Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet - 11/01/2016 11111 -; City*of Tigard Tigard Business Meeting—Agenda TIGARD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL & CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY-Agenda Revised October 26,2016 -Agenda Item #5 to include two additional attachments -Agenda Revised October 31,2016-Executive Session citation updated MEETING DATE AND TIME: November 1,2016 - 6:30 p.m. Study Session; 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard -Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Citizen Communication items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated;it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503-718-2419, (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: 503-718-2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD -Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA 1 VIEW LIVE VIDEO STREAMING ONLINE: http://live.tigard-or.gov CABLE VIEWERS:The regular City Council meeting is shown live on Channel 28 at 7:30 p.m.The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Thursday 6:00 p.m. Sunday 11:00 a.m. Friday 10:00 p.m. Monday 6:00 a.m. : City of Tigard TIGARD Tigard Business Meeting—Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL& CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY-Agenda Revised October 26,2016-Agenda Item#5 to include two additional attachments-Agenda Revised October 31,2016-Executive Session citation updated MEETING DATE AND TIME: November 1,2016 - 6:30 p.m. Study Session; 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard -Town Hall- 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 6:30 PM •STUDY SESSION A. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 6:30 p.m. estimated time •EXECUTIVE SESSION:The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection, under ORS 192.660(2)(f).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. 6:45 p.m. estimated time 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Pledge of Allegiance D. Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) A. Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication B. Citizen Communication—Sign Up Sheet 3. CONSENT AGENDA: (Tigard City Council and City Center Development Agency) These items are considered routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: A. RECEIVE AND FILE: 1. Council Calendar 2. Council Tentative Agenda for Future Meeting Topics B. APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: •September 20,2016 •September 27,2016 C. APPROVE CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES: * September 6,2016 CCDA Meeting * October 4,2016 CCDA Meeting •ConsentAQenda-Items Removed for Separate Discussion:Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council/City Center Development Agency has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 4. CONSIDER MARIJUANA FACILITIES ORDINANCE 7:35 p.m. estimated time 5. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING ON 2016 OMNIBUS CODE AMENDMENT PACKAGE 7:45 p.m. estimated time 6. PRESENT POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION RELATING TO TRANSIENT LODGING 8:45 p.m. estimated time 7. RECEIVE UPDATE ON WILLAMETTE WATER SUPPLY PROJECT INTAKE STRUCTURE ALLOCATION 9:15 p.m. estimated time 8. CONSIDER RESOLUTION CONCURRING WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY FINDINGS REGARDING VACATION OF A PUBLIC SLOPE AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS IN RIVER TERRACE 9:45 p.m. estimated time 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session.If an Executive Session is called to order,the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute.All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions,as provided by ORS 192.660(4),but must not disclose any information discussed.No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 11. ADJOURNMENT 9:55 p.m.estimated time RN City of Tigard Tigard City Council Meeting Agenda TIGARD November 1, 2016 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION A. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 6:30 p.m. estimated time B. EXECUTIVE SESSION: CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC (To consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection,under ORS 192.660(2)(f). 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 of making any final decision. 6:45 p.m. estimated time Administrative Items: 1. City Attorney Interviews - 6:00 p.m.,November 22,Red Rock Conference Room 2. Reminder: TVCTV Holiday Greeting—7:15 p.m.,November 22,Town Hall Council Meeting Calendar November 1 Tuesday Council Business/CCDA Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall :. :. _. --- .. ..-! .. ., : . - ... Cancelled 15* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting— 6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 22* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:00 p.m.,Town Hall (TVCTV Holiday Greeting 7:15) 29 Tuesday Council Ground Rules Meeting—4-7 p.m.,Fanno Creek House December 6 Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 13* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 15 Thursday Council Goal Setting—4-7 p.m.,Location TBD 20 Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 27* Tuesday Council Business Meeting 6-:30 p.m,Town Hall Cancelled January 3 Tuesday City Center Development Agency Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 10* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 17 Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 24* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk (*). 1 __S--4/4 f - dV • /7 a/ (.1,07"hcil Zt a � so.-..... /2,par?`r — • THE OREGONIAN Hl • HOMES & RENTALS For advertising contact: Alison BattEoniarVcorn fie (�l egonian abattaglia@ Advertorial Editor: realestate.•- • . ' : L: -' - M PUBLISHED BY THE OREGONIAN MEDIA GROUP ADVERTISING DEPARTMENT Aaron Cooper 503-221-5368 INSIDE: acooper@oregonian.com OREGONLIVE.COM/ homes-rentals HOT PROPERTY - Celebrity Real Estate Transactions I PAGE H3 Sunday, October 30, 2016 River Terrace• ut homeowner within vie1ose proximityto everything they want By Polygon Northwest opportunities, a new school and above and beyond industry stan- for the Oregonian Media Group acres of preserved woodlands at dards to care for their customers. Marketing Department completion. The company's extensive 3-Year .ri�, -+ _ '�/- T Today, in an ongoing effort to Warranty & Service Program un- Polygon Northwest, a proud di- - - r appeal to a wide range of buyers to un- vision of William Lyon Homes, , - -- - - from first-time buyers move-up epend • derscores its commitment _ compromising se has successfully unveiled River . ____ - — ,. buyers, River Terrace features an ability and peace of mind. Terrace, a beautiful new master 4.t ,. /'�T array of new home floorplans and To discover why River Terrace planned community in Wash- I I -- - - - , 1 pricepoints ran from the 1- _ � �g high is so popular with home buyers, ington County. The community '=— - , -,r' . - :74,4"_-7--"i",•1------. '- 6 $200,000's to luxury homes start- p p y { I visit PolygonRiverTerrace.com features thoughtful design and a ; ' ..1 •4 •'.'- -.#'4- ' - s, ing from the $600,000's. Home yg wide array of new home designs .+r l 'iiflilllfl - == ' and view the on-site Polygon Col- ,,, - w - styles include attached,alley load lection and Polygon Estates sales and amenities that homebuyers r ,, ed and single-family detached will value and appreciate todayR. f ^ ' ' y centers to learn more. pp homes. All River Terrace home- , William Lyon Homes continues and well into the future. buyers by peace of mind w, „;,..4 y s benefit Attracted to the community's 'rr'. `� to expand its well-respected brand ty knowing that their home is backed beyond California, Arizona and ideal central west side location T- " •• . ._ �' �- ---,i,----1---•-•.• by Polygon's Triple Service&War- and beautiful natural surround- Above is an example of one of the many home designs available at River rarity Program. Nevada and into other markets ings, homebuyers have made Terrace,a new master planned community built by Polygon Northwest. Choosing the right builder is an across the Western region with the River Terrace the top selling mas- important matter, and William acquisition of Polygon Northwest ter planned community in Wash- Boundaries," said Matthew R. Portland market?' Lyon Homes is a company built Homes,its division in Washington ington County in 2016. Fully fur- Zaist,CEO and President,William The master planned community upon a legacy of pride and integri- and Oregon, and Village Homes, nished and landscaped model Lyon Homes. "The acquisition of of River Terrace will include more ty that has earned a solid track re- its division in Colorado. William homes are now open to the public. these private farm land parcels in than 2,000 new homes, well- cord for outstanding construction Lyon Homes' shares are publicly "Available land for new home such a constrained market area is planned active and passive corn- and service since 1956.A team of traded on NYSE under the symbol development in this area is se- significant and underscores our munity parks,multiple swim cen- visionaries dedicated to providing WLH. For updated information verely limited due to restrictions Oregon division's growing influ- ters,miles of neighborhood trails, a high quality home buying expe- and to learn more, visit www.ly- imposed by the Urban Growth ence and ascension within the convenient new retail and dining rience,William Lyon Homes goes onhomes.com. . - -- . .____ .. . _ 6 RIVER TERRACE .._..... . ,.:. • ,,,.._,,,..;„F, i.'.'''', ry+ - cv : 6 .11 - i,,, _, .,___ ...... IIL I ti r1.. I :,:',7,•''';‘F •'.....:t.'N'• ..,,,,,-.%k,-.-',k'_-, .7._-rr•--, !---• \ 'r 40 ..- 1..$ Q-* WASHINGTON COUNTY'S PREMIER ��•-) ' N'©`' MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY Q� INTEL ..nr.n P Y �.b. MUM i� NRISBBRO Q► �'cDiscover River Terrace,an exceptional new community featuring distinct neighborhoods ■1[E CID � 63 0 qO to suit a diversity of lifestyles. Explore the acres of parks,trails and preserved natural O BGYERTBN PORTLAND areas throughout the community. Live close to abundant shopping,dining and services, and within easy commuting distance of major area employers and downtown Portland. 0 ®lusimmTBII SOAK POLYGON ESTATES THE POLYGON COLLECTION TMRN.m 0 0 Estate-Style Residences Townhomes-Coming Soon! Single-Family Homes 1 LANE 4 bedrooms,2.5 to 3.5 baths 2&3 bedrooms,2 to 3.5 baths 3&4 bedrooms,2.5 baths pp, TIGARD OSWE60 Approx.2,914 to 4,549 sq.ft. Approx.1,221 to 1,569 sq.ft. Approx.1,642 to 3,648 sq.ft. A CIOnme�eT From the low$600s From the high$200s From the high$300s0 TUNE IUALA11N Learn more at PolygonRiverTerrace.com 0 O POLYGON n NORTHWEST ©Copyright 2016.In a continuous effort to improve its product,the builder reserves the tight in its sole discretion to change or cancel prices.promotions,incentives,features,options. amenities,noorplans,elevations,designs,matenals and dimensions without notice.Prices may not include lot premiums,upgrades and options.Homeowners association fees and assessments may be required.Square footage and dimensions are estimated and may vary in actual construction.Community improvements and recreational features and amenities f0000 Qy in A Pm...Jar/nlon of descnbed are based upon current development plans which are subject to change and which are under no obligation to be completed.Actual position of house on lot will be deter- 3 William Lyon Homes Q minedby023e6s,iCl#n2a74p7loat nd1pa20Fl43p.lanAss arenpod esledvabtiyonMsetarorestuartdiyst'ns ThenePoprttliaonnds.BPeusrso inensss inopurhnoatoSedpotenmererfle4,2a0c1ia6l.preference.Polygon Homes Northwest.Oregon License 0-00070484n-01 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 B - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: November 1, 2016 (Limited to 2 minutes or less,please) The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda and items on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony becomes part of the public record. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. NAME,ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF Please Print CONTACTED Name: Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: f j� ,Itl ff. 1' Address 5 1 City /iv F' State Zip 5 r Phone No. Name: Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. Name: Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION 1:\ADM\CITY RECORDERS\000 City Recorder-Records Resources and Policies\CCSignup\citizen communication 161101.doc AIS-2890 3. A. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 11/01/2016 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: RECEIVE AND FILE: THREE-MONTH COUNCIL CALENDAR AND TENTATIVE AGENDA Submitted By: Kelly Burgoyne, Central Services Item Type: Receive and File Meeting Type: Consent - Receive and File Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Receive and file the Council Calendar and the Tentative Agenda for future council meetings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST No action is requested; these are for information purposes. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached are the Council Calendar and the Tentative agenda for future Council meetings. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A - Receive and File Items Attachments Council Calendar Tentative Agenda - n • MEMORANDUM T I GARD TO: Honorable Mayor& City Council FROM: Kelly Burgoyne, Deputy City Recorder RE: Three-Month Council/CCDA Meeting Calendar DATE: November 1, 2016 November 1 Tuesday CCDA&Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 8* Tuesday Council Businc3a Meeting CANCELLED 15* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 22* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 29 Tuesday City Council Ground Rules Meeting—4:00-7:00 p.m., Fanno Creek House December 6 Tuesday CCDA Meeting—6:30 pm,Town Hall 13* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 15 Thursday City Council Goal Setting Meeting—4:00-7:00 p.m.,Location TBD 20* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 27* Tuc3day Council Bu3incas Meeting CANCELLED January 3 Tuesday CCDA Meeting—6:30 pm,Town Hall 10* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 17 Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 24* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 31 Tuesday City Council Outreach—6:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m.— 1'BD Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk (*). is\adm\city council\council calendar\3-month calendar word format.doc Meeting Banner 0 Business Meeting 0 Study Session . Special Meeting Consent Agenda 0 Meeting is Full Workshop Meeting 0 CCDA Meeting City Council Tentative Agenda 10/24/2016 1:23 PM - Updated For Meeting Submitted Meeting Title Inbox or m Date By Type -- Department Finalized -- 2637 11/01/2016 Carol Krager £AA November 1, 2016 CCDA Meeting =CCDA - COMBO Central 03/21/2016 Meeting (Business Meeting to start © 7:00 p.m.) Services 2815 11/01/2016 Kelly ACCSTUDY 15 Minutes - Council Liaison Reports (starts © 6:30 Central 08/25/2016 Bur o ne p.m.) Services 2827 11/01/2016 John ACCSTUDY 20 Minutes - Executive Session: Per ORS Public Works Krager C, City Goodrich 192.660(2)(e) Real Property Transaction Recorder Negotiations for Willamette River Water Total Time: 35 of 45 Minutes Scheduled 2878111/01/2016 Kelly CCDA 5 Minutes - Approve City Center Development Central 10/18/2016 Burgoyne - Agency_Minutes Services 2883 11/01/2016 gnes CCBSNS 1 10 Minutes - Marijuana Facilities Ordinance Community A Sher K, Kowacz Development Community Develo•ment Dir. 2810 11/01/2016 Sean 1 CCBSNS 2 60 Minutes - Council Public Hearing On Community Laughlin D, Conf. Farrelly Development Code Amendments Development Exec. Asst. 2814 11/01/2016 Kelly CCBSNS 3 30 Minutes - Present Policy and Implementation Finance and Krager C, City Burgoyne Relating to Transient Lodging Tax Information Recorder Services 2851 11/01/2016 John CCBSNS 4 30 Minutes - Willamette Water Supply Project Public Works 10/19/2016 Goodrich Intake Structure 2877 11/01/2016 Shauna CCBSNS 5 10 Minutes - Resolution Concurring with Public Works Newton L, Assistant Large Washington County Findings Regarding Vacation of a City Manager Public Slope and Draining Easements in River Terrace Total Time: 145 of 180 Minutes Scheduled 11 Page is\adm\city recorders\tentative agenda\october 24, 2016.docx Meeting Banner Business Meeting 0 Study Session Special Meeting Consent Agenda Meeting is Full Workshop Meeting 0 CCDA Meeting City Council Tentative Agenda 10/24/2016 1:23 PM - Updated 2638 11/08/2016 Carol AAA November 8, 2016 Business Meeting - CANCELLED Central 04/15/2016 Krager Services 2639 11/15/2016 Carol AAA November 15, 2016 Workshop Meeting Central 03/21/2016 Krager Mayor Cook Absent - (11/15-11/18 Services Transportation Conference), Councilor Goodhouse (11/15-11/20 NLC Conference) 2792 11/15/2016 Steve CCWKSHOP 1 45 Minutes - Joint Meeting with the Park and Public Works Martin S, Division Martin Recreation Advisory Board Manager 2813 11/15/2016 Kelly CCWKSHOP 2 30 Minutes - Discuss Non-Residential Tigard Finance and LaFrance T, Fin/Info Burgoyne Transportation SDC Info Services Svcs Director 2704 11/15/2016 Tom CCWKSHOP 3 15 Minutes - Update on Legislative Projects and Community McGuire T, Asst CD McGuire Tentative Timeline Development Director Total Time: 90 of 180 Minutes Scheduled 2640 11/22/2016 Carol AAA November 22, 2016 Business Meeting - (City Council Central 03/21/2016 Krager to Tape Holiday Greeting prior to Business Meeting) Services 2688 11/22/2016 Carol ACCSTUDY 15 Minutes - Council Liaison Reports Central 04/15/2016 Krager Services 2868 11/22/2016 Tom ACCSTUDY 30 Minutes - Council requested training on land use Community Newton L, Assistant McGuire and quasi-judicial decisions. Development City Manager Total Time: 45 of 45 Minutes Scheduled - Meeting Full 2845 11/22/2016 Joanne ACONSENT Consent Item - Proclaim November 26 as Small Central 09/28/2016 Bengtson Business Saturday Services 2834 11/22/2016 Kent CCBSNS 1 30 Minutes - Continue Discussion on the Council City Wyatt K, Wyatt Goal to Provide Recreational Opportunities for Tigard Management Management Residents Analyst 2IPage is\adm\city recorders\tentative agenda\october 24,2016.docx Meeting Banner Business Meeting ❑ Study Session Special Meeting Consent Agenda ❑ Meeting is Full Workshop Meeting ❑ CCDA Meeting City Council Tentative Agenda 10/24/2016 1:23 PM - Updated 2804 11/22/2016 Kelly CCBSNS 2 20 Minutes - LCRB Placeholder Community Barrett J, Sr Mgmt Burgoyne Development Analyst 2863 11/22/2016 Kent CCBSNS 3 30 Minutes - Continue the Discussion of Defining City Wyatt K, Wyatt the City's Role in Homelessness Management Management Analyst 2876 11/22/2016 1Carol CCBSNS 4 20 Minutes - Utility Billing Payment Plan Finance and Blecker Ron, Util. Krager Information Div. Supervisor Services 2849 11/22/2016 Lloyd CCBSNS 5 10 Minutes - Executive Session per ORS 192.510(6) Community 10/11/2016 Purdy Property Negotiation Development November 29, 2016 - City Council Ground Rules Meeting - Location: Fanno Creek House (4-7 pm) 2641 12/06/2016 Carol AAA December 6, 2016 Council Meeting (was CCDA, Central 03/21/2016 Krager changed to Business Meeting) Services 2555 12/06/2016 Lloyd Purdy CCBSNS 1 15 Minutes - Second Review: Development Community Purdy L, Econ Agreement Hunziker Infrastructure (Hold for Development Development Mgr Scheduling) 2856 12/06/2016 Kelly CCBSNS 2 45 Minutes - Executive Session: Per ORS City Bennett, D, HR Burgoyne 192.660(2)(i) Employment Related Performance of Management Director the Chief Executive Officer - Placeholder 2886 12/06/2016 Steve CCBSNS 3 10 Minutes - An Amendment to the Metro IGA for Public Works Krager C, City Martin _ Westside Trail Easements Recorder 2887 12/06/2016 Kent Wyatt CCBSNS 20 Minutes - Update from CFM on the City of Tigard's City Krager C, City Federal Legislative Activities Management Recorder Total Time: 90 Minutes of 180 Minutes Scheduled 3 I Page is\adm\city recorders\tentative agenda\october 24, 2016.docx Meeting Banner 0 Business Meeting 0 Stud}-Session ■ Special Meeting Consent Agenda 0 Meeting is Full Workshop Meeting 0 CCDA Meeting City Council Tentative Agenda 10/24/2016 1:23 PM - Updated 2642 12/13/2016 Carol AAA December 13, 2016 Business Meeting Central 03/21/2016 Krager Services 2689 12/13/2016 Carol ACCSTUDY 15 Minutes - Council Liaison Reports Central 04/15/2016 Krager Services Total Time: 15 of 45 Minutes (0 Hours, 15 Minutes) 2835 12/13/2016 Liz Lutz CCBSNS 1 5 Minutes - Appoint Budget Committee Members Finance and Information Services 2846 12/13/2016 Joe Patton CCBSNS 2 5 Minutes - Appoint Tigard Transportation Advisory Community Brown B, Assoc Committee Members Development _Transp Planner 2847 12/13/2016 Doreen CCBSNS 3 5 Minutes - Appoint Planning Commission Members Community Laughlin D, Conf Laughlin ,Development Exec. Asst. 2848 12/13/2016 Joe Patton CCBSNS 4 5 Minutes - Appoint City Center Advisory Commission Community Farrelly S, Redev Members Development Project Manager 2789 12/13/2016 Susan CCBSNS 5 30 Minutes - Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Plan Community Shanks S, Senior Shanks Development Planner 2805 12/13/2016 Kelly CCBSNS 6 20 Minutes - LCRB Placeholder Central Barrett J, Sr Mgmt Burgoyne Services Analyst 2828 12/13/2016 John CCBSNS 7 15 Minutes - Willamette Water Supply Project Intake Public Works Grass, M, Conf Exec Goodrich Structure Allocation Assistant 2860 12/13/2016 Sean CCBSNS 8 15 Minutes - Public Hearing for City Center Urban Community Farrelly S, Redev Farrelly Renewal Plan Substantial Amendment Development Project Manager December 15, 2016 - City Council Goal Setting Meeting - Location: TBD (4-7 pm) 2653 12/20/2016 Carol AAA December 20, 2016 Workshop Meeting Central 03/21/2016 Krager Services 4 I Pagc is\adm\city recorders\tentative agenda\october 24, 2016.docx Meeting Banner a Business Meeting 0 Study Session • Special Meeting Consent Agenda I.Q Meeting is Full Workshop Meeting 0 CCDA Meeting City Council Tentative Agenda 10/24/2016 1:23 PM - Updated 2861 12/20/2016 Sean CCWKSHOP 1 30 Minutes - CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING: Community Shanks S, Senior Farrelly Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Plan - Adoption Development Planner Hearing (if needed) 2862 12/20/2016 Hannah CCWKSHOP 2 40 Minutes - Receive update on Tigard's Affordable Community Farrelly S, Redev Holloway Housing Programs Development Project Manager 2858 12/20/2016 Anna CCWKSHOP 3 30 Minutes - Safe Routes to School Update Community Dragovich A, Safe Dragovich Development Routes Coord. Total Time: 100 Minutes of 180 Minutes Scheduled 2645 12/27/2016 Carol Krager AAA December 27, 2016 Business Meeting - CANCELLED Central 03/21/2016 Services 2869 01/03/2017 Carol Krager AAA January 3, 2017 CCDA Meeting 2871 01/10/2017 Carol Krager AAA January 10, 2017 Business Meeting L 2872 01/17/2017 Carol Krager AAA January 17, 2017 Workshop Meeting 2873 01/24/2017 Carol Krager AAA January 24, 2017 Business Meeting 2881 01/24/2017 Susan ACCSTUDY 25 Minutes - Review Ballot Measure Title for Tigard Community Shanks S, Senior Shanks Triangle Urban Renewal Plan Development Planner Total Time: 25 Minutes 2882 1/24/2017 Lloyd CCBSNS 1 15 Minutes - Hunziker ROW Final Authorization Community Purdy L, Econ Purddy Development Development Mgr 2884 1/24/2017 Sean CCBSNS 2 10 Minutes - Review Ballot Measure Title for City Community Farrelly S, Redev Farrelly Center Urban Renewal Plan Substantial Amendment Development__ Project Manager Total Time: 25 of 100 Minutes Scheduled 5IPage is\adm\city recorders\tentative agenda\october 24, 2016.docx Meeting Banner Business Meeting 0 Study Session Special Meeting Consent Agenda Meeting is Full Workshop Meeting CCDA Meeting City Council Tentative Agenda 10/24/2016 1:23 PM - Updated Council Confirmed Travel &Vacation Dates: Mayor Cook: Nov. 2-3, USCM Water Council Task Force Mayor Cook: Nov.4-7,out of town Councilor Woodard Nov. 7-9, Conference Mayor Cook: Nov. 15-18,Transp. For America conf. Councilor Goodhouse: Nov. 15-20,NLC 6 I Page i:\adm\city recorders\tentative agenda\october 24,2016.docx AIS-2891 3. B. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 11/01/2016 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Approve City Council Meeting Minutes Submitted By: Kelly Burgoyne, Central Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Consent Agenda Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Approve City Council meeting minutes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Approve minutes as submitted. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached council minutes are submitted for City Council approval: •September 20, 2016 •September 27, 2016 OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A Attachments September 20, 2016 Minutes September 27, 2016 Minutes IAll V • . . TIGARD City ofTigard Tigard Workshop Meeting Agenda September 20, 2016 IR IE IIR 1. WORKSHOP - 6:30 PM A. Mayor Cook called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. B. Deputy City Recorder Burgoyne called the roll. Name Present Absent Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Councilor Henderson ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ C. Mayor Cook asked those attending to stand with him for the Pledge of Allegiance. D. Call to Council and Staff for Non Agenda Items —There was none. 2. DISCUSS ADOPTION PROCESS FOR SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO DOWNTOWN CITY CENTER URBAN RENEWAL PLAN Members of the Planning Commission present included: President Calista Fitzgerald,Vice President Brian Feeney, Bret Lieuallen, Chris Middaugh,Don Schmidt, Gary jelinek,Matthew Muldoon, Michael Enloe and Yi-Kang Hu. Redevelopment Manager Farrelly discussed the City Center Development Agency's (CCDA) board meeting that was held in May where staff was instructed to explore a substantial amendment to the Downtown City Center Urban Renewal Plan; exploring ways to increase the plans maximum indebtedness to be more in line to what was originally projected in 2006. Mr. Farrelly explained that in order to increase the plan's maximum indebtedness to where it was originally, staff wanted to increase and expand the district area,allowing for additional tax increment revenue and increasing the size of the district. He said state law allowed for no more than a one percent increase of the original size, and that the proposed areas would increase the district by more than that and would require voter approval. He said they were looking to get this placed on the May 2017 election. Mr. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES —September 20, 2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 1 of 9 Farrelly explained that staff had already briefed the City Center Advisory Committee on the substantial amendment. He referred to a map with the proposed expansions and explained that staff was proposing expanding the areas within A (George Moreland Business),B (Main Street Village Apartments) and E (Park 217 Office Park),which would bring the city more in line with the original twenty-two million dollars in maximum indebtedness. He explained that the process was very similar to that of the Tigard Triangle Project and they would be going before the Washington County Board of Commissioners on October 18,2016,the Planning Commission on November 14, 2016 and then City Council on December 13,2016 for adoption. Staff thought that going out for both urban renewal projects was the best method. Mayor Cook asked how it would work logistically for the tax increment and when that started. Mr. Farrelly replied that it starts when the amendment is approved. Planning Commissioners present asked where the money would be coming from. Mr. Farrelly explained how urban renewal worked and how and where the funds were attributed. He said it included street improvements, streetscape improvements,pedestrian and bike facilities,public facilities;such as parking,property acquisitions and development programs like; facade and improvement programs, explaining that new properties brought in would potentially be eligible to take part in these programs. Planning Commissioner Lieuallen asked where the funds originated. Mr. Farrelly explained that the way urban renewal works, is to freeze the property taxes at a particular point in time and that the increased amount of property taxes goes into an urban renewal fund called a Tax Increment Financing Fund,which is the fund that can be borrowed against. Council explained it was not increasing the property taxes of anyone and that it wouldn't be going to any other agencies. They said that money would stay within the Urban Renewal District. Councilor Woodard read the statement under key facts and information. He said there was no guarantee the money would be used for those projects and that they are just examples of what the money could be used for. Mr. Farrelly said that with the especially low interest rates currently available,it was a good time to borrow. He explained that the bonds are typically paid off within ten years. The Planning Commission asked if it was worth going out for a longer period on the bond. Mayor Cook said there are time limits to how long they could have the bond, and that after the ten years there would be no money coming in to continue to pay on the bond if they extended it out past the ten years;it would be difficult to make payments if there is not cash sources associated with the bond, and that currently there is no cash associated beyond the ten years. Councilor Henderson explained how much they could borrow and how that would be paid back within the given amount of time, and that they couldn't borrow any more money than what they could currently pay back. Mayor Cook asked why staff had chosen sites A,B and E. He understood why they had chosen site E,but didn't see site B as a highly developable area. He asked if another site would be better. Mr. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES—September 20, 2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 2 of 9 Farrelly explained they looked at size limitations, financial volume and redevelopment potential and that it is a balancing act. He explained that site B was currently doing some redevelopment and sites G and D aren't worth as much comparatively. Planning Commissioner Lieuallen asked how the three percent would be dispersed and which projects would be cut if they are short on funds. Mr. Farrelly explained that some of the bigger projects like the Performing Art Center, structured parking and the Ash Avenue extension could potentially not be funded through urban renewal funds; however, the SW Corridor project could possibly provide more funds, especially for structured parking. Councilor Woodard said some facilities, like public facilities, don't generate tax revenue, and believes that sites C and F have potential. Mr. Farrelly replied that while parking structures did not generate money, they did add value. 3. JOINT MEETIN WITH PLANNING COMMISSION: TIGARD TRIANGLE URBAN RENEWAL AND CODE/ZONING UPDA 1'E Senior Planner Shanks gave a presentation and introduced Urban Renewal Consultant Eileen Howard. Ms. Shanks said the Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Plan has two components to it;one component was to develop an urban renewal plan which allowed a funding source, and the other component is the implementation project. She said staff was working with the Technical Advisory Committee and Citizen Advisory Committee and introduced the committee members who were present in the audience. Ms. Shanks then discussed all the components of the plan and how they shaped the plan Ms. Shanks discussed the proposed urban renewal boundary and said it had been vetted by the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and includes the outside edges of the right-of-ways,which are essentially the freeways that bound the Tigard Triangle area. She said the freeways surrounding the area are Highway 1-5, Highway 217 and Highway 99W,and that most of the commercial use properties were along Highway 99W. She said both committees felt the edge of 99W is the most porous edge, and the other freeway edges have limited access because they are elevated. She said 99W is also more visible from both sides of the street and has more points of access. Council President Snider asked if the city border is along the eastern edge. Ms. Shanks replied that it is, and said the other reason for including the properties north of 99W was to have the ability to fund projects that could increase safe access for new and future businesses and residents in the Triangle. Urban Renewal Consultant Eileen Howard said the maximum indebtedness is the total amount of money that can be spent in an urban renewal area on projects,programs and administration, and that it does not include the interest paid on the debt. Ms. Howard said$188 million dollars is the total maximum indebtedness for this area,which translates into $94.5 million dollars in today's dollars. She explained they arrived at this amount by looking at an assumed growth rate for assessed value within the urban renewal area which is 4.5 percent. She said they compared these numbers to that of Lake Oswego and the State, and believe this to be an achievable number. She said they are only allowed to increase the amount by three percent,leaving the remaining 1.5 percent that has to TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES—September 20, 2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 3 of 9 be for new development or substantial rehabilitation within the urban renewal area. She explained that to be able to fund the amount of projects they are currently looking at, they had to look at a thirty-five-year urban renewal plan. She said that unlike the Civic Center,this plan only has a limitation on the maximum indebtedness allowed, and that thirty-five years is what they believe will take to achieve that. She also explained what could happen if there is a recession or if their prediction is better and it takes less time,it could either extend or compress the thirty-five years. Councilor Woodard asked if there is any jurisdictional concern. Ms. Shanks said that TVF&R is still working with them and talking about revenue sharing and they are working out the details. Councilor Woodard asked if the$94.5 million was a realistic amount. Ms. Howard explained how they got to that figure and that the amount was discussed with staff and they felt it was realistic,but that it is not guaranteed. Ms. Shanks explained they had looked at surrounding jurisdictions and that dollar amount isn't overly aggressive. Mayor Cook asked how they determined the time frame. Ms. Shanks explained the difference between the plan duration choices, and how the assumed rate growth would be with the maximum indebtedness for each of those plan durations. She said Tigard has a lot of transportation needs and the community members felt that based on the project needs they wanted to see accomplished,they preferred the thirty-five-year plan,but that TVF&R and the Community Planning Organization (CPO4M) preferred a shorter duration. Council President Snider asked what was the preferred duration of time. Ms. Shanks replied that they preferred a twenty-five year plan duration,but would be comfortable with a thirty year duration. Planning Commissioner Lieuallen asked what the motivation was and if the 4.5 percent assumed growth rate included light rail. Ms. Shanks said that with the recession now over there was land that was undeveloped and that developers were coming to staff with a desire to develop those areas. Ms. Shanks said they were not including light rail in that 4.5 percent figure. Councilor Goodhouse said this was completely separate from light rail; that these are two separate entities,and was not being done to fund light rail. Ms. Howard explained that schools and service districts are indirectly impacted; they do not receive their money directly from taxes that are collected in the community,but instead,receive their money from the State School Fund that is funded on a per pupil basis and there is no way of knowing if this amount would increase. Ms. Shanks explained light rail would only affect the duration, not the funding. She explained the goals and objectives were the heart of the plan, that the development agency has authority to reallocate monies over projects, and the goals are the direction from the community. She said they had spent a lot of time defining the goals and explained they were very specific and that both groups contributed to the overall goals and objectives: Goal 1 —Public involvement: public vote and having a citizen committee. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES—September 20, 2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 4 of 9 Goal 2—Relates to transportation system and supports mixed-use. She discussed briefly related projects (Atlanta Street Extension,Red Rock Creek Trail, Hwy 217 Overpass). Goal 3—Public Utilities—improvements to support desired development; stormwater detention facilities, sewer repairs and extensions. Goal 4—Create a clear identity building on unique features, topography,parks &restrooms, gateway installation projects that give downtown a sense of place. Goal 5—Developing community to take advantage of redevelopment; street improvements, fee assistance, site preparation and facade loans. Urban Renewal helping to pay SDC fees. Ms. Shanks continued to explain how they planned to address infrastructure and implement community vision and how they pulled from that to make a list that primarily consisted of stormwater and sewer projects. She discussed transportation issues in the Tigard Triangle, how they weighed impacts and city goals, the current state of areas and what they could do to improve those areas; she said it is very qualitative and not quantitative. Ms. Shanks said the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) had spent time discussing the project list. She talked about funding allocations,producing a plan that is financially feasible and what projects would encapsulate development. She told council they would come back in two weeks with a drafted plan and when they anticipated this going to a public vote since the City Charter required of vote for this district. Councilor Goodhouse explained this was an undeveloped area and could harm the district if they didn't take advantage of the growth now. Planning Commissioner Lieuallen asked about the interest rate and what density they are looking at. Ms. Howard said the interest is not part of the total$188 million and that one third of the Tigard Triangle is commercial and the other part is mixed use. Ms. Shanks stated they would like to have this item vetted and ready for the May 2017 election. Associate Planner Cheryl Caines discussed Part II,the Lean Code Project and how they were being developed and requirements that needed to be met. She said they were working with a consultant who was working with ODOT since the Tigard Triangle is surrounded by ODOT land. Ms. Caines explained a traffic analysis is required and that staff wanted to address any significant impacts. She discussed parking management and how it transitions in time in the Tigard Triangle and said they were looking at an efficient use of parking. She finished her presentation discussing the schedule and the code review which would be done by the city attorney. 4. DISCUSS THE CITY'S ROLE IN ADDRESSING HOMELESSNESS Police Commander McDonald, Officer Orth and Officer Wakem introduced themselves, discussed the previous discussion before council and recognized the work done by Just Compassion. Police Commander McDonald discussed the city's role in affordable housing and homelessness in Tigard, what city resources were being devoted to homelessness and the city's proactiveness in addressing TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES—September 20, 2016 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov Page 5 of 9 homelessness. They discussed the actions council could take to address homelessness, current data for homelessness,Washington County Community Connect numbers and how the number of homeless veterans were decreasing. Police Commander McDonald highlighted what Tigard was currently doing for homelessness, talked about the legislative agenda for homelessness and how two Tigard police officers were positively interacting daily with the homeless community and a recent Tigard newspaper article published about the officers. Officer Orth said they started on the north side of the city and went south,identified camps to see what they could do for the homeless, asked for consent from surrounding business owners, built relationships and provided the homeless with resources. Officer Wakem discussed previous issues they had encountered and how they were trying to balance on duty assistance vs off duty assistance. She explained they started the outreach program as a safety measure and they were excited for the people the program has helped. Officer Wakem thanked the council for listening to them. Council President Snider asked if there are things the city could do to support the officers that wouldn't cost the city a lot of money. Officer Orth said working with other city departments has been helpful to them. He said they are currently working with the library to set-up a social services hour that would offer resources to the homeless community, he said they were working on getting post office boxes setup at the Post Office in order for people without a physical address to have a mailing address. Officer Orth said the Senior Center agreed to allow homeless veteran's to use the Senior Center's mailing address on their documents so that they could receive mail. Council President Snider said these are things the council could help with and asked staff to explor it more. Management Analyst Wyatt said that they would. Officer Orth explained they are barely able to maintain what they are currently doing,that there are a lot of people in transition and more people are living in their vehicles so any additional assistance is appreciated. Mr. Wyatt said staff had recently visited the Tigard Street Trail, and while there was a lot of garbage left behind, there was currently no one camping along the trail. He said the most common complaints the city receive are about people camping in tents or sleeping in cars. Mr. Wyatt talked about other city resources such as the library;they are somewhat of an informal day center. He said that Just Compassion does frequent the library to let people know they are there to help and that they are open every Thursday. Mr. Wyatt talked about the round table conversations that occur between the city, Good Neighbor Center and Just Compassion where they discuss allocating funds for social services grants and in-kind staff support. He finished by talking about possible actions for council to consider: • Look at social service grants. Mr. Wyatt said they had received one for over$200,000 and Just Compassion had received a grant for$5,000. • Direct staff to look at inclusion area zones. He explained that inclusion area zones fall into the affordable housing category, and that currently city of Portland is doing this. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES — September 20, 2016 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov Page 6 of 9 • Council consideration of an ordinance that would provide 90-day notice to tenants for a no cause eviction. This would allow tenants more time to find other housing options. He said city Milwaukie,Portland and Vancouver Washington have already passed one. • Council consideration of adding a full-time staff position that would be a dedicated liaison in working on the homelessness issue. He said this position could reside within the police department. • Council consideration of allocating funding to Just Compassion for securing another location or to offer more in-kind support in connecting Just Compassion with providers so they could extend their hours of operation to seven days a week. • Council consideration of convening a summit to see who the players are and if anyone was interested in a partnership. Council President Snider asked how many staff hours they thought were needed when considering the library option. Officer Wakem replied four to eight hours a week would be needed to allow for flexibility with appointment times. Mayor Cook asked if there were times when a partnership was helpful. Commander McDonald said what they've done so far was very grass roots, and is important to have someone with expertise in dealing with the homeless population,and thought that a partnership, especially with someone like a social worker would be helpful. Councilor Woodard commended the two officers and Just Compassion on what they do, and said he wanted to make this a council goal. Councilor Goodhouse talked about his recent trip to Minneapolis where he attended a breakout session on homelessness. He said the City of Eugene gave a great presentation on what had worked for them; that they realized they needed more volunteers and the value of providing tiny homes for the homeless population. Councilor Goodhouse wanted to look at other cities and check to see what is working for them. Council President Snider talked about being excited tonight and that for a small investment, the city could do more. He liked the ideas of operating a mail slot and contracting with other organizations. He thanked both officers for their time on the clock and off the clock as volunteers. Council President Snider suggested staff have more conversations with Just Compassion to see if they had more ideas. Councilor Goodhouse talked about the possibility of forming a committee with members throughout the community that meet once a month and could report more to the council. Mayor Cook said he spent nine days earlier in the month discussing homelessness issues and liked the idea of creating a task force made up of individuals who have expertise in the area of homelessness. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES—September 20,2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 7 of 9 Councilor Henderson said working with people and communication was key and that in the work he has done with homeless people, he has found that once someone is off the streets, they turn around and work with the homeless. He talked about Salt Lake City's homeless programs. Councilor Woodard said he would like staff to look at having a transportation call center that could help the homeless population get to appointments. Mr.Wyatt talked about what he heard from council and said staff would be looking to get something going within the next calendar year and would look into forming a committee. 5. WILLAMETTE RIVER WATER COALITION (WRWC) UPATE BRIEFING Public Works Director Rager explained the city's engagement with Willamette River Water Supply Program,where the city is with the water district,intake structure on the Willamette, how much they can pump per day and where the city would be in 2020. He said TVWD needs to know by December 31 if Tigard would participate or not, and if they did, he believed,Tigard's financial investment wouldn't happen for until the following fiscal year. Councilor Woodard asked if they would need to vote. Mr. Rager said the opinion of the city attorney is that the city would not need a vote until the city decided to use the water. Councilor Henderson asked staff if Tigard currently has a permit for 25 million gallons and staff replied they do. Mr. Rager explained that the city would just be securing their shares; that any additional expansion or pipe location cost from the treatment center to Tigard would be future costs. Councilor Henderson asked why Tigard would give up a twenty-five million gallon permit if we decided to do this. Staff explained our rights would still exist,but that the city wouldn't have a practical way of using it. Councilor Henderson said it was possible they could sell the twenty-five million gallon permit instead of giving it up. Mr. Rager explained the question before council tonight is just on the intake structure; that they wouldn't be giving up their water rights. Council President Snider asked what the practical alternatives would be if they did not participate now. Mr. Rager explained the city could potentially be on their own. Councilor Henderson said the city could get their water through Sherwood. Mr. Rager asked council what they would like staff to bring back for consideration. Councilor Woodard talked about storage capacity and what the city had used and said he has a difficult time going to the voters. City Manager Wine explained they were not discussing going to the voters at the moment, and that it could be several years before that would be needed. Councilor Woodard said he believed the storage capacity is undervalued. Mr. Rager explained that the ASR is currently treated and that the program has been a successful one for the city. He explained the ASR becomes more and more part of the system as the line moves up, and right now it is serving more as a reserve source,but as the chart picks up it becomes more of a necessity. He said once we hit the year 2055 we would be relying a lot more on the ASR TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES—September 20, 2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 8 of 9 capacity. Councilor Goodhouse asked where the $16 million would come from if they chose to move forward in December. Mr. Rager said he believed they would be able to pay for that under the existing rate structure,but would like to come back with more of a concrete answer. Mayor Cook said when he voted to increase rates 14 percent to buy the extra 4MGD, he agreed to not vote for the next five years for any additional increases,and he intended to stick to that commitment. He explained his concerns were with the fixed and operational costs within the next five years and if there would be other costs that will need to fit under that same umbrella, as well as the operating cost of the partnership and cash flow of depreciation. Councilor Henderson asked what things don't affect the ASR. He stated the water isn't free and asked how and when we buy water. Mr. Rager explained they try and buy water in the winter,but there are additional costs to pump the water out of the ground and cost of chlorine to clean the water,and that it's good to exercise the pumps. City Manager Wine said the purpose of the briefing is to have the very discussion council was having to determine when the city may need supply and when to exercise our option to purchase the supply and from where. Council President Snider agreed with Councilor Goodhouse's statement that water is a precious commodity and is in favor of doing whatever they need in order to have future cost effective options. 6. NON AGENDA ITEMS—There was none. 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION There was no executive session. 8. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Cook called for a motion to adjourn the meeting. At 9:29 p.m. Council President Snider motioned to adjourn the meeting and Councilor Woodard seconded. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of council. Kelly Burgoyne, Deputy City Recorder Attest: john L. Cook, Mayor Date: TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES—September 20, 2016 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 9 of 9 111 e City of Tigard Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes TIGARD September 27, 2016 STUDY SESSION CJ 6:30 p.m. Council Present: Mayor Cook, Councilor Henderson, Council President Snider and Councilor Goodhouse. Staff Present: Assistant City Manager Newton,Assistant Community Development Director McGuire, Associate Planner Kowacz and City Recorder Krager A. Council Liaison Reports—Councilor Henderson said the Summerfield Outreach went very well. Council President Snider remarked he would like to duplicate it in another part of the community but it may be difficult to find another group that is as engaged. Councilor Goodhouse mentioned hearing a discussion about attracting attendees to city meetings and that offering prizes, such as Starbucks cards or raffles was effective. Council President Snider said the difference with the Summerfield community is that they wanted to be there and are very interested in what is going on in the community. In response to a question from Council President Snider,Assistant City Manager said ice cream socials can attract as many as 50-80 neighbors. Council President Snider reported on the Lake Oswego-Tigard Water Partnership Oversight Committee meeting. He said the group is moving towards identifying the general structure of a future operating agreement which at this point may create a separate entity. He said Tigard supports this. He said there is also discussion on whether to immediately begin funding the depreciation of the project which may double the monthly cost. Council President Snider said the current agreement says the intent of both cities is to fund the depreciation immediately which was decided in the 2008 time period. He reported that Mayor Cook found an error in the allocation that when corrected was in Tigard's favor. Money is being put away now for known upcoming maintenance such as filter replacements in ten years. Councilor Henderson asked about money in the budget to help with the Willamette River Water Coalition (WRWC) program. Council President Snider said that money will be in the water fund and comes from future SDCs. Councilor Goodhouse went on a bike tour of Beaverton with the Westside Economic Affiance which included Nike's new construction. All seven new schools are being built to category 4 standards so they can be used as disaster shelters in an emergency. Features include generators, solar panels and separate water pipes that can be filled by trucks in case the municipal water system is compromised. He said this increases the cost of the buildings by only 1-3 percent. Mayor Cook attended a Transportation Strategies Team meeting regarding different grant requirements for regional, state and federal grants. He mentioned the bridge fund grant which will pay for the North Dakota Street Bridge but does not cover ramps or a bike/pedestrian path. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — September 27, 2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 1 of 12 B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE PROCESS AND PROCEDURES PROJECT UPDATE Associate Planner Kowacz and Assistant Community Development Director McGuire presented this item. This large project will include updates and fix inconsistencies identified by staff and logged in an improvement database. Many changes are administrative or housekeeping items. It includes changes identified by the Strategic Plan Goal 2 audit for walkability, and Comprehensive Plan Goal 10—housing, to include different types of housing such as detached accessory dwelling units. Examples of what will be in the update: • Recommendation to remove or reduce a conditional use permit requirement for trails already in an adopted city trails plan. • New criteria for approving projects for walkability. • Establish more consistent terminology. • Creation of a "general" adjustment instead of many, specific adjustments. • Develop requirements for detached Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) • Develop a lot line consolidation process. Councilor Goodhouse suggested adding a disclaimer or a time limit so this cannot be used to create a development. Assistant Community Development Director McGuire said a time restriction would be about the limit the city can do to prevent property owners from making several separate lot line adjustments in order to end up with a subdivision. Council President Snider asked if this could be coordinated with the county similar to how the spacing requirements apply to both city and county marijuana facility locations. Mr. McGuire said staff can look into it. Ms. Kowacz said this process has three parts and discussed the schedule. • Immediate changes required by FEMA rules and Measure 91 (marijuana establishment spacing limits) —tonight • A reorganization of the Community Development Code to make it easier to understand and consistent —January 2017 • The content changes and policy decisions will be reviewed: o June July 2017 —Public Open Houses o Planning Commission Workshops August—October 2017 o City Council Workshops -November—December 2017 o City Council Adoption—January 2018 Council Questions and Comments: Mayor Cook asked for sidewalks to be required for single homes constructed on a lot. Assistant Community Development Director McGuire said there is a rough proportionality test for this and that is why it was probably not done in the past.Councilor Henderson asked if he meant he wanted a sidewalk requirement for TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — September 27, 2016 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov Page 2 of 12 building on a flag lot and Mayor Cook said yes. Mr. McGuire said he would investigate the rough proportionality evaluation and come back with findings. Mayor Cook said a few years ago there was a code issue list that contained the sign code, backyard chickens, etc. and asked if council could receive an updated list. Council President Snider asked if staff has figured out what to recommend about chickens because he still gets a lot of questions. Assistant Community Development Director McGuire said it has evolved to the point that there is an entire legislative project around urban agricultural issues. Councilor Goodhouse noted that Tualatin is looking at regulating food carts. Mr. McGuire said they are already allowed in Tigard if they meet certain criteria. They must be wheeled, can be in any area where a food or restaurant business is allowed, such as a General Commercial Zone,required parking ratios must be maintained if they are in a parking lot and they cannot hook up to water or sewer. He added that staff is looking into allowing food cart pods and this will be folded into the urban architecture section. Administrative Items: Councilor Goodhouse and City Engineer Faha will report on the American Public Works Association Conference at a brown bag lunch presentation at 11:45 a.m. on October 6 in Town Hall. There is a new gas tax video on the website and a mailer went out in utility bills. The Hunziker agenda item was missing legal descriptions and Assistant City Manager Newton handed these out to council. Meeting Changes—The October 11 and November 8 council meetings are cancelled. The October 18 meeting is a combination business/workshop. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.. At 7:32 p.m. Mayor Cook called the City Council and Local Contract Review Board meeting to order. B. City Recorder Krager called the roll. Present Absent Councilor Woodard ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Councilor Henderson ✓ Council President Snider ✓ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — September 27, 2016 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 3 of 12 C. Mayor Cook asked everyone to stand and join him in the Pledge of Allegiance. D. Mayor Cook called to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items—None 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION A. Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication— None B. Citizen Communication—Sign-up Sheet. No one signed up to speak. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: (Tigard City Council) A. APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: • July 12, 2016 • July 26, 2016 B. CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AN IGA WITH ODOT FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SECTIONS OF THE FANNO CREEK TRAIL C. CONSIDERATION OF CITYWIDE COLLECTION SERVICES CONTRACT AWARD D. CONSIDERATION OF JANITORIAL SERVICES CONTRACT AWARD E. CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACT AWARD FOR DESIGN OF THE TIEDEMAN RE-ALIGNMENT OF FANNO CREEK TRAIL F. PROCLAIM DISTRACTION FREE DRIVING AWARENESS DAY Council President Snider moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Councilor Goodhouse seconded the motion. Mayor Cook conducted a vote and the motion passed unanimously. Yes No Councilor Woodard (absent) Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Councilor Henderson ✓ Council President Snider ✓ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — September 27, 2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 4 of 12 4. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016- 00002 REQUIRED REGULATORY CHANGES AND FEMA FIRM MAP UPDATE a. Mayor Cook opened the public hearing. b. City Attorney Rihala read the legislative hearing procedures.A copy was available at the front of the room. c. Staff Report:Associate Planner Kowacz gave the staff report on this hearing to adopt flood insurance rate maps (FIRM) and two text amendments. One amendment is to the floodplain regulations to include critical facility regulations, adding a severability clause and other conflicts identified by FEMA with the National Flood Insurance Program. The other is to change spacing requirements between marijuana facilities from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet. Associate Planner Kowacz gave some background on the National Flood Insurance Program. It allows property owners who have property within the special flood hazard areas to obtain federally-backed flood insurance. The program also identifies and maps the nation's floodplains and these are placed on the FIRM which is used to determine local jurisdiction regulations,when insurance applies and what the rate might be. Floodplain boundaries are not constant so FEMA periodically amends the floodplain program through updates to the local FIRM and corresponding flood insurance study. The program also provides a community assistant to ensure that floodplain regulations are being adequately enforced.The City of Tigard had a community assistant visit (CAV) in September 2014 and there were a few items identified. One is the severability clause and the others were regulations related to critical facilities, such as hospitals. The city must adopt the updated FIRM and floodplain regulations by November 4, 2016. Associate Planner Kowacz said the use and possession of recreational marijuana was legalized by voters in November 4, 2014 and on April 21,2015 the city adopted regulations related to marijuana facilities. More recently HB3400-A passed which established the requirements for a land use compatibility statement,taxation and recognized marijuana as a crop.Also in this bill was the provision that local jurisdictions not require more than 1,000 feet between marijuana facilities.Tigard's code, requiring 2,000 feet, does not comply with state requirements. Ms. Kowacz said notices were provided per Tigard Development Code Section 18.360. Measure 56 notices were sent July 11, 2016. The city received phone calls regarding the floodplain map changes and three citizens testified at the Planning Commission. Concerns were expressed about the National Flood Insurance Program in general and how a property can be removed from the floodplain designation. Written testimony was received and is included in the staff report. The Planning Commission asked staff to research a community rating program which Portland and Beaverton have been accepted into that can lead to a reduction in flood insurance rates. Assistant Community Development Director McGuire said to get into the program a city must demonstrate they have numerous programs to protect the floodplain. He said he was involved in the program in Portland and it requires assigning a staff person to be the direct contact with FEMA. Tigard does not have some of TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — September 27, 2016 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 5 of 12 the programs so the city would not have enough points to get a meaningful reduction in rates. He said it requires a fairly extensive staff and resource commitment. d. Public Testimony—Mayor Cook called for public testimony. Art Bahrs, 12170 SW Merestone Court,Tigard, OR 97223, said when he purchased their home they put a clause in the contract that it must be surveyed and found to be out of the floodplain,because the cost of flood insurance rose from$850 per year to $2,900. He said they have had to fight FEMA annually because they believe Mr. Bahrs'house has moved. His insurance company assisted him in proving that the lines on the map moved but the house did not. He expressed appreciation to Associate Planner Kowacz for her help. He asked what the city can do when FEMA insists that the house moved. He said he has reinforced the grounds and installed retaining walls. Mr. McGuire said he would need to know more about the situation and what FEMA is saying. He cautioned that city staff could look at it and provide documentation but he was unsure of what the outcome would be. Mayor Cook asked about Mr. Edwards'property and Assistant City Manager Newton remarked that it was a similar situation to Mr. Bahrs'property. The city provided previous maps so Mr. Edwards could show documentation that the line location changed, not the house location. Councilor Goodhouse said in the insurance world this is a common issue with FEMA. Mayor Cook asked if there would be rate increases when this is adopted. Ms. Kowacz said there was a rate increase last April. She said there were many properties that had been in the floodplain but now have been excluded. There were incremental shifts along Fanno Creek but several properties were removed. Assistant Community Development Director McGuire said he has not heard during recent public hearings about anyone's rates going up. e. Council Questions: Council President Snider asked about a grammatical error in marijuana code Section C.3. Associate Planner Kowacz said she will correct it to say "lot or parcel." Mayor Cook asked how a property owner can remove themselves from a floodplain and Associate Planner Kowacz said that FEMA has a letter of map removal process. The city keeps track of these and the property owner has to provide documentation. Councilor Henderson said he has gone through this process. His house is five feet higher than Summer Creek. He had it surveyed and was able to show the home was out of the floodplain. He worked with State Farm Insurance and did not find the process that difficult. He reiterated that he removed the house from the floodplain but not the entire lot. Regarding the marijuana code amendment Mayor Cook said council had additional discussion that they want to bring up other than number of feet,including changes to time, place and manner. Council wants to take another look at Tigard's closing hours,which are stricter than neighboring cities. Also, the council approved not allowing the businesses within the urban mixed-use Central Business District and would like to reconsider that. He understands that staff wants to discuss following the state law on distance regulations but asked if council could consider the other code concerns at the same time. He asked how the TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — September 27, 2016 city of'l igard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 6 of 12 single code amendment got through Planning Commission when council has these other issues. f. Staff Recommendation: Associate Planner Kowacz said staff recommends council approve the ordinance as is and direct staff to open up the marijuana business regulations at a future meeting for the other policy changes. g. Council Discussion: Council President Snider said he had mentioned desiring changes for six to ten months and was disappointed that council cannot act on them now while making the change in the code for the 1,000-foot distance. He asked City Attorney Rihala about splitting up the ordinance into two and passing the FEMA code update but keeping the marijuana time,place and manner discussion open. City Attorney Rihala said from a broader standpoint the other issues cannot fit into the present ordinance under consideration tonight. Councilor Goodhouse asked if there was a deadline to change to 1,000-feet and City Attorney Rihala said the city has been out of compliance for some time. If an application comes to the city asking for a marijuana facility that is within the 2,000-foot boundary in the current code language, the city would be put in the place of going against state law or going against its own code, neither of which is good. Mayor Cook expressed preference for one hearing to cover all changes to the code related to marijuana. He noted that he does not see agenda items until they have already gone through the Planning Commission hearings. Council President Snider said the Planning Commission should be aware of what direction the City Council is going. Assistant Community Development Director McGuire said it could take as long as four months to get notices out for another public hearing. City Attorney Rihala recommended deferring the second part of the discussion to a date certain and continuing this hearing. Council President Snider asked if additional changes would need to go through the Planning Commission and City Attorney Rihala said it would depend on the scope of the amendments; a time change is not significant,but location changes might require public notice. Mayor Cook said he would like to know what other cities do and not arbitrarily select a number for hours of operation. He also asked to review a map prepared by Associate Planner Floyd that was shown at a previous meeting illustrating location restrictions. He noted there is currently one retail operator in Tigard and another has submitted an application but has not yet opened. The map may need to be changed in a few months to reflect this additional business. He noted that the Planning Commission previously voted to allow marijuana businesses on Main Street but half of the street is not available because of proximity to St. Anthony's School. Council chose not to allow such businesses on Main Street but now some members are reconsidering the north half of Main Street or any Central Business District property on Pacific Highway. He requested maps that include existing 2,000 foot limits shown with 1,000 foot boundaries,Pacific Highway and Main Street. He TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — September 27, 2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 7 of 12 noted that other cities have kept these businesses away from libraries,recreation centers and major parks but pocket parks are not included. Councilor Goodhouse said he wanted to reconsider allowing sites on Scholls Ferry Road, Hall Boulevard and other streets. Council President Snider said he is willing to look at those but does not really want to expand available areas. He asked staff to find out if the Tigard Police Department has any concerns and whether people have the same concerns now that may have had one year ago before legalization. A discussion on process was held and staff was asked if amendments to marijuana regulations could be completed by the November 4 FEMA deadline. Assistant Community Development Director McGuire said he did not think so. Council President Snider asked if the operating hours could be changed and voted on tonight. City Attorney Rihala asked staff to read the notice and after hearing it she advised council not to vote on other items because the notice was quite specific. The council could consider these changes on the October 18 meeting with October 25 as backup. City Attorney Rihala said council could continue the portion of the discussion on the marijuana code changes. h. Close Public Hearing (hearing on marijuana portion was continued) i. Council Deliberation and Consideration of Ordinance No. 16-20 Council President Snider moved to approve Ordinance No. 16-20 with the following changes: Remove Sections 4 and 6; Section 5 becomes new Section 4; second and third "Whereas" clauses are deleted; the first three words in Section 3.0 are deleted;and the reference to marijuana is removed from the title. Councilor Henderson seconded the motion. City Recorder Krager read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 16-20— AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 18) TO ADOPT FEDERAL AND STATE REQUIRED REGULATORY CHANGES AND NEW FEMA FIRM MAPS. PROPOSED TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES INCLUDING UPDATED AND NEW DEFINITIONS RELATED TO FLOODPLAINS TO BE PLACED WITHIN CHAPTER 18.120 (DEFINITIONS);TEXT AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18.775 (SENSITIVE LANDS) TO PROVIDE REGULATION RELATING TO CRITICAL FACILITIES AND ADD A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, as amended City Recorder Krager conducted a roll call vote. