,trd"�{t1 ! I:tcu7t; ic()�Srtiriri�,:1t:1_j,}<. The consultant/staff team recommends that Tigard provide a variety of small,medium and large vacant sites that meet the targeted business and industrial requirements. As indicated in Table 10, the existing businesses within Tigard can generally be grouped into three general land use categories: industrial, commercial and office. Table 10. Existing Private Businesses by Size Class and General Land Use or Building Type, Tigard USB, 2008 Small/Medium Primary Land Total Entities Large Entities4 Entities Use/Building Type Firms Jobs Firms Jobs Firms Jobs Industrial ! 0 9,847 18 2,351 752 7,496 Commercial 2 763 11 ,759 17 3,616 746 8,143 Office 3 [:177 ,381 19,426 6 1,802 1,375 17,624 Total 2,914 41 ,032 41 7,769 2,873 33,263 Notes: ! Reflects natural resources, construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, transportation, warehousing, utilities, and communications sectors. 2 Reflects retail trades, lodging, accommodations, and misc. service sectors. 3 Reflects information, financial, professional and technical service, health care and educational service sectors. 4 Large establishments reflect establishments with at least 70 employees. Source: Oregon Employment Department,2008. Compiled by FCS GROUP. Most small and medium business establishments prefer to lease space in office or commercial buildings, and/or could locate into redevelopment sites in downtown or in selected redevelopment locations (e.g., near planned high capacity transit stations or within the Tigard Triangle). No special vacant land requirements are identified for future small or medium businesses. However, the City should pursue more proactive redevelopment strategies to accommodate small and medium sized businesses. Larger business establishments that are included within the targeted business clusters will likely have minimum site size and infrastructure service requirements. Typical site requirements for the larger targeted business sectors are described in Table 11 and described in more detail in Appendix F. Based on the site requirements described in Table 11 and Appendix F, the recommended targeted business clusters will need sites ranging from one to twenty-five acres,with a majority of the need falling in the five to ten-acre range. Iis.aru'(!I1 l :;in;o��ict)!)(Xt3'Ctt11141�1:�Ilell\�l`� 16 Table 11. Typical Site Size Re uirements for Tar eted Business T es Small Users Medium Users Large Users Less than 50 jobs 50 to 70 jobs 70 to 200+jobs er business er business per business 6 to 20 acres per Industrial Building tenants or 4 to 6 acres per user user . Advanced Technology infill Manufacturing redevelopment Prefers industrial or Prefers industrial or • Metals/Machinery sites in established business park business park Manufacturing industrial locations settings campus settings . Wholesale Trade Office Building tenants or 2 to 4 acres per 1 to 2 acres per user user* • Education infill• Professional and redevelopment Technology. Services sites in town Prefers town center, Prefers business • Information center, regional corridors or transit park campus • Financial Services center, or transit station areas setting with transit • Health Care* station areas service Retail I Not in Targeted Clusters Notes: Assumes site development requirements shown in Appendix F. *Larger medical facility campus could require 15 to 30 acres. INVENTORY OF SUITABLE SITES (LAND SUPPLY Consistent with the employment land demand forecast, the buildable land inventory (BLI) for the Tigard EOA documents industrial and commercial inventory that currently exists within the Tigard Urban Planning Area (UPA).This analysis documents existing land use inventories and compares industrial and commercial land use needs required for addressing the slow,moderate and high growth forecast scenarios. Employment Land Inventory The Tigard EOA includes a recent buildable land inventory completed by the City of Tigard Planning data that is consistent with the current Draft 2009- staff using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 2035 urban Growth Report (accepted by Metro Council in December 2009). The City's BLI included an analysis of existing vacant and partially vacant (sub-dividable) tax lots by current zoning classification and deducted all significant environmental constraints to estimate buildable land area within the Tigard USB.The land supply analysis focused on the land use classifications that support employment uses,including commercial,mixed-use,and industrial zones. The City has 10 commercial zones to account for a wide variety of uses ranging from retail to medical centers to mixed use centers. Tigard has three zones which accommodate industrial uses. Please refer to Appendix E for a detailed description of the allowed, conditional, and permitted uses within each of the City's zone classifications. The buildable land area for each tax lot was derived by analyzing GIS data pertaining to environmental features that would constrain the amount of potential site development on vacant and partially vacant areas. For purposes of this analysis, the environmental constraints were calculated for each site using t" iiwn—d'_'QII iscamomicf}pror(ullitie:,,iii-i},ae estimates for land area that is constrained by the following: Metro Title 3 designation (waterways, wetlands,riparian buffers, 100 year floodplain). The vacant and partially vacant land inventory for the Tigard UPA includes 125 tax lots with a total buildable land area of 136.1 acres,as indicated in Table 12. Tigard's vacant land supply primarily consists of small (less than one acre) tax lots and tax lots between one and five acres in size. As indicated in Table 12, the tax lots of less than five acres in size comprise 79.3 acres or nearly sixty percent of the total vacant land supply. The larger tax lots include three lots of five to ten acres (22.1 acres total), and two contiguous tax lots more than ten acres in size (34.7 acres total). Please refer to Appendix G for additional detail. Table 12. Distribution of Vacant and Part Vacant Lands by General Land Use Zone Classification, Ti and USB Vacant and Partially Vacant Property < 1 acre 1 to 5 acres 5 to 10 acres > 10 acres Total Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Commercial 26 9.5 8 20.2 2 16.4 0 0 36 46.1 Mixed Use 63 25.3 6 8.9 1 5.7 0 0.0 70 39.9 Industrial 12 4.2 5 11 .2 0 0.0 2 34.7 19 50.1 Total 101 39.0 19 40.3 3 22.1 2 34.7 125 136.1 Source:city of Tigard. As mentioned in the Site Suitability Analysis,the recommended targeted business clusters will need sites ranging from one to twenty-five acres to expand or locate within the Tigard UPA,with a majority of the need falling in the five to ten-acre range. The City appears to have a range of sites available to accommodate the targeted business clusters. However redevelopment sites may be needed to accommodate development needing five to ten-acre parcels. In light of the importance of redevelopment to the City's ability to grow and diversify its economic base, the City and consultant team also evaluated the relative level of high,medium and low redevelopment potential for each developed tax lot in the Tigard UPA. While this is not a stated requirement within OAR 660,Division 9,it is considered an important factor in deciding which land use growth scenario to target. The analysis of redevelopment opportunities is based on the ratio of assessed improvement value to land value for each tax lot using 2010 Washington County Assessor data. The results provided in Table 13 indicate that there are significant amounts of high and moderate redevelopment potential within the Tigard USB. The redevelopment analysis identifies 169 tax lots with a total of 115.6 acres as having"high"redevelopment potential,and 180 tax lots with 166.6 acres as having"moderate" redevelopment potential. Iituirl2011 Llononlic()pportuniiie Anvil"i* 18 Table 13. Analysis of Redevelopment Tax Lots by General Land Use Zone Classification, Tigard USB Ci of Tigard Redevelo able Potential (Improvement to Land Value Moderate Low(> 1.00) High (< 0.33) 0,33 to 1.00 Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres 199 299.8 Commercial 19 7.2 31 17.8 232 344.3 Mixed Use 132 81.4 124 89.9 8.8 146 437.9 Industrial 18 27.0 25 Total 169 115.6 1 180 166.6 577 1,082.0 Notes: t Improvement to Land Value calculated from Washington County Tax Assessor data (Sept 2010). 2 196 Properties contained a zero Improvement or Land Value and are not represented here. Source: City of Tigard. Short-Term Land Supply Determination In addition to the long-term land supply,OAR 660-009-0005 also requires the identification of a short- term supply of land meaning"suitable land that is ready for construction within one year of an uest for a service extension." OAR 660-009-0025 also requires application of a building permit or req ide"at least 25 percent of the total land supply within the urban growth boundary that cities must prov designated for industrial and other employment uses as short-term supply." In Tigard's case,all of the land supply currently included within the Tigard UPA is deemed by the City to be within the short-term supply category. Hence, there are existing roads,water, sewer,and other infrastructure facilities that are sized appropriately to handle some level of new development on the remaining vacant tax lots. One issue the City has been dealing with is that of highway capacity.This will continue to be an issue until a regional solution is found. This constraint was the cause of a maximum floor-to-area ratio of 0.4 being applied to the Tigard Triangle when a portion of it was rezoned to mixed-use employment.This severely limits the ability to maximize the development potential of available sites. It also causes proposed developments to provide mitigating measures when it is determined the increased vehicle trips will not meet ODOT performance measures.This can be financially constraining to a project if additional lanes,medians,or intersection improvements are required to be paid for by the development. Additionally,the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-12-0600) and related ODOT performance have presented a barrier to Tigard achieving its aspirations. This standards for the state highways includes amending existing zoning to allow higher density developments that are consistent with the Region 2040 land use designations.The TPR requires an amendment to an adopted plan not cause an affected roadway to fail to meet performance standards,or if the forecast roadway operations are already failing to meet performance standards, the plan amendment must not further degrade performance.This is a known issue in Downtown,Washington Square Regional Center,along Pacific Highway,and in the Tigard Triangle,and may also arise in other areas near state highways or freeway interchanges. These issues are being addressed at the state and regional levels and could be somewhat mitigated as the City,Metro,and ODOT work to develop alternative performance standards through a corridor 19 Iiettrd'tlti isct�ncmiic{)p'ttttttttiti�,Anal}sis refinement plan for Pacific Highway.The Pacific Highway corridor is also being studied for potential high-capacity transit service in the future.The presence of high-capacity transit could also alleviate some of the issues associated with ODOT performance measures by allowing new development to allocate additional trips to transit and reduce automobile trip demand. Strategies to promote transit- oriented development and address ODOT capacity issues are recommended as part of the implementation plan policies for the Tigard ROA. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL (RECONCILIATION OF DEMAND AND SUPPLY) Short-Term Land Need Determination Commercial and industrial properties appear to clearly meet the statutory requirements for short-term land supply,as all of the long-term land supply can be classified as short-term as well as long-term supply. Industrial and commercial properties appear to be well served with adequate infrastructure,and there is an abundant supply of vacant industrial, office and retail building floor area being actively marketed in the Tigard USB today. Long-Term Land Need Determination Consistent with EOA documentation requirements, the economic trends analysis of land needs scenarios and the business clusters analysis indicates that the Tigard UPA can add approximately 794 net new industrial jobs without needing to add additional industrial-zoned land over the next 20 years. In light of current downward trends in industrial business activity,the land efficient need scenario appears to be most consistent with regional growth forecasts and anticipated market realities. Industrial Land Need and Parcel Requirements As indicated in Table 13,the land efficient need scenario assumes 48 acres of net new industrial vacant land demand,which is just below the estimated vacant industrial land supply of 50 acres. If the City opts to pursue a more aggressive economic growth strategy that is consistent with the moderate or high land need scenario, the City would need to identify another 14 to 30 acres of vacant industrial land area to meet the level of industrial demand associated with adding another 1,059 to 1,324 industrial jobs. In light of the City's rather limited remaining vacant industrial land supply of tax lots in excess of five acres, the consultant/staff team recommends that the City adopt economic goals and objectives that preserve the remaining large contiguous industrial sites for large industrial employment users. A preliminary expected forecast of demand by parcel size is also provided in Table 14, and assumes that virtually all of the remaining vacant industrial land supply within the Tigard UPA will be absorbed over the next 20 years. h z,:rd:'til l tol),imitinkics Analysis 20 Table 14 20 Year Industrial Demand Forecast and Vacant Land Supply, Tigard USB High Land Land Demand and Supply Efficient Land Moderate Land Need Need Scenario Need Scenario Scenario Demand for Vacant Industrial 48 64 80 Land Supply of Vacant Industrial Land 50 50 50 Land Surplus or (Deficit) 2 (14) (30) Existing Forecast of Preliminary Parcel Distribution, Unconstrained Parcel Size Surplus Efficient Land Need Forecast Supply(tax Demand (tax lots) lots) (tax lots) Ii Less than 1 acre 12 10 2 1 to 5 acres 5 5 0 5 to 10 acres 0 0 0 10 to 20 acres 2 2 0 20+ acres 0 0 0 Total 19 17 2 Notes: t Tax lot demand forecast expected to meet or exceed supply in 20 years. Source: Based on findings included in demand and supply analysis. Commercial Land Need and Parcel Requirements As indicated in Table 15, the land efficient needs scenario assumes 78 acres of net new commercial and mixed-use vacant land demand,which is just below the estimated vacant land supply of 86 acres. As with the industrial land needs,an economic growth strategy that is consistent with the moderate or high land needs scenario would require the City to identify an additional 19 to 45 acres of vacant commercial and mixed-use land to meet the demand. . In light of the City's rather limited remaining vacant commercial and mixed-use land supply of lots in excess of five acres,the consultant/staff team recommends that the City adopt economic goals and objectives that preserve the remaining large contiguous commercial sites for strategic commercial retail and office employment users,and allow housing in these areas, only as part of a mixed-use development. A preliminary expected forecast of demand by parcel size is also provided in Table 15, and assumes that virtually all of the remaining vacant commercial land supply over one acre in size within the Tigard UPA will be absorbed over the next 20 years. The City also anticipates the development of high-capacity transit along the Pacific Highway corridor. The region has made a commitment to high-capacity transit and this corridor is the next to be studied. Any development of high-capacity transit would trigger the City to identify station areas to accept higher, transit supportive mixed-use densities. The logical locations for station areas would more than likely result in the rezoning of general commercial lands to mixed-use zoning. As both commercial and mixed-use zoned lands are included in this analysis,any rezoning would not decrease the amount of vacant or partially vacant land available. The range of allowed uses, from retail to multi-story office buildings,would not be affected. ()pporattiitie5 Auahsis 21 Table 15. Reconciliation of Long-term Land Demand and Supply Commercial and Mixed Use 20-Year Land Use Forecast (gross buildable acres , Tigard USB Low Land Need Medium High Land Land Demand and SupplyLand Need -Need Scenario Scenario Scenario Demand for Vacant Commercial 78 105 131 Land Commercial Demand 51 68 85 27 36 45 Mixed-Use Demand Supply of Vacant Commercial 86 86 86 Land 46 Commercial Zoned Supply 46 46 Mixed-Use Zoned Supply 40 40 40 Land Surplus or (Deficit) 8 19 45 Forecast of surplus Preliminary Parcel Distribution, Existing Supply Demand p Efficient Need Forecast (tax lots) (tax lots) (tax lots) Less Than 1 acre 89 30 59 1 to 5 acres 14 14 0 5 to 10 acres 3 3 0 10 to 20 acres 0 0 0 20+ acres 0 0 0 Total 106 47 59 Source: FCS GROUP, based on findings included in demand and supply analysis. Planning, Market, Cost and Risk Factors Consistent with EOA documentation requirements, the economic trends analysis, stakeholder interviews and business clusters analyses indicate that the Tigard USB is uniquely positioned within the greater Portland metropolitan region to experience continued success in retaining and attracting businesses and economic development. Risk of Losing Large Commercial and Industrial Sites As Tigard's vacant land supply of large parcels (more than five acres) becomes diminished,the City could risk losing economic growth potential if remaining larger industrial and commercial sites allow non-employment uses that displace prospective business opportunities. While the current short-term employment market is sluggish at best, the future long-term job growth trends bode well for Tigard if it preserves large commercial and industrial zoned parcels for intended business activity. These risks can be mitigated in part by adopting new economic development objectives that preserve large commercial and industrial areas for desired commercial and industrial business activities. Risk of Not Adequately Preparing for Targeted Area Redevelopment As Tigard's population and employment levels increase with time,and vacant land diminishes, the City will need to rely more upon redevelopment areas,and productivity increases from existing developed lands and businesses to achieve long-term economic strength and diversity. New economic iIicS AI.,alY�,{s 22 development objectives should be formulated to enable the City to leverage desired redevelopment in targeted locations such as downtown,and within planned transit-station communities. Risk of Expanding the USB in the Future Beyond the 20-year forecast time horizon the City should consider the need to grow into urban reserve locations,if the City's investment in infrastructure extensions yields a favorable return to its residents and businesses. An Urban Planning Area expansion is not necessary at this time to accommodate industrial and other employment land needs for the next 20 years,unless the City opts to pursue the moderate or high land needs scenario to accommodate additional commercial and industrial job growth. Planning and Permitting Risks The City should review its land use development code to ensure that it preserves sites for their intended use,yet is flexible enough to accommodate a full diversity of commercial and light industrial uses consistent with public safety,public facilities, and positive urban design characteristics.The ability to provide a streamlined and predictable permitting process can be a challenge as the City relies more on smaller infill and redevelopment sites to accommodate business growth. Non-Local Regulatory Risks The City is dependent upon ODOT to achieve higher trip caps in targeted redevelopment areas. As the City and Metro pursue high capacity transit facilities and assessed service levels,these regulatory risks may be addressed by assuming higher non-vehicle mode shares that result in reduced traffic impacts from new development. Most of the risk factors described above may be addressed by the City of Tigard. Others will require partnerships with regional and state regulatory agencies, such as Metro,Washington County and ODOT. The City can take a leadership position by providing a local planning and permitting environment that is favorable to business investment and more proactive economic marketing to raise awareness of Tigard's strengths as a preferred location for over 2,900 existing business establishments. IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES AND ACTION MEASURES OAR 660-009-0020 stipulates that comprehensive plans must provide community economic development objectives,a commitment to providing a competitive short-term land supply, and identification and provision of adequate sites and public facilities to serve economic development demand. Since the City of Tigard updated the economic development chapter of its Comprehensive Plan in 2008, the document contains a fairly complete set of economic development goals,policies and action measures. The following is a list of topics and recommended policy updates to comply with state statutes and/or implement the City's economic goals. Policies Community Economic Development Objectives (CEDOs) The majority of these objectives are already embedded in existing policies. Two new policies are recommended: `The City shall encourage neighborhood commercial uses that support economic opportunities, multi-modal transportation options, neighborhood vitality, and the goals of fcient land use patterns." V4zurd.'20I I E.wni mic op ortuoities Analysis 23 `The City shall encourage businesses that are environmentally and economically sustainable." Commitment to Provide Ade uate Sites and Facilities and Commitment to Provide a Short-Term Land Sup 1_yof Land The commitment to provide adequate public facilities is embedded in existing Policy 9.1.4 of the Comprehensive Plan. One new policy is recommended to describe the commitment to provide adequate sites and a short-term land supply: `The City shall monitor and update its Buildable Lands Inventory to ensure adequate short and long-term supplies of buildable employment land." Provide for Prime Industrial Land Development on Large Lots Existing Policy 9.1.7 addresses the need to protect prime industrial land but does not address the need for large lots. It is recommended the policy be revised as follows: "The City shall limit the development of retail and service land uses in Metro-designated industrial areas, and especially on lots of 10 or more acres, to preserve the potential of these lands for industrial jobs." Promote Targeted Redevelo inept- .n Downtown and other areas This issue is addressed by several existing policies and recommended action measures,but most directly by Policy 9.3.1: "The City shall focus a significant portion of future employment growth and high- density housing development in its Metro-designated Town Center(Downtown);Regional Center (Washington Square);High Capacity Transit Corridor (Hwy 99W);and the Tigard Triangle." No new language is proposed. Recommended Action Measures Assist property owners with the Oregon Industrial Site Certification Process A new recommended action measure is suggested: `Assist property owners with the Oregon Industrial Site Certification Process to help preserve and market the City's inventory of industrial lands." Economic Development Marketing and Incentives Directed Towards Strate c Clusters This issue is addressed indirectly by several recommended action measures,but could benefit from more concise language. A new recommended action measure is suggested: `explore an economic development marketing and incentives program targeting strategic business cluster." Work with ODOT to address mobility standards Capacity issues on state highways (particularly Pacific Highway,Hwy. 217,and Interstate 5) impact economic development opportunities through trip caps,limited floor-to-area ratios,and required road improvements that are expensive.The conversation is just getting started at the regional level.A new recommended action measure is suggested: 'Work with state and regional partners to develop alternative mobility standards that will benefit the community and its economic development e(jbrts." 24 l mart, '!!{i t?uniurniu(){)pOrttaiiiies Awdysi> Monitor Local and Regional Economic Development Initiatives This request from the Planning Commission led to a suggested new recommended action measurer `Monitor local and regional economic development initiatives to assess their effectiveness related to cost and outcome." Metro Desienated Centers and Corridors Based on a resolution passed by the Tigard City Council,Metro recently amended its Growth Concept Map expanding the Tigard Town Center Boundary to include the entire Tigard Urban Renewal District and the Tigard Triangle. The City is required to adopt this change into its Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends adopting a definition that will refer to the Metro Growth Concept Map, thus eliminating the need to amend the Tigard Comprehensive Plan each time the Metro Growth Concept Map is amended. I i€ikrd 20 11 EXonomic Oppornxnitits Analysis 25 APPENDIX A - OFFICE LEASING ACTIVITY SUMMARY, MID-YEAR REPORT OFFICE Leasing Activity,Mid-Year 2010(as of June 30,2010) Mid-Year 2010 Class A Market Statistic Existing Inventory Vacancy YTD Net YTD Under Const Quoted Market #Builds Total RBA Total SF Vac% Absorbtion Deliveries SF Rates Central Business District 41 11,389,435 1,412,066 12.4% (135,590) 368,800 62,200 $24.42 Suburban 141 17,234,745 2,225,626 12.9% (130,126) - $23.74 Tigard 6 509,087 151,931 29.8% (13,097) $23.93 217 Corridor/Beaverton 12 1,142,430 303,750 26.6% (15,550) $21.77 Kruse Way 19 1,961,855 495,615 25.3% (26,228) $26.05 Barbur Blvd/Capitol Hwy - $0.00 Tulalatin 4 361,270 154,503 42.81% 5,604 $24.31 Wilsonville 4 325,501 55,071 16.9% - $24.77 Total 182 28,624,180 3,637,692 12.7% 265,716) 368,800 62,200 r $24.01 Mid-Year 2010 Class B Market Statistics Existing Inventory Vacancy YTD Net YTD Under Const Quoted Market #i Builds Total RBAr44,,345,461 tal SF Vac% Absorbtion Deliveries SF Rates Central Business District 130 9,423,9027,523 9.8% 61,787 - $20.18 Suburban 1,155 30,095,314 14.4% (62,639) 14,000 268,854 $17.82 Tigard 83 1,979,9557,469 14.0% 12,806 - - $20.88 217 Corridor/Beaverton 72 1,719,571 314,759 18.3% 5,148 $16.40 Kruse Way 26 728,262 93,241 12.8% (14,059) $20.76 Barbur Blvd/Capitol Hwy 42 890,672 121,398 13.6% 2,337 $16.79 Tulalatin 30 704,815 105,798 15.0% (7,289) $19.36 Wilsonville 1 171 622,051 30,169 4.8% (10,369) $16.71 Total 1,285 39,519,216 5,272,984 r 13.3% (852) 14,000 268,854 $18.38 Mid-Year 2010 Class C Market Statistics Existinglnventory Vacan YTD Net YTD Under Const Quoted Market d Builds Total RBA Total SF Vac% Absorbtion Deliveries SF Rates Central Business District 177 4,093,913 489,486 12.0% 11,201 $17.49 Suburban 2,815 18,283,763 129,081 0.7% 68,665 $14.36 Tigard 97 662,182 66,493 10.0% (3,199) $15.60 217 Corridor/Beaverton 82 609,431 70,635 11.6% 1,202 $14.50 Kruse Way 19 133,044 2,452 1.8% $18.00 Barbur Blvd/Capitol Hwy 120 846,865 99,822 11.8% (5,090) $15.60 Tulalatin 20 119,561 29,278 24.5% (5,598) $14.73 Wilsonville 21 103,496 2,681 2.6% 5,609 $17.21 Total 2,992 22,377,676 618,567 2.8% 79,866 1 $14.93 Mid-Year 201 Class B and C Market Statistics Existing Inventory Vacancy YTD Net YTD Under Const Quoted Market #Builds Total RBA Total Vac% Absorbtion Deliveries SF Rates Central Business District 307 13,517,815 1,417,009 10.5% 72,988 $19.37 Suburban 3,970 48,379,077 4,474,542 9.2% 6,026 14,000 268,854 $16.51 Tigard 180 2,642,137 343,962 13.0% 9,607 - - $19.56 217 Corridor/Beaverton 154 2,329,002 385,394 16.5% 6,350 $15.90 Kruse Way 45 861,306 95,693 11.1% (14,059) $20.33 BarburBlvd/Capitol Hwy 162 1,737,537 221,220 12.7% (2,753) $16.21 Tulalatin 50 824,376 135,076 16.4% (12,887) $18.69 Wilsonville 38 725,547 32,850 4.5% (4,760) $16.78 Total 4,277 61,896,892 5,891,551 9.5% 79,014 14,000 268,854 $17.14 Quoted Rates for Class Band C table are weighted average of individual Band C markets according to the total RBA inventory Source:CoStor office Report Mid-Year zu'Ov_--capacity Commercial Group. 'I i_ald %o I I I L: sol relic Orportunitie Anal%:Si 26 APPENDIX B: INDUSTRIAL LEASING ACTIVITY, MID-YEAR 2010 REPORT Flex Building Market Statistics Mid-Year 2010 Existing Invento Vacancy YTD Net YTD Under Const Quoted Market #Builds Total RBAr419,258 Vac% Absorbtion Deliveries SF Rates Central Business District 3 45,000 22.2% - $16.50 Suburban 741 18,956,577 12.0% (336,814) 70,020 $10.23 Tigard 50 1,277,751 13.4% (12,799) - $12.30 217 Corridor/Beaverton 87 2,204,502 19.096 (69,237) - - $11.77 Kruse Way 2 88,928 0.0% $0.00 BarburBlvd/Capitol Hwy 7 53,681 6,771 12.6% 5,100 $10.35 Tulalatin 14 430,840 23,229 5.4% (2,531) $7.54 Wilsonville 29 1,661,734 201,334 12.1% (18,316 7,020 $9.31 Total 744 19,001,577 2,278,793 12.0% (336,814) 70,020 - $10.24 Warehouse Building Mark etStatistics Mid-Year 2010 Existing Inventory Vacancy YTD Net YTD Under Const Quoted Market #Builds Total RBA Total SF Vac% Absorbtion Deliveries SF Rates Central Business District 41 1,616,833 141,090 8.7% (1,843) - - $5.78 Suburban 4,694 167,214,476 13,813,643 8.3% 91,337 119,723 415,000 $5.55 Tigard 119 4,394,617 339,683 7.7% 57,333 - $6.38 217 Corridor/Beaverton 75 3,332,391 471,805 14.2% 31,770 $6.30 Kruse Way 13 301,069 3,378 1.1% 10,240 $7.20 Barbur Blvd/Capitol Hwy 17 209,963 5,000 2.4% 8,000 $6.16 Tulalatin 221 8,453,141 675,494 8.096 (39,805) $5.20 Wilsonville 1 83 1 6,155,906 1,268,475 20.6% 47,351 $5.95 Total 4,735 168,831,309 13,954,733 8.396 89,494 119,723 415,000 $S.SS Total Industrial Market Statistics Mid-Year 2010 Exi's tin Invento Vacancy YTD Net YTD Under Const Quoted Market #Builds Total RBA Total SF Vac% Absorbtion Deliveries SF Rates Central Business District 44 1,661,833 151,090 9.1% (1,843) $7.16 Suburban 5,435 186,171,053 16,082,436 8.6% (245,477) 189,743 415,000 $6.19 Tigard 169 5,672,368 510,538 9.0% 44,534 - $7.68 217 Corridor/Beaverton 162 5,536,893 891,063 16.1% (37,467) $8.07 Kruse Way 15 389,997 3,378 0.9% 10,240 $7.20 Barbur Blvd/Capitol Hwy 24 263,644 11,771 4.5% 13,100 $8.01 Tulalatin 235 8,883,981 698,723 7.9% (42,336) - $5.29 Wilsonville 112 7,817,640 1,469,809 18.8% 29,035 7,020 - $6.72 Total 5,479 187,832,886 16,233,526 8.696 (247,320) 189,743 1 415,000 $6.20 Source:Costar Office Report Mid-Year 2010;Capacity Commercial Grou . I ii-nard 2011 till itie;Analysis `� APPENDIX G: ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYMENT AND SPACE NEEDS Projected Tigard Employment, Medium Forecast Scenario, 2005-2035 Change 2005 Pro'. 2035 Jobs % Retail Trades 9,854 14,426 4,572 46% Services 11,372 23,482 12,110 106% Industrial/Other* 12,049 13,637 1,588 13% Government* 8,033 1 9,092 1,059 1 13% Total 1 41,308 1 60,637 19,329 47% Source:Metro adopted housing and employment growth forecasts, 2007;Metroscope Gen. 2.3. Assumes allocation of"Other"jobs at 60%industrial, and 40%government. In light of the recent national economic recession that caused severe declines in Oregon employment from 2007 through 2010, Metro's 2030 job forecast for Tigard is assumed to be achieved by year 2035 under the "medium forecast"scenario. Projected Ti and Net New Average Annual Employment Forecast 1 Year Forecast) Low Medium Hiah Retail Trades 114 152 191 Services 303 404 505 Industrial/Other* 40 53 66 Government* 26 1 35 1 44 Total F483 1 644 1 805 Projected Tigard Net New 20-Year Employment Forecast Low Medium High Retail Trades 2,286 3,048 3,810 Services 6,055 8,073 10,092 Industrial/Other* 794 1,059 1,324 Government* 529 706 882 Total 9,665 12,886 �16,108 1; ,trri<'_iil i (:c;cnxnniu Oi;�xnat;iti� :l�tttl�sis 2`t APPENDIX C: ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYMENT AND SPACE NEEDS (CONTINUED) Job Sectors and Building Type Assumptions Flex/Bus. Gen. Employment Sectors Office Institutional Park Industrial Warehouse Retail Total Retail Trades 5% 1% 69% 0% 12% 76% 100% SeNces 72% 1% 5% 1% 1% 20% 100% Industrial/Other 8% 0% 50% 40% 2% 0% 100% Government 43% 37% 5% 0%11 15%1 100% Source: Metro Draft 2009-2030 Urban Growth Report;modified to reflect local observations. Proj. Tigard Net New 20-Year Employment Forecast by Building Type, Low Flex/Bus. Gen. Office Institutional Park Industrial Warehouse Retail Total Retail Trades 114 23 137 - 274 1,737 2,286 Services 4,360 61 303 61 61 1,211 6,055 Industrial/Other* 64 - 397 318 16 - 794 ----tjGovemment* 228 196 26 79 529 Total 4,765 1 279 1 863 378 351 3,028 9,665 Proj.Tigard Net New 20-Year Employment Forecast by Building Type, Medium Flex/Bus. Gen. Office Institutional Park Industrial Warehouse Retail Total Retail Trades 152 30 183 - 366 2,316 3,048 Services 5,813 81 404 81 81 1,615 8,073 Industrial/Other* 85 - 529 424 21 - 1,059 Govemment* 304 261 35 - - 1061 706 Total 1 6,3531 372 1 1,151 5041 4681 4,037 1 12,886 Proj.Tigard Net New 20-Year Employment Forecast by Building Type, High Flex/Bus. Gen. Office Institutional Park Industrial Warehouse Retail Total Retail Trades 191 38 229 - 457 2,896 3,810 Services 7,266 101 505 101 101 2,018 10,092 Industrial/Other* 106 - 662 529 26 - 1,324 Government* 379 326 44 - - 132 882 Total 7,942 465 1,439 630 585 5,046 16,108 Source: FCS GROUP based on Metro Draft 2009-2030 Urban Growth Report;modified to reflect local observations. 1i�'aicl :itlJ t.L+tits>ittit;t)plx�ir.uii+i; :anal�tit 2i? APPENDIX C: ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYMENT AND SPACE NEEDS (CONTINUED) Building Type to Land Needs Assumptions` Flex/Bur. Gen. Office Institutional Park Industrial Warehouse Retail Refill/Redevelopment Rate' 67% 67% 45% 45% 45°/, 60% Jobs Needing Vacant Land Rate 2 33% 33% 55% 55% 55% 40% Building SF Per Job 2 370 630 550 700 1,100 510 Floor-Area-Ratio 2 0.50 0.50 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.30 Public Facility Net:Gross Adjustments 1.10 1.05 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.10 Work at Home Adjustment 4 0.15 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 *assumptions are intended to reflect a long-term average over 20 years, some'ramp up"is expected to attain these density levels. 1/Adjusts for building refill&vacancy allokences. 2/Building density derived from Metro UGR assumptions. 3/Allokences take into account land dedicated to public/utility easements. 4/Allowance based on national statistics by US Dept. of Labor, Bureau of of Labor Statistics, Technical information: "Work at Home i Source:assumptions are generally consistent with the Metro Draft 2009-2030 Urban Growth Report;modified to reflect local observatio Proj.Tigard Net New 20-Year Redevelopment Buildin Space Needs(Floor Area) FIexlBus. Gen. Office Institutional Park Industrial Warehouse j tail Total Low 1,004,000 114,000 203,000 116,000 168,000 99,0002,504,000 Medium 1,339,000 152,000 271,000 154,000 225,000 ji, 98,000 3,339,000 High 1,673,000 191,000 338,000 193,000 281,000 1,498,000 4,174,000 Proj.Tigard Net New 20-Year Buildin Floor Area on Vacant Lands(Floor Area) Flex Bus. Gen. Office Institutional Park Industrial Warehouse Retail Total Low 495,000 56,000 248,000 141,000 206,000 599,000 1,745,000 Medium 659,000 75,000 331,000 188,000 274,000 799,000 2,326,000 High 824,000 94,000 414,000 235 909,000 ,000 343,000 999,000 2, Proj.Tigard 20-Year Vacant Lands(gross buildable acres) Flex/Bus. Gen. Office Institutional Park Industrial Warehouse Retail Total Low 25 3 20 11 17 50 126 Medium 33 4 27 15 22 67 168 High 42 5 34 19 28 84 210 30 I i:�.i�rd:{ll i I:i;�tnc>rrtic(}pltrret:tniti� :�s�ai�vt APPENDIX C: ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYMENT AND SPACE NEEDS (CONTINUED) Land Use Assignment Assumptions Flex/Bus. Gen. Local Zoning Classification Office Institutional Park Industrial Warehouse Retail Commercial 50% 60% 20% 10% 10% 60% Mixed Use 40% 20% 5% 59/6 0% 30% Industrial 10% 20% 75% 85% 90% 10% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100No 100% Assumptions by FCS GROUP and Tigard based on local observations. Proj.Tigard 20-Year Vacant Land Needs Forecast by Zoning Classification,Low Flex/Bus. Gen. Land Use Classification Office Institutional Park Industrial Warehouse Retail Total Commercial 13 24 1 2 30 51 15 27 Mixed Use 10 1 1 1 Industrial 3 1 15 10 15 5 48 Total 3 20 11 17 50 126 Proj.Tigard 20-Year Vacant Land Needs Forecast by Zoning Classification,Medium Flex/Bus. Gen. Land Use Classification Office Institutional Park Industrial Warehouse Retail Total Commercial 17 2 5 2 2 40 68 Mixed Use 13 1 1 1 20 36 Industrial 3 1 20 13 20 7 64 Total 33 4 27 15 22 67 168 Proj.Tigard 20-Year VacantLand Needs Fore cast by Zoning Classification,High Flex/Bus. Gen. Land Use Classification Office Institutional Park Industrial Warehouse Retail Total Commercial 21 3 7 2 3 50 85 Mixed Use 77 1 2 1 - 25 45 Industrial 4 1 25 16 25 8 80 Total 421 61 341 191 28 84 210 Summary of 20-Year Vacant Land Demand Forecast by Zoning Classification,Tigard USB(with current zoning regulations) Land Use Classification Low Medium Hi h Commercial 51 68 85 Mixed Use 27 36 45 Industrial 48 64 80 Total 126 168 210 Assumptions by FCS GROUP based on Dec. 2009 Metro 2009-2035 Urban Grovah Report assumptions and local observations. 1itgsrd2011t.ctz-Mie 07171?orianiiic Amkl�sis 31 APPENDIX D: ANALYSIS OF RETAIL INFLOW/OUTFLOW Analysis of Retail Development Potential Tigard Area 2010 to 2030 Est,2010 Population in City 48,100 Proj.2030 Population in City 62,278 Analysis of Effective Buying Income(EBI) Est.2010 Per Capita Income 1/ $33,000 Proj.2030 Per Capita Income 1/ $36,462 Est.2010 Aggregate EBI(000) $1,587,300 Proj.2030 Aggregate EBI(000) $2,270.749 Change in Aggregate EBI(000) $683,449 �' , yble Fu[ure 2030 Supe Potentitail Development r� . Analysis of Existing&Future Retail Sales 2010 2030 Retail Retail Distributi Buying Buying Total on of Power Power Change Sales Sales Support Supportable Local from from in Retail Attributed Attibuted able Sq.Ft.of New Income by Local Local Buying to Local to Retait Retail Retail Store Residents Residents Power Residents Inflow Sales Development Store Group Group 2/ (000)2/ (000)2/ (000) (Oto) (000)4/ (Olio) S/ Food Stores B.3% $131,746 $188,472 $56,726 $51,054 $12,763 $63,817 236,000 Eating&Drinldng 5.0% $79,365 $113.537 $34,172 $30,755 $13,181 $43,936 162,000 Gen.Merchandise 5.5% $87,302 $124,891 $37,590 $33,831 $27,680 $61,510 227,000 Furniture,Fixtures&Appliances 2.2% $34,921 $49,956 $15,036 $13,532 $11,072 $24,604 91,000 Automotive Services 9.6% $152,381 $217,992 $65,611 $52,489 $42,945 $95,434 352,000 OtherlMsc. 11.3% $179,365 $256,595 $77,230 $54,061 $23,169 $77,230 285,000 Total 41.9% $665,079 $951,444 $286,365 $235,722 $130,810 $366,532 1,353,000 Notes: 1/Derived from US Census estimates;assumes.05%annual real income growth. 2/Store group sales allocations from U.S.Bureau of Economic Analysis,Consumer Expendure Survey,Western United States. 3/Based upon employment estimates:assumes 500sq.R.perjob,5%vacancy allowance,andavg.sales of$2751sq.R. 4/Future retail inflow assumed to account for 30%to 45%of total retail sales. 5r8uilding area assumes$285/persq.R.annual sales,and 5%vacancy allowance. Source:analysis by FCS GROUP. I :ud<.(i E I (, i)11i)l111i (){�j`grt;utili ,:1n<tit i 32 APPENDIX E: SUMMARY OF TIGARD EMPLOYMENT ZONES AND REGULATIONS The following is an overview of regulations related employment lands and zones for the City of Tigard. A general description of each zone is provided along with common and specific development standards when applicable. A summary table highlights specific regulations, such as building height, lot size, setbacks, landscaping and lot coverage. COMMERCIAL ZONES Neighborhood Commercial District (C-N) Provide convenience goods and services (those purchased frequently) within a small cluster of stores adjacent to residential neighborhoods. A limited number of other uses such as restaurants, gas stations and medical centers are permitted conditionally. Community Commercial District (C-C) Provide convenience shopping facilities to meet regular needs of nearby (1.5 miles) residential neighborhoods. Typically range in size from 30,000-100,000 sf on 2 to 8-acre sites. Separated from other commercial zones by at least one half-mile. Housing is permitted on the second floor at densities not to exceed 12 units/net acre. Limited other uses are allowed conditionally. Mandatory site development review. General Commercial District (C-G) Accommodate a full range of retail, office and civic uses with a City-wide and even regional trade area. Residential uses limited to single family residences on same site as permitted use. A wide range of uses are permitted conditionally. Professional Administrative Commercial District (C-P) Accommodate civic and business/professional services and compatible support services in close proximity to residential areas and major transportation facilities. Within the Tigard Triangle and Bull Mountain Road District, residential uses at a minimum density of 32 units/net acre are permitted in conjunction with commercial development. Heliports, medical centers, religious institutions and utilities are permitted conditionally. Developments are intended to serve as a buffer between residential areas and more intensive commercial and industrial areas. Mixed Use-Central Business District (MU-CBD) Provide a pedestrian friendly urban village in Downtown Tigard. A wide variety of commercial, civic, employment, mixed-use, multi-family and attached single family residences are permitted. All uses are allowed in all areas. Specific Development Standards (18.610): Four sub-areas (see MU-CBD Development Standards Matrix) have different setback and height limits in order to create a feeling of distinct districts within the larger zone. • Pacific Hwy. and Hall Boulevard Corridor: designed to create a "pulse-point" along the Pacific Hwy. corridor. Regional retail draw and potential future high capacity transit. • Main Street-Center Street: pedestrian-oriented with smaller scale development. • Scoffins Street-Commercial Street: higher density residential and employment base of civic, office and commercial uses. 33 Fanno- Burnham Street: medium scale residential or mixed use development. Mixed Use Employment (MUE) Designed to apply to a majority of land within the Tigard Triangle, it permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing (multi-family at a max density of 25 units/acre. A wide range of uses are permitted conditionally. Acknowledges a majority of trips by automobile, but supports alternative modes of transportation to the greatest extent possible and encourages a mix of uses. Includes special design standards for Tigard Triangle (18.620). Mixed Use Employment Districts (MUE-1 and MUE-2) Apply to areas where employment uses such as office, research and development and light manufacturing are concentrated. Commercial and retail support uses are allowed but limited, and residential uses are permitted when compatible with employment character of the area. MUE-1 example is Lincoln Center (high density). MUE-2 example is Nimbus area (more moderate densities). Mixed Use Commercial District (MUC) Includes land around Washington Square Mall and immediately west of Highway 217. Primary uses include office buildings,retail, and service areas. Also permits mixedOuse developments and housing at 50 units/acre. Large buildings encouraged with parking under behind or to sides. Includes special design standards for Washington Square Regional Center (18.630). Mixed Use Commercial (MUC-1) Applies to portion of the Durham Quarry site. Subject to IGA agreement between Tigard and Tualatin. Permits a wide range of uses including commercial lodging, general retail, offices and housing at min density of 25 units/acre and max of 50 units/acre. Includes special design standards for Durham Quarry (18.640). Mixed Use Residential Districts (M UR) Applies to predominantly residential areas where mixed-uses are permitted when compatible with residential use. INDUSTRIAL/INSTITUTIONAL ZONES Industrial Park District (1-P) Provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small- scale commercial uses (restaurants, personal services and fitness centers) in a campus- like setting. Only those uses with no off-site impacts are permitted. Mandatory site development review and specific design standards (18.530). Light Industrial District (I-L) Provides appropriate locations for general industrial uses, including manufacturing and production, research and development, warehousing and freight movement and wholesale sales activities with few, if any, nuisance characteristics. Ii ari itl I I.ittittttlst t?;('t)s'l,tt1111Ci:1nalti i 34 Heavy Industrial District (1-H) Provides appropriate locations for intensive industrial uses including I-L uses as well as railroad yards and waste-related activities. Uses include those which involve the use of raw materials, require significant outdoor storage and generate heavy truck and/or rail traffic. Properties are carefully located to minimize impacts on established residential, commercial and light industrial areas. {i��t� .i 2tli I ta;t�ix�a,r,L t)t�y�a;:iuniti�>:yual}sic 35 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MUE R-25 STANDARD C-N C-Cpl C-G C-P MU- Fl.n. MF DU' MUC-1 IMUC IMUEII MUE2 IM UR 71 1 LIIR2 CBD" None None None None None None Minimum Lot Size 5,000 sq 5,000 sq ft None 6,000 sq ft None None - - -Detached unit ft - - - - 1,480 sq It - - - - - - -Boarding,lodging, - - - - - 6,100 sq R - rooming house Minimum Lot Width 50 ft 50 R 50 ft 50 ft None 50 ft None None None None None None None Minimum Setbacks IIO Oft[191 Izm7 1r1 I-I Irl -Front yard 20ft 0120ft11 OI Oftlm'I ORI111 ❑ Ofl 20ft 0 Oft" Oft Oft Oft11 to -Side facing street on 20 R - - p - 20fl V pftlmr) 0ft1x 11 0ft1zm1 SR7"1 10 ft1zm1 corner&through lots 111 el Ial lel f 1 0 0 fl1t°1 0 fl1z°1 0 film) 0 flint -Side yard 0/20 ft 1 0/20 fl 0/20 fl 0/20 it' ❑ ORO ft Loft V RO Otza7 -Side or rear yard abutting - - - - - 30 ft V more restrictive zoning district - r0lzol p fllzal 0 0 Rear yad ORO ft 0O fllel 0RO 1') 0/20 fl Ir] ❑ 20ft V ftlza)Izzl ftlzapz) -Distance between front - - - - - ORO ft 20 ft p flll'lze7 NIA N/A N/A N/A of garage&property - N/A line abutting a public or private street. Minimum Building Height N/A N/A NIA NIA ❑ N/A N/A N/A 2 stories 2 stories None 2 stories None Maximum Building Height 35 R 35 ft 45 ft 45 ft ❑ 45 ft 45 ft 70 ft 200 ft 200 ftP60ft 15 ft45 ft ❑ 85% 80%Im°7qp>g 8S% 85% 80% 80°/. Minimum Landscape I5% 20% 15% 15% ❑ 15% 20% 10% I5% 15% 20% 20%Rcquircmcnt Minimum FAR N/A N/A WA ❑ N/ANIA N/A 1.25 1.25 0.6 0.350 so 25 so 25 Minimum Residential NIA NIA N/A N/A ❑ N/A N(A N/A unLaere unitsere un iUaae unit/acre Density10[rlf°Iso 50 Maximum Residential NJA N/A N/A N/A ❑ N/A N/A N/A None None un Vaat None un Labe Densil 1'11:0°11'4 Multiple-family dwelling unit. "Sec Table 18.610.1 and Map 18.610.A for development standards. V=See 18.640.050.8. ❑=See Table 18.610.1 and Map 18.610.A for development standards. [1] The provisions of Chapter 18.795(Vision Clearance)must be satisfied. [2] Includes all buildings and impervious Surfaces. [3] Applies to all nonresidential building development and mixed use development which includes a residential component.In mixed use development,residential floor area is inducted in the calculations of floor area ratio to determine conformance with minimum FAR. [4] Notwithstanding the requirements of Section 18 715.020,minimum and maximum density shall be determined for residential only projects using the number of residential units per acre shown in the above table.The provisions for density transfer described in Section 18.715.030.6 apply,using the minimum and maximum density shown in the above table.Any mixed-use or commercial only development docs not have a minimum density requirement. 151 For purposes of determining floor area ratio and residential densities,the net development area shall be uses to establish the lot area,determined per Section 18 71 5.020.A. [6] Adjustments to minimum density in the Washington Square Regional center area subject to the standards set forth in Section 18.630.020.E. [7] The maximum density requirements for developments that include or abut designated Water Resources Overlay district Riparian setbacks per Chapter 18.797 are described in Section 18.630.020-D. [8] No setback shall be required except 20 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zoning district. [9] See Section 1"20.050-B for site and building design standards. [I0] No front yard setback shall be required,except a 20-foot front yard setback shall apply within 50 feet of a residential district. [11] There shall be no minimum front yard setback:requiranent;however,conditions in Chapters 18.745 and 18.795 must be met- [12] There are no setback requirements.except 30 fed where a commercial usewithin a district abuts a residential zoning district. 1131 The maximum height of any building in the CBD zone within 100 feet of my residential zoning district shall nes exceed 40 feet. [14] Where the side or rear yard of attached or multiple-family dwellings abut a more restrictive zoning district,such setbacks shall not be les than 35 feet. [151 Landscaped areas o existing developed property in the CBD shall be retained.Buffering and screening requirements set forth in Chapter 18.745 shall be mel for existing and new development. 1161 Lot coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. 1171 Modifications to dimensional and minimum density requirements for developments that include or abut designated Water Resources Overlay District Riparian setbacks per Chapter 18.797 are described in Section 18.630.0401. 1181 The requirements contained in the Buffer Matrices in Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2 shall be used in calculating widths of buffering(screening and required improvement s to be installed between proposed uses in the MUC,MM and MUR zones within the Washington Square Regional Cenler(W'SRC)and abutting zoning districts not included within the WSRC.or zoning districts within the WSRC which are not mixed-use.For MUC and MUE zoos,the requirements fon Commercial Zones apply.For MUR zones,the requirements for the Neighborhood Commercial Zoe apply. [191 For Commercial and Mixed-use developments.the maximum front and street side yard setback is 10 feet.For Residential only developments,the maximum front and street side yard setback is 20 feet. 1201 Side and rear yard setbacks shall be 20 feet when the zone abuts residential districts shown in Section 18.510.020 except R-25 and R40 1211 The maximum setback is 20 feet. 122] The maximum setback is 10 feet. C-N-Neighborhood Commercial District MUC I-Mixed Use Commercial C-C-Community Commercial District MUC-Mixed Use Commercial C-O-Cx tral Commercial District MUE I-Mixed Use Employment/High Density C-P -ProfesionaVAdministrativeOlTice Commercial MUE 2-Mixed Use Employmmt/Medium Density MU-CBD-Mixed Use Central Business District MUR 1-Mixed Use ResidentiaVHigh Density MUR 2-Mixed Use Resicicntiat/Medium Density it_arl]2011 t1p1atlftkill it36 MU-CBD Development Standards Matrix''''' STANDARD SUB-AREAS Main Street 99W/Hall Corridor Scoffins/Commercial Fanno/Burnham (MS) (99H) (SC) (FB) Front setback 0/5 ft. Minimum 0 ft. (5 ft for frontage on Oft 0 ft. 99W) Maximum 10 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Side facing street on comer and through lots Minimum 0 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. Maximum 10 ft. N/A N/A N/A Sideyard Minimum/mammum 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. Ma3dmum(stories/feet) 3 stories(45 ft.) 3 stories(45 ft.) 6 stories(80 ft.) 6 stories(80 ft.f Ground floor height minimum 15 ft. 15 ft. None None Site coverage maximum 100% 90% 90% 80% Minimum landscaping' 0%5 10% 10% 20% Minimum building frontage 50% 50% 50% 50% Residential density(units per acre) Minimum" 25 25 25 15 Maximum 50 50 506 506 t 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 Developmerd Bordering Urban Plaza. 3 See also Section 18.610.045,Exceptions to Standards in the MU-CBD zone. ° In the MU-CBD zone,required landscaping can be provided on roofs. 5 Landscaping/screemng requirements for parking lots must be met. 6 Station Area Overlay permits a maximum of 80 units per acre(see Map 18.610A). 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. " Minimum density applies to residential-only development(not mixed use). liturgy{240 1 I:conwnic Opporttntities Analysis 37 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES STANDARD I-P I-L I-H Minimum Lot Size None None None Minimum Lot Width 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. Minimum Setbacks -Front yard 35 ft 30 ft. 30 ft. -Side facing street on comer& through lots[1] 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. -Side yard 0150 fL[3] 0/50 ft.[3] 0/50 ft.[3] -Rear yard 0/50 ft.[3][4] 0/50 ft.[3] 0/50 ft.[3] -Distance between front of gage &property line abutting a public or private street -- Maximum Height 45 ft. 45 ft. 45 ft. Maximum Site Coverage[2] 75%[5] 85% 85% Minimum Landscape Requirement 25%[6] 15% 15% [1]The provisions of Chapter 18.795(Vision Clearance)must be satisfied. [2]Includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. [3]No setback shall be required except 50 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zoning district [4]Development in industrial zones abutting the Rolling Hills neighborhood shall comply with Policy 11.5.1. [5]Maximum site coverage may be increased to 80%if the provisions of Section 18.530.050.13 are satisfied [6]Except that a reduction to 20%of the site may be approved through the site development review process. I-P-Industrial Park District I-L-Light Industrial 1-H-Heavy Industrial I i=,ard 2011 1-.conomic 013P.0111111ii ics Anah'sis 38 APPENDIX F: TYPICAL SITE REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT TYPES Typical Criteria For Specific Development Sites Campus d Industrial/ Heavy Hi-Tech Electronic and Call Center/ CCommercialo Industrial/ General Food Manufacturing Computer Warehouse/ Business Office Shopping Manufacturing Manufacturing Processing &Processing Assembly Distribution Services (Class A) Center Hotel 9 v Qo T 5to42S :5to10 5to10 10 to 25Sto25 lOto25 3to5 1to5 Sto10 3toInterstate, Interstate,state Interstate,state Interstate or Along arterial Arterial Arterial or dInterstanterstate, state highway highway or highway or limited access Along or streets or street interstate highway or state highway d or principle ty, visibility or a` principle or principle principle principle four-lane arterial or in down town visibili arterial arterial within arterial within highway within streets centers and prefers downtown o arterial within arterial within within 1-30 1-10 miles 1-20 miles 1-15 miles 1-10 miles 1-15 miles transit areas transitareas centers G miles J •Water flow •Water flow •Water flow 2 •Water flow •Water flow ` 65,300 GPD •Water flow>_ >_4,600 GPD 3,500 GPD >_4,000 GPD 210,000 GPD •Water flow 2 •Water flow 2 •Water flow 2 Water flow 2 ,Sewer flow •Sewer flow 2 •Sewer flow •Sewer flow Sewer flow?o 74,300 GPD 11,700 GPD 36,100 GPD 17,000 GPD 24,900 GPD 58,800 GPD •Sewer flow>_ 24,600 GPD 3,500 GPD 24,000 GPD >_10,000 GPD •Sewer flow 2 •Sewer flow2! •Sewer flow>_ ••2.0 MW 74,300 GPD Sewer flow>_ •0.5 MW •0.5 MW •0.5 MW •0.5 MW c 32,500 GPD 15,300 GPD 22,400 GPD Electricity •0.5MW 11,700 GPD Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity •1.0 MW •0.5 MW •1.0 MW •0.5 MW .Broadband •Broadband •Broadband •Broadband •Fiber-telecom Electricity Electricity ? Electricity Electricity Electricity and route •Fiber-telecom Internet Internet Internet Internet ~ diversity access access access access NCDA-Net Contiguous Developable Acres Source:Compiled by FCS Group based on Business Oregon Industrial Site Certification requirements and industry standards. ,i;a;±..'.i!..,.....??�::i;l:i'':??;irnti:;i i1r, i-.,.;•; APPENDIX G: BUILDABLE LAND INVENTORY City of Tigard Buildable Lands Inventory (as of January 1 2010) Vacant and Part-Vacant Pro e < 1 acre 1 to 5 acres 5 to 10 acres > 10 acres Total Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Commercial C-C 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 C-G 19 6.8 6 14.0 2 16.4 0 0.0 27 37.3 C-N 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 C-P 7 2.7 2 6.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 8.9 Mixed Use MU-CBD 3 1.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 1.1 MUC 3 1.4 1 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 2.8 MUE 35 1.3.9 4 6.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 39 19.9 MUE-1 10 3.8 1 1.5 1 5.7 0 0.0 12 11.0 MUE-2 1 1.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.2 MUR-1 9 3.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 3.2 MUR-2 2 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.8 Industrial 1-H 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 I-L 7 2.2 2 4.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 6.7 1-P 5 2.0 3 6.7 0 0.0 2 34.7 10 43.4 Total 1 101 38.9 1 19 40.4 1 3 22.1 1 2 34.7 125 136.2 Summary of Vacant Land by General Land Use Zoning Classification Vacant and Part-Vacant Prope < 1 acreE�t�[Lots 5 to 10 acres > 10 acres Total Lots Acres Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Commercial 26 9.5 8 20.2 2 16.4 0 0 36 46.1 Mixed Use 63 25.3 6 8.9 1 5.7 0 0.0 70 39.9 Industrial 12 4.2 5 11.2 0 0.0 2 34.7 19 50.1 Total 101 38.9 19 40.4 3 22.1 2 34.7 125 136.2 Source: City of Tigard. 