Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CPA2016-00002
CPA 2016 - 00002 TOPPING Cp TO R12 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 120 DAYS = NA DATE OF FILING: 2/8/2017 0 DATE MAILED: 2/8/2017 CITY OF TIGARD ' Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER BY THE CITY COUNCIL Case Number: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2016-00002 ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2016-00001 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(PDR)2016-00012 Case Name: TOPPING C-P TO R-12 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ ZONE CHANGE with PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Applicant: Stafford Development Company,LLC. 485 S. State Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Owner's Name/Address: Richard Topping&Katherine Kemp 19765 Derby St. West Linn, OR 97068 Address of Property: Tax Map/ or Nos.: 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72nd Ave., 10735 SW 72nd Ave; TAX MAP/ LOT #'s: 1S136ACO2200, 1S136ACO2400, 1S136ACO2500. Approval of a Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Amendment from Professional Commercial, C-P, to Medium Density Residential, R-12, and a Planned Development Review for a Concept Plan only on a three-parcel property totaling 1.54 acres. The proposed concept plan shows 18 single-family detached homes with approximately 23 percent of the site in open space, a portion of which is located at the corner of SW Spruce Street and SW 72nd Avenue. The Planning Commission held a public hearing November 21, 2016 and City Council held a hearing January 24, 2016 to receive testimony regarding this application. This decision has been based on the facts, findings and conclusions contained within the Planning Commission's Recommendation to Council and the testimony received at the public hearings. Request: ➢ The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Amendment from Professional Commercial, C-P, to Medium Density Residential, R-12, and a Planned Development Review for a Concept Plan only on a three-parcel property totaling 1.54 acres. The proposed concept plan shows 18 single-family detached homes with approximately 23 percent of the site in open space, a portion of which is located at the corner of SW Spruce Street and SW 72nd Avenue. Applicable Review Criteria: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.380.030, and 19.390.050; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2, 10; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10; and Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Titles 1, 7, and 12. Action: ➢ X Approval as Requested (CPA/ZON) X Approval with Amendment (PDR) Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper and mailed to: ❑x Owners of Record within the Required Distance ❑x Affected Government Agencies ❑x Interested Parties The Applicants and Owners Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON FEBRUARY 8,2017 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON FEBRUARY 8 2017 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. The adopted findings of fact,decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard,Oregon. Appeal: A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent to appeal with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures within 21 days from DLCD Notice of Adoption (February 8,2016),by March 1, 2017 Questions: If you have any questions,please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 718-2434. FINAL ORDER NO. 17-01 OF CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON A FINAL ORDER APPROVING THE PROPOSED COMP PLAN/ZON CHANGE AMENDMENT FROM C-P TO R-12 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN (PDR) 2016-00012, WHICH SHOWS 18 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES WITH APPROXIMATELY 23 PERCENT OF THE SITE IN OPEN SPACE,A PORTION OF WHICH IS LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF SW SPRUCE STREET AND SW 72ND AVENUE AND AS AMENDED THROUGH THE HEARING PROCESS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON NOVEMBER 21, 2016 AND CITY COUNCIL HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 24, 2017 TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THIS APPLICATION. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS FINAL ORDER. 120 DAYS = N/A SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NO.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment(CPA)2016-00002 Zone Change (ZON)2016-00001 Planned Development Review(PDR)2016-00012 FILE TITLE: TOPPING C-P TO R-12 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ ZONE CHANGE with PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICANT: Stafford Development Company,LLC. 485 S. State Street Lake Oswego,OR 97034 REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Amendment from Professional Commercial, C-P, to Medium Density Residential, R-12, and a Planned Development Review for a Concept Plan only on a three-parcel property totaling 1.54 acres. The proposed concept plan shows 18 single-family detached homes with approximately 23 percent of the site in open space, a portion of which is located at the corner of SW Spruce Street and SW 72nd Avenue. In 2015, to facilitate the retention of R-12 zoning in the City, City Staff had requested approval of a zoning "swap" from C-P to R-12 on the subject property and from R-12 to C-G on another property on Pacific Hwy and School Street (CPA 2015-00005 and ZON 2015-00007). The City Council approved the Pacific Hwy property rezone. However, the Council did not approve the rezone for the subject property portion. The Council directed the property owner to submit a quasi-judicial zone change application on their own if they wanted to continue to pursue the zone change. PLkNNING COMMISSION RF.COMN1LNDATKON TO C11Y COUNCIL CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/I)DR2106-00012 TOPPING PAG F.1 OF 13 LOCATION: 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72nd Ave., 10735 SW 72nd Ave; TAS MAP/LOT#'s: 1S136ACO2200, 1S136ACO2400, 1S136ACO2500. COMP PLAN DESIGNATION/ ZONING DISTRICT: FROM:Professional Commercial (C-P) TO: Medium Density Residential (R-12) APPLICABLE Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.380.030, and REVIEW 18.390.050;Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2, 10;Statewide Planning Goals 1, CRITERIA: 2, 10; and Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan 'rides 1, 7, and 12. SECTION II CITY COUNCIL DECISION to W� SECTION III BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project History In 2015, to facilitate the retention of R-12 zoning in the City, City Staff had requested approval of a zoning "swap" from C-P to R-12 on the subject property and from R-12 to C-G on another property of roughly the same size located on Pacific Hwy and School Street (CPA 2015-00005 and ZON 2015-00007). The City Council approved the Pacific Hwy property rezone. However, the Council did not approve the rezone for the Spruce Street property. Instead, the Council directed the property owner to submit a quasi-judicial zone change application on their own if they wanted to continue to pursue the zone change on the subject property. For this application, Stafford Land Company is the applicant, with support from the City whose interest is increasing the supply of R-12 zoned land, as intended in the City's prior zone change proposal. The affordable housing types allowed in the R-12 zone warrant the City's support because of the City's housing goal to provide opportunities for a variety of housing types to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents. To ensure the neighborhood would have the opportunity to be involved in how the property could be developed for residential use, the applicant agreed to apply for a Planned Development concept plan review concurrently with the comprehensive plan/zone change. Staff has documented the quasi-judicial process and engaged the neighbors directly in the process to ensure information is available and notice received. Site Description The subject property (3 parcels totaling 1.54 acres) is developed with single-family residences and was annexed in 2006 (ZCA2006-00003), which changed the County zone from Commercial Office (OC) to the City's Professional Commercial (C-P) zone, the zone most closely implementing the County's plan map designation. The current zone does not allow residential use, which the market has identified as its highest PUNNING COMMISSION RI:COMMEND,VFION TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012'1'OPPING PAGE 2 O 13 best use as evidenced by the applicant's several pre-application conferences over past couple of years to change the commercial zone to residential. The subject site is located across Spruce Street from Fred Meyers and within 1,000 feet of Pacific Hwy. The locational characteristics of the subject property support the comprehensive plan amendment and zone change. The subject property fronts on a local street and'a neighborhood street and is adjacent to property zoned R-4.5 and low-density unincorporated Washington County. The adjacent lower class streets and low density residential use zone makes the property more suitable for medium density residential use to form a transition from the General Commercial (C-G) zone to the south. Proposal Description The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Amendment from Professional Commercial, C-P, to Medium Density Residential, R-12, and a Planned Development Review for a Concept Plan only on a three-parcel property totaling 1.54 acres. The proposed concept plan shows 18 single-family detached homes with approximately 23 percent of the site in open space, a portion of which is located at the corner of SW Spruce Street and SW 72nd Avenue. Decision Process The Commission will make a recommendation to Council on the Comprehensive Plan/Zone Change and Planned Development Concept Plan. The Council must first approve the Comprehensive Plan/Zone Change before consideration of the Concept Plan. Council's Approval of the Concept Plan must give the applicant clear direction for preparation of the Detailed Plan. The Detailed Plan will be by separate application and will be reviewed and decided by the Planning Commission. City Council Decision and Direction to the Applicant City Council held a hearing on January 24,2017 to receive testimony regarding this application. The Tigard City Council finds with a vote of three in favor, one opposed, and one recused that the proposed Comprehensive Plan/Zone change amendment complies with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals, applicable regional, state and federal regulations, the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances,as show below, and can be approved. In addition, with a vote of three in favor, one opposed, and one recused the Tigard City Council approved the proposed planned development concept plan with direction to the applicant to include public access to the corner Tract C open space, pedestrian access through Tract A, two-story housing type limit, pedestrian- friendly transition access through the private street, and address the drainage issues. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE CRITERIA, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS This section contains all of the applicable city, state and metro policies,provisions, and criteria that apply to the proposed comprehensive plan amendment,zone change, and concept planned development review. 18.380 ZONING MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS Chapter 18.380.030 Quasi-Judicial Amendments and Procedures to this Title and Map. A. Quasi-judicial zoning map amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using standards of approval contained in subsection (B) of this section. The approval authority shall be as follows: (3) The commission shall make a recommendation to the council on a zone change application which also involves a concurrent PLANNING COMMISSION RLC0N1,N1ENDX1'10N TO CI1Y COUNCIL, CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAG13 3 OF 13 application for a comprehensive plan map amendment. FINDING: The proposed quasi-judicial amendment is being reviewed under the Type III procedure as set forth in this chapter. This procedure requires public hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council. B. Standards for making quasi-judicial decisions. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 1. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations, Chapter 1: Citizen Involvement Goal 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. Policy 2 The City shall define and publicize an appropriate role for citizens in each phase of the land use planning process. Policy 5 The opportunities for citizen involvement provided by the City shall be appropriate to the scale of the planning effort and shall involve a broad cross-section of the community. Citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions were given the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. Several opportunities for participation are built into the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, including public hearing notification requirements pursuant to Chapter 18.390.050 of the Tigard Community Development Code. On October 18, 2016, public hearing notice of the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings was sent to the interested parties list and all property owners within 500 feet of the subject parcels. On October 27, 2016 a notice was published in The Tigard Times. The notice invited public input and included the phone number of a contact person to answer questions. The notice also included the address of the City's webpage where the staff report to the Planning Commission could be viewed. On October 31,2016, the site was posted with a notice board. On October 17, 2016,the proposal was posted on the City's web site. On November 14,2016 the staff report was made available on the city's website. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 1.1 Policies 2 and 5 are met. Chapter 2: Land Use Planning Goal 2.1 Maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action plans as the legislative basis of Tigard's land use planning program. Policy 1 The City's land use program shall establish a clear policy direction, comply with state and regional requirements, and serve its citizens' own interests. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION"TO CTTY COUNCIL CPA 2016-00002/LON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 4 OF 13 The goals and policies contained in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan provide the basis for the city's land use planning program. This policy is met. Policy 2 The City's land use regulations, related plans, and implementing actions shall be consistent with and implement its Comprehensive Plan. The City's development code, Title 18, has been found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This policy is met. Policy 3 The City shall coordinate the adoption, amendment, and implementation of its land use program with other potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies. Potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies were given an opportunity to comment. Any comments that were received are addressed in Section VI: Outside Agency Comments. This policy is met. Policy 5 The City shall promote intense urban level development in Metro designated Centers and Corridors,and employment and industrial areas." The Metro 2040 Growth Concept Map shows that Pacific Hwy, through Tigard, is designated as a "Corridor." The proposed rezone of the subject site from commercial professional to medium density residential would meet market demand for residential development where the existing commercial zone designation has resulted in underdeveloped land for the past ten years, since annexation in 2006. This policy is met. Policy 6 The City shall promote the development and maintenance of a range of land use types which are of sufficient economic value to fund needed services and advance the community's social and fiscal stability. Policy 7 The City's regulatory land use maps and development code shall implement the Comprehensive Plan by providing for needed urban land uses including: A. Residential; B. Commercial and office employment including business parks; C. Mixed use; D. Industrial; E. Overlay districts where natural resource protections or special planning and regulatory tools are warranted; and F. Public services The rezoning of the subject property to medium-density residential would allow for a needed increase in the variety of housing options available to the citizens of Tigard. The proposed zone change would allow for smaller lot sizes, higher density, and more affordable housing options,promoting a greater level of financial stability among the citizens of Tigard. These policies are met. Policy 15 In addition to other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies deemed applicable, amendments to Tigard's Comprehensive Plan/Zone Map shall be subject to the following specific criteria: A. Transportation and other public facilities and services shall be available, or committed to be made available, and of sufficient capacity to serve the land uses allowed by the proposed map designation; PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGF,5 OF 13 B. Development of land uses allowed by the new designation shall not negatively affect existing or planned transportation or other public facilities and services; ODOT's trip generation analysis for the subject site (ODOT Comment letter, dated December 2, 2015) showed a reduction of trips, from 220 PM trips under the current C-P zone to 43 PM trips under the proposed R-12 zone. Therefore, a determination of no significant adverse effect on the transportation system can be made and the Transportation Planning Rule compliance measures under OAR Section 660- 12-0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments are not invoked. Additional public services such as stormwater, water, and sanitary sewer will connect to existing infrastructure and it is not anticipated that the proposed zone change from C-P to R-12 will result in additional demands on public services. These policies are met. C. The new land use designation shall fulfill a proven community need such as provision of needed commercial goods and services, employment, housing, public and community services, etc. in the particular location,versus other appropriately designated and developable properties; D. Demonstration that there is an inadequate amount of developable, appropriately designated, land for the land uses that would be allowed by the new designation; The proposed rezoning satisfies a need for property zoned R-12. In 2013 the City Council adopted a Housing Strategies report prepared by Angelo Planning Group and Johnson & Reid in support of the Periodic Review update to Goal 10, Housing. This report illustrated that at that time the city had nearly twice as much buildable land in areas zoned R-7 (72.1 net buildable acres) than in areas zoned R-12 (36.7 net buildable acres). The report analyzed the city's current and future housing needs, which included the following conclusion: "In general, there is a need for some less expensive ownership units and rental units". R-12 zoned land permits attached single-family and multi-family housing types, which contribute to the city's variety of more affordable housing stock. The city is also in need of adequate commercially zoned land to support employment and economic development goals. However, the proposed rezone of the subject site from commercial professional to medium density residential in a location where the existing commercial zone designation has resulted in underdeveloped land for the past ten years, since annexation in 2006. These policies are met. E. Demonstration that land uses allowed in the proposed designation could be developed in compliance with all applicable regulations and the purposes of any overlay district would be fulfilled; A planned development concept plan is being concurrently reviewed with the proposed zone change to demonstrate that medium density residential use can be developed in compliance with applicable regulations and the purposes of the planned development chapter. This policy is met. F. Land uses permitted by the proposed designation would be compatible, or capable of being made compatible,with environmental conditions and surrounding land uses; and The proposed R-12 zone would allow residential housing types at a scale that would be compatible with adjacent low density residential and commercial uses; there is no reason to believe the property could not be developed in conformance with R-12 standards. A planned development overlay is proposed on the subject property to ensure compatibility. This policy is met. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITYCOUNCIL CPA 2016-00002/%ON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 6 OF 13 G. Demonstration that the amendment does not detract from the viability of the City's natural systems. The subject property has been previously developed with single family dwellings. The site has a six percent slope toward the west and does not contain any city-regulated sensitive natural resources. The proposed rezone would not detract from the viability of the City's natural systems. This policy is met. Policy 20 The City shall periodically review and if necessary update its Comprehensive Plan and regulatory maps and implementing measures to ensure they are current and responsive to community needs,provide reliable information, and conform to applicable state law, administrative rules, and regional requirements. The proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment would increase the City's supply of R-12 zoned land. Staff supports the zone change in response to the growing need for affordable housing. The City supports the proposed update to its Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map through this process to ensure it is current and responsive to community needs and will conform to applicable state law, administrative rules, and regional requirements. This policy is met. Chapter 10: Housing Goal 10.1 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types at a range of price levels to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents. Policy 1 The City shall adopt and maintain land use policies, codes, and standards that provide opportunities to develop a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents. The subject property was annexed in 2006 (ZCA 2006-00003), which changed the Washington County comprehensive plan and zoning designation from Commercial Office (OC) to the City of Tigard's Professional Commercial (C-P) zone, the zone most closely implementing the County's plan map designation. However, since the subject property's annexation in 2006, the City's need for residential property zoned R-12 has increased. In February 2016, in response to CPA 2015-00005 & ZON 2015-00007, the City Council approved the rezoning of a 1.37 acre site on Pacific Hwy W from R-12 to C-G, but not the rezoning of the subject property from C-P to R-12, resulting in a loss of 1.37 acres of residential property zoned R-12. Medium- density residential properties are important to the ongoing implementation of the City's housing policies, for a number of reasons, including growth in population of the City of Tigard, and a need for flexibility in allowable and available housing types to provide a level of affordability for first time home buyers, singles and retirees, as well as other members of the populace who desire more affordable housing options in Tigard's neighborhoods. The population of Tigard has increased by 6.6% since 2010 (United States Census Bureau). With this increase in population, the demand for housing continues to grow, particularly the need for residential properties zoned with the flexibility necessary to promote a level of affordability. In 2013 the Council adopted a Housing Strategies report prepared by Angelo Planning Group and Johnson & Reid in support of the Periodic Review update to Goal 10, Housing. This report illustrated that at that PLANNING COMMISSION RI'sCOINIMENDATION'TO CITY COUNCIL. CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 7 OF 13 time the city had about twice as much buildable land in areas zoned R-7 (72.1 net buildable acres) than in areas zoned R-12 (36.7 net buildable acres). The report analyzed the city's current and future housing needs, which included the following conclusions of relevance to the application: • "In general, there is a need for some less expensive ownership units and rental units." • "Single family attached units are projected to meet nearly 20% of future housing need." • "It is projected that in coming decades a greater share of housing will be attached types, including attached single family." This type of housing is possible in the R-12 zone,which allows attached and multi-family housing on 3,050 square-foot lots. R-12 is a versatile medium density residential zone that can better meet the preferences and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents. This policy is met. METRO Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 1: Housing Capacity The Regional Framework Plan calls for a compact urban form and a "fair-share" approach to meeting regional housing needs. It is the purpose of Title 1 to accomplish these policies by requiring each city and county to maintain or increase its housing capacity. The City's Housing Strategies Report indicates that "in general, there is a need for some less expensive ownership units and rental units." This type of housing is possible in the R-12 zone, which allows attached and multi-family housing on 3,050 square-foot lots. With this quasi-judicial action, the zone change to R-12 on the subject site will result in a marginal increase of R-12 zoned land in the City of Tigard to help meet the preferences and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents, consistent with the purpose of Title 1. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the proposed comprehensive plan/zone change demonstrates compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; 2. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance; and FINDING: As shown in the findings above and below, the proposed comprehensive plan/zone change demonstrates compliance with all applicable standards of the provisions of Title 18 and other implementing ordinances. 3. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. The population of Tigard has increased by 6.6% since 2010 (United States Census Bureau). This influx in population has generated an increased need for housing in the City of Tigard. In particular,there is presently a deficit in the availability of affordable housing in the City of Tigard. Zoning the subject property R-12 would help accommodate the City's growth in population and subsequent need for residential properties. The increasing need for affordable housing is a change in the community that supports the comprehensive plan/zone change. Given the variety of permitted housing types, property zoned R-12 is of increasing PLANNING COMMISSION RECOAIMENDAI'ION TO CPIy COUNCIL CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-000OI/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 8 OF 13 importance in the City of Tigard to insure the availability of affordable housing. With a minimum lot size of 3,050 S.F. the R-12 zone provides the flexibility necessary to meet the housing type preferences and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents. The trend in the market and development in the community as a whole is progressing towards smaller lots, in an effort to satisfy the demand for affordable housing in the region. Since the subject property's annexation and zoning in 2006, properties zoned R-12 have been developed in the surrounding area. An R- 12 zoning of residential property in the area is ideal due to the proximity of services and transit options. White Oak Village, an R-12 zoned subdivision, located 2/1Oths of a mile southwest of the subject property at SW 741h Ave. north of SW Pacific Highway,was developed in 2008. Increases in population and commercial and residential development have led to an increase in traffic in the neighborhood. While increased traffic is clearly an issue effecting property's owners in the vicinity of the subject property, an ODOT Trip Generation Analysis showed that the proposed zone change of the subject property from C-P to R-12 will result in a reduction of 220 PM trips to 43 PM trips. Rezoning of the subject property to R-12 may help curb future traffic pressure in the neighborhood. Furthermore, the proposed development includes future street improvements to SW Spruce St. and SW 72nd Ave. which will reduce an existing lack of parking in the surrounding area by including the widening of roadways and addition of parking lanes. There is an increasing need for open space in the surrounding neighborhood, as the general development patterns in the area and public testimony received through CPA 20015-00005 & ZON 2015-00007 public hearings suggest. The proposed Planned Development Concept Plan includes two proposed open space tracts that comprise approximately 23.8% of the subject property that will preserve natural open space and promote pedestrian connectivity. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, there is evidence of change in the neighborhood or community to support the proposed comprehensive plan/zone change. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Tigard City Council APPROVAL of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment as being in compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies, all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance, as evidenced by change in the neighborhood and the community, and as determined through the public hearing process. 18.390 DECISION MAIONG PROCEDURES 18.390.080 General Provisions D.Applications 2. Consolidation of proceedings. Whenever an applicant requests more than one approval and more than one approval authority is required to decide the applications, the proceedings shall be consolidated so that one approval authority shall decide all applications in one proceeding; a. When a request which contains more than one approval is consolidated,the hearings shall be held by the approval authority having original jurisdiction over one of the applications under this chapter in the following order of preference: the council, the commission, the hearings officer,or the director. b. Where there is a consolidation of proceedings: PLANNING COMMISSION RF, NIM NDATION TO CITY COUNCU- CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/P13R2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 9 Oh'13 i. The notice shall identify each action to be taken; ii. The decision on a plan map amendment shall precede the decision on the proposed zone change and other actions; and iii. Separate actions shall be taken on each application. FINDING: The applicant has requested concurrent review of a comprehensive plan map amendment from Professional Commercial to Medium Density Residential District/Zone Change from C-P to R-12 and a Planned Development concept plan approval. According to 18.390.080.D.2; the proceedings are consolidated and decided by the City Council. Notices have identified each action to be taken. The decision on the plan map amendment shall precede the decision on the proposed zone change, which shall precede the decision on the planned development concept plan,with separate actions being taken on each application. 18.350 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS 18.350.050 Concept Plan Approval Criteria A. The concept plan may be approved by the commission only if all of the following criteria are met: 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. The applicant states that"The proposed development includes two open space tracts totaling.31 acres (20.3 percent of the site) which will preserve existing conditions and natural resources, including an existing oak tree in the northwest corner of the subject property. Open space will promote natural amenities and provide a more walkable community, while serving as a transition between surrounding low-density residential properties and existing commercial properties." The applicant's statement and concept plan address preservation of the existing oak tree on the site and how the proposed open space protects the natural features of the site. The applicant only minimally indicates how the proposed open space areas relate to access and use by future residents of the development or by the public. This criterion is met but the Commission may require the applicant to more substantively address the open space area designations as to their intended level of use and how they relate to other proposed uses on the site. 2. The concept plan identifies areas of trees and other natural resources, if any, and identifies methods for their maximized protection,preservation, and/or management. The applicant's concept plan identifies areas of trees and other natural resources and minimally identifies methods for their maximized protection, preservation, and management. The narrative states that "The Concept Development Plan in Exhibit G illustrates the proposed development's two open space tracts totaling .31 acres, and their relationship to other uses on the subject property. There are no wetlands or sensitive areas on the subject property. All existing trees on the subject property- have been identified (see Concept Development Plan, Exhibit G)." The applicant's narrative does identify a large oak tree in the northwest corner of the site, but it should be shown on the Concept Plan and additional methods for management should be identified as well as an indication of how it would be incorporated into the development.This criterion is minimally met. Pl�kNNING COMMISSION R1'COIv MENDATION TO CITY COUNCII. CPA 2016-00002/GON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 10 OF 13 To better meet this criterion, the Commission may require the applicant to substantively address methods for the oak tree's maximized protection,preservation,and/or management. 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. The applicant states that "The proposed Planned Development Subdivision is designed around the existing transportation network, and will not require or result in any changes to the functional classification of the transportation system in the vicinity of the subject property. As shown on the Concept Development Plan in Exhibit G, the layout of the proposed development concentrates homes to SW Spruce St., SW 72nd Ave. and the proposed private drive, while preserving two open space tracts totaling .31 acres on the northern, western and eastern property boundaries. These open space tracts will serve as an additional buffer between the existing low-density residential and commercial uses. A total of eighteen lots are proposed. Eleven lots will have frontage on SW Spruce St., three lots will have frontage on SW 72nd Ave, and four lots will have frontage on the proposed private drive. The private drive runs north to south in the middle of the subject property, ending at an open space tract on the subject property's northern boundary." The concept plan identifies how the future development will integrate into the existing neighborhood using the existing streets and providing a transition with open space buffers. This criterion is met. 4. The concept plan identifies methods for promoting walkability or transit ridership, such methods may include separated parking bays, off street walking paths, shorter pedestrian routes than vehicular routes,linkages to or other provisions for bus stops, etc. The applicant states that future development of the site with street improvements on SW Spruce St. and SW 72°11 Ave., including sidewalks and planter strips will promote a more walkable neighborhood. This criterion is minimally=met. To better meet this criterion, the Commission may require the applicant to substantively address how the concept plan also promotes transit ridership. 5. The concept plan identifies the proposed uses, and their general arrangement on site. In the case of projects that include a residential component, housing type, unit density, or generalized lot sizes shall be shown in relation to their proposed location on site. The applicant states that "The Concept Development Plan in Exhibit G illustrates the proposed arrangement of lots and their relationship to open space tracts on the subject property." As show on the concept plan, this criterion is met. 6. The concept plan must demonstrate that development of the property pursuant to the plan results in development that has significant advantages over a standard development. A concept plan has a significant advantage if it provides development consistent with the general purpose of the zone in which it is located at overall densities consistent with the PLANNING COMMISSION REMMMENDATION'ro(:ri 'COUNCIL CPA 2016-00002J'/.ON2016-00001/P1)R2106-00012'1'01)1)ING PAGE,11 OF 13 zone, while protecting natural features or providing additional amenities or features not otherwise available that enhance the development project or the neighborhood. The applicant states that "The proposed concept plan would provide a density consistent with the R-12 zone. Two open space tracts comprising 23.8% of the subject property are proposed; their design will preserve an existing oak tree in the northwest corner of the subject property, while providing natural amenities, promoting pedestrian connectivity within the area and serving as a buffer between existing residential and commercial developments in the surrounding area." The proposed development of 18 single-family dwellings would be permitted in the R-12 zone at the maximum allowed density, consistent with the general purpose of the zone. Trees,including the large oak in the northwest corner of the site, will be protected within an open space tract. This criterion is minimally met. To better meet this criterion, the Commission may require the applicant to provide more information on how the concept plan provides significant advantages over standard development with additional amenities or features not otherwise available that enhance the development project or the neighborhood. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the concept plan approval criteria are minimally met, but may be strengthened subject to the Commission's direction to the applicant to revise the proposed Concept Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed Concept Plan, subject to the Commission's direction to the applicant to supplement their findings on the approval criteria, as determined through the hearings process. SECTION V. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard's Development Services Division (Engineering), and Public Works Department had an opportunity to review this proposal and had no objections. SECTION VI. OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS The following agencies/jurisdictions had an opportunity to review this proposal and did not respond: Metro Land Use and Planning, Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue reviewed the concept plan proposal and provided a comment letter dated October 31, 2016 addressing basic approval standards. Additional opportunities for substantive comment will be provided with application for a Detailed Development Plan. Clean Water Services reviewed the concept plan proposal and provided a comment letter dated October 26, 2016 addressing basic approval standards. Additional opportunities for substantive comment will be provided with application for a Detailed Development Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2016-00002/"LON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 12 OF 13 Oregon Department of Transportation, Region 1 reviewed this proposal under CPA 2015-00005 and ZON 2015-00007 and provided a comment letter dated December 2, 2015 from Marah Danielson, ODOT Development Review Planner. ODOT determined that for Site A (the subject site),vehicle trips to OR 99W intersections will likely be reduced and that the proposed zone change from C-P to R-12 does not significantly affect a state highway facility. SECTION VII. INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENTS The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on March 16,2016. Documentation is provided in Exhibit F_ of the application. Seventeen attendees discussed the proposed zone change, comprehensive plan amendment, and the planned development concept plan. Issues discussed included open space and parks, streets and utilities,housing type and design,and land use process. The city received written comments from neighbors within 500 feet of the subject properties regarding the proposed amendment. Approximately 140 neighbors within a half-mile of the subject property who live both within and outside of the City boundary signed a petition in support of the use of the subject property as a "walk-to residential park." Nancy Tracy submitted a letter requesting that the City buy and preserve the land for park use. These comments included a letter dated April 18, 2016 from Holly Polivka, Chair of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board,in support of the park idea,with the caveat that the City did not have funding to help purchase the property. Further testimony reiterating the community's interest in a park on the subject site was presented at the November 21,2016 Planning Commission hearing and the January 24,2017 City Council hearing. SECTION VIII. CONCLUSION As demonstrated by the findings above, the Tigard City Council finds with a vote of three in favor, one opposed, and one recused that the proposed Comprehensive Plan/Zone change amendment complies with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals, applicable regional, state and federal regulations, the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances and can be approved. In addition, with a vote of three in favor, one opposed, and one recused the Tigard City Council approved the proposed planned development concept plan with direction to the applicant to include public access to the corner Tract C open space,pedestrian access through Tract A, two-story housing type limit, pedestrian- friendly transition access through the private street,and address the drainage issues. Approved: By Tigard City Council this 7 1:"� day of ,2017 % 11 Johrl. Cook,Mayor PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/13DR2106-00012'1'OPPING PAGE 13 OF 13 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 17-0"1 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 2016-00002 AND ZONE CHANGE ZON 2016-00001 TO AMEND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING DISTRICTS MAP FRONT C-P TO R-12 ON TAX LOTS 1S136ACO2200, 1S136ACO2400, 1S136ACO2500. WHEREAS, Section 18.380.030 of the City of Tigard Community Development Code requires quasi-judicial amendments to be undertaken by means of a Type III-PC procedure when a zone change application also involves a concurrent application for a comprehensive plan map amendment, as governed by Section 18.390.050;and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2016, the Tigard City Council considered the City's application to facilitate presemdon of R-12 zoned land (CPA2015-00005/ZON2015-00007) and approved the rezone of a parcel on Pacific Hwy from R-12 to C-G but directed staff to remand to the Planning Commission the proposed rezone of the subject property from C-P to R-12, subject to re-application by the property owner. WHEREAS, the applicant now requests an amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Zoning AIap to rezone the subject property,as before, from C-P to R-12;and WHEREAS, on November 21, 2016, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing, which was noticed in accordance with city standards, and recommended approval of the proposed CPA2016-00002/ ZON2016-00001 by motion with a 6-1 vote in favor;and WHEREAS, on January 24, 2017, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing, which was noticed in accordance with city standards, to consider the Commission's recommendation on CPA2016-00002/ZON 2016-00001, to hear public testimony,and apply applicable decision-making criteria;and WHEREAS, Council's decision to approve CPA 2016-00002/ZON 201640001 and adopt this ordinance was based on the findings and conclusions found in Exhibit `B" and the associated land use record which is incorporated herein by reference and is contained in land use file CPA2016-00002/ZON 2016-00001. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Tigard City Council amends the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Map to change the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Districts as shown in Exhibit"A" SECTION 2: Tigard Cita- Council adopts the findings and conclusions contained in Exhibit "B" in support of the Council's action and to be the legislative basis for this ordinance. ORDINANCE No. 17- 0 J Page 1 PASSED: By 7'�?� D1'l vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title Anly,this!j5day of _,2017. a Carol Krager,City Rce&der APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this-qday of 04A u ,2017. ,.jig John L.Cook,Mayor Approved as to form: - QA,- /t--, City Atto6ley ORDINANCE No. 17- 01 Page 2 .0 K M A K 8 I Exhibit A VICINITY MAP ' 10490 Vffft"x' 7218 10491 10500 10495 CPA2016-00002 750$ r-r 7408 7350 7300 ZON2016-00001 PDR2016-00012 10520 10525 `. 10530 10525 Topping Comp Plan/Zone w. Change and Planned 10555 7405 Development Concept Plan 1.0565 Review 7417 7333 7311 7217 7203 rs '^ 10560 7411 10595 R-4.5 PINE S1 -- subject Site 754010650 - :i055'S 7217 W 7130 10655 > �,_ 7330 7310_ 7210 M40 106$5: i0680 7?96 T-L 10670 `_ �A � `� 10705 >w. 10690 10705 t .� 10700 7515; 7415 7,383 -s ?595 10730 , ""1,j' '¢• 7121 7. • 1 7510 10815 C-P to R-12 (1.54 acres) 10820 7302 10-900 1085 IM50 Approx Scala 1:2,000-1 In=107a Map printed at 12:07 PM on 10-Jon-17 .10900R-75 ` ' mrmwenm U*m W 1 n naMW evomn ME 10885 10880 10900 MWA F oER FRaM auLTPA EOENCMA KCPTo TIGAM IMIQa aDYNAM/1IY ATION ORa1MRANIE£AS TO TIE rncCOw�deoxJrera'mE ar°vas �aE Frro 10900 10915 °" X TME 10910 11565 10900 11565 city or Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard,OR 97223 503 639-4171 'R! 0 w Aigard-or.gov � r EXHIBIT B a PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 120 DAYS = N/A SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NO.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment(CPA)2016-00002 Zone Change(ZON)2016-00001 Planned Development Review(PDR)2016-00012 FILE TITLE: TOPPING C-P TO R-12 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ ZONE CHANGE with PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICANT: Stafford Development Company,LLC. 485 S.State Street Lake Oswego,OR 97034 REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Amendment from Professional Commercial, C-P, to Medium Density Residential,R-12,and a Planned Development Review for a Concept Plan only on a three-parcel property totaling 1.54 acres. The proposed concept plan shows 18 single-family detached homes with approximately 23 percent of the site in open space, a portion of which is located at the corner of SW Spruce Street and SW 72nd Avenue. In 2015, to facilitate the retention of R-12 zoning in the City, City Staff had requested approval of a zoning "swap" from C-P to R-12 on the subject property and from R-12 to C-G on another property on Pacific Hwy and School Street(CPA 2015-00005 and ZON 2015-00007). The City Council approved the Pacific Hwy property rezone. However, the Council did not approve the rezone for the subject property portion. The Council directed the property owner to submit a quasi-judicial zone change application on their own if they wanted to continue to pursue the zone change. LOCATION: 7303 SW Spruce St.,10705 SW 72nd Ave.,10735 SW 72nd Ave; TAX MAP/LOT#'s: 1S136ACO2200, 1S136ACO2400, 1S136ACO2500. COMP PLAN DESIGNATION/ ZONING DISTRICT: FROM:Professional Commercial(C-P) TO: Medium Density Residential (R-12) PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCII, CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-M12 TOPPING PAGE 1 OF 13 density residential use zone makes the property more suitable for medium density residential use to form a transition from the General Commercial(C-G) zone to the south. Proposal Description The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Amendment from Professional Commercial, C-P, to Medium Density Residential, R-12, and a Planned Development Review for a Concept Plan only on a three-parcel property totaling 154 acres.The proposed concept plan shows 18 single-family detached homes with approximately 23 percent of the site in open space,a portion of which is located at the coiner of SW Spruce Street and SIX/72nd Avenue. Decision Process The Commission will make a recommendation to Council on the Comprehensive Plan/Zone Change and Planned Development Concept Plan. T be Council must first approve the Comprehensive Plan/Zone Change before consideration of the Concept Plan. Council's Approval of the Concept Plan must give the applicant clear direction for preparation of the Detailed Plan. The Detailed Plan will be by separate application and will be reviewed and decided by the Planning Commission. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE CRITERIA,FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS This section contains all of the applicable city,state and metro policies,provisions,and criteria that apply to the proposed comprehensive plan amendment,zone change,and concept planned development review. 18.380 ZONING MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS Chapter 18.380.030 Quasi-Judicial Amendments and Procedures to this Title and Map. A. Quasi-judicial zoning map amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050,using standards of approval contained in subsection (B) of this section. The approval authority shall be as follows: (3) The commission shall make a recommendation to the council on a zone change application which also involves a concurrent application for a comprehensive plan map amendment. FINDING: The proposed quasi-judicial amendment is being reviewed under the Type III procedure as set forth in this chapter. This procedure requires public hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council. B. Standards for making quasi-judicial decisions. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: L Demonstration of compliance with all aWlicable comnrehena& plan tildes and man designations• Chapter 1: Citizen Involvement Goal Ll Provide citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. Policy 2 The City shall define and publicize an appropriate role for citizens in each phase of the land use planning process. PL4:NNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CTTYCOUNCII CPA 2o16•Am/zON2016-0(1001/PDR21W-00012TOPPING PAGE 3 OF 13 residential would meet market demand for residential development where the existing commercial zone designation has resulted in underdeveloped land for the past ten years,since annexation in 2006. This policy is met. Policy 6 The City shall promote the development and maintenance of a range of land use types which are of sufficient economic value to fund needed services and advance the community's social and fiscal stability. Policy 7 The City's regulatory land use maps and development code shall implement the Comprehensive Plan by providing for needed urban land uses including: A.Residential; B. Commercial and office employment including business parks; C.Mixed use; D.Industrial;- E. ndustrial;E. Overlay districts where natural resource protections or special planning and regulatory tools are warranted;and F. Public services 'f"he rezoning of the subject property to medium-density residential would allow for a needed increase in the variety of housing options available to the citizens of Tigardd The proposed zone change would allow for smaller lot sizes,higher density,and more affordable housing options,promoting a greater level of financial stability among the citizens of Tigard.These policies are met, Policy 15 In addition to other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies deemed applicable, amendments to Tigard's Comprehensive Plan/Zone Map shall be subject to the following specific criteria: A. Transportation and other public facilities and services shall be available, or committed to be made available, and of sufficient capacity to serve the land uses allowed by the proposed map designation; B. Development of land uses allowed by the new designation shall not negatively affect existing or planned transportation or other public facilities and services; ODOT"s trip generation analysis for the subject site (ODOT Comment letter, dated December 2015) showed a reduction of trips, from 220 PM trips under the current C-P zone to 43 PM trips under the proposed R-12 zone. Therefore, a determination of no significant adverse effect on the transportation system can be made and the Transportation Planning Rule compliance measures under OAR Section 660- 12-0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments are not invoked. Additional public services such as stormwater, water, and sanitary sewer will connect to existing infrastructure and it is nut anticipated that the proposed zone change from C-P to R-12 will result in additional demands on public services.These policies are met. C. The new land use designation shall fulfill a proven community need such as provision of needed commercial goods and services, employment, housing,public.and community services,etc. in the particular location,versus other appropriately designated and developable properties; D. Demonstration that there is an inadequate amount of developable, appropriately designated, land for the land uses that would be allowed by the new designation; The proposed rezoning satisfies a need for property zoned R-12. In 2013 the City Council adopted a Housing Strategies report prepared by Angelo Planning Group and Johnson & Reid in support of the PLANNING COMMISSION RECO MMENDA nON To CTI y COUNCIL CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 5 OF 13 Goal 10.1 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types at a range of price levels to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents. Policy 1 The City shall adopt and maintain land use policies, codes, and standards that provide opportunities to develop a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents. The subject property was annexed in 2006 (ZCA 2006-00003), which changed the Washington County comprehensive plan and zoning designation from Commercial Office (OC) to the City of Tigard's Professional Commercial (C-P) zone, the zone most closely implementing the County's plan map designation. However, since the subject property's annexation in 2006, the City's need for residential property zoned R-12 has increased. In February 2016, in response to CPA 2015-00005 & ZON 2015-00007, the City Council approved the rezoning of a 1.37 acre site on Pacific Hwy W from R-12 to C-G, but not the rezoning of the subject property from C-P to R-12, resulting in a loss of 1.37 acres of residential property zoned R-12. Medium- density residential properties are important to the ongoing implementation of the City's housing policies, for a number of reasons, including growth in population of the City of Tigard, and a need for flexibility in allowable and available housing types to provide a level of affordability for first time home buyers, singles and retirees, as well as other members of the populace who desire more affordable housing options in Tigard's neighborhoods. The population of Tigard has increased by 6.6% since 2010 (United States Census Bureau). With this increase in population, the demand for housing continues to grow, particularly the need for residential properties zoned with the flexibility necessary to promote a level of affordability. In 2013 the Council adopted a Housing Strategies report prepared by Angelo Planning Group and Johnson & Reid in support of the Periodic Review update to Goal 10, Housing. This report illustrated that at that time the city had about twice as much buildable land in areas zoned R-7 (72.1 net buildable acres) than in areas zoned R-12 (36.7 net buildable acres).The report analyzed the city's current and future housing needs, which included the following conclusions of relevance to the application: • "In general,there is a need for some less expensive ownership units and rental units." • "Single family attached units are projected to meet nearly 20%of future housing need." • "It is projected that in coming decades a greater share of housing will be attached types,including attached single family." This type of housing is possible in the R-12 zone,which allows attached and multi-family housing on 3,050 square-foot lots.R-12 is a versatile medium density residential zone that can better meet the preferences and financial capabilities of T*ar&s present and future residents.This policy is met. METRO Urban Growth Mama meat Functional Plan Title L•Housing Capacity The Regional Framework Plan calls for a compact urban form and a "fair-share" approach to meeting regional housing needs. It is the purpose of Title 1 to accomplish these policies by requiring each city and county to maintain or increase its housing capacity. P1.%NNrNG CONAUSSION RECOMMh:NDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. CPA 2016.00M2/'LU'_�I2016MM1/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 7 OF 13 There is an increasing need for open space in the surrounding neighborhood, as the general development patterns in the area and public testimony received through CPA 20015-00005 & ZON 2015-00007 public hearings suggest. The proposed Planned Development Concept Plan includes two proposed open space tracts that comprise approximately 23.8% of the subject property that will preserve natural open space and promote pedestrian connectivity. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, there is evidence of change in the neighborhood or community to support the proposed comprehensive plan/zone change. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Tigard City Council APPROVAL of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment as being in compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies, all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance,as evidenced by change in the neighborhood and the community, and as determined through the public hearing process. 18.390 DECISION MAIII;ING PROCEDURES 18.390.080 General Provisions D.Applications 2. Consolidation of proceedings. Whenever an applicant requests more than one approval and more than one approval authority is required to decide the applications, the proceedings shall be consolidated so that one approval authority shall decide all applications in one proceeding; a.When a request which contains more than one approval is consolidated,the hearings shall be held by the approval authority having original jurisdiction over one of the applications under this chapter in the following order of preference:the council,the commission,the hearings officer,or the director. b.Where there is a consolidation of proceedings: i.The notice shall identify each action to be taken; ii. The decision on a plan map amendment shall precede the decision on the proposed zone change and other actions;and iii. Separate actions shall be taken on each application. FINDING: The applicant has requested concurrent review of a comprehensive plan map amendment from Professional Commercial to Medium Density Residential District/Zone Change from C-P to R-12 and a Planned Development concept plan approval. According to 18.390.080.D.2, the proceedings are consolidated and decided by the City Council. Notices have identified each action to be taken. The decision on the plan map amendment shall precede the decision on the proposed zone change,which shall precede the decision on the planned development concept plan,with separate actions being taken on each application. PI ANNING COMMISSION RFCOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCEL CPA 2016-00002JZON2016-Ml/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 9 OF 13 western and eastern property boundaries.These open space tracts will serve as an additional buffer between the existing low-density residential and commercial uses. A total of eighteen lots are proposed. Eleven lots will have frontage on SW Spruce St, three lots will have frontage on SW 72nd Ave,and four lots will have frontage on the proposed private drive.The private drive runs north to south in the middle of the subject property, ending at an open space tract on the subject property's northern boundary." The concept plan identifies how the future development will integrate into the existing neighborhood using the existing streets and providing a transition with open space buffers.This criterion is met. 4. The concept plan identifies methods for promoting walkability or transit ridership, such methods may include separated parking bays, off street walking paths, shorter pedestrian routes than vehicular routes,linkages to or other provisions for bus stops,etc. The applicant states that future development of the site with street improvements on SW Spruce St. and SW 72nd Ave., including sidewalks and planter strips will promote a mare walkable neighborhood. This criterion is minimally met. To better meet this criterion, the Commission may require the applicant to substantively address how the concept plan also promotes transit ridership. 5. The concept plan identifies the proposed uses,and their general arrangement on site.In the case of projects that include a residential component, housing type, unit density, or generalized lot sizes shall be shown in relation to their proposed location on site. The applicant states that "The Concept Development Plan in Exhibit G illustrates the proposed arrangement of lots and their relationship to open space tracts on the subject property." As show on the concept plan,this criterion is met 6. The concept plan must demonstrate that development of the property pursuant to the plan results in development that has significant advantages over a standard development. A concept plan has a significant advantage if it provides development consistent with the general purpose of the zone in which it is located at overall densities consistent with the zone, while protecting natural features or providing additional amenities or features not otherwise available that enhance the development project or the neighborhood. The applicant states that "The proposed concept plan would provide a density consistent with the R-12 zone. Two open space tracts comprising 23.8% of the subject property are proposed; their design will preserve an existing oak tree in the northwest corner of the subject property, while providing natural amenities, promoting pedestrian connectivity within the area and serving as a buffer between existing residential and commercial developments in the surrounding area." The proposed development of 18 single-family dwellings would be permitted in the R-12 zone at the maximum allowed density, consistent with the general purpose of the zone.Trees,including the large oak in the northwest corner of the site, will be protected within an open space tract This criterion is minimally met. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY"COUNCII CPA 2016-Oo002/ZON2016-000011PI)R2106-00012 TOPPING PACE 11 OF 13 The city received written comments from neighbors within 500 feet of the subject properties regarding the proposed amendment. Approximately 140 neighbors within a half-mile of the subject property who live both within and outside of the City boundary signed a petition in support of the use of the subject property as a"walk-to residential park."Nancy Tracy submitted a letter requesting that the City buy and preserve the land for park use. These comments included a letter dated April 18,2016 from Holly Pohvka,Chair of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board,in support of the park idea,with the caveat that the City did not have funding to help purchase the property. Further testimony reiterating the community's interest in a park on the subject site was presented at the November 21,2016 hearing. SECTION VIII. CONCLUSION As demonstrated by the findings above, the Planning Commission finds by a vote of 6-1 in favor that the proposed Comprehensive Plan/zone change amendment complies with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals, applicable regional, state and federal regulations, the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances and can be approved. In addition, with a vote of 5-2 in favor, the Commission approved the proposed planned development concept plan with direction to the applicant to further refine the public open space allocation on the site and to redesign access to lots to maximize on-street parking. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt by ordinance the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change,and the proposed planned development concept plan, as determined through the public hearing process. . R& ACA---r— January 10,2017 PREPARED BY: Pagenstecher DATE Associate Planner January 10,2017 APPROVED BY: Tom McGuire DATE Assistant Community Development Director PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMWNDATION TO MY COUNCIL. CPA 2016-0=/ZON2016-OOMI/PDR2106 M12 TOPPING PAGE 13 OF 13 MEETING RECORDS Print Agenda Item Summary Page 1 of 3 AIS-2990 4 Business Meeting Meeting Date: 01/24/2017 Length (in 60 Minutes minutes): Agenda Title: TOPPING C-P TO R-12 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ ZONE CHANGE with PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Prepared For: Gary Pagenstecher, Submitted By: Gary Pagenstecher, Community Development Item Type: Ordinance Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting- Main Public Hearing- Quasi-judicial Public Yes Publication Hearing: Date: Information ISSUE Shall Council adopt an ordinance approving the request to amend the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Map to change the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Districts from Professional Commercial, C-P, to Medium Density Residential, R-12, on a three-parcel property totaling 1.54 acres? In addition,if the Council approves the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Map amendment, shall the Council approve by motion the proposed Planned Development Concept Plan that shows 18 single-family detached homes with approximately 23 percent of the site in open space? STAFF RECOMMENDATION /ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends and the Planning Commission recommended (6-1 in favor) that Council approve the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, as determined through the public hearing process. Staff further recommends and the Planning Commission recommended (5-2 in favor) that Council approve the Planned Development Concept Plan with clear direction to the applicant for preparation of a detailed plan, as determined through the public hearing process KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Project HistorT In 2015, to facilitate the retention of R-12 zoning in the City, City Staff had requested approval of a zoning"swap" from C-P to R-12 on the subject property and from R-12 to C-G on another property of roughly the same size located on Pacific Hwy and School Street (CPA 2015-00005 and ZON 2015- 00007). The City Council approved the Pacific Hwy property rezone. However, the Council did not approve the rezone for the Spruce Street property. Instead, the Council directed the property owner to submit a quasi-judicial zone change application on their own if they wanted to continue to pursue the zone change on the subject property. For this application, Stafford Land Company is the applicant with support from the City,whose interest is increasing the supply of R-12 zoned land as intended in the City's prior zone change proposal. The http://agendas.tigard-or.gov/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=2990&rev_num=0&mode=External... 1/20/2017 Print Agenda Item Summary Page 2 of 3 affordable housing types allotived in the R-12 zone warrant the City's support because of the City's housing goal to provide opportunities for a variety of housing types to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents. The City is also in need of adequate commercially zoned land to support employment and economic development goals. However,the proposed rezone of the subject site from commercial professional to medium density residential is in a location where the existing commercial zone designation has resulted in underdeveloped land for the past ten years, since annexation in 2006. z To ensure the neighborhood would have an opportunity to be constructively involved in how the property could include open space that it desires in the area, the applicant agreed to apply for a Planned Development concept plan review concurrently with the comprehensive plan/zone change. ' Staff has documented the quasi-judicial process and engaged the neighbors directly in the process to G' ensure information is available and notice received. Site Description The subject property (3 parcels totaling 1.54 acres) is developed with single-family residences and was annexed in 2006 (ZCA2006-00003),which changed the County zone from Commercial Office (OC) to the City's Professional Commercial (C-P) zone, the zone most closely implementing the County's plan map designation. The current zone does not allow residential use,which the market has identified as its highest best use as evidenced by the applicant's several pre-application conferences over past couple of years to change the commercial zone to residential. The subject site is located across Spruce Street from Fred Meyers and within 1,000 feet of Pacific Hwy. The locational characteristics of the subject property support the comprehensive plan amendment and zone change. The subject property fronts on a local street and a neighborhood street and is adjacent to property zoned R-4.5 and low-density unincorporated Washington County. The adjacent lower class streets and low density residential use zone makes the property more suitable for medium density residential use to form a transition from the General Commercial (C-G) zone to the south. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Deny the CPA/ZON map amendment (precludes motion on PD concept plan). Approve CPA/ZON map amendment; deny PD concept plan. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS Supports Council's interest in affordable housing. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Initial hearing on January 12, 2016 and a continued hearing on February 2, 2016 Attachments Ordinance Exhibit A CPA/ZON Map Exhibit B PC Recommendation PD Concept Plan http://agendas.tigard-or.gov/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=2990&rev_num=0&mode=External... 1/20/2017 Print Agenda Item Summary Page 3 of 3 Topping PD Narrative Public Comments PC Minutes 11-21-16 CC Minutes 2-2-16 http://agendas.tigard-or.gov/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=2990&rev num=0&mode=External... 1/20/2017 0 ' e s • e c t a n • C a r e I Do the Right Thing G e t i t D • ■ Stafford Development, LLC / Topping C-P to R-12 Comp Plan Amendment/ Zone Change with Concept Plan Planned Development City Council Hearing Agenda Item #4 Community Development January 24, 2017 Council Direction : New Application for CPA/ZON 1 Professional Commercial (C-P) to Medium Density Residential (R-12) ,, 10441 .;Ia mlI' Irrntf 10195 71;on 74ne :ratio rano 105311 10525 1 1.54 acre site 10555 7405, !0565 7417 711 7 1 if I 711 7 7211; 0560 7411 r' 10595 LU R-12 allows lower impact development R-4.5 !A than C-P (building height and traffic) 211 /tt0 7310 iii 7130 10655 10540 106 d5 I I ID NO 1067 1070•, -� 106W] 107011 10705 / R-12 provides appropriate transition 7735 7515 71 l5 t"i9 3 . between low density residential and commercial uses , TyP-1L4 t W 7510 10815 t Pin R-12(1.54 eves) 10010 10900 111055 j 108"0 R-12 allows smaller lot development 109008-25 10085 �- 10000 09110 and a variety of housing types in 1�0 10915 1119111 10900 ._.. support of affordable housing IG _ I° / i,> -ov�oE �`�?e A�.c'C�e��n, ar ��o Cdrv /� >�i�tT�n f &P�u�/�. Council Direction : Document Quasi-Judicial Process y'T !�o� �� � ?eST>nU C. (.'tx r'`l� VL V41 March 16, 2016 Neighborhood Meeting (w/staff) October 17, 2016 proposal on the COT webpage „ ,and usellctiQn ;'' e r �gtea 9 his �,. 1 Fr r r) P O pyoe A Petty LaM Uscte n October 18, 2016 mailed notice of hearings ���` >.l ,�. ... $ E o Ansi+in W R Q P VOk AFF)OF"750October 27, 2016 published notice in The Times v October 31, 2016 posted site (first time) Nt r November 14, 2016 staff report on the COT webpage November 21, 2016 Planning Commission hearing ' s January 3 2017 re-posted site see insetphotos) January 17, 2017 AIS packet on the COT webpage a January 24, 2017 City Council hearing 1 Y ' * Staff has periodic discussions and in ormation sharing ' with Jim Lon at Permit Center counter Long n Council Direction : Neighborhood involvement in design g ra F�c �!7';L#7� TH►J f rXirF � i'o p0W a}1Ji�IC14l v4 i of uses allowed n the R-12 zone-- rkGK�e� Yo ?_6c�"j)( ?li4wZt� . PD Concept Plan Review C`�����' OPFN SPACE provides forum for design RACTB n.•ou os.a w.o ya 1 IF 6 12 discussion nN �n� SpAek 2"0 SF 2460 SF =� 2.-75 ST. W HnWE 7 V ern!« � ;�as� �P 13 10 36J Uj I • 2,660 S r 2,660 S F ^B , �� «D 2,A7w xF Q leo la0 It,c ,ti.G Ino lec 16.0 260 leo Neighborhood Meeting jZ Q 'r, a comments focused on �' A_,.e �� ,5• , � 0 9 e �� 45, a•. !� a� impacts of residential 0 j Z�; development and .F o, • a ,� preference for low density j R.aw, cENTFRII ,,-- .—.=.�..- _.—.Sof SPRUC.T .�.—.—..__.— --•—•—•—•---.L.—. housing or commercial use ' _ — PD CONCEPT Plan-Single Family Detached Residential Lots Written comments a n d l Oben Space Density & Setbacks Utilities & Porkin G,m SNe Mea-67.3]5 e.l Co nplbntt eltn R-12 Oen"" Pu61k sanitary,water 2 Stem Aeplaeln In petition focus o n use of the w�m 2 .... i 2*-1]..65Q 1 Na,Nnum.6 Units S6 d•Forney N•ta•nea sw 72na and sw s—te On-site .npnxd Open Sp-.-15.097•.1 (2361e) S•tbpc,• a•emenC,6 n6 en 1 an 6atennhee at r s rx� ,IM 161 sk•-5' R•w.13' Fr«(-Carpye-20' Oetow.d Con<pt plan Apgovd 1 Fant-Bu6dln0.12' P01kO-E« Rivwa n lot y!Coaq•and .n whole site for a public park paMkOn_SVwt , p, ©rm&,C Ga»�wet-�v7t �i1GU3t"7j dl� Gj/D7'iG�jfionm�eSS Council Direction : Neighborhood to talk to Parks and PRAB about using site for a park November 17, 2016 PRAB letter states support for a .1E OPEN SPACE 95.0 TRACT 13 public park on the subject ' It,609 asa S.F. 2. s{ —iSCI---- ---. -- 650 �. site, but identifies lack of 66 2.45SF. Lb60 SF. 2,680 SS N funding. N 13 10 2.660 S.F. 2,660 SF. °:9 _ tae s.F. x=11 PD Open Space requirement ° . �a : 26 },0 260 zeo 280 =ao 280 M4 S , i can provide opportunity for 9 8 7 6 5 4 1= 18 17 16 15 14 ..•.. im.. .wv wv wtr wv m ty t•u w tW w sw w u.r tw•tr. IE compromise, e.g.: < t 1 Tract Amulti-use :�P� o� Tract B through path : --� _ _ I, 1 Tract C dedication and �E j improvements _ 3 / Tract D integrationc�k/�sauo =' ^ r� /Cw /8 3 so v . ps o.f} : �� oleAj s p w�e - lc he 1 us ; re(�v�c�►>�C fo -Tien crop e�jea A. �CdP ` 4'I D� � Q 1 Tr Y. 21N�r7vrtrNl�cfc►c�+'teSlf � 6 �MMA. 3\ �n►TEI.Rn�/a►.� /W.—V tf�J -,�.` r.�a� i�'r c.r-•J�4 j r ^ `/) �►romoTtK� w.i.Ik��J�sl P�Ga)I G �� Lin.r A roe 4d � sl r DBwr7 P y�•!!tis eY 3 11'g r, f -% .+..._ Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council take two actions tonight: R.aS 1. First, adopt ordinance approving the v I FYFs 1C�D proposed Com Plan Amendment � and Zone Change. 80.5 2. Second, pass a motion approving the w R ,Ma xfwi r t >f " W proposed PD Concept Plan with clear , febz direction to the applicant for � _a _ ►N preparation of their detailed plan . 0 CITY OF TIGARD Respect and Care . . the Right Thing G e t it Done Stafford Development, LLC / Topping C-P to R-12 Comp Plan Amendment/ Zone Change with Concept Plan Planned Development City Council Hearing Agenda Item #4 Community Development January 24, 2017 Testimony Draft 1 12417 TO _Tigard_City_Cou401 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, Oregon 97223 FROM:__ Jim Long, Chairperson, Citizen Participation Organization-4M 10730 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223. 503-647-0021 FILE NOS, Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2016-0002 and Zone Change (ZON) 2016-00001 and (PDR) 2016-0012 FILE TITLE: TOPPING C-P to R-12 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ ZONE CHANGE with PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICANT: Stafford Development Company 485 S. State Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 My name is Jim Long. I am Chairperson of CPO-4M, the Citizens Participation Organization serving East Tigard—Metzger— and Durham. I am here speaking for both the CPO-4M, and it members in the Metzger-Tigard neighborhood. These are preliminary comments. The CPO-4M met Jan 18 to discuss this and other proposals. First, as chair of the CPO-4M, in December 2015 in response the a proposal with the city as applicant for a "Zone Swap" for this property, the local east Tigard CPO-4M discussed the city planning department's request and voted unanimously to endorse retaining the Commercial-Professional/Commercial General zoning. So, your local CPO-4M asks that you deny this Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone change, and Planned Development Review. We the citizens (both nearby residents and CPO member attendees) do not support residential use, particularly R-12 and multi-story buildings (19 Ayes, 0 Nays at the CPO-4M meeting October 26, 2016). R-12 zoning does not fit the character of the neighborhood. If the property does not remain commercial zoning. R-7 or R-5 makes more sense. On Jan. 18'x,2011, the CPO-4M (East Tigard-Metzger- Durham] CPO voted unanimously to encourage the city council to include the property within the boundaries of the Tigard Triangle. 