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — September 27, 2016 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov Page 8 of 12 Yes No Councilor Woodard (absent) Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Councilor Henderson ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Goodhouse made a motion to continue consideration of Section 18.735 to the date certain of October 18. 2016. Council President Snider seconded the motion and all voted in favor. Yes No Councilor Woodard (absent) Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Councilor Henderson ✓ Council President Snider V 5. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR HUNZIKER INFRASTRUCTURE RIGHT OF WAY Economic Development Manager Purdy and Senior Project Engineer Newbery were present for the staff report. Mr. Purdy said he brought council information in May on the Hunziker infrastructure project and council recommended moving forward with obtaining the rights of way. He said the next step in the process is for council to approve a Resolution of Necessity. He said the resolution attachments include legal descriptions and a table to coordinate which portions of right of way are in which tax lots and properties. A 30 percent design overview shows segment by segment where the road will be and the amount of right of way needed. He said the Resolution of Necessity authorizes the city manager and legal counsel to take that step if needed. Mayor Cook noted to the audience that this concept has come before council previously in several briefings and the only new documents received tonight were the legal descriptions. Council President Snider moved for adoption of Resolution No. 16-43. Councilor Goodhouse seconded the motion. City Recorder Krager read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 16-43 A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE NEED TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING STREET, PUBLIC UTILITY AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS ALONG SW WALL STREET FROM HUNZIKER ROAD TO TECH CENTER DRIVE and AUTHORIZING EMINENT DOMAIN AND IMMEDIATE POSSESSION IF NECESSARY TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — September 27, 2016 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 9 of 12 Mayor Cook conducted a vote and the motion passed unanimously. Yes No Councilor Woodard (absent) Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Councilor Henderson ✓ Council President Snider ✓ 6. CONSIDER AUTHORIZING A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) APPLICATION FOR BAGAN PARK Parks Manager Martin gave the staff report and said council is being asked to authorize a CDBG grant application for the Bagan Park property on Greenburg Road,purchased with Parks Bond funds in 2010. This area of Tigard is deficient in parks. A design was conceived in a planning session held with area neighbors. Councilor Henderson commented, "Bagan Park was a winner from the beginning and it will be nice to see this developed." In response to a question from Mayor Cook, Parks Manager Martin said staff is in the process of prioritizing projects. Mayor Cook asked staff to print a list showing what may be cut if this project is funded. Parks Manager Martin said this project was delayed in order to gain more certainty on how Parks System Development Charges would be handled. Contracts Manager Barrett added that staff ran a forecast and there will be an adequate fund balance to absorb the costs. In response to a question from Councilor Henderson,Parks Manager Martin said it would not be budgeted until next year. Council President Snider asked if Tigard's grant application would be competitive and Mr. Martin said it would and that is one reason to have higher matching funds from the city. Councilor Henderson motioned to authorize a CDBG grant application for Bagan Park. Council President Snider seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. Yes No Councilor Woodard (absent) Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Councilor Henderson ✓ Council President Snider ✓ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — September 27, 2016 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 10 of 12 7. LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD: DISCUSSION ON UPCOMING CONTRACT Contracts Manager Barrett and Senor Project Engineer Newbury gave the staff report on an upcoming contract for the Canterbury Lane storm line upgrade project. The current storm line was constructed in the 1960s according to standards at that time but without regard for maintenance or and access for visual inspection. The upgrade includes installation of a 12-inch storm line with manholes and catch basin and will meet Clean Water Services requirements and city design standards. Eight bids were received and staff will recommend that council approve a contract with D &T Excavation for$398,000. Councilor Henderson commented that the bids are the closest he has seen in a long time and this tells him that the contractors have confidence in working for the city and staff should be proud. He said Tigard is being looked at as a good place to do business. Mayor Cook asked about the timeframe and if this line is needed for storm water runoff from the single- family homes being constructed on 109th Avenue. Engineer Newbury said only a small portion of the new homes will drain to this line. Councilor Goodhouse said he has heard questions about water pressure on Canterbury Lane and Engineer Newbury said that will be addressed by a future CIP project and it is not related to this project. Council said this contract could come back as a Consent Agenda item. 8. NON AGENDA ITEMS None 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION At 8:51 p.m. Mayor Cook read the citation for an Executive Session called under ORS 192.660 (2) (i) to review and evaluate,pursuant to standards, criteria, and policy directives adopted by the governing body, the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer. He announced that the Tigard City Council would adjourn immediately after the Executive Session. The Executive Session ended at 9:16 p.m. 10. ADJOURNMENT At 9:17 p.m. Council President Snider moved for adjournment. Councilor Goodhouse seconded the motion and all voted in favor. Yes No Councilor Woodard (absent) Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Councilor Henderson V Council President Snider V TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — September 27, 2016 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 11 of 12 Carol A. Krager, City Recorder Attest: John L. Cook,Mayor Date TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — September 27, 2016 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 12 of 12 AIS-2878 3. C. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 11/01/2016 Length (in minutes): 5 Minutes Agenda Title: Approve City Center Development Agency Minutes Submitted By: Kelly Burgoyne, Central Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: City Center Development Agency Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Approve City Center Development Agency Minutes for: * September 6, 2016 CCDA Meeting * October 4, 2016 CCDA Meeting KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY N/A OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A Attachments September 6, 2016 CCDA Minutes October 4, 2016 CCDA Minutes 1,1 City of Tigard City Center Development Agency CCDA Meeting Minutes September 6, 2016 . CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD A. Director Snider called to order the Tigard City Center Development Agency at 6:33 p.m. B. Deputy City Recorder Burgoyne called the roll: Name Present Absent Chair Cook 1 Director Goodhouse Director Henderson Director Snider Director Woodard C. Director Snider called to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items—There were none. 2. JOINT MEETING WITH CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CCAC) Redevelopment Project Manager Farrelly explained the function of the City Center Advisory Committee (CCAC),what they discussed at their February meeting and the packet material that was being presented at the meeting. Members of the CCAC in attendance were;Chair Carine Arendes, Richard Shavey,Tim Myshak, David Walsh and Linli Pao. Chair Arendes talked about downtown projects, upcoming events in the downtown area,information about research and following up on how to communicate the vision of downtown. She discussed the downtown vision,use of existing resources, online mapping, the Downtown Heritage Trail and Burnham Street construction wrap up. She said staff had done a good job securing funding. CCAC Member Pao, discussed the CCAC's current research projects;activating Downtown Tigard, topics of interest related to City Civic Center, CCAC's annual goals and the four topics the CCAC was concentrating on. 1. Transportation in downtown area 2. Downtown housing 3. Marketing downtown businesses 4. Marketing the downtown area to developers TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 6,2016 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Paae 1 of 4 The members of the CCAC explained their methodology and how they identified these as a group, policy recommendations, and importance of accessibility for downtown businesses by adopting requirements within the downtown code, setting production goals for the future and the need to address affordable housing. They said they asked for input from downtown stakeholders and did outreach to the public. Ms. Pao asked that the CCDA adopt policies to encourage fully accessible ADA units. Director Woodard said the policy goals were aspirational and would like to see the element of recreation in the four areas. He explained how recreation creates a gateway to bring people together, creating an activated space. He suggested the CCAC contact the Recreation Coordinator,Anthony Markey for suggestions. Director Goodhouse liked the idea of a trail. Director Snider discussed the spaces and their planned use. He said they had done an amazing job in their research and that it was focus specific. CCAC Chair Arendes explained that going through the process allowed them to produce the aspirations,policy and a way to implement them. CCAC Member Linly said they identified real problems in real time. CCAC Member Shavey said he thought adding recreation was a great idea. Director Woodard discussed housing in the downtown area and the need to address affordable housing and homelessness. He asked if someone from the group would like to participate in the Council's upcoming homelessness agenda item. Director Snider asked what staff's perspective was on the four goals and restructured frame work, and if there are any areas of concern. Mr. Farrelly said the CCAC worked hard on this and commended the group for their efforts. He explained staff had given feedback. Director Snider asked if the recommended policy changes would be coming forward to City Council, and asked staff to come back with concrete recommendations on how they would be addressing each item. CCAC Chair Arendes talked about fording ways to get information out to everybody and making sure the information is accessible on the city's website;possibly listing available downtown properties,updating the Urban Renewal Plan and providing information about current housing trends. Director Snider asked about marketing identity and if someone was working on that. They discussed the idea of branding in the form of naming, like "The Pearl" or"Kruse Way" had done, giving the community a feeling of distinction. CCAC Member Walsh said they didn't want to force the idea of branding;instead, they wanted to see how it would happen organically. There was discussion about signage and lighting. TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 6,2016 City of Tigard I13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 2 of 4 CCAC Member Pao read a statement thanking the members of the City Center Development Agency for their support and especially thanked Director Henderson for his contributions to the community. She said he had been the most active member and he would be missed. 3. APPROVE CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES • April 5,2016 CCDA Meeting • May 3,2016 CCDA Combo Meeting with City Council • June 7,2016 CCDA Combo Meeting with City Council Motioned by Director Goodhouse and seconded by Director Woodard to approve the minutes as presented. Motion passed by a unanimous vote. Name Yes No Chair Cook (Absent) Director Goodhouse Director Henderson (Absent) Director Snider Director Woodard 4. UPDATE ON MAIN STREET/FANNO CREEK (SAXONY) SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY Redevelopment Project Manager Farrelly explained what the grant would do and discussed the action agreement, clean-up timeline,impacts to the protected corridor, mitigation of Fanno Creek and enhancement of the natural features onsite,public access,watershed education feature,access to the rear of the building,property negotiations with ODOT, current tenant relocation. Mr. Farrelly explained the agency had budgeted up to$25,000 for tenant relocation fees;he explained they would be contributing to one of the current tenant's moving expenses,but that the other tenant was on a month to month lease and the agency was not required to contribute to their moving expenses. He discussed the elevation of the building,the land use process for getting the footprint of the building approved and that the application had been submitted on July 21 and would go before the Hearings Officer on November 19. There was further discussion on potential development of the building,community outreach and public noticing requirements. Director Snider encouraged staff to think more broadly and said he would like to see more people noticed than what was minimally required by law. Staff responded that they could send out a supplemental public notice that included more people. Mr. Farrelly discussed green roofs and improving the vegetative corridor and explained potential ways the space could be divided. Director Goodhouse asked if the entire building would be offices. Mr. Farrelly said yes,with the exception of the ground floor. Director Woodard asked staff how many parking spaces for tenants were being proposed. Staff said thirteen spaces were being proposed, and that possible parking lease agreements with downtown businesses were being discussed. Staff explained there would also be on-street parking. TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 6,2016 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 3 of 4 Director Woodard stated the commercial space was different,but feels better. Director Goodhouse liked the idea of building the shell and then adding the footprint. Director Snider was concerned about public perception, and wanted to make sure they were managing that, since this was the first time a project like this had come before them. 5. UPDATE ON DOWNTOWN URBAN LOFTS PROJECT (CET GRANT) Redevelopment Project Manager Farrelly said the agency was awarded a Community Planning and Development grant last fall for$100,000 for the Downtown Tigard Urban Lofts project. He discussed the two properties they were looking at. The first property is the Tigard Transit Center which is owned by TriMet, and the second is the privately owned Nicoli property. He said the city was working closely with TriMet to free up the property, and that TriMet was at the table because of the SW Corridor Light Rail project that if passed by voters,would require rethinking of bus routes. He discussed operating costs,bus capacity for future service, light rail station location, transit center functions, affordable housing options, survey of the site and the timeline for Phase One. Director Snider said the project could not happen without TriMet's support. 6. NON-AGENDA ITEMS -There were none. 7. ADJOURNMENT Director Snider called for a motion to adjourn. Motion by Director Woodard seconded by Director Goodhouse to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed by a unanimous vote. Name Yes No Chair Cook (Absent) Director Goodhouse Director Henderson (Absent) Director Snider Director Woodard Director Snider adjourned the meeting at 8:20 pm. Kelly Burgoyne,Deputy City Recorder Attest: Jason B. Snider,Director Date TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES—SEPTEMBER 6,2016 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 4 of 4 11 City of Tigard CCDA City Center Development Agency Board - Agenda L TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD MEETING DATE AND TIME: October 4, 2016 - 6:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard—Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1. CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING A. Call to Order—Chair Cook called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. B. Roll Call—Deputy City Recorder Burgoyne called the roll. Name Present Absent Chair Cook Director Goodhouse Director Henderson Director Snider Director Woodard Chair Cook asked the audience to stand for the flag salute. C. Call to Board and Staff for Non-Agenda Items—There were none. 2. DOWNTOWN BUSINESS SPOTLIGHT: THE BALLROOM DANCE COMPANY Owner of The Ballroom Dance Company Sunny Page presented background on how she became a ballroom dancer,what inspired her to become a dance teacher,how long her dance company has been in Tigard and what makes them different from other dance companies. She said her dance studio is open seven days a week and they hold over 50 hours of dance classes each week, in addition she rents out each of the ballrooms for events of all kinds. She explained they have three decorated ballrooms that are set-up with LED lighting and that her clients come from all around the region and from other states to perform. Ms. Page said her dance studio is a clean-cut family business where all ages and dance levels are welcome. She ended her presentation by inviting the board members to visit her business for a guided tour. Director Goodhouse thanked Ms. Page for coming and said the building looked good from the outside and it is nice to know they hold other events. Chair Cook asked if there was one night a week dedicated for scheduling events. Ms. Page said they schedule and accommodate events as needed. Chair Cook said he had driven by several times and from the outside one would not know there are three ballrooms inside. TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES—OCTOBER 4,2016 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov Page 1 of 4 3. INITIATE PUBLIC REVIEW OF TIGARD TRIANGLE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN Senior Planner Shanks and Consultant Eileen Howard talked about the CCDA's role in the public review of the Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Plan,vision of the plan and identified barriers. Ms. Shanks explained staff had received input from the Citizen Advisory Council and the Technical Advisory Committee, and all agreed it is a good project in creating the Tigard Triangle. She went over the board's previous discussion from the last meeting and said she had followed up with Jim Long as requested,but that she hadn't heard back from him. She said TVF&R supports the plan, but has some concerns that city staff and TVF&R are working through. She explained they were before the CCDA in order to initiate the public review of the plan and if the board approved a motion tonight, the next steps were to brief the Washington County Board of Commissioners on October 18, 2016, the Planning Commission on November 14,2016 and then go before City Council on December 13,2016 for adoption and referral to the May 2017 election. Director Henderson asked if this was a time sensitive situation and if there was enough time to address TVF&R's concerns. Chair Cook said this will need to be presented to City Council in December. Ms. Shanks said yes,and stated it was not time sensitive at this point and that staff would be presenting the final version at the December 13 meeting;which allowed enough time to make it on the May 2017 election. She said they were asking the CCDA to initiate the public review process at tonight's meeting and if the CCDA chose to move forward, staff would be sending out consultant review letters to the general public and overlapping taxing districts. Ms. Shanks explained staff would be revising the plan before the December 13 City Council meeting and would include any changes from TVF&R, the legal description and current property value data which would be released from the County Assessor in mid-October. Chair Cook asked when the start date for locked in values began. Eileen Howard explained that when and if the voters approve the Urban Renewal Plan and it is adopted, the frozen base of property values will be at that time and they would have already been established in October 2016. There was discussion about bare land value vs land that had already been developed. Ms. Howard said the roll the Assessor adopts would be within the next two weeks and is based on the values of those properties as of January 1, 2016; so that any development that has come on the tax roll after January 1 goes into that incremental value within the area. She explained the Assessor's values are based on a calendar year and not a fiscal year when assessing property. Ms. Howard discussed the language in the State Statue and what was required from the city. Motioned by Director Goodhouse and seconded by Director Henderson to forward the Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Plan to the Tigard Planning Commission for their review of the Plan's conformance to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and then to the Tigard City Council for a public hearing,the review, and vote. Motion passed by a unanimous vote. Name Yes No Chair Cook Director Goodhouse Director Henderson Director Snider (Absent) Director Woodard (Absent) TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES—OCTOBER 4,2016 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 2 of 4 4. PUBLIC REVIEW OF CITY CENTER URBAN RENEWAL PLAN SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT- Redevelopment Project Manager Farrelly discussed initiating the public review for the City Center Urban Renewal Plan Substantial Amendment and what was discussed at the last meeting. Mr. Farrelly explained that because the recession had reduced property values and development,the city was falling behind on its capacity and was projecting six million less in tax increments than what was originally projected. He said that in order for the city to get closer to the 22 million dollars in maximum indebtedness, they needed to expand the urban renewal area;allowing for collection of tax increment revenues that would be more in line with the original amount envisioned for the urban renewal area. He explained the City Center Advisory Commission had been briefed on the substantial amendment. He said the next steps in the process would be to brief the Washington County Board of Commissioners on October 18,2016, the Planning Commission on November 14, 2016 and finally the City Council on December 13,2016 to consider adopting the draft plan. Chair Cook asked if the expansion would create a need for rezoning. Mr. Farrelly said it would not necessarily change the zoning. Director Goodhouse asked if the property value of the areas that are existing are locked in and if the property value for the new areas would be forged from the start date of January 1;creating two sets of values within the new district. Mr. Farrelly said that was correct. Ms. Howard said the Assessor would combine those into one frozen base. Director Henderson asked if the timeline would catch up with the Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Plan. Mr. Farrelly said they are trying to mirror the same timeline and bring this item forward at the same time to each Commission/Committee. Motioned by Director Goodhouse and seconded by Director Henderson to forward the City Center Urban Renewal Plan Substantial Amendment to the Tigard Planning Commission for their review of the Plan's conformance to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and then to the Tigard City Council for a public hearing, the review, and vote. Motion passed by a unanimous vote. Name Yes No Chair Cook Director Goodhouse Director Henderson Director Snider (Absent) Director Woodard (Absent) Mr. Farrelly said they would be getting an endorsement of this motion from the City Center Advisory Council (CCAC) next week. Director Henderson asked if the same committees that reviewed the Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Plan had also reviewed this plan. Mr. Farrelly said no,but letters would be going out to all the taxing districts. Ms. Howard said she would be at those meetings and would show them the amendment. TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES-OCTOBER 4,2016 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 3 of 4 Director Henderson asked staff to inform them if there are any changes before the December 13 City Council meeting. Mr. Farrelly said if there were any changes they would provide an update to the CCDA at their first meeting in December. 5. NON AGENDA ITEMS—None. EXECUTIVE SESSION There was none. 6. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cook called for a motion to adjourn. Motion by Director Henderson seconded by Director Goodhouse to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed by a unanimous vote. Name Yes No Chair Cook Director Goodhouse Director Henderson Director Snider (Absent) Director Woodard (Absent) Chair Cook adjourned the meeting at 7:14 p.m. Kelly Burgoyne, Deputy City Recorder Attest: John Cook, Chair Date TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES—OCTOBER 4,2016 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 4 of 4 AIS-2883 4. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 11/01/2016 Length (in minutes): 10 Minutes Agenda Title: Consider Marijuana Facilities Ordinance Submitted By: Agnes Kowacz, Community Development Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Council Ordinance Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Amend Chapter 18.735 Marijuana Facilities as approved at the October 18, 2016 meeting. The amendment will reduce spacing requirements between marijuana facilities from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet and increase the hours of operation from 10AM-8PM to 7AM-10PM. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends that City Council sign the proposed ordinance relating to marijuana facilities. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY On September 27, 2016, a public hearing was held on DCA2016-00002 to: 1. Adopt updated Flood Insurance Rate Maps; and 2. Amend the Tigard Development Code (TDC) by: a. Updating floodplain regulations (Chapter 18.775 Sensitive Lands) relating to critical facilities and adding a severability clause, definitions and removing conflicting language with the NFIP; and b. Changing marijuana facility (Chapter 18.735) spacing requirements from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet. City Council passed the FEMA flood plain related amendments and continued the hearing relating to marijuana facilities to October 18, 2016. City Council asked staff to provide additional information regarding hours of operation, police activity, and maps showing potential locations of these facilities if not limited to frontage on Pacific Highway (99W) and by the park zone buffer. City Council discussed hours of operation and the potential for allowing marijuana facilities in additional locations. The Council made a motion to approve extended hours of operation, from 7AM to 10PM, and to change the spacing requirements to 1,000 feet between facilities. Staff was asked to prepare an ordinance for the November 1, 2016 meeting. Council also directed staff to seek input from downtown business owners and other groups regarding the location issue, before returning to Planning Commission for a recommendation on the matter. OTHER ALTERNATIVES 1. Withdraw the motion to approve and revise the amendment. 2. Withdraw the motion and deny. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION September 27, 2016 and October 18, 2016 Attachments Ordinance Exhibit A Staff Report Exhibit B Memo Exhibit C Amendments CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 16- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 18) TO ADOPT 'TEXT AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18.735 (MARIJUANA FACILITIES) THAT REDUCE SPACING REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN FACILITIES AND CHANGE PERMITTED HOURS OF OPERATION. WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council directed Planning Division staff to prepare amendments to the Tigard Community Development Code pertaining to spacing requirements between facilities and hours of operation of marijuana facilities within the boundaries of the City; and WHEREAS, the purpose of amending Chapter 18.735 is to establish compliance with ORS 475B.340, which precludes local jurisdictions from enacting a buffer between retail marijuana facilities of more than 1,000 feet; and WHEREAS, notice was provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development at least 35 days prior to the first evidentiary public hearing; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was given in conformance with Community Development Code Chapter 18.390.060.D; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 15, 2016 and recommended by unanimous vote that Council approve proposed code amendment; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on September 27, 2016 and October 18, 2016, to consider the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has considered the Planning Commission recommendation; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has considered the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; applicable federal or state statutes or regulations; applicable Metro regulations; applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies; and applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has determined that the proposed development code amendments are consistent with the applicable review criteria, and approves amendments to the Tigard Community Development Code as being in the best interest of the City of Tigard. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Council adopts the findings recommended by the Planning Commission as contained in the September 27, 2016 Staff Report to the City Council, included as ORDINANCE No. 16- Page 1 "Exhibit A" to this Ordinance as the basis in support of the corresponding code amendments. SECTION 2: Council further adopts the staff memo to Council providing additional information, shown as "Exhibit B", as an additional basis in support of the corresponding code amendments. SECTION 3: Tigard Development Code (Title 18) 18.735 Marijuana Facilities is amended as shown in "Exhibit C" to this Ordinance. SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of , 2016. Carol Kruger, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of , 2016. Approved as to form: John L. Cook, Mayor City Attorney Date ORDINANCE No. 16- Page 2 EXHIBIT A Agenda Item: #1 Hearing Date: September 27.2016 Time: 7:30 PAZ PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE i ' CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASE NAME: REQUIRED REGULATORY CHANGES AND FEMA FIRM MAP UPDATE CASE NO.: Development Code Amendment(DCA) DCA2016-00002 PROPOSAL: The City of Tigard proposes legislative amendments to the Tigard Development Code ([DC). The proposed amendments include: 1. Adopt updated Flood Insurance Rate Maps;and 2. TDC amendments: a. Update floodplain regulations (Chapter 18.775 Sensitive Lands) relating to critical facilities and add a severability clause,definitions and conflicting language with the NFIP;and b. Change marijuana facilities (Chapter 18.735) spacing requirements between facilities from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet. APPLICANT: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,OR 97223 ZONES: Citywide LOCATION: Citywide APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1 (Citizen Involvement), 2 (Land Use Planning), 7 (Areas subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards), and 9 (Economic Development); ORS 475B (Cannabis Regulation);METRO's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Titles 3, and 8; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1.1.2,2.1.2,2.1.3,2.1.6,2.1.11,2.1.23,7.1.7,7.1.8 and 7.1.9;and Tigard Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390 SECTION II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommends approval by ordinance of the proposed development code text amendments (Attachment 1) with any alterations as determined through the public hearing process. Additionally, that City Council directs staff to investigate Tigard's participation in the Community Rating System; EXHIBIT A SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND PROJECT SUMMARY Required Regulatory Changes and FEMA Firm Map Update The purpose of the Required Regulatory Changes and FEMA Firm Map Update Project is to update the Sensitive Lands Chapter (Section 18.775) with the required Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements, adopt the updated Flood Insurance Rate Maps and amend the Marijuana Facilities Chapter (Section 18.735) with reduced spacing requirements. A brief summary of the National Flood Insurance Program and the proposed changes is provided below. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is a federal program that was established in 1968 through the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act and administered by FEMA. The programs allow owners of properties within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)—also sometimes described as the 100-year floodplain—to obtain federally-backed insurance for their properties in jurisdictions that have adopted land use regulations for development in the floodplain. In addition to providing insurance, the NFIP identifies and maps the Nation's floodplains, known as the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) which results from a Flood Insurance Study. The FIRM is an official map on which FEMA has delineated both the SFHA and other flood zones within a community. The FIRM is used in determining a jurisdiction's floodplain regulations,whether a property owner is required to obtain flood insurance as well as the insurance rate. Floodplain boundaries do not stay constant but rather undergo change over time due to effects of erosions, development impacts, vegetation removal and other factors. To account for floodplain boundary changes, FEMA periodically adjusts the SFHA maps used by local jurisdictions. The City of Tigard does not conduct floodplain inventories and relies on FEMA for the determination of the SFHA boundary. FEMA periodically amends the regulatory requirement of the NFIP through updates to the local FIRM and a corresponding Flood Insurance Study Report. Prior to amending the FIRM and/or developing new or revised floodplain requirements as part of the NFIP updates, FEMA coordinates with local jurisdictions to determine local flood area conditions. The FIRM updates must be adopted and effective within 6 months of FEMA's Letter of Final Determination. On May 4, 2016 FEMA notified the City of Tigard of the final flood elevation determinations on the FIRM for properties in the City of Tigard within the SFHA. FEMA's notification gave the City a 6-month timeline to adopt the FIRM and associated floodplain regulations by ordinance. The NFIP's Community Assistance Program provides communities with technical assistance to ensure that the community is adequately enforcing its floodplain management regulations. This is done through a Community Assistance Visit (CAV). If any administrative problems or potential violations are identified during a CAV the community will be notified and given the opportunity to correct those administrative procedures and remedy the violations to the maximum extent possible within established deadlines. The City of Tigard received a Community Assistance Visit (CAV) Narrative in September of 2014 that identified deficiencies in the City's current floodplain regulations that are required to be adopted in order to be in compliance with NFIP requirements. FEMA requires that this ordinance with the proposed text amendments to TDC 18.775 and updated Flood Insurance Rate Maps be adopted and in effect by November 4,2016 in order for the City of Tigard to remain a participant in NFIP. Staff received an email on August 10, 2016 from Roxanne Pilkenton; FEMA requesting additional changes to Chapter 18.775. The identified changes are required in order to be in compliance with the NFIP. Prior to the Planning Commission public hearing,staff incorporated the following: 1. Required definitions (18.775.040.R);and 2. removed the entire section 18.775.020.A. 1 through 10, leaving language requiring a CWS stormwater connection permit;and 3. disclaimer of liability (18.775.040.S);and 4. greater restriction (18.775.404.T) The email also identified section 18.775.020.B and 18.775.020.0 to be in direct conflict with the NFIP. Staff stated at the Planning Commission public hearing that FEMA has been contacted for further clarification on these two items and that staff will propose any necessary changes to the City Council at the public hearing. Proposed Amendments Amend the Tigard Development Code Sensitive Lands Chapter (IDC 18.775) as proposed: o Text Amendments to Chapter 18.120 (Definitions) to establish new definitions for "Critical facility" and "Special Flood Hazard Area" o Text Amendments to Chapter 18.120 (Definitions) to amend the definition for "Floodway" as defined by FEMA o Text Amendments to Chapter 18.120 (Definitions) to remove the definition for "Floodplain" which is replaced by "Special Flood Hazard Area". o Text Amendments to Chapter 18.775 (Sensitive Lands) to replace the term "floodplain" with "Special Flood Hazard Area" o Text Amendments to Chapter 18.775 (Sensitive Lands) to amend the date of the updated Flood Insurance Study and accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Map dated November 4, 2016 o Text Amendments to Chapter 18.775 (Sensitive Lands) to establish new regulations for the construction of new critical facilities o Text Amendments to Chapter 18.775 (Sensitive Lands) to include a severability clause. o Text Amendments to Chapter 18.775 (Sensitive Lands) to remove No. 1 through 10 listed in 18.775.020.A. o Text Amendments to Chapter 18.775 (Sensitive Lands) to include additional definitions. o Text Amendments to Chapter 18.775 (Sensitive Lands) to include a disclaimer of liability. o Text Amendments to Chapter 18.775 (Sensitive Lands) to include a greater restriction section. Marijuana Change Legislative Background In November 2014, Oregon became the fourth state in the nation to legalize recreational marijuana. Prior to this, legal marijuana activity was limited to the state medical marijuana program. Below is a brief summary of legislative history on marijuana followed by the proposed changes to the City's marijuana regulations. August 14, 2013 - Governor signs HB3460, which requires the Oregon Health Authority to develop and implement a process to register medical marijuana dispensaries so that patients could legally purchase medical marijuana. Under this bill, dispensaries cannot be within 1,000 feet of a school, 1,000 feet of another dispensary, and must be located within an industrial, commercial, or mixed-use zone. March 19, 2014— Governor signs SB1531 which authorizes local governments to adopt reasonable regulations regarding the hours of operation; location; and manner in which medical marijuana dispensaries are operated. SB1531 also states that a local jurisdiction may enact an ordinance declaring a one-year moratorium on dispensaries. November 4, 2014 - Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 91 to legalize the use and possession of recreational marijuana on July 1, 2015. The law also directs the Oregon Liquor Control Commission to tax, license, and regulate recreational marijuana through a licensing system to be established by January 2016. The measure did not make any changes to the existing medical marijuana system. REQUIRED REGULATORY CHANGES AND FEMA FIRM MAP UPDATE DCA2016-00002 09/27/2016 PUBLIC I II?ARING,STAFF REPORT TO TI IE CITY COUNCIL. ]'AGE 3 OF 9 April 21,2015- City of Tigard Ordinance No 15-07 was adopted, which established time, place and manner restrictions on Marijuana Facilities through the creation of new chapter in the TDC titled Marijuana Facilities (TDC 17.735), which applied to both medical and recreational marijuana. June 30,2015 - Governor signs HB3400A which authorizes local government to regulate commercial recreation marijuana regulations; establishes the requirement of a Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS); recognizes marijuana as a farm crop; requires OLCC to create a seed-to-sale tracking system; and establishes provisions for state and local taxation. HB3400A also prohibits local jurisdictions from requiring a distance buffer of greater than 1,000 feet between stated-licensed retail marijuana facilities. Proposed Amendments The proposed amendment to the Marijuana Facilities Chapter (18.735) changes the spacing requirements between marijuana facilities from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet (1DC 17.735.040.C.3.b). This change is a result of House Bill (HB) 3400A, which precludes local jurisdictions from enacting a larger spacing requirement than 1,000 feet. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE CRITERIA, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES State planning regulations require cities to adopt and amend Comprehensive Plans and land use regulations in compliance with the state land use goals. Because the proposed Code Amendments have a limited scope and the text amendments address only some of the topics in the Statewide Planning Goals, only applicable Statewide Goals are addressed below. Statewide Planning Goal 1—Citizen Involvement: This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents. FINDING: This goal has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Section 18.390.060 (Type N Procedures). Notices were sent by US Postal Service on July 28, 2016 to affected government agencies and the latest version of the City's interested parties list. A notice was published in the Tigard Times newspaper prior to the hearing. Project information and documents were published to the City website prior to theublic hearing. A minimum of two public hearings will be held (one before the Planning Commission andthesecond before the City Council) at which an opportunity for public input is provided.This goal is satisfied. Statewide Planning Goal 2—Land Use Planning: This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. FINDING: The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has acknowledged the City's Comprehensive Plan as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. The Development Code implements the Comprehensive Plan. The Development Code establishes a process and standards to review changes to the Tigard Development Code in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and other applicable state requirements. As discussed within this report, the applicable Development Code process and standards have been applied to the proposed amendment. This goal is satisfied. Statewide Planning Goal 7—Areas Subject to Natural Disaster: This goal requires jurisdictions to protect development in places subject to natural hazards. FINDING: The Department of Land Conservation and Development has acknowledged the City's Comprehensive Plan as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. The proposed text amendments create a land use control that will buffer land uses and protect development in places subject to natural hazards. REQUIRED RI;,GUI.ATORY CI IANGES AND FEMA FIRM MAP UPDATE DCA2016-00002 09/27/2016 PUBLIC I TEARING,STAFF REPORT 7'O Ti 1E CftY COUNCIL PAGE 4 OF 9 Consistency with the City's Hazard goals and policies are discussed later in this report under applicable policies of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. This goal is satisfied. Statewide Planning Goal 9—Economic Development: This goal seeks to provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health,welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. FINDING: The Department of Land Conservation and Development has acknowledged the City's Comprehensive Plan as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. Consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan Economic Development goals and policies is discussed later in this report under Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 9.1 and associated policies. This goal is satisfied. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above and the related findings below, staff finds the proposed code amendments are consistent with applicable Statewide Planning Goals. APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE OREGON CANNABIS REGULATIONS ORS 475B.340(2): Notwithstanding ORS 633.738, the governing body of a city or county may adopt ordinances that impose reasonable regulations on the operation of businesses located at premises for which a license has been issued under ORS 475B.070, 475B.090, 475B.100 or 475B.110 if the premises are located in the area subject to the jurisdiction of the city or county, except that the governing body of a city or county may not adopt an ordinance that prohibits a premises for which a license has been issued under ORS 475B.110 from being located within a distance that is greater than 1,000 feet of another premises for which a license has been issued under ORS 475B.110 FINDING: The proposed amendment changes the City's current spacing requirement of 2,000 feet between facilities to 1,000 feet, making the City's code in compliance with the state statute. This requirement is satisfied. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff finds that the proposed code text amendment is consistent with the Oregon Cannabis Regulations (ORS 475B). METRO'S URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN State planning regulations require cities to adopt and amend Comprehensive Plans and land use regulations in compliance with the state land use goals. Because the proposed Code Amendments have a limited scope and the text amendments address only some of the topics in the METRO's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, only applicable Titles are addressed below. Title 3—Water Quality and Flood Management: This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents. FINDING: The proposed amendment will adopt the newly updated FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, which will allow the City to continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. The proposed floodplain regulation relating to critical facilities will provide protection for development located within natural flood hazard areas. The proposed amendment also includes updated terminology consistent with state and federal laws.This title is satisfied. Title 8—Compliance Procedures: This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents. FINDING: This title has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Section 18.390.060 (Type IV Procedures). Notices were sent by US Postal Service on July 28, 2016 to affected government agencies and the latest version of the City's interested parties list. A notice was published in the Tigard Times newspaper prior to the hearing. Project information and documents were published to the City website prior to the public hearing. A minimum of two public hearings will be held (one before the Planning Commission and the second 3efore the City Council) at which an opportunity for public input is provided. This title is satisfied. REQUIRED REGULATORY CHANGES AND FI.MA FIRM MAP UPDATE DCA2016-00002 09/27/2016 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT 7'O 7'H1 i CITY COUNCIL, PAGE 5 OF 9 CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff finds that the proposed code amendment is consistent with Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN State planning regulations require cities to adopt and amend Comprehensive Plans and land use regulations in compliance with the state land use goals and consistent with Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Because the Development Code Amendments have a limited scope and the text amendments address only some of the topics in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, only applicable comprehensive plan goals and associated policies are addressed below. Comprehensive Plan Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Policy 1.1.2: The City shall define and publicize an appropriate role for citizens in each phase of the land use planning process. FINDING: This policy has been met by complyingwith the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Section 18.390.060 (Type IV Procedures). Notices were sent by US Postal Service on July 28,2016 to affected government agencies and the latest version of the City's interested parties list. notice was published in the Tigard imes newspaper prior to the hearing. Project information and documents were published to the City website prior to the public hearing. A minimum of two public hearings will be held (one before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) at which an opportunity for public input is provided. This policy is met. Comprehensive Plan Goal 2: Land Use Planning Policy 2.1.2: The City's land use regulations, related plans, and implementing actions shall be consistent with and implement its Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: As demonstrated in this staff report, the proposed amendments to the Tigard Development Code are consistent with the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. This policy is satisfied. Policy 2.1.3: The City shall coordinate the adoption, amendment, and implementation of its land use program with other potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies. FINDING: Copies of the proposed text amendments were sent to affected agencies and were invited to comment on the proposal, as required by Section 18.390.060 (Type IV Procedures) and discussed in Section V of this report. Comments submitted by affected agencies have been incorporated into this report and the proposed amendments. This policy is satisfied. Policy 2.1.6: 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. FINDING: The proposed text amendments will enable more marijuana facilities to be located within the City which will result in more taxable economic activity to occur. This policy is satisfied. Policy 2.1.11: The City shall adopt regulations and standards to protect public safety and welfare from hazardous conditions related to land use activities. FINDING: The proposed amendment includes the adoption of FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, which will maintain the City's participation in the National Flood Insurance Program and protect the public welfare for properties located within the SFHA. Due to requirements by the State of Oregon, the spacing requirement between marijuana facilities is proposed to be reduced from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet. However, all other buffers from residential areas and parks, and minimum design requirements, will remain in order to protect public safety and welfare from associated marijuana facilities. This policy is satisfied. REQUIRED REGULATORY CIIANGES AND FEMA FIRM MAP UPDATE DCA2016-00002 09/27/2016 PUBLIC I IEARING,STAFF REPOR I To THE CI II COUNCIL PAGE 6 OF 9 Policy 2.1.23 The City shall require new development, including public infrastructure, to minimize conflicts by addressing the need for compatibility between it and adjacent existing and future land uses. FINDING: The proposed amendments include reducing the buffer between marijuana facilities from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet between facilities; this is a requirement of the State of Oregon. However, all other buffers from residential areas and parks, and minimum design requirements, will remain in order to ensure compatibility between marijuana facilities subject to state licensing or registration, and adjacent development and public facilities. This policy is satisfied. Comprehensive Plan Goal 7: Hazards Policy 7.1.7: The City shall comply with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood regulations,which include standards for base flood levels, flood proofing, and minimum finished floor elevations. FINDING: The proposed amendments adopt the newly updated FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, update definitions consistent with federal law, and establish regulations for critical facilities. These proposed amendments are consistent with state and federal laws. This policy is satisfied. Policy 7.1.8: The City shall prohibit any land form alterations or developments in the 100-year floodplain which would result in any rise in elevation of the 100-year floodplain. FINDING: The proposed amendments adopt the recently updated FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps and regulations for development within the SFHA ensuring that development will not result in any rise in elevation of the 100-year floodplain. This policy is satisfied. Policy 7.1.9: The City shall not allow land form alterations of development within the 100-year floodplain outside the zero-foot rise floodway unless: A. The streamflow capacity of the zero-foot rise and floodway is maintained; and B. Engineered drawings and/or documentation shows there will be no detrimental upstream or downstream effects in the floodplain area. FINDING: The proposed amendments adopt the newly updated FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps and regulations for development within the SFHA ensuring that development will not be detrimental to the floodplain. This policy is satisfied. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed code text amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE Section 18.380: Zoning Map and Text Amendments 18.380.020 Legislative Amendments to this Title and Map Legislative zoning map and text amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.060G. FINDING: The proposed amendments are legislative in nature. Therefore, the amendment will be reviewed under the Type IV legislative procedure as set forth in the chapter. This procedure requires public hearings by both the Planning Commission and City Council. This standard is satisfied. Section 18.380: Decision Making Procedures 18.390.060 Type IV Procedure G. Decision-making considerations. The recommendation by the commission and the decision by the council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: 1. The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; 2. Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; REQUIRED REGULATORY CI IANGES AND FEMA FIRM MAP UPDATE DCA2016-00002 09/27/2016 PUBLIC REARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 7 OF 9 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 in this section for the applicable listed factors on which the recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based. This standard is satisfied. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed code text amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Tigard Development Code. SUMMARY CONCLUSION: As shown in the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals; the Oregon Cannabis Regulations (ORS 475B); METRO's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan; applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, and the applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. SECTION V. AGENCY COMMENTS City of Portland, City of Beaverton, City of Durham, City of Lake Oswego, City of Tualatin, City of King City, Washi s • on County, METRO, ODOT, Oregon, DLCD, DEQ, ODFW, CWS, Tri-Met, FEMA and Tigard -if ater District and were notified of the proposed code text amendment but provided no comment. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue provided comments stating they have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. FEMA -provided comments stating that several things were out of compliance with the NFIP. Staff worked with FEMA and made the appropriate changes to Chapter 18.775 to comply with the NFIP. These emails are provided as Attachment 4. SECTION VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS Prior to the Planning Commission public hearing, the City received one email from Mr.Joel Vermillion, 10525 SW Tigard Street, asking how the proposed amendment will impact his property. A map of the current 100- year floodplain and the proposed map were provided. Mr. Vermillion also asked about paving an existing gravel area within the floodplain. Staff notified Mr. Vermillion that other sensitive lands are present on the property which may impact any development on the property. The City received six phone calls and two residents came into the permit center asking about properties within the special flood hazard area. A map of the current 100-year floodplain and the proposed map were provided. No further comments were received. The Planning Commission heard testimony from three citizens and received one written public comment (received from one of the citizens who also testified) at the public hearing on August 15, 2016. The testimony and written comment were considered by the Planning Commission as they formed their recommendation to Council that the proposed map update and code changes be approved. The written public comment is included as Attachment 2 and Planning Commission Minutes are Attachment 3. REQUIRED REGULATORY(:IIANGES ANI)FEM.\ FIRM MAP UPDATE 1CA2016-00002 09/27/2016 PUBLIC 1 IEARING,STA I F REPORT TO Ti IE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 8 OF 9 ATTACHMENTS: Attachments: 1. Proposed Amendments a. 18.120 Definitions b. 18.775 Sensitive Lands c. 18.735 Marijuana Facilities 2. Public Comment Letter- Mr. Davis 3. August 15,2016 Planning Commission Minutes 4. Emails from FEMA dated August 10th and 17th, 2016 4411,i/-t- August 31, 2016 PREPARED BY: Agnes Kowacz DATE Associate Planner If .t>c rt111// August 31. 2016 AP' '(DVED BY: Tom McGuire DATE Assistant Community Development Director REQUIRED REGULATORY(:I IANGES ANI)FEMA FIRM MAP UPDATE DCA2016-00002 09/27/2016 PUBLIC I WARING,STAFF REPORT TO TI IE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 9 OF 9 EAHIbI I H Attachment la DCA2016-00002 REQUIRED REGULATORY CHANGES AND FEMA FIRM MAP UPDATE DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT Explanation of Formatting These text amendments employ the following formatting: Strikethrough - Text to be deleted [Bold, Underline and Italics — Text to be added Excerpt from Chapter 18.120 18.120 Definitions 18.120.030 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms 86. Flood-related definitions: a. "Base flood"- The flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Also referred to as the"100-year flood." b. "Critical facility"-A facility for which even a slight chance of flooding might be too great. Critical facilities include, but are not limited to schools,;nursing homes,;hospitals;police,fire, and emergency response installations;and installations which produce, use or store hazardous materials or hazardous waste. b. "Floodplain" The zone along a watercourse enclosed by the outer limits of land which is subject c. "Floodway"- The normal stream or drainage channel of a river or other watercourse and that the adjoining adjacent land areas - . '... . .• . . .- . - .. - .- 1981.that Floodways-must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. d. "Floodway fringe"-The area of the floodplain special flood hazard area lying outside of the floodway. e. "Special Flood Hazard Area"- The land area covered by the floodwaters of the base flood is the Special Flood Hazard Area(SFHA) on NFIP maps. The SFHA is the area where the National Flood Insurance Program's(NFIP's) floodplain management regulations must be enforced and the area where the mandatory purchase of flood insurance applies. The SFHA includes Zones A,AO,All,Al- 30,AE,A99,AR,AR/A1-30,AR/AE,AR/A0,AR/AH,AR/A, VO, V1-30, VE, and V.Also referred to as the "100-year floodplain." LXHltill A Attachment 1 b DCA2016-00002 REQUIRED REGULATORY CHANGES AND FEMA FIRM MAP UPDATE DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT Explanation of Formatting These text amendments employ the following formatting: Stfikethfeugli - Text to be deleted [Bold, Underline and Italic' — Text to be added Chapter 18.775 SENSITIVE LANDS Sections: 18.775.010 Purpose 18.775.020 Applicability of Uses: Permitted, Prohibited,and Nonconforming 18.775.030 Administrative Provisions 18.775.040 General Provisions for Fleece Special Flood Hazard Areas 18.775.050 General Provisions for Wetlands 18.775.060 Expiration of Approval: Standards for Extension of Time 18.775.070 Sensitive Land Permits 18.775.080 Application Submission Requirements 18.775.090 Special Provisions for Development within Locally Significant Wetlands and Along the Tualatin River,Fanno Creek,Ball Creek,and the South Fork of Ash Creek 18.775.100 Adjustments to Underlying Zone Standards 18.775.110 Density Transfer 18.775.120 Variances to Section 18.775.090 Standards 18.775.130 Plan Amendment Option 18.775.140 Significant Habitat Areas Map Verification Procedures 18.775.010 Purpose A. Maintain integrity of rivers, streams, and creeks. Sensitive land regulations contained in this chapter are intended to maintain the integrity of the rivers,streams,and creeks in Tigard by minimizing erosion, promoting bank stability, maintaining and enhancing water quality, and fish and wildlife habitats, and preserving scenic quality and recreation potential. B. Implement comprehensive plan and floodplain management program. The regulations of this chapter are intended to implement the comprehensive plan and the city's floodplain management program as required by the Federal Emer2encv Management A,iencv (FEMA) through the National Flood Insurance Program, and-to help to preserve natural sensitive land areas from encroaching use,, and to maintain the November 4, 2016 February 18, 2005, zero-foot rise floodway elevation. C. Implement Clean Water Service (CWS) design and construction standards. The regulations of this chapter are intended to protect the beneficial uses of water within the Tualatin River Basin in accordance with the CWS "Design and Construction Standards,"as adopted February 7, 2000. Sensitive Lands 18.775-1 AP Update:2/14 I_XHIbII A Attachment 1 b D. Implement the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. The regulations of this chapter are intended to protect the beneficial water uses and functions and values of resources within water quality and flood management areas and to implement the performance standards of the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. E. Implement Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources). The regulations in this chapter are intended to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the safe harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule pertaining to wetland and riparian corridors. F. Protect public health, safety, and welfare. Sensitive land areas are designated as such to protect the public health,safety,and welfare of the community through the regulation of these sensitive land areas. G. Location. Sensitive lands are lands potentially unsuitable for development because of their location within: 1. The 100 year floodplain special flood hazard area or 1996 flood inundation line, whichever is greater; 2. Natural drainageways; 3. Wetland areas which are regulated by the other agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands, or are designated as significant wetland on the City of Tigard "Wetland and Stream Corridors Map"; 4. Steep slopes of 25% or greater and unstable ground; and 5. Significant fish and wildlife habitat areas designated on the City of Tigard `Significant Habitat Areas Map."(Ord. 06-20, Ord. 05-01) 18.775.020 Applicability of Uses—Permitted,Prohibited,and Nonconforming A. CWS stormwater connection permit. All proposed development must obtain a stormwater connection permit from CWS pursuant to its design and construction standards. As used in this chapter, the meaning of the word "development" shall be as defined in the CWS "Design and Construction 1. Construction of structures requiring a building permit, if such structures are external to existing struettiresi- 2. Land division; 3. Drilling; - - e mining er dredging; 5. Grading; 6. Construction of earthen berms; 7. Paving: Sensitive Lands 18.775-2 AP Update:2/14 EAI-111511 A Attachment 1 b & Excavation;or -- - - - - e :::• _ . ._ -- . . • - . . .. . . •" •- -. _• • •• (from ORS 92.010(2)); and efi-er-befer-e-Mareli-4-5r 2-040 B. Outright permitted uses with no permit required. Except as provided below and by subsections D, F, and G of this section, the following uses are outright permitted uses within the 100-1-041-year--fleedpiaift, special flood hazard area drainageways, slopes that are 25%or greater,and unstable ground when the use does not involve paving. For the purposes of this chapter, the word "structure" shall exclude: children's play equipment, picnic tables, sand boxes, grills, basketball hoops and similar recreational equipment. 1. Accessory uses such as lawns, gardens, or play areas; except in a water quality sensitive area or vegetated corridor, as defined in the CWS "Design and Construction Standards"or the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated corridor established for the Tualatin River,as defined in Section 18.775.090. 2. Farm uses conducted without locating a structure within the sensitive land area; except in a water quality sensitive area or vegetative corridor, as defined in CWS "Design and Construction Standards"or the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated corridor established for the Tualatin River,as defined in Section 18.775.090. 3. Community recreation uses, excluding structures; except in a water quality sensitive area or vegetated corridor, as defined in the CWS "Design and Construction Standards" or the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated corridor established for the Tualatin River, as defined in Section 18.775.090. 4. Public and private conservation areas for water, soil, open space,forest,and wildlife resources. 5. Removal of poison oak,tansy ragwort,blackberry, English ivy, or other noxious vegetation. 6. Maintenance of floodway excluding re-channeling; except in a water quality sensitive area or vegetated corridor, as defined in the CWS "Design and Construction Standards"or the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated corridor established for the Tualatin River, as defined in Section 18.775.090. 