38 APPENDIX H: REDEVELOPMENT LAND INVENTORY City of Tigard Redevelopable Potential (Improvement to Land Value)' High(<0.33) Moderate Low (> 1.00) (0.33 to 1.00) Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres C-C 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 8.5 C-G 8 3.4 13 6.8 158 255.0 C-N 0 0.0 1 0.2 2 2.8 C-P 11 3.8 17 10.9 35 33.6 MU-CBD 24 10.5 50 38.4 86 59.0 MUC 7 12.6 11 24.2 35 155.0 MUE 70 40.5 22 12.3 59 61.8 MUE-1 15 11.5 10 6.9 24 30.9 MUE-2 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 29.4 MUR-1 10 3.9 23 5.6 16 5.3 MUR-2 6 2.4 8 2.6 6 3.0 I-H 2 3.4 4 5.5 9 41.3 -L 3 11.0 8 25.1 61 203.5 I-P 13 12.5 13 28.2 76 193.1 Total 169 115.6 180 166.6 577 1,082.0 Summary of Redevelo able Potential City of Tigard Redevelo able Potential (improvement to Land Value)2 Moderate Low (> 1.00) High (< 0.33) 0.33 to 1.00 Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Commercial 19 7.2 31 17.8 199 299.8 Mixed Use 132 81.4 124 89.9 232 344.3 Industrial 18 27.0 25 58.8 146 437.9 Total 169 115.6 180 166.6 1 577 1082.0 Notes: Improvement to Land Value calculated from Washington County Tax Assessor data (Sept 2010). 2 196 Properties contained a zero Improvement or Land Value and are not represented here. Source: City of Tigard. I Wili'd 201 1 I'lomonliu tll pol-lunitic Analysi's 313 APPENDIX I: SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS In support of the City of Tigard's statewide planning Goal 9 Economic Opportunity Analysis, consulting staff interviewed twelve business leaders, employers and economic experts to gather perspectives on the City's current position and future economic opportunities. Summary of interview responses are included after each question, shown in italics.The list of respondents is included at the end of the summary. 1. What is Tigard's primary market advantage within the state and region with regard to attracting population and jobs? What do you feel are its greatest assets? Stakeholders consistently reported that Tigard's location is its primary asset, particularly its proximity to 1-5 and other major transportation corridors such as' Highway 217 and Highway 99W. Other factors frequently cited included Tigard's position relative to Portland, an educated, affluent population, and open spaces. Four respondents mentioned that the size of Tigard and its suburban setting are attractive. Other named assets include the variety of housing options, diversity of office and industrial buildings and availability of land. 2. I'm going to read you a list of seven (7) items. From the list, please identify Tigard's primary strengths as a place to do business. The list below is organized in order of frequency of response, shown in parentheses. • Proximity to 1-5 and other transportation corridors (1 1) • Quality of life (10) • Available, skilled workforce (10) Adequate public infrastructure (transportation, utilities, etc.) (5) Access to local markets and customers (5) General business climate (4) • Interaction with firms in the some and/or related industries (2) 3. (Optional- for employers) Do you have plans to maintain or expand your business in Tigard? If not, will you relocate within the region or elsewhere? Why or why not? Most employers who were interviewed said they plan to maintain their current location but are unlikely to expand. Two others said they hope to expand as the economy improves. Reasons for not moving include preferred location, access, and property ownership. One employer said a recent employee survey showed that most of their employees live near the business. One business owner said they may relocate when the current lease expires and relocate to a more thriving business district. 4. What geographic area(s) do you think best define(s) Tigard's competitive market region for commercial office, retail and industrial development? I iT-ard 2,011 I.Co??onllt; 40 Most interviewees responded to this question by identifying areas in the City that are thriving or successful employment districts., Four respondents felt that the Tigard Triangle is a particularly competitive market area within the city, especially for industrial and retail uses. One person felt strongly that the Triangle was not as competitive as the Hunziker area. Washington Square and the surrounding area were cited twice as being competitive for retail. Other areas mentioned by one person included Oregon Business Park, PacCorp and the area between Highway 99W and Scholls Ferry Road. 5. The City is interested in redevelopment in its downtown and along the Highway 99W corridor, developing a mixed-use district in the triangle south of Highway 99W and north of Highway 217, and adding more neighborhood commercial uses to meet local needs. Do you agree with these priorities? Why or why not? Are there other areas or corridors the City should focus on? Most respondents agreed with these priorities, though several cautioned against development that would compound existing transportation problems (particularly along Highway 99W). There was support for revitalizing downtown by adding new businesses and destinations; including mixed uses, parks and housing that contribute to a unique identity for the City. There was also a good deal of support expressed for improving the Triangle by adding services and diversifying the types of businesses there with available land. Other ideas for focused efforts included the Tiedeman/Greenburg area, the area north of Highway 99W and in the Oak Street or Locust Street areas by Washington Square. 6. What can Tigard do locally to complement the regional and state economy? Several respondents felt that improvements to the transportation network are important to support the Tigard economy. This included improving conditions for vehicle traffic, providing access to alternative transportation facilities such as bike lanes and light rail, and working with regional agencies (e.g., JPACT) to solve transportation problems. Two respondents suggested that the City needs an economic development department and/or active business recruitment by the mayor, city manager and economic development staff. Other ideas included lower taxes, incentives to start a business or re-locate in Tigard, and grants for small businesses. Two respondents recommended continuing to improve upon the current level of service and responsiveness of City building and planning staff. One suggested retaining large industrial tracts to attract potential employers. 7. What types of land and/or economic development actions or incentives are most needed in the City to nurture job growth and private investment? Respondents' most common suggestion was for the City to improve infrastructure- particularly transportation. Others suggested lowering taxes and strategically reducing system development charges (SDCs) for small businesses or other potential employers. Another suggested using enterprise zones or urban renewal areas to capture future tax revenues. Two others emphasized the importance of diversifying local businesses and professional services, particularly downtown. 8. What actions should be taken by the City to create a more balanced and sustainable community? Interview respondents had several ideas about how to create a balanced and sustainable community.These include diversifying the types of business in the city, adding more transportation options and creating mixed-use districts.Two people said that the City needs to focus its efforts and build a distinct identity and greater sense of community, including supporting local business and adding more commercial services to residential areas. Others suggested creating affordable housing and mixed-use districts near commuter rail and future light rail. Two respondents noted that they thought the City is doing well with its current efforts. 9. Along those lines, the City wishes to better balance jobs and housing. What types of housing do you think are most needed? While three interviewees responded that the current mix of housing is adequate, others suggested the need for a more diverse housing stock. Specific needs include moderate to low-income housing in or near downtown and commercial services, second-floor residential, condominiums and small lot or zero lot line homes. A few respondents suggested siting mixed-income housing near transit routes. 10. What business clusters exist or should exist in Tigard? What can the City do to build and strengthen these clusters? Most interview respondents said that Tigard does not have business clusters other than some collection of general services and industry. One identified a cluster of finance and professional services. Several felt that Tigard has a good diversity of businesses and does not need to build clusters. Others suggested that the City could encourage clusters by recruiting a large company so that supporting organizations follow, or by acquiring and consolidating large parcels to sell to a major employer. One respondent recommended the City find a niche such as specialty medical, technical or manufacturing that does not compete with existing retail establishments including Washington Square. 11 . What opportunities and challenges are there to expanding the traded sector in Tigard? What goods and services could be produced locally rather than imported, and what could be exported? Most respondents did not have an answer for this question. One suggested that all services are imported and another suggested polling the manufacturing sector to identify existing goods and services offered in Tigard. Another interviewee pointed out that there is a great deal of vacant Class A and B office and industrial space, which is both a challenge and an opportunity for the City to attract new industry and business. 12.Are there certain goods or services that you think are missing in the City of Tigard today? lis;a ;mill I E.Oi)41U1111�OppormnitiC Analysis 42 Goods and services that interviewees said were missing from Tigard include downtown grocery and retail, upscale restaurants and neighborhood commercial services. Others suggested that Tigard needs light rail or bus rapid transit as well as more parks and trails. One recommended that Tigard develop a unique identity based on neighborhood and housing design in order to compete with the large surrounding retail and cited Sierra Madre, CA as a successful example. 13. Is there anything else you'd like to add? Interview respondents offered the following closing comments: • One person stated that he is frustrated with the lack of economic development activity on the part of the City. • Tigard has the opportunity to be a good example for a small city. Improve transportation options and get people off the freeways while maintaining mobility in and between towns. • The City needs to be efficient to support businesses. Be prepared for the economic upturn. Keep an eye on the planning department and have a contingency plan to respond to an increase in business activity (e.g., hire contractors or new staff). • Be sure to "over-communicate" this and other City projects. Explore and use a variety of communication media, including mail and social media. • It is great that the City is doing this type of outreach and planning. • Tigard's city council members toured Vancouver, BC a few years ago to look at urban planning and transportation issues. The trip, hosted by Metro, was very beneficial in generating ideas on how to meet these challenges. List of Interviewees 1. Kirsten Alvares, Gerber Legendary Blades 2. Jonae Armstrong, Washington Square 3. Mark Ellsworth, Economic Revitalization Team 4. Donald Fox, Fox Chiropractic Clinic 5. Mike Marr, Tigard Central Business District 6. Debi Mollahan, Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce 7. Bonnie Nakashimada, George Fox University 8. Jonathan Schlueter, Westside Economic Alliance 9. George Specht, Specht Properties 10. Eric Sporre, PACTrust/Oregon Business Park 11. Mike Stevensen, BBB Printing 12. Eric Turner, GVA/Kidder Matthews -gard 201 1 Lt;i3ilomic(?pportunitiL-s Aitidyl!ti 43 R � • �, � �to Appendix J: �� t. , }� Buildable Lands s � a. ington Squa o W re and Regional Center Redevelopment/ l; Y Refill Potential . r fix.. * Yi City ofTigafd r, Oregon 'vs 11 -.. i ZS v, r r n� �^11►�` Y-" .> . $ QCity limits .z' �,•:t ti T 'n - F• v i ®Zoning Taxdol Boundary yk 4 f --...... - 37� ..6. "1. `mss.$;r3•?-�'' `N. Ac i ` 116hatland Water Stream Corridor ;> 100 yr Floodplain Buildable Lands *� Tri n« le �s��'a x s t` `3 r k t�lowntown `. 9Y "tir;commercial U �4 t s,� i; Industrial �y3 -Mixed Use Residential Redevelopment Potential P Improve Land Mi s� k Hgh U a I t k� Aga i� Moderate -Low x k#, t4, 3 •- S `t( $ j ', - Government Owned Land t t 4 ,rt 4.. d r „,g4 Pe,��i,f,i,�C� Hibf4vvay � Y �v, .ic+h P#Ss' a-�,•� tse r�. f 1�� ..., a .,a...Rew•d. ��3 y Y\Y. jd �,• - l�b�,O�:C � �.Y• a• hi i 2 iii 1 _ w.eov:..:.,..n.> Nilf Ri .... �.: ,•,n. ,"_ ...-.”. �'' ; �. �"��,i ray r +i" ..:......... EXHIBIT E Agenda Item: Hearin Date: December 12.2006 Time: 7:30 PM vlv '�.;¢,'�j:• •ACJ! ,;.c��'r'-`��,,yiA•�•`;••°yLj% .1-,, •rl� Y..:��:'r r.iN ''t`. .fig':.' t.E y,,-.� .� ii•-,r c' .r` r+ a' .C;. ri.' I' q. .1.�.. •f^ b6 {. .yam .t: •t' �.tti�`'•.r.11y {'�`�Fp�iy',i�;r •� -;t`. :wrt�_.�:: 4 aii+�� tf..�+n". .�F. •s 'f..K'•'.Yi-l.'1 '�. 120DAYS=N/A SECTION I. APPLICATIONS IMARY FILE NAME: TOPPING-KEMP ON CASE NOS: Zone Change Annexation(LCA) ZCA2006-00003 ORIGINAL APPLICANT:. Westlake Consultants OWNERS: Richard Topping and Katie Kemp Atte'Lae Leighton 19765 Derby Street 15115 SW Sequoia Pkwy,Ste 150 West Linn;OR.97068 Tigard,OR 97224 REGISTERED REGISTERED VOTER Jaines F.Brown VOTER: Nancy L Naish 7303 SW Spruce Street;#A 10705 SW 721ad Avenue Portland,OR 97223 Portland,OR 97223 REGISTERED Raymond Arthur and Julie Mae REGISTERED Jason Jarvel Cox VOTERS: Senkel VOTER 10735 SW 72nd Avenue ! 10735 SW 72nd Avenue Portland,OR 97223 ADDITIONAL Portland,GR 97223 APPLICANT/ i OWNER/ ADDITIONAL i REGISTERED APPLICANT/ ! VOTER Christina Hanson OWNER: Charles Hanson i 10670 SW 75th Avenue 10670 SW 75th Avenue i Portland,OR 97723 Portland,OR 97223 PROPOSAL: Annexation of four parcels total'containing. 1.81 acres to the City of Td. Property owners Rnhard Topping and Katie Kemp request annexation of three ! . parcels,with plans to build a pre-school on one parcel The City invited owners of six adjacent properties to join the annexation.. Charles and Christina Hanson ac ted the invitation and requested annexation of one c:eL All property owners an residents have consented to the.annexation. Three parcels are zoned OC and one parcel is zoned R-5 in the Metzger area of unincorporated Washington County. Because of time constraints, the-applicant requests that the annexation be adopted with an emergency clause to facilitate the-site development review for the proposed pre-school LOCATION:. SW Spruce Street between SW 72nd Avenue and SW 75th Avenue;7303 SW Spruce Street, 10735 SW 72nd Avenue, 10705 SW 72nd Avnue, 10670 SW 75th Avenue; WCTM 1S136AC,Tax Lots 2200,2400,2500 and 4700. TOPPING-KEMPA1%aN TION ZCA2006-00003 PAGE 1 OF 11 CURRENT ZONE: Office Commercial District (OC) The intent of this District is to encourage office complex developwent of institutional, professional, medical/dental, governmental and other office busdness uses.The putpose is to accommodate the increasing office needs in complexes ranging in size from small to large-scale development Office uses are the primaty use of this District To serve the employees of the office complex, some accessory commercial and high density residential uses may be permitted through the Planned Development process. And R-S District(Residential 5 units per acre) The R-5 District is intended to implement thepolities of the Comprehensive Plan for areas degnated for residential development at no more than five (5) units per acre and no.less than four (4) units per acre, except as specified otherwise by Section 300-2 or Section 302-6. The primary purpose is to protect existing neighborhoods developed at five (5)units per acre or less:1'Infill development on all �T�cels two (2) acres or less may occur only - -t rtt 1' ilA EQUIVALENT CITY ZONE: C-P: Professional/Administrative Commercial District The C P zoning district is designed to accommodate civic and business/professional services and compatible support services, a g., convenience retail and personalservices,restaurants, in close proximity to residential areas and major transportation facilities_ Within the TW-rd Triangle and Bull Mountain Road District; residential uses at a minimum density of 32 units/riet acre, ie:, equivalent to the R-40 zoning district, are permitted in conjunction with a commercial development Heli oftmedical centers, relig'ous institutions and utilities are permitted conditionally.Develo meats in the C-P zoning district are intended to serve as a buffer between residential areas anal more-intensive • commetrial and industrial arena i And R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential i units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE i REVIEW CRITERIA: ORS Chapter 222,Metro Code Chapter 3.09,Comprehensive Plan Policies 2 and 10, Community Development Code Chapters 18.320 and 18390. I SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TOPPING-KEI"ANNEXATION ZCA2006-00003 PAGE 2 OF 11 SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site Information and Hi tory This annexation request includ�'es four(4)parcels in Metzger,located in the area of SW Spruce Street between SW 72 Avenue and SW 75 Avenue No right-of-way is included with the request because SW Spruce Street and SW 72nd Avenue are already within the Ci of Tigard boundaries, One parcel has frontage on SW Spruce Street, two parcels have frontage on SW 727,Avenue and one parcel is a flag Iot with access to SW 75th Avenue .The proposed territory is located within the City of Tigird's Area of hitexest and Urban Service Area,which are subject to the policies of the Urian Planning Area,4grnmW(200¢)and Urian Serrdas -4gn meat(70+06). All property within the proposed annexation territory is privately owned Two-owners jointly own three parcels and two owners in own one parcel. All other,petitioners are residents who do not own land in the proposed territory. of the -mine petitioners are registered voters in the proposed territory,incl�ng one owner. Three petitioners are owners of land, but not registered voters in the proposed territory. All property owners of land and registered voters in the proposed territory have consented to the annexation. annexation re nest was initiated by two property owners (Richard Topping and Katie — ) and 5 residents/registered voters,requesting annexation of three parcels (Tax Lots 2200,2400 and 2500e City invited proeT owners of six adjacent parcels to join the annexation. Two owners accepted the annexation (Charles and Christina.Hanson), requesting annexation of one parcel, Tax Lot 4700. One owner is a registered voter in the proposed territory. The annexation was initially requested to facilitate the development of a pre-schooL The pre-school_is proposed for one parcel, Tax Lot 2200,and will undergo a Site Development Review, if the annexation is adaproved Because of time constraints, the applicant; Westlake Consultants, requests; that an emergency use be adopted if the annexation is approved. The emergency clause would allow the anneaarion to be effective.immediately upon passage of the ordinance rather than 30 days after. The applicant had initially coordinated with Wason County for a County review of the proposed pre-school site, but discovered about 7 months into the design process that annexation to the City was required for a sewer connection (see letter in the land use file by Lee Leighton,dated October 31, 2006). If approved, the appplicant requests an eme%ency clause to facilitate the Site Development Review and timely construction of the pre-school. The existing single-family homes will remain on the other three parcels, SECTION IV APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA, FINDINGS AND i CONCLUSIONS j State: ORS Chapter 222 RegionaL•Metro Code Chapter 3.09 City: Comprehensive Plan Policies 2 and 10,Community Development Code-Chapters 18.320 and 18.390. A.EMU OF.TIGARD COMMUNITY DE VELOPMENT COD$ 18 i -----► Staff has determined that. the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions-,of the Community Developtnent Code based on the following findings: 1 Chapter 18,320.02Q: Approval Process and Standards B.Approval Criteria.The decision to approve,approve with modification,or deny an application to annex iproperty to the City shall be based on the following criteria: TOPPINGKEW ANNEXATION ZCA2006-00003 PAGE 3 OF 11 I.All services.and facilities are available to the area and have sufficient capacity to provide service for the proposed annexation area;and The City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan's Urbanization Chapter (Policy 10.1.1) defines services as water,sewer,drainage,streets,police,and fire protection.Each service is addressed below. Policy 10.1.1 further defines capacity as "adequate capacity,or such services to be made available" to serve the parcel "if developed to the most intense use allowed," and "will not significantly reduce the level of services available to developed and undeveloped land in the City of Tigard." Water — Tualatin Valley Water District ). The subject site is in the Tualatin Valley Water District,which currently serves all tax lots. The applicant has provided a service availability statement signed by Gary Pip m, Manager of Engineering Services, stat' that TVWD's service level.is adequate to serve Tax Lots 2200,2400 and 2500: All tax lots,including Tax Lot 4700,will contim e,to-be served by TVWD,as required in Exhibit G of the Tigard Urban truices,4gnement. Sewer— Clean Water Services/Ci o€Tigard. The proposed territory has access to sanitary � =�E�n�c`-'c�{ion--petals along these frontages will for sewer line hookap for each of these three parcels. The applicant has provided two sanitary sewer facility plan mas confirming the location of these sewer connections(see Exhibit 7 of the application package in the case file). )drainage — Clean Water Services/Cr of Tigard. The proposed territory has access to the City,drainage line with catch basins in SW Spruce Street dir across the,street The appropriate water system will be installed in compliance with Clean Water Services and C1ty of T"igazd design stun ds. The applicant has provided tavo drainage facility plan maps confirming the Location of this drainage line (see Exhibit 8 of the application package in the case file). i Streets — City of Tigard Capital Construction & Transj)ortation Division. The applicant indicates that the proposed territory is located within an existing network of local streets that will . provide adequate access to and from the subject site, as well as connectivity within the general neighborhood_ Those streets include SW Spruce Street, SW 72°d Avenue, SW 70 Avenue, SW 75 Avenue,SW Pine Street and SW Oak Street The sub"ect property abuts SW Spruce Street and SW 72 Avenue,both of which are within the Ci Ina clition,the site is within a quarter mile of j Tri-met bus lines on SW Pacific Highway and will.be adequately served by public transporation. I j Police — City of Ti"gard Police Department .An email from Jim Wolf, Public Information Officer of the Tigard Police Department confirms that the proposed project would not have a serious impact on police services. In addition, Wolf states, `Understanding that the location is i presentlyoutside the city limits;the annexation would not appear to lend any confusion to police responing to service calls in that area." i Fire—Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue(TVF&R). Concerning Tax Lots 2200,2400 and 2500, the applicant has provided a statement of service availability signed by Jetty Renfro stating that it has personnel and equipment in the area that can respond to an emergency incident and implement such actions as may be necessary for fire and/or rescue operations." All properties within the Proposed annexation territory are currently served by TVF&R and will continue to be served by TW-&-R upon annexation. Based u n this xeview staff finds that allublic services as de ed b e m rehensive Plan are av ble.to the roaosed annexation territory and all public services have suf it capacityo Provide service to the proposed annexation temtory 2.The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied. Three Comprehensive Plan policies apply to the proposed annexation 2.1.1, 10.1.1., and 10.1.2. Staff has determined that the proposal has satisfied the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies based on the following findings: TOPPING-KEW ANNE ATION ZCA2006-00003 PAGE 4 OF 11 Policy 2.1.1: Citizen Involvement The City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall.assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The City maintains an ongoing citizen involvement program.To assure citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the p process,the City provides notice for Type IV land-use applications. The City posted, marled an published notice of the public hearing as follows. T1ie City posted the hearing notice at four public places on October 27, 2006: Tigard Iibrary,'Tigard ty HaII, T�pard Permit Center, and in-the vicinity of the proposed territory on Spruce Street The Ci published notice of the hearing in The Tr aid Trralatitr Sheruvod Trines for two successive weeks ovember 23, 2006 and November 30, 2A prior to the December 12, 2006,public hearing. e City also mailed notice to all interested parties and surrounding property otvnets within 500 feet on November 15,2006. In addition,the Csty maintains a list of interested parties organized by �eograj>hy. Notice was mailed to interested parties in the East. area on ovember 15, 2006, ncludng former members of Citizen.Involvement Team East Staff finds that this policy is met Policy 10.1.t• Urbanization. Prior to the annexation of land to the City of Tigard, a)the City shall review each of the following services as to adequate capacity, or such services to be made available, to serve the parcel if developed to the most intense use allowed, and will not significantly reduce the level of services available to devel�oped and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard:1.Water;2.Sewer,3.Drainage;4. Streets;5.Police;and 6.Fire Protection. As addressed under 18320.020 above, adequate service is available to the proposed annexation temtory. Upon annexation, three parcels within the proposed territory will -be zoned C-P, a Professional Commercial zone, with a minimum commercial Iot size of 6,000 square feet; One Y will be zoned R-4.-S,a low-density residential zone with a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet The most intense use of the proposed territory is estimated to be 9 commercial lots and 1 residential lot'. However,the intended use is for a pre-school on one lot,with the existing single- family homes remaining on the other three lots. i If any of the properties develop,they will be required to connect to public service facilities,such as sewer, stoma drainaprovide the ge and water, and provnecessary street improvements. Based on findings by the applicant and City staff, there is adequate capacity to serve the annexation area (water, sewer, drainage, streets, police, fire protection) if developed to the most intense uses allowed, and it will not significandyy reduce the level of services available to developed and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard. The City of Ti d depam„Pnt of Public Works has reviewed the annexation proposal and has no comments. The Tualatin Valley Water District currently serves the proposed territory and will continue to serve it The Police Department reviewed theroposal and has not indicated that serving the proposed annexation would reduce the level ofppolice services_ The Engineering Department wasprovided the opportunity.to comment on the annexation,but did not comment. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (lW&R) currently serves the proposed territory, and was provided the opportunity to cominent, but did not comment Staff concludes that there is ad ate CaDaatV to serve the proposed tetat water. sewer streets fire protection)if dev to the most tense use allowed- and will not sigufficantly reduce the level of services available to developed and undevelo land withn, the. City L of, T`sgmd. b)If required by an adopted capital improvements program ordinance,the applicant shalt sign and record with Washington County a nontemonstrance agreement regarding the following: 1. The formation of a local improvement district (I..I.D.) for any of the following services that could be provided through such a. district_ The extension or improvement of the following: a),Water, b) Sewer, c) Drainage, and d).Streets. 2. The formation of a special district for any of the above services or the inclusion of the ptoperty into a special service district for any of the above services. I Usiog formula for density cWculation in Chapter 18.715 of the Development Code. TOPPING-KENEP ANNEXATION ZCA20064M3 PAGE 5 OF 11 1 • r • r This criterion does not apply. No capital improvements program requires a nonremonstrance agreement for this area. Some urban services are already available for the proposed annexation temtory;others are available nearby and would require connections from the proposed annexation area. However, these public facility requirements may be assigned as part of any development review when an application is submitte(L c)The City shall provide urban services to areas within the Tigard Urban Planning Area or within the Urban Growth Boundary upon annexation_ Theropposed territory is not within the Tigard Urban Planning Area; however, itis within the Citf sUrban Growth Boundary. Upon annexation, urban services will be provided as outlined in the UPAA,TUSA and current City policies. Staff fords that this polity ismet Policy 10.1.2: Urbanization.Approval of proposed annexations of land by the City shall be based on findings with respect to the following. a) The annexation eliminates an existing "pocket" or 'island" of unincorporated tetritoM or, b) The annexation will not create an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for.the police in an emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is _ e land is located within the Tigard Area of Interest and is contig ious•to the City boundary;e)The annexation can be accommodated by the services listed'in 10.1.1(a). a) The proposed annexation tnrri'tory is not a pocket or island of unincorporated territory itself; however,it can be considered part of a large pocket of unincorporated territory surrounded by City of Tigard boundaries. Therefore,the proposed annexation would help reduce a pocket of unincorporated territory. b) The proposed annexation will not treats an irregular boundary that will'make it difficult for the police to locate a parcel in an emergency situation. Three lots have frontage on City streets. One parcel does not have frontage on a City street,but is located within a defined network of streets adjacent to City boundaries_ Jun Wolf, Public Information (iffice' in the Police Department states, "Understanding that the location isppresently outside the city limits, the annexation would not appear to lend any confusion to pofice responding to service calls in that a ea_" C) The City of Tigard Police Department has commented and has no objections to the proposed annexation. d) The UPAA(2004)includes the proposed annexation temtory within Tigard,s Area of Interest. The proposed annexation territory is contiguous to the City on two sides,where it abuts SW Spruce Street and SW 72°d Avenue. j e) Lastly, as section 10.1.1.(a) demonstrated, the annexation can be accommodated by the following services:water,sewer,drainage;streets;police;and fire protection. Items a through a have been met Therefore staff finds that the proposed annexation meets Policy 10.1.2. Policy 10.1.3: Urbanization Upon annexation of land into the City which carries a Washington County zoning designation, die City of Tigard shall assign the City of Tigard zoning district designation which most closely conforms to the county zoning designation. Chapter 18.320.020 C of the Community Development Code provides specifics on this 1 conversion. Three parcels within the proposed annexation territory are zoned C>C (Office Commercial District) byy Waslunaton County. One parcel within the proposed annexation territory is zoned R-5 (Residential'5 units per acre). TOPPING-KEW ANNEXATION ZCA2006-00003 PAGE 6 OF 11 Table 320.1 sutn'maties the conversion of the County's plan and zoning designations. As this is a Zone Change Annexation�CA) application, upon approval' and execution of the proposed annexation, three,parcels � assume C P (P rofeZional Commercial) zoning and one parcel will assume R-4.5 (7,500 square foot r„initT,tam lot size) zoning, based on Table 18.320.1 of the code (below). The City's Comprehensive Plan designanan "Professional Commercial" will apply to three parcels. The Comprehensive Plan designation 'Low-Density Residential'.will apply to one parceL TABLE 3201 CONVERSION TABLE FOR COUNTY AND CITY rLAN AND zoN-wG DESIGNATIONS Washlesten County Land Use City of Tigard Zening city,of I%A d DtrQittslPlaaDesi®aation Ma Destgnatiou R-5 Rrs.S aaitslacre R-4S SFR 7,500 sq.ft Low density 1-5 mtiislaene R-6 Res-6 onifs/s R-7 SFR 5,000 sq.A Med density 6-12 unitsfacre 9.>;+�.4 ceuioc/ar�e ,. —l2 D�alli-f�.li Efl2ntir�/>na R-12 Res.12 tmitslacre R-12 Multi-fmmt7y 12 onits/ure Med,density 6-12 units1wrc R-15 R.S.15 uarts/are R-ZS Muni-fam$y 25 muWaae Medium-Sigh density,13-25 unitslacte R-24 Res.24 uniWacres R-25 Mnth-fimr7y 25 m ts/acre MediUM-1Ligh density 13-25 enitsrace Office Commercial C-P Com P ofiessional CP Commercial Professional NC Nei0bor ood Commercial CN Neighbodood Commercial . CN Nei0bodmod commercial CBD commercial Business CBD Commercial Business CBD Compt cial Business District District District OC Generalcommerciat co GeneralCommarial CG General Commercial DW industrial f L Engirt Imdaatrnl Light Industrials Chapte;18320.020 C.Assigumeni of comprehensive plan and zoning designations. The comprehensive.plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property shall be the City's zoning district which most closely implements the City's or County's comprehensive plan map designation. The assignment of these designations shall occur automatically and concurrently with the i annexation. In the case of land which carries County designations, the City shall convert the County's comprehensive plan map and zoning designations to the City designations which are the most similar.A zone change is required if the applicant requests a comprehensive plan map and/or zoning map designation other than the existing designations.(See Chapter 18380).A request for a zone change can be processed concilrrently with an annexation application or after the annexation has been approved. As the previous section demonstrated, the City of Tigard C P zoning district is the most similar to Washington County's OC zoning district and .the City's R-45 zoning district is most similar to the County s R-5 distract Three parcels within.the proposed territory ate currently zoned OC and, upon annexation, will automatically become C-P in both zoning and' comprehensive plan designation_ One parcel is zoned R-5 and will automatically become R-4. in zoning and Low-density Residential in comprehensiveplan designation. This zone conversion will occur concurrently with the annexation process. There have been no requests for zoning other than the zoning most simlln Ao the designated ounty zones. TOPPING-KENT ANNEXATION ZCA2006-00003 PAGE 7 OF 11 Cittyy of Tigard Community Development Code 2 Chapter,18.3".060: e 117 Procedure Annexations are processed by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by .Chapter 18.390 of the Community Development Code (Tide 18) using standards of ayproval contained in 18.390.020(B),which were addressed in the previous section. Chapter 18.390 requires City Council to hold a hearing on an annexation. It also requires the City to provide notice at least 10 days prior to the hearing by all and to publish newspaper notice; the Ci mailed notice on November 15, 2006, and published public notice in The Tigard Tualatin Sherwood Timer for two successive weeks (November 23,2006, and November 30,2006,) prior to the December 12,2006,public hearing. Additionally,Chapter 18.390.060 sets forth five decision-making considerations for a Type IV decision: 1.The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; The City's Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission to be in compliance with state_pgoals. As reviewed above, the annexation proposal meets the existing Comprehensive Plan policies and therefore is in compliance with state planning goals. 2.Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; QRS 222, State law(ORS 9"120(4)(b),ORS 222-125,ORS 222.170(1) and(2))allows for a cityto annex contiguous territory when owners of land,residents and registered voters in the proposed annexation territory submit a Mtition to the legislative body of the city. ORS 222.120 requires the city to hold a public hearing before its dative (City Council) and provide public notice to be published once each week for two successive weeks prior to the day of the hearing,in a newspaper of general circulation in the city,and shall cause notices of the hearing to be posted in four public places iri the city for a like period All owners of land within the proposed territory, living residents and registered voters have submitted signed petitions for.annexation to the City. The proposed annexation territory is contiguous to the City's boundary on two sides,along SW Spruce Street and SW 72ad Avenue. The City published public notice in The Tigard Txalatin Sherwood Timer for two successive weeks (November 23,2006,and November 30,2006,)prior to the December 12,2006,public h and posted the hearing notice at four public laces on October 27,2006:Tigard Library,Turd City HriaIl,Tigard Permit Center, and in the vicinity ofpthe proposed territory on Spruce Street Staff finds that the,l2rovisions of ORS 222 have been met 3.Any ipplicable METRO regulations; i Chapter 3.09 of the Metro Code (Local Government Boundary Changes) includes standards to be addressed in annexation decisions,in addition to local and state review standards_Note that the report is available 15 days before the heating (November 27, 2006, for a December 12, 2006, hearing). Staff has determined that the applicable METRO regulations (Metro Code 309 040 6) &(d)) have been met based on the follgrwWg finding: Metro 3.09.040 fbl (b)Not later than 15 days prior to the date set for a change decision, the approving entity shall make available to the public a report that addresses the criteria in subsections (d) and (g) below, and that includes at a minimum the following. (1) The extent to which urban services presently are available to serve the affected territory including any extra territorial extensions of service; As addressed previously in this report,urban services are available to the affected territory. (2) A description of how the proposed boundary change complies with any urban service provider agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065 between the affected entity and all necessary parties; i TOPPING-KE;,'ANNEXATION ZCA"6-00003 PAGE 8 OF 11 As addressed previously in this report, the annexation Proposal complies with all applicable provisions of urban service provider agreements, UPAA (2004), and TUSA (2006): (3)A description of how the proposed boundary change is consistent with the comprehensive land use plans, public facility plans, regional framework and functional plans, regional urban growth goals and objectives,urban planning agreements and similar agreements of the affected entity and of all necessary parties; As addressed previously in this.report, the annexation proposal complies. with all applicable Policies of the City of T�arci Comprehensive Plan and urban service provider agreements (UPAA (2004)and TUSA(2006).` he proposed annexation territory is within the Urban Growth Boundary and subject to the Regional Framework Plan and Urban Growth Management Functional Plan provisions..There are no specific applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes in the Regional Framework Plan or the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. However, the City's Comprehensive Plan and Development Code have been amended to comply with Metro functional plan requirements. By comp with the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan, the annexation is consistent with the Functional Plan and the Regional Framework Plan. (4) Whether.the proposed boundary change will-result in the withdrawal of the affected territory from the legal boundary of any necessary party;and The proposed territo will remain within Washington County but will be required to be withdrawn from the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District,Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District and the Washington County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation. The proposed territory will remain in the Tualatin Valley Water District- (5) istrict(5)The proposed effective date of the decision. The public hearing will take place December 12,2006.The proposed annexation will be presented with a request for an emergency clause so that the annexation may be effective imniediatel upon passage of the ordinance. If the Council adopts findings to approve ZCA2006-00003,the effective j date of the annexation will be December 12,2006. Metro Code 3-09.040 (d)An approving entity's final decision on a boundary change shall include findings and conclusions addressing the following criteria; 1.Consistency with directly applicable provisions in an urban service provider agreement or annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065; As addressed reviousl in this a licatio P y pp n, the proposed annexation complies with all app livable provisions of urban service provider agreements (UPAA (7004) and the TUSA (7006 The i roposed annexation is in the Area of Intetest and Urban Service Area, which are subject to the UYAA and TUSA. The agreements state that the Cty ounand City will be supportive of annexations to the City. Therefore the proposed annexation is consistent with these agreements 2. Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or other,'agreements, other than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065, between the affected entity and a necessary Partr, The.UPAA('2004)includes the proposed annexation territory.The City has followed all-processing and notice requirements in the UPAA,providing Washington County with 45-day notice prior to the public heann�;. The agree ent states that `so that all properties within the Tigard Urban Service Area will be served by the City, the County and City�be supportive of annexations to the City."De annexation proposal is consistent with this aereement TOPPING-E EMP ANNEXATION ZCA2006-00003 PAGE 9 OF 11 I Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for'boundary changes contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans; As previously stated in this report, this proposal meets all applicable City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan provisions.This criterion is satisfied. 4. Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes contained in the Regional Framework Plan or any functional plan; This criterion was addressed under Metro Code 3.09.040(b).By complying with the City of Tigard Community"Development Code and Comprehensive Plan, the annexation is consistent with the Functional Plan and the Regional Framework Plan. S. Whether the proposed change will promote or not interfere with the timely, orderly and economic provisions of public facilities and services; The proposed annexation will not interfere with the provision of public facilities or services efficient extension of`public facilities and urban services;it is contiguous to existing ci limits and services; and lastly,urban services are available to.the proposed annexation territory and have not been found to significantly reduce existing service levels. 6.The territory lies within the Urban Growth Boundary;and The proposed territory is within Metro's Urban Growth Boundary. 7.Consistency with other applicable criteria for the boundary change in question under state and local law. In previous sections, this report reviewed the proposal's consistency with other applicable criteria and found it to be consistent (Tigard CDC 19390.060) 4.Any applicable comprehensive plan policies;and As demonstrated in previous sections of tris report, the,proposed annexation is consistent with, and meets,all applicable comprehensive plan policies. ` S.Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. i There are no specific implernenftinZ ordinances that apply to this proposed annexation. The Development Code(Chapter 18 of the City Cod)will apply to the proposed territory if or when it develops. I� ` SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Public Works Department reviewed the proposal and did not have comments or objections. The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments: "In reviewing the proposed annexation plans, Tigard Police at this time, does not foresee any issues. In addition,it does not appear that the proposed development would have serious impact on police services as we are currently providing. Understanding that the-location is resendy outside the city limits; the annexation would not appear to lend any confusion to police respondping to service calls in that area" RESPONSE: - Comments by the .Police Department have been considered in staffs review of this proposal. TOPPING-KEW ANNEYATTON ZCA2006.00003 PAGE 10 OF 11 The City of Tigard Long-Range Planning Division has reviewed the proposal a.nd asked the following qquestions: 1. Are day care facilities an outright permitted use within the City's equivalent land use designation? Conditional Use? 2. In the C-P zone,what is the Bull Mountain Road District.? 3. County R-5 includes reference to "infill policy." Is this a Metzger Area Plan specific policy or for all County R-5? RESPONSE: Concerning Question #1, day care facilities are permitted outright in the City of Tigard's C-P zone, the equivalent of the County OC zone. The applicant will call the day care facility a"pre-schooY';however;by definition,it is a day care facility. Concerning Question ##2, the Bull Mountain Road District is a misprint The code is referring to a zone on Bull Mountain,Road which allows for residential uses in conjunction with commercial development LL ZUIJJL%VL , i ... _ ch case only itp code provisions will apply. .The provisions of the ounty's in policy (Section 430-72) are not specific to the Metzger area and no longer apply_ The City of Tigard Engineering Department was provided the opportunity to comment,but did not comment SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, which cuuendy serves the proposed territory, has been given the opportunity to comment, but'did not comment However, the applicant has submitted.a statement of service availability stating that it has "personnel and equipment in the arta that can respond to an emergency incident and implement such actions as may be necessary for fire and/or rescue operations." The Beaverton School District has reviewed the proposal and states,`The proposed territory is outside of the Beaverton School District boundaries and we do not anticipate any impacts to BSD facilities." I SECTION Ix PUBLIC COMMENTS I The City mailed notice surrounding property owners within 500 feet and all interested parties on November 15,2006. Staff did not receive any written comments. i i 11/2722006 PREP BY: DATE Assns Planner I I �.t 11/27/2006 REVIEWED BY: Richard Bew orff DATE Planning Manager I TOPPING-KEW ANNEXATION ZCA200E~00003 PAGE 11 OF 11 ' ';P r' 1'O1TEM•, The followin9willbebonsi [edb': e='1`IGARDPLANNIN( C01VIlV115SI01 1 fdL 1p�3E1VIBER 14 2015 Al 7 00TH AND BEFORE + e r�ARD CITY COUNCIL Ov.TUESDAY y 'ARY'12r-2 AT 730 PM at'th Tigard ,lY1cCenter TownHall :13,125S,}V;Ha]IB1ud;;Tigard p ,� Oregon., s COMMUNITY MUNIT �Public oral or written testimony t$iuvrted The public hearini ONEWSPME-E)c J ad p to matter will be held+under Title,A and rules of procedure adopted tj the Council and available at City IIa}l or the rule; ofprocedur1 • forth in Section 18:390.060.E ThelPlanninl 6605 SE Lake Road,Portland,OR 97222 Commissiori's,ieview is:for the purpose,of,makmg a`iecom• PO Box 22109 Portland OR 97269-2109 mendahod to the Gity Council�on'the-request r The.C:' Phone:503-684-0360 Fax:503-620-3433 will then hold-a`public hearing On the request prior to making E-mail: legals@commnewspapers.com a decision ,+ Further information ma}&j!6blained from the City of Tigard AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Planning Division (Staff contact i Gary Pagenstecher) at 13125,SW Hal .Blvd, Tigard Oregon:97223 or'by calling State of Oregon,County of Washington,SS 503-718 2.334. I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Accountin Medium l_ehsrty Resldenhal g Ere$eryation'— Manager of The Times (serving Tigard, , $ ID1NT ' Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of Zone,p anger( 2 0007 general circulation, published at Tigard, in the aforesaid county and state, as defined by REQUEST: To adopt a Compiehensive Plan and Zoning ORS 193.010 and 193.020,that Map Amendnient to facilitate preservation OfR-12:zoned laird and ensure tit is applied'in-a location that'supports-residential City of Tigard use. LOCATIOi` SITE A: 7303 SW.Spruce St.,,1.0705 Notice of Public Hearing-CPA2015- $W'72nd Ave.,'10735 SW 72nd Ave;`TAX MAP/LOT`#'s: 00005;ZON 2015-00007 IS136ACO2200, IS136ACO2400, 1S13GACO2600; SITE B: 13125.SW Pacific Hwy,TAX MAP/,,LOT#.;2S102CB00200. TT12099 ZONE:, Medium Density Residemal (R-12), Professional Commercial(C=P),GerieralCotnme%oial(C-G,;APP-LICABLE A copy of which is hereto annexed,was REVIEW'CRITERIA: ' Commi unity. Development Code published in the entire issue of said Chapters 18,380.020•and 18.390.060.G; Comprehensive.Plan newspaper for Goals 1,2, 10;'Statewide Planning Goals 1,2;10;and Metro's 1 Urban,Growth Managernent`Functional Plan Title 1 A. e. week in the following issue: November 19,2015 E, I IIs rK mom--I C!-Layw-c C tLE g Charlotte Allsop(Accounting Manager) Subscribed and sworn to before me this November 19,2015. e,. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OKEGON 1s My commission expires AA-tlk. oz- aG 9 a Acct#10093001 + r r65 Attn: Gary Pagenstecher Cit of Tigard a Y 9 OFFICIAL STAMP { �vrs tr - ven.r 13125 SW Hall Blvd DESIRAEANNMARG—LI N Tigard,OR 97223 NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO.936708 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 02, Size: 2 x 12" _ 4 , Amount Due: 200.40' ; r '4 'Please remit to address above. "�? rt .; > f3 t a 4 1 e `` r�irr`,�'1'�s'� ,y l� �,r,`,+"��a�• )?ubhsh��II19L2Q15; L r: �' 4 ti' (t 7 T 112099 D AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING r � I, Gary Pagenstecher, being first duly sworn/affirm,on oath depose and say that I am an Associate Planner for the City of Tigard,Washington Comity, Oregon and that I served the following: ;Check Appropriate Box(s)Below) ® NOTICE OF Public Hearinsr FOR: Medium Density Residential (R-12) Preservation CPA2015-00005, ZON2015-00007 ❑ AMENDED NOTICE- ❑ City of Tigard Community Development Director/ Designee ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer ® Tigard Planning Commission ❑ Tigard City Council lfle71}sLl'?_ 56 - PL'o.roE'ras. :,f= A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked Exhibit "A", and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit "B", and by reference made a part hereof, November 5, 2015 , and deposited in the I "te tates Mail on November 5, 2015 ,postage prepaid. / ary agenstec - r STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) Subscribed and sworn/affu-med before me on the q day of ��1/Cil-1-) b--t,-K- ,2015. OFFICIAL STAMP BETSY GALICIA, )" NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON �= COMMISSION N0.925741 _ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 09,2018 NOTARY PUB IC OF OREGON My Commission Expires: 3 ` 1:\Comma ity Development\land Use Applications\03_AcIrmn Matcrials\Affidar-its of Nl"ing\2015\CPA2015-(XKK)5_Z.ON2015-tN.NN)7 Affidavit Gaq 20151105.docs Ballotaneasure 56,adopted by the voters in 1998,and codified in ORS 227.186,requires the following language in this notice: This is to notify you that the City of Tigard has proposed a land use regulation that may affect the permissible uses of your property and other properties. NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE,LIENHOLDER,VENDOR OR SELLER. THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, a IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER C PUBLIC HEARING NO'T'ICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HELD BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 14, 2015 AT 7:00 PM and THE CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 12, 2015 AT 7:30 PM. THE PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE CONDUCTED IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER AT 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223. THESE HEARINGS ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC. THE CITY HAS DETERMINED THAT ADOPTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ORDINANCE MAY AFFECT THE PERMISSIBLE USES OF YOUR PROPERTY,AND OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AFFECTED ZONES,AND MAY CHANGE THE VALUE OF YOUR PROPERTY. Why did I get this notice?: The city is initiating this Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone change to facilitate preservation of R-12 zoned land and ensure it is applied in a location that supports residential use. You are receiving this notice because you own residential or commercially zoned property that is affected by one or more of the changes described below. FILE NOS.: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2015-00005 Zone Change (ZON) 2015-00007 Q CO FILE TITLE: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-12) PRESERVATION X W APPLICANT: City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223 REQUEST: The city is initiating this Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment to facilitate preservation of R-12 zoned land and ensure it is applied in a location that supports residential use. Two sites (A and B) are in play by the development community that would benefit from the city's coordinating initiative. The City proposes this Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Map Classifications of the subject parcels in SITE A (3 parcels totaling 1.54 acres) from professional commercial district (C-P) to medium density residential (R-12); and change the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Map Classifications of the subject parcel in SITE B (1 parcel of 1.37 acre) from medium density residential (R-12) to general commercial (C-G). LOCATION: SITE A: 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72nd Ave., 10735 SW 72nd Ave; TAX MAP/ LOT #'s: 1 S136ACO2200, 1 S136ACO2400, 1 S136ACO2600;and SITE B: 13125 SW Pacific Hwy TAX MAP/ LOT# 2S102CB00200 COMP PLAN DESIGNATION/ ZONING DISTRICT: Medium Density Residential (R-12), Professional Commercial (C-P), General Commercial (C-G) APPLICABLE Community Development Code Chapters 18.380.020 and 18.390.060.G; Comprehensive Plan REVIEW Goals 1, 2, 10; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10; and Metro's Urban Growth Management CRITERIA: Functional Plan Title 1. man VICINITY MAP < CPA 2015-00005 PINE T ZON 2015-00007 Medium Residential(R-12) w f' �; , Preservation SITE A i I Subject Site SFIRuc $ GP to R-12(1.54 acrelt� R 2 y- j R-4.J }� Informationonly and should belver/fled with tlhe atlon Development Services Division. Approx.Scale 1:2,000-1 In=167 tt Map printed at 09:19 AM on 05-Nov-15 DATA' DERNEO FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES,THE Cm'OF nI MRO MAKES NO WARRANTY,REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE A8 TO THE CONTENT,ACCURACY,TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF THE DATA PROVIDED HEREIN.THE CITY OF TIGARD SHAH ASSUME HO UA01LnY FOR ANY ERRORS,OMIBBIONS,OR INACCURACIES IN THE INFORMATION PROVIOED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSED. Feet i City Gf Tlgard e 13125 SW Hell 131vd If 25o L (I�iP� Tlgard,OR 97223 ■ �]j 503 639-4171 s www.tigard-or.gov 1 . .) -.. VICINITY MAP C- CPA 2015-00005 C ZON 2015-00007 Medium Residential (R-12) Preservation SITE B -1 Subject Site R-12 to C-G(1.37 acres) Tj1O°; s -f - Information on this map is for general location f only and should be verifiad with the Development Services Division. Approx.Scale 1:2,000-1 In=167 ft Map printed at 09:11 AM on 05-Nov-15 DATA IS DERIVED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES.THE CITY OF TICARD MAKES NO WARRANTY.CONTENT ACCUR TIMELINESSA R COMPLETENETION OR SS OF ANY OF E AS TO E 7' THE DATA PROVIDED Hl:RE1N,THE CITY of TGARD SMALL ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS.OMISSIONS OR INACCURACIES IN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED REOARDL�SS OF HOW CAUSED. , - City of Tigard Feet �� a p 13125 SW Hall Blvd 2.0 TIG aR MAPS Tigard,OR 97223 • 503 639.4171 s tom.•-" www.tigard-or.gov F EXHIBIT B City of-Tigard City ofTigard ° CommunityDevelopment p � ° Community Development ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher . 13125 SW Hall Blvd. . . Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard-Tualatin School District Richard & Katherine c/o Kelly Houssaini Topping Miller Nash pp g 19765 Derby St. 6960 SW Sandbur g West Linn, OR 97068 Tigard, OR 97223 Q AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING s • � P I, Gary Pagenstecher, being first duly sworn/affirm,on oath depose and say that I am an Associate Planner for the City of Tigard,Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: I Check Appropriate Box(,,)Below! ® NOTICE OF Public Hearing- FOR: Medium Density Residential (R-12) Presentation CPA2015-00005, Z0N2015-00007 ❑ AMENDED NOTICE— ❑ City of Tigard Community Development Director/ Designee ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer ® Tigard Planning Commission ❑ Tigard City Council F A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked Exhibit "A", and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached hst(s), marked Exhibit "B", and by reference made a part hereof, November 5.2015 , and deposited in the United States Mail on November 5. 2015 ,postage prepaid. Gary Pagenstecher STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) i, Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the _day of ��V�is'''1 �P.r , 2015. OFFICIAL STAMP 13ETSY GALICIA S NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION N0.925741 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 09,2018 NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON My Commission Expires: JAC-oiTunmuty Development\land Use Applications\03_Admu)Nlaterials\Affidavits of A4ailing\2015\CPA2015-(X)(X)5_Z0N2()15-(HX)07 Affidavit Gmy 20151105.docx EXHIBIT A NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE,LIENHOLDER,VENDOR OR SELLER; THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. PUBLIC HEARING NO'T'ICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BEFORE THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 20153, AT 7.00 PM, AND BEFORE THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ON TUESDAY,.,_jANUARY 12, 2015, AT 7:30 PM THE PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE CONDUCTED IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER AT 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223. THESE HEARINGS ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC. FILE NOS.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2015-00005 Zone Change (ZON) 2015-00007 FILE TITLE: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-12) PRESERVATION APPLICANT: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 REQUEST: The city is initiating tivs Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment to facilitate preservation of R-12 zoned land and ensure it is applied in a location that supports residential use. The City proposes changing the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Map Classifications of the subject parcels in SITE A (3 parcels totaling 1.54 acres) from professional commercial district (C-P) to medium density residential (R-12); and changing the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Map Classifications of the subject parcel in SITE B (1 parcel of 1.37 acre) from medium density residential(R-12) to general commercial (C-G). LOCATION: SITE A: 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72nd Ave., 10735 SW 72nd Ave; TAX MAP/ LOT #'s: 1S136ACO2200, 1S136ACO2400, 1S136ACO2600; and SITE B: 13125 SW Pacific Hwy TAX MAP/ LOT# 2S102CB00200 COMP PLAN DESIGNATION/ ZONING DISTRICT: Medium Density Residential (R-12), Professional Comi-nercial (C-P), General Commercial (C-G) APPLICABLE Community Development Code Chapters 18.380.020 and 18.390.060.G; Comprehensive Plan REVIEW Goals 1, 2, 10; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10; and Metro's Urban Growth Management CRITERIA: Functional Plan Title 1. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.390.060.E OF THE COlvMfUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL 503-639-4171, EXT. 2438 (VOICE) OR 503-684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. PUBLIC ORAL OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY IS INVITED. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. THE PURPOSE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REVIEW IS TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THE COUNCIL WILL THEN HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE.ITEM AT A LATER DATE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25�) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING,A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25�) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER GARY PAGENSTECHER AT 503-718-2432IGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223) OR BY EMAIL TO p ri and-or.gov. .., v- J� l VICINITY MAP w'I LU > CRA 2015-00005 PINE S T ZCN 2015-00007 ' o <$ Medium Residential (R-12) - } ! Preservation 'I1 4 I� :> "` .�..i > l -- SITE A <.� t Subject Site fx SPRUCE ST • .. C-P to R-12(1.54 acres)` y J— R-25rry l 5' I J R-4.5 I t- Information on this map Is for general location only and should he verlfled with the Development Services Division. Approx.Scale 1:2,000-1 in=167 ft Map printed at 09:19 AM on 05-Nov-15 DATA 16 DERIVED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES,THE CITY OF TIGARD MARES NO WARRANTY,REPRESENTgT10N OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE CONTENT,ACCURACY,TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF THE DATA PROVIDED HEREIN,THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERR 0116.OMISSIONS.OR INACCURACIES IN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF How CAUSED. City of Tiga3125 Hallrd DF£ 4 25 01 TIGAR� APS 1Tigard,OR 97223d tPE 503 639.4171 P Dill www.tigard-or.gov j VICINITY MAP - s CPA 2015-00005 ZON 2015-00007 I •' Medium Residential (R-12) Preservation SITE B .� 1-is •...•, ,,rr.. R-1 2 1. Trgv, Subject Site �}�£'ll7f.'ftl�Q7.y R-12>to C-G(1.37 acres) fa. x p I I R-4.5 - is 0 - Information on this map Is for general location 1P only and should be verified with the F Development Services Division. Approx.Scale 1:2,000-1 In=167 M Map printed at 09:11 AM on 05-Nov-15 DATA 15 DERNED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES.THE CITY OF TIOARD MANES NO WARRANTY REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE - CONTENT,ACCURAC'�,TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF DATA PROVIDED HEREIN.THE CnY OF nGARD SMALL ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS,OMISSIONS,OR INACCURACIES IN THE �y INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSED. Feet p City of Tigard 3125 SW Hail 0 2s0 "� TIGARDa�gPS 1T Tigard.OR 97223d (f1 M 503 639-4171 s ' i�- , ./ `•` www.tigardor.gov EXHIBIT B ALBERTSON,BARRY BEACH,DAYLE D.&EVELYN O. 15445 SW 150TH AVE 11530 SW 72ND AVENUE TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 BEILKE,SUSAN BEILSTEIN,ELLEN 11755 SW 114TH PLACE 14630 SW 139TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 BRENNEMAN,HEIDI BUEHNER,GRETCHEN 11680 SW TIGARD DRIVE PO BOX 230268 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97281 CAFFALL,REX CAROL RENAUD-WACO CPO NEWSLETTER COORD. 13205 SW VILLAGE GLENN OSU EXT.SVC-CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT FACULTY TIGARD,OR 97223 155 NORTH 1ST AVENUE SUITE 200 MS48 HILLSBORO,OR 97124 CITY OF TIGARD CONNERY,STACY ATTN: ???????? 12564 SW MAIN STREET 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 CRAGHEAD,ALEXANDER DEFILIPPIS,VICTOR 12205 SW HALL BOULEVARD 13892 SW BRAYDON CT TIGARD,OR 97223-6210 TIGARD,OR 97224 ..... . .... ENGVALL,ANN ERDT,DON&DOROTHY 15461 SW 82 PL 13760 SW 121 ST AVENUE TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 FOSTER,VANESSA FROUDE,BEVERLY 13085 SW HOWARD DR 12200 SW BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 GALLUCCI,NAOMI GOODHOUSE,JOHN 11285 SW 78TH AVENUE 9345 SW MOUNTAIN VIEW LANE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 HAMILTON,LISA CPO 4B VICE CHAIR HARDING,TODD &HERING JR,BLAKE. 13565 SW BEEF BEND ROAD NORRIS BEGGS&SIMPSON TIGARD,OR 97224 121 SW MORRISON,SUITE 200 PORTLAND,OR 97204 HOGAN,KEVIN HOWLAND,HAROLD AND RUTH 14357 SW 133RD AVENUE 13145 SW BENISH TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 JULIE RUSSELL CHAIR CPO 4B CHAIR JULIE RUSSELL,CPO 4B CHAIR 16200 SW PACIFIC HWY SUITE H BOX 242 12662 SW TERRAVIEW DRIVE TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224 KEERINS,PATRICIA KIMMEL,DAVID 15677 SW OREGON ST.APT 209 1335 SW 66TH SUITE 201 TIGARD,OR 97140 PORTLAND,OR 97225 KNAPP,MONA LONG,JIM CHAIR,CPO 4M 9600 SW FREWING STREET 10730 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 MILDREN,GENE MURDOCK,NATHAN AND ANN MILDREN DESIGN GROUP 7415 SW SPRUCE STREET 7650 SW BEVELAND ST,STE 120 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 NEAL BROWN. GRI NEWTH,PATTY MEADOWS INC REALTORS 12180 SW MERESTONE COURT 12655 SW NORTH DAKOTA STREET TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 RORMAN,SUE SPRING,BRAD 11250 SW 82ND AVE 7555 SW SPRUCE STREET TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 STALZER,CHARLIE AND LARIE SUNDBERG,ROSS 14781 SW JULIET TERRACE 16382 SLY 104TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224 THOMPSON,GLENNA WALSH,DAVID 13676 SW HALL BLVD UNIT 2 10236 SW STUART COURT TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 WEGENER,BRIAN 9830 SW KIMBERLY DRIVE TIGARD,OR 97224 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILINGMM[-FMIMAi I, Gary Pagenstecher, being first duly sword/affirm,on oath depose and say that I am an Associate Planner for the City of Tigard,Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: (Check Appropriate Box(s)Below) ® NOTICE OF Public Hearing FOR: Medium Density Residential (R-12) Preservation CPA2015-00005,ZON2015-00007 ❑ AMENDED NOTICE- ❑ City of Tigard Community Development Director/ Designee ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer ® Tigard Planning Commission ❑ Tigard City Council , pp'.-)p &wp-vu willt" A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked Exhibit "A", and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit "B", and by reference made a part hereof, November 19,2015 ,and depo in the United States Mail on November 19,2015 ,postage prepaid. Ga Pagenstecher STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the day of Dee-c'-'n ioz-y- '2015. OFFICIAL STAMP BETSY GALICIA t NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO.925741 QJ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 09,2018 NOTARY PUBLI OREGON Q� My Commission Expires: J " l:\Coinmuiity Developmoit\l-and Use Applieations\03_Admin Materials\Affidavits of Mailing\2015\CPA2015-(X)005_ZON21115-IXXX17 Affidavit Garb 211151119.docs EXHIBIT A NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE,LIENHOLDER,VENDOR OR SELLER: THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER- PUBLIC URCHASERPUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BEFORE THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2015, AT 7:00 PM, AND BEFORE THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2015, AT 7:30 PM. THE PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE CONDUCTED IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER AT 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223. THESE HEARINGS ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC. FILE NOS.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2015-00005 Zone Change (ZON) 2015-00007 FILE TITLE: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-12) PRESERVATION APPLICANT: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard,OR 97223 REQUEST: The city is initiating this Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment to facilitate preservation of R-12 zoned land and ensure it is applied in a location that supports residential use. The City proposes changing the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Map Classifications of the subject parcels in SITE A (3 parcels totaling 1.54 acres) from professional commercial district (C-P) to medium density residential (R-12); and changing the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Map Classifications of the subject parcel in SITE B (1 parcel of 1.37 acre) from medium density residential (R-12) to general commercial (C-G). LOCATION: SITE A: 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72nd Ave., 10735 SW 72nd Ave; TAX MAP/ LOT #'s: 1S136ACO2200, 1S136ACO2400, 1S136ACO2500;and SITE B: 13125 SW Pacific Hwy TAX MAP/LOT#2S102CB00200 COMP PLAN DESIGNATION/ ZONING DISTRICT: Medium Density Residential(R-12),Professional Commercial (C-P),General Commercial (C-G) APPLICABLE Community Development Code Chapters 18.380.020 and 18.390.060.G; Comprehensive Plan REVIEW Goals 1, 2, 10; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10; and Metro's Urban Growth Management CRITERIA: Functional Plan Tide 1. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.390.060.E OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. -- ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL 503-639-4171, EXT. 2438 (VOICE) OR 503-684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. PUBLIC ORAL OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY IS INVITED. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING-TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. THE PURPOSE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REVIEW IS TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THE COUNCIL WILL THEN HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ITEM AT A LATER DATE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25�) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING,A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25C) PER PAGE,OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER GARY PAGENSTECHER AT 503-718-2432 GARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223) OR BY EMAIL TOagar ti rd-or. ov. 5 VICINITY MAP LU CPA 2015-00005 PINE S T ZON 2015-00007 1 Medium Residential (R-12) Preservation LU •� ......,.. 4 ; SITE A x . Subject Site d I I '•�: vi ITr � SAftUGE' 'S' C-P to R-12(1.54 acres) LU -t Information on this map is for general location only and should 6e verified with the Development Services Division. I 1 _ Approx.Scale 12,000-1 in=167 It Map printed al 09:19 AM on 05-Nov-15 DATA IS DERIVED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES.THE CITY OF TIGARD MANES NO WARRANTY,REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE CONTENT,ACCURACY TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF THE DATA PROVIDED HEREIN.THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS.OMISSIONS.OR INACCURACIES IN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSED. City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Feet TIGR�D AP5 Tigard,OR 97223 It Q 2�a - Irl 503 639-4171 (P.Q) www.tigardor.gov -4 VICINITY MAP CPA 2015-00005 ZON 2015-00007 • s Medium Residential (R-12) Preservation Y SITE B � I R-12 7t f d ^ TigardSubject Site Elementaryt r R-12 to C-G(1.37 acres) ' 7 'SfOO I Information on this map Is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. Approx.Scale 1:2,000-1 In=167 r Map printed at 09:11 AM on 05-Nov-15 DATA IS DERIVED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES.THE CITY OF TIGARD G MAKES NO WARRANTY,REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE CONTENT,ACCURACY,TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF THE DATA PROVIDED HEREIN.THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS,OMISSIONS,OR INACCURACIES IN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSED. City of Tigard ARD,e 13125 SW Hall Blvd Feet 25 a .�l IG "' 5PS Tigard,OR 97223 ° �� '.-� 03639.4171 a ...AIf ri www.tigard-or.gov � �I Exhibit 8 1S136DB01700 multiple:2S102BD02700 to 2S102BD02800 ABBOTT,BRUCE&REBECCA AFTER FIVE,LLC 10850 SW 74TH AVE 10330 SW TUALATIN RD TIGARD,OR 97223 TUALATIN,OR 97062 2S102CB07300 1S136AC04200 ANAEF LLC ANDREWS,LINDA E BY ANNE FERNANDO GLAWE,CHRISTOPHER A 18240 MEADOWLARK IN 7130 SW PINE ST LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136AC03200 2S102CB03302 ARCHER,RUSSELL M TRUST BEERS,ANGELA CATHERINE BOUCHER,MARK A 9950 SW FREWING ST 10745 SW 71ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136AC00400 2S102CB03500 BESS,BOB G AND EVA JO BETHESDA LUTHERAN COMMUNITIES IN 10595 SW 71ST AVE 600 HOFFMANN DR PORTLAND,OR 97223 WATERTOWN,WI 53094 1S136AC01100 1S136AC01701 BOWMAN,ERIC&DEBRA M BRAUNSTEN,SCOTT B&MEGAN C 7311 SW PINE ST 7212 SW PINE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136AC04300 2S102CB03501 BRECKENRIDGE,ROBERT D& BREVIG PROPERTIES LLC KATHRYN A 2662 SW GERALD AVE 7218 SW OAK ST PORTLAND,OR 97201 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136AC04600 1S136CA00100 BROWN,NATHAN M BRUCE,LISA 10690 SW 75TH AVE BRUCE,SCOTT PORTLAND,OR 97223 7510 SW SPRUCE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 IS136AC00401 2S102BD02201 BURNETT,M LOUISE&CHARLES CHALET VILLAGE LLC 10565 SW 71ST AVE. BY RANDALL REALTY CORP TIGARD,OR 97223 9500 SW BARBUR BLVD,STE 300 PORTLAND,OR 97219 1S136BD03500 2S102CB00300 CHAUSSE,CAROLE L CHUNG,HENRY&COMPANY 10705 SW 75TH BY THOMSON PROPERTY TAX SERVICES TIGARD,OR 97223 PO BOX 06116 CHICAGO,IL 60606 2S102CB00302 1S136AC01000 CJ GLOBAL LLC CLARK,PATRICIA I PO BOX 5668 7333 SW PINE ST ALOHA,OR 97006 PORTLAND,OR 97223 2S102CB02400 2S102CB02500 CNL FUNDING 2000-A LP CNL FUNDING 2000-A LP BY GE CAPITAL SOLUTIONS BY JACK IN THE BOX INC PO BOX 961026 9330 BALBOA AVE FORT WORTH,TX 76161 SAN DIEGO,CA 92123 2S102CB03401 2S102CB03402 COATS,ROBERT LEE CONDON,JEFFREY L&OLGA B LEE,MABLE INEZ 10025 SW GARRETT ST 10045 SW GARRETT ST PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136AC01200 1S136AC00500 CONNOR,PENNY L - COOPER,M JOHN&NANCY_A ------- 7217 --_.--7217 SW PINE ST 10525 SW 71 STAVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S102CB03400 2S102CB03301 CYPRESS CREST APARTMENTS LLC DARROW,DON S PO BOX 15516 9952 SW FREWING ST FREMONT,CA 94539 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136AC03000 1S136DB01600 DASUE LLC DORRELL,DONAL N 11902 SW 60TH 10885 SW 74TH ST PORTLAND,OR 97219 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136DB01500 2S102CB00700 DORRELL,DONAL V G&DELMA R ELSENBACH,CHRISTOPHER P&VICKI PO BOX 230482 A ELSENBACH REV LIV TRUST TIGARD,OR 97281 1238 SW DAVENPORT ST PORTLAND,OR 97201 2S102CB00400 1S136AC03300 ELWELL,JOHN A FAKIH,HAIDAR&LAMA 10230 SW SCHOOL ST 10705 SW 71ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136BD03400 1S136AC03800 FARANCE,RICHARD A FATHERREE,ROBERT&LISA 12534 SW 56TH CT 7302 SW SPRUCE ST PORTLAND,OR 97219 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136ACO2000 2S102BC04350 FENNELLY,JOHN& FINKE,ALEX GRAY,LESLIE 10615 SW 64TH DR 10650 SW 75TH AVE PORTLAND,OR 97219 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S102BC04304 IS136BDO4000 FINKE,HANS-CHRISTIAN CUSTODIAN FOSTER,KYLE FOR FINKS,NICHOLAS A 7595 SW SPRUCE ST PO BOX 1565 TIGARD,OR 97223 WILSONVIT.1 OR 97070 1S136AC00800 iS136BD03700 FOX,SARA FRAZIER,GARY B 10490 SW 75TH AVE 7535 SW SPRUCE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 multiple: 1S136AC03400 to 1S136DB00201 1S136AD03701 FRED MEYER INC GARBER LIVING TRUST STORE#375 10680 SW 71 ST AVE 1014 VINE ST PORTLAND,OR 97223 PROPERTY TAX 7TH FLOOR CINCINNATI,OH 45202 2S102CB00900 2S102BC04301 GARGER,JERRY E GEORGESON,THEODORE&KATHERINE 13070 SW GRANT AVE PO BOX 776 TIGARD,OR 97223 SHERWOOD,OR 97140 1S136ACO2900 2S102CB05800 GIBBONS,NOREEN 1�•1 GNAU,MICHAEL F&ANGEL S 10730 SW 72ND AVE 10395 SW GRANT CT PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136BD01000 2S 102BD02400 GOITER,SAMUEL A&VICTORIA L HAGER,JOSHUA J 7515 SW PINE ST 12820 SW GRANT AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S102CB05700 1S136AC04700 HALSTEAD,ERIK&KAREN HANSON,CHARLES D&CHRISTINA D 13045 SW GRANT AVE 10670 SW 75TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 2S 102BD02501 1 S 136BD03100 HATCHADOURIAN,WENDY D HEDIN,JERRY L&ALBERTA A 12840 SW GRANT AVE 7560 SW PINE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 102CB01200 2S102CB00500 HESS,DAVID A&GAIL K HILCHEN,PAUL&LEANN 13170 SW GRANT AVE 10250 SW SCHOOL ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136AC04500 2S102CB01600 HOBBEL,SUSAN L HOLCOMBE,RYAN&KATIE 10680 SW 75TH AVE 10395 SW PARK ST PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S102CB06600 1S136AC03100 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF HOWARD,DAN L&DIANE M WASHINGTON COUNTY 1311 SNOWDEN RD 111 NE LINCOLN ST#200-L WHITE SALMON,WA 98672 HILLSBORO,OR 97124 2S102CB03101 2S102CB00600 HUDSON PLAZA LLC HUTCHISON,DENNIS E 11795 SW KATHERINE ST 10270 SW SCHOOL ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136AC03801 multiple:2S102CB02300 to 2S102CB06700 ILLUS,NICOLE M&KYLE A INLINE PROPERTIES LLC 10820 SW 74TH AVE 13200 SW PACIFIC HWY TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90201 1S136BD03300 JACOBSON,KEVIN KAYE,SAUL M 10900 SW 76TH PL#20 10655 SW 75TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 2S102BD02600 2S102CB01700 KIM,PENNEY KRANML,KRISTA L 395 NW SILVERADO DR 10365 SW PARK STREET BEAVERTON,OR 97006 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S136CA90141 1 S 136BD03200 KOHLMAN,KYLE JAMES LANE,JERED 10900 SW 76TH PL#14 7540 SW PINE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136AC00200 1S136AC00901 LARSEN,DEAN W TR& LEFEBVRE,LINDA LARSEN,M ARGIE C TR MOON,DANIEL J&SARA N 10530 SW 72ND 7411 SW PINE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136DB02100 1S136AC01400 LEWIS,BENJAMIN NOLAN LONGTHORNE,SHARALYNN 10970 SW 74TH AVE 10525 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136DB01900 2S102CB03200 MAGLEY,PAMELA L MASSIH LLC 10910 SW 74TH AVE BY PIERROUZ YASAVOLIAN TIGARD,OR 97223 8 BECKET ST LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 1S136BD00100 1S136DB01400 MCNULTY,BRET B&JESSICA L MEHRA,ARUN 7508 SW OAK ST FLOR,JENNIFER M PORTLAND,OR 97223 10915 SW 74TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CA90191 1 S 136DBO1800 MENDONSA,TESSIE J IvIICKLEY,WILLIAM 10900 SW 76TH PL UNIT 19 10880 SW 74TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S102BD03100 1S136CA90151 MIDAS PROPERTIES INC MIL.-1T,DEBORAH JO BY MARVIN F POER&COMPANY 10900 SW 76TH PL UNIT 15 PO BOX 52427 TIGARD,OR 97223 ATLANTA,GA 30355 1S136CA90091 2S102CB00800 MILLER,JODI A MIRANDA,PEDRO&SOFIA 10900 SW 76TH PL#9 13115 SW GRUNT AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90172 2SI02CB07500 MISKA TRUST MK EP TIG ARD LLC BY MISKA,EDWARDS P& 623 5TH AVE,18TH FLR PHYLLIS A TRS NEW YORK,NY 10022 745 THIRD ST LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 2S102BD02500 1S136ACO2102 NIONFARED,FARSHAD F&F-RIBA MOREHEAD,RODNEY N 16879 SW KOLDING IN 7383 SW SPRUCE ST BEAVERTON,OR 97007 PORTLAND,OR 97223 2S 102CB07600 1 S 136CA90071 MORTENSEN,TIM&SHANNON MOTLAGH,MEMI S&ZENAIDA F 13155 SW GRANT AVE 10900 SW 76TH PL#7 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S136ACO2101 1 S 136DB02000 MURDOCK,ANN B NELSON WEST PROPERTIES LLC 7415 SW SPRUCE ST 12316 NW CORNELL RD TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97229 2S102CB01100 1S136AC00900 O'CONNOR,STEPHEN CASEY ODELL,JEFFREY RAY 13150 SW GRANT AVE 7417 SW PINE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 2S102CA01300 2S102CB02100 ORCHARD PARK JARA LLC PACIFIC HWY HOUSE&SHOP LLC 16225 NE EUGENE CT CACH,CHRISTOPHER J PORTLAND,OR 97230 6003 4TH AVE NE SEATTLE,WA 98115 1 S 136AD04000 1 S 136DB01200 PACIFIC TERRACE COMMERCIAL LLC PATELZICK,JOHN J JR&CYNTHIA A BY SMITH,EDITA M 10975 SW 74TH AVE 833 NW 170TH DR TIGARD,OR 97223 BEAVERTON,OR 97006 multiple: 1S136BD05400 to 1S136BD05500 2S102CB02000 PETERSEN,OVE&LORA REV LIVING PETTIJOHN,PAUL 7608 SW PINE ST 18435 SW PACIFIC HWY PORTLAND,OR 97223 TUALATIN,OR 97062 2S102CB03504 1S136AC01900 POPAT,KAUSHIK L&BINA S PROVANCHER,KENNETH A& 6783 PASEO SAN LEON STEWART,PENNY L PLEASANTON,CA 97566 7330 SW PINE ST PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136CA07000 1S136BD03600 PROWITT,NANCY C 2001 REVOCABLE PULSINELLI,CHRISTINE M 809 NOE ST 7515 SW SPRUCE ST SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94114 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA07100 IS136AC00803 RAPPOLD,TROY K RECHT,MARTHA 1125 SE MADISON ST#201 10520 SW 75TH AVE PORTLAND,OR 97214 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136AC03900 1S136CA90111 RECHTEGER,HEIDI REESOR,LOUISA 10815 SW 74TH AVE 10900 SW 76TH PL#11 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136AC01300 1S136CA06900 RICCIARDI,ANN L ROUSE,CHARLES& 7203 SW PINE ST GENDE,DIANE M TIGARD,OR 97223 11916 SW ELEMAR CT TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136AC04400 IS136ACO2800 ROUSE,JEANETTE RUSSELL-HARRIS PROPERTY TRUST 10491 SW 72ND AVE 24348 SW BAKER RD PORTLAND,OR 97223 SHERWOOD,OR 97140 2S102CB07700 2S102BD03200 RUTHERFORD,SHERYL L SANCHEZ,J GUADALUPE 13157 SW GRANT AVE ZAVALA,BLANCA E TIGARD,OR 97223 10000 SW MOLLY CT TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136AC00202 IS136CA90212 SCACCO,LINDLE F SCHAEFFER,CAROL DIANE E 10900 SW 76TH PL#21 10500 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 I S136BD03000 1 S 136AD03800 SCHMIDT,DAVID AND SCHOEWE,CAROL A TRUST ANNETI'E 10720 SW 71 ST AVE 7575 SW SPRUCE STREET PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2SI02BC00900 1S136CA90101 SCHULZE,LLOYD&EVELYN FAMILY T SHOEMAKER,KELLEE A BY LLOYD H EVELYN M SCHULZE TRS 10900 SW 76TH PL#10 8780 SW INDIAN HILL LN TIGARD,OR 97223 BEAVERTON,OR 97008 1S136AC00300 1S136AD03900 SITTEL,BETTY J SMITH,EDITA M REVOCABLE LIVING 10560 SW 72ND AVE 833 NW 170TH DR PORTLAND,OR 97223 BEAVERTON,OR 97006 2S102CB05000 multiple: 1S136BD03003 to 1S136BD03800 SPEIDEL,BENJAMIN E&CLAIRE P SPRING,LINDA L 20375 SW LYNNLY WAY 7555 SW SPRUCE ST SHERWOOD,OR 97140 PORTLAND,OR 97223 2S102BC04302 1S136AC00701 SPRINGER-GEORGESON,KATHERINE STECHER,VERNON C JR GEORGESON,THEODORE 7350 SW OAK PO BOX 766 TIGARD,OR 97223 SHERWOOD,OR 97140 2S102CB00303. 1S136CA90131 SUH LLC SUN1INSIiI,ADAM D 13165 SW PACIFIC HWY 10900 SW 76TH PL#13 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S102CB01000 multiple:2S102BC08700 to 2S102CB00200 SWEET,JEFF TIGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL SWEET,LORRAINE DISTRICT 23J 13130 SW GRANT AVE 6960 SW SANDBURG ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 multiple: 1S136ACO2200 to 1S136ACO2500 1S136AC01800 TOPPING,RICHARD TRACY,NANCY LOU TRUST KEMP,KATHERINE 7310 SW PINE ST 19765 DERBY ST PORTLAND,OR 97223 WEST LINN,OR 97068 2S IO2CB03000 2S IO2BDO3000 TRAIN,ARTHUR& TRUCK TERMINALS INC CLINE,MARY E 15965 NIS(/TULLAMORRIE WAY 12990 SW PACIFIC HWY PORTLAND,OR 97229 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90081 1S136AC01700 VANDIJK,CAROLYN L VANEK,IVAN 10900 SW 76TH PL#8 7290 SW PINE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136ACO2700 1S136BD01100 VINCENT,BRADFORD VINS,ALEXANDER 10640 SW 72ND AVE 14315 SEXTON MOUNTAIN DR#1F TIGARD,OR 97223 BEAVERTON,OR 97008 1S136AC00801 1S136AC01600 WAINWRIGHT FAMILY LLC WAKELAND,DENNIS S&GAY A 6120 SW HUBER 7210 SW PINE ST PORTLAND,OR 97219 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136AC00902 multiple:2S102CB02600 to 2S102CB03300 WALKER,RODNEY L&PAMELA G WALTER,ANGELA D 7405 SW PINE ST 2863 RIVERWALK LP PORTLAND,OR 97223 EUGENE,OR 97401 1S136AC04100 2S102CB01901 WATSON,JAMIE NOEFLE WEBER COASTAL BELLS LTD PTNRSHP 10655 SW 71ST AVE PO BOX 23408 TIGARD,OR 97223 EUGENE,OR 97402 IS136BD046001S136CA90161 WELLER,HAMA WINANS,EMILY 7575 SW PINE ST 3111 NE 165TH PL PORTLAND,OR 97223 VANCOUVER,WA 98682 1 S 136CA90121 1 S 136DB01300 WISCHMEYER,SARAH M ZSOKA,KENNETH G 10900 SW 76TH PL#12 NICHOLS-ZSOKA,TIFFANYE B TIGARD,OR 97223 10945 SW 74TH AVE PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136CA90182 1S136AC00700 ZVAIGZNE,BRIAN ZWINGLI,WALTER SCOTT TRUST 10900 SW 76TH PL,UNIT 18 7300 SW OAK ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 NOTICE OF PUBLIC H'EARING The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on Monday December 14, 2015 and. at City Council on Tuesday January 12, 2015 at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Public oral or written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be held under Title 18 and rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Section 18.390.060.E. The Planning Commission's review is for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council on the request. The Council will then hold a public hearing on the request prior to making a decision. Further information may be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223 (Staff contact: Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner, garyp(i tigard- or.gov, 503-718-2434) PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-12) PRESERVATION - COMPREHENSIVE PIAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2015-00005 ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2015-00007 REQUEST: The city is initiating this Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment to facilitate preservation of R-12 zoned land and ensure it is applied in a location that supports residential use. The City proposes changing the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Map Classifications of the subject parcels in SITE A (3 parcels totaling 1.54 acres) from professional commercial district (C-P) to medium density residential (R-12); and changing the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning_ Map Classifications of the subject parcel in SITE B (1 parcel of 1.37 acre) from medium density residential (R-12) to general commercial (C-G). LOCATION: SITE A: 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72nd Ave., 10735 SW 72nd Ave; TAX MAP/ LOT #'s: 1S136ACO2200, 1S136ACO24005 1S136ACO2500; and SITE B: 13125 SW Pacific Hwy TAX MAP/ LOT # 2S102CB00200. ZONES: Medium Density Residential (R-12), Professional Commercial (C-P), General Commercial (C-G). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380.020 and 18.390.060.6; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2, 10; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10; and Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 1. CITY OF 'TIGARD e PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES (Pre-Application Meeting Notes are Valid for Six (6) Months) RE-APP.MTG.DATE: September 10,2015 1lam STAFF AT PRE-APP.: Monica Bilodeau&Greg Berry RESIDENTIAL APPLICANT: Stafford Land Company_ AGENT: Levi Levasa Phone: 503.250-3651 Email: Le-6@staffordlandcompanv.com PROPERTY LOCATION: ADDRESS/GENERAL LOCATION: 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72"d 10735 SW 72"d TAX MAPS)/LOT#(S): IS136ACO2200 15136ACO2400 1S136ACO2600 NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA). Zone Change(ZON), and Subdivision (SUB) PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning MaI2 Classifications of the subject parcel from professional commercial district(C-P) to medium high density residential (R-25) or (R-12)- COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Professional Commercial ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: CP ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18. 510 ) ZONING FOR R-25: MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 1.480 sq. ft. Average Min. lot width: None ft. Max. building height: 45 ft. Setbacks: Front: 20 ft. Side: 10 ft. Rear: 20 ft. Corner: 20 ft. from street. Side or Rear facing a more restrictive Zone: 30 ft. MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: 80%. Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: 20%. ZONING FOR R-25: MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 3,050 sq. ft. Average Min.lot width: None ft. Max. building height: 35 ft. Setbacks: Front: 15 ft. Side: 5 ft. Rear: 15 ft. Corner: 10 ft. from street. Side or Rear facing a more restrictive Zone: 30 ft. MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: 80%. Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: 20%. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-,application Conference Notes Page 1 of 9 Residential.Application/Planning Division Section ® NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING (Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting Handout) THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET, INTERESTED PARTIES, AND THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION of their proposal. A minimum of two (2) weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land U� Notification handout-concerning site posting and the meeting notice. Meeting is to be held prior to submitting your application or the application will not be accepted * NOTE: In order to also preliminarily address building code standards, a meeting with a Plans Examiner is encouraged prior to submittal of a land use application. ® NARRATIVE (Refer to Code Chapter 18.390) The APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A NARRATIVE which provides findings based on the applicable approval standards. Failure to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to consider an ajpphcation incomplete and delay review of the proposal. The applicant should review the code for applicable criteria. ® IMPACT STUDY (Refer to Code Sections 18.390.040 and 18.390.050) As a part of the APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, applicants are required to INCLUDE AN IMPACT STUDY with their submittal package. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system and the noise impacts of the development For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose im rovements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirement, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projectedpimpacts of the development. ® ACCESS (Refer to Chapters 18.705 and 18.765) Minimum number of accesses: 11-22 Minimum access width:30. Minimum pavement width: 24. ®WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.705) Within all ATTACHED HOUSING (except two-family dwellings) and multi-family developments, each residential dwelling SHALL BE CONNECTED BY WALKWAY TO THE VEHICULAR PARKING AREA,COMMON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION FACILITIES. ® RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATION (Refer to Code Chapter 18.715)—See example below. The NET RESIDENTIAL UNITS ALLOWED on a particular site may be calculated by dividing the net area of the developable land by the minimum number of square feet required per dwelling unit as specified by the applicable zoning designation. Net development area is calculated by subtracting the following land area(s) from the total site area: All sensitive lands areas including: ➢ Land within the 100-year floodplain; ➢ --Slopes exceeding 25%; - ➢ Drainageways;and ➢ Wetlands for the R-1,R-2,R-3.5,R-4.5 and R-7 zoning districts. Public right-of-way dedication: ➢ Single-family allocate 20%of gross acres for public facilities;or ➢ Multi-family allocate 15%of gross acres for public facilities;or ➢ If available, the actual public facility square footage can be used for deduction. All land proposed for private Streets SEE NOTES FOR ESTIMATED DENSITY CALCULATIONS. EXAMPLE OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATIONS: CITY OF TIGARD Pre Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 9 Itesidential Application/Planning Division kation EXAMPLE: USING A ONE ACRE SITE IN THE R-12 ZONE (3,050 MINIMUM LOT SIZE) WITH NO DEDUCTION FOR SENSITIVE LANDS Single-Family Multi-Family 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area - 8,712 sq. ft. (20%) for public right-of-way 6,534 sq. ft. (15%) for public right-of-way NET: 34,848 square feet NET: 37,026 square feet 3,050 (minimum lot areal - 3,050 minimum lot areal 11.4 Units Per Acre (maximum) = 12.1 Units Per Acre (maximum) • The Development Code requires that the net site area exist for the next whole dwelling unit. NO ROUNDING UP IS PERMITTED. • Minimum Project Density is 80% of the maximum allowed density. TO DETERMINE, MULTIPLY THE MAXIMUM BY.8. ® Design Standards (Refer to Code Section 18.720.030) ➢ Density Transition-when multifamily or attached single- family project abuts property zoned for detached single family design standards apply. ➢ Front facades ➢ Main Entrance ➢ Unit definition ➢ Roof Lines ➢ Trim detail ➢ Mechanical equipment ➢ Parking ➢ Pedestrian circulation ® SPECIAL SETBACKS (Refer to Code Section 18.730) ➢ STREETS: -- feet from the centerline of -- ➢ LOWER INTENSITY ZONES: R-4.5 on north and west side of the property ➢ FLAG LOT: A TEN (10)-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK applies to all primary structures. ➢ ZERO LOT LINE LOTS: A minimum of a ten (10)-foot separation shall be maintained between each dwelling unit or garage. ➢ MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL building separation standards apply witivn multiple-family residential developments. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES UP TO 528 SQUARE FEET in size may be penmitted on lots less than 2.5 acres in size. Five (5)-foot minimum setback from side and rear lot lines. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE UP TO 1,000 SQUARE FEET on parcels of at least 2.5 acres in size. (See applicable zoning district for the primary structures'setback requirements.] ❑ FLAG LOT BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.730) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 1'/2 STORIES or 25 feet,whichever is less in most zones; 2'/z stories,or 35 feet in R-7,R-12,R-25 or R-40 zones provided that the standards of Section 18.730.010.C.2 are satisfied. ® BUFFERING AND SCREENING (Refer to Code Chapter 18.745) In order TO INCREASE PRIVACY AND TO EITHER REDUCE OR ELIMINATE ADVERSE NOISE OR VISUAL IMPACTS between adjacent developments, especially between different land uses, the CITY REQUIRES LANDSCAPED BUFFER AREAS along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required; these are often advisable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may only be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 9 Residential Application/Planning Division Section information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Development Code. , The ESTIMATED REQUIRED BUFFERS applicable to your proposal area is: Buffer Level C along north boundary. Buffer Level C along east boundary. Buffer Level - C along south boundary. Buffer Level C _ . along_west.boundary. SIGHT OBSCURING SCREENING IS REQUIRED ALONG: -- ® STREET TREES &PARKING LOT TREES (Refer to Code Chapters 18.745 and 18.765) STREET TREES SHALL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE (TYPE III), DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW (TYPE II & III), MINOR LAND PARTITION (TYPE II), PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (TYPE III), SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ('TYPE II), AND SUBDIVISION (TYPE II & III). The minimum number of required street trees shall be determined by dividing the linear amount of street frontage within or adjacent to the site (in feet) by 40 feet (if the number is a fraction,round to the nearest whole number). The trees shall be placed within the public right-of-way whenever possible but no more than six (6) feet from the right-of-way boundary. Street trees shall be planted according to Section 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual and adequate soil volumes shall be provided in accordance with Section 12 of the Urban Forestry Manual. Existing trees may be used to meet the street standards. Further information on regulations affecting street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. PARKING LOT TREES ARE REQUIRED AS PART OF THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE. (TYPE III), DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW (TYPE II & III), PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (TYPE III),AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (TYPE II).All parking areas,including parking spaces and aisles, shall be required to achieve at least 30% tree canopy cover at maturity directly above the parking area in accordance with Section 13 of the Urban Forestry Manual. ® RECYCLING (Refer to Code Chapter 18.755) Applicant should CONTACT FRANCHISE HAULER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SITE SERVICING COMPATIBILITY. Locating a trash/recycling enclosure within a clear vision area such as the intersection of two (2) driveways within a parking lot is prohibited. Much of Tigard is within Pride Disposal's Service area. Pride Disposal can be reached at(503) 625-6177. ® PARKING (Refer to Code Chapters 18.765 &18.705) ALL PARKING AREAS AND DRIVEWAYS MUST BE PAVED. ➢ Single-family............ Requires: One (1 off-street parking space per dwelling unit;and One (1) space per unit less than 500 square feet. ➢ Multiple-family.........Requires: 1.25 spaces per unit for 1 bedroom; 1.5 spaces per unit for 2 bedrooms;and 1.75 spaces per unit for 3 bedrooms. Multi-family dwelling units with more than ten (10) required spaces shall provide parking for the use of guests and shall consist of 15%of the total required parking. NO MORE THAN 50% OF REQUIRED SPACES MAY BE DESIGNATED AND/OR DIMENSIONED AS COMPACT SPACES. Parking stalls shall be dimensioned as follows: ➢ Standard parking space dimensions: 8 feet. 6 inches X 18 feet, 6 inches. ➢ Compact parking space dimensions: 7 feet. 6 inches X 16 feet, 6 inches. ➢ Handicapped parking: All parking areas shall provide appropriately located and dimensioned disabled person parking spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to be provided, as well as the parking stall dimensions, are mandatedby the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A handout is available upon request. A handicapped parking space symbol shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be posted. ® BICYCLE RACKS (Refer to Code Section 18.765) CITY OF TI ARD Pre.application Conference Notes Page 4 of 9 Residential Application/Planning Division Section BICYCLE RACKS are required FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. ® SENSITIVE LANDS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.775) The Code provides REGULATIONS FOR LANDS WHICH ARE POTENTIALLY UNSUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT DUE TO AREAS WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, NATURAL DRAINAGEWAYS, WETLAND AREAS, ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25 PERCENT, OR ON UNSTABLE GROUND. Staff will attempt to preliminary identify sensitive lands areas at the pre-application conference based on available information. HOWEVER, the responsibility to precisely identify sensitive land areas and their boundaries, is the responsibility of the applicant. Areas meeting the definitions of sensitive lands must be clearly indicated on plans submitted with the development application. Chapter 18.775 also provides regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED WITHIN FLOODPLAINS. SOME RESIDENTIAL RELATED DEVELOPMENT IS EXEMPT. ❑ STEEP SLOPES (Refer to Code Section 18.775.070.C) When STEEP SLOPES exist,prior to issuance of a final order,a geotechnical report must be submitted which addresses the approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.775.080.C. The report shall be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall include specific recommendations for achieving the requirements of Section 18.775.080.C. ® CLEANWATER SERVICES (CWS) Service Provider Letter PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL of any land use applications, the applicant must obtain a CWS Service Provider Letter which will outline the conditions necessary to comply with the CWS R&O 07-20 sensitive area requirements. If there are no sensitive areas, CWS must still issue a letter stating a CWS Service Provider Letter is not required. ® SIGNS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.780) SIGN PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY SIGN in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Si -1 Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development review application. Alternatively, a Sign Code Exception application may be filed for Director's review. ® URBAN FORESTRY PLAN (Refer to Code Section 18.790.030.0 and the "Tree Canopy Requirements" Brochure) AN URBAN FORESTRY PLAN IS REQUIRED FOR THE FOLLWING TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT: Conditional Use (Type III);Downtown Design Review (Type II and III);Minor Land Partition (Type II); Planned Development (Type III); Sensitive Lands Review (Type II and III);Site Development Review (Type II); and Subdivision (Type II and III). The plan needs to be prepared by an ISA certified arborist or landscaped architect. Percentage of mature canopy cover required: 33o/.fer to Appendix 2-6 in Urban Forestry Maintal for a list of trees with mat»re eanay cover areas Percentage An urban forestry plan shall: - Be coordinated and approved by a landscape architect (the project landscape architect) or a person possessing dual certifications as a certified arborist and certified tree risk assessor(the project arborist); - Meet the tree preservation and removal site plan standards in Section 10, part 1 of the Urban Forestry Manual; - Meet the tree canopy site plan standards in Section 10,part 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual;and CM OF TTG ARD Pre Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 9 Residential Application/Plmviing Division Section - Meet the supplemental report standards in Section 10,part 3 of the Urban Forestry Manual. TREE CANOPY FEE. If the effective percentage of tree canopy cover cannot be met, the applicant shy provide the city a tree canopy fee according to the methodology outlined in Section 10, part 4 of the Urba._ Forestry Manual. 18.790.040-Discretionary Urban Forestry Plan Review Option In lieu of providing payment of a tree canopy fee when less than the standard effective tree canopy cover nt required by Section 10, part 3 of the Urban Forestry Manual will be provided, an applicamay apply for a discretionary urban forestryplan review. The discretionary urban forestry plan review cannot be used to modify an forestry an already approved urbrestry plan, any tree preservation or tree planting requirements established as part of another land use review approval, or any tree preservation or tree planting requirements required by another chapter in this title. ® PRESERVATION OF EXISTING TREES (Refer to Code Section 18.790.050.C.) To assist in the preservation and/or planting of trees and significant tree groves, the director may apply one or more of the following flexible standards as part of the land use review approval. Use of the flexible standards shall be requested by the project arborist or landscape architect as part of the land use review process. The flexible standards are only applicable to trees that are eligible for credit towards the effective tree canopy cover of the site. Appropriate species of trees in good condition and suitable for preservation receive a 200 percent credit based on their existing canopy area.Refer to Section 11-Part 3 of the Urban Forestry Manual for submittal requirements. ® CLEAR VISION AREA (Refer to Code Chapter 18.795) The City requires that CLEAR VISION AREAS BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THREE (3) AND EIGHT (8) FEET IN HEIGHT at road/driveway, road/railroad, and road/road intersections. The size of the required clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification and any existinv obstructions within the clear vision area. The applicant shall show the clear vision areas on the site plan, an identify any obstructions in these areas. ® FUTURE STREET PLAN AND EXTENSION OF STREETS (Refer to Code Section 18.810.030.F.) A FUTURE STREET PLAN shall: ➢ Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or partition. The plan shall show the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include other parcels within 530 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land division. Identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities on or within 530 feet of the site. Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed. ® ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.810.060) MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: 25 feet unless lot is created through the minor land partition process. Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum 15-foot wide access easement. The DEPTH OF ALL LOTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 21A TIMES THE AVERAGE WIDTH, unless the parcel is less than 1'/2 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. ® BLOCKS (Refer to Code Section 18.810.040) The perimeter of BLOCKS FORMED BY STREETS SHALL NOT EXCEED 2,000 FEET measured along the right-of-way center line except where street location is precluded by natural topography,wetlands or other CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 9 Residential Application/Planning Dixdsion Section on the proposal to the City Council. An additional public hearing shall be held by the City Council. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS All APPLICATIONS MUST BE ACCEPTED BY A PLANNING DIVISION STAFF MEMBER of the Community Development Department at Tigard City Hall offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications submitted by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planning Division acceptance may be returned. The Planning counter closes at 5:00 PM. Maps submitted with an application shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 81/Z" x 11". One, 8'/Z" x 11" map of a proposed project shall also be submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision Applications with unfolded maps shall not be accepted. The Planning Division and Engineering Department will perform a preliminary review of thea plication and will determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additional copies of the submitted materials are required. The administrative decision or public hearing will typically occur approximately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as being complete by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. A 10-day public appeal period follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard Hearings Officer . A basic flow chart which illustrates the review process is available from the Planning Division upon request. Land use applications requiring a public hearing must have notice posted on-site by the applicant no less than 10 days prior to the public hearing. This PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE AND THE NOTES OF THE CONFERENCE ARE INTENDED TO INFORM the prospective applicant of the primary Community Development Code requirements applicable to thepotential development of a particular site and to allow the City staff and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. SUBDIVISION PLAT NAME RESERVATION (County Surveyor's Office: 503-648-8884) PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A SUBDIVISION LAND USE APPLICATION with the City of Tigard, applicants are required to complete and file a subdivision plat naming request with the Washington County Surveyor's Office in order to obtain approval/reservation for any subdivision name. Applications will not be accepted as complete until the City receives the faxed confirmation of approval from the County of the Subdivision Name Reservation. BUILDING PERMITS PLANS FOR BUILDING AND OTHER RELATED PERMITS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW UNTIL A LAND USE APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. Final inspection approvals by the Building Division will not be granted until there is compliance with all conditions of development approval. These pre-application notes do not include comments from the Building Division. For pproposed buildings or modifications to existing buildings, it is recommended to contact a Building Division Plans Examiner to determine if there are building code issues that would prevent the structure from being constructed, as proposed. Additionally, with regard to Subdivisions and Minor Land Partitions where any structure to be demolished has system development charge (SDC) credits and the underlying parcel for that structure will be eliminated when the new plat is recorded, the Ci 's policy is to apply those system development credits to the first building permit issued in the develo meat (UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE DEVELOPER AT THE TIME THE DEMOLITION PERMIT IS OBTAINED). PLEASE NOTE: The conference and notes cannot cover all Code requirements and aspects related to site planning that should apply to the development of your site plan. Failure of the staff to provide information required by the Code shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements. It is recommended that a prospective applicant either obtain and read the Community Development Code or ask any questions of City staff relative to Code requirements prior to submittin an application. AN ADDITIONAL PRE-APPLICATION FEE AND CONFERENCE WILL BE REQUIRED IF AN .PPLICATION PERTAINING TO THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IS SUBMITTED AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FOLLOWING THIS CONFERENCE (unless deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division). CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 8 of 9 Residential Application/Planning Dixision Section bodies of water or, pre-existing development. When block lengths greater than 330 feet are permitted, pedestrian/bikeways shall be provided through the block. CODE CHAPTERS ❑ 18.330(Conditional Use) ❑ 18.610(Tigard Downtown Plan District) ® 18.745(Landscaping&Screening Standards) ❑ 18.340(Director's Interpretation) ❑ 18.620(Tigard Triangle Design Standards) ❑ 18.750(Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulations) ❑ 18.350(Planned Development) ❑ 18,630(Washington Square Regional Center) ❑ 18.755(Mixed Solid Waste/Recyding Storage) ❑ 18.360(Site Development Review) ❑ 18.640(Bridgeport Village Plan District) ❑ 18.760(Nonconforming Situations) ❑ 18.370(Variances/Adjustments) ❑ 18.650(Durham Wastewater Facility) ® 18.765(Off-Street Parking/Loading Requirements) ® 18.380(Zoning Map/Text Amendments) ❑ 18.660(River Terrace Plan District) ❑ 18.775(Sensitive Lands Review) ❑ 18.385(Miscellaneous Permits) ® 18.705(Access/Egress/Circulation) ❑ 18.780(Signs) ® 18.390(Decision Making Procedures/Impact Study) ❑ 18.710(Accessory Residential Units) ❑ 18.785(Temporary Use Permits) ❑ 18.410(Lot Line Adjustments) ® 18.715(Density Computations) ® 18.790(Urban Forestry Plan) ❑ 18.420(Land Partitions) ® 18.720(Design Compatibility Standards) ® 18.795(Visual Clearance Areas) ® 18.430(Subdivisions) ❑ 18.725(Environmental Performance Standards) ❑ 18.798(Wireless Communication Facilities) ® 18.510(Residential Zoning Districts) ❑ 18.730(Exceptions To Development Standards) ® 18.810(Street&Utility Improvement Standards) ❑ 18.520(Commercial zoning Districts) ❑ 18.740(Historic Overlay) ❑ 18.530(Industrial Zoning Districts) ❑ 18.742(Home Occupation Permits) ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: Provide a narrative that states facts to show how the criteria are met. Referring to the plan does not meet the criterion. Narratives that do not provide facts are considered incomplete and will prolong the review process. Three copies of all materials are required for the original submittal. The initial completeness review can be up to 3� days. Additional completeness reviews may be necessary. Once an application is deemed complete, then t application review will begin. Street connectivity is required and must be addressed (future streets, street aligtunent and connections, and blocks in 18.810). Required dedication, street standards, and access requirements are outlined further in the Engineering Notes with this packet. An urban forests plan and report are required for subdivisions per 18.790. Specific requirements for the plan and report are found in Section 10 of the Urban Forester Manual (http://ww\v.dgard- orgov/commul-in,/trees/docs/urban forestry manual Estimated Density Calculations for R-25: Gross Square Footage 1.54ac, 67,082 (Please calculate) Existing Lot Area 67,082 ROW Dedication (15%) 10,062 Sensitive Lands (in other areas) -- Net Developable Area 57,020 Minimum lot size 1,480 Max number of units is 38 and minimum is 30. For R-12 the estimated density is 18 units max and 14 minimum. PROCEDURE ® Administrative Staff Review. (SUB) Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. Public hearing before the Planning Commission. E Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission making a recommendation CITY OF TIGARD Pre-application Conference Notes Page 7 of 9 Residential Application/Planning Division Section PREPARED BY: Monica Bilodeau CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION - STAFF PERSON HOLDING PRE-APP.MEETING PHONE: 503-718-2427 FAX: 503-718-2748 EMAIL: Monicab@6gard-or.gov CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 9 of 9 Residential Application/Planning Division Section Frontl DSTS Subject: PRE2015-00044 Topping Zone Change (Commercial to Residential) Location: CR---l-Permit-Center Start: Thu 9/10/2015 11:00 AM End: Thu 9/10/2015 12:00 PM Recurrence: Weekly Recurrence Pattern: every Tuesday and Thursday from 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: -Pre-Apps-CD-Meetings Required Attendees: Albert Shields; Andrew Newbury; Betsy Ruef; Greg Berry;John Goodrich;John Wolff (TVFR); Karleen Aichele; Kenny Asher; Kim McMillan; Lloyd Purdy; Marissa Grass; Mike McCarthy; Mike White; Susan Shanks; levi@staffordlandcompany.com Resources: CR---I-Permit-Center 1 RECEIVED AUG 2 9 2015 CITY OF TIGARD Location: PLANNING/ENGINEERING 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72nd Ave., and 10735 SW 72nd Ave. Tax ID#s: 1S136ACO2200, 15136ACO2400, 1S136ACO2600 Project Description: -Proposed Residential Use -Zone change from C-P to R-25 or R-12 -18 lot subdivision for Single Family Detached homes ll t ( 1 e � _ l 6 IN PI ! 