1 Testimony Draft 1 12417 (The Toppings have no guarantees for this property, and contrary to the r neighborhood meeting minutes, application, and staff report there are legal not economic reasons for the Toppings not being able to fulfill their purpose for annexation into the city which was to build.)" The application does not have the correct facts about why the preschool never opened. So why reward them when they want a CPA amendment??? So please deny this app. CRITERIA CPA: The Comprehensive Plan should have (and probably did) take into consideration that growth was built in. So, it is probably built in already. ZON PDR; just because the applicant is just in concept PDR stage, doesn't mean the city is in the preliminary stage now too. The city planning department should be providing more details to justify the CPA and ZON. Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, Chapter 18.350 + 18.350.010 1. Purpose To provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the city, alternative building designs,walkable communities,preservation of significant natural resources, aesthetic appeal, and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of strict adherence to many of the rules of the Tigard Community Development Code; and 18.380.030 B.3 Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. [THERE IS NO EVIDENCE] {We ask for denial]. 18.380 18.390.050 The property is within drainage ways,No impact study.//All people who have submitted a written request to be notified. This was remanded and continued.//Type III Comprehensive Plan Goal 1, Citizen Involvement Comprehensive Plan Goal 2 Land Use planning Comprehensive Plan Goal 10 Housing Statewide Planning Goals 1,2, 10;and Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Titles 1,7,and 12. 2 Testimony Draft 1 12417 Under Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies for Citizen Involvement: Goal # 1 of Oregon land use laws (197 1) requires that citizens be involved in every phase of the planning process. This has not happened so far in this Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change with Planned Development Review case. There were many meetings citizens to which citizens were not invited. The Stafford Development Company `conceptual application' has not been fully reviewed. So there was another week (9 weeks already) from January 10 to 17 that we did not have access to the application online but only at city hall. City Hall was not open from Jan. 11-17 due to snow and holiday and (since, in part, the City Planning department's office is closed on Fridays). CPO-4M's boundaries include both incorporated and unincorporated areas. In contrast to city procedures, the Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation sends the CPO chairs full copies of development applications for review at/before the Comment period starts. ADD Staff has NOT documented the quasi-judicial process and NOT engaged the neighbors directly in the process to ensure information is available and notice received. In November 21St PC testimony we asked: Why doesn't the City of Tigard supply/post the developer's application online for residents to see? Or, at least, why doesn't the city provide the appropriate Community Planning Organizations with a copy of the development applications? After he heard me say that on Nov. 21St', Gary Pagenstecher told the Planning Commission decision-makers and public in his public testimony that the development application is "online" in public testimony The CPO could not find it in November or December. So here we have an example of`alternative facts'. So, on January 10th, at 4:50pm at Tigard City Hall I asked Gary Pagenstecher where online we could find the development application; Gary P. looked online for 10-12 minutes and couldn't find it. It's not there. He misleads the PC and public. I asked him if the city had an extra copy of the application so we could review and he said "no". This affects citizens' substantial rights by minimizing their ability to review plans and comment fully about them. So we still did not have access to a copy during the snowy week (Jan. 10-17). 3 Testimony Draft 1 12417 So, I want to point out two false statements and an omission made at the Planning ° Commission and in the official minutes of the PC for 11/21/16. Commissioner Chris: Jim Long did not request a year earlier did not request that this property be included in the Tigard Triangle. Actually he didn't have the idea until summer of 2016 when he saw boundary map for the Tigard Triangle. Assoc. Planner Gary Pagenstecher: It is/was not "online"(as stated above). Calista Fitzgerald's comments are not all in the PC minutes; hence errors and omissions (27-foot loss in elevation). Remember earlier last year, when this room was pretty-well packed with people interested in this 72nd and SW Spruce property who opposed the Zone Swap? Did the city notify all those interested parties? Shouldn't they be considered interested parties in this proceeding? Your local CPO doesn't like to have to be watchdogs over what the city planning department is doing outside its own code. But, if necessary will be. Existing ZONING Currently Zoned Commercial- Professional --- Proposed zoning: Medium Density Residential (R-12) There are currently 7 properties along Spruce Street near 72nd within the City of Tigard that are zoned Commercial-PROFESSIONAL. Whereas all the nearby residential to the west and north is R-4.5 residential. What is this "co-applicant" status for the city? Similar to the 2015-2016 failed "Zone Swap", it appears the City is both the (co-) Applicant and the person reviewing the application for this Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Again, the city is not neutral? Whose idea was it to start the "Zone Swap" as a legislative proceeding? Cite pages of application. Please pay attention to a large citizen measure of local input and delay this proposal until a better proposal appears, or deny this application and let them come back with a better one, better than this. The concept of a"Buffer" between the City of Tigard and unincorporated "Town of Metzger" makes no sense. The buffer should be a park. Not R-12 houses for a buffer. 4 Testimony Draft 1 12417 "Gateway to Metzger" views The city has in its power to ask for another proposal for this location. Longer time for consideration is important. Public Notice Sign Unreadable Gary Pagenstecher asked me in October to keep an eye on City's public notice signage. I did. One city PUBLIC Notice sign was visible on Monday October 31 st, and I have been looking at it and the public notice sign is too small (about 28" x 19") for people to read. People in cars have to stop, get out of their vehicle, and then have to squat down in front of it to read it. [Insert pie] Passersby also squat down to read the PUBLIC NOTICE sign. Before Thanksgiving of last year (2015), when the City of Tigard's proposed Zone Swap commenced, the city installed two 2 Public Notice signs at both properties, one on SW Spruce and one on SW 72nd Avenue. Both signs blew down due to Oregon rains and winds. Why was only one PUBLIC NOTICE sign put up in November of 2016? When I looked for the city's most recent and only PUBLIC NOTICE sign on Saturday morning November 12, 2016, the flimsy sign had fallen off one of its posts and curled up so it is currently unreadable, again due to Oregon rains and winds (see pie below). This has been a recurring problem, e.g. for Public Notice signs by the city and developers regarding the A&O Apartment application neighborhood meetings and public hearings in 2015. On January 23rd, 2017 sign on SW Spruce down and unreadable. [pic submitted]. By today, January 24th the sign was totally removed. At 2/2/16 Public Hearing at City Council meeting, GP said: "Since that time staff has changed to using plastic coated paper with double sticks to hold the sign in place. In the future staff will monitor the signs and check on them after a bad storm. The plastic covering actually makes the sign more difficult to read. Perhaps the planning department is understaffed as Gary said on January 10. There are landowners who did not receive notice. 5 h s , �; Testimony Draft 1 12417 1 i.;.f; � ' IIS p` - -�•F'--�A �. _ _ apt 1• -F k- s 4 -ria --t�€� s : s AMM ge ;. r I _ u9 As it was last year in the 2015-2016 failed `Zone Swap' application by the city, this signage is a violation of city land use codes. Interested people who pass by this site cannot receive information they need to know what is planned. As of January 3'. there is still not a sign posted. Preventing residential now, does not preclude it from becoming residential later. NOTE: This information is provided here as a courtesy only, before developers submit certain land use applications to the County (for areas outside cities). These meetings provide a forum for the developer, affected CPO (Community Participation Organization) and nearby property owners to discuss the proposal informally. County staff do not schedule or attend these meetings. It was irregular for the city of Tigard to be attending neighborhood meetings. On 2/2/16, Charlie Hanson said his land at the lower west end of the property is "swamp-like," with plenty of drainage problems. "It is more of a wetland, than viable property and that may be why commercial builders have not shown interest." [So, there is an environmental impact] Testimony Draft 1 12417 From the Feb. 2, 2016 minutes at the City Council Public Hearing when "Council President Snider said residents near Site A need to recognize that the property is two blocks off of Highway 99W and behind a huge commercial center. It is probably not going to be developed as a commercial property. He suggested that they as a neighborhood figure out how they can live with whatever will be done residentially on that property at some point. He said he thought it would be hard for the neighborhood to prevent things from happening on the property because of Oregon land use law and Tigard's Community Development Code." Does this mean that Councilor Jason Snider is not neutral in this case in 2017? ,,/ "Councilor Woodard addressed Jim Long and suggested there is time to talk to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) about using it for a park." We did � 1 and the Park and Recreation Advisory Board agreed it is a good place for a park. N,y Jim Long came up with a creative way to fund the park through the Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal levy if approved in May. You (the city) do not have enough Commercial properties. {There us a Deficiency) of Commercial as shown in Cogan, Owens, Cogan. There is a Deficiency of R-12 residential zoning as shown in Angelo report. There is no loss because [TST] school property was not included in the City of Tigard's inventory of properties zoned residential. {How did that residential zoning originally happen in West Tigard?] So, in conclusion, the CPO-4M membership asks that you deny the applicant's request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Planned Development Review, at this time. Thank you. 8 Testimony Draft 1 12417 Code is 5 feet between houses, not 6-8, not 10 feet, because that's what `market' prefers. Setback 12 feet supposed to be 15 feet. Nether the city or the developer ever contacted the HANSONS RE: DRAINAGE problems at the site. NO Capital Improvement Projects in annexed part of north Tigard (old Metzger) Public records procedural — have to show prejudiced and that my/our substantial rights have been minimized. Not being able to get application. Access to application [[I was able to go to City Hall a few times, and got to talk to Gary Pagenstecher and reviewed document briefly, but not fully until given a copy a week ago, Jan. 17th, 2017. This has prejudiced my rights and neighbors rights to _ (review and comment) and our ability to participate (in this land use proceeding) Public Info. Request (get copy of application) would mean a weeklong delay (We were) Delays in getting application impaired our ability to comment on the PDR. Once a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map is set up -- you've got to stick with it. There is not a minimal level of discretion to change. Yes, the City has ability to change zoning, (but) it is the city's burden to prove the need to change the plan. Staff report says simply: population increased. *The city needs to prove the need for change, and they haven't done that. Populations are increasing all over Oregon which increases demand for commercial-professional/commercial-general. Just that the population has increased is not enough to justify this proposed Zone change 9 Testimony Draft 1 12417 Neither the application nor the staff report explains why the city is needs to change their (its) zoning maps, especially if it is eliminating Commercial-Professional zoning. Private park or open space, not visible Concept plans The review criteria is loosey-goosey Staff report says minimally meets the criteria not once, but multiple times. If the applicant proposes minimally meeting the criteria once (may be OK) but multiple times of just minimally meeting the criteria (It is not acceptable. We deserve better.) How many times do you want to be just `minimal"? The city can ask for more. Why doesn't make this a model/ask for something better? If they can't improve their proposal, negotiate with them. The planning department suggestions for "Conditions of approval" cannot substitute for meeting the applicable criteria. The City of Tigard needs to explain conditions of approval [here now in this public hearing] in meeting the applicable criteria Zoning — lack of data on need (for zone change?) Population growth is not a blank check Concept plan — "we do not know" any specifics The neighborhood citizens have appealing arguments for why the city should hold off, deny, and not approve this CPA,ZON, and PDR. Meet criteria now // can't let them all slide Conclusory statements jump to conclusions without facts. R-12, R-5, It would make sense to rezone R-7 to R-12 What is affordable? $339,000 10 Testimony Draft 1 12417 The applicants Concept Plan PDR barely meets loose standards. City needs a more detailed plan, another Type II/III proceeding This R-12 application doesn't show a substantial change in the community. There are increases in population everywhere/experiences The Comprehensive Plan should have (and probably did) take into consideration that growth was built in. So, it is probably built in already. How has the community changed? It is not articulated in the application Charge disparity FM store always commercial and has always been there Not a fundamental change in the community that you comprehended when you (the city) set up (established the Comprehensive Plan.) 11 Testimony Draft 1 12417 There isn't a need for a buffer. It doesn't make sense. "Buffer" — doesn't make any sense, re: abuts county buffer is still residential Losing the buffer because Commercial-Professional does have an impact as big FM store. It doesn't make sense. Public Records law — minutes need to be accurate, general applicable law failure to maintain accurate records, give specifics Changes do not warrant changing the zone code Instead of R-12 zoning, R-7 or R-5 makes more sense and first neighborhood character better, so drop this concept plan. Zon map/cpa made in 1970s what has substantially changed/ The population increase has increased the need for open space. Wetlands Pp 10, 11, 12 Zone Change- incompatibility with adjacent properties Goal 10.2 ----- not true Approval criteria R-7 to R-12 setback 3-4 feet codes, online, objective codes 30 feet house away widen Spruce Swale is it excluded from open space?? 20 feet wide, how tall?(not what xxx yyy talking about before Nmtg., 2 stories, more? Exclude storm tract, add 27feet / / i / Only 20.3% open space For 40 years this property was zoned 1-story Professional -commercial Windows overlooking Cars obstruct driveways and sidewalks at Legacy Oaks 12 "This application would create spot zoning and is unsupported by the evidence in the record: While zoning changes is a legitimate function of the City, the Supreme Court has cautioned against the practice, especially once a zoning map and comprehensive plan is in place: `The enabling legislation under which county governments may enact zoning regulations requires the enactment of a comprehensive zoning plan. ORS 215.050. Once a plan is adopted, changes in it should be made only when such changes are consistent with the over-all objectives of the plan and in keeping with changes in the character of the area or neighborhood to be covered thereby. Arbitrary, or 'spot', zoning to accommodate the desires of a particular landowner is not only contrary to good zoning practice, but violates the rights of neighboring landowners and is contrary to the intent of the enabling legislation which contemplates planned zoning based upon the welfare of an entire neighborhood. See Holt et ux. v. City of Salem et al., 192 t r, 200, 215, P.2d 5564 11 f"�;:, ); 1 Yokley, Zoning Law and Practice, 128, § 3-5 (3d ed. 1965). Even though there is a presumption of legislative regularity when the governing board of a county enacts a change in a zoning ordinance, the antithetical character of spot zoning and its recognized erosive effect upon the comprehensive zoning plan automatically tends to neutralize, if not to overcome, the presumption in the particular case. Accordingly, courts generally view spot zoning as being outside the presumption of legislative regularity, and require substantial evidence of chancre in the neighborhood in order to justify therezoning of a small tract as an amendment in keeping with the comprehensive plan. See Annotation, .!_. .2d 263, 303 (1957).' Smith v. Washington County, 241 Or 380 , 383-384 (1965). The Supreme Court's discussion in Smith regarding the need to produce "substantial evidence of change in the neighborhood is consistent with the approval criteria set forth TDC 18.380.030(3), which requires the applicant to demonstrate the "evidence of change in the neighborhood or community" to justify the requested zoning change. This criteria is not satisfied. The only "change" in the community identified by the applicant or staff is a general increase in the city's population over the years. However, most cities do grow and an increase in population, by itself, cannot form the 13 The only "change" in the community identified by the applicant or staff is a general increase in the city's population over the years. However, most cities do grow and an increase in population, by itself, cannot form the basis for a change in the existing comprehensive plan. When the City first adopted its zoning map and comprehensive plan, it would have necessarily considered the natural increase in population in decades to come and the plan would have been designed to accommodate such anticipated growth. If population growth, in and of itself, can justify zoning map changes, then the comprehensive plans would lose any meaning and could be manipulated and changed after every new population census. Instead, the applicant must demonstrate some other type of change in the community. For example, a sudden and significant disproportionality between needed commercial properties and needed residential properties might justify changing a zoning designation, especially if such disproportionality did not exist and was not contemplated at the time of the enactment of the comprehensive plan. The applicant, however, cites no such sudden changes in the availability of lots suitable for housing versus lots suitable for commercial construction that might justify a zoning map change. Moreover, the increase in population cited by the applicant would presumably include an increase in the need of professional services and maintaining the existing inventory of professional-commercial zoned properties as shown on the plan is necessary to accommodate such growth. However, applicant does not even attempt to address the effect of the loss of professional- commercial zoned property on the overall comprehensive plan. Without more evidence demonstrating that the existing comprehensive plan and zoning map is inadequate to address how the City has grown, the proposed zoning change is the type of "spot zoning" that the Supreme Court warned against and should be denied." The applicant's argument that the proposed R12 will form a "buffer" makes no sense because it will push dense residential development to just across the street from busy commercial areas, when under the existing plan, the professional-commercial zoning designation already provides a much more viable buffer. To whom it may concern, I oppose rezoning the tax lots located west of the intersection of SW 72nd and Spruce from commercial to R12.I have reviewed the proposed 18 unit housing development and have serious concerns regarding their construction as follows: • My view from my back yard is of the tax lots in question.All of the proposed designs are not in character with the surrounding houses and will damage my viewshed. • 1 am concerned with loss of privacy where multiple houses will be able to see into my back yard. • Traffic on SW Pine is pretty bad and people speed in front of my house on a regular basis.I have a 14 month old son and fear for his safety. Adding 18 new houses one block away will increase the traffic,further eroding my son's safety with an increase in traffic. • It is difficult to get out of the neighborhood during rush hour due to traffic congestion.This will only increase with the addition of 18 new houses.I am unclear if the increase in traffic was considered regarding this development. This is a serious concern. • There are no places within safe walking distance(no sidewalks)to take my son to play. A better use of the land would be a park to service the existing neighborhood. Sincerely, (117 N-� k/'�-q 7 Scott Braunsten 7212 SW Pine Street Tigard,Oregon 97223 braunsten dc� qo ncai.r,e 503-939-7910 ? 2 4472017 T-6 �6Tt ox d- 6 V� Clo u V1 P-,1 R,6'- CMP-cfheM svv,- 1-1m Amen imm4, 20 0042 zomp- Uvw1i 2 01 G - 0 0-01 DW Mttq6r Cook and &,Uncjlo-r5 , A Company's -o-mp IePYnp- ,W41 on-- I'mPr-p-SS.jor\ e--_ CL toV of ckcx4-5, and lempagv used, fo make, oL laaJ iaeA look j oo J, A+ +hk 46vembc.r Tigarj P(Ctntyinj COMM15510T) Elea-r;nj Ana of +his one, fo4aj the clompahj 65 f6_11RA �O PiCt-Rre, �I e, kO'LA$1Yj5 -+` Pv- . So -1 ofFer pho+os 4-aken On Ot 6kwri- WoUk up S,W 7'4'm`,Jff SpriAcc . I rea lite, At N- -'ZP9- -,o+orV kou6es kove been moJ ;Fik.A , T6 5�-nffov-A ones allaw 6fo2Fez-+, - nod t4,be-�wzcn koases , Tkc Company '.s cja�)m Amf 4-6se. fiovvex koLA3fs prov'iaz a lieedex� 6uFf er is I odf'trot" ) when 16, real buffer Is she, rj(A+tkrn,( open space, Yt4lali'nq oLA+ 'in all dj`rec+i'On-s-{.4-0 6curve recreal-ional needs of }his liiiqk6orhoaa, T�i5 j,5 wW -livabf-j-h+1 is ail a*botx-V,- Tkp-4end re 5ul+ 4- los-s of lan4 for a park, will be {o open tkrvk �o rarnpati4 over-de-ve-lopme,4. This le-nd , �ke. -ei4i'rz ctrea bg 4-he S+OFFW4 dvvdopme-44-111 is tke, o-nll acrec,,99, larqc emoLtSk 4-o 6erve, recrka' -ional riejs of our vi65kborhoo4 . Your T*ioard P&rk5 and Advisarg board has twice, W r if+f-n 4 n A -o r a- pork 'jin +Ws twe.-O-, Can WX piJure iiis--eaq vnoAc� IrAve",+ed for a 'SOLFe ped,-;,s4-riovj - bic�cle- ptcs5-ajej over Pajif-i*c. 14wy. 1-0 rhe- li'arA Triarijip- , +kc- 61-�'5 plann-p-A tommer6ml o461s> IAO-W c&T-dgpcAjRnl *? Ou+-r-OL3eotu *? 4i-1`c-ver Ieccsf )V5 &+41OUJM- 1-6-1- Could $i-AY+ PL COh-VZr6afiOV) We Shotdd 'be having nj ,Si n C-e r f-) JVan c c (p T r 4p 2-q ima) re Mayor and Council: RE:CPA 2016-00002;ZON 2016-00001;PDR 2016-00012 My property borders the proposed property to be rezoned.I am concerned about what an R12 development will mean to my neighborhood. After the City Council meeting in which Gary Pagenstecher stated the development application could be found online at the city of Tigard website I tried to access it to better study the proposal and understand the impact but was unable to locate it.Nor was I able to drive to city hall to read it due to the recent inclement weather.The city hall was also closed from January 18-January 23. 1 sent a letter to Gary on January 17 stating so.I also left a phone message on January 17 to call me back and walk me through finding the application online.He did not return my call or acknowledge my letter.I have had very little time to study it,therefore.This prejudiced my ability to form a comment.In the little time I had to study it before this meeting tonight I noted a few things 1 did not agree with: 1.A change in zoning would violate my rights as a neighboring land owner.I did not buy my property with the expectation or desire to be bounded by 18 2 story homes in my back yard. 2.Per approval criteria stating the proposed development satisfies goal 10.2 of land use planning to protect and enhance the quality and integrity of residential neighborhoods is just not true.The quality of this neighborhood would suffer because of the increase in traffic and the inappropriate density as compared to the rest of the neighborhood and its larger lots. 3.The increase in population THROUGHOUT the Tigard area does not justify spot rezoning in our neighborhood.The Comprehensive land Use Plan addressed the expectation of growth at its inception. 4. The development does not satisfy the needs apparent to this neighborhood and surrounding properties as our petition for a park has demonstrated.There is no where close for a mother to take her children to play within walking distance. Penny Stewart 7330 SW Pine Street Portland,Oregon,97223 or FIN y� C s f 3 � = 4. v ``� to Gary Pagenstecher From: James Long <jimalong@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 2:12 PM To: Gary Pagenstecher Cc: Carol Krager; #Councilmail Subject: Public notice sign down again on SW Spruce Attachments: IMG_7734.JPG;ATT00001.c Good afternoon Gary- One of my neighbors told me she couldn't read this sign. As per your request,you wanted me to notify you whenever the signs weren't up. I think this is at least the fourth sign down. As per previous photo of unreadable sign on SW 72nd, again this unfairly prejudices the substantial rights of citizens in this proceeding. I am a volunteer. As we've discussed,you are paid to put up readable Public Notice signs for the City of Tigard. Questions? --Jim Long CPO chair 1 d' ..�. .... ac` e,.•4�`�., Wr ,w, - .� ,,. A "'�„_as t � �n ��i�,,Jj�.. i ,, �'<' t• s� ��� > , � ,ytiNChy ` yli�d •' 4;. i ,�, '4. ^y, _. ✓; ^ "��lra�d��I�4ywA�,.��u`R+. '�.: �.. } G` } ;°y, P 1�L �• > .,i� -' x' r''� +9'.t r. %J> �r �' r ?;' '0yY • y�:'�'t.r+,:r..,,r �., x+ �,:' '*` ,,s, s • rr rt•�i �r •,,i..,.: £ `s �"++ `�`�R.,Yy�la�5- '"`."�, +,'"ta�' t�°.. i �, r .�,�`""'F.,�r.y�ti \. ,..,''":h %'�a� .r•!�" R�r d +yryh �i� ,�`•,�r• t1e•� +"`. ,,,,. v,.� ".��° .a;�,x: � :, , d'-�',:;, it�,y,N` '._. ..y '•1Y,r�u•���, �t'•t� ,M`" r i*' •YjA„.o �,``�+ 1•,y� '+�E��S- '�." r,#t,. ....�,r ��r,yyyr, .rk.'.c,i'1 ri.\ ^Hr.i\,. �j(�'V}'V! .` ;a 'r1 rrt-p.�,{��ji.�t''i,- !•�'�'[ .y Za�'� !ff,�F. S ! 'G�''4{fr•-. _ �'�: �rJ�•�•il"�` y' "ti33.', +i�... •.an. �•' „r:4+,.:r►�!r,. Ry � es i�`4�� ��01 �. ° Fa•..•• .,,f �� .• "• '��"�*. '�,,. %" i ,4=q z ', `t°. t r4Sr -..r !.'•a*r` sro-..,�, J1,•."'T:�=;;, -;,,�e.. + ,� �.< :v "'4 ;e F`i'�.i y." � '� �+�. r~�tr,`�ir ;,�' w�''T 4a*". :.n.' 'rw "vi,'-,`s.v -] •"'�' ,"h;*,� 't ,��.,.i.,, s v , aa'?� rr..'S:'\•�,;;,� $* Xala i�s e 4SK• T. '�R. �. -. .Y�, ak af4ya r .- , .` � #��r '� �t � ,�� �� E � �:rY �J F• 4 , ..::} �! s. " espt'"1't:- 'r «>.:. «•�9a•„*. +0,�r,+, y1:. ,fi��r.,r '�: {,(��1;py. J s f�.. r,�: .t4 rb'. ,, .t$R` a,. 4 $,•. '�• 4t-,, .r ,7 ;d^ �, ti': y#. �t�! ,r111F": !`81y '!�.< • • ,. ,. `x, .: "- ., ���` �.'.. i•.,,. a-ii '�`� „, ,.���;�fia� r, �r�j' •��; r�y�»�tT ,#. 1'�'a' � +� v ...+�., , �": ,.e�.Faa; ''�" aa, .. . +;��rt�� ,n:°:. �` �,�j^�'��r"�•a.y�.. �i,•t'ut^'�1�� •� �'��4 ° �'" ..� i+ � is t 'C•�r�r,i�r, .tea• ,tii #� - a '. + t ,�S`" „_ :'«'.� ''^iv ` ,w ter,. 4 ten,, e , `�,i• Pvy. �.,'•6- .,•. rr ::+•��' ,;V 4A .x'.a.:,:r,W� S,4 � ; r:, ✓'' �i; e1+.,r- ;-.3,���,`i 'ki# ,, 4 �.>,c ;.�} 9'i•. �,_, ',, ..,y ,_ -;a..ar .,": ,f5�..R��„�`� � {t.. ;,�*' `r,. �+{ `.4� ,J.4 ti .+'�' •:Ct,, : .;c,�RS"�b? ti �r:.,tb„ � ,��;f.,j. ,< � � p�LM `�P. �'° '� '+t'�:`«` �\� Zy, ,gyp �,: :..x« �.;" '•.. '.•�-'fix'.'-:�. - °"-.;1,. '`1?R.�-.y�,`�;,, .�.r"-t 7;'r' a,•. '��,• T� `� y r.Fri" �p 1�'+�.'+.� r,, 'ay, 7rT'- "�; i{�,j .�, ,�,- � .�" t-£ a,t 1. 'f.S ��C hk•- r £�"'�..„q y�^ .r '.;?x �:�e.1,” „ .:>,'£'k •"P.Y °� - ,",q. • .�:at#` m%' `'��. �{ " ""„ .I' ": ,..\ .✓ - -: 3^ \ 'rdd a�'iii "i(�/''..s �"- r$'.'i�t � `ii.�;y�,. u'� .� ! 1ptn f.{• c�,' 4"'t'S". ,4.' w IDa y� ��s, a �''Ik.? 4� iy r.�,�"'P': r. '..j+�i•3 '�•eR,�j[ _ 'f" :��`Y ' ' "5 t.- C'.y.., 4:4:moi,• , ,,meq.:. •:3d:;�'d ..«..f,.x ..+. ..' .a.�'^.p,Jf, r< ...,,. �.. ,;:. "`.. '• J'A'.: *. 1 .„,�''�d`, , „!:�'..n'�� a. :.,.: ar•-„.�.'�.'.:.t•, t” _...;, fr•S" .y..L 1 ;�. „.:•Ty y... rpS'•.;Y„q�.r, 1g, ��,,.r �,., .�!• 4,. ,. ,.f,•i-,... a �'rL'., 'Y....,-=• -..ar i, •'".a'' .'.nr..-.. •�t"•yS,,t '�` � :u., i ',1 kf.. t i, ��`s b :i,.x,. \ �'t�'.�r'� «;',. 9p•-- ,.;,,ny. ._ -„ _mom. �'.x, ., 4 i.,,,• .r?.. °".i: '� /.{""'�';!.`• �. .F. ^4: ''r` ..N. rrm,";. .. «', ,p ..` ,f�,x •'9t fl+. < s Sb�- cam„ r ..,v�F.. f'-' �iw+ ' 'A 5 7-r r Y = 14$1 .�r+�...�,.. ,�Riir: •R,r''a"�F,.. .p '��`. .:� r'�':.!�'�,x +•o.;[";,.n,,, 'S "¢yet. , �,, ', 7 "',.w, :s .'R�, �.- ;,;(,,,I,r•';,\ `�,...:'�.st -.`"Fi". ' .•.F; "y� .,�rl�l,H �4., :-a.`iP.. " +s ,.:�r!'. ♦ �t9,t. a. ,•�,,. �,;t:. .. .�� �f •., .«.,-, '� 1dt.:, '•Shtr-%.'s"`-R` :�,Y-:..;,,..9 �� r,.,Sr✓ .�`�- ;°!R ��!F"",•-=`-'>� :t!kra. `^t,'<+ "'r{ Y'�x•;:S,T �< " ,i:,:y� y,n a`t5 � `:er ,•�wY- :";,� "m^ ��".�.; ,�,. � ,��,! +�„�!• �plrt �s t:P! � vR,„ k ��yf.,.r�t;�t�J!. x `" r' «`:, `"'� 9r� K i'; l7 is id\ � 9 .5� �.,.+ ` '���� <���� ! �-`v'c< - 'l i'P.''� �°;;u. ,yry �?r• t.; .yy�. - •t`Y e.A'•� :� iY`�!;;. !!(:rh�f` � '"'�•.,,qm: Zr�� /.. i.. _ 'ti Ye, •,yr e°��:. Sty" k�'.A.$ v :^3^.^ +'<•, �i-. .{ �I�f.?t,. �'F'.'�r 5�• .� ,� r .�,v� n_,,,,#y s- _r ,,. xit;%ft; s*' ?: .. G,:. '•f^fy' "' e'na', f va^qt.,*, d�-i' N; ,�•- 4 "':'1,, J "�s. ,y�• >r �~ '•at6 s,a j, �.,,. kv- {.. .�. ac. �,i.- _.: �.•• .e .,.-.:•,..1,.Lr..;,Zf•...�r� 1� �ISfi1� _- r. '' bS '�•y`' �� 1;., 'tly , • .,., +,6 7 ,v. .,�'. ,m .:a�a•.i *f.k-,_„ t 'e r-,r l�. i^ •': #�'�,N:+��3!'�t. +� x �:w i�� ��� r':l• -.C..,,. 4� r,� ? �ti,�' ..r7<+ '! '`vS ria, .s t_tr.,..�eqn:. Fl. ,��• � 1� 'yr•,:-. ',•�. - - - .. �,t'�.i,'.F '^,«: �,.: `:�1�7 ,.-,�•*' ..q:,d`-r.Y may' 7Y :",'�5., P r•.,t 3- - w3�.. ? w.•ytt�. „ ',}'V !I ;.ra;'} r *4`.n .;..: ,.��f.'�:: ;'.. '`f '.,.:5,'r*'i�.,cy,r n, S, .ri .-� ,rti�' .v„.. ,. �. a.. :, -. -..X., 5.1`.� ', ...�,v '7•:.,, 9 t;.«"Y. ,.. \+ �, r..'* q}r -�i ,'�Ijr .:•...9 ir,..v ° mss,, -.':.t�3 _..,,; ,4 S :P<, ','�:_ r„ a� ,;.,-.., r.A.; "�"Sn ti.. rr "N- ,.rF. �;n: r ,�• ,_: ,gid-,,r. �, �,, 4 v:�,#-"«,..c:';u.•.',...: ., ,,;+�.. w .�. ,� •+�� "'�.,f-. 4q«.yn.aa•"tJ ��:,.�' t;s•,J.. < ,f .�•_a a.;:.•,r .. .t., yf .,.-y > l�Qrrd}Y....�s. =tl�•...-,.,. ,\L �. :;..r. :,.. :•alt a.r :,v4 yµ '.,.�'�'. F �iC. �� �,{e ,� fi,�, �. �..,-.,-. ,. ,,:.; '.? ':. s.,.ei��qyr+ , .• r�.> -.:^ �4, �rr r_ i.. -;.. q ,��,6i a- xt... -Ise'. .+ t}'r d`���„ ,Y,,,, r.w .,,,, ...r:,�`.....,z, .-�r,.: ,,y,-;7+.41,:��¢ r ,.'«, �... "...�; _,,; a� $ s, r;y r�' .3,�. ter,• �.•6, e:J ,[.'.[� .^c d• s. <#'^... ,,-, .,.-, .,a, y+ , :•� .rfS♦ �°�et'F; � .b1..;{'.,#::�t• ,#..r�*(F�� _',,FWI��+.c"x' g.r•,�r.'. rS?""�' V s." :�""��1<,:_ c 3Em., „� ,?''''.q. ',;ya>. �*: .ri.2,Ly. rf;. _ .r •,,..9•• �fr G. .b �, '^' „sf'< .'�' a `•s. �'n.'s'.:f,�. '*� - y >,'t-:.° - 1. ^�..? .J!,. ..�'•• yye�a:, 4 `�g.' ) �'NC.. '�,«��eli �� N:?�{. .,.dye. ;,, ay.,3= 4."y ;i•.,.. :-F{� � -L�:' - xt �a-s, ,.,$•.. ,.,.�': ��'.'�. '�• ..::,.. '• -;: :_-,,, ,'�a'-`�.. • v7r .•1.�-.,.Hrr';..' f,,!.. �y J�• �((.,yt ...sr` .;t;,.. �,r� .YI.n?^<,". >. a �.,.,_-„3 ,1-...,,,+,. ..:. ..,,��,:-.•_.«. - : ��£,.i>'ay��.�,: xs �.' i:.a- ►`3P'..�� �`-�•'"' -iy �,.. ":�r 'r�. •. ;• • ,✓�;,,.,, ,•.: ..,.,.7,^•r^-'�„ '.. y'+� 4 ,�R i5�.-,� ,x lowrayy �-# �'i;Yvfd a^, � _ .,... n. �..,5.�. r ,,:'rRyy��.,' s. .:r aq. rl`.�3'y'.`? �t. °';",+:a •.t”, �. .,'w`' 5 k a "�. �'i- ,:fit '.ia. ...�',• t . �Cv,-.. .,;,y-• ,-3. .tifl,�,.,;,,F'."..•a"'�?«,, .: _« ,rr'pA!.��ee.;,y� w�`qq ;✓...,�� �+j - !�'i.. �1 .K�•V�r".g, �.a`-s `'>-t... ,�'., ...t• `5 ,,�� �: .✓ 4'kr, W vtv`r hl!,-e�X..f. .;+if %• R r":r.. r r ,«a'�-", .� •w`a.;_`Sr- '�~ .:'r }�s� ,a, .,. .. l;.« C �'.1`.w .;.";, f:t, ,k� � ,1;:. .,bAg•-:x-tv t. ,m" „;,.'� ..'., G'. '`'..".?`� .. 5j,'W"' fn,, ,�:.,~. ,"',!,•r,`- L ,:... •; ,:' �.. :._ -'.': aa..icy •r,A?.^8:,`^• 'Wt r. �., ,. r,l.i .. ,. :... ..,.-,•z _': :; .^,. .:_-k� +.�'f;' .:i.'"",,•?M!?S "...a„r ,,. ,.:i. ,!c- tJ t �� ?li•� ..p �... , k,.:•- F. , .. :,. '-.:' .. a..: �-.,,•.ear,,...._ .. 1 ^,0i. ,� an �j -�ri��%nYY i.: r£$ ''i r.o, •..W �'a la^�� �`�.,. .a�A <,e. 1�Y�+,g'"�. ” '...., ... ,.a. rQ",. AR 4 ,. � " -� "�4 aA� ^ri =°J.�+'�� jar r;:r�"9�{ d�"•.-+ vs �i�y ��'f, tx �i.1 �s �", 'xtrt `r ,.;, �' ;.., ;<',v'f'a!`'� :..x _,r�, `A.-,''�v. .. .;. ,� p ;.:• 'F«,��. •'t�'�f- i. ��' p ix;� z.•,•' '1�'.,".!� ..r;, '"�'' ,.+1?c ,- '.,' fti ��,.. '•,� .*{:.,, ,, �Z �,�.i' .. S ,.. .n.: .4»°. !,r .•�' t• ����J,j,, s`t\.. ,t, 4t�i ti .:��" �' ,�} °���i�:';. ,�:. 1.�:, •:- y- ,.�. � ..:...F 1.;��y �-�i' �j y y,�,• .1 "�,� �,. � �t` H:i\4, "`;�.ti'•rdx i,#`.:t � � ��• u 5 .s, {r. .ti+'� _ • ,,.,!f I',''�t° � � rq"'!y� e' .� 0`q wir n 1 1 ,r l a. F i/,.,. i °• �i1•{r.. J +:1+ � �� �+r v °" L jYl" .�{-�.t ,�,�*y =.�,w,,,,,,� t 1 ,A.,.� a a�tdf,1�}r � �t'c� ,E.� � '• rel .t ,. r�•i;. I<� -. 7±F.":" bt{� �� �4b �� . ; LL .„ U yy ! :; v it 'F(844w, d t „�Ji"'r'1 4 tr'f yx ti t ` 4"I ♦ •"'y-d' _ x rN�,, 4 ; '�a�S'%'i. �,"+:� =��r`y r� r' � y� �• + '-� #�M.., �xY �CI���i:����� .Y e�' :+,� t t �t�!`'� �� a.� ry •��s+k��rr J' i.. r �. 'e m r / �• �S ,r� 9 tl" �`I �°'�!A`(! 4�'4'. �,�' > r F�j't�;�0.�•'•s�" ja �. ':a�F., dk�rt P;.�r^�,/ y,ry'�'x �'•• rk�� .4 .� 1'r'�.,? 4�'O�Itad,�r,?���`�`, p.. .- !J y7 �,` .sH � raAes�.g. :•� �tf,,•}��� �ti ,tits a..� `+ 4\+_.yp �� 1 c-�; e8"`. :5� - -. f'•i� r.. �.',•/ef •�. 5., iu+'.. s ,.,,,.:. �,M'^." .. `x.,,Q,w r January 16, 2017 Tigard City Council and Mayor 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard OR 97223 Subject: Zone Change(ZON)2016-00001 1 am writing with regard to the application by Stafford Development for rezoning of property at 72nd & Spruce in Tigard, Oregon. I understand that the application for rezoning submitted by Stafford Development in the November 21, 2016 Tigard Planning Commission meeting minutes was suppose to be available for us to read. I have searched for this application on the City of Tigard Website and cannot find it. In the November 21, 2016 Tigard Planning Commission minutes, Gary Pagenstecher plainly states that the application is online. I am frustrated to find that materials that should be available to me are missing and therefore I cannot comment on them. The rezoning of the 72nd & Spruce property affects my family greatly and I am very concerned about the impact on our neighborhood. Sincerely, Debbie Bowman 7311 SW Pine Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 January 16, 2017 Tigard City Council and Mayor 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard OR 97223 Subject: FILE NO.: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT(CPA)2016-00002 1 am writing with regard to the application by Stafford Development for rezoning of property at 72nd & Spruce in Tigard, Oregon. I understand that the application for rezoning submitted by Stafford Development in the November 21, 2016 Tigard Planning Commission meeting minutes was suppose to be available for us to read. I have searched for this application on the City of Tigard Website and cannot find it. In the November 21, 2016 Tigard Planning Commission minutes, Gary Pagenstecher plainly states that the application is online. I am frustrated to find that materials that should be available to me are missing and therefore I cannot comment on them. The rezoning of the 72nd & Spruce property affects my family greatly and I am very concerned about the impact on our neighborhood. Sincerely, Debbie Bowman 7311 SW Pine Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 January 16,2017 e C. Z o tj b c� To The Tigard City Council and Mayor: pjD IC -2 L Concerning the application by Stafford Development for rezoning of property at 72nd and Spruce. After a painstaking search of the City of Tigard website 1 am unable to find the application for rezoning submitted by Stafford Development. I read through the minutes for the November 21,2016 Tigard Planning Commission and found a statement from Gary Pagenstecher, on page 6, saying the application was online. Because of the recent inclement weather I am unable to drive and cannot go to City Hall to view it. This concerns me because I cannot review and comment on it.As my property borders the property being considered for rezoning I am highly impacted and very interested. Concerned citizen, Penny Stewart 7330 SW Pine Street Portland, Oregon 97223 January 16, 2017 Honorable City Council and Mayor Cook: Re: Application by Stafford Development for rezoning of property at 72nd Avenue and Spruce Street As a resident of Tigard, I am voicing my concern about the possibility of rezoning a plot of land very close to my home that would have an adverse impact on me, as I live only a few hundred feet from the property, at the corner of 74th and Spruce. My understanding of City regulations is that homeowners have a right to review such documents; however I am unable to find this document on the City of Tigard website, despite Planner Gary Pagenstecher's advisement that it could be found there. As I am unable to drive to City Hall due to the snow and ice on the roads, I am unable to view the document there. I am greatly interested, as such a large enterprise only a few hundred feet from my dwelling is concerning. I urge the City Council and the Planning Commission to make available this important document, so that I, and others so impacted, will have the opportunity to learn the particulars of the proposal. inc ly y�urs, Heidi r 10815 SW 74th A Tigard, 97223 of Tigard ■ Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2017 STUDY SESSION—6:30 p.m. Council Present: Mayor Cook,Councilor Woodard, Councilor Goodhouse,Council President Snider and Councilor Anderson Staff Present: City Manager Wine,Assistant City Manager Newton,Parks Manager Martin,Economic Development Manager Purdy and City Recorder Krager A. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS Council President Snider reported on the Lake Oswego/Tigard Water Partnership. There is a joint meeting in Tigard on February 28. The governance structure will be discussed as well as the water cost of service rates.Construction is on track and scheduled to be complete in April or early May. Citizens may see a slight change in their water taste or odor. He reported that Lake Oswego does not prefer a separate oversight entity although the costs would be minimal. He recommends a separate entity rather than either city. Lake Oswego is concerned that water oversight is part of their "full service" city and want to fill that role. City Manager Wine will send a white paper on this to council. Mayor Cook reported on his trip to Washington DC for the US Conference of Mayors. B. CONSIDER A REQUEST TO NAME THE PLAZA AREA OF TIGARD STREET TRAIL Marland Henderson,Jim deSully and other members of Tigard Rotary requested that council consider naming the plaza area of the Tigard Street Trail"Rotary Plaza." The many contributions Rotary makes to the community were highlighted and their idea for this project is to partner with the city for improvements to this public gathering space.They have some ideas and wants but no plans yet. Rotary member Bill Monahan said they want to work in harmony with staff and the city will control projects.A discussion was held on whether naming this plaza conflicts with future plans for the Saxony property and the consensus was that downtown is one area but having a range of public spaces there is a good idea. Economic Development Manager Purdy noted that ODOT awarded the city$700,000 from the ConnectOregon VI program and outlined the trail design timeline.An RFP will be issued in February for trail design with many opportunities for stakeholder interviews and design review along the way. Construction will occur in early 2018. Mayor Cook said naming areas creates interest in donating and he sees this as community building. He noted there are Rotary Parks all over the country. The next step is for the naming resolution to come to council at a business meeting for consideration. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES-January 24,2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov ( Page 1 of 23 Administrative Items: o Council Outreach at Max's on January 31 from 6-8,front room at Max's o The Joint Meeting with Lake Oswego—February 28, 6:30 p.m. at Tigard Town Hall. Topics are the Future Governance Agreement and Water Cost of Service Rates o The city has agreed to pay$70 annually for a post office box for homeless persons. 1. BUSINESS MEETING A. 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. Name Present Absent Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Councilor Anderson ✓ C. Mayor Cook asked everyone to stand and join him in the Pledge of Allegiance. D. Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items—None 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION A. Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication—None B. Tigard High School Student Envoy—Associated Student Body President Lauren Brown gave a report on a few activities that were not rescheduled due to the snow. January was Human Rights Month at the high school featuring themes such as Respect Week,Latin America Week,Truth Week and Human Trafficking Week. Omekongo Dibinga flew out from Washington DC to speak at their Human Rights assembly.They held a leadership workshop for middle school students. Sports teams are making up many cancellations due to weather.February 12 is the senior citizens prom. A father-daughter dance will be held as a Sparrow fundraiser. Mayor Cook asked Ms.Brown to describe to the audience what the Sparrow program is and she said each year THS sponsors a.youngster with a physical illness and holds fundraisers for them. Mayor Cook added that the community can also participate and make donations. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES-January 24,2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 of 23 C. Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce—Chamber CEO Mollahan said the Leadership Tigard class in January focused on government and the group learned about different city departments,their role and challenges. Their day included a tour of Clean Water Services and then held group discussions and made recommendations on issues such as homelessness. The college scholarship application period is open now and closes February 23. Nominations for the Shining Stars Community Awards end March 3. The Tigard Farmers Market will open a mid-week market on Thursdays from 8 a.m. through 4 p.m.June through August at the Tigard Street Trail.The Art Walk will be held on Mother's Day weekend in May. Bowlorama will be held at Tigard Bowl on March 3 and council is invited to form a team and join them. D. Citizen Communication—Sign-up Sheet. Gretchen Buchner, 11920 SW Imperial Avenue#12,King City,OR 97224,said for her first item she was present in her capacity as a member of the King City Council. She said King City is beginning their concept planning process for its urban reserves and will be siting a new pump station. They are excited to work with the City of Tigard on this process. An informational open house will be held on February 6,2017 from 6-8 at Deer Creek Elementary. Ms.Buchner said she watches the Tigard City Council meetings on television and heard recent water source discussions. She noted she was on the committee years ago that drafted the agreement with Lake Oswego. She said the consensus then was that once the construction was complete the project should be governed by neither one party not the other and the unanimous recommendation was that it be done by a third party. Ms.Buchner spoke regarding the discussion the Tigard City Council held at the January 10, 2017 meeting regarding council stipends. She noted that prior to 2013 councilors were paid$300 and in addition to that, councilors sitting on many inter-city entities were reimbursed for mileage. This ended when a different remuneration plan was adopted. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: (Tigard City Council)— A. APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES • November 1,2016 • November 22,2016 • December 13,2016 Councilor Woodard moved for approval of the Consent Agenda as presented. Council President Snider seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—January 24, 2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 3 of 23 Yes No Mayor Cook Vol Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Councilor Anderson ✓ 4. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING—TOPPING C-P TO R-12 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AIAENDMENT/ZONE CFL'NGE WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT A. Mayor Cook opened the public hearing. B. City Attorney Rihala read the hearing procedures. C. Dlayor Cook read the conduct for the public hearing. He described the quasi-judicial public hearing process. He asked council if any member had a conflict of interest or ex parte contact. There was none. D. Mayor Cook asked if anyone in the audience challenged the participation of a Council member. No one voiced a challenge. E. Staff Report—Associate Planner Pagenstecher gave the staff report. He said it was almost one year to the day this zone change was previously discussed.The city brought this as an application because of interest in preservation of R-12 zone housing in the city to provide affordable housing. He described the.materials in the agenda packet for this item and noted that the Planning Commission Recommendation attachment was not copied two-sided so it was replaced with a complete version. A complaint was received that the documents were not available online but they have been available since mid-October in the permit center. He said Jim Long complained about a missing sign.The code requires the applicant to post signs on the property but in practice the city provides this service.There is no requirement in the code for the number of signs or maintenance of those signs on the property. Mr.Long asserted that his rights were prejudiced but his presence at this hearing means that his substantial rights were not prejudiced. Mr.Pagenstecher said in the scope of land use processes,this is a rare complaint about the postings and staff will take this as a beneficial comment about city process and will improve it. Dir.Pagenstecher said this previously came before council as a zone change swap. Council approved the School Street's site zone change from R-12 to C-G (General Commercial)and remanded this site back to the Planning Commission which would achieve a zone change from CP (Professional Commercial) to R-12 (medium density residential). At the February 2,2016 heating council gave staff and the neighbors direction. Staff was to prepare a new application for the zone change for this property through a quasi-judicial process and demonstrate through date-stamped photos that site notice was intact and complete. The neighborhood was asked to figure out how they could lire with the development proposal otherwise allowed under the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code(CDC). TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—January 24, 2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Bh-d,Tigard,OR 97223 www.figard-or.gov I Page 4 of 23 provisions,and to talk with the city's Parks Department and the Park and Recreation Board(DRAB) about using this site for a park. Bir. Pagenstecher showed slides to show responses to this direction. He showed a slide of the site location,pointing out that R-12 is a transition zone between commercial and low-density residential and is commonly used along the Pacific Highway/99W corridor. It allows lower impact development in terms of height and traffic.R-12 allows smaller lot development and a variety of housing types in support of affordable housing. The Planning Commission and staff support the Comprehensive Plan and Zone Map amendments and have provided a Planning Commission Recommendation to council finding that the applicable Comprehensive Plan and CDC provisions are met. He showed a slide documenting the notice and hearing process requirements with photos of the site notice postings.Atypically,staff was present at the neighborhood meeting of March 16 to add clarity to the process and ask questions about design and open space. Particulars are posted on the website and there are affidavits in the file for mailed,posted and advertised notice. He noted that due to weather the Plaruung Commission meeting notice blew down so new signs were posted and date-stamped photos were taken. These were shown on a slide along with photographs taken by Mr.Long. He thanked Mt.Long for his cooperation working with the city to document the posting of the notices. Staff had periodic discussions and information sharing with 14ir.Long at the Permit Center counter throughout the process in which he obtained copies of the applicant's proposal and the Planning Commission's recommendation. He commented that Mr. Long is a key advocate for neighborhood interest in parks and open spaces and the city is grateful to have him involved in the process. Associate Planner Pagenstecher said Council wanted the neighborhood to be involved in designing the uses allowed in the R-12 zone.The idea was to facilitate this discussion on the interests of the neighborhood with the interests of the applicant. Staff proposed combining the Comprehensive Plan and zone map change with a planned development concept plan review.Plammed development concept plans are focused on the provision of open space. When applications like this are heard concurrently,the highest body makes the decision on both and that is why council has this unusual review included in this heating. He showed a slide of the proposed concept plan which has 18 lots,housing footprints and open space. The neighborhood comments were focused on impacts to the neighborhood and a preference for low-density housing or commercial use. The written comments and petition focus on the use of the entire site for a public park. Other comments provided by the neighbors focused on notice and process. Council directed the neighborhood to talk with the city's parks department and the PRAB. In the record is a letter from November 17,2016 stating support for a public park on this site but identifies lack of funding. This was an issue previously. The Planned Development concept can provide an opportunity for a compromise. The Planning Commission generally liked the concept plan and the open space design. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—January 24,2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 5 of 23 They thought there could be better public access to the open space and fewer curb cuts so more on-street parking could be provided.There are ways to redesign the lots to stay off of Spruce Street which would reduce the curb cuts. Staff thought that Tract A could have a path accessible to the public.Tract B could have a through path.Tract C is on the corner and it is not identified on the concept plan whether it would be public or private. Tract D is the integration where the private street enters the open space area. There could be a broadening of the area that would celebrate the entrance.The oak tree is a significant natural resource and is a prime destination of people using this area. It is planned to be maintained. Associate Planner Pagenstecher said after council's action on the Comprehensive Plan and zone map change they will be asked to consider criteria and decide if the planned development concept plan should be approved. The Planning Commission recommends approval subject to the public hearing process. Councilor Woodard asked for the difference in land value between a park or residential or commercial development Associate Planner Pagenstecher surmised that a property appraisal would show its highest and best use. F. Applicant Testimony—Ken Sandblast,Director of Planning, Westlake Consultants, 15115 SW Sequoia Parkway,Suite 150,Tigard, OR 97224 said he is working with property owners,Mr. and Mrs.Topping and Stafford Land Development.They are present tonight Mr. Sandblast said he was not involved in the first effort but watched the city council videos in order to gain an understanding of concerns and issues.He said the record is well established in regards to the need for R-12 zoning. The location is compatible with this zoning given the existing surrounding development. It is not a traffic impact so the zoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment record are all well established. Mr.Sandblast said he wanted to focus on the planned development concept plan and the reason it is before council. There was a specific neighborhood meeting for this application where he heard what the neighborhood issues are.Staff raised the idea of a planned development which would provide some certainty to the neighbors on what will happen here. They spoke at length at the neighborhood meeting and primarily focused on this concept. There was strong sentiment for making it into a park and some desire expressed for leaving it zoned commercial. This planned development concept plan is a vehicle in the code that says what is seen in the concept plan is what you will get in these 18 units. He mentioned that the open space was designed to protect the oak tree. It also provides pedestrian connectivity, around the north and west perimeter. Open spaces provide a buffer and transition out from the housing.There is open space on the east corner because of transit available in the area. Whether it is private or public is a detail to be decided in the future. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES--January 24, 2017 Cita-of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.dgard-or.gov I Page 6 of 23 He said the decision on the zoning and the concept plan establish the use of the property. The details are for another land use application and a future hearing with its own public process. But the design cannot move ahead without first getting approval for zoning these three parcels. Mr.Sandblast responded to the land value question from Council Woodard and said appraisals establish the value of land. They consider zoning and the highest and best use if it was purchased now. If it was purchased today the zoning is commercial and there would be a square footage analysis. Assuming the zoning changed to R-12 there would be a residential analysis based on units. He discussed the comparable calculations and said it would be about equivalent The price for the city to purchase the land for a park would be based on the underlying zoning. G. Public Testimony:Mayor Cook called upon those who signed up to testify on the sign-in sheet. He said Jim Long,Chair of CP04M would have 15 minutes and other speakers would have two minutes. Council President Snider will time the testimony. Jim Long, 10730 SW 72nd Avenue,Portland,OR 97223 distributed a written copy of his testimony,a copy of which has been entered into the record.He read from page 13 of his testimony and said this application would create spot zoning and is unsupported by evidence in the record. While zoning change is a legitimate function of the city, the Supreme Court cautioned against the practice especially once the zoning map and comprehensive plan are in place.The enabling legislation in which city governments may enact zoning regulations requires the enactment of a comprehensive zoning plan. ORS 215.050. Once a plan is adopted,changes in it should be made only when such changes are consistent with the overall objectives of the plan and in keeping with changes in the character of the area or neighborhood to be covered thereby. Arbitrary,or"spot"zoning to accommodate the desires of a particular landowner is not only contrary to good zoning practice,but violates the rights of neighboring landowners and is contrary to the intent of the enabling legislation which contemplates planned zoning based on the welfare of an entire neighborhood. See Holt et ux.v.City of Salem and Yokely Zoning Law and Practice. Even though there is a presumption of legislative regularity when the governing board of a county enacts a change in a zoning ordinance,the antithetical character of spot zoning and its recognized erosive effect upon the comprehensive zoning plan automatically tends to neutralize,if not to overcome, the presumption in the particular case.Accordingly,courts generally view spot zoning as being outside the presumption of legislative regularity,and require substantial evidence of change in the neighborhood in order to justify the rezoning of a small tract as an amendment in keeping with the comprehensive plan.The annotation is from 1957 and 1965, Smith v.Washington County in Oregon. The Supreme Court's discussion in Smith regarding the need to produce"substantial evidence of change in the neighborhood is consistent with the approval criteria set TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—January 24, 2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 7 of 23 forth in Tigard Development Code 18.380.030(3),which requires the applicant to demonstrate"evidence of change in the neighborhood or community"to justify the requested zoning change. This criterion is not satisfied. The only"change"in the community identified by the applicant or staff is a general increase in the city's population over the years. However,most cities do grow and an increase in population,by itself,cannot form the basis for a change in the existing comprehensive plan. When the city first adopted its zoning map and comprehensive plan,it would bare necessarily considered the natural increase in population in decades to come and the plan would have been designed to accommodate such anticipated growth. If population growth in and of itself can justify zoning map changes,then the comprehensive plans would lose any meaning and could be manipulated and changed after every new population census. Instead,the applicant must demonstrate some other type of change in the community. For example,a sudden and significant disproportionality between needed commercial properties and needed residential properties might justify changing a zoning designation,especially if such disproportionality did not exist and was not contemplated at the time of the enactment of the comprehensive plan. The applicant,however,cites no sudden changes in the availability of lots suitable for housing versus lots suitable for commercial construction that might justify a zoning map change. Moreover,the increase in population cited by the applicant would presumably include an increase in the need of professional services and maintaining the existing inventory of professional-commercial zoned properties as shown on the plan is necessary to accommodate such growth.However,applicant does not even attempt to address the effect of the loss of professional-commercial zoned property on the overall comprehensive plan. Without more evidence demonstrating that the existing comprehensive plan and zoning map is inadequate to address how the city has grown,the proposed zoning change is the type of"spot"zoning that the Supreme Court warned against and should be denied. The applicant's argument that the proposed R-7 will form a"buffer"makes no sense because it will push dense residential development to just across the sheet from buss commercial areas,when under the existing plan,the professional-commercial zoning designation already provides a more viable buffer. Mr.Long said he is the Chair of CP04M,the official citizen participation organization serving east Tigard,Metzger and Durham.They met last week and discussed this and other proposals. In December of 2015 they voted unanimously to endorse retaining the Commercial-Professional zoning.CP04-M asks council to deny the Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone map change and the planned development review.He said the citizens,both nearby residents and CPO members do not support residential use,particularly R-12 and multi-story buildings.The vote was 19 ayes and 0 nays at that meeting.R-12 zoning does not fit the character of the TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—January 24, 2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.fgatd-or.gov I Page 8 of 23 neighborhood. If the property does not remain commercial zoning,R-7 or R-5 makes more sense. On January 18,2017 the CP04-141 voted unanimously to encourage the city council to include the property within the boundaries of the Tigard Triangle urban renewal levy. The Comprehensive Plan probably did take into consideration that growth was built in.Focusing on the planned development review just because the applicant is just in the concept PDR stage does not mean that the city is in the same preliminary stage now also.The city's planning department should be providing more details to justify the CPA and the zone. He read the following CDC Chapter 18.350.010—Purpose—to provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the city,alternative building designs, walkable communities,preservation of significant natural resources,aesthetic appeal,and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of strict adherence to many of the rules of the Community Development Code. 18.380.030 B.3—Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. There is no evidence. They ask for denial 18.390.050—The property is within drainage ways and there has been no impact study. He asked if all the people from last year's hearing were notified because they are interested parties in this case. He said the city has their addresses and he hoped they would have been contacted. Citizen involvement—There are citizens and homeowners near him that did not get notice. The Stafford Development concept application has not been fully reviewed. There were 9 weeks where they could not get a copy of it He said he came to the city offices and met Mr.Pagenstecher and viewed it for 15-20 minutes but came down again on January 10 which was the day the snow storm started. He asked to see where the application was online and Mr. Pagenstecher was unable to find it online that day but found out yesterday that it was online. It is difficult for citizens to review and he wondered how many citizens came down to review this concept development plan but could not.Mr.Long said he was not just representing himself when he suggested he was substantially damaged by the sign being down;he is representing other citizens,renters and other people who did not get notice that there was a hearing tonight. There are many people who might have been in the back of the room if they had received proper notice. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—January 24, 2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 9 of 23 Staff has not documented the quasi-judicial process and not engaged the neighbors directly in a process to ensure information is available and notice received. Why doesn't the city post the developer's application online for the citizens to see? Why doesn't it provide a copy to the CPO at the beginning of the process? It started snowing on January 10t` and he could not get down to the city to see the file. The planning department is closed on Fridays and Monday was the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. He returned Tuesday morning and he brought in letters from neighbors complaining that they could not see it. Mr. Pagenstecher said it was online. He asked if there was an extra copy they could take and review and were told no. He said this impacts citizens' substantial rights by removing their ability to view plans and comment hilly on them.There was no access during the snowy week. He asked what the process was to change misinformation in the Planning Commission minutes. Mayor Cook told him that would be a Planning Commission process. He said there were errors and it is the city's responsibility to have accurate information. Mr.Long said he did not understand why the city is a co-applicant on this application.He said last year the city was the applicant and he complained about how the city could be neutral and said this is still an issue for him. He asked whose idea it was to propose the zone swap to begin with. He asked that council pay attention to the large citizen measure of local input and deny this application until a better proposal appears.The concept of a buffer between the City of Tigard and the unincorporated town of Metzger makes no sense. Heidi Rechteger 10815 SW W avenue,Tigard,OR 97223,said she lives on the corner of W Avenue and Spruce Street. She moved into her house one and one- half years ago and will be directly and negatively impacted by this building. During the building she will have one-two years of noise and odor pollution (asphalt)in her garden. She bought her house for peace and quiet in her retirement. Housing types should be on a scale compatible with adjacent low density residences. She cannot imagine why an acre and one-half with 18 structures is considered medium density. She understands that Tigard needs housing but asked if it is needed right there. She asked council to be responsive to the wishes and needs of their voting constituents. Alexis Scher, 10580 SW 77h Avenue,Tigard,OR 97223,said she resides between Oak and Pine Streets. She said this development would affect her family and the infrastructure is not adequate to accommodate two cars. She spoke about safe walking to Metzger Elementary and said there are no safe pathways to school. They have a hard time walking to school and she must hold the hands of her children to make sure they are safe when walking on Maple and Locust Streets. She added that Metzger Elementary is full and asked where 36 additional children would fit. She said having a park allows equal access and helps to build community. Obesity rates TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—January 24, 2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov j Page 10 of 23 are rising with social media use. She asked council to think about Tigard in 15-20 years and asked,"Do you want houses or places for kids to go outside and play?" Gay Wakeland, 7210 SW Pine Street, Tigard, OR 97223 did not speak. Jim Long said she is opposed. Dennis Wakeland,7210 SW Pine Street,Tigard, OR 97223 did not speak. Jim Long said he could not stay and was opposed. Penny Stewart,7330 SW Pine Street,Portland, OR 97223 Qim Long read her written testimony,a copy of which was submitted into the record.) She wrote that her property borders the property to be rezoned and she was concerned about what R-12 would mean to the neighborhood.After the meeting in which Mr.Pagenstecher said the development application could be found online at the Tigard website she tried to find it but could not locate it. She was unable to drive to the city to view it because of inclement weather.City Hall was closed from January 18-23. She sent a letter to Mr.Pagenstecher on January 17 and also left a phone message asking to be walked through the application online. She did not receive acknowledgement for the letter or phone call. She has had very little time to study it,therefore this prejudiced her ability form a comment so this prejudiced her form a comment. In the little time she had to review the application she found things she did not agree with. 1)A change in zoning would violate her rights as a neighboring land owner. She did not buy her property with the expectation or desire to be bounded by 18 two-story homes in her backyard. 2)Per approval criteria stating the proposed development satisfies goal 10.2 of land use planning to protect and enhance the quality and integrity of residential neighborhoods is just not true.The quality of this neighborhood would suffer because of the increase in traffic and the inappropriate density as compared to the rest of the neighborhood and its larger lots. 3)The increase in population throughout the Tigard area does not justify spot rezoning in our neighborhood. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan addressed the expectation of growth at its inception. 4)This development does not satisfF the needs apparent to this neighborhood and surrounding properties as our petition for a park has demonstrated. There is nowhere close for a mother to take her children to play within walking distance. Judy Castillo,8535 SW Spruce Street,Tigard,OR 97223,said she was present because she is opposed to the development. She has been through a similar situation when she lived on Churchill Court and a lot of the same buzzwords were used when Gage Forest development was built,such as affordable housing. She said she hears a TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES-January 24, 2017 City of Tigard ; 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 11 of 23 lot of the same rhetoric from the city. She said for the last four years there has been continual development and she has not had one weekend where she has not been awakened by development noise. This is a problem and all she sees is the city bending over backwards to help the developers.There are rules and regulations that should be followed.As a longtime resident of Tigard she is getting sick of how the city is physically in bed with developers. She said she has rights as a citizen and homeowner in this town. She is opposed to this development. Noreen Gibbons, 10730 SW 72 d Avenue,Tigard 97223,said she hears dollar signs from the developers. She bought her home well aware of the zoning across the street and she was sure the owners were aware of the zoning when they purchased the property.Their proposed daycare was a perfect solution but it fell through. She understands their need to sell the property but her biggest concern is livability and quality of life for her,her family and the neighbors. Their private road inlet is opposite her driveway and she can barely get out of her driveway now. She said it does not make sense and has nothing to do with the neighborhood livability and character or flavor. She asked council to picture themselves living in her house— they would not like it. She heard about spot-zoning and said people have the.right to sell their property,but doesn't she have the right as a neighbor to have the quality of life she purchased?She said,"Have some decency." Amanda Jagelski signed up and was called upon but did not speak. Margo Monti signed up and was called upon but did not speak. Hans Boogman, 7803 SW Spruce Street,Tigard,Or 97223, said this will have a huge impact on traffic. He said his boys play soccer on the street which is already dangerous and asked what will happen when all these "chicken coops" are built. He said this is inappropriate. He just purchased his home and it is dangerous to walk in the neighborhood because of all the cars.This development will bring more cars and is inappropriate. He said he is totally opposed to it Nancy Tracy,7310 SW Pine Street,Tigard, OR 97223,said she has been a resident for over 50 years and there has always been growth. She said they can accept that but reading Stafford Development's concept report left her with one impression-a lot of charts and language used to make a bad idea look good.At the November Planning Commission hearing the company has failed to picture the housing type. She submitted for the record photographs to show what the narrow two-story houses will look like. She said the company's claim that these tower houses provide a needed buffer is ludicrous. A real buffer is the natural open space radiating out in all directions to serve the recreational needs of the neighborhood. There are residences all around this piece of land. Livability is all about having a natural space within a community where people can walk and find safety and a place to exercise or just rest. The end result of the loss of this land for a park will be to open this area to rampant overdevelopment. This is the big piece and once gone,will never be around again in T'IGAR.D CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—January 24,2017 Citi of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 12 of 23 our lifetimes.The acreage as it exists is large enough to serve the recreational needs of the neighborhood but is the only acreage that is sufficient. She asked if the money could be used instead to build a safe pedestrian/bike passage over Pacific Highway to the Tigard Triangle,the city's planned commercial oasis that is now car dependent. The bridge would make a natural connection to the neighborhood. She said the thought may be outrageous but she hopes it will start a conversation that needs to be held. Kyle Kohlman, 10900 SW 76`s Place,#14,Tigard,OR 97223 stated his opposition to the plan. He said he grew up and lived here his entire life and has watched every natural area or green space he grew up around disappear. Everything he knew as a kid has been turned into houses.As he gets to the age where he may consider starting a family or finding a permanent location it's becoming less likely that it will be in Tigard as it is not a place to grow up in with nothing there to enjoy.He watched Walmart come in and traffic is a disaster. He has owned his house since 2011 and it is becoming an area that is not friendly to families,with almost no sidewalks anywhere in the area. Ann Murdock, 7415 SW Spruce Street, Tigard, OR 97223 said she wrote council a three-page letter one year ago. She said she did not receive anything in the mail about the matter tonight. She noted that the signs (on the property) got wet in the rain and she could not read them.This is the first time she has seen the concept plan. It reminds her of the townhouse development built on 74s'Avenue. They have bad access for fire,garbage or police. Cars park in front of her home on 74ffi Avenue and she does not want cars parked in front of her house. It is already overcrowded and this will make it worse. There is a chunk of land that is constantly wet. She said there are natural springs and a lot of work needs to be done on the property. This development does not fit with surrounding area. The area has one-half to one-third acre properties with homes and that is what should be on this property. Building a park would be great. Metzger Park is not as safe as it used to me. This chunk of land is ideal(for a park) because it is open and would be safe. Nathan Murdock, 7415 SW Spruce Street,Tigard, OR 97223, said he has spoken to council before. He said lately neighbors are calling and asking him, "Do you know whose car that is?" He said there are issues with drugs on 7e Avenue and there is newer housing that has no place to park so they park in front of his house. If anyone in the neighborhood has guests there is no place for them to park. New people are looking into the neighborhood and when they find out there is a potential park they are all excited but when they hear 18 homes are going in they lose interest in the area. The traffic has already been mentioned but it is atrocious. Traffic has been an issue since he moved to Tigard in 1979 and now it is bleeding onto the side streets. Now we are going to put 36 cars on one comer. This will be difficult and if they cannot park there where will they park? Fred Meyees? That is not fair to Fred Meyer's. There is not supposed to be parking on one side of the street but people still park there because there is not enough parking space. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—January 24, 2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.dgard-or.gov I Page 13 of 23 Scott Brownsten, 7212 SW Pine Street, Tigard, OR 97223 (read by Jim Long) He opposes rezoning the tax lots located west of the intersection of 72" Avenue and Spruce Street from commercial to R-12. He reviewed the proposed 18 house development and has serious concerns regarding their construction as follows. His view from his backyard is of the tax lots in question. All of the proposed designs are not in character with the surrounding houses and will damage his view shed. He is concerned with loss of privacy because multiple houses will be able to see into his backyard. Traffic on SW Pine Street is pretty bad and people speed in front of his house on a regular basis. He has a 14-month-old son and fears for his safety.Adding 18 new houses one block away will increase traffic, further eroding his son's safety. It is difficult to get out of the neighborhood during rush hour and this will only increase with 18 new houses. It is unclear if the increase in traffic was considered as part of this project but this is a serious concern. There are no places within safe walking distance, no sidewalks to take his son to play. A better use of the land is a park to service the existing neighborhood. Ryan Kohlman, 7307 SW Locust Street,Tigard,OR 97223,said he is a lifelong resident living in the family homestead on Locust Street that was purchased in 1915. He said his son Kyle spoke about changes he has seen in the neighborhood since he was born.He has been there for 55-plus years.His grandmother worked for Henry Metzger. His father and grandfather both worked in real estate and he realizes that this type of improvement is inevitable but he cannot see the right decision being made to allow that type of housing in an area that small. He said he also owns some property on 76`s Place. He has seen the condition of the street,the cross traffic and the difficulty of getting to 99W,hampered again by the installation of the medians. He said Fred Meyer has trucks and vehicles entering behind the store and saying that there will only be 36 cars is an understatement. He encouraged council to reconsider the process and the decision to rezone. Christina Hansen, 10670 SW 75&Avenue,Tigard,OR 97223, said she was the only one who accepted the initial annexation into the City of Tigard. She spoke with the Planning Commission and as everyone else has stated,granting the zone change will alter the essential character of the neighborhood.Density decreases livability. This change is not desired by the neighborhood and the City of Tigard has more of an obligation to listen to the residents first and not the developer. At the Planning Commission she spoke about her drainage issue and the Planning Commission president said she hopes the builders would get in touch with her personally about this issue. They have not done that yet She supposed they could wait until the detailed plan. However,they have been dealing with this water issue since 2004. They have dug out their backyard multiple times and cannot add any more drainage. She said the water issue should be addressed before this plan is approved. She said she also has two children that attend Metzger Elementary and the neighborhood is not walkable. Metzger does a once a year walk to school event and she knows there are adults and kids but she is not comfortable leaving her children with adults she TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES-January 24, 2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 14 of 23 does not know. She said her other issue is that she asked that the storm track go all the way up to her property because she is the one who has water running from the field into her yard. She did not see how making mote houses with smaller yards does anything for the children. Kids need to play. The city's master plan talks about needing more parks and how the prices keep going up. She suggested the city grab this land before it turns into this (gestured towards the slide of the concept plan). David Mangold, 11053 SW Legacy Oak Way,Tigard, OR 97223 said he lives in a home on R-12 zoned land in the newest neighborhood mentioned earlier. He was not aware he lived in a"chicken coop." He spoke briefly about the kind of people that live in his development He is a military academy graduate and a veteran,civil servant,entrepreneur and small business owner. He said if he was buying today he could not afford to purchase the home he lives in. Housing prices since 2013 have increased substantially and there is a great need for affordable housing. He wanted people to understand that affordable housing does not imply that a particular type of person will be living in that housing. The housing market has changed and while he would love to live on a quarter-acre lot with a nice view shed,that quarter-acre lot would probably sell for half a million dollars. He said he is conscientious and tries to work with his neighbors. Whenever they have folks over he makes sure they do not park on 7e Avenue. There is an oak tree in his neighborhood and he sees neighbors from outside of White Oak Village walking near the tree and enjoying that space. He understood concerns people have,particularly long-term residents but people have to live somewhere and good people will live in this kind of housing. Cynthia Patelzick, 10975 SW 7e Avenue, Tigard, OR 97223, referred to the previous speaker's development and said she wrote a letter to try and stop that process. As the neighbors feared, cars speed up and down and we are not a neighborhood; we are a freeway for the people that live back there. She said she is not saying that the gentleman who just spoke is like that but very many of them are. Many are very nice however;they have a nice green space they get to use. Everyone else is out in the cold. There are no bike paths, no sidewalks and no parks. That does not make it a livable area. She said her street has become a throughway and the children cannot play in their front yards without fear that they will be run over. Tonya Banks,7600 SW Pine Street,Tigard, OR 97223,said she agrees with everything said in opposition. She is new to the neighborhood and the Metzger area. She has an eight-year-old boy who attends Metzger Elementary. She feels strongly that there should be a park in the area. Metzger Park is on Hall Boulevard which is a busy road to cross. Another reason to have another park is to have an emergency location or meeting point during an earthquake. She said she was curious if there was a thought to put a park inside the development as a compromise. A park is definitely needed for children in the neighborhood. Scott Ronnie, 10900 SW VAvenue,Tigard, OR 97223,said he has an elementary aged student and they have no park to go to. Metzger Park is the closest but they do TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—January 24, 2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or_gov I Page 15 of 23 not trust him to go to Metzger since there are no sidewalks in the area. He said the fixture residents will be complaining about not having a park or greenspace.People use the streets as a cut-through to get to Costco,Walmart and Winco. It is already dangerous. There is a need for a park and Tigard emphasizes the need for green space and this would be a great place to put it. Evangeline Pattison, 7214 SW Locust, OR 97223, said she owns one of the original 1930s farm homes of 1,000 square feet and lives next to 3,600 square foot homes. She said this development would not fit in the neighborhood. She asked if the traffic study could assess what was happening prior to the Lennar development on Locust Street vs the current situation. The traffic has dramatically changed. She noted that the corner of Spruce Street and 72'Avenue is heavily travelled and she has seen two accidents there. She said this will not make any changes to make that corner safe. H. Response to testimony by staff-Associate Planner Pagenstecher said some of the testimony relates to approval criteria and he would address it. • He clarified for council that when or if they approve the concept plan they are required to give the applicant direction so that when the detailed plan is developed it can be found consistent with the concept plan. • Regarding spot zoning he said the property was zoned commercial when it was in Washington County.At the time of annexation it was rezoned to the closest zone the city had to the County's zone. The proposal is to change the zone for these pieces of property to residentiaL He said this is not an unusual request.Similarly,the R-1 2 zone is used in pieces in other parts of the city where it can offer a buffering function. • The findings regarding a change in the community are addressed on page 8 of the Planning Commission Recommendation. Jim Long said the reason is increased population and that is a background condition for the need for affordable housing which is allowed in that zone. This is combined with a change in the market that does not support commercial use,as evidenced by the owner's application for the change of this C-P zone over the last several years. • The city is not a co-applicant but is interested and supports the re-zone. I. Applicant rebuttal to testimony-Ken Sandblast said he found testimony helpful and he made some notes. • He heard a lot about traffic and said page 5 of the Planning Commission Recommendation specifically addressed the ODOT traffic analysis. The existing zoning of commercial-professional has 220 trips during p.m. peak hours. Now it will be 43 trips, which is roughly a 75-percent reduction. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES-January 24, 2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigar4-or.gov I Page 16 of 23 These are the facts in the record. He pointed out that the detailed plan will go through a traffic analysis. Some of the last testimony asked if there would be a traffic analysis and yes, it will be done to analyze traffic in the intersections in the surrounding areas defined by the city to be studied.They will look at capacity, trips generated now and how this property will impact this system. • Associate Planner Pagenstecher touched on change in circumstances of need and in addition to the reference he gave, this is addressed extensively in the application narrative on pages 15-16. It is an approval criterion and is fully addressed. 0 Neighborhood notice is a recurring theme for a variety of reasons. The staff report was made available to everyone, including the applicant and himself and to his knowledge met the code requirements of the city. a He said they looked at the development concept of developing this property at the C-P zoning and determined that there could be an office building of 15,000-18,000 square feet per floor.This is existing zoning concept planning. He said he did not want this to be a threat but he wanted to point out that the R-12 zoning allows other types of housing including multi-family and attached housing and this is not what they are proposing.This is another reason why this concept plan is offered. It gives the neighbors certainty about the types of housing they would see on this property. • The planned development concept private drive is aligned with an existing street on the south side of Spruce Street. a The water issue was raised in the November Planning Commission meeting and they do want to know about it but they are not at that level yet They won't spend time doing the required soils and engineering studies until a concept plan is approved and they have certainty to go ahead.He noted that the applicant's submittal to the city must meet utility and storm water regulations which require looking at adjacent properties. There is no question that the drainage issue will be examined. Presence of a wetland will need to be established as factual information and will be determined at the time of a detailed plan. If there is a substantial wetland they will be back before the decision makers to be revise the plan. As pointed out earlier, approval of a planned development casts a die and what is seen is what you get in regards to the open space,street locations and housing,etc. Morgan Will said he is the project manager for Stafford Development Company, LLC,485 So. State Street,Lake Oswego,OR 97034. He expressed appreciation to staff for their help and to the community for their participation. He said they had a great conversation about opportunities for a park and heard interest from neighbors about the property becoming a park however there was no interest from the city in purchasing it. They have a contract to buy the property and did express interest in offering the property for sale to the city but since that is not forthcoming there is a timeline and they need to move forward. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—January 24, 2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov ( Page 17 of 23 Mr.Will noted there was a lot of concern expressed about density and housing types. The land is on the edge of the City of Tigard and is a challenge because it is a change from county density to urban density. He reinforced what Mr. Sandblast said about building it out as commercial development and how it would be larger and more intrusive.The design is a transition,and the buildings will be limited to two stories so it will be less intense. He commented on what he heard about safety. Many older neighborhoods were built without sidewalks but the new trend in urban development is to require them. He pointed out that this project will have additional paving width and sidewalks with a planter strip between.These elements will add safety to the neighborhood. He said currently there is no refuge at the corner but this project will create a safer corner and a wider,safer street. Air.Will reiterated that the property is irregularly shaped and they could have done a standard subdivision. The upper right hand piece of the property has difficult access but the only way to get back there is with flag lots or a private street.The private street is the preferred method and that can only be built through a planned development.Another planned development requirement is common, open spaces. A regular subdivision does not require them.Also,these spaces are normally owned by a homeowners' association for private use but these open spaces will allow everyone access. Council President Snider raised an issue. Although this was not mentioned verbally, Mr.Long has questioned his impartiality in this case on page 8 of his written testimony which is in the record. Council President Snider read his statement from the February 2,2016 minutes and commented that what he said was factual. He asked City Attorney Rihala what the process was because this was not raised when Mayor Cook asked for objections but is now part of the written testimony. City Attorney Rihala explained the process. Mayor Cook asked if Mr. Long wanted to state whether he believes Council President Snider is biased or impartial. Mr. Long replied, "Yes,yes,yes." He said with Council President Snider's statement that it was going to be residential he thought the council had some problems. City Attorney Rihala asked Council President Snider if he felt he could be impartial or did he want to recuse himself from this decision. Council President Snider said he would happily recuse himself although he was probably the best advocate for what they are looking for. City Attorney Rihala said from a legal perspective she did not feel that it rose to the level of bias or not being neutral but it was entirely up to Council President Snider's discretion. He said he would recuse himself. Mayor Cook asked Council President Snider to go to the conference room for the remainder of the discussion. Councilor Goodhouse asked the applicant if there were any other options for housing design and commented that they look like row homes. He asked if it could be broken into larger lots. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES-January 24, 2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 18 of 23 Morgan Will said they looked at a normal subdivision with three rows of houses, one facing 72"d Avenue and two facing a private street internally but they realized they erred in that private streets are not allowed in a standard subdivision. Putting a road through would mean the property would be allroad. Metro also has density standards that the city is a party to and must meet and the developers are balancing meeting the minimum number of lots and providing sufficient access. He said they did consider not having the open space at the corner but it puts houses closer to the roads. Flag lots were considered but this was not popular because in the market people prefer having a community road rather than flag lots. Other initial layouts did not respect the large tree. They came up with this plan because it puts the open space where it will do the most good for a natural setting. Orienting the houses left and right of the private street was done purposefully; fronting them towards Spruce Street puts "eyes on the street." Mr. Will confirmed that the houses are two-story with a traditional pitched roof for Oregon to help keep moss off. Mayor Cook noted that putting a bigger park in the middle of the green space only benefits those houses. Secondarily,if the houses are backed up to the edge they do look into the neighbor's backyards.This planned development concept will sate the tree and limit the buildings to two stories. Mr. Will clarified the spaces between the residences for Councilor Goodhouse. He said there are two different lot sizes and the 28-foot yards are designed for 22-foot houses so there are three-feet on either side. The 26-foot yards are for the 20-foot wide homes. Thete is three feet between the side of the structure and the property line so there is a minimum of six feet between the structures on the side yards. J. Mayor Cook closed the public hearing. K. Council Discussion and Consideration-Ordinance No. 17-01 Councilor Woodard said everyone knows how he feels about parks and this would be a great place for a park. He commented about another R-12 development that he felt did not fit into its neighborhood. He did not feel good about putting that zoning in this neighborhood.He added that he knows what it is like to have development surround a family home and his family attended meetings and came to a compromise. He did not see a compromise with this R-12 zoning;commercial is not 24-7 activity. Councilor Woodard said he read PRAB Chair Polivka's memo which said there is no money. He looked at the 2016 budget and noted that if the proposed budget is pushed through this year there will still be money available. He referred to River Terrace and citywide SDCs and said there is a lot of development and money flowing into the Parks SDCs. He said if the city wants to do something there is a way to get it done. He asked the city council to have the political will and courage to say we need a park there. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—January 24, 2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 19 of 23 Councilor Woodard expressed frustration at walking through the neighborhood because there is no safe place to walk and he sees kids playing on those roads.He said,"IDo we need R-12 housing? Yes,we do. Is this an area where we necessarily need it in? I don't think so." There is an urban growth boundary expansion coming and people will mobilize themselves out to the west and there will also be infill. Some neighborhoods will sell out for density. He said there is a way to make this a park and he thought there is money but he will need to go through the budget process and the books to see what is available. He referred to the Friends of Bull Mountain and how they developed their park and sees the same thing for this park.This is a huge opportunity and he thinks this can be done. He said at best,he'd love to see a park there or at worst,keep it commercial or zone to an R-5 or R-7. Councilor Goodhouse said this is a quasi-judicial hearing so a park is not even something to be discussed or approved. He said he wanted to get this out there so there is not a false hope. He said he liked the idea of traffic reduction and likes the two-story homes. He was not farorable towards putting in more tightly spaced homes. He noted that if kept commercial no one knows what would go in. Residential would be better. Council can ask that it be kept open and protect the tree. He noted that he has lived in his neighborhood for over 30 years and there used to be acres of forest to play in so the same thing is happening to his neighborhood. He said,"Growth happens and sometimes there is a big lot and people decide to change it" Councilor Anderson referred to his Planning Commission experience and said the plan is as good as can be done within R-12 zoning. He said,"They did a nice job."He noted that TVF&R,Clean Water Services and ODOT have all given basic approval.He said in any part of the city this plan is viable. It has green space and the homes are affordable. $350,000 is at the low end of affordable housing in Tigard.He said parking is always an issue but the traffic is better than what would happen with C-G. The park would be a benefit to the neighborhood but that is not what can be considered tonight Mayor Cook agreed that the criteria have been met He said the design is fairly good and it saves the tree,controls height and has green space. He added that we all like parks and want our neighborhoods to be livable and walkable. He said citizens had a chance to add to walkability in the city in November but turned it(gas tax) down. That was a chance to fill some sidewalk gaps but people decided not to fund it.He said the impact to schools is not part of the land use requirements and is not in the criteria to consider. That is up to the school district.He said he agrees that the more houses facing the street the better, from a safety standpoint.It provides more"eyes on the street." TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—January 24, 2017 City of Tigard 113125 SVG'Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 20 of 23 Councilor Woodard asked for clarification on the process. City Attorney Rihala said the first question is does the application comply-%ith criteria for the comprehensive zone change. The second decision if council votes yes on the first question is do you approve the planned development concept plan. Councilor Woodard said if it doesn't look right you do not have to vote in favor of it. It will come back as something else. Councilor Woodard said council could do the right thing for that neighborhood or ignore the 140 signatures on a petition and 200 people in that neighborhood. He addressed the crowd and said"This is all I can do for you is try to convince them that it is the wrong thing to do and if they-wanted to,they could do something different." Nlayor Cook stated it was not whether he wanted it or did not want it. It is, "does it meet the criteria?" The applicant can appeal to LUBA (Land Use Board of Appeals) and LUBA will ask what part of the criteria was not met and LUBA can tell the city it does meet it and they can build it anyway. City Attorney Rihala said if council does not wish to approve it tonight, she and staff will ask what criteria were not met. Councilor Anderson moved to approve Ordinance No. 17-01. Councilor Goodhouse seconded the motion. Councilor Goodhouse asked a process question and Mayor Cook clarified that the ordinance would be voted on first,then the concept plan. City Recorder Krager read the number and title of the ordinance. Ordinance No. 17-01—AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 2016-00002 AND ZONE CHANGE ZON 2016-00001 TO AMEND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING DISTRICTS MAP FROM C-P TO R-12 ON TAX LOTS 1S136ACO2200,1S136ACO2400, AND 1S136ACO2500 Councilor Woodard commented that even if there was a LUBA challenge he was confident that there are numerous issues with either the Comprehensive Plan amendment or the planned development. Mayor Cook requested that City Recorder Krager conducted a roll call vote. Yes No Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Council President Snider recused Councilor Woodard ✓ Councilor Anderson ✓ Mayor Cook announced that Ordinance No. 17-01 was adopted by majority vote. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES-January 24, 2017 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.dgard-or.gov I Page 21 of 23 L. Consider a motion to approve the Planned Development Concept Plan with direction to the applicant for preparation of a detailed plan (as determined through the public hearing process). Councilor Goodhouse asked about the process to make amendments and if the applicant could come back with some other options. Associate Planner Pagenstecher showed a PowerPoint slide of some concerns that staff had that council could stipulate. At this point certain directions to the applicant can be part of the motion. He said to have the applicant return would probably require a continued hearing. Councilor Anderson said he would like to see neighborhood access to the green space as shown on the left-hand side of the slide. Mayor Cook concurred and also suggested keeping the tree. He asked that the developer ensure that where the arrows appear on the concept drawing there will actually be access. He said a chain across the private drive would keep cars from driving there but would also keep out bikes and kids,defeating the purpose. Councilor Goodhouse asked that the green space be kept accessible to the neighbors. He asked for the drainage issues to be examined Councilor Anderson asked if there was a slope on the property and Associate Planner Pagenstecher said there is a G percent slope from east to west. Councilor Anderson said opening it up to playground equipment can lead to liability issues with the HOA so he recommended leaving it as a green space. Associate Planner Pagenstecher said the motion would be to approve with direction to include public access to the corner Tract C open space,pedestrian access through Tract A,two-story housing type limit,pedestrian-friendly transition access through the private street,and address the drainage issues.Councilor Goodhouse moved to approve the proposed Development Concept as amended. Councilor Anderson seconded the motion. Yes No Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Council President Snider recused Councilor Woodard ✓ Councilor Anderson ✓ Mayor Cook conducted a vote and the motion passed 3-1. At 10:23 p.m. Councilor Woodard called point of order due to the time and requested that the final items on the agenda be moved to another date. City Manager Wine noted that the two remaining agenda items are time sensitive and require council feedback prior to coming back for potential action on February 7. She noted that there was not a council meeting scheduled for January 31 but there is a council outreach event. She suggested council meet after the outreach event ends at 8:00 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—January 24, 2017 Cit;of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov ( Page 22 of 23 p.m. Mayor Cook requested that council members email any questions to Senior Planner Shanks or Redevelopment Project Manager Farrelly so they can be prepared to discuss them next week. DE JT BA1z6QT T !L'AS 7DL`'441L' FOR 'O G14*G 1 7G .A�URBAND EN .TPTA7 PLAN Due to time constraints,this item will be moved to January 31,2017 meeting. 6. REVEEW BALLOT MEASURE 49TLE FOR T4GARD TPJANGLE URBAN Fr P Due to time constraints,this item will be moved to January 31,2017 meeting. 7. NON AGENDA ITEMS None • EXECUTIVE SESSION The scheduled executive session was not held. Risk Manager Curran said she will update council with a confidential memo. 8. ADJOURNMENT Councilor Woodard moved for adjournment at 10:29 p.m.and Councilor Goodhouse seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Yes No Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Councilor Anderson ✓ Carol A.Krager,City Rewfder Attest: ��A — Johtook,Mayor Date: 7 26! _ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—January 24, 2017 Cita-of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.dgard-or.gov J Page 23 of 23 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 120 DAYS = N/A SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NO.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment(CPA) 2016-00002 Zone Change (ZON)2016-00001 Planned Development Review(PDR) 2016-00012 FILE TITLE: TOPPING C-P TO R-12 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ ZONE CHANGE with PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICANT: Stafford Development Company,LLC. 485 S. State Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Amendment from Professional Commercial, C-P, to Medium Density Residential, R-12, and a Planned Development Review for a Concept Plan only on a three-parcel property totaling 1.54 acres. The proposed concept plan shows 18 single-family detached homes with approximately 23 percent of the site in open space, a portion of which is located at the corner of SW Spruce Street and SW 72nd Avenue. In 2015, to facilitate the retention of R-12 zoning in the City, City Staff had requested approval of a zoning "swap" from C-P to R-12 on the subject property and from R-12 to C-G on another property on Pacific Hwy and School Street (CPA 2015-00005 and ZON 2015-00007). The City Council approved the Pacific Hwy property rezone. However, the Council did not approve the rezone for the subject property portion. The Council directed the property owner to submit a quasi-judicial zone change application on their own if they wanted to continue to pursue the zone change. LOCATION: 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72nd Ave., 10735 SW 72nd Ave; TAX MAP/LOT#'s: 1S136ACO2200, 1S136ACO2400, 1S136ACO2500. COMP PLAN DESIGNATION/ ZONING DISTRICT: FROM: Professional Commercial (C-P) TO: Medium Density Residential (R-12) PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 1 OF 13 APPLICABLE Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.380.030, and REVIEW 18.390.050; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2, 10; Statewide Planning Goals 1, CRITERIA. 2, 10; and Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Titles 1, 7, and 12. SECTION II PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION -0 calw -,T id W&J-0 as .- tie SECTION III BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project History In 2015, to facilitate the retention of R-12 zoning in the City, City Staff had requested approval of a zoning "swap" from C-P to R-12 on the subject property and from R-12 to C-G on another property of roughly the same size located on Pacific Hwy and School Street (CPA 2015-00005 and ZON 2015-00007). The City Council approved the Pacific Hwy property rezone. However, the Council did not approve the rezone for the Spruce Street property. Instead, the Council directed the property owner to submit a quasi-judicial zone change application on their own if they wanted to continue to pursue the zone change on the subject property. For this application, Stafford Land Company is the applicant, with support from the City whose interest is increasing the supply of R-12 zoned land, as intended in the City's prior zone change proposal. The affordable housing types allowed in the R-12 zone warrant the City's support because of the City's housing goal to provide opportunities for a variety of housing types to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents. To ensure the neighborhood would have the opportunity to be involved in how the property could be developed for residential use, the applicant agreed to apply for a Planned Development concept plan review concurrently with the comprehensive plan/zone change. Staff has documented the quasi-judicial process and engaged the neighbors directly in the process to ensure information is available and notice received. Site Description The subject property (3 parcels totaling 1.54 acres) is developed with single-family residences and was annexed in 2006 (ZCA2006-00003), which changed the County zone from Commercial Office (OC) to the City's Professional Commercial (C-P) zone, the zone most closely implementing the County's plan map designation. The current zone does not allow residential use, which the market has identified as its highest best use as evidenced by the applicant's several pre-application conferences over past couple of years to change the commercial zone to residential. The subject site is located across Spruce Street from Fred Meyers and within 1,000 feet of Pacific Hwy. The locational characteristics of the subject property support the comprehensive plan amendment and zone change. The subject property fronts on a local street and a neighborhood street and is adjacent to property zoned R-4.5 and low-density unincorporated Washington County. The adjacent lower class streets and low PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 2 OF 13 density residential use zone makes the property more suitable for medium density residential use to form a transition from the General Commercial (C-G) zone to the south. Proposal Description The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Amendment from Professional Commercial, C-P, to Medium Density Residential, R-12, and a Planned Development Review for a Concept Plan only on a three-parcel property totaling 1.54 acres. The proposed concept plan shows 18 single-family detached homes with approximately 23 percent of the site in open space, a portion of which is located at the corner of SW Spruce Street and SW 72nd Avenue. Decision Process The Commission will make a recommendation to Council on the Comprehensive Plan/Zone Change and Planned Development Concept Plan. The Council must first approve the Comprehensive Plan/Zone Change before consideration of the Concept Plan. Council's Approval of the Concept Plan must give the applicant clear direction for preparation of the Detailed Plan. The Detailed Plan will be by separate application and will be reviewed and decided by the Planning Commission. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE CRITERIA, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS This section contains all of the applicable city, state and metro policies, provisions, and criteria that apply to the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, zone change, and concept planned development review. 18.380 ZONING MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS Chapter 18.380.030 Quasi-Judicial Amendments and Procedures to this Title and Map. A. Quasi-judicial zoning map amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using standards of approval contained in subsection (B) of this section. The approval authority shall be as follows: (3) The commission shall make a recommendation to the council on a zone change application which also involves a concurrent application for a comprehensive plan map amendment. FINDING: The proposed quasi-judicial amendment is being reviewed under the Type III procedure as set forth in this chapter. This procedure requires public hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council. B. Standards for making quasi-judicial decisions. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 1. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; Chapter 1: Citizen Involvement Goal 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. Policy 2 The City shall define and publicize an appropriate role for citizens in each phase of the land use planning process. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 3 OF 13 Policy 5 The opportunities for citizen involvement provided by the City shall be appropriate to the scale of the planning effort and shall involve a broad cross-section of the community. Citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions were given the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. Several opportunities for participation are built into the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, including public hearing notification requirements pursuant to Chapter 18.390.050 of the Tigard Community Development Code. On October 18, 2016, public hearing notice of the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings was sent to the interested parties list and all property owners within 500 feet of the subject parcels. On October 27, 2016 a notice was published in The Tigard Times. The notice invited public input and included the phone number of a contact person to answer questions. The notice also included the address of the City's webpage where the staff report to the Planning Commission could be viewed. On October 31, 2016,the site was posted with a notice board. On October 17, 2016,the proposal was posted on the City's web site. On November 14, 2016 the staff report was made available on the city's website. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 1.1 Policies 2 and 5 are met. Chapter 2: Land Use Planning Goal 2.1 Maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action plans as the legislative basis of Tigard's land use planning program. Policy 1 The City's land use program shall establish a clear policy direction, comply with state and regional requirements, and serve its citizens' own interests. The goals and policies contained in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan provide the basis for the city's land use planning program. This policy is met. Policy 2 The City's land use regulations, related plans, and implementing actions shall be consistent with and implement its Comprehensive Plan. The City's development code,Title 18, has been found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This policy is met. Policy 3 The City shall coordinate the adoption, amendment, and implementation of its land use program with other potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies. Potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies were given an opportunity to comment. Any comments that were received are addressed in Section VI: Outside Agency Comments. This policy is met. Policy 5 The City shall promote intense urban level development in Metro designated Centers and Corridors, and employment and industrial areas." The Metro 2040 Growth Concept Map shows that Pacific Hwy, through Tigard, is designated as a "Corridor." The proposed rezone of the subject site from commercial professional to medium density PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 4 OF 13 residential would meet market demand for residential development where the existing commercial zone designation has resulted in underdeveloped land for the past ten years, since annexation in 2006. This policy is met. Policy 6 The City shall promote the development and maintenance of a range of land use types which are of sufficient economic value to fund needed services and advance the community's social and fiscal stability. Policy 7 The City's regulatory land use maps and development code shall implement the Comprehensive Plan by providing for needed urban land uses including: A. Residential; B. Commercial and office employment including business parks; C. Mixed use; D. Industrial; E. Overlay districts where natural resource protections or special planning and regulatory tools are warranted; and F. Public services The rezoning of the subject property to medium-density residential would allow for a needed increase in the variety of housing options available to the citizens of Tigard. The proposed zone change would allow for smaller lot sizes, higher density, and more affordable housing options, promoting a greater level of financial stability among the citizens of Tigard. These policies are met. Policy 15 In addition to other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies deemed applicable, amendments to Tigard's Comprehensive Plan/Zone Map shall be subject to the following specific criteria: A. Transportation and other public facilities and services shall be available, or committed to be made available, and of sufficient capacity to serve the land uses allowed by the proposed map designation; B. Development of land uses allowed by the new designation shall not negatively affect existing or planned transportation or other public facilities and services; ODOT's trip generation analysis for the subject site (ODOT Comment letter, dated December 2, 2015) showed a reduction of trips, from 220 PM trips under the current C-P zone to 43 PM trips under the proposed R-12 zone. Therefore, a determination of no significant adverse effect on the transportation system can be made and the Transportation Planning Rule compliance measures under OAR Section 660- 12-0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments are not invoked. Additional public services such as stormwater, water, and sanitary sewer will connect to existing infrastructure and it is not anticipated that the proposed zone change from C-P to R-12 will result in additional demands on public services. These policies are met. C. The new land use designation shall fulfill a proven community need such as provision of needed commercial goods and services, employment, housing, public and community services, etc. in the particular location,versus other appropriately designated and developable properties; D. Demonstration that there is an inadequate amount of developable, appropriately designated, land for the land uses that would be allowed by the new designation; The proposed rezoning satisfies a need for property zoned R-12. In 2013 the City Council adopted a Housing Strategies report prepared by Angelo Planning Group and Johnson & Reid in support of the PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 5 OF 13 Periodic Review update to Goal 10, Housing. This report illustrated that at that time the city had nearly twice as much buildable land in areas zoned R-7 (72.1 net buildable acres) than in areas zoned R-12 (36.7 net buildable acres). The report analyzed the city's current and future housing needs, which included the following conclusion: "In general, there is a need for some less expensive ownership units and rental units". R-12 zoned land permits attached single-family and multi-family housing types, which contribute to the city's variety of more affordable housing stock. The city is also in need of adequate commercially zoned land to support employment and economic development goals. However, the proposed rezone of the subject site from commercial professional to medium density residential in a location where the existing commercial zone designation has resulted in underdeveloped land for the past ten years, since annexation in 2006. These policies are met. E. Demonstration that land uses allowed in the proposed designation could be developed in compliance with all applicable regulations and the purposes of any overlay district would be fulfilled; A planned development concept plan is being concurrently reviewed with the proposed zone change to demonstrate that medium density residential use can be developed in compliance with applicable regulations and the purposes of the planned development chapter. This policy is met. F. Land uses permitted by the proposed designation would be compatible, or capable of being made compatible,with environmental conditions and surrounding land uses; and The proposed R-12 zone would allow residential housing types at a scale that would be compatible with adjacent low density residential and commercial uses; there is no reason to believe the property could not be developed in conformance with R-12 standards. A planned development overlay is proposed on the subject property to ensure compatibility. This policy is met. G. Demonstration that the amendment does not detract from the viability of the City's natural systems. The subject property has been previously developed with single family dwellings. The site has a six percent slope toward the west and does not contain any city-regulated sensitive natural resources. The proposed rezone would not detract from the viability of the City's natural systems. This policy is met. Policy 20 The City shall periodically review and if necessary update its Comprehensive Plan and regulatory maps and implementing measures to ensure they are current and responsive to community needs, provide reliable information, and conform to applicable state law, administrative rules, and regional requirements. The proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment would increase the City's supply of R-12 zoned land. Staff supports the zone change in response to the growing need for affordable housing. The City supports the proposed update to its Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map through this process to ensure it is current and responsive to community needs and will conform to applicable state law, administrative rules,and regional requirements.This policy is met. Chapter 10: Housing PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 6 OF 13 Goal 10.1 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types at a range of price levels to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents. Policy 1 The City shall adopt and maintain land use policies, codes, and standards that provide opportunities to develop a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents. The subject property was annexed in 2006 (ZCA 2006-00003), which changed the Washington County comprehensive plan and zoning designation from Commercial Office (OC) to the City of Tigard's Professional Commercial (C-P) zone, the zone most closely implementing the County's plan map designation. However, since the subject property's annexation in 2006, the City's need for residential property zoned R-12 has increased. In February 2016, in response to CPA 2015-00005 & ZON 2015-00007, the City Council approved the rezoning of a 1.37 acre site on Pacific Hwy W from R-12 to C-G, but not the rezoning of the subject property from C-P to R-12, resulting in a loss of 1.37 acres of residential property zoned R-12. Medium- density residential properties are important to the ongoing implementation of the City's housing policies, for a number of reasons, including growth in population of the City of Tigard, and a need for flexibility in allowable and available housing types to provide a level of affordability for first time home buyers, singles and retirees, as well as other members of the populace who desire more affordable housing options in Tigard's neighborhoods. The population of Tigard has increased by 6.6% since 2010 (United States Census Bureau). With this increase in population, the demand for housing continues to grow, particularly the need for residential properties zoned with the flexibility necessary to promote a level of affordability. In 2013 the Council adopted a Housing Strategies report prepared by Angelo Planning Group and Johnson & Reid in support of the Periodic Review update to Goal 10, Housing. This report illustrated that at that time the city had about twice as much buildable land in areas zoned R-7 (72.1 net buildable acres) than in areas zoned R-12 (36.7 net buildable acres). The report analyzed the city's current and future housing needs, which included the following conclusions of relevance to the application: • "In general, there is a need for some less expensive ownership units and rental units." • "Single family attached units are projected to meet nearly 20%of future housing need." • "It is projected that in coming decades a greater share of housing will be attached types, including attached single family." This type of housing is possible in the R-12 zone,which allows attached and multi-family housing on 3,050 square-foot lots. R-12 is a versatile medium density residential zone that can better meet the preferences and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents.This policy is met. METRO Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 1: Housing Capacity The Regional Framework Plan calls for a compact urban form and a "fair-share" approach to meeting regional housing needs. It is the purpose of Title 1 to accomplish these policies by requiring each city and county to maintain or increase its housing capacity. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 7 OF 13 The City's Housing Strategies Report indicates that "in general, there is a need for some less expensive ownership units and rental units." This type of housing is possible in the R-12 zone,which allows attached and multi-family housing on 3,050 square-foot lots. With this quasi-judicial action, the zone change to R-12 on the subject site will result in a marginal increase of R-12 zoned land in the City of Tigard to help meet the preferences and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents, consistent with the purpose of Title 1. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the proposed comprehensive plan/zone change demonstrates compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; 2. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance; and FINDING: As shown in the findings above and below, the proposed comprehensive plan/zone change demonstrates compliance with all applicable standards of the provisions of Title 18 and other implementing ordinances. 3. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. The population of Tigard has increased by 6.6% since 2010 (United States Census Bureau). This influx in population has generated an increased need for housing in the City of Tigard. In particular,there is presently a deficit in the availability of affordable housing in the City of Tigard. Zoning the subject property R-12 would help accommodate the City's growth in population and subsequent need for residential properties. The increasing need for affordable housing is a change in the community that supports the comprehensive plan/zone change. Given the variety of permitted housing types, property zoned R-12 is of increasing importance in the City of Tigard to insure the availability of affordable housing. With a minimum lot size of 3,050 S.F. the R-12 zone provides the flexibility necessary to meet the housing type preferences and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents. The trend in the market and development in the community as a whole is progressing towards smaller lots, in an effort to satisfy the demand for affordable housing in the region. Since the subject property's annexation and zoning in 2006, properties zoned R-12 have been developed in the surrounding area. An R- 12 zoning of residential property in the area is ideal due to the proximity of services and transit options. White Oak Village, an R-12 zoned subdivision, located 2/10ths of a mile southwest of the subject property at SW 7411,Ave. north of SW Pacific Highway,was developed in 2008. Increases in population and commercial and residential development have led to an increase in traffic in the neighborhood. While increased traffic is clearly an issue effecting property's owners in the vicinity of the subject property, an ODOT Trip Generation Analysis showed that the proposed zone change of the subject property from C-P to R-12 will result in a reduction of 220 PM trips to 43 PM trips. Rezoning of the subject property to R-12 may help curb future traffic pressure in the neighborhood. Furthermore, the proposed development includes future street improvements to SW Spruce St. and SW 72nd Ave. which will reduce an existing lack of parking in the surrounding area by including the widening of roadways and addition of parking lanes. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 8 OF 13 There is an increasing need for open space in the surrounding neighborhood, as the general development patterns in the area and public testimony received through CPA 20015-00005 & ZON 2015-00007 public hearings suggest. The proposed Planned Development Concept Plan includes two proposed open space tracts that comprise approximately 23.8% of the subject property that will preserve natural open space and promote pedestrian connectivity. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, there is evidence of change in the neighborhood or community to support the proposed comprehensive plan/zone change. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Tigard City Council APPROVAL of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment as being in compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies, all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance, as evidenced by change in the neighborhood and the community, and as determined through the public hearing process. 18.390 DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES 18.390.080 General Provisions D. Applications 2. Consolidation of proceedings. Whenever an applicant requests more than one approval and more than one approval authority is required to decide the applications, the proceedings shall be consolidated so that one approval authority shall decide all applications in one proceeding; a. When a request which contains more than one approval is consolidated, the hearings shall be held by the approval authority having original jurisdiction over one of the applications under this chapter in the following order of preference: the council, the commission, the hearings officer,or the director. b. Where there is a consolidation of proceedings: i. The notice shall identify each action to be taken; ii. The decision on a plan map amendment shall precede the decision on the proposed zone change and other actions; and iii. Separate actions shall be taken on each application. FINDING: The applicant has requested concurrent review of a comprehensive plan map amendment from Professional Commercial to Medium Density Residential District/Zone Change from C-P to R-12 and a Planned Development concept plan approval. According to 18.390.080.D.2, the proceedings are consolidated and decided by the City Council. Notices have identified each action to be taken. The decision on the plan map amendment shall precede the decision on the proposed zone change, which shall precede the decision on the planned development concept plan,with separate actions being taken on each application. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 9 OF 13 18.350 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS 18.350.050 Concept Plan Approval Criteria A. The concept plan may be approved by the commission only if all of the following criteria are met: 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. The applicant states that"The proposed development includes two open space tracts totaling .31 acres (20.3 percent of the site) which will preserve existing conditions and natural resources, including an existing oak tree in the northwest corner of the subject property. Open space will promote natural amenities and provide a more walkable community, while serving as a transition between surrounding low-density residential properties and existing commercial properties." The applicant's statement and concept plan address preservation of the existing oak tree on the site and how the proposed open space protects the natural features of the site. The applicant only minimally indicates how the proposed open space areas relate to access and use by future residents of the development or by the public. This criterion is met but the Commission may require the applicant to more substantively address the open space area designations as to their intended level of use and how they relate to other proposed uses on the site. 2. The concept plan identifies areas of trees and other natural resources, if any, and identifies methods for their maximized protection,preservation, and/or management. The applicant's concept plan identifies areas of trees and other natural resources and minimally identifies methods for their maximized protection, preservation, and management. The narrative states that "The Concept Development Plan in Exhibit G illustrates the proposed development's two open space tracts totaling .31 acres, and their relationship to other uses on the subject property. There are no wetlands or sensitive areas on the subject property. All existing trees on the subject property have been identified (see Concept Development Plan,Exhibit G)." The applicant's narrative does identify a large oak tree in the northwest corner of the site, but it should be shown on the Concept Plan and additional methods for management should be identified as well as an indication of how it would be incorporated into the development. This criterion is minimally met. To better meet this criterion, the Commission may require the applicant to substantively address methods for the oak tree's maximized protection,preservation,and/or management. 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. The applicant states that "The proposed Planned Development Subdivision is designed around the existing transportation network, and will not require or result in any changes to the functional classification of the transportation system in the vicinity of the subject property. As shown on the Concept Development Plan in Exhibit G, the layout of the proposed development concentrates homes to SW Spruce St., SW 72nd Ave. and the proposed private drive, while preserving two open space tracts totaling .31 acres on the northern, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 10 OF 13 western and eastern property boundaries. These open space tracts will serve as an additional buffer between the existing low-density residential and commercial uses. A total of eighteen lots are proposed. Eleven lots will have frontage on SW Spruce St., three lots will have frontage on SW 72nd Ave, and four lots will have frontage on the proposed private drive. The private drive runs north to south in the middle of the subject property, ending at an open space tract on the subject property's northern boundary." The concept plan identifies how the future development will integrate into the existing neighborhood using the existing streets and providing a transition with open space buffers. This criterion is met. 4. The concept plan identifies methods for promoting walkability or transit ridership, such methods may include separated parking bays, off street walking paths, shorter pedestrian routes than vehicular routes, linkages to or other provisions for bus stops, etc. The applicant states that future development of the site with street improvements on SW Spruce St. and SW 72nd Ave., including sidewalks and planter strips will promote a more walkable neighborhood. This criterion is minimally met. To better meet this criterion, the Commission may require the applicant to substantively address how the concept plan also promotes transit ridership. 5. The concept plan identifies the proposed uses, and their general arrangement on site. In the case of projects that include a residential component, housing type, unit density, or generalized lot sizes shall be shown in relation to their proposed location on site. The applicant states that "The Concept Development Plan in Exhibit G illustrates the proposed arrangement of lots and their relationship to open space tracts on the subject property." As show on the concept plan,this criterion is met. 6. The concept plan must demonstrate that development of the property pursuant to the plan results in development that has significant advantages over a standard development. A concept plan has a significant advantage if it provides development consistent with the general purpose of the zone in which it is located at overall densities consistent with the zone, while protecting natural features or providing additional amenities or features not otherwise available that enhance the development project or the neighborhood. The applicant states that "The proposed concept plan would provide a density consistent with the R-12 zone. Two open space tracts comprising 23.8% of the subject property are proposed; their design will preserve an existing oak tree in the northwest corner of the subject property, while providing natural amenities, promoting pedestrian connectivity within the area and serving as a buffer between existing residential and commercial developments in the surrounding area." The proposed development of 18 single-family dwellings would be permitted in the R-12 zone at the maximum allowed density, consistent with the general purpose of the zone. Trees,including the large oak in the northwest corner of the site, will be protected within an open space tract. This criterion is minimally met. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 11 OF 13 To better meet this criterion, the Commission may require the applicant to provide more information on how the concept plan provides significant advantages over standard development with additional amenities or features not otherwise available that enhance the development project or the neighborhood. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the concept plan approval criteria are minimally met, but may be strengthened subject to the Commission's direction to the applicant to revise the proposed Concept Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed Concept Plan, subject to the Commission's direction to the applicant to supplement their findings on the approval criteria, as determined through the hearings Process. SECTION V. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard's Development Services Division (Engineering), and Public Works Department had an opportunity to review this proposal and had no objections. SECTION VI. OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS The following agencies/jurisdictions had an opportunity to review this proposal and did not respond: Metro Land Use and Planning, Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue reviewed the concept plan proposal and provided a comment letter dated October 31, 2016 addressing basic approval standards. Additional opportunities for substantive comment will be provided with application for a Detailed Development Plan. Clean Water Services reviewed the concept plan proposal and provided a comment letter dated October 26, 2016 addressing basic approval standards. Additional opportunities for substantive comment will be provided with application for a Detailed Development Plan. Oregon Department of Transportation, Region 1 reviewed this proposal under CPA 2015-00005 and ZON 2015-00007 and provided a comment letter dated December 2, 2015 from Marah Danielson, ODOT Development Review Planner. ODOT determined that for Site A (the subject site),vehicle trips to OR 99W intersections will likely be reduced and that the proposed zone change from C-P to R-12 does not significantly affect a state highway facility. SECTION VII. INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENTS The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on March 16, 2016. Documentation is provided in Exhibit E of the application. Seventeen attendees discussed the proposed zone change, comprehensive plan amendment, and the planned development concept plan. Issues discussed included open space and parks, streets and utilities,housing type and design, and land use process. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 12 OF 13 The city received written comments from neighbors within 500 feet of the subject properties regarding the proposed amendment. Approximately 140 neighbors within a half-mile of the subject property who live both within and outside of the City boundary signed a petition in support of the use of the subject property as a "walk-to residential park." Nancy Tracy submitted a letter requesting that the City buy and preserve the land for park use. These comments included a letter dated April 18, 2016 from Holly Pohvka, Chair of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board,in support of the park idea,with the caveat that the City did not have funding to help purchase the property. Further testimony reiterating the community's interest in a park on the subject site was presented at the November 21,2016 hearing. SECTION VIII. CONCLUSION As demonstrated by the findings above, the Planning Commission finds by a vote of 6-1 in favor that the proposed Comprehensive Plan/zone change amendment complies with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals, applicable regional, state and federal regulations, the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances and can be approved. In addition, with a vote of 5-2 in favor, the Commission approved the proposed planned development concept plan with direction to the applicant to further refine the public open space allocation on the site and to redesign access to lots to maximize on-street parking. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt by ordinance the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change, and the proposed planned development concept plan, as determined through the public hearing process. yet January 10, 2017 PREPARED BY: Gary Pagenstecher DATE Associate Planner -- � January 10, 2017 APPROVED BY: Tom McGuire DATE Assistant Community Development Director PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 13 OF 13 O A K ST VICINITY MAP 10490 7218 1049110500 10495 CPA2016-00002 7508 7400 7350 7300 ZON2016-00001 10520 PDR2016-00012 10525 10530 10525 Topping Comp Plan/Zone Ljj Change and Planned 10555 7405 > Development Concept Plan 10565 Review 7417 7333 7311 7217 7203 `'- 7411 7 Z 10560 i cV "' 10595 R-4.5 PINE S1 �-- Subject Site 7540 10655 10650 7212 � 0 7330 73101 - 1 7130 10655 7210 , 10640 10605 10680 7290 r � 10670 ar •" 10705 10690 $ 107V 10700 � L tl 7535 7515 7415 7383 J 10 73 fr jjjj 7. SPRUCE ST 7510 10$15 C-P to R-12 (1.54 acres) 10820 7802 - 10900 10$55 > 10$50 Approx.Scale 1:2,000-1in=161tt R-25 fneap printed at 12:01 HM on 10-Jan-11 V t 10900 S - ^' `^ •' mrormenon on m4 mN q 1 mason Dory aoa anoWe x�o.�noa tw;m (�00(] 10$$5 �-- 10$$0 he De* IP nl S--eaWeon mD 107DATA IS DERIVED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES,THE CITY OF TIGARD 'i. MAKES NO WARRANTY,REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE CONTENT,ACCURACY,TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF _ THE DATA PROVIDED HEREIN.THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL ASSUME NO i LIASILITY FOR ANY ERRORS,OMISMNS,OR INACCURACIES IN THE 1090 f 4 10915 INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF NON CAUSED. L1711(.! l! 10910 �. 10900 5 City of Tigard $ 13125 SW He Blvd Feet �o TIGAR MAps T19036 913171OR 23 e .. _. .. ..... www.tigard-or.gov � I 380.5 95.0 16.0 > OPEN SPACE \ TRACT B p 1 • y 11,809 S.F. 2,444 sf B 6 95.0 30.0 95.0 1 12 11 p 2,�„ ■ . 2,660 S.F. 2,660 S.F. N 2,475 S.F. LLJ 95.3 13 ■ 10 p 3., 2,660 S.F. 2,660 S.F. 2,478 S.F. -------- '---- 4_____ _--------------------------31.0 ■ ---________o-_ _ _------- - 25 \ _ 26,Q 0 _60_ 26.L _26.0 1 e 31mg, 26.0.-----n28.0 ,2 .0 n 28.g, 28.0 19.4 I a a o Q ; O "0 1 V) N - ; z TRacT d 18 17 16 15 14 w ' 9 8 7. 6' 5 4 d 0 2.3435r. Q N 2,914 SF. 2,632 S.F. 2,632 SF. 2,632 SF. 2.632 S.F. 2.632 S.F. - z \ ( 2.4N of 2,444 e/ _3,444�f 2,444 of 2.9t4 SF. O '— //''�� \ O O N p LL a cn ■ p 4 w (n W � rn � ¢v i W ~ = / �'� n a ■ o< �28 i Z 3 a, O d � \ a i Q ^F .� Z ------ ------- R. W. CENTERLINE g W1 SPI�UCL z PD CONCEPT Plan - Single Family Detached Residential Lots _ ow C=) <Z Open Space Density & Setbacks Utilities & Parking cv — Gross Site Area = 67,325 s.f. Compliance with R-12 Density Public Sanitary, Water & Storm Available in 0 Minimum 20% = 13,465 s.f. Maximum 18 Units Single Family Detached SW 72nd and SW Spruce. On-site � ~Z Proposed Open Space = 15,997 s.f. (23.8%) Setbacks easements will be located as determined at u-W (Excluding Storm Tract-13,650■.f.(20.3x) Side=5' Rear=15' Front-Garage=20' Detailed Concept Plan Approval t o- Front - Building=12' CL- Z Parking - Each Lot Driveway & Garage and SHIM C/7 �Public On-Street 1 z i 1 v � . ., Cityof. Tigard Tigard City Council/CCDA Meeting Minutes February 2, 2016 1. EXECUTIVE SESSION At 6:32 p.m. the Tigard City Council entered into an Executive Session called under ORS 192.660(2) (0.The Executive Session ended at 7:09 p.m. 2. BUSINESS MEETING A. At 7:10 p.m. Mayor Cook called to order the City Council and City Center Development Agency meeting. B. City Recorder Krager called the roll: Present Absent Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Councilor Henderson ✓ C. Mayor Cook asked everyone to stand and join him in the Pledge of Allegiance. D. Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items—None CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY 3. JOINT MEETING WITH THE CI'T'Y CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION The City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) members present were: Chair Carine Arendes, Gina Schlatter,Vice-Chair Idnh Pao, Richard Shavey, and David Walsh. They presented a PowerPoint on the vision for downtown'Tigard. The vision was developed through a public process related to the Downtown Tigard Improvement Plan (DTIP). The vision was that downtown "is a tabrani and active urban tallage at the heatt of our community. Pedestrian oriented, accessible by many modes of transportation and i!recognities and uses natural resoutres as an asset and features a combination ql* uses that enable people to lite,play, work and shop in an entimnment shat is uniquely Tigard." TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/CCDA MEETING MINUTES—February 2,2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 14 The TRIP identified some potentially unifying themes: community,nature and art.There was not a lot of graphic representation of what this might look like so in addition to adopting code changes the cite has also engaged in a number of projects that help paint a picture of what the written vision might look like.These include the Streetscape Design Plan,the Fanno Creek Park Plan,and the Tigard Future Vision and there is a plan to update the original urban renewal plan to contain more visual elements.The Tigard Downtown Future Vision was a further refinement of the TDIP and included renderings of what it might look like with development on Highway 99 and Hall, housing at the redeveloped public works}lard,transit oriented development located near high capacity transit in the urban core,as well as arts involved community center. The city has adopted a Strategic Plan which is a vision for the entire city. The CCAC asked the CCDA to consider how compatible these two visions are. Chair Arendes said she felt the TDIP vision fits very well under the umbrella of the citywide walkability vision. She said the vision of a thriving, active,vibrant urban core is the one that the CCAC considers when coming to the CCDA with project recommendations.This vision is what they keep in mind when setting their annual goals. Vice-Chair Pao discussed thein goal setting process this year which was a little different than usual since they had several new members. They compiled a document with all the goals and implementations since the CCAC began setting them in 2009. They held a session for 2016 goals and came up with four main categories: • Support urban renewal area project infrastructure and development;provide input • Identify and discuss long-term impacts of future development in the downtown area • Communications and engagement • Self-education on topics of interest to the downtown such as marketing opportunities to developers and affordable housing Vice-Chair Pao said if the CCDA Directors and Chair have input they would like to hear it so they can incorporate it into their goals. Commissioner Shavey spoke about marketing and branding and the CCAC's goal to advocate for potential funding options to keep the Tigard Downtown Alliance (TDA)momentum going. Consultant Michelle Reeves and the Leland Company recommended supporting a downtown association for coordinated marketing and promotion.The CCAC supports the land and business owners doing this task and they confirmed the importance of getting involved in the marketing and branding effort. However,they acknowledge that TDA's organizational capacity would need to be increased prior to them taking on this task. "T7ie'IDA is maxed out with volunteer activities now. Chair Arendes said the CCAC recommend the following urban renewal plan identified projects as priorities as the CCDA works on their budget: filling in the gaps on Hall Boulevard sidewalks,plaza development,the Tigard Street Trail,and public restrooms in the downtown area. She noted that the city is going to do a public facilities plan and hoped that public restrooms, a public market and an arts-oriented community center,all facilities identified in the urban renewal plan,will be considered in this study. Director Woodard said the CCDA takes the CCAC's recommendations seriously. He reflected on many community planners and experts who gave the city ideas and concepts that should be reflected in the goals. He asked them to keep in mind the puzzle pieces: connectivity,walkability,activation of TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/CCDA MEETING MINUTES—February 2, 2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov ( Page 2 of 14 the downtown,business opportunities,infrastructure,circulation and recreation. He said he was pleased to hear Commissioner Shavey speak about branding. He quoted Director Henderson, "without identity we have no community." He said a lot of good work has been done but there is a lot to do. He recommended adding developing a brand as a goal. He said hiring a marketing manager is important. He suggested picking two businesses along Main Street and talking to the owners to get their ideas on what they need to succeed. He added that circulation is very important and advised that the Ash Creek crossing be kept in mind. He clarified that he meant the railroad crossing. Director Snider said the CCAC has done a great job and he will keep their recommendations in mind while working on the budget. Chair Cook agreed that their goals are great and he agrees with Director Snider;it is a different CCDA than it was in 2011 and the CCAC can expect a little different outcome. Circulation was discussed and Redevelopment Project Manager Farrelly reminded everyone that the Ash Creek rail crossing is still in the mix with the SW Corridor. He noted that the city is getting the first leg of a transportation system improvement completed due to the Ash and Burnham development. Chair Arendes invited further comment and said the CCDA is welcome to come to their meetings or send ideas to their email. 4. UPDATE ON THE MAIN STREET/FANNO CREEK SITE (SAXONY) REDEVELOPMENT STUDY Redevelopment Manager Farrelly gave the staff report for this meeting which included a PowerPoint. He introduced John Flynn and Suenn Ho of Resolve Architecture. Architect Flynn described the property and progress made in the concept design. He said they would like to hear feedback on the design. Slides were shown of possible uses of the building including public space. The first floor could be small restaurant and retail with creative office tenant space on the second and third floors. The sixth floor is only at the back of the building, fronting 99W. He said the pro forma studies indicate that it has to be really small or really big. Resolve Architecture's charge is to create a design that appeals to the city and the developer. This floor space works either way. If they were divided there could be eight 1,000 square foot living areas. Suenn Ho said this is a challenging site. There is a bridge with fast paced cars going by. Within the south side there is a pedestrian-friendly street. On the west is a creek. On the east side there is a sewer easement. A southern elevation shows steps going down to the creek. On the highway side there is verticality. Main Street will be a great opportunity to give the development presence with tall buildings along the highway. "There is a vegetative strip owned by ODOT behind it. Slides showed opportunities for materiality such as green ways,glazing balconies and store fronts. Ms. Ho showed a sketch of the painted building. Green roofs celebrate nature. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/CCDA MEETING MINUTES—February 2, 2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 3 of 14 Mayor Cook commented that the design has come a long way. He agreed that it is a challenging site but appreciated what they have developed so far. He said triple-glazed windows will keep the sound down on the north side. He said the taller buildings will have great views. Mayor Cook said he likes the mixture that goes right onto a festival street. Councilor Goodhouse said he likes the green roofs and the stair steps make it resemble an art piece. Councilor Woodard had some design questions regarding guest parking. There can be issues if tenant and guest vehicles take up all the parking spots so customers cannot find places to park. Another concern he has is the occasional high Fanno Creek water levels. Mr. Flynn said a movement joint could be created for the deck. Clean Water Services redundancy is good to have for high water situations. Mayor Cook commented that the concept design process was good and he looked forward to the next update. CITY COUNCIL 5. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ZONING CHANGES TO PRESERVE MEDIUM DENSITY (R-12) RESIDENTIAL LAND a. Mayor Cook reopened the public hearing. He said at the initial hearing before council there was testimony suggesting that this matter should be heard using the quasi-judicial procedures and standards rather than legislative. The city attorney was asked to review those concerns and he recommended that council do that as a precaution. He asked the council if there was any objection to that process.There was none. He asked the city attorney to explain the process for the hearing. b. City Attorney Olsen said the city is the applicant in this proceeding and accordingly the process for the hearing shall be as follows: City staff will state the applicable criteria and summarize the application, staff report and the staff's recommendation.Council will then take public testimony and staff will have an opportunity for rebuttal or other comment. Council may ask the staff and witnesses questions throughout the hearing until the record closes. After the record is closed the city council will deliberate about how to proceed. During deliberations the city council may reopen the public portion of the hearing,if necessary, to receive additional evidence before making a decision. Testimony,argument and evidence must be directed toward the applicable criteria including any additional criteria that a participant in the hearing thinks might apply. Failure to raise an issue clearly enough so that the city council understands and can address the issue precludes an appeal on that issue. He covered testimony guidelines. City Attorney Olsen said that prior to the end of the hearing he would explain how any participant may request a continuance or that the record be kept open for more time. Council TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/CCDA MEETING MINUTES—February 2,2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 4 of 14 may approve all of the requested Comprehensive Plan amendments and zone changes,some but not others or may deny the applicant in its entirety. He said since this started out as a legislative matter,quasi-judicial notice (Type IIT)was provided prior to the hearing. At the end of the hearing council will vote to approve or reject the ordinance. C. Council Questions: Mayor Cook asked for clarification that any prior written or oral testimony on this matter is included in this hearing and that it is part of the record. City Attorney Olsen said that any testimony provided to the Planning Commission,written submittals and the staff report, etc. are all available and included in the record. He said however, that the hearing is being conducted as a de novo hearing which means that people are not limited to issues raised at the prior Planning Commission and Citi-Council hearings. Council President Snider explained to the audience that council made a decision tonight to hear this as a quasi-judicial matter which is a different forum than the previous hearing. Staff prepared some material that council needs to take time now to read. City Attorney Olsen added that the material included proposed findings from staff should council decided to approve the application. Extra copies were available so anyone in the audience can review the same material. Council read the material from 8:22 p.m. to 8:38 p.m. d. Challenges and Declarations: City Attorney Olsen asked council if they had any ex parte contact, site visits or related prior information to disclose. None. City Attorney Olsen asked if any council members had any potential or actual conflicts of interest to declare. There were none. Mayor Cook asked if there were any challenges from the audience on any councilor's ability to participate in this hearing. There were none. e. Staff Report Assistant Community Development Director McGuire gave the staff report. He read the approval criteria applying to the proposal. He said per 12.380.030.b standards for making quasi-judicial decisions,recommendations or decision to approve,approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 1. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and map designations 2. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance 3. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the Comprehensive Plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application Mr. McGuire referred to two memos provided by staff.The February 2,2016,memo provides findings in favor of the proposal. A January 26, 2016,memo from Associate Planner TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/CCDA MEETING MINUTES—February 2,2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,'Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov Page 5 of 14 Pagenstecher provided responses to council's specific questions and issues raised after the first public hearing. He said there were a few errors in some of the notices such as listing the year as 2015 instead of 2016. There was also a typo in the staff contact phone numbers. The department has safeguards in place.The planner prepares the notices and an administrative staff person prints the notices and helps with processing and distribution,yet the two typos made it through those screens. He noted that the public notice sign was damaged and it is assumed it bleu down in the storm in early December. Since that time staff has changed to using plastic coated paper with double sticks to hold the sign in place. In the future staff will monitor the signs and check on them after a bad storm. Mr. McGuire noted that Council President Snider asked about process issues related to public testimony and responded that any appeals would go directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA),whether legislative or quasi-judicial. He said the city's parks staff was asked about Property A ever being considered for purchase as a parks property and it was not. A question from Councilor Henderson at the last hearing related to the real estate sign advertising Property B as commercial property when it is zoned residential. Mr. McGuire said commercial real estate signs are not addressed in the code and as council is aware,per federal and state Supreme Court cases, staff cannot regulate the content of signs. Assistant Community Development Director McGuire gave the background on this issue. When he first learned of this potential zone change application on Site B from R-12 to Commercial the city was in the middle of the Heritage Crossing hearings. Specifically,staff was addressing one of the Comprehensive Plan policies on housing. He read some of Goal 10,Policy 10.1,"to provide opportunities for a variety of housing types at a range of price levels to meet the housing needs of current and future city residents." In the Heritage case staff held multiple Planning Commission hearings and council hearings and staff had been stressing the point of that policy and the diversity and variety of housing that is available in R- 12 zoning. He said it is not just a numbers issue. We need to meet Metro requirements but that is not the focus of that policy. The issue is the variety that is available in that zone which creates a diversity of price ranges important for young,first-time home buyers and also those that are downsizing. This makes more housing available for people to purchase at varying price ranges. He said Community Development Department staff need to be consistent in interpreting the city's code and policies. Assistant Community Development Director McGuire said the market is sending a signal through the pre-application conferences that Site A is a good location for R-12. There are other R-12 sites zoned right in that neighborhood and it is between high-intensity commercial use Fred Meyer and lower density residential. He noted that Site A and Site B are very similar in size. Because of this,staff initially chose a legislative process because council would have the ability to examine the Comprehensive Plan policies and have a little more leeway than in a quasi-judicial process. Mayor Cook asked council if they received answers to all their questions. Council President Snider said he appreciated that the answers were very, thorough and specific and he would like this to be the model for future staff reports. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/CCDA MEETING MINUTES—February 2, 2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov Page 6 of 14 f. Public Testimony Mayor Cook said due to the time each person may talk for two minutes. Council President Snider reminded the public that this is a quasi-judicial hearing,and council is acting as judges, not legislators. He said their testimony is most effective if it relates to the criteria that is what council must consider in their decision. Richard Topping, 19765 Derby Street,West Linn, OR said he and his wife own Site A. He said it has been on the market for eight years. They have gone through five commercial real estate agents who have done a lot of aggressive marketing and all came to the conclusion that it is not a viable commercial property. He addressed the testimony neighbors gave at the last hearing noting their great sense of ownership and how they felt the property was part of their community. But they are not paying the upkeep or property taxes. The existing houses cannot be replaced and the city is in need of more R-12 housing. They strongly feel that this would be a good thing for them and for the city. Levi Levasa, Stafford Land Company, 485 S. State Street,Lake Oswego,OR,97034,is the potential developer for Site A. He asked that council echo the recommendations of the Planning Commission and adopt the findings of the staff report. He said staff did a great job on the findings and agreed with the quasi-judicial approach. He said the property looks like R-12 property, not R-4.5. The entire frontage needs to be improved and splitting that up between four to six lots does not make much sense. R-12 zoning allows a variety of housing types. Kelh Hossaini, Miller Nash, 111 SW Fifth Avenue,Portland 97204 represents Tigard-Tualatin School District, the owner of Site B. She said the R-12 zoning is a holdover from the 1940s and the district's use of the site as an administrative center. This property has been on the market for ten years. The market views this property as commercial. She said Leadership Circle wants to develop the property into a natural grocer which would be a great use near the elementary school and for people in the neighborhood. She said she could understand opposition to a zone change on Site A but encouraged council to adopt the Site B zone change. Read Stapleton, DOWL Engineers and Planners,720 SW Washington Street,Suite 750, Portland, OR, 97205,said he agreed with Ms. Hossain and believes Site B is optimal for commercial development. Historically residential zoning may have made sense but the most recent Economic Opportunities Analysis recognized there is a dearth of commercial land. This request will improve that lack of capacity. He said Leadership Circle has been meeting with city staff since last year. He asked for council's approval on the zone change for Site B regardless of whether it is considered with the other site. Debbie Bowman and Penny Stewart signed up to speak but said they would give their time to Dorothy Cofield. Jim Long, 10730 SW 72"'Avenue,Tigard,OR 97223,gave some written testimony which has been added to the record. He said he would speak first as Chair of CP04-M and then as a private citizen. On Monday,December 4,2015,CP04-M discussed the planning department's request and voted unanimously to endorse retaining the commercial/professional district TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/CCDA MEETING MINUTES—February 2,2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov ( Page 7 of 14 zoning for Site A. Speaking personally,he said if the city moves forward and approves this application with staff's first recommendation the decision will be vulnerable to appeal and the city will lose. He said last month that the city should start over. He noted that the process has been changed to quasi-judicial but the notices are still in error.There are landowners who did not receive notice. New signs were put out on two posts but did not last. The notices did not have the right time,place or phone number. The website did not list this public hearing for four days in December. The title is misleading and the word"preservation" does not explain the nature of the application. He had pictures in the testimony that are still relevant. Mayor Cook asked if the new postings are correct. Mr. Long said he heard staff say they were going to monitor the signs but they are gone so the city did not provide the information required by the code. Council President Snider said staff was asked by council to start completely over with their noticing. He asked if Mr. Long was testifying that after the lecture from council, staff did not in fact redo the sign posting. He said the sign on 72"`' Avenue is blank. Mr.Long said Councilor Henderson asked for the commercial sign to be removed but it is still in place. Dorothy Cofield, 8705 SW Nimbus,Suite 380. Beaverton,OR 97008, said she represents Jim Long and Nancy Tracy as individuals. She said she submitted a memorandum to council along with seven exhibits. She noted that Mayor Cook gave the differences between legislative and quasi-judicial public hearings. She said this was done at the eleventh hour after there may have been discussion and talking. She said the city needs to start over to do this process right. The notice lists preservation of R-12 zoning but does not have the quasi-judicial criteria. Without that being in the notice LUBA says anyone can raise anything because the notice did not list the criteria. Ms. Cofield said staff and the Planning Commission were hanging their hat on the Angelo Study which said that Tigard is deficient in R-12 land. She said the executive summary does not say this at all. It says 6,000 units (53 percent are projected to be detached single-family home). The idea that Tigard needs attached homes is not supported by the record. Regarding changing the zoning, the Cogan Economic Analysis Report says there is a deficiency in commercial land. Taking the Topping site and removing the commercial zoning is inconsistent with evidence in the record. She asked council to consider this rather than the planner's desire for more attached housing. She asked to keep the record open because they just received the findings and want to review whether or not the neighborhood has changed.They want to put evidence in the record. Regarding the sign on Site B, she felt the city can regulate it if it says it is zoned for commercial and this has not yet been done. The city should tell the developers that this has not gone through a zoning change yet. She ended by saying that although they believe that the process is flawed,her clients would be in favor of changing the zoning for the school district site. She asked that council adopt the alternative to change the zone for Site B but they object to any zone change on Site A. Ann Murdock,7415 SW Spruce Street,Tigard, OR 97223,handed in some written testimony. She highlighted that if this land is zoned R-12 it allows the owners to put in 12-18 units. With each there could be two cars,pets, and two children. She doesn't see how the parking will work. She said there is a new development on 7e Avenue and the people living there are already parking in front of her house because they do not have enough parking. People from Tigard Woods park in front of her neighbors' mailboxes. She mentioned that there is a spring TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/CCDA MEETING MINUTES—February 2, 2016 City of'Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 8 of 14 on the west end of the property. She asked who will be responsible for fixing it if the spring is paved over and the water runs onto her property. Richard Garber, 10680 SW 7151 Avenue,Tigard, OR 97223,lives two blocks from the subject property=. He walks his dog on the property and reiterated what the previous speaker said;it is a swamp. He has seen the tractor mower sink down and then avoid large areas of the property. He noticed in the handout a lot of concern for the property owners but it would be better if the city was concerned about the residents. He has made bad investments before and it is not the city's fault. He said R 3.4 zoning might be a possibility. Chris Glawe, 9830 SW Pine Street,Tigard, OR 97223, said he was here in support of Jim Long and the neighbors. He said neighbors look out for each other by placing flyers and he did not know about this until a neighbor placed a flyer out for this meeting. He did not receive the official statement that was mailed last fall. Nancy Tracy, 7310 SW Pine Street, Portland,OR 97223,brought a handout for council. She said she was here on behalf of the children. The children are our city's future and they have a tough road ahead of them. Cities,communities,parents and schools are all responsible for children. She said she hoped that council will read her pamphlet. Richard Allegretto signed up to speak but gave his time to Jim Long. Jim Long said the most important thing is that Site B was left out of the city's inventory of residential land so there is no need to balance out the residential because there was no loss of residential. The city can go ahead and change it to commercial. The city does have a deficit of commercial land. He said the equality swap"does not wash."He objected to the commercial sign. He commented that the city is rezoning some property in another area and if R-7 there can change to R-12,it does not need to happen here. The citizens do not support three-story buildings on Site A. Nathan Murdock 7415 SW Spruce Street,Tigard,OR 97223,noticed that during the last month a big problem in getting a vehicle from Hall Boulevard and 69`s Avenue onto Highway 99W. ODOT says it should not be a problem but it is now,without having another 30 cars from people that are not in the neighborhood. Read Stapleton asked to rebut Mr. Murdock's testimony but Mayor Cook said the city is the applicant and he could not testify. He has already spoken tonight. Charlie Hanson 10670 SW 75`h Avenue,Tigard, OR 97223,lives on a flag lot with 50 feet of his side yard along Site A. He said the land is swamp-like and test pits done for the preschool verified drainage issues. He said he experiences drainage problems onto his property from the subject property. He showed a picture of a notice and said there was no notice of a continuation until Nancy Tracy came to his door one day ago. He said the property is more of a wetland than a viable property and that may be why commercial builders have not shown interest either. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/CCDA MEETING MINUTES—February 2,2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 w-ww.tigard-or.gov I Page 9 of 14 Julie Garvin, 7025 SVG'Mapleleaf Street,Tigard, OR said she just received a flyer at her door and from what she is hearing regarding the procedural information it is clear to her that council should evaluate Site A and Site B independently and they both must meet the criteria.They cannot be evaluated conjoined and there is evidence that Site B meets all the criteria. She does not think Site A meets the criteria in terms of there being a change in the neighborhood or an error or mistake in the zoning. g. Staff response to testimony: Assistant Community Development Director McGuire said he would respond to specific council questions. h. Council questions: Council President Snider asked about Ms. Cofield's testimony that the city should restart the process to have it follow the full quasi-judicial process and if the city has done what was necessary to meet those requirements. City Attorney Olsen replied that in terms of procedural error LUBA and the courts have held that a person alleging a procedural error has to demonstrate substantial prejudice and the courts generally have held that if there was a procedural error in the process,as long as at the final hearing before the final decision maker,those alleged irregularities are addressed and the full quasi-judicial rights are substantially afforded,then it is very difficult to make a finding of substantial prejudice. He said in this case notice went out as if it was a quasi-judicial hearing despite the fact that it had been legislative so notice was provided in accordance with the code. The city council made the determination in the response to citizen concerns that it would afford those full quasi-judicial processes and protections,including the substantive criteria,rather than go forward with the legislative hearing which the council could have done. Council President Snider commented that the public indicated that they would have immediately appealed. City attorney Olsen said in effect the council has responded to the concerns raised. He said Ms. Cofield is correct that the notice sent out did not list all of the applicable criteria,and that may provide more of an opportunity for an appeal on a substantive ground with LUBA but it is not really a procedural error. In this case, there have been no other criteria identified other than ones staff have addressed. And that is a Type III quasi-judicial process. He said there might be a standard that the notice did not indicate and that no one else has raised. But it is not one that staff or the citizens are aware of He said council made it clear that they are addressing the applicable standards. Council President Snider referred to a comment made about two properties being considered under the same quasi-judicial public hearing. City Attorney Olsen said council needs to apply the criteria to each property and needs to make a decision on each property to approve both, approve one and deny the other or deny both. He said it is appropriate for staff to inform council and for the council to consider the context in which the Comprehensive Plan policies and housing policies apply. City Attorney Olsen said Ms. Cofield and others requested additional time and many potential problems are cured during the process if the record is kept open for additional testimony during a continuance. Council President Snider asked if the city has an excess inventory of R-12 land as heard in some of the testimony,and Assistant Community Development Director McGuire said it did not. He said the housing study addresses that and is part of the record and in the staff report. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/CCDA MEETING MINUTES—February 2,2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Bh d.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov ( Page 10 of 14 Council President Snider noted that at least some people clearly living within 500 feet of Site A did not receive a notice. He asked how confident staff is that proper notice was made. Mr. Pagenstecher said the notice went out for the first hearing. Council President Snider said council direction was to notify everyone of the continued hearing. assistant Community Development Director McGuire said staff prepared a second notice and posted the property. Council President Snider said he did not think that was what council asked staff to do. Councilor Snider asked about the parking standard for R-12 zoning. assistant Community Development Director McGuire said each unit is required to have its own on-site parking but it is hard to estimate how many cars because there is such variety in R-12 housing. The R-12 developments are attached or narrow units and some off street is parking lost to the number of curb cuts for driveways. It has been an issue. In River Terrace the city required extra parking per tracts. Council President Snider expressed many concerns about the process. Councilor Woodard said he thought the two separate properties should have their own consideration but did not think council had to start all over. He said by design,development can take care of wetland and parking issues. Mayor Cook advised that this is not a development review,it is a zone change. Councilor Goodhouse asked if the properties can be separated in a decision tonight. City Attorney Olsen said they can be considered separately and in fact,when looking at options staff drafted an ordinance approving only the zone change for Site B. Council could adopt it and remand Site A back to the Planning Commission. Councilor Woodard commented that no one said they did not receive a notice about Site B. He said staff did the best they could to rectify the notice issue. He said staff put up signs and he did not know if someone was pulling out the signs. He gave staff credibility. He asked assistant Community Development Director McGuire if notice was provided. Mr. McGuire responded that staff used the quasi-judicial noticing requirement prior to the Planning Commission hearing. Every property owner within 500 feet received a notice;it was advertised in the newspaper and on the website and the property was posted prior to the Planning Commission hearing. Staff did the same procedure prior to the last council hearing (mailed notices, site posting,website and newspaper). He said he did not hear at the last hearing that council was instructing staff to resend the notice. However, the notice was revised and the site re-posted. Council President Snider asked for confirmation that staff used a quasi-judicial notice process for a legislative hearing held months ago. Assistant Community Development Director McGuire said staff"over-notified" the meeting as it is standard to err on the side of more public participation. Council President Snider asked City Attorney Olsen if the notice requirement was not an issue.City Attorney Olsen expressed confidence that in terms of Site B there was not a notice issue. He said in terms of Site A,generally the case law is that a minor defect in the noticiig is not a fatal flaw. He said while the notice is not perfect,the city has taken appropriate steps to address the issue from a legal standpoint. TIGAR.D CITY COUNCIL/CCDA MEETING MINUTES—February 2,2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 11 of 14 Councilor Goodhouse moved to approve Ordinance No. 16-05,approving Site B and remand Site A to the Planning Commission as quasi-judicial matter. 'There was no second and City Attorney Olsen said he needed to read a statement first. City Attorney Olsen read a statement saying any participant may request an opportunity for more time to present additional evidence,arguments or testimony regarding the application for either of the properties. If such a request is received the city council has a choice. Council may continue the public hearing for at least seven days and at the continued public hearing if new evidence is submitted,any person may then request that the record be left open for at least seven additional days to submit written evidence,arguments or testimony for purposes of responding to the evidence at the continued hearing. Or council could leave the written record open for seven days rather than continue the public hearing. During the seven days, any person may submit new evidence or argument. The record is then kept open for an additional seven days for anyone to respond to written materials submitted during the first seven days. 'Then the applicant has the discretion of requesting a continuance. After the written record is received then council would conduct its final deliberation and make a decision. City Attorney Olsen said the attorney for some of the neighbors asked for a continuance. He said he has heard that there may be some councilors considering denial of one of the applications and that may mean the counsel withdraws her request for additional time. He asked if anyone else in the audience wished to keep the record open. Ms. Cofield said if Site A will be denied and Site B recommended for approval she was in favor of that and would not need a continuance but of course,she would not know that until deliberation. She asked if she could make her request contingent. City Attorney Olsen said that was appropriate. Mr. Levasa asked if he could ask for a contingent continuance as well. If Site A is remanded he would not need it but if it is denied he does want a continuance. Mayor Cook accepted his request for a contingent continuance Councilor Goodhouse moved to approve Ordinance No. 16-05,approving Site B and remanding Site A to the Planning Commission. Councilor Woodard seconded the motion. Council President Snider asked if the remand required a full quasi-judicial noticing process. City Attorney Olsen said it did; it was like starting over. Mayor Cook said he would like staff to demonstrate with date-stamped photos that signage is intact and notification was complete. Councilor Woodard suggested using a simple checklist and dating it. Council President Snider said the residents near Site A need to recognize that the property is two blocks off of Highway 99W and behind a huge commercial center. It is probably not going to be developed as a commercial property. He suggested that they as a neighborhood figure out how they can live with whatever will be done residentially on that property at some point. He said he thought it would be hard for the neighborhood to prevent things from happening on the property because of Oregon land use law and'Tigard's Community Development Code. Councilor Woodard addressed Jim Long and suggested there is time to talk to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) about using it for a park. Mayor Crook added that anyone could buy the property and donate it to the cite. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/CCDA MEETING MINUTES—February 2, 2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,'I'igard,OR 97223 www.tigard-ongov I Page 12 of 14 I. Mayor Cook closed the public hearing. j. Council Deliberation Mayor Cook asked City Recorder Krager to read the number and title of the ordinance. Ordinance No. 16-05 — AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 2015-00005 AND 'LONE CHANGE ZON 2015-00007 TO AMEND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING DISTRICTS MAP City Attorney Olsen said while the title is the same, the body of this ordinance only relates to Site B. Council President Snider asked if the ordinance needs to mention the remand and City Attorney Olsen said the remand for Site A would not be part of the ordinance for Site B and staff was directed to remand the other matter back to the Planning Commission. Councilor Woodard asked if the property owners near Site A will be notified when the Planning Commission meets and City Attorney Olsen said they would;the applicant is basically starting over. City Recorder Krager conducted a roll call vote. ' Yes No Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Councilor Henderson (absent) Mayor Cook announced that Ordinance No. 16-05 passed unanimously by a vote of those present. 6. CONTINUED DELIBERATION: APPROVING AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 3.75 PARKS MAINTENANCE FEE AND APPROVING A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE MASTER FEES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE Due to the late hour council elected to carry this item over to the next council business meeting on February 9,2016. 7. DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSED TAY 2017 CITY COUNCIL BUDGET Assistant City Manager Newton gave the staff report for this item. She asked that council look at the highlighted items. An inauguration photographer,a slight increase in Tigard Downtown Alliance dues,and a reception were added. She noted that the Tigard Youth Advisory Commission Washington DC trip has been added to council's budget. She said these are the on1v changes to the original version council received earlier. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/CCDA MEETING MINUTES—February 2,2016 City of'Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov ( Page 13 of 14 Assistant City Manager Newton confirmed there are only enough funds to send two youths to Washington DC. Council President Snider said council should budget for five kids to go next year. Mayor Cook said he did not think the cities always pay. Some cities have their youth fundraise for the trip. Council President Snider mentioned being on the school board as a youth and felt he was more effective at the California legislature than some adults. Councilor Goodhouse recommended four. Council President Snider suggested partial payment and encouraging the youths to raise some of the funds themselves. 8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS None. 9. ADJOURNMENT At 10:20 p.m. Council President Snider moved for adjournment. Councilor Woodard seconded the motion. Mayor Cook conducted a vote and the motion passed unanimously. Yes No Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Councilor Henderson (absent) _7:*4 az A Carol A. Krager,City Recorder Attest: Johnit .00k��o Date TIGARD CITY COUNCIL/CCDA MEETING MINUTES—February 2,2016 City=of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 ww\v.tigard-or.gov I Page 14 of 14 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes November 21,2016 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 Alt. Commissioner Enloe Commissioner Hu Commissioner Lieuallen Commissioner McDowell Commissioner Middaugh Alt. Commissioner Mooney Commissioner Muldoon Commissioner Schmidt Absent: Vice President Feeney; Commissioner Jelinek Staff Present: Tom McGuire,Assistant CD Director; Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner;Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant COMMUNICATIONS—None. CONSIDER MINUTES November 14, 2016 Meeting Minutes: President Fitzgerald asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the November 14 minutes; there being none, Fitzgerald declared the minutes approved as submitted. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING - President Fitzgerald opened the hearing. PUBLIC HEARING TOPPING C-P TO R-12 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ ZONE CHANGE 'WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (CPA)2016-00002; Zone Change (ZON)2016-00001; (PDR)2016-0012 REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Amendment from Professional Commercial, C-P, to Medium Density Residential, R-12, and a Planned Development Review for a Concept Plan only on a three-parcel property totaling 1.54 acres. The proposed concept plan shows 18 single-family detached homes with approximately 23 percent of the site in open space, a portion of which is located at the corner of November 21,2016 Page 1 of 9 r SW Spruce Street and SW 72nd Avenue. LOCATION: 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72nd Ave., 10735 SW 72nd Ave;TAX MAP/ LOT #'s: 1S136ACO2200, 1S136ACO2400, 1S136ACO2500; ZONE: Existing: Professional Commercial (C-P);Proposed: Medium Density Residential (R-12);APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.380.030, and 18.390.050; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2, 10; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10; and Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Titles 1, 7, and 12. QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS President Fitzgerald 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: Commissioner Middaugh noted that Mr. Long proposed adding these properties to the Urban Renewal District a year earlier. Site visitations: Commissioners Fitzgerald,Hu, and Middaugh. No one wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission. STAFF REPORT Staff ff reports are available on-line on the City website one week prior to public hearings. Assistant Community Development Director Tom McGuire came up to give some information and refresh the memories of the Planning Commission regarding this case. He noted that the Commission had seen this a year prior involving two properties at that time. He said at the end of that case, the Council decided to split the two apart and approve the zone change for that which is now commercial property on 99W and they told the owner of this property—that if they wish to see this zone change,to come back separately on their own; so that's why this review is here tonight. They've submitted an application on their own for the change that had originally been proposed—which is from Commercial C-P to R-12. Gary Pagenstecher, City of Tigard Associate Planner, referred to a hand-out that had been distributed to the commissioners earlier in the evening. There was a letter from Holly Polivka the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (DRAB) chair (Exhibit A) commenting on the suitability of the site for a park and emphasizing that there's no money to actually follow through with that at this time. Also, a letter from citizen Nancy Tracy including a petition (Exhibit B) was distributed to them. Gary noted to the commissioners that the Planning Commission will need to make two decisions tonight, the first one would be to consider the Concept Plan and Zoning Amendment, and then consider the other- a Planned Development Concept Plan. Gary noted the city supports the comp plan/zone change amendment because the increase in R-12 zoned land supports affordable housing,has flexible housing; and is locationally appropriate—to provide a screen between lower density, residential, and the commercial areas to the north and south effectively; and it's located on local and neighborhood streets. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION November 21,2016 Page 2 of 9 Ken Sandblast,Director of Planning—Westlake Consultants, there on behalf of the applicant, noted that there was a very extensive set of neighborhood meeting minutes subsequent to the City Council hearings that were held on the original application package. It was well established and Gary touched on a petition in some of the continuing efforts of some in that area. He noted they'd talked at length about not just the zoning of the property but also their desire to have it as a park, and they've continued to advocate for that exactly as they discussed when they had the meeting-which is to participate in the system that the city has established through its PRAB and budgeting processes. He noted they'd also spent a good deal of time talking about the Planned Development Concept Plan—why they would do the concept plan,what the process is —that this is only a step in the process; that there are additional public hearings that will occur after the planned development concept plan is approved, assuming it is. There's a detailed plan and a land division and those kinds of things that are subsequently going to be done as part of the public hearing process with all of those details—including pathways and some things that aren't detailed out on this concept. He explained to the commissioners why one would want to present this PD and it's not changed since then. He noted that meeting had lasted close to two hours. He wanted to give that as context to let them know that they did make that commitment, that they went out and had that dialogue—and that's in the record. Morgan Will, project manager,with Stafford Development company, spoke about the value of R-12 and a project that can serve the different needs of the market. He said they build houses that are large on large lots and medium on medium lots and small on small lots. In this particular project is a development targeting the design of smaller lots with smaller houses to meet the target for the market. The locations, close to major streets, close to other commercial tends to be a great location for a higher density type smaller lot development. They feel this site is the right site for this type of housing and they tried to display a concept plan that reflected that. He noted that there had been several pre-application conferences with city staff as noted in the record (three now). The previous concept plans were different. The lot orientation to how many lots are focused towards the public street, "we've changed to increase the number of lots to put more eyes on the street" and went on to explain the differences between the previous plans and the changes that had been made to reflect comments of staff to orient the bulk of the open space to the northwest and that is an area where the Oak tree is that we hope to preserve. He noted the open space and the relationship of the developments—they're trying to keep urban but also have access to nature. He commented that developers are always in coordination with property owners and their desire is to sell their property. He knows there've been a lot of community members that have expressed interest. He was at the neighborhood meetings where they talked about some of the ideas for the use of this property and they've been working closely with the sellers (the Topping family) who would like to get this property sold and developed. "We understand that there are some neighbors who would like to see this property used for a different use—we've said we would be willing to sell our contract rights to develop it, if anybody wanted to buy it. Since nobody's come forward to buy it,we ask the Planning Commission's consideration of this proposal that we're presenting today." Gordon Root, developer representing the applicant, came up and noted in the Housing Preference Analysis and Needs study that was conducted last year, a broad sweeping housing preference study sponsored by Metro, and many cities and other organizations, stated that the number one desire of most people is to own a single family detached home. He said they found November 21,2016 Page 3 of 9 } that with regard to town homes, only 7/10's of 1% of the market prefer a town home and 90% of those prefer a single family detached after 12 months of living there. So they've had to be innovative as developers and come up with a single family detached product which is very livable. Yes,it's narrow but if you take your ranch style home and turn it sideways, that's a very narrow footprint. There's plenty of room inside, it meets the needs,it has light,windows on all four sides. It fills a need for people who can't afford the higher priced homes on the larger lots or simply don't want the maintenance burden. He noted that residential development brings trees to the overall community - and there's no better example of that than the City of Tigard— if you look at the before and after pictures—when it used to be cleared farmland versus now it's a tree canopy. We've incorporated the open space and preserved the trees as well. So I encourage you to approve the application zone change. QUESTIONS What would be the price point for the attached home... you're saying your single family detached homes are in the $350,000 - $375,000 range;what would be the price point of the townhome style? Townhomes in this area would probably run $339,000. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR— None. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION Jim Long, 10730 SW 72nd,Tigard provided written testimony from neighbors who couldn't attend the hearing (Gay Wakeland,Exhibit C; N. Gibbons Exhibit D). Mr. Long noted that he is the chair of CP04M. He said he has testimony as chair of CP04M and also testimony for himself as a citizen and asked if he could have extra time (which he was granted.) As CPO 4M Chair—he handed out written testimony on behalf of the CPO members - for the record (Exhibit E). He noted the residents and CPO member attendees do not support residential use,particularly R-12 and multi-story buildings, stating that R-12 zoning does not fit the character of the neighborhood. They believe R-7 or R-5 makes more sense if the property does not remain commercial zoning. They ask that the commission deny the applicant's request for a Comp Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Planned Development Review, at this time. QUESTIONS Are you aware of any other funding source other than the city that would substantiate the support for a park? No. We've been looking,we've checked—we've done other jurisdictions, foundations, etc. We haven't found anything. It's a creative opportunity I think that could be put to the voters and it would be very popular. But no—we haven't found any other big pockets of money. ODOT's study shows that traffic would go down if it's zoned residential. Why do you prefer this to be commercial rather than residential? If it's professional, it will probably be November 21,2016 Page 4 of 9 less busy on weekends. I tend to disagree with ODOT's study. It depends on what kind of commercial it is. Jim Long, 10730 SW 72nd Ave. 97223 as a private citizen read his testimony (Exhibit F). He addressed citizen involvement and land use planning. Among other things, he said the public notice signs are inadequate in that they're hard to read and they blow down. QUESTIONS OF MR. LONG Are you a resident of Tigard?Yes. What would it cost to purchase this property—where would that money come from? As part of the creative financing I was looking at,part of the Urban Renewal Levy could go out for acquisition of the property,plans for development and developing it. How long do you think it would be before that money would be available to spend for a park? I'm not sure—it depends upon the priorities that are set out. It depends upon voter approval, come May. So if we get voter approval in May, are you thinking that we have that money available in 12 months? 24 months? 5 years? I'm not sure. So we would have to ask the people who own this property to not develop their property for an unknown period of time before the city has the money available to purchase this property—to make it a park. I like the park idea,but it's hard for me to tell a property owner to sit in limbo and not develop their property while we attempt to come up with a funding source to begin to negotiate to purchase the property; that's where I'm at. I don't think anyone disagrees that a park would be awesome —my fear is that it's hard to deny a person the use of their property. Is the preference here that we deny the zone change as more or less in hope that it delays development until that money becomes available for a park? Is that what you're hoping for in denying a zone change? Yes, to some degree that's true. You need to let this play out—get it to the City Council as far as the Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal is concerned, and then let it play out and see how it works. Good things take time. Nancy Tracy 7310 SW Pine St.,Tigard has been in this neighborhood for 54 years. She would like the area to be preserved as a park using urban renewal funds. She read through her testimony (Exhibit G) and said she believes the area is in danger of blight—blight being the result of an area that lacks close access to outdoor recreation space. After her testimony, President Fitzgerald stated for the record that Ms. Tracy also submitted a full copy of the petition that was signed—it was also included in the applicant's packet. Robert Breckenridge—7218 SW Oak St.,Tigard (Unincorporated WaCo)- said the streets are not lit well there. He's very concerned about the streets becoming even more narrow and not well lit. He's concerned about safety; he's had one dog hit on the street already. People speed by his house at 35 to 40 mph in a 25 mph zone, and sometimes they run stop signs. More traffic November 21,2016 Page 5 of 9 coming through will make it an even worse situation. It's becoming a thoroughfare when there's a problem on 99W or Hall—everyone comes through their neighborhoods now. Sometimes they can't get out of their own driveways. He knows you can't stop progress, but safety is a real issue here. Christina Hanson- 10670 SW 75th Ave.,Tigard feels the property should stay zoned as is or go back to the original R4.5. Rezoning would alter the essential character of her neighborhood. She believes it would negatively affect the surrounding neighborhood property values. She doesn't believe the area she lives in is in need of affordable housing since all the houses in the area have sold at the asking price and most of them selling above the asking price. She wants a plan suitable to all who live in the area—whether it be a park, a development, or a small development along with the park. If it goes through—her concern is stormwater and rain runoff into her backyard during the winter. She gets inches of standing water in her yard now. Also, she, doesn't want the building heights to be too high. STAFF'S COMMENTS Gary Pagenstecher reminded the commissioners that the purposes of the PD include considering weighing the amount of development on a site to balance interests of owner, developer, neighbors, and the city; and relating the built environment to the natural environment. He said the six Concept Plan approval criteria are guidelines,with discretion on how the outcomes are achieved and even to what level of achievement is expected. With respect to the comments that were brought up by Jim Long, Gary noted, "The application is available online and in the office, and indeed Jim has been in the office—I've spoken to him on more than one occasion about this, and specifically about the posting of the site and couldn't we work together to make sure that the sign was up at all times. Since Jim lives across the street, I thought he would be someone who'd be aware of that and notify me if the sign were to come down. He didn't notify me about that so I was unaware that the sign was down." Gary stated that there's some discretion the Planning Commission has so far as Criteria 6. He reiterated, the approval criteria are guidelines,with discretion on how outcomes are achieved and even to what level of achievement is expected. He spoke about open space, natural resource protection, neighborhood integration, and promoting walkability and transit. QUESTIONS It seems that a lot of people on the petition are Metzger residents. I'm curious as to what our relationship is between Metzger and Tigard. Could you elaborate on that relationship? Broadly drawn, the Metzger area is within our urban services area. We expect to provide services there in the long run. Similar areas out in the Bull Mountain area exist. So we have an interest that this be a well-designed neighborhood; even though WaCo standards apply currently. Also—Mr. Breckenridge commented to me that he got a notice of this land use hearing and wondered because he's not a resident of Tigard—why he'd be getting that when he didn't get to vote in the Tigard election—but here he's getting a land use notice. Our land use notices are within a 500-foot diameter around the area—regardless of which jurisdiction they are November 21,2016 Page 6 of 9 in. That's another way of saying we care about what happens in the unincorporated area—in our urban services area that we expect someday will be ours to manage. Tom McGuire,Assistant Community Development Director, explained further about urban service areas. He explained in more detail the differences between the two areas —Metzger and Tigard. APPLICANT REBUTTAL Morgan Will said he'd reviewed the letters and noted there was quite a bit of material submitted by some opponents. He noted some of the information was duplicative and he believes a lot has been already addressed by their application. There was concern about heavy traffic and ODOT's findings were that there will be less traffic with a residential development. There was one testimony saying they weren't sure they believed the findings. He said, "We often have traffic engineers do studies for us and findings are based upon their professional opinions and ethical requirements to represent the findings of their data. So, I want to say for the record that sometimes we have applications where they show there is a need for a new stop sign, or striping, etc. so it goes both ways. In this case, there's a finding that there's less traffic. That has ripple effects through a lot of the comments. There was concern about the road widths;we are going to add pavement width to streets as well as pedestrian improvements. Regarding housing needs—there are more people moving into the area—one of the comments was — 'there's not a need for new housing in the neighborhood—all the houses that are listed are sold.' But there are more people moving into the community—we cannot constrain the number of housing in our community and still meet the demands. One of our goals is to meet the demands for an increased population. We concur that there will be more information. This is a concept plan. Our intent was always to submit the concept plan to help give shape to the future discussion. Ken Sandblast had read the submitted letters as well. He touched on the comment saying that "it depends upon what kind of commercial it is." He said that comment caught his attention because they'd offered this concept plan to get at the definition of what this will become with approval of the zone change. They are striving to achieve that kind of certainty by submitting and proposing this concept plan. Regarding the signage, he said, "Mr. Long has been an eagle eye on public notice for this process. I did listen to all the video tapes and he's been on top of public notice both at the city and what's been done to date. As recorded in our meeting notes, we posted a notice—a large sign but it had the wrong year on it—instead of 2016—it said 2015. Because of that error,we re-noticed everything and recreated and reposted that sign so there were actually two notices. I wanted to say thank you to Ms. Hanson who testified about the stormwater and the runoff—that kind of information is good information for us to have as this moves into the detailed plan phase—assuming it's approved by yourselves and council. That knowledge about stormwater and runoff and what's going on at that site is good information. Lastly, I want to thank Gary for pointing out that the PD criteria are guidelines and that there's flexibility on how they're met. That indeed is what we're doing with this concept plan. We have looked at the entire code, and what you see before you is a balance of that criteria and those guidelines, but it is proofed against the code— for not just open space, but we're aware of the kind of set-back issues that Gary noted. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED November 21,2016 Page 7 of 9 DELIBERATION ON COMP PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE President Fitzgerald asked the commissioners to isolate the conversation to two parts — focusing first on the Comp Plan Amendment Zone Change. A C-P (Professional Commercial) is being proposed to be changed to an R-12 (Residential). Comments from Commissioners: • I like the transition to the residential. I feel like it fits the neighborhood better than commercial use. I also feel that later in discussions regarding the detailed plan—maybe we could work out a few things that would make the neighborhood happy about some open space changes and how that can be worked into a development. • I think it makes sense to go to R-12 to maximize that space. • If we can't get a park there, I would rather have R-12 to have less traffic than the commercial. • I don't think the change to R-12 is in the best interest of the neighborhood at the moment, and I am going to vote against it. • The city doesn't have the funds to make it a park. It's always been this odd little property that's commercial that's tucked away from the main thoroughfare. I heard that a daycare center was a possibility there,but it never came about. It just sat as property with these three tiny houses on it and one of them got demolished, so now there are two tiny houses on that big property. • I have concerns about the quantity of driveways facing Spruce limiting the amount of available on-street parking. Some of the properties could be turned so that the driveways could face the new street on the property. • Providing a sidewalk/path connecting 72nd—to the Oak Tree area—then to Spruce would support Tigard's walkability goals. • I like the transition from commercial to residential—it's higher density residential, but it would still transition to that lower density, so I agree with the zone change. MOTION Commissioner Middaugh made the following motion: "Regarding CPA2016-00002 and ZON2016-00001—I move we forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council and adoption of the findings of approval contained in the staff report and based on the testimony we received tonight." The motion was seconded by Commissioner Schmidt. The Vote: All in favor with one opposing (Commissioner Lieuallen cast the opposing vote) DELIBERATION ON PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN Comments from the commissioners: November 21,2016 Page 8 of 9 • I think this isn't the best plan to maximize public space. I think the neighbors would like to see a park, and I think the developer could come up with a plan to make more of this open space publicly accessible; I'm not seeing that reflected in this concept. • I'd like to see the open space more accessible but we have to remember that this is a private owner—there is no obligation that they have to the neighborhood that they have to develop it for public use. Also—it's been mentioned that these are guidelines, my thought would be if we want to approve it,we can approve it for the 18 units versus something less. • I like the concept—the open space is a good compromise. I appreciate the Oak tree being preserved. I like the sidewalks where there currently aren't any. I think this will help pedestrians walk through the area. • The houses are big—I like the concept. • I think the concept plan is a good compromise—there could be some progress made in the detailed plan—I'm in favor of the concept plan. • Excited to see dedicated sidewalks. They won't make a narrower street. I'm concerned about the number of curb cuts on Spruce. I'd like on-street parking. MOTION ON PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN Commissioner Middaugh made the following recommendation: "I move for the Planning Commission to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council of PDR2016- 00012 with 18 lots, and adoption of the findings of approval contained in the staff report, and based on the testimony received tonight." Seconded by Commissioner Muldoon VOTE Recommendation Passes 5—2 with Commissioners Hu and Lieuallen casting dissenting votes RESULT—RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PASSES 5 -2 OTHER BUSINESS—There will be one more meeting on Dec 5. CD is still planning a tour of River Terrace sometime after the first of the year. ADJOURNMENT President Fitzgerald adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. lam. Doreen Laughlin,Planning Comn� on Secretary ST: Preside Fitz er November 21,2016 Page 9 of 9 a EXHIBIT A City of Tigard November 17, 2016 I To the Tigard Planning Commission: i An active group of neighbors in the Spruce Street area has regularly been attending Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (DRAB) meetings since the beginning of this year.They have gathered a substantial number of signatures in support of a petition to the City in purchasing a property at 731d Avenue and Spruce Street for use as a future park. The Tigard Park System Master Plan goal is to develop parks located within a half-mile of every Tigard resident. The DRAB is in agreement that this location would make a nice neighborhood park in an area that does not currently have a park.We have seen what a motivated group of neighbors can do with a neighborhood park and would like to be able to work with this group. However, the City does not currently have funding to help purchase the property. If you have any questions you may contact me at 503.372.0724 or Steve Martin, Parks Manager, at the City of Tigard at 503.718.2583. Thank you for your consideration of this property. Sincerely, Holly Pohvka Chair Tigard Parks and Recreation Advisory Board 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 9 503.639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 0 www.tigard-or.gov EXHIBIT B i o : T 19 ar�l C� P l o�n�ni n y Co'mmi ss*1 o-n 0/0 CjAry P6�9tnStfiekex, 13125 SM l`rA 131Vc{ '1-�a�ctrt( lJlZg72Z3 From Nand T rccc� , "13tb S W 't'i*nz 51-, Metzye,r, OR 97 223 503 - 24107 (olq 0 Tilt Nos, Corn pre 6-nsivt 'pl&n &men droe`r 4 20 l (c - o0o2 Ur,d Zone, Chang-e. 2ol fe — 00001 F+le. 1 t'44e, : Toppi-mg 0P +o R 12 Comprehensive Plein Amena"en+ Zone CkAne5e. riiPo "bev e lt� mm Rev i e w Applican+ S�aFfo-rd Devtloprneni- Co . 4'35S, 5l aje Lake. 0swep , OR q-70314 My hame is NAnC9 -11749 , A 5 -) dear red )Aen♦ of area I long -hm-e, CPD member rethr-cd Tigard Public Sehook +each-erg T,gard lthrar� ,�41 uhf-eer, No�k;)ig is joinj k some. +k'ts Cxsl- T►9ard/Metzger Arae( From 61ig1 + if houses are. 4v F10 " o-nly Ctnf-r&11� located Fund. dole 1-0 QCCammadafe, recreaJ-io)jal nuk of pre5en} Qnd FtAzAre resiebj� 5 . Unpr-esGidenkc( popaWion gro)41�k aF His Cenfurg pu#s A ti).eti✓ f4ce, ori pltLnnintq for res*taenfs w'd-h i iWe or 110 oul-5idt Space I-o (.611 41-tc:)r 6urf7, Dur plo.nned natiure. park , +fs Chilulrtn's play or-ea, modeluck r�F�er- Por-41and 's Wpsl morelcmd arks nafura-1 flag ar�� , �s �a 'ckea� h ma ny g}u ,les �, vm ��e Maio Cl+n,c and PaXk 13ro(essl ariu�s nra� +�'w lr�c tr�P52 ✓ proven 3 .rr e �Fe c �,'veness ►n rel ievm y pk y u,l , m9-m�a �r►d �l,,otional �ens,o»s our e.[Adren hy't w�,ph s�trroundtn� l°99 m5 otnt walk,n� track r c�ues��t b resid es end a pl&ce +0 �laq bCNII p}-ov +jk rxldEr ch �Ide+� ung antul �s � st ru ��ea�ili bene �l s . pre 5ery cl {vr �- arks chem a� open 5pucc, .t5 �k C,-9 o 1�l`c j-r�surunce, ctc�a�n5i- �-�e tallyhf �E pve<rerOnit.���nt� ��r�-,ick noW {-)�r.eafen #�o 461rad.e. prope.r� VCOLA-,,s 4- all who live, hut. lncrecweA ho�sf , -IyaFfIc., air po 1l u h'" and 6 s,n� Crime ra+e.s `vr'l I "ke {-kx l r 4v11 _ 1 b e co-se For II'vRu10114t� 16 s+- jn +41-e gr't J of a tnarl<J bpkm + ►tJ leave3 PRopl'e out. -We Ask C►�y fob prestrve 4-6s IiLnd for a neighbo►hooc ,wotkAo ark As job oppor-hAril� ?is increase. In .#he Tiprd Trl(aliyl.e so well d-cm u,J, for OffurdpblQ hoos)r►3 ';n 45 ctreq " U k&� i-�e CIhj oL `Tl9&I-d - (ancd `tYEA MQtqtr—.da no) v)etd is Un 4.tnplaymkJ mess o� a lineiyhborlf�+ood ��tad's los, 45 GvzaI , 1;1' r & dl5cre{�A to ONC 1J151oYj for vl k T1ga.rG1 �r IQYif�It fust RcroaS I�acih' Owy. Tlr►r nk Gj�, f �4w c.t3n bl 4tra.ho)i �iheer.¢�{ , City of Tigard I 1 20 10 F(i Cf)tic�111, I 'ilk, P.Irk aI-id 1 ccr(-;t1J,()j1 Wisory Bwtrd h.ls 11';Ird abm,u rhi,: p,,,s'!-)'j1it\- ()fa FlittIl'(, il -\k-C-11L W mid Spruce strcct. Th c properi.', at t.11.11 loc.-111'()I I \\(W I c! makcA- I'll ce nc11,1hb()r11()()c1 park in ,m 1irea rhat 1()cq not currently hatvc it park. The R.117j, Bwrd supports the idea of a park at that. lccildori; 1.111 clt\, docs Ilot. CUIT,21-Ith- have fjjIj(]1Ij,1 tr) ]I,-jp pLjrCjjjS(1 tjj(, pr(_)Pcrnr. Ii MI C 11111' tjLIQ-1J'i)nS VOLI may contact mc at. 50.3.3-710`24 or Stc\-e Marr111, Parks M!"Ll",A', M tl)c CiI r\- (dTi gard ;ir 503. 18.2583 Thank (M "Or VOUr colisidera6(jr1 of this propert,\. Warm i-c"Yards, Hol' Polix-ka Chair T,, Park ,md Pccrc:itim Achisor,\- Board 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 9 Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 0 www.tigard-or.gov y. II will T16ARD confintw fe bg & Via" toTIGm ARD `vl�nqr 5 Y' �G1't1 • � I fv ��h• (� I VIS '7303 W, Sp rttc.� t, ae��a b¢hin� f � I ck Fre AA e,r5' pe t t Cly 4-U b I-ij o� Ti a,,,d ; SM Ori- utz_ of wt6 fan-OL qou war- �� f C Ll I�1 C, GY Ir 4s 4' Cry}-rime `� Sj 4 5 VJ' 6 a+CS 7 AA-IT t: ? i Ned 5o r b f A '7& Sh) 91 jv I "'&,, � I o5 e>a A, Pic-''- t w at 4<�l 17 :- LOC'&J' jn-) : `7303 5,W, S, rtAce {,54 a-.cre5 lo-e-k;nd Az fill'&rci Free Ahege.rs Pe- 4-0 .7 i i c rte' e o GtAppo - robe- &F -I-ki.s u � f f t��u.r►+cc � pk. , (S+qneilr e of- Peh ►'z)jier; 1�d ncv� �rAc much , &K.'GINS -I Ayce�w. �aj, 7Z 3 y Jit1 .J A- 14 Cott-- 2..2j �. Co�eA cift eta 71W sed L,)C14 5 f 3-8�6,'C IA. &'//_eY z �( Jf 770-7 .510 44vc-ujV. � 563-23?S k C� � �CcrC.Vj a{-(ciJ( 0A, ?72-2-3 6)Z q�LZ3 1 o -.2- LjjeA� CIO' �l l P� T cry -7a,-Z_3 H-17so , 0 P\ 17)-i�3 \\4cur T.. 5-.- 1JJ _ Lo e&li o n �' `7303 �,VV, Sprue (,!5-4 axrez bA;nd 41, T,9'arcl FrZ4 Mujer-s pr- 10 j-4 of- T'qGc 9 d 40 .bQ, (A c zy o �Iij 00-71,11- &1-4tlhI --- ox tills 5W)P(,Kc S-1- All ex 6 00 V, An L34 19-74-33 Ov I AmJotl � ��, no svi Pi^ , C" I -Tipaij . .j 00(s --5k/ pig vi -71 )5 SlJ ftelirkm4 Yei1-- e 7L4-/g 491-.fblof Ve t7&- 0 Z5 bJ f �s j � (ye '"Vky nw! bL_ a I a Se'f'.G1h.7 kr �iJc WrM77���I i I 4 "�`^ �''�� < • .. ,Ick-�`(v`,�. r4 ���-�,� ( , .�,y i %IarO f U t( " �j�! :�3LtO f Wld 4 "a-,"e?fO u �aq a _Qj �►���� no�j # ,fin j'. ..s �} �o z�s rr i-toddvi jjj-a b,i F-f q oN C t} 0.36 s�r"af 3lj�t � � I� ► � �s�at c��� (z ` � � n� `J!i°� �� �- Lt©`(-f)dOj 7303 5,W, Spruce (,574 a-cr,,-5 k)zk;nd 41- Ti Ord PE T 1 F1 ©N 4-o Ti'q curd uge90a lvanl IV 40 be, A i ry 0,T m m on 4-s 'VeJ, GY QNS - CO) %7 lo tot Tj Z�l'L." X,7 zoo Jk X111 ) i 17 A, iby E- L T K, L it i 1 --7 ()3 6jW, Sp (, 4 a-c.,re,6 lazk;nd , ja -cl Freol AAqQ-rs Pel-) T-lotq 4-0 T;quurcj e If gou rVard oLA22 or� u bz- 4 44,�t 6 f,6,r. cL Wa-W- Ito im pe-Wuner, to bo, 2'n ; G IA C Gy A4dve4-S CQA ralA 72 �1� `at.� ��t r�;;t= � � ( �c�,. � ��L �C�r<'��.� j � Yl �i� r' '7e�i'G? S u ri v 2- ,1-7 k--UVw Lv M1 K�E- 70;-" 2,'-V a rh'4,; 11 n'l j Rz-� O'l Chl Lil.I j$)L:Lt Ac l'jj 11-10" L0C,'J)3 o-n ' -73()3 64, Sprucz ( ,54 a-c-re-6 k)-g.kind 4-� k -Fi 9e,,-d Frz4 Meqe-r,5 PE-T'l T-I ON 4-o Ti'q ores u!,z- of 44- s farv4 park Pe-64io-ner, 4o bo- -SM -)" G Y IVCP,rip- 4nCl Cou 'TyAtu w mi Wm-Q- CL, n Avis IVA I- LA ti 7y tA t 79'Z 971 - 300 Loe6J-),rm 61w, spruce ( ,�4 a-c7rR-5 k)t-k;nd +-6 Tfij'&-rd 'Fre4 Akqer-"� p c-,rn t o 4-o dgou lvaw smp2o � u t'e- OF Wi 6 --farid, fo- 4o be, ga-lk- .io rt.GZ&tvJ4a1vcrk (Siv)ahirc of PLI-N�;D))ery dt�j - j AWAE e,-o- v,14-s CQJ 716 — 16 I I �iJ 7 q�Ave, C'n/YJ .cl;—Wk /Z ���� Q�t � Ill�p L sw Ave c J.W- Srrk(ee $'r p1tiRbodc 7700000ea!;I 663 OxAJ T75 t>A 4 a-c re,6 lax.k;n d +-ke —fi 4&r cl Fred M gess 4-,o Cl 4-� i;g mrd _L smppor.� use... of WL6 [CmA if thou ward am CMW.XZSM= 4o bQ- "ach MAA�F- C) t ot j() 76010 ---V53 194 el Y, � ,-IV-7 0--Y T -7 6 16100 5LA-/ .4 L4-7 PtIT 09 WO al —,I 'i 01 6 CL 9 42 [CqCr) 6W7& PiY-1 ) 603 e U�,IQ A i �j m-E:r2 0172-33 f -7 9- 10-FOVII, 7); ff tL q'7z7!T 77.56 S&J P,,;qe -�-.7,-) i 5-2—,7 an 0(/ Ok –23 '_3 -5;' Sp"Cc �-jc,-k. Olt fel2 W oc-e- o6 -37t_k, 'Pe'ri rrai1c; 7 , 1j 7 7, 1,54 a-crei IoA;nd -l-k, �19,oxcl Free AAeger5 PEl o� Ta ccre� f thou rvc��i 9 Sil, +sr 1 ea ge o� {!ti'i s �;un_el � cL w&l'k- 4-o (SI�rm+ure, of- Pe4A' ner, rU . J 2"nfo be, m rn e -4s i` m CdI I V�� , O � d I _ to ita qnq SL�6 i-avk A. &qc 1 Cj+ -7W-1 Sw 1_.00.LLSV moi-. ri Ra' a�3 _ 71,4 3 r �ktXYl 1 e, Z [shae (�A `0es-r y 'tlo0� � � . i-0-c-'AM:e. ,A&w� sre� —to cu.c ia�ctr y now 05 � b c.�l�c �'�nrty� Ac�d.�r v��ece E'- ^►�C�o��ZV�-6`ll :rl Gn ` �l r�:l... I _fw t s rr TI Yor ,y .y, 4i b.7. ��s I� ,'+ a -^ � } S •��'r p � e � � � ,. t+ ,ri 1201 4L , /f -.\ ^,y ��• '•„rte acrj:,t- -.� _ 1��,•�•�k i Y. 0.2}Ip10r7i/t2�016 1.1 '3►1,. �"�. aE�1,,. �i L r� wlf.t• �t.�l`ril` EXHIBIT C November 20, 2016 FILE NO: Comprehensive Plan Amendment(CPA) 2016-00002 Zone Chane (ZON)2016-00001 Planned Development Review(PDR)2016-00012 FILE TITLE: Topping C-P to R-12 Comprehensive Plah Amendment/Zone Change with Planned Development Review. APPLICANT: Stafford Development Company, LLC 485 S.State Street Lake Oswego,OR 97034 LOCATION: 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72nd Ave, 10735 SW 72nd Ave. To Whom It May Concern: As a resident of the neighborhood and a property owner whose land borders the proposed construction site, I would like to state that I oppose heavy housing development on the property referenced above. It would create an undue burden on homeowners and residents surrounding the land because of increased traffic and a safety hazard because of the lack of sidewalks and proper street lighting. It would also increase noise pollution. I would like to state that I support the land be developed as a park in the Tigard Triangle district due to the lack of park space in this area. A park would greatly increase the livability of the area. 4yhanu eland 7210 SW Pine St. Tigard,OR 97223 EXHIBIT D Ac jo-7 <S (�O 7,� Vv� - Y ` Ac- ne, c", - C? Cottbcr - cvu�De 'PGL�7t CO ,c C, C� � � _ -zt C� s 0-vq V�Coj e ov-�t� Pc�k ryv�c5 �-�e�-. Sans -- fr-t- mo re- Com' S as�ot' November21,2015 EXHIBIT E To: Tigard City Planning Commisssion c/o Gary Pagenstecher, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, Oregon 97223 FROM: Jim Long, Chairperson, Citizen Participation Organization-4M 10730 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223. 503-647-0021 FILE NOS, Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2016-0002 and Zone Change (ZON) 2016-00001 and (PDR) 2016-0012 FILE TITLE: TOPPING C-P to R-12 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ ZONE CHANGE with PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICANT: Stafford Development Company 485 S. State Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 My name is Jim Long. I am the volunteer Chairperson of CPO-4M, the Citizens Participation Organization serving East Tigard—Metzger— and Durham. I am here speaking for both the CPO-4M, and it members in the Tigard-Metzger neighborhood. These are preliminary comments. The CPO-4M will be meeting on December 16th and you are invited. Goal # 1 of Oregon land use laws (1971) requires that citizens be involved in every phase of the planning process. This has not happened so far in this Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change with Planned Development Review case. And, unfortunately, the Stafford Development Company [concept] application has not been fully reviewed (since, in part, because the City Planning department's office is closed on Fridays) and it lacks details. CPO-4M's boundaries include both incorporated and unincorporated areas. In contrast to access via the city, the Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation sends the CPO chairs copies of development applications for review (at/before the Comment period starts). Why doesn't the City of Tigard follow the same procedures as the county and supply/post the developer's application online for residents and interested parties to see? Or, at least, why doesn't the city provide the appropriate Community Planning Organizations with a copy of the development applications? 1 November 21,2016 First, as chair of the CPO-4M, in December 2015 in response the city as applicant for a zone swap for this property, the local east CPO-4M discussed the city planning department's request and voted unanimously to endorse retaining the Commercial-Professional/Commercial General zoning. So, your local CPO-4M asks that you deny this Comprehensive Plan [MAP}Amendment, Zone Change, and Planned Development Review. We the citizens (both nearby residents and CPO member attendees) do not support residential use, particularly R-12 and multi-story buildings (19 Ayes, 0 Nays at the CPO-4M meeting October 26, 2016). R-12 zoning does not fit the character of the neighborhood. R-7 or R-5 makes more sense, if the property does not remain commercial zoning. At this weeks CPO-4M meeting (November 16 it was 9 Ayes to 0 Nays) unanimously in support of a motion to ask the City of Tigard to include the three properties at the NW corner of 72°d and SW Spruce in the Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal boundaries for a park. So, in conclusion, the CPO-4M membership asks that you deny the applicant's request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Planned Development Review, at this time. Thank you. 2 November21,2016 EXHIBIT F To: Tigard City Planning Commisssion FROM: Jim Long, Public Citizen 10730 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223. 503-647-0021 FILE NOS, Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2016-0002 and Zone Change (ZON) 2016-00001 and (PDR) 2016-0012 FILE TITLE: TOPPING C-P to R-12 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ ZONE CHANGE with PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICANT: Stafford Development Company 485 S. State Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Goal 1 Citizen Involvement Goal 1.1 (page 3) is to provide citizens the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. Public Notice Sign Unreadable One city PUBLIC Notice sign was visible on Monday October 31 st, and when you look at it, the print on the public notice sign is too small (about 28" x 19") for people to read. People in cars have to stop, get out of their vehicle, and then have to squat down in front of it to read it. Passersby also squat down to read the PUBLIC NOTICE sign. Before Thanksgiving of last year (2015), when the City of Tigard's pro osed Zone dp Swap commenced, the city installed twos Public Notice signs at 72' & Spruce one sign on SW Spruce and another sign on SW 72nd Avenue. Both signs blew down due to Oregon rains and winds. Why was only one sign put up this year (2016)? When I looked for the city's most recent and only PUBLIC NOTICE sign on last Saturday morning November 12, 2016, the flimsy sign had fallen off one of its posts and curled up so it is currently unreadable, again due to Oregon rains and winds (see pic below). In the past week, I pointed out the city's unreadable sign to city Public Works staff who were out washing the stop signs and street signs. They didn't seem to care. 3 November21,2016 This has been a recurring problem for years, e.g. Public Notice signs by the city and developers regarding various application neighborhood meetings and public hearings over the years are flimsy and can't stand the weather, and become unreadable. As it was earlier this year in the failed Zone Swap application, this signage is a violation of city land use codes related to Citizen Involvement. Interested people who pass by this site cannot receive information they need to know what is planned. This sign has been unreadable for nine (9) days. Public notice signs are critical, especially for residents who rent. This is a violation of due process (197.763.8) and does not allow full and fair opportunity for citizens to see the city public notice and provide input. So, this public hearing has no real effect. There has been no readable, effective Public Notice signage at(72nd and Spruce) for the past nine days. Even after one Planning Commissioner last year and a city councilor this year suggested last year that sturdier, weatherproof signs be used. Nothing changed. My neighbors to the east, west northwest, and north did not receive notice of this public hearing in the mail. Neighborhood meeting notes: At neighborhood meeting last March we found it to be highly irregular that city staff was present. I've been to dozens of Neighborhood meetings and that was the first time I ever seen staff from the planning jurisdiction present. Ken Sandblast apologized for the wrong dates on the public notice signs on- site {We don't know how many people didn't show up because of their errors] "Park zone" occurs only when land owned by the city R-12 is not a good buffer/transition Gordon Root, the developer, said they ("We) have options if the zone plans don't go through." 4 November21,2016 City Comprehensive Plan Goal 2 Land Use Planning According to the Cogan, Owens, Cogan Report "City needs a minimum of 51 acres of vacant commercial to satisfy its commercial long-range planning needs for 2011-2031. (So, don't take the 72"d Ave. out of commercial zoning.) It is important to note that earlier this year there was no loss in residential property because school property(Site"B") was not included in your inventory of properties zoned residential. The language in the 2006 City of Tigard annexation ordinance had reasons justifying the importance of"Site A" to be "Commercial-General". Contrary to the 2015 staff report this property on the west sloping foothills of the Tualatin Mountains is not level, but has a 6% slope with drainage issues. This proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is not a `periodic review', but a periodic review has occurred in recent years and the commercial zoning remained the same. The City staff report incorrectly states in the description of Site A: "the current zone does not allow residential use". There were three houses and currently two residential houses on "Site A" have been lived in as residences for decades. . So actually the out-of-date map in the staff report shows a house that isn't there. The city says it doing this Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment to facilitate preservation of R- 12 zoned land and ensure it is applied in a location that supports residential use. [We the citizens do not support residential use! Particularly R-12 and three story buildings.] Since there is a deficit of commercial properties, why take "Site A" out of commercial zoning? The City should not be taking "Site A" out of commercial. Why not rezone the excess R-7 property? As per the Angelo Housing study, rezone R-7, there's twice as much as the city needs. The City's had reasons for keeping it Commercial-Professional zoned during the annexation in 2006 and subsequent periodic reviews. The city has not projected the population need for R-12. 5 November21,2016 i if Mali . i w�Y t x The applicant's Planned concept review still refers to the subject property at 72nd and Spruce as Site "A". Thank you for considering these comments. 10 November 21, 2016 Page 1 of 4 In 2016 to date. members of 206 households within a half-mile of SW 72nd andSDruce signed a petition circulated-pr_primarily( by-reti-red elementary school teacher.Nancv Tracy/ in support of a park there and their added the folio comments: Would love to see a park, would use A place to take our great grandchildren Great! Park would be great! Please, a park! Park for me Park! We have two kids! We need a park Needed a Park! We'd love to have a park like Westmoreland Park. A natural play area A park would be nice. A park would be perfect for this neighborhood. [2] The park seems to be ideal location. More parks. Very much needed. Great idea. We need more parks! Great opportunity Yes, Please! — NO MORE HOMES Yes, another park is needed Yes needed. Hundreds of homeowners would welcome a nature park to offset growing density Absolutely! November 21, 2016 Page 2 of 4 We need open space! Good way to build community Good idea! Great Good use of otherwise unsuitable land. Wonderful idea Can't have too many parks We need a "walk-to" park. Called in to support a park. Go for the park Great to have a park No comments Yes, park would be great. I love parks! Park is a good idea. Children need a place to play. Supporting a park. We need a park!!! Park please We need a park! (Smiley face) Suggests a path around perimeter for walking. A park for my 5 boys to play in would be wonderful! Great use of the land! In need of a park in this area A park is super great! November 21, 2016 Page 3 of 4 More activity for our neighborhood would be far better than adding more people to over-populate area. Park would be a great thing for the area. We need more park space. We need more natural spaces. Great Kids First! Kids First Great idea Thumbs up Nature! CHILDREN! HEALTH! Great walking destination We need more parks! Great opportunity Yes, Please! No more houses Yes, another park is needed Yes needed. We don't have sidewalks, but we do need a safe place to walk. A perimeter park for walking Love to have a nature park. We need more natural spaces The City of Tigard doesn't have any park space near here. We need a park with wheelchair paths The City hasn't done much for this area since many blocks were annexed into the city. November 21, 2016 Page 4 of 4 More (recreational) activity far better than adding houses. Go for a park! Nature! Children! Health! Great walking destination Thumbs Up Good way to build community A place to take our grandchildren A great thing for this area Our kids and families need this Kids and families need park close by I've got two little ones that would love this park. I would use it often (a neighborhood park) Traffic is very bad already. This neighborhood in serious need of a park. Noy, 2I , '�� �(o EXHIBIT G Re : CPA zor(D - 00oflZ Zone- i t'1_ctv,$.e 2-016 — 60001 Ptv` lanrl"I Dev. Rc1� .: W (- 2-016, - 0001 t2 C���l�7t�Y1 : ���vb 3 S � J 1"�iCC fO70rJ r''1VJ M� 10735 6W i79,'4 Pre5.c►Y,-,<a CcCtct;flS 1i�1�� s hiet, lkapeeen5 w6,rj rk-st'd n#s }ack c}oma &ccfss b r� � oor s�c:�a�tovt .space . -Propprlj vCJU45 50 down , se,rlou5 crrmZ 11it�i1rt12�G{ are- our Cthi1e�r�h 1a youn3 (-k'iIdrzn ,c�eYi►x.0 �`tc ift cj uy-OFU-, , d ir�-�jolot- iX�rCi&c- �I k- h-e.cA , br%t}� hvd,P, 111 vht Ohlj SCS SISeLce }Q� F , 3�1 1-1 to dostcf, }ocke.4 deaorg of hume or F��^ %reLnsporla 'onl Za�ss� Yv'�1tiv �s �,t��c rs fUt t►rrmrnul ttcr5414-e.r bod2�tctr-azcl s�r2tfs.. F rn*d i1?s i h 4 n.e w d � }oprr sem,-} ori Sprott, , be 4V-c cV) 6W 7�`ane1 pear Tsr 4-4r ckild-rens, saf�pt� vv�vh bocw-kj� 46 sc; 0.01 bsfsa h4wsv, L)C� VIU, 5+v-k Lc b-e4-PV4-.n '7� -11,j 65 'a.e c ayyt k e -k-ra�Gi L 40 (A Mi Fr" 7 Lt i i 4+W iI, M C 1N��5�rz j �)-Ouq� Yne fJ 1W�a �r�Ivt rr.� 1�rS tdSSin� o� tixJls fir, c� ldszms, �ne cnu6 Wt�s heynyn&cL in � ehrj par kaek ov-tr to �,t �t ik o i e off-►ar G1u� ; piayi�el :?% k �,mf:11 �"J _ j5oI'h a1- �kev, 6,-A t-5 cj-u o1 `j e. rrw.zels s cov(d +h row -1 z beL11 I wxt 4 our 4-i nye. PAr+htr spe'e-e alto e( cthd fear- T,-uslv-u-1-ron skawA. At ano-1' )pi ,r l3orme a mother A,,,kca rF 4-m park, woL1a of-Per 5Pcare- Por- Ax-r- 2 tArhe }c.�tc�lr—bau.rLd 2 -qe,� o(r*' . i6�ti� R.nbw'c.►, Akw fh15 park would 5erv.e -nRe _s �,j 117 iiei kbarhaod j2CkDe3 Jh 64,j of Tt�ArA ofk.r-6 ., fl e 3 2 c6 i t -3 "it W, 11 5o 4-t La ex 4--r1L m"i 1t: 1 �O 4-hrl C k4- f/t c.2 e i( J J I's 9- m,rae.l,e 4-W'S parr►-e, Lknd VflopDad /oLndsc-a-pL Roe1s�s �oda� for i-- Od dnla -, prk s ZY'v.