7. Fences;except in the floodway area;a water quality sensitive area or vegetated corridor,as defined in the CSW "Design and Construction Standards"; or the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated corridor established for the Tualatin River,as defined in Section 18.775.090. Sensitive Lands 18.775-3 AP Update:2/14 LAI-1IUl I A Attachment lb 8. Accessory structures which are less than 120 square feet in size; except in the floodway area; a water quality sensitive area or vegetated corridor,as defined in the CSW"Design and Construction Standards";or the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated corridor established for the Tualatin River,as defined in Section 18.775.090. 9. Land form alterations involving up to 10 cubic yards of material; except in the floodway area; a water quality sensitive area or vegetated corridor,as defined in the CSW"Design and Construction Standards";or the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated corridor established for the Tualatin River,as defined in Section 18.775.090. C. Exemptions. When performed under the direction of the city,and in compliance with the provisions of the City of Tigard Standards and Specifications for Riparian Area Management, on file in the engineering division,the following shall be exempt from the provisions of this section: 1. Responses to public emergencies, including emergency repairs to public facilities; 2. Stream and wetlands restoration and enhancement programs; 3. Non-native vegetation removal; 4. Planting of native plant species; and 5. Routine maintenance or replacement of existing public facilities projects. D. Jurisdictional wetlands.Landform alterations or developments which are only within wetland areas that meet the jurisdictional requirements and permit criteria of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Division of State Lands, CWS, and/or other federal, state, or regional agencies, and are not designated as significant wetlands on the City of Tigard "Wetland and Streams Corridors Map," do not require a sensitive lands permit.The city shall require that all necessary permits from other agencies are obtained. All other applicable city requirements must be satisfied, including sensitive land permits for areas within the-140-yeespecial flood hazard area, slopes of 25%or greater or unstable ground, drainageways, and wetlands which are not under state or federal jurisdiction. E. Administrative sensitive lands review. 1. Administrative sensitive lands permits in the pecial flood hazard area, drainageway, slopes that are 25% or greater, and unstable ground shall be obtained from the appropriate community development division for the following: a. The city engineer shall review the installation of public support facilities by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030 subject to compliance with all of the standards in this chapter; b. The city engineer shall review minimal ground disturbance(s)or landform alterations involving 10 to 50 cubic yards of material, except in the floodway area, for land that is within public easements and rights-of-way by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030 subject to compliance with all of the standards in this chapter; c. The director shall review minimal ground disturbance(s) or landform alterations involving 10 to 50 cubic yards of material, except in the floodway area by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030 subject to compliance with all of the standards in this chapter; Sell shive Lands 18.775-4 AP Update:2/14 EXHItbII A Attachment 1 b d. The director shall review the repair,reconstruction,or improvement of an existing structure or utility, the cost of which is less than 50% of the market value of the structure prior to the improvement or the damage requiring reconstruction provided no development occurs in the floodway by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030 subject to compliance with all of the standards in this chapter; e. The building official shall review building permits for accessory structures which are 120 to 528 square feet in size,except in the floodway area; and f. The director shall review applications for paving on private property, except in the floodway area by means of a Type I procedure,as governed by Section 18.390.030 subject to compliance with all of the standards in this chapter. 2. The responsible community development division shall approve,approve with conditions,or deny an application for a development permit, as described above, based on the standards set forth in Sections 18.775.050, 18.775.070, and 18.775.080. F. Sensitive lands permits issued by the director. 1. The director shall have the authority to issue a sensitive lands permit in the following areas by means of a Type II procedure,as governed in Section 18.390.040,using approval criteria contained in Section 18.775.070: a. Drainageways; b. Slopes that are 25%or greater or unstable ground: and c. Wetland areas which are not regulated by other local, state, or federal agencies and are designated as significant wetlands on the City of Tigard"Wetland and Streams Corridors Map." 2. Sensitive lands permits shall be required for the areas in paragraph 1 of this subsection F when any of the following circumstances apply: a. Ground disturbance(s)or land form alterations involving more than 50 cubic yards of material; b. Repair, reconstruction, or improvement of an existing structure or utility, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure prior to the improvement or the damage requiring reconstruction; c. Residential and nonresidential structures intended for human habitation;and d. Accessory structures which are greater than 528 square feet in size, outside floodway areas. G. Sensitive lands permits issued by the hearings officer. 1. The hearings officer shall have the authority to issue a sensitive lands permit in the special flood hazard areaI00-year--fleedplain by means of a Type IIIA procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.775.070. Sensitive Lands 18.775-5 AP Update:2/14 EAHItiII A Attachment 1 b 2. Sensitive lands permits shall be required in the 100-year floodfllainspecial flood hazard area when any of the following circumstances apply: a. Ground disturbance(s)or landform alterations in all floodway areas; b. Ground disturbance(s)or landform alterations in floodway fringe locations involving more than 50 cubic yards of material; c. Repair, reconstruction, or improvement of an existing structure or utility, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure prior to the improvement or the damage requiring reconstruction provided no development occurs in the floodway; d. Structures intended for human habitation; and e. Accessory structures which are greater than 528 square feet in size, outside of floodway areas. H. Other uses. Except as explicitly authorized by other provisions of this chapter, all other uses are prohibited on sensitive land areas. 1. Nonconforming uses. A use established prior to the adoption of this title, which would be prohibited by this chapter or which would be subject to the limitations and controls imposed by this chapter, shall be considered a nonconforming use.Nonconforming uses shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.760.(Ord. 09-13; Ord. 06-20) 18.775.030 Administrative Provisions A. Interagency coordination. The appropriate approval authority shall review all sensitive lands permit applications to determine that all necessary permits shall be obtained from those federal, state,or local governmental agencies from which prior approval is also required. As governed by CWS "Design and Construction Standards," the necessary permits for all "development,"as defined in Section 18.775.020.A, shall include a CWS service provider letter,which specifies the conditions and requirements necessary, if any,for an applicant to comply with CWS water quality protection standards and for the agency to issue a stormwater connection permit. B. Alteration or relocation of water course. 1. The director shall notify communities adjacent to the affected area and the State Department of Land Conservation and Development prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and submit evidence of such notification to the Federal Insurance Administration; 2. The director shall require that maintenance is provided within the altered or relocated portion of a watercourse so that the flood-carrying capacity is not diminished. C. Apply standards. The appropriate approval authority shall apply the standards set forth in Sections 18.775.040 and 18.775.070 when reviewing an application for a sensitive lands permit. D. Elevation and floodproofing certification. The appropriate approval authority shall require that the elevations and floodproofing certification required in subsection E of this section be provided prior to permit issuance and verification upon occupancy and final approval. E. Maintenance of records. Sensitive Lands 18.775-6 AP Update:2/14 LAHIt51I A Attachment lb 1. Where base flood elevation data is provided through the flood insurance study,the building official shall obtain and record the actual elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new or substantially improved structures, and whether or not the structure contains a basement; 2. For all new or substantially improved floodproofed structures,the building official shall: a. Verify and record the actual elevation(in relation to mean sea level); and b. Maintain the floodproofing certifications required in this chapter. 3. The director shall maintain for public inspection all other records pertaining to the provisions in this chapter. 18.775.040 General Provisions for Flood FloodplainSpecial Flood Hazard Areas A. Permit review. The appropriate approval authority shall review all permit applications to determine whether proposed building sites will minimize the potential for flood damage. B. Special flood hazard. The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Insurance AthffinistfatienFEMA in a scientific and engineering report entitled"The Flood Insurance Study of the Cityfor Washington County, Oregon and Incorporated Areas of Tigard," effective February 18, 2005dated effective November 4, 2016" with accompanying €Flood Insurance fate--maps Map cffectivcFobruary 18, 2005, is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapterordinance. "-' '=-- •• . _ - . • _ . ' ' -• - . C. Base flood elevation data. When base flood elevation data has not been provided in accordance with subsection B of this section, the director shall obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a federal, state or other source, in order to administer subsections M and N of this section. D. Test of reasonableness. Where elevation data is not available either through the flood insurance study or from another authoritative source,applications for building permits shall be reviewed to assure that the potential for flood damage to the proposed construction will be minimized. The test of reasonableness is a local judgment and includes use of historical data, high water marks, photographs of past flooding,etc.,where available. Failure to elevate at least two feet above grade in these sensitive land areas may result in higher insurance rates. E. Resistant to flood damage.All new construction and substantial improvements,including manufactured homes, shall be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. F. Minimize flood damage. All new construction and substantial improvements, including manufactured homes, shall be constructed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. G. Equipment protection. Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air-conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall be designed and/or otherwise elevated or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. H. Water supply systems. All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwater into the system. Sensitive Lands 18.775-7 AP Update:2/14 LA-11311 A Attachment 1 b I. Anchoring. All new construction, all manufactured homes and substantial improvements shall be anchored to prevent flotation,collapse, or lateral movement of the structure. J. Sanitary sewerage systems. New and replacement sanitary sewerage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwater into the systems and discharge from the systems into floodwater. K. On-site water disposal systems. On-site water disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. L. Residential construction. 1. New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure,including manufactured homes, shall have the lowest floor, including the basement, elevated at least one foot above base flood elevation; 2. Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding are prohibited, or shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwater. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect, or must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: a. A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided; b. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade; and c. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other coverings or devices, provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of flood waters. 3. Manufactured homes shall be securely anchored to an adequately anchored permanent foundation system. Anchoring methods may include, but are not limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. M. Nonresidential construction. New construction and substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial, or other nonresidential structure shall either have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to the level of the base flood elevation,or together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, shall: 1. Be floodproofed so that below the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water; 2. Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; 3. Be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting provisions of this subsection based on their development and/or review of the structural design, specifications and plans. Such certifications shall be provided to the building official as set forth in 18.775.030.E.2; and Sensitive Lands I8.775-8 AP Update:2/14 EAhIUI I A Attachment 1 b 4. Nonresidential structures that are elevated, not floodproofed, must meet the same standards for space below the lowest floor as described in paragraph L.2 of this section. Applicants flood- proofing nonresidential buildings shall be notified that flood insurance premiums will be based on rates that are one foot below the floodproofed level (e.g., a building constructed to the base flood level will be rated as one foot below that level). N. Subdivisions and partitions in pecia/ flood hazard areas. Subdivisions and partitions in the 440-year-fleedspecial flood hazard area shall meet the following criteria: 1. The design shall minimize the potential for flood damage; 2. Public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems shall be located and constructed so as to minimize flood damage; 3. Adequate drainage shall be provided to reduce exposure to flood damage; and 4. For subdivisions or partitions which contain more than 50 lots or five acres and where base flood elevation data is not available from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or another authoritative source, the applicant shall generate base flood elevation data to be reviewed as part of the application. O. Recreational vehicles. Recreational vehicles placed on sites within Zones Al-A30,AH,and AE on the community's flood insurance rate map either: 1. Are on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days; 2. Are fully licensed and ready for highway use: a. Are on wheels or jacking system, b. Are attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and have no permanently attached additions, or c. Meet the requirements of subsections E, F, I, and L of this section and the elevation and anchoring requirements for manufactured homes. (Ord. 05-01) P. Construction of new critical facilities shall be, to the extent possible, located outside of the limits of the special flood hazard area. Construction of new critical facilities shall be permissible within the special flood hazard area if no feasible alternative site is available. Critical facilities constructed within the special flood hazard area shall have the lowest floor elevated three feet above base flood elevation or to the height of the 500-year flood, whichever is higher.Access to and from the critical facility should also be protected to the height utilized above. Floodproofing and sealing measures must be taken to ensure that toxic substances will not be displaced by or released into floodwaters. Access routes elevated to or above the level of the base flood elevation shall be provided to all critical facilities to the extent possible. O. Severability. If any section, clause, sentence, or phrase of the ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no way affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. R. Definitions. The following definitions are only applicable to this section: Sensitive Lands 18.775-9 AP Update:2/14 EXHItiI I A Attachment lb 1. DEVELOPMENT means any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials. 2. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP(FIRM) means an official map of a community, on which the Federal Insurance Administrator has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. A FIRM that has been made available digitally is called a Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM). 3. FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY (FIS) means the official report provided by the Federal Insurance Administration that includes flood profiles, the Flood Boundary-Floodway Map, and the water surface elevation of the base flood. 4. LOWEST FLOOR means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area(including basement). An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage in an area other than a basement area is not considered a building's lowest floor; Provided, that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non-elevation design requirements of¢60.3. 5. MANUFACTURED HOME means a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities. The term "manufactured" home does not include a "recreational vehicle": 6. NEW CONSTRUCTION means,for the purposes of determining insurance rates,structures for which the "start of construction"commenced on or after the effective date of an initial FIRM or after December 31, 1974, whichever is later, and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. For floodplain management purposes, new construction means structures for which the start of construction commenced on or after the effective date of a floodplain management regulation adopted by a community and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. 7. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE means a vehicle which is: (a) Built on a single chassis; (b) 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection; (c) Designed to be self- propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and(d) Designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use. 8. START OF CONSTRUCTION includes substantial improvement, and means the date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, placement or other improvement was within 180 days of the permit date. The actual start means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site,such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns,or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement,footings,piers,or foundations or the erection of temporary forms;nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings,such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building. Sensitive Lands 18.775-10 AP Update:2/14 LXHItSII A Attachment 1 b 9. STRUCTURE means, for floodplain management purposes, a walled and roofed building, including a gas or liquid storage tank, that is principally above ground, as well as a manufactured home. 10. SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to it's before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. 11. VIOLATION means the failure of a structure or other development to be fully compliant with the community's flood plain management regulations. A structure or other development without the elevation certificate, other certifications, or other evidence of compliance required in 60.3(b)(5), (c)(4), (c)(10), (d)(3), (e)(2), (e)(4), or(e)(5) is presumed to be in violation until such time as that documentation is provided. S. Disclaimer of Liability. This section provides a reasonable degree of flood protection but does not imply total flood protection. T. Greater Restriction. This section shall not in any way impair/remove the necessity of compliance with any other applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, etc. Where this section imposes a greater restriction,the provisions of this section shall control. 18.775.050 General Provisions for Wetlands A. Code compliance requirements. Wetland regulations apply to those areas classified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetland and Streams Corridors Map,"and to a vegetated corridor ranging from 25 to 200 feet wide, measured horizontally, from the defined boundaries of the wetland, per"Table 3.1, Vegetated Corridor Widths,"and "Appendix C,Natural Resource Assessments," of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards." Wetland locations may include but are not limited to those areas identified as wetlands in"Wetland Inventory and Assessment for the City of Tigard,Oregon,"Fishman Environmental Services, 1994. B. Delineation of wetland boundaries. Precise boundaries may vary from those shown on wetland maps; specific delineation of wetland boundaries may be necessary. Wetland delineation will be done by qualified professionals at the applicant's expense. 18.775.060 Expiration of Approval—Standards for Extension of Time A. Voiding of permit. Approval of a sensitive lands permit shall be void if: 1. Substantial construction of the approved plan has not begun within a one-and-one-half year period; or 2. Construction on the site is a departure from the approved plan. B. Granting of extension. The director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required fee, grant an extension of the approval period not to exceed one year, provided that: 1. No changes are made on the original plan as approved by the approval authority; Sensitive Lands 18.775-11 AP Update:2/14 LAHII3I I A. Attachment 1 b 2. The applicant can show intent of initiating construction of the site within the one year extension period;and 3. There have been no changes to the applicable comprehensive plan policies and ordinance provisions on which the approval was based. C. Notice of the decision.Notice of the decision shall be provided to the applicant.The director's decision may be appealed by the applicant as provided by 18.390.040.G and H. 18.775.070 Sensitive Land Permits A. Permits required. An applicant, who wishes to develop within a sensitive area, as defined in Chapter 18.775,must obtain a permit in certain situations.Depending on the nature and intensity of the proposed activity within a sensitive area, either a Type II or Type III permit is required, as delineated in 18.775.020.F and G.The approval criteria for various kinds of sensitive areas,e.g.,special flood hazard area floodplain,are presented in subsections B through E of this section. B. Within the 100-year eedpiainspecial flood hazard area The hearings officer shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request within the 140-yearfleeilplainspecial flood hazard area based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title; 2. Land form alterations shall preserve or enhance the special flood hazard area floodplain storage function and maintenance of the zero-foot rise floodway shall not result in any encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development unless certified by a registered professional engineer that the encroachment will not result in any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge; 3. Land form alterations or developments within the 4-00-year—fleek special flood hazard area shall be allowed only in areas designated as commercial or industrial on the comprehensive plan land use map, except that alterations or developments associated with community recreation uses, utilities, or public support facilities as defined in Chapter 18.120 of the community development code shall be allowed in areas designated residential subject to applicable zoning standards; 4. Where a land form alteration or development is permitted to occur within the special flood hazard area#leedplaint it will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood; 5. The land form alteration or development plan includes a pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan, unless the construction of said pathway is deemed by the hearings officer as untimely; 6. Pedestrian/bicycle pathway projects within the special flood hazard area-fleedplain shall include a wildlife habitat assessment that shows the proposed alignment minimizes impacts to significant wildlife habitat while balancing the community's recreation and environmental educational goals; 7. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands, and CWS permits and approvals shall be obtained;and 8. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the special flood hazard areal-90-year fleedplain, the city shall require the consideration of dedication of Sensitive Lands 18.775-12 AP Update:2/14 LAI-1ILil I A Attachment lb sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the special flood hazard area—#leek in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the special flood hazard area-fleedplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. C. With steep slopes. The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit on slopes of 25%or greater or unstable ground based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title; 2. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use; 3. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion,stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property; 4. The structures are appropriately sited and designed to ensure structural stability and proper drainage of foundation and crawl space areas for development with any of the following soil conditions: wet/high water table; high shrink-swell capability; compressible/organic; and shallow depth-to- bedrock; and 5. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening. D. Within drainageways. The appropriate approval authority shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within drainageways based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title; 2. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than that required for the use; 3. The proposed land form alteration or development will not result in erosion,stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site and off-site effects or hazards to life or property; 4. The water flow capacity of the drainageway is not decreased; 5. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development,the areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted to prevent erosion in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening; 6. The drainageway will be replaced by a public facility of adequate size to accommodate maximum flow in accordance with the adopted 1981 Master Drainage Plan; 7. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands,and CWS approvals shall be obtained; Sensitive Lands 18.775-13 AP Update:2/14 L XHll:5l I H Attachment 1 b 8. Where land form alterations and/or development are allowed within and adjacent to the special flood hazard area4-00-year flees, the city shall require the consideration of dedication of sufficient open land area within and adjacent to the special flood hazard area floodplain in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the special flood hazard area-fleedpleiR in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. E. Within wetlands. The director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application request for a sensitive lands permit within wetlands based upon findings that all of the following criteria have been satisfied: 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this title; 2. The proposed land form alteration or development is neither on wetland in an area designated as significant wetland on the comprehensive plan special flood hazard area floodplain and wetland map nor is within the vegetative corridor established per"Table 3.1 Vegetative Corridor Widths" and "Appendix C: Natural Resources Assessments" of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards,"for such a wetland; 3. The extent and nature of the proposed land form alteration or development will not create site disturbances to an extent greater than the minimum required for the use; 4. Any encroachment or change in on-site or off-site drainage which would adversely impact wetland characteristics have been mitigated; 5. Where natural vegetation has been removed due to land form alteration or development, erosion control provisions of the Surface Water Management program of Washington County must be met and areas not covered by structures or impervious surfaces will be replanted in like or similar species in accordance with Chapter 18.745,Landscaping and Screening; 6. All other sensitive lands requirements of this chapter have been met; 7. The necessary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Oregon Land Board, Division of State Lands,and CWS approvals shall be obtained; 8. The provisions of Chapter 18.790,Tree Removal, shall be met; 9. Physical limitations and natural hazards, special flood hazard area_leeds and wetlands, natural areas, and parks, recreation and open space policies of the comprehensive plan have been satisfied. (Ord. 12-09 §1; Ord. 09-11) 18.775.080 Application Submission Requirements All applications for uses and activities identified in 18.775.020.A through G shall be made on forms provided by the director and must include the following information in graphic, tabular and/or narrative form. The specific information on each of the following is available from the director: A. A CWS stormwater connection permit; B. A site plan: Sensitive Lands 18.775-14 AP Update:2/14 LAI-111311 H Attachment lb C. A grading plan; D. An urban forestry plan per Chapter 18.790 (for 18.775.020.F and G): and E. A landscaping plan. (Ord. 12-09 §1) 18.775.090 Special Provisions for Development within Locally Significant Wetlands and Along the Tualatin River,Fanno Creek,Ball Creek,and the South Fork of Ash Creek A. In order to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the safe harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 666-023-0030) pertaining to wetlands, all wetlands classified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map" are protected.No land form alterations or developments are allowed within or partially within a significant wetland, except as allowed/approved pursuant to Section 18.775.130. B. In order to address the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources) and the safe harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 660-023-0030) pertaining to riparian corridors, a standard setback distance or vegetated corridor area, measured horizontally from and parallel to the top of the bank, is established for the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek. 1. The standard width for "good condition" vegetated corridors along the Tualatin River is 75 feet, unless wider in accordance with CWS "Design and Construction Standards," or modified in accordance with Section 18.775.130. If all or part of a locally significant wetland (a wetland identified as significant on the City of Tigard "Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map") is located within the 75-foot setback area, the vegetated corridor is measured from the upland edge of the associated wetland. 2. The standard width for"good condition"vegetated corridors along Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek is 50 feet, unless wider in accordance with CWS "Design and Construction Standards", or modified in accordance with Section 18.775.130. If all or part of a locally significant wetland (a wetland identified as significant on the City of Tigard"Wetlands and Streams Corridors Map") is located within the 50-foot setback area, the vegetated corridor is measured from the upland edge of the associated wetland. 3. The minimum width for"marginal or degraded condition" vegetated corridors along the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek is 50% of the standard width, unless wider in accordance with CWS "Design and Construction Standards," or modified in accordance with Section 18.775.130. 4. The determination of corridor condition shall be based on the natural resource assessment guidelines contained in the CWS "Design and Construction Standards." 5. The standard setback distance or vegetated corridor area applies to all development proposed on property located within or partially within the vegetated corridors,except as allowed below: a. Roads, pedestrian or bike paths crossing the vegetated corridor from one side to the other in order to provide access to the sensitive area or across the sensitive area,as approved by the city per Section 18.775.070 and by CWS "Design and Construction Standards"; b. Utility/service provider infrastructure construction (i.e. storm, sanitary sewer, water, phone, gas,cable, etc.), if approved by the city and CWS; Sensitive Lands 18.775-15 AP Update:2/14 LAI1I13II A Attachment 1 b c. A pedestrian or bike path, not exceeding 10 feet in width and meeting the CWS "Design and Construction Standards"; d. Grading for the purpose of enhancing the vegetated corridor,as approved by the city and CWS; e. Measures to remove or abate hazards, nuisances, or fire and life safety violations, as approved by the regulating jurisdiction; f. Enhancement of the vegetated corridor for water quality or quantity benefits, fish, or wildlife habitat,as approved by the city and CWS; g. Measures to repair, maintain, alter, remove, add to, or replace existing structures, roadways, driveways, utilities, accessory uses, or other developments provided they are consistent with city and CWS regulations, and do not encroach further into the vegetated corridor or sensitive area than allowed by the CWS "Design and Construction Standards." 6. Land form alterations or developments located within or partially within the Goal 5 safeharbor setback or vegetated corridor areas established for the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Creek that meet the jurisdictional requirements and permit criteria of the CWS, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Division of State Lands, and/or other federal, state, or regional agencies,are not subject to the provisions of this subsection B,except where the: a. Land form alterations or developments are located within or partially within a good condition vegetated corridor,as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this subsection B; b. Land form alterations or developments are located within or partially within the minimum width area established for marginal or a degraded condition vegetated corridor, as defined in paragraph 3 of this subsection B. These exceptions reflect instances of the greater protection of riparian corridors provided by the safe harbor provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule. 18.775.100 Adjustments to Underlying Zone Standards Adjustments to dimensional standards of the underlying zone district may be approved by the Planning Director when necessary to further the purpose of this section. A. Adjustment option. The planning director may approve up to 50% adjustment to any dimensional standard(e.g.,setback height or lot area)of the underlying zone district to allow development consistent with the purposes of this section. The purpose of the adjustment process is to reduce adverse impacts on wetlands, stream corridors, fish and wildlife habitat, water quality and the potential for slope of flood hazards. B. Adjustment criteria. A special adjustment to the standards in the underlying zoning district may be requested under Type II procedure when development is proposed within or adjacent to the vegetated corridor area or within or adjacent to areas designated as "strictly limit"or"moderately limit" on the City of Tigard"Significant Habitat Areas Map."Verification of significant habitat boundaries shall be done in accordance with the procedures described in Section 18.775.140. In order for the director to approve a dimensional adjustment to standards in the underlying zoning district, the applicant shall demonstrate that all the following criteria are fully satisfied: Sensitive Lands 18.775-16 -IP Update:2/14 LXHItiII A Attachment lb 1. The adjustment is the minimum necessary to allow a permitted use, while at the same time minimizing disturbance to a water resource, riparian setback area or water quality buffer; 2. Explicit consideration has been given to maximizing vegetative cover,minimizing excavation and minimizing impervious surface area on buildable land; 3. Design options have been considered to reduce the impacts of development, including but not limited to multi-story construction, siting of the residence close to the street to reduce driveway distance, maximizing the use of native landscaping materials, minimizing parking areas, minimizing hydrologic impacts and garage space; 4. In no case shall the impervious surface area as a single-family residence (including the building footprint, driveway and parking areas, accessory structures, swimming pools and patios) exceed 3,000 square feet of a vegetated corridor area; 5. Assurances are in place to guarantee that future development will not encroach further on land under the same ownership within the vegetated corridor area; 6. Protected vegetated corridor, significant habitat areas and adjacent buffer areas must be: a. Placed in a non-buildable tract or protected with a restrictive easement; b. Restoration and enhancement of habitat and buffer areas required, including monitoring for five years. C. Reduction to minimum density requirements for developments that include inventoried significant habitat areas.The minimum number of units required by Section 18.510.040(Density Calculation)may be waived if necessary to ensure that impacts on habitat areas are minimized. 1. Approval criteria. Reduction requests will be approved if the review body finds that the applicant has shown that the following criteria are met: a. An area of the property lot or parcel to be developed has been identified on the "Significant Habitat Areas Map."Verification of significant habitat boundaries shall be done in accordance with the procedures described in Section 18.775.140. b. The proposal will be consistent with the character of the neighboring area. c. This provision may only be applied to properties that were inside the Metro Urban Growth Boundary(UGB)on January 1,2002. d. The proposal will directly result in the protection of significant habitat areas through placement in a non-buildable tract or protected with a restrictive easement. 2. Procedure. a. The amount of reduction in the minimum density shall be calculated by subtracting the number of square feet of inventoried significant habitat that is permanently protected from the total number of square feet used to calculate the minimum density requirement. Sensitive Lands 18.775-17 AP Update:2/14 EXNllbl I A Attachment 1 b b. Requests for a reduction are processed as Type II procedure along with the development proposal for which the application has been filed. The planning director may impose any reasonable condition necessary to mitigate identified impacts resulting from development on otherwise unbuildable land. (Ord. 06-20) 18.775.110 Density Transfer Density may be transferred from vegetated corridor areas as provided in Sections 18.715.020 through 18.715.030. 18.775.120 Variances to Section 18.775.090 Standards Variances to the use provisions of Section 18.775.090 are not permitted. Variances from measurable (dimensional)provisions of this section shall be discouraged and may be considered only as a last resort. A. Type II variance option. The hearings officer shall hear and decide variances from dimensional provisions of this chapter under Type III procedure, in accordance with the criteria in Chapter 18.370 of the zoning ordinance. B. Additional criteria. In addition to the general variance criteria described in Chapter 18.370, all the following additional criteria must be met to grant a variance to any dimensional provision of this chapter: I. The variance is necessary to allow reasonable economic use of the subject parcel of land, which is owned by the applicant,and which was not created after the effective date of this chapter; 2. Strict application of the provisions of this chapter would otherwise result in the loss of a buildable site for a use that is permitted outright in the underlying zoning district,and for which the applicant has submitted a formal application; 3. The applicant has exhausted all options available under this chapter to relieve the hardship; 4. Based on review of all required studies identical to those described in Section 3.02.5.c Tier 2 Alternatives Analysis of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards," the variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief, considering the potential for increased flood and erosion hazard, and potential adverse impacts on native vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat, and water quality; 5. Based on review of all required studies identical to those described in Section 3.02.5 of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards," no significant adverse impacts on water quality, erosion or slope stability will result from approval of this hardship variance, or these impacts have been mitigated to the greatest extent possible; 6. Loss of vegetative cover shall be minimized. Any lost vegetative cover shall be replaced on-site, on a square foot for square foot basis, by native vegetation. 18.775.130 Plan Amendment Option Any owner of property affected by the Goal 5 safeharbor(1) protection of significant wetlands and/or(2) vegetated areas established for the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Ball Creek, and the South Fork of Ash Sensitive Lands 18.775-18 AP Update:2/14 hAhiUl l A Attachment 1 b Creek may apply for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendment under Type IV procedure. This amendment must be based on a specific development proposal. The effect of the amendment would be to remove Goal 5 protection from the property, but not to remove the requirements related to the CWS Stormwater Connection Permit, which must be addressed separately through an alternatives analysis, as described in Section 3.02.5 of the CWS "Design and Construction Standards." The applicant shall demonstrate that such an amendment is justified by either of the following: A. ESEE analysis. The applicant may prepare an environmental, social, economic and energy (ESEE) consequences analysis prepared in accordance with OAR 660-23-040. 1. The analysis shall consider the ESEE consequences of allowing the proposed conflicting use, considering both the impacts on the specific resource site and the comparison with other comparable sites within the Tigard Planning Area; 2. The ESEE analysis must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tigard City Council that the adverse economic consequences of not allowing the conflicting use are sufficient to justify the loss, or partial loss,of the resource; 3. In particular, ESEE analysis must demonstrate why the use cannot be located on buildable land, consistent with the provisions of this chapter, and that there are no other sites within the Tigard Planning Area that can meet the specific needs of the proposed use; 4. The ESEE analysis shall be prepared by a team consisting of a wildlife biologist or wetlands ecologist and a land use planner or land use attorney, all of whom are qualified in their respective fields and experienced in the preparation of Goal 5 ESEE analysis; 5. If the application is approved, then the ESEE analysis shall be incorporated by reference into the Tigard Comprehensive Plan,and the"Tigard Wetland and Stream Corridor Map"shall be amended to remove the site from the inventory. B. Determination of"insignificance." In this case, the applicant must demonstrate that the sensitive area site(s)no longer meet(s)the applicable significance threshold defined by the Goal 5 administrative rule, relative to other comparable resources within the Tigard Planning Area. 1. Significance thresholds are described and applied in the addendum to the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory adopted by reference as part of this chapter. 2. In considering this claim, the city council shall determine that the decline in identified resource values did not result from a violation of this chapter or any other provision of the Tigard Community Development Code. 18.775.140 Significant Habitat Areas Map Verification Procedures The significant habitat areas map shall be the basis for determining the general location of significant habitat areas on or adjacent to the site. A. Applicants who concur that the significant habitat areas map is accurate shall submit the following information to serve as the basis for verifying the boundaries of inventoried habitat areas: 1. Submission requirements. Sensitive Lands 18.775-19 APC date:2/14 bAI-11Li11 A Attachment 1 b a. A detailed property description; b. A scale map of the property showing the locations of significant habitat areas, any existing built area,wetlands or water bodies,Clean Water Services'vegetated corridor,the special flood hazard area4440—year—flee4plaift, the 1996 flood inundation line, and contour lines (two-foot intervals for slope less than 15%and 10-foot intervals for slopes 15%or greater); and c. A current aerial photograph of the property. 2. Decision process. The planning director's decision shall be based on consideration of submitted information, site visit information, and other factual information. Should the applicant disagree with the planning director's determination on the location of significant habitat areas on the property, the precise boundaries shall be verified by the applicant in accordance with the detailed delineation methodology outlined in subsection B of this section. B. Applicants who believe that the map is inaccurate shall submit a detailed delineation conducted by a qualified professional in accordance with the following methodology to verify the precise boundaries of the inventoried habitat areas by means of a Type II procedure. 1. Verifying boundaries of inventoried riparian habitat. Locating habitat and determining its riparian habitat class is a four-step process: a. Locate the water feature that is the basis for identifying riparian habitat. i. Locate the top of bank of all streams,rivers,and open water within 200 feet of the property. ii. Locate the special flood hazard area 1440-year—fleedplaift or 1996 flood inundation line, whichever is greater,within 100 feet of the property. iii. Locate all wetlands within 150 feet of the property. Identified wetlands on the property shall be further delineated consistent with methods currently accepted by the Oregon Division of State Lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. b. Identify the vegetative cover status of all areas on the property that are within 200 feet of the top of bank of streams,rivers,and open water,are wetlands or are within 150 feet of wetlands, and are flood areas and within 100 feet of flood areas. i. Vegetative cover status shall be as identified on the metro vegetative cover map. ii. The vegetative cover status of a property may be adjusted only if(a) the property was developed prior to the time the regional program was approved; or(b) an error was made at the time the vegetative cover status was determined. To assert the latter type of error, applicants shall submit an analysis of the vegetative cover on their property using summer 2002 aerial photographs and the following definition of vegetative cover types in Table 18.775.1. Table 18.775.1 Definitions of Vegetative Cover Types Type Definition Low structure vegetation Areas that are part of a contiguous area one acre or larger of grass, or open soils meadow, croplands,or areas of open soils located within 300 feet of a Sensitive Lands 78.775-20 AP Update:2/14 LA11I51I A Attachment 1 b surface stream(low structure vegetation areas may include areas of shrub vegetation less than one acre in size if they are contiguous with areas of grass,meadow, croplands,orchards, Christmas tree farms,holly farms, or areas of open soils located within 300 feet of a surface stream and together form an area of one acre in size or larger). Woody vegetation Areas that are part of a contiguous area one acre or larger of shrub or open or scattered forest canopy(less than 60%crown closure) located within 300 feet of a surface stream. Forest canopy Areas that are part of a contiguous grove of trees one acre or larger in area with approximately 60%or greater crown closure, irrespective of whether the entire grove is within 200 feet of the relevant water feature. c. Determine whether the degree that the land slope upward from all streams, rivers, and open water within 200 feet of the property is greater than or less than 25% (using the vegetated corridor measurement methodology as described in Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards); and d. Identify the riparian habitat classes applicable to all areas on the property using Table 18.775.2 and Table 18.775.3. Table 18.775.2 Method for Locating Boundaries of Class I and II Riparian Areas Distance in DevelopmentNegetation Status' feet from Developed areas not Low structure vegetation Woody vegetation Forest canopy(closed water providing vegetative or open soils (shrub and scattered to open forest canopy) feature cover forest canopy) Surface streams 0-50 Class II Class I Class I Class I _ 50-100 Class 112 Class I Class I 100-150 Class I12 if slope>25% Class II2 if slope>25% Class II2 150-200 Class II2 if slope>25% Class II2 if slope>25% Class II2 if slope>25% Wetlands(Wetland feature itself is a Class I Riparian Area) 0-100 Class II2 Class I Class I 100-150 Class I12 Flood Areas(Undeveloped portion of flood area is a Class I Riparian Area) 0-100 Class 112 Class II2 I The vegetative cover type assigned to any particular area was based on two factors:the type of vegetation observed in aerial photographs and the size of the overall contiguous area of vegetative cover to which a particular piece of vegetation belonged. As an example of how the categories were assigned,in order to qualify as a"forest canopy"the forested area had to be part of a larger patch of forest land at least one acre in size. 2 Areas that have been identified as habitats of concern, as designated on the Metro Habitats of Concern Map(on file in the Metro Council office). shall be treated as Class I riparian habitat areas in all cases, subject to the provision of additional information that establishes that they do not meet the criteria used to identity habitats of concern as described in Metro's Technical Report for Fish and Wildlife.Examples of habitats of concern include:Oregon white oak woodlands.bottomland hardwood forests,wetlands,native grasslands,riverine islands or deltas,and important wildlife migration corridors. Table 18.775.3 Tualatin Basin "Limit"Decision Conflicting Use Category Sensitive Lands 18.775-21 AP Update:2/14 L ANI81 I A Attachment 1 b Future Urban High Intensity (2002 and 2004 Non-Urban Resource Category Urban Other Urban additions) (outside UGB) Class I&II Riparian Inside Moderately Limit Strictly Limit Strictly Limit N/A Vegetated Corridor Class I&II Riparian Moderately Limit Moderately Limit Moderately Limit Moderately Limit Outside Vegetated Corridor All other Resource Areas Lightly Limit Lightly Limit Lightly Limit Lightly Limit Inner Impact Area Lightly Limit Lightly Limit Lightly Limit Lightly Limit Outer Impact Area Lightly Limit Lightly Limit Lightly Limit Lightly Limit * Vegetated corridor standards are applied consistently throughout the District;in HIU areas they supersede the limit"decision. 2. Verifying boundaries of inventoried upland habitat was identified based on the existence of contiguous patches of forest canopy, with limited canopy openings. The "forest canopy" designation is made based on analysis of aerial photographs as part of determining the vegetative cover status of land within the region. Upland habitat shall be as identified on the Significant Habitat Areas Map unless corrected as provided in this subsection. a. Except as provided below,vegetative cover status shall be as identified on the Metro Vegetative Cover Map used to inventory habitat(available from the Metro Data Resource Center,600 N.E. Grand Ave., Portland, OR 97232). b. The only allowed corrections to the vegetative cover status of a property area as follows: i. To correct errors made when the vegetative status of an area was determined based on analysis of the aerial photographs used to inventory the habitat. The perimeter of an area delineated as"forest canopy"on the Metro Vegetative Cover Map may be adjusted to more precisely indicate the dripline of the trees within the canopied area provided that no areas providing greater than 60% canopy crown closure are de-classified from the "forest canopy" designation. To assert such errors, applicants shall submit an analysis of the vegetative habitat cover on their property using the aerial photographs that were used to inventory the habitat and the definitions of the different vegetative cover types provided in Table 18.775.1; and ii. To remove tree orchards and Christmas tree farms from inventoried habitat; provided, however, that Christmas tree farms where the trees were planted prior to 1975 and have not been harvested for sale as Christmas trees shall not be removed from the habitat inventory. c. If the vegetative cover status of any area identified as upland habitat is corrected pursuant to subparagraph A.2.b.i of this section to change the status of an area originally identified as "forest canopy,"then such area shall not be considered upland habitat unless it remains part of a forest canopy opening less than one acre in area completely surrounded by an area of contiguous forest canopy. (Ord. 06-20) ■ Sensitive Lands 18.775-22 AP Update:2/14 LAI1151 1 A Attachment 1 c DCA2016-00002 REQUIRED REGULATORY CHANGES AND FEMA FIRM MAP UPDATE DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT Explanation of Formatting These text amendments employ the following formatting: Strikethfeug# - Text to be deleted [Bold,Underline and Italic] — Text to be added Chapter 18.735 MARIJUANA FACILITIES Sections: 18.735.010 Purpose 18.735.020 Applicability 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement 18.735.040 Development Standards 18.735.010 Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to: A. Protect the general health, safety, property,and welfare of the public; B. Balance the right of individuals to produce and access marijuana and marijuana derivatives consistent with state law,with the need to minimize adverse impacts to nearby properties that may result from the production, storage, distribution, sale,and/or use of marijuana and derivatives; C. Prevent or reduce criminal activity that may result in harm to persons or property; D. Prevent or reduce diversion of state-licensed marijuana and marijuana derivatives to minors; and E. Minimize impacts to the city's public safety services by reducing calls for service.(Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.020 Applicability A. Relationship to other standards. The regulations within this chapter are in addition to base zone standards. Sites with overlay zones, plan districts, inventoried hazards, and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Specific uses or development types may also be subject to regulations set forth elsewhere in this title. B. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement hXHIUI I A Attachment 1 c A. Procedure. All marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration, and public places of assembly where marijuana is consumed, shall demonstrate minimal compliance with these standards through a Type I procedure as set forth in Section 18.390.030 of this title, using approval criteria set forth in subsection B of this section. B. Approval criteria. Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all standards set forth in Section 18.735.040 of this chapter. C. Documentation. The following provisions shall apply at the time of minimum compliance review or a request for enforcement: 1. When processing a minimum compliance review,the city may accept an evaluation and explanation certified by a registered engineer or architect, as appropriate, that the proposed development will meet the off-site odor impact standard. The evaluation and explanation shall provide a description of the use or activity, equipment, processes and the mechanisms, or equipment used to avoid or mitigate off-site impacts. 2. If the city does not have the equipment or expertise to measure and evaluate a specific complaint regarding off-site impacts, it may request assistance from another agency or may contract with an independent expert to perform the necessary measurements. The city may accept measurements made by an independent expert hired by the controller or operator of the off-site impact source. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.040 Development Standards Development subject to the provisions ofthis chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all of the following standards: A. The proposed development complies with all applicable state requirements. B. The proposed use is allowed in the underlying zone and complies with all applicable requirements of this title. C. The proposed development meets all of the following site location restrictions. All distances shall be measured at the closest property lines between the proposed site and nearest lot or parcel containing the specified use or characteristic. 1. Marijuana facilities are prohibited within the MU-CBD zone. 2. The proposed development is not within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary school, secondary school, or career school attended primarily by minors. 3. Sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public shall be subject to the following restrictions: a. Must be located on a lots or parcel with frontage along Pacific Highway(Oregon Route 99W): b. Shall not be located within 2,000 1,000 feet of another state-licensed retail or wholesale marijuana facility within or outside of city limits;and LAI1131 1 A Attachment 1 c c. Shall not be located within 500 feet of a public library or Tigard parks and recreation zone. 4. Non-retail uses and wholesale sales uses not open to the public shall not be located within 500 feet of one or more of the following zones or facilities: a. Residential zone; b. Parks and recreation zone; c. Public library. D. Hours of commercial operation shall be limited to the hours between 10:00 am and 8:00 pm. General industrial uses with no on-site retail activity are exempt from this restriction. E. Primary entrances shall be clearly visible from Pacific Highway(Oregon Route 99W). F. The proposed development shall be located inside a permanent building and may not be located within a trailer, shipping container, cargo container, tent, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise, plants, or other materials is not allowed. G. Parking lots, primary entrances, and exterior walkways shall be illuminated with downward facing security lighting to provide after-dark visibility to employees and patrons. Fixtures shall be located so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet with a minimum illumination level of 1.0 footcandles at the darkest spot on the ground surface. H. Drive-through marijuana facilities are prohibited. 1. The proposed development shall confine all marijuana odors and other objectionable odors to levels undetectable at the property line. J. Marijuana or marijuana product shall not be visible from the exterior of the building or structure. (Ord. 15-07 §3) ■ EXHII3I I A Attachment 2 Dr. Gene & Vivian Davis 10875 S.W. 89th Ave Tigard, Oregon 97223 USA : 503 246-5862 Fax: 503 977-9343 Email: fmf.india(*yahoo.com August 156, 2016 Dear Planning Commission and City Council: In 1986 the city of Tigard put in a 16" water main paralleling the Southern Pacific Railroad at SW North Dakota just 135 feet from where Ash Creek flows into Fanno Creek(see red line on map for water main and yellow line for creeks). This was done without any engineering as your city files clearly reveal. Since that time, Ash Creek has silted in and deposited 30"or so of sediment. This sediment is pretty much from the water main to Oak Street but is most evident in the two, 12' wide by 9' high box culverts under Hwy 217 next to our property. This is about a half of a mile upstream. City manager, Marty Wine, on October 23`d, 2014, gave me written permission to lower that 16"water main at my expense. I am willing to do it if ever I can sell enough property to get enough money to make it happen. This water main is causing flooding upstream and impacting the FEMA floodplain water levels on our property (see blue area on map). Please do not change and increase the FEMA floodplain model until this problem is solved. The flooding and increased high water is being caused by the improper installation of the 16"city water main and will be alleviated when that issue is solved. To take away land value from upstream owners, in this case myself, is not fair and is not necessary. Please do not adopt the updated FEMA Firm Map without considering correcting the map when the water main is lowered. Thank you v- -• ,ch, . .'f-idilL (l Dr. Gene and Vivian Davis LAHItUII A Attachment 2 DON'T UPDATE FEMA MAP August 15th, 2016 ( = __ ) 16" City water main (YELLOW) Fanno and Ash Creeks (BLUE) Area of flooding due to improper installation of water main 0 • 1 NORTH BP 2 (NOT TO SCALE) a p ,..., ,.. e�� o mi. 1,. ..1 ,.. . ,� ,,,, 40 O� S O a ._ W /. 4 _, / li,! 4 > i J . .. a ,-- al <-:•.,S3 ri .:0 ....--•&,„,,..*..1., 1 c�� WASHINGTON -;4-----;-- > ��.� /'• N 1 `* SQUARE SW 80 •IER S" 00 MAL z cn - t;,` • J� rn a SW LEHMAN Z >` r=- ST i .. k .. SW COR' i SW LANDAU ST - Mlle ST ti i I40-..;,----.----:-..%----z...:...-,..„ `' -,s,_ 41. On lIffe'.. Q SW LOCUST ST 4 c • OAK ___ 4 _ Sw OAK ST lik_ i 1 `�` _ �--- �i..r SW PINE ST 2 ` ASH !:%y•� r _ sw swear --.-.X SW SPRUCE ST la Il •�i to = >1. . > > > N m in o rs uu. •` un• . 41PihSW PFAFFLE ST runil - i a RD MASH IN GTON SQUARE �Or" ■ 4' t • CIT} Of TICARO `... LAHl5l l A Attachment 3 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes August 15, 2016 CALL TO ORDER President Fitzgerald 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 Fitzgerald Commissioner Jelinek Commissioner Lieuallen Commissioner McDowell Commissioner Middaugh Alt. Commissioner Mooney Commissioner Muldoon Commissioner Schmidt Absent: Vice President Feeney; Alt. Commissioner Enloe; Commissioner Hu Staff Present: Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director; Agnes Kowacz, Associate Planner; -Joe Patton, Sr. Admin. Specialist COMMUNICATIONS —President Fitzgerald reported she attended the Tigard Triangle CAC meeting and they are continuing to work ahead. CONSIDER MINUTES July 18, 2016 Meeting Minutes: President Fitzgerald asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the July 18 minutes; there being none, Fitzgerald declared the minutes approved as submitted. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING President Fitzgerald opened the public hearing. REQUIRED REGULATORY CHANGES AND FEMA FIRM MAP UPDATE DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2016-00002) REQUEST: The City of Tigard proposes legislative amendments to the Tigard Development Code (TDC). The proposed amendments include: (1) Adopt updated Flood Insurance Maps; and (2) Update floodplain regulations (Chapter 18.775 Sensitive Lands) relating to critical facilities and add a severability clause; and (3) Change marijuana facilities (Chapter 18.735) spacing requirements between facilities from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1 (Citizen Involvement), 2 August 15, 2016 Page 1 of 4 LXHIbII A Attachment 3 (Land Use Planning), 7(Areas subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards), and 9 (Economic Development); ORS 475B (Cannabis Regulation); METRO's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Titles 3, and 8; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1.1.2, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.6, 2.1.11, 2.1.21, 2.1.23, 7.1.7, 7.1.8, 7.1.9, 9.1.3, and 9.1.12; and Tigard Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390. STAFF REPORT Agnes Kowacz, City of Tigard Associate Planner, gave the staff report (staff reports are available to the public online one week before public hearings). She gave a brief overview of the required regulatory changes and FEMA FIRM map updates. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was established in 1968.Jurisdictions have six months to adopt the FIRM maps and corresponding Flood Insurance Study (FIS) in order to participate, or have its citizens eligible to participate, in the discounted NFIP. FEMA periodically updates the floodplain maps and amends the NFIP. A Community Assistance Visit (CAV) occurred in September 2014 and identified that Tigard's Code lacked Critical Facilities regulations and a severability clause. In order for Tigard to continue its participation in the NFIP it must adopt, by November 4, 2016, the updated FIRM and corresponding FIS, regulations specified by the CAV, and additional items identified in the FEMA email (Exhibit A). The draft Tigard Development Code (TDC — Exhibit B) shows the proposed changes which she briefly described. Also distributed prior to the start of the meeting is a letter from Dr. Davis (Exhibit C). Ballot Measure 91 legalized the use and possession of recreational marijuana on November 4, 2014. Tigard adopted new regulations for handling marijuana related businesses on April 21, 2015. HB3400A established statewide regulations and recognized marijuana as a farm crop. It also prohibits local jurisdictions from requiring a larger buffer than 1,000 feet between retail marijuana facilities. The adoption of the revision is required to comply with state law. QUESTIONS Can you tell me about how the FEMA maps were developed, the process to appeal the decision? FEMA's process is to hire a contractor to develop a hydraulic model that FEMA will use to develop their maps. FEMA does have an appeal process and this current process started in 2008 and that process has been completed for these revisions. FEMA and the count'previously notified affected property owners. What happens if the City chooses not to adopt the maps? The City would be dropped from the National Flood Insurance Program as would Tigard properly owners. They would have to pay full costfor flood insurance. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR—None. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION — Cece Dispenza, 11460 SW Dawns Court, voiced frustration regarding the FEMA FIRM process and the NFIP. Her flood insurance went from $0 per year 25 years ago to the highest risk with premiums of$1,400 per year due to the NFIP changes. She stated the notice of rate August 15, 2016 Page 2 of 4 LAI1I13II A Attachment 3 change can come from your mortgage or insurance company. She has spoken to multiple agencies and has not been able to figure out the reason for the increase. She questioned if Tigard will complete the same process as Beaverton to lower the insurance rates for its citizens. Dr. Gene Davis, 10875 SW 89th Avenue, lives near Ash Creek. He stated his property had no flooding issues until the water main was installed in 1986. He has received permission to lower the water main and believes lowering it will alleviate the flooding on his property. An analysis of the issue should be conducted before adopting the new maps. Paul Jackson, 10250 SW Tigard Street, expressed concern about the notice stating the proposed changes may affect the value of your property. He referred to an Oregonian article questioning FEMA's legal authority. Tom noted there are two separate processes. One is adoption of the new maps. The second involves a lawsuit against FEMA for violation of the Endangered Species Act. It is unknown how the settlement of the case will impact Tigard, but none of the proposed Code changes are affected as they are separate issues. QUESTIONS TO STAFF Why change the definition of the 100 year floodplain? Special flood hazard areas is the term FEMA uses and in some ways it is a better term. 100 year floodplain can be confusing. Someone that experienced a flood 10 years ago may assume they will not experience another for 90 years. What it actually refers to is the area has a 1% chance to flood in any given year, not the length of time between flooding. Can Tigard do anything to change these maps, such as lowering the water main on Dr. Davis' property? In general no, and the City does not agree that the water main is the cause of the flooding. The City Manager has given Dr. Davis permission to move the water main at his expense if he obtains the proper permits. There are two processes that can take place. A property owner can go to FEMA's website and find an application to appeal and find out the requirements and fees involved. The City could theoretically complete a basin study and based off the results ask for map revisions. All of the evidence would be required and expensive to gather. Is there anything Tigard can do to help alleviate some of the costs to citizens such as Beaverton is doing? Tom noted FEMA has a program called Community Rating System. Depending on the City's level of participation,flood insurance premium rates for floodplain property owners can be reduced up to 45%. Council has not given any direction to formally apply for the program or for the associated expenses. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DELIBERATION Some points — comments: • The marijuana Code change does not alter Tigard's policy regarding siting, just the distance between retail facilities, making it compliant with the state law. • Providing more comprehensive information regarding the FEMA map revision process would be helpful to affected property owners. Even though Tigard will not advocate on August 15, 2016 Page 3 of 4 EXHII3I I A Attachment 3 behalf of individual property owners,it should advocate for the City as a whole by completing the FEMA process to lower the rates as much as possible. • For help with the Community Rating System required studies, local agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may be able to help on a volunteer or assisted basis. • Tigard has to comply with the law and approve the map revisions without control over how the maps are determined. Failure to comply will result in even higher flood insurance rates for the affected property owners. MOTION Commissioner Middaugh made the following motion—"I move for approval of the application DCA2016-00002 and adoption of the findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report, and based on the testimony received,with the addition that staff investigates the ranking system option."The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lieuallen. RESULT—All in favor, none opposed. BRIEFING Agnes gave an overview of upcoming changes to the Code. Changes are needed due to known problems with poor code construction, deferred maintenance and incremental changes. The focus is on terminology,process, administration and reorganization. The first part includes the mandatory changes approved tonight which will be heard by Council on September 27. The "Content" portion will be covered in two packages. The first package will include administrative fixes,new processes,new sections and regulations, and clean-up/miscellaneous. Package two will include terminology and permit review. She discussed the timeline (Exhibit D) which is an ambitious schedule. The goal is final adoption in February 2018. Tom noted there are some controversial issues that could slow the process considerably. ADJOURNMENT President Fitzgerald adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Us-CL: V-A'r ' Joe Patton, Planning Commission -cretary . , A'1ThST: Presiden itzg- ald cry August 15,2016 Page 4 of 4 LAHlbll A Attachment 4 Agnes Kowacz From: Pilkenton, Roxanne <roxanne.reale-pilkenton@fema.dhs.gov> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:44 AM To: Agnes Kowacz Subject: RE: Flood Ordinance The challenge is with FEMAs definition of development which reads: Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging,filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials. Because of the strict definition many of the things that are listed in both 18.775.020.6 and 18.775.020.0 cannot be exempted; specifically the following: 18.775.020.B 6. Maintenance of floodway excluding re-channeling; except in a water quality sensitive area or vegetated corridor, as defined in the CWS "Design and Construction Standards" or the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated corridor established for the Tualatin River, as defined in Section 18.775.090. If the maintenance of the floodway includes any of the activities as listed in the definition of development, a flood hazard permit must be required and cannot be outright permitted. 7. Fences; except in the floodway area; a water quality sensitive area or vegetated corridor, as defined in the CSW "Design and Construction Standards";or the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated corridor established for the Tualatin River, as defined in Section 18.775.090. Even if the fences are located in the special flood hazard area (versus just the floodway) they are considered a man-made change and would require a flood hazard permit and cannot be outright permitted. 8. Accessory structures which are less than 120 square feet in size; except in the floodway area; a water quality sensitive area or vegetated corridor, as defined in the CSW "Design and Construction Standards"; or the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated corridor established for the Tualatin River, as defined in Section 18.775.090. Even if the accessory structures are located in the special flood hazard area (versus just the floodway)they are considered a man-made change and would require a flood hazard permit and cannot be outright permitted. 9. Land form alterations involving up to 10 cubic yards of material; except in the floodway area; a water quality sensitive area or vegetated corridor, as defined in the CSW "Design and Construction Standards"; or the Statewide Goal 5 vegetated corridor established for the Tualatin River, as defined in Section 18.775.090. Land form alterations involving up to 10 cubic yards of material is considered development, a flood hazard permit must be required and cannot be outright permitted. 18.775.020.0 1 LAI-111:511 A 1. Responses to public emergencies, including emergency repairs to public facilities.Attachment 4 Are there provisions in Tigard code that state what an actual emergency is comprised of? And if emergency work is done is it only done during an imminent threat that must be alleviated? Does the Tigard code address that after the emergency is abated that permitting is required to keep the emergency measures in place? Often jurisdictions will issue an emergency permit that includes conditions that within so many days (example: 90) the emergency abatement measures are removed or permitted demonstrating compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances. 2. Stream and wetlands restoration and enhancement programs; If the restoration and enhancements include any of the work described in the FEMA definition of development the work cannot be exempt from a flood hazard permit. 5. Routine maintenance or replacement of existing public facility projects. I was unable to find a definition of public facility in the Tigard code but if the routine maintenance or replacement includes any of the work described in the FEMA definition of development the work cannot be exempt from a flood hazard permit. Please let me know if I can provide any further assistance. Take care, Rox- Roxanne Pilkenton, CFM Floodplain Management Specialist FEMA Region X I Floodplain Management and Insurance Branch 130 228th Street SW I Bothell, Washington 98021-9792 Phone: (425)487-4654 I Cell: (202) 341-6948 KF7ROX Roxanne.PilkentonPfema.dhs.gov FEMA .oro s From:Agnes Kowacz [mailto:AgnesK@tigard-or.gov] Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 3:04 PM To: Pilkenton, Roxanne<roxanne.reale-pilkenton@fema.dhs.gov> Subject: RE: Flood Ordinance Roxanne- Can you specifically tell me which items are in conflict in section 18.775.020.6 and 18.775.020.C? Enforcement language is found in Tigard Municipal Code 14.04.090. The remaining items will be added to the ordinance. Thanks, Agnes Kowacz I Associate Planner City of Tigard I Community Development 2 LAI-111511 /A Attachment 4 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 Email: AgnesK@tigard-or.gov From: Pilkenton, Roxanne [mailto:roxanne.reale-pilkenton@fema.dhs.gov] Sent:Thursday, August 11, 2016 11:32 AM To:Tom McGuire <TomM@tigard-or.gov> Cc:Shirley, Christine <christine.shirley@state.or.us>; Lentzner, Dave<david.lentzner@state.or.us>; Agnes Kowacz <AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Subject: FW: Flood Ordinance Hello Tom, Scott Van Hoff told me about your phone call this morning and I wanted to get an email out to you right away. A Community Assistance Visit (CAV) was conducted in 2014 and there were two ordinance items that were requested to be changed in regards to Critical Facilities and the Severability section. I was able to confirm that both of these items are being corrected in the update that is why they are not included in what I requested below. Please note that I'm not asking for the items in my email below to be corrected or added due to the CAV but because of the adoption of the new maps; the ordinance is required to be compliant with the NFIP minimum standards and portions of the Tigard code do not meet these minimum standards. Scott said that you needed confirmation today that the items below do need to be addressed; please accept this email as confirmation that the items in my email below need to be addressed in the Tigard ordinance update. Again, please let me know if I've inadvertently missed areas where some of the below code can be found. Please feel free to contact me with any further questions. I'd be happy to review the draft changes once they are made. Take care, Roxanne Roxanne Pilkenton, CFM Floodplain Management Specialist FEMA Region X I Floodplain Management and Insurance Branch 130 228th Street SW I Bothell, Washington 98021-9792 Phone: (425)487-4654 I Cell: (202) 341-6948 KF7ROX Roxanne.Pilkenton(cafema.dhs.gov FEMA 4Mys� From: Pilkenton, Roxanne Sent:Wednesday, August 10, 2016 4:37 PM To:Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Cc: Lentzner, Dave<david.Ientzner@state.or.us>; Shirley, Christine<christine.shirley@state.or.us> Subject: RE: Flood Ordinance Hello Agnes, Please forgive the lateness of my response I was out of the office last week and the first two days of this week were spent catching back up! O I've found the following items that the City of Tigard may want to consider changing in the 3 EXHItill H Attachment 4 ordinance along with the adoption of the maps. Please know that I realize I do not know your ordinance as well as you do and if I have inadvertently missed where the code/definition is I apologize: Definitions: FEMA's definition of development: DEVELOPMENT means any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials. I do see that Tigard has a definition of development but not one that would cover what is stated above. FEMA's definition of Flood Insurance Rate Map: FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP(FIRM) means an official map of a community, on which the Federal Insurance Administrator has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. A FIRM that has been made available digitally is called a Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM). I do not see that Tigard has a definition of Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The Oregon Model Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance definition of Flood Insurance Study: FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY means the official report provided by the Federal Insurance Administration that includes flood profiles,the Flood Boundary-Floodway Map, and the water surface elevation of the base flood. I do not see that Tigard has a definition of Flood Insurance Study. FEMA's definition of Lowest Floor: LOWEST FLOOR means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage in an area other than a basement area is not considered a building's lowest floor; Provided,that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non-elevation design requirements of§ 60.3. I do not see that Tigard has a definition of Lowest Floor. FEMA's definition of Manufactured Home: MANUFACTURED HOME means a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities. The term "manufactured" home does not include a "recreational vehicle". I do see that Tigard has a definition of Mobile Home but it does not include all of the language that the NFIP requires. FEMA's definition of New Construction: NEW CONSTRUCTION means, for the purposes of determining insurance rates, structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of an initial FIRM or after December 31, 1974, whichever is later, and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. For floodplain management purposes, new construction means structures for which the start of construction commenced on or after the effective date of a floodplain management regulation adopted by a community and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. I do not see that Tigard has a definition of New Construction. FEMA's definition of Recreational Vehicle: RECREATIONAL VEHICLE means a vehicle which is: (a) Built on a single chassis; (b)400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection; (c) Designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and (d) Designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use. 4 EAHIbl I A Attachment 4 I do see that Tigard has a definition of Recreational Vehicle but it does not include all of the language that the NFIP requires. The Oregon Model Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance definition of Start of Construction: START OF CONSTRUCTION includes substantial improvement, and means the date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, placement or other improvement was within 180 days of the permit date. The actual start means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement,footings, piers, or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building. I do not see that Tigard has a definition of Start of Construction. FEMA's definition of Structure: STRUCTURE means, for floodplain management purposes, a walled and roofed building, including a gas or liquid storage tank,that is principally above ground, as well as a manufactured home. I do see that Tigard has a definition of Structure, which asks you to go to the definition of Building, but it does not include all of the language that the NFIP requires. FEMA's definition of Substantial Damage: SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to it's before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. I do not see that Tigard has a definition of Substantial Damage. FEMA's definition of Violation: VIOLATION means the failure of a structure or other development to be fully compliant with the community's flood plain management regulations. A structure or other development without the elevation certificate, other certifications, or other evidence of compliance required in § 60.3(b)(5), (c)(4), (c)(10), (d)(3), (e)(2), (e)(4), or (e)(5) is presumed to be in violation until such time as that documentation is provided. I do not see that Tigard has a definition of Violation. Code Challenges: 18.775.020(A)(10) In the Tigard code is in direct conflict with the NFIP. This section needs to be removed from the ordinance. Several of the exemptions listed in 18.775.020 (B) are in direct conflict with the NFIP and need to be removed from the ordinance. While I agree that many of these items will not require a building or other permits they will require a flood hazard (or sensitive land) permit. 18.775.020(C) in the Tigard code includes provisions that are in direct conflict with the NFIP. While some of these exemptions may be allowed in the NFIP not all are. I am unable to find an enforcement provisions in 18.775, including a violation and penalty section specifying actions that Tigard will take to assure compliance. Please let me know if it is located in another area of the code. 5 EXHItiI I A AttaQ,hM nt 4. I could not locate a Disclaimer of Liability section advising that the degree of flood protection require y tie ordinance is considered reasonable but does not imply total flood protection. Please direct me to the location in code if I have missed it. I am unable to find an Abrogation and Greater Restriction section (e.g., This Ordinance shall not in any way impair/remove the necessity of compliance with any other applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, etc. Where this Ordinance imposes a greater restriction, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control.) Please let me know if it is located in another area of the code. Again, please forgive me if you have these items covered in your code and in my inexperience I have overlooked them. Please feel free to contact me with any questions about this email. Take care, Roxanne Roxanne Pilkenton, CFM Floodplain Management Specialist FEMA Region X 1 Floodplain Management and Insurance Branch 130 228th Street SW 1 Bothell, Washington 98021-9792 Phone: (425)487-4654 1 Cell: (202) 341-6948 KF7ROX Roxanne.Pilkenton@fema.dhs.gov %) FEMA From:Agnes Kowacz [mailto:AgnesK@tigard-or.gov] Sent: Wednesday,July 27, 2016 2:38 PM To: Pilkenton, Roxanne<roxanne.reale-pilkenton@fema.dhs.gov> Cc:Shirley, Christine<christine.shirley@state.or.us> Subject: RE: Flood Ordinance Roxanne- DLCD was sent all materials of this code package on 7/11/2016. I forgot to include the timeline. The first public hearing with the Planning Commission will be 8/15/2016 and City Council on 9/27/2016. The changes will be adopted by 11/4/2016.Thanks, Agnes Kowacz I Associate Planner City of Tigard 1 Community Development 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 503.718.2429 Email:AgnesK@tigard-or.gov From: Pilkenton, Roxanne [mailto:roxanne.reale-pilkenton@fema.dhs.gov] Sent:Wednesday,July 27, 2016 1:50 PM To:#CD PoD<CDPoD@tigard-or.gov> Cc:Shirley, Christine<christine.shirley@state.or.us> Subject: Flood Ordinance 6 hXHItiII A Attachment 4 Good Afternoon Tom, FEMA has you listed as the Floodplain Manager for the City of Tigard in our database; please forgive me if this information is incorrect. I'm reaching out to you in regards to the Washington County jurisdictions that will have new FIRMs and FIS becoming effective 04 November 2016. I know that Oregon State Law requires you to send them a copy of the proposed changes in your flood ordinance at least 35 days before the first public hearing. In communicating with Christine Shirley, DLCD it sounds as if she will be working closely with you to ensure State obligations are met. Because FEMA has a vested interest in ensuring that your new ordinance meets the NFIP minimum standards I would like to request that a copy of the ordinance that you send to Ms. Shirley is sent to me at the same time. In doing this it would also be helpful for you to provide a timeline as to when the City expects to pass major milestones in the ordinances adoption procedure. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Take care, Roxanne Roxanne Pilkenton, CFM Floodplain Management Specialist FEMA Region X I Floodplain Management and Insurance Branch 130 228th Street SW I Bothell, Washington 98021-9792 Phone: (425)487-4654 ( Cell: (202) 341-6948 KF7ROX Roxanne.Pilkenton@fema.dhs.Rov �'�ARry atm--��t.�. =�. FEMA 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." 7 _ ' City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum To: Tigard City Council From: Agnes Kowacz, Associate Planner Re: Marijuana Regulations Date: October 18, 2016 At the September 27, 2016, City Council instructed staff to provide additional information on the time and place regulations for marijuana facilitates. Specifically, City Council asked staff to research hours of operations in other jurisdictions, report on any criminal activity associated with marijuana facilities located within the City and provide maps showing potential locations where marijuana facilitates could be located after the change in the minimum distance between facilities from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet. Hours of Operation Staff researched the hours of operations in other jurisdictions. The following table shows the permitted hours of operation for marijuana facilitates for six other jurisdictions: Jurisdiction Hours of Operation Tigard 10AM-8PM Beaverton 7AM-10PM Tualatin 10AM-8PM Hillsboro 10AM-8PM Portland 8AM-10PM Washington County 8AM-10PM State/OLCC 7AM-10PM Police Report Currently, only one retail marijuana facility is operating within the City of Tigard, The Herbary located at 11642 SW Pacific Highway. The Police Department reviewed all crimes at and around the business location for the past year and found that two calls were generated at that address. One was a hit and run and the other was an unwanted customer with potentially mental health issues that they wanted removed. No other incidents were reported. Maw_ Two citywide maps have been provided with this memo identifying all the commercial and industrial areas (blue areas) where marijuana facilitates could occur if they were not limited to parcels with frontage on Pacific Highway (99W). On Map A, the areas identified in blue exclude the 1,000 foot buffer from schools and other retails facilities, 500 foot buffer from parks zones and library and the downtown core (Mixed Use Central Business District). On Map B, the areas identified in blue exclude the 1,000 foot buffer from schools and other retails facilities and the downtown core (Mixed Use Central Business District). / _—r_ I:EIR_R.D i1✓ q40 - 1.; pier/l. L I .may41 :S�A, c #4/k: H ��,5 1u =: m S Off- , =7t- -J m _ f:1° I JRCES: Q �G7�O,t�s��E W�... _i c0�„� i AR. 'Y , Q II L y uth west Hall Boulevard 2 I '- T ig ord,Oregon 97223 G co 503.639 4171 N www.ttgard-o r.go. WI N 1 �' if 'FNe, URtr, QP c 7- .s. NUT_ ,jwv stp , ,i' 0 I a 4;,e. 4, �v44 , ..... . q, .it ,./ , en- I Wt11,041 ~,. �O cong0 osw, v 1 _ !..,....,... ...........,....... I Pr- :Oij I O' I---.J . : I . . I I w0„../:_t_it.....- m I � 1 11 co LU y — — t� J.� `-I Q N QP -J I _ _ Q_ r GAA RD.E z.___...=_ I t_ 'wick MGD,ONA:L-DIST y .BUL-L MO,UtN�A.���'Zp gUrC"� . �G / l'frit �� �y�r < MGV 'Q, F:D QP I Dm!JEN'-F Lu riej_. _ , 1 / di 1 411 WA`. -'. I ,h.:: ' 7m in Q9 a=BEEF BE' A// D.U�R•HANj4,BEND—R,DBE ��B E N D R p ��1 / ,�— / I/4 /E•I R_R.D g H q9 j , '� `� g ' y CO/ O -- s m)URGES: Ili Iel Oly�`�/AO YI'i //, AO" '• •- `4' mCounry z rd 0'` 1 i = outhw ett Hall Boulevard = a Tigard,Oregon 97113 503.639.4171 I www.tignrd-or.gov W N N C/ 4X . mw a& QP FLD J Q c . , 0-- ,,, it,.61 T....\w"fr . 4. elf r. NT 4 v \; ST ., • . K ` �ov14 O .` + q GyWA,N;UT ST • P♦� O /s41/ 44 4, 4 . ` 0) . Ate",Wq,LNV' ♦ , R 0. 730. 1 1 , m - Q45 7 P J N �� a .... iST G.A.A,R.D'E Alei, - I • # � 4` MCD.ONALD-ST y r 1 814.47V M0UN'rA.IN RD V' 1T_BONITA . F W4 / ''' Add"o o i••••••ffer -ir..... .1.: J BEEF BENS �a D.URHAM-RD f //� / :IC D.UiR•HA 44 F�B,E'NrD,R,D / I ///6/A1 Chapter 18.735 MARIJUANA FACILITIES Sections: 18.735.010 Purpose 18.735.020 Applicability 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement 18.735.040 Development Standards 18.735.010 Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to: A. Protect the general health, safety, property, and welfare of the public; B. Balance the right of individuals to produce and access marijuana and marijuana derivatives consistent with state law, with the need to minimize adverse impacts to nearby properties that may result from the production, storage,distribution, sale,and/or use of marijuana and derivatives; C. Prevent or reduce criminal activity that may result in harm to persons or property; D. Prevent or reduce diversion of state-licensed marijuana and marijuana derivatives to minors;and E. Minimize impacts to the city's public safety services by reducing calls for service. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.020 Applicability A. Relationship to other standards. The regulations within this chapter are in addition to base zone standards. Sites with overlay zones, plan districts, inventoried hazards, and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Specific uses or development types may also be subject to regulations set forth elsewhere in this title. B. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement A. Procedure. All marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration, and public places of assembly where marijuana is consumed, shall demonstrate minimal compliance with these standards through a Type I procedure as set forth in Section 18.390.030 of this title, using approval criteria set forth in subsection B of this section. B. Approval criteria. Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all standards set forth in Section 18.735.040 of this chapter. C. Documentation. The following provisions shall apply at the time of minimum compliance review or a request for enforcement: 1. When processing a minimum compliance review, the city may accept an evaluation and explanation certified by a registered engineer or architect, as appropriate, that the proposed Marijuana Facilities 18.735-1 Proposed Code Amendment DCA2016-00002 development will meet the off-site odor impact standard. The evaluation and explanation shall provide a description of the use or activity, equipment, processes and the mechanisms, or equipment used to avoid or mitigate off-site impacts. 2. If the city does not have the equipment or expertise to measure and evaluate a specific complaint regarding off-site impacts, it may request assistance from another agency or may contract with an independent expert to perform the necessary measurements. The city may accept measurements made by an independent expert hired by the controller or operator of the off-site impact source. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.040 Development Standards Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all of the following standards: A. The proposed development complies with all applicable state requirements. B. The proposed use is allowed in the underlying zone and complies with all applicable requirements of this title. C. The proposed development meets all of the following site location restrictions. All distances shall be measured at the closest property lines between the proposed site and nearest lot or parcel containing the specified use or characteristic. 1. Marijuana facilities are prohibited within the MU-CBD zone. 2. The proposed development is not within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary school, secondary school, or career school attended primarily by minors. 3. Sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public shall be subject to the following restrictions: a. Must be located on a lot or parcel with frontage along Pacific Highway(Oregon Route 99W); b. Shall not be located within 1,000 feet of another state-licensed retail or wholesale marijuana facility within or outside of city limits;and c. Shall not be located within 500 feet of a public library or Tigard parks and recreation zone. 4. Non-retail uses and wholesale sales uses not open to the public shall not be located within 500 feet of one or more of the following zones or facilities: a. Residential zone; b. Parks and recreation zone; c. Public library. D. Hours of commercial operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. General industrial uses with no on-site retail activity are exempt from this restriction. Marijuana Facilities 18.735-2 Proposed Code Amendment DC.42016-00002 E. Primary entrances shall be clearly visible from Pacific Highway(Oregon Route 99W). F. The proposed development shall be located inside a permanent building and may not be located within a trailer, shipping container, cargo container, tent, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise,plants, or other materials is not allowed. G. Parking lots, primary entrances, and exterior walkways shall be illuminated with downward facing security lighting to provide after-dark visibility to employees and patrons. Fixtures shall be located so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet with a minimum illumination level of 1.0 footcandles at the darkest spot on the ground surface. H. Drive-through marijuana facilities are prohibited. I. The proposed development shall confine all marijuana odors and other objectionable odors to levels undetectable at the property line. J. Marijuana or marijuana product shall not be visible from the exterior of the building or structure. (Ord. 15-07 §3) ■ 11arijuana Facilities 18.735-3 Proposed Code Amendment DCA2016-00002 AIS-2810 5. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 11/01/2016 Length (in minutes): 60 Minutes Agenda Title: Legislative Public Hearing on 2016 Omnibus Code Amendment Package Prepared For: Agnes Kowacz, Community Development Submitted By: Sean Farrelly, Community Development Item Type: Ordinance Meeting Type: Council Public Hearing - Legislative Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing: Yes Publication Date: Information ISSUE The City Council will hold a public hearing on the 2016 Omnibus Code Amendment Package (DCA2016-00003). STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends that City Council approve the proposed Development Code amendments as recommended by Planning Commission. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The DCA2016-00003 Omnibus Code Amendment Package includes the following: 1. Amend Chapter 18.130 Use Categories and 18.510 Residential Zoning Districts to include animal boarding when completely enclosed in a building under the Personal Services use category in Commercial Zones only; and 2. Amend Chapter 18.610 Tigard Downtown Plan District to increase the height limit from 45 feet to 80 feet in the Main-Center sub-area; and 3. Amend Chapter 18.620 Tigard Triangle Plan District and Chapter 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts to allow multi-family dwelling units within the General Commercial (C-G) zone in the Tigard Triangle Plan District. ANIMAL BOARDING Owners of dog boarding facilities have expressed concern to Tigard City Council about current regulations pertaining to the classification of overnight boarding facilities. According to TDC 18.130.060.B, the boarding of normal household pets is considered an "Animal-Related Commercial" use, and is not allowed in most commercial zones. After review of similar regulations in surrounding jurisdictions, staff proposed to Planning Commission to reclassify animal boarding facilities as a "Personal Service" use provided all associated activities (with the exception of parking) is completely enclosed in a building. If classified as a Personal Service use, animal boarding would be allowed in most commercial zones and restricted in the High Density Residential zones and Industrial Park zone. Planning Commission expressed concern about animal boarding in residential zones. Planning Commission's recommendation is to reclassify animal boarding to personal service, but prohibit it in all residential zones. DOWNTOWN HEIGHTS Prior to 2010, the Tigard downtown area was zoned Central Business District, with 80-foot height limits. In 2010, a new Mixed Use-Central Business District (MU-CBD) zone was instituted. Rather than having a single height limit, the zone was broken down into sub-areas with different building and site development standards including building heights. A 45-foot height limit was set in the Main-Center sub-area with the idea that taller buildings might present a visual conflict with the existing one and two story buildings on Main Street. Taller buildings, however, are more financially feasible downtown because more leasable square footage is necessary to offset the high costs of new construction and the relatively lower rental rates that can be presently achieved in the downtown. Returning the 80-foot height limit that was in place for much of the Main-Center sub-area prior to 2010 is in keeping with the area's designation as a Town Center, a focus area for transit supportive redevelopment. MULTI-FAMILY IN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE The Tigard Triangle Plan District was adopted to allow development of a mixed-use employment area with a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system. Zoning within this district includes both Mixed Use Employment (MUE) and General Commercial (C-G). Multi-family housing is permitted in the MUE zone at 25 units per acre but is restricted in the C-G zone to a maximum of 25% of the total gross floor area for multi-family use. In May 2015 the city, along with citizens, property owners and businesses, developed the Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan which envisions a vibrant, walkable Triangle with a mix of uses. Plan participants emphasized the importance of providing a variety of housing choices and greater affordability within the Triangle. This amendment will allow multi-family to occur without limitation on square footage in the Tigard Triangle and will encourage housing development that supports the vision for the Triangle and eliminate barriers for providing much needed work-force and affordable housing. OTHER ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the public hearing to a later date. 2. Revise the recommendation and approve. 3. Deny the amendments. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS Strategic Plan Goal 2: Ensure development advances the vision. Comprehensive Plan Goals: 1 - Citizen Involvement 2 - Land Use Planning 9 - Economic Development 10- Housing 15 - Special Planning Areas-Downtown DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A Attachments Ordinance Exhibit A Staff Report Exhibit B Amendments CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 16- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAP 1 ERS 18.130 (USE CA 1'EGORIES), 18.510 (RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS), 18.520 (COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS), 18.610 (TIGARD DOWNTOWN PLAN DISTRICT), AND 18.620 (TIGARD TRIANGLE PLAN DISTRICT) FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING AN OMNIBUS AMENDMENT PACKAGE TO CLASSIFY ANIMAL BOARDING AS A PERSONAL SERVICE USE CA I'EGORY, INCREASE HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE MAIN-CEN 1'ER SUB-AREA OF THE TIGARD DOWNTOWN PLAN DISTRICT, AND ALLOW MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE WITHIN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE (DCA2016-00003). WHEREAS, the city has initiated an application to amend the text of Development Code; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the amendments is to address emergent development code issues regarding prohibition of animal boarding in commercial zones, height limits in the Tigard Downtown Plan District, and multi-family dwellings in the Tigard Triangle; and WHEREAS, notice was provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development at least 35 days prior to the first evidentiary public hearing; and WHEREAS, notice to the public was provided in conformance with the Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18.390.060.D and ORS 227.186; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 17, 2016 and recommended by unanimous vote that Council approve the proposed code amendment, as amended by Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on November 1, 2016 to consider the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has considered applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; any applicable Metro regulations; any applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies; and any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances;and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has determined that the proposed development code amendments are consistent with the applicable review criteria, and unanimously approves the request as being in the best interest of the City of Tigard. ORDINANCE No. 16- Page 1 NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Council adopts the findings contained in the "Planning Commission Recommendation to the City Council", dated October 10, 2016 and included as "Exhibit A" to this Ordinance. SECTION 2: Tigard Development Code (Title 18) is amended as shown in "Exhibit B" of the Planning Commission Recommendation to the City Council. SECTION 3: 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 Krager,City Recorder 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 Agenda Item: #1 Hearing Date: November 1.2016 Time: 7:30 PM PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE .1h . . . CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASE NAME: OMNIBUS CODE AMENDMENT PACKAGE CASE NO.: Development Code Amendment(DCA) DCA2016-00003 PROPOSAL: The proposed legislative amendments to the Tigard Development Code (1'DC) would do the following: 1. Amend Chapter 18.130 Use Categories to include animal boarding,when completely enclosed in a building, under the personal services use category;and 2. Amend Chapter 18.610 Tigard Downtown Plan District to increase the height from 45 feet to 80 feet in the Main-Center sub-area;and 3. Amend Chapter 18.620 Tigard Triangle Plan District and Chapter 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts to allow multi-family dwelling units within the General Commercial (C-G) zone in the Tigard Triangle Plan District. The proposed text and map amendments for the City Council's review are included in Attachment 1, and summarized below in Section IV of this report: APPLICANT: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,OR 97223 ZONES: Citywide LOCATION: Citywide APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1 (Citizen Involvement), 2 (Land Use Planning), 9 (Economic Development) and Goal 10 (Housing); Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 6, Title 7, and Title 8; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1.1.2, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.6, 2.1.21, 2.1.23, 9.1.3, 9.1.12, 9.3.1, 10.1.1 10.1.5, 15.1, 15.2.1, 15.2.2, 15.2.6, and 15.2.7 ; and Tigard Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390 SECTION II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommends approval by ordinance of the proposed development code text amendments (Attachment 1)with any alterations as determined through the public hearing process. OMNIBUS CODE AMDENDMIENT PACKAGE DCA2016-00003 11/1/2016 PUBLIC I TEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 1 OF 11 SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND PROJECT SUMMARY Planning Commission is recommending for Council consideration an omnibus amendment package to address three emergent development code issues. These issues are being bundled together for administrative efficiency through one land use process. The three components are summarized below followed by a brief discussion of each item. Further discussion is provided in Attachment 1 of this report. 1. Amend Chapter 18.130 Use Categories to include animal boarding,when completely enclosed in a building, under the personal services use category ; and 2. Amend Chapter 18.610 Tigard Downtown Plan District to increase the height from 45 feet to 80 feet in the Main-Center sub-area;and 3. Amend Chapter 18.620 Tigard Triangle Plan District and Chapter 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts to allow multi-family dwelling units within the General Commercial (C-G) zone in the Tigard Triangle Plan District. DOG BOARDING AS A PERSONAL SERVICE USE Owners of dog boarding facilities expressed concern to Tigard City Council about the current regulations pertaining to the classification of boarding facilitates. According to TDC 18.130.060.B, the boarding of normal household pets is considered an "Animal-Related Commercial" use and is not allowed in the C-N (Neighborhood Commercial), C-C (Community Commercial), C-G (General Commercial), C-P (Professional Commercial), MU-CBD (Mixed-Use Commercial Business District), MUC (Mixed Use Commercial), MUE-1 and 2 (Mixed-Use Employment) and MUR-1 and 2 (Mixed Use Residential) zoning districts. Tigard City Council expressed interest in pursuing this further and asked staff to explore the option of allowing this use in commercial zones provided the impacts could be mitigated. Staff researched several cities to see how animal boarding was being regulated. The comparison of these regulations is listed below: City Regulation o Consider overnight animal boarding to be an "animal boarding facility" • Conditionally permitted in industrial zones Lake Oswego • Not permitted in commercial zones o Consider doggy daycare to be "pet care, daily" • Conditionally or outright permitted in commercial zones, depending on the zone and whether or not it's fully indoors o Consider overnight animal boarding with 5 animals or more to be a "animal care, major" • Conditionally permitted in all commercial and industrial zones, Beaverton with the exception of one industrial zone which permits it outright • Not permitted outright in any zone o Consider doggy daycare and overnight animal boarding to be an "animal service facility" • Permitted outright, but only indoors in Neighborhood Hillsboro Commercial Zone • Permitted outright, subject to certain restrictions in General Commercial Zone OMNIBUS CODE AMUI?NDMEN'1'PACKAGE ICA2016-00003 11/1/2016 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF RI TORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 2 OF 11 o Consider doggy daycare and overnight animal boarding(with the exception of animal breeding) to be "retail sales and service" Portland • Permitted outright or subject to certain limitations in all commercial zones (except the Office Commercial 1 Zone) ■ Conditionally permitted in all industrial zones Based on the research provided above, a majority of the cities classify animal boarding facilities to be some kind of animal related service use with the exception of Portland,which classifies it more generally as service. Lake Oswego prohibits these facilities in all commercial zones, Beaverton allows them only through a conditional use review while Hillsboro and Portland allows them in certain commercial zones. Staff proposes to classify animal boarding facilitates as a "Personal Service" use when all the activities associated with the use, with the exception of parking, are completely enclosed within a building. If classified as a personal service use, animal overnight boarding facilitates would be permitted outright in C-N, C-C, C- G, C-P, MU-CBD and MUC commercial zoning districts and permitted subject to certain restrictions in the MUE,MUC-1, MUE-1 and 2 and MUR-1 and 2 commercial districts. Planning Commission expressed concern that if animal boarding is reclassified as a personal use service use, animal boarding could potentially occur in two residential zones, R-25 and R-40. To address this, Planning Commission revised the proposed amendment to specifically prohibit animal boarding in residential zones. To accomplish this directive, staff added language to footnote 11 in Chapter 18.510 that states "Animal boarding, even if enclosed within a building,is prohibited in residential zones". DOWNTOWN TIGARD PLAN DISTRICT HEIGHT LIMITS In 2010, a new Mixed Use-Central Business District (MU-CBD) zone was instituted. Rather than having a single height limit, the zone was broken down into sub-areas with different building and site development standards including building heights. The Main-Center sub-area centers on Downtown's historic Main Street. New buildings in the sub-area must include ground floors with commercial storefront features, with residential and commercial uses are permitted on upper floors. ❑ Much of the rest of the MU-CBD zone retained the 80-foot height limit of the predecessor zone— the Central Business District (CBD). A 45- foot height limit was set in the Main-Center sub-area with the idea that taller buildings might present a visual conflict with the existing one and two story buildings on Main Street. The 45-foot height limit realistically only allows a 3 story building, due to the requirement that the ground floor in the Main-Center sub-area be 15 feet tall. This reduces the financial feasibility of new construction. Downtown Tigard is a focus area for redevelopment, with an urban renewal district in place. Several redevelopment studies have been undertaken, that have run financial feasibility models for new development. Taller buildings were found to be more financially feasible because more leasable square footage could offset the costs of new construction and the lower rental rates that can be presently achieved in the Downtown. Returning the 80-foot height limit that was in place for much of the Main-Center sub-area prior to 2010 is in keeping with the area's designation as a Metro Town Center, a focus area for transit supportive redevelopment. MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE The Tigard Triangle Plan District was adopted to develop a mixed-use employment area with a convenient OMNIBUS CODE AMDENDMEN'1'PACKAGE DCA2016-00003 11/1/2016 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO TIII CITY COUNCIL. PAGE 3 OF 11 pedestrian and bikeway system. In addition, the Triangle is within a Metro designated Town Center. Zoning within this district includes both Mixed Use Employment (MUE) and General Commercial (C-G). Multi- family housing is permitted in the MUE zone at 25 units per acre;but is restricted in the C-G zone. The use is permitted only through a Planned Development process; which limits a maximum of 25% of the total gross floor area for multi-family use. Since the adoption of the Tigard Triangle district, housing development has been limited. However, as demand for housing increases in the Metro region, this is likely to change. In May 2015 the City along with citizens, property owners and businesses developed the Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan, which envisions a vibrant, walkable Triangle with a mix of uses. Plan participants emphasized the importance of providing a variety of housing choices and greater affordability within the Triangle. Amending the C-G restrictions on multi-family in the Tigard Triangle will encourage housing development that supports the vision for the Triangle and eliminate barriers for providing much needed work-force and affordable housing. The proposed amendment is limited to the C-G zone within the Tigard Triangle; thus multi-family will still be restricted in C-G zones in other areas of the city. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Amend the Tigard Development Code as proposed: o Text Amendments to Chapter 18.130 (Use Categories) to amend the "Animal-Related Commercial" use category to allow overnight boarding as a "Personal Service" use when all activities,with the exception of parking,are completely enclosed within a building. o Text Amendments to Chapter 18.510 (Residential Zoning Districts) to amend footnote 11 of Table 18.510.1 with language that states "Animal boarding,even if enclosed within a building,is prohibited in residential zones". o Text Amendments to Chapter 18.610 (Tigard Downtown Plan District) to amend 18.610.020.A.1, the sub-area description for Highway 99 and Hall Boulevard Corridor, to correct a typo on line seven by changing "eight stories" to "45 feet" to make the description consistent with the MU-CBD Development Standards Matrix;Table 18.610.1. o Text Amendments to Chapter 18.610 (Tigard Downtown Plan District) to amend the maximum height standard for the Main-Center sub-area in the MU-CBD Development Standards Matrix; Table 18.610.1, from 45 feet to 80 feet. o Text Amendments to Chapter 18.520 (Commercial Zoning Districts) to amend footnote 11 of Table 18.520.1 in order to remove the requirement for a Planned Development Review for multi-family housing within the C-G zone within the Tigard Triangle Plan District. o Text Amendments to Chapter 18.620 (Tigard Triangle Plan District) to add a new Section that would allow multi-family dwelling units in the C-G (General Commercial) zone. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE CRITERIA, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES State planning regulations require cities to adopt and amend Comprehensive Plans and land use regulations in compliance with the state land use goals. Because the proposed code amendments have a limited scope and the text amendments address only some of the topics in the Statewide Planning Goals, only applicable statewide goals are addressed below. OMNIBUS CODE AMDENDMENI'PACKAGE DCA2016-00003 11/1/2016 PUBLIC I II TARING,STAFF REPORT 10 TI IE CITY COUNCIL. PAGE 4 OF 11 Statewide Planning Goal 1—Citizen Involvement: This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents. FINDING: This goal has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Section 18.390.060 (Type IV Procedures). Notices were sent by US Postal Service on September 28, 2016 to affected government agencies and the latest version of the City's interested parties list. A notice was published in the Tigard Times newspaper prior to the hearing. Project information and documents were published to the City website prior to the public hearing. A minimum of two public hearings will be held (one before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) at which an opportunity for public input is provided. This goal is satisfied. Statewide Planning Goal 2—Land Use Planning: This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. FINDING: The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has acknowledged the City's Comprehensive Plan as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. The Development Code implements the Comprehensive Plan. The Development Code establishes a process and standards to review changes to the Tigard Development Code in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and other applicable state requirements. As discussed within this report, the applicable Development Code process and standards have been applied to the proposed amendment. This goal is satisfied. Statewide Planning Goal 9—Economic Development: This goal seeks to provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health,welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. FINDING: The Department of Land Conservation and Development has acknowledged the City's Comprehensive Plan as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. Consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan Economic Development goals and policies is discussed later in this report under Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 9.1 and associated policies. This goal is satisfied. Statewide Planning Goal 10—Housing: This goal seeks to provide a variety of needed housing types. FINDING: The Department of Land Conservation and Development has acknowledged the City's Comprehensive Plan as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. Consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan Housing goals and policies is discussed later in this report under Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 10.1 and associated policies. This goal is satisfied. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above and the related findings below, staff finds the proposed code amendments are consistent with applicable Statewide Planning Goals. METRO'S URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN State planning regulations require cities to adopt and amend Comprehensive Plans and land use regulations in compliance with the state land use goals. Because the proposed Code Amendments have a limited scope and the text amendments address only some of the topics in the METRO's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, only applicable Titles are addressed below. Title 6: Central City, Regional Centers,Town Centers and Station Communities OMNIBUS CODE AMDENDMENT PACKAGE DCA2016-00003 11/1/2016 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO TILE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 5 OF 11 Requires local jurisdictions to adopt land use and transportation plans that are consistent with Metro guidelines for designated Town Centers. FINDING: The Metro 2040 Growth Concept and Framework Plan designates Downtown Tigard as a Town Center. Centers are defined as "compact, mixed-use neighborhoods of high-density housing, employment and retail that are pedestrian-oriented and well served by public transportation and roads." Downtown Tigard is also a designated Station Community. Returning the Main Street section of the Main Center sub-area to 80 feet would allow more flexibility in the development of new buildings that will help achieve "compact, mixed-use neighborhoods of high-density housing, employment and retail."This title is satisfied. Title 7—Housing Choice: This goal ensures that Comprehensive Plans and implementing ordinances provide for a diverse and affordable range of housing. FINDING: The proposed amendment will permit outright multi-family dwelling units in the C-G zone within the Tigard Triangle Plan District. Currently, the code only allows this type of development through a Planned Development review. The proposed code amendment will make the process for permitting this type of development timelier and less costly. Returning the Main Street section of the Main Center sub-area to 80 feet would allow more flexibility in the development of new mixed use buildings with upper floor residential that will help provide for a more diverse and affordable range of housing near the transit center in Downtown Tigard, a Metro designated Town Center where new housing will be focused. This title is satisfied. Title 8—Compliance Procedures: This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents. FINDING: This title has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Section 18.390.060 (Type IV Procedures). Notices were sent by US Postal Service on September 28, 2016 to affected government agencies and the latest version of the City's interested parties list. A notice was published in the Tigard Times newspaper prior to the hearing. Project information and documents were published to the City website prior to the public hearing. A minimum of two public hearings will be held (one before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) at which an opportunity for public input is provided. This title is satisfied. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff finds that the proposed code amendment is consistent with Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN State planning regulations require cities to adopt and amend comprehensive plans and land use regulations in compliance with the state land use goals and consistent with comprehensive plan goals and policies. Because the development code amendments have a limited scope and the text amendments address only some of the topics in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, only applicable comprehensive plan goals and associated policies are addressed below. Comprehensive Plan Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Policy 1.1.2: The City shall define and publicize an appropriate role for citizens in each phase of the OMNIBUS CODE AMDENDMENT PACKAGE I)CA2016-00003 11/1/2016 PUBLIC 1{BARING,STAFF RI'.POR7"1'O TI IE CITY COUNCIL. PAGE 6 OF 11 land use planning process. FINDING: This policy has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Section 18.390.060 (Type IV Procedures). Notices were sent by US Postal Service on September 28, 2016 to affected government agencies and the latest version of the City's interested parties list. A notice was published in the Tigard Times newspaper prior to the hearing. Project information and documents were published to the City website prior to the public hearing. A minimum of two public hearings will be held (one before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) at which an opportunity for public input is provided. This policy is met. Comprehensive Plan Goal 2: Land Use Planning Policy 2.1.2: The City's land use regulations, related plans, and implementing actions shall be consistent with and implement its Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: As demonstrated in this staff report, the proposed amendments to the Tigard Development Code are consistent with the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. This policy is satisfied. Policy 2.1.3: The City shall coordinate the adoption, amendment, and implementation of its land use program with other potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies. FINDING: Copies of the proposed text amendments were sent to affected agencies and were invited to comment on the proposal, as required by Section 18.390.060 (Type IV Procedures) and discussed in Section V of this report. Comments submitted by affected agencies have been incorporated into this report and the proposed amendments. This policy is satisfied. Policy 2.1.6: 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. FINDING: The proposed text amendments will allow for a variety of uses to be located within the City which will result in more taxable economic activity to occur. The proposal includes allowing animal overnight boarding to be a permitted use in most commercials zone. The increase in heights in the Main Street sub-area will also provide for more diverse land uses that may occur downtown. Eliminating restrictions on affordable housing in the Triangle will encourage development of more housing in the district. This policy is satisfied. Policy 2.1.21 The City shall require all development to conform to site design/development regulations. FINDING: The proposed amendments do not change the requirements for developments to comply with site design/development regulations. All development shall continue to conform to all regulations. This policy is satisfied. Policy 2.1.23 The City shall require new development, including public infrastructure, to minimize conflicts by addressing the need for compatibility between it and adjacent existing and future land uses. FINDING: The proposed amendments allowing animal overnight boarding to be allowed in most commercial zones when the associated activities, with the exception of parking, is completely enclosed within a building. Impacts such as noise and odor, which can result from this type of business is mitigated by the activities being completely contained within a building. This use would not generate greater impacts than other commercial OMNIBUS CODE AMDENDMENT PACKAGE DCA2016-00003 11/1/2016 PUBLIC I IEARING,STAFF REPORT I'()TI ll:(:17Y COUNCIL PAGE 7 OF 11 uses that are currently permitted in commercial zones. This policy is satisfied. Comprehensive Plan Goal 9: Economic Development Policy 9.1.5 The City shall promote well-designed and efficient development and redevelopment of vacant and underutilized industrial and commercial lands. The City has taken several actions to focus growth in its Metro designated Town Center (Downtown and the Tigard Triangle) where there is much vacant and underutilized land. The raising of the height limit in the Main- Center sub-area would increase the financial feasibility of redeveloping underutilized properties in the area. This policy is satisfied. Policy 9.1.3: The City's land use and other regulatory practices shall be flexible and adaptive to promote economic development opportunities, provided that required infrastructure is made available. FINDING: The proposed amendments will remove the requirement for a Planned Development review for multi-family housing within the Tigard Triangle Plan District, which will enable housing projects to be approved through a timelier and less costly process. This policy is satisfied. Policy 9.1.12: The City shall assure economic development promotes other community qualities, such as livability and environmental quality that are necessary for a sustainable economy. FINDING: The raising of the height limit in the Main-Center sub-area would promote livability in the downtown by encouraging new development in an area with good walkability, transit access and proximity to the regional Fanno Creek Trail. This policy is satisfied. Policy 9.3.1: The City shall focus a significant portion of future employment growth and high-density housing developments in its Metro-designated Town Center (Downtown); Regional Center (Washington Square); High Capacity Transit Corridor (Hwy 99W); and the Tigard Triangle. FINDING: The proposed amendments enable multi-family housing to occur in the Tigard Triangle Plan District in a timelier and less costly manner. Raising the height limit in the Main-Center sub-area of the Downtown will provide for higher density housing near the Tigard Transit Center in a Metro-designated Town Center (Downtown). This policy is satisfied. Comprehensive Plan Goal 10: Housing Policy 10.1.1: The City shall adopt and maintain land use policies, codes, and standards that provide opportunities to develop a variety of housing types that met the needs, preferences and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents. FINDING: The proposed amendments will permit outright multi-family dwelling units in the C-G zone within the Tigard Triangle Plan District. Currently, the code only allows this type of development through a Planned Development review, which limits multi-family to 25% of the gross floor area. The proposed code amendment will make the process for permitting this type of development timelier and less costly. This amendment would assist in providing affordable housing. Raising the height limit in the Main-Center sub-area of the MU-CBD zone in the Downtown Plan District will increase the financial feasibility for higher density housing and mixed use development near the Tigard Transit Center in a Metro-designated Town Center (Downtown). This policy is satisfied. Policy 10.1.5: The City shall provide for high and medium density housing in the areas such as town OMNIBUS CODE AMDHNDM1NT PACKAGE I)CA2016-00003 11/1/2016 PUBLIC 1-II?ARING,S'1',\FF REPOR'1"1'()TIM CITY COUNCIL. PAGE.8 OF 11 centers (Downtown), regional centers (Washington Square), and along transit corridors where employment opportunities, commercial services, transit and other public services necessary to support higher population densities are either present of planned for in the future. FINDING: The proposed amendments will permit outright multi-family dwelling units in the C-G zone within the Tigard Triangle Plan District, which is part of the Tigard Town Center. Currently, the code only allows this type of development through a Planned Development review. The Planned Development regulations limit multi-family to 25% of the gross floor area. The proposed code amendment will make the process for permitting this type of development timelier and less costly and encourage more affordable housing development within the Triangle. Raising the height limit in the Main-Center sub-area of the Downtown will support higher density housing near the Tigard Transit Center in a Metro-designated Town Center (Downtown). This policy is satisfied. Special Planning Area- Downtown Goal 15.1 The City will promote the creation of a vibrant and active urban village at the heart of the community that is pedestrian oriented, accessible by many modes of transportation, recognizes natural resources as an asset, and features a combination of uses that enable people to live,work,play, and shop in an environment that is uniquely Tigard. FINDING: Raising the height limit in the Main-Center sub-area of the MU-CBD zone in the Downtown Plan District will increase the feasibility of redevelopment that will create a vibrant and active urban village. This goal is satisfied. Policy 15.2.1: New zoning, design standards, and design guidelines shall be developed and used to ensure the quality, attractiveness, and special character of the Downtown as the "heart" of Tigard, while being flexible enough to encourage development. FINDING: Raising the height limit in the Main-Center sub-area of the MU-CBD zone in the Downtown Plan District will allow more flexibility in development by permitting taller buildings while still ensuring the quality, attractiveness, and special character of the Downtown. This policy is satisfied. Policy 15.2.2: The downtown's land use plan shall provide for a mix of complementary land uses such as: A. retail, restaurants, entertainment and personal services;0 B. medium and high-density residential uses, including rental and ownership housings C. civic functions (government offices, community services, public plazas, public transit centers, etc);0 D. professional employment and related office uses; and0 E. natural resource protection,open spaces and public parks. FINDING: Raising the height limit in the Main-Center sub-area of the MU-CBD zone in the Downtown Plan District will facilitate the development of a mix of complementary land uses, by making such development more financially feasible. This policy is satisfied. Policy 15.2.6: New housing in the downtown shall provide for a range of housing types, including ownership,workforce, and affordable housing in a high quality living environment. FINDING: Raising the height limit in the Main-Center sub-area of the MU-CBD zone in the Downtown Plan District will improve the financial feasibility of mixed use buildings with upper floor residential and so provide for a range of housing types in the downtown. This policy is satisfied. Policy 15.2.7: New zoning and design guidelines on Main Street will emphasize a "traditional Main OMNIBUS CODE AMDENDMEN'I'PACKAGE DCA2016-00003 11/1/2016 PUBLIC HEARING,STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 9 OF 11 Street" character. FINDING: Many communities in Oregon have traditional Main Streets that allow buildings taller than 45 feet. Design standards including window coverage, traditional storefront appearance will remain in place and will ensure that new buildings to provide a "traditional Main Street character." This policy is satisfied. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed code text amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE Section 18.380: Zoning Map and Text Amendments 18.380.020 Legislative Amendments to this Title and Map Legislative zoning map and text amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.060G. FINDING: The proposed amendments are legislative in nature. Therefore, the amendment will be reviewed under the Type IV legislative procedure as set forth in the chapter. This procedure requires public hearings by both the Planning Commission and City Council. This standard is satisfied. Section 18.380: Decision Making Procedures 18.390.060 Type IV Procedure G. Decision-making considerations. The recommendation by the commission and the decision by the council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: 1. The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; 2. Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; 3. Any applicable METRO regulations; 4. Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and 5. Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. FINDING: Findings and conclusions are provided in this section for the applicable listed factors on which the recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based. This standard is satisfied. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed code text amendments are consistent with applicable provisions of the Tigard Development Code. SUMMARY CONCLUSION: As shown in the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals; METRO's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan; applicable Tigard Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, and the applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. SECTION V. AGENCY COMMENTS City of Portland, City of Beaverton, City of Durham, City of Lake Oswego, City of Tualatin, City of King City, Washington County, METRO, DOGAMI, ODOT, DLCD, DEQ, ODFW, CWS, and Tri- Met were notified of the proposed code text amendment but provided no comment. OMNIBUS CODE AMDENDMENT PACKAGE DCA2016-00003 11/1/2016 PUBLIC 1 WARING,s.rAFI'REPORT" o 'I'1 II?Cr1Y COUNCIL. PAGE 10 OF 11 ODOT provided comments stating they have would like to review the City's Transportation Planning Rule ([PR) 0060 findings. Staff stated that they will provide the findings as soon as they are received from the consultant. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue provided comments stating that they reviewed the proposal SECTION VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS The City received two phone calls inquiring more details on the code amendments and how the regulations were proposed to change. Staff provided additional information and invited them to attend the public hearings. The Planning Commission heard testimony from four citizens at the public hearing on August 15, 2016. Two citizens spoke in favor of the amendments, one was neutral and the fourth was against the change to the Tigard Triangle Plan District. The testimony was considered by the Planning Commission as they formed their recommendation to Council to approve the proposed amendments. The Commission also decided to make amend Issue 1 as proposed by staff. The Commission directed staff to add language that prohibits overnight dog boarding in residential zones. The Planning Commission Minutes are included as Attachment 2. ATTACHMENTS: Attachments: 1. Draft Text Amendments a. 18.130 Use Categories and 18.510 Residential Zoning Districts b. 18.610 Tigard Downtown Plan District c. 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts and 18.620 Tigard Triangle Plan District 2. Draft October 17, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes hex X1(2 October 19.2016 PREPARED BY: • es Kowacz DATE Associate Planner $` ( October 19.2016 APPROVED B—Y: Tom McGuire DATE Assistant Community Development Director OMNIBUS CODE AMDINDMENI'PACK:\G P. DCA2016-00003 11/1/2016 PUBLIC I II ARING,STAFF REPORT TO TI ll:CITY COUNCIL. PAGE 11 OF 11 Attachment 1.a DCA2016-00003 2016 OMNIBUS CODE AMENDMENT PACKAGE Explanation of Formatting These text amendments employ the following formatting: Strikcthrough —Text to be deleted [Bold, Underline and Italic] —Text to be added Except from Chapter 18.130 USE CATEGORIES 18.130.060 Commercial Use Categories B. Animal-Related Commercial. 