9 VW Uk ul ij it k i ,l ig 4 (} A Se L ! t1�L `_ !� RECU11"E-DG) City of 'Tigard ,AUG 2 6 2015 a COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF TIGARD p PLANNING/ENGINEERING Pre-Application Conference Request l' xmlftsezlll� ..ffi2it..�Si[5f3'19f J1eIL'SiFrTa9z`Y9"i`«:.: _— .:r �'R..i•.a::s¢: PROJECT DESCRIPTION _ REQUIRED SUBMITTAL Project name/title: 7_00>1 ` 67 L�� ELEMENTS Please write a brief description of proposed project: (Note: applications will not be accepted without the required submittal elements) 5 COPIES OF EACH OF THE FOLLOWING: t Brief description of the proposal and any site-specific questions/issues that you would like to have staff research nor to the meeting. PROPERTY INFORMATION V/Site Plan.The site plan must show the Property address/location(s): �a J c5 S P�� 5 ) proposed lots and/or building layouts l 0.��,� �� .�2 N� �cV�, /(��3 � S� �2N� �• drawn to scale. Also,show the G location of the subject property u► i(,) k-2p , 2 relation to the nearest streets;and the ZZoO � �a locations of driveways on the subject Tag map and tax lot #(s): �L-3 le 14C.� D i 0 Z (OO i OZ operty and across the street. Zoning: CRA Map. PROPERTY OWNER/HOLDER INFORMATION VyTlhePtrycoposed Uses. Name(s): VTopographic Information. elude Contour Lines iiifff Possible. ding Fee. Address: /,?;16 -57 !�c"JZaY � Phone: 16 `-" ? ...�. c. �� I ., — City/state: V`'E S i G-,gni ., D 2- Zip: !9 W&v APPLICANT INFORMATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY ---- --blame: 'T�1bzb 1-,+ v J ( oCA' PA-y'-Y Case No.: /` 7 Address: y S S—( rt-l-E ST_- Phone: Sad-3y 5 -�(o'Y�i Related.Case No.(s): City/state: LA-Ir-F-c- 05 uc(„O 0(1- Zip: y Application fee: Contact person: 1 SSA Application.accepted: Phone:23-25V `,�1`oS) Email: o2(Q S- By: Z—S Date: Pre-application Conference Information Date of_pre-app: /6 All of the information identified on this form is required and must be Time of pre-app: Z1 � _ — submitted to the Planning Division a minimum of ten (10)days prior to officially scheduling a pre-application conference.Pre-application Planner assigned to pre-app: conferences are one (1) hour long and are typically held between the 1:\cunrur\MasterstLana use rppncatiuns Rev.oriosnoss hours of 9-11 a.m.on either Tuesday or Thursday mornings. Pre-application conferences must be scheduled in person at the Community Development counter from 8-4:30 p.m. Monday—Thursday.If more than four(4)people are expected to attend the pre-application conference in your group, please inform the city in advance so that alternate room arrangements can be made to accommodate the group. City of Tigard • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • www.tigard-or.gov • 503-718-2421 • Page 1 of 1 r , i4 A 1^ 9 v M i n 1 f'Ji:a r 1 � y i'`"` a0.�'"f�r`h�� i��t "<iY �'� a�pi�` •4 t � n �SLF� g C � kru a ,fir, �x'� �� Prr;�?��'d�14�k.Y�ay:d��'�'� •r 4Mi�r�+"'p,��1�4�'�'��•��t�w �4.� �� 7if'a�`Y�.�Y�x!�^ii�aiAx, ' �„• ✓ �� r w r<.rtx ry Y .i �'� oy, t•Yw #�ti��Jt'a�' t f `tY iar+ iki r zi 1�.Y� � rr�'a� ' ma�'t K`�h �,?• h#�+r��'�rt ra�3+a '#vw. �' �.�! .i wi�. Mi� ��° p{yi Gt b ri�i �!CW�.'�$'�.t`Y a1�.�19Y'A t�'°4t+5��i—:°� �l rv° r � •p. s �'h �"�,�ia�wsh i, '� kc'� �a�"" '��c ��' �,M• rr t 'r�” r 4� �y4' �r� � s 5 ��w� �' Meeting Record Project Name (Case numbers) Meeting Chair Meeting Date TOpPt V1 a- pre Ape 201s --00099 q/ 1O/ 15 Action Items: Action to be taken: Responsible Party Due date 1. S-/l.0►y-e A. o(-O-� rPU�-LoF- ? hO w s C cv 2. Skit. �UrA Wr Ovi-SNU- �r 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. Decisions: Decisions/Agreements reached: Mofe.s G�'Oli CGS-h-0 n On re 1-v rn uo r r12r- o r— S Pr c 2 72 2. Y1�fGl t-e- S t. Gi rG G I Un L,`r_c�►tt O''1 O ►-� 5-1-. W i�{+A-) IvFR 3. F& i r LiLe 4=-0/ U YI c"Y0 0h cLA'yl 4. S+o r wcni-cr- Oei-e n ti c r, 5. 6. 7. Copy of Record provided to all? Results of meeting summarized? Signature of meeting chair Yes / No Yes / No (Circle one) (Circle one) Meeting Record Project Name Case numbers) Meeting Chair Meeting Date Attendance Roster Name Phone Number(s) E-mail {tilos o► V1 vv111 Levi LevC1J c, NA VLC 1N lr►1 �- �2V1 M o vl i col f3 i l o al c JV TDT Estimate Topping Place Subdivision 8/31/2015 7303 SW Spruce, 10705& 10735 SW 72nd, 1S136ACO2200,02400, 02600 AMS TDT RATES EFFECTIVE 7/1/15 TSDC CITYWIDE &TSDT RT OVERLAY RATES EFFECTIVE 7/1/15 INSIDE RIVER TERRACE O Yes Project is in River Terrace ? O No Former Use Rate Type Use# ITE Code # Units Rate TDT Amount Description TDT 1 210 3.00 $8,113 $24,339 3 SFRs TSDC-Imp 1 $0 TSDC-Reim 1 $0 TSDC-RT 1 $0 Total TDT and TSDCs Former Uses $24,339 Proposed Use Use# ITE Code # Units Rate TDT Amount Description TDT 1 210 18.00 $8,113 $146,034 18 SFRs TSDC-Imp 1 $0 TSDC-Reim 1 $0 TSDC-RT 1 $0 TDT 2 $0 TSDC-Imp 2 $0 TSDC-Reim 2 $0 TSDC-RT 2 $0 TDT 3 $0 TSDC-Imp 3 $0 TSDC-Reim 3 $0 TSDC-RT 3 $0 Total All TDTs&TSDCs Proposed Uses $146,034 Less: Total All TDTs&TSDCs Former Uses $24,339 Total All TDTs&TSDCs Net Increase $121,695 Total Net County TDT $121,695 Total Net TSDC-Imp $0 Total Net TSDC-Reim $0 Total Net TSDC RT Overlay $0 $121,695 TDT TSDC Imp+ Reim Target Recovery Rate 28.0% 30% Estimated Total Impact $434,625 $0 Estimated Unmitigated Impact $312,930 $0 All TDT&TDSC TSDC RT Overlay Target Recovery Rate 28% 30% Estimated Total Impact $434,625 $0 Estimated Unmitigated Impact $312,930 $0 TDT=County Transportation Development Tax TSDC Citywide=City of Tigard Transportation System Development Tax(TSDC-Imp&TSDC-Reim) TSDC RT=River Terrace Transportation System Development Tax Overlay Parks Estimate Topping Place Subdivision 8/31/2015 7303 SW Spruce, 10705 & 10735 SW 72nd, 1S136ACO2200, 02400, 02600 AMS ALL PARKS RATES EFFECTIVE 7/1/15 O Yes Project is in River Terrace ? O No Note: All Neigh-Imp# Units entries= 0 if project is in River Terrace; All Neigh-RT# Units entries =0 if project is elsewhere in the city. Former Use Rate Type Use # ITE Code # Units Rate Parks Amount Description Parks-Imp 1 210 3.00 $4,248 $12,744 3 SFR, Parks-Reim 1 210 3.00 $1,001 $3,003 3 SFR, Neigh-Imp 1 210 3.00 $1,575 $4,725 3 SFR, Neigh-RT 1 $0 2 $0 Total Parks Former Use $20,472 Proposed Use Use# ITE Code # Units Rate Parks Amount Description Parks-Imp 1 210 18.00 $4,248 $76,464 153 SFR-Detached Parks-Reim 1 210 18.00 $1,001 $18,018 153 SFR- Detached Neigh-Imp 1 210 18.00 $1,575 $28,350 153 SFR-Detached Neigh-RT 1 $0 Parks-Imp 2 $0 Parks-Reim 2 $0 Neigh-Imp 2 $0 Neigh-RT 2 $0 Parks-Imp 3 $0 Parks-Reim 3 $0 Neigh-Imp 3 $0 Neigh-RT 3 $0 Total Parks outside RT Proposed Uses $122,832 Less: Total Parks Outside RT Former Uses $20,472 Total All Parks Outside RT Net Increase $102,360 Total Parks RT Proposed Uses $0 Less: Total Parks RT Former Uses $0 Total All Parks RT Net Increase $0 Parks-Imp= Parks Improvement, Citywide including River Terrace Parks-Reim = Parks Reimbursement, Citywide including River Terrace Neigh-Imp = Neighborhood Parks Improvement Outside River Terrace Neigh-RT= Neighborhood Parks Improvement Inside River Terrace CITY OFTIGARD PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES (Pre-Application Meeting Notes are Valid for Six (6) Months) RE-APP.MTG.DATE: March 10 2015 9am STAFF AT PRE-APP.: Monica Bilodeau&Greg Berry RESIDENTIAL APPLICANT: CIDA INC. AGENT: Rebecca Kerr Phone: 503. 226.1285 Phone: 503.226.1285 PROPERTY LOCATION: ADDRESS/GENERAL LOCATION: 7303 SW Spruce St. 10705 SAX/72"d 10735 SW 72"`' TAX MAPS)/LOT#(S): 1S136ACO2200 1S136ACO2400 15136ACO2600 NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: Comprehensive Plan Amendment(CPA), Zone Change(ZON). and Site Development Review (SDR) PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Man Amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Map Classifications of the subject parcel from professional commercial district (C P) to medium density residential (R-25) or mixed use residential MR-2). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Professional Commercial ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: CP ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.-510) ZONING FOR R-25: MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 1.480 sq. ft. Average Min.lot width: None ft. Max. building height: 45 ft. Setbacks: Front: 20 ft. Side: 10 ft. Rear: 20 ft. Corner: 20 ft. from street. Side or Rear facing a more restrictive Zone: 30 ft. MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: 80%. ` Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: 20%. ® NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING (Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting Handout) THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET, INTERESTED PARTIES, AND THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION of their proposal. A minimum of two (2) weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. Meeting is to be held prior to submitting your application or the application will not be accepted. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-application Conference Notes Pagel of 9 Residential Application/Planning Di%-ision section ,0 0 (minimum lot areal - ��minimum lot areal 11.4 Units Per Acre (maximum) = 12.1 Units Per Acre (maximum) • The Development Code requires that the net site area exist for the next whole dwelling unit. NO ROUNDING UP IS PERMITTED. • Minimum Project Density is 80% of the maximum allowed density. TO DETERMINE, MULTIPLY THE MAXIMUM BY.8. ® Design Standards (Refer to Code Section 18.720.030) ➢ Density Transition-when multifamily or attached single- family project abuts property zoned for detached single family design standards apply. ➢ Front facades ➢ Main Entrance ➢ Unit definition ➢ Roof Lines ➢ Trim detail ➢ Mechanical equipment ➢ Parking ➢ Pedestrian circulation ® SPECIAL SETBACKS (Refer to Code Section 18.730) ➢ STREETS: - feet from the centerline of -- ➢ LOWER INTENSITY ZONES: R-4.5 on north and west side of the property ➢ FLAG LOT: A TEN (10)-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK applies to all primary structures. ZERO LOT LINE LOTS: A minimum of a ten (10)-foot separation shall be maintained between each dwelling unit or garage. ➢ MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL building separation standards apply within multiple-family residential developments. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES UP TO 528 SQUARE FEET in size may be permitted on lots less than 2.5 acres in size. Five (5)-foot minimum setback from side and rear lot lines. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE UP TO 1,000 SQUARE FEET on parcels of at least 2.5 acres in size. (See applicable zoning district for the primary structures'setback requirements.] ❑ FLAG LOT BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.730) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 11/2 STORIES or 25 feet,whichever is less in most zones; 2'/z stories, or 35 feet in R-7,R-12,R-25 or R-40 zones provided that the standards of Section 18.730.010.0.2 are satisfied. ® BUFFERING AND SCREENING (Refer to Code Chapter 18.745) In order TO INCREASE PRIVACY AND TO EITHER REDUCE OR ELIMINATE ADVERSE NOISE OR VISUAL IMPACTS between adjacent developments, especially between different land uses, the CITY REQUIRES LANDSCAPED BUFFER AREAS along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required; these are often advisable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may 24 be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Development Code. The ESTIMATED REQUIRED BUFFERS applicable to your proposal area is: Buffer Level C along north boundary. Buffer Level C along east boundary. Buffer Level C along south boundary. Buffer Level C along west boundary. SIGHT OBSCURING SCREENING IS REQUIRED ALONG: -- CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 9 Residential Application/planning Division Section DRAINAGEWAYS, WETLAND AREAS, ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25 PERCENT, OR ON UNSTABLE GROUND. Staff will attempt to preliminary identify sensitive lands areas at the pre-application conference based on available information. HOWEVER, the responsibft to precisely identify sensitive land areas, and their boundaries is the responsibilityof the applicant Areas meeting the definitions of sensitive lands must be clearly indicated on plans submitted with the development application. Chapter 18.775 also provides regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED WITHIN FLOODPLAINS SOME RESIDENTIAL RELATED DEVELOPMENT IS EXEMPT. ❑ STEEP SLOPES (Refer to Code Section 18.775.070.C) When STEEP SLOPES exist,prior to issuance of a final order,a geotechnical report must be submitted which addresses the approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.775.080.C. The report shall be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall include specific recommendations for achieving the requirements of Section 18.775.080.C. ® CLEANWATER SERVICES (CWS) Service Provider Letter PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL of any land use applications, the applicant must obtain a CWS Service Provider Letter which will outline the conditions necessary to comply with the CWS R&O 07-20 sensitive area requirements. If there are no sensitive areas, CWS must still issue a letter stating a CWS Service Provider Letter is not required. ® SIGNS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.780) SIGN PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY SIGN in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development review application. Alternatively,a Sign Code Exception application may be filed for Director's review. URBAN FORESTRY PLAN (Refer to Code Section 18.790.030.0 and the "Tree Canopy Requirements" Brochure) AN URBAN FORESTRY PLAN IS REQUIRED FOR THE FOLLWING TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT: Conditional Use (Type III);Downtown Design Review(Type II and III);Minor Land Partition (Type II); Planned Development (Type III); Sensitive Lands Review (Type II and III); Site Development Review(Type II); and Subdivision (Type II and III). The plan needs to be prepared by an ISA certified arborist or landscaped architect. Percentage of mature canopy cover required: 33% (Refer to Ali iendi,r 2-6 in Urban Fomya Manual for a list of trees witb mature canopy cover areasl Percentage of mature canopy cover required per lot in the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 dam'R-7 zones: 15°o An urban forestry plan shall: - Be coordinated and approved by a landscape architect (the project landscape architect) or a person possessing dual certifications as a certified arborist and certified tree risk assessor(the project arborist); - Meet the tree preservation and removal site plan standards in Section 10, part 1 of the Urban Forestry Manual; - Meet the tree canopy site plan standards in Section 10,part 2 of the Urban Forestry Manual;and - Meet the supplemental report standards in Section 10,part 3 of the Urban Forestry Manual. TREE CANOPY FEE. If the effective percentage of tree canopy cover cannot be met, the applicant shall provide the city a tree canopy fee according to the methodology outlined in Section 10, part 4 of the Urban Forestry Manual. 18.790.040-Discretionary Urban Forestry Plan Review Option CITY OF TIGARD Pre AppLcation Conference Notes Page 5 of 9 Residential Application/Planning Division Section CODE CHAPTERS ❑ 18.330(Conditional Use) ❑ 18.610(Tigard Downtown Plan District) ® 18.745(Landscaping&Screening Standards) ❑ 18.340(Directors Interpretation) ❑ 18.620(Tigard Triangle Design Standards) ❑ 18.750(Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulations) ❑ 18.350(Planned Development) ❑ 18.630(Washington Square Regional Center) ❑ 18.755(Mixed Solid Waste/Recyding Storage) ® 18.360(Site Development Review) ❑ 18.640(Bridgeport Village Plan District) ❑ 18.760(Nonconforming Situations) ❑ 18.370(Variances/Adjustments) ❑ 18.650(Durham Wastewater Facility) ® 18.765(Off-Street Parking/Loading Requirements) ® 18.380(Zoning MapiText Amendments) ❑ 18.660(River Terrace Plan District) ❑ 18.775(Sensitive Lands Review) ❑ 18.385(Miscellaneous Permits) ® 18.705(Access/Egress/Circulation) ❑ 18.780(Signs) ® 18.390(Decision Making Procedures/Impad Study) ❑ 18.710(Accessory Residential Units) ❑ 18.785(Temporary Use Permits) ❑ 18.410(Lot Line Adjustments) ® 18.715(Density Computations) ® 18.790(Urban Forestry Plan) ❑ 18.420(Land Partitions) ® 18.720(Design Compatibility Standards) ❑ 18.795(Visual Clearance Areas) ❑ 18.430(Subdivisions) ❑ 18.725(Environmental Performance Standards) ❑ 18.798(Wireless Communication Facilities) ® 18.510(Residential Zoning Districts) ❑ 18.730(Exceptions To Development Standards) ® 18.810(Street&Utility Improvement Standards) ❑ 18.520(Commercial Zoning Districts) ❑ 18.740(Historic overlay) ❑ 18.530(Industrial Zoning Districts) ❑ 18.742(Home Occupation Permits) ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: 1. SDR is a Type II procedure. The initial application requires 3 copies of the submittal. Packets must include the materials found on the Basic Submittal Requirements sheet. The first round of completeness review may be up to 30 days. Once the application is deemed complete, the review period begins. Review periods are approximately 6 weeks. A 14 day public comment period will take place during the 6 week review. 2. Screening is required for the parking lot, trash collection areas and service facilities such as gas meters, A/C units, etc. 3. Attached are the approval criteria for site development review: a. Site hydrology b. Exterior elevations c. Private and shared outdoor recreation space d. Buffering and screening e. A minimum of 20%gross area shall be landscaped 4. Design Guidelines are found in Section 18.720 (The density transition shall apply to the north and west property line) 5. See attached notes from Development Engineering. 6. See attached estimates for TDT and Parks SDC 7. Application fees: Site Development Review under$1,000,000= $5,434 Submission Requirements: In addition to the requirements in 18.390.040 the application for the conceptual development plan must include: 1. Existing site conditions analysis 2. A site plan 3. Grading plan 4. Landscape plan 5. Urban forestry plan 6. Architectural elevations 7. Deed CITY OF TIGARD Pre-application Conference Notes Page 7 of 9 Residential Application/Plannuig Division Section Additionally, with regard to Subdivisions and Minor Land Partitions where any structure to be demolished has system development charge (SDC) credits and the underlying parcel for that structure will be eliminated when the new plat is recorded, the City's policy is to apply those system development credits to the first building ermtt issued in the development (UNLESS OTHERWISE IJIRECTED BY THE DEVELOPER AT THE TIME THE DEMOLITION PERMIT IS OBTAINED). PLEASE NOTE: The conference and notes cannot cover, allCode requirements and aspects related to site planning.that should apply to the development of your site.plan. Failure of the staff to provide information required by the Code shall not constitute a waiver of theapplicable applicable standards or requirements. It is recommended that;a prospective applicant either obtain and read the Community. Development;Code or ask;any questions of City staff relative to,Code requirements rior to subrriitti2&an application. AN ADDITIONAL PRE-APPLICATION FEE AND CONFERENCE WILL BE REQUIRED IF AN APPLICATION PERTAINING TO THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IS SUBMITTED AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FOLLOWING THIS CONFERENCE (unless deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division). PREPARED BY: Monica Bilodeau CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION - STAFF PI?RSON HOLDING PRE-APP. MEETING PHONE: 503-718-2427 FAX: 503-598-1960 EMAIL: Monicab@tigard-or.gov CITY OF TIGARD Pre-application Conference Notes Page 9 of 9 Residential Application/Planning{Division Section PRE-APPLICATION NOTES FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN& ZONING MAP AMENDMENT March 10,2015 STAFF PRESENT: Monica Bilodeau APPLICANT: Rebecca Kerr,CIDA Inc. PROPERTY LOCATION:7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72.d Ave.,10735 SW 72.d Ave. TAX MAP/LOT#'s: 1S136ACO2200, 1S136ACO2400,1S136ACO2600 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Map Classifications of the subject parcel from professional commercial district (C-P) to medium density residential(R-25) or mixed use residential(MUR-2). COMP PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Professional Commercial ZONING: CP NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING A neighborhood meeting is required for a quasi-judicial zoning map amendment. NARRATIVE Include a narrative that responds to the applicable review criteria. Provide background and findings of fact as to ,vhy the comprehensive plan amendment and zoning map amendment are necessary, or what public benefit is being promoted. Note: The list of specific goals and standards below is intended to provide guidance in preparation of your application, and that additional criteria may be identified dependant upon the nature of the specific application,or as other issues are raised. This is not an exhaustive list of all criteria. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that all applicable standards are met. APPLICABLE CRITERIA 18.380.030 Quasi-Judicial Amendments and Procedures to this Title and Map A. Quasi-judicial amendments. Quasi-judicial zoning map amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using standards of approval contained in subsection B of this section. The approval authority shall be as follows: The commission shall make a recommendation to the council on a zone change application which also involves a concurrent application for a comprehensive plan map amendment. The council shall decide the applications on the record as provided by Chapter 18.390. Standards for making quasi-judicial decisions apply to the proposed zoning map amendment. A recommendation to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 1. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations (e.g.,Land Use Planning Policies 2.1.14 and 2.1.15). Questions: 1. Zoning Process 2. Does the City have a preferred zone for d-tis area? 3. Benefit of MUR-2 vs R-25? 4. Are additional studies anticipated? 5. Improvement required as part of the zone change? PREPARED BY: Monica Bilodeau Associate Planner 3 TDT Estimate PRE2015-00013 3/9/2015 Topping Zone Change, 38 Townhouses, 7303 SW Spruce et al. TDT RATES EFFECTIVE 10/1/14 Former Use Use# ITE Code #Units Rate TDT Amount Description 1 210 2.00 $8,036 $16,072 2 SFRs- Det. 2 $0 Total TDT Former Use $16,072 Proposed Use Use# ITE Code #Units Rate TDT Amount Description 1 230 38.00 $4,806 $182,628 33 Townhouses 2 $0 Total TDTProposed Use $182,628 Less: Total TDT Former Use $16,072 TDT Increase (Decrease) $166,556 Recovery Rate for Proposed Use 29.0% Estimated Total Impact $574,331 Estimated Unmitigated Impact $407,775 PARKS Estimate PARKS RATES EFFECTIVE 7/1/14 Former Use Use# ITE Code # Units Rate TDT Amount Description 1 210 2.00 $6,451.34 $12,902.68 2 SFRs- Det. 2 $0.00 Total Parks Former Use $12,902.68 Proposed Use Use# ITE Code #Units Rate TDT Amount Description 1 230 38.00 $6,451.34 $245,150.92 33 Townhouses 2 $0.00 TotalParks Proposed Use $245,150.92 Less: Total Parks Former Use $12,902.68 Parks Increase (Decrease) $232,248.24 TDT Estimate PRE2015-00013 3/9/2015 Topping Zone Change, 38 Townhouses, 7303 SW Spruce et al. TDT RATES EFFECTIVE 10/1/14 Former Use Use# ITE Code # Units Rate TDT Amount Description 1 210 2.00 $8,036 $16,072 2 SFRs- Det. 2 $0 Total TDT Former Use $16,072 Proposed Use Use# ITE Code # Units Rate TDT Amount Description 1 230 38.00 $4,806 $182,628 33 Townhouses 2 $0 Total TDTProposed Use $182,628 Less: Total TDT Former Use $16,072 TDT Increase (Decrease) $166,556 Recovery Rate for Proposed Use 29.0% Estimated Total Impact $574,331 Estimated Unmitigated Impact $407,775 PARKS Estimate PARKS RATES EFFECTIVE 7/1/14 Former Use Use# ITE Code # Units Rate TDT Amount Description 1 210 2.00 $6,451.34 $12,902.68 2 SFRs - Det. 2 $0.00 Total Parks Former Use $12,902.68 Proposed Use Use# ITE Code # Units Rate TDT Amount Description 1 230 38.00 $6,451.34 $245,150.92 33 Townhouses 2 $0.00 TotalParks Proposed Use $245,150.92 Less: Total Parks Former Use $12,902.68 Parks Increase(Decrease) $232,248.24 TDT Estimate PRE2015-00013 3/9/2015 Topping Zone Change, 33 Townhouses, 7303 SW Spruce et al. TDT RATES EFFECTIVE 10/1/14 Former Use Use# ITE Code # Units Rate TDT Amount Description 1 210 2.00 $8,036 $16,072 2 5FRs- Det. 2 $0 Total TDT Former Use $16,072 Proposed Use Use# ITE Code # Units Rate TDT Amount Description 1 230 33.00 $4,806 $158,598 33 Townhouses 2 $0 Total TDTProposed Use $158,598 Less: Total TDT Former Use $16,072 TDT Increase(Decrease) $142,526 Recovery Rate for Proposed Use 29.0% Estimated Total Impact $491,469 Estimated Unmitigated Impact $348,943 PARKS Estimate PARKS RATES EFFECTIVE 7/1/14 Former Use Use# ITE Code # Units Rate TDT Amount Description 1 210 2.00 $6,451.34 $12,902.68 2 SFRs- Det. 2 $0.00 Total Parks Former Use $12,902.68 Proposed Use Use# ITE Code # Units Rate TDT Amount Description 1 230 33.00 $6,451.34 $212,894.22 33 Townhouses 2 $0.00 TotalParks Proposed Use $212,894.22 Less: Total Parks Former Use $12,902.68 Parks Increase(Decrease) $199,991.54 TDT Estimate PRE2015-00013 3/9/2015 Topping Zone Change, 33 Townhouses, 7303 SW Spruce et al. TDT RATES EFFECTIVE 10/1/14 Former Use Use# ITE Code # Units Rate TDT Amount Description 1 210 2.00 $8,036 $16,072 2 SFRs- Det. 2 $0 Total TDT Former Use $16,072 Proposed Use Use# ITE Code # Units Rate TDT Amount Description 1 230 33.00 $4,806 $158,598 33 Townhouses 2 $0 Total TDTProposed Use $158,598 Less: Total TDT Former Use $16,072 TDT Increase(Decrease) $142,526 Recovery Rate for Proposed Use 29.0% Estimated Total Impact $491,469 Estimated Unmitigated Impact $348,943 PARKS Estimate PARKS RATES EFFECTIVE 7/1/14 Former Use Use# ITE Code # Units Rate TDT Amount Description 1 210 2.00 $6,451.34 $12,902.68 2 SFRs- Det. 2 $0.00 Total Parks Former Use $12,902.68 Proposed Use Use# ITE Code # Units Rate TDT Amount Description 1 230 33.00 $6,451.34 $212,894.22 33 Townhouses 2 $0.00 TotalParks Proposed Use $212,894.22 Less: Total Parks Former Use $12,902.68 Parks Increase (Decrease) $199,991.54 C) 0 I I 380.5' n O O II N L ° lin '-0 ° I I ° ° I I 18'-2" X 40 i l 826 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT I I I I � a I ° � l l z I N t` I lie ° <n-- -- -- -- � O I O SW SPRUCE STREET DENSITY ALLOWED: 38 UNITS MIN./77 UNITS MAX N SITE PLAN- OPTION A DENSITY®SHOWN: 38 UNITS ZONE 'MUR-2' TIGARD ZONE CHANGE 2.11 TIGARD, OREGON SVSK 5 1:40 VSK 15895 SW 72ND AVE SUITE 200 PORTLAND. OREGON 97224 TEL: (503) 225-1285 FAX: (503) 226-1670 © 2015 CID& INC.ALL RIGHM RESOM EXHIBIT E Agenda Item: Hearin Date: December 12.2006 Time: 7:30 PM STUFF REPORT TO THE .CITY COUNCIL FOR.THE:CITY OF TIGARD . OREGON, 120 DAYS = N/A SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: TOPPING-KEMP ANNEXATION CASE NOS: Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) ZCA2006-00003 ORIGINAL APPLICANT: Westlake Consultants OWNERS: Richard'Topping and Katie Kemp Attn:Lee Leighton 19765 Derby Street 15115 SW Sequoia Pkwy,Ste 150 West Linn,OR 97068 Tigard,OR 97224 REGISTERED REGISTERED VOTER: James F.Brown VOTER: Nancy L.Naish 7303 SW Spruce Street,#A 10705 SW 72nd Avenue Portland,OR 97223 Portland,OR 97223 REGISTERED Raymond Arthur and Julie Mae REGISTERED Jason Jarvel Cox VOTERS: Senkel VOTER: 10735 SW 72nd Avenue 10735 SW 72nd Avenue Portland,OR 97223 Portland,OR 97223 ADDITIONAL APPLICANT/ OWNER/ ADDITIONAL REGISTERED APPLICANT/ VOTER: Christina Hanson OWNER: Charles Hanson 10670 SW 75th Avenue 10670 SW 75th Avenue Portland,OR 97223 Portland,OR 97223 PROPOSAL: Annexation of four parcels total containing 1.81 acres to the City of Turd. Property owners Richard Topping and Katie Kemp request annexation of three parcels,with plans to.build a pre-school on one parcel. The City invited owners of six adjacent properes to join the annexation. Charles and Christina Hanson accepted the invitation and requested annexation of one parcel. Allproperty owners and living residents have consented to the annexation. Three parcels are zoned OC and oneparcel is zoned R-5 in the Metzger area of unincorporated Washington County. Because of time constraints, the applicant requests that the annexation be adopted with an emergency clause to facilitate the site development review for the proposed pre-school. LOCATION: SW Spruce Street between SW 72nd Avenue and SW 75th Avenue;7303 SW Spruce Street, 10735 SW 72nd Avenue, 10705 SW 72nd Avnue, 10670 SW 75th Avenue; WCTM 1 S136AC,Tax Lots 2200,2400,2500 and 4700. TOPPING-K 11P ANNEXATION ZCA2006-00003 PAGE 1 OF 11 City of Tigard a COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Pre-Application Conference Request 6� PROJECT DESCRIPTION REQUIRED SUBMITTAL Project name/title: T0j?PLh cis 1011E ic,F, ELEMENTS Please write a brief description of proposed project: (Note: applications will not be accepted without the required submittal elements) 6 v a• J 6 COPIES OF EACH OF THE FOLLOWING: Brief description of the proposal and any site-specific questions/issues that you would like to have staff research or to the meeting. PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Plan.The site plan must show the Property address/location(s): -7503 50 5MCF STproposed lots and/or building layouts "a&pp J drawn to scale. Also,show the Ib U5 r50 3"ZKI ,eI� 1., �7 55, -,5�� -r location of the subject property in 4it '6(11-W o 'S 615 rus SF 1 50 1-9P4 AA.- relation to the nearest streets;and the D 36 Z ZUo Zyao '?6 60 locations of driveways on the subject Tax map and tax lot ##(s): property and across the street. Zoning. (? P Cw Vicinity Map. PROPERTY OWNER/HOLDER INFORMATION The Propsed Uses. Name(s): TrCUM21, f KAIA TOCP ( NI $'topographic Information. nclude Contour Lines if Possible. Address: 11-745- !q-7 45 1-1y 51 Phone: ZFiling Fee. City/state: `J ESl- LWllf 0 P_ zip: 4 } FOR STAFF USE ONLY d 6� APPLICANT INFORMATION nn-��- �• Name: ('I bY�- �C_ . Case No.: 1�L 20l 1" (-)-00(-)-00I�1 Address: Nd #-ZOO Phone: 5-6- • Z46.1ZBY Related Case No.(s , Io _ City/state: r2YG.4r1� 6 Zip: i !- 2 2� Application fee: G Contacterson: F!wt^" � rf p App a accepted: Phone: 503• M. (ZI� Email: fie bei-ro,(�� Cl�/a IIVf • CON By; i+o: Pre-application Conferenc Date of pre-app: All of the information identifie "�'1 00 Time of pre-app: submitted to the Planning Divi, t ILi e)hq c Planner assigned to pre-app: to officially scheduling a pre-ap conferences are one (1)hour to 1:\CURPLN\Masten\Land Use Applications Rev.01/06/2015 hours of 9-11 a.m. on either Ti Pre-application conferences r o to + r evelopment counter from 8-4:30 p.m. Monday-Thursday.If more t. S r (V U �t bt7 �1 :-application conference in your group, please inform the city in adva 0(J_230b - C1 nade to accommodate the group. J _CA ?,p0o -oo003 City of Tigard • 13125 SW ir.gov 503-718-2421 Page 1 of 1 CAY)n 14) Frontl DSTS Subject: Topping Zone Change - PRE2015-00013 Location: CR---l-Permit-Center Start: Tue 3/10/2015 9:00 AM End: Tue 3/10/2015 10:00 AM Recurrence: Weekly Recurrence Pattern: every Tuesday and Thursday from 9:00 AM to 10:00 AM Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: -Pre-Apps-CD-Meetings Required Attendees: #Pre-Application-Conferences Resources: CR---l-Permit-Center Proposed zone change from C-P to R-25 or MUR-2 at 72nd/Spruce; applicant requests reschedule to 4:00 p.m. Co (ArlG) L J�,+� 3-q - C (,At J G1 9 2121 Pre-Application Conference Memo Date: 2-12-2015 Project Title: Tigard Zone Change Project No: 140226.01 15895 SW 72ND AVE This pre-application conference is to discuss the possibility of changing the zone of three SUITE 200 lots at the comer of SW Spruce Street and SW 72nd Ave. These lots are 7303 SW PORTLAND,OR 97224 Spruce Street, 10705 SW 72nd Ave, and 10735 SW 72nd Ave. In 2007 the subject site PHONE:503.226.1285 underwent a Zone Change Annexations, file number ZCA 2006-00003. The FAX:503.226.1670 development slated for that site did not happen, due to the economy. Since that time INFO p@CIDAINC.COM the subject property has undergone several feasibility studies, to find a fit for the current www.CIDAINC.COM zoning but none were determined viable. The zoning and location has been the most sited problem when speaking with developers. In this pre-application conference we would like to discuss the feasibility of a zone change to either a high-density residential (R-25) or a medium density multi-use commercial zone (MUR 2). These zones seem more consistent with the comprehensive map of the area and historic use of the site. Additionally R-25 or MUR-2 sones provide transition from the commercial zone to the southeast and the residential zones to the north, east, and southwest of the subject property. The proposed zone change would allow for the development of townhomes on the site. Questions: What is the zoning process for the subject site to one of the proposed? Is there a zone that is more likely to gain staff support, either one we have mentioned or one that we have not? Is the zone change going to trigger additional studies, such as traffic? What does the City see as the benefits for MUR-2 vs. R-25, from a planning standpoint? Are there other improvements that will be triggered as part of the zone change? ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING P L A N N I N G I N T E R 1 0 R S L A N D S C A P E FAGENADMIN\PROJECTS\14\0226.00 Tigard Zone Change\Pre-Application Memo.docx vd/f6/l� S1'1Lat arerC.l St n °s �, m i a SW-Chevuttic S: z 5W Aifmpd sl a_ �?Ifred St o Lur A.1 St n SudnxlrOOd St i - SW Vent Ct" r _. v VC, .0. Dickinson' ei '' r M SV4L�nClaal-SS I SY16icknson5t My Park 1{tbarymakCount) Slq Canal St S'ArCorot.Sr � � tj DrCk+nsen:Wnod9 Cu) �Lsfltree -Caphol Hit EPA( t __ IvIn _.. A _. SIN LoDuat St 1 .. SA LOGIMt$t I - - r or R sWLncU 1 1 SITE �, S4'1tia leleafSt x m m m ab` 5�rab Sull�ornorcaSl c t m w r S'M.Oak St "::. hyo SW Pine St .. .: .: ..:. ..._. ;L'J Glmd'Ln. - Wd SDrute 51 - SW Sgru t - ._. Y Swdi5rutya St A' ra c❑ �l St James On 4 - s7�wT$ _'HallApartmenta J '•p �� ri _ +iz v fid\ x `a Lesser City Parki etc1 1, ? y.. SAssoetalion s} .. r-AR. C,U'.T, 1bSt t•.ST College Portland GO1I9tRIUl701y. - SYlyanin,_, 5x "✓1r CfC�n i- u SN f a t _ ron Educaion „ rN° ..SW Hainec { N SL hUr�RrJ "' RegeITigard II Cmemaa(ui; v g { It, + z ¢ t r+,. ,p-,.,S)W GwSlher Ln WinCo Foods G�xc�h Gostco WhA9esele r c o . 5 � syy � ;. Vi Kruse Ridgc Ch VY6sn S m �`,1n;;;•l \�we b,rrn,cuth;y zi N �+ ® ® VICINITY AAAA" TIGARD ZONE CHANGE NOT TO SCALE TIGARD, OREGON 15895 SW 72ND AVE SUITE 200 PORTLAND, OREGON 97224 TEL: (503) 226-1285 FAX: (503) 226-1670 ♦ ♦ R © 2015 CIDA. INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED nl a am 1q_1 36AC 1S 1 36AC Z N ' 'ila°t4'A e n7..•. z T xK - aeK 2 asK eAc 1AI At - � � aaK na � 11f°� a °oo ^ s,aw U) 3 aaK .aeK 2 .IeK t `� t w Aa esm « sow us.a A, k �uK mmrl,w uer xmw 1Rrw xmw .. �,t�,a{:$ 8 maw. A mn r .11A I ' n, . 77 r•'%^ w .1eK}' mw 2MW lluw M]. 5 _17) 2 6 1—r6 (n x'10 yy ••„4 - am a,aw. • ,sm'3 .>K r i� r J i -e ' / . r wm nm rr aew ,ae. 1nF, aaw AC T _ ,S�wW _ ,emam ,slaw �/ 1 v •,. 4\\\\\qa\N\qq,�.a,\\\,„q,,,,u„u,,,,N,,,N,Q,\MsyUa,NN •.n' _ 4 ]a K Ja K Am 1x1° IDo/a • .r X J Y Y 'u V,w p as K ae Ac Al At 4e.j AC �I ••• nIw mw ' a y `rI ,MW 1mN t61W 1{Iw ]1K e.i3 a i,•,+ •+unrr \\\\\\\A�\\\\N,\\\q\,\N\\\\N\Y ] J �.6+1� usw f11— na'r I a STREET SW n OAK = Zit STREET am mad wE.22= ' I r r r 31 Z I' 1 9 3 5 0 7 9 w°° I ,w WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON w '°" a;oo g i'0 N I °'s b Iters^$ SW7/4NE1/4SECTION 36T1SR7WW.M. .+aK .aaK SCALE 1'-100' a9K a8K - .aeK 1 J+•C^I a= Ja AC - 0uK OOK ' CC 4 a 2 m. \ 8 '.j 7iD �_ 6 5 d 3 2 1 ' ,SIM 3 r, m "' 47 Im n m ,rr w tJ a .«Ac °z 7 6 9 to 11 12 �� en2o _ 0 Z. I • z ( 46LLJ . nm �1m ]xK h I 'xOK ]]K I xa•c t � - iB t7 16 75 td 13 I,� e x: a, ual wr ;aK I a ,a1, a nNmp p JaK 8 = T I' A,K .eK _ .x+K S.eaK __ ]aK I6 r, Q _ :I!' �I w:An re, ' \� 19 20 21 22 23 2/ j n Axa I ^i I ��—V ass•c ,,.r c 23-81 w g •. $ t I ~ I a �� I I 5 I, $ 'n ac .x+•c 8 °i'K Nwt"0 5 30 29 2a 27 26 25 I 2a K ; 929) n n. a a � q 31 32 33 3d JS 36 STREET SW (CR 1080) PINE we STREET it SWn I VFOR ADDITIONAL MAPS VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT I a3 fYOz _ `t x`avt e _ Z $ am S ]sK "p •.o: [ w.� •• •....•w www.co.waahington.or.us A .xaK ro3 .I7K a F a a» PIIO ••» _ I ,coo CV •,g T oo - , $$ 1� K t,• BB BA +ll. AA j rew,nw ^ • �. - aoIc AiK - ]eAc m 0 sm e° ao sw E rm aeK B I TRAR'A' i I S rn n�wo �^ i 59 r• x aeK E 2 BC BD S U0 r„•,o 0,P �.x :w n,., w ---,•,.•--- �^ ' nee TRACT A' 60 J.`.UC.•• n,.e :wnsem It i g 61 er•< •,) il.rmY .'m I .rm ____ m I ]sK ieK•' 2 yn,m co CA DB DA j ,< e I„am •s,Nm _ IIA: ,wa ,; xlea0$ r�lam g e,`e•we q slam ..-_---.� —.--4 I - c D a -- n - 10 = s e T L 6 "0°°0 °I z9Uti 5 I cc CD DC DO .I.....mw A M N I M K •,am 9.° lil>.rlr r, i atK Cancelled Taslou For. 1S136AG .•`••"•`••"•,".......••.••.•••`l9TTft`E`$•, r SW (CR 929) r� m,.:aoo.,soaa.o,.asooaaaoaToo.eaz #'s SPRUCE STREET 1 ( n +°�°•Zme60°a'°° H � •L W�� 3 a 0 L 3(n F a b13 �+ I"2 $ 1„1 d I�lyu R 23UC :rnu, .'.rOU I T C ID Y .xTK ,y1 At zsK a]•c =1 = .xo•c B I �( Ia2K _ gpl0 el. A I i O LL1° ulaw ,+.n I .0 rov sou,ll uNe T.econ o:c sa Vit& vNAMN\,NN 9r,H�wA ,.w,,,,, wA.Mw, I Q O O .n K K z NawrN uNe G.wCIl...olc ss �wclu+Pals. r°•u +a PLEMENTAIMAP N0.1--�' , ,N r� I I i`,miMO' r° nam $ i 17".c Ieat am � ' CARTOGRAPHY ' - GCE \ AC I �- /� • • • -�----__-y C7 a o •lam —Uw/�I / \ PLOT DATE:June 19,2007 O D -�I° Neon / y / e O O = mK x•c ( I % p FORNLY-DO NOT PURPOSES g O ONLY-DO NOT RELY ON I 0 � � _•. _, ,„° I LM °e // • ° /” p,{. FOR OTHER USE O .I n I � / / .vnA,msa.rolr.r.on.;wnrrnmx,wlavxo-°;w.a°.+a (� �V y � ;{mom ime� ma xgsln / 3t , r„I awn a,.nr.,rennr,eYr arwm.r namcwre do mau 1.1" \ n,am �V-;a% I I .enraa+m'eol+WwMe.vw...=+,uxm.xanrna•.In+n roan mad " ( `` m `_, s. I i nsnw n„r:c.r�nr;rram.nAn. ,am AQ \\ AOK / � V• I I >DK ,ua �O „•.n g�l _ \ `i d' / Sia iYl TIGARD ' $ •lae{ a21 19 1 36AC 1 S 1 36AC 11stw36 i r L j CN _.. z - - - PINE ST - R-4.5 a [ - �2 SPRUCE SY �2 ! > a ti -- i � I Feel 0 250 � f � {�t�1 : .� �k,. �' v 1r'� � i y n j"�- 'rf taM1f`'f"� � -. � i�*r�� u�r��ga�`F� ��: � �}Y, e _ �`#� �r �� . ,� �� _� ' �� ; ,; °-`� N':?L" �fR�' "� '� R �'��a� a y r i3 r "" � i r.. x �s F,.A r,.�...1.. ,. .L .�. .� ,. � :: ... �, l '. .. � t �., '� .. '.�I 1 1 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES ° DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING Q ' CRY N Tfoarr,On!®en Community(Development IL Shapuig,9 BeWrCommwuty Topping Zone Change PUBLIC FACILITIES Tax NO): IS136AC Tax LOW: 2200,2400,2506 Use Type: CP These notes have been prepared based on the information submitted by the applicant requesting a zone change from CP to R-25 or MUE-2. The extent of necessary public improvements and dedications which shall be required of the applicant will be recommended by City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will be no final recommendation to the decision making authority on behalf of the City staff until all concerned commenting agencies, City staff and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment on the application. The following comments are a prosection of public improvement related requirements that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project. Right-of-way dedication: The City of Tigard requires that land area be dedicated to the public: (1.) To increase abutting public rights-of-way to the ultimate functional street classification right-of-way width as specified by the Community Development Code; or (2.) For the creation of new streets. Approval of a development application for this site will require right-of-way dedication for: Full width right-of-way for SW 72nd and Spruce will be required for development. ® 27 feet from centerline FJ Street improvements: (Subject to rough proportionality) Street improvements will be required for development. ® Partial street improvements and/or future street improvement agreements (where allowed) will be necessary along SW 72nd and Spruce to include: ® pavement width of 16 feet ® concrete curb ® 5-foot planter exclusive of curb ® storm sewers and other underground utilities CITY Of TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 5 Development Engineering Water Supply: The City provides public water service in this area. Coordinate with Public Works for information regarding adequate water supply and appropriate connection requirements for the proposed development. Provide private fire loop. Serve with a master meter and separate irrigation meter. Locate radio read meters. Fire Protection: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District [Contact: John Wolff, 503-259-1504] provides fire protection services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted for information regarding the adequacy of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants, or other questions related to fire protection. Storm Sewer Improvements: All proposed development within the City shall be designed such that storm water runoff is conveyed to an approved public drainage system. The applicant will be required to submit a proposed storm drainage plan for the site, and may be required to prepare a sub-basin drainage analysis to ensure that the proposed system will accommodate runoff from upstream properties when fully developed. Provide a plan that shows how the storm drainage system for the site connects to the public system. Storm drainage plan and calculations shall be submitted with the application for it to be considered complete. Storm drainage must connect to a public system of adequate capacity or discharge to a suitable outfall location meeting appropriate standards (such as CWS). Storm Water Quality: CWS Resolution and Order No. 07-20 requires the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from impervious surfaces. The resolution contains a provision that would allow an applicant to pay a fee in-lieu of constructing an on-site facility provided specific criteria are met. The City will use discretion in determining whether or not the fee in-lieu will be offered. If the fee is allowed, it will be based upon the amount of impervious surfaces created; for every 2,640 square feet, or portion thereof. Please contact the Building Division for the current fee. Preliminary sizing calculations for any proposed water quality facility shall be submitted with the development application. It is anticipated that this project will require: ® Construction of an on-site water quality facility. ❑ Payment of the fee in-lieu. Water quality treatment is required. Calculations for sizing of water quality treatment facilities must be submitted to the Development Engineer for review and approval. Water quality facilities also must be reviewed and approved by the city. Review and comply with provisions of Chapter 4, Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards (Runoff Treatment and Control). Other Comments: CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Aponcation Conference Notes Page 3 of 5 Development Engineering cases where the lot they are working on has slopes in excess of 20% and foundation excavation material is not to be hauled from the site. Building Permit (BUP). This permit covers only the construction of the building and is issued after, or concurrently with, the SIT permit. Master Permit (MST). This permit is issued for all single and multi-family buildings. It covers all work necessary for building construction, including sub-trades (excludes grading, etc.). This permit cannot be issued in a subdivision until the public improvements are substantially complete and a mylar copy of the recorded plat has been returned by the applicant to the City. For a land partition, the applicant must obtain an Engineering Permit, if required, and return a mylar copy of the recorded plat to the City prior to issuance of this permit. Other Permits. There are other special permits, such as mechanical, electrical and plumbing that may also be required. Contact the Development Services Counter for more information. PREPARED BY: Greg Berry 3-10-15 DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER DATE Phone: [503]118-2468 E-mail: greg@tigard-or.gou Revised: March 2012 I:\ENG\Development Engineering\_LANDUSE_PROJECTS\135th Av\Topping Zone Change.docx CITY OFTIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 5 Development Engineering O I 380.5' [L I - - - - 30'-0" FL -T I I Ll I I I 1 1 I I I I I e I 18'-6 X 40' I 740 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT 1 I 1 0 I I I z CV 1 p I N 1 I 1 18'-3 X 40' 730 SQ. FT. SW SPRUCE STREET FOOTPRINT DENSITY ALLOWED: 33 UNITS MIN./41 UNITS MAX N SITE PLAN- OPTION S1 DENSITY®SHOWN: 33 UNITS ZONE 'R-25' TIGARD ZONE CHANGE TIGARD, OREGON 2.11.15 1:40 SVSK 15895 SW 72ND AVE SUITE 200 PORTLAND, OREGON 97224 TEL: (503) 226-1285 FAX: (503) 226-1670 ♦ - © 2015 CIOA, INC. ALL PJWM RESO NU 0 I La 380.5' r-- -- -- -- -- -- -- o -- -- -- -- -- -- -- o 1 I O r� -0" — - - - - - - —TL - - - - - - --Ljp - - � I I I I 1 I I I II I 19'-6" X 40' 780 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT ID �I � (TYPICAL) 1 I I I I I I o I I I z N I I SW SPRUCE STREET 18'-6" X 40' SW SPRUCE STREET 740 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT (END UNITS) DENSITY ALLOWED: 33 UNITS MIN./41 UNITS MAX N SITE PLAN- OPTION B2 DENSITY®SHOWN: p33 UNITS ZONE 'R-25' TIGARD ZONE CHANGE $ 2.11 TIGARD, OREGON SVSK 1 1:40 15895 SW 72ND AVE SUITE 200 PORTLAND, OREGON 97224 TEL: (503) 226-1285 FAX: (503) 226-1670 PLANNING © 2015 CID& INC.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED i Prepared by: Angela Planning Group in partnership with Johnson Reid February 2013 City of Tigard Population an • Housing Review Housing Strategies Report r �= lo = " planning $roup Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW.............................................................................................................................1 2. HOUSING CONDITIONS AND TRENDS.......................................................................................................................3 3. RECOMMENDED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS.........................................................................................6 4. RECOMMENDED CODE AMENDMENTS....................................................................................................................8 NEW HOUSING TYPE-COTTAGE CLUSTER........................................................................................................................................8 NEW HOUSING TYPES-LIVE/WORK UNITS....................................................................................................................................10 DUPLEXLOT SIZE STANDARDS.......................................................................................................................................................11 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED HOUSING STANDARDS.............................................................................................................................12 RESIDENTIAL INFILL REQUIREMENTS OR REVISIONS TO PUD STANDARDS...............................................................................................13 ACCESSORYDWELLING UNITS.......................................................................................................................................................14 PARKINGREQUIREMENTS.............................................................................................................................................................16 CLEAR AND OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FOR NEEDED HOUSING................................................................................................................17 DENSITYOR HEIGHT BONUSES......................................................................................................................................................18 OTHERINCENTIVES.....................................................................................................................................................................20 5. FUTURE PLANNING FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT...............................................21 RIVERTERRACE..........................................................................................................................................................................21 DOWNTOWN.............................................................................................................................................................................22 TIGARDTRIANGLE.......................................................................................................................................................................25 WASHINGTONSQUARE................................................................................................................................................................27 OTHERCORRIDORS AND CENTERS..................................................................................................................................................29 6. ADDITIONAL NON-REGULATORY STRATEGIES........................................................................................................32 FAIRHOUSING REQUIREMENTS.....................................................................................................................................................32 DESIGN PRACTICES TO ENSURE ACCESSIBILITY..................................................................................................................................33 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPERS......................................................................................................................34 CONTINUED SUPPORT FOR LOCAL AND REGIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING EFFORTS.................................................................................35 7. ADMINISTRATIVE AND FUNDING STRATEGIES........................................................................................................37 STAFFING..................................................................................................................................................................................37 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND FEDERAL FUNDING..............................................................................................................................38 FINANCINGTOOLS......................................................................................................................................................................40 8. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.......................................................................................................................................42 City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February,2013 1. Introduction and Overview Having affordable,quality housing in safe neighborhoods with access to needed community and other services is essential for all Oregonians. Like other cities in Oregon,the City of Tigard is responsible for helping to ensure that its residents have access to a variety of housing types that meet households and residents of all incomes, ages and specific housing needs. As part of the process of periodically updating its Comprehensive Plan,the City is evaluating the housing needs of its citizens and identifying strategies that the City and others can implement to achieve them. Some of the City's specific housing goals include: • Go beyond-minimum state and regional requirements and develop housing strategies that respond to the opportunities presented by a variety of community assets and opportunities, including potential high capacity transit stations, redevelopment of downtown Tigard,and future development of the recently annexed River Terrace area. • Create opportunities to meet the aspirations that have been developed during the Metro region's Making the Greatest Places process. • Respond to current and evolving housing market conditions and trends • Address the needs of an aging population and potential recovery from the recent housing downturn • Maintain a high level of residential livability • Support housing affordability,special-needs housing,ownership opportunities, and housing rehabilitation • Promote innovative,well-designed, and sustainable housing developments This report summarizes a variety of local housing issues and strategies recommended to address them. It builds on a comprehensive study of the local housing market and future trends and an in-depth review of current local, regional, state and federal housing requirements,goals and initiatives. It was prepared in coordination with an advisory committee of City of Tigard staff, Planning Commissioners and citizens, as well as representatives of Washington County, Metro,the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development,the Oregon Homebuilders Association and the Washington County Community Housing Fund. The work has been funded by a grant from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development as part of its Periodic Review grant p rog ra m. Section 2 of the Report summarizes key housing conditions and future trends to provide context for the strategies that follow. Section 3 briefly reviews recommendations for updates to the City's Comprehensive Plan which are described in more detail in a companion "Goal 10 Housing Report." Sections 4 through 7 outline additional strategies related to the following types of initiatives: • Recommended amendments to the City's Development Code • Future planning for new residential development and redevelopment • Information sharing with housing developers and other community partners • Intergovernmental coordination and advocacy • Administrative and funding tools City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February,2013 page 2 Key strategies include: • Update the Comprehensive Plan to briefly describe existing housing conditions and past and historic trends, as well as to include new or revised housing goals, policies and action items that reflect the results of this planning effort. • Update the City's Development Code to include provisions for"cottage clusters" and "live-work" housing units; enhance provisions and standards related to accessory dwelling units and single family attached housing; refine parking requirements for senior and affordable housing developments in existing or future high capacity transit areas; and provide for density or height bonuses to promote affordable housing in selected areas. •. Implement a variety of zoning,design and market-based strategies to promote development of a range of housing types in newly developing or future mixed use areas, including River Terrace,the Tigard Triangle, Washington Square, Downtown and other potential future high capacity transit corridors or centers. • As part of various planning,development and permitting processes, provide information from other sources to housing developers, home builders, and landlords regarding fair housing goals and requirements,as well as design practices that help ensure accessibility for people with physical or mobility limitations, including older residents. • Continue to coordinate with and support Washington County, as well as local non-profit groups and other housing developers or providers, particularly those that provide affordable or special needs housing. Assist with siting and permitting efforts and generally support residential development projects that further the City's housing goals and objectives and meet the City's planning and zoning requirements. • City staff should continue to address housing goals and implement housing strategies in a consistent and coordinated manner,with a common understanding of the goals, priorities and approaches identified in this report. • Continue to provide a certain level of funding to support affordable and special needs housing projects, including maintaining existing programs and considering additional strategies, as resources allow in the future. More specific recommended actions are described in the following section. Section 8 of the Report summarizes specific recommended strategies in an Action Plan that includes proposed activities,timelines and roles for implementing each one. City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February, 2013 page 3 2. Housing Conditions and Trends Tigard has a current population of approximately 48,000 people. As of the 2010 Census,it was the fifth largest city by population in the Portland metro area (excluding Vancouver,Washington). It represents 3%of the total population within the three primary metro counties and is the 13th largest city in Oregon. Between 2000 and 2010,Tigard grew by 6,857 people, or 17%. This is somewhat slower than the Washington County growth of 19%during that period, but greater than the state of Oregon's growth of 12%. Tigard experienced slower percentage growth than the two largest Washington County cities of Hillsboro and Beaverton (31%and 18% respectively). The percentage of families was basically unchanged between 2000 and 2010 at 65% of all households. This is very similar to the Metro area figure of 63.5%family households, and Washington County's 66.8%. At just over$59,000 in 2010,Tigard's median household income 11% higher than the Portland/Vancouver metro area median, but was 10% lower than the countywide median. However,the average(mean) income in Tigard of over$79,000 is actually higher than the countywide average of$75,821. This indicates that there are a larger proportion of high income households which pull the average higher. The number of households at the lower end of the income spectrum has fallen since 2000,which mostly reflects general wage inflation. 