The URL can be used to link to this page

03/20/2017 - PacketPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA – March 20, 2017 City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 1 of 2 City of Tigard Planning Commission Agenda MEETING DATE: March 20, 2017 - 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. RIVER TERRACE PARK - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2016-00015 SUBDIVSION REVIEW SUB2016-00012; SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW SLR2016-00010 MINOR LAND PARTITION MLP2016-00010; TEMPORARY USE PERMITS TUP2016-00024 THRU 00028; MISCELLANEOUS MIS2017-00001 REQUEST: The applicant requests a 158-unit single family residential planned development with concurrent concept and detailed plan review, subdivision review, sensitive lands review, minor land partition, and (5) five temporary use permits. The applicant is also requesting an adequate public facilities exception since the utility fees for transportation, sewer, and stormwater have not yet been adopted by the City. The site is 28.5 acres and located south of Bull Mountain Road and east of Roy Rogers. LOCATION: Directly south of Arbor Pointe and Meyers Farm subdivision; west of SW 161st Avenue; Washington County Tax Map 2S1080002900, 2901, and 3000. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.510, 18.660, 18.705, 18.715, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.775, 18.785, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. 6. PUBLIC HEARING 8:05 p.m. MARIJUANA FACILITIES PLACE REGULATIONS - DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2016-00004 REQUEST: The City of Tigard proposes legislative amendments to the Tigard Development Code (TDC). The proposal includes amending the Tigard Development Code (TDC), specifically Chapter 18.735, Marijuana Facilities. The following four options are being proposed for Planning Commission to consider: Option 1: Keep the current, existing regulations. Option 2: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public. Option 3: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public and allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA – March 20, 2017 City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 2 of 2 Option 4: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public, allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone and remove the 500 foot buffer from the parks and recreation zone. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1 (Citizen Involvement), 2 (Land Use Planning), and 9 (Economic Development); ORS 475B (Cannabis Regulation); METRO’s Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 8; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1.1.2, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.6, 2.1.11, 2.1.23, 9.1.3 and 9.1.12; and Tigard Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390. 7. BRIEFING – TIGARD TRIANGLE CODE & REZONE 8:45 p.m. 8. OTHER BUSINESS 9:45 p.m. 9. ADJOURNMENT 9:50 p.m. March 20, 2017 Page 1 of 16 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes March 20, 2017 CALL TO ORDER President Fitzgerald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting took place in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ROLL CALL Present: President Fitzgerald Vice President Feeney Commissioner Hu Commissioner Jackson Commissioner Lieuallen Commissioner McDowell Commissioner Middaugh Commissioner Schmidt Absent: Alt. Commissioner Mooney; Commissioner Fahr Staff Present: Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Monica Bilodeau, Associate Planner; Kim McMillan, Principal Engineer Khoi Le; Associate Planner Agnes Kowacz; Sr. Planner Susan Shanks COMMUNICATIONS – None. CONSIDER MINUTES February 27, 2017 Meeting Minutes: President Fitzgerald asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the February 27 minutes; there were none, and the minutes were approved as submitted. RIVER TERRACE PARK - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 2016-00015 SUBDIVISION REVIEW SUB2016-00012; SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW SLR2016-00010 MINOR LAND PARTITION MLP2016-00010; TEMPORARY USE PERMITS TUP2016-00024 THRU 00028; MISCELLANEOUS MIS2017-00001 REQUEST: The applicant requests a 158-unit single family residential planned development with concurrent concept and detailed plan review, subdivision review, sensitive lands adopted by the City. The site is 28.5 acres and located south of Bull Mountain Road and east of Roy Rogers. LOCATION: Directly south of Arbor Pointe and Meyers Farm subdivision; west of SW 161st Avenue. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING President Fitzgerald opened the public hearing. March 20, 2017 Page 2 of 16 QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS President Fitzgerald read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-judicial hearing guide. There were no abstentions. Conflicts of interest - none. There were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None. Site visitations: Commissioners Lieuallen and Feeney. No one in the audience wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Monica Bilodeau introduced herself and told the commissioners that the department is recommending approval of the project. She went over a slide that showed the concept plan and detailed plan maps next to each other. The project is located west of SW 161 st Ave. and directly east of the approved River Terrace Edge development. She summarized the project, “The applicant proposes 158 units, single-family detached development located on approximately 28½ acres. The project is proposing amenities including almost a ½ acre of public park and trails that will connect to the neighborhood park located on River Terrace Edge. There are also about 2 acres of significant tree grove that will be preserved and 1.67 acres of stormwater detention facility. No formal comments were received from the public, although we were informed later this evening that the applicant would like to submit some additional conditions into the record. Staff has reviewed those conditions and we would like to discuss them, and make some potential changes after the applicant has a chance to speak to those. APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION Ann Verdadero with Polygon Homes noted that River Terrace Park is Polygon’s tenth neighborhood at the River Terrace master plan. River Terrace Park will be host to the seventh neighborhood park to complete the community plan. Development will occur following the construction of their neighborhood to the west – known as the Baggenstos site, expected in 2018. Jim Lange, Pacific Community Design, walked the commissioners through the plan. He said that they would build up from the community plan – the different layers and end up with the site plan. He spoke about the water mains and the interest on the city’s part to connecting a loop all the way over to 150th. They will be running those through to the east side. There is a significant tree grove on the inventory; they are preserving that. It’s a wetland connected to the stream corridor, and through this project and River Terrace Edge, they are strengthening that connection and preserving trees. He said the play area in the park would have “nature play” i.e. using teeter-totters, logs, a natural looking play area – not using neon colored play structures. He spoke about a trail on the south side that loops back up to the road so people can walk all around the area. The nature trail path coming up from the lower elevation will tie into that – giving a nice walking path. The zoning map is R-7 & R-12. As in previous applications, they are seeking to achieve that through a planned development and have a hierarchy of product rather than two. On the flattest March 20, 2017 Page 3 of 16 part of the site, there is a block of alley loaded single-family detached homes and the remainder of the site is a mixture of standard front loaded homes characterized as medium, standard, and large – having to do with how wide the lots are. There is a range of architectural styles, elevations, etc. It will not be monotonous and the goal is to meet the architectural integrity of the house style. Mr. Lange distributed and commented on a memo dated March 20 (Exhibit A) requesting some Conditions of Approval to address concerns of the Stanley family who will be retaining parcel 2 of the partition application: 1.Have an easement over Tract H (already noted on the application, and they asked us to make that very clear.) 2.The final tree canopy planting plan shall remove tree #9208. (We got a little happy with our “tree stamp” and put a tree in the middle of the driveway that they will be accessing their lot from.) 3.No PUE shall be required on Parcel 2 of the partition plat. (On the partition plat, but no other drawing, we had a dashed line that makes it look like we were requesting a PUE – that was in error. Parcel 2 of the partition is not part of the subdivision, and it does not need to make its PUE dedications now – if they ever develop, they could do it then.) 4.Was our attempt to provide a mechanism so that they get a chance to review our retaining wall designs before they are built – and we are perfectly happy with that. 5.To clarify what type of fencing we would put on top of those retaining walls and so we have stipulated a 5’ high minimum chain link fence. 6.Was to address their desire to be able to mow their lower property with an access to the south. This came up today and we did not have a chance to speak to staff on this. We weren’t sure if they would be allowed a gate off the east end of Yukon Dr., so we wrote a condition that either accesses it through tract G which is a remnant future development parcel or from the end of Yukon Drive. Mr. Lange addressed the question of the elevation of Potomac Road; it’s 370. The elevation of Potomac Road in the middle of the block (above that) is 400. So there is 30 feet of fall from one street to the other. We cannot run a road that steep. The only other solution would be to completely cut the top of the hill down by about 20’. We had that constraint in two different directions – E/W and N/W. We had to get this street lined up for an extension further north, so we took advantage of that grade and are doing split level homes. The bottom of those would be one story below the road to help take up nine feet of that grade – the rest of it is a combination of retaining walls and slopes and then it left this block standard being too long. The answer to that is to add some pedestrian mid-block crossings. We proposed one coming out of the knuckle, and staff asked us to do a second one lined up with another street so that people do not have to walk all the way around - but they will be climbing up a significant stairway. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR – Farrand Livingston, 7739 SW Summerton St., Wilsonville – is an attorney representing the Stanley family – the owners of 19 acres tax lot 2900. He noted they want him to support the request for the approval of the subdivision with the conditions set March 20, 2017 Page 4 of 16 forth in the staff report, as well as the additional conditions in the memo Mr. Lange had distributed. He spoke about the retaining wall – there is concern because the resident’s foundation is about 50 feet from that - and that is a serious wall. The family wants an opportunity to see what kind of plans are being presented for the installation of that wall. He went on to explain the reasons for requesting access across Tract G to Parcel 2. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION – None. STAFF COMMENTS Associate Planner Monica addressed the memo they had received from Pacific Community Design: As clarification to Conditions 1 & 6 – we would add “prior to final plat.” Condition 2 we would add “prior to commencing site work.” Condition 3 we would like to strike out. We believe the plans already clearly show that no PUE is on the plans and no PUE is required of this final land partition. So, we do not recommend adding a condition in this case. Condition 4 we would like to replace with “Prior to commencing site improvements, the applicant shall submit a site work permit for all retaining walls to be constructed adjacent to the southern boundary of parcel two. The reason we have these changes to this condition? We feel the city cannot necessarily enforce what was written here as a proposed condition. It’s a separate matter that the applicant and the owner of that parcel should work out ahead of time before submitting building plans for that wall and make sure they are in agreement with what that wall should like. It’s not in the procedure to have any type of public review process during the building permit stage – and that’s how that proposed condition is written. To Condition 5 - we would add “Prior to conditions of occupancy.” Our only significant changes are to Conditions 3 & 4. QUESTIONS Regarding striking Condition 3 about no PUE and wanting it stricken – if we actually look at 6.2 on the Preliminary Subdivision plat, there is a line showing a PUE. I think we need to have a condition that asks them to revise it to pull that PUE off. It’s staff’s interpretation that no PUE is shown - but it’s showing on there; I think that’s the discrepancy that concerns the property owner. So either we can submit an updated plat to show that if that’s the way we want to revise the condition. Yes, we can request a revision to the plan to make it clear that no PUE is showing on Parcel 2. There was a question regarding Condition 4 and the retaining wall. Assistant Community Development Director, Tom McGuire added background information: “The applicant and the owner’s representative of the other parcel are working out a private agreement. They didn’t have time to have that completed so the other party would like to be on the record – if they don’t get that agreement worked out then they would be on the record and they could appeal the decision to council if necessary. They’re both in agreement that Polygon will work with them and provide plans to them for them to review if they can get their own Geotech or their own engineer to review that. They’re putting together an agreement where they would mutually agree on what the design of the retaining walls would be before they submit a building permit. The other aspect of this is if some point in the future that parcel 2 develops, those retaining walls will be March 20, 2017 Page 5 of 16 taken out, and the whole area has to match. So those lots to the south of the retaining wall will not be developed until that future extension of the street and all the other things happen on the adjacent parcel. Our biggest objection is the wording of that condition. The intent is for them to work out an agreement with each other over the design of the retaining wall, and then they would submit those plans to us for review at the building permit phase.” My concern is the maintenance of the property surrounding for fire protection. I assume there are rules that exist on maintaining property prior to its development? “Tualatin Valley Fire has the authority if weeds get to a certain height, and we also have a section in our code that regulates the height of weeds - making sure they’re kept down.” APPLICANT REBUTTAL We are in the process of making an agreement, and are okay with the modifications staff has made. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DELIBERATION This is a very well put-together application, consistent with the other plans we have seen in River Terrace. I appreciate the additional parks and trails being added - on top of what the city requires in their overall master plan. The site is steep; the developer and engineers went with the topography that was there. Adding those steep stairs does add stairs and they do add connectivity to able- bodied people. Other ways achieve connectivity as well. I understand the grading constraint but I wonder if more walkways could be added to alleviate the lack of connectivity concern. I’m a bit torn. The application is thoughtful and comprehensive. I appreciate that it’s consistent with the other developments in the master plan. I’m in agreement with the previous commissioners and am comfortable with this. I have no objections to this. I would like to see a switchback with those steep stairs that is wheelchair accessible, but I understand that would be a lot of valuable property to give up , so we’re making do with the best we can in the situation we have. I want to give a shout out to the Stanley family and the developer regarding the retaining wall – with their give and take attitude. I have no concerns with this. MOTION FOR CONCEPT PLAN Commissioner McDowell made the following motion: “I make a motion to approve the Concept Plan for the River Terrace Park Plan Development to include PDR2016 -00015; SUB2016-00012; SLR2016-00010; MLP2016-00007; TUP2016-00024 – 00028, and MIS2017- March 20, 2017 Page 6 of 16 00001 and adoption of the findings and conditions of approval in the staff report and based on the testimony received today. Commissioner Feeney seconded the motion. VOTE – Seven in favor - Commissioner Hu abstained. RESULT – CONCEPT PLAN MOTION PASSES BY A VOTE OF SEVEN IN FAVOR WITH ONE ABSTENTION MOTION FOR DETAILED PLAN Commissioner McDowell made the following motion: “I move for approval of the Detailed Plan for River Terrace Park Plan Development that would include PDR2016-00015; SUB2016- 00012; SLR2016-00010; MLP2016-00007; TUP2016-00024 – 00028; MIS2017-00001 and early grading authorization, and findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report including the addition of memorandum dated March 20 with the following conditions. 