1. Characteristics: Animal-Related uses are those engaged in breeding, and/or boarding of normal household pets. Limited animal sales may or may not be part of the use. 2. Accessory uses: Accessory uses commonly found include parking, office space, and storage space. 3. Examples: Examples include animal breeders, kennels, overnight boarding facilities, and a single dwelling unit exclusively occupied by an on-site caretaker or the kennel owner/operator and family. 4. Exceptions: a. Facilities where the primary activity is animal sales shall be considered Sales-Oriented Retail. b. Does not include animal grooming, which is considered Personal Services or Repair- Oriented Retail. c. Does not include veterinary clinics,which are considered Office. d. Does not apply to poultry or livestock,which are considered an Agriculture/Horticulture Use. e. Overnight boarding facilities for household pets when these facilities and all their activities, with the exception of parking, are completely enclosed within a building, shall be considered Personal Service. Except from Chapter 18.510 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS TABLE 18.510.1 USE TABLE: RESIDENTIAL ZONES Attachment 1.a Personal Service is restricted (R) in the R-25 and R-40 zone and is subject to Footnote 11 as follows: [11] Limited to ground-floor level of multi-family projects, not to exceed 10% of total gross square feet of the building. Animal boarding, even if enclosed within a building, is prohibited in residential zones. Attachment 1.b DCA2016-00003 2016 OMNIBUS CODE AMENDMENT PACKAGE Explanation of Formatting These text amendments employ the following formatting: —Text to be deleted [Bold, Underline and Italic] —Text to be added Chapter 18.610 TIGARD DOWNTOWN PLAN DISTRICT Sections: 18.610.010 Purpose and Procedures 18.610.015 Pre-Existing Uses and Developments within the Downtown District 18.610.020 Building and Site Development Standards 18.610.025 Connectivity 18.610.030 Building and Site Design Standards 18.610.035 Additional Standards 18.610.040 Special Requirements for Development Bordering Urban Plaza 18.610.045 Exceptions to Standards 18.610.050 Building and Site Design Objectives(To Be Used With Track 3 Approval Process) 18.610.055 Signs 18.610.060 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements 18.610.020 Building and Site Development Standards A. Sub-areas. The four sub-areas located on Map 18.610.A and described below have different setback and height limits in order to create a feeling of distinct districts within the larger zone. 1. Highway 99W and Hall Boulevard Corridor. This sub-area is intended to create a "pulse-point" along the Highway 99W corridor. Located at the intersection of 99W and Hall Boulevard, the area has the high traffic and visibility to draw potential retail customers from the region. It will also serve the potential for future high capacity transit in the corridor. The area will accommodate higher levels of vehicular circulation, while maintaining a pedestrian scale at the ground-floor level of buildings. It would allow development of mixed use and retail buildings that could vary in scale from one-story retail-only buildings,to mixed use buildings up to eight stork*45 feet tall with retail on the ground floor and residential and/or office uses above. 2. Main Street - Center Street. This sub-area is centered on the city's historic downtown Main Street. It is intended to be pedestrian oriented with smaller scale development that would function like a "traditional Main Street." A pedestrian environment would be improved with a continuous building wall broken only intermittently. New buildings in the sub-area must include ground floors with commercial storefront features. Residential and commercial uses are permitted on upper floors. 3. Scoffins Street - Commercial Street. This sub-area is intended to provide an opportunity for higher density residential as well as an employment base comprised of civic, office and commercial uses in the areas of Commercial Street and Scoffins. Residential-only buildings, office/commercial buildings,and mixed use developments are all permitted. Attachment 1.b 4. Fanno - Burnham Street. This sub-area provides an opportunity for medium scale residential or mixed use development. Compatible mixed uses (live-work, convenience retail, office and civic uses) are encouraged on the frontage of Burnham Street. The area in proximity to Fanno Creek Park will be an opportunity to create a high quality residential environment with views and access to the natural amenity of Fanno Creek Park. Building heights will step down to three stories so as not to overwhelm or cast shadows on the park. Attachment 1.b Map 18.610.A: Tigard Downtown Plan District Sub-Areas 1 , - i _ , ! n-T--, 1 I \ 1 Tigard Downtown Plan District �— 21 Sub-Areas hi_ _ C _- ,/- U L 1 I _ Urban Renewal District , ..\ — VVHaIl J ^�-- - - Fanno-Burnham r ' - _ Man-Center 77..._.- 2_0 � - - Scoffins-Corrmen:i aI Station Atea OVenay - '•���' I S as fo teas 11111i11111 Ili '\. ;ill. - J � p .1,,,,,,e,, \,,, .. s, ,___ __...:.- __, ,..., , . , .r ` 5 .7.72 / ' /', \ 9'ri \ '.... ://‘? \. ' \ \.,2 4//<. , , ,.. / \\,, ♦ ,f H-- '. it K ►� ill �` i= ,, _ ._ 7____�� Imo ;, ,--t-fff i I _ _ ...,_ \, _- r--, 1 , I I 4 ir- i-o- ,, Note: for standards for development surrounding the future public plaza see Section 18.610.040, Special Requirements for Development Bordering Urban Plaza. Attachment 1.b B. Development standards. Development standards apply to all new development in the MU-CBD zone, including developments utilizing the Track 3 approval process. Variances or adjustments may be granted if the criteria found in Chapter 18.370 is satisfied. 1. Development standards matrix. See Table 18.610.1 and Map 18.610.A. Table 18.610.1 MU-CBD Development Standards Matrix 1.2'3 STANDARD SUB-AREAS Main Street 99W/Hall Corridor Scoffins/Commercial Fanno/Burnham (MS) (99H) (SC) (FB) Front setback 0/5 ft. Minimum 0 ft. (5 ft.for frontage on 0 ft. 0 ft. 99W) Maximum 10 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Side facing street on corner and through lots Minimum 0 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. Maximum 10 ft. N/A N/A N/A Sideyard Minimum/maximum N/A N/A N/A N/A Rear setback Minimum 0 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. Maximum N/A N/A N/A N/A Building height Minimum 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Maximum 4380 ft. 45 ft. 80 ft. 80 ft.7 Ground floor height minimum 15 ft. 15 ft. None None Site coverage maximum 100% 90% 90% 80% Minimum landscaping4 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 I This table does not apply to existing development.All new buildings in the district must meet these development standards, including projects using the Track 3 approval process. 2 For standards for development surrounding the future public plaza see Section 18.610.040, Special Requirements for Development Bordering Urban Plaza. 3 See also Section 18.610.045,Exceptions to Standards. 4 In the MU-CBD zone, required landscaping can be provided on roofs or within the right-of-way where the applicant is required to provide landscaping as part of a street improvement in accordance with Section 18.610.025. 5 Landscaping/screening requirements for parking lots must be met. 6 Station area overlay permits a maximum of 80 units per acre(see Map 18.610A). 45 feet within 200 feet of Fanno Creek Park boundary (see Map 18.610.A) or within 50 feet of low or medium density residential district. 8 Minimum density applies to residential-only development(not mixed use). Attachment 1.b 2. Parking location. a. Parking is allowed on the side or rear of newly constructed buildings. If located on the side, the parking area shall not exceed 50%of the total frontage of the site. b. Parking is set back a minimum of 10 feet from the front property line. c. When abutting a public street, parking areas must be behind a landscaped area constructed to an L-1 standard. d. Where a parking lot shares a property line with an adjacent parking lot, the landscape requirement along the shared property line is not required. O-oO9O.Q4OO9.0.o.O.o,O.o.O 0O.O4.4.000-00.9.U. OO.a.v.D,Ov v 0 .TA' rk-p o 0 o I o o I o 0 0 I o ,` o I � v I A i e Building j Building a i C I c I o O 0 Parking on the side or rear of buildings 0L-1 landscape sandy-t; 0 Max.5096of skefrantage a Landscape nor required along shared prop.line MIn.10'setback 4)See Ch18.745 for screening and landscaping requirements B.2 Parking Location 3. Rooftop features/equipment screening. a. The following rooftop equipment does not require screening: i. Solar panels,wind generators,and green roof features; ii. Equipment under two feet in height. b. Elevator mechanical equipment may extend above the height limit a maximum of 16 feet provided that the mechanical shaft is incorporated into the architecture of the building. Attachment 1.b c. Satellite dishes and other communications equipment shall be limited to 10 feet in height, shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the roof edge and screened from public view to the extent possible. d. All other roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be limited to 10 feet in height, shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the roof edge and screened from public view and from views from adjacent buildings by one of the following methods: i. A screen around the equipment that is made of a primary exterior finish material used on other portions of the building or architectural grade wood fencing or masonry; ii. Green roof features or regularly maintained dense evergreen foliage that forms an opaque barrier when planted. e. Required screening shall not be included in the building's maximum height calculation. A F • `' f tr 0 5 feet max.equipment height 0 Equipment set back min 5 feet B.3 Rooftop Features/Equipment Screening Attachment 1.b e insAIK TV ®keen made aprimary., a.hish material,wood,s mmonry B.3.d.(1)Rooftop Features/Equipment Screening(architectural screen) ^,y •I. Jr:` D b�' 0Green roof features with evergreen foliage B.3.d.(2)Rooftop Features/Equipment Screening(vegetative screen) 4. Other exterior mechanical equipment. Other exterior mechanical equipment on the site (electrical boxes, etc.) shall be screened from view from adjacent ROW, public spaces, and parking areas by one or a combination of the following: a. A screen around the equipment that is made of a primary exterior finish material used on other portions of the building or architectural grade wood fencing or masonry;or Attachment 1.b b. Set back from the street-facing elevation so it is not visible from the public ROW;or c. Dense evergreen foliage that forms an opaque barrier when planted that will be regularly maintained.(Ord. 15-05 §2; Ord. 13-04 §1; Ord. 12-13 §1; Ord. 10-02 §2) Attachment 1.c DCA2016-00003 2016 OMNIBUS CODE AMENDMENT PACKAGE Explanation of Formatting These text amendments employ the following formatting: Strikcthrough —Text to be deleted [Bold, Underline and Italic] —Text to be added Chapter 18.520 COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS TABLE 18.520.1 USE TABLE: COMMERCIAL ZONES Household Living in the C-G zone is restricted (R) and subject to Footnote 11 as follows: [11] A single-family unit providing that it is located on the same site with a permitted or conditional use iti and is occupied exclusively by a caretaker or superintendent of the permitted or conditional use. Multifamily housing is permitted as part of a PD, subject to Chapter 18.350, unless located within the Tigard Triangle Plan District, where it is permitted outright. Chapter 18.620 TIGARD TRIANGLE PLAN DISTRICT Sections: 18.620.010 Purpose and Applicability 18.620.015 Where These Regulations Apply 18.620.018 Additional Allowed Use 18.620.020 Street Connectivity 18.620.030 Site Design Standards 18.620.040 Building Design Standards 18.620.050 Signs 18.620.060 Entry Portals 18.620.070 Landscaping and Screening 18.620.080 Street and Accessway Standards 18.620.090 Design Evaluation 18.620.018 Additional Allowed Use In addition to the uses permitted by Chapter 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts, multifamily dwelling units are permitted in the C-G zone. Minimum and maximum density requirements do not apply to these developments. EXHIBIT B Except from Chapter 18.130 USE CATEGORIES 18.130.060 Commercial Use Categories B. Animal-Related Commercial. 1. Characteristics: Animal-Related uses are those engaged in breeding, and/or boarding of normal household pets. Limited animal sales may or may not be part of the use. 2. Accessory uses: Accessory uses commonly found include parking, office space, and storage space. 3. Examples: Examples include animal breeders, kennels, overnight boarding facilities, and a single dwelling unit exclusively occupied by an on-site caretaker or the kennel owner/operator and family. 4. Exceptions: a. Facilities where the primary activity is animal sales shall be considered Sales-Oriented Retail. b. Does not include animal grooming, which is considered Personal Services or Repair- Oriented Retail. c. Does not include veterinary clinics,which are considered Office. d. Does not apply to poultry or livestock,which are considered an Agriculture/Horticulture Use. e. Overnight boarding facilities for household pets when these facilities and all their activities, with the exception of parking, are completely enclosed within a building, shall be considered Personal Service. Use Categories 18.130 Proposed Code Amendment DCA2016-00003 EXHIBIT B Excerpt from Chapter 18.510 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Sections: 18.510.010 Purpose 18.510.020 List of Zoning Districts 18.510.030 Uses 18.510.040 Minimum and Maximum Densities 18.510.050 Development Standards 18.510.060 Accessory Structures 18.510.030 Uses A. Types of uses. For the purposes of this chapter,there are four kinds of use: 1. A permitted (P) use is a use which is permitted outright, but subject to all of the applicable provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a permitted use, it may be held to be a similar unlisted used under the provisions of Chapter 18.230. 2. A restricted (R) use is permitted outright providing it is in compliance with special requirements, exceptions or restrictions. 3. A conditional use (C) is a use the approval of which is discretionary with the Hearings Officer. The approval process and criteria are set forth in Chapters 18.310 and 18.320. If a use is not listed as a conditional use, it may be held to be a similar unlisted used under the provisions of Chapter 18.230. 4. A prohibited(N) use is one which is not permitted in a zoning district under any circumstances. B. Use table. A list of permitted, restricted, conditional and prohibited uses in residential zones is presented in Table 18.510.1. Residential Zoning Districts 18.510 Proposed Code Amendment DCA2016-00003 EXHIBIT B TABLE 18.510.1 USE TABLE USE CATEGORY R-1 R-2 R-3.5 R-4.5 R-7 R-12 R-25 R-40 RESIDENTIAL Household Living P P P P P P P P Group Living R'/C R'/C R'/C R'/C R'/C R'/C R'/C R'/C Transitional Housing N N N N N C C C Home Occupation R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 HOUSING TYPES Single Units,Attached N N N R8 R9/C P P P Single Units, Detached P P P P P P P P Accessory Units R3 R3 R3 R3 R' R' R3 R' Duplexes N N C C P P P P Multifamily Units N N N N N P P P Manufactured Units P P P P P P P P Mobile Home Parks/Subdivisions N N C C P P P P CIVIC (INSTITUTIONAL) Basic Utilities C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 Colleges C C C C CCCC Community Recreation C C C C CCCC Cultural Institutions N N C C CCNN Day Care P/C' P/C5 P/C5 P/Cs P/C5 P/C5 P/C5 P/C5 Emergency Services C C C C CNNN Medical Centers N N C C CCCC Postal Service N N N N NNNN Public Support Facilities P P P P P P P P Religious Institutions C C C C CCCC Schools C12 C12 C12 C'2 C'2 C'2 C12 C'- Social/Fraternal Clubs/Lodges N N N N NCCC COMMERCIAL Commercial Lodging N N N N NNNN Custom Arts and Crafts N N N N NNNN Eating and Drinking Establishments N N N N NNNN Major Event Entertainment C13 C13 C13 Cu C13 C13 C13 C" Outdoor Entertainment N N N N NNNN Indoor Entertainment N N N N NNNN Adult Entertainment N N N N NNNN Sales-Oriented N N N N N N R" R" Personal Services N N N N N N R" R" Repair-Oriented N N N N N N R" R" Bulk Sales N N N N NNNN Outdoor Sales N N N N NNNN Animal-Related N N N N NNNN Motor Vehicle Sales/Rental N N N N NNNN Motor Vehicle Servicing/Repair N N N N NNNN Vehicle Fuel Sales N N N N NNNN Office N N N N NNNN Self-Service Storage N N N N NNNN Non-Accessory Parking N N N N N C10 C'0 C'0 Residential Zoning Districts 18.510 Proposed Code Amendment DCA2016-00003 EXHIBIT B TABLE 18310.1 USE TABLE (cont'd) USE CATEGORY R-1 R-2 R-33 R-4.5 R-7 R-12 R-25 R-40 INDUSTRIAL Industrial Services N N N N N N N N Light Industrial N N N N N N N N General Industrial N N N N N N N N Heavy Industrial N N N N N N N N Railroad Yards N N N N N N N N Research and Development N N N N N N N N Warehouse/Freight Movement N N N N N N N N Waste-Related N N N N N N N N Wholesale Sales N N N N N N N N OTHER Agriculture/Horticulture P6 P6 P6 P6 P6 N N N Cemeteries N N C C C N N N Detention Facilities N N N N N N N N Heliports N N N N N N N N Mining N N N N N N N N Wireless Communication Facilities P/R7 P/R7 P/R7 P/R7 P/R7 P/R7 P/R7 P/R7 Transportation/Utility Corridors C C C C C C C C P=Permitted R=Restricted C=Conditional Use N=Not Permitted 'Group living with five or fewer residents permitted by right; group living with six or more residents permitted as conditional use. 'Permitted subject to requirements Chapter 18.742. Permitted subject to compliance with requirements in 18.710. 'Except water, storm,sanitary sewers,and other underground infrastructure facilities, which are allowed by right. 51n-home day care which meets all state requirements permitted by right; freestanding day care centers which meet all state requirements permitted conditionally. 6When an agricultural use is adjacent to a residential use,no poultry or livestock, other than normal household pets, may be housed or provided use of a fenced run within 100 feet of any nearby residence except a dwelling on the same lot. 'See Chapter 18.798, Wireless Communication Facilities,for requirements for permitted and restricted facilities. 'Attached single-family units permitted only as part of an approved planned development. Permitted by right if no more than five units in a grouping; permitted conditionally if six or more units per grouping. 10Only park-and-ride and other transit-related facilities permitted conditionally. "Limited to ground-floor level of multi-family projects, not to exceed 10%of total gross square feet of the building. Animal boarding,even if enclosed within a building, is prohibited in residential zones. -School bus parking is permitted on public high school sites as an accessory use if located a minimum of 200 feet from the nearest property line of any tax lot used for residential purposes. Maximum time limitation is three years. An extension to the time limit is possible through a major modification to the conditional use. 'Permitted as a conditional use on public school sites.(Ord. 15-05 §2;Ord. 10-15 §1;Ord.07-12;Ord.07-05) Residential Zoning Districts 18.510 Proposed Code Amendment DCA2016-00003 EXHIBIT B Chapter 18.610 TIGARD DOWNTOWN PLAN DISTRICT Sections: 18.610.010 Purpose and Procedures 18.610.015 Pre-Existing Uses and Developments within the Downtown District 18.610.020 Building and Site Development Standards 18.610.025 Connectivity 18.610.030 Building and Site Design Standards 18.610.035 Additional Standards 18.610.040 Special Requirements for Development Bordering Urban Plaza 18.610.045 Exceptions to Standards 18.610.050 Building and Site Design Objectives(To Be Used With Track 3 Approval Process) 18.610.055 Signs 18.610.060 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements 18.610.020 Building and Site Development Standards A. Sub-areas. The four sub-areas located on Map 18.610.A and described below have different setback and height limits in order to create a feeling of distinct districts within the larger zone. 1. Highway 99W and Hall Boulevard Corridor. This sub-area is intended to create a "pulse-point" along the Highway 99W corridor. Located at the intersection of 99W and Hall Boulevard, the area has the high traffic and visibility to draw potential retail customers from the region. It will also serve the potential for future high capacity transit in the corridor. The area will accommodate higher levels of vehicular circulation, while maintaining a pedestrian scale at the ground-floor level of buildings. It would allow development of mixed use and retail buildings that could vary in scale from one-story retail-only buildings, to mixed use buildings up to 45 feet tall with retail on the ground floor and residential and/or office uses above. 2. Main Street - Center Street. This sub-area is centered on the city's historic downtown Main Street. It is intended to be pedestrian oriented with smaller scale development that would function like a "traditional Main Street." A pedestrian environment would be improved with a continuous building wall broken only intermittently. New buildings in the sub-area must include ground floors with commercial storefront features. Residential and commercial uses are permitted on upper floors. 3. Scoffins Street - Commercial Street. This sub-area is intended to provide an opportunity for higher density residential as well as an employment base comprised of civic, office and commercial uses in the areas of Commercial Street and Scoffins. Residential-only buildings, office/commercial buildings,and mixed use developments are all permitted. 4. Fanno - Burnham Street. This sub-area provides an opportunity for medium scale residential or mixed use development. Compatible mixed uses (live-work, convenience retail, office and civic uses) are encouraged on the frontage of Burnham Street. The area in proximity to Fanno Creek Park will be an opportunity to create a high quality residential environment with views and access to the natural amenity of Fanno Creek Park. Building heights will step down to three stories so as not to overwhelm or cast shadows on the park. EXHIBIT B Map 18.610.A: Tigard Downtown Plan District Sub-Areas -. L --.. -. 11.1 f I Tigard Downtown Plan District ,- -, Urban Renewal DisInHct 1. 1 114 -- • 10 IN-Hall — Fanno-Burnham : 11 I 1 Man-Center a — Scoffins-Corrmerci al N Station Atea OVenay ,_ _. •• 11* - Z • • - le' _____ / -..•' -... 2.........,..., / .''" ..•-• A,..) 4,/ ,.,./. : '. ‘.. c„ • , , <"6,9 ' Ljj \ .1.1111[I <e4 / . ' S Y , ill: ;' ' 77— . . „ ) .. \ I / • • • - , 1 . ,,• 0 , ;,, iN .. * 1 \ \ . . N _ s s ,, , .....- ..1 C\' im la4 A - 11 ft, • 4 " in 1_, \ Mr -\ \ 4r JL Rft 1 ill Note: for standards for development surrounding the future public plaza see Section 18.610.040, Special Requirements for Development Bordering Urban Plaza. EXHIBIT B B. Development standards. Development standards apply to all new development in the MU-CBD zone, including developments utilizing the Track 3 approval process. Variances or adjustments may be granted if the criteria found in Chapter 18.370 is satisfied. 1. Development standards matrix. See Table 18.610.1 and Map 18.610.A. Table 18.610.1 MU-CBD Development Standards Matrix t,2,3 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 0 ft. 0 ft. 99W) Maximum 10 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Side facing street on corner and through lots Minimum 0 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. Maximum 10 ft. N/A N/A N/A Sideyard Minimum/maximum N/A N/A N/A N/A Rear setback Minimum 0 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. Maximum N/A N/A N/A N/A Building height Minimum 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Maximum 80 ft. 45 ft. 80 ft. 80 ft.7 Ground floor height minimum 15 ft. 15 ft. None None Site coverage maximum 100% 90% 90% 80% Minimum landscaping4 0%5 10% 10% 20% Minimum building frontage 50% 50% 50% 50% Residential density(units per acre) Minimum8 25 25 25 15 Maximum 50 50 506 506 This table does not apply to existing development.All new buildings in the district must meet these development standards, including projects using the Track 3 approval process. 2 For standards for development surrounding the future public plaza see Section 18.610.040, Special Requirements for Development Bordering Urban Plaza. 3 See also Section 18.610.045,Exceptions to Standards. ° In the MU-CBD zone, required landscaping can be provided on roofs or within the right-of-way where the applicant is required to provide landscaping as part of a street improvement in accordance with Section 18.610.025. 5 Landscaping/screening requirements for parking lots must be met. 6 Station area overlay permits a maximum of 80 units per acre(see Map 18.610A). 45 feet within 200 feet of Fanno Creek Park boundary (see Map 18.610.A) or within 50 feet of low or medium density residential district. 8 Minimum density applies to residential-only development(not mixed use). EXHIBIT B 2. Parking location. a. Parking is allowed on the side or rear of newly constructed buildings. If located on the side, the parking area shall not exceed 50%of the total frontage of the site. b. Parking is set back a minimum of 10 feet from the front property line. c. When abutting a public street, parking areas must be behind a landscaped area constructed to an L-1 standard. d. Where a parking lot shares a property line with an adjacent parking lot, the landscape requirement along the shared property line is not required. 9.8-0-0 0-0-9-0 9-9,0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 o.9Oso-o_Woo*.o10-0:o 0 0 0 0 0 e o ii o 0 0 o O O 0 -- o Q c o 11111111 o 410 I g I 0 Building i Building 0 a 0 O O . _H _J._ _____4_Arg.±_j_..- ___ 0 E 1 0Parkingonthe side orrear ofbuildings 0 L-1 land scapestanaart 0 Ma.50%of site frontage 0 landscape not required along shared prop,line 0 Min.10'setback Q see Ch.18.745 for screening and landscaping requirements B.2 Parking Location 3. Rooftop features/equipment screening. a. The following rooftop equipment does not require screening: i. Solar panels,wind generators,and green roof features; ii. Equipment under two feet in height. b. Elevator mechanical equipment may extend above the height limit a maximum of 16 feet provided that the mechanical shaft is incorporated into the architecture of the building. EXHIBIT B c. Satellite dishes and other communications equipment shall be limited to 10 feet in height, shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the roof edge and screened from public view to the extent possible. d. All other roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be limited to 10 feet in height, shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the roof edge and screened from public view and from views from adjacent buildings by one of the following methods: i. A screen around the equipment that is made of a primary exterior finish material used on other portions of the building or architectural grade wood fencing or masonry; ii. Green roof features or regularly maintained dense evergreen foliage that forms an opaque barrier when planted. e. Required screening shall not be included in the building's maximum height calculation. 1 7/ i , ‘7- "vv. 0 5 feet max.equipment height 0 Equipment set back min 5 feet 5.3 Rooftop Features/Equipment Screening EXHIBIT B 0 • .mrefe„,,, ®Sawn made of prhnary Manor Amish material,wood,or masonry B.3.d.(1)Rooftop Features/Equipment Screening(architectural screen) • rteJi1- I .iKs. 0 Green roof features with evergreen foliage B.3.d.(2)Rooftop Features/Equipment Screening(vegetative screen) 4. Other exterior mechanical equipment. Other exterior mechanical equipment on the site (electrical boxes, etc.) shall be screened from view from adjacent ROW, public spaces, and parking areas by one or a combination of the following: a. A screen around the equipment that is made of a primary exterior finish material used on other portions of the building or architectural grade wood fencing or masonry;or EXHIBIT B b. Set back from the street-facing elevation so it is not visible from the public ROW;or c. Dense evergreen foliage that forms an opaque barrier when planted that will be regularly maintained.(Ord. 15-05 §2;Ord. 13-04 §1;Ord. 12-13 §1; Ord. 10-02 §2) EXHIBIT B Excerpt from Chapter 18.520 COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Sections: 18.520.010 Purpose 18.520.020 List of Zoning Districts 18.520.030 Uses 18.520.040 Development Standards 18.520.050 Special Limitations on Uses 18.520.060 Additional Development and Design Guidelines 18.520.030 Uses A. Types of uses. For the purposes of this chapter,there are four kinds of use: 1. A permitted (P) use is a use which is permitted outright, but subject to all of the applicable provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a permitted use, it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Section 18.130.030. 2. A restricted (R)use is permitted outright providing it is in compliance with special requirements, exceptions or restrictions. 3. A conditional (C) use is a use the approval of which is at the discretion of the Hearings Officer. The approval process and criteria are set forth in Chapter 18.370. If a use is not listed as a conditional use, it may be held to be a similar unlisted use under the provisions of Section 18.130.030. 4. A prohibited(N) use is one which is not permitted in a zoning district under any circumstances. B. Use table. A list of permitted, restricted, conditional and prohibited uses in commercial zones is presented in Table 18.520.1. C. Accessory structures. 1. Accessory structures are permitted in all commercial zones providing the site is still in compliance with all development standards, including but not limited to setbacks, height, lot coverage and landscaping requirements, of the base zone. All accessory structures shall comply with all requirements of the state building code. 2. All freestanding and detached towers, antennas, wind-generating devices and TV receiving dishes, except as otherwise regulated by Chapter 18.798, Wireless Communication Facilities, shall have setbacks equal to or greater than the height of the proposed structure. Suitable protective anti-climb fencing and a landscaped planting screen, in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening, shall be provided and maintained around these structures and accessory attachments.(Ord. 10-15 §1; Ord. 09-13) Commercial Zoning Districts 18.520 Proposed Code Amendments DCA2016-00003 EXHIBIT B TABLE 18.520.1 USE TABLE: COMMERCIAL ZONES USE CATEGORY C-N11.41 C-C15 101 C-G C-P MU- MUE1201 MUC-1 MUC1281 MUE MUR CBD119.381 1 and 2j281 1 and 2j281 RESIDENTIAL Household Living N R161 R1111 R P R1211 PI261 p p p Group Living N N C N P N C R1291/C R1291/C R1291/C Transitional Housing N N C N C N C C C C Home Occupation R1�1 R121 R121 R'21 R12' R12' P R121 R'21 R121 HOUSING TYPES Single Units,Attached N/A N/A N/A N/A P N/A N/A R1301 R1301 P Single Units, Detached N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A R1301 R1301 R1301 Accessory Units N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A R1311 R1311 R1311 Duplexes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A R1301 R1301 P Multifamily Units N/A N/A N/A N/A P N/A N/A P P P Manufactured Units N/A N/A N/A N/A P N/A N/A N N N Mobile Home Parks, Subdivisions N/A N/A N/A N/A R1'''1 N/A N/A N N N CIVIC (INSTITUTIONAL) Basic Utilities C C1321 C1321 C C C C C1321 C1321 C'321 Colleges i N N N N P C C C C C Community Recreation N P N N P C N P C C Cultural Institutions P P P P P P P P P N Day Care _ P P P P P P P P P P/C133] Emergency Services P P P P P P P P P N Medical Centers C N C C C C C C C C Postal Service P P P P P P P P P N Public Support Facilities P P P P P P P P P P Religious Institutions C C P P P P P P P C Schools . N N N N P C C C C C Social/Fraternal Clubs/Lodges C C P P P P P P P C COMMERCIAL Commercial Lodging N N P R1141 P P P P P N Custom Arts and Crafts _ N N N N Pp)] N N N N N Eating and Drinking Establishments C P P R1151 P P P P P R1341351 Commercial Zoning Districts 18.520 Proposed Code Amendments DC12016-00003 EXHIBIT B USE CATEGORY C-N11,41 C-C15•10I C-G C-P MU- MUE[20i MUC-1 MUC1281 MUE MUR CBD119381 1 and 21281 1 and 21281 COMMERCIAL(cont'd.) Major Event Entertainment N N C N C N C C N N Outdoor Entertainment N N P R115] C N N C N N Indoor Entertainment P P P P P P P P P N Adult Entertainment N N C N N N N C N N Sales-Oriented P P[71 P R1161 P/R[37] R[22] R1251 P R[221 R[34/351 Personal Services P P P P P R[22] R1251 P R[221 R[34/35] Repair-Oriented P P P N P R[221 R1251 R[22[ R[221 N Bulk Sales N N P N 8[361 R1221 R1251 R[221 R[221 N Outdoor Sales N N P N N N N N N N Animal-Related N N N N N P P N N N Motor Vehicle Sales/Rental N N P/C112] N 81361 N N R[241 R[24] N Motor Vehicle Servicing/Repair N C181 P/C112] N C R[221 R1251 N N N Vehicle Fuel Sales C C C N R1361 N C C C N Office P R191 P P P P P P P R[34/35] Self-Service Storage N N C N R1361 N N N N N Non-Accessory Parking C C P P P P P P P N INDUSTRIAL Industrial Services N N N N N N N N N N Light Industrial N N N N N R1231 N N R1231 N General Industrial N N N N N N N N N N Heavy Industrial N N N N N N N N N N Railroad Yards N N N N N N N N N N Research and Development N N N N C R[241 R[24] N R1231 N Warehouse/Freight Movement N N N N N R1241 N N 8123/241 N Waste-Related N N N N N N N N N N Wholesale Sales N N N N N N N N R123/241 N OTHER Agriculture/Horticulture N N _ N N N N N 1 Cemeteries N N N N N N N Detention Facilities N N _ C N C N N Heliports N N _ C C N N N Mining N N N N N N N Commercial Zoning Districts 18.520 Proposed Code.amendments DCA2016-00003 EXHIBIT B USE CATEGORY C-N11'4' C-C1s.10' C-G C-P MU- MUEI20I MUC-1 MUC1281 MUE MUR 1 CBD119.38] 1 and 21281 1 and 21281 OTHER(coned.) Wireless Communication Facilities P/R131 _ P/R[3] P/R131 P/R131 P/R131 P/R131 P/R[27] Transportation/Utility Corridors P P P P P P P P p p P=Permitted R=Restricted C=Conditional Use NA=Not Applicable N=Not Permitted Commercial Zoning Districts 18.520 Proposed Code Amendments DCA2016-00003 [1] All permitted and conditional uses subject to special development standards contained in I8.520.050.A. [2] Permitted subject to requirements Chapter 18.742. [3] See Chapter 18.798 Wireless Communication Facilities,requirements for permitted and restricted facilities. [4] Uses operating before 7 a.m.and/or after 10 p.m.are conditional uses. [5] All permitted,limited and conditional uses must meet special development standards in I8.520.050.B. [6] Residential units permitted by right,as a mixed use in conjunction with a commercial development,on or above the second floor of the structure,at densities not to exceed 12 units/net acre. [7] Limited to 10,000 gross square feet in size,except retail food and beverage outlets,which are limited to 40,000 gross square feet or less. [8] Limited to motor vehicle cleaning only. [9] When combined in single structure,each separate establishment shall not exceed 5,000 gross square feet. [10] Uses operating before 6 a.m.and/or after 11 p.m.;or drive-up windows are conditional uses. [11] A single-family unit providing that it is located on the same site with a permitted or conditional use in and is occupied exclusively by a caretaker or superintendent of the permitted or conditional use.Multifamily housing is permitted as part of a PD,subject to Chapter 18.350, unless located within the Tigard Triangle Plan District,where it is permitted outright. [12] Cleaning, sales and repair of motor vehicles and light equipment is permitted outright; sales and rental of heavy vehicles and farm equipment and/or storage of recreational vehicles and boats permitted conditionally. [13] (Deleted by Ord.09-13) [14] Restaurant permitted with restriction in size in conjunction with and on the same parcel as a commercial lodging use. [15] As accessory to offices or other permitted uses,the total space devoted to a combination of retail sales and eating/drinking establishments may not exceed more than 20%of the entire square footage within the development complex. [16] May not exceed 10%of the total square footage within an office complex. [17] Single-family attached and multi-family residential units, developed at R-40 standards, except the area bounded by Fanno Creek, Hall Boulevard,O'Mara,Ash Avenue and Hill Street,within which property zoned for CBD development which shall be designated R-12 PD and shall be developed as planned developments in conformance with the R-12 District standards. [18] Motor vehicle cleaning only. [19] Drive-up windows are permitted to continue if the property had one lawfully in existence prior to the adoption of the MU-CBD designation. Otherwise,not permitted. [20] All permitted and conditional uses subject to special development standards contained in 18.520.050.0. [21] Multifamily residential,at 25 units/gross acre,allowed outright. Pre-existing detached and attached single-family dwellings are permitted outright. [22] New retail and sales uses may not exceed 60,000 gross leasable area per building within the Washington Square Regional Center or Tigard Triangle except for those areas zoned C-G at the time the MUE zoning district was adopted in the Tigard Triangle. [23] All activities associated with this use,except employee and customer parking,shall be contained within buildings. [24] Permitted as accessory to a permitted use as long as this use is contained within the same building as the permitted use,and does not exceed the floor area of the permitted use. [25] Permitted provided the use is no larger then 60,000 square feet of gross floor area per building or business. [26] Household living limited to single units, attached, and multifamily including but not limited to apartments, attached condominiums, townhouses and rowhouses at a minimum density of 25 dwelling units per acre and a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per acre. [27] Wireless only as attached to structure within height limit,see Chapter 18.798. [28] All Permitted and Conditional Uses subject to special development standards contained in Chapter 18.630. [29] Group living with five or fewer residents permitted by right;group living with six or more residents permitted as conditional use. [30] Pre-existing housing units permitted. Conversion of pre-existing housing units to other uses is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.630. [31] Permitted for pre-existing housing units,subject to requirements Chapter 18.710. [32] Except water,storm,sanitary sewers,and other underground infrastructure facilities,which are allowed by right. [33] In-home day care which meets all state requirements permitted by right; freestanding day care centers which meet all state requirements permitted conditionally. [34] This use is allowed only in mixed-use developments in the Washington Square Regional Center.Commercial uses shall occupy no more than 50%of the total floor area within the mixed-use development,and shall be permitted only when minimum residential densities are met. An exception to the requirement that commercial uses may be permitted only if residential minimum densities are met is provided for properties zoned commercial prior to implementation of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan(3/28/2002).The exempted properties are identified as assessor map number: 1SI35AA-00400, 1S135AA-01400, 1S135AA-01900, ISIAA-01901, 1S135DA-02000, 1S135AA- 02500, 1 S 135AA-02600, ISI35AA-02700, IS 135DA-01900,and I S 1 DA-02000.These parcels,or parcels created from these parcels,after the effective date of this ordinance,may be developed as a solely commercial use with a use permitted in the MUR-I or MUR-2 zones. [35] The maximum building footprint size permitted for any building occupied entirely by a commercial use or uses shall be 7,500 square feet. An exception to the limit on the size of a building occupied by commercial uses is provided for properties zoned commercial prior to implementation of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan (3/28/2002). The exempted properties are identified as assessor map number: 1 S 135AA-00400, 1 S 135AA-01400, IS 135AA-01900, I S I AA-01901, 1 S 135DA-02000, ISI35AA-02500, 1 S 135AA-02600, ISI35AA-02700, IS135DA-01900,and 1SIDA-02000.On these parcels,or parcels created from these parcels,after the effective date of this ordinance,a commercial development is not limited to a specific square footage,however,all other dimensional standards of the MUR- I and MUR-2 zoning district apply which may limit the ultimate size of commercial development. [36] Only for properties that were lawfully in existence(as permitted,conditional,or planned development)prior to the adoption of the MU- CBD designation. [37] New retail and sales uses may not exceed 60,000 square feet of gross leasable area per building in all subareas except 99W/Hall Corridor subarea.(See Map 18.610.A) [38] All developments subject to Chapter 18.610,Downtown Urban Renewal Standards,and Map 18.610.A. [39] Custom Arts and Crafts uses may not exceed 500 square feet of production area. (Ord. 15-05 §2: Ord. 10-15 §1: Ord. 10-02 §2; Ord. 09-13: Ord. 02-32 Commercial Zoning Districts 18.520 Proposed Code Amendments DCA2016-00003 EXHIBIT B Excerpt from Chapter 18.620 TIGARD TRIANGLE PLAN DISTRICT Sections: 18.620.010 Purpose and Applicability 18.620.015 Where These Regulations Apply 18.620.018 Additional Allowed Use 18.620.020 Street Connectivity 18.620.030 Site Design Standards 18.620.040 Building Design Standards 18.620.050 Signs 18.620.060 Entry Portals 18.620.070 Landscaping and Screening 18.620.080 Street and Accessway Standards 18.620.090 Design Evaluation 18.620.018 Additional Allowed Use In addition to the uses permitted by Chapter 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts,multifamily dwelling units are permitted in the C-G zone. Minimum and maximum density requirements do not apply to these developments. Tigard Triangle Plan District 18.620 Proposed Code Amendment DCA2016-00003 SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR it 2011,==, 145 (DATE OF MEETING) Batemareidel Fax DID: 503.972.9968 Tigard Planning Commission City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard,OR 97232 October 13, 2016 Re: Item # 7 -2016 Omnibus Development Code Amendment Package Development Code Amendment(DCA)2016-00003 Dear President Fitzgerald and Commissioners: This firm represents Gordon R. Martin, Trustee of the "Tri-County Center Trust(the"Trust"), which owns property within the Tigard Triangle and who would be affected by the code changes proposed in the above referenced item. Please accept these comments into the record and consider them at your October 17, 2016, hearing on this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we urge the Commission to not recommend adoption of the changes to allow mutli- family residential on C-G zoned land in the Tigard Triangle. The omnibus Development Code Amendments involve a number of proposed changes to the Tigard Community Development Code, but our concerns are specifically regarding the third aspect of the request—the proposal to amend CDC Chapter 18.620 Tigard Triangle Plan District and Chapter 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts to allow multi-family dwelling units within the General Commercial (C-G) and the Mixed Use Employment (MUE)zones in the Tigard Triangle Plan District. This letter identifies several issues, but is also supplemented by a copy of the March 30, 2015, letter sent by Steve Martin to Cheryl Caines,attached as Exhibit 1. The issues identified in that letter still have not been addressed and the Planning Commission should consider those issues before taking any further action on this matter. To set the context for this request, it is important to note there are now approximately 28 underdeveloped CG acres within the Tigard Triangle. Of that total, at least 10 acres have wetlands, creeks or other concerns or restrictions related to wetlands and water. Of the remaining 18 underdeveloped CG acres in the Triangle about 8 acres are in excellent position near the focal point of the Tigard Triangle (the Dartmouth Street/72nd Avenue intersection)and adjacent to a major retail area and the core retail area of the Tigard Triangle. These approximate eight acres consist of TL100,TL101, TL300,TL400, TL401, and TL402. These tax lots are essentially bounded by Wal-Mart, Dartmouth Street, 72nd Avenue, and the Hermosa lots. As a percentage, this represents about half the available underdeveloped CG acreage in the Tigard Batemaijeidel October 13, 2016 Page 2 Triangle. It also represents almost all of the best located CG acreage in the Triangle, if not the entire Portland region. Because of that concentration of acreage,the proposed addition of Multi- dwelling units to areas zoned CG will primarily affects the underdeveloped acres near the focal point of the Triangle. Amending the district to allow multi-family dwelling units will have a significant impact on the development of the Triangle and would allow the development of property to have a completely different purpose,buildings,setbacks, and landscape than CG without the possibility of multi- family dwelling units. Any new setbacks required because of the zone change could also cause a loss in value to TL100 as well as TL401. The reality is that retailers prefer to locate within retail areas. Adding multi-family dwelling units will destroy the atmosphere of the big box retail center area that can currently be developed and is expected adjacent to Wal-Mart. Further,if TL300 is allowed to, and does, build multi- dwelling units,this will adversely affect the ability of TL401 to attract big box retailers as it will be located behind multi-family dwelling units. In effect,this would force TL401 to forego big box and other retail development and be left with little choice but to consider primarily multi- family dwelling units or office use,which is contrary to the vision in the recently adopted Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan,adopted in 2015. It is also contrary to the substantial assessments that were paid to the Dartmouth Street LID in anticipation of attracting major retailers. The proposed change to the CG zoning will cause real fmancial damage to some CG zoned land by significantly reducing its marketability as retail and especially big box retail. The purpose behind zoning is to keep like uses next to each other and this proposal throws this concept out the door. Development has not previously occurred largely due the size of the development area and the traffic capacity of the Triangle Portals that was recently increased with Wal-Mart funding. Also,allowing multi-family dwelling units on CG zoned land could result in retail on TIA01 and TL100 surrounding a residential area,which would not be beneficial to either the retail or the residential area. Attracting a big box retailer to TL401 will require that TL300 cannot have the option to develop as multi-family dwelling units. This result should only occur with the concurrence of all the property owners that could be negatively affected, otherwise it should not be applied to the underdeveloped CG zoned land in the focal point of the Triangle that was subject to the Dartmouth Street LID. The allowance of new uses also ignores the history of how the Triangle developed. The 8 acres of CG land near the focal point of the Triangle donated 20 feet of ROW along 72nd Avenue and Dartmouth Street to the City because the land was zoned CG and could be developed as big box retail. Perhaps more importantly,most of the 8 acres of underdeveloped land near the focal point of the Triangle were subject to significant assessments to pay for the construction of Dartmouth Street as it now exists. The assessments were based upon land area that was also zoned Commercial General residential properties were not subject to assessment. Adding multi- family dwelling units will create a significant change that should only be considered with the concurrence of the adjacent property owners that paid into the Dartmouth LID. Property that Batemai{eidel October 13, 2016 Page 3 was assessed as Commercial General could essentially be forced (due to retail considerations) to consider only multi-family uses because adjacent property built multi-family dwelling units and this amounts to an unintended restriction being placed upon CG zoned property that was expected to promote and become office or big box retail. Moreover, allowing for this type of development will impact some lots more than others. For example, allowing a residential or a mixed use on TL300 will block the view of TL401 from Dartmouth Street, making it much less attractive for retail use due to a non-retail atmosphere if next to multi-family dwelling units. This is in part due the view corridor to the site being blocked by multi-family dwelling units due to different building standards than office or retail would have. In summary,changing the zoning in the Triangle to allow for multi-family housing will have real impacts on current property owners who made significant sacrifices to encourage the development of the Triangle. This change should not be made without fully understanding the ramifications and impacts caused by these changes. Accordingly, we ask the Commission to not recommend approval of the third aspect of these proposed code changes at this time. Very truly yours, � � t Bill Kabeiseman BK: cc: 1L BAab'Lener with logo din Cheryl Caines Associate Planner City of Tigard March 30, 2015 Hello Cheryl, The following analysis and review of the December 2014 Draft of the Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan Option 2, reveals severe problems are expected with the implementation of the Plan as currently envisioned. The interim period between build-out today and full build-out will likely see development stopped due to inadequate Triangle traffic portal capacity. Determining and increasing the Triangle portal capacity is essential to effectively address development density limitations in the Triangle MUE zone,whereas allocation of development density is best kept fair by equally sharing it amongst all MUE property. The Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan Option 2 proposed zone changes and their effect from an acreage viewpoint in relation to the approximate 375 (CG and MUE zone as shown within the Triangle of the Plan)acres in the City of Tigard portion of the Tigard Triangle is summarized as follows: ✓ A new zone designated as MUT(Mixed-Use Triangle)be established and the existing MUE (Mixed Use Employment)zone is converted to MUT thus leaving two primary type zones in the'Triangle MUT&CG. ✓ The new MUT zone is to have four subareas as follows: [a] a MUT-MU(Mixed Use Triangle- Mixed Use Residential); [b] a MUT-MUC (Mixed Use Triangle-Mixed Use Core); [c]a MUT- CR (Mixed Use Triangle-Core Residential; and [d] a MUT-CS(Mixed Use Triangle-Campus); ✓ Using rough estimates since I was unable to locate precise acreage totals,out of a total of about 200 acres in the existing MUE zone about 56 acres are to be rezoned to the said new MUT-MU subarea,about 65 acres are to be rezoned to the new MUT-MUC subarea,about 37 acres are to be rezoned to the new MUT-CR subarea,and about 42 acres are to be rezoned to the new MUT-CS subarea; ✓ Again using rough estimates,out of a total of about 175 acres in the existing CG zone, approximately 34%of it will be rezoned. Roughly, about 49 acres are to be rezoned to the new MUT-MU subarea,and about 11 acres are to be rezoned to the MUT-MUC subarea. Of the approximate total 60 acres of CG zoned land to be rezoned,there are about 51 acres of developed CG land to be rezoned to MUT, about 1 acre of underdeveloped land with an approved project to be rezoned to MUT,and about 8 acres of underdeveloped CG land to be rezoned to MUT. For reasons that should become clearer after reading this document and my 3/30/15 response to your comments on issues regarding the Plan,and regardless of the rough estimates used,the existing MUE development restrictions should remain in place until a full traffic engineering study(without conflict of interests)of the Triangle portal traffic capacity has been completed that will aid in adjusting the restrictions. Restrictions should be based upon the existing road conditions,not planned and hoped for changes that: are not completely approved by all agencies that may be involved;have not secured needed ROW;and are unfunded. EXHIBIT 1 2 Table I below refers to key components of the Triangle Strategic Plan Option 2 and presents an overall perspective of the total Triangle acreage zones and subareas with development density restrictions. Table 1. Key Triangle Changes to Zones and Development Density Restrictions for CG,MUE,and MUT Subareasi,2 MUT Subareas CG MUE MUT-MUC MUT-MU MUT-CR MUT-CS Commerical General Mixed Use Mixed Use Core Mixed Use Core Residential Campus Employment Residential Acres Before 175 ac. 200 ac. 0 0 0 0 Rezoning (28 underdeveloped) (20 underdeveloped) (48 underdev.) Acres After 115 ac. 0 76 acres 105 acres 37 acres 42 acres Rezoning (19 underdeveloped3) (8 underdeveloped) (18 underdeveloped) (3 underdeveloped) (0 underdeveloped) (48 underdev.) CG Acres 60 ac. 11 acres 49 acres Rezoned (9 underdeveloped) (0 underdeveloped) (9 underdeveloped) , MUE Acres 200 ac. 65 acres 56 acres 37 acres 42 acres Rezoned (20 underdeveloped) (8 underdeveloped) (9 underdeveloped) (3 underdeveloped) (0 underdeveloped) Max dwelling 25%of Total 25 du No Maximum 50 du 30 du No Maximum units per acre Gross Floor Area Building 45' 45' 75' 55' 55' 75' Height FAR None 0.4:1 None None None None (1) All zone areas are approximations based upon aerial maps and the Triangle Strategic Plan zone maps(street ROW and wetlands are Included In most estimates), (2) All underdeveloped acres are estimates(based on aerial maps,the Triangle Strategic Plan zone maps,and onsite visual Inspection)that included only vacant or mostly vacant land. Not included In the underdeveloped acreage estimates that would otherwise Include over 25 acres more:small lots with occupied structures that are expected to be consolidated and the large parking lot areas that are expected to be replaced with parking structures to create additional buildable areas. (3) Over 10 acres of the 19 acres of underdeveloped CG zoned land after rezoning is subject to wetland and water restrictions. Important concerns clearly still exist regarding the December 2014,Draft Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan; concerns that are the result of several very significant suppositions and presumptions that are currently doubtful,problematic,and/or without settled opinion as exemplified by our exchange of comments in the attachment and in this e-mail. Chapter 4 of the Draft Triangle Strategic Plan creates more questions than it provides answers. For analysis purposes seemingly to justify removing the existing FAR,the chapter appears to show the FAR ratios that can be accommodated after the improvements and zone changes are made. Essentially,for such set of circumstances, it shows a FAR ratio of 1:1 in the MUT-MU subarea and 1.5:1 in the MUT-MUC subarea and assumes there will be no office use in the MUT-MU,and 20% office use in the MUT-MUC. Residential was increased in the existing MUE from 25du/acre to 30du/acre in MUT-CR, to 50du/acre in MUT-MU,and is unlimited in MUT-MUC and MUT-CS. It should be noted that there appears to be more than one name used in the Plan and code to describe the subareas of MUT, so it is important to refer to the development density represented by each subarea name. 3 The Plan's recommended immediate increases in development densities raises the following questions: 1. Since the increased MUE development density apparently depends upon the existence of a new bridge at Beveland and 74th,does this imply the analysis is reliant upon HCT since the future bridge is largely dependent upon HCT? 2. If portal traffic capacity to the Triangle is not increased as presumed by future improvements,what FAR is supportable in the MUE or MUT(if MUE is converted)zone? 3. If portal traffic capacity to the Triangle is not increased as presumed it will be,what residential is supportable in the MIJE or MUT zone? 4. What FAR is supportable in the MUE or MUT zone with office use at 100%rather than 0% or 20%? 5. What FAR and residential density is supportable if none of the approximately 8 acres of primary undeveloped CG property without an approved project is rezoned to MUE or MUT? 6. What FAR and residential density is supportable if none of the approximately 60 acres of CG property is rezoned to MUE or MUT? 7. When does the Plan expect the approximate 52 acres of developed CG property to have a different effect on traffic than it already has? 8. Why does the Plan rezone to MUT approximately 8 acres of the only centrally located contiguous undeveloped CG property in the Triangle that is also adjacent to CG zoned land and bordered by the two main roads in the Triangle? 9. If about 34 acres of developed CG zoned land consisting of Winco,Babies R'US,Office Max, and the cinema are to be rezoned to MUT,then why isn't Costco,Wal-Mart,the office building at the west end of Beveland,and Lowes also rezoned? 10. Should any CG zoned land be rezoned to MUT since it appears that either all CG zoned land should be rezoned or none at all? 11. Why are 9 acres consisting of four small isolated areas of undeveloped CG zoned land adjacent to the MUT zone not included in the MUT zone even if it is used as open space? 12.Why isn't about 10 acres of CG zoned land which is largely wetland south of Costco included in the MUT zone even if it is used as open space? 13. Since the Triangle Strategic Plan assumes a very low percentage of office use,should a FAR be implemented that reflects the low percentage use scenario to assure all property can develop? 14. Does the Plan expect the WinCo development to redevelop within the 20 years the Plan is supposed to focus on,or does it contemplate its redevelopment in a more realistic 60 years? 15.How much of the additional traffic into the Triangle from the presumed future bridge at Beveland is expected to pass through the Triangle and consequently offset the overall portal capacity increase it is presumed to provide? 16. Shouldn't the Fields property plans be factored into the traffic analysis? 17.Is it considered fair financially or otherwise,to vary development density limiting restrictions between subareas of the MUT zone that are essentially within a few hundred feet of each other? 18.Where can the detailed traffic study with its assumptions be accessed? 19.How much traffic from development outside the Triangle such as from the Fields property along Ilunziker, and the general area south of the Triangle including development along Bonita,is expected to use up the Triangle portal capacity? 4 20. Should only Triangle land be subject to the FAR and dwelling unit restriction even though development outside the Triangle will also contribute traffic that uses up limited Triangle portal capacity? Without the results of a traffic engineering study that has independently analyzed the portal capacity of the Triangle to help answer the above basic questions and others,the Triangle FAR and residential restrictions should remain unchanged. Property that is not among the first to obtain development permits can expect to be left unable to develop at all because of its inability to meet minimum traffic study standards the potential inability to develop exposes property unnecessarily to damages arising from the FAR removal and increased development density. Unless the portal capacity has been physically increased by the hoped for road improvements assumed by the Plan, and/or office use throughout MUE or MUT area is extremely restricted, the existing FAR and residential restrictions should not be changed. The Triangle Strategic Plan does not appear to effectively address the capacity problem at the portals that are expected to grow worse soon after the FAR is eliminated and residential density is increased. There are approximately 8 undeveloped acres of centrally located CG property in the Triangle that will be affected by the proposed zone conversion to MUE or MUT,whereas most of the approximately 52 acres of developed (including 1 acre of soon to be developed property)CG property converted to MUE or MUT may not redevelop for many decades and will probably want to remain as CG zoned property. The 8 undeveloped acres of CG zoned property represents about 13%of the CG property to be rezoned. Until the 52 acres of CG property redevelops,the rezoning is unlikely to have much effect on traffic within the Triangle.To my knowledge WinCo is not intending to close its store,or change any of its shopping area into residential during the next half century. Traffic capacity at the portals is not increased by attempting to manage development and its associated traffic by changing zoning designations and increasing allowed residential densities. It is doubtful whether eliminating the FAR approach will effectively ensure that development capacity of the Triangle is spread fairly throughout the MUE or MUT zone. The Plan proposes to remove FAR restrictions and increase residential density based on studies that show the established restrictions will not be needed. It appears that the Plan recommendations overlook the requirement that projects show an acceptable level of service at the portals. Since the remaining traffic capacity of the Triangle portals is limited, an immediate consequence of this is the retail,office, or residential per acre that can be developed in the Triangle is also limited. What happens when traffic studies no longer can show an acceptable level of service at the portals? Will traffic studies no longer be required to show an acceptable level of service at the portals? It appears that the Triangle Strategic Plan indirectly proposes that all remaining development capacity in the Triangle be based upon a first come, first served approach. After the remaining traffic capacity of the portals has been used up more rapidly by the removal of the FAR,will all future development be halted until the portal traffic capacity is increased? 5 It is clear the Triangle is enclosed by I-5, Hwy 217,and Pacific Hwy,however,what is not clear is that there is a limited number of portals to the Triangle that provide ingress and/or egress. The effect of this restriction is profound due to the requirement that projects in the Triangle are required to show an acceptable level of service is maintained at the portals to the Triangle. Merely showing that traffic in the immediate vicinity of a project is acceptable is not enough. Some of the main issues,concerns, and suggestions from my 3/30/15 response regarding the December 2014,Draft Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan are: • The Plan is likely to have unfair consequences unless various issues are addressed before its implementation due to proposed changes that are based upon suppositions unlikely to occur for at least another decade or two, if ever. • To minimize the effect of downzoning property converted from CG to MUE or MUT,such downzoned properly should retain their exclusion from GLA limitations,Pad sizes,and existing or future FAR restrictions that may be imposed. • What will happen when future development projects cannot generate traffic studies that show an acceptable level of service at the Triangle portals. Will they need to wait until portal capacity is increased at an unknown time in the future? Since the cost to increase portal capacity cannot be expected to be fmanced by a single project as with Wal-Mart,what will be the alternative? • A corollary to the above concern is related to Triangle development capacity that is limited by the portal traffic capacity. The potential to concentrate the limited remaining development capacity of the Triangle into a few properties is an undesired by-product of the current Plan. There does not appear to he a workable mechanism within the Triangle Strategic Plan that prevents a few MUE properties from using up all the portal traffic capacity of the Triangle. Currently,development capacity is limited and distributed throughout the MUE area by the use of a Floor Area Ratio of 0.4:1 and the R-25 designation(medium high-density residential district). • After the portal capacity is used up,the Triangle MUT or MUE area is likely to face another imposed FAR or no longer be allowed to develop until High Capacity Transit,the new bridge at Beveland,and the removal of the Winco building to make way for 74th,can be guaranteed to occur on a timely basis. Without a traffic analysis update of all portal capacity in the Triangle that also examines how much office,retail,and residential(of varying du/acre)is possible per acre within the Triangle, it is not possible to know when new development restrictions might be imposed and they are likely to be far worse than a FAR of 0.4:1 especially if the existing restrictions have been temporarily removed. • The possibility of unfair consequences that arise from allowing development to occur without any FAR and residential restriction makes it essential to know beforehand the results of a portal capacity based traffic study for the Triangle. Until such a study is completed that also specifies the amount of development capacity that is possible,the Triangle Strategic Plan should retain the existing development restrictions. Of course restrictions can be later adapted to the results 6 of the portal capacity traffic study which should also analyze possible new Triangle portals and improvements to those that already exist. Due to the importance of updating the last traffic study that examined the overall Triangle portal capacities we contacted a locally based highly respected traffic engineering firm with extensive experience in the Triangle to explore the cost of an update funded by us to aid in the decision facing Triangle property owners as to whether the FAR and residential density restrictions should be altered. All Triangle property owners would benefit from the results of the study since there would no longer be any ambiguity as to how much retail,office, or residential is possible in the Triangle. However, the firm,of which we are a client, and which completed the last known inclusive Triangle portal capacity study that we can find to be available, informed us it could not perform such a study due to a conflict of interest the firm felt it may have within the Triangle. Apparently there are serious complications with regards to the Triangle portals. Despite its importance to the Triangle, due to conflicts of interest seemingly related to portal deficiencies, it may be difficult for the City to fmd an appropriate traffic engineering firm to study the Triangle portal capacity and potential portal improvements that has no conflict of interest, It should be obvious to anyone objectively considering the numerous subject areas addressed by this email and its attachment,that the proposed Plan should be put on hold, and/or-an interim plan be created that retains the existing development restrictions and zoning until traffic capacity at the portals has been fully studied with various build-out scenarios and new portals considered wherever possible. After such a study,physical portal capacity improvements that have been funded can be used to make appropriate changes to the development density. Before the Draft Triangle Strategic Plan is implemented,there are many major issues to resolve. Triangle traffic portal capacity is not resolved by the Plan. The Plan does not take into account what will occur during the transition from existing conditions to the hoped for future conditions. The interim or transition period could last for many decades due to uncertain suppositions and the extremely long term view taken by the Plan. The Plan is clearly based upon uncertain to occur events long in the future as the basis for major immediate changes in development densities. Meanwhile, upon the expected resurrection of a much more restrictive FAR on development after the portal capacity is used up,the Triangle will again be further limited in its development. That is,if future events do not occur as it is prematurely presumed they will,the Plan amplifies unwanted and unfair results perhaps indefinitely. Development density restrictions such as the FAR and R-25 residential should not be altered until it is shown by an objective traffic capacity study that does not favor any particular position,that there is enough portal capacity in the Triangle to support the change for all MUE and/or MUT Triangle property throughout the entire interim from build-out as it exists today up until full build-out conditions. Option 2 of the Plan proposes that the 0.4:1 FAR be removed from about 200 acres of MUE as well as an increase in the number of dwelling units per acre. This not only provides a greater possibility of redevelopment than under current zoning due to economic feasibility considerations,it would allow much more development than under the present zoning and development restrictions provided traffic portal capacity is not reached—the problem is portal capacity is unknown and it will likely be used up long before the full build-out assumptions of the Plan are reached. 