16%of households earn $25k or less,down from 20%of households in 2000. The poverty rate is higher than average among females (9.9%)and those under 18 years of age (8.7%). This is likely reflective of the heightened poverty rate among young single mothers,which mirrors national trends. Changing demographic trends that are likely to affect future housing needs in Tigard include the following: • As a first-tier suburb in the Portland metro area,the City of Tigard will continue to benefit from the general trend of migration to urban areas. The metro area as a whole can expect continued growth, with different suburbs filling different niches in terms of housing affordability, lifestyle amenities, and employment opportunities. Tigard can continue to prioritize bringing some of the benefits of a more urban environment to the city,through the long-term redevelopment of the Downtown area, possible addition of light rail service,and development of additional town center or station areas. • Over the coming 20 years,the baby boom generation will remain healthier and more independent for longer than their parents, meaning that the transition to retirement communities will be postponed or never undertaken. The youngest in this generation will just be reaching the traditional retirement age in 20 years. A subset of the baby boom generation will be interested in opportunities to live in well- planned and safe mixed-use communities in the future. The demand from older households for multi- family housing opportunities in town centers should be significant enough to be addressed, but should not be overstated. Also, older seniors may prefer or require single-level housing. • It is generally believed that while a significant percentage of the millennial generation (people born between the 1980s and 2000)claim to prefer the urban core,they truly mean the center of a larger city (in this case central Portland), rather than a suburban environment. However,the eventual impacts of affordability and life-stage decisions are likely to cause some significant share of this generation to City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February, 2013 page 4 either never move into the urban core, or move back out at some point. Tigard, like many suburban cities, can plan ahead for this generation by creating mixed-use town centers and station centers which will provide some urban amenities. Transit options and opportunities to walk and bike will also be attractive. For all of their differences,good schools and a safe environment will appeal to millennial households just as much as to preceding generations. • The percentage of immigrants in Tigard has increased somewhat but not dramatically since 2000. The main impact of ethnic minorities and immigrant groups in Tigard and other suburbs will be continuing demand for low-to-moderate cost housing options,and the type of larger housing units already found in most suburbs. As long as the policies and land inventory allow for the production of multi-family units, it will be possible to meet the rental need for immigrants and other populations. Demand for for-sale housing will largely be met by older existing housing units, rather than new housing. It is likely that immigrant households and first-generation American households will provide a key source of demand for suburban boomer housing A comparison between current housing supply and needs indicates the following: • In general,there is a need for some less expensive ownership units and rental units. This is not uncommon as the lowest income households struggle to find housing of any type that keeps costs at 30%of gross income. • Among prospective ownership households,there is a solid supply of mid-priced housing between$170k and $240k,as well as upper-mid-priced housing of$370k to$550k. This analysis estimates the need for more for-sale housing in between these ranges, and at the upper end of the market. • There is a general need for rental units at the lower and middle price levels. There are levels of estimated surplus for apartments($620 to$1060 per month), and for single family homes for rent ($1770-$3,530). These bands represent the average rent prices in Tigard,where most units can be expected to congregate. • Overall,there is a total surplus of 270 ownership units, and a current surplus of rental units of 631. This is an estimate based on a model of general preferences of households in different age and income cohorts to either own or rent. • There are an estimated 901 units more than the current number of households, reflecting the current estimated vacancy rate of 4.4%. In considering future housing needs and the projected supply of land available to meet them in Tigard,this study found the following: • There will be a need for over 6,500 new housing units by 2030,with a stronger emphasis on new ownership units. This total need includes the West Bull Mountain area. • Of the new units needed,76%are projected to be ownership units,while 24%are projected to be rental units.This is because analysis of the current supply finds a greater vacancy of rental units (Figure 7). Therefore,to rebalance the supply with the projected future need profile, more new ownership units will be needed than rental units,while the current surplus of rental units needs to be absorbed. City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February,2013 page 5 Of the new units needed,the largest share(53%) is projected to be single family detached homes,due again to the stronger need for new ownership housing. The remainder of units (47%) is projected to be some form of attached housing. • Single family attached units are projected to meet nearly 20%of future need. • Duplex through four-plex units are projected to represent over 8%of the total need. • 18%of all needed units are projected to be multi-family in structures of 5+attached units. Less than 1%of new needed units are projected to be manufactured home units in manufactured home parks,which meet the needs of some low-income households for both ownership and rental. Manufactured home units in manufactured home parks are projected to make up a small share of future demand. Tigard has two large manufactured home parks, both of which are fully occupied. It is projected here that there will on-going demand for manufactured home units (36 units) in keeping roughly with the current share of mobile home units in the community. • The projected preferences for future unit types are based upon historically permitted units since 1980, cross referenced with the profile of currently available buildable lands,and how that will shape future inventory. It is projected that in coming decades a greater share of housing will be attached types, including attached single family. • There is an adequate supply of land within Tigard zoned appropriately to meet future housing needs and comply with state and regional housing requirements and goals. City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February,2013 L page 6 3. Recommended Comprehensive Plan Amendments Tigard is required to update its Comprehensive Plan to reflect an analysis of existing and future housing needs. In doing so, it must comply with a variety of state and regional requirements,some of which will necessitate amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation CPI: Update the Comprehensive Plan to briefly describe existing housing conditions and past and historic trends,as well as to include new or revised housing goals,policies and action items that reflect the results of the current planning process. Details and Actions This Report has been prepared in part to support the process of updating Tigard's Comprehensive Plan. Statewide Housing Goal 10 states that: "Buildable lands for residential use shall be inventoried and plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households and allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density." To achieve this goal,cities and counties in Oregon are required to plan for future housing needs by undertaking the following efforts. • Assess current and future housing conditions and needs, including the need for housing of different types and in different price ranges • Ensure that the City has an adequate supply of land zoned for residential use to meet future land needs • Adopt Comprehensive Plan policies and Development Code provisions that support future housing needs, meet state and regional requirements and guidelines and address specific local housing goals and objectives The Housing element of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 2008. To ensure compliance with state requirements, it will need to be updated to reflect the results of the housing needs analysis recently conducted as part of this planning effort. Amendments are expected to entail the following. a. Revised narrative and findings. The existing Comprehensive Plan includes an opening narrative and a "Findings"section that briefly summarizes existing housing and population conditions and previous and projected future trends. It is recommended that this section of the Comprehensive Plan remain relatively brief and focus on the same types of information currently addressed in the Plan. However, specific information related to the following topics should be updated: • Economic and demographic conditions and trends • Need for housing overall and for specific types of housing units • Land and zoning designations associated with housing needs City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February, 2013 page 7 b. New or revised goals, policies and action measures. The existing Comprehensive Plan includes a very well-rounded set of goals, policies and action measure intended to help the City meet the future housing needs of its residents. In general,this section of the Comp Plan is already supportive of and consistent with the housing issues and needs evaluated during this planning effort. However,several additional policies and action measures have been identified for inclusion in an updated Comprehensive Plan. They generally relate to the following: • Explicit restatement of statewide Goal 10 • Support for Fair Housing Act • References to additional housing types and needs As noted above, information proposed to be included in the Comprehensive Plan is described in detail in the Goal 10 Housing Report which will be included as an appendix to this document when completed. City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February,2013 page 8 4. Recommended Code Amendments One of the primary ways in which a city can help ensure that residents have access to a variety of housing types at different price ranges is through the preparation and administration of their development code. Development codes or zoning ordinances set the stage for what types of housing can be built in which parts of the community and under what conditions. They also typically govern the design of new housing and how housing relates to other land uses and services. While the City has a limited ability to affect the ultimate cost of housing, standards related to lot sizes,architectural design features, parking and other aspects of housing can affect housing prices. This report addresses a number of different issues associated with Tigard Community Development Code (TCDC) and recommends a variety of strategies for addressing future housing needs. Strategies are intended to ensure access to a variety of housing types, including emerging or non-traditional housing types,to maintain and improve residential livability, and to promote innovative, well-designed,and sustainable housing and to encourage construction of needed or desired housing types in specific locations. New Housing Type—Cottage Cluster The cottage cluster housing type can be an economical way to provide additional housing choices, including renter or owner occupied housing that meets the needs of people with moderate incomes and/or first-time homebuyers. It also can be constructed on infill sites and designed and built to ensure compatibility with surrounding housing and residential neighborhoods. While this type of housing can be built under existing requirements (e.g., planned development and subdivision or multifamily), new or revised standard that are unique to cottage clusters will make it easier to site and construct them and will expand opportunities for different types of housing Tigard. Recommendation CAI: Update the TCDC to add a new code section specific to cottage clusters. PEMemlarpetws Hair o?frr+xFi: C71�:YVG;;w'Ili:f�CfiVIU whe?c n rJSSdAle "4 rxkYx 1 I11 _ It" M,+ .ow ' F�EN£.11i�9 Shared open space '. 3Tf0tEdopcA t�ei'� Examples of Cottage Clusters City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February, 2013 page 9 Details and Actions: Cottage housing developments or"cottage clusters"consist of small houses,each usually with less than 1,000 square feet of floor area,oriented around a common open space area and with shared parking,and often with other common amenities. Depending on the cottage cluster development, cottages might be owned fee simple(each on its own lot)or as part of a condominium plat where the land is owned in common but the buildings are individually owned.Typically the open space and parking areas are owned and maintained in common. This housing type may be more likely to be developed in Tigard if the TCDC were amended to address its unique attributes as described in more detail below. Typical Standards for Cottage Clusters Purpose. This section should outline the intent of providing standards for cottage housing development as an alternative housing choice in order to encourage creation of usable common open space in residential communities,promote neighborhood interaction and safety through design;ensure compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods;and provide opportunities for creative infill development. Applicability. This section should explain when and where cottages are allowed. Site requirements. This section should establish the minimum and maximum number of cottages per development, density bonuses,lot coverage,as well as the minimum starting lot size,if any. Setbacks and the relationship of the buildings to public streets and open space need to be addressed in a manner which recognizes that cottage cluster developments may not have interior lot lines. Building requirements. This section should establish the maximum size for each cottage(e.g.,building footprint and/or square footage,height), whether attached units are permissible,any specific rules about porches, Example-Site requirements for a cottage development detached garages,or fences,and whether Uyf pr•4i-E sow* existing dwelling(s)on a site can be retained. k•�.en,Y Special architectural design requirements may SF*cf Pfr fae, be appropriate here as well(e.g.,materials and / — "W carts > } design details). ! r Parking and access. Because parking within a cottage development may function more like a >t`ffca:�"�' 1 Mn-A,s° entrr.ncf ca I prF:�iE cpf^. t[tir(fL 6f'i I ( -tpefE Ofr multifamily development than a single family .01c epi i Li I d,fn,;` frc•ay(e home(e.g.,common parking areas with I i shared access instead of individual access I + � I i Co•.wr:wnty Bulc'I••{ CatvtaOpfn _ pt,n i1M108Fina,fo i and driveways), unique standards for parking S~ce An-I.� 4M V cnf a may be needed. In addition, reduced parking tpfCf Ffr f.V. c'wEl:n�urti! Porcl.fs rRus:I:f requirements maybe appropriate. Community buildings and accessory structures. Guest f.mg p_tic F3WIe,t 15.JJ toctpdntof 30005E quarters,storage space,or a carriage unit ! mi.,It;SeNO. 'p f.om proceny IMf could be included as part of a community building.Other accessory structures may or may not be shared. This section should establish size standards for shared and individual facilities as well as any special CYf. I r design requirements for compatibility may a_it -- --- be needed. �� P:-;n(*Cwwd —h n.or•c tide;i Private and common open space. Common open space d°fl'„t, City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February,2013 page 10 is a defining characteristic of a cottage housing development. This section should establish the minimum amount and dimensions of common open space to be provided as well as whether constrained lands(e.g., wetlands)can be included. If any specific landscaping requirements Private open space for each unit maybe required as well. Ownership options. The code should allow ownership to be fee simple lots with a homeowner's association holding common areas, or condominium ownership of the whole development. Project advisory committee members supported these recommendations, noting that allowing for a variety of housing options, including cottage cluster housing will meet city, regional and statewide goals of providing for a range of housing types for people with different income levels and housing needs. New Housing Types—Live/Work Units Live/work units (especially live/work apartments or townhouses)are an emerging housing type. They can provide flexibility by combining residential and commercial uses, and can allow residential uses on the ground floor until the market is ready to support retail in these spaces. Live/work development could be considered in Tigard's commercial districts (C-C,C-G, and C-P),which currently only allow residential uses: 1)conditionally as group or transitional housing (C-G zone);2)outright as mixed uses with commercial on the second floor or above;or 3)as multi-family housing subject to PD regulations. Live/work could expand the flexibility of residential and commercial uses in these zones, effectively increasing the residential capacity and meeting other housing and land use goals in the City's mixed-use zones. Recommendation CA2: Update the Development Code to add code provisions specific to live/work apartments or townhouses in the C-C,C-G,and C-P zones. Details and Actions: Live/work units are dwelling in which a business may be operated on the ground floor. They are similar to a home occupation except that because they are in commercial or mixed use zones,they typically have greater allowances for commercial area,visibility,signage, and access from the primary street. In order to better enable live/work apartments or townhouses,these housing types should be defined and special standards adopted that recognize their unique attributes. Typical Standards for Live/Work Units Definitions. Live/work Townhome A residential,fee simple townhome unit in which a business may be operated. The commercial or office portion of the building shall be limited to the ground floor and may not exceed 50 percent of the square footage of the entire building, excluding the garage. Live/work Apartment:A primarily residential multi-story, multi-unit building with a maximum of 50 percent of the building ground floor square footage used as commercial or office space. Residential units may be for rent or for sale in condominium or cooperative ownership. Standards. Standards for live/work units typically address primary street frontage, off-street parking, signs, and special standards including noise, storage,public access, and hours of operation. Live/work provisions from other jurisdictions more specifically regulate the City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February,2013 page 11 commercial uses in live/work units, open space requirements, and conversion to and conversion of live/work units depending on zoning district. Project advisory committee members supported these recommendations, noting that allowing for live/work units will help meet goals for residential and mixed use development in a number of neighborhoods where more housing is needed or desired. Examples of Live-Work Townhome and Apartment Units on i. �r 5 MMMM j 'r 7 Duplex Lot Size Standards Duplexes can provide for a mix of housing types and ownerships in otherwise purely single family neighborhoods, including helping meet the needs of people with moderate incomes who want to enter the housing ownership market. The medium-density R-7 zone permits duplexes outright; however,there is no incentive to build them—both detached single family dwellings and duplexes require 5,000 sf per unit. Within the R-4.5 zone duplexes are only allowed conditionally; however,the code provides an incentive for their City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February,2013 page 12 construction; a duplex is permitted on a 10,000 sf lot, but two single family detached houses would require 15,000 sf. A comparable incentive in the R-7 zone would mean a minimum lot size of 7,000 to 7,500 sf for duplexes. This change could be made for all lots or only on corner lots. The added benefit of encouraging duplexes on corner lots is that it can help solve the issue of fenced side yards adjacent to the sidewalk. Recommendation CA3: Reduce the minimum lot size for duplexes in the R-7 zone from 10,000 sf to 7,500 sf. Details and Actions: Amendments to the following code sections would be needed to implement this recommendation: ■ Amend Section 18.510.020(List of Zoning Districts), subsection E (R-7: Medium-Density Residential District)to change the description of the minimum lot sizes for duplexes. ■ Amend Table 18.510.2 Development Standards in Residential Zones to change the minimum lot size for duplexes. If the lot size reduction is limited to corner lots,then an additional footnote would need to be added to the table explaining that distinction. ■ Duplex lots would need to be designated on the plat in order to ensure compliance with minimum density requirements. Example of a duplex on a corner lot Project advisory group members generally supported this recommendation. However,they noted that if duplexes were to make up a significant portion of housing in single-family zones, it could affect the overall character and density of existing neighborhoods and that decision-makers should be aware of that issue. Single Family Attached Housing Standards The Housing and Population Study identifies a growing need for single-family attached housing, with that housing type projected to account for approximately 20 percent of future new housing units,with construction anticipated in medium density residential and mixed use zones. New single-family attached housing is permitted in the R-7 through R-40 residential zones and in the MU-CBD zone. It is also allowed within the R-4.5 zone, but only as part of a planned development. Currently,single-family attached housing is subject to site plan development review (TCDC 18.360.090). The TCDC does include some standards for single-family attached City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February,2013 page 13 housing which apply in specific circumstances locations(e.g.,TCDC 18.720 which applies in R-4.5 to R-40 zones, when abutting"property zoned for single-family residential development"and TCDC 18.610.030 which applies in Downtown). However,the review process for single-family attached housing needs to consider specific issues related to the creation of narrow lots that are laid out with a particular building design in mind as well as scale and design. Recommendation CM: Adopt single-family attached housing standards as special development standards for use citywide. Details and Actions: As noted above, because of the unique nature of single-family attached housing, it would benefit from special development standards intended to control development scale;avoid or minimize impacts associated with traffic, parking,and design compatibility;and ensure management and maintenance of common areas. Typical Standards for Attached Single-Family Housing Lot requirements(that apply to the subdivision) a. Some flexibility in lot width maybe appropriate to allow narrower interior lots and wider exterior lots(esp. where necessary to meet special setbacks). b. The need for alley access to minimize curb cuts c. Requirements for common areas and shared maintenance of the building Building requirement. Design standards that ensure entry visibility and minimize garage frontages and neighborhood compatibility(esp. in lower density zones facades should include porches, projecting eaves and overhangs, and other traditional architectural elements that provide residential scale and help break up building mass). Concurrent review. The code should require concurrent review of the building design to ensure that the structures to be built on the lots can meet both the lot and building requirements. Residential Infill Requirements or Revisions to PUD Standards While the City's existing PD standards provide flexibility for residential development and work well for larger scale developments,the process may not be appropriate for small scale infill projects. One option would be to amend the PD standards; however, adopting cottage development standards as recommended above could potentially address this issue more effectively. This could help reduce barriers to and provide more options for infill residential development while also generally preserving the character of single-family residential neighborhoods. Recommendation CAS: Retain existing PD standards and consider adopting separate cottage housing provisions to address small scale projects Details and Actions:See cottage development recommendations above. City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February, 2013 page 14 Accessory Dwelling Units By providing small scale housing in single family neighborhoods,accessory dwelling units provide a unique housing opportunity, particularly for aging residents and smaller households,whose housing needs are highlighted in the analysis for this study. While ADUs are an appropriate housing type for residential areas throughout the city,they can be particularly important in areas with good access to transit and services for aging residents or those who choose not to own a car. The City's current standards for Accessory Residential [Dwelling] Units (ADUs) may limit the development of ADUs by restricting certain designs, requiring additional parking, and limiting the size of the unit in relation to the primary dwelling. In addition to encouraging ADUs through changes to the TCDC,some jurisdictions reduce or waive System Development Charges (SDCs)for ADUs. While it may be beneficial to encourage ADUs, additional standards that help ensure neighborhood compatibility also may be helpful to avoid opposition from residents in established neighborhoods. Recommendation CA6: Amend TCDC 18.710.020 to allow more opportunities for ADUs as well as additional standards to address neighborhood compatibility. In addition,consider waiving or reducing system development charges(SDCs)for ADUs. ia+Sim 50oo51 Nwilbw of Unit Z mdudrg mar. _y resKWf E end ADL' _ t ysr i.� r Ir 'I i one Example of Accessory Dwelling Unit Site Layout Source:Southwest Independence Concept Plan Designing for Density Presentation(September 21, 2011) City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February,2013 page 15 Details and Actions: 18.710.020(6)Accessory Residential(Dwelling) Units (ADUs)could be amended as shown below to address the issues described above. Preliminary draft amendments to 18.710.020(8)Accessory Residential Units. 4welling. For-the purposes of this ehupte6 �G"4Gn".Pq_PGP_r the shGr-ipy 4 e Een4men well-14,14h th-P Building materials and facade features of the accessory residential unit shall be similar to the primary unit; 2.An accessory residential unit may not be larger thanemeee4 50% to a ref 800 square feet; 3. The number of residents permitted to inhabit the accessory residential unit is regulated by the State Building Code; 4. Either the primary or accessory residential unit must be owner-occupied; 5. A primary residence in which on accessory residential unit has been created may have only one home occupation; Screening or buffering between the accessory residentiol unit and housing on an ad iocent lot may be required to address concerns about privacy; 7. The front door of the accessory residential unit shall not be located on the front facade of the primary unit unless the door is already existing; 8. There shall be compliance with all development standords established in the base zone. If the City considers reducing parking requirements for ADUs as shown in the amendments above, it may want to focus those changes in areas with frequent transit services and access to commercial or other services that reduce the need for residents to own a car. This topic in particular will require careful consideration and conversation with decision-makers and other community members given concerns frequently raised about parking issues in residential and mixed use neighborhoods, as noted by project advisory committee members. Finally, as noted above,the City may want to consider waiving or reducing system development charges associated with ADUs given that they must be developed in combination with an existing primary dwelling that may already have paid an SDC, they typically use fewer resources in comparison to primary dwellings,and they do not represent the development of any new land or neighborhoods. The City of Portland has recently seen a City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February,2013 Page 16 increase in the development of ADUs and developers and affordable housing advocates attribute this in part to the city's recent decision to waive SDCs for ADUs there. Parking Requirements Off-street parking requirements and the way in which they are calculated can have an impact on the cost of housing and ability to develop it in certain areas,reducing the cost of housing and allowing for construction of housing that meets the needs of households with lower or moderate incomes. In addition, parking needs can vary in different parts of the community with the potential for less parking needed for certain types of uses and lower parking demand in pedestrian-oriented areas with better access to frequent transit services. Reducing parking requirements for developments that may require less parking can also serve as a potential incentive to encourage desired types of development. Recommendation CA7: Consider revising parking standards to allow for the following,either on a citywide basis or in areas with existing or planned future high capacity or other frequent transit service: • On-street parking credits • Reduced or simplified parking space requirements for affordable,senior and/or other housing projects Details and Actions: On-street Parking Credits Currently,the TCDC explicitly prohibits counting on-street parking as part of required minimum parking(TCDC 18.765.070.D.1). The Model Code (Section 3.3.300.C) recommends crediting on-street parking if that parking is located on the street adjacent to the development and that the parking is for public use(not restricted to the development's use) and is not planned or needed for adjacent commercial or retail uses. It is recommended that the City consider adopting a similar provision.This provides a relatively modest parking credit but it can reduce development costs, particularly for developments which incorporate structured or garage parking for housing. The City could consider adopting this provision city-wide but it may be more appropriate to consider this change only in areas with frequent transit service or in mixed use areas with good access to public facilities and services and shopping areas. Parking Space Requirements for Residential Uses City parking standards current vary by residential development type,with higher parking standards for multi- family housing and group housing,with 1.00 spaces required for multi-family housing units of less than 500 square feet in size, 1.75 spaces required for multi-family units with three or more bedrooms, and one space per bedroom required for group living(Table 18.765.2).1 Scaling back parking requirements, particularly for senior or affordable housing projects,would help reduce development costs for these types of housing and would be in line with standards recommended in Oregon's Model Development Code. As with the strategy above, it may be more appropriate to consider these changes only in areas with frequent transit service or in mixed use areas 1 Only one space per multi-family housing unit is required in the MU-CBD zone(Downtown). City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February, 2013 page 17 with good access to public facilities and services and shopping areas(similar to existing provisions in the Downtown area). TCDC 18.360.080(Exceptions to Standards)already provides for an exception or reduction in the amount of off-street parking required in certain situations. However, including some standard reductions in Table 18.765.2(Minimum and Maximum Required Off-Street Vehicle and Bicycle Parking Requirements), rather than requiring the applicant to request an exception, might serve to encourage senior housing by reducing the inherent risk in discretionary review. B. Exceptions to parking requirements. The Director may grant an exception or deduction to the off-street parking dimensional and minimum number of space requirements in the applicable zoning district based on the following findings: 1. The application is for a use designed for a specific purpose which is intended to be permanent in nature, e.g.,senior citizen housing, and which has a demonstrated low demand for off-street parking; 2. There is an opportunity for shared parking and there is written evidence that the property owners have entered into a binding agreement to share parking,or 3. There is community interest in the preservation of particular natural features)on the site,public transportation is available to the site, and reducing the standards will not adversely affect adjoining uses, therefore the public interest is not adversely affected by the granting of the exception. C. Exceptions for private or shared In considering the above recommendations related to parking requirements, it will be important to provide opportunities for community conversation about them. Relaxing or reducing parking requirements often generates concern among residents in affected neighborhoods who expect potential adverse impacts on the supply of parking and the related need to walk or drive longer distances to access their homes or other nearby destinations. Project advisory committee members noted these concerns and suggested that lower parking requirements may be most appropriate in neighborhoods planned or zoned for high capacity transit service or a concentration or nearby services and amenities within easy walking distance where the incidence of car ownership is lower. Clear and Objective Standards for Needed Housing ORS 197.307 states that: (4)Except as provided in subsection(6)of this section,a local government may adopt and apply only clear and objective standards, conditions and procedures regulating the development of needed housing on buildable land described in subsection (3)of this section. The standards, conditions and procedures may not have the effect, either in themselves or cumulatively,of discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay. The development standards in TCDC 18.510.050 that apply within the residential zoning districts appear to be clear and objective. However, all new residential development except for single-family detached units and duplexes is also subject to Site Development Review(SDR). SDR applications are processed as a Type II procedure using the approval criteria contained in TCDC 18.360.090.The SDR approval criteria address the relationship between the built and physical environment,building fa4ade features, private and shared space, City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February,2013 page 18 and transit access and amenities. In addition to needed housing,these approval criteria apply to a wide range of development types within the City(e.g., commercial, industrial,etc.)that are not subject to the requirement for clear and objective standards. Recommendation CAB:Review the Site Development Review approval criteria contained in TCDC 18.360.090; for those criteria that are not clear and objective,confirm that the issue is sufficiently addressed by other code standards;and,exempt needed housing(or residential development generally)from those criteria that are not clear and objective. While most of the SDR approval criteria appear to be clear and objective, some do appear to allow for more discretion. For example, criterion#4 (Buffering,screening and compatibility between adjoining uses) requires buffering between different types of land uses,for example, between single-family and multiple-family residential, and residential and commercial uses. However,what constitutes an "adequate" buffer is determined from considering a list of relatively subjective factors. Similarly, some of the specific language(e.g., subsections (a)and (b)) under criterion#10(Crime prevention and safety)also may not represent clear and objective standards. For residential uses, in some cases the existing standards (e.g.,setbacks, landscaping and other standards in TDC 18.510, as well as standards for streets and utilities in TDC 18.810) may be sufficient to address the issue without the additional level of discretion provided by the approval criteria. In cases where the existing standards are not sufficient, the criteria could be reworked and relocated to a new section with development standards for attached and multi-family housing(NOTE: new code section could be included in 18.700 Specific Development Standards or in 18.510 Residential Zoning Districts). SDR approval criterion#1 already requires compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title. Thus,for needed housing,the approval criteria could be simplified to require compliance with the code standards per approval criteria#1 without necessarily having an adverse impact on the quality of development. Some examples of how this might be implemented are outlined below: ■ Criterion#3 (Exterior Elevations)–While this criterion is clear and objective, it is also a design standard for single-family attached and multiple-family structures that might be better relocated to a new section with development standards for attached and multi-family housing (NOTE: new code section could be included in 18.700 Specific Development Standards or in 18.510 Residential Zoning Districts). ■ Criterion#4(Buffering)–As noted previously, this criterion is may be too discretionary to be used for needed housing. A more quantitative buffering standards could be included with the standards for single-family attached and multiple-family structures, identifying depth, planting materials and density/height. There are good examples in other jurisdictions where buffering requirements have been quantified. ■ Criterion#5 (Privacy and noise—Multifamily or group living uses)–Similar to Criterion#4, this criterion could be rewritten as a clear and objective standard and relocated to the standards for single-family attached and multiple-family structures. City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft–February,2013 page 19 ■ Criterion#6(Private outdoor area—Multifamily use)and Criterion#7 (Shared outdoor recreation areas—Multifamily use)—Similar to Criterion#3,these criteria already function as standards and should be relocated to the standards for single-family attached and multiple-family structures. ■ Criterion#8-This criterion establishes a requirement for developments located adjacent to the 100 year floodplain. As written the criterion is somewhat subjective and potentially ineffectual as it simply requires "consideration"of a greenway dedication suitable for a pedestrian/bicycle pathway. Rewriting this criterion to include a reference to compliance with an adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan would help clarify and strengthen the requirement. ■ Criterion#9 and#10—These criteria address crime prevention. While they provide good guidance for residential and non-residential developments,they are potentially too discretionary for needed housing. They could potentially be rewritten as standards, but it might be more practical to treat them as guidelines for needed housing. ■ Criterion#12 (Landscaping)—This criterion contains landscaping standards that might be better located in Section 18.745 (Landscaping and Screening). In addition,Criteria #12.b and c require specific amounts of landscaping(20%for parking areas and 15%over all)which do not reflect differences between residential, commercial,office or industrial uses. Density or Height Bonuses Encouraging the development of affordable housing by offering density and/or height bonuses can work in areas where demand is constrained by zoning requirements. It also can potentially act as an incentive to building specific types of housing needed or desired in specific areas. Residential developers in Tigard appear to find the standard height and density requirements adequate to build their projects. Currently,there seems to be little or no demand for height and/or density bonuses, and in some zones achieving the minimum densities may actually be more of a concern to developers than exceeding the maximums. Project advisory committee members noted that while the current market conditions don't suggest a significant demand for density or height bonuses,there may be some types of projects that would benefit and changing demographics could lead to further interest in these incentives in the future. Recommendation CA9: Adopt density and height bonuses as incentives for affordable housing. Details and Actions: Height and density bonuses for the provision of affordable housing in market-rate development could be available in residential as well as mixed use zones. The affordable housing units would not have to be limited to state or federally subsidized projects. Private deed restrictions could be used to ensure that rental units remain affordable for a period of time(e.g., 30 years)and renters would have to be meet income-qualifications. For affordable units that are for sale, buyers would also need to be income-qualified and appreciation would be limited to so that the unit remains affordable if resold. In terms of code amendments to implement this recommendation, one approach would be to create a new section in 18.700(Specific Development Standards). Code provisions for affordable housing typically address the following: ■ Applicability, which zones or subareas (e.g. areas within x distance of high capacity transit) are the incentives available; City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February,2013 Page 20 ■ Definitions, including those defining "affordable housing"and "low-and moderate-income households"; ■ The specific type and amount of incentives (bonuses)available; ■ Procedures for the review of affordable housing developments; ■ A requirement that the developer of housing enter into development agreements that will ensure that the affordable housing,whether for sale or for rent, remains affordable; ■ Designation of an officer or body to review and approve applications for developments that include affordable housing; and ■ Provisions for enforcement. NOTE: The City of Tigard will likely need to work closely with the Washington County Department of Housing Services and the Housing Authority to implement these provisions. Development code provisions in the North Bethany and Hillsboro areas may provide examples for future use by the City as it considers these types of code provisions. Other Incentives As noted above, height and density bonuses may be of somewhat limited benefit in the near-term. However, several of the other recommendations above may encourage a variety of housing types and could be further targeted toward affordable housing. For example, reducing parking requirements for ADUs and allowing them to be detached as well as attached will serve to encourage this housing type. Similarly, reducing the amount of off-street parking required for multi-family would serve to reduce the per unit cost of providing that housing. As noted above,these reductions should be tied to the availability of frequent transit service. In addition, parking reductions could be specifically targeted at affordable housing projects and/or senior apartment projects within transit served areas to provide additional incentives to build these types of housing. Because providing required parking is often a limiting factor when developing multi-family, parking reductions may be needed in order for a development to take advantage of the density bonuses. Recommendation CA10: Implement recommended ADU,parking and height and density bonuses suggested above. Details and Actions: No additional actions needed—see recommendation above. City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February, 2013 page 21 5. Future Planning for New Residential Development and Redevelopment Several areas in Tigard represent unique opportunities to meet different type of housing needs for city residents,either because they are relatively undeveloped and represent new growth or expansion area (e.g., River Terrace)or because they have opportunities for more intensive residential or mixed use development given their location,zoning and access to community services and transportation facilities (e.g.,the Tigard Triangle, Downtown and Washington Square areas). A number of the recommendations described in Sections 4, 6 and 7 would be appropriate for implementation in these areas and are described in more detail in those sections of this report. General Recommendation FP1: Pursue a variety of strategies to support,encourage or require residential development in these areas that is consistent with city housing goals,other recent or future planning processes and additional strategies described in this Report. River Terrace Recommendation FP2:Plan and zone land for residential use in this area that balances regional density requirements(an average net density of 10 dwelling units per acre is required)with a community desire to develop neighborhoods that emphasize single-family detached homes. S' West Bull Mountain Concept Plan Preferred Land Use Alternative Source:West Bull Mountain Concept Plan,Washington County,October, 2010 City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February, 2013 page 22 Details and Actions The City is currently in the process of developing the River Terrace Community Plan for the areas that were most recently brought into Tigard's portion of the UGB.Z This includes lands addressed in the West Bull Mountain Concept Plan, including the recent River Terrace annexation (Area 64),as well as urban growth boundary expansion area 63 and the 50-acre Roy Rogers West area. The West Bull Mountain Concept Plan calls for a range of housing types and zoning designations. The River Terrace Community Plan is expected to be generally consistent with the Concept Plan. Zoning in the area will have to meet regional targets for an average density of 10 dwelling units per acre. At the same time,this area is seen as an area that is appropriate for the development of neighborhoods predominantly characterized by single-family homes on individual lots. The City will need to balance these objectives as it moves forward with the Community Plan process. Specific strategies to do this may include: • Ensure that zoning is in place to allow an appropriate mix of single-family and multi-family development. Traditional single-family neighborhoods in a suburban environment tend to be somewhat segregated from other uses, and cover a larger area. In order to ensure thriving single family residential neighborhoods in this area, multi-family housing should be clustered in limited areas, near any planned commercial uses, and perhaps buffered from single family residential development with medium- density residential such as townhomes. • Single family lot sizes that average somewhat smaller than those typically found in the Bull Mountain area can help ensure that density targets are met. However, in this locale, lots which are too small (perhaps<4,000 square feet) may face a marketing challenge. A mixture of larger and smaller lots can produce a lower average lot size,while preserving housing choices. • The River Terrace area currently features large parcels of land which will facilitate master planned development and subdivision-style development. The current ownership pattern is advantageous for more rapid development of the Plan Area as opposed to piecemeal development,and should help avoid the need for public assembly of land. • Despite the recent housing downturn, homebuilding is returning to the Metro Area,and this area can anticipate interest in large-scale residential development in this area, if not in the next five years,then likely in the next 10 to 15 years. • Development will be facilitated by an adopted Community Plan, zoning and code changes, which create certainty in the permitting and development process. Downtown Recommendation FP3:Continue to implement ongoing planning,urban renewal,marketing and other efforts aimed at Downtown redevelopment,as well as implementing applicable development code strategies identified in Section 4 of this report. Z More information about the River Terrace Community Plan is available online: http://www.tigard- or.gov/city hall/departments/cci/long range planning/river terrace.asp City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February,2013 ' page 23 rt Tigard Downtown Vision Graphic Source:City ofTigard Comprehensive Plan and University ofOregon page 24 Details and Actions The City's long term vision for the Downtown assumes a mix of housing, retail and commercial development with a well-connected, walkable street system and good connections between the Downtown and adjacent neighborhoods. The City continues to work on a number of strategies for implementing this vision, including using urban renewal funds to finance street improvements and support new multi-family housing and to develop a Downtown Connectivity Plan and implementing standards to help ensure improved connectivity in the future. All of these strategies will help achieve land use and housing goals for this and other centers in Tigard. Zoning for the Downtown is primarily mixed use commercial and residential. As discussed in Section 4 of this report, a number of development code amendments are recommended to enhance the ability to permit future mixed use or higher density residential development in Tigard, particularly on infill parcels. Some of the strategies described in Section 4, including those parking requirement and density or height bonuses may be applicable to the Downtown and would serve as incentives for construction of housing in this and other regional centers and/or areas with existing or potential future access to high capacity transit. Application of funding strategies in this area, including use of fee waivers, urban renewal and tax abatement also would serve as incentives to provide needed housing types in this area. Focusing development in this area which already has available infrastructure and access to services also will reduce infrastructure-related costs of development in this area. Given the nature of existing conditions there, most future development in Downtown is likely to occur as redevelopment either on individual sites or through consolidation and redevelopment of multiple properties. The pace and character of this development will depend on a variety of market forces, as well as the availability of developable sites within the area. The City can support these efforts through some of the strategies described in Sections 4, 6 and 7 of this report, including: • Continue to implement the improvements identified in the Downtown Connectivity Plan. This plan calls for improved access among the mix of land uses in the Downtown area, as well as the eventual division of the Downtown's "superblocks." Improving access into the interior of these superblocks will make them more attractive for the type of urban residential development envisioned. Improving east/west multi-modal access through the district will also encourage redevelopment through making the neighborhood more cohesive. • The City currently has access to a range of development tools, either internally(i.e. Urban Renewal), or through regional partners such as TriMet and Metro,to offer incentives or subsidies for private development. Tigard should continue to seek opportunities to facilitate one or more residential, mixed- use or transit oriented developments which provide an example of density and design sought in the Downtown area. While public participation is limited by available funds and political considerations,the importance of the Downtown and extensive vision which has been developed for the district, make this neighborhood a good candidate for such involvement. • Implement the code-related strategies described in Section 4 of this report, including those that can serve as an incentive to residential and mixed use development. Monitor current standards for Downtown development and design as identified in the Development Code for any requirements which are hampering residential development,and may need to be amended. Property owners and City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report _ Revised Draft—February,2013 page 25 developers can often identify obstacles during the planning and permitting phases, which give some indication to the City if any code requirements are having the unintended consequence of hampering development that would otherwise meet the district's vision. Districts in transition from low-density legacy uses to high-density uses,such as Downtown Tigard,can sometimes limit the types of development which occur in between,as the transition takes place. • Work with affordable housing developers to target potential developments to sites with good access to transit and other services in this area,consistent with recommendation NRI (see Section 6). Tigard Triangle Recommendation FP4:If residential development is part of the future vision for the Tigard Triangle,consider adopting zoning designations and standards that ensure that residential development or mixed use development with a residential component will occur in these areas. Details and Actions The City has had a long-standing goal of increasing opportunities for residential and mixed use development in the Tigard Triangle. The City recently received a grant from the state's Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) program to develop a District Plan for the Tigard Triangle. The new plan is expected to address a variety of land use and transportation planning issues, meet housing goals for the Triangle, and build on the recommendations from Tigard's recently completed High Capacity Transit (HCT) Land Use Planning process. The final report from that effort describes the Concept Plan for the Tigard Triangle as seeking to "blend smaller-scale retail, restaurants and housing to complement the current employment center,especially in the northeast part of the Triangle. Increased housing options would also be allowed northwest of Pacific Highway." More specific objectives of the planning effort for the Tigard Triangle include supporting mixed use development in the area;assessing the market for residential uses in the area and any barriers to that type of development; and creating a walkable area that makes efficient use of the transportation system, including addressing the needs of people who have difficulty accessing transportation due to their age, income or disabilities. City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February, 2013 page 26 STATION TYPOLOGY Proposed Station Types Town Center! Empoyimnv Malo Street Retail l Transit _ Transit corridor Neolmitwd K Proposed Connections(Nevi and Improved) ,3 f, M Loral Whimodal Street t t t t t t t t Blke/Ped RoLge Proposed Arnerdies(Not Located) c°"cepitial Pata.'Open Space Facilities �. Conceptual BikeePed Amenities G+mrni.4er Rai �. Riam and W.4-r 004es _ B " � L� r even Bav+n�r IIGIrfR a"BrVMa :.Lace asavowxa:��sea s , CONCEPT PLAN Tigard HCT Plan Concept—Tigard Triangle Source:City of Tigard High Capacity Transit Land Use Plan, Final Report,February,2012 While zoning in the Tigard Triangle currently allows for development of residential uses, little housing has been built in the area. City staff reports that most property owners and developers envision the area as a location for large scale retail, commercial or light industrial activities. It is recommended that if residential use is part of the community vision for the Tigard Triangle,steps should be taken to ensure it is built in the future. To achieve this goal, it is recommend that specific areas be rezoned for residential use or for a mix of uses with a required residential component, rather than recommending that residential uses be a component of each future mixed use development in the entire area. Future residential areas in the Triangle also should allow for commercial uses that complement/support them. City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February, 2013 page 27 In addition to designating areas specifically for residential uses,the City's development code should be amended to enhance standards for residential or mixed uses in the area. The current Tigard Triangle standards (TCDC 18.620),which were last amended in 2001, include site design standards, building design standards,entry portals (gateway)standards,and street and accessway standards. More details on these standards are provided in a technical appendix to this report(Task 3 and 5 Policy and Code review). Updating these standards would provide the City with an opportunity to address future street connections and street designs in greater detail (similar to what has been done in Downtown). The standards could vary setbacks and building design elements based on the street type and land use designation, including for residential uses. In addition,the area covered by the existing Tigard Triangle standards is smaller than the area envisioned in the HCT Land Use Plan. Improving connections to the area north of Highway 99 and/or applying standard to promote or facilitate transit-oriented development in this area would provide the City with an opportunity to create a transit-oriented neighborhood north of the highway as well as to address design standards and both sides of the street. In addition to these strategies, a number of other recommendations identified in other sections of this report would be appropriate for consideration in the Tigard Triangle, including the following: • Application of new standards for single-family attached housing and live/work units • Consideration density and height bonuses and adjustments to parking standards to serve as an incentive to development of higher density,affordable or other needed types of housing in this area • Use of permit or fee waivers or tax abatement for eligible affordable housing projects • Focusing development in areas with existing infrastructure and partnering with developers to fund additional needed infrastructure, where appropriate to reduce overall infrastructure-related costs of development Washington Square Recommendation FPS:Review Washington Square density standards(18.620.030.D, E,and F)for potential modifications to help make design standards more appropriate for residential developments and meet goals for production of housing this area. For portions of the area envisioned for mixed use development,consider implementing development code standards or requirements to ensure that residential development will occur. Details and Actions Washington Square is designated as a Regional Center in the Metro 2040 Plan. Given this designation,the Washington Square area represents opportunities for future residential and mixed use development. However, there are fewer properties with significant redevelopment potential in this area in comparison to the Tigard Triangle. The recently completed Tigard High Capacity Transit(HCT) Plan envisions land use changes in the Washington Square area to create more transit-oriented,dense, mixed use development in this area. Portions of the Washington Square area are designated as Town Center/Main Street,Transit Corridor and Transit City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February, 2013 page 28 Neighborhood areas in the HCT Plan, although a more limited portion of the area is devoted to mixed use or residential development concepts than in the Tigard Triangle. Underlying zoning in these areas is primarily Mixed Use Employment, Mixed Use Residential and Single Family Residential. CONCEPT > t PLAN 1 STA f IO N e= TYPOLOGY �+ ti •� : Proposed Station Types e:- `ter :-�y.