1. Prior to final plat approval the final subdivision shall contain an express grant of an easement over the entire Tract H, for the benefit of Parcel 2, for access and all underground utilities installed in subdivision. 2. Prior to commencing site work the final Tree Canopy Planting Plan shall remove Tree #9208. 3. Stricken as written and then revised to say “Revise final plans to show “No PUE on Parcel 2 of the partition plat.” 4. Replace with “Prior to commencing site improvements, the applicant shall submit a site work permit for all retaining walls to be constructed adjacent to the southern boundary of Parcel 2. 5. Prior to issuance of occupancy, Polygon will install a 5-foot-high minimum chain link fence at the top of all retaining walls adjacent to the southern boundary of Parcel 2. 6. Prior to final plat, Polygon shall grant an access easement across Tract G to Parcel 2 of the partition, in the event that access cannot be obtained from the east end of SW Yukon Street, for purposes of accessing Parcel 2 with mowing equipment. Commissioner Feeney seconded the motion. VOTE – Seven in favor - Commissioner Hu abstained. RESULT – DETAILED PLAN MOTION PASSES BY A VOTE OF SEVEN IN FAVOR WITH ONE ABSTENTION PUBLIC HEARING - OPENED MARIJUANA FACILITIES PLACE REGULATIONS - DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2016-00004 REQUEST: The City of Tigard proposes legislative amendments to the Tigard Development Code (TDC). The proposal includes amending the Tigard Development Code (TDC), specifically Chapter March 20, 2017 Page 7 of 16 18.735, Marijuana Facilities. The following four options are being proposed for Planning Commission to consider: Option 1: Keep the current, existing regulations. Option 2: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public. Option 3: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public and allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone. Option 4: Remove the Pacific Highway (99W) frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public, allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone and remove the 500 foot buffer from the parks and recreation zone. LOCATION: Citywide STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Agnes Kowacz went over a PowerPoint (Exhibit B) that explained why staff is before the Planning Commission with this topic at this time. She noted that staff is not making a recommendation on the project but that they’ve come up with some options for the commission to evaluate (noted above). After her presentation, she invited questions and comments. QUESTIONS/COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS What are the current, existing regulations? The regulations for retail facilities limit it to properties that are only fronting Pacific Hwy. So that would be the big regulation that could potentially be affected, as well as the fact that currently Marijuana facilities are not permitted in the MU-CBD zone – which is the downtown area. Did City Council have a consensus that this needed to be reviewed? Yes. Is the distance still 2,000 feet? It’s now 1000 feet, based on state legislature that went through that we can’t require more than 1000 feet – so we made it consistent with city law. The other change that council made was the hours of operation recommended were 10:00 am – 8:00 pm; the state came back with 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. Council agreed to match the state; that lines up with the county as well. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR – John Widmer 12215 SW Main Street, Tigard – said he’s in favor of Option 4. He’s one of the principals of Kaleafa Cannabis. He said they have had a lease on Main Street for a couple of years now. They employ roughly 100 people now - with three shops. With the rules of the OLCC in place and the rules from the state of Oregon, he believes a lot of this is fear based. He said he does not use marijuana himself. He has three children – 9, 11 & 15. He said the people who shop in these places are your neighbors – in his case - his parents. He said for the most part all the arguments are fear based. No one can quantify why they don’t want marijuana. There are March 20, 2017 Page 8 of 16 a lot of positive elements especially from a medical standpoint. As for possible crime – there’s very little in his shop. He noted an 8% tax will eventually generate money for the City. QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS FROM COMMISSIONERS There were some questions about security and banking problems such as having to use cash. Mr. Widmer said they deal with checks with all of their vendors so they don’t have to have cash. They just make some bank runs a couple of times a day. One commissioner expressed concern about the façade of a Marijuana shop in the downtown area. The City of Tigard is trying to be a showcase of walkability – the aim is to make downtown Tigard walkable. Regarding the Portland store, with bars on the windows and all the windows and doors blacked out and several big signs outside, the concern is how does that kind of façade fit into downtown Tigard where we want people to walk. Michael Bonham – 10150 SW Murdock St. 97224 – is an employee of John Widmer at Kaleafa Cannabis as of November. He hopes to be a manager at the store on Main Street. He said he grew up in Tigard, went to Templeton Elementary, Tualatin Middle School and is a graduate of Tigard High and Portland State. He testified to his personal experience with cannabis. At one point a while back, he became sick and researched cannabis on the internet. He believes he was deceived his entire life about the actual effects of cannabis and the whole notion that it is a gateway drug, bad for your health, dangerous, promotes crime and immorality, etc. He finds those to all be fear-mongering tactics with no quantifiable data to support it. Speaking to family concerns on Main Street, he said there are already three places to buy alcohol there where you can go into those places, get blitzed, walk out and stumble down the street in front of kids. Whereas in the dispensary you buy your product and take it home to consume privately, as the law allows. Chad Cooper – 10334 SW Picks Way, Tigard 97224 said he was looking for the non-retail locations – looking for a location to start up a processing facility in Tigard. He’s been unable to find one. The biggest restriction relates to the fact that the residential boundaries overlap almost half of the industrial; the other half is typically owned by larger property management development groups that have no interest in leasing to marijuana related businesses. He said this would be different from a retail store – it would not attract crowds. Processing is a broad range of things – people making extracts - to people baking cookies. Industrial zoning doesn’t seem to fit as well as things like labs – it’s difficult to find locations with these zoning restrictions. Anything that isn’t retail has to be in industrial. The requirements need to be changed. The residential boundary should be removed to open up more space again; there’s little risk to children. Mary Alexander 10150 SW Murdock St. 97224 – has lived in the city for 44 years. She is in favor of Option 4 – She is 78 years old and has a rare glaucoma issue. She researched for two years before she decided to use medical marijuana. It’s either she uses the drops or she goes blind. There is a lot of misinformation out there. She said alcohol is every bit as bad and people leave liquor stores and drink. There are people that need medical marijuana. Her eye pressure March 20, 2017 Page 9 of 16 before taking marijuana was 15 in one eye and 14 in the other. It is down now to 10 .5 in one and 11 in the other. This is a huge benefit that she can’t get from regular medication. Gordon Goulet – 8075 SW Thorn Street – has lived in Tigard for 2 years. He’s been working for Kaleafa Cannabis for almost four years - right out of college. He is the IT director for the conglomerate. He told the commission that marijuana should be treated the same as micro brewing. It’s another way for people to enjoy their lives and surroundings. He wanted to talk about the technical aspect – he spoke about testing, security, and so forth. He designs everything and helps make sure compliance is achieved at every transaction level. Every transaction is tracked down to each person and who purchases it. He can break it down to how old they are and make sure that they only receive so much marijuana per day. Unlike alcohol – you can go back in there and buy the whole store eventually if you wanted to. With marijuana, you couldn’t; you’d have to go to multiple stores and really work at it to try and buy a lot. He reminded them that Measure 91 was passed by a majority vote in Oregon. 75 percent of the voting population in Tigard passed the initiative to raise taxes on marijuana. He said, “Two of the businesses that do the most sales by volume is just north and south of Tigard – King City in Challis Farms; and Nectar, up by the beautiful old strip club and other joint up there receive more tax money there than some of the biggest shops in Portland. I think this would be a great opportunity to bring this tax revenue into the City of Tigard. I’m for Option 4.” TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION – Marsden Smith 12332 SW Hollow Lane Tigard 97223 thinks alcohol is very popular and very well accepted and there’s only one liquor store in Tigard. He doesn’t think Tigard needs additional stores along those lines. He wonders what Tigard wants to be known as. “Do we want to be known by a Fred Meyer complex? Is that our goal in life? What would we like to be known for? There is research that says that if you smoke a lot of Marijuana you tend to accomplish less in life. You earn slightly less than those who don’t and you’re fine with accumulating less in life. The tax revenue $400,000 you’re going to get is nothing. I’m in favor of Option 1 – no change.” Ed Whitehead – 9230 SW River View Terrace 97224 appreciates the Planning Commission and asks them to retain and not expand the current regulatio ns concerning the locations of marijuana stores. He believes the current regulations are sufficient to meet whatever need there may be for those who choose to engage in the use of the drug. He and his wife are involved in a program through their church, which works with children from low-income families by providing meals and activities for them. He noted most of these children come from homes where alcohol and drug use – largely marijuana – create situations that contribute to learning and behavioral issues on their part in school, as well as in the general community. One of the areas indicated as a possible location along Bonita is near the apartment complex where many of these children and their dysfunctional families reside. He said his own son who, while in high school many years ago, used marijuana. He did so for several years and he acknowledges now that it was not a good thing. It adversely affected his behavior, memory, conduct towards his parents, and others. Now, as a father – he is against it. He does not want to see a marijuana store in downtown Tigard and continually speaks to his children about his desire that they abstain. There is much information on the effects of marijuana on the body that should cause March 20, 2017 Page 10 of 16 concern and it is a confusing science. It affects the nervous system, internal organs, immune systems, etc. All of these are things that should concern us. He believes Tigard has provided what the law has required. There is no need to alter or change any regulations allowing additional areas for sale and distribution of marijuana. Aliza Boyce – 15378 SW 82nd Place, Tigard – is a Tigard High School student who is on the leadership council for the club at Tigard HS called STUDD (Stop Tigard Underage Drinking & Drug use). She said she believes marijuana has an effect on both her and her fellow classmates. She is a junior, and is sad to have seen the effects of marijuana on her classmates. She noticed a pattern with students who use and those who don’t. The ones who use tend to slack in their responsibilities. She said the effects of marijuana have been scientifically proven to be negative on the brain and especially harmful for young people whose brains don’t fully develop until the age of 25. She said, “Allowing more shops in downtown will allow more adults to have access to marijuana and would be on the student’s radar, and when something is on your radar, you’re more likely to wonder if you should try it. That can be very dangerous to kids my age. Thank you for listening and thank you for all the work you do.” Connie Ramaekers 9655 SW Murdock St. Tigard 97224 has lived there since 1979. Her job as the Prevention Specialist over the past 35 years has been to help the youth in Tigard by addressing the drug and alcohol use and abuse that happens among them. They have a club called STUDD (Stop Tigard Underage Drinking and Drug use) at Tigard High. There are close to 100 members. The student members are peer models to help other students make good choices in their lives. Ms. Ramaekers would like to see Tigard keep the current existing regulations in relation to marijuana facilities – meaning Option 1. The Rocky Mountain HIDTA (High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area) report in January 2016 states: “Evidence and research demonstrates that marijuana, which has skyrocketed in average potency over the past decades, is addictive and harmful to the human brain – especially when used by adolescents. In states that have already legalized the drug, there has been an increase in drugged driving crashes and youth marijuana use. This is very true in Oregon. Her big concern is the increase of marijuana use among teens since Measure 91 passed. Every spring they give a survey to their students. In our own school district, marijuana use among eleventh graders at Tigard High has increased substantially. The data shows a 20% increase from 2014 to 2016. In 2014, it was 3.6% - in 2015, it jumped to 17.2% and in the spring of 2016, it has jumped to 23.5%. Our youth report that marijuana is very easy to get. The number one resource is from their friends – and these friends are getting it from their parents or older siblings. The more access adults have to marijuana, the more access our youth has to it. We need to keep regulations as they are. With more marijuana retail shops opening, and especially allowing them into downtown Tigard where many families go for recreation, make it more readily available to adults and youth. Marie Watkins lives in Wilsonville but works at the Tigard Tualatin School District at 6960 SW Sandberg St., Tigard, 97223 - For the School District she is a certified Prevention Specialist and the Prevention Coordinator and Director for a coalition called “Tigard Turns the Tide” and also works for the STUDD club at Tigard High. She advocates that the current regulations be kept the same - Option 1. She believes Tigard is a beautiful place and believes that the city wants to make it as family friendly as possible. Parks and schools are nearby. Many activities occur downtown such as the Saturday and Sunday markets. Families with small March 20, 2017 Page 11 of 16 children attend those. Allowing dispensaries to be in plain sight of our young children allows a social norm to be created that marijuana use is okay. She believes it’s prohibiting to our youth’s growth and development. The more the students see these shops - the more there are social norms created that it’s an okay thing. It becomes the norm – and is that really what we want for the community of Tigard? She quoted the Rocky Mountain HIDTA Report that says “Despite the medical and recreational marijuana businesses being banned in 68% of local jurisdictions in Colorado, there are still a total of 940 marijuana businesses in Colorado – more than the 322 Starbucks locations, and more than the 202 McDonald’s locations combined.” She requests that Tigard not be in the percentage for Oregon that allows marijuana dispensaries to overwhelm our streets as well. Bruce Krieg – 12055 SW Burlheights St., 97223 stated that other communities near us have high standards in their downtown communities. The city of Tualatin has a larger linear feet restriction - and other surrounding communities don’t have any in their downtown at all. He believes it makes sense for us to be a leader in that regard as well. He would like Option 1 – keep it as is. He noted that seeing the youth here to testify should make us take notice. He strongly believes that if teenagers are here trying to stand up against this, and advocate for themselves, we should honor that. Leslie Boyce 15378 SW 82nd Place, Tigard 97224 advocated for keeping Option 1. Because she could not stay to give her oral testimony, she submitted a handwritten statement (Exhibit C). Gale Vorhis – 12455 SW 128th Ave., Tigard 97224 – just moved here two months ago. He’s never seen so many marijuana stores in his life; not even in California. The marijuana facilities are right next to restaurants. Children see them - and it’s bad for children. He’s not against it for medicinal purposes – but is against recreational. He backs Option 1 He doesn’t want to see any more facilities here. He’s seen these shops with guys outside on the street spinning signs advertising marijuana. “You don’t even see that with liquor stores - because they’re not permitted to do it.” He is with option 1 – no more facilities. Elizabeth Olson – 12214 SW Lansdowne Lane 97223 – supports retaining Option 1. She doesn’t think they would even be talking about this if it weren’t for the tax revenue. She spoke about the short and long term bad side effects. It harms unborn children from mothers who used cannabis during pregnancy. Onset of effects is within minutes when smoked and 30 to 60 minutes when cooked and eaten. The effects last between two and six hours. She said the question is - do we want Tigard to be “A place to call home”? Do we want it to be home for children, teens, families and seniors – or for drug users? She, personally and her friends, will not be patronizing areas with pot businesses - and that includes downtown Tigard. She does not believe a family-friendly place should include this type of business. Emily Wallace – 8900 SW Sweek Drive Tualatin 97062 lives in Tualatin but goes to school in Tigard. She said she is the daughter of a counselor who works with mental illness. In her experience at school, she has seen a lot of changes in social norms in favor of marijuana usage. Kids at school have been joking about it more in ways that you don’t really know if they’re joking. They might be talking about it bluntly in class and the teachers won’t be sure, so they March 20, 2017 Page 12 of 16 won’t say anything about it. It’s just becoming something that’s “okay” in our high schools and that’s something we really need to put a halt to. One way to keep that from getting any worse is keeping the limits on accessibility by not letting the adults that are providing the students with marijuana to have as much access to it. John Widmer, Principal at Kaleafa Cannabis came back up and reminded everyone that this is OLCC - you can sell to 21 and older. I understand that you’re concerned about the impact on the kids, but this is a parent issue as much as accessibility issue. I think that that can’t be lost. You can’t sell to anyone under 21. Keep that in mind. I have 3 kids, my brother has 2 – and we’re co-owners of the company – so I completely understand it – but I wanted to mention that one more time. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DELIBERATION President Fitzgerald asked each commissioner to voice an opinion on this topic and let the rest of the group know which option(s) they support. At this point, Planner Agnes Kowacz reminded the commission that they are not limited to the four options; they can make up their own. Each commissioner commented:  Commissioner McDowell: I am for option 1 – leave it as is. I have done some surveying of friends, family, and organizations I’m a part of, and there’s an overlying cultural element that many people are just not comfortable with. It goes against what they want to represent - and I fall in that category as well. Some key areas for me outside of culture is the fact that it puts the federal government and the state and citizens in an adversarial position – we don’t know that outcome yet, so that’s another factor I don’t like. As long as it’s tied together with medical and recreation, it’s going to be a big problem. I don’t support recreational use in any form and I know a lot of people don’t either. Medical… maybe…? However, if we’re talking about together - co-locating – then absolutely not. In my opinion, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion if there weren’t a level of potential tax dollars here with the issue. It sends a message that money is more important than morality, and I think that’s the wrong message – especially for the youth and for our community. I definitely am not supportive of it, and I would choose to retain Option 1.  Commissioner Lieuallen: You hit the nail on the head so far as the tax dollars. It’s offensive to me that the question is based on tax dollars. This is a moral question with many, many people. It’s a question of the environment they want to raise their families in. But this $400,000 tax question seems like… I can’t even fathom this… but on the flipside we’re not here to discuss the legality of the usage of marijuana. It is legal – the people in Oregon decided that by a majority - the people in Tigard decided that. That said, I have friends who have smoked marijuana and I’ve never heard even one of them say they’re having any problems finding it. I don’t think we have an access issue. I see no reason to make areas in Tigard less family friendly. I heard at least one of the people here March 20, 2017 Page 13 of 16 tonight say they wouldn’t be willing to take their family down there with this. I have to respect that, and I don’t think they would be alone in that decision. I think there’d be other people who would agree and not want to take their family near this marijuana thing. That said, I think attitudes may change and it might be revisited 20 years from now. I think those opinions may change and 20 years from now attitudes may change and people will be about as afraid of that as people are today of liquor stores and bars on every street corner. However, today, that is not the reality. There is a large percentage of the population that looks at marijuana as a very scary thing – something to keep the family and kids a long ways away from. It’s a small thing to give them a Main Street Tigard with walkability and a family atmosphere - by sticking with Option 1. Commissioner Middaugh: I’m torn. I came here thinking, “Why not just allow it anywhere?” but at the same time, we have one liquor store and that seems to serve us well. So I am leaning towards keeping the regulations we have and not expanding it any. I really appreciate the testimony we received tonight - especially regarding mental health and prevention. I also appreciate our high school students coming out to testify. It’s a tough subject. The legality of it isn’t in question, so I’m in favor of keeping the regulations we have. Vice President Feeney: I too came in a little torn. I’m one for a fair business but I also have young children – not to say that they can get it directly, but it is a little more prevalent now in our community. I was on the Planning Commission when we set this code in only a couple of years ago. We haven’t even had a chance to really vet it. The City of Tigard Planning Code on other developments go 5 years or 10 years, or a little bit longer. We haven’t proven yet, at least in my mind, that what we approved a couple of years ago is not correct. We went through the effort - we made that decision for reasons. We’ve had a couple dispensaries open, and yes I understand it’s not maxed out, and there’s a couple more that could fit in there, or there might be other opportunities - but we just haven’t had the chance to see it. That’s why I’m leaning towards keeping it the same - just on the basis that we haven’t had a chance to prove it wrong. Commissioner Schmidt: I agree with all the testimony of my fellow commissioners and I respect the opinions of the many people that have come tonight to testify for Option 1. I feel that it would be in our best interests to represent them in supporting Option 1. Commissioner Hu: I might be the most liberal here of all, but I could support Option 1 or Option 2. Regarding opening up downtown, my biggest concern that I mentioned earlier - is the façade issue. Our city wants to be a showcase of how walkable we are – and I just don’t know how opening up a facility that has heavy bars with windows and doors taped up would achieve that purpose. So I’m okay with either Option 1 or 2. I don’t feel comfortable opening up downtown Tigard at this point - so I will vote for 1 or 2. Commissioner Jackson: I’m also of the conflicted camp. I came here tonight after doing all the reading and research related to this, leaning toward Option 2. I came tonight waiting to hear testimony and anything else that would move me in one direction or the other. I tend to remain more or less where I started – I would support either 2 or 1. I appreciate and expected the public opposition to loosening those restrictions, and from a subjective sensibility, I’m against widespread marijuana use as well. On the other hand, as a Planning Commissioner there are other responsibilities at play. One thing I kept going back to in rereading and thinking about what is in Comprehensive Plan Goal March 20, 2017 Page 14 of 16 No. 9.1.3 “The City’s land use and regulatory practices shall be flexible and adaptive to promote economic development,” etc. I feel like Option 1 is just bordering on too restrictive for me when I consider that. I could go on, but in summary, I would support either 1 or 2 – leaning a little more toward Option 2. President Fitzgerald: We’ve been working on the Tigard Triangle – we’ve been working exhaustively on that code to put the right code language in there to get some development in that area. Some of the blue areas include Hall Blvd and whatnot. If you listened to the 45 minute audio that was sent to us from council, there was no specific talk of tax dollars, but I feel that this is a tax dollar grab. We had a very robust and thorough and sometimes heated conversation while we made these recommendations to council. There was disagreement within the seated council at that time; then we found a happy medium. Our proposal was conservative in the fact that – this is new to all of us. We went through this prohibition and alcohol – we’ve been through this historically through society in the United States. This is a new thing – yes our proposal to council was conservative, but because we are a city that can come back and ask to have changes made later – after we’ve kind of lived with it for a little bit... at this point, federal guidelines could say you can’t do this at all –so who knows what’s going to happen? I know Mr. Widmer leased the property before we even did the original zoning, so there is a little bit of concern there for him. I have no issue with someone trying to run a business; but I have an issue with maintaining the reputation and integrity of Tigard. We do not have a good reputation outside of the City of Tigard. People see Hwy 99 and they don’t see what else is here. People work hard for downtown Tigard to kind of make it something - and things are starting to coalesce there and happen. Things are going to start coalescing and happening in the Tigard Triangle as well. I can strongly support Option 1. I will not support any of the other options, nor will I put forward any other options beyond ones that are on the table. I want to send a loud and clear message back to council – we were clear in what we said the first time and we are stating and standing firm with it again this time. Commissioner Hu recommended that they make two motions, one for Option 1 and one for Option 2 – just to have a record that some people actually can support Option 2. Vice President Feeney advised him that he could go ahead and make a motion for Option 2; then, if that did not pass, they could do another motion for Option 1. MOTION Commissioner Hu made the following motion: “I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to City Council in the matter of Marijuana Facilities Place Regulations No. DCA2016-00004 to change the current marijuana regulation as stated in Option No. 2. Commissioner Jackson seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE FOR: Commissioners Jackson and Hu March 20, 2017 Page 15 of 16 AGAINST: Commissioners Schmidt, Fitzgerald, Feeney, McDowell, Middaugh, and Lieuallen VOTE TO SUPPORT OPTION 2 FAILS 6 - 2 MOTION Vice President Feeney made the following motion: “I move that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation for Option 1 – to keep the current, existing regulations in place for application DCA2016-00004.” Commissioner McDowell seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE FOR: Commissioners Jackson, Hu, Schmidt, Fitzgerald, Feeney, McDowell, Middaugh, and Lieuallen AGAINST: None RESULT MOTION FOR SUPPORT OF OPTION 1 – KEEP AS IS - PASSES UNANIMOUSLY CITY COUNCIL HEARING ON THIS ITEM WILL TAKE PLACE APRIL 11. President Fitzgerald urged those who had testified to follow it to Council or email so they have additional record of their opinions on this particular issue. BRIEFING – TIGARD TRIANGLE CODE & REZONE Assistant Community Development Director Tom McGuire introduced Sr. Planner Susan Shanks. He informed the commissioners that Planner Cheryl Caines is no longer with the City of Tigard and that Susan Shanks is taking over as project manager for the Triangle Lean Code and “all things triangle.” Susan told the commissioners that she wished she had more graphics to give to them but that the timing of Cheryl’s departure was such that Cheryl actually prepared the memo that they received in their packets. She said she picked it up and is running with it. Her understanding is that the commission was expecting a form based code primer of sorts. So she would give a kind of broad brush understanding of what a form based code is. Due to the lateness of the evening she told them she would keep it short and would leave it open to let them ask questions - which she did. Afterwards, she noted that they would continue this conversation as they have another scheduled update in approximately a month. Additionally, there is a Tigard Triangle Tour scheduled for April 3. They will have an opportunity to talk about things in the field, which will be very helpful with the form based code discussion. Susan distributed a handout (Exhibit D). Susan told the commissioners that in the future, staff would be working with the Angelo Planning Group to have some help with graphics. EXHIBIT A C I T Y O F T I G A R D R e s p e c t a n d C a r e | D o t h e R i g h t T h i n g | G e t i t D o n e MARIJUANA PLACE REGULATIONS Public Hearing March 20, 2017Tigard Planning Commission EXHIBIT B C I T Y O F T I G A R D BACKGROUND City Council directed staff to revisit the place regulations for marijuana last October. City Council asked staff to specifically seek input from: City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC); Tigard Downtown Alliance (TDA); The downtown business community; and Development community. C I T Y O F T I G A R D BACKGROUND Staff attended the CCAC and invited the downtown community to attend to provide input. Several members of the downtown business community attended to voice their input. The CCAC did not reach a consensus, though a slight majority were open to changing the regulations to allow marijuana businesses downtown. C I T Y O F T I G A R D BACKGROUND The CCAC had the following concerns: Proximity to Tigard Street Heritage Trail and plaza Making sure that downtown has a good mix of businesses, not just one type. Need of an anchor store. Concentration of “over 21” businesses in one location Need for City to treat all retail uses fairly Design/façade appearance of some marijuana businesses (that don’t fit in downtown) Inability to point to any specific policy or code intention to support restricting this specific type of retail use C I T Y O F T I G A R D BACKGROUND Staff contacted three developers and heard back from one who reported: They would be reluctant to lease to a marijuana business due to uncertainty about federal policy and bank financing; They stated that the perception of marijuana business is worse than reality; and that The presence of a marijuana business in the area would not deter them from pursuing a good project C I T Y O F T I G A R D PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION City Council has requested the Planning Commission specifically deliberate on the following: Allowing marijuana businesses in other areas/zones not fronting Pacific Highway; Allowing marijuana businesses in downtown; Reconsidering the existing 500 foot buffer from the parks and recreation zone. C I T Y O F T I G A R D AMENDMENT OPTIONS: Staff prepared four options for Commission evaluation: Option 1:Keep the current, existing regulations. Option 2:Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement. Option 3: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement and allow marijuana businesses downtown. Option 4:Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement, allow marijuana businesses downtown, remove parks buffer downtown only. C I T Y O F T I G A R D OPTION 2: C I T Y O F T I G A R D OPTION 3: C I T Y O F T I G A R D OPTION 4: C I T Y O F T I G A R D Questions and Discussion C I T Y O F T I G A R D Links Tigard Maps http://www.tigardmaps.com/mox6/publicinteractive.cfm ?action=mox6_view_interface&CFID=69287&CFTOKEN=9 6373799 Marijuana Storybook http://www.tigard- or.gov/city_hall/marijuana_facilities.php C I T Y O F T I G A R D MARIJUANA Arterials: Hall Blvd, McDonald St, Greenburg Rd, Beef Bend Rd, Scholls Ferry Rd, Roy Rogers Rd, Durham Rd, Walnut St, 72nd Ave, Bonita Rd Collectors: Bull Mountain Rod, 135th Ave, 121st Ave, Tiedeman Ave, Main St, Burham Ave, Ash Ave, Scoffins, Hunziker Rd, Wall St, Dartmouth St, 68th Parkway, Hampton St, Pfaffle St, 78th Ave, Locust Street, Cascase Ave, EXHIBIT C Shared Travel Lane Shared Travel LaneStormwater Treatment Stormwater TreatmentSidewalk Sidewalk Right-of-Way Pedestrian Stormwater Street 60 - 62’ Shared Travel Lane Shared Travel Lane On-street parking On-street parking Landscaping/ Furnishing Landscaping/ FurnishingSidewalk Sidewalk Right-of-Way Shared parking between adjacent businesses Raised mid-block crossing (every 250’) Furnishing zone (seating, trees, pedestrian-scaled lighting) Benches and furnishings designed to support social interaction and add visual interest Landscaping (street trees and planters) TIGARD TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT STREETSCAPE DESIGN PLAN PEDESTRIAN STREETS Typical Street Cross Section Aerial View What are pedestrian streets? Pedestrian streets are designed to provide an urban environment by incorporating: • Sidewalks, stormwater tie-ins, safe crosswalks, street trees, and shared travel lanes for bikes and cars; • Visually interesting and accessible buildings, on-street parking, street trees and slow vehicle speeds. What beneﬁ ts do they provide? • Universally accessible (meeting and going beyond the American with Disabilities Act guidelines); •Improved pedestrian visibility and comfort (mid-block crossings, seating areas, pedestrian street lighting, bulbouts and street trees and other landscaping). What are stormwater streets? Stormwater street facilities consist of a range of low-impact development approaches (LIDA) such as: • Flow-through planters; • Inﬁ ltration rain gardens and planters; • Porous pavement and; • Vegetated swales and ﬁ lter strips. They can be applied to both pedestrian and access street types. EXHIBIT D City of Tigard Memorandum To: Tigard Planning Commission From: Cheryl Caines, Associate Planner Re: Tigard Triangle Zoning & Code Amendments Update Date: March 9, 2017 At the February 27, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, staff gave an overview of how lean urbanism is the path forward for realizing the vision for the Tigard Triangle. Adopting a code that allows incremental development and is lean in regulation and process is essential. Staff outlined how this code breaks down barriers for small developers, how it is different from the existing development code, and what the code will/will not regulate. As noted, more in-depth discussion of code sections were to follow in subsequent updates to ensure commissioners are familiar with the code prior to the public hearing process. The first area to review and discuss is the “Form Based” site and building design standards. The standards regulate the placement and design of the building in relationship to the street. Buildings are near the street with many windows and doorways, active spaces, and service facilities/parking behind buildings or screened from view. Many regulations are outlined in a tabular or graphic form for ease of understanding. All of the development standards are contained in the Tigard Triangle Plan District code section with the exception of a few parking related requirements. The Tigard Triangle has two zones (mixed use and general commercial). The proposed mixed use zone is Triangle Mixed Use (TMU), which will replace the existing Mixed Use Employment (MUE) zoning. The existing General Commercial (C-G) zoning will remain. The lean process and most of the proposed code changes do not apply to properties within the C-G zone. There are two exceptions: 1) site and building design standards specific to the C-G zone and 2) standards related to transportation facilities. The C-G design standards are the existing building and site standards for the Tigard Triangle. The building and site design standards for the TMU zone include the following. A full copy of the standards have been provided (Attachment 1). • Specific building and yard types to ensure walkability. Applicants may choose from a set list of options. More than one type can be used within a development. • Minimum building frontage (70%) is higher than existing code (50%). Courtyards, plazas, and area set aside to preserve District Trees count toward the minimum building frontage. • Retaining walls are required to include a three foot step back for every four feet in height to ensure a pedestrian scale. This has been an issue considering the grade changes in the Triangle. • The map shows three areas limited to four (4) stories. All other areas within the TMU zone will allow six (6) stories. Four story buildings are more likely in the beginning since the market does not support taller structures. Greater height allowances further impacts feasibility by causing property owners to possibly over-estimate property values, which creates more barriers to incremental development. Areas that may see more incremental development, include smaller sites, and are where early re-development should be focused were assigned a height limit of four (4) stories. Areas along the perimeter of the district allow six (6) stories to create a sound barrier from adjacent highways. Six (6) stories are allowed west of 72nd due to grade changes. Properties along the potential light rail alignment also allow for six (6) stories to support higher densities near transit. • Public open space is required for sites larger than 3 acres. Tigard Triangle Plan District 18.92-1 AP Update: 2/14 Chapter 18.92 TIGARD TRIANGLE PLAN DISTRICT Sections: 18.92.010 Purpose 18.92.020 Definitions 1892.030 General Provisions 18.92.040 Procedures 18.92.050 Non-conforming Situations 18.92.060 Uses 8.92.070 Building and Site Design 18.92.080 Land Division 18.92.090 Parking 18.92.100 Screening 18.92.1100 Trees 18.92.1210 Signs 18.92.1320 Streets and Trails 18.92.020 Definitions All of the terms in this section are unique to the Tigard Triangle Plan District or differ from the definitions in Chapter 18.120. Chapter 18.120 applies where not replaced by this section. 1. “Block” - The aggregate of private lots, passages, alleys, and trails, circumscribed by streets. 2. “Building height” - Building height is measured in stories rather than distance and does not include habitable attics or daylight basements. 3. “Curb return radius” - The measurement of the inside turning radius of an intersection taking parked cars into account. See Table 18.620.19. 4. “District tree” – A tree found on the Tigard Triangle District Tree Inventory maintained by the Director. 5. “Facade” - The exterior wall of a building that faces a street. 6. “Habitable space” – A space in a building for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet rooms, closets, halls, storage or utility spaces and similar areas are not considered habitable spaces. 7. “Liner building” - A building specifically designed to mask a parking lot or a parking structure from a frontage. 8. “Minimum frontage” - The percentage of the lot width that is occupied by the building facade at the setback. 9. “Parking lane” - The vehicular lane provided at the curb for on-street parking. Commented [CC1]: Size, access from transportation section, configuration to serve proposed use , additional approval criteria for land divisions Tigard Triangle Plan District 18.92-2 AP Update: 2/14 10. “Parking setback” - A setback requirement for parking location that requires parking behind buildings or street screens. 11. “Parking structure” – a building or structure consisting of more than one level and used to park or store motor vehicles. 12. “Pedestrian passage or trail” - A pedestrian way providing access through a block, or traversing a park or natural area with landscape matching the contiguous public space or intersecting sidewalk. 13. “Primary building entrance” - The main point of access for pedestrians into a building. 14. Signs - Definitions in this chapter are to be used in addition to Chapter 18.780, Signs, and are as follows: a. “Canopy” - A sign that is attached to a canopy or other covered walkway. b. “Corner” - A sign which is attached to and projects perpendicular from a structure at the corner of the building. c. “Window” - A sign, graphic, or design which is painted or mounted or otherwise displayed within a window area. 15. “Story” - A habitable level within a building, excluding an attic or raised basement. 16. “Streetscreen” - Elements that mask a parking lot from the street, provide privacy to a side yard, or strengthen the spatial definition of the public realm. 18.92.070 Building and Site Design Purpose. The Tigard Triangle building and site design standards foster a mixed-use urban character with a high quality pedestrian environment and an emphasis on activating the public realm. A. Building and site design standards apply to all development in the Tigard Triangle. B. TMU Building and Site Design Standards. Tigard Triangle Plan District 18.92-3 AP Update: 2/14 Table 18.92. 04 TMU Zone Design Standards Building Setbacks a Street 1 ft. min., 12 ft. max. b Internal Setbacks 5 ft. if not zero lot line Street Facade Types (limited to those in Table 18.92.05) Porch and stoop for access to ground floor residential uses only If separate buildings form the forecourt, buildings shall have no more than 20 feet of separation. Frontage Yard Types (limited to those in Table 18.92.06) Fencing: 3 feet max on street building setbacks TMU Minimum Frontage Illustrated Minimum Building Frontage All Streets: 70% min. (percentage of street property line length) Exceptions Does not apply to SW Dartmouth Street. Commented [CAC2]: Word street is missing on graphic. Joe? Tigard Triangle Plan District 18.92-4 AP Update: 2/14 Pedestrian forecourts, sidecourts, district tree preservation areas, and non-vehicular portions of vehicular forecourts may be counted towards the minimum building frontage requirement. Glazing Requirements Street Ground: 60% min. Second Floor: 40% min. Percentage glazing is calculated individually for each façade. Mirrored, frosted, and reflective glass is prohibited. Glass must have a visible transmittance (VT) of 0.6 or higher. Open Space Requirements Open space requirements per tables 18.92.07 and 18.92.08. Retaining Wall Requirements Retaining walls along street frontages shall step back at least three feet for every four feet in height measured from lowest grade. Stepback areas shall include plantings. Building Height Building Height: 4 or 6 stories max. (see map for designated height allowance) Ground floor story height: min. 12 feet; max. 25 feet (including parking structures) Tigard Triangle Plan District 18.92-5 AP Update: 2/14 Above stories: max. 14 feet Top story: max. 18 feet Stories are measured from finished floor to finished ceiling. Tigard Triangle Plan District 18.92-6 AP Update: 2/14 Table 18.92.05 TMU Street Facade Types Facade: Porch Entry Grade Design Requirements 36 in. max. above public sidewalk grade a. A porch is required at the primary building entrance. b. Porches must be no less than 6 feet in depth and 12 feet in width. Facade: Stoop Description Entry Grade Design Requirement The facade is aligned closest to the frontage with the first story elevated from the sidewalk for privacy, with an exterior stair and landing at the entrance. 48 in. max above public sidewalk grade A stoop is required at building entrances, projecting from or recessed into the facade. Tigard Triangle Plan District 18.92-7 AP Update: 2/14 Facade: Gallery Description Entry Grade Design Requirements The facade is aligned close to the lot line with an attached cantilevered shed or lightweight colonnade overlapping the sidewalk. at sidewalk grade a. A gallery is required along a minimum of 80% of the building frontage. b. Galleries shall be no less than 8 feet in depth. Facade: Arcade Description Entry Grade Design Requirements The facade is a colonnade that overlaps the sidewalk while the facade at sidewalk level remains at the lot line. at sidewalk grade a. An arcade is required along a minimum of 80% of the building frontage. b. Arcades must be no less than 8 feet in depth Facade: Common Entry Description Entry Grade Design Requirements A facade type that provides a single collective entry to a lobby at the primary building entrance. 20 in. max. above sidewalk grade a. A single, collective, primary entrance to a multi-tenant lobby is required. b. The entrance shall be recessed into the facade. Tigard Triangle Plan District 18.92-8 AP Update: 2/14 Facade – Shopfront Description Entry Grade Design Requirements Common for retail use, with substantial glazing, where the facade is aligned close to the frontage with the primary building entrance at sidewalk grade at sidewalk grade a. A shopfront is required at the entrance of the tenant space. b. Entries may be recessed from the facade up to 8 feet in depth Table 18.92.06 TMU Frontage Yard Types Yard Type: Shallow Illustration Description A frontage yard type where the facade is slightly setback from the lot line. Planting 6 shrubs per 500 sf Design Shall be landscaped or paved. Walkways 1 per setback providing access to building entries. Tigard Triangle Plan District 18.92-9 AP Update: 2/14 Yard Type: Urban Illustration Description A frontage yard type where the facade is at or near the lot line and the surface is paved. Design Shall be paved and at sidewalk grade. Vegetation is permitted in raised containers. Walkways n/a Yard Type: Pedestrian Forecourt Illustration Description A frontage yard type where a portion of the facade is close to or at the front setback and the central or corner portion is set back. Design Shall be paved and at sidewalk grade. Vegetation is permitted at grade or in raised containers. Max Width Building Height Maximum Width Minimum Width 1 – 4 stories 1.5 for every foot of adjacent building height or 35 feet, whichever is less 15 feet 5 – 6 stories 40 feet max 20 feet Activation Must be lined with habitable space on 3 sides, or on 2 sides at corner sites. Tigard Triangle Plan District 18.92-10 AP Update: 2/14 Yard Type: Sidecourt Illustration Description A frontage yard type where an open space is adjacent to one building facade. Design Shall be defined by building façade, landscaping, or surfacing. Entry to adjacent building shall be provided. Shall be at sidewalk grade within 12 feet of the street property line. Vegetation is permitted at grade or in raised containers. Max Width Maximum width 20 feet. Activation n/a B. Additional TMU Zone Building & Site Standards 1. Street Façade Design a. Buildings may include multiple facade types along their length, each type no less than 30 feet in width. b. Building entries must be provided along pedestrian street frontages as follows: i. One building entry must be provided for every 80 feet of façade. Where buildings front onto two or more streets, entry requirements are exempt along building facades under 50 feet in length. ii. The primary building entry must be located along a frontage or within a forecourt frontage setback. c. Ground floors of buildings along streets shall be designed and constructed to accommodate habitable space. The area must be at least 25 feet deep, measured from the interior wall of the street-facing façade. d. Loading docks and service areas are limited to the following: i. Shall be located to the rear of buildings; or Tigard Triangle Plan District 18.92-11 AP Update: 2/14 ii. Shall be set back at least 35 feet from the street property line and screened according to 18.92.090. 2. Projections allowed in frontage setbacks and public rights–of-way. a. Roof overhangs, cornices, window and door surrounds and other facade decorations may project into the frontage setback up to two feet but not beyond the property line. b. Projections of canopies, awnings, galleries and arcades into adjacent street rights-of-way shall be approved by the City Engineer. c. Balconies, bay windows and bow windows may project into the frontage setback a maximum of three feet, but not beyond the property line. 3. Drive-thrus are restricted except for bank uses and are subject to the following standards: a. Up to two lanes are permitted per site. b. Drive-thrus must not be located in frontages c. Banks providing a drive-thru must also provide a minimum of one pedestrian-oriented automatic teller accessible from a street frontage. 4. Public Open Space Requirements a. Public open space areas must be dedicated as specified in Table 18.620.15 and as follows: i. Open space requirements may be fulfilled by one or a combination of multiple types. ii. Playgrounds may be included in squares, plazas, and pocket parks iii. The property owner must record an easement for the open space that provides for unrestricted public access during daylight hours, and execute a covenant with the City ensuring the preservation, maintenance, and continued operation of the open space by the property owner. b. Public space must be configured by type according to Table 18.620.8 and the following: c. Pedestrian forecourts, sidecourts, and non-vehicular portions of vehicular forecourts may be counted towards minimum public space. Tigard Triangle Plan District 18.92-12 AP Update: 2/14 Table 18.92.07 Required Public Space Improvements SITE SIZE MINIMUM AREA ALLOWED TYPES 3 - 6 ac. 2% site area trail, pedestrian passage, pocket park or plaza > 6 ac. 5% site area trail, pedestrian passage, pocket park, plaza, or square Table 18.92.08 Public Space Types PUBLIC SPACE TYPES SQUARE Size in acres Proportion Edge Surface Landscape 0.25 min. – 2.5 max. 1:5 max. Streets on a minimum of 2 sides, non-adjacent streets. 50% maximum paved. 1 shade tree per 800 sf of area min., rounded down. Description A public space type designed for unstructured recreation and civic purposes, spatially defined by building frontages and consisting of paths, lawns and trees. PLAZA Size in square feet Proportion Edge Surface Landscape 5,000 - 10,000 1:5 max. Streets on a minimum of 2 sides. 50% minimum paved. 1 shade tree per 1,000 sf of plaza area min, rounded up. Description A small public space type designed for civic purpose and may include a playground or community garden, spatially defined by building frontages and consisting of paths, lawns and trees. POCKET PARK Size in square feet Proportion Edge 1,000 - 2,000 1:4 max. 1 side min. along a street or pedestrian way. Tigard Triangle Plan District 18.92-13 AP Update: 2/14 Surface Landscape May be paved or landscaped 1 shade tree per 600 sf of area min., rounded up. Description A public space type designed for civic purposes and commercial activities, generally paved and spatially defined by building frontages. PEDESTRIAN PASSAGE OR TRAIL Width Edge Walkway Width Landscape 12 ft. min. Active frontages 6 ft. min., 12 ft. min. multi-use 3 ft. min. landscape buffer Table 18.92. 09 C-G Design Standards Building Setbacks Surface Parking Setbacks Street 0 ft. min., 10 ft. max. 8 ft. Interior Setbacks 0 ft. 0 ft. Building Design Standards Minimum building frontage: 50% on all streets Located at public street intersections on corner lots. Maximum Building Height: 45 ft. Site and Parking Design Standards Minimum Landscape Requirement: 15% Parking shall be located to the side or rear of buildings Maximum 50% of street frontage if on the side. Tigard Triangle Plan District 18.92-14 AP Update: 2/14 C. Additional C-G Building and Site Design Standards Nonresidential buildings. All nonresidential buildings shall comply with the following design standards. 1. All street-facing elevations within the building setback (zero to 10 feet) along public streets shall include a minimum of 50% of the ground floor wall area with windows, display areas or doorway openings. a. The ground floor wall area shall be measured from three feet above grade to nine feet above grade the entire width of the street-facing elevation. b. The ground floor window requirement shall be met within the ground floor wall area and for glass doorway openings to ground level. 2. Façades that face a public street shall extend no more than 50 feet without providing at least one of the following features: a. A variation in building materials; b. A building off-set of at least one foot; c. A wall area that is entirely separated from other wall areas by a projection, such as an arcade; or d. Other design features that reflect the building’s structural system. 3. No building façade shall extend for more than 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building. 4. Weather protection for pedestrians, such as awnings, canopies, and arcades, shall be provided at building entrances. 5. All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view from adjacent public streets. Satellite dishes and other communication equipment must be set back or positioned on a roof so that exposure from adjacent public streets is minimized. Solar panels are exempt from this standard. 6. Landscaping to an L-1 standard, an arcade, or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path must be provided between a structure and a public street. a. If a building abuts more than one street, the required improvements shall be provided on all streets. b. Hard-surfaced areas shall be constructed with scored concrete or modular paving materials. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement. 7. Parking located on the side of a building shall be behind a landscaped area. a. The landscaped area shall be constructed to an L-1 landscape standard; and b. The minimum depth of the landscaped area is eight feet or is equal to the building setback, whichever is greater. Shared Travel Lane Shared Travel LaneStormwater Treatment Stormwater Treatment Sidewalk Sidewalk Right-of-Way Pedestrian Stormwater Street 60 - 62’ Shared Travel Lane Shared Travel Lane On-street parking On-street parking Landscaping/ Furnishing Landscaping/ FurnishingSidewalk Sidewalk Right-of-Way Shared parking between adjacent businesses Raised mid-block crossing (every 250’) Furnishing zone (seating, trees, pedestrian-scaled lighting) Benches and furnishings designed to support social interaction and add visual interest Landscaping (street trees and planters) TIGARD TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT STREETSCAPE DESIGN PLAN PEDESTRIAN STREETS Typical Street Cross Section Aerial View What are pedestrian streets? Pedestrian streets are designed to provide an urban environment by incorporating: • Sidewalks, stormwater tie-ins, safe crosswalks, street trees, and shared travel lanes for bikes and cars; • Visually interesting and accessible buildings, on-street parking, street trees and slow vehicle speeds. What beneﬁ ts do they provide? • Universally accessible (meeting and going beyond the American with Disabilities Act guidelines); • Improved pedestrian visibility and comfort (mid-block crossings, seating areas, pedestrian street lighting, bulbouts and street trees and other landscaping). What are stormwater streets? Stormwater street facilities consist of a range of low-impact development approaches (LIDA) such as: • Flow-through planters; • Inﬁ ltration rain gardens and planters; • Porous pavement and; • Vegetated swales and ﬁ lter strips. They can be applied to both pedestrian and access street types. MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 03/20/2017 PUBLIC HEARING, STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 1 OF 10 Agenda Item: # 6 Hearing Date: March 20, 2017 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON SECTION I. SUMMARY CASE NAME: MARIJUANA FACILITIES PLACE REGULATIONS CASE NO.: Development Code Amendment (DCA) DCA2016-00004 PROPOSAL: The City of Tigard proposes legislative amendments to the Tigard Development Code (TDC) to amend Chapter 18.735, Marijuana Facilities. The purpose of this amendment is to revisit place regulations and propose additional locations where marijuana facilities may occur. Staff has prepared four code language options for the Planning Commission’s review, which are included in Attachment 1. APPLICANT: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 ZONES: Citywide LOCATION: Citywide APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1 (Citizen Involvement), 2 (Land Use Planning), and 9 (Economic Development); ORS 475B (Cannabis Regulation); METRO’s Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 8; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1.1.2, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.6, 2.1.11, 2.1.23, 9.1.3 and 9.1.12; and Tigard Development Code Chapters 18.380 and 18.390 SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION There is no staff recommendation for this project. City Council has asked the Planning Commission to evaluate options for possibly expanding the locations available within Tigard that would allow recreational marijuana facilities and to provide a recommendation(s) on these options to the Council. Staff has provided an expanding range of options, with analysis, for the Commission to consider. MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 03/20/2017 PUBLIC HEARING, STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2 OF 10 SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION & PROJECT SUMMARY In November 2014, Oregon became the fourth state in the nation to legalize recreational marijuana. Prior to this, legal marijuana activity was limited to the state medical marijuana program. Below is a brief summary of legislative history on marijuana followed by the proposed changes to the City’s marijuana regulations. August 14, 2013 - Governor signs HB3460, which requires the Oregon Health Authority to develop and implement a process to register medical marijuana dispensaries so that patients could legally purchase medical marijuana. Under this bill, dispensaries cannot be within 1,000 feet of a school, 1,000 feet of another dispensary, and must be located within an industrial, commercial, or mixed-use zone. March 19, 2014 – Governor signs SB1531 which authorizes local governments to adopt reasonable regulations regarding the hours of operation; location; and manner in which medical marijuana dispensaries are operated. SB1531 also states that a local jurisdiction may enact an ordinance declaring a one-year moratorium on dispensaries. November 4, 2014 - Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 91 to legalize the use and possession of recreational marijuana on July 1, 2015. The law also directs the Oregon Liquor Control Commission to tax, license, and regulate recreational marijuana through a licensing system to be established by January 2016. The measure did not make any changes to the existing medical marijuana system. April 21, 2015- City of Tigard Ordinance No 15-07 was adopted, which established time, place and manner restrictions on Marijuana Facilities through the creation of new chapter in the TDC titled Marijuana Facilities (TDC 17.735), which applied to both medical and recreational marijuana. June 30, 2015 - Governor signs HB3400A which authorizes local government to regulate commercial recreation marijuana regulations; establishes the requirement of a Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS); recognizes marijuana as a farm crop; requires OLCC to create a seed-to-sale tracking system; and establishes provisions for state and local taxation. HB3400A also prohibits local jurisdictions from requiring a distance buffer of greater than 1,000 feet between stated-licensed retail marijuana facilities. In November 2016, the City Council approved an amendment to the spacing requirements between sales- oriented retail and wholesale facilities from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet to comply with state law. The City Council also extended the hours of operation from the current 10:00am to 8:00pm to 7:00am to 10:00pm, consistent with state law. City Council further directed staff to explore relaxing the location regulations for marijuana facilities in the downtown area and outside of the Pacific highway corridor. City Council instructed staff to seek input from the downtown business community and developers on whether downtown Tigard is a suitable location for marijuana related businesses. The Council also instructed staff to contact developers and find out if marijuana businesses are a deterrent when considering a project. Staff attended the November City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) meeting to seek direction on whether the City should allow marijuana related business in downtown Tigard. An invitation to this meeting was extended to downtown business owners as well as parties of record from previous marijuana related ordinances. Several members of the public and business community attend ed the meeting and provided written and oral comments, which are discussed under the Public Comments section of this staff report. The CCAC continued the discussion to the next scheduled meeting in December. The December meeting, and the following early January meeting were cancelled due to inclement weather. The CCAC finally met again on January 18, 2017 but did not reach consensus on the topic, though a slight majority were open to changing the regulations for downtown. The CCAC had the following concerns/thoughts: o Proximity to Tigard Street Heritage Trail and plaza MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 03/20/2017 PUBLIC HEARING, STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3 OF 10 o Making sure that downtown has a good mix of businesses, not just one type. Need of an anchor store. o Concentration of “over 21” businesses in one location o Need for City to treat all retail uses fairly (note that other "adult" uses including the liquor store and gun shop are not singled out for restriction) o Design/façade appearance of some marijuana businesses (tacky painted windows, bright colors that don’t fit in downtown) o Inability to point to any specific policy or code intention to support restricting this specific type of retail use Staff contacted three developers and heard back from one that reported that they would be reluctant to lease to a marijuana business due to uncertainty about federal policy and bank financing. They also stated that the perception of marijuana business is worse than reality and that the presence of a marijuana business in the area would not deter them from pursuing a good project. Lastly, based on City Council’s discussion, staff explored the idea of a buffer from active parks in place of a buffer from the parks and recreation zone in general. A definition of “active park” would need to be provided to clearly identify those parks. Staff believes that this option is too subjective and problematic for applicability purposes. If Council wanted to pursue this option, staff would suggest naming the specific parks from which the buffer would apply. Code Amendment Options Staff is presenting Planning Commission with four options for amending the place regulations for marijuana facilitates. The four options include: Option 1: Keep the current, existing regulations. Option 2: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public. Option 3: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public and allow marijuana facilities within the Mixed Use- Central Business District (MU-CBD) zone. Option 4: Remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement for sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public, allow marijuana facilities within the MU-CBD zone, and remove the 500-foot buffer from the parks and recreation zone within the MU-CBD zone. The four options for Planning Commission consideration are discussed below. Maps depicting the areas affected by Options 2 through 4 are provided as attachments to this staff report. Option 1 Option 1 is the City’s current place regulations, which include the following restrictions: Excerpt from TDC 18.735.040 B. The proposed use is allowed in the underlying zone and complies with all applicable requirements of this title. C. The proposed development meets all of the following site location restrictions. All distances shall be measured at the closest property lines between the proposed site and nearest lot or parcel containing the specified use or characteristic. 1. Marijuana facilities are prohibited within the MU-CBD zone. MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 03/20/2017 PUBLIC HEARING, STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 4 OF 10 2. The proposed development is not within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary school, secondary school, or career school attended primarily by minors. 3. Sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public shall be subject to the following restrictions: a. Must be located on a lot or parcel with frontage along Pacific Highway (Oregon Route 99W); b. Shall not be located within 1,000 feet of another state-licensed retail or wholesale marijuana facility within or outside of city limits; and c. Shall not be located within 500 feet of a public library or Tigard parks and recreation zone. 4. Non-retail uses and wholesale sales uses not open to the public shall not be located within 500 feet of one or more of the following zones or facilities: a. Residential zone; b. Parks and recreation zone; c. Public library. Option 2 Option 2 would eliminate the restriction limiting marijuana sales-oriented retail businesses to properties with frontage onto Pacific Highway and keep all other existing restrictions. Marijuana sales-oriented retail business could occur where sales-oriented retail is a permitted use, provided that all other buffer requirements are met. Sales-oriented retail is permitted outright in Neighborhood Commercial (C-N), General Commercial (C-G), and Mixed Use Commercial (MUC). Retail-oriented sales uses are restricted to size limitations in Community- Commercial (C-C), Professional Commercial (C-P), Mixed Use Employment (MUE) and Mixed Use Employment 1 and 2 (MUE-1 and 2), Mixed Use Residential 1 and 2 (MUR-1 and 2) and Industrial-Park (I-P). The map for Option 2 shows all the areas where a marijuana sales-oriented retail business would be permitted along with all other buffer restrictions. Option 3 Option 3 includes the same modifications as provided in Option 2 but also would allow marijuana businesses in the MU-CBD zone. Allowing marijuana businesses in the MU-CBD zone does not make too much of a change. Due to the buffer from the parks and recreation zone, it only opens up areas southeast of Main Street and Burnham Avenue due. Option 4 This option would remove the Pacific Highway frontage requirement, include the MU-CBD zone and only remove the parks and recreation zone buffer within the MU-CBD zone. The removal of the parks and recreation zone buffer would allow marijuana business downtown, specifically on Main Street and Burnham Avenue. However, since Main Street is also restricted due to a school buffer south of Burnham Avenue, only one marijuana business would be permitted on Main Street. Other Jurisdictional Responses To provide a framework for what is considered “reasonable” by other jurisdictions, staff is including a summary of how other cities have chosen to regulate retail marijuana facilities within their cities. Washington County  Limited to hours between 8am and 10pm.  Allowed in specified commercial and industrial districts, with square footage limited to 3,000 square feet within the Industrial (IND), General Commercial (GC), and Rural Commercial (R-COM) Land Use Districts.  Minimum 2,000 feet between dispensaries.  Minimum 1,000 feet from a youth-oriented recreation facility owned and operated by Tualatin Hills and Parks Recreations District. City of Beaverton: MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 03/20/2017 PUBLIC HEARING, STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 5 OF 10  Limited to hours between 7am and 10pm.  Limited to three zones: GC (General Commercial), CS (Community Service), and CC (Corridor Commercial). City of Hillsboro:  Limited to hours between 10am and 8pm Monday through Thursday and 10am and 10pm Friday through Sunday.  Limited to three zones: General Industrial (I-G), Station Community Commercial- Station Commercial (SCC-SC) and Station Community Commercial- Multi-Modal (SCC-MM).  Minimum 1,000 foot between another retail facility.  Minimum 2,000 feet between medical dispensaries.  Minimum 1,000 feet from a public plaza or active use park. As used in this paragraph, an active use park includes a public park which includes features such as playground equipment, athletic courts or fields, active use water features, or skating or skateboard features. City of McMinnville  Limited to hours between 9am and 9pm.  Limited to two zones: Neighborhood Business (C-1) and General Commercial (C-3).  Minimum 1,000 feet from another retail facility.  Minimum 1,000 foot buffer from a school, public library, aquatic center, and community center. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE CRITERIA, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Section 18.390.060.G establishes standard decision-making procedures for reviewing Type IV applications. The recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: 1) The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; 2) Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; 3) Any applicable METRO regulations; 4) Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and 5) Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. FINDING: Findings and conclusions are provided in this section for the applicable listed factors on which the recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based. This standard is met. STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES State planning regulations require cities to adopt and amend Comprehensive Plans and land use regulations in compliance with the state land use goals. Because the proposed Code Amendments have a limited scope and the text amendments address only some of the topics in the Statewide Planning Goals, only applicable Statewide Goals are addressed below. Statewide Planning Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement: This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents. FINDING: This goal has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Section 18.390.060 (Type IV Procedures). Notices were sent by US Postal Service on February 28, 2017 to affected government agencies and to the latest version of the City’s interested parties list. A copy of the same notice was emailed to a list of individuals who had previously expressed interest in the topic of marijuana regulations within Tigard. A notice was published in the Tigard Times newspaper prior to the hearing. Project information and documents were posted to the City website prior to the public hearing. A minimum of two public hearings will be held (one before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) at which an opportunity for public input is provided. This goal is met. Statewide Planning Goal 2 – Land Use Planning: This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 03/20/2017 PUBLIC HEARING, STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 6 OF 10 FINDING: The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has acknowledged the City’s Comprehensive Plan as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. The Development Code implements the Comprehensive Plan. The Development Code establishes a process and standards to review changes to the Tigard Development Code in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and other applicable state requirements. As discussed within this report, the applicable Development Code process and standards have been applied to the proposed amendment. This goal is met. Statewide Planning Goal 9 – Economic Development: This goal seeks to provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. FINDING: The Department of Land Conservation and Development has acknowledged the City’s Comprehensive Plan as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. Consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan Economic Development goals and policies is discussed later in this report under Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 9.1 and associated policies. This goal is met. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above and the related findings below, staff finds the proposed amendments are consistent with applicable Statewide Planning Goals. APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE OREGON CANNABIS REGULATIONS ORS 475B.340(2): Notwithstanding ORS 633.738, the governing body of a city or county may adopt ordinances that impose reasonable regulations on the operation of businesses located at premises for which a license has been issued under ORS 475B.070, 475B.090, 475B.100 or 475B.110 if the premises are located in the area subject to the jurisdiction of the city or county, except that the governing body of a city or county may not adopt an ordinance that prohibits a premises for which a license has been issued under ORS 475B.110 from being located within a distance that is greater than 1,000 feet of another premises for which a license has been issued under ORS 475B.110 FINDING: As detailed in Attachment 1, the proposed amendments establish reasonable restrictions on allowed locations to prevent or mitigate potential off-site community impacts. Because SB1531 does not define the word “reasonable”, the amendments are based in part on pre-existing development code restrictions already adopted and enforced within the City of Tigard, or elsewhere across the state and Pacific Northwest. The attached maps showing the geographic extent of the proposed location restrictions indicate that the City can comply with the buffer restrictions, and provide more opportunities to businesses trying to find a location to operate. This requirement is met. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Oregon Cannabis Regulations (ORS 475B). METRO’S URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN State planning regulations require cities to adopt and amend Comprehensive Plans and land use regulations in compliance with the state land use goals. Because the proposed Code Amendments have a limited scope and the text amendments address only some of the topics in the METRO’s Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, only applicable Titles are addressed below. Title 8 – Compliance Procedures: This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents. FINDING: This title has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Section 18.390.060 (Type IV Procedures). Notices were sent by US Postal Service on February 28, 2017 to affected government agencies and to the latest version of the City’s interested parties list. A copy of th e same notice was emailed to a list of individuals who had previously expressed interest in the topic of marijuana regulations within Tigard. A notice was published in the Tigard Times newspaper prior to the hearing. Project information and documents were published to the City website prior to the public hearing. A minimum of two public hearings will be held (one before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) at which an opportunity for public input is provided. This title is satisfied. MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 03/20/2017 PUBLIC HEARING, STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 7 OF 10 CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with Metro’s Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN State planning regulations require cities to adopt and amend Comprehensive Plans and land use regulations in compliance with the state land use goals and consistent with Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Because the Development Code Amendments have a limited scope and the text amendments address only some of the topics in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, only applicable comprehensive plan goals and associated policies are addressed below. Comprehensive Plan Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Policy 1.1.2: The City shall define and publicize an appropriate role for citizens in each phase of the land use planning process. FINDING: This goal has been met by complying with the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Section 18.390.060 (Type IV Procedures). Notices were sent by US Postal Service on February 28, 2017 to affected government agencies and to the latest version of the City’s interested parties list. A copy of the same notice was emailed to a list of individuals who had previously expressed interest in the topic of marijuana regulations within Tigard. A notice was published in the Tigard Times newspaper prior to the hearing. Project information and documents were published to the City website prior to the public hearing. A minimum of two public hearings will be held (one before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) at which an opportunity for public input is provided. This policy is met. Comprehensive Plan Goal 2: Land Use Planning Policy 2.1.2: The City’s land use regulations, related plans, and implementing actions shall be consistent with and implement its Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: As demonstrated in this staff report, the proposed amendments to the Tigard Development Code are consistent with the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. This policy is met. Policy 2.1.3: The City shall coordinate the adoption, amendment, and implementation of its land use program with other potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies. FINDING: Copies of the proposed amendments were sent to affected agencies and were invited to comment on the proposal, as required by Section 18.390.060 (Type IV Procedures) and discussed in Section V of this report. Comments submitted by affected agencies have been incorporated into this report and the proposed amendments. This policy is met. Policy 2.1.6: The City shall promote the development and maintenance of a range of land use types which are of sufficient economic value to fund needed services and advance the community’s social and fiscal stability. FINDING: The proposed amendments will enable greater location flexibility for taxable economic activity to occur within the city. This policy is met. Policy 2.1.11: The City shall adopt regulations and standards to protect public safety and welfare from hazardous conditions related to land use activities. FINDING: The proposed amendments are intended to protect the public welfare by providing for appropriate distance buffer from residential areas and parks in order to prevent or reduce hazards associated with a cash only business, a product with a strong black market value, and the exposure of a controlled product to minors. This policy is met. Policy 2.1.23 The City shall require new development, including public infrastructure, to minimize conflicts by addressing the need for compatibility between it and adjacent existing and future land uses. MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 03/20/2017 PUBLIC HEARING, STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 8 OF 10 FINDING: The proposed amendments include use regulations and development standards to ensure compatibility between marijuana facilities subject to state licensing or registration, and adjacent development and public facilities. This policy is met. Comprehensive Plan Goal 9: Economic Development Policy 9.1.3 The City’s land use and other regulatory practices shall be flexible and adaptive to promote economic development opportunities, provided that required infrastructure is made available. FINDING: The proposed text amendments are intended to be flexible and adaptive to the marijuana economy in Oregon, as investors try new and unknown business models and the state adopts new regulatory requirements. This flexibility and adaptability is grounded in the regulation of the license or regulation requirement, not the underlying land use classification, and a focus on minimum compliance standards rather than proscribed locations. This policy is met. Policy 9.1.12 The City shall assure economic development promotes other community qualities, such as livability and environmental quality that are necessary for a sustainable economic future. FINDING: As detailed in Attachment 1, the proposed amendments are intended to create minimum compliance standards to prevent or mitigate potential community impacts that could result from marijuana related business activity. This policy is met. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE Tigard Development Code Section 18.380.020, Legislative Amendments to this Title and Map, states that legislative zoning map and text amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.060G. FINDING: The proposed amendments are legislative in nature. Therefore, the amendment will be reviewed under the Type IV legislative procedure as set forth in the Chapter 18.390. This procedure requires public hearings by both the Planning Commission and City Council. This standard is met. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Tigard Development Code. SUMMARY CONCLUSION: As shown in the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed code text and map amendments are consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals; the Oregon Cannabis Regulation (475B); Metro’s Urban Growth Management Functional Plan; applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, and the applicable provisions of the City’s implementing ordinances. SECTION V. AGENCY COMMENTS City of Portland, City of Durham, City of Lake Oswego, City of Tualatin, City of King City, Washington County, METRO, ODOT, DLCD, DEQ, ODFW, CWS, OLCC, OHA, Beaverton School District, Tigard/Tualatin School District, Tri-Met, , Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, Tigard Public Works, and Tigard Building Division were notified of the proposed code text amendment but provided no comment. The City of Beaverton was notified of the proposal and had no objections. The City of Tigard Police Department reviewed the proposal and suggested text changes to increase the distance buffer to 1,000 feet from schools for regulatory consistency, and inclusion of career schools as a point of buffering. Suggested changes have been incorporated into the proposed text amendments in Attachment 1. MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DCA2016-00004 03/20/2017 PUBLIC HEARING, STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 9 OF 10 SECTION VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS Staff received written comments that were submitted and oral comments that were provided at the CCAC meeting on November 9, 2016. The matrix below summarizes the oral comments presented at the CCAC meeting: Name Comment Darbie Mayberry Opposed to marijuana downtown: o Not good for Tigard’s new image downtown o Marijuana businesses are not family friendly o Brings problems/drugs Donald Meyer Pro marijuana just not downtown: o Has seen the negativity of the pipe/smoke shop o Marijuana businesses are not family friendly /place for kids John Widmer (Kaleafa) Runs a marijuana business and has a rented spaced downtown: o Other locations successful and part of community o Would like to be part of downtown Tigard and work with downtown to bring a desirable business o Focus on facts, not perceptions o This businesses doesn’t bring the same clientele as the pipe shop Gus Goulet (Kaleafa) o Works on the IT end for Kaleafa and shop has great security o Downtown needs business to draw people in Donna Erdman Opposed to marijuana downtown: o Echo others comments- not family friendly Connie Ramaekers Opposed to marijuana downtown: o Works at TTSD as prevention specialist for youth o OK on Pacific Highway but not a on Main Street o Not family friendly and a place where kids are hanging out o The earlier kids can access a drug the more likely chance for addiction Egor (Kaleafa) o Floor Manager at Kaleafa o Very secure, everyone is IDed o Never sees young kids downtown Tigard o Could bring a younger, more progressive clientele downtown o Clientele is more for medicinal purposes than recreation Chad Cooper Neither for or against regarding Main Street o Is having a difficult time finding space for processing with existing regulations o Providing retail makes it so people don’t purchase it illegally Steve DeAngelo o Provided a report for surrounding cities- most reported no adverse impacts of marijuana businesses o Tigard Downtown Alliance meeting- no opposition to marijuana businesses Kaile Aanes (Kaleafa) o Kaleafa is a family owned business o Shouldn’t be treated differently than a liquor store o Educate kids that these are for when you are 21+ Myran Bioninger Customer at Kaleafa: o Typical customer is 50-70 years’ old o Most people are there for medical purposes o Has seen the neighborhood grow due to a marijuana business Proposed Amendments- Option #1 1 Chapter 18.735 MARIJUANA FACILITIES Sections 18.735.010 Purpose 18.735.020 Applicability 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement 18.735.040 Development Standards 18.735.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1. Protect the general health, safety, property, and welfare of the public; 2. Balance the right of individuals to produce and access marijuana and marijuana derivatives consistent with state law, with the need to minimize adverse impacts to nearby properties that may result from the production, storage, distribution, sale, and/or use of marijuana and derivatives; 3. Prevent or reduce criminal activity that may result in harm to persons or property; 4. Prevent or reduce diversion of state-licensed marijuana and marijuana derivatives to minors; and 5. Minimize impacts to the city’s public safety services by reducing calls for service. (Ord. 15- 07 §3) 18.735.020 Applicability A. Relationship to other standards. The regulations within this chapter are in addition to base zone standards. Sites with overlay zones, plan districts, inventoried hazards, and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Specific uses or development types may also be subject to regulations set forth elsewhere in this title. B. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement A. Procedure. All marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration, and public places of assembly where marijuana is consumed, shall demonstrate minimal compliance with these standards through a Type I procedure as set forth in Section 18.390.030 of this title, using approval criteria set forth in subsection B of this section. B. Approval criteria. Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all standards set forth in Section 18.735.040 of this chapter. C. Documentation. The following provisions shall apply at the time of minimum compliance review or a request for enforcement: Attachment #1a Proposed Amendments- Option #1 2 1. When processing a minimum compliance review, the city may accept an evaluation and explanation certified by a registered engineer or architect, as appropriate, that the proposed development will meet the off-site odor impact standard. The evaluation and explanation shall provide a description of the use or activity, equipment, processes and the mechanisms, or equipment used to avoid or mitigate off-site impacts. 2. If the city does not have the equipment or expertise to measure and evaluate a specific complaint regarding off-site impacts, it may request assistance from another agency or may contract with an independent expert to perform the necessary measurements. The city may accept measurements made by an independent expert hired by the controller or operator of the off-site impact source. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.040 Development Standards Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all of the following standards: A. The proposed development complies with all applicable state requirements. B. The proposed use is allowed in the underlying zone and complies with all applicable requirements of this title. C. The proposed development meets all of the following site location restrictions. All distances shall be measured at the closest property lines between the proposed site and nearest lot or parcel containing the specified use or characteristic. 1. Marijuana facilities are prohibited within the MU-CBD zone. 2. The proposed development is not within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary school, secondary school, or career school attended primarily by minors. 3. Sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public shall be subject to the following restrictions: a. Must be located on a lot or parcel with frontage along Pacific Highway (Oregon Route 99W); b. Shall not be located within 1,000 feet of another state-licensed retail or wholesale marijuana facility within or outside of city limits; and c. Shall not be located within 500 feet of a public library or Tigard parks and recreation zone. 4. Non-retail uses and wholesale sales uses not open to the public shall not be located within 500 feet of one or more of the following zones or facilities: a. Residential zone; b. Parks and recreation zone; c. Public library. Attachment #1a Proposed Amendments- Option #1 3 D. Hours of commercial operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. General industrial uses with no on-site retail activity are exempt from this restriction. E. Primary entrances shall be clearly visible from Pacific Highway (Oregon Route 99W). F. The proposed development shall be located inside a permanent building and may not be located within a trailer, shipping container, cargo container, tent, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise, plants, or other materials is not allowed. G. Parking lots, primary entrances, and exterior walkways shall be illuminated with downward facing security lighting to provide after-dark visibility to employees and patrons. Fixtures shall be located so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet with a minimum illumination level of 1.0 footcandles at the darkest spot on the ground surface. H. Drive-through marijuana facilities are prohibited. I. The proposed development shall confine all marijuana odors and other objectionable odors to levels undetectable at the property line. J. Marijuana or marijuana product shall not be visible from the exterior of the building or structure. (Ord. 15-07 §3) ■ Attachment #1a Proposed Amendments- Option #2 1 Chapter 18.735 MARIJUANA FACILITIES Sections 18.735.010 Purpose 18.735.020 Applicability 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement 18.735.040 Development Standards 18.735.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1. Protect the general health, safety, property, and welfare of the public; 2. Balance the right of individuals to produce and access marijuana and marijuana derivatives consistent with state law, with the need to minimize adverse impacts to nearby properties that may result from the production, storage, distribution, sale, and/or use of marijuana and derivatives; 3. Prevent or reduce criminal activity that may result in harm to persons or property; 4. Prevent or reduce diversion of state-licensed marijuana and marijuana derivatives to minors; and 5. Minimize impacts to the city’s public safety services by reducing calls for service. (Ord. 15- 07 §3) 18.735.020 Applicability A. Relationship to other standards. The regulations within this chapter are in addition to base zone standards. Sites with overlay zones, plan districts, inventoried hazards, and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Specific uses or development types may also be subject to regulations set forth elsewhere in this title. B. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement A. Procedure. All marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration, and public places of assembly where marijuana is consumed, shall demonstrate minimal compliance with these standards through a Type I procedure as set forth in Section 18.390.030 of this title, using approval criteria set forth in subsection B of this section. B. Approval criteria. Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all standards set forth in Section 18.735.040 of this chapter. C. Documentation. The following provisions shall apply at the time of minimum compliance review or a request for enforcement: Attachment #1b Proposed Amendments- Option #2 2 1. When processing a minimum compliance review, the city may accept an evaluation and explanation certified by a registered engineer or architect, as appropriate, that the proposed development will meet the off-site odor impact standard. The evaluation and explanation shall provide a description of the use or activity, equipment, processes and the mechanisms, or equipment used to avoid or mitigate off-site impacts. 2. If the city does not have the equipment or expertise to measure and evaluate a specific complaint regarding off-site impacts, it may request assistance from another agency or may contract with an independent expert to perform the necessary measurements. The city may accept measurements made by an independent expert hired by the controller or operator of the off-site impact source. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.040 Development Standards Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all of the following standards: A. The proposed development complies with all applicable state requirements. B. The proposed use is allowed in the underlying zone and complies with all applicable requirements of this title. C. The proposed development meets all of the following site location restrictions. All distances shall be measured at the closest property lines between the proposed site and nearest lot or parcel containing the specified use or characteristic. 1. Marijuana facilities are prohibited within the MU-CBD zone. 2. The proposed development is not within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary school, secondary school, or career school attended primarily by minors. 3. Sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public shall be subject to the following restrictions: a. Must be located on a lot or parcel with frontage along Pacific Highway (Oregon Route 99W); b. Shall not be located within 1,000 feet of another state-licensed retail or wholesale marijuana facility within or outside of city limits; and c. Shall not be located within 500 feet of a public library or Tigard parks and recreation zone. 4. Non-retail uses and wholesale sales uses not open to the public shall not be located within 500 feet of one or more of the following zones or facilities: a. Residential zone; b. Parks and recreation zone; c. Public library. Attachment #1b Proposed Amendments- Option #2 3 D. Hours of commercial operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. General industrial uses with no on-site retail activity are exempt from this restriction. E. Primary entrances shall be clearly visible from Pacific Highway (Oregon Route 99W)a public right- of-way. F. The proposed development shall be located inside a permanent building and may not be located within a trailer, shipping container, cargo container, tent, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise, plants, or other materials is not allowed. G. Parking lots, primary entrances, and exterior walkways shall be illuminated with downward facing security lighting to provide after-dark visibility to employees and patrons. Fixtures shall be located so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet with a minimum illumination level of 1.0 footcandles at the darkest spot on the ground surface. H. Drive-through marijuana facilities are prohibited. I. The proposed development shall confine all marijuana odors and other objectionable odors to levels undetectable at the property line. J. Marijuana or marijuana product shall not be visible from the exterior of the building or structure. (Ord. 15-07 §3) ■ Attachment #1b Proposed Amendments- Option #3 1 Chapter 18.735 MARIJUANA FACILITIES Sections 18.735.010 Purpose 18.735.020 Applicability 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement 18.735.040 Development Standards 18.735.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1. Protect the general health, safety, property, and welfare of the public; 2. Balance the right of individuals to produce and access marijuana and marijuana derivatives consistent with state law, with the need to minimize adverse impacts to nearby properties that may result from the production, storage, distribution, sale, and/or use of marijuana and derivatives; 3. Prevent or reduce criminal activity that may result in harm to persons or property; 4. Prevent or reduce diversion of state-licensed marijuana and marijuana derivatives to minors; and 5. Minimize impacts to the city’s public safety services by reducing calls for service. (Ord. 15- 07 §3) 18.735.020 Applicability A. Relationship to other standards. The regulations within this chapter are in addition to base zone standards. Sites with overlay zones, plan districts, inventoried hazards, and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Specific uses or development types may also be subject to regulations set forth elsewhere in this title. B. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement A. Procedure. All marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration, and public places of assembly where marijuana is consumed, shall demonstrate minimal compliance with these standards through a Type I procedure as set forth in Section 18.390.030 of this title, using approval criteria set forth in subsection B of this section. B. Approval criteria. Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all standards set forth in Section 18.735.040 of this chapter. C. Documentation. The following provisions shall apply at the time of minimum compliance review or a request for enforcement: Attachment #1c Proposed Amendments- Option #3 2 1. When processing a minimum compliance review, the city may accept an evaluation and explanation certified by a registered engineer or architect, as appropriate, that the proposed development will meet the off-site odor impact standard. The evaluation and explanation shall provide a description of the use or activity, equipment, processes and the mechanisms, or equipment used to avoid or mitigate off-site impacts. 2. If the city does not have the equipment or expertise to measure and evaluate a specific complaint regarding off-site impacts, it may request assistance from another agency or may contract with an independent expert to perform the necessary measurements. The city may accept measurements made by an independent expert hired by the controller or operator of the off-site impact source. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.040 Development Standards Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all of the following standards: A. The proposed development complies with all applicable state requirements. B. The proposed use is allowed in the underlying zone and complies with all applicable requirements of this title. C. The proposed development meets all of the following site location restrictions. All distances shall be measured at the closest property lines between the proposed site and nearest lot or parcel containing the specified use or characteristic. 1. Marijuana facilities are prohibited within the MU-CBD zone. 2. The proposed development is not within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary school, secondary school, or career school attended primarily by minors. 3. Sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public shall be subject to the following restrictions: a. Must be located on a lot or parcel with frontage along Pacific Highway (Oregon Route 99W); b. Shall not be located within 1,000 feet of another state-licensed retail or wholesale marijuana facility within or outside of city limits; and c. Shall not be located within 500 feet of a public library or Tigard parks and recreation zone. 4. Non-retail uses and wholesale sales uses not open to the public shall not be located within 500 feet of one or more of the following zones or facilities: a. Residential zone; b. Parks and recreation zone; c. Public library. Attachment #1c Proposed Amendments- Option #3 3 D. Hours of commercial operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. General industrial uses with no on-site retail activity are exempt from this restriction. E. Primary entrances shall be clearly visible from a public right-of-way.Pacific Highway (Oregon Route 99W). F. The proposed development shall be located inside a permanent building and may not be located within a trailer, shipping container, cargo container, tent, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise, plants, or other materials is not allowed. G. Parking lots, primary entrances, and exterior walkways shall be illuminated with downward facing security lighting to provide after-dark visibility to employees and patrons. Fixtures shall be located so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet with a minimum illumination level of 1.0 footcandles at the darkest spot on the ground surface. H. Drive-through marijuana facilities are prohibited. I. The proposed development shall confine all marijuana odors and other objectionable odors to levels undetectable at the property line. J. Marijuana or marijuana product shall not be visible from the exterior of the building or structure. (Ord. 15-07 §3) ■ Attachment #1c Proposed Amendments- Option #4 1 Chapter 18.735 MARIJUANA FACILITIES Sections 18.735.010 Purpose 18.735.020 Applicability 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement 18.735.040 Development Standards 18.735.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1.Protect the general health, safety, property, and welfare of the public; 2.Balance the right of individuals to produce and access marijuana and marijuana derivatives consistent with state law, with the need to minimize adverse impacts to nearby properties that may result from the production, storage, distribution, sale, and/or use of marijuana and derivatives; 3.Prevent or reduce criminal activity that may result in harm to persons or property; 4.Prevent or reduce diversion of state-licensed marijuana and marijuana derivatives to minors; and 5.Minimize impacts to the city’s public safety services by reducing calls for service. (Ord. 15- 07 §3) 18.735.020 Applicability A. Relationship to other standards. The regulations within this chapter are in addition to base zone standards. Sites with overlay zones, plan districts, inventoried hazards, and/or sensitive lands are subject to additional regulations. Specific uses or development types may also be subject to regulations set forth elsewhere in this title. B. When provisions apply. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.030 Compliance and Enforcement A. Procedure. All marijuana facilities requiring a state license or registration, and public places of assembly where marijuana is consumed, shall demonstrate minimal compliance with these standards through a Type I procedure as set forth in Section 18.390.030 of this title, using approval criteria set forth in subsection B of this section. B. Approval criteria. Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all standards set forth in Section 18.735.040 of this chapter. C. Documentation. The following provisions shall apply at the time of minimum compliance review or a request for enforcement: Attachment #1d Proposed Amendments- Option #4 2 1. When processing a minimum compliance review, the city may accept an evaluation and explanation certified by a registered engineer or architect, as appropriate, that the proposed development will meet the off-site odor impact standard. The evaluation and explanation shall provide a description of the use or activity, equipment, processes and the mechanisms, or equipment used to avoid or mitigate off-site impacts. 2. If the city does not have the equipment or expertise to measure and evaluate a specific complaint regarding off-site impacts, it may request assistance from another agency or may contract with an independent expert to perform the necessary measurements. The city may accept measurements made by an independent expert hired by the controller or operator of the off-site impact source. (Ord. 15-07 §3) 18.735.040 Development Standards Development subject to the provisions of this chapter shall demonstrate compliance with all of the following standards: A. The proposed development complies with all applicable state requirements. B. The proposed use is allowed in the underlying zone and complies with all applicable requirements of this title. C. The proposed development meets all of the following site location restrictions. All distances shall be measured at the closest property lines between the proposed site and nearest lot or parcel containing the specified use or characteristic. 1. Marijuana facilities are prohibited within the MU-CBD zone. 2. The proposed development is not within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary school, secondary school, or career school attended primarily by minors. 3. Sale-oriented retail and wholesale sales uses open to the public shall be subject to the following restrictions: a. Must be located on a lot or parcel with frontage along Pacific Highway (Oregon Route 99W); b. Shall not be located within 1,000 feet of another state-licensed retail or wholesale marijuana facility within or outside of city limits; and c. Shall not be located within 500 feet of a public library or Tigard parks and recreation zone, except within the MU-CBD zone. 4. Non-retail uses and wholesale sales uses not open to the public shall not be located within 500 feet of one or more of the following zones or facilities: a. Residential zone; b. Parks and recreation zone, except within the MU-CBD zone; c. Public library. Attachment #1d Proposed Amendments- Option #4 3 D. Hours of commercial operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. General industrial uses with no on-site retail activity are exempt from this restriction. E. Primary entrances shall be clearly visible from Pacific Highway (Oregon Route 99W) a public right- of-way.. F. The proposed development shall be located inside a permanent building and may not be located within a trailer, shipping container, cargo container, tent, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise, plants, or other materials is not allowed. G. Parking lots, primary entrances, and exterior walkways shall be illuminated with downward facing security lighting to provide after-dark visibility to employees and patrons. Fixtures shall be located so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet with a minimum illumination level of 1.0 footcandles at the darkest spot on the ground surface. H. Drive-through marijuana facilities are prohibited. I. The proposed development shall confine all marijuana odors and other objectionable odors to levels undetectable at the property line. J. Marijuana or marijuana product shall not be visible from the exterior of the building or structure. (Ord. 15-07 §3) ■ Attachment #1d 175TH AVEWEIR RD BULLMOUNTAI N R D 121ST AVE150TH AVEMCDONALD ST125TH AVEB R O C K M A N S T KRUSE WA Y L E S SER RD ELSNERRDHUNZIKER RD D U R H AM RDROY ROGERS RDOLESON RDWALNUT ST MAIN STCAP IT O L H W Y WESTLAKE DRT AYLO RS FER R Y R D LAKEVIEWBLVDLA K E F O R E S T B L V DMURRAY BLVDHALLBLVD170TH AVEBONITA RD 61ST AVEJEAN RD MEADOWS RD S C H O L L SFERRYRD72NDAVEGREENBURG RD135THAVE TIEDEMANAVEB E E F B E N D RDUPPERBOONESFERRYRDB A R BURBLVDPACIFIC HWYG A ARDEST BONITA RD GAARDE ST HALL BLVDPACIFICHWYWALNUT ST 72ND AVEHALL BLVD72ND AVEPACIFICHWYW A L N U T S T SCHOLL S F E R R Y R D ROY ROGERS RDPACIFIC HWYSCHOLLSFERRY R D HALL BLVD121STAVEB E E F B E N D R D W A L N U TSTBEEF BEND RD DURHAM RD HALL BLVD PACIFIC HWYGREENBURG RD175TH AVE72NDAVEB U L L MO U N T A I N R D S C H O L L S F E R R Y R D MURRAY BLVDHALLBLVD72ND AVEHALL BLVDBONITA RD 13125 Southwest Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223503 . 639 . 4171 www.tigard-or.gov Potential Locations 55 Schools 1,000 Ft From School Site 500 Ft From Park Zones & Library !!!Existing Marijuana Facility 1,000 Ft From Other Marijuana Retailer MU-CBD Zone Tigard City Boundary Option 2:Retail Marijuana Facilities:Potential Locations City of TigardMetroWashington County DATA SOURCES: This map was derived from several databases. The City cannot accept responsibility for any errors. Therefore, there are no warranties for this product. However, any notification of errors is appreciated. DISCLAIMER: Attachment #2 175TH AVEWEIR RD BULLMOUNTAI N R D 121ST AVE150TH AVEMCDONALD ST125TH AVEB R O C K M A N S T KRUSE WA Y L E S SER RD ELSNERRDHUNZIKER RD D U R H AM RDROY ROGERS RDOLESON RDWALNUT ST MAIN STCAP IT O L H W Y WESTLAKE DRT AYLO RS FER R Y R D LAKEVIEWBLVDLA K E F O R E S T B L V DMURRAY BLVDHALLBLVD170TH AVEBONITA RD 61ST AVEJEAN RD MEADOWS RD S C H O L L SFERRYRD72NDAVEGREENBURG RD135THAVE TIEDEMANAVEB E E F B E N D RDUPPERBOONESFERRYRDB A R BURBLVDPACIFIC HWYG A ARDEST BONITA RD GAARDE ST HALL BLVDPACIFICHWYWALNUT ST 72ND AVEHALL BLVD72ND AVEPACIFICHWYW A L N U T S T SCHOLL S F E R R Y R D ROY ROGERS RDPACIFIC HWYSCHOLLSFERRY R D HALL BLVD121STAVEB E E F B E N D R D W A L N U TSTBEEF BEND RD DURHAM RD HALL BLVD PACIFIC HWYGREENBURG RD175THAVE72NDAVEB U L L MO U N T A I N R D S C H O L L S F E R R Y R D MURRAY BLVDHALLBLVD72ND AVEHALL BLVDBONITA RD 13125 Southwest Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223503 . 639 . 4171 www.tigard-or.gov Potential Locations 55 Schools 1,000 Ft From School Site 500 Ft From Park Zones & Library !!!Existing Marijuana Facility 1,000 Ft From Other Marijuana Retailer MU-CBD Zone Tigard City Boundary Option 3:Retail Marijuana Facilities:Potential Locations City of TigardMetroWashington County DATA SOURCES: This map was derived from several databases. The City cannot accept responsibility for any errors. Therefore, there are no warranties for this product. However, any notification of errors is appreciated. DISCLAIMER: 175TH AVEWEIR RD BULLMOUNTAI N R D 121ST AVE150TH AVEMCDONALD ST125TH AVEB R O C K M A N S T KRUSE WA Y L E S SER RD ELSNERRDHUNZIKER RD D U R H AM RDROY ROGERS RDOLESON RDWALNUT ST MAIN STCAP IT O L H W Y WESTLAKE DRT AYLO RS FER R Y R D LAKEVIEWBLVDLA K E F O R E S T B L V DMURRAY BLVDHALLBLVD170TH AVEBONITA RD 61ST AVEJEAN RD MEADOWS RD S C H O L L SFERRYRD72NDAVEGREENBURG RD135THAVE TIEDEMANAVEB E E F B E N D RDUPPERBOONESFERRYRDB A R BURBLVDPACIFIC HWYG A ARDEST BONITA RD GAARDE ST HALL BLVDPACIFICHWYWALNUT ST 72ND AVEHALL BLVD72ND AVEPACIFICHWYW A L N U T S T SCHOLL S F E R R Y R D ROY ROGERS RDPACIFIC HWYSCHOLLSFERRY R D HALL BLVD121STAVEB E E F B E N D R D W A L N U TSTBEEF BEND RD DURHAM RD HALL BLVD PACIFIC HWYGREENBURG RD175THAVE72NDAVEB U L L MO U N T A I N R D S C H O L L S F E R R Y R D MURRAY BLVDHALLBLVD72ND AVEHALL BLVDBONITA RD 13125 Southwest Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223503 . 639 . 4171 www.tigard-or.gov Potential Locations 55 Schools 1,000 Ft From School Site 500 Ft From Park Zones & Library !!!Existing Marijuana Facility 1,000 Ft From Other Marijuana Retailer MU-CBD Zone Tigard City Boundary Option 4:Retail Marijuana Facilities:Potential Locations City of TigardMetroWashington County DATA SOURCES: This map was derived from several databases. The City cannot accept responsibility for any errors. Therefore, there are no warranties for this product. However, any notification of errors is appreciated. DISCLAIMER: Page 1 of 2 CITY OF TIGARD CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION Meeting Minutes November 9, 2016 Members Present: Cameron Anderly, Carine Arendes (Chair), Joyce Casey, Tim Myshak (Alternate), Linli Pao (Vice Chair), Richard Shavey, and Mark Skorupa. Members Absent: Sherrie Devaney, Sarah Villanueva (Ex Officio), and David Walsh. Staff Present: Redevelopment Project Manager Sean Farrelly, Economic Development Manager Lloyd Purdy; Associate Planner Agnes Kowacz, and Administrative Specialist Joe Patton. Others Present: Councilor Marland Henderson, Council Liaison to the CCAC and TDA President Steve DeAngelo. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Arendes called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. The meeting was held in the Tigard Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Joe recorded the roll call. 2. CONSIDER MINUTES The October 12, 2016 CCAC Minutes were approved. 3. MARIJUANA IN THE DOWNTOWN Commissioners discussed whether to allow the sale of marijuana downtown. The TDA has no official recommendation. Before CCAC can make a recommendation, additional information is needed. The topic was unanimously tabled. 4. TIGARD DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE UPDATE/DISCUSSION Steve DeAngelo gave a brief overview of the activities the TDA is involved in and talked about their goals for 2017. Their meetings are taking place on a quarterly basis, which works better than trying to meet monthly. He agreed to meet quarterly with the CCAC. 5. REVIEW DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT Commissioners reviewed the draft Annual Report distributed via email. There were a couple of additional items noted for inclusion. Sean will make the changes and redistribute for review. 6. TOPICS OF INTEREST: RECOMENDATIONS The draft recommendations for CCAC and CCDA consideration were reviewed. Carine noted the suggested changes and thanked Commissioners for their participation. 7. LIAISON REPORTS A. TTAC made their recommendations for discretionary projects for city gas tax CIP funding. Joe will email their one page project prioritization. B. Council made changes to the marijuana regulations to be compliant with the state regulations. Development code amendments were made regarding dog and animal boarding facilities, downtown height limits and affordable housing. The state has committed some lottery funding to the Hunziker industrial core for Wall Street. The TTAC discussed with Council the need for Attachment #3 CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION November 9, 2016 Page 2 of 2 more transportation funding. Since the gas tax increase did not pass, the previously approved street maintenance fee increase will become effective January 1, 2017. The increase will allow additional funding to address the transportation projects backlog. C. Sean noted that CCAC applications are due November 15, 2016. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:27 pm. Joe Patton, CCAC Meeting Secretary ATTEST: Carine Arendes, Chair Attachment #3 Page 1 of 2 CITY OF TIGARD CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION Meeting Minutes January 18, 2017 Members Present: Carine Arendes (Chair), Joyce Casey, Josh Kearney, Tim Myshak, Gloria Pinzon Marin, Kate Rogers, and Sarah Villanueva (Ex Officio). Members Absent: Cameron Anderly, and Richard Shavey. Staff Present: Redevelopment Project Manager Sean Farrelly, Associate Planner Agnes Kowacz, and Administrative Specialist Joe Patton. Others Present: Councilor John Goodhouse, Council Liaison to the CCAC, and resident Gus Guelet. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Arendes called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. The meeting was held in the Tigard Town Hall Conference Room, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Joe recorded the roll call. 2. CONSIDER MINUTES Approval of the November 9, 2016 CCAC Minutes was postponed as a quorum of members from that meeting were not present. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Gus Guelet expressed his support for allowing the sale of marijuana in downtown Tigard. 4. PROJECT UPDATES Sean gave a brief update on ongoing projects, included with the Agenda. 5. SW CORRIDOR NEXT STEPS Sean noted the appointment of a Citizen Advisory Committee to the Southwest Corridor project. It includes Chair Arendes and six other Tigard residents. They will be looking at a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) which will take approximately two years. In 2018, a bond measure will be on the ballot to help fund the project. Historically this type of project has been funded 50 percent by the federal government, though with the recent election the potential federal contribution is unclear. The final route through Tigard is pending. If everything goes according to schedule light rail will reach Tigard in 2025. A kickoff event will take place on February 2 in the Library Community Room. 6. HOMELESS TASK FORCE AND DOWNTOWN This topic was postponed until the February meeting. 7. MARIJUANA IN THE DOWNTOWN Agnes briefly discussed the information contained in the Agenda regarding the issue of allowing marijuana facilities in the downtown area. It contained follow-up information requested during the November CCAC meeting. After discussion, Commissioners agreed to convey a list of concerns about downtown siting to the Planning Commission: the retail mix, a concentration of adult businesses in the proposed area, proximity to the Tigard Street Heritage Trail and the park zone buffer, and facade/potential design issues. Attachment #3 CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION January 18, 2017 Page 2 of 2 8. DOWNTOWN STORY MAP Sean shared the City Center Urban Renewal: Past, Present, Future webpage (https://goo.gl/9TPqYY), which will be publicized on Tigard’s website and social media accounts soon. 9. CCDA/CCAC JOINT MEETING PLANNING A brief overview of the joint meeting format was given and the Recommendations for CCDA Consideration were reviewed. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:27 pm. Joe Patton, CCAC Meeting Secretary ATTEST: Carine Arendes, Chair Attachment #3 Attachment #4 Attachment #4 Attachment #4 Attachment #4 Attachment #4 Attachment #4 Attachment #4 Attachment #4 Attachment #4 Attachment #4 Attachment #4 Attachment #4 Attachment #4 Attachment #4 Attachment #4 Attachment #4 Attachment #4 Attachment #4 Attachment #4 WHO WE ARE The Woodstock store opened summer of 2014 to medical Three stores now open (All Medical & Recreational) Portland, Oregon Beaverton, Oregon Oak Harbor, Washington Portland, Oregon Opened June 18th 2014 WHERE WE ARE GOING Stores in the works Oregon City, Oregon (2-4 months) Gresham, Oregon (2-6 months) Des Moines, Washington (3-8 months) Tigard, Oregon (Unknown) Opened Feb. 10th 2017 Beaverton, Oregon Leased our space based on preliminary zoning spring 2015 Fell in love with potential of Downtown Main Street Hosted gallery for Tigard Art Walk 2016 Participated in the Tigard Street Fair 2016 HOW WE GOT TO TIGARD Elise Shearer –Tigard Art Walk Coordinator INITIAL TOPICS OF CONCERN Impact on MBU Development & Exposure Crime in MBU Park buffer Tax revenue Community support MBU Development & Exposure Seen no negative impact on property development around our business Deal with exposure to families & youth with rationale State required security creates limited access area to minors Pharmacy like service and product security controls Committed to providing a low profile store front “Excellent location in hot Woodstock neighborhood” –CRA NW LLC Project Delivery : Summer 2017Opened Fall 2016 CRIME IN MBU Our existing shops have had no major crimes occur near or around cannabis. State required security system is equal to bank industry standards. Kaleafa stands to increase public safety surrounding store. Our security standards by embracing technology to prevent crime. Park Buffer Park Buffer code does not exist at State level Cities have added park buffer at their discretion No quantifiable data suggests that variance provides value to public safety Tax Revenue Tax Revenue (17% State, 3% Local (Rising to 8% Local)) We openly support the potential raise of local taxation on cannabis. “If added (tax) revenue provides additional police or community resources and development, then why hold back” -Kaleafa Managing Member We openly support and embrace the votes of local community equally as state. Tax Revenue & Community Support Tax Revenue (17% State, 3% Local (Rising to 8% Local)) We openly support the potential raise of local taxation on cannabis. “If added (tax) revenue provides additional police or community resources and development, then why hold back” -Kaleafa Managing Member We openly support and embrace the votes of local community equally as state. Participation with local government and community We pride our selves with community involvement and the opportunity to give back We want to facilitate the further development of Main St. Will make excellent improvements to store front property Goal of purchasing property in near future We see expect near 500 customers a day Generating large number of unique visitors to the Downtown corridor No negative impact on surrounding business development We have seen no impact on property development around cannabis stores Northwest industry leader in retail cannabis business operations WHY KALEAFA CANNABIS?