-cl a5 a P63-k, us,n y Urban r-,-ncwat, :Puri ds , will znkdnu- proper} vAlt-tes far at( tXts-hnj tend Pu-ure d-p,vz9cprr,m+. Samc ih;h� is wrang W611 C)41 COaZ n"As pu314 +0 j tk6-h Fy "SRI Of 41;S (-Gr1P-gC Fbr Avg I � ��oiastz �ve,oPmt�in�-, bLA4 +0 rf C05y) 17,e OV-1—r- ;00 hone OWiAerS wljo have, fie#-�{-forted heed for cL 1jrk CJ 41'is s�3e s m (114 arec YA-crg .jncytAsed popala-4-vor, dens i 1J t1O-US¢>5� cori60s AP rtrne.n-I5 — IS d1v2Vt . i=r�� re lj`vab�l►+y op �liis ne_j9k borhooc otapenk Cyan Hni5 park . ►I.At-�5 �Y�r�-� tai �6�-at- 1'l�dYlf�iq , �espec�-kbt� 5�sbm���� 13)b S-W *P/he- 64-- -t mit aA-el , OR, q72,2 3 5'03- �46 —b iq� PLIE-3ASE SIGN IN HERE Tigard Planning Commission ' 'M -i Agenda Item # QI Page -L Of Date ofHean'ng 1 -Zk't �o Case Number(s) C CPP-Z(D QL I *-R)Q?c)((,-01� UC-2-0l 01.2 & I- Case NamLV/ r-�-' CD e I E�� V-(. , _e U Location 9303 5u� 0,kLs- W I '1 \ 2 \k 2� If you would like to speak on this item, please ICLEA P your name, address, and zip code below.- Proponent (FDIC the proposal): Opponent(AGAINST the proposal): Name: L C C' �— Name: -Fr7V7 C\13 v Address#o�' Address: City, State, Zip: L'rh4—& City, State, Zip: kjp- +��- OR 0)12,Z3 Name: Name: Address: Address: 0:N--Y3v 5 � City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: T)2-23 Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: i Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: Citi�, State, Zip: PLEASE SIGN IN HERE Tigard Planning Commission Agenda Item # Page --A- of Date of Hearifigy CaseNumber(s) CM-ZQW -Q?, 'I i �D(,2 2-0V� -(Al2 CaseName�o o-ex C— LV/.p 0 Q-'e fw klej, le-C�V� Location `1X03 Su-� 'SbO-k(- .... lo ? A If you would like to speak on this item, please ICLE ARLY PRINTI your name, address, and zip code below: Proponent (EOR the proposal): Opponent (AGAINST the proposal): Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, zip: i Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City,State, Zip: November 20, 2016 FILE NO: Comprehensive Plan Amendment(CPA) 2016-00002 Zone Chane (ZON)2016-00001 Planned Development Review (PDR) 2016-00012 FILE TITLE: Topping C-P to R-12 Comprehensive Plah Amendment/Zone Change with Planned Development Review. APPLICANT: Stafford Development Company, LLC 485 S.State Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 LOCATION: 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72"d Ave, 10735 SW 72nd Ave. To Whom It May Concern: As a resident of the neighborhood and a property owner whose land borders the proposed construction site, I would like to state that I oppose heavy housing development on the property referenced above. It would create an undue burden on homeowners and residents surrounding the land because of increased traffic and a safety hazard because of the lack of sidewalks and proper street lighting. It would also increase noise pollution. I would like to state that I support the land be developed as a park in the Tigard Triangle district due to the lack of park space in this area. A park would greatly increase the livability of the area. .3n you Wakeland 7210 SW Pine St. Tigard,OR 97223 ----------------L...�� -Z,, 90 . j -41 �)A�9 P�V_ JF 00 Yk- ne e n G �-ozlv S c2l November 21,2016 TO Tigard City Planning CommiSssion c/o Gary Pagenstecher,_13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, Oregon 97223 FROM:_M_ _ Jim Long, Chairperson, Citizen Participation Organization-4M 10730 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223. 503-647-0021 FILE NOS, Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2016-0002 and Zone Change (Z0N) 2016-00001 and (PDR) 2016-0012 FILE TITLE: TOPPING C-P to R-12 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ ZONE CHANGE with PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICANT: Stafford Development Company 485 S. State Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 My name is Jim Long. I am the volunteer Chairperson of CPO-4M, the Citizens Participation Organization serving East Tigard—Metzger— and Durham. I am here speaking for both the CPO-4M, and it members in the Tigard-Metzger neighborhood. These are preliminary comments. The CPO-4M will be meeting on December 16th and you are invited. Goal # 1 of Oregon land use laws (197 1) requires that citizens be involved in every phase of the planning process. This has not happened so far in this Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change with Planned Development Review case. And, unfortunately, the Stafford Development Company [concept] application has not been fully reviewed (since, in part, because the City Planning department's office is closed on Fridays) and it lacks details. CPO-4M's boundaries include both incorporated and unincorporated areas. In contrast to access via the city, the Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation sends the CPO chairs copies of development applications for review (at/before the Comment period starts). Why doesn't the City of Tigard follow the same procedures as the county and supply/post the developer's application online for residents and interested parties to see? Or, at least, why doesn't the city provide the appropriate Community Planning Organizations with a copy of the development applications? 1 November 21,2016 First, as chair of the CPO-4M, in December 2015 in response the city as applicant for a zone swap for this property, the local east CPO-4M discussed the city planning department's request and voted unanimously to endorse retaining the Commercial-Professional/Commercial General zoning. So, your local CPO-4M asks that you deny this Comprehensive Plan [MAP)Amendment, Zone Change, and Planned Development Review. We the citizens (both nearby residents and CPO member attendees) do not support residential use, particularly R-12 and multi-story buildings (19 Ayes, 0 Nays at the CPO-4M meeting October 26, 2016). R-12 zoning does not fit the character of the neighborhood. R-7 or R-5 makes more sense, if the property does not remain commercial zoning. At this weeks CPO-4M meeting (November 16 it was 9 Ayes to 0 Nays) unanimously in support of a motion to ask the City of Tigard to include the three properties at the NW corner of 72nd and SW Spruce in the Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal boundaries for a park. So, in conclusion, the CPO-4M membership asks that you deny the applicant's request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Planned Development Review, at this time. Thank you. 2 November 21,2016 TO Tigard City Planning Commisssion FR_O__M__:_ Jim Long, Public Citizen 10730 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223. 503-647-0021 FILE NOS, Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2016-0002 and Zone Change (ZON) 2016-00001 and (PDR) 2016-0012 FILE TITLE: TOPPING C-P to R-12 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ ZONE CHANGE with PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICANT: Stafford Development Company 485 S. State Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Goal 1 Citizen Involvement Goal 1.1 (page 3) is to provide citizens the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. Public Notice Sign Unreadable One city PUBLIC Notice sign was visible on Monday October 31st, and when you look at it, the print on the public notice sign is too small (about 28" x 19") for people to read. People in cars have to stop, get out of their vehicle, and then have to squat down in front of it to read it. Passersby also squat down to read the PUBLIC NOTICE sign. Before Thanksgiving of last year (2015), when the City of Tigard's pro osed Zone Swap commenced, the city installed two 2 Public Notice signs at 72n & Spruce one sign on SW Spruce and another sign on SW 72nd Avenue. Both signs blew down due to Oregon rains and winds. Why was only one sign put up this year (2016)? When I looked for the city's most recent and only PUBLIC NOTICE sign on last Saturday morning November 12, 2016, the flimsy sign had fallen off one of its posts and curled up so it is currently unreadable, again due to Oregon rains and winds (see pic below). In the past week, I pointed out the city's unreadable sign to city Public Works staff who were out washing the stop signs and street signs. They didn't seem to care. 3 November21,2016 This has been a recurring problem for years, e.g. Public Notice signs by the city and developers regarding various application neighborhood meetings and public hearings over the years are flimsy and can't stand the weather, and become unreadable. As it was earlier this year in the failed Zone Swap application, this signage is a violation of city land use codes related to Citizen Involvement. Interested people who pass by this site cannot receive information they need to know what is planned. This sign has been unreadable for nine (9) days. Public notice signs are critical, especially for residents who rent. This is a violation of due process (197.763.8) and does not allow full and fair opportunity for citizens to see the city public notice and provide input. So, this public hearing has no real effect. There has been no readable, effective Public Notice signage at (72nd and Spruce) for the past nine days. Even after one Planning Commissioner last year and a city councilor this year suggested last year that sturdier, weatherproof signs be used. Nothing changed. My neighbors to the east, west northwest, and north did not receive notice of this public hearing in the mail. Neighborhood meeting notes: At neighborhood meeting last March we found it to be highly irregular that city staff was present. I've been to dozens of Neighborhood meetings and that was the first time I ever seen staff from the planning jurisdiction present. Ken Sandblast apologized for the wrong dates on the public notice signs on- site {We don't know how many people didn't show up because of their errors] "Park zone" occurs only when land owned by the city R-12 is not a good buffer/transition Gordon Root, the developer, said they ("We) have options if the zone plans don't go through." 4 November21,2016 City Comprehensive Plan Goal 2 Land Use Planning According to the Cogan, Owens, Cogan Report "City needs a minimum of 51 acres of vacant commercial to satisfy its commercial long-range planning needs for 2011-2031. (So, don't take the 72nd Ave. out of commercial zoning.) It is important to note that earlier this year there was no loss in residential property because school property (Site"B") was not included in your inventory of properties zoned residential. The language in the 2006 City of Tigard annexation ordinance had reasons justifying the importance of"Site A" to be "Commercial-General". Contrary to the 2015 staff report this property on the west sloping foothills of the Tualatin Mountains is not level, but has a 6% slope with drainage issues. This proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is not a `periodic review', but a periodic review has occurred in recent years and the commercial zoning remained the same. The City staff report incorrectly states in the description of Site A: "the current zone does not allow residential use". There were three houses and currently two residential houses on "Site A" have been lived in as residences for decades. . So actually the out-of-date map in the staff report shows a house that isn't there. The city says it doing this Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment to facilitate preservation of R- 12 zoned land and ensure it is applied in a location that supports residential use. [We the citizens do not support residential use! Particularly R-12 and three story buildings.] Since there is a deficit of commercial properties, why take "Site A" out of commercial zoning? The City should not be taking "Site A" out of commercial. Why not rezone the excess R-7 property? As per the Angelo Housing study, rezone R-7, there's twice as much as the city needs. The City's had reasons for keeping it Commercial-Professional zoned during the annexation in 2006 and subsequent periodic reviews. The city has not projected the population need for R-12. 5 November21,2016 b � t 4_- The applicant's Planned concept review still refers to the subject property at 72nd and Spruce as Site "A". Thank you for considering these comments. 10 .M To : T1'9arC141 Plann*►n5 Co.Mroiss'iorn C/o G r� P"enste el efr, 131 9�5 S.W. Hall 1blvd., Ti'prd 6P, 9-1223 f'rarn Navicl T true , '1310 Sly/ Pine. S1-, Metzger, OR q'7 223 503 - 216- (01q 0 Fd-c loos, Corn pre 6,nsty- `I'lun Amen dme 4 201 (o - 0002 Ati4 Zone, Chang-e 2o16 — 00ool File, T14-1-e, : TappIT11 CP +O R-12 Corn prekensive Plan Arnena-ment/Zon,e Change. w+430 'bevel"cn� Review Appl ican+ s+aFfo-r l Dei tf aFpmenl- Co , 44455, 5-�a+e S+r'ee4-- Lakt Oswtp l OR. 4-7034 MI shame i5 N4nCj 1rCL9 , a 5'-I �9mr r-O) aeYJ of arco_ j Idny -h n-c CPO member ? relir�tal Tigard PIA b1ie Schools �eacker� Tigard No� k;hg is goirl +-o SUMO fhis E(Ut I) ard/Mtt?pr arv-a From 61i86 if houses are 3v Pill �ke only ce-n4-rA1ll f oma e4 Fared, dole �u QCCarnmadah recreal4anQl r)QcA3 4 Presen+ ane Fui vre res1Jw+s ., Unpr-e 6JRn1v,a poplo4;on Cgrov,(lk of )-leis Cen� ikr� pm+s !L vx-w face on Pldnniny for r'es'iden4-s w'i+-h 14+)e or no ouVe ldz space 1-o call +ke.;ir own. (fur planned naTvtre, potrk ) 4s chilcdreri's pla� mr-e(k mocle.l.ed af4er- Por4land 's West mordemd `Lurks nafured PlaI are, , j is ba.ekea hg rnanc� 56afes PO-M �kz Mayo Clinic and park proffs5tonaL noAo-nwA.,, ITege, koLve pra ven 1-6ar eFFe c h'vtriess ;y) rel revin9 pk 15i cal , mt,KK ul CA et -evnohor�al �ens�o»s our ck*ddren )+vt; with ++dal , A surroundhnj j0gq',r 9 &nA wo IkM3 4-roLck , r-e$uA54-ctk b j residenl-s &nd a piece 4-o lay bull prav�dt elder c.hildev� tinct adulfs -kx samt ktod4h -bene.f'45 , )'reserve {6r G. Perk Tk4s 9ern al=- open spacf, 'ts �kk U-y 4 li"tiara's `rnsurunce, agmns� �6 bliykf df oVWc-rowdirng Whic.k now f-hretJP-ti �o 49rad-e, p"per4l veiluo off--all why Hie, hese . inCV_k"ed poise ) �rafftc, Dir po?)u.--i4" ated ri5,ny crime -^oAs will -F-ake_ �-k.e;r fol l t Tire ca-se For 11`veu61114-� lest jn 4.e 9rIS+ ap a Markel- bg5km }Jai leave) ppople out; -We aSk " C+�y �o bu� y preserve }kis lknd for a netghborhood,Wa,Ik }o ,pcLrk. . As ajab oppoy-lar'&)is I-iyard Tr)'tangte so wll chman�j par 6Ff Y_dabI;_ 605, 1rl .jn phis a-r-e CL Wk a} {- e C'�y 0GTr9arol - an CA 7re� Me9ty- ad no) v)eed is An unplar►nzJ mess o� a nel kloorLood �64 's los4-- ils (iveaki, l� of dIscr¢d;i �o 44% Utsior� For the T19ard "frI' ngl,.e, just ilcraas dCiFi� ONY. •f�tcu►k ya.► {�- +dour C�bi de..ra..ho� +h e_ rt J , CPA 00002- Zont- C VvctnqA Zo 16 — 6 oo o i p 10.r)n R, �v -R e v I p-, w ,moo, 0001 — 61A/ 7a LOL&4� 3 0 3 Ste' 6�rae-c) 1-0-7 o S 5 VJ 79, 10-73-D Pr'P,5crv'o-d PCLrk- , �ki5 ioAd 'is 4-kc, 64-9 o� T(prJ /-5 h-t54--"t'rt5LAronct apks+ bl;�kf rtsQ-n-� t iack dogess 0"�oor- reef,-CA+Ioh s epee ?Yop,-r-I VOJujels 5o dove I) , Ser loU5 Cri'mZ goe-,, up . Mo,.4- vi(Xmiud are our ck I I d rp-h . Yoon3 (-Wi I d r4ey i e, n ,of- i ct v_e_i i n �he- o h -f- VI +kz� tq-ee_j , vij[I J) ,saPc 15peLce 16-+ ) bv*n6 +-kc tlo6iccl, locked doors of ho-me or j A ta-46'erv-,ak , -E� , zay- V-u 4-IMM--f- Of JOO Q5mry)t4+v-y tars cn+tr LSpr-L4ce Fri S 76;" bokk devten,4 54-�,efs, arn'jll.�s iizw d"ciopn-wn� oy-A- Spract . bk+Wcv-kl 6W 'W"out )�vcvr foy 4-td-;r ckild-rens" Safe l,� w6�srz+Lboark' j 4-L Sc�Lo-oj bus, Wd-rs�e, rL 4- k - 'N 4-0 S&A' k4t, Vecam-e oL 4-hrauqI1-,vCar M� ;rouge I-nt - o 4-wo rand ra4jh.5 +,o FoocJi& 4-o �r". ci ()r" cjL/L,5 W,�,s e cur V- r WU T6 okp-r dtko p]Agzj- 1-9 -5 parke ' A, $1-m-11 �&44 - bA air 4-6t,,,,L orAd-t-5r,hoo) aje, #Y-Ajad,-Tos Coui4 �4row A,- bA-11 4yrzt 4 lour �-i' fo',y+htr M-e i- &n 5pcLc-z allowed ah(,d 4-kv_'ir 1;-us�1ra+io'n 410-wA, A4- ano4-6jr 6mz a MoAex A,,jk-e4 iF 4u park I'vould 6�For gpccje for hzr- wh,e,eI c,h aill r—b o u rLa cj"w co( OL'" ci . 4"1 W4F-r, A" A15 pA,,rk waLAIC,( bery-e -nee.d k Of 5-tr4n5 -.4it- C-4, j or &rl of kr.5 j-V rze,fdaki,6 Wt a o 4-k� rtgI- 4-k(h eX Ce e c( 566 cart "i ?� is Q- rni*ra:el.e, 4-kis Prlrne, rhndP-,VC1opg j 1a-nJsc-a p4, gx i �o da� For iv- A lQrid , -pre sszrvkci a3 a p ax-k, (A6in3 urb can r^-Lxicvvas( Pun ds , wi I Znkance. Propf-r+- VOAt4Z,5 Far all 0i's+-irtj dod Ft4ure d-p,,/-dTmm+, Sarno i-I�►inJe is yr rangCJ� C-Oa z n"g J Lk641 Fy use, of �k;s acraajt Fvr am otavetop m"4-, bu4 F-mis ° O re �n�xe Ov.,r- hod home, ow4tr5 wkO kava ped-iT4-ioned mee,ol for a_ perk af Wis si y to Un areal vvhert inUtASt4 popAt",or, dens i trousers, eonclos , G�Par�rv,p,��5 — IS -6, pta+urz I,vabrl4I a ��is n -,9k bonkooc dppencb won +-kis Powk . Thc)-'s wsr4-k a, I od- ,ol_ w o-newt Resp.ec�-ubl� 5Ubm.i`4-+cd, ff" fir-aj ` ,s+b 9-W -Plve- 5f--- 1 Cytroti-el , CSP, cj`M3 67'63 -'2/4 6 � qc� f Will TIGARD JAM aft • be AL TIGARDS � ii) J '7303 .5,W, S ruu (,5�4 cxip-6 hind `til'&rd Free MQ.qelr5 Pe-ririo-14 4-0 9a�rd �PE�( Ube- - his �- w d . K6L,C"i a lit 1't'3 V JY\ P r u c.e roc 54 ped o-ri r '7303 64V1 S. rlA C-6 W5- p C- alp u ward +,u rt-6'd ,1' 411 -P _, + r tri PA-6mer; l t tie �r�i e 1� 3 f 41 9, 7Z-Z3 y c)t--- c.I J OD �7Z!En�> � 6k q� 3 t - t,� CJi POZ - '+3 - rd PHS, 0 17 7 2-�--3 -7 W&4 �_" .. 7 f ` A 72 11 & —7 pt�t �a Y � n 7L - 31"0- z/-7z- I aul A5- POS 4 0 ` Aldr SI L- ry s � , . ( sari 5v a) prt Loee,�J'O-n .l 7303 6jv, Spruca ( ,574 a-cir,1-6 IcAind +-ke Tlla,-d Fri. r 4 Me petivioN 4-o [&rtd, If rv_,.t'at*l!4 (5s i ki a4ure. of Pe-N+i-oner, Ti efa,5 C, m o-,4-s ej, GY p - AAdre-5-S NO) Tol MA-C r--c,-r el L q /Yl U uv 5 tj , Oar,st. A p 30� tlo J "k i Cys(1-162 IS- P . lo -7t4f 5tk/ -7 V-4- Ave Ok)��eA _Am�� T-lil-alrot OR-- 9%7Z2-Z . ......... CAZ q tQ r-1(v nn 4--r L.El ni /P 7 -7 4" LPIT Ili 1-719 v iw7yl X -T-�7 om- S-tLiq UL4 V-4 pvv 14 a L(O(f Itad o B--Infv V (3 I'v J-j nodi 9�Lo jo j�ddn� -1 No 1 1.-13 d sit-4�vy pz-u pjro�16 aMi PUIII-rq dS ']V'5 CC)q L LO (fvd ID-Ij 0 B 03 6,W, Sp ru c,z (,5r4 d-cre�5 k)t k;nd f-6 I r*cr el Fre 4 M e q e r s r id r` ifo .be, car_. \5jgyia4ure, of Pe-h-1-iwjer; � A 4 h t moi, � ddws� �g .�sr�rr,e Ce.11 YA i�r1�5 ltr-/00 `J Lt' 7.2 A"i cs�hu.J �,i,y Live: s VITl 40 c, s 1 5t-0 762 ILA C� rw �J Loe&V;o-n 7303 5jK, S, rjAc- ( :!5-1f a-c.-re-5 k).e-k;nd -f- ,_ i j j 'R-A4 Mei yrs fit, R� "� �+ ,,((-� pp `� pe 1 i "i l ON � 1 ! !i t ! d eOiAppbr� u5z- Of" W 5 I;'Ltrud,, � If you iSr'fArd .40o .ire � &I k- -Flo i°�z,.U3 `�-i`klLack, (Sln a4u e. oF Pe 4;ime.r 1�4h�L 9 ey a� �rct, GY r31A air �wma a-w 2q 4,—to i q, �7�- °u(`� ��1 ct�rn.rL, a-,ii�.z it 11 7 `a i CA c CtiY L 1 - �,c3 f^' 9 i t ] L d ) 3 { s,2 ft 9 vi -1 9 il.il y / 1 _ ?A k I A s' &YC {) d cn r . c 971 �- � 7 g Z 7 St�l arc es $. O -Z I o .bQ, (S*m4,ire, of Pe-h;vne r: 1�1 mq4l J g Ap"niss5v 'Fill, Gy ��11 1.- �� � 1� �{ �{ 1: d r� Hci n sv v,�A ®R Corl ea r f �Iok Co r� o-)tc'14f b e,,rq Ccs .' ( R15- '34-o-)7 s Ave _ d 7 i '0e&-J ; 303 rucz ( ,!5-4 a-CVR-5 Til&rcf Fm4 AAeqe.r5' PetiT-ioN 4--o C i't, GY CQJ eAT -HFY- 7) LIO 5 1r5ori l- 0i'- 0012-3 -47 �Lo Z 41- V L V4l -�a- Si�-o 1 �ol st cl 7 7303 1 ,574 axre-6 bg-k;nd e Tig'&rel F-rzzl Meqer.5' PC— N 4-0 SIAPPOY,� U b-Z— Of +�k'L6 tj_ "I 4© -bQ, -V�o rz-,,'Zat*64kl, L",ka (sipcOu're. OF PA+io-ner, J in 4-ouch , 4Z,, AAd $GZ &u-rp m u,14-s RA, COJ V loctoo C) Ticy*\lo (o4t �a a ,#lely L,L 16100 -70-tlpl 4447 -owl- pt LAS.- 9, 42 [GqCo 6W 76 Pi -wl 603 S-re,i m _F6r4 kWAd, 9 2 23 op (7/ �7zz 5(l morrl,5m p5--�) C),tlqno( -za clt`I r) 7o'V4C 5 -5L.J Sprucc 5# -113 - loz It :T SZ3 Sw (4c-C C7 p'--ld qo6 oar/ rranc` �� . - Z� -�� _7Z47 V4 e -NsL -TC6\&YA m CIAJ lll�,`-) ax.re.S (4-hind A,- 'fil'&rd MQq,2,r5' pefirloN 4-0 O� 1 ;qCkrCj gouward f 'SIA229r.� UbZ- Of -40 be, (sj�yia4ure, oF Pe-�+jo))er, 4-ouch. A)AAAE' i n m o4s cQ-) q],Z L3 ID 'IY\ Wol) eel ulif 5 -'SU,) LOCLUSt Si, qty 15CA,/ t s 6ufer rr" olto Z- e-u (3QV-kAo"tA& oveyo- k-,qp nikaw. V)Clj04-,) PIN e-,l 4LT /Ookv )Eele bif eqrtf- j�- v1 C � 1�tK 7jt6; 0�, a z �Y$• s• r }, .jt �,.7se �. Um -Aram SPr u c v Sf. i� 01, y effis � .�'"' '+�'i a,� � j S ,�jK ipe lEt,,`j•� Y"�V' � '�. a r ,•, q wa r= V1 et�l 7�`OYYI November 21, 2016 Page 1 of 4 In 2016 to date members of 206 households within a half-mile of SW 72nd and Spruce signed a petition circulated primaril by retired elementart school teacher Nancy Tracy in support of a park there and then added the following comments: Would love to see a park, would use A place to take our great grandchildren Great! Park would be great! Please, a park! Park for me Park! We have two kids! We need a park Needed a Park! We'd love to have a park like Westmoreland Park. A natural play area A park would be nice. A park would be perfect for this neighborhood. [2] The park seems to be ideal location. More parks. Very much needed. Great idea. We need more parks! Great opportunity Yes, Please! — NO MORE HOMES Yes, another park is needed Yes needed. Hundreds of homeowners would welcome a nature park to offset growing density Absolutely! November 21, 2016 Page 2 of 4 We need open space! Good way to build community Good idea! Great Good use of otherwise unsuitable land. Wonderful idea Can't have too many parks We need a "walk-to" park. Called in to support a park. Go for the park Great to have a park No comments Yes, park would be great. I love parks! Park is a good idea. Children need a place to play. Supporting a park. We need a park!!! Park please We need a park! (Smiley face) Suggests a path around perimeter for walking. A park for my 5 boys to play in would be wonderful! Great use of the land! In need of a park in this area A park is super great! November 21, 2016 Page 3 of 4 More activity for our neighborhood would be far better than adding more people to over-populate area. Park would be a great thing for the area. We need more park space. We need more natural spaces. Great Kids First! Kids First Great idea Thumbs up Nature! CHILDREN! HEALTH! Great walking destination We need more parks! Great opportunity Yes, Please! No more houses Yes, another park is needed Yes needed. We don't have sidewalks, but we do need a safe place to walk. A perimeter park for walking Love to have a nature park. We need more natural spaces The City of Tigard doesn't have any park space near here. We need a park with wheelchair paths The City hasn't done much for this area since many blocks were annexed into the city. November 21, 2016 Page 4 of 4 More (recreational) activity far better than adding houses. Go for a park! Nature! Children! Health! Great walking destination Thumbs Up Good way to build community A place to take our grandchildren A great thing for this area Our kids and families need this Kids and families need park close by I've got two little ones that would love this park. I would use it often (a neighborhood park) Traffic is very bad already. This neighborhood in serious need of a park. a City of Tigard November 17, 2016 To the Tigard Planning Commission: i An active group of neighbors in the Spruce Street area has regularly been attending Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) meetings since the beginning of this year.They have gathered a substantial number of signatures in support of a petition to the City in purchasing a property at 73rd avenue and Spruce Street for use as a future park. The Tigard Park System Master Plan goal is to develop parks located within a half-mile of every Tigard resident. The PRAB is in agreement that this location would make a nice neighborhood park in an area that does not currently have a park. We have seen what a motivated group of neighbors can do with a neighborhood park and would like to be able to work with this group. However, the City does not currently have funding to help purchase the property. If you have any questions you may contact me at 503.372.0724 or Steve Martin, Parks Manager, at the City of Tigard at 503.718.2583. Thank you for your consideration of this property. Sincerely, C 1 Holly Polivka Chair Tigard Parks and Recreation Advisory Board 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 0 www.tigard-or.gov 7 1 1 City of Tigard Planning Commission Agenda MEETING DATE: November 21, 2016 - 7:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard—Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m. 3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m. 4. CONSIDER MINUTES 7:04 p.m. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 7:05 p.m. TOPPING C-P TO R-12 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(CPA)2016-00002;Zone Change (ZON)2016-00001; (PDR)2016-0012 REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Amendment from Professional Commercial, C-P, to Medium Density Residential, R-12, and a Planned Development Review for a Concept Plan only on a three-parcel property totaling 1.54 acres. The proposed concept plan shows 18 single-family detached homes with approximately 23 percent of the site in open space, a portion of which is located at the corner of SW Spruce Street and SW 72nd Avenue. LOCATION: 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72nd Ave., 10735 SW 72nd Ave;TAX MAP/LOT#'s: 1S136ACO2200, 1S136ACO2400, 1S136ACO2500;ZONE: Existing: Professional Commercial(C-P); Proposed: Medium Density Residential (R-12);APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.380.030,and 18.390.050; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1,2, 10; Statewide Planning Goals 1,2, 10;and Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Titles 1, 7, and 12. 6. OTHER BUSINESS 8.35 p.m. 7. ADJOURNMENT 8.45 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA—November 21, 2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page I of 1 s Agenda Item: 5 Hearing Date: November 21,2016 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE a PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 120 DAYS = N/A SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NO.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment(CPA) 2016-00002 Zone Change (ZON) 2016-00001 Planned Development Review(PDR) 2016-00012 FILE TITLE: TOPPING C-P TO R-12 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ ZONE CHANGE with PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICANT: Stafford Development Company,LLC. 485 S. State Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Amendment from Professional Commercial, C-P, to Medium Density Residential, R-12, and a Planned Development Review for a Concept Plan only on a three-parcel property totaling 1.54 acres. The proposed concept plan shows 18 single-family detached homes with approximately 23 percent of the site in open space, a portion of which is located at the corner of SW Spruce Street and SW 72nd Avenue. In 2015, to facilitate the retention of R-12 zoning in the City, City Staff had requested approval of a zoning "swap" from C-P to R-12 on the subject property and from R-12 to C-G on another property on Pacific Hwy and School Street (CPA 2015-00005 and ZON 2015-00007). The City Council approved the Pacific Hwy property rezone. However, the Council did not approve the rezone for the subject property portion. The Council directed the property owner to submit a quasi-judicial zone change application on their own if they wanted to continue to pursue the zone change. LOCATION: 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72nd Ave., 10735 SW 72nd Ave; TAX MAP/LOT#'s: 1S136ACO2200, 1S136ACO2400, 1S136ACO2500. COMP PLAN DESIGNATION/ ZONING DISTRICT: FROM: Professional Commercial (C-P) TO: Medium Density Residential (R-12) STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 1 OF 13 APPLICABLE Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.380.030, and REVIEW 18.390.050; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2, 10; Statewide Planning Goals 1, CRITERIA: 2, 10; and Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Titles 1, 7, and 12. SECTION II STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commissioti recommend to the Tigard City Council APPROVAL of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment as determined through the-public hearing process. Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Tigard City Council APPROVAL of the Planned Development Concept Plan with clear direction to the applicant for preparation of a detailed plan, as determined through the public hearing process. SECTION III BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project History In 2015, to facilitate the retention of R-12 zoning in the City, City Staff had requested approval of a zoning "swap" from C-P to R-12 on the subject property and from R-12 to C-G on another property of roughly the same size located on Pacific Hwy and School Street (CPA 2015-00005 and ZON 2015-00007). The City Council approved the Pacific Hwy property rezone. However, the Council did not approve the rezone for the Spruce Street property. Instead, the Council directed the property owner to submit a quasi-judicial zone change application on their own if they wanted to continue to pursue the zone change on the subject property. For this application, Stafford Land Company is the applicant, with support from the City whose interest is increasing the supply of R-12 zoned land, as intended in the City's prior zone change proposal. The affordable housing types allowed in the R-12 zone warrant the City's support because of the City's housing goal to provide opportunities for a variety of housing types to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents. To ensure the neighborhood would have the opportunity to be involved in how the property could be developed for residential use, the applicant agreed to apply for a Planned Development concept plan review concurrently with the comprehensive plan/zone change. Staff has documented the quasi-judicial process and engaged the neighbors directly in the process to ensure information is available and notice received. Site Description The subject property (3 parcels totaling 1.54 acres) is developed with single-family residences and was annexed in 2006 (ZCA2006-00003), which changed the County zone from Commercial Office (OC) to the City's Professional Commercial (C-P) zone, the zone most closely implementing the County's plan map designation. The current zone does not allow residential use, which the market has identified as its highest best use as evidenced by the applicant's several pre-application conferences over past couple of years to change the commercial zone to residential. The subject site is located across Spruce Street from Fred Meyers and within 1,000 feet of Pacific Hwy. The locational characteristics of the subject property support the comprehensive plan amendment and zone change. The subject property fronts on a local street and a neighborhood street and is adjacent to property STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 2 OF 13 zoned R-4.5 and low-density unincorporated Washington County. The adjacent lower class streets and low density residential use zone makes the property more suitable for medium density residential use to form a transition from the General Commercial (C-G) zone to the south. Proposal Description The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Amendment from Professional Commercial, C-P, to Medium Density Residential, R-12, and a Planned Development Review for a Concept Plan only on a three-parcel property totaling 1.54 acres. The proposed concept plan shows 18 single-family detached homes with approximately 23 percent of the site in open space, a portion of which is located at the corner of SW Spruce Street and SW 72nd Avenue. Decision Process The Commission will make a recommendation to Council on the Comprehensive Plan/Zone Change and Planned Development Concept Plan. The Council must first approve the Comprehensive Plan/Zone Change before consideration of the Concept Plan. Council's Approval of the Concept Plan must give the applicant clear direction for preparation of the Detailed Plan. The Detailed Plan will be by separate application and will be reviewed and decided by the Planning Commission. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE CRITERIA, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS This section contains all of the applicable city, state and metro policies, provisions, and criteria that apply to the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, zone change,and concept planned development review. 18.380 ZONING MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS Chapter 18.380.030 Quasi-Judicial Amendments and Procedures to this Title and Map. A. Quasi-judicial zoning map amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using standards of approval contained in subsection (B) of this section. The approval authority shall be as follows: (3) The commission shall make a recommendation to the council on a zone change application which also involves a concurrent application for a comprehensive plan map amendment. FINDING: The proposed quasi-judicial amendment is being reviewed under the Type III procedure as set forth in this chapter. This procedure requires public hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council. B. Standards for making quasi-judicial decisions. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 1 Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; Chapter 1: Citizen Involvement Goal 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 3 OF 13 Policy 2 The City shall define and publicize an appropriate role for citizens in each phase of the land use planning process. Policy 5 The opportunities for citizen involvement provided by the City shall be appropriate to the scale of the planning effort and shall involve a broad cross-section of the community. Citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions were given the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. Several opportunities for participation are built into the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, including public hearing notification requirements pursuant to Chapter 18.390.050 of the Tigard Community Development Code. On October 18, 2016, public hearing notice of the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings was sent to the interested parties list and all property owners within 500 feet of the subject parcels. On October 27, 2016 a notice was published in The Tigard Times. The notice invited public input and included the phone number of a contact person to answer questions. The notice also included the address of the City's webpage where the staff report to the Planning Commission could be viewed. On October 31, 2016,the site was posted with a notice board. On October 17, 2016,the proposal was posted on the City's web site. On November 14, 2016 the staff report was made available on the city's website. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 1.1 Policies 2 and 5 are met. Chapter 2: Land Use Planning Goal 2.1 Maintain an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action plans as the legislative basis of Tigard's land use planning program. Policy 1 The City's land use program shall establish a clear policy direction, comply with state and regional requirements, and serve its citizens' own interests. The goals and policies contained in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan provide the basis for the city's land use planning program. This policy is met. Policy 2 The City's land use regulations, related plans, and implementing actions shall be consistent with and implement its Comprehensive Plan. The City's development code, Title 18, has been found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This policy is met. Policy 3 The City shall coordinate the adoption, amendment, and implementation of its land use program with other potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies. Potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies were given an opportunity to comment. Any comments that were received are addressed in Section VI: Outside Agency Comments. This policy is met. Policy 5 The City shall promote intense urban level development in Metro designated Centers and Corridors, and employment and industrial areas." STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 4 OF 13 The Metro 2040 Growth Concept Map shows that Pacific Hwy, through Tigard, is designated as a "Corridor." The proposed rezone of the subject site from commercial professional to medium density residential would meet market demand for residential development where the existing commercial zone designation has resulted in underdeveloped land for the past ten years, since annexation in 2006. This policy is met. Policy 6 The City shall promote the development and maintenance of a range of land use types which are of sufficient economic value to fund needed services and advance the community's social and fiscal stability. Policy 7 The City's regulatory land use maps and development code shall implement the Comprehensive Plan by providing for needed urban land uses including: A. Residential; B. Commercial and office employment including business parks; C. Mixed use; D. Industrial; E. Overlay districts where natural resource protections or special planning and regulatory tools are warranted; and F. Public services The rezoning of the subject property to medium-density residential would allow for a needed increase in the variety of housing options available to the citizens of Tigard. The proposed zone change would allow for smaller lot sizes, higher density, and more affordable housing options, promoting a greater level of financial stability among the citizens of Tigard. These policies are met. Policy 15 In addition to other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies deemed applicable, amendments to Tigard's Comprehensive Plan/Zone Map shall be subject to the following specific criteria: A. Transportation and other public facilities and services shall be available, or committed to be made available, and of sufficient capacity to serve the land uses allowed by the proposed map designation; B. Development of land uses allowed by the new designation shall not negatively affect existing or planned transportation or other public facilities and services; ODOT's trip generation analysis for the subject site (ODOT Comment letter, dated December 2, 2015) showed a reduction of trips, from 220 PM trips under the current C-P zone to 43 PM trips under the proposed R-12 zone. Therefore, a determination of no significant adverse effect on the transportation system can be made and the Transportation Planning Rule compliance measures under OAR Section 660- 12-0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments are not invoked. Additional public services such as stormwater, water, and sanitary sewer will connect to existing infrastructure and it is not anticipated that the proposed zone change from C-P to R-12 will result in additional demands on public services. These policies are met. C. The new land use designation shall fulfill a proven community need such as provision of needed commercial goods and services, employment, housing, public and community services, etc. in the particular location,versus other appropriately designated and developable properties; D. Demonstration that there is an inadequate amount of developable, appropriately designated, land for the land uses that would be allowed by the new designation; STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 5 OF 13 The proposed rezoning satisfies a need for property zoned R-12. In 2013 the City Council adopted a Housing Strategies report prepared by Angelo Planning Group and Johnson & Reid in support of the Periodic Review update to Goal 10, Housing. This report illustrated that at that time the city had nearly twice as much buildable land in areas zoned R-7 (72.1 net buildable acres) than in areas zoned R-12 (36.7 net buildable acres). The report analyzed the city's current and future housing needs, which included the following conclusion: "In general, there is a need for some less expensive ownership units and rental units". R-12 zoned land permits attached single-family and multi-family housing types, which contribute to the city's variety of more affordable housing stock. The city is also in need of adequate commercially zoned land to support employment and economic development goals. However, the proposed rezone of the subject site from commercial professional to medium density residential in a location where the existing commercial zone designation has resulted in underdeveloped land for the past ten years, since annexation in 2006.These policies are met. E. Demonstration that land uses allowed in the proposed designation could be developed in compliance with all applicable regulations and the purposes of any overlay district would be fulfilled; A planned development concept plan is being concurrently reviewed with the proposed zone change to demonstrate that medium density residential use can be developed in compliance with applicable regulations and the purposes of the planned development chapter.This policy is met. F. Land uses permitted by the proposed designation would be compatible, or capable of being made compatible,with environmental conditions and surrounding land uses; and The proposed R-12 zone would allow residential housing types at a scale that would be compatible with adjacent low density residential and commercial uses; there is no reason to believe the property could not be developed in conformance with R-12 standards. A planned development overlay is proposed on the subject property to ensure compatibility.This policy is met. G. Demonstration that the amendment does not detract from the viability of the City's natural systems. The subject property has been previously developed with single family dwellings. The site has a six percent slope toward the west and does not contain any city-regulated sensitive natural resources. The proposed rezone would not detract from the viability of the City's natural systems. This policy is met. Policy 20 The City shall periodically review and if necessary update its Comprehensive Plan and regulatory maps and implementing measures to ensure they are current and responsive to community needs, provide reliable information, and conform to applicable state law, administrative rules, and regional requirements. The proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment would increase the City's supply of R-12 zoned land. Staff supports the zone change in response to the growing need for affordable housing. The City supports the proposed update to its Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map through this process to ensure it is current and responsive to community needs and will conform to applicable state law, administrative rules, and regional requirements.This policy is met. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 6 OF 13 Chapter 10: Housing Goal 10.1 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types at a range of price levels to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents. Policy 1 The City shall adopt and maintain land use policies, codes, and standards that provide opportunities to develop a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents. The subject property was annexed in 2006 (ZCA 2006-00003), which changed the Washington County comprehensive plan and zoning designation from Commercial Office (OC) to the City of Tigard's Professional Commercial (C-P) zone, the zone most closely implementing the County's plan map designation. However, since the subject property's annexation in 2006, the City's need for residential property zoned R-12 has increased. In February 2016, in response to CPA 2015-00005 & ZON 2015-00007, the City Council approved the rezoning of a 1.37 acre site on Pacific Hwy W from R-12 to C-G, but not the rezoning of the subject property from C-P to R-12, resulting in a loss of 1.37 acres of residential property zoned R-12. Medium- density residential properties are important to the ongoing implementation of the City's housing policies, for a number of reasons, including growth in population of the City of Tigard, and a need for flexibility in allowable and available housing types to provide a level of affordability for first time home buyers, singles and retirees, as well as other members of the populace who desire more affordable housing options in Tigard's neighborhoods. The population of Tigard has increased by 6.6% since 2010 (United States Census Bureau). With this increase in population, the demand for housing continues to grow, particularly the need for residential properties zoned with the flexibility necessary to promote a level of affordability. In 2013 the Council adopted a Housing Strategies report prepared by Angelo Planning Group and Johnson & Reid in support of the Periodic Review update to Goal 10, Housing. This report illustrated that at that time the city had about twice as much buildable land in areas zoned R-7 (72.1 net buildable acres) than in areas zoned R-12 (36.7 net buildable acres). The report analyzed the city's current and future housing needs, which included the following conclusions of relevance to the application: • "In general, there is a need for some less expensive ownership units and rental units." • "Single family attached units are projected to meet nearly 20% of future housing need." • "It is projected that in coming decades a greater share of housing will be attached types, including attached single family." This type of housing is possible in the R-12 zone, which allows attached and multi-family housing on 3,050 square-foot lots. R-12 is a versatile medium density residential zone that can better meet the preferences and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents.This policy is met. METRO Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 1: Housing Capacity The Regional Framework Plan calls for a compact urban form and a "fair-share" approach to meeting regional housing needs. It is the purpose of Title 1 to accomplish these policies by requiring each city and county to maintain or increase its housing capacity. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 7 OF 13 The City's Housing Strategies Report indicates that "in general, there is a need for some less expensive ownership units and rental units." This type of housing is possible in the R-12 zone,which allows attached and multi-family housing on 3,050 square-foot lots. With this quasi-judicial action, the zone change to R-12 on the subject site will result in a marginal increase of R-12 zoned land in the City of Tigard to help meet the preferences and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents, consistent with the purpose of Title 1. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the proposed comprehensive plan/zone change demonstrates compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; 2 Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance; and FINDING: As shown in the findings above and below, the proposed comprehensive plan/zone change demonstrates compliance with all applicable standards of the provisions of Title 18 and other implementing ordinances. 3. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. The population of Tigard has increased by 6.6% since 2010 (United States Census Bureau). This influx in population has generated an increased need for housing in the City of Tigard. In particular, there is presently a deficit in the availability of affordable housing in the City of Tigard. Zoning the subject property R-12 would help accommodate the City's growth in population and subsequent need for residential properties. The increasing need for affordable housing is a change in the community that supports the comprehensive plan/zone change. Given the variety of permitted housing types, property zoned R-12 is of increasing importance in the City of Tigard to insure the availability of affordable housing. With a minimum lot size of 3,050 S.F. the R-12 zone provides the flexibility necessary to meet the housing type preferences and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents. The trend in the market and development in the community as a whole is progressing towards smaller lots, in an effort to satisfy the demand for affordable housing in the region. Since the subject property's annexation and zoning in 2006, properties zoned R-12 have been developed in the surrounding area. An R- 12 zoning of residential property in the area is ideal due to the proximity of services and transit options. White Oak Village, an R-12 zoned subdivision, located 2/10ths of a mile southwest of the subject property at SW 74th Ave. north of SW Pacific Highway,was developed in 2008. Increases in population and commercial and residential development have led to an increase in traffic in the neighborhood. While increased traffic is clearly an issue effecting property's owners in the vicinity of the subject property, an ODOT Trip Generation Analysis showed that the proposed zone change of the subject property from C-P to R-12 will result in a reduction of 220 PM trips to 43 PM trips. Rezoning of the subject property to R-12 may help curb future traffic pressure in the neighborhood. Furthermore, the proposed development includes future street improvements to SW Spruce St. and SW 72nd Ave. which will reduce an existing lack of parking in the surrounding area by including the widening of roadways and addition of parking lanes. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 8 OF 13 There is an increasing need for open space in the surrounding neighborhood, as the general development patterns in the area and public testimony received through CPA 20015-00005 & ZON 2015-00007 public hearings suggest. The proposed Planned Development Concept Plan includes two proposed open space tracts that comprise approximately 23.8% of the subject property that will preserve natural open space and promote pedestrian connectivity. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, there is evidence of change in the neighborhood or community to support the proposed comprehensive plan/zone change. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Tigard City Council APPROVAL of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment as being in compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies, all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance, as evidenced by change in the neighborhood and the community, and as determined through the public hearing process. 18.390 DECISION MAIONG PROCEDURES 18.390.080 General Provisions D.Applications 2. Consolidation of proceedings. Whenever an applicant requests more than one approval and more than one approval authority is required to decide the applications, the proceedings shall be consolidated so that one approval authority shall decide all applications in one proceeding; a. When a request which contains more than one approval is consolidated, the hearings shall be held by the approval authority having original jurisdiction over one of the applications under this chapter in the following order of preference: the council, the commission, the hearings officer, or the director. b. Where there is a consolidation of proceedings: i. The notice shall identify each action to be taken; ii. The decision on a plan map amendment shall precede the decision on the proposed zone change and other actions; and iii. Separate actions shall be taken on each application. FINDING: The applicant has requested concurrent review of a comprehensive plan map amendment from Professional Commercial to Medium Density Residential District/Zone Change from C-P to R-12 and a Planned Development concept plan approval. According to 18.390.080.D.2, the proceedings are consolidated and decided by the City Council. Notices have identified each action to be taken. The decision on the plan map amendment shall precede the decision on the proposed zone change, which shall precede the decision on the planned development concept plan,with separate actions being taken on each application. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 9 OF 13 18.350 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS 18.350.050 Concept Plan Approval Criteria A. The concept plan may be approved by the commission only if all of the following criteria are met: 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. The applicant states that"The proposed development *includes two open space tracts totaling.31 acres (20.3 percent of the site) which will preserve existing conditions and natural resources, including an existing oak tree in the northwest comer of the subject property. Open space will promote natural amenities and provide a more walkable community, while serving as a transition between surrounding low-density residential properties and existing commercial properties." The applicant's statement and concept plan address preservation of the existing oak tree on the site and how the proposed open space protects the natural features of the site. The applicant only minimally indicates how the proposed open space areas relate to access and use by future residents of the development or by the public. This criterion is met but the Commission may require the applicant to more substantively address the open space area designations as to their intended level of use and how they relate to other proposed uses on the site. 2. The concept plan identifies areas of trees and other natural resources, if any, and identifies methods for their maximized protection,preservation, and/or management. The applicant's concept plan identifies areas of trees and other natural resources and minimally identifies methods for their maximized protection, preservation, and management. The narrative states that "The Concept Development Plan in Exhibit G illustrates the proposed development's two open space tracts totaling .31 acres, and their relationship to other uses on the subject property. There are no wetlands or sensitive areas on the subject property. All existing trees on the subject property have been identified (see Concept Development Plan,Exhibit G)." The applicant's narrative does identify a large oak tree in the northwest comer of the site, but it should be shown on the Concept Plan and additional methods for management should be identified as well as an indication of how it would be incorporated into the development. This criterion is minimally met. To better meet this criterion, the Commission may require the applicant to substantively address methods for the oak tree's maximized protection,preservation,and/or management. 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. The applicant states that "The proposed Planned Development Subdivision is designed around the existing transportation network, and will not require or result in any changes to the functional classification of the transportation system in the vicinity of the subject property. As shown on the Concept Development Plan in Exhibit G, the layout of the proposed development concentrates homes to SW Spruce St., SW 72nd Ave. and the proposed private drive, while preserving two open space tracts totaling .31 acres on the northern, STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 10 OF 13 western and eastern property boundaries. These open space tracts will serve as an additional buffer between the existing low-density residential and commercial uses. A total of eighteen lots are proposed. Eleven lots will have frontage on SW Spruce St., three lots will have frontage on SW 72nd Ave, and four lots will have frontage on the proposed private drive. The private drive runs north to south in the middle of the subject property, ending at an open space tract on the subject property's northern boundary." The concept plan identifies how the future development will integrate into the existing neighborhood using the existing streets and providing a transition with open space buffers. This criterion is met. 4. The concept plan identifies methods for promoting walkability or transit ridership, such methods may include separated parking bays, off street walking paths, shorter pedestrian routes than vehicular routes, linkages to or other provisions for bus stops, etc. The applicant states that future development of the site with street improvements on SW Spruce St. and SW 72nd Ave., including sidewalks and planter strips will promote a more walkable neighborhood. This criterion is minimally met. To better meet this criterion, the Commission may require the applicant to substantively address how the concept plan also promotes transit ridership. 5. The concept plan identifies the proposed uses, and their general arrangement on site. In the case of projects that include a residential component, housing type, unit density, or generalized lot sizes shall be shown in relation to their proposed location on site. The applicant states that "The Concept Development Plan in Exhibit G illustrates the proposed arrangement of lots and their relationship to open space tracts on the subject property." As show on the concept plan, this criterion is met. 6. The concept plan must demonstrate that development of the property pursuant to the plan results in development that has significant advantages over a standard development. A concept plan has a significant advantage if it provides development consistent with the general purpose of the zone in which it is located at overall densities consistent with the zone, while protecting natural features or providing additional amenities or features not otherwise available that enhance the development project or the neighborhood. The applicant states that "The proposed concept plan would provide a density consistent with the R-12 zone. Two open space tracts comprising 23.8% of the subject property are proposed; their design will preserve an existing oak tree in the northwest corner of the subject property, while providing natural amenities, promoting pedestrian connectivity within the area and serving as a buffer between existing residential and commercial developments in the surrounding area." The proposed development of 18 single-family dwellings would be permitted in the R-12 zone at the maximum allowed density, consistent with the general purpose of the zone. Trees,including the large oak in the northwest corner of the site, will be protected within an open space tract. This criterion is minimally met. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 11 OF 13 To better meet this criterion, the Commission may require the applicant to provide more information on how the concept plan provides significant advantages over standard development with additional amenities or features not otherwise available that enhance the development project or the neighborhood. FINDING: As shown in the analysis above, the concept plan approval criteria are minimally met, but may be strengthened subject to the Commission's direction to the applicant to revise the proposed Concept Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed Concept Plan, subject to the Commission's direction to the applicant to supplement their findings on the approval criteria, as determined through the hearings process. SECTION V. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard's Development Services Division (Engineering), and Public Works Department had an opportunity to review this proposal and had no objections. SECTION VI. OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS The following agencies/jurisdictions had an opportunity to review this proposal and did not respond: Metro Land Use and Planning, Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue reviewed the concept plan proposal and provided a comment letter dated October 31, 2016 addressing basic approval standards. Additional opportunities for substantive comment will be provided with application for a Detailed Development Plan. Clean Water Services reviewed the concept plan proposal and provided a comment letter dated October 26, 2016 addressing basic approval standards. Additional opportunities for substantive comment will be provided with application for a Detailed Development Plan. Oregon Department of Transportation, Region 1 reviewed this proposal under CPA 2015-00005 and ZON 2015-00007 and provided a comment letter dated December 2, 2015 from Marah Danielson, ODOT Development Review Planner. ODOT determined that for Site A (the subject site),vehicle trips to OR 99W intersections will likely be reduced and that the proposed zone change from C-P to R-12 does not significantly affect a state highway facility. SECTION VII. INTERESTED PARTIES COMMENTS The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on March 16, 2016. Documentation is provided in Exhibit E of the application. Seventeen attendees discussed the proposed zone change, comprehensive plan amendment, and the planned development concept plan. Issues discussed included open space and parks, streets and utilities,housing type and design,and land use process. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 12 OF 13 The city received written comments from neighbors within 500 feet of the subject properties regarding the proposed amendment. Approximately 140 neighbors within a half-mile of the subject property who live both within and outside of the City boundary signed a petition in support of the use of the subject property as a "walk-to residential park." Nancy Tracy submitted a letter requesting that the City buy and preserve the land for park use. These comments included a letter dated April 18, 2016 from Holly Polivka, Chair of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board,in support of the park idea,with the caveat that the City did not have funding to help purchase the property. SECTION VIII. CONCLUSION The proposed Comprehensive Plan and zone change comply with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals, applicable regional, state and federal regulations, the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. Provided the Commission gives direction to the applicant to revise the plan to substantively address the approval criteria, the proposed planned development concept plan can meet the applicable review criteria. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed comprehensive plan/zone change amendment and planned development concept plan to the Tigard City Council, as determined through the public hearing process. November 14,2016 PREPARED BY: G ry Pagenstecher DATE Associate Planner �._ November 14,2016 APPROVED BY: Tom McGuire DATE Assistant Community Development Director STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA 2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2106-00012 TOPPING PAGE 13 OF 13 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: October 17,2016 TO: PER ATTACHED FROM: Citi of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner Phone: (503) 718-2434 Fax: (503) 718-2788 E-Mail: Garyp@tigard-or.gov - TOPPING C-P TO R-12 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ ZONE CHANGE WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW- COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA)2016-00002 Zone Change (ZON)2016-00001 Planned Development Review(PDR)2016-0012 REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Amendment from Professional Commercial, C-P, to Medium Density Residential, R-12, and a Planned Development Review for a Concept Plan only on a three-parcel property totaling 1.54 acres. The proposed concept plan shows 18 single-family detached homes with approximately 23 percent of the site in open space,a portion of which is located at the corner of SW Spruce Street and SW 72nd Avenue. LOCATION: 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72nd Ave., 10735 SW 72nd Ave; TAX MAP/ LOT #'s: 1S136ACO2200, 1S136ACO2400, 1S136ACO2500; ZONE: Existing: Professional Commercial (C-P); Proposed: Medium Density Residential (R-12); APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.380.030, and 18.390.050; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2, 10; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10;and Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Titles 1, 7,and 12. Attached are Comp Plan Designation and Zoning District exhibits for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation to the Planning Commission will be prepared on the proposal in the near future and be made available one week prior to the PC hearing on November 21, 2016. If you wish to comment on this proposal, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: THURSDAY OCTOBER 3L 2016, You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. _ Please contact of our office. _ Please refer to the enclosed letter or email. Written comments provided below: Name&Number of Person Commenting. CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS NOTIFICATION LIST FOR LAND USE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FILE NOSE 11 —00W/ZFILE NAME: f + -Pr Mark the block to the left of the name of each person or organization that needs to be notified. CITY OFFICES CD Administration/Kenny Asher,CD Director CD Administration/Tom McGuire,Asst CD Director CD Administration/Buff Brown Sr.Transportation Planner(electronic copy) City Administration/Carol Lager,City Recorder Development Services/Planning-Engineering Techs. (except annexations) Development Services/Development Eng.Greg Berry(Copy on all Notices of Decision) Building Division/Mark VanDomelen,Building Official Police Department/Jim Wolf,Crime Prevention Officer(Copy on all Notices of Decision) Public Works/John Goodrich Public Works/Paul Izatt(Subdivisions ONLY-Full size plan set) Public Works/Jeremy Hanson Hearings Officer(2 sets) ri 1 Planning Commission(12 sets) City Attorney X File/Reference(2 sets) LOCAL AND STATE JURISDICTIONS City of Beaverton,Planning Manager,POB 4755,Beaverton OR 97076* City of Beaverton,Steven Sparks,Dev Svcs Mgr,POB 4755,Beaverton OR 97076* City of Durham City Manager,17160 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd,Durham OR 97224* City of King City City Manager,15300 SW 116th Ave,King City OR 97224* City of Lake Oswego,Planning Director,PO Box 369,Lake Oswego OR 97034* City of Portland,Planning Bureau Director,1900 SW 4th Ave,Suite 4100,Portland OR 97201 City of Tualatin Planning Manager,18880 SW Martinazzi Ave,Tualatin OR 97062* Metro-Land Use and Planning,600 NE Grand Ave,Portland OR 97232-2736,Joanna Mensher,Data Resource Center(ZCA- Adopted)* Metro-Land Use and Planning,600 NE Grand Ave,Portland OR 97232-2736,Paulette Copperstone,(ZCA-RFC Only)* Metro-Land Use and Planning,600 NE Grand Ave,Portland OR 97232-2736,Brian Harper,PhD,(CPA/DCA/ZON)* ODOT,Rail Division,Dave Lanning,Sr.Crossing Safety Specialist,555 13th Street NE,Suite 3,Salem OR 97301-4179(Notify if ODOT R/R-Hwy Crossing is only access to land).Email:Regionl_DEVREV_Applications@odot.state.or.us ODOT,Region 1 -Development Review Coordinator Carl Torland,Right-of-Way Section,123 NW Flanders,Portland OR 97209- 4037 (Vacations)* Email:Regionl_DEVREV_Applications@odot.state.or.us ODOT Region 1 Development Review Program,123 NW Flanders St,Portland OR 97209 Email:Regionl_DEVREV_Applications@odot.state.or.us OR Dept of Energy,Bonneville Power Administration,Routing TTRC-Attn: Renae Ferrera,POB 3621,Portland OR 97208- 3621 (powerlines in area) OR Dept of Aviation,Tom Highland,Planning,3040 25th Street,SE,Salem OR 97310(monopole towers) OR Dept of Environmental Quality(DEQ),Regional Administrator,700 NE Multnomah St#600,Portland,OR 97232 (Notify for Wetlands and Potential Environmental Impacts) OR Dept of Fish&Wildlife,Elizabeth Ruther,Habitat Biologist,North Willamette Watershed District,18330 NW Sauvie Island Road,Portland OR 97231 OR Dept of Geo.&Mineral Ind.,800 NE Oregon Street,Suite 965,Portland OR 97232 OR Dept of Land Conservation&Dev.,Mara Ulloa,635 Capitol Street NE,Suite 150,Salem OR 97301-2540(Comp Plan Amendments&Measure 37)-You have the option to send electronic copies. See DL.CD website for online submittal procedures OR Division of State Lands,Melinda Wood(WLUN Form Required),775 Summer Street NE,Suite 100,Salem OR 97301-1279 (Documents should be emailed/do not send hard copies) hCommunity DevelopmennLand Use Applications103_Admin MaterialslRequest for comments\Requestfor Comments Notification List.xlsx Rev.20160505 Page 1 of 2 CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS NOTIFICATION LIST FOR LAND USE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS OR Parks and Rec Dept State Historic Preservation Office,725 Sumner St NE,Suite C,Salem OR 97301 (Notify if property has HD overlay) OR Public Utilities Commission,PO Box 1088,Salem OR 97308-1088 US Army Corps of Engineers,Kathryn Harris,Routing CENWP-OP-G,POB 2946,Portland OR 97208-2946(Maps and CWS letter only) WCCCA 9-1-1,Ian Crawford,17911 NW Evergreen Pkwy,Beaverton,OR 97006 (preliminary plats-subdivisions) (Documents should be emailed to icrawfordCawccca.com /do not send hard copies) Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency(WCCCA) "911",Kelly Dutra,17911 NW Evergreen Pkwy, Beaverton,OR 97006 (monopole towers) Washington County,Dept of Land Use&Trans,Naomi Vogel-Beattie,1400 SW Walnut St MS 51 Hillsboro OR 97123-5625 (general apps)* Washington County,Cartography,155 N First Ave,Suite 350,MS 9,Hillsboro OR 97124(ZCA Final Notice ONLY)* Principal Planner,Community Planning,Washington County,Dept of Land Use&Trans,Planning and Development Services, 155 N First Ave,Suite 350,MS 14,Hillsboro OR 97124(ZCA)* Washington County,Dept of Land Use&Trans,ATTN:Current Planning,155 N First Ave,Suite 350,MS 14,Hillsboro OR 97124(ZCA)* UTILITY PROVIDERS,SPECIAL DISTRICTS&AGENCIES Beaverton School District#48,Jennifer Garland,Demographics,16550 SW Merlo Rd,Beaverton OR 97006-5152 Century Link,Right-of-Way Department,Qwest Corporation dba Century Link QC,1208 NE 64th St,4th Floor,Seattle WA 98115 Century Link,Attn: John Pfeifer,1600 7th Ave,4th Floor,Seattle,WA 98191-0000(proposed and approved Annexation notices) Century Link,Karen Stewart,Local Government Affairs Director,310 SW Park Ave,Portland OR 97205(proposed and approved Annexation notices) Clean Water Services,Development Services Department,David Schweitzer/SWM Program,2550 SW Hillsboro Hwy,Hillsboro OR 97123* Comcast Cable Corp.,Gerald Backhaus,14200 SW Brigadoon Court,Beaverton OR 97005 (See map for area contact) Metro Area Communications Commission(MACC),Fred Christ,15201 NW Greenbrier Parkway,C-1,Beaverton OR 97006-4886 (annexations only) NW Natural Gas Company,Brian Kelley,Engineering Coord.,220 NW Second Ave,Portland OR 97209-3991 NW Natural Gas Company,Account Services,ATTN: Annexation Coordinator 220 NW Second Ave,Portland OR 97209-3991 (Annexations only) Portland General Electric,Lorraine Katz,2213 SW 153rd Drive,Beaverton OR 97006 Portland General Electric,Tod L.Shattuck,2213 SW 153rd Drive,Beaverton OR 97006 Portland Western R/R,Burlington Northern/Sante Fe R/R,Oregon Electric R/R,(Burlington,Northern/Sante Fe R/R predecessor),Bruce Carswell,President and GM,200 Hawthorne Ave SE,Suite C320,Salem OR 97301-5294 Union Pacific Railroad,Director of Public Affairs,301 NE 2nd Ave,Portland OR 97232(currently the PA Dix is Brock Nelson, 503-249-3079) Tigard/Tualatin School District#23J,Teri Brady,Administrative Offices,6960 SW Sandburg St,Tigard OR 97223-8039 Tigard Water District,POB 230281,Tigard OR 97281-0281 Tualatin Hills Parks and Rec District,Planning Mgr,15707 SW Walker Rd,Beaverton OR 97006* Tualatin Valley Fire&Rescue,John Wolff,DeputyFire Marshall,11945 SW 70th Ave,Tigard OR 97223-9196* Tualatin Valley Water District,Administrative Office,1850 SW 170th Ave,Beaverton OR 97006* Tri-Met Transit Development,Ben Baldwin,Project Planner,1800 SW 1st Ave#300,Portland,OR 97201 (If project is within 1/4 mile of a transit route) Frontier Communications,John Cousineau,OSP Network,4155 SW Cedar Hills Blvd,Beaverton OR 97005 (Documents should be emailed to John.CousineauCftr.eom-do not send hard copies) *Indicates automatic notification in compliance with intergovernmental agreement if within 500'of the subject property for any/all city projects(Project Planner is Responsible for Indicating Parties to Notify) This document is password protected. Please see Joe or Doreen if you need updates to it.Thank you. hCommunity Developmentlland Use Applications103_Admin MaterialslRequest for commentslRequest for Comments Notification List.xlsx Rev.20160505 Page 2 of 2 www.tvfr.tom Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue October 31, 2016 Ken Sandblast Westlake Consultants Gary Pagenstecher ' City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Topping PDR Tax Lot I.D: 1 S136ACO2200, 1 S136ACO2400, 1 S136AC2500 7303 SW Spruce, 10705 SW 72nd Ave Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed site plan surrounding the above named development project. These notes are provided in regards to the plans received October 17, 2016.There may be more or less requirements needed based upon the final project design, however, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue will endorse this proposal predicated on the following criteria and conditions of approval. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS: 1. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WIDTH AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed driving surface width of not less than 20 feet (26 feet adjacent to fire hydrants (OFC D103.1)) and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. (OFC 503.2.1) 2. NO PARKING SIGNS: Where fire apparatus roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles and 20 feet of unobstructed driving surface, "No Parking" signs shall be installed on one or both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Signs shall read"NO PARKING-FIRE LANE"and shall be installed with a clear space above grade level of 7 feet. Signs shall be 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and shall have red letters on a white reflective background. (OFC D103.6) 3. NO PARKING: Parking on emergency access roads shall be as follows(OFC D103.6.1-2): 1. 20-26 feet road width—no parking on either side of roadway 2. 26-32 feet road width—parking is allowed on one side 3. Greater than 32 feet road width—parking is not restricted 4. PAINTED CURBS: Where required, fire apparatus access roadway curbs shall be painted red (or as approved) and marked "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" at 25 foot intervals. Lettering shall have a stroke of not less than one inch wide by six inches high. Lettering shall be white on red background(or as approved). (OFC 503.3) Command and Business Operations Center and South Operating Center Training Center North Operating Center 8445 SW Elligsen Road 12400 SW Tonquin Road 11945 SW 70th Avenue Wilsonville,Oregon Sherwood,Oregon Tigard,Oregon 97223-9196 97070-9641 97140-9734 503-649-8577 503-259-1500 503-259-1600 f s 5. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS WITH FIRE HYDRANTS: Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet and shall extend 20 feet before and after the point of the hydrant. (OFC D103.1) 6. SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. (OFC 503.2.3) 7. TURNING RADIUS: The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall not be less than 28 feet and 48 feet respectively, measured from the same center point. (OFC 503.2.4&D103.3) 8. ACCESS DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways shall be installed and operational prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site. Temporary address signage shall also be provided during construction. (OFC 3309 and 3310.1) 9. TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES: Shall be prohibited on fire access routes unless approved by the Fire Marshal. (OFC 503.4.1). FIREFIGHTING WATER SUPPLIES: 10. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The minimum available fire flow for one and two-family dwellings served by a municipal water supply shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. If the structure(s) is (are) 3,600 square feet or larger, the required fire flow shall be determined according to OFC Appendix B. (OFC 13105.2) 11. FIRE FLOW WATER AVAILABILITY: Applicants shall provide documentation of a fire hydrant flow test or flow test modeling of water availability from the local water purveyor if the project includes a new structure or increase in the floor area of an existing structure. Tests shall be conducted from a fire hydrant within 400 feet for commercial projects, or 600 feet for residential development. Flow tests will be accepted if they were performed within 5 years as long as no adverse modifications have been made to the supply system.Water availability information may not be required to be submitted for every project. (OFC Appendix B) 12. FIREFIGHTING WATER SUPPLY FOR RURAL ONE-AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS: Rural one-and two-family dwellings,where there is no fixed and reliable water supply and there is approved access, shall not be required to provide a firefighting water supply. 13. WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION IN MUNICIPAL AREAS: In areas with fixed and reliable water supply, approved firefighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site. (OFC 3312.1) FIRE HYDRANTS: 14. FIRE HYDRANTS — ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS & ACCESSORY STRUCTURES: Where the most remote portion of a structure is more than 600 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured in an approved route around the exterior of the structure(s), on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided. (OFC 507.5.1) 15. FIRE HYDRANT NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION: The minimum number and distribution of fire hydrants available to a building shall not be less than that listed in Table C 105.1. (OFC Appendix C) 16. FIRE HYDRANTS) PLACEMENT: (OFC C104) Residential One-and Two-Family Development 3.2.1—Page 2 • Existing hydrants in the area may be used to meet the required number of hydrants as approved. Hydrants that are up to 600 feet away from the nearest point of a subject building that is protected with fire sprinklers may contribute to the required number of hydrants. (OFC 507.5.1) • Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by railroad tracks shall not contribute to the required number of hydrants unless approved by the Fire Marshal. • Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by divided highways or freeways shall not contribute to the required number of hydrants. Heavily traveled collector streets may be considered when approved by the Fire Marshal. • Hydrants that are accessible only by a bridge shall be acceptable to contribute to the required number of hydrants only if approved by the Fire Marshal. 17. PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT IDENTIFICATION: Private fire hydrants shall be painted red in color. Exception: Private Fire hydrants within the City of Tualatin shall be yellow in color. (OFC 507) 18. FIRE HYDRANT DISTANCE FROM AN ACCESS ROAD: Fire hydrants shall be located not more than 15 feet from an approved fire apparatus access roadway unless approved by the Fire Marshal. (OFC C102.1) 19. REFLECTIVE HYDRANT MARKERS: Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of blue reflective markers. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the center line of the access roadway that the fire hydrant is located on. In the case that there is no center line, then assume a center line and place the reflectors accordingly. (OFC 507) 20. PHYSICAL PROTECTION: Where fire hydrants are subject to impact by a motor vehicle, guard posts, bollards or other approved means of protection shall be provided. (OFC 507.5.6&OFC 312) 21. CLEAR SPACE AROUND FIRE HYDRANTS: A 3 foot clear space shall be provided around the circumference of fire hydrants. (OFC 507.5.5) BUILDING ACCESS AND FIRE SERVICE FEATURES 22. PREMISES IDENTIFICATION: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers; building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property, including monument signs. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches high with a minimum stroke width of 1/2 inch. (OFC 505.1) Provide a physical address on the new home, as well as, near the intersection of the private drive and public road visible from both approaches of[enter road intersections here] If you have questions or need further clarification, or would like to discuss any alternate methods and/or materials, please feel free to contact me at 503-259-1504. Sincerely, P004"Wv W104W John Wolff Deputy Fire Marshal II John.Wolff@tvfr.com Residential One-and Two-Family Development 3.2.1—Page 3 Cc: Residential One-and Two-Family Development 3.2.1—Page 4 r� CleanWater Services MEMORANDUM Date: October 26, 2016 To: Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner, City of Tigard From: Jackie Sue Humphrey , lean Water Services (the District) Subject: Topping Subdivision, PDR 2016-0012, IS136ACO2200, 02400, 02500 Please include the following comments when writing your conditions of approval: PRIOR TO ANY WORK ON THE SITE AND PLAT RECORDING A Clean Water Services(the District) Storm Water Connection Permit Authorization must be obtained prior to plat approval and recordation. Application for the District's Permit Authorization must be in accordance with the requirements of the Design and Construction Standards, Resolution and Order No. 07-20, (or current R&O in effect at time of Engineering plan submittal), and is to include: a. Detailed plans prepared in accordance with Chapter 2, Section 2.04. b. Detailed grading and erosion control plan. An Erosion Control Permit will be required. Area of Disturbance must be clearly identified on submitted construction plans. If site area and any offsite improvements required for this development exceed one-acre of disturbance,project will require a 1200-CN Erosion Control Permit. c. Detailed plans showing each lot within the development having direct access by gravity to public storm and sanitary sewer. d. Provisions for water quality in accordance with the requirements of the above named design standards. Water Quality is required for all new development and redevelopment areas per R&O 07-20, Section 4.05.5, Table 4-1. Access shall be provided for maintenance of facility per R&O 07-20, Section 4.02.4. 2550 SW Hillsboro Highway • Hillsboro,Oregon 97123 Phone: (503)681-3600 • Fax: (503)681-3603 9 cleanwaterservices.org e. If use of an existing offsite or regional Water Quality Facility is proposed, it must be clearly identified on plans, showing its location, condition, capacity to treat this site and, any additional improvements and/or upgrades that may be needed to utilize that facility. f. If private lot LIDA systems proposed, must comply with the current CWS Design and Construction Standards. A private maintenance agreement, for the proposed private lot LIDA systems, needs to be provided to the City for review and acceptance. g. Show all existing and proposed easements on plans. Any required storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and water quality related easements must be granted to the City. h. A potential "Sensitive Area"may be present. A Sensitive Area Pre-Screeing Site Assessment will be required. Upon completion of the review,the Applicant will be required to comply with any conditions set forth in the Service Provider Letter. CONCLUSION This Land Use Review does not constitute the District's approval of storm or sanitary sewer compliance to the NPDES permit held by the District. The District,prior to issuance of any connection permits,must approve final construction plans and drainage calculations. MAILING / NOTIFICATION RECORDS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard,OR 97223 In the Matter of the Proposed Annexation of. Land Use File No.: CPA2016-00002 Land Use File Name: Topping C-P to R-12 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zone change with planned development concept plan review I, Gary Pagenstecher, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am an Associate Planner for the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon and that I personally posted notice of Public Hearing on the Planning Commission and City Council Hearings at the site, a copy of said notice being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the 3=d day of Tanua ,2017 Signature of Irson Wgo Performed Posting (In the presence of the Notary) STATE OF OREGON County of Washington ss. City of Tigard Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the a3r'd day of ,20—M. OFFICIAL STAMP BETSY GALICIA &'tw- NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO.925741 NOTARY PU LIC Ot OREGON My COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 09,2018 ,3/9 / � �. My Commission Expires: 1W NOTME OF P0 MAMNS The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on Monday November 21, 2016 and at City Council on Tuesday January 24, 2017 at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Public oral or written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be held under Title 18 and rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Section 18.390.060.E. The Planning Commission's review is for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council on the request. The Council will then hold a public hearing on the request prior to making a decision. Further information may be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223 (Staff contact: Garb Pagenstecher,Associate Planner, garyp(&,tigard- or. ov, 503-718-2434) PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: - TOPPING C-P TO R-12 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ ZONE CHANGE WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2016-00002 Zone Change (ZON) 2016-00001 Planned Development Review (PDR) 2016-0012 REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Amendment from Professional Commercial, C-P, to Medium Density Residential, R-12, and a Planned Development Review for a Concept Plan only on a three- parcel property totaling 1.54 acres. The proposed concept plan shows 18 single-family detached homes with approximately 23 percent of the site in open space, a portion of which is located at the corner of SW Spruce Street and SW 72nd Avenue. LOCATION: 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72nd Ave., 10735 SW 72nd Ave; TAX MAP/ LOT #'s: 1S136ACO2200, 1S136ACO2400, 1S136ACO2500; ZONE: Existing: Professional Commercial (C-P); Proposed: Medium Density Residential (R-12); APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.380.030, and 18.390.050; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2, 10; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10; and Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Titles 1, 7, and 12. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE City of Tigard Planning Division 131.25 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard,OR 97223 In the Matter of the Proposed Annexation of Land Use File No.: CPA2016-000O11Z Land Use File Name: Topping C-P to R-12 Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Zone Change with Planned Development Review I, Gari Pagenstecher, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am an Associate Planner for the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon and that I personally posted notice of Public Hearing on the Planning Commission and City Council Hearings at the site, a copy of said notice being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the 31" day of October. 2016 . Signature of PdrsoA Who/Performed Posting Jn the presence of Jie Notary) STATE OF OREGON County of Washington ss. City of Tigard Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the 7 day of 201. BETSY GALICIA -72 OFFICIAL STAMP NOTARy PURLJC-OREGON MY COMMISSION MMISSION NO 925741 NOTARY PUBIJC OF O GON 0(pIRES MARCH 09,2018 'i ll g My Commission Expires: J COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER5 6605 SE Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222 PO Box 22109 Portland OR 97269-2109 Phone:503-684-0360 Fax:503-620-3433 E-mail: legals@commnewspapers.com PUBLIC HEARING ITEC The following will be considered by the TIGAM ING COMMISSION ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21, AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 2016, AT 7:00 PM.AND BEFORE THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 24. 2017,AT 7:30 State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS PM at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall 1, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, Blvd.,Tigard,Oregon. depose and say that I am the Accounting Public oral or written testimony is invited. The public hearing Manager of The Times (serving Tigard, on this matter will be held under Title 18 and rules of proce- Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of dure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the general circulation, published at Tigard, in the rules of procedure set forth in Section 18.390.060.E.The Plan- ning Commission's review is for the purpose of making a rec- aforesaid county and state, as defined by ommendation to the City Council on the request. The Council ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that will then hold a public hearing on the request prior to making a decision. City of Tigard Further information may be obtained from the City of Tigard Notice of-Public Hearing—CPA 2016- Planning Division (Staff contact: Gary Pagenstecher) at 00002; ZCt4 2016-00001; PDR 2016-0012 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223 or by calling TT66576 50317.18-2434. -TOPPING C-P TO R-12 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A copy of which is hereto annexed, was AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE WITH PLANNED published in the entire issue of said DEVELOPMENT REVIEW- newspaper for COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT(CPA) 2016-00002 Zone Change(ZON)2016-00001 week in the following issue: Planned Development Review(PDR)201640012, October 27,2016 - I REjQV. Th 4C e applicar�t,requests approval of a Comprehin- I Cka,,'V4, LjL41 sive Plan Designation and'Z'onMigMV.AnW"&ftMi&6WP",__1 -lessional Commercial, C-P, to Medium''Density Residential, Charlotte Allsop(Accounting Manager) R-12,and a Planned Development Review for a Concept Plan only on a three-parcel property totaling 1.54 acres. The pro- Subscribed and sworn to before me this posed concept;p",-,Aowi,-I$,sjngle-UWMy detached hMes October 27, 2016, with approximately 23 percent of the site in open space,a por- tion of which is located at the comer of SW Spruce Street and -SW 72nd Avenue. LOCATION: 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72nd Ave., 10735 SW 72nd Ave; TAX MAP/ LOT #'s: IS136ACO2400, IS136ACO2500; ZONE: NOTARY POBLIC FOR OREGON Existing: Professional Commercial,((-P); Proposed: Medium I Density Residential (R-12); APPLICABLE REVIEW CRI- Acct#10093001 TERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18'350, Attn: Gary Pagenstecher 18.380.030, and 18.390.050;Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2, 10; Statewide Planning Goals, 1, 2, 10; and Metro's Urban City of Tigard Growth Management Functional Platt rAles 1.,7,and 12. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 OFFICIAL STAMP ask JERRIN L.SIPE Size: 2 x 10.50" NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON Amount Due$175.35* COMMISSION NO.941161 *Please remit to address above. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 28,2019 4 5"J7' 10-17-16 ^� PLEASE PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LOGO IN THE LEGAL NOTICE SECTION OF TIGARD TIMES, THE FOLLOWING: PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: The following will be considered by the TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2016, AT 7:00 PM, AND BEFORE THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2017, AT 7:30 PM at the Tigard Civic Center-Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, Oregon. Public oral or written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be held under Title 18 and rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Section 18.390.060.E. The Planning Commission's review is for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council on the request. The Council will then hold a public hearing on the request prior to making a decision. Further information may be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division (Staff contact: Gary Pagenstecher) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, Oregon 97223 or by calling 503-718-2434. - TOPPING C-P TO R-12 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ ZONE CHANGE WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW- COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2016-00002 Zone Change (ZON) 2016-00001 Planned Development Review(PDR) 2016-0012 REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Amendment from Professional Commercial, C-P, to Medium Density Residential, R-12, and a Planned Development Review for a Concept Plan only on a three-parcel property totaling 1.54 acres. The proposed concept plan shows 18 single-family detached homes with approximately 23 percent of the site in open space, a portion of which is located at the corner of SW Spruce Street and SW 72nd Avenue. LOCATION: 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72nd Ave., 10735 SW 72nd Ave; TAX MAP/ LOT #'s: 1S136ACO2200, 1S136ACO2400, 1S136ACO2500; ZONE: Existing: Professional Commercial (C-P); Proposed: Medium Density Residential (R-12); APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.380.030, and 18.390.050; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 2, 10; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10; and Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Titles 1, 7, and 12. (Please PUBLISH the attached MAP WITH THIS NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION. THANK YOU) TT PUBLISH DATE: October 27,2016 t++ VICINITY MAP A 4 i0VU 1D_1111 7218 40d!�d 10;DD '14495 S0$ 7908 ISu 7ji70 CPA2016-00001 ZON2016-00002 IASNI PDR2016-00012 1053Q :1025 14530 Tapping Comp PlantZone 99 Change and Planned ' 1654 Development Review 13,11 iia 1.111 X217 72Q3 10960 1411 1d570 11]59; Vnlncorpomted Washington County R-4-5 F 754QiD6S Subject Site 11:111 10695 L' i3�0 ;310 X210 1D640 D�5$5 1!Ihllti rzfi T l llhi 10Ut 1 Iltllti 'C 10700 TI- 1121 y_ 75:15;'el ?415 7333, ? st I l0, 30 �: 7i1� 10795 - j *- - 1D750 L�� . t" -� a1 X09 7540 tA0 1D815 ` + to It 1 r 1.x,4 a4-rpS) 1 111171 73Q�? 10900 10855 ->I 14650 r .r�urrimo-+n.mm�e 104D0 ;1 Carewnue»rrmAs MIM 10900 lam I 10900 � 1088a >., in 10900 110915 '111Y,11 109+40 4 a +�ix sir ri bxv 1 r... 9 *?�gpt r +aa 3=4M �� EXHIBIT A NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE,LIENHOLDER,VENDOR OR SELLER: THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held before the Tigard Planning Commission on Monday, November 21, 2016, at 7.00 pm, and before the Tigard City Council on Tuesday, anuary, 24, 2017, at 7.30 pm The public hearings will be conducted in the town hall of the Tigard Civic Center at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. These hearings are for the purpose of receiving testimony from the public. FILE NOS.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2016-00002 Zone Change (ZON) 2016-00001 Planned Development Review (PDR) 2016-0012 FILE TITLE: TOPPING C-P TO R-12 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ ZONE CHANGE WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICANT: Stafford Development Company,LLC. 485 S. State Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 PROPERTY OWNER: Richard Topping& Katherine Kemp 19765 Derby St. West Limn, OR 97068 REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Amendment from Professional Commercial, C-P, to Medium Density Residential, R-12, and a Planned Development Review for a Concept Plan only for a on a three-parcel property totaling 1.54 acres. The proposed concept plan shows 18 single-family detached homes with approximately 23 percent of the site in open space, a portion of which is located at the corner of SW Spruce Street and SW 72nd Avenue. In 2015, to facilitate the retention of R-12 zoning in the City, City Staff had requested approval of a zoning "swap" from C-P to R-12 on the subject property and from R-12 to C-G on another property on Pacific Hwy and School Street (CPA 2015-00005 and ZON 2015-00007). The City Council approved the Pacific Hwy property rezone. However, the subject property portion of the application was remanded to the Planning Commission for a public hearing after completion of applicable Type III Quasi-Judicial public notice and neighborhood meeting requirements to address concerns raised by neighbors. LOCATION: 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72nd Ave., 10735 SW 72nd Ave;TAX MAP/LOT#'s: 1S136ACO2200, 1S136ACO2400, 1S136ACO2500. COMP PLAN DESIGNATION/ ZONING DISTRICT: Existing. Professional Commercial(C-P);Proposed: Medium Density Residential(R-12) APPLICABLE Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.380.030, and 18.390.050;Comprehensive Plan REVIEW Goals 1, 2, 10; Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 10; and Metro's Urban Growth Management CRITERIA: Functional Plan Titles 1,7,and 12. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.390.050.D and18.390.060.E OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL 503-639-4171, EXT. 2438 (VOICE) OR 503-684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. PUBLIC ORAL OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY IS INVITED. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. THE PURPOSE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REVIEW IS TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THE COUNCIL WILL THEN HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ITEM AT A LATER DATE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (254,) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING,A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25e,) PER PAGE,OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER GARY PAGENSTECHER AT 503-718-2434IGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223) OR BY EMAIL TO r � and-or. ov. OAK ST VICINITY MAP 10490 7218 t0491110500 7508 7408 7:350 73D0 10500 10495 CPA2016-00001 ZON2016-00002 10 520 10925 10530 10525 P DR2016-00012 10530 Topping Comp Plan/Zone Change and Planned 7405 10565 Development Review 7417 73:33 7311 7217 7203 10560 7411 10570 10595 W Unincorporated Washington County P,- 7540_t_065'i 106'16 7212 Subject Site 0 7.330 7:310 7210 10640 7130 10655 0685 10688 7290 i 1067 0705 MOP 10705 10 70 0 "'-- ?11720 © . 753=7515 ;'115 7383 1.07:30 10745 7121 7115 111750 SPRUCE STI 11509 75407510 10815 C-P to R-12 (1.54 acres) 10820 7302 10900 ` 10855 10850 Approx.Scale 1:2,000-11n=167tt 10900 Map printed at 06:24 PM on 14A0-16 10900 10885 —: 10880 em•tan en mH msOHror g<M•1b—.ANY.DrvP . ♦eMMWn 10900 -* �<D<��P<�<M s<rvK<•D'rvwion. DATA IS DERIVED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES THE CRY OF TIGARD ha. MAKES NO WARRANTY.REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TOTHE CONTENT,ACCURACY,TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF THE DATA PROVIDED HEREIN.THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL ASSUME NO 10900 10915 115 65 LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS.OMISSIONS,OR INACCURACIES IN THE 10910 NFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSED. 10900 11565 city or Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd MA 5 BARD QS Tiggard,OR 97223 10 FL-et , TI 03639-4171 www.tigardor.gov o I 16.o I OPEN SPACE - a TRACT B 11,809 S.F. N 2,444 sf x W 95.0 30.0 95.0 SC Y 12 11 2,660 S.F. 2,660 S.F. 2,475 S.F. LLI W ` 13 p 1095.3 — z 0 N 2,660 S.F. 2,660 S.F. °'N 2,478 S.F. I> ______________40.0--------------------------------------- p a Q (9 m 26.0 m X6.0 26.Ga 26.0 m 3�.0 m 31.$ 28.0 X28.0 -- 2§0 _$& 28.0 19.4 - '0 Z30 i Cn I l V �{ Z o a_ 3 7�S�TQR M 8 7 6 5 4 . I� o 'i z,asjS.P 18 17 16 15 14 Q y 2,914 S.F. 2.632 S.F. 2632 S.F.44 2,632 S.F. 2.632 S.F. 2.632 S.F. 1 < 2.4 H 2,444 f 2.N xf 2,44{Ff 2.014 S.F. Z �' O /'� z n F Ln 0 W < 0 ~ Uj Q U I W Z w M 0 f O v a U _ to U N U in Q Z a I z 3r 3 1 �> C) � V I _- ____ - R.�W. CENTERLINE SW SPRUCE STREET --------------- — - - -- -------------- PD CONCEPT Plan - Single Family Detached Residential Lots Open Space Density & Setbacks Utilities & Parking j Gross Site Area = 67,325s.f. Compliance with R-12 Density Public Sanitary, Water & Storm Available in 6 Minimum 20% = 13,465 s.f. Maximum 18 Units Single Family Detached SW 72nd and SW Spruce. On—site Proposed Open Space = 15,997 s.f. (23.8%) Setbacks easements will be located as determined at k e (Excluding Storm batt=13,650 J.(20.3x) Side=5' Rear=15' Front—Garage=20' Detailed Concept Plan Approval a ,� Front — Building=12' p Parking — Each Lot Driveway & Garage and swr Public On—Street 1 OF 1 JOB N0. 2634-001 EXHIBIT B 1S136DB01700 ALBERTSON,BARRY ABBOTT,BRUCE&REBECCA 15445 SW 150TH AVE 10850 SW 74TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136AC04600 1S136AC04200 ANDERSON,KRISTY ANDREWS,LINDA E 10690 SW 75TH AVE GLAWE,CHRISTOPHER A PORTLAND,OR 97223 7130 SW PINE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136AC03200 BEACH,DAYLE D.&EVELYN O. ARCHER,RUSSELL M TRUST 11530 SW 72ND AVENUE BOUCHER,MARK A TIGARD,OR 97223 10745 SW 71ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 BEILKE,SUSAN BEILSTEIN,ELLEN 11755 SW 114TH PLACE 14630 SW 139TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 1 S 136AC00400 1 S 136BD04600 BESS,BOB G AND EVA JO BILLER,MATTHEW JAMES 10595 SW 71ST AVE 7575 SW PINE ST PORTLAND,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 BONILLA,NACIA/STASNY,JAMIE 1S136AC01100 METROPOLITAN LAND GROUP,LLC BOWMAN,ERIC&DEBRA M 17933 NW EVERGREEN PARKWAY,SUITE 300 7311 SW PINE ST BEAVERTON,OR 97006 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136AC01701 1S136AC04300 BRAUNSTEN,SCOTT B&MEGAN C BRECKENRIDGE,ROBERT D& 7212 SW PINE ST KATHRYN A TIGARD,OR 97223 7218 SW OAK ST TIGARD,OR 97223 BRENNEMAN,HEIDI 1S136CA00100 11680 SW TIGARD DRIVE BRUCE,SCOTT E&LISA J TIGARD,OR 97223 7510 SW SPRUCE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 BUEHNER,GRETCHEN 1S136AC00401 PO BOX 230268 BURNETT,M LOUISE&CHARLES TIGARD,OR 97281 10565 SW 71ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 CAFFALL,REX CAROL RENAUD 13205 SW VILLAGE GLENN WACO CPO NEWSLETTER COORD. TIGARD,OR 97223 OSU EXT.SVC-CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT FACULTY 155 NORTH 1ST AVENUE SUITE 200 MS48 HILLSBORO,OR 97124 1S136BD03500 CITY OF TIGARD CHAUSSE,CAROLE L ATTN:GARY PAGENSTECHER 10705 SW 75TH 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136AC01000 CONNERY,STACY CLARK,PATRICIA I 12564 SW MAIN STREET 7333 SW PINE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136AC01200 1S136AC00500 CONNOR,PENNY L COOPER,M JOHN&NANCY A 7217 SW PINE ST 10525 SW 71ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 CRAGHEAD,ALEXANDER 1S136AC03000 12205 SW HALL BOULEVARD DASUE LLC TIGARD,OR 97223-6210 11902 SW 60TH PORTLAND,OR 97219 DEFILIPPIS,VICTOR 1S136DB01600 13892 SW BRAYDON CT DORRELL,DONAL N TIGARD,OR 97224 10885 SW 74TH ST TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136DB01500 ENGVALL,ANN DORRELL,DONAL V G&DELMA R 15461 SW 82 PL PO BOX 230482 TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97281 ERDT,DON&DOROTHY 1S136AC03300 13760 SW 121ST AVENUE FAKIH,HAIDAR&LAMA TIGARD,OR 97223 10705 SW 71ST TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136BD03400 1S136AC03800 FARANCE,RICHARD A FATHERREE,ROBERT&LISA 12534 SW 56TH CT 7302 SW SPRUCE ST PORTLAND,OR 97219 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136ACO2000 1S136BD04000 FENNELLY,JOHN& FOSTER,KYLE GRAY,LESLIE 7595 SW SPRUCE ST 10650 SW 75TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136AC00800 1S136BD03700 FOX,SARA FRAZIER,GARY B 10490 SW 75TH AVE 7535 SW SPRUCE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 multiple: 1S136AC03400 to 1S136DB00201 FROUDE,BEVERLY FRED MEYER STORES INC 12200 SW BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD STORE#375 TIGARD,OR 97224 1014 VINE ST PROPERTY TAX 7TH FLOOR CINCINNATI,OH 45202 1 S 136AD03701 1 S 136A CO2900 GARBER LIVING TRUST GIBBONS,NOREEN M 10680 SW 71ST AVE 10730 SW 72ND AVE PORTLAND,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 GOODHOUSE,JOHN 1S136BD01000 9345 SW MOUNTAIN VIEW LANE GOTTER,SAMUEL A&VICTORIA L TIGARD,OR 97224 7515 SW PINE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 HAMILTON,LISA CPO 4B VICE CHAIR 1S136AC04700 13565 SW BEEF BEND ROAD HANSON,CHARLES D&CHRISTINA D TIGARD,OR 97224 10670 SW 75TH AVE PORTLAND,OR 97223 HARDING,TODD&HERING JR,BLAKE. 1S136BD03100 NORRIS BEGGS&SIMPSON HEDIN,JERRY L REVOCABLE TRUST 121 SW MORRISON,SUITE 200 HEDIN,ALBERTA A REVOCABLE TRUST PORTLAND,OR 97204 7560 SW PINE ST PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136AC04500 HOGAN,KEVIN HOBBEL,SUSAN L 14357 SW 133RD AVENUE 10680 SW 75TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97224 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136AC03100 HOWLAND,HAROLD AND RUTH HOWARD,DAN L&DIANE M 13145 SW BENISH 1311 SNOWDEN RD TIGARD,OR 97223 WHITE SALMON,WA 98672 1S136AC03801 1S136CA90201 ILLIAS,NICOLE M&KYLE A JACOBSON,KEVIN 10820 SW 74TH AVE 10900 SW 76TH PL#20 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136BD03300 KEERINS,PATRICIA KAYE,SAUL M 15677 SW OREGON ST.APT 209 10655 SW 75TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97140 PORTLAND,OR 97223 KIMMEL,DAVID KNAPP,MONA 1335 SW 66TH SUITE 201 9600 SW FREWING STREET PORTLAND,OR 97225 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90141 1S136BD03200 KOHL,MAN,KYLE JAMES LANE,JERED 10900 SW 76TH PL#14 7540 SW PINE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136AC00200 1S136AC00901 LARSEN,DEAN W TR& LEFEBVRE,LINDA LARSEN,MARGIE C TR MOON,DANIEL J&SARA N 10530 SW 72ND 7411 SW PINE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136DB02100 LISA HAMILTON CHAIR CPO 4B VICE-CHAIR LEWIS,BENJAMIN NOLAN 16200 SW PACIFIC HWY SUITE H BOX 242 10970 SW 74TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 LONG,JIM CHAIR,CPO 4M 1S136AC01400 10730 SW 72ND AVE LONGTHORNE,SHARALYNN PORTLAND,OR 97223 10525 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136DB01900 1S136AD04000 MAGLEY,PAMELA L MCLELLAN ESTATE CO 10910 SW 74TH AVE 707 OLD COUNTRY RD TIGARD,OR 97223 BELMONT,CA 94002 1S136BD00100 1S136DB01400 MCNULTY,BRET B&JESSICA L MEHRA,ARUN 7508 SW OAK ST FLOP,JENNIFER M PORTLAND,OR 97223 10915 SW 74TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90191 1S136DB01800 MENDONSA,TESSIE J MICKLEY,WILLIAM 10900 SW 76TH PL UNIT 19 10880 SW 74TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90151 MILDREN,GENE MILAT,DEBORAH JO MILDREN DESIGN GROUP 10900 SW 76TH PL UNIT 15 7650 SW BEVELAND ST,STE 120 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90091 1S136CA90172 MILLER,JODI A MISKA TRUST 10900 SW 76TH PL#9 BY MISKA,EDWARDS P& TIGARD,OR 97223 PHYLLIS A TRS 745 THIRD ST LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 1 S 136ACO2102 1 S 136CA90071 MOREHEAD,RODNEY N MOTLAGH,MEHDI S&ZENAIDA F 7383 SW SPRUCE ST 10900 SW 76TH PL#7 PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136ACO2101 NEAL BROWN. GRI MURDOCK,NATHAN AND ANN MEADOWS INC REALTORS 7415 SW SPRUCE STREET 12655 SW NORTH DAKOTA STREET TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136DB02000 NEWTH,PATTY NELSON WEST PROPERTIES LLC 12180 SW MERESTONE COURT 12316 NW CORNELL RD TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97229 1 S 136AC00900 1 S 136DB01200 ODELL,JEFFREY RAY PATELZICK,JOHN J JR&CYNTHIA A 7417 SW PINE ST 10975 SW 74TH AVE PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 multiple: 1S136BD05400 to 1S136BD05500 1S136AC01900 PETERSEN,OVE&LORA REV LIVING PROVANCHER,KENNETH A& 7608 SW PINE ST STEWART,PENNY L PORTLAND,OR 97223 7330 SW PINE ST PORTLAND,OR 97223 1 S 136CA07000 1 S 136BD03600 PROWITT,NANCY C 2001 REVOCABLE PULSINELLI,CHRISTINE M 809 NOE ST 7515 SW SPRUCE ST SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94114 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CA07100 1 S 136AC00803 RAPPOLD,TROY K RECHT,MARTHA 1125 SE MADISON ST#201 10520 SW 75TH AVE PORTLAND,OR 97214 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136AC03900 1S136CA90111 RECHTEGER,HEIDI REESOR,LOUISA 10815 SW 74TH AVE 9921 NW MARING DR TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97229 1S136AC01300 RORMAN,SUE RICCIARDI,ANN L 11250 SW 82ND AVE 7203 SW PINE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136AC04400 1 S 136CA06900 ROUSE,JEANETTE ROUSE,CHARLES& 10491 SW 72ND AVE GENDE,DIANE M PORTLAND,OR 97223 11916 SW ELEMAR CT TIGARD,OR 97223 RUEDY,ROBERT 1S136ACO2800 14185 SW 100TH AVENUE RUSSELL-HARRIS PROPERTY TRUST TIGARD,OR 97224 24348 SW BAKER RD SHERWOOD,OR 97140 1S136AC00202 1S136CA90212 SCACCO,LINDLE F&DIANA E SCHAEFFER,CAROL 10500 SW 72ND AVE 10900 SW 76TH PL#21 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136BD03000, 1S136BD03900 1S136AD03800 SCHMIDT,DAVID AND SCHOEWE,CAROL A TRUST ANNETTE 10720 SW 71ST AVE 7575 SW SPRUCE STREET PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA90101 1S136AC00300 SHOEMAKER,KELLEE A SITTEL,BETTY J 10900 SW 76TH PL#10 10560 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136AD03900 multiple: 1S136BD03003 to 1S136BD03800 SMITH,EDITA M REVOCABLE LIVING SPRING,LINDA L 833 NW 170TH DR 7555 SW SPRUCE ST BEAVERTON,OR 97006 PORTLAND,OR 97223 SPRING,BRAD STALZER'CHARLIE AND LARIE 7555 SW SPRUCE STREET 14781 SW JULIET TERRACE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 1S136AC00701 1S136CA90131 STECHER,VERNON C JR SUMINSKI,ADAM D 7350 SW OAK 10900 SW 76TH PL#13 TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 SUNDBERG,ROSS THOMPSON,GLENNA 16382 SW 104TH AVE 13676 SW HALL BLVD UNIT 2 TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 multiple: 1S136ACO2200 to 1S136ACO2500 1S136AC01800 TOPPING,RICHARD TRACY,NANCY LOU TRUST KEMP,KATHERINE 7310 SW PINE ST 19765 DERBY ST PORTLAND,OR 97223 WEST LINN,OR 97068 1S136CA90081 1S136AC01700 VANDIJK,CAROLYN L VANEK,IVAN 10900 SW 76TH PL#8 7290 SW PINE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136ACO2700 1S136BD01100 VINCENT,BRADFORD VINS,ALEXANDER 10640 SW 72ND AVE 14315 SEXTON MOUNTAIN DR#1F TIGARD,OR 97223 BEAVERTON,OR 97008 1S136AC00801 1S136AC01600 WAINWRIGHT FAMILY LLC WAKELAND,DENNIS S&GAY A 6120 SW HUBER 7210 SW PINE ST PORTLAND,OR 97219 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136AC00902 1S136AC04100 WALKER,RODNEY L&PAMELA G WATSON,JAMIE NOEFLE 7405 SW PINE ST 10655 SW 71 ST AVE PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 WEGENER,BRIAN 1S136CA90161 9830 SW KIMBERLY DRIVE WINANS,EMILY TIGARD,OR 97224 3111 NE 165TH PL VANCOUVER,WA 98682 1 S 136CA90121 1 S 136DB01300 WISCHMEYER,SARAH M ZSOKA,KENNETH G 10900 SW 76TH PL#12 NICHOLS-ZSOKA,TIFFANYE B TIGARD,OR 97223 10945 SW 74TH AVE PORTLAND,OR 97223 1S136CA90182 1S136AC00700 ZVAIGZNE,BRIAN ZWINGLI,WALTER SCOTT TRUST 10900 SW 76TH PL,UNIT 18 7300 SW OAK ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 FA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILINGCIO TIGARD I, Gary Pagenstecher,being first duly sworn/affirm,on oath depose and say that I am an Associate Planner for the City of Tigard,Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following {Check Appropriate Box(es)Below} ® NOTICE OF Public Hearing FOR: Topping C-P to R-12 Comprehensive Plan Amendment/ Zone Change with Planned Development Review,CPA2016-00002 ❑ AMENDED NOTICE— ❑ City of Tigard Community Development Director/Designee ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer ® Tigard Planning Commission on November 21,2016 ® Tigard City Council on January 24,2017 A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked Exhibit "A", and by reference made a part hereof,was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit "B", and by reference made a part hereof, October 18,2016 and deposi in the United States Mail on October 18.2016,postage prepaid. Gary iagenstecher STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the day of Jy✓e-A-,`? 2016. . --a- OFFICIAL STAMP BETSY GA l iCIA N TARY PUBUC OREGON NOTARY PUBLI OF OREGON COMMISSION N0.925741 PIRES MARCH 09,201$ -7/ AL MY COMMISSION EX My Commission Expires: DLCD FORM 2 NOTICE OF ADOPTED CHANGE FOR DLCD USE TO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR File No.: LAND USE REGULATION Received: Local governments are required to send notice of an adopted change to a comprehensive plan or land use regulation no more than 20 days after the adoption. (See OAR 660-018-0040). The rules require that the notice include a completed copy of this form. This notice form is not for submittal of a completed periodic review task or a plan amendment reviewed in the manner of periodic review. Use Form 4 for an adopted urban growth boundary including over 50 acres by a city with a population greater than 2,500 within the UGB or an urban growth boundary amendment over 100 acres adopted by a metropolitan service district. Use Form 5 for an adopted urban reserve designation, or amendment to add over 50 acres, by a city with a population greater than 2,500 within the UGB. Use Fonn 6 with submittal of an adopted periodic review task. Jurisdiction: City of Tigard Local file no.: CPA2016-00002,ZON2016-00001 Date of adoption: 1/27/2017 Date sent: 2/6/2016 Was Notice of a Proposed Change(Form 1) submitted to DLCD? Yes: Date(use the date of last revision if a revised Form lwas submitted): 10/14/2016 No Is the adopted change different from what was described in the Notice of Proposed Change? Yes No If yes, describe how the adoption differs from the proposal: No Local contact(name and title): Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner Phone: 503-718-2434 E-mail: garyp@tigard-or.gov Street address: 13125 SW Hall Blvd. City: Tigard Zip: 97223- PLEASE COMPLETE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS THAT APPLY For a chanee to comprehensive plan text: Identify the sections of the plan that were added or amended and which statewide planning goals those sections implement,if any: For a change to a comprehensive plan map: Identify the former and new map designations and the area affected: Change from Professional Commercial to Medium Residential 1.54 acres. A goal exception was required for this change. Change from to acres. A goal exception was required for this change. Change from to acres. A goal exception was required for this change. Change from to acres. A goal exception was required for this change. Location of affected property(T, R, Sec., TL and address): 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72nd Ave., 10735 SW 72nd Ave; The subject property is entirely within an urban growth boundary The subject property is partially within an urban growth boundary http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/Pages/forms.aspx -1- Form updated November 1,2013 If the comprehensive plan map change is a UGB amendment including less than 50 acres and/or by a city with a population less than 2,500 in the urban area, indicate the number of acres of the former rural plan designation,by type, included in the boundary. Exclusive Farm Use—Acres: Non-resource—Acres: Forest—Acres: Marginal Lands—Acres: Rural Residential—Acres: Natural Resource/Coastal/Open Space—Acres: Rural Commercial or Industrial—Acres: Other: —Acres: If the comprehensive plan map change is an urban reserve amendment including less than 50 acres, or establishment or amendment of an urban reserve by a city with a population less than 2,500 in the urban area, indicate the number of acres,by plan designation, included in the boundary. Exclusive Farm Use—Acres: Non-resource—Acres: Forest—Acres: Marginal Lands—Acres: Rural Residential—Acres: Natural Resource/Coastal/Open Space—Acres: Rural Commercial or Industrial—Acres: Other: —Acres: For a change to the text of an ordinance or code: Identify the sections of the ordinance or code that were added or amended by title and number: For a change to a zoning may: Identify the former and new base zone designations and the area affected: Change from C-P to R-12 Acres: 1.54 Change from to Acres: Change from to Acres: Change from to Acres: Identify additions to or removal from an overlay zone designation and the area affected: Overlay zone designation: NA Acres added: Acres removed: Location of affected property(T, R, Sec.,TL and address): TAX MAP/LOT#1S136ACO2200, 2400, and 2500 List affected state or federal agencies, local governments and special districts: DLCD, Metro Identify supplemental information that is included because it may be useful to inform DLCD or members of the public of the effect of the actual change that has been submitted with this Notice of Adopted Change, if any. If the submittal, including supplementary materials, exceeds 100 pages, include a summary of the amendment briefly describing its purpose and requirements. Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council (Exhibit B to Ordinance No. 17-01) http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/Pages/forms.aspx -2- Form updated November 1, 2013 re;,JT >o-17-lir c DLCD FORM 1 NOTICE OF A PROPOSED CHANGE FOR DLCD USE TO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR File No.: LAND USE REGULATION Received: Local governments are required to send notice of a proposed change to a comprehensive plan or land use regulation at least 35 days before the first evidentiary hearing. (See OAR 660-018-0020 for a post-acknowledgment plan amendment and OAR 660-025-0080 for a periodic review task). The rules require that the notice include a completed copy of this form. Jurisdiction: City of Tigard Local file no.: CPA2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2016-00012 Please check the type of change that best describes the proposal: ❑ Urban growth boundary(UGB) amendment including more than 50 acres, by a city with a population greater than 2,500 within the UGB ❑ UGB amendment over 100 acres by a metropolitan service district ❑ Urban reserve designation,or amendment including over 50 acres, by a city with a population greater than 2,500 within the UGB ❑ Periodic review task—Task no.: ® Any other change to a comp plan or land use regulation(e.g., a post-acknowledgement plan amendment) Local contact person(name and title): Gary Pagenstecher Phone: 503-718-2434 E-mail: garyp@tigard-or.gov Street address: 13125 SW Hall Boulevard City: Tigard Zip: 97223- Briefly summarize the proposal in plain language. Please identify all chapters of the plan or code proposed for amendment(maximum 500 characters): The applicant proposes a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change from C-P to R-12 on a 1.54-acre property and planned development review for 18 single-family detached homes. Date of first evidentiary hearing: 11/21/2016 Date of final hearing: 01/24/2017 ❑ This is a revision to a previously submitted notice. Date of previous submittal: Check all that apply: ❑ Comprehensive Plan text amendment(s) ® Comprehensive Plan map amendment(s)— Change from CP to M Change from to ❑ New or amended land use regulation ® Zoning map amendment(s)— Change from C-P to R-12 Change from to ❑ An exception to a statewide planning goal is proposed—goal(s) subject to exception: ® Acres affected by map amendment: 1 Location of property, if applicable(site address and T, R, Sec., TL): 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72nd Ave., 10735 SW 72nd Ave;TAX MAP/ LOT#' List affected state or federal agencies, local governments and special districts: LCDC, Metro http://www.oregon.govZLCD/Pages/forms.aspx -1- Form updated November 1,2013 NOTICE OF A PROPOSED CHANGE - SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS 1. Except under certain circumstances,' proposed Include this Form 1 as the first pages of a combined amendments must be submitted to DLCD's Salem file or as a separate file. office at least 35 days before the first evidentiary 5. File format: When submitting a Notice of a hearing on the proposal. The 35 days begins the day of Proposed Change via e-mail or FTP, or on a digital the postmark if mailed, or, if submitted by means other disc, attach all materials in one of the following than US Postal Service, on the day DLCD receives the formats: Adobe .pdf(preferred); Microsoft Office(for proposal in its Salem office. DLCD will not confirm example,Word .doc or docx or Excel .xls or xlsx); or receipt of a Notice of a Proposed Change unless ESRI .mxd, .gdb, or .mpk. For other file formats, requested. please contact the plan amendment specialist at 503- 2. A Notice of a Proposed Change must be submitted 934-0017 or plan.amendments(a)state.or.us. by a local government(city, county, or metropolitan 6. Text: Submittal of a Notice of a Proposed Change service district). DLCD will not accept a Notice of a for a comprehensive plan or land use regulation text Proposed Change submitted by an individual or private amendment must include the text of the amendment firm or organization. and any other information necessary to advise DLCD 3. Hard-copy submittal: When submitting a Notice of the effect of the proposal. "Text"means the specific of a Proposed Change on paper,via the US Postal language proposed to be amended, added to, or deleted Service or hand-delivery,print a completed copy of from the currently acknowledged plan or land use this Form 1 on light green paper if available. Submit regulation. A general description of the proposal is not one copy of the proposed change, including this form adequate. The notice may be deemed incomplete and other required materials to: without this documentation. Attention: Plan Amendment Specialist 7. Staff report: Attach any staff report on the Dept. of Land Conservation and Development proposed change or information that describes when 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 the staff report will be available and how a copy may Salem,OR 97301-2540 be obtained. This form is available here: 8. Local hearing notice: Attach the notice or a draft http•//www.oregon.�ov/LCD/forins.shtmi of the notice required under ORS 197.763 regarding a 4. Electronic submittals of up to 20MB may be sent quasi-judicial land use hearing, if applicable. via e-mail. Address e-mails to plan.amendments(cu 9. Maps: Submittal of a proposed map amendment state.or.us with the subject line"Notice of Proposed must include a map of the affected area showing Amendment." existing and proposed plan and zone designations. A Submittals may also be uploaded to DLCD's FTP site paper map must be legible if printed on 8%2"x 11" at paper. Include text regarding background,justification http://www.ore�oii.Dov/LCD/Pages/papa submittal.asp for the change, and the application if there was one accepted by the local government. A map by itself is X. not a complete notice. E-mails with attachments that exceed 20MB will not be 10. Goal exceptions: Submittal of proposed received, and therefore FTP must be used for these amendments that involve a goal exception must include electronic submittals. The FTP site must be used for the proposed language of the exception. all .zip files regardless of size. The maximum file size for uploading via FTP is 150MB. 1660-018-0022 provides: (1)When a local government determines that no goals,commission rules,or land use statutes apply to a particular proposed change, the notice of a proposed change is not required[a notice of adoption is still required,however];and (2)If a local government determines that emergency circumstances beyond the control of the local government require expedited review such that the local government cannot submit the proposed change consistent with the 35-day deadline,the local government may submit the proposed change to the department as soon as practicable.The submittal must include a description of the emergency circumstances. http•/Zwww.oregon.gov/LCD/Pages/`forms.aspx -2- Form updated November 1,2013 If you have any questions or would like assistance,please contact your DLCD regional representative or the DLCD Salem office at 503-934-0017 or e-mail plan.amendmentsLtstate or us. Notice checklist. Include all that apply: ® Completed Form 1 ❑ The text of the amendment(e.g.,plan or code text changes, exception findings,justification for change) ® Any staff report on the proposed change or information that describes when the staff report will be available and how a copy may be obtained ® A map of the affected area showing existing and proposed plan and zone designations ❑ A copy of the notice or a draft of the notice regarding a quasi-judicial land use hearing, if applicable ❑ Any other information necessary to advise DLCD of the effect of the proposal http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/Pages/forms aspx -3- Form updated November 1,2013 OAK ST VICINITY MAP 10490 10500 7218 10491 10500 10495 750x) CPA2016-00001 7.108 7350 7300 ZON2016-00002 10520 PDR2016-00012 1.0575 10530 1052`;> 10530 Topping Comp Plan/Zone 0`�55 7405 Change and Planned I < 10565 Development Review 7417 733=1 1,11 7217 7203 0 10560 7411 N 10570 10595 > R-4.5 a Unincorporated Washington County P I N E S T ., rn 75401065`-, 7'x$1 Subject Site 7310 1 7210 10640 � 7130 1.0655 7:33(1 � 10685 10680 7290 I 1067 10705 106916 10705 "' � 10700Ft -- 10720 753`7515 1'115 7383 = 73 10 7121 711.5 10750 SPRUCE ST L1509 75407510 10815 C-P to R-12 (1.54 acres) 10820 7302 10900 10855 > 10850 Approx.scale 1:2,000-1 in=167 ft 10900 Map pnnted at 0624 PM on 14-ODt-16 10900 10885 1 brmatbn on this map ie br pene al bcpNy a.M eM1OJE M ve fle w h � 10880 tlxDevebpmentS—<eaDrvlabn 10900 ,.".. _. DATA N DERIVED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES.THE CRT OF TIGARD f\ MAKES NT WARRANTY.REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE CONTENT,PROVIDED HEREIN,THE COMPLETENESS OFANY OF THE DATA PROVIDED HEREIN.THE OCITYMISSIONS, S,TIG ARD SHALLASSUME NO 10900 10915 A 5 UABI N FORMRANY ERRORS,ROVIDED REGARDLESS SS INACCURACIES.THE 10910 J. J INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSED. 10900 5 city of Tigard D 13125 SW Hall Blvd LD 0 rIGAR MCPs Tigard,OR 97223 -_ 63 9-4171 www.tigard-or.gov APPLICANT MATERIALS p" w 40" Westlake PLANNING I ENGINEERING I SURVEYING consultants,inc _ Y. Y Stafford Development, LLC. Topping Subdivision CPA 2016-00002 ZON 2016-00001 PDR 2016-00012 F September 12, 2016 Pacific Corporate Center 15115 sw sequoia parkway, suite 150, tigard, oregon 97224 www.westlakeconsultants.com I PH 503.684.0652 1 Fx 503.624.0157 Stafford Development, LLC. Topping Subdivision CPA 2016-00002 ZON 2016-00001 PDR 2016-00012 Prepared for: Stafford Development, LLC. 19765 Derby St. -- West Linn, OR 97068 Portland, OR 97229 Phone: (503) 720 - 0914 Prepared by: Westlake Consultants, Inc. 15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150 Tigard, Oregon 97224 Phone: (503) 684-0652 Fax: (503) 624-0157 Topping Planned Development Concept Plan WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS,Inc. 7303 SW Spruce St.Tigard,OR 97224 Westlake consultants,inc September 12, 2016 Mr. Gary Pagenstecher CITY OF TIGARD,OREGON 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,OR 97223 RE: Topping Subdivision -- FILE#: CPA 2016-00002/ZON 2016-00001/PDR 2016-00012 Response for additional information-Completeness of Application Dear Gary, This letter is submitted in response to your incompleteness letter dated August 25, 2016 requesting additional information in order to deem the Topping Subdivision complete (File# CPA 2016-00002 /ZON 2016-00001/ PDR 2016-00012). This letter and enclosed materials are submitted by the applicant to supplement the application plans, narrative responses, and exhibits submitted to date. As per your letter, twenty-five (25) copies of all original and revised materials are enclosed. Each of the items in your letter are addressed as follows: Information Necessary to Complete Application _. 1. Narrative findings have been revised to address all applicable review criteria for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation,Zoning Map Amendment, and Planned Development Concept Plan review. 2. The Planned Development Concept Plan has been revised to reflect a utility easement and on-site storm and sanitary lines to serve the 18 lots. In addition,a vegetated,water quality storm swale is now depicted in Tract A.At its depicted 7' width and 130' length,this Swale exceeds minimum design standards and provides adequate stormwater treatment to serve the impervious areas of the Planned Development Concept Plan. Stormwater facility design engineering will be required at the time of Planned Development Detailed Plan review and approval. Existing downstream public stormwater conveyance pipes(increasing in size from 12"up 27"diameter)are located within the Spruce St.right-of-way, connecting from the Tract A storm outfall at the SW corner of the subject property to the existing open drainageway located less than'/4 mile to the west near the intersection of SW Spruce St. & SW 78th Ave. With submittal of this letter and enclosed revised materials, it is our understanding that this land use application is complete. We look forward to your confirmation of completeness. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Westlake Consultants,Inc. twV Kenneth L. Sandblast,AICP Director of Planning �l Iigarij. f-tivw:.trest'iakeconsu `azt<_:.rom ='H--�!+�-68M-Ot�J� � >--_.�_-5Z•+-0_�7 a 0 City of Tigard :august 25,2016 Stafford Development Company-, LLC. c/o ?Morgan Will 485 S. State Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Project: Topping Comp Plan and Zone Amendment, Planned Development Site: 7303 SW Spruce St, 10705 SW 72nd Ave, 10735 SW 72nd Ave. Land Use Files: CPA2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2016-00012 Dear Mr. Will: The city received your application on august 3, 2016 for a comprehensive plan, zone change, and planned development concept plan review. Staff evaluated the application for completeness against Tigard's submittal requirements and determined that additional information is required. I. Completeness Items The following items must be submitted in order for your applications to be deemed complete: 1. Narrative. Please revise your narrative findings to address all of the applicable review criteria including those for the comp plan and zone change amendment. The findings in the city's staff report to the Planning Commission for CP A2015-00005/ZON2015-00007 may° be used, but amended to be applicable to the subject proposal. The citta is processing the direction by the Council to remand to the Commission through a new application and not as a continuation of the above referenced application case numbers. 2. Public Facilities Plan Completeness Checklist. Please review the attached Memorandum dated August 16, 2016 from the Development Review Engineer and amend your application accordingly. Granted, these items are more applicable to a detailed plan, but to the extent then can be addressed conceptually on the plan, please provide the additional information. (Greg Berra, 503-718-2468) II. Re-submittal Requirements Submit all of the following items concurrently. 1. A copy of this letter. 2. A letter addressing holy each completeness items have been addressed, including a description of the revisions and their specific locations, e.g. page and/or plan set numbers. A thorough and detailed letter will facilitate staff's review of your application in a timelt manner. _ 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 0 www.tigard-or.gov Determination of Completeness Page 2 Land Use File PDR2016-00009 3. Please Submit 25 copies of your revised and new materials (including all elements of the submittal, collated and bound). Plan sets may be printed at 11" x 17" size as long as you include 3 copies of the Concept Plan at 22" x 34". Also, submit one copy at 8 1/2" x 11" for our records. 4. One (1) compact discs containing all elements of your proposal. All plans must be formatted to a 300dpi. 5. Completed"Request for 500'Property Owner Notification" and receipt of payment. If you have any questions,please contact me at 503-718-2434 or garyp@tigard-or.gov. Sincerely, t Gary Pagenstecher,AICP CUD Associate Planner Attachments: Public Facility Plan Checklist Copy: File: CPA2016-00002 d:2 City of Tigard August 16,2016 To: Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner From: Greg Berry, Private Development Engineer 49 Subject: Topping Subdivision PD Concept Completeness Review Comments: • Show type of water quality and quantity facility and size in sufficient detail to show that Tract A provides an adequate site. • Show how lines will be directed to the facility and any required easements 0 Show any sanitary sewer easements required to extend service throughout the site. • Submit a preliminary review by TVF&R. Also note that water service is provided by TVWD. 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 543.639.4171 '�" TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 0 www.tigard-or.gov Table of Contents LISTOF EXHIBITS................................................................................................................................................I APPLICATION AND SUBJECT PROPERTY SUMMARY......................................................................................I PROJECTDESCRIPTION.....................................................................................................................................1 LAND USE PERMIT REQUEST: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW.......................................................................................................2 APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES............................................................................................2 APPLICABLEMETRO POLICIES.........................................................................................................................6 APPLICABLE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES.................................................................7 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE COMPLIANCE......................................................................................8 18.350 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS...................................................................................................................9 18.380 ZONING MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS...........................................................................................14 18.390 DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES......................................................................................................16 SUMMARYAND REQUEST...............................................................................................................................17 .., Topping PL)Concept Plan - 7303 SW Spruce St.Tigard,OR 97224 WESTI_AKE CONSULTANTS, Inc. List of Exhibits A Land Use Application Form B Tax Map 1S 1 36AC C Title Deed D Pre-Application Conference Notes E Neighborhood Meeting Documentation F Impact Study (per TDC 18.390.040.B.2.e.) G Planned Development Concept Plan H Planned Development Concept Plan Statement Topping PD Concept Plan - 7303 SW Spruce St_l igard,OR 97224 WEST[AKE CONSUL TANTS, Inc.I Application and Subject Property Summary SUBJECT PROPERTY: Tax Map: 1S136AC Tax Lots: 2200, 2400, 2500 PROPERTY LOCATION: 7303 SW Spruce St. Tigard, OR 97224 PROPOSAL: Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Amendment; Planned Development Overlay Zone with Planned Development Concept Plan Review SITE SIZE: 1.54 Acres EXISTING COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: C-P PROPOSED COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: R-12 PROPERTY OWNER: Richard Topping & Katherine Kemp 19765 Derby St. West Linn, OR 97068 APPLICANT: Stafford Development Company, LLC. 485 S. State Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Ken Sandblast, AICP Westlake Consultants, Inc. 15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150 Tigard, OR 97224 Phone: 503.684.0652 Email: ksandblast@westlakeconsultants.com Topping PD Concept Plan - 7303 SW Spruce St.Tigard,OR 97224 WESTLAKE CONSULTAN SS,Inc.11 Project Description The following is a request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Amendment from Professional Commercial, C-P, to Medium Density Residential, R-12, and a Planned Development Overlay zone with Concept Plan review. The subject property is three parcels totaling 1.54 acres located at 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72nd Ave., 10735 SW 72nd Ave; Tax Map/Lot#s: 1S136ACO2200, 1S136ACO2400, 1S136ACO2500. In 2015, applications CPA 2015-00005 and ZON 2015-00007, requested approval of a Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Amendment of the subject property, also known as "the 72nd Ave. property", from C-P to R-12, in addition to the Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Amendment of another property on Pacific Hwy W, from �- R-12 to C-G. Both of these applications had formal public hearings before the Tigard Planning Commission in December of 2015 and the Tigard City Council in January and February of 2016. The City Council approved the Pacific Hwy W property for the zone change and comprehensive plan amendment as proposed by CPA 2015-00005 and ZON 2015-00007, however, "the SW 72nd property" portion of the applications was remanded to the Planning Commission for a public hearing after completion of applicable Type III Quasi- Judicial public notice and neighborhood meeting requirements. Since that time, City of Tigard planning staff completeness letter dated August 25, 2016 has recommended that the property owners submit revised land use applications for a Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Amendment, in addition to a Planned Development Overlay Zone with Concept Plan review, so as to provide specific and binding land use approval for future development on the subject property. Thus, the property owner and applicant are submitting this application to request approval of this Comprehensive Plan Designation, Zoning Map Amendment, and Planned Development Concept Plan review. The applicant's proposal is in direct response to, and acknowledgement of testimony received to date for the rezoning of the subject property. A neighborhood meeting was conducted on March 16, 2016. Documentation is provided in Exhibit E. Attendees discussed the proposed zone change and comprehensive plan amendment, in addition to the planned development concept plan. The proposed development is consistent will all applicable provisions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code, in addition to Statewide Planning Goals and Regional Regulations. There are a total of three (3) requests for approval for the subject property: _ 1. CPA 2016-00002 Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Commercial Professional to Medium Density Residential _ 2. ZON 2016-00001 Zone Change from C-P to R-12 3. PDR 2016-00012 Planned Development Review Topping ED Concept flan - 7303 SW Spruce St.Tigard,OR 97224 wESTtAKF CONSUt TANTS,Inc.t _ Land Use Permit Request: Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Map Amendment and Planned Development Concept Plan Review This application establishes compliance with all applicable provisions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Development Code, in addition to Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines, and Regional Regulations, After reviewing the record established through the City land use applications CPA 2015- 00005 and ZON 2015-00007, and attending a pre-application conference with City of Tigard staff for this Planned Development Concept Plan application, the applicant submits the following narrative and exhibits to request approval of a Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Amendment, in addition to a Planned Development Overlay Zone with Planned Development Concept Plan review. In order for the proposed Planned Development Concept Plan to be approved, it must first be rezoned from Professional Commercial (C-P) to Medium Density Residential (R-12) with a Planned Development Overlay zone and Concept Plan review. In Table 18.390.1 of the Tigard Development Code(Summary of Permits by Type of Decision-Making Procedure), "Zone Map/Text Change/Quasi-Judicial" is listed as a Type 1116 Procedure pursuant to Section 18.390.050[Type 111 Procedure], with a cross-reference to Section 18.380.030[Quasi-Judicial Amendments and Procedures to this Title and Map]. Separately, TDC Section 18.380.030 provides that "Quasi-judicial zoning map amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type 111-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050[Type 111 Procedure]. Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies -" Chapter 1: Citizen Involvement In an effort to promote citizen involvement, greater notice and procedural protections, the applicant proposes that this quasi-judicial zoning map amendment be undertaken by means of Type 111-PC procedure per TDC Section 18.280.030. The proposed development supports Goal 1.1"Provide citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process'; as well as Goal 1.2 "to ensure all citizens have access to:A. opportunities to communicate directly to the City,and B. information on issues in an understandable form". Through the required review and approval process, citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions are provided the opportunity to be involved, including: - A neighborhood meeting for this PD Concept Plan application on March 16, 2016 - Public hearings for the Planning Commission and City Council - Public notice and property sign posting - Posting on notice board at City Hall - Posting on City's website Chapter 2: Land Use Planning The subject property is predominantly flat, with a slope of approximately 5%. There are no sensitive natural resources on the subject property. As per Policy 15.F.the proposed development will be compatible with the environmental conditions and surrounding land Topping PD Concept Plan -- 7303 SW Spruce St.Tigard,OR 97224 WESTLAKE CONSUL TANTS, Inc.2 uses. As per Policy 15.G. the proposed rezoning will not detract from the viability of the City's natural systems. The proposed development satisfies Policy 6, as the rezoning of the subject property to medium-density residential would allow for a needed increase in the variety of housing options available to the citizens of Tigard. The proposed zone change would allow for smaller lot sizes, higher density, and more affordable housing options, thus promoting a greater level of financial stability among the citizens of Tigard. The proposed zone change allows for increased compatibility with adjacent land uses, and will be developed in conformance with R-12 development standards. There is no overlay district on the subject property. Therefore, the proposed development satisfies Policy 15.E. In support of Policy 15.C.and Policy 15.D. the proposed rezoning satisfies a need for property zoned R-12. In 2013 the City Council adopted a Housing Strategies report prepared by Angelo Planning Group and Johnson & Reid in support of the Periodic Review update to Goal 10, Housing. This report illustrated that at that time the city had nearly twice as much buildable land in areas zoned R-7 (72.1 net buildable acres) than in areas _ zoned R-12 (36.7 net buildable acres). The report analyzed the city's current and future housing needs, which included the following conclusion: "In general, there is a need for some less expensive ownership units and rental units". Thus, there is an insufficient amount of developable land zoned R-12, and the rezoning of the subject property would satisfy Policy 15.C. by fulfilling a proven community need for a wider range of housing options and prices available in the City. While the need for developable land zoned R-12 is present throughout the entire City of Tigard, the proposed development would also satisfy needs apparent in the neighborhood surrounding the subject property. The properties to the north and west are predominantly low-density residential, however, commercial development to the south of the subject property has increased in past decades. The proposed rezoning would allow the medium- density residential property to act as a buffer between existing low-density residential properties, and increasing commercial developments to the south. Roadways will be widened to include parking lanes, street trees and sidewalks, improving the quality of the adjacent streetscape and the pedestrian environment. Furthermore, 23.8% of the proposed — development is compromised of open space tracts which will abut neighboring residential properties, and act as further buffer between existing residential and commercial developments. This will fulfill the neighborhood's need for a residential buffer, while promoting natural open space and pedestrian connectivity, in addition to preserving the existing aesthetic of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant has also reviewed the Recommended Action Measures and has found the proposed development, and subsequent residential buffer would be consistent with Recommended Action Measure iii, as the proposed development fulfills each example of "preserving and enhancing the quality and character of Tigard's residential districts", including: "infill development, mitigating impacts of adjacent dissimilar land uses, improving quality of streetscapes and the pedestrian environment, and providing greater access to open space". Public services such as stormwater, water and sanitary sewer will connect to the existing infrastructure. As per Policy 15.A.and 15.8. the proposed development will not exceed popping Pt)Concept Plan - 7303 SW Spruce St.Tigard,OR 97224 WEST AKE CONSULTANTS, Inc.3 _ capacity of any public facilities or services in the area, nor will the proposed development require or result in any changes to the functional classification of any transportation facility. The proposed R-12 zoning of the subject property will result in future traffic volumes and access in a manner consistent with the functional classification of SW 72nd Ave., which is classified as a local street, and SW Spruce Street, which is classified as a neighborhood route. There is presently sufficient capacity in the transportation system to serve the proposed development. ODOT's trip generation analysis for the subject property (ODOT Comment letter, dated December 2, 2015) showed a reduction of trips, from 220 PM trips under the current C-P zone to 43 PM trips under the proposed R-12 zone. Therefore, a determination of no significant adverse effect on the transportation system can be made for the proposed development. In summation, there are no sensitive natural resources on the subject property. The proposed development is compatible with environmental conditions and surrounding land uses, and will not detract from the viability of the City's natural systems. The proposed zone change allows for increased compatibility with adjacent land uses, and will be developed in conformance with R-12 development standards. The rezoning of the subject property to R-12 would satisfy a needed increase in the variety of housing options available to citizens of Tigard. Furthermore, the proposed zone change would satisfy a need for a residential buffer in the surrounding neighborhood. Public services such as stormwater, water and sanitary sewer will connect to the existing infrastructure. The proposed development will not exceed capacity of any public facilities or services in the area, nor will it negatively affect existing or planned transportation or other public facilities or services. Chapter 10: Housinq The subject property was annexed in 2006 (ZCA 2006-00003), which changed the Washington County comprehensive plan and zoning designation from Commercial Office (OC) to the City of Tigard's Professional Commercial (C-P) zone, the zone most closely implementing the County's plan map designation. However, since the subject property's annexation in 2006, the City's need for residential property zoned R-12 has increased. In February 2016, in response to CPA 2015-00005 & ZON 2015-00007, the City Council approved the rezoning of a 1.37 acre site on Pacific Hwy W from R-12 to C-G, yet remanded the rezoning of the subject property from C-P to R-12. Thus, the City suffered a loss of 1.37 ... acres of residential property zoned R-12. Medium-density residential properties are important to the ongoing implementation of the City's housing policies, for a number of reasons, including growth in population of the City of Tigard, and a need for flexibility in allowable and available housing types, so as to provide a level of affordability for first time home buyers, singles and retirees, as well as other members of the populace who desire more affordable housing options in Tigard's neighborhoods. The population of Tigard has increased by 6.6% since 2010 (United States Census Bureau). With this increase in population, the demand for housing continues to grow, particularly the need for residential properties zoned with the flexibility necessary to promote a level of affordability. Approval of the proposed zone change to R-12 and planned development concept plan satisfies a need for smaller lot sizes and higher densities within the Urban Growth Topping PD Concept Plan -- 1303 SW Spruce St. Tigard,OR 97224 WESTI.AKE CONSULTANTS, Inc.4 Boundary, in satisfaction of the City's Housing Goal 10.1 to "provide opportunities for a variety of housing types at a range of price levels to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents". Furthermore, as the proposed zone change would allow for smaller lot sizes, higher density, and more affordable housing options, the proposed development would promote ... a greater level of financial stability among the citizens of Tigard. Thus, the proposed development satisfies Policy 1, which states that "the City shall adopt and maintain land use policies, codes and standards that provide opportunities to develop a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents". Additionally, the applicant has reviewed the Recommended Action Measures and has found that the rezoning and development of the subject property supports the following measures. The proposed development supports Recommended Action Measure vi. by promoting the development of a broader range of housing choices in proximity to a major activity center. In this case, a medium-density residential development in close proximity to increased commercial development along SW Pacific Hwy, south of the subject _ property. As previously mentioned, the Housing Strategies report adopted by the City Council in 2013 analyzed the city's current and future housing needs, which included the following conclusion: "In general, there is a need for some less expensive ownership units and rental units". Aligned with this Housing strategies report, Recommended Action Measure xvi. seeks to "provide opportunities for affordable home ownership by:adapting the City's land use program to allow for development of a variety of residential building types and ownership arrangements". The proposed development supports the goals of both the Housing Strategies report, as well as Recommended Action Measure xvi. by allowing for more flexible development, a wider range of building types, and more affordable housing options, which take into account the housing needs of all of Tigard's citizens. The proposed development also satisfies Goal 10.2, to "Maintain a high level of residential livability'. The rezoning of the subject property will allow the proposed medium-density residential property to serve as a residential buffer. Presently, properties to the north and west of the subject property are zoned predominantly low-density residential. However, since the subject property's annexation and zoning designation in 2006, commercial development to the south of the subject property has increased. This commercial development has necessitated a buffer to preserve the character of the existing neighborhood to the west and north of the subject property. The proposed R-12 zoning and planned development with open space tracts abutting neighboring residential properties would provide a significant buffer for existing residential properties in the surrounding area; serving to alleviate the effects of commercial development, such as increasing noise levels and declining neighborhood aesthetics, while promoting the use of _ open space in residential neighborhoods. Thus, the proposed development supports Goal 10.2, as well as policy 1, which states that "the City shall adopt measures to protect and enhance the quality and integrity of its residential neighborhoods". The proposed development also supports Policy 8 by offering measures to "mitigate the _ adverse impacts from differing, or more intense, land uses on residential living Topping PI)Concept Plan - 7303 SW Spruce St. Tigard,OR 97224 WFSTtAKr CQNSUITANTS,Inc.5 environments". Policy 8 offers three examples of the mitigation of adverse impacts on residential living environments; the proposed development employs all three examples, as follows: (1) the rezoning of the subject property would offer a smoother transition from lower-density residential properties to commercial development; (2) the proposed development is 23.8% open space; proposed open space tracts abut neighboring residential developments, and seek to protect existing vegetation and natural resources, while promoting open space in the neighborhood; (3) the proposed medium-density development and open spaces will serve as a buffer between existing low-density residential homes and commercial development. For similar reasons as to its support of Policy 8, the proposed development also supports Recommend Action Measure vi. by enhancing livability for Tigard residents presently living near major streets, by use of "appropriate setbacks, buffering and screening, noise mitigation, building orientation, landscaping etc." In summation, the proposed development supports Goal 10.1 by allowing for diversified housing types, as well as financially sound housing options, in an effort to "provide opportunities for a variety of housing types at a range of price levels to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents". Approval of the proposed zone change to R-12 and planned development concept plan satisfies a need for smaller lot sizes, higher densities, and more affordable housing options, thus promoting a greater level of financial stability among the citizens of Tigard. While there is a need for property -- zoned R-12 in the City of Tigard; moreover, there is a need for the subject property to be zoned R-12. In support of Goal 10.2, the proposed medium-density residential zoning and open space tracts, will allow the subject property to serve as a buffer for existing residential properties; alleviating the effects of commercial development, while promoting open space and neighborhood connectivity. Applicable Metro Policies Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 1: Housing Capacity Pursuant to Title 1:Housing Capacity, "the regional framework plan calls for a compact urban form and a "fair-share"approach to meeting regional housing needs". The rezoning -- of the subject property supports the "fair-share" approach of Title 1, while combating future Tigard population growth, development, and a need for a variety of housing types. Furthermore, Title 1 addresses that its purpose is to "accomplish these policies by requiring each city and county to maintain or increase its housing capacity'. As previously referenced, the Housing Strategies report adopted by the City Council in 2013, confirms that the City of Tigard has as deficit of developable land zoned R-12. Thus, the proposed development would support Metro Regulation Title 1: Housing Capacity by prompting the City to increase its housing capacity where a notable inadequacy has been observed. _Title 7. Housing Choice Pursuant to Title 7.Housing Choice, the Regional Framework Plan calls for Cities within the ... Metro region to ensure their comprehensive plan and ordinances promote "strategies to ensure a diverse range of housing types within their jurisdictional boundaries". Topping PD Concept Plan - 7303 SW Spruce St,Tigard,OR 97224 WESTLAKF CONSOLTANIS,Inc.6 Furthermore, the Regional Framework Plan requires Cities "include plan policies, actions, and implementation measures aimed at increasing opportunities for households of all income levels to live within their individual jurisdictions in affordable housing". Thus, the rezoning and development of the subject property supports the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan by fulfilling the City of Tigard's need for a more diversified range of housing types and affordable housing options within its jurisdictional boundaries. Title 12: Protection of Residential Neighborhoods The intent of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 12: Protection of Residential Neighborhoods is to "protect the region's residential neighborhoods". While the subject property has been zoned C-P since its annexation in 2006, neighboring properties to the north and west are mostly low-density residential. However, properties to the south of the subject property, south of SW Spruce St., are predominantly commercial developments, most notably a large Fred Meyer grocery store. These commercial developments have necessitated a buffer to preserve the character of existing neighborhoods to the west and north of the subject property. The proposed rezoning of the subject property to R-12 and planned development with open space tracts abutting _ neighboring residential properties would provide a significant buffer for existing residential properties in the surrounding area; serving to alleviate the effects of commercial development, such as increasing noise levels and declining neighborhood aesthetics, while promoting the use of open space in residential neighborhoods. In summation the proposed .. rezoning would serve to protect residential neighborhoods in the vicinity of the subject property, while upholding the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 12: _ Protection of Residential Neighborhoods. Applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines _ As the City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan incorporates Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines, the proposed development's compliance with all applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies, demonstrates its compliance with all Statewide Planning Goals and _. Guidelines. The applicant's review of applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines is detailed as follows: Goal 1: Citizen Involvement As per OAR 660-015-0000(1) the applicant has sought to involve citizens in all phases of the planning process. Through the required review and approval process, citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions are provided the opportunity to be involved, including: _ - A neighborhood meeting for this PD Concept Plan application on March 16, 2016 - Public hearings for the Planning Commission and City Council - Public notice and property sign posting _ - Posting on notice board at City Hall - Posting on City's website Goal 10: Housing As per OAR 660-015-0000(10) of Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines, the proposed development supports the State's goal to implement plans which "encourage Tapping PD Concept Plan -- 7303 SW Spruce St. Tigard,OR 97224 WES"ftAKE CONSULTANTS,Inc.7 _ the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households and allow for flexibility of housing location, type, and density'. As previously referenced, the Housing Strategies report adopted by the City Council in 2013, stated "... there is a need for some less expensive ownership units and rental units". Thus, as the City has an inadequate amount of developable land zoned R-12, the proposed rezoning of the subject property would serve to alleviate this deficit, while upholding the State's Goal 10: Housing by encouraging the development and availability of more diversified housing types, as well as greater flexibility in regards to residential density and price ranges. _ Transportation Planning Rule Compliance The City of Tigard 2035 TSP predicts a growth in households of 8,911 homes and a growth in employment of 24,829 jobs between 2005 and 2035. The following, Figure 4-4 Forecast Employment Growth 2005 to 2035, is found in Section 4 Development of the 2035 City of Tigard TSP. Figure 4-4 Forecast Employment Growth 2005 to 2035 Tigard Urban Planning Area Change in Employment/Acre Negative or No Change 0 to 1 Job/Acre 1 to 3 Jobs/Acre i+ 5 ST 3 to 51obs/Acre More than 51obs/Acre TC Other Map Elements Transit Center Ut 9 P f .Sr Tigard City boundary +++++Other Rail lines MODON&D 5T "Y P.9ON1TA RD NIT 3 " DurtPwinD j ti°' � a The City of Tigard 2035 TSP states that "Figure 4-4 shows that the areas anticipated for the most employment growth are concentrated along Highway 217 including the areas around Washington Square Regional Center, downtown, the Tigard Triangle and Pacific Topping PD Concept Plan - 7303 SW Spruce St.Tigard,OR 97224 WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS, Inc.8 Highway'. The subject property, located just north of the Tigard Triangle and Pacific Highway, is identified has having an anticipated increase of 3 to 5 jobs per acre. The City of Tigard 2035 TSP, also states that the "City of Tigard plans for increased residential and commercial density in Downtown Tigard". Thus, the subject property, located within an area anticipating increased commercial development, would better serve future Tigard citizens if developed under medium-density residential zoning standards. The property would be better suited zoned medium-density residential in anticipation of future changes in the neighborhood, particularly due to the subject property's close proximity to increasing commercial development and public transportation. There is a bus stop located on Pacific Hwy W approximately .2 miles from the subject property. Additionally, the Tigard Transit Center at 8960 SW Commercial Street, is 1.5 miles southwest of the subject property via Pacific Hwy W, and houses seven bus lines, as well as the WES commuter train connection. As per OAR 660-12-0060, the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the functional classification, capacity and level or service of the existing transportation system. The proposed development of the subject property will not require or result in any changes to the functional classification of existing and planned transportation facilities, nor would it require a change to the standards implementing the functional classification system. Furthermore, the types and levels of travel and access proposed are consistent with the functional classification of all existing and planned transportation facilities. The proposed R-12 zoning of the subject property will result in future traffic volumes and access in a manner consistent with the functional classification of SW 72nd Ave., which is classified as a local street, and Spruce Street, which is classified as a neighborhood route. ODOT's trip generation analysis for the subject property (ODOT Comment letter, dated December 2, 2015) showed a reduction of trips, from 220 PM trips under the current C-P zone to 43 PM trips under the proposed R-12 zone. Therefore, a determination of no significant adverse effect on the transportation system can be made for the subject property. 