7 If the proposed development density restrictions are implemented as intended in Option 2, out of 200 acres, a few acres of high density office has the potential to quickly use up all the portal capacity and cause significant damage to the rest of the Triangle if the presumed improvements that affect portal capacity do not occur. Sincerely, Steve Martin Triangle CAC member Triangle resident Landowner representative Tuesday, October 25, 2016 SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR /1/1 /2 DI io - e71449-24=i5- (DATE S(DATE OF MEETING) Adding Multi-family dwelling units to Commercial General Zone Effectively Eliminates Marketability of Adjacent Land as intended for a Commercial General Zone Tax lot 300 Adding Multi-family dwelling units to tax lot 300 effectively eliminates the ability of tax lot 401 to attract major retailers onto its site. The proposed zone change allows Multi-family dwelling units to be inserted between Dartmouth Street and tax lot 401. If Base Camp has a binding commitment from Compass Oncology(not just a letter of intent),then adding the option to have Multi-family dwelling units on TL300 is less of a concern, but remains a concern until Compass Oncology is on the site as proposed. Tax lots 400 and 402. Adding Multi-family dwelling units on these tax lots effectively eliminates the ability of tax lot 401 to attract major retailers onto its site. The proposed zone change allows Multi-family dwelling units to be inserted between 72nd Avenue and tax lot 401, Also,the connection to 72nd for these two tax lots and TL401 remains unresolved and this adds more complexity to an already difficult problem. The City stated in the Pre-App for TL401 that only one commercial connection to 72"d will be allowed in the vicinity and that TL401 must connect to a future connection with 72nd across from Elmhurst Street. Possible Solution to Eliminate Unwanted Adverse Impacts from Proposed Zone Change The proposed zone change use to allow multi-family dwelling units in a commercial general zone can be excluded from the 8 acres shown in shaded red on Page 1 of the attached drawings(bounded by Dartmouth,72"d, Wal- Mart,and Hermosa tax lots). This exception can be justified because of the unintended adverse impact it will have on at least one of the tax lots in the 8 acres (adverse impact arises as it is located behind the other tax lots); it is in the focal point of the Triangle; it directly abuts and is adjacent to a major retail site; and was part of the Dartmouth Street LID. This solution does not prevent agreed to changes in the future, but will eliminate the unintended adverse impact on property that is directly caused by adding Multi-family dwelling units to a commercial general zone. In general, adding a major new use to an established zone designation has the potential for unintended adverse impacts on commercial general zoned property whether it is developed or not. Each property subject to a zone change use has unique characteristics and impacts on neighboring property. The blanket commercial general zone use change is perhaps better replaced by a tool that allows such a change after impacts to neighboring property have been either accepted by the neighboring properties or is determined to have no adverse impacts on the neighboring property. Page 1 of 3 . -Larger Major Chain retailers want to be I• S\V r ,yl�r St • grouped together and seen. The last of the • tavailable CG zoned land suitable for major . r 1 ."•-• Major Retailers CommercialGeneral Retail Site retailers in the Triangle (if not the Tualatin, "Iir,11 ; , Tigard, and Beaverton area) is the 8 acre • ; site shown in red shade. ' - `. - t i r i - _._ .SWC �r ( I nlon St t , - Ill Approximate 8 acres of a> - Underdeveloped Commercial - `►� - General land within one of the -•, main Retail areas of the • Triangle. is N. \ 4._ .. 1 t . I • .. \ � _ � TL300 140110 `H�\ •%i1030.1/ 1■ \‘ tTL400 . ; F _a _ k - —SW-Elmhurst Sl cn °�,� !F TL401 i:,=1 �d S R. •" - Lri TL402 �' ' `: 16i./ ogle I ,�.•+.. I c .J P bloc i �, i.. n: I -,2016 Europa Techrios1B i�4Y--- `L 1 Googl - arth I IIIII l NOW MI w Page 2 of 3 Adding Multi-family dwelling Units to C.G can significantly affect the 7r•- _d_ ability of some tax lots to reach their highest and best use. �- Sw_CJair ,, th • Understanding retail site synergy and view corridors are essential. In .. •,_,. • n -t,-- this instance, Multi-family significantly and adversely affects the ability r i • -� to attract other major retailers onto the adjacent site as shown �`f :; PIO IF Option to build Multi-Family in 1 I . • - ,- Green areas u.. ii ` ihli -. ii _ 7 t - 03, I - Multi-family on adjacent land disconnects this D �_ � . 1 , l II N b I I I I aim - a tax lot from the overall larger Major retail —S 'J t �mhur;t St N � store site. Site synergy and atmosphere is "^"� lei broken if Multi-family is inserted between °�� I Dartmouth Street and this tax lot. \ . 11 . . '.. .\ This tax lot effectively loses its ability to - attract major retailers. Uses are Limited byPrIlrfrwri ri Google Earth adding the Multi-family option to CG. Page 3 of 3 Adding Multi-family dwelling Units to CG can significantly affect the -_- ability of some tax lots to reach their highest and best use. �`' '- Understanding retail site synergy and view corridors are essential. In this instance, Multi-family does not significantly affect the ability to '• -via% attract major retailers on the adjacent sites. However, retail instead of Multi-family would benefit the overall synergy of the site. 11Fr i i ar illigrillitill. . r . MR) /EY' �l I 1111.1111' •' - - f ;. Major retail, small retail,office, 1 Multi-Family remain attractive. _ I �.... connectivity of major retail - _ -' synergy and atmosphere not I broken. Does not Limit Site ability • "" to attract major retailers. Uses — �,�- - - - .. have NOT been limited. g - r'I. • m.• - I I - Retail,Office, I , 11—" .. 1 Multi-Family —SVV-E•lintiur--st-SI 11 I r, i r I. R �fl ' I Use NOT Limited ' I Ifl�l ��11 IIT' 2016 Europa To.crnorogres. ` - - C; 20016 Google — , Y9 __ _ Y` Google Earth i.; :`' SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR llet/I( ti /-en COMMUNITY PARTNERS i _ • - MEETING) FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, INC. +i'Q� - J 9P0 Box 23206•Tigard OR 97281-3206• t:503.293.4038•TTYNC0:800.735.2900•f:503.293.4039•www.cpahinc.org October 27, 2016 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Letter of Strong Support for Omnibus Code Amendment Package DCA 2016-0003 Dear Mayor John L. Cook Council President Jason Snider Councilor John Goodhouse Councilor Marland Henderson Councilor Marc Woodard I am writing on behalf of Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH) in support of the proposed legislative amendment to the Tigard Development Code. In particular, CPAH is supportive of the proposal to amend Chapter 18.620 Tigard Triangle Plan District and Chapter 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts to allow multi-family dwelling units within the General Commercial (C-G)zone in the Tigard Triangle Plan District. This amendment will certainly make it possible to develop a range of housing there, including affordable housing. We agree with staff that this change will greatly support the larger dynamic vision for the Tigard Triangle—a healthy and walkable community where people live and work. CPAH is excited to be part of this community and to work as a partner in growing local opportunities. We know that a necessary ingredient of any vibrant community is housing for people at all income ranges. At this time our region has a historic need for affordable housing. Homelessness is increasing and many residents are being displaced by higher rents. Recently, Tigard experienced this at the Walnut Tree Apartments, where all residents received termination notices as the rents doubled. The unexpected need to move is always disruptive to families and kids in school. Additionally, with the current tight rental market there is not always another apartment, especially an affordable apartment, available. This is an opportunity to create an environment where affordable housing is achievable. CPAH has had the benefit of being a partner with the City of Tigard for many years. We are grateful for the City's historic commitment to our organization through tax abatements and system development charge waivers. Building affordable housing requires this kind of public and private partnership. As a member of the Technical Advisory Committee for the Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Plan, staff at CPAH understand that there has been a great deal of effort and careful thought connected to the desired community in the Tigard Triangle and the land use design and partnerships needed to make that happen. Finally, we have noticed that there may be some concern that affordable housing is not a good companion to other land uses. We emphatically believe that affordable housing belongs where there is access to opportunity, which includes transit, employment in both small and large CPAH does not discriminate against any person on the basis of age, race, color, religion,sex, sexual orientation or gender identity, disability (physical, mental or developmental),familial or marital status, or national origin, in admission or access to, or treatment of residents, employees or volunteers in any of its projects or programs. businesses, and education. The Tigard Triangle is the perfect place for multifamily affordable housing. We are looking forward to building another housing community in the Triangle at 11090 SW 68th Parkway. We are excited about the changes coming to the Tigard Triangle as well as our continuing partnership with the City of Tigard. Thank you for your service. • Sincerely, C-^)} Rachael Duke Executive Director Community Partners for Affordable Housing CPAH does not discriminate against any person on the basis of age,race, color, religion,sex,sexual orientation or gender identity,disability (physical, mental or developmental),familial or marital status, or national origin, in admission or access to, or treatment of residents, employees or volunteers in any of its projects or programs. 0 L. SUPPLE NTAL PACKET Kelly Burgoyne l t i Co From: Agnes Kowacz (DATE OF M Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 8:37 AM To: Carol Krager; Kelly Burgoyne Subject: FW: Letter of strong support for Omnibus Code Package DCA 2016-0003 Attachments: Letter of Support to Tigard City Council Nov 1.pdf Hi Ladies- I received these two letter regarding my omnibus code amendment that is addressed to Council. Do we provide these ahead of time or at the meeting?Thanks, Agnes From:i»,Daniel A Edwards, humble architect [mailto:dane1952@frontier.com] Sent:Thursday, October 27, 2016 12:45 PM To:Agnes Kowacz<AgnesK@tigard-or.gov> Subject: Letter of strong support for Omnibus Code Package DCA 2016-0003 Mayor John L. Cook Councilor John Goodhouse Councilor Marian's Henderson Councilor Marc Woodard I am writing on behalf of Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH) in support of the proposed legislative amendment to the Tigard Development Code. I am most supportive of the proposal to amend Chapter 18.620 Tigard Triangle Plan District and Chapter 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts to allow multi- family dwelling units within the General Commercial (C-G) zone in the Tigard Triangle Plan District. This amendment will certainly make it possible to develop a range of housing there, including affordable housing. Thank you for your time on this important issue. Dan Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone 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 SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR r i///�2c i b i k CITY OF TIGARD (DATE OF MEETING) PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes October 17,2016 CALL TO ORDER Vice President Feeney 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: Vice President Feeney Commissioner Hu Commissioner Jelinek Commissioner Lieuallen Commissioner McDowell Commissioner Middaugh Commissioner Muldoon Commissioner Schmidt Absent: President Fitzgerald;Alt. Commissioner Mooney;Alt. Commissioner Enloe Staff Present: Tom McGuire,Assistant Community Development Director; Monica Bilodeau; Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner; Monica Bilodeau, Associate Planner;Agnes Kowacz,Associate Planner; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Kim McMillan,Assistant City Engineer COMMUNICATIONS —None. CONSIDER MINUTES October 3, 2016 Meeting Minutes: Vice President Feeney asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the October 3 minutes; there being none,Vice President Feeney declared the minutes approved as submitted. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING RIVER TERRACE EAST No.3 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2016-00013 SUBDIVISION REVIEW (SUB) 2016-00009 REQUEST: The applicant requests a 38-unit single family residential planned development with concurrent concept and detailed plan review and subdivision review. The site is 5.89 acres. The proposal includes 34 attached single-family row homes and four detached single-family homes. LOCATION: West and East of SW Roy Rogers Road and South of SW Scholls Ferry Road; Washington County Tax Map 2S1060000200 and 2S106DB24300. ZONES: R-12 and R-25, Medium and Medium-High Density Residential Designations. APPLICABLE REVIEW October 17, 2016 Page 1 of 12 CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.660, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.775, 18.785, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS Vice President Feeney read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-judicial hearing guide. There were no abstentions; there were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None. Site visitations: Commissioners Jelinek, Muldoon, Feeney, McDowell, Schmidt, Hu, Middaugh No one wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission. STAFF REPORT The staff report is available on-line at the City website one week prior to the hearing. Monica Bilodeau, City of Tigard Associate Planner went over the staff report. Project summary: 1 38-unit single family residential units 1 34 attached single-family row homes and 4 detached single-family homes 5.89 acre site. Staff recommends the Planning Commission take two actions: 1. The first in favor of the proposed Concept Plan Map. 2. The second in favor of the proposed Detailed Planned Development Map, Subdivision, and early grading authorization. Staff noted that there had been no comments received from the public. QUESTIONS / COMMENTS Vice President Feeney noted what he assumed, but wanted to confirm, was a typo on condition #36. The final plat fee should be $1,900 not$19,000 —correct?Bilodeau confirmed that indeed that was an error. Vice President Feeney advised the commissioners to make mention of that should there be a motion on this later. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Pam Verdadero, Polygon NW noted this would be the gateway into the City of Tigard and gives them an opportunity to introduce River Terrace as a bold statement as people enter into the neighborhood. She explained how it is taking shape. Jim Lange, Polygon NW gave an overall picture of River Terrace itself and explained that their site is the very north end of it. It's part of a larger parcel that's in Beaverton. He gave a presentation (Exhibit A). He noted there's an embellishment to parks —that is a small pocket park on the east side that is centered on a large prominent Oak tree that will be staying there. They saved that tree and the grading is not disturbing the tree. They will be working with an arborist to ensure the tree isn't negatively impacted. Zoning districts are R12 and R25 on this piece. It's a planned development - three different products —Row homes, standard homes, and one medium home that finishes the lots adjacent October 17, 2016 Page 2 of 12 to it from River Terrace NW. He's happy that they are very close to a comprehensive plan for the north part of River Terrace. Mr. Lange noted that in the staff report conditions 11 &16 specifies some woods for ROW dedications. They are still working through some of that with the county. They're ahead of the county design work for the Roy Rogers Roads. He circulated a memo to the commissioners (Exhibit B) which requests that conditions 11 and 16 be modified to end with "or as otherwise approved by the City and Washington County" — so they have flexibility. QUESTIONS On SW Friendly Road, it shows the existing ROW or new right of way will go all the way down to Roy Rogers Road. What's the plan there? The road doesn't connect at this time. Correct. The county will restrict access at that point—to what extent? It hasn't been worked out yet. It will be partly dependent on PGE and their substation and equipment needs. We've been trying to coordinate that and they've had a turnover in staff—they're trying to collectively get themselves ready to answer that question. There might be a "right in —right out" there for purposes of them getting larger equipment in. I expect that once PGE gets a chance to understand the street network and turning radiuses —it's all designed to get fire trucks through— so they can get their equipment through—and at the end of the day there actually will not be an access there. That's a bad place to access the road. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR -None TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION —None. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DELIBERATION There was a very short deliberation; the consensus was that everything looks like it's in order. MOTION FOR THE CONCEPT PLAN Commissioner Muldoon made the following motion: "I move that we approve with respect to PDR2016-00013 and SUB2016-00009 the Concept Plan as supported by staff's report and the testimony heard tonight." Commissioner Jelinek seconded the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE CONCEPT PLAN PASSES UNANIMOUSLY MOTION FOR THE DETAILED PLAN Commissioner Muldoon made an original motion inadvertently leaving out the fourth change but ultimately moved: "Regarding River Terrace East #3 PDR2016-00013 and SUB2016-00009; I move we approve the subdivision Detailed Plan with four extra changes. The first is on page 6 of October 17,2016 Page 3 of 12 the staff report: Condition 36 would correct the scrivener error of$1,900.00 in lieu of $19,000.00. Second, that conditions 11 and 16 conclude with the additional language "or as otherwise approved by the City of Tigard and Washington County;" third,we approve deferring compliance with section 18.660.030.B to final plat approval subject to staff's conditions and the staff report and informed by the testimony heard tonight—and fourth: that we authorize and find that there would be a deferral for the grading and we find that early grading authorization would not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the city. Commissioner Middaugh seconded the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE THE DETAILED PLAN PASSES UNANIMOUSLY OPENED PUBLIC HEARING TRIANGLE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2016-00011; SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2016-00007 REQUEST: The applicant requests concurrent Planned Development Concept Plan and Detailed Development Plan review for a 36,000 square foot medical office building on a 3.73 acre vacant parcel located southwest of SW Dartmouth Street and SW 72nd Avenue. Proposed site improvements include a single-story building with surface parking taking access from SW Dartmouth through the eastern access to the adjacent Walmart development. A pedestrian path is proposed through the site from SW 72nd to the Walmart parking lot. A vegetated corridor along the northern property line is protected and improved. LOCATION: SW of the intersection of SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street; Washington County Tax Map 2S101BA, Tax Lot 00300. ZONES: C-G: general commercial district,with planned development overlay. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18. Vice President Feeney noted the applicant is asking that the concept plan be considered at this hearing and that the detailed plan be continued to a later date as determined by the Planning Commission. QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS Vice President Feeney read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-judicial hearing guide. There were no abstentions; there were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None. Site visitations: Commissioner Muldoon, Feeney, Schmidt, and Hu. No one wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission. STAFF REPORT Complete staff reports are available on-line at the City website one week prior to each hearing. Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard Associate Planner, addressed the material that he'd distributed to the commissioners including two additional public comment letters that hadn't October 17,2016 Page 4 of 12 been in their packets (Exhibit C). No other public comments were received from staff. He gave a brief orientation of the site and then focused on approval criteria 1 and 3 of the staff report that have to do with open space and natural features of the site: 1. The concept plan includes specific designations on the concept map for areas of open space, and describes their intended level of use, how they relate to other proposed uses on the site, and how they protect natural features of the site; and 3. The concept plan identifies how the future development will integrate into the existing neighborhood, either through compatible street layout, architectural style, housing type, or by providing a transition between the existing neighborhood and the project with compatible development or open space buffers. QUESTIONS What is staff's opinion on maintaining the slope and also on having the streets in there that some people want? Gary Pagenstecher from Planning answered, "Engineering and Planning have different perspectives on this. I can give my opinion —but please note that Kim McMillan from Tigard Engineering has a differing view. My recommendation is an alternative approach—the topography is an important issue that should be addressed. I think it's an important use of the site —we need to weigh the impact of substantial walls that can have impact on pedestrian movements. I also think there are problems to bringing the building up to that sloping 72nd in terms of access to the building. I'm begging the question, 'Do you think it warrants further investigation'?" And your opinion on Elmhurst Street and 74th? Connectivity is a key for the success of Tigard Triangle. There must be connectivity—there are standards in 705 and 620 that direct development to provide that. I think the proposal which shows simply pedestrian connection on its own through the site is probably insufficient, and that a public street along the alignment shown is not the most feasible of alignments. I think this development should be obligated in some way to provide additional connectivity—I can't tell you exactly how. Kim McMillan,Assistant City Engineer spoke about street connectivity. She said, "Elmhurst is not located opposite this site, so you wouldn't typically ask the applicant to do a street extension on their site when it doesn't align. There were previous discussions where a planner from outside came in and talked about a street that would go across their site that had an alignment that was an "S" curve. That's not required;we need to go back to what the code requires. The applicant has done their homework in providing a future streets plan—which we wouldn't have normally asked for either because, again, the street doesn't align with their site — but they've shown that, and that's the plan you see here—and it goes directly from Elmhurst across the next site and they've shown that it can be done. It needs to meet the technical standards for constructing a street—that's what they've shown, so at this point they don't have to do any further investigation or due diligence in the mind of the engineering staff. They've done their part. That leaves the question for the next applicant—that yes, they'll have to address it." October 17, 2016 Page 5 of 12 Are there any private property owners that are potentially adversely affected?The neighboring properties are alleging that this development would adversely affect their develop-ability, their existing use, so the outdoor property in particular is the subject of that argument. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION REGARDING THE CONCEPT PLAN Mimi Doukas, AKS Engineering representing Base Camp I, LLC. said, "What we're really talking about is the end user—which is Compass Oncology. We have a very special applicant in this oncology center. They're excited to be in Tigard, and in this specific location, but they have specific site considerations that are needed for the special clientele of this use." She noted they're looking for consideration of the concept plan only at this time. They did submit a combined application for the CDP and the DVP to allow the commission to see the full substance of the application, but they want to break the conversation into two pieces. Start with the bigger picture of the concept development plan,get feedback from the commission, and then dive into more detail on the detailed development plan. We do not expect a decision at this time,we are expecting a continuance. Brad Perrigo; Executive Director, Compass Oncology explained that they are a medical practice dedicated to the treatment of cancer and the diseases of the blood. They are located in six locations in PDX and Washington. There will be over 80 employees at this location.10 — 15 physicians, 10 or so mid-levels and supporting staff—nurses, therapists, & physicists. He explained that a single story facility is very important to them in terms of patient access because many patients are elderly. Parking is important for the same reasons. He noted many of their patients are being treated by both a medical oncologist, a surgeon, and a radiation oncologist. So having proximity of those specialists in the same hallway on the same floor is very important for the success of that care. Scott Harris,JRJ;Architect, went over the architectural site plan. He went over a site video. He showed pictures of what the building would look like (Exhibit D). He talked about the site plan considerations that went into this specific site. QUESTIONS Was there any consideration of using under-the-building parking? That would be cost prohibitive and would make it two stories,which doesn't meet the needs of the patients. Will you have an MRI Scanner? We will not have an MM scanner. We will have a CT scanner that's integral to our radiation treatment. Would people come to your facility for a life threatening emergency? No, they would not come to us for a life threatening emergency. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR—None. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION —Bill Kabeiseman with Bateman Cydell,was there representing Gordon R. Martin, the trustee of the Tri-County Center Trust - they request a continuance as there was testimony entered in tonight that they would like to be able to review October 17,2016 Page 6 of 12 and rebut. He wants them to reject the concept plan and said the reasons are in the letter (dated 10/13/16) that the commissioners have. He spoke in opposition and believes the future street plan is infeasible and that it doesn't integrate into the neighborhood. Jim Long, 10730 SW 72nd Ave.,Tigard 97223 —is the chair of a CPO that's been around for 40 years and encourages citizen participation. He requests a continuance because he'd like to discuss some of the issues he'd heard about this at the CPO meeting that will occur the following week. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED FOR THE CONCEPT PLAN APPLICANT REBUTTAL Dana Krawczuk, land use council for the applicant, said they want the record to be held open for 14 days for both sides to submit testimony. Reserve seven days for rebuttal; then have a public hearing to consider the concept plan. She said November 14 is probably the date. They would also like to go right into the detail plan at that hearing because ultimately it will be a single decision. In order to be sure that this time period works, they need to hear from the commission —to hear if they think this is the right direction, or if they're seeking something different during this open record period. The open record period will also allow the parties to collaborate. Ms. Krawczuk added later: "We'll extend the 120 day rule according."Regarding retaining walls— some of the larger numbers they'd heard - those were the maximum retaining walls—not an average or the entire site. She said she would like to focus on the road connection and connectivity. A public street is not a foregone conclusion. Both planning and engineering have said connectivity can be provided in a number of ways. They're trying to integrate into the neighborhood and the site but there are limitations. Walmart is one. When they were developed, they didn't provide a public street or a public access easement. To integrate connectivity with that barrier is challenging. She went on to explain, "They are willing to put a link in that chain between 72 and Dartmouth—but only once access over Walmart is granted also. If they were to allow others to go through their property onto Walmart's property, they would be subject to an injunction from Walmart for overburdening that access easement; that is the reality of the situation. Also—if it were to be a street, the alignment to Elmhurst isn't on their property. So they showed (and Engineering agreed) a feasible connection. The standard isn't what is the most feasible, the preferred connection... the direction they are probably going is something other than a public street. The Lean Code shows this as a pedestrian connection—not a public street. There are many visions. The best they can do is provide a future street plan that shows feasibility and that we're not encumbering development, or connectivity—but are providing it to the extent they can on their site. She reiterated that they are pleased to provide an easement so long as reciprocal rights are provided by Walmart. QUESTIONS Have you been in discussions with Walmart with regard to access? We have not, because we have private access. If other people want to take access through our property to Walmart,we think they should be the ones talking to Walmart. And particularly because a lot of this property was held in common at one time, that seems like it could have been a time to figure out some of October 17, 2016 Page 7 of 12 this access —but it wasn't. Now—us as a subsequent purchaser trying to put the access deal— we're not in the best position to do so - and the City could always condemn public access. I'm okay with the concept, but I'm concerned about a 20 foot retaining wall. What is the danger of people falling off of it? There is a steel fence—a safety requirement that would provide protection. There is no entrance there either. The fence is the primary safety factor— and it's a pretty, decorative fence. FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMISSIONERS When you come back on a more detailed development plan, I would like examples to visualize why a 20 foot wall is needed and why a 10 foot wall wouldn't. It would be helpful to have examples of that to help visualize on the detailed portion, once we get to that. Regarding private property rights, I would like to see more effort than what appears to have been made. I believe we have to be very cognoscente when we're potentially impeding someone's ability to use their property. I'd like to better understand how people in the neighborhood would be able to cut across this property to access the Walmart area. I read through portions of your concept plan—does it have 3D models? Yes, and we can submit more of those as well. It's all built out in the model now. I'll commit someone else to do those renderings. Can you show the pedestrian entrance on 72nd in those models if you have drawings. That would be helpful. I would like to see how that pedestrian access would work. Okay. STAFF COMMENTS Gary Pagenstecher said "So November 14th would work—that would allow a 14 day record open for testimony and a 7 day rebuttal period. After that, staff will work up a report. It will still be a two decision action —both the concept plan and the detailed plan. If the commissioners feel that the applicant has responded well to the issues, and there is no objection, then they could approve the concept plan and then, therefore, move on to the detailed plan. If they don't make a decision on the concept plan, then it can't move on that evening. MOTION TO CONTINUE Commissioner Muldoon moved: "Regarding PDR2016-00011 SDR2016-00007 I move that both be continued to a time certain -November 14 - and to keep the public record open for 14 days for written testimony and allow a response of 7 days after that for all interested parties. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Schmidt. October 17,2016 Page 8 of 12 MOTION TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 14 PASSES UNANIMOUSLY PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 2016 OMNIBUS CODE AMENDMENT PACKAGE DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2016-00003 REQUEST: The City of Tigard proposes legislative amendments to the Tigard Development Code (TDC). The proposed legislative amendments would do the following: (1) amend Chapter 18.130 Use Categories to include animal boarding as a personal service use, when completely enclosed in a building; and (2) amend Chapter 18.610 Tigard Downtown Plan District to increase the height from 45 feet to 80 feet within the Main Street Sub-Area; and (3) amend Chapter 18.620 Tigard Triangle Plan District and Chapter 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts to allow multi-family dwelling units within the General Commercial (C-G) and the Mixed Use Employment (MUE) zones in the Tigard Triangle Plan District. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1 (Citizen Involvement), 2 (Land Use Planning), 9 (Economic Development) and Goal 10 (Housing); Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 1, and Title 8; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1.1.2, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.6, 2.1.11, 2.1.21, 2.1.23, 9.1.3, 9.1.12, 9.3.1, 10.1.1, and 10.1.5; and Tigard Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390 STAFF REPORT The staff report is available on-line at the City website one week prior to the hearing. Associate Planner Agnes Kowacz noted that there are three amendments they're looking at— animal boarding. Dog Boarding: ➢ Initiated by City Council ➢ Classified as "Animal-Related Commercial" and prohibited in most commercial zones. Staff researched regulations for this use in surrounding jurisdictions: ➢ Most cities classify animal boarding facilities to be some kind of animal related service use with the exception of Portland, which classifies it more generally as service. ➢ Lake Oswego prohibits these facilities in all commercial zones, Beaverton allows them only through a conditional use review while Hillsboro and Portland allows them in certain commercial zones. ➢ Proposal is to reclassify animal boarding,if completely enclosed, to personal service, which would allow it in most commercial zones. The next amendment is Downtown Tigard Height Limits. ➢ Prior to the establishment of the Downtown Plan District, the zone was known as Central Business District (CBD) with 80 foot height limits. ➢ In 2010, the Downtown Plan district was established with four sub-areas. Two of the four sub-areas retained the 80 foot height limit. ➢ A 45 foot height limit was set due to a perceived visual conflict with existing development. ➢ Existing height limit reduces financial feasibility of new construction. October 17,2016 Page 9 of 12 Ms. Kowacz noted there is a typo that is being fixed in section 18.610.020A1. It's the paragraph that talks about Hwy 99 and the Hall corridor. The paragraph is not consistent with the table on the next page– so we're just cleaning that up. It's striking out 8 stories and replacing it with 45 feet. The last amendment - Multi-Family in the Tigard Triangle ➢ Mixed Use Employment (MUE) and General-Commercial (C-G) make up the Tigard Triangle. ➢ Multi-family is allowed in the MUE zone at 25 units per acre. ➢ Multi-family is permitted in the C-G zone only through a Planned Development review and is limited to only 25% of the gross floor area of a building. ➢ Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan was developed in May of 2015, which emphasize the area as a mixed-use employment area with a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system. ➢ Through this process greater housing choices and greater affordability were emphasized. ➢ The proposed change allows for more affordable housing options in the Triangle. QUESTIONS/COMMENTS I may have concerns about living next to, or above a facility that boards dogs. I have a quiet dog but I know some dogs are very yappy and some cry at night when they're by themselves; that's a concern. Also, by classifying this as personal services they are no longer allowing (inaudible) industrial zones so they might... I don't see why they're not allowing industrial zones when other animal services are allowed in the industrial zone– so that might be unintended consequences for reclassifying them as personal use. I just wanted to raise those issues. Is there a demand for this sort of thing? Yes, the doggy day care facilities like to couple that with overnight boarding. They know their clientele like to use the daycare facilities while they're at work but then when they go on vacation, they know the people and staff and want to board them in the same location. That's why we're seeing more of this. If there was a noise issue can you pull a license? No,if it's allowed and there's a noise issue –and it's a complaint - then we would send code enforcement out to the site and we would do a check. It would be the same noise regulation that applies to all other businesses and residential areas –we would do a check with a noise meter at the property line, and if it's over the limit, then we would cite them through the code compliance process. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR—Rachael Duke Community Partners PO Bo 23206,Tigard spoke in strong support of the amendment. She entered a letter into the record (Exhibit E). Richard Shavey, 11371 SW Sycamore Place, Tigard spoke on building height. He's a retired architect planner and spends lots of time downtown. For years he said he's spoken in favor of density in Downtown. He believes the downtown needs density - not 100's but 1000's of people there. 'We need to increase our likeability to developers. Developers have said they need buildings to be above 45 feet. We need to build up so we're not looking down from Hwy 99. I ask that the height limit be raised to above 80 feet." October 17,2016 Page 10 of 12 Jim Long, 10730 SW 72nd Ave.,Tigard— said he is neither for nor against anything at this time. He's not testifying representing the CPO but will put it on their agenda for the following week. He is in favor of affordable housing, but wants to get other people involved in this. He will have his CPO discuss this at their next meeting. He asked for a continuation so there will be more time for people to get involved and to give more input. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION Bill Kabeiseman,Attorney representing Mr. Martin with Bateman/Seidel at 888 SW 5th Street Portland, OR 97204 was there representing George Martin as a trustee of the Tri-County Trust. They own property at the heart of the Tigard Triangle at the Dartmouth and 72nd area. He echoed the previous speakers request for a continuance and spoke against the third amendment particularly. He argued that there's no focus on how that's going to happen in a way that's consistent with the vision for the Tigard Triangle. The proposal is simply to allow multi-family in the CG Zone. How can that be made consistent with the vision? He said they think the better course is to let it continue as retail but if,in fact, that isn't in the cards —let's do it right. Let's work on it and make sure we get it right. STAFF COMMENTS Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director, said that as far as a continuance — it's up to the commission and how much information they want to hear to make a decision - and how they want to use it. He reminded them that they are making a recommendation to Council so there is another opportunity—but it's totally up to the commission. 'We're not up against a deadline. As far as what the last speaker was saying— that this may not be consistent with the vision for the triangle,we think it does meet the direction that we're moving in the triangle and the Strategic Plan. Mixed use is one way to do it. The direction we're going in the triangle is essentially to allow more freedom to the property owner and the market to decide what the best use for that piece of property is. I also want to remind the commission that this is a Legislative hearing—not Quasi Judicial so you're free to have open discussion." CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING DELIBERATION There was a short discussion about the dog boarding ordinance and also about possibly continuing this discussion to a later date. Vice President Feeney stated that he was in favor of making a recommendation tonight and sending it on to council. They deliberated on all three amendments. One of the main problems was with dog boarding being allowed in residential areas. The discussion turned to changing the ordinance to exclude animal boarding in residential areas. Tom McGuire said, "The easiest way to do that would be to make an amendment to the footnote in the use table. I confirmed while we were talking that a certain amount of it would be also allowed in the IP zone which is the Industrial Park zone (inaudible) office park zone... so of the three industrial zones, that would be the one we would want to encourage it the most in." October 17,2016 Page 11 of 12 Vice President Feeney asked the commissioners to give their opinions —which they did - and it appeared they had a consensus. MOTION (RECOMMENDATION) Commissioner Hu made the following motion: "Regarding DCA2016-00003, I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council of this application and adopt the findings in the staff report and based on the testimony received. With an exception for point number one —we would recommend that the change in ordinance would exclude animal boarding of any kind in residential areas." Commissioner Jelinek seconded the motion. THE VOTE - ALL IN FAVOR NONE OPPOSED RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE WITH THE EXCEPTION - PASSED UNANIMOUSLY OTHER BUSINESS —Tom invited the commissioners to attend the upcoming open house for the Tigard Triangle. He asked if the commissioners would like the new Community Engagement Coordinator (Lauren Scott) come in to talk about the community engagement program and some of the ideas and areas she's been working on. The commissioners said that yes, they would like that very much. ADJOURNMENT Vice President Feeney adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Doreen Laughlin,Planning Commission Secretary A I l EST: Vice President Feeney October 17,2016 Page 12 of 12 SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR l l/t✓i(, Itn S Bateman eidel (DATE OF MEETING) Bill Kabeiseman bi!lkab(aibatemanseidel.com w ne.batemanseidel.com Telephone DID: 503.972.9960 Fax DID: 503.972.9968 October 31, 2016 Tigard City Council do Agnes Kowacz City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97232 Re: Site Development Review(SDR)2016-00007 Dear Commissioners: Adding Multi-family dwelling units to Commercial General Zone Effectively Eliminates Marketability of Adjacent Land as intended for a Commercial General Zone We urge the Council to not adopt the Planning Staffs recommendation to allow multi-family dwelling units within the General Commercial(C-G)zone in the Tigard Triangle Plan District. At the least,the Council should limit its impact on the eight acres shown in red on the attached map as discussed below. In general, adding a major new use to an established zone designation has the potential for unintended adverse impacts on property whether it is developed or not. Each property subject to the new uses allowed by the contemplated change use has unique characteristics and impacts on neighboring property. The blanket commercial general zone use change should be rejected or replaced by a tool that allows such a change after impacts to neighboring property have been either accepted by the neighboring properties or is determined to have no adverse impacts on the neighboring property. Tax lot 300 Adding Multi-family dwelling units to tax lot 300 effectively eliminates the ability of tax lot 401 to attract major retailers onto its site. The proposed zone change allows Multi- family dwelling units to be inserted between Dartmouth Street and tax lot 401. If the current developer has a binding commitment from Compass Oncology(not just a letter of intent), then adding the option to have Multi-family dwelling units on TL300 is less of a concern, but remains a concern until Compass Oncology is on the site as proposed. Tax lots 400 and 402. Adding Multi-family dwelling units on these tax lots effectively eliminates the ability of tax lot 401 to attract major retailers onto its site. The proposed zone change allows Multi-family dwelling units to be inserted between 72nd Avenue and tax lot 401. Also, the connection to 72nd for these two tax lots and TL401 remains unresolved and this adds more complexity to an already difficult problem. The City stated in the Pre-App for TL401 that Batemareidel Tigard City Council October 31, 2016 Page 2 only one commercial connection to 72"d will be allowed in the vicinity and that TL401 must connect to a future connection with 72"d across from Elmhurst Street. Possible Solution to Eliminate Unwanted Adverse Impacts from Proposed Zone Change The proposed change to the code to allow multi-family dwelling units in C-G zone in the Tigard Triangle can be limited and not apply to the 8 acres shown in shaded red on the attached drawings(bounded by Dartmouth,72"d, Wal-Mart,and Hermosa tax lots). This exception makes sense because of the unintended adverse impact it will have on at least one of the tax lots in the 8 acres(adverse impact arises as it is located behind the other tax lots);this area is the focal point of the Triangle—it directly abuts a major retail site and was part of the Dartmouth Street LID. The limitation on the eight acres could be changed in the future,but will eliminate the unintended adverse impact on property that is directly caused by adding Multi-family dwelling units to a traditional commercial general zone. Very truly yours, 7 jF1_ Bill Kabeiseman BK: cc: client Bateman,e1dei Fax DID: 503.972.9968 Tigard Planning Commission City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97232 October 13,2016 Re: Item#7-2016 Omnibus Development Code Amendment Package Development Code Amendment(DCA)2016-00003 Dear President Fitzgerald and Commissioners: This firm represents Gordon R.Martin,Trustee of the Tri-County Center Trust(the"Trust"), which owns property within the Tigard Triangle and who would be affected by the code changes proposed in the above referenced item. Please accept these comments into the record and consider them at your October 17,2016,hearing on this matter. For the reasons discussed below,we urge the Commission to not recommend adoption of the changes to allow mutli- family residential on C-G zoned land in the Tigard Triangle. The omnibus Development Code Amendments involve a number of proposed changes to the Tigard Community Development Code,but our concerns are specifically regarding the third aspect of the request—the proposal to amend CDC Chapter 18.620 Tigard Triangle Plan District and Chapter 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts to allow multi-family dwelling units within the General Commercial(C-G) and the Mixed Use Employment(MUE)zones in the Tigard Triangle Plan District. This letter identifies several issues,but is also supplemented by a copy of the March 30,2015, letter sent by Steve Martin to Cheryl Caines,attached as Exhibit 1. The issues identified in that letter still have not been addressed and the Planning Commission should consider those issues before taking any further action on this matter. To set the context for this request,it is important to note there arc now approximately 28 underdeveloped CG acres within the Tigard Triangle. Of that total, at least 10 acres have wetlands, creeks or other concerns or restrictions related to wetlands and water. Of the remaining 18 underdeveloped CG acres in the Triangle about 8 acres are in excellent position near the focal point of the Tigard Triangle(the Dartmouth Street/72nd Avenue intersection) and adjacent to a major retail area and the core retail area of the Tigard Triangle. These approximate eight acres consist of TL100,TL101,TL300,TL400,TL401, and TL402. These tax lots are essentially bounded by Wal-Mart,Dartmouth Street,72nd Avenue,and the Hermosa lots. As a percentage,this represents about half the available underdeveloped CG acreage in the Tigard Bateman, October 13,2016 Page 2 Triangle, It also represents almost all of the best located CG acreage in the Triangle,if not the entire Portland region. Because of that concentration of acreage,the proposed addition of Multi- dwelling units to areas zoned CG will primarily affects the underdeveloped acres near the focal point of the Triangle. Amending the district to allow multi-family dwelling units will have a significant impact on the development of the Triangle and would allow the development of property to have a completely different purpose,buildings,setbacks, and landscape than CG without the possibility of multi- family dwelling units. Any new setbacks required because of the zone change could also cause a loss in value to TL100 as well as TL401. The reality is that retailers prefer to locate within retail areas. Adding multi-family dwelling units will destroy the atmosphere of the big box retail center area that can currently be developed and is expected adjacent to Wal-Mart. Further,if TL300 is allowed to, and does,build multi- dwelling units,this will adversely affect the ability of TL401 to attract big box retailers as it will be located behind multi-family dwelling units. In effect,this would force TL401 to forego big box and other retail development and be left with little choice but to consider primarily multi- family dwelling units or office use,which is contrary to the vision in the recently adopted Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan,adopted in 2015. It is also contrary to the substantial assessments that were paid to the Dartmouth Street LID in anticipation of attracting major retailers. The proposed change to the CG zoning will cause real financial damage to some CG zoned land by significantly reducing its marketability as retail and especially big box retail. The purpose behind zoning is to keep like uses next to each other and this proposal throws this concept out the door. Development has not previously occurred largely due the size of the development area and the traffic capacity of the Triangle Portals that was recently increased with Wal-Mart funding. Also,allowing multi-family dwelling units on CG zoned land could result in retail on TL401 and TL100 surrounding a residential area,which would not be beneficial to either the retail or the residential area. Attracting a big box retailer to'11,401 will require that TL300 cannot have the option to develop as multi-family dwelling units. This result should only occur with the concurrence of all the property owners that could be negatively affected, otherwise it should not be applied to the underdeveloped CG zoned land in the focal point of the Triangle that was subject to the Dartmouth Street LID. The allowance of new uses also ignores the history of how the Triangle developed. The 8 acres of CG land near the focal point of the Triangle donated 20 feet of ROW along 72nd Avenue and Dartmouth Street to the City because the land was zoned CG and could he developed as big box retail.. Perhaps more importantly,most of the 8 acres of underdeveloped land near the focal point of the Triangle were subject to significant assessments to pay for the construction of Dartmouth Street as it now exists. The assessments were based upon Iand arca that was also zoned Commercial General—residential properties were not subject to assessment. Adding multi- family dwelling units will create a significant change that should only be considered with the concurrence of the adjacent property owners that paid into the Dartmouth LID. Property that Batemaieidel October 13,2016 Page 3 was assessed as Commercial General could essentially be forced(due to retail considerations)to consider only multi-family uses because adjacent property built multi-family dwelling units and this amounts to an unintended restriction being placed upon CG zoned property that was expected to promote and become office or big box retail. Moreover, allowing for this type of development will impact some lots more than others. For example, allowing a residential or a mixed use on Tr.,300 will block the view of TL401 from Dartmouth Street,making it much less attractive for retail use due to a non-retail atmosphere if next to multi-family dwelling units. This is in part due the view corridor to the site being blocked by multi-family dwelling units due to different building standards than office or retail would have. In summary,changing the zoning in the Triangle to allow for multi-family housing will have real impacts on current property owners who made significant sacrifices to encourage the development of the Triangle. This change should not be made without fully understanding the ramifications and impacts caused by these changes. Accordingly,we ask the Commission to not recommend approval of the third aspect of these proposed code changes at this time. Very truly yours, 1 .,,,,/ Bill Kabeiseman BK: cc: 11.1e14w►R«W-with logo.doc Cheryl Caines Associate Planner City of Tigard March 30,2015 Hello Cheryl, The following analysis and review of the December 2014 Draft of the Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan Option 2, reveals severe problems are expected with the implementation of the Plan as currently envisioned. The interim period between build-out today and full build-out will likely see development stopped due to inadequate Triangle traffic portal capacity. Determining and increasing the Triangle portal capacity is essential to effectively address development density limitations in the Triangle MUE zone,whereas allocation of development density is best kept fair by equally sharing it amongst all MUE property. The Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan Option 2 proposed zone changes and their effect from an acreage viewpoint in relation to the approximate 375 (CG and MUE zone as shown within the Triangle of the Plan)acres in the City of Tigard portion of the Tigard Triangle is summarized as follows: ✓ A new zone designated as MUT(Mixed-Use Triangle)be established and the existing MUE (Mixed Use Employment)zone is converted to MUT thus leaving two primary type zones in the Triangle MUT&CG. V' The new MUT zone is to have four subareas as follows: [al a MUT-MU(Mixed Use Triangle- Mixed Use Residential); [b]a Mi.7T-MUC(Mixed Use Triangle-Mixed Use Core); [c]a MUT- CR(Mixed Use Triangle-Core Residential; and[d] a MUT-CS (Mixed Use Triangle-Campus); ✓ Using rough estimates since I was unable to locate precise acreage totals,out of a total of about 200 acres in the existing MUE zone about 56 acres are to be rezoned to the said new MUT-MU subarea, about 65 acres are to be rezoned to the new MUT MUC subarea,about 37 acres are to be rezoned to the new MUT-CR subarea,and about 42 acres arc to be rezoned to the new MUT-CS subarea; ✓ Again using rough estimates, out of a total of about 175 acres in the existing CG zone, approximately 34%of it will be rezoned. Roughly, about 49 acres are to be rezoned to the new MUT-MU subarea,and about 11 acres are to be rezoned to the MUT-MUC subarea. Of the approximate total 60 acres of CG zoned land to be rezoned,there are about 51 acres of developed CG land to be rezoned to MUT, about 1 acre of underdeveloped land with an approved project to be rezoned to MUT,and about 8 acres of underdeveloped CG land to be rezoned to MUT. For reasons that should become clearer after reading this document and my 3/30/15 response to your comments on issues regarding the Plan,and regardless of the rough estimates used,the existing MUE development restrictions should remain in place until a full traffic engineering study(without conflict of interests)of the Triangle portal traffic capacity has been completed that will aid in adjusting the restrictions. Restrictions should be based upon the existing road conditions,not planned and hoped for changes that: are not completely approved by all agencies that may be involved;have not secured needed ROW;and are unfunded. EXHIBIT 1 2 Table 1 below refers to key components of the Triangle Strategic Plan Option 2 and presents an overall perspective of the total Triangle acreage zones and subareas with development density restrictions. Table 1. Key Triangle Changes to Zones and Development Density Restrictions for CG,MUE,and MUT Subareas1'2 . ,��,-k MUTSubareas CG MUE MUT-MUC MUT-MU MUT-CR MUT-CS Commerical General Mixed Use Mixed Use Care Mixed Use Core Residential Campus Employment Residential Acres Before 175 ac. 200 ac. 0 0 0 0 Rezoning (28 underdeveloped) (20 underdeveloped) (48 underdev.) Acres After 115 ac. 0 76 acres 105 acres 37 acres 42 acres Rezoning (19 underdeveioped3) (8 underdeveloped) (18 underdeveloped) (3 underdeveloped) (0 underdeveloped) (48 underdev.) CG Acres 60 ac. 11 acres 49 acres Rezoned (9 underdeveloped) (0 underdeveloped) (9 underdeveloped) MUE Acres 200 ac. 65 acres 56 acres 37 acres 42 acres Rezoned (20 underdeveloped) (8 underdeveloped) (9 underdeveloped) (3 underdeveloped) (0 underdeveloped) Max dwelling 25%of Total 25 du No Maximum 50 du 30 du No Maximum units per acre Gross Floor Area Building 45' 45' 75' 55' 55' 75' Height FAR None 0.4:1 None None None None (1) All zone areas are approximations based upon aerial maps and the Triangle Strategic Plan zone maps(street ROW and wetlands are Inducted in most estimates). (2) All underdeveloped acres are estimates(based on aerial maps,the Triangle Strategic Plan zone maps,and onsite visual Inspection)that Included only vacant or mostly vacant land. Not included in the underdeveloped acreage estimates that would otherwise include over 25 acres more:small lots with occupied structures that are expected to be consolidated and the large parking lot areas that are expected to be replaced with parking structures to create additional buildable areas. (3) Over 10 acres of the 19 acres of underdeveloped CG zoned land after rezoning is subject to wetland and water restrictions. Important concerns clearly still exist regarding the December 2014,Draft Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan; concerns that are the result of several very significant suppositions and presumptions that are currently doubtful,problematic,and/or without settled opinion as exemplified by our exchange of comments in the attachment and in this e-mail. Chapter 4 of the Draft Triangle Strategic Plan creates more questions than it provides answers. For analysis purposes seemingly to justify removing the existing FAR,the chapter appears to show the FAR ratios that can be accommodated after the improvements and zone changes are made. Essentially, for such set of circumstances, it shows a FAR ratio of 1:1 in the MUT-MU subarea and 1.5:1 in the MUT-MUC subarea and assumes there will be no office use in the MUT-M[3,and 20% office use in the MU'l'-MUC. Residential was increased in the existing MUE from 25du/acre to 30dulacre in MUT-CR,to 5Odu/acre in MUT-MU,and is unlimited in MUT-MUC and MUT-CS. It should be noted that there appears to be more than one name used in the Plan and code to describe the subareas of MUT, so it is important to refer to the development density represented by each subarea name. 3 The Plan's recommended immediate increases in development densities raises the following questions: 1. Since the increased MUE development density apparently depends upon the existence of a new bridge at Beveland and 74th, does this imply the analysis is reliant upon HCT since the future bridge is largely dependent upon HCT? 2. If portal traffic capacity to the Triangle is not increased as presumed by future improvements,what FAR is supportable in the MUE or MUT(if MUE is converted)zone? 3. If portal traffic capacity to the Triangle is not increased as presumed it will be,what residential is supportable in the MUE or MUT zone? 4. What FAR is supportable in the MUE or MUT zone with office use at 100%rather than 0% or 20%? 5. What FAR and residential density is supportable if none of the approximately 8 acres of primary undeveloped CG property without an approved project is rezoned to MUE or MUT? 6. What FAR and residential density is supportable if none of the approximately 60 acres of CG property is rezoned to MUE or MUT? 7. When does the Plan expect the approximate 52 acres of developed CG property to have a different effect on traffic than it already has? 8. Why does the Plan rezone to MUT approximately 8 acres of the only centrally located contiguous undeveloped CG property in the Triangle that is also adjacent to CG zoned land and bordered by the two main roads in the Triangle? 9. If about 34 acres of developed CO zoned land consisting of Winco,Babies R'US,Office Max, and the cinema are to be rezoned to MUT,then why isn't Costco,Wal-Mart,the office building at the west end of Beveland,and Lowes also rezoned? 10. Should any CG zoned land be rezoned to MUT since it appears that either all CG zoned land should be rezoned or none at all? 11. Why are 9 acres consisting of four small isolated areas of undeveloped CG zoned land adjacent to the MUT zone not included in the MUT zone even if it is used as open space? 12. Why isn't about 10 acres of CG zoned land which is largely wetland south of Costco included in the MUT zone even if it is used as open space? 13. Since the Triangle Strategic Plan assumes a very low percentage of office use,should a FAR be implemented that reflects the low percentage use scenario to assure all property can develop? 14.Does the Plan expect the WinCo development to redevelop within the 20 years the Plan is supposed to focus on,or does it contemplate its redevelopment in a more realistic 60 years? 15.How much of the additional traffic into the Triangle from the presumed future bridge at Beveland is expected to pass through the Triangle and consequently offset the overall portal capacity increase it is presumed to provide? 16. Shouldn't the Fields property plans be factored into the traffic analysis? 17. Is it considered fair financially or otherwise,to vary development density limiting restrictions between subareas of the MUT zone that are essentially within a few hundred feet of each other? 18.Where can the detailed traffic study with its assumptions be accessed? 19.Ilow much traffic from development outside the Triangle such as from the Fields property along Hunziker,and the general area south of the Triangle including development along Bonita,is expected to use up the Triangle portal capacity? 4 20. Should only Triangle land be subject to the FAR and dwelling unit restriction even though development outside the Triangle will also contribute traffic that uses up limited Triangle portal capacity? Without the results of a traffic engineering study that has independently analyzed the portal capacity of the Triangle to help answer the above basic questions and others,the Triangle FAR and residential restrictions should remain unchanged. Property that is not among the first to obtain development permits canexpect to be left unable to develop at all because of its inability to meet minimum traffic study standards—the potential inability to develop exposes property unnecessarily to damages arising from the FAR removal and increased development density. Unless the portal capacity has been physically increased by the hoped for road improvements assumed by the Plan, and/or office use throughout MUE or MUT area is extremely restricted,the existing FAR and residential restrictions should not be changed. The Triangle Strategic Plan does not appear to effectively address the capacity problem at the portals that are expected to grow worse soon after the FAR is eliminated and residential density is increased. There arc approximately 8 undeveloped acres of centrally located CG property in the Triangle that will be affected by the proposed zone conversion to MUE or MUT,whereas most of the approximately 52 acres of developed(including 1 acre of soon to he developed property) CG property converted to MUE or MUT may not redevelop for many decades and will probably want to remain as CG zoned property. The 8 undeveloped acres of CG zoned property represents about 13%of the CG property to be rezoned.Until the 52 acres of CG property redevelops,the rezoning is unlikely to have much effect on traffic within the Triangle.To my knowledge WinCo is not intending to close its store,or change any of its shopping area into residential during the next half century. Traffic capacity at the portals is not increased by attempting to manage development and its associated traffic by changing zoning designations and increasing allowed residential densities. It is doubtful whether eliminating the FAR approach will effectively ensure that development capacity of the Triangle is spread fairly throughout the MUE or MUT zone. The Plan proposes to remove FAR restrictions and increase residential density based on studies that show the established restrictions will not be needed. It appears that the Plan recommendations overlook the requirement that projects show an acceptable level of service at the portals. Since the remaining traffic capacity of the Triangle portals is limited,an immediate consequence of this is the retail, office, or residential per acre that can be developed in the Triangle is also limited. What happens when traffic studies no longer can show an acceptable level of service at the portals?Will traffic studies no longer be required to show an acceptable level of service at the portals? It appears that the Triangle Strategic Plan indirectly proposes that all remaining development capacity in the Triangle be based upon a first come, first served approach. After the remaining traffic capacity of the portals has been used up more rapidly by the removal of the FAR,will all future development be halted until the portal traffic capacity is increased? 