• °.. i �� ,at��.�g .�, t, �� . s o �iir f aLOCINTProposed Connections F (New andImptoved) €.oval RAunimodat a .tea 7 street s * t 4= =4 Bike/Ped Route Proposed AmerAles (Not Locatedp � s i ConceptualPark/Open * i Space Facftes ai Conceptual Bike/Pcd } Mtenities � } 4 Ra reeds - 4 L - J0 27y1. '{ 'j" �,' `� �. - Rare and Water Bodies • � a' � `" F a (]Study Asa Boundary Parks,Open Space t ti vx1 NE""ReAu-ces 00 fet A. Tigard HCT Plan Concept—Washington Square Source: City of Tigard High Capacity Transit Land Use Plan, Final Report,February,2012 Design standards currently applied in this area include development standards,site design standards, and building design standards for the Washington Square Regional Center. The types of site design and building design standards addressed are similar to those applied in the Tigard Triangle. However, building design standards in the Washington Square area apply to all new buildings within the MUC, MUE, and MUR zones in Washington Square Regional Center, not just to non-residential buildings. The Washington Square standards were adopted in 2002, before the latest update to Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP). City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February,2013 page 29 Similar to the standards applied in the Tigard Triangle,some of the building and site design standards may be more appropriate for non-residential buildings and less appropriate for residential uses,including live/work units and single-family attached housing. The same comments related to these standards in the Tigard Triangle would apply in the Washington Square area. This area also would be appropriate for application of incentives to encourage development of specific types and densities of housing in this area as described elsewhere in this report. In addition, a broader range of housing types could be considered as permitted outright in this area, including single-family attached and multi-family housing, but not including single-family detached housing. Also,similar to the Tigard Triangle, if residential use is part of the community vision for this area as it appears to be,steps should be taken to ensure it is built there in the future using a similar approach as identified for the Triangle. Other Corridors and Centers Recommendation FP6: Implement a variety of strategies related to zoning designations and related development standards,connectivity improvements,marketing and other strategies to promote residential and mixed use development in potential future high-capacity transit areas. Details and Actions In the Tigard HCT Report, in addition to the areas described above,several other areas were considered as potential high capacity transit station communities and recommended for transit-oriented development strategies,or identified as opportunity areas for other more limited land use and connectivity changes • Scholls Ferry Road (between approximately 120th and 125th Avenues) • Gaarde McDonald area (centered on OR 99 north and south of Gaarde/McDonald Streets) • 99W/Durham (centered on OR 99 between approximately Beef Bend and Fischer Roads) • Upper Bridgeport area(centered on SW 72nd Avenue north and south of Upper Boones Ferry Road/Carman Drive) City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February,2013 page 30 ,r aF pd ery NfJ� 2qn alpnel �i!•Thar 7 ` � fi�- Map of Tigard HCT Planning Areas Source:City of Tigard High Capacity Transit Land Use Plan, Final Report, February,2012 HCT recommendations for these areas vary,from relatively minimal changes in land use or intensity in the Scholls Ferry/1215`Avenue and Upper Bridgeport areas to creation of new mixed use areas in 99W/Durham and Pacific Hwy/Gaarde-McDonald. Specific strategies and tools to support development of housing in these areas would be similar to some of those identified for the Tigard Triangle, Washington Square and Downtown,and could include the following: • Adopt Comprehensive Plan or Zone Changes in portions of the 99W/Durham and Pacific Highway/Gaarde-McDonald areas to enable development of mixed use centers, including residential uses • Apply standards for single-family attached and live/work housing units in proposed mixed use portions of the 99W/Durham and Pacific Highway/Gaarde-McDonald areas,consistent with recommendations described in Section 4 of this report City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February, 2013 page 31 • Implement updated parking standards and requirements described in Section 4 in areas identified as transit corridors and main street/town center portions of these areas, in part to serve as an incentive for residential and mixed use development in these areas • Implement recommendations related to accessory dwelling units, infill development standards and cottage clusters in portions of these areas designated as transit neighborhoods and encourage development of these housing types in those areas • Work with affordable housing developers to identify opportunities to develop housing in close proximity to transit and other services and reduce infrastructure costs,consistent with recommendations in Section 6 of this report • Use permit or fee waivers or tax abatement for eligible affordable housing projects as described in Section 7 of this report • Take advantage of existing infrastructure in these areas to reduce infrastructure-related costs of development City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February,2013 page 32 6. .Additional Non-Regulatory Strategies The City of Tigard can best meet some housing goals by providing information to other parties as part of planning and development processes. In the areas of complying with the Fair Housing Act and the design of accessible housing features,the City either does not have regulatory authority to directly address these issues or doing so would create potential consistency issues with state or federal requirements. However, by providing information, particularly readily available handbooks and guidelines prepared by other entities,the City can further these housing goals. Similar to Fair Housing practices and accessibility design, decisions about where and how to build and finance housing are made primarily by other entities. Either private or non-profit developers or public agencies such as Washington County directly fund and/or manage housing for people with low incomes or special needs. In addition to its general role in planning for and permitting residential uses,the City also can help advocate for or support specific projects that further the City's housing goals. In doing so,the City can provide information to prospective developers about strategies described elsewhere in this report that help serve as incentives to building needed housing in regional centers, high capacity transit corridors and other areas that provide residents with access to transportation and access to services. In some cases,this also will include areas where the cost of infrastructure is relatively lower, potentially reducing the overall cost of development. More specific recommended approaches and actions are described below for several sub-topics. Fair Housing Requirements Recommendation NRI: The City should support the objectives of the Fair Housing Act by providing information to other parties about actions or strategies that will be consistent with the Act and help achieve its goals. Details and Actions Based on a recent review of fair housing impediments commissioned by Washington County,several specific strategies are recommended towards this end: • Provide affordable housing developers with information about areas or potential sites that will help link residents with access to transportation, employment, needed goods and services,quality education and personal enrichment opportunities. These would include sites with high quality schools, access to public transit, walkable neighborhoods,grocery stores, other shopping opportunities and amenities. Washington County has prepared a set of"Opportunity maps"that were included in the Consolidated Plan,showing proximity to transit, health care facilities, public services, parks and trails,grocery stores and farmers markets,and high test scores in schools by Census block groups throughout Washington County. City of Tigard staff can use these maps to meet these objectives. They also can highlight areas of the City being planned for future high capacity transit that currently or are planned to include some of these amenities in the future. City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February,2013 page 33 • Help affordable housing advocates and developers identify vacant or redevelopable properties that would be suitable for affordable or special needs in terms of their size,zoning, proximity to services or other factors. • As the City adopts code amendments recommended in this Report to facilitate development of a variety of housing types, provide information about these new provisions to affordable housing advocates and developers. • Coordinate with the cities of Beaverton and Hillsboro as they develop a Green Construction Resource Directory for affordable housing providers throughout the county; use this resource in identifying and working with affordable housing providers in the future. Design Practices to Ensure Accessibility Recommendation NR2: The City should provide information to developers about design practices that will help ensure that new housing units are accessible to people with physical or mobility disabilities,including aging residents. Details and Actions An increasing percentage of the population is aging. As the baby boom generation ages, communities will continue to see a need for housing that meets the needs of people with physical and mobility limitations. Designing accessible features into housing of all types will be increasingly important. As described above,the Oregon Building Code and the Americans with Disabilities Act both require that accessible features be incorporated in certain types of housing. For example,the Oregon Structural Specialty Code(OSSC)for multi-unit residential buildings includes a comprehensive set of accessibility requirements. However, compliance with the OSSC does not assure compliance with all accessibility laws because the OSSC includes only those standards that are required by Oregon law and does not incorporate all federal and Oregon accessibility standards. To help organizations comply with the accessibility provisions of the Fair Housing Act and to generally promote the construction of accessible housing,the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) established a set of Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines (FHAG)that "provide builders and developers with technical guidance on how to comply with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988."3 Use of these guidelines can support accessibility and also act as a "safe harbor' in meeting Fair Housing Act requirements.4 It is recommended that the City do the following to promote the design of accessible homes and compliance with Fair Housing Act requirements: 3 Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines http://Portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/Prop,ram offices/fair housing equal opp/disabilities/fhefhag Fair Housing Council of Oregon Accessible Design and Construction Handbook,Fair Housing Council of Oregon and Community Development Law Center(June 2010), http://fhco.org/pdfs/DCHandbook062010.pdf City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February,2013 page 34 • Make builders aware of Fair Housing Act requirements related to accessibility for applicable developments(i.e., residential building with four or more units). Tables presenting federal and state accessibility standards in the 2010 Fair Housing Council of Oregon Accessible Design and Construction Handbook also could be provided. • Provide information about the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines to all builders and developers and encourage them to follow the guidelines in building new housing and particularly for residential development targeted to people with physical or mobility limitations. Specific features that promote accessibility and address the needs of people with other disabilities can include but are not limited to the following: ✓ A bedroom, kitchen, living room,and full bathroom on one level of the home ✓ Smooth walls and surfaces to reduce the accumulation of potential sources of infection for people with lower immunity, and rounded edges of walls, doors,windows, and furniture to reduce potential injuries ✓ Use of sound absorbing materials in the rooms to make it easier to hear ✓ Walk-in showers with height adjustable handheld showerheads ✓ Walk-in bedroom closets with storage at differing heights ✓ Rocker light switches instead of more common flip switches ✓ Lever-style door handles and faucets.s Advisory Committee members note it is particularly important to provide this type of information to developers who are returning to the housing market and/or have not traditionally consider accessibility in the design of their residential homes or developments. Additional Information for Private Developers Recommendation NR3: In addition to providing information about accessible design features,the City should provide information to developers that will generally help them understand the City's land use permitting process and give them a sense of clarity and certainty about city requirements. Details and Actions Private market developers appreciate clarity and certainty in the design and permitting process. Certainty helps the developer save time, make decisions to proceed, and avoid costly surprises further along in the process. In some cases, a developer will even prefer the certainty of a clear process even if it has greater requirements and fees, over a complex and unclear process with nominally lower requirements and fees. This means that City 5 These design ideas are drawn from the websites of non-profit organizations dedicated to issues faced by seniors and people with disabilities. http://www.oIdagesolutions.org/Environment/DnE.aspx, http://www.ageinplace.org/practical advice/making your home senior friendlv.aspx http:/Iwww.aarp.org/home-garden/livable-communities/info-07-2011/what-is-universal-design.html City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February, 2013 page 35 development code,design review process, permitting process, fees etc, should be as easy to understand and navigate for the developer as possible. The City can do this in multiple ways: • Ensure that primary documents such as the Development Code and design guidelines are easy to use for a person moderately informed in the design or development process; • Provide knowledgeable staff to answer questions regarding the entire process from planning to permitting; • Create additional materials such as one page handouts that summarizes relevant code and process information, even if it is already available in longer documents; • Provide information about code provisions and other strategies described elsewhere in this report that can serve as incentives to develop housing in regional centers and high capacity transit corridors; • Assign a single contact person to facilitate the development process in the case of projects the City deems particularly important, such as a large-scale development, prominent site location,or catalyst project; • Provide as much of this information in advance as possible. Try to provide estimates of time, requirements and fees to the extent practicable,while emphasizing that these are all preliminary estimates that may change. Avoid processes which require developers to commit extensive time and money before key requirements or public processes become apparent. Continued Support for Local and Regional Affordable Housing Efforts Recommendation NR4: The City should continue to participate in and support County and regional efforts to meet current and future housing needs,particularly those targeted to affordable and special needs housing. Details and Actions A number of regional processes and programs are aimed at addressing housing needs in the Portland Metropolitan area and Washington County. The City of Tigard is a community partner in these efforts and should continue to participate in and support them. Washington County is the primary recipient of federal funding associated with housing. Through its Consolidated Plan for Community Development and Housing and annual Action Plans, it manages and allocates federal funds to meet a variety of housing and community development needs. It also manages construction and operation of publicly assisted housing developments and administers Section 8 vouchers through the County's Department of Housing Services. Other County-wide efforts targeted to affordable and special needs housing include activities undertaken by the Vision Action Network and the Community Housing Trust Fund in Washington County. At the regional level, Metro helps guide local housing efforts through requirements and guidelines in its Urban Growth Management Functional Plan related to zoning for a mix and density of housing to support a variety of housing needs. Other regional housing efforts have included preparation of a Regional Affordable Housing Strategy in 2000 and updated recommendations from the Housing Choice Task Force adopted by the Metro City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February, 2013 page 36 Council in 2006.6 Those recommendations included establishing regional and local targets for production of affordable housing and continuing to coordinate with Metro on other regional and local affordable housing strategies. The City should continue to participate in and support the activities recommended by these organizations and planning processes. A number of strategies identified in other sections of this report will further those actions, including development code strategies related to parking, location of housing in areas with good transit services and other amenities,as well as planning and zoning for a full range of housing types, including in existing residential and mixed use neighborhoods,as well as newly developing areas such as urban growth boundary expansion areas. It also would be helpful for the City to prepare informational materials that summarize how the city's policies and codes support the development of affordable housing and use these materials in future communications with developers, decision-makers and citizens. This could be done in the form of annual Affordable Housing Program update,similar to a report which the City prepared in 2002, but a more concise version of that document (http://www,tigard-or.gov/city hall/departments/cd/docs/affordable housing report.pdfl. 6 Metro Housing Choice Task Force http://www,oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=269 City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February,2013 page 37 7. Administrative and Funding Strategies Implementing a number of the strategies described in this report will require a commitment of staff resources. In addition,the City has historically supported affordable and special needs housing projects through fee waivers and tax abatements. Those efforts are very helpful in providing needed financial support for such projects and leveraging resources provided by other entities. Recommendation AFI: City staff should continue to address housing goals and implement housing strategies in a consistent and coordinated manner,with a common understanding of the goals, priorities and approaches identified in this report. The City also should continue to provide a certain level of funding to support affordable and special needs housing projects,including maintaining existing programs and considering additional strategies,as resources allow in the future. More specific recommended actions are described in the following section. Details and Actions Following is a summary of specific recommended strategies related to staffing and financing. Staffing Tigard has a relatively small but dedicated planning staff tasked with addressing a wide variety of long range and current land use and other planning issues. Most staff, particularly those assigned to long range planning work on multiple planning initiatives concurrently. The City does not currently have a single staff person dedicated to addressing long range or current housing issues. Instead,multiple staff people address residential planning and development issues through a range of activities, including reviewing residential development applications, incorporating planning for housing in specific or sub-area planning processes,administering and updating the City's Development Code, coordinating with regional and county efforts related to housing policy and development. We recommend that all staff continue to address housing needs in a consistent and coordinated manner,with some activities assigned to a specific staff person. This will provide for a good balance of flexibility and accountability needed to meet the City's housing needs and goals. Specific recommended approaches and activities include the following: • Require all planning staff to review this document and regularly refer to the strategies it includes, particularly the summary table included in Section 8. • Identify one staff person who will be responsible for coordinating with other staff to review and refine the list of strategies in this report on an annual basis. That process would not require updating the report in its entirety but should entail updating the table in Section 8 to address any emerging housing issues, needs or tools not previously identified. That process also should include an assessment of the City's progress in implementing recommended housing strategies. The staff person assigned to this task also could be a designated liaison for coordinating with Washington County, Metro and other local, regional or state partnerships to address housing goals and needs. It will be important for this staff City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February,2013 page 38 person and possibly others to have a good working knowledge of affordable housing development issues and practices, including information about available financing tools, property acquisition and development practices and necessary partnerships between affordable housing developers, lenders and builders, among other topics. • Create a set of checklists of activities related to different types of planning efforts. The checklists should reference associated strategies identified in this report or annual updates. Project managers should review the checklists at the outset of any given planning project and continue to use them as they move forward to address project-specific housing issues. • Establish a plan for adopting the various Development Code recommendations identified in this report, along with a strategy to fund that work. The City should explore state grant or other funding sources that could be used to supplement available local resources. Section 8 of this report includes information that could be incorporated in such a plan. • Account for staffing needs associated with implementing housing strategies in annual budgeting and work planning activities. This would entail regularly estimating the amount of time needed to implement these strategies, prioritizing this work in relation to other duties, and ensuring that adequate time and resources are available to meet these goals within the City's overall resource limits. • Brief Planning Commission and Council members about these housing goals and strategies on a regular basis, either as part of an annual or semi-annual event or as part of orientation and training for new members. Statutory Authority and Federal Funding Tigard is projected to have over 50,000 residents within the next few years. This will make the City eligible to directly receive federal housing and community development funding through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD). Currently, Tigard receives such funding indirectly through Washington County which is the designated entitlement agenda for HUD funding for all jurisdictions within the County,except Beaverton. The HOME and ESG (Emergency Solutions Grant) programs administered by HUD do not have the same population-related eligibility thresholds and would not be affected in the same way. While the City of Hillsboro(which also is eligible to be an entitlement jurisdiction) has chosen to continue to have such activities funded through Washington County's program,the City of Beaverton has elected to administer its own set of federally funded housing and community development programs. Tigard will soon have the ability and responsibility for choosing which of these two paths to take. In considering which approach to take,the City should consider the following factors among others: • Increased flexibility. Being an entitlement agency allows a local jurisdiction to implement and tailor programs more specific to local housing goals and priorities to some degree. For example, Beaverton administers a number of housing rehabilitation and loan programs using its HUD funding. Tigard currently has more limited ability to implement such programs for Tigard residents as part of the Washington County consortium. At the same time, if Tigard reaches the threshold for becoming an City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February, 2013 page 39 entitlement agency but elects to remain part of the Washington County Consortium, it can work with the County to determine which types of programs and activities will be implemented in Tigard through a joint CDBG block grant agreement. • Specific needs. Smaller jurisdictions typically become entitlement entities to meet specific needs that are not currently being met by the consortium of which they have been a member. In weighing the costs and benefits of becoming an entitlement jurisdiction,the City of Tigard will want to ask whether there are additional needs within the city that it can meet with CDBG funds on its own and are not currently being provided by Washington County. The value of meeting these unmet demands will need to outweigh the administrative and other costs associated with becoming an entitlement community. • Administrative cost. Administering HUD funding entails more work by city staff than participating in the County consortium. It would require use of a dedicated staff person to lead the city's efforts to coordinate with HUD and help develop and administer specific programs or strategies. This in turn would require more in-depth knowledge of federal programs and practices, internal and external coordination with HUD staff and other community partners, program development and other activities. City of Beaverton staff notes that meeting federal grant requirements takes a significant amount of time and to some degree requirements(and time commitments)are the same, no matter the size of the jurisdiction. In addition,the city likely would incur relatively significant legal costs associated with CDBG grant administration. Cities that currently operate their own CDBG programs within the Portland Metro area(Beaverton and Gresham) reportedly need to subsidize their programs with general fund revenues because the costs to administer the programs exceed the HUD revenues available to operate them (which are capped at a maximum of 20%of total local CDBG funds). • Decision-making complexity. In addition to added responsibilities for staff, directly accepting and using HUD funds would increase responsibilities for the City Council and possibly other city boards or commissions, including during budget review and approval processes and/or associated with financing specific programs or facilities. • Complexity for local non-profit groups. Because CDBG funds cannot serve or provide funding to serve people in other entitlement communities,the application process can be complex for non-profit groups who serve more than one entitlement community. For example,currently local non-profit groups must apply separately for funds to serve Beaverton and Washington County. Non-profit groups would face a similar situation in Tigard if the city were to become an entitlement agency. In addition,those groups would not be able to use funds provided by Washington County to provide services within Tigard but could only provide services in Tigard using grant money provided by the City of Tigard. • Funding thresholds and available resources. Funding thresholds for specific programs funded by HUD as part of the CDBG program vary by the size of entitlement communities. In many cases, the maximum amount of money available for projects in Tigard would be lower than for the County as a whole. This could limit the size of HUD-funded projects that would be undertaken in Tigard to some degree. In addition, it should be noted that resources for entitlement communities have decreased over the last 20 years. City of Beaverton staff notes that small entitlement jurisdictions (close to 50,000 population) currently receive about $200,000 per year, compared to over$400,000 received by Beaverton when it City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February, 2013 page 40 initially became an entitlement community. They question whether this current level of resources, coupled with associated administrative responsibilities and costs,would lead to a cost-effective decision to become an entitlement jurisdiction for a city the size of Tigard. This report does not include an ultimate recommendation as to whether Tigard should become a CDBG entitlement agency. In the long term,the City should consider the factors described above and other relevant criteria in making this decision. However, in the short term, it is recommended that the City remain part of the Washington County consortium (even after passing the 50,000 residents population threshold)and obtain experience with the administration of HUD funds through a joint operating agreement relationship with Washington County. During that time,the City may wish to establish a more formal evaluation and decision- making framework for determining whether to become a separate entitlement community. Financing Tools One of the primary obstacles to achieving housing goals, particularly those for development of affordable housing is a lack of funding at all levels of government, coupled with the inability of the private sector to meet certain types of housing needs without public subsidy. The City of Tigard already implements several financing programs to assist with the development of affordable housing, including: • Use of urban renewal funding to construct public improvements that act as incentives for private sector residential development and to augment the costs of selected residential development projects. • In partnership with the Tigard/Tualatin School District, and Tualatin Valley Fire& Rescue, provides tax exemptions for low-income housing owned by non-profit corporations. Exemptions,first adopted in 1996, must be renewed each year and have been granted to a total of five projects developed by Community Partners for Affordable Housing. Currently,the City only offers these exemptions to non- profit organizations. However,the City could consider providing the exemptions for affordable housing developments built by private sector developers if they meet all the same program eligibility and other requirements, including guarantees to maintain the long-term affordability of the units. • Implementation of an Affordable Housing Fee Assistance program to waive or reduce fees for qualifying affordable housing developments. As part of this program the City provides a fee waiver of up to$500 per unit up to a total budgeted amount of$10,000 per year for project that meet eligibility requirements, including affordability standards. In addition to these strategies,the City could consider a variety of other funding tools, including the following: • Low interest loans,grants • Downpayment assistance • Leveraging private and non-profit resources • Expansion of the fee assistance program or implementation of a separate program to waive or defer payment of system development charges for affordable housing projects As noted above,the City has implemented some of these strategies for affordable housing projects, including tax exemptions and fee waivers. Several of these tools also are identified as recommended actions for local City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February,2013 page 41 jurisdictions in Washington County's Consolidated Plan,although there are some obstacles to their implementation. For example,some of the system development charges(SDCs)assessed to new development in Tigard are not paid directly to the City but rather to special service districts that provide services in Tigard, including the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District and Clean Water Services. Currently,the only SDCs that the City collects pertain to water service,storm water treatment and sanitary sewer treatment. Tigard can choose to waive or pay its own SDCs for affordable housing projects. However,to cover other SDCs,the City must either convince other service providers to waive their own charges or pay the SDCs of those other providers. The current economic climate makes either of these tasks more challenging, particularly if the City chooses to cover other agencies'SDCs. Further work on this issue should be conducted as part of a coordinated process with Washington County and other local jurisdictions and service providers,as recommended by the County in its current Consolidated Plan for Community Development and Housing. If the City becomes a federal entitlement jurisdiction, it also would implement additional financing programs, including low interest loans and grants and downpayment assistance. In doing so, the City could focus those programs on the following activities: • Target financing programs such as low interest loans,grants,downpayment assistance, and tax credits or abatements to areas with high housing cost burdens; provide specific outreach about these programs to people in these neighborhoods. • Provide information about and encourage residents to take advantage of state and other programs described in Appendix C. As noted in Section 6 of this report,the City also should continue to work closely with local non-profits, developers and others to leverage private resources to help meet a variety of housing needs, including through the following efforts,some of which are described in more detail in other sections of this report: • Partner with area non-profit development organizations to capitalize on their capacity to raise public and private subsidies and structure financing near the break-even point that will ultimately benefit low income households. • Support the efforts of community housing development organizations and other non-profit housing providers to identify opportunity sites, assist with the development permitting process and provide information about local and state financing programs. • Encourage other developers to incorporate housing affordable to low and moderate income residents in their proposed developments,similar to development code provisions in Beaverton and Milwaukie. • Encourage large employers to consider implementing employer assisted housing programs. City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February,2013 8, Implementation Plan Following is a summary of the recommendations in this report, including information about the relative level of effort to move forward with each recommended strategy,the approximate amount of time needed to complete each activity,and other factors relevant to implementation. Many of the individual recommendations below could be completed concurrently and/or in combination with other actions. This summary is intended to help City staff in their annual work planning, as well as to inform discussions with the City Council and Planning Commission regarding relative priorities for housing planning and development activities. Strategy Level of Time to Relative Notes Effort Complete Impact C1. Update Comprehensive Plan Low 3-6 months Medium This will be accomplished as part of the current planning narrative,goals, policies and action effort. items. CA1/CA5. Adopt new code provisions Medium 6-12 months Medium This will require preparation of a new code section,with for cottage clusters. review by staff,the Planning Commission, Council and possibly other stakeholders or community members. The amount of time to complete this effort will depend in large part on the scope of the proposal and the level of public involvement. CA2. Adopt new code provisions for Medium 6-12 months Low Same comments as for CAI. live/work units. CA3. Reduce the minimum lot size for Low (- 2-3 months Low This represents a fairly minor code amendment,especially if duplexes in the R-7 zone Medium) limited to duplexes on corner lots; however,even relatively minor changes to residential density can become controversial. Early communication with affected neighborhoods will determine the amount of public outreach needed. CA4.Adopt single-family attached Medium 6-12 months Medium Same comments as for CAI and CA2. housing standards for use city-wide. City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February,2013 L page 43 Strategy Level of Time to Relative Notes Effort Complete Impact CA6. Update standards for accessory Low(- 3-6 months Medium This entails relatively minor amendments to existing code dwelling units. Medium) provisions; however, selected potential revisions (e.g., reduced parking requirements) could be controversial; depending on the scope of the proposed revisions, a public review process may be needed. CA7. Consider revising parking Medium Medium While,the potential code revisions would be relatively standards to provide flexibility and straightforward and would take a limited amount of time to incentives. prepare, these changes likely will require a public review process and could be controversial. CAB. Amend standards for residential Medium 6-12 months Low Same comments as for CA3. uses to ensure that standards for needed housing are clear and objective. CA9. Adopt density and height bonuses Low 3-6 months Low Same comments as for CA1 and CA2. as incentives for affordable housing. FP 2. Plan and zone land in River Low- 12-18 High It is assumed that this strategy will be implemented as part Terrace for residential use in this area Medium months and of the River Terrace planning process that is currently that balances local and regional housing ongoing underway; as a result, it should not require additional and land use goals and requirements. resources or time beyond what will be needed to conduct that larger planning process. Ongoing efforts will be needed to implement some associated development strategies. City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February, 2013 Page 44 Strategy Level of Time to Relative Notes Effort Complete Impact FP3. Continue to implement ongoing Low- Ongoing High This strategy is generally consistent with and would primarily planning, urban renewal, marketing and Medium be undertaken with ongoing or other planned efforts other efforts aimed at Downtown associated with downtown planning and redevelopment, housing development and Some specific recommendations may require additional staff redevelopment. time or other resources. FP4. Consider adopting zoning Low- 18-24 High It is assumed that this strategy will be implemented as part designations and standards and other Medium months and of the proposed Tigard Triangle planning process that is strategies for the Tigard Triangle to ongoing expected to commence in 2013;as a result, it should not help ensure that residential require additional resources or time beyond what will be development or mixed use needed to conduct that larger planning process. Ongoing development occurs in this area. efforts will be needed to implement some associated development strategies. FPS. Update residential design Medium 6-12 months Medium This will require updating an existing section of the city's standards and implement other and ongoing code and will require a public process. No area-specific strategies in Washington Square to public process is currently planning for Washington Square meet goals for production of housing so a separate effort will be required but could be undertaken this area. in concert with other development code updates. Additional ongoing implementation of other development strategies also will be needed. FP6. Implement a variety of strategies Medium 6-12 months Medium This includes implementation of related potential code in potential future high-capacity transit and ongoing amendments (strategies CA1-8), as well as other potential corridors and centers to promote ongoing planning and development strategies. residential and mixed use development. City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February, 2013 page 45 Strategy Level of Time to Relative Notes Effort Complete Impact NR1. Provide information to other Low 3-6 months Medium This would involve outreach to stakeholders regarding the parties about actions or strategies that and ongoing outcome of this planning process along with regular follow- will achieve the goals of the Fair up contact regarding implementation of the other strategies Housing Act. described here; staff could prepare an initial set of informational materials or use reports from this process to provide needed information. NR2. Provide information to developers Low 1-3 months Medium This would involve ongoing outreach to developers using about design practices that will help and ongoing existing readily available materials that staff could obtain ensure that new housing units are with relatively minimal effort. accessible to people with physical or mobility disabilities. NR3. Provide information to developers Medium 6-9 months Medium This would involve outreach to developers regarding current to help them understand the City's land and ongoing and future planning processes and strategies identified use permitting process and provide during this process. It also would require preparation of new clarity and certainty about city informational materials. requirements. NR4. Continue to participate in and Low- Ongoing Medium This entails a continuation of participation in and support County and regional efforts to Medium coordination with County and regional housing planning meet current and future affordable, processes. To the extent new regional requirements are special needs and other housing goals. adopted or new County programs are enacted, it could require an increased level of effort. City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February, 2013 page 46 Strategy Level of Time to Relative Notes Effort Complete Impact AF 1. Continue to use staff resources to Medium- See below See See below address housing goals and implement High below housing strategies in a consistent and coordinated manner and continue to provide funding to support affordable and special needs housing projects. a. Implement the recommendations Medium Variable and High See above for more information about specific strategies; in this plan in a proactive and ongoing additional work will be needed to institutionalize coordinated manner. implementation of strategies as part of the city's annual and ongoing work planning efforts. b. Establish a framework for Low-High 3-6 months Medium Establishing a framework for determining whether or not to determining whether to become a or more become an entitlement agency represents a relatively federal funding entitlement modest level of effort. Evaluating and discussion the options jurisdiction. with city decision-makers would be a medium amount of work. If the city chooses to become an entitlement jurisdiction, resulting responsibilities will be relatively significant and ongoing. c. Continue to implement current Medium- 6-9 months High Consideration of additional strategies identified in this report affordable housing funding High and ongoing represents a relatively modest level of effort. strategies;consider establishing Implementation of some strategies could result in added and undertaking an expanded set financial costs or contributions to help offset the costs of of strategies. affordable housing development. City of Tigard Housing Strategies Report Revised Draft—February, 2013 to n e/ 1 M eefi� AIS-2541 6. ./ CCDA Agenda Meeting Date: 02/02/2016 Length (in minutes): 60 Minutes Agenda Title: Consideration of Park Maintenance Fee Prepared For: Toby LaFrance Submitted By: Carol Krager, Central Services Item Type: Ordinance Meeting Type: Council Resolution Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Continued Public Hearing on Park Maintenance Fee, establishing Tigard Municipal Code 3.75 Park Maintenance Fee and amending the Master Fees and Charges STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff requests Council consider adoption of an ordinance to establish TMC 3.75 Park Maintenance Fee and the resolution to amend the Master Fees and Charges Schedule. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY During the Budget Committee meetings, the committee considered the course of Tigard's General Fund and the services it supports: Police, Library, Community Building, and Parks. The General Fund revenues grow approximately 3.5% annually, while expenses grow 4.0% annually. Tigard has taken actions in prior years to limit cost growth and has added incremental revenues. The Budget Committee decided to take a different direction with the Fiscal Year 2016 budget; moving Parks to a separate fund modeled after a utility. The Committee chose parks because of the needs to maintain and operate current park lands compounded by the need to develop and maintain the parks purchased with the $17 million Park Bond that has expanded Tigard's park acreage by 30 percent. The direction in the FY 2016 budget was to fund all park services using a fee that will be paid as part of the utility bill and then prioritize the General Fund resources that used to fund existing parks maintenance and operations during the FY 2017 budget process. Staff presented initial policy issues to Council on October 20, 2015 and November 17, 2015. At the November 17, 2015 Workshop, Council instructed staff to bring the Park Maintenance Fee (PMF) forward for consideration in a public hearing. The fee is limited in scope to the current level of parks maintenance, operations, and recreation plus identified deferred maintenance needs. Council determined that they would consider expanding park funding to needed capital and additional recreation purposes at a later date and possibly fund those via a special option property tax levy. Based on Council feedback during the workshops, on January 12, 2016, staff presented an ordinance and resolutions to establish the Park Maintenance Fee (PMF) which included the following policy directions from Council: •Keep fee structure simple •Fee paid by residential and non-residential customers •Fee based on scenarios #1 (current level of services) & #2 (deferred maintenance) only •Use annual average cost for the deferred maintenance scenario to level out the resulting fee amount •Use annual inflation factor as outlined in the rate consultant's report •Include program for low income fee assistance Staff presented the complete fee and program at a public hearing on January 12, 2016. Council considered the program and continued the hearing. Based on the hearing actions on January 12, 2016, staff is bringing forward documents for Council approval that will result in the following: •A Park Maintenance Fee of$3.75 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit per month •Revenues from the PMF of approximately $1,014,000 per year •The fee will pay for: o$500,000 of the current$2.2 million in current maintenance and operations (Scenario #1), and o the entire $514,000 of deferred maintenance annually (Scenario #2) •By funding the $500,000 of current maintenance and operations (Scenario #1), the General Fund that previously supported that expenditure will now support: o Approximately $100,000 of the over $250,000 needed to fund the opening of the Library on Thursdays with limited services. The remaining funding for the Thursday openings comes from the Washington County Cooperative Library Service operating levy passed in November 2015. o Approximately $400,000 of General Fund intended to bolster reserves and aid a financially sustainable General Fund. This will not be programmed for expenditures. •By limiting the PMF to $3.75, there are no additional General Fund resources freed up to be programmed during the FY2017 Budget process. •The PMF is indexed at 4.26% annually, starting July 1, 2017 •The PMF can be adjusted as decisions are made that lead to additional parks maintenance and operations services, such as purchasing additional park land and developing existing park land. Staff will need to present the additional cost for Council consideration. •The PMF has a program that will reduce the fee by half for qualifying low income households Attached to this Agenda Item are the following documents: 1. Ordinance Establishing TMC 3.75 Park Maintenance Fee 2. Exhibit A to the Ordinance -TMC 3.75 Draft 3. Resolution to Amend the Master Fees and Charges Schedule to include the PMF 4. Exhibit A to the Resolution oudining the PMF and changes to the Master Fees and Charges Schedule 5. The rate consultants report on "Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report to Council for January 12, 2016 Public Hearing" OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council can choose to return parks maintenance and operations to the General Fund and not enhance park services. Council can choose to pass a fee that is more than $3.75 per EDU per month, enabling the direction of the Budget Committee to free up General Fund that previously supported parks. The available resource would then be allocated during the FY 2017 Budget process. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS Strategic Plan Goal #4 - Fund the virion while maintaining core services. DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION Budget Committee Meetings on: •April 20, 2015 •April 27, 2015 •May 4, 2015 •December 15, 2015 Council Meetings on: •October 20, 2015 Workshop •November 17, 2015 Workshop •January 12, 2016 Hearing Attachments Ordinance TMC 3.75 Resolution Resolution Exhibit A - Park Maintenance Fee Rate Consultant's Report CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 16- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH A PARK MAINTENANCE FEE WHEREAS,Park maintenance and operations funding from the General Fund is limited;and WHEREAS,Tigard has been unable to maintain park service levels for existing park land;and WHEREAS, Tigard has added park land without an adequate revenue source to maintain and operate the parks;and WHEREAS, Tigard has detemrined to fund a portion of parrs maintenance and operations through a Park Maintenance Fee;and WHEREAS, The amount of the fee will pay for a portion of the existing level of parks maintenance, operations,and recreation;and WHEREAS, The fee will also pay for parrs maintenance and operations services that have been deferred due to limited resources;and WHEREAS, The fee will be paid by residential and non-residential utility customers within the City of Tigard; and WHEREAS, The fee will be adjusted annually to account for inflation and any new maintenance costs caused by changes in parks such as additional parks or newly developed parks or new or expanded parks operations; and WHEREAS, Council may establish a program to provide assistance to lower income utility bill payers to be paid from Park Maintenance Fee revenues. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Chapter 3.75 of the Tigard Municipal Code is hereby created as provided in Exhibit A. SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the council, signature by the mayor,and posting by the city recorder. PASSED: By vote of all council members present after being read by number and title only,this day of ,2016. Carol A. Krager,OtyRecorder ORDINANCE No. 16- Page 1 APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of ,2016. John L.Cook,Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date ORDINANCE No. 16- Page 2 Exhibit A Chapter 3.75 PARK MAINTENANCE FEE B. Developed property or developed use. A parcel or legal portion of real property, on which Sections: an improvement exists or has been constructed. Improvement on developed property includes,but 3.75.010 Creation and Purpose is not limited to buildings, parking lots, 3.75.020 Definitions landscaping and outside storage. 3.75.030 Administrative Officers Designated C. Equivalent Dwelling Unit. Equivalent 3.75.040 Park Maintenance Fees Dwelling Units (EDUs) are the basis for equally Allocated to the Park apportioning annual Park Maintenance Fee Maintenance Fund revenue requirements among customer groups. 3.75.050 Determination of Park D. Finance Director. The finance and Maintenance Fee information services director or designee. 3.75.060 Determination of Amount, Billing and Collection of Fee E. Residential Property. Property that is 3.75.070 Waiver of Fees in Case of used primarily for personal domestic Vacancy accommodation, including single family, multi- 3.75.080 Administrative Provisions and family residential property and group homes, but Appeals not including hotels and motels. 3.75.090 Administrative Policies 3.75.100 Penalty F. Nonresidential Property. Property that is 3.75.110 Severability not primarily used for personal domestic accommodation. Nonresidential property includes 3.75.010 Creation and Purpose industrial, commercial, institutional, hotel and motel,and other nonresidential uses. A park maintenance fee is created and imposed for the purpose of maintenance of city G. Occupied Unit. Any structure or any parks. The park maintenance fee shall be paid by portion of any structure occupied for residential, the responsible party for each occupied unit of commercial, industrial, or other purposes. For real property. The purposes of the park example, in a multifamily residential develop- maintenance fee are to charge for the service the ment, each dwelling unit shall be considered a city provides in maintaining public parks and to separate occupied unit when occupied, and each ensure that maintenance occurs in a timely retail outlet in a shopping mall shall be considered fashion, thereby reducing increased costs that a separate occupied unit. An occupied unit may result when maintenance is deferred. include more than one structure if all structures are part of the same dwelling unit or commercial 3.75.020 Definitions or industrial operation. For example an industrial site with several structures that form an integrated As used in this chapter, the following shall manufacturing process operated by a single mean: manufacturer constitutes one occupied unit. Property that is undeveloped or, if developed, is A. Public Works Director. The public not in current use is not considered an occupied works director or the public works director's unit. designee. 3-70-1 Exhibit A H. Responsible Party. The person or maintenance programs for the maintenance of city persons who by occupancy or contractual parks and, subject to city budget committee arrangement are responsible to pay for utility and review and city council approval, allocation and other services provided to an occupied unit. expenditure of budget resources for park system Unless another party has agreed in writing to pay maintenance in accordance with this chapter. and a copy of the writing is filed with the city,the person(s) paying the city's water and/or sewer bill C. The finance director shall be responsible for an occupied unit shall be deemed the for the collection and calculation of fees and the responsible party as to that occupied unit. For any appeals process under this chapter. occupied unit not otherwise required to pay a city utility bill, "responsible party" shall mean the 3.75.040 Park Maintenance Fees person or persons legally entitled to occupancy of Allocated to the Park the occupied unit,unless another responsible party Maintenance Fund has agreed in writing to pay and a copy of the writing is filed with the city. Any person who has A. All park maintenance fees received shall agreed in writing to pay is considered the be deposited to the park maintenance fund or responsible person if a copy of the writing is filed other fund for the purpose of operation and with the city. maintenance of the city park system. The park maintenance fund shall be used for park I. Park Maintenance. Any action to maintenance. Other revenue sources may also be operate and maintain city parks,including,but not used for park maintenance. Amounts in the park limited to repair, renewal, replacement, maintenance fund may be invested by the finance reconstruction, minor improvements, programing, director in accordance with state law. Earnings recreation and other park activities. Park from such investments shall be dedicated to the maintenance does not include the capital park maintenance fee fund. development, construction or acquisition of new parks or undeveloped parks. B. The park maintenance fund shall not be used for other governmental or proprietary 3.75.030 Administrative Officers purposes of the city,except to pay for an equitable Designated share of the city's overhead costs including accounting,management and other costs related to A. Except as provided in subsections B and management and operation of the park C of this section, the public works director shall maintenance program. be responsible for the administration of this chapter. The public works director shall be 3.75.050 Determination of Park responsible for developing administrative Maintenance Fee procedures for the chapter, administration of fees, and for the purposes of establishing the fee for a A. For residential and non-residential specific occupied unit, the consideration and property, the fee shall be charged on a per assignment of categories of use,and parking space equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) basis. For single requirements subject to appeal in accordance with family and multifamily accounts, each occupied this chapter. unit within the residential property is one EDU. The calculation of an EDU for commercial and B. The public works director shall be industrial accounts will be defined in the Master responsible for developing and maintaining park Fees and Charges Schedule. 3-70-2 Exhibit A city water and/or sewer. All such bills shall be B. The park maintenance fee rates shall be rendered regularly by the finance director and established by council resolution and shall be shall become due and payable upon receipt. calculated based on all or a part of: B. Collections from utility customers will 1. The city's projected five-year be applied first to interest and penalties, then maintenance forecast plan for operations and proportionately among the various charges for maintenance of the city's park system;and utility services and park maintenance. 2. Any new maintenance costs C. An account is delinquent if the park incurred during the five-year program. New costs maintenance fee is not paid by the due date shown include, but are not limited to, maintenance of on the utility bill. The city may follow the additional park land, new park development of procedures for collection of delinquent accounts existing park land, and new or expanded set forth in Sections 12.03.030 and/or 12.03.040, programing and operations. These will be including termination of water and/or sanitary addressed annually based on estimates from the sewer service. public works director. 3.75.070 Waiver of Fees in Case of C. The park maintenance fee rate shall be Vacancy annually adjusted to account for new costs (as identified in 3.75.050.B.2) and according to an A. Pursuant to subsection F of this section, annual index as defined in the Master Fees and when any developed property within the city Charges, effective the first billing cycle following becomes vacant, upon written application and July ls`of each year,starting July 1,2017. approval by the finance director, the park maintenance fee shall thereafter not be billed and D. Council may establish a program to shall not be a charge against the property. reduce the park maintenance fee for lower income utility payers. The program may be administered B. The finance director is authorized to by city staff or a qualified non-profit. The cause an investigation of any property for which program may be defined in the city's Master Fees an application for determination of vacancy is and Charges Schedule. submitted to verify any of the information contained in the application. The finance director E. The program shall be reviewed annually is further authorized to develop and use a standard as part of the city's budget process. form of application, provided it shall contain a space for verification of the information and the person signing such form affirms under penalty 3.75.060 Determination of Amount, for false swearing the accuracy of the information Billing and Collection of Fee provided therein. A. The park maintenance fee shall be billed C. When any developed property within the to and collected from the responsible party for city has the utilities shut-off due to vacancy, the each occupied unit. Billings shall be included as park maintenance fee shall be waived for the part of the utility bill for occupied units utilizing duration of the vacancy as described in subsection city water and/or sewer, and billed and collected F of this section. separately for those occupied units not utilizing 3-70-3 Exhibit A D. When any multi-occupied developed the fee by submission of a written application to property within the city has one or more vacancies the finance director. The application shall be as described in subsection F of this section, the submitted in sufficient detail to enable the finance responsible party may request, in writing, a director to render a decision. waiver of a portion of the park maintenance fee applicable to the vacant units. B. To address the submitted request, the city may follow the procedures for utility charge E. When a change of use occurs,a vacancy adjustments set forth in Section 12.03.040. has been filled,or a property is developed,it is the responsible party's responsibility to inform the 3.75.090 Administrative Policies city of any change so the proper park maintenance fees may be assessed. If the responsible party does A. The following policies shall apply to the not inform the city of any change, the city shall operation and scope of this chapter: cancel the vacancy waiver and charge the responsible party as per subsection F of this 1. Parks maintenance fees imposed section. under this chapter shall apply to all occupied F. For purposes of this section, a unit of units, occupied units owned and/or occupied by property is vacant when it has been continuously local, state and federal governments, as well as unoccupied and unused for at least 30 days. Fees property which may be entitled to exemption from shall be waived in accordance with this section or deferral of ad valorem property taxation. only while the property remains vacant. The waiver duration is for six months. After six 2. Publicly owned park land, open months, the responsible party must re-apply for spaces and greenways shall not be subject to the the waiver if the property continues to be park maintenance fee. unoccupied and unused.The responsible party has 30 days to re-apply for the vacancy waiver after 3. Areas encompassing railroad and the expiration of the six month waiver. Any public right-of-way shall not be subject to the park occupancy or use of the property terminates the maintenance fee. waiver. As a penalty for not reporting a change in property vacancy, the city may charge any 4. Railroad property containing property two times the appropriate park structures, such as maintenance areas, non-rolling maintenance fee that would have been due storage areas and areas used for the transfer of rail without the vacancy waiver for prior billing transported goods to non-rail transport shall be periods upon determining by whatever means that subject to park maintenance fees. the property did not qualify for waiver of charges during the relevant time. The decision of the 5. For newly developed properties, finance director under subsections A, B, C, D and the fees imposed under this chapter shall become F of this section shall be final. (Ord. 10-08 §1, due and payable from and after the date when the 2010;Ord. 10-01 §2) developed property is occupied and connected to the public water or sanitary sewer system. 3.75.080 Administrative Provisions and Appeals B. The public works director and the finance director are authorized and directed to A. The responsible party for an occupied review the operation of this chapter and, where unit may request reconsideration of the amount of appropriate, recommend changes thereto in the 3-70-4 Exhibit A form of administrative policies for adoption of the city council by resolution. Administrative policies are intended to provide guidance to property owners, subject to this chapter, as to its meaning or operation, consistent with policies expressed herein. Policies adopted by the council shall be given full force and effect, and unless clearly inconsistent with this chapter, shall apply uniformly throughout the city. 3.75.100 Penalty In addition to any other remedy, violation of any provision of this chapter shall be a Class A civil infraction. Each day of delinquency in paying the park maintenance fee constitutes a separate violation. 3.75.110 Severability A. In the event any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence or phrase of this chapter or any administrative policy adopted herein is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the validity of the remainder of the chapter shall continue to be effective. If a court of competent jurisdiction determines that this chapter imposes a tax or charge, which is therefore unlawful as to certain but not all affected properties, then as to those certain properties, an exception or exceptions from the imposition of the park maintenance fee shall thereby be created and the remainder of the chapter and the fees imposed thereunder shall continue to apply to the remaining properties without interruption. B. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as limiting the city's authority to levy special assessments in connection with public improvements pursuant to applicable law. ■ 3-70-5 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE MASTER FEES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE TO ADD THE PARK MAINTENANCE FEE WHEREAS,Tigard Municipal Code 3.75 Park Maintenance Fee was adopted on February 2,2016;and WHEREAS, The amount of the fee will pay for a portion of the existing level of parks maintenance, operations,and recreation;and WHEREAS, The fee will also pay for parks maintenance and operations services that have been defenrd due to limited resources;and WHEREAS, The fee will be paid by residential and non-residential utility customers within the City of Tigard; and WHEREAS, The fee will be adjusted annually to account for inflation and any new maintenance costs created by changes such as additional parks or newly developed parks or new or expanded parks operations;and WHEREAS, Council may establish a program to aide lower income utility bill payers to be paid from Park Maintenance Fee revenues. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Master Fees and Charges Schedule adopted with Resolution 15-31 is hereby amended per Exhibit A. SECTION 2: This resolution shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the council, signature by the mayor,and posting by the city recorder. PASSED: This day of 2016. Mayor- City of Tigard ATTEST: RESOLUTION NO. 16- Page 1 City Recorder- City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO.16- Page 2 Exhibit A nt Revenue - .. -.._. - .- 1 ,:�,. Authority PUBLIC WORKS-PARKS Park Maintenance Fee(TMC 3.70) Monthly Residential Rate-Single and Multi-Family $3.75/equivalent dwelling unit 4/1/2016 Monthly Non-Residential Rate $3.75/equivalent dwelling unit' 2 4/1/2016 Reduction for Qualified Low Income Single Family 501, 4/1/2016 Notes: 1 Commercial LDU Calculation(rounded to nearest whole HDU): (Billed Parking Stalls from Street Maintenance Fee*0.76 Jobs Per Stall)/15 L'DU Factor =HDUs 2 Industrial EDU Calculation(rounded to nearest whole EDU): (Billed Parking Stalls from Street Maintenance Fee*1.19 Jobs Per Stall)/15 HDU Factor =LDUs Calculation of the annual Park Maintenance Fee Index(from F(:S Group report"7 tgard Parks Maintenance Fee: Report to Council for January 12,2016 Public I learing" Cost Center Annual Rate Weight Personnel 4.80". 0.60 Services/Utilities 3.00 o 0.25 Materials/Internal Scnices 4.20°a 0.15 Annual Index(Weighted Average) 4.26% TMC 3.75.050.D authorizes the establishment of a program to reduce the Park Maintenance Fee for low income individuals responsible for paying the utility bill. The reduction will last for 12 billing cycles after which the fee reduction will end or the responsible party can reapply To Qualify for the reduction,the responsible party: 1 Must be the individual(s)on the utility bill 2 Provide documented proof of income such as most recent tax statement or W-2. 3 Have an income at,or below,50%of the Median Income for Oregon as set by the US Department of I lousing and Urban Development(HUD). City of Tigard TIGARD Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report to Council for January 12, 2016 public hearing Prepared by FCS GROUP In association with Conservation Technix, Inc. FCS GROUP 4000 Kruse Way Place Building 1, Suite 220 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 T: 503.841.6543 www.fcsgroup.com Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report page i TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTIONI: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 SECTION II: RATE STUDY METHODOLOGY...........................................................................2 A. Rate Setting Principles and Methodology.............................................................................2 B. Fiscal Policies.............................................................................................................................2 C. Revenue Requirement.............................................................................................................3 D. Rate Design...............................................................................................................................3 SECTION III: REVENUE REQUIREMENT.................................................................................. 4 A. Introduction...............................................................................................................................4 B. Operating Forecast..................................................................................................................4 B.i Non-User Revenue ............................................................................................................4 13.2 Expenditure Projections....................................................................................................4 B.3 Existing User Fees...............................................................................................................5 C. Capital Funding Plan................................................................................................................5 D. Summary of Revenue Requirement .......................................................................................6 D.1 Scenario 1: Funding Parks at Existing Levels ..................................................................6 D.2 Scenario 2: Funding Deferred Maintenance.................................................................6 D.3 Scenario 3: Fully Funding CIP...........................................................................................7 DA Scenario 4: Develop Current Lands................................................................................8 D.5 Scenario 5: Develop New Lands.....................................................................................8 D.6 Scenario 6: Funding New Recreational Programs ........................................................8 D.7 Scenario 7: Funding Special Community Assets............................................................8 SECTION IV: RATE DESIGN...................................................................................................9 A. Introduction...............................................................................................................................9 B. Parks Utility Funding..................................................................................................................9 C. Customer charges.....................................................................................................................9 D. Parks Utility Fee Scenarios Analysis .......................................................................................l 1 D. Recommended Rate Scenario.............................................................................................l 1 SECTION V: RATE POLICIES................................................................................................ 14 TECHNICALAPPENDIX....................................................................................................... 15 Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report SECTION I : INTRODUCTION The City of Tigard(City) Parks Division maintains, operates, and owns 548 acres of park land which provides citizens with recreational opportunities, maintains environmentally sensitive lands, and meets or exceeds all regulatory standards. In addition to maintaining park land, the public works department is tasked with the maintenance of trails,planning new facilities, and running recreational activities for citizens of all ages. As Tigard's population and employment grow,the need for recreational opportunities increase as well. The latest voter approved parks bond has enabled the city to acquire a substantial amount of land it intends to develop into community assets but those dollars cannot be used to develop that land into usable parks. Meanwhile, necessary maintenance of existing parks has been deferred in the face of Tigard's constrained general fund. This report evaluates the utility rate revenue requirement to enable the City's parks fund to meet its ongoing operating and capital expenses and establishes a basis for a local charge to assist in funding any revenue deficiencies. In addition,this report provides a series of scenarios which analyze the revenue requirements in the case that certain parks priorities are fully funded(e.g., addressing deferred maintenance,developing city-owned park land, funding recreational programs, etc.) and what a parks utility fee designed to address those needs would cost citizens and businesses in Tigard. The purpose of the Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee (PMF) is to provide a reliable source of revenue for ongoing parks operations and maintenance. The reasons for a PMF include: • Maintenance is more expensive the longer it is deferred • Other financing mechanisms (e.g., system development charges) help construct capital assets but cannot be used for operations • Expenditures have been increasing in all city operations putting undue pressure on the General Fund as a limited resource with many demands • Over the last 15 years, park land has grown 66%while staffing to maintain parks has increased 12% in Tigard. Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report SECTION II : RATE STUDY METHODOLOGY A. RATE SETTING PRINCIPLES AND METHODOLOGY The methods used to establish user rates are based on principles that are generally accepted and widely followed throughout the industry. These principles are designed to produce rates that equitably recover costs from residents and businesses by setting the appropriate level of revenue to be collected from ratepayers, and establishing a rate structure to equitably collect those revenues. Exhibit 2.1 illustrates the overview of the methodology used in this rate study process. Exhibit 2.1: Overview of the Rate Study Process ~Establish \ • - Forecast Costs& Fiscal Policies • • . Revel Benef it Allocation Costs by Customer Class(Res and Non Res) ChargesPARC B. FISCAL POLICIES The stewardship of public funds is one of the greatest responsibilities given to the officials and the managers of the City. Therefore, the establishment and maintenance of wise fiscal policies enables City officials to protect public interest and ensure public trust. This study incorporates fiscal policies observed by the City to ensure that current policies are maintained, including reserve levels, capital/ system replacement funding and debt service coverage. Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report C. REVENUE REQUIREMENT The revenue requirement analysis will form the basis for a long-range financial plan and multi-year rate management strategy for the parks system. It also enables the City to establish a rate structure which will fully recover the total cost of operating the parks system: capital improvement, capital replacement, operations,maintenance, general administration,fiscal policy attainment, cash reserve management, and expanded programs. Linking rate levels to a financial plan such as this helps to enable not only sound financial performance for the City's parks fund, but also a clear and reasonable relationship between the costs imposed on utility customers and the costs incurred to provide service. A revenue requirement analysis includes the following core elements to form a complete portrayal of the parks utility's financial obligations. • Operating Forecast. Identifies future annual non-capital costs associated with the operation, maintenance, and administration of the system. • Deferred Maintenance. Measures the value of asset replacement and current required maintenance activities necessary to maintain adequate parks facilities condition. • Capital Funding Plan. Defines a strategy for funding the City's capital improvement program, including an analysis of available resources from system development charges, debt financing, and any special resources that may be readily available (grants, outside contributions, etc.), Identifies if additional funding sources are needed. • Revenue Sufficiency Testing. Evaluates the sufficiency of revenues in meeting all financial obligations, including any coverage requirements associated with long-term debt. • Rate Strategy Development. Designs a forward-looking strategy for establishing rates to fully fund financial obligations on an annual basis over the projection period. D. RATE DESIGN The principal consideration of rate design is for the rate structure to generate sufficient revenues for the system which are reasonably commensurate with the cost of providing service. The pricing structure is largely dictated by the objectives of the system. Most rate structures consist of a combination of fixed and variable charges. Fixed charges typically attempt to cover system costs that do not vary with usage.Variable charges typically serve two functions, equitably recovering variable costs and encouraging customers to use the system efficiently. In this case, variable costs associated with the parks utility fee are based upon the services and materials the city chooses to fund through the utility fee. 3 Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report SECTION III : REVENUE REQUIREMENT A. INTRODUCTION A revenue requirement analysis forms the basis for a long-range financial plan and multi-year rate management strategy. The analysis is developed by completing an operating forecast that identifies current and future annual operating costs, deferred maintenance costs, and a capital funding plan that defines a strategy for funding the capital improvement needs of the City not being addressed by SDCs,funding for additional recreational activities and programs. B. OPERATING FORECAST The purpose of the operating forecast is to determine at what level the potential rates and charges are sufficient to recover the costs the City incurs to operate and maintain the parks system. The fiscal year(FY) 2015-16 budget provided the primary basis for developing a multi-year forecast for FY 2016-17 through FY 2025-26 expenses. The complete 10-year forecasts are included in the Technical Appendix. The ensuing discussion highlights the key assumptions used to develop the parks operating forecast. B.1 Non-User Revenue Historically,parks funding in Tigard has been dependent upon general fund transfers,parks SDCs, voter-approved bonds, and grants. A summary of key non-user fee revenue assumptions includes: • General Fund Transfers: General fund transfers provide Tigard's parks with the majority of needed operations and maintenance dollars. It is assumed that these transfers will cease if the parks utility fee is implemented. • SDCs: SDC fund transfers provide Tigard's parks with the majority of the capital costs necessary for development of new park land or purchase of other assets. These incomes were generally not included in the modeling of this fee. • Voter-Approved Parks Bond: Residents of Tigard agreed to an increase in their property taxes in order to provide Tigard with money to purchase new parks land. Given that this income stream is finite,bond proceeds were not included in the model. B.2 Expenditure Projections • Salaries were budgeted at$904,416 in FY 2015-16 and were anticipated to grow at 4% annually. • Benefits were budgeted at $374,149 in FY 2015-16 and were anticipated to grow at 6.67% annually. • Materials and services were budgeted at$605,432 and costs were anticipated to grow at 3% annually. 4 Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report • Capital Outlay expenses were budgeted at $49,000 in FY 2015-16 and capital outlay expenses were expected to grow at 4.5% annually. • Payments for Citywide Support Services were budgeted at$270,417 in FY 2015-16 and annual transfers out were expected to grow at 4.1% annually. It should be noted that recreation program expenses at current levels include a portion of the annual salary,benefits and services budgets. The PMF analysis includes a sensitivity analysis removing the recreation expenditures from the overall budget. In FY 2016, the recreation spending is $177,410 ($70,000 salary, $30,798 benefits and $76,612 in professional services). If recreation expenses are not included in the PMF revenue requirement,they would likely continue to be funded by the city's General Fund and User Fees. Each PMF fee development scenario contains a unique set of parameters with cost and fee assumptions. Discussion of each scenario is included in Section III.D. Detailed tables of scenario- based cost assumptions can be found in Appendix D and further cost estimate detail can be found in Appendix E. B.3 Existing User Fees Tigard's parks generate funds when users reserve areas, pay to participate in recreational sports leagues, or to enter designated facilities. City staff indicated the fees would defray$70,000 of the total department expenditures. We assume that user fee revenue increases by 3 percent per year for the 10-year planning horizon. Exhibit 3.1 shows the forecasted budget expenditures based on the FY 2015-16 budget including the user fee revenue reduction. Exhibit 3.1: Parks Utility Fee Scenarios !Adopted • • " ® Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Projections 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Salaries $ 940,593 $ 978,216 $ 1,017,345 $ 1,058,039 $ 1,100,360 Benefits 399,105 425,725 454,121 484,411 516,721 Materials and services 623,595 642,303 661,572 681,419 701,862 Capital outlay 51,205 53,509 55,917 58,433 61,063 Transfers 281,504 293,046 305,061 317,568 330,588 Less: Existing User Fees (70,000) (72,100) (74,263) (76,491) (78,786) Total expenditures $ 2,226,001 $ 2,320,699 $ 2,419,753 $ 2,523,379 $ 2,631,809 C. CAPITAL FUNDING PLAN The adopted Tigard parks and trails capital improvement plan includes $13 million in total costs in the 7-year projection period (Appendix E2). Costs represented in this plan are based on inflated dollars to the year of construction. Representative projects include: • Fanno Creek Remeander: A $1,147,000 project intended to reduce erosion impacts by lengthening the channel and decreasing the slope of the stream bed. This project will also require the realignment of a portion of the Fanno Creek Regional Trail. • Dirksen Nature Park: A$3.8 million project which will maintain 35 acres of natural area while also renovating an existing educational building on the site as well as improving trail connections throughout the property, among other improvements. • Tree Canopy Replacement Program: A $600,000 project which intends to replace lost tree canopy along stream corridors, school grounds,highways, and other areas. Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report • Park Land Acquisition: A $890,000 dollar effort to identify and purchase park land with funds coming from Tigard's citizen approved parks bond. • Downtown Land Acquisition: A $1.3 million effort to identify and purchase park land exclusively within downtown Tigard with funds coming from Tigard's citizen approved parks bond. • Tigard Street Trail and Public Space: An $45,000 trail project which is intended to connect SW Tiedeman Avenue to downtown Tigard and Tigard Transit Center by converting a disused rail spur. • Damaged Tree Replacement Program: A $300,000 effort to increase the quality and quantity of large trees and tree canopy. • Fanno Creek Trail Connection: A$4.8 million project which intends to close numerous gaps on the Fanno Creek Regional Trail present within the city of Tigard. The capital funding strategy envisions funding these projects through a mix of available cash balances including grants, System Development Charges, and transfers from other funds. D. SUMMARY OF REVENUE REQUIREMENT The operating forecast components of operations and maintenance(O&M) expenses, debt service, and system reinvestment come together to form the multi-year revenue requirement. The revenue requirement compares the overall revenue available to the parks system to the expenses and evaluates the sufficiency of rates on an annual basis. Seven scenarios were developed to evaluate the potential for Tigard's parks utility fee to support various revenue requirements: D.l Scenario 1 : Funding Parks at Existing Levels Appendix Al displays the results of the revenue requirement analysis of scenario 1. In this scenario, the parks utility fee assumes the parks costs which in the past were paid for using general fund transfers. This scenario assumes that no increase in parks funding occurs,meaning that deferral in needed maintenance continues and no funding is added to expand recreational programs or add capital projects as part of the PMF. Revenue requirements gradually and steadily increase as residential and employment growth increase.The revenue requirement for scenario I increases from $2,226,001 in FY 2016-17 to $3,254,938 in FY 2025-26. As noted previously,the PMF analysis includes a sensitivity analysis removing the recreation expenditures from the overall budget. In FY 2016, the recreation spending is $177,410. Hence, if recreation expenses are not included in the PMF revenue requirement,the annual revenue requirement for scenario 1 would be lower by approximately$180,000 dollars. D.2 Scenario 2: Funding Deferred Maintenance Appendix A2 displays the results of the revenue requirement analysis of scenario 2. In this scenario, the parks utility fee pays for deferred maintenance costs.This includes equipment and vehicle repair and replacement,repairs to trails, and other maintenance activities. The revenue requirement associated with scenario 2 fluctuates annually based upon the replacement timeline for assets. The initial year of the revenue requirement also addresses previously deferred maintenance whereas the following years address deferred maintenance requirements in that specific year. The revenue requirement for scenario 2 ranges from a high of$1,179,539 in FY 2016-17 to a low of$244,343 in FY 2025-26. 6 Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report Cost estimates for this scenario can be found in Appendix D1 while further detail regarding the cost assumptions associated with this revenue requirement can be found in Appendix E1. As shown in the following Exhibit,expenditures in this scenario are highly variable. To correctly account for expenditures in the utility rate and ensure low rate volatility, it is recommended that the city utilize a five-year average PMF rate. The annual revenue compared to annual expenditures for this scenario is shown in Exhibit 3.2. Since this approach will likely result in 1 or 2 years with inadequate fund balances to cover planned deferred maintenance, the city may need to transfer (borrow) funds from other city funds to cover temporary imbalances until reserves build up over time. The five-year(smoothed)revenue requirement for scenario 2 would result in an initial revenue requirement of approximately$514,000,as noted in Appendix A2-B,which is also part of the recommended PMF rate scenario. Exhibit 3.2: Projected Avg. Annual PMF Revenue vs. Expenditures for Deferred Maintenance Revenue Requirement 1,400,000 1,200,000 -- 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 --- 400,000 200,000 1 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 ■Revenue from Five-Year Average Rate ■Annual Expenditures D.3 Scenario 3: Fully Funding CIP Appendix A3 displays the results of the revenue requirement analysis of scenario 3. In this scenario, the parks utility fee pays for the costs of all CIP-related transfers from the Urban Forestry Fund and transfers from the Transportation CIP Fund which are currently expected to fund capital projects. This scenario would reduce parks-related transfers from city accounts while identifying financing necessary to complete anticipated CIP projects (Appendix E2). This would also ensure such projects were funded with guaranteed funds rather than assuming funds from SDCs or other sources will be available. The revenue requirement fluctuates through the first five years and then gradually increases over the last five years. This fluctuation is due to the CIP calling for uneven expenses year to year since its costs are associated with the purchase and construction of facilities. The revenue requirement for scenario 3 begins at $857,500 in FY 2016-17, fluctuates in the next four years from $0 to $1,174,500, and then averages around $600,000 in the last five years. An annual cost breakdown of this scenario can be found in Appendix D2 while further detail regarding the cost assumptions associated with this revenue requirement can be found in Appendix E2. Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report DA Scenario 4: Develop Current Lands Appendix A4 displays the results of the revenue requirement analysis of scenario 4. In this scenario, the parks utility fee pays for the capital and O&M costs associated with the development of new park land purchased using Tigard's voter approved parks bond. This would allow the city to build parks quicker with more stable funding sources than is currently possible. This scenario's revenue requirement increases over the 10-year planning horizon with costs growing at a faster rate each fiscal year. This is due to rapidly increasing operations and maintenance costs associated with bringing additional facilities on-line. The revenue requirement for scenario 4 increases from $203,624 in FY 2016-17 to $452,008 in FY 2025-26. An annual cost breakdown of this scenario can be found in Appendix D3 while further detail regarding the cost assumptions associated with this revenue requirement can be found in Appendix E3. D.5 Scenario 5: Develop New Lands Appendix A5 displays the results of the revenue requirement analysis of scenario 4. In this scenario, the parks utility fee pays for the currently budgeted parks expenditures and adds the cost of the purchase, development, and O&M of new park land which has not yet been acquired through Tigard's voter approved parks bond. This would allow the city to expand their parks inventory, continuing to build in anticipation of a growing population and employment base. The revenue requirement for scenario 5 increases steadily as operations and maintenance expenses associated with opening new facilities grow. The revenue requirement for scenario 5 increases from $84,687 in FY 2016-17 to $486,452 in FY 2025-26. An annual cost breakdown of this scenario can be found in Appendix D4 while further detail regarding the cost assumptions associated with this revenue requirement can be found in Appendix E3. D.6 Scenario 6: Funding New Recreational Programs Appendix A6 displays the results of the revenue requirement analysis of scenario 6. In this scenario, the parks utility fee pays for the cost of implementing programs identified as council priorities. Among those activities,scenario 6 assumes that one full time recreation employee will be hired in FY 2016-17 and another will be hired in FY 2018-19. Additionally, a recreation guide will be published and made available along with the implementation of an online reservation system for park facility rental. It is anticipated that the reservation system and recreation guide will generate additional revenue for the parks department in the form of participation fees,user fees, and rental fees. Finally, the city will also provide grants and scholarships so that low-income citizens can participate in the newly realized activities. The revenue requirement for this scenario increases steadily from $153,076 in FY 2016-17 to $617,733 in FY 2020-21 then,averages $420,000 in the final five years. An annual cost breakdown of this scenario can be found in Appendix D5. D.7 Scenario 7: Funding Special Community Assets Appendix A7 displays the results of the revenue requirement analysis of scenario 7. In this scenario, the parks utility fee pays for the cost of implementing an arts and culture program through which the city of Tigard would purchase and display artwork throughout the city. In addition, scenario 7 would fund the construction of stormwater facilities in city parks.The revenue requirement for scenario 7 increases along with employment and residential growth because the programs funded by this scenario do not fluctuate in cost based on the year being considered. The revenue requirement increases from $201,627 in FY 2016-17 to $248,192 in FY 2025-26. An annual cost breakdown of this scenario can be found in Appendix D6 while further detail regarding the cost assumptions associated with this revenue requirement can be found in Appendix E4. S Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report SECTION IV : RATE DESIGN A. INTRODUCTION The principal objective of the rate design stage is to develop parks utility rate structures that collect the appropriate level of revenue.The City currently does not assess local charges for parks utility service. In order to fund the activities identified in the revenue requirement section above, it is recommended that a local charge be formed. B. PARKS UTILITY FUNDING The existing parks funding mechanisms in Tigard are grouped into two purposes: those funds dedicated to capital purchases and those funds dedicated to maintenance for parks. Capital funds have historically come from SDC revenues, transfers from capital funds and grants. Meanwhile,the majority of operations expenses have come from transfers from the city's general fund. C. CUSTOMER CHARGES Equivalent Dwelling Units Equivalent Dwelling Units(EDUs) are the basis for allocating annual PARC revenue requirements to customer groups. EDUs,by definition, equate to a one unit of customer demand (usage) of parks and recreation investment within the City of Tigard, whereas one unit is equivalent to the amount of parks and recreation investment needed to support one single family residential dwelling unit. The methodology for determining EDUs takes into account most current (FY 2015-16) customer data that is maintained and updated periodically by the city as part of its street maintenance fee program. Supplemental data depicting building occupancy(using COSTAR quarterly reports for the Tigard subarea), employment (using confidential Oregon Employment Department data and local business interviews), and dwelling units(using city staff estimates) is compiled using sources noted in the table below. Non-residential EDU conversion factors are derived from the adopted Tigard Parks and Trails SDC Methodology Report (adopted in 2015),with an EDU conversion factor that equates 1 dwelling unit to 15 jobs. Hence,the PMF methodology estimates employment for each commercial and industrial customer and divides it by 15 to calculate non-residential EDUs. Single family residential EDUs are calculated for each customer using the following formula: Customer Accounts x 0.992 Occupancy Rate = EDUs 9 Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report Multifamily residential EDUs are calculated for each customer using the following formula: Dwelling Units x.942 Occupancy Rate = EDUs Commercial EDUs are calculated using the following formula: [Parking Stalls x 0.76Jobs Per Stall x.995 Occupancy Rate] = EDUs 15 (EDU factor) Industrial EDUs are calculated using the following formula: [Parking Stalls x 1.19 Jobs Per Stall x 1.0 Occupancy Rate] _ EDUs 15 (EDU factor) As indicated in the Exhibit 4.1,the resulting distribution of EDUs, when combined by general customer type equates to a distribution of 90.8%to residential customers and 9.2% to non-residential (commercial and industrial) customers. Exhibit 4.1: Distribution of Citywide EDUs commercial ERU distribution & industrial 9.2% _mw J, v i residential 90.8% An annual EDU growth factor of 0.45%is assumed based on historic customer growth trends in Tigard's customer utility accounts. A summary of EDU calculations and projections can be found in Appendix B. Customer Charges The City shall charge each customer within the City of Tigard based on actual customer account information which is updated annually. Any occupied residential dwelling, multifamily and commercial or industrial customer is to be charged as follows: Occupied single family residential PMF rates are calculated for each customer using the following formula: Dwelling Unit x monthly PMFRate per EDU = Monthly charge 0 Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report Occupied multifamily customer PARC rates are calculated using the following formula: Dwelling Units x monthly PMF Rate per EDU = Monthly charge Occupied commercial customer PARC rates are calculated using the following formula: [Parking Stalls x 0.76 Jobs Per Stall] x monthly PMF per EDU = Monthly charge 15 (EDU factor) Occupied industrial customer PARC rates are calculated using the following formula: [Parking Stalls x 1.19 Jobs Per Stall ] x monthly PMF per EDU = Monthly charge 15 (EDU factor) D. PARKS UTILITY FEE SCENARIOS ANALYSIS Each of the scenarios and their associated revenue requirement were analyzed to determine potential utility fees for the citizens and businesses of Tigard. An analysis of each scenario resulted in draft PMF rate calculations that were summarized and presented to the City at a Tigard City Council Work Session. The results of each scenario are shown in their respective appendices. Exhibit 4.2: Parks Utility Fee Scenarios • • • • • Annual Equivalent Property Tax Revenue Per EDU FY Annual Mil Annual Avg. 2016-17 Initial Five rate, FY Cost on (Year 1) Year Rate' 2016-17 $240k home 1. Adopted Budget $98.17 $8.18 0.4056 $97.35 2. Deferred Maintenance $22.69 $1.89 0.2149 $51.59 3. Fully Fund CIP Projects $37.82 $1.94 0.1563 $37.50 4. Develop and Operate Current Lands $8,98 $0.92 0.0371 $8.91 5. Develop and Operate New Lands $3.73 $0.59 0.0154 $3.70 6. Develop Recreation Programs $6.75 $1.39 0.0279 $6.69 7. Special Community Assets0 7 7 82 Total $187.03 $15.70 0.8940 $214.56 'Residential and Non-Residential EDUs are Charged the same amount per EDU. Note that five year rate may cause a revenue deficiency in the first years,if expenditures in early years are higher than later years. Total Assessed Value in City of Tigard: $5,838,019,224 Average Home Assessed Value:: $240,000 Average annual collection factor: 94% Source:Compiled by FCS GROUP. II Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report D. RECOMMENDED RATE SCENARIO The recommended initial PMF rate is intended to address the current budgeted funding requirements for parks and deferred parks maintenance costs. Using the detailed assumptions provided in the Appendix, the annual revenue requirement over the next five years (FY 2016-17 to FY 2020-21) is projected to include $2,226,001 in parks budget and $514,457 in deferred maintenance for a total initial year revenue requirement of$2,720,458. In order to smooth out the PMF rates, it is recommended that the initial fee be based on the projected parks budget and the five year average revenue requirement for deferred maintenance. The resulting figure will be allocated among the customer groups. It is further recommended that the annual escalation rate be applied starting in year two. An annual escalation of 4.26% is recommended using the assumptions shown in Exhibit 4.3. Exhibit 4.3: PMF Escalation Rates 57. ,61- 1. . - , Annual RctWeights. Personnel 4.80% 0.6 (Services/Utilities 3.00% 0.25 ;Materials/Internal Services 4.20% 0.15 kated Averages 4.267o Source: City of Tigard and FCS GROUP; based on estimated expenditures. The resulting Tigard PMF rates are shown below in Exhibit 4.4. Initial monthly PMF rates would be $10.07 per customer, and increase by approximately 4 percent annually. This charge should be sufficient to generate an annual average revenue amount of$2,740,458 in FY 2016-17 and $3,239,691 in FY 2020-21. Exhibit 4.4: Tigard PMF Rates for Recommended Scenario: Parks Budget plus Deferred Maintenance Average Revenue - Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Smoothing . Deferred Maintenance 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Parks Budget $ 2,226,001 $ 2,320,699 $ 2,419,753 $ 2,523,379 $ 2,631,809 Deferred Maintenance* $ 514,457 $ 536,372 $ 559,222 $ 583,045 $ 607,883 Total expenditures $ 2,740,458 $ 2,857,072 $ 2,978,975 $ 3,106,424 $ 3,239,691 Allocated costs Residential allocation $ 2,487,186 $ 2,593,022 $ 2,703,659 $ 2,819,330 $ 2,940,280 Non-residential allocation 253,272 264,049 275,316 287,094 299,411 Total expenditures $ 2,740,458 $ 2,857,072 $ 2,978,975 $ 3,106,424 $ 3,239,691 EDUs: 5-Year Projections. Residential 20,579 20,672 20,765 20,858 20,952 Non-Residential 2,096 2,105 2,114 2,124 2,134 Total 22,675 22,777 22,879 22,982 23,086 (nominalRate Calculation: 5-Year Projections Required annual revenue per EDU Residential $ 120.86 $ 125.44 $ 130.20 $ 135.17 $ 140.33 Non-residential $ 120.86 $ 125.44 $ 130.20 $ 135.17 $ 140.33 Monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 10.07 $ 10.45 $ 10.85 $ 11.26 $ 11.69 Non-residential $ 10.07 $ 10.45 $ 10.85 $ 11.26 $ 11.69 assumes escalation rate of 4.26%on deferred maintenance avg.revenue requirement. I' Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report In the sensitivity analysis,the PMF is adjusted downwards to reflect a policy that the fee be used exclusively for parks maintenance only. In this scenario, the annual revenue requirement is reduced by $184,563 to exclude the annual amount of funds currently expended on recreation facilities and programs. This results in a 74 cent per month per EDU reduction. Hence, the initial PMF would be $9.33 instead of$10.07,and subsequent year rates would comport with such a reduction in charges. 13 Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report SECTION V : RATE POLICIES Parks revenues at current levels are not sufficient to fund ongoing maintenance needs, much less identified parks priorities and the development of parks on city-owned land. Seven scenarios were evaluated for the parks system based on services and activities that Tigard has identified as priorities for the parks department. Recommendations of this study include: • The recommended initial PMF rate would be set at a level to fund the existing annual parks budget and identified deferred parks maintenance. • The Parks Fund should establish a minimum operating reserve that equates to 90-days of expenditures. • The City should provide a rate policy that establishes an annual reserve for low income assistance. Based on experience by the City of Tigard with its water rates, an initial annual reserve fund balance of$25,000 should be established.The city would utilize this fund to provide assistance to individuals and families within the City of Tigard if they meet the certain income parameters. Eligibility is to be determined by St. Vincent de Paul (city partner) using the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development income criteria for utility assistance. Once this fund is established, a share of each year's PMF revenue should be transferred into it to maintain a minimum beginning year fund balance of$25,000. • As the City considers acquiring or developing new land for future parks, it shall consider potential impacts on PMF expenditures and revenue requirements, and accordingly make annual adjustments to the PMF rates. • The City should adopt a rate policy that establishes an annual escalation rate based on city cost experience or at an annual rate of at least 4 percent. • The City shall revisit the study findings during the budget cycle to check that the assumptions used are still appropriate and that no significant changes have occurred that would alter the results of the rate methodology. The City should continue to monitor the financial status of the parks utility, adjusting the parks utility fee rate strategy as needed. 14 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report TECHNICAL APPENDIX APPENDIX A: REVENUE REQUIREMENTS Appendix Al: Scenario 1 (Adopted Budget) Revenue Requirement Revenue Requirement $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 A Residential ■Non-Residential Requirement:Revenue Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year .Projections 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Adjusted cost scenario: Adopted Budget $ 2,226,001 $ 2,320,699 $ 2,419,753 $ 2,523,379 $ 2,631,809 $ 2,745,283 $ 2,864,056 $ 2,988,398 $ 3,118.592 $ 3,254,938 Manual adjustments Total expenditures $ 2.226.001 $ 2,320.699 $ 2,419,753 $ 2.523.379 $ 2,631,809 $ 2,745,283 $ 2,864,056 $ 2,988,398 $ 3,118,592 $ 3,254,938 Allocated costs Residential allocation $ 2,020,275 $ 2,106,221 $ 2,196,120 $ 2,290,170 $ 2,388,578 $ 2,491,565 $ 2,599,361 $ 2,712,212 $ 2,830,373 $ 2,954,118 Non-residential allocation 205,726 214,478 223,632 233,210 243,231 253,718 264,695 276,186 288,219 300,820 Total expenditures $ 2,226,001 $ 2,320,699 $ 2,419,753 $ 2,523,379 $ 2,631,809 $ 2,745,283 $ 2,864,056 $ 2,988,398 $ 3,118,592 $ 3,254,938 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix A2-A: Scenario 2 (Deferred Maintenance) Revenue Requirement Revenue Requirement $1,400,000 $1,200,000 , $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 A No o�o,�o o NCO �,yti otiryy� oti��a o��,yh oti�',y ti ti ti ti ti tio� ti ti ti ti �+Residential ■Non-Residential Requirement:Revenue Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Projections 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Adjusted cost scenario: Deferred Maintenance $ 1,179,539 $ 306,463 $ 476,641 $ 290,388 $ 319,251 $ 255,309 $ 370,340 $ 431,111 $ 508,687 $ 244,343 Manual adjustments Total expenditures $ 1,179,539 $ 306,463 $ 476,641 $ 290,388 $ 319,251 $ 255,309 $ 370,340 $ 431,111 $ 508,687 $ 244,343 Allocated costs Residential allocation $ 1,070,527 $ 278,140 $ 432,590 $ 263,551 $ 289,746 $ 231,714 $ 336,113 $ 391,268 $ 461,675 $ 221,761 Non-residential allocation 109,013 28,323 44,051 26,838 29,505 23,596 34,227 39,843 47,013 22,582 Total expenditures $ 1,179,539 $ 306,463 $ 476,641 $ 290,388 $ 319,251 $ 255,309 $ 370,340 $ 431,111 S 508.687 $ 244,343 16 CIT`! TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix A2-B: Scenario 2 (Deferred Maintenance) Revenue Requirement with five year smoothing Revenue Requirement $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 - - $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 a Residential ■Non-Residential Revenue Requirement: 10-Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Projections 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Adjusted cost scenario: Deferred Maintenance $ 514,457 $ 536,372 $ 559,222 $ 583,045 $ 607,883 $ 361,958 $ 377,378 $ 393,454 $ 410,215 $ 427,690 Manual adjustments Total expenditures $ 514,457 $ 536,372 $ 559.222 $ 583,045 $ 607,883 $ 361,958 $ 377,378 $ 393,454 $ 410.215 $ 427,690 Allocated costs Residential allocation $ 466,911 $ 486,801 $ 507,539 $ 529,160 $ 551,702 $ 328,506 $ 342,500 $ 357,091 $ 372,303 $ 388,163 Non-residential allocation 47,546 49,571 51,683 53,885 56,180 33,452 34,877 36,363 37,912 39,527 Total expenditures 5 514,457 $ 536,372 $ 559,222 $ 583.045 $ 607,883 $ 361,958 $ 377,378 $ 393,454 $ 410,215 $ 427,690 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix A3: Scenario 3 (Fully Fund CIP Projects) Revenue Requirement Revenue Requirement $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 - $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 - $- N1 ,Ib �°� ti� tiN tiIV �`3 �` by tiro Residential ■Non-Residential Requirement:Revenue Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year YearProjections2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024.25 2025-26 Adjusted cost scenario: Fully Fund CIP Projects $ 857,500 $ 604,150 $ 1,174,500 $ - $ - $ 550,955 $ 575,748 $ 601,657 $ 628,732 $ 657,025 Manual adjustments Total expenditures $ 857,500 $ 604,150 $ 1,174,500 $ $ $ 550,955 $ 575,748 $ 601,657 $ 628,732 $ 657,025 Allocated costs Residential allocation $ 778,250 $ 548,315 $ 1,065,953 $ $ $ 500,036 $ 522,538 $ 546,052 $ 570,624 $ 596,303 Non-residential allocation 79,250 55,835 108,547 50,919 53,210 55.605 58,107 60,722 Total expenditures $ 857,500 $ 604,150 $ 1.174,500 $ $ $ 550,955 $ 575,748 $ 601,657 $ 628.732 $ 657,025 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix A4: Scenario 4 (Develop Current Land) Revenue Requirement Revenue Requirement $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 Ncb �� tiN tiry ti� tib` tih tiCO a Residential ■Non-Residential Requirement: 10- Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Year Projections 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Adjusted cost scenario: Develop Current Land $ 203,624 $ 225,903 $ 249,379 $ 274,105 $ 300,136 $ 327,532 $ 356,353 $ 386,662 $ 418,524 $ 452,008 Manual adjustments Total expenditures $ 203,624 $ 225,903 $ 249,379 $ 274,105 $ 300,136 $ 327,532 $ 356,353 $ 386,662 $ 418,524 $ 452,008 Allocated costs Residential allocation $ 184,805 $ 205,025 $ 226,331 $ 248,772 $ 272,398 $ 297,262 $ 323,419 $ 350,927 $ 379,844 $ 410,234 Non-residential allocation 18,819 20,878 23,047 25,333 27,738 30,270 32,934 35,735 38,680 41,774 Total expenditures $ 203,624 $ 225,903 $ 249,379 $ 274,105 $ 300,136 $ 327,532 $ 356,353 $ 386,662 $ 418,524 $ 452,008 19 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix A5: Scenario 5 (Develop New Land) Revenue Requirement Revenue Requirement $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 A 0�1�4' � 0 � rl• � b, ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti e ti Residential ■Non-Residential Requirement:Revenue Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Year Projections 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Adjusted cost scenario: Develop New Land $ 84,687 $ 120,155 $ 157,687 $ 197,376 $ 239,316 $ 283,610 $ 330,360 $ 379,674 $ 431,666 $ 486,452 Manual adjustments - - - - Total expenditures $ 84,687 $ 120,155 $ 157,687 $ 197,376 $ 239,316 $ 283,610 $ 330,360 $ 379,674 $ 431,666 $ 486,452 Allocated costs Residential allocation $ 76,861 $ 109,051 $ 143,114 $ 179,134 $ 217,199 $ 257,399 $ 299,828 $ 344,585 $ 391,772 $ 441,494 Non-residential allocation 7,827 11,105 14,573 18,241 22,118 26,211 30,532 35,089 39,894 44,958 Total expenditures $ 84,687 $ 120,155 $ 157,687 $ 197,376 $ 239,316 $ 283,610 $ 330,360 $ 379,674 $ 431,666 $ 486,452 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix A6: Scenario 6 (Recreational Programs) Revenue Requirement Revenue Requirement $300,000 $250,000 _ $200,000 ®� �t l• $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 ,yo pyo pyo do tio`� �yoti roti tio11-1 ti �yoti X49 r� Residential ■Non-Residential Requirement:Revenue Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Projections 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-25 Adjusted cost scenario: Recreational Programs $ 153,076 $ 182,040 $ 425,845 $ 519,180 $ 617,733 $ 392,478 $ 405,820 $ 419,522 $ 433,592 $ 448,024 Manual adjustments Total expenditures $ 153,076 $ 182,040 $ 425,845 $ 519,180 $ 617,733 $ 392,478 $ 405,820 $ 419,522 $ 433,592 $ 448,024 Allocated costs Residential allocation $ 138,929 $ 165,216 $ 386,488 $ 471,198 $ 560,643 $ 356,205 $ 368,314 $ 380,750 $ 393,519 $ 406,618 Non-residential allocation 14,147 16,824 39,356 47,982 57,091 36,273 37,506 38,772 40,072 41,406 Total expenditures $ 153,076 $ 182,040 $ 425,845 $ 519,180 $ 617,733 $ 392,478 $ 405,820 $ 419,522 $ 433,592 $ 448,024 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix A7: Scenario 7 (Special Community Assets) Revenue Requirement Revenue Requirement $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 >I ®� $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 ^O O�O ,O O�Or�O '0' rp, b, y 6 ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti �+ Residential ■Non-Residential Requirement:Revenue Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Projections 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Adjusted cost scenario: Special Community Assets $ 201,627 $ 207,676 $ 213,906 $ 220,323 $ 226,933 $ 220,515 $ 227,131 $ 233,945 $ 240,963 $ 248,192 Manual adjustments - - - - - - - - - Total expenditures $ 201,627 $ 207,676 $ 213,906 $ 220,323 $ 226,933 $ 220,515 $ 227,131 $ 233,945 $ 240,963 $ 248,192 Allocated costs Residential allocation $ 182,992 $ 188,482 $ 194,137 $ 199,961 $ 205,960 $ 200,136 $ 206,140 $ 212,324 $ 218,694 $ 225,254 Non-residential allocation 18,634 19,193 19,769 20,362 20,973 20,380 20,991 21,621 22,270 22,938 Total expenditures $ 201,627 $ 207,676 $ 213,906 $ 220,323 $ 226,933 $ 220,515 $ 227,131 $ 233,945 $ 240,963 $ 248,192 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report APPENDIX B: EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT CALCULATIONS AND PROJECTIONS Appendix Bl: Parks EDU Assumptions and Customer Statistics, City of Tigard (FY 2015-16) Jobs Dus Parkin- Per per Occupancy Customer Group Accounts Stalls Stall Factor EI)LT Factor' Commercial 916 40,309 0.76 0.995 15 2,029 Industrial 13 718 1.19 1.000 15 57 Multifamily 587 7,433 1.05 0.942 1.0 7,373 Single Family 13,222 13,222 1.00 0.992 1.0 13,114 TOTAL Commercial & Industrial 929 2,086 Residential 13.409 20,487 Notes 1 Derived from City of Tigard, Street Maintenance Fee customer data. 2 Calculated based on current estimated jobs (Oregon Employment Department and local business survey data for Tigard). 