18.350 Planned Developments 18.350.010 Purpose A. The purposes of the planned development overlay zone are: _ 1. To provide a means for property development that is consistent with Tigard's Comprehensive Plan through the application of flexible standards which consider and mitigate for the potential impacts to the city;and _ 2. To provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the city, alternative building designs, walkable communities, preservation of significant natural resources, aesthetic appeal, and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of strict adherence to many of the rules of the Tigard —' Community Development Code;and 3. To achieve unique neighborhoods (by varying the housing styles through architectural accents, use of open space, innovative transportation facilities) which Topping PD Concept Plan - 7303 SW Spruce St.Tigard,OR 97224 WESTLAKE CONSULTANTS,Inc.9 will retain their character and city benefits, while respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size transitioning; and 4. To preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities (trees, water resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a planning procedure (site design and analysis, presentation of alternatives, conceptual review, then detailed review) that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site;and 5. To consider an amount of development on a site, within the limits of density requirements, which will balance the interests of the owner, developer, neighbors, and the city;and 6. To provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment through sustainable and innovative building and public facility -- construction methods and materials. (Ord. 06-16) Response: The proposed development satisfies the standards of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning of the subject property to R-12 allows the subject property to serve as a buffer between existing low-density residential properties to the north and west of the subject property and commercially zoned properties to the south of the subject property. Additionally, the proposed development includes two open space — tracts totaling .31 acres which will preserve existing conditions and natural resources, including an existing oak tree in the northwest corner of the subject property. Open space will promote natural amenities and provide a more walkable community, while serving as a -- transition between surrounding low-density residential properties and existing commercial properties. Furthermore, while serving as a significant buffer for the surrounding residential community, the subject property will provide housing styles and types which are currently needed in the Tigard community. Although the proposed development includes smaller lot sizes and higher densities than that of surrounding properties, this variety is necessary to accommodate the diversity of individuals living in Tigard's communities. As such, the proposed development supports the City's Housing Goal 10.1 to "provide opportunities for a variety of housing types at a range of price levels to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents". 18.350.20 Process A. Applicable in all zones. The planned development designation is an overlay zone applicable to all zones. An applicant may elect to develop the project as a planned development, in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, or in the case of a commercial or industrial project an approval authority may apply the provisions of this chapter as a condition of approving any application for the development. Planned Developments 18.350-2 AP Update:2/14 i B. Elements of approval process. There are three elements to the planned development approval process, as follows: _ 1. The approval of the planned development concept plan; 2. The approval of the detailed development plan;and 3. The approval of the planned development overlay zone. C. Decision-making process. 1. The concept plan shall be processed by means of a Type 111-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.350.050. topping Pt)Concept Dian - 7303 SW Spruce St.Tigard,OR 97224 WESTLAKE.CONSUI TANTS, Inc.10 2. The detailed development plan shall be reviewed by a means of a Type I//- PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, to ensure that it is substantially in compliance with the approved concept plan. 3. The planned development overlay zone will be applied concurrently with the approval of the detailed plan. 4. Applicants may choose to submit the concept plan and detailed plan for concurrent review subject to meeting all of the approval criteria for each approval. All applicants are advised that the purpose of separating these applications is to provide them clear direction in developing the detailed plans. Rejection of the concept plan will result in a corresponding rejection of the detailed development plan and overlay zone. 5. In the case of an existing planned development overlay zone, once w construction of the detailed plan has been completed, subsequent applications conforming to the detailed plan shall be reviewed under the provisions required in the chapter which apply to the particular land use application. 6. If the application involves subdivision of land, the applicant may also apply for preliminary plat approval and the applications shall be heard _ concurrently with the detailed plan. D. Concurrent applications for concept plan and detailed plan. In the case of concurrent applications for concept plan and detailed development plan, including subdivision applications, the applicant shall clearly distinguish the concept from the detailed plan. The Planning Commission shall take separate actions on each element of the planned development application (i.e., the concept approval must precede the detailed development approval);however each required action may be made at the same hearing. (Ord. 06-16) Response: This application contains a request for the approval of a Planned Development Concept Plan. The Planned Development Concept Plan is shown in Exhibit G. 18.350.040 Concept Plan Submission Requirements A. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application containing all of the general information required for a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050 and the additional information required by subsection 8 of this section. In addition, the applicant shall submit the following: _ 1. A statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the planned development through the particular approach proposed by the applicant. This statement should include: a. A description of the character of the proposed development and the rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant; b. An explanation of the architectural style, and what innovative site planning principles are utilized including any innovations in building techniques that will be employed; c. An explanation of how the proposal relates to the purposes of the planned development chapter as expressed in Section 18.350.010;and d. An explanation of how the proposal utilized the "Planning Commissioner's Toolbox." _ 2. A general development schedule indicating the approximate dates when construction of the planned development and its various phases are expected to be initiated and completed. _ Topping PD Concept Pian -- 7303 SW Spruce St.Tigard,OR 97224 WEST AKE CONSUL TANTS, Inc.11 3. A statement of the applicant's intentions with regard to the future selling or leasing of all or portions of the planned development. In the case where a residential subdivision is proposed, the statement shall include the applicant's intentions whether the applicant will build the homes, or sell the lots to other builders. Response: Exhibit H contains the Planned Development Concept Plan Statement, which explains the proposed development and how it meets the intent of the Planned Development criteria. With approval of this application for a Planned Development Concept Plan, the property owner and applicant intend to proceed with preparation and approval of a Detailed Development Plan and Land Division Application approval followed by construction of the planned development improvements and the building of residential homes on the subject property in the latter half of 2017. The applicant intends to build the homes as part of completing the planned development and to sell the homes to Tigard citizens. B. Additional information. In addition to the general information described in subsection A of this section, the concept plan, data, and narrative shall include the following -- information, the detailed content of which can be obtained from the director: 1. Existing site conditions; 2. A site concept including the types of proposed land uses and structures, including housing types, and their general arrangement on the site; 3. A grading concept, 4. A landscape concept indicating a percentage range for the amount of proposed open space and landscaping, and general location and types of proposed open space(s); 5. An urban forestry plan consistent with Chapter 18.790; 6. Parking concept; 7. A sign concept; 8. A streets and utility concept;and 9. Structure setback and development standards concept, including the proposed residential density target if applicable Response: The Concept Development Plan in Exhibit G is a site concept plan including proposed land uses and open space tracts. As the proposed development is for a single family residential subdivision, off street parking requirements will be provided by driveways on each lot. Future development of existing rights-of-way of SW Spruce St. and SW 72nd Ave. will include the widening of the public right-of-way to accommodate a parking lane. SW Spruce St. and SW 72nd Ave. will have right-of-way dedications of 27 feet from the centerline and 16 feet of pavement from the centerline, in addition to curbs, 5 foot sidewalks, and 5 foot planting strips with street trees. The proposed 30 foot wide private drive will serve four lots and will have 24 feet of pavement from the centerline, as well as curbs and five foot sidewalks. While setbacks and building heights of development on the subject property were of concern to surrounding property owners, development intensity is more intense in the C-P zone, thus the proposed zone change would allow development more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The rezoning of the subject property to R-12 would require reduced building heights (C-P: 45 feet; R-12: 35 feet), increased minimum landscape requirements (C-P: 15%; R-12: 20%), increased lot coverage limitations (C-P: 85%; R-12: Topping PD Concept Pian -- 7303 SW Spruce St,Tigard,OR 97224 WESTLAKE CONSUL TANTS,Inc.12 80%), as well as minimum setback standards that are more compatible with surrounding residential properties. 18.350.050 Concept Plan Approval Criteria A. The concept plan may be approved by the commission only if all of the following criteria are met: 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. _ 2. The concept plan identifies areas of trees and other natural resources, if any, and identifies methods for their maximized protection, preservation, and/or management. Response: The Concept Development Plan in Exhibit G illustrates the proposed development's two open space tracts totaling .31 acres, and their relationship to other uses on the subject property. There are no wetlands or sensitive areas on the subject property. _ All existing trees on the subject property have been identified (see Concept Development Plan, Exhibit G). 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. Response: While the subject property was zoned C-P at the time of its annexation in 2006, the surrounding community has changed in the past decade. Properties to the north of the subject property have remained primarily low-density residential, however, commercial development to the south of the subject property has increased. The proposed R-12 zoning of the subject property would provide a significant buffer between the commercially zoned properties to the south, and low-density residential properties to the north and west. The proposed Planned Development Subdivision is designed around the existing transportation network, and will not require or result in any changes to the functional classification of the transportation system in the vicinity of the subject property. In an effort to promote access on a roadway with a higher functional classification, the majority — of lots take access on SW Spruce St. (neighborhood route), rather than SW 72nd (local street). A total of eighteen lots and two open space tracts are proposed. Eleven lots will have frontage on SW Spruce St., three lots will have frontage on SW 72nd Ave, and four lots will have frontage on the proposed private drive. The private drive runs north to south in the middle of the subject property, ending at an open space tract on the subject property's northern boundary. As shown on the Concept Development Plan in Exhibit G, the layout of the proposed development concentrates homes to SW Spruce St., SW 72nd Ave. and the proposed private drive, while preserving two open space tracts totaling .31 acres on the northern, western and eastern property boundaries. These open space tracts will serve as an additional buffer between the existing low-density residential and commercial uses. lopping PD Concept Plan - 7303 SW Spruce St,Tigard,OR 97224 wFSTI AKF CONSULTANTS,Inc.13 4. The concept plan identifies methods for promoting walkability or transit ridership, such methods may include separated parking bays, off street walking paths, shorter pedestrian routes than vehicular routes, linkages to or other provisions for bus stops, etc. Response: The future development of the site with street improvements on SW Spruce St. and SW 72nd Ave. will reduce an existing lack of parking in the surrounding area by including the widening of roadways for parking lanes. Proposed sidewalks and planter strips will promote a more walkable neighborhood. The preservation of two open space tracts will provide an opportunity for increased livability and neighborhood connectivity. -" 5. The concept plan identifies the proposed uses, and their general arrangement on site. In the case of projects that include a residential component, housing type, unit density, or generalized lot sizes shall be shown in relation to their proposed location on site. Response: The Concept Development Plan in Exhibit G illustrates the proposed arrangement of lots and their relationship to open space tracts on the subject property. 6. The concept plan must demonstrate that development of the property pursuant to the plan results in development that has significant advantages over a standard development. A concept plan has a significant advantage if it provides development consistent with the general purpose of the zone in which it is located at overall densities consistent with the zone, while protecting natural features or providing additional amenities or features not otherwise available that enhance the development project or the neighborhood. (Ord. 12-09 §1; Ord. 06-16) Response: The proposed concept plan would provide a density consistent with the R-12 zone. Two open space tracts comprising 23.8% of the subject property are proposed; their design will preserve an existing oak tree in the northwest corner of the subject property, while providing natural amenities, promoting pedestrian connectivity within the area and serving as buffer between existing residential and commercial developments in the surrounding area. — 18.380 Zoning Map and Text Amendments 18.380.030 Quasi-Judicial Amendments and Procedures to this Title and Map B. Standards for making auasi-iudicial decisions A recommendation or a decision to — approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 1 Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; Response: The applicant has demonstrated compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations via this narrative. i 2. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance;and Response: The applicant has demonstrated compliance with all applicable standards of the Tigard Development Code via this narrative. Topping PC)Concept Plan - 7303 SW Spruce St. Tigard,OR 97224 WES]LAKE CONSUL IAN IS,Inc.14 3. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. Response: Since the subject property's annexation and zoning in 2006, the surrounding neighborhood has undergone a number of changes, including: Need for Residential Buffer: The properties to the north and west of the subject property are predominantly low- density residential zoning; however, there has been an increase in commercial uses to the south of the subject property, south of SW Spruce St, most notably a large Fred Meyer grocery store. These residential and commercial developments have necessitated a need for a buffer. The R-12 zoning of the subject property and proposed open space tracts abutting neighboring low-density residential properties will provide a significant buffer, preserving the neighborhood's aesthetic conformity while transitioning between residential and commercial properties. Need for Properties Zoned R-12: Given the variety of permitted housing types, property zoned R-12 is of increasing importance in the City of Tigard to insure the availability of affordable housing. With a minimum lot size of 3,050 S.F. the R-12 zone provides the flexibility necessary to meet the housing type preferences and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents. _ Since the subject property's annexation and zoning in 2006, properties zoned R-12 have been developed in the surrounding area; R-12 zoning of residential property in the area is ideal due to the proximity of services and transit options. White Oak Village, an R-12 zoned subdivision, located 2/10ths of a mile southwest of the subject property at SW 74th Ave. north of SW Pacific Highway W, was developed in 2008. While proposed lot sizes on the Planned Development Concept Plan are smaller than that of adjacent properties, the trend in the market and development in the community as a _ whole is progressing towards smaller lots, in an effort to satisfy the demand for affordable housing in the region. Increased Population: The population of Tigard has increased by 6.6% since 2010 (United States Census Bureau). This influx in population has generated an increased need for housing in the City of Tigard. In particular, there is presently a deficit in the availability of affordable housing in the City of Tigard. The zoning of the subject property R-12, would offset the City's growth in population and subsequent need for residential properties, as well as a variety of housing types and prices. Increased Traffic: Increases in population and commercial and residential development have led to a raise in traffic. While increased traffic is clearly an issue effecting property's owners in the vicinity of the subject property, an ODOT Trip Generation Analysis stipulates that the proposed zone change of the subject property from C-P to R-12 will result in a reduction of 220 PM — trips to 43 PM trips. Thus, the rezoning of the subject property to R-12 will help curb increasing traffic in the neighborhood. Furthermore, the proposed development includes future street improvements to SW Spruce St. and SW 72nd Ave. which will reduce an Topping PD Concept Plan - 7303 SW Spruce St.Tigard,OR 97224 WEST[FAKE CONSULTANTS, Inc.15 existing lack of parking in the surrounding area by including the widening of roadways and addition of parking lanes. _ Need for Open Space: As noted via general development patterns in the area and public comment testimony received through CPA 20015-00005 & ZON 2015-00007 public hearings there is an increased need for open space in the surrounding neighborhood. As depicted on the submitted Planned Development Concept Plan, the two proposed open space tracts created through approval of this application comprise approximately 23.8% of the subject property and will preserve natural open space and promote pedestrian connectivity. Conclusion: Since the subject property's annexation and zoning in 2006, the surrounding neighborhood has undergone a number of changes including: an increase in commercial properties and a subsequent need for a residential buffer, an increased need for properties zoned R-12, an increase in population, an increase in traffic and an increased need for open space. For these reasons, there is evidence of a change in the subject property neighborhood and this criterion is satisfied. 18.390 Decision Making Procedures 18.390.050 Type 111 Procedure A. Preapplication conference. A preapplication conference is required for Type 111 actions. Preapplication conference requirements and procedures are set forth in Section 18.390.080.0 Response: Two pre-application conferences took place in March 2015 and August of 2015 as part of CPA 2015-00005 and ZON 2015-00007. A separate pre-application meeting for this Comrehensice Plan Designation, Zoning Map Amendment, and Planned Development Concept Plan application for the subject property was held on February 16, 2016. Notes and associated documents provided by City staff are attached in Exhibit D. B. Application requirements. 2. Application forms. Type /ll applications shall be made on forms provided by the director as provided by 18.390.080.E.1. 3. Content. Type III applications shall: a. Include the information requested on the application form; b. Address the relevant criteria in sufficient detail for review and action; c. Be accompanied by the required fee; d. Include two sets of pre-stamped, pre-addressed envelopes for all persons who are property owners of record as specified in subsection C of this section. The records of the Washington County Department of Assessment and Taxation shall be the official records for determining ownership. The applicant shall demonstrate that the most current assessment records have been used to produce the notice list; e. Include an impact study. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet city standards and to minimize Topping PO Concept Plan -- 7303 SW Spruce St.Tigard,OR 97224 wFSTI AKE CONSULTANTS, Inc.16 the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the community development code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirements, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Response: This application and supporting materials have been prepared using the forms and instructions provided by City staff. A copy of the Land Use Application is provided in Exhibit A. This narrative document cites and quotes applicable Tigard Development Code provisions and provides Responses from the Applicant, with evidence and explanation of how all applicable approval criteria have been met. The Applicant has provided a request _ for mailing labels from the City of Tigard with the application, in Exhibit E. The Applicant has also provided an Impact Study, in Exhibit F. These provisions have been satisfied. - Summary and Request With submittal of this application narrative, exhibits and supplemental evidence, the Applicant demonstrates that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation, Zoning Map Amendment and Planned Development Overlay zone with Concept Plan review comply with all applicable standards and approval criteria; therefore the applicant respectfully requests approval of this Land Use application. Topping Pt7 Concept Plan - 7303 SW Spruce St. Tigard,OR 97224 WFS1[AKF CONSULTANTS, Inc.17 -� Exhibit A Land Use Application Form City of Tigard COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT * Master Land Use Application LAND USE APPLICATION TYPE — ❑ Adjustment/Variance (11) ❑ Minor Land Partition (II) ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment (IV) 0 Planned Development (III) ❑ Conditional Use (IIl) ❑ Sensitive Land Review (II or III) ❑ Development Code Amendment (IV) ❑ Site Development Review (II) ❑ Downtown Design Review (II, III) ❑ Subdivision (11 or III) — ❑ Historic Overlay (II or III) ❑ Zone Change (III) ❑ Home Occupation (I1) ❑ Zone Change Annexation (IV) NOTE: For required submittal elements,please refer to your pre-application conference notes. PROPOSAL SUMMARY (Brief description) 18 lot Planned Development Subdivision north of SW Spruce St. and west off SW 72nd Ave. PROPERTY INFORMATION (where proposed activity will occur) Location (address if available): SW Spruce St. &SW 72nd Ave. Tax maps and tax lot #s: Tax Map: 1S136AC Tax Lots: 2200,2400,2500 Total site size: 1.54 acres Zoning classification: C-P OR STAFF USE ONLY APPLICANT INFORMATION Name: Stafford Development, LLC. Case No.: Mailing address: 4855 S. State St. Related Case No.(s): City/state: -Lake Oswego, OR Zip: 97034 Application Fee: Phone number: (503) 939 - 3902 Application accepted: Primary contact name: Morgan Will By: Date: — Phone number: (503) 305 - 7647 Application determined complete: Email: morgan@staffordlandcompany.com By: Date: I:\CURPLN\Masters\Land Use Applications Rev.11/25/2014 '�7r/9ir,Pr/ mara,Y% rr�ToeY.: .2/taY�Y.�/pour,'rma,YO/r4llfalkmarlrarvr.7NArIXvrL'rrC.rs'�L. 'OirssmN'rr.:P9rm,1YJ// rv'o1H.rT„e i, JRWl;utaaiY/GN.�m�i/aY/�,fir//�f'�4//i//8'i/ikiS//hZ!/. )//r/g{sr/ilrn/�Y,C�l2 ... City of Tigard • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223 www.tigard-or.gov • 503-718-2421 • Page 1 of 2 PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER INFORMATION (Attach list if more than one) Name: Richard Topping and Katherine Kemp Mailing address: 19765 Derby St. City/state. West Linn,OR Zip: 97068 Phone: (503)655 - 5075 Email: toppingr@comcast.net When the owner and the applicant are different people-,the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner.The owners must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • If the application is granted,the applicant shall exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to an the conditions and limitations of the approval. • All the above statements and the statements in the plot plan,attachments,and exhibits transmitted herewith,are true;and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued,based on this application,map be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. • The applicant has read the entire contents of the application,including the policies and criteria,and understands the requirements for-approving or denying Pq application(s). Stafford Development,LLC. Ap ant's s tore Print name Date 7*A Ken Sandblast plicant/Agent/Representative's signature Print name Date At Applicant/ gent/Representative's signature Print name Date SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property required Richard Topping Civ;; E , 11T—I-ar I Prilat M11-re Katherine Kemp Print TIM11C D Owner's signature Print name Date Owner's signature Print name Date MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION City of Tigard - 13125 SW Hall Blvd. , Tigard,Oregon 97223 0 wwwtigard-or.gov 503-718-2421 - Page 2 of Exhibit B Tax Map IS 13 6AC i 1 �j 1 1 36AC 1S 1 36AC 18x8 119888 st369A 18136M $1363A 18003888 P./80018888 Z -Q) islaw .� 14880019888 Q•8 7502 COR $ 2 AC R NO 88°1 i810V8 1819888 .20 AL - .29 AC ;y N6 7 ei 3300 x800 2800 24028B� 61008888 T3.00 ]6.00 .3B AC 2 .39 AC .36 AC 1 Al Ac ,�� 2708 I25.3e n k l i8196M ABED(NE1LLM 1513&1 N 3 .39 AC ,39 Ac 2 90za .28 AC 1 $ `� 1 111 eas .m em -I CS 6500 100° � �y �y 80.32 M.20 sa.05 �i R •22 AL iQ 50 ts13888 1813548 2501 2481 100.00 -1 m I 161xM 118�36M m g 2NBW 1 ' 1 .9 n .22 AC 1813888 m 1813889 18138/8 $ xg•i w0 8 'I .a 80.10 tJ 97.38 m' ' .3 06.15 a5' n 180.3 3 .lime 4700 R 4880 $ .2B AL .28 AC - 2N5W 2NIV/ 2 1 9W 2N 84 636 n 4 1°8.30 ,^.'1 IS13M W F k .27 AL ^i Cn LL 7008 18196x8 a0' -"/ SHO° .16 AC 4 u"ti 181xb1 2000 11. i8 58.3 91.06 2 (w 750° � /` l \ ro2Ae .17 AC 1 r x le°' 1 3088 ,51x&1 n 7eAe 1v `1 � •� � J 2 1.) 80.81 a S,mm��. \� - 7600 7800 3c� t14W 11NW 1NBW 1N2W 1 9700 5b.]0 08.16 1N1W 181x88 AC d .40 AL g' 1 �', e.78 181x88 \\\\\\\U\\\\ o 71G1�8 5 4 39AC d 3700 5 32M 181x49 151x88 6 138SISVI8 l') b �vv n 0 .39 .38 ,51x88 is 19,3884 ,Q ' 18me� 151x84 1813888 .39 AC ,39 AC .38 AC A7 AC w 00,00 ( 9001 1 R 7400 2001 " 1878643 13 1319888 1979848 y , A I 186W 165W 161W 1831N 162W 181W .18 AC 2 , .22 AC w1' 8480 4100 R M '10- '1J� 2 tao 75.70 3 3D;30' 18/x1➢ 181x80 B9. 29 N 329I4 09-326]) \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\`( 16.16 10 3 1 0.3 00.3 NB&67-t6W 9�,2Q� 7100 2181 262W 100. .31 AC .23 AC 261 W s STREET \` D SW 's OAK = STREET n '6,9M0 161x10 86-301x.2 �.� 21W 1 .3 INS 00.30 W •� \\\\\\\U\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\T� � 3 A 1 0.3 ,03.80 09.505�- 31 .55 AC .54 Aq I „ - n .} LO 235.82 } J � J T LO1 / 1819680 gp, a WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON l� l W 1 2000 1300 & 1100 C LS) 1 P .22. i 81x408 I SW1/4NE1/4SECTION 36T1SR1WW.M. 181368° 191 Be Isis= 1813M I - 1 z $ 400 900 2°° 100 ' aS N100 2300 .39 AC .39 AC .46 AC .34 AC OI Q 801 701 700 Naaoo-oow I g .43 AC ,32� SCALE 1" = 100' 1 .39 AL .39 AC .39 AC I � 20�/�/��\ .J .- oV ■ 8 e l !o .2003 Yn - - r Jr1400 zs.oa= I 1� ,- r I) 50037 AC m t ^&c 3 2 1 6 5 480.10 i , 3 1 3 180.3 .37 AL � Z�19M0 p81s13fi88NB°-°y8°8� 229.09 X 00003103LLI .µAC 16138ID 2i482 � 1813 e I 5047 I „3• nl \\ .32� r,�% 7 8 9 10 11 12 >00 20 AL .22 AL 46 ,0.00 170.0°161x80 1 A U-11 401 Som 18 17 16 15 14 13(1� ; .38 AL g 900 1000 1100 1200 1300I .2B AC4r4 18736001' Al AC q .24 AC .53 AC .30 AC Q00 n5• x 19 20 21 22 23 24 $$ 5 Im ^ AL n ,s,3680 1513M lXK901I6 i 250025MLSO .te Ac i a 1 Ac .24 $ xsoxee- = 81 4� 24 AC 23 AC30 29 28 27 26 25 1 .31 3 26' 23 6 1 , .29 AL 228.33 g tal►ssoow 31 32 33 34 35 36 �.y 120.10 Tom $ nm 1 929) e STREET SW (CR 1080) x_ PINE STREET a SW �..� �ro e0 1 m 'sioo a�i a',a S .oa law ut. + Q 1p0A 1po.o es, aeo-ssom, FOR ADDITIONAL www co.wash nVISIT gto OoUR WEBSITE AT 3 m 161x00 181x00- 181x80 3 1 ., N - 4200 4100 $^ 370 Ac iS13 ° m m 2 1 9100 g 9000 $ �0 2000 1701 1 N ^ __-- ,,• 1900 1600 n Ac 1600 z J 15. .28 AC' 111.11 .� .38 AC .41 AC .38 AL C.',,',: 3 Hea.Saoaw x00 1 2 38 AC 1 bs�m 81.10 -e5.on 83.9] L I� 2700 1 1s1x10 mC) BB BA AB AA I 4 79.87 ,w.ao 5 1 J m' 1413 00 R; 13100 m 4500 1 1700 $ .77 AC •38 AC 10.01.--- B A 15800 ;4' mE 4 i 3<rl C f� J .23 AC 1 x: 2 8 iio1981D g^ rnlslxbe �vn 79.98 „a,p„ •-�: 1700 y $ BD Do.oO $ .36 AC i 2 BC AC AD 8x.00 A 3 .. .. 180.1 .ea 09 229 $ rn 4. 181sew u 100.3 __ 197.5__ �� ^ -. I^ Mii>,SBtfi{N{µt, i3Enf19�; 3088 '�m 8 1�B° v, 4600 `� o c 1.1 3 Iz7.3 1. . 5 300 TRACT;A'a .Oa Ac^ 5 2 1 8 6 0 f ze6A Wo 61 .51 AC CB CA DB DA 89.98 t 2500 $ S ACC $ i 161x80 9zm 8x.00 ezm °p 1 elm .pa___ ____ m' I .39 AL t .3 fe).3 x00 rJ Y I I J j = 22oo ee A 0- 4t8�xB0 j 181x80 161x00 181x80 1 :_ d N 3100 _--. 1000 8 x00 8 1800 $ 181x80 $ 161x00 3 5 n_ .26 ACS l 11 - 10 = 9 B 970j 3000 R 2101 1 2102 96 AC I a 6 6 ---4 CC C CD DC D DD 6 .26 AC .26 AC 2900 Heaseaow , 1�J AJ t'j I 10 AC^ '77'1'c 30AC .5 544 >r 'slava - - t . .��'�Al - .<U>:Un:xf •20 ,e0s .51 AC 96.16 08.16 i aW3 °3 2 90 Cancelled Taxlots For: 1 S136AC xBSA �. SW (CR 9 2 9) �l 201,2300,1500.3401,3500,3600,3700.602, SPRUCE STREET 1 I 4000,2600,600,2100, .. d• n.00 es.00 asAo \\\\\\\\ 1 (C82o,z551 d e i J I I fY 10n w ee �, eo• naee 31646 100' 100' 166' $ $ 14800 $ '70°0 G $ 7100 4 n1 r r` /15.45 1 I 1 46].2 RI i cn 3 s 2 1 Its 3501 3801 3600 wl _ 3402I I ;I 3400 1 7 ml CD I] .27 AC .23 AC .25 AC .33 AC 1819880 C 1 .26 AL B I '1 1.92 AL I A poo I 681 2.06 Ac 1 w. O a. I I i 191x08 178.20 SOUTH UNE T.SCOTT DLC 53 Assessment 1800 1_L� 1619808 tz1.1 OG] O .27 AC L^ 20 NORTH LINE G.RIC ARDSON DLC 65 1 N�NO 65 osoN 302.12 p Cy 109.20 1 m� 191x40 Cry 53.40 A 170.x0 4001 PLEMENTAL MAP N0.1 ` 1613609 �o I 1 A6 AL\11813608 CARTWIC!•3 H 1 0 1500 ICS 1 961 8 -' GCE tom .26 Ac .ze AL • ` `' Y� O 153A0 198.20 117 0 ------n------ 0 171.x8 23-8 1 PLOT DATE:June 19 2007 IS1s6 Ac ±3oxnc a 1 I A jj//e� 26+8 ra/ ti FOR ASSESSMENT Y- ONOR ELY ONPURPOSES O O ONLY DO NOT RELY ON 0 1 _ / 1 OSE _,yam 178,x0 1 Map areas delineated by aider pray shading ora cross-hatched O O 133M \I 1813109 ICS 28,5111b I pattern are for reference only and may not indicate the most O MAC 28 AL 8 I \ ,8,8808 /� i I wrrent property boundaries.Please consult the appropriate map R 1008OB �\� � ryl I for the most current information. L 63A0 188.20 I Ab \ AO AC 74.20 I 10.00 \ \e0 I IS 1x08 181xOB 200 9 AC 180.20 c$ g// 183A0 17030 8YI \\ $'c / `` /I II 8 181x08 C '\ 1 S 1 36AC 1 S 1T36AC I1151 w36 __ _ - Exhibit C Title Deed Washington County,Oregon 2005-136467 O/3N12005 03Crt=17 PM oStn-16 D HOFFMAN STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED $5.00$6.00$11.00$414.00-Total=$436.00 Grantor: Yu-Yeh Huang Lin THIS: 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Grantee: Richard Topping 00860599200501364670010017 I,Jerry Hanson,Director of Assessment and Taxation Until a change is requested,all tax statements shall be sent to the Oregon,Oo hereeby County Clerk that the within Instrumon ent of _ following address writing was received and recorded In pe boor of record.of said county. Richard Topping Katherine Kemp Jerry ft.Hanson.Director sseasment and Taxation, Ex-0fficlo County Clerk 19765 Derby Street West Linn OR 97068 After Recording return to: Richard Topping Katherine Kemp 19765 Derby Street a West Linn OR 97068 WASHINGTON COUNTY l ' Escrow No. 855069 KHD l REAL PROPERTY TRAN6FER TAX Title No. 855069 ¢i /4-00 10 -31-05 2 FEE PAID DATE HUANG LIN YU-YEH WHO ACQUIRED TITLE AS YU-YEH HUANG LIN, Grantor, conveys and warrants to RICHARD TOPPING and KATHERINE KEMP, husband and wife, Grantee(s), the following described real property free of encumbrances except as specifically set forth herein situated in Washington County, Oregon, to wit: Lot 5 and the West 95.15 feet of the South one-half of Lot 6, Block 60, METZGER ACRE TRACTS, County of Washington, State of Oregon. The said property is free from encumbrances except: COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, SET BACK LINES, POWERS OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS,AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD, IF ANY. THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. The true consideration for this conveyance is$414,000.00. (Here comply with the requirements of ORS 93.030). Dated this day of 01-e-. , 2005. Huangg L I M Yu-Yeh h aka Yu-Yeh Huang Lin State: OR County: Multnomah The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 31st day of October _, 20 05 by: Chi-Hui Huang as attorney in fact for Huang Lin Yu-Yeh aka Yu-Yeh Huang Lin v _ a Notary Public Commis i n Expires: t t� -ZEj—O gee` OFFICIAL SEAL- SHEiLA J KING NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO.395437 MY COMMISSION EXF'II�ES OCT.29.2 TICOR TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED(CL04) PAGE 1 Washington County,Oregon 2005-136465 10/31/2005 03:52:07 PM D-OW Cnta1 9M=16 D HOFFMAN STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED $5.00$6.00$11.00$204.00-Total a$226.00 S Grantor: Huang Lin Yu-Yeh THIS SF 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111�j Grantee: Richard Toppin9 13646501 017 I,Jeny Hanson,Dlroctor o(A:aeesme nt and Taxation and Ex-Ofnclo County Clark for Washlnyton County, Until a change is requested,all tax statements shall be sent to the oreeon,tlo henby cenly that the wNhln Instrument of following address: Witlne was received and recorded[nPo book of Richard Topping records of said county. (amu'-'`.("_ Katherine Kemp Jerry R.Hanson,Directorement and Taxation,` 19765 Derby Street Ex-Officio County Clan, West Linn OR 97068 After Recording return to: Richard Topping Katherine Kemp a.. 19765 Derby Street West Linn OR 97068 WASHINGTON COLWW REAL PRQPERTY TRAN6FER TAX 10-31-0S Escrow No. 855064 KHD FEE PAID DATE ... Q Title No. 855064 4-79 i.' HUANG LIN YU-YEH who acquired title as YU-YEH HUANG LIN, Grantor, conveys and warrants to RICHARD :.' TOPPING and KATHERINE KEMP, husband and wife, Grantee(s), the following described real property free of encumbrances except as specifically set forth herein situated in Washington County, Oregon, to wit: -s The North one-half of Lot 6, Block 60, METZGER ACRE TRACTS, County of Washington, State of Oregon. ` - The said property is free from encumbrances except: COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, SET BACK LINES,POWERS OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS,AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD, IF ANY. j THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF �- `*7 APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. The true consideration for this conveyance is$204,000.00. (Here comply with the requirements of ORS 93.030). Dated this 3 / day of 0 Ct. , 2005. /GPGnh LIn !N— Ye-,4 aka A �L(L1A2 lin dy �j/�- moi_ aS' GZt t0/-"Py ;17 .� C —' .� Huang`Cin Yu-Yeh aka Yu-Yeh Huang Lin " State: OR County: Washington Multnomah The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 31st day of October 20 05 by: Chi—Hui Huang as attorney in fact for Huang Lin Yu-Yeh aka Yu-Yeh Huang Lin Notary Public OFFICIAL SEAL My Commissio xpires: XO SHEILA J ICING NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION N0.395437 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCT.29,2009 TICOR TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED(CL04) PAGE 1 Washington County,Oregon 2U05-'t 10/31/2005 03:31:33 PM 36 36 62 ... O-DW Crt-1 gttta16 DHOFFMAN STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED $3.00$6.00$11.00$149.00-Total-$171.00 Grantor: Huang Lin Yu-Yeh THI, 11111111111111111111111111111111111III�IIIII(��II 1111111 Grantee: Richard Topping 00860197200501364200010012 1,Je rry Hanson,Director of Assessmentand Taxation and Ex-ofrielo County Clerk for Washington County, Until a change is requested,all tax statements shall be sent to the Oregon,do hereby certify that the within Instrument of - following address- writing was received and recorded 17pe book of 1 records of said county. Richard Topping +AY. Katherine Kemp J+rry R Hanson,Director saeaam+nt and Taxad on, Ex-0Melo County Clerk 19765 Derby Street West Linn OR 97068 After Recording return to: _,9 Richard Topping Katherine Kemp 19765 Derby Street -- West Linn OR 97068 WASHINGTON COUNTY f Escrow No. 855060 KHD REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX +'•, $ 14Ck.00 to Title No. 855060to 1' - FEE PAID GATE HUANG LIN YU-YEH WHO ACQUIRED TITLE AS YU-YEH HUANG LIN, Grantor, conveys and warrants to RICHARD TOPPING and KATHERINE KEMP, husband and wife, Grantee(s), the following described real property free of encumbrances except as specifically set forth herein situated in Washington County, Oregon, to wit: The East 95.15 feet of the South one-half of Lot 6, Block 60, METZGER ACRE TRACTS, County of Washington, State of Oregon. The said property is free from encumbrances except: COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, SET BACK LINES,POWERS OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS,AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD,IF ANY. tTTHIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. The true consideration for this conveyance is$149,000.00- (Here comply with the requirements of ORS 93.030). Dated this 31 day of 06t• , 2005. /�L(any Lin Yu-�e4 �t�at Yu -yeti A/uyLi» 6y Lam' GS ��oY►-fey ;n �� Huang On Yu-Yeh aka Yu-Yeh Huang Lin State: OR County: Multnomah The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 31st day of October 2005 by: Chi-Hui Huang as attorney in fact for Huang Lin Yu-Yeh aka Yu-Yeh Huang Lin otary Public My Commission Ex !e): OFFICIAL SEAL SHEILA i LONG NOTARY Pusuc-oREGON COMMISSION NO.395437 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCT.29,2009 TICOR TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED(CL04) PAGE 1 Exhibit D Pre-Application Conference Notes PRE-APPLICATION NOTES FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN&ZONING MAP AMENDMENT February 16,2016 STAFF PRESENT: Gary Pagenstecher,Tom McGuire, APPLICANT: Levi Levasa, Stafford Land Company,Richard Topping,Owner PROPERTY LOCATION: 7303 SW Spruce St., 10705 SW 72nd Ave., 10735 SW 72nd Ave. TAX MAP/LOT#'s: 1S136ACO2200, 1S136ACO2400, 1S136ACO2500 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The City's Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2015-00005/Zone Change (ZON) 2015-00007 application was heard by the City Council and remanded to the Planning Commission for"Site A",the subject site for this new application. This new application, with the subject property owner/representative as co-applicant,will be for a Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Map Amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Map Classifications of the subject property from Professional Commercial, C-P, to Medium Density Residential, R-12 (as before), and for PD Overlay zone with Planed Development Concept Plan review (in addition). As co-applicant, the city offers to attend the neighborhood meeting, support the comp plan/zone change on remand, and fill its normal role in development review. As co-applicant, the owner/rep will be responsible for all application submittal materials including a narrative addressing all applicable review criteria, noticing and holding the neighborhood meeting, and paying the planned development Concept Plan fee. COMP PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Existing: Professional Commercial; Proposed: Medium Density Res ZONING: Existing: CP;Proposed: R-12 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING A neighborhood meeting is required for a quasi-judicial zoning map amendment. NARRATIVE Include a narrative that responds to the applicable review criteria. Provide background and findings of fact as to why the comprehensive plan amendment and zoning map amendment are necessary, or what public benefit is being promoted. Note: The list of specific goals and standards below is intended to provide guidance in preparation of your application, and that additional criteria may be identified dependant upon the nature of the specific application, or as other issues are raised. This is not an exhaustive list of all criteria. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that all applicable standards are met. ... APPLICABLE CRITERIA 18.350 Planned Development Chapter sections 18.350.010 through 18.350.050 for application for Planned Development Concept Plan approval. w 18.380.030 Quasi-Judicial Amendments and Procedures to this Title and Map A. Quasi-judicial amendments. Quasi-judicial zoning map amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using standards of approval contained in subsection B of this section. The approval authority shall be as follows: The commission shall make a recommendation to the council on a zone change application which also involves a concurrent application for a comprehensive plan map amendment. The council shall decide the applications on the record as provided by Chapter 18.390. Standards for making quasi-judicial decisions apply to the proposed zoning map amendment. A recommendation to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 1. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations (e.g.,Land Use Planning Policies 2.1.14 and 2.1.15 and 2.1.17). 2. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of the Tigard Development Code or other applicable implementing ordinance (including but not limited to 18.350.010-050 Planned Developments,18.380.020 Zoning Map and Text Amendments, 18.390.050/.060 Decision Making Procedures);and 3. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. In addition, the recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors (18.390.060.G. Decision-making considerations): 1. The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197 (Goals 1,2, 10); 2.Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable (Transportation Planning Rule); 3.Any applicable METRO regulations (Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 1); 4.Any applicable comprehensive plan policies (see above);and 5.Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances (see above). APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS (18.390.050 Type III Procedure): a. Include the information requested on the application form; b. Address the relevant criteria in sufficient detail for review and action; c. Be accompanied by the required fee; d. Include two sets of pre-stamped, pre-addressed envelopes for all persons who are property w owners of record as specified in Section 18.390.050C. e. Include an impact study. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards and to minimize the w impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirements, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property 2 dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development; and f. Be accompanied by 18 copies of the narrative. PROCESS The Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council on a zone change application which also involves a concurrent application for a comprehensive plan map amendment. The Council shall decide the application as provided by Section 18.390, as a Type IV review. DECISION The decision timeline is generally about 4 months from receipt of a complete application. The Plan/Zone Map(s) and Planned Development Overlay and Concept Plan approval for a specific land use may be allowed concurrent(Comp Plan Policy 2.1.17). APPLICATION FEES: Comprehensive Plan Amendment: $11,013.00 (city) Quasi-Judicial Zoning Map Amendment 4,143.00 (city) Planned Development Concept Plan 9,286.00 (co-applicant) 3 Exhibit E Neighborhood Meeting Documentation City o f Tigard COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Request for 500' Property Owner Notification Property owner information is valid for three (3)months from the date of your request. Contact staff member Jae Patton: 503-718-2714 or joep@tigard-or.gov. Date Request Processed: Project name: Spruce and 72nd Subdivision NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING LABELS Staff planner you are working with: Monica #of sheets cost each sets Property owned within 500 feet& Name of contact person: Justin Lindley mterestedportier.• 7 $2.00 1 $14.00 Name of company: Westlake Consultants Generate list• - - $11.00 Phone: 503-684-0652 TOTAL: $25.00 Email: jlindley@westiakeconsultants.com LAND USE ENVELOPES Please indicate all map and tax lot numbers that are included #of envelopes cost each sets in your project(i.e. 1 S134AB00100) or the addresses for all Properly owners project parcels below.If more than one (1)tax lot or if the within 500 feet& -- parcel has no address,you must separately identify each interertedpartier. $0.13 $ tax lot associated with the project. Generate list: $11.00 1S136ACO2200,1S136ACO2400, 1S136ACO2500 SUBTOTAL: $ Postage: $0. $ TOTAL: $ REQUEST(only check one),: One (1) set of labels for notification of neighborhood meeting. After submitting your land use application to the city,the project planner will review your application for completeness and you will be notified by means of a completeness review letter. Please indicate what the completeness letter indicates you need: Land use case number: F] Type II TWO sets of envelopes nType III or Type IV one set of envelopes (a second set may be required if the decision is appealed) -� The contact person listed above will be notified of the amount to pay at the front counter in the Permit Center once the request is processed.A printed list of all property owners within 500 feet and interested parties will be provided at time of payment.Upon request,a PDF copy is available via email. H HH LfN%/ City of Tigard • 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • www.tigard-or.gov - 503-718-2421 • Page 1 of 1 1:\CURPI.N\D4asrers\500'Property Owner Notification Reducst.docs Rev.20150514 Area Notified (500 Ft) MAPLELEAF ST > I hl H W Spruce &72nd Subdivision >I < r. 1SI36ACO2200, IS136AM400. 1SI36ACO2500 I Mvl�F ELI LW C < OAK ST sui rq TZ"', Subject S;' PINE ST + I AV I Notil,calon.Area 0 .......... .... 41 Him T'LIL-1 .J SPRUCE ST DroDerty owner information i va!� 7-7 1 - - ---- for3 months from'the dal eprinted on map ........... UJ > cp Map Pnrted 22•7eb-16 W --- ---------- Hy 11711 ROMMULTIPLESot)i THE CITU MAKESNOTWAPPANITY OPGUARANITEEASTO 14F ONT ENT,A OCU RA CY T ME(_INE 5,0 R CC,MP LETE NE SO OT ANY 07 THE 7 DATA PROVIDED HEREIN THE Cl-OF 71GARO SHAL(,ASSUME.No I TI FOP.AN`?ERRORS"ISS,IONS OR NACCURACPS iN THE SED INF)RMA110tIPROVIDED REGARDLESS OFHOW CAU, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 'A PI to Call Home" > City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard,OR 97223 503 639-41 71 www tigard-or gov IS1361)BOI-Il'o0 ALBERTSON,B-AR-RY ABBOTE BRUCE&REBECCA 15445 SW 150TI T,ANT' I085t,)SW 74TH-AVE TIG;\RD,OR 9.7224 TIGARD,OR 9=3 15136AC04200 1S136AC03200 1NDREWS,LINDA E -ARCHER,RUSSELL TRUST GLAWT',CHRISTOPHER,\ BOUCHER,INLARK-' 130 SW PINT ST 1()74,S S\N7 7 1ST-�VE TIG.�RD,OR 97223 Tl(-�-\Rll OR 97"23 Bl-`ACH,D.M,E D.&E VE LYN, O. BEILK-L,SL'S.k-NN 11530 S\X,'72NDAN'ENUL 11755 SW 114TH PLACT, TIG--UM,OR 9-'223 TIG-ARD,OR 9 223 BF.TLS'IFTN,ELLEN IS136,V-00400 14630 SW 139TH AVE BESS,BOB G AND EV,A 10 TTGARD,OR ()-?224 10595 S\X!71,1�'J",N-L�' PORTLAND,OR 1)7223 BONM- ,N-ACIA IS136M-01100 IMLTROPOLMN LAND GROUP,LLC BONk-MANN,ERIC&DEBRA ]NI 17933 NW EVERGREEN PARKWAY,SUITE 300 '7311 SW'PINE ST IJF__\\7ERTON,OR 9-006 TIGARD.OR 97223 IS13()_\C017()1 1SI36AC0430() BR_AANS TEN,SCOTf B& MFIGAN C BRECKENRIDGE,ROBE RT D 7212 SW PINE ST K.�THRYN-A TIC :ARD,OR 97223 7218 SW OAK ST TIGARD,OR 97223 BREN\E'\I-AN.HEIDI 1S136AC04600 11680 S\X-TIG-ARD DRIVE BROWN,NATILMN—M TIGARD.OR 9*7223 10690 SW 75TI I AN7L PORTLAND,OR 97223 ISO6CA00100 BU'EI INER,GRFT(-I fr-,N BRUCE,LISA Po BOX 230 1268 BRUCE,SCO'lT TTG_M),OR 97281 510 SNX!SPRUCF Si' TIGARI),OR 97223 IS110AC00401 CAFF-ALL,REX BUIUNFIT.1\1 LOUISE&CH-ARLES 13205 SW�711_L._IGE GLENN TJG��RD,OR 97-2-23 10565 SW DIST_W E TIGARD,OR 9-1223 CAROL RENAUD 1S136BDO3500 '�VACO CPO NEWSLETTER COORD. Cl-I-At,SSE,C-AROLL L OSU EXT. SVC- CITIZEN IN701,1-!:-,\TFN'I'F.-'(--ULTY 10705 S\X!7_5'f'l I 155 NORIIA 1ST-AVENUE SUITE 200 'i\5TTG48 -ARD.OR 9=3 HILLSBORO,OR 97124 CTn-Ol" FIGARD 1S136AC01000 A'I'IN:SL SAN SHANKS CLARK,IIA'17RICIA I 13 125 S\\"*f-LALL BLVD. 7333 SW PINE S'I' 'I'lGARD,OR 1)7223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 CONNERY,STACY IS136AC-01200 12564 SW IL-LAIN SI'R],'F,'f' C 0 N N 0 R,P R-NNY L TIG,UM,OR 97223 7217SWPTNE S'Y 'f]G,�R.D,OR 97223 1S136AC00500 CR--W I IFAD,.\LE�,LANDER COO]31;R,ill 1OHN&NANCY l> I22o5 S\X,7 1 1ALL BOULEVRD 10525 SW 71ST AVE 'I'lGARD.(DR 97223 .2 -o210 TIGARD,OR 97223 ISMAC0300() DEFILT11111S,VICTOR DASUE Ll-(--' 13892 S\VBR_A'Y_DON CT 11902 SW 60TH TIGARD,OR 97224 POR1'LAND,OR 977219 ISI36DB016t 0 IS136DB01500 DORRELL,DONA L N DORRELL,DONAL VG&DEL',VA R 10885 SW 7 4'f H ST P(:)BOX 230482 TIG.ARD,OR 97223 TIG.ARD,OR 97281 ENGVALL,ANN f zRD-F,DON&DOR011 IY 15461 SW 82 PL 137(,0 S\X' 121 S'r AVENUF `FIGARD,OR 97224 'FIGARD,OR 97223 1S136AC03300 IS136BD03400 FAKIf 1,HAIDAR&1,A,\L\ 'FARANC'E.,RICHARD A 1t}7()5()'S SW7 1 S'I' 12534 SW 5t3IJ 1 GY TIG_1RD,OR 9722223 P(-.)RTI,.-\ND,OR 97219 IS136AC'03800 1S136,ACO2000 I"All TERRI'l,',ROBJ-'_Rl'&LJS, FENNELLY,'JOHN & 7 302 SWS'SPRUCE S'I' GRAY,LESLIF 'FIGARD.OR 97223 10650 SW 75'1'11 AX_F TIGARD,OR 97223 1SIMBID040()u ISI 36-AC00800 FOSTER.KYLIF. FOX,s I,\R-A 7595 SW SPRIUCE: ST 10490 SW 7 5 I'li_VVE TIG_:�RD,QR 97223 TIGARD,Or, 97223 1S136BD0370() multiple: I S 1 30,eV-03400 to I Sl 36DBOO201 FR_IZIFR.GARY B I;FJ,-'D_MFYFR S'FORES INC 535 SW SPRUCE S'I' S'I'ORIH #375 '11GARD,OR 9_7223 1014 VINE ST PROPEXI-1—I'A X M 11 LOOR CINCINNYATI.Of 14520-2 FROUDI ,BEVERLY 15136ADo37{)1 12200 SW BULL\KJUN'LUN ROAD GARBFR J.IVTNG T'RUS'T TTG.-IRD,OR 47224 10680 SW 7;IST-AVE PORTLAND,OR 97223 IS136ACO2900 GOODHOUSE, IOHN GIBBONS,NOREEN M 9345 Slt'MOUNAIN VIEW LANE 10730 SAS 72ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97224 PORTL,IND,OR 97223 IS136BD01000 H.'MILTON,LISA CPO 4B VICE CII_-1IR GOTTER,S.�\IL"EL_1&VJC I'ORL-1 L 13565 SWBL•`LI BLVD RC _U 7515 SW PINE ST TIGARD,OR 97224 -- TIG ARD,OR 97223 IS136AC 0470() I IARDING.TODD&HERING ]IZ,BI-AKF. II.ANSON.Cl L RLES D&CHRISTINA D \ORRIS BI_-GGS&SIIIPSON 1067(!S\X'75'Fl I AVE 121 SW MORRISON.SUITE 200 PORTI--SND,OR 97223 PORTI4AND,OR 97204 i S136BD03100 1 S 136AC04500 I-IEDIN IERRY' L&ALBERTA .A HOBBEL,SUSAN L 7560 SW PINE ST 10680 Std'75`1'11 A ,T- TIG:A:RD,OR 9%223 POR'I'I,AND,OR i 1OG-1N,KEVIN IS136AC03100 14357 SAX' 133RD.AVENUE HOWARD,DAN 1,&DIANE M _ TTG,ARD,OR 4�2?4 1311 SNOWDENI RD W'1HITI_.SALMON,WA 9867' IIOAX'LAND,I IAROLD 1AND RUTH 1SI3 AC03801 13145 S\X"BENTS]I TL.LIAS,NIC:OI_E 'M&KYLE A TIG_1RD.OR 9'72223 10820 SAS'74'I'I 1 AVE TIG ARD.OR 9`223 IS136C.A90201 IS136BD03300 JACOBSON,KF:-VTN K AYE;SAUL ?M 10900 S\X"76'1'II 131,#20 10655 SNX''SI'II.-1V1: 'I'TG,ARD,OR 07223 PORTLAND,OR 972-23 KFERINS,PATRICIA KTITIIEI,,DAVID 15677 S\ 'OREGON ST. AM 209 1335 SAF'66TI I St?I'I'F 202 '1'IG_iRD,OR 97140 PORTI-,IND,OR 97225 KNI SPP, 11ONA 1S136C;_k9Ol41 9600 S`\'FRL VlNG SMITE1' KOHLTtiI.1N,KYLL 1.�\ILS TIG:ARD,OR 97223 10900 SW 76111 PI,#14 TIG.ARD,OR 97223 IS136BIA3200 1S136,A(-002oo 1—\NE.)FRED ]—\RSLN,DEAN W TR& 750)SW PINI:ST LARSESK MARGIE C TR ll'(DRTL\ND.OR 97223 1053(1 S'&72ND TIGARD,OR 97223 IS136AC'00901 IS136DB02100 LEFEBVRE,JANI)A BENIA-MTN NIOL\N MOON,D,ANIF.I.j &SAR-A N 10970 SW 74Tf I AVE, 7411 SW PINT.ST TIGAIM,OR 97223 TIG_\R-D,OR 97223 IASA FLUITUAN CITKIR CPO Q VVE-CHAIR LONG, JIM CI 1A IR,CPO 4M BOX 242 10730 S\V 72ND AVE 'rimm,m 97224 PORTLAND,OR 97223 IS136AC01400 IS136DBO1900 LONGTHOR-NE,Sf 1ARALYNN NIAGJAn%PAMI-A I. 10525 S\ti 72NI) AVE 104+10 SW 74'1`11,`VE' '11CUR13.OR 97223 IIC;ABaa,()R 97223 IS136BIM100 1S136DB014()(; -,-fCNULTY,BRET B&jLSSY:A 1, AIEIIR;V ARLIN 7.508 S\X,'OxkK ST j !,OR, IENNIFER P(.-)RTLAND,OR 97 223 10915 SXV 74T1 1.'V E TTGARI),OR 97223 1S136(1190191 1S1361)B01800 -N I END ON S i\,'Fl,SSIL.1 MICKLEY,WILLIA.'\11 1000 SW 76TH PL UNIT 19 10880 SN V?4TH IVE '11G RD,OR 97223 TIVIR11,UR 97223 IS136CA90151 '\IILDRF-,N,GE-NE ABL; TEMBORAHIt? MlLDRFN DESIGN GROUP 10900)SN 76TH PI,UNTTI 5 7650 SW BEVEL_ ND ST,STE' 120, TICTARI),OR 97223 TIGABID,OR 97223 15136(;.-\9009:1 IS1360\90172 olmll",Y)w \ MT&I TRUST 1(500 SW'76TH PL Al BYMITSJ�LA,EDWARIDS P& '11CURID,OR 97223 PI rYLLTS A 'ERS 745 TFHEI) ST 1--kKL.` 0SNVEGO,(DR 9-7034 I S 136A(102102 ISIMC-A90071 '\10,R—),'H L.\D,R 00 N,FA'N 7\fOTLAGH.\1TTjDl SS, ZEN-\IDA F 7383 S\\'SPRUCE A 10900 SW 76TIJ PI,#7 PORTLANDt OR 97223 TIGARD.OR 97223 1SIMM02101 IURDOCK,KATI-L-\-\z\NDANN MURDOCK, ANN B "415 SW SPR U CE STR ELT 7415 SW SPRUCE—ST TI(;ARD,OR 97223 TIG-ARI).OR 97223 NF.AI,BR()WN. GRI IS136DB02000 MEADOWS INC RF_'TXORS NI-11-SON WEST PROPLIMES LLC 12655 S%V NORTH D<1KOT_\ STREET 12316 N\X, CORNFLI_RD TIG:IRD,OR 07223 PORTI..,ND,OR 07229 N'EWTH,P.\TTY 1S136AC00900 12180 SCK'11LRES1'ONE COURT ODFI.I.,IFFFRFY RAY -" TIG<�RD,OR 07223 7417 SW PINE SI' PORTLAND,OR 97223 15136-AD04000 1S136DB0a1200 Pa1CII�IC TERR_10E CO_NLMEMCLSL LLC P_1'1'FI,7ICK,JOI IN I JR&Ci`NTHL-� A BY S;11I'1"I 1,FDTTA Al 10975 SW 74TH VE' 833 NW 1701'I I DR TIG_1RD,OR 97"''3 BE.4\'ER'I'C:' OR 97006 multiple: 1S136BD05400 to 1S136BD055()O 1S136AC01900 PETERSEN,0 V&LOR_�RE`'LIVING PROV.ANCIIER,KENNETI I A& 7608 S\ 'PILAF ST STHW':ART,PENN' I. POR J`AND,OR 97223 7330 SW PINE ST 1'{lR'1'I SND,OR 9722.> 1 S 1360-ko7000 1 S 136BD036001 PROV"ITI',NANCY C 2001 REVOC, BLE PULSINF,LLI,CIIRISTINF M 809 NOF S1' 7515 Sit'SPRUCE ST SAN FRANCISCO,C_� 94114 T1G_-URD,OR 97223 1513(<A0-100 15136AC00803 R.iPPOI,D,TROY K RFCHT,NLARTH_� 1125 SL %LMISON ST#201 10520 Sok'75TH . � PORTLAND,OR 9"7214 PORI"I-IND,OR 97223 1S136.�C03900 IS136C.\90111 RF.CHTFGER,HEIDI REESOR,LOUIS_A Io615 S\V 74'1'II.IVF 109(}0 SW 76TII PL#11 ._ TIG_1RD,OR 97223 TIC7_�RD,OR 9=3 1S136AC-01-100 R(MRILAN,SUE RTCCTARDL ANN L 11250 S\t'82ND AVE 7203 Sly'PINE,SI' TIG.-\RD,OR 97223 1 IGARD,OR 97223 1 S 1360-.069+}0 1 S 136_-�C0440(s ROUSE,CI lARLES& ROUSE, IL �NET'I`I GENDE,DUNE\1 10491 SW 72ND AVE_ 11916 SES'ELLALAR CT PORTLAND,OR 9=3 TT ARD.OR 97223 RUEDY,ROBERT 1S136.ACO2800 14185 SA'100TII AVENUE RUSSELL-I I_ARRIS PROPFR"I Y RUST TIGARD,OR 9 224 24348 SW&-�KER RD SHERWOOD,OR 97140 I5136AC00202 1S136CA90212 SCACCO,LINDLE F SCHAFFFItR,CAIZ(-)',, DIANEE 10900 SNV76TH PI_#21 10500 SW 72ND AVL-1 "I GA RT),OR 971 223 PoRll.AND.OR 97223 IS136BD03900 IS136.AD03800 T.,CAROLATRUST SCI UNITUY,DAVID W AND SCT 10ENX ANNE' THNIM72( ','l S\\ "I S'f �\TF, 575 SW SPRU CE PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 07223 IS136CIA90101 1413(,AC0()300 Sl JOENIA KI'R,KFULL A STTTEL,BET I Y !()900 SN\T'7(-,TH PI,#1t) 110 560 SNX 7 72ND v j;' TIGAM,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 IS136AD03900 SPRING,BRAD S-MITI 1.EDITA M REVOCABLE LIVING 7555 S'W"SPRUCP STREFT 8,33 NW 17()'['11 I)R TIGARD,OR 9`23 BEAVRRTON,OR 1)7(),')6 multiple: IS13611DC,3003 to ISI36BD03800 STALZER,(-1 1ARLTRAND LARIE SPRING,LINDA 1, 14781 S\\,7 7 555 S\V SPR UC L"T TIGARD,OR 97224 POTFLAND,OR 97223 STASNYj-k-MIR lS136A(-'O(-)7()1 'NIFTROPOLITAN LAND GROUT,LLC STE C-I I F I Z,V ;K\1 0\ C I I 17933 N\V* _AI E'R G REENN,P.\R K\V, SUITE 300 7350 S\V OAK 1-1 OR 97006 TIGARD,C)R 97223 15136 :.19()132 SUNDBERG,ROSS SUN-1-1 NSKI,AD-01 D 16382 S\,V 104TH AVL 1(00o SW-76TI 1 PI.#13 TIGARD,OR (X7224 TIGARD,OR ;"223 Yf IOlIPSC N GLENNA lllLdliple: 15136-\(-f)2200 to 15136AC4j2500 13076 SW'HALL BLVD )-,':Nl'f 2 TOPPTNG-,RICI IARD TIGIARD,0R, 97221; 1<-L,'mP, IERINE 19',765 DE.RBY ST NXT-,S'YI,JNN,OR 1) 06,'� 1SI3bAC01800 1S13()CA9(-)081 TRACY,N.A"':CY I.O U TRUST VANDT JK,CAROLYN ], 7310 SNV PINTE ST 10000 SNX F I I PI. r8 PORTLAND,OR 97223 FJGARD,()R 97223 IS 136AC01 1,S130ACO2�,"A, VANEK VINCENT,BR-AD1,ORD 7 291)SV"PINE ST 10640 S\X" 12ND1\VE TIGARD,OR 972-23 TI G A R.1).UR «7223 I S136BD{)1lti0 1 S 136AC0}0801 `.'INS,ALEXANDER WAINWRIGI-T F-111ILY LLC 14315 SEXTON \IOUNTATN DR#IF 6120 SW HUBER BI__A 1:R-,RTON,OR 9;008 PORTLAND,OR (,171 I Lr .r 1 S 130A 001600 1 S 136.E C00902 %VK. L,1ND,DENNIS S&- GAY A \'+ATKI?R,RODNElY L&P_11iFLA G 17 210 SW PINE ST 7405 S\V PINE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 POR'I'l-AND,OR Q-722-3 WAJ,SI I,DAVID 15136_AC04100 10236 c« STL7AR'I"COURT \V_ TSON, NOEFLF TIGARD,OR W223 1 o65 M 'rt1ST_�N'I TIGARD,OR 97223 \a-'F;GFNER,BRIAN 1S136BD04600 9830 S\'\17 KIMBERLY DRIVI; \\'F?LLER,IIANA TIGARD,OR 9.7 "5"5 SW PINE SI PORTLAND,OR 47,23 IS136CA90161 IS136CA90121 WJN_�NS,I_,11ILY V1SCI 1l1FYF,R,SAR.AI1 '1 3111 NE 165TI I PI, 10900 SNX'-i(;fH PL#12 VANCOUVER,NVA 98682 TIGARD,OR 97'223 1 S136DB01300 1S136CA90182 ZSOIL�,KI_NNETH G Z\"AIGZNE,BRI-\N NTCTIOI.S-ZS()K.-k,TlF1=_-�-Nl'L B 1{19()0 SW?CiI'H PL,I tiI'I'1t 110945 S '?I'1'II_��"E TIGARD.OR ')7'�3 i'ORTL SND,OR 07223 1S136-\C,)070 } ZNXTNGLI,WALTER SCCA-I'TRUST '73'010 SW 0-AK S.I. _ TIG \RD,OR 97223 Westlake - - consultants inc NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING March 1, 2016 Revised Meeting Date Dear Neighbor, Westlake Consultants, Inc. is representing Stafford Land Company, Inc. who for a Land Use Application on 1. 54 acres of property located on the NW corner of SW Spruce ST and SW 72nd Ave in Tigard, (Tax Map 1S136AC, Tax Lot 2400, 2500, and 2200) , as shown on the attached map. The applicant is filing an application with the City of Tigard for a Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Amendment from _ Professional Commercial, C-P, to Medium Density Residential, R-12 (as before) , and for a PD Overlay zone with Planed Development Concept Plan review (in addition) . _ The purpose of this meeting is to provide a forum for the applicant and the surrounding property owners/residents to review the proposal and to identify issues so that they may be considered before the formal application is turned into the City of Tigard. This meeting gives you the opportunity to share with us any special information you know about the property involved. We will attempt to answer questions which may be relevant to meeting the development standards consistent with City of Tigard' s Community Development Code. MEETING TIME AND PLACE Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 6: 00 PM At Metzger Elementary School Library 10350 Lincoln St Tigard, OR 97223 Please note this meeting will be an informational meeting on preliminary development plans. These plans may be altered prior to submittal of the application to the City. Depending upon the type of land use action required, you may receive official notice from the City of Tigard upon submittal of a formal land use application. We look forward to discussing the proposal in greater detail with you. Please feel free to call me at 503-684-0652 if you have any questions . Sincerely, Westlake Consultants, Inc. < s Q..4fxxM Kenneth L. Sandblast, AICP _ Director of Planning KLS/jel ra iiic ---_ r�a-e Center ( - - Site Vicinity Map Proiect Subdivision f Site Addresses r f 7303 SW Spruce St 10705 SW 72 Ave 10735 SW 72nd Ave r Tax Map f 1S136AC � Tax Lots 2200, 25001 r and 2600 fn.0 m Dr r ■ Neighborhood Meeting Information The City of Tigard requires developers to hold a neighborhood meeting to notify, affected property owners about their proposed development. This is done as part of the development review process for most land use applications. Below are some frequently asked questions about the neighborhood meeting process. — WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING? The purpose of the meeting is to allow the prospective developer to share with you what they are planning to do. This is your opportunity to become informed of their proposed development and to let them know what issues or concerns you have in regard to their proposal. WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING? After the neighborhood meeting, the prospective developer finalizes their submittal package (often taking into account citizen concerns) and submits an application to the city. Sometimes it takes awhile before the developer's 7 to submit, so there could be several months between the neighborhood meeting and the application is readj submittal of an application. Once an application is submitted to the city, staff reviews it for completeness. Once an application has been deemed complete,the formal application review begins. It takes approximately, 6-8 weeks from the time the application is accepted for a decision to be made. Many types of applications require a public hearing at which citizens are given the opportunity to provide comments or concerns. Property- owners w=ithin 500 feet will be notified after a complete application is submitted. They will be provided an opportunity to comment. Any appeals are decided based on the provisions of applicable laws and the development code. WHAT IF THE PROPOSAL PRESENTED AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING IS NOT WHAT IS ACTUALLY SUBMITTED? Applicants are not required to submit exactly what was presented at the neighborhood meeting if it generally follows the type of development proposed. This protides for the opportunity to address the neighborhood issues and address other changes necessitated by the development or staff. If the project is significantly different,a new neighborhood meeting would be required as determined by staff. HOW DO I KNOW WHAT ISSUES ARE VALID? A decision is reviewed based on compliance with "Title 18 of the Tigard Municipal Code (also known as the Community Development Code). Revien,the city's development code to faiiiiliaritie yourse�ivitlj what is permitted and avhat rrray not be permitter, A copy of the development code is available for viewing at the.'Tigard Public Library, on the city's web site at www.tigard-or.gov, or a copy may be purchased by contacting our records department ,%-.vw.tigard-or.gov/city—hall/public—records.php. You may also contact city planning staff by calling 503.718.2421 and ask what the standards are for a specific issue. If a development meets the code standards,it can proceed. For your assistance, attached is a list of questions that may assist you in determining your position on a particular proposal. I:t;ommunidyDeN,elopment`Forms\Pre-appflacltet Updated 7J7j2015 Typical Questions to Help Ensure Common Neighborhood Concerns are Considered The following is a list of questions intended to aid you in formulating your own questions for proposed development in your area. feel free to ask more or alter the questions to address your own unique concerns and interests PROCESS ► What applications are you (the developer) applying for? When do you expect to submit the application(s) so that neighbors can review it? What changes or additions are expected prior to submittal? Will the decision on the application be made by city staff Tigard hearings Officer,Planning Commission or City Council? How long is the process? (tithing) At what point in the process are citizens given notice and the opportunity to provide input? Has a pre-application conference been held with City-of Tigard staft? ■ Have any preliminary requirements been addressed or have any critical issues been identified? • What city planner did you speak with regarding this project? (This person is generally the planner assigned to the land use case and the one to contact for additional information). STREETS ► NK,,iU there be a traffic study done? What is the prehnt unary traffic impacts anticipated as a result of the development and how do you propose to mitigate the impacts if necessaiy ► What street improvements (including sidewalks) are proposed? What connections to existing streets are proposed? ► Are streets proposed to be public or private? What are the proposed street and sidewalk widths? What are the emergency access requirements and what is proposed to meet those requirements? .— ZONING AND DENSITY ► What is the current zoning? What uses are allowed under this zoning? ► Will there be a re-zone requested by the developer? If yes, to ghat zone? ► How many units are proposed for the development and what is the minimum and maximum number of units allowed in the zone? DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY ► What is your erosion control and drainage plan? What is the natural slope of the property=? What are the grading plans? ► Is there a water quality facility=planned within the development and where will it be locate& Who will own and maintain the facihtyr TREES AND LANDSCAPING ► What is the urban forestry plan and how will the applicable development requirements be met? / What are the landscaping plans? What buffering or fencing is required and/or proposed? ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ► How do I request more information or a follow-up meeting from/wTith the applicant? L\CURP7,N\Slastcrs\Ire-Alirlic ition Conference Packet\Neighborhood Meeting lnformation_Questrons.doc Updsted 3/25/2013 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING/POSTING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO MAIL THE CITY OF TIGARD A COPY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE THAT PERTAINS TO THIS AFFIDAVIT AT THE SAME TIME PROPERTY OWNERS ARE MAILED NOTICE,TO THE ADDRESS BELOW: City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard,OR 97223-8189 IN ADDITION,THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT THIS AFFIDAVIT&COPIES OF ALL NOTICES AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION. MAILING: I,, 1p�t!q N _Q�v �, being duly swom,depose and say that on the day of S7 _1111....., , 20_�P_ 1 caused to have iled to each of the persons on the attach list,a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at (ox nc ar)_� 11. ..... ' .�V t, ..'F.__` __._ _ _ ............._T .. 111.1- I'll..........._._. __1111_._., a copy of urhich notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopeslainly addressed to said persons nd we deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office located at,,F?P. ... 0 x-_ I"1�- ��.� _.'�._.`�1 ._�"�.�r'p►N�oO I--� with postage prepaid thereon. Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public) POSTING: I lqG. l _� 1_`-�, do affirm that I am (rr.pfestni)jhe.k r , initiating interest in a proposed land use application for Ct7t111 _� tl "1` �Y"1f ?..��1 ... M';�ftcc.'til the land located at (state the approximate location{ }#F no address s)a 1 tax lot s)currently registered) l J _ '2.h--_... �' ._ _...___ _1"_`qu c __.and did on t.Jtc1S da of,,, notice indicatin that the site may be proposed for a ()il pfita cs.1 t,G• J'�.. , t" 3 Q �D-- ?I�_lf'a�d use application,and the time,date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. The sign was posted at_._._ S N 5pe— -L= S T. f S 167 N o N -5 vi �Z N� ASE.• (State the location you posted notice on property) Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON,NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) STATE OF Ot'4�' County ofas. Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the•Et5�/_day of ,2D�. OFFICIAL STAMP LYNN ANN DUNN .:: .11�_T* NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGO14 �`OT Y PUBLIC OF OR GON COMMISSION NO.943239 I(OWCOMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 27,2019 My Commission 1.\C:URPLN\Master,\Pre-Arpbeoion C:onfurencc Puckct\Affidavit of Maiting-Posting Neighborhood Meeting.docx Updatcd 3/^_512013 Neighborhood Meeting March 16,2016 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Metzger Elementary School Library _ 10350 Lincoln St. Tigard, OR 97223 Meeting called by: Morgan Will—Stafford Land Company, Inc Facilitators: Ken Sandblast—Westlake Consultants, Inc Agenda topics 5 Minutes Introductions 10 Minutes Zone/Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 10 Minutes Concept Site Plans 10 Minutes Public FacilitieslUtilities 10 Minutes Transportation 15 Minutes Question and Answer Project Contacts: Pro'ect A licant: Land Use&Civil: Stafford Land Company Westlake Consultants Morgan Will Ken Sandblast 485 South State St 15115 SW Sequoia Pkwy Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Tigard, OR 97224 I 'J LOCUST ST > Zoning and Comprehensive Plan _j Ij J Ij 1- R-4-5 (P D) 1,11 > _j j J Map Jj < U j > j L 2A j > 'Overlay Zones Iz J Historic District Overlay j --j Lij � a > - Planned Development Overlay MAPLELEAF ST -�jLU > > 4i y Zoning - General J < Residential J > 7, J MAPLELEAF CT OAK ST Mixed Use Residential > MMixed Use Central Bus Dist S OAK R-4.5 MCommercial I - Uj J j j > MMixed Use Employment J 01ndustrial. J LU NWA-CNTY > PI < Comprehensive Plan NE J Low Density Residential -j j J 0 E]Medium Density Residential 7 DMedium-High Density Residential L Ln Iffigh Density Residential _j _j -j j _jj Mixed Use Residential I R U C E S T EMixed Use Residential 2 -25 R NMixed Use Central Bus Dist > NGeneral Commercial SProfessional Commercial gCommunity Commercial -.-Neighborhood Commercial MMixed Use Commercial 0Mixed Use Employment R-1 2 (P NMixed Use Employment I R-12CG NMixed Use Employment 2 -ILight Industrial NHeavy Industrial co ua ca > > Map printed at 04:25 PM on 15-Mar-16 < M U E M U E I DATA IS DERIVED FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES THE CITY OF TIGARD MAKES NO WARRANTY, REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE CONTENT,ACCURACY,TIM UNIESSOR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF THE DATA PROVIDED HEREIN THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS.OMISSIONS,OR INACCURACIES IN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSED R-7 00 z City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Fe Lam' TIGARD APS Tigard,OR 97223 503 639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov eCpw y`` ,h•t i Q,.'t Ft 'n t it r.� a'f,°h"' xi z IN �. 'amu �� �y� •f � � � G �� ��' -. .. "�r ��` `�",4n 'i' { + {Elly la- �� 4 ger �,r.�;r ;, `• s. �' All, �.: t 4< tat' �j I �i} n• t \/ +• k. +} i§}r out- IS oil CLx.,y�,R` 4 77 L � I T P v Ux 4Lpt m a �� p i• Paz } � �t ��s � t_ ��• �, k „+ot..t*Fe'PeC I : f.. v fx x � �s• t GQ �- t°� Wrqj <. k } n. t " • . , a 4 n nf ( {,y §. Q h n + 1 'q a F `t s. t, C'oO -0 -0 p) cD 0 FT- 00 <iFl-I--------- ILOpen Space SW 72nd Ave $c p!P REVISIONS it P PD CONCEPT PLAN WLSTI�AU �I� IDA NE 1/4 SEC. 36. T.I.S.. R.I.W.. W.M.. axcnvsRMG . sysysrnvc ♦ PwvrvnvG 11-22—OS INITIAL RELEASE ma ss h CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON ���e' a o Y,gena,so �� 3—0 N0. DATE DESCRIPTION er. er. er. er.' Cour. &a CT11NR 1W 20' Wide g -e Dwellin Example Elevations _ P � �I a � � W „�++--.._c=am*-^-•--,+m.. 4.,, � ;y��" .:, _' . a y m . Y u W v � f , lot * a T oin PP g Planned Development { f Community Meeting March 16, 2016, 6:00pm Metzger Elementary School Library 10350 Lincoln St, Tigard, OR Sign-in Sheet Name AddressPhone E-mail .............. �4> Uj A L_k b2_ CA vvl%l 7L(a 5 '�07 J L I V-, k ' .4-f 733c uj --(?