5 It is clear the Triangle is enclosed by 1-5,Hwy 217,and Pacific Hwy,however,what is not clear is that there is a limited number of portals to the Triangle that provide ingress and/or egress. The effect of this restriction is profound due to the requirement that projects in the Triangle are required to show an acceptable level of service is maintained at the portals to the Triangle. Merely showing that traffic in the immediate vicinity of a project is acceptable is not enough. Some of the main issues,concerns, and suggestions from my 3/30/15 response regarding the December 2014,Draft Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan are: • The Plan is likely to have unfair consequences unless various issues are addressed before its implementation due to proposed changes that are based upon suppositions unlikely to occur for at least another decade or two,if ever. • To minimize the effect of downzoning property converted from CG to MUE or MUT,such downzoned property should retain their exclusion from GLA Iimitations,Pad sizes, and existing or future FAR restrictions that may be imposed. • What will happen when future development projects cannot generate traffic studies that show an acceptable level of service at the Triangle portals. Will they need to wait until portal capacity is increased at an unknown time in the future? Since the cost to increase portal capacity cannot be expected to be financed by a single project as with Wal-Mart,what will be the alternative? • A corollary to the above concern is related to Triangle development capacity that is limited by the portal traffic capacity. The potential to concentrate the limited remaining development capacity of the'iiiangle into a few properties is an undesired by-product of the current Plan. There does not appear to he a workable mechanism within the Triangle Strategic Plan that prevents a few MUE properties from using up all the portal traffic capacity of the Triangle. Currently,development capacity is limited and distributed throughout the MUE area by the use of a Floor Area Ratio of 0.4:1 and the R-25 designation(medium high-density residential district). • After the portal capacity is used up,the Triangle MUT or MUE area is likely to face another imposed.FAR or no longer be allowed to develop until High Capacity Transit,the new bridge at Beveland, and the removal of the Winco building to make way for 74th, can be guaranteed to occur on a timely basis. Without a traffic analysis update of all portal capacity in the Triangle that also examines how much office,retail,and residential(of varying du/acre) is possible per acre within the Triangle, it is not possible to know when new development restrictions might be imposed and they are likely to be far worse than a FAR of 0.4:1 especially if the existing restrictions have been temporarily removed. • The possibility of unfair consequences that arise from allowing development to occur without any FAR and residential restriction makes it essential to know beforehand the results of a portal capacity based traffic study for the Triangle. Until such a study is completed that also specifies the amount of development capacity that is possible,the Triangle Strategic Plan should retain the existing development restrictions. Of course restrictions can be later adapted to the results 6 of the portal capacity traffic study which should also analyze possible new Triangle portals and improvements to those that already exist. Due to the importance of updating the last traffic study that examined the overall Triangle portal capacities we contacted a locally based highly respected traffic engineering firm with extensive experience in the Triangle to explore the cost of an update funded by us to aid in the decision facing Triangle property owners as to whether the FAR and residential density restrictions should be altered. All Triangle property owners would benefit from the results of the study since there would no Ionger be any ambiguity as to how much retail, office, or residential is possible in the Triangle. However,the firm,of which we are a client,and which completed the last known inclusive Triangle portal capacity study that we can find to be available,informed us it could not perform such a study due to a conflict of interest the firm felt it may have within the Triangle. Apparently there are serious complications with regards to the Triangle portals. Despite its importance to the Triangle,due to conflicts of interest seemingly related to portal deficiencies, it may be difficult for the City to find an appropriate traffic engineering firm to study the Triangle portal capacity and potential portal improvements that has no conflict of interest. It should be obvious to anyone objectively considering the numerous subject areas addressed by this email and its attachment,that the proposed Plan should be put on hold,and/or an interim plan be created that retains the existing development restrictions and zoning until traffic capacity at the portals has been fully studied with various build-out scenarios and new portals considered wherever possible. After such a study,physical portal capacity improvements that have been funded can be used to make appropriate changes to the development density. Before the Draft Triangle Strategic Plan is implemented,there are many major issues to resolve. Triangle traffic portal capacity is not resolved by the Plan. The Plan does not take into account what will occur during the transition from existing conditions to the hoped for future conditions. The interim or transition period could last for many decades due to uncertain suppositions and the extremely long term view taken by the Plan. The Plan is clearly based upon uncertain to occur events long in the future as the basis for major immediate changes in development densities. Meanwhile, upon the expected resurrection of a much more restrictive FAR on development after the portal capacity is used up,the Triangle will again be further limited in its development. That is,if future events do not occur as it is prematurely presumed they will,the Plan amplifies unwanted and unfair results perhaps indefinitely. Development density restrictions such as the PAR and R-25 residential should not be altered until it is shown by an objective traffic capacity study that does not favor any particular position,that there is enough portal capacity in the Triangle to support the change for all MIIF.and/or MUT Triangle property throughout the entire interim from build-out as it exists today up until full build-out conditions. Option 2 of the Plan proposes that the 0.4:1 FAR be removed from about 200 acres of MUE as well as an increase in the number of dwelling units per acre. This not only provides a greater possibility of redevelopment than under current zoning due to economic feasibility considerations, it would allow much more development than under the present zoning and development restrictions provided traffic portal capacity is not reached—the problem is portal capacity is unknown and it will likely be used up long before the full build-out assumptions of the Plan are reached. 7 If the proposed development density restrictions are implemented as intended in Option 2, out of 200 acres, a few acres of high density office has the potential to quickly use up all the portal capacity and cause significant damage to the rest of the Triangle if the presumed improvements that affect portal capacity do not occur. Sincerely, Steve Martin Triangle CAC member Triangle resident Landowner representative Page 1 of 3 Larger Major Chain retailers want to be --SW-Baylor–St—I--_ grouped together and seen. The last of the ,= ,W,, Major Retailers Commercial 'available CG zoned land suitable for major General Retail Site t retailers in the Triangle (if not the Tualatin, ' Tigard, and Beaverton area) is the 8 acre `� site shown in red shade. . - .- - • R y •,_ =.-, {�" ,' rii --SW Clinton St .4 _ ,. _......._L-------__ ! ;` - _ - = Approximate 8 acres of . : : 81 ' f _ i Underdeveloped Commercial "� `- . ! General land within one of the - '` _ main Retail areas of the _ !1 Triangle. 00(E_. — -4 ," 4 0- . , • • - - I' EL 4111--1---111-4 , , _ ..... „.... . . \ i t _ _ T1300 m ' d _ TL400 ° �'o h . ; :z_ . t _p. -`S L St^d EIr nw st St �+�. . TL401 I .'L' '( \ ''9c,), 3 za ` - . _ yip TL402 ' ' _ G � 'nil , ua. • - yoy, ,16•poagle :I f �.w• 11 ', echtli�._,,, -�. ,.,..1 •11111,. -_ 1 Google Earth 714.1 �.2016 E�ropa TechndlBgieS�Y � . 11 tri I r `4 / — �.. Page 2 of 3 Adding Multi-family dwelling Units to CG can significantly affect the -a-- �s - =�` ability of some tax lots to reach their highest and best use. =! '-. aft,., J ` Understanding retail site synergy and view corridors are essential. In this instance, Multi-family significantly and adversely affects the ability to attract other major retailers onto the adjacent site as shown. s �/ i � ltii - �� �; IF Option to build Multi-Family in - - �- Green areas \ ti -- - mon. - •-•— _ ------ - I - In ill .. .., - ,. _._:. . 1 • 9 • 9- 1 -ilin' Multi-family on adjacent land disconnects this • • _ , • e s �, tax lot from the overall larger Major retail N—SW-Elrnhur-st-Sc ' .. ° _ - - "—+�n -. store site. Site synergy and atmosphere is �, - �"'� Q91 broken if Multi-family is inserted between I Y �� ��� Dartmouth Street and this tax lot. I '' _ _ -ini � This tax lot effectively loses its ability to , • attract major retailers. Uses are Limited by il 1 --74711Q57.77. Google Earth adding the Multi-family option to CG. Page 3 of 3 Adding Multi-family dwelling Units to CG can significantly affect the 4 ability of some tax lots to reach their highest and best use. --4 --- ''===-, Understanding retail site synergy and view corridors are essential. In ,.................._411...44,.„4_434n. �T -� = �/ tn,o�,�� ` this instance, Multi-family does not significantly affect the ability to _ "®F attract major retailers on the adjacent sites. However, retail instead - _ „seposim7eresemmillr-.. _ �` of Multi-family would benefit the overall synergy of the site. — . s 2 ill ii__ — _ + Major retail,small retail, office, -11 _ - _- Multi-Family remain attractive. connectivity of major retail _ " : -• _ - synergy and atmosphere not ,f. -- broken.- - — — broken. Does not Limit Site ability /0—MIT, '"' "" to attract major retailers. Uses have NOT been limited. cm In M I I pill W 11i Il m-IBImill � 1 it 'll " I ill ll - Retail,Office, , :1:7-91111111 - - .•. - 11 Multi-Family —S W- I I Y E mhurst-St n - • tet; _ - ( , � Use NOT Limited I I n ►�dl :1;1111:":1 � �� .I�� ",. .-.___ - � __ . O 2016 Europa Tec�oroy�s. _ ©2016 Google ' • -. . -- ---; - .;�;�m-' rr . Google Earth Testimony for raising the height limit in Downtown Tigard 11/01/2016 It is very important to raise the height limit in Downtown Tigard back to 80 feet. I agree with the staff recommendation that it will make the area more financially feasible. I also see three planning objectives that also will be met. 1. We need more people living in Downtown. We currently have hundreds of people and we need thousands of people living there. We need to raise the height to increase the density for housing. 2. We need to raise the height to give housing developers another incentive to add to their toolbox for development. The more incentives we give to developers, the sooner they will come to Downtown Tigard to develop projects. We need to raise the height limit to create another incentive for developers. 3. Every day thousands of people drive through Tigard on Highway 99W and look "down" on the Downtown area. When you are looking "down" on anything you are looking "down" on it. "It is down there and not as good because it is "down" there. It is seen as less. We want to look out and up at Downtown. We need to raise the height limit so we are not looking "down" on Downtown Tigard. It is very important to raise the height limit in Downtown Tigard back to 80 feet. Submitted by: Richard Shavey 11371 SW Sycamore Pl. Tigard, OR 97223 SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR i/-/- o/` (DATE OF MEETING) SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR ti f . 2°16 (DATE OF MEETING) Community Housing Fund Au3700 SW Murray Blvd.,#190 ,/-t-g � � Beaverton,OR 97005 503.846.5794 . November 1,2016.;. •..., City of Tigard • Mayor John L. Cook And City Council Members 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 • RE: Comments in Support of Omnibus Code Amendment Package DCA 2016-0003 . Text Amendments to Chapter 18.620/Tigard Triangle Plan District and 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts Dear Mayor Cook and City Council Members: The Community Housing Fund would like to express its support for the amendments you will consider tonight, as referenced above.As a member of the Citizen Advisory Committee that helped develop the Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan, it is exciting to see this plan move into its implementation phase! The goals set out:to create a mixed-use,pedestrian-oriented district for people to live,work, shop and recreate in, and to facilitate redevelopment in the Triangle by minimizing regulation, have been captured in the work to date. In support of multifamily dwelling units within the C-G (General Commercial)zone,we would ask that you consider the following: • The Tigard Triangle is a key area within the SW Corridor—which is projected to add 75,000 residents and 60,000 jobs by 2040. • This area is growing quickly, and is already congested. Locating a mix of housing near jobs and transit is an excellent strategy to help manage growth in walkable and transit- friendly neighborhoods where residents need not own or drive cars. • It is an equitable approach to provide housing in high-opportunity neighborhoods(near jobs,transit and educational facilities), like the Triangle. • Washington County, overall, has a deficit of at least 14,000 housing units affordable to those of modest means (at or below 60%of area median income).Tigard has only about 700 units of"regulated affordable" housing today,and the County overall about 7,300— so a very big deficit to address. • Our region's unprecedented crisis in housing availability and affordability requires that all jurisdictions examine their land use regulations,with an eye towards addressing this • '''' housing market shortfall. We know that many of the people who work in Tigard cannot currently afford to live in the City,some commuting from long distances. Others who have lived in Tigard for many years are being pushed out as apartment rents are rapidly escalating. • While there are parcels in the Triangle which have been vacant for decades, a variety of barriers have impacted development.The code amendments you are considering will help provide flexibility for a mix of uses which includes housing. Given that we are experiencing vacancy rates of 2%and below(much more tightly constrained than other commercial uses),time is of the essence in allowing for and promoting much needed residential development. The City of Tigard has demonstrated leadership in Washington County when it comes to planning for and supporting affordable housing.The City's motto ("a place to call home") is as important in the Triangle as it is throughout the City.Thank you for reflecting this, once again, in the policies you consider and adopt. Sincerely, • �2w f Sheila Greenlaw-Fink Executive Director .1 . AGENDA ITEM No. 5 Date: November 1, 2016 TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: Legislative Public Hearing — 2016 OMNIBUS CODE AMENDMENT PACKAGE This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony A , AGENDA ITEM No. 5 Date: November 1, 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 ofpersons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Proponent—(Speaking In Favor) Opponent—(Speaking Against) Neutral Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. \ l.rhAle ( LU t°r U ���"r Po b T K,T9 ( ? t Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. ` Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. AIS-2814 6. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 11/01/2016 Length (in minutes): 30 Minutes Agenda Title: Present Policy and Implementation Relating to Transient Lodging Tax Prepared For: Toby LaFrance, Finance and Information Services Submitted By: Kelly Burgoyne, Central Services Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE A discussion of the issues and steps related to implementation of a proposed local Transient Lodging Tax in Tigard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff requests direction on next steps regarding implementation of a proposed local transient lodging tax. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY During the Budget Committee deliberations for the FY 2016-17 budget, the committee discussed a local transient lodging tax. The tax would be a General Fund revenue that could be used to support $40,000 for the Tigard Downtown Affiance in the FY 2016-17 Budget. Attached to this Agenda Item Summary are the following documents: 1. A presentation on TLT that was made at the LOC conference. The presentation covers local and state issues on TLT. This presentation provides excellent background on laws and issues related to TLT implementation and uses. 2. Draft Ordinance that Council could use at a future date to implement the TLT 3. Draft Tigard Municipal Code that Council could pass via the Ordinance to establish the TLT 4. List of the 88 Oregon Cities that currently have a TLT, sorted by the rate set by the cities. The lowest city rate in the state is 3%, the highest is 12% and the average is 7.5%. Some key points for Council discussion include: 1. How much of a tax to levy. The attached document shows the current range of tax rates. Beaverton just implemented a 4% TLT. For each 1°/0 levied in Tigard, there will be $230,000 to $260,000 in revenue. 2. Collection by Washington County via an IGA. The attached ordinance permits both collection by the city or by an IGA. Washington County already collects the county TLT and is willing to collect Tigard's TLT. Washington County currently collects quarterly. They have been provided with the draft TMC to discover if there are areas of the code that would create administrative difficulties. Beaverton has an IGA with Washington County to collect their local TLT. 3. The state allows a 5% collection fee to be retained by the lodging provider. Council could allow a larger percentage. This is in section 3.85.150 of the proposed TMC. 4. Cities can require registration. This is covered in section 3.85.070 of the proposed TMC, requiring registration and a "Certificate of Authority" that would be posted similar to a business license or alarm permit. 5. Penalties for non-compliance are set in section 3.85.090. 6. Section 3.85.140 of the proposed TMC sets the use of the TLT funds as "general funds of the City and may be used in any lawful manner, as prescribed by state law." Under current state law, at least 70% of TLT collected needs to go to tourism promotion or tourism related facilities. Some examples in Tigard include, Tigard Downtown Affiance support, support of the Chamber of Commerce, activities of the Economic Development Division, and construction of the Tigard Heritage Trail. The remaining 30% can be used for general governmental activities. Staff will provide an update on initial community outreach efforts and seek guidance on next steps at the meeting. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council could determine to forgo a transient lodging tax and find an alternate funding source for the Tigard Downtown Affiance. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS Provide recreation opportunities for people of Tigard. Make Downtown Tigard a place where people want to be. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Budget Committee Meetings in April and May 2016. Attachments LOC Presentation on TLT Draft Ordinance Draft TMC 3.85 LOC list of Cities with TLT TRAVEL gi OREGON] '°^C ',iim : ew erg LEAGUE It .-la. C/TIES COR% LLIS Zrr State and Local Lodging Taxes Facilitator: • Bob Andrews, Mayor, Newberg Panelists: • Nancy Brewer, Finance Director, Corvallis • Wendy Johnson, Intergovernmental Relations Associate, LOC • Eric King, City Manager, Bend and/or Kevney Dugan, Executive Director, Visit Bend •Scott West, Chief Strategy Officer, Travel Oregon LEAGUE °'Oregon Local Lodging Tax... Basic Facts ( 1) CITIES • Lodging taxes are a local option. • 2015 report counted 85 of the 242 cities and 15 of the 36 counties with a local lodging tax. • Tax must be computed on the total retail price. • Tax generally is a percentage of lodging charges incurred by the customer. (Some may do a flat fee.) • Tax rates vary as they are is set by individual jurisdictions. Tax rate ranges are 2% to 13.5%. (Most are 6-9%.) fidiCi L Oregon CITIES Local Lodging Tax... Basic Facts (2) • Subject to tax: Facilities that are taxed vary by jurisdiction but most seem to apply state definitions and exemptions. (Exemption of private rental houses seems most common.) • Timing: Collection schedule requirements are set by local jurisdiction-some are quarterly and some are monthly. • Where to file: With each taxing jurisdiction. However, some counties and cities have agreements to collect for each other or share revenues. Working to allow IGA for DOR collection of local tax. • Registration: Varies by jurisdiction as local government sets own registration and/or licensing requirements for lodging providers and collectors of tax. LEAGUE 0.'Oregon State Regulation of Local Lodging Tax (1) CITIES • Collector reimbursement charges: Since Jan. 1, 2001: Any reimbursement deduction given to a lodging tax filer must be maintained AND If increase tax, must allow a lodging tax collector at least a 5% deduction from taxes ROA GUE LA Oregon State Regulation of Local Lodging Tax (2) CITIES Use of local transient lodging tax revenues: May not decrease percentage of total TLT revenues that were actually expended or agreed to be expended to fund "tourism promotion" or "tourism-related facilities" as of July 2, 2003. (Thus, this percentage varies from city to city as , percentage is frozen at 2003 rate.) • Exception: if local government financing debt with TLT revenues on Nov. 26, 2003, must continue to finance debt until retirement of debt. OEAGUE Qon State Regulation of Local Lodging Tax (3) CITIES And, if local government increases lodging tax or imposes a new tax: • 70% of net revenue from the new or increased tax shall be used for: "tourism promotion" or "tourism-related facilities" or finance/refinance debt of "tourism-related facilities" • No more than 30% may used to fund city or county services (Thus, total percentage of local tax revenues that are restricted to tourism is highly variable around the state. Add two numbers.) LEAGUE 4 Key Definitions: (ORS 320.300) : CITIES #1 (7) "Tourism promotion " means any of the following activities: (a) Advertising, publicizing or distributing information for the purpose of attracting and welcoming tourists; (b) Conducting strategic planning and research necessary to stimulate future tourism development; (c) Operating tourism promotion agencies; and (d) Marketing special events and festivals designed to attract tourists. *But note, with HB 4146, the state has moved away from "state marketing tourism program" use of state lodging tax dollars to "state tourism program." gie‘i ';T QLEAEs 4 Key Definitions: (ORS 320.300) #2 (9) "Tourism-related facility " means: (a) A conference center, convention center or visitor information center; and (b) Other improved real property that has a useful life of 10 or more years and has a substantial purpose of supporting tourism or accommodating tourist activities. • Subsection (b) is the catch-all permitted use of revenues in the 70% category. Is was intended to provide some flexibility. Still, it isn't as flexible as cities would like. • It has 3 components to qualify: 1) real property; 2) useful life of 10 or more years; and 3) substantial purpose of supporting tourism or accommodating tourist activities. LEAGUE oi CITIEon S 4 Key Definitions: (ORS 320.300) #3 & 4 (6) "Tourism" means economic activity resulting from tourists. (10) "Tourist" means a person who, for business, pleasure, recreation or participation in events related to the arts, heritage or culture, travels from the community in which that person is a resident to a different community that is separate, distinct from and unrelated to the person's community of residence, and that trip: (a) Requires the person to travel more than 50 miles from the community of residence; or (b) Includes an overnight stay. ititA Atew - 1**- 't% IEAGUE °'Oregon Local Lodging n Tax Revenues C ,T� ES g g S • In FY 2014, local lodging tax revenue totals were approximately $136 million—cities brought in just over $87 million • Local lodging tax receipts continue to increase around the state. Total receipts increased by 15.2% from FY 2013 to FY 2014. Oregon Local Lodging Tax Receipts Fiscal Year ending June 30 $150 - -- $140 xcpT: $1 30 Oregon Travel $1 20 Impacts 1991- ' 2014, Dean (4$1 10 Runyan C Report, issued •0$100 April 2015, prepared for ▪ $90 Oregon $80 Tourism Commission, $70 page 213 $60 $50 i t , , , , t , , t , I , • 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 Example of Local Lodging Tax Revenues in three counties from 2004 to 2013: Local Lodging Tax Receipts by Jurisdiction Fiscal Year ending June 30 Amounts in$000 Current Rate 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 DESCHUTES COUNTY Bend 10.0% 2,502 2,799 3,107 3,303 3,427 2,938 2,960 3,280 3,524 3,888 Redmond 9.0% 388 406 463 493 509 436 458 504 503 533 Sisters 8.0% 146 184 213 224 267 280 275 288 308 331 Unincorporated 7.0% 3,017 3,056 3,231 3,304 3,511 3,270 2,960 3,139 3,258 3,691 LINCOLN COUNTY Depoe Bay 8.0% 348 390 441 403 401 378 457 453 473 505 Lincoln City 9.5% 2,796 3,138 3,083 3,438 3,704 4,417 4,352 4,260 4,234 4,514 Newport 9.5% 1,716 1,866 2,113 2,272 2,357 2.228 2,256 2,291 2,323 2,408 Waldport 7.0% 23 22 23 23 23 23 23 23 30 34 Yachats 7.0% 394 418 442 503 520 496 477 429 451 481 Unincorporated 9.0% 874 968 1,078 1,119 1,389 1,599 1,556 1,673 1,696 1,801 Local Lodging Tax Receipts by Jurisdiction Fu.1 veer ending lune 10 AmV unln in 5000 Current Rate 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 MULTNOMAH COUNTY Fairview 6.0% 51 40 39 39 43 38 37 38 39 45 49 Grisham 6.0% 427 442 469 556 616 563 455 460 495 605 664 Portland 8.0%` 13,325 14,170 15,964 17,527 19,647 23,572 16,512 19,143 21,359 28,747 35,063 Troutdale 6.95% 290 313 356 341 375 414 403 429 428 452 481 Rood Village 6.0% 68 84 84 98 105 100 85 89 97 105 110 County-Wide 5.5% 12,352 13,467 14,794 16,726 18,491 16,115 15,441 18,208 20,052 21,464 27,435 Excerpt source: Oregon Travel Impacts 1991-2014, Dean Runyan Report, issued April 2015, prepared for Oregon Tourism Commission (See pages 214-218 for county/city details) Can find full report on League's A-Z Index under"Lodging Tax" CLEAGUE rT QLeague Legislative Priority A lodging tax bill, the outcome of which, would: • Provide jurisdictions greater flexibility to spend local lodging tax revenue to plan for and provide services and infrastructure related to tourism; • Reduce or eliminate the required reimbursement charge that a lodging tax collector is allowed to retain for filing a local lodging tax return; and • Improve efficiency and collection of local lodging taxes in cooperation with the state. 111 LEAGUE ^ Oregon State Lodging Tax... Basic Facts CITIES • 1% state lodging tax first imposed with passage of HB 2267 (2003). Bill became effective October 7, 2003 under Gov. Ted Kulongoski administration. • July 1, 2016: .8% state tax increase for 4 years, then will be lowered to a .5% increase (starting July 1, 2020) HB 4146 (2016) • State tax revenues fund Oregon Tourism Commission which does business as Travel Oregon, the state's tourism agency. LEAGUE CITIES State Lodging Tax Revenues (1) Y- ,y Estimated Yearly Lodging • 1% tax raises approximately $17 million per year Tax Revenues (2016 estimate) 12.5% • At least 65% of state taxes must be used to fund state 87.5% tourism programs (marketing restriction deleted in 2016) •State Lodging Tax Revenues-$17 million •Local Lodging Tax Revenues-$136 million • 10% must be used for matching grants, which may include tourism-related facilities and tourism-generating events, including sporting events IAAsere®`.^ T gon 4 State Lodging Tax Revenues (2) ; �.:. e ,_ • 20% of state revenues must be used to fund a regional cooperative tourism program (RCMP) (HB 4146) • A regional allocation formula distributes revenues to 7 regions, the boundaries of which are established by the Oregon Tourism Commission, in proportion to the amount of TLT revenues collected in each region. •: 1111 ; � ®..n vial ."4p CITIES State Lodging Tax Revenues (3) CITIES yto r IP Table 1.1 -Annual Lodging Tax Receipts by Accommodation Type(dollars) Calendar Campgrounds& Year Bed&Breakfast RV Sites Hotel Motel Vacation Home Other' Multiple2 Total 2004 163,824 259,588 4,316.833 2,802,290 244,019 146,085 423,398 8,356,036 2005 169,607 270,232 4,726,334 3,045,934 264,378 139,191 469,270 9,084,945 2006 190,514 339,997 5,185,752 3,408,192 793,614 154,748 652,608 10,725,425 2007 211,492 354,801 5,720,747 3,662,718 899,895 131,452 715,497 11,696,601 2008 220,747 332,310 5,950,927 3,445,523 993,768 90,305 695,633 11,729,213 2009 194,143 338,320 5,274,978 3,088,432 958,620 64,603 612,985 10,532,082 2010 203,041 392,902 5,755,061 3,198.720 1,042,332 37,846 530,194 11,160,096 2011 203.072 365,802 6,240,259 3,270.698 1,124,581 19.209 576,278 11,799,900 2012 244,496 385,449 6,760,864 3,352,678 1,265,794 6,790 622,711 12,638,782 2013 248,852 440,311 7,438,364 3,578,844 1,265,522 17,971 662,344 13,652,207 2014 254,236 442,060 8,123,506 3,814,145 1,404,931 86,589 705,896 14,831,363 GUE Lqon Room Tax Administration CITIES • Communities need to consider whether their current room tax ordinance includes all classes of property being used as short-term rentals. • Many don't currently include: • Vacation rental houses (VRBOs); • Any other dwelling unit, or portion of a dwelling unit, used for temporary overnight stays (< 30 days) (Airbnbs). • Ensuring your local ordinance mirrors State law for the classes of property subject to the room tax should make collections easier. 'AC& LEAGUE OreIES gon Subject to State Lodging Tax: Note: original 2003 CITdefinition was expanded in 2005 to include more • Hotels and motels; than just hotels, • Bed and breakfast facilities; motels and inns. • RV sites in RV parks or campgrounds; • Resorts and inns; • Lodges and guest ranches; • Cabins; • Condominiums; • Short-term rental apartments and duplexes; • Vacation rental houses; • Tent sites and yurts in private and public campgrounds; and • Any other dwelling unit, or portion of a dwelling unit, used for temporary overnight stays. (< 30 days) a‘'i LEAGUE State Lodging Tax Exemptions: CITIES Facilities: • Health care facilities, including hospitals and long care facilities • Drug/alcohol abuse treatment facilities • Mental health treatment facilities • Facilities that have < 30 days of rentals in a year • Emergency temporary shelters funded by the government • Nonprofit youth & church camps, conference centers and other qualifying nonprofit facilities Persons: • Lodgers who spend > 30 days at the same facilities • Federal employees on federal business Aii LGUE A Oregon Room Tax Administration CITIES • Challenges to Collections in 2016: • On-line resellers may not believe they should have to collect room taxes. BUT: The operator that collects payment for the room tax from the customer is required to collect and remit the state tax. This includes all on-line travel companies (OTCs) or intermediaries. • On-line resellers "buy" rooms at a wholesale rate; room tax is due on the retail cost. • The variety of rates, due dates, collection mechanisms and forms make it considerably more difficult for OTC to meet local objectives, even if they want to. • One named OTC may operate half a dozen or more websites and may be operating in all 85 cities and 15 counties. GUE LOrr gon Room Tax Administration CITIES Challenges to Collections in 2016 (cont.): • OTCs do not want to submit to 100 different community's remittance/audit processes/timelines. • Too many OTCs to monitor for compliance. • Some local land use regulations may not allow short-term (less than 30 consecutive days) rentals: • With or without a responsible party on-site? • In all residential zones? • LEAGUE gIES n Room Tax Administration CI • A Bed and Breakfast is not the same thing as an Airbnb or VRBO. The B&B has a responsible party on-site; Airbnb varies and VRBO is usually without on-site owner presence. • How to manage collecting room tax if the use is not allowed? • Change the land use regulations to allow the use? • Not allow the use and enforce the land use regulations? • Ignore the issue unless there is a complaint? GUE Lr Oregon Room Tax Administration CITIES • The roles of different players will be challenging: • Finance — wants to collect revenue, but entities collecting/remitting room taxes may believe that gives them license to operate (i.e., land use is OK). • Code Enforcement — wants entities to comply with land use actions. • Neighborhood — wants a quiet residential neighborhood, not lots of different people coming and going and causing nuisance. • Home owner— wants some income. • Visitors Center— wants increased income, but may have mixed messages on whether Airbnb/VRBO is acceptable. LGUE A Oregon Room Tax Administration CITIES • Each community will have to decide how to address this issue based on the community's standards and desires. • Even small communities without a hotel may have VRBO and/or Airbnb operations right now. Consider whether to develop a local room tax to collect revenue from these operations. • Work with OTCs to improve collections and reporting data. • VCA with Airbnb fi6A LEAGUE °Oregon More Info? CITIES Nancy Brewer, City of Corvallis Finance Director, 541-766-6990 or nancy.brewer@corvallisoregon.gov TOURISM BY THE NUMBERS ,, oR 44101.11770, (4; CITY OF BEND ... Is tourism worth it? Crime robs nfrastructure itor Resource nding Degradationnomic +- onvienence -ill , Develo•ment i Costs Benefits mow _... ,,, ..... ...us Do tourists pay their "fair share"? q i --"iiiiligoil $8.00 to General Services -$2.05 Aliper day Hotel Visitors Households $12o average hotel room Average House$3ook TRT -$12.50 a night S -$750 annually to City Tourism jump-started Bend's recove Tourism Employment ,' 411111 . otal mp oynaent (minus Tourism) r 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIik Are we a tourism town? J iV n Na A V n V n V 0r r i, V0,� IP ;,e ,r... . ... . Austin, TX Jackson Hole i .;hp,...WWIIIIIII We are a lifestyle metro, which gives us a competitive advantage "In most markets, work/life balance comes before career progression when evaluating job opportunities." -Deloitte Survey on Millennials (2016) Percent of Jobs in Tounsm Job Growth(Excluding Tounsml Labor Force Growth How Does the City Plan for Tomorrow ' s Economy Utilizing Transient Room Tax Revenue (TRT) ? WHERE OUR REVENUES COME FROM AND HOW WE SPEND THEM Total Revenue: $142.9 Million General Fund: $40.4 Million Police 8 Fire 29.5 Million Restricted Revenue $102.5 Million Other 10.9 Million WHERE OUR REVENUES COME FROM AND HOW WE SPEND THEM Total Revenue: TRT Tourism (restricted) $142.9 Million $2.7 Million ..ti. ' TRT General Services $5 Million General Fund: • $40.4 Million Property Taxes ed Funds $2b"3 Mill cr $140.2 Million Unrestricted - Other $9. 1 Million HOW DOES THE SPLIT WORK OUT IN REAL LIFE? 411165% to General Fund: ° X 10.4% Tax Rate = $81 $12.58 - Average Hotel Night in Bend, FY 2016: 35% Restricted $120.95 to Tourism Fund: $4.41 Visit Bend Board creates and approves an annual business plan ARLY SPRING Business Plan which includes a Budget is presented to the City's Economic Development Advisory Board [BEDAB] CARLY SPRING y s"- _ 0 —0 1 BEDAB recommends (or does not _. T recommend) approval of the Business Plan SPRING • City Council adopts the annual �_.4 usiness Plan and Budget - by the second City Council meeting • WHO IS VISIT BEND? 4111100101000*-- # 1 * 11114D is an innovative, full-service marketin , g 4.4 PR, and advertising organization, with one client: The Bend Tourism Industry. Visit Bend is dedicated to enhancing Bend 's economy. _ ,49 veadit, BEND, OR OCCUPANCY RATES 1000 • 50% 0% ,Sc 090 o eG c e? o• P� 6\ `}` 0 .7\ O `< , . _ _ n . Who ? How? . . _r. _. , i ,. 22% Where do our visitors come from? Visit Bend's media buys and advertisements are data driven.Visit Bend is continually conducting visitor behavior research /�Q 37 that lays the foundations "T / 21 % for where we market, when we market,who we market to,and how we - do it. 14i 'Lwb:,Q acl. J" J....... ,,..t Pr its: _160. Who ? How?.._. Visit Bend's media buys are always adapting to trends in the �e•k industry,stakeholder and community feedback,and seasonal A4‘ fluctuations.This year,just over 90%of Visit Bend's Marketing dollars are being spent in non-summer months. cb 60% 15% 10% 15% - t.40411,,v - • �" , e How? - .-...,„ . . ..... 'Mi., 11111Who we market to: Over 80% of Visit Bend's market- ing dollars are spent targeting one demographic: Married females, age 35+, House- hold Income of $75K+, with one of more child(ren) under the age 111141. of 18 living at home. ..... :� st .�. .� „ ' . Who ? '� it Q a Visit Bend utilizes CD 4 a cross-platform y 40% 2 5% t I strategy to television digital achieve maximum reach and frequency to 1 5% achieve its goals 20% print to our targeted 41, radio audience. "I'll .• r 11e"1 rt r 41 • moomm • 4 . 40.01r D . i 111... / f 0 , ;I ?Ewa r {r +, 1 1141.6 . 4 ' & '''' in d, . a < T al O i * '','IV4."-' -- '4/1/71 , , IF - 11,.41.1.4.:01,1 0"' fr "' ' A' OUR VISION: A better life for Oregonians through strong, sustainable local economies. OUR MISSION: We inspire travel that drives economic development. Through innovation and partnerships, we share the stories of Oregon's people and places, ensuring the preservation of Oregon's way of life and natural places. 0111/ TRAVEL OREGON DEPARTMENTS & PROGRAMS Industry & Visitor Services Global Sales • State Welcome Centers • Domestic and int'l travel trade • Oregon Tourism Conference • International media • Grants • Target markets: Americas, Asia, Europe and Oceana Global Marketing • Consumer marketing Destination Development • Integrated and digital • Oregon Tourism Studios • Branding and creative • Product development • Research and analytics • Travel Oregon Forever • Communications • Regional Cooperative Tourism Program 3 TRAVEL OREGON STRATEGIC PLAN 2015-2017 IMPERATIVES • Optimize Statewide Economic Impact • Support & Empower our Partners • Champion the Value of Tourism • Run an Effective Business .„., 4 TOURISM INDUSTRY PARTNERING STRUCTURE LOCAL Business, organization and individual LOCAL DMO (Destination Marketing Organization) REG NAL RDMO (Regional Destination Marketing Organization) STA WIDE Travel Oregon OREGON 'S 7 TOURISM REGIONS < ''-' yf Greater Mt. Hood/ ...„,\:, -- - w Portland Gorge U...roll.(. .-=, 1 w Willamette , ''° _ Central ''le a Valley _._ 1 "". '`�R a N Eastern Coast fav "�'"�.�.. .q T 0 i kJ' ^- � � / / �. Southern --1... ,` � iuf.--, ',.#-. .., - ,,,.......,3„ - ...___ ,,g, 1 5 STATE LODGING TAX ... BASIC FACTS • State tax revenues fund Oregon Tourism Commission which does business as Travel Oregon, the state's tourism agency. • State lodging taxes are 1 % of lodging charges incurred. (Raises about $18 million) • 1 % state lodging tax first imposed with passage of HB 2267 (2003). Bill became effective October 7, 2003 under Gov. Ted Kulongoski administration • July 1 , 2016: .8% state lodging tax increase for 4 years, then lowered to a .5% increase (starting July 1 , 2020) HB 4146 (2016) • 20%- Regional Cooperative Tourism Program • 10%- Cooperative Grant Program OREGON TOURISM PERFORMANCE In 2003 In 2015 Change Direct Employment 85,600 jobs 105,600 jobs +23% Employee Earnings $1 .7 billion $2.8 billion +650 Visitor Spending $6.5 billion $10.8 billion +66% Taxes (State/Local) $242 million $458 million +89% Source: Oregon Travel Impacts, Dean Runyan Associates,2016 8 YOU MAY KNOW US FROM... Sei ' LJONE 'nr of OREq,1 s • • 9 YOU MIGHT LIKE OREGON ANTHEM... ---.-.. .RFP ...,.. P . to .., ..... '.11111411111614. 1 4ter . -.....- '.-- .- —,.-..- .. .2tte` I PONZI SPOT- , . ft. &IL ii I r ,1 The Powetr:v . in Or&lort 'I! •-<, 4 1,.. . 1* ,- - -1 , • 4 "Tourism is a job creator on its own, but it's also essentially the front door of the rest of the economy." - Duncan Wyse President, Oregon Business Council TRAVEL OREGON Scott West I • Chief Strategy Officer Scott@TravelOregon.com _ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 16- AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 3.85 TO THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH A PERCENT TAX ON TRANSIENT LODGING IN THE CITY OF TIGARD WHEREAS, ORS 320.350 allows local governments to establish transient lodging taxes and provides for the use of revenues;and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council wishes to amend the Municipal Code to adopt a new Chapter 3.85 to impose a transient lodging tax of percent in the City;and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council wishes to dedicate the revenues from the transient lodging tax to NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Tigard Municipal Code is amended to add a new Chapter 3.85,Local Transient Lodging Tax,as provided in Exhibit A. SECTION 2: The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection,paragraph,or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections,paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective PASSED: By vote of all council members present after being read by number and title only,this day of ,2016. Carol A. Krager,City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of ,2016. John L. Cook,Mayor Approved as to form: Ordinance No. City Attorney Date Ordinance No. TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 3.85 LOCAL TRANSIENT of the Finance Department or their designee. LODGING TAX 5. "Lodging" means "Transient Sections: Lodging" as defined by ORS 320.300, except that "Lodging" shall not include dwelling units at 3.85.010 Purpose nonprofit facilities, dormitory rooms used for 3.85.020 Definitions educational purposes, camping sites, and 3.85.030 Tax Imposed recreational vehicle sites. 3.85.040 Collection 3.85.050 Provider's Duties 6. "Occupancy" means the use or 3.85.060 Exemptions possession, or the right to use or possession, for 3.85.070 Registry lodging purposes, of any space, or portion thereof, 3.85.080 Returns in Lodging. 3.85.090 Penalties and Interest 3.85.100 Deficiencies 7. "Occupant" means a person who uses 3.85.110 Redetermination or possesses, or who has the right to use or possess 3.85.120 Security any space, or portion thereof, in a Lodging. 3.85.130 Refunds 3.85.140 Expenditure of Funds 8. "Rent" means the consideration 3.85.150 Collection Fee charged, whether or not received by the Transient 3.85.160 Administration Lodging Provider, for the occupancy of space in 3.85.170 Notice Lodging, whether or not valued in money, without 3.85.180 Appeals any deduction. 3.85.190 Violations and Penalty 3.85.200 Intergovernmental Agreement 9. "Tax" or "Taxes" means either the Tax payable by the Occupant or the aggregate 3.85.010 Purpose amount of Taxes due from a Provider during the period for which the Provider is required to report The purpose of this chapter is to impose a collections. tax upon the Transient Lodging by any Occupant in the City of Tigard. 10. "Transient Lodging Provider" or "Provider" means the person who is the proprietor 3.85.020 Definitions of a Lodging in any capacity. Where management functions are performed through a managing agent As used in this ordinance, unless the context other than an employee, the managing agent who requires otherwise: shall have the same duties and liabilities as the proprietor shall be the Provider. Compliance with 1. "City" means the City of Tigard, the provisions of this Chapter by either the Oregon. proprietor or the managing agent shall be considered to be compliance by both. 2. "City Council" means the City Council of the City of Tigard, Oregon. 3.85.030 Tax Imposed 3. "Finance Department" means the For the privilege of Occupancy in any Finance Department of the City. Lodging, each Occupant shall pay a Tax in the 4. "Finance Director"means the Director amount of percent ( %) of the Rent 12-10-1 Code Update: 4/13 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE charged by the Transient Lodging Provider. The be assumed or absorbed by the Provider, or that it Tax constitutes a debt owed by the Occupant to will not be added to the Rent, or that,when added, the City,which is extinguished only by payment to any part will be refunded. the Transient Lodging Provider at the time the Rent is paid. The Transient Lodging Provider 3.85.060 Exemptions shall enter the Tax on the Provider's records when the Rent is collected. If the Rent is paid in No Tax imposed by this Chapter shall be installments, a proportionate share of the Tax shall imposed upon dwelling units described in ORS be paid by the Occupant to the Provider with each 320.308. installment. If for any reason the Tax due is not paid to the Provider, the Finance Director may 3.85.070 Registry require that the Tax be paid directly to the City. The tax must be computed on the total retail price, 1. Every person engaging or about to including all charges other than taxes, paid by a engage in business as a Transient Lodging person for occupancy of the Transient Lodging. Provider in this City shall register with the City on a form provided by the Finance Department. 3.85.040 Collection Providers starting business must register within 30 calendar days after commencing business. The 1. Except when Occupants or Lodgings privilege of registration after the date of are exempt under this Chapter, every Transient imposition of the Tax shall not relieve any person Lodging Provider renting Occupancy in a Lodging from the obligation of payment or collection of in the City shall collect a Tax from the Occupant. Tax regardless of registration. Registration forms The Tax collected or accrued by the Provider shall require the name under which a Provider constitutes a debt owing by the Provider to the transacts or intends to transact business, the City. location of the place of business, and other similar additional information required by the Finance 2. In cases of credit or deferred payment Department to facilitate the collection of the Tax. of rent, the payment of the Tax to the Provider The registration shall be signed or electronically may be deferred until the Rent is paid, and the submitted by the Provider. Provider shall not be liable for the Tax until the credit is paid or the deferred payment is made. 2. The Finance Department shall, within fifteen business days after registration, issue 3. The Finance Director shall enforce without charge a certificate of authority to each this Chapter and the City may adopt policies, Provider to collect the Tax from the Occupant, rules, and regulations consistent with this Chapter together with a duplicate thereof for each as necessary to aid in the enforcement. additional place of business of each Provider. Certificates shall be non-assignable and 3.85.050 Provider's Duties nontransferable and shall be surrendered immediately to the Finance Department upon the Each Transient Lodging Provider shall cessation of business at the location named, or collect the Tax imposed by this Chapter on an upon the business sale or transfer. Each certificate Occupant. The amount of the Tax shall be and duplicate shall state the place of business to separately stated upon the Provider's records and which it is applicable and shall be prominently on any receipt for the Rent rendered by the displayed. Provider to the Occupant. No Provider shall advertise that the Tax or any part of the Tax will 3. The certificate shall state, at 12-10-2 Code Update: 4/13 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE minimum,the following: may also reflect: a. The name of the Provider, a. The total rentals upon which the Tax is collected or otherwise due, b. The address of the Lodging, b. Gross receipts of the Provider c. The date upon which the for the period, certificate was issued,and c. The amount of Rents exempt, if d. This statement: "This Transient any, and Lodging Registration Certificate signifies that the person named has fulfilled the requirements of the d. An explanation in detail of any Transient Lodgings Tax Chapter of the Tigard discrepancies. Municipal Code for the purpose of collecting and remitting the Lodgings Tax. This certificate does 3. The Provider or his/her designee shall not authorize any person to conduct any unlawful deliver the quarterly Tax payment and return to the business or to conduct any lawful business in an Finance Department at its office either by personal unlawful manner, or to operate a Lodging without delivery, via a website portal, or by United States strictly complying with all local applicable laws, Mail. If the return and Taxes are mailed, the including but not limited to those requiring a postmark shall be considered the date of delivery permit from any board, commission, department or for determining delinquency. office of the City. This certificate does not constitute a permit." 4. At any time before the due date, the Finance Director may, for good cause, extend the 3.85.080 Returns due date for making any return and/or payment of Tax for up to thirty days after the date the Tax 1. The Tax imposed by this Chapter shall would have become due but for the extension. be paid by the Occupant to the Transient Lodging Further extensions must be approved by the City Provider when the Occupant pays Rent to the Manager. A Provider who is granted an extension Provider. All Transient Lodging Taxes collected shall pay a fee of three percent(3%) per month of by a Provider are due and payable to the Finance the unpaid tax without proration for a fraction of a Department, on a quarterly basis, on or before the month. last day of the month following the end of the calendar quarter, or, if the last day is not a 5. If the Finance Director deems it business day,the next business day thereafter. necessary, in order to ensure payment or to facilitate collection by the City of the amount of 2. Providers shall file, with the quarterly Taxes in any individual case, the Finance Director Tax payment, or, if there is no Tax payment due may require that payment of the Taxes be made in for a given quarter, at the time the Tax payment other than quarterly periods. would have been due, a return for that quarter's Tax collections. The return shall be filed with the 3.85.090 Penalties and Interest Finance Department and shall be on a form prescribed by the Finance Department. The return 1. A penalty will be imposed on a shall reflect the amount of Tax collected or Provider who mails, hand delivers, or submits otherwise due for the period for which the return is online the return and the Tax payment after the filed. At the discretion of the Finance Director, it due date. The penalty is five percent (5%) of the 12-10-3 Code Update: 4/13 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE unpaid tax. If the Provider files and/or pays more thirty (30) days after the Finance Director serves than thirty days after the due date, an additional the written deficiency notice. If not paid by the ten percent(10%)penalty of the unpaid tax will be thirtieth day after service of a deficiency notice, added to the balance of the unpaid tax. Interest at the amount shall be delinquent and penalties and the rate of percent ( %) per annum will be interest shall be applied as established in this imposed on any unpaid tax and penalties starting Chapter. 60 days after the due date until the date payment in full is received by the Finance Department. 5. The Provider(or Occupant, in the case of a request for a refund) may petition for a 2. If the Finance Director determines that redetermination provided that the petition is filed the nonpayment of any remittance due under this within fifteen (15) days of service of the Chapter is due to fraud or intent to evade the deficiency notice. Nothing prohibits the Finance provisions of this Chapter, a penalty of eighteen Director from extending the time for petition percent (18%) of the amount of the Tax shall be beyond fifteen(15)days at his/her discretion. added, in addition to the penalties and interest above. 6. Except as provided in this Chapter, every deficiency determination shall be made and 3.85.100 Deficiencies notice mailed within three (3) years after a return was originally filed or subsequently amended, 1. If the Finance Director determines that whichever period expires later. In the case of the a return is incorrect, the Finance Director may filing of a false or fraudulent return with the intent compute and determine or estimate the amount to evade this Chapter, a failure to file a required required to be paid based on the facts contained in return, or a willful refusal to collect and remit the the return or returns or any other information Tax, a deficiency determination may be made, or a within the Finance Director's possession. One or proceeding for the collection of the deficiency more deficiency determinations may be made on may be commenced at any time. the amounts due for one or more periods. 7. If the Finance Director believes that 2. In making a deficiency determination, the collection of any Tax required to be collected the Finance Director may offset overpayments, if and paid to the City will be jeopardized by delay, any, which may have been previously made for a or if any determination will be jeopardized by period or periods against any deficiency for a delay, the Finance Director may make a subsequent period or periods, or against penalties determination of the Tax or amount of Tax and interest on the deficiency. required to be collected. The Finance Director will serve a written deficiency notice and demand 3. Once a deficiency determination is for immediate payment on the Provider. The made, the Finance Director shall serve a written amount shall be immediately due and payable, and deficiency notice on the Provider(or Occupant, in the Provider shall immediately pay such the case of a request for a refund). The notice may determination to the City after service of the be given personally or sent by United States mail. notice, provided, however, the Provider may If sent by mail, the notice shall be addressed to the petition, after payment has been made, for a Provider at his/her address as it appears on the redetermination of the Finance Director's records of the City or as the City can best assessment, provided that the petition is filed determine. within fifteen (15) days of service of the deficiency notice. 4. Any deficiency is due and payable 12-10-4 Code Update:4/13 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 3.85.110 Redetermination deems proper, or five hundred dollars ($500), whichever amount is less. The amount of security 1. If a petition for redetermination, may be increased or decreased by the Finance redemption, and refund is filed within the requisite Director within the limitation of this Section. time period, the Finance Director shall reconsider the determination, and, if the person has so 3.85.130 Refunds requested in his/her petition, shall grant the person an oral hearing and shall give him/her fifteen (15) 1. Whenever the amount of any Tax days' notice of the time and place of the hearing. imposed under this Chapter has been paid more The Finance Director may continue the hearing than once or has been erroneously or illegally from time to time as necessary. collected or received by the Finance Department, it may be refunded, provided a verified claim in 2. The Finance Director may decrease or writing, stating the specific reason upon which the increase the amount of the determination as a claim is founded, is filed with the Finance Director result of the reconsideration, the hearing, or both, within two (2) years from the date of payment. and, if an increase is determined, such increase The claim shall be made on forms provided by the shall be payable immediately after the Finance Department. If the claim is approved, the reconsideration or the hearing, as appropriate. excess amount collected or paid may be refunded to the Provider from whom it was collected or by 3. The decision of the Finance Director whom it was paid, or the Provider's upon a petition for redetermination, redemption, administrators, executors, or assignees. and refund becomes final fifteen (15) days after Alternatively, at the discretion of the Finance service of the notice of decision upon the Director, the refund may be credited toward any petitioner. amounts then due and payable from the Provider from whom it was collected or by whom it was 4. No petition for redetermination, paid, and the balance, if any, may be refunded to redemption, or refund or other appeal shall be the Provider or the Provider's administrators, accepted and no petition is effective for any executors, or assignees. purpose unless the Provider has first complied with the payment provision of this Chapter and has 2. Whenever the Tax required by this paid in full the amount determined to be due under Chapter has been collected by the Provider and it the decision appealed from. is later determined that the Occupant has occupied the occupancy for a period exceeding thirty (30) 3.85.120 Security days without interruption, the Provider shall refund to the Occupant the Tax previously The Finance Director, whenever the Finance collected by the Provider from the Occupant. If Director deems it necessary to ensure compliance the Provider has remitted the Tax prior to refund with this Chapter, may require any Provider or credit to the Occupant, the Provider shall be subject to this Chapter to deposit with the Finance entitled to a corresponding refund under this Director security in the form of cash, bond, or Section. The Provider shall account for all other assets, as the Finance Director determines. collections and refunds under this subsection to The amount of the security shall be fixed by the the Finance Department. Finance Director but shall not be greater than the Provider's estimated quarterly liability for the 3.85.140 Expenditure of Funds period for which the Provider files returns, determined in a manner the Finance Director All money collected pursuant to this Chapter 12-10-5 Code Update: 4/13 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE shall be the general funds of the City and known in any manner any financial information may be used in any lawful manner, as submitted or disclosed to the City under the terms prescribed by state law. of this Chapter. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to prohibit: 3.85.150 Collection Fee a. The disclosure to, or the Every Provider liable for collection and examination of, financial records by City officers, remittance of the Tax imposed by this Chapter employees, or agents for the purpose of may withhold five percent(5%) of the net Tax due administering or enforcing the terms of this to cover expenses in its collection and remittance. Chapter, or collecting Taxes imposed under the terms of this Chapter; 3.85.160 Administration b. The disclosure to the taxpayer 1. Every Provider shall keep records of or his/her authorized representative of financial rentals and accounting books that are sufficient to information, including amounts of Transient demonstrate compliance with the provisions of this Lodging Taxes,penalties,or interest, after filing of Chapter. These records shall be retained for three a written request by the taxpayer or his/her (3)years and six(6)months after they are created. authorized representative and approval of the request by the Finance Director; 2. The Finance Director may examine, during normal business hours, the books, papers, c. The disclosure of the names and and accounting records relating to rentals of any addresses of any person to whom this Chapter Provider liable for the Tax, after notification to the applies; Provider, and may investigate the business of the Provider in order to verify the accuracy of any d. The disclosure of general return made, or if no return is made by the statistics in a form which would prevent the Provider, to ascertain and determine the amount identification of financial information regarding required to be paid. any particular taxpayer's return or application; or 3. A formal audit of all of the Providers' e. The disclosure of financial records may be conducted at the discretion of the information to the City Attorney or other legal Finance Director. If, under this formal audit, it is representative of the City to the extent the Finance determined that any Provider has underpaid the Director deems disclosure or access necessary for Taxes due by 3% or more, the Provider shall pay the performance of the duties of advising or his/her prorated portion of the total audit fee. representing the Finance Director, the Finance Should the Finance Director, in his/her sole Department, or the City. discretion, conduct or cause to be conducted individual audits in addition to the audit 3.85.170 Notice anticipated above, and should that individual audit determine that the audited Provider has underpaid In case of service by mail of any notice the Taxes due by 3% or more, the Provider shall required by this Chapter, the service is complete pay the total individual audit fee. three days after deposit with the United States Post Office. 4. Except as otherwise required by law, it shall be unlawful for any officer, employee, or agent of the City to divulge, release, or make 12-10-6 Code Update: 4/13 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 3.85.180 Appeals this chapter commits a Class 1 civil infraction. Each transient lodging transaction for which Any person aggrieved by any decision of the tax, penalty or interest otherwise due is not paid Finance Director may appeal to the City Manager shall be deemed a separate civil infraction. Each (or his or her designee)by filing a notice of appeal day a person fails to register as a transient lodging with the Finance Director within fifteen (15) days tax collector shall be deemed a separate civil of the serving of the notice of the Finance infraction. Director's decision. The Finance Director shall transmit the notice, together with the file of the 3.85.200 Intergovernmental Agreement appealed matter, to the City Manager, who shall fix a time and place for hearing the appeal. The The City Council may enter into an IGA City Manager shall give the appellant not less than with Washington County whereby the County is fifteen (15) days' written notice of the time and responsible for the administration, collection, place for hearing the appeal. The City Manager distribution, or enforcement of the tax authorized may continue the hearing from time to time as under this chapter, either in full or in part. The necessary. terms of that agreement shall apply in lieu of and shall supersede conflicting provisions of this 3.85.190 Violations and Penalty chapter but shall not be construed as repealing any provision of this chapter. 1. No Provider or other person required to do so may fail or refuse to, in the time periods prescribed by this Chapter, furnish any return required to be made under this Chapter or furnish a supplemental return or other data required by the Finance Director, or make the remittance to the Finance Director of the amount of the Taxes, penalties, or interest due. No person may render a false or fraudulent return under this Chapter. No person required to make, render, sign, or verify any report regarding the Tax may make any false or fraudulent report. 2. At any time within three (3) years after any Tax required to be collected becomes due and payable, at any time within three years after any determination by the Finance Director or City Manager under this Chapter becomes final, or at any time within three (3) years after any person who is required to do so fails to furnish true and non-fraudulent information within the time periods prescribed by this Chapter, the City may commence and prosecute to final determination in any court of competent jurisdiction an action to collect the same. 3. A person who violates a provision of 12-10-7 Code Update: 4/13 Cities with Transient Lodging Tax and Their Tax Rate Source: League of Oregon Cities Current 44 Hermiston 8% TLT 45 Hines 8% City Rate 46 Hood River 8% 1 Enterprise 3% 47 Junction City 8% 2 Sandy ° 3/0 48 Lowell 8% 3 Umatilla 3.50% 49 Oakridge 8% 4 Beaverton 4% 50 Pendleton 8% 5 Oregon City 4°° 51 Portland 8% epP ° 6 ner 5✓° 52 Roseburg 8% 7 La Grande 5% 53 Seaside 8% 8 Wilsonville 5% 54 Sisters 8% 9 Winston 5% 55 Sutherlin 8% 10 Bandon 6% 8% 56 The Dalles 11 Brookings 6% 57 Veneta 8% 12 Condon 6% 58 Westfir 8% 13 Fairview 6% 59 Prineville 8.50% 14 Gold Beach 6% 60 Albany 9% 15 Gresham 6% 61 Ashland 9% 16 Keizer 6% 62 Astoria 9% 17 Lake Oswego 6% 63 Burns 9% 18 Metolius 6% 64 Central Point 9% 19 Phoenix 6% 65 Corvallis 9% 20 Reedsport 6% 66 Cottage Grove 9% 21 Rogue River 6% 67 Florence 9% 22 Shady Cove 6% 68 Grants Pass 9% 23 Sweet Home 6% 69 Jacksonville 9% 24 'Talent 6% 70 Lebanon 9% 25 Wood Village 6% 71 Madras 9% 26 Troutdale 6.95% 72 Manzanita 9% 27 Cannon Beach 7% 73 Medford 9% 28 Cascade Locks 7% 74 Nehalem 9% 29 Coos Bay 7% 75 Ontario 9% 30 Gearhart 7% 76 Redmond 9% 31 Milton-Freewater 7% 77 Rockaway Beach 9% 32 North Bend 7% 78 Salem 9% 33 Port Orford 7% 79 Silverton 9% 34 Stayton 7% 80 Wheeler 9% 35 Sublimity 7% 81 Woodburn 9% 36 Waldport 7% 82 Eugene 9.50% 37 Yachats 7% 83 Lincoln City 9.50% 38 Lakeside 7.50% 84 Newport 9.50% 39 Coburg 8% 85 Springfield 9.50% 40 Creswell 8% 86 Tillamook 10% 41 Depoe Bay 8% 87 Bend 10.40% 42 Dunes City 8% 88 Warrenton 12% 43 Garibaldi 8% Average 7.5% AIS-2851 7. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 11/01/2016 Length (in minutes): 30 Minutes Agenda Title: Receive Update on Willamette Water Supply Project Intake Structure Allocation Prepared For: Brian Rager Submitted By: John Goodrich, Public Works Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Meeting Type: Council Staff Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Briefing update and discussion on long range regional water supply planning and Tigard's opportunity to secure future water sources. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Receive update and provide direction regarding Tigard's investment and participation in long range regional water supply planning. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Tigard is a member of the Willamette River Water Coalition (WRWC) with three other agencies—the cities of Tualatin and Sherwood, and the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD). Combined, the WRWC has about 130 million gallons per day (mgd) in water rights on the Willamette River. Tigard's portion is 25 mgd. In the context of long-term water source planning, the city has investigated several Willamette River supply options. One of these is the Willamette Water Supply Program, a regional water supply being developed to serve the Tualatin Valley Water District, and the cities of Hillsboro and Beaverton. The city is participating in numerous projects related to this effort, including: •Willamette Water Supply Preliminary Design •Wilsonville Water Treatment Plant Master Plan Update •Willamette Governance Group (WGG) Excess System Capacity TVWD, and the cities of Wilsonville and Sherwood have existing ownership in the Wilsonville Water Treatment Plant, including a key component: the intake structure and raw water pumping system. Through the work of the preliminary design and treatment plant master planning efforts, the intake structure is capable of expansion to a maximum capacity of 140 mgd. TVWD has determined that excess system capacity is available to other water providers, including Tigard. Through an allocation formula, TVWD has extended an offer to Tigard for an ownership share equaling 9 percent of the total capacity or 12.7 mgd. This is only for the headwork intake structure as a separate system asset. Tigard would need to construct or partner with others for additional water treatment capacity and pipeline conveyance to fully develop the 12.7 mgd. However, these would be long range costs that would occur when Tigard's water service area needs grew to a point where additional water supply capacity was warranted. This could be due to growth or to provide redundant water as a "back up" water supply. Staff has attached a water supply options chart indicating future water demand need for council discussion. Council Consideration The workshop update and discussion will be divided into three parts: • Briefing and update –Brian Rager, Dennis Koellermeier, and John Goodrich will present long-range regional water supply planning updates and information. • Questions and clarification - Staff will be prepared to provide additional information regarding the program, intake structure allocation, cost share, and project schedule. • Council direction – Council will be asked to consider whether additional meetings on this topic should be scheduled. Based on direction from council, staff has scheduled an agenda item for the December 13 council business meeting concerning a motion to approve participation in the program and allocated capacity for intake structure. Council will need to consider if the benefits of early "asset buy-in" of intake structure capacity is cost effective to meet the Tigard Water Service Area needs and long range water supply planning. The water supply project is moving forward very quickly. TVWD has requested a "yes or no" decision by December 30, 2016. Willamette River Charter Prohibition The City Charter states in Chapter IX, Section 51: "The City of Tigard shall not use the Willamette River as a drinking water source for its citizens unless the question of using the Willamette River as a drinking water source has been approved by not less than fifty (50%) percent of voters voting in a City-wide election (Measure 34-8, September 21, 1999 Election)." This prohibition does not apply to other jurisdictions served by Tigard, including Durham, King City, and the Tigard Water District. In 2010, the city attorney rendered an opinion that the purchase of future pipeline capacity—constructed by others and not connected to the Tigard water system—was not a violation of the City Charter. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION Council has been briefed numerous times regarding the Willamette River Water Coalition (WRWC), Willamette Water Supply Project, and city participation in various preliminary design studies relating to these boards and agencies. Brief Summary: • On September 20, 2016, council received an update on the Willamette Water Supply Project intake structure allocation and cost share. On February 28, 2015, council approved signing an agreement with other agencies and Willamette River Water Supply Program participants to facilitate future governance agreements regarding the program with no financial impact. •On February 17, 2015, council was briefed on a facilitation agreement regarding Willamette River Water Supply governance. • On October 28, 2014, council approved signing an agreement to participate in the Willamette River Water Treatment Plant master plan update and limited Tigard's financial contribution to $50,000. On October 14, 2014, the council was briefed on an MOU regarding Tigard's participation in the master planning process for the Willamette River Water Treatment Plant located in Wilsonville. • On May 27, 2014, the council was briefed on the development of a Willamette River water supply. • On October 22, 2013, the council adopted the fiscal year 2014 First Quarter Supplemental Budget via Resolution No. 13-44. The supplemental budget included the allocation of$100,000 from the water fund to participate in the preliminary design of the TVWD/Hillsboro Willamette Water Supply Program. •At its July 16, 2013, workshop meeting, the council discussed and elected to participate in the preliminary design of the TVWD/Hillsboro Willamette Water Supply Program; the council limited Tigard's financial contribution to $100,000. • On June 15, 2010, the council discussed an agreement with Sherwood to develop a water supply pipeline and other improvements. This agreement was never finalized. Fiscal Impact Cost: 9,700,000 Budgeted (yes or no): No Where Budgeted (department/program):Water SDC Additional Fiscal Notes: TVWD has provided a preliminary cost allocation of$9,700,000 for 9 percent of intake capacity based on 12.7 million gallons per day of the 140 million gallons per day total capacity. The expansion and seismic upgrades necessary to design, permit, and construct the 140 mgd intake and pumping structure is approximately $84,000,000 to be shared by all partners within the supply group based on their allocated capacity ratio. Tigard would need to make an initial intake structure purchase based on depreciated 2016 asset costs of approximately $639,000 by December 30, 2017. During the construction phase, Tigard would make progress payments based on its allocated cost share. Final payment for the completed intake structure project would be June 30, 2021. All costs associated with the Willamette Water Supply Project, intake structure and pump facility is determined to be water system development charge eligible. Funding this purchase would come out of the water SDC improvement funds. For water financial planning purposes, the proposed purchase of intake structure capacity uses no utility revenues or water rate increases to fund this project's participation between 2017 and 2021. Attachments Water Supply Options 2015-2065 ,, • • tilt ttift • • �� 90,000 - - .4 4th 84,000 _ Cr - -78,000 0 - -- - 16.2 MGD 72,000 - -a " �' 15.2 MGD - - 14.2 MGD -- -01 - 13 MGD I.1111 q City of Tigard TI G A R D Memorandum To: The Honorable Mayor Cook and City Councilors From: Dennis Koellermeier, LOT Project Director Re: Willamette Governance Group/Purchase of Capacity from Tualatin Valley Water District Date: October 27, 2016 The purpose of this memo is threefold: • To provide a progress report on activities of the Willamette Governance Group (WGG), • To answer council questions from the September 20, 2016 workshop meeting where potential purchase of intake capacity from Tualatin Valley Water District (FVWD) was discussed, and • To prepare council for the next scheduled discussion on November 1, 2016. Willamette Governance Group (WGG) Update Several key decisions at the staff level in the WGG process are complete. They include: • Future agreements will take the form of four separate agreements between various parties instead of one master agreement. A Governance Structure diagram (Attachment 1) further explains these draft agreements and participants. • The Willamette River Water Supply Program (WRWSP) will construct a new treatment plant at a "yet to be determined site." Plans to construct the plant on the site of the existing Wilsonville Water Treatment Plant have been abandoned. • All parties who wish to proceed will share in the cost to seismically harden the existing raw water intake and buy—in for a share of capacity in that structure. • The decision for Tigard to "buy-in" as offered by Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) needs to be made soon and the initial buy-in payment included in the FY 2017-18 budget if council approves. • The City of Tualatin has opted out of this process. Response to Questions Raised What will happen to Tigard's water rights under the proposed WGG structure? As currently envisioned the Willamette River Water Coalition (WRWC) will continue under a new Intergovernmental Agreement with the sole purpose of holding and maintaining the total 202 Cubic Feet per Second (CFS), equal to 130 Million Gallons per Day (MGD) water right. Tigard's allocated share of 40 CFS (25.8 MGD) of water right is currently a portion of that WRWC held right. Tigard's ownership and ability to use this allocated water right will continue in essentially the same manner in which it exists today under the proposed WGG structure. How does Tigard's Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) capacity affect this decision? Tigard currently has 4 MGD of ASR capacity with plans to expand to a total of 6 MGD in the next several years. Historically Tigard used portions of the 4 MGD to augment other water supplies to meet peak day demands on the system. Now that Tigard can meet peak day demands from our Lake Oswego-Tigard Water Partnership (LOT), our ASR capacity will be used partially as "insurance" available in the event LOT is forced to reduce it's withdrawals from the Clackamas River due to reduced summer stream flows. Thus,ASR cannot be counted on for being available for meeting future growth needs. If Tigard invests in the TVWD intake, are we setting ourselves up for a rate increase? If the Council determines it wants to invest in the TVWD intake structure now that cost is 100% System Development Charge (SDC) eligible,which means it will not impact water rates. The intake purchase will need to be added to the City's Water Capital Improvement Plan, and then assigned to the SDC component of that plan. The City's SDC rate methodology would need to be updated to reflect this addition. Staff estimates this would add approximately $500 dollars to the current $8,000 water SDC based on population estimates over the next 20-30 years. Is Partnering with Sherwood still an option? Yes, council has previously been briefed on this option. During the meeting, council discussed the option of partnering with Sherwood to develop their Willamette River water source. Attachment 2 is a memo from 2012 (City of Tigard Future Water Supply Development Approaches ConceptualAnalysis Findings, Murray, Smith &Associates, dated October 12, 2012). This technical memo compared two scenarios: partnering with Sherwood and partnering with TVWD to develop the Willamette River water source. Attachment 3 is a sketch showing the current partners and project groups. While conditions and affiances have changed since the 2012 report, staff continues to believe the least cost option for Tigard involves purchasing capacity in the existing Sherwood pipeline. The current WGG discussions have developed to the point to suggest that four different agreements will result from the work group discussions: 1) Revised or amended WRWC agreement with all of the current partners, including Tigard 2) New agreement to cover those parties who wish to purchase intake capacity from TVWD at this time. It should be noted that total water rights of the WGG partners exceeds the current intake capacity, thus all parties except TVWD are not able to develop their full water rights at this time. This includes TVWD, Hillsboro, and Beaverton. 2 3) New agreement for the parties mentioned above to develop a new water treatment plant, pipelines, and reservoir capacity. 4) The last agreement will cover Wilsonville,TVWD and Sherwood's current ownership in the Willamette treatment plant. Both Sherwood and Wilsonville will need to expand treatment plant capacity at the current Willamette treatment plant over time to meet their demands. As will be explained further later in this memo, staff believes that purchasing intake capacity from TVWD now, coupled with a later investments in the current Sherwood pipeline and a future plant expansion at the current Wilsonville-Willamette Treatment plant will be the least cost method for Tigard to access its Willamette River water rights. It also allows the bulk of those investments to be deferred over the next thirty years instead of making near-term investments with the TVWD/Hillsboro/Beaverton "alliance" for capacity Tigard will not need for at least 20 years. What other near term "opportunities"from the WRWSP may come our way? Tigard has already notified the partners of the WRWSP that we are not interested in participating in the new water treatment plant or the new finished water pipeline to be located in Roy Rodgers Road. The exception is for an emergency connection capable of delivering 5 MGD at a location yet to be determined. Depending on how and when the supply line segments are constructed near Tigard, the WRWSP may ask Tigard to provide water to the pipeline for testing, etc. This is similar to an arrangement Tualatin just made for the 124th Avenue pipeline segment. At this time, no other "opportunities" have been identified. Key Facts for Consideration First, the decision before the Council is whether or not to purchase capacity being offered by TVWD in the existing raw water intake structure and the associated costs to seismically harden the structure. Second, the cost to participate in the buy-in has been reduced. In September, staff informed council that the cost of participating in the buy-in of the intake structure was expected to be approximately $15.9 million. Staff has now confirmed this cost is expected to be $9.7 M. Again, this cost is 100% SDC eligible, meaning this purchase will not trigger a rate increase. Third,while the timing is not opportune for Tigard as we will not use this capacity for many years, the other partners are moving ahead now. This is a one-time offer, if Tigard chooses not to purchase now, that capacity will be sold to other partners. The capacity being offered is for 12.7 mgd. Fourth, purchase of this capacity will provide Tigard an ownership share and thus make Tigard a voting partner on the use of this asset. This asset in addition to our water right will be leasable to other partners, thus the potential of revenue generation exists until Tigard would need to use 3 this capacity. Staff has also confirmed that both TVWD and Hillsboro are willing to include buy back or first right of refusal to purchase language in the purchase and sale agreement. Finally, if Tigard chooses not to purchase now the city will still have water rights via the WRWC agreement, but absolutely no infrastructure to use that water. Tigard would be on its own to permit, finance, and construct intake, treatment, and transmission facilities from the Willamette River to the Tigard Water Service Area. Those costs would not be incremental, but all done at one time when we need that supply. While those costs are unknown at this time, they would be high compared to volume of water provided. Attachments Attachment 1 Willamette Governance Group Separate Intergovernmental Agreements (Governance Structure Diagram) Attachment 2 City of Tigard Future Water Supply Development Approaches Conceptual Analysis Findings, Murray, Smith &Associates, dated October 12, 2012. Attachment 3 Willamette Policy Discussions Diagram 4 Willamette Governance Group Separate Intergovernmental Agreements— Governance Structure (as of 10/13/16) Raw Water Facilities IGA Beaverton Hillsboro& Sherwood Tigard& TVWD& Wilsonville (Intake and &Council Council &Council Council Board &Council RWPS) WRWTP Existing TVWD Wilsonville Sherwood IGA's WWSS IGA TVWD Hillsboro Beaverton WRWC IGA Sherwood Tigard NWD Tualatin (Water Rights) rt rt . r. WGG- Governance and Decision Making Preliminary Concept- 10-13-16-draft Willamette Governance Group Separate Intergovernmental Agreements — Governance Structure (as of 10/13/16) Intergovernmental What Does it Govern? Agreement Raw Water Facilities (Intake River withdrawals, coordinates operations with and Raw Water Pump WTPs, capital projects for seismic improvements Station Facilities) and fish screens, source water protection, WMCP's, and other common issues WRWTP Existing Lower Willamette River Water Treatment Plant Intergovernmental (existing) operations, capital projects, operator Agreements contract, water quality goals, etc. Willamette Water Supply Upper WWSS water treatment plant, transmission System Intergovernmental lines, and finished water storage design, Agreement construction, operations, water quality goals, etc. Willamette River Water Joint water right permit including water right Coalition (Water Right development and transactions Permit) Attachment 2 YISA DRAFT Murray,Smith&Associates,Inc. EngineersfPhnners 121 S.W.Salmon,Suite 900 • Portland 0n on 97204-2919 ■ PHONE 503.225.9010 • FAX 503225.9022 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM DATE: October 12, 2012 PROJECT: 12-1362.401 TO: Mr. John Goodrich, Utility Division Manager City of Tigard FROM: Brian Ginter, P.E. Lael Alderman, P.E. Murray, Smith &Associates, Inc. RE: City of Tigard Future Water Supply Development Approaches Conceptual Analysis Findings Purpose The purpose of this technical memorandum is to document a conceptual-level analysis of the relative costs, risks and benefits of the City of Tigard(City) acquiring all or a portion of the City of Sherwood's Portland Supply Line as part of a supply and transmission system from the Willamette River compared to an alternative approach of participating in a larger Willamette River supply and transmission project with other regional partners. Background The City has participated in regional planning and long-term water supply, treatment and transmission studies associated with the development of a regional Willamette River water supply system originating at the site of the Willamette River Water Treatment Plant(WRWTP) located in Wilsonville. Numerous studies have been performed by individual water providers and regional partnerships, such as the Willamette River Water Coalition (WRWC), to define the type, size, location and cost of such a supply system. A regional partnership provides all participants in a water supply project the opportunity to benefit from the economies of scale associated with the design and construction of facilities sized to meet the needs of all the facility's owners. The City of Sherwood recently completed the construction of transmission pipeline facilities to transmit drinking water supply from the WRWTP in Wilsonville to Sherwood's distribution 12-1362.401 Page 1 of 12 Future Water Supply Development October 2012 Conceptual Analysis City of Tigard system. As part of this work, Sherwood oversized segments of the transmission system believing that the excess capacity could eventually be transferred to a regional partner. Sherwood is also exploring opportunities to integrate its existing Portland Supply Main into this transmission system to the benefit of a regional partner and as a means of recovering a portion of the capital investment. The City of Sherwood's 24-inch diameter ductile iron Portland Supply Main extends approximately four(4)miles, beginning at the terminus of the southern leg of the Washington County Supply Line system in the City of Tualatin and connecting to the City of Sherwood distribution system near the intersection of SW Oregon Street and SW Murdock Road. The existing main could serve as an element of future transmission facilities to supply water from the WRWTP in Wilsonville to Tigard. Water Supply and Transmission Alternatives Of the 130 million gallons per day(mgd) in the water right permit held by the WRWC for diversion from the Willamette River at the location of the WRWTP, the City is allocated 25 mgd. The City will be required to construct new finished water supply and transmission facilities in order to make use of this 25 mgd allocation. Two (2) alternatives available to the City are presented and evaluated here. Alternative 1 consists of the City acquiring all or a portion of Sherwood's Portland Supply Line, as well as capacity in facilities owned by Sherwood and sized for future partners, and integrating these facilities into a new supply and transmission system from the Willamette River. Alternative 2 would have the City participating in a larger Willamette River supply and transmission project with other regional partners. Sizing of proposed transmission mains are based upon a maximum average velocity in the pipe of five (5) feet per second at flows equal to stated ultimate capacities. The alternatives analysis presented herein is based on existing available data and studies. No new engineering analyses of treatment, transmission routing or project cost estimates were performed as part of this analysis. For the purposes of normalizing the two (2) alternatives, existing data was used as the basis for definition of conceptual facilities. Specific sources of data used in this analysis include the following materials: • Willamette River Water Supply System Preliminary Engineering Report(Murray, Smith &Associates, Inc, December 1999); • Willamette River Water Treatment Plant Master Plan (MWH, December 2006); • Tualatin Valley Water District, Water Supply Improvements Program, Preliminary Engineering-Phase 1 (Carollo Engineers, December 2006); • Willamette River Water Supply System Potential Transmission Main Alignment Coordination Evaluation Technical Memorandum (Murray, Smith &Associates, Inc, January 2011). Alternative 1—Acquire a Portion of the City of Sherwood's Portland Supply Main Water supply development concept Alternative 1 includes the City purchasing a 25 mgd share in the capacity of the WRWTP in Wilsonville. The City would also purchase capacity in the existing transmission piping from the WRWTP to the City of Sherwood. The proposed Alternative 1 transmission system would be completed by acquiring a section of the Sherwood's 12-1362.401 Page 2 of 12 Future Water Supply Development October 2012 Conceptual Analysis City of Tigard \\ad.msa-ep.com\Portland\PDX_Projects\I2\1362\40I\Memos\Tigard Water Supply Dev Alternatives-Tech Memo.doc Portland Supply Main and constructing multiple segments of new transmission piping to supply 25 mgd to Tigard's 10 Million Gallon (MG) Reservoir. A new booster pump station would need to be constructed to transmit supply to the City's 10 MG Reservoir. Proposed Alternative 1 facilities and transmission piping alignments are illustrated on Figure 1. A summary of the Alternative 1 water transmission facilities,both existing and proposed, is provided below. 1. Expansion of the WRWTP capacity by 25 mgd for supply to City. The WRWTP property is divided into a lower and upper site. The upper site remains undeveloped and is available to site expansions for the facility once the ultimate capacity of the lower site is realized. The lower site of the WRWTP has an ultimate capacity of approximately 65 mgd; current construction and operation of the facility provides 15 mgd to Wilsonville and Sherwood. The City would be responsible for sharing the costs in any projects which would expand the capacity of the lower site relative to the additional 25 mgd of supply desired. The City would also be responsible for reimbursing WRWTP partners for a relative share of the initial construction costs for the existing WRWTP facilities sized for capacity in excess of 15 mgd. 2. The City purchases 25 mgd of capacity in the existing Wilsonville and Sherwood-owned transmission system from the WRWTP to the intersection of SW Murdock Road& SW Sunset Boulevard in Sherwood. The existing transmission system in this portion of the proposed Alternative 1 alignment is a gravity fed system originating from the WRWTP. The transmission main is a combination of 63-inch diameter welded steel pipe(from the WRWTP north to the intersection of SW Kinsman Road and SW Wilsonville Road in Wilsonville) and 48-inch diameter welded steel pipe (the remaining alignment). The 63-inch diameter section of main was constructed with a wye connection at its northern end to allow for future expansion and construction of parallel transmission facilities. The ultimate capacity of the 63-inch diameter main is 65 mgd. The ultimate capacity of the 48-inch diameter main is 40 mgd. Ultimate demands for Sherwood and Wilsonville account for 40 mgd of the transmission system's capacity between the WRWTP and the intersection of SW Tooze Road& SW Grahams Ferry Road in Clackamas County; parallel transmission facilities would be required along this portion of the route (as described in Item 3 below). Additional studies would be required to confirm available capacity and ownership in supply facilities prior to further advancement of Alternative 1. 3. Construction of parallel transmission facilities to convey supply beyond the 40 mgd capacity of the existing 48-inch diameter segments of Wilsonville and Sherwood-owned transmission main. The City would be required to construct parallel transmission facilities capable of conveying 25 mgd from the existing wye connection on the 63-inch diameter main at the intersection of SW Kinsman Road& SW Wilsonville Road to the intersection of SW Tooze Road and SW Grahams Ferry Road in Clackamas County. Construction of a new parallel 42-inch diameter transmission main would be required to transmit 25 mgd supply 12-1362.401 Page 3 of 12 Future Water Supply Development October 2012 Conceptual Analysis City of Tigard \\ad.msa-ep.com\Portland\PDX_Projects\12\1362\401\Memos\Tigard Water Supply Dev Alternatives-Tech Memo.doc for Tigard. The City would need to construct approximately 10,000 lineal feet(LF) of new transmission main in this area, including a connection to the existing 48-inch diameter welded steel main. The remaining segments of the existing 48-inch diameter transmission main north to Sherwood would have adequate capacity to provide for Tigard's ultimate supply needs. Additional studies would be required to confirm available capacity supply facilities prior to further advancement of Alternative 1. 4. Construction of new transmission facilities and other associated appurtenances to transmit supply in SW Murdock Road from Sherwood's supply main at SW Sunset Boulevard to SW Oregon Street. The City of Sherwood's 48-inch diameter supply main enters Sherwood from the south along SW Baker Road/SW Murdock Road,turning west in SW Sunset Boulevard to continue on to Sherwood's 4.0 MG Sunset Reservoir#2. In order to continue transmitting WRWTP supply north to Tigard, approximately 4,300 LF of new transmission main would need to be constructed within SW Murdock Road. A 42-inch diameter main would be required to meet the ultimate capacity requirement of 25 mgd. Additionally, a meter vault would need to be constructed in the vicinity of the SW Sunset Boulevard to monitor flows directed towards Tigard. 5. The City purchases a portion of Sherwood's Portland Supply Main. The City would need to purchase, at a minimum, approximately 10,000 LF of the existing 24-inch diameter transmission main from the City of Sherwood. The City would require the section of existing main between the intersection of SW Oregon Street and SW Murdock Road in Sherwood and a location in the vicinity of the intersection of SW Herman Road and SW 124th Avenue in the City of Tualatin. The 24-inch main has an ultimate capacity of approximately 10 mgd. 6. Construction of parallel transmission facilities to transmit capacity beyond the 10 mgd capacity of Sherwood's Portland Supply Main. Sherwood's Portland Supply Main is constructed of 24-inch diameter ductile iron pipe. The ultimate capacity of the existing transmission main is 10 mgd, only a fraction of Tigard's desired ultimate supply of 25 mgd. Construction of a new parallel 30-inch diameter transmission main would be required to provide the additional 15 mgd of necessary supply. The City would need to construct approximately 10,000 LF of new 30- inch transmission main to parallel the portion of Sherwood's Portland Supply Main which it would purchase. 7. Construction of transmission facilities and other associated appurtenances to transmit supply from Sherwood's Portland Supply Main to the City of Tigard, including booster pumping facilities. For the general transmission main alignment shown in Figure 1, the City will need to combine flows from the purchased section of Sherwood's Portland Supply Main with 12-1362.401 Page 4 of 12 Future Water Supply Development October 2012 Conceptual Analysis City of Tigard \\ad.mca-ep.com\Portland\PDX_Projects\12\1362\401\Memos\Tigard Water Supply Dev Ahernatives-Tech Memo.doc G'.IPSO Pro:.cls\1211362CAO\GI5\12-1362401.08-FIGURE 10111/2012 4 06 a 06.00 f'M 0hl-1 fi r-- / h1 � ,4- 11-l m----y1"'���;F_{�.- L.._1- litl �..�'I6ty of `n 'I .•a.a....,.«�-+--^It.�,�.11.:-.y -. FIGURE 1 ,t{� irtt• t �yl �E F f Tigard x'.11 P r�1 �jF Future Water Supply ir {_ i'r _ ` `I'' __( I I t,1 F f Development Approaches I, r--d :' :I,. 1 " TIGARD 10 MG I �,/ t Conceptual Analysis _ ! e / •Tr'J I -17�-L I. RESERVOIR• l-1 r. I ( i I--r -1 - F OE:470 FT Ary' Alternative 1-Sherwood Transmission Main t l���_ T I I EI`I -,-_-L------1...1] -- I LI I ��! C'- of October 2012 st��a b 1 { Y !, Mm sMSA ! aat - � 1- I '�KIng�City il_Ir'_`� `��� I, p Inuns 12-1362A0I X,- r I I �• I ,- - I1-_ i . _--_ - I 4.T,t 1 I t1 I fir0 S._—_ ,11' -'^ y� l III tit - �P,ROPOSED r �.• I.ghl'< �� 4t f Tualatt '_ r II " _ _ TUALATIN RIVEf< p �I L /- `_ �. r.CROSING+t'� 3, M ..,0141.l, > y T 11 t, 1 ��" � t I- .. 1 •j -) / \ lay,`I- {I I r._ h 5.C'(\�0OO Y�P'CE ,."�q$ �'� I" �� l • - _.,,,,;0.7..,„0 •,.tilt Le � ' l 1 � Nor .. y J -_ l i 1 1 1 I H r I TI . 1 .I,„.11."--.E.1\-- --,' - - �'� r- ni4' H Y 1.1 1 1 '••• -• 1. I' - R t rI �t 1.� I�' Z} ••Y III 11 I- - II I: I- ` � r 4- .., fir._... f t-fia , 1 r7 -L h rte _ '- . I 1 : I\ .C--ITLOF�TIGAR�x ti"�'"ti Yi` '1 1-- 4' �( I j 1 1 I,, '.PUMPSTATION,. +a I � j,_1 , fl �' V L'"w31 I 1 ,, 'r•I 1 1 T. �frO10'MGrRESERVOIR} • � • 11-TI I ��I� I r 61, t L 1 Gl � i1 1 _ �- ' 1 *,...,,„,„_:,.A-;. Sia 1,1 k ,, cc I rI� I I l- 4J.,,, !,-.5t rkrq' a,a "I ,r I L I "l n "IJ y, �( I 1 �.Y s, TO CITY OF SMERWOOD i - e ' 'I'44. z;7 r�.. I C1, . YI _ I-{ DIY OF3 TIONI - a 1 J P -- -1-i X44+ a ,, {.'r;,:1-Vi /4, �" _ I� �.I--I.. r IIII; . ..�# I �a G_ _ie I r:�, z5 d.° 11,T 1 6'Lc.j-1' 1-i I' _ra(-1' r1"� -4, :Itv \1 • i a ,t,•-•-.,,,-,17-4,-^ ,1 1 -7 �S..r • ..,•,..,-.0.,....k-_-,,,,,, a y 'v :1 ��. 1 t i,.:0!' i"`" eb b 1 '„ti, p '1 I'1)i v PROPOSED ,'1 ,�l �2Au E.1 G�.", . :x { + 1 1 ro<\ M{ -,C •y`!'i_ ,. Ip 1 3, f_� i , _1- ili ""Iuy s „4'" " "ss r, , NLTIGARD METER I ., I I I, I 1 z°1y ; , --, �I:� El- /.' yr ar]l cyr-r D ',..•11-,;,1_,: I \ (— ,7 1 _r F IAF-' .� {�1 `...°�i�CITY OF SHERWOOD . VAULT - , ,L. ,i= + ,�-}_I= , N: 14-J Htl I SUNSET RESERVOIR _ 1 •T -1 .- r i 111 ! 1 '' �1=��� Y -I � �1 if p -Lx k 7±,___ j - NS, 1 rl_ ' 1L I_ 1 4;' (.1 --{-I L I I\ II ,r L , - 1;-,, �`� I' I ''\,-- .-.I ,.• � 1, -� \;-, 1-- it I;-I ��n '''''--r7-1-47' JRI I ( t,i 1. 1` --��LR / - LrJ_-• • �.\ —Ir-h.-I1 -� ,.` A -- r e 1'.. �S•.-_-11, ' � � _—•-1 L-11--I — 1 \ I { J '{ , g{ ``� I�I/ I j'SII 1 1_ "." -7., J-i-- SII- I -LI 1 I 11 I \ 1 , II 1 , ,' - J-I I _r a t �i-Y-r_i - \~.\ .. 1 _. ,. SHERWOOD `rN-' -,( i' I � �I' 1- -,._'.1,---1_17-111_11117,L")_„.1_,,1 I-r TlT1�II JL 1 J rrL y FL t` H I'' s""�"-.f^° 18, VAULTREVENUE� METER v ti'r - C VAULT ._ "11— i- 1 I \ _ - , _1j1� 1 . I ,i : ro .1. .1 i1-1 �_ e __i IVii.. #_7,6.1.:,,,,;. --4.,-I 0,71- I0 ,r' I ..II I 1 \ < y 1 > ( � �l J • l — 71- t t 1�j�ly B I 4 °r 4 \.,,, ' L H;.- ,—I-1 1 ; II II ft-'i+`" I ..:.�1 ai-� �lS�1RV{I10,,L,14;,;),,_, 7 L l Is7 o-�.._ I 1J i i t r 3,000 0 3,000 3 .« - 1 r , I 1 L •uawJ T H (' 1 r —_ 11 i SCALE IN FEET - --,- a I ";i _a II I r p? /�WILLAMETTE RIVER. r °\ � WATER TREATMENT r LEGEND ' pr' PLANT Q'0. ., EXISTING WILLAMETTE RIVER WTP TRANSMISSION MAIN I ',N\\ ,..----------1 EXISTING SHERWOOD 24-INCH TRANSMISSION MAIN i /:-,---_-----• --------------.7- "�� -- PROPOSED CITY OF TIGARD TRANSMISSION MAINS \ T - flows from the proposed parallel 30-inch diameter line. The two (2) mains would tie together in the vicinity of the intersection of SW Herman Road and SW 124th Avenue in the City of Tualatin and be pumped north to Tigard's 10 MG Reservoir. The associated transmission main would be required to cross under the Tualatin River en route to the City. Booster Pump Station -- The WRWTP currently operates at an approximate hydraulic grade (HGL) of less than 450 feet. The City's 10 MG Reservoir overflow elevation is set at 470 feet. The City would be required to construct a new pump station to boost the HGL of the WRWTP supply to 470 feet. The ultimate capacity of the proposed booster pump station would be approximately 25 mgd, or 17,400 gallons per minute (gpm), which could be constructed in multiple stages to meet growing City demands. HDD Crossing of Tualatin River--Any proposed transmission main alignment from Sherwood or Tualatin north to the City would require a crossing of the Tualatin River. The most likely means for crossing the river would be an underground crossing through the use of horizontal directional drilling(HDD). Due to the sensitive nature of the riparian lands, a minimum distance from the river's edge will have to be maintained and open cut transmission main construction will be prohibited. Large receiving and boring pits will be required on either end of the construction, and adequate area will need to be made available for laying out the HDD piping. An estimated length of 1,000 LF for the HDD crossing has been used in this memorandum. Alternative 2—Future Regional Supply Development Water supply development concept Alternative 2 would have the City participate in a major regional expansion of the WRWTP, including the facility's River Intake and Raw Water Pump Station, in Wilsonville. The City would also need to participate in the development of a new transmission system extending north from the Willamette River to Washington County water providers north of the City's service area. The proposed regional transmission system is assumed to follow the most recent alignment presented to the WRWC as part of the Tonquin Trail investigation. A proposed regional transmission main is assumed to operate at an HGL higher than the 470 feet of the Tigard 10 MG Reservoir overflow, thus no booster pumping from the regional transmission system will be required. Tigard's 10 MG Reservoir would be supplied through new City-owned transmission piping from a master metered connection to the proposed regional transmission main. As part of this regional supply system, Tigard would also share in the development of a regional terminal storage facility north of the City's service area. Proposed Alternative 2 facilities and transmission piping alignments are illustrated on Figure 2. A summary of the Alternative 2 water transmission facilities,both existing and proposed, is provided below. 12-1362.401 Page 6 of 12 Future Water Supply Development October 2012 Conceptual Analysis City of Tigard `Md.msa-ep.com\Portland\PDX_Projects\12\1362\40I\lvlemos\Tigard Water Supply Dev Alternatives-Tech Memo.doc G IPDX P8888UI8112113621CAOIGIS1121362401 OR FIGURE 2.mxd 10,11;;i' 4 0 P11,1060 TO REGIONAL - // FIGURE - TERMINAL RESERVOIR 3 - r t Future Water Supply ._ -. % z `1, • Development Approaches .,,. .. ,../.! i It .�l:I� Conceptual -1_.T��-�'wry ; �n r i i•: r. Analysis J •• ., ' '�--I. Alternative 2-Future Regional Supply ' 1 i-' U i."'; TIGARD 10 MG i - ' �' N_ RESERVOIR = o October 2012 , Ea,.. J1e`tl. :t. OE 470FT� \\ ` i.wsi►ewarsa ,111-.4,- r f_ n City of a i I rwu. .nn wc1 I 1;82 401 -I 1 11 i—; . Tigard I �.I .--. 1- 1 i f' - s F. i i" a % r I— t., =.yell' T7 Kms' 4 Cif.of O. ..on I P 1_I rng Clty I` y r i ,, f c lP 87 C V.0 . lC, lty Of \ mo / :"` ualatn'Rt"er-- . r /.l � urharr 1 /�- is .< .5� ` ._ _ ' i t {; {�/ �� w Mid °yJ . w -]1 ,Y ^� r - �,.'_ �,1': City,of _ �:., t } 0. 1 Ir , t ~ gym. -, Tualatin Ill f City of 1 ti r ,. _ rI Sherwood r Y..�1 _''�''I'�'. I;IrT'1 i • TO CITY OF SHERWOOD ""' wz r t 1 'kms' ..,..DISTRIBUTION 0 Qr J- / �1.7 i ] r' �f�r FP{� I 1 Ht � 1 I_ r-I•' ` d ti L�1Ji • o �.� 1' ` + .-1'.71- - e7 r'{ IA _�}y1 1--7---1_1-T--- II t, - - ': L. - =1� 1rrll1. UNSET R .;+ TSi______:___ -- 1 �,� \ 1 ' i*----- ./ t'Si'I'L-I�,�-r`;F'I-.. I` . �I T- 1:i 1 ,\ 1 -L— f ry , I--- - k - , I 1 ;--;-----1 1 I L:.,.., �i�a I, 1.. ' 1 . -I1 11, L, ! L 9L t - iJ Tir16MMv1 L ' ,--:1'-1_ - ! �/ -, I I 1 - _ I -1 _• I .1 € - _1- t �_ .,1.»F1 1 F �� r r :, --,----„---J,,...1. _ - © :� / f1 t 4 T L- `y� �-I iy F -_ia � 111 , I�r --` I C I M '''---Iw 1 \ ---.1..]I:,--_';'.71' �� 1�-11-1-1-- I•_'T I —111 �� ._ 1.,. G --4,-=.-..,..........___— - •-J I N ,�� rl1 l ; \./I is � _ 9 City of I �..- I, 3,500 0 g 3,500 11 TLI 'ri- 7•,' 1 I £ Wilsonville ! i' _ _ \ �' i € , PROPOSED(UPPER) SCALE IN FEET \�, WILLAMETTE RIVER PLANT - ice_ - ' WATER TREATMENT »,111.1 -i PLANT _- LEGEND 1'7EXISTING(LOWER) PLANT _---. er PROPOSED CITY OF TIGARD TRANSMISSION MAIN �,. — PROPOSED REGIONAL TRANSMISSION MAIN M\ VI,,,atoet\y,� ___ ' PROPOSED ROADWAY \ -� N. i i..- 1 EXISTING WILLAMETTE RIVER WTP TRANSMISSION MAIN .. - i /"ter e • g� �':� 'I I�_I -t- I EXISTING SHERWOOD 24-INCH TRANSMISSION MAIN I T! 1 I w For the purpose of analysis, supply development costs will be based on Tigard's capacity share of a 100 mgd supply and transmission system. The ultimate regional supply of 100 mgd is based upon the findings of the Willamette River Water Treatment Plant Master Plan (MWH, December 2006). 1. Tigard participates in the development of a new transmission system extending north from the WRWTP to Washington County area water providers located north of the City's existing service area. An 84-inch diameter transmission main will be required to transmit the ultimate regional supply of 100 mgd. Based upon the most recent alignment presented to the WRWC, it will require approximately 77,500 LF (14.7 miles) of new transmission main to reach the proposed regional terminal storage reservoir facilities from the expanded WRWTP. No booster pumping facilities will be required. As with Alternative 1,there will be costs involved with constructing a HDD, or microtunnel, crossing under the Tualatin River. Tigard would be responsible for sharing costs in constructing the new transmission system relative to its 25 mgd share of overall system capacity. 2. Tigard participates in a major expansion of the WRWTP to meet the supply needs of regional partners. The lower site of the WRWTP has a build-out capacity of 65 mgd. Current construction and operation of the facility provides 15 mgd to Wilsonville and Sherwood, leaving 50 mgd of expandable capacity at the lower site. The upper site of the WRWTP has a build- out capacity of 100 mgd. Any project to expand the WRWTP to meet demands for a regional partnership would likely involve TVWD, which has an ultimate demand of 70 mgd. The WRWTP Master Plan puts forth the likely scenario for expansion of the facility to meet TVWD's ultimate demands as the full development of the WRWTP upper site in a single construction project. Additionally,the River Intake & Raw Water Pump Station would likely be upgraded from its current 70 mgd capacity to its build-out capacity of 165 mgd. Tigard would be responsible for sharing costs in expanding the WRWTP relative to its 25 mgd share of overall plant capacity. Also, the City would be responsible for reimbursing existing WRWTP partners for work completed in initial construction of WRWTP facilities, including the River Intake and Raw Water Pump Station. 3. Construction of transmission facilities and other associated appurtenances to transmit supply from a master meter connection along the proposed transmission alignment to the City's 10 MG Reservoir. A transmission main supplying regional partners would extend north of the City's system along its western boundary. The City would need to construct a master meter connection off of the proposed regional transmission main, as well as a dedicated transmission main to its 10 MG Reservoir. A 42-inch diameter main would be required to provide the City's 25 mgd ultimate demand. As shown in Figure 2, a potential route for the City's 12-1362.401 Page 8 of 12 Future Water Supply Development October 2012 Conceptual Analysis City of Tigard \\ad.msa-ep.com\Portland\PDX_Projects\12\1362\40l\Memos\Tigard Water Supply Dev Alternatives-Tech Memo.doc transmission main would be east along SW Beef Bend Road and the Tonquin Trail from the master meter to the 10 MG Reservoir, requiring approximately 7,400 LF of piping. Project Cost Estimates Project cost estimates for both of the City's water supply development concept alternatives are presented as follows. Cost estimates represent opinions of cost only, acknowledging that final costs of individual projects will vary depending on actual labor and material costs, market conditions for construction,regulatory factors, final project scope,project schedule and other factors. The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) classifies cost estimates depending on project definition, end usage and other factors. The cost estimates presented here are considered Class 5,with an end usage being concept screening and expected accuracy range of-30 percent to+50 percent. All cost estimates are based on an assumed three (3)percent annual inflation to year 2030 dollars. Estimates for costs to purchase existing systems are based on replacement cost new in year 2030 dollars established from the documented project costs. Cost estimating worksheets for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are provided in the Appendix of this report. Where applicable, project estimates include a 45 percent allowance for project engineering, administration and contingency. Alternative 1 Project Cost Estimates Estimated project costs for Alternative 1 have been itemized by major project elements as follows: 1. Expansion of the WRWTP capacity by 25 mgd for supply to City $67,300,000 Assumptions: • TVWD & City of Wilsonville completed construction of WRWTP facilities in 2002. Approximate project costs totaled $41.3M. o $7.5M for Raw Water Intake & Pump Station at 70 mgd capacity. o $33.8M for the Water Treatment Plant at 15 mgd capacity,with $15.1M for facility oversizing. • Raw Water Intake &Pump Station would require minor improvements included in WRWTP expansion costs. • WTP would require expansion of existing facilities by approximately 3.3 times. Estimated costs for expansion are based on indexed cost estimates presented in WRWTP Master Plan. 2. Purchase 25 mgd of capacity in the existing Wilsonville and Sherwood-owned transmission system from the WRWTP to the intersection of SW Murdock Road& SW Sunset Boulevard in Sherwood $11,800,000 12-1362.401 Page 9 of 12 Future Water Supply Development October 2012 Conceptual Analysis City of Tigard G:\PDX_Projects\l2\l362\401\Memos\Tigard Water Supply Dev Alternatives-Tech Memo.doc Assumptions: • Existing capacity of 63-inch diameter main in SW Kinsman Road is 65 mgd. Tigard to reimburse Wilsonville and Sherwood relative to its desired 25 mgd share of capacity. • Existing capacity of 48-inch diameter main from SW Tooze Road to SW Sunset Blvd is 40 mgd. Tigard to reimburse Sherwood relative to its desired 25 mgd share of capacity. 3. Construction of parallel transmission facilities from the intersection of SW Kinsman Road& SW Wilsonville Road in Wilsonville to intersection of SW Tooze Road& SW Grahams Ferry Road in Clackamas County $20,200,000 Assumptions: • Approximately 10,800 LF of 42-inch diameter main. 4. Construction of new transmission facilities in SW Murdock Road from Sherwood's supply main at SW Sunset Boulevard to SW Oregon Street $9,300,000 Assumptions: • Approximately 4,300 LF of 42-inch diameter main. • Includes construction of new metering facility to monitor flows to Tigard. 5. Purchase portion of Sherwood's Portland Supply Main $9,600,000 Assumptions: • City of Sherwood constructed pipeline in 1999 for approximately$9 million in total project costs. • Tigard would purchase approximately 10,000 LF of the total 4 mile pipeline. 6. Construction of new transmission facilities parallel to Sherwood's Portland Supply Main $13,400,000 Assumptions: • Approximately 10,000 LF of 30-inch diameter main. 7. Construction of new transmission facilities from Sherwood's Portland Supply Main to the City of Tigard, including booster pumping facilities $39,000,000 Assumptions: • Approximately 16,100 LF of 42-inch diameter main, including approximately 1,000 LF of HDD crossing under the Tualatin River. • Pumping facilities sized for 25 mgd (17,400 gpm) capacity to boost head 90 to 120 feet. Estimated Total Project Costs for Alternative 1, Year 2030 Dollars $170,600,000 12-1362.401 Page 10 of 12 Future Water Supply Development October 2012 Conceptual Analysis City of Tigard \\ad.msa-ep.com\Portland\PDX_Projects\l2\1362\401\Memos\Tigard Water Supply Dev Alternatives-Tech Memo.doc Alternative 2 Project Cost Estimates Estimated project costs for Alternative 2 have been itemized by major project elements as follows: 1. Participation in the development of a new regional transmission system $241,100,000 Assumptions: • Estimated project costs based upon Tualatin Valley Water District, Water Supply Improvements Program, Preliminary Engineering-Phase 1 (Carollo Engineers, December 2006). o Costs provided in Table 2, Pipeline Conceptual Cost Estimates. Alternative Alignment, Constrained Case Cost of$475M for 84-inch diameter main was used as basis of estimate. Lengths of transmission main and associated complexities in construction from reporting are similar to proposed work shown in Figure 2. • Additional costs for City's share in approximately 60 MG of terminal storage for transmission system. 2. Participation in a major expansion of the WRWTP to meet supply needs of regional partners $115,300,000 Assumptions: • Expansion of WRWTP assumed to be build-out construction of upper WRWTP site in a single construction project for additional water treatment facilities. o Upper site ultimate capacity is 100 mgd. o Per mgd cost calculated using WRWTP Master Plan, Table 5-6, Alternative 1 for 70 mgd upper site expansion cost of$107M. • Expansion of River Intake& Raw Water Pump Station required. o Existing capacity is 70 mgd. Estimates assume expansion to WRWTP build-out capacity, 165 mgd. • City is responsible for reimbursing existing partners for cost associated with initial construction of River Intake &Raw Water PS facilities. 3. Construction of new City-owned transmission facilities from a master meter connection along the proposed regional transmission system to City's 10 MG Reservoir ... ..$15,000,000 Assumptions: • Approximately 7,400 LF of 42-inch diameter main. Estimated Total Project Costs for Alternative 2, Year 2030 Dollars $371,400,000 12-1362.401 Page 11 of 12 Future Water Supply Development October 2012 Conceptual Analysis City of Tigard `,\ad.msa-ep.com\Portland\PDX_Projects\12\1362\401\Memos\Tigard Water Supply Dev Alternatives-Tech Memo.doc Summary This technical memorandum is to intended to document a conceptual-level analysis of the costs, risks and benefits associated with the City acquiring all or a portion of the City of Sherwood's Portland Supply Line as part of a supply and transmission system from the Willamette River compared to an alternative approach of participating in a larger Willamette River supply and transmission project with other regional partners. With City input and following discussions with Sherwood and other regional water providers, the preliminary concepts presented here may be advanced for the purpose of long-term water supply planning, discussions with neighboring water providers and participation in regional supply planning efforts. BMG/LLA:Ila 12-1362.401 Page 12 of 12 Future Water Supply Development October 2012 Conceptual Analysis City of Tigard \\ad.msa-ep.com\Portland\PDX_Projects\12\1362\401\Memos\Tigard Water Supply Dev Alternatives-Tech Memo.doc APPENDIX Project Cost Estimate Worksheets ALTERNATIVE 1--ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS Item# 1A Location: Portion of cost to construct existing River Intake facilities&WTP Approx.Total Project Cost,Year 2002 Dollars: $ 41,300,000 Raw Water Intake&Pump Sta.Total: $7,500,000 Current Capacity,mgd: 70 Water Treatment Plant,Total: $33,800,000 Cost for Oversized Facilities: $15,100,000 Current Max Capacity(w/oversized facilities),mgd: 70 Tigard's Share for Intake/PS Oversizing Costs,Yr 2002 Dollars: $ 2,700,000 Proposed Share of Capacity,mgd: 25 Proposed%age of Capacity,mgd: 35.7% Tigard's Share for WTP Oversizing Costs,Year 2002 Dollars: $ 5,400,000 Proposed Capacity,mgd: 25 Proposed%age of Capacity,mgd: 35.7% Sharable Cost Based Upon Capacity,Year 2002: $ 8,100,000 Sharable Cost Based Upon Capacity,Oct 2012: $ 10,088,319 ENR,CCI,Oct 2012: 9418.23 ENR,CCI,2002: 7561.98 %Change: 24.5% Estimated Project Total,Year 2030: $ 17,174,687 assumed annual inflation rate: 3% 1B Location: Portion of cost for expansion of WRWTP from 15 to 65 mgd No additional cost associated with expansion of Raw Water Intake&Pump Station. Construction Cost for Expanding Water Treatment Plant Element by 50 mgd @ Lower Site,Yr 2006(WRWTP MP): $ 54,000,000 Approx.Costs,Oct 2012: $ 58,859,986 ENR,CCI,Oct 2012: 9418.23 ENR,CCI,Dec 2006: 8640.58 %Change: 9.0% Tigard's Share in Costs for Expanding WTP,Oct 2012: $ 29,429,993 Tigard's Proposed Add'I Capacity,mgd: 25 Added WTP Capacity,mgd: 50 Proposed%age of Capacity,mgd: 50.0% Estimated Project Total,Year 2030: $ 50,102,593 assumed annual inflation rate: 3% G:\PDX_Projects\12\1362\401\Spreadsheets\Cost Estimates\Piping Costs per Segment 10-2-12.xls ALTERNATIVE 1--ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS 2A Location: Portion of cost for 25 mgd of capacity in existing 63-inch dia.WTP P/Line Segment 1 Approx.Total Project Cost,Year 2002 Dollars: $ 2,900,000 Total Capacity of 63-inch Dia.Line: 65 mgd Tigard's Proposed Purchase: 25 mgd Tigard's Proposed%age of Total Capacity: 38.5% Sharable Cost Based Upon Capacity,Year 2002: $ 1,115,385 Sharable Cost Based Upon Capacity,Oct 2012: $ 1,389,180 ENR,CCI,Oct 2012: 9418.23 ENR,CCI,2002: 7561.98 %Change: 24.5% Estimated Project Total,Year 2030: $ 2,364,985 assumed annual inflation rate: 3% 2B Location: Portion of cost for 25 mgd of capacity in existing 48-inch dia.Swood P/Line Segments 7-8 Total Project Cost,July 2009-Dec 2011: $ 9,166,778 %of Line Length to be Shared with Tigard: 88.2% Total Length,LF: 15,424 Shared Length,LF: 17,490 Sharable Cost,Dec 2011: $ 8,083,956 Total Capacity: 40 mgd Tigard's Proposed Purchase: 25 mgd Tigard's Proposed%age of Total Capacity: 62.5% Sharable Cost Based Upon Capacity,Year 2011: $ 5,052,472 Sharable Cost Based Upon Capacity,Oct 2012: $ 5,498,323 ENR,CCI,Oct 2012: 9418.23 ENR,CCI,Jul 2009: 8654.52 %Change: 8.8% Estimated Project Total,Year 2030: $ 9,360,527 assumed annual inflation rate: 3% 3 Location: New transmission system parallel to Segments 2-6 of Swood P/Line Approx.Length: 10,800 LF Dia: 42 IN Cost per Inch diameter lineal foot: $18 Total Est.Construction Cost,Year 2012: $ 8,164,800 +45%Enginerring,Admin&Contingency: $ 3,674,160 Estimated Project Total,Year 2012: $ 11,838,960 Estimated Project Total,Year 2030: $ 20,155,037 assumed annual inflation rate: 3% G:\PDX_Pro)ects\12\1362\401\Spreadsheets\Cost Estimates\Piping Costs per Segment 10-2-12.xls ALTERNATIVE 1--ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS 4 Location: Murdock Road,between Baker Rd/Sunset Blvd&Oregon Str roundabout Approx.Length: 4,300 LE Dia: 42 IN Cost per Inch diameter lineal foot: $18 Est.Construction Cost P/line,Year 2012: $ 3,250,800 Plus Metering Vault @ SW Sunset Blvd: Est.Construction Cost,Year 2012: $ 500,000 Estimated Construction Cost,Year 2012: $ 3,750,800 +45%Enginerring,Admin&Contingency: $ 1,687,860 Estimated Project Total,Year 2012: $ 5,438,660 Estimated Project Total,Year 2030: $ 9,258,955 assumed annual inflation rate: 3% 5 Location: Cost to Purchase Sherwood 24-inch dia P/Line from Tualatin Original Project Cost,1999: $ 9,000,000 Approx.Length of P/Line,LF: 21,120 Tigard's Share of Original Project Cost,1999: $ 4,261,364 Portion Tigard Purchases,LF: 10,000 %of Original Cost Tigard Purchases: 47.3% Adjusted Project Cost,Oct 2012: $ 5,623,308 ENR,CCI,Oct 2012: 9418.23 ENR,CCI,1999: 7137.17 %Change: 32.0% Estimated Project Total,Year 2030: $ 9,573,305 assumed annual inflation rate: 3% 6 Location: Line parallel to Sherwood's PSL between Oregon Str roundabout&SW 124th Ave/SW Herman Rd,Tualatin Approx.Length: 10,000 LF Dia: 30 IN Cost per Inch diameter lineal foot: $18 Estimated Construction Cost,Year 2012: $ 5,400,000 +45%Enginerring,Admin&Contingency: $ 2,430,000 Estimated Project Total,Year 2012: $ 7,830,000 Estimated Project Total,Year 2030: $ 13,330,051 assumed annual inflation rate: 3% G:\PDX_Projects\12\1362\401\Spreadsheets\Cost Estimates\Piping Costs per Segment 10-2-12.xls ALTERNATIVE 1--ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS 7A Location: SW 124th Ave,North acorss Tualatin River to SW Beef Bend Rd,10 MG Res site Approx.Length: 15,100 LF Dia: 42 IN Cost per Inch diameter lineal foot: $18 Estimated Cost of P/Line,2012: $11,415,600 Plus Horiz Dir.Drill of Tualatin River Approx.Length: 1,000 LF Dia: 42 IN Cost per Inch diameter lineal foot for HDD: $30 Estimated Cost of HDD,2012: $1,260,000 Estimated Construction Cost,Year 2012: $12,675,600 +45%Enginerring,Admin&Contingency: $ 5,704,020 Estimated Project Total,Year 2012: $ 18,379,620 Estimated Project Total,Year 2030: $ 31,290,073 assumed annual inflation rate: 3% 7B Location: Booster Pump Station Capacity: 25 mgd 17,360 gpm Req'd Pumping Head: 90 ft Assumed Pump Effic.: 80% Firm Horsepower Req'd: 620 Estimated Cost per Horsepower,Installed: $5,000 Estimated Construction Cost,Year 2012: $ 3,100,000 +45%Enginerring,Admin&Contingency: $ 1,395,000 Estimated Project Total,Year 2012: $ 4,495,000 Estimated Project Total,Year 2030: $ 7,652,437 assumed annual inflation rate: 3% Estimated Alternative 1 Total,Year 2012: $ 100,011,362 Estimated Alternative 1 Total,Year 2030: $ 170,262,649 Footnote: 1.This project cost estimate is an opinion of cost based on information available at the time of the estimate. Final costs will depend on actual field conditions,actual material and labor costs,market conditions for construction,regulatory factors,final project scope,method of implementation,schedule and other variables. The Engineering(ENR) Construction Cost Index for Seattle,Washington is 9418.23,October 2012. G:\PDX_Projects\12\1362\401\Spreadsheets\Cost Estimates Piping Costs per Segment 10-2-12.xls ALTERNATIVE 2--ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS Item# 1A Location: Portion of cost for constructing Regional Transmission Main 84"Diameter,100 mgd capacity Estimated Total Project Cost,December 2006: $ 317,000,000 *minus contigencies Total Capacity: 100 mgd Tigard's Share of Total Capacity: 25 mgd Tigard's %age of Total Capacity: 25.0% Sharable Cost Based Upon Capacity,Dec 2006: $ 79,250,000 Sharable Cost Based Upon Capacity,Oct 2012: $ 86,382,480 ENR,CCI,Oct 2012: 9418.23 ENR,CCI,Dec 2006: 8640.58 %Change: 9.0% +45%Enginerring,Admin&Contingency: $ 38,872,116 Estimated Project Total,Year 2012: $ 125,254,596 Estimated Project Total,Year 2030: $ 213,237,565 assumed annual inflation rate: 3% 18 Location: Portion of cost to construct terminal reservoirs for Regional Transmission Main Capacity: 60 MG Estimated Cost per gallon: $0.75 Estimated Construction Cost,Year 2012: $ 45,000,000 Total Capacity of Transmission Main: 100 mgd Tigard's Share of Total Capacity: 25 mgd Tigard's Proposed%age of Total Capacity: 25.0% Sharable Cost Based Upon Capacity,Oct 2012: $ 11,250,000 +45%Enginerring,Admin&Contingency: $ 5,062,500 Estimated Project Total,Year 2012: $ 16,312,500 Estimated Project Total,Year 2030: $ 27,770,939 assumed annual inflation rate: 3% G:\PDX_Projects\12\1362\401\Spreadsheets\Cost Estimates\Piping Costs per Segment 10-2-12.xls ALTERNATIVE 2--ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS 2A Location: Portion of cost to expand WTP to upper site, 25 mgd of total 100 mgd capacity Construction Cost for Expansion of Water Treatment Plant by 70 mgd @ Upper Site,Yr 2006(WRWTP MP): $ 107,000,000 Approx.Costs,Oct 2012: $ 116,629,973 ENR,CCI,Oct 2012: 9418.23 ENR,CCI,Dec 2006: 8640.58 %Change: 9.0% Approx.Cost per mgd,Oct 2012: $ 1,666,142 Est.Construction Cost for Upper Site Build-Out Capacity,Year 2012: $166,614,247 Proposed Capacity,mgd: 100 Tigard's Share in Costs for Expanding WTP,Oct 2012: $41,653,562 Proposed Share in Capacity,mgd:25 +45%Enginerring,Admin&Contingency: $ 18,744,103 Estimated Project Total,Year 2012: $60,397,664 Estimated Project Total,Year 2030: $ 102,822,981 assumed annual inflation rate: 3% 2B Location: Portion of cost for expansion of WRWTP River Intake from current 70 mgd to 165 mgd Approx.Construction Cost for WRWTP River Intake&PS Element,Year 2002: $ 7,500,000 Tigard's Share for Intake/PS Cost,Year 2002 Dollars: $ 2,700,000 Capacity Yr 2002,mgd: 70 Proposed Share of Capacity,mgd: 25 Proposed%age of Capacity,mgd: 35.7% Approx.Share in Costs for Original Constr.,Oct 2012: $ 3,362,773 ENR,CCI,Oct 2012: 9418.23 ENR,CCI,2002: 7561.98 %Change: 24.5% Est.Construction Cost for Build-Out Capacity,Year 2012: $ 11,000,000 *based upon Yr 2002 construction costs Current Capacity,mgd: 70 Proposed Capacity,mgd: 165 Added Capacity to Facility: 135.7% Tigard's Share for Intake/PS Cost,Year 2012: $ 1,700,000 Ultimate Capacity,mgd: 165 Proposed Share of Capacity,mgd: 25 Proposed%age of Capacity,mgd: 15.2% Tigard's Total Share in Costs for Expanding River Intake Facilities,Oct 2012: $ 5,062,773 +45%Enginerring,Admin&Contingency: $ 2,278,248 Estimated Project Total,Year 2012: $ 7,341,021 Estimated Project Total,Year 2030: $ 12,497,596 assumed annual inflation rate: 3% G:\PDX_Projects\12\1362\401\Spreadsheets\Cost Estimates\Piping Costs per Segment 10-2-12.xls ALTERNATIVE 2--ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS 3 Location: Cost to construct main from Regional Transmission Main to 10 MG Reservoir Approx.Length: 7,400 LF Dia: 42 IN Cost per Inch diameter lineal foot: $18 Est.Construction Cost P/line,Year 2012: $ 5,594,400 Plus Metering Vault @ Regional Transmission Main: Est.Construction Cost,Year 2012: $ 500,000 Total Est.Construction Cost,Year 2012: $ 6,094,400 +45%Enginerring,Admin&Contingency: $ 2,742,480 Estimated Project Total,Year 2012: $ 8,836,880 Estimated Project Total,Year 2030: $ 15,044,197 assumed annual inflation rate: 3% Estimated Alternative 2 Total,Year 2012: $ 218,142,661 Estimated Alternative 2 Total,Year 2030: $ 371,373,278 Footnote: 1.This project cost estimate is an opinion of cost based on information available at the time of the estimate. Final costs will depend on actual field conditions,actual material and labor costs,market conditions for construction, regulatory factors,final project scope,method of implementation,schedule and other variables. The Engineering (ENR)Construction Cost Index for Seattle,Washington is 9418.23,October 2012. G:\PDX Projects\12\1362\401\Spreadsheets\Cost Estimates\Piping Costs per Segment 10-2.12.xls Willamette Policy Discussions Diagram Color Key: Existing Proposed Emergency Future Connection TVWD Water or Expansion? Policy Questions Hillsboro Connection? ,�� (Vote Required) Beaverton Systems Tigard Sherwood System System New Existing 1Wilsonville WTP [TIWTP System This is the question council is r eing asked to consider on Nov. 1 Expand River Tigard: 12.7 MGD? 140 to Intake MWillamette River y p City of Tigard Abbreviation Key: 4' W riGnkn PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TVWD: Tualatin Valley Water District I WTP: Water Treatment Plant I MGD: Million Gallons per Day AIS-2877 8. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 11/01/2016 Length (in minutes): 10 Minutes Agenda Title: Consider Resolution Concurring with Washington County Findings Regarding Vacation of a Public Slope and Draining Easements in River Terrace Prepared For: Kim McMillan Submitted By: Kelly Burgoyne, Central Services Item Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Should the council approve a resolution concurring with Washington County findings as to the vacation of a portion of public slope and drainage easements in River Terrace Northwest and Polygon at West River Terrace. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends the council approve the attached resolution. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The Board of County Commissioners of Washington County has resolved to vacate a portion of public slope and drainage easements in River Terrace Northwest and Polygon at West River Terrace. The easements to be vacated were required for the construction of SW Roy Rogers Road and are no longer needed as a result of the area being redeveloped and graded to meet subdivision requirements. The easements to be vacated are under the jurisdiction of the county, but lie entirely within the city limits of Tigard. It is therefore necessary for the City of Tigard to concur with the findings of the county governing body per ORS 368.361. A map of the proposed vacation is included with the attached resolution and order from the county (Exhibit 1). OTHER ALTERNATIVES Deny the resolution which would result in conflicts with the proposed development of River Terrace Northwest and Polygon at West River Terrace. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS Promotes implementation of the River Terrace Community Plan. DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION This is the first time the council will address this matter. Attachments Exhibit 1 Resolution Exhibit 1 AGENDA WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Agenda Category: Consent—Land Use&Transportation (CPO 4B) Agenda Title: VACATE PUBLIC SLOPE AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS IN RIVER TERRACE NORTHWEST AND POLYGON AT WEST RIVER TERRACE(VACATION NO. 529) Presented by: Andrew Singelakis,Director of Land Use &Transportation SUMMARY: A petition was received by the Board to vacate portions of public slope and drainage easements granted in Deed Document Nos. 2001014226 and 2001014228 and lying in the southeast one- quarter of Section 6,T2S, R1 W, W.M., Washington County, Oregon, as described and shown in the attached Vacation Report. The easements proposed to be vacated were acquired for the construction of SW Roy Rogers Road and are no longer needed as a result of the area being redeveloped and graded to meet subdivision requirements. The adjacent subdivision plats,"River Terrace Northwest"and "Polygon at West River Terrace",have been recorded and the infrastructure has been constructed, thereby making these easements unnecessary for public use. The vacation petition was signed by 100%of the abutting property owners. Staff has reviewed this request and has determined the vacation of the proposed public slope and drainage easements is in the public interest. There will not be any adverse impacts on the abutting properties or utilities. A Resolution and Order has been prepared granting the requested vacation and, when executed, it will complete Washington County's portion of the vacation proceedings. These easements are in the city limits of Tigard. Pursuant to ORS 368.361(3), the City, by resolution or order,must concur in the findings of the county governing body to complete the vacation proceedings. Attachments: 1. Resolution and Order 2. Vacation Report with legal description and map (Exhibit"A") DEPARTMENT'S REQUESTED ACTION: Vacate the public slope and drainage easements described in the attached Vacation Report and request that the City Council of the City of Tigard resolve or order concurrence with this vacation pursuant to ORS 368.361(3). COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION: I concur with the requested action. Ro8 Agenda Item No. 2.e. Date: 09/06/16 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON In the Matter of the Vacation of public slope) RESOLUTION AND ORDER and drainage easements situated in the ) southeast one-quarter of section 6,T2S, ) NO. /n 11 8 R1 W,W.M., Washington County, Oregon ) VACATION NO. 529 The above-entitled matter having come on regularly before the Board at its meeting September 6,2016; and It appearing to the Board that a petition has been filed to vacate portions of public slope and drainage easements granted in Deed Document Nos. 2001014226 and 2001014228, and lying in the southeast one-quarter of Section 6,T2S, RI W, W.M., Washington County,Oregon,as described and shown in the attached Vacation Report. The petition was signed by owners of 100%of the property to be vacated and by the owners of 100%of the abutting properties, pursuant to ORS 368.351; and It appearing to the Board that said petition did describe the portions of public slope and drainage easements to be vacated,the names of the parties to be particularly affected thereby,and set forth the particular circumstances of the case; and It appearing to the Board that the portions of public slope and drainage easements, proposed to be vacated,are under the jurisdiction of Washington County and entirely within the corporate limits of the City of Tigard, Oregon as described in ORS 368.361(3); and It appearing to the Board that the easements proposed to be vacated are no Ionger needed for the use of the public; and It appearing to the Board that the County Road Official did examine the area proposed to be vacated and hereby submits to the Board the Vacation Report attached hereto,and by this reference made a part hereof,in accordance with ORS 368.351(1); it is therefore RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the portions of public slope and drainage easements, proposed to be vacated and more particularly described in the attached Vacation Report, are hereby vacated as it is in the public interest. This vacation shall become final upon the formal concurrence of the City of Tigard by either resolution or order pursuant to ORS 368.361(3); and it is further RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the CountySurveyor of Washington County,Oregon, , be and hereby is authorized and directed to mark the vacated easements on the plats and records of Washington County Oregon; and it is further RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the County Surveyor of Washington County,Oregon, is hereby authorized and directed to have this order of vacation recorded in the records of Washington County, Oregon,and cause copies of this order to be filed with the Director of Assessment and Taxation and the County Surveyor's office in accordance with ORS 368.356(3). Dated this 6th day of September,2016. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AYE NAY ANENT FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON DUYCK SCHOUTEN MAUNOWSKI ROGERS Chairperson TERRY Recording Secretary Approved as to form Cot°oui.; Co ey D. Duke-Driessen Assistant County Counsel Date: Pt �.4 241101 10 Page 2—R&O No. 16"118 Vacation No. 529 I':11'IIit' ( MI11111111111 1)l'11t2,I1 EXHIBIT A April 14, 2016 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Job No. 395-037 Vacation of Permanent Slope It Drainage Easements Vacation of two permanent slope Et drainage easements acquired by Eminent Domain in Court Case Nos. C991120CV and C99-1117CV, as recorded in Document Nos. 2001014226 and 2001014228, Washington County Records, within Lots 206 through 215 and Tracts L, M, and 0, plat of "River Terrace Northwest", within Lot 9 and Tracts A and B, plat of "Polygon at West River Terrace", and within public right-of-way of SW Roy Rogers Road (County Road 3150), located in the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian, City of Tigard, Washington County, State of Oregon, more particularly described as follows: Easement 1 BEGINNING at the Southeast corner of said Tract 0; thence along the southerly line of said Tract 0, South 89°20'24" West, a distance of 30.04 feet to the Southwest corner of said Easement described in Document No. 2001014226; thence along the westerly line of said Easement, along a 1053.15 foot radius curve, concave westerly, with a radius point bearing South 81°06'18" West, arc length of 73.99 feet, central angle of 04°01'32", chord distance of 73.98 feet, and chord bearing of North 10°54'28" West to an angle point; thence continuing along said westerly line, North 17°40'37" West, a distance of 339.52 feet to the Northwest corner of said Easement; thence along the northerly line of said Easement, North 58°48'40" East, a distance of 7.22 feet to the Northeast corner of said Easement; thence along the easterly line of said Easement, along a 1086.62 foot radius non-tangential curve, concave westerly, with a radius point bearing South 58°48'40"West, arc length of 427.65 feet, central angle of 22°32'57", chord distance of 424.89 feet, and chord bearing of South 19°54'51" East to the Southeast corner of said Easement; thence along the southerly boundary line of said plat of "River Terrace Northwest", South 89°2024'. West, a distance of 3.77 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.29 acres, more or less. Page 1 of 4 12564 SW Main Street,Tigard,OR 97223 • [T] 503-941-9484 IF] 503-941-9485 Easement 2 BEGINNING at the Southeast corner of said Tract 0; thence along the southerly boundary of said plat of "River Terrace Northwest", North 89'2024" East, a distance of 3.77 feet to the Northeast corner of said Easement described in Document No. 2001014228; thence along the easterly line of said Easement, along a 1086.62 foot radius non-tangential curve, concave westerly, with a radius point bearing South 81°21'37"West, arc length of 130.50 feet, central angle of 06°52'52", chord distance of 130.42 feet, and chord bearing of South 05°11'57" East to a point of tangency; thence continuing along said easterly line, South 01°45'31" East, a distance of 167.41 feet to the Southeast corner of said Easement; thence along the southerly line of said Easement, South 89°20'24" West, a distance of 10.51 feet to the Southwest corner of said Easement; thence along the westerly line of said Easement, North 01°45'31" West, a distance of 167.21 feet to a point of tangential curvature; thence continuing along said westerly line, along a 1076.11 foot radius tangential curve to the left, arc length of 53.68 feet, central angle of 02°51'29", chord distance of 53.68 feet, and chord bearing of North 03°11'16" West to a point of radial tangency; thence continuing along said westerly line, South 85°23'00" West, a distance of 22.97 feet to a point of radial curvature; thence continuing along said westerly line, along a 1053.15 foot radius radial curve, concave westerly, arc length of 78.64 feet, central angle of 04°16'42", chord distance of 78.62 feet, and chord bearing of North 06°4521" West to the Northwest corner of said Easement; thence along the southerly line of said Tract 0, North 89°20'24" REGISTERED East, a distance of 30.04 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR Containing 0.11 acres, more or less. Basis of bearings being plat of "River Terrace Northwest", OREGON Washington County Plat Records. JULY 9, 2002 TRAVIS C. JANSEN 57751 RENEWS: 6/30/2017 Page 2 of 4 Pacific Community Design,Inc. 12564 SW Main Street,Tigard,OR 97223 ♦ (f) 503-941-9484 [F)503-941-9485 RIVER TERRACEEASEMENT 1 POB N89'20'24"E 1 NORTHWEST TRACT 0 N89'20'24"E— �� 30.04' 3.77' t EASEMENT 2 1 DOCUMENT NO. 2001014228 1 49.00' R=1053.15' ' 45.27' L=78.64' TRACT A A=4'16'42" TRACT1B CH=78.62' N 06'45'21"W i R=1086.62' L=130.50' AS2'S2" 8 CH-130.42' 6 7 S05'11'57"E 1 5 S85'23'00"W POLYGON AT WEST 22.97' RIVER TERRACE R=1076.11' L=53.68' - e=2"51'29" 0 TRACT CH=53.68' C 70 I N03111'16"W z -< TRACT D 7J ----------- (r m 0 0q \ ----- > rrn 10 0 j W -. - TRACT H 11 o O 1 tl i i 5 37 12 N II' co co i 36 13 3 w 35 14 In a F O 5 z S 34 TRACT E g TRACT G I i 15 b 33 16 > ti 32 17 S8920'24'W 11 0 1 I 10.51' i EXHIBIT B 1 VACATION OF PERMANENT SLOPE & DRAINAGE EASEMENTS g' ~< DRAWN BY: GPS DATE: 4114/16 a s REVIEWED 8Y: TCS DATE: 4/14/16 12564 SW Main St R PROJECT NO.: 395-029 'h"--' 11c Tigard, OR 97223 SCALE: 1"=40' (. o n i i i i i i I v [T] 503-941-9484 Z I.)es �1 [F] 503-941-9485 PAGE 4 OF 4 \ \ 203 N 58'48'40"E 204 \ 205 • 7.22' \ \ TRACT L `� 206 ' G 2�,1. TRACT N 207 II ��D� ii. . 208 O�J� 209 101, -Po 210 11 t•P0 .6 \ 211 R=1086.62' 1117'40'37"W -4114110 L=427.65' \ 339.52' 000 ,N=22'32'57" 10 01111 CH=424.89' \ S19'54'51"E v \ RIVER TERRACE 0* \ NORTHWEST a a 1 45.2-7. .13 TRACT 0 EASEMENT 1 49S QO. DOCUMENT NO. 2001014226 R=1053.15' a L-73.99' A=4'01'32" CH=73.98' N10'54'28"W 1 POLYGON AT WEST s89'2o'24"w I II B RIVER TERRACE 30.04' . I� S89'20'24"W TRACT A EASEMENT 2 POB ` 3.77' 's EXHIBIT B I VACATION OF PERMANENT SLOPE & DRAINAGE EASEMENTS DRAWN BY: GPS DATE: 4/14/16 O S REVIEWED BY: TCS DATE: 4/14116 12564 SW Main St PROJECT NO.: 395-037 fti i f R Tigard, OR 97223 ( l'lll 111 llll l l`\' [Ti 503-941-9484 SCALE: 1"=60' a I )k.' 1, l [F] 503-941-9485 PAGE 3 QF 4 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION CONCURRING WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY FINDINGS REGARDING VACATION OF PUBLIC SLOPE AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS IN RIVER TERRACE NORTHWEST AND POLYGON AT WEST RIVER TERRACE WHEREAS, Washington County Board of Commissioners Resolution and Order No. 16-118 (the Order) ordered the vacation of portions of public slope and drainage easements granted in Deed Document Nos. 2001014226 and 2001014228,more particularly described in the Order attached to this Resolution as Exhibit 1; and WHEREAS,after receiving notice of the proposed vacation and prior to the County adoption of the Order,the City of Tigard reviewed the proposed vacation and concurs with the findings of the County;and WHEREAS, ORS 386.361(3) provides that a county body may vacate property that is under the jurisdiction of the county and that is entirely with the limits of a city if the city concurs with the findings of the county. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: Based upon the above findings which are incorporated herein by reference the City Council concurs with the findings of Washington County as specified in Washington County Board of Commissioners Resolution and Order 16-118. SECTION 2: A copy of this Resolution shall be provided to the Washington County Surveyor's Office. SECTION 3: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of 2016. Mayor-City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder-City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 16- Page 1 City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Posting TIGARD In the Matter of the Proposed Ordinance(s) STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, a '. , . £_ __ / :i i i ,being first duly sworn,by oath, depose and say: 4 I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number(s) l!v-a a '� /Co a3 which were adopted at the City Council meeting of I'JOV. 1i, 2O/ !o , on the day of NUYeW1 IOP , 20 i G. 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, Oregon 2. Tigard Public Library, 13500 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, Oregon 3. Tigard Permit Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, Oregon . I ie---Ut.•_lL. j !_ Signature of P son who P-4 orm 4d Posting Subscribed and sworn before me this 6 ' 'day of NdU . , 20J by le e..41 gk v`o10�k.c..- OFFICIAL STAMP -1A-41Q- L-/ I Tr " CAROL ANN KRAGER Notary Public-State of Oregon 1 , ' NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON COMMISSION NO. 924954 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES FEBRUARY 10,2018 I:\ADM\CITY RECORDERS\FORMS\AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING-ORDINANCE.DOC