3 Calculated based on current estimated dwellings(American Community Survey, 2013 data for City of Tigard) 4 EDU = equivalent dwelling unit. Note: Non-residential ERUs calculated by dividing the number of jobs in Tigard (40,746 based on data gathered for the parks SDC methodology) by a conversion factor of 15 employees per EDU (based on calculations in the Tigard Parks and Trails SDC Methodology Report, 2015). Compiled by FCS GROUP. Appendix B2: 10-Year EDU Projections(All Scenarios) EDUs: 10-Year Projections Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 201.647 201748 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Residential,single-family 13,173 13,232 13,292 13,352 13,412 13,472 13,533 13,594 13,655 13,716 Residential,multi-family 7,406 7,440 7,473 7,507 7,540 7,574 7,608 7,643 7,677 7,712 Non-residential,commercial 2,038 2,048 2,057 2,066 2,075 2,085 2,094 2,103 2,113 2.122 Non-residential,industrial 57 58 58 58 58 59 59 59 59 60 Total 22,675 22.777 22,879 22.982 23.086 23,190 23.294 23,399 23,504 23,610 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report APPENDIX C: 10-YEAR RATE PROJECTION Appendix Cl: 10-Year Rate Projections • Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year • 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Required annual revenue per EDU Residential $ 98.17 $ 101.89 $ 105.76 $ 109.80 $ 114.00 $ 118.38 $ 122.95 $ 127.72 $ 132.68 $ 137.86 Non-residential $ 98.17 $ 101.89 $ 105.76 $ 109.80 $ 114.00 $ 118.38 $ 122.95 $ 127.72 $ 132.68 $ 137.86 Monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 8.18 $ 8.49 $ 8.81 $ 9.15 $ 9.50 $ 9.87 $ 10.25 $ 10.64 $ 11.06 $ 11.49 Non-residential $ 8.18 $ 8.49 $ 8.81 $ 9.15 $ 9.50 $ 9.87 $ 10.25 $ 10.64 $ 11.06 $ 11.49 Two-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 8.35 $ 8.35 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.70 $ 9.70 $ 10.47 $ 10.47 $ 11.30 $ 11.30 Non-residential $ 8.35 $ 8.35 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.70 $ 9.70 $ 10.47 $ 10.47 $ 11.30 $ 11.30 Five-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 8.91 $ 8.91 $ 8.91 $ 8.91 $ 8.91 $ 10.76 $ 10.76 $ 10.76 $ 10.76 $ 10.76 Non-residential $ 8.91 $ 8.91 $ 8.91 $ 8.91 $ 8.91 $ 10.76 $ 10.76 $ 10.76 $ 10.76 $ 10.76 Ten-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 Non-residential $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 Appendix C2: Scenario 2 (Deferred Maintenance) 10-Year Rate Projections Rate • Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Prpjections 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024.25 2025-26 Required annual revenue per EDU Residential $ 52.02 $ 13.46 $ 20.83 $ 12.64 $ 13.83 $ 11.01 $ 15.90 $ 18.42 $ 21.64 $ 10.35 Non-residential $ 52.02 $ 13.46 $ 20.83 $ 12.64 $ 13.83 $ 11.01 $ 15.90 $ 18.42 $ 21.64 $ 10.35 Monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 4.33 $ 1.12 $ 1.74 $ 1.05 $ 1.15 $ 0.92 $ 1.32 $ 1.54 $ 1.80 $ 0.86 Non-residential $ 4.33 $ 1.12 $ 1.74 $ 1.05 $ 1.15 $ 0.92 $ 1.32 $ 1.54 $ 1.80 $ 0.86 Two-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 2.73 $ 2.73 $ 1.40 $ 1.40 $ 1.04 $ 1.04 $ 1.43 $ 1.43 $ 1.33 $ 1.33 Non-residential $ 2.73 $ 2.73 $ 1.40 $ 1.40 $ 1.04 $ 1.04 $ 1.43 $ 1.43 $ 1.33 $ 1.33 Five-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 1.89 $ 1.89 $ 1.89 $ 1.89 $ 1.89 $ 1.30 $ 1.30 $ 1.30 $ 1.30 $ 1.30 Non-residential $ 1.89 $ 1.89 $ 1.89 $ 1.89 $ 1.89 $ 1.30 $ 1.30 $ 1.30 $ 1.30 $ 1.30 Ten-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 Non-residential $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 21 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix C3: Scenario 3 (Fully Fund CIP Projects) 10-Year Rate Projections Rate • Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Projections 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Required annual revenue per EDU Residential $ 37.82 $ 26.52 $ 51.33 $ - $ - $ 23.76 $ 24.72 $ 25.71 $ 26.75 $ 27.83 Non-residential $ 37.82 $ 26.52 $ 51.33 $ $ - $ 23.76 $ 24.72 $ 25.71 $ 26.75 $ 27.83 Monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 3.15 $ 2.21 $ 4.28 $ $ - $ 1.98 $ 2.06 $ 2.14 $ 2.23 $ 2.32 Non-residential $ 3.15 $ 2.21 $ 4.28 $ $ - $ 1.98 $ 2.06 $ 2.14 $ 2.23 $ 2.32 Two-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 2.69 $ 2.69 $ 2.14 $ 2.14 $ 0.99 $ 0.99 $ 2.11 $ 2.11 $ 2.28 $ 2.28 Non-residential $ 2.69 $ 2.69 $ 2.14 $ 2.14 $ 0.99 $ 0.99 $ 2.11 $ 2.11 $ 2.28 $ 2.28 Five-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 1.94 $ 1.94 $ 1.94 $ 1.94 $ 1.94 $ 2.17 $ 2.17 $ 2.17 $ 2.17 $ 2.17 Non-residential $ 1.94 $ 1.94 $ 1.94 $ 1.94 $ 1.94 $ 2.17 $ 2.17 $ 2.17 $ 2.17 $ 2.17 Ten-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 Non-residential $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 Appendix C4: Scenario 4 (Develop Current Land) 10-Year Rate Projections Calculati• Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Projections2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Required annual revenue per EDU Residential $ 8.98 $ 9.92 $ 10.90 $ 11.93 $ 13.00 $ 14.12 $ 15.30 $ 16.52 $ 17.81 $ 19.14 Non-residential $ 8.98 $ 9.92 $ 10.90 $ 11.93 $ 13.00 $ 14.12 $ 15.30 $ 16.52 $ 17.81 $ 19.14 Monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 0.75 $ 0.83 $ 0.91 $ 0.99 $ 1.08 $ 1.18 $ 1.27 $ 1.38 $ 1.48 $ 1.60 Non-residential $ 0.75 $ 0.83 $ 0.91 $ 0.99 $ 1.08 $ 1.18 $ 1.27 $ 1.38 $ 1.48 $ 1.60 Two-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.95 $ 0.95 $ 1.13 $ 1.13 $ 1.33 $ 1.33 $ 1.54 $ 1.54 Non-residential $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.95 $ 0.95 $ 1.13 $ 1.13 $ 1.33 $ 1.33 $ 1.54 $ 1.54 Five-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 0.92 $ 0.92 $ 0.92 $ 0.92 $ 0.92 $ 1.40 $ 1.40 $ 1.40 $ 1.40 $ 1.40 Non-residential $ 0.92 $ 0.92 $ 0.92 $ 0.92 $ 0.92 $ 1.40 $ 1.40 $ 1.40 $ 1.40 $ 1.40 Ten-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 Non-residential $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1 17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 2: CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix C5: Scenario 5 (Develop New Land) 10-Year Rate Projections • Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Projections 1 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Required annual revenue per EDU Residential $ 3.73 $ 5.28 $ 6.89 $ 8.59 $ 10.37 $ 12.23 $ 14.18 $ 16.23 $ 18.37 $ 20.60 Non-residential $ 3.73 $ 5.28 $ 6.89 $ 8.59 $ 10.37 $ 12.23 $ 14.18 $ 16.23 $ 18.37 $ 20.60 Monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 0.31 $ 0.44 $ 0.57 $ 0.72 $ 0.86 $ 1.02 $ 1.18 $ 1.35 $ 1.53 $ 1.72 Non-residential $ 0.31 $ 0.44 $ 0.57 $ 0.72 $ 0.86 $ 1.02 $ 1.18 $ 1.35 $ 1.53 $ 1.72 Two-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 0.38 $ 0.38 $ 0.65 $ 0.65 $ 0.94 $ 0.94 $ 1.27 $ 1.27 $ 1.63 $ 1.63 Non-residential $ 0.38 $ 0.38 $ 0.65 $ 0.65 $ 0.94 $ 0.94 $ 1.27 $ 1.27 $ 1.63 $ 1.63 Five-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 0.59 $ 0.59 $ 0.59 $ 0.59 $ 0.59 $ 1.37 $ 1.37 $ 1.37 $ 1.37 $ 1.37 Non-residential $ 0.59 $ 0.59 $ 0.59 $ 0.59 $ 0.59 $ 1.37 $ 1.37 $ 1.37 $ 1.37 $ 1.37 Ten-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 Non-residential S 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 Appendix C6: Scenario 6 (Recreational Programs) 10-Year Rate Projections • Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Projections 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Required annual revenue per EDU Residential $ 6.75 $ 7.99 $ 18.61 $ 22.59 $ 26.76 $ 16.92 $ 17.42 $ 17.93 $ 18.45 $ 18.98 Non-residential $ 6.75 $ 7.99 $ 18.61 $ 22.59 $ 26.76 $ 16.92 $ 17.42 $ 17.93 $ 18.45 $ 18.98 Monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 0.56 $ 0.67 $ 1.55 $ 1.88 $ 2.23 $ 1.41 $ 1.45 $ 1.49 $ 1.54 $ 1.58 Non-residential $ 0.56 $ 0.67 $ 1.55 $ 1.88 $ 2.23 $ 1.41 $ 1.45 $ 1.49 $ 1.54 $ 1.58 Two-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 0.62 $ 0.62 $ 1.72 $ 1.72 $ 1.82 $ 1.82 $ 1.48 $ 1.48 $ 1.56 $ 1.56 Non-residential $ 0.62 $ 0.62 $ 1.72 $ 1.72 $ 1.82 $ 1.82 $ 1.48 $ 1.48 $ 1.56 $ 1.56 Five-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 1.39 $ 1.39 $ 1.39 $ 1.39 $ 1.39 $ 1.51 $ 1.51 $ 1.51 $ 1.51 $ 1.51 Non-residential $ 1.39 $ 1.39 $ 1.39 $ 1.39 $ 1.39 $ 1.51 $ 1.51 $ 1.51 $ 1.51 $ 1.51 Ten-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 1.47 $ 1.47 $ 1.47 $ 1.47 $ 1.47 $ 1.47 $ 1.47 $ 1.47 $ 1.47 $ 1.47 Non-residential S 1.47 S 1.47 $ 147 S 1.47 S 1.47 $ 1.47 S 1.47 S 1.47 $ 1.47 $ 1.47 ?6 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix C7: Scenario 7 (Special Community Assets) 10-Year Rate Projections Rate • Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year ,IP • ons _ 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Required annual revenue per EDU Residential $ 8.89 $ 9.12 $ 9.35 $ 9.59 $ 9.83 $ 9.51 $ 9.75 $ 10.00 $ 10.25 $ 10.51 Non-residential $ 8.89 $ 9.12 $ 9.35 $ 9.59 $ 9.83 $ 9.51 $ 9.75 $ 10.00 $ 10.25 $ 10.51 Monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 0.74 $ 0.76 $ 0.78 $ 0.80 $ 0.82 $ 0.79 $ 0.81 $ 0.83 $ 0.85 $ 0.88 Non-residential $ 0.74 $ 0.76 $ 0.78 $ 0.80 $ 0.82 $ 0.79 $ 0.81 $ 0.83 $ 0.85 $ 0.88 Two-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 0.75 $ 0.75 $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.81 $ 0.81 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.87 $ 0.87 Non-residential $ 0.75 $ 0.75 $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.81 $ 0.81 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.87 $ 0.87 Five-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.84 $ 0.84 $ 0.84 $ 0.84 $ 0.84 Non-residential $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.84 $ 0.84 $ 0.84 $ 0.84 $ 0.84 Ten-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 Non-residential $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 �7 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report APPENDIX D: TIGARD PARKS UTILITY COST ASSUMPTIONS BY SCENARIO Appendix D1: Scenario 2 (Deferred Maintenance) Associated Costs eael Y*w Fiscal Year Fisspt Y, INS21 Y*ar fiscal Yea R $207,800 $31,000 $102.000 $10.000 $79,500 $15,000 $22,000 $117,000 $55,000 $0 Materials&Services 3.003 Parks Asset Inventory - - $602300 $35,000 $138.500 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $95,000 $42,000 $137,000 $0 Capital 4.50% Parks Facilities Rent(depreciation) $31.751 $31.751 $31,751 $31,751 $31.751 $31.751 $31,751 $31.751 $31,751 $31,751 Capital 4.50% Parks Trails(low end estimate) $125,588 $125,588 $125.588 $125.588 $125,588 $125.588 $125,588 $125,588 $125,588 $125,588 Capital 4.50% Parks Vehicles Replacement r $166,682 $59,902 $25.298 $54,873 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Materials&Services 3.00% Total-Real Costs $1,134,121 $283,241 $423,137 $247,212 $261,839 $197,339 $274,339 $316,339 $349,339 $157,339 Total•Nominal Costs $1,179,539 $306,463 $476.641 $290,388 $319,251 $255,309 $370,340 $431,111 $508,687 544,343 $514.457 Source:City of Tigard,compiled by FCS GROUP Appendix D2: Scenario 3 (Fully Fund CIP Projects) Associated Costs Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fisc of Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year y 201 2017-18 2018-19 2419-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023.24 2024-25 2025-26 inflation Inflation Internal Expenses $282,500 $135,900 $140,600 $0 $0 External Expenses 3,410,000 $3,100,250 $1,433,900 $150,000 $150,000 lQtai 3,692,500 $3,236,150 $1,574,500 $150,000 $150,000 E' $817,440 $1,072,000 $250,000 $0 $0 Transfers from enterprise funds $97,560 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transfers from transp CIP fund - $0 $0 $1,174,500 $0 $0 Regional Flexible Funds $1,670,000 $1.410,000 $0 $0 $0 Transfers from parks capital fund $857,500 $604,150 $0 $0 $0 Transfers from other funds(urban forestry) $250,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Tra t;pw-0#Le11V$3,692.500 0 0 0 0 T 3,236,150 1,574,500 150,000 150,000 rs frornl lrban Forestry Fund, 604150 1,174,500 0 0 Capital 4.50% Total-Real Costs 604 150 1 174 500 27 230 527 230 527 230 27 230 527 230 Total-Nominal Costs $604,150 $1,174,500 $o $0 $550,955 $575,748 $601,657 $628,732 $657,025 MoF1Nlw1 AYemge QYW YegM Source:City of T-igard,compiled by FCS GROUP Appendix D3: Scenario 4 (Develop Current Land) Associated Costs Annual Capital COST--, $182,490 $182,490 $182,490 $182,490 $182,490 $182,490 $182,490 $182,490 $182,490 $182,490 Capital 4.50% Annual O&M Costs $12,546 $25,092 $37,638 $50,184 $62,730 $75,276 $87,822 $100,368 $112,914 $125,460 Materials&Services 3.00% Real Costs $195,036 $207,582 $220,128 $232,674 $245,220 $257,766 $270,312 $292,858 $295,404 $307,950 Nominal Costs $203,624 $225,903 $249,379 $274,105 $300,136 $327,532 $356,353 $386,662 $418,524 $452,008 -AVorcW30 $319,423 Source:City of Tigard,compiled by FCS GROUP Note:This analysis excludes bond proceeds and parks SDC funds. 2p CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix D4: Scenario 5 (Develop New Land) Associated Costs !Annual ¢iscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Rscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year FiscalYear Fiscal Year 2016.17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024.25 2025-26 Inflation Notes prtalCosts $51,194 $51,194 $SI,19a $51,194 $51,IRa $SI,V94 $51.194 $51,1-a $51,194 $51,194 Capital 4.50% M Costs 1 2 90 42 121123 151 404 181685 211 966 242 246 272 527 302808 Materials&Services 3.00% Costs 1 475 111 756 142 037 172 318 202 598 232 879 263160 293 441 323 722 354 002 inal Costs $84,687 $120,155 $157,687 $197,376 $239,316 $283,610 $330,360 $379,674 $431,666 $486,452 MMM*Wer $271,098 Source:Cit: > Tigard,compiled by FCS GROUP Note:This analysis excludes bond proceeds and parks SDC funds. Appendix D5: Scenario 6 (Recreational Programs) Associated Costs Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year - 20,E 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024.25 2025-26 Infid first two years;2. $135,000 $135,000 $230,000 $230,000 $230,000 Personnel Servlces 4.00% ssional Services-Recreation Guide ; $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Materials&Services 3.00% ment&Technology-Online ation System $0 $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 Materials&Services 3.00% Pnvestment-Grants.Scholarships,an �IPropams $56,000 $87,500 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Materials&Services 3.0017 am Revenue 63300 72750 165000 f$195,000) ($225,000) Total-Real Cosh $147,700 $169,750 $38S,000 $455,000 $M.000 490 490 336 490 $336,490 $336,490 $153,076 $182,040 $425,845 $519,180 $617,733 $392,478 $405,820 $419,522 $433,592 $448,024 $399,731 Source:City of Tigard,Recreation Program Study,March 2015;compiled by FCS GROUP Appendix D6: Scenario 7 (Special Community Assets) Associated Costs Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019720. 2020-21 2021.22 2022-23 2023.24 2024-25 2025-2b.;IplkrN4q,,,,,. Arts and Cultural Program Costs '6" "' "`.1 $95,754 $95,754 $95,754 Materials&Services 3.00% Stormwater Proaram Costs $I5000C :t Ii,G UUU $1:0000 $100000 $100,000 Materials&Services 3.00% Total-Real Costs 5195,754 $195.754 $195,754 $195,754 $195,754 $195.754 $195.754 $195,754 $195,754 $195,754 Total-Nominal Costs $201,627 $207,676 $213,906 $220,323 $226.933 $220,515 $227,131 $233,945 $240,963 $248,192 Nominal Average Over Years $224,121 ct TinorJ (nIf 29 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report APPENDIX E: TIGARD PARKS UTILITY SCENARIO COST ASSUMPTIONS Appendix E1: O&M current and estimated future costs r Neighborhood E Community Avg Net New Cosi of Uneor Parks Open$pa ,tolls Total end of each 5 year - cycle •. CoWARM JM-li 1A sl4' • - $ 4,400 $ 7,880 $ 645 $ 705 $ 4,450 Cosh erMNe 10,900 Current developed acres 53A ac 191.1 ac 23.1 oc 252.9 ac 4.6 ac 524.7 Total O&M Costs $ 233,376 e$ 1,506,026 $ 14,867 $ 178.302 $ 20,470 $ 1,953.040 Development of undeveloped parks and tra 23.0 ac 19.0 ace 0.0 ace 0.0 ace 0.0 ac 42.0 Total 08M Costs $ 101,200 $ 149,720 $ - $ - $ - $ 250,920 $ 62,730 Additional acres to acquire and develop 34.1 ac 42.1 ac 37.0 ac 66.1 ac 4.9 mi 184.2 , - 149,821 331,753 23,892 46,631 53,519 605,616 S 151,404 source:City of Tigard,compiled by Conservationtechnix;and FCS GROUP. Community 104.8 52.92 19.4 177.12 Neighborhood 18.86 29.12 9.43 2.77 60.18 Pocket 0.61 0.61 Open Space 102.14 178.37 280.51 Linear Park 5.13 17.92 23.05 Special Properties 18.15 0.13 0.18 18.46 Trails 4.6 4.6 Subtotal 142.42 86.77 136.28 199.06 564.53 Note:Level 1 is highest maintenance level;Level 4 is lowest Source:City of Tigard,compiled by Conservationtechnix. 62% 87% 25% 7% 6% Community 72% 85% Neighborhood 13% Pocket 0% Open Space 10% Linear Park 1% cial Properties 3% 1k I 1% Estimated O/M Costs per Acre by Classification Community -, $ 7,878 $ 7,880 Neighborhood 8 Pocket $ 4,341 $ 4,400 Open Space $ 705 $ 705 Linear Park $ 645 $ 645 ectal Properties $ 2,877 $ 2,880 S(per acre) $ 4,450 $ 4,450 $ 10,900 $ 10,900 Source:Conservationtechnix. �U CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix E2: Identified Capital Improvement Projects Fiscal Year ,_...-7-71T. . ,r Revenues Bonds/SDCs $0 $0 $145,000 $752,000 $250,000 $0 $0 Expenses Internal Expenses $0 $0 $25= $45,000 $90,000 $0 $0 External Ex enses 120,000 707000 S 160.000 Revenues Bonds/SDCs $375,000 $295,593 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transfers from enterprise funds $12,000 $165,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transfers from other funds(urban forestry) $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transfers from parks capital fund $0 $0 $857,500 $604,150 $0 $0 $0 Transfers from transp CIP fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,174,500 $0 $0 Expenses Internal Expenses $77,000 $55,393 $57,500 $40,900 $50,600 $0 $0 Exte 10.000 W5.200 $900.000 $563.250 $1,123,900 so so Re va Transfers from other funds(urban forestry) $0 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100.000 Expenses Internal Expenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 External Expenses $0 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Revenues Bonds/SDCs $4,004 $885.649 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Expenses Infernal Expenses $4,004 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 External Ex enses 0 5649so so so so r. $530.000 $770,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Expenses Internal Expenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 External Expenses 530000 770,000 Revenues Bonds/SDCs -- - - - $15,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transfers from other funds(general fund) 7 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Expenses Internal Expenses $35,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Ex}etn ILn so so $0 so s s- Reve Bonds/SDCs $0 $135,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Expenses Internal Expenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Wong;ens 135 Revenues Transfers from other funds(urban forestry) $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Expenses Infernal Expenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $,0 $0 $0 External Expenses 000 000 50000 50000 50 RevenuesLL`�,no Crook Trall Conne Von(RFFA Grant Bonds/SD - _ $5,000 $420,000 $672,440 $320,000 $0 $0 $0 Transfers from enterprise funds $5,000 $200,000 $97,560 $0 $0 $0 $0 Regional Flexible funds $0 $0 $1,670,000 $1,410,000 $0 $0 $0 Expenses Internal Expenses $10,000 $169,107 $200,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 External Expenses 450893 2240000 1680000 Revenues Ecnds/SDCs $929,004 $2,516.242 $817,440 $1,072,000 $250,000 $0 $0 Transfers from enterprise funds $17,000 $365,000 $97,560 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transfers from transp CIP fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,174,500 $0 $0 Regional Flexible Funds $0 $0 $1,670.000 $1,410.000 $0 $0 $0 Transfers from parks capital fund $0 $0 $857,500 $604,150 $0 $0 $0 Transfers from other funds turban forestry) $100.000 $250,000 $250,000 $150,000 $150.000 $150,000 $150,000 Transfers from other funds(general fund) 000 so so so so so so Total Revenues $1,066,004 $3,131,242 $3,692,500 $3,236,150 $1,574,500 $150,000 $150,000 Expenses Internal Expenses - $126,004 $234,500 $282.500 $135,900 $140,600 $0 $0 External Expenses 940,000 $2,896,742 $3,41 1 1 000 $150,000 Mobdmhbwli $1.066.004 $3,131,242 $3,692,500 $3,236,150 $1,574.500 $150,000 $150,000 Source.City of Tigard,compled by FCS GROUP ,I CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix E3: Development of Current Parks Land inventory & Addition of New Parks Scenario 4Scenario in Non-SDC Non-SDC Eligible-Dev Eligible City Cost for Funded PAR W-0gie' Cost for Funded PARC-Ellgible of Current Addition Timing Land Portion Costs Development Portion Costs Parks new Pa B&haa''Parku 4 0-10 years $0 6.68% $0 $75,000 44.30% $33,229 $33,229 $0 Metzger Elementary School 5-15 years $0 6.687. $0 $437,000 44.30% $193,612 $193,612 $0 Northview Park 5-15 years $0 6.6817 $0 $367,000 44.30% $162,599 $162,599 $0 Proposed Local Park(P12) 5-15 years $549,840 6.68% $36,754 $927,000 443017 $410,706 $0 $447,460 Proposed Local Park(P9) 5-15 years $1,202,775 6.687. $80,399 $927,000 44.30% $410,706 $0 $491,105 Future Neighborhood Park 10-years $4,811,100 6.68% $321,595 $2,947,800 44.307 $1,306,019 $0 $1,627,614 giWer Terrace Parks - 1-20 years $3,752,000 6.68% $250,800 $2,216,375 44.30% $981,962 $0 $1,232.762 -tol-ne' borhoQW,,pocket_. $389,440 $3,798,942 • r ••r r•r ise Community Park 0-10 years $0 0.00% $0 $2,468,000 0.007. $0 $0 $0 Community Park(P 11) 5-15 years $100,000 0.00% $0 $900,000 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Community Park Complex 10+years $6,108,325 0.00% $0 $10,084,000 0.00% $0 $0 $0 nno Creek Park: Urban Plaza 0-10 years $687,300 0.00% $0 $4,100,000 0.007 $0 $0 $0 Community parks in River Terrace 1-20 years $7,508,000 0.001/ $0 $8,386,000 0.001/ $0 $0 $0 Toga-co mud 0 • dTHangle Area(P3) - 0-10years $0 28.521/ $0 $250.000 28.527 $71,293 $71,293 $0 mmercial Park 5-15 years $0 28.52% $0 $545,000 28.527. $155,420 $155,420 $0 Iew coal Park 5-15 years $0 28.52% $0 $1,340,000 28.527 $382,133 $382,133 $0 no Creek Park: Park Gateway 0-10 years $0 28527. $0 $850,000 28.527 $242,398 $242,398 $0 no Creek Park: Upland Park 0-10 years $0 28.52% $0 $1,100,000 28.52% $313,691 $313,691 $0 developed Linear Park(P7) 5-15 years $0 28.52% $0 $275,000 28.527. $78,423 $78,423 $0 er Terrace Linear Parks 1-20 years $3,128,000 28.52% $892,024 $228,000 28.52% $65,020 s0 $957.044 1 243 358 $957,044 5-15 years $412,380 0170% $0 $0 0.007 $0 $0 $0 10-years $567,023 0.00% $0 $0 0.007. $0 SO s0 nded)(trail 0-10years $0 0.00% $0 $670,000 0.00% $0 $0 $0 WordTrail 0-10 years $0 0.00% $0 $0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Bard Street(trail project A) 0-10 years $0 0.00% $0 $634,000 0.)0% $0 $0 $0 Fanno Creek(trail project C) 0-10 years $0 0.00% $0 $1,040,000 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Fanno Creek&Tualatin River(trail 0 10 yea s $0 0.00% $0 $1,609,500 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Summer Creek(trail project F) 0-10 years $0 0.001/ $0 $742,500 0.007. $0 $0 $0 Fanno Creek(trail project G) 5-15 years $0 0.001/ $0 $0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Fanno Creek(trail project H) 5-15 years $0 OAO% $0 $206,500 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Taard Street(trail project 1) _ 5-15 years $0 OAo% $0 $0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Ascension(trail project N) 10+years $0 0.00% $0 $461,000 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Krueger Creek&Summer Creek(trail project; 10+years $0 0.00% $0 $495,500 0.00% $0 $0 $0 River Terrace Trails 1-20 years $690,000 0.00% $0 $764,000 0.00% $0 s0 s0 Total trails s0 s0 Total Costs $29,516,743 $45,046,175 $1,632,809 $4,755,996 Source:Parks SDC Methodology,compiled by FCS GROUP. 32 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix E4: Arts and Culture Program Assumptions Program'Arts and Culture . Per Capitd . Total Costs* Cost Tigard Personnel Services $20,640 $0.27 $13,232 Materials and Services $128,720 $1.68 $82,522 Capital Outlay $0 $0.00 $0 Other $0 $0.00 $0 Total $149,360 $1.95 $95,754 Population AL 76,650 49,140 Source: based on similar program in Medford, Oregon. CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report 3,} T AIS-2543 7. CCDA Agenda Meeting Date: 02/02/2016 Length (in minutes): 10 Minutes Agenda Title: Discuss Proposed FY 2017 City Council Budget Prepared For: Liz Newton Submitted By: Carol Krager, Central Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Which items and how much funding should Council include in their annual budget proposal to the City Manager? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Review and amend or approve the proposed documents. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The attached proposal contains suggestions based on previous year's payments and allocations. OTHER ALTERNATIVES NIA COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION N/A Fiscal Impact Cost: 298,720 Budgeted (yes or no): yes, draft Where Budgeted (department/program): City Council Additional Fiscal Notes: This is the proposed budget for Council and open to amendments by the group. Attachments Council Budget Council Workload Measures &Narrative City Council Budget Details FUND 100 City of Tigard, Oregon on DIVISION: 0500 General Fund g Mayor and Council YTD Revised FY 2014 FY 2015 2016 2016 Budget Resource Summary Requested Assumptions Chg Pkg 2017 0 Approved 1,980 iPad data package for Mayor Cook,Councilor Woodard Base Approved and Henderson.Surface Pro Tablet for Council Pres.Snider &Councilor Goodhouse($33 mo)Included in stipend for technology 68,805 Mayor Stipend,$45,285 and Councilor annual Stipend Existing Staff Approved $5,880. 16,500 vehicle stipend for Mayor and each Councilor: Base Approved $275/month per Resolution#15-26 84,971 85,413 29,699 113,694 51001-Salaries-Management 87,285 Approved only 84,971 85,413 29,699 113,694 Total Personal Services-Salaries 87,285 Run 1/14/2016 12:54:57 PM Page 1 of 4 1000500 Mayor and Council FUND 100 Cit of Tigard, Oregon DIVISION: 0500 General Fund Mayor and Council YTD Revised Requested Chg Pkg FY 2014 FY 2015 2016 2016 Budget Resource Summary 2017 Assumptions 0 Approved 6,500 Consultant fee for coaching and Council training Base Approved 400 Inpterpreter Services for hearing impaired at Council Base Approved meetings(upon request) 850 Photographer for Council group photo taken at swearing in Base Approved event 2,640 TVCTV taping of Council workshop meetings Base Approved 9,974 13,766 2,220 9,540 54001-Professional/Contractual Services 10,390 Approved only 0 Approved 27,651 City Attorney legal support for Council-based on trends Base Approved (Ramis notified us of a rate increase) 21,310 29,023 7,509 27,651 54003-Legal Fees 27,651 Approved only 0 Approved 0 0 17 0 54114-R&M-Office Equipment 0 Approved only 0 Approved 25 Council's use of pool vehicles for close-in travel. Base Approved 0 0 0 25 54115-Vehicle Usage 25 Approved only 0 Approved 1,815 3,451 600 0 54205-Utilites-Phone/Pager/Cells 0 Approved only 0 Approved 0 450 0 0 54300-Advertising&Publicity 0 Approved only 0 Approved 32,086 League of Oregon Cities membership Base Approved (based on what we paid LOC for 2015/16 dues) 4,467 National League of Cities membership Base Approved (NLC dues are population based,cities over 50,000 pay $4467) 800 Oregon Ethics Commission filing dues Base Approved 188 Oregon Mayors Assn dues for Mayor Cook(population Base Approved based) 100 Other publications for Councilors Base Approved 120 Tigard Downtown Alliance dues Base Approved (paid 1/4/16) 3,489 U.S.Conference of Mayors membership Base Approved 2,500 Vision Action Network membership(Action Member Base Approved status) Run 1/14/2016 12:54:57 PM Page 3 of 4 1000500 Mayor and Council FUND 100 City of Tigard, Oregon DIVISION: 0500 General Fund g Mayor and Council YTD Revised Requested Chg Pkg FY 2014 FY 2015 2016 2016 Budget Resource Summary 2017 Assumptions 5,044 Westside Economic Alliance membership Base Approved (Based on billing from July 2015) 39,059 43,782 37,130 50,234 54302-Dues&Subscriptions 48,794 Approved only 0 Approved 1,100 Business meals that are outside regular council meetings Base Approved (Mayor only) (WEA forums,meetings with Metro and other jurisdictions,regional Mayor's dinner) 1,400 Council meals before regularly scheduled Council meetings .Base Approved 28,000 Councilors training budget-$7,000 per councilor Base Approved 12,600 Mayor's training budget for conferences and meetings Base Approved 300 New Councilor/swearing in event cake and punch Base Approved 10,000 Tigard Youth Advisory-Washington DC,sending 2 youth Base Approved plus chaperone(Was in city management budget previous fiscal year) 25,338 27,367 10,291 43,100 543C3-Travel and Training 53,400 Approved only 0 Approved 800 Mayor and City Councilor clothing with city logo&name Approved embroidery (spent this amount in 2015 at direction of Mayor and Councilors) 600 Recognition,awards,florist(funeral,illness)from Council. Base Approved Promotional items for visiting dignitaries and school age visitors. 5,000 State of the City Reception Base Approved 1,909 1,525 410 5,600 54311-Special Department Expenses 6,400 Approved only 99,405 119,364 58,177 136,150 Total Services 146,660 - - 14$569 321,824 Total Requirements q�9,ggp 240,746 271,509 114,569 322,824 Total Mayor and Council 309,890 Run 1/14/2016 12:54:57 PM Pane 4 of 4 1000500 Mayor and Council FUND: 100 alt of Tigard, Oregon DIVISION: 0500 General Fund a Mayor and Council YTD Revised Budget Resource Summary Requested Proposed Approved Adopted Variance to FY 2014 FY 2015 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 Adopted'16 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total FTE 0.00 84,971 85,413 29,699 113,694 51001-Salaries-Management 87,285 0 0 0 -26,409 -23.2% 84,971 85,413 29,699 113,694 Total Personal Services-Salaries 87,285 0 0 0 -26,409 -23.2% 1,185 997 149 480 52001-Unemployment 97 0 0 0 -383 -79.8% 507 585 183 221 52002-Worker's Compensation 267 0 0 0 46 20.8% 6,620 6,279 2,064 7,288 52003-Social Security/Medicare 7,364 0 0 0 76 1.0% 611 617 215 690 52004-Tri-Met Tax 696 0 0 0 6 0.9% 0 0 0 266 52005-Retirement 0 0 0 0 -266 -100.0% 42,176 51,550 21,209 63,235 52010-Medical/Dental/Vision 66,721 0 0 0 3,486 5.5% 5,178 6,522 2,721 0 52011-Dental Benefits 0 0 0 0 0 100.0% 56,277 66,551 26,540 72,180 Total Personal Services-Benefits 75,145 0 0 0 2,965 4.1% 93 182 152 800 53001-Office Supplies 800 0 0 0 0 0.0% 93 182 152 800 Total Supplies 800 0 0 0 0 0.0% 9,974 13,767 2,220 9,540 54001-Professional/Contractual Services 10,390 0 0 0 850 8.9% 21,310 29,023 7,509 27,651 54003-Legal Fees 27,651 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 17 0 54114-R&M-Office Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 100.0% 0 0 0 25 54115-Vehicle Usage 25 0 0 0 0 0.0% 1,815 3,451 600 0 54205-Utilites-Phone/Pager/Cells 0 0 0 0 0 100.0% 0 450 0 0 54300-Advertising&Publicity 0 0 0 0 0 100.0% 39,059 43,782 37,130 50,234 54302-Dues&Subscriptions 48,794 0 0 0 -1,440 -2.9% 25,338 27,367 10,291 43,100 54303-Travel and Training 53,400 0 0 0 10,300 23.9% 1,909 1,525 410 5,600 54311-Special Department Expenses 6,400 0 0 0 800 14.3% 99,405 119,364 58,177 136,150 Total Services 146,660 0 0 0 10,510 7.7% 240,746 171,510 114,568 322,824 Total Requirements 309,890 0 C C -12,934 -4.0% 240,746 271,510 114,568 322,824 Total Mayor and Council 309,890 0 C 0 -12,934 -4.0% Run 1/14/2016 Page 1 of 1 1000500 Mayor and Council Mayor and Council BUDGET UNIT 0500 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION.• The Mayor and four City Councilors provide legislative and policy leadership for city government. The Mayor and Councilors are elected by citizens for four-year terms on a non- partisan basis and serve part-time. The Council hires the City Manager to run day-to-day operations. The City Council reviews,revises and adopts city laws and policies and sets the overall direction of the city. PROGRAM RESULTS: • Basic city services provided to citizens are cost-effective and are delivered without interruption. • Tigard's interest in regional and statewide activities is coordinated with appropriate agencies and jurisdictions. • Tigard citizens are involved in the community and participate effectively. • Programs and activities are available in the community to meet the needs of a diverse population. • External and internal city assets are well managed and utilized. • Master plans, management and fiscal policies are adopted; resources are allocated to position Tigard for the future. • The community is engaged and connected to the city's strategic vision. ACCOMPLISHMENTS: FY 2015-2016: 1. Provide Recreation Opportunities for the People of Tigard Accomplishments: The city hired a recreation coordinator in December and a Park and Recreation Charge study is underway. Staff updated the Recreation Finder tool and Council placed a ballot title for a community center building on the November 2015 ballot. It was defeated by voters. City continue to talk with recreation providers (THPRD & TTSD) about possible partnership opportunities. 2. Make Downtown Tigard a Place Where People Want to Be Accomplishments: The Ash/Burnham site was cleared,building permits issued and construction has begun on this mixed use redevelopment project. Mayor and Council BUDGET UNIT 0500 The downtown Saxony property mixed-use public space design study got underway, complementing the installation of Gateway improvements which were completed. The downtown's first Strolling Street is under construction at Maki/Wine Crafter/Elvia Hair Salon businesses, the Tigard Downtown Assn. Produced a successful Street Fair. The Sidewalk Gap technical group finished its preliminary inventory and presented results at the October 20 Council Workshop. Tigard Street trail was paved as a temporary measure to allow pedestrian use and easier access to downtown. 3. Adopt Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan and Enable Future Development Capacity Accomplishments: A Tigard Triangle Lean Code workshop was held September 14-17 to begin drafting code and zoning changes for the Tigard Triangle. The workshop provided an opportunity for the city leaders, Triangle landowners, business leaders, and developers to work with the P1aceMakers/DPZ/Crabtree consultant team to establish a framework for the new Lean Code to implement the Triangle Strategic Plan. Three public meetings were held. Drafts of the following documents received two rounds of public input and staff review: zoning map, street network plan, thoroughfare plan (which designates street classification and section requirements such as width, on-street parking, number of lanes, etc) and frontage types, which illustrates how different types of development will look on the sites. The city was awarded a $145,000 Metro Community Planning & Development Grant to investigate the feasibility of walkable mixed-use development and tools to facilitate such development. A new section of sidewalk was completed to fill the gap between 68th Ave and the I-5 Bridge on Haines/Atlanta Streets, and a seating area at the "overlook" at 68th and Dartmouth using the Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper project funds. Community Development held an ice cream social in the Tigard Triangle to promote the completion of the Dartmouth Overlook project and walkability in the Triangle. 4. Enable Groundbreaking in River Terrace by Summer 2015 Accomplishments: Infrastructure Financing Project Discussions continue with HBA regarding their legal challenge of our residential transportation SDCs. Discussions are on hold with business community regarding proposed non-residential transportation SDCs due to HBA legal challenge. Citywide park utility fee of $1.11/month is on track for adoption. River Terrace transportation and stormwater utility fee adoption schedule TBD. Mayor and Council BUDGET UNIT 0500 River Terrace Community Plan Implementation: A downstream analysis of River Terrace drainageways is complete; the final report is being prepared. An interdepartmental design review committee meets regularly to review park, stormwater facility and River Terrace Blvd design proposals. A consultant was hired to evaluate and make recommendations for optimal ped/bike connections, streetscape and intersection treatments, and wayfinding signage, while the city sent a letter to Metro requesting that the southern Urban Reserve Area be added to the UGB. Permitting: Six subdivision applications approved by the city for a total of over 1,000 homes; One subdivision application reviewed at a pre-application conference; Four demolition permits and three grading permits issued; Eight model home permits under review; One public facility improvement permit issued and another under review. Public Facilities: The Clean Water Services sewer pump station application was deemed complete and the public hearing before the Hearings Office happened on November 9. A draft MSTIP IGA for funding Roy Rogers Rd reviewed by the city, awaiting county's comments. River Terrace webpages revamped to reflect the project's shift from planning to development and to provide more background information (FAQ) and up-to-date development information 5. Expand Opportunities to Engage People in the Community Accomplishments: City Council hosted two events to talk about issues with residents: a Picnic in Summerlake Park (July) and a Tigard Tailgate at Tigard High (October). City staff completed a series of Community Ice Cream Visits to gain feedback on issues relevant to neighborhoods. A Voters Forum was held at Twality Middle School on October 8 in service to three measures on the November ballot. Open Budget Portal was deployed (http://budget.tigard-or.gov/#!/year/default) and went live with the new fiscal year. Staff added the CIP in August and had over 750 page views in one month. Finance staff worked with Socrata to add unaudited year-to-date actuals with the budget and explored the Open Checkbook application which would provide full detailed multi-year history on line. Thirteen Tigard Walks events were held between January and December. In three instances walks supported community events planned to bring people outside. The communications plan was completed in June with key messages to be used by all staff in excernal communications. The Communications Strategist and the Goal 3 Team for the Mayor and Council BUDGET UNIT 0500 Strategic Plan are using the plan's three strategies to strengthen communications internally and externally and build public involvement with the Strategic Plan, including dynamic community engagement outside of City Hall. Successful National Night Out neighborhood events were held throughout the city, with visits by the City Manager, Chief Orr, Asst. Chief deSulley, Mayor Cook and the City Councilors. City Council received an award from the Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Assn. for leadership in adoption of strategic plan. A plan to reboot the Neighborhood Network Program has been submitted to the City Manager. GOALS&OBJECTIVES: FY 2016-2017: Council Goal Setting is scheduled for January 5, 2016. WORKLOAD MEASURES 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 Number of regional committees 9 9 9 9 requiring elected official attendance Number of City Council meetings 38 38 38 38 Average length (hours) of council 3 3 3 3 meetings Number of Resolutions adopted 78 78 78 78 Number of Ordinances adopted 20 20 20 20 Population served 48,695 49,135 50,444 50,750 Number of opportunities for residents to NA 16 30 30 interact with elected officials (12 Fireside Chats, 16 1x10 events,2 Town Halls) EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 Survey is conducted every other year. Yes No Yes No Average rating on citizens' highest 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 service priorities Citizens rating overall city services as 85% 0 93% 95% good or better Citizens who feel that Tigard will be a 85% 0 85% 85% better place to live and work in the future Citizens rating overall city services as 87% 0 87% 87% good or better Mayor and Council BUDGET UNIT 0500 Citizens who say the city's long-term 49%* 0 55% 60% strategic vision represents their long-term vision (as measured in biennial survey) *average of phone &web responses FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT POSITIONS Mayor and Council BUDGET UNIT 0500 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION• The Mayor and four City Councilors provide legislative and policy leadership for city government. The Mayor and Councilors are elected by citizens for four-year terms on a non- partisan basis and serve part-time. The Council hires the City Manager to run day-to-day operations. The City Council reviews,revises and adopts city laws and policies and sets the overall direction of the city. PROGRAM RESULTS: • Basic city services provided to citizens are cost-effective and are delivered without interruption. • Tigard's interest in regional and statewide activities is coordinated with appropriate agencies and jurisdictions. • Tigard citizens are involved in the community and participate effectively. • Programs and activities are available in the community to meet the needs of a diverse population. • External and internal city assets are well managed and utilized. • Master plans, management and fiscal policies are adopted; resources are allocated to position Tigard for the future. • The community is engaged and connected to the city's strategic vision. ACCOMPLISHMENTS: FY 2015-2016: 1. Provide Recreation Opportunities for the People of Tigard Accomplishments: The city hired a recreation coordinator in December and a Park and Recreation Charge study is underway. Staff updated the Recreation Finder tool and Council placed a ballot title for a community center building on the November 2015 ballot. It was defeated by voters. City continue to talk with recreation providers (THPRD & TTSD) about possible partnership opportunities. 2. Make Downtown Tigard a Place Where People Want to Be Accomplishments: The Ash/Burnham site was cleared, building permits issued and construction has begun on this mixed use redevelopment project. The downtown Saxony property mixed-use public space design study got underway, complementing the installation of Gateway improvements which were completed. The downtown's first Strolling Street is under construction at Maki/Wine Crafter/Elvia Hair Salon businesses, the Tigard Downtown Assn. Produced a successful Street Faire. Mayor and Council BUDGET UNIT 0500 The Sidewalk Gap technical group finished its preliminary inventory and presented results at the October 20 Council Workshop. Tigard Street trail was paved as a temporary measure to allow pedestrian use and easier access to downtown. 3. Adopt Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan and Enable Future Development Capacity Accomplishments: A Tigard Triangle Lean Code workshop was held September 14-17 to begin drafting code and zoning changes for the Tigard Triangle. The workshop provided an opportunity for the city leaders, Triangle landowners, business leaders, and developers to work with the PlaceMakers/DPZ/Crabtree consultant team to establish a framework for the new Lean Code to implement the Triangle Strategic Plan. Three public meetings were held. Drafts of the following documents received two rounds of public input and staff review: zoning map, street network plan,thoroughfare plan (which designates street classification and section requirements such as width, on-street parking, number of lanes, etc) and frontage types, which illustrates how different types of development will look on the sites. The city was awarded a $145,000 Metro Community Planning&Development Grant to investigate the feasibility of walkable mixed-use development and tools to facilitate such development. A new section of sidewalk was completed to fill the gap between 68th Ave and the I-5 Bridge on Haines/Atlanta Streets, and a seating area at the "overlook" at 68th and Dartmouth using the Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper project funds. Community Development held an ice cream social in the Tigard Triangle to promote the completion of the Dartmouth Overlook project and walkability in the Triangle. 4. Enable Groundbreaking in River Terrace by Summer 2015 Accomplishments: Infrastructure Financing Project Discussions continue with HBA regarding their legal challenge of our residential transportation SDCs. Discussions are on hold with business community regarding proposed non-residential transportation SDCs due to HBA legal challenge. Citywide park utility fee of $1.11/month is on track for adoption. River Terrace transportation and stormwater utility fee adoption schedule TBD. River Terrace Community Plan Implementation: A downstream analysis of River Terrace drainageways is complete; the final report is being prepared. An interdepartmental design review committee meets regularly to review park, stormwater facility and River Terrace Blvd design proposals. A consultant was hired to evaluate and make recommendations for optimal ped/bike connections, streetscape and intersection treatments, and wayfinding signage, while the city sent a letter to Metro Mayor and Council BUDGET UNIT 0500 requesting that the southern Urban Reserve Area be added to the UGB. Permitting: Six subdivision applications approved by the city for a total of over 1,000 homes; One subdivision application reviewed at a pre-application conference; Four demolition permits and three grading permits issued; Eight model home permits under review; One public facility improvement permit issued and another under review. Public Facilities: The Clean Water Services sewer pump station application was deemed complete and the public hearing before the Hearings Office happened on November 9. A draft MSTIP IGA for funding Roy Rogers Rd reviewed by the city, awaiting county's comments. River Terrace webpages revamped to reflect the project's shift from planning to development and to provide more background information TAg and up-to-date development information 5. Expand Opportunities to Engage People in the Community Accomplishments: City Council hosted two events to talk about issues with residents: a Picnic in Summerlake Park Uuly) and a Tigard Tailgate at Tigard High (October). City staff completed a series of Community Ice Cream Visits to gain feedback on issues relevant to neighborhoods. A Voters Forum was held at Twality Middle School on October 8 in support of three measures on the November ballot. Open Budget Portal was deployed (http://budget.tigard-or.gov/#!/year/default) and went live with the new fiscal year. Staff added the CIP in August and had over 750 page views in one month. Finance staff worked with Socrata to add unaudited year-to-date actuals with the budget and explored the Open Checkbook application which would provide full detailed multi-year history on line. Thirteen Tigard Walks events were held between January and December. In three instances walks supported community events planned to bring people outside. The communications plan was completed in June with key messages to be used by all staff in external communications. The Communications Strategist and the Goal 3 Team for the Strategic Plan are using the plan's three strategies to strengthen communications internally and externally and build public involvement with the Strategic Plan, including dynamic community engagement outside of City Hall. Successful National Night Out neighborhood events were held throughout the city, with visits by the City Manager, Chief Orr, Asst. Chief deSulley,Mayor Cook and the City Councilors. City Council received an award from the Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Assn. Mayor and Council BUDGET UNIT 0500 for leadership in adoption of strategic plan. A plan to reboot the Neighborhood Network Program has been submitted to the City Manager. GOALS&OBJECTIVES: FY 2016-2017: Council Goal Setting is scheduled for January 5,2016. WORKLOAD MEASURES 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 Number of regional committees 9 9 9 9 requiring elected official attendance Number of City Council meetings 38 38 38 38 Average length (hours) of council 3 3 3 3 meetings Number of Resolutions adopted 78 78 78 78 Number of Ordinances adopted 20 20 20 20 Population served 48,695 49,135 50,444 51,000 Number of opportunities for residents to NA 16 30 30 interact with elected officials (12 Fireside Chats, 16 1x10 events,2 Town Halls) EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 Survey is conducted every other year. Yes No Yes No Average rating on citizens' highest 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 service priorities Citizens rating overall city services as 85% 0 93% 95% good or better Citizens who feel that Tigard will be a 85% 0 85% 85% better place to live and work in the future Citizens rating overall city services as 87% 0 87% 87% good or better Citizens who say the city's long-term 49%* 0 55% 60% strategic vision represents their long-term vision (as measured in biennial survey) 'average of phone&web responses FULL-TIME EQ UIVALENT POSITIONS FUND: 100 City of Tigard Oregon DIVISION: 0500 General Fund Mayor and Council YTD Revised FY 2014 FY 2015 2016 2016 Budget Resource Summary Requested 2017 Assumptions Chg Pkg I 1 Approved 1.980 Pad data package for Mayor Cook,Councilor Woodard Basc Approved and Henderson.Surface Pro Tablet for Council Pres.Snider &Councilor Goodhouse($33 mo)included in stipend for technology 68,805 Mayor Stipend,$45,285 and Councilor annual Stipend Hsisting Staff Alloc Approved $5,880. 16,51x1 vehicle stipend for Mayor and each Councilor: Basc Approved $275/month per Resolution#15-26 84,971 85,413 29,699 113,694 51001-Salaries-Management 87,285 Approved only 84,971 —85,413 29,699 113,694 Total Personal Services-Salaries 87,285 Run 1/19/20164:41:21 PM I'agc 1 n1'4 1111X15110 Nlacur and G'Linci1 FUND: 100 City of Tigard, Oregon DIVISION: 0500 General Fund Mayor and Council YTD Revised 2016 2016 Requested Chg Pltg FY 2014 FY 2015 Budget Resource Summary 2017 Assumptions f) Approved 97 Existing Staff Alloc Approved 1,185 997 149 48i 1 52001-Unemployment 97 Approved only 0 Approved 267 Existing Staff Alloc Approved 507 585 183 221 52002-Worker's Compensation 267 Approved only 0 Approved 7,364 Existing Staff Alloc Approved 6,620 6,279 2,064 7,288 52003-Social Security/Medicare 7,364 Approved only 696 Existing Staff Alloc Approved 0 Approved 611 617 215 690 52004-Tri-Met Tax 696 Approved only 0 Approved 0 0 266 52005-Retirement 0 Approved only 66,721 Existing Staff Alloc Approved Approved 42,176 51,550 21,209 63,235 52010-Medical/Dental/Vision 66,721 Approved only 0 Approved 5,178 6,522 2,721 0 52011-Dental Benefits 0 Approved only 56-177 66,550 26,541 72,180 Total Personal Services-Benefits 75,145 0 Approved 800 meeting supplies(cups,coffee,filters,clorox wipes,plates) Base Approved paper,pens,etc. 93 182 15' SIR) 53001-Office Supplies 800 Approved only 93 182 152 800 Total Supplies 800 Run 1/19/2016 4:41.•21 PM Page 2 of 4 10(X)5(X) Mayor and Councd FUND: 100 City of Tib b and Oregon DIVISION: 0500 General Fund Mayor and Council YTD Revised FY 2014 FY 2015 2016 2016 Budget Resource Summary Requested 2017 Assumptions Chg Pkg I i Approved 6,51111 Consultant fee for Council training Base Approved -100 Inpterpreter Services for hearing impaired at Council Base Approved meetings(upon request) 850 Photographer for Council group photo Base Approved 2,640 TVCTV taping of Council workshop meetings Base Approved 9,974 13,766 2,2.10 9,54f1 54001-Professional/Contractual Services 10,3911 Approved only 0 Approved 27,651 City Attorney legal support for Council-based on trends Base Approved 21,310 29,023 7,509 27,651 54003-Legal Fees 27,651 Approved only 1 Approved 0 0 17 0 54114-R&M-Office Equipment 0 Approved only 0 Approved 25 Council's use of pool vehicles for close-in travel. Base Approved 0 0 0 25 54115-Vehicle Usage 25 Approved only 0 Approved 1,815 3,451 GIH) 0 54205-Utilites-Phone/Pager/Cells 0 Approved only U Approved 0 450 0 0 54300-Advertising&Publicity 11 Approved only I1 Approved 32,086 League of Oregon Cities membership Base Approved (based on what we paid LOC for 2015/16 dues) 4,467 National League of Cities membership Base Approved (NLC dues are population based,cities over 50,000 pay $4467) 800 Oregon Ethics Commission filing dues Base Approved 188 Oregon Mayors Assn dues for Mayor Cook(population Base Approved based) 100 Other publications for Councilors Base Approved 120 Tigard Downtown Alliance dues Base Approved 3,489 U.S.Conference of Mayors membership Base Approved 2,500 Vision Action Network membership(Action Member status) Base Approved 5,044 Westside Economic Alliance membership Base Approved (Based on billing from July 2015) Run 1/19/2016 4:41:21 PM page 3 of 4 10005W Mavor and Council FUND: 100 City of Tigard, Oregon DIVISION: 0500 General Fund Mavor and Council YTD Revised 2016 2016 Bud et Resource Summa Requested Ch-Pkg FY 2014 FY 2015 g �' 2017 Assumptions 39,059 43,782 37,130 50,234 54302-Dues&Subscriptions 48,794 Approved only 0 Approved 1,100 Business meals that are outside regular council meetings Base Approved (Mayor only) (WEA forums,meetings with Metro and other jurisdictions, regional Mayor's dinner) 1,400 Council meals before regularly scheduled Council meetings Base Approved 28,000 Councilors training budget-$7,000 per councilor Base Approved 12,600 Mayor's training budget for conferences and meetings Base Approved 300 New Councilor/swearing in event Base Approved 10,000 Tigard Youth Advisory-Washington DC,sending 2 youth Base Approved plus chaperone 2:1,338 27,367 10,291 43,100 54303-Travel and Training 53,400 Approved only 0 Approved 800 Mayor and City Councilor clothing with city logo&name Approved embroidery 600 Recognition,awards,florist(funeral,illness)from Council. Base Approved Promotional items for visiting dignitaries and school age visitors. 5,000 State of the City Reception Base Approved 1,909 1,525 410 5,600 54311-Special Department Expenses 6,4(0 Approved only 99,405 119,364 58,1-- - 136,150 Total Services 146,660 - 240,746 271,50.E 114,569 322,824 Total Requirements 309,890 230,746 271,509 114,569 322,824 Total Mayor and Council 309,890 Run 1/19/2016 4:41:21 PM Page 4 of 4 1000500 Mayor and Councd