- V" 4. AJ _ \ 7 .............. Community Meeting March 16, 2016, 6:00pm Metzger Elementary School Library 10350 Lincoln St, Tigard, OR Sign-in Sheet Name Address Phone - ,,E-mail j 6� 5. 6,19 6 57" c;'A X_ LA/A v I AA ciiRc' Ry�Z-OUN"Ck 0(�Y'�a,C�nZCA� -7 7 0 Community Meeting March 16, 2016, 6:00pm Metzger Elementary School Library 10350 Lincoln St, Tigard, OR Sign-in Sheet Name Address Phone E-mail 4166- 3?/- 3a2 Q (e� J- -7 1;2 2_0*V�(1(2en,9 � OtT, HaAsoyi Westlake consultants,inc MEETING MINUTES ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING PHONE 503.684.0652 DATE OF MEMO: March 28, 2016 PROJECT NAME: Topping Application DATE OF MEETING: March 16, 2016 PROJECT NUMBER: 2634-001 LOCATION: Metzger Elementary School library — 10350 Lincoln St. Tigard, OR 97223 PRESENT: Westlake Consultants, Inc.: Ken Sandblast and Justin Lindley Stafford Land Development Company, LLC.: Gordon Root, Morgan Will, and Levi ... Levasa City of Tigard Community Development: John Floyd Neighbors(see attached list) _ DISTRIBUTION: Development Team, File, City of Tigard, Jim Long—County CPO Rep SUBMITTED BY: Westlake Consultants Included Exhibits Exhibit A City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Map Exhibit B Site Vicinity Map Exhibit C Concept Development Site Plan Exhibit D Rendering of Conceptual Houses Exhibit E Comments from the Park Petition Presented at Meeting by Local Community Exhibit F Material Submitted at Meeting for a Nature Park Exhibit G Meeting Agenda Exhibit H Meeting Sign-In Sheet Presentation: A meeting was held to provide information, receive comments and answer questions of surrounding neighbors regarding an application for a Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Amendment from Professional Commercial, C-P, to Medium Density Residential, R-12, in addition to a PD Overlay zone with Planed Development Concept Plan review. Nineteen neighbors attended the meeting. Exhibits presented: 1. Current Zoning/Comprehensive Plan map — 2. Site Vicinity map 3. Concept Development Site Plan 4. Rendering of Conceptual houses that could be built on the site Ken Sandblast, Westlake Consultant's Director of Planning, opened the meeting with a brief description of the application. Ken explained the process of the meeting requirements for developments within the City of Tigard and the type of applications that were being — submitted. He explained that the meeting had been originally been scheduled for March 9, 2016, but had been posted on the site with the wrong meeting date. The revised notice with the meeting date of March 16, 2016 was mailed out and a sign was reposted on the site to — ensure that the meeting had met the notice requirements of the City of Tigard. Next, he explained how the rezoning/comprehensive plan map amendment had originally been part of a City initiative in 2015 to swap zoning designations for the project site with J.12634-001.161PIanWeighborhood MtglMeehng 3-16-161Topping Meeting Minutes 3-16-16.docx another site in the city in order to maintain the amount of housing acreage within the city. He stated that the City Council had decided to approve the rezoning of the other site to commercial while remanding the rezoning of the project site back to the planning commission due to discrepancies in the overall process. Ken explained that the new process now involves the developer as a co applicant with the City to take the request back through the Planning Commission for the Rezoning/Comprehensive Plan map amendment from C-P to R-12 as a Quasi-Judicial Process along with approval of a Concept Development Plan. The Concept Development Plan will be used to illustrate the type of development proposed for the site and allow a planned development overlay to be applied. _ At this point, he asked if the public had any questions regarding the process that had just been explained. Comments and Questions: Q —Question, C —Comment, Ans—Answer, K— Ken Sandblast, M — Morgan Will, G —Gordon Root, J —John Floyd Q 1 Why are the applications together? Ans K: Zoning Map Changes require the Comprehensive Plan map be changed at the same time in order to have both maps consistent with each other at the time of —. rezoning. The concept plan is needed to show the type of development proposed for the planned development overlay. Q 2 Will the public have a chance to review the plans? Ans K: Yes, Public Hearings will be conducted with the Planning Commission and City Council which will have notifications sent out and the site posted for both meetings. Next, Ken presented the Concept Development Plan which consisted of a site plan showing 18 single family lots with 3 open space tracts and street improvements. Ken explained that the Planned Development overlay would allow the site to have different standards applied to it than a typical subdivision, which in turn leads to different requirements for open space and site improvements. The current plan concentrates the layout of the homes to the existing streets while adding in open space tracts on the northern and western site boundaries which will act as a transition from the commercial uses to the south with existing residential lots to the north. C 1 A comment was made that the existing streets have a lot of traffic and are dangerous. The driveways shown on the plan that will access the streets will be dangerous. Ans K: This plan is a concept that shows what is proposed and could be built on the site. If approved, a detailed plan would be completed addressing traffic concerns. Q 3 Will the public have a chance to see the detailed plan? _ Ans K: Yes, if the current application is approved, then the next step is the application for the detailed plan which will require another neighborhood meeting with notifications and sign postings. Q 4 What is open space? Ans K: Open space can be parks, trails, enhanced landscaping, preservation areas, etc. J:12634-001.161PIanWeighborhood MtglMeetmg 3-16-161Topping Meeting Minutes 3-16-16.docx Q 5 What type of density will be allowed with the zoning? Ans K: The city has maximum and minimum zoning densities based on the zoning designations. The estimates for this site are between 18 to 16 lots. The minimum density is calculated based on requirements of the City. Ans J: The density is calculated by subtracting the area needed for roads, sensitive lands, and public land from the site gross acreage and then dividing by the base zone minimum lot size. The R-12 base zone will allow lot sizes of 3,050 S.F. Minimum densities are a percentage of the maximum density. The densities differ dependent on single family or multifamily homes to allow for flexibility. Q 6 Will the project be low-income housing? Ans K: No, the proposal is for market rate houses. C 2 A comment was made by a neighbor that stated the surrounding residents in the area are asking the city to make the site a park. They stated that they had gotten a petition signed by neighboring residents requesting a park and have been looking into funding for the park. Ans K: The City has a master park plan, which designates areas around the city for the development of future parks. Ans J: The City Master Parks plan looks at properties around the city that are available and fit the needs of the city. The Parks Department handles the planning for new parks and land acquisition. There is a finite amount of money available for the acquisition and development of parks that must be considered when comparing _ the project site with other options. C 3 A comment was made by the community members that they were advised by the City of Tigard Planning Commission that they needed to go to the City of Tigard Parks Advisory Board to present their proposal for consideration. They stated that they have met with the board on multiple occasions and are awaiting a board meeting to present their proposal. Ans K: Ken applauded the neighbors on their proposal and efforts to work with the city and the process for requesting a park at the site. He stated that the city has a responsibility to look at the merits of buying the property as a park. Ken then presented the concept of houses that are proposed for the site. Exhibit D demonstrated typical homes that could be built on the lot sizes. He stated that in the proposed R-12 zone, the developer has the option to create 35' tall structures on the site, but is proposing with the Planned Development Concept Plan to stay with a lower height. Q 7 Why should the public participate if the developer can change the plan? Ans K: The concept plan will lock in the type of housing and configuration of the site. The detailed plan must be consistent with the approved concept plan. Changes would require a new concept plan and public participation process. Ans M: Morgan Reiterated that the concept plan is to show what they want to do. The detailed plan will be based on the concept plan and finalize the actual layout _ based on code requirements and standards for utilities and infrastructure. Ans G: Gordon presented the concept plan and described how the open space was designed around an existing tree in the NW corner of the site and to provide open space in the area. He added that the company had produced several J 12634-001.161PlanWeighborhood MtgWeebng 3-16-161Topping Meeting Minutes 3-16-16.docx communities in the area similar to this type and that there is a high demand for single family detached residential on the proposed lot sizes. Q 8 What will be the distance between the homes? Ans G: The distance will vary between 6 to 8 feet between the homes based off of 3 to 4 foot side yard setbacks. The market prefers to have smaller distances between homes to allow greater square footage in the home. Q 9 Does 6 feet meet fire code? Ans G:Yes. Q10 Who will decide what type of density and design is a good fit for the neighborhood? Ans G: The developer will propose the types of homes that they can build on the site that meet the requirements of the city. The developer determines the type of housing to build in the area based off of the market and the requirements. Due to Metro Regulations and the Urban Growth Boundary, land within the UGB needs to have higher densities to provide housing opportunities that cannot be met outside the UGB. The minimum density standards are part of this requirement. Ans J: The Planning Commission will decide on the Concept Plan and whether it fits in with the neighborhood and community. C 4 The small lots will affect the neighborhood. Ans G: The requirements for higher densities within the UGB require smaller lots sizes. Q 11 How will wetland or springs in the area affect the development? Ans K: After the concept plan is approved, the next step is the detailed plan which will entail detailed site analysis such as wetlands reports and geotechnical reports. Depending on the outcome of the reports, there may be minor changes to the layout to accommodate the site constraints. Q 12 What will be the average price per home? Ans G: Between $360,000 and $375,000. C 5 Parking and Traffic are bad in the area. Ans G: The greater density in the area reduces the yard space there by narrowing the perspective of the street size to drivers, which will in turn slow traffic. Street frontage along the site will be rebuilt to City standards which will include a parking lane along the street and sidewalks. Several comments were made between neighbors that the small lots would not work for people to live and not provide enough yard space for families. Ans G: There is a market for the proposed lot sizes and the type of homes that will be built. The buyers that choose the homes are seeking out this type of development. C 6 There is not enough parking on Spruce St. for the development. Ans K: The existing roadway will be widened to accommodate a parking lane based on the City of Tigard roadway standards. J:12634-001.161PIanWeighborhood MtglMeeting 3-16-161Topping Meeting Minutes 3-16-16.docx Q 12 If the minimum density is lower than 18 homes, then why not build 16 homes? Ans K: The amount of lots that are proposed for the development depends on the market and what the developer is building to determine the feasibility. Ans M: The proposed lot sizes and homes to be built on them will still allow for decent sized backyards. While the lots are smaller than the existing neighborhood, the �- trend of development in the area as a whole is progressing towards smaller lots to meet the demand of housing for the region. Q 13 Why can't the land be turned into a park. The shift in smaller lots and yards needs more park space. Ans M: The type of development proposed will allow for open space. Q 14 Can the city zone the land for a park instead of housing? Ans J: The City allows private land owners to develop their land. They will not force a land owner to develop their land into a park. The process for converting the land _ into a park needs to be addressed by the park advisory board. Q15 Who can change the zoning from R-12 to R-7? Ans J: The City Council can decide the zoning, but they must follow the guidelines of the comprehensive plan which requires the availability of housing types within the City. Currently, the City has twice the amount of land zoned R-7 versus R-12. The City is trying to increase the availability of R-12. Q 16 Are there any major utilities that run through the site? Ans K: None have been identified. Q 17 Why can't the number of lots be reduced on the site and the open space increased to _ allow a park to be developed? Ans G: The development of open spaces is limited to the amount of lots that are built in a development due to the cost involved with maintenance of the open space for _ future homeowners. Ans K: The City can make a determination that the open space of a planned development be dedicated to the public to allow the use of the site by all members of the community and the City will incur the costs of maintenance. C 7 A comment was made by a resident stating that the public has been misled on this site over the years due to the site first annexing in as commercial in 2006 and stating that a preschool would be built. It never happened and now the site is trying to have homes built on it. Ans K: The fact that a preschool was not built on the site is based on the market. The owners were not able to develop the site as a preschool. The site currently can be built for any uses allowed in the C-P zone which could include 4 story office buildings with parking due to the 45 foot height limit. Q 18 Why can't they be forced to build a daycare? Ans K: The market didn't work for a daycare at the facility. Land owners are not restricted to a development proposal for the land. Q 19 Was it Residential at the time of annexation? Ans K: No, it was zoned commercial in the county. J:12634-001 161PtanWeighborhood MtglMeeting 3-16-161Topping Meeting Minutes 3-16-16.docx Q 20 Will there be any public testimony? Ans K: Yes, the Planning Commission and City Council will both provide opportunities i for the public to speak on the matter. C 8 A neighbor stood up and spoke about the need for parks in the area. She used the site map shown in Exhibit B to show the sites location and relationship to the surrounding community. She stated that the local community needed a small park within walking distance for the new homes that are being built in the area. She showed an exhibit with pictures of Westmoreland City Park in Portland as an example of what could be created on the site to meet the need for a park. Jim Long handed out a sheet with comments on it from a petition circulated in the neighborhood for a park in the area. A copy of the handout is included with these minutes as Exhibit E Ans G: The small size of the parcel is not an effective site for the City to develop as a park. It would not be able to accommodate playing fields and parking. The City will more than likely be interested in developing larger sites for regional parks to serve a greater population. — Q 21 What is the minimum/maximum density for R-7? Ans J: Lot sizes would consist of 5,000 square feet. The total area of the site minus 20 percent for possible improvements is divided by the 5,000 to give the amount of lots. Q 22 Can the zoning be lowered for the site to R-7? Ans J: There needs to be a diversity of land available in the city. The original request for the zoning swap was to ensure that the city did not lose any land zoned R-12. The city has a high demand for R-12 land. --. Q 23 Does the current zoning allow 4 stories to be built on it? Ans K: Yes, the current zoning allows 45 foot tall structures which would allow for 4 story buildings to be built. C 9 A neighbor that lives across from the site on Spruce St. stated that she was told by a City of Tigard Police officer that parking was not allowed on 72"d Ave. Ans K: The streets will be widened to allow for parking. Q 24 Will there be sidewalks added to the streets? Ans K: Yes, the street frontage along the project site will be built to City Road standards including the construction of additional roadway to allow parking, curbs, sidewalks, and a planting strip. Q 25 If the open space land for the development is private, are the local residents not allowed to use it? Ans K: Private open space is restricted to use by only the residents of the community which owns the space. However, the City may determine that the space needs to be dedicated to the public. The public needs to petition the city for the land to be public. J:12634-001.161PIanWeighborhood MtglMeehng 3-16-161Topping Meeting Minutes 3-16-16.docx r w C 10 A community member stated that the meeting has nothing to do with the current zoning if the property is not rezoned. Ans G: The Developer is going to develop the land despite what the zoning is. The company has done several commercial projects and feels the property can accommodate a commercial development project. They are currently trying to rezone the property and develop it as residential, but if that is not possible, then it will be developed as commercial which will not be as compatible with the neighboring residential versus what is proposed with the concept development w plan. Q 26 When will construction start on the site? Ans M:Once all approvals have been achieved and permits for plans are approved. There are two land use processes, which take up to 120 days. C11 A comment was made that it will take longer with appeals. _ Ken Sandblast asked if there were any other questions or comments about the project and applications. w The meeting adjourned at 7:36pm w w w J:12634-001 161PIanWeighborhood MtglMeeting 3-16-161Topping Meeting Minutes 3-16-16.docx w i Page 1 To date, members of 140 households within a_half-mile of., SW 72nd_and,Spruce_signed a_ etitinn_circulated_bar Nancv _Tracy ;.n-.support of a_park there and_they added the following comments. Would love to see a park, would use A place to take our great grandchildren Great! _ Park would be great! Please, a park! Park for me -- Park! We have two kids! We need a park _ Needed a Park! We'd love to have a park like Westmoreland Park. A natural play area A park would be nice. A park would be perfect for this neighborhood. A park would be perfect for this neighborhood. It should be called "The Nancy L. Tracy Park'. The park seems to be ideal location. More parks. Very much needed. Great idea. _ We need more parks! Great opportunity Yes, Please!— NO MORE HOMES Yes, another park is needed Yes needed. Hundreds of homeowners would welcome a nature park to offset _ growing density Absolutely! We need open space! Good use of otherwise unsuitable land. Good way to build community Good idea! Great Wonderful idea Can't have too many parks March 16, 2016 Page 2 More Comments on Park Petition SW 72nd and Spruce Street We need a "walk-to" park. Called in to support a park. Go for the park Great to have a park No comments Yes, park would be great. _ I love parks! Park is a good idea. Children need a place to play. Supporting a park. We need a park!!! _ Park please We need a park! (Smiley face) Suggests a path around perimeter for walking. A park for my 5 boys to play in would be wonderful! Great use of the land! _ In need of a park in this area A park is super great! More activity for our neighborhood would be far better than adding more people to over-populate area. Park would be a great thing for the area. _ We need more park space. We need more natural spaces. Great Kids Frist! Kids First Kids First Great idea Thumbs up Nature! CHILDREN! HEALTH! Great walking destination We need more parks! Great opportunity Yes, Please! No more houses Yes, another park is needed ' Yes needed. We don't have sidewalks, but we do need a safe place to walk. The City of Tigard doesn't have any park space near here. The City hasn't done much for this area since may blocks were annexed into the city. \ z 1 ' • � � Natural PteArea! 4 * 47 b • PLAY AREA RULES • This area is notmnnitor«.d. Adults are responslbie to actively m, _ aup"sa children in their care ` ��•D • while in the natpral play ares." = "logt natural . • e ptlnbaUth \� water h • • i1 • • �t 8s, • i r�,lae \,'t^\c'�*' arc. `>� ?�:�`••' , a if • \ ll • � '\\`•�/y��:�'\.`�E"^i In.. \ \ •r. �. �\ � ria.. " a , a e a g t � � Q� �rtlai•t o'rt y \ �. s. �r 1 j Wr, fmordsM P Na+urdi PlAy Area ma1 y i. *l. Exhibit F Impact Study (per TDC 18.3 90.040.B.2.e) Impact Study for Topping Concept Plan Review Tigard Development Code Section 18.390.050.B.2.e requires an impact study as part of a Type III land use application, meeting the following standards: 18.390.050.B.e. Include an impact study. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and -' the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet city standards and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at -' large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the community development code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirements, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Transportation System, including Bikeways • The proposed development is located north of SW 72nd Ave and west of SW Spruce St. The proposal includes eighteen lots for single-family detached homes, street improvements to SW 72nd Ave. and SW Spruce St., a new private drive, three open space tracts, including one for stormwater, on a 1.54-acre site. • As per density requirements, the allowable density for R-12 zone on the subject property is a minimum 14 units and a maximum of 18 units. The proposed 18 lots are within the allowable density. • The proposed Planned Development Subdivision is designed around the existing transportation network, and will not require or result in any changes to the functional classification of the transportation system in the vicinity of the subject property. In an effort to promote access on a roadway with a higher functional classification, the majority of lots take access on SW Spruce St. (neighborhood route), rather than SW 72nd (local street). • The proposed rezoning of the subject property from C-P to R-12 will decrease the subject property's impact on the surrounding transportation system. ODOT's trip generation analysis for the subject property (ODOT Comment letter, dated 12-2-2015) showed a reduction of trips, from 220 PM trips under the current C-P zone to 43 PM trips under the proposed R-12 zone. • Improvements to Meet City Standards:Subsequent to this application, a Detailed Planned Development Plan and land division land use application will be submitted for review and approval on the subject property. At this future date the developer will be required to construct improvements to SW 72nd Ave. and SW Spruce St and public right-of-way dedications of 27 feet from the centerline up to the City's local public street design standards. Both roadways will be expanded to accommodate parking lanes, curbs, 5 foot sidewalks, 5 foot planter strips and street trees. The developer will also construct improvements to a proposed 30 foot wide private drive with curbs and five foot sidewalks to City standards. • Impact Minimization Strategies: No impact mitigation is required because the proposed development effectively implements, but does not change, the transportation policies adopted for the immediate vicinity by the City of Tigard. — Drainage System _ • At the time of future development, runoff from roofs and paved areas, including driveways and paving will be required to be conveyed to a storm water quality and detention facility. This facility will increase quality and — decrease flow in stormwater following storm events. • Improvements to Meet City Standards:Future stormwater quality facility and all drainage pipes, catch basins, manholes, vaults and other facilities will be constructed to meet applicable City of Tigard requirements. • Impact Minimization Strategies:Compliance with the City's water quality requirements for new development is a satisfactory approach for providing on-site mitigation of potential drainage impacts at the time of future .– development. Parks System — • The proposal will result in a net addition of 18 new single-family residences on the subject property. Proposed lots are clustered around SW Spruce St., SW 72nd Ave. and a new private drive, so as to allow for the preservation of two open space tracts totaling .31 acres on the northern, western and eastern borders of the subject property. All provisions regarding open space requirements are satisfied. • Improvements to Meet City Standards:Given the proposed open space tracts totaling .31 acres, no specific parks system improvements are warranted by the proposed development. • Impact Minimization Strategies:The City of Tigard collects a Parks System — Development Charge fee in conjunction with issuance of residential building permits. Water System • The City of Tigard operates a municipal water service. Existing utilities are adequate to serve the proposed Planned Development Subdivision. Any - - necessary improvements to the water system will be reviewed in the future at the time of Detailed Development Plan review. • Improvements to Meet City Standards:City water system lines will be extended as needed to serve development of the subject property. • Impact Minimization Strategies:The proposed development causes no water system impacts that warrant mitigation measures. Sewer System • The City of Tigard operates a municipal sewer service. Existing utilities are adequate to serve the proposed Planned Development Subdivision. Any necessary improvements to the sewer system will be reviewed in the future at the time of Detailed Development Plan review. • Improvements to Meet City Standards:City sewer system lines will be extended as needed to serve development of the subject property. • Impact Minimization Strategies:The proposed development causes no sewer system impacts that warrant mitigation measures. Noise Impacts of the Development • The proposed development consists of 18 lots for detached single-family residential development. The proposed development will serve as a buffer between existing low-density residential developments to the north and west _ of the subject property, and commercial uses to the south of the subject property. Open space tracts on the eastern, northern and western borders of the subject property will further serve to buffer noise and transition between _ residential and commercial developments. • Improvements to Meet City Standards:The City does not have a standard requiring protective measures for noise impacts between single-family residences. • Impact Minimization Strategies:There are no noise impacts attributable to the proposed development that would warrant mitigation actions. -ti ' Exhibit G Planned Development Concept Plan 380.5 a 0 16.0 OPEN SPACE TRACT B 11,809 S.F. N v 2,444 sf5.0 a i 1s1 30.0 95.0 �+ 12 11 6 2 : N 2,660 S.F. 2,660 S.F. Na; 2,475 S.F. W W c � gP9 13 95.3 i z q 10 a �aq w N 2,660 S.F. 2,660 S.F. '16 16 2,4 8 S.F. t z _ -----------400----- ----- ----- ----------- 6 ----------------------------- - l Q CID25 / ,� 26.0 X6.0 26.E m26.0 m 31.0 _m ------------------------------------ 31.q _ 28.0m m26.0 2�.0 2g_ 28.0 19.4 t W l\�' ----------------------------------- --------- q -- ---___ —_ I Q 3 ___ ________._ N J �ST*M\ c j t� 3 T z,TT 18 17 16 15 14 a H q 9 8 7 6 5 4 � g < 2.4M N 2.4N N L4M N ,'[4µN 2.614 SF 2.614&F. 2.632 S.F. 2.632 SF. 2.632 SF. 2632 S.F. 2.632 SF. > - z 0 10 3 w 1 v F .�.. .�. . ._ 00 W. CENTERLINE 6 SW SPRUCE STREE PD CONCEPT Plan - Single Family Detached Residential Lots Open Space Density & Setbacks Utilities & Parking Gross Site Area = 67,325 s.f. Compliance with R-12 Density Public Sanitary, Water & Storm Available in Minimum 20% = 13,465 s.f. Maximum 18 Units Single Family Detached SW 72nd and SW Spruce. On—site Proposed Open Space = 15,997 s.f. (23.8%) Setbacks easements will be located as determined at k e (Excluding Storrs Tract—13.650 9.f.(20.3%) Side=5' Rear=15' Front—Garage=20' Detailed Concept Plan Approval w & Front — Building=12' 4 Parking — Each Lot Driveway & Garage and SHEET Public On—Street 1 1 OB N0. 2634-001 i 380. 5 1 X5.0 16.0 OPEN SPACE' TRACT B 1 11,809 S.F. , $ 2,444 sf 95.0 30.0 95.0 12 Co 11 2 \ ' N 2,660 S.F. 2,660 S.F. N ° 2,475 S.F. W nap z 6 o QkO CCC777 U 95.3 p EI 131 0 Jam, a°C p 3 04 2,660 S.F. I 2,660 S.F. , 6 H �` - 2,478 S.F. , Z ------40.a----- --------------- ------------- q ----------------------------- \ Q 0 � 25 2 1 26.0 �6�_ 26-C-_—.26-0 31.0 31.E 28.0 28.0 2 .0 28.E 28.0 19.4 w / svm m m--� m m m --- ---- < q ` z ; O ---- --- ---------- --------- --------- --------- --------- Q } o vi N J a z STORM', I . _TRACT,f� 18 17 16 15 14 9 8 6 5 4 X o 2,347 S.F. Q 2,914 S.F. 2,632 S.F. ,2,632 S.F. 2,632 S.F. 2,632 S.F. 2,632 S.F. > �— Z I\ �\ 2,444 sf 2.444 sf 2,444 sf 2,444 sf 2,914 S.F. F- o � vi0 �\ o o o 0 o w 0) (n 4 U CC) L I ,. 0) < W ( 0) ,a- U = I N U U) (> �p Q Z: / o Q 283 3 O Iq ~ t U o � / l (�,� \ \ O U N Q > } x 0 i aFZ i� W O z -n r zK I.IIp .. YIIOIO�IIM :, t VIYOJI 6.O ,_a..: _ r.... .T. _ _ ' S — — — s- — ss ° _ I SS— — r. 5 SS 55 --SS 55 55 Ss SS 55 �\ -y ,\ ::/\ �_c_ _`�7'_« �_ �_ SW PR CE STREET a, v s �, m PD CONCEPT Plan - Single Family Detached Residential Lots r F a I • Open Space Density & Setbacks Utilities & Parking Gross Site Area = 67,325 s.f. Compliance with R-12 Density Public Sanitary, Water & Storm Available in Minimum 20% = 13,465 s.f. Maximum 18 Units Single Family Detached SW 72nd and SW Spruce. On—site Proposed Open Space = 15,997 s.f. (23.8%) Setbacks easements will be located as determined at (Excluding Storm Tract = 13,650 5.r. (20.3%) Side=5' Rear=15' Front—Garage=20' Detailed Concept Plan Approval # Front — Building=12' Z Parking — Each Lot Driveway & Garage and SHEET Public On—Street 1 1 E OF JOB NO. M4—M I1a&iw T.DIIC Exhibit H Planned Development Concept Plan Statement Planned Development Statement Tigard Development Code Section 18.350.040.A.1 requires a statement of planning objectives to be achieved by a planned development through the particular approach proposed by the applicant. This code section defines that the planned development subdivision statement for this application includes the following standards: a. A description of the character of the proposed development and the rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant- The subject property is 1.54 acres located on the northern city limits of the City of Tigard at SW Spruce St. and SW 72 Ave. The subject property was annexed by the 2006 City of Tigard application (ZCA 2006-00003) and zoned Commercial-Professional [C-P). This Planned Development Concept Plan review application (PDR 2016-00012) is submitted concurrently with applications for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change (CPA 2016-00002 &ZON 2016-00001) to rezone the subject property to medium residential R-12. This application requests approval of Planned Development Concept Plan review, so as to portray both the feasibility and certainty of developing the subject property under R-12 zoning. As depicted by Exhibit G, Planned Development Concept Plan, the applicant proposes the development of the subject property resulting in 18 lots for the construction of single-family detached residences. Adjacent properties to the north and west of the subject property are predominantly low- residential zoning. To the south of the subject property are primarily commercial uses, including a large commercial development, a Fred Meyer store,which fronts Pacific Hwy W (99W). The proposed Planned Development Subdivision will serve as a buffer,transitioning from residential properties to the north and west of the subject property to commercial uses just south of the subject property, south of SW Spruce St. Proposed lots are clustered around the existing streets, SW 72 Id Ave and SW Spruce and a proposed private drive. This allows for the preservation of two open space tracts totaling .31 acres on the western, northern, and eastern borders of the subject property. The proposed lots are laid out around the existing transportation system. The majority of lots are designed to take access on SW Spruce St.,which being a neighborhood route, is of a higher functional '-' classification than that of SW 72 Ave, which is a local street. The subject property has a slope of approximately 6%to the southwest. Preservation of existing conditions of the subject property has been taken into consideration throughout the design process. Three open space tracts are designed based on site topography and existing conditions. Particularly attention was paid to the preservation of a large oak tree in the northwest corner of the subject property, which is preserved by the open space tract on the northern boundary of the property. The Planned Development Subdivision will connect to existing utilities, and will make any necessary improvements to utilities at the time of Detailed Development Plan review. Upon future development of the subject property as proposed with 18 single family detached residential lots, the existing conditions described above are subject to the Tigard Municipal Code Title 18 Community Development Code. Applicable sections of the Tigard Development Code include requirements to: (a) connect to and improve existing public right-of-way, SW 72 Ave. (b) improve new private street(c) satisfy minimum lot dimension, area and setback requirements for lots on the perimeter of the proposed planned development. b. An explanation of the architectural style, and what innovative site planning principles are utilized including any innovations in building techniques that will be employed,- This application proposes a Concept Planned Development of the subject property with each _ lot containing a single family detached residence. All of the proposed lots have been specifically designated and reviewed to insure ability to site a future residence upon them. Architectural style of the future residences on the subject property will integrate front elevation utilizing porches and wall plan offsets, garages will be provided for each home and pitched rooflines will be provided. c.An explanation of how the proposal relates to the purposes of the planned development chapter as expressed in Section 98.350.090,•and Although consistency with the planned development code section purpose statement is not a requirement for approval of a planned development, this application generally satisfies the listed purposes as follows: (i) as depicted on Exhibit G,the proposed Planned Development Concept Plan provides for the preservation of .31 acres of open space on the western, northern, and eastern boundaries of the 1.54 acre subject property, (ii)the proposed Planned Development Concept Plan provides for increased neighborhood connectivity, (iii)the proposed Planned Development Concept Plan respects the existing adjacent neighborhoods through use of buffering and perimeter lot size transitioning, (iv) satisfies the allowable density of the subject property by proposing a total of 18 lots. d. An explanation of how the proposal utilized the 'Planning Commissioner's Toolbox." The "Planning Commissioner's Toolbox" is a collection of guidelines and planning principles which provide a framework for sustainable and effective land development practices. This _ application proposes a Planned Development Subdivision which utilizes practices including buffering and transitioning existing adjacent development, preserving open space totaling XX acres, respecting existing topography, improving the existing public street system to provide connectivity for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians, and by applying for Planned Development Concept Plan review, portraying the feasibility and certainty of the subject property's development with R-12 zoning designation. ... ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS C City of Tigard September 27,2016 Stafford Development Company,LLC. c/o Morgan Will 485 S. State Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Project: Topping Comp Plan and Zone Amendment, Planned Development Site: 7303 SW Spruce St,10705 SW 72nd Ave, 10735 SW 72nd Ave. Land Use Files: CPA2016-00002/ZON2016-00001/PDR2016-00012 Dear Ms. Will: The city received your revised application materials on September 27, 2016 for a comprehensive plan, zone change, and planned development concept plan review. Staff evaluated the application for completeness against Tigard's submittal requirements and determined that the application is complete. We have tentatively set the Planning Commission hearing date for November 21, 2016. After a Commission recommendation is made, a Council hearing date will be set approximately four weeks later, depending on Council Agenda availability and any potential conflicts with holidays at the end of the year. If you have any questions, please contact me at 503-718-2434 or garyp@tigard-or.gov. Sincerely, P7 1 Gary Pagenstecher,AICP CUD Associate Planner Attachments: Public Facility Plan Checklist Copy: File: CPA2016-00002 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 • www.tigard-or.gov City of Tigard August 25,2016 Stafford Development Company,LLC. c/o Morgan Will 485 S. State Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Project: Topping Comp Plan and Zone Amendment, Planned Development Site: 7303 SW Spruce St, 10705 SW 72"d Ave, 10735 SW 72"d Ave. Land Use Files: CPA2016-000412/ZON2016-00001/PDR2016-00012 Dear Mr. Will: The city received your application on August 3, 2016 for a comprehensive plan, zone change, and planned development concept plan review. Staff evaluated the application for completeness against Tigard's submittal requirements and determined that additional information is required. I. Completeness Items The following items must be submitted in order for your applications to be deemed complete: 1. Narrative. Please revise your narrative findings to address all of the applicable review criteria including those for the comp plan and zone change amendment. The findings in the city's staff report to the Planning Commission for CPA2015-00005/ZON2015-00007 may be used, but amended to be applicable to the subject proposal. The city is processing the direction by the Council to remand to the Commission through a new application and not as a continuation of the above referenced application case numbers. J2. Public Facilities Plan Completeness Checklist. Please review the attached Memorandum dated August 16, 2016 from the Development Review Engineer and amend your application accordingly. Granted, these items are more applicable to a detailed plan, but to the extent they can be addressed conceptually on the plan, please provide the additional information. (Greg Berry, 503-718-2468) II. Re-submittal Requirements Submit all of the following items concurrently. ` 1. A copy of this letter. 2. A letter addressing how each completeness items have been addressed,including a description of the revisions and their specific locations, e.g. page and/or plan set numbers. A thorough and detailed letter will facilitate staff's review of your application in a timely manner. 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 * 503.639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 0 www.tigard-or.gov Determination of Completeness Page 2 Land Use File PDR2016-00009 3. Please Submit 25 copies of your revised and new materials (including all elements of the submittal, collated and bound). Plan sets may be printed at 11 x 17" size as long as you _. ,' 1 include 3 copies of the Concept Plan at 22" x 34".Also, submit one copy at 8 1/2" x 11" for our records. b 4. One (1) compact discs containing all elements of your proposal.All plans must be formatted 1 to a 300dpi. 5. Completed"Request for 500'Property Owner Notification" and receipt of payment. �f"you have an uestions lease contact me at 503-718-2434 or a @ti ard-or.gov. Yq �P g � g Sincerely, r Gary Pagenstecher,AICP CUD Associate Planner Attachments: Public Facility Plan Checklist Copy: File: CPA2016-00002 c � 4 City of Tigard August 16,2016 To: Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner From: Greg Berry,Private Development Engineer Subject: Topping Subdivision PD Concept Completeness Review Comments: • Show type of water quality and quantity facility and size in sufficient detail to show that Tract A provides an adequate site. • Show how lines will be directed to the facility and any required easements • Show any sanitary sewer easements required to extend service throughout the site. • Submit a preliminary review by TVF&R. Also note that water service is provided by TVWD. 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 • www.tigard-or.gov Legislative Process Checklist Prior to Planning Commission Date Date Due Completed -- Fill out Pre-Application Conference Notes r Fill out Land Use Permit Application and create paper file Create case(s)in Accela(relate all cases) Fill out and submit Proposal Description for Council Thursday Newsletter Schedule Public Hearing with PC secretary v� Add hearing dates in Accela Submit proposed amendment to Metro. Metro must receive the noticeays in advance of the i t4 first Planning Commission hearing(Metro Code 3.07.820.A)sent to Paulette.copperstonegoregonmetro.eov.(Paulette Copperstone;503-797-1562) Fill out and submit DLCD Notice of Proposed Amendment.DLCD must receive the notice 35 days in advance of the first Planning Commission hearing and it must be sent via email to plan.amendmentsna,state.or.us or uploaded to the FTP site at Http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/Pages/papa_submittal.aspx 1, If Measure 56 notice is required,send to affected property owner at least 20 days,but not more �1( than 40 days,prior to the first hearing. (ORS 277.186) Date Sent Submit Public Hearing Ad to print in The Times 10 business days(CDC 18.390.060.D)in _ advance of the hearing. The ad runs on Thursdays,this means that the submission needs to be made the Thursday before the ad is supposed to be printed(approximately 25 days prior to the hearing). Published: The Times will send an Affidavit of Publication for the record. (Alternatively,a notice could be placed in the Oregonian if necessary.) Notice may be combined with City Council notice. Send out Request for Comments and proposed amendments to affected agencies. Submit in time to allow them 14 days for comments and staff to incorporate comments into staff report.Comments w=`: due: 4.. Mail Notice of Public Hearing to affected government agencies,interested parties,and anyone that _. requests notice 10 business days(CDC I 8.390.060.D)in advance of hearing.An Affidavit of ' Mailing must be submitted for the record. Notice may be combined with City Council notice. :..?e t Email Notice of Public Hearing and proposed amendments to webteam to place on website.(To be done same day as task above.) Submit staff report and presentation to supervisor for review and approval at least two weeks before hearing. Submit staff report and proposed amendments to admin staff at least one week before hearing. Admin staff will send packet to webteam and Planning Commission. Staff report shall be made available to the public 7 days prior to the hearing. Update Accela with the results of hearing.Hearing Date: PC Secretary forwards minutes with recommendation to CD Director within 10 business days after the hearing. Commission sends transmittal letter to Council with recommendation. (optional) Obtain signed Planning Commission minutes from PC secretary and place in the file Prior to City Councilt lije'•;1 Date Date Due Completed 1 1 b f- j U Schedule council hearing through Agenda Quick Date Sent Submit Public Hearing Ad to print in The Times 10 business days(CDC 18.390.060.D)in advance of the hearing. The ad runs on Thursdays,this means that the submission needs to be 1 made the Thursday before the ad is supposed to be printed(approximately 25 days prior to the Published: hearing). The Times will send an Affidavit of Publication for the record. (Alternatively,a notice could be placed in the Oregonian if necessary.) Submit proposed amendments and ordinance to City Attorney for review. Mail Notice of Public Hearing to affected government agencies,interested parties,and anyone that requests notice 10 business days(CDC 18.390.060.D)in advance of hearing.An Affidavit of Mailing must be submitted for the record. Send Notice of Public Hearing and proposed amendments to webteam to update on website. (To be done same day as task above.) Submit staff report,amendments and presentation to supervisor for review and approval at least 3 weeks prior to hearing. Complete and route AIS in Agenda Quick,including all attachments and presentation,at least 2 weeks prior to the hearing. Only one copy is After City Council Public Hearing needed and the deadline is 20 Date Date business days. Due Completed ----Send two copies of DLCD Notice of Adoption and signed and certified ordinance(original copy), proposed amendments, staff report,PC minutes and applicable memos to Council to DLCD within 5 business days after the decision is filed by certified mail. Send a copy of the same materials listed above to ODOT Region 1 and Metro by regular mail same day as task above(per an IGA). Send Notice of Final Order with signed ordinance and proposed amendments to all parties of record within 5 business days after the decision is filed. An Affidavit of Mailing must be submitted for the record. a Prepare and send Notice of Final Order with all relevant materials to webteam to post on website. (To be done same day as task above.) Update Accela with the results of hearing.Hearing Date: Place copy of Notice of Final Order and signed ordinance in the record LUBA Appeal:21 days from DLCD Notice of Adoption �r Name: iD .,a ' fi �r`t? dtFN ' � old Case #: �1�� l l'i `���Cy� � .� � ��� 1"€,�ia.�� till#�vv �•#���a 1 J l)1� 20t$p — #' . Quasi-judicial Process Check List Type III or Type II Appeal Update Accela & Planning Division Case Log with application completeness date and any upcoming public hearing dates. Make sure to update Accela with assigned planners name in workflow (This ensures planner's name is shown in TAP). L" Request for Comments/Vicinity Map and Applicant's Materials mailed to affected agencies. Submit in time to allow them 14 days to comment and for staff to incorporate into an Administrative Decision or if a public hearing, a Staff Report. (Not applicable on Al)ppea Upload Applicant's Materials into TAP/Laserfiche. (Betsy will be uploading material) See procedures for uploading: I:\Community Development\SOPs\How to Add Active Land Use Records to Laserfiche Notice of Public Hearing w/Vicinity Map mailed to Property Owner's within 500'/Interested Parties/Applicant/Owner of Record/Anyone that Requests Notice at least 20 Calendar Days prior to the hearing. Prepare the Affidavit of Mailing for the public hearing notice,must be completed for the record. Electronic copy of Notice of Public Hearing w/Vicinity Map sent to Webteam to post on Public Hearings and Public Notices page. Submit Public Hearing Ad to print in the Tigard Times Newspaper at least 10 Business Days prior to the hearing. This means the submission must be made 3.5 weeks in advance of the hearing as the submission must be made one week prior to the Thursday it is to be printed. The Times will send an Affidavit of Publication for the record. Alternately, a notice could be published in the Oregonian if necessary. Post Site regarding the development request and public hearing information at least 10 Business Days prior to the hearing. Take photos of posted sign with date stamp. Prepare the Affidavit of Posting, for the record. Staff Report & Exhibits is due to the CD Director for review 3 Weeks prior to the hearing. Address all applicable city/state/federal/etc. review criteria. Staff Report must be made available for Public Review, provide documents to the Planning Commission Secretary at least 1 Week prior to the hearing. Work with Secretary to mail agenda, staff report, and project documents to the hearing body. Planner to follow preparation procedures for Hearings Officer hearing: IACommunity Development\SOPs\Hearings Officer SOP and Forms Name: Case #: Upload Staff Report into TAP. Planner to follow procedures: IACommum Development\SOPs\How to Add Land Use Decisions to Laserfiche Prepare Staff Presentation. iCs ! " Final Order must be filed within 10 Business Days after the close of the deliberation. Notice of Final Order mailed to all Parties of Record within 5 Business Days after the decision is filed by the Review Authority with the Director. Update Accela & Planning Division Case Log with the results of the Final Decision. Place copies of Signed Minutes & Exhibits for every hearing in the record. Upload Signed Notice of Decision to TAP. Planner to follow procedures: 1ACommunity Development\SOPs\How to Add Land Use Decisions to Laserfiche Email Albert and Engineering the Final Decision. Ensure conditions have been added to Accela. Prepare green file for front counter,include a set of plans and copy of the decision. Case Closure. Organize file, and arrange to have file scanned into Laserfiche. Update Accela that case is closed. 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON 3 4 JAMES LONG, 5 Petitioner, 6 7 vs. 8 9 CITY OF TIGARD, 10 Respondent, 11 12 and 13 14 STAFFORD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, 15 Intervenor-Respondent. 16 17 LUBA No. 2017-015 18 19 FINAL OPINION 20 AND ORDER 21 22 Appeal from City of Tigard. 23 24 Kenneth P. Dobson, Portland, filed the petition for review and argued on 25 behalf of petitioner. 26 27 Shelby Rihala, Lake Oswego, filed a joint response brief and argued on 28 behalf of respondent. With her on the brief was Jordan Ramis, PC. 29 30 Andrew H. Stamp, Lake Oswego, filed a joint response brief and argued 31 on behalf of intervenor-respondent. With him on the brief was Andrew H. 32 Stamp, PC. 33 34 HOLSTUN, Board Chair; BASSHAM, Board Member; RYAN, Board 35 Member, participated in the decision. 36 37 AFFIRMED 06/07/2017 38 Page 1 1 You are entitled to judicial review of this Order. Judicial review is 2 governed by the provisions of ORS 197.850. Page 2 I Opinion by Holstun. 2 NATURE OF THE DECISION 3 Petitioner appeals a city council decision that approves comprehensive 4 plan and zoning map amendments and approves a planned development 5 concept plan. 6 FACTS 7 A Fred Meyer shopping center is located on the north side of Highway 8 99W, between the intersections of Highway 99W with Interstate-5 and 9 Highway 217. Spruce Street runs along the backside of the Fred Meyer 10 shopping center in an east-west direction. The subject property is located on 11 the north side of Spruce Street, directly behind the Fred Meyer shopping center, 12 so that the Fred Meyer shopping center and Spruce Street separate the subject 13 property from the heavily travelled Highway 99W. 14 The subject property is made up of three parcels that total 1.54 acres. 15 The subject property is currently designated Professional Commercial (C-P) on 16 both the city comprehensive plan map and zoning map. The challenged 17 decision changes those comprehensive plan map and zoning map designations 18 to Medium Density Residential and Residential R-12 respectively. The 19 challenged decision also grants planned development concept plan approval for 20 18 attached dwelling units with common open space. Page 3 I FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 2 In his arguments before the city, petitioner argued that after a city has 3 enacted a comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance, a change in a property's 4 zoning is only appropriate if the change is "consistent with the overall 5 objectives of the plan and in keeping with changes in the character of the area 6 or neighborhood to be covered thereby." Record 36 (citing Smith v. 7 Washington County, 241 Or 380, 383-84, 406 P2d 545 (1965)). Petitioner 8 argued the challenged comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments are 9 not based on any change in the neighborhood other than a general increase in 10 the population, and therefore constitute impermissible "spot zoning." Record 11 36-37. Petitioner argued below that Tigard Community Development Code 12 (TCDC) 18.380.030(b) sets out the procedures and standards for quasi-judicial 13 zoning map amendments.' TCDC 18.380.030(B)(3) requires "[e]vidence of ' TCDC 18.3 80.03 O(B) provides: "Standards for making quasi-judicial decisions. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: "1. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; "2. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance; and Page 4 I change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the 2 comprehensive plan or zoning map * * *." We do not understand petitioner to 3 argue that the common law prohibition against "spot zoning" remains viable in 4 Oregon's now heavily regulated land use planning environment. See NWDA v. 5 City of Portland, 47 Or LUBA 533, 571 (2004), aff d in part and rem'd in part 6 on other grounds, 198 Or App 286, 108 P3d 589, rev den, 338 Or 681 (2005) 7 ("Given the ubiquity of land use regulations in today's regulatory environment, 8 it is doubtful that the spot zoning standard described in Smith continues to have 9 independent application. In other words, it seems highly unlikely that a 10 rezoning decision could satisfy all applicable criteria and yet constitute 11 arbitrary or spot zoning under Smith.") Rather we understand petitioner to 12 argue the challenged rezoning violates the "change or mistake" standard set out 13 at TCDC 18.380.030(B)(3). See n 1. 14 In his first assignment of error, petitioner also argues the rezoning 15 violates TCDC 18.380.030(B)(1), which requires that a zoning map 16 amendment must comply with "applicable comprehensive plan policies." 17 Petitioner contends the rezoning is inconsistent with Tigard Comprehensive 18 Plan (TCP) Land Use Planning Policy 15 D (Policy 15 D), which requires an 19 applicant for rezoning to demonstrate there is "an inadequate amount of "3. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application." Page 5 I developable, appropriately designated, land for the land uses that would be 2 allowed by the new designation."2 We address petitioner's TCDC 3 18.380.030(B)(3) and Policy 15 D arguments below. 4 A. TCP Policy 15 D — Inadequate Residentially Zoned Land for 5 Residential Uses 6 Intervenor argues petitioner failed to raise any issue concerning whether 7 the challenged map amendment complies with Policy 15 D and therefore has 8 waived his right to raise that issue for the first time at LUBA. 9 ORS 197.763(l)provides: 10 "An issue which may be the basis for an appeal to the Land Use 11 Board of Appeals shall be raised not later than the close of the 12 record at or following the final evidentiary hearing on the proposal 13 before the local government. Such issues shall be raised and 14 accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the 15 governing body, planning commission, hearings body or hearings 16 officer, and the parties an adequate opportunity to respond to each 17 issue." 2 TCP Policy 15 provides, in part: "In addition to other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies deemed applicable, amendments to Tigard's Comprehensive Plan/Zone Map shall be subject to the following specific criteria: «* * * * * "D. Demonstration that there is an inadequate amount of developable, appropriately designated, land for the land uses that would be allowed by the new designation[.]" Page 6 I Relatedly, ORS 197.835(3) provides that in a LUBA appeal "[i]ssues shall be 2 limited to those raised by any participant before the local hearings body as 3 provided by ORS 197.195 or 197.763, whichever is applicable."3 4 Petitioner did not file a reply brief to respond to intervenor's waiver 5 argument. LUBA routinely allows reply briefs to respond to waiver arguments. 6 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Gresham, 54 Or LUBA 16, 20 (2007); 7 Wetherell v. Dougals County, 51 Or LUBA 699, aff'd, 209 Or App 1, 146 P3d 8 343 (2006); Caine v. Tillamook County, 24 Or LUBA 627 (1993). And a reply 9 brief is the preferable way to respond to waiver arguments so that the issue that 10 is the subject of the waiver argument and the precise places in the record where 11 petitioner believes the issue was raised can be clearly identified. Waiting until 12 oral argument to respond to numerous waiver challenges, such as we have in 13 this appeal, increases the risk that the response will be inaccurate or inadequate 14 and lead LUBA to conclude that issues were waived. 15 At oral argument, petitioner responded to intervenor's Policy 15 D 16 waiver argument in two ways. First, petitioner argued the notice that preceded 17 the November 21, 2016 planning commission meeting failed to list Policy 15 D 18 as an applicable approval criterion, and therefore under ORS 197.835(4) 3 There is no dispute that the challenged map amendment decision is a quasi-judicial decision and the city followed quasi-judicial procedures. ORS 197.763 therefore applies here. Page 7 I petitioner is entitled to raise the issue presented in the first subassignment of 2 error for the first time at LUBA.4 3 Petitioner's right to raise an issue concerning an applicable approval 4 criterion that is not listed in the prehearing notice required by ORS 197.763(3) 5 is a qualified right under ORS 197.835(4). LUBA may refuse to consider that 6 issue if LUBA finds that notwithstanding the notice failure "the issues could 7 have been raised before the local government[.]" Van Dyke v. Yamhill County, 8 35 Or LUBA 676, 687-88 (1999) (citing ORS 197.835(4)). In this matter, the 9 staff report that preceded the November 21, 2016 planning commission hearing 10 identified Policy 15 D as an applicable standard and included findings which 11 concluded that the proposal complies with that policy. Record 101-102. That 12 staff report discussion of Policy 15 D was incorporated into the planning 13 commission's recommendation to the city council. Record 88-89. Petitioner 14 therefore knew or should have known that Policy 15 D is an applicable 4 ORS 197.835(4) provides, in part: "(4) A petitioner may raise new issues to [LUBA] if- "(a) £"(a) The local government failed to list the applicable criteria for a decision under ORS 197.195(3)(c) or 197.763(3)(b), in which case a petitioner may raise new issues based upon applicable criteria that were omitted from the notice. However, [LUBA] may refuse to allow new issues to be raised if it finds that the issue could have been raised before the local government[.]" Page 8 I approval criterion and petitioner knew or should have known that the planning 2 commission believed that the proposal complied with Policy 15 D. Petitioner 3 is not excused by ORS 197.835(4)(a) from his obligation to raise below the 4 issue he now raises under this sub-assignment of error, i.e., that the proposal 5 does not comply with Policy 15 D. 6 Petitioner next argues that he adequately raised that issue in his 7 testimony before the city council. Record 37, 73. Petitioner's testimony before 8 the city council does not mention Policy 15 D or its operative terms and does 9 not take the position that the applicant failed to demonstrate that there is an 10 inadequate amount of R-12 zoned land. See Spiering v. Yamhill County, 25 Or 11 LUBA 695, 712 (1993) (where testimony below does not refer to applicable 12 rule or policy by title or abbreviation and does not employ operative terms of 13 the rule or policy, a reasonable decision-maker would not have understood the 14 issue was raised below, and petitioner may not raise the issue before LUBA). 15 Petitioner also cites Record 127. The closest petitioner comes to raising the 16 issue that the proposal does not comply with Policy 15 D is a single sentence in 17 his testimony to the planning commission: "The city has not projected the 18 population need for R-12." Id. That is not sufficient to raise the issue, 19 particularly when that sentence is viewed with the statement petitioner later 20 made to the city council: "There is a Deficiency of R-12 residential zoning as 21 shown in the Angelo report." Record 67. That statement seems to take the Page 9 I opposite position on the issue that petitioner now attempts to raise in this 2 subassignment of error. 3 Because petitioner failed to raise below any issue concerning whether 4 the proposal complies with Policy 15 D, the issue raised under this 5 subassignment of error is waived. 6 Subassignment of error A is denied. 7 B. TCDC 18.380.030(B)(3) — Change in the Neighborhood or 8 Mistake in Original Zoning 9 As stated earlier, TCDC 18.380.030(B)(3), one of the TCDC 10 18.380.030(B) criteria for rezoning, requires "[e]vidence of change in the 11 neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the 12 comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the 13 subject of the development application." 14 The city's findings regarding TCDC 18.380.030(B)(3) are extensive. 15 Intervenor argues those findings describe four separate changes in the 16 neighborhood: (1) a shortage of affordable housing, (2) an increased demand 17 for smaller lots to construct affordable housing, (3) an increase in traffic that 18 could be mitigated by the requested change from commercial to residential 19 zoning, and (4) an increase in demand for open space such as would be 20 provided by the proposed development. 21 Petitioner dismisses the significance of and public benefit from the small 22 amount of open space proposed, but petitioner does not really challenge the 23 other findings other than to argue that "[t]o allow zoning map changes based on Page 10 I just overall and inevitable growth by itself would invite chaos and dysfunction 2 and render comprehensive plans largely useless." Petition for Review 20. 3 Because petitioner fails to acknowledge or challenge all of the ways the 4 city found the property's neighborhood and the community have changed, this 5 subassignment of error does not state a basis for reversal or remand. Oakleigh- 6 McClure Neighbors v. City of Eugene, 70 Or LUBA 132, 149 (2014), rev'd and 7 rem'd on other grounds, 269 Or App 176, 344 P3d 503 (2015). 8 Subassignment of error B is denied. 9 The first assignment of error is denied. 10 SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 11 As noted earlier, the challenged decision approves a concept plan. TCDC 12 18.350.050(A) sets out a number of criteria for approval of a concept plans s TCDC 18.350.050 provides, in part: "18.350.050 Concept Plan Approval Criteria "A. The concept plan may be approved by the commission only if all of the following criteria are met: "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. "2. The concept plan identifies areas of trees and other natural resources, if any, and identifies methods for their maximized protection, preservation, and/or management. Page 11 I The city adopted three pages of findings to address each of those criteria. 2 Record 11-13. In five subassignments of error, petitioner challenges the 3 findings that address the TCDC 18.350.050(A)(1) to (4) and (6) concept plan 4 approval criteria. 5 Intervenor argues that petitioner waived all the subassignments of error 6 under the second assignment of error, which challenge the city's findings that "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. "4. The concept plan identifies methods for promoting walkability or transit ridership, such methods may include separated parking bays, off street walking paths, shorter pedestrian routes than vehicular routes, linkages to or other provisions for bus stops, etc. "6. The concept plan must demonstrate that development of the property pursuant to the plan results in development that has significant advantages over a standard development. A concept plan has a significant advantage if it provides development consistent with the general purpose of the zone in which it is located at overall densities consistent with the zone, while protecting natural features or providing additional amenities or features not otherwise available that enhance the development project or the neighborhood." Page 12 I those five criteria are satisfied. Intervenor argues petitioner never took the 2 position below that the proposal violates those criteria. 3 At oral argument, petitioner's only response to intervenor's contention 4 that petitioner waived all the issues presented under the second assignment of 5 error was to cite the planning staff's position that the application only 6 "minimally" meets several of the TCDC 18.350.050(A) concept plan approval 7 criteria.6 If we understand petitioner correctly, he takes the position that the 8 following statement in his presentation to the city council, which references the 9 staff report's proposed findings, is adequate to raise the issues presented in the 10 second assignment of error, i.e., that the city's findings fail to demonstrate that 11 the proposal complies with the TCDC 18.350.050(A)(1) to (4) and (6) concept 12 plan approval criteria: 13 "The review criteria [are] loosey-goosey. Staff report says 14 minimally meets the criteria not once, but multiple times. If the 15 applicant proposes minimally meeting the criteria once (may be 16 OK) but multiple times of just minimally meeting the criteria (It is 17 not acceptable. We deserve better.) How many times do you want 18 to be just `minimal[']? The city can ask for more. Why doesn't 19 [sic] make this a model/ask for something better? If they can't 20 improve their proposal, negotiate with them." Record 69. 6 Petitioner cited Record 11-13, but those are pages of the city council's decision, not the planning staff report. The staff report to the planning commission appears at Record 97-109. The findings that the city council adopted at Record 11-13 appear to be identical to the recommended findings in the staff report to the planning commission that address TCDC 18.350.050(A). Record 106-08. Page 13 I In addition to being a bit difficult to follow in places, the issue petitioner 2 raised in the above-quoted text is simply not the issue he attempts to raise in 3 the second assignment of error. In the second assignment of error, petitioner 4 alleges the city's findings fail to demonstrate the proposal complies with the 5 TCDC 18.350.050(A) concept plan approval criteria. In the above-quoted text, 6 petitioner raises a different issue: that the city should require the proposal be 7 modified so that it more than "just minimally" complies with the TCDC 8 18.350.050(A) concept plan approval criteria. Because petitioner has failed to 9 demonstrate where he raised the issues below that he now attempts to raise 10 under the second assignment of error, those issues are waived. ORS 11 197.763(1); 197.835(3). 12 The second assignment of error is denied. 13 THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 14 Petitioner's final assignment of error concerns the city's failure to 15 respond in a timely manner to petitioner's requests for a copy of the application 16 that led to the appealed decision. That application appears at Record 185-266. 17 Petitioner and other parties apparently had access to the application when this 18 matter was pending before the planning commission and city council by 19 visiting the planning department to view the application. But when some 20 participants complained about not being able to obtain their own copy of the 21 application, they were advised at the November 21, 2016 planning commission 22 hearing that the application was available on the city's website. But that Page 14 I apparently was not true, or at least the city does not contend in this appeal that 2 the application was available on the city's website at that point in time. 3 Petitioner also alleges the city denied several requests from petitioner and 4 others for a copy of the application. The city does not deny that allegation. 5 Although petitioner cites no local or statutory requirement that the city provide 6 parties with a copy of the application upon request, we will assume the city 7 committed a procedural error when it stated the application was available on 8 the city's website, when it was not, and by refusing petitioner's requests for a 9 copy of the application. 10 It is not enough for petitioner to allege the city committed a procedural 11 error. Petitioner must also establish that the procedural error prejudiced his 12 substantial rights. ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B); Northwest Aggregates Co. v. City of 13 Scappoose, 34 Or LUBA 498, 504 (1998).8 And while petitioner attempts to 14 assert the prejudice other participants below may have suffered as a result of Petitioner also argues the notice posted on the subject property itself was difficult to read and fell over on the ground. Petitioner cites no legal standard regarding the required readability of the posted notice and no legal standard that requires the posted sign be maintained in any particular way. Absent a developed argument concerning the allegedly defective posted notice, we do not consider that argument further. Deschutes Development v. Deschutes Cty., 5 Or LUBA 218, 220 (1982). 8 ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B) provides that LUBA may reverse or remand a local government land use decision if it finds the local government "[flailed to follow the procedures applicable to the matter before it in a manner that prejudiced the substantial rights of the petitioner." (Emphasis added.) Page 15 I the city's failure to make copies of the application available, those participants 2 are not parties to this LUBA appeal and petitioner is required to show his 3 substantial rights were prejudiced. Bauer v. City of Portland, 38 Or LUBA 4 432, 436 (2000). 5 Although the city's failure to give petitioner his own copy of the 6 application likely made it more difficult for petitioner to prepare and submit his 7 case, we are not persuaded that the city's failure prejudiced petitioner's 8 substantial rights. Petitioner concedes he was given access, throughout the 9 planning commission's and city council's review, to the only copy of the 10 application the city apparently had, although he had to travel to the planning 11 department to review that application. In addition, the notice of hearing that 12 petitioner received includes a copy of the proposed conceptual development 13 plan from the application; and the planning staff report, which describes the 14 application in great detail, was available to the parties. Record 97-109. 15 Finally, petitioner concedes he was given a copy of the application on January 16 17, 2017, seven days before the city council's de novo January 24, 2017 public 17 hearing. Record 68. While petitioner appeared and testified at the January 24, 18 2017 city council hearing, and complained about the city's delay in providing 19 him with a copy of the application, petitioner did not request a continuance of 20 the January 24, 2017 hearing to allow him more time to review the application 21 and submit his objections. Had he done so, the city might well have granted his 22 request. Based on these circumstances, viewed in their entirety, we conclude Page 16 I petitioner's substantial rights were not prejudiced by the city's initial failures to 2 provide him with a copy of the application. 3 The third assignment of error is denied. 4 The city's decision is affirmed. Page 17 R E C E tvE FEB 14 2017 CITY OF T iGARD PLANNING-i'ENGINEERING BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON JAMES LONG, LUBA No.: Petitioner, V. CITY OF TIGARD, Respondent. NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL I. Notice is hereby given that petitioner intends to appeal that land use decision or limited land use decision of respondent City of Tigard known as Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2016- 00002 (Tigard Ordinance No. 17-01), Zone Change (ZON) 2016-00001, and Planed Development Review (PDR) 2016-00012, which became final on January 24, 2017.1 The decision is entitled: "A FINAL ORDER APPROVING THE PROPOSED COMP PLAN/ZON CHANGE AMENDMENT FOR C-P TO R-12 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN (PDR 2016-00012, WHICH SHOWS 18 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES WITH APPROXIMATELY 23 PERCENT OF THE SITE IN OPEN SPACE, A PORTION OF WHICH IS LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF SW SPRUCE STREET AND SW 72ND AVENUE AND AS AMENDED THROUGH THE HEARING PROCESS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON NOVEMBER 21, 2016 AND CITY COUNCIL HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 24, 2017 TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THIS APPLICATION. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS ORDER." The decision approved a Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Map Amendment from Professional Commercial (CP) to Medium Density Residential, R-12, and approved a Planned ' Ordinance 17-01 was passed by the City Council and signed by the commissioners and mayor on January 24,2017. However, a"Final Order No. 17-01"was dated February 7, 2017. In an abundance of caution, petitioner is treating January 24,2017 as the date of the final decision. 1 —NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL Development Concept Plan for an 18-home development on a three-parcel property (tax lots 1 S 136ACO2200, 1 S 136ACO2400, & 1 S I36ACO2500) totaling 1.54 acres. Il. Petitioner, James Long, is represented by: Kenneth Dobson Attorney at Law 0324 SW Abernethy Street Portland, Oregon 97239 (971) 717-6582 Respondent, City of Tigard, has as its mailing address and telephone number: 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 718-2421 and has, as its legal counsel: Shelby Rihala Jordan Ramis, PC P.O. Box 230669 Portland, OR 97281 (503) 598-5549 III. Applicant, Stafford Development Company, LLC, has as its mailing address and phone number: 485 S. State Street Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 (503) 305-7647 Copies of this Notice of Intent to Appeal are also mailed to those parties who received mailed notice of the final decision. The names and addresses of those parties are set forth in the Certificate of Service below and are incorporated by reference. IV. Please take notice that any person other than the Respondent, including the Applicant, must file a motion to intervene pursuant to OAR 661-010-0050 to participate in this review proceeding. DATED: February 14, 2017 Kenneth P. Dobson, OSB No. 002435 Of Attorneys for Petitioner 2 —NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL CERTIFICATE OF FILING The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that this Notice of Intent to Appeal was filed with the Land Use Board of Appeals by mailing the original and two true copies of this Notice, along with the required filing fee and deposit for costs, to the address set forth below via certified mail (7007 0710 0000 1696 2660), return receipt requested, on the date set forth below. Land Use Board of Appeals 775 Summer Street NE, Suite 330 Salem, Oregon 97301-1283 The undersigned attorney further certifies that he has obtained a receipt stamped by the U.S. Postal Service showing the date mailed and the certified or registered number and that such receipt is available for inspection by the Land Use Board of Appeals and any party to this proceeding. DATED: February 14, 2017 Kenneth P. Dobson, OSB No. 002435 Of Attorneys for Petitioner 3 —NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 14, 2017, 1 served true and correct copies of this Notice of Intent to Appeal on all persons listed in paragraphs II and III of this Notice pursuant to OAR 661-10-015(2) by first class mail. True copies of the Notice of Intent to Appeal have also been sent by first class mail to: Ken Sandblast, Director of Planning Westlake Consultants, 15115 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150 Tigard, OR 97224 Heidi Rechteger 10815 SW 74`" Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Alexis Scher 10580 SW 77th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Gay and Dennis Wakeland 7210 SW Pine Street Tigard, OR 97223 Judy Castillo 8535 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Penny Stewart 7330 SW Pine Street Portland, OR 97223 Noreen Gibbons 10730 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Hans Boogman 7803 SW Spruce Street Tigard, Or 97223 Nancy Tracy 7310 SW Pine Street Tigard, OR 97223 4 NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL a Kyle Kohlman 10900 SW 76`h Place, # 14 Tigard, OR 97223 Ann Murdock and Nathan Murdock 7415 SW Spruce Street Tigard OR 97223 Scott Brownsten 7212 SW Pine Street Tigard, OR 97223 Ryan Kohlman 7307 SW Locust Street Tigard, OR 97223 David Mangold 11053 SW Legacy Oak Way Tigard, OR 97223 Cynthia Patelzick 10975 SW 74`h Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Tonya Banks 7600 SW Pine Street Tigard, OR 97223 Scott Ronnie 10900 SW 78th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Evangeline Pattison 7214 SW Locust, Tigard, OR 97223 Morgan Will 485 S. State Street Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 �; ? DATED: February 14, 2017 Kenneth P. Dobson, OSB No. 002435 Of Attorneys for Petitioner 5 —NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL